951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

Now that we know what the kingdom is, the next question to ask is: where will the kingdom be located? That is, where will people live, when the kingdom is established?  To start with, here are some descriptions of the kingdom:

Ezekiel 34:25-29 – 25“I will make a covenant of peace with them and eliminate harmful beasts from the land so that they may live securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods.

26“I will make them and the places around My hill a blessing. And I will cause showers to come down in their season; they will be showers of blessing.

27“Also the tree of the field will yield its fruit and the earth will yield its increase, and they will be secure on their land. Then they will know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bars of their yoke and have delivered them from the hand of those who enslaved them.

28“They will no longer be a prey to the nations, and the beasts of the earth will not devour them; but they will live securely, and no one will make them afraid.

29“I will establish for them a renowned planting place, and they will not again be victims of famine in the land, and they will not endure the insults of the nations anymore.

Isaiah 2:2-4 – 2Now it will come about that
In the last days
The mountain of the house of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains,
And will be raised above the hills;
And all the nations will stream to it.
3And many peoples will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
That He may teach us concerning His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.”
For the law will go forth from Zion
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4And He will judge between the nations,
And will render decisions for many peoples;
And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks
Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
And never again will they learn war.

Isaiah 11:6-9 – 6And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little boy will lead them.
7Also the cow and the bear will graze,
Their young will lie down together,
And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra,
And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den.
9They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
As the waters cover the sea.

Zechariah 9:10 – “The warriors bow shall be banished, and he shall proclaim peace to the nations. His dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

To get even more specific, the following verses explicitly address the question of where people will live, in the kingdom of God:

Psalm 37:9 – 29The righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever.

Psalm 115:16 – 16The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to man.

Isaiah 65:9 (NAB) – 9From Jacob I will save offspring, from Judah, those who are to inherit my mountains; My chosen ones shall inherit the land, my servants shall dwell there.

Matthew 5:5 (ESV) – 5Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Revelation 5:10 – 10You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.

All of the verses that we have seen, on the last few pages, indicate that people will live on the earthnot in heaven – during the kingdom!

next week=> Kingdom Study 5: Where Will God and Jesus Be?

31 Responses to “Kingdom Study 4: Where Will the Kingdom Be Located?”

  1. on 30 Aug 2009 at 2:17 pmRay

    The kingdom of heaven will be with Jesus who lives within us.
    From his holy house on the heavenly hill we will worship him.
    We will be seated with him there, for he has redeemed us from
    our sins. A meal he has prepared for us. We shall all eat and be
    filled. There is more than enough for all. The king has furnished
    his house with the finest of wines and the choicest meats.

    In the heavenly realm we will sing his praises on this earth, and
    when we leave this one, we will find a new heaven and earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. Jesus will be there for he has
    raised us up together to be with him forever, having given us the
    good news of the kingdom and the keys to it through himself.

  2. on 31 Aug 2009 at 5:10 amWolfgang

    Brian,

    you conclude

    All of the verses that we have seen, on the last few pages, indicate that people will live on the earth – not in heaven – during the kingdom!

    How do you understand “land” in those verses? Is this “land” as opposed to “sea”? or is “land” a reference to the “promised land” (the land of Canaan, where Israel settled after they left Egypt) ? How do you understand “earth” in this context?

    Since “earth” and “land” are often two translations of the same original language word, would it have been better to translate them the same throughout?

    Eze 34:28
    They will no longer be a prey to the nations, and the beasts of the earth will not devour them; but they will live securely, and no one will make them afraid.

    This particular verse from Eze 34 indicates that there will still be “nations” at the time … how does that fit with the common idea that during the millenium there will only the one kingdom, namely the Lord’s kingdom, where Jesus will rule the world from Jerusalem? Is perhaps that idea of a world-wide millenial political kingdom incorrect? or does perhaps Eze 34 not even refer to the so-called millenial kingdom but to a different period of time?

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  3. on 01 Sep 2009 at 2:08 amBrian Keating

    Hi Wolfgang,

    Thanks for your comments. First of all, I believe that the nation of Israel will exist in the future – but it will have different tribal boundaries than it did in ancient times. For example, see Ezekiel 47 and 48.

    Also, I definitely think that there will be other nations (other than Israel) on the earth – at least during the millenium. I believe this both from Ezekiel 34 and from Rev 22:1-2. What do you think?

    Brian

  4. on 01 Sep 2009 at 3:19 amWolfgang

    Hi Brian,

    I think that the idea of the millenium being a “one nation (Israel) with Jesus as world ruler (king) from Jerusalem” is non-biblical … as above passages do show.

    I also do not think that Christ’s kingdom is equal to the so-called “millenium” (a literal 1000 year period of time) … nor do I think that Christ’s reign is a political (“of this world”) reign.

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  5. on 01 Sep 2009 at 11:19 amJohn734

    Interesting discussion, as I have studied the scriptures in light of the Kingdom (which I definiatly believe will be here on earth) I have wondered about the structure of the global powers. Verse such as Isaiah 2:2-4 indicate to me that Israel will be a nation in its own right with other nations of the world recognizing the need to go Israel to learn the ways of God.
    Mountains are often used as a metaphor for Nations and Israel is the Mountain (Nation) of the Lord which established above all other mountains (Nations).
    The original promises to Abram regading the borders of the land God would give him were never fully inhabited by Israel (Under the rule of King David they came the closest) these borders could well define the actual nation of Israel durring that time.
    Also to consider are verses from Revelation that tell us that we will be kings and priests that rule with Christ, Kings rule and priests teach. The parable of the Talents in the gospels teaches us that the faithful will be rewarded with positions of authority.
    So will Gods people in the Kingdom be dispatched as rulers over the nations of the world? It would seem very likely. One thing we do know from Ps 2 is that the Messiah will inherit the earth and every knee will bow before him. Rom 8 says we are joint heir with Christ – He is going to inherit the earth so therefore we will also share in that inheritance and responsability.

  6. on 01 Sep 2009 at 1:56 pmSean

    John734,

    a text that goes along with the idea that we will reign with Christ is:

    Rev 2.26-28
    26 To everyone who conquers and continues to do my works to the end, I will give authority over the nations;
    27 to rule them with an iron rod, as when clay pots are shattered–
    28 even as I also received authority from my Father. To the one who conquers I will also give the morning star.

    oh, and this one too:

    2 Tim 2.11-13
    11 The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
    12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us;
    13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful– for he cannot deny himself.

  7. on 01 Sep 2009 at 10:07 pmJohnE

    I get the feeling that many people here and elsewhere (messianic Jews – trinitarian or not)) have this view of fleshly Israel and literal Jerusalem playing in the future the top role in God’s plan of salvation and rule. I get this sense that somehow, the fleshly nation of Israel will have an elevated position and status compared to the “nations”.

    Furthermore, the idea is that Jesus will rule the earth from none other place than literal Jerusalem. Literal Jerusalem will be the center of the true worship of God.

    Are these ideas affirmed and believed by the apostolic church and Jesus himself?

    Jesus first. When he talks with the Samaritan woman, she mentions the controversy of which literal place does God consider the most important one worship-wise: mount Garizim or Jerusalem (mount Sion)?

    What a good opportunity for Jesus to affirm literal Jerusalem’s elevated status and importance, isn’t it? Only that from Jesus’ response, one can see that neither places are actually important anymore. Actually, no literal place will have centrality in God’s plan, since God is spirit. Superiority of literal, physical places, makes sense no more in the new covenant. What counts is that one worships in spirit, not in Jerusalem. For Jesus, Jerusalem has lost its centrality. Not to mention that he also speaks about the literal Jerusalem’s temple being destroyed.

    About the fleshly nation of Israel, Matthew has Jesus saying that the kingdom will be taken from them and given to another “people/nation”. The kingdom of God will not be (and indeed, it is not) associated with literal Israel anymore.

    And how about the apostolic church? “There is no Jew, no Greek”. One’s nationality simply does not count anymore in the eyes of God (just as Peter discovered, that God shows no partiality nation-wise).

    That is not to say that God doesn’t have an Israel anymore. According to Paul, we Gentiles and Jews who believe, WE are God’s Israel. The real descendants of Abraham are those who believe, not those who are descendants according to the flesh. These are rather the branches which were cut off (yes, cut off) from the olive, because of their unbelief. Only by believing can they be grafted back in. IF they’ll believe, they will be grafted back in.

    I’m not one of those who believe that somehow, miraculously perhaps, all or the majority of today’s (or tomorrow’s) Israel will get to believe in Jesus by the time the end of the current state of affairs comes.Faith comes from hearing of the gospel.

    About Isaiah 2:2-4, let’s not forget about the concept of prophetic language. Meaning that not everything is to be taken absolutely literally (like Zion being “raised above the hills” for example). The people of Isaiah 2 will “go up” to the kingdom/kingly rule of God to learn how to walk according to his will. It is no accident that in Daniel, the kingdom of God, the rock that smashes the statue, becomes “a great mountain”.

    And let’s also not forget about the heavenly Jerusalem (and that there is also a New Jerusalem, the church). The real “house” of God and mount Zion is in the spiritual heavens, He does not dwell in temples made by hand. That’s what apostolic church (or at least some from it) believed.

  8. on 02 Sep 2009 at 1:48 amBrian Keating

    Hi Sean,

    Here are two other interesting passages, about Christians ruling the earth with Christ:

    Matthew 19:27-28 (ESV)

    27Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” 28Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

    Luke 22:28-30 (ESV)

    28″You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, 29and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

    In the above passages, Jesus tells the disciples that they will actually judge the 12 tribes of Israel! In my view, this gives us even more evidence that Christians will be co-rulers with Christ, in the millenium.

    Hi JohnE,

    Thanks for your comments. I certainly agree that in the new covenant, it is not necessary to be a Jew in order to be saved. However, from what I can see – in both the Old and New Testaments – the kingdom of God will be a literal, physical kingdom, on the earth.

    I listed many verses in my original post which indicate to me that the kingdom will be on the earth. In addition, I have a few thoughts on some of your points:

    – The second temple has, indeed been destroyed – but Ezekiel chapters 40-43 tells us that there will be a third temple created at some point in the future. Those chapters goes into painstaking detail about the features, dimensions, etc of that temple – so I strongly doubt that those chapters are merely figurative.

    – Ezekiel chapters 47-48 tells us that the 12 tribes will be given a new inheritance in the promised land (Canaan) in the future – and the dimensions of each tribe’s new inheritance will be different than it was in ancient times. This is prima facia evidence to me that the 12 tribes will live in the promised land – within their new tribal boundaries – during the kingdom of God.

    – Revelation 21 tells us about the new Jerusalem. Similar to Ezekiel 40-43, Rev 21 goes into detail about the exact measurements, components, features, etc of that city. So, it appears unlikely that new Jerusalem is some sort of figurative reference to the church.

    In addition, the new Jerusalem is described as coming down, out of heaven. That certainly indicates to me that the new Jerusalem will not reside in heaven – instead, that it will reside on the earth, during the kingdom of God.

    Do you know of any verses which explicitly state that we will actually live in heaven during the kingdom – as opposed to living on the earth? If so, I would certainly be interested if you could let me know about them – because I am willing to concede that I might be wrong. (I know of a few verses that are sometimes used to support that belief – but those verses do not explicitly state that we will live in heaven.)

    Brian

  9. on 02 Sep 2009 at 2:39 amWolfgang

    Hi Brian,

    you mention “two other interesting passages, about Christians ruling the earth with Christ” and then give Matthew 19:27-28 (ESV) and Luke 22:28-30 (ESV).

    Now, as you then emphatically notice, the passages mention that Jesus spoke to his apostles about judging the 12 tribes of Israel. BUT – please note – the passages do not speak about “Christians” nor about “ruling the world”!! How then do you come up with this idea

    In my view, this gives us even more evidence that Christians will be co-rulers with Christ, in the millenium.

    The passages mention NOTHING about Christians, NOTHING about Christians as “co-rulers with Christ”, NOTHING about “the millenium”, NOTHING about anyone “ruling the world” …. how do you read such from these passages?

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  10. on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:21 amBrian Keating

    Hi Wolfgang,

    Well, there are a number of reasons why I believe that those passages refer to Christians ruling with Christ, on the earth. The two that I can think of, right off the top of my head, are as follows:

    First, Revelation 5:10 explicitly tells us that Christians will rule upon the earth. Also, Ezekiel chapter 48 tells us that the 12 tribes will live in Canaan (i.e. on the earth), in the future – with different tribal boundaries than they had in ancient times.

    As a result, when those two passages tell us that the disciples will judge the 12 tribes, that certainly indicates to me that that judging will occur on the earth!

    Brian

  11. on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:00 pmJohnE

    Hi Brian,

    Thank you for your reply. 

    I certainly agree that in the new covenant, it is not necessary to be a Jew in order to be saved. 

    I agree of course, but this is not the point I was making. I was rather saying that Literal Jewishness will play no role in the kingdom. Also, the land we now call Israel and Jerusalem will not be the center of the religious world in the kingdom.

    However, from what I can see – in both the Old and New Testaments – the kingdom of God will be a literal, physical kingdom, on the earth.

    It seems I need to correct a slight misconception here: I never said the opposite of the above. I do in fact believe in the kingdom of God extending upon earth. It will be as you say, a physical reality.

     In addition, I have a few thoughts on some of your points:

    – The second temple has, indeed been destroyed – but Ezekiel chapters 40-43 tells us that there will be a third temple created at some point in the future. 

    I find that to be a common idea shared by many, but I don’t know where it comes from in fact. Ezekiel makes no mention of a “third” temple. In fact, he writes from the Babilonian exile, when there was no second temple yet, so the idea of a third one can be found nowhere in his text.

    Those chapters goes into painstaking detail about the features, dimensions, etc of that temple – so I strongly doubt that those chapters are merely figurative.

    I wrote earlier precisely on this subject, here: http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/05/10/hearing-the-text-of-the-bible/#comment-46265
    Erik was saying:

    In the words of R. Anderson:
    Though this temple appears in a highly symbolic book, there is much reason to believe that it is an actual, physical reality, and not a merely spiritual phenomenon. Firstly, this temple building is described in precise detail, rather than loose symbolic terms. The exact measurements of the wall (40:5), the court (40:47) and the sanctuary (41:4), as well as all the other elements of the construction, are provided for the reader. What would be the point of such an exercise, if the place does not actually exist? Furthermore, the description is intensely visual (41:6-7). Such painstaking, point-by-point consideration invites comparison, not to purely symbolic visions such as the four beasts seen by Daniel (Dan. 7) or the scarlet woman of John’s apocalypse (Rev. 17), but to the Pentateuchal pattern for the Tabernacle (Ex. 25:8ff) — an inarguably literal building. Most importantly, Ezekiel is told to describe the temple he has seen to the people of Israel, and if they are ashamed and repent, to show them the exact plans and measurements — why? — “so that they may be faithful to its design” (43:10-11).

    To which I replied:

    Well then the New Jerusalem (the Church, the bride of the Lamb) also, must be a literal city because we are given details like:
    Revelation 21:12-21 It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the west. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 The one who spoke with me had a gold measuring rod to measure the city, and its gates and its wall. 16 The city is laid out as a square, and its length is as great as the width; and he measured the city with the rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal. 17 And he measured its wall, seventy-two yards, according to human measurements, which are also angelic measurements. 18 The material of the wall was jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. 19 The foundation stones of the city wall were adorned with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation stone was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; 20 the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates was a single pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.

    What would be the point of the above exercise, if the city does not actually exist?
    Of course, I can almost hear Anderson protesting that Ezekiel has more details than John, to which the obvious questions arises, just how many details does it take for something to be declared literal or symbolic? How do you quantify this? Who draws the line where symbolic ends and literal begins (or vice-versa) in this way? IMO, in the light of the Revelation, Anderson’s argument has no merits.

    On the other hand, if you’re saying the New Jerusalem is a literal city (despite being part of a highly symbolic book, the Revelation, in the same league with Ezekiel), than you have to deal with the fact that according to John, there is no temple in this Jerusalem. Where is Ezekiel’s temple then?

    But all this is rather academic imho; from what I can glean from the writings of the apostolic church, this New Jerusalem of John’s IS the church.  Compare Rev 21:2, 10-21; 2 Co 11:2; Eph 5:31-32; Matt 25:1-13. Yes, the Messiah, a person, is going to be married/united not with a literal city, but with the church of people, his body, so they will become one.

    Getting back to what the apostolic church wrote, Hebrews mentions another Jerusalem: the heavenly one. This is where the symbolic temple of God can be found, the temple in which Jesus entered after his ascension to present his sacrifice before God.

    Also related to the temple, I find this article very interesting: http://www.bsw.org/?l=71901&a=Ani06pdf.html (let me know if you can’t see the pdf, I can put it somewhere else to be downloaded; the article is in French, but you can translate it with Google Translate if you don’t know French). It deals with the 153 fish of John 21:11 and how that might be a reference to Ezekiel’s temple. It is possible that John believed that the things related to the temple, described in Ezekiel, were happening in the 1st century, so thar for John the temple of Ezekiel was a palpable reality in his own time. Interesting read.

    In any case, all references made by the apostolic church to a religiously significant Jerusalem and temple, are not to a literal city and temple. This is very significant since they very well knew of Ezekiel’s temple.

  12. on 02 Sep 2009 at 3:03 pmWolfgang

    Hi John E.,

    Brian had written

    However, from what I can see – in both the Old and New Testaments – the kingdom of God will be a literal, physical kingdom, on the earth.

    to which you replied

    It seems I need to correct a slight misconception here: I never said the opposite of the above. I do in fact believe in the kingdom of God extending upon earth. It will be as you say, a physical reality.

    I would appreciate if “kingdom will be a literal, physical kingdom, on the earth” (Brian’s terminology) and “kingdom … will be a phsysical reality” (John E) would be clarified … what do you mean when you use these terms? The kingdom of God will be an earthly nation (such as we have nations today, with borders enclosing a certain geographical area, a government suc has we now have kings, presidents, parliaments, etc.)? Does “physical” reality mean something like a”political” reality? Or how will the kingdom of God be a “physical” reality?

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  13. on 02 Sep 2009 at 3:59 pmSean

    Wolfgang,

    perhaps it would be helpful to think of the Golden Age of Israel’s united kingdom when David and then Solomon reigned?

    imagine that but with global scope and a perfect king ruling instead–like Jesus

    the concept is so simple

  14. on 02 Sep 2009 at 7:46 pmJohnE

    Wolfgang,

    physical reality of the kingdom means to me that, like Micah said, everyone will “sit under his vine And under his fig tree, With no one to make them afraid” (4:4). And as the psalmist says, “Let grain abound throughout the land; on the tops of the hills may it sway. Let its fruit flourish like Lebanon; let it thrive like the grass of the field […] the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever(72:16; 37:29)

    As I see it, this surpasses even the “golden age” of David and Solomon, who still faced problems during their reigns. It is more like the lost garden of Eden being restored, when people did not suffer the consequences of sin because they were sinless.

  15. on 02 Sep 2009 at 10:41 pmBrian Keating

    Hi JohnE,

    I also believe that the earth will eventually be restored back to its original, paradise conditions – i.e., the conditions that existed during the garden of Eden. (In fact, one of the postings that I have coming up in a few weeks states that very fact.)

    The only qualification I would put on the above is that during the first thousand years after Jesus returns, I believe that he will personally rule the earth, from Jerusalem – and that there will be other nations on the earth during that time as well. In addition, during that time, some of the people on earth will still be mortal – i.e., some people will still die during that time.

    In other words, I believe that the complete restoration of the earth – back to the original paradise conditions – will not happen until after the millenium.

    Brian

  16. on 02 Sep 2009 at 10:47 pmBrian Keating

    Hi JohnE,

    There is one other point I neglected to mention – I believe that Ezekiel’s temple will only exist during the millenium. There won’t be any need for it after the millenium, since (as Revelation states) God himself will live with us after the millenium.

    For me, one of the rather tricky things about prophesy is determining when, exactly, various things are going to happen – during the millenium, or after the millenium.

    Brian

  17. on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:06 pmrobert

    Brian
    I agree with your last 2 post with both my knowlege and my heart.

    “In addition, during that time, some of the people on earth will still be mortal – i.e., some people will still die during that time”

    In many of these that give their life to God will receive salvation during the kingdom and will not die either
    but many will fall to deception when satan is loosed

  18. on 03 Sep 2009 at 12:54 amWolfgang

    Sean,

    your idea is not all that helpful and certainly not “so simple” … but somewhat confusing.

    What do you mean with “think of the golden age of Israel .. but with global scope … and a perfect king”?
    Israel under David and Solomon had borders and the nation and reign of its king did NOT extend over any other nation on planet earth. Are you saying with your “global scope” that there won’t be any other nations, only the (world wide, planet earth encompassing) nation of Israel? Or will all other nations be sovereign nations but all be politically subordinate to the king reigning from his throne in the physical city of Jerusalem?

    A linguistic aspect: Why is the same word in the biblical texts sometimes understood to be “(planet) earth” (the whole world, as modern day folks know it), and sometimes understood to be the biblical “land Israel”?

    Is the difference to ancient Israel only in that it will have a perfect king rather than David who committed sin and made mistakes?

    As JohnE also pointed out, I too don’t think the records concerning the kingdom and new Jerusalem even speak of a physical city Jerusalem, nor does the kingdom of God have anything to do with a physical nation of Israel.

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  19. on 03 Sep 2009 at 1:56 amWolfgang

    John E.,

    As I see it, this surpasses even the “golden age” of David and Solomon, who still faced problems during their reigns. It is more like the lost garden of Eden being restored, when people did not suffer the consequences of sin because they were sinless.

    I would agree that the kingdom of God surpasses the “golden age” of earthly Israel … in particular, I would think that “earthly Israel” and “the land of Canaan promised to them as their land” were only the physical, temporal, earthly “foreshadow” of the spiritual, eternal and heavenly “land reality”

    As for the “garden of Eden restored” idea, I am wondering if perhaps we have at times a wrong idea about “the garden of Eden” when thinking of it as some kind of “utopia” where no evil was present and everything was “good and bliss” … because the record in Gen does indicate that “evil” was present in the garden, “Satan” was present in the garden, and at some time man then did fall for the temptation and commit sin (while he was still in the garden) …

    As I read Rev 21 & 22, the period of what is described as “the new heaven and earth” with “heavenly Jerusalem (the “new Jerusalem, which is above” in Gal 4)” having come down to earth, still is NOT an utopia on earth nor has earth as a whole turned into “a garden of Eden type utopia”, but there is evil outside the city, even though anyone now has entrance into the city if they so desire. It is inside the city, the new Jerusalem, that citizens enjoy those mentioned realities …

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  20. on 03 Sep 2009 at 9:08 amJohnE

    Hi Brian,
    I see no reason for your belief in Jesus reigning from literal Jerusalem, and in the existence of a temple in it; especially since I presented some significant biblical arguments against those ideas, which you chose to not address.

    The only one you did address was the absence of the temple from the New Jerusalem. I must say, your solution to the obvious problem is odd: the temple will be built, it will exist for 1000 years, after which there will be no temple? What happens to it? Will it be demolished or destroyed?

    Hi Wolfgang,

    I’m sure you’ve read that Satan and his demons will be cast into the lake of fire after a thousand years. So there’s no utopia here.

    As I read Rev 21 & 22, the period of what is described as “the new heaven and earth” with “heavenly Jerusalem (the “new Jerusalem, which is above” in Gal 4)”

    One clarification: the heavenly Jerusalem is not the New Jerusalem. The heavenly one is “our (church’s) mother”. It is where Jesus ascended to, and it has a temple in which Jesus entered. The New Jerusalem is the one the Lamb is being united/married with and has no temple. I already provided scriptural arguments that identify it with the church (you can also add to that list John 3:28-29).

    there is evil outside the city, even though anyone now has entrance into the city if they so desire. It is inside the city, the new Jerusalem, that citizens enjoy those mentioned realities

    If you read the context (22:10-15), the time described there is John’s present, not the time when all the evil ones have been already thrown into the lake of fire.

  21. on 03 Sep 2009 at 10:02 amWolfgang

    John E.,

    as for the heavenly and new Jerusalem, since you identify “the new Jerusalem” with the church, perhaps you could clarify WHO the heavenly Jerusalem is?

    I don’t think the church has a literal mother … instead, the passage in Gal 4 where the term “the mother of us” is used should be understood in light of it being allegorical, where two women (mothers) are representative of two covenants, etc …

    In Gal 4, the Jerusalem related to the free woman is described as “Jerusalem which is above”, in Rev 21 a “new Jerusalem” is described as coming down from heaven … I can’t see two Jerusalems being in heaven (a heavenly one and the new one) of which one then is coming down to earth while the other remains in heaven … which would be the scenario you have in mind?

    As I see it, while the “Jerusalem which now [at the time of writing of Gal] is” relates to OT Israel / Judaism, the “Jerusalem which is above / new Jerusalem” relates to the NT church … the one represented by their “mother Hagar”, the bond woman, and the other by “mother Sarah”, the free woman (in the allegory)

    As for evil fellows outside the city, I was thinking of Rev 21:27 … which indicates that there is still stuff outside the city “that defileth” and “worketh abomination” BUT such shall in no wise enter into the new Jerusalem which is then no longer located in heaven but has come down to earth

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  22. on 03 Sep 2009 at 10:37 amrobert

    “As for evil fellows outside the city, I was thinking of Rev 21:27 … which indicates that there is still stuff outside the city “that defileth” and “worketh abomination” BUT such shall in no wise enter into the new Jerusalem which is then no longer located in heaven but has come down to earth”

    I think verse 27 just shows there is no escape from the second death. it doesnt not mean evil will exist outside the city just shows eternal punishment. death for the mortal and eternal torment for the immortal who choose evil over the love of God.

    verse 8 already stated that all evil will have thier part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. verse 27 is for the ones who couldnt understand verse 8 because it confused them

    8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

  23. on 03 Sep 2009 at 12:47 pmWolfgang

    John E.,

    Brian,
    I see no reason for your belief in Jesus reigning from literal Jerusalem, and in the existence of a temple in it; especially since I presented some significant biblical arguments against those ideas, which you chose to not address.

    I agree with the biblical arguments you presented concerning the matter of “literal Jerusalem”, “literal temple”, etc …. and I am wondering how those who propose such ideas will answer to your arguments.

    The only one you did address was the absence of the temple from the New Jerusalem. I must say, your solution to the obvious problem is odd: the temple will be built, it will exist for 1000 years, after which there will be no temple? What happens to it? Will it be demolished or destroyed?

    These are some good questions …
    It seems to me that the matter of a future physical temple made of stone at Jerusalem is indeed a fable and not supported at all in the Scriptures. It just would go totally against how the history of God’s temple has developed with the physical tabernacle and temple on to the church as being God’s temple, a house not made with stones. Doesn’t it seem that the times for a physical stone temple has passed once and for all, seeing that the “foreshadowed type” of tabernacle and temple at Jerusalem is a matter of the past?

    Where did Jesus in his predictions about the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem ever indicate that this temple would be followed by another temple of stone? Did Jesus not know about Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning a temple? Would he not have made reference to such future time of a rebuilding of another temple at Jerusalem if Ezekiel was indeed a reference to such a building?

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  24. on 03 Sep 2009 at 1:22 pmJohnE

    Hi Wolfgang,

    as for the heavenly and new Jerusalem, since you identify “the new Jerusalem” with the church, perhaps you could clarify WHO the heavenly Jerusalem is?

    Indications are that this Jerusalem is simply the heavenly counter-part of the earthly one – see Galatians. The same idea comes out of Hebrews. 

    I don’t think the church has a literal mother

    I don’t think so either, and I’m aware of no one who might have said otherwise.

    In Gal 4, the Jerusalem related to the free woman is described as “Jerusalem which is above”, in Rev 21 a “new Jerusalem” is described as coming down from heaven … I can’t see two Jerusalems being in heaven (a heavenly one and the new one)

    If they are different concepts use by different writers in different contexts, I can easily see two different ones – and I explained above what the difference is. The New one is not the Heavenly one because the heavenly one is the mother of the church, while the church and the new one is spoken as being married to Jesus. I would like to know what do you think, who is Jesus being married to?

     

    As I see it, while the “Jerusalem which now [at the time of writing of Gal] is” relates to OT Israel / Judaism, the “Jerusalem which is above / new Jerusalem” relates to the NT church 

    I can’t see it that way simply because Paul doesn’t let me. The Jerusalem above is not the church, but is the mother of the church.

    As for evil fellows outside the city, I was thinking of Rev 21:27

    Well if you’re referring to that one, you must be careful. That verse does not say that evil EXISTS outside the gates. It’s obvious John doesn’t want to convey that idea since he already said at the end of ch. 20 that all who have not been found in the book of life, have been cast into the lake of fire. That is, unless you think (which I doubt) that the names of the evil ones have been written in the book of life. 

  25. on 03 Sep 2009 at 1:46 pmrobert

    i believe this shows that a literal possession of land upon this earth.
    when did this happen?
    show me GOD’s tabernacle, show me God’s sanctuary.
    show me a heathen that knows this.
    show me where the kingdoms of Israel was ever reunited and completely possessing all of the land promised.

    God has always been what made the Temple,stone is just stone and a building is just a building.

    why was only 3 of the 13 tribes ever mentioned to live in the land of judea at the time of Jesus in the NT but all tribes would be saved. just what tribe did a christian become.

    Ezekiel 37
    21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: 22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: 23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. 24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

  26. on 07 Sep 2009 at 12:01 pmrobert

    Just who does God say will be King over this United Kingdom of Israel. Does it say Jesus or David? It says David here and everywhere else the restored Israel is mentioned. so what will Jesus be King over?
    Ever heard King of Kings mentioned. Jesus will be King over all nations. the Kings of these nations will all bow to Jesus and call Him Lord even David.
    Jesus knew this as it shows here

    What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

  27. on 08 Sep 2009 at 3:56 amBrian Keating

    Hi Everyone,

    Thanks for all of your comments. I have a few points to add to this discussion – so everyone knows where I am coming from:

    First, I believe that there will be two “phases” to the Kingdom of God. First, Jesus will personally rule the kingdom, for 1000 years – i.e., during the “millenium”. In addition, faithful Christians will be co-rulers with Jesus, during the millenium. After that, Jesus will turn over the kingdom to his father, Yahweh. (See Rev 20:4-6, 1 Cor 15:24-25 and 1 Cor 15:27-28.)

    Many items will be different during the millenium, than they will be after the millenium. For example, during the millenium, some people will still die – but after the millenium, there will be no more death at all. (Compare Isa 65:20 to Rev 21:3-4 and Cor 15:26.)

    There are two other items to note, which compare the conditions during the millenium to the conditions after the millenium:

    During the millenium, I believe that the temple that Ezekiel describes (in Eze 40-43) will exist. As I mentioned in a previous post, the reason I believe that that temple will be a literal building is because its dimensions, properties, etc are described in painstaking detail in scripture. Also note that the sacrifices that are described as taking place in that temple are somewhat different than the sacrifices described in the Mosaic law. Interesting…

    After the millenium, I believe that a new city – New Jerusalem – will be established on the earth. I believe that New Jerusalem will be a literal city, because (similar to the temple from Ezekiel) the dimensions, components, etc of that city are described in great detail. (See Rev 21:9-26 and Rev 22:1-5.) The temple from Ezekiel will not be needed in New Jerusalem, since God Himself will be with us at that time. (See Rev 21:22.) So, that temple will apparently be done away with at that time.

    Let me know if you have any questions!

    Brian

  28. on 08 Sep 2009 at 5:42 amXavier

    Brian,

    if Jesus is supposed to represent the [spiritual] Temple and through his death has done away with its sacrifices, why the ‘Millenial Temple” in the ‘City of God’?

    why the gap [Millenium] between the present “evil age” and this future KOG age [Rev 22] in general?

  29. on 08 Sep 2009 at 9:46 amrobert

    Here are 2 words(done away) that causes more misunderstanding than any other 2 words.
    Jesus never done away with anything, He replaced them with a better way. His sacrafice at his death was so we didnt have to go to the Temple to have a High Priest offer this up sacrafice. Jesus is our High Priest and wherever He is so will be the Temple.
    The Temple has always been spiritual, God doesnt need a building he just allowed it. the only things that were ever done away with was what Israel and Judah done away with when there was no longer a real government to enforce the punishments for the laws God gave his people to live by. it wasnt the punishment or the sacrafices that pleased God anyway it was the actions and reasons for following the things that glorify God. the Temple has always dwelled in the People who loved God not a building

  30. on 09 Sep 2009 at 3:12 amBrian Keating

    Hi Xavier,

    You raise two very good questions. The beliefs that I have about those questions are rather complex, but I will try to provide an overview of them.

    First, you asked why will there be a temple in the millenium, when Jesus is our once-and-for-all sacrifice. The short answer that I have to that question is: “I don’t know”. I don’t really know why it would be necessary to have temple sacrifices in the millenium, since Jesus has already died for us.

    However, I do have a suspicion as to why the temple sacrifices will exist. My thought is that the temple sacrifices in the millenium will be somewhat analogous to the Babylonian captivity. Basically, the Jews were kept in captivity in Babylon for 70 years, to “make up” for the fact that the Jews had not kept the sabbath year for 490 years. (A sabbath year occurred once every 7 years, and 490 / 7 = 70.) See Jer 25:1-14 and 2 Chron 36:20-21, among others.

    Similar to the above, the sacrifices during the millenium MAY be designed to allow Jews to “make up” for the fact that they have not accepted the Messiah – and for the fact that they have not been conducting sacrifices since 70 AD. (Herod’s temple was destroyed at that time, so of course no valid sacrifices have been made since then.) Needless to say, this is just a suspicion.

    Also note: I definitely believe that Christians will NOT have to make any animal sacrifices, ever – since Jesus is our sacrifice. Of course, this includes Jews who have accepted Jesus as their Lord. (In other words, the only Jews who will be making sacrifices are the ones who did not accept Jesus during this age.)

    The other question you asked is, why will there be a 1000 year “gap” between the current evil age, and the final establishment of New Jerusalem on the earth. That question is even “deeper” than the first one; but there is one reason for the millenium that I can easily explain.

    Basically, God promised Abraham that he, himself, would inherit the promised land – the land of Canaan. (See Gen 13:14-15, Gen 17:8, Gen 35:12, etc, etc.) Of course, Scripture also tells us that Abraham did not inherit the land of Canaan, while he was alive. (See Acts 7:4-5.) So, one of the reasons for the millenium is that Abraham will inherit Canaan, at that time.

    I believe that there is another important reason for the millenium as well; that reason has to do with salvation for “ignorant” people (i.e., people who never heard about Jesus – even once – during this age.) Perhaps I will be able to bring up that subject at some other time.

    Brian

  31. on 09 Sep 2009 at 10:44 amrobert

    First things is sacrafices have never removed the sins of Man, their faith in God is what removed sins. Just as Jesus’ sacrafice doesnt remove sin from those that dont have Faith in God.
    From the beginning God gave this to man as a way to glorify God by showing their faith that He was the one and only True God and by Him all things are made. God forgives Us everytime we glorify Him. For this reason God gave us Jesus so we could now believe that through his spotless life he could be this sacrafice so we could show our faith. Jesus gave us the way to perform this sacrafice to glorify God by becoming it and becoming the High priest who also mediates between man and God. we do this by partaking in the Lords supper every year when God had appointed the time by giving us passover.
    this was changed by God at Jesus’ death when God damaged the temple at Jesus’ death rendering it useless for sacrafices because also God only recognized Jesus as the only High priest who could perform the sacrafice. so you see Brian to even hint that they existed till 70AD would be not to believe this change. besides jewish history states there was no sacrafices made for 40 years before the temple building was dismantled in 70AD.
    the reason there will be sacrafices in the millenium is because our High priest will dwell amongst us as our King and God will be Dwelling in heaven and the Son always honors His Father by doing the things the Father loves. the sacrafice provides this connection as it is seen from the beginning.

  

Leave a Reply