Sb030 - Kingdom Truth
Uploaded by
RaftiniSb030 - Kingdom Truth
Uploaded by
RaftiniSEED & BREAD
FOR THE SOWER ISA. 55:10 FOR THE EATER
BRIEF BIBLICAL MESSAGES FROM
THE WORD OF TRUTH MINISTRY
Otis Q. Sellers, Bible Teacher
KINGDOM TRUTH
The descriptive phrase, "the kingdom of God," has suffered many things at
the hands of its interpreters. Today, it is grossly mis understood throughout
Christendom. It has been taken and applied to many things and used in ways
that are contrary to all that the Bible teaches. It is so commonly used in
religious circles that there is a widespread illusion that its meaning is well
understood. This is contrary to the facts in the case, for it is quite evident
that the average Christian does not know what it means when he hears it or
what idea it conveys when he uses it. This Biblical phrase has become part
of the ritualistic language of Christendom. Men talk of "building the
kingdom of God," ignoring altogether that God alone can build His
kingdom. Certain dispensationalists say, "the kingdom of God is Jewish," in
woeful ignorance of the fact that if this were true it would be "the kingdom
of the Jews," or "the kingdom of Israel," not the kingdom of God. There are
built-in safeguards in this phrase against all such errors; but, alas, they go
unheeded.
Furthermore, there is in this phrase a definite safeguard against the
common error of defining the word kingdom as signifying "a realm ruled
over by a king." This definition will not fit into this phrase, and if it is
accepted it will draw a veil over every occurrence of this phrase in the New
Testament. It is a usage based on accommodation, and fastened onto the
Greek word basileia. This is the same as taking the modern meaning of the
word libertine and fastening it onto the occurrence in Acts 6:9. Everyone
who seeks to understand the Word of God should pause and ask himself the
question, "How do I define the kingdom of God?"
My own definition of the kingdom of God is that I understand the Greek
word basileia to mean government, although such synonymous terms as
rule, sovereignty, jurisdiction, and reign may also be used to indicate certain
shades of meaning when the context so indicates. Therefore, in its basic,
fundamental meaning "the kingdom of God" is the government of God.
However, in the New Testament this term is repeatedly used to designate a
certain future time period, that is, absolute divine government in a definite
period of time. In that day the words "government of the people, by the
people, and for the people" will be used only to refer to a condition that
existed in the past. In the kingdom of God the government will be of God,
by God, and for His glory. As Dr. George E. Ladd rightly says: "The day is
surely coming when God will take the reins of government into His hands and the
kingdom of God will come on earth and His will be done even as it is in heaven"
(The Blessed Hope, page 6).
In medieval times it was customary to look upon organized religion, the
visible ecclesiastical system, as being "the church," and then insist that the
church was the kingdom of God. This is a concept still held by many, but it
is one that cannot be equated with the truth revealed in the New Testament.
In the nineteenth century many Christians became deeply disturbed about
the kind of a world in which they lived and were anxious to make it a better
one. In their desires they saw an ideal state of affairs among men toward
which they felt "the church ' should strive. They appropriated the Biblical
term "the kingdom of God" to describe this ideal state of affairs and
proclaimed that it was the sacred duty of "the church" to bring the kingdom
of God upon the earth. Thus, they misappropriated this phrase to give
credence to and dignify their programs for social progress, employing it
constantly in a manner that was foreign to the New Testament.
This error spread like a brush fire. The use of this term in this manner was
taken up and widely developed by leading theologians in Europe and
America until the idea of the church bringing in the kingdom of God became
the popular religious idea of the day.
Thus, at the turn of the century many Christian leaders were turning their
attention to the social ills that plagued mankind. They were convinced that
the principal task of organized religion was to rectify all that was wrong in
the social order. "To create a civilization that is Christian in spirit and
passion throughout the earth," were the glowing words used to describe this
goal by one interchurch movement. A new gospel called "the social gospel"
became the vogue of the day. This "gospel" was concerned with the better-
ment of mankind. In almost every theological seminary in the U.S.A. it
displaced that gospel which had always been concerned with the salvation of
the individual.
In the social gospel the idea of a "united church" bringing justice,
righteousness, equity and peace upon the earth was given the paramount
place. And the phrase commonly used to describe this goal was "bringing
the kingdom of God upon the earth:" "Building the kingdom of God,"
"extending the kingdom of God," and "advancing the kingdom of God" were
the popular phrases used to describe every effort and program of this time.
They were used when a new church was organized, a church building was
dedicated, a mission field opened, a church school was founded or enlarged,
a minister was ordained, or even when a baby was baptized. All these
accomplishments were looked upon as being facets of building, extending,
advancing, or increasing the kingdom of God. And the drive was always to
get more men and get more money, for these were the two main things
needed to build the kingdom of God on earth.
There is a demonstrable law related to the use of words which is parallel to
Gresham's law in regard to money. (Gresham's law is simply that bad money
drives out the good.) This law in regard to words is that the improper and
false usage of a term will drive the proper and true use out of circulation.
This is exactly what happened to the true meaning of the term "the kingdom
of God." A meaning established by 74 occurrences of this phrase in the New
Testament was debased by a false meaning and a deliberate
misappropriation. The true Scriptural meaning and usage was almost driven
from the minds of men and the term itself came into disrepute. In the great
revival of Bible study and preaching that came in the last quarter of the
nineteenth century, those who participated hesitated to use this term.
Reactions to this mass of error were bound to come, and they took place in
the great resurgence of Bible study in the last quarter of the nineteenth and
first quarter of the twentieth century. In this resurgence the "social gospel"
was assailed and contradicted with many infallible proofs from the Word of
God. It was demonstrated to be a perversion of the gospel of Christ and its
programs foreign to the facts of God's revealed truth. And the great
dispensational-premillennial movement came to the forefront to lead and to
challenge in respect to a new and honest approach to the prophetic
(eschatological) portions of God's Word.
History demonstrates that most reactions go too far. This was true of the
reaction against the great mass of erroneous teaching which had usurped and
falsely used the Biblical term "the kingdom of God." The idea of the
dispensational premillennialists seemed to be-stay away from the kingdom
of God, let it alone. No real attempt was made to rescue it from the clutches
of those who had mis appropriated it to characterize their programs. The real
truth concerning it was sorely neglected. It was made to be "the
millennium," which it certainly is not. All attention was centered on "the
signs of the times," "the rapture," "the tribulation," and "the second coming."
And since the great prominence of the kingdom of God in Scripture could
not be ignored, they gave it in insipid and generalized definition which
robbed it of all value so far as being an expression of truth is concerned. It
was defined as being the sovereignty of God, which is moral and universal,
including all moral intelligences willingly subject to the will of God,
whether angels or the saints of past and future dispensations. It was said to
have existed from the beginning and will know no end, that it is over all and
embraces all. This, in essence, is the definition given in both the Scofield
Reference Bible and The Companion Bible.
This is what is known as a "Mother Hubbard definition," named after the
dress of yesteryears. It covers everything and reveals nothing. The real
weakness of it is that it will not fit into, neither will it shed any light upon
any of the 74 occurrences of the term "the kingdom of God," in the New
Testament. Is this what the Lord Jesus was proclaiming when He came into
Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "the time
is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand"? Not in the least! I hesitate
to be critical of both Dr. Scofield and Dr. Bullinger. However, if all their
published writings are examined, it becomes plain that the assiduous study
of the kingdom of God was simply not their cup of tea.
In my opinion the greatest weakness of the dispensational premillennialists
has been their failure to include in their system of interpretation any sound
and worthwhile teaching in regard to the kingdom of God. Their reaction in
regard to all "kingdom now" and "kingdom is here" teaching, also against
the false idea of men bringing in the. kingdom by education,
democratization, and culturization of the peoples of the earth, has been so
strong that it has lead to an almost complete failure to lay hold of the
Biblical truth of the kingdom of God. All truth concerning the kingdom is
under suspicion in dispensational circles. This should not be, and as a
dispensationalist for fifty-five years I intend to do my part to correct this
situation.
END ISSUE NO. SB030
You might also like
- No ratings yetScripture on Creation by Richard L. Mayhue Three Searches for the "Historical Jesus" but no Biblical Christ: The Rise of the Searches (Part 1) (7-42) by F. David Farnell This is a two-part series. Part One covers the rise of three periods of activity known as “searching for the ‘historical Jesus.’” Its overarching purpose is a deliberate attempt to destroy the influence of the gospels and the church upon society. While this purpose is openly and honestly admitted by theological liberals, evangelicals who participate now in the “third” quest are far less candid as to its design. Part Two will cover this growing evangelical participation in searching. These searches started with the rise in dominance of the ideology of historical criticism over two hundred years ago and are a natural consequence of the innate historical skepticism replete in them. The first two searches ended as declared fail20 pages
