Kingdom

The Expression of God's Rule

Chris Woodall

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781621899853
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Church

It has been said that history teaches us that history teaches us nothing. However true this may be in general terms, the fact that we so frequently look to the past in an attempt to shape our future by applying its lessons in the present suggests we remain keen to learn. In the context of the subject of this book, though the stalwarts of the faith can serve as tremendous examples, it is to the lessons of Scripture that we must turn if we are to have a better idea of what the kingdom of God is, what that means for us as believers, and how we can be better equipped to extend its values in today's world. Thus, what we understand by the term "kingdom of God" will not only determine whether we believe ourselves to be its citizens, but also how we think we should conduct ourselves in the light of such knowledge. It is the contention of this book that the biblical concept of kingdom as the expression of God's rule requires greater clarity of presentation in order to prevent it from confusion and/or distortion amongst Christians.

1

A Biblical Overview

Adam as God’s Vice-Regent

The existence of the kingdom of God is obviously not an exclusively New Testament concept. Strictly speaking, neither is its domain restricted to the post-creation era. Because God’s kingdom necessarily implies his kingship, it may be said to be co-existent with him, for it is inconceivable to imagine a time when God did not reign supreme. However, for the benefit of this work, we are able to speak only on the basis of disclosure, not conjecture. Thus, we begin by looking at the kingdom of God in the history of man: that is, from the point of Adam’s creation as recorded for us in the pages of biblical revelation.

Authority to Govern

Adam’s privileged position was both inherent and imparted. He was honored by virtue of being the pinnacle of God’s creative act, and he also had God’s delegated authority invested in him. It is in this respect that we see the essence of kingdom intertwined with that of covenant for the first time, though it is also implied in pre-creational eternity. The basis of covenant is agreement, with both parties acknowledging the terms, benefits, and potential forfeits of such a contract. In divine covenants, which broadly follow the Suzerain-vassal type, God alone sets the terms. The individual concerned—in this case, Adam—may accept or reject those terms, but is offered no opportunity to negotiate them. Thus, when we speak of Adam’s vice-regency, it should not be inferred that there was even the remotest suggestion that God sought Adam’s advice; he simply issued the command and expected his appointee to obey.

That said, however, vice-regency does carry with it the authority of the regent. It is both because of this and for this reason that Adam was created in God’s image, though we should be careful how far we carry the idea. There are those who suggest that God created Adam in order to meet a need in himself. They argue that the creation was necessitated by God’s longing to know himself as other than himself and that this could only be attained in a perfectly created reflection of himself. First of all, God’s motive for creation was not need but perfect freedom of the divine will. To have such freedom requires that he be equally free to choose not to do so without penalty. Secondly, the absolute and consistent perfection of God’s nature is such that his excellence is neither enhanced nor diminished by anything outside of himself.

Authority is never abstract but must be realized in practical expression. Thus, to give Adam authority without a domain over which to exercise that authority would have been somewhat meaningless. Perhaps this is why he was created toward the end of the sixth day. Prior to that point in time, God had busied himself with the creation of an infrastructure that was ideally suited to Adam’s capacity to govern (Gen 1:3–31). On the first three days, the various washes are applied to the canvas:

day 1	the separation of light from darkness	(Gen 1:3–5);
day 2	the separation of the waters from the sky	(vv. 6–8);
day 3	the appearance of dry land and vegetation	(vv. 9–13).

The final days of creation saw each of these environments inhabited:

day 4	the introduction of light–bearing orbs in the heavens	(vv. 14–19);
day 5	the creaturely population of the waters and the sky	(vv. 20–23);
day 6	land creatures are the penultimate act of creation	(vv. 24–31).

It was a kingdom fit for a king because it had been created specifically for that purpose in accordance with the design of the King of kings. The majesty of heaven had made the earth and all that was in it, but he chose to rule that kingdom via one who could legitimately claim to belong to both realms. Adam was formed from the dust of the ground, but he also had the Almighty’s breath inspiring his lungs (Gen 2:7). He had the authority of his Maker to reign on his behalf and a domain in which to exercise that authority. He had almost everything he needed to be a faithful “son,” but true faith requires a word from God to obey (see Rom 10:17; Heb 11:6). Adam was given this, too, in arguably the simplest form imaginable:

• fill the earth; and

• rule over its inhabitants.1

Adam’s first act of demonstrating the authority placed upon him was the naming of the animals (Gen 2:19–20). The last part of verse twenty suggests that there was more to this exercise than simple nomenclature. When a suitable helper was made especially for him, the name Adam gave to his companion was typical of later-known Hebrew practice in that it had meaning that was relevant to that so named. From this fact alone, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that the names Adam had given to the other creatures followed a similar pattern. Indeed, if the Hebrew words used later in the Old Testament for such examples as the cormorant (derived from “casting itself into the sea”), the fox (from the root verb “to burrow”), the hawk (“a flashing speed”), and the lamb (“being pushed out to graze”) are anything to go by, then there is a definite sense of them being named in accordance with certain behavioral characteristics.

The authority Adam had is here expressed as a reflection of his Creator. He named the animals by declaring what they were to be called. Right at the very beginning of creation, we are told that there was a kind of cosmic chaos until God began to speak out the creative words (see Gen 1:1). Adam’s role as vice-regent was grounded in the declarative will of God; his execution of that role was established by the affirmation of his own will so long as it was expressed within the parameters God had set. We see precisely the same principle in operation, but with significantly different consequences, in relation to Satan’s expulsion from heaven. He set his own will against God’s and vocalized them thus:

“I will ascend to heaven;

I will raise my throne above the stars of God;

I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,

on the utmost height of the sacred mountain.

I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High.”2

Anointed to Reign

Where divine appointments are concerned, authority and anointing go hand in hand. So much so, in fact, that one might be forgiven for believing them to be synonymous terms. Although closely associated, however, it is possible to distinguish between the two. In simple terms, authority is the right to rule, whereas anointing is the God-given ability to do so. When God breathed life into Adam, he not only became a living being, but one that was distinctly unique from the rest of the entire creation. He was authorized to rule by God’s word and he was anointed to reign by his spirit.

Significantly, the Hebrew word translated “breath” is ruach, which can also mean “spirit” or “wind” (the Greek equivalent is pneuma). When applied to God, it is usually in the sense of creative resourcefulness or dynamic supremacy. The association between God’s spirit and anointed leadership is one that runs like a constant thread throughout the Bible. Indeed, this forms the basis for the apostle Paul’s instruction to Timothy that: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16–17).

It could be considered both inappropriate and misleading to speak of God as having or possessing a spirit as if it was a mere appendage that he occasionally called upon for a particular duty as and when required. God essentially is spirit (John 4:24). There is no article before the word “spirit,” definite or otherwise. Thus, it is not that God is a spirit among many or the supreme spirit when compared to others. He simply is spirit, both personal and personable. Because he is a personal God, he is self-conscious and self-determining; because he is a personable God, he is also capable of, and willing to, relate to others. But only spirit can communicate with spirit. In his treatment of the difference between the soul (Greek—psyche) and the spirit (pneuma) of man, Thomas Chatterton Hammond makes the following interesting observation: “In 1 Corinthians 2:14–15 we have a distinction drawn between ‘natural’ and ‘spiritual’ men. The unregenerate man (psychikos), or ‘soulish,’ is unable to appreciate God’s revelation, but the regenerate man (pneumatikos) is alive towards God.”3

Anointing for a specific duty—or even for a general responsibility—was usually initiated by a solemn ritual. The fact that it would be difficult to argue for such an event in Adam’s case, however, does not necessarily render it inappropriate to speak of him as having been anointed for the task set before him. As in the circumstances of the Adamic covenant, all the other features commonly associated with divine anointing are clearly in evidence. He was uniquely a “son” of God, set apart from the rest of creation in order to fulfill a role only he was able to perform. If Alec Motyer’s offering is anything to go by, then Adam certainly fit the bill: “Fundamentally the anointing was an act of God (1 Sam 10:1), and the word ‘anointed’ was used metaphorically to mean the bestowal of divine favour (Ps 23:5; 92:10) or appointment to a special place or function in the purpose of God (Ps 105:15; Isa 45:1).”4

Moreover, the later comparisons between Adam and Jesus as federal heads of the covenants they each represented further fuels the argument for Adam’s divine anointing. With reference to Jesus’ incarnation, the Old Testament prophets referred to him as a coming Messiah (Greek—Christos), the original Hebrew of which (that is, masha) does not mean Savior, Redeemer, Deliverer, or Reconciler, but quite simply Anointed One. This is not to suggest, of course, that his anointing was for any purpose other than to save, redeem, deliver, or reconcile, but that he was able to do all of this because he was anointed to do so. If this is true of the last Adam, therefore, it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that it was equally so for the first Adam (1 Cor 15:45).

Although it would be a step too far to suggest that Adam’s knowledge was perfect in the truest sense of that word, there can be little doubt that the knowledge he possessed concerning himself, his surroundings, and his Creator was perfectly true. Prior to the fall, he had no first-hand experience of evil or good in relation to it, though it does seem reasonable to assume that his perception of good as doing God’s will and evil as opposing that will was sufficient to render him responsible for his actions. For him to disobey God would have been contrary to everything he knew to be true; similarly, for him to obey God was the only righteous course of action. Surely this is the hallmark of a godly king in the most comprehensively biblical sense of the term. Adam’s appointment to the task before him carried that level of anointing.

However, one area of dominion that is at least as vital as all the others is the capacity to rule oneself. Adam was both authorized and anointed to govern himself within the confines of God-given parameters. Although he was not perfect in knowledge—and it is pure conjecture to suggest whether or not he may have become so had the fall not taken place—he was sufficiently informed to have considered the righteous implications or otherwise of a given choice of action before he took it. And, for a while, he made the right choices. That is, until his gaze was directed elsewhere.

Distracted From Ruling

Although the subject of Adam’s fall will be covered in much more detail in the following section, it is important to consider the initial steps taken toward that breakdown of fellowship between the Almighty and his vice-regent here. One way to view what Adam lost is to reflect upon what has been restored for us in Christ. This is not an entirely adequate premise, however, because if all Christ’s atoning work did was to ...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: A Biblical Overview
• Chapter 2: Kingdom Character Attracts the King’s Blessing
• Chapter 3: Lessons from Jesus’ Parables of the Kingdom
• Chapter 4: The Kingdom of God in the Present
• Chapter 5: The Coming Kingdom
• Conclusion
• Bibliography