Meditation on the Text of the Week

The King and His Kingdom

Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”.
Matthew 3: 1,2

It is very significant that the Living God has chosen to structure redemption as a kingdom. In our modern world where monarchy has ceased to be an effective or operational form of government this may seem antiquated or odd. Maybe many, including those within Jerusalem, inwardly gloss this declaration of John, and read it as “the republic of heaven is at hand,” or even “the democracy of heaven is at hand”.

But Scripture utterly forbids the entertaining of any such bizarre notions. The kingdom of heaven is not a passing phenomenon, subject to the evolution of political systems in the West. We know this because the Lord Jesus Christ has been invested as the King of all kings, the Lord of all lords, and He has been granted authority to sit upon the throne of His father, David. We can no more separate the institution of the kingdom of heaven from the New Covenant and the redemptive works of our Lord than we can disestablish His heavenly throne. Lest any be so inclined, know that the Word of God contains clear threats and warnings for those who are tempted to such folly. (Psalm 2: 1—6)

The establishment of a kingdom as the organising structure and institution of redemption occurs under the aegis of the Older Covenant, when God first establishes the throne of David. This was a significant milestone and development in redemptive history. It occurs against the backdrop of the failed period of the Judges—when every man did what was right in his own eyes. This was Israel's experience of libertarianism, or classical anarchy. It was deliberately done by the Lord, that forever after we may know that people of God were not to function under such beliefs or systems.

Israel learned that it was unable to function effectively in the created, yet fallen world, without centrally structured hierarchies. Its solution to this problem was crass and worldly. It sought to imitate the nations around and have a king—who would essentially organise the people for war and command them in battle as the pagan nations did. Israel reasoned that it would have no respect in this world until they had a king who could “foot it” with the enemy kings which surrounded them.

So the Lord gave them what they wanted—to teach them their folly, once again. He gave them Saul, who looked like a king, and who had the gravitas and mana of a king. Saul commenced immediately to model his office, reign, and kingdom upon the notions of royalty and kingship in the surrounding nations. That was why he assumed from the outset that his office belonged to his bloodline, and that his son, Jonathan would inherit the throne.

The Lord rejected Saul as king—and in so doing, rejected the “Gentile” model of authority, which seeks to arrogate power and lord it over others. He chose David, and thereby established the Davidic throne, which His Son would eventually occupy—and does so to this day. The essential difference between the Davidic and Saulic kingdoms was the rejection of all arrogance, human pride, and vaunting of man. The Song of Hannah, which introduces the books of Samuel, gives us the divine commentary upon all that follows:

Boast no more so very proudly,
Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; . . . .
The Lord makes poor and rich;
He brings low, He also exalts.
He raises the poor from the dust,
He lifts the needy from the ash heap,
To make them sit with nobles,
And inherit the seat of honour. . . .
The Lord will judge the ends of th earth;
And He will give strength to His king,
And will exalt the horn of His anointed.”
I Samuel 2: 1—10

David is that king. He is the insignificant, poor, lowly one who is taken by God and raised up. His reign, before he fell under temptation in the latter part of his life, is marked by humility and lowly service before God. He was but a forerunner of his greatest descendant who would come forth in His time, to sit upon that throne.

The whole point about a kingdom is that there is a king. God has chosen to accomplish redemption and the re-creation of the world by instituting a Kingdom, and therefore a throne, and therefore a King. It is in the nature of kings to rule and command, to appoint servants who will bear the authority of the king as they carry out their duties required by the offices established by divine prerogative. So the kingdom of heaven has come forth. It is not a democracy, although it requires the consent of the governed. It is not a republic, although is demands that office bearers be people of right quality. It is a Kingdom—which means that it has structures of authority, delegations of office and power, and it has superiors and inferiors in that the Lord has established subordinate officers to carry out His reign, rule, and will in the world.

In our democratized age, where every man more and more does what is right in his own eyes, there has been a tendency within Jerusalem to revert back to the time of the Judges—to speak and act as if the Throne of David had long since passed and was no more. How stupid and faithless to turn back to the empty folly of that age of the Judges. How crass to think and act as if John the Baptist had not spoken.

Despite the democratization of everything within Athens and the mediocrity and impotence it inevitably produces, the Lord requires that Jerusalem be structured as a kingdom—the kingdom of heaven itself upon the earth. In this, as in all things, we march to the beat of a very different drummer.