2 The beginning and the end: the land and the kingdom
2
The beginning and the end: the land and the kingdom
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God’. . . .
And he who was seated on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’ (Rev. 21:1–3, 5)
‘A fundamental fact about the Scriptures’, according to Richard Lints, ‘is that they constitute a text with a developing story. It is a story that clearly progresses toward the accomplishment of specific goals.’ ‘In the beginning’ marks inauguration, but it also anticipates the end. In this eschatological light, Scripture should be read as a text with a beginning, an end and a developing story in between that moves towards a divine goal. One such goal driving the biblical story forward is the establishment of the kingdom of God. That is, fundamental to the story line of Scripture is the notion that God, the Creator and King of the cosmos, has a people who live under his reign. This reality was true in the beginning and will be true at the end.
This chapter will establish a framework for understanding and situating the land promise in redemptive history. More specifically, the land promise will be canonically situated within the biblical story line, from creation to new creation. Moreover, it will show that the land theme is organically related to both the kingdom of God and the covenants as they unfold and progress across the canon. This chapter, then, will consider the beginning (Gen. 1 – 3) and the related themes that subsequently unfold throughout the rest of Scripture, which are essentially eschatological themes that reach their terminus in the end – the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21 – 22).
The beginning and the end: God’s eschatological goal of redemptive history
Crucial to understanding why the canon ends with an Eden-like picture of the eschaton is that Eden is depicted as the prototypical place on earth where God dwells with his people. In short, God’s original creation is the archetype of a final – and better – creation to come. That is, God’s original creation reaches its eschatological fulfilment in the new heaven and new earth. Put another way, ‘Eschatology is like proctology.’ The beginning inaugurates the consummated vision at the end, and God’s new creation at the end brings to fulfilment his cosmological design from the beginning. But crucial to observing the (dis)continuity between the historical bookends is the historical line that connects them.
Perhaps one of the most prominent features of the beginning and end of the story is the concept of God’s kingdom. Jesus’ declaration that ‘the kingdom of God is at hand’ (Mark 1:15) reveals the Old Testament anticipation of the fulfilment of God’s saving promises that reach back to Eden, when God promised to undo the effects of sin by triumphing over the serpent. Furthermore, the importance of the kingdom in Jesus’ teaching is apparent by the prominence and place of the sayings about the kingdom. When he begins his ministry, Jesus’ proclamation of the arrival of the kingdom serves to highlight the fact that it is central to the biblical story line, for he saw in his ministry the fulfilment of Old Testament promises. Mark demonstrates this fulfilment with the announcement ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel’ (1:14–15). Clearly, Jesus did not present a comprehensive biblical theology of the kingdom set within salvation history. However, it is clear from the Gospels that Jesus saw himself acting within and bringing to fulfilment the whole process of salvation history. That is, God’s saving promises were being fulfilled in Jesus Christ’s life and ministry, from his humiliation to his glorification. Thus the pattern of God’s kingdom provides a conceptual approach that spans history from beginning to end.
Although there has been debate on defining the kingdom of God, this concept, when defined with sufficient elasticity, consists of three important components: king/rule, people and place. But to avoid abstraction, the kingdom of God must be tethered to history. God’s rule over his people in his place is found on the beginning pages of Scripture and, through many twists and turns, extends to the end. In other words, the kingdom of God is central to the story line of Scripture. As a result, the land promise must be situated in a kingdom-oriented biblical-theological framework.
In the beginning: creation and God’s worldwide design
Genesis is about beginnings: the beginning of creation, the world, humanity and the nations, civilization, relationships between God and humans, sin and death, and God’s plan in history to make and bless a people for his glory. As the beginning of the story, Genesis introduces the reader to the background, context, main character(s) and themes of the story that will develop. This is the author’s chance to show what the rest of the story will be about. As such, Genesis inaugurates the drama of Scripture and is, therefore, foundational. Thus Genesis is the fountainhead of the ensuing biblical story.
Creation and the king of the kingdom
In the beginning God created. He is the grammatical subject of the first sentence and the thematic subject throughout the creation account. Kenneth Mathews rightly stresses that ‘the creation account is theocentric, not creature centered. Its purpose is to glorify the Creator by magnifying him through the majesty of the created order.’ God’s power and rule are demonstrated in the repeated refrain ‘And God said . . . And it was so.’ This portrayal of God was (and is) radically countercultural. That God is able to create everything simply by speaking words – and to set limits even on those things (such as sun, moon and stars) that were worshipped as gods – points to the sovereignty and supremacy of God. God is king over creation because, as the Genesis narratives show, the heavens and the earth depend on him for their existence, and not vice versa.
The entire universe is the geographical beginning of God’s reign in history, for he is the creator and ruler of all. Creation and history come into existence together through God’s speech. Thus the world is not a given, but a gift to display his glory through his dwelling with and ruling over his creatures. For this reason the rule, or kingdom, of God provides a conceptual approach to the commencement of creation. God is the self-existent and self-sufficient creator and king over all that exists, and creation’s finitude is displayed in its dependence upon him.
God’s kingship is asserted from the beginning, for his first word to his people is a command. They must be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, subdue it and have dominion over creation (Gen. 1:28). They must also not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or else there will be disastrous results (Gen. 2:17). Through his commands and promise, then, God is unequivocally demonstrating his rule over his creation. Furthermore, the rest of Scripture clearly affirms that God is Creator and King. Psalm 95 summons its readers to worship the Lord, the great God and great king above all gods who owns all that is, ‘for he made it’ (Ps. 95:5). God sits enthroned as king over creation, and his people are to ascribe to him alone glory and strength; indeed, at the sound of his voice creation bursts with life (Ps. 29). Psalm 89 says that all of creation, and especially his people, are to praise the Lord, for he without comparison performs praiseworthy wonders and rules and stills the raging sea (Ps. 89:5–13). Furthermore, he owns the heavens and earth and all that is within them, for he founded them (Ps. 89:11). Thus he dwells in the heavens (Deut. 26:15; 1 Kgs 8:43; Isa. 57:15) and does whatever pleases him (Pss 115:3; 135:6). And finally, God’s reign is most fully understood canonically, for Christ shares in this creative and ruling activity – an activity that only God can perform – as he reigns through and over creation by virtue of his triumph over sin and death.
Creation and the people of the king(dom)
In the opening narrative, the climax of creation is humanity. In the beginning of the Genesis narrative, God’s creative work shifts from the cosmological to the anthropological. Just as God creates and rules over the heavens and the earth, so also he creates and rules over his people. Humanity, though, is related to yet distinct from the rest of God’s good creation. No other created thing, inanimate or animate, has God’s own breath breathed in to give it life. Man received breath from God and became a living creature set apart from the rest of creation.
The rare use of ‘image’ (ṣelem) and ‘likeness’ (dĕmût) to describe humanity constitutes it as unique among the created order. Much can be written about these terms, but, as Dempster notes, ‘it is clear that they indicate that humanity is uniquely related to both God and the created order’. In relation to God, humanity is endowed with a unique status and commanded to have dominion over every living thing that moves on the earth (Gen. 1:28). Given the commission to govern all living things in creation, God set humanity apart from and gave it a regal standing among all other creatures. In this sense, then, humanity images God by acting as his representative on earth. In other words, to be made in the image of God is to be endowed with a kingly status.
Adam and Eve’s image-bearing, though, involves more than just existing as God’s viceregents. That is, it entails both what ’ādām is and what the man and woman do. More specifically, humanity’s ontological status – the image of God – results in ruling the world for God, for humans are his sons. Adam and Eve share a unique role and relationship to the rest of creation. With their royal status, Adam and Eve are to subdue (kābaš) and have dominion (rādâ) over the earth. This kingly role carries with it the idea of authority and power. For example, Adam is to rule over ‘the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth’ (Gen. 1:26; cf. v. 28).
Furthermore, Eden was not only their home but also their place of work. This role is often cast in terms of the creational mandate or commission. Given the task, then, to subdue and have dominion, Adam and Eve have a God-given authority over the rest of creation. In other words, this role anticipates a process whereby humanity was to extend this kingship until the entire creation was under the sphere of its rule. Moreover, as the story line progresses, this task takes on eschatological tones and anticipates a day when God will do a new covenant work finally to subdue his people’s sins (Mic. 7:19) and, with Yahweh’s help, they will subdue their enemies (Zech. 9:15). This task will ultimately come about through an ideal, greater-than-David messianic king, who will come from Israel, exercise rule over the kingdom(s) and vanquish his enemies until his rule is established to the ends of the earth.
Adam’s role, however, extends beyond just being and serving as a king. The words that describe his work in the garden in Genesis 2:15 (‘ābad and šāmar) are the same that are used to describe the priests’ work in the temple later in the life and worship of Israel. Beale comments:
The two Hebrew words for ‘cultivate and keep’ are usually translated ‘serve and guard [or keep]’ elsewhere in the Old Testament. . . . When these two words (verbal [‘ābad and šāmar] and nominal forms) occur together in the Old Testament (within an approximately 15-word range), they refer either to Israelites’ ‘serving’ God and ‘guarding [keeping]’ God’s word (approximately 10 times) or to priests who ‘keep’ the ‘service’ (or ‘charge’) of the tabernacle (see Num 3:7–8; 8:25–26; 18:5–6; 1 Chr 23:32; Ezek 44:14).
Therefore Adam’s dominion over the land presents him as a type of priest-king, a concept used later to describe God’s people as a kingdom of priests. As a result, Adam is to bring the presence of God to the rest of creation.
Finally, Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (Gen. 1:28). Though Adam and Eve uniquely stand as the forerunners to the rest of humanity, it is significant that they cannot fulfil the creation mandate alone. The expansion of Adam’s geographical dominion is connected to the proliferation of his offspring. Adam and Eve’s cosmological task will be carried on and fulfilled through their descendants. Through time, then, the whole earth would become a garden-city filled with image-bearing priest-kings, and the earth would be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
Creation and the place of the king(dom)
The third facet of the kingdom triptych is God’s place, which is a garden planted by the Lord God. Within this sacred space, Adam and Eve are to be fruitful and multiply, subdue and have dominion over the earth, and enjoy God’s blessing (Gen. 1:28–30). This serves as the ideal place for humanity to dwell with and under the Lord God as his viceregents over creation. It is here in the garden where the themes ‘kingdom’ and ‘place’ are closely intertwined, for in order for the king to have dominion he must have a domain. This domain is Eden. This sacred space is the archetypal place where God dwells with his people and, through the proliferation of priest-kings, God’s glorious presence and rule will expand across the earth.
The importance of Eden does not rest primarily on its being the dwelling place of humans, but on its being the place where God dwells on earth in a unique way and where he has fellowship with his image bearers. It is, as Ezekiel says, the garden of God (Ezek. 28:13; cf. Isa. 51:3).
Thus Eden is the inaugural place where God is with his people. To put it another way, the garden of Eden should be considered as the archetypal tabernacle, temple or sanctuary, a temple-garden, where God dwells with humankind.
Furthermore, the prototypical place where God first dwelt with humans was nothing short of paradise. Commenting on Genesis 2:8, Wenham writes:
gān ‘garden’ is an enclosed area for cultivation (cf. vv. 5, 15): perhaps we should picture a park surrounded by a hedge (cf. 3:23). This seems to be the understanding of the early versions which translate gān as ‘paradise,’ a Persian loan word, originally meaning a royal park.
Moreover, later when Eden is mentioned in Scripture, it is described as a fertile area, a lush oasis with vibrant life bursting from it, a desirable piece of real estate in the arid region. This lush territory is a mark of God’s presence in and blessing on Eden. When the evidence is cumulatively considered, the garden of Eden is presented as the archetypal and paradisal place where God’s people will live in and enjoy his presence.
Finally, through the propagation of Adam’s offspring, the boundaries of the garden will expand and extend to fill the whole earth. In the ancient Near East, a growing population would construct a city around the temple. Throughout time, then, the whole earth would become a sanctuary garden-city. While Genesis 2 merely introduces the inauguration of this process, the eschatological outcome will be a sanctified, arboreal temple-city where God will dwell with his people. Had sin, with its devastating effects on humanity and the world, not entered creation, the teleological objectives of Eden would look similar to the picture of the new Jerusalem described in Revelation 21 – 22.
The end of the beginning
The blissful scene at the end of Genesis 2 is followed by the all-too-familiar tragic events of Genesis 3. Rather than fulfil his role as God’s priest-king, fill the earth with his descendants and expand the garden-temple of Eden to the ends of the earth, Adam rebelled against his Lord and forfeited his teleological commission. Instead of ruling creation as God’s image-bearing viceregent, Adam pined after deity. By successfully tempting him, the serpent exercised authority over Adam – who named him! – and Adam capitulated in his attempt to usurp God. This rebellion was nothing less than a ‘ “cosmic tragedy” . . . The flagrant rebellion against the divine word by the pinnacle of creation, which has just been invested with the divine rule, is a heinous crime against the cosmos and its Creator’. It is ironic that Adam, who was originally commissioned to guard Eden (Gen. 2:15), was not only expelled from the garden but also relieved of his duty, for now at the east of the garden of Eden God ‘placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life’ (Gen. 3:24). Paradise gained was now paradise lost.
Now the place God created for his people to live and work became a curse rather than a blessing. The sacred realm of Eden had become defiled. Instead of the land yielding abundant blessing, it would yield hardship and pain. Instead of subduing the land, humans would be subdued by it. Instead of harmonious relationships between humans and nature, and man and woman, conflict would now rule (Gen. 3:17–19). As a result, the creation project was compromised and the global end for humanity to live in God’s place under his rule would now have to await its fulfilment by other means.
Against this background, the rest of the biblical story line is interested in how God’s kingdom will be restored and extended throughout the entire earth. Will the kingdom of the world ever become again the kingdom of the Lord? Will he ever reign again over his people in his place? The end of the story presents a glorious picture of the restored rule of the sovereign king of the universe, who sits on his throne while the enemy has been subdued and dethroned. But for now, the eschatological outcome depends on a theological response.
The promise of a new beginning
But amid the judgment and announcement of curses, God folds mercy into the middle. Literally, there is a seed of hope for humanity found in the promise of the serpent’s destruction by the offspring of the woman (Gen. 3:15). To be sure, different judgments will befall the man, woman and serpent, but only the serpent will be handed a fatal blow. Though the same word is used to describe the combatants’ corresponding action (šûp), ‘the location of the blow distinguishes the severity and success of the attack’. The serpent will deliver a strike to the heel, but the offspring of the woman will deliver a crushing blow to the head.
The subsequent story in Genesis, and the rest of Scripture, is concerned with resolving this genealogical conflict between the offspring of the woman and the serpent. Dempster writes:
This battle will determine who will have dominion over the created order – the human or the serpent. The man and the woman have already been told to be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion over the earth. In the immediate context it is clear now that, though this is not a present reality, it will be the future destiny of their progeny. Once the contextual scope is widened, not only to the book of Genesis but to the literary horizon of the canon, there remains no doubt whatsoever of the importance of this genealogical hope for the human race. The seed of the woman will restore the lost glory. Human – and therefore divine – dominion will be established over the world. The realization of the kingdom of God is linked to the future of the human race.
Hence the story of redemption will be an unfolding of the contents of this conflict and promise. From this point, all of Old Testament revelation looks forward, points forward and eagerly awaits the promised redeemer.
A new beginning: re-establishing the kingdom through covenant
From a canonical perspective, the eschatological promises completed at the end of history commence in the garden of Eden. However, God’s plan was interrupted by the disobedience of humanity and, as a result, sin and death entered the world and humanity was separated from God. But the beginning did not end, for God made a promise that would, in time, undo the effects of sin and restore God’s rule. Hence the drama that unfolds focuses on how the kingdom – that is, God’s people in God’s place under God’s rule – will be re-established.
One of the most important ways God re-establishes his kingdom is through the biblical covenants, for they form the backbone of Scripture and are crucial for understanding its overarching story, from creation to new creation. That is, covenant charts a course and serves as a unifying theme for the unfolding kingdom drama. Scripture presents numerous covenants at crucial times in salvation history, all of which serve to reverse the curses of Eden and bring about the escalated re-establishment of the universal expansion of God’s kingdom. For this reason, every covenant in some measure involves and advances the promise of God’s rule, people and place. Each covenant serves, then, as a (re)new(ed) beginning, a divinely orchestrated means by which the ordained end – a consummated kingdom – will come about.
The kingdom and the covenant at creation
When we turn to Genesis 1 – 2, it is not improper to see it in a covenantal context, though caution should be taken. First, the creation account is framed within a covenantal pattern or framework. That is, there is a title/preamble (1:1), historical prologue (1:2–29), stipulations (1:28; 2:16–17a), witnesses (1:31; 2:1) and blessings/curses (1:28; 2:3, 17). Secondly, although the term for ‘covenant’ is not contextually found, the essential relational elements of a covenant are present. That is, whether we define this relationship at creation as a ‘covenant’ relationship or not, the point to be made is that God condescended and initiated this relationship with humanity. God is clearly committed to his image bearers, even after they disobey him. Thirdly, the presence of a covenantal relationship can be shown from later texts. In supporting a covenant with creation, William Dumbrell argues that the way in which the Noahic covenant is introduced in Genesis 6 shows that a previous covenant with Adam was established. In four places God speaks of confirming (hăqmōtî et-bĕrîtî) a covenant with Noah (Gen. 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17), not cutting a covenant (kārat bĕrît). Therefore the covenant with Noah was not initiating something new, but rather confirming for Noah and his descendants God’s prior commitment to humanity previously initiated at creation.
However, the absence of the term ‘covenant’ in Genesis 1 – 2 has caused some to doubt the existence of a covenant relationship. This objection is unsuccessful once a sound lexical and biblical-theological method is employed. To begin with, it is incorrect to conclude that a covenant cannot be present simply because the term is not explicitly used. For example, in 2 Samuel 7 God makes a promise of an everlasting dynasty, but by the principle of this objection it cannot technically be considered a covenant, because the term does not contextually appear. Yet when Psalm 89 recounts this promise, it repeatedly uses the term ‘covenant’ (Ps. 89:3, 28, 34, 39). Secondly, the absence of the term is possibly due to the reality that this time is prior to the entrance of and fall into sin. In other words, it was not necessary at this point in God’s relationship with Adam and Eve to demonstrate his commitment to them, for by virtue of his unhindered presence, relationship with and provision for them as their Lord in Eden, his commitment to them was clearly evident. Thirdly, it is important to note that this covenantal context is an original and unique situation that involved, especially in the light of the rest of Scripture, Adam in a representative role on behalf of the human race. Henri Blocher writes, ‘The relationship of humankind with God is first determined by the Eden Charter, the creational covenant, made “in Adam”.’ Moreover, the person and work of Adam establish categories for the person and work of the last Adam, Jesus Christ (cf. Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15). The entrances of Adam and Christ at unique and pivotal points in creation and redemptive history, then, have massive effects on them and their posterity. Hence this relationship is foundational to all other relationships that follow. Finally, the Noahic covenant clearly alludes to creation themes that were present in Genesis 1 – 3. For example, in Genesis 8:1 – 9:17 there is a ‘recreation’ of the earth, birds, animals and creeping things, as well as re-establishment of the creation mandate and dominion of humans over the land that was originally given to Adam and Eve. In other words, Noah now carries on the role of Adam and thus fulfils God’s purposes in the world. Stephen Dempster writes:
The covenant with creation after the flood uses language extremely similar to that of Gen. 1–2, even though the word ‘covenant’ does not occur there. The ‘new’ covenant with creation is not quite like the old, as there are significant flaws in the post-flood world. It is clearly a post-fallen world, which is graciously preserved from further judgment in spite of human sin.
Therefore, given the context of Genesis 1 – 3 and the covenantal clues therein, seeing a covenantal relationship with Adam/creation is warranted from the beginning.
However, as noted above, this relationship was deeply marred as a result of the fall, which plunged the entire human race into sin. But God’s commitment to humanity after the fall shows that his anthropological and cosmological purposes are not finished. He does not completely eradicate the human race and begin anew. Rather, he calls out one faithful man to continue the line of humanity and thus fulfil the redemptive purposes on the earth. It is precisely out of this human race that the last Adam, when the fullness of time had come, took upon himself humanity in order to bring redemption and deliver his people to a new place, to the kingdom of the beloved Son of God (Col. 1:12–13). All subsequent covenants flow from Eden, and out of fallen humanity God will make a new people with whom he will dwell for ever (Rev. 21 – 22:5).
After the fall, sin increases with each generation. One cannot read Genesis 4 – 5 without an awful sense of God’s judgment. Bartholomew writes that ‘the effects of sin gather momentum until they become a virtual tsunami in Genesis 6:5’. Indeed, death reigned. An increasing existential awareness of sin and divine judgment escalates from the fall to the time when ‘the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart’ (Gen. 6:5–6). So the Lord judged humanity in the land in which it was created to know and serve God. But one man found favour in the eyes of the Lord. Thus in the middle of universal judgment is the hope of a new beginning.
The kingdom through the Noahic covenant
The initial sign in the biblical story line of God’s reversing the curse is the entrance of Noah. The context is saturated with God’s divine promises in the midst of judgment against human rebellion and sin. The initial sin in the garden spread into global rebellion against God. In this context, however, Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8) and God established a covenant with him (Gen. 6:18; 9:9–17). Noah is the blameless one who will restore God’s creation and thus fulfil humanity’s role on the earth. Williamson writes, ‘The climax of the flood narrative is best understood in terms of a “recreation” covenant – a restoration of the divine order and God’s visible kingship that had been established at creation.’ God promises that the divine intention of creation will not be lost. He solemnly promises that humanity’s creational mandate (Gen. 9:1–7; cf. 1:26–30) will never again be interrupted by a suspension of the natural order. The earth will be inhabited with life, and human beings will know the Lord in an intimate way. In other words, there will come a ‘new creation’. This covenant is described as ‘everlasting’, a term that, in context, appears to signify at least as long as the earth remains (Gen. 8:22). And the promises given to Noah and his offspring point back to God’s prior promise of a ‘seed’ who would come and reverse the effects of sin and the fall.
The Noahic covenant ‘reaffirms God’s original creational intent, which the flood had placed in abeyance and which humanity’s inherent sinfulness would otherwise continue to place in jeopardy’. God is still committed to his fallen creation, especially to those who are created in his image. It is crucial to see this covenant in the light of the overall (post-fall) story line of Scripture. ‘Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned’ (Rom. 5:12). Adam enjoyed God and his provision in the land, but forfeited it. Nevertheless, God will restore through Noah what was lost by Adam. This new beginning demonstrates advancement in God’s redemptive purposes. Noah, like Adam, functions as God’s representative on earth who is commissioned to rule the earth, be fruitful and multiply, and bring God’s blessing to the world. The biblical story, then, moves towards a new era and a new humanity. But just as Adam failed, so also does Noah (Gen. 9:18–29). Sin and death continue to reign, and once again God judges the nations in the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11). Yet God keeps his promise by calling out another man to fulfil his purposes.
The kingdom through the Abrahamic covenant
The introduction of Abram into the story highlights God’s plan to begin anew. To highlight this new beginning, Dempster observes, ‘Just as Adam to Noah was ten generations, so is Noah to Abraham. After the arrival of Abram on the scene, a new genealogical formula begins a narrative devoted to this man named Abram, who is described as such an inauspicious bearer of promise.’ Against the miserable background of the table of nations and the debacle of Babel, the entrance of Abram is clearly an answer to the fundamental problem of humanity. As with Noah, God’s promise to Abram initiates a new era of history.
Fallen humanity sought to make a ‘name’ for itself with the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:4), but for Abram God promises to make a great ‘name’ (Gen. 12:2). Unlike the story with Noah, however, God does not destroy creation with universal judgment. Instead, God allows the nations to exist and then calls out Abram from them. From this point in the biblical narrative, ‘Abraham will provide the redemptive center for those who will be reached through him and his descendants.’ The Abrahamic covenant, then, clarifies the way in which God will fulfil for humanity both the blessing promised to Noah for all creation and the promise of a victorious ‘seed’. Through God’s covenantal dealings with and through Abram, Adam’s curse will be removed, dominion will be restored and universal blessing will come to the nations. With Abram, then, the divine telos for humanity – and indeed all creation – finds a new beginning, and with him God begins a process that will be fulfilled in the distant future.
The kingdom through the Mosaic covenant
The Mosaic covenant demonstrates God’s determination to advance his kingdom on earth through his people. This covenant furthers the programmatic agenda of the promises given to the patriarchs, for it is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who delivers his people from the tyrannical rule of Egypt. Therefore, as the biblical story moves from creation blueprint to the final reality, the formation of Israel as a nation ruled by the Lord is an important development. God’s deliverance of and covenant with Israel is an advancement of his re-establishment of the Edenic purposes, for through the exodus of the nation his creational plan for the world moves forward. That is, ‘in the promised land, as in Eden, the direct presence of God will be encountered in a way which would parallel the condition of man in Eden’. This significant advance in God’s plan explains the repeated mention of the Mosaic covenant throughout the Old Testament. God fulfils what he promises and, as a result, his cosmological and eschatological objectives for his kingdom in Eden, extended through Noah and promised to the patriarchs, direct the Sinai covenant towards its goal.
The kingdom through the Davidic covenant
The next major covenantal development in the outworking of God’s redemptive plan is the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chr. 17; cf. Pss 89; 110; 132). ‘The chief interest in the rise of the kingdom’, says Childs, ‘focuses without a doubt on David.’ This covenant, like the Mosaic, is built upon the Abrahamic promise that establishes God’s people in his place under his rule and blessing. In fact, the chapters in which the establishment of the covenant is described (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chr. 17) are full of allusions to the promises given to Abraham and Moses. For example, David is promised a great name (Gen. 12:2; 2 Sam. 7:9), a special place (Gen. 12:1; Exod. 3:8; 2 Sam. 7:10), victory over enemies (Gen. 22:17; Exod. 23:22; 2 Sam. 7:11), a special relationship between his offspring and God (Gen. 17:7–8; Exod. 4:22; 2 Sam. 7:14) and offspring through whom (international) blessing will come (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 26:4; Ps. 72:17). Dumbrell writes:
What God has in store for David is reminiscent of what was promised to Abraham. The establishment of the Davidic empire will set the ideal borders of the Promised Land, which the promise to Abraham had foreshadowed (cf. 2 Sam 7:10 and Gen 15:18; note that these borders are defined in Deut 11:24 as Israel’s ‘place’). At the same time, the foundation of the empire will bring David the Abrahamic great name (cf. 2 Sam 7:9 and Gen 12:2).
Moreover, Beale rightly observes the connection between the construction of the temple and Eden. He writes, ‘Second Samuel 7 (cf. 1 Chr 17) closely links the need to build a temple (7:12–13) with the following aspects of Genesis 1:28: (1) ruling and subduing (7:9–16), and (2) a blessing on God’s kingly vice-regent (7:29).’ Through his commitment to David and his dynasty, then, God plans to accomplish his kingdom purposes set forth in the previous covenants, and ultimately reaching back to Eden, namely to plant his people in his place under his kingship.
It appeared that in David and his offspring, particularly in Solomon, God was fulfilling his covenant promises to re-establish his kingdom (1 Kgs 8:56). His people dwelt peacefully in the land – with God dwelling at the centre – under the wise leadership of the divinely anointed king (1 Kgs 1 – 2). Israel, like Adam, subdued the nations and enjoyed rest from their enemies (1 Kgs 8:56). For instance:
The narrative describes the uniqueness of this new Israelite king and his superlative wisdom to solve social problems (1 Kgs 3), to promote justice and righteousness (1 Kgs 3:16–28) and to explore and name his Creator’s world, in much the same way that Adam did in the garden of Eden (Gen 2:19–20; 1 Kgs 4:32–33 [MT 5:12–13]).
In other words, dominion had been regained. Moreover, in fulfilment of the promises to Abraham, Israel dwelt securely in their land, was a multitudinous nation and experienced God’s blessing and presence as well as the blessing of the nations. And, finally, in fulfilment of the Mosaic covenant, Israel enjoyed their status as God’s treasured possession, a kingdom of priests who mediated God’s rule and presence to the world. At last, it seemed, the Lord was finally fulfilling his teleological objectives through his promise of a Davidic son who would come as God’s viceregent to exercise royal rule over God’s people in his Promised Land, and thus extend God’s rule, presence and blessing to the nations.
The kingdom through the new covenant
The previous divine covenants culminate in the new covenant, for this covenant encapsulates the key promises made throughout the Old Testament era (e.g. a physical inheritance, a divine–human relationship, an everlasting dynasty, blessing on a national and international scale). Hence there are certain elements of continuity between the prior covenants. For example, the new covenant is made to the ‘house of Israel’ and ‘house of Judah’; that is, with the whole people of Israel (Jer. 31:31); it emphasizes obedience (Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:25–27; Isa. 42:1–4; 51:4–8); it focuses on offspring (Jer. 31:36; 33:22; Ezek. 36:37), particularly on a royal seed (Jer. 33:15–26; Ezek. 37:24–25; Isa. 55:3); and, in the end, it will fulfil the repeated covenant refrain ‘I will be their God, and they shall be my people’ (Jer. 31:33; cf. 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 32:38; Exod. 29:45; Lev. 26:12; Ezek. 11:20; 37:23, 27). Therefore, though it introduces something new in God’s purposes for his people, it must not be viewed in opposition to the previous covenants.
Despite its continuity, however, it is not like the previous (Mosaic) covenant (Jer. 31:32). The new covenant will secure the transformation of the heart from the inside out (Jer. 31:33a; Ezek. 36:26), a more intimate relationship with God than ever before, for they shall all know Yahweh (Jer. 31:33b–34; Ezek. 36:27), and an infrangibility unlike the Mosaic covenant (Jer. 31:32). All of these new covenant blessings will come because God will provide full and final forgiveness of sin (Jer. 31:34; Ezek. 36:29, 33). Furthermore, the emphasis of the new covenant, described in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, is primarily national. However, both allude to its international significance, and its universal scope is depicted most clearly in Isaiah. Furthermore, the new covenant projects the fulfilment of God’s promises, namely to make a worldwide people for God, on to a suffering Servant, an ‘ideal Israel’, in a new heavens and new earth (Isa. 65:17; 66:22). This fulfilment comes through a covenant enacted on better promises because of the One, the obedient Son, who fulfils it (Heb. 8 – 10).
Israel’s Adam-like status, however, was short-lived, as sin devastated David’s dynasty until the united kingdom came to a tragic end. And, as a result of the kings’ repeated failures, an expectation grew among Israel of the need for God’s saving righteousness and of a messianic figure who would deliver the nation from their foreign rulers and usher in God’s blessings. Hence prophetic anticipation was building for a new work that would fundamentally change Israel’s relationship with God and their place and status in the world.
The king(dom) of God is at hand: the beginning of the end
What begins in the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New. Indeed, all of God’s promises come to a head in Jesus Christ, who fulfils God’s saving promises. For example, Luke records Jesus’ quoting of Isaiah 61:1–2 at the beginning of his ministry:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.
(Luke 4:18–19)
Jesus then declares that the time of fulfilment for Isaiah 61 is now, when he says, ‘Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing’ (Luke 4:21). Hence the centrality of the kingdom in the New Testament signals that the time of the long-awaited fulfilment has definitively begun.
The signs that the kingdom of God had arrived in the person and mission of Jesus are numerous. For example, Jesus cast out demons (Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20), demonstrated victory over Satan (Luke 10:18), performed miracles (Matt. 11:2–5), bestowed forgiveness (Mark 2:10; cf. Isa. 33:24; Mic. 7:18–20; Zech. 13:1) and proclaimed that the eschatological promises of the kingdom had come (Matt. 11:5; Mark 1:15). In fact, the position of Mark 1:15 within the structure of the text indicates that the proclamation of the kingdom of God was at the heart of Jesus’ preaching. Luke teaches the presence of the kingdom when he recounts how the Pharisees ask Jesus when the kingdom of God is coming. Jesus responds by saying, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, “Look, here it is!” or “There!” for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you’ (Luke 17:20–21). Instead of looking for spectacular outward signs of the presence of a primarily political kingdom, Jesus is saying that the Pharisees ought to realize that the kingdom of God is presently in their midst, in the person of Jesus himself, and that faith in him is necessary for entrance into it.
Outside the Gospels, the New Testament also confirms the arrival of the kingdom. In Acts, argues Alan Thompson, though ‘there are not a large number of references to the kingdom of God, their strategic placement and contexts indicate an importance that outweighs the number of occurrences of the phrase’ (Acts 1:3, 6; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). For instance, the references to the kingdom at the beginning and end (1:3, 6; 28:23, 31), the emphasis on the comprehensive teaching of the kingdom attached to these references, the explanation of the kingdom by Jesus to his disciples, and the fact that Luke ends on the subject of the kingdom of God collectively show that these verses frame the entirety of Acts and serve as a hermeneutical lens through which to interpret it. Likewise, Paul demonstrates the in-breaking of the kingdom as a result of the reign of the risen Christ (e.g. Rom. 4:17; 1 Cor. 4:19–20; 15:20–28; Col. 1:13–14), and that those who inherit the kingdom will evidence it in the present (e.g. 1 Cor. 4:20–21; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5). Furthermore, Paul’s emphasis on the new creation fits with the already–not yet tension. Believers in Christ are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), which has broken into the present as a result of the cross of Christ (Gal. 6:14–15), yet they live in the present evil age (Gal. 1:4; Rom. 8:18–25) and await the resurrection of their bodies in the future (2 Cor. 5:1–10). In Hebrews, believers have presently received the kingdom that cannot be shaken, but a day is coming when things on earth and in heaven will be shaken and removed, and the consummation of God’s purposes will be complete (Heb. 12:26–28).
It appears throughout the New Testament, then, that God’s kingdom has finally arrived in the person and finished work of Jesus, through whom blessings for the nations come. Yet the fulfilment takes place in a surprising way, for God’s saving promises are inaugurated but not yet consummated. That is, the kingdom of God is ‘already but not yet’. For example, in Matthew 6:10 Jesus prays to his Father:
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
In other words, ‘the great prophecies of the manifestation of God’s powerful saving rule will come to pass’. Also, those who do the will of God will enter into the kingdom (Matt. 7:21), but the ones who do not will enter into judgment (Matt. 7:22–23). The parables of the sower, mustard seed and leaven (Matt. 13; cf. Mark 4; Luke 8) are explicitly presented as revealing a mystery, and how Jesus’ kingdom teaching encompasses more than a single catastrophic event. It is here, writes Darrell Bock,
that Jesus makes his distinctive contribution by foreseeing a long-running program that was declared and initiated in his teaching and work, but that will one day culminate in a comprehensive judgment. It is to this goal that the kingdom is always headed. Thus the emphasis in the kingdom teaching of the Gospels is always aimed toward this fully restorative future.
The kingdom is present because the King-Messiah is present, but his reign will not fully and finally be established until his second coming.
Likewise, Paul depicts the kingdom both as present and future. He is confident that the Lord will ultimately rescue and bring him safely into his kingdom (2 Tim. 4:18). He also believes that the unrighteous will not enter the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9). In 2 Peter 1:11 the readers are exhorted to cultivate godly qualities so that ‘there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’. And finally, while the already character of the kingdom is not absent from Revelation, the book looks forward to the end of history when the triumphant Christ will return, reward the faithful and punish the disobedient. Therefore Christians should be challenged and encouraged to live faithfully in the present (2:1 – 3:22) and run with endurance, even in the face of persecution (1:9; 13:10; 14:12).
The New Testament message of the inaugurated, yet not finally consummated, kingdom as a result of the life, death and resurrection of Christ is crucial in connecting the beginning with the end. It is easy to see, then, why the kingdom is a consistent and unifying theme throughout the biblical story line. The kingdom God created in Eden, and, as a result of sin, advanced through each gracious covenant response, has finally arrived in the person and work of Jesus. At the same time, this kingdom awaits its final fulfilment when the kingdom of the world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever (Rev. 11:15).
In the end: the new creation and God’s eschatological kingdom
Scripture begins with creation and ends with a vision of a more glorious creation (Rev. 21 – 22). Between these two accounts lies the history of redemption. The correspondence between the beginning and the end is staggering. Not only is eschatology like protology, but also eschatology escalates protology. That is, the end will echo the beginning – creation as God originally designed it to be. But the end will also bring something qualitatively better. In the description of the new heaven and new earth, no one can fail to see that here primal time and end time correspond to each other. The end time is described as creation made whole again. The book of Revelation vividly reveals God’s consummated teleological objectives, which he set out to accomplish from the beginning, and Revelation 21 – 22 gloriously describes the end of history and God’s eschatological goal.
New creation and the king(dom)
In the consummative vision of Revelation, John draws attention to the divine throne (Rev. 22:1–3). The divine throne emphasizing God’s reign is a central theme throughout Revelation, appearing in a number of visions throughout the book. Perhaps the most comprehensive description of God’s rule is found in chapters 4–5, where seventeen of the thirty-four references in the book occur. In fact, Beale calls this glorious vision of God’s throne room the ‘theological heart’ of Revelation. This emphatic cluster testifies to the centrality of God’s sovereign rule, for which he is climactically given glory in 4:9–11 and 5:12–13. In these two chapters, a crucial observation to make with regard to God’s divine rule is the inclusion of Christ, for Christ clearly shares in the identity of God. In other words, there is progression from the beginning of the biblical story line to its end, for by virtue of Christ’s resurrecting blood-bought victory he now shares in his Father’s rule. Certainly, Yahweh has set his King, the obedient Son par excellence, to rule over the nations (Ps. 2:6–12). The establishment of God’s eternal rule, signified by the prominent presence of his throne, is the fulfilment of God’s design from the beginning.
But God’s kingship is not new for those familiar with Genesis 1 – 2. The consummation of God’s rule in the light of the universal history of human failure, though, serves only to highlight what has been restored. God’s ruling presence will fill the city, for ‘the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it’ (Rev. 22:3). Furthermore, those who enter the city will serve and worship him (cf. Rev. 7:15). Humanity, then, will once again function as God’s kingdom and priests (Rev. 1:6), whom Christ has put in service to his Father, which is to be for his Father’s eternal glory and dominion. Therefore the consummation of God’s rule in Christ at the end is qualitatively better than at the beginning, for in the new creation nothing or no one will be allowed to challenge his rule, and there will no longer be anything accursed (Rev. 22:3). The King has come, and the kingdom has been restored.
New creation and the people of the king(dom)
Furthermore, the new creation is the fulfilment of God’s original intent for humanity and the world, which comes through the redemption of Christ. John teaches that the Lord has in fact created an international community of people who will inhabit his new creation. This picture demonstrates the climactic fulfilment of the Abrahamic promises. The promise to Abraham contributes to the larger narrative that Genesis anticipates a future offspring (singular) who will play a central role in establishing God’s plan for the earth. Now this seed, Christ (Gal. 3 – 4), mediates God’s covenant blessings to the nations (Rev. 21:24; 22:2). For example, John declares, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God’ (Rev. 21:3). This declaration echoes the oft-repeated covenant formula sounded throughout the Old Testament. God’s covenants with humanity, then, are at last brought to full realization in the new creation populated by the nations.
Furthermore, the presentation of the new Jerusalem at the end of Revelation includes in its symbolism the new people of God. For example, John describes that on the gates of the new Jerusalem ‘the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed’, and ‘the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb’ (21:12, 14). In this description, the history of both Israel and the church comes to fulfilment in the new Jerusalem. That is, both the Israel of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament have their place as the people of God in God’s final establishment. To consummate God’s teleological plan, then, the new creation is established in order to accommodate his multinational people.
Conclusion
From a canonical perspective, the kingdom of God is a central theme in the Lord’s redemptive plan of establishing his kingdom on the earth. That is, the beginning, middle and end of the biblical story describe the teleological design of God’s people in his place under his rule. Moreover, the biblical-theological structure of the covenants as they unfold across the canon shows how his divinely ordained means will reach his divinely ordained end. But how do we get to the new Jerusalem from Eden? To this question we now turn.