Gospel of the Kingdom of God

[TK]

what very appropriate timing of this topic!

i am leading a multi-week class on "What is the Kingdom of God" at my church starting next week. i've been re-listening to Steve's excellent lectures on this topic- Pierac if you havent listened to them yet i highly recommend them!

i think most Christians have only a very cursory understanding of this vital topic. Thanks. Steve and Paidion, for your responses.

TK

Thanks TK,

Could you provide me a link to Steve's lectures?

Paul

http://www.digitalministries.us/page10.html

they are on the bottom left!

TK

[Pierac]

what very appropriate timing of this topic!

i am leading a multi-week class on "What is the Kingdom of God" at my church starting next week. i've been re-listening to Steve's excellent lectures on this topic- Pierac if you havent listened to them yet i highly recommend them!

i think most Christians have only a very cursory understanding of this vital topic. Thanks. Steve and Paidion, for your responses.

TK

Thanks TK,

Could you provide me a link to Steve's lectures?

Paul

Thanks

Paul

http://www.digitalministries.us/page10.html

they are on the bottom left!

TK

[Pierac]

Yes, an interesting topic indeed!

Before the resurrection of Christ, His resurrection was a mystery. The critical message to the people in that generation was to repent before the kingdom started. Matthew 13 parables show some significance of the resurrection. For example,the Hid Treasure parable shows that Christ in a sense bought the field through His death. The similar idea is shown in the Pearl parable, that Jesus gave all He had -- His life -- to obtain the great pearl.

Well, yes. however, not much different from other teachers during this time. Note not all the Pharisees were corrupt. There were many godly teachers at that time, Yet they did not preach the kingdom is near! To teach about the forgiveness of sins and repentance would have simply made the people yawn. They already had the temple for that purpose, no Jesus preached much more than forgiveness to get the people so excited! He hit upon a cultural nerve!

At this stage the disciples had no knowledge of the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is proved by their subsequent reaction to Jesus's announcement of his impending arrests and crucifixion: Luk 18:31 Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. 32 "For He will be handed over to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, 33 and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again." 34 But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said.

The disciples didn't understand it. It seems that the disciples were in such a culture shock under the teachings of Jesus that these disciples couldn't understand all Jesus said. Part of that shock came because the disciples likely (and apparently) expected Jesus to move into kingship while among them -- and death is quite an interruption of that concept. Note also that the meaning was hidden from them. There certainly was a need for the Holy Spirit to remind them what Jesus had told them. Jesus knew and planned ahead for getting their memory back. Is there a problem with Jesus not speaking more about the resurrection?

Yes, indeed. the disciples wanted to rule with Jesus then and on the spot, even after His resurrection... Act 1:6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"

It is important to note here, that Jesus continued to speak of the things concerning the Kingdom of God even after his resurrection. So, after 40 days of learning of the things concerning the Kingdom of God the Apostles still inquired about when he would restore the Kingdom to Israel. Yes, the Apostles were looking forward to seeing the restoration of the Israel nation to a leadership role of the world. Is equally important to note that Jesus, did not correct them about the request but only replied the time for the great restoration has not yet been revealed.

However, Acts 1:5-7 provides a testimony against the idea that the Kingdom of God was initiated when Jesus went to sit at the right hand of the Father in heaven. In Acts 1:5 after Jesus had given a six-week seminar on the subject, of the Kingdom (Acts 1:3) the disciples, who had already been preaching the gospel of the Kingdom under Jesus supervision, asked the obvious question. Hearing that the spirit was to be poured out from heaven, they supposed not unreasonably that the Kingdom of God was going to appear at the same time. They defined the Kingdom has Jesus had taught them. They thought of it as involving the restored tribes of Israel in the land. "Is it yet at this time," they asked, "that you are going to restore the Kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). Jesus did not in any way rebuked them for their good question. He simply inform them that the time for the coming of the kingdom would not be known. The restoration of the Kingdom to Israel is taken for granted. The time which pass to elapse before the Kingdom comes cannot be known. Note, however, this is central point which settles any question about the Kingdom in relation to the coming of the spirit. The spirit was to come "in a few days time." But that Kingdom was to arrive at a time of unknown. This proves obviously that the coming of the spirit at Pentecost is not the same event as the coming of the Kingdom.

... snip...

Now if, as it is commonly said, the Gospel consist of information about the death and resurrection of Jesus only, how is it that both Jesus and the twelve proclaimed the Gospel without reference to the Savior's death and resurrection? What is the answer?
...snip...

Scripture seems to say that the kingdom was yet future. So of course they had to share the gospel of the kingdom. Now, when speaking to Jews, the fact of Jesus' resurrection appeared to be widely known. The Apostles' preaching then only needed few references to the resurrection.
I suppose you have a different question in mind-- not the original question about what Jesus preached. Are you asking whether resurrection is part of the gospel of the kingdom? If so, the answer then would be that the death and resurrection had an implicit role of the start of the kingdom as shown in the Matt 13 parables as described above. And the death and resurrection were part of those aspects of truth that most likely stop people from coming to faith -- because they think this idea must just be mythology -- the idea of resurrection doesn't fit the way of thinking and logic of the natural man.

No, I do not deny our future resurrection, as the resurrection is the beginning of Gods new creation! We will all be like Jesus when we are raised to be with him. You have mistaken my intent to understand the "real" Gospel of the Kingdom.

In Acts, however, we find added to the Gospel about the Kingdom, the new facts about the death and resurrection of Jesus, which had now become history. The result is a Gospel message about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ's (Acts 8:12; 28:23, 31).

Acts 4:10 shows an example where Peter highlighted the fact of Christ's resurrection

be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in him does this man stand here before you whole.

So this appears to be a fact inherent to the gospel of the kingdom. But the resurrection still didn't have to be comprehended by the disciples for the fact to be important later on.

Not the point I was trying to make. The point is the Gospel was more than just the death and resurrection. Again this is my whole point, as all we hear about the Gospel in our Churches today is Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. This is of course all well and good but it's only a small part of what he was sent to preach! Jesus told us in Luke 4:43. But He said to them, "I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose." Yet He did not teach about his death and ressurection. So what did he preach for 3 years before he revealed his death for the sins of the world and resurrection from the dead? The first born from the dead to be exact!

That Kingdom message remains as the primary component of the Gospel. Jesus’ death and resurrection are additional, indispensable subjects for belief.

So again what did Jesus preach?

How was this discussion supposed to change any impression about what Jesus preached?

What impressions? I'm simply asking you and everyone here what He (Jesus) and his disciples taught for 3 years all the while healing the sick and casting out demons. What is the Gospel of the kingdom with the death and resurrection being hidden! Tell me the Gospel of the kingdom with out speaking of Jesus' death and resurrection. Can you explain the Gospel of the Kingdom with out speaking of these things? I don't think I can. Yet, He and His disciples managed to do so for many years.

[Suzana]

I'm simply asking you and everyone here what He (Jesus) and his disciples taught for 3 years all the while healing the sick and casting out demons. What is the Gospel of the kingdom with the death and resurrection being hidden! Tell me the Gospel of the kingdom with out speaking of Jesus' death and resurrection. Can you explain the Gospel of the Kingdom with out speaking of these things? I don't think I can.

I don't see why it should be so very mysterious; maybe I just have a simple mind.
A kingdom consists of a king, and his subjects (as Steve puts it, I think).
Surely we just have to read what is recorded for us (like the Sermon on the Mount for example), to find out what Jesus taught.


Matthew 28:18-20 (NKJV)
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Micah 6:8 (KJV) He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

[mikew]

Yes, an interesting topic indeed!

Well, yes. however, not much different from other teachers during this time. Note not all the Pharisees were corrupt. There were many godly teachers at that time, Yet they did not preach the kingdom is near! To teach about the forgiveness of sins and repentance would have simply made the people yawn. They already had the temple for that purpose, no Jesus preached much more than forgiveness to get the people so excited! He hit upon a cultural nerve!

You are sorta right that not all Pharisees were corrupt but there system was corrupt and propagated corruption. Hence Jesus focused on the scribes and Pharisees in His rebuke in Matt 23. So the Pharisaical system and most Pharisees were corrupt. Yet we see an example of one guy named Nicodemus who snuck away to meet with Jesus.
It is true the importance of preaching the kingdom in the first century. In Matthew much of what Jesus said was couched in the context of the kingdom. And it truly was a cultural nerve. But for Jesus to offer the kingdom in His preaching to them, the fulfillment also had to be during that generation.

Yes, indeed. the disciples wanted to rule with Jesus then and on the spot, even after His resurrection... Act 1:6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"

It is important to note here, that Jesus continued to speak of the things concerning the Kingdom of God even after his resurrection. So, after 40 days of learning of the things concerning the Kingdom of God the Apostles still inquired about when he would restore the Kingdom to Israel. Yes, the Apostles were looking forward to seeing the restoration of the Israel nation to a leadership role of the world. Is equally important to note that Jesus, did not correct them about the request but only replied the time for the great restoration has not yet been revealed.

I agree. The kingdom hadn't started at that point.

However, Acts 1:5-7 provides a testimony against the idea that the Kingdom of God was initiated when Jesus went to sit at the right hand of the Father in heaven.
...snip...
"Is it yet at this time," they asked, "that you are going to restore the Kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). Jesus did not in any way rebuked them for their good question. He simply inform them that the time for the coming of the kingdom would not be known. The restoration of the Kingdom to Israel is taken for granted. The time which pass to elapse before the Kingdom comes cannot be known. Note, however, this is central point which settles any question about the Kingdom in relation to the coming of the spirit. The spirit was to come "in a few days time." But that Kingdom was to arrive at a time of unknown. This proves obviously that the coming of the spirit at Pentecost is not the same event as the coming of the Kingdom.

Luke 21:31 showed the kingdom was coming after the fall of the temple. This also would seem to have been the time of restoration, the only possible time, that the kingdom could have been restored to Israel.
That's a good argument about the kingdom not starting on the Day of Pentecost.

...snip...
I suppose you have a different question in mind-- not the original question about what Jesus preached. Are you asking whether resurrection is part of the gospel of the kingdom? If so, the answer then would be that the death and resurrection had an implicit role of the start of the kingdom as shown in the Matt 13 parables as described above. And the death and resurrection were part of those aspects of truth that most likely stop people from coming to faith -- because they think this idea must just be mythology -- the idea of resurrection doesn't fit the way of thinking and logic of the natural man.

No, I do not deny our future resurrection, as the resurrection is the beginning of Gods new creation! We will all be like Jesus when we are raised to be with him. You have mistaken my intent to understand the "real" Gospel of the Kingdom.

I meant the resurrection of Jesus. His resurrection was mentioned at times but not as the focus of preaching. The Apostles didn't need to preach about it since this was widely known. The resurrection of believers appears to be an idea that mainly would be shared with people after they became followers of Christ.

Not the point I was trying to make. The point is the Gospel was more than just the death and resurrection. Again this is my whole point, as all we hear about the Gospel in our Churches today is Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. This is of course all well and good but it's only a small part of what he was sent to preach! Jesus told us in Luke 4:43. But He said to them, "I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose." Yet He did not teach about his death and ressurection. So what did he preach for 3 years before he revealed his death for the sins of the world and resurrection from the dead? The first born from the dead to be exact!

How was this discussion supposed to change any impression about what Jesus preached?

What impressions? I'm simply asking you and everyone here what He (Jesus) and his disciples taught for 3 years all the while healing the sick and casting out demons. What is the Gospel of the kingdom with the death and resurrection being hidden! Tell me the Gospel of the kingdom with out speaking of Jesus' death and resurrection. Can you explain the Gospel of the Kingdom with out speaking of these things? I don't think I can. Yet, He and His disciples managed to do so for many years.

Oops. I had figured you had an answer in mind and were trying to lead people there.

One more complication I would like to add...
If the kingdom indeed came in the first century, then today's preaching maybe shouldn't be about the kingdom of God. The preaching of the kingdom was primarily to the expectation of Jews. Gentiles only would have been somewhat interested in the idea of the kingdom as part of what they gained after following Jesus, not as an enticement to become a follower.
But the evangelism in the first century was primarily about repentance and that Jews (and by some extension Gentiles) had to repent in order to enjoy the kingdom and they had to repent by the time the kingdom started.
This repentance seems to follow some of the ideas of Malachi
4:3 You shall tread down the wicked; for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I make,” says Yahweh of Armies. 4:4 “Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded to him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances. 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Yahweh comes. 4:6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.”

[Jill]

.

[Pierac]

I'm simply asking you and everyone here what He (Jesus) and his disciples taught for 3 years all the while healing the sick and casting out demons. What is the Gospel of the kingdom with the death and resurrection being hidden! Tell me the Gospel of the kingdom with out speaking of Jesus' death and resurrection. Can you explain the Gospel of the Kingdom with out speaking of these things? I don't think I can.

I don't see why it should be so very mysterious; maybe I just have a simple mind.
A kingdom consists of a king, and his subjects (as Steve puts it, I think).
Surely we just have to read what is recorded for us (like the Sermon on the Mount for example), to find out what Jesus taught.

Matthew 28:18-20 (NKJV)
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Micah 6:8 (KJV) He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Good day Suzana,

Yes, we do have recordings of many teachings of Jesus. So how would a 1st century Jew take these teachings, compared to a modern westerner today. What mental visions would a Jew have 2000 years ago that a modern westerner who did not grow up living out the O.T. have? Could the understanding of Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom have changed over time?


For example, you quoted Matthew 28:18-20. Do you understand all the Hebraic meanings of "baptizing in the name"? We always think of being baptized in water, either as infants or adults. Yes, this definition is used many times in the New Testament, but there is also another meaning that we must store in the back of our minds.

What was a name to a Jew? This word of course brings to mind an actual name, such as John Doe. So again what does it mean to a Jew?

Name - 1. designates more than the external person; it tends to express his basic character, his personality. We might say it is an emanation of the person himself. 2. authority of, expressing attributes, in acknowledgment or confession of (NABD & VED).

This definition helps us in a verse like John 17:26:

"I (Jesus) made known to them your name and I will make it known."

Jesus obviously did not come to inform the Apostles that God’s name is YHWH. He came to explain God’s character, His attributes, His will, so that we could come to truly know God and follow His ways. This understanding of the word "name" along with the definition of the next word "baptize" will add to your understanding of Matt 28:19.

Baptize - 1. to unite together, to become closely bound to (VED).

Now put together the definitions of "name" and "baptize" to get the true meaning of Matthew 28:19. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words has this commentary on this verse:

"The phrase in Matthew 28:19, ‘baptize them in the name’ would indicate that the baptized person was closely bound to, or became property of, the one in whose name he was baptized."

With these definitions we can safely paraphrase this verse as follows:

"Go out into the world and introduce or bring them into the knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Which is exactly what they did. The Apostles had to go into the world and explain to the Gentiles who God is, who the Son (The Messiah) is, and also about the power that they would receive from God’s Spirit. If we take it to mean that we are to water baptize people in the actual name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, then why is it that no one in the Bible ever uses this formula to water baptize believers?

Also there is a very strong position held by many scholars that this verse was not part of the original text of Matthew’s Gospel, as Eusebius, a third century Christian apologist, quoted the text in a shorter form rather than the form that now appears in the gospel. It reads,

"Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name" (which is in agreement with the paraphrase that was just given above).

One commentator writes,
"There is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the gospel, and that in the second century the longer clause supplanted the shorter ‘baptizing them in my name.’ An insertion of this kind, derived from liturgical use, would have rapidly been adopted by copyist and translators" (The International Critical Commentary, by Willoughby C. Allen Volume 26, pp. 307-308).

This position has strong Biblical support by the fact that the Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as Jesus supposedly commanded them to do. They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ."

Also the parallel passage in Mark 16:15-18 does not mention in any way this formula? So again what would a 1st century Jew see differently than a western reading the same passage? A different Kingdom perhaps?



Paul

[Pierac]

I read that the Gospel of: the kingdom of Jesus Christ, is both:
A continual life of Repentence rather that of bigotry and endless blaming of others,
And being able to pass and graduate from: The Law and The Prophets, the fulfillment of which being.... Charity. The ability to do unto others as pleases God the Father continually by the only Spirit of "Truth".
Jesus Christ being, the only approved "Lord" and Governer of this earth.

That Jesus Christ was seen again alive, by so many, after he had been publicly put to death, makes Jesus Christ a good bet for a great choice.......already made.

Hi Karen,

Yes, but this tells us nothing of what he (Jesus) taught before His death and resurrection by God. Could you teach the Kingdom with these facts hidden?

Paul

[Pierac]

One more complication I would like to add...
If the kingdom indeed came in the first century, then today's preaching maybe shouldn't be about the kingdom of God. The preaching of the kingdom was primarily to the expectation of Jews. Gentiles only would have been somewhat interested in the idea of the kingdom as part of what they gained after following Jesus, not as an enticement to become a follower.
But the evangelism in the first century was primarily about repentance and that Jews (and by some extension Gentiles) had to repent in order to enjoy the kingdom and they had to repent by the time the kingdom started.
This repentance seems to follow some of the ideas of Malachi 4:3 You shall tread down the wicked; for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I make,” says Yahweh of Armies. 4:4 “Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded to him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances. 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Yahweh comes. 4:6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.”

Now we have our thinking caps on! Just, add that the Gentiles were grafted in to the tree, as the Jew were cut off as per Paul's teachings in Romans 11. Yet, still that same tree!

Rom 11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

Yes Mike they (Israel) were seeking, but only the chosen obtained it. The rest were hardened by God.

Rom 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

Do be so hard on the Jews, as they really had no choice but to follow and obey God's plan, and fall away. Yet this is not to be their end!

Rom 11:32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

Thanks for sharing Mike, there is much of the Kingdom we do not understand.

[Homer]

I agree with Suzana, in fact, she said much of what I intended to say. I think some folks have gotten their shorts wrapped around the axle!

When did the preaching of the kingdom begin? And when did people enter into it? Jesus tells us:

Luke 16:16 (New King James Version)
16. “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

And what happened on the day of Pentecost?

Luke 24:49 (New King James Version)
49. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”


Acts 1:8 (NKJV)
8. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Though the disciples of Jesus may not have understood exactly the nature of the Kingdom, they were in it prior to the cross; the were disciples. Jesus was their King. The difference Pentecost made was the empowering of the Holy Spirit.

You would do well to go back and read what Steve wrote.

Blessings, Homer