Rev 1:6 . In the reading , as well as the variation , the designated is undoubtedly the royal sovereignty of believers, [621] to whom, therefore, Rev 5:10 , a is directly ascribed. [622] Were the reading , which is certainly that of Rev 5:10 , to be received here, upon grammatical considerations, the words could not signify that the redeemed are a “kingdom” in the sense of “a people of kings,” as [623] is “a people of priests,” [624] or “a royal power opposed to the world.” [625] (If this idea is to be reached, we must read either , or, [626] in conflict with all the testimonies, with the Rec., ); but only that the redeemed are the “kingdom” of God, the subjects, and, of course, also the blessed sharers in God’s kingdom. [627]

. These words stand in apposition to . The formal inconsequence that the is in apposition with a supplied from the , [628] each of the two points shows with especial force and independence.

The belongs not only to the , [629] but to the entire conception , as also Rom 15:6 . [630] In the first case, the article must be repeated before the . But, on the other hand, John could not write as Ebrard, according to the analogy of Rev 6:11 , Rev 9:21 , Joh 2:12 , expects, . ., because thus two different subjects would be presented; viz., first, the God of Jesus Christ, and, secondly, the Father of Jesus Christ. [631] “Priests unto God” [632] are the redeemed of Christ, and invested with the kingdom, in no way for the reason that they help to complete the sufferings of Christ; [633] for, while the suffering of believers must be considered the suffering of witnesses or martyrs, just in this is the idea of the suffering of a priest, which belongs absolutely only to one High Priest, [634] surrendered. But the priesthood of all the redeemed [635] lies in this, that they come immediately to God, offer to him their prayers, and further give themselves peculiarly to him in holy obedience and spiritual service. [636] A similar idea occurs, when, in Rev 21:22 , the new Jerusalem appears without a temple. [See Note XXII., p. 124.] ; viz., , . . ., therefore Jesus Christ. To , . . ., is understood. [637]

[621] Rev 1:9 ; Rev 17:12 ; Rev 17:17-18 ; Luk 1:33 ; Luk 19:15 ; cf. also Dan 7:22 ; Dan 7:27 .

[622] See Exposition, in loco .

[623] Exo 19:16 ; 1Pe 2:9 .

[624] Hengstenb.

[625] Klief.

[626] Keil on Exo 19:6 .

[627] De Wette, Ebrard.

[628] Cf. Rev 5:5 .

[629] De Wette, Ebrard.

[630] Cf. Gal 1:4 ; 1Th 3:7 ; Winer, p. 121.

[631] Cf., in general, Joh 20:17 .

[632] Col 1:24 ; Ebrard.

[633] Col 1:24 ; Ebrard.

[634] Heb 7:27 ; Heb 10:14 .

[635] Cf. Dan 7:18 ; Dan 7:27 , where to the is ascribed the .

[636] Cf. Rom 12:1 .

[637] De Wette, Hengstenb. Cf. 1Pe 4:11 .

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XXII. Rev 1:6 .

On the relation of to the preceding verse, Plumptre refers to the consecration, as priests, of Aaron and his sons, by the sprinkling of blood, and adds: “The two ideas of being cleansed with blood, and of entering on a priest’s work, were accordingly closely linked together. But, in that baptism of blood of which St. John thought, the washing was not limited to any priestly family, but was co-extensive with the whole company of believers. They, therefore, had become what the older Israel of God was at first meant to be in idea and constitution, ‘a kingdom of priests.’ That sprinkling of blood upon the whole people, before the great apostasy of the golden calf, had been the symbol that they, too, were all consecrated, and set apart for their high calling (Exo 20:6 ; Exo 20:10 ; Exo 24:8 ). So John (in this instance, also following in the track of the Epistle to the Hebrews) looked on the true priests’ work as not limited to any order of the Church’s ministry.”

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

[EXCURSUS ON THE BASILEIA, Rev 1:6.]

By the American Editor

[The expression Kingdom of God (and its manifest synonyms, Kingdom of Heaven.31 The Kingdom, Kingdom of Christ, etc.) is of most frequent occurrence in the New Testament, and apparently of greatest importance. It is the phrase employed to designate that(1) which the Baptist heralded (Mat 3:2); which our Lord, in the beginning of His ministry, proclaimed as at hand (Mat 4:17; Mar 1:14); (3) to the exposition of which His life before His Crucifixion was mainly devoted (Luk 4:43, and the Gospels pass.); (4) concerning which He gave preminent instruction throughout the forty days that followed His Resurrection (Act 1:3); (5) which He sent forth His disciples to herald before His Passion (Mat 10:7; Luk 9:2; Luk 10:9); (6) concerning which His ministers, after His Ascension, went everywhere giving instruction (Act 8:12; Act 14:22; Act 19:8; Act 20:25; Act 28:23; Act 28:31; and the Eps.

It might naturally be supposed that some one objective would be represented by this oft-recurring and apparently important phrase, and yet there is no expression which the great mass of interpreters regard as having been used in so many varied and mutually exclusive senses. In some instances it is represented as designating something established on earth in New Testament times, either before the Crucifixion, or at the Ascension, or on the day of Pentecost; in others (and by the same interpreter), as something to be established in the future. Where it is regarded as indicating something already establishedin some instances it is viewed as representing true religion in the heart; in others, the vital Church; and in others still, the apparent Church. Where viewed as designating something futuresometimes it is held to signify the millenial era on earth; and sometimes the Kingdom of glory in Heaven. Dr. Robinson, who may be regarded as a representative of the most numerous school of evangelical interpreters, and who, through his Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries, exerts a most powerful influence upon the theological thought of the ministry of this country, under the title , thus writes: We may therefore regard the kingdom of heaven, etc. in the New Testament as designating in its Christian sense, the Christian dispensation, or the community of those who receive Jesus as the Messiah, and who, united by His Spirit under Him as their Head, rejoice in the truth, and live a holy life in love and communion with Him. This spiritual kingdom has both an internal and an external form. As internal, it already exists and rules in the hearts of all Christians (it is then a principle.E. R. C.) and is therefore present. As external, it is either embodied in the visible church of Christ, and in so far is present and progressive; or it is to be perfected in the coming of the Messiah to judgment and His subsequent spiritual reign in bliss and glory, in which view it is future. But these different aspects are not always distinguished, the expression often embracing both the internal and external sense, and referring both to its commencement in this world and its completion in the world to come. In his following digest of passages he gives instances of all these alleged uses. Now it is evident that a dispensation, a principle, and a people actuated by that principle, are distinct, mutually exclusive objectives. To suppose that they were designated by one and the same expression, and that expression manifestly one of the most important in the Book of Life, is to attribute to the inspired writers a looseness in the use of language which, to say the least, would be thought strange in an uninspired teacher, and which, in the case of men writing under the influence of the Spirit for the instruction of the Church in all ages, is scarce conceivable. To such a supposition we should be driven only by most urgent considerations. The question naturally arisesIs there not some one objective which the expression may be regarded as indicating in each instance of its occurrence, and which objective shall satisfy all the demands of the expressiongrammatical and contextualin all its occurrences in the word of God? If such an objective can be set forth, it must, manifestly, be regarded as the one contemplated by the Spirit of the Lord. The writer believes that there is such an onecomplex indeed, as is the objective of the term Churchbut which, in all its fullness, may be regarded as designated by the expression wherever it occurs.To the exposition of that objective this Excursus is devoted.

As preliminary, however, to this consideration of the nature of the Basileia (which, for the sake of precision, that Kingdom of God heralded by John and preached by Jesus will, in this article, be styled) it will be necessary to discuss another topic, viz.: its futurity. The generally received opinion that the Scriptures teach that it, in some one of its phases, was established in the days of our Lord, or shortly after His Ascension, lies at the basis of the prevalent idea as to its nature; and, consequently, until that opinion is at least shaken, and several of the texts which, almost without question, are assumed so to teach, are shown to have no such force, it cannot be expected that due weight will be given to those expressions which set forth its nature in language inapplicable to aught that now exists, or has ever existed, on earth.

I. THE FUTURITY OF THE BASILEIA

Before presenting the scriptural argument it is proper to premise that
(a). The fact that the natural Kingdom of God includes the earth as a revolted province, affords no proof that the Basileia prophesied by Daniel as future was established by Jesus. That natural Kingdom existed from the beginning.

(b). The mere fact that the existing order of things on earthan organized Church, grace in the heartcan be spoken of as a Kingdom, does not imply that the Basileia has been established; a similar state of things existed when Daniel prophesied of the establishment of the Basileia as future.

With these remarks we proceed to the argument.
1. Our Lord and His Apostles at every stage of New Testament history referred to its establishment as future:
(1). Indefinitely as to accompanying event (only the leading passages will be cited): Jesus preached that it was at hand (i.e., not then established) Mat 4:17; Mar 1:14 : He taught His disciples to pray Thy Kingdom come, Mat 6:10; Luk 11:2 : He sent them forth to preach the coming Kingdom, Mat 10:7; Luk 9:2; Luk 10:9 : near the close of His ministry He spake a parable for the instruction of those who thought it should immediately appear ( ), Luk 19:11 : in the institution of the Supper He again and again referred to its futurity Mat 26:29; Mar 14:25; Luk 22:16-18; Luk 22:24-30 : it is declared that, after the Resurrection, He opened their (the Apostles) understanding, that they might understand the scriptures (Luk 24:45), and also that He was seen of them forty days, (and) speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, Act 1:3;on the last day of His sojourn with them, they, illuminated and instructed, asked a question, Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore the Kingdom unto Israel, evidently based upon the belief that it had not already been established, and He gave an answer that implied the correctness of that belief; is it conceivable either that they were mistaken, or that, if they had been, He would have so answered as to confirm them in their mistake? The Apostle James speaks of believers as heirs of a promised Kingdom, Rev 2:5 : Paul, of his being preserved unto Gods heavenly Kingdom, 2Ti 4:18; of inheriting the Kingdom, 1Co 6:9-10; 1Co 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; of his fellow-workers unto () the Kingdom, Col 4:11 : Peter exhorts believers so to walk that they might enter into the everlasting Kingdom, 2Pe 1:11.

(2). By representing it as synchronous with the second glorious Advent of the Messiah: This intimation was first given by Jesus just before the Transfiguration and after He had begun to show to His disciples that the first Advent was to be one of humiliation, comp. Mat 16:21; Mat 16:27-28; Mar 8:31; Mar 8:38; Mar 9:1; Luk 9:22; Luk 9:26-27. It is evident from a comparison of our Lords last discourse (the Greek text) on the Mount of Olives (Matthew 24, 25; Mark 13; Luk 21:5-33), with the LXX. of Daniel (Dan 7:9-17, Dan 9:27, Dan 12:1-13), that He had those prophecies in view throughout; and that He, as did Daniel (Dan 7:13-14), connected the establishment of the Basileia with a future glorious Advent of the Son of Man; comp. Mat 24:3; Mat 24:27; Mat 24:30; Mat 24:39; Mat 25:1; Mat 25:31; Mat 25:34; Mar 13:26; Luk 21:27-28 (and note especially) Rev 31: see also 2Th 1:5-10; 2Ti 4:1. (There was probably an allusion to this in the institution of the Supper; comp. Mat 26:29; Mar 14:25; Luk 22:16; Luk 22:18, with 1Co 11:26).

2. Jesus implied that the offer of immediate establishment was withdrawn from the Jewish Church because of its rejection of Him, and that the establishment itself was postponed; comp. Luk 19:41-44 (the weeping over Jerusalem and the accompanying remarks) with the subsequent addresses in the temple, Mat 21:23 to Mat 23:39, especially Mat 21:42-43, Mat 23:37-39. The preceding scriptures do not in themselves imply more than the withdrawal of the offer from the Jewish Church, in order to an immediate establishment amongst Jewish and Gentile converts; but, in connection with the words of Jesus referred to under the preceding head, the implication of an indefinite postponement becomes manifest. This view finds confirmation in the prediction of the humiliation of the Church until the day of Christs glorious appearing, 1Pe 4:13; (see also Act 14:22; 2Ti 2:12; 2Ti 3:12, etc.).

3. There is no critically undisputed passage in the Scriptures which declares, or necessarily implies, even a partial establishment in New Testament times (Rev 1:6, is not contemplated in this argument, as the correct reading is uncertain).

The passages which have been referred to as proving the doctrine of a present establishment may be divided into two classes, viz.: those which it is alleged (1) logically imply it, (2) directly declare it. These will be examined in the order indicated. It should be distinctly noted that it is not denied that many of these passages are consistent with the hypothesis of a present establishment. All that is now claimed (save in reference to one or two of them) is that they are also consistent with the hypothesis of an entirely future establishment.

(1). Those passages which, it is alleged, logically imply a present establishment of the Basileia.

a. Those in which our Lord, and others, declare it to be near (), as Mat 3:2; Mat 4:17, etc. Admitting that any reference in argument to the distinction between prophetic and historic nearness would, in this connection, be out of place, it is enough to say that the offer of an immediate establishment, an offer subsequently withdrawn because of virtual rejection, fully satisfies all the requirements of the language referred to.

b. Those which declare that Jesus was a King, Mat 2:2; Mat 21:5; Joh 1:49; Joh 18:37, etc. Reference need only be made to the manifest distinction between a King de jure and a King de facto. He was born King of the Jews, and yet confessedly for thirty years He did not establish His Kingdom. A similar explanation may be given to the fact that believers are styled a , 1Pe 2:9. (The fact that He is now exalted to the throne of universal dominion, Eph 1:20-22, no more proves that the Basileia is now established on earth, than did the universal government of God in the days of Daniel prove that the Kingdom of God was then established on earth. We must distinguish between a Kingdom on earth, and a Kingdom over earthwhich includes earth as a revolted province.)

c. The exhortations of our Lord to seek the Kingdom of God, Mat 6:33; Luk 12:31. It is manifest that both these exhortations are consistent with the hypothesis of a future Kingdomas though He had said, So act, that when the Basileia is established you may enter it. Indeed the contexts of both exhortations require that we should put that interpretation upon them: the one in Matt. follows the direction to pray Thy Kingdom come (Rev 1:10), and that in Luke is manifestly parallel with the exhortation to wait for an absent Lord (Luk 1:35-40).

d. The declaration this generation shall not pass, etc., Mat 24:34; Mar 13:30; Luk 21:32. The term is one of the most indefinite in the Greek language. It is used to represent a race of men, a generation (of which three make a century, an age (see Liddell and Scott). Immediately after the preceding utterance our Lord declared that the time of His second coming was concealed (Mat 24:36); is it not probable that, in using this indefinite term, He did so designedly, that no note of time might be given?

e. The declaration of Jesus, There be some standing here, etc., Mat 16:28; Mar 9:1; Luk 9:27. This, according to the opinion of Chrysostom and others (see Lange Comm. on Mat 16:28), may find its fulfillment in the immediately following Transfiguration. In this event the Basileia was not merely symbolized, but in all its glory was for a moment set up on earth (comp. 2Pe 1:16-18).

(2) The passages which, it is alleged, declare a present Basileia.

a. Mat 11:12; Luk 16:16. It is assumed that and are taken in a good sense, as in the E. V. Against this assumption may be urged(a) the established usage of the words: occurs in the New Testament only in the passages under consideration; in the LXX. it occurs (undisputed) ten times, it represents rape (Deu 22:25; Deu 22:28; Est 7:8), the breaking through the barriers around Sinai (Exo 19:24), simple violence (Sir 4:29; Sir 31:24; 2Ma 14:41), urging (Gen 30:12; Jdg 19:7; 2Ki 5:23); the leading idea of the word when applied to persons is, inimical violence; occurs thirty-three times in the LXX., and (with possibly four exceptions) is always used in a bad sense; it represents the violence of the robber, the ravening of the lion and the wolf (Gen 37:33; Lev 6:4, etc.); in the New Testament (besides the instance under consideration) it occurs, Mat 13:19; Joh 10:12; Joh 10:28-29; Joh 6:15; Act 8:39; Act 23:10; 2Co 12:2; 2Co 12:4; in all these instances the idea is that of overmastering force, and in the first four, which (with the one under consideration) are the only instances of its use by our Saviour, it indicates sinful force: (b) The unfitness of the terms, when used in a good sense, to represent the approach of a penitent sinner to Christ: the disciples were captivesnot conquerors; (c) Their unfitness in a good sense, and their fitness in a bad sense, to represent the condition of things then existing. It is true that in the beginning of our Lords ministry the people crowded around Him; but few, however, in the modern sense of the phrase, entered the kingdom; on the occasion indicated by Mat 11:12, the people were deserting Him (Rev 1:12-20), and their leaders were engaged in that system of opposition and persecution that culminated in His crucifixion. Must we not conclude that by these words our Lord intended to indicate that violent opposition to, and ravening upon, the offered kingdom in the person of Him, its representative, which resulted in the withdrawal of the offer (Mat 21:43) and the fearful denunciations of Mat 23:13-39?

b. Mat 12:28; Luk 11:20. The original is both cases is , not (Luk 17:20), nor (Luk 19:11). In the New Testament, with the exception of 1Th 4:15, (?) occurs only in the later, weakened sense of reaching to (Lange Com. on 1 Thess., p. 43, E. V.). The phrase is similar to the one in 1Th 2:16, where, manifestly, it was not designed to represent the wrath spoken of as already poured forth upon its objectsthey were living men, but as having reached unto, overhanging them, comp. also Rom 9:31; 2Co 10:14; Php 3:16; 1Th 4:15, in all which, however, the prepositions are different. The passages under consideration aptly accord with the idea of a near approach of the Basileia to the Jews in the person of Christ, implying an offer of establishment which might be withdrawn; they are equivalent to the declaration of Luk 10:9; Luk 10:11.

c. Luk 17:20-21. This passage, probably, by the advocates of the prevalent theory of the Basileia, is regarded as their most important proof-text, both as to its nature and present establishment. In this portion of the Excursus, only its bearing on the latter of these points is to be considered. In the E. V. there is a difference in tense between the question of the Pharisees and the answer of Jesusthey asking, when the Basileia should come, and He answering, it cometh not with observation, it is within youwhich necessarily implies a declaration of then existing establishment. This difference is altogether unauthorizedboth the question and the answer are in the present; the question of the Pharisees should be translated when cometh () the kingdom of God? The question was asked in the vivid, dramatic present; it manifestly had reference to the future; it would be in defiance of every conceivable law of language to suppose that our Lord, in following the lead of His questioners, intended to indicate a different tense. The question and the answer are but illustrations of that law proper to all languages, but pre-eminently to the Greek, by which a certain future may be represented by a verb in the present; illustrations may be found, Mat 26:2 (after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed, etc.); 1Co 15:42-44 (it is sown in corruption, it is [in the future resurrection] raised in incorruption), (see Jelf, Winer, Khner, and grammarians generally). To the conclusion that the language of our Lord must be understood as having reference to the future, it may also be remarked, we are shut up by the following considerations: The supposition that He indicated an existing Basileia (a) implies that it was set up in (or among) the Pharisees; (b) disconnects His words from the immediately-following address to the disciples, whilst the contrary supposition brings them into manifest and beautiful connection therewith, and with His other utterances.32

d. In this connection may be considered that class of passages which are regarded as teaching the doctrine of a present Basileia from their use of present verb when mentioning it. (Reference is not now had to those in which there is aught in the context that apparently requires the hypothesis of a present kingdomeach of these receives an independent consideration). These passages are: all those parables which thus refer to the Basileia, Mat 13:31; Mat 13:38; Mat 13:44-45; Mat 13:47, etc.; also Mat 11:11; Rom 14:17. These, it is admitted, are all consistent with the hypothesis of a present kingdom; but, under the rule set forth under the preceding head, they are all grammatically consistent with that of a certain future establishment. That there is nothing in the nature of the Basileia as set forth in the parables to require the hypothesis of a present kingdom, but the contrary, will appear in the second general division of this Excursus.

e. Act 2:29-36. It is assumed by many that the exaltation of Act 2:33 constitutes the session on the throne of David of Act 2:30. But the assumption is wholly gratuitous. Nowhere in his sermon did the apostle declare the oneness of the two events; and most certainly the exaltation there spoken of does not imply the session as already existingit may be an exaltation begun, to culminate in a visible occupancy of the throne of David. (The visible establishment by an emperor of the seat of his government in the heart of a once revolted province, does not derogate from his dignitydoes not imply an abdication of government in the rest of his empire.) But beyond this, not only is the assumption gratuitous; it is against probabilities that amount to certainty. The apostle, be it remembered, was arguing with Jews, to prove that the absent Jesus was the Messiah (Act 2:36); he was arguing with those, one of whose most cherished beliefs it was that the Messiah should occupy a visible throne. To suppose that, under such circumstances, he should advance a doctrine at war with this belief without a word of explanation or proof, and that too in a sentence capable of an interpretation consistent therewith, is inconceivable. The interpretation suggested by the writer is confirmed not only by its consistency with the previous teachings of our Lord, but by the address delivered by the Apostle Peter shortly after, Act 3:19-20. The literal translation of the passage referred to is as follows (see Lange Com. and Alford): Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, in order that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send the Messiah Jesus, who was appointed unto you, whom the heavens must receive until the times of the restitution of all things, etc. It is also confirmed by the subsequent teachings of the apostle in his epistles; comp. 1Pe 1:4-7; 1Pe 1:13; 2Pe 1:11; 2Pe 1:16; the and of the I Epistle are manifestly synonymous with the and of the II.

1Th 2:12. The preposition in the Greek is . But since believers on earth are not yet in glory, the whole expression is manifestly proleptical, and the E. V. gives the translation, unto.

Col 1:13. At first glance, the passage apparently teaches that believers are already translated de facto into the Basileia; it may however legitimately be regarded as teaching a de jure translation. Not only does this interpretation bring the passage into harmony with the great mass of Scripture, but it seems to be required by the immediately preceding and succeeding contexts; believers are not yet delivered de facto from the of Satan (Eph 5:12), nor have they yet received de facto, certainly not in completeness, the (comp. Luk 21:28; Rom 8:23; Eph 1:14; Eph 4:30; see Lange Comm. in loc.).

Heb 12:28. The reception of the Basileia herein spoken of manifestly may be de jure. Believers on earth receive a sure title to their future possession.

II. NATURE OF THE BASILEIA

When the Baptist and our Lord began to preach the Kingdom of God is at hand, the subject of their discourse was no novelty. The Jews were then expecting the establishment of a Basileia, which had been foretold by the prophets. The phrases Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, do not indeed occur in exact form in the Old Testament; cognate expressions, however, appear, which may be divided into two classes(1). Those which refer to the natural Kingdom of God over the universe, Dan 4:3; Dan 4:34; Dan 6:26; Psa 145:12-13; (LXX. Dan 3:33, Dan 4:31, Dan 6:27; Psa 144:12-13). (2). Those in which the then future Basileia of the Messiah was predicted, Dan 2:44; Dan 7:14; Dan 7:27, (LXX. as Heb.); allied to the prophecies from which these citations are made, are Isaiah 11; Isaiah 32; Isa 59:20 to Isa 66:24; Psalms 2; Psalms 72, etc. There can be no doubt that the Basileia foretold in the latter class was the one contemplated by Jesus, especially in view of the distinct reference to the prophecies of Daniel, and the quotations therefrom, in His great eschatological discourse on the Mount of Olives.

1. The apparent characteristics of the Basileia as deduced from a normal33 interpretation of the prophecies referred to, are as follows:

It was a government to be established.(1) in a glorious, visible advent of the Son of man, Dan 7:13-14; (2) in the , Dan 9:27; Dan 12:4; Dan 12:13; (3) after a period of great . Dan 12:1; Dan 11:26-27; (4) whose members should be governors (the subject nations were under, not members of the Basileia), Dan 7:18; Dan 7:22; Dan 7:27; (5) as cumenical, Dan 7:14; Dan 7:27, et pass. the other prophecies; (6) as political, in the proper sense of the term, as indicating an external government exercised, as are now merely human governments, over the persons and property of men, (passim the prophecies; (7) whose members should be the saints (spiritually holy ones) of the covenanted people of the preceding on or , Dan 7:18; Dan 7:22; Dan 7:27 (comp. 27, Dan 9:27,Dan 12:4; Dan 12:13); (8) in which righteousness (spiritual and external) should prevail, (pass. the prophecies).

Let it be observed concerning these characteristicsa. That no one is exclusive of any other; all may co-exist in one and the same objective. b. That if fairly deduced from the normal sense of the Old Testament Scriptures they are to be regarded as the true characteristics, unless it can be shown that the New Testament teachers declared that the prophecies are not to be normally interpreted, at least in reference to the points specified. c. That whilst the first six accord with those presented in what is universally recognized as the old Jewish scheme, the 7th and 8th are differentfor the Saints of the covenanted people, the Jews substituted the natural seed of Abraham, and for spiritual, mere ceremonial righteousness.

2. Jesus and the other inspired New Testament teachers recognized the truth of the foregoing characteristics.
They did so not only by positive affirmation in respect to each one; but also by direct condemnation of the Jews for misinterpreting the Scriptures, where they substituted different doctrines, and by silence at times, as well as occasional affirmation, in respect to all those other points on which the Jewish belief accorded with them. (In the following exhibit, for purposes of compactness and distinctness in argument, the 7th and 8th of the characteristics will be considered first, and in the inverse orderthe preceding notation, however, being preserved.)
(8). The Basileia was to be a government in which righteousness (spiritual and external) should prevail.

It is a universally recognized fact that the great mass of the Jews of our Saviours day regarded all righteousness as consisting in ceremonial observance. Our Lord in rebuking this opinion, and in declaring to the people, Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven, (Mat 5:20), proceeded on the ground, not that the true meaning of the Old Testament had been hidden beneath a mystic veil which He came to remove, but that they had made the law of God of none effect (i. e. had set aside its normal interpretation) through their (your) traditions (Mat 15:6). Throughout the whole of His ministry, as lies on the surface of the New Testament, He taught the great doctrine previously taught by the prophets, that into the Basileia nothing impure should enter. (As to the special force, as bearing on this point, of the parables in Matthew 13, 12, 25, see below.)

(7). Whose members should be the saints (spiritually holy ones) of the covenanted people of the preceding on.

The Jews believed that the members of the Basileia were to be selected from the members of the covenanted people of the preceding on, and on this point our Lord uttered no denial. He referred not merely to those then living as entering into the future Kingdom, but to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as having a place therein, Luk 13:28. His teachings manifestly accorded with their beliefs. The Apostle Paul declared, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and, further, that upon those who remain upon earth until the coming of the Lord a resurrection change should pass (comp. 1Co 15:50-52 with 1Th 4:14-17), implying that those who inherit the Kingdom are the changed Saints of a former dispensation.

For the Saints, however, the Jews substituted the ceremonially righteous, and for the covenanted people, the natural seed of Abraham. Both these substitutions Jesus condemned, and that in accordance with the normal interpretation of the Old Testament. The former condemnation and its ground were virtually considered under the preceding characteristic.

As to the latter, the Baptist declared: God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham, Mat 3:9, and our Lord declared to the Chief Priests and Elders, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation (=gentile people) bringing forth the fruits thereof, Mat 21:43. Now, in making these declarations, Jesus and His forerunner were not uttering new revelationsthey were proceeding on the platform of Old Testament Scripture, whose normal sense was ignored by the Jews. It is true that the covenant belonged pre-eminently to the natural seed of Abraham; yet, from the beginning, on the one hand, great branches of that seed had been cast aside; and, on the other, provision had been made for the reception of proselytes, and it had also been prophesied that in process of time Jehovah would call them His people (=) who had not been His people, Hos 2:23. In that portion of the epistle to the Romans (911) in which the Apostle establishes the covenant relations of converted Gentiles, their true engrafting into the covenanted people (Rom 10:17-21), he does not speak of it as a strange thing, but argues it as the fulfillment of prophecy, quoting the prophecy of Hosea above cited (Rom 9:24-26). Manifestly the New Testament teachers not merely approve this characteristic, but the Apostle Paul approves it as in accordance with the Old Testament.

(1). It was to be established in a glorious visible advent of the Son of Man.
This is universally recognized as one of the most prominent doctrines of the Jews. If it had been an error, it is inconceivable that our Lord would not have rebuked it in terms as decided as those employed in reference to other errors. But on the contrary He affirmed it, and affirmed it, manifestly, as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel (see under section 1, (2), of the I. division). The only instances in which it is claimed that He denied it (or spoke of a Basileia as coming in any other mode) are Luk 17:21-22, and those few passages in which He referred to the Kingdom in the use of a present verb. The passage in Luke is best explained as being in harmony with His other teachings (see above), and the other passages, as we have seen, are grammatically consistent therewith.

(2). In the (Dan 9:27; Dan 12:4; Dan 12:13). This was directly taught and in manifest reference to the prophecy of Daniel, comp. Mat 24:3; Mat 24:6; Mat 24:13; Mat 24:34; Mar 13:7; Luk 21:9; Luk 21:31; see also Mat 13:39-40; Mat 13:49, with context.

(3). After a period of great (Dan 12:1; Dan 7:26-27). Confirmed in the New Testament, Mat 24:21; Mat 24:29; Mar 13:19; Mar 13:24; 1Pe 4:12-13; 2Th 1:4-7.

(4). The members to be governors (Dan 7:18; Dan 7:22; Dan 7:27). This was a doctrine never controverted by our Lord; but, on the contrary, He again and again so spake as to manifest that He took its truth for granted. See Mat 19:28; Mat 24:47; Mat 25:21; Mat 25:23; Luk 12:44; Luk 19:17; Luk 19:19; Luk 22:29-30. The counsel that He gave His disciples on the occasion of the ambitious request of the Sons of Zebedee, Mat 20:25-28, and the rebuke He administered at the Last Supper, Luk 22:24-27, cannot be understood as negativing that doctrine. His design on both these occasions was, not to teach that there should be no ruling in the Basileia, but to rebuke the ambitious spirit that seeks after authority for the sake of self, and to teach that the true idea of ruling is that of rendering service. This is evident from the fact that He presented Himself, the acknowledged Master, as their model; and from the further facts that, on the first of the mentioned occasions, He implied that one was to sit on His right hand and another on His left (to share in superior authority), Mat 20:23, and that, in the latter, immediately after the rebuke, He declared to His Apostles that they should sit on thrones, Luk 22:29-30. (See also 1Co 6:2-3; Judges 14, 15; Rev 3:21; Rev 5:10; Rev 20:6; Rev 22:5.)

(5). As cumenical. No one affirms that this characteristic was ever denied by our Lord. It was not, indeed, directly declared by Him that the saints should be associated with Him in the rule of all the earth; it was manifestly implied, however, in His evident reference to the prophecies of Daniel as of normal interpretation without any qualification, and in His association of His disciples with Himself in government, in connection with the known belief of the Jews. It seems to be directly affirmed, 1Co 6:2-3; Judges 14, 15; Rev 20:6.

(6). As political, (i. e., an external government exercised over the persons and property of men).

There can be no question as to the apparent teaching of the Old Testament on this point; all the prophecies bearing on the Basileia present the idea of an external, political government. And it is also universally admitted that the Jews were expecting such a kingdom of the Messiah, an expectation which was shared by the Apostles. It is utterly inconceivable that if they had been mistaken on this point, especially as their mistake was confirmed by the apparent teaching of the prophecies, the Great Teacher would not have distinctly undeceived them. And yet throughout His whole ministry He continually so spake as to leave them in error if they were in error. On the occasion of the Last Supper, He employed language which must have confirmed them in their belief on this point, Luk 22:29-30,a belief not shaken by His forty days teaching on the subject of the Basileia after His resurrection, as is evident from their last question, and in which He must have still further confirmed them by His answer, Act 1:3-7. The alleged instances of His teaching a contrary doctrine will be considered in the following division.

III. Our Lord and His disciples taught no doctrine of the (or a) Basileia (either complete or inchoate) as lacking any one of the preceding characteristics.

It is alleged that this was done in those utterances in which the Basileia is spoken of in the use of a present verb, and also in Luk 12:14; Luk 17:20-21; Mat 13:31-52; Joh 18:36; Rom 14:17. All these passages, it is contended, set forth a Basileia having a merely internal character. As to those texts whose force in this direction is derived merely from their grammatical form, we have seen that they are consistent with the idea of a future Basileia. We have also seen that Luk 17:20-21, is consistent with the theory maintained in this excursus. The other passages will be considered in their order.

Luk 12:14. Who made Me a judge or a divider over you? The kingdom had not then been established; our Lord at that time occupied simply the position of a teacher.

Mat 13:31-52. It is contended that in the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven especially, Jesus taught concerning the Basileia, that it begins silently and imperceptibly in the heart and in the community, and gradually increases. The force of the argument is derived from the assumption that in these parables the thing next to the verb of comparison is that to which the Basileia is comparedthat in one case it is compared to the mustard seed, and in the other to the little leaven which the woman hid. But if this rule hold good in one case, it must in all others; and under its operation we have the kingdom likened (Mat 1:24) to the sower, (Mat 13:45) to the merchant-man, (Mat 20:1) to the householder. (Mat 22:2) to the king, etc. Manifestly, in all these instances, we must pass over the next thing to the verb of comparison, to seek for the object of comparison. Doubtless the true explanation of the phrase the kingdom is likened, etc., is the one given by Alford on Mat 13:24, is like the whole circumstances about to be detailed, i. e., the entire parable presents a truth concerning the kingdom. With this explanation, unity as to the nature of the Basileia (which on the current interpretation is lacking) is brought into this whole series of parables, and these and all the other parables are brought into beautiful consistency with all the other teachings of our Lord. The series in Matt. may be regarded as setting forth that nothing impure, imperfect, or immature, can have place in the Basileiain such case the good grain, the mighty tree, the thoroughly leavened lump, the treasure separated from the field, the pearl, the good fish, will represent it.

Joh 18:36. In this utterance, it is contended that our Lord intended to declare to Pilate that the kingdom He came to establish was not after the manner of the kingdoms of this world, i. e., not external, political. It is admitted that the utterance considered in itself will bear this interpretation; but it will also bear one consistent with the theory herein advocated, especially in view of the introduction of in the last clause of the verse, which may be regarded as a particle of timeMy kingdom is not now established. Which of these interpretations are we to adopt? The one supposes that our Lord whispered into the ear of a heathen (neither the disciples nor the Jews were in the Pretorium, Joh 1:28), the great truth concerning His kingdom, which he had not only concealed from His disciples (hid from them in a bewildering enigma) but a few hours before on the solemn occasion of the institution of the Supper, Luk 22:29-30; but which, also, He continued to conceal throughout the forty days of His subsequent continuance with them, during which time He is represented as speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, Act 1:3, and as opening their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, Luk 24:45! The other interpretation supposes that He spake in consistency with His previous and subsequent teaching.

Rom 14:17. This passage is perfectly consistent with the hypothesis of a merely internal Basileia, but manifestly it is also consistent with the hypothesis of a perfectly holy external government. Meat and drink do not necessarily infer externality, they may refer to mere fleshly enjoyment which has no place in the Basileia as set forth in this excursus.

In conclusion of the whole subject it may be remarked:
(1). If it has been fairly shown that the great mass of Scriptures in which the term Basileia occurs, require as the objective thereof the one set forth in this excursus, then is it utterly illogical, from the possible force of a few scattered passages, which may, without straining, be interpreted in consistency with the others; either, on the one hand, to deny the validity of the objective established, or, on the other hand, to hypothesize a second and variant objectiveto conclude that the term was used ambiguously.

(2). The theory herein defended is not liable to the objection that it presents a carnal or material doctrine concerning the nature of the Basileia. Most certainly the doctrine is not carnal in the bad sense of that term, nor as teaching that gross flesh and blood shall inherit the kingdom; nor is it material save so far as the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is so. It agrees with this latter doctrine in implying that the redemption of Christ respects the body as well as the soul, and also with the doctrine set forth in Rom 8:18-23.

(3). Much important matter bearing on this subject, connected with the scriptural use of the terms , , , , , , , , has necessarily been passed over. Fully to discuss the subject in connection with all these terms would require a volume.

(4). If the foregoing reasoning be valid, increased doubt is thrown upon the reading , Rev 1:6, of this chapter. Should, however, the now generally accepted reading be sustained, the passage may be rendered consistent with the theory herein supported by attributing to a proleptical, or rather de jure, force.

And, lastly, this excursus has been written in a spirit of deep conviction, but not, it is trusted, in one of dogmatism. The writer feels that any man should study so vast and important a subject with the deepest humility and self-distrust, and express his conclusions with the utmost modesty; and he more keenly feels, as he finishes his work, than in the beginning, how unfit he is to grapple with it. If aught of dogmatism should have appeared in the expression of his views, he trusts that it will be attributed to the necessity of his situation, where brevity in expression is of prime importance.E. R. C.]

Footnotes:

[31][The phrase Kingdom of Heaven occurs only in the Gospel of Matthew. That it is strictly synonymous with Kingdom of God is manifest from the following comparisonsMat 4:17 with Mar 1:14-15; Mat 5:3 with Luk 6:20; Mat 13:11 with Mar 4:11, Luk 8:10; Mat 13:31 with Mar 4:30-31; Mat 19:14 with Mar 10:14, Luk 18:16; Mat 19:23 with Mar 10:23, Luk 18:24. Matthew himself uses Kingdom of God five times (Mat 6:33, Mat 12:28, Mat 19:24, Mat 21:31; Mat 21:43). It needs but a glance at these passages to perceive that he uses the phrase as synonymous with the one more frequently employed by him.E. R. C.]

[32][Fully to appreciate this remark, we must appreciate the force of the terms and . The former of these occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and only in one disputed passage in the LXX. Its verbal root, however, occurs several times, and always has the force of close watching or observation (Mar 3:2; Luk 6:7; Luk 14:1; Luk 20:20; Act 9:24; Gal 4:10). In accordance with the meaning of the verb, the Lange Com. (Van Oosterzee) translates : with or under observation, remarking so that it can be recognized and observed by outward tokens, and that one could exclaim with assurance, Lo here! lo there! The translation doubtless is correct, and also, in the main, the accompanying remark. The latter, however, might be so modified as to distinctly set forth the twofold idea of observation(1) as to essence (as that which in itself is visible), and (2) as to manifestation or approach (as the dawn, whose approach is with or under observation). With this modification; not under observation, would mean either without visibility (as the wind), or without the signs of gradual approach (as the lightning). The strict meaning of is within, in the midst of, as in Mat 23:36; that which is men individually, is that which is internal to them individually; that which is them collectively (viewed as one whole), is that which is internal to them as a wholein the midst of themamong them individually. This latter use of the term occurs Xenophon Anab. i. 10, 3 ( ) , etc.. (see Alford in loc.) Now. remembering the close connection in the Jewish mind between the establishment of the Basileia, and the glorious coming of the Son of Mana connection established by the prophecy of Daniel (Rev 7:13-14), and not previously rebuked but approved by Jesus (Luk 9:26-27)let any one hypothesize as the meaning of with the signs of a gradual approach, and of in the midst of, and read the entire passage, Rev 1:20-20. The Pharisees ask our Lord when cometh the Kingdom of God? He answers, It cometh not with the signs of a gradual approach; neither shall they say, Lo here, or lo there, for lo the kingdom of God is in the midst of you. Then turning to His disciples He says: The days will come when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and ye shall not see it. And they shall say to you, Lo here, lo there; go not after nor follow. For as the lightning that lighteneth (flashing) from one part under heaven shineth to the other part under heaven (comes not with the signs of a gradual approach), so also shall the Son of Man be in his day, etc. Does not the very unity perceptible in the entire addressthe vividness of the scene it presentsthe manifest oneness of the doctrine with that elsewhere taught by our Lord, especially on the Mount of Olivesplace the stamp of truth on the hypothesis? Does it not become manifest that this passage, so far from teaching the doctrine of a present establishment of the Basileia, must be numbered amongst those that connect the establishment with the Second Advent?E. R. C.]

[33][Normal is used instead of literal (the term generally employed in this connection) as more expressive of the correct idea. No terms could have been chosen more unfit to designate the two great schools of prophetical exegetes than literal and spiritual. These terms are not antithetical, nor are they in any proper sense significant of the peculiarities of the respective systems they are employed to characterize. They are positively misleading and confusing. Literal is opposed not to spiritual but to figurative; spiritual is in antithesis on the one hand to material, on the other to carnal (in a bad sense). The Literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i. e. according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpretedthat which is manifestly literal being regarded as literal, that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded. The position of the Spiritualist (so called) is not that which is properly indicated by the term. He is one who holds that whilst certain portions of the prophecies are to be normally interpreted, other portions are to be regarded as having a mystical (i. e. involving some secret meaning) sense. Thus, for instance, Spiritualists (so called) do not deny that when the Messiah is spoken of as a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief, the prophecy is to be normally interpreted; they affirm, however, that when He is spoken of as coming in the clouds of heaven the language is to be spiritually (mystically) interpreted (see the quotation from Robinson in the introduction to the Excursus). The terms properly expressive of the schools are normal and mystical.E. R. C.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Ver. 6. And hath made us kings ] To rule in righteousness, to lord it over our lusts, to triumph over and trample on all our spiritual adversaries, being more than conquerors through him that loved us, and laid down his life for us, that we might reign in life by one Jesus Christ,Rom 5:17Rom 5:17 . And surely if (as Peter Martyr once wrote to Queen Elizabeth) kings are doubly bound to serve God, both as men and kings; what are we, for this spiritual kingdom

And priests unto God ] To offer up to him the personal sacrifice of ourselves, Rom 12:1 , the verbal of praise, and real of alms, Heb 13:15-16 . See Trapp on “ 1Pe 2:9 “

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

6 .] and He made (the breaking up of the participial into the direct construction is Hebraistic: so De W., al. “It belongs to the delicacy of the Hebrew diction, to follow up the participle which gives the tone to the sentence by finite verbs, which, through the influence of the relative notion embodied in the participle, are themselves to be taken as conditioning clauses.” Delitzsch on Habak. ( in Hengst .)) as a kingdom (viz. the kingdom of God or of heaven, so much spoken of by our Lord Himself and his Apostles: consisting of those who are His, and consummated at His glorious coming. This kingdom is one in which his saints will themselves reign, see the parallel place ch. Rev 5:10 , where is added: and Dan 7:27 ; but above all the place which is here referred to, Exo 19:6 , ( 1Pe 2:9 )), priests (the was the collective description: is the individual designation. See on the union of the two characters in the individual Christian, the note on 1Pe 2:9 ) to (as belonging to; the Father being the ultimate object of reference, as His will is the origin, and His glory the result, of all that is brought about by the mediatorial work of Christ) God and His Father (to Him who is God and His Father: or, to His God and Father. The former is the more probable here, Ebr. remarks, on account of St. John’s habit of repeating the possessive genitive after words of possession: e. g. ch. Rev 6:11 , . : Rev 9:21 , . , &c.: Joh 2:12 , which is more to the point here, . [ ] . . See notes on the places where the expression occurs in St. Paul (reff. Rom. Eph.), where I have taken the other rendering), to Him be (or, is, belongs : the like ambiguity is found in all doxological sentences) the glory and the might unto the ages (i. e. for ever. See note on Gal 1:5 ): Amen .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Revelation

KINGS AND PRIESTS

Rev 1:6

There is an evident reference in these words to the original charter of the Jewish nation, which ran, ‘If ye will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then shall ye be to Me a kingdom of priests.’ That reference is still more obvious if we follow the reading of our text in the Revised Version, which runs, ‘He made us to be a kingdom, to be priests.’ Now it is unquestionable that, in the original passage, Israel is represented as being God’s kingdom, the nation over which He reigned as King. But in John’s use of the expression there seems to be a slight modification of meaning, as is obvious in the parallel passage to this, which occurs in a subsequent chapter, where we read in addition, ‘They shall reign with Him for ever.’ That is to say, in our text we should rather translate the word ‘kings lip’ than ‘kingdom,’ for it means rather the Royal dominion of the Christian community than its subjection to the reign of God.

So the two dignities, the chief in the ancient world, which as a rule were sedulously kept apart, lest their union should produce a grinding despotism from which there was no appeal, are united in the person of the humblest Christian, and that not merely at some distant future period beyond the grave, but here and now; for my text says, not ‘will make,’ but ‘hath made.’ The coronation and the consecration are both past acts; they are the sequel, certain to follow upon the previous act: ‘He hath loosed us from our sins in His own blood.’ The timeless love of Christ, of which that’ loosing’ was the manifestation and the outcome, is not content with emancipating the slaves; it enthrones and hallows them. ‘He lifts the beggar from the dunghill to set him among princes.’ ‘He hath loosed us from our sins,’ He hath therein made us ‘kings and priests to God.’

I. So, then, we have to consider, first, the Royalty of the Christian life.

Now as I have already observed, that royalty has two aspects, a present and a future, and therein the representation coincides with the whole strain of the New Testament, which never separates the present from the future condition of Christian people, as if they were altogether unlike, but lays far more emphasis upon the point in which they coincide than on the points in which they differ, and represents that future as being but the completion and the heightening to a more lustrous splendor, of that which characterizes Christian life in the present. So there is a present dominion, notwithstanding all the sorrows and limitations and burdens of life; and there is a future one, which is but the expansion and the superlative degree of that which is enjoined in the present. What, then, is the present royalty of the men that have been loosed from their sins?

Well, I think that the true kingship, which comes as the consequence of Christ’s emancipation of us from the guilt and power of sin, is dominion over ourselves. That is the real royalty, to which every man, whatever his position, may aspire, and may exercise. Our very nature shows that we are not, if I might so say, a republic or a democracy, but a monarchy, for there are parts of every one of us that are manifestly intended to be subjected and to obey, and there are parts that are as manifestly intended to be authoritative and to command. On the one side are the passions and the desires that inhere in our fleshly natures, and others, more refined and sublimated forms of the same, and on the other, there is will, reason, conscience. And these, being themselves the authoritative and commanding parts of our nature, observe a subordination also. For the will which impels all the rest is but a blind giant unless it be illumined by reason. And will and reason alike have to bow to the dictates of that conscience which is the vicegerent of God in every man.

But there is rebellion in the monarchy, as we all know, a revolt that spreads widely. And there is no power that will enable my will to dominate my baser part, and no power that will enthrone my reason above my will, and no power that will give to the empty voice of conscience force to enforce its decrees, except the power of Him that ‘has loosed us from our sins in His own blood.’ When we bow to Him, then, and, as I believe in its perfect measure, only then, shall we realize the dominion over the anarchic, rebellious self, which God means every man to exercise. Christ, and Christ alone, makes us fit to control all our nature. And He does it by pouring into us His own Spirit, which will subdue, by strengthening all the motives which should lead men to obedience, by setting before them the perfect pattern in Himself, and by the communication of His own life, which is symbolized by His blood cleansing us from the tyranny under which we have been held. We were slaves, He makes us free, and making us free He enthrones us. He that is king over himself is the true king.

Again, the present royalty of the Christian man is found in his sovereignty over the world. He commands the world who despises it. He is lord of material things who bends them to the highest use, the development of his own nature, and the formation in him of a God-pleasing and Christlike character. He is king of the material who uses it as men use the leaping-bars and other apparatus in a gymnasium, for the strengthening of the frame, and the bringing out of the muscles. He is the king of the world to whom it is all a mirror that shows God, a ladder by which we can climb to Him. And this domination over things visible and material is possible to us in its superlative degree only in the measure in which we are united by faith and obedience to Him who declared, with almost His dying breath, ‘I have overcome the world,’ and bade us therefore ‘ be of good cheer.’ ‘This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith,’ and He is the master of all who has submitted himself to the monarchy of Jesus Christ. And so the royalty which begins with ruling my own nature goes on to be master of all things around me, according to that great saying, the depth of which can be realized only by experience, ‘All things are yours, and ye are Christ’s.’

There is another department in which the same kingship is at present capable of being exercised by us all, and that is that we may become, by faith in Jesus Christ, independent of men, and lords over them, in the sense that we shall take no orders from them, nor hang upon their approbation or disapprobation, nor depend upon their love for our joy, nor be frightened or bewildered by their hate, but shall be able to say, ‘We are the servants of Christ, therefore we are free from men.’ The King’s servant is everybody else’s master. In the measure in which we hold ourselves in close union with that Saviour we are set free from all selfish dependence on, and regard to, the judgments of perishable and fallible creatures like ourselves.

But the passage to which I have already referred as determining the precise meaning of the ambiguous expression in my text goes a little further. It not only speaks of being kings and priests here and now, but it adds they shall ‘reign with Him,’ and so points us onward to a dim future, in which all that is tendency here, and an imperfect kingship, shall be perfectly realized hereafter. I do not dwell upon that, for we see that future but ‘through a glass darkly’; only I remind you of such sayings as ‘have thou authority over ten cities,’ and the other phrase in one of the letters to the seven churches, in which ‘authority over the nations’ and ‘ruling them with a rod of iron’ is promised to Christ’s servants. These are promises as dim as they are certain, but they, at least, teach us that they who here, in lowly dependence on the King of kings, have bowed themselves to Him, and, emancipated by Him, have been made to share in some measure in His royalty here, shall hereafter, according to the depth of His own wonderful promise,’ sit with Him on His Throne, as He also hath sat down with the Father on His Throne.’

For indeed this kingship of all Christ’s children, like the priesthood with which it is associated in my text, is but one case of the general principle that, by faith in Jesus Christ, we are so united with Him as that where He is, and what He is, there and that ‘we shall be also.’ He has become like us that we might become like Him. He has taken part of the flesh and blood of which the children are partakers, that they might take part of the Spirit of which He is the Lord. He, the Son, has become the Son of Man that sons of men might in Him become the sons of God. The branches partake of the ‘fatness’ of the vine; and the King who is Priest makes all to trust Him, not only sons but kings through Himself.

II. We have here the priesthood of the Christian life.

Now that idea is but a symbolical way of putting some very great and wondrous thoughts, for what are the elements that go to make up the idea of a priest.

First, direct access to God and that is the prerogative of every Christian. All of us, each of us, may pass into the secret place of the Most High, and stand there with happy hearts, unabashed and unafraid, beneath the very blaze of the light of the Shekinah. And we can do that, because Jesus Christ has come to us with these words upon His lips, ‘I am the Way; no man cometh to the Father but by Me.’ The path into that Divine Presence is for every sinful soul blocked by an immense black rock, its own transgressions; but He has blasted away the rock, and the path is patent for all our feet. By His death we have the way made open into the holiest of all. And so we can come, come with lowly hearts, come with childlike confidence, come with the whole burden of our weaknesses and wants and woes, and can spread them all before Him, and nestle to the great heart of God the Father Himself. We are priests to God, and our prerogative is to pass within the veil by the new and living Way which Christ is for us.

Again, another idea in the conception of the priest is that he must have somewhat to offer; and we Christian people are in that sense priests. Christ has offered the ‘one Sacrifice for sins for ever,’ and there is no addition to that possible or requisite. But after the offering of the expiatory sacrifice, the ancient Ritual taught us a deep truth when it appointed that following it there should be the sacrifice of thanksgiving. And these are what we are to bring. You remember the words, ‘I beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present’-and that word is the technical one for the offering of sacrifice-’ your bodies a living sacrifice, acceptable unto God.’ You remember Peter’s use of this same expression, ‘Ye are a royal priesthood,’ and his description of their function to offer up spiritual ‘sacrifices.’ You remember the other words of the great sacerdotal book of the New Testament, the Epistle to the Hebrews, which claims for Christians all that seemed to be disappearing with the dying Jewish economy, and says, ‘By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise unto God . . . that is the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His Name, and to do good, and to communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well-pleased.’ So the sacrifice of myself, moved by the mercies of God as a great thank offering, and in detail the sacrifice of praise, of good gifts and good deeds, and a life devoted to Him, these are the sacrifices which we have to bring.

I need not remind you of yet another aspect in which the sacrificial idea inheres in the very notion of the Christian life, and that is not only access to God, and the offering of sacrifice, but mediation with man. For the function is laid upon all Christian people by Jesus Christ Himself, that they should represent God and Him in the world, and beseech men, in Christ’s stead, to be reconciled to God. And so the priesthood and the kingship both belong to the ideal of the Christian life.

III. In the last place, just a word or two as to the practical conclusions from this idea.

The first of them is one on which I touch very lightly, but which I cannot well omit, and that is the bearing of this thought on the relations of the members of the Christian community to one another. The New Testament knows of two kinds of priesthood, and no third. It knows of Christ as the High Priest who, by His great sacrifice for the sins of the world, has made all other expiation antiquated and impertinent, and has swept away the whole fabric of ceremonial and sacrificial worship; and it knows of the derived priesthood which belongs to every member of Christ’s Church. But it stops there; and there is not a word in the New Testament which warrants any single member of that universal priesthood monopolizing the title to himself, and so separating himself from the community of his brethren. I do not wish to elaborate that point, or to bring any mere controversial elements into my sermon, but I am bound to say that if that name of priest be given to a class, you elevate the class and you degrade the mass of believers. You take away from the community what you concentrate on the individual. And historically it has always been the case that wherever the name of priest has been allotted to the officials, the ministers of the Church, there the priesthood of the community has tended to be forgotten.

I do not dwell upon the other great error which goes along with that name as applied to an officer in any Christian community. But a priest must have a sacrifice, and you cannot sustain the sacerdotal idea except by the help of the sacramentarian idea which, I venture to say, travesties the simple memorial rite of the Lord’s Supper into what it is called in Roman Catholic phraseology, ‘the tremendous sacrifice.’

Brethren, the hand of the priest paralyses the life of the Church; and politically, intellectually, socially, and above all religiously, it blights whatsoever it touches. You free Churchmen have laid upon you this day the imperative duty of witnessing for the two things, the sole priesthood of Jesus Christ, and the universal priesthood of all His people.

Let me say again, these thoughts bear upon our individual duty. It is idle, as some of us are too apt to do, to use them as a weapon to fight ecclesiastical assumptions with, unless they regulate our own lives. Be what you are is what I would say to all Christian men. You are a king; see that you rule yourself and the world. You are a priest; see that the path into the Temple is worn by your continual feet. See that you offer yourselves sacrifices to God in the daily work and self-surrender of life. See that you mediate between God and man, in such brotherly mediation as is possible to us.

Above all, dear friends, let us all begin where Christ begins, where my text begins, and go to Him to have ourselves ‘loosed from our sins in His own blood.’ Then the king’s diadem and the priest’s mitre will meet on our happy heads. In plain English, if we want to govern ourselves and the world, we must let Christ govern us, and then all things will be our servants. If we would draw near to God-and to be distant from Him is misery; and if we would offer to Him the sacrifices-to refrain from offering which is sin and sorrow-we must begin with going to Jesus Christ, and trusting in Him as our Redeemer from sin. And then, so trusting, He will give us here and now, amid the sorrows and imperfections of life, and more perfectly amid the glories and unknown advances in power and beauty in the heavens, a share in His Royalty and His unchangeable Priesthood.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

hath. Omit.

kings and priests = (to be) a kingdom (so all texts) and (to be) priests. See Rev 5:10; Rev 20:6. Exo 19:6 (Septuagint “a royal priesthood”)

Father. See App-98.

glory = the glory. See p. 1511.

dominion = the dominion. App-172.

for ever, &c. App-151. a. First of fourteen occurances: (including Rev 14:11).

Amen = even (the) Amen: See Rev 3:14.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

6.] and He made (the breaking up of the participial into the direct construction is Hebraistic: so De W., al. It belongs to the delicacy of the Hebrew diction, to follow up the participle which gives the tone to the sentence by finite verbs, which, through the influence of the relative notion embodied in the participle, are themselves to be taken as conditioning clauses. Delitzsch on Habak. (in Hengst.)) as a kingdom (viz. the kingdom of God or of heaven, so much spoken of by our Lord Himself and his Apostles: consisting of those who are His, and consummated at His glorious coming. This kingdom is one in which his saints will themselves reign, see the parallel place ch. Rev 5:10, where is added: and Dan 7:27; but above all the place which is here referred to, Exo 19:6, (1Pe 2:9)), priests (the was the collective description: is the individual designation. See on the union of the two characters in the individual Christian, the note on 1Pe 2:9) to (as belonging to; the Father being the ultimate object of reference, as His will is the origin, and His glory the result, of all that is brought about by the mediatorial work of Christ) God and His Father (to Him who is God and His Father: or, to His God and Father. The former is the more probable here, Ebr. remarks, on account of St. Johns habit of repeating the possessive genitive after words of possession: e. g. ch. Rev 6:11, . : Rev 9:21, . , &c.: Joh 2:12, which is more to the point here,- . [] . . See notes on the places where the expression occurs in St. Paul (reff. Rom. Eph.), where I have taken the other rendering), to Him be (or, is, belongs: the like ambiguity is found in all doxological sentences) the glory and the might unto the ages (i. e. for ever. See note on Gal 1:5): Amen.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Rev 1:6. ) The meaning to be expressed was, but the former verb with the postpositive[12] article [the relative ] has passed into the participle; the other verb has remained, and with it the article ( = ) which has been absorbed must be understood.-, ) Since Wolf has quoted my one edition [as if it were the only one], in reference to many readings, although they are disapproved of by himself (and I believe that he did this with the best intention), I wish the reader to remember, that the same readings are found in other editions cited by me at their proper place. I think it necessary to give this admonition once for all, lest my edition of the text should too frequently appear to be unsupported by other editions. See App. Ed. ii. We shall see a similar variety of readings below, ch. Rev 5:10; but whether or be the genuine reading in that passage, is undoubtedly the true reading here.[13] For in that passage four animals speak, and twenty-four elders, wearing crowns, whose dignity is conspicuous: in this, the address is made in the name of all the faithful: these Christ makes priests to GOD and His Father; and the whole body of these priests forms a kingdom, which rejoices in the King Himself. is used, Exo 19:6; 1Pe 2:9, where , as , an army, is a collective noun [a noun of multitude]. The Apposition, a kingdom, priests, has the same force: although, among the citizens of the kingdom, the priests have the privilege of a pre-eminently near admission to the presence of the King. The priests of David were his sons: 2Sa 8:18.

[12] The relative is sometimes thus termed, in opposition to the demonstrative , which is termed prpositive.-T.

[13] So AC Vulg. Nos in regnum et, h. Rec. Text has , without good authority.-E.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

made: Rev 5:10, Rev 20:6, Exo 19:6, Isa 61:6, Rom 12:1, 1Pe 2:5-9

to him: Rev 4:11, Rev 5:12-14, Psa 72:18, Psa 72:19, Dan 4:34, Mat 6:13, Joh 5:23, Phi 2:11, 1Ti 6:16, Heb 13:21, 1Pe 4:11, 1Pe 5:11, 2Pe 3:18, Jud 1:25

Reciprocal: Exo 29:4 – wash them Exo 29:44 – sanctify also Exo 30:19 – General Exo 40:7 – General Lev 4:35 – and the priest shall make Lev 8:6 – washed Lev 8:13 – Moses Lev 8:22 – the ram of consecration Lev 14:8 – wash himself Lev 14:14 – General Lev 16:4 – therefore Lev 16:24 – wash Num 16:5 – who is holy Num 19:19 – shall sprinkle Num 25:13 – an everlasting Deu 18:2 – the Lord Deu 26:19 – high above 1Sa 2:8 – set them 2Ch 4:6 – but the sea Psa 45:16 – princes Psa 68:13 – the wings Psa 72:15 – daily Psa 110:4 – Thou Psa 118:3 – General Isa 66:21 – General Jer 33:18 – General Eze 16:9 – washed Eze 40:45 – the keepers Eze 44:16 – They shall enter Dan 7:22 – judgment Hos 11:12 – ruleth Zec 13:1 – a fountain Zec 14:20 – HOLINESS Mal 3:2 – who may abide Mal 3:3 – the sons Mat 1:21 – for Luk 12:32 – the kingdom Rom 5:17 – shall reign Rom 8:29 – that he might Rom 11:36 – to whom Rom 16:27 – God 2Co 1:21 – anointed Phi 4:20 – unto 2Ti 2:12 – we suffer Heb 12:28 – a kingdom 1Pe 2:9 – a royal Rev 3:21 – to sit Rev 5:13 – blessing

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Rev 1:6. Made us kings and priests. The word kings is from BASILEUS and I shall quote the definitions of a number of lexicons as follows: Greenfield, “A king, monarch, one possessing regal authority.” Robinson, “A king.” Thayer, “Leader of the people, prince, commander, lord of the land, king.” Groves, “A king, monarch, sovereign, prince, chieftain.” Donnegan, “A king.” Hickie, “A king.” I have quoted thus extensively because there is a tendency upon the part of some to deny that Christians should be called kings since Christ only is king. Yet it is freely admitted that Christians are priests although Christ is our priest also. There should be no difficulty on this point, for Jesus is High Priest, while Christians are inferior priests under Him. Likewise they are inferior kings under Christ who is “King of kings and Lord of lords.” Peter says Christians are a royal (kingly) priesthood (1Pe 2:9), and Paul told the Corinthians they had “reigned as kings” and furthermore he would that they “did reign” (1Co 4:8). Since Christ accomplishes all His spiritual work through the church (Eph 3:10 Eph 3:12; 1Ti 3:15), it is logical that if He is to be a king his servants are to cooperate in the work. That would make them secondary kings acting under their Chief. Glory means grandeur and dominion denotes scope or domain; John ascribes them to Christ to be everlasting.

Comments by Foy E. Wallace

Verse 6

7. “And hath made us kings and priests”–Rev 1:6.

The God unto whom all members of the church are priests is here affirmed to be his Father, thus ascribing deity to Jesus Christ. The offices of royalty and priesthood are united in the members of the churches, as typified in Exo 19:6, and finds its spiritual fulfillment in 1Pe 2:9. The allusions to the “kingdom of priests,” in the Exodus passage, was to emphasize that Christ has made us new kings and priests in contrast with what once was but is no more. The church is the kingdom of Christ, and all the members are priests unto God–hence, the church is a kingdom of priests. The Syriac New Testament reads: “And hath made us a priestly kingdom.”

8. “Unto God and his Father”–Rev 1:6.

The eternal dominion of God is here pronounced. Although it is Christ who is King, and has made us into a new kingdom and a new priesthood, it was so done unto God and his Father. This was true of the old Israel whose kingdom, though ruled by appointed heads, was unto God; and this universal dominion of God has existed from the beginning as an eternal truth.

9. “To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”–Rev 1:6.

The glory and the dominion of God is never ending. He had unlimited dominion in all things of the past; he holds dominion over all things of the present; and he will exercise dominion over all events of the future. The dispensations changed from one age to another, from the old to the new, but the dominion of God remains the same. The things of men and of angels, and of the Son himself, are and ever shall be subservient to God, the Supreme Being and Absolute Ruler of the universe.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Verse 6

To him be glory and dominion. This ascription of glory and dominion is plainly applied to Christ, the words to him being a resumption of the words unto him, in Revelation 1:5.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Jesus Christ also has made us a kingdom (corporately) and priests (individually; cf. Rev 5:10; Rev 20:6; Exo 19:6; Isa 61:6; 1Pe 2:5; 1Pe 2:9) to His God and Father, another evidence of His present love for us. John never spoke of God as the Father of believers in Revelation, only as the Father of Jesus (cf. Rev 2:27; Rev 3:5; Rev 3:21; Rev 14:1). We are a kingdom and priests now, but in the future faithful Christians, His bond-servants, will also reign with Jesus Christ on the earth (cf. Rev 5:10).

"Amen" means "So be it!" Here it signifies the writer’s assent to the truthfulness of these affirmations about Jesus Christ (cf. Rev 1:7; Rev 5:14; Rev 7:12 [twice]; Rev 19:4; Rev 22:20)

It is interesting that John, the apostle of love, would emphasize God’s love in this first doxology as the dominating divine emotion (cf. Deu 4:37). In view of the following revelation of much judgment to come on humanity, it is comforting to remember that God does everything because He loves us.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)