Francois Ntone

Justification of a Two Kingdom Doctrine

In this post, I will examine the two kingdom doctrine proposed by David VanDrunen.  In a recent article in this website titled The Resurrection of the Dead in the Biblical Narrative, I provided an overview of the biblical hope of a resurrection of the dead.  This is a future event that coincides with the Second Coming of Christ.  At that time, as taught by the New Testament, the dead will rise and will be judged by Christ, and those who belong to Christ will receive their resurrection bodies.  They will become part of a transformed world, God’s new creation as prophesied by Isaiah 65:17, which VanDrunen refers to as the world-to-come.  This is the final realization of the kingdom of God.  For Christians, this means that there is a waiting time between Christ’s resurrection and his Second Coming.  A question therefore arises: how are Christians expected to live their lives in the present world, with the understanding that the current order is temporary and will eventually be replaced by something better?

Some Christians, in answering the above question, assume that the current world is evil and doomed.  Therefore they see no reason to put much effort into making it better, but focus on the world-to-come.  Others point out that such an attitude is inconsistent with the biblical idea that God created a good world, and that man’s efforts to maintain its goodness are worthwhile.  David VanDrunen, in his book Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture, proposes an intermediate position.  While he agrees with efforts by authors such as N. T. Wright to promote recognition of the goodness of God’s creation, he rejects what he sees as an excessive emphasis on the importance of worldly cultural activities.  In particular, he criticizes them for assuming that products of cultural activities by Christians in this world can be considered as building blocks in the establishment of the world-to-come.  His arguments rely on a two kingdom doctrine which is the focus of his book.  In this article, I will examine the basic ideas that support this doctrine.

The Fall of Man

VanDrunen’s interpretation of the events of Genesis 1-3, related to man’s creation and his fall, is an interesting one.  According to him, God accomplished his work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day.  God created man in his image, and gave him a mandate with both kingly and priestly implications.  Indeed, man was a king in the sense that he was put in charge of God’s creation.  But he was also told to “work” the garden (Genesis 2:13).  VanDrunen sees the garden as a temple, and man’s work in it implies that he is to defend it from attempts to defile it.

From VanDrunen’s perspective man’s status at creation is a probationary one as he must complete his work so that, like God, he may enter a new state of rest corresponding to the world-to-come.  Even though this idea does not appear in the Genesis narrative, VanDrunen relies on passages in Hebrews to make his point.  In Hebrews 2:5-8, the author of Hebrews refers to Psalm 8:

“What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet.” Psalm 8:4-6

The author of Hebrews uses this passage as proof that God put the world-to-come under man’s authority rather than the authority of the angels (Hebrews 2:5).  VanDrunen notes that this mandate was valid at the time of the original creation, which is proof that man’s original destiny was to reign over the world-to-come.  Then pointing to Hebrews 4:1-10, which appears to equate entering the world-to-come with entering God’s Sabbath rest, he concludes that man’s original destiny was to enter God’s rest after he accomplished his work in the garden.

I find it necessary to examine these assertions in some detail because they are in conflict with the traditional interpretation of the Genesis story.  Indeed, a straight reading of the story suggests that God did not immediately put man in probation after creating him.  Instead, man’s disobedience was the reason for his fall.  Man ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil even though he had been forbidden to do so.  If he had remained obedient, he would have continued to live the ideal life that God intended for him, and there would have been no need for a world-to-come, a concept that is only relevant after the fall.  The references to God’s rest in Hebrews 4:1-10 are made within the context of an already fallen world.  They are inspired by Psalm 95:7-11, as seen in Hebrews 3:7-11.  In particular, in Psalm 95:11, God says: “So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest’”.  This is a reference to the Israelites under Moses who were disobedient and were not allowed to enter the Promised Land.  In other words, in this context, God’s rest is the Promised Land, not the new creation after the resurrection of the dead.  The intent in Hebrews 4:1-10 is to urge Christians, who are now receiving the message about Christ, not to be disobedient like the Israelites in the wilderness (Hebrews 4:1-2).  The author of Hebrews points out that God himself completed his creation work long ago and entered his rest (Hebrews 4:3-4).  He also points out that in addition to the old expectation associated with rest in the Promised Land, there is a new expectation of rest stated much later in Psalm 95:11 in the days of David.  That expectation is associated with the call to obedience in Psalm 95:7-8, where God says: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert”.  The point here is that Christians should remain obedient and should look forward to the new hope of a Sabbath-rest for the people of God (Hebrews 4:8-11).  So far, Jesus is the only one who has entered that rest, and the author of Hebrews implies that Psalm 8:6 (“You put everything under his feet”) applies to Jesus only (Hebrews 2:8-9), following his death and resurrection.

In summary, the two references to entering God’s rest made in the book of Hebrews apply to the early Israelites in hope of a Promised Land, and then later to the people of God in hope of the world-to-come.  Those two references apply to the world after the fall of man, and therefore there is no reason to assume that God put man on probation when he created him, expecting him to complete his assigned work before he can enter his Sabbath-rest, or the world-to-come.  Instead, man’s disobedience is the reason why he fell from the ideal state that God had originally made available to him.  This is important because VanDrunen’s thinking, inspired by Romans 5, relies heavily on comparisons between the work of the first Adam and the work of the last Adam, namely Jesus.  One of his recurring themes is that the first Adam failed to complete his work when he was tempted by the serpent, and was unable to enter his rest.  He failed to fulfill his kingly and priestly mandates by not standing up to the serpent who defiled the garden.  Since then, humanity inherited Adam’s condition and has remained incapable of pleasing God.  Only Christ was able to fulfill the mandate, defeating Satan once and for all, so that believers no longer have to do it on their own.  In other words, believers do not have to pick up from where Adam left off and complete his work, as this would negate the work accomplished by Christ.  This idea will be further discussed later.

The Common Kingdom  

In Genesis 3:15, as part of the serpent’s punishment, God says: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.”  The punishment itself could be merely interpreted as an explanation of the new condition of the serpent.  Indeed, the serpent is initially described as “more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made” (Genesis 3:1), but ends up being a lowly animal that crawls on its belly and eats dust (Genesis 3:14).  However VanDrunen interprets this statement as the starting point of a spiritual antithesis between the descendants of the woman, whom he calls the believers, and the descendants of the serpent, whom he calls the unbelievers.  This view does not flow naturally from the narrative since the woman herself, at this point, cannot strictly be seen as a model of a believer because she disobeyed God and is, like the serpent, being punished.  Furthermore, VanDrunen goes on to extend the spiritual antithesis to Cain and Abel: Cain becomes the descendant of the serpent, a non-believer, while Abel is the descendant of the woman, a believer, even though in reality both men are sons of the same woman.

After Cain murders Abel and is banished from the garden, God provides some protection to him to prevent others from killing him (Genesis 4:15).  VanDrunen sees this as the establishment by God of a justice system.  He then examines the short history of Cain’s descendants in Genesis 4:17-24.  Cain and his descendant Lamech are of course examples of sinful behavior since they are murderers.  But some of Cain’s descendants are described as particularly gifted in certain areas (raising livestock, music, forging tools out of bronze and iron), which leads VanDrunen to the conclusion that unbelievers can, and will often excel in cultural activities, even though they do not, like believers, have a relationship with God.  Such ideas are the initial building blocks of a two kingdom doctrine.

The two kingdom doctrine affirms the existence of a common kingdom and a redemptive kingdom.  VanDrunen states that the common kingdom is formally established when God makes his covenant with Noah after the flood (Genesis 8:20-9:17).  With a few differences, the stipulations of the Noahic covenant are quite similar to mankind’s mandate at creation.  VanDrunen strongly emphasizes that the Noahic covenant addresses preservation of the natural and the social order, as God promises never to destroy the world with a flood again, and provides guidelines for a justice system that addresses the problem of murder.  He states that the covenant makes no provision for matters of worship, says nothing about salvation and atonement, and does not separate believers from non-believers.  Therefore the covenant applies to everybody and defines a common kingdom under God’s rule.

The assumption of a common kingdom with no provision for worship and salvation is somewhat surprising.  It implies that even though citizens of that kingdom live under rules that have been established by God himself, God’s salvation is not made accessible to them.  Regarding Noah himself, VanDrunen presents him as a believer in a world where there is a spiritual antithesis between him and the rest.  As a believer, he is saved by God from the flood.  However, if the Noahic covenant has no provision for salvation, then one wonders if Noah himself is qualified to enter the world-to-come.  Interestingly, Cain and Abel both presented offerings to God, a sign of worship.  The Bible also states that in the days of Seth, long before Noah came, “men began to call on the name of the Lord” (Genesis 4:26).  Perhaps VanDrunen might call such men believers.  However by defining the common kingdom as a kingdom with no provisions for worship that is formally established by the Noahic covenant, he seems to implicitly eliminate the possibility of eternal salvation for such people.  Indeed Noah himself builds an altar to God after the flood and sacrifices burnt offerings on it (Genesis 8:20).  The text actually seems to imply that God’s decision to never again destroy the world with a flood is a favorable response to Noah’s offering (Genesis 9:20).  But in defending his definition of the common kingdom, VanDrunen insists on describing Noah’s sacrifice as one of “consecration rather than expiation of sin”.  In other words, Noah’s sacrifice does not qualify as a worship activity that brings salvation through atonement. If that is true, then it is difficult to assume that any other sacrifice made by men prior to the Noahic covenant qualifies for atonement purposes.  What is left is the highly stretched interpretation of Genesis 3:15 (the woman’s descendants will crush the serpent’s head) as a messianic promise which separates believers from unbelievers.  As discussed earlier, one may question whether such an interpretation of Genesis 3:15 actually fits the text.  Even if one adopts the suggestion in Revelation 20:2 that the serpent is the devil, Genesis 3:15 can only be interpreted as a promise that humanity will eventually defeat the devil.  For his own eternal salvation, Noah (along with Abel and Seth) must rely on such a vague promise (vague in the sense that it does not actually mention salvation and does not define what a believer is) rather than the simple fact that God was pleased with him because of his obedience, and made a covenant with him.

Regarding the common kingdom, VanDrunen also emphasizes that the Noahic covenant only ensures preservation of the natural and social order “as long as the earth endures”, as stated in Genesis 9:22.  Eventually, he states, God will destroy the world as we know it, and will replace it with the new creation, the world-to-come.  VanDrunen’s strongest evidence for this assertion comes from 2 Peter 3:10-13:

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief.  The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be?  You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.  That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.  But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.”

A discussion of these verses must be preceded by a discussion of 2 Peter 3:6-7 which mentions how God, by his word, destroyed the world with a flood in the days of Noah.  It is then stated that “By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (2 Peter 3:7).  A comparison is therefore being made between the previous destruction by the flood, which was really a major cleanup affecting primarily ungodly men rather than the natural world, and the coming destruction by fire which will also affect ungodly men.  In 2 Peter 3:10-13, it is mentioned that the heavens will disappear, and the elements will be melted by fire.  But the earth will be laid bare (VanDrunen’s translation says “exposed”).  Even though these words warn against the coming of a major calamity, it is possible that they imply, like the flood, a major cleanup rather than a complete destruction.

To further make his point, VanDrunen refers to Hebrews 12:26-27 which says:

“At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, ‘Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’  The words ‘once more’ indicate the removing of what can be shaken – that is, created things – so that what cannot be shaken may remain.”

This passage announces a major event in which God will shake the universe he created, eliminating the things that can be shaken and keeping the permanent things that cannot be shaken.  Even though VanDrunen presents this passage as further proof that the natural order will be destroyed, it seems more likely that the author of Hebrews is thinking about a major cleanup.

Finally, VanDrunen mentions Romans 8:18-23 which, ironically, is also used by other authors such as N. T. Wright as evidence that the natural order will not be destroyed, but will be transformed:

“I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.  The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.  For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.  Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoptions as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”

This is a reference to the resurrection of the dead, an event during which the saints become sons of God with transformed bodies.  The natural order is also transformed, liberated from its bondage to decay.  Obviously, it is a transformation rather than a complete destruction.  Realizing the difficulty, VanDrunen explains that he differentiates between destruction and annihilation.  The world is to be destroyed but not annihilated.  He recognizes that there is some kind of continuity between the old world and the world-to-come, but claims that that continuity simply means that the people of God survive into the world-to-come while the rest of creation is destroyed.  Of course, VanDrunen could have chosen to simply reconcile his interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-13 with Romans 8:18-23.  Instead, he maintains his initial assumption about 2 Peter 3:10-13 and offers a not-so-convincing interpretation of Romans 8:18-23.

The assumption that the natural order is bound for destruction is important to the two kingdom doctrine because it supports the belief that current cultural activities have no relevance in the world-to-come.  Christ, the last Adam, with his death and resurrection, completed the work the first Adam was unable to complete.  He did so once and for all, and entered the world-to-come.  But not only he entered the world-to-come, he made it available to those who believe in him, so that they do not have to do the work again for themselves.  Even though they are called to do good works with the help of the Holy Spirit, they do not have to pursue the “righteous obedience” the first Adam had to pursue.  Their good works are merely a grateful response to God’s grace, and do nothing for the atonement of their sins.  Their cultural activities do not contribute to their redemption, and the products of those activities will not survive into the world-to-come (i.e. buildings, art, institutions, etc. will not survive)

The above considerations related to salvation by grace are of course generally consistent with Paul’s doctrine of justification by grace through faith.  It is possible to erroneously conclude from them that good works are optional to Christians since Christ has already done all the work for them.  Fortunately, VanDrunen eliminates that possibility later in his discussion of the church as an institution where Christ’s ethic must be practiced.  As for the idea that the products of cultural activities will not survive into the world-to-come, it obviously depends on whether the natural order is bound for destruction.  My previous discussion at least raises the possibility that such a conclusion may not be the one intended by the New Testament writers.

The Redemptive Kingdom

According to the two kingdom doctrine, the redemptive kingdom is formally established when God makes covenants with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17.  In Genesis 15:6, it is stated that “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness”, which is the starting point of the doctrine of justification through faith, which is later presented by Paul.  Furthermore, the covenant of circumcision is introduced in Genesis 17, further separating believers from unbelievers.  Whereas the common kingdom is for everybody, the redemptive kingdom is for believers only, and makes provisions for religious faith and worship as seen in the fact that Abraham calls on the name of the Lord and builds several altars to the Lord.  Through the promises made to Abraham, it bestows upon its members the benefits of salvation and is established forever, unlike the common kingdom which is temporary.  Members of the redemptive kingdom are given an eternal destiny.

Members of the redemptive kingdom, essentially Abraham’s descendants, live as sojourners in the common kingdom, where they interact with non-believers.  They are not necessarily better than non-believers at cultural activities, and do not always act better from a moral perspective.  They interact with non-believers according to the rules of the common kingdom, as long as they do not violate rules of the redemptive kingdom, as their first allegiance is to God.  I must say at this point that I share with VanDrunen a profound respect for Isaac, Abraham’s son, a man of peace and humility, a great example of a sojourner living in foreign lands, who unfortunately is not sufficiently recognized in Christian discussions.

With the Mosaic covenant, the nation of Israel led by Moses becomes the face of the redemptive kingdom which is now regulated by the Law of Moses and is confined to the Promised Land, separating itself geographically from the common kingdom.  That separation remains until the Babylonian exile.  During the exile, the Israelites must once again live as sojourners in a foreign land, where they are encouraged to participate in the cultural activities of the common kingdom as long as they do not violate God’s rules for them.  Daniel and his companions are listed as good examples of such sojourners.

Regarding the interactions between the common and the redemptive kingdoms, VanDrunen states the following:

“The two kingdoms have distinct natures and serve distinct purposes in this world, but both of them operate under God’s sovereign moral authority. Both kingdoms have been created by divine covenant, and God commissions believers to serve him in both.”

This statement implies that both kingdoms are legitimized by God himself.  This means cultural activities in the common kingdom are legitimate, and that believers should respect the contributions of non-believers on such matters.  Believers themselves can legitimately pursue such activities, while maintaining a certain amount of detachment since their primary focus should be their allegiance to their God.

Sojourners in the New Testament

According to the two kingdom doctrine, New Testament believers, like sojourners such as Abraham and unlike believers in the Mosaic covenant, do not live in a separate homeland but share a territory with non-believers.  In fact, they are spread all over the world, and are characterized by a focus on missionary activity.  Most importantly, unlike the Old Testament believers who could only see the world-to-come from a distance, they already participate in it because of the redemptive work accomplished by Christ.  They also belong to the church, the only institution that can be identified with the kingdom of God.

VanDrunen defines the church as the community of the baptized, the only institution on earth that bears the mark of baptism.  The church was established by Jesus himself, who brought the world-to-come into this world, as shown by his other-worldly miracles.  Therefore New Testament believers, through him, already have a taste of the world-to-come.  Correspondingly, they should be obedient to Christ in every aspect of their lives, and demonstrate the power of the kingdom of God in this life.

In calling for obedience to Christ, VanDrunen also explains (and he is absolutely right about this) that Christ came to fulfill the law, but in so doing, brought something new, a teaching that went beyond the teaching of Moses, as clearly seen in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).  That teaching calls for loving one’s enemy and praying for him rather than seeking retributive justice.  It calls for forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration.  Generally speaking, it represents an ethical standard that is far above the earthly one.  It is the ethic of the kingdom of God, which does not call for retributive justice: members of the kingdom already enjoy the higher justice of the world-to-come and do not have to seek retribution in this world.  It also works in surprising ways on matters related to economics.  While choices in the common kingdom are dictated by the need to wisely allocate scarce resources, such considerations do not apply in the kingdom of God.  Indeed, Jesus sees the two copper coins contributed by an impoverished widow as a bigger contribution than the combined offerings of wealthy men (Mark 12:41-44).  Furthermore, in the church, believers give generously, even beyond their means, relying on the principle that God himself blesses a generous giver, not only financially but in other more important ways as well (2 Corinthians 8-9).

But Jesus’ ethic is not just an ideal that will only become a reality in the world-to-come.  It must be practiced by Christians in this world, as suggested by Matthew 7:21 and 7:24.  VanDrunen emphasizes that Jesus only commanded the church, not the state, to practice the ethic of the kingdom of God.  In his two kingdom doctrine, the state belongs in the common kingdom and does not have to follow the rules of the kingdom of God.  As proof of this statement, he points to Matthew 22:15-21, where Jesus tells the Pharisees to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.  He also points to Roman 13:1-7 where Paul tells Christians to pay taxes to Rome, and even says that the state is justified in bearing the sword.  VanDrunen also states that Jesus praises the faith of a centurion (Matthew 8:10) and “seems to have no problem with the fact that he is a professional soldier, an inherently violent occupation”.  He then concludes that “Christians may serve as soldiers on behalf of the state”.

The above statements on taxes and military service represent an area where I see some difficulty with VanDrunen’s two kingdom doctrine.  When Jesus says “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”, he is not talking about two kingdoms which he considers as equally legitimate and regulated by God.  In fact, the statement implies that what is Caesar’s is not what is God’s, and vice versa.  Jesus is interested in what is God’s, and has no interest in what is Caesar’s, and his statement does not validate a two kingdom doctrine where both kingdoms are legitimized by God himself.  Built into his statement are two notions we know about him: he has no interest in money, and no interest in challenging Rome to improve the economic standing of those he cares about.  He is known to teach his disciples that God’s providence is sufficient for them.  Furthermore, he stands for non-violence and peacemaking (and I know VanDrunen and I are in agreement on this).  Therefore he will not go to war for any earthly reason, as his primary focus is storing up riches in heaven.  On the matter of paying taxes, Paul is in agreement with Jesus.

On serving in the military, I have explained elsewhere that Jesus did not consider adherence to his own teaching as a precondition for performing a healing.  In fact, the centurion recognized his own inadequacy when he said “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof.”  That is why he asked Jesus to heal his servant without even coming to his home.  Given that Jesus made his disapproval of violence well known, there is no reason to use his silence regarding the centurion’s profession as proof that he has no problem with it.  It would be more relevant to ask whether any of his disciples (and the centurion was not one of them at the time of the healing) went on to become a soldier or join any kind of military resistance.  In the New Testament itself, we see that Peter is rebuked when he uses the sword to defend Jesus.  Furthermore, all apostolic teaching promotes perseverance in doing good even under persecution and suffering.  As for the early Christians in the Roman Empire (I am talking about those who were directly influenced by the teaching of Jesus and his apostles, not those who may have later reinterpreted that teaching to accommodate the needs of a belligerent Roman empire), they were pacifists who at times were even called unpatriotic for their refusal to serve in the army.

Since VanDrunen makes it clear that Christians should obey Jesus’ teaching in this world, and since he believes that Jesus taught non-violence, there is an obvious contradiction when his two kingdom doctrine assumes that Christians face no dilemma when they consider serving the state in the military.  Indeed, that would make their allegiance to the state take precedence over their allegiance to Christ.

Christian Attitude Towards Culture in a Two Kingdom World

The importance of a two kingdom doctrine is to help Christians understand their proper attitude towards cultural activities as they interact and compete with non-believers.  The doctrine separates the church, an institution Vandrunen considers as the penultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (the complete fulfillment would be the world-to-come), from all institutions that belong to the common kingdom.  Common kingdom institutions include marriage, the family, the state, etc.  Also, activities that can be categorized as educational, political, vocational and commercial all belong to the common kingdom.  Christians should participate in them with joy, with the objective of bringing glory to God.  In particular, they should resist the desire they often have to conquer or “take back” what they consider as theirs.  They must avoid using “the weapons of the flesh, such as military weapons, political tactics, or media propaganda”.   Instead, they must “engage in cultural tasks alongside unbelievers and strive to serve them in humility and meekness.  Not an easy task!”

Remembering that the common kingdom will come to an end in the future, they must maintain a certain amount of detachment towards its cultural activities, focusing instead on the infinitely more important matters associated with the world-to-come.  They should understand that criteria of excellence for cultural activities are often the same for believers and non-believers, and non-believers can often excel at those activities more than Christians do.  Therefore Christians should not attempt to usurp authority from common kingdom institutions.  For example, in the school system, there is no reason to assume that Christians can teach mathematics better than non-Christians.

Worship is a big part of what the church does.  According to the two kingdom doctrine, worship activities, along with the structure of the church, must conform to standards prescribed by Scripture.  Church leaders must limit their exhortations to matters that are prescribed by Scripture, and let church members exercising their own judgment on matters that are not settled by Scripture.

The book expands on these matters, and provides guidelines to help Christians make decisions on some practical issues.  It is impossible to go through all of them here, and readers are referred to the book if they are interested.  From my own perspective, I found the book interesting and useful.  I found myself agreeing with the author on many of his positions on Christian conduct, an area of great interest to me.  In this summary, I obviously raised some questions about some details related to the construction of the doctrine, and on specific items such as military service.

While recognizing that the doctrine has some merit, I must say that my own perspective on the Bible is somewhat different.  In the Old Testament, there is a separation between the righteous and the wicked.  In the New Testament, there is a distinction between those who belong to “the world”, who are in darkness, and those who belong to the light brought by Christ.  The kingdom of God corresponds to a realm where the light has taken over, so that God’s will is done by all members.  The kingdom of God is God’s target for all of humanity, and God wants all men to be saved.  Jesus’ teaching implies that there are various levels of accountability before God, and those with more knowledge of God’s will are actually held more accountable (See for example Luke 12:47-48).  The concept of a common kingdom established and legitimized by God himself, but with no hope of salvation, seems extraneous to me.