: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God as Set Forth in the Scriptures

This is probably the single best book on Christ and His Kingdom. If there was a man who understood "Kingdom Theology" it was A.J. McClain. ( )

Case 6 shelf 2

The Greatness of the Kingdom, Alva J. McClain

The Royal Entrance into Jerusalem [in relation to the history/progress of the Kingdom], Alva J. McClain (Supposed debate between Detroit and BJU seminaries—Don Galion)

Was it a real offer? 304, 333-4, 353, 361, 365, 373, 405, 508-9

p. 346 “The triumphal entry

1. This fulfilled specific prophecy to the minutest detail (Zech. 9:9; Mt. 21:4-5). Any imposter could have fulfilled this one specific, but Christ did fulfill this one, and all the others. “It is noteworthy
2. “The actions and praises of the people indicate an awareness of the regal meaning
3. The very words used by those receiving Him were words from Psalm 118 known to be Messianic.
4. The Pharisees know something is different this time.
5. Jesus did not tell the people to remain silent this time.
6. The weeping lament over the city indicates a turning point has occurred.
7. Jesus’s acts upon entering Jerusalem are indicative of a sovereign and in fulfillment of prophecy.
8. The weeping over the loss to His dearly-loved nation.

p. 553

(kingdom of God in Luke, 365) In summary, it may be said that all three Synoptics record the teaching of Christ about His second coming and the end of the age, but only Luke clearly identifies and records separately what Christ said specifically regarding the judgment about to fall upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70 [in Lk. 21:12-24]. This means that in Luke we have an account of signs which point to two different things respectively: first, the now historic destruction of Jerusalem, and, second, the future arrival of the "end."

(prophetic chronology, 365) We must be careful, however, not to read into the words of Christ any hard and fast chronological scheme. For in conformity with the general method of predictive prophecy, our Lord pictured together future events which would be outrolled separately in their historical fulfillment. This method is not something wholly arbitrary but has a gracious purpose. Within certain limits, it leaves room for interplay of both divine and human freedom. The future event is always certain, but the time element (with certain important exceptions) has elasticity. This is particularly true of the present church age. Thus is should not be surprising to find interpreters confusing the destruction of Jerusalem with the end of the age...

(philosophy, 527) Christianity is not a philosophy. But Christianity has a philosophy—the best and the brightest of all philosophies. In fact, it will be the final philosophy, not only because it is founded upon divine revelation but also because it does justice to all points of view which have any value. Most philosophies are very narrow, often based upon only one aspect of reality. In the very rich variety of the world the average philosopher may select one segment of reality which seems most impressive to him, and then proceed to explain the universe in terms of that one thing, which then becomes the “type-phenomenon” of his system.

Hence, an adequate philosophy should have at least three marks: First, it should be able to give due recognition to every aspect of reality, excluding none. Second, it should fit into a rational scheme of thought; that is, it should make sense. Third, it should have beneficial practical effects here and now. I am not a pragmatist, but they have a point. Their great mistake was to exalt this point into a theory of truth. Things are not true because they work; they work because they are true.

(dispensations, 529) What then can we learn from past history that we may be able to infer something reliable about what to expect in the future? Well, if there is anything crystal-clear in Biblical history, it is that the existence of our sinful race falls into periods of time (call them eras, ages, dispensations, or whatever you will), and that each age represents an advance over the preceding age, when looked at from the standpoint of what God is giving and doing for man. It is true that sinful man is always failing; but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. Thus to the old question, “Is the world getting better or worse?” from one standpoint we might answer, “The age is getting worse, but the course of history by the grace of God is moving forward.”

(530) On the basis of this law of divine progress in ages past, therefore, we may legitimately argue that “the life which now is” should have some proper goal. It ought to go some place.

(530) I am quite well aware of the peril of basing eschatology on philosophic considerations. The Word of God alone must be our base of authority. But where Biblical interpretation may be in question, surely the right view should display clearer marks of rationality than the wrong one. And such a philosophy of history, as I have been describing, seems to me to be utterly irrational. Remembering that history has only to do with the life that now is, such a philosophy of history has no proper goal.

(531) The premillennial philosophy of history makes sense. It lays a Biblical and rational basis for a truly optimistic view of human history. Furthermore, rightly apprehended, it has practical effects. It says that life here and now, in spite of the tragedy of sin, is nevertheless something worth-while; and therefore all efforts to make it better are also worth-while. All the true values of human life will be preserved and carried over into the coming kingdom; nothing worth-while will be lost. Furthermore, we are encouraged in the midst of opposition and reverses by the assurance that help is on the way, help from above, supernatural help—“Give the king thy judgments, O God. . . .In his days shall the righteous flourish. . . .all nations shall call him blessed” (Ps. 72:1, 7, 17).

4-5 The Kingdom of God is, in a certain and important sense, the grand central theme of all Holy Scripture. As Dr. Bright has correctly observed, “The concept of the Kingdom of God involves, in a real sense, the total message of the Bible”; and, OT and NT thus stand together as the two acts of a single drama. Act I points to its conclusions in Act II, and without it the play is an incomplete, unsatisfying thing. But Act II must be read in the light of Act I, else its meaning will be missed, for the play is organically one. The Bible is one book. Had we to give that book a title, we might with justice call it ‘The Book of the Coming Kingdom of God.’ That is, indeed, its central theme everywhere.” In approving this affirmation, we are not forgetting the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he is the King eternal, and there could be no final Kingdom apart from him and his Work as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Surely the primary object of our faith must always be the one who is both Lord and Savior; but as we contemplate him and his manifold glories as revealed in the word of God, we shall inescapably come sooner or later to the Kingdom of which he is the divine center. For it is in this Kingdom that the Father’s eternal purpose in the incarnate Son shall be certainly and completely fulfilled. This reign of God arises out of His own sovereign nature, was reflected in the “dominion” bestowed by God upon the first Adam, was forfeited quickly by reason of the sin of man, has been restored judicially in the Last Adam, will be realized on earth in the final age of human history, and reaches out endlessly beyond history, where we behold a throne which, as John explains, is “the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rev 22:3). Our Lord’s, inseparable and central relation to the Kingdom may serve to explain, at least in part, the compelling interest and fascination which is the subject of the Kingdom of God has exercised upon the greatest minds in the Church, from Augustine with the 22 books of his De Civitate Dei (426) down to the massive treatise by George N. H. Peters under the title of The Theocratic Kingdom (1884). An account of the literature on the subject would include writers of almost every conceivable theological viewpoint.

In the Biblical doctrine of the Kingdom of God we have the Christian philosophy of history…

II. Various Interpretative Ideas about the Kingdom

“No can make a serious study of the subject without discovering that the Kingdom of God is a many sided conception, and that its presentation in the gospels is complex rather than simple. The study of its various aspects leads to a difference of emphasis; and this, in turn, gives birth to a large number of, often disparate, views.” L. Berkhof

8 1) The National Kingdom Idea
This associates the Kingdom with a certain people, the nation of Israel; Not in some far off heavenly state, but in the living nation on the earth.

2) The Millennial Kingdom Idea

Here the Kingdom of God appears as the government of God, to be established on earth at second coming of Christ, who will reign with His risen and glorified Saints over the nations in a literal Kingdom for “a thousand years.” That such was the almost universal belief of the early church is now generally conceded by scholars who are able to read history with a minimum of theological prejudice. Archibald Robertson says this view “prevailed in the church generally for two centuries and a half, and in the Western Church for four centuries... until the time of Augustine.” As a matter of fact, Augustine himself shared this belief at first, but later changed his mind, with momentous consequences to the Christian Church.

3) The Celestial Kingdom Idea
4) The Ecclesiastical Kingdom Idea
5) The Spiritual Kingdom Idea
6) The Moral Kingdom Idea
7) The Liberal Social-Kingdom Idea
According to this emphasis, the Kingdom of God is the progressive social organization and improvement of mankind, in which society rather than the individual is given first place.
8) The Modern Eschatological-Kingdom Idea

III. Definitions and Distinctions

1) A Method of Approach

In beginning this study, it should be held axiomatic that any conception of the Kingdom of God which rests in large part upon a certain interpretation of the single text or passage of the Bible, must be regarded with deep suspicion. In this category are the systems built around such passages as, “The Kingdom of God is within you” (Lk 17:21), or “I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19), or the parable of the leaven (Mt 13:33), or the ethical precepts of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7), or the 20th chapter of the Book of Revelation. The doctrine of the Kingdom should be determined by an inductive examination of all the biblical material on the subject, and it should not have to stand or fall by the inclusion or exclusion of isolated passages where interpretation may be in serious dispute. To me, there is no question as to the general meaning of Revelation 20, but I maintain that the essential outline of the biblical doctrine of the Kingdom can be established without it. And this doctrine, once established, should be our surest guide in approaching those texts which are under controversy. …

Therefore, it is not enough to study a collation of texts on the subject; but the material must be examined in relation to the movement of history and the progress of divine revelation. This means that any adequate treatment must follow basically the method of biblical theology.

2) A Tentative Definition

A general survey of the biblical material indicates that the concept of a Kingdom envisages a total situation containing at least three essential elements: first, a ruler with adequate authority and power; Second, a realm of subjects should be ruled; And third, the actual exercise of the function of rulership. It is true, of course, that the primary and most important idea is that of the ruler with regal authority. It is also possible that the ruler may withdraw from his realm, and the exercise of his ruling function may be interrupted temporarily. But all three elements are nevertheless present in the biblical concept of a Kingdom; And there can be no Kingdom in the total sense without the ruler, the realm, and the reigning function. [1Ch 29:11 Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head [Ruler] above all [Realm]. 1Ch 29:12 Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest [Rule] over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all.]

... the “Kingdom of God” may be defined broadly as the rule of God over his creation.
21 These citations, deliberately selected from authors of widely different viewpoints, will be sufficient to show that the distinctions mentioned above are not imaginary. The question is how to explain them. Most of us would not be satisfied with the attitude of one current school of opinion, which, apparently rejoicing in religious paradox and tension for their own sake, is content to leave such theological antinomies permanently unresolved. For myself, while recognizing the reality of the problem, I am also convinced that the scriptures offer a reasonable explanation. In one sense, it would not be wholly wrong to speak of two kingdoms revealed in the Bible, but we must at the same time guard carefully against the notion that these two kingdoms are absolutely distinct, one from the other. There is value and instruction in thinking of them as two aspects or phases of the one rule of our sovereign God. In seeking for terms which might best designate these two things, I can find nothing better than the adjectives “universal” and “mediatorial.” These are not exactly commensurate terms, of course, but describe different qualities; the first referring to the extend of rule, the latter to the method of rule. Nevertheless, in each case the designated quality seems to be the most important for purposes of identification. As we proceed with the discussion, therefore, the terms used will be the Universal Kingdom and the Mediatorial Kingdom.

IV. The Universal Kingdom of God

22 “There is therefore recognized in Scripture . . . a natural and universal Kingdom or dominion of God, embracing all objects, and events, all doings of individuals and nations, all operations and changes of nature and history, absolutely without exception....” James Orr

34-35 What then was the Kingdom for which Christ disciples to pray? The infallible key to the meaning of the petition, “Thy Kingdom come,” must be found in the clause which follows: “As in heaven, so on earth” (Matthew 6:10, ASV). Although this clause is immediately connected with the petition, “Thy will be done,” it no doubt qualifies all three of the petitions which precede it. The disciples are to pray for the hallowing of God's name, for the coming of God's Kingdom, and for the doing of God's will—all this to be done “on earth” as it is being done “in heaven.” Although the Kingdom of God was already ruling over all, there was nevertheless a profound difference between the exercise of its rule, “in heaven” and “on earth.” This difference arises out of the fact that rebellion and sin exist upon the earth, sin which is to be dealt with in a way not known in any other place in the universe, not even among the angels which sinned. It is here that the great purpose of what I have named the Mediatorial Kingdom appears: On the basis of mediatorial redemption it must “come” to put down at last all rebellion with its train of evil results, thus finally bringing the Kingdom and will of God on earth as it is in heaven. When this purpose has been fully accomplished, the mediatorial phase of the kingdom will disappear as a separate entity, being merged with the Universal Kingdom of God.