My Kingdom is not of this world.

[John146]

Then whos kingdom would it be? And I know the terms are used interchangeably, but still, any where and every where that the will of God is done is God's kingdom. Why would we consider God with an either or, like He is in some way limited.

I have no idea what you're talking about. How am I limiting God by saying that that kingdom of God, kingdom of Christ and kingdom of heaven are all the same kingdom? It's just three different ways of referring to the one kingdom.

Jesus came teaching about the kingdom of heaven, ok. I did not differentiate. I said that anywhere God's will is done is the kingdom of God, I would think that means heaven.

Again, I don't know what you're trying to say. Are you still trying to claim that the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are different kingdoms or do you agree that they are the same kingdom?

And the prophets in the OT spoke the prophecies God gave them regarding an earthly kingdom ruled by the promised Messiah.

I disagree. I don't see that anywhere.

Jesus taught about the kingdom of heaven. He was rejected by Israel, they rejected their Messiah, there would be no fulfillment of the OT prophecies at the time of His first advent...but that does not mean those prophecies went away, or are some how applicable in some spiritual fulfillment toward the Church.

What I think you miss is that the NT repeatedly applies OT prophecies and promises that would appear on the surface to only be related to Israel as relating to the church. Here is a good example of that:

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ...26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Who would have understood what Paul said here from reading the OT? Very few. That's why we need to allow the NT to illuminate the OT for us and I believe premils sometimes don't do that.

[John146]

Oh, right now. That's not in your post here, "The kingdom of God, kingdom of Christ and kingdom of heaven are all one and the same. There is only one kingdom. Scripture never teaches a kingdom within a kingdom concept that you are talking about.", where you said "Scripture never teaches a kingdom within a kingdom". As long as we are clear . Every kingdom/dominion will obey or be cursed according to prophecy. Kings of the earth bring honor to him. Can't do that without kingdoms.

The point I'm making is that the kingdom of Christ is not a kingdom within the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven is also not a kingdom within the kingdom of God. They are all the same kingdom. Just three different ways of referring to the same one kingdom.

k now you are making assertions not found in the text you are using for support. Matt 13:40 is when Christ returns to reign on earth. Since that continues for a period of time it cannot be used in conjunction with 1 Cor 15:24 which says the end will come when he has executed all rule and authority and finished the course of kingdom of God on earth as God originally intended.

You assume that He will rule on earth over mortals in a millennial kingdom but Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). Why do you have mortal flesh and blood inheriting the kingdom of God on the earth?

The argument Paul makes is that since Christ rose, all will rise, so how can some say there is no resurrection? The end cannot come until the resurrection. It doesn't say the end comes when the resurrection does.

I believe that is what he is saying and that is confirmed by other scripture.

There's more than one, so this should be fairly obvious. After the first resurrection the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years.......

Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection and all believers have part in it.

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

What you propose is impossible. Use all scripture to formulate your conclusion.

I do use all scripture. You certainly are coming nowhere near refuting my claims and yet you're acting as if you have proven something. Back up your claims with scripture instead of just telling others they are wrong.

[John146]

I think what you've said has some merit, but I don't think you can cast away the idea that Jesus' Kingdom is not fully in this world yet either. I think you can liken it to the reign of David. When he was anointed, he was the true king of Israel. But, He did not fully realize that kingship within Israel until after he and his band of followers suffered through exile. So, today, Jesus has a band of followers in the world (but not of the world) but that Kingdom has yet to be fully realized in the world. And it will not be fully realized until the nation of Israel "repents and returns."

Acts 3 (NASB95)
19 “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,
21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

Zechariah 12 (NASB95)
10 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

Zechariah 14 (NASB95)
4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.
5 You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him!


Zechariah 14 (NASB95)
9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.

That's your premil understanding but I disagree with it. Jesus currently has all power in heaven and in earth (Matt 28:18) and has been exalted to the right hand of the Father above "every name that is named" (Eph 1:19-22). What more authority can Christ ever have than that?

[John146]

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

What about a verse like this? Do you think this is speaking in the present? Let's look at it in context in order to see.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

This says in that day. I would think this is referring to the same 'in that day' spoken throughout the book of Zechariah. Especially ch 14. But not trying to go there tho. But anyway this passage tells us Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Then verse 22 ties it to a future time..in that day. So how would you explain this passage, since it looks like you see the kingdom of heaven only being relevant to the present, while this passage indicates that entering into the kingdom of heaven is future, based on the fact that some won't get let in in that day?

Do you deny the current existence of the kingdom of heaven?

Matt 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, 2And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

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

The kingdom of heaven was already at hand long ago so how could anyone say it is not yet? We are in the kingdom now even though we are waiting to inherit the kingdom in its fullness in the future.

[John146]

For those who are arguing that the Kingdom of God is internal and spiritual

Do you believe it isn't spiritual?

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Do you believe that there will be a physical kingdom on earth that Jesus will rule over physically at some time in the future? (i.e. the Millennial Kingdom)

No, I don't believe that. I believe He will deliver the kingdom to the Father at His return and then they will rule over the new heavens and new earth for eternity.

[divaD]

The point I'm making is that the kingdom of Christ is not a kingdom within the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven is also not a kingdom within the kingdom of God. They are all the same kingdom. Just three different ways of referring to the same one kingdom.

But the thing is, there are already many who are in the spiritual kingdom, but won't be in the physical kingdom. Matt 7:21-23 makes that clear, as well as does Matt 25, the sheep and goats judgment. I'm certain there's other passages as well. How do you understand the following, including the timing?

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Doesn't verse 21 indicate a future time, in relation to the time Jesus spoke these words? And doesn't verse 22 further indicate a future time, since it states...Many will say to me in that day? And isn't all of this in regards to entering into the kingdom of heaven? If this kingdom is to be understood in the same sense you're
understanding the kingdom of heaven, then why is there yet a future time when one actually enters or doesn't enter the kingdom of heaven? Matthew 7:21-23 gives the impression that no one has actually entered the kingdom of heaven as yet. Do you disagree with that? That's what it plainly and clearly states, doesn't it?

[John146]

Raybob, we have to let Scriptures do the thinking for us, such as.

Matthew 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The tares would be those in the kindom of God spiritually, those that resemble Christians but are not.

I completely disagree. Your doctrine allows people who are not born of the Spirit (and therefore not Christians) into the kingdom of God but that contradicts what Jesus taught here:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

How do you reconcile what you said with what Jesus said here?

The tares are not in the kingdom of God. Jesus said they are children of the wicked one.

Matt 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

The good seed/wheat are the children of the kingdom, not the tares.

The tares would be the same ones we see in Matthew 7:21-23, the ones who are not allowed entrance into the physical kingdom when Christ returns. You have to keep a lot of things in mind when reading and trying to interpret Scriptures.

I agree and I believe there are some things that you are not keeping in mind here, such as who are in the kingdom of God.

Jesus was usually talking to specific people, in this case, He would be talking to Christians. It makes no sense that He was speaking in general, as concerning the wheat and tares, and that the wheat equals Christians,
but the tares mean every single wicked person ever.

What are you basing this on? Jesus told another parable very similar to the parable of the wheat and tares, only shorter. He again contrasted two groups, this time explaining that one group was "good" and the other "bad" and "wicked".

Matt 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: 48Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. 49So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The wheat would correspond to those in this parable who are considered "good" while the tares would correspond to those who are considered "bad" and "wicked". All people are within those two groups. There is no basis whatsoever for concluding that the tares only represent people who think they are Christians but are not. The "children of the wicked one" and "the wicked" include more than just those who think they are Christians but are not.

No, the tares are meaning those within the kingdom who's fruit is pretty much rotten to the core.

That does not describe someone who is in the kingdom of God. You are mistaken.

So what I'm getting at, there's a spiritual aspect of the kingdom that we experience now. But even so, the entrance into the physical kingdom, it doesn't happen until Matt 25 takes place. And there are enough Scriptures that indicate, those that experience the spiritual kingdom, some are allowed entrance into the physical kingdom later, and some are not. To me, spiritual means not being able to see things with the naked eye, so to speak. When Jesus returns, there will no longer be a need for the spiritual, because we'll be in the literal.

Your doctrine allows mortal flesh and blood to inherit the physical kingdom, does it not? But Paul said that cannot happen.

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

[John146]

But the thing is, there are already many who are in the spiritual kingdom, but won't be in the physical kingdom. Matt 7:21-23 makes that clear, as well as does Matt 25, the sheep and goats judgment. I'm certain there's other passages as well. How do you understand the following, including the timing?

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Doesn't verse 21 indicate a future time, in relation to the time Jesus spoke these words? And doesn't verse 22 further indicate a future time, since it states...Many will say to me in that day? And isn't all of this in regards to entering into the kingdom of heaven? If this kingdom is to be understood in the same sense you're
understanding the kingdom of heaven, then why is there yet a future time when one actually enters or doesn't enter the kingdom of heaven? Matthew 7:21-23 gives the impression that no one has actually entered the kingdom of heaven as yet. Do you disagree with that? That's what it plainly and clearly states, doesn't it?

In a sense we are already in the kingdom but we are waiting to inherit it in its fullness. I believe the passage you quoted speaks of the time when we will inherit the kingdom in its fullness. But do you deny the current existence of the kingdom of heaven? Do you understand that Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven would start small and grow from there? If the only sense that we will ever be in the kingdom of heaven is by us all inheriting it together in the future then how do you explain parables like these:

Matt 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: 32Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. 33Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

We are in the kingdom of heaven now and it continues to grow as more and more people are added to it every day but we are waiting for the time when the kingdom will be full grown.

[quiet dove]

Again, I don't know what you're trying to say. Are you still trying to claim that the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are different kingdoms or do you agree that they are the same kingdom?

No, I am not saying they are two different kingdoms, I am saying that heaven, is within, the kingdom of God. Thus my question, if heaven is not within the kingdom of God, what kingdom is it in. Heaven is not the totality of God's kingdom. But that is not saying there is more than one kingdom of God

What I think you miss is that the NT repeatedly applies OT prophecies and promises that would appear on the surface to only be related to Israel as relating to the church. Here is a good example of that:

I am not missing it, of course the NT brings further revelation. But that does not mean that we are to go back to the OT and say those prophecies will come to pass any less literally than all the fulfilled others came to pass, applying a symbolic meaning and that they are not to be taken as literally stated by the prophets.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ...26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It has always been by faith, faith did not start being the way to please God with the NT.

Who would have understood what Paul said here from reading the OT? Very few. That's why we need to allow the NT to illuminate the OT for us and I believe premils sometimes don't do that.

I have no problem that the NT illuminating the OT.

[John146]

No, I am not saying they are two different kingdoms, I am saying that heaven, is within, the kingdom of God.

Yes, heaven is within the kingdom of God but you should not confuse heaven with the kingdom of heaven as if they mean the same. The kingdom of heaven is not limited to just heaven. We are in the kingdom of heaven in a spiritual sense even though we are on the earth and not physically in heaven. I'm not saying heaven and the kingdom of God are the same thing, I'm saying the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are the same kingdom. But you try to say the kingdom of heaven is within the kingdom of God, right? Scripture doesn't teach that. I showed how Christ used the two terms interchangeably, so that means they are the same kingdom.

I am not missing it, of course the NT brings further revelation. But that does not mean that we are to go back to the OT and say those prophecies will come to pass any less literally than all the fulfilled others came to pass.

You keep saying things like this but what does that even mean? It's as if you are implying that someone is saying some of those prophecies will never come to pass. No one is saying that. Obviously, there's plenty of prophecies in the OT that were not written in literal language so while those prophecies all were or will be fulfilled that doesn't mean they should all be interpreted as if they were written in literal language rather than figurative language. You seem to have a strong tendency to read everything literally. So, when you see a reference to "living waters" in Zech 14:8 the first thing that comes to your mind is physical water rather than the Holy Spirit, right?

It has always been by faith, faith did not start being the way to please God with the NT[COLOR=#000080].

That's not the point, though. What are the promises that Paul was talking about in Gal 3? Is it clear in the OT that the promises were made to Abraham and to Christ and that all who would believe in Christ would be "heirs according to the promise"? Not really, right? That's my point. We should use Paul's teaching to better understand what the OT promises he was referring to actually are about.

[Doulos]

That's your premil understanding but I disagree with it. Jesus currently has all power in heaven and in earth (Matt 28:18) and has been exalted to the right hand of the Father above "every name that is named" (Eph 1:19-22). What more authority can Christ ever have than that?

The Millennium is not about establishing more authority for Jesus. It is about the world recognizing His authority (putting down rebellion to that authority) and summing up all things in Him.

1 Corinthians 15 (NASB95)
24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

(Bold and italics are mine)

[John146]

The Millennium is not about establishing more authority for Jesus. It is about the world recognizing His authority (putting down rebellion to that authority) and summing up all things in Him.

1 Corinthians 15 (NASB95)
24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

(Bold and italics are mine)

The world will recognize His authority when we all stand before Him at the judgment at the time when He comes in His glory (Matt 25:31-46). At that time the righteous will inherit eternal life in the kingdom prepared for us from the foundation of the world (Matt 25:34,46) while the wicked will be cast into everlasting fire for everlasting punishment (Matt 25:41,46). The righteous will all have immortal bodies at that point (1 Cor 15:50-54) and the wicked will all be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15) so what mortals does that leave to populate an earthly millennial kingdom?

[quiet dove]

You keep saying things like this but what does that even mean? It's as if you are implying that someone is saying some of those prophecies will never come to pass. No one is saying that. Obviously, there's plenty of prophecies in the OT that were not written in literal language so while those prophecies all were or will be fulfilled that doesn't mean they should all be interpreted as if they were written in literal language rather than figurative language.

The way they are written has no bearing on the manner in which they are fulfilled. They can be written in completely symbolic language but yet be fulfilled very literally.


I have never said that anyone believed they would not be fulfilled, the disagreement is regarding how they will be fulfilled. I don't know what other term to use that literally. How am I supposed to differentiate between my literal and your literal? Because they are two different things when determining just what the fulfillment is or will be. But I never accused you are anyone else of not believing they would be fulfilled.

[John146]

The way they are written has no bearing on the manner in which they are fulfilled. They can be written in completely symbolic language but yet be fulfilled very literally.

Please explain what you mean by this because I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you give me an example?

I have never said that anyone believed they would not be fulfilled, the disagreement is regarding how they will be fulfilled. I don't know what other term to use that literally.

To say they will be fulfilled literally gives me the impression that you are saying they are written with literal language and then fulfilled just as written. I would say the word "actually" would be a better choice of words in order to avoid confusion. That word would give the impression that you're saying what is prophesied in the text really will be fulfilled one way or another regardless of whether the text is written in literal or figurative language. But, of course, we all believe that all the prophecies were or will be fulfilled so do you really need to point that out to anyone here?

[quiet dove]

Please explain what you mean by this because I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you give me an example?

You said "there's plenty of prophecies in the OT that were not written in literal language so while those prophecies all were or will be fulfilled that doesn't mean they should all be interpreted as if they were written in literal language rather than figurative language."

And all I am saying is that regardless, well, symbolism anyway, they can be fulfilled more literally according to what the symbolism means.

We are just disgreeing on whether they are figurative or not, I do not believe much of what you see as figurative language is indeed figurative language.

To say they will be fulfilled literally gives me the impression that you are saying they are written with literal language and then fulfilled just as written. I would say the word "actually" would be a better choice of words in order to avoid confusion. That word would give the impression that you're saying what is prophesied in the text really will be fulfilled one way or another regardless of whether the text is written in literal or figurative language. But, of course, we all believe that all the prophecies were or will be fulfilled so do you really need to point that out to anyone here?

You said "It's as if you are implying that someone is saying some of those prophecies will never come to pass. No one is saying that."

And I simply stated that this was not what I was implying. So I am not trying to point anything out, only clear up that it was not my intent to imply that others did not believe they would be fulfilled.