We Have No Idea
When The Kingdom Is Coming
And We Haven’t Been Commissioned
To Make It Happen
One form of Old Testament government, studied curiously by Christians and surprisingly entertained in recent times, is a Theocracy.
In simple terms, the word means the rule of God. Sounds intriguing but that definition is rather slim. It provides no detail and in practice has proven to be nightmareish depending on the parties forming such a government.
The idea provokes many questions.
Who will lead in a theocracy? What religious activities will it require? What prohibitions will it enact?
Those are just a few of the questions and the answers could and probably would change depending on who is in office. Religious rules can be quite obsessive and any new Pharaoh could change the rules at will based on how he or she perceives God.
If the JW’s win out, we won’t be allowed blood transfusions. If the Catholics win out, we won’t be allowed birth control.
Remember, a theocracy is a state, a religious state, governed by the rule of God. Because God is the understood Ruler, but cannot be seen, the leader’s connection to God is presumed and legislation, abouit which questions wouldn’t be allowed, neither needs nor requires consensus.
The problem is God never shows up personally. What God thinks and what He wants is determined by human representatives (Franklin Graham, Samuel Parris, Kevin Roberts, Brigham Young) and is expressed ex cathedra.
Theocratic laws are declared, not deliberated and since religious folks don’t always agree or get along nicely, as evidenced by the European Religious Wars following the Reformation, a theocratic approach would likely create a lot of friction.
Although religious laws can be unreasonable, once established, obedience is required. Deviance is punished severely.
The inquisition is a good example.
Don’t be fooled by the idea that a Christian theocracy would be superior to all others. The Christian capacity for unreasonable violence is well attested to. In fact, the European Religious Wars were Christian on Christian conflicts.
And if this theocratic state, even a Christian one, were to retain some semblance of a democracy, it would no longer be of the people, by the people, for the people. Instead it would become of the believers, by the believers, for the believers.
And only the “Believers” in power at any one moment would really have a say.
In a country founded on the separation of church and state, that could be a problem.
Our forefathers warned us of the dangers. We would be wise to remain wary.
When John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, ran for the presidency, the one question everyone asked was how much would he be controlled by the Pope. Thankfully, as it turned out, his association with Catholicism was superficial but in today’s government, with seven Supreme Court justices strongly influenced by Catholic upbringing, the horror of religious dominance is not only a threat, it is proving to be problematic.
There is plenty of evidence to make anyone concerned.
The What And Where Of Theocracy
The term Theocracy spans a long period of history and is used to describe many different nations beginning with Israel in the Old Testament, before they became a monarchy, and extending into modern times with Islamic states like Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
The Protestant Reformation began in 1517 but it wasn’t until 1929 that the Catholic Church finally admitted defeat and Vatican City became the last remaining vestige of a Catholic theocracy but long before that, Catholicism dominated most of Europe.
In the New Testament, religion is loosely defined and it was never intended to take over. In spite of that, it became aggressive in the hands of humans. Humans love to control humans especially in the name of God.
Tibet is a Buddhist theocracy. Ancient Egypt, and in more recent times China, attributed divine authority to their leaders. At one point Japan did the same.
Closer to home, the New England states were a Puritan theocracy which produced the horror of the Salem witch trials.
The Mormons, under the leadership of Brigham Young, established a non-Christian theocracy in the mid 1800’s.
The idea that God is ruling and in charge has a positive ring if you happen to be religious, especially for those who are Christian, but the evidence shows that it can be troubling.
Based on the historical record, “Theocracy” can mean just about anything and, so far, not one theocracy has worked out well. Even Israel’s theocracy in the Old Testament was a failure.
If theocracies haven’t worked in the past, why would we think it will be different now?
The Kingdom Of God
And that brings us to the Kingdom of God.
The phrase Kingdom of God (or heaven) is used over a hundred times across the four Gospels and a few times outside the Gospels.
Such phrases are used sparingly in the Old Testament but the concept is definitely implied.
It is relevant that one Old Testament personality attesting to God’s kingdom and reign is Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon and the strongest king of his day (Daniel 4:34-35). He was also one of the more blasphemous kings.
Although God was never sitting on a physical throne passing out daily decrees, His dominion is implicit throughout the Old Testament, and direct reference or not, the Israelites expected a kingdom and constantly asked Jesus when it would come.
Jesus never denied the coming of the Kingdom, but He also never gave us the timing.
In fact, the New Testament not only makes direct reference to the kingdom often, it also calls us to enter into that kingdom.
What that means is there is a free choice here that is not normally associated with Kingdoms. We aren’t forced into this kingdom. We aren’t dominated by this Kingdom. We can step in or out at will. There is no governing body controlling or monitoring these choices.
In other words there is no logical progression from the New Testament’s Kingdom of God and a full blown theocracy.
Being a part of this Kingdom is predicated on two important facts.
- The new birth (John 3:5).
- Doing the will of God (Matthew 7:21).
Those who enter must be born again first and those who stay do the will of God.
The leader of this kingdom is Jesus and only Jesus. There are no religious heads setup as go-betweens. Being in or out of the Kingdom is a personal choice based on a personal relationship with Jesus.
What that means is that this Kingdom, while evident, is not material. In fact, Jesus said the kingdom is within you certifying that it is personal, and in a sense private, but that personal devotion is what makes the kingdom evident without the need for governing bodies and legal declarations (Luke 17:21).
The Kingdom of God is within you (KJV).
That wording has been revised in many of the more recent translations to something like:
The kingdom is among you or in your midst.
But that change isn’t based on the original word Jesus used (entos meaning within or inside) but the context to which He spoke.
Jesus was responding to a question by the Pharisees. They wanted to know when the Kingdom of God would come and Jesus said:
The coming of the Kingdom is not something that can be observed, nor will people say it is here or it is there because the Kingdom of God is within you.
The thinking is if Jesus was speaking in response to the Pharisees, who were quite contrary to everything Jesus taught, how could He possibly suggest the Kingdom of God was in them in particular.
The answer is simple. Jesus was speaking to a group, not one individual. The question was raised by the group and His answer was addressed to everyone in that group, as well as anyone observing from a distance. It is also true that while the Pharisees were generally combative, some were effected by what Jesus said and believed. Nicodemus is a good example.
John 12:42 says many of the chief rulers believed in Jesus but were afraid to confess their belief publicly.
Jesus wasn’t suggesting the kingdom was within any particular person but if it existed for anyone, it was within them, meaning it wasn’t external or material or immediately observable.
His answer was simply explaining how this kingdom, the one He introduced, worked. It’s something driven from the heart of each believing individual, not from a central office.
The Kingdom Is Immaterially Present
But we still need to refine our understanding a bit. How materially evident is this kingdom? Are administrative processes in place? Do individuals hold office and exercise authority?
How much detail can we give to the concept?
Paul helps answer this question in Romans 14:17.
For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteous and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
In other words, kingdom activities will influence outcomes but it is driven by concepts like:
- Righteousness (as opposed to justice)
- Peace (as opposed to taking sides and winning debates)
- Joy (as opposed to gloating)
God’s Kingdom is filled with subjects who are motivated by the right philosophies, have the right attitude and aim not for agreement but for reasonable outcomes.
Submission to God’s rule is possible but never forced nor imposed.
A Conversation With Pilot Is Revealing
Before Jesus was finally crucified, the religious rulers sent Jesus to Pilot. They needed Pilot to rubber stamp the crucifixion.
But Pilot, though not a believer, was a thinking and pragmatic individual. He had a province to maintain. He was answerable to Rome for how he did his job.
The Jewish leaders accused Jesus of making Himself King and that was a serious accusation. Would be supplanters were usually executed summarily, no questions or ceremony required.
Pilot had little reason to worry about a wrongful death, especially since Jesus was at the center of a very chaotic situation. Pilot was responsible for keeping the peace and Jesus had become a challenge to that.
But he was probably curious.
So he plainly asked Jesus if he were king of the Jews.
Jesus never said He wasn’t a king. He never denied being the king of the Jews or anyone else. What He did say was:
My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight. (John 18:36)
The three most important takeaways from that answer are:
- Jesus’ kingdom is a reality.
- It’s not of this world (not a material kingdom).
- And it never induces a conflict.
Those ideas taken together are the complete opposite of a theocracy.
Note that Jesus said His kingdom was not “OF” this world. He didn’t say it wasn’t “IN” this world. It is here but we don’t need to do anything governmentally to make that happen.
Jesus is reigning but His throne is in the heart of believing individuals, not in the offices of worldly power.
Why Theocracies Don’t Work And Democracies Do
As I mentioned before, the theocratic approach has been tried many times, and all of them claimed to represent God. But could they all represent when they were so different, in some cases absolutely different. The Mormons had many wives. The Puritans publicly branded adulterers.
The Mormons and Puritans were very different but even the New England theocracy was different to the Catholic dominance in Europe.
In fact, the Puritans hated Catholicism. Catholics were not allowed.
But there is one theocracy that we might call legitimate. It was the governing principle of Israel once they were established in the land of Canaan.
They had laws but those laws but there was no legislative body to revise those laws or add any to the list.
The laws were also loosely maintained. There was no police force. Judges would make decisions between differing parties but there was no one upholding those rulings.
Each person was responsible to learn the laws and maintain those laws in their own lives but that system didn’t work.
The system was maintained by the principle of rewards and consequences. If you did the right things, you experienced the rewards. If you did the wrong thing, you bore the consequences.
The history of this period is recorded in the Book of Judges and the book repeatedly says:
There was no king in Israel. Each man did what was right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6, 18:1, 19:1 and 21:25)
Thus emphasizing that there were no controlling bodies. No kings. No police. No legislative bodies.
The Priests maintained the tabernacle ceremonies, taught the people what the Bible said, made judgments when called upon to do so and maintained the cities of refuge (a kind of penal system) but no one was forced to do anything.
And, sure enough, as people broke with the right ways of acting, they suffered the consequences.
Even the penal system was unrestrictive. If you were under judgment in a city of refuge and decided you wanted to leave, you could do so there would be no recourse should offended parties take you life. You weren’t forced to stay in the city but you weren’t protected if you left.
That is how a true theocracy is formulated but it didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
A democracy, on the hand, represents all the people without over controlling any and it allows for individuals to still worship God and practice their faith freely without interference. That’s how the New Testament idea of the Kingdom of God works and it’s about as close as we can get to a theocracy.
Anything beyond what we have now is a religious state.
A material Kingdom is coming but we have no idea when it’s coming and we haven’t been commissioned to make it happen.
The Disciples Burning Question
The disciples had proven they were committed to following Jesus, even under threat of death, but they still had questions about the Kingdom, the material one they all expected.
Just before Jesus ascended into heaven they asked Jesus if He was going to restore the kingdom right then. Is it going to happen now was their burning question. For them the issue was top-of-mind.
Jesus’ answer had to be deflating:
It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has set by His own authority. (Acts 1:7)
In other words, that question and its answer is one best left unasked.
That question, though, is still plaguing Christians. Anyone writing or teaching on the subject of the kingdom gets everyone’s attention. The question the disciples asked and Jesus answered is still the question that mystifies Christians.
For some reason, Jesus’ response to the disciple’s question is not accepted. No one is completely satisfied and much of Christian thinking and theology has focused intently on trying to find a different answer than the one Jesus gave.
All of that effort is a waste.
Because Christians can’t let go of the idea – they can’t give up their obsession with God becoming the absolute Ruler of our nation – and He is obviously doing nothing to satisfy that longing, they are happy to force the issue.
If God isn’t coming down to take over, we’ll make it happen from the ground level!
It’s not unreasonable to be curious about the timing of the coming kingdom but if we can’t know when that will be, if we’re never going to have the answer until it is here, and God is the only one who can make it happen, then why don’t we move on to things we can know?
If we can’t know, and we can’t make the Kingdom happen ahead of God’s timing, why don’t we spend more time being gracious and accepting, listening and exploring?
There is a lot we can know. Why don’t we THINKAbout that?
Leave a Reply