Is Christ presently sitting on “the throne of his glory”? (Part two)

For part one, click here: Is Christ presently sitting on “the throne of his glory”? (Part one)

A response to objections

In his article “The Kingdom of God: A Modified Understanding (part 1 of 2),”Andrew P. argues against the understanding defended in part one of this study concerning the futurity of the kingdom of God and Christ’s sitting on “the throne of his glory.”

According to Andrew, what’s revealed in the Greek Scriptures concerning the kingdom of God (which he refers to as “a present spiritual kingdom in the community of believers”) is incompatible with what he calls “a future physical kingdom centered in the land of Israel.” In response to this claim, it must be emphasized that Scripture is clear that there will, in fact, be “a future physical kingdom centered in the land of Israel.” In accord with the passages quoted in part one of this study, the geopolitical nature of the future kingdom of God is described in Ezekiel 37:20-28 as follows:

Thus says my Lord Yahweh: Behold, I shall take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will convene them from all around and bring them to their own ground. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king for them all. They shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they be divided into two kingdoms any longer. They shall not defile themselves any longer with their idol clods, with their abominations and with all their transgressions. I will save them from all their backslidings in which they have sinned and will cleanse them. They will become My people, and I Myself shall become their Elohim.

My servant David will be king over them, and there shall come to be one shepherd for them all. They shall walk in My ordinances and observe My statutes, and they will do them. Thus they will dwell on the land that I gave to My servant Jacob, in which your fathers dwelt; they will dwell on it, they and their sons and their sons’ sons throughout the eon, and David My servant will be their prince for the eon. I will contract with them a covenant of peace; It shall come to be an eonian covenant with them; I will establish them and increase them; I will put My sanctuary in their midst for the eon, And My tabernacle will be over them. Thus I will become their Elohim, And they shall become My people. Then the nations will know that I, Yahweh, am hallowing Israel When My sanctuary comes to be in their midst for the eon.

Unlike the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar or the four beasts seen by Daniel (which represent earthly kingdoms), the people, places and states of affairs that we read about in this prophecy do not symbolically represent anything. The land, people and sanctuary of which we read should be understood just as literally as (for example) the city and the donkey referred to in Zech. 9:8-9. And when we read that God’s re-gathered people, Israel, will “dwell on the land…in which [their] fathers dwelt,” the land to which God is referring will be the geographical territory of the kingdom that God is going to set up on the earth (the boundaries of which are specified in Gen. 15:18-20, Num. 34:1-15 and elsewhere).

In accord with this understanding, we know that each of the kingdoms preceding the kingdom of God have been geopolitical in nature, and that the fourth kingdom will be as well. We therefore have good reason to believe that the kingdom that God is going to set up on the earth after the fourth kingdom has been destroyed (Dan. 2:44) will be just as geopolitical in nature as the kingdoms preceding it, and will involve a certain people dwelling in a certain geographical territory and living under the reign of a king whose throne will be within the territory of the kingdom. While there will certainly be more to the kingdom of God than this, it will not be less geopolitical in nature than the kingdoms represented in the statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.

The fact is that there is no inconsistency between what we read in the Greek Scriptures concerning the kingdom of God and the existence of “a future physical kingdom centered in the land of Israel.” It’s clear that, even in Ezekiel (where we find numerous details about the “physical aspect” of the future kingdom), there will be an essentially spiritual aspect or dimension to the kingdom that’s going to be restored to Israel (Ezekiel 36:25-27; 37:14). Thus, even if there is a “present phase” of the kingdom of God on the earth today, there’s no good reason to reject the view that everything prophesied in Ezekiel and elsewhere concerning the kingdom of God will be fulfilled in accord with a literal understanding of what’s prophesied. It’s a false dichotomy to believe that the future kingdom of God must be either a “fully spiritual kingdom” or a “fully physical kingdom.” Instead, it will be both spiritual in some ways and physical in other ways. In fact, those who believe in a presently-realized kingdom of God must believe that there is a “physical dimension” to the kingdom. For if the kingdom of God is now on the earth and includes human beings, then the territory and subjects of the kingdom are physical in nature.

Andrew goes on to argue that one of the key prophecies in Ezekiel that pertains to the kingdom of God – i.e., that which is found in Ezekiel 40-48 – cannot be understood as having a literal fulfillment (and that we therefore have good reason to reject the view that there will be a “future physical kingdom centered in the land of Israel”). However, as I’ve argued in my article “A Defense of Israel’s Expectation” (which has been updated/expanded to include a response to some of Andrew’s objections), there is no conflict between what’s taught in the Greek Scriptures and a literal interpretation/future fulfillment of what’s revealed in Ezekiel 40-48.[i]

One of Andrew’s main arguments in defense of his understanding of the kingdom of God is that Christ is, at this present time, seated on the throne of his glory, and has been since the time of his ascension to heaven. As we’ve seen, this view is erroneous; Christ himself understood there to be distinction between his current location at God’s right hand (where he sits with God on God’s throne) and his future location on his own throne (the throne of his glory).

Andrew begins his defense of the view that Christ is now sitting on the throne of his glory by appealing to Daniel 7:13-14. Here’s how these verses read in the CVOT:

“Perceiving am I in the visions of the night, and behold, on the clouds of the heavens, One as a son of a mortal is arriving: Unto the Transferrer of Days He reaches, and they bring Him near before Him; to Him is granted jurisdiction and esteem and a kingdom, and all the peoples and leagues and language-groups shall serve Him; His jurisdiction, as an eonian jurisdiction, will not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be confined.”

We’re not told in this prophecy that Christ began to reign over his kingdom – and that “all nations, tribes, and languages” began serving him – as soon as “he came to the Ancient of Days, and was brought near to Him.” Just as the defeat of the prophesied fourth kingdom (see Dan. 7:11, 26) didn’t take place when Christ ascended to heaven and was brought into Yahweh’s presence, so Christ’s reign (and his being served by “all nations, tribes and languages”) didn’t take place when this occurred, either.

In the same way, there is an unspecified period of time between the time when Christ is invited by Yahweh to sit at his right hand and the time when his enemies are made his footstool (Psalm 110:1, 5-6), and Christ begins ruling “in the midst of [his] enemies” (v. 2). Christ’s reign from “the throne of his glory” – when “all nations, tribes, and languages” will be serving him – begins after (and not before) Yahweh makes his enemies his footstool.

Andrew went on to state that “Jesus connected his enthronement to his sitting at God’s right hand (Matt. 26:64), which undoubtedly took place at his resurrection and exaltation (Acts 7:55-56; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 10:12).”

However, Christ’s sitting at God’s right hand took place forty days after his resurrection (i.e., after he ascended to God) and not “at his resurrection.” And in Matt. 26:64, Jesus did not equate his position at God’s right hand (“sitting at the right hand of power”) with his sitting on the throne of his glory. As demonstrated in part one of this study, it is after Christ has come “in his glory, and all the holy messengers with him” that he shall then “be seated on the throne of his glory” (Matt. 25:31). This didn’t take place at Christ’s resurrection or at his ascension. It has yet to occur.

Moreover, even according to Andrew’s view, the event referred to in Matt. 25:31 didn’t take place when Christ was resurrected, or even when he ascended to heaven. According to Andrew’s understanding, the coming of Christ “in his glory” (and the subsequent gathering and judgment of the nations) occurred approximately 40 years later – i.e., in 70 AD, when Jerusalem fell to the Romans.

“The same thing is shown by the parable in Luke 19:12, in which Jesus describes himself symbolically: “A nobleman went away to a distant country to receive for himself a kingdom, and then return.” Here, the return of Jesus is clearly placed after his reception of the kingdom of God. Thus, Jesus received the kingdom of God in the past, not in the future.”

The view for which I’ve argued concerning when Christ will begin his reign over the kingdom of God (and will thus “sit on the throne of his glory”) is actually confirmed by the parable to which Andrew is referring. In Luke 19:11-15 we read the following:

Now at their hearing these things, adding, [Jesus] spoke a parable because of His being near Jerusalem, and they are supposing that instantly the kingdom of God is about to be looming up. He said, then, “A certain man, a noble, went into a far country, to obtain for himself a kingdom, and to return. Now, calling ten of his slaves, he gives to them ten minas and said to them, ‘Go into business while I am coming.’ Now his citizens hated him, and they dispatch an embassy after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us!’ And, obtaining the kingdom, it occurred at his coming back, that he said also to summon to him these slaves to whom he had given the silver, that he may know what business they do.”

Although the disciples wouldn’t have understood it at the time, we can know that Christ’s ascension to heaven and his subsequent return to earth is what’s represented by the nobleman going “into a far country to obtain for himself a kingdom, and to return.” From this parable we can thus conclude the following: it is after Christ has returned (having obtained for himself a kingdom) that his reign of Christ over his kingdom will begin.

It should be emphasized that Jesus didn’t equate his obtaining of the kingdom with his reign over the kingdom. We have good reason to distinguish the act of obtaining the kingdom from the act of reigning over the kingdom. For the implication is that the nobleman of Christ’s parable didn’t begin to reign until after he returned. In other words, he returns in order to begin his reign.

Moreover, even according to Andrew’s view of when Jesus’ “return” took place, there was a chronological gap between the time when Jesus ascended to heaven to obtain his kingdom and the time when he “returned” from the “distant country” to commence his reign. Thus, what we read in Luke 19:12 is perfectly consistent with the view that Christ will sit on the throne of his glory at a future time (and that his reign from this throne will commence at this time).

Thus, regardless of whether one believes that the implied return of Christ depicted in the parable is a past event (as those holding to the “preterist” position believe) or a future event (as I believe), it’s evident that there is a chronological gap between the time when Jesus ascended to heaven to obtain his kingdom and the time when he leaves heaven (the “far country”) and returns to earth to “sit on the throne of his glory” (and thus commence his reign over the kingdom he obtained).

Appealing to the words of Peter in Acts 2:29-32, Andrew goes on to state the following:

“Here, the sitting of Jesus on David’s throne is explicitly equated with his resurrection (cf. Heb. 8:1; Rev. 3:21). This agrees with Acts 13:33, which says that Psalm 2:7 was fulfilled by Jesus’ resurrection: the previous verse states, “I have installed My king on My holy mountain Zion” (Psa. 2:6).”

Here’s how these verses read in the CLNT:

“Men! Brethren! Allow me to say to you with boldness concerning the patriarch David, that he deceases also and was entombed, and his tomb is among us until this day. Being, then, inherently, a prophet, and having perceived that God swears to him with an oath, out of the fruit of his loin to seat One on his throne, perceiving this before, he speaks concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither forsaken in the unseen, nor was His flesh acquainted with decay. This Jesus God raises, of Whom we all are witnesses.”

Peter was quoting from Psalm 16:10 and 132:11. I quoted the latter verse in part one when demonstrating that it’s Yahweh’s throne in heaven (which Christ referred to as his Father’s throne) where Christ is now seated, and that this heavenly throne is distinct from David’s throne on earth (which is the throne promised to Christ – i.e., “the throne of his glory”).

Notice that Peter didn't say Jesus has been exalted to the throne of David in Acts 2:33. Instead, Peter said that Jesus has been “exalted to the right of hand of God.” As already noted, David’s throne is consistently presented as an earthly reality involving Israel and the nations upon the earth (2 Sam. 3:10; 1 Kings 2:12; Jer. 17:25; Luke 1:32-33; Matt. 25:31). Contrary to what Andrew has inferred from the above passage, Peter’s point is that Christ’s resurrection proves that he’s the descendant of David whom God promised to put on David’s throne. The sense in which David foresaw that God would put one of his descendants on his throne when he spoke of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: The one who was prophesied to be raised by God (i.e., Jesus) is the promised descendant of David who’s going to be placed on David’s throne.

In other words, Peter’s scripture-based argument is this: Since David knew the Messiah was destined to sit upon and reign from David’s throne “for the eon,” the Messiah must be raised from the dead. A dead Messiah cannot sit upon David’s throne, so the Messiah must be resurrected. Peter is making a cause-and-effect argument here. Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven are essential steps in the process to him reigning from David’s throne in the future (which is what Psalm 110:1-2 actually predicts).

In addition to these points, it should be noted that the view that Jesus was enthroned when he was resurrected three days after his death is contrary to the points Andrew already made in support of his view. Recall that Andrew appealed to Dan. 7:13-14 and Luke 19:12 (both of which can be understood as prophecies of Jesus’ ascension to heaven) in support of his view that Jesus’ being seated “on the throne of his glory” is inseparable from Jesus’ ascension to heaven, and his being seated at the right hand of God in heaven.

Andrew went on to state the following:

“It also agrees with the book of Revelation, which claims that Jesus was already given authority over the nations and now sits upon Yahweh’s throne (Rev. 2:26-28; 3:21). According to Acts 17:7, the earliest believers were already proclaiming Jesus as king.”

In accord with the distinction I made in part one (between Christ's authority/Lordship and his reigning over the kingdom of God), having authority over the nations does not equate to reigning over the nations. Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth, but he’s not reigning over the kingdom of God yet.

Finally, one of the Old Testament prophecies about the kingdom of God is explicitly said to be fulfilled in the New Testament:

“Simeon has related how God first looked favorably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written, ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the house of David, which has fallen; from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up, so that all other peoples may seek the Lord — even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called. Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things known from long ago.’” (Acts 15:14-18)

This passage quotes Amos 9:11-15, which talks about the restoration of the house of David (v. 11) and the restoration of Israel (v. 14). But rather than applying it to the future, it is said to be fulfilled in the time of the apostles, when Jesus sat on the throne of David (Acts 2:29-32) and the Gentiles began to seek out salvation from Israel (e.g., Acts 10:22). Therefore, the inauguration of the kingdom of God has already taken place at the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, according to the New Testament.

In response to Andrew’s argument, it should be pointed out that James didn’t say that Amos 9:11-15 was “fulfilled” by the events that were taking place at that time. He said that God’s taking from among the Gentiles “a people for his name…agrees with the words of the prophets…” The expression “agrees with” doesn’t mean “fulfills.” It means there is consistency/harmony between what God was doing in James’ day and what he’s going to be doing in the future (in accord with what’s prophesied in Amos and elsewhere). In other words, by doing what he was doing in the past, God was not acting contrary to what he’s going to be doing in the future. Those who, in in James’ day, understood what God was doing at that time had no scriptural basis on which to argue that it was out of harmony with what God promised he’ll be doing in the future.

Now, in addition to believing that “the throne of his glory” is the heavenly throne on which Christ is now sitting at God’s right hand, Andrew also believes that the coming in glory of which Christ spoke in Matt. 25:31 (as well as the coming referred to in Matt. 24:30) took place in 70 AD. Andrew makes this clear elsewhere:

“…the cloud-coming of the Son of Man in v. 30 does not refer to Jesus’ bodily return to earth, but to the enthronement of Jesus and his judgment upon Israel which took place in AD 70.”

But according to Christ, being seated on the throne of his glory is an event that sequentially follows his coming in glory with all the holy messengers. And since Christ began sitting at God’s right hand after his ascension to heaven (and thus nearly 40 years before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD), we can conclude that, in Matt. 25:31, Christ wasn’t referring to 70 AD. Both Christ’s coming in his glory with all the holy messengers and his enthronement on “the throne of his glory” are future events.

Andrew goes on to write:

“Furthermore, “age-during life” is something which believers already possess in the present tense (John 5:24; 6:47; 10:28; 1 John 5:11, 13). Therefore, the promises in Matt. 19:28 must be a present reality, not yet to be fulfilled.”

Literally speaking, life eonian (or “age-during life”) is a future blessing for believers. In Luke 18:30 we read the following:

“Verily, I am saying to you that there is no one who leaves house, or wife, or brothers, or parents, or children on account of the kingdom of God, who may not by all means be getting back manyfold in this era, and in the coming eon, life eonian.”

Since “the coming eon” hadn’t yet begun when Christ declared the words recorded in this verse, we can conclude that his disciples were not yet enjoying “life eonian” (it should also be noted that even Andrew would agree that “the coming eon” was future when John wrote his Gospel, since he believes the “age to come” began in 70 AD).

That life eonian was (and is) a future blessing for believers is evident from other verses as well. Consider, for example, the following:

John 6:27

“Do not work for the food which is perishing, but for the food which is remaining for life eonian, which the Son of Mankind WILL BE giving to you…”

Romans 2:5-7

Yet, in accord with your hardness and unrepentant heart you are hoarding for yourself indignation in the day of indignation and revelation of the just judgment of God, Who WILL BE paying each one in accord with his acts: to those, indeed, who by endurance in good acts are seeking glory and honor and incorruption, life eonian…

Romans 6:21-23

What fruit, then, had you then? -- of which you are now ashamed, for, indeed, the consummation of those things is death. Yet, now, being freed from Sin, yet enslaved to God, you have your fruit for holiness. Now the consummation is life eonian. For the ration of Sin is death, yet the gracious gift of God is life eonian, in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

Titus 1:1-2

Paul, a slave of God, yet an apostle of Jesus Christ, in accord with the faith of God's chosen, and a realization of the truth, which accords with devoutness, in expectation of life eonian, which God, Who does not lie, promises before times eonian…

Titus 3:5-7 (cf. Romans 8:16-17; Ephesians 1:13, 18)

…according to His mercy, He saves us, through the bath of renascence and renewal of holy spirit, which He pours out on us richly through Jesus Christ, our Saviour, that, being justified in that One's grace, we may be becoming enjoyers, in expectation, of the allotment of life eonian.

Jude 1:20-21

Now you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith, praying in holy spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, anticipating the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ for life eonian.

In accord with the above verses, we read in John 6:51 that believers “shall be living for the eon.” The words “living for the eon” refer to the same blessing that’s in view in Luke 18:30. “The eon” in view here is “the coming eon” referred to in Luke 18:30.

When “life eonian” is referred to in Scripture as something that believers presently possess, the figure of speech known as “prolepsis” is being used. According to this figure of speech, one speaks or writes of that which is future as if it were present (or even past) in order to emphasize the certainty of its coming to pass (see, for example, Luke 20:38 [“Now God is He, not of the dead, but of the living, for all, to Him, are living”] and 2 Cor. 5:1 [“...we have a building of God, a house not made by hands, eonian, in the heavens”]).[ii]

Andrew went on to attempt to reconcile Jesus’ words in Matt. 19:28-29 with his own understanding as follows:

“How, then, can it be said that the twelve disciples “judge the twelve tribes of Israel”? First, it’s important to note that the Jews who did not believe in Jesus were “utterly cut off from the people” (Acts 3:22-23), that is, they were no longer a part of the true people of Israel (Rom. 9:6; 11:1-5). The twelve apostles were indeed appointed to lead the Israel of God, that is, the remnant of Jewish believers (Matt. 16:18-19; Eph. 2:20; Gal. 2:7-9). Therefore, they were judging true Israel after Jesus sat on his throne at his exaltation.”

But being the apostolic leaders of the remnant of believers is not the same as “sitting on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Moreover, we know that the throne to which Christ referred as “throne of his glory” is a literal throne (just as the throne on which Christ is now seated – and which makes it possible for Andrew to refer to Christ as “enthroned” – is a literal throne in heaven). And Christ declared that, just as he will be seated on a throne, so the disciples shall sit on twelve thrones. This enthronement of the twelve apostles did not take place at any time during their apostolic ministry.

Andrew: “Another possibility is that this refers to the fact that the apostles, especially Peter, were allowed to judge and condemn unbelieving Israel for the murder of Jesus (Acts 2:22-23; 3:13-15; 4:9-11; 5:30).”

But if what Andrew said earlier is valid, then the only “Israel” over which the apostles can validly be judges consists of believers. In any case, the same point made above applies here as well.

Andrew: “As for the statement that believers will “receive a hundredfold” of what they lost, this need not refer to physical blessings, but spiritual blessings. It’s nonsensical to interpret this strictly literally, as that would mean that everyone who lost a sibling or a child will receive a hundred siblings and children! Instead, this likely refers to the fact that God “has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3). Furthermore, the Markan and Lukan accounts state that the hundredfold blessings would be received “in this age” (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30), which means the disciples already received those blessings, and they cannot be physical blessings in a future kingdom.”

I am in agreement with Andrew concerning the nature of the blessings, and believe that the understanding of Matt. 19:28-29 defended earlier is completely consistent with such an understanding. The only point that needs to be made is that, in the Markan and Lukan accounts, Christ distinguished the blessings that would be received “in this era” from the blessing that will be enjoyed “in the coming eon” (i.e., eonian life). These accounts thus confirm that “life eonian” is a blessing that belongs to “the coming eon” (and not to “this era”), and will not be enjoyed before “this era” ends and “the coming eon” begins.

Andrew went on to try and reconcile his understanding of the kingdom of God with Jesus’ words in Matthew 8:11-12 and Luke 13:27-29 (concerning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and “all the prophets” being in the kingdom of God) as follows:

“The patriarchs and prophets did not receive the promises that they looked forward to by faith, although they will receive the promised salvation from sin and “be made perfect” with us at the resurrection (Heb. 11:13-16, 39-40). According to the Hebraist, believers already receive these promises now as citizens of “Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,” who “are receiving an unshakeable kingdom” (Heb. 12:22, 28). Because true Israel now receives the promises which were originally made to the patriarchs, it may be figuratively said that they are “reclining at the table” with them (Matt. 8:11), even though the patriarchs don’t exist currently.”

In response to Andrew’s remarks, let’s first consider the following questions:

1. Does a literal interpretation of Christ’s words result in some degree of absurdity, or contradict some known truth?

2. Does a figurative interpretation of Christ’s words bring some degree of clarity (or provides some degree of explanatory power) that a literal interpretation doesn’t?

It is only if the answer to both questions is “yes” that we should consider Andrew’s interpretation as having any plausibility. However, I think the answer to both questions is “no.” There is nothing absurd or incoherent about the idea of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets being present in a future kingdom of God on the earth. And there is nothing said elsewhere by Christ (or by the writers of the Greek Scriptures) that would contradict such a view. As demonstrates in part one of this study, Scripture is clear that the kingdom of God is a future reality (or that, at the very least, there is a future aspect of the kingdom of God that will be, in some important ways, quite unlike the present). Even if we were to believe that there is a presently-realized phase or stage of the kingdom of God, this would in no way preclude there being a future phase or stage of the kingdom of God in which Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets will be present.

Moreover, according to what figure of speech, exactly, can it be said that those who have died will be in the kingdom of God while certain others (who are still alive) are “cast outside” of the kingdom? According to what figure of speech, exactly, can it be said that those who have died are “reclining at the table” with those who are alive? Andrew’s appeal to “figurative language” regarding Jesus’ reference to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets being in the kingdom of God seems to be nothing more than an attempt at explaining away a clear statement of Jesus that is simply incompatible with his own views concerning the kingdom of God. It’s certainly not obvious that Jesus was using figurative language here. Jesus spoke as if he actually believed that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets will be in the kingdom of God. If Jesus didn’t believe that this would be the case, we have no good reason to think that he would’ve said what he did.

With regard to Andrew’s appeal to what’s said in Hebrews 11-12, it’s simply not the case that the Jewish believers to whom the Hebraist wrote had already received the promises to which the patriarchs and prophets looked forward by faith. The eonian salvation/allotment of the Jewish believers to whom the Hebraist wrote was just as much of a future reality for them as it was for the patriarchs.

For example, we know from Hebrews 2:5 that the salvation to which the recipients of this letter looked forward (i.e., the “allotment of salvation” referred to in Heb. 1:14) is a salvation that is going to be enjoyed on “the impending inhabited earth.” This future salvation is referred to as “eonian salvation” and “the eonian enjoyment of the allotment” elsewhere (Heb. 5:8-10; 9:15-17), and is associated with a future period of time that will follow “the consummation” (Heb. 3:6, 14; 6:11). The believers to whom this letter was written expected to “obtain the promise of” this eonian salvation the time of Christ’s return to earth (Heb. 9:15-17, 9:28; 10:25, 35-39), when the kingdom is restored to Israel (Heb. 12:25-98; cf. Luke 21:27-31; Acts 1:6). 

In accord with this point, we know from Genesis 13:14-17 and 17:7-8 that Abraham himself is going to enjoy an allotment in the land promised to him and his offspring. In these verses we read the following:

And Yahweh Elohim says to Abram after Lot was parted from him, “Lift your eyes, pray, and see. From the place where you now are, northward and toward the south-rim and eastward and seaward, for all the land which you are seeing, to you am I giving it, and to your seed, till the eon. And I make your seed as the soil of the land. Could a man count the soil of the land, moreover, then your seed shall be counted. Rise, walk in the land, its length and its width, for to you am I giving it, and to your seed, for the eon.”

“And I set up My covenant between Me and you, and your seed after you, for their generations, for a covenant eonian, to become your Elohim and your seed’s after you. And I give to you and to your seed after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for a holding eonian (or “a possession age-during”).

Compare these passages with Exodus 32:11-13 and 1 Chronicles 16:12-18 (where God’s promise to give the land of Canaan to the “seed of Israel” as an allotment is referred to as a “covenant eonian”). The words “till the eon,” “for the eon,” “a covenant eonian” and “a holding/possession eonian” indicate that God’s intention has always been that the offspring of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to whom the land of Canaan has been promised will possess and enjoy this land for the period of time that Christ referred to as “the coming eon” (Luke 18:30). This enjoyment of an allotment in the land by Abraham and his (chosen/believing) offspring will, therefore, continue for much longer than the relatively brief periods of time referred to in, for example, Joshua 21:43-45 and 1 Kings 4:20-21. And since Abraham died long before Israel entered the land under Joshua’s leadership (and must therefore be restored to life in order to have an allotment in Canaan “for the eon”), it follows that what God promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob concerning the land of Canaan has yet to be fulfilled.

Moreover, the Hebraist himself made it clear that the patriarchs (including Abraham) are going to receive the same promises that the believers to whom the letter was written were expecting to receive. In fact, the author made it clear that the “homeland” and “city that has foundations” to which the patriarchs were looking forward by faith has been prepared for them by God (Heb. 11:16). The author’s point in Heb. 11:39-40 is not that those who died in faith won’t receive the promises and an allotment in the kingdom, but rather that their being “made perfect” won’t take place apart from the believers to whom the letter was written. That is, while the author was emphasizing the advantage that the believers to whom he wrote had over those who’d already died, he wasn’t saying (or implying) that the believers who’d previously died won’t be entering the kingdom over which Christ is going to be reigning when he restores the kingdom to Israel.

Andrew went on to say,

“Furthermore, Jesus’ main point in this passage is not about the actual existence of the patriarchs in the kingdom of God. Instead, he is pointing out that his hearers, despite their Jewish ancestry, will not receive the promises made to their ancestors, whereas many who “come from east and west and north and south” will receive the promises (Matt. 8:11-12; Luke 13:28-29). Jesus only mentions the patriarchs and prophets to further illustrate the fact that they will not receive the promises of their ancestors. Since the main point of this passage is not about the actual existence of the patriarchs in the kingdom of God, it would be unwise to read too much into this statement, and this difficult passage should be interpreted in light of the many clearer passages which state that the kingdom is a present reality.”

In response to Andrew’s point about “Jesus’ main point,” the fact is that Jesus made his “main point” by appealing to the fact that “Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets” would be seen “in the kingdom of God” while those of whom he was speaking would be “cast outside.” The fact that Jesus appealed to a certain future state of affairs to make his main point doesn’t mean that what he said concerning this future state of affairs isn’t important information. We can’t simply disregard or explain away revealed information concerning the kingdom of God just because the information being revealed isn’t the “main point” that Jesus was making when he revealed the information. Jesus wouldn’t have bothered to say that “Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets” would be seen “in the kingdom of God” if he didn’t think it was relevant to the point he was making, or worth making known.

Moreover, the fact that many “will be arriving from east and west and from north and south and will be made to recline in the kingdom of God” is additional information, and is distinct from the previously-revealed information that “Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets” will be “in the kingdom of God.” And there’s no good reason to understand what Jesus first said concerning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and “all the prophets” being in the kingdom of God any less literally (or as being less literally true) than the next statement concerning those who will be arriving “from east and west and north and south” and being “made to recline in the kingdom of God.” Both statements are true, and were said by Jesus for a reason. They both contribute something of importance to the main point Jesus was making, and strengthen his point.

Thus, while the “main point of this passage” isn’t that “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets” will be in the kingdom of God, this in no way means that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets won’t be in the kingdom of God. Again, Jesus clearly spoke as if they will be, and it is by no means “reading too much into” what Jesus said to understand his words as providing insight into what the kingdom of God is going to be like in the future.

---

[i] For more on the subject of Israel’s expectation, see the following articles: 

 Has God’s purpose for Israel already been fulfilled? 

The status of Israel and the nations on earth during the oncoming eons 

Why Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6-8 don’t support the belief that the body of Christ is a “spiritual Israel” comprised of “spiritual Jews”

 Is the body of Christ “under the new covenant”? (part one) 

[ii] Some appeal to the words of Christ in John 17:2-3 in support of the view that life eonian is a present (and not just a future) blessing for believers. In these verses we read the following: 

“…Thou givest Him authority over all flesh, that everything which Thou hast given to Him, He should be giving it to them, even life eonian. Now it is eonian life that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Him Whom Thou dost commission, Jesus Christ.” 

However, rather than defining eonian life (which is life that pertains to, and continues through, the future eons of Christ’s reign), Christ was revealing why eonian life is the blessing that will be given to believers. It will be given so that those to whom it’s given may know the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. Evidently, any lesser blessing would be insufficient for the realization of this goal (for any lesser blessing for the believer would necessarily terminate with his or her death, and being dead is, of course, incompatible with knowing God and Christ).