Christ In His Kingdom

Christ In His Kingdom CHRIST IN HIS KINGDOM
By JOHN T. HINDS That the New Testament speaks about the kingdom of Christ is admitted by all. But when that kingdom was established, if it has been established, and how Christ now stands related to it, are matters about which there is much controversy. It is the purpose of this lecture to show that the kingdom has been established and that Christ is now king upon his throne.

After the abrogation of the old covenant by his death and the three days in the tomb he arose from the dead, bringing life and immortality to light through the gospel. Then a kind of preparatory period intervened during which he showed himself to his apostles “by many proofs” and “speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God.” The period lasted forty days. We may not know fully why this time intervened between the ending of the old covenant and the beginning of the new, but some plausible conjectures may be offered. This additional time may have been needed to give just the proofs that would completely qualify his apos-tles to meet the situation that was to confront them. To this end he met them on several different occasions and under different circumstances; enough to make the proof satisfaetory. By putting fifty-three days between the end of the old covenant and the beginning of the new there was no chance left to conclude that they were the same. This not only settles a matter of vital im-portance, but it also fixes definitely just when the institution Christ established began. This institution is presented in a variety of ways in the Bible. It is called the church. This designation is accepted by all,'and is based upon the idea that the people composing this institution are “called out” from others; hence an assembly distinct from others in a re-ligious sense. By a figure of speech the church is called the “temple of God.” In the same way it is called the “house of God” or the “household of faith.” “The body” is another designation of like character. If the same institution is in the Bible itself in different pas-sages called church, temple, house and body, why not possible that it be called the kingdom in the same way? Is it not reasonable to expect that it would be? I am sure a careful examination of the Book will prove that it has been so called.

I. The Use of the Word Kingdom.
There can be no logical reason why the words church and kingdom should not refer to the same institution. It is quite true that as words they do not mean the same thing, but that does not keep them from referring to the same institution. The words temple, house and body do not mean the same as words but all concede that they all are used to refer to the church. Some feature of the church is similar to the idea contained in each of these words; hence, by a figure of speech, the church is called by all these different names. By the same figure the church may be called the kingdom.

All understand that the Jews had a national kingdom of a temporal character. We also agree that Christ has a spiritual institution in existence now. That there will be some kind of a future state of existence is accepted by all believers in the Bible. The same word that describes the Jewish state has in several instances also been used to describe the church and the final state A few examples will be sufficient to illustrate this phase of the case. The Jews had a capital city called Jerusalem. Paul in comparing the old and new covenants in Galatians 4:26 refers to the church as “Jerusalem that is above" which he says is “our mother.” John in Revelation 21:1-2 sees the final state as the “new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.” That the word Jerusalem in these passages refers to the three states—the temporal, the spiritual and the eternal—is too evident to admit of question. The Jews also had a tabernacle, a real material building. Paul in Hebrews 8:2 says that Christ is a minister of the “true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.” In Revelation 21:3, where the future state is de-scribed, John hears a voice saying, “Behold, the taber-nacle of God is with men, and he shall divell with them.” Later in their history the Jews had a temple in place of the tabernacle. In 1 Corinthians 3:16 Paul calls the church “the temple of God.” Revelation 7:14-15 refers to the final state of the saved and says they are before the throne of God and “serve him day and night in his temple.” With such clear examples we know that this use of words is logical and Scriptural. Since the church may be the kingdom, the proof against it being the kingdom would have to be found in one or both of the following facts: Either there is no passage in which the word kingdom refers to the church or there must be a plain declaration that the church and kingdom are not the same thing. There is no passage containing the latter idea, and there are passages that show the two words are used to refer to the same thing. The word kingdom often refers to the Jewish state. But in Colossians 1:13 we have a passage where no kind of logical twisting can make it mean anything else than the church. Every effort to evade the force of this plain meaning has been a disgrace to its author. The same is also true of Revelation 1:6-9. In the first verse John says Christ “made us to be a kingdom.” In the last verse he says he was a partaker “in the tribulation and kingdom.” If the tribulation existed, the kingdom did. If in one, then in the other. If John was in the kingdom, then the kingdom was in existence at that time. If in existence then, it is still. The final state is referred to in many passages as a kingdom. But if there were four times as many passages where the word is so used, that would have nothing to do with the passages where it means the church. If there were but one in which it is so used, that would prove that the church is the kingdom.

II. Christ’s Exalted Position Proves the Kingdom Now in Existence. The following facts relating to the exalted position that Christ now occupies will be sufficient proof that he is all that is necessary to be considered as a ruling king
1. He is at God’s right hand. Paul says that “when he had made purification for sins,” he “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” (Hebrews 1:3).
2. In this position he is above the angels. In Hebrews 1:4 it is said that he has “become by so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a better name than they.” Peter says of Christ that he “is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and au-
thorities and powers being made subject unto him.” (1 Peter 3:22).
3. He has a name above every name. In Php_2:5 -lI Paul briefly covers the whole field of Christ’s relation-ship to the Father. He explains that God has “highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name,” for which reason every knee should bow and every tongue should confess him.
4. In viewing Christ’s work from the standpoint of the atoning sacrifice Paul calls him our high priest, the highest possible position that could be assigned him. You are referred to Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 9:11.
5. When the church is viewed as a temple Christ is called the foundation and the chief cornerstone. (1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:20).
6. Likewise when the church is represented as the body of Christ, he is called the head. (Ephesians 1:22-23). The head rules the natural body; Christ rules the spiritual body. This is what we mean by king. While the figure is changed, the thought is substantially the same.
7. He has the keys of death and hades. (Revelation 1:18). Keys carry the idea of authority and in this case mean that Christ has authority over the Iladean world.
8. On the day of Pentecost Peter called him both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)

It would be hard to see what more could be necessary to call Christ a king and his church a kingdom than the things here said about him in his present exalted position. If all these figures point in the direction of a ruling sovereign, why should we refuse to grant that he is actually one? To say the least of it, the logic of the case certainly implies it beyond doubt.

III. When Was Christ Invested with this Supreme Authority?

Putting it in other words, the foregoing means this: When was Christ crowned or when did he become the ruling king in fact? Christ was a prince, a king in prospect, an heir to the throne, before he became such in fact. The question we are now discussing is, when did he become a king in the full accepted sense of the word? Several things have a material bearing on this question. This .point must be settled before we can know whether Christ is in his kingdom or not.

Before exercising full kingly power one must be an-ointed and crowned. If Christ be a ruling king now, his kingdom is spiritual, not temporal. If so, his crown would not be a literal one but a spiritual one. This happens to be the exact fact. Paul quotes the following language from David and applies it to Christ: “Thy throne, 0 God, is forever and ever; and the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity. Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.’’ (Hebrews 1:8-9). In 2:9 Paul says we behold him “crowned with glory and honor.” In his first sermon to the Gentiles Peter said Christ “is Lord of all,” and that God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power.” (Acts 10:36-38). The Holy Spirit came upon Christ at his baptism, which was three and a half years before he was crowned. Paul says in Hebrews 2:9 that it was “Because of the suffering of death” that he was crowned with glory and honor. The difference in the time of the crowning and the anointing is not strange. The same thing occurred in the case of David who, as a king, was a type of Christ. Samuel anointed David a long time before he succeeded to the throne. The necessity of Christ’s suffering death before he became king is a position which he himself presents in his parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21:33-43. The vineyard represents the Jewish kingdom. The killing of the householder’s son represents Christ’s death at the hands of the Romans but at the instigation of the Jews. After giving the parable Jesus asked: “Did ye never read in the Scriptures, the stone which 'the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner?’r This proves that Christ could not become the head of the corner till he had been rejected and killed. He then says: “Therefore,” that is, for the reason that you
will kill me, “The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” This passage is final on the prop-osition that Christ’s kingdom did not begin till after his death. It does not say, of course, just when it did begin, but the language strongly implies that the abrogation of the one meant the establishment of the other as quickly as all necessary matters could be adjusted. Certainly it does not indicate that centuries would first elapse. The common sense view here implied would always be accepted if one did not have a theory to defend that required some other interpretation of the parable. The resurrection was also necessary before Christ could become a ruling king. In Taul’s sermon in Anti-och of Pisidia he uses this language: “And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, that God has fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second Psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” (Acts 13:32-33). Since the full meaning of this prophetic psalm must include the resurrection of Christ, and the promise made to the fathers must also include it, we are certain that this kingdom could not precede the resurrection. In verse 34 Paul says, “As concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.” Whatever is meant by the sure blessings of David, it was not to be received until after the resurrection. Paul is here quoting from Isaiah 55:3, where the prophet says the sure mercies of David is “an everlasting covenant.” Language could hardly be plainer or more decisive.

Peter in his Pentecost sermon said that David being a prophet, knew that God had sworn to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, and “foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of Christ.” (Acts 2:30-31). In verse 33 he said that Christ was at the right hand of God. This proof is also unmistakable that Christ did not sit upon David’s throne till after his resurrection. Since he was raised to sit on David’s throne and was then at God’s right hand, the implication is almost as strong as an assertion that he sat on David’s throne when he went to heaven.

Following the events as they occurred, we find that the ascension was necessary before he sat upon his throne. To be a high priest in the true tabernacle and a king upon a spiritual throne are undoubtedly different ways of saying substantially the same thing. Paul says (Hebrews 8:4), “Now if he were on earth, he would not be a pihest at all.” The reasoning of Jesus in the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:11-27), is a direct settlement of this point. In verse 12 he says a certain nobleman “went into a far country, to receive for him-self a kingdom, and to return.” As this was spoken because, being near Jerusalem they thought the kingdom was to immediately appear, it must refer to Christ’s going to heaven and his return. According to this parable, the kingdom was to be received in the far country and the return to occur after it was received. There is no possible chance to avoid this conclusion, if the words of Jesus are to have any meaning whatever. Before leaving for the far country he gave his servants a pound each and said, “Trade ye herewith till I come.” In verse 14 we are told that his citizens said: “We will not that this man reign over us.” When the householder returned he settled with the servants to whom he gave the pounds. Then as verse 27 shows he ordered those who would not allow him to reign over them to be slain. The time they refused to let him reign over them was while he was in a far country. This being true, his reign began when he went to the far country.

It will be generally conceded that if Christ is on David’s throne, the kingdom has been established. David said that God would raise up one to sit on his throne; Peter said God had raised up Christ in fulfillment of that promise and that he was then at the right hand of God; and James argues that the tabernacle of David had been rebuilt. If the last point be sustained, the future kingdom advocates will have to yield; for there is no chance to come this side of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David to find the beginning of the kingdom. In Acts 15 we have the report of the council at Je-rusalem regarding the question of requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas told of their work among the Gentiles and Peter rehearsed how God made choice of him.to present the gospel to the Gentiles at the house of Cor-nelius. Then James made a speech in which he used these words: “Brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.” This shows plainly that the Gen-tiles had already been admitted to the chureh. This should not be forgotten. Then James goes on to say: “And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written.” He next quotes the words of the prophet Amos as follows: "After these things I will return, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; and I will build age in the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men may seek after the Lord and the Gentiles, upon whom thy name is called, saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.” (See verses 14-17). The expression, “After these things, ” is a part of the quotation from Amos and is not the words of James. Hence it cannot mean that after the reception of the Gentiles into the church, which James had just mentioned, the tabernacle would be rebuilt, but after the things which Amos had mentioned in previous verses,In the preceding paragraph, Amos 9:7-10, the prophet refers to their deliverance from Egypt and then calls them a sinful kingdom which he says God will destroy from the face of the earth. But God also promised that he would not utterly destroy the house of Jacob. Next God said: “I will sift sift the house of Israel among the nations, like as grain is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least kernel fall upon the earth. All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, who say, The devil shall not overtake nor meet us.” Then comes the quo-tation made by James. No individual Jew who was wor-thy would be rejected, but the people would go into captivity and be sifted among the nations. Their king-dom was to be destroyed, which occurred when Christ died. After these things the tabernacle of David would be rebuilt. If it had been rebuilt the next day after the resurrection, all the requirements of this passage would be met. To show that this view is the correct one it is only necessary to remember that James was quoting a passage to prove not only that the Gentiles had already come into the church but that according to the prophets they had a right to come in. He quotes Amos who said that the tabernacle of David would be rebuilt that the residue of men, or all the Gentiles, might seek the Lord. As the tabernacle of David was to be rebuilt for the purpose of allowing all Gentiles to seek the Lord, and the Gentiles in the person of Cornelius had already sought the Lord, then it follows with the force of demonstration that the tabernacle was rebuilt before the conversion of Cornelius. If this is not true, James made a mistake in his quotation. He evidently was trying to quote a passage to prove this point. If the passage had said that after the conversion of the Gentiles, the tabernacle would be rebuilt, the future kingdom'theory might appear as a certainty. But that is not what the passage says. It says the tabernacle was rebuilt that (plainly in order that) the Gentiles might seek the Lord. But the objector tells us that Christ is not on David’s throne now but on God’s throne. His proof text is Revelation 3:21. But if this objection were true, which in part it is not, it admits that Christ is upon a throne. Since all power in heaven and on earth has been given into his hands, and he is on a throne, he is king and ruling. But the contention that he is not on David’s throne is false in fact. It is squarely against the argument of James just given. It is cheerfully admitted that Christ is now on God’s throne, but it is also David’s unless the way of speaking about the matter has changed in the New Tes-tament from what is in the Old. In 1 Kings 2:12 it is said “that sat upon the throne of David his father.” In 1 Chronicles 29:23 it says “he sat on the throne of Jehovah as king instead of David his father.” In 1 Chronicles 1:1 it says Solomon was “in his kingdom.” The throne was God’s; it was David’s because God placed him upon it; it was Solomon’s because he, as David’s son, inherited it, but it was one and the same throne. So it is now.'1 Christ sits upon God’s throne; he as a son of David sits upon David’s throne; as a ruling king he sits uponhis own throne. This must be the exact truth about the matter. Christ being with God does not keep him from being king. He is the head of the church and it is called the church of God and the church of Christ. At any rate he said “my church” when promising to build it. The objector also refers to Matthew 25:31 and, He will be upon his own throne when he comes again. But he is on his own throne now.according to the argument just made. The whole context of .this passage shows the throne here to be the judgment throne.

Finally, I insist that Christ is now now reigning and will not give that up, except when He takes the saved home to Heaven and He will deliver the Kingdom to the Father, and there we shall ever be with the Lord. I submit the following--Hebrews 10:12-13 we have this statement, "But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; henceforth expecting till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet.” This passage defi-nitely fixes it that he did not sit down at God’s right hand till he had made the one offering the everlasting atonement. Henceforth”, from that time, he was ex-pecting, waiting, for his enemies to become his footstool.

Peter quotes David as follows: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou upon my right hand till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet” (Acts 2:34). This proves that he must remain at God’s right hand till his enemies are become his footstool. In 1 Corinthians 15:26 Paul says “The last enemy that shall be abolished is death.” As long as mankind is subject to death Christ will re-main in heaven. But when will death be abolished ? Revelation 20:11-15 gives a most vivid view of the resurrection and the judgment following. It says that “the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire.” Since death is not to be abolished till the final judgment, then Christ will not come till then; for, he is to remain in heaven till his enemies are abolished and death the last enemy will not be abolished till then. But the matter is fixed with 1 Corinthians 15:25 where Paul saws: “For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet.” The period of reign is precisely the same as the time he is to sit at the right hand of God. As death the last enemy will be abolished at the final judgment, Christ will reign till that time. As he reigns while overcoming his enemies and does this while sitting at God’s right hand, then he has been reigning ever since he sat down at God’s right hand. He did this when he went to heaven. The final conclusion of the matter is that Christ has been reigning as king upon David’s throne since he made the offering for sin, and will continue to reign till the final judgment. Hence, I repeat, he is now reigning or he never will. A question may be asked: How does Christ reign or rule? The answer is: Through his truth, just as he, the head, governs the body which is the church. This is too simple to need more notice. It is my sincere wish that we may not be as the citizens of the parable who refused to “have this man rule over” them, but that we may as good stewards so use the pounds committed to our care that we will merit our king’s approval when he returns from heaven to reward each according to his works.