any more' (Micah 4:1-4). This aspect of God's kingdom is obviously future and God reveals in His Word how He is

going to bring this glorious goal to pass. All other plans to achieve this will fail. Men, religious or otherwise, may

scheme to bring in a utopia about which they dream, but it is nothing more than `castles in the air' and doomed to

utter disappointment, for it is entirely beyond the power and wisdom of man so to do.

It is only as we carefully study the Word of God and His teaching relating to His kingdom on earth and in

heaven that we can get an insight as to how the Lord will accomplish His mighty plan and make this kingdom a

glorious reality. We now propose to make this study, but first of all we must ask ourselves, what kind of kingdom

does the Bible reveal? Is it literal and material or is it spiritual, or perhaps a combination of both?

As we study the writings of Bible scholars, once again we come across many conflicting opinions. For instance,

what is a kingdom that is wholly spiritual and can such a kingdom ever exist? Some, especially those of amillennial

persuasion, would say `yes', and they believe a time will come when God will rule in the minds of all people and

then His kingdom will have been established. They frown upon any material blessings which in their estimation are

`carnal'. Others look forward to a time when peace and plenty will abound on the earth which will become

exceedingly fruitful and all men's literal needs will be abundantly satisfied.

Which of these two opposite views is true? We believe the answer is neither by themselves. The Scriptural

conception of the kingdom of God is a combination of both, but with the spiritual side first and foremost. It will be a

divine rule that meets the total needs of men, spiritual, moral and civil. This wonderful rule will be basically

spiritual, but will manifest itself by tangible effects all over the physical world. Anything less than this is not the

kingdom of the Bible for it would not meet the total needs of mankind.

It is remarkable how the word `spiritual' is often misunderstood and made to mean something that is opposite to

substances that are material or literal and as such can be apprehended by the physical senses, but its use in Scripture

must guide us here. The word pneumatikos (spiritual) in a good sense means something produced by the sole power

of the Holy Spirit without natural instrumentality and this can be in any realm whatsoever, physical or metaphysical.

In 1 Corinthians 10:2,3 we read that Israel `did all eat the same spiritual meat (food); and did all drink the same

spiritual drink ... ' Yet both the food and the drink were literal, although their character and origin were spiritual.

The food was the daily supply of the heavenly manna which could be baked, boiled, or ground to powder. Its taste

was described and it could even breed worms (Num. 11:8; Exod. 16:19,20). Yet, in spite of all this, it could

truthfully be called `spiritual'.

1 Corinthians 15:44 distinguishes between a natural (soulish) body in this life and a spiritual body in

resurrection. The resurrection body of the Lord Jesus though spiritual, could be seen and touched and had flesh and

bones (Luke 24:39). It was the energising principle of the two which is contrasted.

The word `spiritual' can also be used in a bad sense, for Ephesians 6:12 speaks of `spiritual wickedness in

heavenly places'.

Obviously we must take care with this word and not import into it unscriptural ideas. As an example, it is

absolutely misleading to contrast the word `spiritual' with the word `literal'. They are not anti-thetical; literal is not

opposed to spiritual, but to what is figurative. Nor must we make the mistake of designating what is physical and

material as carnal. This is often the charge of the spiritualiser against those who normally treat the Scriptures

literally, especially prophecy, that is, according to the received laws of language. But this is only a revived form of

the error of ancient gnosticism which regarded all that was material as evil, and it is to be feared that there is plenty

of such gnosticism in many modern religious systems.

Before we go any further it is necessary to get quite clear what sound interpretation involves. The reason why there

are so many differing ideas about the contents of the Bible is due primarily to varying and often opposing systems of

interpretation. We do not intend to go into all these. If one wants to explore this most important subject in detail,

then a treatise like F. W. Farrar's The History of Interpretation is recommended.  In our own book, The

Interpretation of Scriptures, we have summed up the position and given our reasons for adopting the literal method,

often called the grammatical-historical method. We believe this to be the most sound method of handling the sacred