Last modified:
Part 10 of this series
In Lessons 10-15 of “In the Days of Those Kings”, Pulliam presents his own view on Christ’s Kingdom being in people’s hearts and never on Earth, and presents his own view on the Consummation (to use Ken Ham’s “7 C’s of History” terminology). Due to how much ground that requires me to cover, I’ll split this discussion up based on how the Lessons are grouped. In Part 1 (the present post), I’ll address how Pulliam gives certain terms loaded definitions in Lessons 8 & 10, which will be important to bear in mind in subsequent parts. In Part 2, I’ll address Pulliam’s three Lessons on “The Kingdom of the Messiah”. In Part 3, I’ll deal with his amillennialist understanding of the consummation and the eternal destiny of the faithful. Finally, in Part 4, I’ll address his attempts to explain away major passages that dispensationalists (and myself, for that matter) point to as evidence that Christ will rule on earth–specifically, the ones referenced in the first paragraph here. (My discussions in Part 4 are quite thorough and involve me producing fresh translations for most of the relevant passages, which is why it’s been several months since the previous post of this series: I wanted to get a decent amount of the way through all 4 Parts of this discussion before posting Part 1 here!)
Issues From Lesson 8: A Covenant with David
However, I should lead off these discussions by addressing some arguments he makes in Lesson 8: A Covenant with David that I haven’t addressed in earlier posts (although I will have more to say about the Covenant with David when tying up loose ends before finishing this series):
When Solomon was anointed king, the inspired historian wrote, “and they anointed him as ruler for the Lord…” (I Chr 29:22). Any time a king was anointed by God’s design, he was considered a “ruler for the Lord.” Although David had appointed Solomon to be a ruler on his (David’s) throne (I Kgs 1:35, 48; 2:12), Solomon was still spoken of as ascending the throne of Jehovah (I Chr 29:23). There was no substantial difference between the throne of David, the throne of Solomon, and the throne of Jehovah. Jehovah was the source, and what David received from the Lord, he passed on to Solomon. Any king who ever ascended the throne by Davidic right ascended the throne of Jehovah, because the Lord was the only source from which it could descend.
To summarize, these passages tell us that Solomon had his own throne (I Kgs 1:46-47). But at the same time, Solomon was said to be sitting upon David’s throne (I Kgs 1:48). This is clearly established later. Solomon did sit upon David’s throne (I Kgs 2:12); however, even though Solomon was sitting upon his own throne and the throne of his father David, he was sitting on the throne of Jehovah (I Chr 29:23). How can a person sit upon his own throne, his father’s throne, and the throne of God, all at the same time? The answer is simple: when they are all the same throne.
The Dispensationalist tries to make a distinction between the Father’s throne (where they say Jesus now sits) and the Davidic throne (which they claim He is yet to receive). Scripture corrects this error by telling us that the Lord sees only one throne.
…
The Dispensationalist says the New Testament is silent regarding David’s throne being occupied during the first century. Russell Penney states that “not one reference can be found that connects Christ’s present reign with the Davidic throne.” Mr. Penney ignores the clear reference in Peter’s argument on Pentecost (Acts 2 – see chart on previous page). Peter clearly taught that Jesus was presently on the throne of David. If He was on the throne then, He must be there now. I might add that the Jew of the first century needed no reminder that the Messiah would sit on David’s throne. Just proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah necessarily implied that the speaker was asserting the fact that Jesus was on the throne of David. That is the implication every time you see the word “Christ.”
…
Dispensationalists argue that David was anointed long before he actually ascended the throne, and this is true (I Sam 16:13). From that truth, they argue that Jesus has been anointed, but simply hasn’t ascended the throne of David. The flaw in their logic is that David was not king after he was anointed (I Sam 26:9). It is absurd to say that David was the king simply because Samuel anointed him. Being the king was more than having oil poured upon one’s head. One is not a king without a throne, which is the symbol of a king’s royal authority.
Has Jesus been anointed? That is not the issue. The specific point we must consider here is the question of whether Jesus is the Messiah. To say that He was anointed, but has not yet ascended to the throne of David, begs the question: How is His office more Messianic than Solomon’s (or other descendants of David who reigned)? After all, Solomon actually sat on the throne of David. Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, also sat upon that throne, but they were not the Messiah. How can they sit upon the rightful throne and not be the Messiah, and Jesus not sit upon the rightful throne and be the Messiah? It isn’t just about the right to the position, it must also be about occupying that position. Jesus is either a “Messiah in waiting,” or He is the Messiah.
Jesus is the Messiah, not simply because He was intended to occupy that office and sit upon the throne of David, but because He actually does.
{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 83-84, 86, 88-89. Italics and boldface in original. Underlining mine. Reference for Penney’s quote cited therein.}
Pulliam’s arguments sound pretty legit on the surface, don’t they? Well, the key to seeing where he’s going wrong is to look at the paragraph immediately preceding the first quote above:
We don’t really have a disagreement on the definition of the word throne. This raises the question: How do we end up with two distinctly different interpretations? The disagreement actually arises when the application is made. Although we agree that the word throne does not have to refer to a piece of furniture, it somehow changes meaning as the Dispensationalist discusses it. Walvoord says of Isaiah 9:6-7, “In this passage, as in other references to the throne of David, clear distinction should be maintained between the Davidic throne and the Father’s throne in heaven. Obviously, David never sat on the throne in heaven where Christ is now enthroned.” Statements like these lead readers on a clear course of understanding throne to be a piece of furniture. Scripture will show us just how wrong Mr. Walvoord is on this subject. Larkin does precisely the same thing when he writes, “The ‘Throne of David’ was on the earth, and can never be anywhere else. To say that Christ now reigns on the ‘Throne of David,’ and that His Kingdom is ‘spiritual,’ is to subvert the meaning of the Old Testament prophecies. The ‘Throne of David’ is now vacant, and has been for 2500 years…” Whether intentional, or not, the Dispensationalist ends up arguing over the location of a piece of furniture.
{Ibid. 83. Italics in original. Underlining and boldface mine. References for Walvoord and Larkin’s quotes cited therein.}
The only quotation in this paragraph I completely agree with is the boldfaced one by Larkin (and I somehow doubt that would remain the case if much more of its original context was quoted!). It’s also hilariously hypocritical that he calls out dispensationalist authors for “lead[ing] readers on a clear course of understanding” a key term in a certain way, yet goes on to do exactly that when claiming the word “Christ” implied someone who’s already sitting on David’s throne! The reality is that in the Gospels, the terms “the Christ” and “Son of David” were synonymous: both “referred exclusively to the expected Son of David who would reign forever on David’s throne and over David’s kingdom forever.” {Scroll to “Jesus, the Christ”.} The article I just quoted goes on to use Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 to illustrate this very point–and as I’ve already explained elsewhere (while responding to Pulliam’s “chart on previous page”, no less!), Peter was placing Jesus’ ruling on David’s throne in the future from when he gave that sermon (as is decisively indicated by the original Hebrew grammar of the prophecy Peter quoted here, Psalm 110:1)! Moreover, the article overall is explaining that the OT prophecies the titles “the Son of David”, “the Christ”, “the Son of God”, and “the Son of Man” were taken from all “point to Jesus’ future role as God’s appointed King upon Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, literally heading up God’s Kingdom on earth in person”!
Pulliam’s main mistake is assuming that the Son of David must become king the instant he’s anointed (you can even see that he begs the question on this in that quotation from p. 86 above: notice that he switched mid-argument from saying the title implied the Messiah “would sit” (future-tense) on David’s throne to saying it implied the Messiah “was on” (present-tense) David’s throne)! In fact, this view of Pulliam’s is contradicted in the book of Acts, where Pulliam evidently believes Jesus sat down on David’s throne sometime between his ascension (Acts 1:9-11) and Pentecost (Acts 2), yet Peter is recorded as saying that “Jesus who is from Nazareth … God did anoint him with the Holy Spirit and power” (Acts 10:38 YLT)–harking back to Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3:16-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:32-34), over 3.5 years before Pentecost! But in all fairness to Pulliam, many Jews back then did believe that the Messiah would become their king at the same coming in which he was anointed–simply because the OT never explicitly said otherwise. In fact, this was intentional on God’s part: He allowed the Jewish authorities (and, perhaps more importantly, Satan) to assume the Messiah was to do both in the same coming, just so his crucifixion could happen at all (1 Corinthians 2:6-8)! What’s really ironic about this is that Pulliam actually brought out this point about God deliberately withholding details until a later time, despite his failure to apply it to 1st-century Jews’ expectations about the Messiah becoming king of kings during the same coming when he’s anointed!
It isn’t uncommon for interpreters to refer to what hearers would have understood when spoken to (or written to) in the Bible. There is a valid reason for doing this. Ordinarily, communication is to be understood so its intention may be carried out. I cannot obey a command if I don’t understand what it means. Many times in interpretation, knowing what hearers would have understood is extremely helpful. But this is not the “law” of interpretation that teachers sometimes make it out to be. Old Testament promises are a good example of how God’s will is not always understood when first revealed.
We know that we cannot always expect hearers in the Bible to understand the intricacies of God’s plan. And although Dispensational teachers know this, they may lose sight of this fact when it becomes a major point in their argument. Mr. Hitchcock offers us an excellent example when he makes an argument for David’s understanding of the Messiah ruling on earth. His position states that David could not possibly have thought about a heavenly throne when God promised the throne to his descendant. Since a valid contract demands that both parties understand its terms, God must have been talking about an earthly throne, otherwise the contract would be invalid.
Mr. Hitchcock’s reasoning is flawed. If this were a contract, he would be correct. However, God’s promise to David was not a contract. The covenant that God made with David was a promise of divine intention. David did not have any obligations, and therefore did not have to fully understand all of the details.
The question of what the original hearers/readers would have understood is only valid if they were actually expected to understand the details given. On occasion, though, it was not time for anyone to fully understand.
{Ibid. 87. Italics and boldface in original. Reference for Hitchcock’s quote cited therein.}
Of course, Tim Warner summarizes this idea when calling out amillennialists such as Church of Christ minister Norm Fields (and, by virtue of the fact that he doesn’t take the millennium of Revelation 20 literally, Bob Pulliam) on their own hermeneutical gymnastics {scroll to p. 4 in the PDF}:
Bro. Fields is correct, that the biggest disagreement between us will end up being hermeneutics. But, it will not only be in the Old Testament. Bro. Fields will do what all amillennialists do whenever confronted with something that conflicts with his view, simply deny that the plain sense is the real sense, even in the New Testament. God did not really mean what He said literally. The reader should beware, however. This is the tactic of virtually all false teachers. The true sense of most texts is to be understood in the way the original audience would have understood it given their culture, background, knowledge of language, and understanding of past revelation. (The exception will of course be the things God intended to conceal rather than reveal). This is what we call the “grammatical – historical” method. It is not a rigidly “literal” method. It recognizes that all language uses metaphors, and occasional allegories. However it does not default to these. It takes language in its normal literal sense unless there is ample reason in the context to take it in a non-literal sense. We do not define “ample evidence” as merely that it presents a problem for our theology which we must explain away. Such a method is subjective, and the interpreter becomes the final authority, not the Word of God.
{Underlining and boldface in original. Italics mine.}
However, an even more ironic mistake is that, while calling out dispensationalists for understanding the word “throne” to be referring to a piece of furniture in their arguments, he’s doing the same thing with his arguments on p. 84-85: when arguing that David, Solomon, and Jehovah have one and the same throne, his argument that one can only sit on all 3 at once if they’re all the same throne requires “throne” to be meant in the sense of furniture! It makes at least as much sense to conclude that Solomon’s right to rule came from being David’s heir, and from Jehovah anointing him to rule Israel on His behalf.
Moreover, Pulliam seems to be overlooking the fact that a throne doesn’t just imply a king’s authority–it also implies the dominion within which that authority is enforceable! And in that sense, David, Solomon, and Jehovah didn’t have the same “throne”! 1 Kings 4:21 shows that Solomon expanded the territory (i.e., dominion) he ruled beyond that of his father David; yet neither of them came close to ruling over the territory of God the Father–indeed, one of the Father’s titles (one of the few that’s never applied to the Son) in the LXX and the NT, παντοκράτωρ (rendered “Almighty” in most English translations), is a compound word literally meaning “everything-ruler”! And, get this, all three of these are referring to dominions over territories!
What’s Jesus’ dominion right now? The Heavenly Dominions, which is presently restricted to Christians, their institutions, and angelic, demonic, and even worldly forces that are actively engaged in spiritual (as opposed to worldly) warfare (Ephesians 6:12, which ends with the Greek word G2032, referring to the coverage of heaven’s authority/influence); Jesus has authority in these particular domains because his Father delegated that authority to him. But, the author of Hebrews tells us that Abraham anticipated the Heavenly Dominions as someday including the land that was promised to him:
In faith died all these [the faithful patriarchs up to and including Jacob], not having received the promises [including “the place that (Abraham) was about to receive for an inheritance…the land of the promise…with Isaac and Jacob, fellow-heirs of the same promise…looking for the city having the foundations, whose artificer and constructor is God”; verses 8-10 YLT], but from afar having seen them, and having been persuaded, and having saluted them, and having confessed that strangers and sojourners they are upon the earth [or “land”], for those saying such things make manifest that they seek a country; and if, indeed, they had been mindful of that from which they came forth, they might have had an opportunity to return, but now they long for a better [country], that is, an heavenly [dominion; G2032], wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God, for He did prepare for them a city. (Hebrews 11:13-16 YLT, boldface added)
And in Luke’s Gospel, Gabriel’s message to Mary includes a detail demonstrating beyond all doubt that Biblical promises regarding Jesus’ kingship haven’t yet been fulfilled in their entirety: “Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God; and lo, thou shalt conceive in the womb, and shalt bring forth a son, and call his name Jesus; he shall be great, and Son of the Highest he shall be called, and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob to the ages; and of his reign there shall be no end. (Luke 1:30-33 YLT, boldface and underlining added) “The house of Jacob” always refers to the entire nation of Israel; not just Judah, Benjamin, and the Levites, not just the 10 northern tribes–all of Israel. Also note that “reign” is in the future tense, meaning Gabriel was referring to something future from his conversation with Mary. Even Pulliam would agree that Jesus never ruled over all Israel after the immaculate conception; hence, the fulfillment of this prophecy must still be in the future. Moreover, looking at the original prophecy Gabriel was harking back to gives us an additional detail that makes it clearer still that an earthly kingdom was being referred to here: “Of the increase of his government [literally, “empire”] and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.” (Isaiah 9:7 ASV, boldface added) Also note all the indicators of earthly kingship in Psalm 2, which introduced the Son’s title of “Messiah”/”Christ” by distinguishing the Father and His Son from each other as “the LORD and… His Anointed [MT מְשִׁיחוֹ (meshicho, “His Messiah”); LXX τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ (tou christou autou, “the Christ of His”)]” (verse 2 NKJV, boldface added):
Yet I [will] have set my king
Upon my holy hill of Zion.
… Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance,
And the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
… Now therefore be wise, O ye kings:
Be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Serve Jehovah with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the son [an ancient gesture of submission and allegiance to a king; see also 1 Samuel 10:1 & 1 Kings 19:18], lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way,
For his wrath will soon be kindled.
Blessed are all they that take refuge in him.
(Psalm 2:6,8,10-12 ASV, boldface added)
However, I must give Pulliam props for admitting something very important in the Conclusion to Lesson 8:
You may have already noticed that a study of Dispensationalism isn’t simply about how the world is going to end. While that is the popular discussion topic, this really becomes a discussion of Christ’s present position and the kingdom over which He rules. This is an important subject. This study is not about opinions over which we may agree to disagree. As Walvoord so aptly wrote:
“While the millennial controversy is nothing new, it has come to be recognized only recently that it plays such an important part in determining the form of theology as a whole. Instead of being simply a way of interpreting prophecy, millennialism now is seen to be a determining factor in any system of theology.”
Peter told the multitude on Pentecost that Jesus was exalted to God’s right hand to sit on the throne of David [au contrare, as noted above]. Here is the important consequence of Peter’s [supposed] affirmation in Acts 2: There will not be a future earthly Millennium with Jesus on the throne of David in Jerusalem. The doctrine of a future Millennium requires that Jesus come back to earth for a 1,000 year reign on the throne of David. Peter takes that throne off of the earth, puts it in heaven with Jesus presently occupying it [supposedly] — with that, the Dispensationalist’s Millennium disappears.
{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 89. Italics and boldface in original. Reference for Walvoord’s quote cited therein.}
Despite all the mistakes he relies on in that last paragraph, his (and Walvoord’s) point about the millennial debate influencing theology as a whole is something I agree with 100%. Indeed, I’ve seen an article (that I can’t seem to find anymore, unfortunately) that addressed the objection that Christians are “walking contradictions” for not obeying all Mosaic laws by explaining the two main schools of thought on how the rules change between Biblical covenants, labeling them as “Covenant Theology” and “Dispensational Theology”. The article explained the main difference on this front as follows (paraphrased): “In Covenant Theology, rules from the old covenant carry over into the new covenant, unless the new covenant does away with them. In Dispensational Theology, rules from the old covenant are abolished in the new covenant, unless the new covenant reiterates them.” It explained that since many of the rules in the OT are reaffirmed in the NT, interpreters in the two camps tend to agree in practice. But then it indicated a footnote which read: “Where they disagree is where it gets interesting…”
Of course, in my upcoming book, I capitalize on the fact that the OT contains multiple covenants, not just the Mosaic one; and I conclude that the correct understanding is a mixture of both, depending on who each covenant applies to. In a nutshell: rules from the Edenic, Adamic, and Noahic Covenants apply to the entire human race (because they were given to the heads of the human race) and carry over through all subsequent ones; the “covenants of promise” (Abrahamic, Davidic, and New) apply to the faithful only (Ephesians 2:12), with the Abrahamic and Davidic applying retroactively to those who died in faith before the New Covenant went into effect (Hebrews 9:15); and the Mosaic Covenant isn’t a “covenant of promise”, applying only to Israelites who haven’t entered into the New Covenant and foreigners who lived among them when God had established them in the land. {HIDMF p. 83-95, 807-808}
But as wrong as Pulliam’s dispensationalist opponents are, amillennialists like Pulliam are more dangerously so on this particular point. At least dispensationalists acknowledge that Jesus is to reign on earth at some point (albeit over Israelites and not Christians, due to their system holding a dichotomy of Israel having an earthly destiny and Christians having a heavenly destiny); amillennialists outright teach against it. And as Warner points out, the implications of whether or not one admits that Jesus will reign on earth are weightier than you might think:
All four Gospel accounts take great pains to identify Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. He is identified in the Gospels by five different prophetic titles: “the Son of David,” “the Christ,” “the Son of God,” “the Son of Man,” and “the King of the Jews.” John’s Gospel goes further in clarifying the “Son of God” title by adding, “only-begotten” and “only-begotten from the Father.”
While virtually all Christians give lip-service to these titles, few understand their meaning, and most actually deny their true significance. All of them come directly from Old Testament prophecy about Jesus. This is a serious problem because John’s Gospel plainly attaches eternal life to believing Jesus’ identity regarding these titles as revealed in the Gospels; “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”
Every one of these titles point to Jesus’ future role as God’s appointed King upon Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, literally heading up God’s Kingdom on earth in person. Christianity has replaced Christ’s literal, political Kingdom on earth (as revealed in the Prophets) with the Greek philosophical concept of ascending into the heavens as our Hope. The Kingdom is redefined as a “spiritual kingdom” now with our future reward in heaven itself, inherited either upon death or at the second coming. This redefining of the “Kingdom” and Christ’s role as King necessarily means that all of the titles with which He is identified in the Gospels are ripped from their prophetic contexts and given meanings that are totally foreign to what the prophets wrote and how they were understood by both Jews and Christians in the Gospels.
Understanding who Jesus is, and properly making the Good Confession that “Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,” is not an exercise in repeating phonetic sounds like a parrot. It requires having some concept of what these titles actually meant in Scripture in the contexts of the prophets where they originated, and the expectations concerning their application to Jesus in the Gospels. The critical fact that is missed by most of Christianity is that each of these titles point to Jesus literally being King over a literal civil government, reigning over Israel and all the nations of earth from Jerusalem.
…
The Jews as well as the early Christians understood these titles, that Jesus was claiming them all, and that all of them absolutely require the fulfillment of the prophecies from which they were taken. The Jews rejected His claiming these titles, and the Christians accepted them. All of them require the Kingdom being delivered by God to His Son at the end of this age, and this Kingdom will be established in Jerusalem from which He will rule as King of kings and Lord of lords. This Kingdom is the inheritance of the saints, which we receive at the resurrection of the just.
Yet, modern Christianity has abandoned Christ’s coming Kingdom on earth as the inheritance of faithful believers and substituted “heaven,” borrowed from pagan Greek philosophy. In doing so, they have divorced all of these titles for Jesus and claims in the Gospels from their biblical meaning. When they make the Good Confession that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” they may say these words, but they mean something entirely different. They have no concept of either “the Gospel of the Kingdom” which must be preached in all the world, nor the true meaning of Jesus’ many parables about the Kingdom. What a sad state!
{Italics and boldface in original.}
Of course, most Christians down through the ages who’ve failed to acknowledge Jesus as having a future reign on earth did so out of ignorance, never having sufficient opportunity to learn that these titles actually require it–so God will grant them more mercy on this front. But Pulliam, having undoubtedly exposed himself to dispensationalists’ arguments about this point in the course of his research, is not operating in a state of ignorance, and so God will (barring him coming around to the truth on this point) hold him accountable for rejecting that truth (and for teaching others to reject it)–and now that you’ve read about it here (and especially if you click through to read Warner’s entire article explaining these titles and the connotations they derived from the OT), the same goes for you, dear reader.
Lesson 10: The Word “Kingdom” In Scripture
Now, let’s see what Pulliam has to say about the word “kingdom”:
Two aspects of the word “kingdom” are of vital importance. The first aspect is its meaning, and the second is its actual use in Scripture. Words taken from Hebrew and Greek do not always mean what we think they mean, nor are they always used as we would expect. Understanding the word “kingdom” in Scripture involves a very careful consideration of definition and context.
This need for definition and context may be illustrated by Psalm 22:28. The Psalmist said the pagan nations, who do not acknowledge Jehovah, are His. In some way “He rules the nations.” In ruling them, all the earth is His kingdom. It becomes clear that a sense other than loyal service is meant. The context must be consulted to understand how disloyal nations are included within His kingdom.
This makes it clear that the word “kingdom” doesn’t necessarily refer to map boundaries, and its subjects may not even be loyal to the king. Its use in scripture is more varied than we oftentimes take it to be. Before we ever get around to talk about Jesus establishing a kingdom, we need to have a good understanding of the possibilities presented by this word.
{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 103. Underlining mine.}
Isn’t it funny how Pulliam admits that “The context must be consulted to understand”, yet he fails to follow up his citation of Psalm 22:28 with a discussion of its context? This entire Psalm is a Messianic prophecy, with verses 1-21 being fulfilled in Jesus’ crucifixion; hence, verses 22-31 must have foretold Jesus’ kingdom. Moreover, since the fulfillment of verses 1-21 lined up with a straightforward interpretation of those verses, we should expect the same to go for the fulfillment of verses 22-31. Since the Septuagint version of the former section is closer to the original (in verse 16c, the Masoretic Text says “A congregation of evildoers have surrounded me; like the lion, they are at my hands and my feet”, but the Septuagint has “An assembly of evildoers surrounded me; they pierced my hands and feet”–the latter agreeing with both Dead Sea manuscripts containing this verse {each of those pages has an endnote explaining that the phrases I boldfaced here are only one letter different in Hebrew}), let’s see what that version has to say for the latter section (for the record, all the key phrases here are substantially the same in the MT):
I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I sing praise to thee.
Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye seed of Jacob, glorify him: let all the seed of Israel fear him.
For he has not despised nor been angry at the supplication of the poor; nor turned away his face from me; but when I cried to him, he heard me.
My praise is of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.
The poor shall eat and be satisfied; and they shall praise the Lord that seek him: their heart shall live for ever.
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord: and all the kindreds [literally, “lineages”; i.e., “families”] of the nations shall worship before him.
For the kingdom is the Lord’s [the Son’s; remember, the entire context is Messianic!]; and he is the governor of the nations.
All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and worshipped: all that go down to the earth [or “dust”] shall fall down before him: my soul also lives to him.
And my seed shall serve him: the generation that is coming shall be reported to the Lord.
And they shall report his righteousness to the people that shall be born, whom the Lord has made.
(Psalm 22:22-31 BLXX [21:23-32 by the LXX verse numbering], boldface added)
The phrases “all ye seed of Jacob” and “all the seed of Israel” are consistent with this prophecy being fulfilled at a time when Israel has been restored. Similarly, the remark at the end that “they shall report his righteousness to the people that shall be born” fits well with the role that the nation of Israel and Christians under the New Covenant will have in Christ’s kingdom–to teach God and His ways to those still around who haven’t yet received glorified bodies: “and ye are a choice race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people acquired, that the excellences ye may shew forth of Him who out of darkness did call you to His wondrous light;” (1 Peter 2:9 YLT, boldface added; note that the present-tense “are” isn’t in the Greek text) “and made them [the redeemed from throughout history] to our God kings and priests; and they shall reign over the earth.” (Revelation 5:10 DBY, boldface added) Pulliam’s claim that verse 28 is referring to God’s present rule over “the pagan nations, who do not acknowledge Jehovah” is disproven by verse 27 saying that “all the families of the nations shall worship before him [Jehovah, in light of “the Lord” in the first half of the verse being translated from the usual LXX substitution for YHWH]”. Coupled with the statements that the Messiah “is the governor of the nations” and that “all that go down to the earth [better, “dust”] shall fall down before him”, Pulliam’s claim that this passage suggests that “a sense other than loyal service is meant” for this “kingdom” and that “disloyal nations are included within His kingdom” is incredibly disingenuous.
I see absolutely no reason to think this isn’t referring to a literal, political kingdom on earth that will rule over all the other nations on earth. After all, that’s what the title “King of Kings” referred to in the ancient world: the king that all the other kings had to answer to. This was the sense in which the term was applied to Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:12) and Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 26:7, Daniel 2:37) in the OT; and that Daniel was willing to apply it to Nebuchadnezzar shows us it wasn’t meant to be a divine title. In fact, the one time you see this phrase used of the Father, 1 Timothy 6:15 (note that verse 16 specifies the one being talked about as someone “whom no one of men did see, nor is able to see” (YLT), meaning this must be referring to the Father and not the Son), the Greek phrasing is different: while the instances in Revelation & the LXX of Ezra, Ezekiel, and Daniel are all βασιλεὺς βασιλέων (“King of Kings”) in the Greek (and in both of the Revelation verses, “Lord of Lords” is κύριος κυρίων), 1 Timothy 6:15 refers to the Father as ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων (“the King of the ones having reign and Lord of the ones exercising lordship”; i.e., the boldfaced terms are articles and participles, not nouns as in the other passages). This distinction in the Greek phrasing suggests that Jesus is meant to be “King of Kings” in the same way that Artaxerxes and Nebuchadnezzar were (i.e., ruling over a multitude of nations on earth), but that his Father presently is King of Kings in a different way from all of them (i.e., ruling over everything).
In short, Psalm 22:28 isn’t referring to the Father’s present rule over the earth’s inhabitants, but the Son’s still-future rule over them!
Finally, Pulliam And I Completely Agree On Something!
Believe it or not, Pulliam then manages to go more than two pages without saying anything I disagree with. He briefly discusses the range of meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words for “kingdom”; explains that the English word “kingdom” is a contraction of “king’s dominion”; points out that God appointed the kings in Israel, and that after the northern and southern kingdoms split, they were both God’s people, and both were considered kingdoms in their own right, with Jeroboam ruling over Ephraim and Rehoboam over Judah; explains that God’s kingdom is all-encompassing, with earthly kingdoms rising and falling within it; quotes Psalm 145:13-15 to establish that God’s kingdom has no “start-stop feature” {“In the Days of Those Kings”. 104.}; and explains that the Greek word for “kingdom” “actually begins with the idea of power or right to rule, and then its use of a place on a map is only included by extension of that power (or influence)” {Ibid. 105.}.
His remark about the etymology of the English word “kingdom” is fairly accurate. His point about both the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel being God’s people naturally coheres with the fact that they were both comprised of Israelites, who were bound by the Mosaic Covenant. I pointed out earlier that every king’s authority has a dominion within which it’s enforceable–cohering with Pulliam’s point about the Greek word for “kingdom”. And everything else is obvious enough that I shouldn’t even need to explain why I agree with it.
He then addresses the dispensationalist argument attempting to distinguish “the kingdom of heaven” from “the kingdom of God”, in order to claim “the kingdom of heaven” is present in “mystery form” {Ibid. 105.}. He points out that the phrasing of Matthew 13:11 doesn’t permit the way dispensationalists use it as a proof-text for the latter idea, and concludes that the problems that arise from trying to contrast passages that use “the kingdom of heaven” with those that use “the kingdom of God” are probably why dispensationalists are abandoning that argument (in which case, good on them for recognizing trash arguments as such and discarding them; I encourage them to do it more often!).
What Materialists and “Immaterialists” Have In Common
Pulliam then gets to the “Already-Not Yet Concept” for Christ’s Kingdom, as I brought up in the Introduction to this critique series. As I already mentioned there, Pulliam doesn’t even attempt to harmonize the existence of some Biblical passages portraying the kingdom as present and others portraying it as future with his own view–in which case he hasn’t disproven that such a distinction between the present kingdom and the future kingdom is being made! But then he makes a claim where I feel a rebuke toward a broader group of teachers is warranted:
Passages in the foregoing chart, placing the kingdom of Christ in the future, do not present what the Dispensationalist hopes. To say that there is a future, earthly kingdom of Christ, assumes that these texts refer to a kingdom upon this earth. That assumption ignores the MORE OBVIOUS intention of God’s eternal glory in heaven that awaits the faithful. Peter also spoke of the “kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” in the future tense, but qualified it as His eternal kingdom (II Pt 1:11). And we should understand that also to be in heaven.
No passages implying a future kingdom even hint at that kingdom being on earth.
{Ibid. 108. Italics and boldface in original. Underlining and all-caps mine.}
“MORE OBVIOUS”? NOW the truth comes out. Pulliam has just exposed his position’s Achilles’ Heel, the core false premise that darn near everything else wrong with his position stems from: an a priori commitment to the idea that Christians will inherit an immaterial eternity in heaven. If you’re wondering what makes me so confident that Pulliam’s merely assuming that from the outset, just think about it: How can this idea, which is never taught a single time in Scripture, be considered “the more obvious intention” for what “awaits the faithful” than the alternative idea that is promised in Scripture again and again and again?! I’ll tell you how: if you’re assuming it to be God’s intention for the eternity of the faithful before the reasoning even begins!
In fact, I can even see a parallel between evolutionists and Christians like Pulliam who espouse a heavenly destiny for the faithful (which, frankly, includes most of mainstream Christendom, whether amillennialist, dispensationalist, etc.!), and I can illustrate it by hijacking an infamous quote from the late Richard Lewontin, evolutionary biologist, and adapting it to what I see from Pulliam and, for that matter, most Christian theologians. Observe:
| Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. {Lewontin, R. “Billions and billions of demons” (review of “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” by Carl Sagan, 1997). The New York Review. p. 31. January 9, 1997. Italics in original.} | Our willingness to accept Biblical interpretations that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between Plato and the Bible. We take the side of Plato in spite of the patent contradictions of some of its hermeneutics, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of God’s extravagant promises in both Testaments, in spite of the tolerance of theologians and preachers for context-ignoring just-so explanations, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to an immaterial eternity. It is not that the methods and presuppositions of a Biblical worldview somehow compel us to accept an immaterial eternity for the destiny of the faithful, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to a heavenly destiny to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that cohere with that idea, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that commitment is absolute, for we cannot let a physical eternity get a foot in the door. {Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Emperor Constantine, and Augustine of Hippo might as well have said this.} |
Even worse, those who reject the earthly eternity laid out in the Bible as “inferior to” a heavenly one are essentially making the supremely insolent claim that “what God has promised to the faithful isn’t good enough for me”! Granted, several Biblical passages make it clear that the rewards of the faithful will vary depending on how they utilized the opportunities and resources God made available to them (most notably Matthew 25:14-30, Luke 19:11-27, & 1 Corinthians 3:10-15), so what God explicitly promises to be in the New Heavens and New Earth (most prominently in Isaiah 65-66, Ezekiel 40-48, & Revelation 21:1-22:5) should be regarded as the bare minimum. But to claim that what God promises to be the bare minimum isn’t good enough to be the bare minimum amounts to claiming that you know what a fitting reward is better than God does! And the idea that you know something better than God is a very dangerous one to espouse–again, because it’s supremely insolent. (And for those who can’t be bothered to click on that last hyperlink, I’m using “insolent” with the first definition presented there: “Insulting in manner or words, particularly in an arrogant or insubordinate manner.” Definitely not the kind of attitude you want to present toward God! Just consider what that attitude would lead to in light of an observation by C.S. Lewis: “There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, ‘All right, then, have it your way.’”)
Finally, just to drive home how the a priori adherence to an immaterial destiny naturally leads to all the other false conclusions Pulliam reaches: Why is he so desperate to allegorize away all of the Bible’s clear, detailed statements about Israel’s future? Why was he willing to say to my face that Abraham was never meant to inherit the land himself–despite that claim implying that God straight-up lied to Abraham? Why is he so insistent that Christ’s Kingdom is already present in its fullest form, with nothing more for Christ to inherit later–despite all the quotations of Psalm 110:1 throughout the New Testament demonstrating that Christ is currently awaiting more? The answer to all 3 of these questions is the same: because if our eternity is meant to be immaterial, then the earth on which these prophecies are to be fulfilled will no longer exist! Why is he willing to come up with so many different elaborate ways to allegorize away all the Scriptural statements that imply more than one mass resurrection? Because his interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-13 requires that as soon as the resurrection of the righteous occurs, the material universe will be annihilated–meaning there won’t be enough time for a distinct second resurrection! Why is he willing to explicitly teach the heresy that Jesus isn’t in a physical body right now? Because he’s convinced that being glorified automatically requires one to be immaterial, having bought into the false dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual! Are you starting to see just how drastically a commitment to a heavenly destiny changes everything else?!
Come to think of it, explaining all those radical implications in that last paragraph has helped me understand why Justin Martyr was willing to go so far as to tell Trypho: “if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians” {Justin Martyr. “Dialogue with Trypho”. Chapter 80. Content in brackets by Roberts and Donaldson. Italics mine.}.
So now that we’ve cleared the air about some of the key redefinitions and premises Pulliam is bringing into Lessons 11-15, we’ll start examining what he teaches in those Lessons in Part 2.
