{"id":19236,"date":"2018-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-12-05T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-056\/"},"modified":"2018-12-05T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-12-05T06:00:00","slug":"the-coming-kingdom-056","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-056\/","title":{"rendered":"The Coming Kingdom 056"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[111],"series_event":[470],"sermon_service_type":[474],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-19236","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-revelation","series_event-the-coming-kingdom","sermon_service_type-wednesday-evenings","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"The Coming Kingdom 056","sermon_date":"20181205","sermon_month":"12","sermon_year":"2018","sermon_notes":6268,"sermon_slides":6271,"sermon_mp3":6270,"sermon_id":"126180387635","series_or_event":470,"service_type":[474],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":111,"chapter_and_verse":"3:21","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nThe Coming Kingdom\n\n12-5-18\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Revelation 3:21\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lesson 56\n\nI was just with pastor Robert Dean at the Pre-trib study group and we were dealing with the subject of anti-Semitism when we were there in Dallas the last few days, what the Bible says about anti-Semitism in the last days, and he wanted me to announce that tomorrow night at his church West Houston Bible Church, 7:30 p.m. December 6, that\u2019s tomorrow, he writes our friend, Dr. Susanna Kokkonen,\u00a0 former director of the Christian Friend of Yad Vashem which is the holocaust museum in Israel, in Jerusalem.\u00a0 She will be at his church, West Houston Bible Church for an extremely timely and vital presentation on the insidious rise of anti-Semitism today.\u00a0 She will also update us on the increasing robust persecution of Christians in the Middle East which some believe may very well soon manifest itself in the United States.\u00a0 So anyway, it\u2019s just a qualified person to give us a free lecture at his church tomorrow night, West Houston Bible Church, 7:30 p.m.\u00a0 I think we sent out an e-mail today, didn\u2019t we.\u00a0 So if you\u2019re interested in that that\u2019s available to you.\u00a0 I\u2019m not sure if they\u2019re going to stream that, I assume they are so you might want to think about either going to that if the Lord leads or maybe catching it via live stream.\n\nLet\u2019s take our Bibles tonight if we could and open them to the Book of Revelation, chapter 3 and verse 21.\n\nRevelation 3:21, \u201c'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 And just sort of looking at the calendar this is our last Wednesday night Bible study of 2018.\u00a0 Next week is the gingerbread houses, I was going to say the build a bear workshop but that\u2019s something different, right?\u00a0 Gingerbread house contest, that\u2019s always a fun time of fellowship.\u00a0 And then I think we take the next couple of Wednesdays off because of Christmas and all those things.\n\nAnd then we are going to reconvene on January 9th<\/sup> and we\u2019re just going to continue on where we left off with the doctrine of the kingdom.\u00a0 People say well how much more are we going to do on the kingdom?\u00a0 Well, I think we\u2019re about two-thirds through the book but the last third of it will go by a lot faster than the prior parts of it so I\u2019m thinking at least another quarter.\u00a0 Can you guys hang on that long?\u00a0 Okay!\u00a0 Minimum of another quarter and maybe a little longer, we\u2019ll have to see.\u00a0 I\u2019m one of those people that thinks if you\u2019re enjoying a good meal why rush it.\n\nOkay, here we are in our study of the kingdom, we\u2019re in chapter 17 of the book I wrote which is just a guide to what the Bible says.\u00a0 And we\u2019re dealing with number three here, why do so many people believe that we\u2019re in the Kingdom Now?\u00a0 I mean, if the kingdom was offered to Israel, rejected and postponed why do so many people say no, we\u2019re in the Kingdom Now?\u00a0 Well, there\u2019s a variety of passages that people use and we\u2019ve looked at several from the ministry of Christ and now we\u2019re into some passages from the Book of Acts.\u00a0\u00a0 And by far and away the dominant passage people use today to argue that we are in the kingdom is Acts 2 which\u00a0 they believe communicates that Jesus is currently reigning on the Davidic throne.\n\nSo even before we look at that specific passage, and we\u2019ll try to look at some of the specifics of it tonight, what is the response to this idea that we are in the Davidic Kingdom Now because Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne?\u00a0 Well, I have here a six-fold response and we\u2019ve made it through I think the first point and about halfway through the second point, and if we\u2019re fortunate we may make it through half of the third point because this area right here is really a big, BIG deal and we can get kind of bogged down here because this is where the debate happens concerning Kingdom Now theology.\u00a0 Acts 2 is really the primary battleground.\n\nSo how do we respond to this idea that Jesus is currently reigning on David\u2019s throne?\u00a0 Number one, we made the point that David\u2019s throne is never portrayed as heavenly, EVER, but always portrayed as earthly.\u00a0 And you\u2019ll see that Old Testament and you\u2019ll see that New Testament; in fact, one of the first references we have to David\u2019s throne is 1 Kings 2:11-12 where Solomon, following David, sat on David\u2019s throne, the throne of his father.\u00a0 So obviously for Solomon to sit on it Solomon\u2019s reign was on this earth and so obviously the Davidic Covenant and so obviously the Davidic throne has to be earthly.\u00a0 So therefore to transport it into heaven, as the theologians today are doing requires (and this is point number two)\u00a0 a change in its original meaning, which would contradict progressive revelation (we\u2019ll go back over that again today, this evening, and it moves you into this mindset where the New Testament can outright change Old Testament passages.\u00a0 That\u2019s the only way to make this work.\n\nSo I gave you some quotes from some theologians, like George Ladd who really started this already\/not\u00a0 yet idea at Fuller Seminary and he in the quote uses the word \u201cchange,\u201d Peter reinterprets or changes the original promise in his sermon in Acts 2.\u00a0 And there\u2019s no doubt that it\u2019s a change because the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, presents the Davidic throne on earth, all of a sudden to make it in heaven requires a change doesn\u2019t it?\u00a0 Earth is not heaven and heaven is not earth.\u00a0 Beyond that the Old Testament is very clear (and the New Testament for that matter) that the throne will only come into existence over Israel and then all of a sudden we learn well, God was just fooling, it doesn\u2019t come into existence through Old Testament Israel, it comes into existence through the church which is primarily Gentile. So that\u2019s change number two.\u00a0 So the place is changed and the people have changed.\n\nBeyond that the Old Testament is very clear (and New Testament) that the Davidic throne will only exist over a converted Israel.\u00a0 To make the Davidic throne in operation today means that you have it in existence despite the fact that Israel is today in unbelief.\u00a0 So you have\u00a0 three major changes: you have a change of place, you have a change of people, and you have a change of the converted status of the nation of Israel.\n\nSo one of the great progenitors of this idea that Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne is Darrell Bock at Dallas Seminary and he writes, through his progressive dispensationalism, \u201cThe Davidic throne and the heavenly throne of Jesus at the right hand of the Father are one and the same.\u201d\u00a0 [\u201cEvidence from Acts,\u201d in The Coming Millennial Kingdom, ed. Donald Campbell and Jeffrey Townsend (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 194.]\u00a0 So you notice I use these quotes because I don\u2019t want to be accused of misrepresenting people\u2019s beliefs.\u00a0 Darrell Bock says this about as clearly as it can be said that what is happening at the Father\u2019s right hand, right now, which we would identify as the high priestly ministry of Christ, he says no, that really is the Davidic throne.\u00a0 So Jesus is reigning in a Davidic kingdom in what he thinks is an already sense.\u00a0 He still believes in a Davidic throne yet future on the earth one day, so he believes in what\u2019s called All Ready Not Yet but he still clearly believes that Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne currently.\u00a0 And that is a game changer.\u00a0 I\u2019ll be showing you some citations in this study, the traditional dispensationalism has never believed that, has never taught that.\u00a0 You\u2019d be hard pressed to find anybody in the dispensational tradition that\u2019s ever believed that but this now has become a new teaching through these younger men at Dallas Seminary.\n\nNow how does he get this to work?\u00a0 Well, you\u2019ve got to change the hermeneutic.\u00a0 Your hermeneutic is your method of interpretation.\u00a0 So lo and behold Darrell Bock has come up with something that Charles Ryrie never saw, John Walvoord never saw it, J. Dwight Pentecost never saw it, my friends at the pre-trib study group, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, never saw it.\u00a0 It\u2019s called a complimentary hermeneutic.\u00a0 So if you give me the freedom to change the hermeneutic I can create a new theology for you\u2026 right?\u00a0 So he is out trying to convince everybody that this new method of interpretation, although no one ever saw this before his generation, is true.\u00a0 Why does he have to bring in a new hermeneutic?\u00a0 Because the idea that Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne cannot be sustained through the ordinary literal method of interpretation.\u00a0 So we have to come up with a new method of inter\u00adpretation\u00a0 and his new method is complimentary hermeneutics, complimentary because the New Testament complements the Old in the sense that it adds layers of meaning that aren\u2019t found in the Old Testament.\n\nSo he writes, Darrell Bock, \u201c\u2026the New Testament does introduce\u201d and what\u2019s the word I\u2019ve got underlined there, \u201cchange<\/u>\u201d and that\u2019s the key thing to notice, all of these guys are saying the New Testament changes the Old.\u00a0 So he says, \u201c\u201c\u2026the New Testament does introduce change<\/u> \u00a0and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation.\u201d So every time the New Testament is quoting the Old it\u2019s adding spiritual layers that were never there before.\u00a0 And that is not how we interpret the Bible here at Sugar Land Bible Church; we believe that every time the New Testament quotes the Old it\u2019s keeping its original meaning.\u00a0 It\u2019s sort of like a sermon in a church, when Peter is preaching on the Day of Pentecost he\u2019s reapplying it (the same truth) to a new audience. So we believe interpretation is one, this is a very important principle to understand, interpretation is one but applications are many.\u00a0 So when I\u2019m preaching here at Sugar Land Bible Church I\u2019m not going to the text and adding new meaning to the text; I\u2019m taking the ancient text but I\u2019m simply applying it anew to a new audience.\u00a0 And that\u2019s not what these guys believe; they believe that the New Testament actually changes the meaning of it.\n\nSo he writes, \u201cthe New Testament does introduce change<\/u> \u00a0and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation.\u00a0 In making complementary additions<\/u>, however, it does not jettison Old Testament promises. The enhancement<\/u> is 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 what makes this group, that Darrell Bock represents here, different than an amillennialist or a postmillennialist or a replacement theologian.\u00a0 The replacement theologian believes that the Old Testament cancels or completely changes\u2026 rather the New Testament changes the Old Testament completely, and he\u2019s not arguing that. He\u2019s basically saying the Davidic promises are going to be fulfilled one day however the New Testament did add a layer of meaning without jettisoning the old meaning.\u00a0 The replacement theologian says the New Testament added meaning and jettisoned what the Old Testament said.\u00a0 That\u2019s amillennialism replacement theology.\n\nProgressive dispensationalism comes along and says well, that\u2019s not really what\u2019s happening, \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0it\u2019s adding meaning but without changing its original meaning. \u00a0So that\u2019s why his position is already\/not yet. \u00a0Jesus is already reigning on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 And you say well, you\u2019re an amillennialist, and he says no I\u2019m not because He\u2019s still going to reign one day on David\u2019s throne\u00a0 in earthly Jerusalem.\u00a0 So\u00a0 our view is not already\/not yet, it\u2019s just not yet, we\u2019re not in the Davidic kingdom at all.\u00a0 Why do we think that? Because we think that the New Testament certainly doesn\u2019t add any meaning to the Old Testament.\u00a0 But they\u2019re saying it adds a new layer of meaning. Does this make any sense, what I\u2019m saying?\n\nSo Darrell Bock comes up with this complimentary hermeneutic and he writes, or I kind of summarized what he says here: \u201cThis novel interpretive approach allows mere \u2018crucial linking allusions,\u2019 or \u2018pictorial descriptions\u2019 to Jesus as the heir to David\u2019s Throne to expand the original terrestrial promise of the Davidic Throne so that it now encompasses a current spiritual form of the Davidic Kingdom with Jesus presently ruling from a celestial\u201d which means heavenly, \u201cDavidic Throne.\u201d\u00a0 [The Reign of the Lord Christ,\u201d in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church<\/em>, ed. Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 49, 51.]\n\nThere are many, many passages of Jesus in heaven at the Father\u2019s right hand and He\u2019s referred to as the Davidic heir.\u00a0 And my point on that is well, that\u2019s no big deal, He\u2019s exercising His ministry as high priest and He\u2019s heir to David\u2019s throne and he will one day sit on David\u2019s throne in the future.\u00a0 That\u2019s how dispensationalists like ourselves have always interpreted the passage.\u00a0 Darrell Bock is saying no, the Davidic allusions to Jesus as heir take the original promises and expand their meaning so now through that the Davidic kingdom is brought into the church.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 So in his mind there is no distinction between the church and the kingdom.\u00a0 The church, all it is is kind of part A of the kingdom.\u00a0 Now you can\u2019t believe that or argue that using traditional hermeneutics, the traditional literal method of interpretation, traditional understanding of traditional revelation.\u00a0 But you can believe that if all of a sudden you buy into this complimentary hermeneutic.\n\nSo when anybody wants to promote to you a new theology generally what they want to do is get you to change your mind about interpretation, how the Bible is interpreted.\u00a0 And that\u2019s what basically Darrell Bock and his group have done.\n\nRobert Lightner, who\u2019s on the traditional side of things, he\u2019s with the Lord now, I think he died this year if I\u2019m not mistaken, he was my teacher and we honored him at the Pre-trib Study Group this week because of his contributions to the study of the end times.\u00a0 He writes in his book, the Last Days Handbook<\/em>, and by the way, if you don\u2019t know anything about the end times and you want to learn at just the most basic level I would encourage you to get his little book, the Last Days Handbook<\/em>, he starts off very, very simple and then in the appendix he has different books you can go to; if you\u2019re a beginner go to these books, if\u00a0 you\u2019re an intermediate student go to these books, if you\u2019re an advanced student go to these books over here.\u00a0 So he\u2019s very helpful, writing in a very simple way to help people that have no familiarity with this to learn a little bit about it.\u00a0 And in this particular book he criticizes this new complimentary hermeneutic that was bubbling to the surface at Dallas Seminary.\u00a0 And when he went into print with this he suffered a lot of blowback from these progressive dispensationalists; I mean, they just had no respect for him.\u00a0 I was on campus when a lot of these things were happening and they kind of treated him like an old fuddy-duddy stuck in the old way of thinking.\n\nSo he came out and he criticized complementary hermeneutics this way:\u00a0 \u201c\u2018Complementary hermeneutics\u2019\u201d which we just explained, \u201cmust not\u201d and this is very important, \u201cmust not be confused with the historic orthodox doctrine of progressive revelation.\u201d What these guys are doing, progressive dispensationalists, is not progressive revelation.\u00a0 He explains, \u201cThe latter truth\u201d progressive revelation, \u201cmeans that God revealed His truth gradually, sometimes over a long period of time. What was revealed later\u201d watch the language very carefully, \u201c<\/u>What was revealed later never\u201d<\/u> what? \u201cchanged<\/u>,\u201d see that\u2019s the key word, \u201cnever<\/u> changed the original revelation, however. The meaning and the recipients of the original promise always remain the same.\u201d<\/u>\u00a0 [Robert Lightner, Last Days Handbook<\/em> (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 210.]\n\nThe way we\u2019ve always understood the progress of revelation is God can reveal a truth early on and as you move through the Bible the Scripture subsequently never changes the original truth, ever!\u00a0 In subsequent Scripture changed the original truth that means what was God doing to the original audience?\u00a0 He was lying to them, and God can\u2019t lie!\u00a0 It\u2019s contrary to His character to lie.\u00a0 Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2, Numbers 23:19\n\n[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\u00a0\u00a0 Titus 1:2, \u201cin the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago.\u201d\u00a0 Numbers 23:19, \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]\n\nThere are so many passages that say God can\u2019t lie.\u00a0 But what God can do is He can add more detail.\u00a0 He can add greater clarity but He can\u2019t change what was originally said.\u00a0 Lightner is just making the simple point that this new complimentary hermeneutic is changing what was originally said.\u00a0 He writes, \u201cThe meaning and the recipients of the original promise always remain the same.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 And so that\u2019s a distinction, pretty much, between traditional dispensationalism as we teach it here and this new progressive dispensationalism.\n\nOne of the questions is well why are the progressive dispensationalists doing this?\u00a0 And Charles Ryrie, I think, gives the answer.\u00a0 Charles Ryrie says: \u201cAlthough these early [bible] conferences\u201d and he\u2019s speaking there of the early Bible conference movement, \u201cwere called to oppose postmillennial\u00adism and to promote premillennialism,\u201d in other words, we used to have conferences to stand against error, we used to have conferences saying we believe this interpret\u00adation of the Bible is right, these other interpretations of the Bible are incorrect.\u00a0 That\u2019s how it used to be done.\n\nAnd Ryrie is saying the new way of thinking is not to do that anymore; it\u2019s to find a middle ground between you and your opponent.\u00a0 And when\u00a0 you find a middle ground between you and your opponent, sometimes called the third way, the third way which is always some kind of mediating compromise position, becomes the new truth.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 So you have traditional dispensationalism, then you have replacement theology and amillennialism and the progressive dispensationalist came along and instead of opposing one camp or the other they said the truth has got to be in the middle somewhere. I\u00a0 like to call it middle ground mania.\u00a0 And the middle ground that the community agrees on, because the amillennialist will disagree with the premillennialist but they might agree together on some point.\u00a0 And if they agree together on some point then that point becomes the building block for the new truth.\u00a0 And this is where this whole process of dialogue comes in; you know, you don\u2019t have a conference to oppose what the other camp is doing.\n\nRyrie is saying that\u2019s what used to be done.\u00a0 But you now have conferences to find some mediating position.\u00a0 And so Ryrie says, \u201cAlthough these early conferences were called to oppose post millennialism and promote premillennialism today progressive dispensationalists focus on them as examples of ecumenicity in order to justify their interest in finding rapprochement<\/u>\u201d(that means agreement)\u00a0 \u201cbetween dispensationalism and Reformed or covenant theology.\u00a0 <\/u>\u201d \u00a0The early conferences in America sought no such rapprochement between themselves and postmillennialists or annihilationist\u2019s or perfectionists.\u201d\u00a0 <\/em>[Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism<\/em>, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 146]\n\nSo Ryrie is saying the whole mentality today has changed; it\u2019s not opposition, it\u2019s finding some point of agreement. And whatever point that you can agree on becomes the new truth.\u00a0 And that\u2019s where you get into discussions with people, not to oppose, not to debate, but here\u2019s the key word today, to\u2026 what, anybody know what it is?\u00a0 It starts with a \u201cD.\u201d\u00a0 To dialogue.\u201d\u00a0 Didn\u2019t Jesus say go into all the world and dialogue?\u00a0 He didn\u2019t say that, did He?\u00a0 He said \u201cGo into all the world and proclaim,\u201d but what happens if you believe that camp A doesn\u2019t have the truth and camp B doesn\u2019t have the truth.\u00a0 Well, you\u2019ve got to have a meeting of the minds or a dialogue to figure out what it is we can agree on.\n\nSo you have a movement today called Christianity and you have a movement today called Chrislam or Islam, let\u2019s start with Islam.\u00a0 So what do people want to do?\u00a0 Instead of opposing Islam, which is what Shahram Haddian is doing, that\u2019s why we had him speak here, we now have a group of people that say well maybe Christianity doesn\u2019t have all of the truth and maybe Islam doesn\u2019t have all of the truth; maybe there\u2019s some kind of mediating position between the two and we\u2019ll call that what?\u00a0 Not Christianity, not Islam, but Chrislam.\u00a0 So just Google Chrislam into your search engine and you\u2019ll see all kinds of stuff popup about evangelicals inviting Muslims into their pulpits to teach evangelicals about Islam.\n\nNow it\u2019s kind of interesting, the Muslims never invite the evangelicals into their mosques to teach Christianity, it always goes the other way around. And I wish I had the quote, I didn\u2019t think of it at the time, but I have a quote from the Muslim Brotherhoods Senior Theoretician, a guy named Github, and he says we\u2019re going to use the process of dialogue to get these gullible Christians to move our direction.\u00a0 We have no interest ever in moving their direction but they think we do, ha, ha, ha, and we\u2019re going to use this process of what\u2019s called interface dialogue to get Christianity to move in the direction of Islam.\u00a0 And so this is all an outworking of this new mindset called dialogue and that\u2019s basically what Darrell Bock and others have done.\n\nWhat\u2019s happened with this whole thing is the Reformed camp hasn\u2019t moved a millimeter.\u00a0 Did you know that?\u00a0 But all of our schools that were formerly dispensational have moved into the center.\u00a0 Dallas Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, Philadelphia College of the Bible, we can go right on down the list staffed with faculty members that believe in this new mediating position.\u00a0 And the whole time I think the Reformed camp is just laughing because now they\u2019ve got all of us teaching Reformed doctrine, at least a form of it, in formerly dispensational schools.\u00a0 And you say well Andy, why are\u00a0 you mixed up with a school, a small school called Chafer Theological Seminary?\u00a0 This is why, because I want to get back to the original purpose before this whole ecumenical interfaith dialogue process started.\n\nYou might have heard of a document signed in the 1990\u2019s called Evangelicals and Catholics Together.\u00a0 Ever hear of that one?\u00a0 That was produced because you had a bunch of people saying well, evangelicals don\u2019t have it right (Protestants) and Catholics don\u2019t have it right so let\u2019s kind of meet in the middle somewhere and let\u2019s sign some kind of document indicating that Protestants are going to look at Catholics as Christians, and therefore agree to not proselytize Catholics anymore.\u00a0 It\u2019s called Evangelicals and Catholics together.\u00a0 And you\u2019ve got a lot of big name people within the evangelical Christianity that signed that document.\u00a0 So notice again what\u2019s happened.\u00a0 Has the Roman Catholic Church moved one millimeter?\u00a0 Not at all!\u00a0 But they\u2019ve used the process of interfaith dialogue to get the gullible Protestants to move in the Catholic direction.\u00a0\u00a0 I mean, are they trying to convert us to full-blown Catholicism?\u00a0 Or full-blown Islam?\u00a0 No, they\u2019re just trying to get us to soften our stand.\u00a0 See that?\n\nAnd this is basically what has happened with this whole debate between dispensationalism and Reformed theology. \u00a0\u00a0And now we have this mediating position called progressive dispensational\u00adism where we, as traditional dispensationalists give up the store and the Reformed camp doesn\u2019t give up anything.\u00a0 And through the process of dialogue all they did is move us in their direction.\n\nBy the way, do you know where the first interfaith dialogue is recorded in the whole Bible? It\u2019s in Genesis 3 where the serpent started a conversation with Eve and he starts talking to her and she starts talking to him, this talking snake.\u00a0 What if she had just shut down the process of dialogue and said\u00a0 I know your true intentions but I\u2019m not going to talk to you.\u00a0 Think how different human history would have turned out.\u00a0 So if you want to stop Chrislam and if you want to stop evangelicals and Catholics together, and if you want to stop progressive dispensationalism and churches moving into a form of Kingdom Now theology, already not yet, there\u2019s an easy way to do it?\u00a0 It\u2019s to move away from a dialogue process and get back to confrontational teaching. That\u2019s why I made the point that Jesus said \u201cGod and proclaim.\u201d\u00a0 Go and preach, He didn\u2019t say go and enter into a dialogue with somebody to make things less offensive, to see if we can find a mediating position.\n\nSo this is what\u2019s going on all over the place.\u00a0 Everybody is dialoging with everybody and it\u2019s almost like the original great commission was go into all the world and dialogue.\u00a0 I mean, I can\u2019t find any verses that support that.\u00a0 I think actually the process of dialogue is what gets us into trouble because God never called us into that.\u00a0 He called us to learn the truth, teach the truth, proclaim the truth, defend the truth.\u00a0 Could you imagine what would have happened to the Protestant Reformation that Martin Luther started in the 16th<\/sup> century if he had a dialogue mentality with the Popes and the priests?\u00a0 We wouldn\u2019t even have Protestant Christianity today.\u00a0 But Luther stood on what the Bible says, salvation by faith alone, grace alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.\u00a0 All of those concepts wouldn\u2019t exist if he felt truth was something that different camps negotiated in the middle.\n\nSo this is the point that Ryrie is making here.\u00a0 And\u00a0 he makes the point that once you let this complementary hermeneutic out of the bag, which is what\u2019s happened, it\u2019s like letting a genie out of the bottle.\u00a0 Once the genie is outside the bottle you\u2019re going to have a very difficult time putting it back in the bottle; in fact, it\u2019s going to be almost impossible.\u00a0 Some would say the toothpaste is out of the tube, how are you going to get the toothpaste back in the tube once it\u2019s out?\u00a0 And it creates all kinds of consequences that I don\u2019t even think progressive dispensationalists themselves have really thought through what they\u2019ve done here.\n\nRyrie a traditionalist,\u00a0 says, \u201cAs an example of the slippery nature of this complementary hermen\u00adeutic if applied to other concepts \u2026 consider the concept of \u2018temple.\u2019... The body of an individual Christian is the temple of the Holy Spirit\u201d right, 1 Corinthians 6:19. \u00a0[1 Corinthians 6:19, \u201cOr do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?\u201d]\u00a0 \u00a0The local church is a temple of God isn\u2019t it? \u00a01 Corinthians 3:16 as is the\u00a0 universal church, Ephesians 2:21. [1 Corinthians 3:16, \u201cDo you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?\u201d Ephesians 2:21, \u201cin whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,\u201d]\n\nWhat, then is the meaning of the temple in Revelation 11:1-2?\u00a0 [Revelation 11:1-2, \u201cThen there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, \u201cGet up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it. [2] Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.\u201d]\n\nNow we\u2019re in the Book of Revelation, one of these\u00a0 years we may get to Revelation 11, I don\u2019t know, but at some point, if the Lord doesn\u2019t rapture us first we\u2019re going to run into this temple in Revelation 11.\u00a0 What do you do with that temple?\u00a0 Well, I think it means a literal temple, that\u2019s what I think it means.\u00a0 And I get that through a literal method of interpretation.\u00a0 Ryrie says, \u201cA literal hermeneutic answers that it refers to an actual building in the tribulation period since there is no indication in the text that points to any other interpretation.\u201d\u00a0 [Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism<\/em>, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 175]\n\nThe third temple the Jews are going to build is back in Israel today where they have what\u2019s called the Temple Institute, where they have the groundwork laid and the plans laid for this third temple and it\u2019s actually the temple that the antichrist is going to desecrate midway through the tribulation period.\u00a0 We covered some of that when we studied Daniel.\u00a0 Prophecy demands that that third temple come into existence.\n\nRyrie, though, says, \u201cBut using the complementary hermeneutic one could conclude that it refers to a what?\u00a0 \u201ca community of believers\u201d why would people think that?\u00a0 \u201c(since that meaning is found elsewhere in the New Testament),\u201d isn\u2019t my body the temple, isn\u2019t the church the temple, you say well who cares, (\u201cthus placing the church in the tribulation period.\u201d \u00a0[Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism<\/em>, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 175.]\n\nUsing consistently a complementary hermeneutic what did you just throw out the window?\u00a0 The pre-trib rapture because the allusions of a temple in Revelation 11 just took the meaning of the body of Christ and did what? What\u2019s the \u201cc\u201d word?\u00a0 \u201cchanged it\u201d or \u201cexpanded it into the tribulation period.\u00a0 And it\u2019s very interesting to me that Progressive dispensationalist hardly talk about the rapture.\u00a0 I even went to Darrel Bock\u2019s church, we really didn\u2019t know any better, we just went there because that\u2019s where all the professors were, and I took him for classes and I never heard the man ever mention the rapture, not a single time.\u00a0 The only time I ever heard him talk about it is\u00a0 private when I went up and asked him a question about it and he kind of mildly holds to the pre-trib rapture.\n\nBut one of the reasons is it\u2019s no longer front and center in his thinking is because of what Ryrie says is the natural repercussion of consistently applying your complimentary hermeneutic.\u00a0 You want to apply the complimentary hermeneutic to the Davidic throne?\u00a0 Okay, I\u2019m going to take your same complimentary hermeneutic and I\u2019m going to apply it to other concepts because you let the genie out of the bottle.\u00a0 The toothpaste is out of the tube, we\u2019re not going to get it back in so I just want to take this for a test drive and I\u2019m going to expand the church into the tribulation period because we know that what did he say, \u201ccrucial linking allusions change or expand the meaning of Old Testament concepts.\n\nHe says, \u201cProgressives have not used their complementary hermeneutic to conclude this, though it could be so used...The important question is simply this: Are there limits on the use of a complementary hermeneutic, and, if so, how are these limits to be determined and by whom?\u201d [Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism<\/em>, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 175.]\n\nAnd that\u2019s something you should think about when someone tosses some new idea your direction and they want to apply it to X; if you want to figure out if it\u2019s valid you\u2019d better start applying it to\u00a0 Y and Z and the rest of the alphabet for that matter and then\u00a0 you can figure out real fast should this genie be right out of the bottle at all.\n\nRobert Lightener has this wonder quote that he made on the complimentary hermeneutic, he\u2019s basically making the same point that Ryrie is.\u00a0 Lightner says, \u201cWhat if you apply the complementary hermeneutic to all of Scripture? . . . What if the complementary hermeneutic, used by progressives in Acts 2 to substantiate the fact that the kingdom has been inaugurated,\u201d or started, \u201cin part, would be applied universally to all prophetic matters of Scripture ever given? One could not know for sure precisely who was involved in the prophecy or where it would be fulfilled until either the prophecy was fulfilled or the canon of Scripture was closed. . . . If the same hermeneutic was applied to other areas of prophecy, like it is applied to the Davidic covenant, you could never be sure of anything in \u00a0the Scripture until it was either fulfilled or the canon was closed. Then, of course, you know there is not going to be any further revelation, \u2018change [once the canon closed.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 [Robert Lightner, \u201cProgres\u00adsive Dispensationalism,\u201d Conservative Theological Journal<\/em> 4, no. 11 (March 2000): 53\u201359, 62.]\n\nHe goes on and he says, \u201cUntil that time, all prophecy is open to complementation. For example, when God, through the prophets, predicted the Assyrian captivity of Israel and the Babylonian captivity of Judah, they couldn\u2019t really be sure that it was an exclusive captivity of Assyria. Who knows, but what, the Babylonians would have been included, or vice versa. . . . Because it involves people and if the people involved in the Davidic Covenant can change and include other people, then why can\u2019t the people change in these other prophecies? If the place can change in the Davidic Covenant as in Acts 2, then why can\u2019t the place change in other prophecies of Scripture? Other people or other places can be brought in totally changing the original promise in later revelation. . . . Take another illustration. All prophecy or prediction in the Bible, which involves a specific place and people, might be changed in later revelation.\u00a0 How about Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Daniel 9?, and the Gentile world powers, are we to understand those nations, when given, exclusively as those nations? Maybe not; maybe later revelation would change them...Just like some today have an open view of God, the complementary hermeneutic, whether they admit it or know it, is an open view of Scripture as well, to this extent, until the prophecy is realized, it is fulfilled, or the canon has closed. It is not open any longer, please understand me, but I mean that until the canon was closed or the prophecy was fulfilled, it had to be open, if you apply the same hermeneutic to other passages of Scripture. The promise of the land, the promise to Israel, might involve another people later on. I consider this to be a serious danger. . . . If you apply their complementary hermeneutic across the board to other Scripture, the result is devastating.\u201d\u00a0 [Robert Lightner, \u201cProgressive Dispensationalism,\u201d Conservative Theological Journal<\/em> 4, no. 11 (March 2000): 53\u201359, 62]\n\nI agree with what he\u2019s saying very much.\u00a0 By the way, think about this for a minute.\u00a0 If the New Testament comes along and changes Old Testament passages the way we\u2019re taught by so many people, and this is the only way they can get their \u201cKingdom Now theology\u201d to work is to convince people of this, how could the original New Testament characters have been Bereans?\u00a0\u00a0 You might open your Bible to Acts 17:11 just for a minute.\u00a0 Remember the Bereans on Paul\u2019s second missionary journey?\u00a0 What does it say there, \u201cNow these\u201d Bereans [\u201cwere more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica,\u201d why is that, \u201cfor they\u201d that\u2019s the Bereans in comparison to the Thessalonians, \u201creceived the word with great eagerness,\u201d and what did they do says Paul, \u201cexamining the\u201d what? \u201cScriptures\u201d how frequently, \u201cdaily to see whether these things were so.\u201d\n\nPaul was teaching them, they were happy about that, they were eager to learn but these were the kind of people that knew the Old Testament and they wanted to make sure that the things that Paul was teaching them was correct.\u00a0 So they were not skeptics just for the sake of being a skeptic but they were people that listened to Paul preach sermons and he was giving them New Testament truth, and they wanted to make sure that it was accurate.\u00a0 Well, how in the world would you ever determine if its accurate?\u00a0 Well, there\u2019s an ancient test for that, isn\u2019t there?\u00a0 I have all those Scriptures on the screen which reveal that test.\u00a0 What\u2019s the test?\u00a0 The new truth must be what?\u00a0 Consistent of the same as what? Prior revelation.\n\nThe Old Testament says there\u2019s one God, and someone comes along and says ah, there\u2019s not one God, there\u2019s many gods.\u00a0 And the person may have the gift of gab, they may have the three G\u2019s, for successful ministry. What are those, the Gift of Gab, Good looks and a Guitar.\u00a0 They may have all three going for them and they may have the ABC\u2019s working for them too.\u00a0 You know what the ABC\u2019s are? Attendance, Buildings and Cash.\u00a0 So they\u2019ve got the ABC\u2019s working for them, and they\u2019ve got the three G\u2019s working for them and they\u2019re so aerolite in what they\u2019re saying and they make people feel good, but how could you determine if what they\u2019re saying is erroneous.\n\nThey can\u2019t contradict what God originally said.\u00a0 The moment they contradict what God originally said it\u2019s not God speaking.\u00a0 Because if God is speaking through them then what was He doing in prior revelation? He was telling A a lie, see that.\u00a0 If the New Testament is changing the Old Testament in any way or adding some layer of truth that wasn\u2019t there in prior passages, I\u2019m not talking about new truth, I\u2019m just talking about taking existing Davidic concepts and altering their meaning, which is what all Kingdom Now theologians argue, then there is absolutely no way these people could have been Bereans.\u00a0 It\u2019s impossible to be a Berean if you believe that somehow the New Testament is rewriting in any sense the old.\u00a0 And violates this ancient principle that you test things by what God originally said.\u00a0 The Bereans would never have been applauded here, they would have been looked at as closed minded because we all know that God just changed what He originally said.\u00a0 So being a Berean, being a discerner becomes an impossibility.\n\nSo what are we saying here about the Davidic throne?\u00a0 Number one, the Davidic throne is always what?\u00a0 Earthly!\u00a0\u00a0 Number two what are we saying?\u00a0\u00a0 A Davidic heavenly throne takes what with the original promise?\u00a0 It changes its meaning.\u00a0 Now on what basis do they change the meaning?\u00a0 Do they have some kind of crystal clear passage that changes the meaning?\u00a0 I don\u2019t think the meaning could be changed.\u00a0 But if you want to change the meaning\u00a0 you would think there would be something absolutely iron clad indicating the meaning has been altered.\u00a0 \u00a0I mean, you\u2019d have to have some really clear passage that says Jesus is now on David\u2019s throne, wouldn\u2019t you?\u00a0 Can you find that passage anywhere?\u00a0 You cannot!\u00a0\u00a0 You know why?\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t exist.\n\nAnd that takes me to sub point number three, no New Testament verse ever currently places Jesus on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 Let me just toss some examples your direction.\u00a0 You might think of John 17:5. [John 17:5, \u201cNow, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.\u201d] \u00a0\u00a0John 17 is the Lord\u2019s Prayer, right.\u00a0 Why do we call it the Lord\u2019s Prayer?\u00a0 Because it\u2019s the prayer that Jesus prayed, it goes on a whole chapter.\u00a0 The one in Matthew 6 that we call the Lord\u2019s prayer is really the disciples prayer because He\u2019s teaching them how to pray.\u00a0 You say well didn\u2019t Jesus pray that?\u00a0 I\u00a0 hope not because He said, \u201cForgive us this day\u201d our daily what? Give us our food and forgive us our sins.\u00a0 I didn\u2019t think Jesus had any sins.\u00a0 So He wasn\u2019t praying in Matthew 6, He was teaching them how to pray.\n\nIf you really want to see the Lord\u2019s prayer you read John 17\u00a0 And in that prayer He says what?\u00a0 He speaks often of His death which was right around the corner, this is in the Passion week, and He speaks of what\u2019s going to happen to Him once He dies, is buried, is resurrected and ascended.\u00a0 Where exactly is He going to go?\u00a0 He says here in John 17:5, \u201cNow, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.\u201d\u00a0 He wants to return to that place of glory that He had with the Father before the world existed.\n\nDoes He say here I want to go on David\u2019s throne which is in heaven?\u00a0 Well how could that be, He wants to go to what existed before the world was; there was no Davidic throne, there was no Davidic promise before the world was.\u00a0 I wish we had time to look at several verses but jot down John 13:3, Acts 3:13, and what you\u2019re going to see over and over again is the Bible never says Jesus currently is on David\u2019s throne. [John 13:3, \u201cJesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God,\u201d\u00a0 Acts 3:13, \u201cThe God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him.\u201d]\n\nWhere is Jesus then, if He\u2019s not on David\u2019s throne. He is where? Who is \u201cat the right hand of God.\u201d\u00a0 Where is God?\u00a0 In heaven.\u00a0 Where is David\u2019s throne?\u00a0 On the earth.\u00a0 No verse ever says He\u2019s on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 If you\u2019re going to have a theology which says the New Testament adds some layer of meaning that\u2019s not found in the Old Testament then you show me the clear passage because it\u2019s not there; I\u2019ve looked.\u00a0 It says over and over again He\u2019s at the right hand of the Father.\u00a0 He is not functioning as the David King apparently.\u00a0 He is functioning as high priest after the order of Melchizedek.\u00a0 That\u2019s His role.\n\nHow about this one, Revelation 12:5, this is speaking of His ascension in Revelation 12.\u00a0 [Revelation 12:5, \u201cAnd she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne.\u201d]\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c\u2026her child\u201d that\u2019s Jesus, \u201cwas caught up\u201d where?\u00a0 \u201cto God and to\u201d whose throne? \u201cHis throne.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 He\u2019s on His throne; who\u2019s \u201cHis\u201d?\u00a0 The Father, God the Father.\u00a0 If He was on David\u2019s throne He would be caught up to His own throne, wouldn\u2019t He?\n\nHow many verses do I have on this?\u00a0 More than I can shake a stick at here.\u00a0 Write down Acts 7:55-56, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12, Hebrews 12:2, 1 Peter 3:22.\u00a0 Just start looking at all these passages and\u00a0 you\u2019ll clearly see He\u2019s not on David\u2019s throne, He\u2019s at the right hand of the Father in His position of preincarnate glory.\n\n[Acts 7:55-56, \u201cBut being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; [56<\/a>]and he said, \u201cBehold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.\u201d\n\nColossians 3:1, \u201cTherefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.\u201d\n\nHebrews 1:3, \u201cAnd He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,\n\nHebrews 8:1, \u201cNow the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,\u201d\n\nHebrews 10:12, \u201cbut He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,\u201d\n\nHebrews 12:2, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.\u201d\n\n1 Peter 3:22, \u201cwho is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.]\n\nIf\u00a0 you want to understand the present position of Christ God has given us a prefigurement of it already in the David\/Saul narrative.\u00a0 If you want to understand what\u2019s happening to Jesus right now you study David and Saul.\u00a0 Remember the story of David and Saul?\u00a0 I believe that that story is a literal story that happened but it\u2019s\u00a0 prefigurement for understanding where Christ is presently.\u00a0 David was anointed king over the nation in 1 Samuel 16.\u00a0 There\u2019s no doubt in anybody\u2019s mind that he is going to become the king, he\u2019s anointed as king.\u00a0 Yet did he reign as king at that point?\u00a0 He did not.\u00a0 He did not become king until inauguration day, 2 Samuel 5.\u00a0 That\u2019s when Jerusalem was finally brought into the borders of Israel and David began to reign over the United Kingdom.\n\nSo 1 Samuel 16, anointed, there\u2019s a lot of chapters aren\u2019t there in 1 Samuel, doesn\u2019t it go 31 chapters, something like that,\u00a0 in chapter 16 all the way through chapter 31 he\u2019s not reigning as king.\u00a0 He doesn\u2019t actually become inaugurated as King until 2 Samuel 5.\u00a0 So I want to know what\u2019s happening in the interim.\u00a0 Well, there\u2019s a usurper on the throne named who?\u00a0 Saul!\u00a0 David had two chances to kill Saul. Do you realize that?\u00a0 1 Samuel 12 is chance one; 1 Samuel 26 is chance number two.\u00a0 David did not kill Saul because he said I will not touch the Lord\u2019s anointed.\u00a0 God is going to have to depose Saul and make me the king one day (watch this) even though David had already been anointed king.\u00a0 I mean, what if you had been anointed king and you had a chance to kill your enemy?\u00a0 Most of us would take the opportunity. Right?\u00a0 David did not do that, he waited on the Lord to inaugurate him.\n\nWhat was happening in between 1 Samuel 16 and 2 Samuel 5 is you\u2019ve got a guy who\u2019s anointed as king, not reigning as king because there\u2019s a usurper on the throne, remember the anointing of Saul left.\u00a0 The anointing comes on David, I think this is in 1 Samuel 16:13-14, and it leaves Saul.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [1 Samuel 16:13-14, \u201cThen Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward. And Samuel arose and went to Ramah.\u00a0 [14] Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.\u201d]\n\nThe Spirit comes upon David to rule as king and it leaves Saul.\u00a0 So Saul is governing the nation all this time without the anointing of God.\u00a0 This is why Saul is trying to kill David, is because of what?\u00a0 It starts with a \u201cJ.\u201d \u00a0Jealousy!\u00a0 So why did God allow that interim time period to elapse?\u00a0 Because everybody in the nation was being forced to make a choice.\u00a0\u00a0 You can walk by faith and align yourself with David, who\u2019s anointed to be king although he\u2019s not yet reigning as king.\u00a0 OR, you can align yourself with Saul, not walking by faith but walking by sight.\u00a0 And that\u2019s why in the Samuel books, particularly 1 Samuel, there\u2019s so much emphasis on the handsome tall nature of Saul.\u00a0 I mean you read all of that and you say why does it keep drawing attention to his physical appearance?\u00a0 Because if you followed Saul you\u2019re walking by sight; if\u00a0 you follow little David you\u2019re walking by faith.\u00a0 See that?\n\nSo God allowed an interim period between anointing and inauguration to force everybody to make a decision.\u00a0 Are you with me on this?\u00a0 Now if you understand this that\u2019s exactly what\u2019s happening today.\u00a0 In fact, this is exactly what\u2019s been happening for the last two thousand years.\u00a0 Jesus is anointed as King, isn\u2019t He?\u00a0 Acts 2:33-35.\u00a0 [Acts 2:33-35, \u201cTherefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.\u00a0 [34] For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: \u2018THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,\u00a0 [35] \u201cUNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.\u201d\u2019]\n\nWhen was he anointed?\u00a0 I think He was anointed either at His resurrection or His ascension, one of the two, I\u2019m not sure. But one of the two He was anointed as the next King.\u00a0 Is He reigning as King?\u00a0 No He\u2019s not because inauguration day doesn\u2019t come until the beginning of the millennial kingdom.\u00a0 Well why can\u2019t Jesus just assert Himself on David\u2019s throne now?\u00a0 Because there\u2019s a usurper on the throne, not named Saul but named Satan; Satan is running the world.\u00a0 Satan is running the world without the anointing to be there.\u00a0 Jesus is supposed to be there.\n\nAnd 1 John 5:19 basically says, \u201cWe know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.\u201d\u00a0 And you say well why is God allowing this?\u00a0 Why is God allowing this interim time period where Jesus is anointed as King but He\u2019s not functioning as King.\u00a0 He\u2019s instead at the Father\u2019s right hand functioning as priest. \u00a0Why doesn\u2019t He just come down here and take over?\u00a0 Well number one there\u2019s a usurper on the throne named Satan, who\u2019s got to be cast out.\u00a0 You say when is that going to happen?\u00a0 The Book of Revelation, that\u2019s what it\u2019s about.\n\nAnd number two, God is forcing everyone to make a choice.\u00a0 If you walk with Jesus you walk by faith.\u00a0 If you walk with Satan, according to this world system,\u00a0 you walk by sight.\u00a0 That\u2019s why God is allowing this delay.\u00a0 And by the way, in David\u2019s day he didn\u2019t have the majority on his side during this interim period.\u00a0 He had what 1 Samuel calls a\u2026 he keeps referring to David\u2019s men as\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 a minority.\n\nHow about us today?\u00a0 Are we in the majority in the world system.\u00a0 We\u2019re this little tiny minority, just like it was in David\u2019s day. \u00a0And the only reason we\u2019re part of this little group is because we have enough faith to believe that the One\u2019s whose anointed is going to reign one day and when inauguration day comes you\u2019re going to be reigning alongside of Him.\u00a0 See that?\n\nSo if you actually look at this parallel it\u2019s a stunning type or figure that the Holy Spirit has given\u00a0\u00a0 us to describe this inter period of time.\u00a0 If you make this\u00a0 the kingdom it wrecks this whole thing.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0So Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, He\u2019s on the Father\u2019s throne, not David\u2019s throne and Revelation 3:21 (this is review for those of you that were with us on Sunday morning going through Revelation) how many thrones do you see there in Revelation 3:21?\u00a0 What does it say?\u00a0 \u201c'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.\u201d\u00a0 How many thrones do you see there?\u00a0 There\u2019s two.\u00a0 And in fact they\u2019re described with two different words.\u00a0 Jesus\u2019 throne is future, see that?\u00a0 The throne that Jesus is on now, the Father\u2019s throne, is in the aorist tense, it\u2019s happening now.\u00a0 You have the Father\u2019s throne in heaven, you have Jesus\u2019 throne on the earth.\u00a0 Which throne is Jesus on now?\u00a0 He\u2019s on the Father\u2019s throne in heaven.\u00a0 Well what about His future throne?\u00a0 What tense is that in?\u00a0 Future tense.\u00a0 Two thrones.\n\nNow this word was given sixty years after the Day of Pentecost, and the Kingdom Now theologians say Jesus sat on David\u2019s throne in heaven.\u00a0 Obviously that can\u2019t be true because sixty years later Jesus makes a distinction between the Father\u2019s throne in heaven and His future throne on the earth.\u00a0 One of these days those two thrones are going to what?\u00a0 Merge in the eternal state, Revelation 22:1, and Darrell Bock uses Revelation 2:21 to say that they\u2019re merging now in Revelation 3:21.\u00a0 [Revelation 22:1, \u201cThen he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb.\u201d\u00a0 Revelation 3:21, \u201c'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.\u201d] That\u2019s the quote from Darrell Bock where he argues that.\u00a0 There\u2019s a problem with that though. When do those two thrones merge?\u00a0 The eternal state.\u00a0 That\u2019s a long way away, isn\u2019t it?\u00a0 I mean, that\u2019s like even after the earthly thousand\u00a0 year kingdom is the eternal state.\u00a0 Are we in the eternal state now?\u00a0 No, because when the eternal state rolls around there\u2019s not going to be any more Satan, sea, death, sun, moon, night, evil.\n\nYou can\u2019t take the merging of the throne then and make it sound like it\u2019s the merging of the throne now is what I\u2019m trying to say.\u00a0 And by the way, if Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne now with a rod of iron and the two thrones are merged why are five of the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3 in total apostasy?\u00a0 Can you explain that to me?\u00a0 That\u2019s not what the kingdom is.\u00a0 The kingdom is His rod of righteousness is present.\u00a0 If the two thrones are the same and He\u2019s in the kingdom now why are five of those seven church in total apostasy. In fact, the name of one of those churches is Laodicea.\u00a0 Does anybody know what Laodicea means?\u00a0 The people ruling.\u00a0 In Laodicea Jesus is not ruling, the people are.\u00a0 Does that sound like the Davidic Kingdom to\u00a0 you.\n\nAnd by the way, in Laodicea where is Jesus?\u00a0 He\u2019s outside the door of His church, knocking to get in.\u00a0 That\u2019s not the Davidic Kingdom.\u00a0 This is the church age where the church age can move into apostasy.\u00a0 And so if you\u2019re going to tell me that Jesus is on David\u2019s throne now I need to see a clear passage. I\u2019m not seeing that, in fact, I\u2019m seeing the opposite in Revelation 3:21.\u00a0 And you say well what about early Acts, isn\u2019t that an open and shut case?\u00a0 Well, you\u2019ll have to come back in January to find that out because it\u2019s too big a discussion to get into now. But I\u2019ll show you Acts 1, 2 and 3, I\u2019ll show you there specific arguments that they use and I\u2019ll show you that none of those teach that Jesus is on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 So that\u2019s the direction we\u2019re going.","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