It will be seen that the primary meaning of all these allied words is

king, kingly and kingdom, and this is how a Greek reading the New Testament

would interpret them.  The secondary meanings of rule or government, are the

rule or government of such as are kings or kingly persons.  If the word

'government' be a truer rendering than the word 'kingdom', it is somewhat

strange to find that there are two Hebrew and two Greek words translated

'government', eleven Hebrew and five Greek words translated 'governor'; one

Chaldee word, and three different Hebrew words for 'to govern', and yet not

one writer in Scripture uses the Hebrew word for king or kingdom!  When we

turn to the Hebrew word melek, we find it translated King 2,518 times and

Royal twice, while the corresponding Chaldee word is translated King 164

times and Royal once, and in no other way.

When we examine the Hebrew melukah, malekuth, mamlakah and mamlakuth,

we find that melukah is translated kingdom 18, king's 2, royal 4; malekuth,

empire 1, kingdom 49, realm 4, reign 21, royal 14; malekuth (Chaldee),

kingdom 46, realm 3, reign 4, kingly 1; mamlakah, kingdom 108, reign 2,

king's 1, royal 4; mamlakuth, kingdom 8, reign 1 and these words are

translated in no other way.  Not once is 'government' ever used.  We have not

bothered to count these occurrences.  The evidence is overwhelming, and the

idea that all this can be set aside by a stroke of the pen, seems too

monstrous to need refutation.  The reader, who is not already predisposed to

any particular theory, may wonder what the driving motive must be that so

desperately needs a new translation.

This is not all, however.  The words king and kingdom do not stand

alone.  They are most intimately associated with the insignia of royalty.

Throne, Crown, Sceptre are continual adjuncts.  Britain has a Government.

The United States has a Government, but we have yet to hear of the

President's Coronation, that he occupies a throne, wields a sceptre, or is

royal.  We therefore most earnestly ask every reader to pause and reconsider

should they have been carried away by the novel idea that is refuted by the

entire range of Scripture and consider this, that such a translation actually

robs the Saviour of His Crown Rights.

The Church of the One Body is not a kingdom.  But the Church of the One

Body has the honour to be translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son.  The

corporation of the city of London or of Birmingham is a 'body', but that does

not place these bodies outside of the kingdom of Great Britain.  Let us at

least be logical.  When Israel wanted to be like the nations they demanded a

king.  When God transferred earthly rule to Nebuchadnezzar, he transferred it

to a king.  When at last the Saviour returns, He returns 'to reign' and the

words of Psalm 2 are definite, 'Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of

Zion'.  What conspiracy is this then that has seduced the Lord's believing

people to trifle with the crown rights of Him Who comes 'to reign' and to sit

upon a 'throne'?  However much kingly rule has failed, God's conception of

rule is still as it always has been, a Kingdom.  The Saviour died with the

title over His head, and that sacred Head was crowned, even in derision.

When He comes He is seen wearing many crowns, He will be King of kings, and

the kingdoms of this world will cease, while the kingdom of the Lord shall be

established by God Himself.

If we have entertained the idea that there will be a premillennial

kingdom Without the Personal Presence of The King we may be disposed to look

with favour on the substituted word 'government', but we may be after all but

acting in the spirit condemned by the Lord in no uncertain terms in Mark 7:9.