Messianic Kingdom

So you say. I could say the moon is make of green cheese, it doesn't make it so. I also don't see why covenants negates dispensations, do you?

 

So, another words you are not going to discuss it. Suits me. See ya!

 

Jesus, speaking to his disciples at the Last Supper:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all truth . . ." John 16:12-13

Allan, I don't think it is a very good idea to pin your theological understanding on a question the disciples (students) posed to Jesus before they were saved and had received the Spirit to teach them the meaning of Scripture. You should base your understanding on what these men said about Jesus' kingdom after they were saved and became Apostles (teachers). After all, just before his crucifixion they tried to stop him from fulfilling the very purpose for which he had come into the world . . . to lay down his life a ransom. So clearly they did not have sufficient understanding before Pentecost to take their every word as doctrine. They were disciples because they were still learning. They did not become apostles until after Pentecost, and the very first sermon they preached, on the day of Pentecost, Peter cleared away all the misconceptions by stating that it was this Jesus of Nazareth whom God had raised up from the loins of David to sit on the throne of his kingdom. Acts 2:25-36

But before that, the question the disciples posed was based on the messianic doctrines of Rabbinic Judaism which they had been taught all their lives. These "traditions," which Jesus warned against, were based on a very literal interpretation of messianic prophecy, which is why Christian Premillennial doctrine and Rabbinic Messianic doctrine have so very much in common.

As Christians we should take very careful and serious note that it was these very same messianic doctrines which led so many of the Jewish people, and particularly their leaders who taught these doctrines, to reject Jesus. Their interpretation of messianic prophecy had led them to envision a messiah and a messianic kingdom of a very earthly sort, much as premillennialism envisions. And it was this false vision that blinded them to the truth about Jesus and led them to reject and to crucify Him. And in the end, so deluded them that they revolted against Rome in a vain attempt to establish their earthly messianic kingdom and instead brought upon themselves and their nation their own destruction. All of this, from beginning to end, was exactly what the Scriptures had foretold.

Old Regular asked a question that deserves a Christian's utmost thought and study and prayer, not simply knee-jerk reactions to defend a favored view. Just what kind of "kingdom" did Jesus die to open to men the way into? A re-established earthly kingdom of Israel? Or the heavenly kingdom of God . . . of which the kingdom of Israel was but a shadow?

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

Now who is pinning their theology on 'one verse'

First, who said I was pinning anything on 'one verse'? Not I.
I merely gave one verse as requested that can prove a second earthly kingdom to be and I did just that.

I think you are very mixed up here. You seem to assume that Jesus could not and was not not able to reveal any truth to these disciples especially after His resurrection. If what you are presuming is true then Jesus was doing nothing but wasting his breath and time talking to the disciples and specifically explaining the Kingdom of God. And sorry, they were not called disciples because they 'still' learning they were called disciples because they were followers of Christ who assisted in teaching Christ's truths and ways to others. Also - Yes, they DID have understanding but you must go back to what Jesus said concerning them and the Spirit to actaully grasp why they needed him. The Holy Spirit was to 'empower' them that they 'will be' His witnesses. According to Jesus it had nothing to do with you assumption of still needing more understanding. The Holy Spirit was to still continue leading them (the apostles) into truth, jsut as He will all believers, as we note in many instances of scriptures.. like with Peter and the eating of unclean meats which correlated with the Gentiles and even when Paul has to rebuke Peter for shunning the gentiles due to Jewish legalists. and so on and so forth..

And yes, Peter did clear up the misunderstanding in that Jesus was the one God had raised up to sit on the throne of "David's Kingdom". Yet I do not find anywhere in scripture that He has sat down on 'Davids' throne to rule the Kindom of David - which is known as the land of Israel or that land which God has given to the Jewish people. I know you state that He has sat down at His throne but that throne is not Davids nor has God's throne ever been described as God's throne. Scripture plainly states exactly what you posted here:
"this Jesus of Nazareth whom God had raised up from the loins of David to sit on the throne of his kingdom. Acts 2:25-36"
Who's Kingdom? Davids.

You are quite incorrect here and sadly so. The question they posed was directly after Jesus was teaching them about the Kingdom of God. The answer Jesus gave did not correct them but affirmed that this kingdom is indeed coming but in God timing because it is His to worry about. Their thoughts needed to be focused upon what was in their power and that was the proclaimation of the gospel message.
Secondly, Jesus did not teach against literal interpretation since that is how they we know they came about. We can see them literally happening. They might not always come about in manner we think because we sometimes fill in the gaps with our own assumptions. But I have not yet found any prophesy of the OT speaking of Christ not come true and be validated unless it was taken literally. The Jews were correct just as Premill in early Christianity is. The problem was not in the literal understanding it was that they added to what was written and so they were looking for the wrong thing at the wrong time but primarily it was because the nation as whole was under God's judgment so they (as a nation) would not come to know Him yet but they will (Rom 11).

Now this is just garbly-gook and speculation. Seriously, who has filled your head with such things? They rejected Jesus not because of a literal interpretation of scripture but because 'some' were looking for the wrong thing first, a ruler and a conquerer. In this He would be bringing all the nations into subjection and freeing God's chosen people of Old - the Nation of Israel and fulfill His promise to 'them' that they would finally live in peace under their true and rightful King. Some however knew who He was (Jewish leaders) but Jesus was not going to be doing what they wanted and was not teaching in a manner that exhalted them and their view of religion. Some did not look at scripture literally (Saducees - sp?) but took a more allegorical approach missed the truth because they would take the texts in context nor at face value.

Wow, you have a messed up view of what actually happened historically or better why things happened historically. They did not rebel against Rome for you claim. That is the worst speculation set forth that I have ever read. They rebelled against Rome to try to free themselves in the hopes of re-establishing their Kingdom. However this is not and can not be tied to their understanding of prophesy because the messiah is to be the one leading them in that battle and is someone who Israel claims as her messiah. They were trying to re-establish their kingdom but NOT to fulfill prophesy as you have wrongly presummed. There is not support in this if one understands the Jewish views of the Messiah and coming re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel and the subjection of the whole world that peace might finally reign forever.

Agreed, but it is one that will reject any answer that is not in line with their favored view no matter how biblcally based and historically accurate it is. The answer is both.. a heavenly and earthly Kingdom.

 

This sounds like the church was plan B for God. Did I read that correctly?

I think it was God's plan from before the foundation of the world to take the Jews and the Gentiles and make one new man through Jesus Christ. There are no plan b's in God's plan. Just MHO.

 

Old Regular, Good to see you and "ED" are still "alive and kicking". :wavey:

Jesus was sent only the "lost sheep of the house of Israel", now suppose they had not rejected him, what do you suppose would have occurred???

Would Jesus have gone back to heaven to remain there, or would he have stayed on the earth, and established a literal kingdom with him reigning???


God chose Israel to be a "light to the world", but they rejected that offer when they rejected Jesus, but suppose they had accepted him, would the church today be the "light of the world" or would Israel be that light???

Speculation about what "might have been" is just that "Speculation", but the possibility existed or Jesus would have never made the offer.

God's "Foreknowledge" allows him to plan things within the "context" of what he knows is going to occur, Calvinist interpret this as "predestination", but then Jesus couldn't have made the offer against what God had "predestined" not to occur.

Personally, I think Jesus would have stayed on the earth and Israel would have filled the role the church plays today.

During the Mill reign people will still refuse to keep the "feast of tabernacles" and no rain will fall on them, so "SIN" can/will exit even with Jesus physically reigning here on earth.

Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Zec 14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Zec 14:19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


Did I get close to answering your question???

 

Mt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Lu 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Do you see any differences in these "KINGDOMS"??

We will be "IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN", while the "KINGDOM OF GOD IS IN US".

One is a "Literal Kingdom", while the other is a "Spiritual Kingdom".

Mt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Does that answer your question???

 

The kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are the same Kingdom. There are not two kingdoms. Furthermore, the term "kingdom of heaven" is only used in the book of Matthew.
These verses prove they are the same.

Mar 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
Mar 4:31 [It is] like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:


Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:


These are Jesus' words. He considered them the same kingdom.

 

Israel doesn't accept God as being Jesus, because in their mind they are "Different", however they are the "SAME".

But the confusion can go both ways, You don't see any difference between them,

but the "Spiritual Kingdom" was never promised to Israel, Jesus/church is a "Mystery" to Israel,

Only a "literal Kingdom" was ever promised to Israel, and that is what Jesus offer to them.

The "TRINITY" principle, the differences, yet being the same, is used to explains a lot more than just "GOD/Jesus".

 

Amy, that is Old Regs definition and poor understanding of Dispy and of course is not close (if ever) to what they 'actually' believe and hold.

Read some actaul Dispys like McArthur, or Ryrie or a host of others that are main line and not hyper-dipsy like those Hal Linsey, 700 Club, and so on and so forth.

Also, the term "dispensation" simply means the manner in which God dealt with men at different times (which is the same manner in which Paul the apostle used it). It isn't talking about a plan A and a plan B but that God has One Plan in which He has set forth differently (regarding methods not means - as in by grace through faith) at different times.
A quote from MacArthur when asked "what is Dispensationalism:

 

Here is another where MacArthur was asked about the differences between biblical Dispensationalism and popular dispensationalism (which is called hyper-dispensationalism and or 'old Dispinsationalism'):
The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-13, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright 1992 by John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.