Ed-Nelson.com - A Sequel to Law and Covenant: Kings and Kingdoms

The “Ancient/Future” of the Reign of God:
A Hebraic Perspective of God’s Kingdom
By Ed Nelson

Genesis [Bereishit] 10:10 is where the word “kingdom” [mamlakah] first appears in the Bible. Nimrod, the mighty hunter and first city-builder after the Flood, is credited with an extensive kingdom that embraces the origins of Babylon and Assyria. He is the natural extension of Noah after the Flood. His kingship and kingdom, his rulership of the ruled, is an expected, but misguided consequence of Genesis 9:1-17—the biblical narrative on the origin of God’s law and first covenant. Nimrod, as king with kingdom, or “the executive human law” with covenant people, imitated God.

Human rule: a sequel to the origin of God’s law and covenant. Nimrod is the first human to be called “king.” He rises as the first named “executive man” in the Bible exercising his own law based on God’s law over subject peoples who, left to themselves, were instinctively unruly, unable to live out the law of God. Indeed, they were Nimrod’s “covenant” people, subjects of his reign. No rainbow in the daytime sky was the sign of his covenant, but legend says the constellation Orion was named after Nimrod, the mighty hunter. Indeed, an ancient name of the constellation is “The Hunter.” If true, his sign, too, was in the sky, but only seen in darkness, not daytime. In Nimrod, both God’s law and covenant were humanized by imitation of God’s rule. Man became a legal, covenant-making, god-like king.

The emergence of a new “executive man” executing God’s law was God’s plan as evidenced in Genesis 9:1-7. It was to be an act of obedience to God. The rise and triumph of man over man as a king over human subjects is the perversion of it. It is comparable to the Woman in the Garden telling God somewhat reproachfully that after she ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “the serpent lifted me up [nasha],” i.e., he gave rise to her own self-consciousness and will as an independently “wise” person, something her Creator did not do for her. She saw herself as being fully humanized and wise like God, thanks to the serpent’s encouragement to eat wisely. To her, eating in disobedience to God was not a fall at all, but rather an important emergence to a higher sense of realized humanity. The same is true of Nimrod. His story is an expansion of the disobedience of the first Man and Woman from individuals and a family to a whole society. The authority and power invoked in God’s law and covenant was good to his own tastes, not in his obedience to God’s law, but in his self-assigned authority and power to transpose it for his own purposes. Whereas Man and Woman in the Garden sought human wisdom, Nimrod sought human authority and power as the basis of civilization. Might makes right.

Human kingship arose far beyond the pale of God’s intended purpose of “executive man” to keep God’s law. Human kingship was the beginning of man’s law apart from God’s and man’s covenant apart from God’s. The king understood himself, as did his subjects, a human equal only to God, not in his new-found wisdom as in Adam, but in his new found might enforced by human law and covenant. In Nimrod, “executive man” arose to be a law-giver and covenant-maker, too, enforceable by brute power. God and State became political equals, but separate. State and government under a king began to represent all man needed to know about God. God was altogether apart from man’s ways of human rule. Loving and worshiping the true God was privatized.

The new “executive man,” self-centered in disobedience as shown in Nimrod’s kingship, considered himself God-like in authority and power. But this is not the end of the matter. Just as God banned Man and Woman from the Garden of Eden because of their rise to a new realized humanity in wisdom apart from Him, their lives frustrated and unfinished, God also frustrated the city-builders of Nimrod’s kingdom city of Babel. The kingdom city was originally designed to reach to the sky, but God “came down,” an interesting phrase considering the imagination of their exalted minds, and banned the kingdom city from ever being finished (cf. Genesis 11:1-9). Human authority and power became limited. The awesome power of speech fell into powerless miscommunication. All human kingdoms since have become frustrated in their God-imposed limitations, rising and falling unfinished as humanity moves forward in time and space to confront the gnawing evidence of God’s true kingship and the nature of his authentic kingdom.

As in Adam we all sinned, in Nimrod we find that we all want to be kings in charge of our own destiny as well as that of others. Pride, another word for disobedience to God’s kingship, is the expression of the sense of man’s own kingship, whether he be peasant or wealthy, weak or strong, illiterate or literate. Proud man makes his own rules. To say it another way, prideful man is unruly in regards to other’s rules, ever saying the axiom of human nature, “Rules are made to be broken.” This is the talk of humans who would be king. An unrelenting rule of the Bible, ever being relearned in every generation as if for the first time, is that human pride—man’s sense of independence from God and others—trips him up, both male and female, for a big fall into the vortex of human nature. The greatest fall is death itself, the great minimizer of one’s sense of self worth, turning pride into ashes. After all, we are not supposed to be kings, but, rather, ministers together under one Sovereign over all creation.

God’s kingship and kingdom. In this light, we will inquire about God’s rule and order. Basic to understanding God’s will for humanity and our universe is to apprehend the greater meaning intended in his kingship and kingdom. The concept of God’s reign over his kingdom is central to the theme of the Bible, as well as life. Further, his revelation of Himself in history always is in the context of his rule, or reign, over his kingdom.

Not unsurprisingly, the teaching and preaching of Jesus [Yeshua] to the Jewish people was consumed with his urgent message to repent from their disobedient ways of self-rule and self-determination in light of the nearness of God’s kingdom (cf. Matthew 4:17, 23; 7:21; 12:28). In Him the kingdom of God was “at hand,” but not “in hand,” i.e., definitively not yet “come,” but coming nearer than before. As long as disobedience is in the heart of man, God’s kingdom is not yet come to man, at least for those persons who fail to submit and turn to Him in obedience, the quintessential meaning of repentance. Further, his mighty acts of healings, miracles and exorcisms were done to put the true King’s authority and power on display in Messiah like a convincing spectacle before his audiences. So important was his espousal of the kingdom that He remained on earth forty days after his resurrection, explaining further the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). For his disciples to grasp its significance during this brief span of forty days, He “opened their minds” to expedite their understanding of the Torah, Prophets and Writings (the Tanakh) lest they fail to grasp the meaning and intent of his kingdom (Luke 24:44-45).

The apostle [shaliach] Paul spent his last years in Rome where, “from morning to evening, he was explaining and solemnly espousing to them [the leaders of the Jews] the kingdom of God, and trying to convince them about Jesus [Yeshua] from the Torah of Moses and from the Prophets” (Acts 28:23). Other apostles [shlichim] spoke of the centrality of God’s reign and his kingdom displayed in Messiah Jesus [Yeshua] (James 2:8 “royal Torah”; 5:8; 1 Peter 1:7, 11; 2:9; 1 John 2:28; Jude 4, 25; Hebrews 1:1-4, et al).

Diversity of Hellenistic views. Today, a diversity of views exists among churches about the nature, meaning, purpose, function and future of “the kingdom of God.” What was intended to be the fundamental message of the church [Hebrew, qahal; Greek, ekklesia], i.e., God’s “called out” people in the world, is in some ways dispirited by the lack of understanding of the kingdom and the good news it brings to us. Few church members seem able to explain and espouse a biblical understanding and appreciation for the kingdom of God. If asked to give a comprehensive explanation of God’s kingdom according to the Bible’s teachings, only a small minority respond with a reasoned answer. The general consensus among many Bible teachers today is that the words “reign” and “kingdom” are interchangeable. Is this true? Some identify “the church as interchangeable with the kingdom. Is this true? Are either, or both of these views, true? If not, what is the kingdom of God? We begin there.

Many scholarly works have appeared since the nineteenth century on this critical subject, promoting a wide range of reasoned interpretations (cf. John Bright, A. B. Bruce, Rudolf Bultmann, Martin Dibelius, C. H. Dodd, D. A. Carson, Millard Erickson, R. T. France, F. C. Grant, A, M. Hunter, W. G. Kummel, George Ladd, T. W. Manson, William Manson, Alva McClain, Wilhelm Michaelis, Norman Perrin, James Orr, Herman Ridderbos, H. H. Rowley, Charles Ryrie, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Albert Schweitzer, Johannes Weiss, et al).

While these Bible scholars present a divergence of views about the kingdom, leaving some of us wondering which view, if any, are true, they have common ground. Apart from Rabbinic writers, they all share in common a Greco-Roman worldview and approach to biblical exegesis and interpretation. They depend largely on the Greek text of the New Testament for their interpretations. In major part, the unsettled understanding in the church about the kingdom of God seems to be attributed to this common characteristic of current and past scholars—their thoughts are expressed in terms of preconceived Hellenistic paradigms and philosophical traditions about kings and their kingdoms.

Seeking a biblical, Hebraic understanding. What is needed today to open this subject to its primitive and futuristic implications is an understanding of the kingship and kingdom of God from an ancient Hebraic worldview. What would our understanding be if we thought like ancient Jews before the first century, or even before then to the ancient Hebrews like Abraham and Moses, about the kingdom of God? How different would it be from our churches’ teachings?

This is more difficult to accomplish than it may sound. First, knowing the Hebrew language as many of our non-Jewish Bible teachers understand it is not enough. A deeper change in the way of thinking must occur that moves from a Hellenistic frame of thinking and reference to a Hebraic paradigm. A Gentile scholar or Bible student adept in biblical Hebrew likely will interpret with Hellenistic conclusions while touching the mother lode language (Hebrew) and culture (Hebraic) of the Bible. A deep change within the Bible scholar or student is needed, one so Hebraic that it touches the way one thinks, feels, experiences, understands and expresses life.

Second, adding to the difficulty, modern or medieval Jewish thinking is not enough to get at the pristine and fundamental meaning of the kingdom of God. Many distinguished Bible scholars have turned to the rich heritage of Rabbinic Judaism to help give insight into the Bible. This is welcomed, but has a serious short-coming. Rabbinic Judaism is not the essence of ancient Judaism as sometimes claimed. Ancient Judaism was much broader in its worldview and acceptance of divergent Hebraic ways than Rabbinic Judaism accepts today. For example, ancient Judaism with all its several branches made room for Jesus [Yeshua] of Nazareth as being thoroughly Jewish in his ways, concepts and message about the kingdom of God. Rabbinic Judaism is narrowly exclusive of these wider aspects of ancient Judaism.

Because Rabbinic Judaism fails to embrace ancient Jewish diversity outside the traceable line of the Pharisees, this reveals a glaring weakness in its teachings. Hence, while the Talmud is invaluable to learn Rabbinic thought and practices, it is sectarian and separatist from other Jewish traditions, (e.g., ancient Chasidics, Sadducees, Boethusians, Herodians, Essenes, Nazarenes, Ananites, Karaites, et al). The competent Bible scholar must dig deeper yet into the vast realm of ancient Hebraic perspectives on all things, understanding this diversity and drawing upon it beyond the commonly held Rabbinic worldview.

Third, in the first century and earlier, a diversity of views about the kingdom of God existed within Judaism. Unlike most of our modern Bible scholars and students who tend to seek Greek meanings and explanations of Hebraic concepts and implications, they indulged their Semitic roots for understanding. Their views on the kingdom were largely focused on the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and how to understand the kingdom of God in this light. This is the approach Jesus [Yeshua] took with his disciples. He taught them the Torah first, and then the Prophets and Writings [Tanakh]. Despite all the formidable obstacles, this will be the first step in our quest as we move, first, through the Torah, then to the rest of the books of the Bible.

The Torah on the kingdom of God. What does a Torah only perspective look like? How is it experienced? What does it mean? If we can get a fundamental, commonly held Hebraic view of the kingdom of God from the Torah, then we may understand it better from the watershed of knowledge more or less common to the ancient Hebraic worldview. Judaism, of course, developed from this ancient Hebraic worldview moving forward towards the first century when Jesus [Yeshua] of Nazareth came preaching and teaching that Israel should repent, for the kingdom of heaven was near (cf. Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:14-15).

Besides the three obstacles cited above, a fourth major hurdle occurs immediately in our quest of a Torah only understanding of the kingdom of God. Whether we are Jew or Gentile, we did not live among the twelve patriarchs as members of their family, or as Hebrew slaves in Egypt, or as Israelites in the Sinai Desert wandering for forty years under Moses’ leadership. Experientially, we have a glaring deficit. This deficiency will not be overcome, no matter how many Seder meals or “appointed times” we attend that draws us nearer to this ancient time. Yet we may improve our understanding by considering all possible Torah references to the kingdom of God, direct and indirect.

Key Hebrew words to give perspective. In the Torah are but few direct references to “the kingdom of God,” but none of little significance. The concept of God’s reign and his kingdom is endemic to the whole Torah, as well as the succeeding books of the Bible, i.e., the Prophets and Writings as Jesus [Yeshua] taught, as well as the New Covenant [Testament]. Several key Hebrew words demand examination to give us a framework of information about the kingdom of God.

The word study is divided into three main parts: (1) nouns, or proper names, for God as ruler, or king; (2) words that describe the action and character of God as king; and (3) words that refer to his “kingdom.”

Words referring to Yahweh as Sovereign. In this first word set, all words referring to Yahweh as Almighty and Sovereign are masculine nouns. This is important to recognize up front, because when we review words that refer to his kingdom, we will find them to be feminine. Why is this important? Simply, his kingdom, which is feminine, is complementary to his kingship, which is masculine. The distinction is not arbitrary or artificial in the Hebraic mindset. Wholeness, or oneness, occurs in his kingdom like a marriage unites a man with a woman, bringing them together as one [echad]. The marriage motif between God and his people becoming one [echad], like the theme of God’s kingdom, runs throughout the Bible. We should align these two movements through the Bible in parallel.

Two masculine nouns command our attention about Yahweh being Sovereign. The first is found in the singular as El and in plural as Elohim. The latter title is by far the most common expression of the two in the Torah to describe Yahweh.

El, Elohim The Torah begins with the words: “In beginning, Elohim created …” (Genesis 1:1). Immediately the story of creation is focused on Elohim from before creation. The word El (singular) and Elohim in their variety of forms (in reference to Almighty God) is found at least 190 times in Genesis, 100 times in Exodus, 48 in Leviticus, 21 times in Numbers, 357 times in Deuteronomy for a total of at least 716 times, likely more. The word Elohim, usually translated as “God,” is not the name of God, of course, but is a descriptive noun usually used in the Torah to describe God as being powerful.

The word el is found numerous times in the Torah where it means “power,” or “strength,” of man. For example, in Genesis 31:9 and 29 the following statement is repeated: “It is in my power [el] to do you harm, but the God [Elohim] of your father spoke to me last night, saying, ‘Be careful not to speak either good or bad to Jacob.’” Again, in Deuteronomy 28:32 the word means “strength,” or “power”: “Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, and your eyes shall look and fail with longing for them all day long; and there shall be no strength [el] in your hand.”

The word elohim does not necessarily refer to God either. It also applies to human “rulers”, to kings and princes. For example, in Psalm 82:1 the text reads: “God [Elohim] takes his stand in his own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers [Elohim]. Context of the Psalm clearly shows He judges human rulers over Israel.

What is established in this brief look at the nouns el and elohim is that the word actually means “strong, powerful ruler,” whether used of God as it normally does in the Bible, or as a human ruler who is regarded as being powerful. The notion that God is an all-powerful Ruler, or Sovereign, is clearly intended from the beginning of the Torah. He rules all creation.

melek
The second Hebrew word is the noun melek, derived from the verb malak. Always a masculine noun, it appears 72 times in the Torah. Typically, it is translated as “king,” ruler,” or “prince.” This word is the same word for king whether of God or man. In the Torah it is used in both contexts.

The word melek, like its verb malak, is comprised of three consonants in the Hebrew language—mem-lamed-kaf, or in English, m-l-k. If we look at the formation of the word from Paleo-Hebrew, the earliest formation of Hebrew letters as pictographs, we gain insight into the original meaning of the word. Remember that all letters of the ancient Hebrew aleph-bet had very concrete meanings. The first letter mem, equivalent to our English letter m, was a sign of “many ripples of water,” or “turbulent waters.” It came to mean “mighty,” or “powerful,” like rolling waves of the untamed sea cresting and crushing forward. The second letter lamed, equivalent to the English letter l, was a pictograph of a shepherd’s staff used to train sheep. It was the sign of leadership. The third letter kaf, equivalent to the English letter k, was a sign of the palm of the hand. One of its derived meanings was “to cover,” “to subdue,” or “to tame.” When you put these three letters together to form a word you get the combined idea of “an untamed, unstoppable power with a scepter in his hand to subdue and tame others.” We do not have to stretch our imagination to see the ancient symbolism in the word for a king or ruler—a melek.

The two occasions in the Torah where melek refers to God as king is in Numbers 23 and Deuteronomy 33. The first occasion is when a Gentile prophet named Balaam is commissioned by Balak, king of Moab, to curse Israel. The prophet finds instead that he cannot but speak the favor of God upon the nation to the king’s dismay and irritation. Balaam tells the king that Almighty God says that “He has not observed misfortune in Jacob; nor has He seen trouble in Israel.” Then the prophet clarifies: “The LORD his God is with him. And the shout of a king [melek] is among them.” We think of the king’s shout as the roar of a lion.

Who is this king who, like a lion, roars over Israel against any who would curse or harm it? Balaam responds that “God [Elohim] brings them out of Egypt.” Continuing, he adds, “He is for them like the towering horns [to’aphoth, plural of to’aphah] of the wild ox” (Numbers 23:21-22). Horns have always symbolized authority and power, tokens of a king’s rule often symbolized in his crown. God is being referred to by Balaam as the king of Israel. His observation comes without confusion. He has observed Israel’s encampment in the desert and the terrific cloud of fire above the Tent of Meeting [mishkan] in the midst of the camp. The Gentile prophet became aware of what some in the encampment took for granted.

The second occasion where the word melek refers to God as king is in Deuteronomy 33:5. Moses speaks: “And He was king [melek] in Jeshurun [Yeshurun] when the heads of the people were gathered, the tribes of Israel together,” i.e., when a census was taken of Israel. At that time Israel was found to be upright before God and was called by its holy name, Jeshurun [Yeshurun]. This title of honor is derived from the word yashur which means “straight,” or “upright.” It designates Israel in the ideal state of being an upright people before God. Of this upright people known to God as Jeshurun [Yeshurun], Yahweh declares Himself to be their king. In Deuteronomy 33:26, Moses sings: “No one is like God of Jeshurun [Yeshurun] who rides the heavens to help you, and in his majesty [ga’avah] the clouds.”

Never is a human king called “king of Jeshurun.” Hardly is Israel “straight,” or upright when it chooses to worship idols or follow a human king. No time is Israel called Jeshurun when under a human king’s leadership with the exception of Isaiah 44:2, but that with qualification. The context is found in Deuteronomy 43:22-44:6:

“Yet you have not called on me, O Jacob;
but you have become weary of me, O Israel…
Rather you have burdened me with your sins,
you have wearied me with your iniquities…
Your first forefather sinned,
and your spokesmen have transgressed against me.
So I will pollute the princes of the sanctuary;
and I will consign Jacob to the ban,
and Israel to revilement.

“But now listen, O Jacob, my servant;
and Israel, whom I have chosen:
Thus says the LORD who made you
and formed you from the womb,
who will help you:
do not fear, O Jacob my servant;
and you Jeshurun whom I have chosen.
For I will pour out water on the thirsty
and streams on the dry ground;
I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring,
and my blessing on your descendants;
and they will spring up among the grass
like poplars by streams of water.
This one will say, ‘I am the LORD’s’;
and that one will call on the name of Jacob;
and another will write on his hand,
‘Belonging to the LORD,’
and will name Israel's name with honor.
Thus says the LORD,
the King of Israel and his Redeemer,
the LORD of hosts:
I am the first and I am the last,
and there is no God [Elohim] besides me.”

Words describing Yahweh’s sovereignty. In listing the next set of Hebrew words descriptive of Yahweh’s sovereignty, we will begin with the verb malak that corresponds to the noun melek.

malak
The word malak is usually translated in our English Bibles as “to reign,” as a sovereign reigns supreme over his kingdom. Like the Hebrew word for “king,” the word melek, it is comprised of the same three consonants. Again, these consonants are mem-lamed-kaf, or, in English, m-l-k. Only the sound in pronunciation is different between the two words—melek for “king” and malak for the verb “to rule supreme,” or “to reign” as king. Interestingly, the verb appears only once in the Torah, and it is in direct reference to the supreme rule, or reign of Yahweh in the past and in the future. After the people of Israel crossed through the Yam Suph (Reed Sea) on dry land, Miriam, the sister of Moses danced and sang: “The LORD rules supreme [yimlok, “reigns”] always [le’olam, literally, ‘in respect to the ancient and future’] and forever [va’ed, literally, ‘and in respect to the ancient to perpetuity’]” (Exodus 15:18).

to’aphah
The next Hebrew word describing Yahweh’s sovereignty is to’aphah, or in its plural form, to’aphoth. The feminine noun refers to the towering horns of a wild ox. It is to be distinguished from all other words translated as “horn” in the Torah:

• qeren (of rams, the four horns of the altar, and the rule of Joseph’s two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh)
• yovel (ram’s horn, a wind instrument)
• shophar (ram’s horn)

Horns are symbols of authority and power, of mastery and domination over others. The likening of God’s supreme rule as Almighty King to the symbol of towering horns (to’aphoth) occurs in the Torah only in the two following verses:

1. “God brings them out of Egypt. He is for them like the towering horns of the wild ox (Numbers 23:22).
2. “God brings him out of Egypt, He is for him like the towering horns of the wild ox (Numbers 24:8).

Both verses are essentially the same, except Numbers 23:22 refers to the people of Israel in the plural as “them” and the other verse speaks of the people as a single unit, “him.” In these two passages that refer to the power of Yahweh, He is understood to be an untamed king, subject to no one. His rule is not like the rule of a ram whose horns can be taken away and made into wind instruments. Yahweh is unconquerable, wild as a wild ox, with unbridled, unsubdued and towering strength and power. But He is good to his people.

ga’avah
The next Hebrew word that helps us appreciate the kingdom of God as instructed from the Torah is ga’avah, a noun meaning “majesty.” The idea of “majestic swelling” and “surging forth in unbounded confidence” is connected to this word. In a negative sense, the word refers to the puffing up or swelling pride of the wicked and arrogant. In the positive sense, it is attributed only to God. His majesty is surges forth without equal, incomparable and unsurpassed. He is God alone. There is no other, and his favor is upon his people Israel who are upright in his sight—those whom He calls ideally as “Jeshurun [Yeshurun],” the “upright ones.”

In Deuteronomy 33:26, Moses sings: “No one is like God of Jeshurun [Yeshurun] who rides the heavens [i.e., above all others] to help you, and in his unsurpassing majesty [ga’avah] the clouds [i.e., above all others].”

kavod
Another word in the Torah describing God’s kingship is kavod, a noun referring to God’s brilliant, blazing “glory.” Two spellings of kavod appear in the Torah. The first has three letters written in English as k-v-d, without vowels. This means “heavy,” “weighty,” or “burdened down.” A human king measured his “glory,” or weight of majesty by the heaviness of his treasury. But k-v-d is not the spelling of kavod used in regards to God’s immeasurably weighty glory.

When used in the Torah to mean God’s “immeasurably weighty glory,” the word is spelled with an additional letter—a vav written as a holem—to distinguish the “o” sound as k-v-o-d. This latter spelling appears ten times in the Torah and always refers to God’s brilliant, fiery glory when He appears to Israel (cf. Exodus 16:7, 10; 24:16, 17; Leviticus 9:6, 23; Numbers 14:21; 16:19; 17:7; 20:6).

The four letter spelling of kavod in reference to God’s glory versus the three letter spelling for a man’s glory, distinguishes the weight of God’s majesty as immeasurably supreme over any human king. This four-letter spelling gives us a view of the Torah about Yahweh’s kingship as over and beyond all other glories this world has or will know.

le’olam va’ed
Next in this group of words is the Hebrew phrase le’olam va’ed. This phrase combines two Hebrew words to bear a double witness about Yahweh’s supremacy as king. The words are ‘olam and ‘ed. They are written together as le’olam va’ed, often translated into English as “forever and ever.”

Miriam, the sister of Moses danced and sang:

“The LORD reigns always [le’olam, literally,
‘in respect to the ancient and future’] and forever [va’ed,
literally, ‘and in respect to the ancient to perpetuity’]” (Exodus 15:18).

The difficulty in translating le’olam va’ed is that it refers to both ancient times and future times in both the words ‘olam and ‘ed. In English it is easier to render the phrase, “forever and ever,” “from eternity to eternity,” or “always and forever.”

The word le’olam is actually the word ‘olam with a prefix attached. The prefix le- means “to,” “towards,” “for,” “belonging to,” “according to,” “in regard to,” or “in respect of.” Generally, it represents a movement towards or respect of something.

The word ‘olam to which the prefix le- is attached may mean an ancient past, like the ancient mountains, or it may refer to futurity, or to continuous, unending existence. Which is it, ancient or future? The prefix le- helps us. We are now able to glean from Miriam’s song how she celebrated Israel’s deliverance from Egypt at the hand of God. She saw the reign of Yahweh as a movement forward to the distant, unending future in respect to his ancient, unfathomable past in eternity. She declares his reign to be like his name Yahweh—the One who is, who was, and is to come. He is praised as the eternal king, unchanging from yesterday, today and forever. He is king always, regardless of what happens in the created world order.

The complimentary word va’ed is actually the word ‘ed with a connective prefix va- attached. The prefix va- means “and.” It connects the previous statement with the next one—va‘ed. The noun ‘ed comes from the verb ‘adah which means “to pass on,” “to advance.” In this respect, the noun ‘ed is the advancement of past time, of future time and of continuous existence.

Why then are these two words, ‘olam and ‘ed, put together in one phrase if they mean the same thing? The answer is that they are variations of the other. The emphasis of ‘olam is the distant past or the distant future, or continuous existence. The preposition le- attached to it as a prefix moves it forward. The word ‘ed does not need the preposition attached to it because it already means “to advance,” “to pass on” from the ancient past to the distant future, including continuous existence. Thus, they complement each other and remove any doubt as to what is meant—He who is, was, and He shall be, and He reigns now, always has, and always will. Therefore, we may express the reign of God in the unusual but correct way as “the ancient kingdom of the future,” or “the future kingdom of the ancient,” or “the ancient/future of the kingdom of God” in the sense of continuous existence.

Words describing Yahweh’s kingdom. In this group of words, all words describing Yahweh’s kingdom are feminine.

malkuth
In passing we will mention the Hebrew word malkuth, also derived from the verb malak. A feminine noun, its range of meanings includes the words “royalty,” “royal power,” “reign,” and “kingdom.” In the Torah it is never used to describe the sovereignty of Yahweh. Its single use in the Torah is found in Numbers 24:7 where it refers prophetically to a future human king named Saul, the first human king of Israel. Balaam says:

Water will flow from his [Israel’s] wells,
and his seed will be like seeds planted by many waters.
And his king shall be higher than Agag,
and his kingdom shall be exalted.

Saul, Israel’s first human king, defeated King Agag of Amalek. After his reign ended, his successors, David and Solomon achieved even greater triumphs and recognition. We should observe that the Saul’s kingdom was defined by the fact that he had people under him as his subjects. A king without subjects is not a king, nor does he have a kingdom.

mamlakah
Another Hebrew word that describes the sovereignty of Yahweh is the word mamlakah, derived from the verb malak. A feminine noun, it always occurs in the singular form except once. It means a “reign,” sovereignty,” “dominion, or “kingdom”. It is found eleven times in the singular usage (Genesis 10:10; 20:9; Exodus 19:6; Numbers 24:7; 32:33; Deuteronomy 3:4, 10, 13; 17:18, 20) and once in the plural form mamlekoth (Deuteronomy 28:25).

The first time this word for “kingdom” appears in the Bible is in Genesis 10:10 where the reference is to Nimrod:

The beginning of his [Nimrod’s] kingdom [mamlakto] was Babel
and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
From that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh
and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh
and Calah; that is the great city.

A similar usage is found in Genesis 20:9 where King Abimelech confronts Abraham about misleading him about Sarah being his wife:

Then Abimelech called Abraham and said to him,
“What have you done to us?
And how have I sinned against you
that you have brought on me
and on my kingdom [mamlakti] a great sin?
You have done to me things that ought not to be done.”

The third time the word mamlakah if found in the Torah is refers exclusively to the way Israel appears to Yahweh as a kingdom of priests. The Lord speaks to Moses to tell Israel:

…and you shall be to me [tihyu-li] a kingdom [mamleketh] of priests [ kohanim, “ministers”]
and a holy nation [goy qadosh] (Exodus 19:6).

This is the choice word among the others that explains the meaning of a kingdom according to the Torah. The direct implication of Exodus 19:6 is that God is king over Israel, and the holy nation is to be to Him a kingdom of priests subject only to Him.

A common thread throughout the Torah about the meaning of the word mamlakah is that it refers in every instance to the people enjoined and subject to a king. Any kingdom, whether it be Nimrod’s, Abimelech’s or Yahweh’s, is expressed in terms of people and their roles and relationships under their ruler. The king, in each instance, is not the kingdom, though it is his possession. “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests,” Yahweh says to Israel. His subjects are the ones who make up the kingdom, but always under the king’s rule.

What is different about Israel’s king is that He is Yahweh who ranks infinitely above all creation and all other kings and kingdoms. No other kingdom has all its subjects as priests, or ministers. Such is the offer and promise of God to have a kingdom of priests.

Learning from these key Hebrew words. If we summarize our initial findings from this word study of these key words from the Torah about the kingdom of God, we find these common aspects of the kingdom:

1. From the creation story in Genesis 1, we learned that God is the true Elohim, all-powerful without equal. 2. From Miriam’s song in Exodus 15 where we encountered the verb malak, “to reign,” and the phrase le’olam va’ed, we learn that God reigns supreme according to his unchanging name Yahweh as the One who is, who was, and is to come, from the ancient past, today, to the distant, unending future.
3. From the Gentile prophet Balaam in Numbers 23-24 we learned that Yahweh is a king who, like an awesome lion, roars over Israel against any who would curse or harm. Further, Yahweh is unconquerable, wild as a wild ox, with unbridled, unsubdued and towering authority, strength and power. But He is good to his people.
4. From Moses’ song in Deuteronomy 33:27, we gained understanding that Yahweh is without equal in authority and power who, as king of Jeshurun [Yeshurun], helps Israel, and surges forth in unsurpassing majesty above all others.
5. From Moses at Mt. Sinai we learn in Exodus 19:6 that Yahweh is King of Israel, and that Israel is to be his subject as a human kingdom of priests, or ministers, a holy nation, never needing a human king.
6. From the common thread of the word mamlakah running through the Torah, any kingdom, whether it be Nimrod’s, Abimelech’s, or Yahweh’s, is expressed in terms of a subject nation of people and their roles and relationships under their ruler. The king, in each instance, is not the kingdom alone. It is his subjects that are of the kingdom

The first occasion for Israel’s potential to be of Yahweh’s kingdom. As mentioned earlier, the first time Israel is referred to as a people with the potentiality of becoming a kingdom unto God, a potentially holy people, is in Exodus 19:6. At this moment in history standing at the foot of Mount Sinai, the people are not yet a kingdom, or a holy nation. Yet they are redeemed by blood of the Passover lambs, a purchase made by God. They have been called out of Egypt as God’s chosen people. They have entered through the sea on dry land as a national baptism. Indeed, they are delivered from Pharaoh forever. As Stephen preached on the day of his martyrdom, Israel was the “church [Hebrew, qahal; Greek, ekklesia; “called out ones”] in the desert” (Acts 7:38). However, being the “church” [qahal] was not synonymous with being in God’s kingdom.

What’s the difference between being of the church [qahal] and being of the kingdom [mamlakah] of God? People may be of the church and the kingdom simultaneously, of course, but not all of the church, in the sense we understand it in the Sinai Desert, are of the kingdom. All the “called out ones” from spiritual Egypt have the potentiality for being of the kingdom of God as a kingdom of priests, or ministers, but all are not.

God “called out” Israel from Egypt in answer to their cries for deliverance. By the application of the blood of the Passover lambs to their huts’ doors, they were spared the death of their firstborn sons. The act of making them “clean” [tahor] in God’s sight occurred. They were enabled to approach God. They came by way of blood and water, crossing through the sea on dry land as if they were baptized in a national immersion. They were “called out” to Mount Sinai. But something additionally needed to happen that had not yet occurred for God’s “called out ones” [qahal] to become the kingdom of priests that God destined them to be. Being made clean [tahor] was not enough. They also needed to repent [shuv] of their sins of the past, and for their disobedience of God and his leaders, such as Moses. The key phrase was not “Receive forgiveness for the kingdom of God is near,” but “Repent, for the kingdom of God is near.” Forgiveness was not enough. Being made clean [tahor] for an unclean [tamei] past was not enough. Only God could forgive and make a person clean. A forgiven, clean church is not enough. Repentance must also occur on the part of each person, and the whole nation in Israel’s case. If repentance occurs, which is nothing less than giving up one’s sense of independence from God, as dying to self-rule and self-determination and submitting unreservedly and absolutely to God’s rule, then the kingdom comes, i.e., acceptance into God’s kingdom occurs. Repentance is the defining qualification for entry into God’s kingdom of priests, or ministers.

In this passage detailing the gathering of Israel, the church [qahal] in the desert, for the first time at Mt. Sinai after the exodus from Egypt, Yahweh tells Moses their future purpose is to be unto Him a kingdom of priests, of ministers, and a holy nation.

In Exodus 19:3-7 we see the greater context of the story in the literary form of reverse concentric symmetry:

A     Moses went up to God, and Yahweh called to him from the mountain, saying,  
B          “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel:
C               ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how 
                  I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to me.
D                    Now then, if hearing you hear my voice and keep my covenant, 
E                           and become to me my property from all the peoples, 
D¹                   for all the earth is mine [speaking as the earth’s King making covenant]
C¹              And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ 
B¹         These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”
A¹    So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them
        all these words which the LORD had commanded him.

Israel, according to Yahweh’s offer, is to become his willing property, or possession first. Repentance from self-rule, and total submission to his rule was requested and required if Israel became a kingdom of priests to all the nations, a holy nation among all the unholy nations to give light to the nations in darkness. Israel had to surrender all rights to self-governance, self-destiny, and selfish ways. The people had to consider themselves as the sole property of God, his possession. Many in the church today struggle with these same issues whether to surrender totally to God or to maintain some sense of self-rule and self-determination. Lack of total submission to God in Messiah throughout the church in the world is a troubling issue when all things are considered.

Yahweh’s kingdom is forever. All the earth belongs to Yahweh, according to Miriam’s victory song, which includes all its inhabitants. It always will. But few, of course, in the time of the Torah served Him as willing subjects. He was King, of course, before the exodus, and is King today. But, as people then and still today, preference is to live under human rulers and dominions apart from God.

The fact is, as the Torah teaches us, that not until after the deliverance of Israel from Egypt did the potentiality for a willing people “called out” by God exist to be his kingdom. Israel was attractive to Almighty God. He saw the potentiality for an enslaved people to become his kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

Israel’s elders at Mt. Sinai sent word by Moses to Yahweh to tell Him that Israel would be his people, his willing subjects.

All the people answered together and said,
“All that the LORD has spoken we will do!”
And Moses brought back the words of the people
to the LORD (Exodus 19:8).

At this particular moment in time, Yahweh had a kingdom of willing people whom he called his property, his exclusive possession. The question was how long would it take before Israel turned to a Golden Calf to lead them, and then, to a human king to rule so the nation may appear to be like the rest of the nations. The answer is, “Not long.”

Meanwhile, whether Yahweh had a willing people or not, according to the Torah, He reigns forever supreme over heaven and earth. Miriam’s song reaffirms this key understanding of Yahweh always reigning from the most ancient past to the most distant, unending future. She sings in joy that He continuously reigns regardless of how the nations and peoples of the world act in regard to Him.

Reign of God and kingdom of God. Is the reign of God and kingdom of God the same according to the Torah? Yes, and no. Yes, in the sense that because Yahweh reigns it means he has a kingdom. In this sense they are inseparable. No, in the sense that because Yahweh reigns, his kingdom is subject to Him, therefore distinct from Him. We, therefore, find inseparability between the reign of God and his kingdom, and distinctiveness between his reign and his kingdom. Just as Nimrod’s reign is inseparable from his kingdom, it is nevertheless distinct between him and his subjects (cf. Genesis 10:10).

Beyond a Torah only view. Now that we have gained a Torah only understanding and appreciation for (1) the eternal reign of God from everlasting to everlasting, and (2) for the kingdom of God as being people willingly submitted to his reign, we may look ahead to the teachings of the Prophets and the Writings before we consider the New Covenant (Testament) on the subject of the kingdom of God.