Microsoft Word - MSJ Fall 2012 articles Oct 27 2012 edits

173

MSJ 23/2 (Fall 2012) 173–192

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

William D. Barrick, Th.D.

Professor of Old Testament

The Master’s Seminary

God’s kingdom program is a major theme of both the Old Testament and New

Testament. Since the New Testament builds upon the literal meaning of the Old

Testament message, a thorough study of both testaments is necessary to understand

the kingdom. An inductive study of the kingdom, based on sound hermeneutical

principles, will show that the Lord’s plan for His kingdom dominates history from

the first creation to the new creation. The Old Testament predicts a coming earthly

kingdom, a kingdom that will be fulfilled someday through Jesus Christ, the second

Adam, and the One who fulfills the covenants of Scripture.

*****

Introduction

The kingdom of God does not appear as a peripheral topic in Scripture. Both

testaments speak of God’s kingdom. Students of Scripture must understand the

kingdom in order to properly apply its truths and their implications. Too often the

readers of Scripture, and we as dispensationalists in particular, tend to limit the

topic of the kingdom of God to a discussion merely of the eschatological and

earthly messianic kingdom of one thousand years duration. In the same fashion, the

discussion too often addresses the matter of the future land of Israel alone. On the

other hand, too many scholars automatically assume that the kingdom of God refers

only to greater spiritual realities with reference to salvation and either ignore or

deny outright the reality of a literal eschatological and earthly kingdom. In truth, the

earthly and eschatological messianic kingdom yet to come is only one part of the

program of God. Referring to the overall kingdom program as the universal

kingdom and to the outworking of that kingdom through history as the mediatorial

kingdom helps in the discussion and development of theological thought.

In any treatment of this topic, we dare not treat the OT any differently than the

NT treats it. NT writers took the OT seriously—and literally. So must we. As

174 | The Master’s Seminary Journal

Jelinek reminds us, “Wherever the testaments appear to take a differing view or

where an OT subject is not explicitly treated, we are not justified in emasculating

the OT by the virtues of the NT. Instead we must consider the perspectives in some

way complementary.”

Unless a reader consistently spiritualizes every reference to

the kingdom, it is next to impossible to deny that it is eschatological, earthly, and

messianic. But does that messianic kingdom exhaust the biblical teachings

concerning God’s kingdom? According to Alva J. McClain, “The Kingdom of God

is, in a certain important sense, the grand central theme of all Holy Scripture.”

The OT concept of the kingdom of God relates directly to God’s sovereignty

throughout all the ages.

We serve a sovereign God who controls His program

throughout history. God’s kingdom program does not commence late in the OT as

some form of prophetic movement or as a new theological construct later converted

into a spiritualized concept. God began His kingdom program at creation, long

before the establishment of an earthly messianic kingdom. As Erich Sauer puts the

case, “God is Ruler. He rules over matter. He forms and shapes and moulds it into a

well-ordered whole. He is therefore the Lord of all development, the God of

history.”

The eschatological kingdom brings to completion God’s kingdom

program. We habitually give at least lip service to the literal eschatological

kingdom whenever we recite the Lord’s Prayer—“Your kingdom come.

Your will

be done,

On earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10).

First, the prayer itself recognizes

that the kingdom has not yet arrived, since it prays for it to come. It is yet future. It

is not the church. Thus, the church prays the apostolic prayer appointed by Christ:

“Your kingdom come.”

Part of the reason God’s kingdom has not yet come stems from fallen

mankind’s consistent antagonism to God’s sovereign purpose for His own earthly

kingdom.

From ancient times Babylon has served as the chief representative of this

rebellion. According to Eugene Merrill, Nimrod (Gen 10:8–10) provided leadership

John A. Jelinek, “The Dispersion and Restoration of Israel to the Land,” in Israel, The Land and

the People: An Evangelical Affirmation of God’s Promises, ed. by H. Wayne House, 231–58 (Grand

Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998), 236.

Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God

(Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), 4–5. This same focus is apparent in Eugene H. Merrill’s appropriately

entitled OT theology, Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: B&H

Publishing Group, 2006).

See Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference!: A Comparison of Covenant and

Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1990), 156.

Erich Sauer, The King of the Earth: The Nobility of Man according to the Bible and Science

(1962; repr., Exeter, UK: Paternoster Press, 1979), 48.

The aorist imperative calls for action viewed as a single whole, for action to be done in its

entirety on that occasion. It involves a sense of urgency in petitions. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar

Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing

House, 1996), 719–20.

The passive imperative occasionally is equivalent to a statement that is fulfilled at the moment of

speaking. Ibid., 492.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Updated

(NAU).

Cf. Merrill, Everlasting Dominion, 223.

The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

| 175

in a movement to sidetrack the kingdom program of the Lord in favor of one of

human creation. The Babel (Babylon) kingdom of God antithesis marks the pages

of the sacred text, not only throughout the OT but the NT as well (Isa 47:1–15;

48:14–15; Jer 50–51; Dan 2, 4; Rev 17–18). Babylon epitomizes all the cities and

nations of the world that challenge the City of God and His dominion.

Babylon still opposes God’s kingdom whereby man intends to establish his

own kingdom contrary to the one of God’s design. In the Fall, man abdicated his

regency in God’s kingdom. After the global flood, Noah failed to exercise his

mediatorial role as vice-regent. David, though the recipient of the kingdom promise

(2 Sam 7:8–16), falls short of the eschatological kingdom hope. Thus, historically,

the glimmers of hope fade and mankind still awaits the regency of the second Adam

(cf. 1 Cor 15:22, 45, 47), Jesus Christ.

Second, Christ’s prayer echoes and is patterned after the OT prayer of David

himself which also focuses on God’s sovereignty in 1 Chron 29:11:

Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory

and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Yours

is the dominion, O LORD, and You exalt Yourself as head over all.

The Lord’s Prayer is kingdom-saturated and kingdom-oriented, and it acts as a

reminder to the disciples that because of their fallen state they cannot be the

anticipated mediators. Their leadership and their program, their teaching and

preaching, and their miracle-working will not establish the mediatorial kingdom.

The disciples are not the second Adam.

How can the kingdom of God exist in two different forms? It might help to

understand the distinctions by comparing the universal kingdom to God’s

omnipresence while taking the eschatological kingdom as comparable to His

emphasized, localized residence by which the omnipresent God resides in the pillar

of fire and pillar of cloud at the Tabernacle or at the Temple—or, His residency

within the believer while not residing in the unbeliever. An alternative comparison

might consist of the universal church as distinguished from the local church as its

immediate manifestation. Yet another analogy exists with the believer being

presently a citizen of the kingdom of heaven, but not yet residing in heaven.

Therefore, both the universal kingdom and the historical, mediatorial kingdom are

distinct entities, wherein the latter is the localized and temporal expression of the

former.

Considering the Vocabulary of Kingdom

A brief survey of the Hebrew root mlk (ךלמ) reveals the distribution of the

concept of kingship and kingdom throughout the OT. Forms of this root occur

3,154 times in the Hebrew Bible. The vast majority of uses involve human kings

and kingdoms. Soggin’s table in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (TLOT)

provides the statistics for the verb (347x) as well as the cognate nouns “king”

Ibid., 224.

176 | The Master’s Seminary Journal

(2,526x), “queen” (40x), “kingship” (24x), “kingdom” (91x), and

“dominion/royalty” (126x).

The interpreter must avoid thinking that this word

group comprises the totality of revelation on the concepts of kingship, kingdom,

and royalty in the OT. We must consider other Hebrew words like הָד ָר (rādâ, “rule”;

e.g., Num 24:19; Ps 110:2), לַשָׁמ (māšal, “rule”; e.g., Ps 8:7 [Eng. 6]; Zech 6:13),

שׁבכ (kbš, “subjugate/subdue”; e.g., Gen 1:28), טַפָשׁ (šāpaṭ, “judge/govern”; e.g.,

Obad 21), ןיִדּ (dîn, “judge”; e.g., Ps 9:5 [Eng. 4]), רַשׂ (śar,

“prince/commander/chief”; e.g., Isa 9:5 [Eng. 6]), אֵסִּכּ (kissēʾ, “throne”; e.g., Isa 6:1;

Jer 3:17), טֶבֵשׁ (šēbeṭ, “scepter”; e.g., Gen 49:10), and הֶטַּמ (maṭṭeh, “rod/scepter”;

e.g., Ps 110:2; Jer 48:17), and לָכיֵה (hêkāl, “palace”; e.g., Mic 1:2). Even if we

exhaust the vocabulary, some biblical texts that speak obviously of a divine

kingdom or divine king do not manifest any of the regular vocabulary. Note how

the Song of Moses at the Reed Sea (Exod 15:2–18) makes no specific mention of

the expected vocabulary until the final line: “Yahweh reigns (ךלמ, mlk) forever and

ever” (v. 18). Psalm 118 uses no kingdom vocabulary, yet in the NT both Jesus and

several of the apostles understand its reference to the “corner stone” to refer to the

Messiah’s elevation to kingship over the kingdom of God (Matt 21:42; Mark 12:10;

Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4–8).

The reader will do well to commence this study with the understanding that a

kingdom possesses four essential elements: first, a right to rule;

second, a rule;

third, a realm to be ruled; and, fourth, the exercise of the function of rulership.

These defining elements help to maintain an understanding of biblical teaching

beyond a mere reference to the right of kingship or limiting it to the person of the

King himself.

Promised Potential Fulfilled

One of the major features of an earthly kingdom involves the fulfillment of

God’s original creative purposes for mankind. Sometimes we tend to focus so much

on Israel that we neglect the physical aspects of the messianic kingdom that apply

to all mankind. However, one who commences the study with the first kingdom

revelation will soon understand that God’s eschatological kingdom is an outgrowth

of His kingdom from creation onward. McClain astutely declares that

if men would understand clearly the future consummation of the Kingdom,

they must first understand the Kingdom in history; if they expect to

understand the Kingdom of which our Lord spoke, they must first consider

J. A. Soggin, “ֶלֶמ melek king,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 3 vols., ed. by

Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, trans. by Mark E. Biddle, 2:672–80 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson

Publishers, 1997), 673–74.

McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 17 gives only three, but includes this right in his “rule

with adequate authority.”

The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

| 177

what the Old Testament prophets have said about it; if they desire to expound

the Book of Revelation, they must begin with the Book of Daniel.

With mild apologies to McClain, this writer begs to disagree very slightly and

to make an adjustment. Biblically, in order to expound either the book of

Revelation or the book of Daniel, we must begin with the book of Genesis.

Arie Leder, while expounding upon the story line of the Pentateuch, remarks

that “Royal language is a pervasive metaphor in the Pentateuch.”

John Sailhamer,

in a similar fashion, concludes that the major poetic seams within the Pentateuch

(Gen 49; Num 24; Deut 32) link the narrative by means of a single theme focused

on Messiah with royal imagery.

Indeed, the entire Hebrew Bible, from Genesis to

Chronicles, reveals a focus on dynasty and dominion that finds ultimate fulfillment

through the line of David.

As Stephen Dempster notes, “Significantly, a key

concept in the last narrative section of the Tanakh that begins with Daniel and ends

with Chronicles is the term ‘kingdom’ (of God). The Tanakh ends on a note of

hope, pointing to the future.”

The flow of Scripture proceeds from a global perspective and narrows to a

focus on the Davidic Messiah, then opens up again to close with the book of

Revelation and its renewed global/universal extension of the kingdom of God.

Figure 1. Chiastic Structure of the Kingdom Program in Scripture

Genesis 1:1 Creation

Genesis 1:3 God’s Light

Genesis 1:26 Man’s Rule

Genesis 2:8–17 Old Eden

Genesis 3:17 Curse

. . . etc.

Revelation 21:4; 22:3 No Curse

Revelation 22:1–2 New Eden

Revelation 20:4 Man’s Rule

Revelation 21:23; 22:5 God’s Light

Revelation 21:1 New Creation

Ibid., 6.

Arie C. Leder, Waiting for the Land: The Story Line of the Pentateuch (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R

Publishing, 2010), 43.

John H. Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and

Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 242. See, also, Michael Rydelnik, The

Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville:

B&H Academic, 2010), 70–72.

Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible, New Studies in

Biblical Theology, ed. by D. A. Carson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 48–49.

Ibid., 49.

See Dempster’s chart in Dominion and Dynasty, 232. In other words, the eschatology

recapitulates protology in inverse order. Warren Austin Gage, The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in

Protology and Eschatology (Winona Lake, IN: Carpenter Books, 1984), 16 outlined this approach nearly

thirty years ago.

178 | The Master’s Seminary Journal

Figure 2. Chiastic Structure of the Anti-Kingdom Program in Scripture

Genesis 1:1 Creation

Genesis 3:1 Satan’s Freedom

Genesis 6–8 Worldwide Judgment

Genesis 10–11 Babel/Babylon

. . . etc.

Revelation 17–18 Babylon

Revelation 19:11–19 Worldwide Judgment

Revelation 20:2–3 Satan’s Confinement

Revelation 21:1 New Creation

Both of the chiasms presented in the previous two figures (Figures 1 and 2)

can be extended much further than the nested parallels depicted above. The first

chiasm focuses on the kingdom program of God while the second chiasm focuses

on the anti-kingdom program resulting from Satan’s rebellion and mankind’s fall.

Protology (doctrine of first things) and eschatology (doctrine of last things) point to

Christ as the focal point of divine history (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Christ, the Focal Point of Biblical History

Revelation 19:10

The kingdom of God has existed through all time from creation (Ps 10:16).

Geerhardus Vos noted quite succinctly that “A God who cannot create cannot

consummate things because he is conditioned by something outside himself . . . .”

It comprehends the entire universe, not just mankind, not just planet earth (Ps

103:19; Isa 24:23). Although God is His kingdom’s High King and ultimate

Sovereign, He has chosen to rule the kingdom mediately (Ps 59:13; cf. Ps 8). His

first mediatorial ruler was the first man Adam.

Geerhardus Vos, The Eschatology of the Old Testament, ed. by James T. Dennison, Jr.

(Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2001), 1. Vos wraps up this thought as follows: “that will not lend

itself to him for the execution of a set purpose and for the plastic handling of what is antecedently given

to him toward that end. For eschatology, God needs not only to be the Potter sovereign with reference to

the clay, but he needs to be a Potter who can produce his own clay with reference to its tractableness.”

The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

| 179

Mankind’s Created Potential

Dominion: Genesis 1:28; Psalm 8:4–8; Hebrews 2:5–9; 2 Timothy

2:12.

Fruitfulness and

Multiplication: Psalm 72:16–17; Isaiah 60:22.

In the pre-Fall world, God, in His own royal role as the High King of creation,

established His chosen vice-regents, Adam and Eve, to rule immediately over all

the earth:

“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 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” (Gen 1:26, 28).

The Fall interrupted God’s creation blessing and mandate for mankind.

Tragically, fulfillment of mankind’s promised potential cannot come to its fullest

expression because of mankind’s fallen nature. Any exercise of that original

dominion proves to be incomplete and imperfect. The psalmist refers to that high

and lofty role in Ps 8:3–9:

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,

The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;

What is man that You take thought of him,

And the son of man that You care for him?

Yet You have made him a little lower than God,

And You crown him with glory and majesty!

You make him to rule over the works of Your hands;

You have put all things under his feet,

All sheep and oxen,

And also the beasts of the field,

The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea,

Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.

O LORD, our Lord,

How majestic is Your name in all the earth!

Thus the psalmist presents the ideal for mankind, not the current reality—the

designed future of kingdom rule, not the diminished past and present. Of course,

Messiah, as the “Son of Man,” will fulfill mankind’s role as the human race’s only

perfect representative. Listen to the writer of Hebrews:

For He did not subject to angels the world to come, concerning which we are

speaking. But one has testified somewhere, saying, “WHAT IS MAN, THAT

YOU REMEMBER HIM? OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE

180 | The Master’s Seminary Journal

CONCERNED ABOUT HIM? YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE

WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS; YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM

WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE

WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN

SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET.” For in subjecting all things to him, He

left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things

subjected to him. But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower

than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with

glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for

everyone. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through

whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of

their salvation through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who

are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to

call them brethren, saying, “I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY

BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING

YOUR PRAISE.” . . . Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood,

He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might

render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, . . . (Heb

2:5–12, 14)

The writer states that “we do not yet see all things subjected to” Christ—His

mediatorial kingdom has not commenced. In the end, even the currently reigning

prince of this world, Satan (John 12:31; Eph 2:2), will come under the Messiah’s

reign and kingdom power. As long as Satan reigns as prince of this world, the

kingdom of Christ has yet to be established. For that reason Jesus taught His

disciples to pray, “Your kingdom come.”

Israel’s Covenanted Potential

In the pages of the OT we find that Yahweh has entered into six covenants

with the people of Israel:

the Abrahamic, the Mosaic,

the Priestly,

the

Deuteronomic,

the Davidic, and the New. God unilaterally and unconditionally

promulgated the terms or stipulations of all six biblical covenants. Man had no

significant choice in their wording. The covenants were not the product of human

manipulation—they were imposed and enforced by a sovereign God. Ultimately, all

covenantal promises will be fulfilled.

These covenants are distinct from the Noahic Covenant which was established with non-

Israelites long before the existence of Abraham and his descendants.

The Mosaic Covenant is also known as the Sinaitic Covenant.

The Priestly Covenant is also called the Levitical or Zadokite Covenant.

“Deut also adds to the Horeb covenant another, made in the land of Moab, prior to the entry

into the land, a covenant that seems to be a renewal of the former and similar in character” — Gordon J.

McConville, “tyrIB.,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 5 vols.,

ed. by Willem A. VanGemeren, 1:747–55 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 750. The

Deuteronomic Covenant is sometimes given the title of “Palestinian Covenant.” Some theologians

include this covenant in the Mosaic Covenant, rather than distinguish between the two.

The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

| 181

Figure 4. The Biblical Covenants with Israel

According to the Abrahamic Covenant, the following themes will highlight

covenant fulfillment for the descendants of Abraham:

Nation: “I will make you a great nation” (Gen 12:2).

Seed: “count the stars . . . So shall your descendants be” (Gen 15:5).

Land: “To your descendants I have given this land” (Gen 15:18).

Blessing: “in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (12:3).

Kingdom:

“your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies” (22:17).

If it is possible to demonstrate that the Abrahamic Covenant is a permanent,

unilateral, unconditional, and immutable covenant, then there is no way that the

disobedience of either Abraham, Jacob, or the Israelites could have abrogated or

annulled its promises. First, Scripture labels the covenant as an “everlasting

covenant” (Gen 17:7, 13, 19; 1 Chron 16:17; Ps 105:10). Regardless of

circumstances, God’s promise is permanent

—He will eventually fulfill it. Second,

God established His covenant with Abraham while the latter slept (Gen 15:12)—it

was a unilateral commitment that did not depend upon Abraham’s continued

obedience for its ultimate fulfillment. Yes, one might argue that this covenant could

Cp. William D. Barrick, “The Mosaic Covenant,” Master’s Seminary Journal 10, no. 2 (Fall

1999): 218, Figure 2. Over the past thirteen years, I have developed the themes more completely and, I

believe, more accurately. Recommended reading: this entire MSJ issue presents articles by TMS faculty

on the biblical covenants.

See Gen 49:10.

John H. Walton, Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing

House, 1994), 132, points out that possible translations of ~l'A[ “include ‘indefinitely, permanently, in

perpetuity or perpetual, enduring, always.’ It expresses open-endedness or an agreement without

specified end.” He states that “The implication of the terminology is that these agreements are not

temporary, not stopgap, nor on a trial basis. They are permanent in the sense that no other alternative

arrangement to serve that purpose is envisioned” (ibid.).

182 | The Master’s Seminary Journal

not commence until Abraham had left his home country (Gen 12:1), but once God

enacts the covenant, its fulfillment no longer depends on Abraham’s obedience. His

obedience “was a foregone conclusion (Gen 18:19). The renewal to Isaac and Jacob

was based upon the past obedience of Abraham, not on the continued obedience of

the seed of Abraham (Gen 26:3, 5).”

Third, this covenant was unconditional. No

conditions are stated in any of the repetitions of that covenant’s stipulations. Fourth,

God’s promises in this covenant are immutable according to NT revelation (Heb

6:13–18; cf. Gal 3:15; cp. Ps 89:33–37). Biblical history emphasizes this fact by

repeated confirmation of the covenant’s promises to individuals like Jacob, who

had been disobedient (Gen 28:13–15).

For the Mosaic Covenant, some of the same themes recur as a progressive

development of divine revelation founded upon the Abrahamic Covenant:

Nation: “you shall be to Me . . . a holy nation” (Exod 19:6).

Land: “that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God

gives you” (Exod 20:12).

Blessing: “He will love you and bless you and multiply you . . . You shall be

blessed above all peoples” (Deut 7:13–14).

Kingdom: “and you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod

19:6).

Although expositors often overlook the Priestly Covenant, it likewise echoes

at least two of these themes in its association with the Davidic Covenant:

Blessing: “My covenant of peace” (Num 25:12).

Kingdom: “David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel

and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before me” (Jer 33:17–

18).

Zechariah 6:13 reveals that the Messiah “will be a priest on His throne.”

These dual offices, king and priest, bring together the two key roles of the

mediatorial kingdom’s ruler. What Israel did not accomplish in their appointment as

a “kingdom of priests” in the Mosaic Covenant, the Messiah will fulfill as their

representative.

Later in progressive revelation, the Deuteronomic Covenant likewise spoke

of a number of these themes:

Nation: “that He may establish you today as His people” (Deut 29:13).

Land: “in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers to give you” (Deut

28:11).

Blessing: “The LORD will open for you His good storehouse, the heavens, to give

rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hand”

(Deut 28:12).

William G. Bellshaw, Clarifying God’s Covenants: Adult Teacher Bible Study Guide (Denver,

CO: Baptist Publications, 1971), 42.

Cp. Ezek 34:24–25.

The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

| 183

Kingdom: “The LORD will make you the head and not the tail, and you only will

be above . . .” (Deut 28:13).

When the prophet Nathan announced the Davidic Covenant, it also featured

equivalent themes:

Nation: “That you should be ruler over My people Israel” (2 Sam 7:8).

Seed: “I will raise up your descendant after you” (2 Sam 7:12); “your house . . .

shall endure before Me forever” (7:16).

Land: “I will also appoint a place for My people Israel” (2 Sam 7:10).

Blessing: “let men bless themselves by him; Let all nations call him blessed” (Ps

72:17).

Kingdom: “your kingdom shall endure before Me forever” (2 Sam 7:16).

One of the major issues concerning the Davidic covenant in present-day

discussion/debate involves whether Christ is currently seated on the throne of

David. According to John Walvoord, “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.”

Some interpreters confuse the Father’s

throne with the throne of David—the two are not identical—Christ is currently

seated on the Father’s throne according to Scripture, not the Davidic throne.

Finally, the New Covenant contains the same basic themes:

Nation: “Shall [not] cease from being a nation before Me forever” (Jer 31:36).

Seed: “I will sow . . . with the seed of man” (Jer 31:27); “the offspring of Israel

shall [not] cease” (31:36).

Land: “The city shall be rebuilt for the LORD” (Jer 31:38); “it shall not be

plucked up or overthrown anymore forever” (31:40).

Blessing: “I will put My law within them . . . I will forgive” (Jer 31:33–34).

Kingdom: “the city will be rebuilt for the LORD . . . And the whole valley of the

dead bodies . . . and all the fields . . . shall be holy to the LORD” (Jer

31:38–40).

In summary, the dominant theme of all six biblical covenants is blessing.

Since those covenants are based upon the Abrahamic, that is an expected emphasis.

The second most frequent themes are land and nation. Biblical covenants indicate a

continuing nation of Israel in the land promised to Abraham and his descendants.

Ultimately, the true seed of Abraham is the Messiah Himself. The Messiah fulfills

John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Dunham Publishing Co., 1959),

203. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Recovering the Unity of the Bible: One Continuous Story, Plan, and Purpose

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 137–40 offers a response to Walvoord in adopting a “now-already”

and “not yet” duality to the eschatology of the kingdom program of God.

Showers, There Really Is a Difference!, 89–90.

See Dennis M. Swanson, “The Expansion of Jerusalem in Jeremiah 31:38–40: Already, Never,

or Not Yet?” MSJ 17, No. 1 (Spring 2006): 17–34.

Ibid. The reference is to the building of Jerusalem as the capital city of the Messianic kingdom.

184 | The Master’s Seminary Journal

all of the covenant themes in their totality in His various roles as the Seed of

Abraham, the Mosaic Prophet and Priest, the Davidic King, and the Savior of Israel

and of the world. He calls and governs the nation. He blesses the land and the

people. He establishes and rules over His kingdom.

The Messianic Kingdom’s Physical Blessings

Before describing the physical aspects of the Messianic kingdom, we must not

neglect its other characteristics:

 The messianic kingdom is primarily soteriological (Isa 52:7–10). It is a

kingdom of grace, of unmerited divine favor (Zech 12:10). In addition,

God establishes the messianic kingdom in holiness and His holiness

pervades the kingdom (Ezek 28:25; Zech 14:20). He initiates the kingdom

by pouring out His Holy Spirit upon all flesh (Joel 2:28–29).

 Due to the spiritual nature of the messianic kingdom, sinful and immoral

values give way to readjusted moral values in accord with divine

perfection (Isa 51:4–5). Yahweh’s own objective standard will measure

all ethical thought and behavior (Isa 2:3; 30:20–21), so that Messiah will

judge on the basis of an accurate appraisal (Isa 32:5; Mal 3:18). Personal

responsibility will dominate interpersonal relationships (Jer 31:29–30)

and truth will characterize all matters (Ps 89:14; Zech 8:3).

 In the realm of society, Messiah will abolish warfare and establish peace

(Isa 9:7; Mic 4:3–4). Social justice will prevail in every class and race of

mankind (Isa 65:21–22; Ps 72:4) and God will reclaim social wastes (Ps

72:16; Isa 61:4). Messiah will teach mankind to emphasize worthwhile

relationships (Isa 42:3; Mal 4:6).

 In the political venue, the Messiah will establish Himself as the

international authority (Isa 2:2–4; Ps 2:8–10) and will establish a world

capital at Jerusalem (Jer 3:17). In His kingdom, the Messiah will put an

end to the perennial “Jewish problem” (Zech 8:13, 23).

As a reversal of

the curse at Babel, language will cease to be a barrier to all human

interaction and relationships (Isa 19:18; Zeph 3:9).

 Ecclesiastically, Messiah will rule as priest-king over Israel and the world

community (Zech 6:12–13; Ps 110:4). In the messianic kingdom, Israel

will become the religious leader of the world (Exod 19:6; Isa 61:6, 9) and

the world’s religious capital will be Jerusalem (Zech 14:16–17). As a

result, the Temple in Israel will be the focal point of worship (Hag 2:6–9;

Ezek 40–48).

Scripture often characterizes divine promises as perpetual in these covenants

for Israel (Gen 13:15; 17:7, 8, 13, 19; 48:4; 2 Sam 7:13, 16, 24–26, 29; Pss 89:29,

Eugene H. Merrill, An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Chicago: Moody

Press, 1994), 224, “YHWH has promised that Jerusalem will be restored, repopulated, and reconfirmed

as the center of His covenant interests (vv. 1–8).”

The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

| 185

36–37; 105:8–11; 1 Chron 16:15–18). Walter Kaiser points to the fact that “all three

parts of the covenant (i.e., the seed, the land, and the gospel) were bound together

as one promise with a promise that this one promise was eternal. . . . to use a

theological scalpel to cut out one part is to expose the rest of this same covenant to

diminution and a time limitation.”

Indeed, as Kaiser expresses elsewhere, any

“conditionality was not attached to the promise but only to the participants who

would benefit from these abiding promises. If the condition of faith was not

evident, then the patriarch would become a mere transmitter of the blessing without

personally inheriting any of its gifts directly.”

Our focus here is on the physical aspects of the messianic kingdom.

Covenantal promises clearly indicate that the future nation of Israel will inherit the

land of Canaan again. To this, both pre-exilic and post-exilic prophets agree (Ezek

36:8, 12). Land, the pre-eminent factor in the physical aspects of the messianic

kingdom, comprises an indelible element in the Abrahamic Covenant’s blessings

recited in Lev 26:4–12. Those blessings fall into six categories:

(1) productivity (vv. 4–5; cf. Gen 24:35; 27:28; 30:43)

(2) peace (v. 6; cf. Gen 22:17)

(3) power (vv. 7–8; cf. Gen 22:17)

(4) population (v. 9; cf. Gen 12:2; 15:5; 17:6)

(5) provision (v. 10; cf. productivity, above) and

(6) presence (vv. 11–12; cf. Gen 17:7, 8).

Scripture associates all these blessings with the land that Israel will receive

from Yahweh. They are consistent with all the various statements and restatements

of the Abrahamic Covenant.

In order to fulfill these promises, God will: (1) alter the topography (terrain) to

make it more fruitful and more inhabitable (Ps 72:16; Isa 4:2; 27:6; 29:17; 32:13–

15; 33:10–11; 35:1–7; 41:18; Ezek 36:4–11; 47:1–12; Amos 9:13; Zech 14:4, 8),

(2) change the climate to increase the rainfall (Isa 30:23–30; Ezek 34:26; Joel 2:21–

24), (3) alter the nature of animals (Isa 11:6–9; 65:25; Ezek 34:25; Hos 2:18),

and

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Land of Israel and the Future Return (Zechariah 10:6–12),” in

Israel, The Land and the People: An Evangelical Affirmation of God’s Promises, ed. by H. Wayne

House (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998), 211 (italics his emphasis).

Idem, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1978), 94.

One of the classic treatments of this topic is that of McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom,

234–41.

William D. Barrick, “The Eschatological Significance of Leviticus 26,” The Master’s Seminary

Journal 16, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 113–14.

A possible exception to such fruitfulness and habitability might be the region of Edom whose

judgment will leave a scarred landscape even during the messianic kingdom (see Isa 34:8–15).

“To reject a literal understanding of these passages about nature seems unwarranted, however,

in light of the biblical teaching of the effects of sin on the natural realm (cf. Gen 1:29–30; 3:14, 17–18;

9:2–3).”—Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between

Dispensational & Non-Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 237. “There seems

no reason to doubt that this is to be understood literally. . . . Any adaptation of the eco-system involved

will presumably be a restoration of the world to its unfallen condition.”—G. W. Grogan, “Isaiah,” in The

186 | The Master’s Seminary Journal

(4) enable Israel to extend her national boundaries

(Isa 26:15; 33:17) leading to

the adjustment of tribal allotments (Isa 49:8; Ezek 47:13–48:29).

Messiah will

also intervene in the physical welfare of mankind by putting an end to disease and

physical deformities (Isa 33:24; 35:5–6; 61:1–2; 65:20; Ezek 34:16; 47:12; Mal

1:8).

Note that several of these characteristics were undeveloped or unfulfilled

during the return of Israel to the land following the Babylonian Exile (viz., altered

topography, climate changes, and extension of boundaries).

This would seem to

contradict those theologians who insist that the promises to Israel for restoration

were all fulfilled when Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah led their various groups of

Israelite exiles back into the land from Babylon. If these promises were fulfilled by

the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile, “How then shall we explain the

prophecy in Zechariah 10:8–12

that announces in 518 B.C. a still future return,

which would not only emanate from Babylon, but from around the world?”

Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein, 6:1–354 (Grand Rapids: Regency

Reference Library, 1986), 88–89. There are those commentators, however, who reject the literal because

“the fact that the lion’s carnivorousness is fundamental to what a lion is and that literal fulfillment of the

prophecy would require a basic alteration of the lion’s nature suggest that another interpretation is

intended” (viz., a figurative interpretation)—John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1–39, New

International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,

1986), 283. Interestingly, Watts avoids giving any specific interpretation of Isa 11:6–9 (John D. W.

Watts, Isaiah 1–33, rev. ed., Word Biblical Commentary 24 [n.p.: Nelson Reference & Electronic,

2005], 210–13). Given the recapitulation of protology in eschatology, however, Gen 1:30 makes it plain

that God gave plants as food for all created land animals. Thus, in the eschatological history, the animals

return to the same fare.

Even if the reader identifies a minimal extension of the land (from Wadi el-’Arish to Nahr el-

Kebir in northern Lebanon), it would include “the whole of the Phoenician coastal section from north of

Beirut”—Kaiser, “The Land of Israel and the Future Return (Zechariah 10:6–12),” 218–19. No Israelite

king in the Davidic dynasty ever controlled such boundaries.

Cp. Gordon H. Johnston, “Millennium, Old Testament Descriptions of,” in Dictionary of

Premillennial Theology, ed. by Mal Couch, 267–72 (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1996), 270.

Amillennialists deny any literal fulfillment to a new temple, to changes in the geography and

climate of Israel, insisting that such interpretations “are out of line with the New Testament’s own

interpretation, which relates the prophetic hope to its messianic fulfillment in Jesus.”—Christopher J. H.

Wright, The Message of Ezekiel: A New Heart and a New Spirit, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers

Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001), 341.

Note the specific geographical entities identified in this passage (e.g., Egypt, Assyria, Gilead,

Lebanon, and the Nile)—obviously intended to be literal. Any figurative interpretation would render the

text virtually unknowable due to the multiplication of potential interpretations. Note, also, the spiritual

relationship that Israel will have to God at that time: “in His name they will walk” (v. 12).

Kaiser, “The Land of Israel and the Future Return (Zechariah 10:6–12),” 213. An allegorical

approach to this text in Zechariah can be found in Thomas Edward McComiskey, “Zechariah,” in The

Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, 3 vols., ed. by Thomas Edward

McComiskey, 3:1003–1244 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 1183–86. E.g., “When we read

promises of great repopulation we must not fail to see the church, for the promise to Abraham of great

posterity includes redeemed Gentiles” (1183); in regard to the references to Lebanon and Gilead in v. 10,

“The terms must be understood metaphorically. . . . both are metaphors for the Restoration, the time

when the blessings of the new covenant became a reality. . . . Gilead is a metaphor for the Shepherd-

King’s provision for his flock (Jer. 50:19–20; Mic. 7:14),” 1184–85.

The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

| 187

Kingdom Hope

The dominant characteristic of the messianic kingdom is that a holy God

dwells “in the midst of a holy people in a holy land” (Ezek 37:25–28).

This one

factor alone makes it impossible for the revival of the nation of Israel in Palestine in

1948 to fulfill the OT prophecies about Israel’s inheritance of the land.

Because of

that singular biblical truth, not a single OT prophecy would be violated nor one

divine promise contradicted, if the Arab nations should succeed in pushing the

modern nation of Israel into the sea and ending their tenure on the land promised to

Abraham’s descendants. Indeed, when God restores Israel to the land according to

Scripture, they will be believers who have called upon the name of Yahweh (Joel

2:32).

Those whom He will gather into the land of promise will be converts

experiencing His cleansing and His Spirit—He will give them a new heart and a

new spirit with which to obey His Word (Ezek 36:24–29; cp. Dan 12:1). This is not

the condition of the modern nation of Israel.

Let’s take a brief side trip to the teachings of Jesus in Luke 19:11–27. His

disciples had “supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately”

(v. 11). This occasioned Jesus’ response with a parable about a nobleman who

“went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return” (v.

12). Before he leaves to receive that kingdom, he calls his servants to him,

distributes some funds, and exhorts them to carry on until he returns (v. 13). In that

same location the citizens demonstrate hatred for him and reject his rule over them

(v. 14). By context, those are clearly the people of Israel to whom Christ came in

His first advent. Later, when “he returned, after receiving the kingdom” (v. 15), he

calls upon his slaves to account for what they did during his absence. Note that

Jesus identifies himself with this nobleman. He is rejected by His people. He then

departs from them to a distant place (in His case, heaven) to receive His kingdom

and then to return (His second advent). Jesus has not yet brought His kingdom to

earth, to Israel! At His ascension He left to receive the kingdom—He did not

establish it during His first advent.

Acts 1:6 confirms this truth when the disciples

again ask if He is going to establish it prior to His ascension.

Now, back to Ezek 37:21–28. With regard to this text, Hal Lindsey correctly

asks that we consider the following points:

(1) The Church has never been scattered in discipline among the nations. (2)

The Church has never been in a civil war that resulted in two kingdoms called

Gordon J. Thomas, “A Holy God Among a Holy People in a Holy Place: The Enduring

Eschatological Hope,” in Eschatology in Bible & Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New

Millennium, ed. by Kent E. Brower and Mark W. Elliott, 53–69 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

1997), 63.

Cp. Showers, There Really Is a Difference!, 74–75.

See Irvin Busenitz, Joel & Obadiah, Mentor Commentary (Geanies House, Scotland: Christian

Focus, 2003), 192.

Kaiser, Recovering the Unity of the Bible, 138, arguing that Christ currently possesses the

Davidic throne, makes a point of the fact that Christ receives the kingdom before His return. However,

he fails to adequately deal with the equal fact that Christ has not yet established that kingdom on earth.

188 | The Master’s Seminary Journal

Israel and Judah. (3) The Church has never been promised restoration to the

land and mountains of Israel. (4) The Church cannot be in view when it says,

“They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where

your fathers lived.” (5) If this were in any conceivable sense referring to the

Church, why does it say that the Gentiles will recognize who God really is

when He makes Israel holy and His sanctuary is among them forever?

Thus, the church is not Israel and Israel is not the church.

Bible readers must

be equally distinguishing in their comparing the future eternal kingdom of God to

the future messianic kingdom on earth. With regard to this latter comparison,

Renald Showers makes the following careful observations:

During His reign Messiah will have dominion from sea to sea (Ps. 72:8; Zech.

9:10), but eternity future will have no sea (Rev. 21:1). Unsaved wicked people

will be present during Messiah’s reign (Isa. 11:4; Rev. 20:8–9), but no such

people will be present in the new eternal earth and heaven (Rev. 21:8—in

eternity future all the unsaved will be in the lake of fire). Some people will die

during Messiah’s reign (Isa. 11:4; Jer. 31:29–30—rebels will be executed), but

there will be no death in eternity future (Rev. 20:14; 21:4). Children will be

born during Messiah’s reign (Jer. 30:19–20; Ezek. 47:22), but no children will

be born in the new eternal earth and heaven. . . . These contrasts require the

conclusion that Christ will reign over a kingdom on this present earth before it

is destroyed and before eternity future begins.

Such an approach differs from that of a New Covenant theologian like Steve

Lehrer, who believes that the land promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were

already fulfilled historically “by the time of the conquest of the Land of Canaan

under Joshua.”

Those who confuse the church with Israel, the eternal kingdom

with the messianic kingdom, and the conquest under Joshua with the Abrahamic

Covenant’s fulfillment all violate the same logical dictum: Similarity does not mean

identity (or, in symbols: ).

In an appendix to this study, a brief analysis of Obadiah 15–21 serves to

demonstrate the results of a literal-grammatical-historical interpretation of an OT

prophetic text. There are so many equivalent texts in the OT on the future earthly

Messianic kingdom that it is not possible to expound every one of them here. One

unifying factor, however, stands out in most of them: specific geographical details

Hal Lindsey, The Road to Holocaust (New York: Bantam Books, 1990), 108 (all emphasis is

Lindsey’s).

For a detailed refutation of so-called replacement theology (wherein the church replaces Israel

in God’s kingdom program), see Michael J. Vlach, The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis

of Supersessionism, EDIS Edition Israelogie 2 (Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang, 2009) and

Has the Church Replaced Israel?: A Theological Evaluation (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010).

Showers, There Really Is a Difference!, 95. Cp. Ralph H. Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in The

Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference

Library, 1986), 6:945–46, who makes the same observations.

Lehrer, New Covenant Theology, 32.

The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

| 189

tie the prophecies to actual locations in Israel and the ancient Near East. In order to

counter such clear testimony, one must either (1) allegorize on an astounding scale

without any certainty at all regarding interpretive accuracy; or (2) one must make

the theologically questionable claim that such prophecies are merely ancient near

eastern hyperbole (amounting to bluster without any real fulfillment); or (3) one

must gut the OT text by jettisoning such passages from Scripture entirely. All three

of these options run counter to the NT writers’ usage of the OT.

Kingdom Government

Form. According to the OT, the messianic kingdom will be a monarchy (Isa

32:1). Christ, as the head of that government, will act as the ultimate representative

fulfilling all prophetic relationships. The social strata of the kingdom’s citizens will

look like a pyramid commencing with a broad base and each subsequent level being

progressively narrower (Figure 5). The governmental hierarchy will possess similar

stratification (Figure 6).

Figure 5. Social Strata in the Messianic Kingdom

In order to fill out the biblical picture of the eschatological, earthly, messianic

kingdom, concise summaries will round out this essay. The summaries address the

kingdom’s form, nature, extent, and duration.

Figure 6. Governmental Roles in the Messianic Kingdom

Jesus promised that His disciples will reign with Him in some heightened role

in His kingdom (see Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30). Both Paul and John indicate that

believers will reign with Christ in His kingdom (1 Cor 6:2; 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 20:6).

While the church saints enter the kingdom with glorified bodies (1 Cor 15:50; cp. 1

Thess 4:14; Rev 19:14), there are other individuals who at Christ’s second advent

either enter the kingdom with physical bodies yet subject to death (cp Isa 65:20) or

190 | The Master’s Seminary Journal

are subsequently born during the kingdom (obviously from parents also alive

physically). Thus, the kingdom government possesses a hierarchical structure which

might be described in a general fashion by the following diagrams of the social and

governmental strata under Messiah’s rule.

Nature. The messianic kingdom’s governing principles include righteousness

and justice (Ps 97:1–2), supernatural power (Ps 2:7–9), and mercy and tenderness

(Isa 16:5; 40:11).

Extent. In its extent, the messianic kingdom will be universal (Dan 2:34–35).

Duration. As to length of time, the messianic kingdom will endure for one

thousand years (Rev 20:1–7). Its effects, however, are everlasting (1 Cor 15:24–28).

Conclusion

God’s kingdom program stands as a major theme within both the OT and the

NT. Our sovereign Lord’s plan for His kingdom dominates history from the first

creation to the new creation. His kingdom program will be fulfilled. He has not

altered his plan—there is no “Plan B.” He speaks plainly and specifically. If the

reader cannot take the biblical text literally with regard to both a universal kingdom

and a future, earthly, eschatological, messianic kingdom, then even the Lord’s

Prayer will suffer loss. We still pray, “Your kingdom come.” We cannot inaugurate

the mediatorial kingdom, because we, as direct descendants of the first Adam, are

not the second Adam. Just as God created historically, so He will consummate His

kingdom program in history. “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus” (Rev 22:20).

The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

| 191

Appendix: Obadiah 15–21

 These details are physical—ethnic, political, and geographical.

 The text speaks of real people, real locations, and real events.

 Obadiah associates all of it with the kingdom.

 The details do not match any past historical situation.

 The church never took possession of these territories in the manner

described.

192 | The Master’s Seminary Journal

 The church cannot be satisfactorily equated with these exiles.

 The fulfillment has not yet taken place, but awaits a future time—unless

the interpreter should decide that the prophecy is erroneous and that it has

not been fulfilled and will never be fulfilled.