Dispensationalist Only Matthew 24:14

[food4thought]

Matthew 24:14 NASB "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.


This verse raises a question in my mind... is it the gospel of the kingdom that we should be preaching today, so that Christ can return?

Or is it the DBR we should be preaching, and the gospel of the Kingdom will be preached post rapture during the tribulation?

Or is there no distinction between the two?

 

[Josheb]

Not only is there no distinction but we should understand that the term "gospel" had very special meaning in first century. We commonly understand the word to mean "good news" but the word "gospel" does not literally mean "good," and "news." In Greek that would be "akoē kalon," or "phēmē kalon," meaning "news or report that is good." That is not what the writers were communicating when they used the term "gospel."

In Imperial Rome a gospel was a formal announcement of great accomplishment, usually either a great victory a Caesar or a general had won or an announcement a Caesar had been deified. When the gospel writers co-opted the term they were saying Jesus was the King of All Kings (including Caesar). He had conquered even death, something not even Caesar could do. For the Greek and Romans deification entailed being elevated in status and promoted to live in the Elysium Fields below Mt. Olympus rather then Hel or Hades with the rest of those who died, living in unending conscious misery with the reast of the dead. Christ instead sat on God's own throne and ruled with his Father and those who believed in him lived in incorruptible immortality with him.

This, of course, was an affront to Caesar and Rome and this is one of the reasons the persecution of the church moved from Jerusalem to Rome. They could not have a religion that made Caesar second-rate, nor a Master whose resurrection had occurred at the hands of Rome killing an innocent man.

So when we understand the gospel in its fullest sence of the word we necessarily understand distinctions between the God's kingdom and the resurrection don't exist.


Now, as to that part about the "rapture," I'm partial pret and the forum keeps restrictions on that so I will simply say the gospel is not about a rapture. The kingdom existed in Jesus' time and he plainly stated that throughout the gospels. The kingdom was in their midst and remains in ours. It is something within us that we must enter and it is past, present, and future. Do a word study of "kingdom" and you'll 1) get a very good handle on the term and 2) see the Dispensational Premillenial pov is incorrect.

 

[food4thought]

Now, as to that part about the "rapture," I'm partial pret and the forum keeps restrictions on that so I will simply say the gospel is not about a rapture.

Right. The gospel is about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). The rapture is not the gospel.

The kingdom existed in Jesus' time and he plainly stated that throughout the gospels.

Right. The King was present, so the Kingdom was, too.

The kingdom was in their midst and remains in ours.

Not in the same sense it was during the Incarnation.

It is something within us that we must enter and it is past, present, and future.

I prefer the translation "in your midst" (NASB, NIV, NRSV, etc.). Jesus Christ is the King, and we are His ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20)… the Holy Spirit is within us, true, but the Kingdom is not physically present today.

Do a word study of "kingdom" and you'll 1) get a very good handle on the term and 2) see the Dispensational Premillennial pov is incorrect.

I appreciate your point of view, but I am trying to discover what dispensationalists think about this passage (which is why I labeled it dispensationalist only).

 

[Josheb]

I appreciate your point of view, but I am trying to discover what dispensationalists think about this passage (which is why I labeled it dispensationalist only).

Then be prepared for a one-sided discussion because the pret views are prohibited and even the covenantal and amil views will be predicated upon specific pret readings of scripture. There are forums where this can be discussed with more diverse views but I'm not sure I can mention them here.

 

[Guojing]

Matthew 24:14 NASB "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.


This verse raises a question in my mind... is it the gospel of the kingdom that we should be preaching today, so that Christ can return?

Or is it the DBR we should be preaching, and the gospel of the Kingdom will be preached post rapture during the tribulation?

Or is there no distinction between the two?

Definitely this

Or is it the DBR we should be preaching, and the gospel of the Kingdom will be preached post rapture during the tribulation?

 

[food4thought]

Definitely this

Or is it the DBR we should be preaching, and the gospel of the Kingdom will be preached post rapture during the tribulation?

Thanks for the reply Guojing. What kind of dispensationalist are you? Acts 2, mid-Acts, or Acts 28?

 

[Guojing]

Thanks for the reply Guojing. What kind of dispensationalist are you? Acts 2, mid-Acts, or Acts 28?

Mid Acts, what about you?

 

[food4thought]

Mid Acts, what about you?

I am still learning, but I am Acts 2.

 

[Guojing]

I am still learning, but I am Acts 2.

Nice, I am always very curious to hear from Acts 2 dispy their views on the following

1. Ananias and Sapphira's death for lying, how does the Body of Christ relate to that today?
2. People living a socialist/communal living Acts 4:32, how does the Body of Christ relate to that today?
3. Peter preaching only to Jews in a Jewish festival, Pentecost, in Acts 2, and Peter offering the physical return of Jesus in Acts 3, how does the Body of Christ relate to that today?

Basically, I felt the evidence is overwhelming that the Body of Christ could not have started in Acts 2. Would be keen to hear your views as an Acts 2 dispy.

 

[food4thought]

• Ananias and Sapphira's death for lying, how does the Body of Christ relate to that today?

It tells us that God takes integrity very seriously. The Lord did many things through the Apostles that He is not doing today (no I am not a cessationist).

• People living a socialist/communal living Acts 4:32, how does the Body of Christ relate to that today?

It tells us that God values generosity. Again, things were different during the time of the Apostles.

• Peter preaching only to Jews in a Jewish festival, Pentecost, in Acts 2, and Peter offering the physical return of Jesus in Acts 3, how does the Body of Christ relate to that today?

There were probably gentile God-fearers as a part of that group. Even if not, Peter preached to the audience that was available.

 

[Guojing]

It tells us that God takes integrity very seriously. The Lord did many things through the Apostles that He is not doing today (no I am not a cessationist).

It tells us that God values generosity. Again, things were different during the time of the Apostles.



There were probably gentile God-fearers as a part of that group. Even if not, Peter preached to the audience that was available.

If you have to resort to explaining with ‘things that were done in the past that are no longer done today’ twice, then to me at least, it’s hard to make a case that acts 2 is the beginning of the grace dispensation.

Any objections you have towards mid acts?

 

[Dan Perez]

Matthew 24:14 NASB "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.


This verse raises a question in my mind... is it the gospel of the kingdom that we should be preaching today, so that Christ can return?

Or is it the DBR we should be preaching, and the gospel of the Kingdom will be preached post rapture during the tribulation?

Or is there no distinction between the two?

Hi and the context is all Israel is what I see !!

Notice that the first verse , SHALL BE PREACHED is in the Greek FUTURE TENSE , PASSIVE VOICE and in the INDICATIVE MOOD !!

Why the FUTURE TENSE ?

The PASSIVE VOICE means that that subject is receiving the action and the INDICATIVE MOOD means it is a FACT !!

The second verb is COME / HEKO is also in the Greek FUTURE TENSE , ACTIVE VOICE and in the INDICATICE MOOD says it is a FACT !!

The ACTIVE VOICE here means that the subject , God , is producing the ACTION of His coming !!

I am Acts 9er !!

dan p

 

[food4thought]

Hi and the context is all Israel is what I see !!

Notice that the first verse , SHALL BE PREACHED is in the Greek FUTURE TENSE , PASSIVE VOICE and in the INDICATIVE MOOD !!

Why the FUTURE TENSE ?

The PASSIVE VOICE means that that subject is receiving the action and the INDICATIVE MOOD means it is a FACT !!

The second verb is COME / HEKO is also in the Greek FUTURE TENSE , ACTIVE VOICE and in the INDICATICE MOOD says it is a FACT !!

The ACTIVE VOICE here means that the subject , God , is producing the ACTION of His coming !!

I am Acts 9er !!

dan p

I am sorry, but I just don't understand much of what you are trying to say...

 

[food4thought]

Any objections you have towards mid acts?

I am not sure, but doesn't mid-Acts relegate quite a few of the epistles to second class status? I have a problem with that.

 

[Guojing]

I am not sure, but doesn't mid-Acts relegate quite a few of the epistles to second class status? I have a problem with that.

Oh you are referring to acts 28 dispy or ultra dispy.

For us, romans to Philemon are of the equal importance

 

[~Zao~]

Mid Acts are not rightly dividing the Word of God, the Bible, by falsely teaching that Paul and Peter preached different gospels. Mid Acts Dispensationalism is also known as Pauline Onlyism, Hyper-Dispensationalism, Ultra-Dispensationalism, and the main issue being discussed in this video is to show how they misrepresent the gospel Jesus Christ and falsely teach that Paul preached a different gospel from Jesus, Peter and the apostles. Is Mid Acts Dispensationalism false, unbiblical, heretical? Did Peter really teach a different gospel than what Paul preached? Mid Acts teachings on Paul and Peter are biblically inaccurate, and they are not rightly dividing the Word of God, the Bible, as they claim (2 Timothy 2:15).


What is Wrong with Mid Acts Dispensationalism? What do Mid Acts Believe about the Gospel? Why be Concerned?

 

[Dan Perez]

I am sorry, but I just don't understand much of what you are trying to say...

Hi and there are a lot of NEAR VIEWS , and Joel 2:2832 and in Acts 2:17-21 and never did Christ come !!

The FAR VIEW is Matt 24:13-14 and that is why the FUTURE TENSE is used !!

dan p

 

[Guojing]

Mid Acts are not rightly dividing the Word of God, the Bible, by falsely teaching that Paul and Peter preached different gospels. Mid Acts Dispensationalism is also known as Pauline Onlyism, Hyper-Dispensationalism, Ultra-Dispensationalism, and the main issue being discussed in this video is to show how they misrepresent the gospel Jesus Christ and falsely teach that Paul preached a different gospel from Jesus, Peter and the apostles. Is Mid Acts Dispensationalism false, unbiblical, heretical? Did Peter really teach a different gospel than what Paul preached? Mid Acts teachings on Paul and Peter are biblically inaccurate, and they are not rightly dividing the Word of God, the Bible, as they claim (2 Timothy 2:15).


What is Wrong with Mid Acts Dispensationalism? What do Mid Acts Believe about the Gospel? Why be Concerned?

Gospel simply means good news.

Just take a look at Peter's first sermon preached, at Pentecost.

Peter accused his listeners of crucifying Jesus. At no point in his "sermon" did he ever preach to them to believe that Jesus died for their sins, was buried, and resurrected on the 3rd day for their justification. Instead, the resurrection was proof that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. This was repeated in Acts 3 too.

When you really read the content of Peter's preaching, explain how would you conclude that he was preaching the same "good news" as Paul?

 

[Dan Perez]

Gospel simply means good news.

Just take a look at Peter's first sermon preached, at Pentecost.

Peter accused his listeners of crucifying Jesus. At no point in his "sermon" did he ever preach to them to believe that Jesus died for their sins, was buried, and resurrected on the 3rd day for their justification. Instead, the resurrection was proof that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. This was repeated in Acts 3 too.

When you really read the content of Peter's preaching, explain how would you conclude that he was preaching the same "good news" as Paul?

Hi and Gal 2:7 says there are 2 gospels IN that verse , called the Gospel of THE UN-circumcision and THE CIRCUMCISION , very simple for me !!

dan p

 

[Guojing]

Hi and Gal 2:7 says there are 2 gospels IN that verse , called the Gospel of THE UN-circumcision and THE CIRCUMCISION , very simple for me !!

dan p

Well, you will realize that other people will prefer to use versions like the NIV which replaced the word OF with FOR, and still insist that they are the same Gospel. =)