The Kingdom Of Heaven

[Nathan]

I wasn't thinking that it means there is more than one kingdom. Perhaps something like, different aspects of the same kingdom.

Sorta like the united states. There's 50 states, but each state can say we are the united states and this would be accurate statement, but then all 50 together is also the united states. I'm not even sure what we have here, but it occurs to me that if they are exactly the same thing, then why didn't they say it the same exact way? The Kingdom of God is very complex the way it is run. It's an entire judicial system there. There is court. The courts of heaven are ran with an exacting set of rules and procedures, to effect pure righteousness and holiness. It is a just system, but we don't really know a whole lot about the etiquette of heaven. But a slight differentiation of terms used may just shine light on whatever is being discussed. Does that make sense? Am I making this clear to you all what I'm trying to say?

There's no reason for anyone to get defensive here about this. Just talking, trying to see what we can see.

I see. I did not see this before my last few posts.

I still think they might help though. Actually, each state can say they are a part of the United States. They can't say they are the United States because the word implies more than one state united.

On the opposite side, the Kingdom of God is very singular. We never see it in a plural form.

I think the reason, as may have already been stated, the difference in words used is just a matter of authority and location. It's Gods kingdom, and it's located in heaven.

 

[dirtfarmer]

I don't that's so. Some of the churches in Revelations 2-3 are the same churches that Paul started up, visited and sent letters to. John I think is said to have been one of the last Apstoles and could be said to be a disciple to the churches of Jews and Gentiles.

hello Not_Now.Soon, dirtfarmer here

How do you understand( interpret) Galatians 2:7, " But contraries, when they saw that the gospel of uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter." In verse 9 the last phrase states: " that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."
No disagreement about John being the last apostle, but I do believe if you study about "the churches of Asia', you will find that during the time of the apostles that there were churches that consist of only Jews.

In Acts 21 & 22 tells us that there were congregations of only Jews( circumcision) of which John was sent to. In Acts 21:27 it is stated; "And when seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, We see from these scriptures that there were congregations at that time that were only Jewish.
In Galatians 2:9 it is stated, " And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; That we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

 

[dirtfarmer]

Right, but I thought you were saying the entire book of Revelation was written to Jewish congregation. Maybe I misunderstood.

hello Nathan, dirtfarmer here

You don't find " the bride" mentioned until the latter part of Revelation, around chapter 19:7.

 

[Nathan]

hello Nathan, dirtfarmer here

You don't find " the bride" mentioned until the latter part of Revelation, around chapter 19:7.

I see. You don't think that the "bride" is just one illustration of the church, which is made up of a multitude of nations?

This may not be applicable to this topic though.

 

[Douglas Summers]

In some places in scripture, it speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven. In other places, it speaks of the Kingdom of God...

This strikes me as if it is talking about different things. I haven't studied it or anything, it just occurred to me so I thought I'd ask. Is it talking about different things?

Christ began His ministry preaching the Kingdom of Heaven, (Matt. 4:17, 23) but before that, John the Baptist was prophesying about the Kingdom of Heaven to soon be at hand (Matt. 3:1-3). So, in Christ, the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Christ was the son of David according to the flesh, and came to fulfill the promise to Israel as the son of David would always be upon the throne ruling Israel (2 Samuel 7:4-19) (Psalms 89:20-37) That is the Kingdom of heaven..

In Matthew 12:23, the Christ is recognized as the Son of David, but is rejected by the religious leaders. (Matt. 12:24-30). And after His rejection by His own, The kingdom of Heaven is preached no more. Kingdom of God and kingdom of Heaven are used interchangeably because the Kingdom of Heaven is in the kingdom of God, but the Kingdom of God includes all three heavens whereas Kingdom of Heaven refers to the rule of Christ upon the earth.

 

[Free]

hello Free, dirtfarmer here

There are numerous reasons.
In chapter 1:6 it is stated; " And hath made us kings and priest" is Jewish according to Exodus 19:6 "A kingdom of priest"

And what about 1 Peter 2:5,9?

In chapter 1:7 it is stated ; " and they which also pierced him:"

I don't understand your point here.

Chapter 1:9 I John, who am your brother and companion in tribulation."

I don't understand your point here either. John was in exile; he was suffering persecution as they were suffering persecution.

The messages to the 7 churches state; " to him that overcometh" is never stated to the body of Christ, because Christ has overcome the world and all that pertains to it.

I don't see how that supports your position.

1Jn 5:4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.
1Jn 5:5 Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (ESV)

John says here that every believer is an overcomer. These letters are written to seven churches, which are full of believers, Jew and Gentile. It is also worth noting that these seven churches are in Asia Minor.

 

[Free]

Based on what, exactly?

Reba nailed it. It seems to mainly be the preference of the writer--the same parallel sayings by different authors use different language. This means that they are the same.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

hello Not_Now.Soon, dirtfarmer here

How do you understand( interpret) Galatians 2:7, " But contraries, when they saw that the gospel of uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter." In verse 9 the last phrase states: " that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."
No disagreement about John being the last apostle, but I do believe if you study about "the churches of Asia', you will find that during the time of the apostles that there were churches that consist of only Jews.

In Acts 21 & 22 tells us that there were congregations of only Jews( circumcision) of which John was sent to. In Acts 21:27 it is stated; "And when seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, We see from these scriptures that there were congregations at that time that were only Jewish.
In Galatians 2:9 it is stated, " And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; That we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

You could be right. I'm not a scholar who knows the history or the geography, or any other point to refute. But I've always read the messages to the churches to be applicatible to me as well. Differing times in life the critism Jesus gave to each church, many of them applied to my behavior as well. As a non-Jew. I hope God counts me as grafted into the church. Otherwise if there is a seperation and distinction between Jew and Gentile when it comes to faith in Jesus, what can be said about that? What can be said about our hope?

 

[Nathan]

Christ began His ministry preaching the Kingdom of Heaven, (Matt. 4:17, 23) but before that, John the Baptist was prophesying about the Kingdom of Heaven to soon be at hand (Matt. 3:1-3). So, in Christ, the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Christ was the son of David according to the flesh, and came to fulfill the promise to Israel as the son of David would always be upon the throne ruling Israel (2 Samuel 7:4-19) (Psalms 89:20-37) That is the Kingdom of heaven..

In Matthew 12:23, the Christ is recognized as the Son of David, but is rejected by the religious leaders. (Matt. 12:24-30). And after His rejection by His own, The kingdom of Heaven is preached no more. Kingdom of God and kingdom of Heaven are used interchangeably because the Kingdom of Heaven is in the kingdom of God, but the Kingdom of God includes all three heavens whereas Kingdom of Heaven refers to the rule of Christ upon the earth.

I don't see how this can be honestly. I mean, I think the majority of what you point out is correct, but the idea of the kingdom of heaven being a ruling of Christ on this earth is not something I find to line up.

Christ specifically stated His kingdom was not of this earth.

John 18:36 (ESV)
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

 

[Nathan]

We also have to consider the passages that just use the word 'kingdom'. If there is a distinction of kingdoms, which kingdom is referred to?

Matthew 4:23 (ESV)
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

Matthew 6:10 (ESV)
Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Matthew 9:35 (ESV)
And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction.

1 Corinthians 15:24 (ESV)
Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.

Then you have the following verse, is this another kingdom? The kingdom of His beloved Son?

Colossians 1:13 (ESV)
He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,

 

[eddif]

I don't at all understand what you mean.

Deuteronomy 25:4 KJV
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

You would think the context is work animal husbandry.

But:

I Corinthians 9:9 KJV
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

So where do we go?:
I Timothy 5:17 KJV
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

In modern terms it means pay the good preacher / elder / bishop / other term.

By bible study you find context sometimes makes giant leaps into other areas.

...........

The issue of Matthew 5 and Luke 6 has a lot to be learned by pulling in scriptures that seem unconnected. However there seems to be no desire to tie them in to see differences and similarities.

If an ox can be a preacher why not look into an expansion of mountain top vs plain.

Acts 17:10 KJV
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I will be glad to go on or just remain silent on the issue / issues.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Douglas Summers]

I don't see how this can be honestly. I mean, I think the majority of what you point out is correct, but the idea of the kingdom of heaven being a ruling of Christ on this earth is not something I find to line up.

Christ specifically stated His kingdom was not of this earth.

John 18:36 (ESV)
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

Did you study the Scriptures? When Christ says that His kingdom is not of this world, He means of this age (principles of this world that we live under). He lays out the principles of His kingdom in Matthews chapters 5,6 and 7. Not understanding the gospel that Christ taught throws off the whole understanding of teaching correct doctrine. God will destroy this earth under the principles of Satan and will rule the earth under His kingdom, (the Kingdom of Heaven among men) (Rev. 21:1-3)

 

[Nathan]

Did you study the Scriptures? When Christ says that His kingdom is not of this world, He means of this age (principles of this world that we live under). He lays out the principles of His kingdom in Matthews chapters 5,6 and 7. Not understanding the gospel that Christ taught throws off the whole understanding of teaching correct doctrine. God will destroy this earth under the principles of Satan and will rule the earth under His kingdom, (the Kingdom of Heaven among men) (Rev. 21:1-3)

Do you believe in a literal destruction of this earth?

Sounds like you are saying this is just metaphorical.

The way I understand the Gospel, is we are not living under the principles of this 'age' now - not waiting for the coming kingdom.

Jesus told His disciples to pass on the same teachings He taught them. So on and so on. On down the line it goes.

In other words, the Gospel Christ taught is the same one the disciples taught, and it should be the same one we teach.

 

[Free]

Deuteronomy 25:4 KJV
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

You would think the context is work animal husbandry.

But:

I Corinthians 9:9 KJV
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

So where do we go?:
I Timothy 5:17 KJV
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

In modern terms it means pay the good preacher / elder / bishop / other term.

By bible study you find context sometimes makes giant leaps into other areas.

...........

The issue of Matthew 5 and Luke 6 has a lot to be learned by pulling in scriptures that seem unconnected. However there seems to be no desire to tie them in to see differences and similarities.

If an ox can be a preacher why not look into an expansion of mountain top vs plain.

Acts 17:10 KJV
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I will be glad to go on or just remain silent on the issue / issues.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

I understand Paul's use of the ox being fed as an analogy to preachers being paid. But what does any of this have to do with the topic?

 

[Edward]

I understand Paul's use of the ox being fed as an analogy to preachers being paid. But what does any of this have to do with the topic?

You can't put that together?

 

[reba]

I understand Paul's use of the ox being fed as an analogy to preachers being paid. But what does any of this have to do with the topic?

nothing...

teaching 2 Kingdoms is division .. a them and us type of theology.. O well the Scriptures speak for themselves... But some guy some place has a 'new key' to understanding so like silly women 2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Nathan]

You can't put that together?

He's not alone. I'm not sure how it relates to defining the difference between kingdom of God, and kingdom of heaven.

The original thought was why we see two different kingdoms right?

 

[Nathan]

He's not alone. I'm not sure how it relates to defining the difference between kingdom of God, and kingdom of heaven.

The original thought was why we see two different kingdoms right?

Also, to add to this, we really just see the different words used by different people describing the same event - in context.

The Ox reference is used in different contexts - like an analogy. There is a significant difference between analogy and different words used.

 

[Free]

You can't put that together?

As reba as so aptly pointed out, we have parallel passages in the gospels having Jesus saying both "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven." This strongly suggests that they are one and the same; indeed, they would have to be or Jesus is saying two different things at the same time.

So, please feel free to enlighten us on how the ox analogy is relevant to this topic since you obviously understand how it is.

 

[Corn Pop]

There is no difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of heaven is the Kingdom of God because its God's Kingdom, and the Kingdom of God is the Kingdom of Heaven because heaven is Gods Kingdom. It cannot be more simple.

God does not make anything complicated but man likes to complicate it.