Your teaching in “The Establishment of the Kingdom” is very unorthodox
Question:
Greetings Mr. Hamilton,
I'm reaching out because I have just heard your teaching on "The Establishment of the Kingdom" and I must admit, this is a very unorthodox view in my estimation of what you're presenting.
However, first, I must ask, do you ascribe to an Amillennial position? Seeming that you do not believe in a "coming millennial kingdom" (futurist position). And secondly, in your postulation regarding the "Established Kingdom" if what you're presenting is true, can you please explain John 18:36? I would really like to reconcile that passage with what you're pointing out in your teaching.
I ask this question because I have been walking with the Lord now for over thirty years. And out of those thirty years, over twenty were in the Evangelical church (denominationalism) and ten in the Messianic/Hebrew Roots (Movements). I have seen, heard, encountered, and experienced both sides of the proverbial fence but I am at a point now that I am at a crossroads and juncture that I need to get past having lived out both sides in my walk with Christ.
I anticipate your prompt response, Mr. Hamilton. Thank you for your time in advance.
Blessings in Jesus.
Question:
I'm glad to hear that the lesson got you thinking. Just because a point is not what you are used to hearing, it doesn't mean it is inaccurate.
"Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm'" (John 18:36).
Read John 18:36 again carefully and notice that in the English translation, Jesus is speaking of his kingdom in the present tense, not the future tense. His kingdom exists but it is not a physical kingdom located in this world. The English text is an accurate translation of the Greek text which is also in the present tense. Nor is there any indication in this passage that Jesus is saying that the location of his kingdom would change in the future. Therefore, this passage does not support a premillennialist view.
I would not be considered a premillennial, dispensational, or postmillennial. The Bible teaches that Jesus is currently reigning in his kingdom. That reign is symbolically described in Revelation as a thousand-year reign -- not because it would last exactly a thousand years. The number 1,000 is frequently used to represent "all" in figurative language. For example, "For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills" (Psalms 50:10) doesn't mean there are a thousand hills where God keeps His cattle. He is saying that all animals everywhere belong to Him. Jesus reigns for all the remaining time of this world. "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death" (I Corinthians 15:25-26). "Amillennial" technically means "no millennium." That doesn't accurately describe the Bible's description since Christ is reigning and the Christian age is the millennium in figurative language.
Response:
Good evening Mr. Hamilton,
I appreciate your getting back to me on this promptly. You have certainly given me much more to think about, especially because in all of my time within the Evangelical community, I have been taught staunchly from a dispensationalist premillennial viewpoint.
That said, I'll need to re-evaluate my theology.
