Why didn't John's Jesus preach the Kingdom?

[Elijah John]

Why didn't John's Jesus preach the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven? Or if he did, he certainly didn't seem to emphasize the Kingdom, by name anyway.

This in contrast to the the Synoptic Jesus.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 10 by ttruscott]

That was not my point. My point was, when we know men with an agenda have added to and taken from scripture, we should be skeptical. I know, if God inspired and controlled it all, how could we doubt? Here is what I say, those that rightly divide the word of God will know the word of God. Seek ye first the kingdom and all these things will be added. Its right there in the word. We just have to examine and think.

[shnarkle]

Why didn't John's Jesus preach the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven? Or if he did, he certainly didn't seem to emphasize the Kingdom, by name anyway.

This in contrast to the the Synoptic Jesus.

John's gospel is portraying the kingdom as being manifest in, with, and through Christ. There's no need to pray the so-called "Our Father" because "thy kingdom come" is redundant to John's perspective. For John the kingdom has arrived.

[Elijah John]

Why didn't John's Jesus preach the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven? Or if he did, he certainly didn't seem to emphasize the Kingdom, by name anyway.

This in contrast to the the Synoptic Jesus.

John's gospel is portraying the kingdom as being manifest in, with, and through Christ. There's no need to pray the so-called "Our Father" because "thy kingdom come" is redundant to John's perspective. For John the kingdom has arrived.

So, Jesus was wrong in teaching the Lord's prayer in the first place? Remember, the events purported in John's Gospel are pretty much contemporaneous to those of the Synoptics. It's not as though John picks up the story and adds to lessons already covered.

Isn't this more evidence that John is the least reliable most theologically tinged Gospel, that he is out of step and marches to his own different drummer?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]

Elijah John wrote:

Why didn't John's Jesus preach the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven? Or if he did, he certainly didn't seem to emphasize the Kingdom, by name anyway.

This in contrast to the the Synoptic Jesus.

John's gospel is portraying the kingdom as being manifest in, with, and through Christ. There's no need to pray the so-called "Our Father" because "thy kingdom come" is redundant to John's perspective. For John the kingdom has arrived.

So, Jesus was wrong in teaching the Lord's prayer in the first place?

No, not everyone gets it. Some are still under the old covenant. They must work out their salvation with fear and trembling. They must try to do the right thing rather than being born again. The Lord's prayer is only applicable to those who have yet to receive the kingdom. Christ himself points out that people right then and there were making their way into the kingdom right in front of the Pharisees who Jesus says are not only not entering, but blocking entrance to those who are ready to receive it.

Remember, the events purported in John's Gospel are pretty much contemporaneous to those of the Synoptics. It's not as though John picks up the story and adds to lessons already covered.

Exactly! Only those who learn the lessons enter into the kingdom. The blind see, but not all who are blind receive their sight.

Isn't this more evidence that John is the least reliable most theologically tinged Gospel, that he is out of step and marches to his own different drummer?

It isn't that he's the least reliable, but he's definitly marching to a different drummer. Those who still rely upon a legal system to exercise justice are definitely not the same as those who have discovered the kingdom. This is right in line with Paul's teaching when he points out that those who "walk after the Spirit do not fulfill the lust of the flesh". The "new creation" doesn't sin. It wasn't created with that ability. Therefore the sacrificial system that was instituted to deal with transgressions has become redundant to them. They've already paid their dues, but the payment is always and only made by Christ because all of these separate identities are false, fake, useless, etc.

[onewithhim]

Why didn't John's Jesus preach the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven? Or if he did, he certainly didn't seem to emphasize the Kingdom, by name anyway.

This in contrast to the the Synoptic Jesus.

He taught his disciples well. Matthew and Mark emphasized the Kingdom, and so did Luke though he didn't know Jesus personally. I imagine John didn't think he had to further talk up the Kingdom at that stage of his life, since the synoptics had covered it well. His assumption, perhaps, was that it was well known, and that when the people read John 3:3&5 and John 18:36 they would know what Jesus was talking about, that is, that to tell about the Kingdom was why he was sent by God.

"He said to them: 'Also to other cities I must declare the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this I was sent forth.'" (Luke 4:43)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Elijah John]

The most common explanation Christians have given, going back at least to the 4th century, is that the synoptic Gospels had been written and were already in circulation by the time John wrote his Gospel. He and his first readers knew what was in one or more of the synoptics and John wanted to expand on that instead of repeating it.

John beings where the synoptics end. They synoptics build up to the plain statement that Jesus is God. Look, for instance, at the structure of Mark. The first 8 chapters build towards Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The next 8 chapters build towards the fact that being Son of God does not mean glory in this life, but it means death on a cross.

John opens with the declaration that Jesus is God in the flesh, and the first thing John the Baptists says about Jesus is that he is the “Lamb of God.� All these things Mark was trying to get us to slowly understand, John declares in the first chapter.

This is because John’s audience already knew this. They had read Mark (or another synoptic) and they believed that Jesus is God in the flesh. John then made a conscious effort not to repeat what is found in the synoptics, but instead of expand people’s knowledge of Jesus with new stories and information not found in the other Gospels.

The synoptics in no way "build up to the plain statement that Jesus is God." How does Peter's statement that Jesus is the Son of God lend itself to saying that Jesus himself is God?

John does not open with a statement that Jesus is God in the flesh, because "with God" refers to the almighty God (which has an article for "the" which designates the one and only), and "the Word was God"---"god" has no article, therefore it is not the God Almighty. A "god" to John's audience was just a powerful, important individual, as Jesus explained at John 10:34-36.

John's audience did not know Jesus to be God in the flesh. They understood that Jesus had a kingdom, but they didn't think he was God. We can thank a relentless twisting of Scriptures for that blasphemous idea.

John never said that "God dwelled among us." It was THE WORD that dwelled among us...the Word that was WITH GOD in the beginning of creation. God can't be "with" Himself.

So much is hung on one phrase in the first verse of John, and it's ambiguous at that. If it were true that John was revealing the never-before-heard doctrine that God is one in three, he would have had to do a lot more explaining. It was totally new to the people. Where are the reams of sentences that he would have had to write to convince people of Jesus' elevation to God Almighty? There are none, except those brutally messed up by men twisting verses. In fact, John wrote things like this:

"Jesus went on to say to them: 'Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.'" (John 5:19; see also verse 30)

"Do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said I am God's Son?" (John 10:36)

Jesus, raising his eyes to heaven, said, "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of YOU, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3)

Jesus said to Mary, "Be on your way to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to MY GOD and your God.'" (John 20:17)


Surely, if John was intent on revealing to the people that Jesus was God Almighty Himself he would've had a great many opportunities to do so. Yet at the end of his 20th chapter, he says: "These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is Christ THE SON OF GOD, and that believing, you may have life by means of his name." (John 20:31)

He never said that "this is God Almighty on Earth!!" which he would've had to have done with very much explanation if it was what he was trying to say.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 16 by onewithhim]

So much is hung on one phrase in the first verse of John, and it's ambiguous at that.

Yeah, tell me about it!

The same applies to a number of the following verses also.

Why choose the word "Logos"?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 17 by Checkpoint]

I imagine it's because Jesus is God's spokesman. The thinking is, that when Jehovah wanted to give men a message he had his Son speak for him. It's thought that it was God's Son who was one of three angels that went to Abraham and told him he would have a son, which turned out to be Isaac. Jesus was speaking FOR Jehovah, and that's why he was actually referred to (along with the other two angels) as "Jehovah." "Jehovah says..." thus and so.