“Primogeniture” is the right of the firstborn in the administration of the inheritance. Peoples throughout time and culture have assumed the practice, and having administrated my own inheritance, I understand some of its dynamics. Though the eldest son may be reimbursed for his administrative role, more often than not it’s just a lot of work and responsibility (though an honor, of course!). Primogeniture is an important concept because eternal life and the kingdom of God are presented in the bible as the “inheritance” of the saints (Mt. 19:29; 25:34; Eph. 1:14).

Because of the Platonic perversion of the gospel, most assume the kingdom of God and eternal life to consist of a harp, a cloud, and an eternal sing-a-long in the sky. However, the bible teaches the resurrection of the body and a New Earth, which will be ultimately administrated by one man, Jesus of Nazareth, “the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15; cf. Heb. 1:6; Ps. 89:27). Moreover, he will be “the King of the Jews” (Mt. 27:42; Jn. 19:3) and “the King of Israel” (Mt. 27:42; Jn. 1:49), which is God’s “firstborn” among the nations (cf. Ex. 4:22; Jer. 31:9). Though we in modern times infer little more than birth order to the term “firstborn”, its application in the Scriptures inherently implies primogeniture. Thus, the age to come will be transnational and “Israelocentric”, as the nations will bring their glory into Israel and into the new Jerusalem (cf. Is. 2:2f; 60:3; Rev. 21:24f).

We Gentiles often find this idea offensive, as though we’re getting gipped or something. But in my own inheritance, my sister never thought to herself, I sure wish I could  deal with all of that! She was grateful, and I was honored. So it will be in the age to come. There will be “no difference between Jew and Gentile” (Rom. 10:12) in the quality of inheritance, but there will be a marked difference in the role of inheritance. At the "day of wrath" (Rom. 2:5), punishment and eternal life will be doled "first for the Jew first, then for the Gentile" (v. 9f).  It is our destiny which defines our identity and function.  Primogeniture and the  administration of the age to come through the descendants of Abraham (cf. Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18) is what Paul is referencing when he says that Israel has not “stumbled so as to fall” (Rom. 11:11). This is because “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (11:29).

Those who have studied eschatology (end-times) for any amount of time have heard the standard breakdown of eschatological views: 1) amillennialism, 2) postmillennialism, and 3) premillennialism. Though the first two are commonly held in the modern church, they were foreign to the apostolic church. Thus, they ought to be disregarded, simply upon the basis that the apostles were premillennial, and they delivered to us the very Scriptures from which we seek truth.

From the Constantinian revolution in the 4th century (not all revolutions are good) until the mid-1800’s premillennialism was mostly marginalized (though some monastic sects, Anabaptists, Puritans, and Pietists sustained the lineage). The dispensational movement (John Darby, Cyrus Scofield, Lewis Chafer, etc.) propagated a form of conservative, evangelical premillennialism for almost 100 years. However, in the 1950’s a conservative Baptist scholar, George Ladd (raised dispensational) began to denounce some of the perversions of dispensationalism (e.g. pre-tribulational rapture, two plans of salvation, etc.), while holding to the premillennial view. The dispensational schema began to break down (with the enthusiastic help of many amil and postmil scholars), and subsequently we now commonly refer to two forms of premillennialism: 1) dispensational and 2) historic.

George Ladd did the church a great service by bringing to the forefront of many evangelical circles the centrality of the resurrection, the messianic kingdom, and the hope of a new heavens and new earth. His “inaugurated eschatology”, i.e. Jesus inaugurated the kingdom, Day of the Lord, resurrection, etc. at the first coming (“already”) and will complete them at the second coming (“not yet”) has been generally received… though with some uneasiness, especially in Reformed circles that emphasize Luther's "theology of the Cross". Indeed, if Jesus “inaugurated” the kingdom, which inherently involves punishing the wicked and blessing the righteous who will inherit the earth (cf. Mt. 13:36-43; 1 Cor. 15:23ff; 2 Thess. 1:5ff; Rev. 11:15), then what is the place of the Cross? Of mercy to the wicked? Of the suffering and sojourning of the righteous? The inaugurational schema has no place for these.

In a close examination, Ladd’s inaugurationalism ends up breaking down. The primary support texts involving the kingdom being “at hand” (e.g. Mt. 3:2), having “come upon you” (e.g. Mt. 12:28), and being “within you” (Lk. 17:21) turn out to be fundamentally imprecatory in nature (i.e. cursing, threatening, and accusational), aimed at the Pharisees and the self-righteous. Rather than the supposed inaugurated blessing upon the righteous, the kingdom “at hand” involves things like, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?” (Mt. 3:7) and “he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Lk. 3:17). “At hand” is simply a prophetic reiteration with judgmental connotations concerning the imminent Day of the Lord (cf. Is. 13:6; Zeph. 1:14; Lk. 10:11f; 1 Pe. 4:7; Rev. 22:10). Likewise, the kingdom “coming upon you” is always-and-everywhere a REALLY BAD THING (e.g. Deut. 28:15; Is. 51:19; Zeph. 2:2; Mt. 23:36; Eph. 5:6; 1 Thess. 2:16; Rev. 3:10), as is evident from the surrounding context of Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees (Mt. 12:24-37). Moreover, whatever Jesus means by the kingdom being “in your midst”, it is clearly apocalyptic and radically punitive, akin to the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah (Lk. 17:22-32). The other secondary passages used to support the inaugurational doctrine (cf. Mt. 11:11; 1 Cor. 4:20; Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:13) are likewise better understood in an eschatological context.

What then are we left with? Very simply this: The Messiah had to suffer on the Cross for the sins of man before entering his glorious eschatological kingdom (Lk. 24:26; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pe. 1:11). God is restraining from the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21) and the judgment of the Day of the Lord (Rom. 2:5f), because he loves sinners (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8) and wants all to be saved from the wrath to come (2 Pe. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4). And before his return, Jesus commands the church to preach repentance and the forgiveness of sins to all nations (cf. Mt. 28:19; Lk. 24:47). This is all in context to a future thousand-year transitional kingdom before death and corruption are completely destroyed on the New Earth (1 Cor. 15:24ff; Rev. 20:1-6). Thus, we could term this approach cruciform premillennialism (cruciform meaning “shaped like the Cross”). In contrast to dispensational and inaugurational premillennialism, we seek a future hope of the kingdom, while maintaining the centrality of the Cross in this age. Let the church take up her Cross in this age (cf. Lk. 9:23; Jn. 12:26) that she might “receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pe. 1:11).

I have been struck lately concerning the biblical nature of time and eternity. In Christoplatonism, time and eternity are antithetical. They are enemies, because time is part of materiality (which is bad) and eternity is basically the same as immateriality. Immaterial “heaven” is static and timeless, while materiality is dynamic and timely. However, within the biblical worldview, the heavens and earth are both dynamic and timely. Thus, time and eternity go hand-in-hand. They lie on the same simple timeline, which starts at creation and goes on to consummation. “This age” is characterized by the Cross—the Messiah came the first time to bear sins—and he will come the second time to usher in “the age to come” by bringing salvation, i.e. resurrection of the dead, messianic kingdom, new earth, etc.

The biblical language even reflects this simple understanding of time and history. The Greek word for “age” is aion. The Greek word for “eternity” is simply the plural form of “age”, i.e. aiones. Thus, eternity is seen as “unending ages”, which relate on the same continuum as “this age”. Rather than the Christoplatonic understanding of timelessness, the biblical concept of eternity is unending time. Jesus will return, create a new heavens and new earth, punish the wicked with eternal fire, and reward the righteous with eternal life. Glory.

I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. (Philippians 3:8-11)

The early church only had one contention: righteousness. Everyone understood and assumed the hope of the believer: a new heavens and new earth, including the resurrection of the body, messianic kingdom, etc. The Israelites had the right goal, but they sought to attain it in the wrong way (Mt. 5:20; Rom. 9:30f). Ironically, those who were the most zealous for righteousness upon the earth were the most threatened with eternal damnation on the Day of the Lord (Rom. 10:1ff). This was the contention of the earth church: the recognition of universal depravity unto justification by faith (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:13; Phil. 3:9; Col. 1:22; Tit. 3:5). Paul considers the greatest discipleship cult in human history to be "dung" (Phil. 3:8), that they have no hope of being "saved" (Rom. 10:1), that they have "lost connection with the Head" (Col. 2:19), and that in their "appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body" (Col. 2:23) they ought to just "go the whole way and emasculate themselves" (Gal. 5:12). Wow, now that is contentious. 

Unfortunately, the GOAL to which this whole contention was unto became perverted after Paul's day. Instead of LIFE in a new heavens and new earth, the church indulged in the detestable hopes of the nations around it: 1) bodily life in this age (i.e. Kingdom Now, Christendom, Church Triumphant, etc.) and 2) immaterial life after death (i.e. Heavenly Destiny, Monasticism, Pietism, etc.). The problem is that there is nothing written in the Bible about these things because they were not even on the radar of the early church. They are false hopes adopted from the world, which either leave people despondent or cause them to deny the Cross.

So here we are in our day with two contentions: righteousness AND hope. To give people righteousness in the Cross without hope in the Resurrection leads to despair. To give people hope in the Resurrection without righteousness in the Cross leads to delusion. May we ever keep our eyes on Jesus that we might inherit eternal life.

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:27-28)

There are two primary focuses in the New Testament: the first coming of Jesus at the Cross and the second coming of Jesus at the Day of the Lord. Some traditions focus focus primarily on the former, e.g. the Reformed tradition, and some focus on the later, e.g. the Dispensationalist tradition. One focuses on the issues of human depravity and our righteousness before God hidden in the Cross. The other focuses on the hope and future of the Christian faith in the return of Jesus.

The focus on one to the exclusion of the other leads to death. When the Cross and crucifixion of Self is the only thing in view, the human heart shuts down. When the return of Jesus is the only thing in view, the human heart deceives itself in delusion. It is only the combination of hope in the resurrection that empowers self-crucifixion under the Holy Spirit. There is no path to glory except through the Cross. And this is the pattern that God set forth in the Christ:

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2)

It is the hope of the resurrection that the Holy Spirit uses to impart joy to the heart in the midst of the crucifixion of self. And this informs the culture and value system of the people of God. Whatever aspect of the gospel is centralized in word and deed, the Holy Spirit confirms individually and corporately, because it is beliefs and ideas that inform culture and practice. If only the Cross is preached, then only a culture of self-crucifixion is developed. If only the Day of the Lord is preached, then only a culture of hope is developed. Unfortunately, the depravity of the human heart deceives men to think they will attain that hope apart from the Cross.

It is a culture of joyful hope in the return of Jesus that empowers us to walk in the way of the Cross. And it is the way of the Cross that the Holy Spirit delights in.

However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. (1 Pe. 4:16)

The history of the church is rife with names: Benedictines, Franciscans, Jesuits, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc, etc, etc. But what is in a name? Why do we label groups of people (or self-label ourselves)? Why do we call ourselves “YWAM’ers” or say that we are “part of the Vineyard”? What is the purpose and goal of such language?

Identity.

The design of a name is descriptive of identity. It is used to create and define meaning, purpose and function, from which we ultimately derive significance. I believe the reason the church has created so many sects over the centuries has been because of a perverted identity in Christ. Rather than identify ourselves simply as “Christians”, we must identify with the beliefs, character, charisma and zeal of men other than the one Man who deserves all allegiance, honor and glory.

There are other names that are used in the Scriptures to identify believers: “sons of the kingdom” (Mt. 13:38), “children of the resurrection” (Lk. 20:36), “sons of the light/day” (1 Thess. 5:5; Jn. 12:36), “the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:12), “the family of God” (1 Pe. 4:17) , etc. These are not arbitrary theological descriptions. They are designed to give meaning, identity and purpose to believers in light of their destiny. Because it is one’s destiny that ultimately informs identity, and it is identity that creates significance.

It is the return of Jesus, the resurrection, and the hope of a new heavens and new earth that ultimately define who believers are. It is the Day of the Lord that gives our lives real meaning and purpose. It is our inheritance that tells us what it actually means to be a “child of God” (Rom. 8:15-17). It is our destiny that gives us significance, not the artificial names of men, not the artificial structures of men, not the artificial self-image media presentations of men. These are destined to be consumed by fire.

I’m not a Methodist. I’m not a Baptist. I’m a Christian. It’s not a matter of “non-denominationalism”. It’s an issue of identity. And Jesus is jealous for the heart of his people, that they would belong to him and no other.

Lydia and I spoke at the International House of Prayer: Eastern Gate last weekend. Wonderful group of people, see www.ihopeg.org. Below are the notes and mp3's.

Kingdom now theology is found in many forms, from full-blown dominionist-kingdom-now-only to prosperity-kingdom-now-mostly to charismatic-kingdom-now-partially, and a multitude of others. Whatever the view or expression, the universal assumption is that the messianic kingdom prophesied in the OT was somehow “inaugurated” at the first coming (either fully or partially, in quality or quantity). The question is: where is the evidence? Where do the scriptures actually say that this long awaited kingdom has actually come?

There are about 145 instances of the kingdom (Gk. basileia) in the NT which relate to God (there are about 15 which relate to man, e.g. of the world, of Harod, etc.). In roughly 120 of those instances the context is clearly in the future. Around 25 times (including repetitions in the synoptic gospels), its usage is debatable (e.g. Mt. 3:2; 11:12; 12:28; 16:19; Lk. 17:21; Jn. 18:31; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; Col. 1:13). But of all these there are three that always seem to be the heart of the kingdom now doctrine:

1) “The kingdom of God is at hand” (Mt. 3:2), 
2) “The kingdom of God has come upon you” (Mt. 12:28), and
3) “The kingdom of God is within you” (Lk. 17:21).

Though a detailed exegesis of each is impossible in this context, the main point of all three passages (if you look at the whole passages of Mt. 3:1-12, Mt. 12:22-37 and Lk. 17:20-37, not just the individual phrases) is:

1) a bad thing of judgment, 
2) aimed at unbelievers, 
3) corporately (i.e. “you” is plural), 
4) in the future.

The irony of Kingdom Now is that they interpret the individual phrase perfectly opposite of the passage:

1) a good thing of blessing, 
2) aimed at believers, 
3) individually, 
4) in the present.

These three passages are actually three of the most fearful indictments of the Pharisees and their self-righteousness in light of the future Day of the Lord and Kingdom of God. And just like the Pharisees, the Cross is a stumbling block to Kingdom Now. God becomes schizophrenic in his governance, executing the recompense of the Kingdom and extending the mercy of the Cross at the same time. However, if the above three passages (and the other 10 instances) are actually in context to the Day of the Lord and the return of Jesus, then God is simply extending the Cross now in light of the Kingdom to come. If this is God’s mission, then the church is relieved of all its worldly pursuits and commissioned to preach the return of Christ Jesus, the wrath of the Day of Christ Jesus, and the forgiveness of sins in the blood of Christ Jesus.

Below is a message that Tim Miller spoke in Minneapolis a few months ago. Phenomenal. The Lord uses the Cross for two reasons: 1) Positively, to express His character of kindness, mercy and love (cf. Rom. 5:8; 1 Jn. 4:9) and 2) Negatively, to kill the flesh and wicked desires of sinful man (cf. Rom. 6:3; 1 Pe. 4:1). This will come to fullness in the church at the end of the age (cf. Mt. 13:30; Rev. 19:7). The church will learn obedience through suffering (Heb. 5:8) and will "fill up in its flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ" (Col. 1:24).

See www.danielinstitute.org.

A salute to "The Chad". Without you none of this would have ever happened. May the Lord continue to bless you my friend... 

And you wield a cheese slicer like no one I have ever known. May your  supply of coagulated bovine mammary gland excretion ever runneth over.