2 Kingdoms

If they are not the same why would the other gospel writers translate the same word as God? If it was meant to mean something different wouldn't the other gospels also say heaven?

here is just one example.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Mat 5:3

"Blessed {are} you {who are} poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." Luke 6:20

 

Howdy, you're confusing me with someone else. That was another member who said it always refers to sin.

But anyway, the parallel accounts of this parable show that this is one respect in which the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are similar. They teach that both kingdoms will become large from small beginnings and will have devils hanging around in them. Based on my study of the symbolic use of "birds" and "fowl," I think they stand for devils or evil spirits.

 

What a confused individual. Worse, he is confusing others. There is no difference between Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said, "My kingdom (singular) is not of this world." Daniel prophesied of God setting up "a kingdom" (again singular).

Again, I ask the question, if there is a difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, what was Paul referring to when he wrote of "the kingdom of His dear Son?" Is that the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, or yet another Kingdom? Good grief, look how confusing that is.

 

Amy.G,

This came up in another thread. Is there a difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God?

IMO, yes, there is a difference. Think of it this way:
The Kingdom of God is a large circle containing everything.
Within this large circle are two smaller circles, one is the Kingdom of Heaven and the other the Body of Christ.
The Kingdom of Heaven is earthly or physical, the Body of Christ is heavenly or spiritual.

In Gen we see the promises to Abraham are two part, earthly and heavenly, and in Rev we see a new earth and a new heaven.

Now if God, through the scriptures wishes to keep these things separate, then I feel we should as well.

The Kingdom of Heaven will be the final fulfillment of all the earthly promises God made to the children of Israel.
In the OT we see little mention of heaven or eternal life as an end result for man; but a physical land flowing with milk and honey was the promise.

Consider the following:
Matthew 6:9-15 (King James Version)
9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11Give us this day our daily bread.
12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Look at vs 10, is the Christian today looking for heaven to come down to earth, or looking to go up to heaven?
And please compare vs 12 (explained by 14 & 15) with the following:

Ephesians 4:32 (King James Version)
32And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Note, the message has changed!!!!!!!

The passages from Mt are saying before one can get forgiveness, one must give forgiveness.
However Eph 4:32 says the Christian should forgive because he has already been forgiven!!!!!!

Now, one might ask: "If the Kingdom of Heaven is to be physically on earth, why is it called 'Heaven' and not the Kingdom of earth?"
My answer would be that Heaven is wherever the Lord Jesus Christ is.

 

Consider the flipside of your question. If they are the same, why did they call it something different? Why did Matthew himself call them something different? Was he confused? Could he just not make up his mind?

Now, I'm not saying this proves there's a difference. But neither does the fact that they used two different terms prove they mean the same thing. It at least might indicate that they're different. In fact, just logically, it's more likely.

This example you're bringing up is an interesting one. The parallel accounts are actually different.

Being "poor in spirit" is not the same as being "poor."

Being poor in spirit is an impoverished condition of the soul, as undesirable as being in mourning, persecuted, or starving for righteousness. The kingdom of heaven is offered as a remedy and it will bring them relief.

Being poor is an unfortunate dearth of financial security. The kingdom of God is offered as a remedy, but it won't make you rich.

The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God address different conditions; being "poor in spirit" on the one hand, and being "poor" in the other, so you can't use this passage to prove that the kingdoms are the same.

Now I know what I asked at this point. Why make it so obscure? The parallel accounts are admittedly very similar -- why not just make it plain?

But Jesus explained to his disciples in Mt. 13 why he taught in these obscure parables -- "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." He quoted Isaiah's prophesy that those who rejected him would hear and not understand, and they would see but not perceive.

Thank God he gave us the opportunity. "Blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear."

 

I agree, IMHO this is the only answer that makes sense and harmonizes the Gospels.

 

The bible is chock full of confusing stuff, but I'm not going to reject its teaching just because I "don't get it." :laugh:

The scriptures actually teach that "My kingdom," (the Son's kingdom) is distinct from the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. There's some fascinating learning to be done there, though admittedly confusing.

Hey, I acknowledge the trinity, but I certainly don't understand it.

 

I think the more important fact is that we know the same word was translated two different ways. Since that is the case we have to include they mean the same thing. I don't find it that odd that Matthew would sometimes use a different word for the same meaning. As I said before I believe it has to do with his writing to the Jews. I am no expert as to the nuances as to why he would decide it was import at times to use heaven as a euphemism for God, but it makes perfect sense it was because of his being sensitive to who he was writing to.

If we are to believe they mean something different are we not saying that the bible then contradicts itself at times?

 

IMO the Kingdom of Heaven is contained within the Kingdom of God; therefore everything is applicable to the Kingdom of God while only some things apply to the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

1. Which word was translated two different ways and how do we know it?

2. I don't follow how the bible contradicts itself if "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" mean two different things.

 

I have dug into my library on the topic and found this interesting.


"The phrase "kingdom of heaven" occurs about 32 times, only in Mathew, but is used interchangeably with "kingdom of God" in other Gospels. When Matthew reports Jesus saying of little children, "of such is the kingdom of heaven" (19:14), Mark (10:14) and Luke (18:16), have it "of such is the Kingdom of God". Also in Jesus warning in Mathew of the difficulty rich people have in entering "the kingdom of heaven" (19:23) Mark (10:23) and Luke (18:24) refer to the "kingdom of God".

Some scholars find a dispensational distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. Another reason for its appearance in Mathew may be a concession to Jewish reluctance to pronounce the word "God". In their oaths Jews would swear by the earth, by Jerusalem, by the temple or by heaven, to avoid speaking the name of God. The repeated use of "kingdom of heaven" as a substitute for "kingdom of God" may provide additional evidence of the Jewishness of this Gospel. "

Page 39 of Four Faces Of Jesus by Leslie B. Flynn

.

 

Amy.G,
I just did some checking to see what Paul taught, since he was the apostle to the Gentiles. The term "kingdom of heaven" is not in any of his letters, but the term "kingdom of God" is. Does this mean something?
Yes, I think it does. The "kingdom of heaven" is Jewish, thus found mainly in Matthew. While Paul directed his new revelations to gentiles who would be placed in the Body of Christ. (see post 24 this thread)

 

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

"But when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."

"But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."

Same occurrence, translated using "heaven" or "God". If they mean something different then one gospel is contradicting the others.

 

I think we have to think about the word "Kingdom" first. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven both refer to the rule or reign of God. I think since they are used interchangeably, as some have pointed out here, they refer to the same thing: the reign of God and sometimes the reign of Christ (Kingdom of Christ).

Jesus came to set up His kingdom, first ruling in believers and then later as the Millennial Kingdom (the amills will disagree with this), and finally the Kingdom of God descends and rules the earth in Revelation (the heavenly Jerusalem descending). It's in stages, just as salvation is: First saved from the penalty of sin, then from the power of sin, then from the presence of sin.

I found Elton Ladd's book, The Gospel of the Kingdom, to be very helpful on this topic (though he's mid or post-trib and I'm not, but that doesn't really enter into it). Men do not build the Kingdom of God; Christ brings it. He says that the Kingdom is presently invisible and it is not a realm or a people, but God's reign.

He says that when we pray, "Thy Kingdom come," it is a petition for God to reign, to "manifest His kingly sovereignty and power" (page 21).

Btw, Ladd is not some off-the-wall guy but very respected. My NT prof recommended this book.

 

I'm still not following you. The passage in Matthew translates the Greek word "heaven" to the English word "heaven." The passages in Mark and Luke have the Greek word "God" and translate it "God." The difference is not in the English, but in the Greek, so there's no problem with the translation.

If the question is whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke should have written the same word in the Greek, my question in response is whether we should learn anything from the fact that they didn't.

 

I am talking about how the writers of the Gospels translated Jesus words not our English translations. The point of the OP is whether they mean the same thing or not. In my example I am showing where the original writers translated the same occurrence using both heaven and God.

 

So Christ's Kingdom is not the Kingdom of God, nor the Kingdom of Heaven? That's a bunch of nonsense. Talk about confusing people. There's a difference between things mortal minds cannot totally understand such as the Triune aspect of God, and then there is clear teaching of scripture which we can understand. You make the simple difficult and then blame scripture.