III. The kingly office
The term “king” in the Biblical language has a far greater scope than what is commonly understood in the 20th cent. A king cumulated legislative, executive, judiciary, economic and military prerogatives within his realm. He often wielded unlimited power over the life and properties of his subjects. His rule which had to provide leadership in so many areas, could easily slip into tyranny and despotism.
In Israel, the original approach to civil government was a “theocracy” in which God’s rule was emphasized and carried out through appropriate representatives who exercised leadership in God’s name: Moses, Joshua, the judges. Later on Israel desired to have visible kings, even as the surrounding nations (1 Sam 8:5; etc.). Some of these provided luster and power to Israel and led the armies to victory, but the great majority of them turned out to be a snare in the path of the nation. In the Babylonian exile the kingship collapsed, together with the independence of the nation. The kingship of the Herods was a far cry from what the people of God desired, and the pious souls in Israel were yearning for a promised renewal of the rule of David, the king after God’s own heart.
It is this kind of expectation of a Messianic kingship which was alive in the hearts of pious men when Christ was born (Isa 55:3, 4; Jer 23:5; 30:9; Ezek 34:22-24; 37:24, 25; Amos 9:11; Zech 9:9; etc.).
In the gospel accounts, esp. in Matthew, the kingship of Christ and His relation to David are emphasized. This is evident in Jesus’ genealogy (Matt 1:1, 6), in the annunciation to Mary (Luke 1:32, 33), in the visitation of the magi (Matt 2:2), in the confession of Nathanael (John 1:49), in the payment of the tribute (Matt 17:25, 26), in the triumphant entry in Jerusalem (Matt 21:5-9; Mark 11:9, 10; Luke 19:38; John 12:13), in the conversations with Pilate (Matt 27:11; Mark 15:2, 9; Luke 23:2, 3; John 18:33, 37; 19:14, 15), in the dying request of the penitent malefactor (Luke 23:42), and in the inscr. of the cross (Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19). In this last instance it is noteworthy that an official public recognition was given to Christ’s kingship, although in derision.
Jesus Himself used the language of kingship extensively in the course of His earthly ministry, notably in the expressions “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of heaven” which frequently recur on His lips, but also in a number of other occasions: when He uses or countenances the title “Lord” (Matt 7:21, 22; 21:3; and parallels in Mark 11:3 and Luke 19:31; Matt 22:43-45 and parallels in Mark 12:36, 37 and Luke 20:41-44; John 13:13, 14; 20:28, 29); when He uses the title “king” in reference to Himself (Matt 25:34, 40; 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3; John 18:37; cf. also Luke 19:12, 15, 27; 22:30); when He compares Himself to Solomon (Matt 12:42; Luke 11:31); when He speaks of His glory or His throne (Matt 16:27 and parallels in Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26; Matt 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64 and parallels in Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69; John 13:31, 32; 17:1, 3, 24); when He refers to His own authority (Matt 28:18; John 5:27-29; 17:2); when He asserts that the kingdom is within them (Luke 17:21) or not of this world (John 18:36).
It is evident from these statements that our Lord was far transcending the nationalistic and earthly aspirations of those who were looking for the promised Messiah-king. Beyond the rule over Israel is the dominion of the anointed of God over His people and over the cosmos. It is generally in terms of these broadened categories that the apostles envisioned the kingship of Christ (1 Thess 2:12; 2 Tim 4:1; Rev 11:15). This outlook is perhaps best summarized in the title “king of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim 6:15; Rev 17:14; 19:16).
1. The subjects of Christ’s kingship. Considerable differences of opinion have prevailed on this theme. The best approach appears to be comprehensive rather than exclusive.
There are those who hold that Christ is to rule over Israel, viewed as an earthly nation, while others think that Scripture does not give appropriate warrant for expecting a future renewal of this sort. This is hardly the place to give the details of the discussion. We may perhaps be content to note that, even if this type of kingship is to be envisioned, it will be at best a temporary one and does not need to retain our attention here in a primary manner.
The kingship of Christ over His Church is the point of major emphasis in the NT. In addition to the passages mentioned above where the word “king” and its derivatives are used, we note the texts where Christ is presented the “head” of the Church and the Church as “the body” of Christ (1 Cor 11:3; 12:27; Eph 1:22, 23; 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18; 2:10, 19. In 1 Cor 11:3 and Col 2:10 the headship may have an even wider reference than the Church). Another expression which deserves attention here is the term ἀρχηγός, G795, captain, pioneer (Heb 2:10). This word relates to the thought that Christ as the leader moves ahead while His disciples follow Him (Matt 4:19; 9:9; 16:24; 19:21 and parallels in Mark and Luke; John 1:43; 10:27; 12:26; 21:22; 1 Cor 11:1; Eph 5:1, 2; Heb 12:1, 2; 1 Pet 2:21). Another element implicit in this language is the representation that Christ as the ruler leads His troops into battle and assumes for them the role of the champion who engages in the death-struggle for the sake of His people (John 16:33; Eph 6:10-17; Col 2:15; 1 Tim 6:12; Heb 2:14-16; Rev 6:2; 19:11-16. Cf. on this general theme G. Aulén, Christus Victor [1931], and R. Leivestad, Christ the Conqueror [1954], where the element of victory in the atonement is stressed, although perhaps in too one-sided a fashion).
Here also one must note the title Kyrios, Lord, which occurs scores of times in the NT. This term has a rich content involving even an acknowledgement of deity when used in a religious sense (cf. B. B. Warfield, The Lord of Glory [1907] and W. Foerster and G. Quell “KYRIOS,” TWNT, Eng. tr. III [1965], 1039-1100), but what specifically concerns us here is that it implies dominion or kingly rule, and that it is a particularly appropriate expression of allegiance to Christ on the lips of those who acknowledge the sovereign authority of Christ as Lord (John 20:28; 1 Cor 12:3). These constitute precisely the company of the redeemed, the Church of God: the kingship of Christ over His Church is therefore clearly in view. We find no trace in the Scripture of a distinction between accepting Christ as Savior and acknowledging Him as Lord, as if some people could take the former step while refusing the latter. The full implications of the Lordship of Christ, it is true, are not perceived at once at the moment of conversion (nor for that matter at any subsequent moment of this life’s course), but they are gradually unfolded and apprehended in the development of the Christian life (sanctification). From the very start, however, to the very end, the Christian is taught to pray “Thy kingdom come” (Matt 6:10; Luke 11:2) and this must include a yearning for an increasing manifestation of Christ’s rule over self, whatever else may also be encompassed in this petition.
Christ is presented as the judge of His people (1 Cor 4:4; 2 Cor 5:10; James 5:9; 1 Pet 4:17). This too is a royal prerogative.
There is also the kingship of Christ over the universe. We may do well to distinguish here between the eternal kingship of the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, and the mediatorial kingship of Christ the God-man. The former is a natural prerogative of the divine essence, while the latter is presented in Scripture as a special investiture received as His reward when He was raised (Pss 2:8, 9; 110:1, 2; Matt 28:18; Eph 1:20-22; Phil 2:9-11). This rule extends to mankind at large (Ps 2:8; John 17:2), to the angelic world (Col 2:15; Heb 2:14; Rev 1:18), and to irrational and inanimate creation (Heb 2:8). Christ fulfills in perfection the destiny which had been appointed to Adam (Gen 1:26, 28). Where the first Adam forfeited his privileges by his rebellion, the second Adam has excelled in His obedience (Rom 5:19) and obtained the glorious fulfillment of the divine plan for man.
The kingdom of Christ involves not only His sovereign rule over creation, but His victory over all enemies (Pss 2:9; 110:6; John 16:33; 1 Cor 15:54-57; 2 Cor 2:14; Col 2:15; Rev 6:2; 19:15-21 etc.) and His right to judge (Matt 25:31-46; John 5:22, 27; 2 Tim 4:1; etc.).
Christ exercises the rights of this universal rule not only for Himself, but He has chosen to permit His redeemed to share with Him in His victory (John 16:33; 1 Cor 15:57; 2 Cor 2:14; 1 John 5:4), in His judgment (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30; 1 Cor 6:2, 3; Rev 20:4), and in His reign (2 Tim 2:12; Rev 5:10; 20:4; 22:5).
2. The time of Christ’s kingship. When? The question whether the kingdom of Christ is present or future has been the object of extensive, and sometimes passionate discussion. Those who opt exclusively for one alternative encounter serious exegetical difficulties. A median course of interpretation appears possible in which it will be acknowledged on one hand that Christ reigns now, and that His kingship is manifested wherever His rule and His law are obeyed; and on the other hand, that there is a climactic fulfillment of His kingship that is yet future and that will be ushered in with cataclysmic changes (Matt 24; 1 Thess 5:3; 2 Pet 3:10-12) at the consummation of history. Both of these perspectives appear to be firmly imbedded in the scriptural outlook. (Cf. George Ladd, “Can the Kingdom be Both Future and Present?” Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God [1952], pp. 63-74.)
How long will Christ’s future kingdom last? This is a difficult question, inasmuch as many passages assert that the kingdom is forever (Ps 45:6; Isa 9:7; Dan 2:44; Luke 1:33; 2 Pet 1:11; Rev 11:15; 22:5), while other Scriptures appear to teach some limit of time (1 Cor 15:24-28; Rev 20:1-7).
The difficulty may not be as great as it might seem, if we take due note of the fact that there are various aspects of the kingdom. The rule of the triune God is surely eternal like God Himself. The mediatorial rule of Christ, on which we focus our attention in this article, may have both temporary and eternal features. Most interpreters agree that the mediatorial union of Christ with His own is permanent, so that His headship, even as His priesthood, is everlasting (Ps 110:4 and Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17). This could account for the first group of passages.
All agree that the millennial kingdom and the prophetic fulfillments related to national Israel (if so be that these have indeed a place in God’s plan for the future), will have a limited duration. Those who hold to this type of view have therefore a natural explanation for the second group of passages.
It is, moreover, possible to envision the statement of 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 as relating to Christ’s ultimate recommitting unto the triune God of His universal mediatorial rule (cf. above) after it has fulfilled its purpose in God’s all-inclusive plan. This is the position advocated among others by H. Bavinck, L. Berkhof, G. Stevenson, and favored by the author of this article.