Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; saying, there was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: and there was a widow in that city, and she came unto him, .saying. Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for awhile: but afterwards he said within himself, though I fear not God, nor regard man; yet because this widow troubleth me: I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you he will avenge them speedily, nevertheless when the son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth “(Luke 18:18).

This is a parable that offers us some dazzling conclusions. Jesus is telling us that our prayers determine God’s response to our needs-not just the little everyday needs, but the way in which the world touches our lives. God is doing nothing less than offering those who pray a part in His government of the world. God gives a certain power through prayer to the child of God over the events of nations and rulers (1 Tim. 2:1-3). We know that the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah hung upon ten righteous souls and one praying man (Gen. 18:20ff). We recall the account of Moses lifting his arms in prayer during the battle against Amalek and how the course of the struggle varied according as he held his arms high or let them drop in weariness (Ex. 17:11ff).

We Can Pray

But, these events do not mean much to us in this world of superpowers. We look to history and see the vast array of political, economic, and social power that was behind those men who made history. We may inform ourselves as to the relative size of the armies of the East, the strength of their nuclear weapons, or their gross national product, and say in meekness these are the real factors of power in the making of history. The great doers are the ones who change history, not the prayers. Obviously, we think, it is the action of the doers who direct the game of power.

And then, scripture tells us that God invests the prayers with a share in the future of nations and peoples. God informs us that we may pray for peace (Jer. 29:7; 1 Jno. 5:14, 15), for favorable weather (Jas. 5:17, 18), and for liberation from tyranny (Jer. 18:6-10; Dan. 2:20, 21). And if this assertion that prayer is a power in the world is to be taken seriously (and it must, if we walk by faith), then this is a message that should cause us to wake up and tremble.

But, beyond this, something even greater is implied in the parable. In the parable, the praying Christian is presented in the figure of a completely helpless widow – one entirely at the mercy of her adversary. A widow is a woman who has lost the protection and intercession of a man, and therefore is often victimized. Most people are pitiless and cold enough to be moved only by someone who has power behind him. A widow is often a negligible quantity, a non entity that can be overlooked or brushed aside.

Are we to believe then that this church, which is represented by a defenseless widow, which folds its hands in defenseless supplication, by its intercession before the throne of God, actually shares in the divine ordering of conflict and peace, of curse and blessing? Is not this simply too much to believe? And yet, nothing less than this we are assured and promised.

Nations have found that might in bombs, armor; and armies have never ultimately brought about the end they sought. Are not all the armies and armories of the world nothing more than pieces on a board controlled by Another? Has a single one of all the doers ever actually carried out a program in which he realized his own will? In the End, was not all that he did always deflected from its original course, taken out of his control and swept away by mysterious waves? Was he not himself only a part of a plan drawn up by Another? What did Cyrus or Nebuchadnezzar, what did Hitler and Stalin really know about their role in the drama which Another had written, the last act of which will end before the throne of God at the coming of Jesus Christ? The church of Christ is in truth a defenseless widow, and when she engages in politics and strategy it will never succeed – this is nothing more than a feeble arrow launched at a tank.

How To Pray

The widow rests in the heart of God, and God has promised her that His ear will not be deaf to her pleadings. The one who has influence upon the heart of God rules the world. The poor widow is truly a world power. There is a good reason, then, to consider how she prayed. The first thing that strikes us is the intensity with which she presents her petition. In her distress she knows that only one man can help her. This one man needs only to say a single word and her troubles are over. This is precisely what our Lord is saying to us: If you take seriously the fact that God reigns, that He holds your personal destiny in His hands as well as peace and war among nations, if you take seriously that everything depends on this one thing and this One Man, then you too would keep dinning your prayers in the ears of God with the same persistence, intensity, and importunity.

Some may think the “dinning of our prayers in the ears of God” infers some basic disrespect. If this is our idea, then we think on a human level, and take ourselves too seriously. With God, we are not a nuisance, but a joy. When we keep “pestering” Him we do not show lack of respect but faith and trust in His promises. If we did not have Jesus, and could not see what God and the Son were willing to give for us, then it might be presumptive. But God is interested in us, and God rejoices when we implore and importune because then He knows that we understand His will, and are no longer “pious” and superior, but dare to come to Him as helpless children.

It is sheer hypocrisy for us to say, “I will not come to God with my petty affairs-I will not pray for what I want or need. My Father knows what I need (Is He not omniscient?) Let His will be done.” God takes no pleasure in this kind of super-piety and patronizing resignation. The one who says “Thy will be done” before he opens his mouth in reality has no trust in God at all. He is actually saying in his heart, “Fate still runs its course. Dear old God has retired to His sphere and has no intention of intervening on my account.” The pious people who merely say, “Thy will be done” are not taking seriously the fact that God has given His children the right to speak on anything that concerns them. Why pray at all if God is not moved to grant our requests? In order to offer a serious, worthy petition I have to know what I need. Our prayers often may be merely foolish talk, but we do communicate with God. Our prayers may make all kinds of false diagnoses of our needs, false estimates, and false interpretations of the real situation. But have we fathers and mothers who take offense because their children ask for something that is not best for them? Children quickly become, reconciled to our refusal and hold no grudge against us because they know we mean well by them.

So, after we have spoken frankly and openly in our prayer we should draw the clear line at the end and say, “Your will be done. You will do what is right and good – choose what is good in my foolish prayer. You know above all what I really need, and I want your will to be first in my life.”

Heaven Is For The Desperate

Secondly, we see the intensity with which the widow pleads with the judge – she kept “coming to him.” The judge was a man who did not respond immediately. He was not a man who gave away his justice easily.

It seems to be said here that God remains silent in order that men may not submit in fatalistic resignation, and content ourselves with the cheap snap judgment that says “whatever happens must happen” (cf. Psa. 22). Is not God encouraging us to remain in constant contact with him? God loves those who take the Kingdom by force.(Matt. 11:12). Barclay quotes the commentator Denney as saying “The Kingdom of God is not for the well meaning, but for the desperate. No one drifts into the Kingdom. Salvation only opens its doors to those who are prepared to make as great an effort to get into it as men do when they storm a city.”

When we are all too sure of a person whom we love, our passion begins to cool. Even in love the cheap certainties in which there is no doubt or concern, are dangerous. May not God therefore often wait and remain silent to make me seek him more passionately and persistently? Was not this the case with the importunate widow and the Canaanite woman as well (Mk. 7:24-30)?

Will He Find Faith At His Return?

Finally we must consider the last essential feature in the Lord’s parable. The whole parable is directed to the day of judgment. Will God find any spiritually awake at His coming? The rich fool when he heard “This night your soul is required of you” was suddenly aware that he had dreamed his life away. Here was a man that never missed a trick, took into account even the smallest details, and yet he dreamed away the fact that everything depends on this one night, when he must appear before God. And now the Lord says to us: The man who prays (not the man who works only, but the man who prays) is the man who is awake to what is real, and has a realistic sense of the proportions of life. The man who prays knows that there is only one thing that really counts and that is getting straight with God.

We understand, then, why Jesus’ parable concludes with the question of whether there will be those who pray on earth when He comes from heaven. One thing is sure: Our prayers are heard above. But are there petitioners here below. That is the problem, not whether our prayers are heard, but are there those who pray? Men continually ask, “Where is the God who hears my cry?” Which of the two is the right question?

When He comes again will the lamps of the virgins be extinguished? Will the trumpets of judgment speak only to ignorant and wondering ears because God has been consigned to nothingness by the silence and sleep of men? Will He find your lamp of prayer burning bright in the darkness? Will He see there is one who has been waiting for Him and has not fallen asleep, or is out of oil, running about going nowhere?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:42, p. 6-7
August 29, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Since its beginning in 1969, 1 have been a member of the Westside church in Marion, Indiana. Prior to that, I worked with the Southside congregation in Marion, where Tom Wheeler now preaches. Part of the time at Westside, I have served as preacher for the congregation, but on a part-time basis, due to my meeting work and the work done on Truth Magazine. Brother Steve Wolfgang, now of Franklin, Tennessee, worked two years with the Westside church shortly after it began, and during that time it enjoyed excellent growth. Brother Norman Midgette now preaches for the Westside congregation.

A few weeks ago, during one of the class discussions, the thought was raised, “I wonder what the contribution of this congregation would be if every wage-earner contributed just 10% of his earnings each week.” Someone else took up the thought, and within a few weeks, someone suggested, “Why don’t we all just deposit in a question box at the rear of the auditorium a small slip of paper on which we list only our income for last year?” The contribution at Westside is not bad. For instance, last month (June) our attendance at the Sunday morning service averaged 154 and our contributions averaged $785.31 per week.

Westside congregation would have to be called an “average” congregation. We do not have any big business men in the congregation, nor do we have any one wage earner whose income is so fantastic that it would off-set and disrupt any average we might take. Most of our members are people who moved up from the South, and who have an hourly job in one of the plants here. Some of the larger employers here are General Motors, RCA, Anaconda, St. Regis Paper Company, General Tire and Rubber Company, Foster-Forbes Glass Company, and Dana Corporation. Though we have what I consider good employment opportunities for a community of 40,000 people, yet the employment opportunities are somewhat typical of others in surrounding cities, like Kokomo, Indianapolis, South Bend, Columbus, Fort Wayne, Gary, Hammond, Evansville, etc. I see nothing that would make the income of the Marion members unusual.

After, it was decided that we were going to do such a survey, we emphasized that it was being done strictly on a voluntary basis, and that no importance was being attached to whether a particular member participated in this survey or did not do so. Furthermore, we insisted that the figures be turned in without any kind of identification upon them. In order that we might have some standard measurement guide, we asked that the value of fringe benefits be not included in the figure cited. Incidentally, an accountant told me recently that the company-paid fringe benefits of the six largest corporations in America average a little over $300 per month per employee. I am sure nearly every employee would dispute that figure, but when one figures in the cost of company-paid retirement programs, along with what some would call standard fringe benefits, I suspect that the figure given is correct. But fringe benefits vary widely from company to company. Some companies have a “matching dollar” stock purchase program, whereby an employee might put in one dollar, and the company would give him another dollar with which to purchase company stock. On the other hand, some employees get virtually no fringe benefits at all. So we asked that these be omitted from the figure submitted.

Furthermore, we asked that part-time employees not enter their income into the composite figure. We asked that students who worked only a part of the year not participate. We asked also that if both husband and wife had full-time jobs that two figures be deposited, instead of lumping them together. In the cases of those who had business-related expenses which were income tax deductible, these expense amounts also were to be excluded from the figure cited. In other words, we wanted either one’s “Adjusted Gross Income” tax figure, or one’s W-2 tax form figure. A goodly number of our members did not participate in this survey (not quite half of our employed people reported), and no criticism whatever was made of them for not doing so. We were very emphatic in stating that this was voluntarily being done just to see what we might all learn about ourselves, as a congregation.

Now here are the results: 8 of our wage-earners earn $15,000 or more per year; 5 of our members earn less than $10,000 per year; and the other 5 earn between $10,000 and $15,000 per year. You can tell thereby that only 18 full-time employees reported their income. However, what we learned from this little survey was quite revealing to me. One thing I learned is that I am going to have to treat some of my brethren with a good deal more respect than I have in the past, for I did not know that we had anyone in the congregation who earned as much as several of these brethren reported. Unfortunately, I do not know which ones of the brethren have these higher incomes, and furthermore, it would be sinful if I treated them any differently than I did the lowest paid member of the congregation.

But the most interesting figure of all to me was that the average income of those who participated in this survey was over $14,000 per year! The Internal Revenue Service states that the fact that a preacher’s housing is provided for him tax-free, or that a housing allowance is excludable from income, makes him equal with other employees who do not pay income tax on their fringe benefits. Of the 18 people who reported their income, our preacher (Norman Midgette) was Number 12 on the list. We all know his income, because it is posted every month on the bulletin board for everyone to see! How many other members would be willing to have their income posted on the bulletin board for everyone else to see? Some might even consider that to be an intrusion upon their privacy.

As long as I have been preaching (and that is now a little over 25 years), I have been told that preachers should not make more than the average member makes! I have never particularly objected to that statement. However, some preachers work hard enough that they ought to be paid more than the average member makes, and some other preachers are so lazy and indifferent toward their work that they should be paid a good deal less than the average member makes, if indeed they are going to be paid at all!

But let us, for the time being, just accept the generality that “A preacher should not make any more than the average member makes.” Does it therefore follow that the preacher ought to make as much as the average member makes? If that be the case, I am sure that Brother Norman Midgette will be delighted to learn, when he reads this issue of Truth Magazine, that the Westside congregation is going to give him a $3800 raise this year! If we are going to use this “average member” as the criterion by which to decide how much we are going to pay a preacher, then let us smoke out this “average member” and see how much he is making.

Income and expenses vary greatly from one part of the country to another. But I would like to see 25 or 30 churches across the nation do a similar survey just to see what the average member does make. Preachers all over the land might get substantial raises! Let me hasten to add, however, that within the past months brethren in many places have awakened to the fact that they have not even been giving their preacher a cost of living raise, and that preachers’ wages have increased substantially during the past six or eight months. It would appear that brethren who negotiate into their labor contracts annual or semi-annual raises, and cost of living increases in pay, would be thoughtful enough to remember that preachers have to live in the same economy, and that they should receive increases in pay, commensurate with those being received by other members.

Brethren in this country sometime remark that brethren in some of the foreign countries must think that every American is rich. Well, he is! Compared with most of the rest of the world, the American who lives in the worst ghetto of this country, or that exists solely on welfare, is well-off. But most of them do not know it. Some are on welfare because they are too lazy to work, and think society owes them a living. Paul said of these, “if any will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). The application of that scriptural principle would lessen considerably the number who are riding on the welfare rolls of America.

When Brother Cogdill and I visited among the Philippine brethren in 1970, we met brethren from about 50 congregations. We did not meet a single brother anywhere who owned any kind of an automobile. We did meet two brethren who had what would be called in this country old “Junker” trucks, but no brother whom we met even had an old “Junker” automobile. On the other hand, we had a major crisis at my house this past week. A week ago Sunday night, I wrecked an automobile. We have been in a terrible bind all week. My son had to have an automobile to get back and forth to do his selling work; my daughters had to have an automobile to get to Berne, Indiana (an 80 mile round-trip), where they work in the printing plant; and my wife had to have an automobile in order to get to town and back to do some Summer work she is doing for the Board of Education. That left poor old Brother Willis stranded! We poor Americans are in bad shape, aren’t we? Here is one family that was severely handicapped because we only had three operable automobiles this past week. Brethren all over this nation like to cry around and feel sorry for themselves and say, ABut we are all poor people.@ The truth of the matter is that every faithful brother is rich in faith, and should be rich in good works, and nearly every single one of us is rich in this world’s goods, when compared to the remainder of the world.

In the event that you are going to dispute the figures that characterize the Westside church in Marion, and are going to say, “That may be true in Marion, but it is not true here,” let me suggest first that you do your survey before registering your complaint and protest. I sincerely would like to see similar surveys made by churches in Tampa, Florida; Atlanta Georgia; Birmingham Alabama; Nashville, Tennessee; Little Rock, Arkansas; Louisville, Kentucky; Annandale or Glen Burnie Maryland; Akron Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri; Denver, Colorado; San Diego, California;

Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Phoenix, Arizona; Tucson, Arizona; Houston, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California, and on and on we could go. Get your members to participate in a survey similar to what we did here in Marion, Indiana, and then if you are willing to do so, it would be interesting to have the report of your survey collated with other such surveys, and a broader report carried later in Truth Magazine. Let’s see if we can find out what this proverbial “average member” of the church does make. And the preachers across the country will probably encourage such a survey, for we have all been hearing for so long that “The preacher should not make more than the average member makes.” Preachers may all be going to receive significant pay increases, or we may find that our Marion figures are much out of line with those compiled from a cross-section of brethren across the Nation. If our pay here is very much higher than it is in other similar cities, knowing brethren as I think I do, I hereby predict that Marion, Indiana is going to have rapid and tremendous influx of population from the East, South, West, and North. In fact, we might soon be able to say that “Marion, Indiana is the fastest growing city in America!” Or else we might find that this proverbial “average member” was not as “average”and as Apoor” as we have all been led to believe that he is. If you brethren elsewhere decide to do such a survey, and are willing to share the results of your reports with other brethren, we would be glad to hear from you.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:42, p. 3-5
August 29, 1974

By Mike Willis

For an introductory study of textual criticism, this book by Ira M. Price would be hard to beat. While I was attending Butler University, the book was used as textbook for one of our classes. The book is divided into these three divisions: (1) The Old Testament, (2) The New Testament, and (3) The English Bible. Price spent some time in dealing with the types of manuscript errors which appear in the extant texts, introducing his student to the problems of the textual critic.

In the section on the Old Testament, the author discussed the. types of materials used for writing, the best surviving Hebrew manuscripts, and the importance and use of the early translations of the Old Testament (such as the LXX, other Greek versions, Latin, Syriac, etc.) in the textual criticism of the Old Testament. This book was written before much could be definitely stated about the Dead Sea Scrolls’ influence on the study of Old Testament criticism. Although Price does refer to the scrolls, better works are available. Under this section of the book, Price also discusses the apocrypha.

In his discussion of the New Testament, Price followed the same- general outline as he followed with reference to the Old Testament-he discussed the materials, the best extant Greek manuscripts and the value of the various versions to the study of New Testament textual criticism. However, under this section a brief history of textual criticism is included to acquaint the reader with the men and the work done in this field as well as the general rules followed in determining which is the best reading in a given text. In his concluding statement for this section of the book, Price said,

“On the other hand, the multiplication of witnesses and variants attest the tremendous importance of the New Testament in the early centuries and really guarantees the general integrity of its text. Only 400 or so of the 150,000 variants affect the sense, and of these perhaps 50 are of real significance. But no essential teaching of the New Testament is greatly affected by them” (p. 222).

In the last section, Price discussed the history of our English Bible from the earliest introduction of Christianity into England in 597 A.D. to the Revised Standard Version in 1952 (the date for the publication of its Old Testament section). Some of the precursors of the King James Version. such as the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Genevan, etc., versions, are discussed and their influences on the King James Version noted. The reviews of the translation of the King James Version, the Revised Version, and the Revised Standard Version, as well as of some of the better known modern speech translations, are excellent.

A word of caution should be added to this review. Price accepted the liberal position with reference to the canonization of the Scriptures. Therefore, several of his comments need to be watched, weighed and compared with works of a similar nature by conservative scholars. However, the book is still worth its cost and is tremendously useful as an introduction to the field of textual criticism and acquainting oneself with the ancestry of our English Bible.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:42, p. 2
August 29, 1974

By Donald P Ames

In Acts 8:12 we find, “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike” (all quotes from NASB). Now, if the preaching of the “kingdom of God” was “good news” then, certainly we too should be interested in it, seeing that it is the fulfillment of that which was spoken by Daniel in Dan. 2:44-45.

However, to preach concerning the kingdom of God is not regarded by all as “good news” to be readily received. The premillennialists in various denominational groups (and a few brethren as well) argue the kingdom of God has not yet come, but refers to something the Lord will set up on earth when He comes again. The Mormons teach it was supposed to be ushered in during the mid 1800’s and the Jehovah Witnesses claim it did not begin until 1914, Like the premillennialists, many of the Jews are still looking forward to its being established at some future date. If we can show, however, that what Philip preached was the fulfillment of what Daniel prophesied, it follows all these men are sadly deceived and deluded regarding the nature and establishment of the kingdom of God.

To Be Established By God

One of the first things affirmed by Daniel is that “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom.” To illustrate the spiritual nature of it, he also reminded king Nebuchadnezzer that the stone was “cut out of the mountain without hands.” Certainly we can see this was not going to be something of man’s doings, but rather clearly an act of God. When the Jews sought to take Jesus by force and make Him;their king (Jn. 6:15), Jesus not only withdrew, but taught a great spiritual lesson to rid Himself of those seeing only fleshly relationships (Jn. 6:66). Had Jesus desired to set up a political, earthly kingdom, this would have been the “golden opportunity.” Jesus’ refusal to do so demonstrates this kingdom was not of an earthly nature, nor dependent on the will of man. Is it any wonder then that Daniel could boldly affirm: “the dream is true, and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

Jesus further demonstrated the unique nature of His kingdom when He affirmed, “My kingdom is not of this world (does not partake of the nature of earthly kingdoms, DPA). If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered` up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this’ realm.” The fact He claimed, “the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:21) also shows that it was not intended to be of an earthly nature, but different.

In fact, if one would but pause and reflect upon it, the whole teaching of the New Testament is against an earthly kingdom as sought by some today. Paul refers to the fact we are “citizens” of a new kingdom (Eph. 2:19, Phil. 3:20), and Peter refers to us as “a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9). Since He “has made (past tense) us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father” (Rev. 1:6, 5:10; Cf. 1 Pet. 2:5,9), it follows this kingdom must have been in existence during the days of the apostles. Yet, at the same time we are commanded to be in subjection to the authorities and powers that be (Rom. 13:1-2,, Titus 3:1). Can a man be subject to the laws of two earthly kingdoms at the same time? Or, does he observe, associate with and support but one? The double citizenship of Christians clearly demands we understand one of these kingdoms must be of a different nature. (We might also point out here that our citizenship in the kingdom of God also requires that a kingdom exist-else how could we be “citizens” in it?) Thus, it follows that we learn one is a spiritual kingdom and the other a physical kingdom.

In Days Of Roman Empire

Another stumbling block these false teachers encounter is that Daniel prophecied the kingdom of God would be set up during the days of the Roman empire. He did not affirm someday, 2,000 years later, another Roman empire like the original would be set up (as some claim), but rather “in the days of those kings. . .the dream is true, and its intrepretation is trustworthy.” If God failed to do what Daniel foretold, the dream was not “true,” the interpretation thereof was not “trustworthy,” and Daniel is found to be a false prophet and liar (Deut. 18:20-22).

Turning to the New Testament, we find both John and Jesus teaching that the kingdom of God is “at hand” (Matt. 3:2, Mark 1:15). Now if it were “at hand” then, it would be “in the days of, those kings” and certainly not referring to something to be set up in the 1800’s, 1914, or later. No wonder it was “good news” to those of Samaria (Acts 8:12).

“But,” someone objects, “that was before the Jews rejected Jesus.” To so claim would make the kingdom of God dependent on man and not God (and what would stop the Jews from rejecting Him again the next time, or the time after that?). Jesus promised His disciples, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who ale standing here who shall not taste of death until they see he kingdom of God after it has’ come with power” (Mark 9:1). If this statement were made before the Jews had decided to reject and crucify Jesus, then one of three things must be true: (1) some of the apostles are still living or did until it was set up, (2) Jesus later made a: correction of this teaching, or (3) Jesus lied about it. We know the apostles are not living today. There is no record of the second point, and Peter denied the third (1 Pet. 2:22). Therefore we must conclude sonrne of the apostles lived to see the kingdom of God in their day! Actually, if we were to look back to Mark 8:31, we can see Jesus was already aware of His rejection and death before ever making that statement (see also Matt. 16:18-19, 21, 28).

Since the kingdom of God was “at hand@ ( Mark 1:15), to be set up “in the days of those kings” (Dan. 2:44), and to come during the life time of the apostles “with power” (Mark 9:1), it follows if we can now find out when this “power” came, them we could find out when the kingdom actually was established. In Acts 1:8 Jesus pointed out they would receive this special “power” when they rectiived the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:14 shows us when they received the Holy Spirit-and the power-and the establishment of the kingdom which was to accompany it.

Related Points

But let us also consider some other points in addition to the above. If the kingdom of God would not be set up for some 2,000 years or more, why did Jesus “waste” the time of Nicodemus by telling him how to get into it? Why not watit and let him enjoy the “second chance”? Jesus should have instead told Nicodemus what he needed to do to be saved before the kingdom was in existence. The truth is, His reply shows the “at hand” nature of the kingdom of God.

Again in Matt. 6:33 He instructed, “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you.” But, how can one seek something that is not even going to be set up for 2,000 years yet in the future?

The future-kingdom theorists also make the reply of Jesus in Luke 9:62 seem very foolish. Why should this man be concerned about the kingdom of God if he were not even going to live long enough to see it established?

Again, Jesus readily acknowledged being “king of the Jews” (Matt. 27:11-the goal he was to obtain then), and the disciples were later accused of still teaching there was another “king” (Acts 17:7, Cf. John 19:12). Would this have been likely if the kingdom were over 2,000 years in the future? Who told those in Athens about this “king”? Why did not Paul deny it if the kingdom were not in existence? Jesus also laid claim to being king in Matt. 19:28 (Cf. Titus 3:5) and that His kingdom exists here on this earth (Rev. 5:10, Cf. 1 Pet. 2:5,9). He further affirmed He now rules from the throne of God on high (Rev. 3:21, Acts 2:30-33) in whose army we engage in a spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10-20) until the end of time (2 Pet. 3). If the kingdom is still in the future, why was this teaching so prevalent even long after the death of Jesus Christ? Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the apostles into “all truth” (John 16:13)?

During the days following His resurrection (Acts 1:3), Jesus “wasted” His time by talking about a kingdom that had now been rejected (per future-kingdom teachers). One would surely think Jesus ought to have realized His disciples needed teaching pertaining to the church (“set up as a substitute”???) rather than talking about a kingdom that they would never live to see anyway. Interestingly enough, it was during that forty days in which He taught them “things concerning the kingdom of God” that He also taught them the great commission (Mark 16:16, Matt. 28:18-20), so if this pertains to the kingdom of God, we are left without even a plan of salvation today. Indeed such false teaching casts a reflection upon the very wisdom of God.

However, with all the teaching related to the kingdom being “at hand,” even Jesus’ own disciples, looking for an earthly kingdom like the rest of the Jews (Acts 1:6), began to think He was going to set it up “immediately” when He entered Jerusalem (Luke 19:11-15. (By the way, if it were 2,000 years yet to come, why did they get that impression?) Jesus’ answer clearly demonstrated He had to die first (go to a distant country), then He would receive the kingdom (Acts 2:30-33), and return in final judgment (v. 15). He will not return to receive a kingdom, but to end his reign and return it to the Father-at “the end” (1 Cor. 15:24-25). Again the false teachers are at odds with the Bible.

Furthermore Jesus affirmed He would partake of the Lord’s Supper with the disciples “in My Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29). Yet we find them partaking of it in the church (1 Cor. 11:23-29,10:16). If the kingdom and the church were not one and the same, why did Jesus so instruct Paul to apply Matt. 26 to this situation?

Jesus also affirmed that He had fulfilled “all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). Did He lie about this statement, meaning he only did part of what God had in mind for Him and would come at a future date to do the rest (John 17:4)? Such is the position future-kingdom theorists put Jesus in. This being so, it also necessitates us returning to the Law of Moses (Matt. 5:17-18) since all is not “fulfilled.” But, since the Law was abolished on the cross (Col. 2:14, Rom. 7:1-4, Eph. 2:14-16), it follows He must have accomplished His mission, and therefore all prophecies related to the establishment of the kingdom of God must be fulfilled as well.

We find early Christians were in the kingdom of God (Col. 1:13, !Rev. 1:9, 5:9-10). Thus we know that “at hand” could not mean 2,000 years in the future. Some of Paul’s associates were called “fellow-workers for the kingdom of God.” (Col. 4:11-How could they work for that which would not exist for 2,000 years?) Others were rebuked for having the wrong attitude about the kingdom (Rom. 14:16-18) and still others were to be barred from it by the practice of various sins (Gal. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Eph. 5:4-5). Such warnings would be useless unless the kingdom of God did exist and they were affected by it.

Since the terms of entry (John 3:5) and the results (Col. 1:13) were, associated with the identical marks of the church (Acts 2:38, 41, 47; 1 Cor. 12:13), we readily see the two are not separate, but the same institution referred to by different descriptions (and used interchangeably in Matt. 16:18-19). All teaching related to the kingdom being set up points to Acts 2:1-4, yet we find the church coming into existence there (v. 47), and following this date all teaching related to either the kingdom or the church pointing backwards. Thus we are forced to conclude they are one and the same institution.

To Fill The Earth

Daniel also prophesied it would fill the whole earth (Dan. 2:35), and “consume” or “put an end to all these kingdoms.” This was the very point of Paul’s teaching in Rom. 10:18, Col. 1:6 and 1:23. The early church went everywhere “preaching the word” (Acts 8:4) and this, in turn, included the “good news about the kingdom of God” as a part of their preaching Christ (Acts 8:5,12). No wonder wherever they went, they were accused of teaching: loyalty to another king than Caesar by their enemies (Acts 17:7).

To Stand Forever

The last point mentioned by Daniel is that “it will itself endure forever” and that “that kingdom will not be left for another people.” Not only does this separate it from earthly kingdoms, but returns the reign of God directly over His people (see 1 Sam. 8:7, Isa. 9:6-7, Acts 2:30-33). Since Jesus now reigns on the throne of God and David (1 Kings 2:12, 1 Chron. 29:23), He has “all authority” (Matt. 28:18, Eph. 1:2123) and there is nothing lacking, save He who gave it to Him – (1 Cor. 15:27). In fact, God Himself testified to the eternal reign of Christ in Heb. 1:8-“But of the Son He says, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.’ ” Paul affirms we have a kingdom which can never be destroyed (Heb. 12:28) and that Christ is to reign till “the end” (1 Cor. 15:24).

But, if Jesus is to deliver it up, how can it be eternal? Simply in that it will, always be ruled by God (Deity) henceforth (John 1:1-3, Heb. 1:8). Thus it will never be left to another and the throne of God (Seat of Authority) returns to God as direct ruler over His people.

Friend, do not let some false teacher deprive you of the “good news of the kingdom of God” by a false and unscriptural theory, drawn up by man, that denies the existence of His kingdom. Rather, like those of Samaria, believe the word of God and obey it (“when they believed … they were being baptized” – Acts 8:12), and Jesus will wash your sins away (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 22:16), translate you into His kingdom (Col. 1:13, Acts 2:47), and grant unto you the blessed hope of eternal life (Titus 3:7; Gal. 3:26-27).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:41, p. 10-12
August 22, 1974