Future kingdom

 There is the claim that Christ is reigning in his kingdom now, that there is no future millennial reign of Christ before the final, eternal state.  The millennial reign is now through the church.  I believe it is significant that it is written that Jesus spent 40 days with his disciples after the resurrection, speaking on things pertaining to the kingdom of God:  "... He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." Acts 1:3 After Jesus told them to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit, they asked him if the kingdom would be then restored to Israel: "Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" Acts 1.6  How could they ask this after being taught about the kingdom of God, if there wasn't to be any restoration of Israel?  Jesus doesn't correct them by saying that there will be no restoration of Israel, instead, he says the timing is not for them to know:   "And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." Acts 1:6-8   

The disciples were not taught that there was no future restoration of Israel.   They still expected it, and they were not corrected about it, except that the timing of it was not for them to know.  hat they did not know was what God was going to do in the near future that would involve creating a new people for his purposes, being the gentile-jew assembly, commonly called the "Church."  This "dispensation," being a new divine administration or stewardship, is only a temporal purpose of God in time.  This is the time of the millennial kingdom of Christ.  The kingdom is in a sense represented in the church, as Christ's ambassadors, but it is not the kingdom in the sense in which Christ will reign over the earth from Jerusalem over the nations in a manifested way, as we see in the Old Testament prophets, like Isaiah or Micah:  

² Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the LORD's house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
³ Many people shall come and say,
"Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths."
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
⁴ He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore. Isaiah 2:2-4

​¹ Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the LORD's house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And peoples shall flow to it.
² Many nations shall come and say,
"Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths."
For out of Zion the law shall go forth,
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
³ He shall judge between many peoples,
And rebuke strong nations afar off;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.
⁴ But everyone shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree,
And no one shall make them afraid;
For the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken.
⁵ For all people walk each in the name of his god,
But we will walk in the name of the LORD our God
Forever and ever. Micah 4:1-5

Futurists believe the kingdom is yet future, and not all of them would agree in an "already/ not yet" kingdom of Christ, but I believe you could say Christ reigns in a sense through the Church now, being that His kingdom authority is represented in the Church, but his manifested reign over the earth and nations is yet future.   It will involve a restoration of Israel as a people and Nation in which Romans 11:16 is fulfilled when "all Israel will be saved":  this is the restoration of the nation as a people of God in which all of its members will have salvation; it will be a new dispensation, being the millennial reign of Christ in which Israel will be restored as a people in special relationship and role for God.  This will not change the terms of salvation any more than how someone was justified during the Old Testament times--Abraham was justified by faith, but it is a change of people for God's purposes in time. During the future reign of Christ,  people will be identified by their nation, Israel being one of them:   

"In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing in the midst of the land,  whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, 'Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.'" Isaiah 19:24-25

moral decline

 The apostle Paul in his last letter (to Timothy) prophesied a moral decline as time progresses...

" But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!" 2Tim3.1-5

"But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."
2Tim3.13

In saying these things, Paul instructs Timothy...

"But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2Tim3.14-17

Women elders

Some seek to justify women in the role of elder (same as overseer) by appealing to certain references about women of significance in Scripture (especially the New Testament), but none of those references specifically state that they were in acting in the role as an elder.

What we see is that women, like men, can have the same spiritual gifts or functions toward edifying the Church assembly, but many conflate those functions with that role that has qualifications, being an elder, and that role is by appointment.  Functions like "pastor" or "preacher" have become common designating terms for the lead elder, but they are really functions that can have an application to either sex.  One who pastors or preaches or teaches can do it without being an elder.  You could say that all elders are teachers, but not all teachers are elders.  Elders must meet specific qualifications; the Apostle Paul set forth these qualifications in First Timothy and in Titus.   Paul sent Titus to "appoint" elders.  Elders are not self-appointed.  But pastor or teacher and preacher are functions, not the exact same thing as an elder which has certain qualifications.  

One of the qualifications is that the elder is the "husband of one wife."  One of the arguments against women pastors is that a woman obviously cannot be the husbands of one wife.  The comeback is either that this is a saying that was meant to be non-gender specific, since there are actually no male pronouns in the Greek in the text,  or that women could not practice polygamy, and so Paul is addressing specifically men in that case. Neither seems likely, because in the same letter to Timothy, in setting forth the restrictions concerning taking in widows by the church, Paul says, "Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man ..." 1 Timothy 5:9 Surely, he was gender specific concerning widows.  Of course, the comeback will be that the requirement concerning widows would be gender specific, because men cannot be widows.  Yet the singling out of wives or women in verse 11 to have certain qualities would suggest that the qualifications--including being the husband of one wife--are gender specific to the men.  (Was he referring to polyandry, being a woman with more than one husband, or was it about divorce or being devoted to one man at a time?  That's another issue that one has to wrestle with.)

When Paul gives the qualifications for Deacons, he says, "Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things." 1 Timothy 3:11  "Wives" can be translated "women," and this why some believe women can be deacons.  Those who point out that male pronouns are not used in the preceding qualifications for elder and deacon but added to the text would need to explain why a specific reference to women and their conduct needs to be made.  If the qualifications are non-gender specific, then why single out women?   The non-gender specific claim so that the qualifications can be applied to women is not helped by saying the reference in verse 11 is about women and not wives.  Aren't those qualifications needed by men too?  Why make a specific reference to women?  

Nevertheless, I believe it is referring to wives of the deacons (and surely of the elders), because why single out women for a few specific qualifications apart from men?  But to have these requirements of the wives of the men who would be considered for the role of elder or deacon would make sense.  Women serving as deacons does not receive as much opposition as with elder because of 1 Timothy 3:11, and the role doesn't have the same weight as elder, when it comes to having authority over another.  But I believe that "wives" is more likely than "women."

The word "submit" is brought up on this issue.  The claim is made that though Scripture says that wives are to submit to their husbands:  Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.  Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24   It also says we are to submit to one another:  submitting to one another in the fear of God. Ephesians 5:21  Submission speaks of being "put under," or to come under the authority of another.   In the church, we submit to one another by respecting the differing functions or roles each have. The roles of husband and wife are not the same.  It has been said that submission could be understood as "being supportive of."  Recognizing and respecting the role of another would be "being supportive of."   Are the roles of men and women or husband and wife exactly the same?  We are told in Scripture that the "head" of woman is man:  But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3.  This shows a distinction in some sense.   It has been claimed that this word in the Greek means something like "first soldier in."  What exactly does that mean, and why such a distinction?  Men and women are obviously different, and even the "head" reference reveals something different between the sexes.  Equality doesn't mean that there are not differences in roles, especially in this temporal existence.  Submission to all would involve recognizing and supporting those distinctive roles.

updated 8/11/2026

temporal and eternal

 Though I am not a classical dispensationalist--which is a system of theology that recognizes distinct Divine stewardships--I do believe we see distinctions in the purposes of God involving people that are temporal.  The temporal needs to be distinguished from the eternal.   God can have a people for his purpose that is temporal, while from an eternal perspective, there is only one people of God.  Israel was the people of God for His purposes in time, Israel being a distinct nation of people. Presently, the "Church" is the people of God for His purposes in time, the Church being believers of all nations.  God will again restore Israel as a people and nation for His purposes in time.  These distinct people groups are temporal for the Divine purpose in time.  But eternally, there is only one people of God, which looks like the Church does now, because it consists of all believers, while Israel did not consist of all believers, though there may have been very few among the gentiles apart from Israel--not even every Israelite was a believer under the Mosaic law.  It's no different than the fact that all believers are one in Christ, but they have different roles in their service to God, but I suppose that even in the final eternal state, there will be some distinction of roles among the people of God.   That will have to do with rewards and how the world to come will function.   

within means

 

I chose to work for an auto supplier factory most of my life to afford raising a family. And it wasn't the highest pay, about 32,000. average a year for about 37 years before I retired. That's the average, not what I started with (15,313. in '86) and the highest (50,290. in 2021--it went down after that) that I made in a year. I worked a whole lot of overtime too. My wife made about 72,000 total throughout her life--she mostly stayed home to take care of the kids and grandkids. We lived within our means, and I paid off our debts before 40 years old. On that factory income. I did a lot of DIY home improvements to save a lot of money--our first home was about 750 square feet on a slab with no garage, and I bought cheap vehicles. 

Women roles

 

Back in the early 80's, when I was still a member in a SBC church (Southern Baptist Convention), I took classes through a SBC school called Luther Rice Seminary (Bible College Division).

I took a class in Typology, and the textbook was written by a woman; her name was Ada R. Habershon. Luther Rice was a conservative SBC school, and yet, we used a book written by a woman on a theological topic.

There is the question as to whether women can be in a place of authority over men, being an elder or overseer—which I understand to be the same thing.

I made reference to the use of the book by a woman in the SBC school. I don't believe the issue is whether men can learn from the efforts of women. Luther Rice didn't seem to have a problem with that.

You can learn from anybody, and like anything, you have to judge what they are saying. I can listen to or read anything by anybody, but I will still seek to discern truth from error.

The word “pastor” seems to have taken on a more specific meaning than its broader meaning. “Pastor” translates the same Greek word as for “shepherd,” and it could more generally apply to anyone who teaches others, but it has taken on a more specific application for the head/lead elder who is usually a vocational elder—he gets paid to “pastor” the church.  But in a general sense, the pastor is a teacher, and both men and women can fulfill that role. That role is not the same as being an elder, which is an office for which one has to be qualified. Though Ephesians 4:11 has “pastor-teacher” as one of the things given to the church, “pastor” is not in the Apostle Paul's list in First Corinthians 12:28 of spiritual gifts, but “teacher” is—which is set as third in importance in the Church after Apostles and Prophets. Why isn't there a reference to “pastors?” I believe pastor and teacher are interchangeable as to function.

The word “preach,” like pastor, has taken on a more specific meaning, such as giving the “sermon” to the congregation, but the word simply means to “herald” a message. It's not limited to just men to do such. And this is a role, or a function, not limited to the office of elder. Of course the question will be asked whether a woman can do this as the sermon to the church. Is it stepping over the line?  Personally, I can choose to listen to a woman “preach” like I read a book. I will judge its content.

I do believe when it comes to the gifts of the Spirit (roles or functions in the Church for its edification), a woman can do what a man can do as far as the general understanding of the roles and the words used for those roles.

There can be circumstances where it is more appropriate for one sex over the other to fulfill a certain function, such as a man teacher leading teenage boys or young adult men.

I don't believe having a certain gift is the same thing as having the office of elder. Not only are there qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-7), it is, what I can see in Scripture, limited to men.

Even men who are gifted teachers may not qualify to be an elder.

Some men become elders who are not qualified, because their homes are not in order—their children are out of control, or they have a violent temper, or they are not able to teach, have a bad reputation, etc.

Men and women are equals as persons, and yes, “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:8), but that does not mean God hasn't put limits on what the sexes can do in this temporal stage of life. 

The Apostle Paul said that he did “not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:11). I take that “authority over a man” to mean a woman should not be in a place of authoritative leadership over a man--at least in a spiritual sense. 

Jewish State

 I will admit that I support a Jewish state primarily because I believe Israel, as a people and nation, will be restored at the second coming of Christ.

I believe the Jewish people should have the right to dwell safely in a land, and why not in the land that was originally promised to them by God?

I do believe that they are as a nation still under the consequences of the wrath of God, and anything that is established now for them as a nation is only temporary.

Someone claimed that Muslims are fleeing to other nations because of Israel, but they are leaving many nations that have nothing to do with Israel, and there are many non-Jews that live in Israel. I've been there and can attest to that.

The non-Jewish Palestinians who chose to leave the land of Israel when the Arabs attacked back in 1948, chose to do so with the intention of taking the land of the Jews after they were defeated--"driven into the Mediterranean Sea"--but that didn't happen.

The Arab nations could absorb those Palestinians, but they choose not to--so to always have an accusation against the Jewish State and blame the Palestinians being still in camps on "the occupation."

The British gave the Arabs, the land of Jordan. They were supposed to give Israel land, but they didn't, and President Clinton worked out a Palestinian state plan with Arafat, but in the end he rejected it.

The government of Gaza, which is Hamas, continually shoots rockets in Israel, and they have hundreds of miles of tunnels, so what is Israel To do? When Hamas uses their own citizens as Shields, it's very hard to fight a war. In past wars, the United States killed civilians in the attempt to defeat the Japanese and the Germans; it's not the way you would like it, but what do you do? War is not simply maintaining an equal number of people killed. In World War II, Hitler and the Nazis in Germany had to be stopped. Japan had to be stopped. It's not about equal numbers. It's about stopping them.