THEOCRACY/THEARCHY - Past And Future

[HARK!]

Not sure what your point is here.

YHWH made his covenant with Israel. Yahshua was commissioned only for Israel. Yahshua is the King of Israel.

We are grafted into Israel; then we are Israel.

 

[expos4ever]

YHWH made his covenant with Israel. Yahshua was commissioned only for Israel. Yahshua is the King of Israel.

We are grafted into Israel; then we are Israel.

I agree that we are grafted on to Israel. But this does not mean the Law of Moses still applies. We have been down this road before. I will only get into this if I get the impression that others may interested in this debate.

 

[expos4ever]

Here's the challenge. Produce one scripture from the gospels or epistles that says the kingdom is physical.

That is easy.

From Acts 4:

On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
"'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One

Peter and John pray in response to the actions of the religious leaders. The prayer quotes directly from Psalm 2, verses 1 and 2 - not a co-incidence:

Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD and against his Anointed One.

And what does Psalm 2 go on to say a few breaths later in respect to this "annointed one"?:

I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill

Assuming that Peter and John know their scriptures, they know that Psalm 2 describes rebellion against a sitting King. And more to the point, the Acts text shows that He is a king over nations – so this is not the “heavenly” kingdom so many imagine, it is a kingdom of this present world.

Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit would inspire the writer of Acts to record this prayer, which exactly echoes the Psalm 2 account of rebellion against a sitting political King, and not expect us to draw the obvious conclusion – Jesus is indeed that very King, already installed, just as Psalm 2 declares?

Even though (obviously) we do not have Jesus with us in person, his Kingship has been established.

 

[HARK!]

I agree that we are grafted on to Israel. But this does not mean the Law of Moses still applies. We have been down this road before. I will only get into this if I get the impression that others may interested in this debate.

(CLV) Lk 16:17
Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass by than for one serif of the law to fall.

 

[Oldmantook]

Do you mean there will be distinction in the future kingdom? It's hard to think that the same God will rule differently in His future kingdom. The only slight difference i can see is that He is more gracious during this current grace period, as He is allowing this for now, since we are still in our physical state of being and imperfect.

God is far more gracious now in this current church age. During the Millennium, Jesus will rule with a rod or iron per Rev 12:5; 19:15. All the nations will be required to follow the law per Micah 4:1-4; Isa 2:3-4. Sin still exists in the millennium as the sheep nations (those alive at Jesus' return) these gentiles are still sinners in the flesh. God will fulfill his promise to Israel and Judah to write the new covenant on their hearts per Eze 37; Isa 31:31-34 and thus all Israel will be saved per Rom 11:26-27.

 

[expos4ever]

I want to add something else about this issue of a "spiritual" vs "earthly" kingdom. I suggest that this distinction would make no sense to Jesus or any of the authors of Scripture. This "physical" vs "spiritual" distinction is a Greek idea, not a Jewish one.

And since we in the 21st century west are heirs to the Greek way of thinking, we project that grid of interpretation onto Scripture - which was written by Jews, not Greeks - and completely misunderstand the message.

The Jewish mind of Jesus's day simply did not draw this distinction.

 

[expos4ever]

Does anyone other than Hark want me to explain how this statement:

Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass by than for one serif of the law to fall

...does not require us to believe the Law of Moses is still in force. It is a compelling argument, but I will only invest the time if people are interested in it.

 

[GospelS]

This "physical" vs "spiritual" distinction is a Greek idea, not a Jewish one.

I understand. Spiritual in the OP just refers to our glorified bodies, i.e., Glorified people of God, our condition of being after the resurrection. For now we are more in a physical state of being.

 

[Oldmantook]

I want to add something else about this issue of a "spiritual" vs "earthly" kingdom. I suggest that this distinction would make no sense to Jesus or any of the authors of Scripture. This "physical" vs "spiritual" distinction is a Greek idea, not a Jewish one.

And since we in the 21st century west are heirs to the Greek way of thinking, we project that grid of interpretation onto Scripture - which was written by Jews, not Greeks - and completely misunderstand the message.

The Jewish mind of Jesus's day simply did not draw this distinction.

The Jews were expecting their Messiah to one day deliver them from their enemies and establish His reign of peace on the earth so you are correct in saying that the kingdom is a physical, earthly one.

In fact, when the rich young ruler (who was a Jew) asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life in Matt 19, Jesus uses "the kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of heaven" interchangeably in reference to eternal life. Thus the question that must be asked is eternal life forever or does eternal life reference resurrected life during the 1,000 years of Jesus' rule on the earth?

 

[Oldmantook]

Does anyone other than Hark want me to explain how this statement:

Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass by than for one serif of the law to fall

...does not require us to believe the Law of Moses is still in force. It is a compelling argument, but I will only invest the time if people are interested in it.

The simple explanation is that the law never saved anyone as by the law no flesh is justified (Rom 3:20). That same verse also states that by the law comes knowledge of sin. Given this, it stands to reason that if the law "passed away" there would be no more knowledge as what constitutes as sin. Without knowledge of sin, there would be no more repentance as people would not know what sins to repent of and without repentance, there no salvation. That is why Rom 3:31 states that the law is not voided through faith but is instead established.

 

[Dave L]

That is easy.

From Acts 4:

On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
"'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One

Peter and John pray in response to the actions of the religious leaders. The prayer quotes directly from Psalm 2, verses 1 and 2 - not a co-incidence:

Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD and against his Anointed One.

And what does Psalm 2 go on to say a few breaths later in respect to this "annointed one"?:

I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill

Assuming that Peter and John know their scriptures, they know that Psalm 2 describes rebellion against a sitting King. And more to the point, the Acts text shows that He is a king over nations – so this is not the “heavenly” kingdom so many imagine, it is a kingdom of this present world.

Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit would inspire the writer of Acts to record this prayer, which exactly echoes the Psalm 2 account of rebellion against a sitting political King, and not expect us to draw the obvious conclusion – Jesus is indeed that very King, already installed, just as Psalm 2 declares?

Even though (obviously) we do not have Jesus with us in person, his Kingship has been established.

Peter said Christ rules on David's throne in heavenly Jerusalem above since his resurrection.

“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” Acts 2:30–33 (KJV 1900)

“After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” Acts 15:16–18 (KJV 1900)

 

[expos4ever]

Peter said Christ rules on David's throne in heavenly Jerusalem above since his resurrection.

I agree, but this does not challenge what the Bible otherwise shows rather clearly - that Jesus is king over this very world right now.

Think of Caesar. Though never seen in 1st century Palestine, he was nevertheless very much in charge of that nation. In other words, the fact that Jesus is enthroned in heaven, and not here on earth, does not mean that He is not the rightful lord and king of this earth.

Plus, you need to actually engage my argument from my previous post (about Acts and Psalms).

 

[expos4ever]

Here's the challenge. Produce one scripture from the gospels or epistles that says the kingdom is physical.

Some assert that a brief of teaching in Luke 17, particularly verse 21, locate the kingdom of God as “inside” the believer, with the implication that the broader world does not fall under its jurisdiction. Here are several translations of verse 21:

NET: nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

NIV: nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you."

NASB: nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

NLT: You won’t be able to say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘It’s over there!’ For the Kingdom of God is among you."

MSG:Nor when someone says, 'Look here!' or, 'There it is!' And why? Because God's kingdom is already among you."

BBE: And men will not say, See, it is here! or, There! for the kingdom of God is among you.

NRSV: nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."

NKJV: "nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

Note how only 2 of these 8 translations render the last bit as “within you”. All the other translations have Jesus telling the listeners that the Kingdom is “in your midst” or “among you” – suggesting, of course, that the kingdom is “present right now”.

And the fatal blow to the “within you” interpretation arises from who Jesus is speaking to:

Now at one point the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, so he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed

If Jesus is saying that the “location” of the kingdom is specifically “within the human person”, Jesus is telling the Pharisees that the kingdom of God is within them, the Pharisees, in this sense.

Not likely, of course – the Pharisees were precisely the ones in whom the kingdom was not present.

 

[Dave L]

Some assert that a brief of teaching in Luke 17, particularly verse 21, locate the kingdom of God as “inside” the believer, with the implication that the broader world does not fall under its jurisdiction. Here are several translations of verse 21:

NET: nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

NIV: nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you."

NASB: nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

NLT: You won’t be able to say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘It’s over there!’ For the Kingdom of God is among you."

MSG:Nor when someone says, 'Look here!' or, 'There it is!' And why? Because God's kingdom is already among you."

BBE: And men will not say, See, it is here! or, There! for the kingdom of God is among you.

NRSV: nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."

NKJV: "nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

Note how only 2 of these 8 translations render the last bit as “within you”. All the other translations have Jesus telling the listeners that the Kingdom is “in your midst” or “among you” – suggesting, of course, that the kingdom is “present right now”.

And the fatal blow to the “within you” interpretation arises from who Jesus is speaking to:

Now at one point the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, so he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed

If Jesus is saying that the “location” of the kingdom is specifically “within the human person”, Jesus is telling the Pharisees that the kingdom of God is within them, the Pharisees, in this sense.

Not likely, of course – the Pharisees were precisely the ones in whom the kingdom was not present.

If you are saying the kingdom is spiritual and never physical, I agree.

 

[Dave L]

I agree, but this does not challenge what the Bible otherwise shows rather clearly - that Jesus is king over this very world right now.

Think of Caesar. Though never seen in 1st century Palestine, he was nevertheless very much in charge of that nation. In other words, the fact that Jesus is enthroned in heaven, and not here on earth, does not mean that He is not the rightful lord and king of this earth.

Plus, you need to actually engage my argument from my previous post (about Acts and Psalms).

Jesus is God, how can he not rule the world with a rod of iron?

 

[expos4ever]

If you are saying the kingdom is spiritual and never physical, I agree.

We don't agree. I believe scripture teaches that Jesus is a king over this present world right now. I do not even accept the "physical" vs "spiritual" premise for reasons already given.

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus is God, how can he not rule the world with a rod of iron?

Not exactly sure what you are asking. It appears you are referring to that bit in Psalm 2 where the installed King is told.....

‘You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.’”

I don't see how this challenges my claim that Jesus is an installed King over this world. The kingdom has been instituted, and it is a work in progress. Just because all nations do not presently accept Jesus as their King does not mean that He is not, in fact, King. He will break them.

What do you think Jesus meant when He told people that the Kingdom was "at hand"? That they would need to wait thousands of years? Or that it was a mysterious "spiritual" kingdom entirely disconnected from the world of the here and now? Again, one has to step back from our Greek-influenced mindset with its material-immaterial distinctions and understand that the Jews saw no such distinction.

In other words, when a Jew heard Jesus announce that He was initiating a kingdom, they would understand it as a kingdom of this very world of the here and now.

 

[Oldmantook]

Not exactly sure what you are asking. It appears you are referring to that bit in Psalm 2 where the installed King is told.....

‘You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.’”

I don't see how this challenges my claim that Jesus is an installed King over this world. The kingdom has been instituted, and it is a work in progress. Just because all nations do not presently accept Jesus as their King does not mean that He is not, in fact, King. He will break them.

What do you think Jesus meant when He told people that the Kingdom was "at hand"? That they would need to wait thousands of years? Or that it was a mysterious "spiritual" kingdom entirely disconnected from the world of the here and now? Again, one has to step back from our Greek-influenced mindset with its material-immaterial distinctions and understand that the Jews saw no such distinction.

In other words, when a Jew heard Jesus announce that He was initiating a kingdom, they would understand it as a kingdom of this very world of the here and now.

My two cents. Instead of proposing an "either - or" argument. Can it not be both? Jesus rules in this present world in the hearts of believers through grace but also in the coming kingdom when He physically establishes His rule in the millennium with a rod of iron.

 

[Sabertooth]

I like that. Added that to the OP title. Thanks for sharing.

There is a call-back to it in Acts.

"Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched,
He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.

And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up,
behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said,
'Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven?
This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven,
will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.' ” Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11 NKJV

 

[Der Alte]

The Jews were expecting their Messiah to one day deliver them from their enemies and establish His reign of peace on the earth so you are correct in saying that the kingdom is a physical, earthly one.
In fact, when the rich young ruler (who was a Jew) asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life in Matt 19, Jesus uses "the kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of heaven" interchangeably in reference to eternal life. Thus the question that must be asked is eternal life forever or does eternal life reference resurrected life during the 1,000 years of Jesus' rule on the earth?

Greek has always been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. Who better than the native Greek speaking EOB translators know the correct meaning of, e.g. “aionios” and “kolasis?”
Note that Paul uses “aionios” and “aidios” as synonyms, Rom 1:20 and 1 Tim 1:17, below.

The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96
In 9 verses, Jesus defines “aionios.” Jesus used the word “aionios” 29 times, Jesus never used “aionios” to refer to something which cannot be eternal.
Matthew 25:46 Then he will answer them saying ‘Amen. I tell you: a much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' “These [[ones on the left]] will go away into eternal punishment.[κολασιν αιονιον/kolasin aiōnion] but the righteous into eternal life.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world, his invisible things are clearly seen. They perceived through created things, even his everlasting [τε αιδιος/te aidios] power and divinity.
1 Timothy 1:17 Now, to the eternal [των αιωνων/tōn aiōnōn] King. immortal. invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory unto ages of ages. Amen.
ttps://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/original/18204/18204-New-Testament-(The-Eastern-Greek-Orthodox-Bible).pdf​

The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96 can be D/L at the link above. If you choose to consult the EOB version I suggest you read the preface which summarizes the scholarship supporting this translation.
[1]John 6:58

(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[αἰώνιος/aionios] ​

In this verse Jesus contrasts “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
[2]John 10:23

(28) I give them eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, and they shall never [ου μη/ou mé] [αἰών/aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. *See note below re: ou/me​

In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”
[3]John 3:15

(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [αιωνιον] life.​

In this verse Jesus pairs “aionion” with “shall not perish.” Believers could perish in a finite period, “aionion life” by definition here means eternal life.
[4]John 3:16

(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αιωνιον] life. ​

In this verse Jesus pairs “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.
[5]John 5:24

(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [αἰώνιος] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. ​

In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.
[6]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
In this verse Jesus contrasts aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.
[7]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.
In this verse Jesus contrasts aionios with “shall never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal.
[8]John 6:27

(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. ​

In this verse Jesus contrasts “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.
[9]John 8:51

(51) Very truly [αμην αμην/amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ου μη εις τον αιωνα/ou mé eis ton aiōna] see death."​

According to noted Greek scholar Marvin Vincent,

● The double negative [ου μη/ou mé] signifies in nowise, by no means. Θεωρήσῃ[theōrésé], denoting steady, protracted vision, is purposely used, because the promise contemplates the entire course of the believer's life in Christ. It is not, shall not die forever, but shall live eternally.● ④οὐ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. μή, οὐ μή has the effect of strengthening the negation (Kühner-G. II 221–23; Schwyzer II 317; Mlt. 187–92 [a thorough treatment of NT usage]; B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7; Just., D. 141, 2). οὐ μή is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.[1]
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000)A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.(3rd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
● The combinations with οὐ μή also be noticed as, ουδεν οὐ μή (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή se σε άνο ουδ ου σε εγκαταιπο (Heb. 13:5); ουκετι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no never, no never forsake."
Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research
By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D. p.1165.

​