One of Satan’s main attack - the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

[OMC]

The subject under debate is baptism of the Holy Spirit…..what does that mean in real terms?….who experiences it?….and what difference does it make in their lives? All the things I mentioned are inextricably bound into that baptism. It is what confirms their adoption, their election as “saints”, and what the rule of God’s Kingdom in their capable hands will mean for redeemed humanity.

Paul mentions “now” and “then”….what is he talking about? What is the difference between what they knew “then”, and what they know “now”?
We know that the elect were promised a heavenly resurrection and that they would be “transformed, in the twinkling of an eye” in order to shed their fleshly body, and be raised in a spirit body so that they could be in the presence of God without it ending their life. (Ex 33:20)

The other interesting thing that Paul mentions in his first letter to the Thessalonians, is this….

“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.” (1 Thess 4:13-16 NASB)

This ties in with Rev 20:6 which also mentions this “first resurrection” of the “saints” (elect or chosen ones) so there is more than one resurrection….a first is always followed by a second…does the Bible confirm this? Yes it does. Jesus himself says ….

“For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:26-29 NASB)

There is so much just in these verses alone but for now we will concentrate on the “hour that is coming” in which “all” in their tombs will hear the call to “come out”, just as Lazarus did. He calls both the righteous and the unrighteous out of their graves because they are all still in them.

If the resurrection of the saints comes “first”, then these are the ones who come out later, once the rulership of his Kingdom is established over the earth. The first resurrection doesn’t take place until Christ’s return, as Paul plainly states. At his “presence” he will call his elect to their heavenly assignments in readiness to take over earth’s rulership when he brings the devil’s rule to an end.

Chronologically speaking, everything must take place in order. No one went to heaven before Jesus (John 3:13) so we know that all pre Christian servants of God remained in their graves (Sheol) until the call back to life was to come in the future.
Only those taken into the “new covenant” would join Christ in heaven. This is backed up in Revelation which places the 12 apostles as the foundation of the Christian church in heaven. (Rev 21:14) Only those taught by Jesus and his apostles would not deviate from God’s established truth. Men of “the church” are a whole other story.

God’s original purpose was established in Genesis….nothing changed what he had in mind to do…only the circumstances under which it was to take place was delayed, because it was altered by the exercise of free will in a selfish way.

All of which are outlined in the Scriptures and which never altered…..God just revealed how it would work in his own way and time….under progressive revelation.

Yes, so any who claim that speaking in tongues is a proof of God’s spirit anointing, have been misled.

So now we get into the “now” and “then” of Paul’s words. We know when the “now” was…but the “then” was yet to be revealed. Since it was not going to take place until the Lord resurrected them, what did it matter that they didn’t know it all then….they would know when they came to be “face to face” with him…..and this was not to occur until his return.

Unless we are students of God’s word and can study it for ourselves, we are relying on humans to teach us what it says……I learned a long time ago, not to rely on anything that comes out of Christendom, whose foundations are entrenched in the doctrines of Roman Catholicism….which has not shown itself to be a reliable source of Bible truth IMO.

According to my studies….satan has all of Christendom worshipping the wrong God….one that neither Jesus nor his Father, ever spoke about. They have promoted Satan’s first lie by continuing to teach that souls go to heaven, when there is not a single verse in the whole Bible that says so.
And they also used the fear inspiring “lake of fire” to conjure up images of souls suffering in a hell of eternal torment. If none of those are true, and I have examined these doctrines very carefully, then who or what else can we rely on to teach the truth?

This is exactly the concern I've been raising throughout the discussion.

You've presented a very large theological framework involving two classes of believers, a heavenly government, an earthly class, a particular reading of Revelation 20, a future earthly restoration, soul sleep, and a specific chronology of the resurrections.
Whether those conclusions are right or wrong is not my point.

My point is that you repeatedly appeal to 1 Corinthians 13 as though Paul is teaching that framework, when in reality you are bringing that framework to the passage.

Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 13 is actually very simple: "Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known" (1 Cor. 13:12).

The strongest evidence in the chapter points to a future state of completeness, not merely to the end of miraculous gifts, because Paul contrasts partial knowledge with a future fullness of knowledge.

Likewise, when you say: "they would know when they came to be face to face with him,"

I agree that is a possible reading.
But notice that you have just appealed to the resurrection and Christ's return to explain the passage.
That is precisely my point.
The explanation is coming from your broader theology, not directly from the wording of verse 10 itself.

We both agree that tongues cease.
We both agree that prophecy in its partial form ceases.
The question is when and why.
My objection has never been that your interpretation is impossible.
My objection is that 1 Corinthians 13 does not explicitly identify "the perfect" as the completion of revelation, the end of the apostolic age, or any of the larger framework you're describing.

So I return to the same question: if Paul wanted his readers to understand "the perfect" as the completion of New Testament revelation, why does he explain it with phrases like: "face to face"
and "then shall I know even as also I am known"?
Those descriptions seem to point far beyond the closing of the canon and into the believer's final state before Christ.
That remains the strongest difficulty in the cessationist reading of the passage.

 

[Burn1986]

Your response doesn't make sense. Did you mean to respond to me?

Yeah I think so.

 

[JemimaJade]

Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 13 is actually very simple: "Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known" (1 Cor. 13:12).

The strongest evidence in the chapter points to a future state of completeness, not merely to the end of miraculous gifts, because Paul contrasts partial knowledge with a future fullness of knowledge.

Yes….what made you think I said otherwise? The gifts were to accompany the anointing of the Holy Spirit back in the first century…..but they would cease and the “saints” would sleep in death until Christ’s return.
He would call them from their graves “first”. What other reason could there be for this “first resurrection”?

They are clearly called to heaven, (1 Pet 1:3-5) but the rest are to live on earth….a “new earth” ruled by a “new heaven”. (2 Pet 3:13)

Rev 21:1-5 tells us what John saw…..in the future…
“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. I heard a loud voice from the throne say, “Look! God’s dwelling is here with humankind. He will dwell with them, and they will be his peoples. God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more. There will be no mourning, crying, or pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” Then the one seated on the throne said, “Look! I’m making all things new.” He also said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” (CEB)

How do you understand this passage?

Likewise, when you say: "they would know when they came to be face to face with him,"

I agree that is a possible reading.
But notice that you have just appealed to the resurrection and Christ's return to explain the passage.
That is precisely my point.
The explanation is coming from your broader theology, not directly from the wording of verse 10 itself.

I allow the Bible to fill in the story in its own words. As it is one story, nothing in that story can be contradictory to what Jesus taught.

I am not a fan of “theology” as I believe it falters in its explanations of many things and adds to what Jesus taught. Theology is what built a divided church system….Jesus didn’t teach theology, he taught truth…logically and with no additions of his own….he said he only taught what his Father had taught him. (John 7:14-16) His disciples were not educated in the Rabbinical schools for a very good reason…..it didn’t turn out suitable teachers for the Jewish people, whose leaders had fallen for the same mistakes as Christendom’s leaders still do to this day. (Matt 15:7-9)

So I return to the same question: if Paul wanted his readers to understand "the perfect" as the completion of New Testament revelation, why does he explain it with phrases like: "face to face"
and "then shall I know even as also I am known"?

When Jesus walked with his apostles and taught them, he experienced frustration at times with their flawed humanity, but when he sees them again, “face to face”, it will be without their human frailties. Then they will know all truth, and will be known by Jesus as perfect sons of God in full obedience, knowledge and understanding….ready and willing to guide humanity back to God.

Those descriptions seem to point far beyond the closing of the canon and into the believer's final state before Christ.
That remains the strongest difficulty in the cessationist reading of the passage.

Since the closing book of the canon was to take us 1000 years into the future, “the believer’s final state before before Christ” depends on which resurrection they receive.
For those of the “first resurrection”, immortality is granted and they will serve their God in heaven to bring the rest of humanity back into reconciliation with God, reinstalling his first purpose for them…..which goes back to why we were created here on this earth in the first place.

What do you believe God’s first purpose was for his human creation?

 

[OMC]

Yes….what made you think I said otherwise? The gifts were to accompany the anointing of the Holy Spirit back in the first century…..but they would cease and the “saints” would sleep in death until Christ’s return.
He would call them from their graves “first”. What other reason could there be for this “first resurrection”?

They are clearly called to heaven, (1 Pet 1:3-5) but the rest are to live on earth….a “new earth” ruled by a “new heaven”. (2 Pet 3:13)

Rev 21:1-5 tells us what John saw…..in the future…
“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. I heard a loud voice from the throne say, “Look! God’s dwelling is here with humankind. He will dwell with them, and they will be his peoples. God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more. There will be no mourning, crying, or pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” Then the one seated on the throne said, “Look! I’m making all things new.” He also said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” (CEB)

How do you understand this passage?

I allow the Bible to fill in the story in its own words. As it is one story, nothing in that story can be contradictory to what Jesus taught.

I am not a fan of “theology” as I believe it falters in its explanations of many things and adds to what Jesus taught. Theology is what built a divided church system….Jesus didn’t teach theology, he taught truth…logically and with no additions of his own….he said he only taught what his Father had taught him. (John 7:14-16) His disciples were not educated in the Rabbinical schools for a very good reason…..it didn’t turn out suitable teachers for the Jewish people, whose leaders had fallen for the same mistakes as Christendom’s leaders still do to this day. (Matt 15:7-9)

I agree that we should let Scripture interpret Scripture.
My concern is not that you are comparing passages.
My concern is that you're treating your synthesis as though it were the explicit meaning of 1 Corinthians 13 itself.

You say you reject theology, but the moment you connect 1 Corinthians 13 with 1 Thessalonians 4, Revelation 20, John 3, two classes of believers, and a specific resurrection chronology, you are doing theology.
The question is not whether we synthesize Scripture.
The question is whether our synthesis is what the text actually teaches.

My point remains very simple: when Paul explains "then," he says: "Then shall I know even as also I am known" (1 Cor. 13:12).
and "Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face."
Those are Paul's explanations.
He does not identify "the perfect" as the close of the apostolic age, the cessation of gifts, the first resurrection, or a heavenly class. Those conclusions may fit within your framework, but they are not stated in the passage itself.

So I fully agree that Scripture is one story and that later revelation builds upon earlier revelation.
What I continue to question is whether 1 Corinthians 13 is being allowed to speak for itself before all the other pieces of the system are brought to it.
That is the distinction I have been trying to make throughout this discussion.

 

[Aaron56]

Yeah I think so.

Oh. Can you explain how what I wrote "put a negative on things we don't understand"?

 

[JemimaJade]

My point remains very simple: when Paul explains "then," he says: "Then shall I know even as also I am known" (1 Cor. 13:12).
and "Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face."
Those are Paul's explanations.
He does not identify "the perfect" as the close of the apostolic age, the cessation of gifts, the first resurrection, or a heavenly class. Those conclusions may fit within your framework, but they are not stated in the passage itself.

“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (1 Cor 13:12)
According to my studies, Paul was speaking about two different time periods. A period he describes as “now” when “we” see things “dimly” in what the future holds….”we” is all the apostles and anointed ones….they knew only a part of what was to be fully revealed……and “then” when all is revealed, “face to face” communication will be at their resurrection….something Paul said would take place at Christ’s return. They had no idea how far away that resurrection was….but “sleeping in death” meant no conscious awareness of the passage of time. (Eccl 9:5, 10; Psalm 115:17) A resurrection is a return to life…not a continuation of it somewhere else. Where did Adam go when he died? (Gen 3:19)

Do you have another interpretation based on Scripture interpreting Scripture?

So I fully agree that Scripture is one story and that later revelation builds upon earlier revelation.

What order does Paul himself place on the resurrection?…

“But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man all will 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. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” (1Cor 15:20-28 ESV)

What did these agricultural people understand about “firstfruits”? These were the best of the crop…and Jesus was by no means the first human to die and be resurrected….as he performed resurrections himself. (John 11:11-14)
What made Jesus the “firstfruits” of this crop? And what did the order mean? Who are those “who belong to Christ at his coming”?

If no one had gone to heaven before Jesus, (John 3:13) then his resurrection was a “first”…..the first human to die and receive a spiritual resurrection, (1 Pet 3:18) returning to his God in heaven in the only form that could survive there.
He was given a spiritual body, and those who “belong to him” are his body….his bride….his Kingdom heirs…who also receive a resurrection like his. (1 Cor 15:42-49; Phil 4:20-21)

Not all who are resurrected are heaven bound however, as the Kingdom Jesus told us to pray for had a job to do before God’s first purpose for the human race on this earth could proceed.
What did he ask us to pray for?

Matt 6:9-10…ESV…
“Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

How often do people pray this prayer without knowing what Jesus was teaching them to pray for…?
What was the purpose of the Kingdom?
First and foremost, it was the sanctification of his Father’s name, (Yahweh) not his own name. God’s sacred name had been lost to the faithless Jews who removed it from their speech long before Jesus arrived as Messiah.
Jesus said he had come to make his Father’s name known to his Jewish disciples. (John 17:6-8) So that is why God’s name was a first priority. Attached to God’s name was his reputation, his personality and the power of his word.
Then Jesus spoke about the ‘coming’ of God’s Kingdom. How does it “come”?

We have to understand what the Kingdom is, and what it will do for redeemed mankind. The churches of Christendom have completely lost the meaning of it, and are therefore lost when asked to define it.
Yet it’s ‘coming’ was going to mean that God’s Universal family would be united, as it was first purposed.
By means of that Kingdom, God’s will was going to “be done on earth as it is in heaven”….imagine what that means…

The Kingdom was going to bring redeemed humanity back to God…..accomplishing the means to ensure that peace and harmony among the human race will be restored as it was meant to be before the rebellion. (Rev 21:1-5) Can we imagine the life prospects of Adam and his wife in the beginning? Do we fully understand what they threw away by abusing their free will?

What I continue to question is whether 1 Corinthians 13 is being allowed to speak for itself before all the other pieces of the system are brought to it.
That is the distinction I have been trying to make throughout this discussion.

You cannot take isolated verses and make them mean what you want to believe…no verse in Scripture is isolated without connection to other Scripture to confirm it’s meaning….God’s word cannot contradict itself…only human interpretation can do that.
Focusing on only one verse, if your interpretation is in error, can strangle the meaning of the whole Bible…

 

[OMC]

“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (1 Cor 13:12)
According to my studies, Paul was speaking about two different time periods. A period he describes as “now” when “we” see things “dimly” in what the future holds….”we” is all the apostles and anointed ones….they knew only a part of what was to be fully revealed……and “then” when all is revealed, “face to face” communication will be at their resurrection….something Paul said would take place at Christ’s return. They had no idea how far away that resurrection was….but “sleeping in death” meant no conscious awareness of the passage of time. (Eccl 9:5, 10; Psalm 115:17) A resurrection is a return to life…not a continuation of it somewhere else. Where did Adam go when he died? (Gen 3:19)

Do you have another interpretation based on Scripture interpreting Scripture?

yes, I do have another interpretation based on Scripture interpreting Scripture, but I don't think it is fundamentally different from what you're proposing.

Paul says: "Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face" (1 Cor. 13:12).
and: "Now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
The most natural contrast seems to be between a present state of partial knowledge and a future state of fuller knowledge.
That future state fits quite naturally with the resurrection and Christ's return, as you suggest (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 1 John 3:2).

My hesitation has never been with connecting the passage to the resurrection.
My hesitation has been with claiming that Paul explicitly identifies "the perfect" as a particular doctrinal system, resurrection chronology, or class structure.
The resurrection connection can be supported from other Scriptures, but it is not directly stated in 1 Corinthians 13 itself.

So, yes, I think your interpretation is a legitimate possibility because it arises from Paul's own contrast between "now" and "then," and because other passages connect future glorification with a fuller knowledge of Christ.
What I continue to resist is going beyond what Paul explicitly says and treating one larger theological framework as though it were the only conclusion the passage permits.
The strongest point in the chapter remains that our present knowledge is partial and that a future completeness awaits God's people.
On that much, I think we both agree.

 

[OMC]

What order does Paul himself place on the resurrection?…

“But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man all will 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. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” (1Cor 15:20-28 ESV)

What did these agricultural people understand about “firstfruits”? These were the best of the crop…and Jesus was by no means the first human to die and be resurrected….as he performed resurrections himself. (John 11:11-14)
What made Jesus the “firstfruits” of this crop? And what did the order mean? Who are those “who belong to Christ at his coming”?

If no one had gone to heaven before Jesus, (John 3:13) then his resurrection was a “first”…..the first human to die and receive a spiritual resurrection, (1 Pet 3:18) returning to his God in heaven in the only form that could survive there.
He was given a spiritual body, and those who “belong to him” are his body….his bride….his Kingdom heirs…who also receive a resurrection like his. (1 Cor 15:42-49; Phil 4:20-21)

Not all who are resurrected are heaven bound however, as the Kingdom Jesus told us to pray for had a job to do before God’s first purpose for the human race on this earth could proceed.
What did he ask us to pray for?

Matt 6:9-10…ESV…
“Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

How often do people pray this prayer without knowing what Jesus was teaching them to pray for…?
What was the purpose of the Kingdom?
First and foremost, it was the sanctification of his Father’s name, (Yahweh) not his own name. God’s sacred name had been lost to the faithless Jews who removed it from their speech long before Jesus arrived as Messiah.
Jesus said he had come to make his Father’s name known to his Jewish disciples. (John 17:6-8) So that is why God’s name was a first priority. Attached to God’s name was his reputation, his personality and the power of his word.
Then Jesus spoke about the ‘coming’ of God’s Kingdom. How does it “come”?

We have to understand what the Kingdom is, and what it will do for redeemed mankind. The churches of Christendom have completely lost the meaning of it, and are therefore lost when asked to define it.
Yet it’s ‘coming’ was going to mean that God’s Universal family would be united, as it was first purposed.
By means of that Kingdom, God’s will was going to “be done on earth as it is in heaven”….imagine what that means…

The Kingdom was going to bring redeemed humanity back to God…..accomplishing the means to ensure that peace and harmony among the human race will be restored as it was meant to be before the rebellion. (Rev 21:1-5) Can we imagine the life prospects of Adam and his wife in the beginning? Do we fully understand what they threw away by abusing their free will?

I agree with much of what you've written.
Paul's order is clear: "Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
Then cometh the end" (1 Cor. 15:23-24).
Christ is the firstfruits because He is the first to be raised in an incorruptible, glorified state never to die again.
Lazarus and others were restored to mortal life and died later.
Christ's resurrection is therefore unique.

Where I think we begin to part company is what follows.
I agree that those who belong to Christ are raised at His coming.
I agree that believers ultimately receive glorified bodies.
I agree that the Kingdom results in God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven.

What I do not see in 1 Corinthians 15 is the distinction between a heavenly class and an earthly class.
Paul's emphasis is on the resurrection order, not on dividing the redeemed into separate destinies.

Likewise, when Jesus taught: "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10),
I fully agree that this points to the restoration of God's purposes for creation.
Revelation 21 echoes that: "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men" (Rev. 21:3).

My question remains the same: where does Scripture explicitly place one redeemed group permanently in heaven and another permanently on earth?
I see Christ, His people, resurrection, restoration, and God's kingdom.
The specific two-class framework still seems to come from connecting multiple passages rather than from any single text that plainly states it.
That is the step I continue to find unproven.

 

[OMC]

“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (1 Cor 13:12)
According to my studies, Paul was speaking about two different time periods. A period he describes as “now” when “we” see things “dimly” in what the future holds….”we” is all the apostles and anointed ones….they knew only a part of what was to be fully revealed……and “then” when all is revealed, “face to face” communication will be at their resurrection….something Paul said would take place at Christ’s return. They had no idea how far away that resurrection was….but “sleeping in death” meant no conscious awareness of the passage of time. (Eccl 9:5, 10; Psalm 115:17) A resurrection is a return to life…not a continuation of it somewhere else. Where did Adam go when he died? (Gen 3:19)

Do you have another interpretation based on Scripture interpreting Scripture?

What order does Paul himself place on the resurrection?…

“But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man all will 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. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” (1Cor 15:20-28 ESV)

What did these agricultural people understand about “firstfruits”? These were the best of the crop…and Jesus was by no means the first human to die and be resurrected….as he performed resurrections himself. (John 11:11-14)
What made Jesus the “firstfruits” of this crop? And what did the order mean? Who are those “who belong to Christ at his coming”?

If no one had gone to heaven before Jesus, (John 3:13) then his resurrection was a “first”…..the first human to die and receive a spiritual resurrection, (1 Pet 3:18) returning to his God in heaven in the only form that could survive there.
He was given a spiritual body, and those who “belong to him” are his body….his bride….his Kingdom heirs…who also receive a resurrection like his. (1 Cor 15:42-49; Phil 4:20-21)

Not all who are resurrected are heaven bound however, as the Kingdom Jesus told us to pray for had a job to do before God’s first purpose for the human race on this earth could proceed.
What did he ask us to pray for?

Matt 6:9-10…ESV…
“Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

How often do people pray this prayer without knowing what Jesus was teaching them to pray for…?
What was the purpose of the Kingdom?
First and foremost, it was the sanctification of his Father’s name, (Yahweh) not his own name. God’s sacred name had been lost to the faithless Jews who removed it from their speech long before Jesus arrived as Messiah.
Jesus said he had come to make his Father’s name known to his Jewish disciples. (John 17:6-8) So that is why God’s name was a first priority. Attached to God’s name was his reputation, his personality and the power of his word.
Then Jesus spoke about the ‘coming’ of God’s Kingdom. How does it “come”?

We have to understand what the Kingdom is, and what it will do for redeemed mankind. The churches of Christendom have completely lost the meaning of it, and are therefore lost when asked to define it.
Yet it’s ‘coming’ was going to mean that God’s Universal family would be united, as it was first purposed.
By means of that Kingdom, God’s will was going to “be done on earth as it is in heaven”….imagine what that means…

The Kingdom was going to bring redeemed humanity back to God…..accomplishing the means to ensure that peace and harmony among the human race will be restored as it was meant to be before the rebellion. (Rev 21:1-5) Can we imagine the life prospects of Adam and his wife in the beginning? Do we fully understand what they threw away by abusing their free will?


You cannot take isolated verses and make them mean what you want to believe…no verse in Scripture is isolated without connection to other Scripture to confirm it’s meaning….God’s word cannot contradict itself…only human interpretation can do that.
Focusing on only one verse, if your interpretation is in error, can strangle the meaning of the whole Bible…

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on the principle.

I fully agree that no verse exists in isolation and that Scripture must interpret Scripture.
Paul, Peter, Moses, the prophets, and the words of Christ all belong to one unified revelation from God.
A doctrine built on a single verse while ignoring the rest of Scripture is always vulnerable to distortion.

My point has never been that 1 Corinthians 13 should be interpreted apart from the rest of Scripture.
My point is that we must first allow 1 Corinthians 13 to say what it actually says before importing conclusions from elsewhere. Otherwise we risk reading our system into the text instead of drawing our doctrine from it.

In other words, Scripture interprets Scripture, but one passage should not be permitted to silence another.
We begin with the immediate context, then compare it with the broader witness of Scripture.
If our interpretation of one verse causes us to strain or redefine dozens of others, that should make us re-examine our conclusion.

So yes, God's Word cannot contradict itself.
The challenge is determining whether we are letting Scripture harmonize Scripture, or whether we are forcing a predetermined framework onto the text.
That is the distinction I have been trying to make throughout this discussion.