The Kingdom Is Already A Present Reality

A third option would be to recognize that the kingdom is the earth so it has always been here since its creation and it remains today with a rebel ruler at its helm and one day The Ruler is going to take over this kingdom from both a physical and a spiritual standpoint. Israel will be at the head of the nations on the physical earth just as they were intended to be and Christ and His bride will rule and reign from the heavens where Satan and his demons currently rule.

And because of that the promise given to Abraham will be fulfilled in that both physical and spiritual blessings will flow from his seed.

Amen, Amen and Amen! How about another Amen brother! :thumbs:

 

That's not really a third option. The kingdom has not always been here. That is why the OT prophets prophesy that it will come.

 

This is true.

But when you read Dan 2:44 you see a crushing of the kingdom and an end to it. That simply didn't happen in Christ's earthly ministry. He did not crush the kingdom of Satan and did not put an end to it.

It is actually a matter of hermeneutics first, not eschatology. Eschatology grows out of hermeneutics and the way we treat words. When we treat words differently, we arrive at different conclusions.

 

But in context that has to do with who is doing the ruling. Israel was supposed to be at the head of the nations ruling from the physical earth. That rule will one day be established. But what they are ruling over will have always been here and has been here since God created it. Now granted the people will be different .

 

Those who take the position that the kingdom of Christ was established in the first century typically do, citing Matthew and the binding of Satan. Furthermore, the kingdom of Christ is contrasted with the kingdom of Satan or darkness, and in Daniel, the kingdom that is crushed is the kingdom of the world which is the kingdom of Satan.

That's fine, but the issue is still how we handle the text. Do the words mean what they say as the original author intended and the original reader would have understood or do they mean something else?

 

What context are you talking about and what is the antecedent of "that"?

Yes, what Christ is ruling over will have always been here, but a kingdom does not just exist when the realm exists. There must also be a king present. W

 

Bingo! Daniel doesn't mention anything about a conditional Kingdom relying on Jewish acceptance.

John the Baptist didn't say the time might be fulfilled:

Mar 1:15 and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God draws near. Repent, and believe the gospel.

Did Paul continue to preach a Kingdom that was postponed?

Act 28:30 And Paul remained two years in his own hired house. And he welcomed all who came in to him,
Act 28:31 proclaiming the kingdom of God, and teaching those things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all freedom, and without hindrance.

 

So? Daniel doesn't mention a lot of things. That's hardly relevant here. The fact is that God has not given us all the truth in one place, but the truth of Dan 2:44 cannot be answered by anything but a future kingdom.

Nope he didn't.

Yes, it drew near.

Yes, the same as we do now. We preach the kingdom of Christ. 2 Tim 4:1 connects the kingdom with the appearing, not before then.

 

With the revelation of Scripture, we don't have to wait until the return of Christ for some of these things.

 

Actually, the early church was almost unanimously chiliastic, or premillennial. That changed in the late third and fourth centuries as the current events did not bring the anticipated kingdom and so the idea of kingdom was revised to be an amill or postmill kingdom.

But having said that, the reason people don't agree is because of hermeneutical issues. We don't agree that Scripture should be treated normally. That's not a partially present vs. exclusively future kingdom issue so much as a amill/postmill/premill issue.

 

But he does mention when the Kingdom would be established, during the Roman Empire. What hermeneutic rule allows him to be wrong?

Actually, many pre-mills see the Kingdom as being established and is the Church.


Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, Did you never read in the Scriptures, "The stone which the builders rejected, this One has become the head of the corner; this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?"
Mat 21:43 Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits.
Mat 21:44 And he who falls on this Stone shall be broken, but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Mat 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they knew that He spoke of them

John Gill

Mat 21:43 - Therefore I say unto you,.... This is the application of the parable; and the words are directed to the chief priests, elders, scribes, and people of the Jews; and are delivered as what would be in consequence of the builders, rejecting the Messiah, the foundation and corner stone of the building,

The kingdom of God shall be taken from you: by which is meant, not their political estate, their civil government, which was of God, and in a short time was to depart from them, according to ancient prophecy, and which is come to pass, as the event shows; nor their legal national church state and ordinances only, or the priesthood, and the appendages of it; all which, in a little while, were shaken and removed; but the Gospel, which had been preached among them by John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles;

John Wesley

Mat 21:43 - Therefore - Because ye reject this corner stone. The kingdom of God - That is, the Gospel.

JFB Commentary

Mat 21:43 -
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God — God’s visible Kingdom, or Church, upon earth, which up to this time stood in the seed of Abraham.
shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof — that is, the great evangelical community of the faithful, which, after the extrusion of the Jewish nation, would consist chiefly of Gentiles, until “all Israel should be saved” (Rom_11:25, Rom_11:26). This vastly important statement is given by Matthew only

Even ultra-dispie John MacArthur sees this as the Church.



Mat 21:41 They said to Him, Bad men! He will miserably destroy them and will rent out his vineyard to other vinedressers who will give him the fruits in their seasons.
Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, Did you never read in the Scriptures, "The stone which the builders rejected, this One has become the head of the corner; this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?"

So in your opinion, who who is this other nation/vinedressers that the Kingdom will be given to and when will it be given to them?

 

The early church (i.e., apostles) were unanimously chiliastic. I know of no dissenters in the second century. Differing millennial views arose out of current events from the perception of delayed return of Christ.

Yes, indeed. That's why questions about eschatology must ultimately be answered primarily by hermeneutics.

 

None. I don't think he is wrong.

Yes, they do, and they are wrong as well. Again, you have to radically redefine the kingdom to get it here and now. But that's not as big a deal to see part of the kingdom now so long as it is recognized that there is a future earthly reign of christ.

End time Israel, in accordance with the prophecies all the way back to Pentateuch and consistently found through the prophets all the way to Malachi, the last of them. There is no reason to see it as anything other than Israel, except a preconceived notion that it must be now.

Peter, in Acts 3:19-21, very clearly states that the kingdom will not come until Christ returns.

 

So he was not wrong when he said the Kingdom would be established in the times of the Roman Empire.

I agree!


Act 3:21 whom Heaven truly needs to receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began.
Act 3:22 For Moses truly said to the fathers, "The Lord your God shall raise up a Prophet to you from your brothers, One like me. You shall hear Him in all things, whatever He may say to you....
Act 3:24 And also all the prophets from Samuel and those following after, as many as spoke, have likewise foretold of these days.

Is the “restoration of all things” the same as the “time of reformation” of Hebrews 9:10?

Albert Barnes seems to think so:

Until the time of reformation - The word rendered here “reformation” - διόρθωσιςdiorthōsis - means properly “emendation, improvement, reform.” It refers to putting a thing in a right condition; making it better; or raising up and restoring what is fallen down. Passow. Here the reference is undoubtedly to the gospel as being a better system - “a putting things where they ought to be;” compare notes on Act_3:21. The idea here is, that those ordinances were only temporary in their nature, and were designed to endure until a more perfect system should be introduced. They were of value “to introduce” that better system; they were not adapted to purify the conscience and remove the stains of guilt from the soul.


Heb 9:10which stood only in meats and drinks, and different kinds of washings and fleshly ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

The time of reformation would be at the time the Old Covenant ordinances would cease. Thus the “restoration of all things” began when the Old Covenant ordinances ceased.

When did they cease?

Act 3:24 And also all the prophets from Samuel and those following after, as many as spoke, have likewise foretold of these days.

The prophets foretold of these days. What days? It seems the days of refreshing in the previous verses. Peter also tells us this:

1Pe 1:9 obtaining the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
1Pe 1:10 About which salvation the prophets sought out and searched out, prophesying concerning the grace for you;

They also spoke of the salvation the Jews were experiencing. Perhaps salvation/grace/New Covenant and "the times of refreshing" are the same thing.

Is this a different “end time” that what Peter says was occurring in his day?

1Pe 1:20 who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,

Would his audience know a different end times than that of the prophets?

Is your future Kingdom tied to the “day of the Lord” of Malachi 4? The day of the Lord associated with the coming of Elijah? The Elijah whom Jesus says John the Baptist is the fulfillment of?

Mat 17:10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
Mat 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
Mat 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Mat 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Preconceived? :laugh: :laugh: The Bible is quite clear on the timing of the Kingdom. The "Kingdom postponed" movement is the one born of a preconceived notion.

Are you redeemed? Have your sins been forgiven? Have you been translated into the kingdom?

Col1:12 giving thanks unto the Father, who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light;
Col1:13 who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love;
Col1:14 in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins: