Gospel and Kingdom, Chapter 9, “The Kingdom Revealed in Jesus Christ”

Most Christians have some idea of a link between the Old Testament and the New Testament. For many, it amounts to little more than a belief that some messianic prophecies were fulfilled by the coming of Jesus.

In chapter 2, we saw that any recognition of the unity of the whole Bible demands that we seek to know what kind of unity exists in order to be able to relate the old to the new.

In chapter 3, we saw that being a Christian implies a certain method of approach to the unity of the

Bible. To be a Christian is to recognize in Jesus Christ the goal of all things, including the goal of the history of redemption, is fulfilled.

Because Jesus Christ is the perfect image of God, we see him as the one towards whom all the former revelation of God is leading, and in whom it is fulfilled and given its meaning.

That the Old Testament anticipates the new and is fulfilled in the new is underlined by many general statements of the

New Testament. In many and various ways, God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, and in these last days, he has spoken to us by a son whom he appointed the heir of all things.

In Hebrews chapter 1, verses 1 -2, for all the promises of God find their yes in him.

In 2 Corinthians chapter 1, verse 20, we bring you the good news that what

God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us, their children, by raising Jesus.

In Acts chapter 13, verses 32 -33, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

In Luke chapter 24, verse 27, it is important that we understand very clearly that this fact of the

Old Testament's progression toward a fulfillment in the new is not merely an invitation to understand

Jesus Christ as the end of the process. It is also a demand that the whole Bible be understood in the light of the gospel.

It means that Jesus Christ is the key to the interpretation of the whole Bible, and the task before us is to discern how.

He interprets the Bible. It should be realized at the outset that we speak of Jesus Christ as the key to interpretation.

We must speak of Jesus Christ as he is revealed, the Christ of the gospel.

It is not sufficient to stress the ethics of the man Jesus of Nazareth out of context of the saving acts of God, as many liberals do, nor to stress the supernatural presence of the

Christ with a believer out of the context of the meaning of the historical humanity of God come in the flesh, as many evangelicals do.

Obviously we need to be clear about the gospel itself if we are to be clear about the significance of Christ for interpreting the

Bible. What is the gospel? Pick any ten Christians and ask them this question and you will probably get ten different answers.

Perhaps none of them will be wholly wrong, but the difference will suggest a certain confusion. Take two extreme examples to illustrate.

The liberal Christian often stresses the humanity of Jesus. Jesus was a good man, in fact the only truly good man.

The gospel of the good man must be reduced to some kind of example to follow, a demonstration inviting us to try to do likewise.

There is obviously some truth in this view. On the other hand, the evangelical often stresses the divinity of Jesus.

The Christ is the supernatural son of God who is alive today in the hearts of believers. The gospel of the divine

Christ tends to be one of the supernaturally changed life and there is obviously some truth in that.

Let us be clear on this point. To suggest that these two views are extremes containing some of the truth is not in any way at all to propose that we need a balance or a middle road which recognizes a little of each example.

It is rather an invitation to come to grips with the biblical perspective. Essentially, the gospel is a declaration of what

God has done for us in Jesus Christ rather than, as is often implied, what

God does in the believer, although we may not separate the two. It is the objective historical facts of the coming of Jesus in the flesh and the

God -given interpretation of those facts. When Peter preached the gospel at Pentecost, he was quick to divert attention from what

God had done in the apostles by the giving of the Holy Spirit and to concentrate on the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth in Acts 2, verses 14 -36.

The facts are those of the incarnation, of the perfect life of Jesus of Nazareth and of his dying and rising from the grave.

The interpretation of the facts is that this took place for us men and for our salvation.

In these two simple statements of fact and interpretation, we sum up the breadth and depth of biblical revelation.

In referring to the birth of Jesus as incarnation, we take seriously the biblical assertion that this was no mere man, nor even a man with some divine qualities.

The baby in the manger was at one and at the same time, in one and the same person, both fully divine and fully human, both

God and man. Without the recognition that Jesus Christ was truly

God and truly man, we cannot maintain the gospel as good news nor the power of God for salvation.

This is why belief in the incarnation is not merely a theoretical matter. The gospel is saying that what man cannot do in order to be accepted with God, this

God himself has done for us in the person of Jesus Christ. To be accepted to God, we must present to God a life of perfect and unceasing obedience to his will.

The gospel declares that Jesus has done this for us. For God to be righteous, he must deal with our sin.

This also he has done for us in Jesus. The holy law of God was lived out perfectly for us by Christ and his penalty was paid perfectly for us by Christ.

This living and dying of Christ for us and this alone is the basis of our acceptance with God.

Only the God man, Jesus Christ, could both live the true sinless human life and rise victoriously over death after paying the penalty for man's sin.

We cannot understand how the one perfect Jesus Christ contained two distinguishable yet inseparable natures.

No more could the apostles understand it, yet they were driven to accept the fact as integral to the gospel.

About this we shall have more to say later. To sum up, the gospel is what

God has done for us in Christ for our salvation. And as the two natures of this Christ must be distinguished, so also we must distinguish what

God does for us and what God does in us. Likewise, we must not separate the two natures of Christ.

Neither must we separate the gospel from the fruit of the gospel. It is by the gospel that we are born again.

It is the gospel that evokes the true faith and it is the gospel which produces the sanctified or spirit -filled life.

Now, somehow all this is related to the Old Testament and we must try to understand how.

The gospel is sometimes referred to as the gospel of the kingdom. Mark informs us that Jesus preached the gospel of God by declaring that the kingdom of God is at hand.

The theme of the gospel has to do with the kingdom and this idea of kingdom is not something completely new.

It is at hand because the time is fulfilled. What is more, the term kingdom of God must have meant something to those who heard

Jesus even though it is not of itself an Old Testament term. The unavoidable conclusion from the

New Testament evidence is that the gospel fulfills the Old Testament hope of the coming of the kingdom of God.

But we must be more specific about what it means and how it is worked out in the New Testament itself.

We have looked at the kingdom idea of the Old Testament as it expressed in three distinct yet related epochs or strata,

Eden, Israel's history and prophecy. If the gospel fulfills the expectations of the kingdom, we should be able to discern how this is so by looking at the

New Testament evidence. Furthermore, we are now in a position to clarify one aspect of biblical interpretation.

The fact that the various strata of kingdom revelation in the Bible define the progressive nature of revelation reminds us of the diversity of expression within the overall unity.

Each kingdom expression, Eden, Israel, prophetic kingdom and now the gospel, represent the same reality, but each expresses that reality in a different yet related way.

Related yet different. Each kingdom expression differs from those that preceded it, but many

Christians do not understand the implication of this fact. For the New Testament says that the reality is in the gospel in Christ himself.

This is why he must interpret all scripture. Now some Christians see the implication of their view of the inspiration authority of scripture as requiring what they call a literal interpretation of scripture.

But this is not so if by literal is meant that fulfillment must be in the precise terms of the promise and that the reality is only a future repetition of the foreshadowing.

The New Testament knows nothing of this kind of literalism. It repeatedly maintains that Christ is the fulfillment of these terms, images, promises and foreshadowings in the

Old Testament, which were presented in a way that is different from the fulfillment. For the

New Testament, the interpretation of the Old Testament is not quote literal, but Christological.

That is to say that the coming of the Christ transforms all the kingdom terms of the

Old Let's examine this process of transformation in more detail.

The first element of our Old Testament kingdom of God was the people of God. In Eden, God's people is

Adam and Eve. By the way, this is not bad grammar. People in Hebrew is a collective singular referring to the nation or race as a single entity, thus signifying a solidarity.

In Israel's history, the people of God is essentially the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.

In prophetic hope, the people of God is the fateful remnant of Israel. In the gospel, the people of God is

Jesus Christ. First, Jesus is depicted as the true

Adam or last Adam. Consider the following. Jesus is descended from Adam in Luke chapter three, verses 23 to 38.

Jesus overcomes temptation where Adam failed. Jesus' baptism identifies him with Adam's race.

Jesus is the last Adam in Romans 5, verses 18 to 21 and 1 Corinthians 15, verses 20 to 22 and verses 45 to 49.

Secondly, Jesus is the seed of Abraham. On first reading,

Paul is using unfair tactics when he argues this point in Galatians chapter three, verse 16, but Paul's argument comes out of the whole

Old Testament background in which the solidarity of the race with its head is to be discerned.

Paul is establishing that the seed of Abraham, Israel, has its meaning only in Christ. He alone is the true

Israel. The same point is seen in the gospels. Matthew's genealogy establishes Jesus as the son of Abraham through David.

Third, Jesus is the true Israel. This is but a development on the last point, for Israel is the seed of Abraham.

Matthew makes this point when he applies Hosea's backward reference to the exodus, out of Israel have

I called my son, to the return of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, after the death of Herod in Matthew chapter two, verse 15.

Whatever else it may signify, the application of a historical reference concerning Israel to a similar event in Jesus' life must imply some kind of identity to warrant the description of fulfillment.

We also note the account of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. Each of the scriptures quoted by Jesus to counter the temptations comes from the early chapters of Deuteronomy, which deal with Israel's temptations in the wilderness of Sinai.

The implication is that where old Israel was tempted and failed, Jesus, the true

Israel, overcomes. Fourthly, Jesus is the son of David.

The promise God made to Abraham's descendants was frequently summarized with the great covenant formula, I will be their

God, they shall be my people. In second Samuel chapter seven, verse 14, the son of David has this promise applied to him in a personal way.

I will be his father and he shall be my son. The solidarity between leader and people is again expressed.

The king embodies the whole people and is their representative. These various identities of Jesus establish one clear point.

Jesus Christ is the head of the new race. All who are united to him are members of that race, but only because he is that race.

Thus, whoever is in Christ is a new creation. In second Corinthians chapter five, verse 17, that is, he belongs to the new order of which

Christ is the head. The second element of our Old Testament kingdom was called

God's place. This may be a less than satisfactory way of describing the

New Testament idea of kingdom, which is not confined to such a strict spatial concept as a garden,

Eden, or a land, Israel, though it continues to employ Old Testament terms from time to time.

Nevertheless, we must find some way to convey the sense of place in the

New Testament. In our first stratum of revelation, the place of the kingdom was

Eden, and in the second, it was the land of Canaan. Since both are presented as part of the created order, there is a predictable area of continuity between them, despite the fact that one belongs to the period before, and the other to the period after, the fall.

The third stratum, the prophetic futurist kingdom, adapts the

Canaan model of kingdom location, but glorifies it. As we have already seen, there emerges in some prophetic predictions a clear mixing of elements which belong to both the previous strata,

Eden and Israel's Canaan. In the Old Testament, salvation includes a restoration of God's people into the environment which best fits their restored relationship with God.

As Eden represented the perfection of the first creation, so the redemptive process entails a remaking of the

Eden paradise. This progression of imagery may thus be summarized as the garden paradise in the beginning, the land flowing with milk and honey in Israel's history, and the new heavens and the new earth with a new paradise in the prophetic view.

The New Testament contains this progression. Jesus declares his kingdom is not of this world, in John 18, verse 36, yet at the same time, the earthly Old Testament images are repeated, but with greater clarity.

Peter repeats Isaiah's prediction of a new heaven and earth, but says it represents such a complete break with things as they now are, that this present order must pass away.

In 2 Peter, chapter 3, verses 10 to 13. The Old Testament develops the Israel stratum by focusing on Jerusalem, Zion, as the center of God's land.

Thus the prophets often depict the restoration of Zion as the manifestation of the kingdom of God.

It is to Zion that the returning fateful remnant come, and likewise it is to Zion that the

Gentiles come who are being drawn into the kingdom. Now, if Israel's hope was that the nation would return to Zion, for example, in Isaiah, chapter 35, verse 10, we must inquire of the

New Testament where Zion is to be found. Hebrews, chapter 12, verse 22, indicates that a

Jew comes to Zion by being converted to Christ. Zion is where Jesus reigns now at the right hand of God, and this is where we come by faith in the gospel.

Another important passage is Hebrews, chapter 11, verses 8 to 16. Here the theme is the inheritance of God's people.

In this case, Abraham and the patriarchs. From the interpretive standpoint of the gospel, the writer can describe

Abraham's hope in gospel terms. He looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is

God, in verse 10. Of the patriarchs' hope, he maintains that they desired a better country, that is, a heavenly one, in verse 16.

It is the gospel which enables the writer to transform the Old Testament image, which is bound to this old order, into an aspect of the new order.

One other important focal point in the locality of God's kingdom is the temple.

The temple could function as a focal point because it represented the dwelling of God among his people.

It demonstrated that the promised land was not merely living space for people, but was the setting for a relationship between God and man.

The temple was thus integral to the existence of the kingdom of God, and by it, the kingdom could be identified.

The use made of the temple theme in the New Testament is vital to our understanding of the relationship of Old and New Testaments.

One thing is clear. The New Testament declares that the new temple has come into existence, for it is none other than Jesus Christ.

John describes the incarnation thus, the word was made flesh and dwelt among us, in John chapter 1, verse 14.

The literal translation of the Greek is, and tabernacled among us. In other words,

John saw Jesus as resembling the tabernacle in the wilderness. Why is Jesus the temple?

Because he is God dwelling among us. But the idea is developed even further.

Jesus is God and man in closest union. The very being of Jesus is the most perfect relationship of God and man.

Thus, when Jesus disputes with the Jews over his cleansing of the temple, in John chapter 2, verses 13 to 22, he proposes as a sign of his authority, destroy this temple, and in three days

I will raise it up, in verse 19. His opponents are obsessed by the old order and can think only of the bricks and mortar of Herod's temple.

But John tells us that Jesus was referring to his own body as the temple, so that it was his resurrection from the dead, which gave the disciples the key to what he had said, in verse 22.

These images of locality, garden, land, city, temple, all reach their fulfillment in the gospel.

For the New Testament, the locality of the kingdom is Jesus Christ himself. Unless we be misled by a misplaced and unbiblical emphasis,

Jesus Christ is shown as risen and seated on the right hand of God in the heavenly places.

The third element of our Old Testament kingdom pattern is the rule of God over his people by his word. The different covenants of the

Bible all testify to this in their own context. We may discern two important aspects of the covenant rule of God, the covenants themselves and the mediator of the covenant.

We have already seen how God ruled in Eden by the word which defined Adam's freedom.

As for Abraham, not only did God call him, direct him, and make promises to him, the goal of it all was the relationship expressed in the great covenant summary,

I will be your God, you shall be my people. Later, when Israel understood itself as God's people, this was expressed in the covenant of Sinai, which defined the role of God's people in terms of daily living.

Later still, the prophetic hope saw not a different covenant ruling the restored people, but a newly applied covenant written upon men's hearts so that there would be a perfect compliance with God's character and will in Jeremiah chapter 31.

References to covenant as such are fairly infrequent in the New Testament, but there is plenty to show that the gospel is the fulfillment of the hope of the new covenant.

The song of Mary is an example of the interpretation of the coming of Jesus as Old Testament hope come to fruition in Luke chapter 1, verses 46 to 55.

Likewise, the songs of Zechariah and Simeon interpret the incarnation in Old Testament terms of covenant.

At the Last Supper, Jesus declares that the cup is the new covenant in my blood, thus indicating that his death establishes the reality of the new covenant, just as the old covenant was sealed with sacrificial blood by Moses.

The most detailed exposition of the gospel as the new covenant of Jeremiah is given in Hebrews chapters 8 and 9, in saying, as the writer does, that the new covenant is so much better than the old, which has become obsolete.

He in no way implies that old is unconnected with the new. In fact, he establishes the new by showing how it achieves perfectly what the old could only foreshadow.

Those who see a radical discontinuity, a break between old and new, often support their position with such statements as, you are not under law but under grace, in Romans chapter 6, verse 14.

We have already dealt with the law as covenant, a fact established by Jeremiah in chapter 31, verses 31 to 34.

So, New Testament references to the place of law are important. The proper context of such passages showing distinction are those which show unity.

Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it in Matthew chapter 5, verses 17 to 20.

The law remains the standard of God's righteousness in Romans chapter 2, verse 13. And faith does not overthrow the law, but upholds it in Romans chapter 3, verse 31.

Thus, it was to fulfill the demands and the penalty of the law that Jesus lived and died for us.

The fact that we cannot do it in ourselves does not remove the demand. And if we believe

Christ did it for us, we uphold the demand. The other main theme relating to God's rule is the concept of kingship.

The judges in Israel are forerunners to the king in some regards. But it is with David that the significance of this mediation of God's rule emerges.

The pattern of kingship is given in Deuteronomy chapter 17, verses 14 to 20, in which we see the king as the mediator of the covenant.

In 2 Samuel chapter 7, the kingly rule is seen in relationship to the temple, so that throne and temple become almost synonymous in their significance.

How then does the New Testament take up the hope of the restoration of the rule of God in this kingdom of God?

Firstly, by showing that Jesus is the son of David, who by implication will rule in God's kingdom forever.

Secondly, by showing that the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning David's restored rule occurred at the resurrection, being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the

Christ, in Acts chapter 2, verses 30 to 31 and 36. And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way,

I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David, in Acts chapter 13, verse 34.

We've already mentioned the temple in relation to the place of God's kingdom. Now we know that the whole use of this temple theme in the

New Testament indicates that in the gospel, the kingdom of God comes to us fulfillment. It was as a sign that God dwelt among his people to rule that the holy of holies in the tabernacle contained the

Ark of the Covenant inside, which was the written law in Exodus chapter 25.

Solomon's temple prefigured the fulfillment of the promises to David concerning the rule of David's son given in 2

Samuel 7. Ezekiel focused on the new temple as the sign of God's ruling and life -giving presence in the kingdom in Ezekiel chapter 47.

Zechariah saw a new temple built by David's descendant Zerubbabel through the spirit in Zechariah's chapter 4 and 6.

For John, the true temple is the bodily presence of Jesus, the

Logos, our word. Stephen understands the need to let go of the man -built temple and to move out to the gospel fulfillment.

To hang on to the old is to resist the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 7, verses 46 to 51.

For Paul, the temple is fulfilled both in the resurrection of Christ and in the presence of Christ through the

Holy Spirit. Peter sees also both the heavenly temple in Acts chapter 2, verses 30 to 31 and the earthly creation of the spirit in 1

Peter chapter 2, verses 4 to 8. The climax comes in Revelation chapters 21 and 22 where we see the heavenly reality as the ultimate point of reference.

Here, God himself is the temple, so there's no need for symbolic structures in Revelation chapter 21, verse 22.

Also, we see the throne of God in the place of the temple in Ezekiel's vision in Ezekiel 47 from which flows the river of life in Revelation chapter 22, verses 1 to 5.

Temple theology is fulfilled through the gospel, the goal of which is aptly stated by the heavenly voice.

Behold, the dwelling place of God is with men. He will dwell with them and they shall be his people in Revelation chapter 21, verse 3.

Can we say that all Old Testament prophetic hope is fulfilled in the gospel if the gospel is anchored to historical events that happened 2000 years ago?

We cannot simply ignore the second coming of Christ and the promise this holds of a glorious transformation for believers.

What about the promise end of the world and the events before and after it? To put it another way, how do we relate the present reality of salvation for the believer to the final revealing of the kingdom of God in all its glory?

Many people, in effect, regard the second coming of Christ as involving a whole new work of God.

This conclusion is forced upon them because they do not accept that all promises are fulfilled in the gospel.

Thus, despite the scriptural evidence cited above, to the contrary, they see the return of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, the restoration of Davidic kingship, and so forth, as unrelated to the gospel and requiring a separate fulfillment on some future occasion.

If the argument of this book is valid, we must conclude otherwise. The New Testament portrays the

Christ event, which happened 2000 years ago, as the finished, perfect work of God for the salvation of all his people, both

Jew and Gentile. The gospel, the first coming of Christ, wins for believers all the riches of glory.

The acceptance of the believer with God is perfect the moment he believes because Christ and his work are perfect.

The status of the believer can never be improved upon. He possesses all the riches of Christ.

There is nothing the believer will possess in glory that he does not now possess in Christ.

All this he possesses by faith, but that it is by faith does not make it any less real.

The Christian thus lives in tension between the now of living by faith and the not yet of knowing the full reality of the kingdom by sight.

The gospel must determine our view of eschatology, of the last things. The reason is this.

The gospel is the report about the finished work of Christ. And if the finished work of Christ is a reality rather than an empty slogan, it means that the last things are simply an unveiling of what has already been done.

One implication of what we are saying is that the book of Revelation, for many an object of puzzlement, for others a stimulus to wild speculation about the future, is to be interpreted by the gospel.

We must also say that the first coming of Christ interprets the second coming. For the believer, the second coming of Christ will be the manifestation of his glory and of the glory of his kingdom, a glory which we already grasp by faith.

For the unbeliever, the second coming will be a manifestation of judgment, which judgment already rest on all sinners, even though they do not acknowledge it.

When we begin to put all the pieces together so that we can see the way the overall pattern of Old Testament Revelation is handled in the

New Testament, a frequently overlooked truth emerges. To see the kingdom of God, we must look at Jesus Christ.

This is not an inert cliche, a pious jargon, but it has some important implications for the way we handle the

Bible. We have defined the kingdom of God as God's people in God's place under God's rule.

Now we discover that the New Testament sees the primary point of reference for each of these aspects in the person of Jesus Christ.

He is the true people of God, the true kingly sphere, and the true rule of God.

This brings us back to the starting point in biblical theology referred to in chapter 4. As Christians, we recognize

Christ to be the way to God and we believe the gospel of Christ to be the power of God for salvation.

Viewed in the light of the whole unity of scripture, these well -worn phrases take on a depth of meaning that may previously have escaped us.

Biblical theology shows us the process of revelation in the Bible leading to the fulfillment of all hope in Jesus Christ.

Since Christ is the goal to which all revelation points, he himself in the person and acts is the key to the interpretation of all scripture.