- The word "repentance" by itself is meaningless. Something must be repented of.
- The gospel of the kingdom IS the kingdom at hand.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Paul never preached the gospel of the kingdom to anyone.
When Paul preached "the kingdom of God", he was preaching about a more abstract kingdom than the one related to the gospel of the kingdom.
He was preaching the same one. What did you have to repent of? Jesus told them to repent because the kingdom was at hand, or was nigh.
obv Israel needed to repent of their culture's and society's dominant view, that the kingdom was decidedly NOT at hand! Jesus said REPENT! for the kingdom IS AT HAND.
And then it came. And then there were the slower ones, who even in early Acts, are still asking about the Earthly kingdom of Israel. The kingdom came during their lifetimes, and they didn't even notice it. Which is exactly what Jesus said would happen, right? He said it "cometh not with observation:" which makes zero sense under ... certain, viewpoints.
Like it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for that verse to fit in ... to some, viewpoints.
In other viewpoints, there's no difficulty with that verse at all, that's pretty fair to say, no?
The gospel of the kingdom was about the restoration of the nation of Israel and their kingdom on the earth.
That's absolutely what many interpreted the gospel of the kingdom to singularly and exclusively mean, which is interesting because it's not what the Gentiles who heard Jesus thought it singularly and exclusively meant. They didn't think Jesus was singularly and exclusively preaching the kingdom of Israel, an Earthly power, they thought He was preaching about the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Heaven, and that they the Gentiles, too, even not being Israel, were going to get in this kingdom somehow, and free of charge at that. And certainly that's what every synoptic has Him in fact saying, verbatim; He doesn't say the kingdom of Israel is coming. Repent. The kingdom is nigh.
Matt 6:10 (AKJV/PCE)
(6:10) Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.
Exactly. "Thy kingdom", we are praying to "Our Father Who Art in Heaven." Not singularly, exclusively, nor even primarily, the kingdom of Israel, you are mixing up scriptures together in a blender. We are praying for the Second Coming, we are praying for Jesus's enemies to be made into His footstool.
After teaching the twelve (minus one until a little later) about the kingdom of God, they asked the obvious question:
Acts 1:6 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:6) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
They were not stupid.
There's nothing wrong with wondering when the rest of prophecy will occur. But it's not going to occur "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."
They understood exactly that Jesus was talking about.
In that kingdom:
Matt 19:28 (AKJV/PCE)
(19:28) And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luke 22:29-30 (AKJV/PCE)
(22:29) And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; (22:30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
It's very easy to understand for those that simply let the Bible speak for itself.
Right; so, the model or pattern is that Our Father's kingdom was nigh when Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom.
Not exclusively and singularly the kingdom of Israel. His Father's kingdom. They are not identified ever with one another, except maybe for in one place, in Kings or Chronicles or somewhere else in the narrative historical books of the Old Testament, I believe one place the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of God are identified.
So if the kingdom is the Father's kingdom and is the kingdom of Israel, then in order for Jesus to not be lying, there must be either some sort of pause, or in some way Jesus's kingdom of God did come.
And if it did come, and if still Israel has no kingdom, then in what way did it come, and what is the relationship between the coming of the kingdom of God, and the Earthly kingdom of Israel? which doesn't exist?
A. The kingdom of Israel doesn't exist. The government and regime currently in the historical land of Israel, formerly known as Canaan, and Philistia, and the polity there (a very high proportion of Jewish people live in Israel rn), are NOT the kingdom of Israel.
B. The kingdom of Israel must be substantively (objectively) a kingdom to count as a kingdom, iow not just a figurehead, such as the Herods, who were Romans and not part of Israel's polity.
C. "Constitutional" monarchies are monarchies in name only. That means the monarchs in constitutional monarchies are pageantry. Actors. Very well paid and famous and lucky actors.
D. A real monarchy has an autocratic monarch at the helm. If he's not absolutely powerful, then whether or not you disagree, you've got a constitutional monarchy and not a true, pure monarchy. See C.
E. The kingdom of Israel, to be the kingdom in prophecy, must be governed by Jesus Himself, on the Earth. This means after the Second Coming, then and only then, will the kingdom of Israel ever be a reality. Until then, what makes the most sense is to prepare His throne. That means, set up His office for Him, of autocratic monarch, and wait for Him to arrive, to occupy it. In the meantime ofc nobody gets to sit in His chair, that's reserved just for Him, when He arrives.
F. Israel doesn't have that chair, or throne, or seat, ready for Him. They have an autocratic government which is carved up, called separation of powers, so that the autocracy is frustrated deliberately. There's no throne there for Jesus. If He were to arrive today, He'd have nowhere to sit in all of Israel.
G. Except that there is a chair for Him in Israel. He'd sit in the bishop's seat in Jerusalem, worst case. He'd rule from there. It wouldn't be the first time that the Big Shot wasn't headquartered in the right place for a little while. In Acts 15 Peter wasn't even the pastor of the church in Jerusalem anymore! He had already been replaced. Substituted out. Someone got promoted ahead of him. So he later went on to pastor Antioch, and then Rome. And accept for a few decades, when Peter's seat was actually in France for a while, it's been in Rome.
H. So, obv, Peter's chair's on wheels. It can go wherever it needs to go, and it can definitely go right back to Jerusalem where it came from originally. From Peter's chair, Jesus would merely use His office to persuade us. Then we would operate our own current governments, appropriately. Without any more government coercion than we currently have. Probably a lot less.
Jesus preached the gospel of the coming kingdom, repent, change your mind. I know it doesn't look like the kingdom is at hand, but it is. So the way you understand the kingdom being at hand, is a little off. First must come the kingdom of God, and this is going to make Jesus's enemies into His footstool. Then Jesus will return to sit on His throne, and that throne is Peter's chair, and Peter's chair is Jesus's throne; Peter's just keeping it warm for Him, while He's away.
But Jesus's chair can't be occupied because it's an autocratic monarchy. Only He is fit to sit in this chair, properly speaking. So in the meantime, what are the bishops to do with this chair of Jesus, which they were given for safe keeping, so that Jesus would always have His chair ready for Him, so that He could return at any moment?
Jesus said He was going to give His Apostles His chair. Remember the keys of the kingdom, and the power to bind and loose, those are all the powers of an autocratic monarchy. Jesus made His own seat. That's the seat He's going to sit on.
It's also David's seat. Jesus is going to sit on David's throne. Where is David's throne? What happened to it? Well it was technically destroyed, when Judah was defeated. David's throne was LOST. Jesus brought it back from the dead, and gave it to His Apostles, for safe keeping, for Him, for when He returns, and He doesn't know when that will be, but He can tell us that it will be after "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." It was Jesus who gave Peter his vision of Cornelius and the sheet. Peter was one of the ones singularly and exclusively asking about the Earthly kingdom of Israel in Acts 1. Remember, Peter had just been given the throne of David, for safekeeping, until that Day, and he was already wondering if that Day had already come? He did not understand. He was unconcerned about the Gentiles, who constituted like 95% of all the people in the World. For Peter the End was near, and many of the Apostles, EVEN PAUL, seemed to think it would be imminent. They didn't understand how important it was for Jesus's enemies to be made into footstools, and how long that would take. That's why we pray, "Thy kingdom come", because it's a long process, "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."
