Teaching About the Kingdom of God

Teaching About the Kingdom of God

No one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel, but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.

The main idea is the rule of God over men rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.

There is one problem with the kingdom teaching that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintained a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teaching is relevant.

Yet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying which denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age, but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is the future kingdom, but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.

That the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20, 21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover Jesus mentioned that men of violence were taking the kingdom by force (Mt 11:12; Lk 7:28), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21, 22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.

It is evident that the kingdom which Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teaching of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.

The clearest teaching on the future aspect of the kingdom is to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24, 25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the reference to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of man (Mk 13:26). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).

Various features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership of the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same cleavage is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.

There is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid developments occur from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (Mt 28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea in Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.

Teaching About His Own Death. The announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death? He gave a series of passing indications which, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to renconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.

It is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25–27, 44, 45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.

[1]

----

cf. compare

OT Old Testament

[1]Elwell, Walter A. ; Beitzel, Barry J.: Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Book House, 1988, S. 1155