The coming of the kingdom of God

Hi there

Recently my church has just started a series on the kingdom of God which I see is a major step forward in our theology and mission. I think my pastor created the series in repsonse to reading Mclaren’s ‘Secret Message of Jesus’ which I recommend but dont always agree with. So i have had a chance to design a Kids church curriculam for the upcoming series with my girlfriend who is the Kids church leader.

However, it has given me such a headache. I thought I understood the basic message of the coming Kingdom but as I delved into scripture and read some of Andrew’s posts I started to question some of my assumptions, which were largely based on NT Wright’s view of the Kingdom coming in the present with a final consumation in the future. However, from matthew to revelation there is no evidence that any of the writers had thought the Kingdom had come in their time. Also Nt Wright and others seem to assume that when the Kingdom comes (as it did thru Jesus’ ministry as they beleive) justice and peace will come to the whole world as promised in the prophets. Obviously this justice and peace hasnt come yet so the development of a two stage coming of the Kingdom has been the result. The first with Christ inaugurating the new kingdom and then later at the renewal at all things.

In this regard, I have started to doubt the coming kingdom as the fulfilment of the promise of the renewal of all things. Rather, I have started to see the Kingdom as a real historical event that involved the liberation of the prople of God from the Beast and the establishment of a people free to live under the reign of Christ. So the kingdom has come, Jesus is Lord over his people who are free to worship him and the false kings have been defeated, namely the Caesars and their cult. In addition, the new creation language now is our hope and future, not the consumation of the coming kingdom. If I have misrepresented Nt Wright’s beliefs feel free to put me straight. In conclusion, i feel the kingdom motif is given extra narrative that makes some scriptures like Matt16.28 hard to interpret.

Shalom.

Ryan

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

Comments

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Ryan, welcome to what feels sometimes like a rather small club! Let me take this opportunity to restate the argument.

The New Testament views the coming of the kingdom of God as an event in the foreseeable future (cf., eg., Matt. 16:28), that would have a decisive impact, first, on the present generation of Jews and, secondly, on the dominant hierarchies that opposed YHWH and his Christ and the degenerate pagan culture that sustained them. It amounts to an impending régime change for the people of God. What people encounter in the present of the Gospel narrative (healings, exorcisms, etc.) are not so much the in-breaking of he kingdom (though that is not altogether inappropriate) but signs of what God is about to do to transform the fortunes of his wayward people.

The coming of the kingdom of God will be accompanied not by global peace and justice but by peace and justice for the people of God in the place of political oppression and divine condemnation. They are a people facing the wrath of God: they lack peace, they have no ‘righteousness’ (cf. Daniel 9). This deliverance of the people, however, will have a global impact: the righteousness of God in acting on behalf of Israel, in keeping the promise to Abraham during this time of eschatological crisis, will be seen by the world - not least because emissaries will be sent out to announce what God has done, to proclaim this very ‘political’ good news.

So yes, in the contingent, historical sense envisaged by the New Testament, the kingdom has now come, broadly through the events of the war against Rome and the faithful defiance exhibited by the early communities as they faced up to the anti-Christian hostility of Rome. This is not to say that Constantine constituted the complete fulfilment of the positive hope. Constantine merely marked the point - actually and symbolically - at which the emerging community was finally vindicated in the ancient world and Roman paganism overthrown.

As you suggest, what we now look forward to - our ultimate hope - is not the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth (marked by a second coming of Jesus) but the renewal of creation. God’s reign over his people has come in the displacement of Caesar and the enthroning of Christ as Lord and king so that the descendants of Abraham through faith are now free to fulfil their vocation as God’s new creation in the world. We remain under that reign as long as there are still enemies that oppose God’s purposes - the last enemy being death. But in the end, once the last enemy has been destroyed, this kingdom will be handed back to the Father - it will become redundant (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

In the symbolism of Revelation the kingdom comes with the overthrow of Babylon the great and the vindication of those who suffered, who will reign with Christ for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4-6). But when the final justice comes, kingdom language disappears because there are no more enemies to challenge the sovereignty of God over his people. Instead, we have an account of a new creation: a new heaven and new earth and the new Jerusalem descending as a temple of the presence of the God who is worshipped and honoured by the nations of the earth (Revelation 21).

­

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Thanks for the reply Andrew. Your comment about how “the kingdom language disappears because there are no more enemies to challenge the sovereignty of God over his people” is very interesting. I have never thought of it that way.

In my opinion or, rather, in the opinion of our small club, this view makes alot of sense. I’m interested to hear objections to this view of the Kingdom of God. I suppose, like most of the New Testament, this ‘story’ is couched in the larger eschatological narrative that you propose in COSM. Hence, its resitance to be moulded into a more abstract universal idea.

Ryan

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

I have been asked to do some research on Matthew 11:11-13 and its possible cross reference in Luke 16:16 by a friend of mine who is preaching this sunday at my church. At face value, this portion of text appears to describe a present Kingdom of God that is open to all at the very moment of Jesus saying these words. Hence its possible relevance to this particular post as a source of possible objection to the idea of the kingdom presented above by myself and more comprehensively by Andrew. However, phrases like ‘the Kingdom of God suffers violence’ and ‘violent men take it by force’ seem to contradict all the other allusions to the kingdom. Seems like Jesus is referring to a popular idea of how the kingdom will come about that he sought to subvert and confront. I have not given these words much thought yet so any comments are welcomed.

Ryan

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Ryan, these are notoriously difficult texts to interpret. If the words biazetai and biastai are to be read negatively (so in Matt. 11:12 ‘the kingdom of heaven suffers violence and violent men seize it’), which seems most likely, then we can at least say that Jesus is not speaking here about a normative or approved understanding of what it means for the kingdom of God to come. The idea would appear to be that something is being done violently in the present to force (or perhaps oppose) an event that belongs to the future.

Having said that, I’m not sure it’s too problematic to suppose that Jesus regarded the kingdom of God as having begun in some sense with his ministry or with the preaching of John the Baptist. The point is that if the announcement of the coming of the reign of God refers to a process that has already started rather than an entirely future event, it nevertheless culminates in the victory of the believing community over Rome, which is the coming of the Son of man on the clouds of heaven to receive the kingdom from the Ancient of Days.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

I went on to one of my favoutite Jewish Christian sites at www.egrc.net and they gave a very interesting interpretation of Matt11:12. I have constructed an argument for a particular interpretation based on their input:

The ASV and KJV translations of the verse, in my opinion, have just directly translated the words from Greek to English without looking too much into the overall meaning of what Jesus was saying. As a result, the translators of this verse failed to see a connection between the key Greek words and possible uses of key words in the Hebrew bible. It is important to note that this was originally spoken by Jesus in Hebrew or Aramaic and then written down in Greek. The Greek words ‘biazo’ and ‘biastes’ have been translated ‘suffers violence’ and ‘violent’ in KJV and ASV translations and translated ‘forcefully advancing’ and ‘forceful’ in the NIV. Now ‘Biazo’ can also mean ‘forceful’ or ‘bursting out’ or ‘explosive’ according to this source. A possible Hebrew equivalent of ‘biazo’ if it means ‘forceful’ or ‘bursting out’ is ‘poretz’. Now the use of the word ‘poretz’ is used in a specific Messianic prophecy in Micah 2:12-13 that has close associations to what Jesus is trying to say about John the Baptist, his status as the Christ and the Kingdom of God. My source believes that the listeners would have picked this up straight away. However, there is no cross referencing done by Matthew on this text like he does with other texts alluding to messianic prophecies. This is not necessarily a problem.

Micah 2:12-13 describes the gathering of the remnant of Israel after being scattered because of their disobedience to the covenant (Duet 30). However, God promised that if they repent/return he will re-gather them like a shepherd re-gathers his sheep (Ezekiel 34). To understand this passage better it is important to look at how shepherds took care of their sheep in those times. According to this source, the shepherd would lead the sheep around open land to graze all day and, at evening, would herd them into a makeshift pen made out of boulders rolled near the mouth of a cave. Sometimes the shepherd would even sleep just outside the rocks so that he blocked the exit for the sheep himself i.e. he was the gate. In the morning, one of the shepherd’s helpers would ‘break open the way’ by pushing aside a boulder so that the sheep could exit from their overnight confinement. The sheep would be hungry, wanting to graze and have their freedom and so they would burst out in a small stampede, breaking down and moving aside other boulders in their way. The shepherd would exit along with them and they would follow the shepherd out to the pasture. Again this comes from one source and I have not checked if this is correct.

So in the time of Jesus this passage was believed to be messianic. The people of the day expected two figures to come initiating their great liberation. The first to come would be a messenger to prepare the way and then the Messiah who was going to rule over his people in the place of the corrupt Jewish leaders and the Roman Empire. In this passage they imagined that the one who breaks open the way was the messenger and the shepherd leading them out was the Messiah. The picture of this prophecy is about a people full of joy at the coming of the Kingdom of God who are stampeding out of their pen after a night of being confined.

So how does this relate to Matt11:12?

The announcement of the coming of the Kingdom by John was what many in Israel had been longing for. For many the continuation of the exile and their oppression was a grim reminder of their failure and how liberation had not come yet. But then out of the blue, when things seemed like they would never change, John the Baptist comes as the messenger preparing the way for the coming kingdom. This message of the beginnings of their liberation bursts on to the scene and people flock to John the Baptist. Suddenly there is a buzz, old expectations are revived, joy is bubbling, and hope is reborn. The promise of the Kingdom of God was starting to be initiated, starting to be established, it was starting to become a reality through John’s ministry. The good news of the Kingdom of God signaled the start of their liberation, it was the bursting open of the ‘pen’ of their bondage.

Taking this possible explanation based on this source I have attempted to better translate the text. Again this is just a very rushed and incomprehensive analysis and a very ambitious attempt at a re-translation. Anyway here it goes:
The words ‘the kingdom of God is forcefully advancing’ is better translated the ‘the good news of the Kingdom of God has forcefully broken open the way of liberation’ and the words ‘and forceful men lay hold of it’ is better translated ‘and those receiving the message with joy and gladness are passionately following the shepherd out into freedom like sheep trying to escape their pen after a long night.

In my opinion, this interpretation fits well within the larger chapter and context of Matt11:1-19 because it continues the theme of the roles of John the Baptist and Jesus in the coming of the Kingdom of God.

In relation to the Kingdom of God, it seems at first that the scripture is saying that the Kingdom of God is bursting forth onto the scene and that people are passionately entering in. based on the Micah 2:12-13, I prefer to say that a way leading out into freedom has been opened up by announcement of the coming of the Kingdom by John the baptist.

Ryan

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Ryan, thanks for this. It’s a very interesting interpretation. Here are some initial thoughts:

  • It’s not clear that there are two figures in Micah 2:13. It looks to me rather as though the one who breaks out or breaks through is the same as the king who passes on before them, who is also ‘the Lord at their head’. The allusion only really works if the figure breaking through the wall is John the Baptist leading others (the biastai) who break through after him. But it is then a problem if in Micah it is the king who breaks through.
  • The Hebrew פרץ seems usually to have the rather specific sense of breaching a wall. It is translated by biazomai in the LXX of 2 Sam. 13:25, 27, but here the specific sense appears to be missing. (Both words also occur in Ex. 19:24 but not as equivalents. In 2 Macc. 14:41 biazomai has the sense of breaking down a door.) So it’s a little odd that we have biazomai / biastēs in the Gospels. Possibly they are meant only to capture the general idea, but then we have only a very slight literary link with the Micah passage.
  • Nothing in Jesus’ words overtly suggests the sheep-shepherd metaphor.
  • I’m not sure your translation really does justice to the Greek of Matt. 11:12. The whole thing is horribly complex, but I don’t really see, for example, how the ‘kingdom of heaven’ would be the subject of biazetai if in the background is the metaphor of either a shepherd or his sheep breaking through the wall of the fold.

I’m not sure that any of these observations absolutely discounts the association with Micah 2:12-13 - it’s certainly a very attractive idea. But my feeling is it remains rather tenuous. Not that I have anything better!

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Ryan and Andrew,

Ryan, Andrew’s negative assessment of your article on Matt 11:12-13 not-with-standing, I find myself very much in agreement with your "new" understanding of this passage. I came across this idea several years ago and have since documented it from several different sources.

Andrew wrote: "It’s not clear that there are two figures in Micah 2:13. It looks to me rather as though the one who breaks out or breaks through is the same as the king who passes on before them,"

In the obverse, it is not clear that there are not two figures in Michah 2:13. It seems very strange to me that a "king" would do the laborious and dangerous task of a breaker. Thus the "breaker" certainly could be John the baptist and the King is most certainly Jesus Christ in His Parousia.

Andrew continued: “Nothing in Jesus’ words overtly suggests the sheep-shepherd metaphor.” Maybe not in this specific passage but Jesus own statement of His mission for the disciple is stated just a few verses earlier in Matthew 10:6 “"But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 10:6 NKJV)” And Jesus stated His own mission in Matthew 15:24: “But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24 NKJV)”

Thus the statement in Matthew 11:12 is in fact bracketed by direct references to the sheep-flock-shepherd metaphor.

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

It seems very strange to me that a “king” would do the laborious and dangerous task of a breaker.

That would make for a rather unfortunate comment on Jesus as king! It is precisely the responsibility of a king to ‘judge us and go out before us and fight our battles’ (1 Sam. 8:20).

It still seems unlikely to me that the participle in Micah 2:13 ‘the one breaking through’ (הפרץ) refers to a significant figure other than one of the subjects explicitly mentioned in the paragraph - either one of the sheep, YHWH, or the king.

In the LXX there is even less reason to think that two figures are intended: we simply have the sheep breaking through a breach.

Yes, Jesus regarded himself as Israel’s true shepherd, but the passages you cite are too remote from Matt. 11:12 to function as an interpretive context. In fact, the thought of restoration does not seem relevant for Matthew 11, which has to do with the significance of John’s imprisonment and his preaching of a message that opposed the powerful and unjust in Israel. Notice that the quotation from Malachi 3:1 in Matthew 11:10 evokes the thought of God coming to judge his people - the image of sheep happily running out to eat grass is quite out of place in this context.

Nor have you addressed the question of how Jesus’ words would match up against the image of Micah 2:12-13:

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has forced its way (middle) or has been subjected to force (passive), and forceful men have seized it.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Regarding Andrew’s comments on the link between Matt11:12 and Micah 2:12-13, I see it is a big jump to connect these two scriptures the way I did in an earlier post. It does make for an interesting and possible interpretation but my analysis of the specific words and their uses in greek and in hebrew were very coarse.

According to e-Sword the greek says ‘deh apo ho he to hemera John the Baptist heos arti ho he to basileia ouranos biazo, kia biastes harpazo autos’

So the Kingdom of God appears to be the subject of biazo. That is important. How was the word biazo and biastes used in the day?
Also there is apparently a conjunction joining this verse to verse 11. (‘deh’)

Anyway if you have already tried to answer this sorry for the repetition.

Thanks
 Ryan

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

The verb biazō is used in the Septuagint to mean constrain, pressure someone into doing something, force a person to do something (including the sense of forcing a woman to have sex), force down a door, stop the current of a river. In the NT it is found only in Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16. According to Liddell and Scott the word has a similar range of meaning in non-biblical Greek. The more difficult question is whether the form biazeta is middle (‘comes forcefully or violently) or passive (‘is subjected to force or violence’).

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

To Ryan,

Ryan wrote:

“I have started to see the Kingdom as a real historical event that involved the liberation of the prople of God from the Beast and the establishment of a people free to live under the reign of Christ.”

Ryan, I have a couple of questions for you. In your understanding:

  • What is "the kingdom of God"?
  • Where is this kingdom located?
  • Who are the “people of God”?
  • Which “beast” were the people of God “liberated” from?
  • Just how was it established that “a people were free to live under the reign of Christ?
  • Which specific event occurred in the first century that “liberated the people of God from the beast” and at the same time “established a people free to live under the reign of Christ”?
  • Where were/are these people that “are free to live under the reign of Christ”?

 Blessings,

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Hi Lloyd, to answer your questions.

1.What is “the kingdom of God”?
This is the million dollar question. Basically my view of the Kingdom has recently changed as I have read Andrew’s views and struggled with fully accepting Mclaren’s and even Nt Wright’s views even though Nt Wright is the person with whom I am most indebted for my outlook. The Kingdom of God was the rule of God Israel were expecting to be established. To be ruled by God and only God and for YHWH to return to restore their fortunes and overthrow other kingdoms that were competing for rule over Israel. Basically the Kingdom of God involves three ideas: the liberation and restoration of Israel, the overthrow of the corrupt and pagan leaders, and the return of YHWH to rule in the midst of His people as the world’s true Lord. Im not too sure where the escape from judgment fits in. Only when Jesus is acknowledged as the true King over Israel and the world, over and above competing kings, does the kingdom finally come. Its just that the Kingdom is established in a different way that was expected. It was established by the suffering of the Messiah and his followers and not through miraculous signs and wonders on the battle field. So when Jesus is walking around, the Kingdom is starting to be established. His followers announce him and follow him as king in advance to the establishment of his kingdom. One thing I have not mentioned is the element of the coming wrath on Israel and larger Roman world as part of the Kingdom message. I think I leave that for now. Andrew explains it better. So bsically I affirm the Jewish aspirations of the Kingdom of God motif. Its just the way it was establsihed that sets my view apart from the Jewish view.

2. Where is this kingdom located?
I used to answer this by saying it is located in the midst of those who claim him as king and within their hearts but I believe this does not do the phrase justice. This is a rather spiritual looking Kingdom. This type of kingdom obvoiusly has physical manifestations but the rule of God remains rather spiritual. As long as leaders like Herod and Caesar were ruling over Israel and later the church (new Israel) I beleive the Kingdom had not come yet. It was being establsihed by the faithful as they followed Jesus’ narrow path. So the Kingdom is located in the future and when it did come it was an acknowledgement of Jesus’ lordship over above other kingdoms throughout the Roman empire.

3. Who are the “people of God”?
They are those who are saved from the coming wrath, the remanant that survived the crisis, that are ‘in Christ’. Basically those who identify with the way of Jesus and His Lordship and survive into the new age to continue the call given to Israel.

4. Which “beast” were the people of God “liberated” from? That would be the person who sets himself up against Jesus as the true ruler of the world (Roman empire and Israel) and the ruler calling for the persecution of the church. This includes Nero, Domitian, Caigula, etc…)

5. Just how was it established that “a people were free to live under the reign of Christ? Through the suffering servant, Jesus and his followers. YHWH hands over the Kingdom to the Son of Man, which is Jesus and his followers, the saints of the most High that suffered. God establsihed the kingdom through the suffering of his sons and daughters in the name of Christ.

6. Which specific event occurred in the first century that “liberated the people of God from the beast” and at the same time “established a people free to live under the reign of Christ”? I think the establsihment was more gradual and involved many events. Its hard to say any specific event but in the end I think that there was a changing of the guard. I can see in a way that the establsihment maybe did not meet the expectations of the coming Kingdom but that does not discount that it came I would argue.

7. Where were/are these people that “are free to live under the reign of Christ”? The remanant that survived the eschatological crisis, the coming wrath, the Day of the Lord, were now free to be the people of God instead of crying out for salvation. They would now become a place of new creation, of true humanity, of righteousness. I think the Jews longed for the glory days during the reign of David and the early years of Solomon where people would marvel at the nation and its God. So today where is the Kingdom of God? With all our freedom to worship and live we seem to have squandered our calling of new creation and humanity in the midst of the old. In many ways we are free to worship God and to live under his rule but Jesus is not acknoledged as Lord of the world like what was expected in the first few centuries. Instead the gentiles are disgusted with our God becasue of our witness. This is a generalisation because God is still at work in his people and new creation happens.

So this is my view influenced heavily by Tom Wright and Andrew.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Ryan,

Thank you for your response to my questions.

In an attempt to keep these posts relatively short and somewhat managable, I am going to address certain points in different posts.

I have some concerns about your statement:

"The Kingdom of God was the rule of God Israel were expecting to be established. To be ruled by God and only God and for YHWH to return to restore their fortunes and overthrow other kingdoms that were competing for rule over Israel. "

What do you mean (i.e. what is included in) "the rule of God"?  Does this include the everlasting "reign (rule) of Jesus Christ" or does it exclude it.  It seems to me that from a Biblical perspective, God is always sovereign ruler, how can it be said then that the people of Israel were "expecting some "new?" rule of God to be established other than the rule of the Greater son of David (Luke 1:32-33) — our Lord Jesus Christ, Kings of kings and Lord of lords?

Also how was "the liberation and restoration of Israel" to be brought about according to the Bible, especially the NT?

 According to your understanding when is "Jesus…acknowledged as the true King over Israel and the world, over and above competing kings, (and) the kingdom finally come."  That is — when did the kingdom finally come?  And where was it located when it did come?

While I do not disagree with you that "It was established by the suffering of the Messiah and his followers" I do not think that this statement goes to the true beginning of the kingdom.  In my understanding, the kingdom began with the "Parousial resurrection" of Matt 19:28, 24:3,27, 37, 39, 25;31; 1Thess 1:14-17; 1Cor 15:23c; Rev 3:21, 20:4; et al.

The operative portion of your statment:

 "when Jesus is walking around, the Kingdom is starting to be established. His followers announce him and follow him as king in advance to the establishment of his kingdom."

Is "starting to be established" — this begs the questions, okay so then, when was it actually established?  And by what means was it established? And where was it established?

In my opinion, Andrew seriously errs with his extension of judgment to the Roman Empire.  Again, IMO, the NT, especially Revelation, knows nothing of such a notion.

I can easily find the "wrath (of God) on Israel", but I find nothing about the Wrath of God on the greater Roman Empire in the NT, especially not in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

 Blessings,

  Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Hi Lloyd
I don’t have time right now to repsond to these questions thoroughly. When I have time I will try to answer them as best I can. Nevertheless, I think Andrew’s latest comment on the ‘Reading Romans eschatologically’ post answers some of the questions about the judgment of Israel’s and the church’s pagan enemies. Being the first true articulator of this perspective, or at least to my knowledge, he says it best there and in other posts where he debates with Peter over when exactly the Roman deistic cult was judged. I often don’t do this view justice because I’m still learning and dvelopimng my ideas. These ideas being very radical and totally counter to my previous thought on New Testament eschatology. I have some doubts too and many questions.

In the mean time, what would be your answers to those 7 questions you asked a few days ago?

Shalom Ryan

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Ryan,

Thank you for asking, "what would be your answers to those 7 questions you asked a few days ago?"

 Here are the seven questions and my (brief/short) answers:

1)  "What is "the kingdom of God?"

The kingdom of God is the "kingdom" that God promised (Daniel 2:44) that He would "set up in the days of these kings."  Therefore, the term "the kingdom of God" found in the NT should bring to mind the One that was going to set up the kingdom, i.e. God the Father.  Daniel 7 reveals that this kingdom was going to be set up very a very specific purpose and for a very specific people, i.e. the Son of man and the people of the Son of  man.  However, we must have the NT to discover the details of the setting up of this kingdom and the actual identity of the Son of man and the people of the Son of man. 

In the NT, this kingdom is also referred to as the "kingdom of heaven" which title identifies the location of this new kingdom.  In 2Tim 4:18 Paul uses another term for this heavenly kingdom, i.e. "His heavenly kingdom." In context, we see that Paul is referring to the Lord Jesus Christ preserving and delivering him into the "heavenly kingdom" of his Lord Jesus Christ which he had previously explained  (2Tim 4:1) would occur along with the judgment of the "living and the dead" at the "appearing and the kingdom" of Jesus.  Thus, we learn that this new kingdom set up by God would be set up in heaven and would be ruled over by the resurrected Jesus Christ.  In 1Cor 15:23, cf. Rom 8:29 and many other NT passages, we learn that this new kingdom which will be set up in heaven will be populated by the many resurrected brothers of Jesus Christ.

2)  "Where is this kingdom located?"

As demonstrated above, the kingdom which God sets up will be located in heaven.

3)  "Who are the “people of God?”

The people of God are the many "brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ" (Rom 8:29, et al.).

4)  "Which “beast” were the people of God “liberated” from?"

This question says ‘beast" because that is Ryan’s term.  The people of God, the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ where actually liberated from two beasts.  These two beasts were — the compound sea beast with seven heads (Rev 13:1-10, 17:8-11ff), i.e. the Roman Empire and the compound "two horned land beast" (Dan 7:11, 8:9-14, 23-25, 11:36-39, 1Rev 13:11-18, 2Thess 2:3ff) composed of the titular king of the Jews, i.e. the Herodian dynasty and apostate Judaism, i.e. the false prophet.

5)  "Just how was it established that “a people were free to live under the reign of Christ?"

The kingdom was established by resurrection and harpazo of the saints ca. AD 70. Therefore, the resurrected and harpazoed people were set free from their mortality and raised into immortality and totally freed to live and serve within the reign of the resurrected King, our Lord Jesus Christ.

6)  "Which specific event occurred in the first century that “liberated the people of God from the beast” and at the same time “established a people free to live under the reign of Christ?”

The Parousial resurrection of Eze 37; Dan 7:22, 27, 12:2, 13; Hosea  13:14; Matthew 19:28, 24:3, 27, 37, 39, 25:31, 34, 46b; Luke 21:27-28, 31-32, 36, 22:18,29-30; John 14:1-3, 6, 16:28, 24; Heb 9:28, 10:37,12:22-24; 1Thess 4:14-17; 1Cor 15:23c, 50-54, Rev 3:21, 11:15ff, 19, 15:5, 19:7-9, 20:4, 21:3-5, et al.

7)  "Where were/are these people that “are free to live under the reign of Christ?”

They are in heaven, within the heavenly kingdom of Jesus Christ and they are totally free to live within His glorious reign and serve Him unimpeded 2Sam 7:10; Amos 9:14-15, et al.  And when we die in Christ, we will instantaneously join them there in that heavenly kingdom and so shall we ever be with our Lord Jesus Christ.

 Blessings,

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

In an earlier post, I said that in 35 years I had never met anyone who claimed that the kingdom of God was anywhere other than on earth. My record has been broken! I have to disagree with Lloyd (I seem to spend most of my time on this site disagreeing with people), though I agree in one respect: that kingdom terminology does have a continuing relevance and application for us. So I’m distancing myself from an alternative view which the site has proposed, that ‘kingdom’ refers to an action which was completed by Jesus in the 1st century.

It may be true that Jesus’s kingdom is ruled from heaven, but the meaning of the term as it is used in the NT is to do with God’s activity on earth. In that sense, kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are synonymous terms.

A trawl through a concordance would reveal the earthly emphasis of kingdom of heaven. The idea is also supported by the historical derivation of the term, in which Jews were looking for an earthly kingdom, perceived to be a restoration of David’s kingdom, and understood along those lines.

The king of the kingdom was (and is) Jesus - enthroned at his ascension. Since he was returning at his ascension to a place that was always rightfully his, and which he had always occupied, we might ask what had changed? Answer: his kingship (and therefore the kingship of God) had been restored on earth; his rule in heaven was now also a rule on earth over the powers that had previously not been successfully challenged, namely sin and death. The outpouring of the Spirit was the tangible evidence of life being poured out on earth from heaven to all who believed in Jesus and made him their Lord.

Jesus is the key to the kingdom. As the man in whom heaven and earth came together and were one, so the kingdom over which he is king is a place where heaven and earth meet. The Lord’s prayer contains the words: "Your kingdom come; your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Does the Lord’s prayer suggest that this was a kingdom of a God other than Jesus (the kingdom of ‘Our Father’)? The kingdom was both the kingdom of the Father and of Jesus; but in that kingdom, as far as the earth was concerned, and as it as reflected in his place in heaven, Jesus was the king through what he had accomplished on earth.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Peter and Ryan, (2-09-08)

Due to many similarities in the two responses, I will respond to both of you here.

It does not surprise me in the least that both of you would disagree with me.  I have grown a great deal in Biblical understanding because of just such disagreement.

Peter, I did not say that the kingdom had been “completed by Jesus in the first century.”  I said that the kingdom had been established in heaven in the first century.  In my opinion, it has not been “completed” but is in fact growing and growing at the present time.

It is very easy to assert that “the meaning of the term (kingdom of God) as it is used in the NT is to do with God’s activity on earth. In that sense, kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are synonymous terms.”  However, it is quite another to provide proof of such an assertion (which you did not do). 

While I do agree with you that “the kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven” are “synonymous terms” I must disagree with your unsubstantiated assertion that it is only used “in the NT is to do with God’s activity on earth.” (Another assertion for which you provided no evidence)

One of the primary focuses of Paul’s teaching was an imminent (in that first century generation) “resurrection” (Acts 4:2, 17:18, 32, 23:6, 24:15, 21, 28:20; Rom 6:5; 1Cor 15; 2Cor 4:14; Php 3:10-11; 2Tim 2:18ff, et al.) and it is also a focal point for Peter (1:3-7, 10-13, 21, et al. cf. 2Pt 3:12-13), James (5:3,7-8), John, and the author of Hebrews.

At this point, my question for both of you would be — where do you think that Paul, Peter, John and the other NT saints are located at the present time?  Do you agree with Wright that they are still in the grave?  If “His heavenly kingdom” was not established in the first century - then they and all other Christians that have died are still in the grave and not with Jesus in the heavenly realm.  As N.T. Wright said, “In the Bible we are told that you die… St. Paul is very clear that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead already, but that nobody else has yet.”[1]

In this statement, N.T. Wright, like so many others, completely misses the point that the NT also teaches that Paul and the other writers of the NT were expecting their resurrection to take place very soon, i.e. within that generation (Matt 16:27-28, et al.) “in the parousia of Jesus Christ” (1Cor 15:23c, cf. 1Thess 4:14-17).  To argue that Jesus was either mistaken about these things or that He deliberately lied to His apostles about the timing of the eschaton simply will not work.  It is time that Wright and others faced the music of the first century Christian’s imminent expectation of that generation’s resurrection!!

At every funeral service I go to — I hear the Officiant say something to the effect, “Jane Doe is no longer with us she is now in heaven with Jesus - which in our day, because of the events of AD 70, is an accurate, Biblical statement.  I think that it is about time that we bring our incorrect futurist “classroom/pulpit”  eschatology into line with our correct preterist funeral eschatology. 

It is more than laughably absurd to continue to think that Paul – who fully expected, possibly within his lifetime (1Thess 4:17), to be resurrected into the “heavenly kingdom” of Jesus Christ (2Tim 4), thus to be “face to face” with Jesus Christ, and then to “know as he is known” (1Cor 13:12) and that John who twice wrote that “it is the last hour” in which “the world passes away” (1John 2:17-18) and who fully expected to not be “ashamed before Jesus Christ…”at His appearing…in His Parousia” (1Jn 2:28) and who fully expected to be “like Him when He shall appear…in His Parousia” (1John 3:2, cf. 2:28) – have not been resurrected, but instead are still in the grave nearly two thousand years after they died!  That view turns their imminent expectations into a mockery and Jesus Christ, from whom they received those imminent expectations, into a colossal liar and failure.

In this interview Wright continued:

“The New Testament says that when Christ does return, the dead will experience a whole new life: not just our soul, but our bodies.”

In my opinion, Wright needs to re-read the NT.  The NT does not say a word about Jesus Christ “returning” to earth to set up a kingdom and it certainly does not say that the people then (some time in the future from 2008) living will get “a whole new life” here on earth.

Wright continues:

“And finally, the location.  At no point do the resurrection narratives in the four Gospels say, "Jesus has been raised, therefore we are all going to heaven." It says that Christ is coming here, to join together the heavens and the Earth in an act of new creation.”

I think that Wright has mis-apprehended the thought behind the "new heavens and the Earth" as expressed in the Bible and ostensibly Wright has missed Jesus’ comments in John 14.  Actually Jesus’ comments recorded in John 14 begin with this comment in John 13:1:

“Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father… (John 13:1 NKJV)”

 

Jesus’ commentary, as recorded in John 14, picks up with the thought of Him going to the Father and states:

 “"In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go (to the Fathers’ house) to prepare a place for you.  "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am (in the Father’s house), there you may be also. (John 14:2-3 NKJV)” 

Here, it certainly seems to me, that Jesus is describing a "location" when he states "in my Father’s house are many dwelling places…I go to prepare a "place" for you.  Here "place" seems to refer to one of the "dwelling places” in the Father’s house.

  

In a Jewish marriage the bride and groom where first betrothed, as the groom prepared for the forth coming marriage he would build an addition to his father’s house, then when the appropriate time came, the groom would come and get the bride and take her to the "place" he had prepared in his father’s house.

  

This statement in John 14 seems to be formed on that model.

  

In 2Cor 11:2 Paul states to the Corinthians that he had "betrothed them to one husband, that (he) may present (them) as a chaste virgin to Christ.”  Here and many other place in the NT, Jesus is identified as a "groom" and the first century "ekklesia" as the betrothed virgin that becomes the "wife" in the Parousia of Jesus Christ.

  

The above is summed up in a parable as follows:

"Then (after the events of chapter 24) the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. "Now five of them were wise, and five were foolish. "Those who were foolish took their lamps and took no oil with them, "but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. "But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept. "And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming (to get the bride and take her home to the "place" He has prepared); go out to meet him!’ "Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. "And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ "But the wise answered, saying, ‘No, lest there should not be enough for us and you; but go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.’ "And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready (the first century "ekklesia") went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut… "Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming (to get His bride [the first century "ekklesia"] and take her home to the "place" he has prepared for her in the Father’s house). (Matthew 25:1-13 NKJV)In Acts 24:14 Luke records Paul’s statement to Felix that, "there is about to be a resurrection."  The resurrection to which Paul refers here is surely the three phase ("order") resurrection which he explains in his first letter to the Corinthians:

“…the resurrection of the dead.   …each one in his own order:

(First phase, past ca. 30AD) Christ the firstfruits

(Second phase, past ca. AD 70)  Afterward they that are Christ’s in His Parousia

 

(Third phase, future ??)  Then the end, i.e. the resurrection of the rest of the dead” (Rev 20:5a, 11-15)

(1 Corinthians 15:21-24 NKJV)” The apostle John twice wrote, “It is the last hour” (1John 1:18) Which he surely acquired from Jesus own words, “Truly, truly, I say unto you, comes an hour, and now is when the dead will hear the voice (cf. 1Thess 4:16) of the Son of God and those hearing (cf. John 10:27) will live (in resurrection, 1Cor 15:23c, cf. Rev 20:4 “the first resurrection”) Marvel not at this, because there comes an hour in which all those in the tombs will hear the voice of Him and will come forth those having done the good things unto a resurrection of live, and those having done the evil things unto a resurrection of judgment (Cf. Rev 20:13, i.e. the resurrection of the rest of the dead, Rev 20:5a) Thus we see that, contrary to the unsubstantiated assertions of many, the Bible simply does not teach the erroneous notion of  just one “general resurrection” at the end of time (as if time can ever end?).

[1] Interview for Time Magazine by Time’s David Van Biema    

  

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Peter,

 You wrote:

"The king of the kingdom was (and is) Jesus - enthroned at his ascension."

Jesus was enthoned at His ascension???

Not according to God, Jesus, and the authors of the NT!

SITTING IN THE THRONE OF HIS GLORYBy Lloyd Dale (01-20-08)  

Recently I came across a statement in an article which I was reading that really got my attention.  The author of the article wrote:

 

“When Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father, he finally received the Kingdom promised to him (Heb. 1). Ever since that time, Jesus has been reigning over his Kingdom. First Corinthians 15:25 states, “For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” Jesus, our victorious King, is in the process of conquering his enemies on the earth.”

 

As we can see the author used “Heb 1” as the bases for his conclusion.  Does Hebrews 1 really demonstrate that Jesus Christ received the promised Kingdom at the time He ascended to the right hand of the Father?  This student of Scripture does not think so.  Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that Hebrews does not teach that Jesus received the promised Kingdom at the time of His ascension and to demonstrate that Jesus actually received the promised Kingdom "in His Parousia" (1Cor 15:23c, 25, 51-54; 1Thess 4:14-17; et al.).

 

While we may not have the exact date, it appears that Jesus ascended to the Father in ca. 33 AD.  A careful reading of Luke 21:28-32, which most certainly speaks about the events leading up and about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, will shed a great deal of light on the timing of Jesus Christ’s reception of the promised Kingdom:

 

“"Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near."  Then He spoke to them a parable: "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees.  "When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near.  "So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.  "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place. (Luke 21:28-32 NKJV)”

 

Historically, the events prophetically described by Jesus as recorded in Luke 21:8-27 occurred in the years of ca. 36-70 AD.  Jesus clearly instructed His listeners that “when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near!

 

"Near" does not mean "here". 

 

In the above passage, Jesus clearly instructs His listeners that the promised Kingdom had not yet arrived, but that it was very “near.”  Once again, “near” does not mean “here”! If the kingdom had not arrived yet then Jesus most certainly was not ruling.  If he was, He was ruling a non existent kingdom.  How can a non existent kingdom be “ruled”?

 Scot writes: Commentator Scott McKnight writes, "I cannot think the expression “kingdom of God” can ever mean anything other than a set of conditions in which God’s rule (or the rule of God’s Son) is carried out among his people. Kings need people ([to make up] kingdom) and that involves a society where God (or God’s Son) is king  and God’s people are God’s (or God’s Son’s) subjects.[1] 

 However, when we turn to Hebrews chapter one, we will find no mention that Jesus “finally received the Kingdom promised to Him.”  What we do find is a discussion about Jesus in which the author states that Jesus “purges our sins and sits down at the right hand in the Majesty in highplaces”[2] in accordance with His instructions from God the Father in Psalms 110:1:

 

“…sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool”

 

At this point we should note that the phrase “your footstool” is an idiom that should be understood to mean - “place under your authority.”  In other words, in this passage, repeated in Hebrews 1:13, God the Father instructs His Messiah/Christ to come and sit down at my right hand until God places all of Christ’s enemies under His authority, i.e. until God gives Jesus the throne of David – “the throne of His glory” – which occurred in 70 AD.

 

A careful examination of this passage – compared with the quote above - will demonstrate that the author of the above quoted statement overlooked a very important word in God’s instruction to His Messiah.  This word “until” is often overlooked by Bible students who read this passage and conclude, as the writer above did, that Jesus received His promised kingdom when He ascended to the “right hand of the Father.”  Simply put, that is not what the Bible teaches.

 

This confusion about this passage is removed by an additional comment on this subject by the author of the letter to the Hebrews:

 

“But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting until His enemies are made His footstool. (Hebrews 10:12-13)”

 

Here the author of Hebrews clearly instructs us that Jesus did not receive His kingdom when he sat down at the right hand of the father, rather He sat down to wait a specific period of time, then the Father would place all of His enemies under His authority and give Him the kingdom.  We now know that the specific time of the “wait” was ca. 37 years as the Bible does teach that God gave Jesus “the throne of His glory” in ca. 70AD.  This is the on and only “Parousia” of Jesus Christ and it has nothing to do with a “return to earth” then or in the future.

 

The passages from Hebrews referenced above are the NT commentary on Psalm 110, especially verses 1-2:

 

“<<A Psalm of David.>> YHVH said to my (David’s) Lord (the resurrected Christ), "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool."  The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies!  Your people shall be volunteers in the day of Your power; In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning, You have the dew of Your youth. (Psalms 110:1-3 NKJV)”

 As pointed out in Hebrews10:13, a key word in this passage is “until.”  Keeping this word in mind while we re-read this passage we learn that the passage demonstrates a progression.  1)  At His resurrection the anointed Prince is invited to ascend to heaven and be seated on the right hand of the Father.  In Jesus’ own commentary on this verse, He states, I sat “down with my Father in His throne.”[3]   2)  Jesus is to remain seated with his Father, until His Father gives Him the kingdom by placing all of His enemies under His authority.  This event is the Parousia referenced repeatedly in the NT.  In the Parousia, Jesus leaves His father’s throne and ascends to the throne of His glory, i.e. the promised and long awaited throne of His father David.  Commenting on this passage, Jesus states that He invites His faithful “overcomers” to ascend to heaven (by resurrection) and “sit with Me in My throne even as I also overcame and sat with My Father in His throne.”[4]  3) Once He is sitting on the throne of His glory God “sends the rod of (Jesus’) strength out or Zion” and so Jesus reigns “in the midst of His enemies.  Paul, commenting on this passage, states that, “He must reign until…He has put down all rule and all authority and power…when all things shall be subdued unto Him…”[5] 

From the above, we learn that the "Parousia" of Jesus Christ has nothing what-so-ever to do with Jesus returning to earth.  His "Parousia" is His enthronement on the throne of David in fulfillment of the prophecies as summed up in Luke 1:32-33:

 ""He (Jesus) 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 (I.e., The Parousia of Jesus Christ). "And He will reign (what Jesus is doing during His "Parousia") over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:32-33 NKJV)" 

According to Matt 19:28, 25:31, Rev 3:21 and literally dozens of other passages in the Bible — the "Parousia" of Jesus Christ, i.e., His being seated "in the throne of His Glory" occurred in ca. 70 AD.

 

There are some who teach that the destruction of Jerusalem was the Parousia of Jesus Christ.  This notion is pure fabrication and is no where taught in the Bible.  A passage, speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, in Matthew 24:30 provides clear evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem is not the Parousia; but is, in fact, the sign that the Parousia is a reality:

 

“‘"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven…, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:30 NKJV)”

 

Of this passage, James Jordan writes, “…the Greek is quite clear, what will appear will be a sign that shows that the Son of Man is in heaven” [6] ascending to the throne of David.  Jordan continues, “…the destruction of Jerusalem (was) a dramatic and visible manifestation (“sign”) of the heavenly rule (in the Parousia) of the Son of Man.”  Thus we should now understand that the destruction of Jerusalem was in fact the proof that He (Jesus) had indeed ascended to heaven and “in His Parousia”[7]  had become the King of kings and Lord of Lord” upon the throne of His glory, i.e. the throne of His father David.  Jordan continues, “As the passage reads, (the) son of man is already in heaven”[8] thus, the “sign” pertains to His accession to the throne of His glory, i.e. His enthronement in the ca. AD 70 Parousia.

 

Thus, we see that according to the Bible, Jesus was enthroned in His Parousia ca. AD 70 - not at His ascension in ca AD 30 as so many erroneously claim and vigorously assert.

    

[1] McKnight, Scot in “Keys of the Kingdom in Mark 9:47”, Planet Preterist, January 15, 2008.

[2] Hebrews 1:3c, See Rev 3:21 for the meaning of “sit in the right hand.”  There it is explained as Jesus sitting down in the throne of His Father (God) with His Father.  Jesus is not ruling here.  He is sitting with the ruler waiting the time when the Father will give Him His throne of Glory (Matt 19:28, 25:31, Rev 3:21) which occurred in ca. 70 AD.

[3] Revelation 3:21b

[4] Revelation 3:21

[5] 1Cor 15:25, 24, 28; collated

[6] James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: a commentary on the book of Daniel, p 340-342

[7] Here note again the question which the disciples put to Jesus, “Tell us…what will be the sign of your Parousia?” (Matthew 24:3, cf. 1Cor 15:23c & 25a in which Paul declares that Jesus begins to reign “in His Parousia” and continues to “reign” in His Parousia, i.e. His accession to the throne of  His glory – the throne of David, Luke 1:32-33)

[8] While the quotes from Jordan’s book are direct quotes, the position I am presenting here is not the same as the position which Jordan is presenting.  Because Jordan holds the same misguided opinion as the author of the quote on page 1, “When Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father, he finally received the Kingdom promised to him. Ever since that time, Jesus has been reigning over His Kingdom.”  Because this erroneous notion blocks his view Jordan has not yet come to the accurate understanding of the view presented in this paper, instead he improvises a rather fanciful, complex; but, nevertheless, erroneous interpretation.

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Thank you Lloyd for this interesting and thoughtful exploration of the ‘enthronement’ of Jesus. It is a contribution to the preterist position, which has often been referred to on this site, though I have never seen it quite presented in the way you have.

In response, I have to say I find the ‘two thrones’ idea unsubstantiated by scripture - and frankly esoteric. It is also, in my opinion, tending to take too literally events that it represents. At his ascension, Jesus had overcome death (through his resurrection) and the powers that lay behind death, on our behalf. The proof of that was in the outpouring of life on those who believed - the Holy Spirit, which now became the means of identifiying the people of God, in place of the OT law.

The kingdom of God is not one single event in history, then or now, but the evidence of God’s active power on earth, especially through his people. It is intimately connected with the gift and work of the Spirit, which brings God’s transcendent kingdom into direct contact with earth, which Jesus demonstrated in healings, miracles and demonic deliverance ("If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come among you" - Matthew 12:28).

The kingdoms of the world will one day become the "kingdom of our God" - Revelation 11:15, and in Luke 21:28 there is a twin perspective. On the one hand there was an expression of the kingdom of God in AD 70, with judgment on Jerusalem and the flight of God’s people from the city before the siege took place. On the other hand, there is an anticipation of a much greater expression of the kingdom of God which we see in Revelation 11:15.

I don’t see in the AD 70 perspective of Luke 21 (or Matthew 24 and Mark 13) a parousia which marks a significant eschatological shift of the kind you are proposing. Here, and elsewhere in the NT, the focus is on a more significant parousia which is yet to come. Parousia has a double significance. It can mean entry into God’s presence. In the contemporary use of the word, it also referred to an imperial procession, in which the emperor himself approached and entered a city, bestowing on the people and place his imperial presence in person. The NT undoubtedly, in my opinion, reflects this sense of the word as it anticipates the return of Jesus to earth as a future event.

This is my understanding of the term parousia as used in the NT, strengthened by the fact that all kinds of esoteric consequences ensue from regarding the AD 70 event as a reflection of some kind of significant development in Jesus’s heavenly status. There is a much simpler and much more satisfactory way of understanding the key events in which Jesus’s life culminated, which the NT as a whole tends to confirm, in my opinion.

1 Corinthians 15:25 suggests to me that whenever the NT is quoting Psalm 110:1, the until looks to a future time when the final enemy, death (1 Corinthians 15:26) will be destroyed completely, and does not have in view an interim period between Jesus’s ascension to heaven on one throne, and his transfer in AD 70 to another throne.

This would be how I understand things, including the first chapter of Hebrews, and with the very practical obective in mind of conveying the good news of the kingdom of God to people now in words, works and wonders, and the gift of life available to everyone through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Peter, Thank you, for once again setting forth your futurist perspective.  I am very much aware of this perspective as I wasted a good portion of my life mired in its clammy grips. What do you understand the “preterist position” to be?   You wrote that you find the “idea” of two thrones “unsubstantiated by scripture.  In that context, I would appreciate it if you would explain to me what you think that this verse means: “"To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me in My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father in His throne. (Revelation 3:21 NKJV)” It certainly seems to me that here Jesus refers to two thrones.  Does He not refer to His Father’s throne (throne 1) and also refer to His throne (throne 2)?  I can find no where in Scripture the notion that The Sovereign God every vacated His throne (Throne 1) or ever had plans to vacate His throne; and I find no where in Scripture the notion that the Father was sitting on “David’s throne. Surely you do not conclude that God was sitting on David’s earthly throne, do you?  However, the Scripture clearly declares that “The Lord God will give Jesus the throne (#2) of His father David.”   In your understanding, what is “the Throne of David”?  Does it only refer to an earthly throne? If so, how when and where did/will Jesus ever sit on an earthly throne?  It seems to me that there is substantial evidence in Scripture for “two thrones.”  (Throne A) – The throne which the Father God always occupies as the Sovereign God. The one of which Jesus declared, “I sat down with My Father in His throne.” When this Sovereign God declares that He is going to give Jesus a “throne” (throne B) I am compelled to understand that as a throne apart from the throne which God always and forever occupies. The idea of two thrones is also implied in the narrative in 1Cor 15:27-28.  If that is “esoteric” so be it.  Frankly, I see nothing “esoteric” about it.  I am sorry that this is to “literal” for you.  I think that it is just plain practical. You wrote,  “At his ascension, Jesus had overcome death (through his resurrection) and the powers that lay behind death, on our behalf. The proof of that was in the outpouring of life on those who believed - the Holy Spirit, which now became the means of identifiying the people of God, in place of the OT law.” I agree that Jesus overcame death through His resurrection and that His resurrection was the means whereby He became “a life giving Spirit” (1Cor 15:45) capable therefore to give life to His followers through there own resurrection from the dead unto His heavenly kingdom. However, are you saying that the reception of the Spirit at Pentecost was some form of “resurrection from the dead”?  If so, having just finished reading the 2006 discussion between you and Virgil, it would seem to me that you have now abrogated your position in that discussion and are now advocating Virgil’s.  As far as I can tell, there was no resurrection at Pentecost. You assert and I agree that the, “kingdom of God is not one single event in history.”  However, it is my understanding that the beginning or initiation of “the kingdom of God” referenced in 2Samuel 7:10ff, Daniel 2:44, 7:13-14, 18, 22, 27, and throughout the NT was a “single event in history.” You have asserted on several occasions (falsely imo) that the kingdom is “the evidence of God’s active power on earth, especially through His people.”  However, I have yet to see you offer a single piece of Biblical evidence to support such a conclusion, let alone a comprehensive explanation of such a notion.  Therefore, I must completely disagree with what I think to be your unsubstantiated notion.  I would rework that statement to say something like this “the work of God’s active people on earth in the present is the evidence that Jesus’ kingdom has been established in the heaven by the powerful preaching of the Gospel of this Kingdom, which when preached continues to bring increase to the kingdom.” In reference to the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem Jesus stated: “"So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. (Luke 21:31 NKJV)” The word “near” does not mean “here”!  It seems to me that in this statement Jesus plainly stated that the “kingdom of God” did not exist yet, 40 years after Pentecost, so, how in the world could it have existed at Pentecost or any other time between 30 and 70 AD as you assert? If I understand you correctly, you write that someday in the future “the kingdoms of the world will one day become the ‘kingdom of our God’” for which you cite Revelation 11:15 as your source.  I must respectfully insist that that is a misinterpretation of Revelation 11:15 the salient portion of which reads: “…great voices in heaven declaring ‘became the kingdom of the world of the Lord (Jesus Christ) of us and of the Christ of Him (the Father) and He (the Christ) shall reign into the ages of the ages.” Who are the possessors of the “great voices” described in this passage?  I would submit that the are the “great voices” of the people just resurrected in the Parousia of Jesus Christ (1Cor 15:23c; cf. 1Thess 4:14-17).  In context, the seventh (last) trumpet has just sounded and as a direct result great loud voice in heaven burst forth in praise to Jesus Christ and the declaration that His heavenly has now become a great reality.  Thus it seems that here John is describing the same events which are described in 1 Thess 4:14-17.  Note especially sounding of the “trumpet of God” in verse 16.  In 1Cor 15:52 Paul refers to this as the “last trumpet.”  Jesus, Paul, and John certainly seem to be in agreement here.    I am sorry, but I simply cannot see where this verse, which was fulfilled in the first century “in the Parousia of Jesus Christ”, says anything like “the kingdoms of the world will one day (in our future) become the ‘kingdom of our God.’” In the Parousia of Jesus Christ, Jesus became the King of the resurrected world, i.e. His world.  According to the forth Gospel (John18:36) Jesus stated, “My kingdom is not of this world.”  I do not mean to be unkind, but what part of “is not of this world” do you not understand?  Jesus stated that His kingdom is not of this world.” The obverse of that statement is “my kingdom is of another world, i.e. a heavenly world.”  According to the Bible Jesus’ “kingdom world” is a resurrection world that can only be entered by resurrection.  Revelation 11:15 confirms this view. I am very sorry that you cannot see “a parousia” in Matthew, Mark or Luke, “which marks a significant eschatological shift of the kind” that I have presented.  Unfortunately for you and many others the fact that “you cannot see” it does not mean that it is not there or that it is untrue. You wrote: “Here, and elsewhere in the NT, the focus is on a more significant parousia which is yet to come. Parousia has a double significance.”  How can a Parousia get “more significant” than the one which I have presented?  Essentially we see the same one and only Parousia.  The problem is that you see it from a purely “futurist - earthly” perspective and I see it as a real first century heavenly event which today, continues the world in which we live because of the preaching of the gospel of this kingdom – thus giving to mankind a true hope for an incredible future life.   Contrary to your again unsubstantiated assertion the “parousia” does not “have a double significance.”  As used in the NT the Parousia has only one significance and that is the incredible significance of the event of the arrival and continuing presence of the King of kings and the Lord of lords and His resurrected ones continuously present in the heavenly kingdom, i.e. “…ever be with the Lord” as Paul put it in 1Thess 4:14-17.  This, btw, is the same event which John is describing in Rev 21:3-5. You are exactly right to state that the true Biblical meaning of the Parousia is “an imperial procession, in which the emperor (King Jesus and His imperial procession of resurrected saints) entered a city (the New Jerusalem), bestowing on the (resurrected) people and the place (His heavenly kingdom, 2Timothy 4:18) His imperial presence. And I whole heartedly agree that “the NT reflects this sense of the word.  The problem is your interpretation of this event as a future earthly event when, in fact, according to the Bible it occurred as a true heavenly event in the first century. I respectfully request that you show me those places in the NT that “anticipates the return of Jesus to earth…”  I respectfully submit that the NT simply does not anticipate any “return to earth” of Jesus Christ, in the first century or at anytime in the future.  The concept of a “return to earth” for Jesus is totally foreign to the NT as well as the OT.  Plain and simple, the notion that Jesus is going to return to earth to stay is not presented in the NT. The only, coming for them event, anticipated by the first century disciples was this: I go the My Fathers house…where there are many dwelling places…to prepare a place for you in my Father’s house…and I will come again to receive you unto myself that where I am in my Father’s house you may be there with me in my Father’s house. (My paraphrase of the salient portion of John 13:1 and 14:1-3) Would you be so kind as to list and explain a few of these “…all kinds of esoteric consequences ensue from regarding the AD 70 event as a reflection of some kind of significant development in Jesus’s heavenly status.”  What, exactly, are all these “esoteric consequences” to which you refer? While I simply cannot agree with your far fetched and possibly “esoteric” notions about the “until” in Psalms 110:1, I am delighted to see that you at least acknowledge that the word “until” is in that verse and it does actually mean something. In light of your suggested understanding of 1Corinthians 15:25, let us take another look at Psalm 110:1-2: <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."  The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies! (Psalms 110:1-2 NKJV) Now the question that we need to answer is – does the context of this passage support or negate your suggested understanding of 1Corinthians 15:25?  I submit that it does not support your view, rather it negates it. This Psalm is not ambiguous.  It clearly states that YHWH invites David’s “Lord” to sit at YHWH’s right hand “until I (i.e. YHWH) put all your (JC’s) enemies under your (JC’s) authority.  Then the thought of the passage (Ps 110:1-2) continues, when all the enemies of Jesus Christ have been placed under His authority – YHWH will send the rod of Christ’s strength out of Zion (i.e. the New Jerusalem kingdom) that Jesus Christ might then reign in the midst of enemies.  Thus Paul states, for He must reign from the Parousia until He has put down all rule, and all authority and all power and has subdued all things unto Himself, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him (YHWH) who put all things under His authority and shall deliver up the “kingdom” to God, even the Father who put all things under Christ’s authority. From the first century Parousia until today – YHWH has been “sending the rod of Christ’s strength out of Zion” and Christ is reigning in the midst of His enemies. It does not seem to me that your suggested explanation of 1Corinthians 15:25 will stand under the rigorous scrutiny of Psalm 110:1-2. Jesus Christ, God’s Messiah, is King of kings and Lord of lords.  He sits in the throne of His glory upon the throne of David.  He reigns today and His reign is everlasting and of His reign there shall be no end!  He shall reign for ever and ever.

  

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Lloyd - no, I’m not what you call a futurist, but I do see more of the future in Revelation than many so-called preterists, amongst whom there is a spectrum of interpretation of Revelation and of the NT.

Well, you are right: there is a reference to two thrones in Revelation 3:21. What is the significance of this? For you, as I understand it, it is to support the view that Jesus’s second throne, or his kingdom rule, was established at his parousia, which occurred at the same time as judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 (but the judgment itself, according to you, was not the parousia). Is that correct?

I don’t see things this way; I see Jesus at his ascension being "crowned with glory and honour" - Hebrews 2:9a. The central issue is the reason for this glory and honour. The reason was "the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone" - Hebrews 2:9b.
In other words, the central interpretive issue, when we are looking at Jesus’s glory, his coronation, and therefore his enthronement, is his accomplishment on the cross - which I also take to be universal, and not just for Israel (as in Andrew’s interpretation).

So I take Revelation 3:21 to be emphasizing this accomplishment on the cross, recognised in heaven in terms of a throne. I don’t see the emphasis falling on Jesus literally having a separate throne from God the Father. Rather, it is a way of emphasizing what Jesus brought to heaven which augmented the heavenly rule. I don’t see anywhere else that there is a consistent teaching of two separate thrones, which had the significance which you give to it.

Likewise in Luke 1:32, my understanding of the granting to Jesus of the throne of David is this. Jesus was the heir apparent to the throne of David. He was granted the throne when he ascended to heaven, in recognition of his accomplishment on the cross, as described in Hebrews 2:9. However, we have already moved from the literal and historic sense of a throne to a somewhat removed, metaphorical version of a heavenly throne. Instead of the ‘throne’ implying the kind of worldly reign which would mirror that of King David, we are now seeing the reign of Jesus in a very different light, with different foes whom he overcame - the principal ones being sin and death. His ‘reign’ over "the house of Jacob forever" - Luke 1:33, must now be seen in this light, not in the light of a worldly reign along the lines of an earthly monarch. It is a reign which granted life, where previously there had been sin and death. That reign will reach its completion when resurrected people will inhabit a recreated earth. You are misled by interpreting the throne language too literally in support of a view which takes the focus away from the things God wants us to focus on - namely, the central achievement of Jesus on the cross.

No, I’m not saying that the reception of the Spirit at Pentecost was the resurrection of the dead - though since you mention it, the NT does imply that some of the benefits of resurrection are received before the physical event itself - eg Colossians 3:3. But no - I’m not advocating a preteristically fully realised resurrection from the dead at Pentecost or at any other time before we are physically raised from the dead.

I think the difference between us helps to explain our different understanding of the kingdom of God. My understanding is that the kingdom and the Spirit are closely connected - eg Matthew 12:28. The outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost showed that there had been a major development of the kingdom of God - as there had: the major development. Jesus had overcome sin on our behalf, and therefore death. In place of death, life was now available, the life of heaven, the Holy Spirit. Jesus’s reign was entirely to do with these realities. Now, the kingdom of God can be expressed on earth, not as the reign of a warrior king like David, or any other earthly king/ruler, but in demonstrations of what God’s rule will be like, inspired and filled by the Spirit.

Jesus’s reign is also a reign of judgment, some of which was to be historically expressed - as it was with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The coming of Jesus, as with the coming of the Spirit, had this double-edged effect: it identifed the people of God, but also separated out those who were not the people of God. But the destruction of Jerusalem was not the event of the kingdom - just one amongst many.

I think your interpretation of Revelation 11:15 is attaching significance to it that it simply will not stand, and that it much more straightforwardly expresses the position, from a future standpoint, that the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdom of Jesus - the future time when his reign will be complete over all the earth.

The future parousia is of course both a heavenly and an earthly event - the conjoining of heaven and earth. The history of interpretation of Matthew 24 (and Mark 13, Luke 21) has shown that the passage is not as straightforward to understand as you would like it to be. It might be more honest to acknowledge the different viewpoints there have been over it, and to accept that there are some difficulties in interpreting it.

The ‘esoteric’ consequences of placing an undue eschatological interpretation on the destruction of Jerusalem arise from the subtle but definite shift of emphasis it provides from what is central to Jesus - his accomplishment on the cross for the whole world, his gift of life in the Holy Spirit, the beginning of an eschatological community on earth which one day will have complete expression in a recreated earth. The interpretation you provide displaces the focus, and rearranges the assignation of things from where they should be to where they shouldn’t - principally shifting the focus away from the crowning achievement of Jesus on the cross.

Your comments on Psalm 110:1 seem to be picking up things I said elsewhere in a response to one of Andrew’s comments (N.T.Wright, mission and the big red balloon) - which maybe should be addressed to that thread.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

It’s a little difficult to follow your arguments Lloyd, because the comment is all one paragraph. I think the central difference between us (and between myself and other contributors to this site) is that I see the death and resurrection of Jesus as pivotal and central. Having an extra eschatological development in a parousia which was reflected on earth in the destruction of Jerusalem (and maybe Rome, depending on whose version we are looking at) produces all kinds of esoteric consequences which should make us seriously question whether it actually was the case. A major esoteric consequence is that a 1st century parousia, reflected in the judgments mentioned above, encourages us to think of Jesus’s significance as being primarily one of a heavenly version of a warrior king - like King David. That sets us on a course in which the more obviously central events of his death and resurrection are radically marginalised (which I perceive to be the case from your own central preoccupations).

However, to attempt to answer some of your questions. Preterism has various forms, and the best description of these which I have found is in R.C.Sproul’s ‘The Last Days According to Jesus’. I am not a futurist, in the sense that I see the life, death, resurrection, ascension and outpoured Spirit of Jesus to be the major eschatological focus of the NT, with only the parousia, general resurrection, final judgment, new heaven and new earth to come. Hovering over the things completed and things yet to come is the figure of ‘the man of lawlessness’, the beast, and maybe the antichrist, and a small season of general persecution, which may be future, or may have already been fulfilled. I don’t attach such eschatological weight to these latter issues as most futurists. I hope that gives some idea of how I see things.

Just to comment on one or two things: Hebrews 2:9a does describe the ascension - which was the direct consequence of Jesus’s death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection. Jesus’s crowning ‘with glory and honour’ was his ascension, the reason for that being that "by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." - Hebrews 2:9b. Psalm 110:1-2 supports this view, as it does whenever it is quoted in the NT. The until refers to all the enemies, in this case, of Jesus. Nothing happened in the 1st century which brought, literally and physically, all the enemies of Jesus in subjection to him. That event is still future, as it is in Philippians 2:9-11. These ‘enemies’ are not simply world rulers. "The last enemy to be destoyed is death" - 1 Corinthians 15:26. The perspective is towards a future when all these things will finally be accomplished. In the meantime, the authority of Jesus can effectively be used within a system in which one age ("this evil age") overlaps with another age ("the age to come") - as I have already suggested.

Your interpretation of "waiting" - Hebrews 10:13 - is speculation. The word is simply another way of saying that at some point in the future, we will see the subjection of all the enemies of Jesus to him, in a way that we do not yet see. That is to say something that accords with reality - we do not yet see that complete subjection, but we have total confidence, on the basis of what Jesus has already done, that it will come. To "reign in the midst of your enemies" - Psalm 110:2 - is another way of saying the same thing: that is precisely what Jesus now does, but there will come a time when (the "until" of Psalm 110:1) those enemies are brought in complete subjection to Jesus.

You seem to be quite muddled in your comments on crosses, thrones, and precisely who sits where on which throne. I am saying that what is represented by Jesus’s throne (ie his glory and power) is directly related to what he accomplished through his suffering in the cross. In John 12:27-33, that ‘glory’ is also spoken of as the Father’s glory, but ‘glory’ and ‘the cross’ are as closely related here as anywhere in the NT. The ‘lifting up’ of the Son of Man is clearly, here, the lifting up of Jesus on the cross, with perhaps a secondary suggestion of a ‘lifting up’ in glory which would ensue.

Where does the NT speak of the parousia being future? Almost universally! The only place where it might speak differently is in Matthew 24:3 - where the ambiguity is, to my mind, intentional. There is no difference between us concerning the description of the parousia as a heavenly event with earthly consequences - it would be if Jesus was returning to earth at his parousia. Conjoining heaven and earth - Revelation 21:3. Also, it was on the cross where Jesus bore the sins of the world - not in his resurrection. Interesting how you, and others on the site, shy away from the cross as the place which nobody can avoid who wishes to enter into relationship with God. I think this is the heart of the issue.

We can be both a resurrection community and an immortal community if you like - but in my view we would still be an eschatological community, because the NT encourages us to look at the events in Jesus’s life and death as eschatological. That’s the sense in which I am not a futurist - and in which theology has a special section on ‘eschatology’ at the back of the book, which to my mind is very misleading. Eschatology should be viewed from the perspective of what Jesus did on earth and immediately following (barring the events to which I have already referred) - whatever your dictionary says.

Jesus is, in himself, ho eschatos. Preterists build part of their case on the apparent inconsistency that an eschatology which marks the ‘last days’ as beginning in the time of Jesus and continuing until today seems contradictory in the light of ’days’ which have extended to over 2000 years. I’m surprised you didn’t make that point, instead of making a less impressive conclusion built on comments taken from a dictionary definition.

  

  

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Peter wrote:

"That sets us on a course in which the more obviously central events of his death and resurrection are radically marginalised (which I perceive to be the case from your own central preoccupations)."

Peter, your perception and conclusion above is patently false!  And so is your completely unwarranted charge that I "shy away from the cross as the place which nobody can avoid who wishes to enter into relationship with God."  The fact is that the cross cannot be separated from the resurrection, the ascension, and the Parousia as you are ostensibly attempting to do.  The cross is meaningless without the resurrection, the resurrection is meaningless without the ascension, and the ascension is meaningless without the Parousia.

 Peter wrote:

"Just to comment on one or two things: Hebrews 2:9a does describe the ascension - which was the direct consequence of Jesus’s death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection."

A literal translation of Hebrews 2:9 reads:

"but having been made a little less than messengers we see Jesus because of the suffering of the death with glory and honor crowned so as by the grace of God on behalf of every man He might taste of death" 

Contrary to your assertion this verse does not mention anything about the "ascension."  You simply assume that the statement "with glory and honor crowned" is a reference to what occurred at the moment of ascension - so in your presuppositions this becomes a reference to the ascension.  Unfortunately for your view that does not necessarily make it true.

I read your highly speculative view of these things and marvel that you have the gall to say that my "interpretation of "waiting" - Hebrews 10:13 - is speculation."  There is no speculation about it and contrary to your continued assertions Psalms 110:1-3 does not support your view.  God puts the enemies of Jesus under his authority and JESUS reigns in the midst of His enemies (Psa 110:2) and as He reigns - He subdues His enemies - "the last enemy being subdued by Jesus Christ (not by God) is death" (1Cor 15:28).

You say that I am "muddled" - you are welcome to your opinion.  However, in my opinion, it is you that are "muddled".  You claim that you are not a "futurist" but yet you see every post-Pentecost eschatological event referenced in the NT as a future event.  Every Christian (thousands) which I have ever known could consider the "…life, death, resurrection, ascension and outpoured Spirit of Jesus to be the major eschatological focus of the NT" and all but a few of those thousands identify themselves as "futurists"!  All Christians are preterist in reference to "life, death, resurrection, ascension and outpoured Spirit of Jesus."  That is a non issue for Christians.  The issue is the timing of the events which the NT writers project as imminent in their generation.  As to those issues — the resurrection, the Parousia, the arrival of the kingdom, the beginning of the reign over the kingdom, and the new heaven and the new earth — you are a futurist!

The real problem, that creates "the central difference between us," is the fact that you are a futurist and I am not!         

"Conjoining heaven and earth"??  And you accuse my view of having "esoteric consequences"!  "The "new heaven and the new earth" of Revelation 21:3 is no more or less "conjoined" than is the "first heaven and the first earth" in that passage and all your assertions to the contrary will not change that fact.

Where does the Bible teach that "Eschatology should be viewed from the perspective of what Jesus did on earth????"  I submit that the Bible teaches that everything that Jesus did on earth and in heaven are eschatological and lead to life in the New Marriage Covenant. 

"ho eschatos" — The real question, one that you have not answered correctly is - "ho eschatos" of what? 

You wrote:

"We can be both a resurrection community and an immortal community if you like"

"We" (The people living on earth today) are neither "a resurrection community"  nor are "we" (living on earth) "an immortal community."

The people living on earth in the first century were an eschatological community.  When the people of Jesus Christ were resurrected in ca. AD 70 in the Parousia (1Thess 4:14-17; 1Cor 15:23c 51-54; et al.) they became both a resurrection and an immortal community. 

While it may be true that some "Preterists build part of their case on the apparent inconsistency that an eschatology which marks the ‘last days’ as beginning in the time of Jesus and continuing until today seems contradictory in the light of ’days’ which have extended to over 2000 years" that was not the way that my case was built.  However, now that you mention it, it certainly is ludicrous that anyone could believe that "the last days" of an age could last longer than the age itself.

When Sproul wrote that book, he was just becoming a partial preterist.  If you think that "R.C.Sproul’s ‘The Last Days According to Jesus’" is "the best description" of preterism, then I think that you need to expand your reading list.  If you are interested, I can recommend a number of good books that you should read.

Just for the record; in my opinion, Revelation has nothing what-so-ever to say about the destruction of Rome.  The Great Babylonian whore is apostate Judaism; as is clearly and without equivocation presented in the OT as well as the NT.

You wrote:

"In the meantime, the authority of Jesus can effectively be used within a system in which one age ("this evil age") overlaps with another age ("the age to come") - as I have already suggested."

Thanks for bringing this issue up again.  I wanted to comment on your erroneous view of "overlapping ages".  It is true that the two ages did overlap during the transition from the "vanishing Covenant" (Heb 8:13) age to the New Covenant or Messianic age for a period of ca. 40 years (from the Cross to the Parousia).  However, the Mosaic Marriage Covenant "vanished" with the destruction of its temple and city in AD 70 and the kingdom of the Messianic (New Marriage Covenant) age was established with the AD 70 "resurrection in the Parousia" (1Thess 4:14-17; 1Cor 15:23c, 51-54; et al.)  There are no "overlapping" ages at the present time.  We are living in the days (age) of the New Marriage Covenant (Rev 19:7-9) referred to as "the thousands years" in Rev 20.  Jesus Christ rules (reigns) in this age.  He rules in the heavenly resurrection kingdom and He rules in the hearts and lives of His true followers here on earth and He shall reign for ever and ever.

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Peter,

In an earlier post (02-17-08) I respectfully requested that you answer the following questions.  You did not answer them in your last post.  Perhaps you would please answer them now.

My questions:

You wrote: “…before we are physically raised from the dead.” 

Please explain for me what you mean by “physically raised” and supply the references from the Bible that teach the event which you have explained. 

  

Jesus instructed John to write about: “Things which must shortly come to pass…for the time is at hand…which must shortly be done…seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book for the time is at hand.” (Revelation 1:1, 3 22:6, 10) 

What do you think that these words, inscribed and circulated in the first century meant to the man that wrote them and to his first century readers who read them??

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

If anyone is following this conversation, which I very much doubt, I suggest you refer back to the comments of mine which provoked these responses.

I don’t really think we are connecting with each other Lloyd. It would be helpful for me to stand back from the discussion, and ask if you could explain what, exactly, you see to be the core issues which motivate you in your interpretation of the NT, and why it is important to you that these differ from other interpretations?

Maybe a summary of the key areas where you have a different reading of things from those which are commonly held would help.

It would also be helpful to me if you could say what the implications are of holding to these variant views, and why they cast light on the NT in a way which you think to be important.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Peter,

What do you have against answering simple, straightforward questions?

I have no problem with you "stand(ing) back from the discussion" and I am okay with you asking me to "explain what, exactly, (I) see to be the core issues which motivate (me) in (my) interpretation of the NT, " but it seems to me that it should be obvious "why it is important to (me) that these differ from other interpretations?"  It is a thing called truth.

I see that you have refused to answer my simple, straightforward questions once again.

Perhaps, while I am writing the book which you just requested; you would be so gracious as to answer my simple, straightforward questions:

My questions:

You wrote: “…before we are physically raised from the dead.” 

1)  Please explain for me what you mean by “physically raised” and supply the references from the Bible that teach the event which you have explained. 

By "physical resurrection" do you mean that sometime in the future you actually expect to see your physical body of "flesh, blood, and bone" erupt from the ground and begin to live here on earth again?

If that is you understanding of "physical resurrection," from which texts of the Bible do you draw such an understanding?

  

Jesus instructed John to write about: “Things which must shortly come to pass…for the time is at hand…which must shortly be done…seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book for the time is at hand.” (Revelation 1:1, 3 22:6, 10) 

2)  What do you think that these words, inscribed and circulated by John in the first century meant to the man that wrote them and to his first century readers who read them??

  

In the community in which I fellowship, the views I have expressed herein are the "commonly held" views.  Yours are the "variant views". 

The statements from Revelation in question # 2 above go right to the heart of "the core issues which motivate (me) in (my) interpretation of the NT," but you will not answer that simple question.

Instead you write:

"It would also be helpful to me if you could say what the implications are of holding to these variant views, and why they cast light on the NT in a way which you think to be important."

There is no way that I can believe that you are that naive.  Once again, in the community in which I fellowship - it is your views that are considered the "variant views".  For nearly two thousand years (2000) the church has taught a theory of postponement of the Parousia, resurrection of the righteous dead, and related events.  In your case, you teach a postponed (future) Parousia and postulate an earthly kingdom ruled over by a King without a Scepter, without a Crown, and without an Arrival (Parousia) on the Throne of His Rule, within the Kingdom of His Reign.

As you and I have radically different views pertaining to these matters, I for one, want to find out if I am right or wrong.  If I am wrong, I need to know what is right and change my views.  If I am right, then others need to see that they are wrong and change their views.  It is that simple!

As far as I am concerned at this moment, your refusal to answer my simple questions listed above is substantial evidence that your views are based on a false foundation.  If that is true, then your views are faulty and you need to change your views.

Having written the above, I will now start working on a proper response to your requests listed below:

1)  "(C)ould (you) explain what, exactly, you see to be the core issues which motivate you in your interpretation of the NT"?

2)  "why is it important to you that these differ from other interpretations?" (although it seems to me that the answer to this question is self evident.)

3)  Would you produce "a summary of the key areas where you have a different reading of things from those which are…held" by me (Peter)"?  (Although, If you would have done me the simple courtesy of providing a direct answer for each of my questions instead of responding to my arguments — we would now be dealing with those "key areas".)

4)  "(W)hat the implications are of holding to these…views, and why they cast light on the NT in a way which you think to be important."

Now, while I am working on that dissertation, perhaps you would be very kind and answer my simple questions: 

Once again, My questions:

You (Peter) wrote: “…before we are physically raised from the dead.” 

1)  Please explain for me what you mean by “physically raised” and supply the references from the Bible that teach the event which you have explained. 

By "physical resurrection" do you mean that sometime in the future you actually expect to see your physical body of "flesh, blood, and bone" erupt from the ground and begin to live here on earth again?

If that is you understanding of "physical resurrection," from which texts of the Bible do you draw such an understanding?

  

Jesus instructed John to write about: “Things which must shortly come to pass…for the time is at hand…which must shortly be done…seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book for the time is at hand.” (Revelation 1:1, 3 22:6, 10) 

2)  What do you think that these words, inscribed and circulated by John in the first century meant to the man that wrote them and to his first century readers who read them??

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Lloyd -

1. Physical resurrection = soma pneumatikon, where pneumatikon refers to Holy Spirit, ‘of the Spirit’; ‘energised by the Spirit’, not non-corporeal. "such as the heavenly one (Jesus), such also the heavenly ones (those raised from the dead)" - 1 Corinthians 15:48. Physical, resurrection bodies, like that of the risen Jesus, designed for a physical, recreated earth.

2. Revelation had immediate relevance to the church in the 1st century, and through apocalyptic symbolism, described events which could be related to the circumstances and situations of those times. 

Like some OT prophecy, Revelation also went beyond its immediate times, and looked into events which are yet to come. It contains elements of past, present and future (without being restricted to any single interpretive time scheme).

Part of the purpose of apocalyptic is, I believe, to prompt discussion and enquiry, rather than to give definitive answers to every question. Mystery is almost as important as explanations.

3. I am anticipating a completed new creation - new heaven and new earth - in which Jesus will reign, with or without literal throne, crown or sceptre, dwelling completely with mankind on earth - Revelation 21:3, with the obvious proviso that a transcendent God could not be totally limited to earthly confines.

4. I maintain that the implications of a parousia such as you describe move us away from the centrality of the cross, in God’s purposes (within a complex of events to do with Jesus’s life and death). In the same way, an unhealthy futuristic eschatology also moves us away from this focus. Hence esoteric consequences of reading the scriptures in the way that you do.

You could always prove me wrong by saying what you yourself find to be central to the Christian faith.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Peter,

4) This is what I find to be central to the Christian faith:

The death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ and our resurrection through Him in His Parousia:

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you…by which also you are saved…For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

(the resurrection of the dead) But each one in his own order: the firstfruit Christ, (ca 40 years) afterward those of the Christ in the Parousia of Him. (1 Corinthians 15:23)

(Peter, John, Paul and the other apostles) declared by Jesus the resurrection out of the dead. (Acts 4:2)

1) How do you square your notion of a "physical resurrection" with 1Cor 15:37b, 38a, 44, 46, 49-50:

(in the resurrection of the dead)…what you (bury) is not the body it is going to become…but God gives the body…it is sown a natural body, it is resurrected a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. But not first the spiritual body, but the natural, afterward the spiritual. And as we bore the image of the eathly man, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly man. And this I say brothers that flesh and blood the kingom of God cannot inherit.

It seems to me that these verses completely abrogate the "physical resurrection" you postulate as, "Physical, resurrection bodies, like that of the risen Jesus, designed for a physical, recreated earth."

John also wrote:

Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. (1 John 3:2 NKJV)

Ostensibly this verse also abrogates your postulated "physical resurrection bodies, like that of the risen Jesus, designed for a physical, recreated earth.

John was most certainly a witness to the resurrection body of Jesus Christ yet John wrote that the body we shall have in resurrection has "not yet been revealed" to us. That alone destroys your postulated "physical resurrection bodies like that of the risen Jesus…" But John did not leave it there. He continued, "we know that when He is revealed (in His Parousia), we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is". Here John makes it clear that our resurrection bodies will not be like Jesus’ resurrection body, but like His Parousia body, i. e. a "spiritual body".

Your postulated "physical resurrection bodies like that of the risen Jesus…" cannot withstand the test of Scripture.

You wrote:

2) 2. Revelation had immediate relevance to the church in the 1st century, and through apocalyptic symbolism, described events which (was) related to the circumstances and situations of those times.

Admittedly I changed one word in your statement that I might fully agree with it. Not "could be" Peter, the "apocalyptic symbolism" was directly related to the destruction of Jerusalem.

You wrote:

3) 3. I am anticipating a completed new creation - new heaven and new earth - in which Jesus will reign.

I fear that you are in for a huge disappointment. Jesus is reigning now in the "new heaven and the new earth." You cannot produce a single Bible verse that states that "resurrected men will live on earth" and you cannot produce a single Biblical reference that clearly states the Jesus will return to earth to reign. In short, there is no Biblical basis for your postulation of a future "completed new creation." All your arguements notwithstanding, "the new heaven and the new earth" became a reality in the ca. AD 70 Parousia of Jesus Christ.

Biblically speaking, “heaven and earth” can refer to the literal planet and the “heaven” associated with it as in Genesis 1-3, etc.
However, it can also refer to other things such as covenantal structure, a family structure or a nation’s leadership structure.
Thus the context must determine the actual meaning of the term “heaven and earth.

Unfortunately for most futurist and some partial preterist interpreters of the Bible, they do not recognize this distinction and thus automatically assume that in Revelation 21:1 the statement, “Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away and there was no more sea”
can only be a reference to a Genesis type re-creation of the earth and heaven.
I do not think that this is the case.

In my opinion, the Bible actually presents quite a different idea here. Rather than this being a literal reference to a Genesis type re-creation of the earth, it is a reference to the change in Covenants, i.e. from the Mosaic Marriage Covenant (Israel’s marriage to God) to the New Marriage Covenant of Jesus Christ (Jesus’ marriage to His resurrected bride/wife “in His Parousia” ca. AD 70, Rev 19:7-9).
To review this briefly is a difficult and extensive undertaking, at best, but I will attempt to do it here.
The “heaven and earth” of family and thus that family’s covenant is first found in Genesis 37:9ff:

Then he (Joseph) dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, "Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me."
So he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, "What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall your mother and I and your brothers indeed come to bow down to the earth before you?"
And his brothers envied him, but his father kept the matter in mind. (Genesis 37:9-11 NKJV)

As is evident from this passage, Joseph’s father Jacob/Israel and his brothers clearly understood the implications of this dream. They were a family "heaven and earth" and would eventually become a national “heaven and earth”.
Joseph’s dream contained a “sun” a “moon” and 12 stars. The main star was Joseph, the sun was Jacob/Israel, the moon was Joseph’s mother and the other 11 stars were Joseph’s brothers, i.e. a family “heaven and earth”.
And the family clearly understood it as a prophecy that someday Joseph would rule over the family.
As the OT progresses this family “heaven and earth” of Jacob/Israel comes to represent the nation, Israel, that this family became as well as the Marriage Covenant (officiated by Moses) which God made with them at Sinai.
Thus, in Scripture, the phrase “heaven and earth” became the representative symbol of the Mosaic Marriage Covenant (Israel’s marriage to God, Ex 19:3-8).
Within this context, a “new heaven and a new earth” would represent a new marriage covenant (Jer 31:31ff; Heb 8:8ff) just as “the old earth and the old heaven” represented the old Mosaic Marriage Covenant (Israel’s marriage to God, Ex 19:3-8).
According to the Bible, particularly the NT, the transition between these two covenants occurred between the years of ca. 26-70 AD.
Although you “muddled” it considerably, that is the point that You were trying to get at in one of your post’s here on OST.
(Submitted by peter wilkinson on
11 February, 2008 - 10:11.) As you point out, this was a transition between two ages, i.e. the age (this evil age) of the Old Mosaic Marriage Covenant (Israel’s marriage to God, Ex 19:3-8) and the "age to come" of the New Marriage Covenant (Jesus Christ’s marriage to His Bride/Wife, Rev 19:7-9); sometimes referred to as “the Messianic age”. 

The author of the letter to the Hebrews makes it very clear that the New Marriage Covenant cannot exist until the Old Marriage Covenant is ended by the destruction of the city and temple that represented that Marriage Covenant:

“the Holy Spirit signifying this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle (the temple in
Jerusalem) was still standing. (Hebrews 9:8 NKJV)”

The “first tabernacle” in this verse is the Jewish Temple in the city of Jerusalem.
Within this temple there was the holy of holies or most holy place where the glory of God dwelt (2Chron 7:2).
Thus “the way into the Holiest of All” (the heaven where God actually dwells) which was not yet open would not be opened as long as the old temple still existed.
This “Holiest of All” is the “place” in the “Fathers house” of which Jesus spoke in John 14:2-3 when He told the first century disciples, “I go (to the Father’s house) to prepare a place for you…that were I am (in the Father’s house) you may be also.” 
As Jesus said:

"No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of man being in heaven. (John
3:13)” or as rendered elsewhere: “No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven, the Son of man.”  

However, Jesus came to change that picture, as He said:

“I am the resurrection and the life…and this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son and believes on Him may have everlasting life
and I will resurrect Him at the last day.” (John 6:54 cf. 11:24)

The phrase “the last day” as used by Jesus here is not a reference to the end of time, rather it is a reference to the “last day” of “these last days” that the author of the letter to the Hebrews referenced in Hebrews 1:2. “These last days” ended in ca. AD 70 immediately following the destruction of
Jerusalem (Heb 9:8).

Thus in covenantal language the new heaven and earth (i.e. the new Marriage Covenant) was consummated when the “first heaven and the first earth (i.e. the Mosaic Marriage Covenant) which was vanishing away (Heb
8:13) at the writing of Hebrews and was ended (completely vanished/passed away, Rev 21:2b) with the total destruction of the Mosaic Marriage Covenant temple in AD 70.
The New Marriage Covenant of Jesus Christ was consummated with the resurrection of the
Bride/wife of Christ in His Parousia (ca. AD 70, Rev 19:7-9, 21:2).

I am sorry for you Peter, but, in my understanding, your postulation of a "completed new creation - new heaven and new earth - in which Jesus will reign, dwelling completely with mankind on earth" is without Biblical merit.

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Lloyd - an interesting contribution to the preterist position, in which you identify yourself as a full/comprehensive/thorough-going or radical preterist - or even just ‘preterist’!

I think you are quite wrong about the resurrection having already taken place, and the parousia referring solely, if at all to an event which was reflected in the destruction of the Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70. But I can see from your position how it all fits together.

Fundamentally, I don’t take the view that an AD 70 parousia was in itself the pivotal event marking the end of the age of one covenant and the beginning of the age of another. If we look at the cross as the place where the exchange of covenants took place, everything falls into place. The cross was a turning point, but also a beginning - with a definite future orientation and impetus towards the fulfilment of what it initiated. That future was far from being fulfilled in AD 70.

The cross was followed by one resurrection - which in itself introduced the new creation, in the person of Jesus himself. We participate in that new creation only to the extent that we participate in Jesus - which also means participating in his death, which was a vicarious death.

The verses you quote to support a spiritual resurrection alone do no such thing (1Cor 15:37b, 38a, 44, 46, 49-50). You have misunderstood the meaning of soma pneumatikon in 1 Corinthians 15 - as do others - in assuming that spiritual must mean non-corporeal. The kind of body we are to receive is the kind of body which Jesus received in his resurrection: it could be touched, felt, and was capable of eating physical food. It was as solid as you or I - probably more solid.

I have to concede that I have never previously heard the argument which you make about the association of ‘heaven and earth’ with "covenantal structure, a family structure or a nation’s leadership structure". I will have to look at that more carefully, but I don’t think it materially affects the arguments.

On the other hand, it can quite simply be shown that Revelation 21 is future, since at that time of fulfilment to which it refers: "there will be no more death, or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." - 21:4.

This draws attention to the validity of the overlapping ages way of viewing Jesus’s intervention in history. There has been an anticipatory fulfilment of Revelation 21, but its complete fulfilment is yet to come. The resurrection of Jesus was an introduction of the new creation into the old creation, but we have yet to see the complete and universal fulfilment of that new creation. The gift of the Spirit was an ‘earnest’ of what was to come, but in the meantime we live in a world which has not seen the universal and complete expression of the Spirit.

The movement from one covenant to another, which was really the completion of one covenant - God’s faithfulness to his creation - parallels the movement from one age to another. The introduction of the new covenant, through the death of Jesus on the cross, was decisive. However, it had yet to be universally applied. So the realities which it introduced did not immdiately become universal, but sat alongside other realities in the world - the new creation sitting alongside the old creation; a renewed people existing alongside sinful people.

In the same way, the age which the ‘new covenant’ introduced sits alongside another evil age. So it is entirely true to the scriptural portrayal of things to say that the age to come sits alongside this evil age; that an end of the age was marked by the death and resurrection of Jesus, but it also awaits its final terminus, as it sits alongside the dying age to which it brings its end.

That end is proclaimed each time a person or persons are transferred from one system to another, in and through the person of Jesus himself. It is what we proclaim through the eucharist, the celebration of the last supper.

It is also true to scripture to say that Jesus does indeed reign now, in a reign which is primarily over sin and death, and that there will come a time when that reign is universally expressed over all of creation. Again, the best way of  describing this is already - - - - not yet. It is the best paradigm we have for understanding how the intervention of Jesus in history works.

An eschatology which grants significance to a parousia which occurred in AD 70 has to be judged by where it takes us. As far as I can see, it removes the focus from where it needs to be - namely on the cross as the centrepiece of God’s dealings with mankind. I note that you haven’t really been able to bring yourself to agree with this, and as far as I can see, most variations on the preterist theme, Andrew’s included, tend to lead in the same direction.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Hi Peter

I hope I’m okay to butt-in, having arrived late to this conversation.

An eschatology which grants significance to a parousia which occurred in AD 70 has to be judged by where it takes us. As far as I can see, it removes the focus from where it needs to be - namely on the cross as the centrepiece of God’s dealings with mankind. I note that you haven’t really been able to bring yourself to agree with this, and as far as I can see, most variations on the preterist theme, Andrew’s included, tend to lead in the same direction.’

Regardless of one’s eschatology, I’m intrigued by what makes you say that the cross is the centrepieceof God’s dealings with humanity - and where our focus should be. I guess I just can’t see that.

Is the place where our focus should be not Jesus Christ Himself? Or the Love of God? Or the Creative and Covenantal faithfulness of God? Is the centrepiece of God’s dealings with humanity not Jesus Christ Himself, none other than the incarnation of the God who is Love?

Personally, I think that an overemphasis on the cross is unhelpful and dangerous. 

  

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Graham - thanks for your comment. Maybe in turn I should ask you why you think an overemphasis on the cross, or placing it as the centrepiece (maybe not the same thing), is unhelpful and dangerous.

I agree that Christ is the centerpiece of God’s dealings with humanity. But the centrepiece of Christ is the cross. This is indicated by the weighting that is given to the cross in the NT - eg in the four gospels, and also in the letters (Paul’s especially). But it is also indicated by the meaning of the cross as the place where sins were atoned for - which is how God expressed his love for us, and his covenantal faithfulness.

This is not to say that the incarnation, life, resurrection, ascension, prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, return etc are not important - but with the cross at the centre, the significance of each falls into place.

On the other hand, displace the cross from the centre, and we have a distorted view of Christ, and the significance of all the other things he did.

Jesus was a man born to die - his mission was the cross: “I have a baptism to be baptised with, and how constrained I am until it is accomplished” - Luke 12:50.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Peter, I don’t want to take this discussion too far off-track, but the notion that Jesus was ‘born to die’ is one that’s guaranteed to make my blood boil! There are few things more apt to get me ranting and writing! ;-)

I’m not at all sure that the centrepiece of of Christ is the cross. In fact, I’m not really sure that ‘the centrepiece of Christ’ makes much sense outside of abstract systematics. Obviously, it is impossible to separate his death from his life; and disastrous to separate his death from his resurrection. And, if we are giving any credit to his life, we need to pay attention to his teaching, his character, who he is as a person. That’s all before we ask any questions about identity, incarnation and divinity!

My fear, trying to avoid simply pontificating here or going off into an anabaptist rant, is that an overemphasis on the Cross downplays discipleship and ethics. I also wonder at how it leads theologians to imply that the Cross was ‘necessary’ to God, as if his grace, forgiveness and love flow from it, rather than vice-versa.

Not sure if that helps explain some of my misgivings?

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Graham - I don’t really see that viewing the cross as the centrepiece of Jesus’s mission does downplay the importance of his teaching, life and character - though I would agree that there can be a tendency to focus on the one at the expense of the other. This is something that you almost seem to be doing, by reaction, in reverse.

I agree that in some ways, the protestant reformation has sometimes seemed to place more emphasis on the Pauline letters at the expense of the gospels, and in this way failed to correct a flaw which had existed in the church since the time of Constantine, when discipleship of believers was replaced by a professional clergy, distinguished from the ‘laity’ - who were no longer regarded as disciples of Jesus.

I also take the view that the radical reformation attempted to correct this shortcoming, and heavily paid the price for it. But this does not alter the fact that Jesus came to introduce both lifestyle through his life and fulfilment of the covenant through his death, and a careful consideration of Paul demonstrates this just as much as the gospels. Paul’s ethical teaching echoes that of the gospels closely, and shows that he was very familiar with it, and intended its application to be continued.

A Christ-centred hermeneutic will give just as much weight to the gospels as to the letters, but without losing the significance of the cross being the centre of Jesus’s mission. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to fulfil the ethical teaching of Christ without the application of the cross and its workings into the life of a believer.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Peter:  

  

You wrote:
“If anyone is following this conversation, which I very much doubt” 
Why do you think that no one would be interested in the topics we are discussing?  

  

I hardly know where to start.    While I am pleased that you have conceded that you had “never previously heard the argument…about the association of ‘heaven and earth’ with covenantal structure,” I am incredulous at the arrogate comment, “but I don’t think it materially affects the argument.”   

Peter, please stop and think; if it is true, how can it not affect the argument?  And if it is true (and I am totally convinced that it is true), then it means that your view of a future re-created planet with a “conjoined” heaven and earth is an erroneous understanding of Scripture.  

  

For many years, I lived under the delusion of the destruction of planet earth and the idea of a future creation of a new heaven and new earth, then I started to really study the Old Testament and discovered how the Old Testament and the first century Jews used and understood the phrase “heaven and earth.” Josephus, in describing the temple wrote: 
 “Now the room within those pillars was the most holy place; but the rest of the room was the tabernacle, which was open for the priests. However, this proportion of the measures of the tabernacle proved to be an imitation of the system of the world: for that third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priest were not admitted, is, as it were, a Heaven peculiar to God; but the space of the twenty cubits, is, as it were, sea and land, on which men live…”[1]   
Thus, for the Jews, the covenant temple symbolized the “heaven and earth” of the Genesis creation. Throughout the Old Testament we see the term “heaven and earth” used as a symbol of the Mosaic Marriage Covenant people(2) and in the New Testament we see Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John using the term in the same manner(3).  Thus, it becomes clear that the terms “new heaven and new earth” symbolically represents the New Marriage Covenant, especially as it is found in the context of “the old (first) heaven and the old (first) earth were passed away” as in Revelation 21:1 (cf. 2 Peter 3:10-13).  

  

Now to the balance of your parodic arguments —  What a piece of work:  2 pages, 14 paragraphs, 871 words and only one Bible verse offered to support you position and that one used improperly. Contrary to your assertion, there is absolutely nothing in Revelation 21 that would establish that the events described in Rev 21:3-5 are STILL future for John, Peter, Paul and thousands of other first century and previous centuries faithful.  Future for you, yes — but certainly no longer future for them.  

  

Given the urgency of imminent expectations found within the documents of the New Testament it is ludicrous to assert that Paul, Peter, and all the others did not obtain that to which they looked forward because Jesus had faithfully promised them that their resurrection would become a reality within their generation (Matt 16:27-28; Mark 8:38-9:1; Luke 9:26-27; et al.).  

  

I know that you think that I “am quite wrong about the resurrection” for Paul, Peter, James, John and the others “having already taken place” within the first century Parousia of Jesus Christ.  Thank God, your thinking that I am "quite wrong" does not make me wrong.  It simply means that you think that I am wrong, and that is quite alright because I think that you are a very poor one to be judging my view when you openly admit that you have never heard it before, let alone having given it any serous consideration. Additionally, it is extremely unfortunate for you that you do not see the truth about these “pivotal events marking the end of the (Mosaic Marriage Covenant) age” and the consummation of a brand new Marriage Covenant age.  

  

While no one, least of all me, would argue with you that “the cross (which) was followed by (the) resurrection” of Jesus Christ introduced the new creation (i.e. the New Marriage Covenant of Jesus Christ); however, a careful reading of the letter to the Hebrews 8:8-13, et al. demonstrates conclusively that your notion that “the cross was the place where the exchange of the covenants took place” is based on bad exegesis. The author of this letter, which was written in ca. 60 AD, stated in no uncertain terms that “the New” Marriage Covenant, which did have its beginning at the cross, “has made the first (Marriage Covenant) old and that which decays and grows old is near to vanishing away.” (Heb 8:13, that which is near to vanishing away has not been replaced until it has in fact vanished away – which it did in AD 70.)  Then, just a few paragraphs later he states that “the Holy Spirit has thus signified that the way into the holiest of all (the true heaven of God rather than the symbolic one in the temple) was not yet been made manifest while the first tabernacle (the Jewish temple) was still standing.”  “The old” was destroyed in AD 70. 

The clear obverse to this statement is that as soon as the first temple is no longer standing “the way into the holiest of all” has been opened and has received its first occupants (Rev 20:4, cf. 1Thess 4:14-16, 1Cor 15:23c, 51-54).  This is exactly what we find in Revelation 11:19; cf. 12:10a, 11 & 21:3-5.
  

I would certainly agree with you that “the cross was a beginning – with a definite future orientation and impetus towards the fulfillment of what it initiated.”  And I would agree with you that for those of us born after the Parousia of AD 70, “the future (for us) was far from being fulfilled.  Unfortunately for your view, that is not the issue here. For your information, I do not “assume” that “spiritual must mean non-corporeal”.  Quite the contrary, I do think that a “spiritual body” is corporeal.  I just happen to believe John, who was a witness to the resurrection body of Jesus Christ and wrote:
 “now we are the sons of God and it has not yet been made apparent what we shall be like – but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; because we shall see Him as He is.” (1John 3:2) 
 Your futurist interpretation and “final terminus” — sometime in the distant future — of the Parousia, the resurrection, “over lapping ages,” etc. denies and confuses the many imminency statements in the New Testament such as: 
“It is the last hour…and the world passes away…we know that it is the last hour…and now little children, abide in Him; that when He shall appear, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him in His Parousia.” (Salient portions of 1John 2:17, 18, 28) 
Your far distant future “final terminus” interpretation of these eschatological events turns John into a fool who had no clue what he was writing about or a colossal liar or both.

[1] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, chapter 6, paragraph 4.

[2] Deuteronomy 4:26, 30:19, 31:28; Isaiah 48:13ff, 50:6, 51:16, 65:17.

[3] Matthew 5:18, 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17, 21:33; Eph 3:15; 2Peter 3:7, 10-13; Revelation 21:1.

  

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Lloyd - there are various reasons for calling your interpretation of things into question - but sarcasm and mockery do nothing to advance your arguments.

An appeal to "heaven and earth" may have been a metaphorical way of bringing emphasis to the certainty of God’s covenantal promises, but I do not think it extended into a literal understanding of heaven and earth in the way that you take it to be.

For instance, in Isaiah 66:1-2, there is a deliberate contrasting of the manmade temple with the universal heaven and earth which God inhabits.

In 2 Peter 3:10-13 there is no specific reference to the destruction of the temple - so everything you say has to be taken by inference.

In Revelation 21, which you say has already occurred, let me know where Revelation 21:4 exists now on earth and I’ll join the queue to be part of it.

Also, you misread Hebrews 8:7-13; it was in Jeremiah’s time that the "old" covenant was becoming "obsolete" in the sense that it had not produced the covenant faithfulness in the people of God which it required, and required a "new" covenant to correct that shortcoming. The same idea is conveyed in 2 Corinthians 3:7-11, where the glory of the one covenant, its diakonia, is said to be a fading glory - even in the time of Moses, while the covenant to come is a "surpassing glory". This is nothing to do with a time-lapse between the letter to the Hebrews and the destruction of the temple - which is nowhere mentioned in the letter.

One of your main problems in interpreting the destruction of the temple in the way you do is that the temple which existed in the 1st century was not even recognised as a valid expression of the covenant. It was a false temple, for all its impressive grandeur, built by the false ruler of Israel, Herod the Great, who was not even ethnically Jewish. The temple had not contained the ark of the covenant, which is central to your argument, since 586 BC. Jesus was more than ambivalent about the temple - he condemned it. Groups like the Essenes refused to recognise it. I do not think the NT presents the 1st century temple as the symbol and seat of the Mosaic covenant. It simply did not have this credibility.

As for the resurrection having already taken place - in what sense did 1st century believers experience a bodily resurrection which went unobserved and uncommented by them (if they were still on earth), or those who witnessed it? If it was resurrection of the dead, what happened to the bodies? If it was resurrection of the living, it must have been very spiritual indeed for not a single person to have commented on the phenomenon.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Peter,

You wrote:

"For instance, in Isaiah 66:1-2, there is a deliberate contrasting of the manmade temple with the universal heaven and earth which God inhabits."

If in verse 1 "the heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool" is the "universal heaven and earth which God inhabits" as you ostensibly assert then where is "the manmade temple" which you claim is in one of those verses?

In verse 2 God continues, "For all those (the heaven and the earth of verse 1) my hand has made…"  Where is any "manmade temple" in either of these verses?

I am sorry, but I simply do not see the "contrasting of the manmade temple with the universal heaven and earth which God inhabits" which you assert.

You continued:

"In 2 Peter 3:10-13 there is no specific reference to the destruction of the temple - so everything you say has to be taken by inference."

I guess that would depend on how one defines "specific."  From my vantage point verses 7, & 10-13 are a very "specific" reference to the destruction of the temple.  In verse 4 Peter refers to "creation," then in verses 5 & 6 he specifically describes the flood as destroying "the world" of the "heavens of old and the earth."

Next in verse 6 he states "the heavens and earth which are now" (i.e. the Mosaic Marriage Covenant heavens and earth) are laid up, kept for fire in a day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."

In context "the heavens and earth which are now" of verse 7 cannot be the "creation universe/world" because Peter has already stated in verses 5 & 6 that the "creation world heavens and earth" had already been destroyed by water; thus we are clearly left with the Mosaic Marriage Covenant world "heaven and earth" referred to by Josephus.

 The English word "elements" in verse 10 is a translation of the Greek "stoicheion."  Paul uses this word in Galatians 4:3, 9, & Col 2:8, where in each case in context it is a clear reference to the things of the Mosaic Marriage Covenant world.

That is "specific" enough for me.

You continued:

"In Revelation 21, which you say has already occurred, let me know where Revelation 21:4 exists now on earth…"

What, in verse 4, requires these things to be taking place "on earth"?  I did not say that these things are taking place "on earth" and  I do not think that these things are to take place "on earth."  I see nothing in this verse that requires these things to take place "on earth." And it seems to me that verses 3 & 5 clearly place these things in heaven where the "throne" is and from whence "the great voice" came.

I think that it you who "misread Hebrews 8:7-13.  I guess we will continue to disagree on this one.

You continued:

"As for the resurrection having already taken place - in what sense did 1st century believers experience a bodily resurrection which went unobserved and uncommented by them (if they were still on earth), or those who witnessed it? If it was resurrection of the dead, what happened to the bodies? If it was resurrection of the living…"

There is that "on earth" again!  Where do you get the notion that the resurrected are "still on earth"??  I find nothing in the NT that states or even implies that the resurrected ones will "still be on earth."  In fact it seems to me that 1Thess 4:17 specifically teaches that they will not be "on earth." 2Tim 4:18, et al. teaches that they will be in "His heavenly kingdom."

The "dead" are in the grave, having decayed away to "dust" exactly as Scripture teaches (Genesis 3:19).  Resurrection is from physical death to life, i.e. a new birth and Paul states that the life of this new birth will have a corporeal "spiritual body."

I do not know of anyplace in the Bible that teaches a "resurrection of the living."  How would you have a "resurrection of the living"?

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Lloyd -

i) Isaiah 66:1

"where is "the manmade temple" which you claim is in one of those verses?"

"Heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?" - ie not in a manmade house (where house, bayit’, picks up the particular reference to the temple, as in Isaiah 56:7; 60:7; 64:11 etc) but in the heavens and the earth which are God-made.

ii) 2 Peter 3:10-13

I am doubful whether stoicheia in 2 Peter 3:10 is the same as stoicheia ton kosmon in Galatians and Colossians, and I’m less sure that Paul has in mind in the latter anything that can be identified with the destruction of the temple in AD 70, and certainly not with the ‘old covenant’ as the Mosaic marriage covenant, which Paul would probably not have described as stoicheia ton kosmon.

Paul had a very high regard for the Torah - Romans 3:31; Romans 7:12, 13. In Galatians and Colossians, Paul is casting the renewed enthusiasm for the Torah, in its truncated form of observing seasons, food laws and circumcision, in a very different light from the historic Mosaic covenant with Israel. In their current form, these observances are no better than ascetic rules imported from any other religion or spirituality as stoicheia ton kosmon.

iii) If Revelation 21:4 does not take place on earth (but in heaven), then there is little point in having it in the text at all. Presumably God is always in the business of comforting those who mourn in his presence in heaven. The verse would then simply be saying what had always been true and what everyone knew anyway.

iv) Resurrection - I was trying to figure out what (on earth!) you meant by resurrection. So for you, it is synonymous with ‘new birth’. Thanks for letting me know.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Peter,

You wrote:

iv) Resurrection - I was trying to figure out what (on earth!) you meant by resurrection. So for you, it is synonymous with ‘new birth’. Thanks for letting me know.

I do not know just what you think that learned here, but I suspect that you did not learn what you think you did.

The Bible informs us that Jesus, as a result of His resurrection from the dead, became the "first born (first begotten) from (out of) the dead" (Rev 1:5, cf. Rom 8:29). By His resurrection, i.e. new birth; Jesus became our "high priest," ascended to heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father’s throne (Rev 3:21), to await His new kingdom, the resurrected people of this kingdom, and the throne of David, i.e. the throne of His glory.

By this "second birth," i.e. resurrection, Jesus also became the catalyst for the Parousial resurrection of all who belong to Him (1`Cor 15:23c, cf. Acts 4:2; et al.) that He might be the "firstborn among many brethren" (Rom 8:29, cf. 1Cor 15:20).

Jesus instructs, "Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God…Except a man be born…of the Spirit (1Cor 15:45) he cannot enter into the kingdom of God…that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit" (John 3:5, cf. 1Cor 15:42-44). According to the above, Jesus clearly taught that a person needs to die a physical death and then be resurrected, i.e. born from above by the life giving Spirit (1Cor 15:45) in order to enter "into" and "see" the kingdom of God.  We become the "brethren" of Jesus Christ in His "heavenly kingdom" (2Tim 4:18) only by our "resurrection" (1Cor 15:23c, cf. 1Thess 4:14-17) i.e. our birth into that kingdom.

Thus, in this mortal life, we are not in the kingdom, nor have we seen the kingdom except as it is presented in the Bible.  We (Christians) live in full and proper expectation of entering into and seeing that kingdom upon our "change" from "mortal" to "immortal" at physical death (1Cor 15:51ff).

According to Jesus we live in "the age of resurrection":

And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage.  "But those who  are counted worthy to attain that age (cf. v 33), and  to obtain the resurrection which is out of the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; "nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36; cf. Rev 20:6a)

Everyone reading that passage should recognize that the "this age" in the above passage is a clear and certain reference to the age that Jesus and the others were then living in, i.e. the age of the Mosaic Marriage Covenant.  This age ended with the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem in AD 70; and a new age followed.

The "that age" (cf. v 33 - "in the resurrection") in the above passage is the "age of resurrection" or the resurrection age described as "the thousand years" in Revelation 20.  This "resurrection age" began with the Parousia of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of those who belong to Him "in His Parousia" 1Cor 15:23c) and continues throughout our present time.

You also wrote:

iii) If Revelation 21:4 does not take place on earth (but in heaven), then there is little point in having it in the text at all. Presumably God is always in the business of comforting those who mourn in his presence in heaven. The verse would then simply be saying what had always been true and what everyone knew anyway.

"Presumably"?  I am amazed at your ostensible indifference to the Word of God.  Jesus said:

"No one has ascended into the heaven except He who came down out of the heaven, the Son of Man. (John 3:13)

Therefore, according to Jesus, there is no one in heaven at the present time to be "comforted by God" — unless the Parousia, resurrection, etc. that I have been discussing did actually take place in the first century.

You insist that no resurrection took place in the first century — no resurrection — no one in heaven in God’s "presence" to be "comforted by God", according to Jesus — yet you erroneously assert that "Presumably God is always in the business of comforting those who mourn in his presence in heaven."  Apart from resurrection, how does anyone get into God’s presence in heaven?  Even Jesus Christ had to go through resurrection in order to ascend into God’s presence in heaven.  How inconsistent of you.

And then, there is the matter of the "point in having it in the text at all…"  The whole "point" of it being in the text is to inform the people who lived in Christ during that very difficult period pre-AD 70 that they would soon be "vindicated" by "the resurrection of the just "about to" occur (Acts 24:15, et al.).  And to inform those who lived after AD 70  and came to "faith" in Jesus Christ (you and me and millions of others) that we should be "comforted" and informed of resurrection at the death of a Christian family member or friend and at our death.

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Lloyd - I’m not sure I have learned much more from your complex response.

If you are saying that the resurrection and parousia are simultaneous events, I agree with you - which is why I take the view that both events have yet to occur. If the parousia has taken place, some explanation will have to be provided about the resurrection. I actually do not understand your explanation. You speak of the resurrection of physical bodies, but do not say what happened to these physical bodies at the parousia. Do they remain on earth or ascend into heaven? There are some rather incredible scenarios here.

In John 3, you misread the phrase ‘born from above’. It does not refer to the resurrection, but to the gift of the Spirit, the Spirit being the theme of the passage at that point, and once again, Spirit and kingdom being closely identified with each other. The relevance of Jesus’s ascension into heaven (3:13) is that it was from heaven that he gave the gift of the Spirit (or eternal life/life of the age - 3:16) which was only possible by means of his death on the cross - 3:14, which, you will note, is vitally connected with his resurrection/ascension, the true source of his subsequent glory in heaven and on earth.

Again, I have to disagree with you that the destruction of the temple marked the end of the Mosaic age. It may have been a marker, but was not the marker. But the main substance of your point is that the resurrection age is already here. Again, I have to disagree - but only in part. When Jesus speaks of "the resurrection" in Luke 20:34-36, there is no reason to think that he does not mean complete bodily transformation into a resurrection body. What actually happened, however, was a two-stage phenomenon, in which, instead of the people of God receiving resurrection as they expected, he was first raised from the dead in advance of their resurrection. The people of God received some of the benefits of this resurrection in advance of their own resurrection - but not the resurrection in itself (eg Colossians 3:1-4).

We disagree on the timing of this general resurrection. You say it has already happened. I say that is incredible, since it would require (a) the removal of bodies from this earth to a heavenly realm (but this realm was not designed for resurrection bodies, apart from that of Jesus), or (b) resurrection bodies remaining on earth (which they clearly didn’t, and haven’t, unless the resurrection is a purely spiritual, invisible phenomenon, which you have said it isn’t). So I say, along with the majority of Christians through the ages, that the resurrection is still to come.

In context (Luke 20:34-36), "that age" is an age which is yet to come. However, I have no doubt that the dead are already in "that age", with the exception that they do not yet enjoy resurrection bodies. For God "is not God of the dead but of the living" Luke 20:38. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had not received resurrection bodies when they died, but they are counted to be alive - so it is possible to have died, be alive, but not enjoy the full benefits of resurrection. Moses and Elijah also appeared, alive, at the transfiguration - but without resurrection bodies - Luke 9:30. The dying thief on the cross was also promised, by my understanding of what was said, the joy of being alive with Christ immediately following his death - Luke 23:43. The ‘deposit’ of the Spirit which we enjoy in this life as an ‘earnest’ of the full amount to come is not something I anticipate being withdrawn at death, but the ‘full amount’ is in the resurrection - which is future.

Revelation 21:4 - it will be clear from what I have outlined that I am sure the dead already receive their comfort from God in a heavenly realm, but that Revelation 21:4 suggests something new - which can only refer to a state of ‘heaven on earth’ (allowing of course for the actual separate identities of the two realms), which has yet to take place. 

So - no 1st century resurrection (not even the faithful martyrs of Revelation 20, in my opinion) - and no need for highly esoteric interpretations of heavenly activities which nobody can verify because nobody has ever seen them - or even a highly esoteric interpretation of an already completed resurrection. Always interesting to discuss these things however. This is, after all, Sir Toby’s, where theological discourse can take place untrammelled by the demands of convention and orthodox belief.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Peter,

Please answer each one of the following questions individually and please supply Biblical citations that you think support (provide) your answers. 

You keep using the term "general resurrection" as if it were a Biblical term.  I have never found that term in the Bible.  What do you mean by "general resurrection"? 

Where does the Bible use the term "general resurrection"? 

Where does the Bible teach the idea of a "general resurrection"?

In your understanding of "general resurrection", how do you explain the resurrection events "each in its own order" in 1Cor 15?

Where does the "first" resurrection of Rev 20:4c & 5b fit into your scheme of a "general resurrection"?

How does the "first resurrection" as opposed to the "resurrection of the rest of the dead" fit into your "general resurrection" scheme?

Does not John’s use of the term "first resurrection" clearly imply a second resurrection?

If not, then what possible reason could/would John have had for using the term "first resurrection"?

Likewise, what possible meaning could/would the term "rest of the dead" have if it does not directly imply that "some" of the dead had already been resurrected?

If there is a "first" and a "second" resurrection, what possible meaning can a "general resurrection" have?

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Lloyd - by general resurrection, I mean resurrection of all the dead, at the time of Jesus’s parousia (future).

The bible teaches this in John 5:28-29, and John 11:24 and confirms it in Revelation 20:12, as well as in Matthew 25:32-46. It is also confirmed in the epistles where Paul speaks of the resurrection, but here, we do not learn of the fate of those who are to rise to condemnation. The term general is a well known and accepted way of describing the resurrection of the justified and the condemned - which I imagine you are well aware of.

1 Corinthians 15:23 is very straightforward: Christ the firstfruits is raised first; when he comes (at his future parousia), those who belong to him next.

One might add to this the thought expressed in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 - "that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep." In other words, at his coming (still future), the dead in Christ will accompany him before those who are still alive experience change to resurrection bodies and are also gathered to Christ.

As for Revelation 20:5b (which is the only place where the phrase ‘the first resurrection’ is used), let me ask you a question. Beheading was a form of execution reserved for Roman citizens. Did John see only a relatively small group of Christian martyrs who, like Paul, held Roman citizenship? Did he not also see his brother James, or Stephen, or Peter, who were also martyred, but were not beheaded? Or how is John using language here (including the phrase ‘the first resurrection’)?

The idea of a sequence of resurrections (first, second etc) only arises if we are reading the passage in a wooden, literalistic sense, which is always dangerous when we are interpreting Revelation.

Along these lines, understanding ‘the rest of the dead’ is fairly straightforward. There were two groups John had in view in 20:4. There were those on the thrones (all the righteous dead who had not been martyred) and those who had been beheaded (all who had lost their lives for the sake of Jesus). Both groups ‘lived again’ (in a heavenly realm) - 4b, immediately on their deaths (not ‘resurrection’ in its completed sense). The rest of the dead were the ‘unjustified’ who were raised after the 1000 years (which I take to be the rest of church history), when all will experience resurrection (for the first time, apart from Christ himself).

There you have it, but let’s not get into a discussion about Revelation 20. people have been arguing these verses for too long, and my interpretation is somewhat unique - though I think it is the best of the lot for all kinds of reasons.

General resurrection, then, is at the end of time, at the coming of Jesus, at the final judgment, for the righteous and the unrighteous, just as the bible teaches.

Now, how about addressing the more substantive issues I raised in my previous post?

  

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Peter,

 You wrote:

If the parousia has taken place, some explanation will have to be provided about the resurrection. I actually do not understand your explanation. You speak of the resurrection of physical bodies, but do not say what happened to these physical bodies at the parousia.

I think that you need to read more carefully — where did I use the term "resurrection of physical bodies"?  I did not "speak of the resurrection of physical bodies."  I did say that a "resurrection spiritual body" is a corporeal body.  By that I mean that it has substance on the same order as the ascension body of Jesus Christ (1John 3:2).  I did not say anything about the resurrection of a flesh, blood, and bone body.  A flesh, blood and bone body (natural body) is after the image of the earthly (Adam).  The resurrection body (the spiritual body) bears the image of the "heavenly one" the Jesus Christ of the ascension (1Cor 15:42-49, cf. 1John 3:2).

A corporeal "spiritual body" given to us "in resurrection" (1Cor 15:38, God gives us a body that pleases Him) is not the resurrection/resuscitation of our physical (flesh, blood, and bone) Adamic body — rather it is a new immortal, eternal "spiritual body" suited for life in "His heavenly kingdom" (2Tim 4:18)

By definition a physical body ("natural body") is a mortal body composed of flesh, blood and bones.  Paul precisely states:

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Corinthians 15:50 NKJV)"

There are several things that we should learn from that statement.  First, even if a "physical body" composed of flesh, blood, and bones were to be resurrected such as was the case of Lazarus, that body, according to Paul,  still could not "inherit the (heavenly) kingdom of God" as "flesh and blood cannot inherit the (heavenly) kingdom of God"!

The Bible is quite clear on the matter that the flesh, blood, and bone physical body of mankind came from the "dust" and to that "dust" it "will return" (Gen 3:19; et al.).

Biblical "resurrection" is not about the resuscitation of a physical body ("natural body").  It is about the resurrection to "life" from or out of "death".

Jesus had a unique (not of Adam) "physical body" and because God prophetically promised that His body would not see "decay" (Acts 2:31) His body came out of the grave into which it had been placed as proof of His resurrection.  However, this body ostensibly lacked "blood", at least Jesus did not mention "blood" in His statement to the disciples as recorded in Luke 24:39 and His blood was shed on the cross.   

In Biblical "resurrection" a person who is dead, buried and decayed (in most cases) is given new life and is given a new "spiritual body" (1Cor 15:44) to house (2Cor 5:2) that new life.  This new "spiritual body" is no longer in the image of the earthly one, Adam, but it is now in the image of "the heavenly one," i.e. the ascended Jesus Christ (1Cor 15: 49, cf. 1John 3:2).

Just as our first birth gave us life in the image of Adam so our "new resurrection birth" gives us life in the image of the ascended Christ.

In the resurrection in the Parousia of Jesus Christ, which did in fact begin in ca AD 70, the physical "dust" body stays in the dust as the resurrectee has no need of that old flesh, bone, and blood ("natural") body in his new "heavenly kingdom.  He now has a new "spiritual body" suited for his new life in this new world of resurrection.

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Lloyd - a ‘corporeal’ body is a physical body - like the resurrection body of Jesus. But we are talking past each other. I already said that the soma pneumatikon is like the resurrection body of Jesus: corporeal, physical, but clearly not the body of the old creation.

I don’t know of anybody who says that the resurrection body is just a reconstituted old creation body. On the other hand, Jesus’s old creation body disappeared when he was raised from the dead - so the old creation components play some part in the resurrection body.

The physical nature of the new resurrection body is important. It is designed for a physical environment - the new earth as it will eventually be, in God’s completed purposes for his entire creation. Human beings were designed to live on earth, not in heaven, and this is God’s future for them. The Judaeo-Christian faith affirms not only the goodness of matter, but its enduring place in God’s creation activity.

  

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Hi Lloyd thanks a lot for the answers. To truly start to understand exactly what the Kingdom of God is we need to first look at when the phrase was first used and what it meant. I dont see the phrase ‘Kingdom of God’ used in OT but I would argue that the Kingdom language used in Daniel points to the evolotion of this phrase. Based on this ‘logic’, I would agree with you on the answer to the first question. To digress - I read some stuff by Brad Young and some of his friends the other day (Bard Young writes to help christians understand the Jewish culture and better interpret difficult texts) and they seemed to think that for the first century Jews the Kingdom of God was wherever Torah was obeyed. So here’s a jewish/christian scholar saying something totally different.

Anyway, if we take some of the NT texts seriously we have to ask some hard questions about the more metaphysical rules of God. For example take Matt11:11. It says that no one that has lived before has been as great as John the baptist but the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Now whatever we believe the Kingdom of God to be, it needs to make sense of these words. For example my interpretation would be that Israel had been waiting for the great day of their liberation which the prophets had foretold and hoped for. Now John was proclaiming the start of the establishment of this kingdom, the great turn in Israel’s history had begun. The prophets dreamed of this day but John gets to announce its immenent arrival. Hence, he had a great honour that no other person before him had ever had. On other hand John does not get to experience the new age, the Kingdom of God, but the least who are alive when the kingdom comes, whoever that is, get to experience the coming and consumation of the great dream. How would other interpretations make sense of this? Also the famous or infamous Matt16:28 scripture? If the kingdom was a reality to be entered into as opened up by Jesus or if the kingdom was Jesus or if the kingdom was in heaven (John would be there?) then why these confusing texts? However, scriptures like Matt11:12 and Matt12:28 are often problems for the interpretation of the Kingdom of God I have adopted.

I disagree that the location of the Kingdom of God is in heaven. For me this changes everything about the nature of the kingdom of God and how it was used in the first century. Yes God rules, he is sovereign, the earth and evrything in it is his. But I think the ‘Kingdom of God’ phrase was not developed to explain this rule. It was a hope that God would be who they knew he was i.e. their one and only king on earth, not in heaven. I think God rules from heaven but the kingdom of God is on earth.

You use harpazo (to seize?) very interestingly. I think I can see how you would interpret Matt 11:12? But what exactly is the parousial resurrection? I thought Jesus’ parousia comes after his resurrection?

And finally regarding heaven. I feel being in heaven with God can be overemphasised to the detriment of what God was doing in establishing his Kingdom on earth. Going back to Matt 11:11, a more heavenly perpsective is hard to reconcile with what the writer is saying about John in this text, in my opinion. As always due to my inexperience and rashness to adopt new perspectives, I am open to correction. (I think)

Thanks
 Ryan

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Last night was the culmination of the Kingdom of God series at our church. Thus far we have been taught that the Kingdom of God is any area of our lives or in our communities where God rules. Love, forgiveness, peace, mercy and justice that come from a relationship with God are some of the manifestations of this rule, with a special emphasis on forgiveness. (cus we such a guilt driven people?) Well last night we had an expose on the Kingdom of God versus the Kingdom of darkness. The message from the front was that Jesus came to free Israel and all people from their bondage to the Kingdom of Darkness not the real political kingdoms that reigned at the time of his message. In conclusion the kingdom of God is first a spiritual phenomenon that plays out physically through forgivess and healing. This emphasis lead to a large focus on the role of satan as the leader of the kingdom of darkness. He and his demons war against Jesus and his angels. And now we as people are pulled into this heavenly war.(This is what was preached from the pulpit, it does not reflect my perpsective)

To be honest I felt very frustrated with the message and its emphasis on satan and heavenly war. Part of my frustration being my confusion around the role of satan and demons in our lives and more specifically i)what or who is satan and ii)what/who are demons? iii)The old testament hardly mentions satan and demons but Jesus seemed to speak of them all the time and adressed them as personal beings. Why? iv)Is there a heavenly war going on that we have been pulled into? I have a feeling some of these ideas are very foreign to Jewish undertanding in the first century. So why the language in the NT?

Have these ideas been discussed OST? I know Zach(enarchy)posted an interesting article about the role of satan in the OT but is was very brief and there were no comments on it. Would love to hear some opinions and findings.

Thanks
 Ryan

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Ryan,

 I think that you might find this useful and interesting:

Broadcast

John Anderson Reveals the Greatest Deception of All Time! Learn the Truth, what the Bible teaches on the Devil & Demons Sparta, NC . Call for details

www.lighthouseproductionsllc.com/broadcast.htm

Be sure and order the book Satan  an authorized autobiography  by John Anderson  — Foreword by: Brian D. Mclaren

  Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Ryan,

  

You wrote:

" But what exactly is the parousial resurrection? I thought Jesus’ parousia comes after his resurrection?"

 The "Parousial resurrection" is the resurrection described in 1Cor 15:23c and all the other verses I listed in my previous post.  The "parousial resurrection" is not the resurrection of Jesus, it is the resurrection of the first century saints into the heavenly kingdom.  Look at the context of 1Cor 15:21-24 — resurrection in three stages paraphrased below:

"For since by Adam death, by Christ also comes the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be resurrected. But each person in his own order:

First stage ("order"):

Christ the firstfruits,

Second stage ("order"):  (This second stage is also described by Jesus/John in Rev 20:4 "they (the first century and previous saints) were resurrected and reign with Christ the thousands years and is called "the first resurrection in Rev 20:5b)

Forty years afterward those who are  Christ’s in His Parousia. (This is the "parousial ressurection to which I referred - also described in various ways in:  Eze 37; Dan 7:22, 27, 12:2, 13; Hosea  13:14; Matthew 19:28, 24:3, 27, 37, 39, 25:31, 34, 46b; Luke 21:27-28, 31-32, 36, 22:18,29-30; John 14:1-3, 6, 16:28, 24; Heb 9:28, 10:37,12:22-24; 1Thess 4:14-17; 1Cor 15:23c, 50-54, Rev 3:21, 11:15ff, 19, 15:5, 19:7-9, 20:4, 21:3-5, et al.)

Third stage ("order"):

Then the end of resurrection. (This resurrection called the resurrection "of the rest of the dead" in Rev 20:5a and is described in Rev 20:11-15.)

(1 Corinthians 15:21-24, cf. 51-53)"

  Blessings,

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Thanks Lloyd I agree.
You say “it is the resurrection of the first century saints into the heavenly kingdom”. Yes I see. First Jesus is resurrected, then the ‘saints of the most high’ described in Daniel 7 at his parousia. After a while comes the end with the handing over of the Kingdom to the father. Jesus reigns until all his enemies are put under his feet and death is defeated and there is a second resurrection as described in Rev 20. Sorry I didn’t pick that up in the first place. Probably didn’t read it carefully.

The only thing I have a few queries about is the “heavenly Kingdom” into which they, the first resurectionees, if I can use that word, go. What exactly is the heavenly kingdom as compared to the earthly kingdom of God? I assume its about God’s heavenly Kingdom coming to earth which I used to believe but I don’t think the scriptures actually use the kingdom language in this way. Sorry if this is going around in circles.

I suppose we would disagree with the nature of the kingdom being handed over. Yes Jesus and his followers who were in the first resurrection reign from heaven but the Kingdom is the church on earth that follows Jesus as king as initiated by Jesus’ earthly ministry and as establsihed when soverienty was transfrerred from Caesar to Jesus. Remember the resurrection of Jesus and his followers after him was about vindication also. So Jesus rules over us now, we are a kingdom of priests, a holy nation described in Ex19, that will be a light and blessing to the nations and a sign in the present of the renewal to come. So in effect Jesus hands over his reign over the church to the Father? What do you think of that? I’m just thinking aloud here and these ideas are always up for critique. I’m just interpreting the handing over of the kingdom according to a specific framework that is still being developed.

Thanks again Lloyd.
 Ryan

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 Ryan,

A question for you — do you think that Jesus Christ is reigning today?  The correct answer is — Yes He is!

In your post above you seem to have missed the point that the third stage ("order") of resurrection occurs "after the thousands years have expired" (Rev 20:7).  As far as I know, "the thousands years" have not expired yet which means that Jesus has not yet " hand(ed) over of the Kingdom to the Father."  Today Jesus is "reigning in the midst of His enemies."  He has not yet subdued all of His enemies and that means that He has not totally defeated death yet either.  Death is defeated by resurrection from the dead!  For you, death will not have been defeated until you have died and been resurrected which will be immediately after you die!  You will not wait in some "intermediate" holding tank.

 According to Rev 20:11-15, there is a time coming when Jesus will put a complete and total end to "the death" and "the grave."  After that happens there will be no more death and no more grave — they are gone, sent to the lake of fire (Rev 20:14), never to exist again, period.  That has not happened yet!

Now for your question:

"What exactly is the heavenly kingdom as compared to the earthly kingdom of God?"

Have you ever read these words in the Bible:

"And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became  a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man of the earth, was made  of dust; the second Man, the Lord from heaven. As was man   of the dust, so also are  those who are made of dust; and as the heavenly Man, so also are  the heavenly ones. And as we bear the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. (1 Corinthians 15:45-49)"

The salient point of the passage above is that man, living on earth, is earthy or natural man.  God had an "earthly, i.e. natural kingdom" called "Israel" which began at Mt. Sinai and ended at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but man is going to bear the image of the resurrected Heavenly one (Jesus Christ).  Thus when God began to declare the "coming kingdom" (2Samuel 7:10ff; Daniel 2:44; Ezekiel 37; et al.) He was not declaring the coming of another "earthly, i.e. natural kingdom."

As Paul flatly stated, "first the natural (kingdom) then the spiritual (kingdom)"!  Therefore, the natural kingdom of Israel was to be followed by a "resurrected spiritual kingdom of Israel which was to be an eternal "spiritual" heavenly kingdom.  This new "spiritual" kingdom was never intended to be on earth!  Read Hebrews:

"For Abraham look for a (heavenly) city (the new Jerusalem)which has foundation whose builder and make is God.   …having died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, and embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgirms on the earth.  For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland.  …But now they desire a better homeland, that is, an heavenly home where God is not ashamed to be called their God: for He has prepared a new homeland for them. (Hebrews 11:13-16)"

This heavenly homeland, which Abraham and all believers since him, look forward to, is referenced in John 13-14 by Jesus Christ where he states, "…I go to the Father…in my Father’s house (the heavenly homeland from whence Jesus came, [1Cor 15:47; John 3:13; etal.]) are many dwelling places and I go to prepare a place for you (in my Father’s house) and…I will come again to receive you unto myself; that you may be were I am (in our Father’s house).

This heavenly kingdom which IS NOW PRESENT, but not on earth, is also described in Revelation 21:

"Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem… prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful." (Revelation 21:2-5)"

Which, of course, is first referenced in 2Samuel 7:10ff; Isaiah 25:8, 65:17ff; et al.

There is not now, nor will there ever be again, a kingdom of God composed of mortal men (men of the dust) on earth.  As Paul boldly declared, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingom of God!"

What we now have here on earth is the GOSPEL OF THIS HEAVENLY KINGDOM which tells us How to enter the kingdom of God by resurrection through Jesus Christ and also instructs us on how we should now live in the light of the GOSPEL OF THIS HEAVENLY KINGDOM.  As Peter wrote:

"Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that  the longsuffering of our Lord is  salvation as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people  twist to their own destruction, as they do  also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this  beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen. (2 Peter 3:14-18)

As you should now see from the above, the kingdom of God is not "the church on earth.""

In addition to this the Bible knows nothing of a "soverienty (that) was transfrerred from Caesar to Jesus."  In the earthly kingdom God was, is and always will be sovereign.  In the Parousia of Jesus Christ (i.e. His accession to the throne of His glory, the throne of David) the sovereignity of the heavenly kingdom (i.e. immortal, eternal) was transferred to Jesus Christ that He should reign in the midst of His enemies (on earth) as the Psalmist declared (Psa 110:2).  In that sense each true believer contains the knowledge of the kingdom of God in His inner most being and serves our Lord Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of Lord because of it.  This, no man can take from us.

When Jesus has subdued all earthly rule, all earthly authority, and earthly power and has subdued all things unto Himself, including death; then, and only then, will He Deliver up the kingdom to the Father. (1Cor 15:24, 28).  What happens after that the Bible ostensibly does not tell us.

 Lloyd

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Hi there Lloyd thanks for the reply. Sorry if I was not clear. Of course I beleive that Jesus reigns now and that we are still in that symbolic 1000 year period. I was referring to the nature of the Kingdom when it will be handed over in the future. So I totally agree with you on the ‘stages’ of resurrection and the timing of the different ages.

Regarding 1Cor 15: 45-49, does this refer to the coming of the Kingdom or to the renewal of creation at the end i.e the second resurrection, judgment, and Jerusalem coming down from heaven. I agree with Andrew that we often get the two narratives of the Kingdom of God and New Creation muddled up. Not to put words in your mouth but I assume that you disagree with Andrew’s perspective on the Kingdom and New creation. I am going to give your post a thorough read so that I can be clear on what you saying and determine whether it should reform, improve, replace, or have no influence on the view I have adopted.

Thanks for the links to John Anderson’s site. Very interesting perspective on satan. I listened to a podcast of him and this other guy debating over whether satan exists as a fallen angel or as the personification of evil in humanity. The debate frustrated me a bit because both felt the other was wrong and that they had cracked it - an almost dogmatic certainty characteristic of modernist knowledge production. What happens when evidence or better techniques of interpretation come along and show Anderson’s interpretation as incomplete or flawed? Also, there was no learning from each other or constructive conversation. I understand it must be frustrating for Anderson to debate with guys who he feels are interpreting satan based on flawed translations, but we all are given these translations and we interpret things as best we can. Obviously we should be open to any findings that come around and I suppose most people are not willing to budge on their stances. So in a way I sympathize with Anderson as a minority. I still found Anderson’s ideas very attractive and am busy processing his points.

Thanks
 Ryan

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

Lloyd, aren’t your questions meant just to attract us to your prefabricated “answers”. Peter patiently offered lots of “food for thought”, but you keep repeating the same “answers”. You should be worried, you know, God’s thoughts are not our thoughts.

Re: The coming of the kingdom of God

 addamstaft,

It appears that you are 180 degrees out of phase.

Contrary to your assertion, I do not use "prefabricated ‘answers’".  If anything, it is Peter who is using "prefabricated ‘answers’".

I "patiently offered lots of ‘food for thought’", including the Sciptures which verify the "food for though". while Peter "keeps repeating the same (old failed) “answers".

It seems to me that it is Peter and you who "should be worried".

 Lloyd

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.