In the third gospel, which has been termed "the most beautiful book in the world", there is a wealth of kingdom-teaching. As Matthew is specifically the gospel of the King, so is Luke the gospel of the Son of Man--setting forth most especially His humanity. It includes therefore our Lord's Davidic descent, on which depend His kingly rights as heir of David's line; because this was His human ancestry. But it reaches back further: the genealogy is here traced beyond David and Abraham to Adam, the forefather from whom the whole race sprang, thus emphasizing the Lord's kinship with all mankind. He is thus shown to be the Kinsman-Redeemer, through whom God would retrieve the lost bliss of the human race, as well as the wrecked fortunes of the house of David. In a book of such purpose we may reasonably expect to find much of the kingdom, for in that term lies ultimately the hope of all mankind. In God's government alone, all hoped-for blessings are realized. As the rod (symbol of rule and government) when cast out of Moses' hands became a serpent, but when taken up by him became a true rod again, so is it with the rule of earth. When in His time God takes actual control, and His will is done on the earth as it is in heaven, all the earth rejoices. In that day they shall say, "O LORD, our God, other lords besides you have ruled over us, but your name alone do we honor" (Isaiah 26:13). That happy outcome is secured to us through the Lord Jesus Christ, God's King, to whom all authority in heaven and on earth is committed.

      As Son of God He holds the Divine dominion and glory which He had with the Father before the world was.

      As Son of man the sovereignty of all the earth belongs to Him; which heritage, forfeited by the first Adam, was to be restored to man in the last Adam (Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 8; Hebrews 2).

      As the Son of Abraham He was the One who should possess the gates of His enemies, who should be "heir of the world," and in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed.

      As Son of David He was to be the Messiah, the promised King of Jacob, who should rule the nations with a rod of iron, whose righteous sway should extend from the River to the ends of the earth; in whose days the righteous should flourish, and abundance of peace till the moon be no more.

      Such are the promises. A great part, if not all, the existing misconceptions of the kingdom are due to a failure to recognize the intimate relation between these Old Testament promises and the New Testament teaching, and to study the two in connection. The New Testament does indeed illuminate the Old; but so does the Old throw light upon the New. For the Lord Jesus did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill. To ignore these facts is to misunderstand the Scriptures. [41]

      As now we approach the kingdom-teaching of Luke we shall, to simplify our study of it, divide it into three cycles:

      First, that which turns about Christ's birth.
      Second, that which pertains to His ministry.
      Third, that which was given in connection with His sufferings.

      Within the first cycle falls the angel's annunciation to Mary (1:31-35); Mary's song (especially verses 54, 55); the song of Zacharias at the birth of John (verses 67-79)--all in the first chapter. The announcement to the shepherds of the birth of Jesus; and certain things mentioned in connection with Simeon and Anna are found in the second chapter.

      Agreeable to Luke's design, we have here the most detailed account of the birth--the Virgin-birth--of our Lord. To a virgin named Mary, betrothed to Joseph, of the house of David, came the messenger of God, announcing that she should be mother of a son who was to be named Jesus. "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, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; his kingdom will never end" (1:32, 33). This is simply the announcement of the fulfillment, through this child, of God's oath-bound covenant promise to David in 2 Samuel 7. This child should inherit the throne of His forefather David, the royal rule over "the house of Jacob." It is especially to be noted that that covenant involved the perpetuity of the "house of Jacob," the nation of Israel, as particularly pointed out in 2 Samuel 7:10, 23, 24. In 2 Samuel 7, there can be no misunderstanding as to what people and nation was meant. And while the fulfillment may often greatly transcend the wording of the original promise, it never belies it or nullifies it. In the announcement of Luke 1:32 no clearer term could have been used to signify just that nation than "the house of Jacob." That does not and cannot mean anything else than the whole nation of Israel--not Judah merely, nor the ten tribe kingdom, but the whole nation which descended from Jacob. By no principle of interpretation can this term be forced to signify "the church."

      We might note here the fact that the Lord Jesus is never spoken of as the King of the church. He is her Head, her Savior, her Lord, her Husband to whom she is betrothed; but is never called her King. A king's royal authority extends over his spouse, of course; but his relation to her is so much higher and closer than one of mere kingly authority that the latter does not come into view. As her Husband he is her Lord; but in His rule as King she is destined even to share His throne and the exercise of His royal authority with Him (Revelation 2:27; 3:21). He is, however, distinctly spoken of as the King of Israel (John 1:49) and as the promised Ruler of David's line over the house of Jacob.

      When in her song wondrously resembling that of Hannah, (1 Samuel 2) Mary says, "He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham [42] and his descendants for ever, even as he said to our fathers."--It is the Old Testament promise that is again in view. And throughout the song of Zacharias the fulfillment of that same Old Testament promise is spoken of as now assured in the birth of the Savior: "He has come and has redeemed his people. He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago), salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us--to show mercy to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath he swore to our father Abraham: to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness before him all our days" (Luke 1:68-75).

      It must be admitted that these inspired utterances see in the birth of Jesus the fulfilling of the simple Old Testament promises to David and Abraham. Neither Zacharias nor his hearers, could have had any other impression from the promises found in the law and the prophets than that the people here spoken of was Israel; that their deliverance from their enemies was the emancipation from the Gentile oppressors; and all the other attendant spiritual blessings of Israel's promised glorious future day of restoration. That all these and like prophecies are susceptible of spiritual application is not disputed. In the spiritual application of all the scriptures lies their perpetual significance and value. But application is not interpretation; and whatever spiritual principles may lie back of the statements and narratives of God's word, its simple and direct meaning is never to be denied and discarded. It was not (as some have thought) the Jew's simple literal belief of those promises and his expectation of the promised earthly blessings that made his hope "carnal"; but his failure to understand that only by a righteous nation--to a people circumcised in heart, cleansed and regenerated, whose stony heart was exchanged for "heart of flesh" (Isaiah 26:2; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:25) would these promises be finally realized.

      In the episode of Simeon and Anna (Luke 2) the reference to the Jewish hope is again beyond dispute. Of Simeon we are told that he was "righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel" (see Isaiah 12:1; 40:1); and Anna, the prophetess, "spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem" (see Isaiah 1:27; 52:9). Equivalent to these expressions is that found in 23:51 concerning Joseph of Arimathea "who was looking for the Kingdom of God." For, as the Israelite understood from his scriptures--when the promised kingdom should come, then would Israel be consoled, then would Jerusalem be redeemed. All this is perfectly obvious, and only a preconceived idea could ever have moved us to divert these words from their plain meaning.

      The second cycle takes in the Savior's kingdom-teaching during His ministry generally. Most of this has been discussed already in the chapter on Matthew, so that only one utterance needs specially to be noted.

      The utterance that particularly demands our attention is the Lord's answer to the sneering question of the Pharisees when the "kingdom of God" was going to [43] come. "The kingdom of God," He answered, "does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within (among) you" (Luke 17:20, 21). Upon this saying of our Lord's at least three views have been based, each having an element of truth, none by itself, however, comprehending all of the far-reaching kingdom-teaching of the New Testament. These three views are:

      (1) That the kingdom cannot be outwardly observed or located, because it is spiritual and invisible--"within you."

      (2) That it comes by a growth so gradual, silent, and imperceptible as to escape observation.

      (3) That it is not preceded by any such movements, revolts, massing of forces, etc., as attend the rise and development of earthly kingdoms; and that its coming cannot thus be watched and observed, but will be sudden and instantaneous: before anyone has occasion to say "Lo here!" or "There!" for--lo! the kingdom is in the midst of you.

      We may say as to the first of these three views that though the kingdom has its inward and spiritual side (for every citizen and heir of that kingdom must have its spiritual principle within him, Romans 14:17) it is nevertheless not without its outward manifestation. Even those who hold that the kingdom is exhausted in the church must admit that the church itself is visible, tangible, and subject to observation, and not exclusively "within." Nor did the Lord say to those evil men, the Pharisees, "the kingdom of God is within you"--for indeed it was not; but, as the margin of the RV correctly gives it, He said the kingdom is among you, in the midst of you, (margin of NIV says "among." New American Standard Bible says "is in your midst," Editor).

      On the second of these views--as to gradual growth of the kingdom--it may be observed that between the crisis of its planting and the crisis of the harvest, there is indeed a progressive development, and automatic growth: "first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear" (Mark 4:26-29). In all the stages, from seed to harvest, the growing thing is the kingdom; but the kingdom in its fullness and consummation is not till the harvest is gathered, which represents a sudden crisis. But as to the third of the views listed--it commends itself at once as being the real answer to the Pharisees' question. They were manifestly asking some evidence of the kingdom's approach. According to their expectation (for they understood not that the kingdom of God is wholly from above, and its power not of the earth)--there should have been some preparation, a gathering or organizing of forces, or at least some hostile move against the Roman power. Like John the Baptist (but not as easily enlightened, Matthew 11:2-6) these men did not know what to make of a Messiah who only "went about doing good." It was a Joshua, or a Gideon they expected to see, who like the Old Testament heroes of faith would with a little host "put to flight armies of aliens." But the Lord told them that the kingdom was not coming in such a fashion. It comes, as the King Himself comes in His day, like the lightning flash from above. He then continued the teaching and [44] explanation to His disciples, making all to turn upon His sudden and glorious appearing in that day (Luke 17:22-30).

      At this point we enter into the cycle of the passion-utterances. The Lord Jesus is on His last journey to Jerusalem and has entered into the shadow of the cross.

      Just before His "triumphal entry," He spoke a parable to His disciples because they were near Jerusalem and because they thought that the kingdom would now immediately appear. This parable--the parable of the Pounds--has already been discussed, and we will only emphasize a few remaining features. Knowing the disciples' expectations, and lest by the demonstrations connected with His entry into the City they be misled, He represented Himself in the parable as a Nobleman going to a distant country to receive for himself a kingdom--not a kingdom in another country, of course, but royal authority over the country which he was then leaving--and to return, in order (as the parable shows) to assert His rule. This parable also sets forth very clearly the state of the kingdom on the earth during the King's absence, as a household of His servants, who are administrating their Lord's wealth in the midst of His enemies, until He come. Upon His return He gives the faithful servants share in the rule, and executes vengeance upon all rebels (Luke 19:11-27). This again is so plain and obvious as to need no argument, but only to be pointed out.

      The weighty farewell He spoke to the guilty city--once uttered before, with reference to this crisis (Luke 13:35) was spoken subsequent to the "Triumphal Entry" (Matthew 23:39). "You will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" Like "the glory of the Lord," after long lingering and hesitation, as if very loath to depart, finally left the threshold of the Temple and the City, and in symbolic action crossed over to the Mount of Olives (Ezekiel 11:23), so the Lord Jesus formally forsook the city and left Israel and their House desolate; and, as if with purpose to remind them of the sad prophecy of old, He also, having pronounced this sentence, went over and sat upon the Mount of Olives (Matthew 24:1). "You will not see me again!" Their King, in whom lay all their hope, had forsaken them! But not for ever--only "until." That is one of the "untils" that always limit Israel's rejection. There is coming a day when they shall see Him again and they shall acclaim Him with sincere hearts and gladly in that day.

      The prophetic discourse on the Mount of Olives is recorded in its simplest form by Luke. The approaching destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24) is plainly foretold, and also Jerusalem's age-long rejection, as "trodden down of the Gentiles until (here is the saving "until" again)--the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Then follows the prophecy of the final portents, the signs and prodigies seen in heaven and on earth, which are followed by the Coming of the King. But to His disciples He says when they see these things begin to come to pass, to look up and lift up their heads, because their redemption draws near. When the fig tree [45] and all the trees begin to put forth, we know that the summer is near. "Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near" (Luke 21:31).

      I call special attention to this saying of our Lord's. Without controversy, He is here speaking of the coming of the kingdom, and connects the coming of the kingdom with His own coming. This is not the establishment of the church, it refers to the end-time; nor to the destruction of Jerusalem--that happened about A. D. 70. But when the world-wide conflict of nations, the great earthquakes, famines, and pestilence, terrors and great signs from heaven--signs in sun, moon, and stars, conjoined on earth with convulsions, physical and social--when such things begin to come to pass, He says to His disciples, then let them look up, for the time of their redemption is at hand; and then is the kingdom of God near. (The expression is the same as in Luke 10:9-11). There is no denial here of the present existence of the Kingdom in the church; but here He looks forward to the glorious manifestation of the kingdom on the earth, the harvest of the ages, the goal of prophecy--the day when the Nobleman returns "having received the kingdom," when the Messiah shall take His great power and reign under the whole heaven, and His saints with Him. (Compare 24:33; Mark 13:29.)¹

      Luke gives us a most remarkable saying of Christ concerning the kingdom in 22:28-30. When assembled with his disciples on the night of the Betrayal, He says to them, "You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

      We mark here the following facts:

      1. The Lord Jesus appoints unto the apostles a kingdom, even as the Father appointed unto Him. This promise was, afterward, in a general way, extended to the whole of the faithful church (1 Corinthians 6:2; Revelation 2:26, 27; 3:21).

      2. They should eat and drink at His table in His kingdom. [46]

      Those who have endeavored to confine the concept of the kingdom to the limits of the church, make this promise to mean that the apostles should be permitted to eat the Lord's Supper (because the latter is referred to as "the table of the Lord" in I Corinthians 10:21). Nothing depends upon that, so far as the present argument is concerned. The Lord's Supper, however, is not a promise or a reward; but a means of grace until the promise is reached. In it the Lord's disciples commemorate His death until He comes again. To eat at the King's table on the other hand, is a common phrase in the Old Testament. It stands for the high honor of belonging to the King's household, being numbered as of his family, and sharing, not his food only, but his home, his presence, association, fellowship. David thus sought to reward Barzillai the Gileadite, who had met him and supplied him with provisions in the way when in humiliation he was fleeing from Absalom. Barzillai declined the privilege on account of his age; and the honor fell to his sons (1 Kings 2:7). Likewise, David rewarded the faithful love of his friend Jonathan by giving his lame son Mephibosheth a place at the Kings's table, (2 Samuel 9:7-13) "as one of the king's sons." It was this royal reward that the Lord Jesus Christ here held out to these who had loved and followed Him in the day of His rejection and humiliation. The Lord's Supper is "the Lord's Table" indeed, because He ordained it; and there His disciples by faith hold "mystic, sweet communion" with their absent Lord, "in remembrance" of Him. But there is coming a bridal feast of love when they shall sit with Him, and He, with them, shall drink anew the fruit of the vine in the Father's kingdom. "Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!" (Revelation 19:9.)

      And as for their sitting on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes--this has been taken by some to mean the exercise of the apostolic authority, through their message, and the apostolic writings delivered to us. But alas, of all men these same "twelve tribes" are least in subjection to the apostolic word. In what reasonable sense could the apostles be said to be reigning now over the "twelve tribes"; or even over the professing church? The apostles, who were last of all men, doomed to death, could hardly be spoken of as reigning on thrones now. God is not given to such far-fetched, vaporous promises. Paul rebuked the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 4:8-13) for imagining themselves as reigning thus prematurely. Yea, he says, I wish you did reign, for in that case our troubles also would be over and we would be reigning with you. And then he points out the apostles' miserable state, with purpose to show that they were not reigning now. For the Corinthians, as for the apostles, this is yet the day of humiliation, conflict, and suffering. The reign for us all is yet to come (2 Timothy 2:12).

      Both the table and the thrones then await the Day of Glory, when the Lord Jesus shall return in power.

      In the Gospel of John one can see the Old Testament hope in the language of the first disciples (John 1:41, 45, 49). Neither John the Baptist himself, nor the [47] disciples who were attracted to Jesus by John's announcement of Him, seemed to grasp that the title "Lamb of God" which John gave Him, involved His sacrificial death, although that death had been prophesied. They simply seized upon the fact of His Messiahship, according to the Old Testament promise. This, though incomplete was, as far as it went, right, and not wrong, nor mistaken.

      In His interview with Nicodemus (3:1-5) the Lord Jesus emphasized the necessity of regeneration--the new birth--to those who would be citizens of the kingdom of God. This applies both to those of Israel who looked forward to the Old Testament hope of the Messiah's glorious reign; and to all who in this day would enter into the kingdom of God's dear Son. It is the universal requirement of acceptance with God, and the characteristic feature of the New Covenant which now in its principle applies to the church, and which the Lord will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah "after those days" (Hebrews 8).

      Finally, John gives us one more important word on the subject, spoken by the Lord to Pilate. In answer to Pilate's question, "Are you the king of the Jews?" the Lord replied, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." "You are a King, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:36, 37).

      I do not know why this should not be taken just as it stands; or why it should ever have been regarded as clashing with the hope of the accomplishment of the Old Testament kingdom promises, and the future earthly manifestation and glory of the kingdom as foretold by the prophets. The Lord simply declares here that His kingdom is not of earthly origin, but of heavenly--"it is not from here." (New King James) "is not of this realm." (New American Standard) "is from another place" (NIV).

      It derives its existence and authority not from beneath as do earthly kingdoms, but from above. Its power does not stand in human forces, as is the case with all the kingdoms of the earth, but in the power of God. In proof of this the Lord pointed to His meek and timid disciples. If it had been a political kingdom, a world-empire of the earthly order that He had come to found, would not His disciples have fought to protect His Person? That was so self-evident that Pilate could see no treason in such a claim as this Man made. Jesus was not a king rivaling on equal grounds the kings of the earth. When once the Jews had tried to make Him King--not by faith and submission to God's will but by dint of human will and earthly force, the Lord Jesus withdrew Himself. He had indeed sought for their heart's devotion, but not for political patronage nor for their help and human assistance. His authority and His power is from above, and is always wholly independent of, and infinitely higher than any earthly power. The Nobleman goes into the "far country" to receive His kingdom and to return. This is the Stone, "cut [48] out without hands,"--that is, not by human agency, who will in His day come from above and smite down and destroy the world-power of the earth.

      But to say that His kingdom is not of the world, is not saying that it is up in heaven; nor that it is and ever must be merely an inward, invisible, spiritual, mystical "power that makes for righteousness." The church itself, for example, is not of the world; but it is in the world, and quite manifestly so. That glorious kingdom promised in the Old Testament is not of the world because it does not owe its origin to any earthly power, nor is indebted to forces below for its power and authority; but it will be here and fill the whole earth (Daniel 2:35) openly manifest in its rule and dominion "under the whole heaven."

      Here we conclude the examination of the kingdom doctrine of the four gospels. The kingdom teaching in Mark is covered in the examination of the other gospels.

[KOG3R 41-49]