Kingdom poll

[Guest]

I am not an A-mil or Post-Mil but I understand that 90% of the people on here are. And I can accept that the Kingdom may have begun when Jesus came the first time, but will be (in my understanding) a Kingdom which will be ruled visibly by Christ one day...

I was just curious though when you all believe the Kingdom to have begun?

[Guest]

I don't like the options you've provided. If the Kingdom is understood to be God's rule and reign, then the Kingdom is as old as God. Jesus came to show us the Father and demonstrate the Kingdom. I suppose if you wanted a Christ-related event for when the Kingdom was made manifest, I'd have to say at the Incarnation.

[Guest]

If a kingdom consists of a King and people under the Kings authority, then the kingdom began when the 1st disciples began to follow Jesus.

[Guest]

I guess I should've put an "other" option up there. Oh well, guess it's too late now.
I understand what you mean Mort, that God's rule has been forever past to forever future, but there is a specific "Kingdom of God" that is presented in the Bible.
The thing that I can't seem to understand about your position is when that specified period begins. I posed a question to Matt and he had an answer for me, but it didn't quite jive right with me.
This is what it was....

Luke 21
[20] And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
[21] Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
[22] For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
[23] But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
[24] And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
[25] And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
[26] Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
[27] And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
[28] And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
[29] And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
[30] When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
[31] So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

Notice that the passage says the Kingdom of God is nigh at hand after the things that he had just described come to pass. If what was described was the conditions prior to 70AD - that would mean that the Kingdom of God was only nigh at hand at that point and was not yet established. And so in 70 AD the Most Holy was not yet the anointed King.

However it is stated that Jesus is the King prior to this point. The best conclusion I can draw from this is that He is the King of His people and will one day rule in the "Kingdom of God" that is mentioned in Luke 21.

[Guest]

Hi Aaron,

You know, the funny thing about this passage is the many different interpretations of it in all camps. My former pastor (a staunch dispensationalist) takes this passage to be talking about 70AD. It's hard not to. However, he insists that it's not the parallel to Matt 24 and Mark 13. It's hard to know how that is figured since it's practically identical thought for thought. Other dispensationalists see it as parallel but speaking of a still future time from our perspective.

One thing to consider is that when a kingdom is near or at hand, it can mean several different things. God visited Jerusalem in judgment in 70AD through his instrument, the Roman armies. In that sense, it could be said that His kingdom was "at hand" or "near" when the signs described in that passage were taking place.

When the Iraqi armies saw the dust from American tanks on the horizon, or the bomber planes approaching, they could have said "The USA is at hand (or near)".

God can use even unwilling parties (the Romans) to unwittingly execute His judgments and in that sense, they are an ad hoc part of His kingdom.

Just one more possibility to throw into the murky mix.

[Guest]

I understand your point, Christ, but the wording of it seems to be that when those things had come to pass. Or in other words, when these things had happened, the Kingdom of God is Nigh at hand.

If we were to say that after the US forces were in Iraq for a few months, that the US forces were on their way, it would make very little sense to me. So it seems to be saying that the Kingdom was still to come, in my understanding (whatever that's worth )

[Guest]

Hi Aaron,

I understand your point, Christ,

So as not to incur the same judgment of Herod in Acts 12:21-24, I'm going to have to rebuke you for your reference to me as "Christ".

It's alright if you don't buy my suggestion about the kingdom, but I don't think it can be denied that scripture uses that term to describe something that is past, present, and future and is reveaed in many ways other than what people typically think of (the Millenium).

If the idea that Christ established His kingdom at His 1st coming and gave an impressive demonstration of His kingly authority in 70AD puzzles you, I would ask you to consider one other passage that might make it even more puzzling. Jesus said to the disciples:

Matt 16:28
28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
NKJV

I have yet to hear a sensible explanation of this from the dispensational camp. The common answer is that He was talking about the transfiguration..... 1 week later. If that is so, it's an almost laughable overstatement on the part of Jesus that I think those who espouse it should take note of that. The real question would be, which of them would taste death in that week, not which of them wouldn't.

It seems much more likely to me (if we don't "spiritualize" this passage) that Jesus is talking about His coming in judgment in 70AD, 40 years later. Many there would have expected to die in the next 40 years, and probably did. But some, no doubt, did not. Christ's kingdom was revealed mightily in 70AD and He told His persecutors they would see it.

Matt 26:63-64
And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!" 64 Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
NKJV

But, that's just my opinion. And like belly-buttons, everyones got one, right?

[Guest]

I can't believe I called you Christ , I think alot of you but I went a little far there ,

I agree Christopher about the "Some of you shall not taste death until ...."
thing, I have yet to hear a very clear understanding of this either. However if it does refer to the transfiguration, it isn't odd that he mentioned them not tasting death until they see it. The only ones that saw it was James, John and Peter and they saw it a week later. But couldn't it also mean that His Kingdom began at his resurrection? That makes more sense to me than that he was speaking of 70 AD here.

I have yet to come to a very full conclusion on that verse myself.

[Guest]

Here's something else I found

Matt 25:31
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
(KJV)

Wouldn't you agree that "when He comes in his glory and all the angels with Him" refers to His second coming? If so - the verse says "then" he shall sit upon his "throne of glory".......This seems to say to me that the more true and visible Kingdom is yet future.

[Guest]

Here's something else I found

Matt 25:31
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
(KJV)

Wouldn't you agree that "when He comes in his glory and all the angels with Him" refers to His second coming? If so - the verse says "then" he shall sit upon his "throne of glory".......This seems to say to me that the more true and visible Kingdom is yet future.

Yes, and if you keep reading it says:

Mat 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

It sounds like when Jesus comes back He will judge all aka great white throne judgement.


Rev 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them.

Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

This is consistent with what Jesus said in other places:

Joh 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Joh 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.

When Jesus comes back He will raise the dead, slay the wicked, judge all and the judged are seperated either into the lake of fire or eternal life.

Aaron, this passage actually speaks of what those who hold the Amil position believe. It nowhere states that when Jesus comes back He will set up a 1,000 year kingdom later followed by more rebellion and then final judgement. Instead, final judgement happends when Jesus comes back. When then set before His judgement seat and are judged.