CHAPTER FIVE

We pass on now to the testimony of the New Testament concerning the kingdom of God. And the burning

question is, whether this kingdom as presented in the New Testament means exactly what it did in the Old

Testament books. There are many expositors who would give a decisive `no' to this query. They would insist that,

in the New Testament, God's kingdom is entirely spiritual, residing in the hearts and minds of those who are saved.

Before we can come to any conclusion about this, we should seek to discover how the New Testament writers

regarded the Old Testament, i.e. how they interpreted it. There are some 400 references to the Old Testament and

one thing is clear. The New Testament authors refrain from the allegorical method current in those times,

particularly Philo's writings. `It is written' is regarded as settling its meaning and words are therefore used in their

normal sense. The Apostle Paul declared that he had taught none other things than `the prophets and Moses did say

should come' (Acts 26:22,23) and if there had been any doubt of the Old Testament's meaning, such a statement

would have been valueless. Furthermore, the believers at Berea checked Paul's teaching with the Old Testament

(Acts 17:10,11) and this would have been impossible if its meaning had been uncertain. The Lord Jesus Christ too

made constant reference to the Old Testament. He reprimanded His enemies because they did not believe Moses.

He said:

`For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings,

how shall ye believe My words?' (John 5:46,47).

And after His resurrection He took the same attitude. He chided the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and said:

`O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken' (Luke 24:25-27).

What the prophets wrote must therefore have been understandable otherwise such a charge would have been unjust.

Furthermore, as we have seen, we have a divine guide in the interpretation of the prophetical kingdom in the Old

Testament, for the prophecies which set forth His first coming and proclamations of the kingdom were all fulfilled

literally. The place of His birth was literal - Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). The evidential miracles that He wrought of

bodily healing were literal, as Isaiah 35:5,6 had predicted. There were no less than fourteen prophecies literally

*

fulfilled in the twenty four hours at the crucifixion.

This being so, when we compare the way the kingdom is presented in Old and New Testaments we can only

conclude that they are one and the same. For had the New Testament doctrine of the kingdom of God differed from

the Old Testament presentation and content, it would have been essential for this to have been stressed at the

beginning of John the Baptist's and the Lord's ministry to avoid misunderstanding.

But what do we find? In the Gospel records the kingdom is presented without any explanation whatever. Nor do

we ever find anyone asking for such an explanation. This evidently was not needed, for the Old Testament had

made abundantly clear the character of this kingdom and the Lord and His disciples spoke to the earthly people of

Israel to whom had been committed the `oracles of God' i.e. the Old Testament (Rom. 3:1,2) and therefore such

explanation was unnecessary.

G.N. Peters in his Theocratic Kingdom observes:

`The New Testament begins the announcement of the kingdom in terms expressive of its being previously well

known ... the preaching of the kingdom, its simple announcement, without the least attempt to explain its

meaning and nature, the very language in which it was conveyed to the Jews - all pre-supposed that it was a

*

For this evidence see the author's The Unfolding Purpose of God pp 10-14 The Berean Publishing Trust.