Thanks for another collaboration with Sean. He seems like a great pastor; I have a lot of respect for him. I try to follow his sermons and episodes on Restitutio as often as I can. Sam, I tend to agree with your insight regarding the early church's view of marriage being more motivated by proleptic living.
Missed this ... came back to it. Kingdom theology is one of my central post-modern commitments. Also, Luke Thompson ... on confessionalism ... our congregation's confession is the Ten Commandments of Exodus as interpreted by Judaism. That is almost all the doctrine I can handle ;-)
This is a great interview. Thank you! I look forward to reading the book. I highly recommend, as a very important supplement, A2K's Gospel Good News class on their RU-vid channel. John Truitt goes into a lot of detail about the Kingdom of God, especially how the Greek word translated kingdom has a primary meaning of royal administration or rule or reign of a king. Kingdom is a secondary meaning for that word. Many verses make much more sense when we understand that they are talking about the rule of God and not only the physical kingdom of God. This has been very transformational for me. If you know everything there is know about God and about Jesus, but you don't have Jesus ruling over you, in a practical way through trust and obedience, you literally have nothing. Without God ruling over you, you cannot produce fruit or learn from Jesus, or grow in a any meaningful way. Under God's and Jesus's rule there is true freedom, true blessings, true glory, etc etc etc. God bless y'all :)!
Billy Graham said that one half of the Gospel is the death of Jesus, and the other half is his resurrection. Similarly, Tim Keller writes in Shaped by the Gospel, “The gospel is news about what has been done by Jesus Christ to put right our relationship with God” (p. 29). “The Christian gospel says that we are saved - changed forever - not by what we do, and not even by what Jesus says to people he meets, but by what he has done for us…his birth, his sufferings…his death on the cross, and his resurrection and ascension” (Timothy Keller, Encounters with Jesus, 2013, p. xxi). But this definition of the Gospel omits the basis of the Gospel Message. Jesus announced the Kingdom of God as the heart of the Gospel long before he said a word about his death and resurrection. Luke reports that the disciples went out proclaiming the Gospel even before they had any knowledge about the death and resurrection of Jesus (Luke 9:1-2; 18:31-34). It follows logically therefore that there is more to the Gospel than the death and resurrection of the Messiah - essential, of course, as these things also are. We don’t sound like Jesus. Our words are not the words of Jesus. We don’t speak of the Gospel of the Kingdom as Jesus and the New Testament Apostles always do.
You said..."We don’t sound like Jesus. Our words are not the words of Jesus. We don’t speak of the Gospel of the Kingdom as Jesus and the New Testament Apostles always do." Perhaps because as a Jewish Messiah leading his people, Israel, to the kingdom they are promised in their scripture, that Jesus is speaking of a kingdom "in their world," but they ultimately reject this. Where we are "not of this world" (and in saying that I do not mean off to heaven to live, the term "world" being that of Heb1:2 which is "age" as in Strongs G165) so we are "not of this age" as christians. In pointing this out I am leading you to where I know you dont want to go. That of the "mystery" hid in God (Eph3) that we are "neither Jew nor Gentile" and that Jesus is "first fruits" the "first raised from the dead, first of many brethren raised to glory" in that we christians are as some say a kind of "parenthesis" (special group) that will not live normal human lives in the age to come, kingdom, but will be called to be with and rule with Jesus OVER the WHOLE BALL OF WAX with Jesus. Glorified as he currently is. A cool new Zoot Suit. "It will be a Zoot suit riot." (sorry, couldnt resist that) Therefore Sams question of sex in kingdom is conditional. If a normal human after christ returns, in the kingdom, then just as their talk about technology and plugh shares etc is about normal human life, so will reproduction be. But those who are "changed in the twinkle of an eye" will be as Jesus is now, elohim son of God, in a special glorified body, the replacement in the divine council, of the angelic first family elohim rebels, who have been toasted. This time though, like Jesus, we will be "so much higher than angels" as Jesus is now. THESE will be the ones who as quoted "will be like angels, neither marrying or reproducing" I think at a very organic level, the pleasure of sex, will be amply compensated in the glorified state. And so all this means that Paul (and the other apostles slightly less) along with what we should be preaching as gospel, good news, is going to be slightly different to what Jesus said to Israelites in the synoptics. Because we are not showing Israelites a coming kingdom IN THEIR AGE (world). We are preaching the coming age with Jesus as the anointed one ruling from Jerusalem, (achanged outcome due to their rejection) and us, the body, neither Jew nor Gentile {all about the Babel scene} but ONE NEW MAN type) administering the world, restoring stuff, WITH HIM, from HIS AUTHORITY and skill set. This is what I have never understood about focus on the kingdom, how they see only the kingdom, and not the "secret (musterion) hid in God, that had the satan known, they would not have killed Jesus." (the promotion of humans above angels, in authority, in the restored divine council) those bene elohim tried so hard to rub out humans, which is the sin of the rebel "bene elohim." Portrayed all over the OT, which the whole bible is the "gospel" about. Gods plan of restoration, the word of God, from the beginning (Gen3:15).
39:46 this such an important connection between the idea of the kingdom of God and the theology of the body and the Victorian purity code that twisted it
After pondering this issue overnight, I am thinking of other scriptures that point to an otherworldly heaven/kingdom. As when Jesus says “my kingdom is not of this world “, also when Isaiah & Moses appear at the transfiguration (where did they come from) and when Jesus proclaimed on the cross to the thief “today you will be with me in Paradise.” Jesus taught the kingdom is here now, within. So maybe the kingdom is here now, will be a resurrected kingdom here on earth in the future and also a resurrected heavenly kingdom at some other future age.
Very good questions. I wish I could do them justice but I think basically when Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world, he mostly means that is authority, source, and manner of behaving are not of this world. Not that it isn't coming to this world. First, "proleptically" in the transformed hearts and minds of believers, secondly and fully at the return of Christ.
When I think about the coming Kingdom, it makes me so happy. It is almost too good to be true or to imagine. I love the Earth, so it makes me so happy that it will be our eternal home, but without sin and wickedness or harm, actually ruled by Christ. I know we will be able to eat, work, garden, fellowship, and yes! FISH!
Sam-love the channel. Question, where would one look to find the spiritual practices of the early church? Looking for something like a practitioner's guide to the spiritual life? There is much written about the spiritual lives of many early-century Christians, but I am looking for something more geared to the actual outline of how to do the practices? If you know of any would love to learn more. For context, I practice and teach yoga / vipassana meditation for a living, and have engaged these practices to know God in a procedural, perspectival, and participatory way. So I am looking for anything that is adjacent to these practices in the early church.
This is a really good question, and honestly nothing immediately came to mind as being a very good full answer towards what I think you're looking for. A couple thoughts I did have, the Didache is very practical and from the first century. It's quite short, you can find free translations online and read it in about an hour. The second thought I had was to read the Life of St Anthony of The Desert by Athanasius. That is also very practical and "hands on" towards Christian asceticism in the early 4th century. I do think there was a lot of change and development between the earliest century of the church and St. Anthony but it is interesting nevertheless.
Sam, I have left a comment I want you to consider, on a comment from Focus on the Kingdom they posted a couple days ago. Something you, and Sean, and Focus on Kingdom all seem to never mention, refuse to address.
34:37 that wasn't heretical. How could you be excommunicated for something like that... Until here, I'm in complete agreement with Sean. This is really informative and helpful.
YHWH said be fruitful and multiply before the fall. The term “marrying and given in marriage” is an addage for “business as usual” when you see it used in Matthew 24:38 in a description of the end.
On sex in the kingdom. I have a couple of views on that. If the prophesy of Isaiah 65 concerning the new world of peace applies to the Kingdom we wait for to come to Earth with the second advent, then we're told in those passages that "people will not bear children for distress", which implies people having children, implying sexual relations. Now on Jesus word's on marriage and singleness, this might be contextual. When he said "not married or given in marriage" it might be in context to the Jewish culture of arranged marriages, since people didn't always choose who they married (the Sadducees were questioning Jesus specifically on the practice of a woman being passed on to a man's brother after he died), and the curse of the fall included women being dominated by men. So it's possible that Jesus speaks of some kind of "freedom" that the angels have, that humans won't be bound into the kinds of marriage arrangements we have now, but not necessarily meaning there will be no form of romantic relationships, since the Kingdom's aim is to restore Eden, what Adam and Eve had, and we see these notions in Isaiah as aforementioned also. When Jesus spoke on staying single he says it's for the reason that "marriage is difficult" in this life, not because people "need to be ready" for the "future kingdom way of life". He advocated putting spiritual things first, and especially in the situation the Jews faced with the coming fall of Jerusalem, as you'd have a family to take care of, and so he says "woe to women with babies that day" and says women without are blessed because it will be easier for them to manage. So, this notion that the Kingdom is anti sex or anti relationships, might not be all what it seems to be, and we might be misunderstanding the context. But it's certainly debatable. I do think the Greeks easily could have misunderstood this, and then being influenced (I theorise) by religious movements like Greco-Buddhism, Essenes, and Gnostiscm (maybe be directly connected to each other also) further promoted this kind of ascetic attitude to life.
What if the Kingdom of God is the psychological reorganization of your psyche such that your only desire is to continue serving the Lord in all respects until the end of time? (Except there is no end) It’s the parable of the workers in the vineyard- the true reward is not the payment. The true reward is a full days work in the Vineyard of the Lord.
The Father Yahweh didn't make a "mistake" the first time he created his earth and His original intentions as to the habitation for His man and woman... Its really plain as day that our everlasting -eternal destiny is a new Earth. The biggest problem with God's people is that they need to be just as much willing to unlearn as they are willing to learn. As to the "new light" that has and continues to be brought forth, I'm sure Sean that you know of John Schoenheits masterful work on this subject matter called "The Christian's HOPE... The Anchor of the Soul" if not then i would exsort you to check it out. So keep shedding light on this very important (all of God's Word is important) subject matter.
Is the Kingdom the moment where the prodigal son makes the conscious choice to get out of the pig pen and return to his Father’s house? Yes. Is the Kingdom the journey from the pig pen back to his father’s house? Yes. Is the Kingdom the embrace of his father, welcoming the son home? Yes. And let me be one of his hired servants.
Thx Sam :) One question..how does this equate with the kingdom being within you..ie: '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: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you' ?
I had the exact same thought. I have observed that a lot of Christians don't discuss this scripture (New Age and other religions love to discuss it) very much as it democratizes the kingdom and makes it in some sense present in the here and now and not just a future project of some sort.
I highly recommend, as a very important supplement, A2K's Gospel Good News class on their RU-vid channel. John Truitt goes into a lot of detail about the Kingdom of God, especially how the Greek word translated kingdom has a primary meaning of royal administration or rule or reign of a king. Kingdom is a secondary meaning for that word. Many verses make much more sense when we understand that they are talking about the rule of God and not only the physical kingdom of God. This has been very transformational for me. If you know everything there is know about God and about Jesus, but you don't have Jesus ruling over you, in a practical way through trust and obedience, you literally have nothing. Without God ruling obey you, you cannot produce fruit or learn from Jesus, or grow in a any meaningful way. Under God's and Jesus's rule there is true freedom, true blessings, true glory, etc etc etc. God bless y'all :)!
Very good point and question. I think that Jesus's kingdom starts with the transformed hearts and minds of believers and Jesus initiated this in his own life. It starts small and grows. But the final hope is a recreated heaven and earth with Jesus ruling over a perfectly and eternal kingdom
@@transfigured3673 thx for reply Sam:) ...And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the eternal gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people... Interestingly the greek word used for eternal is 'Aionion' ...from Aion, which is ofc what Jung called his book about Christ. 🤔
First, ask yourself if Jesus was really saying the kingdom was "within" his demonized opponents, the Pharisees (John 8:44). Jesus is saying that when the Kingdom comes, it will be all over, worldwide, and not just a local event. Hence, the better translation "in your midst" as opposed to “within you.” As a result, you will not have to “look here or look there” because the Kingdom will be all over. This is further explained by the following verses that describe the Kingdom as a future arrival of the Son of Man. • v. 22: “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it.” • v. 23: “People will say to you, ‘Look, there he is!’ or ‘Look, here he is!’ but do not go running off or follow them.” • v. 24: “For just as the lightning flashes from one side of the sky to the other, so will be the Son of Man in his day.” • v. 26: “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man." • v. 30: “It will be just the same on the day the Son of Man will be revealed.”
I like this point of view, but what do we do with Phil 1:23? “I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” This is the verse I hear repeated back whenever I push back on view of going to heaven when we die. And I don’t have a good response because it does seem like Paul is saying that not only is he going to see Jesus when he dies. But also that to him, dying, and presumably going to heaven, is preferable over living. Which seems extreme but I don’t see another way to read it.
Hey friend. Sean here. I handle this text and several others in the apendices of the Kingdom Journey book. Here's my take on Phil 1.23: The moment someone dies, he or she enters a dreamless “sleep” that lasts until the resurrection day comes. From the point of view of the dead, no time passes whatever. From Paul’s perspective, he would die and then, in his very next moment, he would be with Christ. It would make no difference to him if an hour or two thousand years had passed after he died; his next conscious moment would be the second coming of Christ. Resurrection happens when Jesus comes, not the moment of death, as Paul clearly explains in 1 Corinthians 15:23. But what about his statement that dying would be far better than continuing on in life? How is unconsciousness better than living? To answer this, we need remember Paul’s situation: he wrote in prison awaiting trial. In those days, incarceration was incredibly uncomfortable, especially for older people like Paul. We know he had some kind of “thorn in the flesh” that dogged him throughout his life (2 Cor 12:7). We also know that he was repeatedly beaten during his missionary journeys, likely leaving him with chronic pain. Add to that the stress and anxiety commensurate with planting churches in the face of relentless opposition both from within and without, and it is easy to see why he would have preferred the sleep of death to fighting another day. Perhaps Elijah can provide us a good comparison here. He had hidden from Ahab and Jezebel’s attempts to seize him for years. Finally, he had a showdown with four hundred prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. He came away the overwhelming victor, and still Jezebel wanted to kill him, now more than ever. He escaped to the wilderness where he summarized his heartbroken state with the words, “It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life, for I am no better than my fathers” (1 Kgs 19:4). Discouraged and ready to quit, Elijah would rather depart from his work and let God find someone else to do what needed to be done. However, God did not let Elijah off the hook; instead, he ministered to him and gave him more work to do. Similarly, Paul did not give up, but kept on fighting to stay alive and complete the work God had given him to do.
@restitutio8765 how would you interpret 2 Corinthians 5:8 in relation to this? "Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord." (ESV)
On the subject of sex and reproduction in the Reign of God I think Isaiah 60:21-22 gives the impression that those will exist. "And thy people [are] all of them righteous, To the age they possess the earth, A branch of My planting, A work of My hands, to be beautified. The little one doth become a chief, And the small one a mighty nation, I, Jehovah, in its own time do hasten it!" When taken in the context of the rest of the chapter it is clear this takes place after the New Jerusalem has come and the sun and moon have been replaced.
(in Queensland, Australia) Jesus reigning on this earth was integral part of my evangelical, fundamental and pentecostal eschatology in the 1960s. However, somehow it stopped being taught .. or got mangled up with "heaven". Actually, I put it down to avoiding any concept that 'sounded like' anything that JWs say at the door! Such was the aversion that the 'church' had for any of their congregation even engaging in conversation with JWs After all, they're a 'cult' because don't believe the Trinity - right? Also, we don't mention the word 'Jehovah 😱. Really? Yes, 7 years ago I was gossiped about as a JW just because I spoke against the Trinity! Never had any dealings with JWs in my life, never done any of their "studies", never been to their buildings ... but rejection of the Trinity "labelled" me - such ignorance!
1:06:55 Song of Songs was accepted into the Jewish canon in the 2nd century AD. One needs to consider whether or not the non-Christian Jewish community had the authority to make such a decision, as it was made post-Christ. Personally, I am not a fan of Song of Songs.
@@transfigured3673 Song of Songs, being a product of Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism), which is heavely influenced by Neo-platonism, was a tainting of the Old Testement Torah and a foreshadowing of the corruption that was to come to the New Covenant, Trinitarianism. That's my theory, at least. the Jewish are, after all, the canaries in the coal mine, as Jordan Peterson would say. (Sorry for the multiple posts. RU-vid filter issue.)
The Kingdom can also be on a new earth or in a new Universe. This should not be problematic for an all-powerfull GOD. For me the experience of death has to be different for a believer and a disbeliever just like ressurection has to be a different experience for a believer and a disbeliever. Let me know if you are in need of a muslim Hank.
I don't understand how any Trinitarian can listen to Unitarians like Sean (or you, Sam, pending your cosmology) and think that they're a non-Christian or heretic. Clearly, he loves the Lord and looks forward to his coming kingdom.
@@transfigured3673 @EmJay2022 There is no point for Sam to try to become an acceptable "Christian". I think he would lose himself in the process. I grew up in a church with over 6.5 million members in the U.S. who has tried, to their own detriment in my view, to get other Christian traditions to accept them. They have lost a lot of interesting uniqueness in the process.
Since NT Wright and his Surprised by Hope (which heavily focuses on the meaning of the kingdom of God) were my first foray into English speaking theological literature, I'm really looking forward to this.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 and that would then be a bad thing? Or someone not to look at because he is trinitarian? I know that Sam is Unitarian, but that wouldn't keep him off from appreciating insights into related topics from trinitarians...
41:00 I love this guy. Yup. 100% true. When you actually read the Bible and believe what it says, it becomes abundantly clear that Jesus was not the Messiah. Which is a much better explanation of why Jesus didn't say he was the Messiah than the idea he was scared.
I listened to it and I don't think Sean is saying that Jesus is not the Messiah! Of course he's the Messiah. Otherwise he would not have called Peter "blessed" for declaring him as such: "When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying "Who do men say that I, the son of man, am?" And they said: "Some say that you are John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets". He asked them: *But who do you say that I am* And Simon Peter answered and said: *You are the Christ, the Son of the living God* And Jesus answered and said unto him: *Blessed are you* Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:13-17) [For those who don't know, "Christ" is the Greek word for "Messiah" - a Hebrew word meaning "God's anointed one" in English]
I have always wondered what Jesus saying “ The meek shall inherit the earth “ really meant. Were the meek supposed to come back from heaven and live on the earth? Now it makes perfect sense. The Jews understanding of the kingdom was an earthly resurrection. Also explains why Paul taught Jesus as the “first fruits “ of the resurrection and the end of the age. Thanks Sean and Sam !
