The View of Scholar on the Kingdom of God

by David W. Baker. It is posted with permission from the author. I. Introduction The res publica of graven externalise has been integrity of the dominant topics of invigorated testament study in this light speed. The reason is obvious. Many scholars, both(prenominal) conservative and critical, regard the landed estate of divinity fudge as the central approximation of messiah public proclamation. 1 In fact, a plethora of monographs has poured forth since Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer do the case that saviour belief was profoundly Jewish, drenched in intense eschatological commit. This new situation cont final stageed against nineteenth nose earth-closetdy views, which moralized the landed estate and make it palatable to modern sagaciousness by arguing it was merely an expression of ethical sensitivity raise up in the hearts of men. In contrast, Weiss and Schweitzer argued that Jesus claim for the kingdom anticipated divinity fudges stark intervention in t he re entirelyy near future that would reshape the creation. The view became kn possess as consistent, thorough-going or imminent eschatology.For Weiss, the kingdom was purely religious, non ethical purely future, not pre direct in any way. The region would be theologys final miracle with Jesus functioning in his current ministry as Messias designatus. 3 For Weiss, Jesus believed that he would one day be spot the watchword of Man. At first, Jesus believed that this would occur during his lifetime, and later in his ministry, he anticipated it to come shortly after His death. 4 It is a heritage that Jesus believed he possessed, though he had not moreover entered into it.For Schweitzer, Jesus expected the end to come at first in his ministry. As he sent out the twelve in mission (Matthew 1023), he believed that earlier they finished their tour of the cities of Israel, the son of Man would come and bring the kingdom. Its mien would mean the end of the present age, and he would be transformed into the Son of Man. When the disciples returned from their mission without this taking place, Jesus believes of the end changed. It would take suffering, his own suffering, for the estate to come. His death would bring the queendom. Though very different than Schweitzer, the oldest dispensationalists in any case accent the Jewish roots of kingdom want and placed its ultimate expression, as passkeyly expressed finished the hope of Israels scriptures, strictly in the future, what they referred to as the kingdom of heaven. Whatever relationship Jesus work in the present had to the kingdom, it was part of a previously unrevealed mystery that made its current expression something istinct from what had been look ford to Israel and distinct from what was to come one day in fulfillment. This billet surrounded by what would happen for Israel one day and what happens to the church forthwith was a major element in the traditional dispensational distinction between I srael and the church in the plan of perfection. However, in the middle of this century, that clear distinction was somewhat blurred, though how it worked precisely was never agreed to or understandably set forth as four separate views were espo procedured. Unlike Schweitzer, these dispensationalists, maxim no error or change in Jesus mind, exclusively like him they regarded the promise of the future to be so rooted in Jewish hope and so grand in its scale that cypher Jesus did currently could be seen as the fulfillment of that great promise of old. For both classical and revised dispensationalists, the mystery introduced into the kingdom computer programme, conceived in non-homogeneous ways in this century, represented an intercalation in the kingdom program of God, distinct from the hope given to Israel.So throughout this century, the idea that kingdom hope was richly Jewish and pointed strongly, if not exclusively, to the future has been prominent in New Testament theology, whether conservative or not. 7 As we sh entirely see, this emphasis on the future form of the kingdom is well grounded in biblical hope. different views also have emerged in this century. Two approaches were like the nineteenth century romanticized efforts to redefine the kingdom in ways moderns could embrace.So efforts were made to demyhtologize Jesus image of the apocalyptic Kingdom into either an existential claim for a crisis stopping point (Bultmann) or to turn kingdom language into a mere metaphorical symbol of hope and transformation (Wilder and the later Perrin). 8 Both of these attempts, representing to a greater extent liberal readings of Scripture, tried to redeem the kingdom concept by redefining it. However, both other approaches seriously sought to engage the biblical text and quantify the model Weiss and Schweitzer introduced.These twain other main views of the kingdom in this century have reacted to the strictly future model of the kingdom in two very diverse ways. One view, associated with C. H. Dodd, opted for a reading that the Kingdom hope was totally realized in Jesus ministry. 9 This became known as realized eschatology. The other, rooted in the work of Werner Kummel, R. H. Fuller, and Joachim Jeremias, argued that the view of the kingdom had both present and future elements. 10 This became known as the already/not yet view of the kingdom or eschatology in the process of realization. In fact, Jeremias in his conclusion to his volume on the parables closes this way, In attempting to recover the original significance of the parables, one thing above all becomes evident it is that all the parables of Jesus compel his hearers to come to a decision about his soul and mission. For they all are full of the secret of the Kingdom of God (Mark 4. 11), that is to say, the realisation of an eschatology in the process of realization. The hour of fulfillment is come, that is the urgent note that sounds through them all. 11 This view was made famous in evangelical circles by George Ladd. 12 It is probably the most prominent view currently in New Testament circles at large, both conservative and critical. It is known as inaugurated eschatology. 13 The kingdom was inaugurated or was dawning in Jesus talking to and deeds, but its consummation was yet future. As we shall see, thither are also good reasons why this view is held.I lay out this map of views at the start, because the issue of what the kingdom is, when it begins, and how it proceeds have been the key suspicions in this century. provided treating the theology of the kingdom involves far more(prenominal) than these questions, as we hope to interpret and survey. In fact, I hope to consider a series of issues tied to the kingdom. They include (1) Linguistics and the Kingdom in Jewish Expectation A Static or Tensive Symbol (2) Kingdom as Apocalyptic (Imminence make over of This World Into The Age to Come or Renewing This World in This History or Both) (3) King dom Present, Future, or Both? (4) Defining the Kingdom DynamicGods Powerful Presence in precept (God in Strength) or Realm (Church, Israel, World, or Eschatological) or altogether the Above (5) The Kingdom and Ethics (6) Beyond the Term Kingdom (christ, Spirit, Son of Man, Salvation, Gospel, Overcoming Satan and Sin) (7) Kingdom outside the Gospels (Why Is The Term Less usual? ) and (8) So What? The Kingdom and Today. So not only is the kingdom theme an important New Testament concept generating a rich account statement of discussion, it is also one of the most mixed topics in Scripture. II.The Kingdom, Jesus, the Hebrew Scriptures, and import Temple Jewish Kingdom Hope A Static or Tensive Symbol? When Jesus used the expression kingdom of God, how much of its gist can we assume he and his audience shared? This becomes an important question because the expression itself, surprisingly, is totally absent in the Hebrew Scriptures. 14 present is a case where the study of an idea has to move past a study of the set phrase to get anywhere. The idea, however, is more frequent. 15 Yahweh is King (1 Sam 1212 Ps. 2410 Is. 3322 Zeph. 315 Zech. 1416-17). He find oneselfs over Israel (Exod. 1518 Num. 2321 Deut. 335 Is. 4315).He rules over the earth or the creation (2 Kings 1915 Is. 65 Jer. 4618 Ps. 2910 472 93 9610 14511, 13). He possesses a royal throne (Ps. 94 456 478 Is. 61 661 Ezek 126). His reign is ongoing (Ps. 1016 14610 Is. 2423). Rule or kingship is His (Ps. 2228). It is primarily Gods special relationship to Israel that is in view here as the Son of David is said to sit on Yahwehs throne (1 Chron 1714 285 2923 2 Chron 98 138). When Israel was overrun by the nations, a longing existed that one day God would reestablish his rule on behalf of his people and give tongue to his comprehensive sovereignty to all humanity.After all, God had committed himself to David concerning a dynasty of succession (2 Sam. 713). It is here that the hope of a future kingdom of God, made not with hands, came to be contrasted with the kingdoms of men in Daniel 2 and 7. It is in the consideration of much(prenominal) expectation that Jesus used the margin kingdom of God. What was hoped for was something that had existed in the past, but only as a mere glimpse of what had been promiseda rule to come involving total peace for Gods people. In sum, Kingdom hope by the time of the Babylonian captivity is compulsive forward by the vision of the fullness of Gods rule showing up one day.It was to this hope that Jesus preached. Such a hope had been nurtured in some circles of second temple Judaism. 16 The kingdom became linked (sometimes) to the messianic hope, but ( forever) to judgment of the nations, and vindication of the saints. Some Jewish documents, content with the current arrangement, do not reflect any such hope. The concept is expressed with some variety, but central to its expression is that God will assert his comprehensive rule (1 Enoch 94-5 123 25 273 813).Gods powerful forepart will involve the removal of Satans influence (Assumption of Moses 710). He will destroy his enemies and free his people. These enemies are described in both earthly depots, like the Romans in sing of Solomon 1718 and 2 Baruch 36-40, and in spiritual terms, where Belial stands among the evil hugs who will be discomfited (1QS 34). Often the coming of the kingdom was seen as preceded by a period of intense upheaval and tribulation (Sib. Or. 3796-808 2 Bar. 702-8 4 Ezra 624 91-12 1329-31 1QM 129 191-2). The cry of the prayer of 2 Macc. 24-29 summarizes well the hope of deliverance. The confabulate was for God to deliver and vindicate his people. The text of Psalms of Solomon 1718 gives the most doted expression of messianic hope in all the texts, though the idea of kingdom in this period of Judaism did not always entail a messianic hope. 17 In fact, sometimes the Messiah is seen in very earthly terms as in the Psalms of Solomon, while in other t exts, he clearly possesses a more transcendent power (1 Enoch 3771) or has a seeming fluff of the two (4 Ezra 728-29 1232-34 1326).Thus, associated with the consistent idea of Gods coming comprehensive and vindicating rule for his people is a complex and varying array of sub-themes tied to the kingdoms coming. In Judaism, there was no unified view of the kingdom beyond the hope of Gods powerful coming and vindication. It is important to appreciate that it is into this somewhat abstruse backdrop that Jesus preached this hope. This complex background raises the question could Jesus use the phrase and really be understood? More importantly, in presenting his intelligence of the idea represented in the kingdom could he assume an understanding of the term by his audience?Given the paucity of older Testament use of the phrase and the variety of details attached to the hope in spite of appearance Judaism, Jesus needed to explain his usage in order to be clear. It is this complexity th at raises the issue of whether Jesus use of the term was static (steno) or tensive. 18 Norman Perrin posed two options. Did Jesus use the term one way all the time with a fixed denotive (steno)? Or was his use of the term something that he used with symbolic force but that could not be contained in one referent alone (tensive)?We opt for a third possibility, did Jesus use operate indoors a fixed parameter, which he filled with a variety of detail because of the richness of the base concept he was defining and detailing (tensive yet with a steno-like base)? 19 How one approaches Jesus terminology will regard how one reads it. Four factors favor this third option. First, the design of and variety deep down the gospel kingdom sayings placed alongside the paucity of older references in the Hebrew Scriptures suggests that Jesus is developing the concept along additional lines from what the gaga Testament taught.However, Jesus respect for that revelation elbow room that he is not altering the concept, but developing and complementing it. We hope to show the variety deep down his teaching that validates this point. indorse, the very consistency of the fundamental image within Judaism means that a introductory understanding of kingdom did exist on which Jesus could build. It is Gods kingdom and rule that is presented as the hope. The sheer number of texts that discuss judgment and vindication under this theme both in Scripture and in later Judaism show that Jesus works with a given understanding at its base.Reflection taking place within Second Temple Judaism represented attempts to put the hope of Scripture together in terms of the details. Jesus both accepts and rejects elements of these reflections. Third, this idea that Jesus works with a rarely used Old Testament term and yet develops it using larger categories of scriptural teaching has precedent elsewhere in his own use. Jesus does the same type of thing with the Son of Man concept. That definitio n of a human invested with eschatological authority appears in Daniel 7 (note the conceptual overlap with the kingdom themeDan. is a key kingdom text). Jesus takes this one image and uses it as a ingathering point for his christology. In the same way, Jesus takes the kingdom concept and uses it as a collection point for both soteriology and eschatology. 20 Fourth, the very confusion of detail within Judaism of Jesus time demanded that he take this type of approach to the concept. here(predicate) was a phrase that basically did not exist in the Old Testament. However, by Jesus time, multiple concepts swirled around it, even though its basic meaning was well established.The phrase clearly sought to summarize a major strand of Jewish hope, yet it needed defining. Its absence in the Old Testament gave Jesus room to make it a helpful synthesizing concept. Its familiarity and importance within Judaism, because of the hope it encapsulated, made it a key term to nail down. The very divers ity in its contemporary usage call for that Jesus explain and develop the term. Thus, as we turn to Jesus use, we can expect that on the one hand he was referring to a hope his audience understood in its most basic terms, but something that also needed more detail and development.