Thursday, October 2, 2014

The Kingdom



There has been a question that had been on my mind for a number of years now.  I cannot say that the question has been bothering me, since that would infer more prominence for the question than it actually held, but it has often led to my pondering it.  The question is simply this: "Is there a difference between the Biblical terms kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven?"  I have often wondered if I was missing some nuance of scriptural truth in treating them as one. 

If one would venture to do an Internet search on this question, you would get both yes and no answers (Spoiler Alert: Someone on the Internet is wrong!)  In fact some would be so bold as to proclaim that without a proper understanding of the difference between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God, it is impossible to form a correct understanding of Ecclesiology (study of the church), Eschatology (study of end times), Anthropology (study of humankind), or Arachnology (study of spiders – Okay I just threw that one in to see if you were still paying attention).

But, in preparing to preach an upcoming sermon (Oct 12 at ValleyView Church if interested- you're all invited) I stumbled upon this passage which I do believe answers the question.

In Matthew 19: 23 Jesus exclaims how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, and then in verse 24 he goes on to say “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Emphasis mine).  If Jesus differentiates between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God, would he not have used the term “also I say unto you” rather than “again I say unto you”?   The word “again” would infer that Jesus was speaking of the same rich man entering the same kingdom.

20 comments:

fred said...

Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God are absolutely not the same (the fact that Kingdom of Heaven is only mentioned in the book of Matthew is a clue here). Simple answer is Kingdom of Heaven is a literal physical kingdom that the Jews will inherit while the Kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom that the bride of Christ will inherit. For a more in depth study, Peter Ruckman wrote a book called 'More Sure Word of Prophecy' that explains it far better than I ever could.

All that being said, I'm thankful God saved you (& me & others) and I'm happy that you offer head porting and other motorcycle services. God Bless.

St. Lee said...

Thanks for the thoughts Fred. I too am also thankful each time I hear of another who God has saved by his grace.

...however, I have to add, whether or not what you hold to as far as two kingdoms is true, I am not sure that I would use Peter Ruckman's writings as a reference. If even half of what Wikipedia says about him are accurate, I personally would distance myself from him about as far as from Fred Phelps.

To be fair though, I had heard the name Peter Ruckman before but knew nothing about him, hence the Wikipedia reference. I certainly would not put much faith in Wikipedia for accuracy without further research, but this issue is really not about him.

I made a point by asking a question in my original post.: If Jesus differentiates between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God, would he not have used the term “also I say unto you” rather than “again I say unto you”? How would you respond to that?

fred said...

Lee...fair question on your part {we can debate the other stuff another time if you want to :) }

At face value, taking the verse you mention right where it stands, you would have a point. However, I can't build a doctrine on a verse (or 2) and not consider the entire book. Paul teaches us (II Corinthians 2) to compare scripture with scripture and (II Timothy 2:15) to rightly divide the word of truth. If we were to make the 2 kingdoms the same, that would then also mean that Jews in the tribulation get saved the same way we do now which is not the case. Another example, God promised Abraham land (physical, literal land---Kingdom of Heaven) while during the church age the Holy Spirit dwells within us (Kingdom of God---does not come with observation, is spiritual).

Were the kingdoms ever present on the earth at the same time? I believe they were, more than once, perhaps with Adam before the fall and again when Jesus walked the earth at the beginning of Daniel's 70th week (Mark 1:15) and definitely again through eternity. Are they the same? Not in my estimation, there are far too many verses and doctrines that convince me that while they may have been very similar at times and while they may have been present together at times, they were never the same kingdom.

St. Lee said...

Fred, sorry to come back and answer your comment after nearly two weeks, but I have been mulling it over from time to time, but just do not have the time to do a Bible study on that whole particular subject right now. Your comment about Jews getting save differently in the tribulation is particularly troubling to me. I know there are dispensational teachings that claim different people groups were saved by different criteria at different times in history. I can't accept that. As I see it, all have sinned and all need the substitutional shed blood of Jesus to satisfy God's justice. I just can't see what would make the Jewish people during the tribulation any different.

BTW, I agree completely that one cannot build a doctrine on one verse of scripture, however one also needs to be careful not to read a doctrine into a text where it is not found.

I hope we can at least agree that whether or not there are two kingdoms, there is only one King.

fred said...

My apologies Lee, I checked a couple of times before your last reply and then kind of forgot about it.

Let's start with the easy one first...Yes, there are two kingdoms but only one KING.

Secondly, I do hope that you think that I read a doctrine into a text without scripture to back it up (I Cor. 2:13).

As to your thoughts on 'dispensational' salvation. As far back as Exodus 20 (giving of the law) and on through Leviticus the Jews were told that the only way to approach God was with a sacrifice through a priest. For the purpose of this discussion, let us say from Exodus to the empty tomb, the Jews had only one way to God. Salvation for the Jews during that time was never individual, only national (In Luke 3:10, 12 Jews ask John the Baptist what should 'we' do. They knew how to approach unto the Lord. Simililarly, in Acts 2 the Jews asked Peter what should 'we' do?)

Now I ask you Lee, did Paul ever tell us that we had to to sacrifice a goat (or any other animal) to be saved? In fact, did Paul tell us that there was anything we could 'do' to be saved? We both know the answer to that, you and I do not share a salvation by works even though we have the same need as each other and the same need as the pre-resurrection jew.

If you wish to not believe in dispensational salvation, you leave a lot of scripture 'up for grabs' as to its meaning (II Tim. 2:15).

St. Lee said...

No need for apology on reply time Fred. I have more guilt in that respect.

But, as for your thoughts on dispensation, I hardly know where to begin. Do you seriously believe that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins? Hebrews 10:4 says specifically that it CAN NOT. In fact the bulk of the book of Hebrews explains that the whole Old Testament sacrificial system had the purpose of foreshadowing and pointing to the sacrifice of Christ. Faith, not sacrifice, has been the vehicle of salvation since the beginning of the world (Or perhaps a more accurate statement would be faith in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ). Hebrews 11 has a list (often referred to as the "hall of faith") which calls out names of people ranging from Abel to David and Samuel, all who were like Abraham, of whom it is said Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Galatians 3:6 and other places). In fact Galatians 3:11 goes on to say "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

Perhaps a more important question at this point is, How have you been saved?

fred said...

I'm a sinner saved by grace, no more, no less, sealed unto the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit.

Be careful with the book of Hebrews (which, like Matthew and Acts are transitional books...things be a changing), which does indeed give the 'short version' of the law...and the fulfillment! the death, burial and resurection of our savior.

Tell me Lee, why did God give the law and ordain priests if there was no point to it. Until the cross, how did one know if he was being a good jew without the law? Why did God prescribe a sin offering in the law if it could not take away sin? Why did God ordain the Day of Atonement as a mandatory feast for all jews to attend? I think you get my point here.

Hebrews 10:4 is a post crucifixion verse that any good jew is forbidden to ever read, so how would the jew know that the rules have changed. And while the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin, did not God compel them to do it anyway?

II Timothy 2:15...rightly dividing the word of truth

True enough, Abraham was an exception, he was also called a 'friend' of God. How many others in the bible had that attributed to them in print? And Galations 3:6 could never have applied to a jew before the cross, that was written by Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles.

St. Lee said...

This back and forth is ranging too far and wide to "settle" anything. It would take a novel to answer each of your questions even if you do consider them rhetorical, so lets concentrate on one point first. In our opinion were the O.T. Jews saved by the animal sacrifices as suggested by your reply on Monday the 8th, or not?

fred said...

Let me say first, my opinion does not mean squat in God's eyes, only what he tells us through his word is important on this or any other subject. My apologies for the length of this post, hopefully the verses with be a blessing to you.

THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION in relation to the two kingdoms.

A. In the Kingdom of Heaven, TRUE SALVATION as we NOW know it (justification from all sin; with eternal life as a free gift) was never given for simply believing in the Lord!With two notable exceptions (Abraham and David, mo
re about them later), everyone in the Old Testament needed faith plus something else to be “saved”. To be sure, faith was absolutely essential to salvation
, for “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Hebrews 11:6), but faith was insufficient -all by itself– to justify sinners before God. In order for a person to inherit
eternal life, it took an obedient
faith: that is, a faith that produced works of righteousness
pleasing to God; a faith that
endured to the end.

At first glance, that statement seems to contradict these well known verses:

Romans 3:20 Therefore
by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the
gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that
a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Romans 4:1-2 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Acts 13:39 And by him [Jesus Christ] all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Galatians 3:10-11 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is
written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that
no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Titus 3:5-7 Not by works
of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us
abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

2Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our
works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before
the world began.

Romans 4:5 But to him that
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,
his faith is counted for righteousness.

These verses all have this in common: THEY WERE WRITTEN BY PAUL TO BELIEVERS LIVING IN THIS
PRESENT DISPENSATION; IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD! To force these
verses to apply backwards into the Kingdom of Heaven or to assume that what is NOW true for
the body of Christ was ALWAYS
true for everyone in the Old Testament is to violate the
admonition to rightly divide the word of truth! (2Tim. 2:15, 1Cor. 2:13; 2Peter 3:16). Pastors and
Bible teachers should know better!


Read those verses listed above one more time. Notice that Paul was NOT teaching that works
were NEVER a part of man’s
salvation in the Old Testament, but that dependence on those works alone could NEVER have given anyone eternal life. No one - at any time in the past, present or future – could ever inherit eternal life by the works of the Law. Likewise, no one living before or after
the church age could ever inherit eternal life by faith alone! Only
now- in our present dispensation- are works completely excluded. Only now do we receive eternal life by faith in Jesus Christ, PLUS NOTHING!

St. Lee said...

Well Fred, as it happens I was working late last night when the electricity went off. As I was sitting in the dark pondering whether to call it a night or wait in hopes of the power coming back on, I decided to do a little research on the original subject of kingdom of God/ kingdom of heaven. Since my laptop was still running of battery power I was able to access e-Sword for its search capability, but of course I had no internet access without power to the wireless router. This led to what had to be the somewhat strange sight of yours truly making notes by flashlight in front of a brightly lit computer screen.

The time was fruitful such that I have decided to make it into a full fledged blog post, ...as soon as I find the time to put it into legible form.

But that means I won't have time right at the moment to engage with your latest comments concerning the salvation of God's people in Old Testament times, much as I desire to.

fred said...

I guess one will do what one has to do, I'll check back from time to time to see if/when you want to continue this. In the meantime, I'll add some more verses regarding OT doctrine.


How then did someone get eternal life in the Old Testament? Let’s look at the Lord’s own words on the subject.

1. What did Jesus Christ say was needed to have eternal life?
“What shall I do to inherit[or have] eternal life?” That specific question is recorded in the Bible only four times. (Remember the Law of Four-Fold Mention.) Three times the question
was recorded as it was asked sincerely by a certain ruler and
once as it was asked insincerely
by a certain lawyer. The Lord’s answer to these two men is very important! The ruler asked him, saying, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have
eternal life?” (Recorded three times:
Matt. 19:16; Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18) The Lord’s answer to the ruler was: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments
...If thou wilt be perfect ...one thing thou lackest ...sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come...take up thy cross, and follow me.” The lawyer
stood up, and tempted him, saying, “Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
(Luke 10:25) The Lord’s answer to the lawyer was: “What is written in the law? ...And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” Notice that to both men the Lord spoke of what they LACKED. To the ruler he spoke of
works. To the lawyer he spoke of
love for God and love for his neighbor. Taken together, these four passages show that good works motivated by love for God and love for others were a necessary part of one’s salvation in the Old Testament. In Luke 10:26-37 the lawyer, trying to justify himself, asked, “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus answered with the famous story of the good deeds done by the "good Samaritan" and said, “Go, and
DO thou likewise.”

2. What did Jesus say was needed to “enter into the kingdom”?
There are twelve verses in the gospels (listed below) that record what Jesus specifically said was required of men to “
enter into the kingdom”. Four verses deal with the Kingdom of
Heaven (all in Matthew) and eight verses deal with the Kingdom of God. Notice that for the Kingdom of Heaven certain moral qualifications were necessary in addition to faith. In fact, faith is never even mentioned as one of
the qualifications. For the Kingdom of God there is only
one requirement given, to be born of the Spirit! The four verses that tell about getting into the Kingdom of Heaven give three
requirements and one warning
(Matt. 19:23). The warning is that riches make it harder
(but not impossible) to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The requirements are that a person must have:
(1)personal righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees,
(2)obedience to the will of God and
(3)repentance with childlike humility!

Lee, I'll continue with more verses when you have more time to devote to this blog.

fred said...


Matt. 5:20 [Superior righteousness] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case
enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matt. 7:21 [Obedience to the will of God] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matt. 18:3-4 [Repentance with childlike humility] And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not
enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall
humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Matt. 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly
enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Of the eight verses that tell about entering into the Kingdom of God, seven verses are warnings!
They state that riches and
fleshly habits make it harder for a man to enter into the Kingdom of God! There is only one verse (John 3:5) that gives the
requirement for getting into the Kingdom of God! John 3:5 states that a man must be born again!

Matt. 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Mark 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Mark 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches
to enter into the kingdom of God!

Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to
enter into the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:24 And when Jesus saw that
he was very sorrowful, he said,
How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Luke 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Mark 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better
for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

It is not a coincidence that the one requirement for entering into the Kingdom of God is given in the gospel of John and NOT in any of the other three gospels. The gospel of John was written many years after the ministry of Paul
had ended and John, no doubt, had a full understanding of Paul’s gospel and the pre-eminence of the Kingdom of God in the church
age.

Only John records the private meeting that Jesus had with Nicodemus at night when Jesus revealed to him the truth of the new birth.

Only John records how to have this new birth. “But as many as
received him,to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

To summarize these twelve verses: the requirement for entering the Kingdom of Heaven is superior moral character as evidenced by
personal righteousness,
obedience, and humble repentance; the requirement for entering the Kingdom of God is the new birth!

fred said...

3. Matthew 25:31-46, probably one of the most “misunderstood” passages of scripture in the
Bible, tells how Gentiles living through the Tribulation are able to enter into eternal life.
The context of Matthew 25:31-46 is the return of Jesus Christ at the end of the Tribulation when the nations are gathered for judgment. Many people quote these verses to justify their belief that a life of good deeds is the real spirit of Christianity (untrue) and that a life of good
deeds is the basis for one’s salvation now (untrue). Other people avoid the passage altogether – perhaps, because it doesn’t fit with their belief that salvation has ALWAYS been and
ALWAYS will be by grace alone through faith alone. For them, Matthew 25:31-46 is a real
problem! According to this passage, Gentiles are clearly receiving ETERNAL LIFE because of their works! There is only one way to resolve the “contradiction”: admit that Gentiles will be saved during the Tribulation by a combination of their faith (Hebrews 11:6) plus
their works of righteousness! The passage makes that clear:
Matthew 25:34-46 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: ...ye
gave me meat ...ye gave me drink ...ye took me in...ye clothed me ...ye visited me ...ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous
answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred...thirsty ...a stranger ...naked ...sick ...in prison? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren
[the Jews], ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:...
ye gave me no meat ...ye gave me no drink ...ye took me not in ...ye clothed me not ...ye
visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred
...athirst ...a stranger ...naked ...sick ...in prison? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I
say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And
these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
In this passage, men receive everlasting life or everlasting punishment due in part to the lack
of or presence of works of righteousness. We can therefore safely assume that during the Old
Testament - when the Kingdom of God was absent from the earth - faith plus works of righteousness were necessary to have eternal life. Also, during the coming Tribulation - when the Kingdom of God will be absent from the earth - faith plus works of righteousness will be necessary once again to gain eternal life.
4. But didn’t Jesus say that only
faith was needed to have eternal life? Yes, that is true!
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth
on me hath everlasting life.
John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth
on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 11:25-26 I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.
The fact that there seems to be “conflicting” statements in the gospels is no problem whatsoever when you remember that two
kingdoms were being offered to Israel simultaneously during the Lord’s earthly ministry. We should expect that the Lord, who is King of both Kingdoms would give instructions concerning both
kingdoms. Likewise, when the two kingdoms are offered to men in the tribulation, the instructions will be that men must believe
(Heb. 4:1-3) as well as “endure to the end” to be saved! (Mat. 24:13)

fred said...

5. What about the “salvation” of Abraham and David? In Romans 4:1-8, Paul uses Abraham and David as examples of the
righteousness (Abraham) and
forgiveness (David) that we have now received by grace.“
For what saith the scripture?
[Genesis 15:6] Abraham believed God, and it was counted
unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not,
but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, [in Psalm 32:1] Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” David, in Psalm 32:1 is responding to the Lord’s mercy after his sin with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. (1Samuel 12:13) Were Abraham and David - as far as the righteousness and forgiveness that they received - typical of
all Old Testament saints – or, were they exceptions? Did anyone else in the Old Testament receive the blessings they received? Did anyone else in the Old Testament receive righteousness the way Abraham appears to have received it in Genesis 15:6? Did anyone else receive forgiveness the way David did in 2Samuel 12:13? If they were exceptions, it would not be the first time God made an exception in the life of some Old Testament person! Enoch was “translated” (caught up to heaven)
because his faith produced a walk with God that pleased the Lord. Was every faithful believer in the Old Testament blessed in the same way? Noah’s faith was equally pleasing to the Lord, yet Noah was not translated! Was there
any other Old Testament saint “translated” like that? No,
Enoch was an exception. Elijah
was caught up in a fiery chariot to heaven and did not see death! There were many obedient prophets in Israel, but was there any
other Old Testament prophet caught up the same way? No,
Elijah was an exception. Jonah
went to hell (Jonah 2:2) as a disobedient prophet who defied God and ran away. But, because God chose to use him as a sign to Israel (Matt. 12:39; 16:4), He brought Jonah up from the dead after three days and three nights! Was there any
other Old Testament sinner
given such a second chance? No,
Jonah was an exception. Let’s take a closer look at Abraham. Based on one Old Testament verse (Genesis 15:6) we learn that he had righteousness imputed to him because of his FAITH. “And he
believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” However, based on
another similarly worded Old Testament verse (Psalm 106:31) one could make an equally
strong case that in the Old Testament men had righteousness imputed to them because of
OBEDIENCE to the LAW. “ Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all
generations for evermore.” (Psalms 106:30-31; see also: Deut. 13:6-11; Num. 25:6-8). If we consider these two verses together (the ONLY TWO VERSES in the Old Testament that speak of God “counting” something for righteousness) it seems that
FAITH and OBEDIENCE were both necessary for eternal life
in the Old Testament!
Deuteronomy 6:25 indicates as much: “And it shall be our
righteousness, if we observe to do
all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.”

fred said...

The book of James adds this about Abraham: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and
by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled
which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:21-24) While Paul points to Abraham’s faith, James points to Abraham’s “works” in offering up his son, Isaac. That word “fulfilled” is important
because it connects Abraham’s
faith in Genesis 15 (believing God’s promise concerning his seed) to his obedience
in Genesis 22 (offering his son, Isaac). Isaac was the promised
seed! Abraham’s obedience in Genesis 22 proves and confirms that Abraham truly believed God’s promise. “By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: ...in thy seed shall all the
nations of the earth be blessed;
because thou hast obeyed my voice.” (Genesis 22:16-18) Paul separates Abraham’s faith from his obedience that Paul may apply
the scripture(Genesis 15:6) to our case (Romans 4:1-5)! James joins Abraham’s faith to his obedience that James may apply the incident The fruit of his
faith was his obedience. Only then
was Genesis 15:6 “fulfilled”! Therefore, an obedient faith was necessary for the scripture to be fulfilled and for Abraham to be truly justified!
b. Let’s take a closer look at David. He was forgiven for two “unpardonable” sins (murder and adultery) in 2Samuel 12:13. The law demanded David’s death for such sins. There was no sacrifice that he could bring to the Lord that would have given him forgiveness. And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David,
The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. However, it would be unscriptural to assume that ANY Old Testament saint could be forgiven in a similar way. The blood sacrifices and other expressions of obedience were always necessary. Not that those sacrifices could ever take away sins (Hebrews 10:4, 11) – but they were still
required if a nation or a person sought forgiveness from God. Otherwise, the offerings prescribed by the Law, even the Day of Atonement itself, were a waste of a time! (Andalmost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” - Hebrews 9:22) Yet David was forgiven without an animal sacrifice –
purely because of God’s grace
– as a “type” that foreshadows the forgiveness given to ALL the saints in the New Testament WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST! Therefore, the blessings given to
Abraham and David serve as “types” of spiritual truths and blessings that would not be fully
revealed or realized until the New Testament! Yet, most Bible teachers claim that in the Old Testament sinners were saved by “looking FORWARD to the cross” just as sinners are saved now by looking BACKWARD to the cross.

fred said...

That sounds nice, but no verse anywhere in the Bible says that men looked forward to the cross. Only God could “look forward” to the cross. “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” (Acts 15:18) But didn’t the prophets write about
the sufferings of Christ and about Israel’s rejection of her Messiah?” Oh yes, (Psalm 22;
Isaiah 53) but they more often
wrote of a victorious, glorious, conquering Messiah. The conflicting prophecies served to hide the truth of the cross from all but those whom the Spirit of God specifically enlightened. Even the prophets did not know what “the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” (1Peter 1:10-11) In other words, the prophets wrote down the things they were told by the Spirit but they didn’t know what the Spirit “did signify” by those things. As you saw earlier in this study, even the disciples, when told about “the sufferings of Christ” by Jesus Christ himself, did not understand what he was talking about!

I knew that the difference between church age salvation and that in other dispensations was not a one or two sentence answer. What preceeds this is six pages of explanation (with verses to back up the explanation). Feel free to get back to me with questions/comments about this subject. I will check back once a week or so to see if you respond to this.

St. Lee said...

This comment section has remained unanswered for far too long now. I took the time to research and show conclusively (at least IMHO) in a separate blog post that there is only one kingdom, sometimes called the kingdom of heaven and sometimes called the kingdom of God. But Fred has made a lot of claims here in this comment section that I cannot allow to stand, lest future readers stumble upon it and assume I agree with his thoughts. While the related question of the number of kingdoms was interesting and worthwhile pursuing, the claims that men are saved in a different manner at different times in history is much more important, if only from a standpoint of a right view of the LORD and of our sin.

Here is a quote from Fred: "For the purpose of this discussion, let us say from Exodus to the empty tomb, the Jews had only one way to God. Salvation for the Jews during that time was never individual, only national (In Luke 3:10, 12 Jews ask John the Baptist what should 'we' do. They knew how to approach unto the Lord. Similarly, in Acts 2 the Jews asked Peter what should 'we' do?)" end quote

This statement is on the face of it illogical, and thus easily refuted from scripture. The idea of any kind of "group salvation" has more in common with Obama mentor Jeremiah Wright's social justice religiosity than with biblical Christianity. I will ignore for a moment that is also conflicts with Fred's later statements about Jewish salvation during the Old Testament period. How exactly would it work if salvation was "national"?

Just as an example, Ahaz is described as an idolater in 2 Chronicles 28:2-3. Was he saved because he was part of the nation of Judah (the king in fact)? Or was his son Hezekiah unsaved because he was the next king of the same nation, despite the glowing report given of him in 2 Chronicles 29:2 ? Was every member of the nation of Judah saved from its inception or were they all unsaved, or did it depend on whether the majority of the people were good or evil during the time you happened to live? If so, what about Elijah? At one point he lamented that he was the only one left who followed the LORD in the whole nation, only to be corrected that God had reserved to himself 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Was Elijah unsaved (along with that small minority of 7000) due to the wickedness of the rest of Israel? The whole concept of national salvation is ridiculous even if we did not have Romans 9:6-8 to clarify scriptures which speak of "all Israel" in ways that could be misunderstood to support the position.

...more to come.

St. Lee said...

A few comments further on Fred says: "Be careful with the book of Hebrews (which, like Matthew and Acts are transitional books...things be a changing), which does indeed give the 'short version' of the law..." and "Hebrews 10:4 is a post crucifixion verse that any good jew is forbidden to ever read, so how would the jew know that the rules have changed. And while the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin, did not God compel them to do it anyway?

Here again we have more conjecture with no biblical support given. The term "transitional book" has little meaning without some sort of explanation of what the transition was from and to. The content of the book points strongly to the fact that it was written to Jewish Christians (the term Hebrew does mean Israelite in the context of the title of the scripture by that name). Were they not "good Jews" or did Fred mean "good Jews" in the sense of a Jew who rejected Christ and remained true to the religious system of the 1st century national Jewish leadership (prior to 70 AD). If the latter is the case, then I must ask; forbidden by who? Since the book was written to Hebrew Christians, just whose sacrifices are being spoken of in Hebrews 10:4 if not Israel's?

Fred goes on to say "And Galations 3:6 could never have applied to a jew before the cross, that was written by Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles." True enough it was written by Paul, but it was written ABOUT the father of the nation of Israel and he lived before the cross. Granting a "special case" status to anyone who doesn't fit a doctrine is hardly a strong argument, nor is the question, "How many others in the bible had that (called a 'friend' of God) attributed to them in print." I would answer the apostles(and I believe by extension, all Christians), who were also Jews living before the cross as found in John 15:14-15.

Fred also tells us to remember the "law of fourfold mention." Is that found in Exodus, Leviticus, or Dueteronomy, because I can't seem to recall where that law is, ...well ...mentioned. In fact it is a law I have never heard of, so I can only hope I have not been flagrantly breaking it. As it happens, Fred then goes on to use the same texts I was preparing a sermon on when I stumbled upon the truth of "one kingdom" (which was what this post was originally about - remember?). Needless to say, with Fred's dispensational view of salvation, he draws far different conclusions from the text than I do. In fact Fred's understanding of that event make it totally irrelevant to everyone after the cross and since the Gospels were written AFTER the cross, there is no compelling reason for the Holy Spirit to have included that particular incident in scripture. My understanding of the text, on the other hand, holds the story of the rich young ruler as a valuable tool for evangelism in our day.

St. Lee said...

Fred says this in his comment of Monday Dec 15: "To summarize these twelve verses: the requirement for entering the Kingdom of Heaven is superior moral character as evidenced by personal righteousness,
obedience, and humble repentance..."

Fred may as well say this "To summarize these twelve verses: the requirement for entering the Kingdom of Heaven were filthy rags. (Isaiah 64:6) BTW, "filthy rags" is a cleaned up translation - it could as well say "menstruous cloths."

I could go on to use the Bible to refute each claim which Fred makes that are contrary to scripture (they go on and on), but I do need to also spend some of my time making a living. I might summarize by saying that what I find most distasteful in this whole "dispensational salvation" teaching is that it requires a lower view of the holiness of God and lower view of the seriousness of sin. A thrice holy God could never be satisfied by the filthy rags of Old Testament Jew's own righteousness (nor ours!). A right view of the exceeding sinfulness of sin (Romans 7:13) understands that the ONLY sufficient payment (throughout history - before the cross and after) is the blood of Jesus Christ.

St. Lee said...

closing comment on these comments (unless I need to respond to further comments...)_
One may wonder why I take the time to defend against dispensational salvation, since obviously the way by which a person was saved before the cross of Christ would have little effect on anyone today. In some respects that may be true, but the ramifications may run deeper that it appears on the surface. The subject of "dispensationalism" can be complicated, and there are so many flavors of it that it nearly defies a firm definition. In some of its benign forms it is simply used as a marker for different periods of history. The type that is what I might describe as "radical dispensationalism" can be down right dangerous, and contrary to the claims, it does not "rightly divide the word of truth', but rather slices and dices it into something no longer resembling the word of truth. I have personally interacted with people who use this teaching in their defense of baptismal regeneration, a false teaching which is entirely relevant today. I have also heard this doctrine used to teach an "easy believism" which, contrary to scripture, declares that repentance is not required of the Christian - only belief. The crazy thing is that some of those who teach such things live in such a way as to suggest that they HAVE repented and put their faith in Jesus (and praise the LORD if they have!) However, a false doctrine which promises salvation to those who love their sin and wish to remain in them, is not really the Gospel, but a twisted counterfeit which offers false hope.