Once And Future Kingdom - Part I

Today, I am starting a two-part series on the Kingdom of God. This series goes hand-in-hand with my post "Just What Do You Mean ... Gospel?". The Kingdom and the Gospel are inseparable, are they not?

I didn't sit down intending to write today's article. What you are reading grew out of a couple introductory paragraphs that were meant to build toward the main topic which we will get to next time. A few paragraphs turned into an entire post. Then I had to split it up.

I want to remind you what the COG splinters believe about the Gospel:

"Notice, Jesus said, 'Believe THE GOSPEL!'
WHAT Gospel? The one He was proclaiming - 'the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.'"
...
"The Gospel of Jesus Christ is NOT man's gospel ABOUT THE PERSON of Christ. It is CHRIST'S Gospel - the Gospel Jesus PREACHED - the Gospel God SENT by Him, and therefore it is also called, in Scripture, the Gospel of God. The Gospel of God is God's GOSPEL - His Message - His Good News which He sent by Jesus."
-Herbert Armstrong, "What Is The True Gospel?", p. 6, 1972

In short, the Gospel God gave is about the future Kingdom of God.
There are some qualities about the Kingdom that the booklet specifies:

• It isn't some condition you feel in your heart.
• You must be resurrected into it, which doesn't occur until Jesus returns.
• It is a single, world-ruling entity.

The Kingdom of God in Armstrongism is all about prophecy and law. It is almost entirely a situation in the future. Perhaps the not-so-distant future for us, but undeniably the far distant future to those people alive when Jesus preached about it two millennia ago. It was as far from them in their future as Abraham was in their past - but they didn't know that because they didn't know when it would be. I came up with a purposefully absurd phrase that exaggerates the claims in order to illustrate the issue: "Good News, everyone! I will be back in a few thousand years with more of the same." News like that would not seem so very good. Least of all to Jews in the diaspora.

So many questions come to mind.
Was there no message for the people of that day, or us for that matter, now, today, immediately, besides, "Keep Sabbath-ing until I get back"? Is the Kingdom of God purely a future item? What of the verses that say the Kingdom is at hand? If it is not entirely in the future, then what is the Kingdom now? Are we in it now or not?

The Gospel goes hand-in-hand with the Kingdom, I do not deny this. I only claim the Kingdom is not the whole Gospel message. But what is the Kingdom? And what is the message for the first century, and by extension for us today? These are the types of things I want to explore in this series.

Today, we will explore some issues and puzzles with the Kingdom of God. Next time, we will get to the message for the first century.

THREE ISSUES AT HAND

Let us explore some issues with the Kingdom of God. There are some contradictions here. Don't brand me an enemy of Christ for using that word just yet. I will give you the end of the story at the start: they are only contradictions if you unquestioningly accept the timing and claims of Armstrongism. That ending probably didn't make it much better for some of you. Well, I think we can clear all of this up. But it won't do any good to clear up a problem if we don't look at it first.

Issue #1: When?

First, was it imminent, or distant?

Jesus said multiple times that the Kingdom was at hand (MAT. 3: 2; 4: 17; 10: 7). And that's just a short list. There are more. Let's look closely at Matthew 4: 17:

(MAT. 4: 17) From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

This verse makes it sound like "the Kingdom is at hand" was a regular message of His. If it was, then there could be countless unrecorded times when He said the Kingdom was 'at hand'. It changes things quite a bit if the regular message was not just "the Kingdom of God" but "the Kingdom of God is at hand."

Does "at hand" refer to that time or our future? Do we have to use some odd turn of phrase to make sense of it, such as "a thousand years to God is like a day, so really it was only two days away"? As if you have Ben Kenobi there saying, "It is at hand ...from a certain point of view."

But!

There are other verses that make the Kingdom look far away. According to Herbert Armstrong, there was no Gospel in our Lord's birth, nor His death, nor His person, but only in a the Kingdom that would not come until Jesus returned. "Good news, everyone! I will be back in a few thousand years..." To be fair, it's not like that is entirely baseless. There are in fact several verses that place the Kingdom at His return. I hope you don't mind if I do not go through them here. I will assume we are all already familiar.

Does that mean it is only a thing of the future? Is there no portion at all for us now?

The timing is an issue.

Issue #2: Whose?

Second, to whom does the Kingdom belong - the Father, the Son, or us?

We have several other verses where Jesus says the Kingdom belongs to His Father, for example Matthew 13:43, and 26: 29.

So, the Kingdom belongs to the Father.

But!

In John 18: 36 , Jesus says, "My Kingdom"? He does it again in Luke:

(LUK. 22: 29) And I bestow [present tense] upon you [that's us] a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed [past tense] one upon Me.

I pointed out the verb tense for a reason. Don't ignore those.
Paul also says it in Collosians:

(COL. 1: 13) He [the Father] has delivered [past tense] us from the power of darkness and conveyed [past tense] us into the kingdom of the Son of His love...

So, the Kingdom belongs to Jesus already, past tense. And we are delivered into it already, past tense. So it's His? And we're in it? And it's ours?

According to Armstrongism, the Kingdom isn't His. Not yet, anyway. The Kingdom won't be handed to Him until His second coming. That is because Armstrongism believes Daniel 7: 13-14 shows Jesus receiving the Kingdom from the Father, while verses 11-12 set the time at the end times. Nor are we in it because we have to be resurrected to be in it. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. All of this talk about present tense and past tense is really just poetry that actually mean future tense. But does it?

So, it's the Fathers, and Jesus', and ours? Whose Kingdom is it anyway? Are these all just references to the far future?

Possession is an issue.

Issue #3: Where?

Third, where is this Kingdom anyway, and who are its citizens?

Jesus says the Kingdom is not of this world. Jesus says the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" 45 times in the Gospel of Matthew. That is the entire Gospel according to Herbert, no? That His Kingdom is not here but is going to be coming here. The "coming Kingdom of God". The World Tomorrow.

Jesus says "of heaven" often, but never "of earth" nor "of heaven and earth". The Lord's Prayer does say "Thy Kingdom come" does it not?

Armstrong spent several words explaining how flesh and blood cannot inherit this Kingdom (I COR. 15: 50), and how we must be born again as spirit to participate, which means resurrected (JON. 3: 1-8).

But!

We also have several references to the Kingdom here on earth. Just for two examples:

(MAT. 12: 28b) ...surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.
(LUK. 10: 9) And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

Near? Upon? Heaven?

This causes people to think, "Well, Jesus has not returned yet, and I believe in soul-sleep (that is a critical factor here, but I won't get into it today), so it must still mean that the message is for the future. Maybe it was only present while Jesus was present."
OK. A reasonable line of thinking given the belief system.
But it doesn't explain how we are delivered into it now, or how it is given to us now, as Luke and Paul clearly wrote. It only explains how it can be here at the second coming. It takes all past and present tense and makes them future. Plus, it actively combats the idea that the church (all the people who repent and believe) are citizens of the Kingdom right now - even while at the very same time maintaining the church are citizens of that Kingdom now. They aren't, but they are.

And if that isn't enough, these three conditions are placed on the Kingdom:

1. Not physical but spirit beings,
2. Who believe and repent,
3. And aren't of this world.

But when Jesus returns at the start of the Millennial period, look at the Kingdom:

1. Physical beings,
2. Who might believe and might have repented,
3. On earth.

How can Herbert Armstrong emphasize that physical beings cannot participate in the Kingdom, then immediately turn right around and say Jesus will bring the Kingdom to physical beings at the start of the Millennial Period? To reiterate: Flesh and blood cannot be in the Kingdom, but flesh and blood will be in the Kingdom. How?
Don't go saying we will find out who was really in it at the end. No, they will all be citizens in it. Despite all the avoiding pork and the Sabbath-ing that are supposedly going to bring universal peace, many will simply throw it all away when they are tempted.

So, is it spirit or flesh? Is it the church or not? Is it on earth or in heaven? Is it in heaven now but here only later on?

Location is a problem.

I PROPOSE A SOLUTION

We have problems in timing, possession, and location. What can the answer to these issues be? I wish to propose to you a solution.

The answer: it's all of the above.

The Kingdom is now and future. The Kingdom is spirit and physical. The Kingdom is the Father's, the Son's, and ours. The Kingdom is in heaven and on earth. There is no either/or. It's both/and. Those aren't contradictions at all. They are all true.

I know you are inherently disappointed with my proposal. You are saying my solution is also contradictory. That's because you are still thinking either/or. It hasn't sunk in yet. The Armstrongist solution to the three issues is prophecy and law. If we kick this can down the road, we can ignore the issues. That's not what I am proposing, though. I am proposing that we ditch the either/or in favor of both/and. One does not need to preclude the other.

Still unconvinced? Hear me out, please. There is a little more to it than just this. I have not given you my entire solution yet. There is a second part. As a bonus, I do honestly think most of you already believe it.

ONCE AND FUTURE KINGDOM

I fully admit and agree that when we look around at the miserable conditions of the "push-button leisure world" of today, we wonder where God could possibly be hiding. I pray for His will to at long last be done on earth as it is in heaven, just like you. But He is here. Like a still, small voice. All Christians believe this.

As a Westerner, I am not huge on both/and reasoning. Westerners are either/or folk. In fact, I personally tend to be a pessimist. Perhaps, when I get in a mood, I am best described as a neither/nor. But in this case it just makes sense, once you fully understand what I'm saying. Emphasis on fully.

The trick here is to let go of Herbert Armstrong's demand that the Gospel is only for some future time, and just let the Gospel also be about who Jesus is and what He accomplished. Precisely as we saw in the post "Just What Do You Mean ... Gospel?" Let the Gospel be the full message that it is.

I know that is a lot to ask.

If Jesus only went around preaching the "far future Kingdom of God" as His Gospel, then why go around regularly preaching the imminent Kingdom of heaven? The Armstrongist version makes it a bait and switch. It isn't! Jesus preached that way because it in fact was imminent. His message was a Kingdom at hand because it was at hand. There is no need to explain it away with things like, "It was at hand only while He was here."

"But, the Millennium and peace and holy days in Jerusalem..." I hear someone saying. Yes. I know that is the picture you have in your mind of what the Kingdom is like. Kingdom = paradise. I do not ask you to throw that out. Just set it aside for now, briefly.

No one involved in this discussion claims the Kingdom of Heaven is of Heaven only, and will never be of this world, ever. In Armstrongism that isn't true because it's coming here, to earth, where there are physical people. And it will be like that for 1,000 years. If Jesus is coming to bring the Kingdom to earth (and He is) then it will be of this world at some point (and it will). That's the whole Gospel according to Herbert. We all accept the Kingdom can be in Heaven and here.

But I propose it makes more sense that the Kingdom is here now, since the Holy Spirit is here now, and we are God's Temple now, and we are citizens of the Kingdom now. All of these are here and all of these are now. The church is the body of Christ now (I COR. 12: 27). One body, yet still individuals. It's both! How can we be the body of Christ, yet Christ is not here? He is here! The Son is here and the Spirit is here. Now. Today. Do you think you were called to Christianity because God is away on a far journey and needs you to stand in? He was personally involved in your life to bring you to faith, was He not? So, if the Kingdom is here while He is here, then it is here..
...yet not fully here.

Do you still think what I am proposing makes no sense? I'll tell you what makes no sense, dear reader. Claiming the Kingdom of God can only be here while Christ is here, and yet He is here - in us - while maintaining Christ and the Kingdom are not here because He isn't here. That either/or thinking is what makes no sense.

If God is here now (and He is), because we are His body now (and we are), and the Spirit is in us (and it is), and we are His Temple now (and we are), and we have citizenship in the Kingdom now (which we do), then the Kingdom is at hand right now for us who love Him. It's both!

Your Minister tells you the church is not the Kingdom on earth. Why? Because that's what the Catholics say? Well, they also say to pray. Are we to reject prayer because it's what the Catholics say to do? Catholics also say the Kingdom will be on earth after the final judgment, don't you know? So, are you forced to reject the coming Kingdom now? Luke and Paul and John all say the church is in the Kingdom. If you recall, even Herbert Armstrong said the church is Kingdom "en eutero". Well, that counts!

How many more things do you need to accept before you accept you are part of the Kingdom now? How many times have you said, "My citizenship is in heaven"? Plenty, I'll wager. Probably every time you skip voting. Realize that you already accept what I'm saying. So, what's the issue?

I know some of you are inherently disappointed with my proposal. We both know merely saying "it's both" is unsatisfying because it doesn't answer everything. How can the Kingdom be of this world yet not of this world, here but not here, ours yet not ours, at the first coming yet at the second? How can it be both/and when it seriously looks either/or? It sounds just as conflicting as the things I mentioned earlier. There is another factor in the equation.

NOW, BUT NOT FULLY

To this point, I have only hinted at the second part of my solution. Let's dig into it in earnest.

Do you reject my solution because flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom? Are you thinking I am ignoring that verse? Have you forgotten your own beliefs? When Jesus returns, flesh and blood will be in the Kingdom for a thousand years. No?
It says flesh and blood cannot inherit, but it does not say flesh and blood cannot be citizens of. There are plenty of citizens in every Kingdom, but only one is going to inherit it. You accept this, too. The key here is to think of it as a process.

Do you recall your Minister teaching you that there is duality in prophecy? Some things in prophecy are fulfilled twice. Yes, you do. I don't even need to give you an example because you're already trying to think of at least one right now. I propose it's the same thing here.

The Kingdom is here now, but it is only partial at this time. When you were an infant, were you any less yourself than you are now? No. There was so much more to come, but you were still completely you. Same with the Kingdom. It is here, now, and we are citizens now, but not fully here now and not fully ours at this time. A little now, a whole lot more later.

Add "a little now with a lot more later" to the "both/and" and you get the whole solution I am proposing.

We yet live on faith and hope now, but we do have a down payment as insurance.

(II COR. 1: 21) Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, 22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

(II COR. 5: 50 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

Many things are promised and are partially realized but are not fully realized at this time. The Kingdom is in stark contrast to this world, as our faith should be. But we who have faith are citizens of the Kingdom that is in heaven now. Your life should be a mini Kingdom, right now. Therefore, the Kingdom is in heaven now and on earth now. Yet, the Kingdom is coming in a more concrete, tangible, complete way in the future. The Holy Spirit is our guarantee that when it is fully realized we will be part of it. Yet, not as citizens but as inheritors.

This is precisely the message preached at every Feast of Tabernacles I've ever been to. You already believe what I'm saying. I am just presenting it in a different, less contradictory way. All you need to do is give yourself permission to accept the whole Gospel message. It is not just a future Kingdom only, but who He is and what He accomplished - now. That good news is for us! He accomplished those things so we can participate with Him - now. Only, it's a little now and a lot more later.

It is the once and future kingdom.

This explanation I give you resolves all three contradictions. They are only contradictory in the first place when the Gospel butts heads with Herbert Armstrong's Adventist demands for prophecy.

If the "prophecy and law" view is to be believed, everything that looks like it refers to the here and now is just a message about the there and then. The world tomorrow. There was no immediate good news for the world today, let alone the first century, other than, "When you are resurrected, things will be better ...IF you Sabbath hard enough." That's not very good news. There is no substance to the here and now. The here and now is just metaphoric, or poetic, or something. Despite the deposit of the Holy Spirit, there is no real assurance in that system. Not even for the faithful and repentant. Because we sin, we are all supposed to be surprised when Jesus resurrects us to His Kingdom at His second coming, or else resurrects us to the "second death" later on. "Fantastic news! You have a chance to win!"
I disagree.

The Gospel is about who Jesus is and what He already accomplished, PLUS what He will yet accomplish. It's about assurance in faith and hope now, PLUS a fuller, tangible, in-hand realization of what has been promised in the future. It's about citizenship now, PLUS inheritance in the future. It's here with us now until we are there with it then. It is not perfect now but it will be more perfect in the future.
It's both/and. A little now, a lot later.

And in the far, far future, it will be even more perfect still!

(I COR. 15: 24-28) 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Utter perfection. Amen!

You see, I have not ignored those verses about "of heaven" or "flesh and blood cannot inherit". I have already said, "Jesus says the phrase 'Kingdom of Heaven' 45 times in the Gospel of Matthew." (And "coming Kingdom of God" zero times.) And some of those say, "the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." I did not ignore or discount this truth. I have not ignored Philippians 3: 20, which says "our citizenship is [present tense] in heaven". I also have not ignored are other verses, like Revelation 1: 9, where John says he is a companion in tribulation and kingdom. He and they were in the kingdom 1,900 years ago. It's now. ...but it's also not now. It's both! Because it's a little bit now and a whole lot more later.

(EPH. 2: 19) Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God

CONCLUSION

It is the Son's Kingdom, and our Kingdom, yet it never stops being the Father's Kingdom - at the same time. It's both/and.
If the Son and the Spirit are here, in the church, which is the body of Christ and the Temple of God, then God is here, and the Kingdom of God is in heaven and on earth - at the same time. It's both/and.
If the Kingdom was given to the Apostles, and they brought us in, and we yet hope for more to come in the future, then it is now and in the future - at the same time. It's both/and.

Partially at hand now, fully in hand then.
Partially on earth now, fully on earth then.
Partially ours now, fully ours then.

Just like prophecy, the Gospel of the Kingdom of heaven is fulfilled in duality. There is a partial fulfillment followed by a more optimal fulfillment. A type and an antitype.
Is it not the same with the law?
(HEB. 10: 1) For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
The Old Covenant law was a shadow of the fulfillment brought by Christ.
Think of your own Christian walk. You were not the person you are, and you are not the person you will become. It's the same thing.

Is it really so unusual when I say the Kingdom we have now is just a shadow of the better fulfillment Jesus will bring when He returns?

I told you - you already believe this.
All you really need to do is let the Gospel be the Gospel.

But there I go with the future again. I want to force our eyes back from the far future, back from the near future, back from our present, and back onto the people of Jesus' day. We need to go to the past.

But this has been quite a post already. I think we should stop here to give everyone a chance to breathe.

In my next post, let's look more closely at the message Jesus gave to the people of His time so we can see how it did apply straight to them, and to see how the message to them has rippling effects on our lives and our calling today. There is so much more to it. There is real meat to it, right now!

For weeks, I've had this need to explore the message to the first century. I started writing this post before I started writing "What Do You Mean ... Gospel?" and that post and this came from thinking about the next post. When I sat down to write, and even after three weeks of writing and editing, what I was doing is working on Part II of this series. I didn't expect today's post to get so big. All of this was supposed to be a couple paragraphs of intro. This wasn't meant to be a two-parter. I haven't even gotten to the topic I intended to write about!

And, completely by accident, this turned out to be a decent post for this time of year, what with the Feast of Tabernacles and all. Bonus!

See you next time. For now, beloved of God, I leave you with a prayer of blessing. May God bless you and open your heart to a more full, more hopeful, more reassuring understanding of your place in His plan and His love.

 

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************