The Difference Between the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM AND GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD

The following link leads to a source that Dates back to 1897 at the height of critical Bible thinking.

I am going to put together some more material on this subject. I think it is important to note that this is not a recent issue.

The difference between the good news concerning the Kingdom and the good news concerning the Grace of God may be briefly stated thus:In the Gospel of the Kingdom the Lord Jesus is proclaimed as the seed of David, the Man raised up and Anointed by God to reign over the people of Israel and over the Gentiles (Rom. xv. 12). In the Gospel of the Grace of God, the Lord Jesus is declared to be the Son of God, the Man in whom God came down to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, that sinful men might be justified and sanctified, made fit for the presence of the glory of God (Col. i. 12). The former was preached to the Jews and in association with Jerusalem. The latter is the present testimony of God among the Gentiles while Jerusalem is trodden down of the Gentiles.

right-division.com...

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I think the gospel of the kingdom is more Pauline in nature. I see it as a forced revision. The focus on earning a place in the kingdom since the stains of your sins must be lifted from your soul. Repentant suffering in a sense. It is skewed with Pauls own demons and need for balance to his capacity for evil. You can only be forgiven for existing in the first place to a degree. There is nothing but repentance.

The gospel of the grace of God places the proximity of god in all of us and so reflects the original Christ message of brotherhood under a common family with God at its head. The middle man of the state or church representative to the people as intermediary to God was eliminated. The sanctification of a pure spirit was now seen as possible by its proximity to god and that this is its inherent nature, near to God. The unarguable nature of a child unto its creator /father. The balance comes not from atonement for sins /existing, but from seeking balance so as to not take oneself away from God.

Jesus said to sanctify God and not himself. Not his mother his aunt or his uncle. God. No mortal should be made as God and revered. Unto each other be as we would be to Jesus himself. Treat us all as brothers and sisters like the world was a family. That he is our brother. That we can not be like God but we can be like him. He is the best we can do, and thats ok. Its very good. We dont need permission from people in costumes or special treatments or rituals. We can be as Jesus was. Sanctified and made correct by our own proximity to God.

I subscribe more to the grace of God gospel as you put it.


To me the kingdom message excludes many from the beginning and almost makes God a status symbol for those who administer access to "heaven". It needs dogma and codification. It needs strict adherence to that written word and its cemented interpretation so as to maintain any organization or group effort behind the idea effective and coordinated.

The grace ethos allows for the adoption by God in a sense, of anyone as its own child. That we can be as Jesus was because he is our brother. That we always could and will be able to. Knowing this simple truth so as to choose and live accordingly comes through what is often called the Christ consciousness.

I would not hope for forgiveness by adopting unhealthy and wasteful suffering in the name of atonement. I would have faith in my inherent nature and my heart and in that find the grace to live in balance.

my two cents. Good topic. S&F

a reply to: tadaman

There is the kingdom of God that is within that is spiritual this is in line with the Pauline teaching.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Interesting subject.
I understand salvation as a three fold plan:

1) Regeneration of the Spirit by faith alone in Christ's payment for our sins. Once saved always saved.

2) Sanctification of the soul by Abiding in Christ to produce the fruit of the Spirit (using 1John 1:9 continuously). This is the Gospel of the Kingdom. At the Judgement Seat of Christ (beima), our works will pass through fire. The works of the Spirit will be purified as gold, but works of the flesh will burn as chaff. The believer who has no works will not lose salvation, but will lose inheritance in the kingdom and will live as a peasent in the Outer Darkness of earth (not hell or lake of fire).

3) Resurrection of the body. For flesh and blood can not enter the kingdom.

My pastor had his own terms for it:

1) Positional Sanctification for the Gospel of Grace.

2) Experiential Sanctification for the Gospel of the Kingdom.

3) Ultimate Sactification for Resurrection.

Keep in mind that a believer is trichotomous, having body, soul, and reborn spirit. If all three are under the curse of dying death, then all three require salvation (starting with the spirit).

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I am totally lost in this theology. I need more input to understand what is being said here.
Are you inferring that there are several reasons for the Christ Jesus' appearing to this terrestrial creation and that the Apostles taught two distinct gospels?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭1:6-8‬ ‭KJV‬‬ bible.com...

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I am totally lost in this theology. I need more input to understand what is being said here.
Are you inferring that there are several reasons for the Christ Jesus' appearing to this terrestrial creation and that the Apostles taught two distinct gospels?

I'm in the same boat, as I'm still learning about the Bible.

While God's ultimate plan of salvation includes and is made available to all people, it was first preached to His chosen people the Israelites. They did not all accept what Jesus had to say, so the focus shifts to the rest of the world, those outside of the Jewish religion and traditions.

Two different groups, the Jews and Gentiles, were given a different message due to their differing backgrounds. But from the same Source.

This is the extent of my understanding. I'm still learning. But I suggest reading the book of Galatians as it covers some aspects of these differences.

originally posted by: PhantomOrion
But I suggest reading the book of Galatians as it covers some aspects of these differences.

My threads are currently doing a survey of Galatians, chapter by chapter.
Jews and Gentiles are both told to believe- that's the key factor.

a reply to: PhantomOrion

One was for the preparation for the kingdom Age, which was the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ and his presentation of the Gospel of the kingdom, which was only Israel that ended basically when Paul was called out as one born out of due season.

Paul's Gospel presentation is of the current church age and is both Jews and Gentiles under the gospel of the Grace of God. and will end when the church is gathered unto Jesus in the clouds 1 Thess 4

When the 7 year tribulation starts then the preparation for Israel to come into the kingdom the Gospel of the Kingdom will be extended to them once again until the end of the tribulation when Jesus Comes.

a reply to: KEACHI

The gospel to which Paul was referring is the Kingdom Gospel when he had already presented them with the Gospel of the Grace of God. that is why legalism was called into question by him in his letter to the Galatians well after the Kingdom Gospel age had ended.

a reply to: PhantomOrion

Yes you are correct Galatians does cover the difference of these gospels in Galatians 1 and 2

a reply to: tadaman
Awesome for you for realizing that Saul the Pharisee was a fraud. Not many people do.

I think this question puts into context Pauline doctrine vs. The words of the Messiah. Great topic.

Paul's writings could be thrown out and Christianity would be what it was intended to be. Easy.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

Paul's writings could be thrown out and Christianity would be what it was intended to be. Easy.

How so? Would you explain what you mean by citing the difference between Paul's writings and the teachings of Jesus?

a reply to: PhantomOrion

Two different groups, the Jews and Gentiles, were given a different message due to their differing backgrounds. But from the same Source.

Perhaps there is where I do not understand. What is the difference between the two (so called) gospels? I understand Jews and Gentiles but what is the difference in the doctrines or teachings of Saul/Paul and Jesus?

a reply to: Seede
Line them up side by side and you'll see. Saul is a false prophet.
Problemswithpaul.com or .org does a first class job of explaining it.

a reply to: Seede

Don't even have a Jews vs Gentiles mentality. That divides the world into two classes, Jews, and everybody else.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I may check that out. Coolness.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

But back in those times when Christianity was still new there were many divisions. The Jews were used to their religion and had to be shown how Jesus was the Messiah they were waiting for.

Paul was essentially appealing to both audiences at their level towards the same end. It wouldn't apply the same way today.

You can look at it through a historical lens of the times.