The Mileses

Paul and Olena Miles with Grace Abroad Ministries

A Word Study on “Kingdom”

Kingdom Now theologians renegotiate Christ’s kingdom from the literal and global kingdom of the Old Testament promises to a new spiritualized kingdom which can exist spiritually in the hearts of believers or is able to spiritually outbreak without any physical territory. Theologians often support this move by subtly redefining “kingdom” to detach the Messianic Kingdom from its territorial promise. For example, George Eldon Ladd writes:

The primary meaning of both the Hebrew word malkuth in the Old Testament and of the Greek word basileia in the New Testament is the rank, authority and sovereignty exercised by a king. A basileia may indeed be a realm over which a sovereign exercises his authority; and it may be the people who belong to that realm and over whom authority is exercised; but these are secondary and derived meanings. First of all, a kingdom is the authority to rule, the sovereignty of the king.1

Similarly, J. Julius Scott writes:

We need to note first that in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages the words for “kingdom” are all abstract. In the ancient world, “kingdom” referred to lordship, rule, reign, or sovereignty, not primarily to a geographical area. Hence “sovereignty (or rule) of God” would be a better translation than “kingdom of God.” Such a translation designates God’s sphere of influence or control and includes any person or group who, regardless of their location, acknowledge his sovereignty.2

By stripping the kingdom of its geographic necessity, such theologians create linguistic space that helps to spiritualize the Messianic Kingdom into a realm that needs not occupy the promised land. The shortcomings of this assumption are evident as a word study of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words for “kingdom” reveals that kingdoms of antiquity, like kingdoms today, always included a concrete geographical kingdom that was headed by royal authority over literal subjects and were not used strictly in abstract senses.

Hebrew

The Hebrew word for “kingdom” is מַלְכוּת. Perhaps part of the confusion comes from the sufformative ut, which occurs across Semitic languages, especially in Aramaic and Akkadian, and is typically interpreted as having an abstract meaning.3 While ut suffixed words are usually abstract, they are often concrete as well, since the abstractness of the sufformative ut is relative to the root word rather than the content of the product. Examples include the Akkadian word, zanānūt (provisioning), a physically concrete noun which fulfills the action of the verb, zanānu (to provide),4 the Standard Literary Aramaic5 noun, חַשְׁחוּת (things needed), which are those physical, concrete objects which relate to the verb, חֲשַׁח (to need),6 or the Hebrew word, כְסוּת (covering), a physically concrete noun that performs the action of the verb כָּסָה (to cover).

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon supplies three definitions of מַלְכוּת: “royal power, dominion,” “reign,” and finally “kingdom, realm.”7 The second definition, “reign,” is what realized eschatology proponents prefer in English, as it is an abstract noun for of the verb, “to reign,” and can more easily be transferred into a spiritualized kingdom. One problem with using this definition is that every single one of Brown-Driver-Briggs’ support texts8 is a time-marking reference to a literal, physical, king, who rules over a literal, physical kingdom. Examples include, “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa” (2 Chron 15:10), “in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah” (Jere 49:38), and “the articles which King Ahaz in his reign had cast aside in his transgression” (2 Chron 29:19). It is the English, rather than the Hebrew, that is nuanced here. The translation of 1 Chron 26:31 ( בִּשְׁנַ֨ת הָֽאַרְבָּעִ֜ים לְמַלְכ֤וּת דָּוִיד֙ ), rendered in the NKJV as, “in the fortieth year of the reign of David” could be more literally rendered, “in the fortieth year of the kingdom of David.” Even with a literal translation, an English speaker would understand this as forty years after the beginning of the kingdom of David, that is, forty years after David became king. The kingdom certainly existed before David, but it became David’s kingdom when he became king. Even in these occurrences, there are clear grammatical clues that a kingdom is being used as a measure of time (for example, the designation of the year, בִּשְׁנַ֨ת הָֽאַרְבָּעִ֜ים in 1 Chron 26:31). The fact that kingdoms are used for reference of time only demonstrates further that in the ancient mind, kingdoms were concrete, literal, and well defined. To force a usage of “kingdom” into an abstract meaning despite the support of grammatical clues is nothing short of eisegesis.

The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon supports the first definition of “royal power, dominion,” with 44 Scriptural occurrences,9 most of which convey meanings that are barely distinguishable from the third definition of “kingdom, realm.”10 For example, the lexicon provides 1 Sam 20:31, in which Saul tells Jonathan, “For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, you shall not be established, nor your kingdom. Now therefore, send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.” Because David’s kingdom is literal, it cannot coincide with a second kingdom of Jonathan over the same territory and people with its own laws. Even if David ruled the kingdom through coregency, these fundamental principles would be in effect. Perhaps if the Davidic throne was heavenly, then David could rule in the hearts of men all around the world from heaven and Jonathan could rule on earth, but this was not what Saul had in mind and so Jonathan was right in consigning his allegiance to the actual Davidic kingdom. As one continues through the Brown-Drivers-Briggs list of occurrences that portray “royal power, dominion,” literal earthly kingdoms are in mind to include those of David (1 Chron 11:10), Solomon (1 Kings 2:12), Ahasuerus (Esther 1:19), and even all of the kingdoms on earth (Jere 10:7). These are all literal uses of מַלְכוּת that are in reference to concrete kingdoms.

The third definition that the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon provides is “kingdom, realm,” which is more explicitly aligned with literal kingdoms and cites passages especially in reference to Babylonia and Persia.12 physical kingdom. Clearly the original intention of such passages is that the coming Kingdom will be very much a kingdom in the plain sense of the word, מַלְכוּת, as it occurs within the conventions of plain speech. Brown-Driver-Briggs’ division of מַלְכוּת into three definitions is unfortunate, but perhaps more unfortunate is that theologians try to give priority to an abstract understanding of מַלְכוּת in order to redefine the Messianic Kingdom.

The Universal Kingdom

Before moving forward in a word study of the word, “kingdom,” it is worth mentioning that the Bible speaks of God’s Universal Kingdom, which is distinct from the Messianic Kingdom. Describing the “Universal Kingdom” or “Eternal Kingdom,” Arnold Fruchtenbaum cites 1 Chron 29:11-12; Pss 10:16; 29:10; 74:12; 90:1-6: Ps 93:1-5; 103:19-22; 145:1-21; 148:1-14; Jere 10:10; Lam 5:19; Dan 4:17, 25, 32; 6:26.13 While the Messianic Kingdom is limited to planet earth for 1,000 years, the Universal Kingdom includes all of God’s creation and exists eternally. Alva McClain lists seven aspects of the Universal Kingdom:14 1. This Universal Kingdom exists without interruption throughout all time 2. The Universal Kingdom includes all that exists in space and time 3. The divine control in the Universal Kingdom is generally providential 4. The divine control in the Universal Kingdom may be exercised at times by supernatural means 5. The Universal Kingdom always exists efficaciously regardless of the attitude of its subjects 6. The rule of the Universal Kingdom is administered through the eternal Son 7. This Universal Kingdom is not exactly identical with that Kingdom for which our Lord taught His disciples to pray.

That the Universal Kingdom is distinct from the Messianic Kingdom should be apparent across the theological spectrum; even if Jesus did indeed spiritualize and activate a kingdom in the form of the Church or otherwise, such a kingdom could not be said to be eternal or universal without clear inconsistencies. For example, Dobuzhinskovo comes from the Eastern Orthodox perspective and tries simultaneously to spiritualize the Messianic Kingdom and ascribe to it some attributes of the Universal an Eternal Kingdom:

After the sermon in the Nazarene synagogue, Jesus returned to the shore of the Lake of Gennesaret and there He continued to teach about the kingdom of God.15 He said that the kingdom of God does not have anything in common with the dominion of earthly kings. This kingdom is not of this world, it is not material, but spiritual. Its realm is human souls, not material wealth. Building the kingdom requires neither money, nor things, nor land, nor military, nor political power over the world. Every earthly kingdom, no matter how grandiose and powerful, every kingdom has always had and always will have borders in time and space. But the kingdom of God does not have any kind of borders; it is eternal.16

This spiritualized kingdom is simply incompatible with the Universal Kingdom, for if indeed the kingdom’s “realm is human souls,” then it must “have borders in time and space” since not every human soul is in this spirit realm.

Much doctrine is evident while studying God’s activity in the Universal Kingdom, but one must remember that the reason that the universe meets the definition of מַלְכוּת is not technically because of God’s reign, authority, or activity per se, but because there is indeed a territory (the universe), a King (God), subjects (all of humanity and the angelic realm to include fallen angels), and laws (even including the laws of physics with their supernatural exceptions).

Aramaic and Greek

When John the Baptist and Jesus spoke about the Kingdom, the natural assumption would be that they were speaking of the kingdom that was developed in the Hebrew Scriptures. Having established the definition of the Hebrew מַלְכוּת as a concrete, literal kingdom consisting of land, laws, subjects, and royalty, it follows that John and Jesus were speaking in this sense with no hint of a redefinition. Nevertheless, a further evaluation is in order in light of the popularity of the claim that “kingdom” in the Greek and Aramaic mind was abstract rather than concrete.

A casual comparison of Targumim and the Septuagint with the Hebrew text will demonstrate that the Aramaic word, מַלְכוּת, and the Greek word, βασιλεία, are equivalent with the Hebrew word, מַלְכוּת:

Numbers 24:7

יִֽזַּל־מַ֙יִם֙ מִדָּ֣לְיָ֔ו וְזַרְע֖וֹ בְּמַ֣יִם רַבִּ֑ים וְיָרֹ֤ם מֵֽאֲגַג֙ מַלְכּ֔וֹ וְתִנַּשֵּׂ֖א מַלְכֻתֽוֹ

יִסְגֵי מַלְכָּא דְיִתְרַבָּא מִבְּנוֹהִי וְיִשְׁלוֹט בְּעַמְמִין סַגִיאִין וְיִתְקוֹף מֵאֲגַג מַלְכֵּיהּ וְתִתְנַטֵל מַלְכוּתֵיהּ
(Targum Onkelos)

ἐξελεύσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ καὶ κυριεύσει ἐθνῶν πολλῶν, καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἢ Γὼγ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐξηθήσεται βασιλεία αὐτοῦ.

Jeremiah 52:31

וַיְהִי֩ בִשְׁלֹשִׁ֨ים וָשֶׁ֜בַע שָׁנָ֗ה לְגָלוּת֙ יְהוֹיָכִ֣ן מֶֽלֶךְ־יְהוּדָ֔ה בִּשְׁנֵ֤ים עָשָׂר֙ חֹ֔דֶשׁ בְּעֶשְׂרִ֥ים וַחֲמִשָּׁ֖ה לַחֹ֑דֶשׁ נָשָׂ֡א אֱוִ֣יל מְרֹדַךְ֩ מֶ֨לֶךְ בָּבֶ֜ל בִּשְׁנַ֣ת מַלְכֻת֗וֹ אֶת־רֹאשׁ֙ יְהוֹיָכִ֣ין מֶֽלֶךְ־יְהוּדָ֔ה וַיֹּצֵ֥א אוֹת֖וֹ מִבֵּ֥ית הכליא

וַהֲוָה בִּתְלָתִין וּשְׁבַע שְׁנִין לְגָלוּת יְהוֹיָכִין מְלַךְ שִׁבְטָא דְבֵית יְהוּדָה בִּתְרֵי עֲשַׂר יַרְחִין בְּעַשְׂרִין וְחַמְשָׁא לְיַרְחָא רַבֵי אֱוִיל מְרוֹדַךְ מַלְכָּא דְבָבֶל בִּשְׁנַת מַלְכוּתֵיהּ יַת רֵישׁ יְהוֹיָכִין מְלַךְ שִׁבְטָא דְבֵית יְהוּדָה וְאַפֵּיק יָתֵיהּ מִבֵּית אֲסִירֵי

1 Chronicles 14:2

וַיֵּ֣דַע דָּוִ֔יד כִּֽי־הֱכִינ֧וֹ יְהוָ֛ה לְמֶ֖לֶךְ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כִּֽי־נִשֵּׂ֤את לְמַ֙עְלָה֙ מַלְכוּת֔וֹ בַּעֲב֖וּר עַמּ֥וֹ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

וִידַע דָוִד אֲרוּם אַתְקְנֵיהּ מֵימְרָא דַייָ מַלְכָּא עַל יִשְרָאֵל וַאֲרוּם אִתְנְטָלַת אִיקָרֵיהּ לְעֵלָא וּמַלְכוּתֵיהּ מִן בִּגְלַל לְאוֹטָבָא לְעַמֵיהּ יִשְרָאֵל
(Targum Jerusalem)

καὶ ἔγνω Δαυὶδ ὅτι ἡτοίμασεν αὐτὸν Κύριος εἰς βασιλέα ἐπὶ ᾿Ισραήλ, ὅτι ηὐξήθη εἰς ὕψος ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ.

2 Chronicles 1:1

וַיִּתְחַזֵּ֛ק שְׁלֹמֹ֥ה בֶן־דָּוִ֖יד עַל־מַלְכוּת֑וֹ וַיהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהָיו֙ עִמּ֔וֹ וַֽיְגַדְּלֵ֖הוּ לְמָֽעְלָה׃

:וְאַתְקֵף שְׁלמה בַּר דָוִד עַל מַלְכוּתֵיהּ וּמֵימְרָא דַייָ הֲוָה בְסַעֲדֵיהּ וְרַבְּיֵהּ לְעֵלָא
(Targum Jerusalem)

Καὶ ἐνίσχυσε Σαλωμὼν υἱὸς Δαυὶδ ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς αὐτοῦμετ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμεγάλυνεν αὐτὸν εἰς ὕψος.

Marcus Jastrow concurs that the Aramaic word, מַלְכוּת, means “kingdom, government; office”17 throughout the Targumim as well as the Talmud. The Middel Liddel and Liddel-Scott lexicons verify that the Greek, βασιλεία, carries the same meaning, citing such sources as Thucydides, Herodotus, Aristotle, Diodorus Siculus, Isocrates, Pausanias, and even the Septuagint and New Testament.18

Conclusion

In summary, the word, kingdom, in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek means the same thing that it does in English: it means, “kingdom.” A burden of proof rests upon those who intend the meaning to be an abstract reign apart from its territorial implications, but Kingdom Now theologians such as Scott typically sidestep the task of word study, claiming that the word, kingdom, is linguistically abstract before making the Messianic Kingdom spiritually abstract. Others such as Ladd provide word studies that fly in the face of the obvious: that kingdoms occupy land. However, a study of the Hebrew word, מַלְכוּת, along with its Aramaic and Greek counterparts demonstrates that the opposite is true, that the ancient concept of kingdoms was concrete and consisted of land, subjects, laws, and royalty.

The kingdom of heaven / the kingdom of God

The Reformed theologian, William Cox, critiques the dispensationalist view that draws a distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven:

Dispensationalists make two assertions concerning the kingdom: (1) The kingdom of heaven is Messianic, mediatorial, and Davidic… it also signifies the Messianic earth rule of Jesus Christ the Son of David… (2) Although there is a present kingdom in the world, this is the kingdom of God and is not the same as the kingdom of heaven. Now here hangs the entire dispensational position. They look for a future Davidic kingdom, i.e., a future millennium, based on an alleged distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. If the fact can be scripturally established that the kingdom of heaven is synonymous with the kingdom of God–which the dispensationalist admits is present already–then two things are true: (1) the Davidic Kingdom has already been established, and (2) there will be no future millennium, but it too began at the first advent. This we believe the Bible teaches.19

This critique falls on the point that normative dispensationalists do not necessarily believe that the kingdom of God has already been established. Regardless of that misstep, Cox correctly points to Matthew 10:7 and Luke 9:2 as evidence that the kingdom of heaven is synonymous with the kingdom of God:20

And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ (Matt 10:7)

He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick… So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. (Luke 9:2, 6)

Note that it is not only “the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 10:7) which is equated to “the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:2), but it is the message, “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 10:7) which is equated with “the gospel” (Luke 9:6), the good news, the message which the twelve were proclaiming when Jesus sent them out. Also interesting is that this mission was accompanied by healing and exorcism (Matt 10:8; Luke 9:6), which is no longer the Christian’s responsibility. The postponement explains why these miracles are no longer, but if the miracles accompanied the proclamation of the kingdom that is current, and Satan has only been bound figuratively in a probationary sense,21 then one would anticipate these miracles would accompany the current proclamation.

Leaving aside the errors of Reformed Amillennialism, one can look to the words of Christ Himself and see that He equated the kingdom of heaven with the kingdom of God through repetition and apposition. Through repetition, He says the same thing about both phrases on several occasions (Matt 4:17; Mark 1:15; Matt 5:3; Luke 4:20; Matt 10:7; Luke 9:2; Matt 13:1-11; Luke 8:4-10; Matt 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; et al). Through apposition, Jesus equates the two when He says, “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” (Matt 19:23b-24). While there are several passages that equate the kingdom of God with the kingdom of heaven, there is nothing that draws a distinction between the two:

First is to be found the well-known expectations of the Jews based on a literal interpretation of the prophecies; next, these are summed up in the expressive phrases “Kingdom of heaven,” etc., taken, as numerous writers inform us, from Dan. 7:13, 14; finally, John, Jesus, and others take the very phraseology adopted by the Jews to designate a certain definite Kingdom, and use it without the slightest intimation or explanation of a change in its meaning; and this employment of the phrases, with a correspondent Jewish meaning attached, continued (as admitted by our opponents[…]) at least down (Acts 1:6) to the ascension of Christ.22

John Lightfoot expounds on the background of the term, “kingdom of heaven:”

And so we have it elsewhere very often. For שמים ‘Heaven’ is very usually, in the Jewish dialect, taken for ‘God.’ Dan. iv. 25, Matt. xxi. 25, Luke xv. 21, John iii. 27. And, in these and such-like speeches, scattered in the Talmudists; מיתה ביד שמים ‘Death by the hand of Heaven:’ נתחלל שם שמים ‘The name of Heaven is profaned:’ פולחנא דשמיא ‘The worship of Heaven:’ בסייעתא דשמיא ‘By the help of Heaven,’ &c. “For they called God by the name of ‘Heaven,’ because his habitation is in heaven.”23

Emil Schürer concurs that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are one and the same and alludes without certainty to the possibility that part of the reason for the kingdom to be referred to as heavenly is that God is in heaven the kingdom will eventually come with Christ to earth at the Parousia.24

Christ also draws a distinction between entering and inheriting the kingdom (Matt 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30), both of which are yet future. All who are born again will enter the kingdom (John 3:5) when it is established, but more faithful servants will be rewarded a greater inheritance in the kingdom than less faithful servants (Matt 25:14-30). The term, “the gospel of the kingdom,” occurs in Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14-15 within a kingdom offering context (Matt 24:14 referring to the renewal of the offer in the tribulation), so it is often misunderstood as the “gospel” as presented today to nonbelievers, that is, the good news of how to become born again. To be more precise, these verses should not be understood as teaching how man can enter the kingdom, but rather how the kingdom can enter earth.

Conclusion

First century Jews used the terms, “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God,” interchangeably in reference to the Messianic Kingdom that was promised and developed prophetically throughout the Old Testament. This kingdom is yet future and will come at the end of the tribulation when Israel responds to the good news that Jesus is the Christ who will establish His kingdom on earth contingent upon her repentance.

  1. George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959), 19. On pp 19-20, Ladd goes on to support his definition using examples from men’s rule in Ezra 8:1; 2 Chron 12:1; Dan 8:23; Jer 49:34; 2 Chron 11:17; 12:1; 26:30 Ezra 4:5; Nehemiah 12:22, such that “This primary meaning of the word “kingdom” may be seen in its Old Testament use to describe a king’s rule” (pg 19). For God’s reign he claims, “When the word refers to God’s Kingdom, it always refers to His reign, His rule, His sovereignty, and not to the realm in which it is exercised” and he uses Psalm 103:19; 145:11, 13 for support, clarifying, “The realm of God’s rule is the heaven and earth, but this verse [Psalm 145:13] has no reference to the permanence of this realm. It is God’s rule which is everlasting” (pg 20). He then uses Dan 2:37; 5:26 as examples of the translated word, “kingdom,” referring to men’s rule, saying, “It is clear that the realm over which Belshazzar ruled was not destroyed. The Babylonian realm and people were not brought to an end; they were transferred to another rule. It was the rule of the king which was terminated, and it was the rule which was given to Darius the Mede (Dan 5:31)” (pg 20).
  2. J. Julius Scott, Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1995), 297.
  3. Joün, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 2006), 242-243.
  4. For example, Tiara Cylinder i.18. includes the inscription, Tiara Cylinder includes the inscription, “za-na-nu-ut ma-ḫa-za ud-du-šu eš-re-e-ti ú-mál-lu-ú qa-tu-ú-a,” translated, “he filled my hands wi[th] the provisioning of the shrines, the renewal of the chapels.” If indeed the provisioning was abstract, then it could not fill any hands. Available online at http://build-oracc.museum.upenn.edu/cams/tlab/akk#X800003.15 (accessed March 28, 2019).
  5. “Standard Literary Aramaic is the literary dialect that emerged in the 7th century B.C. and subsisted alongside the Official Aramaic of the Achaemenian period. The Story of Ahiqar, perhaps the scattered phrases of the story from the tomb at Sheikh el-Faḍl, the Bar Punesh fragments, and the narrative in the Aramaic portions of Ezra are the earliest examples of this form of speech that is further used in the Book of Daniel, in the literary Aramaic compositions discovered at Qumrān, in the Targums to the Pentateuch and to the Prophets, known as Onqelos and Jonathan, in Megillat Taʿanit, and, at a much later date, in the ‘Scroll of Antiochus’.” Edward Lipiński, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar, 2nd ed. (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterese Sudies, 2001), 66.
  6. Ezra 7:20a וּשְׁאָ֗ר חַשְׁחוּת֙ בֵּ֣ית אֱלָהָ֔ךְ can be literally translated, “and the rest of the ‘things needed’ for the house of your God.”
  7. Koehler, Ludwig and Baumgartner divide the three definitions of Brown-Driver-Briggs into seven: 1. royal dominion (Nu 24:7; Jer 10:7; Ps 45:7; 145:13; Est 1:3 et al) 2. kingship, royal honour: “of David 1C 1110, of queen Est 414, of a poor man […] Qoh 414, of the Israelite kings Neh 935;” 3. royal accomplishments 1C 2930 4. regnal period, reign (Jer 49:34; Est 2:16; Da 1:1; 2:1; 8:1; Ezr 5:5f; 7:1; 8:1; Neh 12:22 5. realm Est 1:1, 14, 20; 2:3; 3:6-8; 5:3-6; 7:2; 9:30; Dan 1:20; 11:4, 9, 17, 20; 2 Chron 33:13; 36:22 6. royal Est 1:2; 1C 22:10; 2C 7:18; Est 1:7 “7. said of Yahweh (Maag VTSupp. 7:129ff; ELipiński La royauté de Jawé dans la poésie et le culte de l’ancien Israël (Brussels, 1965); THAT 1:916) royal dominion Ps 10319 14511-13, 1C 1714 (given to the descendants of David; 1C 285 כִּסֵּ֛א מַלְכ֥וּת יְהוָ֖ה עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל).” These distinctions are fine enough that the following study on the three definitions by Brown-Driver-Briggs should suffice to address the seven-definition proposition as well. Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, M.E.J. Richardson, trans. ed. (Leiden: E.J. Brill 1995), מלכוּת pp 592-593.
  8. 1 Chronicles 26:31; 2 Chronicles 3:2; 15:10,19; 16:1,12; 35:19; Jeremiah 49:34; Daniel 1:1; 2Chronicles 29:19; Jeremiah 52:31; 2 Kings 25:27; Daniel 2:1; Daniel 8:1; Ezra 4:5,6; Ezra 7:1; Ezra 8:1; Nehemiah 12:22; Esther 2:16; 2 Chronicles 36:20. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc.  Available online at https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4438.htm (accessed March 8, 2019).
  9. Numbers 24:7; 1 Samuel 20:31; 1 Kings 2:12; Jeremiah 10:7; Ecclesiastes 4:14; 1 Chronicles 11:10; 1 Chronicles 12:23; 1 Chronicles 29:30; 2 Chronicles 33:13; Esther 1:19;  4:14; 1 Chronicles 14:2; Daniel 11:21; 1 Chronicles 17:11; 1 Chronicles 28:7; 2Chronicles 12:1; 1 Chronicles 17:14; Psalm 103:19; Psalm 145:13; Psalm 145:11; Psalm 145:12; Psalm 45:7; 1 Chronicles 22:10; 1 Chronicles 28:5; 2 Chronicles 7:18; Esther 1:2; Esther 5:1; 2 Chron 1:18; 2 Chronicles 2:11; Esther 1:9; Esther 2:16; Esther 5:1; Esther 1:7; Esther 1:19; 1 Chronicles 29:25; Daniel 11:21; Daniel 11:20; Esther 1:4; Esther 1:11; Esther 2:17; Esther 6:8; Esther 6:8; Esther 8:15; Esther 5:1. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc.  Available online at https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4438.htm (accessed March 8, 2019).
  10. 2 Chronicles 1:1; 11:17; 20:30; Nehemiah 9:35; 2 Chronicles 36:22; Ezra 1:1; Esther 1:14,20; Esther 2:3; Esther 3:6,8; Esther 5:3,6; Esther 7:2; Esther 9:30; Daniel 8:22; Daniel 9:1; Daniel 10:13; Daniel 11:2,4; Daniel 11:9,17; Daniel 11:20. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc.  Available online at https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4438.htm (accessed March 8, 2019).
  12. 2 Chronicles 1:1; 11:17; 20:30; Nehemiah 9:35; 2 Chronicles 36:22; Ezra 1:1; Esther 1:14,20; Esther 2:3; Esther 3:6,8; Esther 5:3,6; Esther 7:2; Esther 9:30; Daniel 8:22; Daniel 9:1; Daniel 10:13; Daniel 11:2,4; Daniel 11:9,17; Daniel 11:20. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged, Electronic Database.
    Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc.  Available online at https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4438.htm (accessed March 8, 2019)./note] This is the proper understanding of the Messianic Kingdom, as even Num 24:7 (the first Scriptural evidence for the first Brown-Driver-Briggs definition of “royal power, dominion”) is a Messianic prophecy which draws comparison to Agag’s11 Rashbam explains that the title of Agag is a royal position of Amalek, similar to the Egyptian title of Pharoah, “And [all kings] of Amalek are called Agag: in the time of Moshe (Num. 24:7), ‘Their king shall rise above Agag,’ and in the time of Sha’ul (I Sam. 15:8), ‘King Agag of Amalek.’” Rashbam on Genesis 41:10:1 available online at https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.24.7?lang=bi&with=Rashbam%20on%20Genesis|Quoting&lang2=en (accessed March 18, 2019).
  13. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events, revised ed. (San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 2018), 662-663.
  14. Alva McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An inductive study of the Kingdom of God as set forth in the Scriptures, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), 22-36.
  15. Dobuzhinskovo’s biblical support is lacking, to say the least. After the sermon in the Nazarene synagogue, Jesus said, “‘I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent.’ And He was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee” (Luke 4:43-44). From there, He moves on the Gennesaret, where there is no record of Him speaking about any kingdom in Luke 5, so it seems that Dobuzhinskovo is putting words into the Savior’s mouth.
  16. М. Добужинского, ред., Закон Божий, Том 3, (Paris: Ymca-Press, 1956), 102. Translation mine.
  17. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (London, Luzac: 1903), מַלְכוּת, compare also the entry for מַלְכוּתָא, מַלְכוּ. Available online at https://www.sefaria.org/Jastrow (accessed March 6, 2019).
  18. Liddell and Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889) and Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented by Sir Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), available online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=basilei (accessed March 8, 2019).
  19. William E. Cox, An Examination of Dispensationalism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963; printed 1980), 34-35.
  20. Ibid., 35-36.
  21. William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1977), 57-63.
  22. George Peters The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, The Christ, as Covenanted in the Old Testament and Presented in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1972), I. 195.
  23. John Lightfoot, John Rogers Pitman, ed., Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exertations Upon the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, in The Whole Works of Rev. John Lightfoot, vol. XI (London: J. F. Dove, 1823, reprint 2019), 49. He cites the last quotation as Elias Levit. in Tishbi.
  24. Emil Schürer, “Der Begriff des Himmelreiches aus jüdischen Quellen erläutert” Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie (1876), 166-187. Available online at http://idb.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/opendigi/jpth_1876 (accessed March 29, 2019).