According
to Scripture, the kingdom of God is going to be established on the earth
after Christ returns to earth. Consider, for example, the following words declared by Christ to his disciples in Luke 21:27-31:
“And then they shall be seeing the Son of Mankind
coming in a cloud with power and much glory. Now at the beginning of these
occurrences, unbend and lift up your heads, because your deliverance is drawing
near.”
And He told them a parable: “Perceive the fig tree
and all the trees. Whenever they should be already budding, you, observing for
yourselves, know it is because summer is already near. Thus you also, whenever you may be perceiving these things occurring,
know that near is the kingdom of God.”
I believe the kingdom of God to which Christ referred in the above passage is the same kingdom of God to which he referred throughout his earthly ministry
(e.g., in Luke 8:1; 9:2, 11; 11:2; 12:32; 13:28-29; 18:28-30). And according to what we read above, the coming of this kingdom is inseparably connected with the coming of Christ “with power and much glory” (an event which will involve the “deliverance” of the
believers who will be alive on the earth when this event takes place).
Now, according to some students of scripture, there is a prophesied “kingdom of God” that is going to be established on the earth approximately 500 years before Christ returns to earth and establishes the kingdom of God that we find referred to in the above verses. Most proponents of this view believe that this kingdom will exist on the earth before the thousand years referred to in Rev. 20:4-6 (in other words, it will be a “premillennial” kingdom). According to this position, Christ will not be personally/bodily present on the earth during the time of this premillennial kingdom.” Rather, it is believed that Christ will be governing earth’s affairs from heaven during this time. It is not until after the approximately 500 year-long “premillennial kingdom era” has run its course that Christ’s return to earth in power and glory takes place.
Now, according to some students of scripture, there is a prophesied “kingdom of God” that is going to be established on the earth approximately 500 years before Christ returns to earth and establishes the kingdom of God that we find referred to in the above verses. Most proponents of this view believe that this kingdom will exist on the earth before the thousand years referred to in Rev. 20:4-6 (in other words, it will be a “premillennial” kingdom). According to this position, Christ will not be personally/bodily present on the earth during the time of this premillennial kingdom.” Rather, it is believed that Christ will be governing earth’s affairs from heaven during this time. It is not until after the approximately 500 year-long “premillennial kingdom era” has run its course that Christ’s return to earth in power and glory takes place.
One
of the original proponents of this theory (if he wasn’t the originator of the
theory) was Bible teacher Otis Q. Sellers. According to a dispensational chart found on Sellers’ “Seed and
Bread” ministry website, God is, at some future time, going to “literally
invade the earth with His Spirit, taking over the governments of all nations to
remake them.” This 500+ year-long premillennial kingdom era was
further specified by Sellers as being identical with the “day of Christ” that Paul
referred to several times in his letters. And the act of divine intervention
through which this pre-kingdom kingdom era was thought by Sellers to arrive was
referred to as the “Blazing Forth of Christ” (with “blazing forth” being,
apparently, Sellers’ own preferred translation of the Greek word epiphaneia, which is a term usually
translated as “advent” or “appearing”).
Note:
For the most part I will be abbreviating “premillennial kingdom” as simply “PK.”
The PK position vs. Scripture
on the time of the resurrection of the dead
There
are, I believe, a number of problems with Sellers’ PK theory that should lead
the student of scripture to reject it as erroneous. One such problem was first
articulated to me by my friend and fellow believer, Phillip
Garrison.
According to the chart explaining the chronology of events affirmed by the PK position, people are going to be resurrected and judged during the entire duration of this premillennial kingdom era (this event is referred to on the chart as “Resurrections to Life in Order”). When this premillennial kingdom era begins, we’re told that Christ will “determine who among the living is worthy to continue to live and who among the dead shall be raised, and in what order to have a portion in the life of the Kingdom of God.” This being the case, it would mean that the “Resurrections to Life in Order” is chronologically prior to (by more than 500 years) the event described by Paul in 1 Thess. 4:15-17 – an event which, according to the chart, involves the return of Christ to earth just prior to the commencement of his millennial reign. However, as Phillip has rightly observed, Paul only spoke of the resurrection of those to whom he wrote as taking place at the time of the event described in 1 Thess. 4:15-17 (see also 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 50-55). Since the PK teaching has the resurrection of believers taking place 500+ years before the event described by Paul in the above verses, the two teachings are chronologically incompatible.
According to the chart explaining the chronology of events affirmed by the PK position, people are going to be resurrected and judged during the entire duration of this premillennial kingdom era (this event is referred to on the chart as “Resurrections to Life in Order”). When this premillennial kingdom era begins, we’re told that Christ will “determine who among the living is worthy to continue to live and who among the dead shall be raised, and in what order to have a portion in the life of the Kingdom of God.” This being the case, it would mean that the “Resurrections to Life in Order” is chronologically prior to (by more than 500 years) the event described by Paul in 1 Thess. 4:15-17 – an event which, according to the chart, involves the return of Christ to earth just prior to the commencement of his millennial reign. However, as Phillip has rightly observed, Paul only spoke of the resurrection of those to whom he wrote as taking place at the time of the event described in 1 Thess. 4:15-17 (see also 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 50-55). Since the PK teaching has the resurrection of believers taking place 500+ years before the event described by Paul in the above verses, the two teachings are chronologically incompatible.
As is
the case with Paul, Christ’s teaching concerning the time of the resurrection
is also inconsistent with the PK position. In John’s account, Christ referred
to the day on which the resurrection of believers is to take place as “the last
day” (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; see also Martha’s words in John 11:24). But why
would Christ refer to an approximately 500-year-long period of time that is to
precede an even longer period of time (his millennial reign) as the “last day?”
Understood as a reference to the premillennial kingdom era, the expression
would be inexplicable.
The
expression “the last day” is most likely an allusion to the prophecy found in
Daniel 12:12-13, where it is revealed by a celestial messenger that the
resurrection of Daniel (and, by implication, all righteous Israelites) will
take place “at the end of the days” referred to in v. 12 (which will be 75 days
after the 70th heptad
comes to an end). If this is the case, then the “last day” to which Christ
referred will take place in the eon to come (for it was clearly the belief of
both Christ and his apostles that the present eon will end – and the next eon
will begin – with the coming of Christ in power and glory with all his holy
messengers; see Matt. 24:3, 29-31; cf. 13:36-43; 19:23-30).
Confirming
this chronology concerning the time of the resurrection are Christ’s words in Luke
20:34-36, where we find it taught that the resurrection of those Israelites
“deemed worthy” will not take place during this
eon but rather in “that eon” – i.e.,
the eon that is to succeed the present one, and during which “eonian life” will
be enjoyed by believers. It is thus after
Christ’s eon-terminating return to earth – and not any time prior to this – that the resurrection of
all “just” and “worthy” Israelites will take place, and they will be repaid for
their good works (Luke 14:14; cf. Matt. 16:27). But this, of course,
contradicts the PK position (which, again, says that the “resurrections to
life” of those deemed worthy by Christ will begin at least 490 years prior to Christ’s return to earth at the
end of the eon). Thus, both the words of Paul and Christ contradict the PK
position concerning the time of the resurrection of the dead.
The PK position vs. Scripture
on when believers will enjoy Christ’s presence
As
noted earlier, the PK teaching holds that, although Christ will be governing
the affairs of earth during the premillennial kingdom era, Christ will not be personally present with believers on
earth during this time. He will be exercising his authority over the earth from
his throne in heaven. One proponent of the PK theory explained this point as
follows: “Jesus Christ can rule from heaven before
He returns to earth. This is the seasons of refreshing which will last at least
490 years…When Jesus Christ personally returns He isn’t returning to govern. He
will have already been doing that for many years before. When Jesus Christ
returns He does so in order to be present.”
Once
again, Paul’s words contradict this position. According to Paul, the
resurrection of the “dead in Christ” (as well as the change of the saints who
will be alive at the time) will occur right before they are snatched away to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess.
4:15-17). In other words, the event that Paul understood to involve the
resurrection of those in Christ (which included those who were dead when he
wrote to the Thessalonians) will also
involve their being introduced into the presence of Christ. Similarly, in 1
Cor. 15:23, the resurrection of “those who are Christ’s” is associated with
Christ’s presence (literally,
“BESIDE-BEING”) – i.e., his close proximity to believers rather than his absence from us (which characterizes the
present state of affairs, while he remains in heaven).
It is
equally evident from 2 Corinthians 5 that Paul believed that the resurrection
of believers will involve being introduced into the presence of Christ. For
Paul, remaining in this mortal, corruptible state meant being away from Christ,
while being resurrected and vivified to enjoy eonian life in a future, immortal
body meant being “at home” with Christ (2 Cor. 5:6-10). Paul expressed the same
idea and expectation in Phil. 1:23 (cf. Phil. 3:20-21). Similarly, Paul’s words
in Col. 3:1-4 also imply that our post-death existence will involve being
together with Christ. Since the PK teaching is inconsistent with what Paul made
known in these passages, it should be rejected by all who hold to the
inspiration and authority of what Paul wrote.
Scripture vs. the PK position
on when the kingdom of God will be present on earth
The
prophecies of the book of Daniel concerning the time of the commencement of the
kingdom of God also contradict the PK theory. From the beginning of Christ’s
earthly ministry it was declared that the era had been fulfilled and that the
kingdom of God (or “kingdom of the heavens”) was “near” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Mark
1:15; Luke 4:43; 8:1). The basis for the interchangeable expressions “kingdom
of God” and “kingdom of the heavens” used by Christ is found in the words of
Daniel 2:44:
“In their days, that is, of these kings, the God of the heavens shall set up a kingdom that for the eons
shall not come to harm, nor shall His kingdom be left to another people. It
shall pulverize and terminate all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for the
eons.”
According
to this prophecy, the kingdom of God will not be set up on the earth until the “days…of these kings.” The “kings”
referred to in this verse are ten kings who will be on earth during the time of
the fourth worldwide kingdom depicted in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 2:32-33,
40-43). This kingdom and its kings are referred to again in Daniel 7. There, we
find described a vision that Daniel had in which this kingdom is symbolically
depicted as a frightening, ten-horned beast (v. 7, vv. 19-26) – with the ten
horns being explained as symbolizing ten kings who will have authority within
this kingdom. We also find in this chapter that the final world ruler to
persecute the saints of Israel will become the dominant ruler of this last-days
kingdom. He will be contemporaneous with (and ultimately come to be superior to)
the ten initial kings that will have authority within this kingdom. We also
know that this will be the final dominant Gentile kingdom that will be present
on the earth at the time of Christ’s coming to establish the kingdom of God on
earth (Dan. 7:13-14, 26-27).
According
to the book of Daniel, then, the kingdom of God/kingdom of the heavens will not
be set up on the earth at any point prior
to the fourth worldwide, Gentile kingdom prophesied in chapters 2 and 7.
This is consistent with Christ’s words to his disciples in Luke 21:25-31, where
the coming of the kingdom of God is inseparable from the return of Christ with
power and glory at the end of this eon, and is said to come only after the events of which Christ spoke
throughout this prophetic discourse begin occurring. The idea that there will
be a Messiah-governed “kingdom of God” on earth before the kingdom referred to in Daniel 2:44 is, therefore,
incompatible with these facts.
PK Proof-Texts Examined
Acts 3:19-21
Despite
the inconsistencies between the above verses of scripture and the PK position,
those holding to this theory believe there are a few verses which support it,
and which only make sense within the paradigm of this theory. One such text is
Acts 3:19-21. One proponent of this theory – Dan Sheridan – wrote the following
in defense of the PK theory:[1]
“[Acts 3:19-21] has been interpreted by common orthodoxy as
follows: if Israel had repented then Jesus would have come back in the Acts
period.”
Dan then challenges this commonly-held view by noting that the
following things would not have happened if Israel had repented in Peter’s day:
1. The coming of Elijah to restore all things.
2. The seasons of refreshing.
3. The coming Anti-Christ.
4. The tribulations period.
Dan
then concluded, “So the common dispensational
orthodoxy is wrong.”
It
may very well be the case that at least some “dispensationalist Christians”
mistakenly believe that, when Peter addressed the crowds at Solomon’s portico,
there was a genuine possibility that the nation of Israel (or, at least, the
majority of people within the nation in that day) might have repented of their rejection of Jesus, and embraced him
as their Messiah. According to this mistaken view, God was essentially
“offering Israel the kingdom” through the ministry of Peter and the other
apostles, and Israel had it within her power to accept or reject this “offer.”
But since the majority of the people constituting the Jewish nation didn’t
repent at that time, God (according to the position Dan is criticizing) had to
reluctantly “withdraw” his offer, postpone his intention to restore the kingdom
to Israel, and raise up Paul to bring salvation to the nations instead (which
would make the present state of affairs God’s “plan B”).
Of
course, this view is completely inconsistent with the scriptural
truth that
God is operating all in accord with the counsel of his will, and even those
with a “watered-down” view of God’s sovereignty would likely find it
objectionable. While it’s true that Peter explained what will happen when
Israel repents (indeed, God had given his word that one day Israel will repent and that these glorious consequences
will follow their repentance), we also know that Israel’s repentance at that
time was not in accord with God’s
purpose. In hindsight, we know that there was no possibility whatsoever that
Israel could have, or might have, repented. There was no “chance” that what
Peter said would happen when Israel repented might have taken place within
Peter’s lifetime. It was simply not meant to be, because God didn’t intend for
it to be.
Even
as the words recorded in Acts 3:19-21 were leaving Peter’s lips, it was God’s
plan all along that a new, secret administration would soon be beginning – an
administration that would be given to the apostle Paul, and which would involve
both Jews and (primarily) Gentiles being justified by faith apart from works,
their being conciliated to God, and their becoming members of the body of
Christ. But what needs to be emphasized is that, not only was Peter not aware
of this secret administration when he spoke the words recorded in Acts 3, but
not even Paul himself knew how long this secret administration was to last
before being succeeded by a new era.
So
Dan is correct that the four things he lists could not have happened in Peter’s
day (since, again, it was never God’s
purpose that Israel, as a nation, repent at that time). However, Dan then went
on to attribute this error committed by some dispensational Christians to “the
theory that in order for God to govern the world Jesus Christ needs to be
personally present.” In other words, Dan believed this error was due to a failure
to understand and believe in the premillennial kingdom position! It’s an odd
diagnosis, to be sure, since there are many “dispensationalists” who would
whole-heartedly agree with Dan that Israel couldn’t have actually repented in
Peter’s day (and that the events Dan lists couldn’t have taken place), but who also completely reject his premillennial
kingdom position (or, as is more likely, are simply ignorant of it).
According
to Dan, there are at least four things that have to happen before Christ
returns. These four things are:
1.
Israel must submit.
2.
Israel must turn toward God.
3.
Then Israel will be cleansed.
4.
Then the seasons of refreshing will come from the face of the Lord.
5.
THEN – and ONLY THEN, will Jesus Christ return.
Dan went
on to say, “The fourth item is what causes many to stumble. For some reason
people have a hard time believing that Jesus Christ can rule from heaven before
He returns to earth. This is the seasons of refreshing which will last at least
490 years – more on that in future audios. When Jesus Christ personally returns
He isn’t returning to govern. He will have already been doing that for many
years before. When Jesus Christ returns He does so in order to BE PRESENT.”
Is
this, in fact, what Peter believed and was making known in Acts 3:19-21? Let’s
take a look at this passage from the Concordant Version:
“Repent, then, and turn about for the erasure of your sins, so that
seasons of refreshing should be coming from the face of the Lord, and He should
dispatch the One fixed upon before for you, Christ Jesus, Whom heaven must
indeed receive until the times of restoration of all which God speaks through
the mouth of His holy prophets who are from the eon.”
Here
is the same passage from Young’s Literal Translation:
“…reform ye, therefore, and turn back, for your sins being blotted
out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and He
may send Jesus Christ who before hath been preached to you, whom it behoveth
heaven, indeed, to receive till times of a restitution of all things, of which
God spake through the mouth of all His holy prophets from the age.”
It’s true that, according to Peter,
Christ’s return will only take place after
Israel has repented. However, contrary to Dan’s claims, the “seasons of
refreshing” that are to “be coming from the face of
the Lord” (v. 19) need not be understood as occurring before the time when Christ is dispatched/sent by God (v. 20).
Rather, these “seasons” can be understood as beginning when Christ is dispatched.
In
his article IMPLICATIONS OF THE KINGDOM
IN ACTS 3:19–21, Peter Goeman notes the following concerning the connection
between verses 19 and 20:
“The second part of the purpose clause that began in verse 19 (ὅπως
ἂν) continues in verse 20, “and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed
for you” (καὶ ἀποστείλῃ τὸν προκεχειρισμένον ὑμῖν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν). The καὶ +
subjunctive indicates an equal purpose, which is not to be separated in thought
from the prior purpose in the latter part of verse 19. The sending of the
Messiah and the “times of refreshing” are joined by one purpose conjunction,
showing their mutual relationship” (https://www.tms.edu/m/msj26f.pdf).
Thus,
the event referred to in v. 19 (i.e., the coming of the seasons of refreshing
from the face of the Lord) should not be understood as taking place apart from the event referred to in v.
20 (the dispatching of Christ Jesus by God). God’s dispatching of Christ is the basis for the coming of the seasons
of refreshing from the face of the Lord, and verse 20 should thus be understood
as clarifying what Peter had in mind when he spoke the words recorded in v. 19. This
view is, I believe, confirmed by what Peter declared next, in v. 21: Christ
must remain in heaven “until the times of restoration of all which God speaks through
the mouth of His holy prophets who are from the eon.” This doesn’t mean that
the times of restoration must come and go before
Christ can return; it means that they won’t begin to occur until Christ returns. It is Christ’s return – and not anything taking place during his
absence - that initiates the times of restoration.
But
what are the times of restoration to which Peter referred? The word translated
as “restoration” in v. 21 does not appear elsewhere in Scripture. However, as
noted by Goeman in his article, the verbal
cognate is used in Jer. 16:15 (LXX) in reference to God’s promise to restore Israel to the land which was
given to their fathers (cf. Jer. 23:8; 24:6; Hos. 11:11). And it is this very
verbal cognate that appears in Acts 1:6, where we find Christ’s apostles asking
him, “Lord, art thou at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?” And shortly after
answering their question (and beginning his ascent to heaven), two messengers
appear and encourage them with the fact that Christ will be returning to earth
in the same manner in which they were watching him ascend to heaven.
These
verses indicate that Christ’s apostles understood the restoration of
the kingdom to Israel as something connected with Christ’s presence (i.e., his presence after returning to earth) rather than
his ongoing absence. But what needs to be emphasized is that the “seasons of refreshing” and the “times
of restoration” of which Peter spoke refer
to the same time period. And this time period cannot begin until Christ is dispatched from heaven.
Dan is, therefore, mistaken to think that Peter’s words in Acts 3:19-21 support
the PK position.
Matthew
12:14-21
Another passage thought
to support the idea that Christ will be governing earth’s affairs from heaven
for approximately 500 years before
his eon-terminating return to earth is Matthew 12:14-21.[2] There, we read the
following:
“Now, coming out, the Pharisees held a consultation against Him, so
that they should be destroying Him. Now Jesus, knowing it, retires thence. And
many follow Him, and He cures them all. And He warns them that they should not
be making Him manifest, that fulfilled may be that which is declared through
Isaiah the prophet, saying, Lo, My Boy Whom I prefer! My Beloved, in Whom My
soul delights! I shall be placing My spirit on Him, And He shall be reporting
judging to the nations. He will not be brawling, nor clamoring, Nor will anyone
be hearing His voice in the squares. A reed that is bruised He will not be
fracturing. And flax that is smouldering He will not be extinguishing...Till He
should ever be casting out judging for victory. And on His name the nations will
be relying.”
That which Matthew
interpreted as a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy (Isaiah 42:1-4) is the
warning that Christ gave to the multitudes (after he’d healed them) to not “be
making him manifest.” Although Christ’s public ministry involved numerous
healings and other miraculous works, Christ wanted to remain as obscure and “under
the radar” as possible at this point in time. This is consistent with the
so-called “Messianic Secret” motif that runs throughout the Gospel accounts,
where we find Christ repeatedly forbidding those who recognized his Messianic
identity from telling anyone (Mt. 8:3-4; 16:15-20; Mk. 1:24-25, 34; 3:11-12;
5:42-43; 8:29-30; Luke 4:41, etc.). Concerning this motif, R.C. Sproul notes
the following:
“Most of the nation was looking for a Messiah who would be a political
revolutionary. They were looking for a king who would come in and release the
nation from Roman domination. The demand for the release of Barabbas, a
political zealot, instead of Christ (Matt 27:15-23) shows that most of Israel
wanted a political savior. While these expectations were not wholly erroneous,
most of the nation failed to grasp the full role of the Messiah. They failed to
grasp the expectations in the prophetic writings (especially Isaiah 53) that
the Messiah would not only be a political ruler but also a suffering servant.
Jesus kept His identity hidden so that He would not encourage these incomplete
expectations and bring upon Himself the wrath of the Roman government before the
appointed time.”[3]
As is evident from
Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah’s prophecy, the work of the Messiah during
his earthly ministry would be characterized by gentleness, meekness and
forbearance. There would be no violent revolt or display of forceful opposition
against his enemies. Christ’s work on earth would not be like that of a Jewish
revolutionary (i.e., a Zealot) loudly rallying followers and using aggressive force
to overthrow the Romans. This, I believe, is the meaning of the imagery of vv.
19-20, where we read that the Messiah would “not be brawling, nor clamoring, nor will anyone be hearing his
voice in the squares.” The imagery of a “bruised
reed” being “fractured” and a “smoldering flax” being “extinguished” can be
understood as conveying a similar idea.
The state of affairs
figuratively represented through this imagery was contrary to the expectations
of most Jews (and even of Christ’s own disciples), who thought that the advent
of the Messiah would immediately (or “instantly”) usher in the kingdom of God
(Luke 19:11), put an end to all the injustice in the world, and liberate God’s
people from the oppressive rule of unbelieving, pagan Gentiles. But there was
much that had to take place – and much that Christ would have to do in
fulfillment of prophecy – before this
day of victory could come. And this brings us to the last part of Matthew
12:20, which begins with the little conjunction, “till.”
According to A.E. Knoch,
the word translated “till” here (heōs) points out “the limit, usually of time.” Contrary to what PK
theorists have mistakenly read into this passage, we aren’t being told that
this peaceful, non-violent state of affairs would eventually lead to the “victory” in view here. Rather,
the time during which Christ will be enduring with much forbearance the
injustice in the world and the evil opposition of unbelievers (a forbearance
which, again, characterized his earthly ministry) will continue “TILL he may
put forth judgment to victory” (Young's) – with the word “till” marking a
contrastive change in the state of
affairs. In other words, the word “till” marks
the end of the time during which the Messiah won’t be exercising judgment
(as was the case during his earthly ministry), and the beginning of the time when he will be exercising judgment. As Paul declared in Acts 17:30-31,
God has “fixed a day on which he
will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed...”
Moreover, the word
translated “put forth,” “send forth” or “cast out” in v. 20 is ekballō, which literally means “to
eject.” It suggests a sudden and violent action, not a peaceful transition. The “judgment” (or “judging”) in view is
going to be forcefully “put forth” (or “cast out”) into the world. And this
judging will be “to (or “for”) victory” (eis
nikos). That is, “victory” will be the end
result of this judgment being “put forth.” But what is the “victory” in
view here? I think the context in which this prophecy is found in Isaiah
provides us with the answer. In Isaiah 42:13-14, we read,
“Yahweh goes out like a mighty man, like a man of
war he stirs up his zeal; he cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself
mighty against his foes. For a long time I have held my peace; I
have kept still and restrained myself; now I will cry out like a woman in
labor; I will gasp and pant.”
When understood in light of these
verses, I think it can be reasonably inferred that
the “victory” referred to in Matt. 12:20 will come when God – through the Man
he has appointed – will no longer hold his peace and remain quiet, but will “show
himself mighty against his foes.” That is, the time when Christ will be “casting
out” (or “putting forth”) this “judgment to victory” will be during the coming
“days of vengeance” which will precede and climax in Christ’s coming in power
and glory to establish the kingdom of God on the earth – i.e., when Christ will
be “seen a second time” (Heb 9:28).
It is at this time – when Christ’s restraint and forbearance (as described in
the previous part the prophecy quoted by Matthew) has come to an end – that God’s
kingdom will “break in pieces” all other kingdoms and finally “fill the whole
earth” (Dan 2:35, 44).
What’s next
for Israel?
In
another blog post in which the “pre-kingdom kingdom” theory is defended, Dan
Sheridan wrote:
“Many think the ‘Great Tribulation’ is what’s next for Israel.
Israel has gone through hell on earth since the first century. Need I have to
mention the persecutions that have befallen them? History declares! But these
sufferings haven’t changed their attitude toward Christ. This won’t take place
till the Lord shines on them from the heavens as He did with Paul.”
Dan
went on to say, “The common teaching is that this “Great
Tribulation” will be so horrible that it will finally bring Israel to their
senses. But if the past 1900 years of terrible sufferings hasn’t changed their
attitude there’s no evidence to suggest MORE suffering will open their eyes.”[4]
Dan’s argument is that God wouldn’t use affliction as a means
of restoring Israelites to proper covenant relationship with himself, since
many Israelites have gone through suffering in the past without this taking
place (Dan doesn’t specify whether he believes God can’t or simply won’t do
this). In response to this argument, let’s first assume that Dan is saying that
God can’t use affliction as a means
of restoring Israelites to proper covenant relationship with himself (which
will involve repentance and faith in Christ). Of the two options (i.e., can’t vs. won’t), this is, of course, the weaker, and requires little to be
said in response. Since there’s nothing incoherent or logically contradictory
about the idea of God’s using affliction as a means of bringing about a
positive change in people, there’s no reason to believe that God can’t do it.
Surely Dan is familiar with (and may have even experienced
firsthand) the type of scenario in which one person undergoes a positive change
while another person either remains relatively unchanged or is changed for the worse
(perhaps becoming depressed or bitter) after going through the same or similar
trial/affliction. The mere fact that affliction doesn’t always (or even typically) result in positive change for a person
whenever it takes place simply means that God doesn’t always intend for it to have this result. It
doesn’t mean that God can’t use
affliction in this way. So I see no good reason to think that God can’t use
affliction as a means of bringing about such a positive change for certain
Israelites at a future time.
Now, I’m not exactly sure which teachers Dan had in mind when
he described what he called “the common teaching.” In any case, it’s not my
understanding that affliction, in and of itself, is to be the sole means by which God brings
Israelites to repentance and faith in Christ. To affirm that trial and affliction
will play an essential role in Israel’s being brought to repentance and faith
in Christ does not mean believing that affliction alone will be sufficient to accomplish this. The mere fact that a
time of great affliction is “what’s next for Israel” does not mean that there won’t
be other factors involved in the
bringing about of Israel’s restoration (such as, for example, the miraculous
prophetic ministry of the “two witnesses” referred to in Revelation 11; see the
following study for a more in-depth consideration of this subject: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-timing-of-snatching-away-in_18.html).
But even if God can
use affliction as a means of restoring a certain number of Israelites to proper
covenant relationship with himself, do we have scriptural justification for
believing that God will? I think so. And
– strangely enough – Dan actually referenced a chapter from Ezekiel in which
this very idea is taught. In Ezekiel 20:34-38, we read that God promised Israel:
“I will
bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you
are scattered, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with indignation poured out. And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will enter
into judgment with you face to
face. As
I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of
Egypt, so I will enter into judgment
with you, declares the Lord Yahweh. I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the
bond of the covenant. I will
purge out the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against me. I will bring them out of the land where they sojourn, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am Yahweh.”
It is evident from the above passage that the fulfillment of
God’s promise to bring Israel “into the bond of covenant” will involve some
sort of affliction coming upon Israel, which will be the means by which God
will separate “the rebels” and “those who transgress against me” from those
Israelites whom God is going to save. Consider also the following passage from Zechariah,
which (like the previous passage) also concerns the generation of Israelites
who will be alive when the “day of the Lord” begins:
“And it will come to be that in all the land [the
land of Judea], averring is Yahweh, two divisions in it shall be cut off and
shall decease. Yet the third shall be left in it. And I will bring the third into the fire. And I will refine them as
silver is refined. And I will test them as gold is tested. It shall call in My
Name, and I shall answer it. I will say, ‘My people is it.’ And it will say,
‘Yahweh is my Elohim.’
This future time is referred to as a time of “distress for
Jacob” in Jeremiah 30:5-10, and will involve the discipline and punishment of
Israel (“I will discipline you in just measure, and I will by no means leave
you unpunished”) as well as the punishment of the nations through which Israel
will be punished by God. And according to Zech. 13:8-9 and 14:1-4, this time of
judgment will involve not only distress for those living in Jerusalem, but will
also involve the majority of Israelites “in all the land” – i.e., “two
divisions” or “two-thirds” - being “cut off” (killed). However, we’re also told
that a remnant (“the third”) will be “refined” and “tested” (13:8-9). By means
of this judgment upon Israel and the severe trials it will involve, God will
not only punish Israel for their wickedness and unfaithfulness (resulting in
the “cutting off” and “decease” of the majority), but he will also restore a remnant of Israelites to
proper covenant relationship with himself. And based on the above prophesies,
this restoration will undoubtedly involve some sort of affliction coming upon
Israel prior to the return of Christ.
Dan’s second argument against the position that God will use
affliction as a means of restoring Israel to proper covenant relationship with
himself is that the means by which God will “open their eyes” and bring them to
repentance and faith in Christ will resemble Paul’s conversion on the road to
Damascus. Dan wrote:
“Saul of Tarsus, their pattern, is the example. If God had
plunged Paul into a furnace of fire, terrible suffering, it wouldn’t have
changed him one bit. What changed Paul? A great light from heaven and God
speaking to him directly from heaven. As with Israel’s pattern so with Israel.
The Tribulation isn’t on deck – a light from heaven is! God hasten it in its
day!”
The key to Dan’s argument is that Paul is “[Israel’s]
pattern” and “example.” Because Paul was brought to repentance and faith in
Christ without going through a period of great affliction and “terrible
suffering,” it follows (according Dan’s argument) that Israel’s experience will
be similar. However, this argument suffers from the following fatal flaw:
there’s simply no good reason to believe that Paul was Israel’s “pattern.” When Paul referred to himself as a pattern “of those who are about to be believing on Him for life
eonian” (1 Tim. 1:12-16), he doesn’t say that those whom he had in view
were those among the Circumcision (i.e., Israelites and proselytes). Although
Paul certainly ministered to Israelites in the synagogues during his
evangelical travels, Paul was not
“the apostle of Israel.” Instead, Paul identified himself as the “apostle of
the nations” (Rom. 11:13).
Nor was Paul a member of what he referred to as “the Israel
of God” in Galatians 6:16 and “the remnant” in Rom. 11:5. Paul’s eonian destiny
is not tied to the eonian destiny of Israel; rather, Paul was the first member
of the body of Christ, and his eonian life will be enjoyed “among the
celestials” and “in the heavens,” where Christ is presently located (2 Cor. 5:1,
8; Phil. 3:20-21; Eph. 1:3; 2:6-7). This being the case, we can conclude that
Paul considered himself a pattern not of Israel
but of those designated beforehand by God
to become members of the body of Christ during this present administration of
grace (which would include both Jews and – primarily – those among the
nations).
For part two, click here: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-refutation-of-pre-kingdom-kingdom_31.html
For part two, click here: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-refutation-of-pre-kingdom-kingdom_31.html
[1] http://sheridanvoice.com/blog/2016/03/whats-next-for-israel-is-it-the-great-tribulation-let-paul-the-pattern-declare/
Note:
Dan has, apparently, removed this article (and related articles) in which the
quoted comments are found from his blog. Since this could mean that Dan no
longer subscribes to the position he was trying to defend in the articles, my
responses below should be understood solely as responses to the position that Dan was defending, and not a response to Dan himself (who,
again, may or may not still subscribe to the position he was defending).
No comments:
Post a Comment