|
"...But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you." | |
|
| ||
|
Overview While we (and others) may have used the term "Kingdom of God," we were not using it according to its Biblical definition. One of the most easily demonstrated examples of this is the simple fact that the terms "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God" are synonymous. In addition, I failed to understand that the Kingdom was the over-arching theme of the whole Bible, largely because the system known as Dispensationalism colored my understanding of the Bible for years. When I came to realize that there was actually no basis for the system, I began to discover that the Scriptures were not fragmented, but had One Gospel Message from beginning to end. Another important factor that contributed to my overall understanding was the recognition of the Hebrew Origins of the Bible. Learning to understand it from the point of view of its Hebrew background opened the door to discovering what the Bible is truly about, from beginning to end. God has had one plan from the beginning, and that plan is unfolded throughout the Old Testament, which is the subject of the next section.
|
|
Kingdom of Heaven or of God? |
While it is widely recognized that the most pervasive subject in the teaching and preaching of Jesus Christ was the Kingdom of God, there has been some disagreement as to what that phrase means. The organization to which I belonged taught that the Kingdom of God was over all, while the Kingdom of Heaven referred to the personal presence of the king from heaven (Jesus Christ) on earth. There are verses in the Old Testament that state that God's kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and is over all (such as I Chronicles 29:11,12; Psalm 22:28; 103:19; 145:13; Daniel 4:3). But there are specific descriptions, especially in the Prophets and in the Gospels, of the Messiah reigning on earth. According to the theory I was taught, the Kingdom of Heaven started when Jesus began his public ministry, and will again be reinstated when he returns to reign, as described in the Book of Revelation. In the meantime, it is "held in abeyance" during this Church age, when a new aspect of God's plan has been revealed. I began to realize that my understanding of the Kingdom of God was sorely lacking when it was pointed out to me that the two phrases "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" were synonymous. Consider the following verses:
The same statement, in two different gospels, is worded two different ways. Here are two more:
Again, two different ways are used to say the same thing. The Gospel of Matthew is the only one that uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven." The other Gospel writers always use "kingdom of God." One is literal, the other figurative. Both refer to the same thing. Consider the preaching of John the Baptist.
What John the Baptist preached is called "the kingdom of God" in Luke, and "the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew. Did John preach two different gospels? Jesus' call to repentance also uses different phrases in Matthew and Mark.
Did Jesus preach two different gospels? When he sent out the twelve, what were they told to preach?
Again, did they preach two different gospels? It is called by different names, but only one gospel is meant.
There are a number of instances in which the same thing is said, using one phrase in Matthew and another in the other gospels. Compare Matthew 13:11 with Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10. Compare Matthew 13:31 with Mark 4:30,31 and Luke 13:18,19. Also Matthew 13:33 with Luke 13:20,21; and Matthew 19:14 with Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16. There is even a passage in Matthew in which both "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" are used.
But the parallel records in Mark and Luke use only "kingdom of God" in both sentences.
As you can see, the phrases "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are synonymous. It is so obvious that I am amazed and somewhat ashamed that I never saw it in my many years of supposed Biblical research! So, you may ask, what did Jesus actually say--"kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of God"? Some people might even consider it a contradiction. But the gospels do not record a verbatim word for word quotation of the words of Jesus Christ, or of anyone else for that matter. God is interested in conveying the meaning that He wants people to understand. Biblical research which focuses on minutely detailed word studies often miss the point of what's being communicated. There is no indication in any of the words of Jesus that there is a distinction between "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven". The two terms are synonymous. "Kingdom of God" is the literal term for what Jesus preached, while "kingdom of heaven" is a figurative way of saying the same thing. It is figurative because "heaven" is put for "God" who dwells there.
The heavens do not literally rule, but refer figuratively to God who dwells there. In the parable commonly known as "the prodigal son" recorded in Luke 15, the son says that he sinned against heaven. Luke 15: He did not literally sin against heaven, but against God. This is a common figure of speech in Hebrew culture. Things from God are frequently said to be "from heaven" or "heavenly". The kingdom of God is called a "heavenly kingdom" in II Timothy 4:18, because it is from God in heaven. "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of heaven" are two different ways of saying the same thing. It may be worth pointing out at this point that another common misunderstanding of the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" in Matthew is that of a kingdom in heaven, which is commonly thought to be the final destination of Christians. But as I pointed out, "Kingdom of Heaven" is a figurative was of saying "Kingdom of God" and does not refer to the location of the kingdom, but to its origin. We shall see that nowhere does Jesus promise a "home beyond the blue" as a disembodied soul or spirit in "heaven" but rather speaks of a perfect kingdom on earth to be established when he returns.
|
|
Another doctrine that I was taught is known in some circles as Dispensationalism. There are a number of versions of this doctrine, but what they have in common is the idea that throughout the Bible, and indeed throughout history, God has dealt with man in a variety of different ways depending on prevailing circumstances. There are a succession of dispensations or administrations that are characterized by differences in what God expects of man. In the original paradise all was perfect, but after man fell things were different, but there was no law of God to govern mankind. With the giving of the Law of Moses, a standard of behavior was set (at least for Israel), and when Christ came, another new administration began, because Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law. On the surface, this is a reasonable understanding of the Scriptures, but there are some difficulties with the logical outcome of this system of theology. There is no question that there are different standards we are to maintain as Christians than there were for Israel under the Mosaic Law. Paul discussed this at length in Galatians and several other sections of his epistles. The difficulty comes about when we try to divide all of Scripture into administrations and then interpret parts of the Bible as if they did not apply to us. It was said that much of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament and the Gospels, were written "for our learning" but only the Church Epistles were written specifically to us. They used the following verse as proof:
Romans 15: The trouble with this is that, first of all, the verse does not say, "for our learning only." Secondly, the Greek word for "learning" here is didaskalia which means "doctrine" or right believing. There is nothing in this verse that says the Old Testament or Gospels are not addressed to us. The version of Dispensationalism that I was taught stated that the Kingdom of Heaven had entirely to do with Israel, and that during this present period of time when it was "held in abeyance" there was a new and radically different message and plan that was first given by revelation to the Apostle Paul. It was called the administration of The Mystery, because Paul writes of the Great Mystery that was kept secret since before the world began but was now revealed (Romans 16:25; I Corinthians 2:7; Ephesians 1:9; 3:3; Colossians 1:27). Clearly something that had been a mystery was revealed to Paul, but is it referring to an entirely new plan of salvation, an entirely new gospel message, different from that which Jesus Christ preached? This is in fact the most tragic result of Dispensationalism, because while we profess to be Christians, we put relatively little emphasis on his words. I was taught, and it is still widely stated by many preachers, that the deeds of Jesus Christ, more than his words, are what was important. His words, they say, were addressed to the children of Israel at that time, but it was the epistles of Paul that contained the relevant words addressed to us. But think about this. If the teachings of Jesus Christ were only addressed to his followers at the time, and would shortly be replaced by a whole new administration with a whole new plan, why were his words so carefully and diligently preserved in the four Gospels, which were written after the epistles and the revelation of the Mystery? Furthermore, if his words were to be replaced by a new revelation and become obsolete, why would he have made the following statement? John 14: If the holy spirit would bring to remembrance whatsoever he had said, surely his words are important to the Christian Church, and not just to Israel. Contrary to what I was taught, 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.
It should be pointed out that the word "dispensation" in the Bible is the Greek word oikonomia. It only occurs seven times and only one of them says anything about a period of time, and that refers to the future "fullness of time" when Christ returns (Ephesians 1:10). To divide the Scriptures based on a perceived difference in administrations has the result of fragmenting the Scriptures, and thus fragmenting God's plan. We end up with two different plans of salvation, one for Old Testament believers, one for Christians. We get two different messages in the Scriptures, one addressed to us, and one for our learning addressed to Israel. I was also taught that there were two means of salvation (by the Law in the Old Testament, and by grace in the New). There were two groups who were the "people of God" (Israel and the Church), two different hopes for those two groups (resurrection for Israel, and a "secret rapture" for the Church), and even two different inheritances-- the Church had a home in heaven, with all the best promises, while Israel had the lesser inheritance on earth, with relatively inferior promises. The fact is, however, if we read the Bible from beginning to end, without the preconceived dispensational viewpoint, we find that God's plan is and always has been one plan. The first century church knew nothing of Dispensationalism, for it is a relatively new system of Biblical study and belief. It has its roots in the work of James Nelson Darby and a group called the Plymouth Brethren in the early 1800's. It was more fully developed as a systematic means of study by C. I. Scofield who put his views in the marginal notes of the now well-known Scofield Reference Bible. In England, E. W. Bullinger developed a system of interpretation which built on these ideas and has even been called "ultra-Dispensationalism." (Bullinger's writings, including the notes in his Companion Bible had a great deal of influence on the teachings of V. P. Wierwille. Subsequently his followers, myself included, learned to interpret the Bible in this way.) The doctrine caught on and became firmly rooted in Christian thinking primarily through two institutions in the United States: Dallas Theological Seminary (founded by Lewis Sperry Chafer) and Chicago's Moody Bible Institute (founded by Dwight Lyman Moody). Both of these schools have produced many pastors, theologians and Christian writers who have subsequently influenced the most recent generations in this approach to the Scriptures. As God's purpose unfolds in His Word, we do see different ways in which He deals with people based on the time in which they lived and the revealed truth available at the time. However, God had one plan from the very beginning to save all of mankind. If a person's salvation were different, or somehow "less" than that of another, simply because they weren't "born at the right time," God would be unjust, and a respecter of persons. But God has not changed His plan since the first promise made in Genesis 3:15.
| |
As we search the Scriptures, it becomes apparent that there has only ever been one gospel, not two. We are told, in fact, that it was first preached to Abraham. Galatians 3: The promises to Abraham included land and abundance in physical categories, as well as spiritual blessings. The fact that we have the same promise of blessings as Abraham is shown in verse 29. Galatians 3: The definition of the Gospel of the Kingdom, built on the promises to Abraham, is found throughout the Old Testament, as we shall see. In the Gospels, before Jesus began his ministry, John the Baptist announced the Kingdom of Heaven, or Kingdom of God (Matthew 3:1,2). When Jesus began preaching, he announced that the kingdom was "at hand," or near (Matthew 4:17,23; Mark 1:14). In fact, he said preaching the kingdom was the reason he was sent:
The twelve were sent to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 10:7) and later the seventy were sent with the same mission (Luke 10:1,9). After his resurrection, Jesus continued to speak concerning the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:1-3). Philip went to Samaria preaching the Kingdom of God (Acts 8:12). Paul preached the Kingdom of God as well (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 20:25). The book of Acts ends with Paul continuing to preach the kingdom of God (Acts 28:30,31). There is nothing to indicate that there was a change in the gospel message that the followers of Jesus were to preach. It has been said that the gospel that Paul preached was not the same gospel that Jesus preached. I was taught that Paul's gospel was different, because Jesus spoke of the kingdom, but Paul preached "the gospel of grace."
However, the very next verse defines what the gospel of grace is.
And in verse 27 he equates that Gospel of the Kingdom of God with the whole purpose, or counsel, of God.
Unless Paul preached two different gospels, it is clear that the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is the Gospel of Grace, which is all the counsel of God. It could not be a new gospel, for when Paul was giving his defense in Jerusalem in Acts 24, he says:
I was taught that the promises to Israel as written in the Law and the Prophets were different from the Christian hope, yet Paul said he preached the same things that were promised to Israel.
The gospel Paul preached and the hope of the promise made to the fathers are the same gospel, and it was that message for which he was accused of the Jews. At the end of the book of Acts, nothing had changed as far as what gospel Paul preached.
Paul refers to the kingdom of God in his epistles as well (Romans 14:17; I Corinthians 4:20; 6:10; 15:50; Galatians 5:21; Colossians 4:11; II Thessalonians 1:5), so his gospel can't be different from that which Jesus preached. He criticized the Galatians for being swayed by "another gospel" and said, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). If what he wrote about in his epistles was different from the Gospel of the Kingdom which he preached all through Acts, he would have been under his own curse. But in I Timothy 6:3, he states that we are to consent to the wholesome words of Jesus Christ. I once believed that what Jesus taught concerning the Kingdom of God was addressed to Israel, and thus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies, while the gospel that Paul and the apostles preached concerned the Great Mystery, which was not revealed in the Old Testament or in the time of Jesus Christ. If this is true, then why did Paul quote from the Old Testament so much? In Acts he preached the gospel, reasoning from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2; 18:28; 28:23). All throughout his epistles he constantly referred to Old Testament scriptures, as the foundation for his doctrine.
"By the scriptures of the prophets" is the Old Testament scriptures. He cited many, many quotations from the Old Testament in his writing and public preaching. Why did Paul use the Old Testament so much if the Mystery was not revealed there? To understand this we must consider what is meant by a mystery. A mystery is not something that was never even mentioned, but rather something that was not understood. There is something to be seen or observed, or something spoken, but it is not understood by those who observe it. In Daniel, chapter 2, King Nebuchadnezzar has a dream which he wants interpreted. It is referred to as a "secret".
In the above verses, the word for "secret" in the Septuagint (the Geek translation of the Old Testament) is the word musterion which is the same word that is translated "mystery" in the New Testament. The dream was a mystery, because the understanding of its meaning was hidden. Jesus told his apostles that it was given to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom, but to others he spoke in parables (Luke 8:10). The mysteries of the kingdom were not things that were never spoken, but things that were not understood when spoken, the result being that "...seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." There were also a number of things the apostles themselves did not understand at first. When Jesus first began to speak of his death and resurrection, they didn't get it at all.
Now when we read of Jesus being delivered into the hands of men and killed, we have no trouble understanding it, do we? Yet the disciples did not understand it, for it was hidden. Many of the things they saw and heard they did not understand at the time, but later it became clear.
God often said things through the Prophets that were not understood at the time they were spoken (many times even by the Prophets who spoke them). But later they were revealed after Jesus Christ fulfilled them. Until after it was accomplished, it was not understood how the suffering and death of the Messiah fit into the plan to bring God's rule to earth, and how the Mosaic Law was then done away with. It was also not understood that a period of time would intervene between his first coming and his second, during which the nature and power of the Kingdom could be experienced in a limited, hidden form. And while it was said in many places in the Old Testament that the Gentiles would be blessed through Israel, it was never understood how they would be blessed, nor was it ever imagined that the Gentiles would be "fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." (Ephesians 3:6). These mysteries of the Kingdom were hinted at in the Old Testament, but their full meaning was not understood, until it was revealed to Paul, who then wrote about it in his epistles. This will be discussed in further detail in "Mysteries of the Kingdom." Paul wrote at length about what Jesus had accomplished by his suffering and death. But he did not imply that the result of Christ's sacrifice was a new gospel, different from the Gospel of the Kingdom which Jesus had preached. For many years, I am ashamed to say, I rarely read the Gospels, because I believed they were not addressed to me. Many reformers including Martin Luther himself believed that the "gospel" is more in Paul's epistles than in the four Gospels. I Corinthians 15 is often quoted as proof that the gospel is primarily about Christ's suffering and death. I Corinthians 15: However, the phrase "first of all" is from the Greek en protois, literally "among things of primary importance." In this chapter, Paul is speaking about the resurrection, which some in Corinth were doubting, according to verse 12. In that context, Paul points out that the death and resurrection of Jesus were "among things of primary importance." But it would be a mistake to say that the gospel is only about Christ's death and resurrection, as this would contradict the many clear verses we just looked at which state that Paul preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, just as Jesus did. The good news of God's Kingdom is the one Gospel that ties together the entire Bible. The details concerning what Messiah's sacrifice accomplished, how that fits into the overall plan, and what we have during this period of time as a foretaste of the coming Kingdom, are what Paul wrote about in his epistles. But they are added details; they do not constitute a new or different gospel. The death and resurrection of Jesus are absolutely fundamental to our gaining entrance into God's Kingdom, but we must take care not to limit our definition of the Gospel to the death and resurrection, and neglect the full message concerning that Kingdom.
| |
|
A big part of the reason we do not understand the kingdom of God is that Christian doctrine has long since been divorced from its Hebrew roots. The Bible is a Jewish book, written by Jews (mainly) and written with Jewish terminology. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the doctrines of the New Testament are built on those of the Hebrew scriptures. Many of the terms used in the New Testament are not defined there, because they'd been defined in the Hebrew Scriptures, which the believers in Jesus' day were expected to know. Since then, Christians for centuries have interpreted them in light of understanding that came from other sources, often including Greek philosophy, and without even realizing it we have bought into it because we'd "always heard it that way." To our shame we didn't know the Hebrew Scriptures well enough to say otherwise. Part of the goal of this website is to show how the Scriptures themselves define terms that Christians use frequently and how the Biblical definitions are often vastly different from the commonly held understanding. Many of the words and concepts as given and understood in the Hebrew Scriptures and subsequent teachings of Jesus and the Apostles have lost their original meaning to most churchgoers. As a result the overall message of "orthodox" Christianity is unclear and therefore the faith of most Christians is unclear regarding basic questions such as: Who is God and what is His nature? Who is Jesus and what is his relationship to God? What is the ultimate destiny of mankind? What is the central message, or "gospel" that we as Christians are to preach? We are to get our doctrine, which is the foundation of our hope, from the Scriptures that were written aforetime, which are elaborated on in the New Testament. Most Christians read the New Testament, and read into it the doctrines that have sprung up since it was written, rather than understanding it in light of the Hebrew foundation on which it was built. "Old Testament," in fact, is an unfortunate and misleading name for that part of the Bible. Calling it the "Old" Testament implies to some people that it is done away with and no longer relevant. It should better be referred to as the Hebrew Scriptures, because there is more than the old covenant (i.e. the Mosaic Law) in the Hebrew Scriptures. For many years I believed that the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the Book of Revelation were addressed to Israel and did not concern me except as interesting information. I mentioned above how Romans 15:4 was interpreted as "for our learning only" and not addressed TO us. Another verse that was used to prove that idea was Romans 15:8, which says that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision. We assumed it meant "of the circumcision only." However the word "and" in the very next verse indicates that he also had another purpose.
What Jesus said and did confirmed the promises to the fathers (how many Christians know what those promises were?) and ALSO how the Gentiles would become involved. Paul, in his epistles, goes on to elaborate how the Gentiles have been included, and how anyone can partake of the marvelous promises God made to Abraham and the other fathers, concerning His kingdom on a renewed earth, to be perfectly ruled by Messiah. This is the overall scope of the Bible, which will enable you to see it as a whole message, rather than a fragmented collection of different messages to different people.
How did the Kingdom of God become the "empty, nebulous term" it is today? Toward the end of the first century, after the original apostles died, there was a gradual shift from Hebrew/Jewish thought to Greek/Gentile thought. As more and more Gentiles became part of the Church, pagan ideas and concepts gradually became associated with the concepts of the New Testament, and their meanings became muddled. Ultimately, Biblical Christianity was replaced by a pagan imitation of the true gospel.
This forsaking of the language, culture, and thought patterns of the Jews led to a forsaking of the Hebrew Scriptures. As a result, the Greek-influenced thought patterns that infiltrated Christian thinking radically changed the understanding of the terms and concepts in the New Testament writings. Most Christians read the New Testament in light of these preconceived notions, and completely miss their intended meaning. This has led to a number of theological systems that eclipse the greatness of the gospel of the kingdom. One of these is "covenantal theology" which proposes that the promises to Israel are fulfilled in a spiritual sense for the Christian Church which replaces Israel. Therefore the prophecies of the kingdom of God are actually fulfilled NOW in the form of God's reign in the hearts of believers, rather than a literal fulfillment in the future. This was the most common way of viewing the Scriptures for many years. Other Biblical scholars in the last two centuries have endeavored to resolve apparent contradictions by segmenting the Bible according to the system known as Dispensationalism, which I addressed above. Both of these theological systems have found it necessary to resolve "contradictions" because they have not understood the concepts presented in the Bible in light of their Hebrew origins. In order to get back to the original understanding of the Bible as a whole, it is necessary to recognize that this shift has taken place, and then to examine the Bible in light of its Hebrew roots. I contend that the understanding of the Kingdom of God is the key to unlocking all that is misunderstood in the Bible, for when you come to an understanding of this topic, especially from its original Hebrew perspective, you begin to see how the whole Bible fits together.
|
"There has grown up in the church, alongside a total neglect of the Bible, a dangerous partial use of it. As a church we declare that the Bible is the Word of God and we draw no distinctions between its parts. But in practice we confine our use almost entirely to selected sections...and ignore the rest as completely as if it had never been written. The result is that we not only neglect much that is valuable but, what is worse, we miss the deepest meaning of the very parts we use because we lift them from their larger context."