DISPENSATIONALISM

DISPENSATIONALISM


Since the positions and conclusions in Endtimes.org are in line with the Dispensational System of Theology, or point of view, the terms need to be explained. There is no need to fear these terms. They describe some simple concepts related to our understanding of the Old Testament Covenants and how God will develop His kingdom program. Even if you have negative feelings about the term Dispensationalism, please go through the following brief explanation of what it is. It could be that it has never been clearly explained. Dispensationalism has influenced the doctrinal beliefs of many churches, including the Baptist church, the Bible churches, the Pentecostal churches, and many other non-denominational Evangelical churches. You may even be Dispensational in your thinking although not be calling yourself a Dispensationalist. Christian is always a better term, but terms like Dispensationalist helps to define where we are coming from when it comes to our views on Endtimes and the present and future Kingdom of God.



Definition

A Dispensation - The system by which anything is administered. In Christian terms, looking back, it refers to a period in history whereby God dealt with man in a specific way. (Conscience, Law, Grace)
Dispensationalism - A system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways during different dispensations. While 'Dispensations' are not ages, but stewardships, or administrations, we tend to see them now as ages since we look back on specific time periods when they were in force.
Dispensationalism is distinguished by three key principles.
1 - A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.
2 - A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation
3 - The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.
Ok, what does this mean in layman's terms. Read on.



What about the Dispensations?

The key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations. This is a misunderstanding of the opponents of Dispensationalism. Almost all theologians will recognize that God worked differently through the Law than He did through Grace. That is not to say that salvation was attained in a different manner, but that the responsibilities given to man by God were different during the period of the giving of the Law up to the cross, just as they were different for Adam and Eve. The Jews were to show their true faith by doing what God had commanded, even though they couldn't keep the moral Law. That's what the sacrifices were for. When the apostle Paul said that as to the Law he was blameless, he didn't mean that he never sinned, but that he obeyed God by following the guidelines of the Law when he did sin, and animal sacrifices were offered for his sins by the priests in the temple. Salvation came not by keeping the law, but by seeing it's true purpose in exposing sin, and turning to God for salvation. The Jews weren't saved based on how well they kept the law, (as many of them thought) as that would be salvation by works. They were saved through faith in God, and the work of Christ on the cross was counted for them, even though it hadn't happened yet.

Dispensationalists will define three key dispensations, (1) The Mosaic Law, (2) The present age of Grace, and (3) the future Millennial Kingdom. Most will agree about the first two, and Covenant theology will disagree about the third, seeing this as the 'eternal state'. (Since they don't see a literal Millennial Kingdom - the future literal fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom.)

A greater breakdown of specific dispensations is possible, giving most traditional Dispensationalists seven recognizable dispensations.

Innocence - Adam
Conscience - After man sinned, up to the flood
Government - After the flood, man allowed to eat meat, death penalty instituted
Promise - Abraham up to Moses and the giving of the Law
Law - Moses to the cross
Grace - The cross to the Millennial Kingdom
Millennial Kingdom - A 1000 year reign of Christ on earth centered in Jerusalem
While not everyone needs to agree on this breakdown, the point from the Dispensationalists view is that God is working with man in a progressive way. At each stage man has failed to be obedient to the responsibilities set forth by God. The method of salvation, justification by faith alone, never changes through the dispensations. The responsibilities God gives to man does change however. The Jews were to be obedient to the Law if they wished God's blessing of Land. If they were disobedient, they would be scattered. However, God promises to always bring them back to the land promised to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant. After the cross, believers no longer need the Law, which pointed to Christ as the one that would take away sin through his perfect sacrifice. (Heb 10) We are under a new Law, the Law of Grace. We have more revelation about God, and are no longer required to keep ceremonial laws given to the Jews. The moral law is always in effect as a guide, but we are no longer condemned by it, since we have a savior that has overcome for us.

Remember that making a distinction between these time periods is not what makes someone Dispensational. Recognizing the progressive nature, and seeing the church as part of Plan A and not Plan B is what makes someone Dispensational. Dispensationalists see a clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the church. God is not finished with Israel. The church didn't take Israel's place. They have been set aside temporarily, but in the Endtimes will be brought back to the promised land, cleansed, and given a new heart. (Gen 12, Deut 30, 2 Sam 7, Jer 31)

Just to clarify what I mean by Plan A and Plan B, I can see how some would say that the church is God's Plan B. However, God knew that the Jews would reject their Messiah. Daniel 9 tells us that the Messiah would be cut off, or killed, and Isaiah 53 speaks of the suffering servant. To call the church Plan B sounds too much like it was his second best plan, as if his efforts were thwarted. God has one redemptive plan for all mankind that was foretold in Genesis 3. The Messiah would come and defeat Satan and death. Now, this doesn't mean that his plan for Israel, and the promises/covenants made with the forefathers are null and void. They are not.



So what is the key to Dispensationalism?

The literal method of interpretation is the key. Using the literal method of interpreting the biblical covenants and prophecy leads to a specific set of core beliefs about God's kingdom program, and what the future will hold for ethnic Israel and for the Church. We therefore recognize a distinction between Israel and the Church, and a promised future earthly reign of Christ on the throne of David. (The Davidic Kingdom.) This leads a person to some very specific conclusions about the Endtimes.

Israel must be re-gathered to their land as promised by God.
Daniel's seventieth week prophecy specifically refers to the purging of the nation Israel, and not the Church. These were the clear words spoken to Daniel. The church doesn't need purging from sin. It is already clean.
Some of the warnings in Matthew 24 are directed at the Jews, and not the Church (since God will be finishing His plan with national Israel)
A Pretribulation rapture - Israel is seen in Daniel as the key player during the tribulation, not the Church. God removes the elect when he brings judgment on the world. i.e. Noah, John 14, 1 Thess 4:16.
Premillennialism - A literal 1000 year Millennial Kingdom, where Christ returns before the Millennium starts. Revelation 20 doesn't give us a reason to interpret the 1000 years as symbolic. Also, Dispensationalists see the promised literal reign of Christ in the OT. Note the chronological order of events between Revelation 19-21.
Charles Ryrie in his book 'Dispensationalism' points out that some Christians have actually called Dispensationalism heretical. Actually it is people that use words like 'heretical' for non essential doctrinal beliefs that are the ones that cause division in the Church. Whether a person believes in a literal future Millennial Kingdom is not essential Christian doctrine. It doesn't rank up there with the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the Atonement, etc. A house divided against itself will not stand. When we get to heaven, or the Millennial Kingdom, whichever will come first, we will understand the truth of all the word of God, but until then there are essential doctrines of the faith that are worth going to battle over. Others are not, since we don't want to be found going to battle with each other, and therefore, with Jesus Christ Himself.



The History of Dispensationalism

While the opponents of Dispensationalism will point out that as a system of theology it is relatively new, it is notable that there is evidence from the early church writers that there was clearly an understanding that God dealt with His people differently in progressive dispensations, and that Israel wasn't seen as replaced by the Church. A small reference to some of these writings is found in 'The Moody Handbook of Theology" by Paul Ennis. He mentions the following Christians as being in the history of the development of Dispensationalism.

Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165)
Iranaeus (A.D. 130-200)
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220)
Augustine (A.D. 354-430)
Of the above Ryrie says "It is not suggested nor should it be inferred that these early Church Fathers were dispensationalists in the modern sense of the word. But it is true that some of them enunciated principles which later developed into Dispensationalism, and it may be rightly said that they held primitive or early dispensational concepts." With this understanding, the following have written in support of some or all dispensational principles.

Some Dispensational writers

Pierre Poiret (1646-1719)
John Edwards (1637-1716)
Isaac Watts (1674-1748)
John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)
C.I. Scofield (1843-1921)
Lewis Sperry Chafer
Charles Ryrie
Dwight Pentecost
John Walvoord

The Lust of the Flesh, the Lust of the Eyes, and the Pride of Life

The Lust of the Flesh, the Lust of the Eyes, and the Pride of Life

1 John 2:16 says, “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.” We need only to go back to the first sin to see these three underlying facets of sin at work. Genesis 3:6 says, “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” God told Eve that she couldn’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This would keep her from being aware of sin which would destroy her innocence and ruin her joy. Yet the serpent told her that she would be like God if she ate of the tree, appealing to the pride of life. She saw that the tree was “desirable to make one wise,” and she ate. This is the pride of life, a motive wrought in arrogance, boastfulness, and self-centeredness. Rather than bowing down, trusting, and worshipping God, the pride of life motivates us, as it did Eve, to want to see god in ourselves. Eve also saw that the tree was “good for food,” meaning that it looked like it would taste good and be satisfying and enjoyable to eat. But the pleasures of sin are temporary, and Eve fell for the lust of the flesh, trusting in her sensory modalities rather than in the word of God spoken to her. The lust of the flesh trusts man’s judgment, feelings, and temporary conveniences in lieu of God’s inalterable Word. Eve also saw that the tree was a “delight to the eyes,” for it was a beautiful creation of God. Sin does not necessarily appear as ugly, dirty, and destructive, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). The fruit that God told Eve not to eat was extremely enticing and attractive in its appearance. The lust of the eyes propelled Eve down the road of deception until she disobeyed God and incurred the penalties of sin. Both Adam and Eve learned the hard way that the knowledge of evil corrupted their natures resulting in distrust, fear, alienation, pain, and many other hideous things for the rest of their lives. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life all work in sinister collaboration to lead us astray, to keep us from trusting God’s Word, and to fall for the schemes of the devil.

The Bible uses the term “flesh” frequently to describe that which is left within us that opposes the Spirit of God within our hearts. There is a battle that takes place daily, even moment by moment, between the Spirit and the flesh. As Galatians 5:17 says, “For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.” Any time we give into the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, or the pride of life, we are walking by the flesh rather than by the Spirit. As Galatians 5:16 says, “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.” However, the flesh can also simply refer to the body (e.g. Matthew 16:17). In 1 John 2:16, the Holy Spirit chooses to partition our generic fleshly lusts into three distinct categories: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. The lust of the flesh is the lust of the body. Our bodies have needs for food, for drink, for touch, for intimacy, for healing, etc. The problem is not that the body has wants and needs but that it can fall prey to lusting for these wants and needs. Lust is differentiated by love in that it is a craving for what is forbidden rather than for what is allowed. Love is a wholesome desire, whereas lust is a perverted one. Lust seeks sex outside of marriage, food in excess, healing through new age practices, etc. Trying to meet the desires of the body through the wrong channels is lust, and this is what the devil must trick us into doing. Satan’s methods are similar when it comes to the lust of the eyes. God gave us eyes to see the wonders of His creative genius and to take in information to help us spiritually discern and make decisions. Our ability to see is a good thing that can be used in love and to further the cause of good, but Satan can trip us up if we use our eyes to lust. The world knows how to use lust to market things to us from ornate presentations in store windows to flashy lights at a casino. Sex sells for a reason. Satan is well-aware of the potent tool that he has in using our eyes against us. Finally, there is the boastful pride of life. Pride and arrogance are behind any sin, whether we are aware of them or not. The temptation to want “to be somebody” or to “do something our own way” is all about pride and boasting. Pride is an arrogant willingness to believe that we don’t need God, that we can thwart God, that we can do better than what God has ordained for us, and that we can be a better god of our own lives. Pride may well be the underlying motivator for our choosing to lust, or it could be that our lust leads us to a position of pride. However sin takes root in our hearts, we can be sure that pride and lust are the fundamental building blocks.

Satan knows how to break us down, but now we have his playbook. May God make us quick to see the temptations of lust and pride so that we can choose life, freedom, and truth. Sin always brings pain and death (Romans 6:23), but God offers pleasures forevermore (Psalm 16:11). The choice is really simple…if only we could remember that in the heat of the battle.

WHY I AM NOT A PRETERIST

WHY I AM NOT A PRETERIST

The word "preterist" is taken from the Latin word meaning "past." This view denies any future fulfillment of the book of Revelation and sees the events it describes as already having been fulfilled within the first century after Christ.

There are several different forms of Preterism. Full Preterism views all of the prophecies of the Bible as having already been fulfilled in their entirety since the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Full Preterism is a very recent innovation that has no adherents in any of the writings of the early church.

Partial Preterism maintains a future return of Christ, but views His "coming in the clouds" as described in Matthew 24:29-31 as having been fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the fall of Jerusalem. Most of my remarks henceforth will be dealing with full preterism.

1. Jesus and Preterism.

With regards to Preterism, I am reminded of the words of Jesus when He said to the disciples, "The days shall come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. And they will say to you, 'Look there! Look here!' Do not go away, and do not run after them. For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day." (Luke 17:22-24).

It seems to me that the Preterist is one who is pointing to the A.D. 70 event and saying, "Look there! Look here!" But there is going to be no mistaking the coming of the Son of Man when He finally returns. By contrast, none of the believers of the early church viewed the 70 A.D. fall of Jerusalem as fulfilling the promise of the return of Christ. This brings us to our next point.

2. The Church Fathers and Preterism.

It is clear from a reading of the apostolic and church fathers that ALL of them expected a future return of Jesus Christ. It would be strange indeed if the entire church failed to understand the fulfillment of so many of the New Testament prophecies on such a major point. This is especially striking when we remember the promise of Revelation 1:7 that tells us, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. A preterist interpretation calls for this to be a reference to the "tribes of the land" of Israel, even though Israel was never described in such a way elsewhere in the Bible. But such an interpretation would demand that the Jews who suffered through the A.D. 70 event would have recognized that their sufferings were a punishment for their treatment of Jesus since the prophecy is not merely that they would mourn, but that they would mourn "over Him." Just as there is no evidence that anyone in the church ever recognized the fall of Jerusalem as the return of Jesus, so also there is a complete absence of evidence that the Jews ever recognized the coming of Jesus in those events.

3. The Resurrection and Preterism.

Fundamental to full Preterism is the idea that there is no future physical resurrection of the dead. But the pattern for our resurrection is that of Jesus. The big idea presented in 1 Corinthians 15 is that Jesus arose from the dead. This was not merely some sort of spiritual resurrection. The point is made throughout this chapter that His resurrection was bodily and physical. Furthermore we are told that His resurrection serves as the paradigm for our own resurrection. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep (1 Corinthians 15:20). He is the firstfruits and we are the "later fruits."

When Paul came to Athens, he was mocked by the Greeks for believing in a physical resurrection. Such mockery would not have been forthcoming had he held that the resurrection was only going to be of a spiritual or mystical nature. But he went out of his way to side himself with the Pharisees who believed in a physical resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6-8).

In denying any future resurrection at the coming of Christ, the preterist also finds himself out of accord with the words of Paul when he says, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51). The reference to sleep is used throughout this epistle as a euphemism for death (11:30; 15:6; 15:18; 15:20). While Paul says of the coming of the Lord that it will be a time when all do not die, the preterist is left with the rather obvious historic truth that everyone who lived in the first century did indeed die.

When it comes to the resurrection, the Bible teaches that Jesus is our prototype. His resurrection is the forerunner and the pattern for our own resurrection. This point is made in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul says that if there is no resurrection then even Jesus has not risen.

The resurrection of Jesus was a physical resurrection. He was able to stand before His disciples in His resurrection body and say, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:39). 1 John 3:2 says that when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is. Therefore we can conclude that our future resurrection will be of a physical AND spiritual nature.

4. Preterism and the Lord's Supper.

One wonders whether the Full Preterist is completely consistent in his views. After all, most Full Preterists continue to partake of the Lord's Supper in spite of the fact that Paul said that the eating and drinking serves to "proclaim the Lord's death UNTIL HE COMES" (1 Corinthians 11:26).

5. Preterism and the Promise of a Soon Coming.

Preterists like to point out that Jesus and the disciples stated that the kingdom was near and at hand. What they often ignore is that this same formula was used in the Old Testament in instances where the eventual fulfillment was a long way off.

An example of this is seen in Isaiah 13:6 where, speaking of a coming judgment against the city of Babylon, the prophet says, "Wail, for the day of the LORD is near! It will come as destruction from the Almighty." Isaiah writes these words in the 8th century B.C. but it is not until 539 B.C. that Babylon fell to the Persians.

The preterist attempts to make a similar case via the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:34 where Jesus says, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." What is conveniently ignored is the earlier context of Jesus' words in the previous chapter.

"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation." (Matthew 23:34-36).

Notice that it was "this generation" that murdered Zechariah, the son of Berechiah." The problem is that this murder took place 400 years earlier as recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21. This tells us that Matthew's use of the term "generation" means something different than a mere life span of the people who were living at that time.

Another common argument by preterists is the use of the second person such as when Jesus says, “You shall see the Son of Man sitting with power” (Mark 14:62). It is maintained that such a prophecy must necessitate a fulfillment within the lifetime of those to whom it is addressed. But such a claim ignores the multitude of prophecies in the Bible that addressed people as representing a future generation. Several examples will suffice:

As he is about to die, Joseph tells his brothers, “You shall carry my bones up from here” (Genesis 50:25), yet the fulfillment of this prophetic command would not be seen for many generations.

Jeremiah addresses the elders who were taken into the Babylonian Captivity (Jeremiah 29:1) and says to them, “When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place” (29:10). Because he is addressing the elders, we do not need to assume that they must all have lived another 70 years to see the fulfillment of this prophecy.

In Malachi 4:5, the prophet says, “Behold, I am going to send to you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD.” This prophecy was not fulfilled for at least 400 years, yet it utilizes the same 2nd person in addressing those to whom Malachi addresses his prophecy.

6. Preterism and the Angels at the Ascension.

Another problem facing the preterist is seen in the promise that was given to the disciples at the ascension of Jesus. The event took place on the Mount of Olives.

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them; 11 and they also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:9-11).

The promise that was given by the angels is that Jesus would come again in exactly the same way as they had watched Him go into heaven. This had not been a spiritual ascension, but a physical and visible one. It is for this reason that Christians throughout the ages fully expect a future physical and visible return of Christ.

7. Preterism and the Judgment of the World.

When Paul preaches to the Athenians on the Areopagus, he declares to them that God has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed (Acts 17:31). The Preterist interpretation of this verse is that it points to the A.D. 70 fall of Jerusalem, yet that fall would have absolutely no impact upon the Athenians who had gathered to listen to Paul. He says that they ought to repent because of this coming judgment and such a warning is nonsensical if it only refers to a local judgment in a far away land.

8. Preterism and the Redemption of Creation.

In Romans 8, Paul teaches that the creation has fallen as a result of sin and that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (8:21). He goes on in verse 22 to describe how the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now as it looks to its final redemption.

The Preterist foresees no physical redemption of creation. According to his scheme, world is fallen and will always be fallen. In this way, Preterism embraces the tenants of Gnosticism with its lack of regard for the redemption of the physical world.

Jesus said that the meek would inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5) and Abraham was promised that he and his descendants would be the heirs of the world (Romans 4:13). The preterists deny that Abraham or his spiritual descendants will ever have anything to do with the earth.

9. Preterism and a Brief Millennium.

It is no surprise to find that Preterists hold the prophecy in Revelation 20 of a thousand year reign to be symbolic. The idea of a symbolic fulfillment of this passage has been argued back and forth since the early days of the church. What is particularly problematic for the Preterist treatment of this passage is the view that this thousand year reign is to be understood as having been fulfilled in the 40 years between the resurrection of Jesus and the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. One cannot help but wonder what is to be meant by the use of an obviously long period of time as suggested by a thousand years.

10. A View of Perpetual Sin and Death.

Because there is no future Second Coming or final judgment, Preterists believe that sin will continue indefinitely. 1 Corinthians 15:26 tells us that the last enemy that will be abolished is death and Revelation 21:4 tells us of a time when there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain, but the Preterist would have us believe that death will never be abolished and that it will always be with us.

There are some eschatological differences that exist between Christians that I consider to be relatively benign and within the realm of Christian orthodoxy. This is not one of them. To the contrary, the teaching of Preterism comes uncomfortably close to the spiritual gangrene that is described by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:18 when he speaks of those who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some. I have yet to meet a Preterist whose focus is upon church ministry or the spreading of the gospel or the building up of the church. To the contrary, those with whom I have thus far come into contact seem to have as their primary focus the spread of this particular teaching. I cannot help but to be reminded of the litmus test suggested by Jesus: You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit (Matthew 7:16-17).

What must I do to be saved?

What must I do to be saved?

The answer to this question is so con­troversial that it has divided some quarters of evangelical Christianity into warring factions. The issue involved is the nature of salvation and saving faith: What is sav­ing faith? What does it mean to receive Jesus as Lord and Savior? How much must one surrender to the Lord at the time of salvation? What are the fruits of repentance?
“Lordship salvation” advocates say that in order to be saved, one must not only believe and acknowledge that Christ is Lord, but also submit to His lordship. In other words, there must be — at the moment one trusts in Christ for salvation — a willingness to commit one’s life absolutely to the Lord, even though the actual practice of a committed life may not follow immediately or completely. Non-lordship proponents argue that such a pre-salvation commitment to Christ’s lordship compromises salvation by grace.
The present debate is largely due to the publication of John F. MacArthur, Jr.’s The Gospel According to Jesus (Zondervan, 1988). According to an article by S. Lewis Johnson in the September 22 issue of Christianity Today, this book has pro­duced “an explosion of comment, discussion, and feisty debate.” MacArthur, Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church and president of The Master’s Seminary (both in Sun Valley, California) is a lordship sal­vation advocate. He wrote his book in response to (among others) a 1981 book by Zane C. Hodges entitled The Gospel Under Siege (Redencion Viva). Hodges, former professor of New Testament at Dal­las Theological Seminary, espouses the non-lordship view, and argues that much evangelical gospel-preaching is guilty of compromising the grace of the gospel. Hodges followed MacArthur’s book with still another book entitled Abso­lutely Free (Zondervan, 1989).
Another scholar responding to MacArthur’s book is Charles C. Ryrie (of The Ryrie Study Bible fame). Ryrie recently published So Great Salvation (Victor, 1989) in which he strongly affirms the non-lordship posi­tion. According to Ryrie, the non-lordship position states that accepting Jesus as Lord does not refer to a subjective com­mitment to Christ’s lordship in one’s life, but rather a repentance (or changing of one’s mind) about one’s ideas of who Christ is (i.e., He is the Sovereign and God) and exercising faith in Christ. Ryrie argues that repentance from sin is what follows in the Christian’s daily walk with the Lord.
Much confusion has overshadowed this controversy because of a lack of pre­cise definitions of key words (although Ryrie does provide some working defini­tions in his book). Neither side is saying that salvation is by works. Both affirm the clear teaching of Scripture that salvation is a gift freely given by God to man. Nor is either side advocating “easy­ believism,” a term coined by Lordship proponents to describe the idea that one receives salvation by simply giving intel­lectual assent to a set of doctrines.
The debate will no doubt continue. It is important, however, that in future dis­cussions of this issue, a clarification between the act of justification and pro­cess of sanctification be maintained. Jus­tification is the judicial declaration by God that the believer has a righteous standing before Him. This takes place the moment a person receives Jesus as his or her Savior by appropriating Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. Sanctification is the lifelong work of the Holy Spirit which conforms the believer into the image of Christ.
Martin Luther once said that “Faith alone justifies, but not the faith that is alone.” “Works,” Luther said, “are not taken into consideration when the ques­tion respects justification. But true faith will no more fail to produce them than the sun can cease to give light.”
Our responsibility as Christians is to present the claims of Christ to a lost and dying world. We may rest secure in the fact that a person’s acceptance of the Gospel will result in the fruit of repen­tance — but this is the work of the Holy Spirit, not man. — Bob Lyle

Perhaps Today: The Imminent Coming of Christ

Perhaps Today: The Imminent Coming of Christ

by Thomas Ice
The New Testament teaching that Christ could return and rapture His church at any-moment, without prior signs or warning (i.e., imminency), is such a powerful argument for pretribulationism that it is one of the most fiercely attacked doctrines by pre-trib opponents. Non-pretribulationists sense that if the New Testament teaches imminency, then a pre-trib rapture is virtually assured.

DEFINITION OF IMMINENCY

What is the biblical definition of imminency? Dr. Renald Showers defines and describes imminence as follows:

1) An imminent event is one which is always "hanging overhead, is constantly ready to befall or overtake one; close at hand in its incidence." ("imminent," The Oxford English Dictionary, 1901, V, 66.) Thus, imminence carries the sense that it could happen at any moment. Other things may happen before the imminent event, but nothing else must take place before it happens. If something else must take place before an event can happen, then that event is not imminent. In other words, the necessity of something else taking place first destroys the concept of imminency.

2) Since a person never knows exactly when an imminent event will take place, then he cannot count on a certain amount of time transpiring before the imminent event happens. In light of this, he should always be prepared for it to happen at any moment.

3) A person cannot legitimately set or imply a date for its happening. As soon as a person sets a date for an imminent event he destroys the concept of imminency, because he thereby is saying that a certain amount of time must transpire before that event can happen. A specific date for an event is contrary to the concept that the event could happen at any moment.

4) A person cannot legitimately say that an imminent event will happen soon. The term "soon" implies that an event must take place "within a short time (after a particular point of time specified or implied)." By contrast, an imminent event may take place within a short time, but it does not have to do so in order to be imminent. As I hope you can see by now, "imminent" is not equal to "soon."1

A. T. Pierson has noted that, "Imminence is the combinatioin of two conditions, viz,: certainty and uncertainty. By an imminent event we mean one which is certain to occur at some time, uncertain at what time."2

IMMINENCY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The fact that Christ could return, but may not soon, at any moment, yet without the necessity of signs preceeding His return requires the kind of imminence taught by the pre-trib position and is a strong support for pretribulationism.

What New Testament passages teach this truth? Those verses stating that Christ could return at any moment, without warning and those instructing believers to wait and look for the Lord's coming teach the doctrine of imminence. Note the following New Testament passages:

1 Corinthians 1:7-"awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

1 Corinthians 16:22-"Maranatha."

Philippians 3:20-"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;"

Philippians 4:5-"The Lord is near."

1 Thessalonians 1:10-"to wait for His Son from heaven,"

1 Thessalonians 4:15-18-"For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of {the} archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words."

1 Thessalonians 5:6-"so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober."

1 Timothy 6:14-"that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Titus 2:13-"looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus;"

Hebrews 9:28-"so Christ . . . shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him."

James 5:7-9-"Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. . . . for the coming of the Lord is at hand. . . . behold, the Judge is standing right at the door."

1 Peter 1:13 -"fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Jude 21-"waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."

Revelation 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20-"'I am coming quickly!'"

Revelation 22:17, 20-"And the Spirit and the bride say, 'Come.' And let the one who hears say, 'Come.'"

"He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming quickly.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."

It is significant that all of the above passages relate to the rapture and speak of the Lord's coming as something that could occur at any-moment, that it is imminent. This is why believers are waiting for a person-Jesus Christ-not an event or series of events such as those related to the tribulation leading up to Christ's second advent in which He returns to the earth and remins for His millennial reign.

IMMINENCE AND PRETRIBULATIONISM

As we consider the above passages, we note that Christ may come at any moment, that the rapture is actually imminent. Only pretribulationism can give a full, literal meaning to such an any-moment event. Other rapture views must redefine imminence more loosely than the New Testamnet would allow. Dr. Walvoord declares, "The exhortation to look for 'the glorious appearing' of Christ to His own (Titus 2:13) loses its significance if the Tribulation must intervene first. Believers in that case should look for signs."3 If the pre-trib view of imminence is not accepted, then it would make sense to look for signs related to events of the tribulation (i.e., the anti-christ, the two witnesses, etc.) and not for Christ Himself. But the New Testament, as demonstrated above, uniformly instructs the church to look for the coming of Christ, while tribulation saints are told to look for signs.

The New Testament exhortation to be comforted by the Lord's coming (John 14:1; 1 Thess. 4:18) would no longer have meaning if believers first had to pass through any part of the tribulation. Instead, comfort would have to await passage through the events of the tribulation. No, the church has been given a "Blessed Hope," in part, because our Lord's return is truly imminent.

MARANATHA!

The early church had a special greeting for one another, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 16:22, which was "Maranatha!" Maranatha consists of three Aramaic words: "Mar" ("Lord"), "ana" ("our"), and "tha" ("come"), meaning "our Lord, come." As with other New Testament passages, Maranatha only makes sense if an any-moment or imminent coming is understood. Such an understanding supports the pre-trib position.

No wonder these ancient Christians coined such a unique greeting which reflects an eager expectation of the Blessed Hope as a very real presence in their everyday lives. The life of the church today could only be improved if "Maranatha" were to return as a sincere greeting on the lips of an expectant people. Maranatha! W

ENDNOTES

1 Renald Showers, Maranatha Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church (Bellmawr, N.J.: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1995), pp. 127-28.

2Arthur T. Pierson, Our Lord's Second Coming as a Motive to World-Wide Evangelism (published by John Wanamaker, n.d., cited in Showers, Maranatha, p. 127.

3 John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question: Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), p. 273.

Where Is The Church Headed?

Where Is The Church Headed? An Interview With Frank Viola
By Jarrid Wilson

1. Where do you see The Church heading in the next 10-20 years?

Frank Viola: When you say “The Church,” I assume you mean all the Christians in the world, a la, the global Body of Christ.

If so, “The Church” isn’t a monolith. So all the movements and denominations that exist today (over 33,000 of them) will continue to exist. The in-fighting that’s happening will continue to happen. And the good things that Christians are doing in the world will continue to happen.

However, specifically, I see three things coming:

1. The Fundamentalist segment of the Christian world will continue to dwindle until there’s virtually nothing left. Christians will continue to grow so sick of fellow Christians who attack their fellow brethren, who judge one another’s motives, and who treat each other so horribly that the number of those who are part of these groups will be exceedingly small. We’re already seeing this happen in our time, but in 10-20 years, the hemorrhaging will be dramatic.

I’ve dealt with this issue in some detail in Warning: The World is Watching How We Christians Treat One Another.

2. As I’ve often said, the key to the Christian life is learning how to live by the life of Christ which indwells us. This is a very different paradigm from “try harder and be a good Christian” that’s preached everywhere today. Living by Christ is making what Paul said a practical reality, “Not I, but Christ lives in me.”

Discipleship courses and teachings like my new Living by the Indwelling Life of Christ course will be far more common in the future then they are now.



3. The institutional forms of church will still exist, but as George Barna pointed out in 2005, they will continue to decline. Simpler expressions of the church that have a laser-focused mission to make Jesus Christ central and supreme and that are marked by face-to-face community will be more common than they are now. The points that Leonard Sweet and I hammered away at in Jesus Manifesto will more familiar to Christians in their experience.

2. What’s your favorite part of “The Church?

Frank Viola: Again, I’m assuming you mean all Christians by the term “The Church.” On that point, I’ve discussed the use of the term ” church” in my article Why I Left the Institutional Church & Sought the Ekklesia and how we need to define it every time we use it because it means so many different things to so many different people today.

When I was in my early 20s, I had been part of 13 different denominations, several different Christian movements, and many different parachurch organizations. They all helped me for a time, but I quickly moved on because I knew deep down inside that there had to be more—more to the Christian faith, to Jesus Christ, and to the church than what I was seeing and experiencing.

That led me on an odyssey to really know Jesus and to experience what the church was and meant to the early Christians.

I can tell you today—some 20 years later—that Jesus Christ is beyond what most of us have ever imagined. He’s more exciting, more amazing, and more electrifying than what most preachers have told us.

And so is his bride, the ekklesia, when she functions the way God made her to function.

When I say things like that, some people don’t know what I’m talking about. So I encourage them to listen to a talk I gave at a conference a few years ago called Epic Jesus: The Christ You Never Knew. I receive emails from Christians in their 20s regularly telling me that this talk brought them to their knees (and to tears). It’s been a game-changer for many.

I am humbled by such comments because what I say in that message is what changed my own life as a young man:

“Jesus Christ is ALL, everything else is commentary.”

“Everything wears out except for Jesus Christ.”

So my favorite part of the Body of Christ is whenever I meet Christians in their 20s and 30s who were like me when I was a young believer, hungry and thirsty to know the deeper things of God.



3. Does America worship enough?

Frank Viola: Well, there are over 300 million Americans so that’s hard to answer. I guess some don’t and some do. In the New Testament, “worship” is a life-style of submitting to God. It’s not defined by something that a person does in a religious service or in their home when listening to Christian music.

Here is how the New Testament defines worship:

“Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.” (Romans 12:1)

If one thinks of “worship” in terms of “going to church,” one million Christians leave the institutional form of church every year in America and why 1,500 to 2,000 pastors leave the clergy system each month.

In our book Pagan Christianity, George Barna and I explained how the free-wheeling, Christ-saturated, life-giving, face-to-face, community-driven, every-member-functioning, barn-burning, caring-for-one-another, first-century church devolved into a predictable “show” led by a pastor and a worship team for two hours every Sunday morning where God’s people are mostly passive spectators and hardly anyone in the congregations knows one another.

This isn’t the case for some institutional churches, but it’s commonplace for many—if not most—of them.

That’s not to say that attending a Sunday-morning church service is wrong or bad. It’s just not what the New Testament means by “church.”

I often tell people, “You haven’t lived until you’ve been in a New Testament–styled, open-participatory church meeting that’s led by Jesus Christ through his every-member functioning body.” When I experienced such a meeting for the first time at age 23, it blew my circuitry and wrecked me for life.

4. What’s your definition of a true Christ-follower?

Frank Viola: Great question. You’re really asking what is the definition of a disciple. Your timing is great because I just outlined my answer in a free eBook called DISCPLESHIP IN CRISIS.

It goes into what the New Testament means when it uses the word “disciple.” In short, following Jesus means learning how to let Him live in and through us. It’s learning how to walk in such a way that it’s “not I, but Christ who lives in and through me.”

This is what the entire New Testament is about. Jesus said in John, “As the Father has sent me and I live by the Father, so he who partakes of me shall live by me.”

So Jesus lived by His Father’s life. That’s how Jesus followed His Father. Thus following Jesus means living by His life.

That’s what being a Christian is all about. A disciple of Jesus is someone in whom Jesus Christ dwells and someone who is learning to let Christ live in and through them.

The marks of a person who is living by Christ is that they will learn how to treat others the same way they want to be treated (Matthew 7:12) and they will learn how to pick up their cross, die to themselves and lose (Luke 9:23-24).

That’s the Christian life in a nutshell.

What are your thoughts? Leave a comment below.

____

Is the Jehovah's Witness religion Christian?

Is the Jehovah's Witness religion Christian?
by Matt Slick


The answer to the question is, "No. It is not Christian." Like all non-Christian cults, the Jehovah's Witness organization distorts the essential doctrines of Christianity. It denies the deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, and salvation by grace. This alone makes it non-Christian. To support its erring doctrines, the Watchtower organization (which is the author and teacher of all official Jehovah's Witness theology), has even altered the Bible to make it agree with its changing and non-Christian teachings.



Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors:

Taking verses out of their immediate context.
Refusing to read verses in the entire biblical context.
Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text.
Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs.
Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others.
Changing the meanings of words.
Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines.
Adding to the Word of God.
Additionally, the Jehovah's Witness organization requires of its members regular weekly attendance at their "Bible Study" meetings where they are repeatedly indoctrinated with anti-Christian teachings. This is done by reading the Watchtower magazine, following along with what it says, reading the questions it asks, and reciting the answers it gives. In other words, the Watchtower Organization carefully trains its members to let the Organization do their thinking for them. For confirmation of this, please read Does the Watchtower organization control the JW's thinking?

The Witnesses are told they will be persecuted when they go door-to-door teaching their doctrines. They are further told that this is simply the enemy fighting against God's organization because they are in "the truth." So, when someone disagrees with them, they are conditioned to reflect on what the Watchtower has told them. They then feel confirmed in being in God's true organization on earth (like all cults claim). They are strongly encouraged to have friends and acquaintances that are only JW's, thereby keeping outside examination to a minimum. They are told to shun those who leave their group, for in this way there is no way to see why someone has left and no way to find out that they are in error from those who have found the truth in Christ. They are conditioned to shy away from any real biblically knowledgeable person. An example of this is frequently found on the Internet. I was once banned from a Jehovah's Witness chat room after I not only answered their objections to the Trinity and deity of Christ but challenged them in return. Subsequently, my name was passed around to all other Jehovah's Witness rooms where I was banned from them as well. This is a frequent occurrence on the Internet where the Jehovah's Witnesses are alive and well. It is obvious that critical examination of their doctrines is not encouraged by the Watchtower Organization.

The Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be Christians because they believe they are serving the true and living God. Like many cults, they think they are the only true church on earth. Yet, they deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged from looking into Jehovah's Witness history or old Watchtower literature which is replete with contradictions, altered doctrines, and false prophecies. Instead, they are indoctrinated repeatedly against basic Christian doctrines (Trinity, deity of Christ, etc.) and into the notion that they alone are the true servants of God and that all others are either in "Christendom" or simply unbelievers.

Primarily, the Jehovah's Witness organization is a mind-control organization that uses its people to pass out literature and send in "donations" to the headquarters in Brooklyn, New York.

"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization and not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible."1

The Watchtower organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses is a non-Christian organization that uses its people to promulgate false doctrines, collects "contributions" for distribution of a multitudinous amount of literature, and expands its grip into the lives of its members and their families.

It is a non-Christian cult.

What is Free Grace Theology?

What is Free Grace Theology?
By Fred Chay*

Often times the best way to explain what you mean is to compare and contrast what you mean with what you do not mean. "Free Grace" theology stands in contrast to "Lordship Salvation" theology. By that I mean the following distinctions.
1. "Free Grace" theology teaches that we receive eternal life the moment we believe in Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and Lord. "Lord" refers to our belief that He is the Son of God and therefore, able to be our "Savior". "Faith" is viewed as a simple and uncomplicated response to the truth God has revealed about His Son, and the Gift which He offers. When Jesus says "Truly, Truly I say unto you, he who believes in Me has eternal life" (John 6:47), "believe" means to be convinced and assured that what He says is true. (See John 1:11-13)
"Lordship" theology teaches that "faith" is not a simple and uncomplicated response. It is an all out commitment to follow Jesus Christ that includes the mind heart and will. It is equivilant to being His disciple, to surrender all that we have and are to Him. "Lordship" theology says that "saving faith" involves such a radical turning to Christ and commitment to surrender all and follow Him! That is also why so many of those committed to "Lordship" theology have difficulty with the salvation of children, because in their view, there is just more to it than simply believing in Jesus as your personal Savior. How unlike Jesus who taught that we must have the faith of a little child in order to enter His kingdom
2. "Free Grace" theology distinguishes between the "call to believe" in Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and receiving His gift of eternal life, and the "call to follow" Him and become His disciples. (See John 4 and compare what Jesus told the woman she needed in vs. 10 with what He told His disciples they needed in vs. 31-38).
"Lordship" theology sees faith and discipleship as two sides of the same coin. To "believe" is the same as being willing to become His disciple and follow Him.
3. "Free Grace" theology stresses the believer’s assurance of salvation. It teaches that we can know we have eternal life and are going to heaven based on the very promise inherent in the offer itself. (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47) The Word of God becomes the basis of our assurance of salvation.
"Lordship" theology teaches that we can never be completely sure we are going to heaven until we die, because we might fall away and thus prove that we were not real believers to begin with. We can, however, become somewhat confident if we see the Holy Spirit producing good works in our life. The basis of our assurance of salvation is the change in our life - it is based on what we do. People who validate the reality of their own salvation based on how they live, are usually quick to validate the genuineness of other peoples’ salvation on the same basis.
4. "Free Grace" theology teaches that real Christians can fall away, slide into serious sin, and utterly fail. (Consider the many warnings to Christians in the New Testament). Conceivably, Christians could even end up denying the Lord, if they continue forsaking
the truth and hardening themselves to the work of the Spirit of God in their lives. Nevertheless, God does not forsake His children, but patiently disciplines them. (1 Corinthians 10:30-32; Hebrews 6:1-12; 12:) And even if they are "faithless, yet He remains faithful", they will enter into eternal life. (1 Timothy 2:11-13)
"Lordship" theology teaches that if a so-called Christian falls into sin, persists in sin, and does not soon return to the Lord, that that so called Christian is not a real Christian at all. He is only a professing Christian. Real Christians persevere in the faith. If you do not persevere, then you are not a Christian, and you are lost. The logical consequences of such a theology on a believer’s sense of security, which is tied to his identity, is defeating. Believers caught up in this theology hear God saying, "If you want to know you are My child, consistently act like My child!
5. "Free Grace" theology sees the serious warnings and exhortations of the New Testament (from Jesus, Paul, the author of the book of Hebrews, James, and Peter) as encouragement to Christians to persevere in the faith and be faithful in doing good works. Christians soon realize in their walk with God, that to ignore these warnings and exhortations and persist in willful sin, incites Him to discipline His children. On the other hand, a mark of a maturing Christian is joy in doing what the Father asks, knowing that He delights in richly rewarding His children. (Matthew 5:1-15; 1 Corinthians 3:10-15; Hebrews 10:32 ff.)
"Lordship" theology sees the serious warnings and exhortations of the New Testament usually as a test that so called Christians should apply to their lives to see if they are really "possessing Christians" or only "professing Christians" who are deluded and ultimately lost.
6. "Free Grace" theology emphasizes the importance of persevering in doing good works for the Lord’s approval and reward. (Matthew 5:1-12; 1 Corinthians 3:11-15; 2 Corinthians 5:9-11) In addition to "crowns" of approval and appreciation, the reward will involve "reigning with Christ" and "inheriting the kingdom."
"Lordship" theology depreciates the New Testament teaching of eternal rewards. Those committed to "Lordship" theology confidently claim that there is no "hierarchy" in heaven. Whatever rewards we do receive will only be momentary and ultimately cast at the feet of Jesus. The primary motivation for doing good works in the Christian life, in addition to validating our salvation, is to say thank you to God for what He has done. To do anything for the thought of a reward is selfish and self-centered. They overlook the teaching in the New Testament that reveals a heavenly Father delighting in seeing His children set their hearts upon laying hold of those things He has reserved in heaven for them. A personal illustration: I have emphasized the wisdom of a college education for my children. It is a "reward" I would like them to have assuming they are capable. When they were young it was not a reward they really wanted or even thought about. As they have matured I hope their love and respect for me will lead them to embrace the reward I want them to have by working hard in school! This illustrates in a very limited way how our heavenly Father wants us to embrace His rewards in our lives.
7. "Free Grace" theology sees a distinction between the New Testament expressions "entering the kingdom" and "inheriting the kingdom". Entering the kingdom means just
that-to enter the kingdom of God. We enter the kingdom by a simple and uncomplicated faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior. "Inheriting the kingdom" means just that--to inherit, own, or possess the kingdom. Believers who have been faithful servants of Christ, enduring hardships, and persevering in good works are "joint heirs with Christ" of the Kingdom. What that means is that they will "reign with Christ", being given authority and power to share in the administration, leadership, and rule of His kingdom forever. (see Romans 8:17, 2 timothy 2:11-13; Revelation 2-3; 20 -22) Free grace also understands that there are two distinct inheritances. One is positional and passive in that all receive it by virtue of gaining eternal life. The other inheritance is active and conditional based on works. (Eph 1,and 5, Col 1 and 3, Rom 8:17)
"Lordship" theology teaches that there is no difference in the expressions "entering the kingdom" and "inheriting the kingdom." Rather, they refer to the same thing and are equivalent to the expression "going to heaven." Those committed to "Lordship" theology say people will go to heaven by "faith alone in Christ alone, but not by faith that is alone," (John Calvin) by which they mean good works will accompany and validate a person’s faith.
8. Most visibly in practice, those who are committed to "Free Grace" theology tend to emphasize Grace in their lives. God’s grace overwhelms and moves them, and grace is what they seek to express in the way they live. And when "Free Grace" people are at their worst, what they most often need is more grace.
On the other hand, those who are committed to "Lordship" theology tend to emphasize works in their lives. The necessity to do good works to prove themselves overwhelms and moves them. And when "Lordship" people are at their worst, legalism and a lack of graciousness mark their lives, and their churches.

*The preceding material is adapted from the teachings that represent modern Free Grace Theology as articulated by the Free Grace Alliance and Grace Line and is an edited summary of an article by Arch Rutherford.

The Kingdom in Matthew

The Kingdom in Matthew

Introduction

The concept of the kingdom looms large on the pages of Scripture. Herman Ridderbos thought it so important that he declared: “The whole of the preaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles is concerned with the kingdom of God.”1 Robert Saucy echoes the point: “While mentioned far less often in the epistles, the ‘kingdom of God’ still qualifies as the summary of the apostolic teaching.”2 John Bright has even stated that “the concept of the Kingdom of God involves, in a real sense, the total message of the Bible.”3

Yet despite its importance, perhaps no other theme of the gospels has invoked greater confusion and controversy. There is no agreement on such basic questions as: What is the very nature of the kingdom of God? Is the kingdom of God different from the kingdom of heaven? Has the kingdom arrived? If not, why not and when will it come? What did Christ teach about the kingdom? These questions and more like them have engendered much debate in the theological world.

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the kingdom of God as it is espoused in the gospel of Matthew. I have chosen this topic for four basic reasons. First, attempting an overall survey of the kingdom would be a massive undertaking beyond my present capabilities. Second, Matthew is a hinge book, linking the Old and New Testaments, and so the presentation of the kingdom in the first gospel is extremely important. Third, the concept of the kingdom is prominently featured in Matthew; in fact, it is the theme of the book.4 Finally, although the advent of progressive dispensationalism has refocused attention on the kingdom of God, most of the detailed attention has been given to Luke.5

Chapter Two, lays a foundation for this study by providing a brief overview of various views of the kingdom from a systematic theology perspective. Chapter Three looks at the coming kingdom as it was announced by Jesus, and John before him, primarily in chapters 3 and 4 of Matthew. Chapter Four looks at the kingdom that “has come,” as espoused in Matthew chapters 12 and 13. Chapter Five looks at kingdom living, as Jesus explained it in chapters 5 through 7 (the Sermon on the Mount) and later in chapters 18 and 19. Chapter Six reviews the consummation of the kingdom when Jesus ushers in the millennial reign, as described principally in chapters 24 and 25. In Chapter Seven, I draw several modest conclusions from this study and suggest areas for additional study.

Chapter Two:
A Survey of the Kingdom of God in Theology

In this brief survey of the various theological viewpoints on the Kingdom of God, I examine first the critical-historical debate. I then turn to the three major views of Evangelicalism, the kingdom-future perspective of revised dispensationalism, the kingdom-now perspective of classical reformed or covenant theology, and the increasingly popular kingdom-already-but-not-yet perspective of historic premillennialism and progressive dispensationalism.

THE CRITICAL HISTORICAL DEBATE

Nineteenth century liberal theologians Albrecht Ritschl and Adolf von Harnack believed that the kingdom of God is not something to be established in the future, but is now present in the form of the “brotherhood of man,” the infinite value of the individual soul, and the ethic of love. To them, the apocalyptic element in Jesus’s teaching was the “husk” that contained the “kernel” of his real message of love.6 Hence, the predominant liberal view was that the kingdom of which Jesus spoke was a present ethical kingdom.

Johannes Weiss rejected that view. He wrote in The Preaching of Jesus about the Kingdom of God that Jesus was “thoroughly eschatological, futuristic, and even apocalyptic in his outlook.”7 According to Weiss, Jesus expected the kingdom to come in the immediate future by a dramatic action of God.8 Thus, Jesus’s ethical commands (including the Sermon on the Mount) were interim rules in anticipation of the imminent kingdom, not rules of conduct given for all time.9 Albert Schweitzer picked up where Weiss left off. He interpreted the whole of Jesus’s preaching as being permeated with a conviction of the approaching kingdom. He called this interpretation a “consistent eschatology.” According to Schweitzer, a future heavenly kingdom was at the base of Jesus’s preaching even from the beginning of his ministry.10 However, in the end, in Schweitzer’s view, Jesus was traumatized by “the delay of the parousia” and he thus died in despair and disillusionment.11

C.H. Dodd gave eschatology its next major reorientation. He believed the kingdom had already arrived, calling his system a ‘realized eschatology.’ According to Dodd, the kingdom is a transcendent order beyond time and space that has broken into history in the mission of Jesus.12

The debate over “kingdom future” or “kingdom now” continues to rage. This is true in evangelical circles as well. The three views discussed below are representative.

REVISED DISPENSATIONALISTS—THY KINGDOM COME!

Revised dispensationalists13 have traditionally characterized the kingdom of God as consisting of an earthly theocratic kingdom promised to Israel in the Old Testament. It is the thousand year reign of Christ on earth.14 They believe that Jesus offered the kingdom to the Jews, but that Jesus’s own people rejected the offer, and so, instead of establishing the kingdom, Jesus postponed it until the second coming. In the meantime, he established the “mystery form” of the kingdom during the “inter-advent age,” in which “Christ rules spiritually in the hearts of believers without fulfilling the prophecies of the kingdom on earth.”15 As John Walvoord has stated:

Jesus had been offering the kingdom in the form of offering himself as the Messiah and King of Israel. This offer had been rejected, as God had anticipated, and ultimately this rejection would lead to the cross of Christ, which was part of God’s plan for the redemption of the world. On the divine side this was no change of plan, but on the human side it was a change of direction regarding fulfillment of the kingdom promise.16

Revised dispensationalists thus believe that the kingdom promised in the Old Testament (what I call the eschatological kingdom) will be established in the millennium at which time Israel will be converted and Jesus will sit on David’s throne. Both inauguration and consummation of the kingdom are future in orientation.

Revised dispensationalists have been particularly vigorous in proposing that the entirety of the eschatological kingdom of God will come in the future, as Jesus returns and ushers in the millennium. Charles Ryrie has emphatically declared that the kingdom is not the church, the body of Christ.17 Rather, the kingdom is future:

What would those people [the Jews of Jesus’s day] have understood the kingdom to be? The Messianic, Davidic kingdom on this earth in which the Jewish people would have a prominent place.18

The kingdom is “physical, glorious and powerful.”19

The gospel of Matthew factors prominently in the revised dispensational scheme of the kingdom. As Walvoord stated in his commentary on Matthew, the very purpose of the first gospel is to “explain[] why the prophecies relating to the kingdom of Christ on earth are delayed in fulfillment until the second coming.”20 It “was designed to explain to the Jews, who had expected the Messiah when He came to be a conquering king, why instead Christ suffered and died, and why there was the resulting postponement of His triumph to His second coming.”21

REFORMED THEOLOGY—THY KINGDOM CAME (MAINLY)!

Covenant theologians agree that Christ will return as He promised and that, when He does, He will bring in the fullness of the kingdom. Nevertheless, in contrast to revised dispensationalists, that is not their emphasis. They focus on the belief that the kingdom has already arrived. Charles Hodge is representative of this view. He said, with respect to the nature of the kingdom:

First, it is spiritual. That is, it is not of this world. It is not analogous to the other kingdoms which existed, or do still exist among men. It has a different origin and a different end. Human kingdoms are organized among men, under the providential government of God, for the promotion of the temporal well-being of society. The kingdom of Christ was organized immediately by God, for the promotion of religious objects. It is spiritual, or not of this world, moreover, because it has no power over the lives, liberty, or property of its members; and because all secular matters lie beyond its jurisdiction. . . . The kingdom of Christ, under the present dispensation, therefore, is not worldly even in the sense in which the ancient theocracy was of this world.22

More recently, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote:

It is a kingdom which is to come, yes. But it is also a kingdom which has come. ‘The kingdom of God is among you’ and ‘within you’; the kingdom of God is in every true Christian. He reigns in the Church when she acknowledges Him truly. The kingdom has come, the kingdom is coming, the kingdom is yet to come. Now we must always bear that in mind. Whenever Christ is enthroned as King, the kingdom of God is come, so that, while we cannot say that He is ruling over all in the world at the present time, He is certainly ruling in that way in the hearts and lives of all His people.23

The New Geneva Study Bible sharpens the contrast between reformed theology and revised dispensationalism. It states that “the kingdom or the reign of God is what the Old Testament prophets awaited: God’s display of His sovereignty in the redemption of His people.”24 Thus, with the death and resurrection of Jesus and the “spread of the good news to all nations,” the Old Testament promises of God “have been largely fulfilled for us, although we still await their complete realization when Christ returns in judgment.”25 “The kingdom came with Jesus and is known wherever the lordship of Jesus is acknowledged.”26

HISTORIC PREMILLENNIALISTS AND PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISTS:
THY KINGDOM—ALREADY BUT NOT YET!

A growing number of conservative theologians have refused to be boxed into either a “kingdom future” or a “kingdom now” emphasis. Beginning with Herman Ridderbos and George Ladd, these theologians embrace a “both/and” approach to the kingdom—postulating that the kingdom of God has already arrived in an inaugural form, but has not yet fully been consummated, and will not be until Christ’s second coming.27 This “already/not yet” approach has drawn proponents from dispensational, historic premillennial and reformed camps, so much so that Richard Gaffin has observed that it “has now virtually reached the status of consensus.”28 This position is well represented by New Testament commentators such as D.A. Carson and progressive dispensationalists such as Craig Blaising, Darryl Bock and Robert Saucy. As Bock stated:

What emerges is a picture of a career [of Jesus] that comes in stages as different aspects of what the Old Testament promises are brought to fulfillment at different phases of Jesus’s work. One might characterize these phases as the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ of Jesus’s career, or by reference to the kingdom, as the invisible and the visible kingdom of God.29

Progressive dispensationalists, in particular, claim that they offer “a corrective” to both revised dispensationalism and covenant theology because “covenant theologians of the past have tended to overemphasize the ‘already’ in their critiques of dispensationalism, while underemphasizing the ‘not yet.’“30

The gospel of Matthew is an integral component of the “already/not yet” eschatological scheme (though Luke appears to have been emphasized in progressive dispensational writings because of the particular expertise of Darrell Bock with respect to the Luke/Acts texts).31 D.A. Carson declared in his seminal commentary on Matthew that a “constant theme” of the book is that “the kingdom came with Jesus and his preaching and miracles, it came with his death and resurrection, and it will come at the end of the age.”32

As this short survey demonstrates, there are a wide variety of interpretations and explanations of the nature and purpose of the kingdom program of God. In 1958, J. Dwight Pentecost wrote that it was “almost impossible to make one’s way” through the maze of interpretations.33 This task has not gotten any easier in the forty subsequent years, and any interpreter must remain humble in attempting to maneuver the maze. Yet Pentecost pointed the way out when he observed that the truths relating to the kingdom will not be found in examining the writings of men but only by an inductive study of the Word of God.34 Accordingly, I now turn to the book of Matthew and its treatment of Jesus’s proclamation of the kingdom.

Chapter Three:
The Coming Kingdom Proclaimed

Matthew mentions the “kingdom of God” four times in his gospel. He mentions the “kingdom of heaven” thirty-three times. The term “kingdom” is used seventeen additional times.35 Obviously, then, God’s kingdom is a central theme of Matthew’s gospel. Although Walvoord and Vine believe the kingdom of heaven can be distinguished in some fashion from the kingdom of God,36 the vast majority of theologians recognize that the terms are synonymous.37

THE COMING KINGDOM
PROPHESIED BY JOHN THE BAPTIST

The kingdom of God is introduced to us in Matthew through the ministry of John the Baptist. John had two roles. He was the last of the Old Testament prophets. In his prophetic ministry, he strongly castigated the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and other Jewish religious leaders. He was also the herald who came before the king, announcing his impending presence. He was Jesus’s forerunner.

Matthew 3:2 encapsulizes John’s basic message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This, our first encounter with the kingdom concept in Matthew, is a pivotal one. Here, at the beginning, we must grapple with several thorny foundational questions.

What did the term “kingdom” mean in the Old Testament?

It seems to me that much of the scholarly discussion of the kingdom of God is at such an abstract level as to be essentially meaningless. Alva McClain has well stated: “The great ideas of the Bible are concrete rather than abstract, and such terms as the kingdom of God are intended to convey meanings which are pertinent to actual situations in the world of reality with which men are somewhat familiar.”38 My goal here is to examine the term “kingdom” in a concrete way.

It is customary to speak of a kingdom (basileia) as being made up of two component parts: [1] an authority to rule and [2] the realm or territory over which the king’s reign is exercised.39 Vine, for example, speaks of the kingdom as being [1] sovereignty, royal power, dominion and [2] the territory or people over whom a king rules.40 Strong similarly states that the kingdom consists of “royal power, kingship, dominion, rule” and “the territory subject to the rule of a king.”41 Bauer, Gingrich and Danker call the kingdom [1] “kingship, royal power, royal rule” and [2] “the territory ruled over by a king.”42

This two-fold division undoubtedly stems from the Scriptural two-fold depiction of the kingdom. It is first of all viewed as a universal, eternal, timeless kingdom (1 Chron. 29:11-12; Ps. 10:16; 29:10).43 The kingdom is second of all viewed as a “theocratic” or “mediatorial” kingdom.44 These two perspectives are aspects of one holistic kingdom and should not be rigidly separated into separate kingdoms; indeed, Daniel 7:13-14, 27 combines them. Nevertheless, McClain has profitably written with respect to the latter:

The mediatorial kingdom may be defined tentatively as the rule of God through a divinely chosen representative who not only speaks and acts for God but also represents the people before God; a rule which has especial reference to the human race (although it finally embraces the universe); and its mediatorial ruler is always a member of the human race.45

Old Testament theology can be summarized under the central theme of this mediatorial kingdom. From the beginning of history, God worked through appointed mediators in administering the mediatorial kingdom.46 The mediatorial kingdom was in its incipiency during the time of the patriarchs. It began as a historical matter during the time of Moses and continued through the early great leaders of Israel such as Joshua and Samuel. It reached a height of glory during the reigns of Israel’s first three kings. The reigns of David and Solomon in particular “typify the ideal of God’s earthly kingdom during the Mosaic dispensation.”47 Its Old Testament close was recorded in the book of Ezekiel, when the Shekinah glory left the temple in Jerusalem as the covenant people of God were carried off into ignoble exile as judgment for their apostasy (Ezek. ch. 8-11).

Yet, at the same time, God graciously revealed to his faithful remnant that the glory would one day return and that, one day, the kingdom would once again be established on earth, in the city of Jerusalem. On that day, God would “dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever (Ezek. 43:7).48 Through the prophetic books of the Old Testament, a small stream of prophecies about the coming eschatological kingdom of God soon became a raging torrent.

In the Old Testament revelation about the coming kingdom, there was a “deep note of mystery in the career of the coming King.”49 The Old Testament reveals a striking dichotomy in the person of the King. He is presented as coming in glory to reign on the earth. Yet he is also presented as a man of sorrow, despised and rejected of men; wounded, bruised, afflicted and dying for the iniquities of men (Isa. 53). He is the great shepherd of Israel, yet he is smitten by the sword of God, and the sheep are scattered (Zech. 13:7; cf. Isa. 40:9-11). He is Messiah the Prince of Israel, ruler of the nations, yet he is “cut off” and has nothing which belongs to his regal glory (Dan. 9:25, 26).50

It is also important to understand that the Old Testament prophets revealed that the coming kingdom would be primarily spiritual in nature. As McClain said:

It will bring personal salvation from the hand of God (Isa. 12:1-6), divine forgiveness for sin (Jer. 31:34), provision of God's own righteousness for men (Jer. 23:3-6), moral and spiritual cleansing, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek. 36:24-28), inward harmony with the laws of the kingdom (Jer. 31:33), recognition by men of all nations that Jehovah is the true God, the God who is able to answer prayer (Zech. 8:20-23), the restoration of genuine joy and gladness to human life (Isa. 35:10), and the pouring out of God's Spirit “upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28).51

In sum, the mediatorial kingdom of the Messiah, as prophesied in the Old Testament, is “material and spiritual, sacred and secular at the same time.”52 As McClain put it, the kingdom:

is spiritual; with effects which are ethical, social, economic, political, ecclesiastical, and physical. To single out any one of these important aspects, and deny validity to the others, is to narrow unwisely the breadth of the prophetic vision and to set limits upon the possibilities of human life on earth under God.53

What was the nature of the kingdom of heaven as John the Baptist saw it?

As noted in chapter two, there is a strong split of opinion among conservative theologians on even the nature of the kingdom. Reformed theologians believe the kingdom to be primarily spiritual. Dispensationalists of all stripes believe it has a strong material or territorial element. Commentators on Matthew likewise have espoused a wide variety of views on the nature of the kingdom proclaimed by John. For example:

Walvoord believes that the kingdom refers to the “climax of world history” which would be “an everlasting kingdom.” It would include “all who profess to be subjects of the King.”54
France believes that the kingdom is “the establishment of God’s rightful sovereignty in judgment and in salvation.” It is the Messianic age.55
Carson likewise stated that the kingdom was “the manifest exercise of God’s sovereignty, his ‘reign’ on earth and among men.”56
Who is right? Walvoord’s statements seem incomplete. As we have seen, the eschatological kingdom was prophesied to be holistic in nature, and that is how John would have understood it. There is no reason to believe that John held to anything other than the same view of the kingdom as did the Old Testament prophets. He expected a physical reign, but with an acutely spiritual focus. This is evident from his message of repentance (3:2), his urging of the people to confess their sins (3:6), his scathing words to the Pharisees that “every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire” (3:10; NIV). It is also evident from John’s prophecy concerning the work of the coming King—he would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (3:11).

Like the other Old Testament prophets before him, John did not differentiate between the imminent coming of Christ for salvation purposes and the future coming of Christ in the consummation of his kingdom. This is to be expected, of course, since he did not have the framework to conceptualize one Messiah with two comings separated by a vast gulf in time.57 As Ladd put it, John “looked for a single, though complex, event of salvation-judgment.”58

What did John mean when he said that the kingdom of heaven was “at hand?”

There is a longstanding debate over the meaning of the phrase “at hand” (eggiken). There is certainly a variety of views on the subject.

On the one hand, Walvoord believes John taught that, in the person of the coming Messiah, “the kingdom was being presented to Israel and to the world.”59 He states: “The kingdom being at hand meant that it was being offered in the person of the prophesied King, but it did not mean that it would be immediately fulfilled.”60
At the other end of the scale, C.H. Dodd argued that the phrase “at hand” in 3:2 equalled the phrase “has come” in 12:28.61
Offering a somewhat mediating view is France, who observed that the NASB phrase “is at hand” does not do justice to the perfect tense of engizo which literally means “has come near.” In his view, the phrase “introduces a state of affairs which is already beginning and which demands immediate attention.” In his view, even the Anchor Bible’s “fast approaching” is too remote. The time for decision “has already come.”62
Carson as well adopts this view, asserting that “with Jesus the kingdom has drawn so near that it has actually dawned.”63
Interestingly, Glasscock (a dispensationalist) appears to agree, stating that “the major point in the proclamation was that the kingdom promised by God through Messiah was at hand because the Messiah was in the world.”64
Certainly, the bare notion of an “offer” of the kingdom does not go far enough. John viewed the kingdom as “future, but close at hand.”65 It was “approaching in time” and “approaching in space,” but it had not yet arrived.66 The sense appears to be one of an inevitable and imminent approach that could not be halted, similar to that of a freight train bearing down on a car stalled on the railroad tracks. The same word is used in Matthew 26:46-47, where Jesus told his sleeping disciples, “Arise, let us be going; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand! “ Verse 47 says, “while He was still speaking,” Judas came up to betray him. As Darrell Bock well summarized:

The point seems to be that with the coming of Jesus and the preaching of the message he commissions, the kingdom has arrived. Even if one prefers the sense of “approach,” the kingdom is at least very near.67

Accordingly, John undoubtedly believed the advent of the earthly kingdom was imminent. The Messiah would usher in salvation and judgment. John’s pronouncement intentionally caused quite a stir among the Jewish people of Palestine. He set the stage for the beginning of Jesus’s public ministry.

THE COMING KINGDOM PROCLAIMED BY JESUS

When John was put in prison, Jesus began his public Galilean ministry. Matthew 4:17 records that “Jesus began to preach and say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’“ It is evident that Jesus explicitly adopted John’s message as his own. Matthew 4:23 also states that Jesus “went throughout Galilee . . . preaching the good news of the kingdom.” His teachings were accompanied by “healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people” (Mt. 4:23; also Mt. 9:35). As with Matthew 3:2, several questions arise with respect to these verses.

Did Jesus mean the same thing John meant when he referred to the kingdom? While most scholars agree that John the Baptist had the Old Testament concept of kingdom in mind when he spoke of the kingdom of heaven, the question of whether Jesus meant the same thing has been hotly debated.68 Saucy states:

Most interpreters have understood him to mean by the kingdom of God . . . something akin to the realm of spiritual salvation presently enjoyed in the church. In contrast to John’s understanding of ‘the apocalyptic hope of the visitation of God to inaugurate the Kingdom of God in the age to come,’ Jesus’ meaning is said to be ‘no apocalyptic Kingdom but a present salvation.’ The ‘nationalistic elements in the Jewish concept of the kingdom’ are purged away ‘to lay stress on the spiritual elements.’69

Saucy rightly takes issue with this interpretation: “It is inconceivable that Jesus, knowing the understanding of his hearers, would not have immediately sought to correct their thinking if he in fact had another concept of the kingdom in mind.”70 Accordingly, it simply cannot be said that Jesus “purged” the nationalistic elements of the kingdom from his message. He never ignored the final consummation of the kingdom or even the uniquely Jewish flavor of the millennial reign (see Mt. 24-25).

The key to interpreting Jesus’s view of the kingdom is to understand that Matthew 4:17 and 4:23 are summary statements of Jesus’s message. When that message is considered as a whole, it is apparent that Jesus’s teachings on the kingdom had a two-fold emphasis: (1) the standard of conduct for the kingdom now and (2) the final consummation of the kingdom later. As discussed later in this paper, Jesus made it clear that the kingdom would not be consummated during His first advent. His focus on the spiritual dimensions of the kingdom, the righteousness of kingdom citizens, was not to the exclusion of the millennial period, but in conjunction with and preparation for it. As Saucy states: “The full Old Testament kingdom that had been proclaimed prior to that time was not going to be established now; the kingdom would, however, be present in the world in spiritual power during the interim.”71

What did Jesus mean when he said the kingdom was at hand?

John believed that a unified kingdom (salvation and reign) was imminent. As explained above, Jesus did not modify John’s basic message. He did, however, in the course of progressive biblical revelation, break it out into its temporal components and emphasize each element separately.

Phase 1: At times, Jesus spoke of the kingdom as being present in the person of the king. This aspect was more than “at hand;” it had already arrived. (Mt. 12:28).

Phase II: At other times, Jesus spoke of the kingdom as being present in a “mystery” phase, which appears to refer to more than himself and less than the final consummation. It is valid to speak of this aspect of the kingdom as “at hand” in the sense of being inevitably inaugurated. (Mt. 13).

Phase III: At still other times, Jesus spoke of the kingdom in its fullness. (Mt. 24-25). This final culmination of the kingdom was “at hand” only in the sense that it could come at any moment, but no one—not even Jesus—knew the day or the hour (Mt. 24:36). Only the Father knew the time or epochs which he had fixed by his own authority (Acts 1:6-7).

By breaking out the different phases of the kingdom into their temporal components, Jesus did indeed diverge from the message of John the Baptist.

THE COMING KINGDOM PROCLAIMED BY THE DISCIPLES

In Matthew chapter 10, Jesus called his twelve disciples together and commissioned them to go throughout Israel preaching the message that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Mt. 10:7). The content of their message was identical to the message of Jesus and John before him. Carson is undoubtedly right in assuming that “repent” is not mentioned but presupposed.72 The kingdom was to be authenticated by the same miracles performed by Jesus: healing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing those who have leprosy, and driving out demons. (Mt. 10:8). This foreshadows Phase II of the progressive eschatological kingdom development—the mystery phase, in which the kingdom is played out through the work of kingdom citizens after the ascension of Jesus into heaven.

Chapter Four:
The Inauguration of the Kingdom

THE KINGDOM ADVANCES

In Matthew 11, the imprisoned John the Baptist has heard of Jesus’s teachings and miracles, and he sent several disciples to ask whether Jesus was the Messiah or whether he should expect another. (Mt. 11:1-3). John was likely baffled by Jesus’s teachings regarding the kingdom because he had envisioned the kingdom (as did the Old Testament prophets) as a unified event of salvation and judgment. He expected the Messiah to bring both political and spiritual redemption to the people of Israel. Jesus’s emphasis on the spiritual aspects of the kingdom, seemingly to the exclusion of the political element, did not fit his conception of what the Messiah would be like. He needed comfort and reassurance.

Jesus provided it. He told John’s disciples to go back and report to John the many Messianic signs performed by Jesus—“the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.” (Mt. 11:4-5).

Then Jesus said something enigmatic. He told the listening crowd, “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Mt. 11:11). Jesus thus drew a sharp line between John and the kingdom citizen. Both France and Carson believe Jesus was saying in this statement that John stood outside the kingdom of heaven.73 Jesus was not suggesting that John was not a believer; rather, his point was that John was the last of the Old Testament saints and, as such, he stood on the threshold of the eschatological kingdom. This implies that the kingdom was yet future during John’s public ministry.

Then Jesus said something even more strange: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” (Mt. 11:12). The phrase “the kingdom of heaven suffers violence” (NASB) has been variously interpreted. The NIV states that the kingdom “has been forcefully advancing.” The verb biazetai holds the key to the correct view. Carson believes that it supports the NIV rendering of the passage because it is in the middle form.74 This implies that “the kingdom has come with holy power and magnificent energy that has been pushing back the frontiers of darkness.”75 Moreover, instead of violent men taking over in a negative sense, forceful men take hold of the kingdom in a positive sense. As Carson sums up this difficult passage, “from the days of the Baptist—i.e., from the beginning of John’s ministry—the kingdom has been forcefully advancing . . . . But it has not swept all opposition away, as John expected.”76

Carson thus views this verse as teaching that during John’s time of ministry, the kingdom of God was inaugurated.77 France similarly interprets this verse as meaning that John’s fate was “the foretaste of the conflicts which are already beginning to affect the new order” and that “God’s kingdom is clearly seen as already present, as a force sufficiently dynamic to provoke violent reaction.”78 In other words, the kingdom had come in some preliminary way at the time Jesus began his public ministry, after John had been put in prison (Mt. 4:12), through Jesus’s powerful preaching and miracles.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME UPON YOU

If there is any doubt remaining that the kingdom of God has arrived in an inaugural sense with the first advent of Christ, Jesus swept it aside by proclaiming in Matthew 12:28 that “the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Saucy has said in this regard:

Though the emphasis of the teaching of Jesus was on the futurity of the kingdom, His total message concerning the kingdom also included its presence and the possibility of men and women entering the kingdom now. He said it was present in the power of the Holy Spirit when He cast out demons (Matt. 12:28), and therefore it can be understood as having been present in all His miraculous works.79

Hence, Jesus’s driving out demons, by the power of the Holy Spirit, “prove[s] that the kingdom age has already dawned.”80 The words “has come upon” (ephthasen) suggests an arrival which catches unawares.81 Interestingly, Glasscock agrees: “the only logical conclusion was that the kingdom of God had come.”82

How had the kingdom of God come during Jesus’s earthly ministry?

Blaising and Bock summarize:

Whereas Jesus advances the tradition of the Old Testament prophets by predicting the coming of the eschatological kingdom with Himself as Messiah, there are some occasions in the Gospels when He speaks of the kingdom as being present in His own day. In these sayings, the kingdom is present in the sense that He Himself, the King of that kingdom, is present among them, displaying in Himself and in His activity the characteristics of the eschatological kingdom.83

They distinguish the kingdom as present in Jesus’s pre-cross ministry from the kingdom in its post-cross sense:

The difference . . . is not only a difference between His service of suffering and His future glory, but also the difference between the kingdom being in Jesus and the kingdom being universally established. The kingdom was revealed in and through Jesus’ activity. It was quite dynamic, being seen in displays of His power. However, He did not at that time institute the kingdom as an abiding structure for the world. It was only after the cross that He inaugurated certain aspects of the kingdom in an institutional sense.84

Revised dispensationalists disagree. Although Walvoord does not treat 12:28 in his commentary on Matthew, Pentecost interprets the verse to mean that “since Christ did cast out demons by God’s power, it must be concluded that His offer of the kingdom was genuine and He was its bona fide King.85 In my view, this does not do justice to the passage. The sense is that the kingdom has “just arrived.”86 God's kingdom has come; it is present in his person.87

Revised dispensationalists consider chapter 12 to be a pivotal passage to their central tenet that Jewish rejection of Jesus resulted in a postponement of a kingdom offer. As Pentecost has asserted, “the nation had rejected Him and the kingdom had to be postponed.”88

Many critics have had trouble with the idea that the kingdom was placed in abeyance because of the rejection of the Jewish religious leaders. Their critique has, for the most part, focused on the divine side of the equation. For example, Ernest C. Reisinger declares:

My Bible knows nothing about a God who does not have power to perform His plan. The God of the Bible is sovereign in creation, sovereign in redemption, and sovereign in providence. He is all-wise in planning and all powerful in performing.89

Kenneth Barker likewise asserts:

I would not use such terminology. The omniscient, sovereign God never ‘postpones’ anything. Israel’s rejection of their Messiah at his first advent—and along with him, the full expression of the theocratic kingdom at that time—was foreseen by God and, in fact, was part of God’s plan to accomplish redemption through the “sufferings of Christ.90

Walvoord defends the postponement view against these attacks by stating that “what is postponed from a human standpoint is not postponed from the divine standpoint” because “with God, all contingencies and seeming changes of direction are known from eternity past, and there is no change of God’s central purpose.”91 Walvoord should be applauded for recognizing that God’s redemptive plan for humanity was centered around the cross and that His plan never changed. Still, the question remains: given this truth, why use postponement language at all? Indeed, from the “human standpoint,” was the kingdom really postponed?

It seems to me that, even from a human perspective, a postponement of the kingdom is hard to square with the biblical data. If the kingdom was postponed in chapter 12, why did Jesus say in Matthew 12:28 that the kingdom “has come”? In addition, why did he proceed in chapter 13 to discuss the nature of the kingdom in his parables?

Revised dispensationalists appear to be inconsistent in holding that the eschatological kingdom was postponed in chapter 12 but that another “mystery form” of the kingdom was presented in chapter 13. For example, Merrill Unger states that the kingdom of heaven is “now being consummated in this present age” as described in the “seven ‘mysteries of the kingdom’“ in Matthew 13.92 John Walvoord says that “in Matthew 13, the kingdom in its present mystery form is revealed, that is the rule of God over the earth in the hearts of believers during the present age when the King is absent.”93 But where is the evidence that the form of the kingdom in Matthew 13 is a separate kingdom from the eschatological kingdom prophesied by John and announced as “at hand” by Jesus? Isn’t it better to simply view the “mystery” as the revealing of a heretofore hidden phase of the same eschatological kingdom declared as “upon you” in Matthew 12:28?

Moreover, Matthew 12:28 is not the only verse to support a presently inaugurated kingdom. Matthew 19:12 also refers to the inaugurated form of the kingdom. There, in teaching on marriage and divorce, Jesus made the following comment: “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Jesus’s point was that some believers can remain single rather than get married “for the sake of the kingdom” or as Carson puts it, “because of its claims and interests.”94 This must be a reference to the present kingdom (Cf. Mt. 22:30).

Matthew 16:27-28 also appears to discuss the inaugurated form of the kingdom. There, Jesus told the disciples that “there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Although some commentators take this enigmatic passage to refer to the Transfiguration,95 it seems to me that Carson is right in observing that this would be “an extraordinary way to refer to Peter, James and John, who witness the Transfiguration a mere six days later.”96 The better fit is that this is “a more general reference . . . to the manifestation of Christ’s kingly reign exhibited after the Resurrection in a host of ways, not the least of them being the rapid multiplication of disciples and the mission to the Gentiles.”97

THE MYSTERY OF THE KINGDOM

In chapter 13, immediately after the rejection of his Messiahship by the Galilean Pharisees, Jesus teaches in parables. Parables were designed to reveal the truth to believers and hide the truth from unbelievers (13:13-15). Jesus told his disciples, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted” (13:11). Walvoord states that the parables in Matthew 13 were designed “to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom.” He believes that these mysteries were hidden in the Old Testament and revealed in the New Testament. They “deal with the period between the first and second advent of Christ and not the millennial kingdom which will follow the second coming.”98 After the Jewish leaders’ rejection of Jesus as Messiah and the resulting postponement of the kingdom, Jesus introduced “a new method of teaching.”99

Carson essentially agrees that the rising opposition to Jesus encouraged his greater and greater use of parables. However, he disagrees that there was a “sudden switch in method.”100 Jesus had taught in parables before (cf. Lk. 5:36; 6:39). Carson also disagrees that the kingdom undergoes a radical shift with the mention of mystery.”101 On the other hand, he agrees that Jesus introduced a “new truth” about the kingdom:

[T]he ‘mystery of the Kingdom is the coming of the Kingdom into history in advance of its apocalyptic manifestation.’ That God would bring in his kingdom was no secret. All Jews looked forward to it. ‘The new truth, now given to men by revelation in the person and mission of Jesus, is that the Kingdom which is to come finally in apocalyptic power, as foreseen by Daniel, has in fact entered the world in advance in a hidden form to work secretly within and among men.102

The mystery phase is thus not a separate kingdom from that which preceded it and that which will follow; it is a phase or form of the same eschatological kingdom. It is “the presence of ‘sons of the kingdom’ (that is, people who truly belong to the eschatological kingdom) in the world prior to the coming of the Son of Man.”103

What do the parables teach about the mystery phase of the kingdom?

The parable of the soils (Mt. 13:3-9) teaches that the mystery phase will involve some who believe and many who will not believe.104 The parable of the weeds (Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43) explains how the kingdom can be present in the world while not yet wiping out all opposition.105 Jesus’s explanation in verse 41 is interesting. He says that, “at the end of the age,” the Son of Man will “weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil” (NIV). This suggests that the kingdom exists before the Son of Man returns to establish his millennial kingdom. The parable of the mustard seed (Mt. 13:31-32) explains that, while the kingdom has a small beginning, it is organically connected to the kingdom in its future glory.106 This organic development militates against speaking of the inaugurated and consummated phases of the kingdom as separate kingdoms. The parable of the yeast (Mt. 13:33) has essentially the same meaning. The parables of the treasure and pearl speak of the supreme importance and value of the kingdom.107 The parable of the householder shows that Jesus’s teachings are new and revolutionary (Mt. 13:52).108 The old treasure is the already revealed prophecies about the kingdom. The new treasures are the new knowledge imparted by Jesus with regard to the mystery phase of the kingdom. The new complements the old to create one “treasure,” the kingdom of heaven.109

Chapter Five:
Kingdom Living

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

By now, it should not be surprising that there are many views on the proper interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. If the kingdom is solely future in orientation, then the logical conclusion is that the Sermon is not intended for believers of any age other than the millennial period.110 Quite understandably, most dispensationalists recoil from such a view, holding instead that the “full, non-fudging, unadjusted fulfillment” is for the millennial age, but that the Sermon is “applicable and profitable” to believers in the church age.111 How this can be true without adopting a non-literal hermeneutic of the Sermon is unclear.

The better view, it seems to me, is that the Sermon on the Mount describes the righteous character of a kingdom citizen—one who is living in the kingdom as it exists in its mystery phase here and now (cf. Mt. 5:20). France called the Sermon a “manifesto setting out the nature of life in the kingdom of heaven.”112 Lloyd-Jones calls it “a perfect picture of the life of the kingdom of God.”113

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus went to great pains to emphasize the spiritual elements of the kingdom. As Carson has observed, the “unifying theme of the sermon is the kingdom of heaven.” For example, the theme of the kingdom envelopes the Beatitudes. The first Beatitude is “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:3), while the last is “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:10). This suggests to Carson that the intervening Beatitudes are kingdom blessings as well.114

The theme of kingdom is also at the heart of the Lord’s Prayer (“Thy kingdom come”) (Mt. 6:9). Carson has stated that to pray this petition is “simultaneously to ask that God’s saving, royal rule be extended now as people bow in submission to him and already taste the eschatological blessing of salvation and to cry for the consummation of the kingdom.”115 The kingdom “is breaking in under Christ’s ministry, but it is not consummated till the end of the age.” We should therefore pray “for its extension as well as for its unqualified manifestation.”116

The theme of kingdom is similarly prominent in terms of a kingdom citizen’s perspective (“seek first His kingdom and His righteousness”) (Mt. 6:33). Carson puts it well: “To seek first the kingdom . . . is to desire above all to enter into, submit to, and participate in spreading the news of the saving reign of God, the messianic kingdom already inaugurated by Jesus, and to live so as to store up treasures in heaven in the prospect of the kingdom’s consummation.117

Finally, at the close of the Sermon on the Mount, the theme of kingdom is closely aligned with salvation (Mt. 7:13-14). Jesus alone decrees who will enter into the kingdom (Mt. 7:21-23). Hence, Carson notes that the Sermon on the Mount equates entering the kingdom with entering life.118

JESUS’S LATER TEACHING ON KINGDOM LIVING

At the close of his earthly ministry, Jesus came back to the topic of kingdom living. In Matthew 18:1-4, Jesus instructed his chosen disciples on humility: “[U]nless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (See also Mt. 19:14). He taught that a kingdom citizen must continuously and repeatedly forgive others (Mt. 18:21-35).

Matthew 19:23-26 also points out the spiritual predominance of Jesus’s kingdom teachings. Jesus told his disciples that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” The disciples understood by this time that the kingdom involved more than a mere political reign. As Glasscock observed: “Their question, ‘Who then can be saved?’ revealed the connection in their mind between entering the kingdom of heaven (v. 23) with being saved (v. 25).”119

Chapter Six:
The Consummation of the Kingdom

Although Jesus’s teachings during the first part of his ministry, as recorded in Matthew, focused on the presently inaugurated aspects of the kingdom, Jesus certainly did not neglect the topic of fulfillment of the kingdom. For example, in Matthew 8:11-12, Jesus foreshadowed the fact that, in the millennial kingdom, Gentiles would be included while the Jews who rejected their Messiah would be left out. This same teaching was repeated in Matthew 21:42-43.

As Jesus’s death grew closer, his teachings on the end of the age grew more prominent. Hence, Matthew 24 through 25 contain the Olivet Discourse, a discourse about the coming culmination of the kingdom given by Jesus during His last week before the crucifixion. In Matthew 24:3, the disciples asked Jesus, “what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” Glasscock states that “the end of the age” is a clear reference to “the closure of Israel’s rebellion and the beginning of the glorious kingdom.”120

Jesus responded by describing in significant detail the end of the age: the Tribulation period (Mt. 24:4-25), the Second Coming of Christ (Mt. 24:26-31), and the regathering of true Israel at the beginning of the millennium (Mt. 24:36-41).121 Jesus then offered several parables to demonstrate the certainty of his coming. (Mt. 24:42–25:30). Matthew 25:31-46 describes the judgment on the Gentile nations that closes the end of the age and ushers in the millennial period. Matthew 25:34 states that Jesus will invite Gentiles into the kingdom which had been “prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Glasscock rightly notes:

The kingdom Messiah is establishing will include the Gentiles, and not as a last-minute adjustment to God’s plan but determined from the very foundation of the world (katholes kosmou). The messianic kingdom, therefore, was predetermined, before the world was put into operation, to be a place for the human race to experience the divine kingship of God’s Anointed.122

In Matthew 26, Jesus and the disciples were eating the Passover meal and Jesus instructed the disciples on the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. At this time, he told them, “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.” (Mt. 26:29). In other words, Jesus will not participate again in the Lord’s Supper until “the consummation” when he “will sit down with them at the messianic banquet.”123

Chapter Seven:
Some Closing Thoughts on the Kingdom

What does all this mean? It seems to me that the following points can be concluded from the teachings on the kingdom in Matthew’s gospel:

1. The kingdom of God in Matthew is unified and holistic. All at the same time, it is spiritual, material, ethical, social, political, physical and ecclesiastical.

2. At the same time, the kingdom has temporal components.

3. The kingdom’s nearness was tied to the first phase of Jesus’s earthly ministry. In proclaiming that the kingdom was “near,” Jesus suggested “not that the kingdom has arrived in fullness but that signs of its initial stages have come.”124

4. The kingdom began to arrive with Jesus’s ministry (Phase 1). It was present in the person of the King and the dynamic power that He exercised over demons, disease and death.

5. The kingdom advanced, and continues to advance, in its mystery phase (Phase II) during the inter-advent age. It is played out through the work of kingdom citizens during this present age. The Sermon on the Mount and other standards of kingdom living articulated by Jesus apply completely and directly to kingdom citizens in this inter-advent age.

6. The consummation of the kingdom of God on earth in the form of a thousand year millennial reign (Phase III) is the ultimate goal in biblical history. This event ushers in the final eternal state.125

Several additional observations are also required.

First, this “already - not yet” framework, described above, is a dispensational framework. It does not lead to amillennialism or historic premillennialism. Indeed, dispensationalism has always been an evolving system, continually correcting weaknesses exposed through the criticism of others. This is one of its strengths.126

Second, many revised dispensationalists implicitly adopt an “already - not yet” approach but refuse to use the terminology, presumably, out of fear of being associated with George Ladd. But as Bock stated in Israel, Dispensationalism and the Church: “One should not fear ‘already and not yet’ terminology since all Bible students accept its presence in soteriology: ‘I am saved (i.e., justified) already—but I am not yet saved (i.e., glorified) is good theology.”127

Third, Matthew does not directly address the issue of whether Phase II of the eschatological kingdom is a Davidic phase or something less. Revised dispensationalists affirm that the “mystery form” of the kingdom is spiritual in nature. However, they are not willing to say that it is the same as the eschatological kingdom to come. In contrast, progressive dispensationalists hold that Jesus is already inaugurated as the Davidic king and is now reigning on the throne of David.128 This is probably the principal distinguishing point between the two forms of dispensationalism.129 However, resolution of this issue can only come from an exegetical study of Acts.

Fourth, there appears to be a clear link between the coming of Phase II of the kingdom and the eschatological coming of the Holy Spirit. This needs to be studied in more detail.

The debates over the nature of the kingdom of God will continue. However, a careful, exegetical study of the use of the kingdom in Matthew provides at least a framework for continued study. The kingdom came in the presence of Jesus Christ as King. It advances through the lives of kingdom citizens in the present age. It will come fully and completely with the second advent of Jesus Christ. Come, Lord Jesus.