✪ "These nations were to be utterly destroyed (Deu. 20:16-18). 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, 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 salvation 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. 23:20,23,27,31; Deu. 7:23-24.)" Ref-0183, pp. 70-71. "When man becomes inveterate in his unrighteousness, as in the days of Noah or among the ancient tribes of Canaan (whose religious practices included child sacrifice) why should we think it strange if God’s patience runs out and he eliminates the cultures in question? In modern society we are quick enough to demand justice and retribution upon the child-abuser, the rapist and the murderer — as your newspaper will probably demonstrate any time this week. Why should not God also visit justice on human societies that break his laws and spurn his call to repent of their sins?" Ref-1341, loc. 4642. "The Ojibwa were braver warriors than most of the eastern Algonkians, and preserved much stricter discipline on the march. They used the same types of arms as their enemies--the bow and arrow, knobbed wooden club, knife, and a round shield covered with moosehide; and while the fighting lasted they spared neither man, woman, nor child." Ref-1396, pp. 278-279 "The Kutchin never purchased slaves, and never acquired any in their petty wars; for they massacred men, women, and children without mercy, sparing only some of the younger women to carry away for wives." Ref-1396, p. 403
✪ "From 1933 to 1945, the Nazis murdered 6 million Jewish people -- one-third of world Jewry. Sad to say, Jerusalem will again be trampled; two-thirds of Israel will not survive the Great Tribulation (Zech. 13:8)." David M. Levy, "Suffering God's Wrath", Ref-0057, March/April 2005, p. 16. "From current news sources (October, 1943) we learn that the estimated Jewish population of Europe ten years ago was 8,300,000; and that has been reduced by 5,000,000. So that in the whole of continental Europe occupied by the Axis, only 3,000,000 Jews remain alive. Surely we have here a harrowing item of a tribulation which is immeasurably great. Is it supposable that a tribulation of even greater severity is yet in store for that sorely afflicted race, and the mouth of the compassionate Savior has declared it? Impossible." Ref-0896, p. 110.
✪ "Hybridization can inform us that two creatures are the same kind. But it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization 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. "In all, although there are an estimated 668 dinosaur ‘species’, it's more likely that there were only about 55 created kinds with lots of varieties within these kinds.11,12" Jonathan Sarfati, How did dinosaurs grow so big?, Ref-0028 28(1) December 2005-February 2006, p. 47. ". . . Dawkins points to various species of birds and salamanders, where species A can breed with species B and species B with species C, but where A cannot interbreed with C . . . . Look, Dawkins tells us, species barriers aren't as hard and fast as we tend to make them out to be. (Creationists of course have been saying this for years -- the species barrier does not coincide with the real dividing point of ‘kinds’. Indeed, a common hybridization criterion for ‘kinds’ allows for this transitive relationship." Lael Weinberger, Long tails, tall tales, Ref-0784, 22(1) 2008, 37:40, p. 37. "In 1990, Walter ReMine presented an alternative method of biosystematics termed “discontinuity systematics” and Kurt Wise utilized ReMine’s terminology, applied it to a creationist model he termed “baraminology”, and further delineated between these groupings. Both concepts are based on biblical precepts that God created (bara or ברא) animal and plant kinds (min or מין) during Creation Week, from which all plants and animals derive. An objective for creationists is to determine which plants and animals descended from an original created kind." Joel David Klenck, Major Terrestrial Animal Taxonomic Classifications as Defined by God, Ref-0784, 23(2) 2009, 118:122, p. 118. "This phenomenon of thus-far-and-no-further is familiar to animal and plant breeders who practise artificial rather than natural selection. New or improved traits can be bred into a species almost at will (faster racehorses, for instance) but there is always a limit beyond which genetic in-breeding or other effects start to cause degeneration rather than enhancement. Similarly, many different varieties of a species can be produced artificially, but there are always boundaries that cannot be crossed. Darwin himself fully understood this." Ref-1341, loc. 3637. "there is no single concept of what a species is among evolutionists; there are at least 22 (Baylis and Robert 2006, p. 1)" -- Callie Joubert Chimeras, Cybrids, and Hybrids: A Christian’s Observations and Critique of Some Aspects of the Controversy Involving the Mixing of Human and Animal Materials for Scientific Research Ref-1402, 6 (2013): 321-333. [https://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/chimeras] accessed 20130919. See 2013091901.htm. "Based on the biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that if two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (descended from) the same kind. Also, by extension, if either of these creatures can hybridize with a third creature, they are all members of the same kind. However, if two creatures cannot breed together it does not necessarily follow that they are not from the same kind, because degenerative changes due to mutations, such as chromosomal rearrangements, can cause breeding barriers between individuals that are otherwise identical. . . . The creationist biologist Dr Frank Marsh wrote of these concepts in the 1940s. . . . Marsh coined the term ‘baramin’ for a created kind (from the Hebrew bara, ‘create’ and min, ‘kind’) and defined criteria for discerning the descendants of the created kinds. ‘Baraminology’ is the systematic study of the created kinds." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 516-537. ". . . chance plus selection can indeed give rise to both new species and new genera, just as Darwin envisioned, just as they did in the Galápagos. That’s crucially important in enabling groups of organisms to diversify and fill disparate environmental niches. But, as a first approximation, Darwinian processes (or for that matter any other non-intelligently planned process) cannot produce descendants that differ from their ancestor at the level of family or higher." Ref-1561, par. 2234. ". . . the fundamental principle seems very likely to be this: minor random variations around a designed blueprint are possible and can be helpful, but are severely limited in scope. For new basic designs such as those at the biological level of family and above, additional information is necessary, information that is beyond the ability of mindless processes to provide." Ref-1561, par. 2434. ". . . random mutation and natural selection are self-limiting. Two-edged swords, they both promote Darwinian evolution on a small scale and hinder it on a large one." Ref-1561, par. 3300. "We’ll then explore how the three factors of random mutation, natural selection, and irreducible complexity reinforce each other to ensure that Darwinian evolution is self-limiting." Ref-1561, par. 3335. "In the case of an already functioning complex system, natural selection shapes it more and more tightly to its current role, making it less and less adaptable to other complex roles." Ref-1561, par. 3588. "Its inexorable predilection to hastily squander genetic information for short-term gain—encapsulated by the First Rule of Adaptive Evolution—guarantees that Darwin’s mechanism is powerfully devolutionary and explains why unguided evolution is self-limiting." Ref-1561, par. 3713.
✪ Unlike all previous temples, the millennial temple contains a throne, possibly indicating the addition of a kingly role with the priestly role.
✪ "[King] James was particularly exercised by the Geneva note at Exodus 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 instruction, to conform to the authority of the powers that be and to murder the babies.” " Ref-0235, pp. 58-59.
✪ "The ended the kingdom established with so valiant a heroic struggle by the Maccabees. It was an inglorious fall, but in the minds of the people the hope lived that when the Messiah of whom their prophets had written, appeared, he, like Judas Maccabæus, would challenge the power of the oppressor and would restore the kingdom to Israel. The hope was must vivid when Jesus was born, and if he would have consented to become a military chief, thousands would have flocked to his standard. His refusal exasperated the people, who would have “taken him by force and mode him a king.”" B. J. Fernie, From Malachi to Matthew
✪ 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.
✪ "In the long passage in Daniel 11 about the kings of the north and the kings of the south, the original Septuagint of Daniel consistently translates the term “king of the South,” by “king of Egypt.” The version of Theodotion, which largely superseded it, has “king of the south” throughout." -- 20160331194951.pdf
✪ According to Origen, Daniel’s prophecy is not fulfilled until the end of this age: "To explain each particular here referred to does not belong to our present purpose. The prophecy also regarding Antichrist is stated in the book of Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent and candid reader admire the words as truly divine and prophetic; for in them are mentioned the things relating to the coming kingdom, beginning with the times of Daniel, and continuing to the destruction of the world. And any one who chooses may read it. Observe, however, whether the prophecy regarding Antichrist be not as follows: “And at the latter time of their kingdom, when their sins are coming to the full, there shall arise a king, bold in countenance, and understanding riddles. And his power shall be great, and he shall destroy wonderfully, and prosper, and practise; and shall destroy mighty men, and the holy people. And the yoke of his chain shall prosper: there is craft in his hand, and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by craft shall destroy many; and he shall stand up for the destruction of many, and shall crush them as eggs in his hand.” What is stated by Paul in the words quoted from him, where he says, “so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God,” is in Daniel referred to in the following fashion: “And on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations, and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.” " Ref-0540, pp. 594-595. "Ben Israel curried financial support for Jews to return to the Holy Land and believed that the time of captivity was drawing to an end. The result was a new millennial strain in English theology. It was first manifested in the Fifth Monarchy Men of the 1650s, who expected the imminent arrival of the Messiah and called for “No King but Jesus. ”" Ref-1573, p. 86. "Since the fifth century Augustine’s view predominated, that the fourth monarch was the Roman Empire, while the fifth monarchy was the Roman Christian Church which conquered the pagan Roman Empire. The Reformers also accepted this traditional Christian view, that as part of Christ’s Church on earth they were part of that Fifth Monarchy [“Daniel”, Lecture XI; in Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker reprint, 1981), XII, 183]." Ref-1573, p. 96. "Belief in a coming Messianic Fifth Monarchy, which had disappeared by the fifth century, was renewed in the sixteenth century by German Anabaptists." Ref-1573, p. 96. "After 1660 no apocalyptical source was found advocating violence to establish a fifth monarchy." Ref-1573, p. 108. "William Aspinwall immigrated to New England in 1630, sided with radical Anne Hutchinson against the Puritan establishment in Boston, helped draw up her petition, then followed her to Rhode Island. After hearing of the execution of King Charles and the establishment of a Commonwealth, he returned to England to participate in the founding of a Fifth Monarchy, promised by the prophet Daniel to take place the end of the age." Ref-1573, p. 100. "Fifth Monarchists were Postmillennial in that they believed Christ would return after the elect had set up the millennium in his name. This produced a revolutionary militancy unrivaled in church history," Ref-1573, p. 101. ". . . a transition to the Fifth Monarchy had already begun with the execution of King Charles," Ref-1573, p. 101. "Criticism of the Fifth Monarchy came from Samuel Hutchinson, brother - in - law of Anne Hutchinson, who wrote “I do not approve of such Fifth - Monarchy Men as take up Arms against Commonwealths and Governments [for it] will not be till Christ appear in the Clouds, for the Restitution of all things . . . ” [Samuel Hutchinson, A Declaration of a Future Glorious Estate of a Church to be here upon Earth, at Christs Personal Appearance for the Restitution of all things, a Thousand Years . . . (London,1667), 3-4.]" Ref-1573, p. 106. "That restoration came two years later as Parliament invited the Stuarts back to reign in England. What followed were the executions of all the Fifth Monarchy men, “for preaching maliciously and traitorously against the life and safety of our Sovereign Lord the King, and against the Peace and Government of this Realm. ” Most often they were drawn, hanged, and quartered." Ref-1573, p. 107. ". . . by 1660 the wind had gone out of the revolutionary sails. Even Fifth Monarchy men now taught submission to the state, or at least to “come out of her ” by emigrating to New England." Ref-1573, p. 108. "Catholics understood the Fifth Monarchy, which would smash the statue and establish a world - wide empire, as the victory of Christianity over pagan Rome at the time of Constantine." Ref-1573, p. 116. "That millenarian group known as the Fifth Monarchists, who believed that the Roman Empire would shortly be replaced by the Empire of Christ and whose calculations to this effect were greatly encouraged by the death of the King, gave their first sign of political action in February." Ref-1566, p. 312. "The Fifth Monarchists, last heard of in 1649 as a small but growing sect, had in the intervening years increased not only in strength but in noise. For one thing they regarded wars-in this case the Dutch War-with approval, not only because they were helping towards the spreading of the kingdom of Christ, but because Continental war, like the return of the Jews, had its place in their elaborate calculations. These in turn pointed to the restoration of the monarchy of Christ in either 1660 or 1666." Ref-1566, p. 439. "Anna Trapnell, the strange northern prophetess, discerned in Cromwell the Little Horn, a horrible excrescence on the head of the Beast, as depicted in the Fifth Monarchists’ favourite book of Daniel." Ref-1566, p. 486. "The numerological calculations of John More, a London apprentice, brought the total of Cromwell’s titles to a sinister six hundred and sixty-six-the number of the Beast." Ref-1566, p. 486. "The Fifth Monarchists, the intensity of whose calculations as to the probable date of the coming of Christ’s Kingdom has been stressed, believed that the conversion of the Jews played some part in the process by which the fall of Anti-Christ would be ultimately achieved." Ref-1566, p. 559.
✪ "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 an 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 (Mat. 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). 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 (Mat. 13:13-15). The third crisis came when, following the official offer of the King in His triumphal entry, the nation's leaders prepared to kill Him (John 12:37-41). 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]. 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 Mat. 9:27; 21:9; 22:41-46; Luke 1:32-33; John 7:42; Acts 2:25-36; 13:22, 23, 34, 36, 38; 15:6; Rom. 1:3; 2Ti. 2:8; Rev. 5:5; 22:16; etc." Ref-0207, p. 231. "Though amillennialist Samuel Waldron is not in the mainstream of Augustinian thought, I appreciate his confession . . . at this point: "The heavenly country is not a country in heaven, but a country from heaven. The heavenly kingdom is the kingdom from heaven and not the kingdom in heaven. . . . Though heaven is the happy abode of disembodied righteous during the present age, in the age to come heaven comes to earth."" Ref-1263, p. 251. "Why would Christ be tempted to do something He didn't want to do? He didn't have a sin nature remember! Therefore, we maintain that the strength of this particular temptation, and Jesus' response to it (in Luke 4:12 - which shows, I think, that He was tempted), present proof that it is indeed within His plan to reign over this earth one day; and this is in-line with Luke 1:32-33 and OT expectations in Mic. 5:2; Isa. 11:1-10; Jer. 33:15f., Zech. 14:9 etc." Paul Henebury, Christ at the Center: The Fulcrum of Biblical Covenantalism (Pt. 4c), [http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/christ-at-the-center-pt-4c/] accessed 20121004. "Just as the Old Testament promised a future tangible earthly kingdom over the nations, so too does the New Testament (Matt. 19:28; Rev. 19:15). The kingdom is not spiritualized or transcended. Thus, when John the Baptist and Jesus declared, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17) they meant the prophesied earthly kingdom foretold in the Old Testament." Ref-1520, p. 77.
✪ 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). 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 Jerusalem, 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. "Pentecost also explains that the present mystery form of the kingdom is not the millennial kingdom because the latter was clearly predicted in the Old Testament and was not a mystery. Nor can the kingdom's mystery form refer to the church because the mystery form includes more than church-age believers." Gary W. Derickson, "Matthew's Chiastic Structure and Its Dispensational Implications", Ref-0200 Volume 163 Number 652, October-December 2006, 423:437, p. 436. The use of the term “mystery” in this context may convey something previously unknown more than something “mysterious” : "Jesus referred to His parables in Matthew 13:11 as “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” that were being “given” to His apostles and disciples by Him while being kept from the nation (“them”). When Jesus said that “many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it” (v. 17), He indicated that the Old Testament prophets were not recipients of the truths He was revealing to His disciples at that time. What Jesus was describing in the parables the Old Testament prophets would like to have seen and heard, but they had not and could not. Paul described “mystery” in the same sense . . . (Eph. 3:5)." Gary W. Derickson, The New Testament Church as a Mystery, Ref-0200 Volume 166 Number 664, October-December 2009, 436:445, p. 437.
✪ ". . . 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), or ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mat. 16:19), or the parable of the leaven (Mat. 13:33), or the ethical precepts of the Sermon on the Mount (Mat. 5; 6; 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." Ref-0183, p. 16. "In Paul's writing there are fourteen direct references to God's “kingdom.”2" -- Michael J. Vlach, The Kingdom of God in Paul’s Epistles, 2015061701.pdf, p. 59. "This compares with 121 references to “kingdom” in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These Pauline references are Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Col 1:13; 4:11; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 1:5; and 2 Tim 4:1, 18. These few references, however, do not mean the kingdom is insignificant to Paul. Kingdom truths are lo-cated in his writings." -- Michael J. Vlach, The Kingdom of God in Paul’s Epistles, 2015061701.pdf, p. 59.
✪ "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) b. The theocracy of Israel. . . c. The kingdom announced by the prophets. . . (1S. 7:8; Isa. 11) d. The kingdom offered and rejected in the gospels. . . (Mat. 4:17; Luke 17:21; 10:9-11) e. The kingdom hidden in the heart. . . (John 3:3-5; Col. 1:13) f. The thousand year reign. . . (Rev. 20:1-10) g. The eternal kingdom in heaven. . . (2Ti. 4:18; 2Pe. 1:10-11)." Ref-0060, p. 106.
✪ See kingdom - of heaven vs. kingdom of God. "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. "It seems most likely that the phrase “kingdom of the heavens” bears its roots primarily from Daniel 7:13 because this phrase is very messianic in nature. Christ used that passage on various occasions when He spoke of His second coming (Matt 24:30; 26:74). What is interesting is the reference of clouds coming and the sky. The content of Daniel 7 speaks of the kingdom actually coming from the sky, which might indicate why Matthew chose to use the term “kingdom of the heavens.” He was referring to Daniel 7:13 as the source of this messianic kingdom coming from the sky, or heavens." Timothy L. Decker, Taken and Given: The Israelitish Judgment and Restoration Taught in Matthew 21:43, Ref-0785, Volume 14 Number 43, December 2010, 23-44, p. 30.
✪ See kingdom - of heaven. Matthew avoids using God's name when writing to Jews Ref-0009, p. 381. "In Mark 4:30-32 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 [Mat. 13:31]. . .Jesus’ words about the difficulty of the rich man entering the kingdom of heaven (Mat. 19:23) are followed in the next breath by the same idea, however using the term kingdom of God instead (Mat. 19:24)." Mike Stallard, Hermeneutics and Matthew 13, Ref-0055, August 2001, p. 143. "Furthermore, the phrases “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven” are interchangeable in Jewish sources, the latter being a circumlocution to avoid using the word God; it also stands as a reminder that God’s sovereign rule extends beyond the time and space limits of the material order." Ref-1200, p. 297. "That form of interpretation which rides on occasional similarities and passes over vital differences is displayed by those who argue that the kingdom of heaven, as referred to in Matthew, must be the same as the kingdom of God since some parables regarding the kingdom of heaven are reported in Mark and Luke under the designation the kingdom of God. No attempt is made by these expositors to explain why the term kingdom of heaven is used by Matthew only, nor do they seem to recognize the fact that the real difference between that which these designations represent is to be discovered in connection with the instances where they are not and cannot be used interchangeably rather than in the instances where they are interchangeable. Certain features are common to both the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God, and in such instances the interchange of the terms is justified. Closer attention will reveal that the kingdom of heaven is always earthly while the kingdom of God is as wide as the universe and includes as much of earthly things as are germane to it. Likewise, the kingdom of heaven is entered by a righteousness exceeding the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20), while the kingdom of God is entered by a new birth (John 3:1-16). So, again, the kingdom of heaven answers the hope of Israel and the Gentiles, while the kingdom of God answers the eternal and all-inclusive purpose of God." Ref-1518, p. 62.
✪ "If our Lord ministered only to Jews up to Matthew 12, then why is the episode of his conversation with the Roman centurion (non-Jew) placed in Mat. 8:5-13? Even our Lord's encounter with the Samaritan woman in John 4:39-43 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 could the Kingdom be ‘at hand,’ and yet not near at hand? (Mark 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), 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.
✪ "If the Jews had accepted Jesus as their Messiah, they would naturally have anointed Him king. Rome would just as naturally have regarded this as rebellion against their authority and would have moved in militarily to quash the rebellion. They would then have crucified Jesus (crucifixion was specifically a Roman form of execution) and thus the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah’s death by crucifixion would have been literally fulfilled in detail (particularly Psalm 22). In other words, God’s pre-revealed plan could have been set in motion at the crucifixion and would have perfectly fulfilled all Old Testament predictions without the mystery Church Age. Is this not too wonderful for a human mind to have invented?" Ref-1533, Dan. 7.1. [While interesting, Mills’ view seems problematic in that if the Jews had accepted Jesus, then that should have ushered in the predicted kingdom -- and wouldn’t easily account for any intervening church age.]
✪ "the words of Christ regarding Judas raise the theological problem of divine sovereignty versus human responsibility in relation to the Kingdom . . . [Luke 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], 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. "Two years after their departure from Egypt, God offered to Israel an entrance into their land at Kadesh-Barnea. They rejected the offer. God knew they would reject it, yet it was a bona fide offer He made to them. Yea, it was in the divine counsel that they would reject, become guilty of that specific sin, and, as a punishment, be returned to thirty-eight more years of wilderness experience." Ref-1518, p. 31. "It was also in the purpose of God that Christ's death should be accomplished by Israel as their act of rejecting their King. It is also true that they did not and could not reject what was not first offered to them." Ref-1518, p. 32.
✪ "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 (Matthew 10:5-6). 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 (Matthew 20:20-21; Acts 1:6). The request of Matthew 20:20-21 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). Ref-0183, 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] 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. "As Beacham writes, “These parables were not spoken by Christ at the inception of His ministry in order to redefine the prophesied kingdom or to correct Jewish misconceptions about Messiah's rule. Rather, the kingdom parables were spoken by Christ later in His ministry, at a point of crisis in the offer of the restored kingdom to Israel. . . . The kingdom parables, then, were not intended to define the kingdom in its offer but to explain the effects of its rejection. The contextual setting that envelopes the kingdom parables (Mat. 10:11-16:21) must not be ignored in their interpretation." Gary W. Derickson, "Matthew's Chiastic Structure and Its Dispensational Implications", Ref-0200 Volume 163 Number 652, October-December 2006, 423:437, p. 432. "Thus Jesus’ parables of the kingdom do not describe Messiah's kingdom or the church. Instead they address God's continued kingdom program (His universal rule) expressed through the church while Israel's program is “put on hold” until Daniel's seventieth week is resumed." Gary W. Derickson, "Matthew's Chiastic Structure and Its Dispensational Implications", Ref-0200 Volume 163 Number 652, October-December 2006, 423:437, p. 437. "Three times before Matthew 12 the kingdom is said to be near (Mat. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7). Then after Jesus’ opponents accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Satan (Mat. 12:24-32; Mark 3:22-30; Luke 11:14-26), the nearness of the kingdom is never mentioned again the Gospels." Stanley D. Toussaint and Jay Q. Quine, No, Not Yet: The Contingency of God's Promised Kingdom, Ref-0200, Vol. 164 No. 654 April-June 2007, 131:147, p. 138. "Another objection is that God already knew Israel would not believe, so how could a genuine offer of kingdom blessings be given when God knew Israel would not believe? Yet, again, a genuine offer of salvation can occur at an individual level even for those God knows will not believe. Those who are reformed in their theology usually affirm a genuine offer of salvation to the non-elect. God can and does genu- inely offer blessings to those He knows will not believe. Why can’t God also present a genuine offer of kingdom blessings to Israel, even though He knows Israel would not believe at that time? Again, what is true at an individual level can be true at a national level." Michael Vlach, Israel’s Repentance and the Kingdom of God, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 2, Fall 2016, 161-186, p. 185.
✪ In Mat. 12:28, ‘has come’ is εφθασεν, ‘to come to, come upon’ rather than εγγιζω which means ‘to come near.’$
✪ "While there is a close relationship between salvation and the kingdom, the two are not the same thing. We cannot say “salvation is the kingdom,” or “the kingdom is salvation.” The kingdom of God is a broader concept than human salvation. One must be saved in order to enter the kingdom. Thus, salvation is the qualification for entrance into the kingdom." Michael Vlach, Israel’s Repentance and the Kingdom of God, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 2, Fall 2016, 161-186, p. 170.
✪ "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. "Perhaps one of the most striking features of Jesus' kingdom is that it appears not to be the kind of kingdom prophesied in the OT and expected by Judaism." - G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, p. 431. "Christendom seeks to reign now, a heartless reign hollow and faithless. This, with error of all sorts, is what has been "garnered" during the centuries of insubjection to the word and Spirit of God. The only true place of the bride is to suffer here and now where He suffered to the utmost, awaiting the day when we shall be glorified on high and reign together with Him." -- 20160114123340.pdf, p. 3. ". . . he [Paul] did not hide the apostolic path of present reproach and shame for Christ's sake in which so few are ambitious to be their successors. They prefer to be enthroned as bishops and archbishops, patriarchs or popes, from which earthly glory the apostles were wholly apart. Nor are the so-called Free Churches a whit less covetous of money, ease, and honor, as far as they can compass it." -- 20160114123340.pdf, p. 3. "A Staunch advocate of postmillennialism, Boettner ably summarized the issue: ‘The primary difference between the post- and amillennial view on the one hand and the premillennial view on the other as regards the Kingdom has to do with whether or not the Kingdom is spiritual in nature, now present in the hearts of men, the outward manifestation of which is the Church, or whether it is political and economic, absent from the earth at the present time but to be established in outward form when Christ returns.’ [Loraine Boettner, The Millennium, rev. ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984) 284]" Daniel Geopfrich, The Nature of the Coming Messianic Kingdom as Found in its Covenants, Ref-0785, Volume 18, Number 55 (Winter 2014), 209-224, p. 218. See 20170517163958.pdf. "However, is it a spiritual kingdom? Is Jesus sitting upon David’s throne currently, as many claim? Has he broken the nations “with an iron scepter” (Ps. 2:9)? Is he ruling in the modst of his enemies “from Zion’ (Ps. 110:2)? If this is true, if the nations have been given to Jesus as his “inheritance,” his “personal property” (Ps. 2:8), how could John say, “the whole world lies [currently, present indicative] in the power of the evil one” (1Jn. 5:19)? What else, but demonic and blasphemous, could one call Paul’s assertion that Satan is “the god of this age” (2Cor. 4:4), if Jesus is reigning king?" Daniel Geopfrich, The Nature of the Coming Messianic Kingdom as Found in its Covenants, Ref-0785, Volume 18, Number 55 (Winter 2014), 209-224, p. 219. See 20170517163958.pdf. "The design of John [the Baptist]’s preaching was to turn the people from their sins and to prepare the for the coming of] Messiah (not only their changed lives, but by getting them to change their minds about the type of coming kingdom it was to be)." Ref-1350, 670. "Mark 10:45 depicts Jesus as beginning to fulfill the Daniel prophecy [7:13] in an apparently different way than prophesied . . . in a hitherto unexpected manner" - G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, p. 195. "The word ["mystery"] . . . when so linked with OT allusions, is used to indicate that prophecy is beginning fulfillment but in an unexpected manner in comparison to the way Old Testament readers might have expected" - G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, p. 202.
✪ "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 (Mat. 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; 11:20; Mat. 12:28; Mark 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). "In Deuteronomy 18:22 we have God telling His people how they are to test a true prophet sent from Him: . . . In this passage God plainly tells His people that they can spot a true prophet from a false prophet by whether what they say will happen actually transpires. But doesn't Beale's view of prophecy render God's tests of a true prophet both unworkable and futile? If, as Beale says, an OT prediction can be "transformed" in "unexpected ways" (both terms he uses), we must ask, "How then is one to know if what a prophet has spoken is true or false?" It seems the only way to really know the answer is if God Himself tells us it occurred, but the fulfillment came about in an unexpected way." Paul Henebury, News from Veritas School of Theology, October 30, 2012.
✪ "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); that it is moral and spiritual, and not political (Mat. 5:3-12; Luke 6:20-23; John 18:36); that it is invisible and internal (Luke 17:20-21); that it is silent, mysterious, and progressive (Mark 4:26-29); that it is universal in its design and scope (Mat. 21:31,43); that it is social (Mat. 20:25-28); 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 3:3,5; Mat. 18:3-4); and that it is both present and future (Mat. 12:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 13:29; Luke 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; also Mat. 6:33, Gal. 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.
✪ Questionable: Luke 16:16 (?);
✪ "Believers are always in competition with the kingdom of man because believers have a higher loyalty, by the first commandment, “Thou shalt . . . love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, with all thy soul,” believers have this higher loyalty to the God of the Bible. . . . Since we are dealing with believers who have this higher loyalty, since these believers are now isolated on their own in alien territory surrounded by a hostile government, surrounded by social pressures against them to trust in the Word of God, believers have got to survive and they can't survive by compromise, they can only survive by separation." Ref-1359, p. 20.261-262. "I like what J. Vernon McGee said, “either you're a saint or you're an ain't.”" Ref-1577, Dan. 7:25.
✪ "Distinctly religious history was recorded in the Book of Kings. Such history could have been written only by religious men. In Israel and Judah, as in other nations, there were official court reporters who kept formal records of state. But the more closely we examine the accounts in Kings, the more clear it is that the royal scribes had little if anything to do with most of this material as it has come down to us. There is in these books too much of severe indictment of the wicked ways of individual kings, too much pronouncement of divine doom on the heads of recalcitrant rulers, to believe that royal scribes played any significant part in the production of Kings as the book exists today. What member of a royal court would have dared to record the stories of Ahab and Naboth, of Jezebel's violence against the prophets, of the abominations and sodomies during the reign of Rehoboam, of Ahaz's defilement of the altar, or of Manasseh's dealings with wizards and familiar spirits? . . . These records were written by men who had access to the bed chambers of kings (1 Kings 1:1-4) and were acquainted with the secret connivings that went on in the inner chambers of royal courts. The prophets of Israel found themselves in just such categories (1 Kings 1:11-27). The more carefully these records are examined, the more clear it is that prophets played a major role in their production. Only prophets could have produced many of the most characteristic items that form so basic a part of our present Book of Kings. . . . We know prophets played an important part in keeping records of the kings, for of David we are told that his deeds were written “in the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer” (2Chr. 9:29). . . . In the Hebrew Scriptures the Book of Kings has its place among the “former prophets.” This points definitely to the prophetic origin of these writings." Ref-0839, pp. 194-195.
✪ "After these things Antiochus Epiphanes spoiled the temple, commanded the Jews to forsake the Law upon pain of death, and caused the sacred books to be burnt wherever they could be found: and in these troubles the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel was entirely lost." Ref-0849, p. 11.
✪ Hippolytus sees the kings as being symbolic of thousand-year periods: "For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ,” when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.”? Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: “five are fallen; one is,” that is, the sixth; “the other is not yet come.”" Hippolytus, On Daniel, Ref-0541, p. 179.
✪ "The question arises where in the Jewish Scriptures we find the command to wear a kippah. This is where things get a bit controversial. There are some in Rabbinic Jewish circles as well as a few in the Messianic movement who cite Exodus 28:4 as support for wearing a kippah. The verse requires the high priest to wear a specific uniform and head covering while ministering in the Tabernacle, and later in the Temple in Jerusalem. A quick glance at the passage shows that in addition to wearing a wrapped turban, the high priest was also to wear a metal breastplate and a robe that had a checkered pattern. Two realities need to be noted: The instruction was only for the high priest, and the garments were to be worn only during the Temple service. If one uses this passage to mandate a head covering, then why not also wear a checkered robe?" -- Mottel Baleston, The Kippah, Ariel Magazine, Volume 1 Number 20, Fall 2016, pp. 13-15, p. 14. "The core New Testament passage about the head covering, and the one with varied translations and interpretations, is 1 Corinthians 11:4-7 . . . Even among conservative evangelical scholars there are varied understandings of this passage. The Greek phrase in verse 4 describing a man's head covering is translated in Vincent's Word Studies as “having something hanging down from his head.” This rendering is supported by several other Greek studies. Obviously, this describes something far different than today's skullcap. That “hanging down” appearance can be understood as either a full veil for mourning or a woman's style cloth head covering. It could also refer to very long natural hair on a man, obscuring his gender. Again, what is being described is something very different than a modern kippah. . . . As a major theme of Corinthians is the gender distinction within creation and the New Testament congregation, there is good support for understanding the prohibition of verse 4 to apply to a man having an appearance like a woman and wearing that which “pertaineth” to a woman, something strongly condemned in the Torah. . . . That possibility is reinforced by 1 Corinthians 11:14, which clearly states that a man is dishonored by wearing his hair in the length and style of a woman." -- Mottel Baleston, The Kippah, Ariel Magazine, Volume 1 Number 20, Fall 2016, pp. 13-15, pp. 14-15. Questionable: Ex. 28:4 (?);
✪ Hebrew, "city of," Jos. 21:11