kingdom of heaven

[NewCreation435]

I've been studying the book of Matthew since last Christmas and one thing I noticed is how many times the phrase "the kingdom of heaven" is used. In fact, John the Baptist was telling people to repent for the kingdom of heaven was near in Matthew 3:2 and then Jesus says the same thing in his first public statements in Matthew 4:17. Some people want to argue that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are different, but I am not seeing that. From what I understand the kingdom is meant to emphasize the dominion or rule of God over his creation. Jesus seems to use a lot of his parables to try and describe the kingdom of God and what it is like. It seems clear that Jesus felt that it was paramount that we understand this concept. Matthew also went out of his way to mention the parable and teaching that emphasized the kingdom

I think one thing that is clear is that the disciples had been taught that the Messiah was going to come and remove the Roman rule from them and establish some type of kingdom on earth much like the Davidic kingdom of old. The disciples did not have a concept that the kingdom that Jesus came to establish included his saving them from their sins and suffering. So when he begins to mention in more clearly after the Transfiguration Peter rebukes Jesus. He doesn't want to hear Jesus talk about his suffering and being rejected. I really think this is why Judas Iscariot wanted to be a part of Jesus' ministry. He wanted to be one of those who ruled with Jesus in a regenerated Davidic kingdom

Then we see this same phrase used in Matthew 5:3,10,19,20; 7:21, 8:11, 10:7; 11:11,12; 13:11,24,31,33,44,45,47,52, 16:19; 18:1,3,4,23; 19:12,14, 23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1.

 

[Albion]

I've been studying the book of Matthew since last Christmas and one thing I noticed is how many times the phrase "the kingdom of heaven" is used. In fact, John the Baptist was telling people to repent for the kingdom of heaven was near in Matthew 3:2 and then Jesus says the same thing in his first public statements in Matthew 4:17. Some people want to argue that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are different, but I am not seeing that. From what I understand the kingdom is meant to emphasize the dominion or rule of God over his creation. Jesus seems to use a lot of his parables to try and describe the kingdom of God and what it is like. It seems clear that Jesus felt that it was paramount that we understand this concept. Matthew also went out of his way to mention the parable and teaching that emphasized the kingdom

I think one thing that is clear is that the disciples had been taught that the Messiah was going to come and remove the Roman rule from them and establish some type of kingdom on earth much like the Davidic kingdom of old. The disciples did not have a concept that the kingdom that Jesus came to establish included his saving them from their sins and suffering. So when he begins to mention in more clearly after the Transfiguration Peter rebukes Jesus. He doesn't want to hear Jesus talk about his suffering and being rejected. I really think this is why Judas Iscariot wanted to be a part of Jesus' ministry. He wanted to be one of those who ruled with Jesus in a regenerated Davidic kingdom

Then we see this same phrase used in Matthew 5:3,10,19,20; 7:21, 8:11, 10:7; 11:11,12; 13:11,24,31,33,44,45,47,52, 16:19; 18:1,3,4,23; 19:12,14, 23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1.

However, in Luke, chapter 17, verse 21, we find an even more famous statement from Scripture that addresses the issue--

"and no one will announce, ‘Look, here it is,’ or, ‘There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is among you.”**

**or "in your midst"


And the meaning? The kingdom, popularly supposed by people of that time and place to be an earthly kingdom, was actually the Messiah himself...and he had been right there, living, standing, and traveling with his followers all along.

This translation is in accord with the majority of the versions ordinary used and cited.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This translation is in accord with the majority of the versions ordinary used and cited.

It was produced (or published for sale) by whom?

This is more widely used

Once, the Pharisees asked him when the kingdom of God was coming. He answered, “The coming of the kingdom of God will not occur with signs that can be observed. 21 Nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is.’ For the kingdom of God is in your midst.”​

 

[Stephen]

However, in Luke, chapter 17, verse 21, we find an even more famous statement from Scripture that addresses the issue--

"and no one will announce, ‘Look, here it is,’ or, ‘There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is among you.”**

**or "in your midst"


And the meaning? The kingdom, popularly supposed by people of that time and place to be an earthly kingdom, was actually the Messiah himself...and he had been right there, living, standing, and traveling with his followers all along.

This translation is in accord with the majority of the versions ordinary used and cited.

Lk 22:29-30 says:
"29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Jesus refers to my kingdom that the Father assigned to him, so it must be separate from Jesus himself.

 

[NewCreation435]

Lk 22:29-30 says:
"29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Jesus refers to my kingdom that the Father assigned to him, so it must be separate from Jesus himself.

I don't know if you can really separate the king from the kingdom. Jesus is the most important part of the kingdom.

 

[Albion]

Lk 22:29-30 says:
"29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Jesus refers to my kingdom that the Father assigned to him, so it must be separate from Jesus himself.

Not likely that it's separated from himself, but the kingdom, being not a literal government, etc., can quite understandably be identified with Jesus and not just as an entity ruled over by him or something like that. Therefore, I tend to agree with you in a way but disagree in another way.

 

[Lees]

Not likely that it's separated from himself, but the kingdom, being not a literal government, etc., can quite understandably be identified with Jesus and not just as an entity ruled over by him or something like that. Therefore, I tend to agree with you in a way but disagree in another way.

Why is the kingdom not a 'literal kingdom'?

Lees

 

[Lees]

I've been studying the book of Matthew since last Christmas and one thing I noticed is how many times the phrase "the kingdom of heaven" is used. In fact, John the Baptist was telling people to repent for the kingdom of heaven was near in Matthew 3:2 and then Jesus says the same thing in his first public statements in Matthew 4:17. Some people want to argue that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are different, but I am not seeing that. From what I understand the kingdom is meant to emphasize the dominion or rule of God over his creation. Jesus seems to use a lot of his parables to try and describe the kingdom of God and what it is like. It seems clear that Jesus felt that it was paramount that we understand this concept. Matthew also went out of his way to mention the parable and teaching that emphasized the kingdom

I think one thing that is clear is that the disciples had been taught that the Messiah was going to come and remove the Roman rule from them and establish some type of kingdom on earth much like the Davidic kingdom of old. The disciples did not have a concept that the kingdom that Jesus came to establish included his saving them from their sins and suffering. So when he begins to mention in more clearly after the Transfiguration Peter rebukes Jesus. He doesn't want to hear Jesus talk about his suffering and being rejected. I really think this is why Judas Iscariot wanted to be a part of Jesus' ministry. He wanted to be one of those who ruled with Jesus in a regenerated Davidic kingdom

Then we see this same phrase used in Matthew 5:3,10,19,20; 7:21, 8:11, 10:7; 11:11,12; 13:11,24,31,33,44,45,47,52, 16:19; 18:1,3,4,23; 19:12,14, 23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1.

May I ask the resources you use in studying (Matthew)? Commentaries and their authors?

Lees

 

[Lees]

@NewCreation435

Some things to consider concerning the Kingdom.

Yes, the phrase 'Kingdom of Heaven' is used many times in (Matthew). And, in fact, (Matthew) is the only New Testament book to use the phrase. Because of that, we can know that the Kingdom is the theme of the book of (Matthew).

Concerning the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God, I would say that there is a difference at times. When one speaks of the Kingdom of God, that encompasses everything in the whole of creation, including what is in Heaven and Hell. But the Kingdom of Heaven is Gods literal rule over the earth by man. Given first to Adam, but he lost it. It is now given to God's Man, Jesus Christ.

So this goal for the whole plan of God, which involves salvation, is to establish God's rule upon the earth through Man. It is the great spiritual war taking place both in the physical earth, and in the spiritual realm. And one day it will culminate in God's Kingdom and the King, being victorious over Satan's kingdom now on the earth.

(Rev. 11:15) "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."

Lees

 

[Lees]

I think one thing that is clear is that the disciples had been taught that the Messiah was going to come and remove the Roman rule from them and establish some type of kingdom on earth much like the Davidic kingdom of old. The disciples did not have a concept that the kingdom that Jesus came to establish included his saving them from their sins and suffering. So when he begins to mention in more clearly after the Transfiguration Peter rebukes Jesus. He doesn't want to hear Jesus talk about his suffering and being rejected. I really think this is why Judas Iscariot wanted to be a part of Jesus' ministry. He wanted to be one of those who ruled with Jesus in a regenerated Davidic kingdom

Then we see this same phrase used in Matthew 5:3,10,19,20; 7:21, 8:11, 10:7; 11:11,12; 13:11,24,31,33,44,45,47,52, 16:19; 18:1,3,4,23; 19:12,14, 23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1.

Consider this.

The disciples expected the Kingdom to be as the Davidic Kingdom because that was/is God's intention. The King had to come from the royal line of David. This is why (Matthew) establishes Jesus right to the throne connecting Him to David at the very beginning. (Matt. 1:1-17) "Jesus Christ, the son of David"

To divorce the Kingdom as promised in the Old Testament from the Kingdom spoken of by (Matthew) and Jesus is, I believe, a mistake. One cannot understand the Kingdom without knowing it's origin and history as laid out in the Old Testament.

It is often said that Jesus didn't come to establish an earthly kingdom but a spiritual kingdom. And (John 18:36) is usually cited to prove it. "My kingdom is not of this world" But this speaks only to the origin of the Kingdom. It makes distinction between heaven and the world. It is not a distinction between spirit and earth, physical, material. That is the Christian Platonic error.

The theocracy God established with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel was a 'spiritual' kingdom. Wasn't it? God ruling through the nation Israel. Yet that spiritual kingdom was very physical also.

So, Jesus didn't come to establish a kingdom unknown in the Old Testament. He came to establish the Kingdom as promised in the Old Testament.

Lees

 

[SetFree]

It's most likely men's doctrine of Dispensationalism that has created the debate between what is the "kingdom of heaven" compared to the "kingdom of God."

Dispenationalists tend to treat the "kingdom of heaven" phrase representing Messiah and the kingdom under heaven upon the earth, limited in scope, Jewish and exclusive in character, national, from Old Testament prophecy.

But they treat the "kingdom of God" as being in Heaven over the earth, unlimited in scope, including both the natural seed and spiritual seed of Abraham, the Church of the mystery, universal in aspect, subject of New Testament revelation, and eternal. (some of these distinctions taken from E.W. Bullinger)

Man's Pre-trib Rapture theory believes the Church is raptured to heaven prior to the 'great tribulation'. And then they come back with Jesus at the 2nd coming. And at Jesus' return, He establishes the kingdom of Israel on earth again, while He and His Church reign from Heaven. That was one of John Darby's ideas in his Dispensationalist theories designed to support his teaching of a pre-trib rapture theory.

What the Scriptures reveal is that the kingdom of Heaven and the kingdom of God are the same thing, except that they manifest differently according to time. For example, Jesus' 1st coming He offered the "kingdom of heaven", but also said His kingdom is not of this present world (John 18:36). Thus the "kingdom of God" became in abeyance because of the Jews rejecting Jesus. The kingdom today is only in the spiritual for Christ's Church here on earth. In final at Jesus' future return, and after the future 1,000 years reign by Him, and all unrighteousness cast into the "lake of fire", then the "kingdom of God" will come, with The Father also returning to earth forever.

 

[Lees]

It's most likely men's doctrine of Dispensationalism that has created the debate between what is the "kingdom of heaven" compared to the "kingdom of God."

Dispenationalists tend to treat the "kingdom of heaven" phrase representing Messiah and the kingdom under heaven upon the earth, limited in scope, Jewish and exclusive in character, national, from Old Testament prophecy.

But they treat the "kingdom of God" as being in Heaven over the earth, unlimited in scope, including both the natural seed and spiritual seed of Abraham, the Church of the mystery, universal in aspect, subject of New Testament revelation, and eternal. (some of these distinctions taken from E.W. Bullinger)

Man's Pre-trib Rapture theory believes the Church is raptured to heaven prior to the 'great tribulation'. And then they come back with Jesus at the 2nd coming. And at Jesus' return, He establishes the kingdom of Israel on earth again, while He and His Church reign from Heaven. That was one of John Darby's ideas in his Dispensationalist theories designed to support his teaching of a pre-trib rapture theory.

What the Scriptures reveal is that the kingdom of Heaven and the kingdom of God are the same thing, except that they manifest differently according to time. For example, Jesus' 1st coming He offered the "kingdom of heaven", but also said His kingdom is not of this present world (John 18:36). Thus the "kingdom of God" became in abeyance because of the Jews rejecting Jesus. The kingdom today is only in the spiritual for Christ's Church here on earth. In final at Jesus' future return, and after the future 1,000 years reign by Him, and all unrighteousness cast into the "lake of fire", then the "kingdom of God" will come, with The Father also returning to earth forever.

Why do you call Dispensationalism 'men's doctrine'? What 'men's doctrine' do you ascribe to?

Are you saying you reject Old Testament prophecy?

Lees

 

[SetFree]

Why do you call Dispensationalism 'men's doctrine'? What 'men's doctrine' do you ascribe to?

Are you saying you reject Old Testament prophecy?

Lees

The Dispensationalism of John Darby, a preacher in 1830's Great Britain that was first to preach the pre-trib rapture theory in a Christian Church, made up latter parts of his Dispensationalism that contain ideas NOT written in God's Word. So thinking that Darby's brand of dispensationlism is all from The Bible is fallacy. And I pretty much revealed that point in my last post.

For more example of Darby's view, which is part of men's doctrine of a false pre-trib rapture theory, he has Christ coming in 'secret' to gather the Church PRIOR to the "great tribulation" when Lord Jesus and Apostle Paul showed Christ's future return and gathering of His Church is AFTER the coming "great tribulation" and after the final Antichrist does his false God role at the end of this world. (See Matthew 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27, and 2 Thessalonians 2).

 

[Lees]

The Dispensationalism of John Darby, a preacher in 1830's Great Britain that was first to preach the pre-trib rapture theory in a Christian Church, made up latter parts of his Dispensationalism that contain ideas NOT written in God's Word. So thinking that Darby's brand of dispensationlism is all from The Bible is fallacy. And I pretty much revealed that point in my last post.

For more example of Darby's view, which is part of men's doctrine of a false pre-trib rapture theory, he has Christ coming in 'secret' to gather the Church PRIOR to the "great tribulation" when Lord Jesus and Apostle Paul showed Christ's future return and gathering of His Church is AFTER the coming "great tribulation" and after the final Antichrist does his false God role at the end of this world. (See Matthew 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27, and 2 Thessalonians 2).

So you say. And it's always 'easy to say'.

So, explain how Dispensational teaching does not contain things written in God's word.

No, again, explain how Darby's view, which you call, 'men's doctrine', is contrary to the verses you have given. In fact, explain how his view is contrary to any verses in the Bible.

Again, which 'men's doctrine' do you ascribe to?

Again, Do you reject Old Testament prophecy?

Lees

 

[Iconoclast]

So you say. And it's always 'easy to say'.

So, explain how Dispensational teaching does not contain things written in God's word.

No, again, explain how Darby's view, which you call, 'men's doctrine', is contrary to the verses you have given. In fact, explain how his view is contrary to any verses in the Bible.

Again, which 'men's doctrine' do you ascribe to?

Again, Do you reject Old Testament prophecy?

Lees

Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom during His first advent. All of the OT. prophecy points to Jesus fulfilling the prphecies...
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.

11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.

12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.

15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,

16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

17 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.

18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel o

 

[Lees]

Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom during His first advent. All of the OT. prophecy points to Jesus fulfilling the prphecies...
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.

11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.

12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.

15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,

16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

17 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.

18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel o

I'm not sure how you're using the word 'inaugurate', but from what I read, I disagree with you. First of all, you appear to be contradicting yourself. If Jesus came to fulfill Old Testament prophecies concerning the Kingdom, then the Kingdom had it's beginning in the Old Testament.

See my post #(10).

Why do you not give the book and chapter of the verses of the Bible you quote from?

Lees

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm not sure how you're using the word 'inaugurate', but from what I read, I disagree with you. First of all, you appear to be contradicting yourself. If Jesus came to fulfill Old Testament prophecies concerning the Kingdom, then the Kingdom had it's beginning in the Old Testament.

See my post #(10).

Why do you not give the book and chapter of the verses of the Bible you quote from?

Lees

That is Romans 15....How could the actual Kingdom begin without The King being on the throne?
That is why I said inaugurate; Acts:2
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

 

[Lees]

That is Romans 15....How could the actual Kingdom begin without The King being on the throne?
That is why I said inaugurate; Acts:2
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Yes, I know what the book, chapter and verse are. I asked you...why didn't you give them?

The Kingdom, the Theocracy, God ruling with man as the mediator, existed in the Old Testament. In Israel, Moses was the man between God and man. That represented God's kingdom ruling on earth. Later passed down to Joshua, and then the Judges, etc. etc.

Eventually, due to Israel's rejection of God, God removed the Kingdom from Israel. It was no longer represented in them. Which is why the disciples asked the resurrected Christ when will He restore the Kingdom to Israel? (Acts 1:6)

That can only mean one thing. The Kingdom existed in Israel in the Old Testament.

Just because Jesus Christ, the God/Man, is appointed by God to be the King, doesn't mean the Kingdom did not exist under Moses and others. (Deut. 18:15) "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy bretheren, like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken."

Lees