Many of us are looking forward to Jesus’ return with great anticipation. Regarding that return, there are many who expect Christ to set up an earthly kingdom and reign from Jerusalem for 1,000 years. Indeed, later this week a new movie based on the popular “Left Behind” series opens in theaters, which espouses this idea of Jesus’ coming kingdom. Is this really what the Bible teaches, or is it just good fiction? Let us look at just a few scriptures to ascertain the answer to that question.
Long ago Joel prophesied that in the last days God would pour His Spirit upon mankind (Joel 2:28ff). In Acts 2, Peter makes mention of Joel’s prophecy and says that they were living in those last days that Joel was referring to (Acts 2:16-21). So we know from this that the last days began some 2,000 years ago on that day of Pentecost. Additionally, we see that Jesus told those who were listening to Him that some of them would not experience death until they had seen the kingdom come with power (Mark 9:1). Just prior to Jesus’ ascension He told His disciples to tarry in Jerusalem until they received power from the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). About a week later, they received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Therefore, they received the power when the Spirit fell upon them. When the power came the kingdom came.
Furthermore, in reviewing Daniel 2, and the explanation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, Daniel describes four earthly kingdoms. The first of these is Babylon, followed by the Medes and the Persians. Later would be the Greeks and then the Roman Empire. Then Daniel states that in the days of those kings God would set up a kingdom that would never be destroyed (Dan. 2:44). This is further confirmation that the kingdom would be established during the days of the Roman Empire and was also fulfilled on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2. Just as Jesus told Pilot, His kingdom was not of this earth but that it was a spiritual kingdom (John 18:36).
So then, what do we learn by putting some of these scriptures together? We see that there were some who lived 2,000 years ago that were not going to die before the kingdom came with power. We see that power came when the kingdom was established on the day of Pentecost, and we see that the kingdom is a spiritual kingdom which is the church. Christ came to seek and save the lost and to add them to His kingdom, the church, and He was successful in that mission. Therefore, the kingdom that we are to seek entry into has been established for the past 2,000 years, and it is the church which Jesus built (Mat.16:18).
salvation's path 
Years ago when I was enthusiastically walking in step with CoC theology, I would have loved what you’ve presented here. Having demanded answers to challenging questions, I can see more clearly some things that you are overlooking. In the coming days, I will compose an argument for the kingdom and 1000 year reign (Yah’s Shabbat) that will be established following the day of Yahowah that lies just over the horizon and present for your review. If nothing else, you will have another perspective to consider.
I really like the design of your blog by the way.
Thanks for your comment and compliment on the blog design. I look forward to reviewing your information. What I have written in the article is not what I would call CoC theology, but what the Bible teaches on the subject. We can all have our own thoughts and opinions, but it what God tells us in His word that is important, and I would say that is what we must stick to.
The Chuch is in the Bible. The Rapture is not. http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/second-coming-rapture-vs-scripture-christian/
Michael, at no time and by no means has God ever mentioned or described any institution that can remotely qualify for the church you know and love. “Ekklesia” equates to the mow’ed miqra’ey (appointed meeting times for the called-out to assemble) and refers to the called-out assembly who meet with God at his appointed times. “Church” is one of many deliberate substitutions that obscure the means of knowing and understanding God’s word. “Circe” is unavoidable in honestly examining “church”. She is the daughter of sun-god, Helios. She is associated with powers of illusion and binding with rings.
On the other hand, God appointed a festive meeting time (Trumpets) to commemorate a harvest with the sound of a shofar/trumpet and shout. The loud sound and shout serve two purposes, a joyful noise for his deliverance (harvest) from the coming wrath and a solemn warning that the following meeting time (Reconciliations) must not be disregarded. The first three of God’s prophetic appointments that commemorate steps along his path to life were demonstrated (fulfilled) by the prophet you know as “Jesus”, another grievous substitution of a critically significant Hebrew name. The fourth was also demonstrated whereupon God’s spirit provides knowledge and understanding for the participants that enable them to teach others. Three appointed meeting times, the fall festivals, are yet to be demonstrated until their time. The harvest of Trumpets will likely be unnoticed by the world as so few will be celebrating with anticipation and be rewarded with exclusion from the following events.
Of note, Paul mentions a “violent snatching away” of himself and his followers that did not occur. This was Paul’s only prophecy but duly qualifies him as the false prophet he was. Your perception of a church is formed by Paul’s fabrications of a religious institution that cannot be correlated with God’s appointed festivals.
Dale, while I am making progress, it may be Monday before I’ve completed an explanation for your review. I’ll post it as a link to a pdf so the inevitable length will not clutter your blog post. If you feel compelled to respond to the above, you may want to wait.
I will wait for your full information. However, I notice that you make many accusations and state many points, but you offer nothing in the way of proof for those statements and accusations. For instance, the Greek word “ekklesia” is found some 114 times in the New Testament, and it refers to an assembly, a gathering, a community, a congregation, or the church, the called out, by Bauer, Arndt, Danker, and Gingrich, who are the primary scholars for Koine Greek. It is used by Jesus as recorded by Matthew in Mat. 16:18, where Jesus states that He would build “THE ekklesia of Him” (translated as “My church” in most translations). It is used by Luke in Acts 16:5, where he records that ekklesias, the congregations (the churches) were strengthened in faith and increased in number daily. It is used by Paul in Romans 16:16, where he says that the ekklesias of Christ (the churches of Christ) salute you. It is used by Paul as recorded by Luke in Acts 20:28, where Paul is speaking to the Ephesian elders, and he tells them to shepherd the ekklesia (church) of God, which He purchased with His own blood. This appears to me to be many times and many ways that God is specifying and describing the church of Christ.
Yes, sir. You are correct. My comments to Michael do not include proofs that might take up a lot of real estate on your blog. Rest assured I will not disappoint you with the forthcoming pdf. Yes, I do make many accusations, and will add to them. What I notice is that all of your statements validate my premise that “ekklesia” appears in the text rather than any derivation of “church”. My conclusion that “church” is a substitute for “ekklesia” follows my premise that God never mentioned “church”, whereas yours, “God is specifying and describing the church of Christ” ignores your premise that “ekklesia” was scribed many times (rather than “church”?). Your citation source naturally associates the two as the authors were all Christian professors, apologists and theologians. However, an objective examination of the terms’ etymologies demonstrates no equivalence. “Ekklesia = church because Christian scholars say so” amounts to the logical fallacy of circular reasoning when argued to a final conclusion. Also, not one of your examples includes God communicating anything. You also introduce the adverb, “christ” which is neither a title nor a name and along with “Jesus” is another example that does not appear in a single pre-Constantine text and reinforces my premise that there are many deliberate substitutions.
Please know that I will present material that you may consider offensive to your convictions. In no way have I any intention of attacking you or insulting you as a person or a Christian. If you will consider the material objectively and honestly, I will respectfully do the same with any that you present. Be sure however that I will relate any premise you assert with your conclusion and test for validity which I expect you will reciprocate. Thank you for your patience as an exam I have tomorrow will delay my progress.
Well, if I were to state my premise and conclusion formally, it would be thus:
1. God as the ultimate author of the New Testament refers to the “ekklesia” 114 times.
2. The Greek word “ekklesia” is referring to the church of the New Testament in most of these references.
3. Therefore, God refers to the church repeatedly in the New Testament.
Since the New Testament was written in Greek originally, one would not expect to find the English word “church” in the ancient texts and manuscripts. As proof for step #2, I offered the definitions of the word “ekklesia” from BDAG, but there are many other Greek scholars who also define “ekklesia” the same way (Strong, Thayer, Schmidt, Kittel, Metzger, etc.). Additionally, the word was used the same way by other, non-biblical writers in the same time period, which is over 250 years prior to Constantine. While the study of the etymology of the word may prove to be interesting, it is the usage in the time period under review that is most important. For instance, the etymology of the English word “gay” means happy. But if someone today were to say that another was wearing gay apparel, that would have a completely different meaning because of how the word is used today. Ultimately, the way that the word is used within the context of the passage greatly determines the meaning of the word. When Jesus said that He was going to build His “ekklesia” (Mat. 16:18), it seems to be quite clear that He is referring to the church in this passage. If it is not the church, then just what is it that Christ was going to build?
Both Jesus (Iasus) and Christ (Xristos) appear in the oldest New Testament manuscripts repeatedly, so I don’t see how you can claim that they do not. Additionally, those terms are also ever present in the early non-biblical writings of other sources that quote the New Testament, which date back to the late first and early second centuries (long before Constantine). I think that if you would examine all of the evidence, with an open mind, you will see that these things are so. Thanks for considering this information.