{"id":19238,"date":"2019-01-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-01-16T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-058\/"},"modified":"2022-01-12T17:16:17","modified_gmt":"2022-01-12T23:16:17","slug":"the-coming-kingdom-058","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-058\/","title":{"rendered":"The Coming Kingdom 058"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[89],"series_event":[470],"sermon_service_type":[474],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-19238","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 058","sermon_date":"20190116","sermon_month":"1","sermon_year":"2019","sermon_notes":19999,"sermon_slides":20000,"sermon_mp3":20001,"sermon_id":"116192255576925","series_or_event":470,"service_type":[474],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":89,"chapter_and_verse":"3:19-21","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nThe Coming Kingdom\n\n1-16-19\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Acts 3:19-21\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lesson 58\n\nLet\u2019s open our Bibles if we could to 1 Peter, chapter 2 and verses 4-7.\u00a0 We\u2019re continuing to deal with kingdom now theology.\u00a0 And without a doubt anybody that\u2019s into kingdom now theology, probably the heart of the whole matter is the present position of Jesus.\u00a0 So the perspective of us at Sugar Land Bible Church is the present position of Jesus is He is at the right hand of the Father.\u00a0 He is functioning as high priest.\u00a0 The kingdom now theologians say no, no, no, no, Christ is actually reigning from heaven on David\u2019s throne, functioning as Davidic king.\u00a0 So we\u2019ve been dealing with this subject, is Jesus now reigning on David\u2019s throne?\u00a0 And we\u2019re sort of giving a six part response to that.\n\nThe first thing to understand is that all the references to David\u2019s throne throughout the Old Testament and even into the Gospels, David\u2019s throne is always earthly, every single reference.\u00a0 Therefore, number two, to all of a sudden transport David\u2019s throne into heaven involves doing what with the original promise?\u00a0 Changing its meaning.\u00a0 You\u2019re not just following the progress of Revelation where subsequent revelation clarifies something.\u00a0 You\u2019re actually using one verse to rewrite another verse.\u00a0 And we went through the problems with that.\u00a0 It\u2019s a complete alteration, David\u2019s throne moves from earth to heaven, from Israel to the Gentile church, and it\u2019s functioning not over a converted Israel but an unconverted Israel.\u00a0 That\u2019s an outright change.\n\nSo if all that is true and that\u2019s what people want to believe, and that\u2019s what people are arguing today and\u00a0 you\u2019re just going to have to take my word for it, if you\u2019re not familiar with this discussion.\u00a0 This is what everybody is saying, Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 So shouldn\u2019t there be a New Testament verse that clearly says the New Testament just changed the Old and the Old is incorrect and really what\u2019s happening is Jesus is on David\u2019s throne now.\u00a0 I mean, to my mind if you\u2019re going to make a change of that radical proportion then\u00a0 you need something in the New Testament that tells you it\u2019s happened.\u00a0 And the reality of the situation as we\u2019ve studied this is there is no New Testament verse, there is no authoritative New Testament verse anybody can point to which says Jesus is now reigning on David\u2019s throne and everything that\u2019s revealed in the Old Testament about David\u2019s throne was somehow changed or whatever word they want to use.\n\nSo probably the biggest support they go to is the Book of Acts.\u00a0 And in the Book of Acts, chapter 2, anybody remember who is preaching there?\u00a0 Peter, he\u2019s preaching to Jews or Hebrews and he\u2019s giving the sermon on the Day of Pentecost and he\u2019s basically saying in this sermon that Israel had it wrong about Jesus, they had nationally rejected Him in the Gospels. And therefore what all of these Jews gathered in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost need to do is repent.\u00a0 Repent means what?\u00a0 Change your mind about who Jesus is, go from being a Christ rejecting Jew to a Christ accepting Jew.\u00a0 And it\u2019s a wonderful sermon to study, I would encourage you to study it.\n\nAnd in the process Peter is weaving together in sort of a masterpiece fashion, and it\u2019s amazing what God did through Peter, the guy whose mouth was used as an instrument for Satan, remember?\u00a0 Because Jesus said to Peter, \u201cGet behind Me,\u201d\u00a0 what?\u00a0 \u201cSatan.\u201d\u00a0 And now it\u2019s the same guy that denied Christ three times, that walked out on the water and sank, now filled with the Holy Spirit and weaving together this masterpiece of material where He\u2019s weaving together all these Old Testament Scriptures and boldly declaring that Jesus is the Son of God.\u00a0 And he tells the audience to repent, change their minds, and he\u2019s got three thousand believers there on the Day of Pentecost, it\u2019s a miracle.\u00a0 That\u2019s how the church started.\n\nBut today everybody is going to that sermons, not to present it the way I just did but to present it in terms of what this is really teaching is the kingdom has started. That\u2019s what they\u2019re all arguing.\u00a0 I had you open up to 1 Peter but over in Acts 2:30 Peter says in the sermon, \u201cAnd so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE.\u201d\u00a0 Now last time I tried to communicate that the only thing that verse means is Jesus is the Davidic heir.\n\nAnd then down in verses 34-35 Peter says, now in verse 30 he\u2019s using Psalm 132:11.\u00a0 [Psalm 132:11, \u201cThe LORD has sworn to David A truth from which He will not turn back: \u2018Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne.\u201d\u2019]\u00a0 In verses 34-35 he is quoting the most frequently quoted Psalm, probably in the New Testament, if not the whole Bible. It\u2019s Psalm 110.\n\n[Psalm 110::1, \u201cThe LORD said to my Lord: \u201cSit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.\u00a0 [2] The LORD will extend Your mighty scepter from Zion: \u201cRule in the midst of your enemies.\u201d\u00a0 [3] Your people shall be willing on Your day of battle.\u00a0 Arrayed in holy splendor, from the womb of the dawn, to You belongs the dew of Your youth.\u00a0 [4] The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind: \u201cYou are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 [5] The Lord is at Your right hand; He will crush kings in the day of His wrath.\u00a0 [6] He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead;\u00a0 He will crush the leaders far and wide.\u00a0 [7] He will drink from the brook by the road; therefore He will lift up His head.\u201d]\n\nAnd you ought to make it as part of your New Year\u2019s resolutions to at least read Acts 2 and Psalm 110 in your devotional time because those are really critical sections of Scripture.\u00a0 And in Acts 2:34 Peter quotes it as follows: \u201cFor it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: \u201c\u2018THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, \u2018SIT AT MY\u2019 where? \u201cRIGHT HAND, \u201c now that\u2019s not David\u2019s throne, is it?\u00a0 That\u2019s God\u2019s right hand which is where?\u00a0 In heaven.\u00a0 And how long is Jesus supposed to be at the right hand of the Father?\u00a0 Forever?\u00a0 No, what word is the giveaway, \u201cUntil.\u201d\u00a0 [35] UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.\u2019\u201d Acts 2:34-35.\n\nSo Peter is explaining to them where the Holy Spirit has come from that\u2019s given them all of these miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues.\u00a0 And you might recall that when the early church began and the Spirit was poured out and they started to speak in tongues, the unbelieving Jews said they\u2019re just drunk, which is what the natural mind does.\u00a0 It takes things that God has done and tries to explain them away naturally.\u00a0 Oh, they\u2019re just drunk.\u00a0 And Peter\u2019s response in Acts 2 is they\u2019re not just drunk because number one, it\u2019s 9:00 o\u2019clock in the morning and even an alcoholic, and we\u2019ve all known, sadly, people in our lives that have been alcoholics, even an alcoholic generally, at least the ones I\u2019ve known, have not started their drinking at 9:00 a.m.\u00a0 That\u2019s pretty early.\n\nSo number one they\u2019re not drunk because it\u2019s 9:00 o\u2019clock in the morning and number two, the person that\u2019s actually sent the Holy Spirit causing tongues and all these other things, is Jesus that you crucified, by the way, Israel.\u00a0 And where is He currently?\u00a0 He\u2019s at the Father\u2019s right hand functioning as high priest.\u00a0 So Christ\u2019s first order of business after His ascension when He ascended to the Father\u2019s right hand and started his high priestly ministry, His first order of business was to give to the church (that was just starting there) the Holy Spirit.\n\nAnd so Peter is weaving together all of these verses to prove this point.\u00a0 So he\u2019s saying (A) Jesus is the Davidic heir, verse 30, and (B) He\u2019s not sitting on David\u2019s throne now but He\u2019s at the Father\u2019s right hand functioning as high priest and that\u2019s where the Holy Spirit has come from.\n\nSo what people are doing today is they\u2019re taking verse 30 and verses 34-35 and they\u2019re trying to combine them together.\u00a0 I mean, after all, one verse talks about His \u201csitting,\u201d verse 34 and 35, and another verse talks about Him being a descendant or an heir of David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 And they\u2019re taking the word \u201csit\u201d and \u201cthrone\u201d as a commonality in the two verses and they\u2019re trying to weave this case together that Jesus is now seated on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 He\u2019s not functioning as high priest, He\u2019s functioning as Davidic king.\u00a0 So according to their thinking we ae in the Davidic kingdom now.\n\nAnd the issue becomes are these verses actually saying that.\u00a0 And here\u2019s where I quoted last time, I won\u2019t read the whole quote to you again, but a quote from E. R. Craven back in 1874 refuting this misuse of Acts 2 to teach that Jesus is now reigning on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 And I underlined the key parts of the quote.\u00a0 He basically makes four points.\u00a0 Number one, \u201cNowhere in his sermon did the apostle declare the oneness of the two events;\u201d that\u2019s very important to understand because what people are doing is they\u2019re taking verse 30 and verses 34-35 and trying to make it sound like it\u2019s one thing and they\u2019re not really respecting what Peter is doing.\u00a0 Peter, as the Holy Spirit is guiding him, is putting together an intricate case for the Jewish mind to understand so they could repent of what they did with Christ and understand that the current work of the Holy Spirit has come from Christ.\u00a0 And so every time he quotes a verse it\u2019s a different point in his outline.\u00a0 I mean, if you think I\u2019m a detailed preacher I couldn\u2019t hold a candle to what Peter does here in Acts 2.\u00a0 I mean, it\u2019s a literary masterpiece what he does.\n\nAnd verse 30, his only point is Jesus is the Davidic heir, end of point.\u00a0 Verses 34-35, where is that Davidic heir now?\u00a0 He\u2019s at the Father\u2019s right hand.\u00a0 So he uses Psalm 132:11 to demonstrate point A to the Jewish mind and he uses Psalm 110 verse 1 to demonstrate point B to the Jewish mind.\u00a0 [Psalm 132:11, \u201cThe LORD has sworn to David A truth from which He will not turn back: \"Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne.\u201d\u00a0 Psalm 110:1, \u201cA Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: \u201cSit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.\u201d]\u00a0 They are different parts contributing to his major idea that the Spirit that they\u2019re experiencing now is actually a work of God and they shouldn\u2019t attribute the whole thing to drunkenness the way they are.\u00a0 And they need to change their minds about who Jesus is.\n\nSo E. R. Craven says, \u201cNowhere in his sermon did the apostle declare the oneness of the two events;\u201d that\u2019s Craven\u2019s first point.\u00a0 Craven\u2019s second point,\u00a0 is this, the apostle, Peter that is, \u201cbe it remembered was arguing with Jews to prove that the absent Jesus was the Messiah,\u201d verse 36, \u201cHe was arguing with those, one of whose most cherished beliefs it was that the Messiah should occupy a visible throne.\u00a0 All the Hebrews understood this.\u00a0 They understood, going all the way back to the throne of David and its revelation in the Old Testament, that the Davidic Covenant, what when David\u2019s throne is set up one day, it\u2019s not going to be in the stars somewhere, it\u2019s not going to be in the clouds, it\u2019s going to be very literal, it\u2019s going to be on planet earth, and it\u2019s going to be Jesus ruling the world,\u00a0 the Messiah ruling the world from that physical location.\u00a0 I mean it\u2019s going to be so physical that in that day, when the kingdom starts you will actually be able to go up to Christ and shake His hand.\u00a0 And you probably won\u2019t even have to give a campaign contribution for the privilege.\u00a0 That\u2019s how literal it\u2019s going to be.\n\nI mean, we\u2019re talking about face to face communication.\u00a0 It\u2019s not like today where He\u2019s an absent Messiah functioning as priest. When He\u2019s reigning as King it\u2019s like a one to one occurrence.\u00a0 And all the Hebrews, and you can\u2019t find a shred of any data anywhere in the Old Testament that says anything otherwise; they all understood it that way.\u00a0 So since Peter is speaking to Jews on the Day of Pentecost, that\u2019s why all these Jews are there from the known world, these Hebrews and they\u2019re present because they\u2019re told in Leviticus 23 to show up for certain feasts and one of those feasts is the Day of Pentecost.\u00a0 Josephus says there could have been a million people or so in Jerusalem at that time.\u00a0 I\u2019m not sure\u2026 you can take that figure for what it\u2019s worth but there\u2019s a lot of people there and they\u2019re supposed to be there.\n\nAnd so that crowd, to tell them that oh, the whole deal has been cancelled, no physical throne of David on the earth, it\u2019s all been transported into heaven, would have been laughed right out of the city.\u00a0 And if Peter was really making that point he\u2019d have to do a lot more, as Ricky said to Lucy, \u201cyou\u2019ve got some esplain\u2019 to do\u201d Peter would have to do a lot more \u201cesplain\u201d than what he does here if he\u2019s going to communicate to a Jewish crowd that the Davidic throne is no longer literal and it\u2019s somehow being fulfilled in heaven.\u00a0 That\u2019s Craven\u2019s second point.\u00a0 And those two I think we covered last time.\n\nCraven\u2019s third point is the interpretation to justify the writer is confirmed not only by its consistency with the previous teachings of our Lord, how did Jesus teach the Davidic throne?\u00a0 Always literal and on the earth.\u00a0 Remember when the mother of Zebedee\u2019s sons, James and John, came to Christ and said can these people [can't understand word] when You enter Your kingdom, sit on Your right and left?\u00a0 Remember what Jesus said?\u00a0 He didn\u2019t say Oh\u00a0 you silly woman, don\u2019t you understand it\u2019s not going to be a literal David\u2019s throne?\u00a0 He never said that! What He said is, in essence, the cross comes before the crown.\u00a0 That\u2019s what she didn\u2019t understand.\u00a0 It\u2019s not a matter of Jesus somehow cancelling the earthly program that\u2019s predicted.\n\nSo Craven says, \u201cThe interpretation suggested\u201d the one I\u2019m doing here,\u00a0 \u201cis confirmed not only by its consistency with the previous teachings of our Lord, but by the address delivered by the Apostle Peter shortly after, Acts 3:19, 20.\u201d\u00a0 Now we\u2019ll look at Acts 3:19-20 in just a minute.\u00a0 Act 3 follows Acts 2, right?\u00a0 You guys with me on that?\u00a0 So they\u2019re all arguing this big change happened in Acts 2, that\u2019s the pivotal chapter.\u00a0 Well if this big change happened and Jesus is reigning on a Davidic throne in heaven, not terrestrial but celestial, then the comments Peter makes in Acts 3 make zero sense.\u00a0 We\u2019ll look at that in a second.\u00a0 That\u2019s Craven\u2019s third point.\n\nBy the way, did Peter write some books?\u00a0 I mean, he not only gave this sermon and several others but he wrote a couple of books, and those are called 1 Peter and 2 Peter.\u00a0 And he wrote those books, probably over three decades after he gave this sermon.\u00a0 So Peter, in this sermon, in Acts 2, is basically arguing that Jesus is now reigning on David\u2019s throne from heaven and the comments he makes in his two books, 1\u00a0 Peter and 2 Peter, make zero sense.\u00a0 See, the comments he makes in Acts 3 don\u2019t make any sense and the comments he makes at the very end of his life don\u2019t make any sense.\u00a0 And this is very important to understand because when you develop an interpretation of the Bible you want to make sure it\u2019s in harmony with everything else you read in the Bible.\n
    \n \t
  1. R. Craven is saying that the interpretation that we\u2019re giving here, of Acts 2, fits exactly with what Jesus taught about the Davidic throne. It fits exactly what Peter himself taught about the Davidic throne a chapter later and it fits exactly what Peter himself taught about the Davidic throne in his two epistles thirty years later at the end of his life.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nSo let\u2019s just look at these four points, we\u2019ve done two, let\u2019s look at these last two points he makes.\u00a0 Let\u2019s look at this bottom point.\u00a0 If Peter was teaching in Acts 2 that Jesus is just now reigning on David\u2019s throne does that jive, or is that in harmony with Peter\u2019s own words, given three decades later in his epistles?\u00a0 And one of the problems people have is they sit and strain on a verse so long it takes on a life of its own.\u00a0 Has that ever happened to you?\u00a0 And suddenly you\u2019re coming up with an interpretation of it that doesn\u2019t fit the rest of the Bible.\u00a0 Well, that\u2019s sort of a clue that you\u2019re too myopic on that one verse and you need to kind of back up and instead of looking at the veins on the leaves of the tree so intently you have to at some point back up and look at the whole forest.\u00a0 I mean, if I\u2019ve got some interpretation all analogized to a tree in a forest that doesn\u2019t fit the height or anything of the rest of the forest, chances are that tree is out of place.\u00a0 And my interpretation could be out of place.\u00a0 So whatever you\u2019re studying and reading you\u2019ve got to look at it in the harmony of the totality of God\u2019s revelation.\n\nSo what does Peter say in 1 Peter 1:4-7.\u00a0 He talks about an attaining and an inheritance.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0[1 Peter 1:4-7, \u201cto obtain<\/em> an inheritance which is<\/em> imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, [5] who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. [6]In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, [7] so that the proof of your faith, being<\/em> more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;\u201d]\n\nNow what\u2019s an inheritance?\u00a0 It\u2019s something that\u2019s legally yours but you have not entered into enjoying it yet.\u00a0 That\u2019s basically what an inheritance is.\u00a0 And you\u2019ll notice that he says this inheritance that we are going to receive is at the revelation of Jesus Christ.\u00a0 So right now I\u2019m just an inheritor, I\u2019m an owner but I\u2019m not a possessor or an enjoyer until when?\u00a0 The return of Christ.\u00a0 That\u2019s an inheritance.\u00a0 And what inheritance is He talking about?\u00a0 I think He\u2019s talking about the kingdom because over in Colossians 1:12-13 Paul tells us that the kingdom, at the very end of the verse there, verse 13, is a what? An \u201cinheritance,\u201d verse 12. \u00a0\u00a0Paul says, \u201cgiving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.\u00a0 [13] For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,\u201d That is who we are positionally, we are inheritors of the coming kingdom, citizens of the coming kingdom, but are we in the kingdom now?\u00a0 That couldn\u2019t be or else the word \u201cinheritance\u201d wouldn\u2019t be used. See that?\n\nI mean, we\u2019ll be dealing with Colossians 1 as we continue through the course of this study.\u00a0 And so when Peter says our inheritance, which is the kingdom, is not going to be given to us, we\u2019re entitled to it but we don\u2019t receive it until the revelation of Jesus Christ.\u00a0 What he\u2019s saying is the kingdom is not going to come until Jesus comes back first.\u00a0 Right?\u00a0 Now if that\u2019s Peter\u2019s clear point in 1 Peter chapter 1 how in the world can I come up with an interpretation that says the kingdom already started on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.\u00a0 I mean, those two sections of Scripture don\u2019t fit at all, do they?\u00a0 So that\u2019s sort of a clue that if you\u2019re holding to a \u201ckingdom now\u201d interpretation of Acts 2 you need to rethink that because it doesn\u2019t fit at all with what Peter\u2019s first epistle says.\n\nOne of the things to understand about the Bible is the Bible cannot contradict itself.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Because the whole thing comes from the mind of God.\u00a0 Now we might look at it in a first glance with our little puny finite perspective, there might be contradictions but if you think they\u2019re contradictions in God\u2019s Word that means (A) you\u2019re interpreting the Bible incorrectly, one verse incorrectly, or maybe you\u2019re interpreting another verse incorrectly, or worse yet, maybe you\u2019re interpreting both incorrectly because at the end of the day there\u2019s not going to be any contradictions in God\u2019s Word even though it might seem that way to us.\u00a0 It\u2019s like the people that were blindfolded and they\u2019re feeling different sides of an elephant, one person is touching the elephants trunk, and he\u2019s grabbing it and he\u2019s blindfolded and he\u2019s saying it feels like a giant tube.\u00a0 And another person is touching the elephant\u2019s foot, touching the elephant\u2019s toes and he says it feels like five lumps here.\u00a0 And another person is touching the elephant\u2019s side and he\u2019s saying it seems like it\u2019s just a giant wall.\u00a0 Now if you looked at each of their testimonies independently of each other they look contradictory, don\u2019t they.\u00a0 I mean, how could they describe something so different when it\u2019s the same animal?\u00a0 Well, when you take the blindfolds off and everybody figures out they\u2019re touching different parts of the same animal what happens to the contradictions?\u00a0 They disappear.\n\nAnd see, that\u2019s what Bible study is like a lot of the time.\u00a0 A lot of times we\u2019re not really seeing something correctly or seeing something clearly and we\u2019ve just got to kind of step back and wait on God and I think eventually He starts to show us, maybe a certain interpretation of something we have is incorrect to begin with.\u00a0 So it\u2019s a humility in reading the Bible. I\u2019ve interpreted many things incorrectly in the Bible throughout the course of my Christian life and had to be set straight on it.\u00a0 And what kind of clued me in is there was a blatant contradiction of my inter\u00adpretation with another part of the Bible.\n\nAnd even though I\u2019ve done a bunch of studying in the Bible and preaching and teaching in the Bible I still am in that position where I could get something incorrect.\u00a0 And I need to be in a place of humility, not acting like I know everything because I don\u2019t, and letting the Lord gently rearrange, not His Word but my misconstruing of His Word.\u00a0 See, this is what\u2019s happening with kingdom now theology.\u00a0 They\u2019re holding to some view in Acts 2 that doesn\u2019t fit at all with what Peter himself wrote in his own epistle.\n\nAnd if you flip over to 2 Peter 1:11 and verse 16, this is Peter\u2019s sequel; the prequel is 1 Peter, the sequel is 2 Peter.\u00a0 1 Peter is about suffering for the cause of Christ and the hope of future glory.\u00a0 2 Peter is about false teachers.\u00a0 1 Peter is about pain with a purpose.\u00a0 2 Peter is about poison in the pew.\u00a0 So he\u2019s dealing with different subjects in 2 Peter, but he gets into the whole subject of the kingdom, verse 11.\u00a0 \u201cFor in the same way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be\u201d now this is thirty years after the day of Pentecost, \u201cwill be abundantly supplied to you.\u201d\u00a0 Does it sound like he believed He was in the kingdom now?\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0No, he\u2019s saying it will be supplied to you.\n\nAnd when are we going to get the kingdom?\u00a0 It says there in verse 16, \u201cat the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.\u201d\u00a0 [1 Thessalonians 3:13, \u201cso that He may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.\u201d]\n\nSo this is why we are, at this church, premillennial.\u00a0 What does that mean?\u00a0 Millennium means a thousand\u00a0 years, it\u2019s not a word found in the Bible, it\u2019s a Latin word, mille<\/em>, meaning a thousand, anum<\/em> meaning\u00a0 years, when you put those two words together in Latin it comes out to millennium, \u00a0a thousand\u00a0 years, and we are pre-millennial. What does that mean?\u00a0 Jesus comes back first, \u201cpre,\u201d and then what follows, the kingdom.\u00a0 It\u2019s the opposite of postmillennialism where basically what they\u2019re saying is the kingdom comes first and Jesus comes back second or post, after the millennium.\n\nSo when you go through the Book of Revelation and when we\u2019re doing that on Sunday morning what you\u2019re going to see is chapter 19 comes before chapter 20;\u00a0 you guys agree with me on that?\u00a0 What\u2019s in chapter 19?\u00a0 The return of Jesus.\u00a0 What\u2019s in chapter 20?\u00a0 The thousand year reign of Christ, premillennialism.\u00a0 And what Peter is arguing for here, he\u2019s not using all these words that theologians use today but it\u2019s basically premillennial because he basically says the kingdom is future and it\u2019s coming with the advent of Jesus Christ.\u00a0 It says the same thing through the use of the word \u201cinheritance\u201d in the first letter.\u00a0 So therefore Acts 2 could not be teaching kingdom now theology because Peter himself is putting the kingdom in the future.\n\nNow Craven\u2019s fourth point is Acts 3:19-21, remember in Acts 2 Peter has given his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, which everybody thinks means the kingdom started, and then Peter, I think it\u2019s Peter and John isn\u2019t it, if I remember right, they get into trouble, they heal somebody if I remember right, at least Peter does, and he has an opportunity now because they\u2019re wondering where the source of the healing is coming from.\u00a0 The Sadducees were upset about this healing.\u00a0 Now who are the Sadducees?\u00a0 The Sadducees were always sad you see!\u00a0 Why is that?\u00a0 They didn\u2019t believe in the resurrection; I\u2019d be sad too if I didn\u2019t believe in the resurrection because there\u2019s no hope if you don\u2019t believe in the resurrection.\u00a0 They only believed the first five books of Moses were inspired.\u00a0 And that\u2019s why Jesus, and they try to trap Him and how dumb is that, trying to trap God?\u00a0 I think it\u2019s in Matthew 22, and they basically ask Him a trick question.\u00a0 They play Stump the Professor; a lot of students are like that, let\u2019s stump the professor.\u00a0 A lot of students I had in college felt that was their spiritual gift, we\u2019re going to stump the professor.\n\nSo they come to Christ and they get into this subject about the resurrection and all these kinds of things and they say well, if a man is married to one woman and he dies and she marries someone else and the second man dies and the third man marries here and that guy dies, by that time I\u2019d be wondering what she\u2019s putting in the coffee in the morning.\u00a0 And this process goes on and on and they say ha, ha, ha, trying to make Jesus look dumb; who\u2019s she going to be married to in the resurrection?\u00a0 And what you\u2019ll notice is in the answer Jesus gives He doesn\u2019t quote Daniel 12:2, which you are all familiar with because we studied it on Sunday mornings.\u00a0 Daniel 12:2 is the strongest resurrection passage you have in the whole Old Testament.\u00a0 [Daniel 12:2, \u201cMany of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.\u201d]\u00a0 He doesn\u2019t quote Daniel 12:2.\n\nHe quotes the Book of Exodus, early Exodus.\u00a0 Now why would he leave out Daniel 12:2 and instead quote Exodus?\u00a0 Because He\u2019s dealing with the Sadducees and the Sadducees were always sad\u00a0 you see, because they didn\u2019t believe in resurrection and they only believed in the first five books of the Bible that we call Torah.\u00a0 So what Jesus is doing in Matthew 22 to this trick question in front of Him is He\u2019s beating them on their own turf.\u00a0 See that.\u00a0 I mean, if He quoted Daniel 12:2 it wouldn\u2019t mean anything to them, they didn\u2019t believe Daniel 12:2.\u00a0 And so that\u2019s why it\u2019s an amazing thing that goes on there, I think it\u2019s in Matthew 22, to watch Jesus outwit these people.\n\nAnd then I love the end there, I think it\u2019s around the end, it says, \u201cFrom that point on no one dared ask Him another question.\u201d \u00a0[Matthew 22:46, \u201cNo one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.\u201d]\u00a0 Anyway, I have no idea what that had to do with what we were talking about here.\n\nBut in Acts 3\u2026 [someone says something]\u00a0 Oh yes, that\u2019s right, because He was speaking to the Sadducees here in Acts 3, because they want to know where this source of healing came from as Peter has healed somebody.\u00a0 \u00a0I think it was the lame man there, Acts 3:10, that was made well instantaneously. [Acts 3:9, \u201cAnd all the people saw him walking and praising God; [10] and they were taking note of him as being the one who used to sit at the Beautiful Gate of the temple to beg alms, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.\u201d] That\u2019s a biblical healing.\u00a0 It\u2019s not a gradual thing when the gift of healing is in operation it\u2019s an instant healing.\n\nSo his legs were immediately made strong, he stood up.\u00a0 And then the Sadducees\u2026 and the Sadducees had authority over the temple area; the Pharisees, by contrast, had authority in the synagogues, which were dispersed throughout the Greco-Roman world.\u00a0 The Sadducees were basically what we would today call liberals and the Pharisees were basically what today we would call legalists.\u00a0 They believe in more truth than the Sadducees did but the problem is they added all these layers to it in terms of tradition, the Mishnah and all these kinds of things, the Talmud.\n\nThat\u2019s why the early church is being persecuted, not by the Pharisees but by the Sadducees.\u00a0 The enemies of Christ in the Gospels are the Pharisees because Jesus is many times outside of Jerusalem, in synagogue type territory.\u00a0 But the enemies of the early church are the Sadducees because they had jurisdiction over the temple area.\u00a0 So this healing occurred and the Sadducees want to know where the source of it is and this gives Peter an opportunity to explain where that healing came from.\u00a0 It came from Jesus who was at the right hand of the Father. So you have another sermon here kind of condemning what first century Israel did and an opportunity for anybody listening to repent or change their mind.\u00a0 Go from being a Christ rejecting Jew to a Christ accepting Jew.\n\nSo in the process Peter says this, \u201cTherefore repent\u201d which means what?\u00a0 Change your mind, \u201cand return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; [20] and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, [21] whom heaven must receive until the<\/em> period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.\u201d\n\nNow a lot of people, particularly of what we would call the ultra-hyper dispensational persuasion, not uniquely to them but many people believe that what is happening in Acts is the kingdom is being reoffered to Israel.\u00a0 I, as I tried to explain in my book, and I think we covered this earlier in the course, I\u2019m not of that persuasion because I think that what happened in Matthew 12 was final.\u00a0 They had committed the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit nationally because the leaders rejected Christ and His coming kingdom because they attributed His miracles to the devil.\u00a0 The kingdom offer is withdrawn from that point on, Matthew 12.\u00a0 So early Matthew it kept saying \u201cRepent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,\u201d you get to Matthew 12 you don\u2019t find that language any more.\u00a0 You find Jesus from that point on training the remnant.\n\nSo I don\u2019t really think there\u2019s a reoffer of the kingdom in Acts 3.\u00a0 But many, many people do and they think Peter here is reoffering the kingdom to Israel.\u00a0 I think what Peter is doing is he\u2019s laying down the condition that has to be met one day by Israel for the kingdom to come.\u00a0 I think that\u2019s what he\u2019s saying.\u00a0 It\u2019s kind of the same kind of thing that Jesus says at the end of Matthew 23:37 when He says, \u201cJerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!\u201d [38] \u201cBehold, your house is being left to you desolate! [39] For I say to you,\u201d he\u2019s giving a future condition here, \u201cFor I say unto you,\u201d who\u2019s \u201cyou\u201d?\u00a0 Israel, generic you, not just first century Israel, he\u2019s speaking of what future Israel is supposed to do, \u201cfrom now on you will not see Me until you say, \u2018Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the LORD;!\u2019\u201d Which is a citation from Psalm 118:26, which is\u00a0 a Messianic Psalm. [Psalm 118:26, \u201cBlessed is the one who comes in the name of the LORD; We have blessed you from the house of the LORD.]\n\nYou\u2019re not going to get your kingdom, Israel, because you threw Me out of this nation, but one of these days you\u2019ll get it because you get it right which time, the first time or the second time?\u00a0 The second time, you\u2019re going to get it right one of these days in the future tribulation period when you\u2019re going to acknowledge Me as the Messiah and He lays out the condition by which they must receive Him and consequently the kingdom will come.\u00a0 That\u2019s what I think is happening here in Acts 3.\u00a0 I don\u2019t think it\u2019s a reoffer, I think it\u2019s a condition prophetically that Peter is laying out.\n\nBut you\u2019ll notice here He talks about the times of refreshing once Israel receives Christ, and the restoration of all things.\u00a0 So obviously they have to meet this condition for the times of refreshing and the restoration of all things\u2026 by the way, \u201cthe times of refreshing\u201d and \u201cthe restoration of all things\u201d are synonyms for the kingdom; it\u2019s just another way of saying the kingdom\u00a0 [Acts 3:19-21, \u201cTherefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; [20] and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, [21] whom heaven must receive until the<\/em> period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.\u201d]\n\nSo if they have to meet a condition of repentance before the kingdom can come, as Peter has explained in Acts 3, then do you think that the kingdom already came one chapter earlier?\u00a0 That makes no sense, does it?\u00a0 I mean, if the kingdom already came and Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne now, then why does Peter hold out a future condition for the manifestation of the kingdom to the Sadducees in the very next chapter?\u00a0 So that would be Craven\u2019s fourth point.\u00a0 If you want to buy into kingdom now theology from Acts 2\u00a0 you\u2019ve got four problems, the latter two we\u2019ve just spoken of, one being it doesn\u2019t fit with 1 Peter or 2 Peter, nor does it fit with what Peter says in Acts 3.\n\nNow let me throw a little monkey wrench into this also, if I can.\u00a0 Here\u2019s what\u2019s happening today.\u00a0 You have people that are called progressive dispensationalist, we\u2019ve talked about them, haven\u2019t we, and their view of the kingdom is not the kingdom is totally here but they believe in what\u2019s called already\/not yet.\u00a0 So they think the kingdom is here in part but the kingdom will not be completely here until the second coming of Christ.\u00a0 This is the dominant perspective now at my alma mater, Dallas Theological Seminary, and it\u2019s sort of sad to watch because A, the school wasn\u2019t founded on that, and B, it contradicts the doctrinal statement of that very school because the doctrinal statement says there are at least three dispensations, Age of Law, Age of Church or they call it grace, age of grace, age of church, and kingdom.\u00a0 And it says very specifically in the doctrinal statement that these three are chronological and not to be intermingled or confused.\n\nSo when someone is saying today that we\u2019re in the kingdom now and Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne now in any sense they\u2019re violating the doctrinal statement.\u00a0 And the problem with violating a doctrinal statement is if you can violate it in one area what can you then do?\u00a0 Violate it in another area.\u00a0 It\u2019s like judges interpreting our Constitution; \u00a0I mean, they\u2019ve already trashed the Constitution in one area so why not do it in another case in another area?\u00a0 And that\u2019s why doctrinal statements, to my mind, are actually a big deal and need to be enforced.\n\nIn fact, when I first came to this church we were looking for a youth pastor, this was long before Gabe showed up, and we had a committee going through all of these resumes and finally the committee decided on somebody, and I discovered the persons eschatology was basically already\/ not yet, he was calling himself a historic premillennialist, which is this idea that Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne now but the full kingdom will come later.\u00a0 And if you look at our doctrinal statement here at Sugar Land Bible Church it\u2019s patterned almost word for word in certain places after the doctrinal statement of Dallas Seminary.\u00a0 So the committee picked this guy and everybody liked him and everybody\u2019s heart strings were pulled and he had a nice family and then it kind of got to my desk for final approval and the mean pastor that I am\u2026 and see, nobody really understood this because I didn\u2019t really have time to sit down with the committee and explain this whole thing to them, the guy\u2019s eschatology goes directly against the Sugar Land Bible Church doctrinal statement.\u00a0 You say well, is that that big of a deal?\u00a0 Well, to me it\u2019s a big deal because if you can just ignore it in one area when\u2019s the next time you\u2019re going to ignore it?\u00a0 See that?\n\nSo in this already\/not yet system what the progressive dispensationalists are arguing is the times of refreshing there in verse 19, is the \u201calready\u201d part of the kingdom.\u00a0 [Acts 3:19, \u201cTherefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;\u201d] The \u201ctimes of refreshing\u201d are not they think.\u00a0 But then when you get to verse 21 and it talks about the \u201crestoration of all things\u201d that\u2019s the not yet part.\u00a0 [Acts 3:21, \u201cwhom heaven must receive until the<\/em> period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.\u201d]\u00a0 See what\u2019s happening here?\u00a0 In other words, you\u2019ve got people with a pre-existing theology already\/not yet and they\u2019re looking at the biblical text and they\u2019re letting the text be absorbed in their pre-existing theology.\u00a0 And that\u2019s not how you do theology; you don\u2019t want to take your theology to the text, you want to derive your theology from the text.\u00a0 And they\u2019re, what I would call, theologizing Acts 3:19-21 because exegetically, and don\u2019t put your theology into place before you have your exegesis down in terms of what the passage is saying.\n\nThat passage is not saying that, what the progressive dispensationalists think.\u00a0 You can\u2019t take one verse as the \u201calready\u201d and verse 21 as a \u201cnot yet.\u201d That may be what your theology says but that\u2019s not what the passage says.\u00a0 And if I have a theology that\u2019s contradicting the passage, then what needs to be altered?\u00a0 Not the passage but my theology.\u00a0\u00a0 And that\u2019s why I was talking about we have to be humble as we interpret the Bible.\u00a0 And that\u2019s not where people are at today\u2014we\u2019re going to make this fit no matter what is sort of the mindset.\u00a0 I mean, there\u2019s such an arrogance and lack of disrespect for God\u2019s Word that people all the time are coming to the Bible to make it fit their ideas, as if God really cares what our ideas are.\u00a0 God has disclosed Himself.\u00a0 My function as a believer and as a disciple is to think my thoughts after Him, not get God to fit into my little box. Do you see that?\n\nSo I just want to show you why Acts 3:19-21 is not teaching already\/not yet.\u00a0 First of all, both clauses, the one in verse 19, \u201ctimes of refreshing,\u201d the one in verse 21, \u201crestoration of all things,\u201d both in Greek follow the expression \u201cin order that.\u201d \u00a0So they both flow from \u201cin order that.\u201d\n\nFurthermore, both expressions the \u201ctimes of refreshing\u201d and the \u201crestoration of all things\u201d are connected by the conjunction, kai<\/em>, translated \u201cand\u201d there in verse 20.\u00a0 Fourthly, \u201cmay come,\u201d verse 19, and \u201cmay send,\u201d verse 20, are both in the subjunctive mood meaning the mood of possibility.\u00a0 And then fourthly both expressions are followed by plural nouns, \u201ctimes\u201d\u00a0 plural noun, kairos<\/em>, verse 19, period, plural noun chronos<\/em>.\u00a0 So when you factor in all of those things that I just rattled off there they both follow \u201cin order that,\u201d they\u2019re both connected by kai<\/em>, both clauses contain subjunctive verbs, and the nouns in both clauses are plural, you start to see very fast that \u201cthe times of refreshing\u201d and \u201cthe restoration of all things\u201d is talking about the same event, which would be what?\u00a0 The manifestation of what?\u00a0 The kingdom.\u00a0 Only if you completely ignore the grammar of the passage can you make one part of it today and another part of it future.\n\nSo this is why I\u2019ve never had a lot of respect for progressive dispensationalism because (A) I felt it was violating the doctrinal statement of the school that everybody\u2019s supposed to sign as a professor and (B) it bothered me that they would run roughshod over passages like this.\u00a0 You say well, gee, Andy, you\u2019ve got some very harsh views on things.\u00a0 Well let me give you this quote from Stan Toussaint, a Greek scholar, longtime professor at Dallas Seminary, he\u2019s with the Lord now, one of my favorites, and he makes this point about Acts 3:19-21 in response to progressive dispensationalism.\n\n\u201cThe two clauses that follow \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 go together. In other words the clause \u2018that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord\u2019 must be taken with the words \u2018and that He may send Jesus.\u2019 As Haenchen\u201d another scholar, \u201cputs it, \u2018The two promises are complementary statements about one and the same event.\u2019 Nothing grammatically separates the promises; in fact they are joined together by the connective \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76. The noun \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u03cd\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, translated \u201crefreshing,\u201d is a New Testament hapax legomenon<\/em>,\u201d a fancy word for saying it\u2019s used only once here in the New Testament.\u00a0 \u201cIt is used in Greek literature in various forms to refer to \u2018cooling by blowing, refreshing, relieving, resting.\u2019 It occurs in the Septuagint only in Exodus (Eng., 8:15; lxx, v. 11), where it refers to relief from the plague of frogs.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0Schweitzer correctly observes, \u2018The context makes sense only if the \u2018times of refreshing\u2019 are the definitive age of salvation. The expression is undoubtedly apocalyptic in origin. . . . The reference, then, is to the eschatological redemption which is promised to Israel if it repents.\u2019 Furthermore the plural \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76, \u2018times,\u2019 in Acts 3:19, parallels the plural noun \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, \u2018seasons\u2019 or \u2018times,\u2019 in verse 21 (which is translated \u2018period\u2019 in the NASB). The two terms refer to the same era,\u201d see that? \u201cand the plural forms simply emphasize duration. The context makes it clear that the synonyms refer to the future kingdom, with \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 emphasizing the quality of time and \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd emphasizing the duration of the time.\u201d\u00a0 [Acts 3:19-21 Stanley D. Toussaint and Jay A. Quine, \u201cNo, Not Yet: The Contingency of God\u2019s Promised Kingdom,\u201d Bibliotheca Sacra<\/em> 164 (April\u2013June 2007): 138, 141\u2019]\n\nSo what is Toussaint saying?\u00a0 You cannot grammatically separate those two clauses.\u00a0 But people do it and they say well, one refers to the already form of the kingdom, one refers to the not yet form of the kingdom.\u00a0\u00a0 Here\u2019s a quote\u00a0 \u2026\u00a0 I think what I\u2019m going to do is I\u2019m going to let you read that quote on your own because there\u2019s a couple more points I want to make before we close\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n[Acts 3:19-21, \u201cBock argues for two separate time periods for these events in support of his \u2018already, not yet\u2019 view on the Davidic kingdom. He says the \u2018periods of refreshing\u2019 refer to the present time when sins can be wiped away through repentance, and that the \u2018times of restoration of all things\u2019 refers to the millennium. \u2018Among the points in support of this distinction is that in the LXX translation by Symmachus, a reference to the descent of the Spirit in Isaiah 32:15 uses the term \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c8\u03c5\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 (refreshment), a term related to the one in Acts 3:20.\u2019 However, the context of Isaiah 32:15 refers to millennial blessings to national Israel, a fact that supports the single-stage restoration view, not a two-phase \u2018already, not yet\u2019 restoration.\n\nWalker suggests a two-stage restoration in Acts 3:19\u201321. He, like Bock, maintains that the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u03cd\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 (\u2018times of refreshing\u2019) relates to special experiences of grace and blessing in this age, whereas the \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 (\u2018period of restoration\u2019) in verse 21 refers to the climactic age of blessings for the nation of Israel in fulfillment of Old Testament messianic promises. . . .\u201d \u201cThe main weakness in dividing these two events into separate time periods is that the text connects the events with a coordinating \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 (\u2018and\u2019) in Acts 3:20. The syntactical structure coordinates the two verbs \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (\u2018come,\u2019 v. 19) and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u1fc3 (\u2018send\u2019) of the subordinate clause \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd in . . . verse 20 with the two main verbs \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 (\u2018repent\u2019) and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 (\u2018return\u2019) in verse 19. Repentance and turning to God result in the coming of the times of refreshing and the sending of Jesus Christ at the restoration of all things God spoke about in the prophets. The sending of Jesus Christ will provide the personal presence that will result in the times of refreshing. These results are not events separated by time. They are mutual benefits that will come when the Father sends the Son so that believers may be refreshed in His presence. Conzelmann argues that \u2018the parallelism between the two halves of the verse shows that the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u03cd\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u2018times of refreshing,\u2019 are not intervals of respite\u2026\n\n[27] in the eschatological distress, but rather the final salvation (like the \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u2018restoration\u2019).\u201d \u201cThe main weakness in dividing these two events into separate time periods is that the text connects the events with a coordinating \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 (\u2018and\u2019) in Acts 3:20. The syntactical structure coordinates the two verbs \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (\u2018come,\u2019 v. 19) and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u1fc3 (\u2018send\u2019) of the subordinate clause \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd in verse 20 with the two main verbs \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 (\u2018repent\u2019) and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 (\u2018return\u2019) in verse 19. Repentance and turning to God result in the coming of the times of refreshing and the sending of Jesus Christ at the restoration of all things God spoke about in the prophets. The sending of Jesus Christ will\u2026\n\n[28] \u2026 provide the personal presence that will result in the times of refreshing. These results are not events separated by time. They are mutual benefits that will come when the Father sends the Son so that believers may be refreshed in His presence. Conzelmann argues that \u2018the parallelism between the two halves of the verse shows that the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u03cd\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u2018times of refreshing,\u2019 are not intervals of respite in the eschatological distress, but rather the final salvation (like the \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u2018restoration\u2019).\u201d [John A. McLean, \u201cDid Jesus Correct the Disciples\u2019 View of the Kingdom?,\u201d Bibliotheca Sacra<\/em> 151, no. 602 (April\u2013June 1994): 223\u201325.]\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThis is a quote from John Mc McLean, commenting on Darrell Bock, a progressive dispensationalist, and his misuse of Acts 3:19-21 to fit his preconceived already not yet theology.\u00a0 In other words, McLain here, and it goes on I think four slides, makes the same point to Toussaint\u2019s five slides, made the same point in the last citation.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nBock argues for two separate time periods for these events in support of his \u2018already, not yet\u2019 view on the Davidic kingdom. He says the \u2018periods of refreshing\u2019 refer to the present time when sins can be wiped away through repentance, and that the \u2018times of restoration of all things\u2019 refers to the millennium. \u2018Among the points in support of this distinction is that in the LXX translation by Symmachus, a reference to the descent of the Spirit in Isaiah 32:15 uses the term \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c8\u03c5\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 (refreshment), a term related to the one in Acts 3:20.\u2019 However, the context of Isaiah 32:15 refers to millennial blessings to national Israel, a fact that supports the single-stage restoration view, not a two-phase \u2018already, not yet\u2019 restoration. Walker suggests a two-stage restoration in Acts 3:19\u201321. He, like Bock, maintains that the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u03cd\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 (\u2018times of refreshing\u2019) relates to special experiences of grace and blessing in this age, whereas the \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 (\u2018period of restoration\u2019) in verse 21 refers to the climactic age of blessings for the nation of Israel in fulfillment of Old Testament messianic promises. . . .\u201d \u201cThe main weakness in dividing these two events into separate time periods is that the text connects the events with a coordinating \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 (\u2018and\u2019) in Acts 3:20. The syntactical structure coordinates the two verbs \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (\u2018come,\u2019 v. 19) and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u1fc3 (\u2018send\u2019) of the subordinate clause \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd in verse 20 with the two main verbs \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 (\u2018repent\u2019) and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 (\u2018return\u2019) in verse 19. Repentance and turning to God result in the coming of the times of refreshing and the sending of Jesus Christ at the restoration of all things God spoke about in the prophets. The sending of Jesus Christ will provide the personal presence that will result in the times of refreshing. These results are not events separated by time. They are mutual benefits that will come when the Father sends the Son so that believers may be refreshed in His presence. Conzelmann argues that \u2018the parallelism between the two halves of the verse shows that the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u03cd\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u2018times of refreshing,\u2019 are not intervals of respite in the eschatological distress, but rather the final salvation (like the \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u2018restoration\u2019).\u201d \u201cThe main weakness in dividing these two events into separate time periods is that the text connects the events with a coordinating \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 (\u2018and\u2019) in Acts 3:20. The syntactical structure coordinates the two verbs \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (\u2018come,\u2019 v. 19) and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u1fc3 (\u2018send\u2019) of the subordinate clause \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd in verse 20 with the two main verbs \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 (\u2018repent\u2019) and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 (\u2018return\u2019) in verse 19. Repentance and turning to God result in the coming of the times of refreshing and the sending of Jesus Christ at the restoration of all things God spoke about in the prophets. The sending of Jesus Christ will provide the personal presence that will result in the times of refreshing. These results are not events separated by time. They are mutual benefits that will come when the Father sends the Son so that believers may be refreshed in His presence. Conzelmann argues that \u2018the parallelism between the two halves of the verse shows that the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u03cd\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u2018times of refreshing,\u2019 are not intervals of respite in the eschatological distress, but rather the final salvation (like the \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u2018restoration\u2019).\u201d\u00a0 [John A. McLean, \u201cDid Jesus Correct the Disciples\u2019 View of the Kingdom?,\u201d Bibliotheca Sacra<\/em> 151, no. 602 (April\u2013June 1994): 223\u201325.]\n\nSo\u00a0 if all of this is true what then do we refer to the present position of Christ?\u00a0 We should never refer to the present position of Christ as Davidic king or the Davidic reign and if I should drop\u00a0\u00a0 dead of a heart attack and you start looking for a new pastor\u2026 I\u2019m not planning on it it\u2019s just a hypothetical, then one of the questions you ought to ask him (and I hope it\u2019s a \u201chim\u201d by the way) should relate to the present position of Christ.\u00a0 Where do you believe Jesus is right now?\u00a0 And\u00a0 if you get a bunch of answers about already not yet, David\u2019s throne, anything other than Jesus is high priest at the right hand of the Father, which is the correct answer, and you get a bunch of drivel about all this other stuff you know that you\u2019re dealing with someone that\u2019s not on the same theological footing that this church is founded on, and currently teaches, and is reflected in our doctrinal statement and founding documents.\n\nAnd there are some prayer requests given earlier about the missions committee looking at missionaries, what do they believe, because you know these missionaries can shift their views when they get out on the field.\u00a0 They\u2019re away from the local church, they\u2019re in sometimes a completely pagan culture, do you think their theology is going to stay exactly the same?\u00a0 And here we are at Sugar Land Bible Church raising money to support missionaries telling the Christian public that the people that we are funding on the mission field, and we give a lot of money to missions at this church, 20%, right, of the budget and we\u2019re telling the Christian public that the money we raise at this church for missions, the missionaries all believe what we believe here at this church.\u00a0 Well how do you know that unless you give them an exam, because their theology may have shifted.\n\nSo in determining if their theology has shifted we have questions in our questionnaire, about forty-three questions, related to, you heard it in the prayer requests earlier, David\u2019s throne and the kingdom.\u00a0 And sometimes the missionary comes back and gives completely the wrong answer and then we ask well, are you open to change.\u00a0 Can you read this book?\u00a0 And the missions committee gives them my book.\u00a0 And some have taken the book and thrown it as far across the room as they could, didn\u2019t want anything to do with it, and we say to them\u00a0 you don\u2019t fit our doctrinal stand here. God\u2019s blessing on you but you\u2019re not a good fit with us.\u00a0 Other people have read the book and said you know what, I\u2019ve changed my position.\u00a0 And we say we appreciate your teaching ability, we appreciate your humility, here\u2019s a person we can work with so we continue to fund them, just so you understand the process that goes on here.\u00a0 And I wish every church in America did this.\n\nYou know, when Satan fell he fell probably three places.\u00a0 The first place he fell was into the ministerial association.\u00a0 The second place he fell was into the missions committee of the church.\u00a0 And the third place he fell was into women\u2019s Bible studies.\u00a0 And you say how could you say something like that!\u00a0 Check it out, when areas of false do come into a church those are always the three places.\u00a0 Now obviously not putting anybody in those ministries under any cloud of suspicion.\u00a0 I\u2019m just saying those are three areas that elders have to watch because I\u2019ve watched church after church after church get polluted with false doctrine, coming from not necessarily the pulpit but from the pastor going off to some kind of ministerial association conference and coming back with all these grand designs for his church that he never talked about when he was candidating by the way.\n\nNumber two, all this stuff that comes into evangelicalism through so-called women\u2019s Bible studies and women\u2019s curricula, I mean, look through it yourself, you\u2019ll see all kinds of absolutely crazy things.\u00a0 And in the third place it comes into the church through missionaries and the mission movement because they go out on the field and suddenly their theology changes and they want to come back and change the church to be where they are.\u00a0\u00a0 So I love women\u2019s Bible studies and support them; I love missions and support that, to some extent I love ministerial associations but you have to be very careful of all three of those things.\u00a0 And I\u2019m not just saying this out of theory, this is practice.\u00a0 If you do the study yourself and watch you\u2019ll see this over and over again.\n\nSo when talking to a perspective missionary, pastor, ask them about their view on where is Jesus now and they should say \u201che\u2019s functioning as high priest in His present session at the Father\u2019s right hand.\u201d\u00a0 Look at Hebrews 10, verses 12 and 13 very quickly by way of closing.\u00a0 This is where Jesus is now.\u00a0 \u201cBut He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, [13] waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.\u201d\u00a0 What is Jesus doing right now?\u00a0 He\u2019s at the right hand of the Father and He\u2019s looking two directions, He\u2019s looking\u00a0 to the past, the crucifixion and He\u2019s looking to the future, His Davidic reign.\u00a0 And He\u2019s in between the two functioning as high priest.\n\nWilliam Newell says, \u201c\u201cOur Lord is not now on His own throne,\u201d amen, \u201cthe throne of David. He is at the Father\u2019s right hand, on the Father\u2019s throne, and is now the Great High Priest, leading the worship of His saints; and also our Advocate against the enemy. But He is there in an expectant attitude.\u201d\u00a0 [William Newell, The Book of the Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1935), 82.]\n\nSit at My right hand until, He\u2019s waiting for His Davidic reign.\u00a0 So He is functioning as priest, Hebrews 7:3, after the order or Melchizedek.\u00a0 [Hebrews 7:3, \u201cWithout father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.\u201d]\n\nJohn Walvoord says this: \u201cThe New Testament has fifty-nine references to David. It also has many references to the present session of Christ. A search of the New Testament reveals that there is not one reference connecting the present session of Christ with the Davidic throne<\/em>. While this argument is, of course, not conclusive, it is almost incredible that in so many references to David and in so frequent reference to the present session of Christ on the Father\u2019s throne there should be not one reference connecting the two in any authoritative way. The New Testament is totally lacking in positive teaching that the throne of the Father in heaven is to be identified with the Davidic throne. The inference is plain that Christ is seated on the Father\u2019s throne, but that this is not at all the same as being seated on the throne of David which is yet future.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0[John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom<\/em> (Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1959), 203]\n\nThus you can find in any reference related to the present session of Christ as He is described in Davidic language because He\u2019s what?\u00a0 He\u2019s not on the throne but He\u2019s a heir.\u00a0 Peter, in Acts 2 uses Psalm 132:11 to give Davidic imagery to Jesus but his point is not He\u2019s on the throne now; his point is He\u2019s the heir to the throne.\n\nSo why do we reject that Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne?\u00a0 A.\u00a0 David\u2019s throne is earthly.\u00a0 B. The Davidic throne concept changes the original meaning of the promise.\u00a0 And C, no two New Testament verse currently places Jesus on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 Now letters D.E. and F are going to go by lickety split. You say I don\u2019t believe you.\u00a0 You\u2019ll see in the book, I just have a brief paragraph for each one so we\u2019re going to finish this list rapidly.\n\nTape ends abruptly.","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