The Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew (2)

Part One

The Kingdom to Come in the Lord’s Prayer

            We are accustomed to treat the so-called “Lord’s Prayer” within our own “Church” context.  And no wonder, for the guidance and hope it supplies are a great boon to the spiritual life.  But if we situate it in its setting in the Sermon on the Mount we have to allow that it signified something a little different for the disciples; especially Matthew 6:10:

            Your kingdom come.  Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

            In circa A. D. 30 Jesus’ references to God’s “kingdom” would, when combined with His messianic claims and miracles, summon up only one idea; the covenanted Davidic Kingdom predicted in, for example, Isaiah 11:1-10 or Jeremiah 23:5-6.  No one could envision the Church at such an early date, and passages like Acts 1:6 persuasively combat any argument from silence.[1]  No, the Father’s Kingdom which is to be prayed for is the New covenant Davidic Kingdom of the OT Prophets.  We also notice that this coming Kingdom is to be “on earth” not in heaven.[2]  This too accords with the Prophets.  The fact that Jesus instructs His disciples to pray for the Kingdom, and they would be praying for the Kingdom of Messiah, surely tells us that Yahweh will stick to the words of the covenant He made with David, and also those covenants He made with Abraham and Phinehas!

            There is a further consideration we need to make with reference to Christ’s words; for their anticipatory nature suggests that the Kingdom for which we pray will be synonymous with its portrayal in the prayer.  Which is to say, in praying “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” we are saying (sometimes without thinking) that the Kingdom will not be present until this happens!  Similar to the teaching in Luke 19:11 that staves off any hopes of an imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God, Jesus’ instruction here essentially does the same thing, at least in the sense that we now ought to realize that the Kingdom which was then preached as being “at hand” at the start of Jesus’ ministry was put off until the second advent.  Matthew 6:10 precludes any notion of the Kingdom of God being established in a world yet under the thrall of Satan and the governance of the wicked.  To put it in the words of John the Apostle, only when “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ” (Rev. 11:15) could it be said that the Kingdom of Heaven/God is present upon the earth.

The Context of the Proclamation

            Towards the end of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus issues a warning about false professors:

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. – Matthew 7:21.

            We must remind ourselves that at the time when this was taught Jesus (Matt. 4:1) and the disciples (Matt. 10:7) were proclaiming “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”  There was a sense of urgency about the coming of the New covenant Kingdom that later no longer obtained as Jesus neared Jerusalem.[3]  When the Lord said this, the Kingdom of Heaven was proclaimed as being just around the corner.  Therefore, the admonishment about doing the will of the Father resonates with John the Baptist’s heralding of bearing “fruits worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:8/Lk. 3:8). 

            Here again the Kingdom is in the future.  It is to be entered only by the righteous, therefore it cannot come in a world ruled by sin and unrighteousness.  If there is to be a different notion of the Kingdom later in the NT it will be discussed when and where it arises.[4]  It is not found in the Sermon on the Mount. 

The Centurion and the Sons of the Kingdom

            The next passage I wish to consider is the healing of the centurion’s servant and what Jesus says in relation to it.  Luke also records the incident (Lk. 7:1-10), but without the observations given in Matthew 8:5-13.  After the centurion expressed faith in Jesus’ power and authority to just “speak a word, and my servant will be healed” (Matt. 8:8), the Lord spoke both about the faith of the Gentile soldier and the fate of those whom He referred to as “the sons of the kingdom.” 

When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!  And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.  But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” – Matthew 8:10-12.

            Let us consider the faith of the centurion; of what did it consist?  He is a Gentile who is aware of what Jesus is doing and saying.  Jesus has made a deep impression on him.  He calls Him “Lord” (kyrios).  As a centurion he knows men, and he knows Jesus is no ordinary man.  In the culture of the time many believed that words could carry power, especially if associated with a deity.  It is safe to assume the centurion had witnessed Christ’s mighty works, and he came to believe, not that Jesus might have the power to heal his servant, but that He did have it.  Moreover, he was convinced that the power of Jesus’ words was sufficient to affect the world dynamically and authoritatively.  In sum, the centurion was sure that Jesus was who He claimed to be.  His trust in Jesus was grounded in the words of Jesus, supported by the works. 

            Now consider Jesus’ application of the centurion’s faith: “I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 8:11).  The various points of the compass serve to indicate the far-reaching impact of the work of God of which Jesus is central.  As the Abrahamic covenant includes a provision for the nations (Gen. 12:3), Jesus would not be saying anything controversial about the Gentiles.  But putting it the way He does; that Gentiles will come into the Kingdom with some Jews (very religious Jews no less) excluded would be guaranteed to raise the ire of some listeners.  “Sons of the kingdom” refers to Israelites who are party to the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, and who therefore would expect to enter the Kingdom.  Jesus’ highlighting of the centurion’s faith in Him showed what would be the deciding factor.[5]  Mere ancestry was not a sufficient qualification.  Yet there will be believing Jews in the Kingdom.  Israel will not be replaced, nor does the passage say that Israel will be expanded to become mainly Gentile in complexion.  Faith in Jesus is the road to covenantal blessing.  Israel’s covenants do not bypass Jesus, they pass through Him.[6] 

            Matthew 9 mostly concerns reports of Jesus’ amazing healings and exorcisms.  All these reports are grouped together to show how Christ overcame the effects of the curse and the deleterious consequences of sin upon the body.  These include the healing of the Paralytic (Matt. 9:1-8/Lk. 5:17–26), the restoration of the young girl and the healing of the woman with the issue of blood (Matt. 9:18-26/Lk. 8:40-56), the healing of two blind men (Matt. 9:27-31), and the expulsion of a demon which had rendered a man mute (Matt. 9:32-34).  These mighty reversals of the different effects of the Fall, of which nothing equal had been seen in Israel (Matt. 9:33), are linked to the proclamation of the Kingdom (Matt. 9:35). 


[1] As I have already indicated, a way around this is simply to claim that the Gospel writers (particularly Luke) were writing in the 60’s to 80’s A. D. and wrote their Gospels from an ecclesiological perspective.  I find such claims untenable.  More will be said about this in a later chapter. 

[2]  A little further on Jesus says to “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (Matt 6:20).  By this we are not to think that heaven is the permanent home of the saints.  Treasures and rewards for the next life cannot be stored on earth in this life.  According to Hebrews 12:27 the earth (and the heaven) will be shaken so that any place one might think to store treasures will be “removed.” 

[3] Hence, the Lord’s resigned words in Luke 19:42: “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.” 

[4] I shall give some consideration to the matter in my treatment of the Parables of the Kingdom in Matthew 13. 

[5] Again, it should be noted how entrance into a future Kingdom is at issue.  

[6] As I have tried to show and will show, the coming Kingdom is the New covenant Kingdom.                 

Aspects of Biblical Interpretation – Telos on YouTube (repost)

I have been recording short video presentations on various themes.  The aim is to cover subjects in Biblical and Systematic Theology, Apologetics and Worldview, and other matters briefly and clearly, yet without being too simplistic or too technical.  The first mini-series we have done is on Themes in Biblical Interpretation.  The series, as well as other materials, can be viewed at the TELOS YouTube channel.

Here are the first three:

The Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew (1)

The Kingdom of Heaven?

Matthew 3 begins with John the Baptist proclaiming, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 3:1-2).  It has him calling Pharisees and Sadducees “a brood of vipers.” (Matt. 3:7), which hardly matched the exalted spiritual status they gave themselves.  Later in this Gospel we see Jesus calling Pharisees (and scribes) hypocrites and “fools and blind” (Matt. 23:13-19).  In Matthew the religious leaders get called all kinds of names.  Modern scholarship has tried to correct these Matthean malapropisms, and we do know of Pharisees who became followers of Jesus (Acts 15:5).  All in all though, the portrait the Holy Spirit has left us in the first Gospel does them no credit at all.

After the temptation of Jesus, which I shall look at from Matthew’s perspective soon, we find Jesus immediately preaching “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt. 4:17).  This is of interest because it means there is a direct continuity between John’s preaching and Jesus’ preaching.[1]  There was therefore a large swell of expectation of the “kingdom of heaven” in the early days of Christ’s ministry wrought by the attention-grabbing efforts of the two men. 

Since Matthew is the only writer to use this designation “kingdom of heaven,” and that often in the same situations as the other Evangelists have “kingdom of God” it is obvious that the two expressions are very similar, if not one and the same.[2]  Confusingly, Matthew does employ “kingdom of God” in Matthew 6:33; 12:28; 19:24, and 21:31 and 43.  So what is happening here?  Why does Matthew use what appears to be a circumlocution for “God” most of the time, but not all the time? 

In Mathew 5:33 we read,

Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be added to you.

Quite clearly, if Matthew had inserted “heaven” for “God” in this place he would have done away with the subject of the pronoun “His.”  The next instance is somewhat similar:

But Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.

            If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?

And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore, they shall be your judges.  But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. – Matthew 12:25-28.

            Jesus is speaking about the invasion of the kingdom of Satan (Beelzebub).  He explains that He expels demons “by the Spirit of God.” (Matt. 12:28).  It would sound a bit lame if instead of speaking plainly about “the kingdom of God” he instead had Jesus say “kingdom of heaven.”  Heaven is not the antonym of Satan, God is! 

            In Matthew 19 the context involves the Rich Young Ruler, who is asked “Why do you call me good?   No one is good but One, that is, God.” (Mat 19:17).  The conversation is about moral qualifications, and God is the standard.  It would be rather odd if after mentioning God as the standard of goodness to inherit eternal life, Matthew then omitted His name when responding to His shocked disciples.  This is how He replied:

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.  “And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” – Matthew 19:23-24.

            In verse 23 Jesus may be speaking about going to heaven (i.e. inheriting “eternal life”), or about the coming Kingdom itself.  In verse 24 He is referring to whose Kingdom it is; ergo, whose righteousness is the benchmark for entrance.  In which case, the subject had to be “God.” 

            Finally, in Matthew 21 we have two mentions of “kingdom of God.” 

“Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said to Him, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you.” – Matthew 21:31.

            Notice that the Lord has introduced the character of a father.  The first son in the story, who was recalcitrant at the beginning, repented and did his father’s will.  He was not the son who looked and sounded good but who was disobedient.  The first son was like the “tax collectors and harlots” who turned from their sin after considering the will of God through Jesus’ preaching.  Hence, the Person of God is the subject of the sentence.      

The last time “kingdom of God” is used by Matthew is in 21:43.  Here it is with the verse before it:

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: `The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’S doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?  Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.” – Matthew 21:42-43.

            Here Psalm 118 is quoted and Yahweh (“the LORD”) is the main Actor.  It is God who has disposed history in such a way that “the builders” refused the true cornerstone.  Very pointedly, Jesus stated that those kingdom-builders who professed to be in God’s employ were building their own little kingdom.  As God would take the rejection of His Son personally, the phrase “kingdom of heaven” would be too impersonal to suit the occasion here. 

            Those are my brief explanations as to why Matthew uses “kingdom of God” five times rather than his more usual designation of it as the “the kingdom of heaven.”  Readers are free to disagree with these reasons, but there must be reasons.   To recap then “the kingdom of heaven” in Matthew is a circumlocution, where possible, of the name of God for His abode. 


[1] This kind of similarity is what has encouraged some of the more liberal leaning scholars to hazard that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist. 

[2] Some traditional Dispensationalists like Lewis Sperry Chafer and John Walvoord adamantly held that there was a difference in meaning between the two terms.  See the explanation in Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1980, 65-68.    

The Kingdom of God in Luke (Pt. 8)

Part Seven

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper/New Covenant

            I firmly believe that the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Lk. 22:14-20) are some of the most important words in the NT.  The occasion for this world-changing event was the annual celebration of the Passover Seder, although Jesus had to celebrate it prematurely because by the time the real Passover was eaten, He would be dead.[1] 

The link between the Passover meal and the Lord’s Supper are clear and underlined by Paul’s reference to Jesus as “Christ our Passover” in 1 Corinthians 5:7.  The Passover is connected to the (old) Mosaic covenant, which is to be replaced by the New covenant; and Jesus’ role in this is critical.  If I may make an observation here about the importance of the Pauline designation with reference to the Gospel accounts (particularly in Luke 22:19 where the words “do this in remembrance of me” are present); the fact that Paul has used the term “Christ our Passover” points to the replacement of the traditional Passover lamb of the Mosaic covenant with the “Lamb of God” of the New covenant.  If this surmise is accurate then we have a strong indicator of the fact that Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice not only superseded the OT Passover ritual, but that in doing so a continuity of the Passover in Jesus was created.  Since the old Mosaic covenant does not have a provision for a change in the Passover sacrifice, we are left to conclude that the only way that Jesus, the Lamb of God can be linked to the Passover (i.e. by Paul[2]) in a more than incidental way is if another covenant has taken over the Passover,[3] amplifying its significance in the Person of the Messiah.  As Bock puts it, “[Christ] has become the lamb who launches a new age.”[4]   

Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” – Luke 22:15-16.

            Jesus’ anticipation of this Passover is explained when He uses it to institute the “New covenant in my blood” in verse 20.  It is clearly prophetic, as the words “until it is fulfilled” clearly show.  This gap between His partaking of the Passover and the appointed time (Lk. 22:15-18)) when He again eats it forms a further link between the Passover and the New covenant, re-situating of it in the Kingdom of God, which once more is a future reality to be manifested upon Christ’s return. 

And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” – Luke 22:19.

            As pointed out above, the words “do this in remembrance of Me” are unique to Luke’s account.  He was doubtless told about this wish of the Lord by one who was present (Paul also includes the words – 1 Cor. 11:24-25).  The command to remember relates to both parts of the institution, as Paul shows.  The remembrance is not a mawkish sentiment wrought by a realization of approaching doom; understandable though that would have been.  None of the Evangelists say that Jesus was sad or distressed as He reclined in the Upper Room (That trial was to come in Gethsemane).  The reason for remembering Jesus is plainly centered around His death for us, although we should also consider His humble earthly ministry among sinners: the whole incarnation (Phil. 2:5-8).  Our chance of life as God the Creator intended it is all predicated on what Jesus achieved. Hence we remember.  

Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.” – Luke 22:20.

            Matthew and Mark have “this is My blood of the new covenant” (Matt. 26:28/Mk. 14:24).  I see no reason at all why Jesus could not have said both Luke’s version and Matthew and Mark’s version.  What is very significant is that this is the first recorded instance of the term “New covenant” since its solitary appearance in Jeremiah 31:31.

Although it is given sparse utterance, the notion of the coming New covenant reverberates throughout the OT and was the source of hope for Israel and the Gentiles.  Jeremiah was simply giving a name to a concept that occurs throughout the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Deut. 30:1-6; Isa. 32:9-20; 42:1-7; 49:1-13; 52:10-53:12; 55:3; 59:15b-21; 61:8; Jer. 32:36:44; Ezek. 16:53-63; 36:22-38; 37:21-28; Hos. 2:18-20; Joel 2:28–3:8; Mic. 7:18-20; Zech. 9:10; 12:6-14.; 59:15-21).  Now the Lord reintroduces the term at this decisive moment.  The solemn mood surely deepened as He spoke the phrase and brought it into the closest relation to Himself and His impending death.     

The words “New covenant” would stir powerful thoughts of Israel’s restoration and glory, exactly as the prophet Jeremiah had foretold.  It is little wonder that forty days later they asked the resurrected Jesus, “Lord will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).  Such a question would have been encouraged by these words:

“But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials.  And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” – Luke 22:28-30.

            Was this proffered kingdom something new and unexpected?  Nothing indicates that it was.  What may well have been surprising was the promise of the disciples’ exalted position in the Kingdom. 

There were twelve tribes in Israel and twelve main disciples (although Judas Iscariot was to be replaced).  But is it tenable to believe that the disciples hailed from all of those tribes?  Actually, the question is moot, because the special duty of the twelve will be that of judging the tribes, not leading them.  Jesus will be upon David’s throne, just as Gabriel had said (Lk. 1:32).  It would be naturally assumed the twelve tribes would mean exactly that; the twelve tribes of Israel.[5]  The name “Israel” would mean nothing else in this setting but those Jews directly descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Whatever is or is not to become of the meaning of that name later in the NT is not my concern right now.  My duty is to read what is in Luke, not freight supposed Pauline or Petrine reconstructions into the time before the Cross.  There is no room in the context for swapping the expected messianic New covenant, Israel plus the Nations Kingdom for a multinational spiritual body.[6]

The Kingdom and the New Covenant

            Before moving on I must insist a little more that we carefully consider the association of the Kingdom of God and the New covenant.  The Kingdom of God is the New covenant Kingdom.  The New covenant Kingdom is the covenanted Kingdom spoken of so often by the OT Prophets.  It arrives, to use the metaphor in Daniel 2, once the “stone cut out without hands” strikes down the kingdoms of man and the messianic Kingdom of righteousness replaces it. This, of course, did not occur in the first century A. D.

            But how can this be so, when the Lord instituted the New covenant in Luke 22 in anticipation of its coming into effect after His Passion?  This important question will have to wait until we examine 1 Corinthians 11, but I can say two things by way of preparation for later:

  1. The fusion of the first and second comings of Christ in the OT is not always apparent.  But here at the Lord’s Supper, and in consideration of Luke 19:11 etc., we can clearly see a two-phase work.  The first phase is centered on the cross and resurrection of Christ and the New covenant benefits which were unleashed from them (presently enjoyed by the Church within the bounds of the third major promise of the Abrahamic covenant – 1 Cor. 11:25-26 cf. Gal. 3:8).  Thus, the salvific benefits of being in the New covenant (and hence not under the Law) are present in “this present evil age” (Gal. 1:14), while the storied Kingdom of God still waits in the wings for the return of the King.
  2. Any attempt to introduce the Kingdom of God right after the cross and resurrection, however noble, constitutes a misunderstanding of the term and a direct contradiction of our Lord’s declaration immediately prior to Calvary and Mt. Olivet.  That the book of Acts in particular uses the term will have to be explored, but it is my contention that although one may validly speak of aspects of the Kingdom of God in the preaching ministry of the Apostles, the focus is not on the “already” but rather on the “not yet.”[7]                 

[1] See Robert H. Stein, “Last Supper,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Editors: Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 446. 

[2] In 1 Corinthians 10:16 the Apostle asks, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?”  Stein says the term “cup of blessing” is taken from the third cup of the Passover (Ibid, 447), but there is no biblical warrant for the assertion.   

[3] “It signifies, not a temporal repetition but a new, eschatological beginning.” – I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 806. 

[4] Darrell Bock, Luke 9:51 – 24:53, 1727.

[5] I shall discuss the complexion of the twelve tribes further on.

[6] Any theological interpretation which converts this expectation into an ecclesial one has gone the wrong way.  E.g., “The Institution Narrative…is a key transitional text for linking the royal Davidic identity and mission of Christ with the early apostolic church as the restored Davidic kingdom.” – Scott W. Hahn, “Kingdom and Church in Luke-Acts,” in, Reading Luke, edited by Craig G. Bartholomew et al, 306, cf. 318, 320.  The expectation of a restored and beatified New covenant Kingdom where all God’s covenants are fulfilled cannot be diverted or altered even by God; in fact, especially by God, since He has placed Himself under oath to fulfill those covenants.     

[7] I realize, of course, that this position must be argued for, not merely asserted. 

The Kingdom of God in Luke (Pt. 7)

Part Six

The “Times of the Gentiles”

            A great deal has been written about “the Times of the Gentiles,” especially by Dispensational writers.  But before we can know what it refers to we must situate it in the discourse in which it stands.  I have given reasons why Luke 21:20-23 concern the end of days.  Jesus speaks of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies (Lk. 21:20), and of the city being trampled down by the Gentiles (Lk. 21:24b).  It seems natural to think of Zechariah 12:1-3[1] and Revelation 11:2.  The context of, “the Times of the Gentiles” in Luke therefore points to the end time siege of Jerusalem by the armies of the Gentile nations.  But could Jesus mean something more than that?  For that to be so the phrase would have to resonate with undertones of prophetic significance. 

              The phrase “the Times of the Gentiles” is found only once in the Scriptures at Luke 21:24.  It sits in the middle of Jesus’ eschatological discourse after He enters Jerusalem just prior to His passion.  The term is of interest because it is an unusual turn of phrase.  Why did Jesus not simply state “Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until God comes to wreak vengeance on Israel’s enemies” or some such words of woe that would fit the context well?  He didn’t.  He said “Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (My emphasis).  There is a period of time that is given over to the Gentiles[2]; a period which, it appears, required little or no explanation among the Jews who heard it. 

            Dispensational interpreters have generally designated “the Times of the Gentiles” as a long period stretching over many centuries.  John Walvoord, for instance, writes,

For the Gentiles, the tribulation marks the close of the extended period of the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24), that period marked by Gentile control of Jerusalem since 600 B. C.[3]

His fellow Dallas Seminary professor J. Dwight Pentecost says,

The “times of the Gentiles” has been defined as that period of time in which Jerusalem was under the dominion of Gentile authority (Luke 21:24).  This period began with the Babylonian captivity when Jerusalem fell into the hands of Gentiles.  It has continued unto the present time and will continue through the tribulation period, in which era the Gentile powers will be judged.[4]

The times of the Gentiles is that extended period of discipline on God’s covenant people during which time no Davidic descendant sits on David’s throne ruling over David’s kingdom.  It extends from the destruction of Jerusalem and the emptying of the throne of David by Nebuchadnezzar until the ultimate repentance.[5]

            While these understandings of the term may be correct (particularly the last one), it should be noted that they are not based upon exegesis of Luke 21:24 in its context.  Darrell Bock, who is a Progressive Dispensationalist, and has written one of the most comprehensive commentaries on Luke’s Gospel, disagrees.  He thinks the verse indicates “a short- and long-term view.”[6]  He claims,

“More likely, the “times of the Gentiles” is a general way to describe the current period in God’s plan, when the Gentiles are prominent but will culminate in judgment on those nations.”[7] 

Bock does read his already-not yet views into the text at times.[8] 

            From a premillennial but not Dispensational side comes Craig Blomberg, who believes,

“that some interval of time must separate the destruction of Jerusalem from the complete fulfillment of all of God’s plans for Israel and the nations.”[9] 

This somewhat vague answer may be the best one can muster under the circumstances.  Still, there are a number of important cross-references which are due consideration.  Nearly everyone who comments on this verse relates it to Romans 11:25b; “blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” 

            As with “the Times of the Gentiles” the Apostle Paul’s terminology appears without explanation but presupposes an agreed upon understanding.  In Paul’s case the fullness of the Gentiles is set in apposition to the restoration of Israel.  It assumes it.  It ought therefore to be possible to deduce a plausible meaning for both terms.  Again, it is not necessary to over-complicate matters.  The “fullness” (the normal Greek word is pleroma) of the Gentiles is clearly a terminal point, after which (“until”) the blindness of Israel will presumably be lifted.  In this view the “fullness of the Gentiles” is the completion of God’s present way of dealing with the Gentile powers in His Creation program.  And if there is to be a “completing” of this interaction with the Gentiles, it is surely not pushing the envelope to surmise that the period in which God is “filling” the Gentiles might be called “the Times of the Gentiles.”  Of course, we still have to try to discover just what that period covers, but the supposition looks to be relatively safe. 

            John Murray has argued that the verb eiserchomai (“has come in”) indicates entering the Kingdom of God and eternal life[10], and so he confidently asserts that “the fullness of the Gentiles” means that the Gentiles enter the Kingdom.  But the word erchomai usually means “enter” when it is used.  It does not suddenly take on a technical sense when its object is the Kingdom.  A theological interpretation is being forced onto the text.  The basic meaning is plain; in Romans 11:25 “the fullness of the Gentiles” concerns the completion of a program, after which there is a restoration of Israel.  Paul does not indicate whether this “completion” ends in joy or despair.  That is not where his thoughts are tending.  Murray has read his eschatology into the passage. 

            It seems to me to be reasonable to conclude that the “fullness of the Gentiles” of Romans 11:25 is the last part of “the Times of the Gentiles” of Luke 21:24.  On that basis the “Times of the Gentiles” probably signifies the period between the subsuming of Israel under foreign Gentile powers (Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Turkish, British) together with the loss of its kingly line.  Hence, Pentecost’s second definition in Thy Kingdom Come looks to be an accurate understanding of the phrase.


[1] Compare the call on creation to witness God’s judgment in Zechariah 12:1 and what we have said above concerning Isaiah 34:1. 

[2] “The period is one of gentile domination of the city, but a limit is set to it, namely the fulfilment of an allotted time.” – I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 773.

[3] John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981, 257.

[4] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976, 315.  Pentecost goes on to adduce Daniel 2 and 7 which describe “the…prophetic outline of the course of the period.” (Ibid, 316-317). 

[5] J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come: Tracing God’s Kingdom Program and Covenant Promises Throughout History, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1995, 115.

[6] Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51 – 24:53, 1680. 

[7] Ibid, 1681. 

[8] Ibid, 1680, 1696 n. 51. 

[9] Craig L. Blomberg, A New Testament Theology, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2018, 587.

[10] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1982, Vol. 2, 93.

The Kingdom of God in Luke (Pt. 6)

Part Five

Luke’s Great Eschatological Discourse

            Most of chapter 21 is given over to what might be called Luke’s version of the Olivet Discourse (cf. Mk. 13 and Matt. 24).  He has already recorded Jesus’ teachings about in Luke 17:20-37 along with some eschatological remarks in Luke 19, but here is where a fuller development of Jesus’ eschatology takes place.  Again, I remind the reader that my purpose is to try to present the salient teachings of Jesus having to do with the covenants as they are given in each Gospel, particularly in Matthew and Luke.  I therefore intend to first comment on Luke 21 as if it were our lone sampling of this discourse.  In another chapter I shall attempt to pull it all together. 

            The prelude to the discourse is the disciple’s observation in Luke 21:5 about the grandeur of the Temple complex and Jesus’ retort that it would all be cast down (a prediction of A. D. 70).  This elicits a question from the disciples: ““Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?” (Lk. 21:7).[1]  What follows in reply goes well beyond A. D. 70.  The Lord refers to “the end” (Lk. 21:9), and most of what He will say appears to concern that time.  We see, for instance, the mention of those who come in Jesus’ name, posing as Christ (Lk. 21:8).  Accompanying these false Christs will be “fearful sights and great signs from heaven” (Lk. 21:11), which are quite beyond the purview of the first century, although commentators have tried to link Jesus’ words with apocalyptic language to make it fit A. D. 70.[2]  This looks like an attempt to straddle the discourse with a genre that will make it relate to the Fall of Jerusalem, but the cosmic signs, if taken as real, point to the events preceding the second coming. 

            When one analyzes the verses, I think it is important to put oneself into the situation of the disciples and not into some imagined scenario wherein the Gospel writers are presupposing the tragic events which occurred forty years after these words were uttered. 

             Let us begin with verse 11:

And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven. – Luke 21:11.

            What sort of “fearful sights and great signs from heaven” are being referred to?  The preposition indicates that the signs (plural) are not mere atmospheric anomalies, but rather that they are heaven-sent.  If this is so then “great earthquakes…famines and pestilences” as well as the “fearful sights” or “things that strike terror” (phobētron), call to mind other prophetic oracles.[3]  One obvious passage is in Revelation 6, where all of these phenomena are reported (Rev. 6:8, 12-14).  That chapter was written long after A.D. 70 and concerns things to come.  Another passage that Luke 21:11 calls to mind is Joel 2:30-31:

And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth:
Blood and fire and pillars of smoke. 

The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

            Luke cites Peter using this passage in Acts 2, and I shall have something to say when we arrive there.  But as they stand Joel’s words are predictive of what we call the second advent of Christ, complete with manifestations reminiscent of Luke 21:11.  I agree with Vlach that what we have in Luke 21:8-11 come after the events of Luke 21:12-12-19, hence, “But before all these things” (Lk. 21:12) refers to 21:8-11.[4]  The “signs” are signs of the end (21:9), not “apocalyptic” descriptions of the destruction of Titus’s armies. 

The Days of Vengeance

To my mind, Luke 21:12-19 can be placed in the first century. But what about the prediction of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies?  Surely one must conclude that this is a reference to A.D. 70?  I am not so sure.  We must give it room to breathe.  The desolation of Jerusalem was written about by the Prophets.  Zechariah 12:2 says,

Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem. 

Yahweh has promised to protect Jerusalem when this occurs (Zech. 12:7-9), although it will be far from unscathed (Zech. 14:2-3).  Now the thing about Luke 21:20 is that it is set within a context that leads the thoughts in a certain direction.  Here are the verses:

Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.  For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.  But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.  And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. – Luke 21:21-24.  

            Apart from the resemblance of verses 21 and 23 to Matthew 24:16-19 and Mark 13:14-18, which shall be explored in their place, what Luke has left us is a deliberate route back to Isaiah and his prophecies of God’s vengeance in Isaiah 34:8, 61:2, and 63:4.  Those prophecies do not concern 1st century.  They are final, describing God’s judgment upon the nations of the world and their armies “in recompense for the cause of Zion” (Isa. 34:8).  The context is worth studying.

            The call is for all the earth to hear the doom of Yahweh; in fact “the world and all things that come from it.” (Isa. 34:1).  It is almost as though the revulsion of God with everything that despoils the earth has come to its boiling point.  This is the decisive “day of Yahweh’s vengeance.” (Isa. 34:8).  It is concentrated upon Edom and Bozrah, which comprises modern day Jordan.  Which in turn reminds us of another “vengeance passage” in Isaiah 63:

Who is this who comes from Edom, With dyed garments from Bozrah, This One who is glorious in His apparel, Traveling in the greatness of His strength?– “I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save.”

            Why is Your apparel red, And Your garments like one who treads in the winepress?

‘I have trodden the winepress alone, And from the peoples no one was with Me. For I have trodden them in My anger, And trampled them in My fury; Their blood is sprinkled upon My garments, And I have stained all My robes.

            For the day of vengeance is in My heart, And the year of My redeemed has come.

I looked, but there was no one to help, And I wondered That there was no one to uphold; Therefore My own arm brought salvation for Me; And My own fury, it sustained Me.

I have trodden down the peoples in My anger, Made them drunk in My fury, And brought down their strength to the earth.” – Isaiah 63:1-6.

            Here again we find Edom and Bozrah mentioned.  Now the Avenger is depicted as traveling from there to help His people (“My redeemed” in verse 4).  There is also an unmistakable similarity with Revelation 14:19-20 and 19:15.  The challenge is to rightly interpret the Isaianic passages.  From what has been assembled so far it looks like these “vengeance passages” to which Luke is calling our attention are about the second coming.  There is one more passage to look at:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,

To console those who mourn in Zion, To give them beauty for ashes, The oil of joy for mourning, The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; That they may be called trees of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified.” – Isaiah 61:1-3.

            If you think some of this looks familiar you are right.  The first part of this oracle was read out by Jesus in the Nazareth synagogue (Lk. 4:17-21).  Everyone notices that the Lord suddenly cuts off the quotation at Isaiah 61:2a and “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” (Lk. 4:19).  He does not proceed to the next phrase which is, “And the day of vengeance of our God.”  The reason is quite obvious; that part of the prophecy was not fulfilled at Christ’s first coming: it is a second coming prediction.  One should notice the consolation of Zion in the context (Isa. 61:3a), which matches Isaiah 34:8 and 63:7 (“the great goodness toward the house of Israel”).  The case is strong.  Jesus in Luke 21:22 is referring to His second advent, not A. D. 70! 


[1] Stein has said that the whole understanding of the passage depends on how this verse is interpreted. – Robert H. Stein, “Jesus, The Destruction Of Jerusalem, And The Coming Of The Son Of Man In Luke 21:5-38,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 16:3 (Fall 2012), 19.  I understand but respectfully disagree.  The key verse is Luke 21:22. Stein does not explain how the cosmic signs of verse 11 concern the fate of Jerusalem in A. D. 66 – 70.  

[2] Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 765.

[3] Many have tied Luke 21 with Jeremiah’s Temple sermon in Jeremiah 4, but aside from the uncreation narrative in Jer. 4:23-24 there is not much from the prophet to interpret Luke. 

[4] Michael J. Vlach, He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God, Silverton, OR: Lampion Press, 2017, 389.

The Kingdom of God in Luke (Pt.5)

Part Four

The King Enters Jerusalem and Weeps 

            After the Parable of the Pounds (Minas) Luke records three related episodes: The Triumphal Entry (Lk. 19:28-40), Jesus Weeping over Jerusalem (Lk. 19:41-44), and the Temple Cleansing (Lk. 19:45-48). 

Jesus sends some disciples to get a colt for Him to ride upon (Matthew notes that a donkey was brought too – Matt. 21:7).  In this fascinating little tale Jesus knows beforehand what they will find and how to answer those who question them.  It is the answer that interests us:

“[I]f anyone asks you, ‘Why are you loosing it?’ thus you shall say to him, ‘Because the Lord has need of it.” – Luke 19:31.

            Jesus specifically refers to Himself as ho kyrios (“the Lord”).  Without going to the lengths of demonstrating it, I feel secure in the belief that He was not using the term in the sense of “Master” but as a self-reference to His divinity.  This both suits Luke’s employment of the term[1], the kingly setting of the pericope, and the circumstantial setting of the action.  Then Luke says that a multitude of disciples proclaimed His entrance into the city.  Matthew has “a very great multitude” (Matt. 21:8).  This may mean that along with the many followers of Jesus were others who got caught up in the scene.  What is certain is the very clear cries of the crowd:

‘Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the LORD!’
Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” – Luke 19:38.

            The disciples of Jesus were shouting out a familiar line from Psalm 118:26. Only instead of saying “Blessed is he” they proclaim, “Blessed is the king.”  Only Luke notes this, which fits his emphasis, although he does not include the reference to the King of Zechariah 9:9.  But he adds the refrain that instantly reminds the reader of the angelic choir at the announcement of the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:14.  Hence, though the other evangelists highlight the Davidic connection of the scene[2], Luke chooses to return to what was heralded by the angels on high.  This creates a somber preface to his unique recording of Jesus weeping over the city that should have welcomed Him.

            The emotion that must have well-up inside Jesus must have been overwhelming.[3]  Hence the term for weeping (klaio) means strong crying.[4]  God has chosen Jerusalem to put His name there (see 1 Kings 11:13, 32, 36; Psa. 132:13-14), but Jerusalem has chosen to refuse God!  It is hard to face rejection.  It is crushing to know the reason for your rejection is hatred.  But we must add to this the Lord’s knowledge of the cost to the people of that rejection (Lk. 19:43-44).  Christ arrives as the true son of David; as the rightful heir, but He is discarded; at least for now.

            What is meant by the words “this your day” in verse 42?  I think it unlikely that Luke is referring to the specific day of Messiah’s arrival as indicated by Daniel’s sixty-ninth week (Dan. 9:25).  The book of Daniel is not pinpointing a specific day, although the prophecy is about Jesus.  I believe Marshall is right to interpret the force of the saying as “If only you knew now”, etc.).[5]  It has therefore the same meaning as “the time of your visitation” (Lk. 19:44). 

            When Jesus goes into the Temple He enters as “Messiah the Prince” (Dan. 9:25), and as the “Branch” who will be both King and Priest (cf. Zech. 6:12-13); but not in this Temple.  This Temple has forgotten how to worship God, but God has not overlooked how He ought to be worshipped.  Jesus’ overthrowing of the tables serves as a graphic reminder of the Creator and Savior’s opinion of sullied worship.[6]  God’s Creation Project will never be successful if left to human devices.   

The Parable of the Vineyard

            Bock refers to this parable as “one of Luke’s most comprehensive parables – and an extremely significant one.”[7]  The waves of servants who are sent by the owner of the vineyard (God the Father)[8] are the prophets (Lk. 20:10-12).  The reason for sending the servants is that “they [the tenants] might give him some of the fruit of the vineyard” (Lk. 20:10).  Nothing should be read into this motive[9] as it is simply used by the Lord to get to the point; which is the knowing rejection of the Son.  Verse 14 is where this is brought out. 

But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.” – Luke 20:14.

The truly astonishing words and works of Jesus, combined with His impeccable character, and John the Baptist’s testimony, gave more than sufficient proof of His true identity to anyone with a grasp of the Hebrew Scriptures.  The fact that Jesus referred to Himself as “the Son of Man” (especially in the latter half of this Gospel) only adds to the guilt of those who hated Him.[10]  This guilt is further intensified by the fact that the Jewish leaders were indeed plotting to kill Jesus, just as the parable indicates (Lk. 20:14 with 19:47). 

The administering of justice upon the evil tenants in the parable only aggravated the “chief priests and scribes” because they already knew that Jesus had told the parable against them (Lk. 20:19).  Hence, the quotation of Psalm 118:22 in Luke 20:17 indicates not only that the Christ was rejected because He didn’t match up to the religious leader’s faulty idea of a messianic Conqueror, but because they knew that Jesus was the Christ yet sought to kill Him anyway.  The quotation is interesting in that light:

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.” – Luke 20:17.

            The image is of builders looking at and then discarding a stone in their attempt to build something (i.e., a kingdom).[11]  Their attempt fails since God chooses the discarded stone not only to place in the new structure, but to use it as the very cornerstone of His project (another Kingdom).  We may infer here that Jesus means that the messianic Kingdom and rule will come, but not before His own rejection by those who ought to have acknowledged Him as the Owner’s “son.” 

            This chapter includes another OT quotation which delves deeper into Jesus’ identity.  In Luke 20:41-44 Jesus asks the religious leaders about king David:

And He said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is the Son of David?  Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms:

‘The LORD said to my Lord,
Sit at My right hand

Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.’ 

            Therefore David calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?”

            The quotation is from Psalm 110:1, a psalm which combines priesthood and crown (Psa. 110:1, 4).  The crown is, of course, the crown of David.  The priesthood is not the Levitical High Priest’s function under the Law, but is another non-Judaic office, related to Melchizedek (Gen. 14).  There is a covenant with David that includes a “Son” who is higher than the founder of the dynasty; a greater descendant of David (Psa. 132:17-18), whom these teachers ought to have anticipated. Jesus was a great miracle worker and moral teacher who was being hailed as “the son of David” (Lk. 18:38-39) and “the King who comes in the name of the LORD” (Lk. 19:38).  This exchange is similar to the earlier one concerning the ministry of John the Baptist (See Lk. 20:1-8).  It fixes the guilt of the religious leaders by forcing them to take sides. 


[1] Luke uses the word “Lord” 77 times in his Gospel and always to refer to God or Jesus.

[2] Matthew stresses David (Matt. 21:9), Mark the kingdom (Mk. 11:10), and John simply the King (Jn. 12:13).

[3] There is a mix of emotions in this event.  The people are yelling His praise, Jesus Himself is overcome, and the Pharisees, who only see Jesus as a “teacher” (didaskalos), confirm their rejection of Him by calling upon Him to stop what they think is blasphemy. 

[4] J. J. Van Oosterzee, The Gospel According to Luke, Lange’s Commentary, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980, Vol. 8. 297, and, A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. II, “Luke,” 246.

[5] I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 718. 

[6] “Never could there be more plausible colours cast upon any act; the convenience, the necessity of provisions for the sacrifice: yet through all these do the fiery eyes of our Saviour see the foul covetousness of the priests, the fraud of the money-changers, the intolerable abuse of the temple.  Common eyes may be cheated with easy pretexts; but he that looks through the heart at the face, justly answers our apologies with scourges.” – Joseph Hall, Contemplations on the Historical Passages of the Old and New Testaments, London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1868, (Bk. IV. XXV), 563.

[7] Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51 – 24:53, 1591.

[8] In the Parable of the Pounds it is the nobleman (Jesus) who takes a journey into a far country.  In this parable it is the owner of the vineyard (God) who takes the journey.  In the former the lesson is centered around the fact that Jesus actually does go away, whereas in this context the God the Father does not leave; His journeying is only for the sake of illustrating the coming of the son and His treatment.  

[9] The prophets were not “fruit-inspectors.”

[10] See also the stunning passage in Luke 22:70.

[11] It is not unusual to find the scholars failing to reconcile the various strands of God’s Word, putting cleverly devised but erroneous interpretations in their place.

The Kingdom of God in Luke (Pt. 4)

Part Three

The Key Lukan Passage on the Two Comings

            It is a bold and somewhat subjective statement to make, but the Parable of the Pounds (or Ten Minas[1]) in Luke 19:11-27 is perhaps the key passage in this Gospel, if not in all the Gospels, on the theology of the two comings of Messiah.[2]  Since I believe it to be so crucial, I will give it special attention.  The parable is introduced as follows:

Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. – Luke 19:11.

            The “things” to which verse 11 refers is the story of Zacchaeus and Christ announcing that salvation had come to the home of the tax-collector, and that even though he had sinned against his own people ”he also is a son of Abraham”; which is to say, although Zacchaeus’s complicity with the ruling class put him beyond the pale as far as the Jewish religious leaders were concerned, through faith in Jesus he became an inheritor of the Abrahamic promise and a true Jew.  This new parable is given a certain prominence by its introduction.  Luke supplies two reasons for it: firstly, they were nearing Jerusalem, the city of the Great King (Psa. 48:2; Matt. 5:35).  Jerusalem was where Christ would soon meet His death (Lk. 18:31-33). 

            The second reason for the parable is crucial to grasp if one is going to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).  The parable is in part given to disabuse in the disciples any notion of an immediate arrival of the Kingdom of God.

            Several matters rise to the surface here: first, one should notice that the meaning of the Kingdom of God is best understood as the earthly covenanted realm over which the Messiah would reign.  It is not a heavenly kingdom (as the parable itself will dispel).  Second, this covenanted Kingdom upon the earth will appear, but not in the disciples near future.  Third, Jesus was going to Jerusalem to die, not to bring in the Kingdom.  Finally, those biblical interpretations which assert that Jesus became King and therefore that some form of the Kingdom of God was inaugurated at the first advent must do so in the face of Jesus’ own teaching here at the end of His ministry.[3]  This fourth point will need to be reemphasized once we leave the study of the Four Gospels and delve into the Acts and the Epistles.  

            The first three verses of the parable are as follows:

Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return.  So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.  But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’” – Luke 19:12-14.

            The “citizens” (politai) who reject Christ are of course, the Jews, the “faithless and perverse generation” of Luke 9:41.  They do this because they hate Him. The Greek word is miseo, and refers here to the loathing and hostility towards the whole person not just his actions.[4]  This may seem a little strong since, if many of these people had been asked about their opinion of Jesus they may not have considered themselves that way.  But the deep recesses of the heart are prone to be covered by self-deception.  Such was the unequivocal impact of Jesus’ words and works, only a sustained dislike of Him would explain the attitude of the general populace to Him.  It is true that often the Jewish leaders are characterized as holding enmity against Jesus, but the people, in all probability due to the influence of their leaders, did not want Jesus either.[5]            

It is important to pay attention to the words which Jesus places in to the mouths of those who reject Him: “We will not have this man to reign over us.”  The nobleman had not yet assumed the crown.  Translating this image into the chronology of Jesus’ mission, this means that Jesus (again) was well aware that He was not going to rule when He came the first time.  It is not that He did not have the right to rule – Luke 1 through 4 make that clear – but that even though He was Messiah the King He was also the Messiah who would be cut off on behalf of others (Dan. 9:26).  The promised Davidic Kingdom could not be set up to flourish over the kind of incalcitrant opposition it would always encounter in the unyielding hearts of sinners.  Sin and its effects must be dealt with.  That is the job of the New covenant.  And as we shall see, the New covenant requires Christ’s blood to inaugurate it.  The parable does not contain an offer of the Kingdom via acceptance of the King because the hour is now late (this is Luke’s final parable before the end).  The scene is set.  Notwithstanding the triumphant entrance into Jerusalem which is shortly to come, Jesus is journeying to His death, and death will take Him; at least for a short time.  This parable predicts Jesus’ then going to heaven (the “far country”) to receive a kingdom and then return.[6]  He has not returned yet!  Therefore, He is not ruling yet.  The Kingdom is Davidic, which is to say it is covenantal.  The significance of it being covenantal is that its broad character is already hermeneutically defined.  It cannot be what it wasn’t specified to be. 

The Parable of the Pounds continues in verses 15-26 with a description of the three stewardships given by the nobleman to his servants and their reckoning “when he returned, having received the kingdom.” (Lk. 19:15).  It takes me away from my purpose I this book to expound this part of the parable, but notice that the nobleman is now returned as king. 

Having now dealt with his servants, the king turns to those who rejected him:

“But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.'” – Luke 19:27.

            Remembering that in a parable one thing can stand for another, the severity of the treatment of those who insisted they would not have the new king to reign over them should not be minimized.  The OT depicts Yahweh coming in wrath upon His enemies (e.g., Isa. 2:19-21; 61:2; 63:1-6), and the NT will follow suit (e.g., 2 Thess. 1:7-10; Rev. 19:11-16).  None of the king’s enemies enter his kingdom. 


[1] One mina was equivalent to about four month’s wages.

[2] Surprisingly, this parable is given a relatively slight treatment by Darrell Bock in his classic commentary on Luke.

[3] The similarity of this parable with the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 24:14-30 has been the subject of much discussion.  Three points should be made: 1. Jesus was an itinerant teacher, and it is unthinkable that He would only utter one parable at only one time.  As N. T. Wright has said, “Is there a storyteller on record who told stories only once, and then in the least elaborate form possible?” – Jesus and the Victory of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996, 633-634 n. 83.  2.  Matthew’s Parable of the Talents is not about the person of the rejected and returning king. 3. The fact that Jesus used similar parables to convey different teachings should alert us to the danger of too quickly equating comparable sayings of Jesus reported elsewhere.     

[4] H. Seebass, “miseo,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, General Editor, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, Vol. 1. 555.

[5] The mention of a delegation sent after the nobleman recalls the Jewish delegation sent to Rome in A. D. 6 to implore Caesar not to allow the despised Archelaus to continue as ethnarch over Judea.  See e.g., Craig A. Evans, Luke, 287. 

[6] The hearers of this parable were familiar with the concept of someone going away to receive a kingdom because the Caesars were known to dispense rule that way (e.g. Herod the Great and Herod Antipas.  See Paul Barnett, Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity, 72-73, 113).  However, when one comprehends John’s Prologue it is a bit odd that the exalted Son of God should have to leave the earth He had been given to receive the Kingdom. The strangeness of this is of course explained in the fact that He must first secure the victory over sin and death as the obedient Servant, even if that meant being despised, rejected, and crucified (cf. Heb. 12:1-2).      

The Kingdom of God in Luke (Pt.3)

Part Two

Luke 18 brings the focus back from the eschaton to Jesus’ day.[1]  But there are one or two verses that are pertinent.  After illustrating the importance of persistence in prayer, Jesus adds,

            Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” – Luke 18:8.

            This reference to His coming is preceded by words about judgment: “I tell you that He will avenge them speedily.” (Lk. 18:8): “Them” being those who pray to God for justice.  Christ’s return will be that swift judgment.  This assures the saints that although they may have to wait until Christ’s appearing, their pleas were heard.  His Kingdom will be just. 

            Eschatological references to the Kingdom continue in Luke 18, first with the warning that one must receive it “like a little child” (paidion) if one is to “enter” it (Lk. 18:16-17), which assumes that entrance is ahead.  This is followed by the story of the Rich [Young] Ruler (Luke does not give his age) who is promised “treasure in heaven” (Lk. 18:22) if he forsakes all and follows Jesus.  There is no doubt that this is future, but is this “treasure in heaven” the same as the Kingdom?  That is to say; is the Kingdom of God a heavenly and not an earthly reality?  In watching the man walk away[2] Jesus tells His disciples how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God (Lk. 18:24-25).  The futurity of the Kingdom is again clear, but what of its location? 

The Location of the Kingdom in Luke

            The answer can be partly constructed from the surrounding verses.  The young man’s question was about inheriting eternal life, which he no doubt equated with the future Kingdom.[3]  Luke had already referred to treasure in heaven in Luke 12:31-33 where it is something that can be stored up.  The evangelist does not say much about the location of the Kingdom, but I think it is possible to gather his allusions together to demonstrate that an earthly location is assumed.

Before this pivotal event the Lord had told His disciples, “I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.” (Lk. 9:27).  What Peter, James and John saw was the Lord’s glory in an earthly setting with Moses and Elijah; the latter of whom was predicted to return to earth to herald the Lord’s coming.  Later, Peter himself would seem to understand this event as an adumbration of the Lord’s second advent (2 Pet. 1:16).  It would have made more sense for Jesus to have been lifted up from the earth if the intention was to create an impression of a heavenly kingdom.  Then, in the middle chapters of the Gospel we encounter Jesus employing the phrase “the kingdom of God has come near you” (Lk. 10:9, 11; 11:20[4]; cf. 17:21).  These have a this-worldly setting akin to the “among you” passage in Luke 17:21.[5]    

Luke 13:28-29 are important here:

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God. 

            There would be no reason for anyone to travel from any point of the compass if they could not find the Kingdom of God here on Earth.  Moreover, this earthbound Kingdom is the one connected with the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Once more, Luke’s emphasis falls upon the future Kingdom. 

The Rewards of the Kingdom and the Prediction of the Passion

            After the departure of the Rich Ruler Peter comments that they have left everything to follow Jesus (Lk. 18:28), to which he receives the reply that whatever sacrifices they have made for His sake, they “shall receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.” (Lk. 18:30).  This is not an easy reply to digest, for what does Jesus mean by rewards “in this present time”?  I believe the answer is to be sought in the idea of storing up treasure which we have just read about in the previous periscope (Lk.18:18-27, esp. v. 22).  The sacrifices in this life are reckoned to our account and magnified “many times… in the age to come” (Lk. 18:30).  These gifts come to the saints in addition to the gift of eternal life.  We shall have to relate eternal life with the Kingdom further on in this book, but it is clear that the differences in rewards points to a layered society in the eschaton.

            What comes straight after the teaching of rewards is Jesus’ prediction of His own approaching sacrifice; a concept that the disciples could not understand (Lk. 18: 34).  As we have seen, this necessity was foreknown by Jesus, and He will express it plainly in the next chapter.  Luke comments that despite Jesus wording the news in the most unambiguous fashion, it “was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken.” (Lk. 18:34). 

Luke 18 finishes with the author inserting the tale of the healing of the blind man (Lk. 18:35-43).  The one who is blind proclaims the true identity of Jesus as “son of David” to those who see.  Without trying to read into the text, Luke, who is so interested in the Kingdom, might be alluding to this idea through the context of this blind man who connects Jesus’ healings with His messiahship while many who had eyes to see did not see this truth. 


[1] We see the same thing in Luke 20 and 22 after the eschatological teachings of Luke 19 and 21.  Since Christ’s passion has to be recorded this is inevitable, but it does show how much weight Luke placed upon eschatology and the Kingdom of God.

[2] Luke does not record the man leaving.

[3] Craig A. Evans, Luke, 275. 

[4] “the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

[5] If we think of them as such, they do not teach anything other than that the Kingdom was present when Jesus was present.

The Kingdom of God in Luke (Pt. 2)

Part One

The Kingdom in Your Midst”  – Luke 17:21

Considerable effort has been applied to these words, and an array of interpretations put forth.  Perhaps most common is the view that Jesus is claiming that the Kingdom is inside of people; that is, of those who will open their hearts to accept it.  In this outlook the Kingdom is an internal spiritual thing; hence, the phrases “does not come with observation” and “within you” would mean that the Kingdom is internal not external.     

            Such an interpretation is favored by some whose theology already requires a spiritual kingdom.  However, Jesus’ words about the kingdom not coming with “outward observation” were not intended to imply that there would be nothing to see.  All the Gospel writers record that He performed many signs and miracles, which were outward testimonies of “kingdom realities.”  But the question of the Pharisees about when the Kingdom would come had within it the misunderstanding that it would only come abruptly with apocalyptic force.  Jesus has arrived with the fanfare provided by John the Baptist, and He has preached a Kingdom to come.  Yet He is Messiah!  He is the coming One.  To look for signs beyond what He was doing proved that the attention was in the wrong place.        

It would be better to translate entos hymon as “in your midst” (e.g., NASB, NET, CSB, cf. ESV), or “among you,”[1] rather than “within you” (NKJV).  This would throw light back on Christ and would provide two more plausible options.  Marshall, for example, believes that “Jesus is speaking of the presence of the kingdom of God among men, possibly as something within their grasp if they will only take hold of it.”[2]  He notes the possibility that the kingdom is present only when Jesus Himself is present.[3]   This is a good interpretation, and is favored by some, but it is more preferable I think to view the Kingdom as being present in the Person and mission of Jesus.[4]  The King is right in front of them.  The people had asked Jesus for a sign already and He had reprimanded them (Lk. 11:29).  The Pharisees believed they would be first in line for the Kingdom.  But they are looking right through the One who personified it.[5]  Hence, Jesus warned them ““nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!” (Lk. 17:21), as if there was someone or something apart from Him that would enlighten them.

  Marshall’s point about the presence of the Kingdom coinciding with Jesus’ presence, in our opinion, ought to be retained.  This text is especially helpful when coming to grips with the two ideas of the Kingdom as presented in the Gospels.  That Jesus is the Christ and was therefore the King “among” the Jews in the first century is hard to deny.[6]  But He was rejected, as predicted by the Prophets, and He will return “a second time” (Heb. 9:28) as the King of kings (1 Tim. 6:13-15; Rev. 19:19-20).  The view that the Kingdom is present only when the King is present is also consonant with the OT and will help us when we encounter the NT church.    

            Jesus then, is the “kingdom in your midst” whom the Pharisees ought to believe in order to gain entrance to the coming Kingdom of God.  Jesus had been preaching an imminent yet future Kingdom, and the Pharisees held to a future Kingdom, but they could never get in the Kingdom while they steadfastly ignored the one who would be its King.

            As Luke 17 Jesus clarifies His meaning with the disciples in this important passage:

Then He said to the disciples, “The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.  And they will say to you, ‘Look here!’ or ‘Look there!’ Do not go after them or follow them. For as the lightning that flashes out of one part under heaven shines to the other part under heaven, so also the Son of Man will be in His day.[7] But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.” – Luke 17:22-25.  

            Although Jesus does not mention the Kingdom in this passage, He does focus attention on Himself and His future coming, which confirms the link between the Kingdom and Jesus as the King.  What is noteworthy is that He inserts a teaching about His rejection at the hands of “this generation,” which will necessitate His coming again.  Therefore, the Pharisaic expectation contained truth insofar as it taught apocalyptic sights and sounds, but since it failed to include the detail about the Suffering Servant (Isa. 53) and the dying Messiah (Dan. 9:26) their understanding was completely skewed.  The reality was no Jesus, no Kingdom.  The presence of Jesus, even if He was to undergo suffering, introduced the Danielic “Son of Man” and hence His kingly rights.      

            Luke 17:22-25 demonstrates that “the days of the Son of Man” correspond to the second coming (“as the lighting that flashes” etc. Cf. Matt. 24:26-27, 29-31, 37).  So again, we can see that Jesus’ self-understanding of His mission was that it involves two phases.  I might call the first phase “the New covenant phase” because, as we are soon to discover, Jesus initiated the New covenant in Luke 22.  I think it helpful to think of phase two as “the covenant consummation phase,” meaning that all God’s covenants (the Mosaic covenant aside) will be fulfilled at that time.

            The section in Luke 17:26-37 is challenging as it appears to be specific and non-specific at the same time.  The examples of the day that Noah entered the Ark (Lk. 17:26-27), and the day that Lot left Sodom (Lk. 17:28-29) indicate that a particular doom in a twenty-four-hour day is involved.  This is followed by “Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” (Lk. 17:30).  The most natural understanding of this is that Jesus is referring to the day of His return. 

            If this is correct, then there is no clear mention in these verses of the Tribulation that we find in Matthew 24 and Mark 13.  The note of great haste continues in verses 31-33 with the warnings not to turn back to grab anything (Lk. 17:31), and to remember Lot’s wife, who simply looked back (she probably stopped to do so) and was destroyed (Lk. 17:32. Cf. Gen. 19:26).  There is little doubt that the actual day of Jesus’ second coming is in view here (v.30).  But what is one to do with the verses which follow?

 “Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left.  Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left.

Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.” – Luke 17:33-36.

            Verse 33 seems to require longer than a mere day to attain its meaning.  It rather looks like it pertains to a period of many days, perhaps years.  Luke utilizes this saying (or something similar) in two other places: Luke 9:24 and 14:26, and it appears in a discipleship setting in Matthew 10:39, after Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in Matthew 16:25 (Mk. 8:35), and John 12:25.  Clearly, Jesus used this dividing phrase many times.  One might say that it is quintessential to His teaching.  In Luke 17 the context demands that it is not hyperbolic, so that it may be a veiled reference to the Tribulation (cf. Dan. 12:1).  The remaining verses suit a scenario of judgment; but it is not easy to decide whether the ones taken or those left are being judged.  In the examples of Noah and Lot it was those who were left who were judged.[8]  This tilts the odds in favor of the “taken” being saved and the “left” being judged.[9] 


[1] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 444.

[2] I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 655.

[3] Ibid, 655-656.

[4] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke, TNTC, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, 259.

[5] See Alan J. Thompson, The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus: Luke’s Account of God’s Unfolding Plan, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2011, 40.  Thompson holds that Jesus is reigning now, which for several reasons I deny.  

[6] It should be recalled that John’s Gospel addresses this issue directly: “Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” – John 18:37. Underlining mine.  I shall return to this verse further in the book.

[7] When Jesus refers to Himself as “the Son of Man… in His day” (Lk. 17:24) this ought to recall Daniel 7:13-14.

[8] Even with Luke 17:33 those who lose their lives are “taken” and those who save their lives are “left.”

[9] Bock calls this “the most natural reading.” – Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51 – 24:53, BECNT, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996, 1437.