# John 1:11-13 and infant baptism



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 8, 2005)

Hello all,

I was just wondering how a covenant theologian would exegete John 1:11-13, and explain it in light of such terms as "covenant children", infant baptism, etc. 

It seems to me that this verse clearly states that the only people who have the right to be children of God (ie: in the covenant of grace) are those who believe in the name of Christ, and specifically not those born of any particular parental lineage. Any ideas?

Cheers,

Shawn


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 8, 2005)

Children of believers have to have faith in order to be saved. They're still born into the kingdom.


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 8, 2005)

I don't think I'm clear on what you mean by "kingdom"? Could you explain?

Cheers,
Shawn


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 8, 2005)

I. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 8, 2005)

Hi Gabriel,

I'm not sure that you answered my question about the kingdom, but you do raise another one about the nature of the church. As far as I know, the Church is Christ's body (Ephesians 5:23), and is composed only of those who are united to him by faith. Whether its useful to speculate about a visible church at this point is debatable. In any case, this union with Christ is what I understand covenant theologians to mean by the Covenant of Grace. But according to John 1:11-13 the only people considered God's children, are those who partake of salvation through believing in Jesus' name, and the passage explicitely denies that salvation is linked in any way parentage. And whether the children of believers are a part of God's kingdom is further called into question in light of Jesus teaching that only those who have been born again can see or enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5). 

So my original question remains, how would a covenant theologian exegete John 1:11-13 in terms of Covenant theology?

Cheers,
Shawn


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 8, 2005)

Matthew Poole on John 1:11-13:


> 11 He came to his own people ;and his own people received him not.
> 
> 
> John 1:11
> ...


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 8, 2005)

Hi Shawn,
You asked:-


> So my original question remains, how would a covenant theologian exegete John 1:11-13 in terms of Covenant theology?



I think Gabriel and Matthew Poole have answered you. He would studiously ignore the question of infant baptism because John 1:11-13 makes it impossible to maintain. 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 8, 2005)

Who are you to say a child cannot believe, receive, accept? It is God who regenerates and converts. If this passage meant what you are pressing it to mean, elect infants dying in infancy or the imbecile would perish; You have no more proof that those whom you baptise are truly regenerate than the infant we sprinkle. 

[Edited on 10-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Oct 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> You have no more proof that those whom you baptise are truly regenerate than the infant we sprinkle.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Oct 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> Hello all,
> 
> I was just wondering how a covenant theologian would exegete John 1:11-13, and explain it in light of such terms as "covenant children", infant baptism, etc.
> ...




Shawn,

Part of the difficulty here is when we skip the first 3/4 of the Bible, jump into the Gospels, and then try to build our theology from there. It's like skipping the plot built up in the first 800 pages of a novel, and then being frustrated because you can't make sense of what the characters are doing in chapter 43.

Was Abraham a child of God? Was Moses a Christian? How about David? Were all of these men members of God's covenant people? --- Hopefully, you will answer "yes". If not, then we need to deal with this first, before worrying about baptism.

All of these men were of God's covenant people. And God promised not only to be their God, but to be the God of their children as well (cf. Genesis 17:7). The sign of the covenant (pre-cross) was circumcision (Genesis 17:10), and that covenant sign was to be given to both believers, as well as the children of believers (Genesis 17:24-25; Exodus 4:24, etc.)

Now, before we even get to John 1:13, let's ask your same question here, Shawn. *Are the only people who have the right to be children of God (ie: in the covenant of grace) those who believe in the name of Christ, and specifically not those born of any particular parental lineage?* --- Clearly, the answer to this question throughout the OT is "No!". 

God put both elect people and non-elect people into covenant with Himself from the very beginning:

* God put Adam into covenant with Himself, along with all of Adam's descendants (including you and me). Many people, both elect and non-elect, have come from Adam. And every single one of us is born in covenant with God, under the orginal covenant of works. (We are also born in sin, which means we automatically are born covenant breakers . . . thus our need for Christ.)

* God established the Covenant of Grace in Genesis 3:15. The "seed of the woman" are all those born to her to trust in Christ, and ultimately culminates in Christ Himself. The "seed of the serpent" are those "stolen" from the woman, if you will . . . those who will oppose Christ. Note that God could have worded it much differently. He could have called it the "seed of God", and the "seed of the woman", so that the descendants of Eve would automatically be considered non-elect, with God just saving who He could now and then. But God set it up the other way, such that the descendants of Eve would automatically be considered elect (see some commentators on Gen. 4:1, for example). So the non-elect would be those essentially "stolen" from Eve by the serpent. --- It is also quite interesting to trace the evil down through Cain's line, and good down through Seth's line in the first few chapters of Genesis. God's grace passing down through family lines is even evident before Abraham.

* God established His covenant with Noah, and with "all flesh" besides. When you look up at a rainbow today, that is God's promise to *you* that He won't wipe out the world with another flood.

* God cut a covenant with Abraham. God put Abraham's descendants into covenant with Himself, whether elect or not. Circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith (Romans 4:11), and God commanded that the same covenant sign be given to Abraham AND Ishmael AND Isaac.

I could keep on going, but this post is getting rather long. The point here is that in EVERY covenant God makes with man, He always includes both the elect and the non-elect. It has been that way from the beginning, from Adam until today.

So, Shawn, you need to keep the OT in mind when you read John 1:13. If it really means that nobody can be considered a child of God, or part of God's kingdom, or part of God's people, etc., unless they are believers, then you have to contradict the entire Old Testament! Even when Jesus was 25 years old, if you were an Israelite, then you were one of God's people, regardless of whether you were elect or not. This didn't suddenly change when John penned John 1:13.

So, what is going on in John 1:13? It is quite simple. John is not even talking about being one of God's people outwardly (i.e. the visible church). He is not even thinking about church membership. Rather, he is focusing on the invisible church, the group of people that is truly believing and truly saved, which no earthly man can perfectly identify. If John 1:13 was talking about being the people of God *externally*, then it would be contradicting the entire Old Testament. So it must be talking about the people of God *internally*.

Be we do not baptize infants on the basis of their being part of the invisible church, so John 1:13 is simply moot regarding paedobaptism. We baptize now on the same basis that Abraham circumcised then. It is a sign of entrance into the visible church, the people of God externally. Of course we hope that infant is regenerate, just like we hope that adult professing faith is regenerate. But either way, we cannot see into the heart. We can only baptize into the visible church, not the invisible one.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> Hello all,
> 
> I was just wondering how a covenant theologian would exegete John 1:11-13, and explain it in light of such terms as "covenant children", infant baptism, etc.
> ...



Greetings from Escondido,

It was good to talk. Thanks for calling.

What assumptions are you making in connecting this passage to the recognition that of children born of believers are in the covenant of grace and their visible admission into the covenant community?

Are you assuming that any relation, even only an external relation, to the covenant of grace is determined by regeneration? If so, aren't you forgetting the Reformed distinction between those who are in the covenant of grace externally only (e.g., Esau) and those who are in the covenant of grace externally AND internally (Jacob)?

Are you assuming that only those who have been born "ek theou" are eligible to receive the sign and seal of membership in the covenant of grace? If so, why? What is it about this passage that drives one to this conclusion? 

Isn't the question of infant initiation whether the practice continues in the New Covenant? 

It has always been the case that only those who regenerated by the sovereign grace of God who become children of God; witness Jacob and Esau, but this fact does not prejudge the question of whom we should initiate does it? If so, wouldn't we have to conclude that Esau was not rightly initiated? Would we not have to exclude Genesis 17 from our Bibles?

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 8, 2005)

I would echo Dr. Clark's comments, and also remind us that (even for baptists) baptism does not bring us into being children of God. The credobaptist view is that baptism must happen after one is brought to be a child of God as a testimony to that. The paedobaptist view is that baptism can be prospective as well as retrospective.

In either case, John 1:11-13 has virtually nothing to do with the discussion. The reason that Matthew Poole and others do not deaol with the issue is because there is no issue here.

If we take silence as defeat, then a whole host of us are in a lot of trouble, since I at least (and I presume Martin) does not "deal" with the doctrine of total depravity in every verse, for instance.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> Hi Gabriel,
> 
> I'm not sure that you answered my question about the kingdom, but you do raise another one about the nature of the church. As far as I know, the Church is Christ's body (Ephesians 5:23), and is composed only of those who are united to him by faith. Whether its useful to speculate about a visible church at this point is debatable. In any case, this union with Christ is what I understand covenant theologians to mean by the Covenant of Grace. But according to John 1:11-13 the only people considered God's children, are those who partake of salvation through believing in Jesus' name, and the passage explicitely denies that salvation is linked in any way parentage. And whether the children of believers are a part of God's kingdom is further called into question in light of Jesus teaching that only those who have been born again can see or enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5).
> ...



You could also use Romans 9:8 to argue that Ishmael should not have been circumcised but why be wiser than God?


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 8, 2005)

*A bit long*

Greetings Joseph and Dr. Clark,

I don´t want to be rude to the others who posted, but I would like to concentrate on your responses for the sake of brevity and clarity.

Let me begin with something Joseph wrote:

"œThe point here is that in EVERY covenant God makes with man, He always includes both the elect and the non-elect. It has been that way from the beginning, from Adam until today."

So, it seems as though your belief in infant baptism may rest, in part, on this argument. But my question to you would be, does the covenant of grace include the non-elect as well? My understanding is that God only made the covenant of grace with the elect, died only for them, and unites only the elect fully to himself. Yes, the Adamic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic covenants were all made with the elect and non-elect, but not so the covenant of grace. 

"œSo, Shawn, you need to keep the OT in mind when you read John 1:13. If it really means that nobody can be considered a child of God, or part of God's kingdom, or part of God's people, etc., unless they are believers, then you have to contradict the entire Old Testament!"

Joseph, I can´t accept this argument in support of infant baptism because I suspect you may be equivocating terms. Though its true that ethnic Israel and the house of Abraham were considered, in a sense, to be the people of God, nonetheless that is not the only (and I would argue, not even the most decisive) way of being God´s people. So when John argues that only those who believe in Christ become God´s children, and when Jesus says only those who are born-again of the spirit enter the kingdom, there is no contradiction with the OT because the terms "œGod´s kingdom" and "œGod´s people" are not being used in the same way as in the OT. I do believe we should keep the OT in mind when reading the NT, but we should also realize that it is typical, shadowy, and only hinted at truths which were fully revealed later in redemptive history.

To that end, Dr. Clark, I would like to address what you wrote:

"œIt has always been the case that only those who regenerated by the sovereign grace of God who become children of God; witness Jacob and Esau, but this fact does not prejudge the question of whom we should initiate does it? If so, wouldn't we have to conclude that Esau was not rightly initiated? Would we not have to exclude Genesis 17 from our Bibles?"

I´m glad we agree that only the regenerate are God´s children. In regards to Esau, I would agree that he was rightly initiated into the house of Abraham, but I do not assume that the Church is the same kind of community, with the same kind of rites and terms of initiation, or even exactly the same covenant. In light of John 1 and 3, I suspect that the Church is something different and new, therefore I don´t see any need to take Genesis 17 out of my Bible, any more than I see a need to take that particular chapter as being normative for organizing the churches.

"œIsn't the question of infant initiation whether the practice continues in the New Covenant?"

Yes and no. The questions I find myself asking are how far the covenant with Abraham corresponds to the covenant of grace? Or, is the church is the kind of community that an unbeliever (infant or otherwise) can be initiated into? You may also ask whether the promises made to Abraham´s seed can be carried over to believer´s and their children, or whether the covenant was only with the one Seed, Jesus Christ, and those united to him by faith? To that end, I think that the issue of initiation lies at the heart of John 1:11-13 (as well as John 3:3). There has been a transition between two ways of being the people of God. The old way required physical birth as a minimum requirement for being God´s people, so that people without faith could still rightly be called "œhis people" ("œhe came to his own, but his own people did not receive him"). But the new way of being God´s people requires faith and spiritual birth as a minimum requirement ("œall who did receive him"¦ he gave the right to become children of God"). In fact, the minimum requirement is so strict, that if you do not believe you are actually already "œcondemned" (John 3:18) and outside the community. These entrance requirements into the respective communities are different because the essential nature of the communities are different. One is ethnic/creedal, and the other is simply creedal. These differences are muddied when too much is made of the parallels between Abraham´s tribe, the state of Israel, and the Church. Certainly the parallels are there, but that hardly explains the differences. Humans may have 96% of the same DNA as chimpanzees, but it´s obvious that 4% makes a world of difference. Think of the very way we define ourselves, as opposed to people in the OT : they were Jewish, Hebrew, or Israelites "“ all terms relating to ethnic or national identities. We are "œChristians" "“ ie: followers of Christ. I can certainly understand calling an infant, or child Jewish, or Hebrew, etc., but I can hardly think of calling someone who is not a follower of Christ a "œfollower of Christ" (Christian), as some Christians do with their children. So it makes sense to me that Baptism, the sign of being united to Christ, would not be given to people who are not followers of Christ.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 8, 2005)

Dear Shawn,

I think I address many of your points in these essays:

http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Ecclesiology.htm

http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Infant_Baptism.html

Let's talk after you've read these. There are several assumptions in your post which need to be challenged (our relations to Abraham; what the "Old Testament" is in a strict sense; the relations between the decree and its administration in redemptive history).

Blessings,

rsc


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 9, 2005)

> I'm not sure that you answered my question about the kingdom, but you do raise another one about the nature of the church. As far as I know, the Church is Christ's body (Ephesians 5:23), and is composed only of those who are united to him by faith.



The kingdom of God is like: 

A net, a man, a mustard seed, leaven, a treasure, a merchant man, a certain king, a householder, ten virgins, a man traveling....... 

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Mat 20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

Mat 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
Mat 13:48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12055#pid171291



[Edited on 10-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 9, 2005)

> The kingdom of God is like:
> 
> A net, a man, a mustard seed, leaven, a treasure, a merchant man, a certain king, a householder, ten virgins, a man traveling.......
> 
> ...



Matt 13:38. *'The field is the world.' * 
Not the Church.

Martin


----------



## Saiph (Oct 9, 2005)

The signs of the covenant grant any given individuals inclusion among the elect, and share in the benefits that the elect enjoy, but have no effect on causing them to be elect.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Oct 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> In regards to Esau, I would agree that he was rightly initiated into the house of Abraham, but *I do not assume that the Church is the same kind of community, with the same kind of rites and terms of initiation, or even exactly the same covenant*. In light of John 1 and 3, I suspect that *the Church is something different and new*



Shawn, in response to your comments above, I want to share one of my favorite quotes with you:



> _. . . the Church has been and remains one: the nation of Israel was the Church; the Christian Church, since it also comes under the covenant of grace, is the same Church._
> 
> 
> *I. The Nation of Israel was the Church*
> ...



Source: Pierre Charles-Marcel´s phenomenal book, "œThe Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism" (page 95)


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 9, 2005)

Hello Fred,
You wrote:-


> In either case, John 1:11-13 has virtually nothing to do with the discussion. The reason that Matthew Poole and others do not deal with the issue is because there is no issue here.



With respect, I think there is an issue. Many brothers here believe in _ Presumptive Regeneration_, which, as I understand it, means that a Christian may _presume_ that his offspring are regenerate on no other grounds than that they are his children. Surely John 1:13 gives the lie to that? *'.....Not of blood......'.*

Moreover, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that you yourself subscribe to _Presumptive Election._ Now since *'The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable'*, election must inevitably lead to regeneration and so the same objection must apply to your view.

Calvin wrote (on 1Cor 7:14 ):-


> As to the Apostle's assigning here a peculiar privilege to the children of believers, this flows from the blessing of the covenant, *by the intervention of which the curse is removed; and those who were by nature unholy are consecrated to God by grace.......But if the children of believers are exempted from the common lot of mankind*, so as to be set apart by the Lord, why should we keep them back from the sign? If the Lord admits them into the church by His word, why should we refuse them the sign?


In other words, Calvin asserted that all the children envisaged in 1Cor 7:14 ought to be baptized because they are holy, the curse of nature- the effects of original sin- having been removed because they were born of a believing parent. Did Calvin really intend to say this? It is a shocking statement. He has gone even further than the Church of Rome! Are the children of believers free from original sin because they are connected by birth to a believer? Most definitely they are not! No one is free from the curse of the Fall because father or mother is a Christian, and John 1:11-13 is a sufficient statement to the contrary. 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


[Edited on 10-9-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > The kingdom of God is like:
> ...



Calvin writes:



> In order to reap the advantage of this parable, it is necessary to ascertain the object which Christ had in view. Some think that, to guard a mixed multitude against satisfying themselves with an outward profession of the Gospel, [209] he told them, that in his own field bad seed is often mixed with the good, but that a day is coming, when the tares shall be separated from the wheat. [210] They accordingly connect this parable with the one immediately preceding, as if the design of both had been the same. For my own part, I take a different view. He speaks of a separation, in order to prevent the minds of the godly from giving way to uneasiness or despondency,
> when they perceive a confused mixture of the good along with the bad.
> 
> Although Christ has cleansed the Church with his own blood, that it may be without spot or blemish, yet hitherto he suffers it to be polluted by many stains. I speak not of the remaining infirmities of the flesh, to which every believer is liable, even after that he has been renewed by the Holy Spirit. But as soon as Christ has gathered a small flock for himself, many hypocrites mingle with it, persons of immoral lives creep in, nay, many wicked men insinuate themselves; in consequence of which, numerous stains pollute that holy assembly, which Christ has separated for himself. Many persons, too, look upon it as exceedingly absurd, that ungodly, or profane or unprincipled men should be cherished within the bosom of the Church. Add to this, that very many, under the pretense of zeal, are excessively displeased, when every thing is not conducted to their wish, and, because
> ...





Matthew Poole writes:



> *...and it was his will, that there should be in the visible church a mixture of good and bad, such bad ones especially as men could not purge out without a danger of putting out such as were true and sincer; .......*



Matthew Henry adds:



> (2.) The field is the world; the world of mankind, a large field, capable of bringing forth good fruit; the more is it to be lamented that it brings forth so much bad fruit: *the world here is the visible church, scattered all the world over, not confined to one nation. *Observe, In the parable it is called his field; the world is Christ's field, for all things are delivered unto him of the Father: whatever power and interest the devil has in the world, it is usurped and unjust; when Christ comes to take possession, he comes whose right it is; it is his field, and because it is his he took care to sow it with good seed.



F.F. Bruce writes:



> ...it is generally taken as a 'Church' allegory..."


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 9, 2005)

> 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, *and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers*, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.



Unless the entire world's population is the "kingdom" of the Son of Man, as Scripture describes it, then clearly the "kosmos" of this passage is _not_ the entire planet's population, but the visible Church, the kingdom of God, as the WCF correctly states.


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 9, 2005)

> Unless the entire world's population is the "kingdom" of the Son of Man,


Psalm 110:2. *'Rule in the midst of your enemies!'*

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > Unless the entire world's population is the "kingdom" of the Son of Man,
> ...



That's neat. Unless you can show sufficient evidence in Scripture (in many places, consistently) that the "Kingdom of God" is the entire planet's population, you're wrong.


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, *and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers*, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
> ...



OK, what is the time that we expect v41 to occur? At the return of Christ, right? Is there any part of the _kosmos_ that is not going to be part of Christ's kingdom at that time? As it is written:-

*'The the seventh angel sounded: and there were loud voices in heaven saying, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever."'*

The Lord Jesus has graciously given us the interpretation of this passage: * "The field is the world."* It is only your unbiblical attraction to the concept of the 'visible' and 'invisible' Church that causes you to contradict our Lord.

Martin

[Edited on 10-9-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



and Calvin et. al. are contradictory idiots as well...........

[Edited on 10-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 9, 2005)

I think we are getting distracted. What we have to keep in mind here is the absolute sense of the covenatn of grace (i.e. teh elect, only those for whom Christ federally represented) and the historical administration of it. The historical administration of the covenant has always included some non-elect folks (i.e. Esau). But it is through the historical adminstration (i.e. the promises and oracles proclaimed in the covenant community) by which the elect are gathered and nurtured in grace. God is still the God of the non-elect in this covenant because they have chosen to remain in that community under it's authority, and His promises are given to them even though they refuse to embrace them. This has always been the way it has been done. Even in Baptist circles this is practiced. You don't see Baptists trying to figure out of one is actually elect or not before they can know if they need to excommunicate them. Even the non-elect in the community fall under the authority of Christ in the Church.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 9, 2005)

> That's neat. Unless you can show sufficient evidence in Scripture (in many places, consistently) that the "Kingdom of God" is the entire planet's population, you're wrong.



Brother, in Christ, here is what I found using e-Sword:



Psa 103:19 
The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his *kingdom* rules over all. 

Psa 145:11-13
They shall speak of the glory of your kingdom and tell of your power, 
to make known to the children of man your mighty deeds, and the glorious splendor of your kingdom. Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all generations. The LORD is faithful in all his words and kind in all his works. 

Psa 22:28 
For kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations. 

Dan 2:44 
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. *It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, *

Dan 7:27 
And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.' 

Try also Psalms 45,93,96,97,98,99. These are "enthronement" Psalms where the repeated declaration "The Lord Is King" is imaginatively met with antiphonal praise from just about every aspect of the created order. Roaring of the sea, clapping of floods, singing of hills, trees of the forest, etc . . .


This is what Jesus was talking about. And the passage you are referring to is merely stating that the Kingdom of God has NO LIMITS.
That is why the Kingdom is the world.

It is like the parallel between the promised land, and inheriting the earth. It is a perspective of scope, not two mutually exclusive spheres.

You both are right, so I am not sure what your argument is.

[Edited on 10-10-2005 by Saiph]


----------

