The Kingdom of God - Since the Coming of the King

The last post left off at an apparent low point for the Kingdom of God, “God's kingdom has hit a brick wall, David's throne is has been vacant for centuries, and God's promises are frustrated by disobedience and captivity.” Things don’t appear to be going God’s way.

But then comes a voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight!”

The Message of Jesus

John the Baptist is the herald of the next move God is about to make in establishing his Kingdom forever, fulfilling his prophesies and His promises to David. John prepared the way for Jesus, he fertilized the fields, so to speak, and Jesus pickup exactly were John left off. The first words of Jesus as His ministry began are recorded in Mark 1:15,

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

This message is undisputedly Jesus’ primary and favorite topic, He repeats it constantly:

Luke 4:42-43
And when it was day, he departed and went into a desolate place. And the people sought him and came to him, and would have kept him from leaving them, but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”

Luke 6:20
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”

Luke 9:23-27
And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

Did the Kingdom Come?

One statement that has been repeated over the years is that Jesus came to bring the Kingdom to the Jews but it was removed when they rejected Him and it will not come again until the time of the Christ’s return. A close inspection of the messages of Jesus and the Apostles after His ascension reveals this view to be mistaken.

Throughout his ministry Jesus speaks of the nearness of the Kingdom, and tells certain people that they are not far from finding it (Mark 12:28-34). Matthew, assistant to the Apostle Peter, editorializes on Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey, stating that,

Matthew 21:4-5
This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying,

“Say to the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your king is coming to
You,
Humble, and mounted on a
Donkey,
And on a colt, the foal of a
Beast of burden.’”

Even as the unjust trial of Jesus comes to a conclusion and the people of Israel have chosen a murderer over the Son of Man, Jesus bluntly states His Lordship over a Kingdom,

John 18:33-36
So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

It may seem that Jesus’ claim of Kingship, ruling not from a the throne of David as God promised but rather from Heaven, is somewhat diminished from the nearness of the Kingdom He spoke about previously. After all, if the Kingdom is not of this world, how close can it really be?

But this is precisely the kind of Kingdom about which Jesus was speaking throughout His ministry. A Kingdom not made of land and territory, but a spiritual Kingdom which individuals find their way into as they come to acknowledge the authority of God over them.

Matthew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

It turns out that a Kingdom without borders or territory was always the plan from the beginning. In Luke Jesus describes the growth of the Kingdom, a description which mirrors a prophesy that was given nearly 600 years before to the prophet Daniel.

Luke 13:18-21
He said therefore, “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.”

And again he said, “To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened.”

Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45
As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth... 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, just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.”

Both Daniel and Jesus speak of a Kingdom which begins small, like a mustard seed, leaven in a lump of dough, or a stone, and then grows over time, eventually filling the whole earth. This is the kind of Kingdom which Jesus claimed kingship over when He was standing before Pilate. This Kingdom was not taken away from God’s people when Christ ascended into Heaven in the first chapter of Acts.

If it had been taken, then one would expect the apostles would stop talking about the Kingdom as they had when Jesus sent them out to witness in the cities and towns ahead of Him. However, the apostles continued to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of God, just as Jesus had before He left them.

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 19:8
And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.

Romans 14:17
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:50
I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

2 Thessalonians 1:5
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—

The message that the Kingdom is a present reality and is growing to fill the whole earth doesn’t seem to make sense in a world where sin is still rampant, people are more comfortable than ever publicly rejecting God, and injustice is commonplace. Don't such things oppose the view of a present and continually increasing Kingdom?

It’s true that in the Romans 14:17 passage, cited above, Paul tells us that the Kingdom is peace and joy, yet war and suffering have been the constant companions of humanity since before Jesus walked the earth. Paul is clear that the Kingdom is peace and joy, but not in the world. Paul says such peace and joy are found in the Holy Spirit. This dovetails with another statement Jesus made to His followers while He poured out His heart to them in the upper room just hours before his crucifixion.

John 16:33
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

The peace that Jesus is talking about is not absence of conflict; to the contrary, Jesus says that His subjects will be persecuted. Even so, all the world belongs to Him and His people are safe in His hand. Paul paints a beautiful picture of this idea in his letter to the Colossians,

Colossians 1:13-14
He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Are we still within this domain of darkness? We live within it, but it can’t touch us. At worst, it can only kill our bodies; but if that happens for Christ, then our status in the Kingdom is only enhanced. We are subjects of the King and no one can take us out of his hand.

The King has come and his kingdom has been established. He has all authority in earth and in Heaven gathered to Himself. For the present time, this Kingdom is not visible to the naked eye, but every time a person places himself under the authority of Christ and bows before Him the kingdoms of the earth grow a little weaker. Another citizen of the kingdoms of the earth slips away and seeks asylum with the King of kings.

The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

There are a lot of misunderstandings regarding the Kingdom of God entrenched in Christian, and some non-Christian, thought today - as was demonstrated in the last post. Such misunderstandings rise, in part, from the wide ranging nature of the Kingdom itself: the Kingdom is not something that can be pinned down in order for us say, “The Kingdom of God is Salvation,” or “ The Kingdom is peace.” It is these things, but it is a great deal more as well. To gain a better understanding of the Kingdom we need to examine it’s history as it is described in the Old and New Testaments.

God Initiates the Kingdom

Before the Exodus, the people of God had very little information about Him, who He was, or even what he desired of them on a day to day basis. They knew that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and they knew some of the things He had done for their fathers. That all changed when the Jews were freed from captivity and slavery in Egypt and God met them at Mount Sinai.

In Exodus 19:4-6, God speaks to the refugees from Egypt through Moses:

“You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptian, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

The Children of Israel responded twice, in Exodus 19:8 and 24:3 “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do,” thus accepting God’s proposed covenant and the conditions He placed upon it.

The modern reader loses some of the power of God’s statement and Israel’s response, because he lives in a world entirely devoid of powerful monarchs. This message was given to the Jews at a time when every nation on earth was a monarchy. In that context, God approaches these people gathered at Sinai and says, “I will be your King.” This isn’t just a metaphor, or a word picture for something else – God meant it literally.

Judges 8 records the defeat of the Midianites by God through his judge, Gideon. After the victory the men of Israel, quickly forgetting that God did all the fighting while they stood by and watched, desired to make Gideon their King and establish his line as a dynasty.

Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, “Rule over us, you and your son and your grandson also, for you have saved us from the hand of Midian.” Gideon said to them, “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the Lord will rule over you.”

Gideon understood God’s rightful place as king over this people. Unfortunately, some 200 years later, the people would forget God again in their desire for a king that they could see and touch, a human king just like everyone else had.

2 Samuel 8:4-7
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, “Behold you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.

Stop for a second and reflect on that statement – They have rejected Me! This was treason perpetrated directly against the God of the Universe. They took God off the throne and placed a man there, no different than when other nations violently revolt and replace their old king with a new one. Not surprisingly, God did not take kindly to this usurpation of His proper place by the Jews.

Hosea 13:9-11
He destroys you, O Israel,
for you are against me, against your helper.
Where now is your king, to save you in all your cities?
Where are all your rulers—
those of whom you said,
“Give me a king and princes”?
I gave you a king in my anger,
and I took him away in my wrath.

Despite this statement, God does not stay angry with his people for long, He sets His sights on restoring His rule, this time through a new king; one who will do His will and obey His commands. God finds just such a man in the shepherd David.

During his reign, David expresses interest in building a house for God. At first the prophet Nathan approves, but a few hours later God appears to Nathan in a dream and gives him different directions. God says to David:

2 Samuel 7:5-6,8-9, 11-13
Would you build me a house to dwell in? I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent for my dwelling. … I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over my people Israel. And I have been with you wherever you went and have cut off all your enemies from before you. And I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. … And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house.

When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

God makes a promise to David that a descendents of his will sit on the throne forever. He promises an everlasting dynasty, what the Bible often refers to as “The House of David,” and God will rule his people through this house forever.

Unfortunately, Israel continues to be a “stiff necked people,” they leave God again and again. First, ten of the tribes of Israel split from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin when the ten refuse to accept Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, as their King. The nation breaks in two, the Kingdom of Judah in the south, made up of Judah and Benjamin, and the Kingdom of Israel in the north, made up of the other ten tribes.

While Judah has a small number of good kings who seek after God Israel has none, and proceeds to prostitute herself with other nations and other gods until God wipes them out around 720 BC. The northern kingdom of Israel was so bad that later, when God is warning Judah to return to Him, He says of Israel:

Jeremiah 3:6-8
“Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me,’ but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce.”

Israel had broken the conditions of covenant given by God at Sinai and the covenant curses, laid out in Deuteronomy 28, all come to pass against that nation.

Because of their few good Kings, Judah lasts a little longer than her sister, but eventually God must punish her as well. In 586 BC God sends the Empire of Babylon, under the leadership of King Nebuchadnezzar, to lay waste to Jerusalem and the entire nation of Judah. And most of the people are carried off into captivity in a foreign land.

While the Kingdom of Israel was utterly destroyed, Judah and Benjamin survive their captivity under the Babylonians and after 70 years God opens the way for the Jews to return to the land of Israel and to Jerusalem; although only a relatively small number actually return. The Jews manage to rebuild their city and the Temple, but for the next 500 years they are continuously under the dominion of foreign nations: the Medes and Persians, then the Greeks, and finally the Romans. They never restore their free nation, nor re-establish the throne of David.

It seems as though God's kingdom has hit a brick wall, David's throne is left vacant for centuries, and God's promises are frustrated by disobedience and captivity. Fortunately, the history of the Kingdom doesn't end there. More than 500 years after the captivity in Babylon ends, God sets about restoring His Kingdom and remaking it in the form it was always intended to take.

The Kingdom of God - What it's Not

Jesus spoke of the Kingdom frequently, he sent the disciples out to preach it to the people, and he told all his followers to “seek it first.” But what is it?

The message of The Kingdom is perhaps the primary focal point of the entire Bible, yet it is a broad subject – so broad that it might be easiest to begin by discussing what the Kingdom is not and some mistaken ideas about it.

Are the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven different things?

There have been a number of people, particularly dispensationalists, who have taught that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are different. In his bible commentary on Matthew 6, C. I. Scofield distinguishes between these Kingdoms in several ways, essentially stating that the Kingdom of God is a "universal spiritual kingdom" while the Kingdom of Heaven is the manifest Davidic Kingdom on earth. But is this distinction accurate?

In Matthew 19:23-24 Jesus says to the disciples,

“Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

Jesus uses the titles Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God interchangeably. He presents the same teaching twice, repeating himself for emphasis, but in the repetition swaps the title Kingdom of Heaven for Kingdom of God.

The synoptic gospels can often be used to clarify a teaching by comparing how the same speech is rendered by different authors. Mark and Matthew give us a little insight into how these two phrases should be understood:

Mark 1:14-15
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

Matthew 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

This is the same moment, the same teaching, rendered by Mark as the Kingdom of God and by Matthew as the Kingdom of Heaven. Clearly, the phrases mean the same thing and can be used interchangeably.

Is the Kingdom of God Heaven?

To answer this question one only needs to look back at Jesus’ primary teaching on prayer:

Matthew 6:9-13
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.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

In this model prayer, Jesus teaches the disciples to pray that God’s Kingdom will come on earth, as it already exists in Heaven. Heaven is not the Kingdom of God - the Kingdom does exist there - but we are to pray that the Kingdom “comes” on earth in the same way it already exists in Heaven.

Is the Kingdom the “Millennial Reign” of Christ?

Many evangelicals in the West today hold to a future view of the “Millennial reign” of Christ foretold in Revelation 20 and equate that period with the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Dr. Thomas Ice, a pre-millennial dispensational apologist, writes

“[...] of an interim kingdom following Christ's return but prior to the eternal kingdom of God during which Christ will rule and vanquish all His enemies. [...] Revelation 20 gives the chronology of events and length of Christ's kingdom on this earth prior to the eternal state.”

It is this “interim kingdom" following Christ’s return that is generally known as the “Millennial Reign.”

To be clear, the distinctives of this particular view are that Jesus will return at the end of the future “Tribulation” period and rule the world from Jerusalem for 1000 years. At the end of this 1000 year period there will be a rebellion against Christ, which will be put down and bring about the destruction of the present heaven and earth, which makes room for the “new heaven and earth” and what Dr. Ice calls the “eternal kingdom.”

The most immediate problem with equating the Kingdom of God with the pre-millennial view of the Millennial Reign of Christ is that it ends after 1000 years. However, numerous passages of scripture tell us that the Kingdom will never come to an end.

Isaiah 9:6-7
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time
forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

Daniel 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,

Luke 1:31-33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

The pre-millennial view of the Millennial reign of Christ cannot be the Kingdom of God. It may be included in the Kingdom, it may be part of the Kingdom, but it itself is not the Kingdom of God.

Is the Nation of Israel the Kingdom of God?

Many Jews at the time of Jesus were expecting the Messiah to come to Israel and throw off their Roman oppressors and re-establish Israel as an independent national power. They believed the prophesies made to King David in 2 Samuel 7:10-17 meant that the Messiah would literally sit on the throne of a free Jerusalem and be a powerful political ruler of Israel.

This appears to be the disciples' understanding of the purpose of the Messiah on earth, for after Jesus has been crucified and resurrected from the dead they ask him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6)?” But Jesus appears to understand the subject differently than his followers:

Acts 1:7-8
He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

At first glance it appears like Jesus has dodged their question, however, on closer inspection Jesus appears to have answered the question, but in an unexpected way. Instead of directly answering, Jesus speaks of what is about to happen to them: they will receive power and they will witnesses everywhere, even to the end of the earth.

In his statement to the disciples, Jesus makes reference to Psalm 2; the first of what are known as the “Kingdom Psalms.” The psalmist writes in verses 7-8,

“I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.

The opening verses of Romans state that, “concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.” According to Paul, Jesus was, "declared to be the Son of God […] by his resurrection from the dead," which is a direct allusion to verse 7 of the 2^nd Psalm. In Acts 1:8, Jesus refers to the next verse in Psalm 2, stating that the disciples will be his witnesses to “the end of the earth.”

Jesus fulfilled verse Psalm 2:7 by rising from the dead and sends out his disciples to be His witnesses and to fulfill Psalm 2:8. Essentially, Jesus is answering His disciples, “I am setting up the Kingdom at this time, and through your witness to end of the earth it will be established.”

What all this means is that the nation of Israel is not the Kingdom of God either.

Is the Kingdom of God inside everyone?

This is a common claim made by new-agers who want a stamp of approval from Jesus. The claim is based on the King James Version rendering of Luke 17:21:

“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”

“See,” says the new-ager, “Jesus says that the Kingdom not a real, objective thing. It is inside each of one of us.”

However, Jesus does not agree with this assessment of the Kingdom.

Luke 16:16
“The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it."

John 3:3,5
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God… Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Jesus is clear that the Kingdom of God is something external to the individual that not everyone will see, or enter.

A better rendering of Luke 17:21 can be found in most modern translations:

“…nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

In other words, “See! The Kingdom of God is very nearby at this moment, even within the midst of this crowd!”

What is the Kingdom of God?

After reading about a lot of things the Kingdom is not, it would be good to get a little insight into what the Kingdom is.

John 3:3-7
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

The Kingdom is not something that anyone can just walk into, Jesus clearly and unequivocally tells Nicodemus that one must be born again to “see” or enter the Kingdom of God. Jesus says the Kingdom “is spirit” and that to enter into it one must be “born of the Spirit,” not just of flesh.

Romans 14:17
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

This is the only passage I have found in the entire Bible which comes right out and says, “the Kingdom of God is…” It’s peace. It’s righteousness. It’s joy. But not by themselves. These things
are of the Holy Spirit. He makes them possible and without him, no one will become part of the Kingdom.

While this begins to give us an idea about the Kingdom there is much more to it than just that. To begin to bring the Kingdom into focus we need to examine it's history in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Next: The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

The Kingdom of God – It's Importance

What is the most important teaching in the Bible? Many would say it is the good news about the saving work of Jesus on the cross. Others could argue it's the assurance of life demonstrated by Christ's resurrection on Sunday morning. One of my favorite radio hosts believes it is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created..." Certainly the argument could be made that the most important teaching is found in Matthew 22:37-40:

And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

All of these teachings are important, and to one degree or another they all answer at least part of the question. That said, I think there is an answer that is straight forward, encompasses all the answers above, and completely pervades both the Old and New Testaments:

The Kingdom of God.

Jesus was obsessed with teaching the Kingdom. Every covenant between God and man related in the Bible is inseparably linked to building the Kingdom. By comparison, the Apostles taught the Kingdom of God and little else.

So what is the Kingdom of God? When did it begin? What does it mean for believers today? Why should we care?

Jesus himself clearly says that The Kingdom should be first on our list of priorities. Starting in Luke 9 there are a series of passages which clearly highlight the importance of The Kingdom to Jesus’ work on Earth.

Luke 9:1-2

And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal.

This is the first missionary journey for Jesus’ twelve closest followers. He decides it is time for the disciples to step out on their own, so he gathers them together, gives them power, and sends them out to tell the people to put their trust in Jesus so they might be saved…wait a second, that’s not quite right. Such a message might be part of what Jesus wants them to preach, but instead of that traditional missionary message He explicitly instructs them to “proclaim the kingdom of God” to all who will listen.

The next chapter in Luke begins similarly:

Luke 10:1-2, 8-9

After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go. And he said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest…Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

So Christ sends out another 72 individuals on 36 different missionary journeys to do what? Heal the sick and tell them that The Kingdom is near them.

At the beginning of Chapter 11 of Luke’s gospel the disciples ask Jesus to teach them how to pray. Jesus' answer is somewhat truncated in Luke, but the expanded version can be found in Matthew 6:

Matthew 6:9-13

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.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.”

While there is a great deal that could be said about this prayer, simply note that praying for the coming of The Kingdom is second only to exalting God the Father. Is the picture becoming clear yet? The Kingdom is a topic of great importance to Jesus.

While any number of passages could be cited to drive this point home, let's look at only two more:

Matthew 24:9-14

“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Matthew 6:31-33

Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

There is a lot of baggage that could be unpacked in the 24^th chapter of Matthew, it is highly eschatological and often apocalyptic in nature, making its interpretation less than straightforward. Fortunately, no matter what you believe Jesus is teaching in this chapter it is clear that he highlights the proclamation of the Kingdom of God as the thing of utmost importance. Getting out the message of this kingdom is the thing that must happen before “the end will come.”

Going back to the sixth chapter of Matthew, Jesus follows up his teaching on prayer by speaking at some length about the priorities of his followers. He expounds on things that we normally place foremost in our lives - making a good living, getting food to eat, clothes to wear, and a roof over our heads - and places them behind The Kingdom, saying, “seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness,” and all He’ll worry about that other stuff. The Kingdom should be our ultimate concern.

Christ was obsessed with the Kingdom of God. While I have only highlighted a few passages, Jesus spoke about it nearly non-stop. If He was that concerned about The Kingdom, isn’t it a sign that we should be as well?

Over the next several posts, I want to dig into this subject of the Kingdom of God. I hope you find it as interesting as I have.

Next: What the Kingdom Is Not.

Three Views of Hell, Part 4 - Eternal Torment Critique

When we look at the last post and the list of passages cited there, it certainly looks as though the Eternal Torment view is the only possible interpretation that is Biblically justifiable. However, the case is not as iron-clad as it looks at first glance.

Before I continue, I just want to give credit where it’s due: Several teachers and theologians have made me aware of many of the things that I will be writing on over this and the next several posts, John Stott, Steve Gregg, and Clark Pinnock foremost among them. I would not have been able to see much of what I will be writing about from here on out without reading their work.

Our preconceptions about what the Bible teaches often prevent us from recognizing good alternative theological views and prevent us from seeing problems with our own beliefs. Additionally, legitimate alternative views suffer because most of us don’t know the Bible as well as we should (I most definitely include myself in this). Both of these problems work in favor of the Eternal Torment view of Hell.

Let’s start with the word “eternal,” the backbone of the Eternal Torment view. The regular appearance of this word in describing various attributes of Hell has, understandably, led many to the conclusion that the suffering of the lost in hell lasts forever.

It should be pointed out that the Greek word “aion” or aionios” which is most often translated in these passages as “eternal” is defined by Vine’s Expository Dictionary as,

“Duration, either undefined but not endless, or undefined because endless.”

Right out of the gate, we find that the word we’ve always understood to mean everlasting may not mean that at all. Of course, “eternal” or “everlasting” could just as likely be the proper translation; I am not a Greek scholar by any means, and so far all Greek scholars involved in translating these passages have concluded that “eternal” is the best word. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to judge how justified their choice of translation is, except to say that translators are not free of their preconceptions and are just as capable of being swayed by them as you or I. It also seems that translators believe a great deal in precedence; that is, since aion was first translated as “eternal,” they will also translate the word as “eternal” unless they have a very good reason not to. Since we don’t have an ancient Greek scholar available to us, for the rest of the post let’s assume that “eternal” and other words that imply eternality are translated correctly.

As it turns out, the word “eternal” and similar words only appear eight times in the passages said to be describing Hell, and most of these passages are apocalyptic in style – that is, among other things they make use of hyperbole to make their points. This is the case for what are probably the two strongest passages supporting Eternal Torment: Revelation 14:11 and Mark 9:47-48.

Revelation 14:10-11
…he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.

To anyone who has studied the Book of Revelation in light of the rest of the Bible, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that the Apostle John is borrowing imagery directly from the Old Testament. In Isaiah 34 the prophet records a judgment against the nation of Edom:

Isaiah 34:8-10
For the Lord has a day of vengeance, a year of recompense for the cause of Zion. And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into sulfur; her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever.

While John is not quoting this passage directly, his imagery is borrowed from it. In both texts the picture of judgment brought against the lawbreakers makes use of fire, sulfur, and smoke ascending eternally. But is the unending state pictured in these passages meant to be understood literally? In Isaiah 34, I believe the answer is unquestionably no.

Edom was utterly destroyed by the Nabataeans just as God predicted through Isaiah. The land of Edom is no more, there are no more Edomites (the last known Edomite was Herod the Great), there has not been a descendent of Esau on the face of the Earth for 2000 years. Yet, if we were to travel to the former land of Edom, on the southern shore of the Dead Sea, we would not find the smoke of the Nabataean conquest still rising into sky, yet this passage speaks of the smoke from their burnt land ascending forever. This is a word picture, poetically written, meant to convey the message that Edom would be destroyed and never recover. Smoke is what is left after what has been burned is consumed. That it “go[es] up forever” might be understood to mean the Edomites will remain consumed forever. They are dead and gone two millennia ago, and will never cease to be consumed. Is this the way John means to use this imagery? I can’t say that I know for sure that he does, but it does seem possible.

However, if eternal torment is not what’s in view in verse 11, then why does the end of that sentence read, “and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name?” No rest seems to imply continued consciousness throughout the process that lasts “forever and ever.” While that might be the case, if we read just 2 verses down from this statement it appears that John himself explains:

Revelation 14:13
And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them.”

The rest that John writes about Revelation 14 appears to be another description of Heaven. The saints that die in Christ enter their "rest," those that perish without Him never enter that rest. It is entirely possible that by saying they will never experience rest day or night John is implying that they will not enter Heaven - not that they will remain conscious forever.

Interestingly, the other passage most often cited as teaching that Hell is a place of eternal torment, Mark 9:47-48, is also borrowed from the very last verse of the last chapter in Isaiah:

Mark 9:47-48
And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell [lit. Valley of Hinnom], ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

Isaiah 66:24
“And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

No matter which view of the final six chapters of Isaiah you hold to (these chapters are very controversial) this last verse of the book makes it clear that the prophet is not referring to souls or people in hell eternally suffering worms and flames. The prophet is referring to the bodies of the dead which experience these things, not their conscious souls or their resurrected bodies.
It also appears that undying worms and unquenchable flames should not be taken literally. As I pointed out in an earlier post, in Mark 9:47-48, Jesus refers in the passage specifically to the Valley Hinnom, which was a garbage dump for the city of Jerusalem. When Jesus spoke about Gehenna, or the Valley of Hinnom, his audience would not have thought about a distant future judgment after death, but simply of the valley just outside of Jerusalem's wall. The fires there burned day and night and the worms constantly consumed the garbage, refuse, and the bodies of criminals disposed of in that place.

We in the west make very similar statements all the time, yet for some reason we insist on holding the Biblical writers to a woodenly literal use of language. When you have a problematic ant infestation that you have tried to kill off unsuccessfully, it would not be unusual to complain that these ants “just won’t die.” No one would take you literally and conclude that you were saying these particular ants were immortal or would infest your house for eternity. In this light it is probably safe to say that neither statement about the flames and worms have anything to do with eternity, but are simply common expressions about what one would find in the Valley Hinnom at any given time.

The Valley of Hinnom was also mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah, who spoke of it several times while proclaiming the coming judgment on Israel carried out by Babylon in 586 BC.

Jeremiah 7:31, 32
And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, because there is no room elsewhere.

Jeremiah 19:6-9, 11-12
…Therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter. And in this place I will make void the plans of Judah and Jerusalem, and will cause their people to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hand of those who seek their life. I will give their dead bodies for food to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city a horror, a thing to be hissed at. Everyone who passes by it will be horrified and will hiss because of all its wounds. And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them’…and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts: So will I break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter's
vessel, so that it can never be mended. Men shall bury in Topheth because there
will be no place else to bury. Thus will I do to this place, declares the Lord, and to its inhabitants, making this city like Topheth.

The question is, in citing the passage of Isaiah and referring to the place which figures somewhat prominently in Jeremiah’s prophesy of destruction upon Israel, could Jesus be warning of something similar occurring again? It is very possible. The similarities between the Babylonian destruction of Israel and the Roman destruction 600 year later are striking.

Josephus writes extensively about the siege and eventual destruction of Jerusalem in “The Jewish Wars,” and he records that during the height of the Roman siege there were rotting bodies laying in the streets of the city and bodily fluids running in the gutters. The people of Jerusalem cast so many bodies over the walls that they filled the Kidron Valley. While Josephus never mentions the Valley of Hinnom, it may well have seen the same result from this war, especially seeing as this was it’s general use anyway.

These ancient prophets may provide us with a better understanding of these two passages which have long been cited as the support for the view of eternal torment, but they don’t shed any light on Jesus’ statement in Matthew 10:28 that we should “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell [lit. Gehenna, or Valley of Hinnom]. One explanation that has been suggested is that Jesus is simply saying that when the offending individual is dead God is not done with them yet. I don’t know of any other possible explanations of this particular verse, which I find quite mysterious.

A number of the scriptures that are generally cited in support of the Eternal Torment view of Hell talk about eternal fire. The argument is that the fire of Hell is eternal and so the suffering and torment of those condemned there must be eternal as well. While one can easily see how descriptions of eternal fire would lead one to assume an eternal Hell, the fact is that neither suffering, torment, nor punishment are mentioned in these passages; only eternal fire.
An explanation of this could be that the modifier “eternal” actually refers to something other than duration of torment. It’s quite possible that in describing eternal fire the author is not saying that the fire itself lasts forever but that the fire has it’s source in eternity, which is an attribute solely of God. This idea is not without some scriptural support.

Genesis 19:24
Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.

Jude 1:7
…just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

As I pointed out before regarding Edom, if you were to travel to the west bank of the Dead Sea, where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are believed to have been located, you will not see a fire continuing to burn. Genesis tells us that these cities were destroyed with fire “from the Lord out of heaven.” While the fire that burned these cities has long since gone out, the source of the fire is the God who holds eternity in His hand. If this is the case, then to say that the condemned suffer eternal fire would not be saying anything more than that they suffer the judgment of God.

One final point is that the Bible does not say anywhere, that I am aware of, that unbelievers live forever. We often assume it because we understand that those who enter into the New Heaven and the New Earth will reign with God forever; but eternal existence of the damned isn’t taught in the Bible to the best of my knowledge.

Like I said at the beginning of this series, I don’t know what position to believe at the moment. While I have been critical of the Biblical arguments offered in support of the Eternal Torment view Hell, nothing I have laid out is concrete. I have simply offered what I believe to be reasonable questions about the traditional interpretations of the passages used to support the view of Eternal Torment.

Three Views of Hell, Part 1

Recently, I have been studying the Biblical doctrine of Hell, and have come to a surprising conclusion: I don’t know what to believe about Hell.

As I studied the passages that most Protestant Christians believe speak about Hell, I discovered that the Bible has far less to say on the subject than I ever thought. You’ve probably heard it said that Jesus spoke more about Hell than about any other single subject; I have heard it said countless times in my life, but in studying the subject I found that Jesus either rarely, or never (depending on how you understand several vague passages) spoke about Hell. In reality, He spoke most often about the Kingdom of God, but that’s a subject for another time.

There’s a lot of misinformation out there about this subject, and as my views are now up in the air, I would like to present what I have found and see if any readers have any comments. This will probably take three or four posts (or six or seven), and I imagine that each will be pretty long. That said, I hope this interesting for all.

Three Biblical Views of Hell?

Like most Christians, I grew up believing in what is generally known as the “Eternal Torment” view of Hell. We’re all familiar with it - In brief, it says that all people who die without having accepted the saving work of Christ are judged and then cast in Hell, or more specifically the Lake of Fire, where they are separated from God and suffer torment for eternity. While I was aware that liberal Christians and some groups I would call cults had different beliefs about Hell, I never for a moment considered that anything other than the Eternal Torment view was Biblically justifiable.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in “Annihilationism,” that the soul of the unbeliever is destroyed upon death so that there isn’t any hell at all. For the JW, there is only Heaven and non-existence. The Unitarians believe in “Universalism,” that there are many ways to God, and that all people will be accepted into God’s presence upon death. For them Heaven is the only destination. These are not the only pseudo-Christian cults and groups that hold such alternative doctrines about Hell, but they are two of the most prominent.

Neither Annihilationism nor Universalism, as stated above, has any grounding in scripture. Both views primarily emanate from a strong distaste for the eternal torment view – a distaste that most Christians can probably empathize with. I have never been particularly comfortable with the eternal torment understanding of Hell myself, but I have defended it on internet forums and in the High School Sunday School classes I taught because I believed it was what the Bible taught. That said, in conducting a more focused study of the Biblical teachings on Hell I was very surprised to come to the conclusion that two other views, very similar to Annihilationism and Universalism, do have as much Biblical evidence in their favor as the view of Eternal Torment does.

“Universal Reconciliation”

I imagine that most conservative Christians will have a bad reaction to this view instinctively, as on it’s surface it appears almost indistinguishable from Universalism. Like Universalism, Universal Reconciliation teaches that all people will bow the knee, be reconciled with God, and join Him in Heaven. While the end result is the same, there are three key differences which make Universal Reconciliation, I believe, tolerable to Biblical Christianity while Universalism is not.

1. There is a Hell in Universal Reconciliation.
While Universalism teaches that all men go to heaven because God is too loving to send people to hell, that He is pleased with us no matter what we do, Universal Reconciliation teaches that men who die without Christ suffer judgment and Hell for their sins against God.

2. All men will be saved, but that Salvation is only through Christ.
While the god of Universalism loves everyone so much that he will overlook any sin in accepting people into Heaven, Universal Reconciliation holds that it is only because of suffering and Hell that the damned are brought to a place of repentance and repaired relationship with God through Christ.

3. There is a surprisingly (to me) strong Biblical case for Universal Reconciliation.
Universalism is based on a negative emotional response to the doctrine of Hell. Those evangelicals who consider themselves Universal Reconciliationists hold the view not because they hate idea of Hell but because they believe the Bible teaches it.

“Conditional Immortality”

Like Annihilationism, this view teaches that all men not found in Christ when they die, will cease to exist. The ultimate final destination is either Heaven for the saved or non-existence for the lost. Many evangelicals would call this view Annihilationism, and it is very similar to that heretical position except for three points.

1. There is a Hell in Conditional Immortality.
Like Universalism, Annihilationism gets rid of Hell completely, as those who hold to it choose not to believe that a god of love could punish people in Hell. Conditional Immortality recognizes the Biblical teaching of Hell and the requirement of judgment upon those who reject God before they are extinguished from existence.

2. Human Beings are mortal by nature.
Annihilationism holds that God destroys the soul that dies without Christ, that ceasing to exist is the sum total of the punishment that God meets out. Conditional Immortality says that human beings are not innately immortal, and thus there is no need for God to destroy them. Immortality, it is argued, emanates from God, and without God to sustain the soul it passes away.

3. There is a surprisingly (to me) strong Biblical case for Conditional Immortality.
Like Universal Reconciliation, the Biblical argument in favor of Conditional Immortality is surprisingly good. Those who support the view do so not because they hate the idea of hell, like the cultist and the liberal, but because they believe it is taught in the Bible.

Let me reemphasize that I am up in the air, no longer leaning toward Eternal Torment, Universal Reconciliation, or Conditional Immortality. I am totally undecided. As that is the case, I want to present each of the views and the arguments both for and against them as best I can. Because I am undecided, I am very interested in hearing your thoughts and want to know what everyone thinks about each view. I hope everyone will find this interesting.

Moral Foundations, Necessary or Not?

All laws must have a moral backing, that is, a moral law as their foundation. Contrary to those who say that "You can't legislate morality," I say, "If you don't legislate morality, what do you legislate?" Without that moral foundation, any legislation is simply argumentum ad baculum, or (paraphrased) in English, "persuasion from the barrel of a gun." You will do what we say simply because we want you to do it. The only obligation that you have is to the government and there is no one greater than us to whom we are accountable. And if you don't like it, lump it.

Without some higher authority morality is reduced to ice cream; you like vanilla, I like mocha almond fudge. Except we're talking about morality here, so it becomes, you prefer not taking other peoples' stuff, I like to help myself to any of your possessions that catch my eye. Who's to say who's right? In fact, without that objective, authoritative moral standard, even asking the question "who is right," is nonsensical. If there is no higher standard there is no right or wrong, just personal preference; your decision not to steal is no better than my decision to steal.

Some people who want to deny the necessity of an objective, authoritative (thus God-based) moral foundation argue that we get our morality through periods of trial and error, discovering what works.

But who's to say what works for any given society? Certainly, cutting the hearts out of living victims kidnapped from other local tribes by the thousands seemed to work quite well for the Aztec civilization. African slavery worked great for most of the world (including most of Africa) for hundreds of years. Purging their society of the aged, the handicapped, and the Jews looked like it might "work" for the purposes of the Nazis. Without a moral standard outside of human government and culture, these atrocities cannot be judged as "wrong." Without an authoritative moral standard, the strongest statement one can make about these events is, "Personally, I don't like that." Seems pretty weak to me.

"But," the secularist argues, "all those examples involve hurting other people. Thus, we can say such actions are immoral." Really? Where does one, outside of an objective, authoritative moral standard, have the ability to say that hurting people is wrong? Let me put it another way: You claim there are no transcendent moral standards, but we shouldn't hurt people. If that's true, then isn't "not hurting people" a transcendent moral law? To say that there is not an authoritative Law Giver who we are obligated to obey, but at the same time claim that we are obligated not to hurt people is a contradiction. May I also point out that if we agree that "not hurting people" IS a transcendent moral law, then couldn't there be other transcendent moral laws as well?

The strongest statement the secular legal scholar can make is, "I don't like being hurt, therefore I chose not to hurt other people." Wonderful! That's an excellent reason for you not to hurt people, not for anybody else not to hurt people. What if I like hurting people? By what authority, other than one's personal preferences, could I then be told to change my behavior? There is none.

Without a God, who is The Moral Authority, people have no obligation to help or be concerned for others, all societies from the most violent and degraded to the most kind and altruistic are on the same level, one can't be said to be better than the other (the idea of "better" implies an objective standard). Words like "corruption" and "justice" become meaningless. There can never be such a thing as a moral reformer, such as Martin Luther King, Jr.; in fact, in what 99.8% of people would surely consider a bizarre twist, in a world where culture, society, or government truly was the highest authority, M. L. King, Jr. would be considered immoral (I'm not going to take up more space here demonstrating why that would be).

Without God, the whole philosophical basis for a justice system or a legal system breaks down completely. And the result are truly ugly to behold.