Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 19
July 27, 1967
NUMBER 12, PAGE 1-3,5

The Reign Of Heaven

Robert H. Farish

A lengthy essay by brother Bryan Vinson Sr., on "The Reign of Heaven", has appeared in installments in the Gospel Guardian recently. A sincere "Amen" is this writer's response to most of the things set forth by brother Vinson but an equally sincere demurrer is here registered against some of the implications and statements of the article. Also some additional practical applications of some of the principles will be made.

The Kingdom Of Heaven - The Church

Brother Vinson discussed the two phrases, "Kingdom of God", pointing out that of the four gospel writers, only Matthew employs the phrase, "kingdom of heaven". He wrote: "The other writers use frequently the expression, the kingdom of God, even in relation to the same thing as does Matthew in this distinctive term". In other words the other writers frequently use the expression "kingdom of God" as equal to the same thing as "kingdom of heaven". Brother Vinson then establishes that the kingdom of heaven is the church - "God's family, then, is located as being both in heaven and earth, and this family is the church (I Tim. 3:15), and the church is the kingdom (Matt. 16:18,19) in so far as identifying those who constitute the children of God". It should be emphasized that this reign of heaven here referred to was inaugurated with Christ being raised from the dead to reign on David's throne (Acts 2:29-36). This reign of heaven did begin on Pentecost. Thus to talk about the beginning or establishment of the kingdom and to equate the church to the kingdom is to scripturally express oneself. In Acts 2:30-36 we learn that Christ was raised from the dead to reign on David's throne and in Eph. 1:19-23 we learn that God raised him from the dead to be head of the church. Christ was not made head of one thing and king of something else; these are different terms describing the same position of authority to which Christ attained when he raised from the dead. The church and the kingdom of heaven, as we have been accustomed to understand the terms, are coextensive.

"Rightful Dominion"

Until recently this writer knew of no gospel preacher who confused those who "are justly under obligation to be subjects of the king", i.e. (all men), with the reign of heaven. The reign of heaven which is coextensive with the church is the kingdom which we have had in mind when we talked about the church and the kingdom being the same thing.

"Christ's rightful dominion over all men" and His present actual reign are not coextensive. The majority of men have not "sanctified in (their) hearts Christ as Lord", they do not compose the church or the kingdom in view when we talk of the beginning of the church or the establishment of the kingdom. Brother Vinson in his discussion of some of the distinctions between the class of people, who, although in rebellion to the reign of heaven, are yet "justly under obligation to be subjects of the King" and those who actually subject themselves to the righteousness of God, points out that "the church is the kingdom (Matt. 16:18,19) -insofar as identifying those who constitute the children of God". There are some however who have announced, so I have heard, that although they formerly preached that the church and the kingdom were the same, they no longer so preach. Brother Vinson defines the sense in which the kingdom is more extensive than the church - "If, then, he has rightful authority over all men, His reign extends rightly over the whole earth, and in this sense the kingdom is more extensive than the church". We should be reminded of the fact that this is not the reign which brethren have had in view when they talked about the establishment of the kingdom and announced that the church and the Kingdom were coextensive. When preachers fail to clearly describe the "sense the kingdom is more extensive than the church", they succeed only in confusing the people; edification and direction is not provided by such methods. The Holy Spirit condemns giving forth an uncertain sound - "For if the trumpets give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare for war" (I Cor. 14: 8). Our thanks to Brother Vinson for giving a definitive treatment to the reign of Christ and pointing out the sense in which the kingdom is coextensive with the church.

Apostolic Authority

Brother Vinson wrote, "How does Christ reign? If he reigns over me there must be that communication of his will to me, and the appreciation of it by me; otherwise there can be no ruling by him and subjection by me. Are there intermediaries between the king and his subjects who receive from him and deliver to the subjects? Certainly should there be such functionaries, and they interjected their own will and presented it as the will of Christ, my obedience to it would not be an obedience to Christ, because that obeyed would be their will rather than his. Those entering the kingdom cannot so enter as responsive to the will of man (John 1:13)... since 'all authority' is His, that leaves absolutely none for any other. I know of no statement which expressly declares or implicitly teaches that he has ever suffered the slightest diminution of authority since the day he took his seat at the right hand of God..." But the Bible assigns authority to the apostles without any hint that such would in any way contribute to any diminution of the authority of Christ. Paul claims to be an ambassador on behalf of Christ (II Cor. 5:20). I am confident that even those, who dislike the expression "apostolic authority", identify and limit the term "ambassador" to the apostles, hence whatever idea of authority is in the term "ambassador" belongs to the apostles and does not extend to others in the kingdom of heaven. Now what force or significance would the words of an ambassador carry if he were without authority?

Brother Vinson correctly points out that if the apostles presented their will as the will of Christ, submitting to their will "would not be an obedience to Christ". From this he concluded the "intermediaries" have no authority since they were limited in their declarations to the will of Christ. But the Holy Spirit was limited to the words of Christ - "Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things are to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you" (John 16:13.14). Does the fact that the Holy Spirit was likened to the words of Christ prove that the Holy Spirit had no authority? Does this in any way infringe on the authority of the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, Jesus was limited in his declarations to the things of the Father - "All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he taketh of mine and shall declare it unto you" (John 16:15). Also, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself; but the Father abiding in me doeth his works" (John 14:10). Surely no one reasons that because Jesus spake not from himself but was limited to the will of the Father that either the authority of Christ of the authority of the Father suffers diminution. Why then should it be thought that the authority of Christ must suffer diminution if he gives authority to intermediaries to speak his will? The fact that Jesus spoke not from himself but from the Father, gives no room to deny authority to Jesus. Jesus was limited to the will of God in the words he spoke; the Holy Spirit was limited to that which he received from Christ and the apostles were limited to that which they received from the Holy Spirit. No, there is no teaching in the Bible that Christ "has ever suffered the slightest diminution of authority since the day He took his seat at the right hand of God", neither is there any teaching that God the Father suffered any diminution of authority by giving unto Christ "all authority." If God could give "all authority" to Christ without suffering the slightest diminution of authority, could not Christ have given ambassadorial authority to the apostles without suffering the slightest diminution of his "all authority?"

If the fact that Jesus having all authority "leaves absolutely none for any other", what is the significance of Christ's promise to Peter and the other apostle - "Then answered Peter and said unto him, lo, we have left all and followed thee; what then shall we have? and Jesus said unto them, verily I say unto you that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel". Does "throne" in the phrase "Throne of his glory", signify authority? What then does "Throne" in the phrase "twelve thrones" signify? This promise is limited to the twelve; it is an honor or privilege not enjoyed by any other than the apostles. The "throne of his glory" suffered not the slightest diminution of authority due to the apostles "sitting on twelve thrones" - but the fact remains that they do occupy thrones!

But aside from these considerations we have an expressed claim by an apostle to apostolic authority -"For though I should glory somewhat abundantly concerning our authority (which the Lord gave for building you up and not for casting you down)-" (II Cor. 10:8). Also (II Cor. 13:10) "For this cause I write these things while absent, that I may not when present deal sharply, according to the authority which the Lord gave me for building up..." Here we have apostolic authority expressly claimed by an apostle. It is clearly stated that the Lord gave the apostles authority. It has never occurred to this writer that the giving of authority to the apostles by Christ in any way required "the slightest diminution" of Christ's authority. As brother Vinson put it, "any reasoning employed which is at variance with this is indefensible, not because it opposes a conclusion drawn by a process of human reasoning, but because it constitutes a denial of what the Scriptures expressly state.

The word, "authority", had been sadly abused and mis-used. It has been equated and limited to "the right to command and the power to enforce one's will". This is not the Scriptural use of the word, "authority". The Scriptures use the word which is translated authority in senses other than this. The need to avoid arbitrary definitions cannot be overemphasized. Semantic problems perhaps make as great a contribution to misunderstanding as any other thing. The same word translated "authority" or "power" in the "all authority" of Matt. 28:18 is also used in II Cor. 10:8 and II Cor. 13:10 of an apostle. "Privilege" is one of the synonyms which Young gives for this word. Now all can see that there were privileges or powers which were peculiar to the apostles. Apostolic authority belonged to the apostles alone and that authority or power included dealing "sharply" (II Cor. 13:10).

Elder's Rule

Akin to the denial of apostolic authority are the efforts to debunk the idea of elders having authority commensurate with the grave responsibility imposed upon them by the Holy Spirit. The word, authority, has been equated with lording it over". Some seem unable to grasp the idea that lording it over is an abuse of authority or oversight.

The elders are to take (exercise) the oversight (I Pet. 5:2). To prevent abuse of this oversight by the elders, the apostle points out that the elders were not to "say and do not"; this would be "lording it over the charge allotted to them)". We do not have to infer the contrast before the mind of the writer; he states it. Note the expressed contrast of improper way of "exercising the oversight" and the proper way. "Neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you" but "making yourselves ensamples to the flock." To "say and do not" is the type of "lording it over" here rebuked. Certainly, elders are required by God to live what they teach. Who, with any respect for the reign of heaven, would argue that elders were not obligated to maintain consistency between their teaching and their personal behaviour. But "oversight" involves more than setting a proper example. Every Christian is to set the proper example but not every Christian is to exercise the "oversight". This "oversight" is something peculiar to the elders and is limited to the flock, local congregation of which they are members. This "over-sight' to be a responsibility and privilege peculiarly assigned to the elders has characteristics different from responsibilities and privileges of other members. These peculiar responsibilities and authority reside in the "oversight".

The elder's oversight is described with the word, "rule". "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and teaching" (I Tim. 5:17). The word from which "rule" comes is defined by Young as "to set or place over or before." This writer knows of no conservative brother who thinks that this "rule" is the "right to command and the power to enforce one's will." In matters of faith, the Lord has commanded and it is the elders' responsibility to teach the things commanded by the Lord. When false teachers, whether preachers or not, cannot be recovered from the error of their way, by exhorting in the sound doctrine, are the elders to "rule" no further? Does not their responsibility of tending the flock require them to lead the flock in withdrawing from that brother?

Brother Vinson poses the question, "If then, elders in a given congregation do exert their authority to refuse the congregation's approval and support of these brotherhood programs, are they acting in the realm of human judgment, or in the realm of faith?" First, let me ask if Brother Vinson uses the word, "authority", here in the sense of "the right to command and the power to enforce one's will." What should an elder do in the case presented above by our brother? We know that the attempt is to be made to "stop their mouths" by setting forth the truth to them, but no one knows better than Brother Vinson that some mouths cannot be stopped by teaching. So what can the elders scripturally do? Are they to just allow the wolves to come in and devour at will, or are they to "mark them"? If the wolf has on the sheep skin disguise - if he calls himself a gospel preacher, can the elders refuse to hire him, even though the majority of the members favor wolves over shepherds? Is their determination to abide in the things learned to be judged as self-will?

In the above case, we could use the word "will", in the sense that Brother Vinson has used it - those elders who oppose the brotherhood programs have made the will of Christ their will - their will or wish is to keep the church pure and functioning scripturally. Now as those elders are human beings, can we properly say that they are imposing human will upon the flock over which they are bishops? It is their will that the divine pattern of church organization and function be followed, hence, such is not to be properly branded as "self-will." Any who submits to these wishes is not submitting to the will of man but to the will of God. The authority divinely assigned to the elders has never involved the right to legislate. One alone is the law giver.

That the right of decisions in some realms is within the province of elder authority is in the word "rule" and "oversight". That this realm is the realm in which human judgment is allowed should be accepted by all who believe that the faith has been "once for all delivered." No human being now living has the right to decide in matters of faith further than to resolve to do the will of God as revealed in the New Testament. In the realm where human judgment is necessary, for the congregation to function as a unit, who but the elders should make the decision - "the final decision"? Certainly, elders who are qualified as elders will consult the will of the congregation and seek to make decisions, in the realm of human judgment, that will meet the approval of the majority, if not all.

The problem, as presented by Brother Vinson, seems to me to be how to distinguish between the will of the Lord and matters which fall in the realm of human judgment or opinion. The author of "The Reign of Heaven" wrote, "Those who aligned themselves with these (brotherhood programs) reasoned that it was the proper province of the elders to determine the position and policy of the congregation and that the command to obey them that have the rule over you obligated the members to submit to their decision; that they are matters of opinion, and in this realm the elders function". That this is the course followed by the sponsoring church elders is not denied. This was a favorite device of the promoters of the instrument of music and societies of a century ago. But what is wrong with it? I contend that the error lies with those elders failure to distinguish between matters of faith and matters of opinion. The unit of function and the nature of the work of the church of the Lord is a matter of revelation and no amount of specious reasoning can transfer this to the area of opinion or human judgment. The fact of the authority of elders, that is, the right to decide in matters of human judgment in no way relieves a member of his responsibility to "be not foolish but understand what the will of the Lord is" (Eph. 5:17) and to oppose with vigor all efforts of elders, preachers or promoting members to pervert the Scriptures and identify matters of faith as matters of opinion.

How should a citizen under the reign of heaven conduct himself when the elders of the church where he is a member, take the course described in the above quotation? The answer to this is found in considering a case in Scripture where human beings "took too much upon themselves," and sought to impose their will upon others in opposition to the will of God. In Rom. 13:1-3 Christians, i.e., all who are actually under the reign of heaven, are required to be in subjection to civil powers. The warning is given that "he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God. The principle of operation in cases where men, whether civil or religious authorities, command something contrary to the will of God is expressed in the simplest way by the apostle Peter, "We must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29).

Finally, (this article is already longer than intended), let as note the comments on the example of Acts 11:27-30. Brother Vinson seeks to answer the contention "that elders are over the congregation, and therefore are over the work of the congregation." He says, "But one interposes with the example of Acts 11:27-30 as affording proof" that the elders are over the work of the congregation and then raises the question, "What will they do with Acts 6:1-3"? What this writer is going to do with Acts 6:1-3 is to believe it and act in harmony with its teaching as well as Acts 11:27-30. What does Acts 11:27-30 teach? Verse 30 reads, "Which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul." This "relief" was sent to the elders. Was this action an apostolic approved example? Why should we conclude that the seven in Acts 6 who were appointed "over this matter" by the apostles could not be "over this matter" under the elders? To my mind, there is pretty good evidence that the apostles at Jerusalem, at least some of them, functioned also in the capacity of elders. See I Pet. 5:1. Peter was not only a "witness of the sufferings of Christ" (an apostle) but an elder also. But regardless of this, there is no valid reason for supposing that deacons could not be immediately responsible for tending tables, under the oversight of elders. Does anyone think that when the seven were appointed to be "over this matter" that "this matter" was no longer under the apostles? Suppose one of the seven had been unfaithful in the matter. Did not the apostles who had authority to instruct the church to select the seven also have the authority to instruct and guide the church in removing the unworthy one from "over this matter"? The fact of the matter is that the apostles continued "over" those who were "over this matter." In our day the elders are over the deacons and all saints in the church of which they are members but none is justified in following the directions of elders when those directions are contrary to the law of the Lord.