According to the tradition Constantine had a vision in which Jesus showed him the sign of the cross with the command “in this sign conquer”. How does this reconcile with Jesus’s command to love enemies? >> “But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you,” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭44‬ ‭NET‬‬ Or Jesus’s command that his kingdom isn’t one that will come through violence? >>>“Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.”” ‭‭John‬ ‭18‬:‭36‬ ‭NET‬‬ Could this be a different Jesus that appeared to Constantine? One that Paul warns about in his letter to the Corinthians >> “For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough!” ‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭4‬ ‭NET‬‬

There has historically been opposition by Fundamentalists to the "Social Gospel" presented by Liberal churches in the early 20th Century, and an emphasis placed on the "Gospel of Grace" by Conservative denominations in response. Since both the Old Testament and the New Testament spoke of "social activism", and both Testaments spoke of "Faith for pleasing God", are these two Gospels simply ***two sides of the same coin***? [Zechariah 7:9-10, James 1:27] Are they both two different facets of the grand Kingdom of God? Or are they mutually incompatible? One or the other being "a different Gospel" Paul warned about in Galatians 1? If compatible, how do they relate? [And by extension, how then can liberal and conservative churches relate?] Is the word "social" as referring to social reform in the Bible, to be only redefined in modern times, as synonymous with "secular"? Can there be a Christian social reform as well?

John 18:36 says, > "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." If the kingdom of Jesus is not of this world, and he did not request his disciples to fight for his sake, does bodily welfare have anything to do with the Kingdom of God?

In a recent interview (January 17, 2025), an oxford scholar and theologian, N.T. Wright, having written 90 books, concluded that the emphasis both in the O.T. and N.T. was NOT on getting people to Heaven, but rather, ***bringing Heaven to earth***! He alleged that there was too much emphasis in hymnals, as well as preaching, on leaving earth for their heavenly home. He did not deny the existence of Heaven nor deny it as our final destination. But noted that God wanted believers to ***seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness*** here in this life-time on earth. >He (Jesus) said to them, "When you pray, say, 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your Name;
***Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven***' " (Luke 11:2; Matthew 6:9-10) He recognized that the presentation of the Gospel transforms not only a person, but societies, and even nations. And that this is what is primary in the intention of God. There is no advocacy of extreme Post-millennialism here; just a need for the awareness of God's purpose for leaving the Church on earth, among the nations. Is this a proper interpretation of the New Testament Gospel message, according to Protestant (and/or Catholic) creeds? And is this a proper interpretation of the phrase in the Lord's Prayer, *on earth as it is in heaven*?

From my studies, Scripture seems to make a very clear difference between the requirements of receiving the gift of salvation (by faith alone) and the requirements to enter the kingdom of God. **A. Biblically the only condition or requirement for salvation is FAITH.** 150x total in the New Testament we see that faith is the only requirement to be saved, justified, and have eternal life. (Examples: Acts 16:30-31; John 3:16, 36, 6:47, 5:24, Romans 10:9-10...) **B. Yet when you look at the requirements for entering the Kingdom of God / Kingdom of Heaven (one and the same) we have a list a various requirements such as:** 1. Born again (John 3:3-5) 2. Do the will of God (Matthew 7:21-23) 3. Be a disciple, follower of Jesus (Luke 9:57-62) 4. Live righteous, free from sin (Mark 9:43-47; Matt 18:6-9, 5:20, 21:31-32; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Eph 5:5; Gal 5:19-21) 5. Be like a child (Matt 18:3-4, 19:14; Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17) 6. Enter the narrow way (Luke 13:23-30; Matthew 7:13-14, 21) 7. Go through hardships & persecution (Mark 10:24; Acts 14:22; Matt 5:10, 20:20-21; 2 Thess 1:5; John 15:20) 8. Produce fruit (Matthew 21:43) 9. Be poor in spirit (Matthew 5:3) 10. Love God and people (James 2:5; Matthew 25:34-39) 11. Not with our physical bodies (1 Corinthians 15:50) When I researched this idea to find others who see and make this distinction, I did not find very many. Instead most think that salvation and entering the kingdom of God the same thing. The person who makes the distinction the clearest that I found is **Watchman Nee** in his work about "The Difference between the Kingdom of the Heavens and Eternal Life." I also see a correlation in Scripture between the list of requirements for being a disciple and to the list for entering the Kingdom of God. Salvation is by faith and is an entry point and then the invitation Jesus makes is to discipleship, which is about Lordship, and about entering the kingdom of God. There has been an ongoing debate about the distinction between salvation and Lordship known as “**Lordship Salvation**” vs “**Free Grace Theology**.” In short Lordship Salvation says that Jesus must be Lord to be Savior. Free Grace Theology says that Jesus can be your Savior without being your Lord, and that Lordship is a journey that starts after salvation. John MacArthur in his book *The Gospel According to Jesus * lays out the case for lordship salvation. Dr. Charles C. Bing in his book *Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response * and *Grace, Salvation, and Discipleship: How to Understand Some Difficult Bible Passages * lays out a case for distinguishing salvation and Lordship/discipleship. This debate was started earlier in 1959 in **Eternity Magazine** between “Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?" - a debate between John R. Stott and Everett F. Harrison But I don't see a lot of people making the distinction between salvation and the kingdom of God. **Can anyone help me with this or speak into this?** I'd love to find any and all books, articles, or resources that talk about this distinction and I would love your comments and answers on this topic. I am writing a book on this topic and am looking for a list of resources that mention the idea. Thank you!

When reading this *GotQuestion* [article on "already but not yet"](https://www.gotquestions.org/already-not-yet.html) paradigm that I often hear in evangelical sermons, I was surprised that the article author emphasized its popularity with charismatics groups. I thought this paradigm has been adopted a lot more widely, especially among non-charismatic evangelical groups as well. Which led me to ask this question: **which non-charismatic theologies / denominations *also* adopt this paradigm**? On the surface I thought this is a straightforward reading of NT verses about the arrival of the Kingdom of God that even Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would also adopt. - The *GotQuestion* article as well as the *Wikipedia* article on a closely related concept [inaugurated eschatology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaugurated_eschatology) says that the 2 aspects "already" and "not yet" to the Kingdom of God was first proposed by [Geerhardus Vos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geerhardus_Vos) who is *non*-charismatic **Reformed**. - I also frequently hear an equivalent analogy in terms of "D-Day" (already) vs. "V-Day" (not yet), that the same *Wikipedia* article attributes to [Oscar Cullmann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Cullmann) who is **Lutheran**. - Then there is also the famous quote of [God landing in this enemy-occupied world in disguise](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/437442-why-is-god-landing-in-this-enemy-occupied-world-in-disguise) from *Mere Christianity* that I often hear pastors use in association with the Kingdom of God, a book authored by C.S. Lewis who was definitely a non-charismatic **Anglican** but who wrote for all denominations. The following quote from the *Wikipedia* article on the [Kingdom of God (Christianity)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_God_(Christianity)) indicates that not all theologies subscribe to inaugurated eschatology: > The term "kingdom of God" has been used to mean Christian lifestyle, a method of world evangelization, the rediscovery of charismatic gifts and many other things. **Others relate it not to our present or future earthly situation but to the world to come.** The interpretation of the phrase is often based on the theological leanings of the scholar-interpreter. A number of theological interpretations of the term the Kingdom of God have thus appeared in its eschatological context, e.g., apocalyptic, realized or Inaugurated eschatologies, yet no consensus has emerged among scholars. I would like the answer to **supply references to as many theologies / denominations as possible, that explicitly adopt** either the "already but not yet" or the "inaugurated eschatology" paradigm to their understanding of the Kingdom of God.

We often say or sing that Jesus is currently enthroned in heaven or seated on His throne in heaven. However, does Jesus instead teach that He won't sit on His throne before the Second Coming (Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Luke 1:32)? Furthermore, don't the Scriptures teach that at present, rather than being on the throne, Jesus is "seated at **the right hand of the throne** of the Majesty in the heavens" (Heb. 8:1, NKJV, emphasis mine; cf. 12:2)? It seems as if He isn't seated on the throne even now but is rather seated *next to* the throne. Am I missing something? It does seem familiar to me that a verse exists describing Jesus as presently on a throne, but I can't recall where in the Bible, if anywhere, such is said. Do the Scriptures teach that Jesus is on His throne now, or is that only a future event? **Note:** I am not looking for "Jesus is outside time anyway" answers, as this type of response distracts from the real issue. Regardless of whether Jesus may perform some acts outside of time, there are clearly events He's done within time, such as coming to the earth. Likewise, Christ's being seated at God's right hand also appears to be an event in time, for example, taking place after His ascension.

We see in Mtt 25:1-13 Jesus presenting the Parable of Ten Virgins. Of the ten, five are wise , anticipate delay in arrival of the groom, and stock enough oil to last through the ceremony. Five are foolish and are not prepared for unanticipated events. The ratio of wise and foolish virgins is one to one. Elsewhere, Jesus says that a few out of the many invited, are chosen for the reward of eternal life ( Mtt 22:14). My question is : According to Catholic scholars, does the ratio of wise virgins to foolish ones have any significance ?

While on this earth Jesus lived a sinless life. If you belive on him his perfect righteousness is imputed unto you as if you lived a sinless life. God is a perfectionist. If you have commited even one sin in your entire life, he won't allow you to enter his kingdom. If you have commited even only one sin in your life you will need to believe on Jesus so that his perfect righteousness is imputed unto you and then you can enter the kingdom of God. Is that right?

In 1 Samuel chapter 8 we see an aged Samuel giving his sons authority to judge Israel. His sons did not act with integrity and the leaders of Israel come asking Samuel to set a king over them like the nations surrounding them. Samuel is distressed over this request and prays to the Lord, who replies: > Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. - 1 Samuel 8:7b We see, then, a clear demonstration that the presiding over Israel of a human king is a tacit rejection of God as King. That is to say that God's intention, His highest ideal for Israel is as a theocracy rather than a monarchy: God as King speaking through his prophets. *Note: Even the implementation of the prophetic office was a condescension to the fearful request of the people (Exodus 20:19).* The monarchy, even under God's anointed king, David, is a graceful condescension (and not without consequence) to a wayward and idolatrous people: > According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. - v. 8-9 We know that Jesus Christ is given to sit on the throne of his father David and reign as King forever: > 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: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. - Luke 1:32-33 We also know that Jesus' kingdom is not a worldly kingdom: > My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. - John 18:36 Since Jesus' kingdom is not of this world and the throne of that kingdom is David's throne it stands to reason that David's kingdom was not ultimately of this world either. It was, to use the language of John 17:14-16, in this world but not of this world. Looking back to 1 Samuel we see that it is God's kingdom and God's place on the throne thereof that was rejected. Therefore, since God's kingdom and throne are everlasting, we may say that all human kings (good or bad) sitting on that throne reigned as proxies because God, Himself, was rejected as king. For those who believe that Jesus is less than or other than God (whether merely human or a lesser created being), how does a non-God Jesus sitting as King correct the rejection of God as King that began in Samuel's day and continues even now? In other words, if a proxy King is indicative of the problem of God's being rejected, how is that problem solved by yet another proxy King?

The Book [Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth](https://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Reza-Aslan-audiobook/dp/B00DYMLQEU/) by Reza Aslan argues that Jesus was actually a Zealot, a Jewish revolutionary attempting to challenge Roman rule. Christians will overwhelmingly reject this hypothesis, but I think the book may help us in some ways to understand the human side of Jesus and is very well argued. I would like to see answers about what readers learned from the book. Those who only saw reviews and excerpts are welcome to answer too, but please provide evidence, not just opinions. Aslan sees Jesus as attempting to fulfill the Zealots' hope for the Jewish messiah, who would re-establish his people's independence from Rome and become the literal king of the Jews. In other words, Jesus actually attempted to do what the Roman government executed him for. Writes [Gary Manning Jr. of the Talbot School of Theology](https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2013/a-response-to-zealot-by-reza-aslan) : > [Aslan claims that] ...like other messianic figures of his day [Jesus] > called for the violent expulsion of Rome from Israel. Driven by > religious zeal, Jesus believed that God would empower him to become > the king of Israel and overturn the hierarchical social order. Jesus > believed that God would honor the zeal of his lightly armed disciples > and give them victory. Instead, Jesus was crucified as a > revolutionary. Early Christians changed the story of Jesus to make him > into a peaceful shepherd. They did this for two reasons: because > Jesus’ actual prediction had failed, and because the Roman destruction > of rebellious Jerusalem in AD 70 made Jesus’ real teachings both > dangerous and unpopular. Paul radically changed the identity of Jesus > from human rebel to divine Son of God, against the wishes of other > leaders like Peter and James. This summary is basically accurate. However, I found important food for thought in the book: - Why does the angel tell Mary the "Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end. - Why does Zechariah prophesy of that: "[God] has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us... (Luke 1) - Why did Jesus begin his ministry in Nazareth by quoting Isaiah to the effect he had been sent to "set at liberty those who are oppressed"? (Luke 40) - Why did he say "I came not for peace but the sword?" (Matthew 10:34) - What was Simon the Zealot doing with Jesus if he was still a Zealot? - Why did Jesus use violence against the moneychangers at the same time that there was an insurrection going on led by Barabbas - Was it just a coincidence that Jesus was imprisoned with these revolutionaries? - Why did he tell his disciples to bring swords to the Garden of Gethsemane? (Luke 22:38) I found myself thinking deeply about the human side of Jesus while reading this book. Particularly, it gave me a possible insight into Jesus' agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross. Did part of him pray so desperately that God would "let this cup pass" because he hoped to fulfill the prophecies of a Davidic messiah who would literally restore David's throne? Did Jesus tell his disciples to brig swords to the Garden to protect him from those who would come to arrest him? Did the disciples commit a providential error when they fell asleep? When he cried out "why have you forsaken me?" was he still, even at that moment, hoping that God would rescue him so that he could fight on? Personally I do not think that Jesus was a Zealot, but I do think that he might have had hopes to be the Jewish messiah in some sense. Those hopes, of course, could not be fulfilled if Jesus were to realize God's will that he act as the Suffering Servant. But they might have figured into to the human aspirations he had to leave behind at Gethsemane, and even on the Cross. **What other questions does Aslan's book raise for us, and what insights can we gain from reading his book, whether we agree with it or not?**

>**1 Corinthians 15:22-25** (ESV) For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when **he delivers the kingdom to God the Father** after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. I assume this refers to when Christ destroyed death, the last enemy, which is in the past. So do Preterists say that after A.D. 70 "the end" came and Jesus ceased to reign so that God might be all in all?

**Q: According to Reformed Theologians, *when* did the Kingdom of God arrive? Pentecost? Jesus’ incarnation? Or the end of the age?** There is a translation debate about the verse saying “the kingdom of God is among/in you” so maybe that’s helpful to the debate?? NKJV: > Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would > come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come > with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ **For > indeed,** **the kingdom of God is within you**.” Luke 17:20-21 NASB1995: > Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of > God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not > coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it > is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ **For behold, the kingdom of God is in your > midst**.” Luke 17:20-21 But how do we compare Luke 17:20-21 with **Mark 1:15**? So the kingdom of God/Heaven is at hand, but it’s also in the Pharisee’s midst? We also read: > “Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching > the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, > and ***the kingdom of God is at hand***. Repent, and believe in the > gospel.”” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭1:14-15‬ ‭ (Post edited)

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 states that Jesus will reign only until all enemies have been placed under His feet, at which point He will hand everything to the Father and subject Himself to Him. > then comes the end, **when He hands over the kingdom to our God and Father**, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For **He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet**. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then **the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him**, so that God may be all in all. However, Daniel 7:13-14, Luke 1:33, and Ephesians 1:21 all assert that Jesus will be in dominion over His Kingdom forever. >Daniel 7:13-14 “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; **his dominion is an everlasting dominion**, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. >Luke 1:32-33 will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, 33 and **He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will never end!**” >Ephesians 1:20-21 which He exerted in **Christ** when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 **far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in the present age *but also in the one to come***. Is there any way to resolve this apparent contradiction?

> And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” (NIV) Jesus was in the presence of his followers when he made the statement in Mark 9:1 that there would be some alive to see the kingdom of God come. When I listen to the radio or watch TV the message I hear quite often is that Jesus will come and establish a kingdom and reign for 1,000 years. If someone could explain this contradiction I would appreciate it. I would prefer if when someone gives an answer that it be a biblical answer and not something based on a opinion. (people with a pre-millennium view)

When Jesus was speaking about the imminence of God's kingdom he meant God's kingdom on Earth, not in heaven. Jesus urged his followers to repent and change their ways because God was coming to Earth to judge people and establish his kingdom. Jesus said that, upon coming, God would raise from the dead those on God's side and to annihilate wicked ones. So Jesus was clearly speaking about God's earthly kingdom. Since no people were ever raised from the dead it is logical to conclude that Jesus's prophesy was inaccurate.

What is an overview of doctrinal statements made by Christian theologians regarding Jesus' statements in Luke 18: > **Luke 18:29-30 ESV** And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.” I'm especially interested to know how one can leave his wife *for* the Kingdom of God when Paul tells us to love our wives the way Christ loved the church. > **Ephesians 5:25-28 ESV** Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Jesus made it clear at his ascension that he would never leave his church. > **Matthew 28:20b ESV** ...And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

In a conversation with a United States veteran, I was intrigued when his response to Luke 4:5, 6 was that the United States is not included among the "kingdoms of the inhabited earth" because the USA is of the Kingdom of God. Therefore, the Devil has no authority over the United States. Is this consistent with Lutheran theology? What do Lutherans believe is the Kingdom of God, and what effect does the Kingdom of God have on today's governments?

I did a search and saw that the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" appears exclusively in the Gospel according to Matthew. However, the phrase "Kingdom of God" appears a few times in Matthew, but is also quite prevalent in Mark and Luke. It also appears twice in John 3, several times in Acts and Paul's letters. Clarence Larkin has a diagram that seems to distinguish between the two kingdoms somehow as well: What, then, is the difference or distinction between these two kingdoms?

Yes, I have faith in God and I would really like to go to heaven after I die, not hell, no way! I trust in God and would like to see my family and friends in heaven after they die, only if they make it there. I would never, ever want to go to hell!