Mysteries of the Kingdom, Part 1
October 8th, 2009 by Mark C.
What Jesus proclaimed about the Kingdom of God was straight out of the Hebrew Scriptures. He claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God, who would restore Israel and cause them to triumph over their enemies. He claimed to be the King of the long-promised Kingdom of God, who would begin to reign at the end of this age, and usher in an era of peace and prosperity in which God’s will is perfectly carried out, and the resurrected faithful would rule with him over the nations.
The Jews’ expectation of the Messiah was at an unprecedented high when Jesus of Nazareth came on the scene. The problem was, he did not fulfill their expectations. He did not begin to reign, he did not overthrow Rome or restore the kingdom to Israel, he did not set up the Kingdom that was prophesied. As a result, many of the Jews concluded that he was not, in fact, the Messiah, and therefore must have either been lying or mad, or perhaps both.
On the other hand, many Christians have concluded, since they believe he is the Messiah, that he must not have intended to literally overthrow Rome and set up a political kingdom. He must have meant something different when he spoke of the Kingdom of God, since Rome wasn’t overthrown and a new political kingdom did not come to pass. Many think he meant a spiritual kingdom, and/or the rule of God in the hearts of men. The various ways in which the Kingdom has been redefined will be examined in another article. But they all have one thing in common, that is, that whatever the Kingdom of God is, it is present now and means something other than a literal, physical kingdom.
There is a third alternative, however, that is often overlooked. While the primary meaning of Kingdom of God is the reign of Messiah in the age to come, Jesus spoke of a delay before the inauguration of that reign. He announced the good news that the King had come, and that the Kingdom was near, but it was not yet the time when he would begin to reign. He told the parable of the nobleman (Luke 19:11-19) who went away to a far country to receive the kingdom, and then returned after a period of time. Many references are made in the New Testament to Psalm 110:1, “Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool,” and Peter makes a statement in Acts 3:21 about Jesus, “Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things.” John wrote by revelation these words of Jesus: “But that which ye have already, hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations … To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne” (Revelation 2:25-26; 3:21). To Jesus’ disciples it became clear that God’s plan included an interim period between the initial proclamation of the Kingdom and its inauguration.
While verses like Psalm 110:1 can be seen in hindsight as referring to an interim period, for the most part it was not seen. This is because many prophecies foretold events of both the first and second comings of Christ together, with no indication of any time in between. The classic example is Isaiah 61:1-2. It says that Messiah would “proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn.” Yet when Jesus quoted these words in his first public teaching in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-21), he stopped before “the day of vengeance of our God.” He read as far as “proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD” and then closed the book, and said, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”
He proclaimed the acceptable year of the LORD when he was here the first time, but the day of God’s vengeance is still future. Another example of this can be seen in Isaiah 9:6-7, where it speaks of a child being born, and then immediately of his government having no end. Still another is in Zechariah 9:9-10, where it refers to the King riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, and then immediately speaks of his dominion being to the ends of the earth. Many similar prophecies refer to his first and second comings, with no indication of the interim period which Jesus revealed.
One of the main reasons for the delay was that he had to suffer and die to pay the price for our sins. When he first began to mention this to his disciples, they didn’t understand him. But in addition to the Old Testament depictions of the Messiah coming to judge and to rule, there were also those of a suffering servant (the “Suffering Servant” songs in Isaiah, and other passages, such as Psalm 22). But many did not know how to reconcile these two images. Some even thought they were two different people.
Nevertheless Jesus declared that, besides preaching the Kingdom of God (Luke 4:43), he came for another purpose: “…the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). It was not until after his resurrection that he taught his disciples why it was necessary for him to die. In the Book of Acts, they preached concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus (Acts 8:12; 28:31). They emphasized that the same Jesus who was crucified is also Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). But even then the full understanding of what his death accomplished was not spelled out in detail until Paul and others wrote about it in the other New Testament writings. The book of Hebrews, especially, explains a lot about the New Covenant that Jesus’ death ratified, which we will deal with in the next article.
While Jesus announced that the Kingdom promised in the Prophets was near, he also spoke of other aspects of it which were not immediately understood. He referred to them as “mysteries.” A mystery, as noted in another article, is not something that is unknowable, but something which is hidden. It is not understood when first presented but the meaning is later revealed. In Luke 8:10, he told his disciples, “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.”
To Be Continued…
Not even the preterists (AFAIK) say the kingdom of God came right after Jesus was resurrected. Of course “the day of God’s vengeance is still future” (after all, even 70 A.D. was in the future back then).
The problem is not that there would be an interim period between the initial proclamation of the Kingdom and its inauguration, the coming of the kingdom. It is the lenght of this interim period that’s debated. “Near” and “at hand” do not mean “5 minutes away” or “5 years away”. But it sure doesn’t mean 2000 years away. For a nation that waited for 1000 years for the kingdom to come, a distance of 50 more years (or 80, or 100) would still count as “near”, compared to how much this nation has already waited. But 2-3000 years more? That’s not near. That’s far.
(BTW, I posted a response in “The Kingdom is Near, Part 2″ – http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/04/the-kingdom-is-near-part-2/ – but for some reason it says it awaits moderation).
John E.,
very well said …
Again, I would say that the underlying principle question is: Do we read the scriptures from our viewpoint of 2000 years later and in a manner as if what we read had been written in our day and time? or do we read the scriptures from the viewpoint of the writers and original audience then? While the former perspective is bound to produce a false understanding, the latter provides the key to understanding the Scriptures correctly.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Historically it has been taught by many that the Christian Church was the spiritual fulfillment of the Kingdom of God prophecies. Is this not also what preterists say?
Actually that was a big problem at the time, as it had been expected that Jesus would set up the Kingdom right away, and he taught them that there would be a delay. But I understand that it is not so much a problem in hindsight.
As I have pointed out in other comments, and will be dealing with in upcoming posts, it is not that the Kingdom was described as “at hand” and then postponed for 2000 years. What was not understood (and still seems to be frequently misunderstood) is that the thing that was “at hand” and then “present” was the period of preparation for, and anticipation of, the Kingdom, not the actual judgment and reign of Messiah. And I must point out again that the references to the Kingdom as “near” or “present” are very few compared with the many references to it as an eschatological reality.
Absolutely. And the viewpoint of the writers and audience at that time was that while the Age to Come foretold by the prophets was an eschatological reality, there are aspects of the Kingdom that can be experienced now.
Jesus’s sayings are not the only ones to emphasize an “immediate” ["at hand"] advent of the KOG. Paul speaks of Jesus as “the first fruit of the resurrection” (see 1 Cor. 15:20, 23). Bart Ehrman makes an interesting point when he says that:
So how do you reconcile such metaphors regarding the immediate “restoration of the kingdom of Israel”?
Have you been reading my recent posts and comments?
Besides, the agricultural metaphor does not necessarily imply that the rest of the harvest comes RIGHT AWAY. The point of that metaphor is not how long it takes to complete the harvest, but the fact that the first fruits come first as a forerunner to the rest. The reference to the first fruits in I Cor. clearly refers to the remainder being at Christ’s coming.
HI
I am still waiting to read John E’s post to this topic which he mentioned in a different thread was “awaiting moderation” ??
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Mark,
I don’t really know, that’s why I qualified my statement with “AFAIK” (As Far As I Know).
I had something to say about this here:
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/04/the-kingdom-is-near-part-2/#comment-52914 (comment 30, before Ray’s 29)
But that comment is still not visible, it says it awaits moderation. (?)
Xavier,
thanks for the Barthman quote. There are a lot of scholars for whom it is very clear that the kingdom was thought to be near in the eschatological sense. But then there’s this apologetic theory that the kingdom was near only in the sense of being a foretaste, and that this is not understood because it is a “mystery of the kingdom” (the idea of a supposed mystery is also applied to the trinity as we all know).
This is connected with what Mark said:
Paul thought that he and others would be part of this remainder, they will be alive at Christ’s coming (1 Thess 4). His talk about the remainder of the fruits refers to themselves, Paul and his readership. So it seems that the kingdom being near = foretaste is not only not understood by preterists and others, but by the 1st century Christians as well! Didn’t they know about the noblemen’s parable that supposedly is intended by Jesus to show a “lengthy interim period”? So this “mystery” was a mystery even for these first generations of Christians. But not for us today… It’s kind of ironic, because Paul says that what will happen to remainder of the fruits is a mystery, one that he just explained…
It kind of does though, necessarily. Metaphors are created using known, familiar circumstances. Everybody knew that the rest of the fruits follow immediately. Since Paul is using this particular metaphor, conscious that the remainder of the real fruits follow immediately, it is evident they got the idea.
Why should that not also be the point? Because we are not preterists?
Hi Wolfgang, I’m waiting too
It’s not an apologetic theory. It’s what Jesus taught his disciples, as I have shown. And I didn’t say it’s not understood because it’s a mystery. I said it wasn’t understood until Jesus taught it (although people who miss his teaching of it will miss the point too). It was his own words which described it as “mysteries of the Kingdom,” whereas there is no mention of the mystery of the Trinity in the Bible.
As I have said before, Paul and the other disciples did not know how long it would be before Christ returned, and so they expected it during their lifetimes. But Paul’s writings are full of references to both the eschatological nature of the Kingdom and the foretaste that we enjoy in the meantime.
I’ve pointed out that the nobleman parable does not “show” a lengthy interim period, but it does allow for it. Other passages also allow for it and NOTHING demands that the Kingdom come to pass in their lifetimes.
I assume you’re referring to I Cor. 15:51, “Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.” This is not the same as the mysteries of the Kingdom that Jesus taught his disciples. There is not just one mystery in the Bible.
But the rest of the harvest doesn’t necessarily follow “immediately” – a harvest can take weeks. The timing is not the point. A metaphor involves a comparison based on one or two points in common, but it cannot be applied to EVERY aspect of the thing that is compared.
No. It’s because that’s what the context is talking about. All will be resurrected, and we can be sure of that because of Jesus’ resurrection. That is the subject of the context, not how soon it will happen.
Yes it does! That is the point that Paul is trying to convey through the agricultural metaphor. The farmer doesn’t wait years to get the rest of the harvest in but gathers it the next day. Does he??
If so, then the rest of the “fruits” will spoil away.
something on the subject of “First Fruits”
http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/firstfruits-and-harvest/
One of the things which Hyper-Preterists often ignore in their formulation of the doctrine of the resurrection, is the correspondence between firstfruits and harvest, which is explained in the law. According to Moses, the firstfruits sheaf is always waved first, as a pledge and earnest of the ingathering (Leviticus 23: 9-11). Moreover, the firstfruits and harvest are always of the same kind and nature. If we speak of a firstfruits of barley, then the harvest is also of barley; if of wheat, then the same rule applies.
What Hyper-Preterists do is change this fixed rule, and make the harvest something distinctly different from the firstfruits. Most of them agree that Christ’s physical resurrection was the firstfruits of a yet future resurrection of God’s people. However, because they view the latter as spiritual or “covenantal,” they essentially view the Lord as one who came not to fulfill the law, but to break it — thus invalidating Christ’s own declaration that He came to fulfill the law! See Matthew 5: 17.
It should be admitted, that as violator of the law, Christ could never have been that perfect lamb of God, Who came to do His Father’s will. He would (according to H.P.’s) have been the imperfect Lamb of God, Who came to alter His Father’s will. This is why we orthodox Christians consistently point out that the Hyper-Preterist Christ is different from the One that all Christians know and love. A look at the firstfruits and harvest will bring these facts into sharper profile, that we may understand why Hyper-Preterism is a perversion of true Christianity.
The Pauline concept of resurrection holds that Christ was the firstfruits of them that slept (1 Corinthians 15: 20). This implies a future harvest of the same kind and nature. The Greek verb Englished “to sleep” is koimaomai, which means to fall asleep involuntarily. It occurs 18 times in the New Testament, and is unquestionably used in the sense of physical death. See Matthew 27: 52; 28: 13; Luke 22: 45; John 11: 1-12; Acts 7: 60; 13: 36; 1 Corinthians 7: 39; 11: 30; 15: 6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thessalonians 4: 13, 14, 15; 2 Peter 3: 4.
We take it that the firstfruits sheaf was presented when Christ + “many bodies of the saints” (Matthew 27: 52-53) arose from their tombs, appearing unto many as proof that they had been physically resurrected (cf. 1 Corinthians 15: 5-7). To Christ were given the keys of hell and of death (Revelation 1: 18). He used these keys once when He raised the firstfruits saints. He will use them again, when He returns at the end of the age to gather those Who are “in Him.”
Paul declares that the harvest will occur at Christ’s parousia (1 Corinthians 15: 23). Parousia is a technical term which occurs 24 times in the New Testament. Eschatologically it is used when referring to Christ’s personal return to earth, as “Son of Man.” Peter affirms that he had gotten a foreglimpse of Christ’s parousia when on the Mount of Transfiguration (2 Peter 1: 16-18). It will therefore be visible and glorious. See Mark 9: 2-3.
Now, Paul’s concept of the “resurrection harvest” of saints shows that it is of the same kind and nature as the firstfruits. He writes: “But every man in his own rank (Gr. tagma): Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s, at His parousia.” The expression “they that are Christ’s” manifestly excludes the wicked dead, who are raised at the close of the Millennium. They belong to the last rank, or tagma, and are not included in the harvest.
What saith Paul concerning this harvest? He writes: “Behold, I show you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (1 Corinthians 15: 51). Again, the verb for “sleep” is koimaomai. Paul’s terminology proves beyond question that the resurrection of believers will be physical, as harvest to firstfruits. As Christ was the firstfruits of them that slept, so they who live unto Christ’s coming will not sleep (i.e., physically die). See 1 Thessalonians 4: 14-17. The abolition of death for the believer is pictured in Isaiah 25: 8. It is connected with the recalling of Israel and the destruction of the heathen. It ushers in the Millennium.
As events connected with the end (Gr. sunteleia) of the age have never yet taken place, we conclude that the harvest (and therefore the parousia) is yet future. Our prophetic outlook is precisely the same as that of the first-century saints. “For our seat of government already exists in heaven; from whence we also look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things to Himself” (Philippians 3: 20-21). Certainly this Scripture was not exhausted or “maxed out” by anything that happened in A.D. 70. And if not, then it remains in the prophetic foreview of the church.
The saints are not waiting to “die, and go to heaven” — as some men unscripturally suppose. Rather, we are waiting for the coming of the King (see above text), at which time the redemption of the whole man (body, soul, and spirit) will be complete (1 Thessalonians 5: 23). Then will the Lord gather the pure wheat of the church into His barn, and we shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of our Father (Matthew 13: 43). Maranatha!
If you read the context – the whole 15th chapter of I Corinthians – the point Paul is making has nothing to do with the timing.
Exactly. It indicates the nature and quality of the rest of the crop. It has nothing to do with the timing.
Mark C.,
you claim
I read in 1Co 15 that Paul was quite emphatically making reference to the timing of the end events and resurrection, etc …
1Kor 15,51 (KJV)
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
Obviously, Paul expected those things he was declaring here to happen before all of his audience woud die … “we shall not all sleep”. Yes, some would fall asleep between the time of writing of his epistle and the coming of the Lord and the last day with the resurrection event etc … BUT, some would still be alive and would NOT go to hades at the end of their earthly life but be changed (that is, their earthly, physical, corruptible body would be changed into a heavenly, spiritual, incorruptible body, without first going to hades and having to wait there etc )
About the term “firstfruits” you say
Indeed … the mistake most Christians make is that they think that Jesus’ glorified resurrected body was a natural physical body.
They fail to see that Jesus was raised with a spiritual body, his resurrected body was NOT a physical, fleshly body, etc … During 40 days, in which he showed himself as the resurrected one (Cp Acts 1), he SHOWED HIMSELF at certain times and only in certain circumstances in his former
physical body (cp. the fact that it had the wounds! and thus could serve the purpose of identifying him as the one who had been crucified.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
This does not say anything about the timing. It merely speaks of what will happen.
Yes, Paul expected it in his lifetime. But that is not the point he was illustrating when he referred to Jesus as the first fruits.
So then you agree that the point of the “first fruits” metaphor was in reference to the nature and quality of the crop and not the timing?
As for whether Jesus’ resurrected body was physical or not, I don’t want to get into that again, as it was argued to death before, and is outside the scope of this thread.
Mark C. I agree with Wolfgang that “in context” 1Cor 15 does, amongst others things, contain a ‘time element’ regarding WHEN [and how] the resurrection of the dead would take place.
This is a theme Paul reiterates, as John E says [post #7], in his letters to the Thessalonians [1 Thess 4:15,17; cp. 1 Cor 15:51].
Yes, there is a time element as far as Christ’s resurrection first, followed by the believers’ resurrection afterward. But the point being argued was that the reference to first fruits suggested the general resurrection of believers would be RIGHT AWAY. This I don’t believe can be proved from I Cor. 15 or any other passage.
We learn about the mysteries of the kingdom as we learn about the history of God and his people throughout the Bible.
Through their experiences with God much about God is learned.
The kingdom of heaven is like a man that owned fishing rights in
a northern sea, who befriended a child who took notice of him and
asked him many questions about the sea, and when the captain died, he left the young man the fishing rights as well as his boat.
The “first fruits” metaphor suggests it and Paul [and other NT writers] reinterates it in many other passages [although, granted, its fair to say that by the time we get to the letters of Peter, they recognize the delay; cp. Mat 24.36-44].
James D. G. Dunn seems to agree with Ehrman’s understanding regarding the first fruit metaphor in his Jesus and the Spirit, 1997, p 158-159:
Check out the rest of this section entitled ‘The Eschatological Enthusiasm’ online here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=CEkyo7Wb7hgC&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=parousia+imminent+acts&source=bl&ots=S_u_vm6I6I&sig=cgHBy_CVYPtZvEPshp6nDkbm7mg&hl=en&ei=orbQSs7SN8fVlAel1dyoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=parousia%20imminent%20acts&f=false
Xavier,
you mention above
actually, when we read the letters of Peter, we see that there were those who by now made accusatory remarks that the Lord had delayed his coming … BUT, as Peter points out, this was NOT the case!!
By the time of the writing of Peter’s epistles, the time frame of “this generation” was coming closer and closer to its end … and the prophesied events related to the end of that age / end of the world had at that time still not happened. Thus, those “mockers” were apparently getting bolder in their claims and were beginning to also disturb the faith of the believers.
Obviously, the Christians had been taught and did believe and adhere to the truth, that the coming of the Lord was imminent and would happen at the end of the age and would be accompanied by the disastrous events prophesied by Jesus (destruction of Jerusalem and temple). Had the Christians been taught and had they believed that the coming of the Lord was not going to happen within the time frame prophesied (“soon”, “at hand”, within “this generation”, while some of those who had heard the Lord make those prophecies were still alive) those mockers would been not much more than “hot air blowers” and been “preaching to the wind” … none of the Christians would have even needed to be concerned in the least and most likely would have declared those mockers to be “non-sense lunatics”
Peter assures the believers that the Lord is NOT SLACK concerning his promises and the fulfillment of what has been prophesied in terms of judgment. He explains that the reason as to why the Lord had not yet come at the time of the writing of his epistles was because of God’s patience and His desire to give all of that evil generation opportunity to the last possible moment to repent. Very shortly after the time of writing of Peter’s epistles, the prophesied events and judgment began to take place …. and I would think that from then on, those mockers had their mouths stopped in a rather big way.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Xavier,
There are certainly those few verse you mention, which refer to the nearness of the end. But that is not Paul’s point with the agricultural metaphor. And none of the references to its nearness prove that it has happened in the past.
Several times the Prophets declared that the Day of the LORD was “at hand” (Isaiah 13:6; Joel 1:15; 2:1; Zephaniah 1:7) and that was hundreds of years before Christ’s first coming, let alone what time has passed since.
Words like “quickly” and “at hand” are relative terms. No matter how much time has passed, we are still closer than we were. (“Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed” – Romans 13:11). God’s timing is not ours. He is infinitely patient.
Wolfgang wrote:
Indeed, God’s patience and His desire to give man plenty of time to repent have a lot to do with the delay. Another possible factor is that Jesus said the gospel of the Kingdom would be preached in all the world, and then the end would come (Matt. 24:14). The Church lost sight of the gospel of the Kingdom and is only getting back to it in more recent times.
However, the statement that “the prophesied events and judgment began to take place…” is not true. The only thing that happened was the destruction of the Temple. None of the other prophecies took place. There was no Abomination of Desolation followed by the Great Tribulation followed immediately by signs in the heavens, the general resurrection, and the return of the Son of Man from heaven to judge the world. Jesus spoke of this specific progression of events preceding the end. Furthermore, no New Age of peace and perfect judgment by Messiah has come to pass, no end to war, no binding of the devil so he can’t deceive the world. All of these things are specifically prophesied, and have not yet come to pass. The Temple destruction could perhaps be seen as a foreshadowing of God’s ultimate judgment (like Antiochus Epiphanes at the time of the Maccabees), but since none of the other prophecies came to pass, it could not have been the fulfillment. This is why it’s imperative to understand how the Scriptures define the Kingdom of God first, and then base our observation of whether it has come to pass on that.
It seems to me that the kingdom is fast approaching. Many of the things that have been are ready to pass away.
Mark C. no one is arguing “that is has happened in the past”. Simply pointing out a factual point regarding the prophetic expression and metaphorical types to signify that christians “in the past” [as today] preach the immediacy of the KOG.
Obviously, its not here yet, if so then “we who remain” [viz Paul] would have been made immortal in the literal presence of the Lord Jesus so we can reign “in Zion”.
But lastlt, I guess we’ll agree to disagree on the firt fruit metaphor. I stand with Dunn and Ehrman until proven otherwise.
But Preterists do say it happened in the past. And one of their arguments is that if it was imminent then it must have come to pass soon afterward.
Yes, ok, but I am not a Preterists either