Introduction & Review
One of the major tenets of Progressive Dispensationalism
is that Jesus is now occupying David's throne spiritually in heaven. However, the Bible is clear that, when the
throne of David is occupied in the future by Jesus, this will be the only fulfillment of the prophecy
historically (i.e., that the Messiah will reign on David's Throne; Luke 1: 31–33). Traditional Dispensationalists and
those consistent with their hermeneutics argue that Jesus, presently seated on
the Throne of His Father, is not reigning on David's throne. Progressive
Dispensationalists, such as Craig Blaising and
Darrell Bock, argue that Christ is now on David's throne and reigning spiritually
over a spiritual kingdom. They still claim there will be an historic, earthly
rule in the future, however.
From their book Progressive
Dispensationalism (Wheaton, IL: Bridge Point, 1993), Blaising
and Bock write:
Every New Testament description of the present throne of Jesus
is drawn from Davidic covenant promises.
Repeatedly, the New Testament declares that He is enthroned at the right
hand of God in fulfillment of the promise given in Psalm 110:1. This is a
Davidic promise; it is the son of David who fulfills it. In Acts 2:30-36, the
resurrection, ascension, and seating of Christ in heaven at the right hand of
God (Ps. 110:1) are presented in light of the prediction "that God had
sworn to him [David] with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his
throne" (Acts 2:30). No other throne is discussed in this text except the
Davidic throne.[1]
But does Acts 2:30-36 really teach that Christ is now on
David's throne? Admittedly, the passage is tough to follow in the English
structure, but by taking it apart in the Greek text, one can see that the
verses are not claiming Jesus is now reigning as promised in the Davidic
Covenant, either "spiritually" or actually. Amillennialists wish to claim such so that
they can believe the Church is the kingdom and all the millennial promises can
then be allegorized! Those who hold a Progressive Dispensational persuasion
also believe that Christ is now on David's throne but believe He will also
return for the literal millennial rule.
To make the issue clear, we must argue the point with a
logical and chronological sequencing. The order of events may look something
like this:
1. The Ascension of
Jesus Back to Heaven. After being
with His disciples for some forty days, Christ ascended back to the Father.
“After He had said these things [to His disciples], He was
lifted up while they were looking on and a cloud received Him out of their
sight...[And the angels said]: This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into
heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven”
(Acts 1:9, 11).
2. But before His death, resurrection, and ascension,
Jesus prophesied He would be glorified as the Son of Man.
“Jesus said, ‘Now [with My impending death and resurrection], is
the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified with Him...God will glorify Him
in Himself, and will glorify Him immediately’" (John 13:31-32).
3. Jesus was Exalted
in Heaven as the Son of Man. Daniel 7 pictures Christ entering the throne
room of the Ancient of Days (God the Father) and granted dominion over all
things.
“Behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was
coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And
He was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and
men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion
which will not pass away; ...and all the dominions will serve Him” (Dan. 7:13-14, 27).
4. Why is Christ
Exalted? As the Son of God, He was willing to come to earth and die for
lost humanity. He would then be honored by His heavenly Father for His humility
and His obedience.
Paul writes:
“He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to...death... on a
cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name
which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus Every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth and
under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is the
Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:8-11).
Note that Paul says that men will confess someday that
"Christ is the Lord"! Xristos means the
Anointed and refers to Him as the king who will reign on the earthly Davidic
throne. Lord refers to His universal sovereignty as Master of the universe! He
is certainly declared the Christ, but that earthly reign has not yet begun. He
is Lord, but men as yet do not recognize it. Someday they will!
5. As the Son of God, Jesus is now seated on His Father's
throne, not the Davidic throne!
“The LORD [Jehovah, Ever-existing One] says to my Lord [Adonai], [the Messiah]: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make
Your enemies a footstool for Your feet’" (Ps. 110:1).
More on this verse later.
Chronologically, this happened after Jesus is presented as
the Son of Man to the Father (Dan. 7:13-14).
Adonai pictures His sovereignty and dominion as
stated in Daniel 7. Adonai translated implies:
"Lord of the earthly realm, master, owner, possessor, master of servants,
of kings."
The Acts 2:36 Problem
Almost all amillennialists say Christ is now on David's
throne because of Acts 2:36. They claim "Lord and Christ" refer to
the same thing and that Jesus is now on David's throne, at least partly because
of this passage. Calvin puts it this way:
[Peter] joined the title Lord with the Christ, because it was a
common thing among the Jews, that the Redeemer should be anointed upon this
condition, that he might be the Head of the Church,...And now, forasmuch as
they know that Jesus is the Anointed of the Lord, the governor of the
Church,...[2]
The Pulpit Commentary notes:
God has acknowledged, accepted, and exalted Jesus, so affirming
his Messiahship, and entrusting him with Lordship in
the new spiritual kingdom.[3]
The context of Acts 2:36 begins with verse 22 where Peter
reminds the Jews how God used Jesus with miracles and wonders. He was then nailed to a cross (v. 23) by the
Lord's "predetermined plan" and raised from the dead because death
could not hold Him by its powers (v. 24). The reason: God would not abandon His
soul in Hades "nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay" (vs. 25-28)
as quoted in Psalm 16:8-11.
The Jews thought this psalm simply referred to David, but
Peter points out that David was buried and his tomb (and possibly his body)
"is with us to this day" (v. 29). To understand what Peter says next,
we must quote verses 30-32:
“And so, because he [David] was a prophet, and knew that God had
sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne, he
looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither
abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up
again, to which we are all witnesses.”
Note in verse 30, there is a clause that, if set aside
briefly, helps make more sense in the meaning.
“And so,...he [David] looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection
of the Christ,...”
And he adds, "This [is] Jesus [whom] God raised up
again, to which we are all witnesses." This descendant, God would place on
David's throne! With this, David sees the resurrection as demonstration that
Jesus is the Christ (the Anointed, Messiah)!
When Peter says "his descendant upon David's throne" (v. 30),
the Jews would have no other point of reference than the Davidic Covenant, and
that throne would be placed literally in the city of Jerusalem! The throne
mentioned then in verse 30 is not the heavenly throne that will be mentioned in
the verses to follow.
Verses 33-36
begin a new thought. They read:
“Therefore 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.
“For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself
says: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.’’”
“Therefore let all the house of Israel
know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you
crucified.”
These verses build on the previous verses, but a new
subject is introduced. Christ is now seated at the right hand of God the
Father, as Peter quotes Psalm 110:1. Not
as the Reigning Messiah, but as the Lord! His Messianic reign comes later!
The passage that causes the problem is 2:36.
It reads:
“Therefore let all the house of Israel
know for certain that God has made[4]
Him both Lord and Christ [Messiah]—this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Almost no commentators analyze the verse
grammatically. Notice how McGarvey (and so many others) believe that Peter is putting
Lord and Christ together:
[God] had made him Lord by causing him to sit on God's own
throne, to rule over angels and men; and he had made him Christ by causing him
to sit on the throne of David according to the promise. It was God's throne,
because it was the throne of universal dominion; and it was David's throne,
because it was the lineal descent from David which made Jesus the rightful
king.[5]
Observe how Hackett also confuses Christ as now on the
throne of His Father and the idea of a future reign of Jesus with His
disciples. Hackett, along with others, makes this careless mistake:
Moreover, that the phrase "to sit at the right hand of
God," or "of the throne of God," does not of itself mean
"original divine" dominion is clear from the fact that Christ assures
his faithful disciples they shall sit down with him on his throne, even as he
sat down with the Father on his throne. (Rev. 3:21)...The dominion here which
Christ received belonged to him as Mediator; and it is to cease, therefore,
when the objects of his kingdom as Mediator are accomplished.[6]
Granville Sharp's Rule VI
Notice that the verse says "both Lord and
Christ." In Greek "both ... and" is the Greek conjunction kai used
twice: "kai Kurios,
kai Xristos." This
phrase actually creates separation between the two nouns and the two offices.
In Sharp's Rule VI, he makes this point:
And as the insertion of the copulative kai
between nouns of the same case, without articles,...denotes that the second
noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality, from the preceding
noun,..."[7]
Thus, Peter is making Lord a title distinct from
Messiah! Lord would be a reference to
Psalm 110:1 and Christ (Anointed) a reference to Psalm 2:2. The expression
"Both (kai)
Lord and (kai)
Christ" is further supporting the idea of the two different offices. All translations and all commentaries retain
the "kai
... kai"
construction as "both ... and."
In every case of this "both ... and" construction, as cited by
Bauer, the two nouns are to be translated as separate phrases or distinct
entities or properties.[8]
Thus, Jesus being Lord is different from His being the Christ.
Though there is certainly an association meant in the two
titles Lord and Christ, there are still separate things going on in regard to
these designations. He now is seated as Lord by His Father in heaven and He
will someday be seated on David's earthly throne in the millennium.
Below are some examples as to how Sharp's Rule VI works in other passages where "kai ... kai" is
used. The two nouns are separate; they are not the same thing.
“Able to destroy both (kai) SOUL and (kai) BODY in hell" (Mt. 10:28).
“Both (kai) WISDOM and (kai) KNOWLEDGE of God” (Rom. 11:33).
Though only One person is in view, Jesus, this separation
of function of office is carried over in the book of Revelation. Christ is
spoken of as:
“Lord of lords and King of kings” (Rev. 17:14).
“King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16).
As has already been pointed out, but is worth repeating,
another interesting passage that seems clearly to make such strong separation
of the two thrones is Matthew 19:28, which reads:
“I say to you [the disciples], that you who have followed Me, in
the regeneration [of the earthly kingdom] when the Son of Man will sit on His
glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel.”
The Issue of the Melchizedekian
Priesthood of Christ
Blaising and Bock argue that the
Davidic Covenant is now being partly fulfilled in that Christ is on His Davidic
throne in heaven as a priest after the order of Melchizedek. From this position
in glory, and at the right hand of God the Father, they argue this is another
Davidic Covenant promise and prophecy now taking place. Blaising and Bock
write:
[Jesus's] present kingship is further
elaborated in Hebrews in terms of its Melchizedekian
priestly office and function, another Davidic covenant promise (the oath sworn
to David and revealed in Psalm 110:4). This priestly office is brought together
with the already defined Davidic sonship to describe
again His present throne—the "throne of grace" (Heb. 4:16), occupied by our "great high
priest...Jesus the Son of God" (4:14,
cf. 5:5-6).[9]
Is Christ's present Melchizedekian
priesthood really a part of the Davidic Covenant promise? Or, is His Melchizedekian priesthood part of His work as the Initiator
of the New Covenant that has to do with a sacrifice for sins and the forever
forgiveness of those sins? If this is
the case, Jesus' present priesthood in heaven is not related directly to His
future earthly kingly reign in Jerusalem
in the millennium.
No matter from what school of thought one argues, all have
to admit that in the kingdom we will see Christ functioning in both offices,
king and priest. Jesus will officiate as the priest in the new temple, but He
will also be ruling as king and monarch over Israel
and the earth. But before going on, a review is important. What is the Melchizedekian priesthood all about?
Abraham and Melchizedek
When Abram (later Abraham) had been in Canaan
for a time, he encountered the king of Salem
(probably early Jerusalem) who was
a priest and an intercessor of "God Most High" (Gen. 14:18). This
king was named Melchizedek which means "king of righteousness." The
story is fascinating and full of strong implications that there were godly men,
scattered probably throughout the Middle East, who knew
the true God and had a personal relationship with Him.
Melchizedek acted as a priest for the Lord. He accepted
tithes and had the power and authority to bless Abram (v. 19). Melchizedek is not mentioned again in the Old
Testament until the reference in Psalm 110:4. And it is with this verse that
the problem arises.
Psalm 110: A Psalm of David
Without question, Psalm 110 is the song concerning the
Davidic Covenant and promises. But to understand how and why the issue of
Melchizedek is brought up in these verses, is to solve a very important
mystery. For example, why does verse 4 suddenly come in the middle of the
kingly context? The verse reads:
“The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, ‘Thou art a
priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’”
The outline of Psalm 110 may help us:
Verse 1. "The
LORD'S [Yahwah] declaration to my [David's] Lord [Adonai] 'Sit at My right hand, until I make a footstool for
Thy feet.'"
There is little question that this incredible psalm sees
God making a prophetic declaration to the Messiah. The irony is of course that
David's Master is his own son! Jesus quotes this passage to the Pharisees. He
asks them, "'What do you think about the Christ [Anointed], whose son is
He?' They said to Him, 'The son of David'" (Mt. 22:41-42). The Lord then quotes Psalm 110:1 and asks the
Pharisees "If David then calls Him 'Lord', how is He his [David's]
son?" (v. 45).
The answer is clear! The Messiah is both David's physical
son and the Son of God who will someday be instructed to sit at the Father's
right hand!
Verses 2-3. By the authority of the Father, the Son will
rule with a scepter from Zion [Jerusalem].
“The LORD will stretch forth Thy strong scepter [the Messiah's]
from Zion, saying, ‘Rule in the
midst of Thine enemies.’ Thy people will volunteer freely
in the day of Thy power; In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Thy you are
to Thee as the dew.”
These verses, without doubt, refer to the literal and
historical reign of the son of David during the millennium. Though verse 3 is
difficult, it seems to be saying that the people will rally to the king freely
and give themselves as an offering to His service.
Verse 4. Then comes
the verse concerning the Messiah as a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
This priesthood is to be eternal in nature.
“The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, ‘Thou art a
priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’”
Verses 5-7. These
passages are also clearly Messianic.
Again, they speak of the king coming in wrath and judging the nations.
The verses are dealing with the literal and historic rule of David's Lord whom
Jesus points out is the Son of God.
“The Lord [the Messiah] is at Thy right hand [at the right of
God the Father]; He [the Messiah] will shatter kings in the day of His wrath
[His coming to earth]. He will judge among the nations. He will fill [the
earth] with corpses, He will scatter the chief men over a broad country. He
will drink from the brook by the wayside; therefore He will lift up His head.”
On verse 6 Unger writes:
"He shall judge among the nations" and peoples
confederated against Him (Psalm 2:1-3; Rev. 16:13-16; 19:11-20; cf. Matt. 25:1-46). Literally, "He will
fill them (the nations, or earth, land) with corpses"..."He shall
wound...the Head over many countries ('over a broad territory'),"
evidently referring to the literal "head"...of the Antichrist (Rev.
13:1-10), the Satan-dominated leader of the great end-time revolt against God
and his attempt to take over the rule of the earth (Psalm 2:1-3; Rev. 13:7; cf.
19:20).[10]
Now comes the question and the mystery. Is the Melchizedekian priesthood here mentioned in Psalm 110:4 a
part of the Davidic Covenant? Since Christ is now carrying out the office of
that priesthood in glory, it might seem as if that proves that the Davidic
Covenant is now in operation in a spiritual sense, as Blaising
and Bock want to imply. But Unger answers this with a "no," yet the
final verdict will actually come from the writer of the book of Hebrews. On
this issue, Unger notes:
Although Christ is a Priest like Melchizedek now, the full
display of that priesthood will not occur until He comes as King and unites the
two offices in one Person. Not until the night visions of Zechariah (Zech.
1:4-6:8), which cover events that close this age, are completed will the symbolic
action of the crowning of the high priest take place (6:9-15), prefiguring the
Messiah upon "his throne" (6:13); so Christ must first receive His
own throne before He can manifest the full [earthly] glory of His eternal
Melchizedek priesthood.[11]
Th Melchizedekian
Priesthood and the New Covenant
The writer of Hebrews will tie Christ's present priestly
ministry with the New Covenant, not the Davidic Covenant. Question: But is not
the Melchizedekian priesthood mentioned in Psalm
110:4, which is a Davidic Covenant psalm? The answer is yes. But though
mentioned, David the author does not actually
come out and say that this priestly office is part of the Davidic Covenant! In
interpretation, one must note what is not
said as well as what is said!
Again, the issue will be settled when it is observed how
the inspired writer of Hebrews treats and refers to the Lord's present priestly
activities.
Christ Superior to Aaron
In Hebrews 5, the author of the book tells us that God
gave a sacred call to the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood when He called Aaron as the first high
priest (5:4). But, the apostle who wrote Hebrews adds: there are two things
even more important about Jesus. First, quoting Psalm 2:7, the writer points
out that Christ is designated as God's own Son. "Thou art My Son, today I
have begotten Thee" (Heb. 5:5).
Secondly, the writer shows that the Lord Jesus has been
designated a priest after Melchizedek. "Thou art a priest forever
according to the order of Melchizedek" (5:6). Since Christ would be born
of the royal tribe of Judah
and of the kingly clan of David, He could not be born of the priestly tribe of
Levi. But the Melchizedekian priesthood does not show
lineage or historic succession, as the author of Hebrews later wrote:
“Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having
neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he
abides a priest perpetually [uninterrupted]” (7:3).
There was no recorded genealogy nor beginning and end to
Melchizedek's ministry. However, the Aaronic
priesthood had a strict rule of lineage and succession. But as there is no such
earthly order seen with Melchizedek, Jesus could act as an independent priest
in the same manner.
At His death, Christ personally took upon Himself the
roles of the priestly offering. In His physical [flesh] He offered prayers and
cried out to the One [God] who could have saved Him from death (Heb. 5:7). He
was obedient as a Son by which He offered Himself and suffered as a sacrifice
(5:8; Isa. 53). Having "completed all
things" (teleioo),
"He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation"
(5:9). He was "brought forward, assigned (prosagoreo) by God as a high priest
according to the order of Melchizedek" (v. 10).
Which Covenant?
Since Jesus became "the source of eternal
salvation" (5:9), which covenant is this sacrificial work referring to:
Davidic Covenant or New Covenant? The answer seems to be the New Covenant
because it creates a personal relationship and gives forgiveness of iniquity
and sin (Jer. 31:33-34). It would offer a cleansing
from iniquities (Ezek. 36:33), remove the heart of stone (v. 26), and allow
God's Spirit to come within (v. 27). This covenant would be based on the shed
blood of Christ, for He said: "...
this is My blood of the [New] covenant, which is poured out for many for
forgiveness of sins" (Mt. 26:28). This is repeated in Luke 22:20:
"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My
blood."
Jesus said these words as He and the disciples were at the
Passover meal, which of course was portraying His sacrificial death.
Interestingly, He continued speaking and told His disciples "But I say to
you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when
I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom" (v. 29).
How did the disciples take these words? "Oh, He must
spiritually mean the coming Church Age!" Or, "He's talking about a
coming 'spiritual' Davidic reign that precedes His actual literal earthly
reign!"
To the disciples the Davidic Covenant would mean the
earthly literal reign of the Messiah in Jerusalem.
There is no pre-spiritual reign in view!
But back to the book of Hebrews. Does this book confirm
that Christ's priesthood is tied to the New Covenant and not the Davidic
Covenant? Hebrews clearly ties the Melchizedekian
priestly work of Christ to the New Covenant and not the Davidic. Jesus began “…with an oath through the One [God] who said to Him, ‘The Lord
has sworn and will not change His mind, Thou art a priest forever’; so much the
more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant” (7:21-22).
“For it
was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent,
undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not
need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own
sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all
when He offered up Himself” (vs. 26-27).
“But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much
as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on
better promises. For if that first covenant [the Mosaic Covenant] had been
faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second [the New
Covenant]” (8:6-7).
The writer of Hebrews then immediately quotes Jeremiah
31:31-34 and the entire passage about the prophesied coming New Covenant that
would contrast the old law, the Mosaic Covenant. He concludes with this statement:
“When [God] said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first
obsolete. But whatever is become obsolete and growing old is ready to
disappear” (8:13).
Jesus entered the heavenly tabernacle with the sacrifice
of His own body (9:11, 24),
"through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having
obtained eternal redemption" (v. 12), "who through the eternal Spirit
offered Himself without blemish to God,.." (v. 14).
“And for this reason, He is the mediator of a new covenant, in
order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the
transgressions that were committed under the first [Mosaic] covenant, those who
have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (v. 15).
So far, the writer of Hebrews is connecting Christ's
sacrifice with the New Covenant of forgiveness of sin. The author is doing this
with direct references to the New Covenant and no hint that Jesus' sacrificial
work, nor His present intercessory function, is fulfilling any part of the
Davidic Covenant.
The final argument is sealed with this summary:
“He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat
down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies
be made a footstool for His feet. For by
one offering He has consecrated for all times those who are sanctified” (10:13-14).
The author again quotes the New Covenant as given in
Jeremiah 31:33-34.
“And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the
Lord: I will put My laws upon their heart, and upon their mind I will write
them,’ He then says, ‘And their sins and
their lawless deeds I will remember no more’" (vs. 15-17).
In the kingdom, all the covenants (Palestinian, Davidic,
and New) weave together to form an eschatological tapestry. But it is paramount
for the theologian of God's Word to be accurate. The Melchizedekian
priesthood of our Lord does not relate to a partial fulfillment of that Davidic
Covenant. The Davidic Covenant has to do with the kingly Messianic reign and we
are not in the kingdom presently, in any form or fashion.
Blaising and Bock are mistaken
when they write:
This priestly office (Melchizedekian)
is brought together with the already defined Davidic sonship
to describe again His present throne—the "throne of grace" (Heb. 4:16), occupied by our "great high
priest...Jesus the Son of God" (4:14,
cf. 5:5-6) [12]
Blaising and Bock are attempting
to imply that the throne of grace is where Christ is now seated, but more. They
are trying to imply that this throne is the heavenly Davidic throne. It is not!
Two verses before, Hebrews 4:14, simply picture Christ the
"great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of
God,..." Thus, He sits next to His Father, on the throne of grace,
"that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of
need" (v. 16). This is the Father's throne, made by the Son's sacrifice
“the Intercessory throne,” but certainly not the Davidic throne relating to His
future Messianic earthly rule!
Conclusion
Ryrie puts a proper perspective on this issue and what
Progressive Dispensationalists are trying to say, when he rightly concludes:
They are causing,
… a blurring of the distinction between the church and the
Davidic kingdom by asserting that Christ is now reigning from heaven on the
throne of David and that the church is the present revelation of the
eschatological kingdom.
They say the church is "a Present Revelation of the
[Messianic] kingdom." This emphasis comes from focusing on the Lord's
present reign in heaven on the Davidic throne in inaugural fulfillment of the
Davidic Covenant and incarnate as the son of David and "not as generic
humanity." Therefore, progressives conclude that the church is the
"present reality of the coming eschatological kingdom." It is the
kingdom today.
In American evangelicalism the writings of George E. Ladd
widely promoted views of the kingdom that are now embraced by progressive
dispensationalism. Although progressives try to distance themselves from Ladd
and disclaim any dependence on his theology, they are espousing the same views.
When Bock was asked if Ladd would disagree with his views, he replied, "I
think the fundamental thrust of the structure he would not disagree with."
The major similarities, if not sameness, between Ladd and progressives are
these: (1) the focus on the kingdom
of God as an overall,
all-encompassing theme; (2) the already/not yet, progressively realized nature
of the kingdom; (3) the present position of Christ reigning in heaven as the
Messianic/Davidic king.
If Christ inaugurated His Davidic reign at His ascension,
does it not seem incongruous that His first act as reigning Davidic king was
the sending of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33), something not included in the
promises of the Davidic Covenant?
Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews plainly declares that Christ
"sat down at the right hand of the throne of God," not the throne of
David (12:2). That does not deny that
our Lord has all authority in heaven and earth or that He rules in the world
and in the church; rather, it denies that He is ruling on David's throne now
and that the Davidic Covenant has already been inaugurated. To conclude
otherwise confuses the various rules in the Bible. Remember, too, that David
himself was designated and anointed to be king some time before he began to
reign as king. Christ is the Davidic king, designated before His birth to reign
over "the house of Jacob," not the church (Luke 1:31-33), though He will not be reigning as Davidic king
until His second coming.[13]
[1] Craig A. Blaising
and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive
Dispensationalism (Wheaton, IL: Bridge Point, 1993), p. 182.
[4]
Made. The Greek word is poieo. In this
context, the best definition is "appoint, grant, commission"
according to Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds., Exegetical Dictionary of The New Testament, 3 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1994), 3:124, 126.
[5] J. W. McGarvey, New Commentary on Acts of Apostles
(Delight, AR.: Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1892), p. 36.
[6]
Horatio B. Hackett, Commentary on Acts
(Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications,
1992), pp. 52-53.
[7]
Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article … Containing
Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ (Atlanta: The Original Word, Inc., 1995), p. 25.
[8]
Walter Bauer; A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederich W. Danker, trans. William F. Arndt and William F.
Gingrinch (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1979), p. 394.
[9]
Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism…,p. 183.
[10]
Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Commentary on
the Old Testament, 2 Vols. (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1981), 1:916.
[11]
Ibid.
