{"id":19241,"date":"2019-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-02-20T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-061\/"},"modified":"2019-02-20T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2019-02-20T06:00:00","slug":"the-coming-kingdom-061","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-061\/","title":{"rendered":"The Coming Kingdom 061"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[89],"series_event":[470],"sermon_service_type":[474],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-19241","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 061","sermon_date":"20190220","sermon_month":"2","sermon_year":"2019","sermon_notes":6455,"sermon_slides":6456,"sermon_mp3":6457,"sermon_id":"22019224737763","series_or_event":470,"service_type":[474],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":89,"chapter_and_verse":"2:30-35","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nThe Coming Kingdom\n\n2-20-19\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Acts 2:30-35\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lesson 61\n\nIt\u2019s great to be with you guys again.\u00a0 It\u2019s been two weeks hasn\u2019t it.\u00a0 I want to thank Jim, of course, \u00a0for filling in and if anybody needs a handout just put your hand up and Ron will help you with that. Let\u2019s take our Bibles this evening, if we could, and open them to Acts 2:30-34.\u00a0 And if you\u2019re here for the first time or second time we\u2019re going through a book that I wrote called The Coming Kingdom<\/em>, it has 26 chapters in it and we\u2019re already at chapter 18.\u00a0 So we\u2019re making progress.\u00a0 And \u00a0\u00a0if you\u2019re kind of new to this study I\u2019m sorry to start you off with chapter 18 because it\u2019s sort of one of the more technical chapters but to take down a false teaching, which is what I\u2019m trying to do in \u00a0the book and in these studies, Kingdom Now theology requires a lot of precision.\n\nSo we\u2019re at the point in our study where we\u2019re looking at passages that people use to teach that the kingdom is something that we\u2019re experiencing today.\u00a0 And throughout this study what we\u2019ve been doing is saying that the kingdom is not cancelled but postponed in the present age.\u00a0 And the view that we represent here is sort of different than what you\u2019re going to find in most places in Christendom, and it\u2019s different than what you find throughout church history.\u00a0 The majority opinion is that we are in the kingdom now.\u00a0 So I\u2019ve presented kind of the side that indicates the kingdom is postponed but what are the passages that people use, there must be some, how could you have a belief going back to the fourth century A.D., which is when all this Kingdom Now theology really took root.\u00a0 There must be passages that people use to say that we\u2019re in the kingdom now and there are many, many passages and what we\u2019re looking at is passages from the Book of Acts and we\u2019re looking at Acts 2 which is really the battle ground.\n\nNow when I was with you last, a few weeks ago, I took you through Acts 2, (you guys remember that) very rapidly just to show you what Acts 2 is teaching, because you can\u2019t really understand the false teaching coming out of Acts 2 unless you actually understand what Acts 2 is about.\u00a0 And Acts 2 is about the beginning of the church.\u00a0 It\u2019s about the fulfillment of the prophecies that Jesus made in the Upper Room that when He said to the disciples, \u201cIt is to your advantage that I go,\u201d \u00a0because when I go who will come?\u00a0 The helper, the paraclete, the one who comes alongside to assist or the Holy Spirit.\u00a0 [John 16:7, \u201cBut I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.\u201d]\u00a0 Acts 2 is a fulfillment of that prophecy.\n\nSo verses 1-4 of Acts 2, the Spirit falls.\u00a0 Verses 5-8 you have the manifestation of tongues.\u00a0 Verses 9-12 is a description of the people groups that have been assembled there on the day of Pentecost.\u00a0 Verses 13-15 Peter begins to refute the idea that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit that was being poured out in Acts 2 was due to the drunkenness of the participants.\u00a0 So Peter says it\u2019s 9:00 o\u2019clock in the morning and people usually don\u2019t start their drinking this early (a pretty basic point).\u00a0\u00a0 And then he moves into verses 16-21 and he says you ought to recognize this you Hebrews because the Holy Spirit is going to be doing something similar in the future millennial kingdom and you should know that from the Book of Joel, Joel 2. So he quotes Joel 2 there in verses 16-21 to show them that what they\u2019re seeing is not drunkenness, it\u2019s a pattern of God through the manifestation of the\u00a0 Holy Spirit.\n\nAnd then he continues on in verses 22-35 and he says the source of these miraculous occurrences through the giving of the Holy Spirit that you\u2019re witnessing, who\u2019s the source of it?\u00a0 It\u2019s Jesus!\u00a0 And where is Jesus at this point?\u00a0 At the right hand of the Father.\u00a0 And His first act of business once He ascended and went back to the Father\u2019s right hand was to pour forth the Holy Spirit upon the new church.\u00a0 So Peter says, verse 22, Jesus is a miracle worker, He worked miracles all the way through His ministry and He\u2019s working another one right now from the Father\u2019s right hand. \u00a0[Acts 2:22, \u201cMen of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know\u2014]\n\nAnd this Jesus is something that You, Israel, rejected nationally; the leadership rejected Him as your King, verse 23.\u00a0 He rose from the dead, verses 24-29, quoting Psalm 16, and he makes a point that Psalm 16 talks about my righteous one, my holy one, will not see decay.\u00a0\u00a0 [Psalm 16:10, \u201cFor You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.\u201d]\u00a0\u00a0 It\u2019s talking about a resurrection and David wrote that Psalm a thousand years earlier and Peter\u2019s point there in verses 24-29 is he\u2019s quoting Psalm 16 is David is right now in Jerusalem in his tomb.\u00a0 In fact, when we were in Israel we had a chance to go to David\u2019s tomb where David\u2019s tomb, it\u2019s believe that David is buried. So Peter makes the point that Psalm 16 can\u2019t be about David, it\u2019s got to be about the Messiah that\u2019s resurrected.\u00a0 So he quotes Psalm 16; he says in verses 30-32, quoting Psalm 132:11, that this Jesus is the Davidic heir who is destined one day to sit on David\u2019s throne.\n\nAnd then is verses 33-35 he quotes Psalm 110:1 which indicates that this Jesus is where?\u00a0 At the Father\u2019s right hand.\u00a0 And he quotes Psalm 110 of Christ saying \u201cSit at My right hand until\u201d what? \u201cI make your enemies\u00a0 your footstool.\u201d\u00a0 Then he gets to his conclusion, verse 36, this Jesus is both Lord and Christ, and there were three thousand people that were really bugged by what Peter just said.\u00a0 They were convicted, verse 37, they were cut to the core because they recognized that Peter was saying that national Israel in their rejection of their own Messiah and turning Him over to the Romans for execution had it wrong.\u00a0 And they were bothered, and they said what shall we do?\n\nSo Peter gives the exhortation, verses 38-41 where he tells them to \u201crepent\u201d and what does the word \u201crepent\u201d mean?\u00a0 Change your mind, to go from being a Christ rejecting Jew, go from siding with Israel that rejected Christ to being a Christ accepting Jew. Change your mind!\u00a0 And he gave that invitation and low and behold he\u2019s got, verse 41, three thousand people, about three thousand that responded to the message.\u00a0 And this is the beginning of the church.\u00a0 And the chapter ends, verses 42-47 with the first church meeting. What did that early church give themselves to?\u00a0 It describes exactly what they did as a church there in Jerusalem.\u00a0 So what is Acts 2 about?\u00a0 It\u2019s about the fulfillment of the Lord\u2019s promise that the Spirit would come after Christ departed and it\u2019s the beginning of the church age.\u00a0 That\u2019s a correct, I believe, interpretation of Acts 2.\n\nNow what is being done today is people are saying Acts 2 is not about what I just talked you through.\u00a0 Acts 2 is all about the inauguration of the millennial kingdom.\u00a0 In other words, the point is being made by many, many people in positions of scholarship that Acts 2 is not about the beginning of the church age, it\u2019s about the inauguration of the kingdom age.\u00a0 So when you do a critique of Kingdom Now theology you have to interact with Acts 2 pretty heavily because Acts 2 is what they\u2019re using.\n\nSo one of my professors, a very intelligent man, you see him on T.V. a lot around Easter time, particularly he\u2019s brought on different shows and things defending the historicity of the resurrection.\u00a0 And he does a very good job on that subject but he is the progenitor of what is called progressive dispensationalism which is the big push, when I was at Dallas Seminary, and it\u2019s the big push there now.\u00a0 Probably almost every faculty member, with the exception of some older guys that they\u2019re waiting to retire, believes this progressive dispensationalism.\u00a0 And basically the way it works is the things that start in the academy it takes about ten to fifteen years before it hits the pews or the church goers because what starts to happen is the next generation of preachers is molded into this new way of thinking and eventually it\u2019s going to come into the church.\u00a0 So the fact that you\u2019re learning about this now puts\u00a0 you sort of ahead of the curve because if you haven\u2019t heard about this yet it\u2019s just a matter of time before you do hear about it because these are the men that are shaping the next generation of preachers and teachers and those that fill the pulpit.\n\nSo Darrell Bock is one of the progenitors of this Kingdom Now theology and \u00a0his view is already not yet, progressive dispensationalism.\u00a0 And he basically believes yeah, Jesus is going to reign one day on David\u2019s throne from Jerusalem but He\u2019s actually reigning on David\u2019s throne right now, so He\u2019s already on David\u2019s throne in heaven but then there\u2019ll be a not yet saved when He\u2019s on David\u2019s throne in the millennial kingdom, already not yet.\u00a0 And so Acts 2 really doesn\u2019t have anything to do with the beginning of the church; what it is about (in his mind anyway) is it\u2019s a sneak peek into the kingdom that\u2019s coming.\u00a0 So the church is what they will call a colony of the kingdom.\n\nAnd you say well, is that that big a deal?\u00a0 It\u2019s a game changer to think that way and in part three of my book I explain why it\u2019s a game changer.\u00a0 So if you\u2019re wondering why any of this is relevant to the life of the church I\u2019ll get to that in part three of the book.\u00a0 But he\u2019s primarily building his case from Acts 2.\u00a0 And when I wrote the book and submitted it to some people to get them to endorse the book I sent it to some people that were really a more popular level of preachers and teachers, not all [can't understand word] but a few and they didn\u2019t really understand why I was using all of these long quotes.\u00a0 Well, the reason I\u00a0 use all of these long quotes is because I don\u2019t want to be accused of misrepresenting people.\u00a0 I have a legal background and you know, you cite the transcript extensively just to demonstrate that you\u2019re not taking people out of context and you\u2019re not misrepresenting people.\u00a0 And if your ministry is just sort of a popular level ministry you don\u2019t really appreciate that practice.\u00a0 So I do provide a lot of quotes in the book and I\u2019ve got a lot of quotes here tonight because I want you to understand that I\u2019m not just whipping things they\u2019re saying out of context; this is what these men actually teach and believe.\n\nSo Darrell Bock says this, \u201cHaving mentioned the need to call\u2026\u201d and he\u2019s dealing with Acts 2, and what\u00a0 you have to understand is for Darrell Bock, he is an expert on Luke and Acts, this is his expertise.\u00a0 He wrote a, I believe a two volume scholarly commentary on the Gospel of Luke which is a prequel to Acts and he wrote another scholarly commentary on Acts.\u00a0 He claims that it was his study of Luke and Acts that opened his eyes to all this \u201cKingdom Now theology.\u201d\u00a0 So he is probably the world\u2019s leading expert (from an evangelical perspective) on this subject of Luke and Acts.\u00a0 And he studied in Europe under a guy named I. Howard Marshall, who was a leading expert on Luke and Acts as well.\u00a0 I Howard Marshall in Europe didn\u2019t believe in the full inerrancy of the Scripture I\u2019ve come to understand but I. Howard Marshall is Darrell Bock\u2019s mentor.\u00a0 So that\u2019s sort of a background on why I\u2019m quoting this guy, Darrell Bock.\n\nI know a lot about him because Anne and I, when we moved to the Dallas area needed to find a church and we said to ourselves well, there\u2019s a church down the street, a bunch of Dallas Seminary professors go there, why don\u2019t we go to that church, not understanding what we were getting into.\u00a0 Darrell Bock was an elder at that particular church.\u00a0 Am I the world\u2019s expert on Darrell Bock?\u00a0 No, but I know an awful lot about him just by being in his church and listening to him teach, and I was his student in the classroom.\n\nSo he says, and I have the source where I\u2019m getting all these quotes from.\u00a0 He\u2019s commenting on Acts 2. He says, \u201cHaving mentioned the need to call on the Lord, Peter turns to recent events. He recounts Jesus\u2019 ministry in death but notes the death is not able to hold him (vv. 22\u201324).\u201d\u00a0 So far so good. \u201cPeter goes on to note that such impotency for death was predicted in Psalm 16, the second Old Testament citation in Acts 2 (vv. 25\u201328).\u201d\u00a0 So far so good, right?\u00a0 \u201cThe text is clearly presented as having been fulfilled in Jesus\u2019 resurrection. The psalm 16 citation leads to the mention of David and a defense of the fact that a resurrection understanding of the text cannot refer to David, since he is buried (v. 29).\u201d\u00a0 I\u2019m reading this and saying this is good stuff.\n\nBut then you get to this second part of the quote and I start saying oh-oh. \u201c The crucial linking allusion appears at this point.\u201d\u00a0 So all of a sudden there\u2019s this crucial linking illusion, which I\u2019ll explain to you what he\u2019s talking about in just a second, which in his mind gives him the right to come up with an interpretation of Acts 2 that Charles Ryrie never saw, John Walvoord never saw, Lewis Sperry Chafer never saw.\u00a0 All the founders of Dallas Seminary never saw this but all of a sudden this European educated person under I. Howard Marshall, thinks he can see this because of a crucial linking allusion.\n\nSo he says, \u201cThe crucial linking allusion appears at this point. Peter notes that David was a prophet. Not only was David a prophet, he was the conscience beneficiary of an oath God had made to him that \u201cone of the fruit of his [David\u2019s] loins\u201d (KJV) would sit on his throne (Acts 2:30).\u201d\u00a0 Now he\u2019s quoting here verse\u00a0 30; verse 30 is a citation from Psalm 132:11 which our camp has historically understood as simply pointing out that the Messiah that Israel rejected is the Davidic error who will sit on David\u2019s throne one day.\u00a0 That\u2019s how we\u2019ve all understood this.\u00a0 And he\u2019s going to take that verse and connect it with another verse in the form of what he calls a crucial linking illusion to prove that Jesus is on David\u2019s throne now in an already sense.\n\nHe says, \u201c The term kathisai <\/em>(to sit), which is reintroduced in the citation of Psalm 110 (note kathou,<\/em> \u201csit,\u201d in v. 34).\u201d\u00a0 So I want you to understand what he\u2019s doing here, he\u2019s connecting verse 30 with verse 34.\u00a0 Verse 30 is a citation from Psalm 132:11 and so because he was a prophet he knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on His throne.\u00a0 We\u2019ve always understood that in our camp to mean that\u2019s speaking of the Davidic heir who will rule from David\u2019s throne one day.\u00a0 Then we go down to verse 34 which says , \u201cFor it was not David who ascended into heaven but He Himself says, The LORD said to my Lord\u201d what\u2019s the next verb there, \u201csit at My right hand.\u201d\u00a0 Psalm 110:1, that we\u2019ve always taken to mean he\u2019s on the Father\u2019s throne at the Father\u2019s right hand.\u00a0 But he thinks because of this practice that he\u2019s\u00a0 using, called a crucial linking allusion that he can connect verse 30, Psalm 132:11 with verse 34, Psalm 110:1, he can connect those.\u00a0 He thinks the verb \u201csit\u201d allows him to do that and he merges the two together and he comes up with this doctrine that Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne now.\u00a0 That\u2019s what he means by a crucial linking illusion.\n\n\u201cThe allusion in verse 30 is to Psalm 132:11, a Psalm which is strongly Israelitish and national in tone [see vv. 12\u201318)). \u201d I agree that it is, but it\u2019s not talking about the present seating of the Messiah on David\u2019s throne, it\u2019s talking about how he is heir to David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 \u00a0The Psalm in turn is a reflection of the promise made to David in 2 Samuel 7,\u201d he\u2019s speaking of verse 30 there, \u201cespecially verse 12. This 2 Samuel passage is better known as the Davidic covenant.\u201d\u00a0 That\u2019s true.\u00a0 \u201cWhat is crucial is that David\u2019s awareness of this covenant promise is immediately linked\u201d look at that now, see the word \u201clinked\u201d?\n\nSee, he\u2019s doing something here that nobody in the dispensational tradition has ever done.\u00a0 He\u2019s coming up with something called a linking and he\u2019s putting those two Scriptures together, Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 132:11 to argue that Jesus is on David\u2019s throne now.\u00a0 We\u2019ve always said that He\u2019s seated at the right hand of the Father.\u00a0 He says no, the verb \u201csit\u201d forces you to connect verse 34 back to verse 30 and wallah, Jesus is now on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0\u00a0 He thinks the verb \u201csit\u201d used in both Psalms allows for this crucial linking allusion to occur.\n\n\u201cThis 2 Samuel passage is better known as the Davidic covenant.\u00a0 What is crucial is that David\u2019s awareness of this covenant promise is immediately linked to his understanding of the resurrection in Psalm 16, which in turn is immediately tied to the resurrection proof text of Psalm 110 (vv. 31\u201335).\u201d\u00a0 I realize, it took me probably five to ten years to figure out what in the world are these guys saying.\u00a0 And so I fully get it if your eyes are glazing over as I\u2019m talking.\u00a0 I\u2019m trying to give you ten years understanding that the Lord gave to me through a lot of sweat and I\u2019m trying to distill it for lay people that maybe have never been exposed to this before because I\u2019m trying to protect Christen\u00addom from what they\u2019re about to be hit with as people graduate from this institution and come into the Bible churches teaching this.\n\n\u201cBeing seated on David\u2019s throne is linked<\/em>\u201d {there\u2019s that word again, he likes that word \u201clinked,\u201d doesn\u2019t he) is linked to being seated at God\u2019s right hand<\/em>. In other words, Jesus\u2019 resurrection-ascension to God\u2019s right hand is put forward by Peter as a fulfillment of the Davidic covenant,\u201d you see what\u2019s happening here.\u00a0 Acts 2 is not about the beginning of the church.\u00a0 Acts 2 is not about the fulfillment of the promise of Christ that the Spirit is going to come.\u00a0 Acts 2 is about the inauguration of the Davidic Kingdom and the Davidic Covenant using a method of interpretation called a crucial linking allusion.\n\nHe goes on and he says, \u201cjust as the allusion to Joel fulfills the new covenant.\u201d By the way it doesn\u2019t and we\u2019re postponing Joel 2 for another evening because I deal with that in the second part of chapter 18.\u00a0 \u201cTo say that Peter is only interested to argue that the Messiah must be raised misses the point of the connection in these verses and ignores entirely the allusion to Psalm 132 in the Davidic covenant.\u201d\u00a0 So he thinks he is seeing something that Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dwight Pentecost, everybody else never saw because they\u2019ve missed this crucial linking allusion.\n\nHe goes on and he says, \u201cThis passage and Luke 1:68\u201379 also counter the claim that no New Testament text asserts the present work of Jesus\u2019 as a reigning Davidite sitting on David\u2019s Throne.\u201d\u00a0 Now that\u2019s our position.\u00a0 Our position as we study this in this series is there is no passage, there is absolutely no passage that puts Jesus on David\u2019s throne now.\u00a0 However, \u00a0Bock is coming along and saying it is a present doctrine if you follow this crucial linking illusion linking the two verses through the verb \u201csit.\u201d\n\nHe goes on and he says, \u201cThe throne on which Jesus is said to sit is the one promised to David\u2019s descendent through the Davidic promise of 2 Samuel, which was initially passed on through Solomon.\u201d\u00a0 Now we believe that that promise is going to be fulfilled when?\u00a0 In the what?\u00a0 The millennial kingdom.\u00a0 We\u2019ve never taken Acts 2 as the beginning of the kingdom, it\u2019s the beginning of the church.\u00a0 He saying no, it stage A of the kingdom.\u00a0 The Davidic Covenant is being fulfilled right now in an already sense.\u00a0 Now your amillennialist will come along and say the whole thing is being fulfilled right now.\u00a0 That\u2019s not what Darrell Bock is saying; he\u2019s saying it\u2019s being fulfilled now in part.\n\nHe goes on and he says, \u201cJesus sits here as David\u2019s promised Son on David\u2019s promised Throne. This fits Old Testament imagery as well. The idea of sitting describes the idea of rule, as the parallelism of Jeremiah 22:30 shows.\u201d\u00a0 Here\u2019s the conclusion.\u00a0 \u201cAs the Davidic heir, Jesus sits in and rules from\u201d where? \u201cfrom heaven.\u201d\u00a0 [Darrell Bock, \u201cThe Reign of the Lord Christ,\u201d in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church<\/em>, ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 49\u201350.]\n\nThe traditional position is as a Davidic heir Jesus will rule from where?\u00a0 Jerusalem in the millennial kingdom.\u00a0 He\u2019s saying no, He is ruling already from heaven.\u00a0 Why are they pushing this?\u00a0 It has a lot to do with progressive politics, to be completely frank with you.\u00a0 I don\u2019t mean to get into political things but when you\u2026 I don\u2019t know if you recall when Obama was running for President in 2008, the Reverend Wright situation came up.\u00a0 Remember that?\u00a0 And it was being used to discredit Obama and do you know who rushed to the defense of Obama and told everybody he was going to vote for Obama?\u00a0 Darrell Bock!\u00a0 When you get into progressive politics there\u2019s a mindset that wants to take the church and turn it into a social institution, to fix the environment, to raise the minimum wage, universal health care, and when you Google Darrell Bock and President Obama you\u2019ll see that he\u2019s one of the first evangelicals that came out and endorsed the Presidency of Obama at a time when evangelicals were very divided on it, given the Reverend Wright situation.\n\nSo I believe what is motivating a lot of this stuff that they\u2019re pushing is a progressive political agenda.\u00a0 In fact, they had a meeting at Wheaton, Darrell Bock was part of this meeting, and we covered it on Pastor\u2019s Point of View, and it had to do with the fact that 78% of evangelicals voted for Donald Trump in the last election cycle.\u00a0 And a bunch of them are very upset about that so they had this special meeting in Wheaton to come up with a strategy, it was an invitation only meeting, I was waiting with baited breath for my invitation, I never got one, my feelings are very hurt\u2026.\u00a0 They didn\u2019t invite Wayne Grudem; Wayne Grudem has written a book that\u2019s big enough to choke a mule on the Bible and politics.\u00a0 [According to the Bible<\/em>: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political<\/em> Issues in Light of Scripture - Kindle edition by Wayne<\/em> A. <\/strong>Grudem<\/em>.]\n\nAnd he comes from a conservative angle, not a progressive liberal angle.\u00a0 He wasn\u2019t invited.\u00a0 And it was a secret meeting.\u00a0 And by the way, one of the guys at the meeting was Jim Wallace, I don\u2019t know if you know much about Jim Wallace, he\u2019s a big liberation theology proponent.\u00a0 So the point of the meeting, and you didn\u2019t know about it until Jim Wallace started blogging about it, the point of the meeting is how are we going to rescue evangelicalism and divorce evangelicalism from Donald Trump.\u00a0 See, it\u2019s politics.\u00a0 And part of the strategy is to get the church to think that they\u2019re the kingdom because if the church thinks it\u2019s the kingdom suddenly it gets interested in all these social causes that these guys want to bring to the earth.\u00a0 Do you follow that?\u00a0 So you might be listening to me talk about crucial linking allusions and you might just be bored out of your mind saying what does this have to do with anything?\u00a0 It has to do with the shifting of the world view of evangelicalism is what\u2019s happening.\n\nAnd these guys hold all the positions of authority in academia.\u00a0 They control the publishing. I submitted an article to Bib Sac; Dallas Seminary\u2019s Journal, when Roy Zuck, a conservative, was in charge.\u00a0 I\u2019ve been published in Bib Sac, my dissertation was published in Bib Sac and so I submitted another article and Roy Zuck told me it was going to be published, they had even advertised it in the, what do you call it in the magazine, like a leaf jacket, is that what\u00a0 you call it?\u00a0 [Someone says something] What\u2019s it called.\u00a0 Fly Jacket, whatever.\u00a0 It was promoted in there and then Roy Zuck died and within a week and a half to two weeks I got a note saying sorry, your article is just really the direction we want to go.\u00a0 So I know a little bit about publishing and what happens when publishing entities fall into the wrong hands and the worldview starts to shift.\n\nAnd these are the guys training the next generation of scholars and leaders in evangelicalism. So that\u2019s why this stuff eventually will hit the pulpits if it hasn\u2019t already; it has to do with progressive politics, in my humble opinion.\u00a0 I\u2019ll talk more about that when we get to part 3.\u00a0 In fact, they wanted to hire me at Dallas Seminary and I was told well, you\u2019ve got a PhD in Bible but you\u2019re going to have to have another PhD because we don\u2019t think you\u2019re really broadminded enough.\u00a0 So people like myself that what I would call fundamental, fundamentalist types are basically persona non grata<\/em> because we like it the way it used to be.\u00a0 I mean, I think Charles Ryrie and Lewis Sperry Chafer had it right.\u00a0 But these guys see people like myself as standing in the way because they have a progressive agenda.\u00a0 Anyway\u2026. I\u2019m just trying to explain why I\u2019m going through all of this so meticulously.\n\nSo is his interpretation correct?\u00a0 I mean, is Acts 2:30-34 with this crucial linking allusion that he\u2019s coming up with teaching that Jesus is now reigning on David\u2019s throne?\u00a0 [Acts 2:30-34, \u201c30, \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,\u00a0 [31] \u201che looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY.\u00a0 [32] This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.\u00a0 [33] \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] \u201cFor it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, \u2018SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND\u201d\u00a0 [35] 35, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.\u201d]\n\nBy the way, you go through Acts 2, did you find one single reference to the word \u201ckingdom\u201d in Acts 2?\u00a0 The word basileia<\/em>, did you see it anywhere?\u00a0 It\u2019s not in there!\u00a0 Now you find it in early Luke which is connected to Acts as a prequel, as the kingdom is being offered, it\u2019s used heavily in early Luke.\u00a0 It\u2019s not used in Acts 2.\u00a0 Doesn\u2019t that bother you a little bit?\u00a0 I mean, they\u2019re using Acts 2 almost exclusively to teach that the Davidic Kingdom has been inaugurated\u00a0 and the word \u201ckingdom\u201d is not even found in Acts 2.\u00a0 So that\u2019s why he\u2019s got to come up with this crucial linking allusion where he\u2019s linking two Psalms together.\n\nSo I have here seven reasons why I don\u2019t think what he\u2019s doing in Acts 2 is legitimate.\u00a0 And where am I getting this from?\u00a0 I\u2019m getting it from an article written by the late Zane Hodges, longtime Greek professor at Dallas Seminary, retired around the 1980\u2019s and as you go through the notes you can see the source where you can find that particular article.\u00a0 And most people don\u2019t even know this article exists it\u2019s gotten such little attention.\u00a0 But I believe that Zane Hodges does the best job refuting what Darrell Bock is doing in Acts 2.\u00a0 So that\u2019s where I\u2019m getting these seven points from.\n\nI\u2019m not sure how far we\u2019re going to get on this tonight but maybe get through some of these points.\u00a0 What is the first problem with what the progressive dispensationalists\u00a0 are doing in Acts 2?\u00a0\u00a0 Number one, their interpretation lacks harmony with earlier information in Luke about the Davidic throne.\u00a0 Remember, Acts is the sequel; what is the prequel?\u00a0 Luke, they go together, Luke\/Acts.\u00a0 And what you discover is there\u2019s only two references to the Davidic throne prior to Acts 2:30 where they think it is.\u00a0 In fact, you go earlier than Acts 2:30 there\u2019s only one other reference in Luke to the Davidic throne.\n\nAnd what I want to show you is how they\u2019re interpreting Acts 2:30 to argue that the Davidic throne is in place right now is completely out of harmony\u2026 completely out of harmony with how earlier Luke defines the Davidic throne.\u00a0 Remember the doctrine of progressive revelation.\u00a0 Latter revelation can amplify or clarify former revelation but it can never do what with former revelation?\u00a0 Change it!\u00a0 Because if you\u2019re saying it\u2019s a change then God I guess was dishonest initially.\u00a0 See that?\n\nSo you have a lack of harmony with earlier information in Luke about the Davidic throne.\u00a0 So when you go back to the only other reference prior to Acts 2 concerning the Davidic throne it\u2019s right here in Luke 1:32 and 33. This is Gabriel speaking, not our youth pastor, the angel Gabriel, I think he\u2019s speaking to Mary concerning the birth of Jesus, and he says, \u201cHe will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David [and He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;] [33] and He will reign over the\u201d church, it doesn\u2019t say that does it?\u00a0 It\u2019s very clear here, \u201cHe will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.\u201d\n\nEarlier in Luke when you study the Davidic throne, which is what these guys are saying is happening now, it always links the Davidic throne to the nation of Israel and it holds out that Davidic throne as the salvation of Israel.\u00a0 In fact, Alva J. McLain quotes Godet, a French commentator to that effect.\u00a0 He says, \u201cThe \u2018throne of David\u2019 here is not God\u2019s throne in heaven, nor is the \u2018house of Jacob\u2019 a reference to the Christian church. As Godet rightly observed: \u2018These expressions in the mouth of the angel, Luke 1, keep their natural and literal sense. It is, indeed, the theocratic royalty and the Israelitish people, neither more nor less, that are in question here; Mary could have understood these expressions in no other way.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 [Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God as Set Forth in the Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 282.]\n\nSo it is very strange that now we have people coming up with interpretations using a crucial linking allusion idea to contradict what earlier Luke\/Acts, particularly the Gospel of Luke, said about the Davidic throne when the Davidic throne is always connected to Israel, never the church.\u00a0 And it\u2019s always held out as the hope of Israel and the salvation of Israel.\u00a0 And it\u2019s always described as something on this earth, never in heaven.\n\nAnd then you flip over to Luke 1:54-55, this is what\u2019s called Mary\u2019s Magnificat, and what is she talking about?\u00a0 He has given hope to who?\u00a0 The church\u2026 it doesn\u2019t say that!\u00a0 \u201cHe has given hope to Israel, <\/em>In remembrance of His mercy, [55] As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and his descendants forever.\u201d\u00a0 I mean what early Luke is dealing with is the salvation of the nation of Israel through the Davidic throne one day.\n\nAnd then you flip over to Luke 1:67-79 which is called Zachariah\u2019s Benedictus, how do you like all these fancy names?\u00a0 This is just songs people were singing around the birth of Christ.\u00a0 And you take a look at Luke 1:67-79 and look at how it keeps mentioning Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel all over the place. \u00a0[Luke 1:67, \u201cAnd his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:]\n\nNotice, if you will, Luke 1:68, \u201cAnd his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying: [68] \u201cBlessed be<\/em> the Lord God of \u201c the United States of America, no, \u201cIsrael, [For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,\u201d]\u00a0 Verse 69, \u201c[And has raised up a horn of salvation for us] In the house of David His servant\u2014\u201c\u00a0 Verse 72, To show mercy toward our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant,\u201d see how Jewish all of this is?\u00a0 Verse 73, \u201cThe oath which He swore to\u201d who? \u201cAbraham our father,\u201d the patriot of Judaism.\u00a0 See the Israelitish tone here?\u00a0 [74 \u201cTo grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies, Might serve Him without fear,\u00a0 [75<\/a><\/strong>] In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days. [76] \u201cAnd you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; For you will go on BEFORE THE LORD TO PREPARE HIS WAYS; [77<\/a><\/strong>] To give to His people the<\/em> knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins,\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0[78] Because of the tender mercy of our God, with which the Sunrise from on high will visit us,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [79] TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH, \u00a0To guide our feet into the way of peace.\u201d]\n\nLook back at Luke 1:27, \u201cto a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David;\u201d I mean this is all Jewish stuff, this Davidic throne.\n\nLook over at Luke 1:69, it talks there about the house of David.\u00a0 [Luke 1:69, \u201cAnd has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David His servant\u2014\u201c\n\nLook over at the Gospel of John just for a minute, chapter 7 and verse 42.\u00a0 The church isn\u2019t even on the horizon when\u00a0 these statements are made; in fact, the church is a mystery. The Davidic throne belongs to the nation of Israel, not the church.\u00a0 That\u2019s the point I\u2019m making.\u00a0 So if you\u2019re going to use Acts 2 to say that Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne now over the church you\u2019re basically contradicting what early Luke is talking about.\n\nJohn 7:42, \u201cHas not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David<\/u>, and from Bethlehem, the village where David<\/u> was?\u201d\u00a0 See how it\u2019s David, David, David, Bethlehem, Bethlehem, Bethlehem, Israel, Israel, Israel, tribe of Judah, tribe of Judah, tribe of Judah, etc. etc. etc.\n\nSo what\u2019s my point?\u00a0 Jesus reigning on David\u2019s throne now is held despite the fact that national Israel has not experienced salvation.\u00a0 Today as I speak the nation of Israel, when you look at the bulk of the nation, I was just there, is an unbelieving nation.\u00a0 If the Davidic throne were in existence Israel would be in faith because that throne is held out as salvation for Israel.\u00a0 So for someone to say the Davidic throne is happening now while Israel is still in unbelief is a total alteration of the Davidic throne idea.\u00a0 And you say well gee, Andy,\u00a0 you\u2019re really smart, you came up with all of that.\u00a0 I didn\u2019t come up with any of it, I\u2019m quoting here the late Zane Hodges.\u00a0 He says everything I just said.\u00a0 You say well why can\u2019t you just make your point without quoting all these scholars?\u00a0 Because I want people to understand that I\u2019m not up here making things up.\u00a0 The view that I\u2019m representing was at one time a majority opinion in the dispensational camp.\u00a0 And I use these as a quote from the guys in the past to demonstrate that.\n\nZane Hodges says, \u201cAll should acknowledge that the throne of David is inseparably wed to Israel\u2019s kingdom,\u201d that\u2019s what we just covered, \u201cwhich we have been discussing. From the very beginning of his two-volume work, Luke makes this concept plain. Thus, when the angel Gabriel made his thrilling declaration to Mary, he states of Jesus,\u00a0\u201cDo not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.\u00a0And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name\u00a0Jesus.\u00a0He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.\u00a0And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end\u201d (Luke 1:30-33)\u201d which we just read.\u00a0 Hodges says, \u201cThis is the only explicit reference to David\u2019s throne in Luke or Acts until we reach Acts 2:30.\u201d Which is the passage Darrell Bock is using, misusing I might say. \u00a0\u201cTogether, the two texts constitute Luke\u2019s only direct mention of a \u201cthrone\u201d associated with King David.\u201d\u00a0 [Zane C. Hodges, \u201cA Dispensational Understanding of Acts 2,\u201d in Issues in Dispensationalism<\/em>, ed. John R. Master Wesley R. Willis, Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 173\u201374.]\n\nHodges says, \u201cOne should specifically note here that in recording what Gabriel said Luke cites words that completely ignore any suggestion of universality of dominion of that throne.\u201d What is being argued today is that Jesus is reigning over David\u2019s throne worldwide over the church.\u00a0 And Hodges\u2019 simple point is that contradicts early Luke which connects the whole thing to Israel and her salvation history.\u00a0 \u201cGabriel does not say that Jesus will rule all mankind from David\u2019s throne but simply \u201cthe house of Jacob.\u201d Luke does not make the slightest intimation that by sitting on this throne Mary\u2019s son will gain universal dominion. Of course, he will have such dominion from David\u2019s throne, as various Old Testament passages make clear.\n\nBut obviously this fact is not part of Luke\u2019s theme here. Gabriel\u2019s announcement focuses very narrowly\u201d NARROWLY \u201con\u201d who? \u201cthe Jewish nature of David\u2019s throne. Nor is such an emphasis accidental in this context. Mary\u2019s Magnificat\u201d which is just a fancy name for her song of praise when she got news that her womb was going to be used by the Holy Spirit to bring forth the Messiah.\u00a0 \u201c. Mary\u2019s Magnificat relates God\u2019s mercy to her with His mercy to Israel (Luke 1:46\u201355; see esp. vv. 54\u201355). Similarly, Zacharias\u2019 Benedictus is totally focused on what God is doing for Israel through the advent of His Son (vv. 67\u201379).\u201d\u00a0 [Zane C. Hodges, \u201cA Dispensational Understanding of Acts 2,\u201d in Issues in Dispensationalism<\/em>, ed. John R. Master Wesley R. Willis, Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 173\u201374.]\n\nAccordingly, when we read Luke 1\u00a0we are inhaling the very atmosphere of Old Testament Jewish expectation. We hear from the lips of Mary and Zacharias those grand hopes for national deliverance that were so inextricably bound up with the expectation of the divine king who would rule \u201cJacob\u201d from David\u2019s throne. This is what we have here\u2014and nothing more. Despite this fact, progressive dispensationalists assert that the Lord Jesus even now is reigning from David\u2019s throne, although national Israel has experienced none of the deliverance of which Mary and Zacharias spoke so glowingly in this context.\u201d And this next line is so good I had to underling it.\u00a0 \u201cWere it not for the fact that serious men have proposed this view\u201d <\/u>i.e. Jesus reigning on David\u2019s throne, \u201cit might well be dismissed out of hand<\/u>.\u201d\u00a0 [Zane C. Hodges, \u201cA Dispensational Understanding of Acts 2,\u201d in Issues in Dispensationalism<\/em>, ed. John R. Master Wesley R. Willis, Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 173\u201374.]\n\nYou see if you\u2019re the average Joe stood up and promoted this stuff it would have no traction.\u00a0 But if you see these guys on television, these guys write two volume commentaries.\u00a0 These guys have Ph.D. after their names.\u00a0 These guys studied in Europe.\u00a0 And because it\u2019s coming from them the idea has traction in the academy because that\u2019s the kind of thing that impresses young gullible seminary students coming out of churches that teach almost nothing, because the whole concept of a Bible church is dying, so they get in the classroom and these guys all have the gift of gab and they speak in very glib terms and they\u2019ve done a lot of academic work, and they\u2019ve got a lot of degrees after their name and so when you throw crucial linking allusion at a twenty something oh my goodness, they take it serious.\u00a0 And through this process of indoctrination evangelism starts to change over time into more of a progressive direction.\n\n\u201cAccording to the understanding of the Old Testament saints, who Mary and Zacharias represent so effectively, the throne of David could mean only one thing\u2014the earthly throne that began with the reign of David himself and was passed down to his physical descendants who sat on it.\u201d\u00a0 [Zane C. Hodges, \u201cA Dispensational Understanding of Acts 2,\u201d in Issues in Dispensationalism<\/em>, ed. John R. Master Wesley R. Willis, Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 173\u201374.]\n\n\u201cNo one was entitled to sit on that throne unless he was, in fact, of Davidic lineage. Thus, Luke tells us carefully that Gabriel was sent to \u201ca virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David\u201d (v. 27). So also Zacharias confirms that God \u201chas raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of . . . David\u201d (v. 69). It was common Jewish belief that is expressed in the question of John 7:42:\u201d which we\u2019ve looked at, \u00a0\u201cHas not the Scripture said the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?\u201d There is not the slightest shred of evidence that the throne of David has ever been conceived as anything other than the earthly seat of authority where David reigned and where only his physical descendants could legitimately reign. The term \u201cthrone of David\u201d simply refers to this\u2014nothing else. . . .\u201d\u00a0 [Zane C. Hodges, \u201cA Dispensational Understanding of Acts 2,\u201d in Issues in Dispensationalism<\/em>, ed. John R. Master Wesley R. Willis, Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 173\u201374.]\n\nIn other words, the salvation of Israel on the earth after Israel is converted. That\u2019s what the Davidic throne means.\u00a0 That was offered to Israel in the first century which was rejected.\n\n\u201cHowever, progressive dispensationalists, in spite of consistent usage of the Bible, are not deterred from declaring that, even today, Christ is reigning from the throne of David. But this means that they must apply the term throne of David to what is actually the throne of God!\u2019\u201d\u00a0 You see, we believe that Jesus is on whose throne now?\u00a0 The Father\u2019s throne, He\u2019s not yet on His throne.\u00a0 He will be on His throne in the millennial kingdom but what is being argued through this crucial linking allusion is that the throne of God is now the throne of David in an already sense, and we\u2019re already in part A of the Davidic kingdom.\n\n\u201cBut this means that they must apply the term throne of David to what is actually the throne of God! And they feel the freedom to do this even in the absence of a single text that explicitly makes this identification.\u201d\u00a0 And here\u2019s another good line that I underlined.\u00a0 \u201cThe result is a view that would have shocked any biblically literate Old Testament Jew\u2014and should shock New Testament exegetes today<\/u>.\u201d\u00a0 [Zane C. Hodges, \u201cA Dispensational Understanding of Acts 2,\u201d in Issues in Dispensationalism<\/em>, ed. John R. Master Wesley R. Willis, Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 173\u201374.]\n\nI mean, there is no way on God\u2019s green earth that Mary, when she received the original message from Gabriel concerning David\u2019s throne would interpret David\u2019s throne as anything other than an earthly throne in Jerusalem.\u00a0 She would have never said well, I know what you said Gabriel but I know what you really mean, it\u2019s up in heaven somewhere over the church.\u00a0 And that\u2019s what Hodges means that that interpretation would have shocked any literate Jew.\n\nNumber 2, let me squeeze this in here, I\u2019ve got seven minutes left, I\u2019ve got to be careful, I might start preaching up here\u2026 [laughter]\u00a0 Number 2, you\u2019ve got different verbs in Acts 2:30 and Acts 2:34.\u00a0 [Acts 2:30, \u201cAnd so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one<\/em> OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE.\u201d\u00a0 Acts 2:34, \u201c \u201cFor it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: \u2018THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND.\u201d]\n\nThe progressive dispensational argument is you can link the two; you can link Psalm 110, Jesus at the Father\u2019s right hand with the Davidic throne, Psalm 132:11 because the verb \u201csit\u201d is used in both passages.\u00a0 And that\u2019s what Bock is using to do all of this, this crucial linking illusion. \u00a0So you\u2019ll notice in Acts 2:30, quoting Psalm 132:11, \u201c\u201cAnd so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one<\/em> OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE,\u201d we\u2019ve always understood that as He\u2019s going to sit on David\u2019s throne one day.\u00a0 Darell Bock says oh, no, no, no, no, no.\u00a0 Keep reading.\n\nGo down to verse 34 which quotes Psalm 110:1 which we\u2019ve always understood as Jesus seated where?\u00a0 At the right hand of the Father.\u00a0 He says you\u2019ve got to connect the verb sit.\u00a0 [34 \u201cFor it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: \u2018The LORD says to My lord, \u201cSit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.\u201d\n\nSo they made a lot about the verb \u201csit\u201d connecting verse 34 with verse 30.\u00a0 See what\u2019s going on here?\u00a0 It\u2019s like trying to grab an eel slippery when wet, you grab it and it just slips away.\u00a0 They\u2019re very slippery, these guys.\u00a0 This is how they\u2019re getting this whole thing to work.\n\nHouston, we have a little problem with what they\u2019re doing, not the least of which is the verb \u201csit\u201d is a different verb in verse 30 than it is in verse 34.\u00a0 I realize that the English says \u201csit\u201d in both verses but when you study it in Greek they\u2019re different words; related words, yes, but different! This little chart may help.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nVerse\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Acts 2:30\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Acts 2:34\n\nPsalm\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 132:11\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 110:1\n\nVerb\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Kathiz\u014d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Kath\u0113mai\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em>\n\nKind of verb\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Transitive\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Intransitive\n\nTranslation\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To seat or place\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0To sit\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nActs 2:30 quotes Psalm 132:11, the verb is Kathiz\u014d<\/em>, which means to seat or to place; if you\u2019re into Greek you might recognize this as a transitive verb meaning it takes a direct object.\u00a0 Well let\u2019s compare that to\u00a0 Acts 2:34 which is quoting Psalm 110:1 and notice that the verb is different, it\u2019s not Kathiz\u014d<\/em>, it\u2019s Kath\u0113mai\u00a0 <\/em>which is a verb meaning to sit, not to seat but to sit and that is an intransitive verb which simply means it does not take a direct object.\u00a0 Now if you\u2019re going to build a whole case about a crucial linking allusion revolving sit in two verses shouldn\u2019t those two words be identical?\n\nZane Hodges says this, \u201cBut unless Bock is reading the Greek text in the form found in the Majority Text (not likely, to be sure), there appears to be a translational gaffe here that slightly overstates the similarity between verses 30 and 34. As you read the modern editions of the Greek New Testament, the verb kathisai<\/em> in verse 30 is not to be read as intransitive (\u201cto sit\u201d) but as transitive (\u201cto seat\u201d; cf. the NIV here). In verse 34, however, the intransitive sense \u201cto sit\u201d is correct, even though a slightly different Greek verb is involved. But, in view of the difference in verbs, Bock is not technically accurate when he states that the former verb is \u201creintroduced\u201d in the quotation from Psalm 110.\u201d\u00a0 Now if you\u2019re just studying this in English it looks like the exact same verb; if you\u2019re studying in Greek those are two different verbs there.\u00a0 \u201cClearly this would be quibbling\u201d I mean, to bring up something so minor would be quibbling, \u201cwere it not for the fact that Bock is trying to make these verses parallel by appealing to the use of a single verb in the same sense in both verses.\u201d\u00a0 [Zane C. Hodges, \u201cA Dispensational Understanding of Acts 2,\u201d in Issues in Dispensationalism<\/em>, ed. John R. Master Wesley R. Willis, Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 173\u201374.]\n\nAnd he\u2019s bringing up, I think, a pretty important point.\u00a0 The point is if you\u2019re going to build\u00a0 your house on this crucial linking allusion between those two verses and those two psalms it\u2019s a bit odd that the two verbs are not identical.\u00a0 That\u2019s a little strange.\n\nNumber three, the mere act of sitting is not enough to equate the thrones.\u00a0 Hodges says \u201cTechnical considerations aside,\u201d he just gave us the technical considerations, \u201cthe use of a verb for sitting proves nothing about whether or not the two thrones are to be identified\u201d or equated.\u00a0 \u201cWhat else does one do on a throne?\u201d other than sit, right?\u00a0 And I love this analogy, and you can tell he\u2019s a Texan, he\u2019s with the Lord now, but he says, \u201cSuppose that one states, \u2018Mr. Smith is destined to sit in the governor\u2019s chair in Austin and currently is sitting in the chair of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court.\u2019 Would anyone ever conclude from this that the words \u201csit\u201d and \u201csitting\u201d intimate that the two chairs in question are identical?\u201d\u00a0 I mean, does that\u2026 you sit in the Governor\u2019s chair, you sit in the Chief Justice Supreme Court chair, would anybody interpret that to mean that the Governor\u2019s chair and the Chief Justice\u2019s chair of the Supreme court are the same throne?\u00a0 That\u2019s Hodges point.\u00a0 He says, \u201cObviously not.\u201d\u00a0 [Zane C. Hodges, \u201cA Dispensational Understanding of Acts 2,\u201d in Issues in Dispensationalism<\/em>, ed. John R. Master Wesley R. Willis, Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 176.\n\nSo you can kind of see the direction that we\u2019re moving in here as I\u2019m trying to dispel Kingdom Now theology.\u00a0 What they\u2019re doing in Acts 2 is out of harmony with early information in Luke about the Davidic throne.\u00a0 That\u2019s red flag number one.\u00a0 Red flag number two is the two verbs translated \u201csit\u201d or \u201cseat\u201d are actually different verbs.\u00a0 And then the third problem is sitting is not enough to equate two thrones.\n\nSo we\u2019ll stop here and we\u2019ll do numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7 next time.","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t