His Kingdom Will Never Be the Physical World?

Many people mistakenly take a Gnostic view of eternity, and believe that we will be forever in heaven. One of the few passages they can quote is John 18:36, where Jesus tells Pilate the following:

"My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

That is the way most translations translate it, but it is actually not quite what Jesus said. But we'll come back to that.

This meme was recently posted on FB that attempts to mock the idea that the kingdom is only currently not of this world. It mocks it by saying that Jesus never said it. Here is the meme.

Of course, the non sequitur is added that this is Jesus rejecting the idea of a physical kingdom and that He never taught it.

Let's actually take the book of John seriously though and try and understand what's going on in the book's literary and theological context.

John frequently argues from an “already-not yet” perspective. Notice, the entire trajectory in John is placed in a framework of the “time that is coming and now is” versus the “time that is coming.” The resurrection is both now spiritually and not of this realm, and in the future physically and of this realm. Jesus is both present with His disciples now spiritually through the Holy Spirit, but will come again to receive them to Himself in the future physically (“that where I am you may be also”). 

Hence, when speaking to Pilate, He can truthfully say that His kingdom is not of this world because in the present, it is the spiritual kingdom that has already come, not the physical one. This isn’t some ad hoc interpretation to satisfy a futurist perspective. It’s what John has been arguing the whole time in the book.

To take the phrase to mean that the kingdom is never of this world is to make it a very different statement, and one that ignores the context of John, his theology in other contexts, and the larger biblical narrative that come to a consummation in places like Daniel 2:44, "In the days of those kings [i.e., the Seleucid Kings] the God of heaven will set up a  kingdom  which will never be destroyed, and there will not be a kingdom left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.”

In John’s own theology (assuming he or his disciples wrote Revelation) for instance, cf. Rev 11:15:

15  Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying,  "The kingdom of the world has become [the kingdom] of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever."

This statement is made after the saints have overcome the temptations of the world and have now been vindicated. Hence, it is in no way the spiritual coming of the kingdom which is present at the time of Christ’s earthly ministry already (“the kingdom of God is here,” “the kingdom of God is in your midst”). 

There is an inauguration and a consummation. The spiritual kingdom is the inauguration. Notice that Christ calls it His existing kingdom made up already of His disciples. It’s not something coming. It’s something already in existence on the earth. That’s the kingdom to which He is referring in John 18:36.

In fact, what, unfortunately, is missed in this whole thing is that Jesus actually says that He’s referring to the present in contrast to the future by using His typical nun “now.” The kingdom is not now of this place,” the word “place” referring to the world He just mentioned. Why would Jesus say that it is not “now” of this place if He meant to say, “My kingdom is never of this world”? 

In fact, the Greek "literally" reads, "the kingdom which is Mine is not currenly/now of this realm," indicating that this is merely the present state of things, not the way they may always be.

The idea that we’re going to heaven forever simply isn’t biblical. It’s a misunderstanding of text after text. We see it, yet again, in this misunderstanding of what Jesus is saying to Pilate, which is likely included by John to also make a statement that the gospel and Christians are not a physical threat to the Roman Empire, as though Christians will violently take it over. Instead, in the “now,” the kingdom is spiritual. This is not a statement, however, that in the time that is coming, the kingdom of the world will not become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ.

TED Talks: How to Persuade by Bypassing the Mind, i.e., How to Brainwash a Culture

LOL. I absolutely hate TED talks. They largely seem to be made up of pure emotionalism in the place of an actual argument with unaltered facts and logic.

  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0FDjFBj8o 

Literary Exegesis and the Gospel of Matthew

http://www.gracereformedchurchlv.org/sermon/overview-of-matthews-gospel/ 

1 Timothy 2:8-15 and Gender Roles

http://www.gracereformedchurchlv.org/sermon/preserving-gods-household-by-preserving-the-gender-roles/

The Late Date of the Book of Revelation

Most scholars date the Apocalypse of John around the time of Domitian. There is good reason for this. Both external and internal evidence weighs heavily in its favor. Yet, in recent years, some have attempted to make the book about the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and have, therefore, wanted to date the book before that event. Ken Gentry would be an example of this. Hank Hanegraaff would be another popular author. A. T. Robinson attempted this awhile back as well.

The arguments for the early date are wrapped around time references to the event occurring soon and that it is near, the reference to the standing temple in Chapter 11, and the succession of the Caesars in Revelation 13 and 17.

The time references concerning "soon" can be dismissed due to the fact that the word tachu likely means "quickly," not "soon," which is not a reference to when judgment will occur in the context, but how fast it will fall when it does fall. It is the manner of judgment, not the time of it. The time reference translated "near" actually means more along the lines of something that is already here. It is currently in the presence of the object. So I actually think that this indicates something that is not on its way or coming, but a time that has already come, a judge that is already here, "at the door." He's arrived and is now going to make His judgment. This, of course, unfortunately for the early date, however, does not solidify an early date, but just that whatever judgment is taking place is taking place right then and there at the time John is writing.

As for the temple in Chapter 11, this is a clear allusion to Ezekiel's temple vision in Chapter 40. In Ezekiel's vision, the temple he is seeing doesn't exist in Jerusalem. There is simply no temple standing at the time of the vision, which is given to us in the text twice (v. 1: in the 25th year of the exile and in the fourteenth year after the city was taken, i.e., long after the temple was destroyed). But further questions to be asked of the text in Revelation exist, such as why is John measuring the temple instead of the angel, as in Ezekiel's vision, when measuring is done in the Bible by one who has a responsibility over what is measured? Why is Ezekiel's temple in John being viewed as a literal temple when in Ezekiel's vision it is the people of God, not a literal building? Why is John's temple viewed as a literal temple when the temple, throughout the book thus far, refers to the church (e.g., Christ is seen as the One who walks among the golden lampstands, which are the churches within the larger church of the temple in Chapters 2-3)? The people are viewed as a city temple in terms of a New Jerusalem where no literal temple is needed because God is among the people who are identified as the city. In other words, there is no need for a literal temple because the people are the temple. There is actually, then, no literal temple mentioned in the book at all.

Finally, what is perhaps the greatest irony in finding an early date in the succession of Caesars is that both historical fact and the book itself negate this reading. What is done by early date advocates is to start with Julius Caesar as the first Emperor of Rome in an effort to get Nero, i.e., the beast, to be number 6. The problem with this is that Julius is not the first Emperor of Rome. That's a myth based on our literary and legendary culture, perhaps, beginning with Shakespeare. Augustus is the first Roman Emperor, as evidenced, for instance, in things like Trajan's recent coin that was found where the first Emperor is memorialized on the coin, and it's Augustus, not Julius.
But this is actually indicated by the book itself, apart from any knowledge of history as well, as John clearly states that Nero is dead, and therefore, one of the five, not number 6 (17:8 and 10-11). The text clearly states that the beast is not alive and that five of the kings of Rome have already fallen, i.e., are not alive. So let's count backward. If Nero is dead and five of the Emperors of Rome are dead, then Nero is one of the five, and we know that he is the furthest in the line of five, so Nero is five, Claudius is four, Caligula is three, Tiberius is two, and Augustus is one. The return of the beast, who is one of the seven and an eighth, is John's utilization of the Nero redivivus myth. That means that Nero is a fifth Emperor who will manifest himself, likely in terms of his activity, not a literal reincarnation (remember John is using symbols) in the eighth Roman Emperor.

Some may attempt to count the usurpers in the year of the four emperors following Nero, but it is unlikely for anyone to have counted them as legitimate Emperors of Rome against giving that regnal year to Vespasian, and John clearly is not doing that, as Vitellius was hardly Nero come again, as the beast persecutes Christ and Christians when they do not worship him or his image, and Vitellius does none of this. The early date also attempts arbitrarily to count Galba and Otho, but not Vitellius in an attempt to fudge the facts and get to Vespasian as the beast, again, one who destroys Jerusalem, but does not persecute Christians, which is what the beast is doing in the book. This, of course, is selective argumentation, as there is no reason to count two usurpers and not the third. In point of fact, however, these three are not being counted by John.

Instead, Nero is the fifth, Vespasian, the one who would have been proclaimed by Romans as the rightful heir to the throne as opposed to Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, would have been the sixth, Titus the seventh, and Domitian the eighth. Domitian, then, is Nero come again. He demanded everyone to worship through the Imperial cult. He demanded devotion from the greatest to the least. He had himself deified and called "Lord and God" on his coinage. It was after his reign that Pliny the Younger has to try and get reigns on the slaughter that seemed to be reaching the hysteria of the Salem Witch Trials by writing to Trajan about his selective execution of Christians. Domitian is the beast. He is Nero come again in John's argument because that is the persecution going on in the time of John.

He writes the Apocalypse, as apocalyptic books are written, from the standpoint of the past, i.e., during the reign of Vespasian, but he is actually writing during the time of Domitian, much like Daniel does the same with one who is supposedly writing during the exile, but is, in fact, writing during the persecution of Antiochus IV.

Hence, the book itself indicates that it is written during the time of Domitian, not Nero, and the subject matter of the book's background is Domitian's pressure and persecution of the saints who are being pressured under pain of death to worship the beast and his image. Hence, it is both something occurring in the First Century and something that is occurring after AD 70. The macrocosmic language used of the judgment and creation of new heavens and earth is a common literary device of apocalyptic language that brings the world to come into the world now by arguing that the judgment or confirmation of salvation in the present is a piece of what is to come in the future. They are, hence, seen as the event of the future happening in the present on a microcosmic level.

The early date is simply in error, therefore, and the late date evidences that the book is not a prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem, but is a warning and a comfort to the compromised or persecuted church during a time of great tribulation/trouble/persecution.

Roman Emperors, Persecution, and Modern Reconstructionists

I was reading an older entry from Larry Hurtado's blog, and it just confirms why I don't take modern reconstructionist "scholarship" seriously as a historical discipline. 

 https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/caligula-and-the-jews/

 I don't trust what they say about Nero or Domitian either. I think it's clear that the sources we have indicate that Nero, and his persecutions, were just as bad as reported in works such as Seutonius' history. The same goes for Domitian. The man revives the imperial cult, is interested in the daily religious lives of all citizens of the Empire, puts any thought to undermine Roman well-being to death or exile, calls himself "Lord and God," and puts to death anyone involved in incest (something early Christians were falsely accused of by Romans). There is no way there was not a massive persecution of Christians, who violated all of these things, did not take place as Eusebius chronicles later. 

Sources are often ignored or minimized by an ideology that argues that opponents are so biased, they make up things of rulers they don't like to the degree of giving a completely false picture of them. I don't buy that. I think such bias dwells on the negative, but it in no way means that it makes it up. Nero really did declare himself a god, as did Caligula and Domitian, and with each, terror ensues; and often that terror landed directly in the lap of early Christians.

The OT Doesn't Present Other Gods as Demons?

I don't read Enns' blog anymore, as I find his liberal apologetic of caricaturing opponents, exaggerating problems in texts, and posturing himself as the sophisticated scholar and his critics as a bunch of dishonest, backwood hillbillies who don't want to give up their clearly bad stories to be unbecoming of true scholarship. In other words, it's just a waste of time to attempt to dialogue with such a person.

But I was recently listening to a Mere Fidelity podcast and it referenced a critique he made of Andrew Wilson's review in Christianity Today concerning Enns' book, The Bible Tells Me So. And in his critique, Enns makes this rather revealing comment concerning the way the OT authors view other gods in the OT.

He states, "Wilson calmly assures his readers that the
'gods' were in fact 'demons', even though the Old Testament never says this and Israel’s cultural context doesn’t support it."

Now, this is patently false. For one thing, the OT explicitly says this in a couple places.

Deut 32:17, "They sacrificed unto demons, which are not gods, gods that they knew not, new gods that came up of late, which your fathers dreaded not."

Psalm 106:37, "They sacrificed their sons and daughters to demons."

The שדים are not lesser deities, as some have said, as the text plainly states that they are not really deities at all. Instead, they are spirits/demons that can be conjured for purposes of obtaining one's desires (See the discussion in HALOTSE 1417-18). The context, then, indicates that these are "shades," but not gods, that they are worshiped as gods, and that there are a variety of them. The texts also seem to indicate that this is a blanket statement of all of the false gods Israel has worshiped from the wilderness journey to the exile, so that these texts are not referencing a small group of localized deities.

Secondly, demons are all over the place in the ANE, and so to say that it is not within the ancient Israelite mindset to think of powerful forces as demons is rather oblivious to the facts.

There is no doubt that Israelites viewed the demons they worshiped, not as demons, but as gods, but that is precisely the point the biblical texts are countering.

As for the larger view of other gods addressed in the Bible, as not every time other gods are mentioned is referencing demons, I've dealt with that elsewhere, showing that sometimes the reference is to lifeless idols, sometimes to demons, and sometimes its an expression that has lost its implicature, "others gods exist."

I just think it's odd to speak so confidently about a subject, and yet, be unaware of the different uses and basic linguistics involved in interpreting the subject, and thought it necessary to correct a dogmatic and superficial statement made by one who is trusted as an authority.