The Kingdom of God Is Not “Already Not Yet”

F.F. Bruce, the noted Scottish-born biblical scholar, wrote in Acts of the Apostles (1990, p. 102), commenting on chapter 1, verse 6:

“This hope of an earthly and national kingdom (cf. Mk. 10:35-37; Lk. 1:68-75) was recast after Pentecost as the proclamation of the spiritual kingdom of God, to be entered through repentance and faith in Christ.”

In other words, the Kingdom is redefined from the future world rule of God through the Messiah into a spiritual rule by your church or in your heart. That view has become standard in Christianity, and from it was born the popular saying, “Already Not Yet,” a formula used to promote “realized eschatology.” But this was not unique to Bruce or any other scholar.

The idea that the Kingdom was inaugurated by Jesus and is now present was first developed and spread by the so-called Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, who framed the Kingdom in terms of salvation history. Others, like Clement, recast it as a wholly spiritualized ethical and moral reality, while Origen internalized it as autobasileia — the “kingdom within.” Hence, under Constantine, the church fused Kingdom language with empire: “one God, one Logos, one Emperor, one Empire.”

However, in sharp contrast stands the Bible’s definition of the Kingdom of God.

The prophets describe a real future world order: Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the overthrow of human empires, with the Son of Man and the saints of the Most High God receiving the kingdom; Psalm 2 speaks of God’s Son ruling the redeemed nations; Isaiah 19, Zechariah 14, and Isaiah 65-66 give a vision of a restored earth and renewed creation. The New Testament did not change these seminal visions about “the day of the LORD,” Yahweh God.

The Kingdom was Jesus’ purpose-driven life (Luke 4:43). He announced, among matters of first importance, that the Kingdom was “at hand” (Mark 1:14-15) “near,” not yet here. As a result, he taught his disciples to pray, “May Your kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10), and spoke of it consistently as future:

“Amen! You who have followed me, when the world is reborn and the Son of Man will sit on his throne of glory, you too will sit on twelve thrones, governing the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left their homes, brothers, sisters, father, mother, children, or properties, because of me, will receive back a hundred times more, and will inherit the life of the age to come.” (Matt. 19:28-29)

“I tell you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the Kingdom of God comes.” (Luke 22:18)

These represent only a few of the direct sayings of Jesus that place at the heart of the Christian Gospel a predominantly future Kingdom, which will begin only at his Parousia. Hence, after Jesus’ death, Joseph of Arimathea was still “waiting for the kingdom of God” (Mark 15:43; Luke 23:51), and the apostles rightly asked, “Are you restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). That is why Paul is right later to admonish the church at Corinth:

“You are already filled. You have already become rich. You have begun to reign as kings without us! I wish indeed that you were really reigning as kings, so we would also be reigning as kings with you!” (1 Cor. 4:8)

Likewise, he warns Timothy:

“This instruction I entrust to you, Timothy, in keeping with the prophecies previously made concerning you, so that by them you may fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.” (1 Tim. 1:18-20)

And again Paul mentions one of these men and describes his message as spreading "like gangrene" because such people "have gone astray from the truth by saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they overthrow the faith of some.” (2 Tim. 2:17-18)

These strong warnings alone should destroy other theories about the Kingdom, such as Preterism, Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism.

At the same time, sometimes the word “kingdom” is used in abstract ways for royal authority or kingship (Luke 19:12, 15; 23:42; John 18:36), or for something to receive (Mark 10:15), seek (Matt. 6:33; Luke 12:31), or strive for (Matt. 11:11; Luke 16:16; Matt. 21:31; 23:13; cf. Luke 11:52; 1 Thess. 2:12; Rev. 1:6). Some of these sayings reflect what I call standard prophetic language for a future event so certain that it can at times be spoken of as past or even present (e.g., Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20). But this should not alter the meaning of the Kingdom. Also note the mistranslation “within you” in Luke 17:21.

The Kingdom is established strictly in the future, when God, through His Son, will restore the Davidic throne in the new Zion/Jerusalem, leading to the restoration of all things. Then “the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess the kingdom forever, and ever,” and “the kingdom, the dominion, and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven [will] be given to the people of the saints of the Most High. Their kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions will serve and obey them” (Dan. 7:18, 27).

To redefine that Kingdom as mainly spiritual or ecclesiastical is to forsake everything the prophets, Jesus, and his apostles taught and died for. In effect, it is “to preach a different Gospel from the one we preached to you” (Gal. 1:8).

Saturday study 3/21/26 Baptism series: “Born Again”

 Parable of the Sower

• READ: Mark 4
• Shema and understand! “Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.” Mar 4.9, 23;
• 10 times on the lips of Jesus throughout the Gospels!
• The key to all the parables, v.13.

Why it matters? 

• The parables about the Kingdom parables answer the question:reveal What is the Gospel? 
• Without the Gospel, baptism is just a wet ritual. 
• Your baptism should be an intelligent, informed act/experience that equips you for your Great Commission work, i.e., to proclaim:

“The Gospel of the Kingdom and the name of Jesus the Messiah,” so you can go on to baptize (Acts 8:12).

1. What is the seed?

• The seed is given various names, all synonymous:
• The “word,” “the word of God,” “the word of the Kingdom,” i.e., the Gospel or good news.
• Cp. Pauline Kingdom Gospel Dictionary

  https://rfcogstudy.blogspot.com/2023/10/pauline-gospel-dictionary.html

What the seed is not! 

• The word is not the Bible, aka the scriptures!
• The word is not the Kingdom itself!! 
• The word is not Jesus, his Apostles or the church:

"Don't confuse the message with the messenger"!

• Christians and ministries since Augustine wrongly think they are “building” hence “growing the kingdom” now. Result = Church is the State, Crusades, Inquisitions, "Christian nations," e.g., U.S.A. today "One Nation under God"!
• But how does the Bible define the kingdom?

1. The Gospel of Peace

What is the Kingdom?

• The Abrahamic land promise (Gen 12-17) later expanded to include the whole earth (Rom 4:13; Dan 2.44; Isa 2, etc.); 
• The land "promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed… that is, the Messiah.” (Gal. 3:16); 
• So “If you belong to Messiah, then you are Abraham’s children, and heirs of the promise.” (Gal. 3:29);
• That seed is Jesus who said the kingdom is near not here! Just like all the other prophets before him; What does "at hand/near" language mean? 

https://jesuskingdomgospel.com/the-day-of-the-lord-kingdom-is-near-at-hand/

• Like the OT prophets before him, Jesus clearly defined the kingdom as a yet future event, the restoration of the kingdom of his father David, i.e., the nation of Israel. 
• The Apostles understood this well hence their question in Acts 1:6. 

“Lord, has the time come for you to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 

• The Apostles faithfuly followed the parable of the sower model, spreading the seed/message, i.e., preaching, proclaiming the coming Kingdom (Mat 13.19a people hear "the word about the kingdom"). 

What the Kingdom is not:

• Past (Preterist), Present (Millennium Now), “Already Not Yet" (Postmill, most of Christendome);
• The “mystery” of the kingdom means it has "broken into history" at Jesus' first coming or Pentecost, the giving of the Spirit/official Church start. 
• The kingdom started small and remains hidden at present, growing invisibly and spiritually among Christians;
• This "spiritual kingdom" will inevitably end in the "consummation" (i.e., visible, physical parousia of Jesus).
• The parables of Jesus both revealed this "mystery" (especially to his disciples, who received private explanations) and concealed it from those hardened against him, fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy about spiritual blindness. 
• Thus, only those with open hearts receive the kingdom “spiritually”—that is, in their hearts and through the church—while those who reject him hear only stories without grasping that deeper truth.
• This view seems to overlap strongly with Amill and, to a lesser extent, Postmill. 
• This view best reflects the so-called “Already Not Yet” aka Realized/Inaugurated eschatology.
• This view often defined as your kingdom or Christian living now (e.g., we have been "transferred into the Kingdom," Col 1:13; the kingdom is "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit," Rom 14:17) with that future kingdom on earth. 
• Check out my Prez + Conversation with Tracy Kingdom Now Texts Explained - Carlos Xavier (KOG Missions Conference 2022)

1. What are the soils? READ Matt 13:1-23

• Different people choices and just as important as knowing what is the seed. 

Hard Path Soil = No Understanding, Matt 13:19.

• The seed lies on the surface then the enemy (Satan/Devil) immediately snatches it away.
• Most so-called "churchgoers," are familiar with terms/sermons but message never penetrates (due to shallow/distorted preaching, e.g., reduced to "repent and believe," self-help, or prosperity).
• As a result most preach what you are saved from: sin, condemnation, wrath, death. Whereas the prophets of old, Jesus and his Apostles emphasize what you are saved for: entering/inheriting the Kingdom of God which means ruling the world with Jesus, 1Cor 6:2 Do you not understand that the saints are going to govern and manage the world? 3 Do you not understand that we will be judging angels? Then why not matters related to this present life! 

Shallow/Rocky Soil = Superficial Faith, Matt 13:20–21.

• Receives the word with immediate joy/excitement/emotion → but no depth/root system.
• Collapses under pressure, suffering, or cost of discipleship.
• Lacks sound pastoring/discipleship, scripture engagement, and counting the cost (cf. Luke 14:27–33).
• Appears vibrant briefly but withers when greater sacrifice/commitment is required.

Thorny/Weedy Soil = Worldly Distractions, Matt 13:22.

• Word genuinely received → growth starts → but crowded/choked out by the worries of life, wealth pursuit, ambition, entertainment, politics, etc.
• Often largest group in churches: sincerity, humanitarian "fruit/works," regular church attendance → but minimal Kingdom fruit due to divided loyalties.
• Reinforced by Parable of Weeds: good/bad grow together in world/church/individuals until harvest.
• Hence, Paul's Christian ideal in 1Cor 7 single life vs marriage because it allows for undivided devotion to the Lord and greater freedom in serving the Kingdom (1 Cor. 7:7–8, 32–35, 37–38, 40).
• Marriage is permitted and honorable, but it brings added cares and divided responsibilities, so Paul says, “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife” (1 Cor. 7:27–28). 
• This fits Jesus’ own teaching that some remain unmarried “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:10–12) and that marriage belongs to “this age,” not the age to come (Luke 20:34–36).

Overall Application & Warning

• Christians hear/read the Parable of Sower but remain bad soils not from ignorance, but lack of true understanding/foundation.
• Faith comes by hearing a clear, comprehensible proclamation (Rom 10:14–17) followed by your obedience of faith, personal study/motivation, etc.; 
• Jesus warns: "Take care how you hear" (Luke 8:18).
• The Gospel will eventually be scattered worldwide and then the end will come, Matt 24:14. 
• God will eventually hold everyone accountable per truth received; ignorance is not bliss! 

 

1. Born Again Now!

• Rebirth now by the seed, the message about the kingdom you heard, understood, and retain so that you can persevere, 1 Pet 1.22-23;
• You must "produce fruits consistent with repentance," as he told Pharisees in Luke 3:8; Mat 3.8.
• That's the only way to "recognize them by their fruits. Do people harvest grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?" Matthew 7.16;
• And that's how you become children of God, Jam. 1:18:

"He gave birth to us by the Gospel-word of truth, according to His own plan, so that we would be the first fruits of His new creation."

Summary: 

Born-Again Process

1. You hear, understand and believe the word (Eph. 1:13-14); i.e., the word about the kingdom, Mat 13:19
2. Accept this word & Repent (Mark 1:14-15);
3. Plant the word in your heart & grow in your believe, aka faith;
4. Bear much fruit, which requires commitment (Luke 13:19);
5. The obedience of faith starts with baptism (Acts 2:38); church fellowship, communion, etc.
6. Do the Great Comission, i.e., make disciples & baptize (Matt. 28:19)

Евсевий и Матфея 28:19: теория тринитарной интерполяции

Краткое содержание

Некоторые утверждают, что Матфея 28:19 был изменён в IV веке, чтобы поддержать учение о Троице. Обычно этот аргумент строится на некоторых сокращённых цитатах Евсевия Кесарийского. Однако трезвый анализ текстологических и исторических данных показывает иное: Евсевий цитировал Писание свободно, тогда как полная форма стиха была известна и употреблялась задолго до Никеи.

Время от времени снова появляется утверждение, будто Матфея 28:19 не принадлежал к первоначальному тексту Евангелия от Матфея, а был поздней тринитарной вставкой. Главным основанием для этой идеи обычно служит Евсевий Кесарийский, который в некоторых местах приводит сокращённую форму повеления Иисуса, передаваемую примерно так: «сделайте учениками все народы во имя Моё».

Но этот аргумент не доказывает того, что пытается доказать.

Проблема в том, что Евсевий не передаёт какой-то одной устойчивой и последовательной текстовой версии Матфея 28:19. Иногда он цитирует этот стих в сокращённом виде, иногда в более краткой форме, а иногда — в полной, общеизвестной форме, дошедшей до нас. Это указывает не на существование какого-то иного оригинального текста, а на гибкую практику цитирования.

И это полностью соответствует его обычному методу. Евсевий сокращал, перефразировал и адаптировал библейские тексты в зависимости от своей цели. Когда он опускает полную форму, наиболее естественное объяснение заключается в контексте: его интерес обычно сосредоточен на всемирном масштабе миссии Иисуса, а не на дословном воспроизведении всей крещальной формулы. Следовательно, его краткие цитаты отражают свободу изложения, а не утраченный первоначальный вариант текста.

Кроме того, исторические данные указывают в том же направлении. Даже после Никеи Евсевий продолжает цитировать как краткие формы, так и полную форму. А в своём письме 325 года, написанном во время Никейского собора, он приводит стандартную форму таким образом, что видно: она была ему знакома и раньше. Это делает крайне затруднительным утверждение, будто длинная версия стиха возникла именно в никейском контексте.

Более широкая картина ещё убедительнее. Дидахе, один из древнейших христианских документов вне Нового Завета, содержит крещальную формулу, тесно связанную с Матфея 28:19. То же самое мы видим у дохристианских? Нет — у раннехристианских авторов, живших до IV века, таких как Иустин Мученик, Тертуллиан и Ориген. Иными словами, полная форма этого стиха существовала задолго до Константина, задолго до Никеи и задолго до позднейшего догматического оформления церковной ортодоксии.

Именно здесь теория о подлоге теряет всякую убедительность. Чтобы её сохранить, пришлось бы предположить, что ещё только формирующееся тринитарное движение изменило текст, навязало новую версию всему христианскому миру и уничтожило без следа первоначальное чтение во всех рукописях, фрагментах и патристических цитатах. Это не серьёзная текстологическая гипотеза. Это чрезвычайная историческая реконструкция без достаточных доказательств.

Самое простое объяснение остаётся самым убедительным: Евсевий цитировал Матфея 28:19 свободно, но полная форма стиха уже была древней, известной и широко засвидетельствованной. Поэтому идея о том, что Матфея 28:19 — это тринитарная порча текста IV века, основана не на твёрдых доказательствах, а на натянутом прочтении данных.

И когда теория может держаться только ценой насилия над доказательствами, проблема не в тексте, а в самой теории.

Eusebio, Mateo 28:19 y la Hipótesis de una Corrupción Trinitaria

Resumen: Algunos sostienen que Mateo 28:19 fue alterado en el siglo IV para apoyar la doctrina de la Trinidad. Su argumento principal suele basarse en ciertas citas abreviadas de Eusebio de Cesarea. Sin embargo, una revisión sobria de la evidencia textual e histórica muestra otra cosa: Eusebio citaba con libertad, mientras que la forma larga del versículo ya era conocida y usada mucho antes de Nicea.

Por carlos@thehumanjesus.org

De vez en cuando reaparece la afirmación de que Mateo 28:19 no formó parte original del Evangelio de Mateo, sino que fue una adición trinitaria tardía. La base principal de esta idea suele ser Eusebio de Cesarea, quien en algunos lugares cita una forma abreviada del mandato de Jesús, resumida así: “haced discípulos de todas las naciones en mi nombre”.

Pero ese argumento no prueba lo que pretende probar.

El problema es que Eusebio no transmite una variante textual fija y coherente de Mateo 28:19. A veces cita el pasaje de forma resumida, otras de forma abreviada, y otras veces en la forma larga y conocida que ha llegado hasta nosotros. Eso indica, no la existencia de un texto original distinto, sino una práctica de citación flexible.

Y esto encaja perfectamente con su método habitual. Eusebio abreviaba, parafraseaba y adaptaba los textos bíblicos según su propósito. Cuando omite la forma larga, lo más natural es explicarlo por el contexto: su interés suele estar en el alcance universal de la misión de Jesús, no en repetir literalmente toda la fórmula bautismal. Sus citas breves, por tanto, reflejan libertad expositiva, no una lectura primitiva perdida.

Además, el dato histórico va en la misma dirección. Incluso después de Nicea, Eusebio sigue citando tanto formas breves como la forma larga. Y en su carta del año 325, escrita durante el Concilio de Nicea, cita la forma estándar de un modo que sugiere que ya la conocía desde antes. Eso hace muy difícil sostener que la versión larga naciera en el contexto niceno.

La evidencia más amplia es todavía más fuerte. La Didaché, uno de los documentos cristianos más antiguos fuera del Nuevo Testamento, contiene una fórmula bautismal estrechamente relacionada con Mateo 28:19. Lo mismo ocurre con escritores anteriores al siglo IV, como Justino Mártir, Tertuliano y Orígenes. En otras palabras, la forma larga del versículo circulaba mucho antes de Constantino, mucho antes de Nicea y mucho antes de cualquier consolidación doctrinal posterior.

Aquí es donde la teoría de la corrupción pierde toda fuerza. Para sostenerla, habría que imaginar que un movimiento trinitario aún en formación alteró el texto, impuso la nueva versión en todo el mundo cristiano y eliminó sin dejar rastro la lectura original en manuscritos, fragmentos y citas patrísticas. Eso no es una hipótesis textual seria. Es una reconstrucción histórica extraordinaria sin evidencia suficiente.

La explicación más simple sigue siendo la más sólida: Eusebio citó Mateo 28:19 con libertad, pero la forma larga del versículo ya era antigua, conocida y ampliamente atestiguada. Por eso, la idea de que Mateo 28:19 fue una corrupción trinitaria del siglo IV no descansa en evidencia firme, sino en una lectura forzada de los datos.

Y cuando una teoría solo puede sostenerse forzando la evidencia, el problema no está en el texto, sino en la teoría.

Eusebius and Matthew 28:19: The Trinitarian Corruption Theory

Matthew 28:19 is sometimes alleged to be a later Trinitarian corruption rather than original to Matthew’s Gospel. The argument usually rests on the fourth-century bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, who in a number of places cites a shorter form of the verse, I.e., “make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

But the evidence shows that Eusebius often quoted Scripture loosely, abbreviating, paraphrasing, or adapting passages to suit his immediate purpose. That matters because Eusebius does not present a single, stable alternative reading of Matthew 28:19. Rather, he cites the verse in multiple forms:

1. As a summary form, “Go...nations”;

2. As a shorter form, “Go...nations in my name”;

3. And the full longer form used to this day.

In the places where he omits the so-called “longer form” as we have it today, the omission is best explained by context, not by some earlier, Hebrew original underlying text. His focus in those discussions is typically the universal scope of Jesus’ commission, the call to disciple all nations, not the precise wording of the baptismal formula. This was characteristic of Eusebius’s citation method more generally: he frequently omitted phrases he regarded as incidental to his point and sometimes blended language from parallel or related texts. In other words, his own usage reflects flexibility in quotation, not evidence of some lost original Hebrew text.

Even more significantly, after Nicaea Eusebius continues to cite both shorter and longer forms, which weakens the claim that his wording simply tracks some pre-Nicene, non-Trinitarian text. And in his letter of 325, written during the Council of Nicaea, his citation of the standard form strongly suggests that he was already familiar with it well before the council.

The broader historical evidence is even more decisive. Matthew 28:19 is cited in its familiar form long before Nicaea by early Christian writers and extra-biblical sources. The Didache, often regarded as one of the earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament, contains baptismal language closely matching the verse. It is also reflected in writers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen, all of whom wrote generations before the fourth century. Their testimony places the longer reading well before Constantine, well before Nicaea, and well before the rise of later conciliar orthodoxy.

This is where the corruption theory collapses under its own weight. To sustain it, one must imagine that a still-developing Trinitarian movement managed not only to alter Matthew 28:19, but also to replace that text across the Christian world and eliminate every trace of the supposed original, including Greek manuscripts, fragments, and patristic citations.

That is not a serious textual argument.

It is speculation resting on an implausible historical reconstruction.

The simpler explanation is born by the evidence that Eusebius quoted Matthew 28:19 with considerable freedom, as he often did elsewhere. The full form of the verse was already widely known and cited long before Nicaea. So that whatever one thinks about later Trinitarian theology, the claim that Matthew 28:19 is a fourth-century textual corruption is not supported by the evidence.

Did Christians Change the Bible to Make Jesus God?

Textual criticism is the discipline that compares the thousands of surviving New Testament manuscripts in order to recover, as nearly as possible, the earliest form of the text. Because the New Testament was copied by hand for centuries, variations inevitably entered the manuscript tradition. Most are minor and of little consequence. Some, however, appear to reflect theological bias, especially in passages dealing with the identity of the Son of God. The following examples are drawn from Bart Ehrman’s 1993 book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

The best-known example of textual corruption is 1 John 5:7-8. The longer so-called Johannince Comma (“Trinitarian reading"), familiar from the King James Version, is absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts and is widely recognized as a later addition. The oldest manuscript containing the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording there departs from all the other manuscripts in several places. The next oldest manuscripts supporting the Comma—88 (12th century), 429 (14th century), and 636 (15th century)—also preserve the reading only as a marginal note. The remaining manuscripts are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence for this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 14th century (629), and that manuscript deviates from all the others in its wording. The form of the wording found in the Textus Receptus was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was published in 1516.

Other lesser-known examples noted by Ehrman are also significant. In Acts 20:28, some readings make the verse say that God purchased the church with his own blood, a wording with obvious doctrinal force. In 1 Timothy 3:16, one form of the text reads, “God was manifested in the flesh,” while another reads more like, “He who was manifested in the flesh.” In John 1:18, manuscripts differ between “the only begotten Son” and “the only God.” In Jude 5, the text appears in forms that read “the Lord,” “Jesus,” or other Christologically heightened expressions.

Some variants also seem intended to soften language that sounded too human. In Luke 2:33, Luke 2:43, and Luke 2:48, references to Joseph as Jesus’ “father,” or to Joseph and Mary as his “parents,” were altered in some manuscripts. Such changes fit a scribal tendency to protect later theological claims about Jesus’ identity.

Other passages discussed by Ehrman in this connection include Mark 1:1, Luke 3:22, John 1:34, Romans 1:4, John 19:40, Mark 3:11, Luke 7:9, and Galatians 2:20. Not every example carries the same weight, and not every variant was necessarily intentional. Still, the overall pattern is difficult to ignore: in a number of places, the text appears to have been pushed toward a stronger and more explicit identification of Jesus with God.

None of this means that every textual variant affects major New Testament doctrines. But it does mean that major theological tentpoles like the doctrine of the Trinity should not be built on disputed readings.

The fact is the controversy over Jesus’ identity was not fought only in later creeds and councils; it also left its mark on the manuscript tradition. In some cases, scribes appear to have reshaped the text to serve doctrinal ends. Where that has happened, Christian integrity requires that inherited theology give way to the earliest recoverable words of Scripture, however uncomfortable the result.