The Patriarchs - Perfectly Balanced

This is the fourth post in a series that I am doing based on the lives of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), the accounts of which are found in the book of Genesis.  In spite of the title of this series, the record of the experiences of the men listed above are only incidental to me.  What I find far more interesting, relevant, and important is the revelation of the character and nature of God that we can see by observing these men's lives.  Each post will coincide with a lesson being taught in a classroom.  As such, they will not be in a traditional essay format.  Rather, it will be a slightly expanded version of the notes that I hand out in class. 

The Genesis Account

    Gen. 30:25-31:16 – Jacob hatched an ingenious plot to breed his flocks into the stronger of the two between he and Laban.  Yet in spite of his scheming he gives God full credit for all of his success.  This was precisely the molding and shaping of character that God had in mind when He arranged it so that Jacob would stay with Laban for 20 years.  Furthermore, we can observe in this situation an evidence of the tension that exists between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.  This relationship between two seemingly contradictory and competing elements is prevalent throughout the Bible.

Supporting Scriptures

    John 6:35, 44, 65 – There is a bewildering paradox of salvation contained within this single conversation between Jesus and the Jews.  On the one hand, Jesus says that only those who come to Him and believe (lit. to be persuaded of) in Him will be saved.  But on the other hand, Jesus says that only those whom the Father draws (lit. drags) and allows (or permits) can come to Him.

     Rom. 6:12-14 – Yet another confusing tension exists in this passage; this time relating to sanctification.  Paul writes, essentially, that “you” (meaning Christians) will not be mastered by sin because of God’s grace, so don’t let it master you via an act of the will.

Questions For Meditation

With those mystifying passages in mind, and as it pertains to the overall point of this series, is there an aspect of God’s own nature that causes these types of tensions to exist within the biblical account?  I think so.  I believe that the perfect union of every one of God's attributes, including ones that we would perceive as contradictory, results in doctrinal truths that run parallel to each other and which humans also perceive as contradictory.  The Bible is God’s written revelation of His own character.  As such, it naturally reflects what He is like in the truth claims that it espouses.  Therefore, if we struggle to wrap our minds around the reality of God’s nature it is only natural that we also have difficulty in comprehending aspects of the biblical text; in this case various tensions that exist in scripture that at first glance may appear to be confusing, incompatible, or contradictory.

Alright then, if the preceding is true, then is there any evidence in the Bible of two (or more) of God’s attributes, that would appear to be in conflict with each other, merging together in a single act or event?  Again I would say emphatically yes!  We see just such an example of this when we consider God’s wrath and God’s love.  From a human perspective there are few emotions that are more diametrically opposed to one another than wrath and love.  To our eyes they would appear to be mutually exclusive.  I believe we would have to travel a long way to find a person who did not consider wrath a negative emotion and love a positive one.  

But when we consider God’s version of these two attributes we see a completely different picture emerge.  Examples of both can be seen throughout the Old Testament.  In Deuteronomy 7:6-8 The Lord specifically mentions His love for Israel as the foundation of the entire Abrahamic Covenant and His establishment of the Jews as a nation.  Conversely, in 2 Kings 17:18 we see one of many examples of God’s burning anger against the abominations that His people had committed.  Now to be sure, these are unconnected passages separated by several hundred years of history.  So we might be tempted to say that even with God these emotions do not merge into perfect balance and harmony.  But this is not all of the revelation of God that we possess.  One of the beautiful aspects of the Bible is the way in which God reveals a little more of Himself over the course of time.  So the longer humans spent interacting with Him the better they were equipped to understand Him.  This perfectly mirrors our own individual lives.  And in the case of this topic (the union of God’s wrath and love) what we see when we pull our lenses back and examine the full revelation of His character is the miracle of the cross of Christ.  

D.A. Carson puts it like this: The reality is that the Old Testament displays the grace and love of God in experience and types, and these realities become all the clearer in the New Testament. Similarly, the Old Testament displays the righteous wrath of God in experience and types, and these realities become all the clearer in the New Testament. In other words both God’s love and God’s wrath are ratcheted up in the move from the Old Testament to the New. These themes barrel along through redemptive history, unresolved, until they come to a resounding climax in the Cross.  Do you wish to see God’s love?  Look at the Cross.  Do you wish to see God’s wrath?  Look at the Cross.

But if these things be so, then why is it so difficult for humans to come to terms with the perfect union of every aspect of God’s character?  The reason we have trouble fathoming this is because our perception is extremely limited and in some ways is fundamentally contrary to God's perspective.  As an example, we have trouble seeing anger in a light other than negative.  Yet scripture says that God displays His wrath every day and that He cannot sin.  Furthermore, we are encouraged to be angry without sinning, in emulation of God's example.  “How is this possible?” we might ask ourselves.  

Our inability to comprehend righteous anger stems from our fundamental inability to understand emotions in general.  James 1:19 teaches that anger is not a rapid and instinctive response to stimuli.  Rather, it is a slow and measured choice based on circumstances.  Yet in spite of this truth, who among us has ever actually experienced anger in this way?  Typically, our anger is immediately felt and hastily acted upon either in word or deed, almost invariably without much in the way of thought.  Even in those rare occasions when our anger manifests itself more slowly it is usually as a seething and bubbling pool of hate and selfishness lurking just beneath the surface of the pleasing veneer of civility we paste onto our faces.  James follows his prescription for anger with the following condemnation: the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.  

Our primal understanding of human experience as a mirror of divine character is distorted, twisted, and corrupted.  Since this is the case it ought to come as no surprise to us that we struggle to understand and resist accepting the harmony of God’s character when it is revealed in the tensions of scripture.  Rather than be surprised and put off by these portions of scripture, or worse yet use them as excuses to ignore the Bible, we ought to acknowledge the tensions, admit that we are handicapped in our understanding, and seek to become diligent students of the word of God so that in the due course of time He might be pleased to graciously reveal the fullness of His character to us and in so doing richly bless our lives.

The Patriarchs - Harmoniously Communal

This is the third post in a series that I am doing based on the lives of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), the accounts of which are found in the book of Genesis.  In spite of the title of this series, the record of the experiences of the men listed above are only incidental to me.  What I find far more interesting, relevant, and important is the revelation of the character and nature of God that we can see by observing these men's lives.  Each post will coincide with a lesson being taught in a classroom.  As such, they will not be in a traditional essay format.  Rather, it will be a slightly expanded version of the notes that I hand out in class.

The Genesis Account

Gen. 31:4-16 – It is astonishing that in this culture where the relegation of women to inferior stations was the norm Jacob sought counsel from his wives.  It further displays his vastly altered character and serves as a precursor to the vision of male/female relations that God would later begin to rebuild with Israel.

Supporting Scriptures

Gen. 2:23 – This is God’s original design of relationship between the sexes.  There is a union here.  There is a bond.  There is a oneness.  And it is set at a 1:1 ratio between male and female.  Roles and responsibilities and dissatisfaction with them fade into obscurity and insignificance in light of the joyous coming together of man and woman.

Gen. 4:19-24 – Yet only two chapters later, after sin has entered the picture, we now see the first recorded instance of polygamy.  Lamech takes two wives to himself.  Not only that, but notice his attitude toward them.  It is domineering and prideful.

Gen. 20:17-18 – Fast forward to Abimilech, the king of Gerar.  The reference here to his “wife and maids” indicates the presence of a harem.  Before we’re even half way through Genesis we’ve gone from two wives to a whole house full of women for the sake of one man.

Ex. 21:7-11 – Although in the Mosaic Law women were still inferior to men, we can see in this passage that God is beginning to build into the social fabric of His people a safeguarding of female rights and prerogatives.  This is just one example of several to be found in the Torah.

Questions For Meditation

To my mind there are three significant questions that arise from these biblical truths.  First, what is the significance of the shift between Genesis 2 and Genesis 4 regarding the male/female relationship?  

God ordained that man and woman would cling to each other.  He prescribed a relational bond between them of such a close and intimate nature that they would “become one flesh”.  Such a level of closeness and unity of purpose, preference, and pleasure are frankly unimaginable for us today.  But the introduction of sin into this image of oneness immediately disrupted the male/female relationship and introduced not only the possibility but the fact of relational fractures.  Although Lamech, probably years later, is the first recorded instance of polygamy with all of its implications of diluting the “one flesh” principle, immediately after being caught Eve attempts to shift blame from herself onto Adam.  The man and woman are no longer one but have been separated into two parties, with competing self-interests.  Just imagine for a moment what this must have been like for them.  They retain the memories of their life pre-Fall.  They can recall how close they were and how united they were.  But the memories are a curse to them.  They can never again achieve what their recollection describes to them.  So they are doomed for the rest of their lives, at least on some level, to sadness.  This doesn’t even touch on the far greater degree of sadness that they must have experienced due to the fracturing of their relationship with God.

Secondly, what is revealed about God’s own character in all of this?  God states in Genesis 1:31 that He saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.  Jesus posed the following rhetorical question to the rich young man in Mark 10:18, “Why do you call Me good?  No one is good except God alone.”  The implication from these passages is that, although Jesus was specifically referring to people, by extension for a thing to be classified as good it must be possessed of some measure of God’s nature.  If this is so, then it would follow that all of these created things that God is referring to in Genesis 1 bear His stamp, or His image, in some way.  

Further, the “all things” does not only include material elements of nature such as what we typically envision.  The creation account paints broad brush strokes over all of the material universe, but it should not be seen as a quantitative list of all that exists.  Genesis does not talk about the 2^nd law of thermodynamics, the theory of relativity, or the Pythagorean Theorem.  These are all scientific laws or theories.  They are not concrete physical structures.  Rather, they are ordered constructs of information which aid humans in describing the material universe.  Yet, if a scientific law is accurate it is describing the universe that God created and therefore the law itself is a part of that creation and must inherently have, at least originally, been classified as “very good”.  

What’s my point?  Everything in the universe, whether material or immaterial, bears the stamp of God’s image and reflects His nature to the rest of creation around it.  This extends to the unblemished design of male/female relations.  The manner in which God designated that Adam and Eve should enjoy cohabitation is literally a reflection of God Himself.   The truth of this is readily apparent when we consider the ways in which God describes relations between the three members of the God-head in comparison to the way that Adam described Eve and God described their marriage.  Jesus said “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30).  He also said “Before Abraham was born, I AM.” (John 8:58).  Paul describes the Holy Spirit as revealing the mind of God just as a man’s spirit within him reveals his own mind (1 Cor. 2:10-11).  There is a quality of oneness and sameness present within the trinity that exactly parallels the oneness and sameness present in the original marriage precisely because that original marriage exactly parallels God’s own nature.

Thirdly and finally, do these principles apply in any other situations besides marriage? Consider the following.  In Christ’s high priestly prayer he makes some requests on behalf of everyone who will ever believe in Him through the word of the Apostles.  And He defines the reason for His asking as follows: “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us.” (John 17:20-21).  Christ’s description of all Christians who have ever lived and will ever live is that they will have a unity and oneness that, just as marriage is designed to do, mirror images the unity and oneness of God Himself.  What we are talking about is a collective unification of the entire body of Christ with the Godhead and with each other to such an extent that all of the elements of this massive relationship are indistinguishable and indivisible from one another.  A disruption in the relationship of two believers literally distorts the nature and impugns the reputation of the tri-une God.  Think about that the next time you are tempted to be angry or frustrated with someone at church.  

The Patriarchs - Eternally Self-Existent

This is the second post in a series that I am doing based on the lives of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), the accounts of which are found in the book of Genesis.  In spite of the title of this series, the record of the experiences of the men listed above are only incidental to me.  What I find far more interesting, relevant, and important is the revelation of the character and nature of God that we can see by observing these men's lives.  Each post will coincide with a lesson being taught in a classroom.  As such, they will not be in a traditional essay format.  Rather, it will be a slightly expanded version of the notes that I hand out in class.

Introduction: The Danger of Haste

Most of what we will cover in this class, including today’s lesson, will include elements of knowledge that you already possess.  The human tendency when confronted by what is already known is to disregard it.  To use an elementary example, none of us would spend any substantial amount of time contemplating the significance of the mathematical equation 2 + 2 = 4.  The reason is because we learned this when we were in grade school and do not perceive any benefit in continuing to dwell upon it.  It merely is, we accept it, we utilize it, and we move on.

There is a tremendous danger to be found in applying this same principle of thought to questions of Biblical revelatory truth.  Psalm 119:14-16 describes a pattern of behavior in which a person painstakingly, exhaustively, and ceaselessly pours effort into considering who God is through His revealed testimonies, precepts, ways, statutes, and word.  Considering that all of scripture is a part of this revelation we hastily rush through our contemplation of any of it at our great peril.

The Genesis Account

    Gen. 22:8 – The almost offhand comment that Abraham makes to Isaac in this verse contains within it a mountain of import.  Abraham’s faith in God’s previous promises to him causes an internal realization of the self-sufficiency that characterizes God.  He is His own provider, needing and depending on nothing and no one other than Himself.  Furthermore, He has always existed in this state.

Supporting Scripture

    1 Jn. 3:20 – Here we find a seemingly innocuous little phrase that takes about one second to roll off the tongue.  But in it is bound up an astonishing level of comprehensive application relating to God’s omniscience.  To put it another way, there is nothing that God does not know.  Would that we actually lived as if we believed this was true.

    Psa. 115:3 – This is another statement of worship that is deceptive in its implications.  If we really take the time to stop and carefully consider what it means that God “does whatever He pleases” the ramifications of His omnipotence are astounding.  This is a gut punch to human pride that would seek to undermine, marginalize, or even deny God’s absolute and supreme sovereignty.  Would that we actually lived as if we believed this was true.

    Psa. 139:7-10 – David’s realization of God’s omnipresence plays a critical role in informing his understanding of his relationship with God.  He both acknowledges that God is everywhere and at the same time applies that truth to the reality that God is always where David is.  Would that we actually lived as if we believed this was true.

    Ex. 3:14 – God’s famous description of Himself is a very revealing description of His existence.  He states simply “I AM (Hebrew: exist, happen) that I AM (Hebrew: here, thus, so)”.  There is a very concrete reason that God needs to describe Himself in this way.  To do otherwise would imply a relation to time.  For example: “God has always existed” or “God has lived forever”.  Both of these use time as a reference point.  This is insufficient when it comes to the question of God’s existence because He dwells outside the scope of time.  This statement to Moses is actually the only accurate way possible to describe God.

Questions For Meditation

    I would like to conclude by considering three questions.  First, was Abraham merely placating Isaac with his answer to his son’s question?  I don't think he was.  On a human level it seems doubtful that Isaac would voluntarily go to his own execution.  But how else do we explain that Abraham was able to bind him and place him upon the altar without a fight?  One possibility is that Isaac was simply too small to fight back.  But in verse 6 of chapter 22 we read that Abraham placed the wood for the offering on Isaac (presumably his back) and the two of them walked on together.  Abraham could not have loaded his son down with the wood unless he was at least a teenager, strong enough and possessed of enough stamina to bear up under this load.  Furthermore, in the NASB translation of the Bible, Hebrews 11:19 tells that Abraham received Isaac back "as a type" after God provided a ram in Isaac's place.  What does this statement, "as a type", mean?  I believe it parallels the Apostle Paul's writings in the book of Romans.  Romans 5:14 compares Adam and Christ and says that Adam was "a type" of Him who was to come.  In the case of Adam and Christ the parallel is that through Adam sin and death entered the world but through Christ righteousness and life was granted.  In a similar way, I believe the reference to Isaac as "a type" in Hebrews is comparing him to Christ.  Christ voluntarily submitted to His own execution according to the will of His father.  So I believe Isaac submitted voluntarily to the will of his father on Mount Moriah.  

    The Hebrews to Romans connection should not be taken as conclusive however.  The Greek word used in Romans and Hebrews that is translated as "a type" is not the same. And only the NASB translators chose to render it in Hebrews as "a type".  I believe the parallel between Hebrews and Romans, although it is tenuous, is enough when combined with the oddity of Isaac being old enough to carry wood yet apparently not resisting his father, to suggest that Isaac's participation was willing.

    Therefore, I don't believe that Abraham had any need of placating his son.  I believe that instead, his statement that God would provide the means for the sacrifice was simply an outpouring of his theology.  Going back to the Hebrews passage mentioned earlier, Abraham believed that God could still fulfill His covenant even after Isaac's death by raising him back to life.  So I think that Abraham was headed to that mountain fully prepared to plunge his dagger into his son's body, accepting the resultant pain and suffering to his offspring, in light of his greater devotion to His God and his firm belief in God's ability to provide in any way he chose.

    My next question is this.  Ok, if Abraham was so convinced of God's providence, then how did he arrive at this conclusion?  The answer is that it was not based on ignorance or some sort of blind faith.  Rather, it was based on clear and convincing evidences that God had provided to him previously.  Consider the account of the "cutting of the covenant" between God and Abram in Genesis 15.  This scene may seem odd to our modern eyes.  The gruesomeness of the slaughtered animals and the blood may seem repugnant.  We may wonder what in the world God is trying to communicate here. He is really just coming down to Abraham's level to explain things in a way the man will understand.  You see, in ancient Middle Eastern society this was just the normative custom when two parties were ratifying an agreement.  They would cut animals in half, arrange the pieces opposite each other, typically with a channel of blood running down the middle, and then walk through together to the other side.  This served multiple purposes.  The slaughter of the animals represented what would happen to either party if they broke the covenant.  The arrangement of the pieces on opposite sides showed that both groups were equally responsible for enforcing the terms of the agreement.  And the requirement of walking between the carcasses, through the blood and gore, symbolized that this was not a "hands off" affair.  One did not enter into an ancient covenant without getting one's hands dirty.

    With this in mind, notice the oddity of this particular covenant here in Genesis.  In verse 17 of chapter 15 a smoking oven and flaming torch (representing The Lord) appeared to Abraham and passed between the pieces.  This was nothing less than a resounding statement that this covenant was all about God.  God was responsible for the terms of the agreement.  God was responsible for the provisions of the agreement.  God was responsible for the enforcement of the agreement.  It was all of God and none of man. This would have been a shockingly clear and direct message to Abraham that God was in control and that He would provide everything necessary to see events ordered to His satisfaction.  Is it any wonder then that Abraham, later in life, was firmly convinced of God's full capacity to provide for Himself as he climbed Mount Moriah and answered the inquiry of his son.

    My final question is really just a logical extrapolation of the first two.  What was Abraham’s faith in God based on?  The clear answer is simply that it was based on the special revelation God had given him.  It was based on who God had revealed that He was.  It was based on the evidence provided through Abraham's life experiences that God would provide.  This is no different than the way in which we are to respond to God today.  He reveals who He is through His word, the Bible.  And we are to read it, study, and seek to understand it.  It is only based on that evidence that we are to construct the parameters of our lives, rather than upon our own wisdom and understanding.  Coming full circle back to the introduction of this post, this process requires time and effort.  It cannot be done in a hasty, flippant, or casual manner.

The Patriarchs - Majestically Righteous

This is the first post in a series that I am doing based on the lives of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), the accounts of which are found in the book of Genesis.  In spite of the title of this series, the record of the experiences of the men listed above are only incidental to me.  What I find far more interesting, relevant, and important is the revelation of the character and nature of God that we can see by observing these men's lives.  Each post will coincide with a lesson being taught in a classroom.  As such, they will not be in a traditional essay format.  Rather, it will be a slightly expanded version of the notes that I hand out in class.

Introduction: The Two Kingdoms – scripture describes two different kingdoms of God

    The Universal (spiritual) Kingdom – This kingdom is the ever present reality of all time and space, over which God reigns as the supreme and unchallenged monarch.  He is the creator of all things, the sustainer of all things, sovereign over all things, and the beginning and end of all things. (1 Chr. 29:11; Psa. 29:10; 103:19)

    The Mediatorial (physical) Kingdom – This kingdom, which is confined to earth, rather than being ruled directly by God, is governed by human surrogates beginning with Adam and culminating with Christ.  It is an extension of the overall authority that God exerts over all of creation through the Universal Kingdom (Gen. 1:28; Matt. 6:9a, 10; Rev. 19:11-16)

    How important is this kingdom concept to a proper understanding of God’s overall meta-narrative?  It informs the principle message of repentance that Jesus preached during His earthly ministry (Matt. 4:17).  It is inter-woven into the structure of the ideal pattern of prayer that He taught His disciples (Matt. 6:10).  And this concept of kingship and kingdoms is the very basis upon which the fulfillment of God’s design for all of creation is revealed (Rev. 20:4).  So you might say that it’s pretty important.

    How is this relevant for our study of the Patriarchs?  From chapter 12 of Genesis through the rest of the Pentateuch and on into the historical books of the Old Testament (Joshua, Judges, etc.) we witness the record of the founding and establishment of the nation of Israel.  God, through His chosen human agents Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants, sought to bring into being a kingdom on earth that would complement His kingdom in the heavens that was already in place.  In light of this, these accounts of the lives of the Patriarchs serve to form the framework of God’s design for the Mediatorial Kingdom.

The Genesis Account

    Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-6 – This is the original covenant that God established with Abram.  This “Abrahamic Covenant” is supremely important because it is both the vehicle through which God would eventually fulfill his promise to crush the head of Satan through the offspring of Eve and it is the foundation upon which God will ultimately complete the building of His Mediatorial Kingdom on earth.

    Gen. 23 – In spite of all his adventures and experiences Abraham was still a homeless wanderer in the land of Canaan.  He was rich and powerful but he held no land.  This meant that when he went to bury Sarah he would have to do so on foreign soil.  This was unacceptable and prompted him to purchase his very first property, for an exorbitant sum of money (Ephron was not being generous as the text makes it sound), and demonstrated his great faith in God’s future promises.  Furthermore, this simple business transaction holds massive ramifications when viewed in the context of being somewhat of a down payment on the future nation of Israel.

    Gen. 24:1-9 – Abraham was determined to keep his bloodline pure by not allowing Isaac to inter-marry with the Canaanites.  But notice that he was likewise absolutely determined to stay right where he was among them.  Further, he was committed to the idea of his son Isaac continuing to live in Canaan.  This demonstrates Abraham’s reliance on God’s covenant on two levels; on the one hand God had told him that his seed would be blessed so therefore he wanted Isaac to stay within the family because it was that family who would receive the blessing; on the other hand God had said that this was the land that He would give Abraham’s descendants so Abraham was fixated upon the idea of staying here and not going back to Mesopotamia.

    Gen. 27:27-29 – Jacob, through deception, received the blessing that Isaac had intended for Esau.  Notice that this blessing is exclusively material and physical.

    Gen. 27:39-40 – This lesser blessing, given to Esau as a sort of consolation prize, may have been originally intended for Jacob.  Consider that Isaac never actually says he doesn’t have another blessing prepared.  He just says that he cannot do anything to reverse the blessing he had already given to Jacob.  Further, notice that this blessing also deals with the material and immediate situation of his son.  He dictates that the recipient of this blessing will initially serve the recipient of the first blessing, but that in the due course of time that servitude will be ended.

    Gen. 28:1-5 – This third blessing, given exclusively to Jacob, is the actual continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant (confirmed by God in Gen. 28:13-15).  Notice the symmetry between it and the original promises given both to Abram (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-6) and Isaac (Gen. 26:1-5).  Isaac here holds to the tradition of his father; that his sons take wives from among their own family tree.  This was a tradition that Esau had already broken (Gen. 26:34-35).  Whether due to Esau’s rebellious lifestyle or perhaps stemming from Rebekah revealing to her husband that God had told her Jacob would eventually be the more powerful of the two boys (Gen. 25:23), and in spite of Isaac’s apparent favoring of Esau, the scriptural evidence suggests that he had always intended for Jacob to be the one to inherit the Abrahamic Covenant, perfectly in line with God’s plan.

Questions For Meditation

    Two questions come to my mind after consideration of the above passages and in light of the two kingdoms doctrine stated above.  The first is, what was the point of God going through all this trouble to establish a Mediatorial Kingdom in the nation of Israel that He knew would not fulfill what He wanted?  I believe light is shed on this by passages such as Romans 10:1-4.  These verses describe the futile attempts by the Jews to keep to the standards of the Mosaic Law through their own efforts.  The Apostle Paul says that his fellow countrymen did have a zeal for God, but that it was not according to knowledge. The implication is that good intentions matter for naught if they are based on an invalid foundation.  So I believe that on one hand God chose to establish a human nation to serve as His Mediatorial Kingdom, even though He knew it would ultimately fail, because He needed to prove to humanity that they could not possibly hope to measure up to God's own standards on their own.  This would pave the way centuries later for the arrival of a Messiah, or savior, in the person of Jesus Christ the Son of God.  This man would be the fulfillment of God's design for a physical earthly kingdom.  Because of this future reality, the establishment of the nation of Israel and its subsequent downfall was actually not a failure at all.  It was simply one development in a larger plan.

    The second question that comes to me is; what is the ultimate goal, or end game, that God has in mind through seeking to establish a Mediatorial Kingdom to complement His already existent Universal Kingdom?  My answer to that question is the source of the title of this piece.  God is a king.  He is the supreme and unchallenged ruler of all that exists. So the establishment of a kingdom(s) is perfectly in line with God's royal stature. Furthermore, God is well aware of the fact that He is the best thing in all the universe. The most excellent way for Him to bless any of His creations is to share Himself with them.  This is the most truly "right" action that God can possibly take.  And a kingdom to visibly rule and a throne upon which to visibly sit is an unequaled medium through which to display that glory and majesty that is intrinsic to His nature.  As such, the building of a physical kingdom to merge with His already existent spiritual kingdom fully and unmistakably displays God's majesty and therefore is a concrete proof of His righteousness.