"These nations were to be utterly destroyed (Deu. [[20:16-18|bible.5.20.16]]). If this course of action seems unduly harsh, its justification may be found in the unspeakably degraded practices which are described in horrible detail in the 18th chapter of Leviticus [Lev. [[18:1-30|bible.3.18.1]]], a chapter to be read and pondered by those who are troubled with the alleged 'moral' problem in relation to the character of God. There was indeed a moral problem in the land of Palestine, and it seemed to require what might be called a 'surgical operation' on the human race for the sake of its own preservation. And if the nation of Israel was made the divinely chosen instrument in the operation, it should not be forgotten that the same nation was thus preserved from fatal contamination in order to fulfil her destiny as the channel of divine salvaion on behalf of all nations. . . . The early so-called 'wars' of Israel, in taking over the promised land, were not wars at all in the ordinary sense of that term. Rather they were divinely ordered executions in which the armies of Israel served only as an instrument. The real leader in all these expeditions would be Jehovah Himself (Ex. [[23:20|bible.2.23.20]],Ex. [[23:23|bible.2.23.23]],Ex. [[23:27|bible.2.23.27]],Ex. [[23:31|bible.2.23.31]]; Deu. [[7:23-24|bible.5.7.23]].)"
Ref-0183, pp. 70-71.
"Hypridization can inform us that two creatures are the same kind. But it does not necessarily follow that if hypridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can't have children, and we don't classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind."
Ref-0232, p. 231. For an explanation of how the "dog kind" would have resulted in various types of dogs, see
Ref-0232, p. 233. "The simple fact is this: there are numerous species which are now known to have arisen not only within the last few thousand years, but also within historic times."
Ref-0232, p. 236. "There is no evolution because there is no new information. More informed evolutionists themselves acknowledge that the origin of a new species is simply an ecological adaptation of a life form that exhibits the same or lower grade of complexity (i.e., information content) as the parent species. . . . hence creationists are not advocating rapid evolution when they speak of rapid speciation."
Ref-0232, p. 240.
"[King] James was particulary exercised by the Geneva note at Ex. [[1:19|bible.2.1.19]]. It was an all-important passage, in his view, for understanding the nature of royal authority and the relationship between royal and divine instructions. . . . The modern reaction would surely be to admire the midwives' courage in standing up to the Pharaoh . . . Their disobedience was brave and their deception clever. But the Genevan note ran as follows" "Their disobedience in this was lawful, but their deception is evil.' For James, their behavior had been the essence of sedition. Their disobedience was wicked and their deception made it worse. It was clearly the midwives' duty to obey the royal insturciton, to conform to the authority of the powers that be and to murder the babies."
Ref-0235, pp. 58-59.
I.N.R.I. - The initials of the Latin superscription on the cross of Jesus, standing for IESUS NAZARENUS, REX IUDAEORUM, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews."
Ref-0134, s.v. I.N.R.I.
"It is difficult to conceive how the idea of the identity of the Kingdom of God with the Church could have originated."
Ref-0021, p. 1:269. "The identification of the Kingdom with the Church has led historically to ecclesiastical policies and programs which, even when not positively evil, have been far removed from the original simplicity of the New Testament ekklesia. It is easy to claim that in the 'present kingdom of grace' the rule of the saints is wholly 'spiritual,' exerted only through moral principles and influence. But practically, once the Church becomes the Kingdom in any realistic theological sense, it is impossible to draw any clear line between principles and their implementation through political and social devices. For the logical implications of a present ecclesiastical kingdom are unmistakable, and historically have always led in only one direction, i.e., political control of the state by the Church. The distances down this road travelled by various religious movements, and the forms of control which were developed, have been widely different. The difference is very great between the Roman Catholic system and modern Protestant efforts to control the state; also between the ecclesiastical rule of Calvin in Geneva and the fanaticism of Munster and the English 'fifth-monarchy.' But the basic assumption is always the same: The Church in some sense is the Kingdom, and therefore has a divine right to rule; or it is the business of the Church to 'establish' fully the Kingdom of God among men. Thus the Church loses its 'pilgrim' character and the sharp edge of its divinely commissioned 'witness' is blunted. It becomes and ekklesia which is not only in the world, but also of the world. It forgets that just as in the regeneration of the individual soul only God can effect the miracle, even so the 'regeneration' of the world can only be wrought by the intrusion of regal power from on high (Mtt. [[19:28|bible.61.19.28]])."
Ref-0183, pp. 438-439. "Here are five thoughts: (1) the Church is not the Kingdom; (2) the Kingdom of God incorporates the Church; (3) the Church witnesses to the Kingdom of God; (4) the Church is the instrument of the Kingdom, and (5) the Church is the custodian of the Kingdom during this time." Jim Bryant, "The Church Is Not Israel,"
Ref-0055, Vol. 6 No. 19 (December 2002) : p. 343.
"It is again the well-known prophecy of Isaiah, a passage quoted only upon the occasion of certain great adverse crises in the history of Israel. The first crisis came in the ministry of Isaiah when the rebellion of the nation was leading inexorably to the judgment of captivity and dispersion in which the Theocratic Kingdom on earth would end (Isa. [[6:9-10|bible.23.6.9]]). The second crisis came during the ministry of Christ when the attitude of Israel had made clear that He would be rejected by the nation (Mtt. [[13:13-15|bible.61.13.13]]). The third crisis came when, following the offical offer of the King in His triumphal entry, the nation's leaders prepared to kill Him (John [[12:37-41|bible.64.12.37]]). The fourth crisis came when the unyielding opposition of the nation toward a renewed offer of her Messianic King, now risen from the dead, had run its bitter course from Jerusalem to Rome [Acts [[28:25-27|bible.65.28.25]]]. History was again repeating itself."
Ref-0183, p. 422.
"But strangely enough, some of the very men who are so scornful of the alleged 'materialism' of a millennial kingdom, are the most insistent that the Church today must make effective in society what they call the social and moral ideals of the present kingdom of God. Thus, it is our duty to vote the right ticket politically, give to the Red Cross, help the Boy Scouts, support the United Nations, endow hospitals, etc. But if a 'spiritual' kingdom can and should produce such effects at the present time through the very imperfect agency of sinful men, why cannot the same thing be true in larger measure in the coming age when the rule of God will be mediated more perfectly and powerfully through the Eternal Son personally present among men as the Mediatorial King? . . . The reasoning of such men at times seems very curious. If physicians conquer disease, if scientists eliminate certain physical hazards, if by legislation governments improve the quality of human existence, if wise statesmen succeed in preventing a war, etc.,--these things are often cited as evidence of the progress of a present Kingdom of God. But if the Lord Jesus Christ Himself returns to earth in person to accomplish these same things, more perfectly and universally, then we are told that such a kingdom would be 'carnal.'"
Ref-0183, pp. 520-521. "Many interpreters are acquainted with the experience of Albert Schweitzer who shuts himself up with the Greek New Testament and comes out affirming that the New Testament teaches an earthly kingdom. . . . New Testament passages describing the kingdom on earth are Mtt. [[9:27|bible.61.9.27]]; Mtt. [[21:9|bible.61.21.9]]; Mtt. [[22:41-46|bible.61.22.41]]; Luke [[1:32-33|bible.63.1.32]]; John [[7:42|bible.64.7.42]]; Acts [[2:25-36|bible.65.2.25]]; Acts [[13:22|bible.65.13.22]], Acts [[13:23|bible.65.13.23]], Acts [[13:34|bible.65.13.34]], Acts [[13:36|bible.65.13.36]], Acts [[13:38|bible.65.13.38]]; Acts [[15:6|bible.65.15.6]]; Rom. [[1:3|bible.66.1.3]]; 2Ti. [[2:8|bible.76.2.8]]; Rev. [[5:5|bible.87.5.5]]; Rev. [[22:16|bible.87.22.16]]; etc."
Ref-0207, p. 231.
Questionable: Acts [[14:22|bible.65.14.22]] (?);
Not the gospel of personal salvation, but of the kingdom. "The absence of any formal definition of the Kingdom in its initial announcement indicates that the Jewish hearers were expected to know exactly what Kingdom was meant."
Ref-0183, p. 276. "When Nicodemus is perplexed about the way of entrance into the Kingdom, the reply of Jesus is not a definition but a rebuke. . . (John [[3:10|bible.64.3.10]]). This rebuke makes no sense at all apart from the assumption that the Kingdom announced by our Lord was in all respects the Kingdom of Old Testament prophecy. . ."
Ref-0183, p. 277.
"The Mystery Kingdom must be distinguished from the other four facets. First, it is not the same as the Universal Kingdom or the Eternal Kingdom: the Mystery Kingdom is limited in time, from the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus until the acceptance of the Messiahship of Jesus and therefore it is not eternal; furthermore, it is limited to the earth only, so it is not universal. Second, it is not the same as the Spiritual Kingdom because the Mystery Kingdom has both believers and unbelievers in it; it has both wheat and tares. Third, it is not the same as the Theocratic Kingdom because it does not involve God's rule over Israel as a theocracy and it includes both Jews and Gentiles. Fourth, it is not the same as the Messianic Kingdom because Jesus is not ruling over this Kingdom from Jerusalam, but from Heaven. Furthermore, He is ruling this Kingdom from the Throne of God the Father and [not] the Throne of David. Finally, the Messianic Kingdom was no mystery; most of what is known about the Messianic Kingdom is revealed in the Old Testament. Fifth, it is not the same as the Church. The Church is within the Mystery Kingdom; it is the believing element, the wheat of God's Mystery Kingdom, which includes both the treasure and the pearl, but it is not the totality."
Ref-0219, pp. 677-678.
". . . it should be held axiomatic that any conception of the Kingdom of God which rests in large part upon a certain interpretation of a 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 (Luke [[17:21|bible.63.17.21]]), or 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven' (Mtt. [[16:19|bible.61.16.19]]), or the parable of the leaven (Mtt. [[13:33|bible.61.13.33]]), or the ethical precepts of the Sermon on the Mount (Mtt. [[5:1-48|bible.61.5.1]]; Mtt. [[6:1-34|bible.61.6.1]]; Mtt. [[7:1-29|bible.61.7.1]]), 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."
Ref-0183, p. 16.
"The progression of the 'kingdom of God' is gradually revealed. What is this kingdom in principle if it is not the sphere where God reigns? In the Scriptures we can trace for it seven distinct steps: a. Paradise. . .(Gen. [[1:31|bible.1.1.31]]) b. The theocracy of Israel. . . c. The kingdom announced by the prophets. . . (1S. [[7:8|bible.9.7.8]]; Isa. [[11:1-16|bible.23.11.1]]) d. The kingdom offered and rejected in the gospels. . . (Mtt. [[4:17|bible.61.4.17]]; Luke [[17:21|bible.63.17.21]]; Luke [[10:9-11|bible.63.10.9]]) e. The kingdom hidden in the heart. . . (John [[3:3-5|bible.64.3.3]]; Col. [[1:13|bible.72.1.13]]) f. The thousand year reign. . . (Rev. [[20:1-10|bible.87.20.1]]) g. The eternal kingdom in heaven. . . (2Ti. [[4:18|bible.76.4.18]]; 2Pe. [[1:10-11|bible.82.1.10]])."
Ref-0060, p. 106.
"Thus, read in the light of its evident Old Testament context, the phrase 'kingdom of heaven' does not refer to a kingdom located in heaven as opposed to the earth, but rather to the coming to earth of a kingdom which is heavenly as to its origin and character."
Ref-0183, p. 280.
Matthew avoids using God's name when writing to Jews
Ref-0009, p. 381. "In Mark [[4:30-32|bible.62.4.30]] in the parable of the mustard seed, the Gospel writer uses the term kingdom of God in the same exact way and place wherein Matthew refers to the kingdom of heaven [Mtt. [[13:31|bible.61.13.31]]]. . .Jesus' words about the difficulty of the rich man entering the kingdom of heaven (Mtt. [[19:23|bible.61.19.23]]) are followed in the next breath by the same idea, however using the term kingdom of God instead (Mtt. [[19:24|bible.61.19.24]])." Mike Stallard, Hermeneutics and Mtt. [[13:1-58|bible.61.13.1]],
Ref-0055, August 2001, p. 143.
"If our Lord ministered only to Jews up to Mtt. [[12:1-50|bible.61.12.1]], then why is the episode of his conversation with the Roman centurion (non-Jew) placed in Mtt. [[8:5-13|bible.61.8.5]]? Even our Lord's encounter with the Samaritan woman in John [[4:39-43|bible.64.4.39]] fits chronologically in this time-frame of the early Judean ministry of our Lord." Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., "Kingdom Promises as Spiritual and National,"
Ref-0199, p. 305.
"We have here a key to one of the most puzzling problems of New Testament eschatology in relation to the Kingdom: How oculd the Kingdom be 'at hand,' and yet not near at hand? (Mark [[1:15|bible.62.1.15]] WITH lUKE 19:11). The true answer is to be found in the word 'contingency.' The very first announcement of the Kingdom as 'at hand' had called upon the nation of Israel to make a decision (Mark [[1:15|bible.62.1.15]]), a genuine decision, a moral and spiritual decision; and they made it, tragically, the wrong way. . . Those who fail to see this can make nothing out of certain portions of our Lord's prophetic teaching. There still remains the philosophical problem of course, but this is nothing new; it being only an aspect of the wider problem of Divine Sovereignty and Moral Responsibility. And for this there is no completely rational solution which does not end by affirming one and denying the other. But the Word of God teaches the reality of both."
Ref-0183, p. 320.
"the words of Christ regarding Judas raise the theological problem of divine sovereignty versus human responsibility in relation to the Kingdom . . . [Luke [[22:22|bible.63.22.22]]]. The rejection of the regal 'Son of man' and His Kingdom was no chance incident in the history of the world, for this matter was part of the counsels of the Eternal One. On the other hand, what Judas did in conspiracy with the leaders of Israel was something which morally the conspirators ought not to have done, and for which therefore they will be held personally responsible before the bar of God. Our Lord's terrible words . . . [Mark [[14:21|bible.62.14.21]]], underline this responsibility. But if the moral responsibility for rejecting the Messiah and His Kingdom was genuine, then so also the divine offer must have been genuine."
Ref-0183, p. 373.
"John has in mind the eschatological, earthly kingdom as anticipated by the Old Testament prophets. This is event for several reasons. First, the simple fact that John and Christ made no explanation of the kingdom is a clear indication of this fact. If the concept had been a different one, John and the Lord would have pointed it out. But neither John, Jesus, nor the twelve disciples make any such explanation when they preach the nearness of the kingdom. A second cogent reason is seen in the restriction of the message to the Jewish nation (Mtt. [[10:5-6|bible.61.10.5]]). If the message involved a spiritual kingdom only, why limit it to Israel? This message was preached to the Jews exclusively because the coming of the kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament was contingent upon the reception of it by the nation of Israel. A third reason for believing John refers to the Millennial Kingdom is found in the disciples' anticipation of a literal kingdom (Mtt. [[20:20-21|bible.61.20.20]]; Acts [[1:6|bible.65.1.6]]). The request of Mtt. [[20:20-21|bible.61.20.20]] could be explained as a mistaken notion if it were made early in the disciples' career. However, this request is made after they had heard the doctrine of the kingdom as taught by the Lord for many months. . . A fourth reason is based on simple logic. The kingdom in view cannot refer to the church since the church was not yet revealed. It cannot be God's universal kingdom because it is an eternal kingdom always present. Some contend that the kingdom in view is a spiritual one in which God rules in men's hearts. McClain presents a very forcible argument in opposition of this view. [We may also add that if the Kingdom, announced as 'at hand' by the Lord, had been exclusively a 'spiritual kingdom,'. . . such an announcement would have had no special significance whatever to Israel, for such a rule of God had always been recognized among the people of God. Compare the psalmist's affirmation concerning the righteous, The law of his God is in his heart (Ps. [[37:31|bible.19.37.31]]). (McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, p. 303)] The only conclusion at which one can arrive is that the proclamation of John refers to a literal, earthly kingdom in fulfillment o fthe Old Testament promises and prophecies."
Ref-0143, pp. 61-61 "their final question on the subject [Acts [[1:6-7|bible.65.1.6]]] should not be dismissed lightly as evidence of an 'unspiritual' and 'carnal' viewpoint, as some writers assume to do. Such treatment imputes not only inferior intelligence to the apostles but also, worse than that, incompetence to their Teacher."
Ref-0183, p. 393. "Suppose that Jesus did offer a spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men, and that repentance was the condition for receiving that kingdom, and that the people did repent and were born again, what then would have happened to the cross? Since the crucifixion had not yet taken place, does it mean that there was in those days a way of salvation different from salvation through the death of Christ?"
Ref-0056, pp. 166-168. For an excellent discussion of kingdom offer, See
Ref-0207, pp. 299-311.
In Mtt. [[12:28|bible.61.12.28]], 'has come' is εφθασεν, 'to come to, come upon' rather than εγγιζω which means 'to come near.'
"We can have no quarrel with the dictum of writers who insist that the Kingdom is a 'spiritual' matter, unless they insist upon a definition which is exclusively Platonic, or if they are so foolish as to deny that a spiritual kingdom can function tangibly in a world of sense experience. As a matter of fact, it would be wrong to say that the Kingdom of Old Testament prophecy is basically 'spiritual,' yet a Kingdom producing tangible effects in every area of human life."
Ref-0183, p. 221.
"There is. . . an ambiguity in the Luke passage which has caused. . . much difficulty. It invovles the adverbe εντος. While same say it means within, others say it is to be translated among. Of the two, among is by far the better. Major, Manson, and Wright give three reasons why this is so. First, the kingdom of God could not in any way be said to be within His foes, the Pharisees, whom He was then addressing. Second, the kingdom under discussion was not a spiritual one, but the earthly, Jewish, eschatological one. Finally, Jesus always speaks of men entering the kingdom and never of the kingdom entering into men. . . . The kingdom of the heavens had drawn near; its nearness was proven by the evidence of signs; and whether it should come or not was in the control of Israel."
Ref-0143, pp. 163-164. "The King James rendering of 'within,' cannot be true; for surely in no sense could the Kingdom of God have been 'within' the hearts of the Pharisees to whom our Lord was speaking, and who had charged blasphemously that His miracles were being accomplished through the power of the devil (Mtt. [[12:24|bible.61.12.24]]). But in the Person of its divinely appointed King, visibly present in incarnate form on earth where He must eventually reign, the Kingdom was in that sense already 'in the midst of' men regardless of their attitude, whether for or against Him."
Ref-0183, p. 272. For this sense, see Luke [[10:9-11|bible.63.10.9]]; Luke [[11:20|bible.63.11.20]]; Mtt. [[12:28|bible.61.12.28]]; Mark [[1:15|bible.62.1.15]]. "The phrase 'within you' is susceptible of an easy and consistent solution: (Theocratic Kingdom, vol. 2, Proposition 110, Observation 2, p. 41). The kingdom is covenanted to the Jewish nation; it is an elect nation; the kingdom belonged so exclusively to them that the public ministry of John the Baptist, Jesus and the disciples, was confined to that nation. The kingdom was tendered to the Jewish nation; on its refusal (through its representative men) to repent, the kingdom is postponed, and those who are to receive it as an inheritance with Christ are grafted into that elect nation. These considerations show at once how this kingdom was 'within' them. It was truly 'within' the nation, it being the elect nation." (Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, vol. 2, pp. 41-42).
"An examination of what Christ had to say about the kingdom should make it plain that in some instances He spoke concerning the general government and authority of God over the universe. In other cases, He dealt with the reign of God in the heart, or a spiritual kingdom. On yet other occasions He spoke specifically of the kingdom promise to David."
Ref-0104, p. 134. ". . . Jesus taught that His Kingdom is something new and distinctive (Mark [[1:15|bible.62.1.15]]); that it is moral and spiritual, and not political (Mtt. [[5:3-12|bible.61.5.3]]; Luke [[6:20-23|bible.63.6.20]]; John [[18:36|bible.64.18.36]]); that it is invisible and internal (Luke [[17:20-21|bible.63.17.20]]); that it is silent, mysterious, and progressive (Mark [[4:26-29|bible.62.4.26]]); that it is universal in its design and scope (Mtt. [[21:31|bible.61.21.31]],Mtt. [[21:43|bible.61.21.43]]); that it is social (Mtt. [[20:25-28|bible.61.20.25]]); that by it we enter into a relation, not only to God, but also to men; that it can be entered only by regeneration (John [[3:3|bible.64.3.3]],John [[3:5|bible.64.3.5]]; Mtt. [[18:3-4|bible.61.18.3]]); and that it is both present and future (Mtt. [[12:28|bible.61.12.28]]; Mark [[9:1|bible.62.9.1]]; Luke [[13:29|bible.63.13.29]]; Luke [[17:21|bible.63.17.21]])."
Ref-0117, p. 565. "The kingdom has both a future and a present form. The future form is the Millennial Kingdom spoken of so frequently in prophecy. The present form is the Spiritual Kingdom where God rules in the hearts of saved men today. Jesus has in mind this spiritual kingdom when He tells Nicodemus, 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God' (John [[3:3|bible.64.3.3]]; also Mtt. [[6:33|bible.61.6.33]], Gal. [[5:21|bible.69.5.21]] and other passages) In addition, there is the Eternal Kingdom of God which comprehends the rule of God over all creation--saved and unsaved--down the ages."
Ref-0207, p. 184n1.
Hebrew, "city of," Jos. 21:11