This is part two of the Kingdom of God.
Okay, part two of the Kingdom of God.
Alright, so before we get into this, last week we talked about the King.
I hope you figured out that the King is Jesus.
Very clearly has been pointed through all through scripture as Jesus.
So this week we're going to begin talking about the Kingdom,
let's say this right, itself, the Kingdom itself,
which is that place in which Jesus reigns as King based on what we saw last week.
We will not finish today.
We're going to delve deeply into two strategies or two doctrines of understanding of this topic today.
And then we'll get the third one and kind of bring it all together next week.
And then we'll have the latter half of next week and the fourth week to really nail it down.
Okay?
Alright.
And so if you look on your paper you'll see the circle one on the left hand side.
And that's where we're starting at.
Okay?
Circle one.
Alright.
Right next to the circle one there's a blank that starts with a C.
The big C there.
The word is consistent.
Consistent.
Alright?
And it goes with that word over to the right, which is a word that you'll almost see nowhere else.
You'll see nowhere else used in the English language probably.
Thorough going.
So this doctrine we're going to talk about, the top half of the page,
which fights with the doctrine on the bottom half of the page.
Okay?
They are thoroughly in conflict with one another.
Consistent or thorough going.
And it's called eschatology.
And you don't really need to remember that word or anything,
but eschatology means like the study of the end times.
Anything that's an ology is a study of something and an eschatology is a study of the end times.
So this is consistent or thorough going eschatology.
And you follow the arrow up to the line right there.
And you've got a word that starts with the letter F.
Anybody want to take a stab at what a word might be that starts with the letter F
that has to do with eschatology or the end times?
Starts with an F. Say it again.
Future.
That is correct.
It's future.
Okay?
So the concept of eschatology or this understanding of the kingdom of God,
that's really what we're talking about, the coming of the kingdom of God,
says that it's all future.
So every bit of it is future.
So they deny that there is any present existence of the kingdom of God.
Okay?
So it's consistent or thorough going eschatology and it's all future.
And we're going to see how they do that.
Follow the arrow up around to the left.
Okay?
And the big place that they start is the Lord's Prayer.
And that three lines right there where it says there's nothing on the first line,
then it says L and P, it's the Lord's Prayer.
So if I say the kingdom of God is coming in the future,
what about the Lord's Prayer says that?
Somebody knows the Lord's Prayer, right?
You know the Lord's Prayer, don't you?
Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come.
Oh, there it was.
Okay, so what part of the Lord's Prayer says the kingdom is going to come in the future?
Thy kingdom come, right?
So we pray thy kingdom come and that's what goes on the next line.
So the Lord's Prayer implies the kingdom is not here yet.
That's what they say, right?
So people who subscribe to this idea, consistent or thorough going eschatology,
say that the kingdom is all in the future because believers are taught to pray thy kingdom come.
And if we're asking for it to come, it must not be here yet.
That's their whole logic, right?
Now obviously you're kind of like, you know that this is not exactly right,
but there is a huge school of thought amongst Christians that this is the way it goes, right?
And back to the two.
The primary one we'll cover next week, but these two make up almost all the rest of Christianity, all right?
And you're going to see why in a second.
So now we've got the Lord's Prayer implied by the kingdom come, thy kingdom come.
That implies it's to come yet.
So now we're going to have a list of parables that they use to say why they think the kingdom is yet to come,
that it's not here at all right now.
It wasn't in Jesus' day and it's not coming for a while yet,
or until what you call like the Perugia, which we'll talk about that later, okay?
So the first parable is the wheat and tares.
So somebody tell me just a little bit, snippet of the wheat and tares,
how can the parable of the wheat and tares be talking about the fact that the kingdom of God is going to come later,
that it's not here now, it's going to come later.
What do you think?
Is that the one where they're traveling down the road?
Nope, that's the parable of the sower.
Okay, so the wheat and tares, they're going to plant the field, right?
He goes, buys a seed, gives it to his servants, he goes to plant the field.
What happens in the morning when the seed starts to come up?
Wheats and tares.
Wheats and tares, right?
So not all good.
And they say, well, it must have been something bad sown in with the wheat, this bad seed.
They inflated the seed with bad seed basically.
And he says, they say, should we go out and tear out the tares?
And he says, no, don't do that, because if you tear out the tares,
you'll tear out some of the wheat with it, right?
But at the end, at the harvest, then we'll kick the tares out,
we'll take those out and burn them, and we'll harvest the wheat.
So now what does that parable say to say that the kingdom of God is yet to come?
How could you use that for an argument for that?
Not a rhetorical question.
I'm confused, that's wonderful.
Okay, so if the parable says, in the parable, where are we in the story?
The wheat and the tares are in the field, right?
That's where we're at.
They're starting to grow.
So wheat and tares are growing up in the kingdom of God,
except they say not the kingdom of God.
Then they say, the kingdom of God is going to come at a certain moment in time when,
I'll give you this one, I'll just explain it,
maybe the next one will kind of come a little easier.
When the harvesters come, oh sorry, when the harvesters come
and they take the good wheat into the kingdom, and the tares, they burn.
So the argument is, the kingdom will start when the harvesters come
and sort the wheat and the tares.
That's the argument that they make.
If the wheat's going to wind up in the kingdom,
and they're saying it's not in the kingdom now,
there is no expression of the kingdom in wheat growing amongst tares.
That's the argument that they make.
So let's take another one.
Does anybody know the parable of the dragnet?
That's the next one.
On the next line is the dragnet.
The dragnet is one word.
What's below the kingdom parable?
The wheat and tares.
So it goes, the wheat and tares, that little squiggle is an ampersand.
It's called an ampersand, it means and.
It's not a very good one, but it's there.
And then the next one is the dragnet.
Does anybody know the parable of the dragnet?
It's a less known parable, I'll tell you that right now.
Go ahead.
You know it, Tony?
He throws a net out there and catches a bunch of fish,
and then all the fish he collects, the ones he wants, he keeps,
and then once he throws away, nothing hurts.
So the ones that are good, he takes them in.
The ones that are bad, he throws them away.
So how could that parable argue for a future kingdom?
There will be a time that the bad is tossed out and separated.
Right.
So let's go back for a second and remember last week,
as we talked about what a kingdom is and a kingdom reigns,
if that fisherman is looking at those fish and he said,
these are the good fish, I'm going to keep those,
and these are the bad fish, I'm going to get rid of those,
so the bad fish represent people who will not submit to the king, right?
So if the kingdom is where Jesus reigns,
how can we have good fish and bad fish in the kingdom?
That's the argument that they're making.
So they're saying, when it really will become the kingdom,
is when we only have good fish in the kingdom,
or go back to parable wheat and tares.
When it really will become the kingdom is when we only have the wheat
and we get rid of the tares.
So they're arguing that the kingdom has not come
because they see those parables as saying that it's going to come later.
We'll follow a little bit further on.
The next one is the Ten Virgins, parable of the Ten Virgins.
Going right down that list, Ten Virgins.
A virgin is a young woman,
probably a young woman who has not had intercourse with a man, right?
So the Ten Virgins, does anybody know the parable of the Ten Virgins
off the top of their head a little bit?
Don't eat a lot, a little bit?
Want to take a stab at it?
The parable of the Ten Virgins, what are they waiting for?
What are the Ten Virgins waiting for?
This is why we want to study our Bibles,
because these things are all linked together.
So the Ten Virgins, they're waiting for the coming of the bridegroom.
They're going to celebrate the wedding.
And they've all got lamps.
So follow the story, it sounds familiar now, right?
They've all got lamps.
Some trim and some don't trim.
Some have enough oil, some don't.
Some have to go buy oil.
But when they come back, the wedding party has begun,
and now they're not allowed to come in, right?
And so the parable of the Ten Virgins supports that the kingdom has not come yet,
by their logic, because we're waiting for the bridegroom,
we're waiting for it to begin, and we're supposed to be ready.
And once it begins, either we'll be ready and be in, or we won't.
And that's what there's...
So then these people who argue for consistent referral going,
eschatology say the kingdom of God has not begun yet.
It's all future.
The next one is the parable of the talents.
Do we know the parable of the talents?
It's actually two different ones, actually, the parable of the talents.
The parable of the talents, you're given talents of silver.
The one with the old lady, and they give like small...
Nope, that's...
Actually, that's not a parable.
That's an actual story that Jesus observed, right?
Yeah. Yep. Yep, yep, yep, yep.
Yeah, and two times, he tells the parable of the talents twice, right?
And two times, they give him silver, and then he goes away.
He comes back.
And what happens, Tommy, when he comes back?
Two have invested it and made more money, buried it.
And didn't? Right, okay.
Pays the ones that invested it and made more money,
he pays them more and then he takes away the money.
Right, and then he casts that guy out.
Okay, and so implied in that parable is that there's going to come a time
when the master comes looking for his, right?
And if you're in, you're in, and you're going to receive even more.
And if you're not, you're out, and you get nothing, worse than nothing.
Okay, so again, they take that parable to say that the kingdom is yet to come.
Okay, and then that last one there where it's got the dashes,
if you'll count the dashes, it's F-U-T-U-R-E.
And the main point of consistent or thorough going eschatology
is to remember that the kingdom of God, that place where Jesus reigns,
they say has not come in any semblance at all.
They are consistent to say again?
F-U-T-U-R-E, future, the word future.
Okay, but we're not done yet as you can see.
Okay, so we're following down to the right.
We see the word Jesus, see the word Jesus there next to future.
Here is the thing, they say to make this work that Jesus was mistaken.
So you can put mistaken on the line.
And what he thought was that the kingdom of God was going to come in his lifetime,
but he was wrong.
Now I have a problem with that.
I know that Jesus said all the seasons and times are not even for me to know.
I understand that he limited his knowledge while he was living on the earth.
I understand that.
But they need Jesus to be mistaken about the coming of the kingdom of God,
which I would be okay with him being mistaken about the coming of the kingdom of God,
but what I would have a problem with would be him being mistaken about the kingdom of God
and preaching that it was going to come.
If he didn't know or if he thought, well, I think it may be coming very soon,
that would be one thing.
But for him to preach it consistently that it was coming and actually to use a phrase that says
has come or has drawn near, to use a phrase that's translate, that's tough.
I have a problem with that.
And so that begins to poke a big old hole in this idea of consistent or thorough going eschatology
because you need Jesus to be mistaken in order for it to work.
But they say he was, so they have no problem with that.
So we're going to go out to the right, following that arrow out to the right there.
So we're up at the top of the page.
You got an M and a blank.
And the M is the reference, Matt or Matthew.
And it's Matthew 16, 28.
So does anybody know off the top of your head about what's going on in the Gospels
in Matthew chapter 16, verse 28?
It's in the last days.
The last days are really heavy in 24.
So 16, this is the phrase where he calls himself the son of man.
And they use this to say when Jesus says you'll see the son of man coming,
that's what he says in Matthew 16, 28.
So you'll see the son of man coming in, I want to say power,
but I'm not sure what the word right there is.
But anyway, the point is that when you see that,
that you would expect that that's when the kingdom of God will come.
So this is one of their strongest evidences.
I think thy kingdom come as a prayer, that's pretty solid.
I think the parable interpretations, that's not bad.
I have a problem with Jesus had to be mistaken, but I get it.
He says you will see the son of man coming in power.
So that means this phrase, the son of man that Jesus used to talk about himself,
becomes really important.
Because if the son of man coming in power happens when the kingdom of God comes,
then this whole thing that we're studying here,
consistent thoroughgoing eschatology is correct.
Because he hasn't come the second time yet, he came the first time,
but he didn't come the second time, which had to be what he was talking about
because he was there saying it.
So you'll see me coming, that means it had to be the second time.
So first, if you notice up in the little brackets up there on the top,
it says 93E.
So the book of Ezekiel uses the phrase the son of man 93 times.
So if you want to study the son of man, you can go to the book of Ezekiel and study.
Now most of the time that Ezekiel says that, he's referring to himself.
So that's a problem with Jesus then using it to refer to himself.
Or it has to be connected because Scripture never argues against itself.
So there has to be a connection there.
Now you see that's a telescope. Does that look like a telescope?
Anybody think that's a telescope?
Okay, that's a telescope.
So it points over to the right with a D.
So if it's a book of the Bible, it starts with a D, go.
Deuteronomy also.
Daniel is the one in question because we're talking about the son of man.
So the reference in Daniel for the son of man is chapter 7 and it's verses 13 to 14.
Does anybody have a Bible?
Anybody near a Bible? Tommy's got a phone Bible.
So let's go to Daniel 7, 13 to 14. Let's hear it.
I keep looking in the night visions, and behold with the cloud of heaven,
one like a son of man was coming, and he came up to the ancient of days,
and was presented before him.
Was that 14?
And to him was given domain, glory, and a kingdom,
that all the peoples, nation, and man of every language might serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which will not pass away,
and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.
Okay, so that sounds like Jesus from our perspective.
To them, they knew it was pointing forward to a messiah, to a lord, to a king.
A king, as we saw last week, he would be in the order of David,
an eternal on the throne, that kind of thing.
So when Jesus is making that reference in Matthew 16, 28,
it's pretty clear he's referring to Daniel 7, 13 to 14,
which has caused theologians, which are people who study the Bible a lot more than me,
a lot more than any of us, probably all of us combined,
to really study hard on the phrase, the son of man.
So it has followed like two directions.
So the first direction it went was they really hammered home
on studying the Jewish writings in Jesus' day.
So in other words, when Jesus called himself the son of man,
would Jews who were present think of him as the Messiah, the coming king, and like that?
So they studied that really heavily and asked that question.
Three guys, you don't need to remember these,
but they're on your paper for future reference, named Casey, Linders, and Vermus.
They studied this really heavy, and this is what they found.
Three possibilities, all of which kind of link into this consistent,
or thoroughgoing eschatology, but don't really fit exactly right biblically,
and I'll show you why.
So they found, first of all, Casey found that when someone says the son of man,
it's usually a classification, meaning a human being.
A son of man is a human being.
So if I say I'm a son of man, well yeah, duh, you're a human, so you're a son of a man.
But it was a classification that people often use.
Linders found that it was a class, like as in being bestowed with certain authority
or certain capability, so it might have been a reference to being created in the image of God,
for example, or something like that, so it's a class of persons.
And then Vermus found that it was just a self-reference.
It was just a way of talking about yourself.
So you'd say like, Jason would say, I'm RJ's son.
So he might go around in school, and every time they say, Jason, you here?
Yeah, I'm RJ's son.
Now obviously we don't do that, but that's a way that he found that it to be used in the Jewish writings.
Now if you go to, that's a little face they're facing left,
and they're facing off with another idea over on the left over here.
And Owen and Shepard are two men.
Now they got their studies a place I would really like to get my studies from.
They went to the Qumran Scrolls.
Does anybody know what that is?
The scrolls?
The original text of the Bible.
Yeah.
So they are original text of the Bible and other things, right, that were stored there.
They found them in a cave.
Yep, they found them in a cave.
So in 1940, I want to say eight, Shepard's out in the field.
He's throwing rocks into caves to scare the sheep out.
Throws it in.
Here's a breaking noise like something ceramic broke, goes in and looks,
and they find scrolls that have been buried there for a long period of time.
In there was an extant copy of the book Isaiah, for example, almost the whole book of Isaiah,
and Daniel, and a lot of the prophets,
and stuff like that, no New Testament obviously because it was buried a long time before that was ever started, right,
but Old Testament, and they were able to examine this text of Isaiah
and compare it with a modern text of Isaiah and see that they're almost identical in every single way.
Like every jot and tittle and mark and letter and almost everything is identical.
And if there was anything that wasn't exactly identical,
there was nothing that changed the meaning at all or even came close to changing the meaning.
And so that's really powerful because that takes the Bible.
So most of the copies of the Bible we get come from later texts that were after Jesus, right?
They're Old Testament, but they're the writings that, copies that came after Jesus.
We have thousands, thousands of copies of texts.
And then, but this one came from way before Jesus.
And yet the writings for hundreds of years were perfected.
So now we're talking about, like you could trace 700 years of writing that was written here and look at it here.
And it's exactly the same copy, copy, copy, copy, copy, and it's still exactly the same,
which proves the miracle that God was sustaining his word, if nothing else.
The point is, that's where they studied to look for Jewish language and how it would have been.
And Jesus would have been studying texts like that as he was growing up as a Jewish boy.
That's the kind of things he would have had.
And so guess what they found?
They found that it was never used as a self-reference or a self-title, ever.
In any writings that they found in the Qumran scrolls after they studied them thoroughly, it was never.
And it was never used as a generic reference for a human.
So that totally threw out what these other guys said.
And then now you follow it down to Daniel 7.
And you look at the context of what's going on in Daniel 7,
because that's where we're getting Jesus speaking the Son of Man phrase.
So you're in the context.
Does anybody know what's happening in Daniel 7?
Do you remember?
This is what I call one of my favorite stories.
Because it's still good Daniel.
It's what I read before I got saved that I couldn't understand.
Yes, from there.
Yeah, it's not 7, but it's right before that.
Right?
Good stuff.
Yeah, so in 7 he's literally having a vision.
But the context of 2 through 7 is increasing pressure.
And that's what goes on those blanks.
Increasing pressure.
Increasing pressure against the Jews to do what?
Pastoring veggies?
I'm not getting confused with veggie dance.
So they said, I'll give you one.
They said, our God is able to save us from the fiery furnace.
But even if he does not, we will not...
What?
We will not what?
Bow down and comply.
So there's increasing pressure against the Jews to worship idols or false gods.
That's what was going on in the context of Daniel 2 through 7.
Really.
Increasing pressure against them while they're in captivity to bow down.
In this particular vision then when you get to 7, there's a 10-horned beast.
And you got a little 10 there, H, and after the H goes horned.
10-horned beast.
And the 10-horned beast is beating a snot out of God's people.
And I'm using not literally, right?
Figuratively.
But you're beating them up really bad.
Trying to force them to worship false gods.
And then comes another little horn.
The LH there is little horn.
And that's the beast.
And you see the arrow down reminding you of the beasts.
Come against God's people trying to force them to worship false gods.
In the middle of that, Daniel sees a vision of the court and thrones.
And the Ancient of Days becomes seated on the thrones.
And that is, in the reference there is Daniel 7, 13, and 14.
And so the Ancient of Days is seated.
So here's what the message of the text is overall.
Is that while the 7, 13 to 14, same as up on the top.
It's under where it says Ancient of Days.
You see the blanks?
I know it's a little tight in there.
So he says, while God's people are under the greatest assault to worship false gods.
That's when God takes his seat on the throne and delivers his kingdom.
And he says, the Son of Man comes up in the Ancient of Days and he seats him on the throne.
And so what you get is a picture of the kind of king that God is going to provide
that will put an end to that struggle.
In the midst of the greatest attacks, while the little horned beast is attacking,
he sits on the throne.
And it goes down the right hand side.
The H is human-like.
He's human-like.
So when you say, when he's pointing him out, I saw a man like a son of man.
He's saying he's human-like.
He has human traits.
But also, he has divine power.
So the next thing is divine power.
And then authority.
Remember the verses that R.J. read.
So you saw a son of man sitting on the throne.
He sits him on the throne.
This is all while the ten-horned beast and the new little horn are wreaking havoc and rage
against God's people, the court, the thrones, the Ancient of Days.
And he is seated, a human-like person with divine power, authority, glory.
The next one is glory.
And by the way, humans aren't supposed to have glory, not like God has glory.
So now we've got he's human-like, divine power, authority, glory.
Then you see that's sovereign power.
Sovereign power is ruling power.
You sit on the throne, that means you're ruling.
So sovereign power.
And then under the curved line there is the word worship.
He is worshiped.
So humans are not meant to be worshiped and false gods are not meant to be worshiped.
This guy who will be the king, he is meant to be worshiped.
And then maybe most importantly, he has an eternal kingdom.
And it starts with an E there.
It's got an R.
And then there's the blank that says kingdom.
So when Jesus refers to himself as the son of man,
what he's really talking about is he's the guy.
He's the human-like, divine power, authority, glory, sovereign power,
worship, eternal kingdom guy.
But you could argue that he is actually just connecting himself
with the suffering and victory of God's people that was pictured in Daniel 7.
And because you know what his suffering is going to be, he's going to be crucified,
and you know what his victory is going to be, he's going to be resurrected and reign eternally,
then that makes a lot of sense that Jesus would call himself son of man
and refer to that passage of scripture that way.
Suffering and victory go on that next set of lines there.
Once we get this last one done before we do the second half, we'll do some quizzing.
And then there is a broader set of terms that you could use.
Jesus is definitely suffering again.
And then E is enthronement, because literally that's what was happening in Daniel 7.
He went to go sit on the throne. The ancient of days put him on the throne.
And then the last one is authority.
So Jesus was connecting himself, whether you want to say he was connecting himself
with the broader category, human-like, divine power, authority, glory, sovereign power,
worship, eternal kingdom, all of that in light of the suffering and persecution.
Or if you just want to say he was resonating with suffering and victory,
or he was resonating with suffering, enthronement, and authority,
which applied to him, any of that works.
So I have a few questions, then a brief summary, and the bottom half will go faster.
So first of all, Jason, are you with me?
All right.
When in the parable of the dragnet that I explained, what happens in the last days?
The blank is on the left-hand side. It's one of those parables.
What is the end of that story, the dragnet?
It's not written on the page. You're going to have to remember.
Do I remember?
That's right. It takes a good fish, gets rid of the bad fish.
Very good. I got one for you and one for your buddy.
Okay, good job. He pulled it out of his mind. All right.
Okay, Natalie, how many horns does the beast wind up with in the middle there?
He started with ten, but then there's a little horn.
You count that one? So it will be eleven.
Ten horns, and then he got a little horn too, so that's eleven horns.
Okay, Danny, ready?
In Daniel 7, there's something happening to God's people that precipitates this story.
It's written right under Daniel 7 there. What is it?
Can't read it? Okay, can you help him?
They're doing it by committee over there. Still struggling.
Under Daniel 7.
It says IP, so it's going to be IP, and it's not an IP address either.
Okay, all right. What's the reference from Matthew up to the top left of the telescope?
Matthew 16, 28. Okay.
Nice. That's probably the best one we've had.
Okay, so the problem with consistent or thorough going,
the biggest problem with consistent or thorough going eschatology is that Jesus had to be what, Haley?
Smack in the middle next to Jesus' name.
Yeah, that's right. Had to be mistaken.
Ah, so close. Help her out, Mr. Tim.
All right, did I get the young people? I think I did pretty good.
Okay, so realize that a huge portion of Christianity,
going back as far as a name you'll probably remember, Albert Schweitzer, remember?
You hear that name? Somebody, kind of pretty famous Christian dude.
He's been dead since 1965, but he's gone to be with the Lord, hopefully.
But anyway, pretty huge division of Christianity that buys this theology,
this idea of eschatology that the kingdom is not at all present now on Earth,
even though it means that Jesus had to be mistaken in preaching that the kingdom of God was at hand.
Right? Okay, so now if you'll look on the far right corner of the page,
it's got the number two circled. We're starting right there. Yes, sir?
What's before victory?
Before victory on the bottom, suffering and victory.
Yep.
And what was the reference for each of the rings?
Daniel 7. It's actually probably 9 to 10, but it's also in 1314.
It says it twice, 910 or 1314.
That's it. Thank you.
Okay. Everybody else good? Got your blanks pretty much?
All right. Okay, so we're starting in the bottom right-hand corner too,
and we're going to talk about realized eschatology.
So that word there is realized.
So this is another theory, and it says that the kingdom of God,
it's on the bottom right, all the way in the bottom right-hand corner.
That's an R. It kind of looks like a B, but it's an R.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, I just realized it kind of looks like an R, or it kind of looks like a B, but it's an R.
Realized eschatology. The two is the starting point.
All right, and so in realized eschatology, follow the arrow to the left,
realized eschatology denies any future reference.
That's what goes in those blanks, denies any future reference.
So they argue that the kingdom of God is here and now and never more than right now.
Bottom of the page, start on the bottom right with the two, the number two.
See it? And it goes to the left, and it says denies any future reference.
So they would, so C.H. Dodd, who's a pretty famous theologian, said that Jesus,
he argued that Jesus preached not that the kingdom of God has drawn near,
as a lot of translations say, but that the kingdom of God has come.
What goes on the bottom B?
Realized, it's an R. Catch up, bud.
Realized, it's an R. We were joking about how bad my R looked.
You just missed it.
He realized it was an R, yes.
Realized eschatology denies any future reference.
So they say the kingdom of God has come and it will never be more here than it is right now.
Okay?
And this gets pretty sticky by the time we're done, but Dodd is a pretty famous theologian.
He argued that instead of saying the kingdom of God has drawn near,
that Jesus was actually preaching the kingdom of God has come.
And there's very little difference in the Greek.
To say something has drawn near, to say something has come is basically the same thing.
So brother Tim was at work, he got off work and rushed around a little bit,
and then he has come, or he has drawn near.
Same thing, because he's with us now.
So there's that.
So they put the sticky wicket or the big point, follow the arrow up around that O to the blanks there,
and I've done the hard part for you and it's the perusia.
Perusia, that's pronounced perusia.
Does anybody know what the perusia is?
Without me telling you?
Anybody want to take a stab at it?
Say it again?
It actually has nothing to do with perusing, it's not even spelled the same.
No, no Paris and Russia babies either.
Is anybody ever read the Left Behind series or heard of the Left Behind series?
Lehay and whatever that other person was, which by the way was completely unbiblical but kind of entertaining.
So the perusia is when Jesus comes again a second time and takes the church basically.
That's the perusia.
That's important to know that because somebody will mention it to you,
especially if you get in a debate or something.
What about the perusia?
Has it happened? When's it going to happen?
Has it happened? Yes, it's been so long.
That kind of thing.
So the perusia.
And so follow to the right in the quote there.
They say that the decisive, that top word is decisive, event had already happened.
That's the argument.
In other words, they say in Jesus' day when people were walking with Jesus,
they were listening to Jesus talking and everything like that,
they were saying that Jesus was saying...
What?
...event had already happened.
Jesus was saying that instead of him preaching about he was going to come again,
he was helping them to realize that his coming that he was doing right then was really the thing.
That this was it.
They were living it.
Now that takes out the book of Revelation.
I understand that, but they were looking at the teachings of Jesus.
And even then they would argue that the book of Revelation is kind of a metaphor or something like that,
so that it's not really Jesus coming again, taking the church home, that kind of thing.
So they said that the Christians who were following Jesus while Jesus was walking on the earth,
Jesus was teaching them and helping them to understand that it really was right then.
That what was happening was it.
And not that he was pointing to something that they had to wait a really long time for or whatever.
Now follow that line up around to the left, to the top of the list there.
I would totally get rid of who it was and who is the throne.
Yep.
Isn't that what John the Baptist was preaching to?
Just saying.
Yeah, so John the Baptist and Jesus both preached that the kingdom is here.
But that actually fits with this eschatology and also the one we're going to study next week.
So you'll see how it connects.
But the point is, they said that the Christians in that day had begun to understand that the decisive event,
the big thing that Jesus was pointing to, had already happened.
Now follow the arrow up around to the left and we're going to look at a list of parables
that they used to support their position.
And by the time you're done, you're going to kind of go, oh, that actually kind of makes a lot of sense.
So the first one is the hidden treasure.
Anybody remember the parable of the hidden treasure?
Can you give me a brief synopsis?
Take a stab at it.
Of course.
He sees something in the field, wonders what it is, and he goes and sees the treasure.
So he goes and sells everything he has to go get it.
Right.
So the hidden treasure is in the field.
He goes, he finds it in the field.
He leaves it in the field.
He goes off and sells everything he has and buys the field.
Now he owns the treasure because it's in the field.
Right.
So how does that fit with the concept that the decisive event or the kingdom of God had already come?
It was already there.
Because the treasure was already there when he brought it.
Okay.
The treasure was already there.
But who knew the treasure was there?
Nobody.
But he found out.
And then he gave everything he had to get it.
See how that makes sense?
So if the kingdom of God is in your midst, it's already here, and you're giving everything you have to get in, to get in the kingdom of God,
then they would argue and say the kingdom of God was already present.
They would even say instead of a perusia, instead of pointing toward a perusia that's coming, they would say, it's right now.
You're just missing it.
Right.
Everybody's missing it, including some of the disciples that were with them and whatever.
They would say, well, you're just missing it.
Okay.
The next one is the costly pearl.
Similar situation.
Wealthy pearl.
Man sells everything, gets a pearl.
The next one, so fill it in, but we're going to go faster because we're running a long time.
Costly pearl.
The next one is the tower builder.
This one's important.
Anybody remember the tower builder?
Very simple.
It's like two verses.
I bet you have.
As soon as we tell it, you'll remember it.
Tower builder.
Build a house on sand.
Nope.
That's another one.
That's a good one, but that's not this one.
Okay.
The tower builder says, does a man set out to build a tower without first considering whether he can pay the cost?
Lest he get halfway through building it, can't finish it, and everybody looks at him and how foolish he is.
Right.
That's the tower builder.
No?
Well, we're going to have to read it.
Now you got your homework for you.
All right.
It's not too hard to find.
All right.
So the point is that speaks to a kingdom that already exists because they're saying, well, would Jesus come and do all that he did not knowing whether he could finish the course?
Were believers supposed to buy into this without even knowing what it is?
You know, the argument is the kingdom is here now, not later, but now.
Value it for what it is.
Okay.
Then there's the king going to war.
Same situation.
The king go to war without first considering, or he's going to war against an army of 20,000 without first considering if he can make war against that person that with the army that he has or if not, does he sue them for peace a long way off before he has to face them with not enough resources?
Right.
So these are parables that argue for the kingdom of God is already present.
Okay.
So here's the parable of the fig tree.
Parable of the fig tree.
The fig tree doesn't produce.
Three years it doesn't produce.
I'm going to tear that fig tree down.
It doesn't produce.
Then your keeper says, well, let me go fertilize the tree, dig around it, fertilize it, we'll give it one more year, see what we can do.
And he does.
And it begins to produce.
Arguing that the kingdom of God was there.
It's there.
Jesus came to stoke it.
Jesus came to get people to realize that the kingdom of God was available to them, that it was in their midst.
You could say that he brought it.
You could say that, you know, that he brought it to fruition at that time.
But the decisive event was then.
It wasn't later.
It was then when Jesus was in their midst.
That's the argument that they would make.
And then the next one is lamp hidden under a bushel.
Now I hope we know this one right.
Anyone who lights a lamp?
Hide it under a bushel?
No.
You set it out on a table.
So it can do what?
Shine and provide light for everyone in the house.
Right?
So Jesus is the light.
He came.
He shines.
And everyone in the house can see.
Argument is, from the moment Jesus came, the kingdom of God was there.
And he was just waking people up to it.
He was making them able to see.
He was bringing people from the darkness into the light.
Okay?
Now, I probably have done a reasonably poor job of explaining how the parables connect to the eschatology.
But you can certainly see how someone could do that, which is the whole point.
Right?
You can follow the logic.
That was not nearly that bad.
So actually, the thing is, a lot of Christians, true Christians probably,
some Christians following the Lord, believe in the Lord, subscribe to realized eschatology.
And why would anything that we're describing here stop you from being a Christian?
Neither one of these things, I don't want to get ahead of myself,
but neither one of these things are going to define whether you're a Christian or not.
I think you could get close when you say Jesus had to be mistaken.
That's kind of dangerous.
It is a slippery slope for sure.
Because if he's mistaken about that, what else might he do?
It kind of gets a little ugly.
But you could differ with that one point and say, well, he wasn't mistaken.
He was just helping them see it in a different way.
And then the whole top of the page works.
You could argue for that based on scripture.
You'd be missing some scripture, as Brother Tony Tate said.
There are verses that would not work with it.
But everything that's up here would work with it.
And it would not make you not a Christian.
And now we're in the same place on the bottom.
It would not make you not a Christian.
But we're not done.
So then we've got that arrow out to the right to the blank.
And it says equals.
And the word is exorcism.
What does exorcism mean?
Somebody shout it out. What?
Remove evil spirits or demons.
So I guess technically you could probably exorcise an angel.
I don't think that's a thing. I don't know.
But exorcising evil spirits and demons is definitely there.
But anyway, so it's exorcism equals, this is the argument they make, Satan's defeat.
So they're saying that when Jesus and the disciples and the apostles
and those who came after and Paul and others in the name of Jesus
and all that kind of thing, all the exorcisms that were happening
were happening as signs of Satan's defeat.
That Satan had been defeated.
And therefore they were arguing that the decisive event,
the defeat of Satan, which was in the coming of Jesus, had already happened.
You'll recall Jesus saying in his lifetime at one point,
I saw Satan cast down from heaven, that old serpent.
And so they used these texts to support that the Kingdom of God has already come.
Now they extend it to say it has already come in its fullness, completely.
They say there is no future reference to the Kingdom of God.
That is too far for me.
But the bottom line is they would say exorcism is Satan's defeat.
And they say, in the next one, I gave you a lot of little clues there.
I'll go and you kind of like try to get the next word. It'll be like a little game.
Okay, so it's the arrival. The first word is arrival of the Kingdom.
Next word.
You want to take a stab at it? Say it again.
Now it's in the...
You got that. So it's arrival of the Kingdom in the...
Nope.
Although you could kind of substitute that word.
Nope.
It's a weird word.
In the midst, very good, midst of conflict.
How do you spell that?
Midst is M-I-D-S-T.
Midst.
What?
Midst. M-I-D-S-T.
Now remember Daniel 7?
The context of Daniel 7?
2-7 was the Jews were under great pressure to worship a false god.
Remember that?
And Jesus identifies himself as the Son of Man who comes
when they're under great pressure to worship a false god.
Heavenly court is taking its seats. Jesus takes his seat.
As the Ancient of Days sits, Jesus sits.
He becomes that human-like divine power, authority, glory, sovereign power,
worship, eternal kingdom.
He's identifying himself with coming in the midst of conflict.
And they say that exorcism equals Satan's defeat.
It would not be possible if Satan's defeat were not complete.
And they say that that is a sign of the arrival of the kingdom in the midst of conflict.
So understand this about these two eschatologies.
Even though they are very common.
If you talk to Christians, if you talk to 20 Christians,
and you talk about these things in generic terms,
because most people are not even as equipped as you are right now
to handle these types of topic.
Because we're doing a higher level of deciphering in this set of lessons.
But if you talk to them in generic terms about the kingdom of God,
where it's at, what it's like, whatever,
some of them will say, oh yeah, the kingdom of God came when Jesus came.
He said, kingdom of God is at hand. He said, Juneer, whatever, it's been here ever since then.
And that would be the bottom.
That's realized eschatology.
Others will say, well, no, the kingdom of God comes when Jesus comes again.
That's why we got all this messed up earth. It's so bad.
We got all these problems.
We prayed, thy kingdom come.
We're hoping for that day when it comes. Blah, blah, blah.
But the numbers go like this.
Out of 20 Christians, two or three will believe the bottom one,
and two or three will believe the top one,
and the other 14 will believe what we're going to talk about next week.
Now, you have to decide where you come down at.
But wherever you come down at, understand this.
It's not going to change whether you're saved or not.
That has to do with whether or not you've placed your salvation in the hands of the one who can preserve it until that day.
So if you're trusting in Jesus and receiving him as Lord and Savior, then you're saved.
And if you're not, you're not.
And either way, there is an eternity.
Neither one of them deny that Jesus is the eternal King,
and there will be essentially one kingdom, Jesus' kingdom.
And if you're not part of it, then you'll be part of eternal separation from God.
So you'll be in hell instead of heaven.
Neither one of them deny that.
In fact, they would say, for example, that the ones who say that the kingdom of heaven is now present,
it would say the kingdom of heaven is now present on earth as much as it ever will be,
and it will be in the new heaven and the new earth when God remakes the whole thing.
But there's no perusia.
That was all about a metaphorical language, whatever, about what Jesus is talking about his coming.
So they don't really believe that there is a second coming.
It was decisively done when Jesus first came.
So you have to decide where you fall, but don't make your decision yet,
because we're going to hit the third one next week,
which will then cover 100% of what Christians believe,
and you'll have to decide between the three.
If you want to ask me which one I believe, I believe the one that we're going to look at next week.
So that is where that falls.
There's no mistake in deciding together, it just doesn't work.
Yeah, I struggle with that.
So you notice in the middle of this page, there are two men fighting it out.
In your mind's eye, I want you to understand that those are both Christian men.
So what am I warning you against?
In all of this, what am I warning you against?
What?
Yeah, that's what I'm warning you against.
We believe a certain set of doctrines as a church, but if you differ on one of them, it's okay.
Now, if you differ on how to get saved and who is Lord and the things that you're supposed to do,
as He's commanded, like He's commanded us to do this or don't do that,
and you say, yeah, He said don't do that, but I don't have to listen to Him or whatever,
then that's going to be a problem.
That's going to make it not possible for you to fellowship with this church in the long run.
If you think, for example, you can have sex outside marriage, that's going to be a problem.
It's not acceptable.
If you think, for example, you can just blow off tithing or giving and not have anything to do with that,
that's going to be a problem.
If you think, for example, you can lie or cheat or steal, then that's going to be okay.
It's not going to be okay.
And the reason that is is because as a church or as a people of God, we submit to the Ancient of Days,
and He has set a standard for what's acceptable and what's not.
And when you do what's not acceptable or when you fail to do what is desired, that's called sin.
And sin places a barrier between you and God.
But guess what does not place a barrier between you and God?
What you believe about doctrine.
That's what does not place a barrier.
So if you are a consistent and thorough going eschatologist,
I actually said that word on the first pass.
That was impressive.
I'm going to say it again because I loved it so much.
Consistent or thorough going eschatologist, see I did it twice.
Anyway, then when you get to Jesus, as long as you know His Lord is all good,
you know why you're there, how you got there.
You might be a little confused about why it's so much better there
or why things change between now and then because they are going to change between now and then or whatever.
You might have to research your doctrines a few more times if it doesn't line up or whatever.
But if you know who He is and you do what He says, you're going to be fine.
Okay, close with this illustration.
I went to actually interview to be a family, youth and families pastor in Memphis, Tennessee,
outside of Memphis, Tennessee many years ago now.
And the night before I was going to interview, the guy that I was staying with who was a deacon in the church,
he asked me about what I felt about several different major doctrine points,
a couple of which I didn't even have a clue what he was talking about.
I'm like, I don't know what that is.
And he said, well, you should be aware that in our associations in our state,
we have been fighting over that very thing for 10 years.
So the truth is our church comes down on this side of it.
And if you don't come down on this side of that,
considering we've been fighting with other churches and associations have been fighting with associations
and trying to figure all that, if you don't come down on that side of that,
you're probably going to have trouble in our church or in our association.
It's very real.
People disagree and they think disagreeing over something like that is worthwhile to fight with,
but you got to remember who you're fighting with.
If you're fighting with somebody who belongs to the ancient of days,
at best you lose in the end.
Because the truth is, do you believe that this point of doctrine or this point of doctrine
or the one we're going to talk about next week is perfect understanding of what God says?
Because if you are, that's a little arrogant,
especially if you're expecting me to teach you a perfect understanding of what God says,
that's a little arrogant because I'm just some guy that's trying to follow what the Lord wants me to do.
And so we can get there, but we may have to start with,
this makes a little sense and this makes a little sense and this makes a lot of sense
and put the three together and get the best understanding we can live,
the best understanding we can do.
Now, what does the Bible say about Scripture?
That it is of no person's personal interpretation.
So guys get together and they talk about the Bible,
five, six, eight, ten, fifty, fifty thousand guys, whatever.
We might get a pretty good understanding of Scripture all working together.
But if you go home and you read it and go, I know exactly what that means and I got this nailed.
And then you run to somebody else and thinks it means something a little different.
You got to push your ideas on them and you're willing to pick up a sledgehammer or growl or grunt at them
or get mad at them or kick them out of the church, whatever,
because they believe a little bit differently, you got a real problem.
Because Jesus came to bring, He is the King of Kings.
He's the Lion of Judah.
But He is also the bringer of peace.
Remember what the angel said about Jesus the night before, or the night that He was born?
Peace on earth, goodwill to men.
With what?
With whom?
God is well pleased.
Men who sinned against God, men who would cry, crucify Him, crucify Him.
Men who were thieves, men who were contentious and arguing over all kinds of dumb things.
Just be careful who you pick to be your enemies.
If they want to be your enemy, you can't do anything about that.
You want to be their enemy, you got a problem.
You work on being a follower of Jesus and then don't worry about divisions over doctrine and stuff like that.
But do follow the Lord, because otherwise you're in trouble.
We're going to close in for a good time.
Remember to get your three hole punch and get a binder if you're keeping a binder.
And remember to give me a heads up when you get close to seven in a row if you're keeping that,
or seven total if you're not able to get them in a row.
Father in heaven, we praise you and thank you that we can look long and hard
at events that happened almost 2,000 years ago.
And we can consider studies by people who have spent hours and hours.
Some of the men whose names are on this paper spent decades studying.
And they would, and they studied in like 40 hours a week, and we're studying maybe a few hours a week.
Lord, and they would do 40 hours a week for decades to conclude opposite things.
And I'm guessing, because I believe they were professing Christians anyway certainly,
and a lot of people believe that, that they could sit down at coffee or lunch,
that they could pray together, bless one another, show up for one another, help one another, encourage one another,
even though they disagreed on whether the kingdom of God was already here in its fullness
and never going to come anymore than it already is,
or whether the kingdom of God was yet to come in its fullness and it wasn't here at all.
Those are pretty radical positions, that's probably why we took them first.
But the real lesson to learn, Lord, is that you are God and you know better than we do.
And we submit to you today, tomorrow, and always.
I pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.