The Coming Kingdom

The Coming Kingdom – Part 1
Dr. Andy Woods
Evangelical Confusion
The contemporary evangelical world is engulfed in the idea that the church is presently experiencing the
messianic kingdom. The idea of the "kingdom" can be bewildering, especially considering how this term
is loosely bandied about by today's evangelicals. Many ministries convey the notion that the kingdom is
strictly a spiritual and present reality by indicating that they are "expanding the kingdom" through their
evangelistic and missionary endeavors. Even Christian political activists sometimes argue that they are
"bringing in the kingdom."
Such "kingdom now" theology factors prominently in the writings of various Emergent Church writers.
Doug Pagitt proclaims, “And let me tell you ‘Kingdom of God’ language is really big in the emerging
church.”[1] Brian McClaren echoes:
He selected 12 and trained them in a new way of life. He sent them to teach everyone this new way of
life...Even if only a few would practice this new way, many would benefit. Oppressed people would be
free. Poor people would be liberated from poverty. Minorities would be treated with respect. Sinners
would be loved, not resented. Industrialists would realize that God cares for sparrows and wildflowers-
so their industries should respect, not rape, the environment. The homeless would be invited in for a
hot meal. The kingdom of God would come-not everywhere at once, not suddenly, but gradually like a
seed growing in a field, like yeast spreading in a lump of bread dough, like light spreading across the sky
at dawn.[2]
McClaren further observes: “If Revelation were a blueprint of the distant future, it would have been
unintelligible to its original readers...In light of this, Revelation becomes a powerful book about the
kingdom of God here and now, available to all.”[3]
Series Preview
Why do so many seem to believe that the messianic kingdom has already materialized? Is there a
biblical basis for such a belief? Due to the dominance of kingdom now theology in modern evangelical
thought, a fresh scriptural look at the notion of the kingdom is warranted. To this end, we begin a
lengthy series on the subject of the kingdom. This series will seek to accomplish four goals. First, the
biblical teaching on the kingdom of God will be surveyed from Genesis to Revelation. Only such an
analysis will allow us to capture God's mind on this important subject. Second, this series will set forth
some general problems with a New Testament based "kingdom now" interpretation. Third, this series
will examine the isolated New Testament texts that kingdom now theologians use and show their
insufficiency to convey kingdom now theology. Fourth, this series will note why this trend of equating
God's present work in the church with the messianic kingdom is a matter believers should be concerned
about since this theology radically alters God's design for the church.
An Important Distinction
At the outset, a distinction must be drawn between the universal kingdom and the theocratic (or
mediatorial) kingdom. Such a distinction is justified since some verses present the kingdom as in a state
of perpetual existence (Ps 93:1-2) while others indicate that the kingdom will be a future reality (Dan
2:44). Moreover, some verses depict the kingdom as universal in scope (Ps 103:19) while other verses
picture the kingdom as earthly (Dan 2:35, 44-45). Furthermore, some verses present the kingdom as
being directly ruled by God (Dan 4:17) while other verses depict the kingdom as being indirectly
administered by God through a human agent (Ps 2:6-9). Thus, the universal kingdom is eternal,
comprehensive, and under God’s direct rule. By contrast, the theocratic kingdom is futuristic, earthly,
and under God’s indirect rule.[4] Most theological persuasions agree that God's universal kingdom is a
timeless reality existing to the present hour. However, theological disagreement relates to the alleged
present manifestation of the theocratic kingdom. Thus, the focus of this series will not be upon the
generally acknowledged universal kingdom but rather on what the Bible teaches concerning the
theocratic kingdom.
Early Genesis and the Kingdom
The biblical story of the kingdom begins as early as the Garden of Eden. Here, God placed Adam and Eve
in a position of authority over God's creation. Gen 1:26-28 says: "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in
Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the
sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created
them. God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue
it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves
on the earth.'" It should be noted that Adam and Eve were given authority over the physical realm (fish,
birds, living things that move on the earth). Here, God arranged for humanity's first couple to govern
God's creation on God's behalf. The technical term for this hierarchy is the office of Theocratic
Administrator. This term simply refers to someone who governs for God. In other words, God ruled the
world indirectly through the first Adam.
However, Satan soon took the form of a serpent with the specific goal of perverting and reversing this
divinely ordained hierarchy. Instead of governing the physical world for God, Adam and Eve were
influenced by creation (the serpent) to rebel against God (Gen 3). Such rebellion represented a top to
bottom reversal of God's original intention for the office of Theocratic Administrator. Satan's success in
inciting this rebellion effectively removed the office of Theocratic Administrator from the earth, as Satan
became the ruler of the world (Luke 4:5-8; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2). What then is
the story-line of the Bible? It is how this office is restored through the messianic kingdom. Just as God
the Father originally intended to indirectly govern the physical world through the first Adam, He will one
day govern the world through the Last Adam or God the Son.
The restoration of the physical kingdom or office of Theocratic Administrator as the dominant theme of
the Bible has been recognized by numerous theologians. Note Charles Ryrie's explanation:
Why is an earthly kingdom necessary? Did He not receive His inheritance when He was raised and
exalted in heaven? Is not His present rule His inheritance? Why does there need to be an earthly
kingdom? Because He must be triumphant in the same arena where He was seemingly defeated. His
rejection by the rulers of this world was on this earth (1 Cor. 2:8). His exaltation must also be on this
earth. And so it shall be when He comes again to rule this world in righteousness. He has waited long for
His inheritance; soon He shall receive it.[5]
The late Dr. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary used to terrify doctoral students during oral
exams by asking them how they would defend the notion of a future earthly kingdom from the
Scriptures. Nervous students would usually start with Rev 20:1-10, which speaks of the future one-
thousand-year reign of Christ. Hoehner would then ask the student to find an earlier biblical reference
to the coming kingdom. Students then typically went first to Paul, then Christ, then the prophets, and
finally the covenants (defined later) to find scriptural support for the coming kingdom. When Hoehner
again asked for something earlier, the student was forced to go back to Genesis 1. The learned professor
was simply trying to get his students to understand that the theme of a future, earthly kingdom begins
on the Bible's very first page. One day God the Father will restore what was lost in Eden. He will again
rule the world indirectly through a human intermediary. This human intermediary will not be the
original Adam but rather the Last Adam or the unique God-man Jesus Christ who is the second member
of the Trinity.
The Mother-Child Cult
The next major place in God's word that speaks to the reality of a future messianic kingdom are those
sections that reveal God's covenants with His special nation Israel. It is helpful to understand why God
created and entered into a covenant with Israel. According to tradition, Nimrod, the leader of the
rebellion at the Tower of Babel (Gen 10:8-9), and his wife Semiramis became the founders of the
mystery religion known as the Mother-Child Cult. Their son Tammuz born through an alleged miraculous
conception was killed by a wild animal and miraculously raised to life. This event led to the worship of
the mother (Semiramis) and the child (Tammuz). When God confounded the languages at Babel
consequently ushering in multiple ethnicities (Gen 11:1-9), this Mother-Child Cult was exported into
every culture that followed. Although the names of the mother and the child were changed from culture
to culture, these religions still epitomized the same idolatrous religious system began at Babel. In
Assyria, the mother was Ishtar and the child was Tammuz. In Phoenicia, it was Astarte and Baal. In Egypt,
it was Isis and Osiris or Horus. In Greece, it was Aphrodite and Eros. In Rome, it was Venus and Cupid.[6]
Given the idolatrous origin of these nations, God through Abram began a new nation independent of
this universal impact at Babel. This nation, later called Israel (Num 24:17), would become His vehicle of
exporting His messianic blessings to the world (Gen 3:15; 12:3).
(To Be Continued...)
Endnotes
[1] Cited in Roger Oakland, Faith Undone (Silverton, OR: Lighthouse Trails, 2007), 163.
[2] Brian McClaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 111.
[3] Cited in Oakland, Faith Undone, 158.
[4] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986), 397-98; Alva J. McClain, The
Greatness of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 19-21; Renald Showers, "Critique of
Progressive Dispensationalism," Friends of Israel National Conference (June 2003), 9-14.
[5] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 511.
[6] Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons (reprint, New York: Loizeaux, 1959), 19-90; John Walvoord,
“Revelation,” in Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. Walvoord and Zuck (CO: Victor, 1983), 970.
The Coming Kingdom (Part 2)
Dr. Andy Woods
Because the contemporary evangelical world is engulfed in the idea that the church is presently
experiencing the messianic kingdom, last month we began a series of studies chronicling what the Bible
teaches concerning this important issue of the kingdom. After distinguishing the universal kingdom from
the theocratic kingdom, we observed that the notion of a coming messianic kingdom begins as early as
Genesis One. We also saw that because of the negative impact that the Tower of Babel incident had on
all nations (Gen. 11:1-9), God brought into existence a special nation that He would perpetuate through
the patriarch Abraham (then called Abram). Through this special nation, later called Israel, God would
bring His messianic and redemptive blessings to the world (Gen. 3:15; 12:3).
Biblical Covenants and the Kingdom
Thus, the next place in God's word that speaks to the reality of a future messianic kingdom are those
sections that reveal God's covenants with His special nation Israel. A covenant in ancient times is similar
to a legal contract today, which binds the parties to the agreement to perform in a specific way. In the
biblical covenants, the God of the universe legally obligated Himself to fulfill specific promises directly
for Israel and indirectly for the world. Let us briefly explain the content of these covenants and then
note their contribution to a promised future earthly kingdom.
Israel's foundational covenant, known as the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:18), unconditionally
promises three elements to Israel: land extending from modern day Egypt to Iraq (Gen. 15:18-21), seed
or innumerable descendants (Gen. 15:4-5; 22:17), and blessing (Gen. 15:1). These three promises are
amplified in subsequent covenants (or sub-covenants) that God made with the nation. The land
provision is amplified in the land covenant (Deut. 29‒30). The blessing component is amplified in the
New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). Here, God promised to write His laws on the hearts of the Jews.
Regarding the seed promises, from Abraham’s many seed would ultimately come a singular seed (Gen.
3:15; Gal. 3:16) or descendant who would procure all of the promises found in the Abrahamic Covenant
for Israel consequently ushering in blessing for the nation and world. This seed aspect of the Abrahamic
Covenant’s promises is later amplified in what is known as the Davidic Covenant. After God rejected
Saul, who was the nation’s first king, God selected David from among Jesse’s sons (1 Sam. 16:1) leading
to David’s anointing as the nation’s second king (1 Sam. 16:13). In time, God entered into a covenant
with David, which promised that through David’s lineage would come an eternal house, throne, and
kingdom (2 Sam. 7:13-16). In other words, God through David’s lineage would usher in an eternal
dynasty and throne. The Old Testament continually reaffirms that there would eventually arise a Davidic
descendant who would usher in all that was unconditionally promised to both Abraham and David (Ps.
89; Amos 9:11; Hosea 3:5; Isa. 7:13-14; 9:6-7; Ezek. 34:23; 37:24).
Literal
These covenantal obligations make an enormous impact upon the reality of a future earthly kingdom
when it is understood that these promises are literal, unconditional, and unfulfilled. Several reasons
make it apparent that these promises should be construed literally. The promises are terrestrial or
earthly in nature. In fact, Abraham was told by God to walk around the very land that he and his people
would one day possess (Gen. 13:17). The promises are made exclusively with national Israel rather than
the church, which was not yet in existence (Matt. 16:18). Regarding the seed, they concern David’s
physical line. There is nothing in the context of 2 Samuel 7 which would lead the reader to the
conclusion that these promises are to be understood as anything other than literal and earthly. Since
these promises to David are an amplification of the seed component of the Abrahamic Covenant, they
share the Abrahamic Covenant’s literalness and terrestrial nature.
Unconditional
In addition to being literal, these covenantal obligations are unconditional. An unconditional promise is
the opposite of a conditional promise, which requires some sort of performance on the part of one of
the contracting parties before the other party is obligated to perform. If these promises were
conditional, Israel would be obligated to do something before God was obligated to fulfill His covenantal
obligations. However, these promises are, in actuality, unconditional. In other words, the ultimate
performance in fulfillment of these promises rests solely in what God has obligated Himself to do
regardless of the performance of Israel.
The late prophecy scholar Dr. John F. Walvoord identifies four reasons as to why these covenantal
promises are unconditional.[1] First, Walvoord notes the typical ancient Near Eastern, covenant-
ratification ceremony, which God used to establish the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 15). In this ceremony,
severed animal carcasses were placed into two rows and the parties to the covenant passed through
these rows. Such a solemn occasion testified to the fact that if the parties did not fulfill their obligations
under the covenant, then they, too, were to be severed just as the animals had been (Jer. 34:8-10, 18-
19). What is unique about the Abrahamic Covenant is that Abraham never passed through the severed
animal pieces. After God put Abraham to sleep, He alone, as represented by the oven and the torch,
passed through the animal pieces (Gen. 15:12, 17). This signifies that God alone will bring to pass all the
promises in the Abrahamic Covenant unilaterally.
Second, there are no stated conditions for Israel’s obedience in Genesis 15. If Israel had to do something
before God could perform His obligations, such a condition would have been mentioned. Because there
are no stated conditions for Israel to perform before God can perform, the covenant must solely rest
upon God for performance. Third, the Abrahamic Covenant is called eternal (Gen. 17:7, 13, 19) and
unchangeable (Heb. 6:13-18). Thus, the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant cannot rest upon the
performance of fickle and sinful men. Because only God is eternal and unchangeable, He alone will bring
the covenant promises into fulfillment. Fourth, the covenant is trans-generationally reaffirmed despite
Israel's perpetual national disobedience. No matter how wicked each generation became, God kept on
perpetually reaffirming the covenant to Israel (Jer. 31:35-37). If the covenant were conditioned upon
Israel's performance, it would have been revoked long ago due to Israel's disobedience rather than
continually reaffirmed.
Unfulfilled
In addition to being literal and unconditional, the covenant, even up to the present hour, remains
unfulfilled. While some might make the argument that some parts of the covenant have achieved a past
fulfillment, when construed literally, the bulk of the covenant remains unfulfilled thus awaiting a future
realization. Some challenge the covenant’s unfulfilled aspects by contending that it was fulfilled either in
the days of Joshua (Josh. 11:23; 21:43-45) or during the prosperous portion of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs.
4:20-21; 8:56).[2] However, several reasons make this interpretation suspect.[3] For example, the
extended context indicates that the land promises were not completely satisfied in the days of Joshua
(13:1-7; Judges 1:19, 21, 27, 29, 30-36). In addition, the land that Israel attained in the conquest was
only a fraction of what was found in the Abrahamic Covenant.[4] Also, the land promises could not have
been fulfilled in Joshua’s day since Israel had not yet conquered Jerusalem (Josh. 15:63). The conquest
of Jerusalem would have to wait another four hundred years until the Davidic reign (2 Sam. 5).
Although Solomon gained a large percentage of the land, his empire only extended to the border of
Egypt (1 Kgs. 4:21) rather than to the promised river of Egypt (Gen. 15:18) according to what God
initially promised Abraham.[5] Regarding the notion that the land promises were fulfilled under
Solomon’s reign, Constable observes:
This does not mean that the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled in Solomon’s day (Gen. 15:18-20), for not
all of this territory was incorporated into the geographic boundaries of Israel; many of the subjected
kingdoms retained their identity and territory but paid taxes (tribute) to Solomon. Israel’s own
geographic limits were“from Dan to Beersheba” (1 Kings 4:25).[6]
Moreover, the Abrahamic Covenant promises that Israel would possess the land forever (Gen. 17:7-8,
13, 19). This eternal promise has obviously never been fulfilled due to Israel’s subsequent eviction from
the land a few centuries after Solomon’s reign (2 Kgs. 17; 25). Furthermore, if the land promises were
satisfied in Joshua’s or Solomon’s day, then why do subsequent prophets treat these promises as if they
are yet to be fulfilled (Amos 9:11-15)? Certainly the New Covenant's promise of God writing His laws
upon the hearts of Israel has never been fulfilled. Israel's national disobedience is well chronicled in the
pages of Scripture. In fact, Israel largely remains a Christ-rejecting nation to the present day.
The bottom line is that if the Abrahamic Covenant and its related sub-covenants are literal (interpreted
in ordinary, earthly terms), unconditional (resting upon God alone for performance rather than Israel),
and unfulfilled (never fulfilled historically thereby necessitating a future fulfillment), there must be a
future time in history in which God will make good on what He has covenantally obligated Himself to do.
God must do what He said He would do since it is contrary to His nature to lie, fabricate, or equivocate
in any sense (Num. 23:19). Thus, such a future fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant and related sub-
covenants heightens the biblical expectation of a future, earthly kingdom.
Endnotes
[1] John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1959), 149-52.
[2] Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2007), 52-53, 178-79.
[3] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, rev. ed. (Tustin, CA:
Ariel, 1994), 521-22, 631-32; John F. Walvoord, Major Bible Prophecies (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1991), 82.
[4] See the helpful map showing what was promised in the Abrahamic Covenant in comparison to what
was attained in the conquest in Thomas L. Constable, “Notes on Numbers,” online: www.soniclight.com,
accessed 13 January 2012, 98.
[5] Charles C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 533.
[6] Thomas L. Constable,“1 Kings,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy
B. Zuck (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor, 1985), 497.
Dr. Andy Woods
Because today's evangelical world largely believes that the church is presently experiencing the
messianic kingdom, we began a study chronicling what the Bible teaches concerning this important issue
of the kingdom. That there will be a future, messianic kingdom on earth has been revealed thus far
through the divine intention to restore the office of Theocratic Administrator (Gen. 1:26-28) that was
lost in Eden (Gen. 3) as well as through the promise of a future, earthly, messianic reign as prophesied in
the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15) and related sub-covenants.
THEOCRACY'S DEPARTURE AND RETURN
The next major place in God's Word that speaks to the reality of a future, messianic kingdom is the
revelation of the Mosaic Covenant that God gave exclusively to national Israel (Ps. 147:19-20) at Mount
Sinai. After the Fall in Eden (Gen. 3), the theocratic kingdom left the earth. This departure left the world
without the benefit of the office of Theocratic Administrator until the time of Moses. This reality may
explain why the Apostle Paul describes the spiritually dark time period between Adam and Moses as
follows: “for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness
of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come” (Rom. 5:13-14).
Although the time period between Adam and Moses was indeed spiritually dark, the light of the office of
Theocratic Administrator eventually returned to the earth through God’s revelation of the Mosaic
Covenant at Sinai. Despite four hundred years of bondage in Egypt (Gen. 15:13-16), God graciously
redeemed and liberated His people through the Exodus. He then brought His redeemed people to Sinai
and entered into a new covenant with them called the "Mosaic Covenant." Note the occurrence of the
term “kingdom” as God entered into this new covenant with Israel. “Now then, if you will indeed obey
My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own 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. These are the words that
you shall speak to the sons of Israel” (Exod. 19:5-6; emphasis mine).[1] Because this is the first reference
to the term “kingdom” in relation to God's kingdom in all of the Bible, it is reasonable to conclude that
the office of Theocratic Administrator that was lost in Eden was restored to the earth, at least in a
limited sense, at Sinai. Just as God governed indirectly through Adam in Eden, God now began to rule
indirectly over Israel through His Theocratic Administrator Moses. This theocratic arrangement covered
most of Old Testament history as God, even after the time of Moses, governed Israel indirectly through
Joshua, and then various judges, and finally Israel’s kings.[2]
AN UNCONDITIONAL COVENANT WITH A CONDITIONAL BLESSING
The Mosaic Covenant also introduced a new component to God’s covenantal dealings with Israel. This
new element must be understood in order to comprehend the divine blueprint concerning a future,
earthly kingdom. As argued previously in this series, the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are
unconditional. In other words, they rest completely upon God rather than Israel’s performance for their
eventual fulfillment. By contrast, the Mosaic Covenant (Exod. 19‒24) is conditional. Notice the terms “if”
and “then” in Exodus 19:5-6: “Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then
you shall be My own 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” (emphasis mine). In other words, if Israel obeys the terms of the
Mosaic Covenant, then God will bless the nation physically, materially, and spiritually.
The technical covenantal structure in the ancient Near East for this type of agreement is known as a
Suzerain-Vassal Treaty. Here, the suzerain, or a superior, enters into an agreement with an inferior, or a
vassal. The vassal promises to come under the protective custody of the suzerain. The suzerain, in turn,
promises to bless or curse the vassal depending upon whether the vassal demonstrates loyalty or
disloyalty to the suzerain by either obeying or disobeying the specific terms of the covenant text. In the
case of the Mosaic Covenant, the suzerain is God, Israel is the vassal, the covenant text is the Ten
Commandments and all of their applications as spelled out in the Mosaic Law (Exod. 19‒24; Lev.; Deut.),
and the blessings and curses for covenant obedience are found in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. In
contrast to this suzerain-vassal arrangement, the afore-mentioned unconditional, Abrahamic Covenant
represents an ancient Near East covenant known as a "Royal Grant Treaty" where a king promises to
unconditionally reward a subject.
If the Abrahamic Covenant and its related sub-covenants are unconditional and the Mosaic Covenant is
conditional, then how does God deal with Israel under both of these covenants? The answer lies in
understanding the difference between ownership and possession. Suppose that someone owns a
vacation home and yet they are too busy working to visit this home. At this point, this person owns the
home but does not possess or enjoy it. In the same way, the Abrahamic covenant gives Israel
unconditional ownership of its various promises. Due to the Abrahamic Covenant’s unconditional
nature, no amount of disobedience on Israel’s part can remove her ownership of these blessings. While
Israel can be severely disciplined by God for disobeying the terms of the Mosaic Covenant (Lev. 26:14-
46; Deut. 28:15-68), even resulting in the nation’s conquest by foreign powers (Deut. 28:49-50), she can
never forfeit ownership of the promises spoken of in the Abrahamic Covenant.
However, before Israel can possess or enjoy what she owns, she must obey the terms of the Mosaic
Covenant. Thus, any given generation within Israel must meet the conditions of the Mosaic Covenant in
order to experience the blessings promised in the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants.[3] An important
provision of the Mosaic Covenant is that Israel must enthrone the king of God’s own choosing (Deut.
17:15). Such an enthronement will thereby satisfy the condition of obedience found in the Mosaic
Covenant thus allowing Israel to possess rather than merely own the Abrahamic Covenant’s blessings.
The Mosaic Covenant ultimately points toward Christ. In John 5:45-47, Jesus explained to the Jews of His
day, “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom
you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if
you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” Here is what the whole picture looks
like: While Israel owns the covenantal blessings found in the Abrahamic Covenant and related sub-
covenants, she cannot possess or enter into these blessings until she complies with the condition found
in the Mosaic Covenant. However, this condition can be satisfied through the nation’s enthronement of
the king of God’s own choosing (Deut. 17:15), who is Christ (John 5:45-47).
How does all of this relate to the subject of a future earthly kingdom? Although the Abrahamic
Covenantal promises and blessings are unconditionally guaranteed to come directly to Israel and
indirectly to the entire world, these kingdom conditions will not manifest themselves until national
Israel trusts Jesus Christ, her long-awaited King. Because, there has never existed a Jewish generation
who has complied with this condition, the messianic kingdom remains in a state of postponement or
abeyance up until the present hour. However, one day, a future generation of Jews will comply with this
condition resulting in the establishment of the messianic kingdom of God on earth. It will take the
events of the future Tribulation period to bring such a generation to faith in Christ thereby leading to
the manifestation of the earthly, theocratic, messianic kingdom (Jer. 30:7; Dan. 9:24-27; Zech. 12:10;
Matt. 23:37-39; 24:31; 25:31).
FROM DIVIDED KINGDOM TO TERMINATION OF EARTHLY THEOCRACY
The theocratic kingdom over Israel that God began through Moses at Sinai continued unabated through
the reigns of the nation’s first three kings, Saul, David, and Solomon. Unfortunately, the prosperity that
characterized Solomon’s forty year reign ended with covenant disobedience as Israel’s third king
amassed wealth and multiple wives (1 Kgs. 11:1-8) in violation of the Mosaic Covenant (Deut. 17:16-17).
Thus, God brought covenant discipline to the nation through the division of the kingdom (1 Kgs. 12). This
division resulted in ten tribes forming the northern kingdom, or Israel, and the remaining two tribes
forming the southern kingdom, or Judah. Two reasons made Judah in the south the focus of God’s
kingdom program. First, ancient messianic prophecy indicated that the nation’s true king would one day
be born into the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10). Second, the kings from David’s line reigned over Judah only.
These Davidic kings are significant regarding tracing God’s kingdom program through Scripture since the
previously described Davidic Covenant promised that through David’s lineage would ultimately come an
eternal dynasty and throne (2 Sam. 7:13-16). The kings over the northern kingdom continued in
covenant rebellion. Such failure eventually led to maximum divine discipline (Deut. 28:49-50), in the
form of the scattering of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. (2 Kgs. 17).
Thus, from 722 B.C. until the Babylonian Captivity in 586 B.C., only the southern kingdom, Judah,
remained as the earthly theocratic kingdom. Sadly, the southern kingdom imitated the covenant
rebellion of the previously dispersed northern tribes, incurring more divine discipline (Deut. 28:49-50),
by means of the Babylonian Captivity. When Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and the
Solomonic temple and took Judah away into captivity (2 Kgs. 25; Ezek. 33:21), the earthly theocracy
terminated. In other words, God governed the nation indirectly through various Davidic kings until the
deposing of Zedekiah, who was the last of the Davidic dynasty to reign from David's Throne. This
termination of the earthly theocracy was signified through the departure of God’s Shekinah glory from
the temple (Ezek. 10:4, 18-19; 11:23).[4]
Endnotes
[1] All scriptural citations taken from the NASB.
[2] Stanley D. Toussaint, “The Kingdom of God,” in Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible, ed. Tim LaHaye
(Chattanooga, TN: AMG, 2001), 1134.
[3] J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 86.
[4] Toussaint, “The Kingdom of God,” 1134.
Dr. Andy Woods
lost in Eden (Gen. 3). Likewise, the promise of a future, earthly, messianic reign was prophesied in the
Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15) and related sub-covenants. It was also explained that while these
covenants guarantee that the kingdom will one day come to the earth through Israel, according to the
Mosaic Covenant, the kingdom's ultimate manifestation is conditioned upon the nation's acceptance of
Christ as her long-awaited king during the final events of the future Tribulation period. The previous
article also explained how God restored the office of Theocratic Administrator that was lost in Eden, at
least in a limited sense, at Sinai. This theocratic arrangement covered most of Old Testament history as
God, even after the time of Moses, governed Israel indirectly through Joshua, various judges, and finally,
Israel’s kings until the Babylonian Captivity ended the Theocracy.
TIMES OF THE GENTILES
This Babylonian Captivity initiated a dark time in Jewish history known as the "Times of the Gentiles"
(Luke 21:24; Rev. 11:2). This era is defined as the period of time when the nation no longer has a Davidic
king reigning on David’s Throne. During this period, Judah would be trampled down by various Gentile
powers. These powers include Babylon (605–539 B.C.), Medo-Persia (539–331 B.C.), Greece (331–63
B.C.), Rome (63 B.C.–A.D. 70), as well as the future, revived Roman Empire of the Antichrist (sometimes
called "Rome Phase II"). Nebuchadnezzar, in a dream, saw this time period symbolized by a beautiful,
dazzling statue. Each part of the statue represents a different Gentile power (Dan. 2). In his dream,
Daniel saw the same period of time in the form of four grotesque beasts. Each beast pictured a different
Gentile power (Dan. 7). To Nebuchadnezzar, who was the king of Babylon or the first Gentile power to
trample down Judah, this period appeared beautiful. This perspective explains why Nebuchadnezzar
perceived this era in the form of an attractive statue. To Daniel, a Jew, whose people would be trampled
down by these Gentile powers, this period was dismal. This perspective explains why he saw the Times
of the Gentiles as represented by various ferocious beasts.
Note, the Times of the Gentiles, which began with Nebuchadnezzar's deposing of Zedekiah and the
Babylonian Captivity in 586 B.C., are marked by the following three characteristics: the termination of
the earthly theocracy, the lack of a Davidic king reigning on David’s Throne in Jerusalem, and Judah
being trampled underfoot by a successive array of Gentile powers. The Times of the Gentiles will run
their course and will eventually conclude with restoration of a rightful king reigning on David’s Throne,
and the return of the shekinah glory of God to the Millennial temple (Ezek. 43:1-5). This difficult period
will end with the return of Jesus Christ to rule and reign from David’s Throne in Jerusalem (Dan. 2:34-35,
44-45; Matt. 25:31). While the Times of the Gentiles began with Nebuchadnezzar's deposing of
Zedekiah, it will be terminated at the return and enthronement of Christ thus inaugurating the long-
awaited messianic kingdom.
Thus, only after the final kingdom of man (the revived Roman Empire of the Antichrist) has been
terminated by Christ, will the Davidic kingdom then be established on earth (Dan. 2:34-35; 43-45; 7:23-
27). This fact alone should deter interpreters from finding a premature manifestation of the kingdom in
the present Church Age. Unfortunately, "kingdom now" theologians ignore this chronology by arguing
for a present, spiritual form of the kingdom, despite the fact that the kingdoms of man have not yet run
their course, the Antichrist and his kingdom have not yet been overthrown, and the Second Advent has
not yet occurred. This Danielic chronology causes Unger to conclude:
...Daniel neither in the image prophecy of chapter 2 nor in the beast prophecy of chapter 7 deals with
the present age of the calling out of the church, the period during which Israel is temporarily in national
rejection...Daniel was given the prophetic vision of Rome up to the time of Christ's death (the two legs).
The vision resumed with the resumption of the divine dealing with national Israel (after the completion
of the church at the rapture) during the period between glorification of the church and the
establishment of the Kingdom over Israel (Acts 1:6). Hence, the iron kingdom with its feet of iron and
clay (cf. 3:33-35, 40, 44) and the nondescript beast of 7:7-8 envision not only Gentile power (1) as it was
at the first advent, but (2) also the form in which it will exist after the church period, when God will
resume His dealing with the nation Israel. How futile for conservative scholars to ignore that fact and to
seek to find literal fulfillment of those prophecies in history or in the church, when those predictions
refer to events yet future and have no application whatever to the church.[1]
THE PROPHETS ANTICIPATE THE KINGDOM
Throughout the dark years of national disobedience, Gentile dominion, and kingdom postponement, the
Old Testament prophets held out hope for the nation and the world by faithfully speaking of a coming
generation of Jews who would return to Yahweh thereby ushering in kingdom blessings. On account of
this ray of spiritual light that the prophets provided in the midst of spiritual darkness, Peter refers to
prophecy as, " . . . the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a
lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts" (2 Pet.
1:19). While it would take multiple volumes to adequately portray all that the Old Testament prophets
revealed concerning the coming kingdom,[2] a few predictions from the prophet Isaiah will suffice.
According to Isaiah 2:1b-4:
Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established
as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. And
many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the
God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths." For the
law will go forth from Zion, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the
nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will
they learn war.
Isaiah 11:6-9 similarly says:
And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf
and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear
will graze, Their young will lie down together, And the lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child
will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den. They will
not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD As
the waters cover the sea.
According to these wonderful predictions, when the messianic kingdom materializes, Jerusalem will be
the center of world spiritual and political authority. This authority will result in perfect justice, world
peace, cessation of conflict with and among the animal kingdom, and universal, spiritual knowledge.
These glorious conditions await a future Jewish generation's enthronement of the king of God's own
choosing (Deut. 17:15). Such enthronement will make Israel not only the owner but also the possessor
of all that is promised in Israel's covenants. As these covenantal blessings come upon Israel in that
future day, the entire world will be blessed as well (Rom. 11:12, 15).
CONTINUATION OF THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES UNTIL CHRIST'S COMING
Following the Babylonian Captivity in 586 B.C., the prophesied seventy years of national, divine
discipline had run their course (Lev. 25:1-7; 2 Chron. 36:20-21; Jer. 25:11; 29:10). The newly inaugurated
Persian government allowed God's people to return to their homeland (Ezra; Neh.). Thus, by the time of
Christ, the nation had been back in the Promised Land for over five centuries. However, such long
residency in the land did not mean that the Times of the Gentiles had concluded. During all of this time,
Israel still had no reigning king upon David's Throne. Moreover, as Daniel predicted (Dan. 2; 7), Israel
continued to be under the domination of various Gentile powers. Those powers included Persia, which
was followed by Greece, and finally Rome. By the time Christ was born, the Roman Empire occupied the
Promised Land, placed Israel under an enormous tax burden, and usurped from the Jews the right to
execute their own criminals. Beyond this, the nation had gone through four hundred years of silence
when God was not directly speaking to His people through prophetic oracles.
Against the backdrop of such silence and bondage entered Jesus Christ, the rightful heir to David's
Throne. The Gospel accounts identify and affirm Jesus Christ as the long-awaited Davidic Descendant
prophesied in both the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. For example, Matthew’s Gospel connects
Christ genealogically to both Abraham and David (Matt. 1:17). Matthew also routinely associates Christ
with the title "Son of David" (Matt. 9:27). Luke similarly shows Jesus to be the rightful Heir to God’s
promises to David (Luke 1:32-33, 68-69).
Endnotes
[1] Merill F. Unger, Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1981; reprint,
Chatanooga, TN: AMG, 2002), 1643.
[2] For example, see J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Findlay, OH:
Dunham, 1958; reprint, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1964), 481-90.
Dr. Andy Woods
lost in Eden (Gen. 3). Likewise, the promise of a future, earthly, messianic reign was prophesied in the
Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15) and related sub-covenants. While these covenants guarantee that the
kingdom will one day come to the earth through Israel, according to the Mosaic Covenant, the
kingdom's ultimate manifestation is conditioned upon the nation's acceptance of Christ as her long-
awaited king during the events of the future Tribulation period. Previous articles also explained how God
restored the office of Theocratic Administrator that was lost in Eden, at least in a limited sense, at Sinai.
This theocratic arrangement covered most of Old Testament history as God, even after the time of
Moses, governed Israel indirectly through Joshua, various judges, and finally, Israel’s kings until the
Babylonian Captivity ended the Theocracy. Such termination initiated a dark time in Jewish history
known as the "Times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24; Rev. 11:2) when the nation had no Davidic king
reigning on David’s Throne as Judah would be trampled down by various Gentile powers. Against the
backdrop of such bondage entered Jesus Christ, the rightful heir to David's Throne. The Gospel accounts
identify Christ as the long-awaited regal heir prophesied in the Old Testament.
KINGDOM OFFER
As noted earlier, when the Abrahamic Covenant and related sub-covenants are considered in harmony
with the Mosaic Covenant, Israel's covenantal structure can best be described as an unconditional
covenant with a conditional blessing. In other words, any Jewish generation must satisfy the conditional
Mosaic Covenant before they can enter into the Abrahamic Covenant's unconditional blessings. Such a
condition can be satisfied if Israel enthrones the king of God’s own choosing (Deut. 17:15). Thus, it was
incumbent upon first-century Israel to enthrone Christ in order to enter into all of her covenantal
blessings.
The opportunity for first-century Israel to enthrone Christ and consequently experience all these
blessings is known as "the offer of the kingdom." This idea is captured in the expression "Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand" as proclaimed to the nation by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:1-2), Christ
(Matt. 4:17), the Twelve (Matt. 10:5-7), and the Seventy (Luke 10:1, 9). What this expression means is
that the unchallenged rulership that God experiences in heaven had drawn near to the earth in the
person of Jesus Christ, the long-awaited Davidic king. It is also called "the kingdom of heaven" since the
kingdom will be inaugurated by the "God of heaven." Notice how Daniel connects this "God of heaven"
with His coming kingdom: "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will
never be destroyed..." (Dan. 2:44). Because the king was present, the opportunity to enthrone Him was
a reality for first-century Israel. However, the expression "at hand" does not mean that the kingdom had
arrived. Rather, the kingdom was near or in a state of imminence or immediate expectation since the
presence of the king allowed first-century Israel to make a bonafide choice to enthrone Christ and thus
enter into her covenantal blessings.
Notice that the word "kingdom" in the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" is left
undefined by John the Baptist, Christ, the Twelve, and the Seventy. This lack of a New Testament
definition shows that the notion of the kingdom was understood by how the concept had already been
developed in the Old Testament. As we have learned, the Old Testament portrays a coming earthly,
messianic kingdom. This kingdom is anticipated in the office of Theocratic Administrator that was lost in
Eden, in the biblical covenants, in the earthly theocracy governing Israel from the time of Moses to
Zedekiah, and in the predictions of the Old Testament prophets. Had first-century Israel enthroned
Christ, this earthly kingdom would have become a reality not only for the nation but also for the entire
world. Israel's covenants would have been fulfilled, and the Times of the Gentiles would have
terminated.
FIRST-CENTURY ISRAEL REJECTS THE KINGDOM OFFER
Despite the unprecedented opportunity for the establishment of the messianic kingdom due to the
presence of the king among the first-century Jews, tragically, Israel rejected the kingdom offer. Why did
the Israel of Christ's day reject the opportunity to establish the kingdom? At least two reasons can be
given. First, Christ emphasized in the Sermon on the Mount that the kingdom was not only physical and
political but also moral and spiritual (Matt. 5‒7). Here, Christ reiterated what the Old Testament had
already revealed that while the kingdom would certainly be earthly and terrestrial it would also be moral
and ethical (Ezek. 37:23-24). Thus, citizens of Christ's kingdom had to exhibit certain moral qualities
(Matt. 5:3-12). Because Israel was far more interested in a physical and political kingdom that would
overthrow an oppressive Rome than they were in a spiritual and moral kingdom (John 6:15, 26), Christ’s
emphasis upon the moral characteristics of His kingdom set the stage for Israel’s ultimate rejection of
the kingdom offer.
Second, Israel pursued righteousness by way of self-effort rather than by accepting the imputed or
transferred righteousness offered by Christ (Matt. 5:20). Israel's works-oriented Pharisaical system
(Mark 7:13) caused the nation to stumble over Christ's simple message that righteousness can only be
gained by faith alone (John 6:28-29). Romans 9:30-32 explains, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles,
who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but
Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it
by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over THE STUMBLING STONE." While a small
Jewish remnant did accept Christ's message, the crux of the nation as well as the nation's leadership
stumbled over it.
The Gospels carefully reveal Israel's rejection of the kingdom offer. The turning point is found in Matt.
12:24. When the Pharisees were unable to explain away one of Christ's many miracles, they instead
attributed the miracle's performance to Satanic powers. At this point, the expression "Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand" virtually disappears from Matthew's Gospel. The phrase does not
resurface until the offer is re-extended to a distant generation of Jews during the future Tribulation
period (Matt. 24:14). Such an absence signifies that God took the kingdom offer off the table when the
Pharisees demonstrated unbelief when confronted by Christ's miracles. This rejection of the offer was
ratified at Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem as well as by the nation's decision to hand Christ over
to the Romans for crucifixion (Matt. 21–23; 26–27). Israel's rejection of the kingdom offer is also
represented in the following statement by the nation's religious leaders to Pilate: "Pilate said to them,
'Shall I crucify your King?' The chief priests answered, 'We have no king but Caesar'" (John 19:15). Thus,
John well summarizes: "He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him" (John
1:11).
Because Israel rejected the offer of the kingdom, the messianic kingdom was not established at Christ's
First Advent. Instead of inheriting His rightful kingdom, Christ never became king over the nation and
consequently was "cut off" and inherited "nothing" (Dan. 9:26a). While the unconditional Abrahamic
Covenant prevents Israel from forfeiting ownership of the covenanted promises, first-century Israel's
lack of response to the offer of the kingdom prevented the nation from possessing these blessings. From
the time of Christ up to the present hour Israel remains only the owner rather than the possessor of the
covenanted promises. Although not cancelled, the messianic kingdom remains in a state of
postponement. Just as past generations of Jews were disciplined for Mosaic Covenant violations (2 Kgs.
17; 25), Christ-rejecting first-century Israel also experienced divine discipline (Deut. 28:49-50) by means
of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple resulting in over a million Jewish deaths when Titus of
Rome invaded Israel thirty-eight years after the time of Christ in the horrific events of A.D. 70 (Dan.
9:26b; Matt. 24:1-2; Luke 19:41-44).
THE INTERIM AGE AND THE KINGDOM'S POSTPONEMENT
Due to Israel's rejection of the kingdom offer resulting in the messianic kingdom's postponement, Christ
began to explain the spiritual conditions that would prevail during the kingdom's absence. This interim
program includes His revelation of the kingdom mysteries (Matt. 13) and the church (Matt. 16:18).
Before describing these spiritual realities, a few preliminary remarks must be made about this new
interim age.
First, the fact that God knew that Israel would reject the kingdom offer (Dan. 9:26a) thereby ushering in
His eternal purpose for the interim age in no way implies that the offer of the kingdom to national Israel
was not a legitimate or bonafide offer. An all-powerful God can use the free will of His creatures in
order to accomplish His eternal purposes. Lewis Sperry Chafer explains:
...God not only knows beforehand the choice His creatures will make, but is Himself able to work in
them both to will and to do of His own good pleasure. The Scriptures present many incidents which
disclose the fact that the will of God is executed by men even when they have no conscious intention to
do the will of God...Was the death of Christ in danger of being abortive and all the types and prophecies
respecting His death of being proved untrue until Pilate made his decision regarding that death?[1]
In other words, when Israel of its own free will rejected the kingdom offer, that decision was used by an
all-powerful God to usher in the next major phase of His pre-ordained plan. This plan entailed Christ
paying the sin debt of the world by dying on the cross and God's present work in the interim age.
Endnote
[1] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1948), 5:347-48.
Dr. Andy Woods
Because today's evangelical world believes that the church is experiencing the messianic kingdom, we
began a study chronicling what the Bible teaches about the kingdom. This earthly kingdom is anticipated
in the office of Theocratic Administrator that was lost in Eden, in the biblical covenants, in the
predictions of the Old Testament prophets, and in the earthly theocracy governing Israel from the time
of Moses to Zedekiah. This theocratic arrangement covered most of Old Testament history as God
governed Israel indirectly through various intermediaries until the Babylonian Captivity ended the
Theocracy. Such termination initiated the "Times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24; Rev. 11:2) when the
nation had no king reigning on David’s Throne as Judah was trampled by various Gentile powers.
Against that backdrop entered Jesus Christ, the rightful Heir to David's Throne. It was incumbent upon
first-century Israel to enthrone Christ in order to enter into all of her covenantal blessings (Deut. 17:15).
The opportunity for first-century Israel to enthrone Christ thereby bringing in the kingdom is known as
"the offer of the kingdom." This idea is captured in the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is
at hand" as proclaimed to the nation by John (Matt. 3:1-2), Christ (Matt. 4:17), the Twelve (Matt. 10:5-
7), and the Seventy (Luke 10:1, 9). That this offer was a unique opportunity only for first-century Israel is
apparent in Christ's instructions regarding how the offer should be presented. In Matthew 10:5-7, He
instructed the twelve: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans;
but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of
heaven is at hand.'" Such a national limitation on the offer of the kingdom conveys that it was only for
first-century Israel. Had first-century Israel enthroned Christ, the earthly kingdom would have become a
reality for the nation and the entire world. Israel's covenants would have been fulfilled, and the Times of
the Gentiles would have terminated. Despite the unprecedented opportunity for the establishment of
the messianic kingdom due to the presence of the rightful king among the first-century Jews, Israel
rejected the kingdom offer (Matt. 12:24) leading to the kingdom's postponement.
KINGDOM POSTPONEMENT
The unique opportunity for Israel to accept the kingdom offer will not re-emerge until the offer is re-
extended to future Israel in the events of the Tribulation period (Matt. 24:14; Jer. 30:7). In the Olivet
Discourse (Matt. 24‒25), Christ explains the future circumstances by which Israel will accept the offer of
the kingdom. Matthew’s emphasis upon Israel’s restoration in the Olivet Discourse grows out of the final
verses of the previous chapter (23:37-39). There, Christ expressed His desire to gather (episynagō) Israel.
Unfortunately, Israel rejected the kingdom offer at His First Advent. Christ then promises that the time
would come when the nation would acknowledge Him as the Messiah by chanting a messianic Psalm
(Ps. 118:26; Matt. 21:9) thus allowing Christ to return, re-gather (episynagō) Israel (24:31), and reign
from David's Throne (Matt 25:31). Thus, Matt. 23:39 furnishes the condition through which Israel’s final
regathering will be achieved. Until this condition of Israel's acceptance of her Messiah has been
satisfied, the kingdom cannot come to the earth. The entire Gentile world could become Christian. Yet,
if tiny Israel remains in unbelief, the kingdom cannot materialize. Conversely, the entire Gentile world
could reject Christ. Yet, if Israel fulfills the condition stated in Matthew 23:37-39 by accepting Jesus as
the Messiah, the kingdom will materialize upon the earth. Because the Olivet Discourse and related
passages teach that the condition of Jewish national acceptance of the Messiah will not be satisfied until
the events surrounding the future Tribulation period have occurred, the kingdom will remain in a state
of postponement until that time.
This notion of the postponement of the kingdom due to national Israel's rejection of Christ distinguishes
the premillennial, dispensational viewpoint from that of Judaism and Reformed Theology. Judaism
rejects Jesus as the long-awaited Jewish Messiah since He failed to bring in the kingdom promises. A
Jewish unbeliever will typically argue that Jesus was not the Messiah since Shalom or world peace and
kingdom conditions (Isa. 2:4) are not a present earthly reality. Reformed Theology claims Christ
succeeded in bringing in the kingdom since the kingdom promises are now being fulfilled in a spiritual
sense. However, this approach ends up radically allegorizing Israel's terrestrial promises so that they find
their spiritual realization in the present Church Age. The dispensational premillennialist understands
that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. However, the kingdom is not a present reality since first-century Israel
never satisfied the condition of faith in Christ. Until this future national conversion transpires during the
Tribulation, the kingdom remains in a state of postponement rather than in a state of present
fulfillment.
INTERIM AGE
Due to Israel's rejection of the kingdom offer resulting in the messianic kingdom's postponement, Christ
began to explain the spiritual conditions that would prevail during the kingdom's absence. This interim
program includes His revelation of the kingdom mysteries (Matt. 13) and the church (Matt. 16:18).
Before describing these spiritual realities, some preliminary remarks must be made about this new
interim age. First, as noted in the previous installment, the fact that God knew that Israel would reject
the kingdom offer thereby ushering in His eternal purpose for the interim age in no way implies that the
offer to national Israel was not a genuine or bonafide offer.
Second, this interim age is intimately linked to the word "mystery" (Matt. 13:11; Eph. 3:9). "Mystery"
simply means a previously unknown truth now disclosed. Vine explains, “In the N.T, it [mystērion]
denotes, not the mysterious (as with the Eng. word), but that which, being outside the range of
unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by Divine revelation, and is made known in a
manner and at a time appointed by God, and to those who are illumined by His Spirit.”[1] In other
words, both the kingdom mysteries and church are unrevealed in the Old Testament.
Third, rather than being the product of Christ's Davidic kingly rule, the work of God in the present age is
the result of Christ's present session as High Priest at the Father's right hand. Because Israel rejected the
offer of the kingdom, Christ never inherited the prophesied Messianic kingdom nor took His seat on
David's Throne at His First Advent. These realities await His Second Advent. Following Christ's rejection
by Israel, He ascended to heaven to His Father's Throne (Rev. 3:21; 12:5b) where He pursues His
ministry known as His "Present Session." During this time, He functions as high priest (Heb. 7:3b). Even
in His present ministry, Christ retains His identity as the unique Davidic Heir (Rev. 3:7; 5:5; 22:16) who
will one day occupy the earthly Davidic Throne in fulfillment of God's promise to David in 2 Sam. 7:13-
16. It is from His glorious heavenly position (John 17:5), rather than from David's Throne, that He
orchestrates His present work in the world. Thus, the present age remains an era unrelated to the
prophesied Messianic kingdom (Luke 19:11-27). In other words, the kingdom mysteries and church age
represent neither a fulfillment or even a partial fulfillment of what prior Scripture predicts concerning
the Davidic kingdom. This distinction has long been noted by Bible scholars. Lewis Sperry Chafer,
founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, summarizes:
Similarly, the earthly kingdom that according to the Scriptures had its origin in the covenant made to
David, which is mundane and literal in its original form and equally as mundane and literal in uncounted
references to it in all subsequent Scriptures which trace it on to its consummation, is by theological
legerdemain metamorphosed into a spiritual monstrosity in which an absent King seated on His Father's
throne in heaven is accepted in lieu of the theocratic monarch of David's line seated on David's throne in
Jerusalem.[2]
Fourth, the notion that the present, interim age came about as a consequence of Israel's rejection of the
kingdom offer in no way implies that it is an afterthought or less important in God's mind in comparison
to His program with national Israel. On the contrary, according to Ephesians 3:11, the church was "in
accordance" with God's "eternal purpose." In other words, God always knew and purposed that He
would create and work through the church. Although Israel's program is revealed in the Old Testament,
the church's program is unrevealed. However, this distinction does not mean that God's unrevealed
program for the church is of less importance than His revealed program for Israel. Furthermore,
although the church represents an interruption or parenthesis between God's past and future dealings
with Israel, this in no way implies that the church is of lesser importance than God’s past or future
dealings with national Israel. The dictionary definition of a parenthesis simply conveys the idea of an
interval rather than something of less importance. Thus, understanding the church as a parenthetical
break in this manner in no way suggests that the church represents “plan B” in relation to God’s
purposes for Israel. Theologian Thomas Ice well summarizes:
In almost 35 years since I have become a dispensationalist, I have never heard nor read of a
dispensationalist teaching a plan B scenario. Yet opponents often present this straw man in their
statement of what we supposedly believe. We believe that God’s single plan has always included the
Church, but He did not reveal the church age part of the plan in the Old Testament...Paul states
specifically that the church age “was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in
Christ Jesus our Lord” (verse 11). This is why dispensationalists have never taught the so-called plan A
and plan B theory that critics suppose we hold. Dispensationalists have always taught that there is a
single plan carried out in stages.[3]
Endnotes
[1] W. E. Vine, Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words (Nashville:
Nelson, 1996), 424.
[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1948), 5:315.
[3] Thomas Ice, “The Uniqueness of the Church,” Pre-Trib Perspectives 8, no. 6 (September 2003): 4.
Dr. Andy Woods
Because today's evangelical world equates the church with the messianic kingdom, we began a biblical
study about the kingdom. This earthly kingdom is anticipated in the office of Theocratic Administrator
lost in Eden, the biblical covenants, the predictions of the Old Testament prophets, and the Theocracy
governing Israel from the time of Moses to Zedekiah. This arrangement terminated with the initiation of
the "Times of the Gentiles," when the nation had no king reigning on David’s Throne as Judah was
trampled by various Gentile powers. Eventually Christ, the rightful Heir to David's Throne, appeared.
Had first-century Israel enthroned Christ, the earthly kingdom would have materialized. Sadly, Israel
rejected this kingdom offer (Matt. 12:24) leading to the kingdom's postponement. Consequently, Christ
began to explain the spiritual conditions that would now prevail during the kingdom's absence. This
interim program includes His revelation of the kingdom mysteries (Matt. 13) and the church (Matt.
16:18).
KINGDOM MYSTERIES
The first aspect of this interim phase is the kingdom mysteries (Matt. 13:1-52). These represent the
course of events to be experienced by the kingdom's heirs or the “sons of the kingdom” (13:38)
between Israel’s rejection and future acceptance of the kingdom offer. Thus, these mysteries cover the
time period between Israel’s formal rejection of the kingdom and the Second Advent (13:40-42, 49-50).
The kingdom mysteries represent new truths concerning the kingdom that were undisclosed in the Old
Testament. Jesus made this point clear when He said, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries
of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted... But blessed are your eyes, because
they see; and your ears, because they hear. For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men
desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it" (Matt.
13:11, 16-17).
When the eight parables of Matthew 13 are understood harmoniously, they reveal a complete picture
of this “mystery age.” First, the parable of the sower teaches that the gospel will be preached
throughout the course of the mystery age with varying responses based upon how the heart has been
prepared. Responders to the truth will be given additional revelation (13:1-9, 18-23). Second, the
parable of the wheat and tares teaches that it will be difficult to distinguish between the saved and
unsaved within professing Christendom throughout the mystery age. The separation between believer
and unbeliever will not be made until the Second Advent (13:24-30, 36-43). Third, the parable of the
mustard seed teaches that Christendom will experience great numerical and geographical expansion
from a small beginning (13:31-32). Fourth, because leaven in Scripture typically represents something
pernicious or evil (Exod. 12; Lev. 2:11; 6:17; 10:12; Matt. 16:6, 12; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1; 1 Cor. 5:6-8;
Gal. 5:9), the parable of the leaven working its way through the meal teaches that professing
Christendom will experience increasing moral and doctrinal corruption as the age progresses (Matt.
13:33). This parable predicts increasing apostasy throughout the present age. Unfortunately, "kingdom
now" interpreters miss this crucial point by interpreting the leaven as something good rather than evil.
Walvoord explains:
What does the leaven represent? Postmillenarians and amillenarians...usually assume dogmatically that
leaven cannot represent evil in the parable, although it is universally used to represent evil in both the
Old and New Testaments...It is more evident than ever in the last third of the twentieth century that the
gospel has not permeated the world and that evil tends to permeate the entire professing church, which
is exactly what Matthew 13 teaches. In the Old Testament leaven is consistently used to represent
evil...In the New Testament, leaven was used by Christ of the externalism of the Pharisees, of the
unbelief of the Sadducees, and of the worldliness of the Herodians, and in general of evil doctrine (Mt
16:6-12; Mk 8:14-21). In Paul’s letters, likewise, leaven represents evil, as in 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 and
Galatians 5:7-10. In the parable, the meal represents that which is good...The professing church,
however, is permeated by evil doctrine, externalism, unbelief, and worldliness, which tends to inflate
the church and make it larger in appearance, even as the leaven inflates the dough but actually adds
nothing of real worth. The history of the church has all too accurately fulfilled this anticipation, and the
professing church in the world, large and powerful though it may be, is permeated by the leaven of evil
which will be judged in the oven of divine judgment at the end of the age...To some extent, evil will
extend even to...the body of true believers in the church as well as those that come to Christ after the
rapture...even true believers fall far short of perfection and can embrace to some extent worldliness,
externalism, and bad doctrine.[1]
Toussaint similarly notes:
The discussion revolves around the significance of the word “leaven” (zyme). Many contend that leaven
is used here in a good sense and pictures the spread of the gospel throughout the earth. Others state
that the word represents evil and is used to illustrate the growth of evil within the group which
professes to inherit the kingdom. This latter interpretation has the stronger support. It is consistent with
the doctrine of Scripture concerning the evil character of the end of the church age and the tribulation
(1 Timothy 4; 2 Timothy 3; Jude; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 6–19). One of the greatest supports for the
interpretation that leaven speaks of evil is the use of the word in Scripture. Invariably leaven pictures sin
(Exodus 12; Leviticus 2:11; 6:17; 10:12; Matthew 16:12; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1; 1 Corinthians 5:6-8;
Galatians 5:9). Finally the verb used here, “to hide”...is very unusual if leaven represents good. It is a
much more fitting word if leaven is to have a sinister effect. This is similar to the idea in the parable of
the wheat and the darnel. The way the woman hides the leaven in the meal parallels very closely the
manner in which the enemy sowed darnel by night. This parable reveals the fact that evil will run its
course and dominate the new age. But it also indicates that when the program of evil has been fulfilled,
the kingdom will come.[2]
Thus, the present age represents a period when the gospel is preached resulting in the salvation of
some. However, a counterfeit sowing will also take place. Despite God’s work throughout this age,
Christendom will experience an increasing corruption. This teaching concerning the increasing apostasy
of the present mystery age can be found not only in the epistolary material (1 Tim. 4; 2 Tim. 3; 2 Pet. 3;
Jude) but also in the Matthew 13 parables.
This teaching on the apostasy of the church does not mean that God cannot sovereignly send refreshing
waves of revival and reformation, as He has done at various times. However, these refreshing seasons
are not the norm but rather occur only intermittently throughout church history. A proper
understanding of this apostasy represents a worldview that is diametrically opposed to “kingdom now”
theology, which is the idea that the church will gradually Christianize the world thereby ushering in long-
term cultural progress. The only way “kingdom-now” theology can be defended from Scripture is to
ignore what the New Testament predicts concerning apostasy in the present mystery age.
Fifth, because Scripture refers to Israel as God's special treasure (Exod. 19:5), the parable of the earthen
treasure teaches that Christ came to purchase Israel. However, Israel will remain in unbelief throughout
the course of the mystery age and will not be converted until the age’s conclusion (Matt. 13:44). Sixth,
the parable of the pearl of great price refers to Christ’s death that redeems members of the church
throughout this age allowing the Lord to gain a treasure from among the Gentiles (13:45-46). Seventh,
the parable of the dragnet teaches the coexistence of the righteous and the wicked throughout the age
only to be separated by Christ at the age’s conclusion (13:47-50). Eighth, the parable of the householder
teaches that these kingdom mysteries must be considered alongside Old Testament kingdom truth if
one is to understand the totality of God’s kingdom agenda (13:51-52). In sum, when these eight parables
are taken together, the Lord reveals the spiritual conditions that will prevail in the world during an
interim period when the kingdom is not present.
MYSTERY FORM OF THE KINGDOM?
A mistake typically made even by dispensational interpreters is to contend that the Matthew 13
parables reveal a present spiritual form of the kingdom known as the mystery form of the kingdom.
While not contending that the Davidic kingdom is present, they instead believe that the kingdom is
spiritually present in mystery form only.[3] However, even this perspective is to read far more into the
text of Matthew 13 than what is actually there. Toussaint explains:
It is often alleged that the Lord predicted a form of the kingdom for the Church age in His parables,
particularly those in Matthew 13. For many years dispensationalists have referred to these parables as
teaching a mystery form or a new form of the kingdom...However, nowhere in Matthew 13 or anywhere
does the Lord Jesus use the term mystery form. Rather, He refers to the “mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven” (v. 11); that is, the Lord in these parables is giving to His disciples new truths about the kingdom
that were hitherto unknown. It is strange that so many dispensationalists claim a new form of the
kingdom is introduced in Matthew 13. Dispensationalists argue strenuously for a literal, earthly kingdom
that is the fulfillment of the Old Testament when John, Jesus, and His disciples announce its nearness.
Then suddenly these dispensationalists change the meaning in Matthew 13.[4]
Endnotes
[1] John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 102-4.
[2] Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2005), 182.
[3] J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 215-28.
[4] Stanley D. Toussaint, "Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist," in Three Central
Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism, ed. Herbert W. Bateman(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 237.
Dr. Andy Woods
of Moses to Zedekiah. This theocratic arrangement terminated with the initiation of the "Times of the
Gentiles" when the nation had no king reigning on David’s Throne as Judah was trampled by various
Gentile powers. Against that backdrop entered Jesus Christ, the rightful Heir to David's Throne. Had
first-century Israel enthroned Christ, the earthly kingdom would have become a reality. Despite this
unprecedented opportunity, Israel rejected the kingdom offer (Matt. 12) leading to the kingdom's
postponement. Due to this postponement, Christ began to explain the spiritual conditions that would
prevail during the kingdom's absence. This interim program includes His revelation of the kingdom
mysteries (Matt. 13) and the church (Matt. 16:18).
KINGDOM MYSTERIES
The kingdom mysteries represent the events to be experienced by the kingdom heirs or the “sons of the
kingdom” (Matt. 13:38) between Israel’s rejection of the kingdom and the re-offer of the kingdom to
Israel in the future. Thus, the kingdom mysteries cover the time period between Israel’s formal rejection
of the kingdom and the Second Advent (13:40-42, 49-50). The kingdom mysteries represent new truths
concerning the kingdom that were undisclosed in the Old Testament. Because these truths had never
before been made known, they represent a mystery age or a period of time not revealed in prior
Scripture (Matt. 13:11; Eph. 3:9; Rom. 16:25-26). When the parables of Matthew 13 are understood
together, we gain a complete picture of the course of the present “mystery age.” As explained in the
previous article, during this age, the gospel will be preached with mixed results (Matt. 13:1-9, 18-23). It
will be difficult to distinguish between the saved and unsaved within professing Christendom (13:24-30,
36-43, 47-50). Also, Christendom will experience great expansion from a small beginning (13:31-32) and
become increasingly apostate as the age progresses (13:33). Israel will remain in unbelief and
unconverted until the age’s conclusion (13:44), and the Lord will gain a treasure from among the
Gentiles (13:45-46).
While Christ revealed the kingdom mysteries in parabolic form, He did not give the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt. 5–7) or the missions discourse (10) in parabolic form. Why did Christ reveal the kingdom
mysteries in parabolic form? In addition to fulfilling prophecy (13:34-35; Ps. 78:2), the parabolic form of
teaching allowed Him to simultaneously conceal and reveal. Christ desired to conceal truth from the
nation since they had already rejected the offer of the kingdom (Matt. 12). Such concealment was
actually merciful since the disclosure of more truth would have brought first-century Israel into even
greater condemnation. Earlier, Christ had explained that greater revelation brings forth greater
accountability (11:20-24). The disclosure of more truth to the nation at this point would not have helped
Israel but rather would have only increased her degree of discipline since she had already chosen to
reject the kingdom offer. On the other hand, Christ wanted to reveal truth to the believing remnant to
prepare them for their leadership roles (Eph. 2:20) in the soon to be birthed church. Because they were
to be His earthly representatives throughout the mystery age, they needed full information concerning
the spiritual characteristics of this new age.
MYSTERY FORM OF THE KINGDOM?

A mistake typically made even by dispensational, premillennial interpreters is to contend that the
Matthew 13 parables reveal a present spiritual form of the kingdom known as the "mystery form of the
kingdom." While not contending that the Davidic kingdom is present, they instead believe that the
kingdom is spiritually present in mystery form only.[1] However, even this is to read too much into the
text of Matthew 13 than is actually there. Toussaint notes:
It is often alleged that the Lord predicted a form of the kingdom for the Church age in His parables,
particularly those in Matthew 13. For many years dispensationalists have referred to these parables as
teaching a mystery form or a new form of the kingdom...However, nowhere in Matthew 13 or anywhere
does the Lord Jesus use the term mystery form. Rather, He refers to the “mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven” (v. 11); that is, the Lord in these parables is giving to His disciples new truths about the kingdom
that were hitherto unknown. It is strange that so many dispensationalists claim a new form of the
kingdom is introduced in Matthew 13. Dispensationalists argue strenuously for a literal, earthly kingdom
that is the fulfillment of the Old Testament when John, Jesus, and His disciples announced its nearness.
Then suddenly these dispensationalists change the meaning in Matthew 13.[2]
McClain similarly observes:
The fiction of a present “kingdom of heaven” established on earth in the Church, has been lent some
support by an incautious terminology sometimes used in defining the “mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven” (Matt. 13:11). The parables of this chapter, it is said carelessly by some, describe the kingdom
of heaven as now existing in “mystery form” during the Church age. Now it is true that these parables
present certain conditions related to the Kingdom which are contemporaneous with the present age.
But nowhere in Matthew 13 is the establishment of the Kingdom placed within this age. On the
contrary, in two of these parables the setting up of the Kingdom is definitely placed at the end of the
“age” (vss. 39 and 49 ASV, with 41-43).[3]
As these citations explain, there are at least four problems associated with equating the "kingdom
mysteries" of Matthew 13 with a present spiritual form of the kingdom in "mystery form." First,
although Christ uses the expression “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (v. 11), Matthew 13, or any
other place in Christ's teachings for that matter, fails to employ the expression "mystery form of the
kingdom." These words must be read into the text. Second, the word "kingdom" or basileia must be
interpreted inconsistently in Matthew's Gospel in order to justify the existence of a present mystery
form of the kingdom. While premillennial dispensationalists interpret the word "kingdom" in reference
to the future earthly reign of Christ in most of Matthew's uses of the word (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 6:10; 7:21;
8:11; 10:7; 24:14; 25:1, 34; 26:29), they inconsistently attach a spiritualized and allegorized meaning to
the same word in Matthew 13.
Third, according to the revelation of the Times of the Gentiles as given to the prophet Daniel (Dan. 2; 7),
the earthly theocracy terminated with the deposing of Zedekiah in 586 B.C. and will not return until the
Second Advent (Matt. 25:31). As explained in an earlier article, during this period known as the Times of
the Gentiles, Judah will be trampled down by various Gentile powers. Only after the final kingdom of
man (the revived Roman Empire of the Antichrist) has been terminated by Christ, will God's kingdom be
established on earth (Dan. 2:34-35; 43-45; 7:23-27). Thus, during the Times of the Gentiles, no spiritual
form of the kingdom on earth is predicted by Daniel. This omission includes allusions to any spiritual
form of the kingdom whatsoever, whether it be a spiritual form of the Davidic Kingdom, an "already but
not yet" present manifestation of the Davidic Kingdom, a mystery form of the kingdom, or any other
sophisticated vocabulary "kingdom now" theologians choose to employ. The lack of any reference to an
earthly kingdom prior to Christ's Second Advent in Daniel's prophecies should deter interpreters from
finding a premature spiritual manifestation of the kingdom in the present Church Age. Unfortunately,
those promoting a "mystery form of the kingdom" ignore this Danielic chronology by arguing for a
present, spiritual form of the kingdom, despite the fact that the kingdoms of man have not yet run their
course, the Antichrist and his kingdom have not yet been overthrown, and the Second Advent has not
yet occurred.
Fourth, the whole "mystery form of the kingdom" idea seems to be more of the product of eisegesis
(bringing to the biblical text what is not there) rather than exegesis (drawing out of the text what is
naturally there). Since most dispensationalists adhere to a present mystery form of the kingdom, I too
was taught this kingdom now theology early on. In fact, at one point, I even embraced this idea.
However, I eventually became disillusioned with the concept after discovering its origin. The idea goes
back to amillennialists (those who do not believe in a future earthly reign of Christ since the kingdom
promises are being spiritually realized in the present age) accusing dispensationalists (those who believe
that God has dealt with humanity through seven successive ages called dispensations) of dividing up the
Bible to such an extent that the Scripture no longer contained a unifying and overarching theme. This
charge upset dispensationalists to such a degree that they set out to find a unifying theme in the Bible.
The theme that they settled upon was the kingdom. Thus, they sought to show the presence of the
kingdom in every age or dispensation. This ambition, in turn, led them to conclude that the kingdom is
present in mystery form only (Matt. 13:11). However, the hermeneutical danger associated with trying
to make all of Scripture adhere to a predetermined theme, is that one ends up bringing a theology to
the text rather than drawing a theology from the text. This explanation of the origin of the "mystery
form of the kingdom" concept helps explain why so many source the idea in Matthew 13 despite the
fact that this theology is not borne out by a careful exegesis of this chapter.
Endnotes
[1] J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 215-28.
[3] Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 440-41.
Dr. Andy Woods
mysteries (Matt. 13) and the church (Matt. 16:18). Regarding the kingdom mysteries of Matthew 13, as
explained in previous articles, when the parables of Matthew 13 are understood together, we can gain a
picture of the course of the present “mystery age.”
BEGINNING OF THE CHURCH AGE

The second aspect of the interim phase during the Messianic kingdom's postponement is Christ's
revelation of the church (Matt. 16:18). The church consists of all people, including both the Jewish
remnant as well as Gentiles, who have trusted in the very Messiah Israel rejected. Unlike Israel, which
was a national identity, the church is a spiritual organism consisting of all nations and ethnicities (Gal.
3:28; Rom. 10:19; Eph. 2:14). The Church Age began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 and will conclude
with the future rapture of the church from the earth. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological
Seminary, used the expression “intercalation” to describe God’s work in the present Church Age.[1] This
phrase simply means an interruption, interpolation, or interval. This concept best describes what God is
presently doing through the church. He is not currently fulfilling Israel’s kingdom promises in any sense.
He will fulfill these promises in the future kingdom. Rather, in the present, He is doing an entirely new
work through the church that interrupts God’s past dealings and future dealings with national Israel.
There are at least four reasons for believing that the church began in Acts 2.[2] First, the initial reference
to the church is found in Christ's prophecy in Matthew 16:18, which says, "I will build My church."
Interestingly, the verb translated "I will build" (oikodomeo) is in the future tense, thereby indicating that
the church did not exist either contemporaneously with or before He made the statement. In other
words, the church was destined to come into existence in the future and therefore did not exist in either
the Old Testament era or during the time of Christ.
Second, the concept of the church, or a new spiritual organism consisting of both believing Jews and
Gentile as co-heirs with equal spiritual status, is categorized by the New Testament as a mystery (Eph.
2:14-15; 3:9). This word "mystery" simply means a previously unknown truth now disclosed (Rom.
16:25-26; Col. 1:26). Vine explains, “In the N.T, it [mysterion] denotes, not the mysterious (as with the
Eng. word), but that which, being outside the range of unassisted natural apprehension, can be made
known only by Divine revelation, and is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by God, and
to those who are illumined by His Spirit.”[3] Because the church itself is a mystery, it is something that
could not have existed in previous eras. Thus, Paul designated the church as a "new man" (Eph. 2:15).
Third, the church could not have existed prior to Christ's Ascension (Acts 1). Christ is the head of the
church (Eph. 5:23). He did not assume this position until after His Resurrection and Ascension (Eph. 1:20-
22). Thus, the church could not have existed prior to His Ascension. If the church had existed prior to this
point in time, it would have been functioning with no head. Similarly, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are
necessary in order for the church to experience edification (1 Cor. 12:7; 14:26b). Yet, these gifts did not
come into existence until after the Ascension (Eph. 4:7-11). Had the church existed before this point, it
would have existed without the means of being built up and edified. Thus, when all the data is
considered, it is easy to see why the church could not have existed prior to Acts 1.
Fourth, the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit began in Acts 2. This ministry involves the Spirit's work in
taking men and women at the point of personal faith in Christ and uniting them with the body of Christ,
the church. First Corinthians 12:13 says, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether
Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." The verb baptize
(baptizo) simply means to identify. Such spiritual identification is not something that the believer must
seek. Rather, it is something that the Spirit has already performed in the believer's life at the moment of
conversion.
If we can pinpoint when the Spirit's work of uniting Christians with Christ's body, the church, began, we
can similarly identify when the church or the body of Christ began. In other words, when did the Spirit
begin to form the body of Christ and initiate His work of uniting believers with this new spiritual body
called the church? This work must have started some time after the Ascension. Just before He ascended,
Christ put the baptizing work of the Spirit into the future. He explained to the disciples, "for John
baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now" (Acts 1:5).
The church also must have started some time prior to Acts 11:15-16. Here, Peter put the launching of
the Spirit's baptizing ministry into the past. In Acts 11:15-16, while seeking to validate the conversion of
Cornelius, the first Gentile believer (Acts 10), he testified to the Jerusalem church, "And as I began to
speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the
word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy
Spirit.'"
Thus, the Spirit's baptizing ministry began some time after Acts 1:5 but before Acts 11:15-16. The only
event between these two verses that could logically describe the Spirit's baptizing ministry is Acts 2.
Here, the Spirit descended upon the disciples (Acts 2:1-4), and about three thousand people were saved
(Acts 2:37-41). When all of the Scripture is considered, we can surmise that the church, the body of
Christ, began on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. It is at this specific point in time that the
Spirit began taking believers in Christ and uniting them into a new spiritual organism called the body of
Christ or the church.
The church, which began in Acts 2, exists for three specific, divinely-ordained reasons. First, the church
exists to glorify God (Eph. 3:21). Second, the church exists to edify or build up its members. God has
placed spiritual gifts in the body of Christ for the purpose of being faithfully employed so that the church
members can be built up, become spiritually mature, and reach unity (Eph. 4:11-16). Third, the church
exists for the purpose of accomplishing world evangelism (Mark 16:15) and to fulfill the Great
Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). During this present Church Age, which has lasted roughly two thousand
years so far, the church, rather than national Israel, comprises the preeminent servants of God on earth.
During this time, God is busy "...taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name" (Acts 15:14).
THE CHURCH IS NOT THE KINGDOM
What is critical to understand is that God’s present work in and through the church is not to be confused
with God's program concerning the coming kingdom. Several reasons lead us to this conclusion.[4] First,
Christ is nowhere directly called the "king of the church." Although He is referred to as the head of His
body the church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18) or the groom of His bride the church (Eph. 5:25), He is
never specifically designated as the king of His church. Such a glaring omission has long been recognized
by dispensational, premillennial scholars. According to Peters: "Jesus is called, and by right, and in the
covenanted manner, is, ‘the King of the Jews,’ ‘King of Nations,’ ‘King of the World,’ but is never called
‘the King of the Church.’"[5] Larkin similarly notes, “Christ is the ‘Head’ of His Church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15;
Col. 1:18), but He is never spoken of as its King.”[6] McClain quotes Andrews as follows: "‘It is as its Head
that He rules over it [the Church], not as its King; for this latter title is never used of this relation."[7]
Fruchtenbaum also observes, “The problem Amillennialism faces is that while the Bible portrays the
relationship between Christ and the Church in various metaphors (head and body, groom and bride, vine
and branches, foundation and stones of the building, etc.), king and kingdom is not one of them...Christ
is indeed referred to as the head of the Church, but never its king.”[8]
Endnotes
[1] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1948), 4:41.
[2] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1999), 463, 66.
[3] W. E. Vine, Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words (Nashville:
Nelson, 1996), 424.
[4] For a more in depth treatment of this issue, see Kevin Quick, “The Glory of the Kingdom,” online:
www.kevinquick.com, accessed 10 August 2012, 718-27.
[5] George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952), 1:597.
[6] Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth (Philadelphia, PA: Larkin Estate, 1920), 74.
[7] Alva McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 437.
[8] Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology (Tustin, CA: Ariel, 1994), 190.
Dr. Andy Woods
mysteries (Matt. 13) and the church (Matt. 16:18). Regarding the kingdom mysteries of Matthew 13, as
explained in previous articles, when the parables of Matthew 13 are understood together, we can gain a
picture of the course of the present “mystery age.”
3:28; Rom. 10:19; Eph. 2:14). The church age began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 and will conclude
with the future rapture of the church from the earth. Rather than replacing Israel, the church represents
an entirely new divine work that interrupts God’s past dealings and future dealings with national Israel.
THE CHURCH IS NOT THE KINGDOM
What is critical to understand is that God’s present work in and through the church is not to be confused
with God's program concerning the coming kingdom. Several reasons lead us to this conclusion.[1] First,
Christ is nowhere directly called the king of the church. Although He is referred to as the head of His
body the church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18) or the groom of His bride the church (Eph. 5:25), He is
never specifically designated as the king of His church. Second, there exists a lack of correspondence
between what Scripture predicts concerning the coming kingdom and the present spiritual realities in
the Church Age. For example, during the kingdom, Christ will rule the world with a rod of iron (Ps. 2:9;
Rev. 12:5) resulting in immediate justice against any sin or wrong doing (Zech. 14:16-18; Rev. 20:7-10).
The Church Age, by contrast, is often characterized by carnality and a low standard of Christian living (1
Cor. 3:1-3). Hebrews 5:12 describes the reality of such prolonged carnality: “For though by this time you
ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the
oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.” Interestingly, of the seven churches
mentioned in Revelation 2–3, Christ rebuked all but two of them for their backslidden condition.
Walvoord capsulizes this lack of correspondence between the prophesied kingdom and the present
church age: “The Christian era has been no golden age of righteousness nor has the church conquered
the world. It is more accurate to recognize that the world has to a large degree possessed the
church.”[2] Some contend that the church is the kingdom since Christ is reigning in our hearts. However,
the spiritual reign of Christ in the heart of the believer is not identical as the terrestrial kingdom
promises found throughout Scripture (Gen. 15:18-21; Rev. 5:10). Besides, does Christ perfectly reign in
the hearts of the believer today? If so, why are there consistent commands given in the New Testament
against grieving (Eph. 4:30) and quenching the Holy Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19). The mere existence of these
commands implies that believers have the capacity to commit these sins and consequently inhibit the
reigning influence of God in their hearts.
Third, the inauguration of the kingdom is preceded by the proclamation to Israel “repent, for the
kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:5-7; 24:14). Such a proclamation bears little
resemblance to the church’s gospel, which is for all to believe on the name of Jesus Christ in order to
experience God's grace (Acts 16:30-31). Pentecost explains, “The new command of Christ, ‘Ye shall be
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of
the earth’ (Acts 1:8) does not coincide with the gospel of the kingdom which must precede the
institution of the kingdom.”[3] Feinberg similarly notes, “When men are invited to receive the grace of
God in salvation today, they are not urged, ‘Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”[4]
Fourth, the New Testament consistently portrays the church as an heir of the coming kingdom as
opposed to a ruler in a present existing kingdom (Acts 14:22; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 1:11).
James 2:5 says, “Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in
faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?” (italics added). Premillennial
scholar Peters asks, “If the church is the Kingdom, and believers are now in it, why designate them
‘heirs,’ etc., of a Kingdom.”[5]
Fifth, rather than reigning in kingdom glory, the Scripture predicts the church’s present posture as
suffering within a hostile world system (John 15:18-19; Rom. 13:12; 2 Tim. 3:12). Peters explains, “The
church, instead of being represented as a Kingdom, is held up to us as a struggling, suffering people.”[6]
Sixth, the kingdom will be a time in history where there will be no Satanic influence. In fact, the devil will
be incarcerated throughout this glorious age (Rev. 20:2-3). Such a scenario hardly fits the consistent
New Testament description of Satan’s repeated influence against and within the church (1 Thess. 2:18; 1
Cor. 7:5; Eph. 4:26-27; 6:12; Rev 2:10).
Seventh, according to the revelation of the Times of the Gentiles as given to the prophet Daniel (Dan. 2;
7), the earthly theocracy terminated with the deposing of Zedekiah in 586 B.C. and will not return until
the Second Advent (Matt. 25:31). As explained in an earlier article, during this period known as the
Times of the Gentiles, Judah will be trampled down by various Gentile powers. Only after the final
kingdom of man (the revived Roman Empire of the Antichrist) has been terminated by Christ, will God's
kingdom be established on earth (Dan. 2:34-35; 43-45; 7:23-27). Thus, during the Times of the Gentiles,
no spiritual form of the kingdom on earth is predicted by Daniel. Because the Church Age is included in
the Times of the Gentiles, neither can the Church Age be considered part of the kingdom. Larkin
summarizes, “As the ‘Times of the GENTILES’ is still running, the Church cannot be in this Dispensation a
governing or Kingdom power.”[7]
THE CHURCH IS NOT ISRAEL
Another reason that the church should not be confused with the kingdom is that the kingdom program
revolves around national Israel. The New Testament never designates the church as "Israel." In fact, the
word Israel is found seventy-three times in the New Testament and it always refers to the physical
descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.[8] Sometimes Israel in the New Testament refers to Jews in
faith and sometimes it refers to Jews in unbelief. However, the term Israel in the New Testament always
refers to those who are physical Jews. This word never refers to Gentiles, the Church, or even a group
that is a mixture of both Jews and Gentiles. This generalization even holds true with respect to the oft
cited Galatians 6:16 passage. Exegetically, the expression "Israel of God" found in Galatians 6:16 only
refers to believing Jews within the Galatian churches.[9]
Furthermore, the Book of Acts records how the church that came into existence in Acts 2 and continued
to exists alongside Israel prior to the nation's destruction in A.D. 70. Throughout this period, Acts is
judicious in keeping the two entities the Church and Israel separate. Fruchtenbaum observes, "In the
book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty times and
ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct."[10] An additional reason
that Israel is not the church is due to the fact that the church and Israel represent separate programs of
God. They are two trains running on separate railroad tracks. Theologian and founder of Dallas
Theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer, noted twenty-four differences between Israel and the
church,[11] which will be highlighted in the next article.
Endnotes
[1] Kevin Quick, “The Glory of the Kingdom,” online: www.kevinquick.com, accessed 10 August 2012,
718-27.
[2] John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1959), 53.
[3] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1958;
reprint, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1964), 469.
[4] Charles Feinberg, Millennialism: The Two Major Views (Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1985), 266.
[5] George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, vol. 1 (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; reprint,
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952), 1:600.
[6] Ibid., 1:617.
[7] Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth (Philadelphia, PA: Larkin Estate, 1920), 18.
[8] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, rev. ed. (Tustin, CA:
Ariel, 1994), 684-90.
[9] S. Lewis Johnson, "Paul and the 'Israel of God': An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study," in
Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer(Chicago: Moody,
1986), 181-96.
[10] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "Israel and the Church," in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. Wesley R.
Willis and John R. Master(Chicago: Moody, 1994), 118.
[11] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1948; reprint, [8 vols. in
4], Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993), 4:47-53.
Dr. Andy Woods
Because today's evangelical world believes that the church is experiencing the Messianic kingdom, we
postponement.
Due to this postponement, Christ began to explain the spiritual conditions that would prevail during the
kingdom's absence. This interim program includes His revelation of the kingdom mysteries (Matt. 13)
and the church (Matt. 16:18). Regarding the kingdom mysteries of Matthew 13, as explained in previous
articles, when the parables of Matthew 13 are understood together, we can gain a picture of the course
of the present “mystery age.”
3:28; Rom. 10:19; Eph. 2:14). The Church Age began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 and will conclude
with the future rapture of the church from the earth. Rather than replacing Israel, the church represents
an entirely new divine work that interrupts God’s past dealings and future dealings with national Israel.
As explained in previous articles, God’s present work in and through the church is not to be confused
with God's program concerning the coming kingdom. There are simply not enough points of
correspondence between the New Testament church and what the Scripture predicts concerning the
coming kingdom.
THE CHURCH IS NOT ISRAEL
Another reason that the church should not be confused with the kingdom is that the kingdom program
revolves around national Israel. The New Testament never designates the church as "Israel." In fact, the
word Israel is found seventy-three times in the New Testament and it always refers to the physical
descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.[1] Sometimes Israel in the New Testament refers to believing
Jews and sometimes it refers to Jews in unbelief. However, the term Israel in the New Testament always
refers to those who are physical Jews. This word never refers to Gentiles, the Church, or even a group
that is a mixture of both Jews and Gentiles. In other words, the term Israel is a technical term or a word
that means the same thing everywhere it is employed in Scripture. This generalization even holds true
with respect to the oft cited Galatians 6:16 passage. Exegetically, the expression "Israel of God" found in
Galatians 6:16 only refers to believing Jews within the Galatian churches.[2]
Furthermore, the Book of Acts records how the church, which came into existence in Acts 2, continued
to exist alongside Israel prior to the nation's destruction in A.D. 70. Throughout this period, Acts is
judicious in keeping the two entities, the Church and Israel, separate. Fruchtenbaum observes, "In the
book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty times and
ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct."[3]
THE CHURCH AND ISRAEL REPRESENT DIFFERENT PROGRAMS OF GOD

An additional reason that Israel is not the church is due to the fact that the church and Israel represent
separate programs of God. They are two trains running on separate railroad tracks. Theologian and
founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer, noted twenty-four differences between
Israel and the church.[4] Here are a few from Chafer’s list and a few of my own.
First, Israel is the wife of Jehovah (Isa. 54:5) while the church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22-33).
Second, Israel gave birth to Christ (Rev. 12:1-5) whereas Christ gave birth to the church (Matt. 16:18).
Third, Christ will return to rescue Israel upon her national conversion at the end of the Tribulation
period (Matt. 23:37-39). Conversely, He will return to rescue the church at the rapture (John 14:1-3).
Fourth, king-subject imagery is used to depict God's relationship to Israel (Isa. 33:22) while head and
groom imagery is used to depict Christ's relationship with His church (Eph. 5:22-33). Fifth, God's
program through Israel began in Genesis 12, and His program through the church began in Acts 2 (Matt.
16:18; 1 Cor. 12:13; Acts 1:5; 11:15-16).
Sixth, while four-fifths of the Bible pertains to Israel, only one-fifth of it deals with the church. Seventh,
although Israel was a direct party to the biblical covenants (Jer. 31:31-32), the church was not a party to
these covenants since the church was not yet in existence when these covenants were made. The
church's relationship to these covenants can best be described as one of a third-party beneficiary rather
than a direct party to them. Therefore, the church benefits from the covenants as opposed to being a
direct party to them. Eighth, Israel is a nation (Ps. 147:20). As such, she is always biblically portrayed as
an independent nation with borders and a capital. Even today Israel is among the nations of the earth,
just like Japan, Argentina, Canada, or any other country. By contrast, the church is not a nation (Rom
10:19) but rather is comprised of people from all nations (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:11-22; 3:6, 15). Rather than
taking her seat among the nations of the earth, the church is a mere pilgrim in the world system (1 Pet.
2:11).
Ninth, while Israel fought physical wars with various enemies such as the Philistines, the church is
engaged in spiritual warfare with angelic enemies (Eph. 6:10-20). Tenth, the Scripture assigns numerous
a quo and ad quem statements to Israel (Gen. 15:13-16; Jer. 25:11; 29:10; Ezek. 4:5-7; Dan. 9:24-27).
These are timing statements with a specific beginning and ending point for each period. One searches
the New Testament in vain to find comparable timing statements for the church. Eleventh, Israel had a
priesthood with all her priests coming from the tribe of Levi and the line of Aaron (Exod. 28:1). By
contrast, the church does not have a priesthood because it is a priesthood (Rev. 1:6). The New
Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). Every Church Age believer is a priest
with direct access to God the Father through God the Son (Heb. 4:16).
Twelfth, while Israel will be resurrected at the beginning of the millennial kingdom (Dan. 12:2; John
11:23-24; Rev. 20:4-5), Church Age believers receive their resurrected bodies at the point of the rapture
(1 Thess. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:50-58). Thirteenth, Israel's judgment will take place on earth, at the end of
the Tribulation period, in the wilderness (Ezek. 20:33-44). By contrast, the only judgment the New
Testament reveals for the church is the Bema Seat judgment of rewards in heaven following the rapture
(Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:10). Fourteenth, although the gates of the New Jerusalem are
named after the twelve tribes (Rev. 21:12), who were the foundation of Israel (Matt. 19:28), the
foundations of the eternal city are named after the twelve apostles (Rev. 21:14), who are the foundation
of the church (Eph. 2:20). Fifteenth, people become members of the commonwealth of Israel through
physical birth. By contrast, membership in the church is only attained by spiritual birth (John 3:1-9; Titus
3:5).
Sixteenth, Israel was directly governed by the Mosaic Law (Ps. 147:19-20). By contrast, the controlling
authority for the church is New Testament revelation. While all Scripture is for the church (2 Tim. 3:16;
Rom. 15:4), only the New Testament's epistolary literature is directly about the church. Seventeenth,
the Holy Spirit indwelt and filled Old Testament Jews selectively (Joel 2:28), temporarily (1 Sam. 16:14;
Ps. 51:11), and subsequent to salvation in order to enable them to accomplish a special purpose (Exod.
31:3). By contrast, the Holy Spirit indwells all Church-Age believers (1 Cor. 12:13) permanently (John
14:16) and at the point of salvation (Rom. 8:9). Thus, the Spirit's work in and through Israel cannot be
used as a pattern to depict the believer's normative experience with the Holy Spirit in the present age
(John 7:37-39; 14:16-17; Acts 1:5). Eighteenth, while Christ's farewell address to Israel (Matt. 24:15, 20)
is recorded in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24‒25), His farewell address to the church (John 16:12-13) is
found in the Upper Room Discourse (John 13‒17). Nineteenth, although Israel is referred to as God's
first-born son (Exod. 4:22), the church is never given this same designation or title. Twentieth, while
Israel's program is revealed in the Old Testament, the church's program was unknown in Old Testament
times. Because the church is a New Testament mystery (Eph. 3:3-6), or something previously hidden and
now unveiled (Rom. 16:25-26), Church Age doctrine comes exclusively from the New Testament (Matt.
16:18; John 13‒17) rather than the Old Testament. Noting such differences should caution us against
taking prophecies and promises that are specifically aimed at God’s kingdom program through Israel and
misapplying them to the present dispensation of the Church Age.
Endnotes
[1] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (Tustin, CA: Ariel,
1994), 684-90.
[2] S. Lewis Johnson, "Paul and the 'Israel of God': An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study," in
Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody,
1986), 181-96.
[3] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "Israel and the Church," in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. Wesley R. Willis
and John R. Master (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 118.
[4] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1948; reprint, [8 vols. in
4], Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993), 4:47-53.
Dr. Andy Woods
postponement.
Due to this postponement, Christ explained the spiritual conditions that would prevail during the
and the church (Matt. 16:18). This interim program was explained in detail in prior installments. The
important point to grasp is that neither the kingdom mysteries nor the church represent the fulfillment
of God's Old Testament kingdom promises. Rather, they epitomize fresh works of God independent of
the Old Testament kingdom expectation. Thus, the kingdom will remain in a state of abeyance as long as
God's present work in the world continues through his interim program.
RE-OFFER OF THE KINGDOM TO FUTURE ISRAEL
However, one day the church's mission on the earth will be completed (Rom. 11:25b) resulting in the
church's removal through the rapture. Then God, who is not forgetful of His prior unconditional
covenants with Israel (Exod. 2:24; Ezek. 36:22), will re-extend the offer of the kingdom to national Israel
in the midst of the coming Great Tribulation. As noted in prior installments, when the Abrahamic
Covenant is considered alongside of the Mosaic Covenant, Israel's covenantal structure can best be
understood as an unconditional covenant with a conditional blessing. Once the nation fulfills the
condition of enthroning Christ, she will then become the possessor or enjoyer of what she
unconditionally owns. This coming time of unparalleled distress is the means by which God's covenanted
nation will become not just the owner but also the possessor of the covenanted blessings. Just as God
today oftentimes brings people to Himself through tribulation, God will use the events of the coming
Great Tribulation period to make Israel aware of her need for her Messiah (Yeshuah or Jesus). During
this time, He will draw Israel to Himself. Thus, Jeremiah 30:7 predicts, "'Alas! for that day is great, There
is none like it; And it is the time of Jacob's distress, But he will be saved from it."
The Antichrist will desecrate the Jewish temple midway through the future Tribulation period (Dan.
9:27; Rev. 13:15). In so doing, he will replicate a well-remembered historical event indelibly etched on
the minds of the Jews, when Antiochus Epiphanies did virtually the same thing in the days of the
Maccabees during the intertestamental era (Dan. 11:31). Once history repeats itself in this manner, the
Jews, who had been trusting the Antichrist as their Messiah up to this point in time, will come to their
spiritual senses and recognize that it is not the Antichrist who is their long-awaited Messiah but rather it
is Jesus Christ who came into the world some two thousand years ago. It will take a betrayal of this
magnitude to bring the nation to saving faith in Christ.
Once Israel trusts in Christ as her Messiah, she will have fulfilled the long unfulfilled condition found in
the Mosaic Covenant. Once this condition is satisfied, that future generation of Jews will then enter into
the unconditional covenantal promises thus ushering in the earthly kingdom not only for Israel but the
whole world. This covenantal structure shows why Christ conditioned His Second Advent upon Israel
properly responding to Him as her Messiah. Christ explained this condition to the Jewish people in
Matthew 23:37-39. He said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are
sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks
under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! For I say to
you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE
LORD!'" In other words, first-century Israel's failure to fulfill this condition resulted in the kingdom not
being established as well as the imposition of covenantal discipline in A.D. 70 (Deut. 28:49-50).
Conversely, future Israel's fulfillment of the condition will be evidenced by the nation's citation of the
phrase "BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!" This phrase comes from Psalm
118:26, which is a Messianic psalm (Matt. 21:9). Once this condition is met, Christ will return to rescue
Israel and establish His kingdom through her (Matt. 24:30-31; 25:31).
Therefore, the fact that the Davidic Covenant is not being fulfilled in the present day in no wise negates
its future fulfillment. When the disciples inquired as to when the kingdom would be restored to Israel,
Christ never challenged the idea of an eventual fulfillment. Rather, He simply challenged the disciples'
presupposition of its immediate fulfillment (Acts 1:6-7). In the future Tribulation period, the offer of the
kingdom will once again be extended to Israel (Matt. 24:14). Unlike at the First Advent (Matt. 23:37-38),
this time the offer will be accepted leading to Christ's return (Matt. 24:30-31) and subsequent earthly
kingdom (Matt. 25:34; Rev. 20:1-10).
THE TRANSFER OF EARTHLY AUTHORITY
Thus, one of the dominant themes of the Book of Revelation is how this world is transferred from the
grasp of Satan to the earthly Messianic kingdom predicted in the pages of the Old Testament. In other
words, Revelation explains how the world will eventually transition from the rule that Satan has had on
the world ever since the Fall in Eden (Luke 4:5-8; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2; 1 John 5:19) to the future time in
history when God and His people "will reign upon the earth" (Rev. 5:10b). Revelation 11:15 captures this
theme when it says, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ;
and He will reign forever and ever."
The mechanism for this transition of authority is the seven-sealed scroll in Revelation, which represents
the title deed of the earth.[1] As each of the seals is broken, another divine judgment comes upon the
world thereby progressively loosening the grip that Satan has had on the planet ever since the Fall of
Man. This reality explains why so many of Revelation's judgments bear a striking resemblance to the ten
plagues of the Exodus. For example, the sores of the sixth plague (Exod. 9:8-12) resemble the first bowl
judgment (Rev. 16:1-2). The rivers to blood of the first plague (Exod. 7:19-21) resemble the third bowl
judgment (Rev. 16:4-7). The darkness of the ninth plague (Exod. 10:21-23) resembles the fifth bowl
judgment (Rev. 16:10-11). The hail of the seventh plague (Exod. 9:22-26) resembles the seventh bowl
judgment (Rev. 16:17-21).
What is the point of these similarities? God took His people out of four hundred years of Egyptian
bondage (Gen. 15:13) in the Exodus. In Revelation, God will perform the ultimate Exodus by taking the
entire world out of the Satanic bondage it has been under since the Fall. Each Exodus plague
progressively weakened Pharaoh's resolve to hold Israel in captivity. Pharaoh's will was ultimately
broken through the death of his first born as expressed in the tenth plague. In the same way, each divine
judgment in Revelation will progressively weaken Satan's grip on the planet until finally the entire world
will be transferred into the glorious Messianic Kingdom. The death of God the Father's "first born" son
laid the groundwork for Satan's ultimate defeat (Rev. 5:9). Satan's sentence will finally be imposed as
the scroll is progressively opened by God the Son.
Given the significance that the scroll of Revelation 5 plays in releasing the world from Satanic bondage,
it is easy to see why John weeps when he first learns that none is worthy to open the scroll (Rev. 5:2-4).
John weeps because he sees the world continuing indefinitely under Satanic bondage. Yet, the apostle
John stops weeping (Rev. 5:5) when he learns that Christ is worthy to open the scroll because of His role
in redemption (Rev. 5:9) and creation (Rev. 4:11). John stops weeping because the scroll can now be
opened and thus the liberation of planet earth from Satan's ruthless rule can now begin.
Satan certainly does not want this transfer of authority to take place. He has enjoyed ruling the world
for all of these centuries since Eden. He knows that once the kingdom comes he will be bound (Rev.
20:1-3) and eventually thrown into the lake of fire at the conclusion of the thousand years of Christ's
earthly rule (Rev. 20:10). Thus, he has always worked in history to prevent the establishment of this
coming Messianic kingdom (Rev. 12:9-10). Just as he sought to prevent Christ's First Advent (Rev. 12:1-5;
Ps. 2:9), he will again try to prevent the coming kingdom by eradicating all the Jews (Rev. 12:1; Gen.
37:9-10) during the Tribulation period (Rev. 12:5-17). The logic of this preemptive attack is that if there
are no Jews left to accept the re-offer of the kingdom and call Christ back to the earth (Matt. 23:37-39),
then the kingdom will never come thereby allowing Satan to continue indefinitely as the world's
unchallenged ruler. Yet, just as God worked to prevent Satan from thwarting the birth of Christ (Rev.
12:4-5), He will work once again in the future Tribulation period to protect Israel from Satanically
inspired annihilation (Rev. 12:6, 13-16; Zech. 13:8-9). God will do this so that He can ultimately fulfill
Israel's unconditional covenants thereby resulting in the manifestation of the earthly Messianic
kingdom.
Endnote
[1] Renald Showers, Maranatha Our Lord, Come! (Bellmawr: FOI, 1995), 88.
Dr. Andy Woods
postponement.
and the church (Matt. 16:18). Because neither the kingdom mysteries nor the church represent the
fulfillment of God's Old Testament kingdom promises, the kingdom will remain in a state of abeyance as
long as God's present work in the world continues through His interim program. However, one day the
church's mission on the earth will be completed (Rom. 11:25b) resulting in the church's removal from
the earth through the rapture. Then God, who is not forgetful of His prior unconditional covenants with
Israel (Exod. 2:24; Ezek. 36:22), will re-extend the offer of the kingdom to national Israel in the midst of
the coming Great Tribulation. Unlike at the First Advent (Matt. 23:37-38), this time the offer will be
accepted leading to Christ's return (Matt. 24:30-31) and subsequent earthly kingdom (Matt. 25:34; Rev.
20:1-10). Revelation therefore explains how the world will eventually transition from the rule that Satan
has had over the world ever since the Fall in Eden (Luke 4:5-8; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2; 1 John 5:19) to the
future time in history when God and His people "will reign upon the earth" (Rev. 5:10b). Revelation
11:15 well captures this theme when it says, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our
Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever."
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM

As mentioned in earlier installments, one of the significant purposes of the "Great Tribulation Period" is
to bring Israel into a right relationship with her Messiah so that the Messianic kingdom can come to
planet earth. As previously stated, unlike at the First Advent, this time the offer will be accepted leading
to Christ's return (Matt. 23:37-39) and subsequent earthly reign (Matt. 25:34; Rev. 20:1-10). During this
glorious one-thousand year era, everything that was promised in the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants
will find a literal fulfillment when Christ will rule the world from David's Throne (Matt. 25:31) in
Jerusalem (Zech. 14:16-18). This time period represents the restoration of the office of Theocratic
Administrator lost in Eden. God the Father will govern the last Adam, or God the Son, who in turn will
govern the world on the Father's behalf.
Israel's covenants will find their fullest expression during this Age. All that God intended for the earthly
theocracy of the Old Testament era will come to fruition not only for Israel, but also for the entire world.
The Times of the Gentiles will be brought to an end as Israel will be head again over the nations (Isa.
14:1-2; 60:10, 12, 14, 16). All of the kingdom truths predicted by the Old Testament prophets will
become a reality. All that Christ wanted to do for Israel at His first Advent (Matt. 23:37) will come to
pass at the Second Advent (Matt. 24:31). With Satan bound during this period (Rev. 20:1-3), the earth
will finally be exonerated from the long bondage it has suffered under since the Edenic Fall.
ONE THOUSAND YEARS MEANS ONE THOUSAND YEARS
The passage that typically comes to mind when discussing Christ's millennial reign is Revelation 20:1-10.
As explained throughout this series, most of the information regarding the conditions of the millennial
kingdom have already been anticipated and explained in prior Scripture, especially the Old Testament.
Yet, Revelation 20:1-10 provides an important detail since it is the only passage that specifies the
kingdom's duration of one-thousand years. Here, John makes six references to the kingdom's one-
thousand year length. Many commentators attach little significance to the expression “thousand years”
on the grounds that this number should be interpreted non-literally. Their thinking is that since
Revelation is a symbolic book, the number "one thousand" should also be rendered non-literally.
Postmillennialist Kenneth L. Gentry is typical among these allegorical commentators:
The proper understanding of the thousand year time frame in Revelation 20 is that it is representative of
a long and glorious era and is not limited to a literal three hundred and sixty-five thousand days. This
figure represents a perfect cube of ten which is the number of quantitative perfection.[1]
Yet, there are valid textual reasons for taking the number "one thousand" literally. At least four come to
mind. First, John knows how to use indefinite concepts when he wants to. In verse 8, John uses the
simile “like the sand of the seashore” to describe the number of those involved in the final rebellion. Yet
such a conspicuous figurative expression is absent in any of John’s six uses of “thousand years.”
Moreover, John, in Revelation 20:3 says Satan will be released for “a short time” (mikros chronos). Had
John wanted to indicate the Millennium will last “a long time” it would have been very easy for him to
do so. In fact, other biblical writers use the expression "long time" (polys chronos). For example,
Matthew employs it in order to depict the lengthy yet chronologically undefined period of time between
Christ's advents (Matt. 25:19). Here, however, John does not employ this expression but instead
provides a specific number.
Second, in the rest of the Greek New Testament, when a number is associated with the word “year” or
“years,” this linguistic combination always refers to a literal duration of time. Why should the six-fold
repetition of the thousand years found in Revelation 20:1-10 be the sole interpretive exception to this
rule? Third, if the number "one thousand" here is not literal, how then do we interpret all of the other
numbers in the Book of Revelation? What do we do with two witnesses (11:3), seven thousand people
(11:13), four angels (7:1), seven angels (8:6), one hundred and forty-four thousand Jews (7:4), twelve
thousand from each tribe (7:5-8), twenty-four elders (4:4), forty-two months (11:2), and one thousand
two hundred and sixty days (11:3)?[2] Thus, not taking “thousand” literally in Revelation 20:1-10 casts
suspicion upon every other number in the Apocalypse, thereby rendering them non-sensical and
meaningless.
Fourth, while Revelation is a symbolic book, not everything in the book is a symbol. Generally, when the
author wants us to take something symbolically he tells us so. For example, we do not take the woman
in Revelation 17 literally, because the last verse in the chapter tells us that the woman represents a city
(Rev. 17:18). Thus, an overt clue is given to alert the reader to the fact that a non-literal interpretation of
the woman is intended. The same can be said of the dragon or the serpent, who is interpreted as Satan
within the immediate context (Rev. 20:2). However, in Revelation 20, the number "one thousand" is
listed over and over again with nothing in the text telling us that anything but a literal number is in view.
Sometimes, allegorical interpreters appeal to Psalm 50:10 as a justification for taking the number
thousand in Revelation 20:1-10 non- literally.[3] Psalm 50:10 says, "For every beast of the forest is Mine,
The cattle on a thousand hills." The "logic" of the non-literalist is as follows: since this verse indicates
that God owns everything, then "thousand" in this same passage is obviously a symbolic number.
Certainly God owns the cattle on the thousand and first hill as well since He owns it all. Because
"thousand" is non-literal in Psalm 50:10, it must also be non-literal in Revelation 20:1-10. However, not
only does this argument ignore the four aforementioned reasons for taking "thousand" literally in
Revelation 20:1-10, but it also ignores the reality of Hebrew poetry. Unlike the poetry that Westerners
are accustomed to, Jewish poetry rhymed ideas rather than sounds. Therefore, the Jews employed
parallelism in their poetry. Thus, both clauses in any given verse must be understood together or in
harmony with one another. Psalm 50:10 represents an example of synonymous Hebrew parallelism
where the first line restates the same idea found in the second line but in different words. In such a
context, "thousand" is obviously symbolic and non-literal since it is restating the notion that every beast
of the forest belongs to the Lord through the figurative use of "thousand." In other words, we know that
"thousand" in Psalm 50:10 is non-literal since the context, or synonymous Hebrew parallelism, demands
it. However, there is no similar synonymous Hebrew parallelism in any of John's uses of "thousand" in
Revelation 20:1-10. Rather, John simply uses the number "thousand" in a straight forward way. Thus,
any attempt to symbolize "thousand" in Revelation 20:1-10 on the basis of the same term's symbolic
expression in Psalm 50:10 is tantamount to mixing apples and oranges. The genre, or category of
literature, in Psalm 50:10 is completely different from the genre of Revelation 20:1-10.
In sum, although most of the information concerning the Millennium's conditions are already revealed
in prior Scripture, Revelation 20:1-10 provides the kingdom's one thousand year duration, and it is best
to understand this number in its normal sense.
Endnotes
[1] Kenneth L. Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, 2nd and rev. ed. (Tyler: TX:
Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), 347.
[2] Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (Colorado
Springs, CO: Victor, 1991), 244-45.
[3] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 347; Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville, TN: Nelson,
2007), 127.
Dr. Andy Woods
unprecedented opportunity, Israel rejected the kingdom offer leading to the kingdom's postponement.
kingdom's absence. This interim program includes His revelation of the kingdom mysteries and the
church (Matt. 13; 16:18). Because neither the kingdom mysteries nor the church represent the
church's mission on the earth will be completed resulting in the church's removal from the earth
through the rapture. Then God, who is not forgetful of His prior unconditional covenants with Israel, will
re-extend the offer of the kingdom to national Israel in the midst of the coming Great Tribulation. Unlike
at the First Advent, this time the offer will be accepted leading to Christ's return and subsequent earthly
kingdom. Revelation therefore explains how the world will eventually transition from the rule that Satan
has had over the world ever since the Fall in Eden (Luke 4:5-8) to the future time in history when God
and His people "will reign upon the earth" (Rev. 5:10b; 11:15b). The Apocalypse also furnishes the
important detail of the Messianic kingdom's duration, namely one-thousand years (Rev. 20:1-10).
THE KINGDOM AND THE ETERNAL STATE
A chronological approach to the Book of Revelation reveals that the Millennial kingdom will be followed
by the Eternal State. Thus, it becomes necessary to trace God's kingdom program beyond Christ's one-
thousand year earthly reign. Chafer observes that the transition from the Messianic kingdom to the
Eternal kingdom (Rev. 21‒22) will be marked by seven events. They include:
1. the release of Satan from the abyss, 2. the revolt on earth with judgments upon Satan and his armies,
3. the passing of the old heaven and old earth, 4. the great white throne judgment, 5. creation of a new
heaven and new earth, 6. the descent of the bridal city from God out of heaven, and 7. the surrender of
the mediatorial aspect of Christ's reign and adjustment to the eternal state immediately following.[1]
Although much ink could be spilled discussing each of the items, only four points will be highlighted.
First, only after the defeat of Satan (Rev. 20:10) will God destroy the present earth and replace it with
the new heaven and earth (Rev 21:1). Why such a precise chronology? This order relates to a point that
was brought out early on in this series. According to Ryrie, "Because He must be triumphant in the same
arena where He was seemingly defeated. His rejection by the rulers of this world was on this earth...His
exaltation must also be on this earth."[2] In other words, because the office of Theocratic Administrator
was lost to this world it must be restored to this world. Yet, with the accomplishment of the earthly,
one-thousand-year reign of Christ, this divine prerogative has been fulfilled. Thus, God is now free to
start anew. He does so with the destruction of the present heavens and earth and the creation of the
new heaven and earth.
Second, while some today argue the new heaven and earth are simply a renovation of the present
heavens and earth, it is better to see them as a new creation entirely. In other words, the new heaven
and earth will be an ex nihilo (something out of nothing) creation. Therefore, the new heaven and earth
will be similar to God's creation of the original heavens and earth as recorded in Genesis 1. Several
reasons make this contention tenable.[3] Unlike the present creation which is contaminated by sin
(Rom. 8:20-22) that even extends into the Messianic kingdom (Zech. 14:16-18; Isa. 65:20; Rev. 20:7-10),
the new creation will be completely free of sin and its influence (Rev. 21:4). Moreover, Peter's
description of the final destruction of the present heavens and earth by fire (2 Pet. 3:7, 10-11, 13) seems
incompatible with a renovation perspective. Many other areas of Scripture similarly speak of the
complete destruction of the present world (Matt. 24:35; 1 Cor. 7:31; Heb. 1:10-12; 1 John 2:17). Also,
the topography and geography of the coming new heaven and earth is described differently than the
present heavens and earth. While the seas (Gen. 1:9-10) constitute close to seventy-five percent of the
earth's surface, no sea will be present in the new world (Rev. 21:1b). Although the luminaries such as
the sun, moon and stars are a part of our world (Gen. 1:14-19), such luminaries will be absent from the
new world (Rev. 21:23; 22:5). Although the notion of a renovated earth may fit the transition from the
present world into the earthly Messianic kingdom, it seems incompatible with the transition from the
Messianic kingdom into the Eternal State.
Some maintain that the verb translated "passed away" (aperchomai) in John's description of the passing
away of the present world does not convey total eradication. Revelation 21:1 says, "Then I saw a new
heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away..." However, this identical
Greek word is used a few verses later in Revelation 21:4 in a context that speaks of complete
elimination. Revelation 21:4 says, "and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no
longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have
passed away." "Passed away" in Revelation 21:4 means total elimination since it is speaking of sin and its
consequences (tears, death, mourning, crying, and pain). If "passed away" means total elimination in
Revelation 21:4, then why shouldn't John's use of the identical word a few verses earlier also not convey
this same meaning.[4]
Others note that Peter exemplifies the destruction of the world through Noah's flood as a paradigm for
how God will destroy the present earth (2 Pet. 3:6, 10-13). Thus, they argue that just as the transition
from the prediluvian to the post-flood world involved a renovated earth, then the transition from the
Millennial kingdom into the Eternal State will also involve a renovated rather than a completely new
earth. They base their argument on 2 Peter 3:6, "through which the world at that time was destroyed,
being flooded with water." If such terminology does not mean eradication of the earth, then neither
should it carry this meaning in Revelation 21:1a. However, Peter was not speaking of the flood's impact
upon the earth. Rather, he was explaining that the flood destroyed all of humanity (except the eight on
the Ark). The Greek word kosmos translated "world" can sometimes refer to humanity (John 3:16)
rather than to the physical earth. In sum, while the Messianic kingdom will take place on the present
earth, the Eternal kingdom will involve a completely new earth.
Third, the literal nature of the Eternal State must not escape notice. In Revelation 21‒22 while
describing the Eternal kingdom, John uses several terms which are typically assigned a literal significance
when used elsewhere in Scripture. A few such terms include the words "city," "Jerusalem" (21:2), "gold,"
"jasper," "glass," "wall" (21:18), "square," "miles" (21:16), "high" (21:12), "seventy-two yards" (21:17),
"gates" (21:12), "pearls" (21:21), "tribes" (21:12), "foundations," "apostles" (21:14), "street" (21:21),
"river" (22:1), "tree of life" (22:2), "fruit," "month," "nations," and "leaves." Although many more terms
could be cited, these alone are sufficient to convey the literal nature of the Eternal kingdom. Just as the
Messianic kingdom will be an earthly, literal, physical experience, the Eternal kingdom will have this
same literal aspect.
Fourth, because of the Davidic Covenant's (2 Sam. 7:12-16) eternal nature, the reign of Christ on David's
Throne will continue indefinitely even into the Eternal kingdom. Second Samuel 7:13 says, "He shall
build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." 2 Samuel 7:16
similarly says, "Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be
established forever" (Italics mine). Other verses which speak of the eternality of the Davidic Throne and
Kingdom include Ps. 89:3-4, 34-37; 45:6; 72:5, 17; Isa. 9:6-7; Jer. 33:14-17, 20-21; Ezek. 37:24-28; Dan.
2:44; 7:13-14; Luke 1:30-33; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 11:15. Chafer explains the eternal Davidic kingdom and its
"adjustment to the eternal state" as follows:
The delivery to God of a now unmarred kingdom does not imply the release of authority on the part of
the Son...The distinction to be noted lies between the presentation to the Father of a restored authority
and the supposed abrogation of a throne on the part of the Son. The latter is neither required in the text
nor even intimated. The picture presented in Revelation 22:3 is of the new Jerusalem in the eternal
state, and it is declared that "the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it."[5]
Thus, the rule of the Father through the last Adam, God the Son, over creation will continue eternally in
the New Heavens and Earth. John summarizes, "They will reign forever and ever" (Rev. 22:5).
Endnotes
[1] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1948), 5:359.
[2] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton: Victor, 1986), 511.
[3] Thomas L. Constable, “Revelation,” online: www.soniclight.com, accessed 22 January 2013, 199-200.
[4] Mark Hitchcock, 101 Answers to Questions About the Book of Revelation (Eugene: Harvest, 2012),
233.
[5] Chafer, Systematic Theology, 5:360, 373-74.

Dr. Andy Woods
unprecedented opportunity, Israel rejected the kingdom offer leading to the kingdom's postponement.
important detail of the Messianic kingdom's duration, namely one-thousand years (Rev. 20:1-10). A
chronological approach to Revelation reveals that the Millennial kingdom will be followed by the Eternal
State. Thus, God's kingdom program will extend beyond Christ's one-thousand year earthly reign as it
transitions into the Eternal kingdom (Rev. 21‒22).
Far from the incorrect or imprecise "kingdom now" terminology typically employed by many
evangelicals today, the biblical idea of the kingdom is quite specific. It will manifest itself at a future time
in history. When the kingdom comes it will culminate many biblical themes that begin as early as
Genesis chapter one. In addition to being moral and ethical in tone, the kingdom will be tangible, literal,
physical, geographical, and earthly. In anticipation for the glorious appearing of our Lord and His
kingdom, we can pray as Christ taught us, "Your kingdom come" (Matt. 6:10).
BELIEF OF THE EARLY CHURCH
The articles in this series have carefully articulated the coming reality of a future, earthly reign of Christ
drawn explicitly and exclusively from the entire Bible. If this biblical interpretation is clear, then it stands
to reason that the earliest church fathers also held to a belief of a future, earthly reign of Christ. While
the writings of these church fathers should not be elevated to the same level as the divinely inspired
biblical text, their work can serve as a check upon our interpretation of Scripture. In other words, we can
be further confident that the scriptural interpretation given thus far is correct since those closest to the
biblical text, the early church fathers, also held to premillennialism or the reality of the coming, earthly
kingdom of Christ. Interestingly, according to the writings of the earliest church fathers, the
premillennial view was dominant in the first two centuries of the church. For example, Justin Martyr
(A.D. 100–165) in his Dialogue with Trypho declared, "But I and every other completely orthodox
Christian feel certain that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, followed by a thousand years in the
rebuilt, embellished, and enlarged city of Jerusalem as was announced by the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah,
and the others."[1]
Moreover, church historian Schaff summarizes the millennial views of the early church fathers:
The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age (A.D. 100–325) is the prominent
chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen
saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the
doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of
distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and
Lactantius.[2]
In this series, the biblical teaching on the kingdom of God has been surveyed from Genesis to
Revelation. In view of this, why do so many believe that the Messianic kingdom has already
materialized? Is there a biblical basis for such a belief? The same handful of New Testament texts are
routinely and consistently employed in an attempt to argue for "kingdom now" theology. The purpose of
subsequent articles is to scrutinize those passages that "kingdom now" theologians routinely use and to
demonstrate that these texts really do not prove "kingdom now" theology. First, this article will set forth
some general problems with a New Testament based kingdom now interpretation. Second, future
articles will examine a few isolated texts that kingdom now theologians use and show their insufficiency
to convey kingdom now theology. Third, coming articles will note why this trend of equating God's
present work in the church with the Messianic kingdom is a matter believers should be concerned about
since this theology radically alters God's design for the church.
SOME BASIC PROBLEMS WITH KINGDOM NOW THEOLOGY
There exist two general problems with how kingdom now theologians use the New Testament to argue
for a present, spiritual form of the Messianic kingdom. First, as explained throughout this series, the Old
Testament portrays the kingdom in earthly, terrestrial terms (Gen. 15:18-21). When the kingdom comes,
it will exercise dominion over a repentant Israel (Ezek. 36–37). Although the kingdom certainly has
other qualities, an inductive study of the kingdom as portrayed in the Old Testament makes it
impossible to divest the kingdom of these terrestrial, geo-political characteristics. Thus, an
understanding of the kingdom in strictly spiritual, non geo-political, non-terrestrial terms is not found in
the Old Testament. This reality causes Renald Showers to observe:
Several items of Scripture reveal that no form of the future Kingdom of God foretold in the Old
Testament will be established before the Second Coming of Christ...No Old Testament revelation
concerning the future Kingdom of God indicated that the Kingdom would consist of two forms, one
spiritual and the other political, established at two different points of time in the future.[3]
Therefore, the problem with using New Testament verses in an attempt to argue that the Messianic
kingdom now exists in spiritual form is to interpret the New Testament in a manner that contradicts the
Old Testament. Hebrew-Christian scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains the fallacy of such a
proposition:
...it is incorrect to say that the Old Testament should be interpreted by the New Testament because if
that is the case, the Old Testament had no meaning and seemed to be irrelevant to the ones to whom it
was spoken. On the contrary, the validity of the New Testament is seen by how it conforms to what was
already revealed in the Old Testament. The Book of Mormon and other books by cultic groups fail to
stand because they contradict the New Testament. By the same token, if the New Testament contradicts
the Old Testament, it cannot stand. It is one thing to see fulfillment in the New Testament, but it is quite
another to see the New Testament so totally reinterpret the Old Testament that what the Old
Testament says carries no meaning at all.[4]
Such an Old Testament understanding of a literal kingdom explains why the bulk of the New Testament
passages referring to the Messianic kingdom unambiguously refer to it as a future reality rather than a
present one (Matt. 6:10; 20:20-21; Luke 23:42; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 4:11; 1
Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18; Jas. 2:5; 2 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 5:10). For example, why did Jesus
instruct the disciples to pray for the coming of the kingdom (Matt. 6:10) if the kingdom had already
been realized? Interestingly, the entire prayer outlined in Matthew 6:9-13 revolves around a request for
the coming kingdom and interim requests to be fulfilled during the kingdom’s absence.[5] Similarly, Acts
14:22 says, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God." Regarding this passage,
Thomas Ice observes, “If they were in the kingdom, this statement would make no sense.”[6]
Second, the Old Testament teaches that the Messianic kingdom will only manifest itself after a time of
unparalleled tribulation (Dan. 9:24-27; Jer. 30:7). In other words, the Old Testament predicts that the
kingdom cannot be established until judgment precedes it. Thus, if the New Testament is interpreted to
teach that the kingdom has come despite the absence of the preceding time of tribulation, then the
New Testament is again rendered contradictory to the Old Testament. This problem causes Stanley
Toussaint to note, “If the kingdom began in the ministry of Christ, where is the prophesied judgment in
the Gospels? Were the Old Testament prophets and John incorrect in their message?”[7]
Endnotes
[1] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 80.
[2] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 2:614.
[3] Renald Showers, "Critique of Progressive Dispensationalism," Friends of Israel National Conference
(June 2003), 5.
[4] Arnold Fruchtenbaum, “Israel's Right to the Promised Land,” online: www.pre-trib.org.com, accessed
9 March 2013, 17-18.
[5] Stanley Toussaint, Behold the King (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2005), 108-12.
[6] Thomas Ice, "Amillennialism," in The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest
House, 2004), 20.
[7] Stanley Toussaint, "Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist," in Three Central Issues
in Contemporary Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 231.
Dr. Andy Woods
began a study chronicling what the Bible teaches about the kingdom. In this series, the biblical teaching
on the kingdom has been surveyed from Genesis to Revelation. This earthly kingdom is anticipated in
the office of Theocratic Administrator that was lost in Eden, in the biblical covenants, in the predictions
of the Old Testament prophets, and in the earthly theocracy governing Israel from the time of Moses to
Zedekiah. This theocratic arrangement terminated with the initiation of the "Times of the Gentiles"
when the nation had no king reigning on David’s Throne as Judah was trampled by various Gentile
powers. Against that backdrop entered Jesus Christ, the rightful Heir to David's Throne. Had first-century
Israel enthroned Christ, the earthly kingdom would have become a reality. Despite this unprecedented
opportunity, Israel rejected the kingdom offer leading to the kingdom's postponement.
Far from the incorrect or imprecise "kingdom now" terminology typically employed by many
evangelicals today, when the kingdom comes, it will be tangible, literal, physical, geographical, and
earthly as well as moral and ethical in tone. We further noted that those closest to the biblical text, the
early church fathers, also held to premillennialism or the reality of the coming, earthly kingdom of
Christ. In fact, the premillennial view was dominant in the first two centuries of the church. We also
observed that the problem with using New Testament verses in an attempt to argue that the Messianic
kingdom now exists in spiritual form is to interpret the New Testament in a manner that contradicts the
Old Testament.
CONTEMPORARY KINGDOM CONFUSION
Considering that a careful Genesis to Revelation survey very clearly indicates that the kingdom is a
future and postponed reality, why do so many evangelicals believe that the Messianic kingdom has
already materialized or is within the power of the modern church to set up? Mega-church pastor and
bestselling author Rick Warren epitomizes the "kingdom now" vocabulary and mentality that is so
prevalent in the modern evangelical church, when he says:
I stand before you confidently right now and say to you that God is going to use you to change the
world...I'm looking at a stadium full of people right now who are telling God they will do whatever it
takes to establish God's Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven." What will happen if the followers of Jesus
say to Him, "We are yours?" What kind of spiritual awakening will occur? (italics added).[1]
Is there a biblical basis for such a "kingdom-now" belief? Interestingly, the same handful of New
Testament texts that seemingly teach a present kingdom are routinely and consistently employed in an
attempt to argue for "kingdom now" theology. The purpose of this and subsequent articles is to
scrutinize these few and isolated texts that "kingdom now" theologians typically use and to demonstrate
their insufficiency to prove "kingdom now" theology.
THE KINGDOM IS AT HAND

Early in the gospels, we find the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" as
proclaimed to the nation by John the Baptist (Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15), Christ (Matt 4:17), the Twelve (Matt
10:5-7), and the Seventy (Luke 10:1, 9, 11). The Greek verb engizo is translated “near” or “at hand."
However, "kingdom now" theologians understand the phrase “at hand” to mean “here” in the sense
that the kingdom has already arrived.[2] However, such an interpretation is controversial and is hardly a
foregone conclusion. James 5:8-9 uses the identical verb engizo to communicate the nearness or any
moment expectation of the Lord's coming. These verses say, "You too be patient; strengthen your
hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you
yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door." Here, not only is the verb
engizo translated "near" used that is also used in the early-Gospel expression "Repent, for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand," but so is the identical parsing of this same verb. In all of these instances, the verb
engizo appears as a third person singular perfect active indicative. Virtually no one interprets James 5:8-
9 as conveying the Lord's presence or arrival. Rather, all understand the passage as describing His
imminent nearness or any-moment appearance. Thus, why should the same verb and parsing in the
expression "for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" not be given the same rendering of the kingdom's
imminent nearness rather than its presence or arrival? In other words, if the grammatical structure of
James 5:8-9 conveys the imminency and nearness of the Lord's coming, then consistency dictates that
the same grammatical structure in the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" also
depicts the kingdom's imminent nearness rather than its arrival. Toussaint notes that the perfect tense
employed in all of these verses communicates “that the kingdom had drawn near and was then in a
condition of nearness."[3] William Lane similarly notes, “The linguistic objections to the proposed
rendering ‘has come’ are weighty, and it is better to translate ‘has come near.’”[4]
Furthermore, the fact that the word “kingdom” in the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is
at hand" is given no detailed explanation in these verses must mean that John, Christ, the Twelve, and
the Seventy are drawing upon information already revealed about the kingdom in the Old Testament.
Thus, they are offering to Israel what the Old Testament reveals concerning the kingdom.[5] As
explained throughout this series, the Old Testament consistently depicts the kingdom in earthly,
terrestrial terms. The Jews of Christ's day, who were well familiar with this Old Testament
understanding, were similarly anticipating an earthly, literal kingdom.
The ministry of the incarnate Christ never altered this earthly expectation. Not only did the disciples
believe that Christ was going to restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6), but the mother of James and
John also requested that her sons be given places of prominence with the earthly kingdom's
establishment (Matt. 20:20-21). Because the request in Matthew 20 and the inquiry of Acts 1 both
transpired late in Christ’s ministry, it is unlikely that the disciples had a mistaken understanding of the
kingdom at this point. They had already heard Jesus teach extensively about the kingdom and had
already been blessed by Christ for their insight into the kingdom (Matt. 13:11-17).[6]
Interestingly, in the events surrounding both Matthew 20:20-21 and Acts 1:6, Christ never issued a
rebuke due to a faulty understanding or expectation of a future, earthly kingdom. Rather, in Matthew
20, His only correction to the mother of James and John related to her failure to consider that the cross
precedes the crown (Matt. 20:22-23). Similarly, in Acts 1, His only correction of the disciples involved
their misunderstanding concerning the timing of the establishment of the Davidic kingdom, not the fact
of its ultimate fulfillment (Acts 1:7). In neither case did Christ challenge their common expectation that
a future, earthly kingdom would ultimately become a reality. All of this background shows that the
phrase "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" could hardly represent an inauguration of a
spiritual kingdom in Christ's early ministry.
In sum, far from teaching that the kingdom had now arrived in a spiritual sense, the expression "Repent,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" merely communicates that the Old Testament expectation of an
earthly kingdom had drawn near in the person of Christ. Had the nation enthroned Christ (Deut. 17:15),
what the Old Testament predicted concerning an earthly kingdom would have become a reality not only
for Israel but also for the entire world. As long as Christ was present amongst first-century Israel offering
them the kingdom, it was in an imminent state of nearness. This reality is an entirely different matter
from saying that the kingdom was present or had arrived. Unfortunately, "kingdom now" theologians
miss the true import of the early-Gospel expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" by
instead arguing that the kingdom is here rather than near. In actuality, in Christ's early ministry, the
opposite was true. This conclusion comes from carefully noting the grammar of the passages as well as
the common understanding of "kingdom."
Endnotes
[1] Warren cited in Roger Oakland, Faith Undone, Kindle Edition.
[2] Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 2nd ed. (Tyler: TX: ICE, 1997), 223.
[3] Stanley Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2005), 63.
[4] William Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 65, n. 93.
[5] George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952), 1:195.
[6] Toussaint, 62.
Dr. Andy Woods
We further noted that those closest to the biblical text, the early church fathers, also held to
premillennialism or the reality of the coming, earthly kingdom of Christ. We also observed that the
problem with using New Testament verses in an attempt to argue that the Messianic kingdom now
exists in spiritual form is to interpret the New Testament in a manner that contradicts the Old
Testament.
In addition, we explained that the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" merely
communicates that the Old Testament expectation of an earthly kingdom had drawn near in the person
of Christ. Had the nation enthroned Christ (Deut. 17:15), what the Old Testament predicted concerning
an earthly kingdom would have become a reality not only for Israel but also for the entire world. As long
as Christ was present amongst first-century Israel offering them the kingdom, it was in an imminent
state of nearness. This reality is an entirely different matter from saying that the kingdom was present
or had arrived.
THE "LORD'S PRAYER" AND THE KINGDOM
Many evangelicals believe that Christ inaugurated the kingdom in spiritual form during His First
Advent.[1] One way of showing the implausibility of this proposition is by exploring the true meaning of
the "so called" "Lord's Prayer" found in Matthew 6:9-13. These verses say:
Our Father who is 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 do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil (NASB).
"The Lord's Prayer" is probably the wrong designation for these verses. Ironside explains, "Jesus Himself
could not pray for it, for it includes a request for forgiveness of sins, and He was ever the Sinless
One."[2] This prayer is more appropriately entitled "the Disciples' Prayer" since Christ was here teaching
His disciples how to pray. The area of Scripture more appropriately entitled the "Lord's Prayer" is found
in Christ's own high priestly prayer of John 17. The "Disciples' Prayer" is often misconstrued and
misunderstood in modern evangelicalism. Many seek to organize it according to the pneumonic device
"A-C-T-S." "A" stands for "adoration" as in adoration of God. "C" stands for "confession" as in personal
confession of sins. "T" stands for "thanksgiving" as in thanking God for His work and provision in our
lives. "S" stands for "supplication" as in asking God to supply our needs.
In actuality, this prayer is all about the kingdom.[3] Toussaint explains, "The sample prayer, it can be
concluded, is given in the context of the coming kingdom. The first three requests are petitions for the
coming of the kingdom. The last three are for the needs of the disciples in the interim preceding the
establishment of the kingdom."[4] If Matthew 6:9-13 is in actuality a model prayer for the disciples
consisting of three requests for the kingdom to come and three additional requests for their temporal
needs to be met prior to the kingdom's establishment, then it becomes obvious that the Lord did not
establish the kingdom at His First Advent. Otherwise, the "Disciples' Prayer" becomes nonsensical. After
all, why pray for the coming of the kingdom and make additional requests until its establishment if the
kingdom were already a present reality?
THREE REQUESTS PETITIONING THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM
Matthew 6:9-10 can best be understood as three requests that petition the Father to bring to earth the
long-awaited kingdom. First, Matthew 6:9b says, "Hallowed be Your name." "To hallow" means to
honor, respect, revere, or treat as holy or sacred. The Greek word onoma translated "name" refers to a
specific person or an individual. Thus, Christ is here teaching His disciples to pray for the coming of the
time in history when God's name will be universally revered and respected by humanity. The Old
Testament, from which Matthew's Gospel draws so heavily , explains that God's name will be honored in
the coming kingdom. Isaiah 29:23 says, "But when he sees his children, the work of My hands, in his
midst, They will sanctify My name; Indeed, they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob And will stand in awe
of the God of Israel" (italics added). According to Ezekiel 36:23, "'I will vindicate the holiness of My great
name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the
nations will know that I am the Lord,' declares the Lord God, 'when I prove Myself holy among you in
their sight'" (italics added). By instructing His disciples to pray for a coming age in which the Father's
name would be revered, He was instructing them to pray for the kingdom to come.
Second, Matthew 6:10a says, "Your kingdom come." The fact that the word Ã’kingdomÃ“ in this
expression "Your kingdom come" is given no detailed explanation must mean that Christ is drawing
upon information already revealed about the kingdom in the Old Testament. Thus, He is teaching His
disciples to pray for the arrival of what the Old Testament reveals concerning the kingdom.[5] As
explained throughout this series, the Old Testament consistently depicts the kingdom in earthly,
terrestrial terms. Toussaint criticizes "...those who with Platonic concepts subjectively spiritualize the
future aspect of the kingdom of God in Christ's teaching."[6] The kingdom here is obviously a future
reality since Christ is instructing His disciples to pray for its arrival. It is absurd for someone to ask for
something that he already possesses. Glasscock explains why the kingdom in the Christ's day remained a
future reality:
It should be remembered that Jesus was teaching His disciples how to pray, and the petitioning for God
to bring about His kingdom certainly indicates that the world in which we live is not yet under His rule.
Jesus introduced the kingdom at His appearing (cf. Matthew 4:17) but was rejected by His own people
who chose to have Caesar as their king (John 19:15). He was not declaring that the kingdom would come
in the hearts of His servants but that it would exercise dominion over the whole earth (ge). Thus, even
though He was the Messiah and brought the promise of the kingdom to the nation, the kingdom is still
expressed in eschatological terms, "let it come," because it is not yet realized in human history since the
Messiah was rejected and killed.[7]
Third, Matthew 6:10b says, "Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven." God's rule in heaven goes
unchallenged. There, His decrees are never second-guessed. Here, Christ instructs His disciples to pray
that the unchallenged rule that the Father enjoys in heaven would one day become an earthly reality. In
other words, Matthew 6:10b "...is an appeal for God's sovereignty to be absolutely manifested on
earth."[8] Such a request for the establishment of the sovereignty of God on earth is in essence a prayer
for the earthly materializing of God's kingdom. In sum, the first three clauses found in the "Disciples
Prayer" (the requests for God's name to be revered, the kingdom to come, and the sovereign will of God
to be done on the earth) are in reality requests for the yet future kingdom.
Endnotes
[1] Kenneth L. Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler: TX: ICE, 1997), 223-26.
[2] Henry Allen Ironside, Expository Notes on the Gospel of Mattthew (New York: Loizeaux, 1948), 63.
[3] Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2005), 107-112.
[4] Ibid., 112.
[5] George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; reprint, Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 1952), 1:195.
[6] Toussaint, 108.
[7] Ed Glasscock, Matthew, Moody Gospel Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1997), 147.
[8] Toussaint, 110.
Dr. Andy Woods
Because today's church largely believes in the kingdom's presence, we began a study chronicling what
the Bible teaches about the kingdom. The biblical teaching on the kingdom has been surveyed from
Genesis to Revelation. This earthly kingdom is anticipated in the office of Theocratic Administrator that
was lost in Eden, in the biblical covenants, in the predictions of the Old Testament prophets, and in the
earthly theocracy governing Israel from the time of Moses to Zedekiah. This theocratic arrangement
terminated with the "Times of the Gentiles" when the nation had no king reigning on David’s Throne as
Judah was trampled by various Gentile powers. Against that backdrop entered Jesus Christ, the rightful
Heir to David's Throne. Had first-century Israel enthroned Christ, the earthly kingdom would have
manifested. Despite this unprecedented opportunity, Israel rejected the kingdom offer leading to its
postponement.
Consequently, Christ explained the spiritual conditions that would prevail during the kingdom's absence.
This interim program includes His revelation of the kingdom mysteries and the church (Matt. 13; 16:18).
Because neither the kingdom mysteries nor the church represent the fulfillment of God's Old Testament
kingdom promises, the kingdom will remain in a state of abeyance as long as God's present work in the
world continues through His interim program. However, one day the church's mission on the earth will
be completed resulting in the church's removal from the earth through the rapture. Then God, who is
not forgetful of His prior unconditional covenants with Israel, will re-extend the offer of the kingdom to
national Israel in the midst of the coming Great Tribulation. Unlike at the First Advent, this time the offer
will be accepted leading to Christ's return and subsequent earthly kingdom. Revelation therefore
explains how the world will eventually transition from the rule that Satan has had over the world ever
since the Fall in Eden (Luke 4:5-8) to the future time in history when God and His people "will reign upon
the earth" (Rev. 5:10b; 11:15b).
In addition, we explained that the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" merely
communicates that the Old Testament expectation of an earthly kingdom had drawn near in the person
of Christ. Had the nation enthroned Christ (Deut. 17:15), what the Old Testament predicted concerning
an earthly kingdom would have become a reality not only for Israel but also for the entire world. As long
as Christ was present amongst first-century Israel offering them the kingdom, it was in an imminent
state of nearness. This reality is an entirely different matter from saying that the kingdom was present
or had arrived.
THE "LORD'S PRAYER" AND THE KINGDOM
Some believe Christ inaugurated the kingdom in spiritual form during His First Advent.[1] One way of
showing the implausibility of such a proposition is by exploring the true meaning of the so-called "Lord's
Prayer" found in Matthew 6:9-13. These verses say:
Our Father who is 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 do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil (NASB).
In actuality, this prayer is all about the kingdom.[2] Toussaint explains, "The sample prayer, it can be
concluded, is given in the context of the coming kingdom. The first three requests are petitions for the
coming of the kingdom. The last three are for the needs of the disciples in the interim preceding the
establishment of the kingdom."[3] If Matthew 6:9-13 is in actuality a model prayer for the disciples
consisting of three requests for the kingdom to come and three additional requests for their temporal
needs to be met prior to the kingdom's establishment, then it becomes obvious that the Lord did not
establish the kingdom at His First Advent. Otherwise, the "Disciples' Prayer" becomes nonsensical. After
all, why pray for the coming of the kingdom and make additional requests until its establishment if the
kingdom were already a present reality?
THREE REQUESTS RELATED TO TEMPORAL NEEDS
Previously, we observed that the first three clauses (Matt. 6:9-10) found in the "Disciples Prayer" (the
requests for God's name to be revered, the kingdom to come, and the sovereign will of God to be done
on the earth) are in reality requests for the yet future kingdom. Similarly, Matthew 6:11-13 can best be
understood as three requests that petition the Father to meet the temporal needs of Christ's disciples in
the era leading up to the kingdom's establishment while the kingdom remains in a state of
postponement. Walvoord notes, "In verse 11, the petitions are changed to the first person relating to
human need."[4] First, Matthew 6:11 says, "Give us this day our daily bread." Here, "bread" is most
likely used as a figure of speech known as a synecdoche (where a part is used to represent the whole) to
represent general nourishment. According to Glasscock, "'Bread' was most likely used figuratively for
food in general (Gen. 3:19)."[5] The kingdom will be a time of great agricultural prosperity resulting in no
more starvation or food shortage. Amos 9:13 says, "'Behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'When
the plowman will overtake the reaper And the treader of grapes him who sows seed; When the
mountains will drip sweet wine...'" Isaiah 65:21-22a similarly notes, "They will build houses and inhabit
them; They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They will not build and another inhabit, They will
not plant and another eat." Zechariah 8:12 similarly predicts, "For there will be peace for the seed: the
vine will yield its fruit, the land will yield its produce and the heavens will give their dew; and I will cause
the remnant of this people to inherit all these things."
Until this time of agricultural prosperity in the kingdom age comes, food shortages will continue to be a
reality for humanity. Thus, it is appropriate for Christ to instruct His disciples to pray for their daily
provision until this specific request becomes unnecessary after the kingdom comes. During the
wilderness wanderings, God miraculously and physically provided for the nation of Israel through the
daily provision of manna. This provision continued until the nation entered Canaan – the land "flowing
with milk and honey" (Exod. 16:14-36; Josh. 5:11-12). At that point, daily provision of manna was no
longer required since the prosperity of the land economically sustained the nation. Similarly, God must
supply the daily needs of His disciples until every physical need is abundantly met once the agricultural
prosperity of the kingdom age becomes an earthly reality. Hence, Christ instructs His disciples to pray for
their daily sustenance during the kingdom's absence.
Second, Matthew 6:12 says, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." Here,
Christ instructs His disciples to seek spiritual provision when they sin and fall out of fellowship with the
Father. Toussaint explains, "Judicial forgiveness is not in view (Acts 10:43) but fellowship (1 John 1:5-9).
It is impossible for one to be in fellowship with God as long as he harbors ill will in his heart."[6]
Walvoord also explains, "The Christian already forgiven judicially should not expect restoration in the
family unless he, himself, is forgiving."[7] Glasscock similarly notes:
It is not likely here that the issue of forgiveness is referring to initial redemptive forgiveness (for
salvation) but the forgiveness for offense against the Father in the perpetual daily life situation (for
fellowship). There is no salvific passage that requires the one being saved to perform any act, such as
forgiving others, in order to gain forgiveness. The overwhelming testimony of Scripture is that salvation
from eternal torment is a free gift not granted on the basis of any act (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; Rom. 4:5;
etc.).[8]
When Christ comes to establish His kingdom, His disciples will be resurrected and thus in bodies with no
capacity for sin (Dan. 12:2; Rev. 20:4-5). However, in the meantime, while still in mortal bodies,
followers of Christ still retain a propensity for sin and thus can still fall out of fellowship with the Father.
Consequently, they need spiritual provision to maintain or to restore fellowship with God. Therefore,
Christ explains this interim spiritual provision in Matthew 6:12.
Third, Matthew 6:13 says, "And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Glasscock
notes, "...and the object from which we are to seek deliverance is evil. More literally it should be
understood as 'the Evil One.'...The petition of the model prayer, then, is for God to allow us to undergo
the testing but to be rescued from the snare of the Evil One, the Devil."[9] The kingdom represents a
time in history when Satan will be incarcerated (Rev. 20:2-3). With the kingdom absent in the present
age, Satan remains the "god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4) and "...prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking
someone to devour" (1 Pet. 5:8). Thus, in the present age, with the kingdom and Satan's incarceration
not a present reality, the believer is in need of protection from the Adversary (John 17:15). Such
protection is what the believer must pray for during this interim age, before the kingdom comes. In sum,
in Matthew 6:9-11, Christ teaches His followers to ask the Father to meet their temporal needs (physical
provision, spiritual restoration, and divine protection from Satan) during the kingdom's absence. Once
the kingdom comes, such requests will no longer be necessary. In conclusion, when rightly understood,
the "Disciples' Prayer" consists of three requests for the kingdom to come and three additional requests
for provisions that are needed while the kingdom remains in abeyance. Thus, the whole notion that
Christ already established the kingdom in spiritual form at His First Advent becomes unlikely, if not
impossible.
Endnotes
[1] Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Tyler: TX: ICE, 1997), 223-26.
[2] Stanley Toussaint, Behold the King (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2005), 107-112.
[3] Ibid., 112.
[4] John Walvoord, Matthew (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 53.
[5] Ed Glasscock, Matthew (Chicago: Moody, 1997), 148.
[6] Toussaint, 111.
[7] Walvoord, 53.
[8] Glasscock, 148-49.
[9] Ibid., 150.

Dr. Andy Woods
church. Because neither represents the fulfillment of God's Old Testament kingdom promises, the
kingdom will remain in a state of abeyance as long as God's present work in the world continues through
His interim program. However, one day the church's mission on the earth will be completed resulting in
the church's removal from the earth through the rapture. Then God, who is not forgetful of His prior
unconditional covenants with Israel, will re-extend the offer of the kingdom to national Israel in the
midst of the coming Great Tribulation. Unlike at the First Advent, this time the offer will be accepted
leading to Christ's return and subsequent earthly kingdom. Revelation explains how the world will
eventually transition from the rule that Satan has had over the world ever since the Fall in Eden to the
future time in history when God and His people "will reign upon the earth" (Rev. 5:10b; 11:15b). The
Apocalypse furnishes the important detail of the Messianic kingdom's duration, namely one-thousand
years (Rev. 20:1-10). God's kingdom program will extend beyond Christ's one-thousand year earthly
reign as it transitions into the Eternal State (Rev. 21‒22).
We further noted that those closest to the biblical text, the early church fathers, also held to
premillennialism or the reality of the coming, earthly kingdom of Christ. We also observed that the
problem with using New Testament verses in an attempt to argue that the Messianic kingdom now
exists in spiritual form is to interpret the New Testament in a manner that contradicts the Old
Testament.
In addition, we began scrutinizing a series of texts that "kingdom now" theologians routinely employ in
order to argue that the kingdom is a present spiritual reality. We began with the use of such alleged
"kingdom now" texts in the life of Christ. We noted that the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand" merely communicates that the Old Testament expectation of an earthly kingdom had
drawn near in the person of Christ. Had the nation enthroned Christ (Deut. 17:15), what the Old
Testament predicted concerning an earthly kingdom would have become a reality not only for Israel but
also for the entire world. As long as Christ was present amongst first-century Israel offering them the
kingdom, it was in an imminent state of nearness. This reality is an entirely different matter from saying
that the kingdom was present or had arrived.
We also observed that Matthew 6:9-13 is in actuality a model prayer for the disciples consisting of three
requests for the kingdom to come and three additional requests for their temporal needs to be met
prior to the kingdom's establishment. Such a framework makes it obvious that the Lord did not establish
the kingdom at His First Advent.
KINGDOM RESISTANCE AND VIOLENCE
Another pair of parallel texts that "kingdom now" theologians use is Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16.
These verses speak of the kingdom being resisted and suffering violence during the days of John the
Baptist and Christ. Matthew 11:12 says, "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of
heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force." Blaising, an advocate of inaugurated
eschatology,[1] contends that the kingdom had to be present in order for it to be resisted so
strenuously.[2] But is it possible for the kingdom to suffer violence without being present? An answer
can be found in the parallel passage (Luke 16:16), which says, "The Law and the Prophets were
proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and
everyone is forcing his way into it." Here, the emphasis is on the proclamation of the kingdom. Thus,
what is actually being rejected is the proclamation of the kingdom or the message of the kingdom rather
than any present manifestation of the kingdom. This interpretation finds support in the verses following
Matthew 11:12 where Christ equates the hardness of His generation to His message to children not
pleased with the asceticism of John nor the ministry of Christ (Matt. 11:16-19).[3]
THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME UPON YOU
Another statement made by Christ that is utilized by "kingdom now" theologians is found in Matthew
12:28, which says, “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come
upon you” (see also Luke 11:20). "Kingdom now" theologians interpret this statement to mean that
Christ began a spiritual form of the Messianic kingdom at His First Advent. However, this view fails to
interact with Christ’s “offer of the kingdom” to first-century Israel.[4] This is the idea that the kingdom
was offered to the nation by John the Baptist, Christ, and the disciples, was rejected by the nation,
postponed, and eventually will be re-offered to the nation during the future Tribulation period. This
interpretive framework allows the various manifestations of the kingdom in the life of Christ (Matt.
12:28), such as His miracles, the exorcising of demons, and His Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-8) to be
interpreted as mere tokens of the coming kingdom rather than announcing an inaugurated form of the
kingdom. In other words, the presence of the kingdom in the life of Christ could become a reality for
Israel and the world had Israel fulfilled her responsibility of enthroning her king (Deut. 17:15).
Unfortunately this offer of the kingdom approach is totally by-passed by "kingdom now" theologians.
Instead of seeing an offer in the kingdom preaching of John the Baptist and Jesus, they instead interpret
Matthew 12:28 as the "breaking in" of the kingdom "in minuscule" and "spiritual form.”
Yet, Toussaint provides eight reasons why the "offer of the kingdom" should not be so easily dismissed
since it rests upon firm exegetical footing. It is found not only in Matthew’s Gospel but also Luke’s
Gospel.[5] First, the idea of the contingency of a benefit depending upon whether the offeree is willing
to accept the terms of the offer is well established in the Old Testament (1 Kgs. 11:38; Jer. 18:7-10).
Second, Israel’s covenantal structure required repentance before the kingdom could be established (Lev.
26; Deut. 28). Third, the message of the kingdom’s nearness was confined to national Israel. Matthew
10:5-7 says, “These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them, saying, ‘Do not go in the way of the
Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’” Fourth, the contingency of
the offer is seen in statements of Christ, such as, “And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who
was to come” (Matt. 11:14). Of this statement, Toussaint remarks, “There is scarce a passage in
Scripture which shows more clearly that the kingdom was being offered to Israel at this time. Its coming
was contingent upon one thing: Israel receiving it by genuine repentance.”[6]
Fifth, there is a cessation of the announcement of the kingdom after Israel rejects her Messiah (Matt.
12; Luke 11). Sixth, the Lord pronounces judgment upon that generation (Matt. 23:36-39) for failing to
recognize the hour of their visitation (Luke 19:42, 44; Dan. 9:26). In other words, they were judged
because they failed to accept the offer. Seventh, the parables of rejection depict the postponement of
the kingdom. While earlier in Luke’s gospel the kingdom is portrayed as being near (Luke 10:9, 11), the
parable of the minas was told in order to dissuade the disciples’ expectation of the kingdom’s nearness
(Luke 19:11). The parable teaches that the kingdom program would be postponed for a long duration
and the disciples had obligations to fulfill in the interim (Luke 19:11-27). Eighth, the message of the
kingdom’s imminence does not reappear until the context pertains to the Seventieth Week of Daniel or
the future Tribulation period (Matt. 24:14; Luke 21:31). In sum, when understood in the light of this
kingdom offer, Christ's statement in Matthew 12:28 was not indicative of the fact the kingdom had
arrived. Rather, His statement simply meant that the tokens of the kingdom (His miracles, exorcisms,
etc...) could have become a reality for the nation of Israel had she responded to the contingency of the
offer that Christ was extending to her.
Endnotes
[1] While still holding to some form of a future earthly reign of Christ, inaugurated eschatology
advocates maintain that the kingdom is still a present spiritual reality with Christ presently orchestrating
it from David's Throne in heaven.
[2] Craig Blaising, "The Kingdom of God in the New Testament," in Progressive Dispensationalism
(Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1993), 248.
[4] See parts five and six in this series for a fuller development of this concept.
[5] Stanley Toussaint, "The Contingency of the Coming Kingdom," in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of
Hands: Biblical and Leadership Studies in Honor of Donald K. Campbell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 225,
232-35.
[6] Stanley Toussaint, Behold the King (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2005), 153.
Dr. Andy Woods
on the kingdom has been surveyed from Genesis to Revelation. We have noted thus far that what the
Old Testament predicts concerning an earthly kingdom was offered to Israel during Christ's First Advent.
Yet, the nation rejected this kingdom offer leading to the kingdom's postponement. Therefore, what the
Scripture predicts concerning the kingdom will not be fulfilled until the kingdom offer is one day re-
extended to and accepted by Israel during the Tribulation. In the interim, the kingdom is future as God
now pursues an interim program that includes the church.
order to argue that the kingdom is a present, spiritual reality. We began with the use of such alleged
"kingdom now" texts in the life of Christ. We noted that the expression "Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:5-7) merely communicates that the Old Testament expectation of
an earthly kingdom had drawn near in the person of Christ. Had the nation enthroned Christ (Deut.
17:15), the anticipated kingdom promises would have become a reality not only for Israel but also for
the entire world. As long as Christ was present among first-century Israel offering them the kingdom, it
was in an imminent state of nearness. This reality is an entirely different matter from saying that the
kingdom was present or had arrived.
SEEK THE KINGDOM
We also observed that Matthew 6:9-13 is in actuality a model prayer for the disciples consisting of three
requests for the kingdom to come and three additional requests for their temporal needs to be met
prior to the kingdom's establishment. Such a framework makes it obvious that the Lord did not establish
the kingdom at His First Advent. If this is so, then passages such as Matthew 6:33 (restated in Luke
12:31) become understandable. This verse says, "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and
all these things will be added to you." Is this verse, as "kingdom now" theologians sometimes advocate,
teaching a present, spiritual form of the kingdom that Christ's disciples must seek and align their lives
with? The answer to this question is provided in the immediately preceding context where Christ's
model prayer for the disciples (Matt. 6:9-13) consists of three requests for the kingdom to come and
three additional requests for their temporal needs to be met prior to the kingdom's establishment. Thus,
contextually, Matthew 6:33 is merely admonishing Christ's disciples to prioritize their lives according to
the values of the coming kingdom during their brief sojourn on earth, while they live in Satan's domain,
while the kingdom is in a state of abeyance.
E.R. Craven, in an extended excursus on the Greek word basileia (translated "kingdom"), well explains
the true meaning of Christ's words in Matthew 6:33:
The exhortations of our Lord to “seek the Kingdom of God,” Matt. 6:33; Luke 12:31. It is manifest that
both these exhortations are consistent with the hypothesis of a future Kingdom—as though He had said,
So act, that when the Basileia is established you may enter it. Indeed the contexts of both exhortations
require that we should put that interpretation upon them: the one in Matt. follows the direction to pray
“Thy Kingdom come” (ver. 10), and that in Luke is manifestly parallel with the exhortation to wait for an
absent Lord (vers. 35–40).[1]
Such an interpretation helps explains why Paul refers to Christ's followers in the present world system as
"ambassadors." Second Corinthians 5:20 states, "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though
God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (italics
added). An ambassador is someone who represents the value system of his home country on foreign
soil. America's ambassador to Iran, for example, represents American values on Iranian soil. Similarly,
God's people represent the values of their true home, the coming kingdom, on Satan's turf, which is the
present world system (1 John 5:19). The whole designation "ambassador" makes little sense if the
kingdom were a present, spiritual reality. After all, it would be nonsensical to represent the values of the
kingdom in the present world as an ambassador if the kingdom was in fact a current reality.
It is for reasons such as this that the New Testament frequently identifies God's people in the present
world as "the sons of the kingdom" (Matt. 13:38). A son (huios) is an heir. Galatians 4:7 explains,
"Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God" (italics added).
An "heir" is an individual who is entitled to an inheritance. An inheritance, by definition, refers to a
benefit forthcoming in the future but not yet received in the present. If the kingdom were a present
reality then God's people could not be sons of the kingdom or kingdom heirs. How can one be an heir to
something that he already possesses? In a previous article we noted that the New Testament
consistently portrays the church as an heir of the coming kingdom as opposed to a ruler in a present
existing kingdom (Acts 14:22; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 1:11). James 2:5 says, “Listen, my beloved
brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which
He promised to those who love Him?” (italics added). Premillennial scholar Peters asks, “If the church is
the Kingdom, and believers are now in it, why designate them ‘heirs,’ etc., of a Kingdom.”[2]
Again, far from teaching a present manifestation of the kingdom, Matthew 6:33 merely teaches that
God's people should prioritize their lives according to the values of the coming kingdom during their
brief sojourn on earth while living in Satan's domain as the kingdom is in a state of absence and
postponement. Only such a view properly handles the designations of "ambassador" and "heir."
THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME UPON YOU
We also examined Matthew 11:12, which says, "From the days of John the Baptist until now the
kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force." We saw that "kingdom now"
theologians contend that the kingdom had to be present in order for it to be resisted so strenuously.[3]
However, we noted the parallel passage (Luke 16:16), which says, "The Law and the Prophets were
proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and
everyone is forcing his way into it." Here, the emphasis is on the proclamation of the kingdom. Thus,
what is actually being rejected is the proclamation of the kingdom or the message of the kingdom rather
than any present manifestation of the kingdom.[4]
Another statement made by Christ that is utilized by "kingdom now" theologians is found in Matthew
12:28, which says, “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come
upon you” (see also Luke 11:20). "Kingdom now" theologians interpret this statement to mean that
Christ began a spiritual form of the Messianic kingdom at His First Advent. However, this view fails to
interact with Christ’s “offer of the kingdom” to first-century Israel, which is the idea that the kingdom
was offered to the nation by John the Baptist, Christ, and the disciples. Yet, it was rejected by the nation,
consequently postponed, and eventually will be re-offered to the nation during the future Tribulation
period. This interpretive framework allows the various manifestations of the kingdom in the life of Christ
(Matt. 12:28), such as His miracles and exorcisms, to be interpreted as mere tokens of the coming
kingdom rather than announcing an inaugurated form of the kingdom. In other words, the presence of
the kingdom in the life of Christ could become a reality for Israel and the world had Israel fulfilled her
responsibility of enthroning her king (Deut. 17:15).[5] Thus, when understood in the light of this
kingdom offer, Christ's statement in Matthew 12:28 was not indicative of the fact the kingdom had
arrived. Rather, His statement simply meant that the tokens of the kingdom (His miracles, exorcisms,
etc...) could have become a reality for the nation had Israel responded to the contingency of the offer
that Christ was extending to her.
Yet another way of explaining why Matthew 12:28 does not teach a present manifestation of the
kingdom is by simply noting the specific verb here employed. Interestingly, both passages (Matt 12:28;
Luke 11:20) use the word phthano ("has come") rather than erchomai ("comes" as in Luke 17:20) or
anaphaino ("appear" as in Luke 19:11). Craven notes the significance of such a subtle, nuanced word
choice:
“In the New Testament...phthano occurs only in the later, weakened sense of reaching to”...The phrase
is similar to the one in 1 Thess. 2:16, where, manifestly, it was not designed to represent the wrath
spoken of as already poured forth upon its objects—they were living men, but as having reached unto,
overhanging them, comp. also Rom. 9:31; 2 Cor. 10:14; Phil. 3:16; 1 Thess. 4:15...The passages under
consideration aptly accord with the idea of a near approach of the Basileia to the Jews in the person of
Christ, implying an offer of establishment which might be withdrawn; they are equivalent to the
declaration of Luke 10:9, 11.[6]
Endnotes
[1] E.R. Craven, "Excursus on the Basileia," in Revelation of John, J. P. Lange (New York: Scribner, 1874),
95.
[2] George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952), 1:600.
[3] Craig Blaising, "The Kingdom of God in the New Testament," in Progressive Dispensationalism
(Wheaton: Victor, 1993), 248.
Hands (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 225, 232-35.
[6] Craven, "Excursus," 96.
Dr. Andy Woods
on the kingdom has been surveyed from Genesis to Revelation. We have noted thus far that what the
Old Testament predicts concerning an earthly kingdom was offered to Israel during Christ's First Advent.
Yet, the nation rejected this kingdom offer leading to the kingdom's postponement. Therefore, what the
Scripture predicts concerning the kingdom will not be fulfilled until the kingdom offer is one day re-
extended to and accepted by Israel during the Tribulation. In the interim, the kingdom is future as God
now pursues an interim program that includes the church.
order to argue that the kingdom is a present, spiritual reality. The goal in doing so is to show that none
of these passages, when rightly understood, teach a present, spiritual form of the kingdom. We began
with the use of such alleged "kingdom now" texts in the life of Christ. Such texts include "Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:5-7), "seek first His kingdom and His righteousness"
(Matt. 6:33), "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence"
(Matt. 11:12), and ‘the kingdom of God has come upon you’ (Matt. 12:28). We now begin an extended
analysis of Luke 17:20-21, which represents a key proof text utilized by "kingdom now" theologians
seeking to scripturally prove a spiritually present manifestation of the kingdom.
THE KINGDOM IS IN YOUR MIDST
Another statement made by Christ conceivably arguing that the kingdom has already come in spiritual
form is found in Luke 17:20-21. These verses say, "Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to
when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, 'The kingdom of God is not coming
with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of
God is in your midst.'" Like Matt 12:28, this statement is also interpreted by "kingdom now" theologians
to indicate that Christ began a spiritual form of the Messianic kingdom at His First Advent. In fact,
passages such as Matthew 12:28 and Luke 17:20-21 are critical to the "kingdom now" theology of the
emergent church. Gibbs and Bolger explain: "How did Emerging churches come to emphasize the Gospel
of the Kingdom? It began with a shift from the Epistles to the Gospels as a way to understand Jesus
more profoundly."[1] Of Luke 17:20-21, E.R. Craven similarly notes, "This passage, probably, by the
advocates of the prevalent theory of the Basileia, is regarded as their most important proof-text, both as
to its nature and present establishment."[2] However, to the "kingdom now" use of these verses,
several responses can be given.
First, it is appropriate to dispute the all too common rendering that says, ‘the kingdom of God is within
you.’ This rendering could not be correct since in context Christ was addressing the Pharisees. How
could the kingdom be within the satanically empowered Pharisees (John 8:44)? These were the very
individuals plotting to murder Christ at the very time that these words were uttered. Furthermore, the
Scripture always portrays people entering the kingdom (Matt. 5:20; 23:13; John 3:5) rather than the
kingdom entering them. Besides, does Christ perfectly reign in the hearts of the believer today? If so,
why are there consistent commands given in the New Testament epistles against grieving (Eph. 4:30)
and quenching the Holy Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19)? The mere existence of these prohibitions implies that
believers today have the capacity to commit these sins and consequently inhibit the reigning influence
of Christ in their hearts. In addition, this frequent rendering converts the kingdom into a spiritual reality
only. However, as has been developed throughout this series, a terrestrial, geo-political element is
always included in the Old Testament's presentation of the kingdom. Such an abrupt change from
understanding the kingdom as encompassing this physical reality to solely a spiritual reality is
tantamount to hermeneutically changing horses in midstream. Why would Christ, or any of the New
Testament writers for that matter, introduce such a radical transition without any in-depth commentary
explaining that such a transition was underway.
Also, if Luke 17:20-21 evidences the fact that Jesus set up a present, spiritual form of the kingdom
during His First Advent, then why is His earthly ministry subsequent to these verses characterized by
perpetual promises of a future, earthly kingdom? For example, in Matthew 19:28, Christ promised His
disciples, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man
will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
In Matthew 26:29, He similarly told His disciples, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine
from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom." Even Christ's closest
companions understood His teaching as conveying a future, earthly kingdom. Not only did the disciples
believe that Christ was going to restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6), but the mother of James and
John also requested that her sons be given places of prominence with the earthly kingdom's
establishment (Matt. 20:20-21). Because the request in Matthew 20 and the inquiry of Acts 1 both
transpired late in Christ’s ministry, it is unlikely that the disciples had a mistaken understanding of the
kingdom at this point. Also, the penitent thief on the cross obviously saw the kingdom as a future reality
when he exclaimed, ‘Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!’ (Luke 23:42). Joseph of
Arimathea, a wealthy disciple of Christ in whose tomb Christ was eventually buried, also understood
Christ as teaching a future kingdom. Mark 15:43 says, "Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member
of the Council, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went
in before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus" (italics added).
Second, "kingdom now" theologians rely upon the present tense expression ‘is in your midst’ (Luke
17:21) to argue for a present form of the Messianic kingdom. However, this verse need not teach
"kingdom now" theology. To the Jewish mind king and kingdom went together like horse and carriage. It
was unfathomable for them to have a king without the presence of the kingdom. Note the following
passages that link king and kingdom. Isaiah 9:6-7 says, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and
the government will be on his shoulders And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and
righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this." Daniel
7:13-14 similarly explains, "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of
man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his
presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language
worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed." Note also Luke 1:26-27, 32, "In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy,
God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man
named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary...He will be great and will be called
the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David." E.R. Craven further
explains this king and kingdom connection to the Jewish mind:
Now, remembering the close connection in the Jewish mind between the establishment of the Basileia,
and the glorious coming of the Son of Man—a connection established by the prophecy of Daniel (7:13,
14), and not previously rebuked but approved by Jesus (Luke 9:26, 27)—let anyone hypothesize as the
meaning of...with the signs of a gradual approach, and of...in the midst of, and read the entire passage,
vers. 20–30.[3]
All of this to say, that the kingdom was very much in the midst of the nation (Luke 17:21) at Christ's First
Advent since the king was present.
However, the offer of the kingdom framework, which has been discussed in prior articles,[4] is sufficient
for handling these verses in the same way it is capable of handling Matthew 12:28. Christ’s presence
manifested kingdom realties that could also have become tangible for the nation had they fulfilled their
obligation of enthroning their king (Deut. 17:15). In other words, the presence of the kingdom in Christ
could not become a reality for all because of the nation’s rejection of the kingdom offer. Grammarian
Max Zerwick notes how this interpretation represents an acceptable rendering of the present tense
expression ‘is in your midst’:
In view of the fact that Christ was addressing the Pharisees modern exegetes generally prefer to
translate "among" but this meaning is elsewhere unknown. Secular and patristic evidence has been
adduced (by C.H. Roberts) for an extension of the meaning "within", viz. in your hands (ref. that for
which one is responsible), in your power of choice (cf "it lies with you"), i.e. from the human side the K is
yours if you choose it, if you will it.[5]
Endnotes
[1] Paul Smith, New Evangelicalism (Costa Mesa, CA: Calvary, 2011), 119.
[2] E.R. Craven, "Excursus on the Basileia," in Revelation of John, (New York: Scribner, 1874), 96.
[3] Ibid., 97.
[4] See parts five, six, and nineteen in this series for an explanation of this idea.
[5] Max Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Pontificio, 1996), 251-52.
Dr. Andy Woods
Today's evangelical world believes that the church is experiencing the Messianic kingdom. Note the
words of Russell Moore, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission of the Southern
Baptist Convention: “The locus of the kingdom of God in this age is within the church, where Jesus rules
as king. As we live our lives together, we see the transforming power of the gospel and the in breaking
of the future kingdom.”[1] To address this type of confusion, we began a study chronicling what the
Bible teaches about the kingdom. In this series, the biblical teaching on the kingdom has been surveyed
from Genesis to Revelation. We have noted thus far that what the Old Testament predicts concerning an
earthly kingdom was offered to Israel during Christ's First Advent. Yet, the nation rejected this kingdom
offer leading to the kingdom's postponement. In the interim, the kingdom is future as God now pursues
an interim program that includes the church.
order to argue that the kingdom is a present reality in order to show that none of these passages, when
rightly understood, teach a present, spiritual form of the kingdom. We began with the use of alleged
"kingdom now" texts in the life of Christ, such as "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2; 4:17;
10:5-7), "seek first His kingdom" (Matt. 6:33), "the kingdom of heaven suffers violence" (Matt. 11:12),
and “the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28). We also began an analysis of Luke 17:20-
21, which represents a key proof text utilized by "kingdom now" theologians. These verses say, "Now
having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered
them and said, 'The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look,
here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.'"
We noted that it is appropriate to dispute the common rendering, “the kingdom of God is within you.”
Christ was conversing with unbelieving Pharisees. Craven observes, "The supposition that He indicated
an existing Basileia...implies that it was set up in (or among) the Pharisees."[2] Moreover, we explained
that the offer of the kingdom framework, as discussed in prior articles, is sufficient for handling these
verses. Christ’s presence manifested kingdom realties that could also have become tangible for the
nation had they fulfilled their obligation of enthroning their king (Deut. 17:15). In other words, the
presence of the kingdom in Christ could not become a reality for all because of the nation’s rejection of
the kingdom offer.
THE KINGDOM IS A FUTURISTIC CERTAINTY
When we look at the larger context of Luke 17:20-21 found in Luke 17:20-37, it becomes apparent that
Christ was speaking of a future, rather than a present, manifestation of the kingdom. By the time Christ
uttered the words found in Luke 17:20-21, it is apparent that first-century Israel was not going to accept
the offer of the kingdom since the nation was in the process of rejecting her king. In Luke 17:22, 25,
Christ noted, "The days will come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you
will not see it...But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation." Consequently,
in this section, Christ began to outline how the future kingdom will one day come to the earth. The
future establishment of the kingdom will be an instantaneous event rather than a prolonged, gradual
process (Dan. 2:35, 44). This instantaneous establishment of the future kingdom explains why Christ
said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed." Observation of signs is only
pertinent if an event is gradual rather than something instantaneous. Thus, once the kingdom comes
people will not say, "'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst'"
(Luke 17:20-21). This instantaneous, futuristic arrival of the kingdom is corroborated by the surrounding
context, which analogizes Christ's Second Coming to sudden flashing of lightning (Luke 17:23-24), and to
the flood waters that rapidly came upon the world in Noah's day (Luke 17:20-28), as well as to the fire
and brimstone that came suddenly upon Sodom and Gomorrah in the days of Lot (Luke 17:29-33). Thus,
unbelievers will be caught off guard by these events as they are then ushered into immediate judgment
(Luke 17:34-36). This overall futuristic context is most likely why the future tense of the verb is
employed in Christ's statement, "nor will they say, ‘Look...'" (Luke 17:21; italics added). Here, the word
translated "will they say" is the future tense verb of the Greek word lego. Thus, after examining the
futuristic context in Luke 17:20-37, Craven appropriately asks the following question concerning the
announcement of the kingdom given in Luke 17:20-21: "Does it not become manifest that this passage,
so far from teaching the doctrine of a present establishment of the Basileia, must be numbered amongst
those that connect the establishment with the Second Advent?"[3]
If the arrival of the kingdom is indeed a future reality, then why did Christ in Luke 17:21 appear to speak
of the kingdom as a present realty when He used the present tense of the verb eimi to proclaim "For
behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst" (italics added)? At least two reasons can be offered to
explain Christ's use of the present tense here. First, because the Pharisees asked the initial question in
the present tense, it stands to reason that Christ would also answer their question in the present tense.
The opening question in Luke 17:20 says, "Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the
kingdom of God was coming" (italics added). Here, the word translated "was coming" is the present
tense form of the verb erchomai. Thus, the Pharisees' present tense question sets the proper foundation
for Christ's present tense answer. Craven well explains this congruity:
In the E. V. there is a difference in tense between the question of the Pharisees and the answer of
Jesus—they asking, when the Basileia should come, and He answering, it cometh not with observation,
it is within you—which necessarily implies a declaration of then existing establishment. This difference is
altogether unauthorized—both the question and the answer are in the present; the question of the
Pharisees should be translated “when cometh (erchetai) the kingdom of God?” The question was asked
in the vivid, dramatic present; it manifestly had reference to the future; it would be in defiance of every
conceivable law of language to suppose that our Lord, in following the lead of His questioners, intended
to indicate a different tense. The question and the answer are but illustrations of that law proper to all
languages, but pre-eminently to the Greek...[4]
Second, biblical language often describes future events with the present tense in order to indicate their
ultimate certainty. Because God is infinite and therefore not bound by time the way finite man is (Ps.
90:4; 2 Pet. 3:8) , to Him, the future is the present. In other words, His infinitude allows Him to express
future events as though they were present realties because He sees them as such. For example, Romans
8:29-30 says, "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of
His Son, so that He would be the first-born among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He
also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified"
(italics mine). Here Paul lays out the various phases of the believer's salvation. Notice that our future
glorification is depicted in the same past tense as our past predestination, calling, and justification. In
other words, the believer's future glory is just as certain as anything God has done in the believer's past.
After all, He is not bound by time and therefore sees this future as though it were a present reality. For
this same reason, God promised Joshua victory over Jericho before any battle had actually been fought
(Josh. 6:2). God, who can see the future clearly since He is not bound by time, already saw Joshua's
ultimate victory.
In the same way, in Luke 17:21, Christ uses the present tense to describe the kingdom not to depict its
present, spiritual arrival but rather to articulate its futuristic certainty. Craven explains:
...pre-eminently to the Greek, by which a certain future may be represented by a verb in the present;
illustrations may be found, Matt. 26:2 (after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of Man is
betrayed, etc.); 1 Cor. 15:42–44 (it is sown in corruption, it is [in the future resurrection] raised in
incorruption)...To the conclusion that the language of our Lord must be understood as having reference
to the future, it may also be remarked, we are shut up by the following considerations: The
supposition...disconnects His words from the immediately-following address to the disciples, whilst the
contrary supposition brings them into manifest and beautiful connection therewith, and with His other
utterances...In this connection may be considered that class of passages which are regarded as teaching
the doctrine of a present Basileia from their use of present verb when mentioning it. (Reference is not
now had to those in which there is aught in the context that apparently requires the hypothesis of a
present kingdom—...These passages are: all those parables which thus refer to the Basileia, Matt. 13:31,
38, 44, 45, 47, etc.; also Matt. 11:11; Rom. 14:17. These, it is admitted, are all consistent with the
hypothesis of a present kingdom; but, under the rule set forth under the preceding head, they are all
grammatically consistent with that of a certain future establishment.[5]
Endnotes
[1] Justin Taylor, “An Interview with Russell Moore,” www.thegospelcoalition.org.
[2] E.R. Craven, "Excursus on the Basileia," in Revelation of John, ed. John Lange (New York: Scribner,
1874), 96.
[3] Ibid., 97.
[4] Ibid., 96.
[5] Ibid., 96-97.
Dr. Andy Woods
Today's evangelical world believes that the church is experiencing the Messianic kingdom. To address
this type of confusion, we began a study chronicling what the Bible teaches about the kingdom. In this
series, the biblical teaching on the kingdom has been surveyed from Genesis to Revelation. We have
noted thus far that what the Old Testament predicts concerning an earthly kingdom was offered to
Israel during Christ's First Advent. Yet, the nation rejected this kingdom offer leading to the kingdom's
postponement. In the interim, the kingdom is future as God now pursues an interim program that
includes the church.
10:5-7), "seek first His kingdom" (Matt. 6:33), "until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence" (Matt.
11:12), “the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28), and "the kingdom of God is in your
midst" (Luke 17:21).
BORN AGAIN TO ENTER THE KINGDOM
Sometimes John 3:3-5 is used to support the notion of a present, spiritual messianic kingdom. These
verses say, "Jesus answered and said to 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? He cannot
enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to
you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'"
Although the word "kingdom" is used twice in these verses, it is important to note that the term does
not speak to the issue of the time of the kingdom's establishment. Rather, it is only used of a revelation
of how one must enter the kingdom once it is ultimately established. In other words, when the kingdom
comes, entrance into it will only be granted to those who have been born spiritually. Beyond this very
little is said. Thus, of this verse and others like it, Sullivan notes, "Because in these verses the Kingdom is
not dealt with extensively, it is impossible to use such references to reach a meaningful understanding
of the basileia."[1] As has been mentioned earlier in this series, when the word "kingdom" is left
undefined as it is here, its meaning must be developed from the Old Testament. This is especially true of
John 3:3-5. In this context (John 3:9-10), Jesus expresses incredulity that Nicodemus, Israel's teacher, did
not comprehend the new birth as an essential prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom. "Nicodemus
said to Him, 'How can these things be?' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Are you the teacher of Israel
and do not understand these things?'" Such incredulity relates to the fact that Nicodemus as Israel's
teacher should have been well aware of Ezekiel 36:24-27, which clearly explains the necessity of the new
birth before entrance into the kingdom is permitted. These verses say, "For I will take you from the
nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water
on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of
stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk
in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances."
These verses not only reveal the necessity of the spiritual birth prior to entrance into the kingdom, they
also explain the specific time in history when the kingdom will be established. They occur in the section
of the Book of Ezekiel directly depicting Israel's end time program (Ezek. 33–48). The overall context of
this section is eschatological since these chapters relate to Ezekiel's recommissioning to preach the
nation's restoration (Ezek. 33), the millennial David (Ezek. 34), Edom's future destruction (Ezek. 35),
Israel's future political and spiritual restoration and reunification (Ezek. 36–37), the Gog and Magog
battle leading to the nation's restoration (Ezek. 38–39), the millennial temple (Ezek. 40–46), the
millennial river (Ezek. 47:1-12), the millennial land inheritance of Israel's tribes (Ezek. 47:13–48:29), and
the ultimate restoration of Jerusalem (Ezek. 48:30-35). In other words, Ezekiel 36:24-27 is found in a
context predicting the return of Israel to her own land (Ezek. 36:24), the future Tribulation period, and
beyond. Thus, the very kingdom, entrance into which spiritual birth is a mandatory prerequisite, is a
completely future reality since its very establishment is intimately connected with end time events. By
leaving the word "kingdom" undefined in John 3:3-5, Jesus presupposes this rich Old Testament
background drawn from the prophet Ezekiel as related to the kingdom's future arrival. In sum, in John
3:3-5, Jesus merely rehearses a well-known fact from Ezekiel, the necessity of spiritual birth prior to
entrance into the kingdom. By making such a scant statement and by not defining the kingdom, we must
go to the source, the prophet Ezekiel, in order to gain insight as to when the kingdom will arrive. As
explained earlier, the context of the new birth is found within a larger context that points exclusively to
the future for the kingdom's arrival.
NOT TASTE DEATH UNTIL THE ARRIVAL OF THE KINGDOM
Matthew 16:27-28, represent more verses utilized by "kingdom now" theologians. They say, "For the
Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man
according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not
taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” In verse 27, Jesus notes both the
angelic manifestation as well as the final judgment associated with the coming of His kingdom. Because
in verse 28 He indicates that there are some listening to Him who would not die until the coming of this
kingdom, many assume that Christ established His kingdom in spiritual form at His First Advent.
However, this interpretation ignores the context of Christ's statement, which is found in the very next
verses of the following chapter. Matthew 17:1-13 describes Christ's Transfiguration, where Christ
appeared in His glorified state. Since this glorified manifestation of Himself was a temporary appearance
during His First Advent, His Transfiguration was a foretaste or a token of what the Son of Man coming in
His glory and the splendor of His kingdom, as depicted in Matthew 16:28, would be like. Thus,
contextually, in Matthew 16:28, Christ predicted that the Transfiguration would take place before some
of His immediate audience had died. Christ's prediction in this regard was literally fulfilled six days later
since the Transfiguration took place as recorded in the very next chapter. Unfortunately, the chapter
division causes many to bifurcate Christ's prediction at the end of Matthew 16 from the events at the
beginning of Matthew 17. However, it must be remembered that chapter divisions are artificial. They
are not part of the inspired text, but rather were added much later in a well-intentioned but sometimes
ineffective way of organizing and outlining the biblical text. Craven explains the full context of Matthew
16:28:
The declaration of Jesus, “There be some standing here,” etc., Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27. This,
according to the opinion of Chrysostom and others (see Lange Comm. on Matt. 16:28), may find its
fulfillment in the immediately following Transfiguration. In this event the Basileia was not merely
symbolized, but in all its glory was for a moment set up on earth (comp. 2 Pet. 1:16–18).[2]
That Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled in the Transfiguration of Matthew 17:1-13 receives further support
from the grammar of the passage. McClain explains, "the conjunction with which chapter 17 begins
clearly establishes the unbroken continuity of thought between 16:28 and 17:1, as also in the accounts
of Mark and Luke where no chapter division occurs."[3] Ice also demonstrates the continuity of thought
between the two chapters:
All three accounts of the prophesied event speak of seeing and the kingdom. Matthew says they will see
“the Son of Man coming in His kingdom,” emphasizing the person of the Son of Man coming. Mark says,
“they see the kingdom of God” and he adds that it will come “with power.” Luke simply says that “they
see the kingdom of God.” The transfiguration fits all aspects of the various emphases found in each of
the three precise predictions. Matthew’s stress upon the actual, physical presence of the Son of Man is
clearly met in the transfiguration because Jesus was personally and visibly present...Mark’s emphasis
upon a display of the kingdom with “power” was certainly fulfilled by the transfiguration. No one could
doubt that the transfiguration certainly fit the definition of a “power encounter” for the disciples. That
Jesus appears dressed in the Shekinah glory of God upon the Mount (Mk. 9:3) is further evidence to the
disciples that He was God and acted with His power. Luke’s simple statement about some who will “see
the kingdom of God” is vindicated also by his account (17:28-36). Twice Luke records our Lord describing
the transfiguration with the term “glory” (17:31, 32).[4]
Endnotes
[1] Clayton Sullivan, Rethinking Realized Eschatology (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1988), 127.
[2] E.R. Craven, "Excursus on the Basileia," in Revelation of John, ed. J. P. Lange (New York: Scribner,
1874), 96.
[3] Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 336.
[4] Thomas Ice, "Preterist "Time Texts"," in The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming under
Attack, ed. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: Harvest, 2003), 88.
Dr. Andy Woods
"kingdom now" texts in the earthly ministry of Christ, such as "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt.
3:2; 4:17; 10:5-7), "seek first His kingdom" (Matt. 6:33), "until now the kingdom of heaven suffers
violence" (Matt. 11:12), “the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28), "the kingdom of God is
in your midst" (Luke 17:21), "unless one is born again he cannot...enter into the kingdom of God" (John
3:3-5), and "some...who are standing here...will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in
His kingdom" (Matt. 16:28).
KINGDOM TAKEN FROM ISRAEL AND GIVEN TO THE CHURCH?
Yet another statement by Christ used by "kingdom now" theologians is found in Matthew 21:43, which
says, "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people,
producing the fruit of it." Debate persists concerning from whom the kingdom is taken and to whom it is
given. "Kingdom now" theologians argue that Christ in verse 43 is teaching that the kingdom will be
permanently taken away from Israel and instead given in spiritual form to the church. However, for two
primary reasons, this theology of replacement is not supported by this passage. First, the replacement
theologian errs in asserting that the kingdom was to be taken away from Israel as a whole. The context
indicates that Christ was only speaking to first-century Israel. Matthew 21:45 says, "When the chief
priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them." This
first-century group of unbelieving Israel and her religious leader is the exclusive group that the kingdom
was to be taken away from rather than Israel as a whole at all times and places.
Second, the replacement theologian errs in asserting that the church is the nation that is to receive the
kingdom. The "nation" in question cannot be the church since the church is not a nation. In Romans
10:19, Paul writes, "But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says, "I will make you
jealous by that which is not a nation, By a nation without understanding will I anger you.” Here, Paul
explains how God's present blessing on the church is currently provoking unbelieving Israel to jealousy.
In this description Paul calls the church a non-nation. The singular noun "nation" ethnos is twice used
here to depict the church's lack of national status. After all, the church does not consist of a single
nation but rather consists of believers in Jesus Christ from all nations (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:14-15; Col. 3:11;
Rev. 5:9). Some use First Peter 2:9 to support the idea that the church is a nation. However, this
argument incorrectly assumes that First Peter was written to the church at large rather than merely to
the believing Jews in the Diaspora.[1]
Rather than seeing the nation as the church, it seems far better to conclude that the nation spoken of in
Matthew 21:43 is a future generation of believing Jews. This view fits well with the remaining context of
Matthew's Gospel, which speaks of a physical and spiritual future restoration of national Israel (Matt.
23:38-39; 24:31; 25:31). Furthermore, the word nation (ethnos) that is translated "people" or "nation" in
Matthew 21:43 is used of national Israel elsewhere in Scripture, such as in John 11:51 and Acts 24:17.[2]
Thus, contrary to the "kingdom now" rendering of Matthew 21:43 that the kingdom will be taken away
from Israel as a whole and instead given in spiritual form to the church, the verse when taken in context
actually teaches that the kingdom will be taken away from first-century Israel only and instead given to
future believing national Israel in the coming Tribulation period and millennial kingdom.
MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD
Yet another statement by Christ used by "kingdom now" theologians is found in John 18:36, where
Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would
be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."
"Kingdom now" theologians use this verse to teach that Christ's kingdom is entirely spiritual rather than
physical. However, for at least three reasons, Jesus did not here deny the one day future arrival of an
earthly kingdom. First, Christ made this statement very late in His ministry. By this time, the offer of the
kingdom that had been extended to first-century Israel (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:5-7) had already been
rejected (Matt. 12:24) and taken off the table (Matt. 21:43). Thus, in John 18:36, at that specific point in
time, Christ was simply explaining that God's kingdom was no longer an imminent threat to Pilate's
kingdom. Constable notes the specific timing of Christ's remarks:
Jesus was not denying that His kingdom was an earthly kingdom. He was not saying it was only the
spiritual rule of God over the hearts of His people. He was not saying that His kingdom had nothing to do
with this world, either. This should be clear from Jesus' other references to His kingdom as being an
earthly kingdom. His point was that He and His kingdom were not a present threat to Rome (cf. 18:10-
11). It was non-threatening because God had postponed the messianic kingdom—due to Israel's
unbelief—though Jesus did not explain this to Pilate.[3]
Second, the final clause of John 18:36 contains the Greek word nyn, which is typically translated "now."
This final clause could therefore be translated, "but now My kingdom is not from here" (NKJV; italics
added). Thus, the idea is "My kingdom is not now established." In other words, Christ was not denying
the kingdom's ultimate arrival upon earth. Rather, he was only denying its immediate arrival. Craven
explains the significance of the insertion of "now":
In this utterance, it is contended that our Lord intended to declare to Pilate that the kingdom He came
to establish was not after the manner of the kingdoms of this world, i. e., not external, political. It is
admitted that the utterance considered in itself will bear this interpretation; but it will also bear one
consistent with the theory herein advocated, especially in view of the introduction of nyn in the last
clause of the verse, which may be regarded as a particle of time—My kingdom is not now established.
Which of these interpretations are we to adopt? The one supposes that our Lord whispered into the ear
of a heathen (neither the disciples nor the Jews were in the Pretorium, ver. 28), the great truth
concerning His kingdom, which he had not only concealed from His disciples (hid from them in a
bewildering enigma) but a few hours before on the solemn occasion of the institution of the Supper,
Luke 22:29, 30; but which, also, He continued to conceal throughout the forty days of His subsequent
continuance with them, during which time He is represented as “speaking of the things pertaining to the
kingdom of God,” Acts 1:3, and as opening “their understanding, that they might understand the
Scriptures,” Luke 24:45! The other interpretation supposes that He spake in consistency with His
previous and subsequent teaching.[4]
Third, rather than denying its future, terrestrial reality, Christ was here simply making a statement as to
the His kingdom's ultimate origin or source. When Christ explained "My kingdom is not of this world"
(italics added), the word translated "of" is the Greek preposition ek. McClain notes its significance: "The
preposition is ek, indicating source or originating cause. His kingdom does not originate in the present
cosmos or world system."[5] Constable similarly explains, "Jesus' kingdom is 'not of this realm' or 'from
another place' (Gr. ouk enteuthen, lit. not from this place) in another sense. It will come down from
heaven to the earth rather than originating from the earth. It will begin when Jesus comes down from
heaven to earth at His Second Coming."[6]
Because the kingdom ultimately originates from heaven, it is referred to as “the kingdom of heaven” by
John (Matt. 3:1-2), Christ (Matt. 4:17), and the Twelve (Matt. 10:5-7). It is also called “the kingdom of
heaven” since the kingdom will be inaugurated by the “God of heaven.” Notice how Daniel connects this
“God of heaven” with His coming kingdom: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a
kingdom which will never be destroyed...” (Dan. 2:44; italics added). In sum, rather than teaching that
His kingdom is spiritual only, in John 18:36, Christ simply explains that the future kingdom, which will
one day come to the earth, ultimately originated from or is sourced in heaven.
Endnotes
[1] See Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Messianic Jewish Epistles, Ariel's Bible Commentary (Tustin, CA:
Ariel, 2005), 318-21. This issue will be given greater treatment later on in the series.
[3] Thomas Constable, “Notes on John,” online: www.soniclight.com, accessed 5 February 2014, 294.
[4] E.R. Craven, "Excursus on the Basileia," in Revelation of John, ed. Lange (New York: Scribner, 1874),
100.
[5] McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom, 381.
[6] Constable, “Notes on John,” 294.
Dr. Andy Woods
Today's evangelical world largely believes that the church is experiencing the Messianic kingdom. To
address this type of confusion, we began a study chronicling what the Bible teaches about the kingdom.
In this series, the biblical teaching on the kingdom has been surveyed from Genesis to Revelation. We
have noted thus far that what the Old Testament predicts concerning an earthly kingdom was offered to
"kingdom now" texts in the earthly ministry of Christ, such as "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt.
3:2; 4:17; 10:5-7), "seek first His kingdom" (Matt. 6:33), "until now the kingdom of heaven suffers
violence" (Matt. 11:12), “the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28), "the kingdom of God is
in your midst" (Luke 17:21), "unless one is born again he cannot...enter into the kingdom of God" (John
3:3-5), "some...who are standing here...will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His
kingdom" (Matt. 16:28), "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people,
producing the fruit of it" (Matt. 21:43), and "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36).
ALL AUTHORITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH

A final statement by Christ that is used by "kingdom now" theologians is found in Matthew 28:18-20.
These famous verses, typically known as the Great Commission, say, “All authority has been given to Me
in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and
lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Those who teach that the Davidic Kingdom is a
present reality often utilize these verses to substantiate their theology. These verses seem prominent in
the thinking of Progressive Dispensationalists, who maintain that the Davidic Kingdom is present in
spiritual form as Jesus now reigns from David's Throne from heaven over the church. While still holding
to a future or "not yet" earthly reign of Christ following Christ's Second Advent, Progressive
Dispensationalists still argue that the Davidic Kingdom is "already" here in spiritual form. Progressive
Dispensationalists lean heavily on Christ's remark, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on
earth" (Matt. 28:18). Of this verse, leading Progressive Dispensationalist Darrell Bock says:
The point made here is like that of Matthew 28:18, where all authority resides with Jesus, who has
formed a community through which He provides spiritual blessing. This is the first stage of the kingdom
program. Nonetheless, the demonstration of full authority awaits his return.[1]
Elsewhere Bock similarly observes:
...the biblical terminology and conceptual field (even the name Christ) show that the authority of Jesus is
received now (Matthew 28:18-20...) and involves the exercise of that authority at certain key
soteriological points. Jesus' executive authority in a variety of areas as shown in this listing indicates that
His activity is messianic, and thus regal, not merely high priestly...If it is messianic and Davidic, then it is
regal and indicates initial manifestations of Jesus' rule.[2]
However, for at least four reasons, there does not seem to be enough in this passage to construct a
theology entailing a present, spiritual form of the Davidic Kingdom. First, the word "kingdom" (basileia)
is absent from the context. The Gospels employ this word many times when speaking of the kingdom's
nearness or its ultimate establishment (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; 24:14; 25:34; 26:29; Luke 10:9). Thus, we
might expect the use of this important term somewhere in the immediate context had it been Christ's
intention to here clearly convey a present, spiritual establishment of the Davidic Kingdom.
Second, the present age has little in common with the prophesied Davidic Kingdom. The prophesied
Davidic Kingdom will be an age when Christ will rule in perfect justice with a rod of iron (Rev. 12:5). In
that day, all rebellion will be instantaneously judged (Zech. 14:16-18; Rev. 20:7-9). By contrast, what is
predicted for the present Church Age is ever increasing apostasy. Second Timothy 3:1 says, “But know
this, that in the last days perilous times will come.” Second Timothy 3:13 explains, “But evil men and
imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." Thus, Paul in this final letter
anticipates an increasing drifting away from truth throughout the Church Age. Paul also predicted this
coming apostasy in the presence of the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:29-31).
If we are now in the Davidic Kingdom, then the deplorable spiritual condition of the churches in
Revelation 2-3 is inexplicable. Five of these seven churches in Asia Minor are in an apostate condition.
Some may question whether it is possible that Christ's church could so depart from truth that she is no
longer governed by Him. Yet this very scenario was what was transpiring within the Laodicean church
(Rev. 3:14-22). Here, Christ is depicted as standing outside the door of the church, knocking on the door,
and seeking re-entry (Rev. 3:20). Evangelists often explain this verse as Christ as standing outside the
heart of the unbeliever, knocking on the heart, and inviting the unbeliever to become a Christian. This is
not a correct representation of the verse's context. Rather, it represents a church that has so
apostatized from truth that Christ has been dethroned as the church's governing authority.
Consequently, Christ is portrayed as standing outside the door of His own church seeking re-admittance
as ruler of His own people. In fact, "Laodicea" means "ruled by the people." Newell observes, "The name
comes from laos, people, and dikao, to rule: the rule of the people: 'democracy,' in other words."[3] Do
these sad realities epitomize an "already" phase of the Davidic kingdom? Is what was happening in
Corinth representative of the Davidic reign? Is the carnality and immaturity that is so prevalent in the
typical local church (1 Cor. 3:1-3; Heb. 5:11-14) Christ's Davidic reign? These present realities do not
correspond with what David was promised concerning the Messiah ruling with a rod of iron in perfect
justice (Ps. 2:9). A proper understanding of the biblical predictions concerning Church Age apostasy
represents a worldview that is diametrically opposed to “kingdom now” theology. The only way
“kingdom-now” theology can be defended is to ignore what the New Testament predicts and describes
concerning the church's apostasy.
Third, as noted throughout this series, a terrestrial, geo-political element involving national Israel is
always included in the Old Testament's kingdom presentation. Such an abrupt change from
understanding the kingdom as encompassing this physical reality to solely a spiritual reality of Jesus
reigning in the church is tantamount to hermeneutically changing horses in midstream. Why would
Christ introduce such a radical transition without any in-depth commentary explaining that such a
transition was underway?
Fourth, the mere fact that Jesus was granted all authority just prior to His Ascension does not mean that
He was exercising this authority in a regal sense. In other words, receiving authority (Matt. 28:18) and
exercising authority are two completely different things. The author of the Book of Hebrews indicates
that Christ in His present session following His Ascension was not yet exercising authority in His Davidic
reign when he observes, "but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right
hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet" (Heb.
10:12-13). By here citing Psalm 110:1 with its inclusion of the word "until" (heos), the writer
communicates that Christ had not yet entered the time in history when He will exercise authority over
His enemies, which will be accomplished in His Davidic reign. Another commentary notes, "All authority
has been given to Jesus, although He is not yet exercising all of it (Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 2:5-9; 10:12, 13; Rev.
3:21). He will manifest this power when He returns in all His glory (Matt. 19:28; 1 Cor. 15:27, 28; Eph.
1:10)."[4]
Fifth, in context, Christ is exercising limited authority, not in His Davidic reign but rather in energizing the
church to fulfill the Great Commission. Matthew 28:18 cannot be divorced from verses 19-20, which say,
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you
always, even to the end of the age.” In fact, the word "therefore" (oun) at the beginning of verse 19
connects verses 19-20 back to verse 18. Because Christ had been granted all authority following His
Resurrection, He used that authority in a limited sense only, not to establish His Davidic Kingdom in
spiritual form but rather to empower the church to fulfill the Great Commission. The Great Commission
is not to be confused with the Davidic Kingdom through Israel because "Instead of sending His disciples
back to the house of Israel, they were sent into all the world."[5]
Endnotes
[1] Darrell Bock, "The Reign of the Lord Christ," in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church, ed. Craig
Blaising and Darrell Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 61.
[2] Darrell Bock, "Covenants in Progressive Dispensationalism," in Three Central Issues in Contemporary
Dispensationalism, ed. Hebert Bateman (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 223.
[3] William Newell, The Book of the Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1935), 75. See also Robert Thomas,
Revelation 1–7 (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 296.
[4] Earl Radmacher, Ronald Allen, and H. Wayne House, eds., Nelson's New Illustrated Bible
Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 1202.
[5] Tim LaHaye, ed. Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible (Chattanooga: AMG, 2001), 1163.
Dr. Andy Woods
We began scrutinizing a series of texts from the earthly ministry of Christ that "kingdom now"
theologians routinely employ in order to argue that the kingdom is a present reality in order to show
that none of these passages, when rightly understood, teach a present, spiritual form of the kingdom.
We will now turn our attention to the typical texts from the Book of Acts employed by "kingdom now"
theologians.
JESUS CURRENTLY REIGNING ON DAVID'S THRONE?
Perhaps the primary reason advanced by kingdom now theologians in their attempt to equate God's
present work in the church with the present, spiritual manifestation of the Messianic kingdom is that
following His Ascension Christ supposedly took His seat on David's Throne in heaven. From this regal
position He now orchestrates the spiritual Messianic kingdom through the church. However, it is far
better to reject the notion that the Davidic Kingdom is present in any sense today and instead to
maintain that the Davidic Kingdom will not be inaugurated until the millennial age. At least six reasons
exist in support of this conclusion.
First, the Old Testament consistently depicts the Davidic Throne in terrestrial rather than celestial terms.
In other words, the Old Testament routinely portrays the concept of the Davidic Throne as something
that takes place in time and space upon the earth rather than something that transpires in heaven.[1]
For example, when God first announced the Davidic reign that was to eclipse Saul’s reign, God purposed
“to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to establish the throne of David over Israel and
over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba” (2 Sam. 3:10). After David succeeded Saul as king, he ruled
upon a terrestrial throne. First Kings 2:11 says, “And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty
years: seven years he reigned in Hebron, and thirty-three years he reigned in Jerusalem.” David's
successor Solomon also reigned from a terrestrial Davidic Throne. First Kings 2:12 says, “And Solomon
sat on the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was firmly established.” The terrestrial character
of the Davidic Throne is also evident in the Book of Jeremiah where the prophet speaks of the kings of
his day as those “...that sit for David on his throne...” (Jer. 13:13). In addition, Jeremiah told King
Zedekiah that he “...sits on David’s throne...” (Jer. 22:2). Jeremiah also predicted that future “...kings will
enter the gates of this house, sitting in David’s place on his throne...” (Jer. 22:4).
Moreover, the Old Testament predicts that the Messiah will reign on a literal, earthly, physical Davidic
throne in the city of Jerusalem (2 Sam. 7:12-16). Thus, the common Jewish understanding of the
fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant involved a literal, earthly throne (Matt. 19:28; 20:20-21; Luke 22:28-
30). The messianic expectation was for Christ to rule upon an earthly throne. Of the linkage between the
Messiah and the Throne of David in Luke 1:32-33, McClain observes, "The ‘throne of David’ here is not
God’s throne in heaven, nor is the ‘house of Jacob’ a reference to the Christian church. As Godet rightly
observed: ‘These expressions in the mouth of the angel keep their natural and literal sense. It is, indeed,
the theocratic royalty and the Israelitish people, neither more nor less, that are in question here; Mary
could have understood these expressions in no other way.’”[2]
Second, because of this consistent scriptural portrayal of the Davidic Throne in terrestrial rather than
celestial terms, to argue that the Davidic Throne is now manifesting itself in this age from heaven is to
place under unnatural duress the notions of progress of revelation and literal or normal, grammatical,
historical hermeneutics. Progressive revelation is the idea that, although latter Scripture can clarify,
explain, or specify what earlier Scripture has said, latter Scripture can never change the original promise.
Theologian Robert Lightner explains why an understanding of a celestial Davidic Throne as is
prominently taught in kingdom now theology cannot be harmonized with the concept of progressive
revelation. He notes: "So, they have not only changed the people to include the Church, but they have
also changed the place where the covenant is to be fulfilled. Now it’s not only on earth, but it’s also in
heaven...The people have changed and the place has changed."[3] Lightner’s comments succinctly
summarize why the celestial interpretation of the Davidic Throne cannot be properly categorized as
progressive revelation. Abrupt changes in the place and people do not constitute further clarifications of
an original promise but rather significant and abrupt alterations of it.
To Lightner’s enumeration of changes of place and people brought about by the celestial, Davidic
interpretation, we might also add a change of Israel’s spiritual condition. The New Testament teaches
that Christ will be seated upon His Davidic Throne only after Israel’s repentance. This becomes clear in
Matthew 23–25. In Matthew 23:37-39, Christ expresses His desire to gather (episynago) His chosen
people but clarifies that such a gathering will only transpire subsequent to Israel’s acknowledgement of
Him as their Messiah (Matt. 23:39). Such an acknowledgment of Christ’s rightful place over the nation
will take place during the Tribulation Period (Zech. 12:10) thus allowing the regathering (episynago) of
the nation to transpire at the end of this period as depicted in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:31). Only
after this regathering does Matthew then portray the inauguration of Christ’s reign on David’s throne
(Matt 25:31). Thus, Matthew’s chronology mandates a conversion of national Israel as a condition to
Christ reigning on David’s Throne. Because of Israel’s current state of unbelief (Rom. 10:21; 11:25), a
current Davidic reign of Christ violates this chronology. In sum, one can hardly classify the present,
celestial interpretation of the Davidic Throne as mere progressive revelation because such an
interpretation not only entails a change of place and people but also a change in the spiritual condition
of Israel necessary for the promise to occur.
Historic Premillennialist George Ladd believes that Jesus is currently reigning on David's Throne in
heaven. However, note how his theology must abruptly change and alter what the Old Testament
reveals concerning the earthly Davidic throne. Ladd argues:
.. the new redemptive events in the course of Heilsgeschichte have compelled Peter to reinterpret the
Old Testament. Because of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, Peter transfers the messianic Davidic
throne from Jerusalem to God's right hand in heaven. Jesus has now been enthroned as the Davidic
Messiah on the throne of David, and is awaiting the final consummation of his messianic reign...This
involves a rather radical reinterpretation of Old Testament prophecies, but no more so than the entire
reinterpretation of God's redemptive plan by the early church. In fact, it is an essential part of this
reinterpretation demanded by the events of redemptive history...Jesus is enthroned as the Messiah...He
must reign until all his enemies are made a stool for his feet.[4]
In other words, in order to sustain his theology, Ladd must allow the New Testament, or specifically
Peter's sermon in Acts 2, to "reinterpret the Old Testament" which "transfers the messianic Davidic
throne from Jerusalem to God's right hand in heaven." Notice how Ladd concedes that "This involves a
rather radical reinterpretation of Old Testament prophecies." By no stretch of the imagination can such
a hermeneutical approach involving so radical a change in the original promise be properly classified as
progress of revelation.
Not only does the present, celestial interpretation of the Davidic Throne strain the notion of progressive
revelation, but it also places under duress the notion of literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutics.
Amillennialist George Murray observes:
The Davidic Covenant, of which much has been said, was to the effect that his seed would sit upon his
throne and had its natural fulfillment in the reign of King Solomon. Its eternal aspects include the Lord
Jesus Christ of the seed of David; and in the book of Acts, Peter insists that Christ’s resurrection and
Ascension fulfilled God’s promise to David that his seed would sit upon his throne (Acts 2:30). Why
insist, then, on a literal fulfillment of a promise which the Scriptures certify to have had a spiritual
fulfillment?[5]
The response of J. Dwight Pentecost to this Amillennial interpretation of the Davidic Covenant
demonstrates how far Amillennialism (kingdom now theology) has strayed from literal, grammatical,
historical hermeneutics. According to Pentecost:
The amillennialist is bound to argue for a conditional covenant and a spiritualized fulfillment, so that the
throne on which Christ is now seated at the right hand of the father becomes the “throne” of the
covenant, the household of faith becomes the “house” of the covenant, and the church becomes the
“kingdom” of the covenant...This makes the church the “seed” and the “kingdom” promised in the
covenant. The kingdom becomes heavenly, not earthly...Only by extensive allegorization can such a view
be held.[6]
This much is certain. Arguing that Jesus' present position at the Father's right hand represents the
Davidic Covenant's fulfillment of any kind is to depart from normal definitions of progress of revelation
and consistent, literal or normal, grammatical, historical hermeneutics. Chafer summarizes:
Similarly, the earthly kingdom that according to the Scriptures had its origin in the covenant made to
David, which is mundane and literal in its original form and equally as mundane and literal in uncounted
references to it in all subsequent Scriptures which trace it on to its consummation, is by theological
legerdemain metamorphosed into a spiritual monstrosity in which an absent King seated on His Father's
throne in heaven is accepted in lieu of the theocratic monarch of David's line seated on David's throne in
Jerusalem.[7]
Endnotes
[1] Mal Couch, "Progressive Dispensationalism: Is Christ Now on the Throne of David? (Part I),"
Conservative Theological Journal 2, (March 1998): 35-36.
[3] Robert Lightner, "Progressive Dispensationalism," Conservative Theological Journal 4, no. 11 (March
2000): 53-54.
[4] George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 336-37.
[5] George Murray, Millennial Studies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1948), 44.
[6] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1964), 103.
[7] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993), 5:315.
Dr. Andy Woods
We began scrutinizing New Testament texts that "kingdom now" theologians employ in their attempt to
argue that the kingdom is a present reality. The purpose of this examination is to show that none of
these passages, when rightly understood, teach a present, spiritual form of the kingdom. In last month's
article, we began to scrutinize the typical texts from the Book of Acts used by "kingdom now"
theologians.
Perhaps the primary reason advanced by "kingdom now" theologians in their attempt to equate God's
position He now orchestrates the spiritual Messianic kingdom through the church. As we shall see,
"kingdom now" theologians build much of their case from Acts 2. However, in general, it is far better to
reject the notion that the Davidic Kingdom is present in any sense today and instead to maintain that
the Davidic Kingdom will not be inaugurated until the millennial age. At least six reasons exist in support
of this conclusion.
First, in the last article, we noted that the Old Testament consistently depicts the Davidic Throne in
terrestrial rather than celestial terms. Second, because of this scriptural portrayal of the Davidic Throne,
we observed that to argue that the Davidic Throne is now manifesting itself in this age from heaven is to
place under unnatural duress the notions of progress of revelation and literal or normal, grammatical,
historical hermeneutics. Progressive revelation is the idea that, although latter Scripture can clarify,
explain, or specify what earlier Scripture has said, latter Scripture can never change the original promise.
In the last article, we noted how both Amillennialists and Historic Premillennialists, by embracing a
present, celestial interpretation of the Davidic Throne and Kingdom, depart from a normal
understanding of progressive revelation. However, they are not the only ones.
Progressive Dispensationalists are those who maintain that the Davidic Kingdom is present in spiritual
form. While still holding to a future or "not yet" earthly reign of Christ following Christ's Second Advent,
Progressive Dispensationalists still argue that the Davidic Kingdom is "already" here in spiritual form.
Thus, they also contend that Jesus now reigns from David's Throne in heaven over the church. They
argue that "The Davidic throne and the heavenly throne of Jesus at the right hand of the Father are one
and the same."[1] However, it is only possible to transfer David's Throne from earth to heaven in the
Progressive Dispensational system if one a priori embraces a new hermeneutical methodology known as
"complementary hermeneutics." This novel interpretive approach allows mere "crucial linking allusions,"
or "pictorial descriptions" of Jesus as the heir to David's Throne to expand the original terrestrial
promise of the Davidic Throne so that it now encompasses a current spiritual form of the Davidic
Kingdom with Jesus presently ruling from a celestial Davidic Throne.[2] Here is how Progressive
Dispensationalists define "complementary hermeneutics": “the New Testament does introduce change
and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making complementary additions,
however, it does not jettison Old Testament promises. The enhancement is not at the expense of the
original promise.”[3]
Lightner explains why complementary hermeneutics is not the same thing as progressive revelation.
“‘Complementary hermeneutics’ must not be confused with the historic orthodox doctrine of
progressive revelation. The latter truth means that God revealed His truth gradually, sometimes over a
long period of time. What was revealed later never changed the original revelation, however. The
meaning and the recipients of the original promise always remain the same.”[4] In other words, because
Progressive Dispensationalists believe that the New Testament actually thrusts new meaning into an Old
Testament passage rather than simply amplify or clarify what was originally there, complementary
hermeneutics cannot be properly categorized as progressive revelation. Only by buying into the
presupposition of "complementary hermeneutics" (that the New Testament based on mere allusions to
Jesus as the Davidic heir in His present session adds meaning to or changes the original promise), and in
the process rejecting a proper view of progressive revelation, is such a "Davidic kingdom now" theology
even remotely possible.
Furthermore, one wonders what havoc could be wreaked upon other biblical doctrines if
complementary hermeneutics were consistently applied. Ryrie asks whether the hermeneutic of
Progressive Dispensationalism when consistently applied, might be one day be used to argue for post-
tribulationalism. After all, if the Davidic allusions of Acts 2 can be used to extend the Davidic Covenant
into the Church Age, then why cannot the temple allusion of Revelation 11 be similarly used to extend
the church, which the New Testament consistently portrays as a temple, into the Tribulation period?[5]
The authenticity of New Testament interpretations must be judged by their harmony and congruence
with prior revelation. Determining what is true by its conformity to prior revelation is a principle that is
taught throughout Scripture (Deut. 13:1-5; Acts 17:11; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Cor. 14:29; 1 John 4:1;
Rev. 2:2). Because standard Progressive Dispensational interpretive methodology changes the original
promise by placing Jesus on David's Throne in heaven in the present, based upon mere allusions to Him
as Davidic heir despite the terrestrial nature of the original promise, the Progressive Dispensational
system and theology are suspect. Hence, only through a departure from progressive revelation can any
theological system involving a present celestial reign of Christ from David's Throne be sustained.
Third, no New Testament verse or passage clearly puts Christ on David’s Throne in the present age.
There is no single, irrefutable New Testament passage substantiating the doctrine that Jesus is currently
reigning on David’s Throne. The New Testament merely depicts Christ’s present position as a return to
the preincarnate glory that He experienced with the Father from eternity past (John 13:3; 17:5; Acts
3:13). The fact that Christ is presently experiencing this glory as the ultimate heir to David's Throne does
not necessarily mean that His Davidic Kingdom has been inaugurated.
An interesting parallel is found in the career of David. An interim period transpired between David’s
anointing as king (1 Sam. 16) and his actual enthronement (2 Sam. 2; 5). During this interim period Saul
was still reigning as king. People were forced to chose to either walk by sight and follow Saul or walk by
faith and follow David. They did the latter by trusting God's promise that the anointed David would one
day reign after Saul had been deposed. A similar interim period exists between Christ’s anointing as the
Davidic heir and His enjoyment of glory at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33-35) and when He will
actually rule on the Throne of David during the Millennium (Matt. 25:31; Rev. 20:1-10).[6] During this
present interim period a Saul-like entity, Satan, is reigning as king (Luke 4:5-8; John 12:31; 2 Cor. 4:4;
Eph. 2:2; 1 John 5:19). Thus, people today are being similarly forced to choose to either walk by sight
and follow Satan or walk by faith and follow a David-like individual, Christ. They do the latter by trusting
God's promise that the anointed Christ would one day reign after Satan has been deposed.
Moreover, rather than describing Christ’s present position as reigning on David’s Throne, the New
Testament simply describes Christ’s present position as being at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:55-
56; Rom. 8:34; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22). Other passages indicate that Christ was
caught up to God’s throne following His ascension (Rev. 12:5) but the New Testament never calls God’s
celestial throne David’s Throne. In fact, 60 years after His Ascension Christ, in Revelation 3:21, drew a
sharp distinction between His present position on His Father’s celestial throne and His future, terrestrial
Davidic Throne. In Revelation 3:21, Jesus says, “He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with
me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne.” Regarding this verse,
Couch makes the following observation: “Christ is here saying that, those who are spiritually victorious,
will be rewarded (future tense of didomi) by joining Him in His earthly Messianic reign, just as He
overcame (aorist or past tense) and sat down (aorist or past tense) with His Father on His throne.”[7]
Putting all of the pieces together, we can safely surmise that in Revelation 3:21 Christ’s throne refers to
His future Davidic terrestrial throne while the Father’s throne refers to the celestial throne of God (Ps.
110, Dan. 7).
The early chapters of Acts are frequently appealed to in order to demonstrate the present, celestial
Davidic enthronement of Christ. Yet in Acts 1:6-7, the disciples asked the Lord if He was now going to
restore the kingdom to Israel. Such a restoration is a reference to the fulfillment of the Davidic
Covenant. In verse 7, Christ responded, “It is not for you to know the times or epochs which the Father
has fixed by His own authority.” Of this response, Pentecost observes, “This passage makes it clear that
while the covenanted form of the Theocracy has not been cancelled and has only been postponed, this
present age is definitely not a development of the Davidic form of the kingdom."[8]
Endnotes
[1] Darrell Bock, "Evidence from Acts," in The Coming Millennial Kingdom, ed. Donald Campbell and
Jeffrey Townsend (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 194.
Blaising and Darrell Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 49, 51.
[3] Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, "Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: Assessment and Dialogue,"
in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, ed. Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1992), 392-93.
[4] Robert Lightner, Last Days Handbook (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 210.
[5] Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 175.
[7] Mal Couch, "Progressive Dispensationalism: Is Christ Now on the Throne of David? (Part I),"
Conservative Theological Journal 2 (March 1998): 43.
[8] Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 269.
Dr. Andy Woods
We began scrutinizing New Testament texts that "kingdom now" theologians employ in their attempt to
argue that the kingdom is a present reality to show that none of these passages, when rightly
understood, teach a present, spiritual form of the kingdom. We began to scrutinize the typical texts
from the Book of Acts used by "kingdom now" theologians.

position He now orchestrates the spiritual Messianic kingdom through the church. However, it is far
maintain that the Davidic Kingdom will not be inaugurated until the millennial age. At least six reasons
exist in support of this conclusion.
First, we noted that the Old Testament consistently depicts the Davidic Throne in terrestrial rather than
celestial terms. Second, we noted that because of this scriptural portrayal of the Davidic Throne, to
argue that the Davidic Throne is now manifesting itself in this age from heaven is to place under
unnatural duress the notions of progress of revelation and literal or normal, grammatical, historical
hermeneutics. Third, as we began explaining in the last issue, no New Testament verse or passage
clearly puts Christ on David’s Throne in the present age.
Peter’s use of Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:34-35 is often used to justify Christ’s present Davidic enthronement.
Yet of Psalm 110, Johnson observes that the Messiah’s present position as depicted in this Psalm fails to
include imagery of coronation. Only Christ’s priestly activity is mentioned. Such coronation imagery
would certainly have been mentioned if in fact the Psalm were intended to describe Christ’s
enthronement as Davidic King. Notice the word "until" in Psalm 110:1: "The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at
My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet'" (italics added). Based upon the
psalmist's use of this word "until," Johnson observes that in Psalm 110 the Messiah is awaiting a future
conquest while He currently resides at the Father's right hand.[1]
In an attempt to argue that Christ is now ruling from David's Throne, "kingdom now" theologians of all
varieties also typically connect the prediction that the Messiah would one day sit on David's Throne in
Psalm 132:11 (Acts 2:30) with Christ now seated in His present session in Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:33-35).
Yet, Craven notes the invalidity of this parallel:
It is assumed by many that the exaltation of ver. 33 constitutes the session on the throne of David of
ver. 30. But the assumption is wholly gratuitous. Nowhere in his sermon did the apostle declare the
oneness of the two events; and most certainly the exaltation there spoken of does not imply the session
as already existing—it may be an exaltation begun, to culminate in a visible occupancy of the throne of
David. (The visible establishment by an emperor of the seat of his government in the heart of a once
revolted province, does not derogate from his dignity—does not imply an abdication of government in
the rest of his empire.) But beyond this, not only is the assumption gratuitous; it is against probabilities
that amount to certainty. The apostle, be it remembered, was arguing with Jews, to prove that the
absent Jesus was the Messiah (ver. 36); he was arguing with those, one of whose most cherished beliefs
it was that the Messiah should occupy a visible throne. To suppose that, under such circumstances, he
should advance a doctrine at war with this belief without a word of explanation or proof, and that too in
a sentence capable of an interpretation consistent therewith, is inconceivable. The interpretation
suggested by the writer is confirmed not only by its consistency with the previous teachings of our Lord,
but by the address delivered by the Apostle Peter shortly after, Acts 3:19, 20. The literal translation of
the passage referred to is as follows...: “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out, in order that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He
may send the Messiah Jesus, who was appointed unto you, whom the heavens must receive until the
times of the restitution of all things,” etc. It is also confirmed by the subsequent teachings of the apostle
in his epistles; comp. 1 Peter 1:4–7, 13; 2 Peter 1:11, 16; the kleronomia and apokalypsis of the I Epistle
are manifestly synonymous with the basileia and parousia of the II.[2]
Craven raises several important points. Peter's sermon never unambiguously or overtly declares that the
present session of Christ (Acts 2:33-35) is the same as His Davidic reign (Acts 2:30). Acts 2:30 simply
describes Christ as the Davidic heir or a Davidite who will one day inherit and occupy David's Throne in
Jerusalem, just as He is now seated on His Father's throne in heaven (Rev. 3:21). John 1:29 ("Behold, the
Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!") is similar by denoting what Christ will accomplish as
sin bearer in present tense terms before He actually spilled His blood. When John the Baptist uttered
the words, it was a done deal from the divine side regarding what Jesus would do as sin bearer before
He became in fact and in time the sin bearer. Similarly, it was a done deal that David would reign for the
soon to be deposed Saul as early as his anointing in 1 Samuel 16 although David did not actually reign
from David's Throne in Jerusalem until much later (2 Sam. 2; 5). Thus, all that Acts 2:30 really conveys is
that it is already a foregone conclusion that Jesus will reign from David's Throne one day although His
Davidic rule from earthly Jerusalem has not begun. Craven also points out that had it been Peter's
intention in Acts 2 to convert the terrestrial Davidic Throne into a celestial reality, this would have
certainly required a far more in-depth explanation beyond what is actually furnished in Peter's sermon,
given Peter's Jewish audience that still understood the Davidic Covenant in terrestrial terms.
Craven also points out that Peter's message of a future Davidic enthronement of Christ is consistent
with what Peter conveys in his two epistles as well as his message given in the very next chapter (Acts
3:19-21). However, kingdom now theologians sometimes use these verses (Acts 3:19-21) in an attempt
to argue that the Davidic Kingdom is a present reality. For example, Progressive Dispensationalists
interpret the “times of refreshing” in verse 19 to refer to the “already” stage of the kingdom and the
“restoration of all things” in verse 21 to refer to the “not yet” stage of the kingdom.[3] However,
because the two clauses follow hopos, are connected by kai, and both contain subjunctive verbs,
nothing grammatically separates the two clauses. Thus, they are speaking of the same event rather than
two unrelated events.[4] Viewing both clauses as referring to the same event is strengthened upon
recognizing that the plural kairoi (times) in verse 19 is parallel to the plural chronon (seasons or times) in
verse 21.[5]
Other reasons make the Acts 2 Davidic enthronement of Christ interpretation improbable. For example,
Toussaint observes:
...the word Kingdom does not occur in Acts 2...It is difficult to explain why Luke does not use the term if
the kingdom is being inaugurated. He employs it forty-five times in the gospel and uses it two more
times in Acts 1...one would expect Luke to use the word if such a startling thing as the inauguration of
the kingdom had taken place. The fact that Luke uses kingdom only eight times in Acts after such heavy
usage in his gospel implies that the kingdom had not begun but was in fact, postponed.[6]
Moreover, Ryrie asks, “If Christ inaugurated His Davidic reign at His ascension, does it not seem
incongruous that His first act as reigning Davidic king was the sending of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33),
something not included in the promises of the Davidic Covenant?"[7]
Far from teaching that the Davidic enthronement of Christ has begun, in actuality the New Testament
teaches that Christ's present position is in expectation of His future Davidic reign. Hebrews 10:12-13
says, “but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,
waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.” Of this passage
Newell writes, “Our Lord is not now on His own throne, the throne of David. He is at the Father’s right
hand, on the Father’s throne, and is now the Great High Priest, leading the worship of His saints; and
also our Advocate against the enemy. But He is there in an expectant attitude...”[8]
Endnotes
[1] Elliot Johnson, "Hermeneutical Principles and the Interpretation of Psalm 110," Bibliotheca Sacra
149, (October-December 1992): 433-34.
1874), 97.
Blaising and Darrell Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 55-61; idem , Jesus According to Scripture:
Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 580.
[4] Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 208; Charles Ryrie,
Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 169-70.
Hands: Biblical and Leadership Studies in Honor of Donald K. Campbell, ed. Charles Dyer and Roy Zuck
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 230.
in Contemporary Dispensationalism, ed. Herbert W. Bateman (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 242.
[7] Ryrie, 169.
[8] William Newell, Revelation: A Complete Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 82.
Dr. Andy Woods
We began scrutinizing New Testament texts that "kingdom now" theologians employ in an attempt to
argue that the kingdom is a present reality to show that none of these passages teach a present,
spiritual form of the kingdom. We began examining the typical texts from Acts used by "kingdom now"
theologians.
present work in the church with a present, spiritual manifestation of the Messianic kingdom is that
position He now orchestrates the spiritual, Messianic kingdom through the church. However, it is far
maintain that this kingdom will not be inaugurated until the millennial age. At least six reasons support
this conclusion.
argue that the Davidic Throne is now manifesting itself in this age from heaven is to place under
unnatural duress the notions of progress of revelation and literal or normal, grammatical, historical
hermeneutics. Third, as we began explaining in the last two issues, no New Testament verse or passage,
including those frequently appealed to in early Acts, clearly puts Christ on David’s Throne in the present
age.
Because of the lack of strong New Testament evidence supporting an inaugurated Davidic Kingdom, a
superior classification of Christ’s present position is His present heavenly session as Melchizedekian
priest rather than His Davidic reign.[1] Recognized prophetic scholars have long observed that of the 59
New Testament references to David and of the multiple New Testament references to Christ's present
session, no New Testament reference equates the Davidic Throne with Christ's present session. Thus,
dispensationalists have long recognized a distinction between Christ’s present session and His future
Davidic reign. Walvoord notes:
The New Testament has fifty-nine references to David. It also has many references to the present
session of Christ. A search of the New Testament reveals that there is not one reference connecting the
present session of Christ with the Davidic throne. While this argument is, of course, not conclusive, it is
almost incredible that in so many references to David and in so frequent reference to the present
session of Christ on the Father’s throne there should be not one reference connecting the two in any
authoritative way. The New Testament is totally lacking in positive teaching that the throne of the
Father in heaven is to be identified with the Davidic throne. The inference is plain that Christ is seated
on the Father’s throne, but that this is not at all the same as being seated on the throne of David.[2]
Fourth, the prophet Daniel made it clear that the Davidic, Messianic kingdom could not come until the
kingdoms of man had run their course (Dan. 2; 7). During the kingdoms of man, Daniel predicted that
Israel would be trampled down by various Gentile powers. These powers include Babylon, Medo-Persia,
Greece, Rome as well as the future revived Roman Empire of the Antichrist. Only after the final kingdom
of man (the revived Roman Empire of the Antichrist) will have been deposed by Christ, would the
Davidic kingdom then be established on earth (Dan. 2:34-35; 43-45; 7:23-27). Unfortunately, kingdom
now theologians ignore this chronology by arguing for a present, spiritual form of the kingdom despite
the fact that the kingdoms of man have not yet run their course, the Antichrist and His kingdom have
not yet been overthrown, and the Second Advent has not yet occurred. Far from God's Kingdom being
established in the present, it is actually the kingdom of the Antichrist that is seemingly on the rise.
Kingdom now theologians contend that the smiting stone that crushes the final empires of man (Dan.
2:34-35, 44-45) represents a spiritual kingdom that supposedly was established by Christ at His First
Advent. However, such a view is inadequate because the kingdom now view interprets the early part of
Nebuchadnezzar's dream one way while the latter part of the statue is interpreted another way. In other
words, this view inconsistently calls for interpreting the previous empires in Nebuchadnezzar's vision, as
represented by the body parts of the statue (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome), in literal and
geo-political terms. If the body parts of the statue all represented physical, Gentile empires and actual
land, why should not the smiting stone also be interpreted in physical terms similarly featuring actual
real estate (Gen. 15:18-21)? The kingdom now view simultaneously interprets the smiting stone, or the
last empire in the same dream, in strictly spiritual terms. Also, theologian J. Dwight Pentecost gives six
reasons as to why the smiting stone that crushes the final kingdom of the Times of the Gentiles could
not have been satisfied at Christ’s first coming.[3]
Amillennialists hold that this kingdom was established by Christ at His First Advent and that now the
church is that kingdom. They argue that: (a) Christianity, like the growing mountain, began to grow and
spread geographically and is still doing so; (b) Christ came in the days of the Roman Empire; (c) the
Roman Empire fell into the hands of 10 kingdoms (10 toes); (d) Christ is the chief Cornerstone (Eph.
2:20). Premillenarians, however, hold that the kingdom to be established by Christ on earth is yet future.
At least six points favor that view: (1) The stone will become a mountain suddenly, not gradually.
Christianity did not suddenly fill “the whole earth” (Dan. 2:35) at Christ’s First Advent. (2) Though Christ
came in the days of the Roman Empire, He did not destroy it. (3) During Christ’s time on earth the
Roman Empire did not have 10 kings at once. Yet Nebuchadnezzar’s statue suggests that when Christ
comes to establish His kingdom, 10 rulers will be in existence and will be destroyed by Him. (4) Though
Christ is now the chief Cornerstone to the church (Eph. 2:20) and “a stone that causes [unbelievers] to
stumble” (1 Peter 2:8), He is not yet a smiting Stone as He will be when He comes again. (5) The Stone
(Messiah) will crush and end all the kingdoms of the world. But the church has not and will not conquer
the world’s kingdoms. (6) The church is not a kingdom with a political realm, but the future Millennium
will be. Thus Nebuchadnezzar’s dream clearly teaches premillennialism, that Christ will return to earth
to establish His rule on the earth, thereby subduing all nations. The church is not that kingdom.
Fifth, because the church is an unrevealed mystery to the Old Testament writers (Eph 3:9), it is wholly
unrelated to the Davidic Covenant and Kingdom. Ryrie presents a word study from both the biblical and
extra-biblical material and thus concludes "...that the mystery of the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the
one body of Christ was unknown and unrevealed in the Old Testament."[4] Thus, unless overtly stated in
the New Testament, the church cannot be connected to an Old Testament concept if the church was
unrevealed at the time the concept was given.
Sixth, because the church represents a parenthesis or an intercalation in God’s dealing with national
Israel and because the Davidic Covenant pertains to national Israel, the church is unrelated to the
Davidic Covenant. Kingdom now theology rejects viewing the church as a parenthesis instead opting to
understand it as part of a unifying kingdom theme found throughout Scripture. Yet a parenthesis is the
best conceptual tool for understanding God’s purposes for the Church Age. The first 69 weeks of
Daniel’s prophecy of the 70 Weeks (Dan. 9:24-27) represent God’s past program for national Israel while
the 70th week represents God’s future program for national Israel. The Church Age transpires in the
interlude between the 69th and 70th weeks.[5] Thus, the church represents a unique spiritual organism
where Jew and Gentile experience equal status (Eph. 2:11-22) in between God’s past and future
program for national Israel. This interlude is best captured through the conceptual tool of a parenthesis.
In sum, because God's present work through the church can best be described as a parenthesis or
interlude between God's past work with Israel (the first 69 weeks of Daniel's prophecy) and God's future
work with Israel (the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy), and because the Davidic Covenant and kingdom
specifically concerns Israel rather than the church, the Davidic Covenant and Kingdom could not be
fulfilled now in any sense during the present Church Age.
It is for these preceding six reasons that the Dispensational tradition has never confused Christ's present
session with the Davidic kingdom. The only exception to this rule is the modern advent of Progressive
Dispensationalism, which maintains that the Davidic Kingdom is present in spiritual form as Jesus now
reigns from David's Throne from heaven over the church. While still holding to a future or "not yet"
earthly reign of Christ following Christ's Second Advent, Progressive Dispensationalists still argue that
the Davidic Kingdom is "already" here in spiritual form. However, as we will see in the next installment,
because of this radical alteration in understanding Christ's present activity, many question whether this
new theological approach legitimately deserves the title Dispensationalism.
Endnotes
[1] L.S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993), 5:273-79.
[2] J.F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1959), 203. See also J.D. Pentecost, Thy
Kingdom Come (Wheaton: Victor, 1990), 144-45. Although one discovers multiple references of Christ in
His present session portrayed as the David heir (Heb. 1:6; Rev. 3:7, etc...), no verse portrays him seated
on David's Throne ruling in the exact terrestrial manner predicted in 2 Samuel 7:12-16.
[3] J.D. Pentecost, "Daniel," in Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. Walvoord and Zuck (Colorado Springs:
Victor, 1985), 1336.
[5] Randall Price, "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Prophetic Texts," in Issues in
Dispensationalism, ed. Master and Willis (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 141-50.
Dr. Andy Woods
spiritual form of the kingdom. We began examining the typical texts from Acts used by "kingdom now"
theologians.

present work in the church with a present manifestation of the Messianic kingdom is that following His
Ascension, Christ supposedly took His seat on David's Throne in heaven. From this regal position He now
orchestrates the spiritual kingdom through the church. However, it is better to reject the notion that the
Davidic Kingdom is present in any sense today and instead to maintain that this kingdom will not be
inaugurated until the millennial age. At least six reasons support this conclusion.
argue that the Davidic Throne is now manifesting itself in this age from heaven is to contort the notions
of progress of revelation and literal or normal, grammatical, historical hermeneutics. Third, no New
Testament verse or passage, including those frequently appealed to in early Acts, clearly puts Christ on
David’s Throne in the present age. Fourth, the prophet Daniel made it clear that the Davidic, Messianic
kingdom could not come until the kingdoms of man had run their course (Dan. 2; 7). Unfortunately,
kingdom now theologians ignore this chronology by arguing for a present, spiritual form of the kingdom
despite the fact that the kingdoms of man have not yet run their course, the Antichrist and his kingdom
have not yet been overthrown, and the Second Advent has not yet occurred. Fifth, because the church is
an unrevealed mystery to the Old Testament writers (Eph 3:9), it is wholly unrelated to the Davidic
Covenant and Kingdom. Sixth, God's present work through the church can best be described as a
parenthesis or interlude in between God's past work with Israel (the first 69 weeks of Daniel's prophecy
of the Seventy Weeks) and God's future work with Israel (the 70th week). Because the Davidic Covenant
and Kingdom specifically concerns Israel rather than the church, the Davidic Covenant and Kingdom
could not be fulfilled in any sense during the present Church Age.
It is for these preceding six reasons, that the Dispensational tradition has never confused Christ's
present session with the Davidic Kingdom. The only exception to this rule is the modern advent of
Progressive Dispensationalism, which maintains that the Davidic Kingdom is present in spiritual form as
Jesus now reigns from David's Throne from heaven over the church. While still holding to a future or
"not yet" earthly reign of Christ following Christ's Second Advent, Progressive Dispensationalists still
argue that the Davidic Kingdom is "already" here in spiritual form. However, because of this radical
alteration in understanding Christ's present activity, many question whether this new theological
approach legitimately deserves the title "Dispensationalism." The question typically posed is whether
Progressive Dispensationalism represents a bonafide development within the Dispensational tradition or
a significant departure from it altogether?[1] After conducting an in-depth survey of classical and
Revised Dispensationalists as well as opponents of Dispensationalism, Nichols observes:
Although the progressive dispensationalists are careful to express their commitment to a future for
ethnic Israel and a future, literal fulfillment of Israel's covenant promise, these views concerning the
inaugural fulfillment of Old Testament promise, especially that of the Davidic covenant, and the
redefining of the present form of the church mark an aberration from normative dispensationalism. The
consistently held offer, rejection, postponement, and fully future fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom is
absent from their teaching.[2]
Thus, Nichols concludes:
From the perspective of dispensational tradition, the current landscape of progressive dispensationalists
appears to be a different terrain. The view of the offer, rejection, postponement, and fully future
fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom and the corollary view of the church as something different and
distinct is and has been the consistent view of normative dispensationalism. By viewing the present
form of the church as an inaugural stage of the Davidic kingdom with Christ seated on the Davidic
throne in heaven, the progressive dispensational position has distanced itself from this distinguishing
feature of dispensationalism. The distinguishing feature of dispensationalism, i.e., the consistent
distinction between Israel and the church, is all but absent. Consequently, the legitimacy of calling PD
part of the dispensational tradition is questionable.[3]
Lightner similarly remarks, "Many who are classic dispensationalists–and even those who are not
dispensationalists at all–question why those who no longer believe in the foundational essentials of
dispensationalism still want to be part of the dispensationalism family. This is truly something not yet
revealed."[4] Lightner elsewhere defines Progressive Dispensationalism as:
The term used by those who still wish to be called dispensationalists but who do not believe some of the
basic essentials of dispensationalism. They do not believe God has a program for Israel and one for the
church. They believe that Christ is presently on the throne of David in heaven and the Davidic kingdom is
being fulfilled now in part.[5]
THE APOSTLES PREACHED THE KINGDOM IN ACTS
Beyond the argument from early Acts that Jesus is now reigning on David's Throne from heaven,
"kingdom now" theologians also rely upon the handful of references to the "kingdom" scattered
throughout Acts indicating that the apostles "preached the things concerning the kingdom of God."
Interestingly, the Greek term basileia typically translated "kingdom of God" appears eight times in Acts
(1:3, 6; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). However, all of these passages fail to define exactly what is
meant by the use of the term "kingdom." Thus, the term must be understood in light of what has
preceded in the progress of divine revelation. Because, as explained throughout this series, "kingdom"
always carries a technical meaning connoting a terrestrial element of Christ the King reigning over a
repentant Israel from Jerusalem, these scant references to the kingdom in Acts must also be understood
in a futuristic, terrestrial sense rather than strictly in a present, spiritual sense. McClain's analysis of
these verses is significant:
The term "kingdom" (Grk. basileia) occurs eight times in Acts as referring to the divine rule...In the Book
of Acts this "kingdom of God" appears as something future, the term being used, as James Orr has
observed, "in an almost exclusively eschatological sense." The Old Testament prophecies of the
Messianic Kingdom, occasionally quoted by the apostles (cf. Acts 2:25-36; 3:22-36; 13:22-39) are used to
show the regal rights of Jesus the Messiah. But nowhere do they ever assert that the Kingdom has been
established. In passages about which there can be no dispute, this is a matter which belongs to the
future when the King returns from heaven (cf. 1:6-11; 3:19-21; 15:13-16). The passage in 14:22, "we
must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God," is sometimes used to prove a present
Messianic Kingdom established on earth in the church. But such a use would prove too much...But in the
Old Testament prophetic picture of the coming Messianic Kingdom, as every intelligent Jew understood,
a period of terrible tribulation always precedes its establishment on earth...Therefore the passage in
14:22 is in complete harmony with the historical situation and the progress of revelation...The argument
advanced by some, that since the apostles throughout the Acts period preached "the things concerning
the kingdom of God" (19:8), therefore the Kingdom must have already been established, is not very
good logic. Most of us preach and teach many things in the Christian faith which are not yet realized in
experience. No sensible person would argue that because the apostles continually preached the
resurrection of the dead, therefore, it must have already taken place.[6]
It is also worth noting how few references there are to the word "kingdom" in Acts in comparison to
Luke's prequel to Acts (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1), known as the Gospel of Luke. Despite the fact that
"kingdom" is only found eight times in Acts, it is used forty-five times in Luke. Why the difference? As
explained earlier in this series, the Gospels record the offer of the kingdom to national Israel (Matt. 3:2;
4:17; 10:5-7; Luke 10:1, 9). Thus, in the Gospels the kingdom is portrayed as being in a state of
imminency or immediate expectancy. However, the Gospels also record Israel's rejection of their king
(John 19:15) thereby leading to the kingdom's postponement. Thus, by the time the events recorded in
Acts transpire, the kingdom is in a state of abeyance or postponement. Consequently, it is referred to as
the ultimate yet distant hope of the Church-Age believer. Only such a reading could explain the
voluminous use of the term in Luke's Gospel compared to its scant use in Acts. Toussaint well explains:
It is difficult to explain why Luke does not use the term if the kingdom is being inaugurated. He employs
it forty-five times in the gospel...one would expect Luke to use the word if such a startling thing as the
inauguration of the kingdom had taken place. The fact that Luke uses kingdom only eight times in Acts
after such heavy usage in his gospel implies that the kingdom had not begun but was in fact,
postponed.[7]
Endnotes
[2] Stephen Nichols, "The Dispensational Vew of the Davidic Kingdom: A Response to Progressive
Dispensationalism," in The Master's Perspective on Biblical Prophecy, ed. Mayue and Thomas, Master's
Perspective Series (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002), 54.
[3] Stephen Nichols, "The Dispesnational View of the Kingdom: A Response to Progressive
Dispensationalism," The Master's Seminary Journal 7 (Fall 1996): 238.
[4] Robert Lightner, Last Days Handbook (Nashville: Nelson, 1997), 211.
[5] Ibid., 233.
Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism, ed. Herbert W. Bateman (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 242.
Dr. Andy Woods
spiritual form of the kingdom. We have examined the typical texts from both the Gospels and Acts used
by "kingdom now" theologians. We now briefly turn our attention to the Pauline Epistles.
THE KINGDOM IN THESSALONIANS AND CORINTHIANS
Kingdom now theologians employ 1 Thessalonians 2:12: "So that you would walk in a manner worthy of
the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory." This verse, in actuality, teaches a future
manifestation of the kingdom rather than a present one. E.R. Craven focuses on the last word "glory" in
interpreting the earlier word "kingdom." He explains, "The preposition in the Greek is eis. But since
believers on earth are not yet in glory, the whole expression is manifestly proleptical, and the E. V. gives
the translation, unto."[1]
Another verse employed by kingdom now theologians is 1 Corinthians 4:20: "For the kingdom of God
does not consist in words but in power." However, the context argues for a futuristic understanding of
the word “kingdom” here. Toussaint observes, "There is no verb in the Greek text, so it must be
supplied. That Paul is anticipating the future is seen in verse five and eight of the same chapter."[2]
McClain adds, "To interpret 1 Corinthians 4:20 as a present kingdom of the saints would make Paul
contradict what he had already written in verses five and eight."[3] Furthermore, the word “power”
(dynamis) in verse 20 is used in a futuristic sense in Hebrews 6:5, which says, "and have tasted the good
word of God and the powers of the age to come." McClain observes, "The same Greek term is used to
describe the great public miracles which, according to Hebrews 6:5, belong to 'the age to come, i.e.,' the
Kingdom age."[4] Also, all the other references to “kingdom” are futuristic in this letter (1 Cor. 6:9-10;
15:24, 50). Thus, the idea here is that knowledge of the future influences one’s behavior in the present
(2 Pet. 3:11). Thus, "Paul’s ministry could demonstrate the authority of that future kingdom."[5]
Kingdom now theologians also employ 1 Corinthians 15:24, which says, "then comes the end, when He
hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and
power." However, because the context of the passage pertains to the future resurrection and "the end,"
the kingdom's establishment must transpire in the distant future. McClain explains:
The time of the Kingdom may be ascertained from the main subject matter of the context, which is
resurrection. Every man must be raised from the dead, we are told, but each in his own order...This
threefold order of resurrection fits the eschatological system of the New Testament; first the
resurrection of Christ Himself; second, the resurrection of His saints at the Second Advent (1 Thess.
4:13-18); third, the resurrection of the unsaved at the "end" (cf. Rev. 20:11-15). Since the Kingdom is to
be established at the second coming of Christ, and it is to be delivered up to the Father at the "end," the
period of the kingdom must be located in the future between the two resurrections, as also indicated
clearly in Revelation 20.[6]
FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT EATING AND DRINKING
Romans 14:17 says, "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and
joy in the Holy Spirit." Kingdom now theologians frequently use this verse to speak of the present and
spiritual reality of the kingdom. Historic premillennialist George Ladd writes,
The Word of God does say that the Kingdom of God is a present spiritual reality. "For the kingdom of
God is not eating and drinking but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17).
Righteousness and peace and joy are fruits of the Spirit which God bestows now upon those who yield
their lives to the rule of the Spirit. They have to do with the deepest springs of the spiritual life, and this,
says the inspired apostle, is the Kingdom of God...The Kingdom is a present reality...It is an inner
spiritual redemptive blessing (Rom. 14:17) which can be experienced only by way of the new birth...[7]
Some kingdom now theologians go even further than Ladd and use this text to convey the idea that we
should not be looking for a coming kingdom with physical characteristics such as eating and drinking.
Rather, the kingdom is entirely spiritual and a present reality. However, Romans 14:17 does not deny an
earthly kingdom. The kingdom will very clearly be a time of banqueting and feasting. Jesus said in
Matthew 8:11 of the kingdom: "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the
table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." In fact, Romans 14:17 simply says that
believers should not emphasize the physical aspect of the kingdom at the exclusion of its spiritual
components.
Promoting emphasis rather than exclusion is a common way of communicating in Scripture. Toussaint
explains, "It was common for the Jews to say 'not...but' and simply mean that the emphasis is not this
but that."[8] For example, when Hosea 6:6 says, "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice," the prophet was
not calling for sacrifices to cease in order to pursue mercy. Hosea is simply saying sacrifices should not
be emphasized at the expense of mercy. Similarly, the exhortation regarding not laying up treasure
(Matt. 6:19-20) does not mean that Christians should not have bank accounts. Rather, it is a question of
emphasis. Instead of emphasizing money, believers should emphasize spiritual priorities. Just so, the
exhortation regarding jewelry (1 Pet. 3:3-4) does not mean that women should never wear jewelry.
Rather it is a question of emphasis. Instead of emphasizing outward beauty, women should emphasize
inward beauty (1 Pet. 3:6; Prov. 31:30). In addition, in the previously discussed verse, 1 Corinthians 4:20
("For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power"), it does not say that words or speech
will be absent from the kingdom. Speech will obviously be present in the kingdom as Zechariah 8:23
predicts, "In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, 'Let us go
with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'" His words are a matter of emphasis. In other words,
instead of excluding speech, the kingdom will also be emphasized by power in addition to speech. When
understood in this light, Romans 14:17 does not deny or exclude the physical component in the coming
kingdom. Instead, the verse simply highlights or emphasizes the fact that the coming kingdom will
emphasize a spiritual component as well.[9] In other words, "in that coming kingdom the emphasis will
not be on food but on spiritual realities."[10]
Furthermore, although "is" (estin) is in the present tense in Romans 14:17, this verse is not
communicating that the kingdom is a present reality. It is possible to interpret Romans 14:17 along the
lines of a dejure (legal), defacto (factual) distinction. While believers are legally heirs of God’s coming
kingdom, the kingdom is not yet a factual reality upon the earth. We find the same dejure/defacto
distinction in Paul's other letters. For example, in Philippians, believers are called citizens of heaven
(Philip. 3:20). In Ephesians, believers are said to be seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Eph. 2:6).
This heavenly position represents the legal standing of the believer. Yet believers are not factually in
heaven now. This same dejure/defacto distinction is likely present in Romans 14:17 regarding the
kingdom. Thus, all Romans 14:17 teaches is that believers are citizens of the earthly kingdom to come
rather than present, factual residents in the earthly, Davidic kingdom yet to come.
This future kingdom idea seems to be in view in this passage since the context deals with the future
judgment of rewards for the believer (Rom. 14:10-12). This futuristic understanding of the kingdom in
this verse does not mean that the concept is inapplicable in the present since knowledge of the future
always affects one’s behavior in the present. Second Peter 3:11 says, "Since all these things are to be
destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness." Toussaint
notes, "In that coming kingdom the emphasis will not be on food but on spiritual realities. If that will be
true in the future, the Christian's present conduct should reflect it. The future does influence the
present (cf. 2 Peter 3:11)."[11] McClain further explains how this futuristic interpretation of Romans
14:17 still allows a present application to the church:
The thought here fits a future Kingdom better than a present one. For surely in the present life no one
can deny the importance of meat and drink; but so far as the Church is concerned in the future kingdom
these things will be of no consequence. Therefore since the church is to reign in the Kingdom, its
members should not judge or grieve one another in such matters here and now (cf. vss. 13-21). All
disputes of this nature should be left for the 'judgment seat of Christ,' which will inaugurate His Kingdom
upon the earth (vs. 10).[12]
Endnotes
1874), 97.
Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism, ed. Herbert W. Bateman (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 246.
[3] Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom; an Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God as Set
Forth in the Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 435.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Toussaint, 246.
[6] McClain, 435.

[7] George Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 16-18.
[8] Toussaint, 246.
[9] Stanley Toussaint, class notes of Andy Woods in BE2050A Seminar in Pauline Literature, Dallas
Theological Seminary, Spring 2004.
[10] Toussaint, 246.
[11] Ibid.
[12] McClain, 434.
Dr. Andy Woods
spiritual form of the kingdom. We have examined the typical texts from both the Gospels and Acts used
by "kingdom now" theologians. In the prior installment, we similarly began examining the Pauline
Epistles.
TRANSFERRED INTO THE KINGDOM OF HIS SON
Another New Testament text employed by "kingdom now theologians" is Colossians 1:13, which says,
"For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son."
A parallel passage is found in Acts 26:17-18. Here, the Lord defines Paul's ministry as follows: "...the
Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and
from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among
those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.” According to kingdom now theologians, these verses
teach that when someone becomes a believer, they are transferred from Satan's kingdom or dominion
into the present, spiritual form of the Messianic kingdom. However, it is difficult to argue that this verse
teaches an “already” phase of the kingdom since Christ is nowhere called the king of the church.[1]
Rather the imagery used of Christ's relationship to the church is that of groom to bride (Eph. 5:22-33)
and head to body (Col. 1:18) rather than king to subject. There are at least two other more viable
alternative interpretations of Colossians 1:13 other than the view espoused by kingdom now
theologians.
First, Colossians 1:13 could be speaking of the universal kingdom rather than the Davidic kingdom. Ryrie
justifies such a distinction between the universal and Davidic kingdoms on the ground that some verses
present the kingdom as in a state of perpetual existence (Ps. 93:1-2) while other verses indicate that the
kingdom will be a future reality (Dan. 2:44). Moreover, some verses depict the kingdom as universal in
scope (Ps. 103:19) while other verses picture the kingdom as earthly (Dan. 2:35, 44-45). Furthermore,
some verses present the kingdom as being directly ruled by God (Dan. 4:17) while other verses depict
the kingdom as being indirectly administered by God through a human agent (Ps. 2:6-9). Thus, the
universal kingdom is eternal, comprehensive, and under God’s direct rule. By contrast, the theocratic,
Davidic kingdom is futuristic, earthly, and under God’s indirect rule.[2]
Therefore, it is possible to understand Colossians 1:13 as speaking of the universal kingdom rather than
the Davidic kingdom. This view is strengthened upon observing that the kingdom in this verse is
juxtaposed against Satan’s kingdom. Thus, just as Satan’s kingdom, at least to some degree, is universal
in the present (1 John 5:19), Christ's kingdom that is here contrasted with Satan's kingdom must be
universal as well. Kingdom now theologians are correct to observe that a universal kingdom
categorization does not work in the early kingdom preaching of John the Baptist and Jesus where it is
said that the kingdom has drawn near (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; Luke 10:9, 11). However, the universal
kingdom categorization could work well with a passage like Colossians 1:13 where a drawing near is not
indicated. Thus, all that Colossians 1:13 could be communicating is that when someone becomes a
Christian, he becomes part of God's universal kingdom as opposed to becoming a subject in the present,
spiritual, Davidic kingdom.
Second, it is possible to interpret Colossians 1:13 along the lines of a de jure (legal) de facto (factual)
distinction. While believers are legally heirs of God’s kingdom, the kingdom is not yet a factual reality
upon the earth. Paul wrote the Book of Colossians at the same time as his other prison letters including
Philippians and Ephesians. We find the same de jure/de facto distinction in these other letters. For
example, in Philippians, believers are called "citizens of heaven" (Phil. 3:20). In Ephesians, believers are
said to be "seated with Christ in the heavenly places" (Eph. 2:6). This heavenly position represents the
legal standing of the believer. Yet believers are not factually in heaven now. This same de jure/de facto
distinction may be present in the Colossian letter regarding the kingdom.
This is especially true given the parallels between the Books of Colossians and Ephesians. Paul wrote
these letters from the same place, during his first Roman imprisonment from A.D. 60 to 62 (Acts 28:16-
31). Ephesians was most likely the first prison letter that Paul wrote, and Colossians was likely his second
letter written shortly thereafter. Moreover, the cities of Colossae and Ephesus are a short geographical
distance from one another of approximately one hundred miles. In addition, a symbiotic relationship
exists between the letters. Colossians features Christ as head and Ephesians features the church as His
body. All of this to say that if the de jure/de facto distinction exists in Ephesians regarding the believer's
heavenly position (Eph. 2:6), than it most likely exists in Colossians as well regarding the believer's
kingdom position (Col. 1:13). Thus, all Colossians 1:13 really teaches is that believers are citizens of the
earthly kingdom to come rather than subjects in a spiritual, Davidic kingdom allegedly present today.
This latter view is strengthened upon observing that Paul mentions the kingdom right alongside his
discussion of the believer's inheritance. The immediately preceding verse, Colossians 1:12, says, "...who
has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light" (italics added). The notion of an
inheritance (klēros) conveys the idea of a legal benefit that someone presently owns although they will
not enjoy or possess that benefit until some later point in time. Peter conveys this meaning of an
inheritance through his use of the nearly identical word klēronomia. First Peter 1:4 says, "to obtain an
inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you." In
this sense, the kingdom described in Colossians 1:12 is an inheritance. The believer's present status is
that of a legal citizen in the kingdom. However, believers will not possess or enjoy this benefit until a
future point in time when the kingdom will ultimately be established upon the earth.
This de jure/de facto understanding of the kingdom in Colossians 1:13 is further buttressed by
examining the immediate context (Col. 1:13-14). Colossians 1:13 says, "For He rescued us from the
domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son" (italics added). Although
believers may have been delivered legally from Satan's authority (1 John 5:18), they have not been
delivered in fact and in present experience from Satan's authority. Rather, believers regularly wrestle
against Satan's authority. Ephesians 6:12 states, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but
against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual
forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." The word translated "powers" here is the Greek word
exousia, which is the same word translated "domain" in Colossians 1:13.
Similarly, Colossians 1:14 says, "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (italics added).
Although believers currently possess legal redemption (apolytrōsis), they have not yet received
redemption in its fullness. Notice the following passages that use this same word "redemption"
(apolytrōsis) to depict the future reality of the believer. Luke 21:28: "But when these things begin to
take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." Romans
8:23: "...even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the
redemption of our body." Ephesians 1:13-14: "...the Holy Spirit of promise who is given as a pledge of
our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession..." Ephesians 4:30: "Do not
grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."[3] Thus, if believers
can be said to be positionally and legally liberated from Satan's authority, and redeemed despite the fact
that these truths are not present factual realities, then why cannot be the same said for the believer's
relationship to the kingdom that is mentioned in the very same context? As is the case with both
redemption and freedom from Satanic authority, believers are also legally and positionally citizens of a
kingdom that will not be manifested upon the earth until a future time period.
E.R. Craven well summarizes:
Col. 1:13. At first glance, the passage apparently teaches that believers are already translated de facto
into the Basileia; it may however legitimately be regarded as teaching a de jure translation. Not only
does this interpretation bring the passage into harmony with the great mass of Scripture, but it seems to
be required by the immediately preceding and succeeding contexts; believers are not yet delivered de
facto from the exousia of Satan (Eph. 6:12), nor have they yet received de facto, certainly not in
completeness, the apolytrōsis (comp. Luke 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; 4:30...).[4]
Of Colossians 1:13, McClain also observes:
The context here suggests that the action must be regarded as de jure [by right] rather than de facto [in
reality]. Believers have been "delivered . . . from the power of darkness," the apostle declares. Yet in
another place he warns that we must still wrestle "against the rulers of the darkness of this world" (Eph.
6:12). Our translation into the Kingdom of Christ, therefore, must be similar to that act of God when He
"raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:6). Although
we are not yet de facto seated in the heavenlies, the thing is so certain that God can speak of it as
already done. In the same sense, we have been (aorist tense) transferred judicially into the Kingdom of
our Lord even before its establishment.[5]
Endnotes
[1] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton: Victor, 1986), 259.
[2] Ibid., 397-99.
[3] Italics added to the preceding passages.
[4] E.R. Craven, "Excursus on the Basileia," in Revelation of John, ed. J. Lange (New York: Scribner, 1874),
97.
Dr. Andy Woods
10:5-7), "seek first His kingdom" (Matt. 6:33), "until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence" (Matt.
11:12), “the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28), and "the kingdom of God is in your
midst" (Luke 17:21).
BORN AGAIN TO ENTER THE KINGDOM
Sometimes John 3:3-5 is used to support the notion of a present, spiritual messianic kingdom. These
verses say, "Jesus answered and said to 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? He cannot
enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to
you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'"
Although the word "kingdom" is used twice in these verses, it is important to note that the term does
not speak to the issue of the time of the kingdom's establishment. Rather, it is only used of a revelation
of how one must enter the kingdom once it is ultimately established. In other words, when the kingdom
comes, entrance into it will only be granted to those who have been born spiritually. Beyond this very
little is said. Thus, of this verse and others like it, Sullivan notes, "Because in these verses the Kingdom is
not dealt with extensively, it is impossible to use such references to reach a meaningful understanding
of the basileia."[1] As has been mentioned earlier in this series, when the word "kingdom" is left
undefined as it is here, its meaning must be developed from the Old Testament. This is especially true of
John 3:3-5. In this context (John 3:9-10), Jesus expresses incredulity that Nicodemus, Israel's teacher, did
not comprehend the new birth as an essential prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom. "Nicodemus
said to Him, 'How can these things be?' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Are you the teacher of Israel
and do not understand these things?'" Such incredulity relates to the fact that Nicodemus as Israel's
teacher should have been well aware of Ezekiel 36:24-27, which clearly explains the necessity of the new
birth before entrance into the kingdom is permitted. These verses say, "For I will take you from the
nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water
on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of
stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk
in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances."
These verses not only reveal the necessity of the spiritual birth prior to entrance into the kingdom, they
also explain the specific time in history when the kingdom will be established. They occur in the section
of the Book of Ezekiel directly depicting Israel's end time program (Ezek. 33–48). The overall context of
this section is eschatological since these chapters relate to Ezekiel's recommissioning to preach the
nation's restoration (Ezek. 33), the millennial David (Ezek. 34), Edom's future destruction (Ezek. 35),
Israel's future political and spiritual restoration and reunification (Ezek. 36–37), the Gog and Magog
battle leading to the nation's restoration (Ezek. 38–39), the millennial temple (Ezek. 40–46), the
millennial river (Ezek. 47:1-12), the millennial land inheritance of Israel's tribes (Ezek. 47:13–48:29), and
the ultimate restoration of Jerusalem (Ezek. 48:30-35). In other words, Ezekiel 36:24-27 is found in a
context predicting the return of Israel to her own land (Ezek. 36:24), the future Tribulation period, and
beyond. Thus, the very kingdom, entrance into which spiritual birth is a mandatory prerequisite, is a
completely future reality since its very establishment is intimately connected with end time events. By
leaving the word "kingdom" undefined in John 3:3-5, Jesus presupposes this rich Old Testament
background drawn from the prophet Ezekiel as related to the kingdom's future arrival. In sum, in John
3:3-5, Jesus merely rehearses a well-known fact from Ezekiel, the necessity of spiritual birth prior to
entrance into the kingdom. By making such a scant statement and by not defining the kingdom, we must
go to the source, the prophet Ezekiel, in order to gain insight as to when the kingdom will arrive. As
explained earlier, the context of the new birth is found within a larger context that points exclusively to
the future for the kingdom's arrival.
NOT TASTE DEATH UNTIL THE ARRIVAL OF THE KINGDOM
Matthew 16:27-28, represent more verses utilized by "kingdom now" theologians. They say, "For the
Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man
according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not
taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” In verse 27, Jesus notes both the
angelic manifestation as well as the final judgment associated with the coming of His kingdom. Because
in verse 28 He indicates that there are some listening to Him who would not die until the coming of this
kingdom, many assume that Christ established His kingdom in spiritual form at His First Advent.
However, this interpretation ignores the context of Christ's statement, which is found in the very next
verses of the following chapter. Matthew 17:1-13 describes Christ's Transfiguration, where Christ
appeared in His glorified state. Since this glorified manifestation of Himself was a temporary appearance
during His First Advent, His Transfiguration was a foretaste or a token of what the Son of Man coming in
His glory and the splendor of His kingdom, as depicted in Matthew 16:28, would be like. Thus,
contextually, in Matthew 16:28, Christ predicted that the Transfiguration would take place before some
of His immediate audience had died. Christ's prediction in this regard was literally fulfilled six days later
since the Transfiguration took place as recorded in the very next chapter. Unfortunately, the chapter
division causes many to bifurcate Christ's prediction at the end of Matthew 16 from the events at the
beginning of Matthew 17. However, it must be remembered that chapter divisions are artificial. They
are not part of the inspired text, but rather were added much later in a well-intentioned but sometimes
ineffective way of organizing and outlining the biblical text. Craven explains the full context of Matthew
16:28:
The declaration of Jesus, “There be some standing here,” etc., Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27. This,
according to the opinion of Chrysostom and others (see Lange Comm. on Matt. 16:28), may find its
fulfillment in the immediately following Transfiguration. In this event the Basileia was not merely
symbolized, but in all its glory was for a moment set up on earth (comp. 2 Pet. 1:16–18).[2]
That Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled in the Transfiguration of Matthew 17:1-13 receives further support
from the grammar of the passage. McClain explains, "the conjunction with which chapter 17 begins
clearly establishes the unbroken continuity of thought between 16:28 and 17:1, as also in the accounts
of Mark and Luke where no chapter division occurs."[3] Ice also demonstrates the continuity of thought
between the two chapters:
All three accounts of the prophesied event speak of seeing and the kingdom. Matthew says they will see
“the Son of Man coming in His kingdom,” emphasizing the person of the Son of Man coming. Mark says,
“they see the kingdom of God” and he adds that it will come “with power.” Luke simply says that “they
see the kingdom of God.” The transfiguration fits all aspects of the various emphases found in each of
the three precise predictions. Matthew’s stress upon the actual, physical presence of the Son of Man is
clearly met in the transfiguration because Jesus was personally and visibly present...Mark’s emphasis
upon a display of the kingdom with “power” was certainly fulfilled by the transfiguration. No one could
doubt that the transfiguration certainly fit the definition of a “power encounter” for the disciples. That
Jesus appears dressed in the Shekinah glory of God upon the Mount (Mk. 9:3) is further evidence to the
disciples that He was God and acted with His power. Luke’s simple statement about some who will “see
the kingdom of God” is vindicated also by his account (17:28-36). Twice Luke records our Lord describing
the transfiguration with the term “glory” (17:31, 32).[4]
Endnotes
[1] Clayton Sullivan, Rethinking Realized Eschatology (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1988), 127.
1874), 96.
[4] Thomas Ice, "Preterist "Time Texts"," in The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming under
Attack, ed. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: Harvest, 2003), 88.
Dr. Andy Woods
argue that the kingdom is a present reality in order to show that none of these passages teach a present
form of the kingdom. We have examined the typical texts from the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, and the
general epistles used by "kingdom now" theologians. In this installment, we will take a similar look at
common "kingdom now" proof texts allegedly found in the Book of Revelation.
A KINGDOM OF PRIESTS?
A text commonly used by "kingdom now" theologians is Revelation 1:5-6, which says that Christ has
made believers into a kingdom of priests. These verses say, "And from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness,
the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us
from our sins by His blood; and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him
be the glory and the dominion forever and ever." The logic of the argument from the "kingdom now"
theologian here is that if we indeed are a kingdom of priests then we must now be in the present
spiritual Messianic kingdom. However, such an interpretive approach is to reveal impatience with
interpreting the Apocalypse. This is especially true since the Book of Revelation typically interprets itself
either in the very same or in a subsequent context. One example is how the dragon (Rev. 12:3) is later
interpreted as the serpent or the devil in both in the immediate (Rev. 12:9) and the extended (Rev. 20:2)
contexts of the same book. In fact, Walvoord, in his Revelation commentary, identifies twenty-six
instances where an interpretation is conspicuously provided in the immediate context.[1]
Thus, the explanation of Revelation 1:6 is found later in Revelation 5:10, which says, “And thou hast
made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth” (italics added).
Notice that Revelation 5:10 explains when and where the Church will exercise its authority as a kingdom
of priests. We know that this reign will take place in the future given the future tense of the verb
basileuō, which is translated "they will reign." In other words, the reign is not now but future. We also
know from the final clause in Revelation 5:10 that this reign will take place upon the earth. Thus, the
explanation of Revelation 1:6 is found in Revelation 5:10, which anticipates a future, earthly reign rather
than the present reign of believers. In other words, putting both Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 together
reveals that although believers are a present kingdom of priests, they will not actually reign in this
capacity until the future earthly Messianic kingdom is established. Toussaint summarizes, "The
explanation of this verse is found in 5:10 (NASB), which anticipates the future reign of believers with
Christ."[2]
FELLOW PARTAKER IN THE KINGDOM?
Another text used by "kingdom now" theologians is Revelation 1:9, "I, John, your brother and fellow
partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called
Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." "Kingdom now" theologians believe
that this text indicates that because John describes himself to his audience as a fellow partaker in the
kingdom, then the kingdom must be a present spiritual reality. Yet, this represents another case where
it would be better to allow the Book of Revelation to interpret itself. Other sections of the Apocalypse
describe the kingdom as both future and earthly (Rev. 5:10; 11:15; 20:1-10). Thus, Revelation 1:9 is
speaking of the future millennial reign of Christ. In fact, commentators seem nearly unanimous in
interpreting the Greek word basileia, translated "kingdom" in Revelation 1:9, as the future Millennium.
Thomas observes, "Little difference of opinion exists over the meaning of basileia in 1:9. It is the
millennial kingdom described more fully in Revelation 20."[3]
JESUS HAS ALREADY OVERCOME?
Other "kingdom now" theologians appeal to Revelation 5:5 in order to contend for a present, spiritual
kingdom. This verse says, "and one of the elders said to me, 'Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from
the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals.'"
Because the verb translated "has overcome" is in the aorist tense, Bock observes:
The victory, or at least the decisive act, has already occurred. He is qualified to open the scrolls and the
seals because of what he has already done as a Davidite...The timing of Revelation 5:5 is critical, since it
precedes the seal judgments and the second coming, so the text shows Jesus has his regal victorious
status before he returns in Revelation 19. The portrait of these Revelation texts is consistent. Jesus now
rules in spiritual-salvific terms, in a new community that is part of the kingdom program, and in a way
that inaugurates Davidic promises. That kingdom exists alongside the kingdoms of earth...[4]
Yet, neither the word "kingdom" (basileia) nor its verbal form "to reign" (basileuō) are used in
Revelation 5:5. Surely, this word group would be employed by John here had it been his intention to
communicate that the kingdom is a present, spiritual reality. Rather, all this verse really communicates is
that Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, has already broken into history through His First Advent and laid the
ground work for the eventual establishment of His kingdom through His redemptive death. Regarding
Bock's use of Revelation 5:5, Toussaint observes, "But this does not prove a present spiritual form of the
kingdom. Christ's death and resurrection have defeated Satan but the kingdom is clearly future; this is
especially seen in the Apocalypse"[5] (Rev. 5:10; 11:15; 20:1-10).
Perhaps an analogy from the modern legal world can help to elucidate the true meaning of Revelation
5:5. When someone is charged with a crime, there are typically two phases of the trial. In the first phase,
the accused is tried by a jury of his peers. If found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, at this point the
accused becomes a convict. In the second phase of the trial, the convict later appears before the judge
for sentencing. In the same way, Satan has already been convicted at the cross (John 12:31; 16:11; Col.
2:15; Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8). In this sense, he is a defeated foe. If true, then what are we to make of the
numerous passages indicating that he is still the ruler of this present world (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2; 1 Pet.
5:8; 1 John 4:4; 5:19)? The reason for these descriptors is that his sentence has not yet been imposed.
Such an imposition of his punishment will not take place until the events surrounding the establishment
of the kingdom (Rev. 12:9-10; 20:2-3, 10). Thus, while Revelation 5:5 describes Christ's victory at the
trial's guilt phase, it is not speaking of the penalty phase of the trial, which will be accomplished in the
events surrounding the establishment of the future millennial kingdom. In other words, while Christ's
victory at the conviction stage has already transpired (Rev. 5:5), His victory at the sentencing stage
awaits the future arrival of the kingdom (Rev. 12:9-10; 20:2-3, 10).
THE CONTEXT: REVELATION 2‒3
Moreover, the notion of interpreting any of these above texts from the Apocalypse (Rev. 1:6, 9; 5:5) as
conveying a reigning church in the present hardly fits the immediate context of the Book of Revelation.
As mentioned earlier in this series,[6] if we are now in a spiritual form of the Davidic Kingdom, then the
deplorable spiritual condition of the churches in Revelation 2‒3 is inexplicable. Five of these seven
churches in Asia Minor are in an apostate condition. In fact, it appears as if most of these churches had
so departed from Christ that they are no longer governed by Him. This very scenario had certainly
transpired in the Laodicean church (Rev. 3:14-22) where Christ is depicted as standing outside the door
of the church, knocking on the door, and seeking re-entry (Rev. 3:20). Laodicea represents a church that
has so apostatized from the truth that Christ has been dethroned as the church's governing authority.
Evangelists often explain this verse in terms of Christ as standing outside the heart of the unbeliever,
knocking on the heart, and inviting the unbeliever to become a Christian. This is not a correct
representation of the verse's context. Rather, it represents Christ seeking fellowship with His own
Church and people.[7] Consequently, Christ is portrayed as standing outside the door of His own church
seeking re-admittance as ruler of His own people. In fact, "Laodicea" means "ruled by the people."
Newell observes, "The name comes from laos, people, and dikao, to rule: the rule of the people:
'democracy,' in other words."[8] This sad spiritual reality hardly epitomizes a spiritual form of the
kingdom where the church is depicted as presently reigning as a kingdom of priests or fellow partakers
in the present kingdom or, where Christ has already gained the final victory by establishing His kingdom
in the present.
Endnotes
[1] John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 29-30. See
also J. B. Smith, A Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation, trans., J. Otis
Yoder (Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1961), 18-19.
[3] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary, ed. Kenneth Barker (Chicago: Moody,
1992), 87.
[4] Darrell Bock, "The Reign of the Lord Christ," in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church, ed. Craig A.
Blaising and Darrell L. Bock(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 64.
[5] Toussaint, 248.
[6] See part 25.
[7] Dennis M. Rokser, Seven Reasons Not to Ask Jesus into Your Heart: Answering the Question: "What
Must I Do to Be Saved?" (Duluth, MN: Grace Gospel Press, 2012).
[8] William R. Newell, The Book of the Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1935), 75. See also Thomas, 296.
Dr. Andy Woods
form of the kingdom. We have examined the typical texts from the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, the
general epistles, and Revelation used by "kingdom now" theologians. At this point, we largely find
ourselves in agreement with the following statement by E.R. Craven. Concerning "the passages which
have been referred to as proving the doctrine of a present establishment" and "those passages which, it
is alleged, logically imply a present establishment of the Basileia," Craven notes, "There is no critically
undisputed passage in the Scriptures which declares, or necessarily implies, even a partial establishment
in New Testament times."[1] In this and the next installment, we will begin to take a look at some other
miscellaneous arguments used by "kingdom now" theologians.
ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
Since the biblical text itself fails to positively teach or convey the notion of a present spiritual
establishment of the messianic kingdom of God, it is common for "kingdom now" theologians to appeal
to an argument from silence. According to this line of thought, since the New Testament fails to mention
or emphasize a future earthly kingdom, then the promise of a future terrestrial rule of Christ has
somehow been cancelled. Since this promise of a future earthly reign of Christ is cancelled, due to this
alleged silence, the Bible's kingdom promises are being fulfilled now in the present Church Age.
Amillennialist and "Kingdom Now" and Replacement Theologian Bruce Waltke makes this common
argument:
Not one clear New Testament passage mentions the restoration of Israel as a political nation or predicts
an earthly reign of Christ before His final appearing. None depicts the consummate glory of Christ as an
earthly king ruling over the restored nation of Israel. The silence is deafening.[2]
Knox Seminary resorts to the same argument. According to a document entitled "The Knox Seminary
Open Letter to Evangelicals":
Instructively, this same Simon Peter, the Apostle to the Circumcision, says nothing about the restoration
of the kingdom to Israel in the land of Palestine...No New Testament writer foresees a regathering of
ethnic Israel in the land, as did the prophets of the Old Testament after the destruction of the first
temple in 586 B.C.[3]
Regarding "Kingdom Now" theologians (or Christian anti-Zionists), Bruce Scott observes how they:
...use a fallacious argument from silence to prove their point. They falsely assume their position on the
holy land is true simply because the New Testament writers spoke so infrequently of God's land
promises to Israel and Israel's restoration to its land. On one occasion, when confronted about his
argument from silence, Gary Burge countered, "It is such a loud silence."[4]
For the sake of discussion, let us assume that Bruce Waltke, Knox Seminary, and Gary Burge are all
correct in their assessment that the New Testament is silent on the matter of Christ's future earthly rule.
Is it true that subsequent silence on a prior subject is the same thing as a cancellation of it? Such
thinking represents a logical fallacy known as an "argument from silence" where it is incorrectly
assumed that silence on a matter is the same thing as a cancellation of it. For example, suppose I, as a
professor, inform my students on the course syllabus of the date of the final exam. If I fail to mention
the final exam's date again throughout the course of the semester, would my students be justified in
concluding that the final exam has now been cancelled? In other words, is subsequent verbal silence
about the final exam throughout the course of the semester the same thing as canceling what the
original syllabus indicates concerning the final? Of course not. The syllabus says what it says and is to be
followed unless I as the professor expressly alter it verbally in the presence of my students. In the same
way, it cannot be presupposed that New Testament silence somehow cancels Old Testament predictions
and promises.
If the New Testament somewhere expressly canceled the Old Testament earthly kingdom promises,
then "kingdom now" theology would be valid. However, the great problem for the "kingdom now"
theologian is that there is nothing overt in the Old Testament that cancels these future kingdom
promises, thereby forcing the "kingdom now" theologian to rely upon alleged New Testament silence or
its lack of emphasis on the topic. Arnold Fruchtenbaum makes this very point in his critique of
Replacement Theologian Stephen Sizer:
Furthermore, the New Testament does not have to mention something specific from the Old Testament
to maintain that the Old Testament promise is ongoing. What the author needs is a clear statement that
says all the Land Promises have been fulfilled in at least a spiritual way, but this does not exist in the
New Testament.[5]
Paul Feinberg further explains:
Why should something that is clearly a matter of Old Testament revelation have to be repeated in the
New Testament for it to have continuing validity? Should not the very opposite be the case? Should not
the promises of the Old Testament be regarded as still in effect unless the New Testament states
otherwise?[6]
Thus, it is incorrect to assume that God must declare something twice, both in the Old and New
Testaments, for it to be valid. God need only articulate something once for it to be valid. If God declares
His earthly kingdom promises in the Old Testament alone, that is enough to establish their validity. This
is especially true considering that is impossible for God to lie (Num. 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18).
THE NEW TESTAMENT'S FOCUS
Beyond this, why should we expect the New Testament to repeat exactly what was already revealed in
the Old Testament? Would not such an expectation be an exercise in redundancy? If the New Testament
simply repeated the very kingdom promises found in the Old Testament, why would we need a New
Testament, or even an Old Testament for that matter? Moreover, there is a very good reason why the
earthly kingdom promises do not receive the same expansive coverage that they have already received
in the Old Testament. This reason has to do with the fact that in the New Testament, the Church is the
center of salvation history and God's redemptive program. In the New Testament, God is not using
Israel, as He did in Old Testament times and as He will use Israel again in the Tribulation period and
millennial kingdom. Rather, in the New Testament age, the Church has become His vehicle to reach a
lost and dying world. Since the Church is a mystery (Eph. 3:3, 9), or unrevealed in the prior age (Rom.
16:25-26; Col. 1:26), it would stand to reason that the New Testament authors would spend the bulk of
their writings explaining this new spiritual organism rather than merely repeating what the Old
Testament had already revealed concerning national Israel. Price explains:
However, there are good reasons why the promise of Israel's national restoration, so often stated in the
Old Testament, would not be repeated in the New Testament. First, the Old Testament, as the Bible of
the early church, already contained sufficient instruction on the subject, and New Testament authors
would have assumed this doctrine and expected their audiences to understand it from the Old
Testament text. The frequent citations and allusions to the Old Testament by New Testament authors
demonstrate that the Old Testament had priority as the first authoritative revelation of God containing
everything necessary to understand the divine program, which had its fulfillment in Christ...The New
Testament was not written to replace the Old Testament, but to add new revelation that attended to
the coming Messiah and the formation of the church. Therefore, the New Testament does not need to
repeat Old Testament revelation concerning national Israel, but builds upon it by explaining the
relationship between Israel and the church....While the New Testament does not change the original
intent of its authors, who wrote about Israel's future restoration in the land, neither does it feel
compelled to repeat what was already taught and understood in Scripture...Second, the New Testament
does not put Israel in a central position, as does the Old Testament, because the church has become the
central position in salvation history. The New Testament epistles are written for the instruction of the
church, and therefore should not be expected to include discussions about Israel's restoration.[7]
THE NEW TESTAMENT'S REAFFIRMATION OF THE LAND PROMISES
Furthermore, the "kingdom now" theologian is wrong in assuming that the New Testament is
completely silent on the subject of the restoration of Israel's terrestrial kingdom promises. While not
emphasizing this truth to the same degree as is found in the pages of the Old Testament, the New
Testament still affirms this truth in several places. For example, Luke 21:24 says, "...Jerusalem will be
trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (italics added). The mere
existence of the preposition "until" (achri) implies a time when Gentile dominion over Jerusalem will
come to an end and Israel will be restored to her rightful place of rulership over the nations. Other
verses revealing a fture earthly kingdom will be highlighted in our next installment.
Endnotes
[1] E.R. Craven, "Excursus on the Basileia," in Revelation of John, ed. J. P. Lange(New York: Scribner,
1874), 95.
[2] Bruce K. Waltke, "Kingdom Promises as Spiritual," in Continuity and Discontinuity: Prespectives on
the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg(Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
1988), 273.
[3] http://www.bible-researcher.com/openletter.html
[4] Bruce Scott, "Christian Anti-Zionism: On the Wrong Side of History, Justice, and the Bible," Israel My
GloryJanuary/February 2014, 33.
[5] Arnold Fruchtenbaum, “Israel's Right to the Promised Land,” online: https://www.pre-
trib.org/articles/all-articles/message/israel-s-right-to-the-promised-land, accessed 4 February 2015, p.
21.
[6] Paul D. Feinberg, "Hermeneutics of Discontinuity," in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on

the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
1988), 124.
[7] J. Randall Price, The Temple and Bible Prophecy: A Definitive Look at Its Past, Present, and Future
(Eugene, OR: Harvest, 2005), 596.
Dr. Andy Woods
general epistles, and Revelation that are typically used by "kingdom now" theologians. At this point, we
largely find ourselves in agreement with the following statement by E.R. Craven. Concerning a present,
spiritual establishment of the kingdom, Craven notes, "There is no critically undisputed passage in the
Scriptures which declares, or necessarily implies, even a partial establishment in New Testament
times."[1] We then began to take a look at some other miscellaneous arguments used by "kingdom
now" theologians.
ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
Since the biblical text itself fails to positively teach or convey the notion of a present spiritual
establishment of the Messianic kingdom of God upon the earth, it is common for "kingdom now"
theologians to appeal to an argument from silence. According to this line of thought, since the New
Testament fails to mention or emphasize a future earthly kingdom, then the promise of a future
terrestrial rule of Christ has somehow been cancelled. Since this promise of a future earthly reign of
Christ is cancelled, due to this alleged silence, the Bible's kingdom promises are being fulfilled now in the
present Church Age. In the last installment we observed that such thinking represents a logical fallacy
known as an "argument from silence" where it is incorrectly assumed that silence on a matter is the
same thing as a cancellation of it.
THE NEW TESTAMENT'S REAFFIRMATION OF THE LAND PROMISES
Furthermore, beyond using faulty logic, the "kingdom now" theologian is wrong in assuming that the
New Testament is completely silent on the subject of the restoration of Israel's terrestrial kingdom
promises. While not emphasizing this truth to the same degree as is found in the pages of the Old
Testament, the New Testament still affirms this truth in several places. For example, Luke 21:24 says,
"...Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled"
(italics added). The mere existence of the preposition "until" (achri) implies a time when Gentile
dominion over Jerusalem will come to an end and Israel will be restored to her rightful place of rulership
over the nations. Matthew 23:38-39 similarly says, "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! For
I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the
Lord!’" Here, Christ speaks to the unbelieving first-century Jewish leadership. As in Luke 21:24, the
conjunction "until" (heōs) again implies a time when the nation will pray Psalm 118:26 and consequently
see Christ again leaving their house no longer in desolation (Matt. 24:31; 25:31). Christ's promise in
Matthew 19:28 also reaffirms the future land promises: "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed
Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon
twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." This verse teaches that the resurrected apostles will
reign over Israel's twelve tribes. Just as each tribe was allotted land in Old Testament times (Josh. 13‒
21), tribal land allocation will also be the reality in the future kingdom age (Ezek. 47‒48).
Surely Paul speaks of the future kingdom promises through Israel in Romans 11:25-27:
...that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all
Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness
from Jacob.” “This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”
Notice Paul's express assertion that Israel's hardening is only partial, as well as his affirmation of Israel's
future deliverance and forgiveness. Paul also discloses God's intention to keep His covenantal
obligations to Israel. The Davidic Covenant seems to be in view in 11:26b by mention of the Messianic
deliverer (Isa. 59:20). Similarly, the Abrahamic Covenant appears in Romans 11:27a with its allusion to
Isaiah 59:21 and Genesis 17:4. The New Covenant seems to be referred to in Romans 11:27b when it
cites Jeremiah 31:31. Thus, these verses furnish a clear reaffirmation of the Old Testament kingdom
promises.
New Testament reaffirmation of the land promises is also implied in the Apocalypse. In Revelation 7:4-8,
we learn of how God will use 144,000 Jews to evangelize the world during the Tribulation (Rev. 7:9-17).
Here, we are specifically told that 12,000 Jewish evangelists will come from each of these twelve tribes.
In Revelation 14:4, these Jewish evangelists are called the "first fruits." In Israel's harvest cycle, the first
fruits of the harvest guaranteed that the general harvest would also come in. In the same way, the
conversion of these 144,000 Jews guarantees that the rest of the Jewish remnant will also be converted
(Zech. 12:10; 13:8-9).
Moreover, Revelation 20:7-10 speaks of a final, failed satanic rebellion at the end of the Millennial
kingdom as described in Revelation 20:9: "And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and
surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured
them." Notice that this satanic attack is aimed at the "beloved city." Although not identified by name,
this designation is a clear reference to the city of Jerusalem since the descriptor “beloved” city or an
equivalent statement is used repeatedly in the Psalms to depict Jerusalem (Ps. 78:68; 87:2).[2] Even
Simcox and Ladd, while simultaneously arguing against a literal fulfillment of the temple and sacrifices
mentioned in Ezekiel 40–48, indicate that Jerusalem is clearly in view in Revelation 20:9.[3] The reason
that Satan attacks Jerusalem in this final battle is because God, during the Millennial kingdom, will fulfill
His promise of making Israel and Jerusalem head over the nations (Deut. 28:13; Isa. 2:2-3; Zech. 14:16-
18). Because Israel in general and Jerusalem in particular will be the headquarters or the nerve center of
the Millennial kingdom, this special city will become the object of Satan's wrath during this final battle.
Robert Thomas explains, "At the end of the Millennium that city will be Satan’s prime objective with his
rebel army, because Israel will be a leader among the nations."[4] Finally, it is interesting to note that
the gates in the eternal city or the New Jerusalem will be named after the twelve tribes of Israel (Rev.
21:12). Such naming seems to once again reaffirm God's intention to fulfill all that He has purposed to
do through His covenanted nation Israel.
In sum, while it is true that that the New Testament is not as clear as the Old Testament on the subject
of God's future kingdom promises through Israel, the "kingdom now" theologian errs in asserting that
the New Testament is completely silent on this matter. As has been demonstrated, the New Testament
reaffirms God's Old Testament kingdom promises at several junctures. However, even if the New
Testament remained silent on this matter, that fact in and of itself would be insufficient to establish
"kingdom now" theology. Mere silence of the New Testament should not be equated with an overt
cancellation.
FOCUS UPON THE ETERNAL STATE
Other "kingdom now" theologians note how the New Testament writers seem to focus the believers
hope on the New Jerusalem and the Eternal State rather than Christ's earthly kingdom (Gal. 4:26; Heb.
11:10, 16; 12:22; 2 Pet. 3:13). According to this argument, such a focus conveys a cancellation of the
earthly kingdom promises. According to the Knox Seminary Open Letter to Evangelicals:
Simon Peter spoke of the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus in conjunction with the final judgment and
the punishment of sinners. Instructively, this same Simon Peter, the Apostle to the Circumcision, says
nothing about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel in the land of Palestine. Instead, as his readers
contemplate the promise of Jesus' Second Coming, he fixes their hope upon the new heavens and the
new earth, in which righteousness dwells.[5]
However, this view again represents an argument from silence since nowhere in these Eternal State
passages do we find an overt cancelation of the Old Testament kingdom and land promises. Moreover,
the New Testament's emphasis on the Eternal State may even represent a tacit reaffirmation of the land
promises since they will chronologically precede the establishment of the Eternal state (Rev. 20:1-10;
21‒22). Mark Hitchcock explains:
Christ will rule over His kingdom on this present earth for one thousand years, and He will reign forever.
The future kingdom of God has two parts or phases. Phase one is the millennial reign of Christ on this
earth (Revelation 20:1-6), and phase two is the eternal state (Rev. 22:5). As I once heard it described,
the Millennium is the front porch of eternity.[6]
Through its focus on the Eternal State, the totality of New Testament revelation indicates that the
Eternal State will one day become a reality only after its is preceded by the fulfillment of the earthly
kingdom promises. Thus, the New Testament's focus on the Eternal State merely communicates the end
of the matter without neglecting the beginning of the kingdom or the one-thousand year earthly reign
of Christ, which chronologically precedes God's eternal rule. In other words, New Testament certainty of
the Eternal State simultaneously communicates certainty of the preceding earthly kingdom.
Endnotes
[1] E.R. Craven, "Excursus on the Basileia," in Revelation of John (New York: Scribner, 1874), 95.
[2] Robert Thomas, Revelation 8–22 (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 425.

[3] W.H. Simcox, The Revelation of S. John the Divine with Notes and Introductions (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1893), 185; George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 270.
[4] Robert L. Thomas, "A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation," in Four Views on the Book of
Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 207.
[5] http://www.bible-researcher.com/openletter.html
[6] Mark Hitchcock, 101 Answers to the Most Asked Questions About the End Times (Sisters, OR:
Multnomah, 2001), 212.
Dr. Andy Woods
largely find ourselves in agreement with the following statement by Craven. Concerning a present,
now" theologians. In the last two installments, we noted how "kingdom now" theologians often appeal
to alleged New Testament silence regarding a future earthly reign of Christ. There, we exposed the
logical and biblical fallacies associated with such inadequate argumentation. We now move on to
examining yet another miscellaneous argument commonly emanating from the "kingdom now" camp.
JESUS' PRESENT INACTIVITY?
Typical of "kingdom now" theologians is the idea that if Christ is not ruling now in regal fashion from
David's Throne in heaven over a present, spiritual form of the Davidic Kingdom, then this means that
Jesus is inactive at the present time. In other words, a lack of a present enthronement of Christ
translates into the conclusion that Jesus is presently doing nothing. Progressive Dispensationalist and
"kingdom now" theologian David Anderson exhibits this very mindset when he says:
But clearly Jesus did not set up a natural theocratic kingdom with Himself as the king ruling from
Jerusalem on earth before His resurrection. So, what happened to the kingdom He promised? It was
postponed, many NT interpreters suggest... But if the premillennial view just espoused is true, that
leaves the question concerning the present ministry of Christ. What is He doing right now?...But classical
or revised dispensationalists should also recognize the already eschatology of Hebrews. Christ is not
passive on the throne. He is reigning. He has subjects. And because He is the forerunner, there are many
present blessings which belong to the eschatological age which can be enjoyed now because the Davidic
Covenant with some of its blessings has been inaugurated.[2]
Is the mindset valid that says if Jesus is not reigning now as king then He is presently doing nothing? Just
because traditional Dispensationalists resist the idea that the present age should be characterized as the
Davidic Kingdom, this does not mean they also believe that Jesus is somehow inactive or doing nothing
at the present time. This mischaracterization represents a "straw man" argument since traditional
Dispensationalists have long categorized the present, active ministry of Christ as His "Present Session"
rather than His Davidic reign. While not corresponding to what the Old Testament predicts concerning
the Davidic reign, traditional Dispensationalism has long recognized Christ's "Present Session" as an
active session in which Christ, while at the right hand of the Father, is involved in numerous activities.[3]
As Waterhouse well states, "The Bible teaches that Christ is now at the right hand of God in glory (Acts
7:56; Col 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 12:2). He is not in the least inactive."[4]
Chafer explains the reasons for widespread ignorance concerning Christ's present, heavenly ministry:
The present ministry of Christ in heaven, known as His session, is far-reaching both in consequence and
import. It, too, has not been treated even with a passing consideration by Covenant theologians,
doubtless due to their inability – because of being confronted with their one covenant theory – to
introduce features and ministries which indicate a new divine purpose in the Church and by so much
tend to disrupt the unity of a supposed immutable purpose and covenant of God's. Since, as will be
seen, certain vital ministries of Christ in heaven provide completely for the believer's security, the
present session of Christ has been eschewed by Arminians in a manner equally unpardonable. This
neglect accounts very well for the emphasis of their pulpit ministrations. The Christian public, because
deprived of the knowledge of Christ's present ministry, are unaware of its vast realities, though they are
able from childhood itself to relate the mere historical facts and activities of Christ during His three and
one-half years of service on earth. That Christ is doing anything now is not recognized by Christians
generally and for this part-truth kind of preaching is wholly responsible. It yet remains true, whether
neglected by one or the other kind of theologian, that Christ is now engaged in ministry which
determines the service and destiny of all those who have put their trust in Him.[5]
CHRIST'S PRESENT SESSION
Here is just a small sampling of some of the present activities in which Christ is now engaged. Just as
Christ created all things (John 1:3), He currently sustains the very universe that He created (Col. 1:16-
17). In His current position of glory (John 17:5), He has also been appointed by the Father as head over
all things relative to His body the Church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). In this position, He functions as
husband of His bride the Church (Eph. 5:22-33), and occupies the position as the Church's builder (Matt.
16:18). The Book of Acts, which documents both the birth and growth of the early Church, demonstrates
His effectiveness as the Church's architect. "So then, those who had received his word were baptized;
and that day there were added about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41); "And the Lord was adding to
their number day by day those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47); "But many of those who had heard
the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand" (Acts 4:4); "And all
the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number"
(Acts 5:14); "Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles
a people for His name" (Acts 15:14). Acts abounds in both clear (Acts 2:47; 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20;
28:30-31) and sometimes less clear (Acts 1:15; 2:41; 4:4, 31; 5:14, 42; 8:25, 40; 11:21; 13:49; 17:6)
progress reports evidencing Christ's vigorous present activity as the Church's builder.
Beyond this, Christ is the present bestower of spiritual gifts to all members of His body the Church.
According to Ephesians 4:7-12, "But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of
Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, 'When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, And He
gave gifts to men'...And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and
some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up
of the body of Christ." These spiritual gifts, which are sovereignly bestowed by God (1 Cor. 12:11; Heb.
2:4), are Spirit-empowered abilities for the express purpose of serving Christ primarily within the
context of His local Church (1 Cor. 12; Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Pet. 4:10-11). In addition, Christ is active in His
present position as High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 6:20) in continually interceding for
the saints. The ministry of intercession that He began during His earthly ministry (John 17:9, 20), He now
continues at the Father's right hand (Rom. 8:34). Thus, Hebrews 7:25 explains, "Therefore He is able also
to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for
them." Moreover, when the Christian sins (1 John 1:8), Christ as High Priest is also active in forgiving
such sin as the believer confesses it to Him (1 John 1:9). Christ does so not for the purpose of restoring
the believer's position or standing before God, which is inalterable, but rather for the purpose of
restoring the believer's fellowship with God. Chafer explains, "The effect of the Christian's sin upon
himself is that he loses his fellowship with God, his joy, his peace, and his power. On the other hand,
these experiences are restored in infinite grace on the sole ground that he confesses his sin (1 John
1:9)."[6] It is in this sense that Christ also presently functions as our advocate (Heb. 9:24; 1 John 2:1) or
defense attorney. Thanks to the righteousness provided by His shed blood as applied to us, He is active
in pleading our righteous cause to the Father in the midst of Satan's perpetual accusations hurled
against the saints (Rev. 12:10). In sum, Christ presently pursues an active session through His ongoing
roles as the sustainer of the universe as well and the church's head, husband, bestower of spiritual gifts,
and builder. His present activity is also evidenced in that He continually intercedes for and advocates on
behalf of the believer.
CHRIST'S PRESENT SESSION IS NOT THE KINGDOM
Despite the many activities associated with Christ's current ministry in His present session, these should
not be confused with His Davidic rule and future kingdom. As noted in prior installments, the activity of
God in and through the Church bears little resemblance to the conditions that the Scripture anticipates
regarding His future terrestrial rule.[7] Even the key event that began the Church Age, the pouring out of
the Holy Spirit upon the Church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), fails to precisely harmonize with
predictions regarding the Davidic Covenant. Charles Ryrie asks, "If Christ inaugurated His Davidic reign at
His ascension, does it not seem incongruous that His first act as reigning Davidic king was the sending of
the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33), something not included in the promises of the Davidic Covenant?"[8]
Endnotes
[1] E.R. Craven, "Excursus on the Basileia," in Revelation of John (New York: Scribner, 1874), 95.
[2] David Anderson, The King-Priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews (New York: Lang, 2001), 2, 296.
[4] Steven Waterhouse, Not by Bread Alone (Amarillo, TX: Westcliff, 2007), 97.
[5] Chafer, 5:273-74.
[6] Ibid., 5:277.
[7] See parts 9 and 10 of this series.
Dr. Andy Woods
largely find ourselves in agreement with the following statement by Craven. Concerning a present,
now" theologians. In prior installments, we scrutinized how "kingdom now" theologians often appeal to
alleged New Testament silence regarding a future earthly reign of Christ.
We then moved on to examining yet another miscellaneous argument commonly emanating from the
"kingdom now" camp: namely, that if Christ is not now reigning from David's Throne in heaven, then He
is doing nothing at the present time. As we saw in the prior installment, nothing could be further from
the truth. Christ presently pursues an active session through His ongoing roles as the Sustainer of the
universe as well and the church's head, husband, bestower of spiritual gifts, and builder. His present
activity is also evidenced in that He continually intercedes for and advocates on behalf of the believer.
However, these activities comprise His "present session"[2] rather than His Davidic reign.
CHRIST'S PRESENT SESSION IS NOT THE KINGDOM
Despite the many activities associated with Christ's current ministry in His present session, these should
not be confused with His Davidic rule and future kingdom. As noted in prior installments, the activity of
God in and through the Church bears little resemblance to the conditions that the Scripture anticipates
regarding His future terrestrial rule.[3] Even the key event that began the Church Age, the pouring out of
the Holy Spirit upon the Church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), fails to precisely harmonize with
predictions regarding the Davidic Covenant. Charles Ryrie asks, "If Christ inaugurated His Davidic reign at
His ascension, does it not seem incongruous that His first act as reigning Davidic king was the sending of
the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33), something not included in the promises of the Davidic Covenant?"[4]
Furthermore, as noted by Chafer, Christ's present session is not the kingdom:
Over and above all the stupendous present ministry of the resurrected, exalted Savior already noted is
the attitude which He is said to maintain toward the day when, coming back to the earth, He will defeat
all enemies and take the throne to reign. Important, indeed, is the revelation which discloses the fact
that Christ is now in the attitude of expectation toward the oncoming day when, returning on the clouds
of heaven, He will vanquish every foe...Hebrews 10:13 records His expectation, which reads: "From
henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool."...As High Priest over the true tabernacle
on high, the Lord Jesus Christ has entered into heaven itself there to minister as priest in behalf of those
who are His own in the world (Heb. 8:1-2)...The fact that He sat down on His Father's throne and not on
His own thrown reveals the truth, so constantly and consistently taught in the Scriptures, that He did not
set up a kingdom on the earth at His first advent into the world, but that He is now "expecting" until the
time when His kingdom shall come in the earth and the divine will shall be done on earth as it is done in
heaven. "The kingdoms of this world" are yet to become "the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ;
and He shall reign forever and ever" (Rev. 11:15), and the kingly Son will yet ask of His Father and He will
give Him the nations for His inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession (Ps. 2:8).
However, Scripture clearly indicates too that He is not now establishing that kingdom rule in the earth
(Matt. 25:31–46), but that rather He is calling out from both the Jews and Gentiles a heavenly people
who are related to Him as His Body and Bride. After the present purpose is accomplished He will return
and "build again the tabernacle of David, which is falling down" (Acts 15:13-18). Though He is a King-
Priest according to the Melchizedek type (Hebrews 5:10; 7:1–3), He is now serving as Priest and not as
King.[5]
Thus, the preceding discussion demonstrates that while the present age is not the kingdom, this does
not automatically lead to the conclusion that Christ today is doing nothing. Rather, Christ, in His present
ministry at the Father's right hand, is quite active. However, such present activities should not be
confused with the anticipated kingdom.
WHERE WE HAVE BEEN AND WHERE WE ARE GOING
This series has accomplished the following goals that were established at the onset.[6] First, the biblical
teaching on the kingdom of God has been surveyed from Genesis to Revelation. Such an analysis was
necessary in order to allow us to capture God's mind on this important subject. Second, this series has
set forth some general problems with a New Testament based "kingdom now" interpretation. Third, this
series has examined the isolated New Testament texts and miscellaneous arguments that "kingdom
now" theologians typically use, and it has demonstrated how each is insufficient to convey "kingdom
now" theology.
We now move on to the final leg in our journey. Here, we will note why this trend of equating God's
present work in the church with the Messianic kingdom is a matter believers should be concerned
about, since this theology not only radically alters God's design for the church but is also the seedbed of
many major false doctrines that have sadly entered Christ's church.
SO WHAT?
Our goal in this section is to demonstrate to the reader that one's view concerning a present or future
kingdom has real-world implications in terms of how one works out one's theology in the life of the local
church and in the real world. In other words, ideas have consequences. Theological studies can be
likened to dominoes in a row. Knocking over just one domino inevitably impacts the other dominoes.
Similarly, when one area of theology is altered it has an inevitable impact upon other areas of
systematic theology and biblical interpretation. In this final section, a brief examination will be given
regarding how "kingdom now" theology has an inevitable impact upon other areas of biblical truth.
CHANGING THE CHURCH'S PURPOSE

Why does it matter whether Christ's present work through the church is equated with Christ's Messianic
kingdom? The answer to this question lies in the fact that "kingdom now" theology alters the divine
design for the church. Another way of saying this is one's eschatology (his view of the future kingdom)
affects his ecclesiology (doctrine of the church).
Earlier in this series, we noted that the church, which began in Acts 2, exists for three specific, divinely-
ordained reasons.[7] First, the church exists to glorify God (Eph. 3:21). Second, the church exists to edify
or build up its members. God has placed spiritual gifts in the body of Christ for the purpose of being
faithfully employed so that the church members can be built up, become spiritually mature, and reach
unity (Eph. 4:11-16). Third, the church exists for the purpose of accomplishing world evangelism (Mark
16:15) and to fulfill the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20).
However, McClain explains how these basic and divinely-given ecclesiastical purposes rapidly become
confused the moment that the church begins to view itself as the kingdom:
Theological confusion, especially in matters which have to do with the church, will inevitably produce
consequences which are of grave practical concern. The identification of the Kingdom with the church
has led historically to ecclesiastical policies and programs which, even when not positively evil, have
been far removed from the original simplicity of the New Testament ekklēssia. It is easy to claim that in
the “present kingdom of grace” that the rule of the saints is wholly “spiritual,” exerted only through
moral principles and influence. But practically, once the church becomes the Kingdom in any realistic
theological sense, it is impossible to draw any clear line between principles and their implementation
through political and social devices. For the logical implications of a present ecclesiastical kingdom are
unmistakable, and historically have always led in one direction, i.e., political control of the state by the
Church. The distances traveled down this road by various religious movements, and the forms of control
which were developed, have been widely different. The difference is very great between the Roman
Catholic system and modern Protestant efforts to control the state; also between the ecclesiastical rule
of Calvin in Geneva and the fanaticism of Münster and the English “fifth-monarchy.” But the basic
assumption is always the same: The church in some sense is the kingdom, and therefore has a divine
right to rule; or it is the business of the church to “establish” fully the Kingdom of God among men. Thus
the church loses its pilgrim character and the sharp edge of its divinely commissioned “witness” is
blunted. It becomes an ekklēssia which is not only in the world, but also of the world. It forgets that just
as in the regeneration of the soul only God can effect the miracle, even so the “regeneration” of the
world can only be wrought by the intrusion of regal power from on high (Matt. 19:28).[8]
McClain's quote notes several problems when the church begins to see itself as the kingdom.
Endnotes
1874), 95.
[3] See parts 9 and 10 of this series.
[5] Chafer, 5:278-79.
[6] See part 1 of this series.
[7] See part 9.
Dr. Andy Woods
In this series, the biblical teaching on the kingdom of God has been surveyed from Genesis to Revelation
in order to demonstrate that the whole counsel of God's Word conveys the idea that the kingdom is a
yet future reality. In addition, this series has examined the isolated New Testament texts and
miscellaneous arguments that "kingdom now" theologians typically rely upon and it has demonstrated
how each is insufficient to convey "kingdom now" theology. As we move on to the final leg in our
journey, we began noting why this trend of equating God's present work in the church with the
Messianic kingdom is a matter believers should be concerned about, since this theology not only
radically alters God's design for the church but is also the seedbed of many major false doctrines that
have sadly entered Christ's church.
CHANGING THE CHURCH'S PURPOSE
Why does it matter whether Christ's present work through the church is equated with Christ's Messianic
kingdom? The answer to this question lies in the fact that "kingdom now" theology alters the divine
design for the church. Earlier in this series, we noted that the church, which began in Acts 2, exists for
three specific, divinely-ordained reasons: to glorify God (Eph. 3:21), to edify the saints (Eph. 4:11-16),
and to fulfill the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). However, based upon a lengthy block quote given
in the last installment, McClain explains how these basic and divinely-given ecclesiastical purposes
rapidly become confused the moment that the church begins to view itself as the kingdom.[1] When the
church sees itself as the kingdom it typically seeks to grasp the reins of political power and rule by the
sword. This philosophy represents a far cry from God's design for the church, which is to evangelize and
disciple, or reach and teach, in fulfillment of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). While it remains
appropriate for the church to positively influence fallen culture in some sense (Matt. 5:13-16), she is not
called to rule and reign in the present age with kingdom authority. Instead, the church is to await the
future, earthly, Messianic Kingdom when Christ will rule and reign with a rod of iron (Ps. 2:9; Rev. 12:5).
Until that glorious future day arrives, the world will remain under Satan's influence (2 Cor. 4:4), and
consequently the church will be living as a pilgrim in enemy territory.
McClain's preceding quote notes at least three problems that emerge when the church sees itself as the
kingdom and seeks to reign with kingdom authority in the present. First, the church ceases to see itself
as a pilgrim in the world but rather sees herself at home in the world. A pilgrim is one who is simply
passing through a temporary realm toward a final destination. In the same way, this world is not the
church's home but rather is a temporary sphere that the church is passing through on her way to eternal
glory. Chafer notes, "So the church was fully warned from the beginning about the nature of this age,
and taught concerning her pilgrim character while here and her holy calling and separateness from the
'evil age.'"[2] This theological reality explains why the New Testament often uses pilgrimage imagery to
depict the church in the world (Jas. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1; 2:11; Heb. 11:13).
Second, if the church pursues worldly power, she becomes distracted from her divine mission to fulfill
the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). God only promises to bless and empower the church when she
remains within His intended design. Once the church becomes something that God never called her to
be, she is emptied of this divine power. If Satan can convince the church to become involved in projects
that she was never given the power to fulfill, he will have effectively neutralized the church. Bestselling
author Hal Lindsey warned what could happen to the church in the last days if she began to see herself
as the establisher of God's kingdom on the earth: "The last days of the church on the earth may be
largely wasted seeking to accomplish a task that only the LORD Himself can and will do directly."[3]
SOCIAL GOSPEL
Third, seeing the church as the kingdom causes the church to substitute social causes in lieu of
preaching the true gospel. The Great Commission is subtly transformed from evangelism and
discipleship to altering societal structures. In other words, rather than fulfilling the Great Commission,
the church perceives its central purpose as fixing societal ills such as curing cancer, ending world poverty
and hunger, and establishing social justice. The collective salvation of nations or communities replaces
the individual salvation of souls. This philosophy and misguided emphasis is known as the "Social
Gospel." Note this emphasis in the writings of progressive dispensationalist and "kingdom now"
theologian Craig Blaising, who laments, “Unfortunately, present-day dispensationalists have written very
little in proposing a theology of social ministry.”[4] He continues, “... if we as a community of Christ
worked on creating our community as a model of social justice and peace, then we really would have
some suggestions to make for social reform in our cities and nations.”[5]
It is interesting to note Social Gospel language in the writings of the "kingdom now" Emergent Church
leaders.[6] For example, Brian McLaren is clearly a kingdom now advocate. He argues, "If Revelation
were a blueprint of the distant future, it would have been unintelligible to its original readers...In light of
this, Revelation becomes a powerful book about the kingdom of God here and now, available to all"
(italics added). Consequently, Brian McLaren laments, "The church has been preoccupied with the
question, 'What happens to your soul after you die?' As if the reason for Jesus coming can be summed
up in, 'Jesus is trying to get more souls into heaven as opposed to hell, after they die.' I just think a fair
reading of the Gospels blows that out of the water."[7] In other words, because the church sees itself as
the kingdom, it would not consider the salvation of souls its top priority. Rather, it should instead also
pursue a "holistic gospel" focused upon altering societal structures.
Of course, this mindset does not represent the mission that God gave to the church. It only serves to
distract her from her divine priorities and calling. Ryrie explains how such priorities can easily get out of
order: “Holistic redemption can easily lead to placing unbalanced, if not wrong, priorities on political
action, social agendas, and improving the structures of society.”[8] While ecclesiastical humanitarian
effort is not wrong in and of itself, such efforts should always be used as a platform to proclaim the
Gospel or practically demonstrate Christ-like love so as to gain a hearing to share the Gospel. If the
Gospel becomes eclipsed by humanitarian concerns, then our priorities are grossly out of order. After
all, what good does it really do in the eternal scheme of things to feed someone's stomach with a meal
that only has a lasting impact of 24 hours, if he is never given the Gospel and consequently his soul goes
into an eternal hell?
Like McLaren, Rick Warren also embraces "kingdom now" theology:
I stand before you confidently right now and say to you that God is going to use you to change the
world...I'm looking at a stadium full of people right now who are telling God they will do whatever it
takes to establish God's Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven." What will happen if the followers of Jesus
say to Him, "We are yours?" What kind of spiritual awakening will occur? (Italics added).[9]
Consequently, Social Gospel is also apparent in the work of "kingdom now" advocate Rick Warren. He
calls his global mission strategy the "PEACE" plan.
P.E.A.C.E. is an acronym for Promote reconciliation; Equip servant leaders; Assist the poor; Care for the
sick; and Educate the next generation. Coalition members see these actions as Jesus' antidote to five
"global giants,"‒problems that affect billions of people worldwide: spiritual emptiness, self-centered
leadership, poverty, pandemic disease, and illiteracy.[10]
What did you not clearly hear about in this description of Warren's peace plan? There’s absolutely
nothing here about preaching the gospel. What an astounding omission this is, especially considering
that the gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). There is also
absolutely nothing here about fulfilling the Great Commission to “Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations” (Matt. 28:19). There’s nothing here either about Christ’s final words to the church as recorded
in Mark 16:15, where Jesus said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.”
Furthermore, there is no hint in any other Great Commission passage (John 20:21; Luke 24:46-48; Acts
1:8) to go and slay the five "global giants." Rather, the entire emphasis of these Great Commission texts
is upon evangelism and discipleship. The Great Commission has largely become the "great omission"
through the influence of Rick Warren and others. Kingdom building, societal transformation, and Social
Gospel have largely replaced the church's central calling to evangelize and disciple. Thus, kingdom now
theology should be avoided not only because it is not scripturally supported, but also because it alters
the divine purpose for the church, thereby robbing her of divine power and blessing.
Endnotes
[3] Hal Lindsey, The Road to Holocaust (New York: Bantam, 1990), 269.
[4] Craig Blaising, "Dispensationalism: The Search for Definition," in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the
Church, ed. Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 14, n.3.
[5] Craig Blaising, "Theological and Ministerial Issues in Progressive Dispensationalism," in Progressive
Dispensationalism, ed. Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1993), 288-89.
[6] For kingdom now quotes of Brian McLaren and other Emergent Church leaders, see part 1 of this
series..
[7] Cited in Roger Oakland, Faith Undone (Silverton, OR: Lighthouse Trails, 2007), 203.
[9] Cited in Oakland, 153.
[10] "Rick Warren and 1,700 Leaders Launch the Peace Coalition at Purpose Driven Summit," online:
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/249586720.html. Accessed 15 November 2014.
Dr. Andy Woods
In this series, the biblical teaching on the kingdom of God has been surveyed from Genesis to Revelation
to demonstrate that the whole counsel of God's Word conveys the idea that the kingdom is a future
reality. In addition, this series has examined the isolated New Testament texts and miscellaneous
arguments that "kingdom now" theologians rely upon, and it has demonstrated how each is insufficient
to convey "kingdom now" theology. As we move on to the final leg in our journey, we began noting why
this trend of equating God's present work in the church with the Messianic kingdom is a matter
believers should be concerned about, since this theology not only radically alters God's design for the
church but is also the seedbed of many major false doctrines that have sadly entered Christ's church.
LARKIN'S WARNINGS
In the last two installments, we called attention to Alva J. McClain's warning concerning the impact of
how "kingdom now" negatively impacts the church's calling, purpose, and mission. It is interesting to
observe similar warnings given nearly a century ago in the writings of Clarence Larkin:
...the Church is not an “Organization” but an “Organism.” Therefore it is not a “Social Club,” organized
and supported solely for the benefit of its members. Neither is it a “Place of Amusement” to pander to
the carnal nature of man. Nor is it a “House of Merchandise” for the sale of “Indulgences,” or other
commodities, whereby the money of the ungodly can be secured to save the penurious church member
a little self-sacrifice. Neither is it a “Reform Bureau” to save the “bodies” of men. The reformation of
men is very commendable, as are all forms of “Social Service,” but that is not the work or mission of the
Church. The world was just as full, if not fuller, of the evils that afflict society today, in the days of Christ,
but He never, nor did the Apostles, organize any reform agencies. All the great philanthropic and
civilizing agencies of the world are “By-Products” of Christianity. We are told in Acts 5:15, that the
people laid their sick in the streets that the “Shadow of Peter” might fall upon them and heal them. But
if Peter had spent his time “casting shadows,” and neglected his Apostolic work of trying to save the
“SOULS” of men, his shadow would have lost its power. Jesus knew that the source of all the evils in the
world is SIN, and that the only way to eradicate sin is to Regenerate the Human Heart, and so He gave
the GOSPEL, and the “Mission” of the Church is to carry this Gospel to the world. “EVANGELISM,” not
“Social Service,” is the “Mission” of the Church. Mark 16:15-16. The great mistake the Church has made
is in appropriating to herself in this Dispensation the promises of earthly conquest and glory which
belong exclusively to Israel in the “Millennial Age.” As soon as the Church enters into an “Alliance with
the World,” and seeks the help of Parliaments, Congresses, Legislatures, Federations and Reform
Societies, largely made up of ungodly men and women, she loses her spiritual power and becomes
helpless as a redeeming force.[1]
Larkin further notes:
...but the "Mission" of the Church is her "COMMISSON" to "Evangelize" the world. Mark 16: 15-16. Acts
1:7-8. The "Kingdom Idea" has robbed the Church of her "UPWARD LOOK," and of the "BLESSED HOPE."
There cannot be any "Imminent Coming" to those who are seeking to "Set up the Kingdom." The
"Kingdom Idea" has robbed the Church of the "Pilgrim" and "Martyr Spirit," and caused it to go down
into Egypt for help. When the Church enters into an "Alliance with the World," and seeks the help of
Parliaments, Congresses, Legislatures, Federations and Reform Societies, largely made up of ungodly
men and women, she loses her "SPIRITUAL POWER" and becomes helpless as a redeeming force. The
end of such an "Alliance" will be a "Religious Political Regime" that wilt-pave the way for the revelation
of Satan's great "Religious Political Leader" and "Superman" ‒ the ANTICHRIST.[2]
Here, Larkin notes at least five consequences that 'kingdom now" theology has upon Ecclesiology, or the
doctrine of the church. First, "kingdom now" theology causes the church to drift into a Social Gospel
agenda favoring holistic redemption of societal structures in lieu of fulfilling the Great Commission.
When the church becomes something that God never intended nor called her to be, she cannot expect,
and in fact will be emptied of, His divine resources and empowerment. Second, viewing itself as the
kingdom of God upon the earth causes the church to become at home in the world in contradistinction
to the New Testament portrayal of the church as a mere pilgrim passing through both temporary and
alien territory en-route to her ultimate eternal destination. Both of these points were covered in the
prior installment. However, let us now take note of three equally important points that Larkin's above
comments surface.
ALLIANCES WITH NON-BIBLICAL GROUPS
Third, because there are not presently and numerically enough Christians necessary to establish God's
kingdom upon the earth, it becomes necessary for the church to find common ground with those who
do not share its biblical convictions in order to build the political coalition needed to implement a
"kingdom now" social agenda. As noted above, Larkin well explains:
The great mistake the Church has made is in appropriating to herself in this Dispensation the promises
of earthly conquest and glory which belong exclusively to Israel in the “Millennial Age.” As soon as the
Church enters into an “Alliance with the World,” and seeks the help of Parliaments, Congresses,
Legislatures, Federations and Reform Societies, largely made up of ungodly men and women, she loses
her spiritual power and becomes helpless as a redeeming force.[3]
In the prior installment, we noted the "kingdom now" agenda behind popular pastor Rick Warren's
"PEACE" plan. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that Warren has become one of the leading
advocates of ecumenism in our day. Recently, the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" mantra has
been given new life by mega-church pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren. In a recent interview
with Catholic News Service, he noted:
We have far more in common than what divides us. When you talk about Pentecostals, charismatics,
evangelicals, fundamentalists, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, on and on and on and on.
Well they would all say we believe in the trinity, we believe in the Bible, we believe in the resurrection,
we believe salvation is through Jesus Christ. These are the big issues. Sometimes Protestants think that
Catholics worship Mary like sheÃ•s another god. But thatÃ•s not exactly catholic doctrine...and people
say well what are the saints all about? Why are you praying to the saints? And when you understand
what they mean by what theyÃ•re saying thereÃ•s a whole lot more commonality. Now there are still
real differences, no doubt about that. But the most important thing is if you love Jesus, weÃ•re on the
same team. The unity that I think we would see realistically is not a structural unity but a unity of
mission. And so, when it comes to the family we are co-workers in the field on this for the protection of
what we call the sanctity of life, the sanctity of sex, and the sanctity of marriage. So thereÃ•s a great
commonality and thereÃ•s no division on any of those three. Many times people have been beaten
down for taking a Biblical stance. And they start to feel, “well maybe I'm out here all by yourself.” No
youÃ•re not (italics added).[4]
Has Warren forgotten that we, as Protestants, broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the
days of Martin Luther and John Calvin? Why the existence of this historical rupture between Protestants
and Catholics? The answer to this question lies in the fact that we as Protestants saw things in Roman
Catholicism that we could not find in Scripture. There are vast and insurmountable theological divisions
between Bible-believing Evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church. The rallying cry of the Protestant
Reformation involved the five "solas." "Sola" is a Latin expression meaning "alone." These five solas are
Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), Sola Scriptura (Scripture
alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone). While Protestants embrace these five theological
realties or solas, Roman Catholic theology rejects them.[5] Yet, the "Evangelicals and Catholics
Together" mindset erases all of those theological barriers and puts Evangelicals and Catholics on the
same theological footing.
Apparently not content to build a bridge to Catholicism only, Warren also seems to be building a similar
bridge into Islam. Such advocacy of interfaith cooperation across vastly divergent belief systems is
revealed through many of Warren's public statements. Note Warren's words from a recent World
Economic Forum panel discussion
To my Islamic brother here from Italy, I would say I'm not really interested in inter-faith dialogue, I'm
interested in inter-faith projects. We've got enough talk. So... a few weeks ago, at Georgetown
University, we brought in three imams, we brought in three Catholic priests, we brought in three
evangelical pastors, and we brought in three Rabbis and we said 'what can we do about AIDS?' And we
started on some common ground on those issues; what can we do that we all care about?[6]
Note how Rick Warren, with Tony Blair present at this World Economic Forum panel discussion, publicly
referring to an Islamic cleric as “My Islamic brother.” The New Testament, on the other hand, teaches
that our brothers are only those who believe in Christ and do the will of God (Matt. 12:46-50). Thus, in
no sense can an Islamic cleric be viewed as a brother of a born-again believer.
Endnotes
[1] Clarence Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word (Glenside, PA: Clarence Larkin Estate, 1920), 48.
[2] Clarence Larkin, The Second Coming of Christ (Glenside, PA: Clarence Larkin Estate, 1918), 51.
[3] Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word, 48.
[4] Matt Slick, “Rick Warren's Comments on Roman Catholicism,” online: www.carm.org, accessed 20
July 2015.
[5] For more differences, see James McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome (Eugene, OR: Harvest,
1995).
[6] http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nu7_rtUQiE0
Dr. Andy Woods
In this series, the biblical teaching on the kingdom of God has been set forth. This series has also
scrutinized the New Testament texts that "kingdom now" theologians rely upon in order to demonstrate
the insufficiency of "kingdom now" theology. We then began noting why this trend of equating God's
present work in the church with the Messianic kingdom is a matter that believers should be concerned
about, since this theology radically alters God's design for the church and is the seedbed of many major
false doctrines that have entered Christ's church.
ALLIANCES WITH NON-BIBLICAL GROUPS
In the last installment, we called attention to Clarence Larkin's warning concerning the impact of how
"kingdom now" negatively impacts the church's calling, purpose, and mission. Larkin noted at least five
consequences that 'kingdom now" theology has upon Ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church. Having
already discussed the first two points, we had moved on to the third point. Third, because there are not
presently and numerically enough Christians necessary to establish God's kingdom upon the earth, it
becomes necessary for the church to find common ground with those who do not share its biblical
convictions in order to build the political coalition needed to implement a "kingdom now" social agenda.
Larkin well explains:
The great mistake the Church has made is in appropriating to herself in this Dispensation the promises
of earthly conquest and glory which belong exclusively to Israel in the “Millennial Age.” As soon as the
Church enters into an “Alliance with the World,” and seeks the help of Parliaments, Congresses,
Legislatures, Federations and Reform Societies, largely made up of ungodly men and women, she loses
her spiritual power and becomes helpless as a redeeming force.[1]
In prior installments, we noted the "kingdom now" agenda behind popular pastor Rick Warren's
"PEACE" plan. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that Warren has become one of the leading
advocates of ecumenism in our day. Apparently not content to only build a bridge to Roman Catholicism
only, Warren also seems to be building a similar bridge into Islam. Such advocacy of interfaith
cooperation across vastly divergent belief systems is revealed through many of Warren's public
statements.
Note, for example, the following prayer that Warren offered on January 21, 2009 at President elect
Obama's inauguration: “I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa,
Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus, who taught us to pray...” (italics added).[2] While most would
recognize in Warren's prayer the Hebrew rendering of Jesus (Yeshua) as well as the Spanish
pronunciation of the name Jesus, who is "Isa"? World religions expert Eric Barger well explains Isa's true
identity:
There I was, watching all of the regalia of the presidential inauguration...Of course, I was also waiting to
see just what kind of prayer Rick Warren had co-opted to pray for the new incoming President and his
administration...The inaugural prayer was proceeding along and Warren was rightly praying for God to
lead and protect Obama...So, just when I thought I could say "amen," it happened. Warren said "I
humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation],
Jesus, who taught us to pray, "Our father who art in Heaven..."...I have researched Islam for many years.
Last year I ministered concerning the history, theology and intentions of Islam over 40 times in churches
and conferences so naturally, Warren's use of the name of Isa, the false Jesus of Islam, was a glaring slap
in the face to all that he had already prayed. "Isa" in no way represents the Jesus of the Bible but is
instead the false Jesus of the Qur'an (Koran) and the Muslim Hadith. "Isa" (pronounced "eee-sa") is the
Islamic Jesus who was but a prophet and who certainly did not experience a sacrificial death on a cross
let alone resurrect from the dead. In fact, in Islam the prophet Isa is actually the destroyer of Christianity
- not it’s Savior. Obviously, this is simply NOT the same Jesus as is Yeshua.[3]
Thus, Warren in his inaugural prayer seems to equate the Muslim Jesus with the biblical Jesus. The
bottom line is that if you are going to try to build the Kingdom of God on the earth, there are not
enough Christians in the world to accomplish this goal. Thus, you have to start cooperating with people
of different faiths, like Catholics and Muslims. Such spiritual ecumenism represents the natural
outworking of the church viewing itself as the kingdom of God.
DISPENSING WITH PROPHETIC TRUTH
Fourth, Larkin observed that the discarding of the study of Bible prophecy naturally takes place when
"kingdom now" theology gains a foothold in the church. As noted earlier, Larkin observed, "The
'Kingdom Idea' has robbed the Church of her 'UPWARD LOOK,' and of the 'BLESSED HOPE.' There cannot
be any 'Imminent Coming' to those who are seeking to 'Set up the Kingdom.'"[4] After all, why be overly
preoccupied with God's predicted prophetic plan involving the future overthrow of the Antichrist and
His subsequent reign if the church is presently bringing in the kingdom? As already noted, popular
pastor Rick Warren is heavily involved in a kingdom now agenda through his "PEACE" plan. Thus, it
should also come as no surprise that Warren is a leading critic of those who invest time and energy into
seeking to discover what the Bible reveals concerning the future. Interestingly, Warren appears to have
a special animus for those who he deems are overly preoccupied with Eschatology, which is the study of
God's plan for the future. He writes:
When the disciples wanted to talk about prophecy, Jesus quickly switched the conversation to
evangelism. He wanted them to concentrate on their mission in the world. He said in essence, “The
details of my return are none of your business. What is your business is the mission I have given you.
Focus on that!” If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on fulfilling your mission, not figuring out
prophecy. Speculating on the exact timing of Christ’s return is futile, because Jesus said, “No one knows
about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Since Jesus
said He didn’t know the day or hour, why should you try to figure it out? What we do know for sure is
this: Jesus will not return until everyone God wants to hear the Good News has heard it. Jesus said, “The
Good News about God’s kingdom will be preached in all the world, to every nation. Then the end will
come.” If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on fulfilling your mission, not figuring out
prophecy. It is easy to get distracted and sidetracked from your mission because Satan would rather
have you do anything besides sharing your faith. He will let you do all kinds of good things as long as you
don’t take anyone to heaven with you. But the moment you become serious about your mission, expect
the Devil to throw all kinds of diversions at you. When that happens, remember the words of Jesus:
“Anyone who lets himself be distracted from the work I plan for him is not fit for the Kingdom of
God."[5]
According to Warren's line of thought, those that overly meditate upon the over a quarter of the Bible
devoted to Eschatological truth are date setting, pursuing un-Christ-like priorities, unconcerned about
evangelism, involved in a distraction, being influenced by Satan, and are unfit for the Kingdom of God!
Yet the study of Bible prophecy should not be so quickly discredited and discarded since: "...we have the
prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark
place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts (2 Pet. 1:19)."
Progressive Dispensationalists also emphasize "kingdom now" theology through their belief that Christ
now orchestrates an "already" and spiritual phase of the Davidic Kingdom as He now reigns from David's
Throne, allegedly in heaven. Thus, it again is not surprising to discover that Progressive
Dispensationalists deemphasize Bible Prophecy in general. Key prophetic passages receive scant
attention in their teachings and writings. Charles Ryrie observes how Progressive Dispensationalists are
guilty of:
...ignoring the great prophecy of the seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24–27. Nowhere in the progressives'
writings to date have I found any discussion of the passage, only very brief and occasional citations of
the reference itself...While not denying the pre-tribulation Rapture or the literal tribulation period,
revisionists do not give much attention to these aspects of eschatology. Blaising and Bock do not take
obvious opportunities to mention the Rapture, and in one place (discussing 1 Thessalonians 5) they say
only that the rapture "would appear to be pre-tribulational." They decry (as do many of us normative
dispensationalists) the sensationalism of some interpreters of prophecy. But abuse of a doctrine is no
reason for playing down the truth of that doctrine. Rather, it ought to make us more zealous to present
it accurately and in a balanced fashion. Furthermore, there exists already in the writings of progressives
a thrust towards positioning the Revelation as a book that is "difficult" to interpret. Playing up the
imagery in the book, as some revisionists do, seems to play down a plain interpretation of it. The locusts
in chapter 9 and Babylon in chapters 17 and 18 are examples of such "literal/symbolic difficulty" in
interpreting the book.[6]
Again, the bottom line is that if the kingdom is now then the present should be our focus rather than
some future event. Such a presupposition logically leads to a discarding of Bible prophecy.
Endnotes
[1] Clarence Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word (Glenside, PA: Clarence Larkin Estate, 1920), 48.
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tJeNsPIC3vE
[3] Eric Barger, “Rick Warren Invokes the Name of Islamic Jesus at Obama Inauguration,” online:
http://lit4ever.org/revivalforum/index.php?topic=16453.0;wap2, January 2009, accessed 4 January
2015.
[5] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 285-86.
[6] Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 176-77.
Dr. Andy Woods
In this series, the biblical teaching on the kingdom has been surveyed to demonstrate that Scripture
conveys that the kingdom is a future reality. We then began noting why this trend of equating God's
present work in the church with the Messianic kingdom radically alters God's design for the church.
LARKIN'S WARNINGS
In prior installments we began calling attention to the warnings from a commentator from the past,
Clarence Larkin, who noted at least five consequences that "kingdom now" theology has upon
Ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church. The first of four of these five warnings have been discussed
in prior installments. First, "kingdom now" theology causes the church to drift into a Social Gospel
agenda favoring holistic redemption of societal structures in lieu of fulfilling the Great Commission.
Second, viewing itself as the kingdom of God upon the earth causes the church to become at home in
the world in contradistinction to the New Testament portrayal of the church as a mere pilgrim passing
through both temporary and alien territory en-route to her ultimate eternal destination. Third, because
there are not presently and numerically enough Christians necessary to establish God's kingdom upon
the earth, it becomes necessary for the church to find common ground with those who do not share its
biblical convictions in order to build the political coalition needed to implement a "kingdom now" social
agenda. Fourth, Larkin observed that the discarding of the study of Bible prophecy naturally takes place
when "kingdom now" theology gains a foothold in the church. Let's now move on and examine Larkin's
fifth concern.
BUILDING THE WRONG KINGDOM
Fifth, Larkin notes that those involved today in kingdom building are actually not building God's kingdom
at all, but rather the kingdom of the Antichrist. Larkin explained, "When the Church enters into an
'Alliance with the World,'...the end of such an 'Alliance' will be a 'Religious Political Regime' that will
pave the way for the revelation of Satan's great 'Religious Political Leader' and 'Superman' ‒ the
ANTICHRIST."[1] Early in this series we noted that, according to the divine visions given to Daniel, only
after the final kingdom of man (the revived Roman Empire of the Antichrist) has been terminated by
Christ, will the Davidic kingdom be established on earth (Dan. 2:34-35, 43-45; 7:23-27).[2] Thus, the next
kingdom on the horizon is not the kingdom of God but rather the Antichrist's kingdom. Only after the
Antichrist's evil kingdom is personally overthrown by Christ will the Messianic kingdom become an
earthly reality. This basic divinely revealed chronology logically teaches that those involved in kingdom
building in the present Church Age are not contributing to God's kingdom since God's kingdom can only
come after the Antichrist's kingdom has been abolished by God. Rather, they are helping build the next
kingdom on the prophetic horizon, which is the Antichrist's kingdom! Dave Hunt articulates this very
point:
There are many factors that make up the growing apostasy and seduction of the church. One of the
most alarming, least understood, and fastest spreading errors is the teaching that earth instead of
heaven is the ultimate home for the church, and that her goal is to take over the world and establish the
kingdom of God. Only then, it is said, can Christ return—not, however, to take us to His Father's house
as He promised His disciples in John 14, but to reign over the Kingdom which we have established for
Him...if the real Jesus Christ is going to catch His bride up from earth to meet Him in the air (1 Thess.
4:17), then those who work to build a kingdom for a "Christ" whom they will meet with their feet
planted on earth have been under heavy delusion indeed! They have been working for the Antichrist![3]
Ideas have consequences. "Kingdom now" theology has a negative impact upon one's view of
Ecclesiology or the doctrine of the church. Viewing the church as the kingdom shifts the focus of the
church beyond God's intended design. As well noted by Clarence Larkin nearly a century ago, if
"kingdom now" theology should get the upper hand in the church, it will confuse God's original purpose
for the church in at least five fundamental ways. The church will lose its purpose and thus forfeit its
power. The church will no longer see itself as a mere pilgrim passing through Satan's domain. Rather, it
will begin to view itself as being at home in the world. Moreover, the church will forge alliances with
groups that do not share its core biblical convictions so as to foster the political alliance necessary in
order to usher in a "kingdom now" agenda. The church will also cease emphasizing Bible prophecy.
Finally, the church will involve itself in building Satan's kingdom rather than God's kingdom.
SIGNS AND WONDERS
Beyond these concerns, there exists yet another area of monumental change in the life of the church
that will be ushered in when the church embraces "kingdom now" theology. This area relates to the
modern-day signs and wonders movement. There exists today within the body of Christ an intramural
debate concerning the perpetuity of spiritual gifts. Cessationists maintain that the revelatory gifts
(prophecy, knowledge, tongues, interpretation of tongues, etc...) and confirmatory gifts (miracles,
healings, etc...) ceased with the closing of the New Testament canon at the conclusion of the first
century while the edificatory gifts (teaching, mercy, giving, leadership, etc...) remain. Christians of the
Charismatic and Pentecostal variety, on the other hand, remain firm in their conviction that all of the
gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the New Testament are fully functional and operational within the
body of Christ today. While I remain in the Cessationist camp, I continue to have a friendship with and
appreciation for many of my brothers and sisters on the other side of this theological divide. My real
point of contention here is against a type of hyper-Pentecostalism, which contends that signs and
wonders are an absolute necessity in order to win someone to Christ. This approach is sometimes
referred to as "power of evangelism." Such hyper-Pentecostalism places such an emphasis on the
confirmatory and revelatory gifts as well as the necessity of accompanying signs and wonders that it
transitions from being an issue to the central issue, thereby causing all other ecclesiastical issues to pale
by way of comparison.
Although not all Pentecostals are "kingdom now" theologians, it is important to understand that the
above described hyper-Pentecostalism is ultimately rooted in "kingdom now" theology. The reason for
this nexus between the kingdom and signs and wonders is a simple one. The prophesied kingdom will be
a time of unprecedented miracles, signs, and wonders. For example, of the future kingdom, Isaiah 35:5-6
predicts, "Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. Then
the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute will shout for joy." If the kingdom, a predicted
time of unprecedented miracles, is now a present reality, then the present age should also be a time of
unprecedented miracles. In fact, these miracles should be paramount as well as the centerpiece of all
modern ministry activity. Such hyper-Pentecostalism can be found in the mentality and activities of the
Vineyard movement. While not painting with too broad a brush since not all Vineyard leaders or
members represent what could be classified as hyper-Pentecostalism, it is fair to say that a strong dose
of hyper-Pentecostalism resides today within the Vineyard movement.
Interestingly, the late John Wimber, the movement's founder, was heavily influenced by "kingdom now"
theology. According to Wimber's own concession, he derived much of his views of the kingdom from the
writings of George Eldon Ladd. Ladd taught a view called "Historic Premillennialism." Among other
things, the view stands for the proposition that the kingdom is "already but not yet." While contending
that some form of the earthly kingdom will ultimately come in the future millennial reign of Christ, the
kingdom had also already been inaugurated in spiritual form in the present age. Ladd maintained that
Jesus was currently seated and reigning on David's Throne in heaven orchestrating this present spiritual
form of the kingdom. Although as mentioned earlier not all Charismatics and Pentecostals accept
"kingdom now" theology, Wimber was a strong proponent of it. He was explicit in linking his belief in
modern-day signs and wonders to a present manifestation of the kingdom. Note the following
statement by Wimber in his book Power Evangelism.
I was already acquainted with George Eldon Ladd's writings (he was a Fuller Theological Seminary
professor), but it was not until I read his book Jesus and the Kingdom that I realized his work on the
kingdom formed a theological basis for power evangelism. As I read Dr. Ladd's books, and read afresh
the gospel accounts, I became convinced that power evangelism was for today.[4]
The Vineyard embraces the present manifestation of the kingdom as part of its overarching ministry
philosophy:
Commitment to the theology and practice of the kingdom of God is the most fundamental core value in
the Vineyard. When the Vineyard talks about the kingdom, we are talking about the kingdom of God as
a dynamic reality that is the future reign of God breaking into the present through the life and ministry
of Jesus. We have been commissioned to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God, bearing
witness to the already and the not yet of the kingdom in words and deeds. This understanding of the
kingdom of God is the central motif that gives both structure and definition to all of our theology. We
view the kingdom of God as the overarching and integrating theme of the Bible (italics added).[5]
The more open someone becomes to "kingdom now" theology, the more he will naturally move in the
direction of hyper-Charismatic and Pentecostal theology.
Endnotes
[2] See part 4.
[3] Dave Hunt, “Kingdom/Dominion Theology-Part 1,” online:

https://www.thebereancall.org/content/kingdomdominion-theology-part-i, February 1, 1987, accessed
12 July 2015.
[4] John Wimber and Kevin Springer, Power Evangelism, (Minn.: Baker, 2009), 19.
[5] http://www.vineyardusa.org/site/about/vineyard-values/kingdom-of-god
Dr. Andy Woods
In this series, the biblical teaching on the kingdom has been surveyed to demonstrate that Scripture
conveys that the kingdom is a future reality. Moreover, equating the church with the Messianic kingdom
radically alters God's design for the church.
SIGNS AND WONDERS
Another area of monumental change occurs in the life of the church when it embraces "kingdom now"
theology. As explained in the prior installment, this area relates to embracing hyper-Pentecostalism,
which contends that signs and wonders are an absolute necessity in order to effectively evangelize. This
approach is sometimes referred to as "power of evangelism." Hyper-Pentecostalism is rooted in
"kingdom now" theology. The reason for this nexus between the kingdom and signs and wonders is
because the kingdom will be a time of unprecedented miracles (Isa. 35:5-6). If the kingdom, a predicted
time of unprecedented miracles, is now a present reality, then so should be the present age.
Interestingly, the late John Wimber, a leading advocate of power evangelism, was heavily influenced by
"kingdom now" theology. Wimber derived much of his views of the kingdom from the writings of
George Eldon Ladd. Ladd taught a view called "Historic Premillennialism," which stands for the
proposition that the kingdom is "already but not yet." While contending that some form of the earthly
kingdom will ultimately come in the future millennial reign of Christ, the kingdom had also already been
inaugurated in spiritual form in the present age. Ladd maintained that Jesus was currently seated on
David's Throne in heaven orchestrating this present spiritual form of the kingdom. Wimber was explicit
in linking his belief in modern-day signs and wonders to a present manifestation of the kingdom in his
book Power Evangelism:
I was already acquainted with George Eldon Ladd's writings (he was a Fuller Theological Seminary
professor), but it was not until I read his book Jesus and the Kingdom that I realized his work on the
kingdom formed a theological basis for power evangelism. As I read Dr. Ladd's books, and read afresh
the gospel accounts, I became convinced that power evangelism was for today.[1]
Progressive Dispensationalists have also embraced a similar "already but not yet" view of the kingdom.
Interestingly, many Progressive Dispensationalists who have adopted an "already not yet" view of the
kingdom have also moved gradually in the direction of Pentecostalism. For example, in a book
examining the issue of the perpetuity of spiritual gifts entitled Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, leading
Progressive Dispensationalist Robert Saucy opened the door to Pentecostal Theology in a chapter
entitled An Open But Cautious View?[2] Other flirtations by Progressive Dispensationalists with
charismatic theology can also be cited.[3] Thus, the nexus between the kingdom now theology and
modern-day signs and wonders has caused Ryrie to inquire how Progressive Dispensationalism and
Cessationism are intellectually consistent and compatible. He asks:
Non-charismatic progressive dispensationalists have not faced the question as to why signs and wonders
are not characteristic of the church if in fact Christ is already on David's throne. During our Lord's earthly
life many signs validated His claim to be the promised Davidic king for Israel. Now that He is allegedly
reigning as Davidic King (according to progressives), why are there not miraculous signs happening today
in the "already" stage of his Davidic reign?[4]
In actuality, the present age cannot be characterized as the kingdom for the simple reason that the
wide-scale signs and wonders predicted for the kingdom are not a present manifestation. While not
disputing the fact that God can and frequently does intervene providentially and miraculously in His
creation at times (Jas. 5:14-16), these random occurrences do not correspond to the widespread
miracles that will come to the world once the kingdom arrives. Interestingly, although Paul performed
many miraculous signs throughout His ministry (Acts 14:8-12; 20:7-12), the New Testament also testifies
to a gradual waning of the miracles performed through Paul as his ministry was coming to a conclusion.
In 2 Timothy, his final letter, he wrote, "...but Trophimus I left sick at Miletus" (2 Tim. 4:20). Church
history also seems to testify of the cessation of certain New Testament gifts. Notice Chrysostom's (A.D.
345‒407) commentary on First Corinthians 12, which is a key chapter dealing with the gifts of the Holy
Spirit:
This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to
and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they
not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity has produced us again another
question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?[5]
Notice also Augustine's (A.D. 354‒430) remarks regarding the cessation of the sign gifts:
In the earliest times, the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues, which
they had not learned, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Acts 2:4 These were signs adapted to the time.
For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the Gospel of
God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it
passed away...If then the witness of the presence of the Holy Ghost be not now given through these
miracles, by what is it given, by what does one get to know that he has received the Holy Ghost?[6]
If the cessation of certain gifts of the Spirit in the life of the church is indeed a reality, then the kingdom,
a predicted era of miracles, cannot be confused with the present age. Yet, "kingdom now" theology
alters this blueprint and in the process introduces hyper-Pentecostalism into the modern church.
PROSPERITY GOSPEL
Yet another errant view so predominant in the modern church and on so called "Christian" television is
known as the "Prosperity Gospel." According to this theological perspective, the believer, as the child of
the king, is entitled to a life of health and wealth. Thus, if a believer finds himself or herself in a state of
financial poverty or physical illness it is because they either do not have enough spiritual knowledge or
faith to claim their biblical promises of health and wealth or they have not accessed the various divine
verbal laws necessary to speak these realties into personal existence.[7] The Prosperity Gospel
represents yet another theological error that finds its roots in "kingdom now" theology. Like the
connection to "power evangelism," the relationship between the presence of the kingdom and the
promise of health and wealth is easy to understand. The Bible notes the kingdom will be a time of
unprecedented healing (Isa. 35:5-6). In addition to universal healing, the kingdom will also epitomize an
era of unprecedented material abundance. Amos 9:13-14 predicts that the "...the plowman will overtake
the reaper and the treader of grapes him who sows seed; when the mountains will drip sweet wine...My
people...will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, and make gardens and eat their fruit." Thus, if the
kingdom is indeed a present, spiritual reality as maintained by "kingdom now" theologians, then
inevitable healing and worldly riches should also be now accessible to every child of God. D.R.
McConnell, in his critique of the Prosperity Gospel, well explains the dependency of this false teaching
upon "kingdom now" theology.
...The Faith teachers deny that the kingdom of God is in the process of realization, claiming that it is
present in the earth to the point that believers can be delivered from all sin, sickness, and poverty of the
devil. They...claim that the believer has absolute authority to conquer and eradicate these forces of evil
completely from his life. The only process of realization is in the faith of the believer, not in the presence
of God's kingdom. In the jargon of biblical theology, the Faith interpretation of the kingdom of God
could be labeled as a "hyper-realized" eschatology. The Faith eschatology is "hyper realized" because of
its extreme promises to the believer of a life which is absolutely invulnerable to any type of evil. It claims
"that the powers of the age to come" have completely come in this life and that these powers can be
used at will by the believer with enough faith and knowledge of how to operate them. There is no
process of realization of God's kingdom in Faith eschatology; the kingdom can be completely realized in
the lives of those who exercise Faith principles. We see this hyper-realized eschatology in the Faith
doctrines of healing, authority, prosperity, identification and deification. The over realized nature of
Faith eschatology emphasizes the "Now" of the kingdom of God...The... "Not yet" mystery of the
kingdom and its powers is distorted by the hyper-realized eschatology of the Faith movement.[8]
In actuality, the present age cannot be characterized as the kingdom since New Testament heroes, such
as the Apostle Paul, did not enjoy lives of unlimited heath and wealth. Paul suffered from frequent
illnesses (Gal. 4:13) and learned to be content both in financial abundance and material scarcity (Phil.
4:12). Illness as well as poverty can be identified in other godly New Testament examples such as
Timothy (1 Tim. 5:23), the Macedonians (2 Cor. 8:2-3), and the Church at Smyrna (Rev. 2:9). If poverty
and illness can be a reality in the life of the Christian, then the kingdom, a predicted era of health and
wealth, cannot be confused with the present age. Yet, "kingdom now" theology alters this blueprint and
in the process introduces the false theology of the Prosperity Gospel into the modern church.
ANTI-ISRAELISM
A final area of ecclesiastical change as a consequence of embracing "kingdom now" theology pertains to
the advent of anti-Israelism within the church. When the church views itself as the kingdom of God on
the earth, it has a tendency to become either apathetic about or even belligerent toward the notion that
God will one day establish His future kingdom upon the earth through His work with the nation of Israel.
After all, why be concerned about a future kingdom that will come to the earth through the Jew if we
are in a spiritual form of the kingdom now and the church has become the new, spiritual Israel. Alva J.
McClain notes, "The confusion of our Lord's rule...leads to serious consequences...it makes the present
age the period of the Mediatorial Kingdom...it dissolves the divinely covenanted purpose in the nation of
Israel."[9]
Thus, it comes as no surprise to discover that the teachings of "kingdom now" theologians are replete
with anti-Israel sentiments not only against God's future work through Israel but also toward His
precursor to this work as represented by the existence of the modern state of Israel. For example, Gary
DeMar expresses such "kingdom now" sentiments when he says, "God has not called us to forsake the
earth, but to impress heaven's pattern on earth."[10] He similarly notes, "Christians must be obedient to
the mandate God has given to extend His kingdom to every sphere of life, to every corner of the globe
(Gen 1:26–28; Matt 28:18-20)." Yet just as clear, or perhaps even clearer, than his "kingdom now"
theology is DeMar's anti-Israel mentality, when he proclaims:
Where is this "super sign" found in the Bible? Not in the New Testament. There is not a single verse in
the entire New Testament that says anything about Israel becoming a nation again. Nothing prophetic in
the New Testament depends on Israel becoming a nation again. If Israel becoming a nation again is such
"a significant sign," then why doesn't the New Testament specifically mention it?[11]
We find this identical pattern in the teachings of "kingdom now" theologian Gary North. North notes,
"The goal of establishing Christ's international kingdom can be presented to citizens of any nation."
Elsewhere North observes, "Christians are required to become active in the building God's visible
kingdom." He similarly explains, "If the Christian church fails to build the visible kingdom by means of
biblical law and the power of the gospel, despite the resurrection of Christ in the presence of the Holy
Spirit, then what kind of religion are we preaching?" North also teaches, "The parable (Matt 13:24–30,
36–43) refers to the building of the kingdom of God, not simply to the institutional church." As is the
case with Gary DeMar, the anti-Israel sentiment is just as clear in the teachings of Gary North as is his
"kingdom now" belief system. Thomas Ice reports, "Gary North has boasted that he has a book already
in his computer for when 'Israel gets pushed into the sea, or converted to Christ.'"[12] This disturbing
pattern makes it quite apparent that the church runs the risk of becoming progressively more anti-Israel,
both in its sentiment toward a future kingdom through Israel as well as toward the modern state of
Israel, the further she experiences an ecclesiastical drift into "kingdom now" theology. All things
considered, "kingdom now" theology has a deleterious impact on the perspective, purpose, mission, and
life of the church in very real, tangible, and practical ways.
CONCLUSION
As promised at the onset, due to the dominance of "kingdom now" theology in modern evangelical
thought, we have completed a lengthy series on the subject of the kingdom. First, the biblical teaching
on the kingdom of God has been surveyed from Genesis to Revelation. Second, this series set forth some
general problems with a New Testament based "kingdom now" interpretation. Third, this series
examined the isolated New Testament texts that "kingdom now" theologians use in order to
demonstrate their insufficiency to convey "kingdom now" theology. Fourth, this series noted why the
trend of equating God's present work in the church with the messianic kingdom is a matter believers
should be concerned about since this theology radically alters God's design for the church. My hope and
prayer is that God will use this series, and other like-minded resources, to strengthen God's people to
stand against the pernicious tide of "kingdom now" theology that is so prevalent in our day.
(End of Series)
Endnotes
[1] John Wimber and Kevin Springer, Power Evangelism, Rev. ed. (Minn.: Baker, 2009), 19.
[2] Robert L. Saucy, "An Open but Cautious View," in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today: Four Views, ed.
Stanley N. Gundry(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 97-148.
[3] Dan Wallace, “The Uneasy Conscience of a Non-Charismatic Evangelical,” online:

https://bible.org/article/uneasy-conscience-non-charismatic-evangelical, 1994, accessed 04 September
2015.
[4] Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, rev ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 177.
[5] Chrysostom, Homily 29 on First Corinthians. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220129.htm.
[6] Augustine, Homily 6:10 on the First Epistle of John. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/170206.htm.
[7] For a book-length critique of the "Prosperity Gospel," see Michael Horton, ed. The Agony of Deceit:
What Some Teachers Are Really Teaching (Chicago: Moody, 1990).
[8] D.R. McConnell, A Different Gospel: A Bold and Revealing Look at the Historical Basis of the Word of
Faith Movement, Updated and electronic ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2011), loc. 4813-4846.
[9] Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom; an Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God as Set
Forth in the Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 438.
[10] The following quotes (and sourcing) from various "kingdom now" theologians, such as Gary DeMar
and Gary North, can be found in H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or
Curse? (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1988), 409-11.
[11] Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology (Nashville, TN:
Nelson, 2001), 203.
[12] Personal letter from Gary North to Peter Lalonde, April 30, 1987 on file; cited in Thomas Ice,
“Answering Those Who Oppose Israel,” online: www.pre-trib.org, accessed 21 October 2015, 1.

The Coming Kingdom

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Coming Kingdom

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Coming Kingdom

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Coming Kingdom – Part 1

Dr. Andy Woods

Early Genesis and the Kingdom

[3] Cited in Oakland, Faith Undone, 158.