73
CHAPTER THREE
THEOLOGY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD
Foreword
Seeking the ideal society is a common wish of humanity, no matter in the eastern or western world, or in the past or present. In ancient time, poets and seers longed for an ideal society. Hesiod dreamed of a lost Golden Age in the distant past; Plato pictured an ideal state organized on philosophical principles; and Virgil sang of one who would deliver the world from its suffering. Furthermore Thomas More yearned for the Utopian society in his book, Utopia, and Martin Luther King declared his vision in his powerful speech, ‖I Have a Dream.‖
What is the Taiwanese hope for the ideal society? What are the positive reflections and reactions of the Taiwanese church in her prayer for the imminent in-breaking of the Kingdom of God?
Is there any difference between hope in the Kingdom of God and people‘s utopian dreams? What are the notable perspectives the Christian can learn from a reflection on the theology of the Kingdom of God? What can Christians contribute to the social transformation of the world through their identity with the Kingdom of God?
According to George Ladd, ―The Hebrew-Christian faith expresses its hope in terms of the Kingdom of God. This Biblical hope is not in the same category as the dreams of the Greek poets but is at the very heart of revealed religion.‖ Especially
74
through contemporary interpretations, we can ascertain the importance of the symbolic messages of the Kingdom of God. The resounding motif of Jesus‘ message—the imminent Kingdom of God—must be recovered as a key to the whole of Christian theology.1 The church needs a biblical understanding of the Kingdom of God.2 The kingdom‘s goal is to create one great family, one people where all will find their home in the family of god.3 This consciousness will also lead the church to a point of transforming its existential reality and roles.
I will present my research of theology of the Kingdom of God in the following sections: 1.) Biblical perspectives; 2.) The Reformed perspectives—the different interpretations in historical and contemporary theology; 3.) An integrated understanding of the Kingdom of God; and 4.) A practical theology of the Kingdom of God in the Taiwanese context. All these perspectives will be integrated and become the foundation of the ministerial projects of this thesis.
1Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Kingdom of God (Philadelphia, PA: Westminister Press, 1969), 53.
2Howard A. Snyder, Models of the Kingdom (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1991), 154. For Snyder, sensitivity to the priority of the kingdom will mean at least five things in the church: 1. Kingdom consciousness means living and working in the certain hope of the final triumph of god‘s reign; 2. Understanding God‘s Kingdom means that the line between ―sacred‖ and ―secular‖ is erased; 3. Kingdom awareness means that ministry is much broader than church work; 4. In kingdom perspective, concern for justice and evangelical witness are necessarily held together; and 5. Biblically speaking, the reality of the Kingdom of God means that we experience now the first fruits of the kingdom through the Spirit (154-155).
3John Fuellenbach, The Kingdom of God: The Message of Jesus Today (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995), 78.
75
The Biblical Perspectives on the Theology of the Kingdom of God
The Linguistic Meaning of the Kingdom of God
English/Western terminology
In relation to the general usage of, usually translated ―kingdom,‖ it is to be noted first that it signified the ―being,‖ ―nature,‖ and ―state‖ of the king.4 This transition is no less obvious in the English ―principality,‖ or ―empire,‖ or indeed ―dominion.‖5
In western idiom, a kingdom is primarily a realm over which king exercises his authority.6 The dictionary follows this line of thought by giving as its first modern definition, ―A state or monarchy, the head of which is a king; dominion; realm.‖7 A realm is the domain, including the subjects, over which the king has jurisdiction; figuratively, it is a sphere of power or influence: the laws of the realm.8
Follow this definition, there are several notable meanings for the word ―kingdom‖: 1.) Reign or power, 2.) the people, 3.) the domain, and 4.) the laws. Not many kingdoms remain in our modern world, given the number of democratic governments, but we can reflect on its transforming meaning in our own context. For example, we can reflect on the questions: What kinds of power dominate people today? What kind of
4Karl Ludwig Schmidt, ―Basileia,‖ in Theological Dictionary of New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2000), 579. Referred from here on out as TDNT.
5Ibid.
6Ladd, A-65.
7Ibid.
8Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, rev. ed. (New York, NY: Gramercy Books, 1996).
76
power do we hand to our government? What kind of relationship exists between the people and the government? What kinds of law do we have today?
Basileia in the New Testament
The primary meaning of both the Hebrew word malkuth in the Old Testament and the Greek word Basileia in the New Testament is rank, authority, and sovereignty exercised by a king. A kingdom is the authority to rule, the sovereignty of the king. As the rule, the LXX translates mlk forms with basil equivalents.9 It is necessary for the people who want to recognize the biblical perspectives of the Kingdom of God, to investigate these two biblical terms. First, let us investigate the linguistic meaning of Basileia in New Testament and then malkuth in Old Testament.
The Kingdom of God is the centrality of Jesus‘ message. It also is the center of the disciples‘ thought ad action. The biblical term for the kingdom is Basileia. This phrase (or Matthew‘s equivalent, the ―kingdom of heaven‖) appears 122 times in the first three Gospels—most of the time (92) on the lips of Jesus himself.10
Basileia, ―king,‖ is the NT reference to men, to gods (or God), and to intermediary beings.11 It is now generally accepted that is Basileia is a loan word from an Aegean, pre-Greek language.12 Basileia denotes the king as the lawful and usually
9―malkuth,‖ in Theological Dictionary of Old Testament, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2000), 353.
10Mortimer Arias, Evangelization and the Subversive Memory of Jesus: Announcing the Reign of God (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), 8.
11Schmidt, ―Basileia,‖ 576.
12Ibid., 564. Cf. Footnote #1.
77
hereditary priestly ruler of the people in the good sense.13 There are three usages of Basileia in the NT: 1.) As earthly kings,14 2.) Jesus as the Messiah king,15 and 3.) God is the father, the eternal king.16
Following the usage of Basileia, ―the king,‖ there are also three notable usages of Basileia 17, ―the kingdom‖: 1.) The earthly Basileia, 2.) The Basileia of Christ, and 3.) The Basileia of God. The linguistic usage has shown the Kingdom of God implies the state of kingly rule and emerges logically in the description of this state.
Firstly, such earthly Basileia is almost seen in emphatic opposition, or at least subjection to the Basileia of God.18 We can find three categories of earthly in the NT: the kingdom of men (Lk.19:12), the kingdom of the devil (Mt.12:26; Lk.23:42), and the kingdom of the men or the people elected by God (Mk.11:10; Ac.1:6).
Secondly, we must consider the Basileia of Christ (Mt.13:41; Mt.16:28; Lk.1:33; Lk.22:30; Lk.23:42; Jn.18:36; 2Tm.4:1,18; 2Pt.1:11). This Basileia of Jesus Christ is also the Basileia of God.19 As the NT witness is plain and unequivocal in relation to the autobasileia of Christ, it is understandably reserved in its linking of the Basileia of God
13Ibid.
14Ibid., 576.
15Ibid., 577.
16Ibid., 579.
17Ibid., 580-590.
18Ibid., 580.
19Ibid., 581.
78
with Christian believers.20 It hardly needs to be shown or proved, however, Christians may be understood to be Basileia (in Rev.1:6) only in a derivative sense, i.e., as linked with Christ.21
Thirdly, the Basileia of God. As regards the usage, several points are to be noted. 1.) The alternative Basileia of heaven (which is found only in Matthew)—in general the two expressions are interchangeable and have exactly the same meaning.22 The question arises why Matthew has double usage. The possibility must take into account that there is at least a nuance in the kingdom of heaven insofar as this refers to the lordship, which comes down from heaven into this world.23 If so, it gives us two insights: God‘s Basileia is a reign rather than a realm; and this reign cannot be a realm, which arises by a natural development of earthly relationship or by human efforts.24 2.) It is plain that the Kingdom of God implies the whole of the preaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles.25 3.) The Kingdom of God implies the state of God‘s kingly rule.26 In the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth, which is linked with that of John and which Jesus passes on to his disciples, the nature of this state of the divine kingship is described both negatively and
20Ibid., 590.
21Ibid.
22Ibid., 582.
23Ibid.
24Ibid.
25Ibid., 583.
26Ibid., 584.
79
positively.27 In terms of the negative, the Kingdom of God is wholly other, that is, absolutely above the world and distinct from it.28 And positively, the Kingdom of God is the actualization of the rule of God in the future. And this future determines humankind in its present.29 When the people respond to God‘s call in their faith, i.e., in obedience, they are in touch with the Kingdom of God.30
Malkut in the Old Testament
The word group of the root mlk occurs more than 3,000 times in the OT.31 After YHWH, elohim and ben, the term melek (the king) is the fourth most frequently occurring noun in the OT, more frequent even than yisralel (with ca. 2500 occurrences), attesting to its historical and religious significance for biblical themes.32 As a rule, the LXX translates mlk forms with basil equivalents.33
The Hebrew terms melek—malak belong to a Northwest Semitic word group deriving from the root mlk with the general meaning ―king,‖ ―to be king.‖34 This is attested as early as the third millennium B.C. in northern Syrian Ebla.35 The intransitive
27Ibid.
28Ibid., 586.
29Ibid., 586-7.
30Ibid.
31The exact statistic is 3,154.
32Ibid., 345.
33Ibid.
34Ibid., 352.
35Ibid.
80
verb malak seems to derive from the primary noun, and remains within the same semantic sphere.36 The meaning of the verb mlk is usually given as ―become/be a king, reign as king, reign, function as king.‖37
Moreover, there are several abstract constructions, in part influenced by Aramaic, that include the feminine forms meluka, ―kingship,‖ malkut, ―kingdom‖ (Biblical Aram. Maluk, and the verb nouns mamlaka and mamlakut, ―dominion, kingdom.‖38 1.) Meluka means the office of the king, the majesty of the king, and the status as king;39 2.) Malkut is the Middle Hebrew term, which is a denominative construction from melek resulting from Aramaic influence, and almost completely displaces mamlaka in the later OT writings. Its meaning is a distinguishable form of mamlaka: ―kingdom‖ (as a comprehensive term). In most of the OT, the word malkut is used in the secular sense of a political kingdom (1 Sam. 20:31; 1 Kings 2:12).40 3.) Mamlaka, which can express an action and its results, place, type, and manner of an event, and finally the instrument of action, is thus predisposed to bring to expression the functional system ―kingship‖ in all these aspects: as dominion, residence, reign, and power apparatus.41
Furthermore we should investigate the theological usage of ―Yahweh malak—Yahweh as King.‖ Scholars seem to have reached a certain degree of clarity concerning
36Ibid., 353.
37Ibid., 357.
38Ibid., 353.
39Ibid., 359.
40Ibid., 570.
41Ibid., 359.
81
the much-discussed formulaic expression, YHWH malak.42 This is an important theological understanding for us to reflect on the theology of the Kingdom of God. There are several notable theological themes that come from the notion of YHWH malak: Firstly, the theocratic ideology in the notion of YHWH malak. The meaning of the verb in perfect with Yahweh as subject is the same as the normal meaning, generally circumscribed by ―to be king, become king, rule as king. Reign.‖43 We should notice the notion of ―the creator as king (Isa. 43:15)‖ in Old Testament. God‘s Kingdom, YHWH malkuth, is God‘s universal rule, God‘s sovereignty over all the earth. (Psalm103:19; 145:11).44 Secondly, YHWH malak illustrates the fundamental meaning of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is God‘s kingship, God‘s rule, and God‘s authority. When this is once realized, we can go through the New Testament and find passage after passage where this meaning is evident, where the Kingdom is not a realm or a people, but God‘s reign.45 The perspective of the prophetic future in the Old Testament, the coming of God‘s Kingdom, is viewed as a single great event: a mighty manifestation of God‘s power which would sweep away the wicked kingdom of human sovereignty and would fill all the earth with righteousness.46 Thirdly, the so-called enthronement festival of
42Ibid., 370.
43Ibid.
44Ibid., A-66.
45Ibid., A-66-67.
46Ibid., A-68.
82
Yahweh.47 As a cultic drama with liturgical symbolism, this festival creatively actualized Yahweh‘s enthronement by portraying it according to the earthly model.48 The liturgical acclamation and celebration let the people experience Yahweh as King in their midst (Ps.74:12-17; 95:3). In the context of Yahweh‘s cultic presence, the expression does not mean, ―Yahweh is king, but rather Yahweh has (now) become king.‖49 This cult-functional interpretation constitutes the true alternative to both the historical and the eschatological interpretation of this term.50
Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God
In the Old Testament
There are a number of strands of Old Testament theology which could be utilized as basic elements for synthesizing the whole salvific work of Yahweh under the heuristic devise, the Kingdom of God.51 John Fuellenbach lists five theological strands to emerge from the notion of the Kingdom of God in the Old Testament.52 Those five strands are:53 1.) God is King over all creation; 2.) God is King over Israel; 3.) The experience of the
47Ibid., 371. Sigmund Mowinckel investigates the ancient Israelite festival. He describes the cultic life setting of the YHWH malak formula.
48Ibid.
49Ibid.
50Ibid.
51D. Senior, ―Reign of God,‖ in The New Dictionary of Theology, eds. J. A. Jomonchak, M. Collins, and D.A. Lane (Dublin, England: Gill and Macmillan, 1988), 851-861.
52Fuellenbach, 27. Fuellenbach borrows these five strands from Rudoff Schnackenburg and N. Lohfink.
53Ibid., 27-33.
83
Monarchy; 4.) Eschatological hope for God‘s rule; and 5.) The ―societal reality‖ of the coming kingdom.
First, the Old Testament describes Yahweh as King, first and foremost, when seen as the Creator, the king of the universe, the victor over the monster of chaos, the Sustainer of the universe.54 God‘s kingship is implicitly affirmed in the creation story. In the first chapter of genesis, Yahweh gives dominion to human beings over the created order. This dominion is actually a stewardship, not an absolute authority, since dominion derives from Yahweh alone.55 In short, it is creation theology that is fundamental to the ideal of the kingdom in Israel‘ religion.56
Second, the sovereignty of Yahweh over the chosen people is experienced in Israel‘s own history of salvation through the events of the Exodus. All of these events were viewed as acts of God‘s saving power on behalf of the chosen people.57 The chosen people should be the priestly kingdom and holy nation (Ex.6:7; 19:5,6; Dt.7:6). Yahweh shall reign for ever and ever (Ex.15:18). This experienced care, protection, and love of God for the chosen people found expressions in images and metaphors, which described God as shepherd, king, and redeemer.58
54Ibid., 27.
55Ibid.
56Bruce Chilton and J. I. H. McDonald, Jesus and the Ethics of the Kingdom (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 49-50.
57Fuellenbach, 28.
58Ibid.
84
Third, to understand the people of Israel one has to consider the way it came into existence.59 According to the Bible, the Hebrews were a group of slaves on the bottom rung of Pharaoh‘s society in Egypt (Nm. 20:15-16; Dt. 26:5-9). Yahweh, their God, decided to liberate them from their misery and oppression.60 God does not liberate them by changing Pharaoh‘s mind, but taking them out of this society of oppression and misery.61 The aim of the Exodus is to create a new people who will celebrate forever their God in a new society.62 This new Yahweh society will become a paradigm of how God envisions a human society and of what God will ultimately achieve in the future concerning all of humanity.63 Yahweh was the only Lord and Ruler in Israel; there could be no one to take Yahweh‘s place here on earth.64 It was almost like a taboo that could not be broken.65 Although Yahweh accepts the monarchy and the king is given God‘s blessing together with a promise of divine protection, his authority was clearly understood to be limited by God‘s own sovereignty.66
Fourth, the eschatological note is well expressed by Schnackenburg. ―The fundamental idea in the future hope of Israel is always the kingly rule of Yahweh, his
59Ibid., p. 29.
60Ibid., p. 30.
61Ibid., p. 30.
62Norbert Lohfink, Option for the Poor: The Basic Principle of Liberation Theology in the Light of the Bible (Berkeley, CA: Bibal Press, 1987), 35-47.
63Fuellenbach, 30.
64Ibid.
65Ibid., 31.
66Ibid.
85
victorious advent as king and his reckoning with his enemies. Yahweh‘s victory is followed by the manifestation of the kingship. He appears as king and takes possession of his realm.‖67 Further, we should note that the eschatological hope had not and could not be achieved by human effort, but finally would be accomplished by God‘s own intervention.68
Fifth, we cannot claim the coming kingdom as a purely religious form. The Old Testament ideal of the Kingdom of God makes it impossible to claim that the phrase Kingdom of God always refers to God as King, but never to a realm where God will be a King.69 The coming Kingdom was always seen as having a material side, particularly, as envisioned as the restoration of Israel to her land (Is .2:2; Mi. 4:1; Hos. 11:10-11; Is. 11:6-9; Is. 25:7).70 The coming Kingdom of God cannot be seen as purely spiritual, universal, and eschatological. The historical and political element is an essential part of the notion itself.71
In the New Testament
The message of Jesus centered in the proclamation of the imminent Kingdom of God.72 The Kingdom of God implies the whole of the preaching of Jesus Christ and his
67Rudolf Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom (New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1963), 30.
68Fuellenbach, 32.
69Ibid., 33.
70Ibid.
71Ibid.
72Pannenberg, 51.
86
apostles.73 The disciples and all who want to preach and live like Jesus must place the ―Kingdom of God‖ at the center of their thought and action. This phrase ―the Kingdom of God (most occurs in Mark and Luke) / the kingdom of heaven (only occurs in Matthew)‖ appears 122 times in the first Gospels—most of the time (92) on the lips of Jesus himself.74 The interpreter‘s interest in studying the expression, Kingdom of God, and the conception it denotes, is aroused chiefly by its use by the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels.75 In this section, let us investigate the specific expression and emphasis of the notion of the Kingdom of God in the Gospels and Paul‘s letter, and then protract the specific theological understandings of the Biblical authors.
Firstly, we can find the different expressions of the gospels and Paul‘s letters. The Biblical authors have their different theological concern on this theme, the Kingdom of God. But these proclamations link to each other and fulfill the wholeness of the proclamation of the Kingdom of God. In this section we can reflect on the question: What is the understanding of early Christianity‘s use of the term Kingdom of God.‖76
The Kingdom of God in Matthew
The expression of (―kingdom of heaven‖) is found only in Matthew. It occurs 37 times. On three occasions, Matthew also uses the term, which is customary in Mark,
73Ibid., TDNT, 583.
74Arias, 8.
75Dale Patric, ―The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament,‖ in The Kingdom of God in 20th Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 70.
76See Appendix B.
87
Luke, and elsewhere (―Kingdom of God‖).77 The question arises why Matthew has this double usage. Does he intend a distinction in meaning for his usual (―of heaven‖) and his less frequent (―of God‖)? In general, the very fact that the expressions are interchangeable both in the MSS and in the Synoptic Parallels force us to conclude that they are used freely and have exactly the same meaning.78 Further, the possibility must be taken into account that Matthew wants to emphasize the lordship which comes from heaven.79 ―If so, this gives us two insights. The second is the related indication that this reign cannot be a realm which arises by a natural development of earthly relationships or by human efforts, but is one which comes down by divine intervention.‖80
There are several notable strands of theology of the Kingdom of God in the gospel of Matthew. Ron Farmer integrates the contemporary theological perspectives and indicates three strands:81 1.) The Kingdom of God and eschatology; 2.) The Kingdom of God and ethics; 3.) The Kingdom of God is a common term between eschatology and ethics.
Firstly, this is also the common theological theme in the other gospels (Mt. 3:2; Mk. 1:15; Lk. 9:27, 10:9). In the course of the modern discussion of the Kingdom of God, there were problematic passages for all interpreters who tried to force a unified idea
77Ibid., TDNT, 582.
78Ibid.
79Ibid.
80Ibid.
81Ron Farmer, ―The Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Matthew,‖ in The Kingdom of God in 20thCentury Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 122-130.
88
or static concept out of the tension symbol.82 Especially in this theological theme, ―the Kingdom of God and eschatology,‖ there were several transformations of the interpretation in contemporary theology. I will discuss in more detail the different interpreted strands and their different approaches in the following discussion. If people follow the ―symbol approach,‖ they will view the Kingdom of God as a tensive symbol evoking the myth of the salvific, kingly activity of God.83 Further, they can find in the expression of the Gospel of Matthew, ―the Kingdom of God is neither present nor future. It is both at the same time.‖84 It is a way of expressing the immanence of God without losing the transcendence of God.85 Matthew 6:9-13, the address, ―Our Father,‖ expresses the new relationship with God made possible by acceptance of the proclamation of the kingdom. ―The kingdom come‖ is a call for God to become active in the experience of the petitioner, present as well as future.86 Further, in Jesus‘ person and ministry, the Kingdom of God is present. People can experience the saving activity of God not only as a future hope (Mt. 4:17), but also as a present reality (Mt. 8-9).87
Secondly, the Kingdom of God and ethics is another related theme. Approaching the relationship through the tensive symbol Kingdom of God does not subsume ethics
82Ibid., 122.
83Ibid., 123.
84Douglas Ezell, ―Eschatology and Ethics in the New Testament,‖ in Southwestern Journal of Theology 22 (1980): 79.
85Farmer, 123.
86Ibid., 128.
87Ibid.
89
under eschatology, which would result in ―theocentric ethics.‖88 First of all, Jesus‘ ethic is a ―kingdom ethic,‖89 following the aforesaid notion of eschatology, i.e., present as well as future. Jesus‘ ethical demands not only point to the kingdom as a future hope, but also as a present experience.90 Thus, the ethic of the kingdom is a ―response ethic,‖ a response to the gracious, salvific activity of God.91 No price was considered too high to ―possess‖ the Kingdom of God (Mt. 13:45-46). Further, Jesus‘ ethical teaching expresses the lifestyle, which is relevant to and made possible by the present kingdom. It is an ethic of the time of salvation, a discipleship ethic.92
Third, what is the relationship between eschatology and ethics? Twentieth-century scholarship as a whole has viewed the eschatological as inseparably intertwined with the ethic. Because the different approaches of the interpretations, i.e., concept approach and symbol approach derived the different emphasis of the relationship between these two fields and ―the Kingdom of God.‖ However, ―the Kingdom of God‖ is accepted as a common term to study both eschatology and ethics.93 In fact, both eschatology and ethics are derived from the nature and character of the God of Matthew is revealed in the tensive symbol ―Kingdom of God,‖94 then Jesus‘ proclamation will challenge his hearers
88Ibid., 126.
89Ibid., 125.
90Ibid., 128.
91Ibid.
92Ibid., 125.
93Ibid.
94Ibid., 126.
90
to recognize the kingly activity of God as a present reality in their personal experience as well as a future hope.
―Kingdom‖ occurs nineteen times in the Gospel of Mark, fourteen of them in the phrase h Basileia tou geou (―the Kingdom of God‖). In Mark, it is an absolutely fixed phrase.95 And this pertains not only to Gospels, but the New Testament as whole.96 This means that Mark does not formulate his kingdom language ad hoc. For him, is an objectively real entity always represented by its specific designation.97 Mark never has ―the kingdom of heaven‖ (often in Matthew) or ―the kingdom of the father‖ (Mt. 13:43; 26:29).98 Mark also never has any phrase representing the kingdom as belonging to Son of Man, the Christ, or Jesus (cf. Mt. 13:41; 16:28; Lk. 1:33), nor does he ever have anyone address Jesus with a reference to ―your kingdom‖ (Lk .22:29-30), nor have Jesus refer to ―my kingship‖ (Jn. 18:36; cf. Lk. 22:29-30).
Further, we can find that no one in the story uses the phrase ―Kingdom of God,‖ or makes any reference to God‘s Kingdom except Jesus himself.99 The kingdom is preached by Jesus and only be Jesus; not by John the Baptist (contrast Mt. 3:1), not by the disciples.100
95M. Eugene Boring, ―The Kingdom of God in Mark,‖ in The Kingdom of God in 20th Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 137.
96Ibid., 138.
97Ibid.
98Ibid., 137.
99Ibid., 138.
100Ibid.
91
Moreover, from the grammatical structures, we can find another interesting cluster. In the most frequent pattern (six of the fourteen occurrences) is the object of active verbs, of which human beings are the subjects, all of which occur in the selection 9:47-10:25.101 One could get a surface impression that the Kingdom of God in Mark is thus primarily the object of human action102--but in truth people are not the subject who acts to bring the kingdom for which he or she can only wait.103 It seems that human beings are the actors, in fact, to be understood in the sense that God is the hidden actor.104 It is clear that Mark understands human beings to be passive recipients of the Kingdom of God105, and ―enter the Kingdom of God‖ is equated with ―inherit eternal life.‖ Further, in the section 10:15-25 in which the cluster of sayings about entering the Kingdom of God is found is then concluded with the affirmation: ―With people it is impossible, but not with God.‖106
Moreover, at least two theological themes emerge in Mark: the time of the kingdom and the relationship of the Kingdom of God to the kingship of Jesus as ―king of the Jew (and / or Israel).107 First, there is no text in Mark, which clearly declares that the kingdom is present, even in some hidden way. There are texts, which clearly indicate
101Ibid., 139.
102Ibid.
103Ibid.
104Ibid.
105Ibid.
106Ibid., 139-140.
107Ibid., 140.
92
that the kingdom is future.108 Mark seems rather to emphasize the futurity of it, but it is not a calculable future.109 (1:15 ―at hand‖) captures a real future. This is the first verb Mark uses of the Kingdom of God that expresses a real future. It is rather that future which, while remaining future, is ―near‖ and therefore affects the present. One might rather understand the seed parables, at the Markan level, as indicating that the kingdom is present but hidden like seed in the ground.110 To describe people as living ―between seedtime and harvest‖ means that they live in the time between remembrance and hope,111 and also in the tension of ―present and future (already but not yet)112.‖
Second, what is the relationship of the Kingdom of God to be the kingship of Jesus as ―king of the Jew (and / or Israel)? First of all, we need to envisage the image of God of Mark. The myth evoked by ―Kingdom of God‖ means that God is the Creator. He is the present king over the whole creation.113 Further, there can be no doubt that ―Son of God‖ is a key Christological term in Mark.114 Frank J. Matera emphasizes his
108Ibid., 141.
109Ibid.
110Ibid., 142. Boring indicates that: Werner Kelber describes well ―the Markan people who live between seedtime and harvest.‖ Boring also indicates Kelber‘s view of the eschatology of Mark: 1. Past: The kingdom appears in Jesus (the kingdom is where the king is); 2. Present: The kingdom is absent because the king is absent; 3. Future: The kingdom will re-appear when Jesus reappears in apocalyptic power.
111Ibid., 143.
112Snyder, 12-25.
113Cf. Boring, 132-133.
114Ibid., 143.
93
view of Mark‘s understanding of the kingship of Jesus.115 He has done us the service of showing that there is a ―royal‘ dimension to this title.116 Moreover, we should pay attention on the (the divine man) connotations of Son of God in the Markan miracle stories.117 The miracle-working Son of God plays a major role as a positive dimension of Mark‘s own Christology.118 Chapter 15 of Mark seems to be concerned precisely with this understanding of ―Son of God‖ / Christ / King of Israel.
In the Gospel of Mark, the Kingdom of God, presently absent but still to come in power, is inseparable from the kingship of Jesus, and that means that the eschatological act of God is inseparable from the crucified Jesus.119
The Kingdom of God In Luke and Acts
In Luke‘s theology, ―the Kingdom of God‖ is God‘s action and gift. This is the primary important of the genitive, of ―God,‖ in Luke-Acts.120 The fact is that the Father brings the kingdom. It is the Father‘s good pleasure to give the disciples the Kingdom (Lk.12:32), and they are to pray that it comes (Lk.11:2).
115Frank J. Matera, The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15 (Chico, CA.: Scholars Press, 1982), 149.
116Boring, 143.
117Ibid.
118Ibid.
119Ibid.
120Robert O‘Toole, ―The Kingdom of God in Luke-Acts,‖ in The Kingdom of God in 20th Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 148.
94
Two Lucan passages link the ―Kingdom of God‖ to Jesus‘ presence and action. Actually Luke unites Jesus with the Kingdom of God in the story of Lk.18:15-17.121 And then Luke identifies the following of Jesus with the Kingdom of God. (Lk.18:18-30). For Luke ―coming to Jesus‖ related to ―belonging to the Kingdom of God.‖122 The fact that Luke interchanges ―Jesus‖ with ―the Kingdom of God‖ (cf. Lk.14:26; 18:29) shows that he views then as somehow identical. Luke speaks of Jesus and the Kingdom of God together (Acts 8:12‘ 28:23, 32); he probably does not intend two different realities, but is rather using one of his favorite literary devices, a double expression, and is simple repeating the one ideal in the other.123
The Kingdom of God, which the Father and Jesus brings, has itself certain characteristics. O‘Toole indicates the notable insights of Luke-Acts:124 First of all, it is not like the kingdom of this world, It is a kingdom of service. Second, the Kingdom of God is mysterious but its secrets have been revealed to Jesus; disciples (Lk. 8:10; Acts 1:6,7; Lk.13:18-21). Third, the Kingdom of God confers dignity on its members. The one who is least in it is greater than John the Baptist (Lk. 7:28). Fourth, the Kingdom of God is universal. It will include Gentiles (lk.13:28-30). At first, the Kingdom of God appears insignificant, but it fulfills Jewish hopes, confers a radical dignity on its participants, and is universal and particularly open to the disadvantaged. Fifth, it is directed to the disadvantaged (Lk. 4:14-44; 14:21). Luke in this passage intends his readers to understand that the good news is given to the poor and proclaims release to the
121Ibid., 150.
122Ibid.
123Ibid., 151.
124Ibid., cf. 151-152; 161.
95
captives and recovery of sight to the blind, and the freeing of the oppressed. Since Lk.14-44 is programmatic for the whole of the Luke-Acts, particular significance should be given to its portrayal of the importance of the disadvantaged for the Kingdom of God. Sixth, the kingdom is a source of hope and encouragement to the Christian, as the activity of Paul and Barnabas in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch shows us (Acts 14:22). In short, the Kingdom of God is beneficial. The Kingdom of God can be a source of encouragement in times of hardship, and the one who seeks it need not be anxious about anything else. The Kingdom of God brings joy. Seventh, the Kingdom of God also shows a unity between Jesus and Christians. Also, the Lord‘s Supper prefigures the kingdom. It unites Jesus with Christians because it represents the kingdom, which the Father assigns him and in which Christians are ultimately to be joined with their king.125
The Kingdom of God in John and 1, 2, 3 John
The expression ―Kingdom of God‖ appears only twice in the Fourth Gospel (3:3,5). The expression ―my kingdom‖ or the kingdom of Christ, appears only three times in the Fourth Gospel (18:36). The letters of John do not mention the kingdom in any form. In general, it may be said that the standard theological accounts set out of the scarcity of references to the kingdom in the Fourth Gospel and letters of John do not adequately explain the virtual disappearance of a theme which both exegesis and dogmatic theology consider the central message of Jesus.126
125Ibid., 153.
126Robert Hodgson, Jr., ―The Kingdom of God in the School of St. John,‖ in The Kingdom of God in 20th Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 174.
96
New Testament scholarship has not yet fully exploited what it already knows of the history of the Johannine community or school in an effort to illumine either the shift in the proprietorship of the kingdom of the Fourth Gospel or the special problem posed by the loss of the concept of the Kingdom of God in the Fourth Gospel.127 There are certain common explanations for the lack of references to the kingdom in John‘s Gospel. First, C.K. Barret urges that the evangelist take a dim view of Jewish apocalyptic hopes that linked the kingdom to a renaissance of ancient Israel‘s glory.128 Second, an alternative view saw the reality of the kingdom present in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel but expressed in fresh images such as eternal life, light or truth.129 Third, Beasley-Murray says that the importance of the Kingdom of God is assumed by the evangelist and need not be directly stated.130
Moreover, John (with the exception of 3:3,5) identifies the proprietor of the kingdom as Jesus and Jesus as King. A recent study of John 18:36 (―My kingdom is not of this world‖) and Rev. 11:15 (―the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ‖) has concluded that Jesus‘ kingdom is otherworldly and insulated from the ideologies and institutions of this world.131 Further, if we view this passage as a tensive symbol, then we can reflect on the differences between Jesus‘
127Ibid., 165.
128C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (London, England: SPCK, 1962), 173.
129R. H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel (Oxford, England: Clarendon, 1956), 130. Also refer to Hodgson, 165, 174.
130Original from G. R. Beasley-Murray, ―John 3:3, 5: Baptism, Spirit, and the Kingdom,‖ Expository Times (1986): 167-170. Also refer to Hodgson, 165.
131Hodgson, 164.
97
kingdom and the worldly kingdom, especially when we extend the understanding of the Kingdom of God to the theologies of ―eternal life, light, and truth.‖ It is then when we can renew the original concept of the Kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God In Paul‘s Letters
The ideal of the Kingdom of God is not a primary thought for Paul.132 Paul is dependent on the teaching of Jesus as reflected in the synoptic tradition, particularly with regard to the concept of the Kingdom of God.133 Paul quotes no saying of Jesus, but he is familiar with the Jesus tradition.134
Furthermore, there are several central themes of Paul‘s use of kingdom language: Paul uses kingdom / Kingdom of God language in seven passages: 1 Thess. 2:10-12; Gal. 5:21; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Cor.15:24; 1 Cor. 15:50; and Rom. 14:17.135 With regard to Paul‘s use of kingdom language, it can be concluded that Paul understands that the Kingdom of God is consummated in the future, but that it has already achieved anticipatory reality in the present through the resurrection and reign of Christ.136 The ―already-not-yet‖ nature of the kingdom is especially evident in 1 Cor. 15:50.
132R. S. Barbour, The Kingdom of God and Human Society (Edingburgh, England: T&T Clark, 1993), 242.
133Karl Paul Donfried, ―The Kingdom of God in Paul,‖ in The Kingdom of God in 20th Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 189.
134Ibid. As K. P. Donfried indicates in his article that, ―The Jesus-Paul debate is an enormously complex one‖ (189). He also suggests the reader refer to the useful review by S. G. Wilson, ―From Jesus to Paul: The Contours and Consequences of a Debate,‖ in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare, ed. Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd (Waterloo, IA: Wildfrid Laurier University, 1984), 1-21.
135Ibid., 175.
136Ibid., 187.
98
Moreover, we can reflect on Paul‘s theology of the Kingdom of God. First, let us look at the unity of the cross and the kingdom. Paul‘s theology holds together the ―kingdom‖ and its equivalents and the centrality of the cross (1Cor. 1:17, 18, 23; 2Cor. 1:19, 20; Col. 1:13, 24; Phil. 2:1-18).137 It is in the letters to the Corinthians that the foolishness of the cross becomes most prominent in Paul‘s argument (1Cor. 1:17, 18). The acceptance of Christ involves acceptance of the cross, of weakness and contempt, persecution and suffering. Second, to be what we are, to ―become what you already are‖ is Paul‘s exhortation to those who have responded to God‘s call to live in anticipation of the kingdom (1Cor. 6:9-10; 15:10, 50; 1Thess. 2:11-12; Gal. 5:21).138 To a large extent the implications of this age are spelled out in terms of individual holiness and personal relationships, but these communities of the elect also have potential significance in terms of the kingdom as a social reality.139 Third, let us look at the power (of the Holy Spirit) in the Kingdom of God. As the power of God is revealed in his Kingdom by the gospel accompanied by signs demonstrating the authority of this new reality, so the Corinthians must give witness to the transformative power of the gospel.140 Other passages in Acts need to be reviewed briefly in light of our discussion. Luke describes Paul as preaching the Kingdom of God (Acts 14:22, 19:8, 20:25, and 28:23, 31). Luke also indicates that Paul and his followers were called ―the men who turned the world upside down‖ by the Thessalonians. Luke‘s description should help us embrace the understanding that the
137Barbour, 251.
138Ibid., 249.
139Ibid.
140Hodgson, 180.
99
apostles and Paul proclaim the Kingdom of God with the power of the Holy Spirit. Fourth, let us look at the gifts of the Kingdom of God. Paul says the ―the kingdom is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit‖ (Rom. 14:17). Paul reminds us that the gifts of the kingdom, the gifts of life in Christ, are righteousness, peace and joy. Righteousness is not right action, but divine power. Peace is openness toward everyone. Joy is standing under an open heaven.141 We can extend this reflection on the gift of the kingdom, by learning more about symbolic or theological perspectives of the Kingdom of God.
Reformed Perspectives on the Kingdom of God
It is surely striking that social activists, charismatics, and advocates of world evangelization often refer to the Kingdom of God and sometimes even cite the same texts to support their different (frequently one-sided) concerns.142 Ron Sider summarizes these positions well:143
Social activists quote the texts (e.g., Lk 4:16) to prove that faithful Christians, like Jesus, must meet the physical and social needs of the poor, blind, lame and oppressed. Charismatics quote the texts (also Lk. 4:16) to demonstrate that faithful Christian, like Jesus, should be ―filled with the power of the Spirit‖ and therefore perform miraculous signs and wonders. Proponents of world evangelization cite the texts (also Lk. 4:16) to
141Ibid., 179.
142Cf. Miroslav Volf, ―Materality of Salvation,‖ Journal of Ecumenical Studies vol. 26, no. 3 (Summer 1989): 464-466. Volf indicates the three soteriology traditions: the classical Protestant interpretation, the Liberation theologian, and the Pentacostalists.
143Ron Soder, What If the Gospel is the Good News of the Kingdom, Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, ed. Ralph D. Winter & Steven C. Hawthorne (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1998), A-83.
100
show that faithful Christians, like Jesus, will preach Good News to those who have not yet heard. Tragically, each group sometimes ignore or even rejects the concerns of the others.
Moreover, the different interpretations of specific texts, of course, result from fundamentally divergent understandings of the kingdom.144 The churches need to reflect on all the distinctive emphases of the Kingdom of God and then integrate them as a whole. In this section let us first review the different views of the Kingdom of God in the past, then review contemporary interpretations, and finally do the theological reflection on the methodologies and approaches of these contemporary views.
Realizing the different views of the Kingdom of God in the past
In the earliest period of the church‘s history
The Kingdom of God continued to be a familiar phrase in the mouths of Christians after the apostolic age, and to some extent a leading ideal in their minds, though it was somewhat variously applied, and seldom in so comprehensive way as Christ himself.145 It was a part of the church‘s faith that continually appeared as a powerful and practical motive for a Christian life.146 There were three different views of the Kingdom of God, which afterwards became more developed and had great practical effects.147 First, there was the view that the Kingdom of God or of Christ is yet to come, and was conceived in the form of a thousand years‘ reign. Such was the view of Papias,
144Ibid., A-83.
145Ibid., 236.
146 Ibid., 241.
147Ibid.
101
Barnabas, Justin, Irenaus, Tertullian.148 Second, was the view that God rules the Christian even now through Christ, as a spiritual kingdom or city, so that the Kingdom of God is already present. This was combined with the other view held by most of the earliest Fathers.149 There was a notable view of Plato. He viewed the Kingdom of God as the state of enlightenment, training, and disciple.150 In Platonic language the Kingdom of God is the heavenly city, or the ideal state.151 Third, there was the reality of the ancient Catholic Church. The notion of the Church as the mystical body of Christ consisted of all those who are spiritual united to Him.152
In medieval Catholicism
Furthermore, under the influence of Augustine, Catholic doctrine, was carried to its completion and at the same time came to exercise a momentous influence on the conception of the Kingdom of God.153 The prophetic ideals became of less importance and interest.154 The authority of the bishops as ministers of Christ and rulers of Christ‘s
148Ibid.
149Ibid.
150Ibid., 242.
151Ibid.
152Ibid.
153Ibid., 248. As Augustine‘s view of the Church being exclusively the Kingdom of God, and the state being the kingdom of this world became generally accepted, it was impossible to maintain the independence of the Church without asserting also its supremacy over the state or that the Kingdom of God ought to rule on earth (cf., 253). The other notable view of the Donatists in this period is that, this was the view afterward taken by the Protestants, they expressed the distinction of the Church, invisible and visible (cf., 247).
154Ibid., 249.
102
Church came to be emphasized as the bone of unity, which inevitably led to a different view of the future kingdom: The Papacy.155
Meanwhile, the acceptance of Christianity of Constantine opened up the possibility of the current theories of the Kingdom of God being translated into fact.156 Constantine tolerated the Church and recognized it as a theocracy. In the meantime, he also made himself bishop to rule as a theocratic sovereign through the Church.157 This is the rudiment of the ecclesiastico-theocratist.158 The development of ideals by which the hierarchical system was evoked came from the notion of the Church being the Kingdom of God, was accompanied by another tendency, which more and more connected that kingdom with the Empire of Rome.159 The more the Kingdom of God came to be conceived as an external hierarchy, the more necessary it was that it should have a regular organization.160 Upon the coronation of Charles the Great by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day 800, the new empire became a theocracy; and the bishop‘s anointing consecrated the earthly power of the king. Such, in general, were the medieval views of the Kingdom of God.161 Medieval Catholicism tended to identify the
155Ibid.
156Ibid.
157Ibid., 251.
158Ibid.
159Ibid., 257.
160Ibid., 258.
161Ibid., 260.
103
Kingdom of God with the institutional, visible church.162 The result of the medieval attempts to realize the Kingdom of God created an external and worldly theocracy.163 The failure of the papal system led to a revival of the imperialist theory since the fourteenth century, though the Empire, as a fact, could never more be made anything like the universal Christian monarchy, which it was in ideal.164 Further the corruption of the Church, the worldliness, pride, and greed of its rich and powerful ecclesiastics, were keenly felt by many earnest souls and led to protests, efforts, and hope for a reformation, and a restoration of Christianity to its primitive spirit.165
In the Reformed Tradition
The truly reformatory teaching was that which has been proved by history to have had the power to elevate and liberate people‘s religious ideal, and give purity and power to their Christian life.166 The former of these was done by Wycliffe, John Huss, and other precursors of the Reformation, who distinguished the true Church invisible from the outwardly professing Church visible.167 Their doctrine of the true Church, being the spiritual body of Christ, produced a radical change in the religious conception of the Kingdom of God before the Reformation.168
162Ibid., A-83.
163Candlish, 277.
164Ibid., 265.
165Ibid., 268.
166Ibid., 271.
167Ibid.
168Ibid., 274.
104
Further, Luther and Zwingli attempted to carry out a new conception of the Kingdom of God.169 Luther developed the thought of the universal priesthood of believers and the spiritual theocrary of the New Testament is described in contrast with the outward theocracy of Medieval Catholicism.170 Luther‘s ideal of the Kingdom of God was thoroughly spiritual.171 For him, the Kingdom of God is his sanctifying power on our hearts and lives, exerted through the Word which reveals Christ‘s work as our Redeemer, and by the Spirit who brings home to our consciences and hearts this gracious revelation of Christ‘s redeeming love.172 Luther also asserted his view of the state: Civil government is a divine institution, profitable for the community and lawful for Christians to hold.173 As the Kingdom of God includes all Christians, laymen as well as clergy, and does not require them to go to the world; and the reign of God consists of all of them governed by his Word and Spirit.174
Furthermore, Calvin made considerable use in his theology of the ideal of the Kingdom of God, and his view of it is in substance the same as that of Luther‘s.175 He also asserted that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, maintained by the power of Holy
169Ibid., 279.
170Ibid., 278.
171Ibid., 283.
172Ibid., 284.
173Ibid., 285.
174Ibid.
175Ibid., 289.
105
Spirit, and securing for us spiritual and heavenly blessings.176 His ideal was that Church and State should be independent, each acting on its own responsibility, and both co-operating for the promotion of the cause of Jesus.177 The practical issue of Calvin‘s teaching was, that in the countries where the Reformed religion was adopted, the Kingdom of God was sought to be realized in an alliance of Church and State in such a way as to secure, more or less perfectly, their mutual independence and harmonious working.178
About the four-hundred-year development of Protestantism, Moltmann indicates his terse assertion:179
In the four-hundred-year tradition, Protestantism has developed two different theological conceptions with whose help the Christian faith can clarify its historical situation and its political commission. These two conceptions are the Lutheran doctrine of ―the two kingdoms‖180 and the Reformed doctrine of ―the lordship of Christ.181
These two theological assertions distinguish the Reformed tradition and the Lutheran tradition in some important ways:182 1.) The Lutheran Reformation began in principalities, while the Reformed Church arose in the city-states of Zurich, Geneva, and
176Ibid., 289-290
177Ibid., 290.
178Ibid., 291.
179Jurgen Moltmann, On Human Dignity: Political Theology and Ethic, trans. M. Douglas Meeks (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), 61.
180Ibid., 61-78.
181Ibid., 79-96. See Chapter 5 ―Barth‘s Doctrine of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the Experience of the Confession Church.‖
182Ibid., 80-81.
106
Strasbourg. Their political contexts were different (i.e. the city-states already had certain democratic forms). The Reformation faith and political responsibility were, from the beginning, more closely intertwined than they were for the subjects of the principalities. 2.) The basic concept of the civitas Christiana was united with faith and politics. In political discussions, the citizenry always had to ask about God‘s will. Calvin also judged politics according to the lordship of God, as it is evident in the law of Moses and in the interpretation of this law by Christians. 3.) The Reformed views do not stress the contradiction or speak here about the gospel and there about the law, rather, they ask about the connection between human justice and divine justice. But, the Lutheran tradition follows Luther‘s perspective of ―the Two Kingdoms‖ and adopts a critical-polemical separation between God and World, worldly regiment and spiritual regiment.183 Furthermore, according to the Reformed view, the Christian does not live simultaneously in two different worlds; he or she lives in the one encompassing lordship of Christ in the various relationships of this world. 4.) In opposition to medieval clericalism, Luther had expounded the ―general priesthood of all believers‖ (i.e., discovered the right of the congregation / rejected the injury of the clerical tyrannis), and the Reformed tradition also discovered the ―general kingship of all believers‖ (i.e., laid the cornerstone of modern democracy / rejected the danger of the polotical tyrannis).
In the modern social activists
Modern social activists, on the other hand, have viewed the kingdom largely as a socio-economic-political reality that human beings can create through politics—whether democratic politics in the Social Gospel movement or Marxist revolution in some
183Ibid., 72-73.
107
liberation theology. At the other extreme have been some twentieth century evangelical who understand the kingdom largely as an inner spiritual reality in the soul of individual believers.‖184
The different interpretations in the 20th century (the Reformed perspectives)
Since we have reviewed the transforming interpretation of the Kingdom of God in the past, then we can find our own reflection of the Kingdom of God. Furthermore, there are some notable views and transformations in contemporary interpretation. W. G. Kummel notices the real turning point in NT studies around the 1900‘s.185 He indicates that it was based upon the work of Weiss and Schweitzer.186 Actually the different interpretations in the 20th Century enrich and renew the understanding of the Kingdom of God, even inspire the radical reaction of the modern churches. 187
There are several notable strands (stages) in the contemporary interpretations of the Kingdom of God. They are as follows:
The futuristic eschatological kingdom: J. Weiss and A. Schweitzer (in Jesus‘ view)—―future eschatology‖
There is a radical change in the understanding of the Kingdom of God at the end of the 19th Century. W. G. Kummel has tried to show that there was a real turning point in NT studies during this period based upon the work of Weiss and Schweitzer.188 The
184Soder, A-83.
185Wendell Willis, ―The Discovery of the Eschatological Kingdom: Johannes Weiss and Alberrt Schweitzer,‖ in The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 10.
186Ibid.
187See Appendix D.
188Ibid.
108
transformation of the theology is from the ethical (i.e., Ritschl) to the eschatological (i.e., Weiss and Schweitzer) understanding of the Kingdom of God.189 For Ritschl, the Kingdom of God is purely in ethical terms.190 Both Weiss and Schweitzer presented the interpretation of Jesus‘ teaching of the kingdom on the basis of eschatology.191 Furthermore, there are two notable legacies of Weiss‘ and Schweitzer‘s works for NT studies. The first is the recovery of the significance of eschatology for understanding the Gospel‘s presentation of the kingdom and the life of Jesus.192 Their view is that the kingdom should be interpreted from the standpoint of ―thoroughgoing or future eschatology.‖193 The second is the decision to draw a line (i.e., ‖hermeneutical gap‖) between the historical reconstruction of Jesus and the contemporary theological constructions.194
Furthermore, from Kant to Ritschl and the religious socialists, the Kingdom of God and its propagation were goals to be achieved through human labor.195 But, Johannes Weiss discovered that according to the New Testament and Jesus‘ message, the Kingdom
189Pannenberg, 52.
190Norman Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Philadephia, PA: Westminister Press, 1963), 16.
191Willis, 13.
192Ibid., 12.
193Ibid., 22.
194Ibid., 12. ―This distinction between the historical Jesus and contemporary theology is clearest in Weiss who acknowledged that Jesus‘ eschatological views of the kingdom could not be appropriated into contemporary theology‖ (12).
195Pannenberg, 51.
109
of God would be established not by humanity but by God alone.196 God will establish his kingdom unilaterally.197 Weiss‘ view is that the coming kingdom is not something that can be built, further or developed by the work of individuals; it is something that God will give and for which believers can only pray.198
The realized eschatological kingdom (emphasized Jesus‘ ministry): C. H. Dodd and R. Bultmann
Following the futuristic eschatological interpretation is another notable strand, which emphasizes Jesus‘ ministry with C. H. Dodd and R. Bultmann as the representative theologians. Both of them were influenced by Protestant liberalism.199 They wished to make Jesus both intelligible to modern culture and relevant to contemporary Christian faith and life. From their point of view, the historical Jesus was still the authoritative teacher and guide for the Christian life today.200 In addition, while Dodd wished to see Jesus as the founder of liberal theology, Bultmann was concerned to relate the historical
196Ibid., 52.
197Ibid.
198Perrin, 20.
199Richard H. Hiers, ―Pivotal Reactions to the Eschatological Interpretations: Rudolf Bultmann and C. H. Dodd,‖ in The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 17.
200Ibid.
110
Jesus to more traditional faith.201 Bultmann meant to say that Jesus‘ understanding of the meaning of existence stands,‖ i.e., is valid for modern belief as well (Jesus‘ messages or word to be of the essence for ethics or the moral life of modern Christians).202 Dodd‘s Jesus did not expect or proclaim any future eschatological events; Bultmann‘s Jesus was a proponent of understanding of existence that focused entirely on the present ―now‖ or crisis of decision.203 Both of them realized that the eschatological picture of Jesus was highly problematic for contemporary faith and ethics.204 But their work has provided the basic reference points for all subsequent study of the historical Jesus, his eschatological beliefs, and his proclamation of the Kingdom of God.205
Dodd is an important theologian who contributes and influences the Anglo-American discussion of ―the Kingdom of God‖ in the teaching of Jesus, whose view is undoubtedly the ―realized eschatology.‖206 Dodd believed that the Kingdom of God really was present (had already come) in Jesus‘ time and his ministry; moreover the kingdom
201Ibid., 16. Richard H. Hiers indicates also the understanding of both liberal and traditional Christianity here: 1.) Liberal Christianity viewed Jesus as the teacher who proclaimed the Kingdom of God and had called people of all times to the task of bringing the Kingdom of God on earth through moral action and social reform. 2.) Traditional Christianity generally relied on the Fourth Gospel‘s portrait of Jesus, while ignoring both eschatological and ethical sayings ascribed to him in the synoptic. From their standpoint Jesus‘ proclamation of the coming kingdom was unimportant, except, perhaps, when the Christians go to the heaven.
202Hiers, 27-28.
203Ibid., 31.
204Ibid., 33.
205Ibid., 33.
206Perrin, 58.
111
has remained present ever since.207 For Dodd‘s view, Jesus‘ ethical teaching is the way people are to live who have already enter the Kingdom of God.208 Dodd‘s most important contribution to the whole discussion is to seek a true understanding of ―the Kingdom of God‖ in the whole teaching of Jesus.209
Bultmann saw the Kingdom of God conceptually and in apocalyptic terms, but attempted to bridge the gulf between the NT and subsequent generations by recasting the mythological language of the kingdom (although not demonstrating any real concern for the literary form) in order to get at the text‘s understanding and claims on human existence.210 Bultmann made clear that the purpose of demythologizing was to remove false and unnecessary stumbling blocks to the faith of modern people. For his aim is to demythologize Jesus‘ message,211
Furthermore, by the term of ―radical obedience,‖ Bultmann meant both that Jesus taught individuals to decide ―Either-Or,‖ between God‘s reign and ―the world,‖ or between ―God‘s will‖ and their ―own will,‖ and the obedience called for must be a
207Hiers, 18. Also cf. W. Emory Elmore, ―Linguistic Approaches to the Kingdom: Amos Wilder and Norman Perrin,‖ in The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 54.
208Farmer, 124. Farmer indicate also that ―For Dodd, Jesus‘ ethical teaching has a twofold function: 1.) Announce the absolute standards of the kingdom; and 2.) Challenge the believers to new obedience and new outlook of life.‖
209Perrin, 74. Perrin summarizes Dodd‘s understanding of Jesus‘ teaching into six points here.
210Elmore, 53-54. Also can refer to Hiers, 127. Hiers indicates that ―For Bultmann, a gap between the Jesus of history and the preaching of the later church was not only harmless, it was to be preferred.‖
211Rudolph Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), 14-23.
112
willing and understanding obedience, not merely obedience to law or external authority.212
The consensus eschatological kingdom: W. G. Kummel and G. E. Ladd
The period during and just after World War II saw the emergence of the ―consensus‖ position: the kingdom for Jesus was both present and future.213 The direction of the discussion in the earliest post-war period was toward the generally recognized synthesis or ―consensus on the Kingdom of God,‖ that is, that Jesus viewed the kingdom both as in some sense present and as in some sense future.214 Reginald H. Fuller, in his The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (1954), represented a third and similar ―consensus‖ model.215
Just as I had discussed in the fore-section, the first strand is ―futuristic eschatology.‖ It emphasizes the futurity of the kingdom in Jesus‘ view. The second strand is ―the realized eschatology,‖ which emphasizes the beginning or the presence of the kingdom in Jesus‘ ministry.216 The third is ―consensus eschatology,‖ which emphasizes the consensus between the promise and fulfillment (or consummation), and is also the consensus between present and future.
In general, two schools of thought exist. One school—represented by scholars such as J. Teremias, W. G. Kummel, and O. Cullmann—maintains that the tension
212Hiers, 28.
213Eldon Jay Epp, ―Meditating Approaches for the Kingdom: Werner Georg Kummel and George Eldon Ladd,‖ in The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 36-37.
214Ibid., 36.
215Ibid., 38.
216Ibid., 36.
113
between present and future is to be understood temporally.217 The other school—represented by the post-Bultmann scholars such as Ernst Kasemann, G. Bornkamann and E. Fuchs—views the tension between present and future as a dialectic tension and interprets it existentially rather than temporally.218
After Dodd, scholars generally agreed that in Jesus‘ teaching concerning the Kingdom of God there was both a present and future aspect.219 W. G. Kummel and G. E. Ladd came to the forefront among many making an important contribution here.220 The fullest statement of the ―consensus‖ from this early period, however, is found in W. G. Kummel.221 Moreover we can find the other contribution of George Eldon Ladd. Whereas Kummel saw Jesus‘ teaching on the Kingdom of God as encompassing Promise and Fulfillment, Ladd ends with a threefold statement of the matter: Promise, Fulfillment, and Consummation.222
Linguistic approach: A. Wilder and Norman Perrin
―From the fore-strand, Amos Wilder and Norman Perrin have opened a new door to the study the Kingdom of God by treating Gospel (Wilder) and kingdom (Perrin) from a wholly different perspective: that of language—and in particular, of symbol.‖223 ―Amos
217Farmer, 122.
218Ibid.
219Elmore, 54.
220Ibid.
221Epp, 38.
222Ibid., 38.
223Elmore, 54.
114
Wilder opened the door to the wholly new approach to understanding the gospel and the Kingdom of God, in particular as a message to be understood within the language itself, especially of symbol and of metaphor.‖224 Moreover, Norman Perrin opened the door more widely and ―challenged NT scholarship to no longer think of the Kingdom of God as a concept understood temporally but a tensive symbol.‖225 ―Perrin argued that the Kingdom of God should be viewed as a symbol rather than a concept.‖226
―Wilder is convinced that demythologizing falls short, failing to do justice to the message within the medium or the imagery.‖227 He also asserts that we should recognize the symbol for all its imaginative and ancient characters.228 ―Wilder indicates his reflections on the gospel as representing a ―new outburst‖ in all aspects of language, leaving us with metaphor, which underscores his contribution to NT hermeneutics.‖229 His creative reassessment was very significant in turning the attention of scholars to the language of the gospel generally and to the language of the kingdom specifically.230
Perrin understands the kingdom not as a concept but as a symbol which evokes a myth of God‘s kingship; and secondly, he views the parables as metaphors—interpreting
224Ibid., 65.
225Ibid.
226Farmer, 120.
227Elmore, 58.
228Amos Wilder, ―Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospel,‖ Journal of Biblical Languages 84 (1965): 88.
229Elmore, 59.
230 Ibid.
115
the gospel as it is woven into the fabric of language.231 Perrin declares the Kingdom of God to be a tensive symbol: ―as a symbol it can represent or evoke a whole range or series of conceptions,‖232 Perrin comments with an appeal for a hermenutic which emphasizes the metaphoric and tensive symbolic character of both parables and Kingdom of God, that we might be more effective in allowing the text itself to speak to the hearer, and thereby, as the precursor Wilder poignantly expresses it, ―compelling imagination…and transformation.‖233
―What is essential about the symbolic language of the gospel (Wilder) or kingdom (Perrin), especially in the existential reality of human life, jolts the heart with the challenge of this experience and compels commitment.‖234
The reflection on contemporary exegesis: methodologies and approaches
The tensions in the Kingdom of God
According to Snyder, ―Biblical teaching presents us with six fundamental tensions or polarities that are central to the mystery of God‘s reign.‖235 They are the following: 1.) present vs. future (already—not yet); 2.) individual vs. social; 3.) spirit vs. matter (religious—political); 4.) gradual vs. climatic (eschatological—apocalyptic); 5.) divine action vs. human action (gift and task); and, 6.) church vs. the Kingdom of God—the
231Ibid., 59-60.
232Ibid., 61.
233Ibid., 64.
234Ibid., 65.
235Snyder, 16.
116
church‘s relationship to the Kingdom of God (the tension in seeing the church and the kingdom as essentially the same or as clearly different).236
Any theology of the kingdom that dissolves these tensions, opting wholly for the one side or the other, is to a degree unbiblical. A biblical, faithful, biblical and useful theology of the kingdom will in some way maintain and live with this tension.237 According Snyder, a valid conception of the kingdom (in theory and practice) must meet three tests: It must: 1.) be solidly grounded in scripture, 2.) be true to the character of Jesus Christ as witnessed by Scripture, and 3.) be fruitfully relevant in our present age.238
The exegetical approaches
In contemporary (biblical and theological) discussion there are three different approaches to the Kingdom of God. These approaches are kingdom as concept, symbol, and liberation.239 Each one focuses on a particular aspect of the Kingdom depending on the initial point of reference. However different they may be, they are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.240
Moreover, the first approach (kingdom as concept) can be described as author-centered. Its question is ―What did the authors of the Bible mean by the concept?‖ The second (kingdom as symbol approach) can described as text-centered. Its question is: What did the text itself mean and say today? The third (kingdom as liberation approach)
236 Ibid., 16-17.
237Ibid., 17.
238Ibid., 15-16.
239Fuellenbach, 54, 63.
240Ibid., 54.
117
can be described as reader-centered. Its question is: What does the phrase Kingdom of God have to say to the concrete situation of utter oppression and exploitation in which we now find ourselves?241
I. The Concept Approach:
In the past, many scholars would insist on regarding the phrase, Kingdom of God, as a concept.242 In the history of theology, the Kingdom of God concept has been used by countless theologians and philosophers. Some names to be mentioned are Kant, Lessing, Hegel, Hobbes, and Locke, who offered an almost incredible variety of interpretations to this concept.243
To treat it as a concept means to assume that it leads to a clear and consistent idea. The concern was to find out what the phrase meant in the teaching of Jesus, although Jesus himself never defined the Kingdom of God as a specific concept.244 For Fuellenbach, there are three conceptual interpretations offered: first, the kingdom may be seen as a speculative theological concept that attempts to get behind Jesus‘ own understanding of expression, determining its definitive meaning for all time. (e.g., as seen in The City of God by Augustine). A second interpretation sees the kingdom as an apocalyptic concept, which in turn is said to have completely determined Jesus‘ understanding of the kingdom (e.g., Albert Schweitzer). A third interpretation treats the
241Ibid., 64.
242Ibid., 54.
243Ibid., 55.
244Ibid., 54.
118
kingdom as a biblical concept with the ―present-future‖ tension that can be found in Jesus‘ message of the Kingdom.245
II. The Symbol Approach
In recent time, scholars have been insisting on treating the phrase, Kingdom of God, as a symbol rather than a concept.246 Kingdom as a concept could be too narrow or misleading. The idea of seeing the Kingdom of God as symbol evokes an entire series of ideas, because a symbol, by its definition, presents or elicits a whole range of concepts.247 The symbol stands for a very rich and multifaceted religious experience expressing a personal relationship with God.248
Obviously, it is impossible for the people to express such a broad range of their religious experiences in a one clearly defined concept. Furthermore, Jesus himself never defined the Kingdom of God in discursive language.249
III. The Liberation Approach
The liberating power of Christ penetrates, redeems, and claims the whole of life, including its political and economic relationship.250 Theologically, this is a new attempt at treating the phrase, Kingdom of God, neither as a concept nor as a symbol, but as a
245Ibid.
246Ibid., 55.
247Perrin, 30-33.
248Ibid., 55.
249Ibid.
250Moltmann, 82.
119
reference for historical liberation.251 Liberation theology joins the general disenchantment of contemporary theology with a purely historical-critical approach to interpreting the Bible.252 Moreover, this is also a reader-centered approach,253 regarding humankind‘s self-understanding and its role in history. A new historical situation and a new human self-understanding call for a rethinking of how the Bible should be read.254
The hermeneutics of liberation theology is quite simply the reading of the Bible from the perspective of the people (e.g., the poor and the oppressed), from the perspective of those who are persecuted in the course of humanrights, from the perspective of the condemned of the earth.255 It is from this perspective that the appeal of liberation theologians to the biblical theme of the Kingdom of God must be understood.256
Furthermore, liberation theology claims that the most adequate understanding of the Kingdom of God can be reached by focusing on liberation. It implies a new way of being a Christian in the world and living the faith in society.257 It demands that the Christian live the faith in the context of the contemporary consciousness of the person
251Ibid., 55.
252Ibid., 58.
253Ibid., 64.
254Ibid., 56.
255Ibid., 60.
256Ibid.
257Ibid., 56.
120
being an active subject in the transformation of history.258 Its approach emphasizes the world-transformation dimension of the kingdom.259
It is notable that Jesus, in his preaching, encourages people to find their own liberation, calling them to act out their own history, rather than invoking the power of God to ―liberate‖ them in a paternalistic way.260 God created humans to be free and responsible persons. It is only in such a view that the words covenant, grace, sin, faith, and freedom make sense,261 for the liberation which men and women long for is a liberation not only from their own existential in authenticity but also from all those structures which hold them in bondage, including the social, economic, political, and cultural structures.262
―Models‖ as hermeneutic key to the Kingdom
Over thirty years, the concept of the theological model has been introduced into theology.263 Although this way of scientific investigation is mostly a tool employed by the empirical sciences, its use in theology has become acceptable.264 ―Model thinking‖ in theology can prevent us from making concepts and symbols into idols. It helps us to
258Ibid.
259Ibid., 55.
260John Riches, ―Biblical Theology and the Pressing Concern of the Church,‖ in The Kingdom of God and Human Society, ed. R. S. Barbour (Edinburgh, England: T & T Clark, 1993), 259.
261Fuellenbach, 56.
262Ibid.
263Ibid., 60.
264Ibid., 61.
121
realize that the infinite can never be captured in the finite structure. It opens an almost infinite possibility to theological development and therefore goes beyond any purely conceptual definition or symbolic representation.‖265
Since Avery Dulles indicated the models of the church in his 1974 book,266 many other scholars have followed in approaching theological topics with the hermeneutical tool of models.267 Howard A. Snyder has followed this line by investigating the biblical phrase, Kingdom of God, under the theological concept of model.268
A model is a conceptual and symbolic representation or system by which we try to grasp and express reality or part of reality. For Sallie McFague, ―A model is, in essence, a sustained and systematic metaphor.‖269 Models do not have to be exclusive. Various models can balance or supplement one another.270 The concern here in using models is to get the truth of the Kingdom of God. Snyder indicates the eight notable and useful models of the kingdom that can be discerned as being present in the tradition of Christian churches:271
1.) The kingdom as future hope: the future kingdom.
2.) The kingdom as inner spiritual experience: the interior kingdom.
265Ibid., 61.
266Avery Dulles, Models of the Church (London, England: Macmillan, 1974).
267Fuellenbach, 61.
268Cf. Snyder.
269Snyder, 19.
270Fuellenbach, 61.
271Snyder, 18.
122
3.) The kingdom as mystical communion: the heavenly kingdom.
4.) The kingdom as institutional church: the ecclesiastical kingdom.
5.) The kingdom as counter system: the subversive kingdom.
6.) The kingdom as political state: the theocratic kingdom.
7.) The kingdom as Christianized: the transforming kingdom.
8.) The kingdom as earthly utopia: the utopian kingdom.
Integrating the understanding of the Kingdom of God
The reigns of the Kingdom of God
I. God‘s Reign and Power
The basic meaning of the Kingdom of God is God‘s reign. From the biblical perspective, God is the Creator of all creatures. He is also the ruler of all creatures. The kingdom is God‘s reign over all, not so much as a realm but as God‘s continuing sovereign authority and activity over ―all things,‖ things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible; things present and things to come.272
In the biblical perspective, the coming of God‘s kingdom is viewed as a great event: a mighty manifestation of God‘s power, which would sweep away the wicked kingdom of human sovereignty and would fill all the earth with righteousness. As a Creator, God‘s being and existence cannot be conceived apart from His rule. ―God‘s being is His rule. The Deity of God is His rule.‖273 The reign of God is ―not merely in the human heart but dynamically active in the person of Jesus and human history,‖ and this makes it possible to understand ―how the Kingdom of God can be present and future,
272Ibid., 147.
273Pannenberg, 55.
123
inward and outward, spiritual and apocalyptic.‖274
For Ladd, ―The Kingdom is God‘s dynamic power.‖275 What Ladd means by this is that the dynamic kingly rule of God, by its action in history, has created the Kingdom of God.276 God has entered into history in the person of Christ to work among human beings, to bring to them the life and blessing of His rule. The kingdom is here today, not only making the changes in the external order of the world, but also making the changes in the spiritual order and in the lives of men and women.277
Furthermore, we can look at the understanding of Luther and Calvin. Luther‘s idea of the Kingdom of God was thoroughly spiritual.278 For Luther, ―the Kingdom of God is his sanctifying power in our hearts and lives, exerted through the Word which reveals Christ‘s work as our Redeemer, and by the Spirit who brings home to our consciences and hearts this gracious revelation of Christ‘s redeeming love.‖279 Further, as the Kingdom of God includes all Christians, layman as well as clergy, all of them being governed by His Word and Spirit, they are to hear the word of God for themselves, and obey it on their own responsibility.‖280
Calvin makes considerable use in his theology of the idea of the Kingdom of God,
274Epp, 48.
275Ibid., 49.
276Ibid.
277Ladd, A-65.
278Candish, 283.
279Ibid., 284.
280Ibid., 285.
124
and his view of it is in substance the same as that of Luther‘s.281 He explains that his kingdom is spiritual, maintained by the power of the Holy Spirit, and secures for us spiritual and heavenly blessings.282 For Calvin, the perspective of the Kingdom of God certainly is a doctrine of an inner spiritual kingdom.283 Calvin‘s understanding of the relationship between church and state has often been viewed as theocratic: God actually reigned through the political power structures. It is a fact that Geneva under Calvin has variously been termed a ―theocracy,‖ a ―clerocracy,‖ a ―bibliocracy,‖ and a ―christocracy.‖284
In general, we may say that for the Reformers, the Kingdom of God is most basically a spiritual reality with the inner, ethical, and eschatological dimensions.285 The Reformers saw the kingdom as primarily inward and spiritual, but since all things come from God and belong to God, believers must responsibly be involved in all areas of life.286 At one level, the Reformers‘ emphasis was more Christ for us than in us; more on the objective fact (as they saw it) of God‘s Spiritual reign than the subjective experience of the reign; more on the Word than on the Spirit.287
281Ibid., 289.
282Ibid., 289-290.
283Snyder, 48.
284Ibid., 89.
285Ibid., 49.
286Ibid., 47.
287Ibid., 49.
125
II. God‘s Reign and Human Being:
When we receive the kingdom as a gracious gift from God, who comes with unconditional love to seek out humankind and to offer ultimate salvation to all, we commit ourselves to God‘s kingly rule. Obviously we cannot deny that the kingdom is God‘s will and act. But what is the proper and positive attitude toward the Kingdom? What is the proper identity that depends on the kingdom consciousness when we pray for the coming of the Kingdom? What kinds of roles do we play in the coming of the kingdom? Is it true that we can do absolutely nothing to cause or hasten its coming?
The gratuitousness of the Kingdom should not lead us to regard ourselves as merely passive objects.288 On the one hand we are challenged to respond to the calling to prepare for entering the kingdom. On the other hand, we are sent to invite people to enjoy the festival of the Kingdom. Jurgen Moltmann maintains a positive attitude toward the Kingdom. He says, ―The power of God is indeed experienced in the community of Jesus. And through this experience, human beings become ‗coworkers in the Kingdom of God‘ called to perform the same messianic works as Jesus Himself.‖289 Joe Sobrino views the coming of the Kingdom as gift and task.290 G. Gutierrez employs the idea of divine sonship and human fellowship in explaining the Kingdom as gift and task.291 For him sonship is a gift while the creation of a profound human fellowship is a task; creating a
288Fullenbach, 98.
289Ibid., 99.
290Ibid.
291Ibid., 100.
126
profound human fellowship means accepting the gift of the sonship.292
Those who let the kingdom into their life by becoming children of God will have to show the presence of the kingdom by working to make all human beings their brothers and sisters.293 Here, the gift of the kingdom is sonship and the task of the kingdom is the bringing about this sonship in the horizontal dimension through the creation of the community of brothers and sisters.294 Furthermore, we must continually orient our self-image and our worldview to Jesus‘ vision of reality if we want to call ourselves Christian.295 In addition, we are to be faithful to the power of the kingdom in us and around us, for ―we are not the builders of the kingdom; it is God who gives it.‖296 But our work is to witness to this presence of the kingdom, to make it felt by our concern for ―justice, peace, and joy‖ where we live and work, and to challenge every human society to restructure itself according to the kingdom‘s principles.297 Our task is to set up signs on the way to the kingdom; signs which radiate the vision of Christ into the world that looks, at times, so hopeless and doomed.298
Moreover there are several notable identities of the church, which J. Fullenbach indicates, as following: 1.) Kingdom consciousness means living and working in the firm
292Ibid.
293Ibid.
294Fullenbach, 100.
295Cf. Philemon 2:5: ―Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.‖
296Fullenbach, 206.
297Ibid.
298Ibid.
127
hope of the final triumph of God‘s reign; 2.) Understanding God‘s Kingdom means that the line between sacred and secular does not exist in concrete reality; 3.) Kingdom awareness means that the ministry is much broader than church work; 4.) In Kingdom perspective, concern for justice and concrete commitment to the word of God are necessarily held together; and 5.) The reality of the Kingdom of God can be experienced now through the spirit who gives the believer the first fruits of the fullness of the Kingdom in here and now.299
The presence of the Kingdom of God
I. Now and future
The most recent interpretation of the Kingdom of God is the assertion that the presence of the kingdom is both now and future. The majority of the scholars maintain that for Jesus, the Kingdom of God was both present and future.300 It is notable that the discussion in the post-war period, the kingdom for Jesus was both present and future.301 This assertion brings us into two theological considerations: the Kingdom of God is not only a future hope, but also a present experience.
Moreover, we need to reflect on the Biblical perspectives, and find the different emphasis on the timing of the presence of the Kingdom of God. Those different emphases can bring us into a full understanding. For Matthew, that the kingdom is present in Jesus‘ person and ministry, and ―Thy Kingdom come‖ is a call for God to
299Ibid., 272.
300Hiers, 18.
301Epp, 37.
128
become active in the experience of the petitioner, present as well as future.302 For Mark, he seems rather to emphasize the futurity, a real future, of the Kingdom of God.303 The future is not an empty category. For Luke, the ―end-times‖ start with the arrival of Jesus; the final coming of the kingdom marks the last event of the end-times.304 For Paul, the Kingdom is present already but not yet in its final.305 So, whether from the theological assertion or the Biblical emphases, we can note the two strands, now and future, of the presence of the Kingdom of God.
II. The incarnation as the presence of the Kingdom of God
Through the understanding of Jesus‘ kingship, we can see the incarnation as the presence of God. The Kingdom appears in Jesus‘ presence and His ministry. Jesus presents God‘s mighty power in His ministry. It also means the presence of the reign of God. Moreover, the resurrected event of Jesus presents God‘s sovereign authority on death and life. The risen Christ presents the Kingdom of God to the disciples and all the believers. For Luke, that the disciples enjoyed the table with the risen Christ is related to the beginning of the Kingdom of God (Lk. 24:30-32). They also experienced new insight and a burning heart. Moreover, they experienced the power to turn the world upside down (Acts 17:6; 21:38).
302Farmer, 128.
303Boring, 141. And Boring indicates also ―In the Gospel of Mark, the Kingdom of God, presently Jesus, but still to come in power, is inseparable from the kingship of Jesus, and that means that the eschatological act of God is inseparable from the crucified Jesus‖ (145).
304O‘Toole, 157. For Luke, he links ―the Kingdom of God‖ to Jesus‘ presence and action. Coming to Jesus relates to belonging to the Kingdom (150).
305Donfried, 178.
129
The churches are the followers and the body of Christ; they should also be the incarnated churches of their Lord Jesus. When the churches commit themselves to Christ and live as the people of God, they need to also act as the incarnate God, the incarnate actions being the dynamic response to God‘s reign. Moreover, through the incarnate actions they share and witness the gospel of the Kingdom of God.
God‘s reign as the presence of the Kingdom of God
The Kingdom is God‘s kingly rule. Whatever is under the reign of God is also the realm where the kingdom is present. The reign of God is not only in the human heart, but also dynamically active in the person of Jesus and in human history. First, we will look at the presence of the kingdom in the person of Jesus. The Old Testament promises are fulfilled in the historical mission of Jesus. Jesus presented the kingship in His ministry and the kingdom was fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus. Second, God is the Lord of human history, whether in biblical history or in the history of the churches. God shows His reign and divine actions in history. Third, the presence of the kingdom is found in the human heart. On the one hand, the believers are already justified, sanctified, and adopted as sons of God and are therefore heirs of the kingdom; on the other hand, they have to undergo a process in becoming what they already are. The Kingdom of God means that God is reigning in the hearts of men and women. To enter the kingdom means, ―to make God King in one‘s own soul and life.‖ Moreover, for the conviction of the Christian, God also is the King of all nations, all people, and all the creatures, which is why God will also present His divine action and reign in the world.
God‘s divine action: new heaven and new earth
For John the Apostle, the Kingdom of God is the new heaven and new earth (Rev.
130
21:1-5). On the one hand is the future hope, on the other hand is God‘s divine action, such as the heavenly Father wiping away tears and sorrow, and making all things new.
As we have seen, Jesus never defined the Kingdom of God. He described the kingdom in parables and similes (See Mt.13 and Mk. 4) and in concepts like life, glory, joy and light. The best biblical description is given in Paul: ―For the Kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit‖ (Rom. 14:17). Paul indicates three notable contents of the Kingdom of God here. They are ―righteousness, peace, and joy.‖ We might rightly call these three characteristics the fundamental values of the Kingdom.306
Justice in the Bible is primarily a matter of relationship.307 Justice as a biblical concept could best be translated as right relationship.308 Moreover, we should note the four extending relationships to God, to oneself, to one‘s neighbor both as individual and as part of society, and to creation as a whole.309 To enter the Kingdom means to live in a right relationship with these four directions in the power of Holy Spirit. Justice is the gift and divine reign of God.
Shalom (peace) is an important term in the Old Testament. Fundamentally Shalom refers to wholeness, total health and total welfare.310 In Greek thought, peace means the
306Fuellenbach, 157.
307Ibid.
308Ibid.
309Ibid.
310Ibid., 167.
131
absence of war. In Hebrew thought, the opposite of shalom is not war but injustice.311 Von Rad emphasized that ―shalom denotes a relationship rather than a state.‖312 In the New Testament the word eirene (peace) means well-being and eschatological salvation.313 According to the Jesus of the gospels, peace means wholeness and comprises the physical, social, and spiritual elements.314 So to live in peace means to live in harmony, and also to enter into right relationship with God and people. The person who enters into right relationship will experience peace of mind, serenity, and tranquility.
The basic meaning of joy, chara (noun) and charo (verb) in the Bible, is in reference to physical comfort and well-being.315 Further, joy in the biblical sense means life. It is the expression of fullness, life, and love.316 The Kingdom of God is a matter of life and love in abundance.317 After all, the parable of the wedding feast and the blessing of the Kingdom of God are love, life, joy, and happiness.
As we turn our attention to Acts, we notice that in Acts 14:22, 19:8, 20:25m and 28:23, 31, Luke describes Paul as preaching the Kingdom of God. One other passage in Acts to be reviewed briefly in light of our discussion of Paul and his use of kingdom
311Ibid., 168.
312G. von Rad, ―eirene,‖ in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 402-403.
313Fuellenbach, 170.
314Ibid.
315Ibid., 172.
316Ibid.
317Ibid.
132
language is Acts 17:6-7. In this passage, we see Paul and his followers argue before the authorities and are called ―the men who have turn the world upside down.‖
It is also indicated by the verse used in Rev. 21:5 – not ―Behold, I will create‖ (Hebrew barah), but ―I will make (Hebrew asah) all things new.‖ The divine ―making‖ is a forming and shaping of that which has been ―created.‖318 So ―the coming of the Kingdom‖ means the transformation of the world. Moltmann indicated that the eschatological transformation of the world means a fundamental transformation, that is to say: God himself changes his relationship to the world. God‘s faithfulness to his once created world cannot therefore limit his freedom to complete and perfect his temporal creation, making it a creation that is eternal—and thus changing creation‘s fundamental conditions.319
Moreover, John Fuellenbach indicates four principal implications of the Kingdom of God: 1.) The kingdom is meant for this world. 2.) The kingdom means the transformation of the whole of creation. 3.) The kingdom demands transformation of the present reality. and, 4.) The kingdom is a challenge to human freedom.320 He reminds us of God‘s reign in the temporal world.
According to Hebrew etymology, ‗heaven‘ probably means ‗the heights‘, and ‗earth‘ ‗the lower reign, what is below‘321 In using the term ‗heaven‘, it can have two
318Jurgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 271.
319Ibid., 272.
320Fuellenbach, 201-203.
321Moltmann, God in Creation, 158.
133
meanings: the direct sense and the symbolic meaning. Theologically, heaven‘s symbolic meaning is significant to its direct meaning—that is to say, heaven has been divinized. The symbol ‗heaven‘ means the transcendent openness of all material system.322 God dwells in heaven, acts from heaven, and his will is done on earth.323 Here we are interpreting heaven as the Kingdom of God‘s energies, his potentiality (possibilitas) and his efficacious power (potentia).324 Heaven is the word that describes not merely the kingdom of potentialities, but also the Kingdom of God‘s potencies: the potentiality and potency of the earth‘s being.325 As the kingdom of potentialities and potencies of God the Creator, heaven is also the kingdom of the forms, which God realizes on earth ‗from heaven‘.326
Barth noted that the New Testament describes the order of the new creation with political and not with the religious concepts of Kingdom of God (basileia), heavenly city (polis) and heavenly citizenship (politeuma).327 Barth concludes, ―The real earthly church sees its future and hope not in a heavenly reflection of its own existence, but precisely in the real heavenly state.‖328
322Ibid., 165.
323Ibid.
324Ibid.
325Ibid., 166.
326Ibid., 167.
327Moltmann, On Human Dignity, 85.
328Ibid.
134
Theologically, ‗the new heaven and new earth‘ means ‗the Kingdom of God is here‘. It implies of the ‗political order of things‘, ‗the spiritual order‘ and ‗the lives of men and women‘. In the spiritual realm, the kingdom now offers to men and women the blessing of God‘s rule.329 The kingdom is now here with persuasion rather than with power.330 In the political order of things, ‗new heaven and new earth‘ symbolizes the ideal society of ―justice, peace, and joy.‘ Moreover, when people enter the ‗new heaven and new earth‘, they also inherit the divine sonship and daughterhood (Rev. 21:3, Gal. 4:6). They become partakers of the divine nature. Through the renewed identity and relationship, they reform the spiritual and political order.
Practical theology of the Kingdom of God in Taiwanese context
Reflection on the models of the Kingdom of God
Howard A. Snyder indicates the practical meaning of the kingdom from the biblical teaching as follows: 1.) The kingdom is God‘s reign over all, not much as a realm but as God‘s continuing sovereign authority and activity over ―all things.‖ Things in heaven and on earth, visible, present and to come. 2.) Jesus Christ is the decisive inbreaking of the kingdom into human history. 3.) The Kingdom of God is historical. The kingdom is a ―reality at work within history, rather than simply a goal to which history tends.‖ The kingdom is, therefore, theological in this historical sense. 4.) The Kingdom of God promise, and is, a new social order, a reconciled humanity and environment based on love, justice, holiness, and peace (shalom in the biblical sense). 5.) The Kingdom of God is opposed by the kingdom of Satan. 6.) The church is not the
329Ladd, A-69.
330Ibid.
135
kingdom, but is called to be the kingdom community. 7.) Entrance into the kingdom requires repentance, faith, and obedience. 8.) God‘s reign is a kingdom of grace more than of law. 9.) The life of the kingdom is provided for us in Jesus‘ example and teaching. 10.) The kingdom comes by the mysterious working of God‘s sovereign Spirit, but also by human faith and obedience.331
Building kingdom community: within the power of the Kingdom of God
We are not the builders of the kingdom; it is God who gives it. Our task is to witness to the presence of the kingdom, to make it felt by our concern ―for justice, peace, and joy‖ where we live and work, and to challenge every human society to restructure itself according to the kingdom‘s principles.332
As Snyder has indicated, ―the church is not the kingdom, but is called to be the kingdom community.‖333 The church faithfully maintains the polarity between church and kingdom by living out the reality of God‘s reign now, in its weakness and imperfect but in certain hope of ultimate triumph.334 There are some differences between church people and kingdom people. ―Church people think about how to get people into the church; kingdom people think about how to get the church into the world. Church people worry that the world might change the church; kingdom people work to see the church change the world.‖335 God wants the church to be a little miniature now of the coming kingdom.
331Snyder, 146-153.
332Fuellenbach, 206.
333Snyder, 150.
334Ibid., 150.
335Ibid., 11.
136
For this reason, Christians should go forth into the world both to witness and to lead people to faith in Christ, and also to erect the signs of the coming kingdom within the broken kingdom of the world.
Barth further demands the Christian community to be an example for the civil community. He proposes that it can only be met by a church that is what he calls ―the true church.‖336 Even Moltmann has asked, ―Where is the true church?‖ But within the dialectic tension, we can find that the church needs a biblical kingdom consciousness in order to be inspired to take up the discipleship of kingdom. Even the church cannot assert herself as the Kingdom of God, but should view herself as a people who are seeking for the kingdom.
For Barth, the Christian community is the inner circle of Christ‘s kingdom and the civil community is the outer circle. They have the common center in Christ the Lord and their common goal is in the Kingdom of God. The Christian community will always, through its political decisions, strive to have political justice correspond as a parable to God‘s justice.337 How is the kingdom come? For Barth, he indicates several notable concepts as follows: 1.) Life in the Christian community is based on the reality of God‘s becoming human. 2.) The Christian community is a witness to the divine justification of human beings. 3.) The Christian community is a witness to the Son of Man, who came to seek that which is lost. 4.) The Christian community is called to the freedom of being God‘s children. 5.) The Christian community lives from the light of the public revelation
336Moltmann, On Human Dignity, 92.
337Ibid., 89.
137
of God in Christ.338
Practical concern in Taiwanese context
a. Preparing the Church for the Ministries of Kingdom of God:
Martin Luther emphasized education precisely because of his re-discovery of the priesthood of all believers. He promoted adult education because the entire body of Christian believers was called to be intelligent in the faith. John Calvin also emphasized education, establishing what eventually became the University of Geneva. His founding of an educational institute was rooted in the conviction that there was a necessity for learned ministers who could set forth the true faith as well as for educated laity.339
There is an important theological insight, which states that ―redefined ecclesiology‖ was required in considering the ministry of the laity as God‘s action in the world.340 We must understand that, as Christ came to minister, so must all Christian become ministers of his saving purpose according to the particular gift of the Spirit which each has received, as messengers of the hope received in Christ. Therefore, the laity is the church‘s representatives, no matter where they are. The laity is members of God‘s people, specifically God‘s people present in the world. Christ is the light, which entered into human life. So the responsibility of the Christian, as followers, is to serve as reflecting mirrors or focusing lenses, to beam the light into all parts of life in the world.
338Ibid., 89-90.
339Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement (Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publication, 1991), 347.
340Ibid., 584.
138
b. The Actualization of the Kingdom of God:
In an effort to realize the ideals of God's reign among the people of Taiwan, the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan (PCT), since its establishment in 1865 to the present, has manifested the strength of gospel renewal through evangelism, medicine, education, literature and all manners of social services. After the success of the PCT‘s 100th Anniversary "Double the Church" movement, a new century of mission service lay ahead. Various mission movements followed in succession, including the "Faithful Servant," "Self Support and Mutual Aid," "Ten Plus One," and "Year 2000 Gospel" movements. As social circumstances changed, the mission‘s emphases and strategies also changed, but the key purpose of mission, to actualize the Kingdom of God, abided steadfast and absolute.
As the year 2000 and the 21st Century gradually pressed upon us, the work of the "Year 2000 Gospel Movement" entered its final phase. We then thought of how to lead the church into the 21st Century and how to design a new century style of mission. This is a responsibility, which the church could not evade. As we look back on recent social changes in Taiwan, in particular since the lifting of the Martial Law (1987), society has opened up and become dynamic. Under the influence and rapid development of information technologies, the international society has moved towards economic globalization. The people in Taiwan through exposure to internal and external pressures and tensions, were experiencing identity distortion and social disorder. Human relations were destroyed, and their spirituality became decayed and polluted. The main issues
139
facing the people in Taiwan have changed direction from a previous unjust political structure to the problems of the inner human spirit.
The church, including the PCT, must be a community close to the people. Nevertheless, for more than a hundred years, churches in Taiwan have been perceived by the people of Taiwan as outsiders and marginers in the society. In recent years, the PCT has emphasized the effort to contextualize its mission while searching for ways to identify with the people and be rooted in this land. This New Taiwan Mission Project has adopted the theme "to actualize the Kingdom of God through building Koinonia" because we recognized the need to participate in the development of community. It was not only to fulfill our mission goal of proclaiming the Kingdom of God, but simultaneously to actualize the gospel in this land and to renew both the human and social spirit. On the threshold of the 21st Century we, therefore, believed that the purpose of this 21st Century New Taiwan Mission Movement Project is in harmony with our basic faith.
Taking "the Kingdom of God" as PCT‘s central theological motif and progressing from there to thoughts about mission marks its project as being in the spirit of the Reformed Church. The bywords of the Reformed tradition find expression in the Lordship of God, which is the lordship of the resurrected Christ, which in turn reaches all aspects of human reality. Therefore, its ultimate concern goes beyond individuals and their salvation and also beyond the church itself. Its concern is God's will, fulfilled in the nation, the culture, nature, and the cosmos; Reformed theology truly is "the theology of the Kingdom of God." Its object is beyond any "escapism religion." The Reformed tradition is one of the "World transformations Christianity.‖ This is a holistic faith. It is a faith of experience in which all things come under the will and intention of God.
140
Reflecting from the above discourse, the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan in 1995 set forth a new biennial mission theme, "Reshape the Mind, Enlighten Taiwan," a theme suffused with "the Kingdom of God.” Spiritual renewal was not seen merely as a type of personal fulfillment of individualistic goals, neither of "other worldly" nor "escapist" in its understanding of spiritual experience. The theme did not prescribe a particular sort of fulfillment as necessary for contemporary Christians because reflection on materialism had exposed that to be a source of emptiness. Spiritual renewal is holistic. It speaks of human rights, values, and life potential. In pursuing these, consideration must be given to the awareness of consciousness of social, cultural, historical, communal (including gender, age, racial, economic, and occupational), and land (ecological) issues and their realization.
MISSION AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION A REFORMED MINISTRY FOR TAIWANESE RURAL MISSION
網誌存檔
-
▼
2010
(9)
-
▼
2月
(9)
- MISSION AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- CHAPTER ONE THE INTRODUCTION
- CHAPTER TWO THE CASE STUDY OF THE TAIWANESE RURA...
- CHAPTER THREE THEOLOGY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD
- CHAPTER FOUR PRACTICAL THEOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY
- CHAPTER FIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE MISSION PROJECTS ...
- CHAPTER SIX EVALUATION OF THE ACTIVE PROJECTS
- CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION: TO BE A NEW CREATION
-
▼
2月
(9)
沒有留言:
張貼留言