Anybody who can read realizes these terms are NOT synonomous or interchangeable. The Kingdom of [or from] God is eternal. Being eternal it has no beginning or ending. It definately is not the same as the Kingdom of [or from] Heaven. The Kingdom of [or from] Heaven had a very definate beginning and it began with the birth of the King, Jesus Christ.
The belief these two terms are synonmous and interchangeable springs largely from trinitarian theology. If God=Jesus then out of necessity Kingdom of God would=Kingdom of Heaven. The glaring error is making these terms synonomous and interchangeable, being borne out of trinitarian thinking. (For something that supposedly has a "glaring error" to it, one would think that "glaring error" would make it impossible to spot any trinitarian theological bull*** as such.)
The fact that Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven are synonymous has nothing to do with the Trinity or whether Jesus is God. I did not say Kingdom of God is the same as Kingdom of Jesus. The following is from my website:
Consider the following verses:
Matthew 5:
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 6:
20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
The same statement, in two different gospels, is worded two different ways. Here are two more:
Matthew 18:
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 18:
17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
Again, two different ways are used to say the same thing. The Gospel of Matthew is the only one that uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven." The other Gospel writers always use "kingdom of God." One is literal, the other figurative. Both refer to the same thing. Consider the preaching of John the Baptist.
Matthew 3:
1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Luke 16:
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
What John the Baptist preached is called "the kingdom of God" in Luke, and "the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew. Did John preach two different gospels? Jesus' call to repentance also uses different phrases in Matthew and Mark.
Matthew 4:
17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mark 1:
14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Did Jesus preach two different gospels? When he sent out the twelve, what were they told to preach?
Matthew 10:
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Luke 9:
1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
Again, did they preach two different gospels? It is called by different names, but only one gospel is meant.
Matthew 11:
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Luke 7:
28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
There are a number of instances in which the same thing is said, using one phrase in Matthew and another in the other gospels. Compare Matthew 13:11 with Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10. Compare Matthew 13:31 with Mark 4:30,31 and Luke 13:18,19. Also Matthew 13:33 with Luke 13:20,21; and Matthew 19:14 with Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16. There is even a passage in Matthew in which both "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" are used.
Matthew 19:
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
But the parallel records in Mark and Luke use only "kingdom of God" in both sentences.
Mark 10:
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Luke 18:
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
As you can see, the phrases "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are synonymous. It is so obvious that I am amazed and somewhat ashamed that I never saw it in my many years of supposed Biblical research!
So, you may ask, what did Jesus actually say--"kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of God"? Some people might even consider it a contradiction. But the gospels do not record a verbatim word for word quotation of the words of Jesus Christ, or of anyone else for that matter. God is interested in conveying the meaning that He wants people to understand. Biblical research which focuses on minutely detailed word studies often miss the point of what's being communicated.
There is no indication in any of the words of Jesus that there is a distinction between "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven". The two terms are synonymous. "Kingdom of God" is the literal term for what Jesus preached, while "kingdom of heaven" is a figurative way of saying the same thing. It is figurative because "heaven" is put for "God" who dwells there.
Daniel 4:
26 And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule.
The heavens do not literally rule, but refer figuratively to God who dwells there. In the parable commonly known as "the prodigal son" recorded in Luke 15, the son says that he sinned against heaven.
Luke 15:
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee.
21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
He did not literally sin against heaven, but against God. This is a common figure of speech in Hebrew culture. Things from God are frequently said to be "from heaven" or "heavenly". The kingdom of God is called a "heavenly kingdom" in II Timothy 4:18, because it is from God in heaven. "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of heaven" are two different ways of saying the same thing.
It may be worth pointing out at this point that another common misunderstanding of the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" in Matthew is that of a kingdom in heaven, which is commonly thought to be the final destination of Christians. But as I pointed out, "Kingdom of Heaven" is a figurative way of saying "Kingdom of God" and does not refer to the location of the kingdom, but to its origin. We shall see that nowhere does Jesus promise a "home beyond the blue" as a disembodied soul or spirit in "heaven" but rather speaks of a perfect kingdom on earth to be established when he returns.
Wasn't it common for believers to refer to something as "being from the pit (of hell)", "from the adversary", "from the devil", etc.? So which was it? Did the subject being referred to come from a spiritual entity (the adversary) or from a figurative location (the pit)? I submit the essence being conveyed was synonymous whichever way it was stated.
Of course, my real answer (you expect this, right?) is that I disagree with the notion that there are errors!
That's why I posted a specific example.
Why do you think there are errors in there? It's because you apply a set of inquiry principles that I do not think valid.
You mean, like reading? What invalid inquiry principles am I using? Did he or did he not say that the Kingdom of God meant God's reign over all, but the Kingdom of Heaven refers to the reign of the King from Heaven. He lifted that largely from Bullinger, and doesn't seem to have checked it out. Anyone reading and comparing the Gospel records can see that the terms are synonymous.
I saw recently that in 1830 there was a girl in Great Britain named Margaret McDonald who saw a vision of the Lord returning twice. The first time he came to gather the believers together, and the second time he came back with the believers in order to judge the world.
Then Darby started piecing scriptures together in order to fit with this vision and arranged a chronology of future events prophecied in the scriptures into a format that was very similar to some of those charts that we all saw in PFAL. I think Darby was the first who presented these ideas scripturally that resembled the idea of "The Kingdom of God" and The Kingdom of Heaven" being different.
After Darby, Scofield did a similar thing. And the Scofield Bible actually was the book that presented these ideas to most of the western world, even though others did similar works.
Along comes Wierwille and presents similar ideas, but he very neatly managed to present these things as if God taught him directly, thhhppp. But aside from that, I'm glad for this chance to examine these things afresh.
The origin of these things as we were taught them was 1830, not the first century for whatever that is worth.
(added in editing)
But as I have my boy this weekend I don't have too much more time.
First off, from a cognitive standpoint I don't think that there is any difference between the phrases "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" as they are written all by themselves without any theology. Let me see, how about "God's Heavenly Kingdom" or "Kingdom of God's Heaven" or "God's Kingdom from Heaven".... etc. etc.
So as I start to consider this with y'all I'm already thinking that in order for me to think that the two kingdom's have to be absolutely different altogether that I will need to NOT HAVE EVEN ONE CONTRADICTION. Otherwise I will go back to just considering the scriptures without any theology that would tend to keep me from believing that the Lord's commandments are irrelevant. I mean the scriptures don't ACTUALLY SAY that "the Kingdom of God is different than the Kingdom of Heaven", does it?
I saw recently that in 1830 there was a girl in Great Britain named Margaret McDonald who saw a vision of the Lord returning twice. The first time he came to gather the believers together, and the second time he came back with the believers in order to judge the world.
Then Darby started piecing scriptures together in order to fit with this vision and arranged a chronology of future events prophecied in the scriptures into a format that was very similar to some of those charts that we all saw in PFAL. I think Darby was the first who presented these ideas scripturally that resembled the idea of "The Kingdom of God" and The Kingdom of Heaven" being different.
After Darby, Scofield did a similar thing. And the Scofield Bible actually was the book that presented these ideas to most of the western world, even though others did similar works.
Along comes Wierwille and presents similar ideas, but he very neatly managed to present these things as if God taught him directly, thhhppp. But aside from that, I'm glad for this chance to examine these things afresh.
The origin of these things as we were taught them was 1830, not the first century for whatever that is worth.
(added in editing)
But as I have my boy this weekend I don't have too much more time.
First off, from a cognitive standpoint I don't think that there is any difference between the phrases "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" as they are written all by themselves without any theology. Let me see, how about "God's Heavenly Kingdom" or "Kingdom of God's Heaven" or "God's Kingdom from Heaven".... etc. etc.
So as I start to consider this with y'all I'm already thinking that in order for me to think that the two kingdom's have to be absolutely different altogether that I will need to NOT HAVE EVEN ONE CONTRADICTION. Otherwise I will go back to just considering the scriptures without any theology that would tend to keep me from believing that the Lord's commandments are irrelevant. I mean the scriptures don't ACTUALLY SAY that "the Kingdom of God is different than the Kingdom of Heaven", does it?
Margaret Mc Donald keeps getting blamed for doctrines she never spoke, and Darby keeps getting blamed for passing along
doctrines he never taught, based on the doctrines Margaret Mc Donald never spoke.
That aside, there is nothing in Scripture that says "the Kingdom of God is different than the Kingdom of Heaven."
Rather, the terms are used interchangeably. It's foolish people who have claimed they meant 2 different things.
vpw photocopied Bullinger, but Bullinger was not inerrant, and in this instance, was completely wrong-
although he could really put together a flowery claim that he was right.
Mike, if you're reading this, I am actually curious as to how you explain this. We agree to disagree on methodology, since I see no reason to start with the assumption that VPW's writings are God-breathed in the same way that you do. However, I am wondering how you, in your quest for a single rule of faith and practice, dealt with the fact that such an obvious contradiction is in VP's God-breathed writings. (Or how you handle this 'apparent contradiction' if you prefer.) There may be varying opinions about the kingdom of God, but it is a demonstrable fact that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are used interchangeably in the Gospels, in direct contradiction to VP's definitions.
You've only shown records and accounts from within the gospels where you believe the Kingdom of God = Kingdom of Heaven, but fail to show this same type of comparison from anywhere or anyplace in the Old Testament where the Kingdom of God = The Kingdom of Heaven. If you are going to be an honest biblical reasearch and claim these two kingdoms are the same, then you should be able to do this with the Old Testament, The Gospels, The Epistles, and all through the entire bible.
The problem you will run into is this: You can't offer the same proof the Kingdom of God=the Kingdom of Heaven anywhere or anyplace in or from the Old Testament, because any (and all) Old Testament references to The Kingdom of Heaven would be (and are) all prophetic - that is, with "The Kindom of Heaven" being fulfilled sometime in the future - which of course, begins in the gospels. Like I stated earlier. The Kingdom of Heaven had a beginning, the Kingdom of God is eternal.
The only reason why one can show a comparison between these two Kingdoms from inside the gospels is because God didn't suspend "The Kingdom of God" (which is eternal without any beginning or end) in favor of "The Kingdom of Heaven" which began with the birth of Jesus Christ. Now Christ's Kingdom - The Kingdom of Heaven, is still part of "The Kingdom of God", but it is only "part of" that all entire expansive kingdom of God. A ham sandwich is still part of the pig, but a ham sandwich is not a pig or the same thing as a pig.
You've only shown records and accounts from within the gospels where you believe the Kingdom of God = Kingdom of Heaven, but fail to show this same type of comparison from anywhere or anyplace in the Old Testament where the Kingdom of God = The Kingdom of Heaven. If you are going to be an honest biblical reasearch and claim these two kingdoms are the same, then you should be able to do this with the Old Testament, The Gospels, The Epistles, and all through the entire bible.
You've only shown records and accounts from within the gospels where you believe the Kingdom of God = Kingdom of Heaven, but fail to show this same type of comparison from anywhere or anyplace in the Old Testament where the Kingdom of God = The Kingdom of Heaven. If you are going to be an honest biblical reasearch and claim these two kingdoms are the same, then you should be able to do this with the Old Testament, The Gospels, The Epistles, and all through the entire bible.
The problem you will run into is this: You can't offer the same proof the Kingdom of God=the Kingdom of Heaven anywhere or anyplace in or from the Old Testament, because any (and all) Old Testament references to The Kingdom of Heaven would be (and are) all prophetic - that is, with "The Kindom of Heaven" being fulfilled sometime in the future - which of course, begins in the gospels. Like I stated earlier. The Kingdom of Heaven had a beginning, the Kingdom of God is eternal.
The only reason why one can show a comparison between these two Kingdoms from inside the gospels is because God didn't suspend "The Kingdom of God" (which is eternal without any beginning or end) in favor of "The Kingdom of Heaven" which began with the birth of Jesus Christ. Now Christ's Kingdom - The Kingdom of Heaven, is still part of "The Kingdom of God", but it is only "part of" that all entire expansive kingdom of God. A ham sandwich is still part of the pig, but a ham sandwich is not a pig or the same thing as a pig.
I wrote above:
Again, two different ways are used to say the same thing. The Gospel of Matthew is the only one that uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven." The other Gospel writers always use "kingdom of God." One is literal, the other figurative. Both refer to the same thing.
The same goes for the rest of the Bible. The Gospel of Matthew is the only book of the Bible that uses the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven." And since the parallel records in the other Gospels substitute the phrase "Kingdom of God" they are obviously interchangeable.
The same goes for the rest of the Bible. The Gospel of Matthew is the only book of the Bible that uses the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven." And since the parallel records in the other Gospels substitute the phrase "Kingdom of God" they are obviously interchangeable.
It may also help to understand 'genatives'. Bullinger Companion Bible (Append 17, I think) Plus, almost every occurrence of the word "heaven" has to be distinguished from physical and spiritual. In Genesis 1:4ff"Firmament" is called "heaven" All other occurrences are dealing with the spiritual realm i.e. angels and God. It is required we look at the context to determine the proper usage.
"Kingdom of God" is genative of ???? many or all nine of the genatives could apply, depending on context. In each usage, it is referring to God (who is spirit) as ruler of the spirit realm (since God is spirit).
i.e. Kingdom of God the rule of the spirit realm as it relates to God, the rule of the spirit realm owned by God, the rule of the spirit realm as the characteristic of God, the rule of the spirit realm as it relates to God. ect.
I did a study on genatives and was real excited about it in light of this phrase. I highly recommend that a serious student do the same. It changed my whole concept of God. By honestly studying it, the concept of God being omni-present and all the other omni's become much more clear.
As for the use of the word, "heaven". It is always used in context of the spirit realm or the physical, depending on context. In Genesis 1, it is physical. But when used in other places, it is clearly referring to the spirit realm.
This is the best understanding I have from Bullinger's stuff. I recall Dr. Wierwille referred to the "Kingdom of Heaven" as the physical presence of the king on earth. It appears that it would fit in light of the Red Thread, Jesus Christ is the King.
It may also help to understand 'genatives'. Bullinger Companion Bible (Append 17, I think) Plus, almost every occurrence of the word "heaven" has to be distinguished from physical and spiritual. In Genesis 1:4ff"Firmament" is called "heaven" All other occurrences are dealing with the spiritual realm i.e. angels and God. It is required we look at the context to determine the proper usage.
"Kingdom of God" is genative of ???? many or all nine of the genatives could apply, depending on context. In each usage, it is referring to God (who is spirit) as ruler of the spirit realm (since God is spirit).
i.e. Kingdom of God the rule of the spirit realm as it relates to God, the rule of the spirit realm owned by God, the rule of the spirit realm as the characteristic of God, the rule of the spirit realm as it relates to God. ect.
I did a study on genatives and was real excited about it in light of this phrase. I highly recommend that a serious student do the same. It changed my whole concept of God. By honestly studying it, the concept of God being omni-present and all the other omni's become much more clear.
As for the use of the word, "heaven". It is always used in context of the spirit realm or the physical, depending on context. In Genesis 1, it is physical. But when used in other places, it is clearly referring to the spirit realm.
This is the best understanding I have from Bullinger's stuff. I recall Dr. Wierwille referred to the "Kingdom of Heaven" as the physical presence of the king on earth. It appears that it would fit in light of the Red Thread, Jesus Christ is the King.
So much to study and so little time.
You went through that whole "genitive this and genitive that" tap dance and then concluded wierwille must be right because It appears that it would fit in light of the Red Thread, Jesus Christ is the King. ?????
The phrases Kingdom of God & Kingdom of Heaven do not appear in the Old Testament.
The citing of how God supposedly suspended one or the other and ham sandwich analogies only illustrate the position that they are different, they do not explain it, nor do they refer to scripture to back up the KOG does not equal KOH position.
Margaret Mc Donald keeps getting blamed for doctrines she never spoke, and Darby keeps getting blamed for passing along
doctrines he never taught, based on the doctrines Margaret Mc Donald never spoke.
Hi WordWolf,
I only heard this information once and it was not thorough in the program that I heard it on. I was sharing everything that I heard and wouldn't mind hearing more. Especially as I already recognize Wierwille's manner of passing off things that he learned as his own. Even with sketchy information I wouldn't be surprised if the over-emphasis on dispensationalism that Wierwille learned from Bullinger was an outgrowth of Darby. I read somewhere that Bullinger recognized dispensationalism as an outgrowth of an 1800's prophetic conference of some type.
Without more exacting information I cannot go any farther in exploring the options.
As far as the rest goes, since the Gospels seem to use "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" interchangeably this whole issue is pretty much a non-starter IMO.
Of course things change when Jesus Christ is on earth....duh.
But to build an ideology on that idea that is not scripturally sound just because there are obviously SOME DIFFERENCES when the Lord himself is present is not justified. IT IS NOT SOUND BECAUSE THEY ARE INTERCHANGABLE.
The effects of this doctrine in TWI the way that I recall it is that it caused us to ignore commandments that agree with the epistles because in our stupidity we would say..... "That was not written too us."
We were mislead and it was mis-applied too. And it contributed to the mess.
The phrases Kingdom of God & Kingdom of Heaven do not appear in the Old Testament.
The citing of how God supposedly suspended one or the other and ham sandwich analogies only illustrate the position that they are different, they do not explain it, nor do they refer to scripture to back up the KOG does not equal KOH position.
WTH's explanations are a good illustration of how Wierwille would often take a position, use an analogy or illustration to explain it, then spend all his energy developing the analogy, rather than the scriptural basis for that analogy. The "dogs loose upon the game" analogy regarding private interpretation and the whole athletes of the spirit teaching are other examples.
Explaining the mechanics of how the KOH was suspended, is but a part of the KOG, how KOH indicates the presence of a King, etc, is fascinating, but none of this information can be gleaned from the bible.
Now Christ's Kingdom - The Kingdom of Heaven, is still part of "The Kingdom of God", but it is only "part of" that all entire expansive kingdom of God. A ham sandwich is still part of the pig, but a ham sandwich is not a pig or the same thing as a pig.
I'm sory to have to say this (not really) but your comparison is DEFINATELY NOT KOSHER, What The Hey.
I made my big decision a little over ten years ago, and the kind of discusion you seem to want to have I engaged in for many of the years prior to 1998. I went back and forth on the validity of many points in PFAL during those earlier years, but it was all finally settled for me by ’98.
Now I want to put the bulk of my time absorbing the material, workig WITHIN it, which means using a completely different set of tools than working OUTSIDE it like you want to do. One of the tools I use is I assume it’s valid (my only rule for faith and practice) and proceed from there. You generally assume it’s invalid (or at least one point is) and work on it with set(s) of material you do think is valid, what I would call your somewhat unsettled, unspecified rule(s) for faith and practice.
Even if you were to adopt a neutral stance toward PFAL’s validity (unlikely considering your posting against it), and even it you were to adopt and disclose one sole rule for faith and practice, I’d have to decline the opportunity to spend beaucoup hours debating PFAL. Our rules would still clash and we’d never convince each other of anything.
How long would it take to explain how you handle this one contradiction?
Like I stated earlier. The Kingdom of Heaven had a beginning, the Kingdom of God is eternal.
Depends on what your definition of "eternal" is, What The Hey. The neo-platonic definition, which came into vogue around 200 AD and was promoted by St. Augustine, is someting that is infinite in time, with no beginning and no end.
The Biblical "eternal" is usually translated from "aionios" meaning "of the age".
Wierwille's dispensationalist scheme of "administrations" rests on reading the meaning of "a period of time" into the Greek word "oikonomia". "Oikonomia" NEVER means "a period of time" in the Bible. It always means "stewardship - the relation whereby one person manages another person's property". There is a good Greek word in the Bible that actually means "a period of time". It is the word "aion". Unfortunately the KJV usually translates it as "world" rather than "age".
The Bible indicates that there are multiple ages, but it describes only two of them with sufficient detail to distinguish them, "this age" and "the age to come" (Matthew 12:32; Ephesians 1:21). In Matthew 24:3, the disciples were asking about the end of "this age". Read Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 if you want to know why (the word "world" in verse 38 is "kosmos" or "order", the word "world" in verses 39 and 40 is "aion" or "age", be sure you read it with this understanding).
In Luke 18:18-30 we find the words and phrases "to inherit eternal life", "to enter into the kingdom of God" and "to be saved" used interchangably. Verses 29 and 30 read, "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Whio shall not receive manifold more in this present time ["en toi kairoi toutoi" = "in this time"], and in the world ["aion" = "age"] to come life everlasting ["zoen aionion" = "life of the age"]."
To inherit "eternal" life means to receive the spirit of resurrection life in the age to come. The kingdom which is known both as the Kingdom of God and as the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew, is going to come to pass in the age to come. Therefore it is "eternal" inthe sense that it belongs to the coming age.
However, if you still want to hold to the neo-platonic definition of "eternal", how can WE have eternal life? Don't we have beginnings?
Thanks, Steve, for the further explanation of the Kingdom of God.
My point about the terms K. of God and K. of Heaven are even more basic than that though. Setting aside what the meaning of the phrases are, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that they are synonymous and used interchangeably in the Gospels. This directly contradicts Bullinger's and Wierwille's claim that they mean different things. What The Hey keeps asserting that they have different meanings too (although he says one is part of the other). How then do you account for the fact they are clearly used interchangeably in the four Gospels?
(I'm still wondering how Mike dealt with this discrepancy when he decided PFAL was the God-breathed Word, but it seems like he doesn't want to discuss that anymore.)
What The Hay's use of the word "eternal" sparked my response because I'm reading St. Augustine's Cofessions for the first time (though I was originally assigned to read it nearly 42 years ago!), and just today I was reading his explanation of the "Heaven of Heavens" as opposed to the "heaven" which is observable from the earth. Augustine's "Heaven of Heavens" is Plato's "kosmos noetos" (the order accessible only to the mind) as opposed to the "kosmos aisthetikos" (the order accessible to the senses). Plato's realm of the ideals and Augustine's Heaven of Heavens became Wierwille's (and Mike's) spirit realm, while the "kosmos aisthetikos" became their "senses realm".
I just had to jump in and point out that the neo-platonic understanding of the word "eternal", which is still current, is not the Biblical meaning of the word.
I've been away from the cafe for the most part for about two years. It's good to see old friends like yourself, Mark, still here. I assume Mike is still here at the bidding of his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit.
Thank you.....eternal has no beginning or end. Everlasting has a starting point but no end. No human being has or has ever been given, granted or guaranteed anything eternal.
Thank you.....eternal has no beginning or end. Everlasting has a starting point but no end. No human being has or has ever been given, granted or guaranteed anything eternal.
That was what Wierwille taught, but it's not what the word really means as it's used in the Bible. Look up the Greek word aionios or the Hebrew word olam.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
17
5
5
Popular Days
Jan 26
13
Jan 19
6
Mar 29
5
Jan 16
5
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 7 posts
Mark Clarke 17 posts
waysider 5 posts
JeffSjo 5 posts
Popular Days
Jan 26 2009
13 posts
Jan 19 2009
6 posts
Mar 29 2009
5 posts
Jan 16 2009
5 posts
Mark Clarke
The fact that Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven are synonymous has nothing to do with the Trinity or whether Jesus is God. I did not say Kingdom of God is the same as Kingdom of Jesus. The following is from my website:
Consider the following verses:
The same statement, in two different gospels, is worded two different ways. Here are two more:
Again, two different ways are used to say the same thing. The Gospel of Matthew is the only one that uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven." The other Gospel writers always use "kingdom of God." One is literal, the other figurative. Both refer to the same thing. Consider the preaching of John the Baptist.
What John the Baptist preached is called "the kingdom of God" in Luke, and "the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew. Did John preach two different gospels? Jesus' call to repentance also uses different phrases in Matthew and Mark.
Did Jesus preach two different gospels? When he sent out the twelve, what were they told to preach?
Again, did they preach two different gospels? It is called by different names, but only one gospel is meant.
There are a number of instances in which the same thing is said, using one phrase in Matthew and another in the other gospels. Compare Matthew 13:11 with Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10. Compare Matthew 13:31 with Mark 4:30,31 and Luke 13:18,19. Also Matthew 13:33 with Luke 13:20,21; and Matthew 19:14 with Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16. There is even a passage in Matthew in which both "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" are used.
But the parallel records in Mark and Luke use only "kingdom of God" in both sentences.
As you can see, the phrases "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are synonymous. It is so obvious that I am amazed and somewhat ashamed that I never saw it in my many years of supposed Biblical research!
So, you may ask, what did Jesus actually say--"kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of God"? Some people might even consider it a contradiction. But the gospels do not record a verbatim word for word quotation of the words of Jesus Christ, or of anyone else for that matter. God is interested in conveying the meaning that He wants people to understand. Biblical research which focuses on minutely detailed word studies often miss the point of what's being communicated.
There is no indication in any of the words of Jesus that there is a distinction between "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven". The two terms are synonymous. "Kingdom of God" is the literal term for what Jesus preached, while "kingdom of heaven" is a figurative way of saying the same thing. It is figurative because "heaven" is put for "God" who dwells there.
The heavens do not literally rule, but refer figuratively to God who dwells there. In the parable commonly known as "the prodigal son" recorded in Luke 15, the son says that he sinned against heaven.
He did not literally sin against heaven, but against God. This is a common figure of speech in Hebrew culture. Things from God are frequently said to be "from heaven" or "heavenly". The kingdom of God is called a "heavenly kingdom" in II Timothy 4:18, because it is from God in heaven. "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of heaven" are two different ways of saying the same thing.
It may be worth pointing out at this point that another common misunderstanding of the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" in Matthew is that of a kingdom in heaven, which is commonly thought to be the final destination of Christians. But as I pointed out, "Kingdom of Heaven" is a figurative way of saying "Kingdom of God" and does not refer to the location of the kingdom, but to its origin. We shall see that nowhere does Jesus promise a "home beyond the blue" as a disembodied soul or spirit in "heaven" but rather speaks of a perfect kingdom on earth to be established when he returns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Well done Mark, anyone who can read should understand your point
WTH did nothing but regurgitate Wierwillian illogic without going back to the bible to make his case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wasn't it common for believers to refer to something as "being from the pit (of hell)", "from the adversary", "from the devil", etc.? So which was it? Did the subject being referred to come from a spiritual entity (the adversary) or from a figurative location (the pit)? I submit the essence being conveyed was synonymous whichever way it was stated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
That's why I posted a specific example.
You mean, like reading? What invalid inquiry principles am I using? Did he or did he not say that the Kingdom of God meant God's reign over all, but the Kingdom of Heaven refers to the reign of the King from Heaven. He lifted that largely from Bullinger, and doesn't seem to have checked it out. Anyone reading and comparing the Gospel records can see that the terms are synonymous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
Awww, geez, What The Hey, before we call someone out let it be something life altering.
Anyway, dunt ya thimk there are more pressing issues other than terminalology?
Father God nor the Lord gives a crap about synonymous or interchangable. Heart and love, baby, is what it is all about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Most people who believe in ann inerrant bible ascribe "apparent contradictions" to errors in understanding, mIke does the same for PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
HISTORICAL INPUT
I saw recently that in 1830 there was a girl in Great Britain named Margaret McDonald who saw a vision of the Lord returning twice. The first time he came to gather the believers together, and the second time he came back with the believers in order to judge the world.
Then Darby started piecing scriptures together in order to fit with this vision and arranged a chronology of future events prophecied in the scriptures into a format that was very similar to some of those charts that we all saw in PFAL. I think Darby was the first who presented these ideas scripturally that resembled the idea of "The Kingdom of God" and The Kingdom of Heaven" being different.
After Darby, Scofield did a similar thing. And the Scofield Bible actually was the book that presented these ideas to most of the western world, even though others did similar works.
Along comes Wierwille and presents similar ideas, but he very neatly managed to present these things as if God taught him directly, thhhppp. But aside from that, I'm glad for this chance to examine these things afresh.
The origin of these things as we were taught them was 1830, not the first century for whatever that is worth.
(added in editing)
But as I have my boy this weekend I don't have too much more time.
First off, from a cognitive standpoint I don't think that there is any difference between the phrases "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" as they are written all by themselves without any theology. Let me see, how about "God's Heavenly Kingdom" or "Kingdom of God's Heaven" or "God's Kingdom from Heaven".... etc. etc.
So as I start to consider this with y'all I'm already thinking that in order for me to think that the two kingdom's have to be absolutely different altogether that I will need to NOT HAVE EVEN ONE CONTRADICTION. Otherwise I will go back to just considering the scriptures without any theology that would tend to keep me from believing that the Lord's commandments are irrelevant. I mean the scriptures don't ACTUALLY SAY that "the Kingdom of God is different than the Kingdom of Heaven", does it?
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Margaret Mc Donald keeps getting blamed for doctrines she never spoke, and Darby keeps getting blamed for passing along
doctrines he never taught, based on the doctrines Margaret Mc Donald never spoke.
That aside, there is nothing in Scripture that says "the Kingdom of God is different than the Kingdom of Heaven."
Rather, the terms are used interchangeably. It's foolish people who have claimed they meant 2 different things.
vpw photocopied Bullinger, but Bullinger was not inerrant, and in this instance, was completely wrong-
although he could really put together a flowery claim that he was right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Mike, if you're reading this, I am actually curious as to how you explain this. We agree to disagree on methodology, since I see no reason to start with the assumption that VPW's writings are God-breathed in the same way that you do. However, I am wondering how you, in your quest for a single rule of faith and practice, dealt with the fact that such an obvious contradiction is in VP's God-breathed writings. (Or how you handle this 'apparent contradiction' if you prefer.) There may be varying opinions about the kingdom of God, but it is a demonstrable fact that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are used interchangeably in the Gospels, in direct contradiction to VP's definitions.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
You've only shown records and accounts from within the gospels where you believe the Kingdom of God = Kingdom of Heaven, but fail to show this same type of comparison from anywhere or anyplace in the Old Testament where the Kingdom of God = The Kingdom of Heaven. If you are going to be an honest biblical reasearch and claim these two kingdoms are the same, then you should be able to do this with the Old Testament, The Gospels, The Epistles, and all through the entire bible.
The problem you will run into is this: You can't offer the same proof the Kingdom of God=the Kingdom of Heaven anywhere or anyplace in or from the Old Testament, because any (and all) Old Testament references to The Kingdom of Heaven would be (and are) all prophetic - that is, with "The Kindom of Heaven" being fulfilled sometime in the future - which of course, begins in the gospels. Like I stated earlier. The Kingdom of Heaven had a beginning, the Kingdom of God is eternal.
The only reason why one can show a comparison between these two Kingdoms from inside the gospels is because God didn't suspend "The Kingdom of God" (which is eternal without any beginning or end) in favor of "The Kingdom of Heaven" which began with the birth of Jesus Christ. Now Christ's Kingdom - The Kingdom of Heaven, is still part of "The Kingdom of God", but it is only "part of" that all entire expansive kingdom of God. A ham sandwich is still part of the pig, but a ham sandwich is not a pig or the same thing as a pig.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Who's stopping you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I wrote above:
The same goes for the rest of the Bible. The Gospel of Matthew is the only book of the Bible that uses the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven." And since the parallel records in the other Gospels substitute the phrase "Kingdom of God" they are obviously interchangeable.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
YID
It may also help to understand 'genatives'. Bullinger Companion Bible (Append 17, I think) Plus, almost every occurrence of the word "heaven" has to be distinguished from physical and spiritual. In Genesis 1:4ff"Firmament" is called "heaven" All other occurrences are dealing with the spiritual realm i.e. angels and God. It is required we look at the context to determine the proper usage.
"Kingdom of God" is genative of ???? many or all nine of the genatives could apply, depending on context. In each usage, it is referring to God (who is spirit) as ruler of the spirit realm (since God is spirit).
i.e. Kingdom of God the rule of the spirit realm as it relates to God, the rule of the spirit realm owned by God, the rule of the spirit realm as the characteristic of God, the rule of the spirit realm as it relates to God. ect.
I did a study on genatives and was real excited about it in light of this phrase. I highly recommend that a serious student do the same. It changed my whole concept of God. By honestly studying it, the concept of God being omni-present and all the other omni's become much more clear.
As for the use of the word, "heaven". It is always used in context of the spirit realm or the physical, depending on context. In Genesis 1, it is physical. But when used in other places, it is clearly referring to the spirit realm.
This is the best understanding I have from Bullinger's stuff. I recall Dr. Wierwille referred to the "Kingdom of Heaven" as the physical presence of the king on earth. It appears that it would fit in light of the Red Thread, Jesus Christ is the King.
So much to study and so little time.
Edited by YIDLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You went through that whole "genitive this and genitive that" tap dance and then concluded wierwille must be right because It appears that it would fit in light of the Red Thread, Jesus Christ is the King. ?????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The phrases Kingdom of God & Kingdom of Heaven do not appear in the Old Testament.
The citing of how God supposedly suspended one or the other and ham sandwich analogies only illustrate the position that they are different, they do not explain it, nor do they refer to scripture to back up the KOG does not equal KOH position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi WordWolf,
I only heard this information once and it was not thorough in the program that I heard it on. I was sharing everything that I heard and wouldn't mind hearing more. Especially as I already recognize Wierwille's manner of passing off things that he learned as his own. Even with sketchy information I wouldn't be surprised if the over-emphasis on dispensationalism that Wierwille learned from Bullinger was an outgrowth of Darby. I read somewhere that Bullinger recognized dispensationalism as an outgrowth of an 1800's prophetic conference of some type.
Without more exacting information I cannot go any farther in exploring the options.
_____________________________________________________________________________
As far as the rest goes, since the Gospels seem to use "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" interchangeably this whole issue is pretty much a non-starter IMO.
Of course things change when Jesus Christ is on earth....duh.
But to build an ideology on that idea that is not scripturally sound just because there are obviously SOME DIFFERENCES when the Lord himself is present is not justified. IT IS NOT SOUND BECAUSE THEY ARE INTERCHANGABLE.
The effects of this doctrine in TWI the way that I recall it is that it caused us to ignore commandments that agree with the epistles because in our stupidity we would say..... "That was not written too us."
We were mislead and it was mis-applied too. And it contributed to the mess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Explaining the mechanics of how the KOH was suspended, is but a part of the KOG, how KOH indicates the presence of a King, etc, is fascinating, but none of this information can be gleaned from the bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I'm sory to have to say this (not really) but your comparison is DEFINATELY NOT KOSHER, What The Hey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
How long would it take to explain how you handle this one contradiction?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Depends on what your definition of "eternal" is, What The Hey. The neo-platonic definition, which came into vogue around 200 AD and was promoted by St. Augustine, is someting that is infinite in time, with no beginning and no end.
The Biblical "eternal" is usually translated from "aionios" meaning "of the age".
Wierwille's dispensationalist scheme of "administrations" rests on reading the meaning of "a period of time" into the Greek word "oikonomia". "Oikonomia" NEVER means "a period of time" in the Bible. It always means "stewardship - the relation whereby one person manages another person's property". There is a good Greek word in the Bible that actually means "a period of time". It is the word "aion". Unfortunately the KJV usually translates it as "world" rather than "age".
The Bible indicates that there are multiple ages, but it describes only two of them with sufficient detail to distinguish them, "this age" and "the age to come" (Matthew 12:32; Ephesians 1:21). In Matthew 24:3, the disciples were asking about the end of "this age". Read Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 if you want to know why (the word "world" in verse 38 is "kosmos" or "order", the word "world" in verses 39 and 40 is "aion" or "age", be sure you read it with this understanding).
In Luke 18:18-30 we find the words and phrases "to inherit eternal life", "to enter into the kingdom of God" and "to be saved" used interchangably. Verses 29 and 30 read, "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Whio shall not receive manifold more in this present time ["en toi kairoi toutoi" = "in this time"], and in the world ["aion" = "age"] to come life everlasting ["zoen aionion" = "life of the age"]."
To inherit "eternal" life means to receive the spirit of resurrection life in the age to come. The kingdom which is known both as the Kingdom of God and as the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew, is going to come to pass in the age to come. Therefore it is "eternal" inthe sense that it belongs to the coming age.
However, if you still want to hold to the neo-platonic definition of "eternal", how can WE have eternal life? Don't we have beginnings?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Thanks, Steve, for the further explanation of the Kingdom of God.
My point about the terms K. of God and K. of Heaven are even more basic than that though. Setting aside what the meaning of the phrases are, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that they are synonymous and used interchangeably in the Gospels. This directly contradicts Bullinger's and Wierwille's claim that they mean different things. What The Hey keeps asserting that they have different meanings too (although he says one is part of the other). How then do you account for the fact they are clearly used interchangeably in the four Gospels?
(I'm still wondering how Mike dealt with this discrepancy when he decided PFAL was the God-breathed Word, but it seems like he doesn't want to discuss that anymore.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks, Mark!
What The Hay's use of the word "eternal" sparked my response because I'm reading St. Augustine's Cofessions for the first time (though I was originally assigned to read it nearly 42 years ago!), and just today I was reading his explanation of the "Heaven of Heavens" as opposed to the "heaven" which is observable from the earth. Augustine's "Heaven of Heavens" is Plato's "kosmos noetos" (the order accessible only to the mind) as opposed to the "kosmos aisthetikos" (the order accessible to the senses). Plato's realm of the ideals and Augustine's Heaven of Heavens became Wierwille's (and Mike's) spirit realm, while the "kosmos aisthetikos" became their "senses realm".
I just had to jump in and point out that the neo-platonic understanding of the word "eternal", which is still current, is not the Biblical meaning of the word.
I've been away from the cafe for the most part for about two years. It's good to see old friends like yourself, Mark, still here. I assume Mike is still here at the bidding of his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
Thank you.....eternal has no beginning or end. Everlasting has a starting point but no end. No human being has or has ever been given, granted or guaranteed anything eternal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
That was what Wierwille taught, but it's not what the word really means as it's used in the Bible. Look up the Greek word aionios or the Hebrew word olam.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.