The kingdom of Jesus Christ was brought into existence in the First Century A. D.

Since the main points and questions of the affirmative were left untouched, I have no problem assuming the role of the negative and demonstrating that not a single passage introduced by my opponent sustains his case. I shall let the first affirmative stand as it is, and perchance it will be answered in the next negative. My opponent states, “In the OT psalms 22:28 it states he is the governor of all nations and all the kingdoms are his. My first question is why would the OT speak of him ruling or reigning if he hasn't arrived yet?” The answer lies in the fact that oftentimes the Messianic aspects of a prophecy are spoken in the past tense or present tense, even though they are yet future. In Isa 53, the birth, suffering, and death of the Messiah are all discussed in the past tense – even though the coming of the Lord was hundreds of years in the future. Thus the question concerning Psalm 22 is but a quibble. My opponent’s allusions to the Apocalypse (3: 12, 11:15, and 19:11-16) are an attempt to create an anachronism: the prologue of the Apocalypse (and any post-exilic Jewish apocalypse) sets the stage for the vision and specifically states that the signs, symbols, and figures of the vision are descriptive of events that were to shortly come to pass because the time was at hand – way back then. “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass … keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Rev 1: 1-3) Does my opponent wish to inform us that even though the time was at hand in the first century, and even though the events depicted in visional symbols, signs and figures were to shortly come to pass, the bulk of it has not yet been fulfilled? I stated previously that a premillennialist will latch onto the most highly figurative, symbolic language imaginable and ignore dozens and dozens of plain, didactic statements which contradict his speculations. The impression of imminent fulfillments continues throughout the Apocalypse: 2:10: “ye shall have tribulation 10 days.” 2:25: “hold fast till I come” 3:11: “I come quickly, hold fast”. 6:10: “how long … yet a little while”. 12:12: “a short time.” 16:15: “Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments…” 17:10: “and they are seven kings, the five are fallen, the one is, the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a little while.” 22:6: “shortly come to pass” 22:7: “And behold, I come quickly” 22:10: “the time is at hand” 22:12: “Behold I come quickly”. 22:20: “I come quickly.” My opponent's theories reduce to meaningless every allusion to imminence in the Apocalypse. My opponent cites I Cor 15 and asks, “I ask you again is death destroyed?” Certainly death is not yet destroyed, but it will be at the resurrection – and the passage states that Jesus must reign until death is destroyed. Thus, Jesus Christ is reigning now! There is no idea of a future kingdom (and no millennium) in I Cor 15 – or anywhere else: when Jesus returns, all in their graves will rise (John 5: 28-29) with the dead in Christ rising first. Right there is the destruction of the last enemy, death. Right there marks the END of the reign of Jesus Christ, not the BEGINNING, as Christ delivers up His kingdom to the Father. Note the contrasts: I Cor 15: When the last enemy is destroyed, Christ will deliver the kingdom to the Father Premill: When the last enemy is destroyed, Christ will set up His kingdom I Cor 15: Christ must reign until death is destroyed Premill: Christ begins His reign when death is destroyed Luke 19: 2 states that Jesus Christ, the nobleman, went away to receive a kingdom. Premill: He is coming back to establish it. Do you mean to imply that the destruction of death, the last enemy, will trigger the setting up of the kingdom? The passage states that the destruction of death merely triggers a change in location (from earth to heaven) and ownership (from the Son to the Father). I cannot conceive of a more Bible-contradicting notion that the idea that Jesus will return to earth to set up a kingdom that He failed to establish the first time around – and that’s about all this “future kingdom theory” amounts to. My opponent cited 1 Thes 4: 13-18, although I have no idea why, as it describes the same events as I Corinthians 15. Both passages describe the future resurrection of the dead, both good and evil, at which time Jesus Christ ceases His reign and delivers up the kingdom to the Father. My opponent points out that we are still on earth. Yes, we are. Death has not been destroyed. And the point? I repeat: the abolition of death marks the end of Christ’s reign, not the beginning. My opponent cites II Pet 3, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” and reckons that 2,000 years equals two days to the Lord. That’s a rather peculiar way of looking at things. Jesus told His disciples, after His resurrection and in His glorified state, “For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” (Acts 1: 5) How many thousands of years does “not many days” equal? Tell us, please. You seem to think you have a yet-future 365,000-day reign in Revelation 20, but each one of those days equals one thousand years? That’s a 365,000,000-year reign, literally! My opponent asks, “Do you understand yet?” I understand that you are selectively perverting II Pet 3: 8 and trying to establish some nonexistent rule that even you will not consistently follow. You cannot invoke an imaginary rule based upon a metaphorical figure of speech when it suits you, then disregard the rule when it turns on you. In fact, you will disregard it more than you will adhere to it. “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” is simply a metaphor employed to illustrate the fact that an eternal being is not governed by nor amenable to time, strictly speaking, as it applies solely to Himself. The passage is not an “apply when needed” panacea that is only invoked a speculator needs his time limit extended exponentially. My opponent says, “The keys that were given you mentioned were not keys to unlock a physical literal door to the kingdom no.” Oh, c’mon. The keys are figurative just as the door is figurative – and the fact remains that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. My opponent states, “They were the keys to salvation, the knowledge of salvation.” Not exactly, but close enough. The keys were the terms of admission into the body or realm of the saved, i. e. the terms of the gospel plan of salvation. However, the body of the saved is equivalent to the kingdom of God. I cite again Col 1: 12-13: “… giving thanks unto the Father, who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins.” Paul and those Colossians had been delivered out of the power of darkness (the kingdom of Satan), and translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, yet you find yourself denying the current existence of that very kingdom. I ask again, “Did Peter utilize the keys to the kingdom, whether literal or figurative, or not? If not, could you tell us when he will unlock those doors, whether literal or figurative, so that men may enter?” My opponent cites John 18:36 and states, “If this was his heavenly kingdom he would not allow himself to be taken.” Who mentioned heaven? One day yet future, the kingdom will be delivered up to the Father and thus will change residences. So? We are talking about the present. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of – not after the fashion of – this world.” His kingdom was to be in the world, but not of the world. This meaning is assured by His next statement: “For then would my servants fight.” You miss the entire point. You seem to think that if Jesus indeed set up His kingdom in the first century, then His servants would engage in carnal warfare. No, it means that the kingdom of Jesus Christ would be totally set apart and distinct from the earthly kingdoms with which His audience was familiar. Its borders are not set by the transit or theodolite. Its citizens do not fight with the sword. The territory is spiritual – the hearts and minds of men wherever they are. I invite my opponent to back up and deal one-by-one with the statements and questions of the first affirmative. That is the task of the negative. I assumed the role of the negative simply to have something to do. Hopefully my opponent will back up, re-read the first affirmative, and really take on the role of the negative.