Link Dispensationalism to anything other than a non existent gap supposedly in Daniel, then proceed speaking with authority.
one more link, I was able to find bullinger's appendix online, your welcome to browse these links, now he is ultra dispensational and I don't agree with all of his views, but I do agree with probably 80-90% but no one is perfect you know. anyway here is his stuff on the kingdom:
the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven:
The Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God - Appendix to the Companion Bible
the kingdom and the church:
The Kingdon and the Church - Appendix to the Companion Bible
Synonomous expressions for the kingdom:
The Synonymous Expressions for Kingdom - Appendix to the Companion Bible
that takes care of bullinger, i will check chafer next. (update) here is chafer a section on the kingdom of God and heaven.....chafer was a genius, but some of his writing is hard to follow but anyway here it is:
"Under Ecclesiology, already treated (Vol. IV), the distinction in meaning between the terms
kingdom of God and
kingdom of heaven has been pointed out. Suffice it to say here that the authority of God over the entire universe is a dominant theme from Genesis to Revelation. And such, indeed, is the kingdom of God. It extends to all intelligences—angels and men—wherever there is loyal subjection to divine authority. That there are angels as well as men who disown this authority is clearly taught in the Word of God, and as clearly is it asserted that before the millennial, Messianic reign of Christ is ended all opposition to God's rule will have been crushed by the theocratic King (cf.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28), and then the kingdom of God will be “delivered up” to God in the sense that His rightful supremacy, government, and empire will resume their former unchallenged sway of ages past. This universal exercise of authority is properly styled the
kingdom of God, and should not be accounted the same as the Davidic theocratic rule over Israel and the earth, which rule is brought to its consummation and established in the earth before the transformations and restorations which belong to the kingdom of God have begun. Broadly speaking, the Kingdom of God—as defined above—is the universal authority of God from everlasting to everlasting, while the term
Kingdom of Heaven is fittingly applied to God's rule in the earth—it is heaven's rule on the earth—and is restricted, with respect to time, as has been seen, to limited periods and well-defined situations. The prayer for and in the kingdom of heaven includes the words: “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” While that kingdom appears in various forms, it had its tangible beginning in the Davidic Covenant and will be fulfilled and consummated with a perfected social order in the earth under the beneficent reign of the King of kings. When the vast distinctions between these two spheres of divine authority are observed there is a solving of many problems in the interpretation of the Bible which would otherwise exist. Faithful recognition of these dissimilarities is beginning to be held by expositors generally as the most effective key to the understanding of the Scriptures. So Dr. Auberlen quotes R. Rothe as saying: “Our key does not open—
the right key is lost; and till we are put in possession of it again, our exposition will never succeed. The system of biblical ideas is
not that of our schools; and so long as we attempt exegesis without it, the Bible will remain
a half-closed book. We must enter upon it with
other conceptions than those which we have been accustomed to think
the only possible ones; and whatever these may be, this one thing at least is certain, from the whole tenor of the melody of Scripture in its natural fulness, that they must be
more realistic and massive” (
Divine Revelation, p. 387, cited by Peters,
Theocratic Kingdom, I, 21). This is a confession which is at once both humiliating and significant. That this millennial discussion to follow is related only to the earthly, Davidic, Messianic kingdom of heaven need hardly be pointed out. Consideration of the kingdom of God in its restored, final form will be the theme of the next and closing chapter of this work on Christology. Why, indeed, after centuries of study should so great a proportion of good men be in dire confusion over the divine program for the earth while others are informed and to that extent delivered from such difficulties, unless it be that some hold and use the key to which Rothe refers while others do not? Men of commendable scholarship do hold the key and for them these specific problems are really solved. There are now two schools of orthodox men. For one school, having imbibed the concoction of Whitby which proposes a man-made millennium and, having been run into the idealistic, cramping mold of Cocceius' one covenant of grace, there is little hope that a deliverance will be wrought. Such theological systems, seminaries, and individuals muddle on, transmitting idealism which is unsustained by the Word of God to succeeding generations. On the other hand, those who hold the key are increasing in number; they have their schools and system of theology which generates exposition of the Bible and promotes Bible study over the whole land."
He then goes on to describe like ten pages of the kingdom of heaven.