Mike, to be like him, shouldn't we preach a message that sounds like the one he preached?
Simple question: What would you say is the crux of the Gospel Message that Jesus preached?
No, I don't think so. I think this would be huge step backwards.
The gospel that Jesus preached was addressed to Israel and it was completed. It's in writing for our learning not for our copying. His ministry on earth ended and was replaced by something better, and that better ministry where he is seated at the right hand of the Father is what Paul's gospel was commissioned to reveal to us.
If you look at a red letter edition of the KJV in Acts you will see the places where Paul was contacted to move this better gospel. If you put together all the red letters in Acts it will read a lot like Colossians Chapter One. The mind of Christ was put into the Epistles of Paul for us to absorb.
In the first century curriculum God first had the epistles written, and then after this better gospel was absorbed the 4 gospels were written. But first things first. Paul's message was the most maligned of all the NT scriptures, and most occluded by churchianity's focus on the 4 earthly ministry gospel records. PFAL fixes that.
There are two ministries of Christ, and you're looking at the old one. The gospel record is Old Testament. We were taught this in PFAL.
No, I don't think so. I think this would be huge step backwards.
The gospel that Jesus preached was addressed to Israel and it was completed. It's in writing for our learning not for our copying. His ministry on earth ended and was replaced by something better, and that better ministry where he is seated at the right hand of the Father is what Paul's gospel was commissioned to reveal to us.
If you look at a red letter edition of the KJV in Acts you will see the places where Paul was contacted to move this better gospel. If you put together all the red letters in Acts it will read a lot like Colossians Chapter One. The mind of Christ was put into the Epistles of Paul for us to absorb.
In the first century curriculum God first had the epistles written, and then after this better gospel was absorbed the 4 gospels were written. But first things first. Paul's message was the most maligned of all the NT scriptures, and most occluded by churchianity's focus on the 4 earthly ministry gospel records. PFAL fixes that.
There are two ministries of Christ, and you're looking at the old one. The gospel record is Old Testament. We were taught this in PFAL.
The gospel that Jesus preached was addressed to Israel and it was completed. It's in writing for our learning not for our copying.
snip
The gospel record is Old Testament. We were taught this in PFAL.
One would have to subscribe to "dispensationalism" to accept this as accurate.
There are two ministries of Christ, and you're looking at the old one.
Where is it declared that Jesus Christ had two ministries?
No, I don't think so. I think this would be huge step backwards.
The gospel that Jesus preached was addressed to Israel and it was completed. It's in writing for our learning not for our copying. His ministry on earth ended and was replaced by something better, and that better ministry where he is seated at the right hand of the Father is what Paul's gospel was commissioned to reveal to us.
If you look at a red letter edition of the KJV in Acts you will see the places where Paul was contacted to move this better gospel. If you put together all the red letters in Acts it will read a lot like Colossians Chapter One. The mind of Christ was put into the Epistles of Paul for us to absorb.
In the first century curriculum God first had the epistles written, and then after this better gospel was absorbed the 4 gospels were written. But first things first. Paul's message was the most maligned of all the NT scriptures, and most occluded by churchianity's focus on the 4 earthly ministry gospel records. PFAL fixes that.
There are two ministries of Christ, and you're looking at the old one. The gospel record is Old Testament. We were taught this in PFAL.
Yes we were taught it in PFAL, but can you back it up with Scripture? Where in the Bible does it say that the gospel which Jesus preached (and which he said was the reason he was sent, Luke 4:43) ended and was replaced by a different Gospel? The Gospel of the Kingdom was preached by Jesus, the apostles, and all the disciples throughout Acts, including Paul. (Matthew 3:1,2; 10:7; Luke 10:1,9; Acts 1:1-3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:30,31). What Paul called "the Gospel of the grace of God" in Acts 20:24, he identifies in the next verse as "the kingdom of God" and in verse 27 as "all the counsel of God."
You used the old "for our learning" argument. This is another PFAL error. The verse that was supposed to prove that the OT wasn't "addressed to us" was Romans 15:4. The problem is, it doesn't say it was written "for our learning ONLY" nor does it say it was not "addressed to us." The Greek word for "learning" is the same one translated "doctrine" elsewhere.
If "the gospel that Jesus preached was addressed to Israel and it was completed" then his words would be less important to the Church today than those of Paul. Yet he said that the holy spirit would bring to their remembrance "whatsoever I have said unto you." The New Testament tells us that it is the words of Jesus Christ, as much as his deeds, which are to be the focus of Christianity. (Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 3:34; 6:63; 12:47-48; 14:23; 15:7; I Timothy 6:3-4). This is the great tragedy of Dispensationalism, in fact. It separates Jesus from his words.
BTW, you responded to my rhetorical question, "shouldn't we preach a message that sounds like the one he preached?" But you didn't answer the simple question I asked you: What would you say is the crux of the Gospel Message that Jesus preached?
Yes we were taught it in PFAL, but can you back it up with Scripture? Where in the Bible does it say that the gospel which Jesus preached (and which he said was the reason he was sent, Luke 4:43) ended and was replaced by a different Gospel? The Gospel of the Kingdom was preached by Jesus, the apostles, and all the disciples throughout Acts, including Paul. (Matthew 3:1,2; 10:7; Luke 10:1,9; Acts 1:1-3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:30,31). What Paul called "the Gospel of the grace of God" in Acts 20:24, he identifies in the next verse as "the kingdom of God" and in verse 27 as "all the counsel of God."
You used the old "for our learning" argument. This is another PFAL error. The verse that was supposed to prove that the OT wasn't "addressed to us" was Romans 15:4. The problem is, it doesn't say it was written "for our learning ONLY" nor does it say it was not "addressed to us." The Greek word for "learning" is the same one translated "doctrine" elsewhere.
If "the gospel that Jesus preached was addressed to Israel and it was completed" then his words would be less important to the Church today than those of Paul. Yet he said that the holy spirit would bring to their remembrance "whatsoever I have said unto you." The New Testament tells us that it is the words of Jesus Christ, as much as his deeds, which are to be the focus of Christianity. (Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 3:34; 6:63; 12:47-48; 14:23; 15:7; I Timothy 6:3-4). This is the great tragedy of Dispensationalism, in fact. It separates Jesus from his words.
BTW, you responded to my rhetorical question, "shouldn't we preach a message that sounds like the one he preached?" But you didn't answer the simple question I asked you: What would you say is the crux of the Gospel Message that Jesus preached?
There certainly were carry overs from Jesus' earthly ministry to his heavenly one, but there are differences too.
One carry over is love. In I John we see this. We also see there that forgiveness from God was made easier. The reason Jesus ended his earthly ministry was to improve on his ministering, and he predicted this in the gospel period. The reason I say this ministry ended is because HE DEPARTED. Of course, he also said that in another new improved way he'd still be with us.
Another difference is the mystery. It's not in the gospels, not even in Mark's and Luke's and they certainly knew the mystery being companions of Paul. It wasn't revealed until it was given to Paul so it wasn't in Jesus' earthly preaching.
Did you look up the red letters where Jesus Christ is speaking in Acts?
It's in Acts 1, of course, but that's before he departed. Then he speaks with red letters in the narrative of the incident on the Road to Damascus with Saul. Then years later Paul recounts this incident and it's in red letters again, JUST LIKE THE GOSPELS. Then there's a second recounting of the same incident, also in red letters.
I've found that many Bible believers are totally unaware of this later red letter gospel, this secret gospel, this gospel of the mystery, also named Paul's gospel. All of Paul's epistles should be in red too because he received it by Jesus Christ.
If anyone can't find this hidden gospel of Jesus Christ because they don't have a red letter edition, just ask me for the scriptures, or go to a library or bookstore. It's easy to find this (sort of) LOST GOSPEL because all the words of Jesus are in red letters.
But you didn't answer the simple question I asked you: What would you say is the crux of the Gospel Message that Jesus preached?
Well now I did in my citing I John above, but let me ask you this: what is missing (besides the mystery and easier forgiveness) in the Matt/Mk/Lk/Jn gospels that Paul's gospel has?
Well now I did in my citing I John above, but let me ask you this: what is missing (besides the mystery and easier forgiveness) in the Matt/Mk/Lk/Jn gospels that Paul's gospel has?
I gotta ask you a question here? Why is it you have picked VPW's revelation of the "lost intent" of the scriptures? I wonder why you did not pick someone like Muhammad? A strict unitrian. . . claimed the bible's original intent was corrupted. . . visited by a spiritual being. . . thought Jesus was a cool prophet. . . believed the virgin birth, the miracles. . . just had another take on who Jesus was. Heck, Muhammad actually did start a whole new religion. . . a big one.
Or, even Joseph Smith who's "legacy includes several religious denominations with adherents numbering in the millions, denominations that share a belief in Jesus but that vary in their acceptance of each other and of traditional Christianity. Smith's followers consider him a prophet and believe that some of his revelations are sacred texts on par with the Bible." Wikipedia
Or even Charles Taze Russell "Russell taught his followers the non-existence of hell and the annihilation of unsaved people (a doctrine he picked up from the Adventists), the non-existence of the Trinity (he said only the Father, Jehovah, is God), the identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel, the reduction of the Holy Spirit from a person to a force, the mortality (not immortality) of the soul, and the return of Jesus in 1914.
Russell died in 1916 and was succeeded by "Judge" Joseph R. Rutherford. Rutherford, born in 1869, had been brought up as a Baptist and became the legal adviser to the Watch Tower. He never was a real judge, but took the title because, as an attorney, he substituted at least once for an absent judge.
At one time he claimed Russell was next to Paul as an expounder of the gospel. . . "
Mike, there is always the Pope? He speaks excathedra!!!!. . . No? "Papal infallibility is the dogma in Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidei, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics." Wikipedia
Why Vp? What makes him stand out from all the others who have claimed to "Fix" traditional bible misunderstandings. Especially those concerning Jesus. . .
I have to tell you. . . it can't be VP's upstanding moral character that attracts you to his unique gospel, or even his stellar education. . . . what makes gas on the snow pumps any more credible than an angel giving someone new revelation?
These guys had more than 10 people who "Got" it???
Before I address your question, let me respond to your answer to mine. You said you answered it in your citing of I John.
This is what you said there:
One carry over is love. In I John we see this. We also see there that forgiveness from God was made easier. The reason Jesus ended his earthly ministry was to improve on his ministering, and he predicted this in the gospel period. The reason I say this ministry ended is because HE DEPARTED. Of course, he also said that in another new improved way he'd still be with us.
Since I John is after Pentecost, the only thing that paragraph says about what Jesus preached is love. Do you think that the whole point of Jesus' gospel is just love? I even gave you the answer in my post:
The Gospel of the Kingdom was preached by Jesus, the apostles, and all the disciples throughout Acts, including Paul. (Matthew 3:1,2; 10:7; Luke 10:1,9; Acts 1:1-3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:30,31). What Paul called "the Gospel of the grace of God" in Acts 20:24, he identifies in the next verse as "the kingdom of God" and in verse 27 as "all the counsel of God."
In the context of that, I also asked you another question. "Where in the Bible does it say that the gospel which Jesus preached (and which he said was the reason he was sent, Luke 4:43) ended and was replaced by a different gospel?"
You asked me, "what is missing (besides the mystery and easier forgiveness) in the Matt/Mk/Lk/Jn gospels that Paul's gospel has?" Before I can answer that, you need to demonstrate that Paul's gospel was different than the gospel Jesus preached. I believe they preached the same gospel, the gospel of the Kingdom of God, and the "mysteries of the Kingdom" (note the plural) are previously not understood details that were added to it, some by Jesus directly, some by Paul. But NOWHERE does it say that Jesus' gospel ended and Paul began to preach a new one.
Here's a thing for me that reveals a blatant PFAL error. It is a simple point in the scripture, but for me it has represented years of learning how TWI leadership actually worked because of how my former splinter group leader handled this information. I think I'll go into these events some more on a different thread. Anyway, here's the point....
Ephesians 5:25-32 (Lamsa version)
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved his church and gave himself for it,
That he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water and by the word,
In order to build for himself a glorious church, without stain or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So should men love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own body, but nourishes it and cherishes it, even as Christ does for his own church.
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they to shall be one flesh.
THIS IS A GREAT MYSTERY; BUT I SPEAK CONCERNING CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH.
_____________
Now that I've seen this point get started in a group I feel very confident in saying that if we are "the church the body of Christ" that is very evident that we are his body as we are also "the church of the bride of Christ."
IT ISN'T A DIFFERENT CHURCH. IT IS TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF REFERING TO THE SAME LORD WITHIN THE MARRIAGE ANALOGY. We are his bride, his flesh and his bones.
PAUL'S DOCTRINE WAS PLAINLY STATED THAT WE ARE CHRIST'S BRIDE. How simple is that? Who would want to say Paul was wrong, not me.
I quoted my previous post because it is relevant to the point that I want to make, and to re-tell it with my typeing speed would be a big waste of time.
It is easy to say like PFAL said that the gospels were not written to us. It is also easy to say that our calling is different than Israel's calling. It is also easy to say that we are the body of Christ and not the bride.....
BUT IF THE SCRIPTURE'S DO NOT PLAINLY SAY THESE THINGS THEN IMO THEY ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON.
Examining these things is not easy, but I have had to unlearn PFAL doctrine to be honest with the scriptures, for example...
Ephesians 3:4-6 (KJV)
by which, when you read, you may undestand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ).
which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to his Holy apostles and prophets:
that the gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,
_______________
We were brought into the same body, the same gospel as was preached to Israel...fellowheirs....etc
It is not a different body with a different hope, it is the same body. "One Lord, one faith". The only thing that was hidden was that us gentiles would be brought in.
And it seems sound at one level to say that there was a difference between what was said and what was taught. It's just a question of working out the specifics IMO.
I can't speak directly to Wierwille, even though I've heard enough to believe that as it was with Wierwille, so it is in my former splinter group.....
The cult of personality was fataly woven into the fabric of what living "the mystery" is suppose to look like. Why should it surprise anyone that Wierwille's knowledge of the mystery was faulty too?
You're right. VPW's distinction between the bride and the body was based on the ultra-dispensational ideas that he adapted largely from Bullinger.
Gentiles are now privileged to be able to partake of the promises made originally to Abraham, and later to the nation of Israel. God has expanded his promises to the whole world through the work of Jesus Christ.
Once when one of my former splinter group leaders told me that they were going to check out a group of Messianic Jews that I had met I recognized where he was coming from immediately and said,"That's o.k., they're used to having high-minded gentiles coming around to check them out." hehehe
As this man was stymied for a response I walked away without saying another word. HAHAHA
My ex-wife believed this leader and his fellow thugs when they said that I was devilish. notsofunnytome
Earlier I responded to the claim that preaching the same gospel as Jesus would be a step backward. I offered a challenge:
Yes we were taught it in PFAL, but can you back it up with Scripture? Where in the Bible does it say that the gospel which Jesus preached (and which he said was the reason he was sent, Luke 4:43) ended and was replaced by a different Gospel? The Gospel of the Kingdom was preached by Jesus, the apostles, and all the disciples throughout Acts, including Paul. (Matthew 3:1,2; 10:7; Luke 10:1,9; Acts 1:1-3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:30,31). What Paul called "the Gospel of the grace of God" in Acts 20:24, he identifies in the next verse as "the kingdom of God" and in verse 27 as "all the counsel of God."
You used the old "for our learning" argument. This is another PFAL error. The verse that was supposed to prove that the OT wasn't "addressed to us" was Romans 15:4. The problem is, it doesn't say it was written "for our learning ONLY" nor does it say it was not "addressed to us." The Greek word for "learning" is the same one translated "doctrine" elsewhere.
If "the gospel that Jesus preached was addressed to Israel and it was completed" then his words would be less important to the Church today than those of Paul. Yet he said that the holy spirit would bring to their remembrance "whatsoever I have said unto you." The New Testament tells us that it is the words of Jesus Christ, as much as his deeds, which are to be the focus of Christianity. (Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 3:34; 6:63; 12:47-48; 14:23; 15:7; I Timothy 6:3-4). This is the great tragedy of Dispensationalism, in fact. It separates Jesus from his words.
Anybody else want to take a stab at it? Does the Bible state anywhere that Jesus' gospel was ended (or "held in abeyance" as we heard in PFAL) and replaced by a new gospel? If so, what do we do with Matt. 24:14? "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
For an excellent video presentation on this, go to the following link:
Earlier I responded to the claim that preaching the same gospel as Jesus would be a step backward. I offered a challenge:
It would be more than just a step backward. It would be falling into a deep pit!
Anybody else want to take a stab at it? Does the Bible state anywhere that Jesus' gospel was ended (or "held in abeyance" as we heard in PFAL) and replaced by a new gospel?
Acts 1:8. Then why did the disciples ask Jesus to restore again the kingdom for them? If it [the Kingdom of Heaven] didn't end - then it certainly wouldn't have to be or need to be restored now, would it?
...
Gospel simply means: Good news. There are different types of good news. Of course, part of the good news concerning Jesus' gospel was the fulfilment of the law. Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:18, Luke 24:44). If Jesus' gospel had not ended or had never been fulfilled, we would still be under the law and still be obligated to keep the law. (Romans 2:25-29, Romans 3:20-31, Romans 4:9-16, Ephesians 2:11-14)
If you want to "step backward" into keeping the law - go ahead. But then you are obligated to keep the whole law as the Word of God dictates. (Galatians 2:16, James 2:10)
Acts 1:8. Then why did the disciples ask Jesus to restore again the kingdom for them? If it [the Kingdom of Heaven] didn't end - then it certainly wouldn't have to be or need to be restored now, would it?
The disciples didn't ask him to restore the kingdom "for them." They asked if he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel. They were referring to the fact that Israel at one time had a kingdom on earth, and that the Prophets foretold of a time when it would be restored.
The "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Kingdom of God" as Jesus preached it is not only the restoration of Israel's kingdom, but the promised perfect, world-wide reign of God's Messiah on a restored earth, which is promised in the OT. I didn't say that that ended, because it hasn't started yet. What I said did not end is the preaching of the good news about that Kingdom of God.
Gospel simply means: Good news. There are different types of good news. Of course, part of the good news concerning Jesus' gospel was the fulfilment of the law. Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:18, Luke 24:44). If Jesus' gospel had not ended or had never been fulfilled, we would still be under the law and still be obligated to keep the law. (Romans 2:25-29, Romans 3:20-31, Romans 4:9-16, Ephesians 2:11-14)
If you want to "step backward" into keeping the law - go ahead. But then you are obligated to keep the whole law as the Word of God dictates. (Galatians 2:16, James 2:10)
Yes, gospel means good news. And the good news that Jesus preached was not that he would fulfill the law. Many NT verses speak specifically of Jesus preaching the good news of the kingdom of God. He proclaimed that the long-awaited kingdom promised in the OT was at hand, and he proclaimed himself to be the king of that kingdom.
I never said anything about keeping the Law. Jesus' message was not "keep the Law and you'll be saved." It was "the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel." That is the good news or message that I am saying has not changed since Jesus. He proclaimed that the Kingdom which was promised in the OT was near, and that he himself was the promised king.
TWI said that the gospel about the Kingdom was addressed only to Israel, and then "held in abeyance" while Paul revealed a brand new gospel message, which was different from what Jesus preached. There is no Scripture that says that, however. The disciples, including Paul, continued to preach "the kingdom of God" throughout Acts. Some details were added, such as why the king had to be crucified, how the Gentiles get to partake of the same promises made to Israel, and how we are no longer under the letter of the OT Law. But the basic good news is still that of the kingdom of God, not a new gospel.
Gospel simply means: Good news. There are different types of good news. Of course, part of the good news concerning Jesus' gospel was the fulfilment of the law. Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:18, Luke 24:44). If Jesus' gospel had not ended or had never been fulfilled, we would still be under the law and still be obligated to keep the law. (Romans 2:25-29, Romans 3:20-31, Romans 4:9-16, Ephesians 2:11-14)
If you want to "step backward" into keeping the law - go ahead. But then you are obligated to keep the whole law as the Word of God dictates. (Galatians 2:16, James 2:10)
Hi What the Hey,
This article might help you to understand what Mark is trying to say. I disagree with him that it hasn't happened yet. . . I think in part it has. We are being readied for the Kingdom. Anyway, John Piper has some great teachings on this topic. If you are interested. . . . .
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."
Is the kingdom of God a future reality to be hoped for or a present reality to experience now? That's today's question. The answer is that it is partly present and partly future. Many of its blessings are here to be enjoyed now; but many of them are not yet here. Some of its power is available now but not all of it. Some of the curse and misery of this old age can be overcome now by the presence of the kingdom. But some of it cannot be. The decisive battle against sin and Satan and sickness and death has been fought and won by the King in his death and resurrection, but the war is not over. Sin must be fought, Satan must be resisted, sickness must be prayed over and groaned under (Romans 8:23), and death must be endured until the second coming of the King and the consummation of the kingdom.
Now I want you to see this clearly in the New Testament because it is extremely important for your faith. It will inspire you with hope that there is a great and glorious future yet in store for all believers. It will deepen your confidence that the glory of your future in the kingdom is secured by precious past down payments of that very kingdom (Romans 8:32!). It will give you a handle on why so much amazing kingdom power is being unleashed in the world, and yet why so much of sin and Satan and sickness and suffering remains. If you get a handle on the presence and the future of the kingdom of God, you will find yourself on a pathway of spiritual power, which might include the power to perform signs, and will definitely include the equally remarkable power to suffer patiently the cross of grief and pain (Colossians 1:11).
So let's look at the passages of Scripture that show the kingdom of God to be both present and future.
The Kingdom of God Is Present
Our text, Luke 17:20–21, is a clear statement that Christ's own coming is the coming of the kingdom.
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There! for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.'"
First, Jesus begins to correct a misunderstanding of the kingdom—namely, that it would come with such observable signs that it would be unmistakable: Rome would be overturned, Israel would be vindicated, and an earthly kingdom would be established. Jesus said, "No, it is not coming in a way that can be observed like that. There is a mystery about the coming of the kingdom. It is here in your midst without those kinds of observable signs. It is here because I am here. I am the arrival of the kingdom, even though I will not overturn the Romans or set up an earthly kingdom (yet!)."
Another clear statement about the presence of the kingdom is Matthew 12:28 (cf. Luke 11:20). The Pharisees accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub (v. 24). But Jesus has a very different interpretation of what's happening. He says in verse 28, "If it is by the power of the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." When Jesus does battle with Satan by the Spirit of God, and begins to plunder the strong man's house (v. 29), freeing people from his bondage, the powers of the kingdom are at work and the kingdom is already present.
The Kingdom of God Is Not Yet Present
But there are passages that make it very clear that the kingdom is not yet present. For example, in Luke 19:11ff. Jesus tells a parable to make the point that the kingdom is not yet here. Verses 11–12:
As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. He said therefore, "A nobleman went into a far country to receive a kingdom and then return."
He was near Jerusalem. In other words they thought he was about to make his move on the power center of the land and set up an earthly kingdom. That was the common conception of the coming of the kingdom—it would be with the kind of signs and wonders that would result in the destruction of all Israel's enemies and establish a new reign of peace and righteousness in the world.
But Jesus told a parable to make clear that the kingdom is not coming that way now—it would be a long time in the future. Verse 12: "A nobleman went into a far country to receive a kingdom and then return." In other words, Jesus is going back to heaven and will be gone some time before he returns to establish his kingdom in power and glory. Make no mistake, the coming of the kingdom is still future!
The "Mystery" of the Kingdom
So the kingdom has come according to Matthew 12:28 and Luke 17:21; and the coming of the kingdom is still future according to Luke 19:11–12 and many other texts. This is puzzling. It threw the Pharisees into confusion. It took John the Baptist off guard (Matthew 11:2–6). It caused one crowd to want to throw Jesus off a cliff (Luke 4:29) and another want to make him king (John 6:15). It baffled Pilate when Jesus was on trial (John 18:36–37). It left the apostles confused and hopeless between Good Friday and Easter (Luke 24:21).
Behind this confusion was what Jesus called the "mystery [or secret] of the kingdom." Let's turn to Matthew 13 and see how the parables of the kingdom unfold the mystery of the kingdom for us. What is mysterious about the kingdom is that it has come partly but not fully. There are hints about this in the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 53—the suffering servant). But by and large the Old Testament does not clearly separate the two comings of Christ. It sees one great day of the Lord coming when God would deal finally with sin and defeat his enemies and gather his people into a kingdom of peace and righteousness and joy and make the earth and the heavens new and glorious with the Messiah ruling forever and ever. But it didn't make clear that this day of the Lord—the coming of the kingdom—would happen in two stages: first, with Jesus coming as a suffering servant to atone for sin, and second, with Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
This is the mystery (the secret) of the kingdom—the arrival of the kingdom in a preliminary, small way in advance of the final consummation when all the enemies would be defeated and all sin and satanic power and sickness and suffering would be gone forever. The mystery, as George Ladd puts it, is "fulfillment without consummation." Fulfillment of the kingdom is here; but consummation of the kingdom is not. Many kingdom blessings can be experienced today; many are reserved for the consummation and the coming of Jesus.
Jesus' Teaching About the Mystery in Parables
Let's read from the parables how Jesus teaches about the mystery of the kingdom. Notice Matthew 13:11. Jesus says to his disciples, "To you it has been given to know the secrets [mysteries] of the kingdom of the heaven." Further down look at verses 16–17, "But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear and did not hear it."
You are seeing the fulfillment of things they longed to see. The kingdom has come, but there is a mystery. Not everyone is recognizing it. It's not what they expected. It's here, but the way it's here is a mystery. That is the mystery. That's what these parables in Matthew 13 are meant to show.
The Parable of the Sower
First, the parable of the sower: verses 18–19, "Hear the parable of the sower. When anyone hears the word of the kingdom . . . " four different things can happen:
Satan can snatch it;
the heat of trouble can scorch it;
the thorns of care can choke it;
or it can bear fruit in good soil.
The mystery here is that the Word of the kingdom—the gospel of the kingdom, "Our God reigns!" (Isaiah 52:7)—is not sweeping the whole world before it. It's here with power to save some—but three-forths of the kingdom preaching seems to be aborting. That was not expected to happen when the Messiah arrived to say, "The kingdom is at hand. Our God reigns!" This is the mystery of the kingdom.
The Parable of the Wheat and Tares
Then look at the parable of the wheat and tares in verses 24ff. "Another parable he put before them, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.'" An enemy sows bad seed and wheat and tares grow up together. And Jesus says that's a picture of the kingdom. Sons of the kingdom (v. 38) and sons of the evil one side by side till the harvest—the day of judgment.
The interpretation is given in verses 37ff. Notice verse 41. At the end of the age it says, "The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire." This is the mystery of the kingdom—a kingdom existing for some time in this world with righteous (v. 43) and evil in it side by side until the consummation. This was not expected. The kingdom was to come with total power to destroy the wicked immediately and vindicate the righteous. But Jesus says it has arrived. There is fulfillment. But the consummation, the final separation waits for the second coming of the Son of Man (v. 41).
The Parable of the Mustard Seed
Look at the parable of the mustard seed in vv. 31–32, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches."
The mystery of the kingdom is that the kingdom came in Jesus like a mustard seed and not a military coup. It will some day be a huge and mighty tree. But the mystery is that the kingdom has come into the world without the cataclysmic transformation most expected.
The Parable of the Fishing Net
Skip down to the last parable of the chapter, verses 47–50, the parable of the fishing net.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad. So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire.
The mystery of the kingdom, again, is that as the net—the power of the kingdom—draws men into its sway, it draws good and bad. Only when the net is up on shore at the close of the age will the good and the bad fish be separated.
Notice carefully: the separation described here is not between the fish which didn't get caught in the net of the kingdom and those which did. That's not the point of this parable. The separation here is between two kinds of people who are swept into the net of the kingdom. One kind is kept. The other is cast into the fire.
So the mystery of the kingdom is not only that the kingdom is at first limited in its scope and its effect in the world (it's a mustard seed), but also the mystery of the kingdom is that the people who come under the power of God's kingdom are, as we say, a mixed bag. Some are true disciples. And some are hypocrites.
The point of today's message is that the kingdom of God is present and future. There has been fulfillment, but there has not been consummation. This is the mystery of the kingdom. And it leads to two brief applications, one an encouragement, the other a warning.
Two Applications
First, the warning: beware of insisting that God demonstrate dimensions of the kingdom now which he has reserved for the consummation. The kingdom now is limited in its scope and effects. And beware of assuming that all who are swept into the power of God's kingdom are the children of the kingdom. The power of the kingdom gathers many (Matthew 7:22) into its net that will be cast out in the end because they loved healing and not holiness; they loved power and not purity; they loved wonders and not the will of God.
And finally the encouragement: the kingdom really has arrived. Unprecedented fulfillments of God's purposes are in the offing. The King has come. The King has dealt with sin once for all in the sacrifice of himself. The King sits at the Father's right hand and reigns now until all his enemies are under his feet. The King's righteousness is now already ours by faith. The King's Spirit is now already dwelling in us. The King's holiness is now already being produced in us. The King's joy and peace have now already been given to us. The King's victory over Satan is now already ours as we use the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God. The King's power to witness is now already available to us. And the King's gifts—the gifts of his Spirit—are now already available for ministry.
And now with a sober awareness of the mystery of the kingdom—present yet future; fulfilled but not consummated—let us go on as a church to seek the kingdom first—to discover all we yet should be for the salvation of lost sinners and the glory of King Jesus!
Let me just add this thought. Israel asked God for a King. God was not too pleased with this. . . . . He is their King.They wanted another. He warned them and then gave them what they wanted.
When the Lord comes back to reign in His kingdom. . . He is King. Things are restored as they should have been.. . with God reigning in their midst through Jesus. . . God in the flesh. . . as King.
Acts 1:8. Then why did the disciples ask Jesus to restore again the kingdom for them? If it [the Kingdom of Heaven] didn't end - then it certainly wouldn't have to be or need to be restored now, would it
1. They didn't ask him to restore the kingdom (of heaven), they made an inquiry.
Acts 1:6
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
2. Wierwille taught that their question was in reference to the political situation of the day.
He used that to illustrate his claim that the disciples were only concerned with the immediate political situation in which they were immersed, not the spiritual significance of the event. He further used that scripture to "prove" that before Pentecost, spiritual matters were beyond the average person's comprehension.
Acts 1:8. Then why did the disciples ask Jesus to restore again the kingdom for them? If it [the Kingdom of Heaven] didn't end - then it certainly wouldn't have to be or need to be restored now, would it
1. They didn't ask him to restore the kingdom (of heaven), they made an inquiry.
Acts 1:6
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
2. Wierwille taught that their question was in reference to the political situation of the day.
He used that to illustrate his claim that the disciples were only concerned with the immediate political situation in which they were immersed, not the spiritual significance of the event. He further used that scripture to "prove" that before Pentecost, spiritual matters were beyond the average person's comprehension.
Which I also think was part of the HS teaching of spirit on and spirit in. I may be wrong. VP never did speak much to the parables or the mystery of the kingdom. I do remember. . it was taught like Mark said. . .held in abeyance.
That was part of the ultra dispensationalist theology VP subscribed to. He was pretty anti-semetic and it showed in his understanding. I wonder if that motivated him? He taught that the "lost" tribes were something else today. . . . There is more than one school of thought on this.
This article might help you to understand what Mark is trying to say. I disagree with him that it hasn't happened yet. . . I think in part it has. We are being readied for the Kingdom. Anyway, John Piper has some great teachings on this topic. If you are interested. . . . .
I agree with you. It has come in a limited sense, or a "seed" form, as a foretaste, but not fully consummated yet.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
25
16
11
13
Popular Days
Jan 29
28
Jan 27
10
Jan 30
9
Feb 1
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Clarke 25 posts
Mike 16 posts
geisha779 11 posts
waysider 13 posts
Popular Days
Jan 29 2009
28 posts
Jan 27 2009
10 posts
Jan 30 2009
9 posts
Feb 1 2009
9 posts
Mike
No, I don't think so. I think this would be huge step backwards.
The gospel that Jesus preached was addressed to Israel and it was completed. It's in writing for our learning not for our copying. His ministry on earth ended and was replaced by something better, and that better ministry where he is seated at the right hand of the Father is what Paul's gospel was commissioned to reveal to us.
If you look at a red letter edition of the KJV in Acts you will see the places where Paul was contacted to move this better gospel. If you put together all the red letters in Acts it will read a lot like Colossians Chapter One. The mind of Christ was put into the Epistles of Paul for us to absorb.
In the first century curriculum God first had the epistles written, and then after this better gospel was absorbed the 4 gospels were written. But first things first. Paul's message was the most maligned of all the NT scriptures, and most occluded by churchianity's focus on the 4 earthly ministry gospel records. PFAL fixes that.
There are two ministries of Christ, and you're looking at the old one. The gospel record is Old Testament. We were taught this in PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The gospel that Jesus preached was addressed to Israel and it was completed. It's in writing for our learning not for our copying.
snip
The gospel record is Old Testament. We were taught this in PFAL.
One would have to subscribe to "dispensationalism" to accept this as accurate.
There are two ministries of Christ, and you're looking at the old one.
Where is it declared that Jesus Christ had two ministries?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Yes we were taught it in PFAL, but can you back it up with Scripture? Where in the Bible does it say that the gospel which Jesus preached (and which he said was the reason he was sent, Luke 4:43) ended and was replaced by a different Gospel? The Gospel of the Kingdom was preached by Jesus, the apostles, and all the disciples throughout Acts, including Paul. (Matthew 3:1,2; 10:7; Luke 10:1,9; Acts 1:1-3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:30,31). What Paul called "the Gospel of the grace of God" in Acts 20:24, he identifies in the next verse as "the kingdom of God" and in verse 27 as "all the counsel of God."
You used the old "for our learning" argument. This is another PFAL error. The verse that was supposed to prove that the OT wasn't "addressed to us" was Romans 15:4. The problem is, it doesn't say it was written "for our learning ONLY" nor does it say it was not "addressed to us." The Greek word for "learning" is the same one translated "doctrine" elsewhere.
If "the gospel that Jesus preached was addressed to Israel and it was completed" then his words would be less important to the Church today than those of Paul. Yet he said that the holy spirit would bring to their remembrance "whatsoever I have said unto you." The New Testament tells us that it is the words of Jesus Christ, as much as his deeds, which are to be the focus of Christianity. (Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 3:34; 6:63; 12:47-48; 14:23; 15:7; I Timothy 6:3-4). This is the great tragedy of Dispensationalism, in fact. It separates Jesus from his words.
BTW, you responded to my rhetorical question, "shouldn't we preach a message that sounds like the one he preached?" But you didn't answer the simple question I asked you: What would you say is the crux of the Gospel Message that Jesus preached?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
There certainly were carry overs from Jesus' earthly ministry to his heavenly one, but there are differences too.
One carry over is love. In I John we see this. We also see there that forgiveness from God was made easier. The reason Jesus ended his earthly ministry was to improve on his ministering, and he predicted this in the gospel period. The reason I say this ministry ended is because HE DEPARTED. Of course, he also said that in another new improved way he'd still be with us.
Another difference is the mystery. It's not in the gospels, not even in Mark's and Luke's and they certainly knew the mystery being companions of Paul. It wasn't revealed until it was given to Paul so it wasn't in Jesus' earthly preaching.
Did you look up the red letters where Jesus Christ is speaking in Acts?
It's in Acts 1, of course, but that's before he departed. Then he speaks with red letters in the narrative of the incident on the Road to Damascus with Saul. Then years later Paul recounts this incident and it's in red letters again, JUST LIKE THE GOSPELS. Then there's a second recounting of the same incident, also in red letters.
I've found that many Bible believers are totally unaware of this later red letter gospel, this secret gospel, this gospel of the mystery, also named Paul's gospel. All of Paul's epistles should be in red too because he received it by Jesus Christ.
If anyone can't find this hidden gospel of Jesus Christ because they don't have a red letter edition, just ask me for the scriptures, or go to a library or bookstore. It's easy to find this (sort of) LOST GOSPEL because all the words of Jesus are in red letters.
Well now I did in my citing I John above, but let me ask you this: what is missing (besides the mystery and easier forgiveness) in the Matt/Mk/Lk/Jn gospels that Paul's gospel has?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Ah,
answering a question with a question,
very jesusey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, first I answered a question and then I posed a question.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
oh, my bad.
Not so jesusey then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You are forgiven.
Go in peace and sin no more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Blatant PFAL Error
"Write The Teacher"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mike,
I gotta ask you a question here? Why is it you have picked VPW's revelation of the "lost intent" of the scriptures? I wonder why you did not pick someone like Muhammad? A strict unitrian. . . claimed the bible's original intent was corrupted. . . visited by a spiritual being. . . thought Jesus was a cool prophet. . . believed the virgin birth, the miracles. . . just had another take on who Jesus was. Heck, Muhammad actually did start a whole new religion. . . a big one.
Or, even Joseph Smith who's "legacy includes several religious denominations with adherents numbering in the millions, denominations that share a belief in Jesus but that vary in their acceptance of each other and of traditional Christianity. Smith's followers consider him a prophet and believe that some of his revelations are sacred texts on par with the Bible." Wikipedia
Or even Charles Taze Russell "Russell taught his followers the non-existence of hell and the annihilation of unsaved people (a doctrine he picked up from the Adventists), the non-existence of the Trinity (he said only the Father, Jehovah, is God), the identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel, the reduction of the Holy Spirit from a person to a force, the mortality (not immortality) of the soul, and the return of Jesus in 1914.
Russell died in 1916 and was succeeded by "Judge" Joseph R. Rutherford. Rutherford, born in 1869, had been brought up as a Baptist and became the legal adviser to the Watch Tower. He never was a real judge, but took the title because, as an attorney, he substituted at least once for an absent judge.
At one time he claimed Russell was next to Paul as an expounder of the gospel. . . "
http://www.catholic.com/library/history_of...witnesesses.asp
Mike, there is always the Pope? He speaks excathedra!!!!. . . No? "Papal infallibility is the dogma in Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidei, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics." Wikipedia
Why Vp? What makes him stand out from all the others who have claimed to "Fix" traditional bible misunderstandings. Especially those concerning Jesus. . .
I have to tell you. . . it can't be VP's upstanding moral character that attracts you to his unique gospel, or even his stellar education. . . . what makes gas on the snow pumps any more credible than an angel giving someone new revelation?
These guys had more than 10 people who "Got" it???
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Mike,
Before I address your question, let me respond to your answer to mine. You said you answered it in your citing of I John.
This is what you said there:
Since I John is after Pentecost, the only thing that paragraph says about what Jesus preached is love. Do you think that the whole point of Jesus' gospel is just love? I even gave you the answer in my post:
In the context of that, I also asked you another question. "Where in the Bible does it say that the gospel which Jesus preached (and which he said was the reason he was sent, Luke 4:43) ended and was replaced by a different gospel?"
You asked me, "what is missing (besides the mystery and easier forgiveness) in the Matt/Mk/Lk/Jn gospels that Paul's gospel has?" Before I can answer that, you need to demonstrate that Paul's gospel was different than the gospel Jesus preached. I believe they preached the same gospel, the gospel of the Kingdom of God, and the "mysteries of the Kingdom" (note the plural) are previously not understood details that were added to it, some by Jesus directly, some by Paul. But NOWHERE does it say that Jesus' gospel ended and Paul began to preach a new one.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi geisha,
I answered your post identical to this in the "only rule" thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Mike, do you have any answer for my question?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
PAUL'S DOCTRINE WAS PLAINLY STATED THAT WE ARE CHRIST'S BRIDE. How simple is that? Who would want to say Paul was wrong, not me.
I quoted my previous post because it is relevant to the point that I want to make, and to re-tell it with my typeing speed would be a big waste of time.
It is easy to say like PFAL said that the gospels were not written to us. It is also easy to say that our calling is different than Israel's calling. It is also easy to say that we are the body of Christ and not the bride.....
BUT IF THE SCRIPTURE'S DO NOT PLAINLY SAY THESE THINGS THEN IMO THEY ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON.
Examining these things is not easy, but I have had to unlearn PFAL doctrine to be honest with the scriptures, for example...
Ephesians 3:4-6 (KJV)
by which, when you read, you may undestand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ).
which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to his Holy apostles and prophets:
that the gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,
_______________
We were brought into the same body, the same gospel as was preached to Israel...fellowheirs....etc
It is not a different body with a different hope, it is the same body. "One Lord, one faith". The only thing that was hidden was that us gentiles would be brought in.
So PFAL WAS WRONG!
(edited for spelling)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
And it seems sound at one level to say that there was a difference between what was said and what was taught. It's just a question of working out the specifics IMO.
I can't speak directly to Wierwille, even though I've heard enough to believe that as it was with Wierwille, so it is in my former splinter group.....
The cult of personality was fataly woven into the fabric of what living "the mystery" is suppose to look like. Why should it surprise anyone that Wierwille's knowledge of the mystery was faulty too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Jeff,
You're right. VPW's distinction between the bride and the body was based on the ultra-dispensational ideas that he adapted largely from Bullinger.
Gentiles are now privileged to be able to partake of the promises made originally to Abraham, and later to the nation of Israel. God has expanded his promises to the whole world through the work of Jesus Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Once when one of my former splinter group leaders told me that they were going to check out a group of Messianic Jews that I had met I recognized where he was coming from immediately and said,"That's o.k., they're used to having high-minded gentiles coming around to check them out." hehehe
As this man was stymied for a response I walked away without saying another word. HAHAHA
My ex-wife believed this leader and his fellow thugs when they said that I was devilish. notsofunnytome
(edited for grammar)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Earlier I responded to the claim that preaching the same gospel as Jesus would be a step backward. I offered a challenge:
Anybody else want to take a stab at it? Does the Bible state anywhere that Jesus' gospel was ended (or "held in abeyance" as we heard in PFAL) and replaced by a new gospel? If so, what do we do with Matt. 24:14? "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
For an excellent video presentation on this, go to the following link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=85...96916&hl=en
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Gospel simply means: Good news. There are different types of good news. Of course, part of the good news concerning Jesus' gospel was the fulfilment of the law. Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:18, Luke 24:44). If Jesus' gospel had not ended or had never been fulfilled, we would still be under the law and still be obligated to keep the law. (Romans 2:25-29, Romans 3:20-31, Romans 4:9-16, Ephesians 2:11-14)
If you want to "step backward" into keeping the law - go ahead. But then you are obligated to keep the whole law as the Word of God dictates. (Galatians 2:16, James 2:10)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
The disciples didn't ask him to restore the kingdom "for them." They asked if he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel. They were referring to the fact that Israel at one time had a kingdom on earth, and that the Prophets foretold of a time when it would be restored.
The "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Kingdom of God" as Jesus preached it is not only the restoration of Israel's kingdom, but the promised perfect, world-wide reign of God's Messiah on a restored earth, which is promised in the OT. I didn't say that that ended, because it hasn't started yet. What I said did not end is the preaching of the good news about that Kingdom of God.
Yes, gospel means good news. And the good news that Jesus preached was not that he would fulfill the law. Many NT verses speak specifically of Jesus preaching the good news of the kingdom of God. He proclaimed that the long-awaited kingdom promised in the OT was at hand, and he proclaimed himself to be the king of that kingdom.
I never said anything about keeping the Law. Jesus' message was not "keep the Law and you'll be saved." It was "the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel." That is the good news or message that I am saying has not changed since Jesus. He proclaimed that the Kingdom which was promised in the OT was near, and that he himself was the promised king.
TWI said that the gospel about the Kingdom was addressed only to Israel, and then "held in abeyance" while Paul revealed a brand new gospel message, which was different from what Jesus preached. There is no Scripture that says that, however. The disciples, including Paul, continued to preach "the kingdom of God" throughout Acts. Some details were added, such as why the king had to be crucified, how the Gentiles get to partake of the same promises made to Israel, and how we are no longer under the letter of the OT Law. But the basic good news is still that of the kingdom of God, not a new gospel.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi What the Hey,
This article might help you to understand what Mark is trying to say. I disagree with him that it hasn't happened yet. . . I think in part it has. We are being readied for the Kingdom. Anyway, John Piper has some great teachings on this topic. If you are interested. . . . .
http://www.desiringgod.org/Search/?search=kingdom+of+God
This is copied with permisson.
Luke 17:20-21
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."
Is the kingdom of God a future reality to be hoped for or a present reality to experience now? That's today's question. The answer is that it is partly present and partly future. Many of its blessings are here to be enjoyed now; but many of them are not yet here. Some of its power is available now but not all of it. Some of the curse and misery of this old age can be overcome now by the presence of the kingdom. But some of it cannot be. The decisive battle against sin and Satan and sickness and death has been fought and won by the King in his death and resurrection, but the war is not over. Sin must be fought, Satan must be resisted, sickness must be prayed over and groaned under (Romans 8:23), and death must be endured until the second coming of the King and the consummation of the kingdom.
Now I want you to see this clearly in the New Testament because it is extremely important for your faith. It will inspire you with hope that there is a great and glorious future yet in store for all believers. It will deepen your confidence that the glory of your future in the kingdom is secured by precious past down payments of that very kingdom (Romans 8:32!). It will give you a handle on why so much amazing kingdom power is being unleashed in the world, and yet why so much of sin and Satan and sickness and suffering remains. If you get a handle on the presence and the future of the kingdom of God, you will find yourself on a pathway of spiritual power, which might include the power to perform signs, and will definitely include the equally remarkable power to suffer patiently the cross of grief and pain (Colossians 1:11).
So let's look at the passages of Scripture that show the kingdom of God to be both present and future.
The Kingdom of God Is Present
Our text, Luke 17:20–21, is a clear statement that Christ's own coming is the coming of the kingdom.
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There! for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.'"
First, Jesus begins to correct a misunderstanding of the kingdom—namely, that it would come with such observable signs that it would be unmistakable: Rome would be overturned, Israel would be vindicated, and an earthly kingdom would be established. Jesus said, "No, it is not coming in a way that can be observed like that. There is a mystery about the coming of the kingdom. It is here in your midst without those kinds of observable signs. It is here because I am here. I am the arrival of the kingdom, even though I will not overturn the Romans or set up an earthly kingdom (yet!)."
Another clear statement about the presence of the kingdom is Matthew 12:28 (cf. Luke 11:20). The Pharisees accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub (v. 24). But Jesus has a very different interpretation of what's happening. He says in verse 28, "If it is by the power of the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." When Jesus does battle with Satan by the Spirit of God, and begins to plunder the strong man's house (v. 29), freeing people from his bondage, the powers of the kingdom are at work and the kingdom is already present.
The Kingdom of God Is Not Yet Present
But there are passages that make it very clear that the kingdom is not yet present. For example, in Luke 19:11ff. Jesus tells a parable to make the point that the kingdom is not yet here. Verses 11–12:
As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. He said therefore, "A nobleman went into a far country to receive a kingdom and then return."
He was near Jerusalem. In other words they thought he was about to make his move on the power center of the land and set up an earthly kingdom. That was the common conception of the coming of the kingdom—it would be with the kind of signs and wonders that would result in the destruction of all Israel's enemies and establish a new reign of peace and righteousness in the world.
But Jesus told a parable to make clear that the kingdom is not coming that way now—it would be a long time in the future. Verse 12: "A nobleman went into a far country to receive a kingdom and then return." In other words, Jesus is going back to heaven and will be gone some time before he returns to establish his kingdom in power and glory. Make no mistake, the coming of the kingdom is still future!
The "Mystery" of the Kingdom
So the kingdom has come according to Matthew 12:28 and Luke 17:21; and the coming of the kingdom is still future according to Luke 19:11–12 and many other texts. This is puzzling. It threw the Pharisees into confusion. It took John the Baptist off guard (Matthew 11:2–6). It caused one crowd to want to throw Jesus off a cliff (Luke 4:29) and another want to make him king (John 6:15). It baffled Pilate when Jesus was on trial (John 18:36–37). It left the apostles confused and hopeless between Good Friday and Easter (Luke 24:21).
Behind this confusion was what Jesus called the "mystery [or secret] of the kingdom." Let's turn to Matthew 13 and see how the parables of the kingdom unfold the mystery of the kingdom for us. What is mysterious about the kingdom is that it has come partly but not fully. There are hints about this in the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 53—the suffering servant). But by and large the Old Testament does not clearly separate the two comings of Christ. It sees one great day of the Lord coming when God would deal finally with sin and defeat his enemies and gather his people into a kingdom of peace and righteousness and joy and make the earth and the heavens new and glorious with the Messiah ruling forever and ever. But it didn't make clear that this day of the Lord—the coming of the kingdom—would happen in two stages: first, with Jesus coming as a suffering servant to atone for sin, and second, with Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
This is the mystery (the secret) of the kingdom—the arrival of the kingdom in a preliminary, small way in advance of the final consummation when all the enemies would be defeated and all sin and satanic power and sickness and suffering would be gone forever. The mystery, as George Ladd puts it, is "fulfillment without consummation." Fulfillment of the kingdom is here; but consummation of the kingdom is not. Many kingdom blessings can be experienced today; many are reserved for the consummation and the coming of Jesus.
Jesus' Teaching About the Mystery in Parables
Let's read from the parables how Jesus teaches about the mystery of the kingdom. Notice Matthew 13:11. Jesus says to his disciples, "To you it has been given to know the secrets [mysteries] of the kingdom of the heaven." Further down look at verses 16–17, "But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear and did not hear it."
You are seeing the fulfillment of things they longed to see. The kingdom has come, but there is a mystery. Not everyone is recognizing it. It's not what they expected. It's here, but the way it's here is a mystery. That is the mystery. That's what these parables in Matthew 13 are meant to show.
The Parable of the Sower
First, the parable of the sower: verses 18–19, "Hear the parable of the sower. When anyone hears the word of the kingdom . . . " four different things can happen:
Satan can snatch it;
the heat of trouble can scorch it;
the thorns of care can choke it;
or it can bear fruit in good soil.
The mystery here is that the Word of the kingdom—the gospel of the kingdom, "Our God reigns!" (Isaiah 52:7)—is not sweeping the whole world before it. It's here with power to save some—but three-forths of the kingdom preaching seems to be aborting. That was not expected to happen when the Messiah arrived to say, "The kingdom is at hand. Our God reigns!" This is the mystery of the kingdom.
The Parable of the Wheat and Tares
Then look at the parable of the wheat and tares in verses 24ff. "Another parable he put before them, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.'" An enemy sows bad seed and wheat and tares grow up together. And Jesus says that's a picture of the kingdom. Sons of the kingdom (v. 38) and sons of the evil one side by side till the harvest—the day of judgment.
The interpretation is given in verses 37ff. Notice verse 41. At the end of the age it says, "The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire." This is the mystery of the kingdom—a kingdom existing for some time in this world with righteous (v. 43) and evil in it side by side until the consummation. This was not expected. The kingdom was to come with total power to destroy the wicked immediately and vindicate the righteous. But Jesus says it has arrived. There is fulfillment. But the consummation, the final separation waits for the second coming of the Son of Man (v. 41).
The Parable of the Mustard Seed
Look at the parable of the mustard seed in vv. 31–32, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches."
The mystery of the kingdom is that the kingdom came in Jesus like a mustard seed and not a military coup. It will some day be a huge and mighty tree. But the mystery is that the kingdom has come into the world without the cataclysmic transformation most expected.
The Parable of the Fishing Net
Skip down to the last parable of the chapter, verses 47–50, the parable of the fishing net.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad. So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire.
The mystery of the kingdom, again, is that as the net—the power of the kingdom—draws men into its sway, it draws good and bad. Only when the net is up on shore at the close of the age will the good and the bad fish be separated.
Notice carefully: the separation described here is not between the fish which didn't get caught in the net of the kingdom and those which did. That's not the point of this parable. The separation here is between two kinds of people who are swept into the net of the kingdom. One kind is kept. The other is cast into the fire.
So the mystery of the kingdom is not only that the kingdom is at first limited in its scope and its effect in the world (it's a mustard seed), but also the mystery of the kingdom is that the people who come under the power of God's kingdom are, as we say, a mixed bag. Some are true disciples. And some are hypocrites.
The point of today's message is that the kingdom of God is present and future. There has been fulfillment, but there has not been consummation. This is the mystery of the kingdom. And it leads to two brief applications, one an encouragement, the other a warning.
Two Applications
First, the warning: beware of insisting that God demonstrate dimensions of the kingdom now which he has reserved for the consummation. The kingdom now is limited in its scope and effects. And beware of assuming that all who are swept into the power of God's kingdom are the children of the kingdom. The power of the kingdom gathers many (Matthew 7:22) into its net that will be cast out in the end because they loved healing and not holiness; they loved power and not purity; they loved wonders and not the will of God.
And finally the encouragement: the kingdom really has arrived. Unprecedented fulfillments of God's purposes are in the offing. The King has come. The King has dealt with sin once for all in the sacrifice of himself. The King sits at the Father's right hand and reigns now until all his enemies are under his feet. The King's righteousness is now already ours by faith. The King's Spirit is now already dwelling in us. The King's holiness is now already being produced in us. The King's joy and peace have now already been given to us. The King's victory over Satan is now already ours as we use the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God. The King's power to witness is now already available to us. And the King's gifts—the gifts of his Spirit—are now already available for ministry.
And now with a sober awareness of the mystery of the kingdom—present yet future; fulfilled but not consummated—let us go on as a church to seek the kingdom first—to discover all we yet should be for the salvation of lost sinners and the glory of King Jesus!
Let me just add this thought. Israel asked God for a King. God was not too pleased with this. . . . . He is their King.They wanted another. He warned them and then gave them what they wanted.
When the Lord comes back to reign in His kingdom. . . He is King. Things are restored as they should have been.. . with God reigning in their midst through Jesus. . . God in the flesh. . . as King.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
WTH asked:
Acts 1:8. Then why did the disciples ask Jesus to restore again the kingdom for them? If it [the Kingdom of Heaven] didn't end - then it certainly wouldn't have to be or need to be restored now, would it
1. They didn't ask him to restore the kingdom (of heaven), they made an inquiry.
Acts 1:6
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
2. Wierwille taught that their question was in reference to the political situation of the day.
He used that to illustrate his claim that the disciples were only concerned with the immediate political situation in which they were immersed, not the spiritual significance of the event. He further used that scripture to "prove" that before Pentecost, spiritual matters were beyond the average person's comprehension.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Which I also think was part of the HS teaching of spirit on and spirit in. I may be wrong. VP never did speak much to the parables or the mystery of the kingdom. I do remember. . it was taught like Mark said. . .held in abeyance.
That was part of the ultra dispensationalist theology VP subscribed to. He was pretty anti-semetic and it showed in his understanding. I wonder if that motivated him? He taught that the "lost" tribes were something else today. . . . There is more than one school of thought on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I agree with you. It has come in a limited sense, or a "seed" form, as a foretaste, but not fully consummated yet.
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.