Jesus is Presently King of the World

[MarkT]

In verse 36, Jesus seems to be saying "My kingdom has nothing to do with earthly kingdoms, so there is no 'political' dimension to my kingdom".

Jesus was saying the kingdom of God is not of this world. You are suggesting Jesus was making a political statement. I admonish you and all unclean spirits. You are defiling yourselves.

MarkT, let me ask you ask you a question. Is it an unclean spirit that came with this definition of the greek word that is sometimes translated as "of" in the statement "My kingdom is not of this world"?:

“a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote)â€

MarkT, do you believe that the translators are acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or was the the original writers who were acting under the Spirit. I believe that it was the original writers. And the greek word that was translated "of" in some translations, really should be read as "from".

Now I know that does not sit well with your position. But I suggest that this an argument you really cannot win - the original writer used a term that suggests that Jesus said something like "My kingdom is not from this world".

Besides, "of" can mean "from" in English anyway. Suppose some alien military comes from Mars to earth to conquer it. And suppose their leader says "I am of Mars". Does that mean that he is denying that he is taking over Earth? Of course not. It is merely a statement of where he is from.

Jesus' kingdom is not from this world, but it certainly is for this world.

It would make it a lttle difficult to understand. No one would say they were 'of' Mars unless they were substantially of Mars - either they are made of Martian dirt or they are of the same nature as Mars or something like that. Take the phrase 'of this world'. If Jesus was saying 'from' this world, then Satan would be the ruler from this world, then how could Jesus who was from above be from this world as well (if it is your contention that he is the ruler of the world)? But we know Jesus is from above and we are from below.

Did Jesus say Satan was from this world? No. We know Satan fell from heaven. If we were to say 'of' can mean 'from' then in that case the OP can be saying 'Jesus is presently the King from this world'. But we know what Jesus said of himself - that he was from God. So this is not true.

A ruler can be a ruler of a kingdom. If that's what you want to say then you wouldn't say 'from' a kingdom. Jesus was asked if he was the King 'of' the Jews. And Jesus answered Pilate in that sense - 'of' the Jews. Not 'from' the Jews.

 

[MarkT]

This image you have of two men fighting over Satan's throne is ridiculous. Jesus was the heir to the throne of God.

There is nothing in the Bible about Satan being dethroned. So you're making this up. Instead Jesus called Satan the ruler of this world.

MarkT, do you understand the following;

1. In 2004, we called George W. Bush "President";
2. In 2009, we call Barack Obama "President"

Things change, rulers change. But the fact that Jesus called Satan the ruler of the world before the cross, does not automatically mean that this will never change.

Using your reasoning, we could say that George W. Bush is still President just because people called him President in 2004.

I said, 'This image you have of two men fighting over Satan's throne is ridiculous'. I didn't say God's throne. I said Satan's throne!

When did Jesus say things would change? When he returns!

 

[Drew]

It would make it a lttle difficult to understand. No one would say they were 'of' Mars unless they were substantially of Mars - either they are made of Martian dirt or they are of the same nature as Mars or something like that.

Demonstrably false. There is a fashion line called "Jones of New York" Is this a statement that Mr. Jones is made up of streets, buildings, etc: Of course not. Here, the word "of" refers to where Jones is from, and no commitment is being made beyond that.

Take the phrase 'of this world'. If Jesus was saying 'from' this world, then Satan would be the ruler from this world,....

I am not sure what your argument is here. Jesus says "my kingdom is not from this world", as some translations render it, and as the original Greek requires. Where is there any Biblical statement that uses the same greek word to assert that Satan is "from" this world?

...then how could Jesus who was from above be from this world as well (if it is your contention that he is the ruler of the world)? But we know Jesus is from above and we are from below.

I have never said that Jesus is from this world and nothing I have written forces me into that position. Jesus is saying that He is bringing a set of kingdom values to earth from heaven. You are playing games with words here. When I say "Jesus is ruler of the world", I am using "of" in a different sense than the "from" sense that the word has in John 18:36. Please do not try to suggest that I am saying that the word "of" (in English) always means "from" - I have never, and would never, say such a thing. I am simply pointing out the the greek word from John 18:36 is more accurately rendered as "from".

 

[Drew]

When did Jesus say things would change? When he returns!

Not correct. Jesus never says anything that can be taken as implying that "Satan is in charge of the world until I, Jesus, return to earth bodily a 2nd time".

 

[glorydaz]

When did Jesus say things would change? When he returns!

Not correct. Jesus never says anything that can be taken as implying that "Satan is in charge of the world until I, Jesus, return to earth bodily a 2nd time".

We must not diminish the work of the cross.
Satan was defeated at the cross. He can only skulk around seeking whom he MAY devour. We need only resist and he must flee.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Jesus gave us power and authority over all devils...
[quote="Luke 9:1":31l04sh3]Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

The devils and spirits are subject to the church by the work of the cross.

And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

[/quote:31l04sh3]

 

[MarkT]

Demonstrably false. There is a fashion line called "Jones of New York" Is this a statement that Mr. Jones is made up of streets, buildings, etc: Of course not. Here, the word "of" refers to where Jones is from, and no commitment is being made beyond that.

I'd say it's a statement about the clothes. Wouldn't you? The business may be located in New York. There may or may not be an actual Mr. Jones. But the connotation of 'Jones of New York' is that the clothing is substantially New York, whatever your image of New York might be - glamorous, rich, etc. So the use of the word 'of' tells us more about the clothes than where they come from. At least that's what the designer wants to suggest.

Now apply this to 'my kingship is not of this world'. What is Jesus saying about the nature of his kingship? He is saying it is substantially unlike this world. Indeed his kingship is a heavenly kingship and the kingdom of God is everlasting - unlike this world. He is also saying something about the Jews when he said, 'my kingship is not from the world'. He is saying his kingship didn't come from the Jews. In other words, they didn't make him king. God did.

 

[Drew]

I'd say it's a statement about the clothes. Wouldn't you? The business may be located in New York. There may or may not be an actual Mr. Jones. But the connotation of 'Jones of New York' is that the clothing is substantially New York, whatever your image of New York might be - glamorous, rich, etc. So the use of the word 'of' tells us more about the clothes than where they come from. At least that's what the designer wants to suggest.

OK, I will grant that I did not give a very good example. But it is entirely appropriate to say "Fred here is a member of the Smiths, you know, the Smiths of New York". Here it is clear that the intent is to say that Fred comes from New York.

In a sense, this is all besides the point. The original Greek suggests that the proper translation is "from", not "of".

 

[MarkT]

I'd say it's a statement about the clothes. Wouldn't you? The business may be located in New York. There may or may not be an actual Mr. Jones. But the connotation of 'Jones of New York' is that the clothing is substantially New York, whatever your image of New York might be - glamorous, rich, etc. So the use of the word 'of' tells us more about the clothes than where they come from. At least that's what the designer wants to suggest.

OK, I will grant that I did not give a very good example. But it is entirely appropriate to say "Fred here is a member of the Smiths, you know, the Smiths of New York". Here it is clear that the intent is to say that Fred comes from New York.

Again, the connotation is that the Smith family is rich and powerful (substantially like New York).

 

[Drew]

Again, the connotation is that the Smith family is rich and powerful (substantially like New York).

No, there is no such connotation - I could say "Fred Smith, the unemployed bum, is a member of the Smiths of New York". Or what about the phrase "George of the jungle" Are we saying that George has the attributes and properties of a jungle? No - we are saying that George comes from the jungle.

Anyway, this is a red herring. As the greek suggest, the intended meaning of Jesus' statement is "My kingdom is not from this world" - as the NET and NRSV translations have it.

 

[glorydaz]

The problem is the belief that Jesus is going to sit on David's Throne on earth.
The Bible does not teach that...

Jesus sits on David's Throne in heaven.
His Kingdom is where the King is....His sphere of influence is here on earth because He indwells the believers. So His kindom is among us, and we are also spiritually seated with Him in the heavenlies.

 

[glorydaz]

Notice what Peter says in Acts. He tells us that God raised up Christ for a specific purpose...to sit on David's throne....to be both King and Priest (Lord and Christ)

For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

The salvation of the world depends upon Him sitting on David's throne. Had Jesus not sat down on David's throne, atonement would not be possible.

Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

The Gentiles are without God and without hope if Jesus is not seated on David's throne.
When Christ came, He was raised up in the family of David, enthroned on David's throne in heaven, and offered salvation to ALL men.

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

IF Christ has not yet ascended to rule and reign at the right hand of God then . . .
1. He cannot be "Lord" for He is not reigning in His Kingdom.
2. He cannot be "Christ" for He has not finished sacrifice for sins.
3. He cannot be risen because His resurrection was for His enthronement.
4. His invitation for all to accept salvation is a lie for such is not yet available.

 

[veteran]

Again, the connotation is that the Smith family is rich and powerful (substantially like New York).

No, there is no such connotation - I could say "Fred Smith, the unemployed bum, is a member of the Smiths of New York". Or what about the phrase "George of the jungle" Are we saying that George has the attributes and properties of a jungle? No - we are saying that George comes from the jungle.

Anyway, this is a red herring. As the greek suggest, the intended meaning of Jesus' statement is "My kingdom is not from this world" - as the NET and NRSV translations have it.

Still going on that debate I see.

John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence.
(KJV)

When our Lord Jesus prayed the following about His elect, He was showing His Kingdom is not OF this world age, which is the meaning of the John 18:36 verse also...

John 17:14-18
14 I have given them Thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.
18 As Thou hast sent Me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
(KJV)

That idea, of Christ's Kingdom not being OF this world, is repeated in Hebrews 11 with those in OT times who looked for another country, a heavenly one.

The problem some are having though, is just WHERE that Kingdom to come under Christ is going to be manifested de facto. It will be on this earth, but not of THIS present world we're still in today. Peter clearly showed that...

2 Pet 3:7-10
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
(KJV)

So how could this world we are in today, on this earth, be Christ's Kingdom having already come? It's not yet come in the physical, but only in the spiritual "new creature" sense. And it's manifested only through The Holy Spirit Comforter dwelling within those in Christ Jesus. In Romans 8 Apostle Paul said we still wait for the adoption, the redemption of our body, just as the whole... creation itself also waits in hope for deliverance from the bondage of vanity it has been in.

Be careful brethren, for some claiming to be Christian today are actually wolves in sheep's clothing, and are behind today's movement to setup a fake kingdom over all the earth, in order to enthrone 'their' king of the world. Their king is NOT our Lord Jesus Christ. That's why they want you to accept this world of flesh as evidence of Christ's Kingdom having come literally already. It has not. No yet, but it is very near based on the signs our Lord gave in His Word.

 

[Free]

That's why they want you to accept this world of flesh as evidence of Christ's Kingdom having come literally already. It has not. No yet, but it is very near based on the signs our Lord gave in His Word.

Then who is king of this world and what evidence do you have?

 

[shad]

Be careful brethren, for some claiming to be Christian today are actually wolves in sheep's clothing, and are behind today's movement to setup a fake kingdom over all the earth, in order to enthrone 'their' king of the world. Their king is NOT our Lord Jesus Christ. That's why they want you to accept this world of flesh as evidence of Christ's Kingdom having come literally already. It has not. No yet, but it is very near based on the signs our Lord gave in His Word.

Amen brother. :yes

 

[glorydaz]

Be careful brethren, for some claiming to be Christian today are actually wolves in sheep's clothing, and are behind today's movement to setup a fake kingdom over all the earth, in order to enthrone 'their' king of the world. Their king is NOT our Lord Jesus Christ. That's why they want you to accept this world of flesh as evidence of Christ's Kingdom having come literally already. It has not. No yet, but it is very near based on the signs our Lord gave in His Word.

Amen brother. :yes

Oh my...those are heavy charges.
To deny Jesus rules and reigns today is to deny the Word of God.
To claim He'll set up a future 1000 yr. kingdom on earth also denies the Word of God.
The kingdom of God is eternal....a thousand year, in-between kingdom on earth, is a doctrine unsupported by by anything more than Rev. 20...a symbolic book that's caused more division than any other book in the Bible.

Now..... you say there will be a new heavens and new earth...which I'm not disputing.
You also say there will be nations left, after our Lord's coming, who we're to rule over.
How do these "nations" pass over into a new heaven and earth?

 

[shad]

Now..... you say there will be a new heavens and new earth...which I'm not disputing.
You also say there will be nations left, after our Lord's coming, who we're to rule over.
How do these "nations" pass over into a new heaven and earth?

Jesus and His elect will govern new earth. BTW, Satan and this world(satan's world) will be destroyed by Jesus and His elect and the new earth is in complete peace, without wars, diseases, hatred, poverty and so on...

Oh yes, Halellujah :yes

 

[Free]

Now..... you say there will be a new heavens and new earth...which I'm not disputing.
You also say there will be nations left, after our Lord's coming, who we're to rule over.
How do these "nations" pass over into a new heaven and earth?

Jesus and His elect will govern new earth. BTW, Satan and this world(satan's world) will be destroyed by Jesus and His elect and the new earth is in complete peace, without wars, diseases, hatred, poverty and so on...

Oh yes, Halellujah :yes

And yet, you are not following what Scripture says:

Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

This has been pointed out numerous times and has yet to be addressed by anyone. And not only that but there has yet to be shown a single verse which states that Satan is in power since Jesus' death and resurrection. So before you go off clapping and applauding something you think is right, you need to deal with those two points, in the least.

 

[shad]

This has been pointed out numerous times and has yet to be addressed by anyone. And not only that but there has yet to be shown a single verse which states that Satan is in power since Jesus' death and resurrection. So before you go off clapping and applauding something you think is right, you need to deal with those two points, in the least.

You dont seem to be listening to the truth no matter how many times you are told. Your denial is unbelievable.

You believe what you want to believe.
take care.

 

[Drew]

Be careful brethren, for some claiming to be Christian today are actually wolves in sheep's clothing, and are behind today's movement to setup a fake kingdom over all the earth, in order to enthrone 'their' king of the world. Their king is NOT our Lord Jesus Christ. That's why they want you to accept this world of flesh as evidence of Christ's Kingdom having come literally already. It has not. No yet, but it is very near based on the signs our Lord gave in His Word.

Still taking the low road, I see.

This matter should be decided on the merits of the relevant scriptural arguments, not on smear and innuendo.

 

[Free]

This has been pointed out numerous times and has yet to be addressed by anyone. And not only that but there has yet to be shown a single verse which states that Satan is in power since Jesus' death and resurrection. So before you go off clapping and applauding something you think is right, you need to deal with those two points, in the least.

You dont seem to be listening to the truth no matter how many times you are told. Your denial is unbelievable.

You believe what you want to believe.

I'm curious: How is it that I have presented Scripture which gives much doubt to your position and asked for Scripture to support your position--and this many times to no avail--and yet somehow it is I who is said to be not "listening to the truth no matter how many times you are told" and that my "denial is unbelievable"? You have not given a substantial answer but only agreed with those who agree with your, thus far, unsupported position.

As in any debate, formal or informal, if no evidence is given to support one's arguments, then there is very little reason to believe it is the truth. If you want to engage in debate, you really need to learn to clearly rebut arguments and provide evidence to support your own instead of avoiding the points being made and claiming those who disagree with you won't listen to the truth. This is certainly not the first time you have done this; it is getting to be a bad habit with you.