Appendix, Note V: The Kingdom of Heaven, the Day of God, and the Church

(Chap. XV. p. 201, ante.)

‘THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, THE KINGDOM oF GOD, AND THE CHURCH.

The term “Kingdom of Heaven,” or, to be strictly accurate, “the Kingdom of the Heavens,” occurs thirty-three times in the First Gospel, and nowhere else in the New Testament.?

The Greek work dasi/eia has the same range of meaning as our English word “Kingdom.” It means (1) royal authority; sovereign power; rule; or (2) the territory or country over which a king rules. Therefore the Kingdom of the Heavens must mean either (1) the rule of the heavens over the earth, or else (2) the heavens as the scene or sphere of Divine rule. We cannot hesitate in deciding that (1) is the meaning here, “the heavens” standing for “God” by a well-known figure of speech. And our best commentators, recognising this, refer to the Book of Daniel to explain it; but, having thus found the key, they generally throw it away unused.

“That the heavens do rule” was announced to Nebuchadnezzar as a present fact and truth (Dan. iv. 26). But yet the visions of Daniel ii, and vii. foretold a future kingdom — a kingdom in the same sense in which Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome were kingdoms — foretold a time when God would take back the sceptre of earthly sovereignty which He had

* The expression was used by Jewish writers in a vague sense=the inward love and fear of God (Hore Hebraice, Matt. iii. 2). 275 entrusted to Nebuchadnezzar. Now this Messianic kingdom is connected in prophecy with the race of Abraham and the throne of David. And the New Testament opens with a revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ as the heir of David and of Abraham — the Messiah of the Promises, the king of Messianic prophecy. And His ministry began by an announcement that the promised rule was about to come. Matt. iii. 2 was not the statement of a present truth or fact, but a prophetic declaration. This was the purpose of the First Gospel; and the Holy Spirit so guided and restrained the writer of it that it contains not one single sentence that is. inconsistent with that purpose. It is the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven; for the expression is peculiar to Matthew, who uses it some thirty-three times, meaning always and only the promised Messianic earthly kingdom.

The expression “the Kingdom of God” occurs five times. in Matthew; fifteen times in Mark; thirty-three times in Luke; twice in John (iii. 3, 5); seven times in Acts, and occasionally in the Epistles. In this expression the word ‘‘ Kingdom” has no longer a fixed meaning. In some of the passages it means the rule of God; in others, the whole sphere in which that rule is exercised; and in others again it has an ethical or spiritual meaning, as representing the state of blessedness. pertaining to the Divine rule. John iii. 3, 5 affords a notable instance of this third category. Scripture would never say ‘Except a man be born again he cannot see ¢he Kingdom of Heaven.” Still more incongruous would it be to say “he cannot see the Church.” Many things may be predicted of both the Kingdom of Heaven and of the Kingdom of God ;. just as of England and of the British Empire. But though the terms may often be used interchangeably, they are not synonymous.

This will appear very plainly if we examine the passage in Matthew where the terth “the Kingdom of God” occurs. They are chaps. vi. 33; xii. 28; xix. 24; xxi. 31 and 43. The intelligent student of Scripture will see that in no one of these passages could “the Kingdom of Heaven” be used.

Chap. xvi. 19 claims special notice. It has been said that if these words had not been written the apostasy of Rome could never have arisen. If the distinction I am pleading for were recognised, the pretensions of Rome would collapse. It was in relation to the Earthly Messianic Kingdom that the Lord conferred upon Peter this ‘ power of the keys.” To talk of “the Keys of the Kingdom of God” is absurd. More silly still does it seem to the intelligent Christian to talk. of the Keys of the Church which is the body of Christ. But Rome, though claiming to be the inspired keeper of the truth, is ignorant of these distinctions, albeit they are so obvious and so elementary.

In no case can the term “Church of God” be used interchangeably with “*Kingdom of Heaven.” For the one means a company of people, and the other a system of Government. The English word “Church” has meanings which the Greek word £cclesta does not possess. In the LXX. Zeclesia is the usual rendering for the Hebrew Kaka, (as ’Adah is usually rendered sunagogé). And whether in the LXX., in the New Testament, or in classical Greek it means only and always a company of privileged or representative people. Acts xix. 32, 39, 41 may appear an exception, but we who are used to hearing an election mob addressed as “gentlemen” need not wonder if a Greek official flattered an Ephesian mob by the use of the word Lccéesta. And the English rendering of 1 Tim. iii, 15 may also seem an exception. But there, as in verses 4, 5, and 12 of the same chapter, the word ouse is used by a common figure of speech for household. Paul so uses the word again in 1 Cor. i. 16; and it is so used in several passages in Acts. The language of 1 Pet. ii. 5 cannot be strained to support the figment that a building would ever be an Ecclesia.

It is noteworthy that the word occurs nowhere in the Gospels save in Matt. xvi. 18, and xviii.r7, And I deprecate any exposition of these passages which makes them refer exclusively, or even primarily, to the present dispensation. Such an exegesis is, I think, refuted by the fact that it is in the teaching of the First Gospel that these words are recorded. But may I here hazard the opinion that a right understanding of our Lord’s words in Matt. xvi. 16-19 would suffice to undermine the whole fabric of the apostate religion of Christendom?

In the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians the word ecclesia acquires a new dignity. In every other occurrence of it in the New Testament, and always in the LXX., it represents a company of people ox earth. But in Ephesians and Colossians it includes saints on earth and saints in heaven. Having regard to 1 Cor. xii. 12, some would maintain that ¢he dody means only the saints on earth. But the closing words of Eph. i. (“His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all”) precludes any such limitation. And the language of Ephesians. and Colossians vetoes the suggestion that the term “body” is merely az z//ustration of the union between Christ and the Church. It is a figure, of course; but we must distinguish between a figure which is he expression of a fact and a figure which is merely an illustration of a fact. The union between Christ and those who are members of His body must be more real, not less real, than the union between a man and the members of his natural body.