Thursday, May 23, 2013

The Coming Kingdom (Part 16)

Andy WoodsBy Dr. Andy Woods
Sugar Land Bible Church

Facebook Contact

Because today's evangelical world believes that the church is experiencing the Messianic kingdom, we began a study chronicling what the Bible teaches about the kingdom. In this series, the biblical teaching on the kingdom has been surveyed from Genesis to Revelation. This earthly kingdom is anticipated in the office of Theocratic Administrator that was lost in Eden, in the biblical covenants, in the predictions of the Old Testament prophets, and in the earthly theocracy governing Israel from the time of Moses to Zedekiah. This theocratic arrangement terminated with the initiation of the "Times of the Gentiles" when the nation had no king reigning on David’s Throne as Judah was trampled by various Gentile powers. Against that backdrop entered Jesus Christ, the rightful Heir to David's Throne. Had first-century Israel enthroned Christ, the earthly kingdom would have become a reality. Despite this unprecedented opportunity, Israel rejected the kingdom offer leading to the kingdom's postponement.

Due to this postponement, Christ explained the spiritual conditions that would prevail during the kingdom's absence. This interim program includes His revelation of the kingdom mysteries and the church (Matt. 13; 16:18). Because neither the kingdom mysteries nor the church represent the fulfillment of God's Old Testament kingdom promises, the kingdom will remain in a state of abeyance as long as God's present work in the world continues through His interim program. However, one day the church's mission on the earth will be completed resulting in the church's removal from the earth through the rapture. Then God, who is not forgetful of His prior unconditional covenants with Israel, will re-extend the offer of the kingdom to national Israel in the midst of the coming Great Tribulation. Unlike at the First Advent, this time the offer will be accepted leading to Christ's return and subsequent earthly kingdom. Revelation therefore explains how the world will eventually transition from the rule that Satan has had over the world ever since the Fall in Eden (Luke 4:5-8) to the future time in history when God and His people "will reign upon the earth" (Rev. 5:10b; 11:15b). The Apocalypse also furnishes the important detail of the Messianic kingdom's duration, namely one-thousand years (Rev. 20:1-10). A chronological approach to Revelation reveals that the Millennial kingdom will be followed by the Eternal State. Thus, God's kingdom program will extend beyond Christ's one-thousand year earthly reign as it transitions into the Eternal kingdom (Rev. 21-22).

Far from the incorrect or imprecise "kingdom now" terminology typically employed by many evangelicals today, when the kingdom comes, it will be tangible, literal, physical, geographical, and earthly as well as moral and ethical in tone. We further noted that those closest to the biblical text, the early church fathers, also held to premillennialism or the reality of the coming, earthly kingdom of Christ. In fact, the premillennial view was dominant in the first two centuries of the church. We also observed that the problem with using New Testament verses in an attempt to argue that the Messianic kingdom now exists in spiritual form is to interpret the New Testament in a manner that contradicts the Old Testament.

Rick Warren

Contemporary Kingdom Confusion

Considering that a careful Genesis to Revelation survey very clearly indicates that the kingdom is a future and postponed reality, why do so many evangelicals believe that the Messianic kingdom has already materialized or is within the power of the modern church to set up? Mega-church pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren epitomizes the "kingdom now" vocabulary and mentality that is so prevalent in the modern evangelical church, when he says:

I stand before you confidently right now and say to you that God is going to use you to change the world...I'm looking at a stadium full of people right now who are telling God they will do whatever it takes to establish God's Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven." What will happen if the followers of Jesus say to Him, "We are yours?" What kind of spiritual awakening will occur? (italics added). [1]

Is there a biblical basis for such a "kingdom-now" belief? Interestingly, the same handful of New Testament texts that seemingly teach a present kingdom are routinely and consistently employed in an attempt to argue for "kingdom now" theology. The purpose of this and subsequent articles is to scrutinize these few and isolated texts that "kingdom now" theologians typically use and to demonstrate their insufficiency to prove "kingdom now" theology.

The Kingdom Is at Hand

Early in the gospels, we find the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" as proclaimed to the nation by John the Baptist (Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15), Christ (Matt 4:17), the Twelve (Matt 10:5-7), and the Seventy (Luke 10:1, 9, 11). The Greek verb engizo is translated "near" or "at hand." However, "kingdom now" theologians understand the phrase "at hand" to mean "here" in the sense that the kingdom has already arrived. [2] However, such an interpretation is controversial and is hardly a foregone conclusion. James 5:8-9 uses the identical verb engizo to communicate the nearness or any moment expectation of the Lord's coming. These verses say, "You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door." Here, not only is the verb engizo translated "near" used that is also used in the early-Gospel expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," but so is the identical parsing of this same verb. In all of these instances, the verb engizo appears as a third person singular perfect active indicative. Virtually no one interprets James 5:8-9 as conveying the Lord's presence or arrival. Rather, all understand the passage as describing His imminent nearness or any-moment appearance. Thus, why should the same verb and parsing in the expression "for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" not be given the same rendering of the kingdom's imminent nearness rather than its presence or arrival? In other words, if the grammatical structure of James 5:8-9 conveys the imminency and nearness of the Lord's coming, then consistency dictates that the same grammatical structure in the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" also depicts the kingdom's imminent nearness rather than its arrival. Toussaint notes that the perfect tense employed in all of these verses communicates "that the kingdom had drawn near and was then in a condition of nearness." [3] William Lane similarly notes, "The linguistic objections to the proposed rendering 'has come' are weighty, and it is better to translate 'has come near.'" [4]

Furthermore, the fact that the word "kingdom" in the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" is given no detailed explanation in these verses must mean that John, Christ, the Twelve, and the Seventy are drawing upon information already revealed about the kingdom in the Old Testament. Thus, they are offering to Israel what the Old Testament reveals concerning the kingdom. [5] As explained throughout this series, the Old Testament consistently depicts the kingdom in earthly, terrestrial terms. The Jews of Christ's day, who were well familiar with this Old Testament understanding, were similarly anticipating an earthly, literal kingdom.

The ministry of the incarnate Christ never altered this earthly expectation. Not only did the disciples believe that Christ was going to restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6), but the mother of James and John also requested that her sons be given places of prominence with the earthly kingdom's establishment (Matt. 20:20-21). Because the request in Matthew 20 and the inquiry of Acts 1 both transpired late in Christ's ministry, it is unlikely that the disciples had a mistaken understanding of the kingdom at this point. They had already heard Jesus teach extensively about the kingdom and had already been blessed by Christ for their insight into the kingdom (Matt. 13:11-17). [6]

Interestingly, in the events surrounding both Matthew 20:20-21 and Acts 1:6, Christ never issued a rebuke due to a faulty understanding or expectation of a future, earthly kingdom. Rather, in Matthew 20, His only correction to the mother of James and John related to her failure to consider that the cross precedes the crown (Matt. 20:22-23). Similarly, in Acts 1, His only correction of the disciples involved their misunderstanding concerning the timing of the establishment of the Davidic kingdom, not the fact of its ultimate fulfillment (Acts 1:7). In neither case did Christ challenge their common expectation that a future, earthly kingdom would ultimately become a reality. All of this background shows that the phrase "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" could hardly represent an inauguration of a spiritual kingdom in Christ's early ministry.

In sum, far from teaching that the kingdom had now arrived in a spiritual sense, the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" merely communicates that the Old Testament expectation of an earthly kingdom had drawn near in the person of Christ. Had the nation enthroned Christ (Deut. 17:15), what the Old Testament predicted concerning an earthly kingdom would have become a reality not only for Israel but also for the entire world. As long as Christ was present amongst first-century Israel offering them the kingdom, it was in an imminent state of nearness. This reality is an entirely different matter from saying that the kingdom was present or had arrived. Unfortunately, "kingdom now" theologians miss the true import of the early-Gospel expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" by instead arguing that the kingdom is here rather than near. In actuality, in Christ's early ministry, the opposite was true. This conclusion comes from carefully noting the grammar of the passages as well as the common understanding of "kingdom."

(To Be Continued...)

Endnotes

[1] Warren cited in Roger Oakland, Faith Undone, Kindle Edition.

[2] Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 2nd ed. (Tyler: TX: ICE, 1997), 223.

[3] Stanley Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2005), 63.

[4] William Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 65, n. 93.

[5] George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952), 1:195.

[6] Toussaint, 62.


Tuesday, May 21, 2013

The Goodness of God and the Reality of Evil

Albert MohlerBy Dr. Albert Mohler
AlbertMohler.com

Twitter Facebook RSS Contact Amazon

Every thoughtful person must deal with the problem of evil. Evil acts and tragic events come to us all in this vale of tears known as human life. The problem of evil and suffering is undoubtedly the greatest theological challenge we face.

Most persons face this issue only in a time of crisis. A senseless accident, a wasting disease, or an awful crime demands some explanation. Yesterday, evil showed its face again as a giant tornado brought death and destruction to Moore, Oklahoma.

Moore, Oklahoma

For the atheist, this is no great problem. Life is a cosmic accident, morality is an arbitrary game by which we order our lives, and meaning is non-existent. As Oxford University's Professor Richard Dawkins explains, human life is nothing more than a way for selfish genes to multiply and reproduce. There is no meaning or dignity to humanity.

For the Christian Scientist, the material world and the experience of suffering and death are illusory. In other religions suffering is part of a great circle of life or recurring incarnations of spirit.

Some Christians simply explain suffering as the consequence of sins, known or unknown. Some suffering can be directly traced to sin. What we sow, so shall we reap, and multiple millions of persons can testify to this reality. Some persons suffer innocently by the sinful acts of others.

But Jesus rejected this as a blanket explanation for suffering, instructing His disciples in John 9 and Luke 13 that they could not always trace suffering back to sin. We should note that the problem of evil and suffering, the theological issue of theodicy, is customarily divided into evil of two kinds, moral and natural. Both are included in these passages. In Luke 13, the murder of the Galileans is clearly moral evil, a premeditated crime—just like the terrorist acts in New York and Washington. In John 9, a man is blind from birth, and Jesus tells the Twelve that this blindness cannot be traced back to this man's sin, or that of his parents.

Natural evil comes without a moral agent. A tower falls, an earthquake shakes, a tornado destroys, a hurricane ravages, a spider bites, a disease debilitates and kills. The world is filled with wonders mixed with dangers. Gravity can save you or gravity can kill you. When a tower falls, it kills.

The Problem of Evil and the Sovereignty of God

People all over the world are demanding an answer to the question of evil. It comes only to those who claim that God is mighty and that God is good. How could a good God allow these things to happen? How can a God of love allow killers to kill, terrorists to terrorize, and the wicked to escape without a trace?

No superficial answer will do. Our quandary is well known, and the atheists think they have our number. As a character in Archibald MacLeish's play, J.B. asserts, "If God is God He is not good, if God is good He is not God; take the even, take the odd..." As he sees it, God can be good, or He can be powerful, but He cannot be both.

We will either take our stand with God's self-revelation in the Bible, or we are left to invent a deity of our own imagination. The Bible quickly excludes two false understandings.

First, the Bible reveals that God is omnipotent and omniscient. These are unconditional and categorical attributes. The sovereignty of God is the bedrock affirmation of biblical theism. The Creator rules over all creation. Not even a sparrow falls without His knowledge. He knows the number of hairs upon our heads. God rules and reigns over all nations and principalities. Not one atom or molecule of the universe is outside His active rule.

The sovereignty of God was affirmed by King Nebuchadnezzar, who confessed that God "does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?'" (Daniel 4:36). Process theologians have attempted to cut God's power down to size, rendering the Creator as one power among others. The evangelical revisionists pushing open theism have attempted to cut God's omniscience down to size, rendering Him as one mind among others.

Rabbi Harold Kushner argues that God is doing the best He can under the circumstances, but He lacks the power to either kill or cure. The openness theists argue that God is always ready with Plan B when Plan A fails. He is infinitely resourceful, they stress, just not really sovereign.

These are roads we dare not take, for the God of the Bible causes the rising and falling of nations and empires, and His rule is active and universal. Limited sovereignty is no sovereignty at all.

The second great error is to ascribe evil to God. But the Bible does not allow this argument. God is absolute righteousness, love, goodness, and justice. Most errors related to this issue occur because of our human tendency to impose an external standard—a human construction of goodness—upon God. But good does not so much define God as God defines good.

How then do we speak of God's rule and reconcile this with the reality of evil? Between these two errors the Bible points us to the radical affirmation of God’s sovereignty as the ground of our salvation and the assurance of our own good. We cannot explain why God has allowed sin, but we understand that God’s glory is more perfectly demonstrated through the victory of Christ over sin. We cannot understand why God would allow sickness and suffering, but we must affirm that even these realities are rooted in sin and its cosmic effects.

How does God exercise His rule? Does He order all events by decree, or does He allow some evil acts by His mere permission? This much we know—we cannot speak of God’s decree in a way that would imply Him to be the author of evil, and we cannot fall back to speak of His mere permission, as if this allows a denial of His sovereignty and active will.

A venerable confession of faith states it rightly:

"God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs, and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not in any way to be the author or approver of sin nor to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures."

God is God, and God is good. As Paul affirms for the church, God’s sovereignty is the ground of our hope, the assurance of God's justice as the last word, and God's loving rule in the very events of our lives:

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, who are the called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28).

We dare not speak on God's behalf to explain why He allowed these particular acts of evil to happen at this time to these persons and in this manner. Yet, at the same time, we dare not be silent when we should testify to the God of righteousness and love and justice who rules over all in omnipotence. Humility requires that we affirm all that the Bible teaches, and go no further. There is much we do not understand. As Charles Spurgeon explained, when we cannot trace God's hand, we must simply trust His heart.

And so, we weep with those who weep, and we reach out with acts of care and compassion. We pray for those who are grieving and have experienced such loss. We cry for the children lost in this storm, even as we are so thankful for brave people who did their best to save lives as the winds raged. And, we pray: Even so, Lord come quickly.

Will Republicans Win 2014 Senate Majority?

Chad GroeningBy Chad Groening
OneNewsNow.com

RSS Contact

A conservative political scientist believes that Republicans are in great shape to wrest Senate control away from Democrats in the next year.

Political pundits acknowledge a number of factors signal 2014 as the year Republicans may finally remove Harry Reid from his post as Senate majority leader. For one thing, historically, the party out of power wins big during the off-year election after a president is re-elected.

And Dr. Charles W. Dunn, distinguished professor of government at Regent University's School of Government, says Democrats are likely to be hurt by issues like ObamaCare, which retiring Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) has described as a "train wreck."

Obama Scandals

Scandals Could Hurt Democrats in 2014

"ObamaCare is a train wreck—a train wreck waiting to happen," Dunn says. "If someone of Baucus' stature who helped draft that legislation is saying that, what are other Democrats who were not involved in the drafting of that legislation thinking?

"I think pretty soon they are going to have to begin speaking out against it. They're going to have to run for cover. That's why I would say history is against the Democrats, and issues are against the Democrats."

The political scientist says Democrats could be hurt by scandals like Benghazi and the way the Internal Revenue Service has targeted conservative organizations.

"This could be a Watergate regarding President Obama," he adds. "Right now, Democrats are beginning to run for cover. They recognize that they are in deep trouble. So, right now we're seeing the prelude to a symphony of a great Republican victory in 2014."

The Obama scandals, he adds, will also encourage quality Republicans across the country, believing 2014 is going to be a big year for the GOP, to run for Congress.

 


Get Our Latest Posts Via Email • It's Free!

Delivered By FeedBurner