Are the Kingdom and the Church the Same? Part One
Are the church and the kingdom the same? If they are, then we understand the fullness of God's plan included the establishment of the church, which belongs to Christ. If the kingdom and the church are not the same, as some have claimed, then it is still forthcoming. To answer this valid question, we must go to God’s Word. We must also recognize that if the kingdom is forthcoming, then Christ failed in His first coming. This is the basic premise of premillennialism–that Christ came to set up His earthly kingdom but was forced to change His plans because the Jews rejected Him. They would conclude that since the Jews rejected Him, He made a backup plan, a temporary structure called the church. This suggests that Christ is a failure and His church, rather than being His plan, is merely a less valuable substitute. Does the Bible teach this?
Does the Bible Teach that Jesus Failed?
It is certainly true that Jesus faced some rejection by the Jews, particularly many religious leaders. However, we cannot gloss over the fact that on one occasion, they wished to even make Him their king. “Jesus, therefore, perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain himself alone” ( John 6:15). Should the Lord have accepted their offer? Did He not accept it merely because it was not His time to become king over Israel, like His Davidic ancestors? Perhaps we ought to keep reading
In Jesus' trial with Pontius Pilate, the aforementioned Roman leader asked Jesus concerning His kingdom. Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
(John 18:33-37)
So, as you can imagine, this presents a problem for those who teach the doctrine of premillennialism, which is a majority of the religious world. If Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world, then we should take Him at His Word. If you miss this critical teaching and replace it with a theory that the kingdom is yet future, then you will be forced to look for a future kingdom throughout the Bible.
Does the Old Testament Give Any Information Concerning the Kingdom?
In approximately 600 BC, Daniel prophesied concerning the kingdom and its nature.
And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
(Dan 2:44)
Leading up to this in Daniel 2:1ff, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had a dream that troubled him. His sorcerers, magicians, and the like were of no help to him. However, Daniel stated that he would be able to give the interpretation of the dream (cf. Daniel 2:14-16,19). The above verse is from Daniel's interpretation of the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar revealed in Daniel 2:27-44. God saw it fit to prophesy concerning the kingdoms that would follow Babylon and reveal it to King Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Dan 2:45).
Daniel explained that the great image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream represented four kingdoms, with Babylon depicted by the head of gold. After Babylon, another kingdom would arise represented by the breast and arms, a third kingdom would follow pictured by the belly and thighs. Finally, the fourth kingdom would arrive depicted as legs and feet. In the time of the fourth kingdom, God would set up His everlasting kingdom. So, we understand the Babylonian Empire is the first kingdom, and it ended in 539 BC. The kingdom of the Medes and Persians overthrew it and lasted from 539 BC-331 BC when they were replaced by the Greek Empire which existed from 331-63 BC. The Greeks were followed by the Roman Empire which lasted from 146 BC to 476 AD. If God is true, then the everlasting kingdom had to be established in the days of the kings of Rome. If the church is the kingdom, it was certainly established in the days of the fourth kingdom, as is recorded in Acts 2. There is no other kingdom that matches this date range and is eternal in nature.
What Do the Gospel Accounts Have to Say About the Kingdom?
Between A.D. 27-30 or 30-33 (depending how you count), the kingdom of God was said to be at hand. This was the message that John the Immerser declared: “Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2). Luke’s account gives the details of the Roman officials who were in power (cf. Luke 3:1-3). So, can one see the connection to Daniel 2:44? John preached the kingdom was at hand. Christ preached the kingdom was at hand (Matt. 4:17). Jesus charged His disciples to preach this message, “and heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you” (Luke 10:9).
The kingdom was spoken of as still future during the Lord’s earthly ministry. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth” (Matt 6:10). Also, in the upper room Jesus explained, “for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come” (Luke 22:18). From this above information we can see the kingdom that was to come was highly anticipated and had to come after the Lord died at Golgotha, but during the days of the Roman Empire. In the second part of this article we will consider the place and circumstances of this kingdom and the consequences of belief that the kingdom is still in the future.
