Reformed Trinitarian Discovers Kingdom Proper
July 27th, 2007 by Sean
Steve Baugh of Westminster Seminary in California presented this lecture on the kingdom of God. He spent his sabbatical studying the subject primarily from other Reformed Theologians and came to see that the kingdom is the end times event to occur at the consummation of the ages. The lecture takes a while to get going but it is fascinating to hear others wrestling with the kingdom (especially the present, kingdom now, ideas) in light of the testimony of Scripture. He takes care to present what he calls “the kingdom proper” as opposed to the other “kingdom” concepts in the Bible. He sees the kingdom proper as the cataclysmic event when God miraculously intervenes in the normal affairs of this world by sending his son to establish the theocratic government. Unfortunately, he does not in any way mention the connection between the kingdom and the gospel that saves.
click here to listen to the lecture as well as see the notes
Also unfortuanely, he says that the kingdom of God is NOT a rule to be consummated in a millennial reign from Jerusalem (he refers to himself as an amillennialist). He uses I Cor. 15:50 as his proof (“Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom”) but doesn’t go into it any further.
Other than that, it is interesting to hear more and more people speaking about the Kingdom of God in its “proper” sense.
In his notes, I love this section:
D. What the kingdom is NOT properly.
1. The Church militant in this age
2. The rule of God in the hearts of believers
3. An spiritual rule to be consummated in an earthly millennial reign
4. A geo-political or social program in this age or a program of Christianizing all
spheres of life
5. However: the power and influence of the kingdom is currently felt in these
Luckily for us, we wont be flesh and blood in the Kingdom, but in immortal bodies.
Which brings the question up, how can there be mortals in the kingdom and there still be 1 Cor 15:50?
Dustin
Immortal yes, still flesh and blood – yes. (cite Thomas touching Jesus’ wounds). So then, what does 1 Cor 15.50 mean?
JohnO wrote: still flesh and blood – yes.
“Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom.” This seems like a contradiction no?
JohnO wrote: (cite Thomas touching Jesus’ wounds)
When Christ appeared to his disciples did he have his immortal heavenly spiritual body yet? It seems like he was still flesh and blood. However in revelation we see Christ described with more of a “heavenly” body. (Rev. 1:13-15) Could Christ have received his true heavenly spiritual body at his ascension rather than at his resurrection?
Karl,
I don’t think so because all of the witnesses of the risen Christ compare what we are to be with what they’ve seen and known – the risen body of Christ – not something they have not seen and have no experience with. Plus we don’t ascend as Christ did, but we will be resurrected like Christ was (Rom 6).
I think the distinction of flesh and blood from spiritual can be found in the context of 1 Cor 15.
Hi there,
as for Christ … his body did not corrupt in the grave, everybody else’s body who dies does corrupt. Jesus appeared in his pre-resurrection body during 40 days after his resurrection for the purpose of showing himself as proof for having been raised from the dead.
Indeed, 1Co mentions different types of bodies … such as physical and spiritual, earthly and heavenly … and there seems to be no “mix” of both, but they rather are distinct from one another .
“such as physical and spiritual,” – incorrect
It says natural and spiritual, earthly and heavenly. The manna that came up from the ground in Exodus was heavenly. Yet it was physical. Jesus was sent from heaven – yet he was physical. Our modern distinctions that say spiritual is not physical is incorrect.
To say Christ did not corrupt in the grave means he wasn’t there long enough. Not that there was something special about him that no matter long he was in the grave he wouldn’t corrupt.
JohnO wrote:
I don’t think so because all of the witnesses of the risen Christ compare what we are to be with what they’ve seen and known – the risen body of Christ – not something they have not seen and have no experience with. Plus we don’t ascend as Christ did, but we will be resurrected like Christ was (Rom 6).
Except for Paul of course (who wrote Romans) he only saw Christ in vision not in flesh and blood.
JohnO wrote:
“I think the distinction of flesh and blood from spiritual can be found in the context of 1 Cor 15.”
I agree the flesh and blood bodies (men animals birds and fish) are contrasted with the heavenly spiritual bodis (sun, moon and stars).
39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
But both the sun, moon, and stars are all physical bodies. Just like Christ. It doesn’t help when we think of the sun, moon, and stars in our western contexts – what did they mean to those in the first century? Most of the apocalyptic literature uses these bodies as determining divine events or symbols of divine events. We know that the early Christians were apocalyptic communities (Schweizter, Weiss, Ehrman). Any other thoughts on what the sun moon and stars meant to the first century audience?
JohnO wrote: Any other thoughts on what the sun moon and stars meant to the first century audience?
Many in the ancient world held that stars were living beings. Origen passingly refers to this here:
Origen de Principiis: Preface 10. “This also is a part of the teaching of the Church, that there are certain angels of God, and certain good influences, which are His servants in accomplishing the salvation of men. When these, however, were created, or of what nature they are, or how they exist, is not clearly stated. Regarding the sun, moon, and stars, whether they are living beings or without life, there is no distinct deliverance.”
That is, the church in Origen’s day had taken no stance as whether stars were living or not.
Also: de Principiis Book VII:1 (in reference to Col. 1:16-18) “But of those things which he had termed generally corporeal or incorporeal, he seems to me, in the words that follow, to enumerate the various kinds, viz., thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, influences. These matters now have been previously mentioned by us, as we are desirous to come in an orderly manner to the investigation of the sun, and moon, and stars by way of logical inference, and to ascertain whether they also ought properly to be reckoned among the principalities on account of their being said to be created in ᾽Αρχάς, i.e., for the government of day and night; or whether they are to be regarded as having only that government of day and night which they discharge by performing the office of illuminating them, and are not in reality chief of that order of principalities.”
There also seems to be a connection between the stars and the angels.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
In reference to Job is the Hebrew the same as Isaiah for morning star? I don’t have anything handy at work.
It seems that morning star, doesn’t actually mean that you are a star, Isaiah records the King of Babylon under this name, Revelation records Jesus under this name also. To ‘bring the dawn’ in ancient culture means to start the day, to bring order and light to darkness.
I’m not sure this helps us understand Paul any better, and I don’t think Paul had anything of Origen’s thoughts in mind – entirely different schools of thought concerning the world.
JohnO wrote: We know that the early Christians were apocalyptic communities (Schweizter, Weiss, Ehrman).
Dr. Albert Schweitzer: “And He [Jesus] was to come, moreover, within the lifetime of the generation to which He had proclaimed the nearness of the Kingdom of God.” (The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, Macmillian, NY, 1968, page 240)
Dr. Bart Ehrman” “Jesus thought that the history of the world would come to a screeching halt, that God would intervene in the affairs of this planet, overthrow the forces of evil in a cosmic act of judgement, and establish his utopian Kingdom here on earth. And this was to happen within Jesus’ own generation.” (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pg.3)
Sorry guys, I couldn’t resist.
JohnO wrote: “I’m not sure this helps us understand Paul any better, and I don’t think Paul had anything of Origen’s thoughts in mind – entirely different schools of thought concerning the world.”
I think you missed the point. Origen wasn’t necessarily giving us his thoughts, he is only informing us to the fact that many in the ancient world thought that the stars (which, to an ancient person, included the planets like venus) were living beings.
But if you don’t like Origen, Is Philo good enough for you?
THE SPECIAL LAWS, I:III. (13) Some persons have conceived that the sun, and the moon, and the other stars are independent gods, to whom they have attributed the causes of all things that exist.
(19) We must, therefore, look on all those bodies in the heaven, which the outward sense regards as gods, not as independent rulers, since they are assigned the work of lieutenants, being by their intrinsic nature responsible to a higher power, but by reason of their virtue not actually called to render in an account of their doings.
By the way, I’m not necessarily saying that Paul thought stars were living or not, I’m am given you some historic material to help answer this:
“Any other thoughts on what the sun moon and stars meant to the first century audience?”
When I wrote “first century audience”, I was thinking Jewish Pharisees like Paul. Because Paul wouldn’t have liked Philo much with his whole distortion and near removal of the entire messianic concept.
Yes, I understand both Schweizer, and Erhmans position concerning the nearness. I tend to agree with them – Jesus did say it was near, we’ve covered that. But they both lost their faith(not sure if Schweitzer had any to start to be honest) for taking that train to the last station.
Some seem to not realize what Prov 13:12 has to say concerning “hope”:
How is it that most of Christianity for centuries believes in “a deffered hope” when it comes to the coming of the Lord, kingdom of God, resurrection, etc ?
JohnO wrote: When I wrote “first century audience”, I was thinking Jewish Pharisees like Paul.
But Paul didn’t write 1 Corinthians to Jewish pharisees, it was written to gentiles in a greek city.
Besides, this view of living stars was not foreign to the Jewish world. We can see this with the use of the aramaic word “Mazel” in the Talmud. Mazel means constellation, planet, luck, or guardian angel. To the talmudists the constellations were angels that controlled the destinies of mankind.
JohnO wrote: Because Paul wouldn’t have liked Philo much with his whole distortion and near removal of the entire messianic concept.
Were not talking about Philo’s or Paul’s Messianic concept, we are talking about what heavenly bodies meant to people in Paul’s day.
JohnO wrote: Yes, I understand both Schweizer, and Erhmans position concerning the nearness. I tend to agree with them – Jesus did say it was near, we’ve covered that.
It just wasn’t nearness. It was within that generation:
Dr. Albert Schweitzer: “And He [Jesus] was to come, moreover, within the lifetime of the generation to which He had proclaimed the nearness of the Kingdom of God.”
Dr. Bart Ehrman “And this was to happen within Jesus’ own generation.”
These scholars (and most others) realize what Jesus is saying when he uses genea.
JohnO wrote: But they both lost their faith(not sure if Schweitzer had any to start to be honest) for taking that train to the last station.
This is because they probably never considered the preterist option, which, in reality, is the only answer to the sceptical scholar over the timing issues. But I think Ehrman really left the faith because of his study of biblical errancy and formation of the canon. I could be wrong though.