Keys to the Kingdom

There are a number of major groups and denominations within Christianity that deny the fulfillment of the Bible's prophecies concerning a literal end-time kingdom on earth ruled by Christ, and these groups are typically lumped together under the general heading of amillennialism (i.e. no Millennial Kingdom). These would include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Lutherans, and a number of others. These groups tend to believe the "kingdom" spoken of in the New Testament amounts to nothing more than Christ "ruling" in the hearts of believers in the present age, or something along that line.

In the minds of such people, it borders on heresy to take the Bible as literally as common sense and context allow and brazenly assume that God actually says what He means and means what He says. As a result, all things eschatological tend to be safely allegorized into a palatable purée that is guaranteed to neither frighten nor offend, and life goes on as normal without all the end-time lunacy those pretribulational premillennial dispensationalists wallow in (and with a label like that, who can blame them for looking askance at such folks).

There are many other groups, however, who do see an earthly kingdom ruled by Christ in our future, but have cultivated the notion that rather than Christ returning to establish that kingdom all by His lonesome, He needs the Church to remain on earth to work to establish it for Him.

After all, we are the "salt and light," are we not?

They are convinced that Church Age believers are to go out and influence the world for Christ and give this fallen, sinful world a proper Christian makeover. They believe that it is only when we have brought this broken world up to snuff and Christianized all major aspects of society—conquering what they refer to as the Seven Mountains of education, religion, family, business, government, arts, and the media—that Christ can and will return as King and we can proudly hand that kingdom over to Him to rule.

This type of eschatological thinking is broadly and most commonly referred to as Dominionism, and although there are other terms like Kingdom Now theology that get tossed around, I won't bother delineating all the variant species because they are all equally wrong for mostly the same reasons.

I have written about the errors of Dominionism or Kingdom Now theology before, but recently the Lord showed me several things in Scripture that I had never consciously considered in that particular manner that specifically lay to waste the errant notion that the Church's job is to remain on earth to Christianize society until it's fit for Christ to return to rule. In other words, He showed me several of what I like to refer to as "keys to the kingdom," or key points that effectively demonstrate from Scripture that it is Christ alone who will establish His kingdom, and that it doesn't depend on the Church going out to conquer any kind of "mountains."

There are numerous teachings throughout Scripture that, taken together, could scarcely make it any clearer that Christ will return to establish His literal, physical kingdom on earth at some point in the future. To be precise, following a seven-year period of judgment known as the Tribulation during which God will gather and protect a believing remnant of Israel and judge the nations of the world who have persecuted them and spurned His grace and mercy. After this judgment is poured out, Christ will physically return to earth with the Church in tow to establish His literal kingdom for a thousand years, and the glorified Church will assist in the administration of that kingdom, along with resurrected Old Testament saints.

I have been reading lately about how Dominionism is rapidly gaining strength in the United States, especially among conservative Republicans (and especially in the state of Texas). A burgeoning number of prominent political leaders, including Lt. Governor of Texas Dan Patrick, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), former Texas Governor Rick Perry, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and others are among the Dominionist ranks.

The true nature of what such high-profile believers seek should be disturbing to all believers, and that's worldly power. And that's a problem.

Make no mistake: When the Church seeks worldly power, it is lured away from its primary mission of preaching the gospel and into attempting to do something it is neither ordained nor empowered to do.

And the aberrant, Scripture-perverting, gospel-stifling results can be captured in a single four-letter word:

Rome.

In this article, I want to discuss three scriptural points that I had never considered in this particular light before, each one of which effectively dismantles the idea that the Church is going to remain on earth so it can go out and conquer the Seven Mountains of society or in some way establish Christ's kingdom for Him, with Christ returning to receive that kingdom from us to rule only after we have done so.

1. The conditions of a conditional covenant.

I'll give you fair warning: I'm going to discuss this point first because you may find it a wee bit of a slog. But hang in there—I think you'll agree in the end that is was worth the effort.

In the book of Genesis, God makes an unconditional covenant with Abram (later changed to Abraham). That is, it depends on God's faithfulness alone as a covenant-keeping God and not on the obedience or behavior of Abraham or his seed. The Abrahamic Covenant includes promises of land (Gen. 15:18–21), seed (Gen. 15:4–5; 22:17), and blessings (Gen. 15:1).

The Land Covenant, referred to by some as the Palestinian Covenant (sorry, I just can't do it), is actually a separate covenant by itself according to Deuteronomy 29:1. The Land Covenant promises Israel a region of land extending from Egypt to Iraq, and it is amplified in Deuteronomy 29–30.

In those chapters, Israel's future scattering to the four corners of the world is spoken of, as well as their eschatological gathering back into the land God promised them when they return to Him with all their hearts (which clearly hasn't happened yet). This corresponds to the believing Jewish remnant (His "elect," which simply means "chosen" and does not always refer exclusively to the Church), who will be gathered back into Israel at the Second Coming to be ushered into the kingdom. This end-time regathering of Israel from "the four winds" where God would scatter them is prophesied repeatedly in the Old Testament (Deut. 30:3–4; Ezek. 11:13–21; Isa. 10:20–22; 11:11–12; 27:12–13; 43:5–10; Hosea 3:5), and Jesus describes its direct fulfillment at the Second Coming in Matthew 24:29–31.

For the umpteen millionth time: Jesus cannot be giving us a graphic description of the Rapture in Matthew 24:29–31. If He were, then it would make Paul a liar because he introduced the Rapture as a musterion nearly 20 years later (1 Cor. 15:51). That means "mystery," and in the New Testament a "mystery" is something that has never been revealed before and is only now being revealed by God. Oops.

The seed promises include not only countless descendants of Abraham, but also one particular seed (Gen. 3:15; Gal. 3:16) who would ultimately usher in all the blessings promised to Israel as well as blessings for the entire world. That would be the Messiah. This part of the promise is later recast in the form of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17), and God promises that one certain future descendant of David would rule a kingdom that would be without end. The promise that a physical descendant of King David would ultimately arise who would deliver what was promised to Abraham and his seed and to David himself is confirmed numerous times throughout the Old Testament (Ps. 89; Isa. 7:14; 9:6–7; Ezek. 34:23; 37:24; Hosea 3:5; Amos 9:11).

The promises of blessing are fleshed out a bit further in the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31–34), and God promises that He will write His laws on the hearts of the Jews, and that this covenant would bring forth spiritual regeneration and universal spiritual knowledge, which it will in the Millennial Kingdom.

Now, one thing that needs to be clearly understood about the Abrahamic Covenant is that although it is unconditional, it remains unfulfilled to this day. Israel has never actually possessed all of the land God promised them. Most scholars agree that the closest they ever came was under Solomon, and even then they didn't quite possess it all. And blessings? Uhm...they were driven out of their land and scattered to the four corners of the earth two thousand years ago for rejecting their Messiah, and have remained under a partial hardening ever since.

The only part of the Abrahamic Covenant that has actually been fulfilled is the seed promise—at least in the national sense. The nation of Israel does exist and consists of millions of the aforementioned seeds. At first blush, one might ask:

"Unfulfilled?! How can that be? If this covenant is unconditional, then why hasn't it been fulfilled? Is God sleeping on the job, or what? Oh, or maybe it was taken away from Israel and given to 'spiritual Israel' and is being fulfilled in a spiritual manner through the Church. Ya think?"

And Dominionists are first in line to endorse this little gem (or perhaps I should say second in line...right behind the Roman Catholic Church).

But not so fast. So far we have the Abrahamic and the Davidic Covenants, which promised Abraham innumerable descendants, a specific region of land for those descendants to inherit, blessings for the nation of Israel as well as the entire world, and a future descendant of David who would rule a literal, physical kingdom during which the nation of Israel and the whole world would finally enjoy these blessings. And with the exception of the seed promise, the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants remain unfulfilled.

OK, take a deep breath. This is where it gets interesting.

Before we go any further, you must understand one important aspect of these covenants, and that is the distinction between ownership and possession. The idea is fairly straightforward:

You can have full, indisputable ownership of a covenant, but not yet enjoy full, unqualified possession of what it promises.

In other words, you can own an interest in a timeshare but be too busy to take a vacation. The Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are unconditional in the sense that maintaining ownership of the covenants depends only on God's faithfulness and not on Israel's performance. These covenants can never be revoked or taken away from Israel. They can never be canceled or transferred to another party, because that would make God a liar and a welcher. But possessing and ultimately enjoying the blessings promised in those covenants is a burning bush of a different color.

Enter the Mosaic Covenant.

After sending Moses to deliver His people from four centuries of bondage in Egypt, God gave Israel another covenant at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–24). Unlike the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, however, the Mosaic Covenant is conditional. God promised to bless the nation of Israel in every possible way if they would obey Him and keep the terms of the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant is an "if, then" proposition all the way:

In other words, Israel has full ownership of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants; but if they expect to ever take full possession of and enjoy the promised blessings contained in those covenants, they have to fulfill the conditions of the Mosaic Covenant, aka the Law of Moses.

As I'm sure you know, there were periods in the Old Testament when Israel wantonly disobeyed God and committed spiritual harlotry—behavior that eventually resulted in the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC. By the time Christ came at the First Advent, however, they had been dutifully following the Law of Moses for over 500 years. Granted, they may have succeeded in turning it into a morass of hypocritical legalism, but at least they hadn't abandoned it as they had done in the past.

But there is another requirement specified in the Mosaic Covenant that is frequently overlooked by many students of the Bible:

Israel was required to enthrone
the king of God's own choosing.

God reserved the right to choose who would rule His people Israel:

Of course, early on this applied to Saul and then to David. But many people, even many respected commentators, seem to miss the fact that it also applies to Christ.

This condition applied to Christ when He
came the first time, and it will apply to
Christ when He comes the second time.

When Jesus said:

...many people assume He was only referring to such things as Moses saying that in the future God would send them a prophet like him (Deut. 18:15–18), which is certainly true. But don't overlook the fact that Moses was speaking of Christ here as well as the future King of God's choosing that Israel would be responsible to enthrone in obedience to the conditions of a very conditional Mosaic Covenant.

The full monty: It actually makes perfect sense that the Mosaic Covenant is conditional, because when Israel was gathered at Mount Sinai to receive the Law of Moses, at that point God had done everything conceivable to get His people to trust Him and have faith in Him. He had just miraculously delivered them from bondage in Egypt; He had just parted the Red Sea to miraculously deliver them from their enemies. God had given them the full monty, and at some point they had to be willing to trust the LORD their God. Just as He does today, God demands faith from us—we get nowhere with God without faith (Heb. 11:6). Doing their part to fulfill and uphold the conditions of the Mosaic Covenant constituted God's requirements to demonstrate their faith in Him. And He promised to bless them if they did, and curse them if they didn't.

But did Israel enthrone Christ as their Messiah-King two thousand years ago? Uh, not exactly. Instead, they persuaded their Roman masters to execute Him like a common criminal on bogus, trumped up charges of blasphemy (for speaking the truth, that is). But when the believing Jewish remnant who has come to faith in Christ as their real Messiah implore Him to save them at the climax of the Great Tribulation, He will. He will physically return, slay their adversaries, judge a world that has persecuted His people and rejected His Father's grace and mercy, and then and only then will Israel finally fulfill the conditions of the Mosaic Covenant:

Israel will finally enthrone God's own choice
as their King, and bada bing, bada boom:
that King will establish the promised kingdom.

Covenant condition satisfied:
covenant promise fulfilled.

OK, so what is this telling us in regard to the notion of the Church remaining on earth to establish the kingdom through our own efforts so that when we get things set up and squared away, Christ can return to rule that kingdom?

Let me answer that question with another question.

First, let's recap: Christ came two thousand years ago to deliver the promised kingdom to Israel, and He amply fulfilled messianic prophecy to confirm that He was His Father's choice to assume the Throne of David to rule that kingdom. But instead of enthroning Him as King as per the Mosaic Covenant to receive its promised blessings, they crucified Him and incurred its promised curses. The result? The kingdom was delayed, Israel was set aside, the Jews were scattered all over the world just as prophesied, and the Church was conceived. After the Second Coming, seven plus years after the Church is long gone, Israel will finally enthrone Christ as their King in obedience to the terms of the Mosaic Covenant, and as a result Israel's King will establish the long-awaited kingdom, just as God promised.

And my question is this:

Would some kind soul out there please explain to me
how any of this is even remotely connected to the Church?

Uhm, I'm just not seeing that, and that's the entire point: This has absolutely nothing to do with the Church.

The kingdom was delayed because of Israel's disobedience,
and it will be established because of Israel's obedience.

Pure and simple, cut and dried. As you might have already guessed, the only conceivable way to force any of this to fit is to write Israel out of the Bible and replace it with the Church, and teach that all of God's promises to Israel are now being and will continue to be fulfilled in the Church (the good ones, at least). There's no other way, and even then it needs some industrial-strength scriptural pliers to make it work.

Incidentally, Dominionists and other like-minded individuals will invariably point to Matthew 21:43 as the smoking gun that backs up their heresy:

But that smoke quickly dissipates with a modest amount of rightly dividing. I won't repost it here, but I have discussed this point at length in a previous article, and in that article I show that this verse does not mean what the Dominionists myopically believe and desperately wish it to mean.

2. You, not us.

In the first chapter of the book of Acts, we see the disciples having their last conversation with the Lord prior to His ascending back to heaven:

The disciples were absolutely certain of one thing: Jesus was the promised Messiah, and they knew full well from the Old Testament that God would bring the promised kingdom through the Messiah. But what they weren't so certain of was how things were going to play out. So, they ask Jesus point blank if He is going to establish the kingdom at that time, and He just tells them it's not for them to know the timing of such events because the Father has placed these things under His own authority.

But note with care the essential question they asked Him:

"Are you going to establish the kingdom now?"

You. Jesus. The Messiah. The guy we're standing here talking to.

Note with equal care the question they didn't ask Him:

"Do you want us to establish the kingdom now?"

The disciples knew without a doubt that it was Jesus who was going to establish His literal, physical kingdom on earth, headquartered in Jerusalem and run from the temple—not them. The task that had been set before them was to go out and preach the gospel of that kingdom to a lost and dying world—a job that would ultimately usher countless millions of people into that kingdom. The very next verse makes this crystal clear:

Not to belabor the obvious, but these are not the same thing. Their task only dealt with the advancement of the spiritual aspect of the kingdom—not the physical establishment of the literal, earthly kingdom that will be set up following the Second Coming. The disciples' question makes it completely clear they understood it was Jesus who was going to establish the physical kingdom...their only question was when. The only thing the disciples wanted to know was whether Jesus was going to do it then or at some future time.

And note that this is exactly how Jesus answered their question—His answer in verse 7 deals with the timing of this and related events...or at least the fact that the timing was none of their beeswax.

Now, Dominionists would have us believe that Christ intended for the disciples to go out and establish the kingdom through their own efforts, and when they had succeeded in Christianizing a fallen world to a sufficient degree, He would return and they would proudly hand that kingdom over to Him to rule.

Although the disciples' question makes it thunderingly obvious that they thought no such thing and that they assumed it was Jesus who would establish the kingdom, let's assume just for the sake of argument that it actually was Christ's intention to have the disciples set up the kingdom through their own efforts. Let's assume He really did want them to go out into society and conquer the Seven Mountains and Christianize the world, and that He wouldn't return to receive that kingdom from them until they had done an adequate job of giving the world a full-fledged Christian makeover. In other words...

Let's assume for a moment the Dominionists are right.

Stand back and say hello to the elephant that just lumbered into the room.

If Jesus intended for the disciples to establish the literal, physical kingdom on earth through their own efforts so that He could return to rule it when they were finished, and the disciples were under the impression that it was Christ who would establish the kingdom (possibly at the present time), then the elephant has a question:

Why didn't Jesus correct their obvious misunderstanding?

Why didn't Jesus say something along the lines of the following:

"Wait, you guys got it all wrong! Establishing the kingdom is your job! You mean to tell me you knuckleheads spent the last three and a half years with me, and you missed that?! Man, here I am, all set to ascend to the Father, and now I find out you guys are clueless?! Well, at least now I'll have a chance to set you bozos straight before I go."

Dominionist doctrine turns the scene at the Ascension into a first-century version of "Who's on First?" There are a number of instances throughout the Gospels where Jesus has to correct the disciples' misunderstanding of something, and this would have been a huge one. Jesus would have been grossly remiss...no, make that irresponsible in the extreme if He had failed to correct the error in His disciples' thinking on something so fundamentally important as the future kingdom they would be part of and the nature of their earthly mission.

This is a comedy of errors, and the result is a doctrinal tragedy.

3. Smite this.

In Revelation 19, we get a graphic description of Christ's return at the Second Coming, along with a rather gory description of some of the things He's going to do when He gets here:

This last point is the easiest of the bunch because it positively leaps off the pages of Scripture.

So what do we see here? Do we see a victorious Church joyously welcoming Christ the King and proudly handing over the reins of a shiny, Christianized world they've worked so hard to bring up to snuff so He can rule it?

Uhm, not exactly. Instead we see Him with clothes dipped in blood, and a sword emanating from His mouth to smite the nations—nations He is about to tread in the wine press of the wrath of Almighty God and rule with a rod of iron. We see Him cast the Antichrist and the False Prophet alive into the lake of fire, and we see Him slay the nations that have gathered to make war against Him at the climax of the Great Tribulation, with the fowls of the air feasting on their flesh.

In other words, when Jesus returns He's going to open up one final can of kick-butt-take-names on a fallen world that has persecuted His people and utterly rejected Him and spurned His Father's grace and mercy.

And the words of Revelation 19 paint a grisly picture of the results.

Oh, but wait a second...where's this shiny kingdom the Church has been working so hard for so long to establish for Him? Where are the Seven Mountains of society that the Church has conquered in His name and made suitable for Him to rule? Where is the Church's joyous presentation of the kingdom to our beloved Lord and King who now finally has a kingdom suitable for Him to rule? As a matter of fact, where's the Church?

(Hint: We won't be here...we're returning with Him in our glorified bodies.)

Whole lotta smitin' goin' on: The point is that if the Church has remained on earth to Christianize the world well enough for Christ to return to rule it, then what on earth gives with all the blood, guts, and gore? What's up with all the smiting of the nations, the fowls of the air being filled with their flesh, and so on? Yikes. Not exactly my idea of a joyous celebration.

Sorry, but it makes no sense and doesn't add up. All I can say is that if the Dominionists are right, Revelation 19 must be talking about another planet. I say that because it is quite clear that what the Dominionists are teaching is light years away from what is clearly set forth in God's Word.

And the last time I checked, God's Word applied to this planet.

Not those keys

Of course, the title of this article is a bit tongue in cheek, because "keys" to understanding the nature of how the kingdom is (and is not) going to be established are not what the "keys to the kingdom" are about at all. As you may recall, the phrase "the keys to/of the kingdom" is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew:

Jack Kelly explains with his characteristic conciseness:

So the real keys to the kingdom deal with entering it, not understanding it.

As far as this idea of the Church remaining on earth until we have successfully gone out and established the kingdom so that Christ can return to rule it is concerned, let me just say this:

I don't care how popular it becomes. I don't care how many governors or lieutenant governors or congressmen or congresswomen throw their weight behind it. I don't care how many right-wing conservatives that I genuinely admire espouse it publicly or privately. I don't care how many mainline denominations proclaim it or how many ministers preach it. And the reason I don't care is because it's flat-out contrary to God's Word, the integrity of which being what I care about more than anything else.

The takeaway is that this doctrine is dangerous and damaging to the body of Christ. I can't say it any more plainly. Dominionism is dead stinking wrong to the bone, and these are just three points from Scripture that are perhaps lesser known and less commonly taught that clearly support that fact.

Trust me, there are bushel basketfuls of others.

The lies of Dominionism have never and will never accomplish anything except what I refer to as the five D's in the article I referred to earlier:

1. Diverting the Church from its primary purpose.
2. Draining the Church of its power and blessing.
3. Drawing the Church into partnerships with the world.
4. Dumbing down the Church in regard to end-time prophecy.
5. Duping the Church into preparing for the reign of the Antichrist.

Finally, I have a confession to make: I know it sounds silly, but I can't wait to see the look on the faces of Dominionists after the Rapture, when they realize they got tangled up in some bad doctrine that led them to believe that they were going to have to go out and take over the world in the Lord's name in order to establish His kingdom for Him.

I have a feeling they are going to have a look of relief on their faces, as they are gently reminded that God's way of doing things is infinitely better than man's way. Every. Single. Time.

Like all other born-again believers, of course, they will be overjoyed that they possess the key to entering Christ's kingdom, which is the simple act of believing the gospel in faith and humbly trusting Christ for one's salvation.

But I can't help but think they are going to wish they had availed themselves of some of these keys to the kingdom during their earthly lives and as a result gained a proper, biblically sound understanding of how the kingdom they are now part of was ordained to come about.

I'm happy to report, however, that I will never give any of them a hard time about it, and I say that for two reasons:

1. I won't have a sin nature anymore. 0:)
2. We might turn out to be co-workers for a thousand years. =8|

Greg Lauer — AUG '20

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 AUG '20 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit