by Angus Harley

I have written a bunch of articles that speak to the issue of the Christian’s response to culture, both as a citizen of this world, and as a citizen of heaven. It is the inability to distinguish between these two citizenships that leads to wrong perceptions of the Christian’s duties and to faulty views of God’s kingdom. In this article, we move on to the textual evidence for the idea of dual citizenship. John 18:36 will be our primary focus. Other texts will also be pulled in, especially from John’s writings. The text itself is dominated by the theme of the kingdom of Christ (heavenly citizenship), but it implies earthly citizenship (the kingdoms of men/kingdom of this world). In particular, I will use the theme of taking up arms to demonstrate the difference between the two kingdoms (dual citizenship).

The article has three main parts: first, principles derived from (primarily) John 18:36; second, comments on erroneous views of God’s kingdom; and, lastly, a response to some criticisms of my perspective.  

John 18:36 and the two kingdoms

The Mennonites read John 18:36 and conclude that the Lordship of Christ demands that not only must all Christians desist from taking up physical arms, but that the world must be called to this, too, for the world is Christ’s/God’s kingdom. 

What does Jesus say to this?

“Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm””; “Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”” (John 18:36) 

I am tempted to throw down the mic, or to say, ‘I rest my case, your honor’ without saying anything more in reply to the Mennonites, but so as to provide a fuller answer, here are principles derived from John 18:36.

1. Jesus’ kingdom does not belong to this world. Any attempt to say it does obliterates his teaching. There is nothing in this world that naturally belongs to Christ’s kingdom. This is because his kingdom is from above, of a different realm. 

We can put this doctrine in a different way. The kingdom of heaven is not merely heavenly in origin and nature, but it properly is the kingdom of another world. Most will sign off on the idea of God’s kingdom being divine and heavenly in origin, but they do not ground this kingdom entirely in the other world, but give to it earthly roots, or see it as co-extensive, in some way, with this world. This is a huge mistake.

2. Earthly kingdoms take up physical arms to fight injustice. It is not Christian teachers who are speaking in John 18:36, but Jesus. This verse is often misrepresented as saying, or implying, that the nations wickedly go to war, and immorally take up arms. However, if these readers took a moment to read Jesus’ actual wording, they would see in them a contrasting point to theirs. He is clearly implying that as far as earthly kingdoms are concerned, gross injustice against an earthly king or ruler can be countered by taking up arms and going to war. Such is life in this world when dealing with earthly injustices.

3. Jesus does not condemn the taking up of arms, nor does he condone it. Because Christ and his kingdom do not wage physical warfare to extirpate spiritual evil, he openly states that his kingdom does not include material, physical warfare. This does not mean that he implies the world must give up arms or going to war. His simple point is a contrast of kingdoms and their respective authorities and lifestyles: his heavenly kingdom vs this worldly ‘kingdom’. Nor does his teaching promote taking up arms. Yet his words do imply that it is built into this world that it take up arms to extirpate physical evil and injustice of a worldly, fleshly nature.

Let me take a different example of the same exegetical fallacy. Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt.19:24). In other words, it is entirely impossible! So, if we extend Jesus’ mere words to their logical conclusion, by taking them at face value, we would conclude that it were not only futile to preach to the rich, but that it were actually entirely contrary to Christianity to have rich Christians. Period. Full stop!

Mennonites will complain that I’m not taking into consideration the context and wider Gospel teaching. Yes, indeed; that’s the point! It is easy to rip a verse, when taken at face value, from its context- both near and far- to create a doctrine that is wholly contrary the Gospels’ teaching, or to something implied in the Gospels. Because Jesus is saying his kingdom does not take up physical arms, does not at all imply that the Christian as a citizen of this world cannot take up arms to defend his own national ‘kingdom’ against physical, this-world evil. Yet, as said before, nor do his words overtly condone such behavior. He is merely making a comparison of life in the world and its kingdom contrasted to the heavenly life and its kingdom.

It is perplexing and exasperating to read accounts of John 18-19 that conclude that Jesus was denying the right to take up arms or to use physical force. His kingdom was not at all concerned with these things. Does the text not say this? Why would we, in these chapters- of all the texts in Scripture- expect him to lay down some pattern for life in this earthly sphere, when his explicitly stated goal was to fulfill his duty to his heavenly Father and to the heavenly realm and his own kingdom?

4. It is only earthly kingdoms that take up arms. Jesus’ words imply that only earthly, this-world kingdoms take up earthly arms to fight injustice. Israel was such an earthly, physical nation, for it took up arms. Its whole history was that of a fleshly nation in a physical land. It was constantly at war. David was the most prominent example.

5. The assembly, as part of Jesus’ kingdom, is not to take up arms in its spiritual struggle, but is to take up the truth and the cross. Jesus’ example and teaching in John 18-19 are centering on his spiritual obedience to the Father, unto his death on the cross. Jesus came to fight Satan and his spiritual army, not the Romans or the Jewish nation. When Jesus rebuked Peter, his then foremost apostle, he said to him, ” “Get behind me, Satan!”” (Matt.16:23; see ). But let us be clear, here: Jesus’ commentary about his kingdom relates to its form of warfare. He, as said before, is not disparaging ‘earthly’ warfare as something in itself, but is solely promoting spiritual warfare to the exclusion of physical warfare.

6.  It follows, then, that the Gospel does not go forward by physical arms. Jesus and his assembly, in pursuing the will of the Father and his heavenly kingdom, fight only in the spiritual realm against spiritual forces, using spiritual weapons (John 17; 2 Cor.2:11; 10:3-4; Eph.6:10-20; Col.1:15-16; Jam.4:7; etc.). The Scottish Covenanters were wrong in that regard, for they took up arms for the sake of the Gospel. That was the OT model followed by Israel. The New Covenant assembly in its spiritual war must take up only spiritual arms. Nay, physical arms and weapons are entirely useless in this form of warfare! 

7. Jesus and his kingdom, nonetheless, operated within the boundaries of human, this-world, authority. Jesus was not merely allowing himself to be mistreated because the Father willed this, for the Son was submissive to earthly authorities. That is why he acknowledges Pilate’s authority, “Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin”” (John 19:11). Pilate had said he had authority to set Jesus free, in v10. Jesus responds with v11. Jesus did not think that Pilate had usurped authority. Nor did he think this was merely brute power, as if Pilate overwhelmed Jesus physically and expected him to do what he wanted. Nor, again, was this a temporary, fleeting, form of authority that was recognized for that moment alone by Jesus. Pilate was a divinely appointed ruler, put their by God, who was given authority to punish and to set free (Rom.13:1-3). Jesus was not challenging Pilate’s rights as a true, earthly, ruler, but he did smack him down for his spiritual sin, saying it was lesser than the Jews, for they were the original instigators of injustice. At that point, Jesus was asserting his truth and the judgment of his kingdom.

Similarly, the assembly is to submit to all earthly authority (Rom.13:1-3; 1 Cor.101 1-22; Eph.5:22-23; 6:1-9; Col.3:22; 1 Pet.2:13-25; 3:1-7; 5:5-7; etc.).

The point of stating the above position is that Jesus was working within the same ‘system’ that we all do. That is why he submitted to human authority. More to the point, it is why his comments implied the right of man to take up physical arms to fight injustice in this world. 

8. Jesus conducted himself as a dual citizen. He was a ‘subject’ of this world, a son of human parents (although we know that he did not have an earthly father as to his human nature). He was a ‘Jew’ who lived in a physical land called ‘Israel’. He paid taxes, ate food, slept, felt pain, and, eventually, suffered and died. He did not participate in humanity as floating mystically above its rules and mores. Nor was his humanity essentially a ‘skin’ or mask he put on whilst he paraded around being divine. Thus, he declared that we must give to Caesar his due, and to God his, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt.22:21).

The apostle Paul, in preaching the message of the Gospel, nonetheless acknowledges earthly allegiances. He was a proud Jew; they were his people, and he wanted to see them saved by the Gospel (Rom.9:1-3). He appealed to Caesar as a Roman citizen. In his writings, he sets forth that, the Gospel calls kings, rulers, Jews, Gentiles, male, female, slave, free- all statuses of existence in this earthly life- to repentance. The Gospel does not go on to obliterate these distinctions in the flesh, in this world, once someone becomes a Christian. Indeed, as long as we are in this world, these earthly distinctions will pertain and apply, for we still live in the flesh. Jesus’ answer in John 18:36 assumed this overall structure inherent to life on earth.

9. The spiritual kingdom of heaven conducts its warfare in the theater of this fleshly world. Jesus moves seamlessly from talking about his submission to Pilate, to then accusing him of sinning against Jesus’ kingdom and its authority. Jesus was waging spiritual warfare that required that he submitted to human authorities and that he take up his cross. For Jesus’ real battle was with the Satanic forces that manipulated and controlled man and this world and its rulers.

We will stop there, and now move on to commenting on various errant expressions of the kingdom of God.

Comments on Errant Views of the Kingdom of God

1. Jesus was not restoring the pre-Fall status quo. The Mennonites’ position basically draws a straight line of continuity between the time before the Fall and the time afterward. Jesus, to them, was bringing back the past- the pre-Fall kingdom. Indeed, it was always there, but just needed to be uncovered and unfettered, as it were, restored to its original glory, and allowed to operate according to its maximal capabilities. 

Yet, Jesus could not have been plainer if he’d tried: his kingdom does not belong to this world. When he said ‘this world’, he meant it. That is why he added that his kingdom was from a different realm. To then argue that Jesus was establishing the old order that existed before man’s Fall is to go directly against Jesus’ explicit teaching. His spiritual, invisible, heavenly kingdom was from a different world, with a different kingship, and with different ‘attendees’ (subjects). It could not by its very nature ‘restore’ anything in this world, not even a pre-Fall version of it.

The Mennonites fail to grasp the life of the other kingdom is truly heavenly. Jesus himself teaches in John 3:3, 7 that one must be “born from above” (the Greek term anothen is, in context, referring to life from ‘above’ (see John 19:11; Jam.1:17; 3:15, 17) ) to “see the kingdom of God”. Jesus boldly declares, ” “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world”” (John 8:23; see 3:31). His disciples that follow him are also no longer from the world, but belong to above (John 17:14, 16). 

The reader will see that, in John’s Gospel there is a negative take on the world and its kingdoms. This is because the entirety of the world, including its kingdoms, were marked by the flesh and sin. Thus, even John the Baptist admits that he is “of the earth” (John 3:31). This is not to suggest that he was not also a true believer with life from above, but that, as John 1:12-13 and 3:6 teach, this world cannot produce in itself spiritual life, nor could it ever give rise to the Christ. All the prophets of God, regardless of who they were, were mere messengers, servants, who were marked out by their created, fleshly status. Not so the Son, the king of the heavenly kingdom! It is rather unremarkable, therefore, that everywhere Jesus never takes us back to the original, pre-Fall setting when speaking of his kingdom.

Let us not forget that, this world was/is broken by the Fall, and cannot be restored to its original luster. That is why we await a new garden and a new heaven and a new earth (2 Pet.3:13; Rev.21). More pointedly, this world both before and after the Fall was/is tangible in a fleshly, physical, ‘bricks ‘n’ mortar’, of the five senses, way. Not so the other world. It is heavenly, spiritual, immortal, eternal, invisible, etc.. Adam’s physical, this-world garden had no ability to keep out Satan, evil, and sin. A new world of a different, spiritual, nature was therefore required, one which had no chance at all of allowing in sin, death, mortality, frailty, perishability, Satan, demons, etc., etc. (1 Cor.15; Rev.21-22). 

2. Jesus’ teaching implied the reality of the Fall. ‘The’ feature of the modern hermeneutic (interpretive model) of ‘culture’ in Christendom, and therefore in Evangelicalism, is that the pre-Fall status and its version of the ‘kingdom of God’ are superimposed onto the present. Consequently, the Fall is entirely ignored as a determinative factor in this hermeneutic. The pre-Fall version of life in this world will never be restored (see above). Instead, when depicting life after the Fall, it is plain from the get-go that although the original structures of creation and its life are still in play (man’s mandate to go into all the earth and subdue it; the divine image in man; etc.), all of these features are irreparably broken.

When mankind fell, earthly kingdoms that afterward arose were destined to instantaneously turn away from God, even though the entire ‘system’s’ natural structure was geared toward man serving and knowing God (see Rom.1:18ff.). Let’s not forget this was God’s punishment on man. And on top of it all, he placed a curse on man in this world (Gen.3). If man broke the system from his end, God deliberately broke it from his end, too- however, only as a consequence of man’s folly and a just punishment for man’s sin. Solomon notes this feature of brokenness in Ecclesiastes, “That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” (1:15); “Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?” (7:13). God has interfered in this world and its original order in such a way that man is now deliberately forced to conclude that life in this world will result merely in a chasing after the wind, and will eventually end with our death. If you are, in the name of the ‘kingdom’, constructing your future in this world, then you are, my friend, building sandcastles!

As a consequence, no earthly kingdom after the Fall can ‘run on the fumes’ of mere peace and good will. Evil has run amok, so that man must now take measures to counter evil on the physical level. This is yet another revision of the ‘system’ that God originally put in place. Another example is coping with illness. Sickness is a feature of the Fall. As Christians, we take medicine each and everyday, and see this as something that God expects of us. It would be absurd not to resist that form of the Fall  called ‘illness’, and even more idiotic to justify a lack of resistance by claiming that the kingdom of God before the Fall had no illness, and therefore we do not need medicine! 

So let it be settled, then, that Jesus’ teaching implies (but does not rubber stamp) that earthly kingdoms naturally take up arms to counter the physical forms of evils and injustices perpetrated in this world.

3. Earthly expressions of the kingdom of God belong to the OT era. The various views of God’s kingdom that prevail are not aware that they are asserting earthly models of God’s kingdom, a paradigm that fits the Old Testament era only. Since that time, that is, in the New Testament era, a contrast is at work, for God’s kingdom is heavenly in nature, and does not at all have roots in this world. 

Jesus makes what seems like a redundant, throw away, comment, “Now my kingdom is not of this world.” Why “now” (Gk. nun)? Contrary to what some say, this does not reflect the idea that his kingdom was once was of this world, but now it is not. Yet, his words imply a contrast. His kingdom- the Messianic kingdom- was exclusively heavenly in nature and was contrasted to the models of kingdoms and kingship that had prevailed up unto that point in time. “[N]ow”, here, is used as it is in John 8:40; 9:41; 15:22, 24 to indicate a contrast.  Pilate, like the Jews, thought Jesus was promoting a form of earthly kingship. He wasn’t. So, Jesus made a radical contrast between his true kingship and that false notion perpetuated by the Jews, and now by Pilate. 

It is necessary to parse out this distinction on a theological level. In the OT, it is apparent that God is king and rules over all things, over all his creation. This reign, although heavenly, spiritual, and divine in nature was invariably expressed in this world in physical terms and through the media of earthly people, events, and things. Thus, Adam and Eve were to have physical children and rule over the earth. The many nations that subsequently arose were miniature kingdoms that were meant to express a form of man’s rule over the earth as mandated by God. Man and his kingdoms perennially failed in that regard, however. Finally, there was Israel as a kingdom: a thoroughly earthly kingdom that followed earthly laws and rules, receiving both earthly rewards and curses.  Due to the ‘cover’ of all these fleshly, this-world aspects of the OT view of kingdom, we only got glimpses of the true, heavenly nature of God’s spiritual and heavenly reign. In the case of Israel and its kingdom, the truly spiritual was ‘enfleshed’, or covered, in worldly, physical things. Thus, there was only a remnant of Israel who were of the faith. Again, the Law of Moses- a physical, tangible, sensory Law- was given to expose the frailty of the flesh and its sinfulness, for the flesh cannot achieve righteousness. A greater ‘law’ was therefore required, just as a greater ‘garden’, and a ‘greater’ world (see Hebrews and Revelation).

Jesus came along and taught that Israel, the flesh, Jerusalem and its worship, in other words, the whole shebang of the ‘earthly kingdom’  paradigm was now redundant (see John 4:21-24). The Messianic kingdom was solely and purely spiritual and heavenly, and was brand-spanking new, the true expression of the divine kingdom, the insertion of the heavenly world to come revealed in the present. Put another way, Jesus’ kingdom pays no heed to eating and drinking, male and female, Jerusalem or Samaria, soldier or peasant, king or queen, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, flesh and blood, etc. (John 4; Rom.14:17; 1 Cor.15:50; Gal.3:26-28; Col.3:11). Life in this world is not part of the heavenly kingdom of the Messiah. ‘Physical’ worship via a religious system geared entirely to the human body and its senses was over (Gal.4:3, 9; Col.2:8, 20). In their place were the principles of spirituality, truth, divinity, invisibility, and all the spiritual aspects of the heavenly kingdom that were always there in the OT but were smothered in earthly expressions of kingdom rule. As a chestnut sheds its shell, so the new kingdom, the true and heavenly kingdom, had shed the old ways of kingdom as an earthly rule, for the heavenly kingdom had come into its own. 

4. Postmillennialism wrongly roots the kingdom in earthly life. Postmillennial  enthusiasm is currently riding the modern wave of ‘culture’. The argument is that we can, as Christians, promote God’s kingdom through bringing earthly ‘culture’ into a Christianized condition. Eventually, the whole world, all its institutions and rulers and people, will be swallowed up by the spread of both the Christian Gospel and its accompanying Christian ‘culture’. To Postmillennialists, there are many places in the NT where God’s kingdom is seen in this earth, and even has, as it were, roots in it. It is very ‘earthly’, albeit its final form will be a wholly spiritualized, divinized, redeemed form of this world we live in.

As to the supposed ‘earthly roots’ of God’s NT kingdom, Postmillennialism has mistaken the presence and growth of God’s kingdom on earth as equating to an earthly-spiritualized kingdom. The many parables in Matthew that convey that growth of the kingdom of heaven are not expressing anything earthly concerning God’s kingdom; indeed, the spread of God’s kingdom on earth highlights the contrast that Jesus made: in this this fallen, fleshly, world, with its kingdoms, God’s kingdom will nevertheless overpower the spiritual and evil forces behind it that control it (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Cor.4:4; Eph.2:2; 6:12; Col.1:13; 2 Tim.2:26; 1 John 5:19), so that the kingdom of God will spread in a spiritual and invisible manner. For, the kingdom of God, led by Jesus, is an invading army at war with the world- not the world in a merely human, earthly way, but this earthly world as controlled by spiritual forces, and comprising those who hate Jesus, God, his people, and the Gospel. 

It has to be said that even though Postmillennialism is a mistaken model of the kingdom, it restrains itself just enough not to make the horrendous mistake that theonomists make in asserting a theocratic-like, OT, Jewish, model of kingdom and its ‘Law’. It never occurs to theonomists that the world religions are ostensibly theocratic models that focus upon their god’s/gods’ kingdom expressed in this world in a fleshly, physical manner.

5. Premillennialism errantly places the Messianic kingdom in this world. Premillennialism is, in terms of the ‘earthliness’ of God’s kingdom, more restrained than Postmillenialism. But in the end, Premil ends up making the same mistake as Postmil. For Premil’s understanding of the Messianic kingdom is that Jesus will set up his kingdom on earth for a thousand years (the millennium). This view not only undercuts the apocalyptic genre and the interpretation in the book of Revelation, it returns us to exactly an OT, Old Covenant, view of religion that places Israel of the flesh directly at the heart of God’s will- a physical kingdom. In that way, Premil ends up being spurious doctrinally, for it cuts the legs away from under the New Covenant and the primacy of God’s people in the assembly.

The third section of the article responds to some objections to my view.

Responding to Objections

‘You ignore the witness of the other Gospels that places the kingdom of God upon the earth, even following an earthly pattern.’ It is true that I focused on John’s Gospel and not the other Gospels. There was a very good reason for this: his Gospel leaves zero room for any notion that the kingdom of God is somehow rooted in this world. Various commentators of either a Postmillennial or Premillennial disposition acknowledge that the Gospel of John does not promote their millennial views, but this does not stop them from asserting in their commentaries on John their wider views of the divine kingdom. We talk about the unity of the Gospels, but these scholars seem to forget that principle when it comes to John’s view of the kingdom. For, if one were to use John’s interpretation of the kingdom as one’s ‘template’, then one would see that the traditional readings of the Synoptics that give to God’s heavenly kingdom ‘earthly roots’ are indeed improper exegeses of the Scriptures.

How is it that in Matthew- who writes about the “kingdom” more than any other writer in Scripture- the kingdom of God or heaven is represented over and over as spiritual in nature? For example:

“ “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”” (Matt.3:2);
“ “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”” (Matt.5:3); “”Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”” (Matt.5:10).

Matthew refers to God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven (Matt.6:10), not to magnify the supposed existence of some earthly aspects of God’s kingdom, but to demonstrate that the heavenly kingdom of God will be victorious over this world as ruled by Satan (see Matt.6:13). Not even the “gates of hell” can prevent heaven, its king, and sons, from overpowering and defeating Satan and his followers in this world (Matt.12:25-29; 16:18).

‘The world will be redeemed and restored (Rom.8:20-22). Your view ignores this.’ Please make up your mind, dear brother: is the world redeemed, or is it restored? What is ‘new’ about a restoration? Surely words loose their meaning if ‘restore’ does not mean what it says! I might restore an old Ford to its original state. In fact, even if I vastly improve it beyond its original standard, I will never be creating something new. All I will be doing is giving to it more bells and whistles, and an improved look. Whereas, the world is redeemed from its bondage that arose due to the sin of man. The new world will never again be capable, in other words, of being put into bondage. The old world was completely capable of this, and so it fell. And I am referring to the pristine, sinless world of Adam! Why, dear brother, would God restore that world?

The New Covenant was a brand-new covenant. It was not the Old restored or redux in a super-spiritual fashion. Even so, it being a new ‘covenant’ is carries on the covenant ideal and aspects. We will receive a new body, a resurrection body. Our bodies will go into the sod as one type of body, but then be raised as a completely new, heavenly, body (1 Cor.15:35-39). Our souls are ‘redeemed’ and we are made ‘new creations’. This is to say that our souls are spiritually resurrected, so that the old man has been crucified, and our old life nailed to the cross. I, the old me, does not exist, but Christ does live in me, which is to say I live, but only as united with Christ in his resurrection life, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal.2:20; see Rom.6). The old ‘I’ died; the new ‘I’ is alive in Christ. So the same pattern applies to this physical earth: it will be destroyed, and then ‘raised’ as another ‘body’, into glorious, everlasting, incorruptibility!

‘The world is saved. The kingdoms of this world will become the Christ’s (Rev.11:15). All proof that this world is restored and reasserted.’ Yes, Jesus is the Savior of the world. But Warfield and co.- Postmillennialists- interpret the “world” here as something that will be retained and restored. It will not (see above). John 3:16-18 does not at all convey that the world will be ‘kept going’. Rather, the world is saved when wicked sinners are delivered from it. Was that not Jesus’ point in saying his disciples were no longer of this world? Indeed, I would encourage the reader to do a word study of John’s writings. I would be personally grateful if the reader could show even one mention of kosmos (“world”) that teaches a restored world.

Likewise, Revelation 11:15 should not be interpreted as if John were speaking about the exaltation of this world at the end. The heavenly army and the kingdom of the Lamb and of God eventually subdue the physical nations of the earth that are governed and ruled by Satan and his minions. Christ finally completes the war for all of creation, and particularly for the earth, by subduing Satan, powers, and all peoples, bringing them to judgment. Jesus is going forth as a conqueror, not a restorer. He is not ‘saving’ the world, as if restoring it, therefore. His spiritual army invades and fights this world and its spiritual order to break it, to subdue it, and to take over entirely. Then he ends it, ala Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Babylon. Only then do the new heavens and earth come down from above.

In that light, the redemption of people from every tribe and nation is not a testimony (Rev.5:19), as the Postmillennialist thinks, to the sanctified nature of this world. It is a statement, rather, that Jesus, the Lamb of God, saves people out of every tribe and nation of the world. For all eternity, we will glory that Christ did not bypass any people, nation, sex, or rank when saving the world, but chose to raise all up as a new creation. Gloria Deus!