2 Kingdoms

The Kingdom of God is whereever God rules and reigns. Jesus said, "The Kingdom of God is within you." That is, God is ruling and reigning in the hearts of His people. He has gone in, made His abode in their hearts, and freed them from the bondage of sin.

People have always misunderstood the Kingdom of God. The Jews at the time of Christ did. Many Christians today do as well. The reason is, people think about His Kingdom like they think of the kingdoms of men. The two are different. Christ's Kingdom is a spiritual Kingdom, unlike anything that has ever existed. It is a present reality, with Him ruling it presently. There is coming a day when we will enjoy it to a fuller extent because Christ is going to wipe everything that offends off this earth, every other kingdom will be destroyed, and all that will be left is Christ's Kingdom on the New Earth for all eternity.

 

I am not sure that the idea of two kingdoms has roots in dispensationalism. Maybe it does, but I lean toward dispensationalism and I have posted that there is no difference between the two. So does Ladd, who is also dispensational (I believe - anyway, he is mid or post Trib). He also makes the point that the Kingdom is both present (God's reign in the hearts of believers) and future (the Kingdom in its glory).

 

You are correct just as your earlier post quoted Daniel: And in the days of those kings shall the 'God' of 'heaven' set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. [Dan 2:44]

I believe the Church is a visible manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven/God.

 

Dispensationalists tend to get hung up on mysteries!:laugh:

 

And amils tend to spiritualize the text. :tongue3:

 

The church is never referred to as the Kingdom nor is there any scripture I can think of that supports this view.

 

(cough) Be careful:

 

The church is a part of the Kingdom.

 

kyredneck,

As if I could include in my posts all that is written........... do you take pride in your slyness?

I think if you did, those posts would be most boring; however I would suggest you include all that is written in the development of your theology.
The physical aspect of the fulfillment of prophecy just does not seem to aline with your view; therefore that is why I cannot accept the amillennial view point.

pinoybaptist,

I think it is because you cannot seem to take your eyes off carnal things and keep them on the spiritual.

The basis of disagreement in this thread seems to be in whether or not Christ is ruling and reigning today. And if this reign is the fulfillment of the OT prophecies which speak of His Kingdom.

I certainly agree that Christ is ruling and reigning spiritually in the hearts of Christians today; but for me, that does not mean the fulfillment of prophecies dealing with perfect peace on earth.

All prophecies that have been fulfilled, have been done physically. Jesus was physically born of a virgin, He was physically nailed to a tree, He physically arose on the 3rd day,etc.....you do believe that, don't you ?

I see no basis in scripture that all-of-a-sudden God has changed His method and now will fulfill prophecy only spiritually. Do you? If so, where is it?
Who are we to force this so-called change upon the way God wishes to do things?

Therefore, unless you can show where God changed His method of operation, one must conclude future prophecy fulfillment to be physical as well.

When one looks all around at the current state of affairs of this present world I can truly see the mess man has made of it; but I do not see it as something which is the result of Jesus Christ reigning.

and very soon these abolitions will be finalized at the Great White Throne which follows the catching up of Christ's kingdom and of His people,

The above would place us presently in the millennial reign of Christ which presents the problems shown above.

 

Nothing you said here answers the question of why they are translated differently. Amy.G started this thread with two passages from Matthew 19. One (verse 23) says "heaven":

G3772
οὐρανός
ouranos
oo-ran-os'
Perhaps from the same as G3735 (through the idea of elevation); the sky; by extension heaven (as the abode of God); by implication happiness, power, eternity; specifically the Gospel (Christianity): - air, heaven ([-ly]), sky.

The other (verse 24) says "God":

G2316
θεός
theos
theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

Different Greek words with different meanings. Why?

 

One is part of the other.

 

Why is Jesus called the Christ, the Savior, the Messias, the Son of God, the Son of man, the Great High Priest, the Mediator, that Great Shepherd of the sheep, etc? Why does Paul sometimes say Jesus Christ and sometimes Christ Jesus?

The scripture all the times used different terms to refer to the same thing. Because Matthew uses heaven instead of God it doesn't mean they refer to different things totally. Again, I've yet to have this answered, what was Paul referring to when he wrote about "the Kingdom of His Dear Son?" If different titles mean different Kingdoms, what Kingdom is that?

 

Amy, you and I are on the same page on this one. I posted these verses and asked the same question, how can it be different? Here is the same occurrence, with the same people and only Matthew chooses to translate Jesus words as heaven instead of God. How can it be different if it was what Jesus said in that one instance? It doesn't make sense to claim it is different.


"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."

.

 

For those of you who are here simply refuting there is a difference, can you tell me how a son of the kingdom of God ends up in the outer darkness? How did they become one (a son of the kingdom of God) in the first place?:

Of course, if you understand there is a difference and accept that the word translated here is "heaven" because there is a difference, you should be able to easily understand this passage.

I welcome any interpretations.

 

He is talking about the calling of the gentiles and the rejection of the jews.

 

A calling? Well, in context Jesus was just praising the faith of a gentile, but how does the rejection of the Jews fit here? Are you saying they are the sons of the kingdom of God? How did they get there if they rejected Jesus? How did/could they become sons of the kingdom?

 

Just a heads up...Millenial Exclusion was banned from the BB a few years ago if that is the direction you are leading this discussion. If not, I'll just step back into the shadows

 

I think the point is that the Jews couldn't just claim a place in heaven because they were born Jews in the line of Abraham. We are not saved by who our parents are, or by any family tradition or by belonging to a certain church.

 

Some of the parables illustrate ways in which the two kingdoms are similar, and this is one of them. There are other parables that illustrate ways in which they are different.

My understanding of the kingdoms is imperfect, but try this exercise. Postulate that the Kingdom of Heaven is a political entity, an actual kingdom on the earth with a territory, boundaries, and human subjects. And postulate that the Kingdom of God is the present spiritual power of God acting in and upon individual believers; a relationship between believers and God with a corporate expression in the Church. Now approach the parables in Matthew and the parallels in the other gospels and note the distinctions and similarities in the kingdoms.