Truth Magazine

By Earl E. Robertson

To answer this question seems superogatory. If the word of God can be believed, while having to totally reject the doctrines of men, this question can easily and quickly be answered. To answer the question poses no difficulty to any Bible student; getting one to accept what God says about the matter does present problems. Nearly every religious denomination is saturated with the premillennial web, which position has as a cardinal doctrine the contention that the land promise has not been kept.

The Promise

Here is the original promise that God made, “Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him . . . and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came . . . And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land . . .” (Gen. 12:1-7). While Abram “dwelled in the land of Canaan” the Lord said unto him, “Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever” (Gen. 13:12, 14-15). “In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen. 15:18). “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:7-8).

Furthermore, Jehovah said, “And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers . . . And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord” (Ex. 6:4, 8). Moses, a man of faith in God, and “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds” (Acts 7:22), some three centuries after the promise was made to Abraham he evidenced his confidence that soon the land promise would be fulfilled, saying, “And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, ,Moses’ father in law, We are journeying unto the place of which the Lord said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good: for the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel” (Num. 10:29).

God Kept His Word The Land Received, (Joshua 21;43-45)

Joshua, the aged leader of God’s people, preparing to die, intensely told the Israelites, “The Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein . . . There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass” (Josh. 21:4.3, 45).

When God called Abram from the Ur of the Chaldees, Abram “departed as the Lord had spoken unto him.” This started the long and eventful trek which ultimately led to the seed “after him” receiving and dwelling in the land of Canaan. The apostle said, “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went” (Heb. 11:8). Abram knew neither the “where” nor “when;” God knew, however. Stephen said, “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia… Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell” (Acts 7:2-4). Abraham personally had no inheritance in the land, “no, not so much as to set his foot on” (Acts 7:5). Stephen’s speech carries Israel through the Egyptian bondage, embracing more than four hundred years, and then says, “And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place” (Acts 7:7). “In this place” is the “land wherein ye now dwell” (vs. 4), being the very land that God had said “I will give.” So, the inheritance would be received after the bondage. But, further, Stephen says, “But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt” (Acts 7:17). The time drew nigh!

Abraham could not personally inherit the land, but his seed “after him” would, following the serfdom, inherit the land and dwell in it. This is exactly what Joshua said about it. He said, “The Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein” (Josh. 21). All the land promised the fathers was given and possessed by Israel – the seed after the fathers. This is what the word of God says about it! Stephen said God made this promise to Abraham “when as yet he had no child” (Acts 7:5). Emphasized in the promise is the seed of Abraham, not Abraham himself. Of this promised land of Canaan, Nehemiah testifies: “Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous” (Neh. 9:7, 8).

Possession Of Land Conditional

The possession of this land was conditioned on the Jews keeping the word of God. When Israel went into the land of Canaan and possessed it there were remaining in the land heathen peoples with their false gods and idolatrous worship. Joshua spoke unto Israel of “these that remain among you” (Josh. 23:7/, and warned the people of God “That ye come not among these nations;” “neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them nor bow yourselves unto them.” Further, he said, “Know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the Lord your God hath given you” (Josh. 23:13/. The watchword was, then, “keep the words of God” or perish. Cf. Deut. 8:19, 20; Deut. 30:18. Often the sins of Israel caused them to lose the land; to be driven out and become slaves to the nations used by the Lord. As captives they lamented unto the Lord, and He, with pity, would bring them back into their land. A case in point to illustrate is David “recovering” the land. The record says, “David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates” (2 Sam. 8:3). Also, “He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the Lord God of Israel” (2 Kgs. 14:25).

The “recovering” of the land was not a fulfillment of the promise; Israel had already inherited and possessed the land. Conditions causing the “recovering” was sin disobedience to God. All the later Israeli encounters have absolutely nothing to do with the promise God made to Abraham about the land. The Israeli war with the Arab Nations of June 5-10, 1967 has no connection whatsoever with the Abrahamic promise for Israel to inherit and possess the land. Our point of contention is: God kept his promise to Abraham. The rebellion and sins of the Jews afterward is the cause of their losing the land. The Assyrian captivity in the days of Tiglath-Pileser and Shalmaneser; with the great Sennacherib leading the capture of Samaria by Sargon; the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar, have nothing to do with God giving Abraham’s seed the land as He promised in Genesis 12. These captivities were the results of Israel sinning against God; their return to the land came about because of repentance of sin and their faith in God. When they returned to their land they did so by observing the law of tribal estates (Lev. 25:13-28). When these Jews returned from Babylon under the leadership of Zerrubabel, Ezra told them to obey God, thus, tribally, they dwelt in their cities (Ez. 2:70). Their awareness and ability to do this depended on their knowledge of genealogy. Contrary to the concepts now held by modern millennialists, these records of the Jews are unknown. The Holy Spirit moved Paul to write: “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain” (Tit. 3:9). Where would the premillennial put these Jews now scattered to every part of the world? Paul said, don’t try! The efforts are “unprofitable and vain”.

Present Pratings

David R. Reagan wrote in Word And Work, March 1980, p. 81, of the Jews returning to their land after the Babylonian captivity: “Unfortunately, Bro. Woods (Guy N., EER) did not bother to explain how these chapters were fulfilled by,the return from Babylon. They may have been prefilled in type by the return from Babylon, but they certainly were not fulfilled in any literal, sense.” No one, including Reagan, understands such to be anything but nonsense. Prefilled in type! Reagan’s theory of premillennialism demands “the regathering of the Jews to their homeland” to “be worldwide in extent;” “a future kingdom of regathered Jews in the land of Palestine;” that Jesus will be the earthly king over this kingdom of regathered Jews in Jerusalem, and that all of this will come to pass unconditionally! Reagan declares their re-entrance into Canaan by “recovery” was not literal. Yes, they literally entered the land and that was literally fulfilling the promise.

Charles C. Ryrie, in his book, The Basis Of The Premillennial Faith, says the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants have not been fulfilled. He says, “The unconditional character of the Abrahamic covenant is the crucial issue in making the Abrahamic covenant a basis for premillennialism. If the covenant is unconditional, then the national aspect of it must yet be fulfilled, and premillennialism is the only system of interpretation which makes a place for a national future for Israel in which she possesses her land” (p. 52). Again, on page 60, he says, “Since the coveant has never been fulfilled. in history, if language means anything at all, it must have a future fulfillment.” And among the things God promised Abraham which have not been fulfilled, he says, “specifically, the national promises.” He says there have been three dispersions of the Jews, “The third and last dispersion began in 70 A.D. and continues to the present day. Israel has not yet returned from this dispersion although the prophecies of her final regathering are manifold, which prophecies must be fulfilled if the ‘ Bible is the word of God . . . Israel’s regathering is surely future” (p. 74).

Premillennial teachers tie the Abrahamic promise (Gen. 12) to the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:12-17), making the land promise literally received (but yet future) through the restoration of the Jews from all over the world and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ with a physical rule over these returned Jews; these re-gathered Jews being the kingdom of Christ, the subjects of his rule.

As we have shown, the Jews have already inherited and possessed the land. That promise has literally been fulfilled. The words of God through Nathan the prophet to David are: “And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever” (2 Sam. 7:12, 13). The apostle Peter quotes this Scripture and makes an inspired application of it to the resurrection of Christ; to the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of the Father, and the Lord’s foes becoming His footstool. Upon these facts the Son of God was preached “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). In the “name” of this Lord salvation was offered through faith, repentance, and baptism to these Jews “out of every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5, 36-38). Three thousand of these Jews did obey the Lord that day and were added to the church (Acts 2:41-47). The kingdom of the Messiah was established at Pentecost in Jerusalem; it was at this time the “throne of his kingdom” came into being; it was here the sovereign reign of the ruling Redeemer had its beginning over newly blood-washed saints who comprised His kingdom. He truly is the head of the church, which is His body (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:18, 24). Peter says that Jesus Christ “is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him” (1 Pet. 3:22).

Conclusion

Though R.H. Boll taught the early church did for three centuries believe and teach “the millennial reign on the earth of Christ,” which “would be inaugurated at Christ’s return;” that the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 2:44ff) could not be fulfilled by the first coming of Christ, but rather, “to be realized at His Second Coming,” we must go on believing the testimony of God as shown above. See, Kingdom Of God, pp. 11, 25.

Boll’s side-kick, Charles M. Neal, said in his book, Looking Into The Dark, “Israel’s restoration to the land is just as plainly and abundantly taught as the dispersion from the land. One is a fact of history, the other a fact of prophecy” (p. 56). Yes, but his explanation of the “fact of prophecy” stresses the “shalls” of Luke 1:31-33, and places the “reign of Jesus” in his Seventh period of history which is “the thousand years, Rev. 20” (p. 103). So, with Neal (like Boll) the restoration and reign are yet future. God says otherwise!

God made a promise to Abraham that “his seed” would possess the land of Canaan (Gen. 12); God kept His word, Israel possessed the land (Josh. 21). God promised David that He would raise up his seed (Gal. 3:16) and establish His throne and kingdom (2 Sam. 7); God kept His word by raising up the Christ, establishing His kingdom, and giving the Son the throne (Acts 2:30ff; 13:33; Col. 1:13).

The land promise has been fulfilled! Do not let the materialist deceive and confuse you by telling you all of this is yet future. Do not allow them to equate “inheritance” with “possession”. This they will attempt to do to show, as Ryrie put it, “The unconditional character of the Abrahamic covenant is the crucial issue in making the Abrahamic covenant a basis for premillennialism.”

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 1, pp. 11-13
January 7, 1982

By Mike Willis

The doctrine of premillennialism denies that Jesus is presently reigning as king in His kingdom. The doctrine asserts that Jesus will come back to this earth and establish a physical kingdom at some time in the future. He is supposed to reign over this physical kingdom on this literal earth for a literal 1000 years. Is this doctrine true or is Christ presently reigning as king over His kingdom? If it can be shown that Christ is presently reigning as king over His kingdom, the doctrine of premillennialism will be shown to be false.

Did Jesus Fulfill Messianic Prophecy

When one studies the prophecies regarding the coming of the Messiah, he is impressed that Jesus is the fulfillment of these prophecies. Consequently, he confesses his belief that Jesus is the Christ Messiah/. If Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies, He was not the Christ; He was a false Christ who deluded the people. Of course, we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. However, let us notice the prophecies made concerning the Messiah. Isaiah foresaw the glory of Christ and predicted that He would reign as king over God’s kingdom. He wrote,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The Zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this (Isa. 9:6-7).

Others foretold many of the same things. They wrote,

Behold, the days come saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth (Jer. 23:5).

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed (Dan. 7:13-14).

The prophecies which foretold the establishment of God’s kingdom and the reign of the Messiah also foretold human opposition to that reign. The psalmist predicted the efforts which would be made to prevent the king from being appointed as king.

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion (Psa. 2:1-6).

The prophecies which described the reign did not picture it as utopia – an era in which perfect peace would exist upon the earth. Rather, they foretold that Jesus would reign in the midst of His enemies.

The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies (Psa. 110:1-2).

These and many other prophecies were made concerning the reign of the Messiah. Did Jesus fulfill these prophecies?

The Advent Of The Messiah

When Jesus entered this world, the angel announced unto Mary, “Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Lk. 1:32-33). The child born to Mary was to fulfill the Messianic-predictions of a king reigning over His kingdom.

When John labored in his ministry, he announced that the fulfillment of the kingdom prophecies was near at hand; he said, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). When Jesus began His ministry, He announced the same thing, saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:15; Matt. 4:17). During His ministry, Jesus stated that the fulfillment of the kingdom prophecies was to occur within the lifetime of those who were living then. He said, “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mk. 9:1).

When Jesus stood before Pilate, the Roman procurator inquired, “Art thou a king then?” Jesus answered, “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was 1 born, and for this cause came 1 into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth” (Jn. 18:37).

These statements must be understood in the context of the Messianic prophecies. Jesus, the Son of God, stated that He had come into this world to fulfill the prophecies which had been made centuries earlier by the prophets. The prophets had plainly stated that nothing mere man could do could thwart God’s purpose in establishing the Messiah as king over His kingdom. Hence, these promises were either fulfilled as the prophets predicted and as Jesus planned to do, in which case Jesus is the Messiah, or they were not fulfilled, in which case Jesus is not the Messiah.

Announcement of the Fulfillment

The early church believed that God fulfilled these prophecies when Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven to sit on the right hand of God. Their preaching contained the announcement of the fulfillment of these prophecies. On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached that Jesus was reigning on David’s throne. He said,

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before speaks of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all,the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:29-36).

This sermon announced the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies that God would raise up a descendant of David, namely Jesus, who would reign on David’s throne. The sermon contained several Messianic prophecies, including Psalm 110:1.

In Acts 4, the saints applied the prophecy in Psalm 2, regarding God establishing the Messiah as king on His throne despite the concerted efforts of the unbelievers to thwart that reign, to the events surrounding the cross. Luke records their prayer,

And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done (Acts 4:24-28).

They understood Psalm 2 to be fulfilled. The efforts to stop the coronation of Jesus on David’s throne were those of the Jews, Gentiles, Herod, and Pontius Pilate. These efforts failed because God raised Jesus from the dead and set Him at His own right hand. He is presently reigning in heaven.

Consequently, gospel preaching contained the announcement of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Philip preached “the good news about the kingdom of God” (Acts 8:12, NASB) in Samaria. The good news was that the long awaited kingdom of God had come, not that it had been postponed indefinitely. Paul related that God had “delivered” the Colossians from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col. 1:13-14). The author of the Hebrews reported that the Hebrew Christians had received a kingdom which cannot be shaken (i.e., an eternal kingdom, Heb. 12:28), the kind of kingdom foretold by Daniel (2:44). John stated that he and the saints in the seven churches of Asia were in the kingdom of God (Rev. 1:9).

In addition of these plain statements that the prophecies were fulfilled and that the kingdom was established, the New Testament authors also stated that Jesus had all authority given to Him after His resurrection. Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in~heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). God placed everything under Jesus’ authority. Paul told how God had subjected all things to Christ as he stated, “. . . which he (God) wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in’ this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:20-22; cf. Col. 2:16). Everything, both in heaven and on earth, has been subjected to Christ since He was risen from the dead and was seated at the right hand of God. If everything is already subject to Christ, what more authority could be given to Him at some future date? He already has all authority! Hence, He is presently reigning as the monarch over His kingdom.

The period of Christ’s reign is misunderstood. Hence, some believe that it has not yet begun, that it will begin at some future date, and that it will last for a literal thousand years. However, the Scriptures state that the reign of Christ began when He took His seat on the right hand of,the throne of God. Notice these Scriptures which teach that the, period of Jesus reign is from His ascension into heaven (Acts 1:9) until His second coming. When Jesus ascended into heaven, He “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1:3). He was to sit on the right hand of God until God made His enemies the footstool of the His feet (Heb. 1:13; 10:12-13). Paul wrote on this subject in his discussion of the resurrection of the body. He said,

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 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. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death (1 Cor. 15:23-26).

Notice these facts gleaned from this passage: (1) Jesus is presently reigning; (2) He will continue to reign until the last enemy is destroyed; (3) The last enemy to be destroyed is death which enemy will be destroyed when the dead are raised; (4) After that occurs, the kingdom will be delievered up (not set up) to God; (5) Finally, Christ will “also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him” (1 Cor. 15:28).

At this present time, Jesus should be recognized as “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15). He presently has the key of David (Isa. 22:22; Rev. 3:7) and is reigning as King over His kingdom.

Mistaken Views Based On Misunderstanding of Kingdom

Those who do not believe that Jesus is presently reigning as King over His kingdom hold this conclusion because they misunderstand the nature of the kingdom which He came to establish. They have a physical, literal kingdom in mind. They think that Jesus came to this earth to establish a temporal government in the city of Jerusalem which would gain control of the entire earth. This government would establish a one thousand year reign of peace in which the physical nature of things in this world would be changed so thoroughly that the wolf would dwell with the lamb and the leopard would lie down with the young goat. Of course, that has never literally occurred. However, these passages were never intended to be understood, literally because Jesus never intended to establish a physical kingdom.

The nature of the kingdom which Jesus came to establish was spiritual. When Jesus stood before Pilate, He said, “My kingdom is not of .this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (Jn. 18:36). Again, He said, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, to there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Lk. 17:20-21). When Jesus’ disciples tried to make Him an earthly king, He withdrew from their midst (Jn. 6:15), refusing to be an earthly king. The passage is thoroughly unable of explanation from a premillennial perspective. Premillennialists believe that Jesus wanted to be an earthly king. John 6:15 records that the people wanted to make Jesus an earthly king. Why did He refuse to allow them to make Him an earthly king? The premillennialist cannot give an answer, although the answer is quite simple – Jesus did not come to establish a physical kingdom!

As a matter of fact, Jesus could not reign as a king on this earth for several reasons. The prophet Zechariah foresaw that the Messiah would occupy the position of both priest and king; he wrote,

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both (Zech. 6:12-13).

This prophecy was difficult of interpretation to those who lived before Christ. The Messiah had to be a descendant of David (2 Sam. 7:11-14), of the tribe of Judah. Yet, Zechariah said that He would be priest on His throne. The priest had to descend through the tribe of Levi. The Jews, prior to the coming of Christ, did not understand how the Messiah was going to be both priest and king.

Jesus could not be a priest upon this earth. “For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:4). Consequently, the priesthood of Christ had to be a spiritual priesthood in which Jesus serves in heaven. Inasmuch as Jesus has to serve as a priest-king and he cannot serve as a priest on earth, He cannot serve as a king on earth as well.

This is further confirmed by Jeremiah. Jeremiah predicted that no descendant of Jehoiachin (also called Coniah) could occupy the throne of David in Judah. He wrote, “Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (Jer. 22:30). Jesus is a descendant of Jechoniah (Matt. 1:11-12). Hence, Jesus could not sit upon the throne of David in judah. Jesus sits on the throne of David but He sits on that throne in heaven, seated at the right hand of God. He could not reign on this earth in a temporal kingdom.

If Jesus Is Not Reigning

There are some conclusions which follow from taking the position that Jesus is not presently reigning as King in His kingdom which we need to consider. Those who deny that Jesus is presently reigning are unwilling to accept these conclusions. Hence, these become additional evidences that Jesus is reigning as King over His kingdom. If Jesus is not reigning as King over His kingdom:

1. God broke His promise. In Psalm 2, Jehovah promised that He would establish His kingdom regardless of man’s attempts to thwart His purpose. Premillennialism teaches that the Jewish rejection of Jesus as an earthly king caused God not to be able to establish the kingdom in the first century. Hence, God’s promise failed. The next conclusion which follows is this: if the rejection of Jesus in the first century caused God to be unable to fulfill His promise, how can we be sure that a similar rejection at a later time would not have the same effect? This destroys confidence in the word of God.

2. Jesus is a failure. John 18:37 plainly states that Jesus came to this earth for the purpose of becoming a king. If He did not accomplish that which He set out to do, as premillennialists assert, He failed in His mission.

3. Dethrones Christ. Premillennialism dethrones Christ by denying that He is presently reigning as king over His kingdom. Hence, if premillennialism is true,’ we cannot confess that Jesus is Lord (Acts 2:36) or that He is King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15). We could only state a conviction that He will become these things at some future date. Presently,’ however, Jesus does not have “all authority” if premillennialism is true despite the clear affirmations to the contrary (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-23).

4. The Apostles have no authority. The apostles were given “binding and loosing” authority in the kingdom (Matt. 16:18; 18:18). If the kingdom has not come, they have no binding and loosing authority. The words of the apostles would not then be the authoritative word of God for today. The New Testament looses its authority if premillennialism is true.

5. No need for a new birth. The new birth was the condition for one to have admission into the kingdom of heaven (Jn. 3:3, 5). If that kingdom has not come, there is no need for a man to be born again. Why be born again if there is no kingdom in which to enter?

Conclusions

Jesus is reigning! He is reigning in heaven today and will, continue to reign until the second coming at which time He will return to this earth, raise the dead, and judge the world in righteousness. He is presently Lord of lords and King of kings. Each of us needs to voluntarily submit ourselves to the Lord Jesus Christ and acknowledge His authority.

Questions

1. Explain how one can prove that premillennialism is false by proving that Jesus is presently reigning as King over His kingdom.
2. Describe the nature of the reign of the Messiah which was foretold in Psalm 110:1-2.
3. Could man thwart God’s purpose to establish the Messiah on the throne of God? Give Scriptures to confirm your answer.
4. Prove that Jesus came to this earth for the purpose of being a king.
5. If Jesus failed in His first effort to be a king, could we be sure that He would succeed in subsequent efforts to become a king?
6. Prove that Jesus taught that the kingdom would be established in the first century.
7. Prove that the early church believed that Jesus was presently reigning in their day.
8. Give the fulfillment of Psalm 2:1-6.
9. Cite Scriptures to prove that the kingdom is presently established.
10. How much authority does Jesus have today? How much more authority could He possibly possess in the future?
11. Give the duration of Jesus’ reign.
12. What kind of kingdom do the premillennialists expect and what kind did Jesus establish?
13. Why could Jesus never be an earthly king?

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 1, pp. 7-10
January 7, 1982

By Raymond E. Harris

Through the years premillennialist have differed on many points. However, they all agree on one major theme. They all deny that the establishment of the church fulfilled the kingdom prophecies of the Old Testament. This denial of the fulfillment of the kingdom prophecies has in turn spawned the myriad of complex false doctrines held by all varieties of premillennialists.

At this time we will consider some Old Testament kingdom prophecies and point out their fulfillment in the establishment of the church of Christ.

Daniel 2:44

The prophet Daniel, writing some 580 B.C., foretold the establishment of God’s Kingdom. As Daniel interpreted King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, he revealed that Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom would be followed by three great, but lesser, kingdoms. History has proven Daniel’s word to be true. Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom, Babylon, was followed by the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian and the Roman Empires. Daniel revealed that in the days of the fourth (Roman) empire, God would set up a kingdom. Let’s look at the verse: “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and ‘the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever” (Dan. 2:44).

Notice Daniel specified the time the prophecy would be fulfilled: “. . . In the days of these kings.” God’s Kingdom would come in the days of the Roman Kings. That should be plain and specific enough for anyone! The man of God said, God “shall” set up His kingdom in the days of the fourth great world empire, which We now know to have been the Roman Empire.

Now to the fulfillment. In Luke 3:1-3, we learn that John the Baptist came forth preaching “. . . in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceasar.” And so we have John preaching in the days of the Roman Empire, when Daniel said that God would set up His kingdom. Let’s consider now what John was preaching. Notice Matthew 3:1-2: “In those days came John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (emp. mine, R.E.H.). Then, a short time later, Jesus said, “Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” /Mark 9:1). Hence, we find both John and Jesus, living in the days of the Roman Empire- declaring that the Kingdom of God was “at hand” and that that generation would see “. . . the Kingdom of God come with power.”

Thus the premillennialists find themselves in the very unenviable position of disputing and denying the fulfillment of prophecies made by Daniel, John the Baptist, and Jesus Christ.

Now let’s see what really happened. In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus demonstrates that the kingdom and the church are one and the same. Look at the passage, “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (“assembly” or “called out body of people,” R.E.H.); and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys /authority, R.E.H.) of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” It should be obvious that Jesus uses the terms “church” and “kingdom” interchangeably. The kingdom is the church and the church is the kingdom.

You will remember that in Mark 9:1, Jesus said the kingdom would come in that generation with power. Then in Luke 24:49, He commanded the apostles, “. . . And, behold I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” In Acts 2:1-4, that promise was fulfilled as the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and received inspiration and power. Continuing on in Acts 2:14, we find Peter standing up with the other apostles; he began to preach the Gospel of Christ for the first time. In Acts 2:38 Peter told those gathered on that occasion what to do to receive the remission of sins. And verse 41, explains that “they that gladly received His word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” And verse 47 concluded the chapter by informing us that, the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

So, the kingdom was to come with power /Mark 9:1). The power came on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4/. The church came into existance on Pentecost (Acts 2:47. Hence, the church is the kingdom and the kingdom is the church!

Later, in Acts 8:12, Phillip went out, “. . . preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God”; and the people did the same things others did on Pentecost to get into the church (they were baptized/.

In Colossians 1:13-14, Paul noted that God, “. . . hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear son; in whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” Yet we remember that in Acts 2:38 people were baptized for the remission /forgiveness) of sins and so were added to the church (Acts 2:47). Hence, when one is baptized for forgiveness of his sins, he is added to the church and translated into the kingdom.

Further, you will .remember that in Daniel 2:44 the prophet said that God’s Kingdom “. . . shall stand forever.” In Hebrews 12:28, Paul testified, “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” So, Paul states that God’s Kingdom which “. . . shall stand forever” or “which cannot be moved” had been received in his day.

And finally, in Revelation 1:9, the apostle John advised his readers that he was their brother and “. . . companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ . . . .”

Hence a culmination of the foregoing passages indicate that:

1. If we can have any confidence in the integrity of Daniel as an inspired prophet of God, the Kingdom was established in the days of the Roman Empire.

2. If we can have any confidence in the integrity of Jesus as the Son of God, the Kingdom was established in His generation.

3. If we can have any confidence in the integrity of Paul and John as inspired apostles, they were in the Kingdom of God.

4. If we can have any confidence in the New Testament as the inspired word of God, the Kingdom of God is the church of God, the house of God (1 Tim. 3:14-15).

Additional prophecies of the Old Testament with their fulfillment in the New Testament could be pursued if space allowed. For your private study we suggest the following. They all have .to do with God fulfilling His eternal purpose in placing Jesus on the throne in the New Kingdom, which is also further designated as the church and the family or house of God.

Prophecy		Fulfillment
1. 2 Sam. 7:12-13	Christ raised up to sit on David’s throne	Acts 2:29-33
2. Dan. 7:13-14	Jesus receiving glory and a kingdom	Acts 1:9
3. Isa. 2:2-3	The establishment of the Lord’s house	1 Tim. 3:14-15
4. Jer. 31:31	A new covenant from the Lord	Heb. 8:6-13
5. Mic. 4:1-2	The law of the Lord was to come from Jerusalem	Acts 2:14-47

Questions

What basic mistake do all premillennialists make regarding God’s Kingdom?

1. How many world powers did Daniel see in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream?
2. During the reign of which world power, did Daniel foresee the coming of God’s Kingdom?
3. How long was God’s Kingdom to last?
4. John the Baptist and Jesus lived during the reign of what world power?
5. When did John the Baptist think God’s Kingdom would come if it was “at hand”?
6. What did Jesus say would accompany the coming of the Kingdom?
7. When did Jesus say the Kingdom would come?
8. What did Paul say those that had their sins forgiven had been translated into?
9. Was the apostle John a premillennialist? How do you know?

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 1, pp. 5-7
January 7, 1982

By Hoyt H. Houchen

I. Usages Of The Word “Church”

Sometimes the church (Gr. ekklesia) is referred to in the universal sense – the general assembly (Heb. 12:23). The word “church” denotes “a called out assembly.” The church in this sense is composed of all the saved, all the redeemed individuals throughout the world. They sustain this spiritual relationship because they have obeyed the gospel of the Son of God (Rom. 6:17). They have by one process been baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27) and into the church (1 Cor. 12:13), which is the body of Christ (Eph. 4:4; Col. 1:18). It is one body and is the institution that Jesus promised to build (Matt. 16:18). It came into existence on the first Pentecost after Jesus arose from the dead (Acts 2).

The church, in the universal concept, has no organization except that Christ is the head of the body and each member is subject to Him. The church is governed by the divine laws as set forth in the pages, of the New Testament (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Jude 3). It has no universal bishops (elders) to direct its affairs, has no earthly headquarters and has no synods, councils or conventions composed of delegates. It does not enact laws and issue decrees.

In the New Testament, the church is sometimes referred to in a regional or territorial sense – “the churches of Galatia” (Gal. 1:2), “the churches of Judaea” (vs. 22). These were congregations, different assemblies of Christians in a specific district or area. There was no tie-up or federation of churches in these regions. An organizational tie-up of the Judean churches or the Galatian churches was unknown.

A third way in which the New Testament speaks of the church is in a local sense – a particular congregation of saints in a given place, the church which was in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Car. 1:1), “the church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess. 1:1). Each church was separate and independent from every other church. There was no federation of these churches; there was no sponsoring church (one church directing any work of any other church or churches). In whatever sense the church may be referred to, each individual Christian and each local church must work under the direction of Christ and be guided by His teaching (2 Jn. 9).

Elders were appointed in every church (Acts 14:23). There was always a plurality of elders in each church (Acts 11:29, 30; 14:23; 15:4; 20:17; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:17; Tit. 1:5; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2). In view of the fact that there were no universal elders and no diocesan elders, the question of how elders are ordained is confined to the local church only. Their oversight begins and ends in the local church where they have been ordained. They do not oversee another congregation nor any work of another congregation.

The New Testament reveals to us that the church is a divine institution. It originated in the mind of God (Eph. 3, 10, 11); it was built by the Son of God (Matt. 16:18); it was purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28); Christ is its head (Eph. 5:23); it exists for a divine purpose (1 Tim. 3:15); and its members labor in the hope of heaven (Tit. 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:3-5). These are but a few noteworthy features of this grand and glorious institution.

I1. A Specific: Appointment

Some false ideas have been circulated among brethren through the years about the appointment of elders. One of these views that has been advocated is that elders are not to be formally appointed; that is, they are not actually to be selected by the congregation and then announced “officially” that they are now recognized as elders. The basis of this contention is that men in a congregation who qualify for the work of elders automatically become elders when they do the work of elders. Coupled with this view, is the idea that when these men become elders they rule by example and teaching only, not having any right to make decisions for the congregation. This author dealt with these views in 1966 (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 17, No. 38, p. 550), under the heading “Elders by Appointment, or by Assumption?”

Now let us consider the word “appoint.” “And when they appointed for them elders in every church . . .” (Acts 14:23). Paul wrote to Titus, “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city” (Tit. 1:5). Both of these passages are quoted from the American Standard Version. In the King James Version, instead of the word “appoint,” the word “ordain” is used. The Greek word in Acts 14:23 that is translated “appoint” or “ordain” is cheirotoneo. According to Robert Young, it means “to elect by stretching out the hand” (Analytical Concordance, p. 722). Thayer defines the same word cheirotoneo, “to elect, appoint, create” (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 668). These definitions indicate that it was in some definite manner that these men were elected to do the work of elders.

The Greek word, translated “appoint” or “ordain” in Titus 1:5, is kathistemi. It is contended that because this same word is used in 2 Pet. 1:8 (“make you (kathistemi) to be not idle nor unfruitful”) and their being made such was without direct appointment but by growth and development; therefore, it conveys the same idea with regard to elders. This interpretation is not valid, however, because the word is used in different senses in the two passages. Thayer defines the word in Titus 1:5, “to appoint one to administer an office”. He defines the word in 2 Peter 1:8, “to render, make, cause to be” (op. cit., p. 315). Arndt and Gingrich make the same distinction (A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 391). The two verses are not parallel in meaning, so the contention referred to cannot be sustained.

From our consideration of the word “appoint” or “ordain” as used in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5, there was some method of appointment. Certain men were named and designated. By what method this was done, the Scriptures do not say. It would be well to observe here that the same Greek word kathistemi that is translated “appoint” or “ordain” in Titus 1:5 is found in Hebrews 5:1; 7:28, and 8:3 where reference is made to the High Priest under the law of Moses. Those among the Levites who qualified to become priests were named (Ex. 28:1) and they were appointed in a definite manner (see Ex. 28 and Lev. 8). Their priesthood was not by assumption, but by appointment. So, we have established that the appointment of elders was specific – that men did not simply assume the office of elders because they were doing the work of elders.

III. How Ordained

The method of appointing or ordaining elders in the local church is optional, provided it in no way violates any Bible principle. When men meet the qualifications as set forth by the Holy Spirit in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, in some way recognition is to be made by the congregation.

Some maintain that because the Bible does not specify how to ordain elders, they are therefore not authorized in the church today. But there are some things which fall in the area of human judgment. The Scriptures do not tell us how many songs to sing in worship, nor how to serve the Lord’s supper. Are we to conclude from this that we are not to have any songs in worship, or that we are not to observe the Lord’s supper? Certainly not; however, the procedures are matters of judgment. So it is with ordaining elders; the procedure is left to us, and we emphasize that any method that does not violate Scripture teaching may be used.

Others contend that, since there is no one to ordain or appoint elders today, therefore elders are not authorized to exist. This fallacy is based upon the asumption that inspired men in the New Testament did the appointing and because there are no inspired men today, there is therefore no way by which elders can be appointed. Although Timothy and Titus may have had some spiritual gifts, there is no way to prove that they were inspired. Timothy was to teach what he had learned from Paul (2 Tim. 2:2) and from the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:14, 15; 1 Tim. 4:13). Elders in each local church are guided by the word of God, so their work is not dependent upon spiritual gifts. No one today is needed to bestow these gifts by the laying on of hands. Furthermore, spiritual gifts were given by the laying on of hands by the apostles. Neither Timothy nor Titus were apostles; therefore, when they appointed some elders they did not bestow spiritual gifts upon them. And, even the laying on of hands did not always mean that spiritual gifts were given. The brethren at Antioch laid hands on Barnabas and Saul, two men who had been selected by the Holy Spirit to do a work. There is no indication that spiritual gifts were given to them. So, the idea that elders cannot be apointed today is without scriptural warrant.

How then are men selected and appointed? First, proper preparation should be made. The preacher and, perhaps, the elders along with Bible class teachers should devote considerable time to preaching and teaching on the subject of elders. The congregation should be thoroughly taught concerning their qualifications and work. The congregation should then be ready for the selection of men whom it believes qualify for elders.

A method that has been used in various churches where this writer has preached, and where he now preaches and serves as an elder, is for names to be submitted by the members to the elders, or to whoever may be designated to be in charge of this matter. The names are then placed before the congregation, and the members are given the opportunity to voice any scriptural objection to anyone whose name has been submitted. If a scriptual objection is made to a man being considered, that man is not qualified and, therefore, cannot be appointed. Sufficient time should be given for scriptural objections to be offered.

Sometimes objections are made, but they are not scriptural ones. Such may be offered because of some personality conflict, a personal dislike for the person, and sometimes even jealousy. Petty peeves should not keep a man who is qualified from serving as an elder.

An invalid objection is sometimes made to a man serving as an elder because all of his children are not members of the church. Brethren have been known to become contentious on such a point, but they need to stop and think. If those children of a man’s family who have reached an accountable age have become Christians, but there are younger children not yet accountable and, therefore, have not become Christians, he would meet the qualifications of having believing children. Suppose a man has been faithfully serving as an elder and his wife bears him another child, does this automatically disqualify him? I would say it certainly does not. By the same token of reasoning, a man who has all the other qualifications is not unqualified to serve because he has some younger children who are not old enough to obey the gospel. Should there be children in his family who are old enough to obey the gospel, but who have not, would be another matter. Brethren very often offer their opinions instead of scriptural objections.

After a careful selection of men has been made of those considered to be qualified to serve as elders, and after a reasonable time has been given for any scriptural objections, then this procedure could follow. The preacher, in a solemn manner, may so appoint these men, impressing upon them their .most serious responsibility as overseers and upon the congregation as to its obligations to these men. This is one method of selection and appointment which has proven to be successful. But whatever method is used should not be a political maneuver to select men who will best serve the personal interest of the one who has suggested them, nor by a secret ballot. Whatever method is employed, we should be careful to do nothing, which in any way, would violate any scriptural principle. When brethren have the motive to please God, there should be no difficulty in selecting and appointing men who meet the requirements of the scriptures.

An additional point or admonition should be kept in mind. A preacher may appoint men as elders, but it should always be the congregation who has first selected them. In Acts 6:3, 4 when men were to be appointed to see after the work of benevolence, the disciples selected these men; the apostles appointed them. So, the church chooses those whom it will have to rule over it. As to this point, elders are not to act for the church in selecting other elders. God has not invested elders with such power. H. Leo Boles made a very appropriate comment. “The power of elders in the church is small. They cannot make a single rule or enact a principle to impose on the church that is not found in New Testament teaching. They have no power save that which is granted them by the New Testament. They cannot add a single command; neither can they give any promise of blessing. They cannot lord it over God’s people . . . When churches begin to delegate their own inherent powers and rights to elders, the days of their degradation has set in; that moment they depart from the New Testament pattern” (“How Elders Are Appointed.” The Gospel Advocate, Feb. 2, 1941). The word of God has already legislated what we are to do; elders (the overseers) see to it that the word of God is obeyed. The Lord’s plan is right and cannot be improved upon; let us always follow it.

Questions

1. What are three usages of the word “church” in the New Testament?
2. Why is the appointment of elders confined to the local church only?
3. What scriptural evidence do we have for the specific appointment of elders? What idea does the word “appoint” convey?
4. Do the Scriptures specify the method by which elders are to be appointed?
5. What reasons do some give for not having elders in the church today?
6. What preparation should be made in the local church before their selection and appointment of elders?
7. Name one practical method of selecting elders.
8. What are some invalid objections offered about men who are being considered to become elders?
9. Who is to select men to become elders before they are appointed?
10. Why are the preacher or the elders not permitted to make the selection of who are to become elders?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 43, pp. 680-682
October 29, 1981