Postmillennialism: Christendom's Bright Cheerful View Of The Future Of The Human Race.

[Alive]

2 minutes ago, Josheb said:

1948 or 1967? I've already covered the fact modern Israel is not covenant Israel in other posts so I won't belabor what should be obvious to anyone who has read the Old Testament. Instead, I'll simply note there was no mention of 1967 in futurist eschatology until all their predictions failed in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. Folks like Chuck Smith, Hal Lindsey, John Walvoord, Edgar Whisenant, and Harold Camping (to name only a few) assured everyone a generation was 40 years and therefore since Israel was established in 1948 Jesus would be returning by 1988. These books are still around. I first read Hal Lindsey's "Late Great Planet Earth," and "Satan is Alive and Well and Living on Planet Earth" in the late 70s before I was a Christian. Even though I was not a Christian I believed that was how things were going to happen. When I became a Christian in 1984 I looked forward to all those predictions by he and Tim LaHaye and Pat Robertson and all those folks I mentioned and more but all those predictions turned out to be false and not a single one of those and women ever repented. No, instead they said their math was wrong and a generation isn't 40 years but 70 years or 80 years so some adjustments needed to be made, that's all. This means Jesus is coming back by 2028. Great! I sincerely look forward to his arrival, whenever it may be; God willing I will live long enough to see it. But some cunning futurists have hedged their bet by moving away from the 1948 date and assuming 1967, the year of the Six Days War. This gives the futurist 19 more years to play around with, 19 more years to write more books and make more profits, and 19 more years to make more predictions. When 2047 comes and goes they assert a new starting point. Maybe it will be a generation (70-80 years) from the time the third temple is built. Or maybe it will be the date the animal sacrifices begin. There is no limit to the new starting dates to be asserted. 

All this while the will be denying the facts of scripture I have just pointed to. 

Jesus said no one would know the day or time but he also said it would happen in "This generation" of his first century audience. Everyday ordinary logic and a plain reading of the text leads us to understand no one within the generation to whom he was speaking would know the day or time.

But if they paid attention to the signs he was giving them they could escape death. 

And that is exactly what happened. The tensions between Jerusalem and the gospel gave way to persecution by Rome and conflict between Roma and Jerusalem also increased and as Rome assembled an army of many nations to lay siege to the city the Christians sold their soon-to-be-worthless property and left. Those that remained (like Polycarp) received offerings from the other (Gentile) congregations. When the siege gave way to attack the Christians fled to the caves and survived. Just as it was in the days of Noah. People were eating and drinking and those taken away were destroyed while those who remained went on to live in a covenant relationship with the One who had saved them; saved them first from sin and then saved them again from tribulation. He came a second time for a salvation apart from sin. They were all still appointed to live once and face judgment but there is now no longer condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. 

 

Matthew 24:9
"Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.'"

 

How would you like to have been sitting on the hill that evening and had Jesus look you in your collective faces and say you were going to be killed? 

Nah, not me. I'm not gonna be killed. I don't believe it. 

That response isn't any different than one we've already read this morning: Jesus is not reigning and if he is then he's reigning weakly. Anyone who believes what he said is wrong. Nah, can't be. I don't believe it. 

Its not hard to understand how you view those writers and teachers of prophecy you mention. I would only suggest that they, as brothers, have been and are sincere in their desire to understand.

Its similar to the ‘historical sciences’. We weren’t there to have seen. So we look at the evidence before us and attempt to reconcile. I won’t indict those brothers and sisters.

[Alive]

I have to sign off to go look at some work...will attempt to reply later.

 

[dhchristian]

11 hours ago, Josheb said:

So, in summary, 

The actual statements of the Matthew 23 and 24 text and other mentions of "this generation," mean what they state. 
The phrase, "this generation" in Matthew 24 is conjugated in the near demonstrative which precludes any and all possible futurist interpretation.
The stated audience affiliations dictate Jesus is speaking to his audience about his audience and event that first century audience would see, hear, and experience. 
There is nothing in the passage that can exegetically be connected specifically to the 20th or 21st centuries.

I Noticed everytime a comment is made to you, You focus on the minutia, and ignore the thrust of the argument. For example you never explained who Nero's false prophet was, who sent fire down from heaven on those who refused to worship him. Here you fail to address the The Point of the early and latter rain, and when is it that Israel fulfilled this as spoken of In Zechariah 12:10ff Here is the passage so you can see this. 

¹⁰ And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

¹¹ In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

¹² And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;

¹³ The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;

¹⁴ All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

13 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.

² And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.

 

As A matter of fact I did address the "This generation" conflict with You saying that 70 Ad was significant in this regard, because up until that point Israel could have received Jesus and began the millennial reign Thus immanence was fully accomplished.... I actually discuss this in one of my earlier posts here, and you can read it there and get  better grasp of how this worked. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/244530-johns-7-visions-and-triangulating-with-other-scriptures/

Unlike Most dispensationalists, I do not have this issue in my understanding and lest you accuse me of Saying God is a liar, Look what happened in Jonah's time, Ninevah repented, and God relented and delayed his wrath out of His mercy and grace.... this is exactly what the church age is. 

Now, If we are to take this further, You need to address my questions that you have failed to respond to, as stated above.  

 

[dhchristian]

14 hours ago, Alive said:

You are not Jesus, nor are you Paul.

Did I say I was Jesus or Paul? NO   My Point was that if they were commenting here they would be accused of violating the TOS as well.  We Live in a day and age when everyone is offended by the slightest disagreement or rebuke, Its the SJW safe spaces thing on steroids.... I Was not brought up like that, We were taught and expected to speak freely and give our views on things as we had the freedom to those things here in the U.S. as a first generation American My family taught us about this making this country great... We never were scolded nor sympathized with for "hurt feelings" instead we were told to defend our positions and beliefs, that in the Battlefield of ideas the truth wins out. Post modernism has sissified this country in that respect, in my lifetime and yours as well... ( I am guessing your about my age if not a bit older?) 

 

[JAG**]

Who Was The Beast In The Book Of Revelation?

I post the following regarding the "Beast" of Revelation  to possibly stimulate

an interest in a  personal study of Postmillennialism. The "Beast" is quite

popular in Christian Eschatological literature and the following might  create

some serious interest in a personal study of the magnificent victorious bright

cheerful hopeful totally optimistic Christian  Postmillennial Eschatological System.

_______________

Who Was The Beast Of the Book Of Revelation?
{The following was taken from
He Shall Have Dominion.
by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.
It is not a word for word quote but the substance of this below
is Dr. Gentry's. I typed it in. It is not on the web. Footnote at
the bottom}
_________________

Who Was The Beast Of Revelation?
The Beast is a well known Christian Eschatological character.
Premillennialists incorrectly believe that the Beast is to appear
in the future. This is false. The Beast was a 1st Century character
that appeared in the 1st Century and will never appear again in
human history.

The Apostle John wrote the book of Revelation.

The Time Of The Beast.
John clearly expects his prophesied events to take
place in his day, the 1st Century.

John writes:
"The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave
him to show his servants what must soon take place."
Revelation 1:1

"Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the
prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near"
Revelation 22:10

"must soon take place"
"the time is near"

In light of Revelation's significance to its first-century
audience, the Beast must be someone relevant to
that first-century audience.

"The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave
him to show his servants what must soon take place.
He made it known by sending his angel to his servant
John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is,
the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of
this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it
and take to heart what is written in it, because the
time is near." Revelation 1:1-4

“Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the
seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum,
Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
Rev. 1:11
{These were churches of the 1st century that received
this letter of Revelation and the warnings about the

"Beast" were addressed to THOSE 1st Century churches

who had to deal with the "Beast" who was a 1st Century

evil character that was to do harm to THEM.}

_____________________


Revelation 13 presents the Beast as a horrible and
powerful foe attempting to destroy God's people.

Sometimes Revelation presents the Beast as a
kingdom and sometimes as an individua leader
of that kingdom.

In some places the Beast has seven heads which
are seven kings collectively considered.

In Revelation 13:1 John notes that he saw a Beast
coming up out of the sea having 10 horns and
seven heads.
Revelation 17:10 specifically says that the seven
heads represent seven kings.

Thus the Beast is presented as a kingdom.
But kingdoms have representatives. This is why
John also speaks of the Beast as an individual.

John urges his readers to calculate the number of
the Beast which is the number of a man Revelation
13:18

The Beast's General Identity is the first-century
Roman Empire and NOT a "revived Roman Empire"
as imagined by Dispensationalism.

According to Revelation 17:9 the Beast's seven heads
represent "seven mountains." The seven mountains
symbolize Rome. Rome is the one city in history
distinguished and recognized by its seven
mountains.

___________________


The Beast's Specific Identify.
The Beast in his personal identity is Nero Caesar. He
and he alone fits the bill as the personal and specific
expression of the Beast. This vile character fulfills all
the requirements of the text of Revelation.

First the number of the Beast. In Revelation 13:18
the number of the Beast is 666. The usefulness of
this number lies in the fact that in the first-century
alphabets serve as both phonetic symbols and
as arithmetical values. Significantly a common
spelling of Nero Caesar's name is Nrwn Qsr,
which provides the numerical value of 666

Second the Textual Variant. See Dr. Gentry's
book for this explanation. Page 381

Third the Beastly Image.
Revelation 13 both calls and portrays the one
behind the 666 riddle as a "beast.". The term
"beast" can easily symbolize persons with a
beastly nature. Almost all scholars agree that
Nero Caesar possessed a beastly nature.. Nero
Caesar is even hated and feared by his own
countrymen, as ancient Roman historians agree.
The pagan writer Apollinius of Tyana, a
contemporary of Nero Caesar, calls him a
"beast."

Fourth, the war with the saints.
John's Beast will make war with the saints
and overcome them.{Rev. 13:7} In fact
Nero Caesar conducts a blasphemous war
with the saints for a specific period of 42 months {Rev. 13:5}
Nero begins his persecution of Christians in A.D. 64.
The persecution finally ends when Nero Caesar dies
on June 8, A.D.68 forty-two months later, but for a few days.
{Point of interest: Nero's own end comes by the sword.}
Conclusion: The Beast of Revelation was the beastly
Nero Caesar of the 1st Century.
End quote.
Source
He Shall Have Dominion
by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.
pages 379 - 381

JAG

 

 

 

``

Edited July 11, 2020 by JAG**

[JAG**]

17 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

Aside from Riddlebarger and Gentry (maybe Bahnsen) - two writers who take

aopposing views - I don't recall mentioning any writers and teachers of prophesy

in this op. I have commended the lists provided by both JAG and Roar, two posters

taking opposing views. I do so because I have actually read most of those recommendations.

I didn't commend them just because I agree with them. The books on Dispensationalism

by Darby, Pentecost, Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Ice, Vlach (well maybe not Ice) are worth

reading if understanding Dispensational Premillennialism is the goal and, imo, Chafer

(and to a lesser degree Ryrie) runs circles around the rest. His tome is articulate,

well-reasoned, respectful of both his opponents and his readers, and it covers both

DPism and common criticisms well. Personally, I think Premillennialists are better

served by George Eldon Ladd and the Historicists, not the Dispensationalists. But

none of them are adequate for understanding Postmillennialism. They are all biased

sources! If a person wants to understand Postmillennialism then read the

Postmillennialists and some here have openly stated a refusal to do so. They

implicitly report a biased and uniformed view of Postmillennialism, and do so

unabashedly. That's not my indictment, that is the logical implication of their

self-report. Despite that disposition I have endeavored to address their concerns

with scripture. With exception of the occasional broad reference to Josephus or

Tacitus, I haven't quoted a single-extrabiblical source. 

And I'm not a text-book Postmillennialist!

Stated that right from the beginning. 

I do read scripture exegetically and that results in my partial-preterist views.

The veracity of that perspective can be decided based upon how I render

scripture in these posts.............. where my views on writers and teachers

and the sincerity of the brothers are largely irrelevant. If Riddlebarger or

Gentry were here I'd do the same thing I've done over the last five weeks

with Worthy posters.....

Affirm that which bears agreement with scripture,
Inquire about that which is either unclear or I don't understand, 
Refute that which bears clear contradiction with scripture,

Topically and op-relevantly. 

 

 

Josheb, many interesting and helpful points are found in your

posts. Thank you for taking the time and for making the effort

to make a contribution to the thread and to the lives of the 

thread-readers.  I just now made a post regarding the "Beast"

of Revelation in an effort to possibly stimulate an interest in

a personal study of the mighty magnificent Christian Postmillennial

Eschatological System. Feel free to post any pros or cons on that post

if you have any thoughts on the "Beast."

________________

I was reading in Keith A. Mathison's Postmillennialism: An Eschatology

Of Hope, and I came across an interest-grabbing tid-bit, and I thought

I would share it with you and the thread.

______________

Start quote.

"Jonathan  Edwards {1703 -1758}, quite possibly the greatest theologian

and [Christian] philosopher in American history, Jonathan Edwards set

forth his Postmillennial Eschatology most completely in A History Of The

Work Of Redemption. He shared the Puritan's faith in the advancement of 

the gospel in history." 

__________

Says Jonathan Edwards:

"The future promised advancement of the Kingdom of Christ is an event 

unspeakably happy and glorious. The Scriptures speak of that time, as a time 

wherein God and His Son Jesus Christ will be most eminently glorified on 

Earth."__-Jonathan Edwards.

Sentiments such as this have earned Jonathan Edwards the title of "the father

of American Postmillennialism."

End quote.

___________________________________

Source:

Postmillennialism: An Eschatology Of Hope

by Keith A. Mathison

page 45

 

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by JAG**

[Alive]

7 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Did I say I was Jesus or Paul? NO   My Point was that if they were commenting here they would be accused of violating the TOS as well.  We Live in a day and age when everyone is offended by the slightest disagreement or rebuke, Its the SJW safe spaces thing on steroids.... I Was not brought up like that, We were taught and expected to speak freely and give our views on things as we had the freedom to those things here in the U.S. as a first generation American My family taught us about this making this country great... We never were scolded nor sympathized with for "hurt feelings" instead we were told to defend our positions and beliefs, that in the Battlefield of ideas the truth wins out. Post modernism has sissified this country in that respect, in my lifetime and yours as well... ( I am guessing your about my age if not a bit older?) 

 

@dhchristian I get all that stuff, but the point is an implied pledge to adhere to the TOS, here at the forum, while practicing your freedom to express thoughts and to counter what you believe is untrue or wrong. For myself, in these topics here--I try to consider that they are not salvation related. There is so much disagreement regarding the end times. These discussions have a built in half-life and will inevitably become part of the massive archive of the same. The Lord is still God and we are His sons by the awesome power of the work of Jesus Christ and His never ending Love, Grace and Mercy toward us and those who will be gathered in.

[Retrobyter]

23 hours ago, David1701 said:

At present, I don't think that Postmillenialism is correct; but I just have to comment on something you posted.

 

On 7/10/2020 at 12:05 AM, Retrobyter said:

I've also said this before, and I'll say it again: If the Messiah is "currently reigning," then He is the WEAKEST "king" there has ever been! BUT, that is NOT how His reign is portrayed in prophecy!

Quote

This is simply blasphemous!  The Lord is always reigning in his kingdom (not to mention that he has ordained what unbelievers do as well).

Shalom, David1701.

No, you're misunderstanding and overreacting. The LORD is always reigning in His Kingdom, not the Lord! There's a reason why sometimes the word "LORD" is in all caps in the King James Version and sometimes it is not and is simply the "Lord." In Hebrew, two different words were so translated: YHWH and Adonay. The first is the NAME of God, as revealed to Mosheh ("Moses"). The second is a TITLE, technically meaning "my one who lays a foundation," for "Adown" is a "Foundation Layer."

Written in the King's English of the early 1600s, a "Lord" had a certain definition: According to Merriam-Webster, a Lord is...

1: one having power and authority over others:
a: a ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due
b: one of whom a fee or estate is held in feudal tenure
c: an owner of land or other real (see REAL entry 1 sense 2) property
d obsolete : the male head of a household
e: HUSBAND
f: one that has achieved mastery or that exercises leadership or great power in some area a drug lord

2 capitalized
a: GOD sense 1
b: JESUS

3: a man of rank or high position: such as
a: a feudal tenant whose right or title comes directly from the king
b: a British nobleman: such as
(1): BARON sense 2a
(2): a hereditary peer of the rank of marquess, earl, or viscount
(3): the son of a duke or a marquess or the eldest son of an earl
(4): a bishop of the Church of England
c Lords plural : HOUSE OF LORDS

4—used as a British title: such as
a—used as part of an official title Lord Advocate; Lord Mayor
b—used informally in place of the full title for a marquess, earl, or viscount
c—used for a baron
d—used by courtesy before the name and surname of a younger son of a duke or a marquess

5: a person chosen to preside over a festival

This brings up the subject of peerages in the United Kingdom. Wikipedia says,

The peerage in the United Kingdom is a legal system comprising both hereditary and lifetime titles, composed of various noble ranks, and forming a constituent part of the British honours system. The term peerage can be used both collectively to refer to the entire body of nobles (or a subdivision thereof), and individually to refer to a specific title (modern English language-style using an initial capital in the former case but not the latter). British peerage title holders are termed peers of the Realm. The peerage's fundamental roles are ones of government, peers being eligible (although formerly entitled) to a seat in the House of Lords, and of meritocracy, the receiving of any peerage being the highest of British honours (with the receiving of a more traditional hereditary peerage naturally holding more weight than that of a more modern, and less highly-regarded, life peerage). 

Peerages are created by the British monarch, like all Crown honours, being affirmed by Letters Patent affixed with the Great Seal of the Realm. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom makes recommendations to the Sovereign concerning who should be elevated to the peerage, after external vetting by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Under present custom, the only new hereditary peerages granted are to members of the royal family; the last non-royal awardees of hereditary titles were in the Thatcher era. Since then, ruling parties have refrained from recommending any others to be elevated; although there is nothing preventing future governments from recommending worthy individuals for elevation to the Peerage.

We don't have such ranks and privileges in the United States of America, but the hierarchy of rank in the UK is...

1. King and queen
2. Duke and duchess
3. Marquess and marchioness
4. Earl and countess
5. Viscount and viscountess
6. Baron and baroness

These are the names of the European imperial, royal, noble, gentry and chivalric ranks:

Emperor · Empress · King-Emperor · Queen-Empress · Kaiser · Tsar

High king · High queen · Great king · Great queen

King · Queen

Archduke · Archduchess · Tsesarevich

Grand prince · Grand princess  Grand duke · Grand duchess

Prince-elector · Prince · Princess · Crown prince · Crown princess · Foreign prince ·Prince du sang · Infante · Infanta · Dauphin ·Dauphine · Królewicz · Królewna · Jarl

Duke · Duchess · Herzog · Knyaz · Princely count

Sovereign prince · Sovereign princess · Fürst ·Fürstin · Boyar

Marquess · Marquis · Marchioness ·  Margrave · Landgrave · Marcher Lord  · Count palatine

Count · Countess · Earl · Graf · Châtelain ·Castellan ·  Burgrave

Viscount · Viscountess · Vidame

Baron · Baroness · Freiherr · Advocatus · Lord of Parliament · Thane · Lendmann

Baronet · Baronetess · Scottish Feudal Baron ·Scottish Feudal Baroness · Ritter · Imperial Knight

Eques · Knight · Chevalier · Ridder · Lady ·Dame · Edelfrei · Seigneur · Lord · Laird

Lord of the manor · Gentleman · Gentry ·Esquire · Edler · Jonkheer · Junker · Younger ·Maid

Ministerialis

There was a DIFFERENCE between "LORD" and "Lord" in the English language, as well! The word "LORD" was used STRICTLY and ONLY for God! The word "Lord" was used for men as well as for God, but "Lord" was used only for God if the word "Adonay" in Hebrew was used for God. Often, the word "Adoniy," which means "my Adown" or "my Lord," was used as a lesser title, like "Sir" or "Sire," and like "Sire," the term may refer to a family head, the male head of a household (as one's father), or one's husband.

This is the reason why Yeshua`s words were so baffling to the P'rushiym ("Pharisees") when He asked,

Matthew 22:41-46 (KJV)

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying,

"What think ye of Christ (the Messiah)? whose son is he?"

They say unto him, 

"The Son of David."

43 He saith unto them,

"How then doth David in spirit call him 'Lord,' saying,

44 'The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?' (Psalm 110:1)

45 If David then call him 'Lord,' ('Sire', 'Father') how is he his son?"

46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

And, we also know this about Sarah:

1 Peter 3:5-6 (KJV)

 5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him "lord" ("sir"; "sire"; "master of the household"; "husband"): whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

My point is this: When Yeshua` is called "Lord," it's not the same as when His Father, God, is called the "LORD!" One should learn to differentiate between GOD, the Father of Yeshua`, and Yeshua` Himself, the SON of God! They are NOT the same Person! To neglect the difference is to introduce error!

Quote

When the Lord became incarnate, ...

I know you are talking about the SON of God, here; although technically, He did NOT "become incarnate." The word "incarnate" means to be placed "inside of flesh." The Scriptures say, "The Word was MADE FLESH and dwelt among us (among the disciples)." Then, He was born and named, "Yeshua`," which means "He shall save, deliver, or rescue." He was not "IN flesh"; He WAS "flesh" (and still is)!

Quote

lived a sinless life, shed his blood and died on the cross, was resurrected bodily, ascended bodily to heaven, then poured out his Spirit on his body on Earth,...

There's a bit of a problem in this last phrase. Again, He as a body went to "heaven," to "the sky"; so, His "body" on earth is an ANALOGY! It's just a figure of speech to call the believers "His body." Indeed, Paul was using it as an analogy of how the members of the ekkleesia there in Korinth should be working together, meeting each other's needs, and sharing in their pains and joys!

Quote

he set up a kingdom that will last forever and will never be destroyed.  This kingdom does not come by outward appearance but is within us who are the body of Christ.

THIS is error, pure and simple! While He SHALL "set up a kingdom that will last forever and will never be destroyed" IN THE FUTURE, He has NOT done so, YET! Think about Gavri'el's ("Gabriel's") words to Miryam ("Mary"):

Luke 1:30-33 (KJV)

30 And the angel said unto her,

"Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name 'JESUS.' 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob FOR EVER; and of his kingdom THERE SHALL BE NO END."

"His father David's throne?" "Over the house of Jacob?" He has NOT started that reign, yet!

Consider His OWN words on the matter:

Matthew 25:31-34 (KJV)

31 "When the Son of man shall come in his glory (brightness), and all the holy angels with him, THEN shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:' "

And,

Luke 19:11-15 (KJV)

11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12 He said therefore,

"A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them,

" 'Occupy till I come.'

14 "But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying,

"'We will not have this man to reign over us!' 

15 "And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, THEN he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. ..."

Now, your last statement, "This kingdom does not come by outward appearance but is within us who are the body of Christ," is REALLY off whack! (That's not an indictment against you personally; many make the same mistake.)

It's a misquote of Luke and a TOTAL ripping of the verse out of its context!

Here's the passage:

Luke 17:20-21 (KJV)

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said,

"The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, 'Lo here!' or, 'lo there!' for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

First, know this about the King James Version: This was a version written and finally published in 1611 A.D. under the commission of King James I of England. As such, it was written at a time when there was a difference between the singular and the plural for the second person pronouns.

In the singular, 

the subjective pronoun is "thou,"
the objective pronoun is "thee," 
the possessive pronoun is "thine," and
the possessive adjective pronoun is "thy."

In the plural,

the subjective pronoun is "ye,"
the objective pronoun is "you,"
the possessive pronoun is "yours," and
the possessive adjective pronoun is "your."

Today, we only use the last three for both subjective and objective, the possessives, and for both singular and plural.

Therefore, when you read above "the kingdom of God is within you," know that Yeshua` was talking to more than one person because the word "you" is plural. It was NEVER used for the singular, like it is today. (This is also true for the underlying Greek word so translated: "humoon," the plural, not "se," the singular form.)

Second, note to whom Yeshua` is talking! He was demanded by the Pharisees, the sect of the P'rushiym or "Separatists." Would He really say to the PHARISEES "the kingdom of God is within you"?

Third, the Greek word "entos" is the word that MAY be translated "within," but it may also be translated as "among." Other versions translate it as "among you" or "in the midst of you"; that is, "in the middle of you," and here in the South, since this is plural, one might say, "in the middle of y'all!"

So, read His words like this:

"The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, 'Lo here!' or, 'lo there!' for, behold, the kingdom of God is in the middle of y'all!"

To all, Yeshua` had already heralded the coming of the Kingdom of heaven (or the Kingdom of God):

Matthew 4:12-17 (KJV)

12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; 13 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: 14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

15 "The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; 16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up." (Isaiah 9:1-2)

17 From that time Jesus began to preach (herald), and to say,

"Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (within your grasp)."

"AT hand" is not the same as "IN hand." It just means that it's CLOSE to one's hand.

Mark 1:14-15 (KJV)

14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel (heralding the good news) of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying,

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand (within your grasp): repent ye, and believe the gospel (good news)."

What "good news?" At this stage in His ministry, it wasn't that He was going to die, be buried, and rise again from the dead! The "good news" of God's kingdom was this:

Isaiah 52:7-10 (KJV)

7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, "Thy God reigneth!"

8 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion.

9 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the LORD hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem!

10 The LORD hath made bare his holy arm (rolled up His sleeve) in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation (deliverance; rescue) of our God!

The Hebrew words of verse 10 that were translated as "salvation of our God" are "y'shuw`at Eloheenuw." The first word, the third-person, singular, masculine form of yasha`, is "Yeeshuwa`," "He shall save!" This is the name that was given to our Savior at His birth:

Matthew 1:18-25 (KJV)

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying,

"Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS (English: originally pronounced "Yay-soos" = Greek: Ieesous = Hebrew: Yeeshuwa`): for HE SHALL SAVE his people from their sins."

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 

23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name 'Emmanuel,' " (Isaiah 7:14) which being interpreted is, "God with us." 

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Thus, Isaiah 52:10 foreshadowed the Messiah Yeeshuwa`, actually NAMING Him as the Rescuer, the "bare, holy arm of YHWH!"

SO, that's why Yeshua` said to the Pharisees, "the Kingdom of God cometh not with observation"; in other words, it's not going to come with pomp and circumstance or with some special sign! "It's ALREADY HERE; it's ALREADY IN THE MIDDLE OF YOU ALL!" What was "in their midst" that day? YEESHUWA` HIMSELF! HE was already there in the middle of them! They would have had the Kingdom of God if they would only accept the KING of God!

When they rejected Him completely, He rejected them, as well (Matthew 23), and took the promise of the Kingdom away from that group of Pharisees, scribes, and Levites, taking it back to the sky with Him when He ascended, leaving them "desolate," as promised in Daniel 9:27. He won't offer the Kingdom of God to them again until He has returned in the clouds of the sky. (The Greek word "ouranos" means the "sky," although it was translated as "heaven" in the KJV. The word "heaven" comes from Old English "heofon," of Germanic origin; related to Dutch "hemel" and German "Himmel," all which MEAN "sky!")

Acts 1:6-11 (KJV)

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying,

"Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

7 And he said unto them,

"It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven (toward the sky) as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said,

"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven (why are you gawking up into the sky)? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven (into the sky), shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven (into the sky)."

Think of how people at a rocket launch will follow the rocket as far as they can see it! And, if there are some clouds in the sky at the time, it may go behind a cloud for a while and people will search the sky on the other side of the cloud to see if they can find and still see the rocket as it ascends! Then, they will turn to the TV set to be sure that nothing has gone wrong and that they will see the astronauts once again when they land! But, if you don't have the mission plan, you don't know when they will return. You'll have to keep watching the news until they are said to be landing soon.

The disciples weren't given the mission plan! And, so they - and we - WATCH!

Quote

1 Cor. 15:22-26 (KJV)

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

The Lord is reigning now and will continue to do so, until even death has been defeated and is no more.

This is a GOOD passage of information that Paul gave the Korinthian ekkleesia (and us) in his topic on "resurrection," but one must understand it correctly to get the most from it. There are THREE times that are mentioned in verses 23 and 24 when there would be resurrections: His own resurrection in 30 A.D., the general resurrection of those who are His when He comes again, and the general resurrection of those who aren't resurrected until the end. In between the two general resurrections is when Yeshua` the Messiah, the "Christ," will be reigning as mentioned in this passage.

He does NOT begin His reign until He has RETURNED "at His coming!"

I know this has been lengthy, but most Christian churches don't have the necessary background to understand the nuances of their own history!

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Retrobyter

[JAG**]

John's "antichrists"  , , , ,

The subject of "antichrist" is of great interest in Christian eschatological

literature. I came across this below and thought I would share it with the

thread. The Postmillennial view is that there is no future "antichrist"

that will appear in history. 

________

There are no clear BIBLE-VERSES that connect John's antichrists with:

Daniel 7

2 Thess. 2

Revelation 

Any connection made is 100% pure interpretative speculation. What is

needed in order to establish a future antichrist is a clear BIBLE-VERSE

that actually clearly states the connection with John's antichrists to

Daniel  7 and/or 2 Thess 2 and/or Revelation. But there is not even one {1}

clear Bible  verse that states that connection. Not even one.

________________

Three Observations Regarding John's "antichrists" , , , ,

Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield, one of Christendom's most accomplished and
distinguished theologians, provided 3 helpful insights on John's antichrists.

{1} John takes his antichrists out of the future and puts them into the
present time of the 1st Century.
See below where
1 John 2:18
1 John 2:22
1 John 4:3
2 John 7
, , , are quoted.

______________


{2} John expands his antichrists from being one individual to being
a multitude {"many antichrists"}

1 John 2:18-19
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the
antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is
how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they
did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they
would have remained with us; but their going showed that none
of them belonged to us.

__________________

{3} John reduces his antichrists from being only a person to being a heresy,
that is to say, a heretical movement of the 1st Century

1 John 4:1-6
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether
they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the
world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but
every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the
spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is
already in the world.

You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the
one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from
the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the
world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God
listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us.
This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of
falsehood."

_____________

1 John 2:22-23
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such
a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. No one
who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the
Son has the Father also.


2 John 7
"I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus
Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such
person is the deceiver and the antichrist



1 John 2:18 and 1 John 4:1-6 and 1 John 2:22-23 and 2 John 7 describes

not only 1st Century Christian apostates, but also describes  a 1st Century

heretical movement, and does NOT predict any future antichrist.

___________

Conclusion:
There are no BIBLE VERSES that connect John's antichrists to:

{A}  Daniel 7

{B} 2 Thess 2

{C} Revelation

{D} any other part of the Bible

Any connection made is 100% pure interpretative speculation.

JAG

 

 

``
 

[David1701]

13 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

 

Shalom, David1701.

No, you're misunderstanding and overreacting. The LORD is always reigning in His Kingdom, not the Lord! There's a reason why sometimes the word "LORD" is in all caps in the King James Version and sometimes it is not and is simply the "Lord." In Hebrew, two different words were so translated: YHWH and Adonay. The first is the NAME of God, as revealed to Mosheh ("Moses"). The second is a TITLE, technically meaning "my one who lays a foundation," for "Adown" is a "Foundation Layer."

Written in the King's English of the early 1600s, a "Lord" had a certain definition: According to Merriam-Webster, a Lord is...

1: one having power and authority over others:
a: a ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due
b: one of whom a fee or estate is held in feudal tenure
c: an owner of land or other real (see REAL entry 1 sense 2) property
d obsolete : the male head of a household
e: HUSBAND
f: one that has achieved mastery or that exercises leadership or great power in some area a drug lord

2 capitalized
a: GOD sense 1
b: JESUS

3: a man of rank or high position: such as
a: a feudal tenant whose right or title comes directly from the king
b: a British nobleman: such as
(1): BARON sense 2a
(2): a hereditary peer of the rank of marquess, earl, or viscount
(3): the son of a duke or a marquess or the eldest son of an earl
(4): a bishop of the Church of England
c Lords plural : HOUSE OF LORDS

4—used as a British title: such as
a—used as part of an official title Lord Advocate; Lord Mayor
b—used informally in place of the full title for a marquess, earl, or viscount
c—used for a baron
d—used by courtesy before the name and surname of a younger son of a duke or a marquess

5: a person chosen to preside over a festival

This brings up the subject of peerages in the United Kingdom. Wikipedia says,

The peerage in the United Kingdom is a legal system comprising both hereditary and lifetime titles, composed of various noble ranks, and forming a constituent part of the British honours system. The term peerage can be used both collectively to refer to the entire body of nobles (or a subdivision thereof), and individually to refer to a specific title (modern English language-style using an initial capital in the former case but not the latter). British peerage title holders are termed peers of the Realm. The peerage's fundamental roles are ones of government, peers being eligible (although formerly entitled) to a seat in the House of Lords, and of meritocracy, the receiving of any peerage being the highest of British honours (with the receiving of a more traditional hereditary peerage naturally holding more weight than that of a more modern, and less highly-regarded, life peerage). 

Peerages are created by the British monarch, like all Crown honours, being affirmed by Letters Patent affixed with the Great Seal of the Realm. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom makes recommendations to the Sovereign concerning who should be elevated to the peerage, after external vetting by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Under present custom, the only new hereditary peerages granted are to members of the royal family; the last non-royal awardees of hereditary titles were in the Thatcher era. Since then, ruling parties have refrained from recommending any others to be elevated; although there is nothing preventing future governments from recommending worthy individuals for elevation to the Peerage.

We don't have such ranks and privileges in the United States of America, but the hierarchy of rank in the UK is...

1. King and queen
2. Duke and duchess
3. Marquess and marchioness
4. Earl and countess
5. Viscount and viscountess
6. Baron and baroness

These are the names of the European imperial, royal, noble, gentry and chivalric ranks:

Emperor · Empress · King-Emperor · Queen-Empress · Kaiser · Tsar

High king · High queen · Great king · Great queen

King · Queen

Archduke · Archduchess · Tsesarevich

Grand prince · Grand princess  Grand duke · Grand duchess

Prince-elector · Prince · Princess · Crown prince · Crown princess · Foreign prince ·Prince du sang · Infante · Infanta · Dauphin ·Dauphine · Królewicz · Królewna · Jarl

Duke · Duchess · Herzog · Knyaz · Princely count

Sovereign prince · Sovereign princess · Fürst ·Fürstin · Boyar

Marquess · Marquis · Marchioness ·  Margrave · Landgrave · Marcher Lord  · Count palatine

Count · Countess · Earl · Graf · Châtelain ·Castellan ·  Burgrave

Viscount · Viscountess · Vidame

Baron · Baroness · Freiherr · Advocatus · Lord of Parliament · Thane · Lendmann

Baronet · Baronetess · Scottish Feudal Baron ·Scottish Feudal Baroness · Ritter · Imperial Knight

Eques · Knight · Chevalier · Ridder · Lady ·Dame · Edelfrei · Seigneur · Lord · Laird

Lord of the manor · Gentleman · Gentry ·Esquire · Edler · Jonkheer · Junker · Younger ·Maid

Ministerialis

There was a DIFFERENCE between "LORD" and "Lord" in the English language, as well! The word "LORD" was used STRICTLY and ONLY for God! The word "Lord" was used for men as well as for God, but "Lord" was used only for God if the word "Adonay" in Hebrew was used for God. Often, the word "Adoniy," which means "my Adown" or "my Lord," was used as a lesser title, like "Sir" or "Sire," and like "Sire," the term may refer to a family head, the male head of a household (as one's father), or one's husband.

This is the reason why Yeshua`s words were so baffling to the P'rushiym ("Pharisees") when He asked,

Matthew 22:41-46 (KJV)

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying,

"What think ye of Christ (the Messiah)? whose son is he?"

They say unto him, 

"The Son of David."

43 He saith unto them,

"How then doth David in spirit call him 'Lord,' saying,

44 'The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?' (Psalm 110:1)

45 If David then call him 'Lord,' ('Sire', 'Father') how is he his son?"

46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

And, we also know this about Sarah:

1 Peter 3:5-6 (KJV)

 5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him "lord" ("sir"; "sire"; "master of the household"; "husband"): whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

My point is this: When Yeshua` is called "Lord," it's not the same as when His Father, God, is called the "LORD!" One should learn to differentiate between GOD, the Father of Yeshua`, and Yeshua` Himself, the SON of God! They are NOT the same Person! To neglect the difference is to introduce error!

I know you are talking about the SON of God, here; although technically, He did NOT "become incarnate." The word "incarnate" means to be placed "inside of flesh." The Scriptures say, "The Word was MADE FLESH and dwelt among us (among the disciples)." Then, He was born and named, "Yeshua`," which means "He shall save, deliver, or rescue." He was not "IN flesh"; He WAS "flesh" (and still is)!

There's a bit of a problem in this last phrase. Again, He as a body went to "heaven," to "the sky"; so, His "body" on earth is an ANALOGY! It's just a figure of speech to call the believers "His body." Indeed, Paul was using it as an analogy of how the members of the ekkleesia there in Korinth should be working together, meeting each other's needs, and sharing in their pains and joys!

THIS is error, pure and simple! While He SHALL "set up a kingdom that will last forever and will never be destroyed" IN THE FUTURE, He has NOT done so, YET! Think about Gavri'el's ("Gabriel's") words to Miryam ("Mary"):

Luke 1:30-33 (KJV)

30 And the angel said unto her,

"Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name 'JESUS.' 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob FOR EVER; and of his kingdom THERE SHALL BE NO END."

"His father David's throne?" "Over the house of Jacob?" He has NOT started that reign, yet!

Consider His OWN words on the matter:

Matthew 25:31-34 (KJV)

31 "When the Son of man shall come in his glory (brightness), and all the holy angels with him, THEN shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:' "

And,

Luke 19:11-15 (KJV)

11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12 He said therefore,

"A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them,

" 'Occupy till I come.'

14 "But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying,

"'We will not have this man to reign over us!' 

15 "And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, THEN he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. ..."

Now, your last statement, "This kingdom does not come by outward appearance but is within us who are the body of Christ," is REALLY off whack! (That's not an indictment against you personally; many make the same mistake.)

It's a misquote of Luke and a TOTAL ripping of the verse out of its context!

Here's the passage:

Luke 17:20-21 (KJV)

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said,

"The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, 'Lo here!' or, 'lo there!' for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

First, know this about the King James Version: This was a version written and finally published in 1611 A.D. under the commission of King James I of England. As such, it was written at a time when there was a difference between the singular and the plural for the second person pronouns.

In the singular, 

the subjective pronoun is "thou,"
the objective pronoun is "thee," 
the possessive pronoun is "thine," and
the possessive adjective pronoun is "thy."

In the plural,

the subjective pronoun is "ye,"
the objective pronoun is "you,"
the possessive pronoun is "yours," and
the possessive adjective pronoun is "your."

Today, we only use the last three for both subjective and objective, the possessives, and for both singular and plural.

Therefore, when you read above "the kingdom of God is within you," know that Yeshua` was talking to more than one person because the word "you" is plural. It was NEVER used for the singular, like it is today. (This is also true for the underlying Greek word so translated: "humoon," the plural, not "se," the singular form.)

Second, note to whom Yeshua` is talking! He was demanded by the Pharisees, the sect of the P'rushiym or "Separatists." Would He really say to the PHARISEES "the kingdom of God is within you"?

Third, the Greek word "entos" is the word that MAY be translated "within," but it may also be translated as "among." Other versions translate it as "among you" or "in the midst of you"; that is, "in the middle of you," and here in the South, since this is plural, one might say, "in the middle of y'all!"

So, read His words like this:

"The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, 'Lo here!' or, 'lo there!' for, behold, the kingdom of God is in the middle of y'all!"

To all, Yeshua` had already heralded the coming of the Kingdom of heaven (or the Kingdom of God):

Matthew 4:12-17 (KJV)

12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; 13 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: 14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

15 "The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; 16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up." (Isaiah 9:1-2)

17 From that time Jesus began to preach (herald), and to say,

"Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (within your grasp)."

"AT hand" is not the same as "IN hand." It just means that it's CLOSE to one's hand.

Mark 1:14-15 (KJV)

14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel (heralding the good news) of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying,

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand (within your grasp): repent ye, and believe the gospel (good news)."

What "good news?" At this stage in His ministry, it wasn't that He was going to die, be buried, and rise again from the dead! The "good news" of God's kingdom was this:

Isaiah 52:7-10 (KJV)

7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, "Thy God reigneth!"

8 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion.

9 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the LORD hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem!

10 The LORD hath made bare his holy arm (rolled up His sleeve) in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation (deliverance; rescue) of our God!

The Hebrew words of verse 10 that were translated as "salvation of our God" are "y'shuw`at Eloheenuw." The first word, the third-person, singular, masculine form of yasha`, is "Yeeshuwa`," "He shall save!" This is the name that was given to our Savior at His birth:

Matthew 1:18-25 (KJV)

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying,

"Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS (English: originally pronounced "Yay-soos" = Greek: Ieesous = Hebrew: Yeeshuwa`): for HE SHALL SAVE his people from their sins."

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 

23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name 'Emmanuel,' " (Isaiah 7:14) which being interpreted is, "God with us." 

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Thus, Isaiah 52:10 foreshadowed the Messiah Yeeshuwa`, actually NAMING Him as the Rescuer, the "bare, holy arm of YHWH!"

SO, that's why Yeshua` said to the Pharisees, "the Kingdom of God cometh not with observation"; in other words, it's not going to come with pomp and circumstance or with some special sign! "It's ALREADY HERE; it's ALREADY IN THE MIDDLE OF YOU ALL!" What was "in their midst" that day? YEESHUWA` HIMSELF! HE was already there in the middle of them! They would have had the Kingdom of God if they would only accept the KING of God!

When they rejected Him completely, He rejected them, as well (Matthew 23), and took the promise of the Kingdom away from that group of Pharisees, scribes, and Levites, taking it back to the sky with Him when He ascended, leaving them "desolate," as promised in Daniel 9:27. He won't offer the Kingdom of God to them again until He has returned in the clouds of the sky. (The Greek word "ouranos" means the "sky," although it was translated as "heaven" in the KJV. The word "heaven" comes from Old English "heofon," of Germanic origin; related to Dutch "hemel" and German "Himmel," all which MEAN "sky!")

Acts 1:6-11 (KJV)

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying,

"Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

7 And he said unto them,

"It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven (toward the sky) as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said,

"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven (why are you gawking up into the sky)? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven (into the sky), shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven (into the sky)."

Think of how people at a rocket launch will follow the rocket as far as they can see it! And, if there are some clouds in the sky at the time, it may go behind a cloud for a while and people will search the sky on the other side of the cloud to see if they can find and still see the rocket as it ascends! Then, they will turn to the TV set to be sure that nothing has gone wrong and that they will see the astronauts once again when they land! But, if you don't have the mission plan, you don't know when they will return. You'll have to keep watching the news until they are said to be landing soon.

The disciples weren't given the mission plan! And, so they - and we - WATCH!

This is a GOOD passage of information that Paul gave the Korinthian ekkleesia (and us) in his topic on "resurrection," but one must understand it correctly to get the most from it. There are THREE times that are mentioned in verses 23 and 24 when there would be resurrections: His own resurrection in 30 A.D., the general resurrection of those who are His when He comes again, and the general resurrection of those who aren't resurrected until the end. In between the two general resurrections is when Yeshua` the Messiah, the "Christ," will be reigning as mentioned in this passage.

He does NOT begin His reign until He has RETURNED "at His coming!"

I know this has been lengthy, but most Christian churches don't have the necessary background to understand the nuances of their own history!

 

Thanks for the reply.

I already know about the distinction between "LORD" and "Lord", in some translations.  I also know about British peerages, since I am British.  I know about "thee", "thou", "you", "ye", etc., since I sometimes use the KJV.

You brought up an interesting passage, in which Jesus confounds the Pharisees.  The answer to the question (If David calls him Lord, how is he then his son?) is that Jesus is God and man (in direct lineage from King David).  As God, Jesus is Lord and, as man, he is David's descendant (son).

I know that some people interpret "...the kingdom of God is within you." to mean "...the kingdom of God is amongst you."; but I do not subscribe to that interpretation.  Jesus did not mean that the kingdom of God was in the Pharisees (or amongst them) but that the kingdom of is within people (those who are born again) rather than being a physical kingdom, which is what the Pharisees were looking for.

Quote

 

17 From that time Jesus began to preach (herald), and to say,

"Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (within your grasp)."

"AT hand" is not the same as "IN hand." It just means that it's CLOSE to one's hand.

 

The expression "at hand" is old fashioned English (still occasionally used in Britain) for "near".  It probably originally meant, literally, close to my hand; but, nowadays, it is more generally used for something near, whether in terms of location or time.  The Greek verb is in the perfect tense, so a literal translation would be, "...the kingdom of heaven has drawn near.".

Regarding "heaven" meaning "sky", we still sometimes use it that way in Britain; although usually in the plural.  If it starts to rain heavily, we occasionally say, "The heavens have opened.".  Having said that, Jesus did not take the kingdom of God away with him, since the kingdom of God is within the body of Christ (saved Jews and Gentiles).