The Kingdom of God Is Future

In 1523 Martin Luther, in his treatise On Governmental Authority, declared that the question of whether or not the Christian should bear arms on behalf of the State should be left to “the other group, the non-Christians.” 

Luther concluded that it was “very beneficial and essential for the whole world and for your neighbor. Therefore, if you see that there is a lack of hangmen, constables, judges, lords, or princes, and you find that you are qualified, you should offer your services and seek the position, that the essential governmental authority may not be despised and become enfeebled [i.e., weaker lest the government should] perish.”

Almost 400 years later the Russian writer Tolstoy, in his aptly titled The Kingdom of God Is Within You, famously stated that:

“The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity by contributing to the establishment of the kingdom of God….”

These works have propagated the false notion that the kingdom of God has come. Therefore, it is your Christian duty to become involved in politics, the military or, at the very least, in social justice endeavors in order to continue to “spread the kingdom” (as some today put it).

Tolstoy’s book was named after one of the most used verses to advance this view: Luke 17:21. But the context clearly contradicts this erroneous view. 

In v. 20 “The Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God would come.”

Jesus answered: “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, Here it is, or There it is, because the kingdom of God is within you.” (NIV)

Many other translations and paraphrases render the last phrase as:

“The kingdom of God is inside you.” Worldwide English and J.B. Phillips’ NT

Or “God’s kingdom is here with you.” Contemporary English and the Easy-to-Read Versions

There’s even a footnote in the CEV that says “Or in your hearts”! 

This forcing of what some call Dominion or Kingdom Now Theology destroys the fact that in the original NT Greek present tense verbs sometimes have a future meaning.

We see that in v.24 the coming of the kingdom “will be like lightning flashing across the sky,” i.e., very much universally visible, not invisible. The disciples even ask Jesus, at the end of the chapter, “Where will they [the people he’s been talking about] be taken?” 

The same use of Greek present tense verbs with a future meaning appears earlier in the so-called Beatitudes of Matthew. Even though there’s a present dimension to the kingdom in Mat. 5.3 and 10 (“theirs is the kingdom”) the context shows its future application. In Mat. 5:4 Jesus says “they will be comforted” and in Mat. 5.5, “they will inherit the earth,” i.e., the future kingdom on earth will finally belong to them!

The same is true for other verses like Mat 21:31 where Jesus says that tax collectors and prostitutes “are entering the kingdom of God.” That’s because, as he goes on to explain in v.32, those “tax collectors and prostitutes” believed the Baptist’s preaching about the coming kingdom of God! 

NOTE that in Luke 3:9 the Baptist warned the people about an impending doom by saying that “The ax lies at the root of the trees!” “Therefore,” said the Baptist, “every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

We can compare this present yet future meaning of kingdom texts with what the NT says about your own salvation. Even though the majority of references describe your salvation as a future event, the NT also sees your salvation as a past (“you were saved,” Eph. 2:8) and present (“you are being saved,” 1Cor 1.18) process.

In the book The Coming Kingdom, Dr. Andrew Woods says that Jesus’ ministry was “characterized by perpetual promises of a future, earthly kingdom” in verses like Matthew 19:28:

“Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

And Matthew 26:29:

“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Dr. Woods continues by saying that “A terrestrial, geopolitical element is always included in the Old Testament’s presentation of the kingdom. Such an abrupt change from understanding the kingdom as encompassing this physical reality to solely a spiritual reality is tantamount to hermeneutically changing horses in midstream. 

Why would Christ, or any of the New Testament writers for that matter, introduce such a radical transition without any in-depth commentary explaining that such a transition was underway?”

That’s a very good question for all of us to ponder!

"The Resurrection of All Mankind"

OT Background

Isaiah 26:19

“Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a dew of light, and the earth will give birth to the dead.”

Hosea 13:14a NIV

"I will deliver this people from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction?”

Daniel 12:2

“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

Competing Beliefs

1 or 2: Dan. 12; 2 Enoch; cp. “just and unjust,” Acts 24.15

Gills’ Exposition

“It’s certain the Jews are divided in their sentiments about this matter; some of them utterly deny that any other shall rise but the just.”

•No “afterlife” at all: Sadducees.

•National, universal? Ezek. 37; cp. Baruch; Esdras.

•Physical, “spiritual”? 1-2 Enoch.

 

 NT Background

Jesus, John 5:24-30: 

The Father who raises the dead gives His Son the same power.

v24: spiritual resurrection; 

v25: literal resurrection;

v28: timing, “the hour is coming” = parousia, Mat 24.42-44; in a “blink,” 1Cor 15.50-57; cp. Luke 20:34-36.

 

  Paul, 1Cor 15:20-23

•1st “Christ, the first fruits”;

•2nd Christians at the parousia;

•3rd “The rest of the dead,” cp. Rev 20.5, 7. 

 

1Thess 4:13-18:

•v14 Christ brings those who have died "in the faith of Jesus,” Arabic version;

•v16 “the dead in Christ will rise first,” cp. 1Cor 15.20, “first fruits”;

•v17 the rest of the Christians who are alive.

Phil 3.10-11 Latin Vulgate

“I may attain to the resurrection, which is from* the dead.”

* Oldest mss. “the resurrection from (out of ) the dead.”

The Prophet Times, v3, p 142f.

“Greek writers, lexicons, critics, and the Greek NT everywhere and continually assign to the office of expressing out of, from, from among, and invariably use it before a genitive signifying a whole from which a part is taken [Acts 3.23; 1Cor 5.13; Acts 19.33; Heb 5.1, etc.].”

Of Jesus: Mat 17.9; Mar 9.9-10; 12.25; Luke 20.34-36; Acts 4.1-2; 26.23; Gal 1.1; 1Cor 15.12, 20; 1Pet 1.3; Rom 1.4.

Of Christians: Mar 12.25 [Mat 22.31 “of the dead”]; Luke 20.34-35.

The Wider Hope: Revelation 20

•vv.4-6: Doesn’t mean only the martyred are raised!

•vv.3, 5, 7: The Millennium will end!

•vv.20.4-5: “beheaded souls….came back to life”: NET Bible

The phrase “of dead persons who return to life become alive again: of humans in general Mt 9:18; Ac 9:41; 20:12; Rv 20:4, 5.”

•Personification, e.g. Abel’s blood “cries out”: Gen 4:8-10.

•V.10: “eternal torment”? Cp. Rev 18:7-8 Babylon is “tormented”;

•The wicked will eventually be “annihilated”: Ps. 92:7; Isa 66:24; Job 20:7-9, 26, 29; Isa 66:24; Mark 9:47-48;

•v.15: “The Lake of fire” = “the second death.”

Spiritual Rebuttal

‘But Revelation is apocalyptic language, and should not be taken literally.’

So what else would “this is the first resurrection” and “the rest of the dead” mean?

Rev 20:6

“Blessed and holy is the one who takes part in the first resurrection; the second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will rule for a thousand years” 

Word and Meanings

Resurrection, anastasis, 40x in the NT, usually means a physical resurrection from the dead.

Except..?

Luke 2.34

Simeon: "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel…”

John 11.25

“I am the resurrection and the life.

The one who believes in me, even if he dies, will live.”

Summary

• OT background: a unique resurrection belief of both good and wicked people: Dan 12.2;

• NT background: further Revelation, the nature of “rewards, punishments,” i.e., a Wider Hope: Rev. 20;

• The 2nd adam, the Messiah, is introduced as the executor of this endeavor at the parousia because God the Father “has given all judgment to the Son”: John 5.22;

Endgame: Acts 3:13-26

 

Biblical Nationalism

NET Bible on Matthew 22:16

“The Herodians [mentioned only here] were Jewish supporters of the Herodian dynasty (or of Herod Antipas in particular)….This probably reflects agreement regarding political objectives (nationalism as opposed to submission to the yoke of Roman oppression…”

Romans 12:14-21	Romans 13:1-6
Do not curse but bless.
Do not live in disharmony.	Do keep peace with the sword.
Do not repay evil for evil.	Do scare your enemies.
Do not wage war.	Do punish your enemies.
Do not take revenge.	Do take revenge with the sword.
Do not neglect your enemy.	Do punish your enemies
Do not let evil conquer you instead, conquer evil with good.

Greg Boyd, Jesus and Nationalistic Violence.

Jesus’ rebuke of Peter for trying to use the sword to defend him as well as his refusal to call on warring angels to fight on his behalf are clear repudiations of the violence-prone nationalism of the OT.

The Messiah was supposed to rise up in the strength of God and with the support of the people and vanquish Israel’s opponents, not get crucified by them!

This becomes all the more clear when Jesus cites the non-violence of his followers to Pilate to prove that his kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18:36).

The fact that there wasn’t bloodshed (except for Jesus’ own) proves his kingdom is not of this world, nor of any violence-prone nationalism.

https://reknew.org/2017/01/jesus-nationalistic-violence/

Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective, Jacques Ellul, 1969.

Violence seems to be the great temptation in the church and among Christians today. Thirty years ago it was nonviolence, conscientious objection, that constituted the "problem" in the church, and it was this prophetic position that needed to be clarified. Today it is Christians' acceptance of violence, and the theologies thereby engendered, which appear to be the central problem.

Very often, it is only after others have brought it into the open that Christians become aware of a problem, and then they climb on the bandwagon of parties or doctrines. (p 27)

Plunged into a situation of social injustice, exploitation, and alienation, Christians soon discovered movements led by others and enthusiastically joined them. The same thing happened a century ago, when Christians fought in wars for the defense of their country. If I wanted to be mischievous, I would say that a century ago nationalism was the ideological fashion, and Christians went along with it, adducing every imaginable Christian motif to justify their stand. Today social revolution, etc., are the fashion. To say so may seem wicked, for I am told, in scandalized accents, that this is not a question of fashion, that all the truth of Jesus is at stake in this social conflict. But I answer that the Christian nationalists of the 19^th century also killed each other in the conviction that Jesus had established nations and that love of country was part of love of God. We find that stupid nowadays. But can we be sure that, 50 years hence, today's prorevolutionary position will not also seem stupid?

What troubles me is not that the opinions of Christians change, nor that their opinions are shaped by the problems of the times; on the contrary, that is good. What troubles me is that Christians conform to the trend of the moment without introducing into it anything specifically Christian. Their convictions are determined by their social milieu, not by faith in the revelation; they lack the uniqueness which ought to be the expression of that faith. Thus theologies become mechanical exercises that justify the positions adopted, and justify them on grounds that are absolutely not Christian. (p 28)

The spirit of nationalism cannot be expressed save by violence. (p 102)

Others declare that nationalism is a fine thing when it leads to the liberation of peoples; it is only Europe's old-fashioned nationalism that they condemn. But this is to close one's eyes to the fact that the characteristics of nationalism are always the same, that a young, liberating nationalism has exactly the same sociological structure as German or French nationalism, and that the transition from “young" to “old” nationalism is tragically swift. China and Algeria are examples of how, in the course of a few years, a young nationalism turns into an old, sclerotic nationalism. (p 110)

http://christenemylove.com/