Is God's Kingdom in Earth? Heaven? Both?

I'm not treating the title specifically, but more pointedly. This blog post started out as a facebook comment, which has grown in size beyond the etiquette of posting on facebook! This is in response to a post on an eschatology (the study of the "last things") forum, "Postmillennialism - The Eschatology of Hope."

Short response:

Mark 9:1 "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

If this is a friend and/or friendly debate, it's probably worth it, but if it's just an avatar on the screen, *shrug*--ya' know?--discretion is the better part of valor.

If you really want to engage, check out my longer response at your leisure.

Feedback is always appreciated! Please let me know what you think. God bless!

Long response:

My Story
In my experience, all thinking is circular. That's not to say "all arguments are circular", which is a very different thing. Revelation breaks upon us and wrests our pride away from us, if we allow it. In our humility, we can stop justifying our beliefs and "transcend" what we hold as inherently true.

God has done this for me in my life. My father/the church did this for me from my youth. David Chilton/Gary North did this for me when I was 18 yrs old. Everyone I interact with becomes a source for me to rethink my thinking.

Why do I say this? If you subscribe to a coherent system of thought [of which Augustinian-Calvinism vs. Pelagian-Socinianism (per AA Hodge) are the two rival, theological systems], then you must understand the evidence proffered as proof from within that system and how it's necessary to that system to function. Anything less is throwing stones.

My opinion.

Note, most arguments are just stone-throwing-contests. It's why I've bowed out of general debate, which I did heavily in my twenties. I'm in my thirties now and OH SO WISE! (sarcasm of course; really, just burned enough, when I realized that even I didn't know what "Calvinism" actually was even though I defended it. Herman Bavinck helped).

How to Respond?
For a practical turn here from "my story", what can this person offer as evidence of their claim "Postmil[lennialism] by implication contradicts that and many other texts."?

You can continue to try and defend your stated position, but how well do you know it? People are often tripped up, not because they are defending the truth or a lie, but because they can't seem to defend it.

I believe a commitment to truth keeps more people in it than ability to defend it and that's okay. Obedience is more important than the sacrifice it takes to become a superb thinker/speaker/debater.

In "defense" of thy kingdom come...
I understand what they're saying. From their perspective this "proof text" does not constitutes proof. Agreed! Check out Mark 9:1 for something more like a proof text.

But their response fits well my understanding of thy kingdom come. Let me explain...

Theoretical and Practical Postmillennialism
IF they actually do what they're saying, I'd argue that the faithfulness of the bride increases AND influence increases. Or else the church is impotent.

What the church militant does in history is the apparent way the kingdom advances on earth (by His direction). If they reject that, fine. If they can't understand postmillennial thinking as a system of thought, well "aye there's the rub."

Epistemology (How we know "what we know")
Appealing to "context" is not a good argument against systematics. It's a good argument against eisegesis, aka "forcing in" our thoughts. But who would accuse Jesus or any of the Apostles with interpreting out-of-context when they applied the Old Testament in ways that were hitherto unconventional?

This person claims that postmillennial implications contradict Jesus' teaching. Can they show how? How can you be expected to respond with "truth in love" if you have nothing to respond to?

I wish I could sit down with every person I disagree with and we could logically work through every disagreement. Alas, this will not happen. And there's not enough time.

I hope this helps as you think through important issues.

Too Many Questions, So Little Time

My Prologue:

My thoughts spun and spun for a while.  You'll see that I craft my final answer from a lot of spread out thoughts (mostly seen in bold through the blog post) with which I hope to have said something succinct.  For my Intro to the New Testament class, this week, I have to answer this student posed question:

Drane shows that, while the book of Matthew reflects a “strong Jewish interest,” nevertheless it has “a great emphasis on the universality of the Christian message” and “a striking emphasis on the missionary work of the church” (p.196). As an example, he points to the Great Commission (Matt 28:16-20), where Jesus commands his disciples to go, teach and baptize “all nations” (vv.19-20a). Jesus also says, “this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matt 24:14; also Mark 13:10). The book of Revelation shows a multitude of ransomed in heaven “from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev 5:9).
The Greek word translated above as “nations” is ethnos, which has been defined as “ethno-linguistic people groups” (thecgcs.org). 11,755 people groups have been identified worldwide, of which about 60% are classified as “unreached” (imb.org). In light of the above Scriptures and this definition/understanding of the Greek word ethnos, what does it mean today for the church to be (as Drane puts it) “universal in its Christian message?”
Does it mean targeting anyone and everyone in all geographical areas, as Paul and his coworkers appear to be doing in their missionary journeys? Or does it mean targeting particular people groups at home and abroad, like some mission agencies are busy doing today? Are some people groups being neglected in our evangelism and discipleship efforts because, for whatever reason, we are not crossing ethnic/linguistic lines? Is there another way to translate/understand the Greek word ethnos or interpret the above Scriptures, and thus arrive at a different conclusion, with different implications, regarding home and foreign missions? Is “the end” of the age really pending our completing the Great Commission? Didn’t Jesus’ disciples complete the task when they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and became his “witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8)? What does Paul mean when he says, “from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else’s foundation” (Rom 15:19-20)?
Are all these questions and issues relevant to the church today, such that we need to be concerned with them? I look forward to your responses.

My First Attempt:

Wow!  Great questions.  I have a "love/hate" relationship with evangelism.  I feel guilty whenever the subject comes up.  Is it me? Or is it the way it's presented? Something else?

I have found that more people talk about evangelism than actually do it.  Are we missing the mark as a church?  Are all members hands only, feet only, mouths only, etc.?

I have stood on a street corner (a couple of times) and handed out tracts and/or talked to people about Jesus using "The Way of the Master" stuff, which is pretty neat by the way.  I have shared my faith with people at college, work, bars, etc. (I went to sunday school at a Pentecostal church, so I had the fire put in me as a kid, haha!)

I have read through the scripture and come to some conclusions, which may or may not be correct or popular.  Please let me know if you think I am off-base or there are other things I need to think about.

My working thoughts:

The average Christian is commended to be ready to have an answer for the hope that is within them.  Study to show yourself approved and live at peace with your neighbor as much as possible.

In a pastoral epistle Christians leaders are commended to do the work of an evangelist.  They are on the "pointy end of the spear" and should lead by example, not by prodding (which may be how a few actually apply "equipping of the saints"!).

The church is a body made up of many parts.  Some are called to be evangelists and if that's not you, it's okay.  But we have a responsibility to support each other, so if you're not evangelizing you should be praying for those who do, give them encouragement, and if possible support (i.e., food, shelter, clothing...money(!), rest/furlough from fieldwork, etc.).

Evangelism isn't very different from discipleship, or at least it doesn't have to be viewed so differently.  If my basic message is one of repentance, that message applies to the believer as much as it does the non-believer.  The depth of the call is different, as much as the response we would expect to receive based on the work of the Holy Spirit in someone's life.

So the vision I have looks like this.  Missionaries go out and evangelize, raising up local leaders who really do the work of discipleship with their people.  The people are taught to live a life worthy of the calling and encouraged to share their faith.  From their midst, God calls some to be evangelists and the process continues.  Visually it's like what strawberries do.

Naturally it would spread gradually across the geography.  But in this age of transportation, we can of course go much further than a strawberry's stolon/new plant can!  This is good.

But we can't all be evangelists, it would subvert the building of the kingdom.  Not all citizens are in the military at the same time, it would be unsustainable.  And like Jesus said, the poor you will have with you always (I'm not against the poor!  We just can't get them all help at this exact moment, I have to feed my kids first).

I like what Jesus said, go and preach and if they accept the message, stay in the same house, don't move from house to house.  But if they do not accept it, leave that city and shake the dust off of your feet (I take those words like this, try and pass on the message but if they're not ready, move along.  Someone else will come by when they are ready to hear!).

I was raised on a fare of Christian stories.  I loved the story about the leader of a tribe in Papua New Guinea who became a Christian and converted his whole family.  They prayed for bible teachers.  People who wanted to evangelize the tribal peoples of Papua New Guinea came over and worked with this leader to teach them the bible!  This fills me with hope that IF WE LISTEN, the Holy Spirit will direct our missionary efforts.

The reality is that we cannot “target everyone”.  With human limitations (i.e., time and space), we are forced to make choices, which would seem to be life or death in some salvific sense.  If we do this continually and learn from our choices, my suspicion is that as we look back, we would see that the Holy Spirit was always involved.

God does not override our choices and we cannot subvert the will of God.  With this in mind, we need to evangelize in faith and not worry.  We can seek the best use of our time, for sure.  I would absolutely be in favor of conversations which would seek to maximize effort.

But unfortunately, I usually see these kinds of questions leading to “conclusive answers” which are then used to judge other Christians for not doing it “the way we decided to do it, because our motives are pure and if yours was, you’d do it our way”!

I don’t think you mean it that way.  At least I hope not.  Some of the hardest people to talk to are the spiritually proud.  And it’s not always easy to spot.  “Everyone should be evangelizing!” goes the common refrain.  Why?  “Because it’s all about Jesus and if you’re not aggressively evangelizing, you must not have a burden for the lost.”

My burden is for “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”  I grew up in the church and see the brokenness in our own ranks.  Judgment must first begin at the house of God.  My version of an evangelistic program looks like what most people would call discipleship.

When the flock is healthy (in the process of healing, at least), other sheep which are not of the flock will be drawn in because of the Great Shepherd!  I truly believe that we need to focus on growth in maturity, and that will take care of the growth in numbers.

Are people more concerned about numbers for the sake of the kingdom or the budget?  If people knew what it took to “save a life”, they would not be so quick to say “we need more people!”  Helping one or two is grueling work.  Why would you want to help a hundred?

Are you equipped to lead a hundred sick sheep to the great healer?  I’m not.  I’m trying to learn how to be a leader to my wife and six children.  I am a terrible leader.  Some may think me a good or even a great leader, but I’m not...yet.  I want to be one.  I want to follow my master.

“Who do I evangelize?” seems like the wrong question to me.  For most of us, the scriptural paradigm is to “bloom where we are planted.”  If we thought about the people in our lives who “need Jesus” we could come up with a few names.

The first task is to start praying for them by name, asking God to send someone into their lives.  The next task is to start asking who that person may be, while praying for them, so as to prepare the way.  Then you should ask, “Lord, is it me?”

To me, this is the normative process.  How do we apply this process to the “ethnos”?  I don’t know.  How do we apply Jesus’ advice to his apostles?  I don’t know.  Maybe we’re already doing it.  It’s easy to criticize what other Christians are doing if it doesn’t fit our mental model.

It’s a preeminently more difficult task to seek out how they are already fulfilling the mission to which they have been called.  This is the task of ecumenism on the denominational scale.  This is the task of irenicism, at any scale.

My Second Attempt:

Presuppositions matter.  I think I may disagree with how you frame the discussion, but we can come back to that later.

"What does this mean?"

"How may this be applied?"

These are two separate questions.  Confusing them will get us into a lot of trouble (for example, "is Jesus present? how is Jesus present? in the Eucharist"; sadly we have division over the "how" when most would exclaim "Yes!" to him being present).

"Ethnos" means "a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):—Gentile, heathen, nation, people" if Strong's Definitions can be trusted.  It is used 162 times in 150 verses of the NASB.

It can be applied as generally as the word was used, but it can also be applied as specifically as the Holy Spirit leads you to do so.  If there are groups trying to ascertain the will of the Lord, God bless them!

I don't expect them to impose their view on me; neither will I attempt to impose my specific application onto them.  But the basic understanding of the intention of the text must not be misconstrued.  It is not intended to be a manual on how to conduct evangelism.

It is merely a commission to go and do evangelism!  Furthermore, it's a commission to evangelize every individual person of every nation on earth!

My Third Attempt:

If we are commanded to go to all nations, should we skip any?  No.  We should go to all nations and preach the gospel.  If it is accepted, we stay and teach.  If it is rejected, we move along.  It may be that someone else will come along and try again when they are ready to hear!

My Final Answer (drawn from the material above):

Wow!  Great questions.  "What does this mean?"  "How may this be applied?"  These are two separate questions.  Confusing them will get us into a lot of trouble (for example, "is Jesus present? how is Jesus present? in the Eucharist"; sadly we have division over the "how" even though I think most would exclaim "Yes!" to him being present).

"Ethnos" means "a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):—Gentile, heathen, nation, people" if Strong's Definitions can be trusted.  It is used 162 times in 150 verses of the NASB.  It can be applied generally (which is how I believe it was used), but it can also be applied as specifically as the Holy Spirit leads you to do so!

If we are commanded to go to all nations, should we skip any?  No.  We should go to all nations and preach the gospel.  I like what Jesus said, go and preach and if they accept the message, stay in the same house, don't move from house to house.  But if they do not accept it, leave that city and shake the dust off of your feet (I think it also means that someone else will come by when they are ready to hear!).

I have more extensive thoughts, and if you read them, please don't take them as combative.  I tend to be sharp in my analysis, but I don't intend to be sharp with people, if that makes sense.  Anyways, God's peace be with you. (Go to the following link for my extremely "long answer"! https://michaelsei.blogspot.com/2019/06/too-many-questions-so-little-time.html)

My Epilogue:

I really want to address the eschatological (last things/end times) questions.  

Interpreting prophecy and parable, I believe that the church will grow and grow to fill the whole world until the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea!  I believe that one day swords will be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks!

I believe that Christ is reigning now and that one day all nations will "bow the knee" to Christ (not a utopian vision, mind you).  At which point, he will deliver the world to the father, so that God may be all in all.  I believe that the apostles did fulfill the call to evangelize the nations as it says in scripture.

But that is the "here now, but not yet" paradigm.  Their work will continue, however Christ could return at any moment.  We are to "occupy till he comes".  These questions are relevant because they reflect our (mis)understanding of the purpose of the church.

We understand it in broad brush strokes, "It's all about Jesus!"  But we misunderstand it in the details as he said we would, "Jesus when did we love you with our whole hearts?  When you properly nurtured your children, you were nurturing me" for instance.

If you are still reading, feel free to comment on this in the Google classroom.  Every topic is deep and wide, but we only have so much time.

-- 

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

Global Warming and Risk, Risk, Risk! Subtitled: Our Diar[rhea] Circumstances...

Holy Crimea Batman! This piece reads like the alarmist literature it claims to not be. As I got a good laugh out of how it linked all of the world's ills to global warming, I thought to myself, "Why not blame the widening rich-poor gap on global warming too!" And guess what? Unfortunately, I cannot even muster the courage to quote the ridiculousness contained therein. Instead, I shall make a prediction.

I have no idea how long it will take for policy setters...er...modern scientists, to quit their shenanigans. Thus I give no timeline to my prediction. One disclaimer: I don't mean all scientists have disavowed science for politics, I mean that those policy setters wearing the academic garb of scientia are not scientists in any sense of the word (hyperbole). The average person will one day view global-warmers as we now view flat-earthers. Unfortunately, they will probably misattribute the held belief of the common uneducated person to the religious who have opposed the common view if for no other reason than that it fails to align with divine revelation. #endrant

"Them bones, them bones, them dry bones..."

Ezekiel 37:11 Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope has perished. We are completely cut off.’ 12 “Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 “Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. 14 “I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it,” declares the LORD.’” (Emphasis mine.)

Matthew 27:52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. (Emphasis mine.)

I don't recall anyone ever pointing this out, I'm sure it has been in some commentary somewhere...It seems to me that the graves were opened in fulfillment of this prophecy. I have wondered for a long time, the significance of the dead saints being raised and walking through Jerusalem. But it seems that the prophecy was for those in whom God would put His spirit and that He would make them to walk upon the land of Israel. This prophecy is characteristic of many Ezekiel passages which refer to the New Covenant. In this case the only "saints" that could be raised were O.T. believers/saints. But in other passages where promises are given to the living, it appears that they are to the Jewish Christians and "Gentile" Christians; given our N.T. understanding of the mystery which is Christ in us...Every Christian truly is a "Jewish" Christian...This goes against our modernistic thinking, though; but Paul said it:

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

If I could summarize; there is only one sense to the prophetic passages but there can be many applications. Thus, either the specifically Jewish orientation of the prophecy contains the real sense with the fact that all Christians are "true Jews" as an application or else the sense is really going for a promise aimed at all believers in the N.T. era with an application specifically directed at the Jews. Divorcing non-Jewish Christians from the promises in the O.T. Prophets seems to result in misapplication of the texts or maybe even missing the real sense of the passages; I withhold any conclusions either way on my part as of yet.

Does God promote cannibalism?

Ezekiel 5:9 'And because of all your abominations, I will do among you what I have not done, and the like of which I will never do again. 10 'Therefore, fathers will eat their sons among you, and sons will eat their fathers; for I will execute judgments on you and scatter all your remnant to every wind.

What we see here is an example of God's pronouncement of judgment. In other passages we see the same curse mentioned...but why was this curse added to the Deuteronomy curses in the first place? If nothing else, because God knew the future. Note that He says that He has not actually brought this curse to bear before and that He will do so in a very specific capacity and that He will never do so again (which could be figurative, in order to emphasize the gravity of the situation). It is an earthly judgment reserved for the severest of offenses: rejecting God and whoring after other gods. The next question is, when was/will this fulfilled?