The Kingdom of God (“Kingdom” oftentimes henceforth; the Kingdom of Jehovah God is in view throughout). The Kingdom...what is it? It is, in the first place, as the term of its own indicates, a theocracy [1]. So was the sense from the beginning; so the Old Testament attests ([~16th c. BC]: Exd 19:6, Num 24:17; [~10th c. BC]: 1Sa 8:7]; [~6th c. BC]: Dan 4:30-32; its tangible, unmistakable translation from this sense to substance, even its substantive inbreaking with the announcement of the Davidic Covenant [~10th c. BC]: 2Sam 7:14-16, cf. [~6th c. BC]: Dan 2:44, 7:13-14, 18; centered on Messiah-King Jesus: [~8th c. BC]: Isa 9:6-7; [AD 0+]: Luk 1:31-33, Jhn 12:34, Hbr 1:8, Rev 5:9-10, 11:15, 20:1-6). Please notice that its inbreaking from sense to substance, and the appearance of Jesus upon whom it is centered, are separated by some one-thousand years (~10th c. BC<>AD 0). Are not Design, Purpose, and Execution behind this Kingdom? In that sense then, as a theocracy, is found the consummate expression of the Kingdom in the Hebrew Scriptures, even though the term is not specifically utilized there (Wilke 116); still, one can hardly miss the sense in the ancient text and no less marvel at its translation to substance, and ultimately its personification in Jesus, in the unfolding of mundane time.
The Kingdom is centered on Messiah-King Jesus, thus He alone is the means by which we come to understand the Kingdom—the what, the when, and the where of it. Jesus had much to say about the Kingdom (Tab. 1, Tab. 2), and one would think that what He related about it should be quite sufficient for us to come to an understanding of it. But it is the case that there is no clear consensus amongst the people of God as to the meaning of the Kingdom of God in spite of the weight of Jesus' preaching and teaching concerning it. By God's grace, and with His help, we wish to address this peculiarity in this study. We thought it might be a good idea to begin with a few samplers that introduce the differing views, some conservative, some not, that at the same time should bring about a measure of familiarity with the subject—and this by way of a literature search. That background will be the first part of the study. It is the purpose of the second part of the study to show that the Kingdom of God is in fact a theocracy centered on Messiah-King Jesus.
Friedrich Schleiermacher laid the groundwork for those who view the Kingdom of God as otherworldly (spiritualization of the Kingdom), individualistic, singularly a sort of heart-tether to God (appealing to Luk 17:21, KJV), in this way a present reality (Duling: II The Kingdom Present in the Individual and in the Progressively Redeemed Society; cf. Bultmann 12, discussion of Adolf von Harnack, Strimple 24). In this way Schleiermacher was a liberal thinker, one who laid great emphasis on Jesus' charismatic personality, and psychological influence, and teaching, as the basis for the Christian experience (“Gospels Criticism Part One”, cf. Kant, Paulus, Ritschl). He downplayed or ignored the eschatological component of the Kingdom as presented by Jesus (“eschatology” is literally the study of last things, or, end times), and, hand-in-hand with that, he downplayed or ignored the miraculous per se in the gospels, of which, of course, the manifest Kingdom consists.
William Barclay understood Jesus to be the embodiment of the Kingdom in that He lived His entire life in submission to the will of God (Barclay 36). This submission to the will of God was tantamount to submission to the demands of the Kingdom to Barclay. Barclay laid great stress on this aspect of the Kingdom, that is, that it is the authoritative rule (reign) of God (thus he gets close to the theocracy sense). He thought that the term Kingdom of God as used by Jesus was not in reference to a domain (thus the eschatological element in Jesus' teaching is here somewhat minimized), but rather to the dominion of God (in the mold of Gustaf Dalman and H.C. Dodd [Duling IV “Responses to the Apocalyptic Interpretation of the Kingdom of God]), a condition of the heart, mind, and will, where God is Lord of all (Barclay 30). Any person in any age or generation that perfectly did the will of God was in the Kingdom; the final consummation, when the whole world (perfectly) does God's will is yet to come (Barclay 36). That the Kingdom could be past, present, and future he saw in Jesus' model prayer: '...thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven [Mat 6:10]...' He said that willingness to risk all for Jesus is the price for entry into the Kingdom (Barclay 68 in relation to the parable of the hidden treasure [Mat 13:44], see also Barclay 77). In that regard he talked about seizing the moment, that is, “grabbing hold of” the Kingdom when the impulse comes (Barclay 71). He thought that the growth of the Kingdom is gradual, as does soil similarly give its yield gradually (Mar 4:26-29, Barclay 33-5; he notes how that nothing is so unstoppable as the power of growth, and so it is with the Kingdom; but again, the Kingdom to Barclay was not a domain).
Ben Witherington points out that the term “Kingdom of God” is attested only sparsely in the literature before the time of Jesus. He holds that Jesus made the term/concept central to his teaching. He thinks that the concept of the Kingdom of God has an inherently hierarchical component, as it involves a theocratic vision of life (Witherington 243). He believes that God is the initiator of His Kingdom, and humans can only (and must) respond in kind with its tenets (Witherington 208; Witherington references John. P. Meier twice on this page: [1] how that Meier understands the term "Kingdom of God" as meaning God coming in person to transform and save His people, [2] how that Meier views Jesus' Kingdom of God speech/imagery as God's "salvation-history-in -a-nutshell”]). In regard to Jewish apocalyptic [2], Witherington thinks that the terms "Son of Man," and "Kingdom of God," are the two most frequent and important (and theologically loaded) phrases in the synoptic Jesus tradition; he points out that the only place in the Hebrew Bible where these motifs actually appear together is in Daniel 7 (Witherington 95).
Oswald Chambers believed that our introduction into the Kingdom of God as such is for us to learn all that identification with Jesus means: “...Every now and again, our Lord lets us see what we would be like if it were not for Himself; it is a justification of what He said—'without me you can do nothing.' That is why the bedrock of Christianity is personal, passionate devotion to the Lord Jesus. We mistake the ecstasy of our first introduction into the Kingdom for the purpose of God in getting us there; His purpose in getting us there is that we may realize what identification with Jesus Christ means (Chambers 357 [=”December 23”, in the section “How Can I Personally Partake in the Atonement”]). Concerning the so-called secret Kingdom (Jhn 18:36), he says that the secret is the Kingdom of God within us (cf. Schleiermacher, but Oswald Chambers was certainly not a liberal thinker in our estimation); moreover, he says that we need time (his emphasis is on time) to soak in the Kingdom. Thus he talks about the distractions in and outside of the Church that usually prevent this: “...The great enemy to the Lord Jesus Christ in the present day is the conception of practical work that has not come from the New Testament, but from the systems of the world in which endless energy and activities are insisted upon, but no private life with God. The emphasis is put on the wrong thing. Jesus said 'the kingdom of God cometh not with observation, for lo the kingdom of God is within you,' a hidden, obscure thing. […] We have to get rid of the plague of the spirit of the religious age in which we live. In our Lord's life there was none of the press and rush of tremendous activity that we regard so highly, and the disciple is to be as his Master...” Thus rightly focused on God, when God's engineered circumstances come our way we won't fail God, in that relationship, but stay true to that (inner, within) Kingdom-intimacy (Chambers 293 [=”October 19”, in the section “The Unheeded Secret”]).
Concerning Adolf von Harnack: The three points summarizing Jesus' (consistent) message according to Harnack are: (1) the Kingdom of God and its coming, (2) God the Father and the infinite value of the human soul, and (3) the higher righteousness and the commandment of love. (Strimple 54). “...How are we to determine what in Jesus' teaching is of true religious significance? Harnack's famous criterion was this: those ideas that Jesus shared with his contemporaries are 'husk,' to be discarded (for example, the concept of a future, eternal kingdom); only that which was original with Jesus is 'kernel' (for example the concept of a present, internal kingdom)...” (Strimple 54). Harnack was an empiricist, and the Kingdom to such a one only makes sense as purely spiritual; this-worldly, and present, in the sense that it might presently flourish in the heart. Notice the important distinction to what Jesus taught—the Kingdom, according to Jesus, is an inner heart-tether to God ever presently, yes, but, it also has an eschatological reality—a future, substantive, real manifestation in real time, thence on into eternity, as determined by God's timing. The Old Testament and the New both attest to this.
Jesus' concept of the Kingdom of God was interpreted by F.C. Baur in exclusively human-centered terms (Strimple 41). Concerning Albrecht Ritschl. A disciple of F.C. Baur. Ritschl interpreted the Kingdom of God in solely ethical and social terms (men uniting for common moral action, motivated by love). “...The kingdom that Ritschl envisioned involved no eschatological, extramundane reality; thus it had no need for a personal, sovereign God and Savior (Strimple 51-2).
Concerning Johannes Weiss: “...Weiss maintained that the kingdom of God that Jesus preached was God-centered, transcendental, wholly future (but very near at hand), and to be brought in solely by God's activity. According to Weiss, Jesus expected that the people of God would have to repent of their sins as preparation for the kingdom that God would establish. When the people did not repent, Jesus accepted the necessity of his own death as a vicarious repentance on their behalf, thus opening the way for God to bring in the kingdom. [Quoting Weiss]:'...Jesus concluded that the establishment by God of the messianic kingdom could not yet take place; that an enormous obstacle, the guilt of the people, had to be removed; and that he would not live to see this happen, but first must fall victim to the hatred of his opponents. But from Jesus' religious understanding of his whole life, this could not mean the failure of his work. It must rather be a means for bringing about the final goal. And since the sin which will cause his death is at the same time the chief obstacle to the coming of the kingdom, he seized upon the audacious and paradoxical idea—or the idea seized him—that his death itself should be the ransom for the people otherwise destined to destruction (Mar 10:45). He must give up his life hUPER POLLON as a LUTRON [for the many as a ransom], which the many themselves could not offer...' […] The ethical teaching of Jesus, according to Weiss, should not be thought of as presenting the ethics of the Kingdom, but rather as setting forth the penitential discipline [= works] required of those who would enter the kingdom of God. Thus, it may be referred to as interimsethik, an ethic for the interim remaining before the manifestation of the kingdom...” Strimple further points out that with these views Weiss planted the seeds that Albert Schweitzer brought to full bloom (Strimple 76-7, esp. as quoting Weiss: Jesus' proclamation).
Concerning Albert Schweitzer: Schweitzer thought that to proclaim the imminent Kingdom of God was Jesus' main task—His teaching was secondary. Schweitzer thought that at His baptism Jesus had an inner psychological experience and thought He was being designated Messiah who would soon return on the clouds of heaven to establish the Kingdom; from thence, Jesus announced the imminent Kingdom. Schweitzer thought that Matthew 10:23 was a turning point in Jesus' ministry, that is, from his merely announcing the Kingdom of God. “...According to Schweitzer, Jesus himself tried to force events in order to hasten the Parousia, the coming of the Son of Man in his glory. At his baptism, Jesus had a psychological, inner experience (Schweitzer is not prepared to allow for a miracle) that he interpreted as being designated as being the Messiah who would soon return on the clouds of heaven to establish the kingdom of God. From that time on, Jesus went about announcing that the kingdom was at hand. To proclaim that truth was Jesus' main task; his teaching was secondary. […] Like Johannes Weiss, Schweitzer viewed Jesus' ethics as simply interimsethik, 'the special ethic of the interval before the coming of the kingdom.' For this and other reasons, according to Schweitzer, Jesus' teaching is not very useful today. Schweitzer noted especially the predestinarian emphasis in Jesus' teaching, which is so 'inconceivable' to modern men and women. 'Many are invited, but few are chosen' (Mat 22:14). Schweitzer acknowledged that 'this predestinarian view goes along with the eschatology.' He explained, 'The kingdom cannot be earned'; what happens is that men are called to it, and show themselves to be called to it.' Nevertheless, Schweitzer insisted, although a certain harmony between Jesus' eschatology and his predestinarianism can be recognized, these twin emphases remain at the heart of those elements in Jesus' teaching that make his outlook so alien, so strange and unhelpful to us'...” (Strimple 82, esp. as quoting Schweitzer: Quest of the Historical Jesus).
Brevard Childs points out that it is essential in understanding the earthly Jesus to set His words and deeds within the context of the continuous history of Israel; to interpret His miracles in conjunction with the eschatological inbreaking of the Kingdom of God promised by the prophets (Childs 604). He believes that the Old Testament hope was filtered by the lenses of late Hellenistic Judaism (Hellenistic Judaism is essentially Diaspora Judaism), and that the New Testament's understanding of the Kingdom of God was rooted in this filtering of the Old Testament hope by Hellenistic Judaism (Childs 641). He believes that the Kingdom of God is manifest in the people of God; that Jesus talked of the people of God in terms of the Kingdom of God (Childs 430-31), and whereas Jesus proclaimed in words and deeds the dawning of the Kingdom of God, Paul bore witness to the establishment of Salvation and God's rule, which had become actual fact (Childs 236). He believes that there can be no doubt from the larger picture of the synoptic gospels that Jesus did evoke the claim of establishing an eschatological community within the coming Kingdom of God. He says Jesus spoke of the concrete, yet eschatological reality of the emerging Kingdom of God, in which the mysterious signs of God's true people had already appeared in a faithful response to the challenge of the Gospel (Childs 432). He believes that Jesus' teaching showed that the Kingdom of God was a present reality (Mat 12:28, Luk 4:16-30, Mat. 11:2ff, et al.). Turning to Acts, he says that the Church is not identified with the Kingdom of God, rather, the focus is on the present reign of the exalted Christ, which has already begun (Act 4:12, 5:31, 10:43), (Childs 643). In regard to the Church, he thinks that its primary task when viewed from the testimony of Scripture is to bear witness to the Kingdom of God by both word and deed as the Salvation graciously offered in Jesus Christ through faith. He believes that the Church's message about the Kingdom of God is sadly muffled when its task is construed to be the political agenda of a social gospel or the realization of the economic goals of a liberation theology (Childs 657). He thinks that there is widespread agreement that Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom of God provides the context for New Testament ethics (Childs 689; ethics and the Kingdom of God are discussed 689f).
Dennis Duling points out that there is a general consensus that Jesus' preaching and teaching about the Kingdom of God was central to His ministry, yet there is disagreement as to the meaning of Jesus' language concerning the Kingdom, not least on the issue framed by this question: “...to what extent did Jesus proclaim an apocalyptic eschatological Kingdom of God?...” (Duling: The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus: Introduction). In the centuries after Augustine (AD 354-430), the Kingdom of God was understood to be precisely the Church (Duling: the Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus: I The Kingdom of God and the Church)—first by western orthodoxy per Augustine's thesis of a heavenly “City of God” in the context of Matthew 16:18 (concerning “City of God”—according to Augustine the “heavenly city” comprises believers, walking according to the demands of Christ, over against the “earthly city,” comprised of unbelievers serving Satan and self; these “cities” are ever set over against one another, like a field comprised of wheat and tares, and together are the focus of the great Salvation struggle across time, beginning already with the fall of Satan and his hosts, a clear point in eternity past which itself includes the creation of the angels, the physical creation of the universe, onward to realization of the consummate “heavenly city” at the time of Jesus' millennial reign [the “wheat”], thence onward into eternity future). Augustine saw ultimately the consummate “heavenly city” in the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus Christ. The Augustine-based (“The City of God”-based) Kingdom<>Church thesis continued through the time of Martin Luther (1483-1546) and the Reformation, at which point the thesis was reinterpreted by Luther and his reformer-colleagues into a “doctrine of two kingdoms” (spiritual and secular) that saw the Christian, though ultimately a citizen of the spiritual kingdom alone, with responsibilities in keeping the demands of each (cf. Paul, Rom 13:1ff; note Jesus Mat 5-7). To the present, the Church is understood to be the manifest Kingdom of God by many—a present reality—in contrast to those who understand the Kingdom of God singularly manifest in the rule and reign of Jesus Christ in His Millennial Kingdom.
Our theological premise is that the Kingdom is our God's, and our, Jubilee. Jubilee in Jesus, in Jesus our Jubilee, is the golden thread that connects Jewish Apocalyptic, indeed Israel, through the person of Messiah, even King Jesus (Mat 26:63-65, 27:37), to the Church (Rev 1:4-9, 10-16, 17-20, 2:1-7, 8-14, 15-21, 22-28, 29, 3:1-7, 8-14, 15-21, 22), by way of Messiah's Eschaton (Messiah's Eschaton is manifest, or, realized Jubilee by our definition; the reader might think of it practically in terms of the Millennial Kingdom over which Jesus shall reign ( Zec 14:16-21 Mat 25:31-32, Rev 20:2-7)—a theocracy—which, temporally centered on the Calvary-cross, includes Jubilee saints before and after that cross (Adam and his Jubilee-kin down to Jesus<—CROSS—>the Jubilee Church); that cross, as with arms outstretched, reconciles these saints to the demands of Jubilee by the Jubilee-redeeming sacrifice and the imparted Jubilee-righteousness of the One on that cross, even Jesus our Jubilee. So the Eschaton (manifest Jubilee) is the Kingdom which the people of God await since its introduction and its enjoining to ancient Israel, and its further explication and enjoining by the very Author and Lord of Jubilee: Jesus, in the day of His visitation, by way of His preaching (commands, parables, sayings, sermons), and miracles (Jubilee proofs)—this Jubilee connection to Jesus is the major inquiry behind the “Jesus Our Jubilee” study. As concerns the Church, it is not, presently, manifest Jubilee. That, after all, is Messiah's Eschaton, of which the Church will be a significant part. The Church, presently, try as she may for all her devotional works and her human-expressive heart-tethering to her Lord—all good, and a delight to her God—nevertheless falls quite short of manifest Jubilee, and is now but reconciled to Jubilee by Jesus her Jubilee. Yes, she bears the stamp of Jubilee in her heart today literally, (Luk 3:16, Jhn 20:22, et al.), and yet, anticipatorily, in the sense of a living, day-to-day celebration of the Promise that is her blessed Hope (Isa 65:25, Mat 24:26-31, Tts 2:13, 1Th 4:15-17, 2th 2:1-4); she must wait for her Lord's return to sweep her up into His arms to realize fully His Jubilee; such is manifest Jubilee. And concerning the timing of that realization, only Father God knows (Mat 24:32-36, “Matthew Chapter Twenty-four Commentary”).
The demands of the Kingdom, of Jubilee, characterize it. These demands reflect the character of the God of Jubilee; they are necessarily the same today as they were in the past at their introduction and enjoining (including Jesus' day), even as they will be when Jesus rules. In this way the Kingdom was, and always will be, Jubilee, rooted in the unchangeable Jubilee-character of God.
This, to here, addresses the what (manifest Jubilee), and the when (was, is, ever will be, Jubilee) of the Kingdom. There remains the where. Jubilee was introduced to Israel, to model to all peoples by way of subjection to its demands; then in the follow-on to its introduction, first by way of the Jubilee-prophets down to Jesus, and then unequivocally in the day of Jesus' visitation—His first advent fulfilling one aspect of Jubilee-prophecy—in the consummate explication and preaching and prophesying of it by Jesus and certainly again its enjoining by Him, it had in view not just Israel, but all peoples everywhere. As though undeterred, its scope only widened, considerably, of course, when the Author and Lord of Jubilee took matters into His own pierced hands in consideration of, nay, in justification before God of, the failure of not just Israel, but all peoples to subject themselves to the demands of Jubilee. These are this-worldly realities (Israel, all peoples everywhere, in its introduction and in the follow-on, even when Jesus Himself, personally, planted/s it, and the Holy Spirit cultivated/s it). So what of manifest Jubilee, the Messiah's Eschaton, where does it fit? If one thinks of that in terms of Jesus' Millennial reign (a theocracy), it is again this-worldly (this forces consideration of Sin: according to the greater purposes of God in proving humankind from Eden to manifest Jubilee, sin is allowed; and precisely at this juncture it is allowed to qualify the Jubilee generations). The where would be consistent then, from first to last—from its introduction and enjoining to Israel, through its further explication and enjoining, on down to Jesus' day, through, finally, Messiah's Eschaton: the Kingdom is, quite practically, this-worldly (Fig. 1). We can take the matter no further than Messiah's Eschaton. The details of what God decides to do in regard to His Kingdom (the what, the when, the where of it), as eternity future unfolds from thence (beyond the Eschaton, beyond manifest Jubilee and the final Judgment which commences per its expiration after one-thousand years), is privy to Him. But we can be sure of this: it is all good (not least because at that point there will be, finally, no more sin [Rev 21, 22]), and thus no less is it a good idea to be a part of that Celebration; that beautiful, that elegant and excellent and holy Kingdom, that ongoing Jubilee!, thus ever going forward into eternity future. Dearest reader, please don't miss out; our Lord Jesus, as do we, ever so much want you to be there (“A Letter of Invitation”).
We were motivated to do this study because the subject, Kingdom of God, is so central to Jesus' teaching and foundational to the Christian hope, and so we had been thinking about the utility of doing a theological study as a vehicle to personally come to better understand it. In this regard we engaged the study prayerfully, confessing our inadequacy in the matter, quite dependent on God's help.
We found coming from both the scholarly literature and the pulpit (sermons we heard on the subject were not cited) a marked disparity as to its meaning, largely along four views:
The Kingdom is this-worldly; an inward, individual reality, ever a present reality in that sense, a spiritual “Kingdom of the heart in heaven.” There is not in this view a practical, hands-on, eschatological element, no sovereign God in control of the affairs of the world bringing about such an (eschatological) element, nothing miraculous—all that is, to varying degrees, minimized, and primary emphasis is placed on spirituality—the ambiance of fellowship with God, and “works”—a sort of Kingdom demands-keeping effort (obedience, prayer, service, worship), that personally qualifies and thus lends personally-gauged commitment to this spiritual relationship that itself is manifestly the Kingdom. In short, the Kingdom is but a matter of the heart here, and that heart-Kingdom either finds one worthy sometimes to be a part of it, and at other times it does not, depending on the degree of love, indeed, loving effort, that is offered to the King, indeed, to the demands of the King. Because the miraculous, the supernatural, is minimized or discounted altogether, the efficacy of the Calvary-cross as the means for entry into this relationship with the King (and His Kingdom) is to the same degree spurned, and the Kingdom thus becomes as said an inward, individual reality, ever a present reality, a spiritually appreciated and assessed sort of construction of the heart and mind; a Kingdom-construction that has no fixed boundaries in space and time and heaven because it may be personally reconstructed on the fly as it were.
The Kingdom is an inward, individual reality wherein King Jesus reigns by proxy by way of the Holy Spirit (by proxy because He is located | seated at the right hand of God the Father in the present); it awaits a future consummation, itself apocalyptic, eschatological, thus it is both a present, this-worldly reality, and a future other-worldly reality. Here some of the points associated with view (1) hold, but there is, distinctly, an anticipated physical reality; an eschatological anticipation. Here we find a day-by-day, two-way heart tether to God, that on the human end strives to meet the demands of the Kingdom through obedience to the Spirit, unto identification with the King Jesus, out of love for God, but finds entry into the Kingdom, even the very Kingdom itself, to be a gift entirely independent of any personal accomplishments in the way of that obedience and identification. The Kingdom present, and anticipated, is a reality in the same way that the redemptive, salvific sacrifice of the King Jesus, the grounds of said gift, is a reality; as is similarly the miraculous, the supernatural, a reality.
the Kingdom is decidedly and singularly a future reality, apocalyptic, eschatological, otherworldly. View (3) anticipates an earthly Kingdom, and thus looks for the second advent of Jesus Christ. For view (3) the possibility of Jesus reigning (by proxy) from heaven in the present is discounted. The activity and work of the Holy Spirit, is acknowledged here, and He, the Holy Spirit is acknowledged to be God, the third member of the Godhead, but He is not understood to be the means by which the King, Jesus, reigns in the present.
The Kingdom is the Church; folded into the understanding of “Church” are the Old Testament Saints. In this view the Kingdom is the people of God, past, present, future. This view accepts a future, apocalyptic, eternal Kingdom of which the Church will be a significant part.
We talked about the possibility of understanding the Kingdom (the “what”) from the perspective of Jubilee in the second part of the study. We thought that Jubilee in Jesus, in Jesus our Jubilee, is the golden thread that connects Jewish Apocalyptic, through the person of Messiah (King Jesus), to the Church, by way of manifest Jubilee, understood to be the Millennial Kingdom over which Jesus shall reign—a theocracy (we also referred to this as “Messiah's Eschaton in the main text). We understand that millennial reign to be the realization of Jubilee, which God introduced and enjoined to ancient Israel, and further explicated and enjoined by He whom we consider to be the very Author and Lord of Jubilee—Jesus—in the day of His visitation. When we thought about the Kingdom, the Church, Jewish apocalyptic, and Messiah, in relation to Jesus, it was quite overwhelming, and we wondered how all these might fit together. We assumed that they should because it is not hard to see Jesus' place in these themes. It was only when we started thinking about the Kingdom as Jubilee, realizing from a previous study that Jesus is central to Jubilee, and that the Millennial reign of Jesus contains in it the heart of Jewish apocalyptic, and manifest Jubilee, that we began to appreciate the intimate connection between the Kingdom and, Jesus-Messiah, Jesus-our Jubilee, Jewish apocalyptic, the millennial reign of Jesus, and finally, the Church—the Bride of Christ. We hold that Jubilee in Jesus connects all of these seamlessly. As concerns the Church, we said that it is not, presently, manifest Jubilee; the Church is in a sense Jubilee presently, but not manifest Jubilee; that awaits the millennial reign of Jesus.
Jubilee helped us work through the “what” of the Kingdom. We were further interested in the “when” of the Kingdom. We said that the demands of the Kingdom, of Jubilee, characterize it, and that these demands reflect the character of the God of Jubilee, and that they are necessarily the same today as they were in the past at their introduction and enjoining (including Jesus' day), as they shall be when Jesus rules. In this way we said the Kingdom was, and always will be, Jubilee, rooted in the unchangeable Jubilee-character of God.
That brought us to the puzzling “where” of Kingdom: in the heart?, the Church?, in heaven?, on earth?, some combination of these? In addressing this, we maintained our Jubilee-Kingdom premise, and recognized that Jubilee was introduced to Israel, to model to all peoples by way of subjection to its demands; and then in the follow-on to its introduction, first by way of the Jubilee-prophets down to Jesus, and then precisely in the day of Jesus' visitation—His first advent fulfilling one aspect of Jubilee-prophecy—in the consummate explication and preaching and further prophesying of it by Him and certainly again its enjoining by Him, it had in view not just Israel, but all peoples everywhere: we noted that these betray a this-worldly focus (Israel, all peoples everywhere, in its introduction, and in the follow-on), and that focus will be no different with manifest Jubilee, the Messiah's Eschaton—thinking of it in terms of Jesus' Millennial reign, it is again this-worldly. The “where” of the Kingdom is consistent then: from first to last—from its introduction and enjoining to Israel, through its further explication and enjoining by the prophets, on down to Jesus' day, through, finally, Messiah's Eschaton: the Kingdom is, quite practically, this-worldly—keeping in mind, as we know, it will in the end be a reconstituted world in and on which that Kingdom will thrive. We said that we can take the matter no further than Messiah's Eschaton. The details of what God decides to do in regard to His Kingdom (the what, the when, the where of it), as eternity future unfolds from manifest Jubilee, beyond the final Judgment which commences per its expiration after one-thousand years, is privy to God. O, dearest reader, if you have not already, why not get on board here?!, why not join this Celebration, this Jubilee?! It is like Blaise Pascal once said: '...you have nothing to lose and everything to gain!...' (“A Letter of Invitation”). Let us thank Jesus our Jubilee that we by His grace may dwell there in His Kingdom with Him. Thank you great savior God.
Praised be your blessed and wonderful Name Jubilee Jesus—Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory, forever and ever, Amen...
|
The KINGDOM of GOD (Greek-hH BASILEIA TOU QEOU, Hebrew-MALCHUT YAHWEH) SCRIPTURE REFERENCES. |
|
Mat 12:23-28 |
|
Mat 19:24 |
|
Mat 21:28-31 |
|
Mat 21:43 |
|
Mar 1:14-15 |
|
Mar 4:11, 26-32 |
|
Mar 9:1, 47 |
|
Mar 10:14-16, 17-23, 24-25 |
|
Mar 12:28-34 |
|
Mar 14:25 |
|
Mar 15:43 |
|
Luk 4:43 |
|
Luk 6:20 |
|
Luk 7:28 |
|
Luk 8:1, 10 |
|
Luk 9:2,11, 27, 60, 62 |
|
Luk 10:9, 11 |
|
Luk 11:20 |
|
Luk 13:18-21, 23-29 |
|
Luk 14:15-21, 22-24 |
|
Luk 16:16 |
|
Luk 17:20, 21 |
|
Luk 18:16-17, 24-25, 29-30 |
|
Luk 19:11ff |
|
Luk 21:31 |
|
Luk 22:15-18 |
|
Luk 23:51 |
|
Jhn 3:3, 14:1-4 |
Table 1 sources: A.s.
|
(MANIFESTLY MATTHEAN)-THE KINGDOM of HEAVEN (Greek-BASILEIA TWN OURANWN, Hebrew MALCHUT SHAMAYIM) SCRIPTURE REFERENCES. Please notice that this term does not reference or signify some other Kingdom—”Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” are interchangeable terms. Why? Because God is in heaven of course (Isa 66:1, Ecc 5:2); and, a fortiori, the great God of the Kingdom should somehow, somewheres, be found in, that is, found integral to, His Kingdom (Psa 96:5-6). Moreover, notice that the term appears only in the gospels and rabbinic literature (“The Kingdom of God: God's Power Among Believers”, see the section entitled: “Sidebar by Shmuel Safrai“.). |
|
Mat 4:17 |
|
Mat 5:3, 10,19, 20 |
|
Mat 7:21 |
|
Mat 8:11 |
|
Mat 10:7 |
|
Mat 11:11-12 |
|
Mat 13:11, 24ff, 31-33, 44-48, 52 |
|
Mat 16:18-19 |
|
Mat 18:1-4, 23ff |
|
Mat 19:12, 14, 23 |
|
Mat 20:1 |
|
Mat 22:2 |
|
Mat 23:13 |
|
Mat 25:1 |
“A Letter of Invitation.”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/aletterofinvitation.html >
Archer, Gleason.
A Survey of Old Testament Introduction.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.
Augustine, trans. Marcus Dods.
The City of God.
Random House, Inc., The Modern Library Classics, 1999.
“Augustine of Hippo.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo >
The parables of Jesus.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1970.
Bibleplaces.com.
A History of Israel.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.
The Canon of Scripture.
Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.
Bultmann, Rudolf, selected, edited and translated by S. M. Ogden.
New Testament & Mythology And Other Basic Writings.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
“Bultmann, Rudolf.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann >
My Utmost For His Highest (daily devotional).
Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour Publishing, Inc., 1963.
“Chambers, Oswald.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Chambers >
Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
“Dalman, Gustaf.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Dalman >
“Dodd, C.H.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._H._Dodd >
“The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus.”
Word & World 2/2 1982.
< http://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/content/pdfs/2-2_Kingdom/2-2_Duling.pdf >
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1993.
“Gospels Criticism Part One.”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/gospelscriticism1.html >
“Gospels Criticism Part Two.”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/gospelscriticism2.html >
“Harnack, Adolf.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_von_Harnack >
“Jesus Our Jubilee.”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/jesusourjubilee.html >
Kirsch, Johann Peter.
"Millennium and Millenarianism."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 29 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm >
“Luther, Martin.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther >
“Matthew Chapter Twenty-four Commentary.”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/commentarymat24.html >
“Millennialism.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/premillennialism >
“Millennial Kingdom.”
Theopedia.
< http://www.theopedia.com/millennial-kingdom >
New Testament History.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992. 0-310-312019.
The Bible, Its Origin, Its Significance, Its Abiding Worth.
London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited, 1920.
Pope, Hugh. "Kingdom of God."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 24 Jan. 2016.
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Perrin >
“Psalm Two Commentary.”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/commentarypsa2.html >
Rauschenbusch, Walter.
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Rauschenbusch >
“Ritschl, Albrecht.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_Ritschl >
“Schleiermacher, Friedrich.
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schleiermacher >
The Modern Search for the Real Jesus.
Phillipsburg NJ: P&R Publishing Co., 1995.
“The Beatitudes.”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/thebeatitudes.html >
“The City of God” (book-by-book summary).
The Catholic Encylopedia.
< http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm >
“The City of God.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_of_God_%28book%29 >
“The Kingdom of God: God's Power Among Believers.”
jerusalemperspective.com.
< http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2445/ >
The above article seeks to put the Kingdom-relevant passages uttered by Jesus into their Hebraic context.
“Weiss, Johannes.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Weiss >
Wilke, Richard, and Julia K. Wilke.
Becoming Disciples Through Bible Study: Study Manual. 2nd ed.
Abingdon Press, 1993.
The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Witherington III, Ben.
Wikipedia.
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Witherington_III >
1. Gustaf Dalman (1855-1941), a Semitist, understood the Hebrew “Kingdom” (MALCHUT) as the rule and reign of the sovereign God Jehovah. This is the understanding related by H.C. Dodd in his studies of and writings on the parables of the Kingdom (Duling IV “Responses to the Apocalyptic Interpretation of the Kingdom of God).
2.”...Apocalyptic literature reflects the belief that a cosmic struggle is being waged between the forces of good and the forces of evil. This struggle is leading up to a climactic battle in which good will triumph. Apocalyptic literature emphasizes eschatology or the study of end times. The “end” usually means the end of a particular age, although it can refer to the end of time as we know it. The basic idea is that the present age is under the influence of evil and that the people of God are suffering persecution. Further, this suffering will increase until God suddenly intervenes on behalf of God's people and inaugurates a new age of peace and joy. Apocalyptic literature often contains images and symbols that at the time of the writing were meant to be obscure and therefore are difficult for readers in later generations to understand. [...] Apocalyptic literature is usually pessimistic about the current world order and regards the intervention of God as the only solution to the problems and suffering of God's people. Despite its pessimism, apocalyptic literature is designed to give readers a sense of confidence and security. Its primary message is that God is in control and that God's people will ultimately triumph...” (Wilke 116-17).