Before we get into this issue, let's take a look at the specific item I was quoting. It was Ron Kangas and he said
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe
The first thing I would say is we need to re-affirm the priority - and that is, we are here seeking the Kingdom first. And first is Christ and the church.
|
Here we can see that the starting point is a reference to the Kingdom. No qualifier, even if valid. Just the kingdom. And you have defined (and I presume because Lee defined) the Kingdom of heaven as a present subset of the Kingdom of God.
But Ron does not present any qualifier to identify this as speaking about anything other than the Kingdom in its fullness, which is the Kingdom of God. And his wording places "Christ and the church" as being the equivalent of the Kingdom. There is a way of looking at it that would indicate that there is nothing without Christ, therefore He can be argued as being all. But, as has been pointed out in reference to a number of other "is just Christ" statements, those kind of views negate the reality of the actual thing that is grace, mercy, truth, or in this instance, the Kingdom. Saying that the Kingdom is just Christ places a veil over the whole that is the fullness of the Kingdom.
But then you respond with a discussion of a kingdom in two parts with two names. But to create the split, you point to Matt 5:3, footnote 4. I will not reprint it here, but there is nothing in the footnote that makes it so. Lee has simply said "[The]
Kingdom of the heavens is a term used exclusively by Matthew, indicating that the kingdom of the heavens differs from the kingdom of God." But he supplies no basis for making this claim that it "indicates" any such thing. Do you see in either paragraph of this footnote that there is a basis for such statement?
I know Lee argued for two kingdoms. But even his footnote provides nothing but a bare statement that it is so. It is this kind of hollow, meaningless talk that has caused me to lose respect for Lee. He did not take scriptural text and show how it means something that can be seen as being there. He too often has to apply some overarching metaphor or principle that is said to alter meaning from the obvious. And then there is this case. He didn't even bother to apply some principle or metaphor. He simply said that there is something there for which there is nothing supporting the statement. He doesn’t even pretend that there is. He just says that it is so. (This is where I typically refer to some Monty Python humor and say "and there was much rejoicing. Yea." I know that seems trite, but Lees whole footnote is trite. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for ever buying a completely baseless claim as this, and probably following its hearing with shouts of "Hallelujah" and a bunch of popcorn testimonies.)
But when I look at the terminology in Matthew, I see no basis for differentiation. In fact, a number of the references to "Kingdom of heaven" or "of the heavens" are stated in one or more of the other gospels as "Kingdom of God." There is little more convincing evidence that Matthew merely used a different terminology but meant the same thing. But more than that, even Matthew points to the commonality of the two terms in chapter 19, specifically in verses 23 and 24 where in discussing the ability of the rich to enter the kingdom, he uses both terms. Rather than presume that Jesus was making two independent statements about two different kingdoms, it should be clear that it is simply an identity and the kingdom of heaven is equal to the kingdom of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tasteslikegold
Where I think some of the confusion lies (And perhaps where some of our differences lie) is our understanding of “expression.” Something that is “expressed” in my opinion relates to an inward nature or inherent quality being outwardly experienced or viewed. So the church has an inward nature – that of Christ – which is experienced inwardly (spiritually) through prayer, through fellowship, etc. both individually and corporately, and which is expressed outwardly. Lee identifies these two aspects: The experience he calls “the reality” and the expression he calls “the appearance.” Therefore, the kingdom of the heavens can be identified as a “body of believers” which has Christ as their king. Why? Because they have the nature of the king (His life) and they have the headship of Christ – the king – as their authority. Paul identifies this kingdom as a “commonwealth” in the heavens in Phil. 3:20 and identifies its constituents as citizens in Eph. 2:19.
|
That is an aspect of expression. But the kind of expression that the LC seems to focus upon is the spirituality of the members as seen within the assembly and in their corporate existence. Surely this is part of the expression of the Kingdom of God. But when we really go "back to the beginning" we would find that the purpose of man was to be in the image of God and to subdue, care for, and replenish the earth. That charge, moved forward 5,000 years until today would be seen in the totality of the living of the people who were the "replenishment."
And when I consider the expression of the Kingdom of God being about the expression of the "body" which is mostly about meetings and communal living, it has the impact of calling the beauty of some cathedral as being the expression of the goodness that is within the members inside. But even if that is true, it is no match for the expression of what is inside spilling out into the complete lives of the individuals. It flows out into righteousness in all circumstances. You indicate in a later post that this is mainly or completely about things done for and to the believers. But if we only do for our own, we are no better than the heathen who take care of their own. What kind of testimony of the God who "loves the world" is that? It isn't. That is a God who loves those who love Him. That's how the pagans see their gods.
This topic does come up in the next post, so I will continue it there. But having said that, would you prefer to finish your overall response and then come back to this one topic so we can discuss it until we decide to move on, or should I respond down your posts again. My time to give to this has diminished lately. I sense that it is the same with you. But we do not need to be in a hurry. Eventually we should probably take the different points of contention and hash them out separately rather than continually going through them all then waiting for the other to catch up. But whether now is the time for that is your call.