Introduction
The book of Matthew is truly one of the most fascinating books of the Bible. It reads like a modern fable of some place far away in a time long ago, but this book in no mere fable. It is, instead, the true telling of the King revealing Himself to His people and offering them the promised Kingdom that would set the Israelite nation “high above all the nations of the earth” (cf., Deut. 28:1-14) and crush all evil and injustice of the prevailing world-system (Jeremiah 23:5). Matthew goes on to tell: of Israel’s rejection of their King and His Kingdom; the King’s postponement of His rule; the woeful fate that awaited the Jewish nation (Deut. 28:15-68); the ensuing blessing that would flow to the gentile nations during the time of the Kingdom’s deferral (1 Timothy 1:15); and the eventual return of the King in power and glory to take that which is rightly His. He will eventually subdue and defeat every foe of God and mankind—eventually sin and death will be no more—when He literally rules on the earth (Romans 5:21; cf., 1 Corinthians 15:24).
The Rightful King
Matthew opens by introducing Jesus as the long awaited Messiah of Israel whom the prophets of old predicted (cf., Isaiah 1:22–23) would descend from the bloodline of the Davidic kings. The genealogy of Jesus (1:1), links Jesus with the line of David and shows too, significantly, His descent from the patriarch Abraham (1:1–17), to whom God gave His irrevocable covenant (Genesis 12:1-3). The connection with David is remarkable, because of the Davidic Covenant, which is also irrevocable (cf., 2 Samuel 7), and its promise that a descendant in the line of David would have an everlasting rule over Israel. It is necessary that Jesus come from the bloodline of the ancient kings if He is to fulfill both the covenant made with David and the prophetic utterances concerning Messiah. There cannot be a kingdom without a king, thus the first chapter of Matthew proves that Jesus qualifies to be the King of Israel both by genealogy and Old Testament prophecy. Also, because all of God’s blessings to mankind flow through the Abrahamic covenant (Romans 11:17), so in that Jesus is the sacrifice for the sin of all mankind, His descent from the patriarch serves to validate the Word of God (among other things as well).
Reactions of political and religious leaders to the newborn King are presented in chapter two. The magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem (2:1) declaring, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him” (2:2). When Herod (the Roman client king of Judea, who possessed no lineage to David) heard of this he was distressed (2:3), as even the perception of the Jews that Messiah had come would jeopardize his rule. He inquired from the chief priests and scribes regarding this one “born King of the Jews.” “They said to him, In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet: AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH, ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH; FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL” (2:5–6). The religious leaders of Israel certainly viewed the coming of Messiah as King; the rightful ruler over Israel. Their understanding was such that the Kingdom of Messiah would be a political rule over Israel. Herod certainly had this understanding; therefore Jesus’s coming was a direct threat to his political position. Of course other Scripture proves that Jesus would be more than a political ruler—He would also be the Savior.
The Nature of the Kingdom and its Nearness
In chapter three Matthew’s narrative advances to the coming of the forerunner of the King, John the Baptist, who preached in the wilderness of Judea: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (3:2). Matthew refers to this kingdom as the “Kingdom of Heaven” not “Kingdom of God.” While both terms are synonymous Matthew uses the former in order to avoid mentioning the name of God, which was held in awe by pious Jews.
There can be little doubt that John was proclaiming an earthly, physical kingdom. John correctly anticipated and proclaimed an earthly kingdom consistent with what was predicted in the Old Testament. It was not a spiritual kingdom—regardless that many churches erroneously teach this notion—and this is evident from the context of John’s message, which offered no explanation of this kingdom he announced, thus, he fully expected his audience to understand its nature. The Kingdom of Heaven was not unknown to those to whom this message was addressed, namely, the Jews. The Old Testament predicted an earthly Kingdom and the Jewish expectation was the same. If John was now proclaiming a spiritual kingdom why does he not offer a definition or re-definition of the Kingdom? The answer: for both John and the Jews the common expectation of the day was an earthly kingdom. It is improbable that John would have in mind a spiritual kingdom knowing all the while that his hearers would be thinking earthly kingdom. And it is just as dubious to reason that the Jew understood John’s message to mean a spiritual kingdom: “The absence of any formal definition of the Kingdom in its initial announcement indicates that the Jewish hearers were expected to know exactly what Kingdom was meant.” (Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1959), 276–77).
As George Peters famously stated:
If it is correct to assert that the Jews and the disciples at first utterly misapprehended its meaning; if the announcement denoted one thing to the hearers and yet contained in itself a spiritual idea which the future was to develop—how comes it, then, that Christ could send out disciples to preach the Kingdom without previous instruction as to its real meaning...Why does not John and the disciples first receive preliminary counsel, so that, themselves freed from alleged error, they may properly teach others respecting the Kingdom? It can be safely asserted…the Kingdom was something that they were acquainted with, and concerning which, as to its nature or meaning, they needed not, owing to its plain portrayal in the Old Test., any special instruction (proposition 19, observation 4).
Additionally, John said the Kingdom “is at hand.” In what sense was the Kingdom of Heaven at hand? Clearly from the context he means that the Kingdom had drawn near, but not yet arrived. If John meant for his hearers to determine that the Kingdom was actually present then there must be a sense in which the Kingdom of God had actually arrived and was in effect when he made his proclamation. And this cannot be the case as this would contradict Christ’s (4:17) and later the disciples’ (10:7) proclamation of the nearness of the Kingdom. Obviously, John means the Kingdom had drawn near in the sense that it is imminent or on the brink, but had not actually arrived yet.
While many churches teach that John means to convey the idea that the Kingdom had spiritually arrived (or as is the case with the Roman Catholic church it is actually here and they are it), these churches and any who presume this are once again in error. And they cannot honestly claim that John’s words as recorded in Scripture literally mean a present arrival of the Kingdom in any form. The forerunner of the King did not have the authority to bring in the Kingdom himself, only Messiah holds this authority. And while Messiah was on earth doing the time of Johns mission, He had yet to reveal His identity to the subjects and they had no chance as of yet to exercise freewill submission to His rule or to reject Him (while God is absolutely sovereign He always allows for choice). Also, the Kingdom cannot have arrived before our Lord’s death, resurrection, ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit. Also, ample amount of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments indicate that the coming Tribulation Period must occur before the Kingdom arrives. If the Kingdom had arrived with or sometime prior to John’s message in 3:2, how then does one explain the presence of the Kingdom before the earthly ministry of Christ, the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the ascension of Christ and the terrible events of the Day of the Lord (i.e., the Tribulation, cf., 25:31)? Once again, all who claim the Kingdom can be present before any of these events are patently wrong. All notions of a “Kingdom Now” cannot be explain by a literal, plain reading of God’s Word. Only through spiritualizing the text is this accomplished and this method of Bible-reading dishonors God and leads astray many.
In allowing for the nearness of the Kingdom many facts and occurrences must be taken into account. Not the least that must be considered is all-out war. Of course the Kingdom cannot arrive without first there being serious conflict. What form of government in the history of humanity has willing surrendered its power? “The Kingdom is not established without a period of violence or war. In the nature of the case, if at any time God intends to re-establish such a… Kingdom, which is designed to extend its sway over the world, all, or nearly all, earthly Kingdoms will oppose it. This is precisely what the prophets, one and all, uniformly predict” (“The Theocratic Kingdom,” George Peters, prop. 115). The Bible speaks of this great war—a war never seen in history—where “there was war in heaven;” “war with the saints;” and that the “kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against [Lord Jesus]…and against His army” that will be made up of resurrected and raptured Church saints and countless holy angels (Revelation 12:7; 13:7; 19:19). While the Kingdom has always been opposed (cf., Matthew 11:12), the coming conflict cited above will be extraordinary. The result of the war will be the out-and-out destruction of all who contradict God’s right to rule.
Conclusion
Finally, there is no scriptural evidence that even suggests that the disciples viewed themselves as being in the Kingdom. To the contrary, Luke 19:11, indicates that the parable of the nobleman was spoken by the Lord to convince the disciples that the Kingdom would not appear immediately. The parable in facts proves that late in Jesus’ earthly ministry the disciples thought Jesus would soon establish the Kingdom, but clearly they did not view themselves as already being in the Kingdom. While they expect to enter the Kingdom they did not see evidence of its actuality.
Even as late as the Lord’s ascension, before they had received the Holy Spirit and were thus still “unschooled” in Jesus’ teachings, the disciples still wondered about the arrival of the Kingdom. They asked Him: “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6). His reply: “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts1:7-8).
It is best to conclude that the nearness (“at hand”) of the Kingdom means it was on the brink, but had not yet arrived. And though the King was present and His offer to Israel to finally realize all that God had promised her in irrevocable covenants made to Abraham and David, the people of Israel needed to repent and become spiritually qualified for the Kingdom. This they failed to do and their shunning of Christ brought about its postponement until all God had decreed is fulfilled in and by Messiah. Forcing on Matthew’s text an interpretation that the Kingdom had arriving and really present is a fallacious imposition of spiritualized eschatology that taints the true meaning of this Gospel and disappoints the future fulfillment of a blessed realm on earth ruled by the Righteous One.
