Bible Study Kingdom of God / Heaven

[GodsGrace]

I like to use an index card as a book marker when reading the Gospels. I have the card marked on both sides. One side has a cross while the other side has a triangle. I have one side (triangle showing) as I read pre-crucifixion then flip the card (cross showing) post crucifixion. God set up the Temple administration of His kingdom. Jesus was a Jew under this administration. He deferred to it Himself after healing someone and sending them to the Temple. Man defiled this administration through violence/corruption. Jesus said so Himself in Matthew 11:12. That's why He said John was the least in the kingdom. Not because he was least in Christ's administration, but because John was least in the Temple administration. John rejected the Temple crowd and they rejected him. The veil was torn after the crucifixion marking the end of the Temple administration of the kingdom and marking the beginning of the Christ administered kingdom. John now takes his rightful place as the greatest prophet seated near Christ in His kingdom.

Did Jesus say John the Baptist was the least in the Kingdom?
I don't see that.

Matthew 11:11
11“Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Isn't Jesus saying that John the Baptist was the greatest prophet/man ever born?
Jesus is saying that in the Kingdom the one that is the least will still be greater than John.
Meaning that Everyone in the Kingdom will be very great.
??
In your last sentence you say John is the greatest....I don't understand the difference as you stated it.

I agree that the curtain was torn at Jesus' death to allow everyone into the inner temple, the Holy of Holies, and
it was no longer only for the High Priest to enter into.

I agree that Jesus came here to set up the Kingdom of God here on earth.

 

[daninthelionsden]

Did Jesus say John the Baptist was the least in the Kingdom?
I don't see that.

Matthew 11:11
11“Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Isn't Jesus saying that John the Baptist was the greatest prophet/man ever born?
Jesus is saying that in the Kingdom the one that is the least will still be greater than John.
Meaning that Everyone in the Kingdom will be very great.
??
In your last sentence you say John is the greatest....I don't understand the difference as you stated it.

I agree that the curtain was torn at Jesus' death to allow everyone into the inner temple, the Holy of Holies, and
it was no longer only for the High Priest to enter into.

I agree that Jesus came here to set up the Kingdom of God here on earth.

Every Bible study or commentary I've ever seen makes John out to be the least in Christ's present Kingdom. They seem to present it in such a way as to justify Replacement Theology. If you find any teaching/study/commentary that does not teach John to be the least....please point me to it. As far as I know, I'm the only one who views John to be the greatest in Christ's kingdom.

 

[daninthelionsden]

This is an interesting observation, and I’m going to split these posts out into a new thread for further discussion.

Many do not know this, but only the Levites from the line of Aaron could minister in the temple. If you recall, Zachariah, the Father of John the Baptist was administrating in the Temple when the Angel of the Lord visited him. Zachariah can be traced back directly to Aaron, the brother of Moses which is why Luke gives his division which is Abijah See Luke 1:5 / 1 Chronicles 24:10. Because we know this, we can also use this information to roughly calculate the month John the Baptist was born. This helps us to roughly calculate when Jesus was born.

Interestingly enough, Luke 1:5 also includes Herod, the King. Contrast that with 1 Chronicles 24 and we see that David was King.

This is worthy to note because God made a promise to David that he would always have a son on the throne. This means that only a son of David could sit on the throne, much in the same way only a son of Aaron could administer in the Temple. See 1 Samuel 7.
David was from the tribe of Judah, and Jesus was also from the tribe of Judah. But much more than that, Jesus is from the line of David. Jesus, is the son of David.

What do we know about King Herod? Much. We understand that after Solomon the kingdom split. One contention was over who could sit on the throne. This, the Northern Kingdom had their own kings who were not sons of David.

Herod was not a son of David. But more so, Herod was an Edomite (known enemy of Israel, see Obediah 1) who’s parents converted to Judaism, but not for religious purpose, but rather political. Thus, Herod had no claim to the throne and desecrated the temple.

There is much more we could say, but I hope you see that the Temple remained sacred, and it’s desecration occurs through Herod, not the descendants of Aaron.

I am certainly open to more insight. Thank you much. I know both Jesus and John had little good to say of the Temple crowd. Maybe that promise was kept through John in that even though he operated outside the Temple proper(by choice). Spiritually, he was administering as it should have been. Therefore Christ recognized John as the greatest though the Temple crowd considered him least. All the study/commentary/teaching I've ever seen of this just strikes me as wrong.
I wanted to add, yes I do believe the Temple was sacred and will be again upon His return. Jesus deferred to the Temple more than once when healing. Jesus was a Jew.

 

[GodsGrace]

Every Bible study or commentary I've ever seen makes John out to be the least in Christ's present Kingdom. They seem to present it in such a way as to justify Replacement Theology. If you find any teaching/study/commentary that does not teach John to be the least....please point me to it. As far as I know, I'm the only one who views John to be the greatest in Christ's kingdom.

Hi Dan...
I don't know what replacement theology is...
Info please?

As to John being the least in Christ's present Kingdom...
Jesus HIMSELF said that John the Baptist is greatest among men.
So how could John be the least in the Kingdom?

I dislike using commentaries, but here's one that might explain more about John the Baptist:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(11) There hath not risen a greater.—The greatness of men is measured by a divine not a human standard. The prophet, who was more than a prophet, the herald or the forerunner of the kingdom, was greater in his work, his holiness, his intuition of the truth, than the far-off patriarchs, than David or Solomon, and, à fortiori, than the conquerors and the destroyers, such as Alexander, Pompey, Herod, on whom the world bestowed the title of “the great” ones.
He that is least in the kingdom of heaven.—The Greek gives the comparative, not the superlative—he whose relative position in the kingdom of heaven is less than that of John. Very many commentators have thought, strangely enough, that our Lord referred in these words to Himself. He in the eyes of men was esteemed less than the Baptist, and yet was really greater. But this is surely not the meaning of the words. (1) It would be but a poor truism to have declared that the King was greater than the herald; and (2) there is no example of our Lord’s so speaking of Himself elsewhere. On the other hand, He does speak of His disciples as the “little ones” who believe on Him (Matthew 10:42), and as applied to them the words have a meaning at once natural and adequate. The least of His disciples, rejoicing in His presence, in communion with Him, in His revelation of the Father, though less than John in fame, work, the rigour of ascetic holiness, was yet above him in the knowledge of the truth, and therefore in blessedness and joy.

and I liked this one for the 4 reasons John the Baptist was great:

Benson Commentary
Matthew 11:11. Among them that are born of women — That is, among the whole race of mankind in all former ages, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist — As John, with regard to his religious and moral character, was the best of men, so he had some peculiar honours superior to any prophet of former generations. “Our Lord,” says Macknight, “honoured the Baptist with the magnificent title of the greatest of all the prophets, under the law, for four reasons. 1st, He was the subject of ancient prophecies, and had long been expected by the people of God under the character of Elias, a name given him by Malachi, because he was to possess the spirit and power of Elias. 2d, His conception and birth had been accompanied with miracles. 3d, When the season of his inspiration came, he was favoured with a clearer revelation concerning the Messiah than had been enjoyed by any of the prophets under the law. 4th, By his preaching he prepared the Jews for receiving the gospel, and consequently began that more excellent dispensation.” Notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven — That is, in the gospel dispensation, when fully opened, understood, and enjoyed in all its privileges and blessings, is greater than he — For Christ’s ministers, and even his real people in general, under the gospel, were to receive superior supplies of the Spirit, and know many important truths respecting our Lord and his kingdom which had not been revealed to John himself.

source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/11-11.htm

 

[daninthelionsden]

Hi Fran. In a nutshell, Replacement Theology is the belief that Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen. This is used, to make a case for pre-trib, by misunderstanding Matthew 11:11. This flies in the face of Zach. 8:23.
The commentaries you presented skirt around ":but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."
I believe most if not all can see Christ plainly declares John the greatest prophet. It's the second half of that verse that appears to be so widely misunderstood. It is widely assumed Jesus was speaking of His Kingdom, but I believe Jesus was only referring to John being the least in the Temple administration of the kingdom at that point in time.
Jesus was not referring to His Kingdom administration at that point because He had not taken over as the High Priest yet.

 

[Quantrill]

Right....In Matthew 13 Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven being like
1. A Hidden Treasure verse 44
2. A Costly Pearl Verse 45
3. A Dragnet Verse 47

Could you just clarify what you believe Jesus is speaking of?

Jesus is speaking here about the Kingdom of God on earth...
The Kingdom that Jesus came to bring.

I just saw this post. Sorry for not responding earlier. I will get back to it, but not right now.

Quantrill

 

[Mosheli]

As to John being the least in Christ's present Kingdom...
Jesus HIMSELF said that John the Baptist is greatest among men.
So how could John be the least in the Kingdom?

My understanding is that Jesus meant John was the greatest of all the Old prior to Jesus death and resurrection, but that those who are born again (within) through Jesus are then greater than even John. Similar to Jesus said our righteousness has to exceed that of the pharisees. So the least in the kingdom is only greater than John because they are post-resurrection or New whereas John is pre-resurrection/forerunner or Old. John was born of woman, we are born again. (John's name means "Jah/God gracious/favour", Jesus name means "Jah/God + salvation/saves".)

 

[daninthelionsden]

My understanding is that Jesus meant John was the greatest of all the Old prior to Jesus death and resurrection, but that those who are born again (within) through Jesus are then greater than even John. Similar to Jesus said our righteousness has to exceed that of the pharisees. So the least in the kingdom is only greater than John because they are post-resurrection or New whereas John is pre-resurrection/forerunner or Old. John was born of woman, we are born again. (John's name means "Jah/God gracious/favour", Jesus name means "Jah/God + salvation/saves".)

This is the prevailing teaching taught everywhere. I believe it is in error. This would mean Jesus spent His ministry praising John only to diss him in a wild misunderstood verse. When you then look at Matthew 11:12 you see another wild misunderstood verse. Violence has no power in Christ's Kingdom. Violence only had power in the Man administered kingdom of the Temple. Verse 12 is talking of the present problem of the corruption that existed at that point in time in the Temple administration of the Kingdom. Verse 12 interprets verse 11. Again, Jesus refers to that present situation in which John is least in the Man administration of the Kingdom through the Temple.
Line up all the verses where Jesus and John called the Temple crowd snakes/vipers etc then place Matt 11:12 under that list and see how it all lines up. Verse 12 then is no longer a wild verse but falls right in line with the other verses. This is also true for verse 11. Jesus is referring to that same Temple crowd in that, though John was qualified to be in that Temple crowd, John was least among THEM.
To believe John is least among you as Christians is arrogant and false. When you see the wedding feast and see John seated at one end and see the head of the table is Christ's place.....do you DARE to tell John to move down the table because he is least???? Do you DARE? That's what your doing with that misteaching of Matt 11:11.
I understand I am going against the historic teaching of history's Bible brainiacs, but I stand firmly in my understanding of those verses. You PROVE me wrong then I'll abandon it. I don't stand by it by vanity/pride. I stand by it because the mis-teaching is being used to support Replacement Theology which I believe is from the pit of hell and it causes damage in teaching privilege/entitlement/arrogance. We are co-heirs grafted in and not replacements. We are adopted. Know your place in humility and gratitude and appreciation.

 

[Mosheli]

This is the prevailing teaching taught everywhere. I believe it is in error. This would mean Jesus spent His ministry praising John only to diss him in a wild misunderstood verse. When you then look at Matthew 11:12 you see another wild misunderstood verse. Violence has no power in Christ's Kingdom. Violence only had power in the Man administered kingdom of the Temple. Verse 12 is talking of the present problem of the corruption that existed at that point in time in the Temple administration of the Kingdom. Verse 12 interprets verse 11. Again, Jesus refers to that present situation in which John is least in the Man administration of the Kingdom through the Temple.
Line up all the verses where Jesus and John called the Temple crowd snakes/vipers etc then place Matt 11:12 under that list and see how it all lines up. Verse 12 then is no longer a wild verse but falls right in line with the other verses. This is also true for verse 11. Jesus is referring to that same Temple crowd in that, though John was qualified to be in that Temple crowd, John was least among THEM.
To believe John is least among you as Christians is arrogant and false. When you see the wedding feast and see John seated at one end and see the head of the table is Christ's place.....do you DARE to tell John to move down the table because he is least???? Do you DARE? That's what your doing with that misteaching of Matt 11:11.
I understand I am going against the historic teaching of history's Bible brainiacs, but I stand firmly in my understanding of those verses. You PROVE me wrong then I'll abandon it. I don't stand by it by vanity/pride. I stand by it because the mis-teaching is being used to support Replacement Theology which I believe is from the pit of hell and it causes damage in teaching privilege/entitlement/arrogance. We are co-heirs grafted in and not replacements. We are adopted. Know your place in humility and gratitude and appreciation.

I am not a replacement theologist.

Jesus and/or I did not say or mean that John is least or diss him. You misunderstand my words/meaning.

Yes Jesus said of "all born of women", and "all the prophets and the law until John" which roughly equates with your "man administrated temple kingdom". (Though temple is not the kingdom. Kingdom means king(s) not priest(s). The decadent temple crowd in Jesus time are not "all born of women" or "all the prophets" (from Abel to Zachariah).)
But Jesus did not say John was "least" in the man administrated (temple/law) system/kingdom, he said he was the greatest of all from Adam to John.

Jesus or I am not saying John is least in the kingdom, he only meant that anyone (Jew not just gentile) born again in the post-resurrection kingdom is greater than pre-resurrection John. John himself since then is also born again in the kingdom so post-resurrection John is greater than pre-resurrection John, so he is not least in the kingdom (which is misconstruing Jesus' words). We all have to be like John's baptism and repent and make way for being born again in Jesus.

"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John". So John was the greatest of all the Old covenant/testament & under the Law, but those born again under the New covenant/testament are greater (including post-resurrection John).

And outside of Jesus John still remains the greatest of all under the Old/law.

I had thought it was strange that Jesus didn't seem to display much care about John being in prison and then being beheaded. But his saying he was the greatest shows he didn't not care.

 

[daninthelionsden]

I am not a replacement theologist.

Jesus and/or I did not say or mean that John is least or diss him. You misunderstand my words/meaning.

Yes Jesus said of "all born of women", and "all the prophets and the law until John" which roughly equates with your "man administrated temple kingdom". (Though temple is not the kingdom. Kingdom means king(s) not priest(s). The decadent temple crowd in Jesus time are not "all born of women" or "all the prophets" (from Abel to Zachariah).)
But Jesus did not say John was "least" in the man administrated (temple/law) system/kingdom, he said he was the greatest of all from Adam to John.

Jesus or I am not saying John is least in the kingdom, he only meant that anyone (Jew not just gentile) born again in the post-resurrection kingdom is greater than pre-resurrection John. John himself since then is also born again in the kingdom so post-resurrection John is greater than pre-resurrection John, so he is not least in the kingdom (which is misconstruing Jesus' words). We all have to be like John's baptism and repent and make way for being born again in Jesus.

"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John". So John was the greatest of all the Old covenant/testament & under the Law, but those born again under the New covenant/testament are greater (including post-resurrection John).

And outside of Jesus John still remains the greatest of all under the Old/law.

I had thought it was strange that Jesus didn't seem to display much care about John being in prison and then being beheaded. But his saying he was the greatest shows he didn't not care.

There was no new covenant when Jesus spoke these words in Matt 11:11 nor in 11:12. He was not speaking in the future tense. He was speaking in the present tense. If He was speaking future tense in 11:11 then the same would be true in 11:12. There is no violence in the new Christ administered Kingdom. There was violence in the Temple administered kingdom as Jesus alluded to this repeatedly. Christ had not taken over as High Priest yet when He spoke these words. Where in the Greek do you see future tense in Jesus's Words? Jesus was a Jew speaking as a Jew. Jesus deferred to the High Priest of the Temple when He healed. Why? Because God Himself set up the Temple administration Himself. Therefore Jesus was still honoring that very administrative access to the Kingdom that He Himself set up. John was born in the line to be in the Temple crowd but chose not to partake. The Temple crowd likewise rejected John as was in line with how all the prophets were treated....thus declared "least". It's not that Jesus didn't care, it's just that this life is temporary and Jesus is/was more concerned with how John/all of us live/d as to whether we met our purpose for this life. He loved John as He loves all of us. He knew John had met his end and completed his purpose in his life. He reassured John's followers of that very thing.

 

[Mosheli]

There was no new covenant when Jesus spoke these words in Matt 11:11 nor in 11:12. He was not speaking in the future tense. He was speaking in the present tense. If He was speaking future tense in 11:11 then the same would be true in 11:12. There is no violence in the new Christ administered Kingdom. There was violence in the Temple administered kingdom as Jesus alluded to this repeatedly. Christ had not taken over as High Priest yet when He spoke these words. Where in the Greek do you see future tense in Jesus's Words? Jesus was a Jew speaking as a Jew. Jesus deferred to the High Priest of the Temple when He healed. Why? Because God Himself set up the Temple administration Himself. Therefore Jesus was still honoring that very administrative access to the Kingdom that He Himself set up. John was born in the line to be in the Temple crowd but chose not to partake. The Temple crowd likewise rejected John as was in line with how all the prophets were treated....thus declared "least". It's not that Jesus didn't care, it's just that this life is temporary and Jesus is/was more concerned with how John/all of us live/d as to whether we met our purpose for this life. He loved John as He loves all of us. He knew John had met his end and completed his purpose in his life. He reassured John's followers of that very thing.

"The law and prophets were until John" is past tense. "The kingdom of God has come near". The kingdom is within is new. Time is only a human experience/view.
Jesus didn't say John was "least" of the Old, he said he was "greatest". He didn't say he is least of New, only that the new is greater than the old. He didn't say the Old was greater. (This is not replacement theology which replaces Israel with gentile Christian church. But the New does replace the old. Though it doesn't do away with the law.)
I'm not disputing that Levite priests still had/have a role for Jews etc then/since.

(I'm not allowed by God to comment what I want about Jesus/God not caring....)

 

[daninthelionsden]

"The law and prophets were until John" is past tense. "The kingdom of God has come near". The kingdom is within is new. Time is only a human experience/view.
Jesus didn't say John was "least" of the Old, he said he was "greatest". He didn't say he is least of New, only that the new is greater than the old. He didn't say the Old was greater. (This is not replacement theology which replaces Israel with gentile Christian church. But the New does replace the old. Though it doesn't do away with the law.)
I'm not disputing that Levite priests still had/have a role for Jews etc then/since.

(I'm not allowed by God to comment what I want about Jesus/God not caring....)

We just disagree on the meaning of the verses. 11:11 and 12 were either dealing with the present or the future. You cannot just decide arbitrarily one means the future and the other the present just to make it fit your understanding.
What is your understanding of "the kingdom suffers violence, and the violent take it by force." ???

 

[Quantrill]

Right....In Matthew 13 Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven being like
1. A Hidden Treasure verse 44
2. A Costly Pearl Verse 45
3. A Dragnet Verse 47

Could you just clarify what you believe Jesus is speaking of?

Jesus is speaking here about the Kingdom of God on earth...
The Kingdom that Jesus came to bring.

Yes, I can give you my understanding of it. I am a Dispensationalist, and so it will be along those lines. I do not claim any infallibility in this as there are other views. But I believe this view is in harmony with the whole book of (Matthew).

The three parables you ask of are the last three of eight parables given in (Matt. 13). And all eight of them are given to describe the 'mystery form of the Kingdom of Heaven'. (Matt. 13:11) Thus all eight are of equal importance. For me to be clear here, some things which have gone ahead must be gone over first before any attempt to interpret the last three parables. This will take several posts and days.

An important point to remember is that in (Matt. 13:11) the term 'mysteries' is added to describe the Kingdom of Heaven. What is a 'mystery' in the New Testament? It concerns a subject which may have been completely unknown in the Old Testament, or known but some new information is given concerning it which was not known before.

Why is this important? Because the 'Kingdom' was well known to Israel. They expected the Kingdom to come with their Messiah ruling in Jerusalem. They expected Elijah to come as the foreunner. (Mal. 3:1) (Mal. 4:5) Point being, this Kingdom was no mystery. But, now it is called a mystery. (Matt. 13:11) Why?

The Gospel of (Matthew) is the gospel of the Kingdom. It is not the gospel of the Church. It pertains to the coming Kingdom promised to Israel with Messiah ruling and reigning in Jerusalem. Just as was promised in the Old Testament. Thus you have Jesus credentials given in His genealogy in (Matt. 1). He is the Son of Abraham and the Son of David.

You have the forerunner coming in the person of John the Baptist. (Matt. 3:1-3) He can fulfill the Old Testament prophecy of Elijah. (Matt. 11:14) His message is, 'Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand'. (3:2) The King is coming. And then of course, the King comes. Jesus Christ. He has the birthright of Messiah. He does the miracles and works of Messiah. He offers Himself to Israel as their Messiah. See (Luke 4:21). People of Israel are on the verge of receiving Him as their King. (Matt. 12:23)

But there is opposition. Jesus is a threat to the religious leaders in Israel. Such a threat to their position that they plot to destroy Him. (Matt. 12:14) Thus Jesus begins 'withdrawing Himself' from them. (Matt. 12:15-16) He is the King, but He is being rejected. The Kingdom He is offering is being rejected. It comes to finality when the religious leaders charge Him for doing miracles by the power of satan, thus attributing the power of the Holy Spirit to satan. (Matt. 12:24-30) That's it. The break is complete. There will be no forgiveness for that. The offer is removed. (Matt. 12:31-45) Jesus now has nothing to look forward to save the Cross. (12:39-40) Israel is now but a whited sepulcher. (12:43-45)

This physical break with Israel is perfectly pictured in (Matt. 12:46-50). He ignored His mother and brothers of His flesh. His mother and brothers now are those that do the will of the Father. (50)

I realize this is information that you most likely already know and agree with. But I believe it is necessary to establish it before moving on to (Matt. 13). So, are you pretty much in agreement with what has been said thus far?

Quantrill

 

[GodsGrace]

My understanding is that Jesus meant John was the greatest of all the Old prior to Jesus death and resurrection, but that those who are born again (within) through Jesus are then greater than even John. Similar to Jesus said our righteousness has to exceed that of the pharisees. So the least in the kingdom is only greater than John because they are post-resurrection or New whereas John is pre-resurrection/forerunner or Old. John was born of woman, we are born again. (John's name means "Jah/God gracious/favour", Jesus name means "Jah/God + salvation/saves".)

Hi Mosheli,
I agree to the above.
It's a matter of comparison...
Jesus never meant that John the Baptists was the least (but only in comparison as you're stating).

Thanks for the explanation of the names!

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, I can give you my understanding of it. I am a Dispensationalist, and so it will be along those lines. I do not claim any infallibility in this as there are other views. But I believe this view is in harmony with the whole book of (Matthew).

The three parables you ask of are the last three of eight parables given in (Matt. 13). And all eight of them are given to describe the 'mystery form of the Kingdom of Heaven'. (Matt. 13:11) Thus all eight are of equal importance. For me to be clear here, some things which have gone ahead must be gone over first before any attempt to interpret the last three parables. This will take several posts and days.

An important point to remember is that in (Matt. 13:11) the term 'mysteries' is added to describe the Kingdom of Heaven. What is a 'mystery' in the New Testament? It concerns a subject which may have been completely unknown in the Old Testament, or known but some new information is given concerning it which was not known before.

Why is this important? Because the 'Kingdom' was well known to Israel. They expected the Kingdom to come with their Messiah ruling in Jerusalem. They expected Elijah to come as the foreunner. (Mal. 3:1) (Mal. 4:5) Point being, this Kingdom was no mystery. But, now it is called a mystery. (Matt. 13:11) Why?

The Gospel of (Matthew) is the gospel of the Kingdom. It is not the gospel of the Church. It pertains to the coming Kingdom promised to Israel with Messiah ruling and reigning in Jerusalem. Just as was promised in the Old Testament. Thus you have Jesus credentials given in His genealogy in (Matt. 1). He is the Son of Abraham and the Son of David.

You have the forerunner coming in the person of John the Baptist. (Matt. 3:1-3) He can fulfill the Old Testament prophecy of Elijah. (Matt. 11:14) His message is, 'Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand'. (3:2) The King is coming. And then of course, the King comes. Jesus Christ. He has the birthright of Messiah. He does the miracles and works of Messiah. He offers Himself to Israel as their Messiah. See (Luke 4:21). People of Israel are on the verge of receiving Him as their King. (Matt. 12:23)

But there is opposition. Jesus is a threat to the religious leaders in Israel. Such a threat to their position that they plot to destroy Him. (Matt. 12:14) Thus Jesus begins 'withdrawing Himself' from them. (Matt. 12:15-16) He is the King, but He is being rejected. The Kingdom He is offering is being rejected. It comes to finality when the religious leaders charge Him for doing miracles by the power of satan, thus attributing the power of the Holy Spirit to satan. (Matt. 12:24-30) That's it. The break is complete. There will be no forgiveness for that. The offer is removed. (Matt. 12:31-45) Jesus now has nothing to look forward to save the Cross. (12:39-40) Israel is now but a whited sepulcher. (12:43-45)

This physical break with Israel is perfectly pictured in (Matt. 12:46-50). He ignored His mother and brothers of His flesh. His mother and brothers now are those that do the will of the Father. (50)

I realize this is information that you most likely already know and agree with. But I believe it is necessary to establish it before moving on to (Matt. 13). So, are you pretty much in agreement with what has been said thus far?

Quantrill

Tomorrow Quantrill.
Sorry....

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Every Bible study or commentary I've ever seen makes John out to be the least in Christ's present Kingdom. They seem to present it in such a way as to justify Replacement Theology. If you find any teaching/study/commentary that does not teach John to be the least....please point me to it. As far as I know, I'm the only one who views John to be the greatest in Christ's kingdom.

John the Baptist is the least in the kingdom of God/heaven.
That is why he is the greatest.

 

[Mosheli]

We just disagree on the meaning of the verses. 11:11 and 12 were either dealing with the present or the future. You cannot just decide arbitrarily one means the future and the other the present just to make it fit your understanding.
What is your understanding of "the kingdom suffers violence, and the violent take it by force." ???

Yeah no worries we'll just have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the verse(s). I can see/understand your view but no matter how much I try to see it that way it just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't know about the violence verse, the original language and/or times context seems confusing as some footnotes/translations imply. One translation says either "subjected to violence (or advances forcibly) and violent people have been raiding it", another says "suffers violence, and the violent take it by force (or, plunder it)." another says "is the goal towards which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it".
. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/11.htm says "is taken by violence and (the) violent claim it". Another has "has opened to force; and the forceful are even now making it their prize". Amplified has "has endured violent assault, and violent men seize it by force (as a precious prize--a share in the heavenly kingdom is sought with most ardent zeal and intense exertion)."

 

[daninthelionsden]

Yeah no worries we'll just have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the verse(s). I can see/understand your view but no matter how much I try to see it that way it just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't know about the violence verse, the original language and/or times context seems confusing as some footnotes/translations imply. One translation says either "subjected to violence (or advances forcibly) and violent people have been raiding it", another says "suffers violence, and the violent take it by force (or, plunder it)." another says "is the goal towards which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it".
. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/11.htm says "is taken by violence and (the) violent claim it". Another has "has opened to force; and the forceful are even now making it their prize". Amplified has "has endured violent assault, and violent men seize it by force (as a precious prize--a share in the heavenly kingdom is sought with most ardent zeal and intense exertion)."

Cool. I can agree to disagree. Peace.

 

[Quantrill]

Tomorrow Quantrill.
Sorry....

No problem. No hurry. This will involve days I'm sure.

Quantrill

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, I can give you my understanding of it. I am a Dispensationalist, and so it will be along those lines. I do not claim any infallibility in this as there are other views. But I believe this view is in harmony with the whole book of (Matthew).

The three parables you ask of are the last three of eight parables given in (Matt. 13). And all eight of them are given to describe the 'mystery form of the Kingdom of Heaven'. (Matt. 13:11) Thus all eight are of equal importance. For me to be clear here, some things which have gone ahead must be gone over first before any attempt to interpret the last three parables. This will take several posts and days.

An important point to remember is that in (Matt. 13:11) the term 'mysteries' is added to describe the Kingdom of Heaven. What is a 'mystery' in the New Testament? It concerns a subject which may have been completely unknown in the Old Testament, or known but some new information is given concerning it which was not known before.

Why is this important? Because the 'Kingdom' was well known to Israel. They expected the Kingdom to come with their Messiah ruling in Jerusalem. They expected Elijah to come as the foreunner. (Mal. 3:1) (Mal. 4:5) Point being, this Kingdom was no mystery. But, now it is called a mystery. (Matt. 13:11) Why?

The Gospel of (Matthew) is the gospel of the Kingdom. It is not the gospel of the Church. It pertains to the coming Kingdom promised to Israel with Messiah ruling and reigning in Jerusalem. Just as was promised in the Old Testament. Thus you have Jesus credentials given in His genealogy in (Matt. 1). He is the Son of Abraham and the Son of David.

You have the forerunner coming in the person of John the Baptist. (Matt. 3:1-3) He can fulfill the Old Testament prophecy of Elijah. (Matt. 11:14) His message is, 'Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand'. (3:2) The King is coming. And then of course, the King comes. Jesus Christ. He has the birthright of Messiah. He does the miracles and works of Messiah. He offers Himself to Israel as their Messiah. See (Luke 4:21). People of Israel are on the verge of receiving Him as their King. (Matt. 12:23)

But there is opposition. Jesus is a threat to the religious leaders in Israel. Such a threat to their position that they plot to destroy Him. (Matt. 12:14) Thus Jesus begins 'withdrawing Himself' from them. (Matt. 12:15-16) He is the King, but He is being rejected. The Kingdom He is offering is being rejected. It comes to finality when the religious leaders charge Him for doing miracles by the power of satan, thus attributing the power of the Holy Spirit to satan. (Matt. 12:24-30) That's it. The break is complete. There will be no forgiveness for that. The offer is removed. (Matt. 12:31-45) Jesus now has nothing to look forward to save the Cross. (12:39-40) Israel is now but a whited sepulcher. (12:43-45)

This physical break with Israel is perfectly pictured in (Matt. 12:46-50). He ignored His mother and brothers of His flesh. His mother and brothers now are those that do the will of the Father. (50)

I realize this is information that you most likely already know and agree with. But I believe it is necessary to establish it before moving on to (Matt. 13). So, are you pretty much in agreement with what has been said thus far?

Quantrill

Yes, I'm in agreement.
There's nothing above that I can even comment on to make it more clear...
You've made it very clear.

Sounds like you want to continue...OK.
Keep in mind that Matthew always refers to the KINGDOM as The Kingdom of Heaven...
even when he really means the Kingdom of God.

Maybe you'll get to this next.....

Thanks for such a well thought out post.