04-06-2008, 03:27 PM
Hi Folks and Folkesses
I sometimes find that the scriptures are a little "vague" or "ambiguous" on the exact nature of God's kingdom - and specifically from where it will be ruling.
As we know, JWs argue that 144,000 anointed ones will rule over the Earth from heaven - based on scriptures such as John 14:1,2 and Revelation 5:9,10.
By contrast, the Churches in general teach that all Christians go to heaven.
But what if the Kingdom will actually be Earth based, after all?
Let's have a look at some of the key scriptures used, and see if we can work out from where the kingdom will be ruling.
First of all, what got me thinking about this again was Jesus' statement on the evening of the Passover:
Luke 22:14-18
"At length when the hour came, he reclined at the table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them: 'I have greatly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it again until it becomes fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' And, accepting a cup, he gave thanks and said: 'Take this and pass it from one to the other among yourselves; for I tell you, from now on I will not drink again from the product of the vine until the kingdom of God arrives."
Both of the highlighted parts are conditional - he would not eat the Passover again until, nor drink the product of the vine again until. In other words, the implication is that he would literally eat and drink again (for that was what they were doing) in the future, when the "kingdom of God" arrived!
Now let's look at the classic...
John 14:1-3
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in God, exercise faith also in me. In the house of my Father there are many abodes. Otherwise, I would have told you, because I am going my way to prepare a place for you. Also, if I go my way and prepare a place for you, I am coming again and will receive you home to myself, that where I am you also may be."
Now, this is often used to "prove" that the faithful apostles would reside in heaven, but please note that Jesus says, "I am coming again and will receive you home to myself, that where I am you also may be."
Now, when Jesus comes again, where is he then? He would not be in heaven then, would he?
To me, the point of this passage is not to show that the apostles would always be in heaven, but that they would always be with Jesus, wherever he was.
Certainly they may have gone to heaven, because Jesus said they would follow him afterwards. (See John 13:36). However, if Jesus were to "come again" and actually rule from Earth, that's where the apostles would also be!
In other words, John 14:1-3 simply argues that the apostles will be wherever Jesus is.
Now, in the next scripture, the indication could be that that Jesus won't necessarily be in heaven always...
Psalm 110:1
"The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is, 'Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.'"
We know from the apostles that, after his ascension to heaven, Jesus sat at the right hand of God - but here in the Psalms this appears to be limited - until God places his enemies as a stool for his feet!
In other words, we could ask: After this event, where will Christ sit? Is it at all possible that, once God has placed Jesus' enemies under this feet, as it were, that Christ will actually rule from the Earth?
Hebrews 10:12-13 seems to elaborate on this:
"This man offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat down at the right hand of God, from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet."
We note that Jesus himself sat at the right hand of God, "awaiting".
Now, if we compare the Revelation account, we can see that the only action that is clearly and definitely attributed to The Word in heaven as coming against his enemies is that at Revelation 19:
"I saw the heaven opened, and look! a white horse... the name he is called is The Word Of God. Also, the armies that were in heaven were following him on white horses... and out of his mouth there protrudes a sharp long sword, that he may strike the nations with it." (Revelation 19:11-16)
Clearly, at this point, Christ is no longer "awaiting", but is coming against his enemies - and it is therefore no coincidence that shortly afterwards the 1,000 year reign of Christ commences - the only question is, where does Jesus rule from, once he arrives?
And while we're in Revelation, let's look at...
Revelation 20:7-9
"Now as soon as the thousand years have been ended, Satan will be let loose out of his prison, and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. And they advanced over the breadth of the earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and devoured them."
This clearly says there is a "camp of the holy ones" and the "beloved city" on the Earth! If Jesus were ruling on Earth at this time, wouldn't this scripture make sense?
What About Spirit vs Flesh?
Of course, one of the problems with arguing that Jesus will rule from the Earth is the spirit vs flesh argument. If Jesus is now a spirit, how could he rule from Earth? Does that mean he becomes flesh again?
Well, if we recall, when he was resurrected, he was in bodily form! He manifested to the apostles, showed them his hands and feet, and ate a fish in front of them - yet he also managed to appear and disappear at will.
So Jesus seemed to be able to change his nature at will. Maybe this is what the "first resurrection" really means - not to "heaven" as such, but into an incorruptible form. For example, in his discussion of the resurrection, Paul says...
"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised up in incorruption." (1 Corinthians 15:42)
When Jesus was resurrected, he was raised into an "incorruptible" body, which could not die anymore, could materialize and dematerialize, and ascend to heaven!
This also harmonizes with the answer Jesus gave to the Sadducees, who questioned him concerning the resurrection. He replied:
"The children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage, but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God's children by being children of the resurrection." (Luke 20:34-36)
Again, many believe that after death one becomes an angel in heaven, but Jesus simply says they become "like the angels" because of their not dying or marrying - not that they are actually angels, he is simply comparing them to like the angels.
In fact, this description fits in with the "first resurrection" spoken of in Revelation 20. Jesus says "neither can they die anymore", and for those in the first resurrection, "over these the second death has no authority". These ones "will be priests of God and of Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years." (Rev 20:6)
So a case could be made that those in the "first resurrection" are resurrected on earth to incorruptible bodies that cannot die, but that are capable of being both physical, and spiritual (as Jesus was when he was resurrected (i.e. eating a fish yet entering a locked room!)
This would presumably mean that, like Jesus, ones with an incorruptible nature could enter heaven, but would not necessarily reside there - it would depend where Jesus Christ will rule from (because where Jesus is, that's where the apostles will be, as we know from John 14).
But what of Paul's comment that...
"Flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Cor 15:50)
Well, maybe that's Paul's point... ALL must be changed into incorruption at some point, in order to "inherit God's kingdom" - which is perhaps why he says,
"For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality. But when this which is mortal puts on immortality, then the saying will take place that is written: 'Death is swallowed up forever." (1 Cor 15:53,54)
So then, maybe ALL have to eventually put on that immortal, incorruptible state, in order to be part of God's kingdom. The difference between the "first" and "second" resurrection is simply that those in the first resurrection have been found WORTHY of it - which is certainly what Luke 20:34-36 and Rev 20:4-6 implies.
Physical vs Spiritual Arguments
Finally, we should bear in mind that I think we often get confused between the difference uses of "flesh" and "spirit", or "physical" or "spiritual".
Often it is simply used as a demarcation between holy and unholy things - flesh vs spirit.
For example, see how Paul uses these terms in 1 Corinthians 2:14:
"A physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. For 'who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, that he may instruct him?' But we do have the mind of Christ."
Clearly, Paul is contrasting the "physical man" with the "spiritual man", not in terms of his bodily nature (flesh vs spirit), but simply in a spiritual sense.
I suspect this is the case with a lot of scriptures that talk about flesh vs spirit - we must ask whether the author is referring to the actual body of that person, or with their spiritual nature.
For instance, when Jesus said, "Eat my flesh"... he was talking in a spiritual sense, but this was not discerned by many of his disciples who left off from following him, because they couldn't discern the difference!
So I would suggest that, instead of referring to things like an "earthly" or "heavenly" resurrection, I'd suggest we simply talk about a resurrection to "incorruptibility", because that is something which is definitely supported in scripture.
As to where these ones will reside - I think the jury's out, and may not get back until Christ appears again!
I sometimes find that the scriptures are a little "vague" or "ambiguous" on the exact nature of God's kingdom - and specifically from where it will be ruling.
As we know, JWs argue that 144,000 anointed ones will rule over the Earth from heaven - based on scriptures such as John 14:1,2 and Revelation 5:9,10.
By contrast, the Churches in general teach that all Christians go to heaven.
But what if the Kingdom will actually be Earth based, after all?
Let's have a look at some of the key scriptures used, and see if we can work out from where the kingdom will be ruling.
First of all, what got me thinking about this again was Jesus' statement on the evening of the Passover:
Luke 22:14-18
"At length when the hour came, he reclined at the table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them: 'I have greatly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it again until it becomes fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' And, accepting a cup, he gave thanks and said: 'Take this and pass it from one to the other among yourselves; for I tell you, from now on I will not drink again from the product of the vine until the kingdom of God arrives."
Both of the highlighted parts are conditional - he would not eat the Passover again until, nor drink the product of the vine again until. In other words, the implication is that he would literally eat and drink again (for that was what they were doing) in the future, when the "kingdom of God" arrived!
Now let's look at the classic...
John 14:1-3
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in God, exercise faith also in me. In the house of my Father there are many abodes. Otherwise, I would have told you, because I am going my way to prepare a place for you. Also, if I go my way and prepare a place for you, I am coming again and will receive you home to myself, that where I am you also may be."
Now, this is often used to "prove" that the faithful apostles would reside in heaven, but please note that Jesus says, "I am coming again and will receive you home to myself, that where I am you also may be."
Now, when Jesus comes again, where is he then? He would not be in heaven then, would he?
To me, the point of this passage is not to show that the apostles would always be in heaven, but that they would always be with Jesus, wherever he was.
Certainly they may have gone to heaven, because Jesus said they would follow him afterwards. (See John 13:36). However, if Jesus were to "come again" and actually rule from Earth, that's where the apostles would also be!
In other words, John 14:1-3 simply argues that the apostles will be wherever Jesus is.
Now, in the next scripture, the indication could be that that Jesus won't necessarily be in heaven always...
Psalm 110:1
"The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is, 'Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.'"
We know from the apostles that, after his ascension to heaven, Jesus sat at the right hand of God - but here in the Psalms this appears to be limited - until God places his enemies as a stool for his feet!
In other words, we could ask: After this event, where will Christ sit? Is it at all possible that, once God has placed Jesus' enemies under this feet, as it were, that Christ will actually rule from the Earth?
Hebrews 10:12-13 seems to elaborate on this:
"This man offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat down at the right hand of God, from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet."
We note that Jesus himself sat at the right hand of God, "awaiting".
Now, if we compare the Revelation account, we can see that the only action that is clearly and definitely attributed to The Word in heaven as coming against his enemies is that at Revelation 19:
"I saw the heaven opened, and look! a white horse... the name he is called is The Word Of God. Also, the armies that were in heaven were following him on white horses... and out of his mouth there protrudes a sharp long sword, that he may strike the nations with it." (Revelation 19:11-16)
Clearly, at this point, Christ is no longer "awaiting", but is coming against his enemies - and it is therefore no coincidence that shortly afterwards the 1,000 year reign of Christ commences - the only question is, where does Jesus rule from, once he arrives?
And while we're in Revelation, let's look at...
Revelation 20:7-9
"Now as soon as the thousand years have been ended, Satan will be let loose out of his prison, and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. And they advanced over the breadth of the earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and devoured them."
This clearly says there is a "camp of the holy ones" and the "beloved city" on the Earth! If Jesus were ruling on Earth at this time, wouldn't this scripture make sense?
What About Spirit vs Flesh?
Of course, one of the problems with arguing that Jesus will rule from the Earth is the spirit vs flesh argument. If Jesus is now a spirit, how could he rule from Earth? Does that mean he becomes flesh again?
Well, if we recall, when he was resurrected, he was in bodily form! He manifested to the apostles, showed them his hands and feet, and ate a fish in front of them - yet he also managed to appear and disappear at will.
So Jesus seemed to be able to change his nature at will. Maybe this is what the "first resurrection" really means - not to "heaven" as such, but into an incorruptible form. For example, in his discussion of the resurrection, Paul says...
"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised up in incorruption." (1 Corinthians 15:42)
When Jesus was resurrected, he was raised into an "incorruptible" body, which could not die anymore, could materialize and dematerialize, and ascend to heaven!
This also harmonizes with the answer Jesus gave to the Sadducees, who questioned him concerning the resurrection. He replied:
"The children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage, but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God's children by being children of the resurrection." (Luke 20:34-36)
Again, many believe that after death one becomes an angel in heaven, but Jesus simply says they become "like the angels" because of their not dying or marrying - not that they are actually angels, he is simply comparing them to like the angels.
In fact, this description fits in with the "first resurrection" spoken of in Revelation 20. Jesus says "neither can they die anymore", and for those in the first resurrection, "over these the second death has no authority". These ones "will be priests of God and of Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years." (Rev 20:6)
So a case could be made that those in the "first resurrection" are resurrected on earth to incorruptible bodies that cannot die, but that are capable of being both physical, and spiritual (as Jesus was when he was resurrected (i.e. eating a fish yet entering a locked room!)
This would presumably mean that, like Jesus, ones with an incorruptible nature could enter heaven, but would not necessarily reside there - it would depend where Jesus Christ will rule from (because where Jesus is, that's where the apostles will be, as we know from John 14).
But what of Paul's comment that...
"Flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Cor 15:50)
Well, maybe that's Paul's point... ALL must be changed into incorruption at some point, in order to "inherit God's kingdom" - which is perhaps why he says,
"For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality. But when this which is mortal puts on immortality, then the saying will take place that is written: 'Death is swallowed up forever." (1 Cor 15:53,54)
So then, maybe ALL have to eventually put on that immortal, incorruptible state, in order to be part of God's kingdom. The difference between the "first" and "second" resurrection is simply that those in the first resurrection have been found WORTHY of it - which is certainly what Luke 20:34-36 and Rev 20:4-6 implies.
Physical vs Spiritual Arguments
Finally, we should bear in mind that I think we often get confused between the difference uses of "flesh" and "spirit", or "physical" or "spiritual".
Often it is simply used as a demarcation between holy and unholy things - flesh vs spirit.
For example, see how Paul uses these terms in 1 Corinthians 2:14:
"A physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. For 'who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, that he may instruct him?' But we do have the mind of Christ."
Clearly, Paul is contrasting the "physical man" with the "spiritual man", not in terms of his bodily nature (flesh vs spirit), but simply in a spiritual sense.
I suspect this is the case with a lot of scriptures that talk about flesh vs spirit - we must ask whether the author is referring to the actual body of that person, or with their spiritual nature.
For instance, when Jesus said, "Eat my flesh"... he was talking in a spiritual sense, but this was not discerned by many of his disciples who left off from following him, because they couldn't discern the difference!
So I would suggest that, instead of referring to things like an "earthly" or "heavenly" resurrection, I'd suggest we simply talk about a resurrection to "incorruptibility", because that is something which is definitely supported in scripture.
As to where these ones will reside - I think the jury's out, and may not get back until Christ appears again!
