Kingdom and Eschatology
In the typical study of eschatology, people invariably want to know those things that are quite secondary, and sometimes that which Jesus expressly says that we cannot know. And yet of all of the eschatological themes that are clear in the New Testament, I would argue that there are two that are clearest of all—the coming of the kingdom of Christ and His second coming. The latter we will approach in another section. First, we should get a basic understanding of what the Bible calls the “kingdom of God,” which it literally “realizes” in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, who is its chosen human King.
Herman Ridderbos went as far as to say that,
“The central theme of Jesus’ message, as it has come down to us in the synoptic gospels, is the coming of the kingdom of God or, as it is usually expressed in Matthew, of the kingdom of heaven … It may be rightly said that the whole of the preaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles is concerned with the kingdom of God.”1
We will approach this subject from the perspective of historic Reformed Covenant Theology first, as that is my own position. The view that is most opposed to that within modern Evangelicalism is called Dispensationalism. We will come to that latter view afterwards in order to make some comparisons.
The Essence of the Kingdom of God
There is what we might call a “wide-angle lens” conception of the kingdom: that is, the whole of God’s dominion. Augustine famously described it as the City of God: “a city surpassingly glorious, whether we view it as it still lives by faith in this fleeting course of time, and sojourns as a stranger in the midst of the ungodly, or as it shall dwell in the fixed stability of its eternal seat.”2
Now the earthly expression is often said to have begun in Eden. Adam was Eden’s king, Eve the queen. But as Beale notes, “ancient Near Eastern kings being said to be in the image of their gods was part of ‘the institution of kingship itself’” And he goes on to speak of how “Adam should have slain and judged the serpent … In this light, the tree in Eden seems to have been the symbolic place where judgment was to be carried out … The name of the tree—‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’—of which Adam was not to eat, was suggestive of his magisterial duty.”3
Should someone object, “But Adam lost that dominion, and now the devil has it—case closed,” I would reply there is an insurmountable difficulty in this. It is a difficulty that comes with the gospel itself. Not only does the Psalmist affirm the good of dominion in Psalm 8:6, very much post-fall, but the author of Hebrews tells us who fulfills that and for whom:
“Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (2:8-9).
These passages are an example of protology and teleology informing our eschatology. Adam failed; but God did not. But God designed Adam as a “priest-king” over his world, so that in Christ (and through His people) this same design will ultimately succeed. This is true no matter which millennial position one takes. God will have His image-bearers exercising dominion for His glory in the end.
George Eldon Ladd wrote,
“Although the expression ‘the Kingdom of God’ does not occur in the Old Testament, the idea is found throughout the prophets. God is frequently spoken of as the King, both of Israel (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15) and of all the earth (II Kings 19:15; Isa. 6:5; Jer. 46:18; Ps. 29:10; 47:2; 93; 96:10; 97:1 ff.; 99:1-4; 145:11 ff.).”4
Ridderbos affirms the same. He goes on that what we do find in the Old Testament may be divided into two concepts: “the former concerns the universal power and dominion of God over the whole world and all the nations, and is founded in the creation of heaven and earth. The latter denotes the special relationship between the Lord and Israel.”5 We should keep this division in mind when we come to the two senses in which Christ is King over the kingdom. The roots of that dual reign are already theological.
John Bright, in his book The Kingdom of God, offers a definition that takes into account not only the scope of God’s rule but its movement in history: “It involves the whole notion of the rule of God over his people and particularly the vindication of that rule and people in glory at the end of history.”6
Sin, Rebellion, and the Need for an Advancing Kingdom
If we understand God’s kingdom as his whole reign and rule over all that He ordains to be, then we would have to conclude that all is in his kingdom. And yet because of sin, there is another sense in which (in this age) we have to take seriously some kind of “two kingdom” language. Returning to Augustine, he spoke of this in terms of a heavenly and an earthly city, each progressing forward in history toward the end.
However, there is another, more modern, “two kingdom” language that is concerned to distinguish between the church (its powers and prerogatives) and the civil sphere. Those are indeed different powers and prerogatives; but these two different ways of using the language of “two kingdoms” respect different objects.
It seems to me that many take the divide between the covenant of grace and covenant of works (or even between the covenant of grace and the Noahic covenant) to imply that the kingdom of God is now—for those in Christ, living “in between the two ages”—only a matter of spiritual things. But what exactly does this mean? Surely the same people wouldn’t deny that the bread and wine and water of the sacraments, and the pages of the Bible, are not “part of” that kingdom. So where do we draw the line and why? It cannot be between mere physicality. That would be rather Gnostic.
We can speak of an “advancing-angle lens” conception of the kingdom. This is seen in a most obvious way in how the kingdom is promises throughout the Old Testament. Why speaking of it “coming” if it is already over all things? There are many elements of a kingdom that makes all that is wrong into right. Let me focus on just three.
First, An inheritance of nations to the Son of God. If the kingdom starts with its King, then we might consider Psalms 2 and 110 as foundational. Christ is given a throne and all of the peoples of the earth to rule over in righteousness. This will issue forth into either a realm of blessing or else puishment, depending on how one has reacted to the King.
Second, The restoration of the whole of creation. When John the Baptist was imprisoned and demoralized, how did Jesus reply to whether or not He was the one, or whether they should look for another? What was the evidence that the kingdom promises were being fulfilled?
“Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them” (Mat. 11:4-5).
In other words, you will know that the kingdom of Christ is showing up when God’s good creation is being restored.
Third, Deliverance for God’s people from all her enemies. Paul’s description of the Second Coming in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 is of a vengeance. Christ simultaneously saves His people and destroys those who are enemies to His realm.
By now it should be clear that the kingdom is exclusive and particularistic with respect to salvation. The preaching of the kingdom for Jesus was an admonition. There is an “inside” and “outside” and a daytime and nightfall at which point it would be too late: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mat. 3:2).
“I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness” (Mat. 8:11).
“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mat. 13:47-50).
Sin exiles one from this kingdom: “O LORD, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill?” (Ps. 15:1)
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10; cf. Gal. 5:19-21).
So the kingdom that lasts forever actually begins the size of the Virgin Birth and expands outward in each and every conversion. Observe,
“Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God … unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:3, 5).
What about the sense in which the kingdom is described as though it were being manifested through the church?
Calvin saw a more narrow definition of the kingdom, according to the way in which it is described by Jesus as bursting onto the scene in the First Advent: “The kingdom of heaven is the renovation of the Church, or the prosperous condition of the Church, such as was then beginning to appear by the preaching of the Gospel.”7
Several of the kingdom parables have present dimensions that can only make sense as the regular life and mission of the church. It’s growth (Mat. 13:31-33), the seeking of it (Mat. 13:44), extending its invitation (Mat. 22:9), proper discernment of enemies (Mat. 13:28-30) are all aspects the present age, implying that the life of Christians is presently in that kingdom.
Even in this cursory glance, we can see that we will need more information to make sense of the kingdom being one thing over all, and yet an advancing thing that draws a line between two warring human races and between two worlds. I suggest that the fundamental category to look for more is in the doctrine about its King.
__________________
1. Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1962), xi.
2. Augustine, City of God, I. preface
3. G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 31, 34, 35.
4. George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 46.
5. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 4.
6. John Bright, The Kingdom of God (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1953), 18.
7. Calvin, Commentaries, XVI:279.
