You are hereThe Kingdom of Heaven

The Kingdom of Heaven

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 27 October 2003

In the First Century two entities were introduced within the final days (“last days”) of the Old Covenant “world”. Both of these were intrinsically involved with the New Covenant saints who were the foundational generation of the New Covenant “world” (the New Heavens and Earth) and within which they had fellowship with each other and with the Saviour, via His Holy Spirit. These two entities were the “Kingdom of Heaven” and “the Church”. The focus of this article will be a brief analysis of the first – the Kingdom. Some mention will be made of the contrasts between the Kingdom and the Church, but the follow-up article to this one will deal with the Church itself in greater depth. As will be seen, the Kingdom of Heaven really did not exist in its fully established and glorified manifestation until the events of 70 AD, bringing to a conclusion the Old Covenant Nation, "world" and kingdom.

A casual sampling of the instances of the usage of the term “kingdom” in the New Testament is highly revealing concerning the priority placed upon the Kingdom of Heaven and God vs. introducing the unsaved to the Church itself. The focus of the gospel throughout the New Testament was THE KINGDOM OF GOD/HEAVEN – N OT the Church.


1 “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2 and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" (Matt. 3:1,2 KJV)


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


“And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.” (Matt. 4:23, NKJV)


“For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:20, NKJV)


There was a “present tense” aspect to the “kingdom” in terms of the existing Old Covenant “world” and its intended purpose as the physical, temporal manifestation of God’s ultimate, perfect, future (to them) SPIRITUAL Kingdom (established through the foundational generation of NT, pre-AD 70 saints). The “future tense” is used in reference to Christ Jesus’ kingdom which lay ahead for the NT saints, and upon which their gospel was focussed exclusively.


Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” (Matt. 6:10, NKJV)


“And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 8:11, NKJV)


Here we have the focus placed upon the FUTURE revelation of the true, SPIRITUAL Kingdom of heaven. In the following text, the focus is shifted to the existing PHYSICAL KINGDOM of Old Covenant “kingdom”. The rebellious Jews who rejected their God eternally are in the subject of this text.


“But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." “ (Matt. 8:12, NKJV)


“Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.” (Matt. 9:35, NKJV)


The gospel was NOT the “gospel of the Church”. It was THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!! All preaching and hopes for the future maintained among the NT saints involved their deliverance from their temporary, provisional situation within an imperfect “Church” (which was perfected by the end of their era, just before their resurrection with the rest of the OC saints to enjoy the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, at which time, roughly, the Kingdom was fully established and revealed).


"Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matt. 11:11,12 NKJV)


John the Baptist, Christ and His apostles of the First Century were considered the REPRESENTATIVES of the Kingdom of Heaven, and when John was arrested and beheaded, the Kingdom of Heaven began to suffer the violent, escalating opposition of the leadership of the physical kingdom of ancient, Old Covenant Israel.


“The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.” (Matt. 13:38, NKJV)


The First Century “world” of the Jewish Diaspora was viewed as a “field”, and the “sons of the Kingdom” (the NT saints) were mingled among the “sons of the wicked one” (the rebel, Old Covenant Jews).


“The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness” (Matt. 13:41, NKJV)


“Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Matt. 13:43, NKJV)


Here we have a reference to the FUTURE “kingdom of the Father (of the NT saints)”.


“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.” (Matt. 12:28, NKJV)


Again, Christ Jesus, and John the Baptist before Him, were the original representatives of the kingdom of God, and, of course, Christ was (and is) its Sovereign.


“And He said to her, "What do you wish?" She said to Him, "Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom." “ (Matt. 20:21 NKJV)


Christ Jesus was recognized as the ultimate Sovereign ruler in His future Kingdom.


“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.” (Matt. 21:43 NKJV)


Christ Jesus’ statement, here, foretold the transferral of the Kingdom of God/Heaven from the Old Covenant Nation to the New Covenant Nation of Spiritual Israel.


“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.” (Matt. 23:13 NKJV)


The scribes and Pharisees had been entrusted with the responsibility of communicating the means of access to true, Covenantal relationship with God, but had instead chosen to abuse their power and authority over the People of God, misusing their status and positions for their own ends and gain.


“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (Matt. 24:14 NKJV)


Again – the First Century gospel that was authorized by Christ Jesus Himself and proclaimed by His disciples/apostles was the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM – NOT “the gospel of the Church”.


“Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34 NKJV)


From the foundation of the Old Covenant “world”, the Kingdom of God and Heaven was being prepared for the New Covenant saints. This Kingdom has both a heavenly, spiritual manifestation AND an earthly, spiritual manifestation within the hearts and minds of its citizens and adherents.


“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."” (Matt. 26:29 NKJV)


The NT saints had the Marriage Supper of the Lamb to anticipate with their Saviour. The inauguration of the Kingdom would be via a celebratory feast in Heaven.


“And He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power."” (Mark 9:1 NKJV)


The coming Kingdom of God would be present WITH POWER (as opposed to the weakening, decaying Old Covenant kingdom of the physical Jews/Israelites in the First Century). Many of the First Century followers of Christ Jesus who heard Him make this pronouncement lived to personally witness the Advent of the eternal Kingdom of God/Heaven (70 AD). They witnessed this coming of the Kingdom in their fleshly, physical bodies in THIS realm.


Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest! (Mark 11:10 NKJV)


The Kingdom of God/Heaven was the eternal, ultimate manifestation and continuation of the royal line and house of David, with Jesus Christ as its ultimate Sovereign and Potentate.


Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. (Mark 15:43 NKJV)


The NT saints eagerly anticipated the Advent of the Kingdom of God (NOT the Church) in THEIR lifetimes, and enjoyed its coming and the fulfillment of their expectations in 70 AD.


And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:33 NKJV)


Note that there is no mention made of any “Church” being the eternal manifestation of the Kingdom of God/Heaven. Rather, it is the KINGDOM ALONE that is eternal.


but He said to them, "I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent." (Luke 4:43 NKJV)


Christ Jesus’ express purpose for His First Advent as a physical man was to PREACH THE KINGDOM OF GOD – NOT to introduce an eternally institutionalized Church.
He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. (Luke 9:2 NKJV)
The emphasis remained consistently upon the KINGDOM OF GOD – NOT the establishment of a “Church”.


There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. (Luke 13:28 NKJV)


Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21 NKJV)


The Kingdom of God/Heaven was AND IS a SPIRITUAL Kingdom. It is INTERNAL within its citizenship. It has NO external, institutional manifestation.


Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." (John 18:36 NKJV)


Not only was Christ’s Kingdom not of the JEWISH “world” (it had its source in God’s authority alone), but it was also not of the physical REALM. It is not established by physical violence and domination over populations (as the RCC was historically noted for attempting, in the Crusades).


to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3 NKJV)


Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6 NKJV)


Even in His post-resurrection ministry to His disciples and followers, Christ’s focus was His Kingdom and so was theirs.


And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. (Acts 19:8 NKJV)


And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. (Acts 20:25 NKJV)


The preaching of the apostolic era was focussed on the Kingdom of God/Heaven – NOT the Church.


So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. (Acts 28:23 NKJV)


preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him. (Acts 28:31 NKJV)


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. (1Cor. 15:24 NKJV)


ALL RULE, AUTHORITY AND POWER were terminated at the establishment of the eternal Kingdom. Christ alone reigns supreme in His eternal Kingdom. All of His subjects are subject to HIM ALONE and are peers and equal to each other in position and authority (i.e. they have NO authority over one another).


"Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down." (Rev. 12:10, NKJV)


The establishment of the Kingdom coincided with Satan’s defeat and damnation. The Church was the sustaining entity spiritually maintaining the existence of the foundational generation of the Kingdom. That is ALL it was. The Kingdom itself was the goal and hope of the New Testament saints and their entrance into the New Covenant. The New Heavens and Earth introduced at the close of THEIR “era” formed the structure of the New Covenant Kingdom of God/Heaven.


We see in Rev. 4 that the “elders” (representing the human authority provided to the New Covenant saints in the pre-AD 70 era) cast their crowns down before the Lord, acknowledging His authority as both Supreme AND exclusive within the Kingdom.


"8 The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!" 9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: 11 "You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created." (Rev. 4:8-11, NKJV)


There is NO room for human authority to share the authority of Christ Jesus our King and Sovereign within our New Covenant Kingdom. Those of us who have gained membership within the Kingdom via circumcision in heart and spiritual rebirth have NO accountability to human authorities of any kind. Anyone who believes otherwise must demonstrate this to be the case from the texts focussing on THE KINGDOM – NOT the Church.


Admittedly, this is by no means an exhaustive treatment of each text, but this article is intended to provide a broad, contextual overview of the subject. My next article will focus on the NT Church as contrasted with the Kingdom.


Serving the Truth,


John McPherson

preteristdave's picture

In some ways the view that the church/bride/wife is no longer on earth makes sense but Rev 21:2,9-10 seems to cause a major problem with this view. Could the church be in heaven and on earth? The members of the 1st century church are obviously in heaven and the wedding has taken place. One or both of you may have already answered it but I have not found your response(s) to these verses. I know both of you believe that believers are currently in the New Jerusalem which is on earth so please let me know how you understand these verses.

"Revelation 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down OUT OF HEAVEN from God, made ready as a BRIDE adorned for her husband....9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here, I will show you the BRIDE, the WIFE of the Lamb." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down OUT OF HEAVEN from God"

DMT

FollowJesus's picture

DMT...the way I would answer your question is that Heaven or the Holy Spirit has come down to earth and is NOT on the earth as a part of the earth, but as living in the New Creation/New Man! Remember the scripture that says, what we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven and what we loose in heaven will be loosed on earth. We the living earthen vessel of His Spirit that lives on planet earth while we live in Heaven by His Spirit. I hope this was said clearly enough. Rev 21:2 is a perfect way to describe what I've just said. :)

Parker's picture

In Revelation 21, the New Jerusalem is of course the Church, Christ's bride/wife that was "made ready" for her husband:

Revelation 21:2, 9-10
And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.... Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God

--COMPARE TO--

Revelation 19:7-8
the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready. It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints

--COMPARE TO--

2 Cor 11:2
I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.

Everyone knows that the bride is the Church, for this is explicit Pauline teaching:

Eph 5:25-27; 30-32
Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless...because we are members of his body. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.

If the New Jerusalem is here, the Church is here. If the Church is gone, the New Jerusalem is gone. There is no way around it.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Parker: "Everyone knows that the bride is the Church, for this is explicit Pauline teaching"

This has nothing to do with proving that the New Jerusalem and the New Covenant Church are one and the same thing.

Parker: "If the New Jerusalem is here, the Church is here. If the Church is gone, the New Jerusalem is gone. There is no way around it."

That's MY point, Parker. Neither the New Jerusalem NOR the Church are here. They are both in heaven. The New Jerusalem descended from heaven, retrieved the Bride and ascended back into heaven with her, where Christ and His Bride dwell together in glory forever. The capital City of the Kingdom of Heaven is this heavenly City of Zion/New Jerusalem. Since the Kingdom is a SPIRITUAL Kingdom, the administration and governance of that Kingdom is carried out FROM HEAVEN via spiritual means and emissaries.

Rev. 21 does NOT explicity indicate that the New Jerusalem and the NT Church are one and the same entity. In fact, it clearly reveals that City as being an exceedingly accurate DEPICTION and REPRESENTATION of the Bride - so much so that viewing it is described as viewing the Bride herself because it is God's CONCEPTUAL MODEL of her beauty and glory, in terms of her spiritual qualities and characteristics.

Parker's picture

Parker:
Everyone knows that the bride is the Church, for this is explicit Pauline teaching

McPherson:
This has nothing to do with proving that the New Jerusalem and the New Covenant Church are one and the same thing.

Parker:
Revelation clearly makes them the same thing; the New Jerusalem is clearly equated to the Church, the Bride of Christ coming down out of heaven:

Revelation 21:2, 9-10
And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.... Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God

Rev 19:7-8 adds further undeniable proof:

--COMPARE THIS--

Revelation 19:7-8
the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready. It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints

--TO THIS--

Revelation 21:2, 9-10
And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.... Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God

There can be no questioning that the Church is equated to New Jerusalem in Revelation.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Parker: "There can be no questioning that the Church is equated to New Jerusalem in Revelation."

On the contrary, Parker. There most certainly CAN be questioning of this assertion. In OUR Kingdom of Heaven/God, we have that undeniable freedom. You are most certainly in NO position to authoritatively, dogmatically close the door to all further inquiry on this subject. You have NO authority to even attempt such an action.

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband...."

That little word "as" is a SAM missile shooting down your argument in flames, Parker. It identifies this statement as a SIMILE. Surely you are familiar with basic grammar, Parker. A SIMILE is a metaphorical expression, the word "as" being the equivalent of the word "like". This City was LIKE a Bride adorned for her husband. It had that APPEARANCE!! It was NOT the Bride herself! Your unreasoning bias resulting in gross misunderstandings of Scripture are becoming increasingly apparent to all, here, Parker. Rev. 19 and the clothing of the Bride in fine, white linen has NOTHING to do with the appearance of the City prepared for her as a habitation. LOOK AT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY in Rev. 21:11-27. NO FINE WHITE LINEN. Your argument is dead, Parker. It's over. That lump of charred, smoking rubble on the ground is your former argument. The Truth has reduced it to ash.

preteristdave's picture

John, you wrote: "That little word "as" is a SAM missile shooting down your argument in flames, Parker. It identifies this statement as a SIMILE. Surely you are familiar with basic grammar, Parker. A SIMILE is a metaphorical expression, the word "as" being the equivalent of the word "like". This City was LIKE a Bride adorned for her husband. It had that APPEARANCE!! It was NOT the Bride herself! Your unreasoning bias resulting in gross misunderstandings of Scripture are becoming increasingly apparent to all, here, Parker. Rev. 19 and the clothing of the Bride in fine, white linen has NOTHING to do with the appearance of the City prepared for her as a habitation. LOOK AT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY in Rev. 21:11-27. NO FINE WHITE LINEN. Your argument is dead, Parker. It's over. That lump of charred, smoking rubble on the ground is your former argument. The Truth has reduced it to ash."

JM, Revelation 21:2 neither affirms or denies that the New Jerusalem is the bride, it only describes how she was dressed (made ready as a bride adorned for her husband). Being "adorned for her husband" probably includes the fine white linen. Revelation 21:9 is the verse that identifies who the New Jerusalem actually is "Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

David

SuperSoulFighter's picture

When you consider this text in conjunction with Gal. 4, Dave, it should be obvious that the New Jerusalem and the Church are two, different entities. Not only are they identified as such in Galatians, but the highly detailed description of the City in Rev. 21 SHOULD include the "fine white linen" IF the City = the Bride. But it doesn't.

This is because the angel's statement to John is the equivalent of an emphasis of the "Bride-likeness" of the City. God had created a City whose very appearance was LIKE the Bride in glory and beauty. Its specific indentifying qualities and characteristics were designed to emulate the spiritual beauty and glory of the Church/Bride in God's eyes. To me, Dave, this is very plain in Rev. 21.

preteristdave's picture

"When you consider this text in conjunction with Gal. 4, Dave, it should be obvious that the New Jerusalem and the Church are two, different entities."

John, I agree with this statement completely. The church and the New Jerusalem are two different entities. I believe that Isaiah 50:1; Gal 4:24; and Rev 21:9 make it clear that God marries covenants. Isaiah 50:1 makes it clear that God divorced the mother (Old Covenant) of the children under the Old Covenant (Judaism). Gal 4:26 (NC); Eph 5:32(NC); Isaiah 50:1(OC); and especially Jer 31:32 (OC) all make it clear that those within a covenant (the children) are also married because they are within the covenant. That is why the 1st century church was married, they were the temple within the New Covenant (New Jerusalem). I explain this more in depth in my comment above called the "New Jerusalem is the bride and mother".

David

Parker's picture

NOTE: Everyone should pay close attention to this. McPherson is being caught in his own deceptions, and this should be of great concern to all readers. Read on...

Parker said:
McPherson, are you denying that the New Jerusalem is essentially the New Covenant Church, Christ's bride?

McPherson:
Yes, Parker, I am maintaining the position that the New Covenant Church and the New Jerusalem are NOT one and the same thing.

Parker:
Revelation [21:2,9-10] clearly makes them the same thing; the New Jerusalem is clearly equated to the Church, the Bride of Christ coming down out of heaven

McPherson:
That little word "as" is a SAM missile shooting down your argument in flames, Parker. It identifies this statement as a SIMILE...This City was LIKE a Bride adorned for her husband. It had that APPEARANCE!! It was NOT the Bride herself!

Parker:
Not the Bride herself??? The NJ of Rev 21 is unquestionably the bride of Christ, according to St. John:

Revelation 21:9
..."Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

What further witness do we need? I'm speechless at nonsense that fills your arguments. Your whole argument refuting that NJ is the bride of Christ is based on a simile at 21:2, when 21:9 answers positively in my favor? You deny that 21:2,9-10 is a reference to the Pauline teaching about the bride of Christ, and a direct reference back to Rev 19:7-8? It's unthinkable that your belief system can rest on such shoddy reasoning. Fortunately the scripture itself exposes your steady stream of errors and brings the truth to light. Let's go through the motions again to see that scripture interprets scripture and arrives at my view, not yours.

We saw in Rev 21:9 that the NJ is not just compared to a bride (generic), but IS the bride of Christ (specific):

Revelation 21:9
..."Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

Next, by simply comparing Revelation 21:2,9 with Revelation 19:7 we have further proof that this is the bride of Christ:

--COMPARE THIS--

Rev 19:7
the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.

--TO THIS--

Rev 21:2,9
I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.... Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.

In the passages we have the "bride" who was "made ready" for her "marriage to the Lamb," called the "wife of the Lamb"... and you want to deny that this is the bride of Christ??? For you to deny it is deception at the very best. This is Revelation's clear application of Pauline theology about the Bride of Christ (see: Eph 5:25-32 2 Cor 11:2).

Like the dispensationalists, your pre-committed allegiance to your personal pet theology forces you into deeper deceptions and webs of lies. You apparently cannot be helped, McPherson, even by the clear testimony of Holy Scripture interpreting scripture. Fortunately, I believe our readers can be helped greatly. They are not fools. They have eyes that see and ears that hear and hearts that believe God's Word.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Parker, Parker. You deliberately avoided acknowledging that the City is NOT dressed in fine, white linen, like the Bride is in Rev. 19.

Also, the City COMES DOWN to receive the Bride. It is a REPRESENTATION of her, so accurate and perfect that to look at the City is to see God's perception of her beauty, glory and perfection, spiritually. This is why the angel told John to look at the City in order to see the Bride - not as MAN sees her but as GOD sees her. God's creation of a habitation/dwelling for her which perfectly REPRESENTED and manifested her heavenly beauty does NOT make it one and the same thing as the Bride herself. The simile in Rev. 21:2 stands as one of the primary determinative elements in the passage revealing the City to be a DEPICTION of the Church from God's perspective - NOT the Church itself.

Parker's picture

McPherson:
the City COMES DOWN to receive the Bride. It is a REPRESENTATION of her

Parker:
Rather, scripture says it IS the bride, the wife of the Lamb:

Revelation 21:9
..."Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

It is the same "bride" as the one of 19:7:

--COMPARE THIS--

Rev 19:7
the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.

--TO THIS--

Rev 21:2,9
I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.... Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.

We have the "bride" who was "made ready" for her "marriage to the Lamb," called the "wife of the Lamb." Your attempt to deny this is the bride of Christ is a transparent deception that all readers can see through here by simply letting scripture interpret scripture. Your attempt to divorce this passage from Pauline theology concerning the Church-as-Christ's Bride is utter chicanery.

In conclusion, your anarchist thesis is a sham--it is built upon multiple erroneous unbiblical presuppositions that one must first adopt as truth if one is to arrive at your broader conclusions. We reject your extra-biblical presuppositions, having proven them false and contrary to the Word of God. They are not part of biblical full preterism in any way whatsoever, but are the mere personal inventions of a heart led into error by blinding hatred of the Church, the bride of Christ, the wife of the Lamb, the New Jerusalem.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Parker: "We have the "bride" who was "made ready" for her "marriage to the Lamb," called the "wife of the Lamb." Your attempt to deny this is the bride of Christ is a transparent deception that all readers can see through here by simply letting scripture interpret scripture. Your attempt to divorce this passage from Pauline theology concerning the Church-as-Christ's Bride is utter chicanery."

Gal. 4:26-31, "26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."

So which IS it, Paker? The heavenly City of New Jerusalem is described in this passage as the "mother" of the NT saints/Church who were ON THE EARTH AT THE TIME!! New Jerusalem ABOVE (in heaven), NT Church BELOW (on earth). Is the New Jerusalem the "Bride" (NT Church) or her mother? The CHURCH was NOT both on the earth AND in heaven at the same time, Parker. You, who love to tout your cross-referencing of Scripture, don't really have the foggiest clue about "Pauline theology" or anything else, do you?

Continued interaction with you is an utter waste of time, Parker. Your close-minded failure to comprehend the most basic grammatical constructs coupled with your inability to properly cross-reference the Scriptures is testimony to your Catholicism and its long-term effects. Your "church" never taught you the basics in handling the Scriptures for yourself, Parker, and it's pathetically obvious. Go find some other way to amuse yourself. You're wasting everyone's time here.

Parker's picture

McPherson:
So which IS it, Paker? The heavenly City of New Jerusalem is described in this passage as the "mother" of the NT saints/Church who were ON THE EARTH AT THE TIME!! New Jerusalem ABOVE (in heaven), NT Church BELOW (on earth).

Parker:
Jesus is a "lamb." Jesus is the "door." Jesus is the "Lion." Which is it McPherson? The answer is that scripture uses many metaphors to give diverse shades of meaning to the same thing. The Chuch is the mother of us all--it gave us new birth of life.

New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 is the bride of Christ, the Church: "Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." There is no way to divorce Rev 21:2,9-10 from Rev 19:7-8 or from Pauline theology concerning the Church as Christ's Bride. No one is buying it, McPherson.

Finally, the Church is not "BELOW" -- the Church is the fulness of Christ that fills all and all, and is the family in heaven and on earth (Eph 1:22-23; Eph 3:15).

I think this about concludes our discussion on your recent screed against the Church.

Parker

SuperSoulFighter's picture

By the way, my comment about your "church" failing to teach you the basics in handling the Scriptures IS not an implied acknowledgment of the need for ANY "church" authorities to teach anyone ANYTHING. Rather, since you take comfort in your role and involvement in your "church" and have obviously sold your soul to its defense and perpetuation, institutionally - the least they could do for you is provide you with the tools to handle the Word of Truth with greater accuracy. But of course - that would be the detriment of the RCC aristocracy - the elite, ecclesiastical "ruling class". It's truly a shame, Parker. It really is.

Parker's picture

This last comment of yours is empty posturing and anti-Catholic bigotry. For sure, I have refuted your false teaching using SCRIPTURE ALONE.

Ed's picture

Here is the problem that I have always had with the ecclesiastical explanation that the "church" equals "the kindgom": it limits God's rule to the church.

However, if the Kingdom is seen (after the Parousia) as encompassing all of creation, then the first century firstfruits church/The Bride of Christ was ruling with Christ, as kings and priests to their God, over that kingdom. This also explains how the saints would rule and judge, and be served by the unbelieving.

John's explanation of the New Jerusalem/kingdom being the vehicle that transports the church to heaven is intriguing. It would help in validating Steven's hypothesis of the rapture. It would also explain why there are people left outside the City, without nullifying the fact that they can be reconciled (or in my paradigm, were reconciled) to God.

I like thinking outside the box....but it sure ticks off those "Mother Church" guys, don't it?

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

preteristdave's picture

Ed, you write: "John's explanation of the New Jerusalem/kingdom being the vehicle that transports the church to heaven is intriguing. It would help in validating Steven's hypothesis of the rapture. It would also explain why there are people left outside the City, without nullifying the fact that they can be reconciled (or in my paradigm, were reconciled) to God."

Ed, first I want to point out that I agree with you that the church and the New Jerusalem are not one in the same. The first century believers (church) were raptured (I agree with Steven's rapture view) prior to the wedding so they were taken to heaven before the New Jerusalem came down. Because of this the rapture could not of happened when the New Jerusalem came down and, according to JM, went back to heaven. Not a single verse teaches that the New Jerusalem went back to heaven. Even though the church is part of the New Jerusalem (New Coveant/bride/KINGDOM), it is NOT the New Jerusalem. The reason that unbelievers are outside the city is not because the New Jerusalem is in heaven but because it is here and they are outside of the New Covenant and thus outside of Christ. Your statement (CG's teaching) that "It would also explain why there are people left outside the City, without nullifying the fact that they can be reconciled (or in my paradigm, were reconciled) to God." is extremely dangerous! Those outside the New Jerusalem are not in Christ and thus have no salvation!

(Please read my comment "The New Jerusalem is the bride and mother")

David

davo's picture

Here is the problem that I have always had with the ecclesiastical explanation that the "church" equals "the kindgom": it limits God's rule to the church.

Ed,

We have this notion that to be "in Christ" = to be "in the kingdom," so subsequently to not be "in Christ" = not to be "in the kingdom" – this notion therefore equates the "Church" His Body AS the Kingdom.

Let me see if I can illustrate it:

If you can envision four horizontal building blocks, the one on the bottom being longer than the one stacked above it, with each above block smaller than the below block.

Working from the base up - the bottom one named GOD-KING, refers to who God is - in himself as "Being", beyond the physical temporal universe.

The next smaller one up is KINGDOM, who God is - in relation to time and space.

The next smaller one up is CHURCH, who God is - in relation to those who profess His Name.

The next smaller one up on top is EVANGELISM, who God is - in relation to people who first hear the Good News, that in Christ all have been reconciled to God.

From the top down, each is nestled WITHIN a greater whole. From the bottom up, each is more INCLUSIVE than the block above it.

"Church-centred" theology places the CHURCH block on the bottom, with smaller EVANGELISM and KINGDOM blocks on top.

"Kingdom-centred" theology [what I'm talking about] stands that on its head, seeing that there is a scope of the KINGDOM that far exceeds the workings of the CHURCH, and a scope of the CHURCH that far exceeds the workings of EVANGELISM. And GOD-KING of coarse being the base of all.

************---EVANGELISM---************
*********----------CHURCH-----------*********
******-------------KINGDOM---------------******
***-----------------GOD-KING------------------***

The problem is that "Kingdom" and "Church" are indelibly linked, but our mindsets sometimes merge the two as one – which is not quite correct. The Church is part of His Kingdom, though not the totality of it. What saith the Scripture: "The earth is the LORD'S and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein," Psa 24:1. God's kingdom is all inclusive and all encompassing through the New Covenant, why, because "God was "in Christ" reconciling the world to Himself" 2Cor 5:19 – this was unilateral, and no less universal in its scope and power than the universal-ness of sin - to be consistent. The "seeing" and the "entering" of the Kingdom [what I call in my 'Comprehensive Grace' article the "comprehending" and "apprehending" of the Kingdom] is the grasping of the life of the Kingdom via the doorway of the Church i.e., through believers [EVANGELISM] – not institutionalized religion. It's the message of Paul: "be ye therefore reconciled" 2Cor 5:20.

All humanity is in the Kingdom i.e., redeemed, though not all experience the inner blessings of it – i.e., through ignorance, they miss in this life being saved, that is - transformed by it.

davo

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Are you promoting "universalism", Dave? Your conclusions, above, seem to point in that direction, particularly your statement, "All humanity is in the Kingdom i.e., redeemed, though not all experience the inner blessings of it – i.e., through ignorance, they miss in this life being saved, that is - transformed by it."

Perhaps I misunderstand. You seem to be saying that redemption is AVAILABLE to all of mankind, but not all avail themselves of it in this life, to their loss. Is that what you're getting at?

I have some questions concerning your scale model of the God/Kingdom/Church relationship, but I'll get back to those later.

davo's picture

G'day John,

"Promoting" is a quaint way of saying that :). "Universalism" is an easy yet skewed label to use, that's why I prefer the term 'comprehensive grace'. The term "universalism" is skewed because it has man as the centre of the universe and does not acknowledge nor recognise the all-encompassing redemptive work of Christ. "Philosophic" universalism says all roads lead to Rome regardless. 'Comprehensive grace' says no, but Rome rules the world i.e., Christ; it is Christo-centric. [I'm making no reference to Romanism]. Some like my good friend Ed prefer the term "Biblical Universalism".

As you see the Parousia as the completion of the Church with regards to the Kingdom, so I see the Parousia as the completion of redemption with regards to humanity. The salvific landscape did change with the Parousia. As there is a blurred line with the issue of the Church and the Kingdom – and therefore much confusion, so there is a blurred line with the issue of Redemption-Reconciliation and that of Salvation. They are biblically different, though indelibly linked, and sometimes used in a 'global' or generic sense and thus seen as one and the same – though they are not always.

Without going right into it here, have a look at the 'Comprehensive Grace' article on my site: pantelism.com

davo

BibleStudentActivist's picture

But the Catholic church thinks she has dominion rights over the entire planet, including governmental powers for those outside of her fold. Right?

~Mark

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Hi, Dave. We both know how Parker will probably interpret that text, but allow me explain my own understanding of it, for the sake of contrast if nothing else.

"In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. " (John 14:2,3 NKJV)

The New Jerusalem was and is the capital city Zion of the New Covenant Kingdom of Heaven. It descended from heaven to receive the NT saints and return with them to heaven. Their City was built in such a way that it REPRESENTED them both individually AND corporately, in a perfect and glorious way. This is why the angel could take John to view the heavenly city of New Jerusalem and inform him that this was Christ's Bride, the wife of the Lamb. This was how GOD saw the Bride, and this was the dwelling He had prepared for her.

In the ancient, Near Easter cultures, the groom prepared a habitation for he and his wife, for after they were wed and had left their parent's dwellings. This was what Christ Jesus did and this is what the New Jerusalem was. It was the "father's house with many mansions" prepared for the NT saints and Church in which Christ returned to receive them unto Himself (see John 14:2,3). Look at the specific details of the city in Rev. 21:11-27. It was a REPRESENTATION of the Bride, both the individuals who composed her corporate "body" as well as the entire community of saints of that day.

Note again in John 14:2,3 that Christ Jesus stated that He would return to receive them into these mansions "that where I am there you may be also". In other words - the New Jerusalem is not, in fact, "on this earth". It is NOT an invisible, planetary entity among us. Rather, it returned to heaven forever, and we will enjoy its glory WITH the NT saints AFTER this life. But it is the seat of all authority in the Kingdom of Heaven - it is the capital city of the Kingdom.

When we read in Rev. 21:3-5 concerning God making His tabernacle with men, we are reading a reference to God's making His habitation among His NT saints. Verse 4 clearly defines the context as being God's removal of all sorrow and grieving for THEM, at the end of their Great Tribulation from which they were delivered.

I trust I have clarified some of these things better for you, Dave.

Serving the Truth,

JM

preteristdave's picture

Galatians 4:24 This is allegorically speaking, for THESE WOMEN ARE TWO COVENANTS: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the PRESENT JERUSALEM, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above (New Jerusalem) is free; she is our mother.

John, you write: "Gal. 4:26-31, "26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."....So which IS it, Paker? The heavenly City of New Jerusalem is described in this passage as the "mother" of the NT saints/Church who were ON THE EARTH AT THE TIME!! New Jerusalem ABOVE (in heaven), NT Church BELOW (on earth). Is the New Jerusalem the "Bride" (NT Church) or her mother?"

John, I have to agree with Parker on this one even though his catholicism causes many problems with his doctrine. The New Jerusalem/New Covenant (Gal 4:24) is the bride and the mother. The "present Jerusalem" when Paul wrote (Gal 4:25) was the mother of the slaves of the law (Gal 4:25; Isa 50:1), the part of Israel that was cut off (Romans 11). To help us understand the New Testament on this subject we have to compare it with the Old Testament. The woman (mother, Isa 50:1) whom God divorced (Isa 50:1; Jer 31:31-33) when Isaiah wrote was the Old Covenant (Hagar, "present Jerusalem") as Galatians 4:24-25 states. God (Christ, the 2nd Person of the Trinity) married the New Covenant (our mother & New Jerusalem) in Revelation 19 and the attendants of this wedding were the 1st century "church" members who were raptured to heaven to attend this wedding. Christians are the children of God and of the New Jerusalem/New Covenant (Gal 4:26; our mother) through faith in Christ (Eph 2:8,9). After the wedding the wife came from "above" (from heaven, Gal 4:26) down to earth (Rev 21:9-10). Just as the Old Covenant temple was a part of the Old Covenant but not the Old Covenant in it's entirety, the New Covenant temple is within the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:22)/New Covenant (Gal 4:24-26) but does not encompass the entirety of the New Jerusalem. The temple in the New Jerusalem/New Covenant is made up of the first century church (Eph 2:19-22) and thus they could be called the bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-32) also because they are part of the New Jerusalem. Believers post-70AD (whose names are written in the book of life) are also the wife of Christ because we are within the New Jerusalem (wife) and are those who walk the streets of gold (Rev 21:24-26).

Isaiah 50:1 Thus says the LORD, "Where is the certificate of divorce By which I HAVE SENT YOUR MOTHER AWAY? Or to whom of My creditors did I sell you? Behold, you were sold for your iniquities, And for your transgressions your mother was sent away.

Jer 31:31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I WAS A HUSBAND to them," declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

John, you also wrote: "Note again in John 14:2,3 that Christ Jesus stated that He would return to receive them into these mansions "that where I am there you may be also". In other words - the New Jerusalem is not, in fact, "on this earth". It is NOT an invisible, planetary entity among us. Rather, it returned to heaven forever, and we will enjoy its glory WITH the NT saints AFTER this life."

JM, there is not a single verse that says that the New Jerusalem touched down and then went back to heaven. The first century saints (church) were raptured in 66AD to be where Christ was (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4) and to attend the wedding of the Lamb in heaven (Matt 25:10). Christ did prepare a place for them in the New Jerusalem (the temple). I believe these saints are also in heaven now just like God is in heaven but also with us in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:3). After the wedding (Rev 19) the wife came out of heaven and came to earth (Rev 21:9b "Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God) just as the Old Covenant was on earth.

John, if what you say is true that "we will enjoy its glory WITH the NT saints AFTER this life" then we are not within the New Covenant and are still in our sins like those outside the New Jerusalem. The language in Revelation 21 sure sounds like the New Jerusalem is on earth (Rev 21:24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. 25 In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; 26 and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; 27 and NOTHING UNCLEAN, and no one who practices abomination and lying, SHALL EVER COME INTO IT, but ONLY those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life....Heb 10:17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE"). John, I know you don't hold the CG position but the New Jerusalem being the New Covenant and bride of Christ is a death blow to CG because CG teaches that those outside of the New Jerusalem are also in Christ, but those who are not within the New Covenant are not in Christ and their sins haven't been forgiven (Heb 10:16,17).

Heb 10:9 then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, 16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, 17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."

David

Parker's picture

McPherson, are you denying that the New Jerusalem is essentially the New Covenant Church, Christ's bride?

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Yes, I am, Parker. The New Jerusalem is NOT one and the same thing as the New Covenant Church. Allow me to demonstrate this fact Biblically.

"For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all...31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free." (Gal. 4:24-26,31 NKJV).

The NT saints as a Church were clearly NOT one and the same thing as the New Jerusalem itself. It was IN HEAVEN when Paul made these statements, and he clearly indicated that it was the source of their spiritual rebirth. Their spiritual existence had its source in that city (more accurately, in the GOD whose capital city and seat of authority it is) and its matriarchal relationship to them. Thus, it can clearly be seen that the Church and the New Jerusalem (Zion) are NOT one and the same entity. The New Jerusalem became the Church/Bride's new abode/habitation for eternity after the Bridegroom retrieved the NT Church/Bride from this realm and translated her into the spiritual realm in heaven, forever.

Rev. 21:2 states, "2 Then I, John, F111 saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." It tells us that the city was prepared LIKE a Bride. It doesn't say that it WAS the Bride itself. The indication is that it was adorned and beautified like a Bride, since it was REPRESENTATIVE of the Church/Bride and was prepared FOR her as an eternal habitation. This is a comment on the city's APPEARANCE - NOT its identity. Later on in the chapter, the angel shows John the city as a means of showing John "the Bride" because the City was such a perfect REPRESENTATION of the Bride's perfection in terms of spiritual qualities and characteristics that the glorious details and description that follow in the chapter were accurate depictions of those qualities to the highest degree of accuracy possible, divinely speaking.

Yes, Parker, I am maintaining the position that the New Covenant Church and the New Jerusalem are NOT one and the same thing.

Parker's picture

The New Jerusalem is clearly equated to the Church, the Bride of Christ:

Revelation 21:2, 9-10
And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.... Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God

I don't know how you can deny this foundational truth. Man, why don't you just look back to Rev 19:7-8 to add further undeniable proof:

--COMPARE THIS--

Revelation 19:7-8
the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready. It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints

--TO THIS--

Revelation 21:2, 9-10
And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.... Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God

There can be no questioning that the Church is equated to New Jerusalem in Revelation.

AJ's picture

John,

WILL YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE QUIT SQABBLING OVER WHETHER WE'RE A CHURCH OR A KINGDOM OR BOTH OR NEITHER OR HALF OF ONE AND 3/10THS THE OTHER OR 99/106.2% OF ONE PLEASE!!!

What are we? We are the Kindom of our Lord Jesus. Again what are we? We are a body of believers united in Christ. Yet again what are we? We are a church. Plain and simple. I would have to go with "D, all of the above" on this one John.

I would like to state to everyone here that I think this argument is only a notch or two above completely useless. We are a family! If you can't think of another word, call it that! We take care of one another, and pray for one another... Whatever that makes us is irrelevant.

Perhaps I'm going off on something that wasn't so "forth coming" in this article, but you have stated it to me in emails and such before.

Now to more pressing issues. You are calling the AD 30-70 church the "incubated"/TRUE church or kingdom or whatever. Now doesn't the Bible say many places that the Kindom that Jesus brought would be a kingdom without end? And just because Christ's return sealed off all further prophecy, that doesn't mean it undid the structure that the kindom had. Just because Christ returned doesn't mean that we throw away everything that the New Testament church did. In fact I would sooner say we continue it, because apparently it worked for them.

Anarchy won't solve any problems John... We are accountalbe to God, but also we are supposed to keep one another in check, and confront those who are in sin. How else could we be a family if there is no structure to it?

I'm hoping that we can clear this up here pretty soon, it's giving me a massive headache.

-A.J.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

If it's giving you a headache, AJ, take a break from it. In fact, avoid Parker's snide replies completely. They're enough to give ANYONE a headache (not to mention mild nausea).

Just a couple of quick questions for you, to help you understand this better, AJ.

Is the Kingdom visible, tangible and identifiable according to a physical hierarchy? Hint: Luke 17:21 has the answer for you. It's located in my article.

Is the Church one and the same thing as the Kingdom? If so, why were the First Century saints still anticipating the arrival and full manifestation of the Kingdom during their enjoyment of fellowship within their Church? Hint: Luke 1:33; Mark 15:43; Matt. 25:34; Matt. 13:43, etc. etc. Check my article for these.

Is the structure of the Kingdom of Heaven/God constituted by human hierarchies and authorities? Does God share His authority in His Kingdom with any of His saints? Hint: 1Cor. 15:24; Rev. 4:10,11.

Anyway - just some thoughts for you to consider, AJ, to balance the obvious influence of "churchianity" and its false ecclesiology on your thinking.

May our Saviour's Truth be paramount in all of our deliberations.

Serving the Truth,

JM

Parker's picture

McPherson:
Is the structure of the Kingdom of Heaven/God constituted by human hierarchies and authorities? Does God share His authority in His Kingdom with any of His saints? Hint: 1Cor. 15:24

Parker:
The answer is YES, he does share it with the Church, and 1 Cor 15:24-28 explicitly teaches this. By comparing 1 Cor 15:28 with Eph 1:22-23 we see it is so:

--COMPARE THIS--

1 Corinthians 15:28
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

--TO THIS--

Ephesians 1:22-23
And hath put all things UNDER HIS FEET, and gave him to be the head over all things TO THE CHURCH, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

What could be more clear than this? We have perfect parallel passages concerning the final Kingdom state spoken of at 1 Cor 15:28 and Eph 1:22-23. It is 100% clear that THE CHURCH is the fulness of him that fills all in all, and that it is under the Church's feet that the enemy authorities were put! (see also: Rom 16:20/Rev 3:9). That is the biblical interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28. Your teaching is a total fraud, and I hope that every preterist will reject your extra-biblical anarchist heresy for true, biblical preterism.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

What's clear in all of this is that 1Cor. 15 CLEARLY demonstrates your position as having no validity whatsoever, Parker. Your views are a clanging gong or crashing cymbal. Your elaborately constructed "house of cards" comes crashing down at the slightest application of truly consistent, contextual hermeneutics.

Drop your act and start dealing with the Truth with integrity.

Roderick's picture

John has clearly laid out the case; I have just a few comments and responses to add.

First, I tire of Parker. Don’t get me wrong Parker, I love you as a brother but lets face it; here you are a Roman Catholic who is basically butting in on a Protestant discussion. Why do I say it is a Protestant discussion, because as far as I know no one here, including Mr. Frost thinks the RCC is the apostolic continuance of the Church? Your arguments (that the RCC is THE Church) have been laid to rest in our hearts and minds. (Haven’t they Sam and the others?) So, your position is invalidated before you even speak.

Secondly, Parker you negate everything Preterism is about when you say the Kingdom was already here in “tandem” with the Church. Indeed, Israel was part of a physical representation of the Kingdom but why were the Jews even waiting for a Messiah to rule over the Kingdom if it was already here in its glory? In your view, the “kingdom” already had “leaders” in the Jewish governing structure. The RCC is simply trying to emulate the Jewish structure. If the kingdom was already here my friend, then why would the Jews ask Jesus when it was coming? (See Lk 17:20-21) Why would the disciples ask Jesus when it would be restored? (Acts 1:6) How is it that Joseph of Arimathea was waiting for the kingdom? (Mk 15:43/Lk 23:50-51) The Church & the Kingdom are NOT one in the same. And there was to be a conclusion to the Church on earth. We can clearly see this in Revelation in the letters to the churches. There was a sort of final “accounting” before what Preterists see as the final establishment of the new covenant age, of the New Jerusalem. These letters do not give one the sense that everything is going to go on as it was (as Parker and others are trying to say), even futurists would not claim the same structure pre-Revelation will exist post.

There was a specific mission for the Church, and contrary to popular belief it was NOT to go around preaching “Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life”, but rather it was to preach the Gospel of the coming kingdom and THEN endure and overcome until the end. Jesus is truly the cornerstone and the Church was the foundational “institution”/Body that was being built up for the specific purpose to overcome and enter into the coming Kingdom. If Sam and Parker and others can’t see that, I worry about what they think Preterism is.

Rev 2:7
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

Rev 2:11
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.

Rev 2:17
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.

Rev 2:23
I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Does Sam and some of the others have an “ear to hear”?

Now, let us deal (although it is hardly deserving of a response) with the inflammatory words by Mr. Frost. Mr. Frost once again attacks fellow Christians (if he still claims we are Christians). So far, Mr. Frost has called us “rebels against God and God’s people”, “people who never wanted to attend church in the first place”, “people who don’t want fellowship”, “church haters”, and now “stains”. If anyone thinks these are the words of a servant I am perplexed. Here we are, all standing in the Kingdom (spiritually speaking), and some brothers proclaim, let us throw down our crowns before the throne of Jesus for only the Lamb is worthy to be called king. And then comes people like Mr. Frost that say, Nay, for God has ordained overseers for all time, even in the center of His presence, thus submit to us who have the rule over you. How atrocious! Even as futurists we never imagined the realized kingdom to have these overseers still overseeing.

Perhaps the question should be asked once again:

Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? (Mt 18:1-4)

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

I don’t see this child-like attitude in Mr. Frost and some of the others. How many children do you see going around talking about others being “accountable” to them? How many children do you see going around proclaiming their authority based on their knowledge of the Greek, or position?

This idea that chaos will ensue is the same claim the RCC used against the Reformers. How many times must we keep coming back to this? Didn't we learn anything by the first Reformation? Carlstadt (contemporary of Luther) came to the conclusions that we were all equal but the problem was, that no one spoke about the inate stability of Christ in Christians. We are not rebels by nature. There is no reason for us to throw off the civil rule over us as long as it is just. (You Americans better take a closer look at the American Revolution, and see if it was justified in Mr. Frost's interpretation of things). Also, the kingdom in which we dwell is spiritual. As if we have one foot in the physical (the less real realm) and one foot in the spiritual (the real realm) -- We always seem to get that reversed, supposing the physical is more important. I think Jesus' teachings were clear on that subject. So when it comes to the physical and the spiritual, may we say: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are God's"? -- Thus, we obey the civil authorities so long as they do not attempt to take upon themselves the things of God. Such an understanding would have prevented the Peasant's Revolt.

And Mr. Frost finds is unthinkable that the “church” could have been wrong all these years. Has he been listening to his debate opponents? They are saying the same thing about Preterism. How could the church have missed Christ’s’ return? This argument is a dangerous boomerang. The reason the “church” missed it is because none of these wanna-be Brides were the REAL Bride which was wed to the Bridegroom and established in Heaven. None of these pseudo-brides knew anything about the fact they were currently in the kingdom; rather individuals reading Scripture for themselves over the centuries have come to this conclusion. How many of us learned about Preterism from our church? Did Luther learn about the grace of God from his “church”?

Mr. Frost wants to discount that the Spirit of God works in this manner. He even ridicules God’s ability by mocking us as being “just Jesus me and my bible” --- AMEN BROTHER!!!! I'll take that approach any day to 1900 years of the confusion these false brides are dishing out.
This discussion has been about exhausted here on Planet Preterist. It is time to take it to a wider audience. It is this message that will transform and reform and not Preterism by itself. I do hope that others see this clear conclusion of Preterism, of the bible story and join us as equals in advancing it to the world. Mr. Frost and others can continue to stand behind the pulpit, that’s ok. And I’m certain some people will benefit from their preaching and oversight, but for those who are ready to really enter the kingdom before the presence of the Lord, we welcome you. The message for so long has been, "join a church" when it should have also been "seek ye the kingdom".

God bless all.
Roderick

Sam's picture

Ahem,

McPherson wrote to me, "What a pathetically misguided, skewed perspective you have." Now, is this really from a servant? Roderick says I seek to DESTROY the work of Christ. Is that from a servant. You guys need to really wise up. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Samuel Frost

SuperSoulFighter's picture

I recommend taking a double dose of your own advice, Mr. Frost. We're handling the heat just fine.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Roderick: "He even ridicules God’s ability by mocking us as being “just Jesus me and my bible” --- AMEN BROTHER!!!! I'll take that approach any day to 1900 years of the confusion these false brides are dishing out."

Allow me to join you in that hearty "AMEN, BROTHER!" Mr. Frost evidently has no idea whereof he speaks. Mocking such direct interaction with the Saviour and disparaging it as mere "mysticism" puts him on very dangerous ground, doctrinally.

Roderick: "The reason the “church” missed it is because none of these wanna-be Brides were the REAL Bride which was wed to the Bridegroom and established in Heaven. None of these pseudo-brides knew anything about the fact they were currently in the kingdom; rather individuals reading Scripture for themselves over the centuries have come to this conclusion. How many of us learned about Preterism from our church? Did Luther learn about the grace of God from his “church”?"

And another hearty "AMEN" is due! Well said, brother!

Roderick: "This discussion has been about exhausted here on Planet Preterist. It is time to take it to a wider audience. It is this message that will transform and reform and not Preterism by itself. I do hope that others see this clear conclusion of Preterism, of the bible story and join us as equals in advancing it to the world."

Indeed, this message must be spread abroad, globally, thereby defusing some very dangerous situations in so-called "closed countries" where the institutionalized "church" is seeking to establish itself and is facing violent opposition. Those situations are truly unnecessary.

I am aware of at least one Christian highly placed in an extremely sensitive position of trust close to the rulers of a "closed country". Their policies and rule have been much more moderate as a direct result, I believe, of that person's influence (rather, God's influence through that person). This person does NOT, to the best of my knowledge, engage in any kind of regular "fellowship" with other believers, as this could jeopardize their position. And yet their relationship with God remains strong, and their influence unmistakable. I'm reminded of Daniel and his friends in Babylon. Truly, these institutionalized "fellowships" are simply unnecessary, in terms of true, Covenant relationship with God.

Sam's picture

Wow! All I can say is, wow! It thought that maybe some of my conclusions about this stain within the preterist camp were a bit off. But now, wow! "There is NO room for human authority to share the authority of Christ Jesus our King and Sovereign within our New Covenant Kingdom. Those of us who have gained membership within the Kingdom via circumcision in heart and spiritual rebirth have NO accountability to human authorities of any kind." ANARCHISM. No cops. No judges. No presidents. I have no accountability to human judges of "ANY kind." If a Christian happens to be a cop, he has NO authority over me. Maybe that is not what is being said. Maybe the kingdom people have no authority, but the State does (Romans 13). I gotta tell, this stuff is nonsense and is not even worth responding to. It's the ole "kingdom" switch-a-roo game, and apparently one that God forgot to tell his church after A.D. 70 about. I mean, I can accept some errors in the church, but according to this, she got it all wrong from day one A.D.70! Well, it matters not, we are not accountable for what we teach or say anyway except to Jesus (the pious "me and Jesus and my Bible" mysticism). Since we are no longer accountable to anyone for anything, then it makes no difference whether Parker is right. The Pope is not accountable to anyone and no one is accountable to him, unless, of course, they WANT to be. But, no real harm done. And, besides, if no one is accountable to anyone anyway, then what harm is an elder (or posing as one) doing good things and helping others? I mean, as an elder, I am not accountable to McPherson am I? I mean, he may say that I am wrong, but who cares? I am not accountable to him. I am not accountable to HIS understanding of the Bible. He has NO authority over me whatsoever, in "any" way. These are just observations of logic, but, they show me that this is another rambling paper from an anti-church anarchist that really poses no real threat within biblical preterism when seen for what it is.

Samuel Frost

SuperSoulFighter's picture

"There is NO room for human authority to share the authority of Christ Jesus our King and Sovereign within our New Covenant Kingdom. Those of us who have gained membership within the Kingdom via circumcision in heart and spiritual rebirth have NO accountability to human authorities of any kind."

Obviously, I am speaking of those who attempt to take unto themselves positions of authority over their fellow-saints WITHIN the Kingdom, Mr. Frost. You are undoubtedly well aware that this was the clear inference of my statement, within its immediate context.

Ultimately, in terms of human authority OUTSIDE the Kingdom, our first responsibility remains subjection to our ultimate Sovereign and King, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Christ Jesus.

Frost: "Maybe the kingdom people have no authority, but the State does (Romans 13)."

The reference in Romans 13 to "the powers that be are ordained of God" was exclusive to the "powers" and "authorities" of the Old Covenant Jewish "world" of that day, that was ordained to judgment and destruction in 70 AD.

Frost: "I gotta tell, this stuff is nonsense and is not even worth responding to."

Since the bulk of my article is direct quotes from the Scriptures, I take it that you are uncomfortable handling the Scriptures themselves on this issue, Mr. Frost, and would prefer to hide behind snide, barbed, baseless remarks. I draw your attention to 1Cor. 15:24 and Rev. 4 in particular, as cited in my article. Undoubtedly, both of these texts provide you with ample reason for discomfort in your falsely assumed position and role as an authority/pastor over the New Covenant saints of God in your "fellowship".

Frost: "It's the ole "kingdom" switch-a-roo game, and apparently one that God forgot to tell his church after A.D. 70 about. I mean, I can accept some errors in the church, but according to this, she got it all wrong from day one A.D.70!"

That's right. That's because the "church" AFTER AD 70 was an illegitimate entity. You have no case, Mr. Frost. Your objections are empty rhetoric.

Frost: "Well, it matters not, we are not accountable for what we teach or say anyway except to Jesus (the pious "me and Jesus and my Bible" mysticism). Since we are no longer accountable to anyone for anything, then it makes no difference whether Parker is right."

You are not accountable to anyone but GOD, Mr. Frost. You think being accountable to human authorities is somehow superior to direct accountability to God? How tragic. What a pathetically misguided, skewed perspective you have.

Frost: "And, besides, if no one is accountable to anyone anyway, then what harm is an elder (or posing as one) doing good things and helping others? I mean, as an elder, I am not accountable to McPherson am I? I mean, he may say that I am wrong, but who cares? I am not accountable to him. I am not accountable to HIS understanding of the Bible. He has NO authority over me whatsoever, in "any" way."

That's exactly right, Mr. Frost. I offer you wise, true counsel from the Word of God. You are responsible and accountable to GOD for your reaction and responses to it. You will be held accountable both in this life and in that to come, by HIM. THAT reality should give you cause for some very, very serious reflection.

I would advise you to address the Scriptures advanced in my article directly and specifically in all future commentary, Mr. Frost. THEY are the benchmark and "litmus test" of Truth. THEY are the True standard against which all propositions and perspectives are measured and evaluated in terms of accuracy. Your reliance on rhetoric and barbed invective declares in itself the inherent weakness of your position.

Integrity and accuracy, Mr. Frost. Please demonstrate such in all future communications. I believe you are very likely capable of both, if you allow your thinking and attitudes to be governed by our Sovereign Saviour.

Thank you in advance.

JM

Parker's picture

Author Error #2 - There was a “present tense” aspect to the “kingdom” in terms of the existing Old Covenant “world” and its intended purpose as the physical, temporal manifestation of God’s ultimate, perfect, future (to them) SPIRITUAL Kingdom (established through the foundational generation of NT, pre-AD 70 saints). The “future tense” is used in reference to Christ Jesus’ kingdom which lay ahead for the NT saints, and upon which their gospel was focussed exclusively:
“Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” (Matt. 6:10, NKJV)

“And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 8:11, NKJV)
Here we have the focus placed upon the FUTURE revelation of the true, SPIRITUAL Kingdom of heaven.

[BUT], in the following text, the focus is shifted to the existing PHYSICAL KINGDOM of Old Covenant “kingdom”. The rebellious Jews who rejected their God eternally are in the subject of this text:
“But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." “ (Matt. 8:12, NKJV)

[Parker's response:]

Finding two differing Kingdoms within the two verses of Matthew 8:11 and Matthew 8:12 is nearly as incredible as the bizarre distinctions dispensationalists conjure to prop up their bizarre views. McPherson would seem to include verses like Matt 4:17,23; 8:12; 11:11-12; 23:13 and others in his "physical, temporal manifestation" of the Kingdom [pre-AD 70], while designating other mentions as speaking of a future invisible one [post-AD 70], thus creating two kingdoms with abrupt discontinuity. Jesus simply won't allow for such a nonsensical distinction to be supposed. Anyone can see that the Kingdom prior to AD 70 is the same Kingdom occupied after AD 70, for Matthew 21:43 shows it is so:

Matthew 21:43
Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

There are not TWO different kingdoms there--there is one. That one Kingdom is taken from the rulers of Old Israel and given to the rulers of New Israel.

Another passage in Matthew makes clear that only ONE kingdom is in view, not two discontinuous ones:

“The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness” (Matt. 13:41, NKJV)

As we plainly see in this verse, the Kingdom was already there being occupied by certain unworthy men who at some future time were to be extracted from it, leaving that very kingdom to the worthy Church of Jesus Christ (Matt 21:43).

In conclusion, we identify this second presuppositional error in McPherson's argument which, when exposed, shuts down his entire perspective of the Kingdom and its expression for today. McPherson desperately needs there to be two different Kingdoms--an earthly, temporal, hierarchic one prior to AD 70 and an invisible, anarchic one after AD 70--yet scripture doesn't allow it, nor does scripture allow any of his errant conclusions which flow entirely out of that flawed presupposition.

BibleStudentActivist's picture

Parker wrote:
"Finding two differing Kingdoms within the two verses of Matthew 8:11 and Matthew 8:12 is nearly as incredible as the bizarre distinctions dispensationalists conjure to prop up their bizarre views." In fact the kingdom of Matthew 8:11 was the FIFTH KINGDOM that was about to come and did come in A.D.70. And the "children of the kingdom" of verse 12 had reference to the children of the FOURTH (wicked) kingdom which was established by the Maccabees who had defeated Greek dominion and seized kingdom power. John is absolutely correct on that. The kingdom of vs. 12 began in 167 B.C. as a homogenous Judæam entity (kegs of Iron. as per Daniel 2, was tranformed by the Romans into a vassel kingdom under the Idumean/Judæan Herod the Great (feet of Iron and Clay, as per Daniel 2). The ten toes would correspond to the Zealot-Sicarri/Idumean coalition government which was established on the eve of the Destruction. The STONE was that fifth kingdom that did not exist until the Second Coming. Notr in Daniel 2 that the Stone lands ON THE FEET (Daniel 2:34) The Feet was the Fourth Kingdom; the Stone the Fifth Kingdom,which was further transformed into a Mountian after the Wind blew the pieces away (Daniel 2:35).

~Mark

Parker's picture

Mark,

Matthew 8:11-12 does not contain two different Kingdoms. As Jesus so clearly says to them:

Matthew 21:43
"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.

BibleStudentActivist's picture

Parker,
Technically you are right. However, the kingdom was passed from Judea into the hands of the Babylonians, from them into the hands of the Medo-Persians, from them into the hands of the Greeks and from the Greeks into the hands of the Maccabees and finally, under Herod, the hands of the Pharisees who would forfeit it to the Christians within 40 years of the text we are looking at. The "children of the kingdom" has reference to the Jews who abused their stewardship of the Kingdom.Vineyard in their time, but Abraham, Isaac and Jacob along with many from the east and the west has reference to the restoration of the kingdom of God and its being placed into the hands of the Christian from A.D.70 and forward.

~Mark

BibleStudentActivist's picture

Parker wrote:
"Finding two differing Kingdoms within the two verses of Matthew 8:11 and Matthew 8:12 is nearly as incredible as the bizarre distinctions dispensationalists conjure to prop up their bizarre views." In fact the kingdom of Matthew 8:11 was the FIFTH KINGDOM that was about to come and did come in A.D.70. And the "children of the kingdom" of verse 12 had reference to the children of the FOURTH (wicked) kingdom which was established by the Maccabees who had defeated Greek dominion and seized kingdom power. John is absolutely correct on that. The kingdom of vs. 12 began in 167 B.C. as a homogenous Judæam entity (kegs of Iron. as per Daniel 2, was tranformed by the Romans into a vassel kingdom under the Idumean/Judæan Herod the Great (feet of Iron and Clay, as per Daniel 2). The ten toes would correspond to the Zealot-Sicarri/Idumean coalition government which was established on the eve of the Destruction. The STONE was that fifth kingdom that did not exist until the Second Coming. Notr in Daniel 2 that the Stone lands ON THE FEET (Daniel 2:34) The Feet was the Fourth Kingdom; the Stone the Fifth Kingdom,which was further transformed into a Mountian after the Wind blew the pieces away (Daniel 2:35).

~Mark

SuperSoulFighter's picture

By the way, I noticed that you cleverly avoided responding to the texts most uncomfortable to your position. I am referring, of course, to 1Cor. 15:24 and Rev. 4:10,11.

I'm sure your mistreatment of these texts will be galling as usual, but kindly address them anyway if you would, thereby further exposing the weakness and unsustainability of your position.

Thankyou.

Parker's picture

McPherson, you have so many errors that I can't get to them all. In fact, I am bringing my comments to your article to a conclusion here asap. Now, concerning 1 Cor 15:24, you write:

"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. (1Cor. 15:24 NKJV)

ALL RULE, AUTHORITY AND POWER were terminated at the establishment of the eternal Kingdom. Christ alone reigns supreme in His eternal Kingdom. All of His subjects are subject to HIM ALONE and are peers and equal to each other in position and authority (i.e. they have NO authority over one another)."

You think the "all rule, authority, and power" being put down is that of the apostles and the bishopric of Christ's Church??? How long will it take to get you to start using scripture to interpret scripture? You just read things and throw in all manner of personal assumptions into the mix. The "all rule, authority, and power that were terminated at the establishment of the eternal Kingdom" was the OPPOSING ENEMY rulers:

--COMPARE THIS--

1 Corinthians 15:24-25
Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

--TO THIS--

Heb 1:13:
To which of the angels said he at any time, 'Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool'? (cf. Mt 22:44; Ps 110:1).

So you see, the passage is not speaking of putting down the Church's authority offices, but rather Christ's enemies! What's more, 1 Cor 15:24-28 fully supports my position on the Church, for it concludes with v. 28 which compares perfectly to Eph 1:22-23:

--COMPARE THIS--

1 Corinthians 15:28
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

--TO THIS--

Ephesians 1:22-23
And hath put all things UNDER HIS FEET, and gave him to be the head over all things TO THE CHURCH, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

What could be more clear than this? We have perfect parallel passages concerning the final Kingdom state spoken of at 1 Cor 15:28 and Eph 1:22-23. It is 100% clear that THE CHURCH is the fulness of him that fills all in all, and that it is under the Church's feet that the enemy authorities were put! (see also: Rom 16:20/Rev 3:9). That is the biblical interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28. Your teaching is a total fraud, and I hope that every preterist will reject your extra-biblical anarchist heresy for true, biblical preterism.

Parker

davo's picture

Parker: So you see, the passage is not speaking of putting down the Church's authority offices, but rather Christ's enemies! What's more, 1 Cor 15:24-28 fully supports my position on the Church, for it concludes with v. 28 which compares perfectly to Eph 1:22-23:

Parker, are you sure when it comes to having been "put under His feet" it necessitates one being opposed to the other i.e., the C1 church as opposed to the C1 enemies. Could it not indeed be both? Why? Because we also see Christ in that verse you quote [vs 28] subjugating himself under the Father i.e., under His feet; that in so doing He truly does fill all in all. It need not be either / or, but both.

davo

Parker's picture

Hi Davo.

First, the phrase "when he shall have put down all rule and authority and power" of 1 Cor 15:24 is interpreted by v. 25 and v. 26:

"FOR he must reign till he hath put all enemies under His feet" (v. 25)

"The LAST enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (v. 26).

This explicitly speaks of the destruction of Christ's enemies. He "put down" his enemies at AD 70; the last enemy to be put down ("destroyed") was death. This passage is not about some "end of ecclesiastical rulers and powers with dominion" at the time of the Kingdom's full installment (please see: Dan 7:27; Rev 2:26-27; 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 5:10; Matt 21:23,25; 1 Cor 6:2-5). McPherson has clearly erred. As those multiple citations plainly show, Christ indeed shares his authority and rulership with the Church in the present Kingdom age.

Next, you asked:

DAVO Says:
"Could it not indeed be both? Why? Because we also see Christ in that verse you quote [vs 28] subjugating himself under the Father i.e., under His feet; that in so doing He truly does fill all in all."

I reply by pointing out that in the passage Jesus is not put under his own feet. The Father put things under Christ's feet, but Christ himself is not put under his own feet. And this then is the point: "THE CHURCH IS HIS BODY, THE FULNESS OF HIM THAT FILLS ALL IN ALL." The Church is Christ's mystical body, says the scripture--it is the very "flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone" (Eph 5:30-32). She is one with Christ, and Ephesians 1:22-23 makes abundantly clear that the Church is not what is placed "under His feet" -- which explicitly refutes McPherson's thesis. We read:

Ephesians 1:22-23
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

The Church, made up of its constituent members, is Christ's Body. The Church IS the fulness of Him that fills all in all. The relationship is complete mystical union between Christ and his Church. They are one (Eph 5:30-32). Christ cannot be--and is not--placed under his own feet.

Finally, I restate that the NT scripture does not teach about some "end of ecclesiastical rulers and powers with dominion" at the time of the Kingdom's full installment (please see: Dan 7:27; Rev 2:26-27; 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 5:10; Matt 21:23,25; 1 Cor 6:2-5).

Blessings to you,
Parker

Parker's picture

There was a missed citation in my last post. The corrected verses are the Matthew verses. I said:

Finally, I restate that the NT scripture does not teach about some "end of ecclesiastical rulers and powers with dominion" at the time of the Kingdom's full installment (please see: Dan 7:27; Rev 2:26-27; 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 5:10; Matt 25:21,23; 1 Cor 6:1-5).

Here are some verses which explicitly refute McPherson's view:

Daniel 7:27
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High

Revelation 2:26-27
And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron...even as I received of my Father.

2 Tim 2:12
If we suffer, we shall also reign with him

Revelation 5:10
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Matthew 25:21,23
His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things...Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things...

1 Corinthians 6:1-5
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

Blessings to you,
Parker

SuperSoulFighter's picture

I've just responded to these over in the "more ad hominem" commentary discussion thread.

One notable highlight I'd like to introduce here is found in Dan. 7.

Daniel 7:27
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High

Parker believes this text is indicative of the SHARING of authority between Christ Jesus as Sovereign King and His subjects - the saints of the Kingdom. Let us see what the context reveals.

27 "Then the kingdom and dominion, And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.'"

Wow. Duplicity at is most obvious. Parker deliberately left out the portion of that verse that completely undermines his argument and case. ALL DOMINIONS - ALL AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE NT SAINTS, is rendered equally subservient to Christ Jesus.

This kind of deceitful treatment of the Scriptures doesn't bode well for Parker's case OR credibility (not that he really has any of that left).

Parker's picture

And, here's the response of God's truth:

First, Daniel 7:27 clearly says the dominion and Kingdom are given to the saints of the most high. To deny it is to deny God's Word. In my position, the saints share the rule with Christ--in yours, they don't. Daniel agrees with me, not with you. And, it is also plain that this dominion and Kingdom is given after the old usurpers are destroyed:

Daniel 7:25-27
For a time and times and half a time. 'But the court shall be seated, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it forever. THEN the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.

So, again, this supports my view, not yours. Christ indeed shares all dominion with the saints well beyond AD 70. The dominion is shared.

Next I quote Matthew 25, and you have nothing to say that can refute it. Of course it looks beyond AD 70, and not before. None of your twisting can change it:

Matthew 25:21,23
"His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things...Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things..."

It is plain that this looks beyond AD 70, and all unbiased minds can see it is so. The text speaks for itself, as well as this next verse:

Revelation 2:26-27
And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron...even as I received of my Father.

The condition of their receipt of co-rulership (power over nations) with Christ is that they must first overcome to the end (AD 70). For you to try to tuck this in before the end is to violate the plain text. This fact must hurt, especially after you said Christ doesn't share his throne or rule with anyone. As Rev 2:27 shows, He most certainly does:
--COMPARE THIS--

Revelation 2:26-27
And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron...even as I received of my Father

--TO THIS--

Revelation 3:21
'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

So, McPherson, Christ does share his rule and throne with the saints, and this all clearly looked beyond AD 70. To deny it is to deny God's Word.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Parker has clearly failed to take into account the true context of 1Cor.15:28 (which is true to form for this papist masquerading as a contextually consistent Preterist).

Here is the context he is hiding from those who browse these discussions.

20 "But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 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."

The focus is actually upon the NT saints and THEIR economy, WITHIN the Old Covenant "age". THEIR authority and rule and power (that of their leadership) was as temporal and intended to be done away with when the Kingdom was fully established, as was that of their enemies, the OC Jews. Parker, the "contextual exegete" has completely failed to take into account the immediate context. He is invited to drop his smug posturing and adopt a little more humility, in order to avoid setting himself up for a truly humiliating fall.

"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1Cor.15:28)

Another thing Parker has failed to acknowledge is that the GOAL of the subjection of all authority and rule to the Son was and is that GOD ALONE will be exalted as the ONE Authority in His Kingdom. Because this is a SPIRITUAL Kingdom, His rule is uniquely personal, individual and without any need for human "administrators" or "management". His Kingdom was established in such a way in order that HE ALONE may be "all in all". Note the complete and total lack of any mention of the role of human authorities in these texts. NO mention of them whatsoever.

May Parker the smug, pious, pretentious pseudo-exegete repent of his arrogant posturing and cry out to God for deliverance from his willful blindness to the Truth.

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43