I was posed this question several years ago by a baptist individual who argued that they were the same thing. (I can't remember for the life of me the verses he used to prove the point). So far my studies of the subject have revealed the Kingdom of Heaven to be a physical thing (such as land, or a planet even) and the Kingdom of God to be a "spiritual" thing (such as being "born-again" into it). Any thoughts?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Kingdom of Heaven vs. Kingdom of God
- Thread starter Mlinar13b
- Start date
Greektim
Well-Known Member
They are the same thing:
They were used interchangeably between various Gospel accounts. I.e. one account records Jesus saying the K of God, Matthew recorded K of Heaven (maybe a Hebraism).
They were used interchangeably within Matthew 19:23-24
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
Lastly, you are doing a lot of theologizing and unduly dividing to read such into your bifurcation. Why can't God's reign be both a physical and spiritual thing??? Such a juxtaposition seems very consistent w/ the presentation of the already/not yet.
That's exactly right.
The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are the same place.
The emphasis of the phrase "the kingdom of God" is on God Himself while the focus of the kingdom of heaven is the subjects.
Granted the emphasis may be a subtle one.
My opinion of course.
HankD
The emphasis of the phrase "the kingdom of God" is on God Himself while the focus of the kingdom of heaven is the subjects.
Granted the emphasis may be a subtle one.
My opinion of course.
HankD
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Minor disputation or nuance:
The Kingdom of God/heaven is best understood as a rule rather than a realm. So the terms (however we translate whether "kingdom" or "reign" or "rulership") refer to the same thing more so than the same place.
Also, I think the emphasis of the kingdom of heaven being on the subjects lacks credibility. It is probably just another way to say the same thing (perhaps a Hebraism for Matthew). So there is probably nothing motivating the switch that causes the shift of focus from God to subjects. The emphasis is always God's rulership or the rulership which is from heaven, i.e. God.
My opinion of course
Minor disputation or nuance:
The Kingdom of God/heaven is best understood as a rule rather than a realm. So the terms (however we translate whether "kingdom" or "reign" or "rulership") refer to the same thing more so than the same place.
Also, I think the emphasis of the kingdom of heaven being on the subjects lacks credibility. It is probably just another way to say the same thing (perhaps a Hebraism for Matthew). So there is probably nothing motivating the switch that causes the shift of focus from God to subjects. The emphasis is always God's rulership or the rulership which is from heaven, i.e. God.
My opinion of course
As I said before - everyone is entitled to my opinion
HankD
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
In the past some dispensationalists have tried to make a distinction between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God but that is nonsense! Just compare the parables.
2 Tim. 2:15...my conclusion is a result of studying (strictly Bible study). Im trying to NOT use any outside influence since I always assumed the same, that they were the same thing.
It started out with me using Isa. 14:12-15. Before Lucifer's fall, he had a throne. He wanted to put his "throne" above God's throne and BE like the MOST HIGH. What throne did Lucifer have? We know he didn't have God's trhrone since Ezek. 28:12-17 says he was a covering cherub of God's throne. The idea in Isa 14 is kingship. Lucifer was a "king over something". Was it just his angels or was Lucifer's throne an actual material posession?
Without going into detail, what I've come across seems to be that the kingdoms BEGAN as seperate but together with God. God gave Lucifer the responsibilty of the Kingdom of Heaven and Lucifer wanted more. He fell. In comes Adam so God gives it to him. He falls. So it reverts back to Lucifer to give to "whomsoever he will". In comes Jesus and fixes the whole mess with his death, except the Jews reject him. Now, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven" can't come until Jesus comes back. Enter Kingdom of God. Jesus takes the Kingdom of Heaven throne with him in his ressuerection, but brings the Kingdom of God in which his "church" is.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The throne of Babylon fits perfect!, if only the "throne of babylon" existed before God "divided the waters from the waters". (And Babylon was a "piece of land" to boot). The throne of babylon is AFTER Adam WHICH LUCIFER CERTAINLY DID HAVE in the OT.
The latter half is a quick description so I will concede that part and name it mine own belief until the Holy Spirit shows me otherwise or I can prove with verses.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Alls I can say is, "Wow"
All though I believe them to be the same, remember God is in heaven yet David was said to be seated on the throne of God here upon the earth and it is said of Jesus that he would be given the throne of his father David.
However one has to ask, who is presently on the throne of the world (the inhabited earth)?
For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. Hebrews 2:5 does that verse imply that either this present world (the inhabited earth) or prior world (the inhabited earth) is/was subject to angels? This is the world the first man Adam was created into and it is contrasted to the world to come (I say the kingdom of God). Then the question is asked and answer given, "What is man?" Made a little lower than the angels. But this ends with the statement, "But now we see not yet all things put under him." All things were not put under the first man Adam for he was not fit to have all things put under him. What man do we see fit to be made heir of all things and will we be born again like that man?
Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. Mark 1:14
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
However one has to ask, who is presently on the throne of the world (the inhabited earth)?
For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. Hebrews 2:5 does that verse imply that either this present world (the inhabited earth) or prior world (the inhabited earth) is/was subject to angels? This is the world the first man Adam was created into and it is contrasted to the world to come (I say the kingdom of God). Then the question is asked and answer given, "What is man?" Made a little lower than the angels. But this ends with the statement, "But now we see not yet all things put under him." All things were not put under the first man Adam for he was not fit to have all things put under him. What man do we see fit to be made heir of all things and will we be born again like that man?
Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. Mark 1:14
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You pulled the above out of somewhere because you cannot find Scripture to support that. The Kingdom of Heaven is not mentioned in the Old Testament and only in the Gospel according to Matthew in the New Testament.
John the Baptist says in Matt. 3:2"Here comes the Kingdom of Heaven". In Luke 4:43 Jesus says "i have to preach the Kingdom of God to other cities also: (my own words)". If they were the same thing, why would Jesus need to preach ANY kingdom to them if the kingdom is already there?
If the kingdoms weren't there in the beginning, when were they created? My argument to the kingdoms being there in the OT is just a linear "timeline" that I quickly proposed assuming that they WERE different and that they existed before land appeared on the earth.
Also, the kingdom of God is mentioned so much more ESPECIALLY through the gospels and even on to Paul. The kingdom of Heaven is ONLY mentioned in Matthew in parables. Seems odd if they are just interchangeable coincidences.
If the kingdoms weren't there in the beginning, when were they created? My argument to the kingdoms being there in the OT is just a linear "timeline" that I quickly proposed assuming that they WERE different and that they existed before land appeared on the earth.
Also, the kingdom of God is mentioned so much more ESPECIALLY through the gospels and even on to Paul. The kingdom of Heaven is ONLY mentioned in Matthew in parables. Seems odd if they are just interchangeable coincidences.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I don't know what translation of the Bible you are using but you need a different one.
Matthew 3:1-3, KJV
1. In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
2. And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
3. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Matthew 3:1-3, NIV
1. In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea
2. and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
3. This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”
You need a Scriptural basis for your argument.
Just compare the parables among the Gospels and convince yourself.
Maybe you misunderstood my typing? Those were my OWN WORDS (as I typed) and not of those verbatim of any translation (although I'm using the AV 1611). Those were "from memory" or lack thereof...haha. Nonetheless, the linear "timeline" is something I'm working on. The parables I HAVE studied and compared (using the AV 1611); that's how I came to my KoG and KoH difference.
didn't the 1917 Scofield make a big deal of them being different, per His "classic Dispy" theology?
the ole "here in part, not yet in its fulness!"