Note: For part one
of this six-part rebuttal, click here: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-refutation-of-unity-of-spirit-2.html
THE GOOD NEWS OF THE KINGDOM
Again, this two gospel
teaching claims it is important not to join the good news of the kingdom that
Jesus proclaimed, with Paul's evangel of the grace of God. Paul makes no
indication of a difference. He preached the evangel of the grace of God and
also heralded the kingdom.
As Anonymous goes on to acknowledge
(see below), he or she is unsure concerning what, exactly, Christ had in view
when he used the expression “kingdom of the heavens.” This frank acknowledgment
by Anonymous should, I believe, raise a red flag for any reader of Anonymous’
article. This is especially the case given the fact that there is nothing
complicated or mysterious about the kingdom that Christ heralded during his
earthly ministry. Simply put, it’s the kingdom that is to be restored to
Israel, and which is to be established on the earth at Christ’s return (for a more in-depth defense of this view, see part two of my study, "God's covenant people":http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/09/gods-covenant-people-why-most-believing_27.html).
To say that the kingdom
of the heavens is different from the other kingdoms mentioned I don't know at
this point for sure. I just know that Paul mentions many things like the
kingdom and never indicates that it is any different in his later epistles.
On the contrary, we have good reason to believe
that, when the expression “kingdom of God” appears in scripture, it can be
referring to God’s reign in one of two different locations. It is the context by
which we can determine which location may or may not be in view in any given verse or passage.
Jesus made some profound
statements concerning His kingdom:
“My kingdom is not of
this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be
fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My
kingdom is not of this realm. John 18:36
“Now, being inquired of
by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God is coming, He answered them and
said, 'The kingdom of God is not coming with scrutiny (or observation). Neither
shall they be declaring 'Lo! here!' or 'Lo! there!' for lo! the kingdom of God
is inside of you'” Lk.17:20,21
How do these verses fit
into the future kingdom on earth teaching? Regardless of what that future
kingdom will be like? What benefit is it for our faith or spiritual growth to
be making divisions for the word “kingdom”?
Both passages quoted above fit right
in with what Anonymous referred to as “the future kingdom on earth teaching.”
Here’s John 18:36 from the CLNT: Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My deputies, also, would
have contended, lest I should be given up to the Jews. Yet now is My kingdom not hence.”
I’ve placed in bold the words that
bring out the meaning of what Christ was declaring to Pilate. He was
essentially saying that, as long as “this world” continued, the kingdom over
which he will be ruling as king will not be present (hence the words, “Yet NOW
is My kingdom not hence”). Why is Christ’s future kingdom not of “this world?”
Because it belongs to the next world – i.e., the world that corresponds to the
next eon! What Christ referred to as “this world” is the world that corresponds
to what Paul referred to as “the present wicked eon” (Gal. 1:4), whose god is
Satan (2 Cor. 4:4). In Eph. 2:2 we read the following: “…your
offenses and sins, in which once you walked, in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with
the chief of the jurisdiction of the air…” So it’s no surprise that
Christ would say his kingdom is not “of this world.” But it would be fallacious
to infer (as Anonymous seems to be doing) that the kingdom to which Christ was
referring in John 18:36 is neither future nor a kingdom that will be on the
earth. For when Christ returns and brings the present wicked eon to an end, the
“kingdom of this world” will become “our Lord’s and His Christ’s, and He shall
be reigning for the eons of the eons! Amen” (Rev. 11:15)!
As far as Luke 17:20-21, the future
kingdom on earth is just as much in view here as it is in John 18:36. The
context in which these verses are found is clearly that of Christ’s return to
earth to set up the kingdom (Luke 17:22-37; cf. Matt. 24:26-31; 25:1, etc.).
The words, “The kingdom of God is not coming with scrutiny” mean that the
coming of the kingdom will be obvious to all, and that “scrutiny” will not be
required to detect its coming or presence (see Luke 17:24; cf. 21:28, 31). The
words, “the kingdom of God is inside of you” emphasize the fact that the human
heart is to be the domain in which God rules as king, and when the future
kingdom does come, it will be present in the renewed hearts of God’s covenant
people (for God has promised to give Israel “a new heart and a new spirit” in
order to keep his statutes and ordinances; see Ezekiel 36:24-31).
It seems that
preoccupation with what may be coming on earth for Israel has overshadowed what
ought to preoccupy us now. How is this inspiring us to be standing firm in one
spirit, one soul, competing together in the faith of the evangel ?
Notice the author’s words, “…what may be coming on earth for Israel…” I’m
not sure what exactly to make of the word “may” here. Surely Anonymous isn’t in
doubt as to whether or not God will actually bring to pass what he promised
concerning Israel and her eonian destiny. Perhaps Anonymous was just trying to
convey the idea that he or she doesn’t actually know what is “coming on earth for Israel.” If that’s the case, then
Anonymous’ lack of knowledge on the subject cannot be attributed to a lack of
information provided in scripture, for there is an abundance of information on
this subject found throughout scripture (and lest one be inclined to think that
we who are in the body of Christ need not concern ourselves with those parts of
scripture that have to do with Israel’s expectation, Paul himself told Timothy,
“All
scripture is inspired by God, and is beneficial for teaching, for exposure, for
correction, for discipline in righteousness, that the man of God may be
equipped, fitted out for every good act”).
Since Israel rejected
the Messiah, the kingdom is put on hold for them, but does it mean that the
kingdom is on hold for those chosen in grace? “Callousness on Israel has come
in part... for there is in the current era a remnant according to the choice of
grace...What Israel is seeking for, this she did not encounter, yet the chosen
encountered it.” Rom.11:5,7,25
As I’ve argued elsewhere, the “remnant
according to the choice of grace” was not constituted by members of the body of
Christ. Rather, the remnant was constituted by believing Jews in Paul’s day
(such as the “tens of thousands” of believing, law-keeping Jews in Jerusalem
referred to by James in Acts 21:20) who shared in Israel’s covenant-based
obligation and expectation.
Therefore, to be placing
so much emphasis on what God will be doing to and for Israel in the future,
which certainly will be marvelous fulfillment of scripture, but not acknowledge
what Paul said concerning Israel now in this administration is not ideal, to
say the least:
“For they are not all
Israel who are descended from Israel; neither are they all children because
they are Abraham's descendants (seed), but: 'THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS
(SEED) WILL BE NAMED.' That is, it is not the children of the flesh, who are
children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants
(seed). Rom.9:6-8
Anonymous misunderstands Paul here.
Paul was not, in Romans 9:6-8, broadening
the term “Israel” to include believing Gentiles (such as the ones to whom Paul
was writing); rather, Paul was narrowing
the term to include only those members of God’s covenant people who – like the
twelve apostles – had come to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and who will be part of the “all Israel” that is to be saved when the new covenant
goes into effect (Romans 11:25-28). In other words, Paul was here referring to
the chosen “remnant” within Israel
“according to the flesh.”
SEPARATED OR JOINED?
It's rather troubling to
read a well known and respected scholar when writing about The Gospel of the
Kingdom, state that, “we must not confuse or join together things which God has
separated”. Where is that written? What has God separated? What?! What was once
separated because of fleshly distinctions God has now joined together in
Christ. However, what is confusing, is to say we must not join together what
God has separated, when He actually says that He has joined them!
Anonymous’ article ends in the same
question-begging way that it begins (and with which it continues). Anonymous
takes what is true for those in the body of Christ (i.e., the truth that Jews
and Gentiles/circumcised and uncircumcised have been unified in one body, as
revealed in Paul’s letters alone) and then simply assumes that every believing Jew during the Acts era
was a member of this company of saints (which, it should be emphasized, came
into existence after the company of
saints to which most believing Jews belonged during the early “Acts era”).
Rather than proving that most believing Israelites were members of the body of
Christ, Anonymous simply assumes that
they were, and then argues from this assumption-based premise.
Anonymous’ complaint is that some are “separating
what God has joined together.” However, if – as I’ve argued in greater depth
elsewhere - the body of Christ is (and always has been) distinct from Israel,
and most Jewish believers during the Acts era belonged to the un-calloused
remnant among God’s covenant people, then it’s Anonymous who is guilty of promoting confusion among the saints by attempting
to blur the lines between that which God himself has made a distinction between,
and wills to keep distinct until the consummation of the eons.
No comments:
Post a Comment