KINGDOM OF GOD/KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

Green, J. B., McKnight, S., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
(417). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

The term “kingdom of God” or “kingdom of Heaven” signifies God’s (see God) sovereign,
dynamic and eschatological (see Eschatology) rule. The kingdom of God lay at the heart of
Jesus’ teaching. As proclaimed by Jesus the kingdom of God had continuity with the OT
promise as well as with Jewish apocalyptic thinking, but differed from them in important
respects. For example, it denoted God’s eternal rule rather than an earthly kingdom, its
scope was universal rather than limited to the Jewish nation, and it was imminent and
potentially present in him rather than a vague future hope, being inextricably connected
with his own person and mission.

1. Terminology
The Gospels use three terms to express the idea of the kingdom of God: hē basileia tou
theou (“the kingdom of God”), hē basileia tōn ouranōn (“the kingdom of [the] Heaven[s]”)
and the absolute hē basileia (“the kingdom”). The equivalence of the first two expressions
is indicated by their content, context and interchangeability in the Gospels. (The distinction
between the kingdom of God as God’s sovereignty, and the kingdom of Heaven conceived
as an otherworldly, future reality, the former of which is the condition for entering the latter
[Pamment], is without exegetical basis). The Greek for “the kingdom of (the) Heaven(s)” is
a literal translation of the later Jewish maleḵûṭ šāmayim (e.g., 2 Apoc. Bar. (Syriac
Apocalypse of Baruch) 73; 3 Apoc. Bar. (Greek Apocalypse of Baruch) 11:2; As. Mos.
Assumption of Moses (or Testament of Moses) 10; Psalms of Solomon 17:4; 1QSb Appendix
B, Rule of Benediction, to 1QS from Qumran Cave 1 3.5; Mishna Berakot 2.2, 5; Jerusalem
Talmud Ber. 4a; 7b), where “Heaven” replaces “God” out of reverence, as ˒aḏōnay (“lord,”
“master”) had replaced Yahweh (“Lord”) and mākôm (“place”) in due time replaced
šāmayim (“Heaven”) (Dalman, 91–101). The kingdom of God is also referred to by the
absolute “kingdom” when the reference is obvious.

The primary meaning of the Hebrew maleḵûṭ (with synonyms), Aramaic malkû and
Greek basileia is abstract and dynamic, that is, “sovereignty” or “royal rule.” This is almost
always the case in the OT and Jewish literature when the term is applied to God. The sense
of realm—a territorial kingdom—is secondary, arising out of the necessity for a definite
locus as the sphere for the exercise of sovereignty.

2. Old Testament Antecedents

The Gospels introduce the ministries of John the Baptist (see John the Baptist) and of Jesus
by stating that they proclaimed the nearness of the kingdom of God. No word of
explanation is ever offered, and the conclusion must be that the idea of God’s kingdom was
well known.

In contrast to this is the total absence in the OT canonical books of the expression
“kingdom of God.” (The expression occurs once in Wis 10:10). Yet though the term is
absent, the idea is present throughout the OT. In a number of instances Yahweh is presented
as king (Deut 9:26 [LXX]; 1 Sam 12:12; Ps 24:10 [LXX 23:10]; 29:10 [LXX 28:10]; Is
6:5; 33:22; Zeph 3:15; Zech 14:16, 17). At other places he is ascribed a royal throne (Ps 9:4
[LXX 9:5]; 45:6 [LXX 44:7]; 47:8 [LXX 46:9]; Is 6:1; 66:1; Ezek 1:26; Sir 1:8) while
occasionally his continuous or future reign is affirmed (Ps 10:16 [LXX 9:37]; 146:10 [LXX
145:10]; Is 24:23; Wis 3:8). In fact, Psalm 22:28 (MT 22:29; LXX 21:29) says “the
kingdom” (hammelûkâ; LXX basileia) belongs to the Lord.

The idea is not, however, confined to these texts with explicitly royal attributes; it
underlies Yahweh’s whole relation to Israel. The demand presented to Pharaoh to let Israel
go is the demand of the lawful king over against the usurper. The covenant with Israel is the
covenant which affirms the suzerainty of Yahweh over his people. In the conquest of
Canaan Yahweh as king apportions to his people a country; a country, moreover, which he,
as the creator and king of the earth, can dispose as he pleases. The rule of God over Israel is
especially exemplified in the time of the Judges, who functioned as his representatives. A
crisis emerged with Israel’s demand for a king (1 Sam 8:4–5), a demand that was
interpreted as a rejection of Yahweh’s rule (1 Sam 8:6–8). With the accession of David to
the throne, however, the situation was somewhat normalized and the king was understood
to reign as Yahweh’s representative and be under Yahweh’s suzerainty. In other words, the
monarchy was looked upon as the concrete manifestation of Yahweh’s rule.

This explains the (authoritative) role of the prophets at the court (e.g., Nathan, Gad,
Elijah). The promise to establish David’s throne forever, despite the rejection of Solomon
(1 Kings 11:11–14), led to the focus upon a future Messiah (see Christ) who would rule
over David’s kingdom in righteousness and prosperity (see Son of David). Thus the Davidic
kingdom was somehow conflated with Yahweh’s rule. The great ethical prophets portrayed
Israel’s unfaithfulness against the Creator and king (Lord) of the universe, who had been
pleased to identify himself with Israel. The crisis became especially acute when the last
vestiges of David’s kingdom were swept away by the Babylonian captivity. The promise
made to David for an everlasting kingdom was now in some circles radically reinterpreted.

No other writing of the OT has more to say about the sovereignty of God than Daniel,
where the kingdom of God is the central theme. However, the conception of the kingdom of
God by Daniel is transformed under the impact of the new situation. The divine sovereignty
is set vis á vis human kingdoms. These are described as being under the control of the God
of heaven, who allots the sovereignty in accordance with his will. In Daniel 2 the kingdom
of God is described as a direct divine intervention. Its agent, in the form of a stone cut
without hands, crushes the various human kingdoms, here symbolized by various metals
(and clay), and grows until it (i.e., the kingdom, king and kingdom being interchangeable in
Daniel) fills the whole earth. In Daniel 7 the symbolism changes to one of wild beasts
portraying the ungodly character of the human kingdoms. The agent for the kingdom of
God is a figure described as “one like a son of man” (see Son of Man). This figure assumes
the royal rule of the spiritual powers at work behind the earthly potentates, and his saints
are given the kingly rule of the monarchs under the whole heaven (i.e., the earthly
potentates).

Thus Daniel not only portrays the kingdom of God divested of its Davidic, earthly,
political character, but also depicts its agent as a heavenly, transcendental being. The new
situation has brought about not only a new concept of the kingdom of God but a
transformation of its agent (see Caragounis 1986, 61–80). These new ideas were of decisive
importance in shaping future messianic thought and eschatology, not only in Judaism but
also in Jesus’ teaching.

3. Judaism
The concept of the kingdom of God in early Judaism was shaped principally by three
factors. At the basis was the OT idea of Yahweh’s eschatological epiphany in judgment to
punish the wicked (i.e., Israel’s enemies) and reward the just (i.e., Israel). This was coupled
with the idea of God’s reign through his elect messianic king of Davidic descent, bringing
in a time of untold bliss for the Jewish people. The second factor was Daniel’s new
understanding of the king dom and its agent as transcendental, heavenly realities and the
consequent deliverance of God’s people in primarily dynamic terms. The third factor was
the centuries-long Gentile rule over Palestine which intensified the longing for liberation,
national identity and happiness (see Revolutionary Movements).

Although the term “kingdom of God” is rare in Judaism, the idea is almost ubiquitous,
either explicitly as the kingdom of the Messiah or implicitly in descriptions of the
messianic age. The two lines of messianic expectation to which Judaism was heir are
reflected in the ambivalent descriptions of the messianic kingdom. This ambivalence,
besides defying a strictly systematic presentation of kingdom teaching, also implies that
motifs from both lines of thought are blended together to various degrees. The result is a
variety of messianologies and kingdom conceptions, which are not always clearly
demarcated from one another. In general, however, we may distinguish between two main
tendencies in kingdom thinking: an earlier, political, this-worldly conception of a
temporary, Davidic kingdom with Jerusalem as the center and the Jews as the primary
beneficiaries—though sometimes encompassing the whole world—and a later, apocalyptic
conception of an ultra-mundane, transcendental and everlasting kingdom, conceived in
universalistic terms.

When the kingdom of God is considered as temporary, usually a judgment follows and
a new world is posited, and a reign of God is looked for in heaven with greater bliss than
that of the messianic kingdom. This view is sharply contrasted with the apocalyptic view,
according to which the kingdom of God comes by a direct intervention of God and is
transcendental and everlasting under a similarly transcendental and pre-existent Messiah,
described as Son of man (Daniel, the so-called Parables of 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch) 37–
71, 2 Ezra). In this case the Messiah takes part in the judgment, which thus precedes the
messianic kingdom. This kingdom is the final kingdom of God which is to last forever.
 But as is natural, even the later expectation for the most part utilizes the messianic
categories of the earlier expectation, and this makes it more difficult to isolate the traits of
the one from those of the other. The following is an attempt to illustrate briefly some of the
main lines of thought in Jewish expectations of the kingdom of God without attempting to
draw a strict demarcating line between the early and the later forms of the expectation or
between the different standpoints within early Judaism.

Especially in works evincing Danielic influence, the inbreaking of the kingdom of God
is preceded by a time of tribulation and upheaval both in heaven and on earth (Sibylline
Oracles 3:796–808; 2 Apoc. Bar. 70:2–8; 4 Ezra 6:24; 9:1–12; 13:29–31; 1QM Milḥāmāh
or War Scroll from Qumran Cave 1 12:9; 19:1–2; cf. Mt 24:7–12 parallel passage in
another/other Gospel(s)). In rabbinic literature this came to be called the birth pangs of the
Messiah (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 98b.; Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum
Neuen Testament I.950). The Messiah’s appearance is sometimes preceded by the coming
of Elijah (Mal 3:23–24; Sir 48:10–11; cf. Mt 17:10 par.; m. ˓Eduyyot 8:7; Justin Dialogus
cum Tryphone Judaeo 8) or of the prophet-like-Moses (Deut 18:15; 1QS Serek hayyaḥad or
Rule of the Community, Manual of Discipline from Qumran Cave 1 9:11; 4QTestim
Testimonia text from Qumran Cave 4 5–8; Jn 1:21).

The Messiah himself is conceived variously. The traditional view of a fully human,
Davidic Messiah (Pss. Sol. 17:5, 23; Sib. Or. 3:49) who conquers the wicked (Sib. Or.
3:652–56; Pss. Sol. 17:23–32) is frequent, while in works belonging to the Danielic
tradition the Messiah is a pre-existent, supernatural being with powers to judge the kings
and the mighty, in short, all the enemies of God, and to vindicate the righteous (1 Enoch
46:1–6; 48:2–6; 62:5–7; 4 Ezra 12:32). Another difference is that according to 1 Enoch
90:16–38 the Messiah will appear after the judgment, whereas in most other works (Sib.
Or. 3:652–6; Pss. Sol. 17:14–41; 1 Enoch 46:4–6; 62:3–12; 69:27–9; 4 Ezra 13:32–8; cf.
Mt 25:31–46) he actually conquers or judges his enemies.

Echoing the sentiment of Psalm 2:1–3 a number of works presuppose a final assault by
the ungodly against the Messiah (Sib. Or. 3:663–68; 1 Enoch 90:16; 1QM 15–19; 4 Ezra
13:33–34) in order to thwart the establishment of the messianic kingdom. These powers are
annihilated sometimes by God (Testament of Moses (or Assumption of Moses) 10:2–7; 1
Enoch 90:18–19) or more often by the Messiah himself (4 Ezra 12:32–33; 13:27–28, 37–
39; 2 Apoc. Bar. 39:7–40:2), who is occasionally presented as a warrior (Targum of Isaiah
10:27; Gen 49:11), and sometimes in judicial categories (1 Enoch 46:4–6; 45:3; 52:4–9;
55:4; 61:8–10; cf. Mt 25:31–46).

The establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom involves the gathering of the scattered
Israelites (LXX Bar 4:36–37; 5:5–9; Philo De Praemiis et Poenis 28; 4 Ezra 13:39–47) and
the restoration of Jerusalem (Pss. Sol. 17:25, 33; 1 Enoch 53:6; 90:28–29; 4 Ezra 7:26). The
messianic kingdom is understood to imply the ultimate reign of God over his people (Sib.
Or. 3:704–6, 756–59; Pss. Sol. 17:1–4; 1QM 19:1; Šemôneh ˓Eśrēh, 11 berāḵâ), thus
fulfilling the OT idea of God being king over Israel. The kingdom is centered on Palestine,
with Jerusalem being “the jewel of the world” (Sib. Or. 3:423), though Jubilees (mid-
second century B.C.) probably presents the first instance of a temporary messianic kingdom
of 1,000 years. This is brought about gradually by man’s moral or spiritual development,
and during this time the powers of evil are restrained (1:29; 23:26–30).

Similarly, the third book of the Sibylline Oracles (second century B.C.) 762–71 exhorts
to righteous living as the condition for God “to raise up his kingdom for all ages over men.”
The Messiah is described in book 5 (c. A.D. 100) 414 as “a Blessed Man” from “the plains
of heaven,” perhaps reflecting Danielic influence. Under his reign there will be peace
(3:702), fruitfulness and prosperity (3:744), in which even the animal world will share
(3:788–95).

According to the Testament of Moses (first century A.D.) 10:1, God’s kingdom “shall
appear throughout his whole creation.” However, the kingdom seems to be earthly and
appears to lack a Messiah, being introduced by repentance (1:18; 9:6–7). The awaited
kingdom will spell glory for Israel and punishment for the Gentiles (10:7–10).

The Second Apocalypse of Baruch describes the messianic kingdom especially in three
visions (considered pre-70 A.D.). In the first vision (27–30) the revelation of the Messiah
will bring a time of prosperity for “those who are found in this land” and “have arrived at
the consummation of time.” In the second vision (36–40) the Messiah will annihilate his
enemy the fourth empire (reflecting Dan 7) and reign “until the world of corruption has
ended … and the times … have been fulfilled.” In the third vision (53–74) prosperity and
bliss follow the Messiah’s annihilation of Israel’s enemies. The kingdom is related to
Israel’s long-cherished hope, though the Messiah has super natural status.

The two works bearing the clearest influence of the Danielic Son of man, the Parables
of 1 Enoch and the book of 4 Ezra, follow their source in associating the concepts of
kingdom and Son of man. At several points in the Parables the Son of man is portrayed as
exercising the functions of judge and universal ruler (46:4–6; 62:3–12; 63:4; 69:27–29, and
the book closes with a description of the messianic age (71:15–17, cf. 62:12–16) (see
Caragounis 1986, 84–119).

The book of 4 Ezra conflates the earthly with the transcendental Messiah (12:32), who
dies after reigning for 400 years (7:28–29, other versions have variously 1,000 and 30
years). The Davidic descent of the Messiah is perhaps his way of stressing continuity in
messianic thought, though the content is that of a transcendental Messiah, as seen from
(e.g.) 12:32–34; 13:26 (see Caragounis 1986, 119–31).

In the Qumran scrolls the term maleḵûṭ occurs over a dozen times, but probably only
once of God’s kingdom (1QM 12:7), most of the rest referring to Israel’s kingdom. The
idea of God’s kingdom is, however, latent in the sectarians’ belief that they constituted
God’s true people who were to fight the eschatological battle against God’s enemies (see
Dead Sea Scrolls; on Judaism generally, see Schürer II.492–554).

4. Jesus and the Kingdom of God

In the teaching of Jesus, the discussion of the kingdom of God revolves around two
questions: (1) the character and (2) the imminence of the kingdom of God. These two
questions are interrelated and have been at the center of scholarly discussion during the past
hundred years.

4.1. Jesus’ Dynamic View. Jesus’ conception of the kingdom of God had continuity
with the OT promise as well as shared certain features with apocalyptic Judaism,
particularly Daniel, but went beyond them in certain important respects: (1) the kingdom of
God was primarily dynamic rather than a geographical entity; (2) it was connected with the
destiny of the Son of man; (3) entrance into it was not based on the covenant or confined to
Jewish participation and (4) whereas in apocalypticism it was a vague future hope, in Jesus
it is definite and imminent; in fact it demands immediate response.

With the apocalypticists Jesus held that the kingdom of God was no human
achievement but an act of God. However, unlike them he did not expect the kingdom of
God to follow on upheavals and catastrophes, but to appear in a gentle, quiet and
unobtrusive manner. The catastrophic element for Jesus lay in the upheaval his call caused
to his followers’ relations with their family, friends and even their own self. Jesus’
followers should be willing to “hate” their own life in order to be worthy of him, worthy of
the kingdom of God (see Discipleship).

4.2. The Kingdom As Present or Future—The Modern Debate. In modern discussion

the kingdom of God in the teaching of Jesus has actualized three questions: (1) What is its
essence? (2) How is it related to Jesus’ person and work? (3) When does it come?

In the past hundred years since the work of A. Ritschl and J. Weiss the kingdom of God
has been at the center of discussion and the three questions above have received a variety of
answers. Ritschl, influenced by Kant’s idealistic philosophy, conceived of the kingdom of
God in primarily ethical terms as the organization of redeemed humanity, whose actions are
inspired by love (see Historical Jesus).

The interest generated by Ritschl’s work gave rise to several interpretations of the
kingdom of God, principally: (1) the individualistic, spiritual and non-eschatological
interpretation (which located the kingdom of God in the experience of a person’s own heart,
an interpretation which was associated with the liberal school, for which the essence of
Christianity lay in certain general principles taught by Jesus, as e.g., the fatherhood of God
and the brotherhood of all people [e.g., A. von Harnack, 1886, and W. Herrmann, 1901]);
(2) the Social Gospel movement in Germany (C. Blumhardt, c. 1900, and L. Ragaz, 1911)
and especially in America with its emphasis on a present social order based on love and
solidarity (S. Mathews, 1897; F. G. Peabody, 1900; and particularly W. Rauschenbusch,
1912).

But the most important interpretation for the continued scholarly discussion was given
by Ritschl’s own son-in-law, J. Weiss, in his epoch-making work Die Predigt Jesu vom
Reiche Gottes (1892, ET- English translation Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,
1971). Weiss reacted strongly against Ritschl’s interpretation, emphasizing the future,
eschatological and apocalyptic character of the kingdom of God which is opposed by the
kingdom of Satan. The kingdom of God would erupt suddenly, be solely the work of God
and sweep away the present order. The work of Weiss aroused a storm and with it an
unprecedented interest in the theme of the kingdom of God. In the hands of A. Schweitzer
the line Weiss had struck out became known as Konsequente Eschatologie (“consistent,”
“futuristic” or “thoroughgoing eschatology”). In due time this found its opposite pole in
Dodd’s realized eschatology. In the meantime Dalman (1898), by means of philology
demonstrated the dynamic character of the kingdom of God in Judaism and the NT, which
has been the basic assumption of almost all subsequent discussions. According to Dalman
the idea of kingdom of God has no territorial or geographical reference but expresses
dynamically the kingly rule of God which is basically eschatological. However, the
theological interpretation was given by A. Schweitzer.

In his landmark works Das Messianitäts und Leidens geheimnis (1901, ET The Mystery
of the Kingdom of God, 1925) and especially in Von Reimarus zu Wrede (1906, ET The
Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1910), Schweitzer interpreted not only Jesus’ teaching (as
Weiss had done), but also Jesus’ whole ministry in consistently eschatological terms. Jesus
was understood as an apocalyptic figure who expected the end to come during the mission
of the Twelve (Mk 6:7–13 par.), wherefore he did not expect to see the disciples again. In
this he was, however, mistaken. The end, and with it the kingdom of God, did not come.
Having staked everything on this expectation and been proved wrong in his prediction of
the end, Jesus decided to cast himself headlong to death in a final, heroic attempt to force
God to set up his kingdom. Schweitzer’s impact, particularly in Germany, can be gauged
from the fact that his futuristic eschatology became the characteristic German line.

As a reaction to the one-sidedness of this German position, a number of British scholars

like A. T. Cadoux (1930) and T. W. Manson (1931) (and even Germans like E. von
Dobschütz and H. D. Wendland) laid emphasis on the present element of the kingdom of
God in the teaching of Jesus. Like Schweitzer, R. Bultmann thought that Jesus expected the
kingdom of God to begin at his death and went up to Jerusalem to purify the Temple in
preparation for it. The kingdom of God is conceived by Bultmann as a future,
eschatological, supra-historical and supernatural entity, which places a person at the
position of decision. But differently from Schweitzer, in Bultmann’s demythologizing
interpretation the kingdom of God is ever coming and thus ceases to be a future event that
is and can be hoped for. Since the decision is a continual decision, the kingdom of God is
not an event in time. Thus the kingdom of God, emptied of its content, transcends time
without ever entering it. In short, Bultmann sees the kingdom of God primarily in
existentialist fashion as the hour for the individual’s decision.

However, the scholar who gave definitive form to this reaction was C. H. Dodd. In his
important little book The Parables of the Kingdom (1935), Dodd interpreted the ēngiken of
(e.g.) Mark 1:15 and its parallels in light of the ephthasen of Matthew 12:28 (par. Lk
11:20). His claim was that LXX usage translating the Aramaic of Daniel, Modern Greek
idiomatic usage and the parables of the kingdom all lent their united support to his thesis
that the kingdom of God was already a present reality during Jesus’ ministry. The decisive
event had occurred in the coming of Jesus. Jesus’ healings, particularly his casting out of
demons (see Demon, Devil, Satan), were proof that in Jesus’ person and works the divine
sovereignty had dealt the decisive blow to the kingdom of Satan and was indubitably a
wholly present reality. In a sense Dodd identified the kingdom of God with the person of
Jesus. This opened the way to viewing the kingdom of God as a timeless reality. “The
absolute, the ‘wholly other’, has entered into time and space” (Dodd, 81). “The
inconceivable had happened: history had become the vehicle of the eternal; the absolute
was clothed with flesh and blood” (147). In Dodd’s interpretation of the kingdom of God,
“futurist eschatology disappears, and all that is left is ‘the eschaton’ as the Eternal”
(Lundström, 121). To achieve this Dodd played down the Gospel statements which
presented the kingdom of God as future.

Dodd’s influence has been far-reaching, forcing significant modifications upon the
futuristic interpretation. This has led in the last forty-five years to a number of mediating
positions according to which the kingdom of God is conceived as both present and future
(with the German side inclining more toward the future and the British more toward the
present aspect), e.g., Kümmel in his important Verheissung und Erfühllung (1945, Promise
and Fulfilment, 1961), G. R. Beasley-Murray (1954, 312–16; 1986, 75–80), E. Jüngel,
Schnackenburg, N. Perrin, D. C. Allison (99–114). In a similar vein J. Jeremias, at the
suggestion of Haenchen, speaks of the kingdom of God as sich realisierende Eschatologie
(“an eschatology in process of realization”), a term preferred by Dodd but apparently never
allowed to change his basic viewpoint. R. H. Fuller (25–27) interprets ephthasen as “has
come,” but understands it by way of the prophetic device of speaking of an event
proleptically as though it had already taken place. For Fuller the powers of the kingdom of
God were already making themselves felt in the deeds of Jesus by operating in advance,
and his viewpoint received the label of proleptic eschatology. G. Florovsky and A. M.
Hunter (94) speak of inaugurated eschatology, while G. E. Ladd argues from a rendering of
ephthasen as “has come,” for a fulfillment of the kingdom of God in history (i.e., in Jesus’
ministry) as well as a full consummation at the end of history, and calls his position an
eschatology of biblical realism.

Kümmel has been described as the scholar who came closest to a “genuine synthesis of
realized and futurist eschatology in the teaching of our Lord” (Beasley-Murray 1954, 103).
Thus, while duly recognizing the future character of sayings admitting an interval between
the passion and the Parousia (Mk 2:18–20; 8:38 par. Lk 12:8–9), he understands the
ephthasen of Matthew 12:28, with Dodd, as “has come” and as implying that the eschaton
was already active in Jesus. In Jesus’ person and actions the future was already realized
since he who was to usher in salvation at the end was already present. In this way the future
of the kingdom of God and its coming were linked closely with the present, which had
Jesus as its center. The kingdom of God was present in the person, teaching and works of
Jesus. By faith in him people received the kingdom of God and the guarantee of its
appearance. This guarantee implied that the kingdom of God is to be fulfilled in him. Thus
promise and fulfillment are insolubly connected with each other. Ladd (123–24) criticizes
Kümmel for failing to define precisely what the kingdom of God is. According to Grässer
(7) what is understood as present by Kümmel is not the kingdom of God itself, but its
imminence.

Morgenthaler, Schnackenburg and Beasley-Murray (1986) all take ephthasen as “has

come” though for Morgenthaler it only implies that the kingdom of God is around here but
not actually present. For Schnackenburg it means that the kingdom of God is “connected
with his [Jesus’] person and his work” (109). Although he speaks of the kingdom of God as
something entirely eschatological and wholly supernatural, he also conceives of it in its
salvific character as present and active in Jesus. The miracles of Jesus were “the kingdom
of God in action.” On the other hand, it would be an overstatement to claim that the
presence of the kingdom of God indicates something completed; the present kingdom
functions as a precursor of the coming, perfected kingdom of God.

Beasley-Murray thinks that the meaning of “has come” for ephthasen in Matthew 12:28
and parallel is “unambiguously plain” and criticizes the defenders of futuristic eschatology
for looking for “ways of muting its testimony” (1986, 75–76). The miracles of Jesus,
especially his driving out demons, speak eloquently of the presence of the kingdom.
However, the arrival of the kingdom of God spoken of in Matthew 12:28 and parallel was
not the same thing as its consummation, which Beasley-Murray, like Schnackenburg,
Kümmel, Ladd and others, considers as future.

A basically similar position is that of D. C. Allison. He follows the usual interpretation

of ephthasen and thus subscribes to the present consensus that the kingdom of God is both
present and future. The relation between present and future is explained by appealing to
Jewish thought which “could envision the final events—the judgment of evil and the arrival
of the kingdom of God—as extending over a time and as a process or series of events that
could involve the present. When Jesus announced that the kingdom of God has come and is
coming, this means that the last act has begun but has not yet reached its climax; the last
things have come and will come” (105–6). And again, “For Jesus, the kingdom of God, the
eschatological establishment of God’s kingly rule, was due to come in its fullness soon”
(114).

It may then be concluded that those who emphasize the presence of the kingdom of God
in Jesus’ works of power also allow for a future perfection or consummation of the
kingdom of God, while those who advocate the futurity of the kingdom of God allow for
some kind of effect which the imminently near kingdom of God exercised in the ministry of
Jesus. Both of these positions are attempts to explain important elements in the Gospel data.

Of rather different nature is the more recent work of Perrin, who has retreated from his
earlier positions (1963). Receiving impulses from literary critics like P. Wheelwright
(1962), P. Ricoeur (1969), A. N. Wilder (1964), R. W. Funk (1966), D. O. Via (1967) and F.
D. Crossan (1973), Perrin has suggested that “kingdom of God” is not an idea or a
conception, but a mythical symbol (1976, 33). He adopts Wheelwright’s distinction of
steno-symbol, which has fixed meaning—a one-to-one correspondence between symbol
and referent as in apocalyptic language—and tensive symbol, which is open and multi-
significant, having an inexhaustible set of meanings. Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of
God involved the tensive symbol, which, however, his followers turned to an apocalyptic
steno-symbol, making the kingdom of God lose its rich variety of reference and instead
refer to a particular event of universal experience. Perrin thinks that Jesus’ whole teaching
claimed “to mediate an experience of God as king, an experience of such an order that it
brings world to an end” (Perrin 1976, 54). Though the symbolic and metaphorical aspects
of the kingdom of God and its parables should be profitably explored, Perrin’s analysis and
claims can hardly be said to do justice to the biblical data or to have led to a deeper or more
valid understanding of the kingdom of God. Not infrequently Perrin’s position involves
self-contradictions, and his categories are plainly inapplicable to the Gospel texts (see
further the criticism of Beasley-Murray 1986, 338–44 and Allison, 107–12).

4.3. The Imminence of the Kingdom. From the above it must have become clear that
the interpretation of ephthasen of Matthew 12:28 and its parallel Luke 11:20, which is
normally accepted as an authentic saying of Jesus, has played a most crucial role in
discussions of the kingdom of God. This is so because it is the only kingdom saying in the
Synoptics that apparently describes the kingdom of God as having arrived. Dodd was so
certain of this meaning that he let it determine his interpretation of the ēngiken-type of
sayings. The claim that the kingdom of God had arrived in Jesus’ person and that it
consisted of, or at least was active in, his driving out demons is hardly a satisfactory answer
to the three questions regarding the essence, the arrival and the relation of the kingdom of
God to Jesus’ person and work. If the kingdom of God had come already, say, by the time
Jesus uttered the saying in Matthew 12:28 and Luke 11:20, how is the remainder of Jesus’
earthly existence to be understood? And what about the Son of man’s duty “to give his life
a ransom for many”? What is the significance of his death? And how did Jesus relate his
death to the kingdom of God? To speak of a final or full consummation at a future point of
time does not satisfactorily answer these questions. And to emphasize the coming of the
kingdom prior to the time of the ephthasen saying raises the question of whether the death
of Jesus is superfluous to that coming. Any viable solution must take account of (1) the
language used and (2) the relation of the kingdom of God to the Son of man (4.5. below).

4.3.1. Ephthasen (Mt 12:28/Lk 11:20). The most indubitable fact is that the Synoptics
present Jesus as having spoken of the kingdom of God as imminently near (ēngiken), just as
John did (Mt 3:2). The problem which the ephthasen saying raises is due to its being
interpreted in a dubious way. The ephthasen saying makes excellent sense if understood
according to a well-attested but little-known and generally misunderstood Greek idiom. The
aorist tense is sometimes used to emphasize the certainty and immediacy of an action that
properly belongs in the future by describing it as though it had already transpired
(Caragounis 1989, 12–23). In comparison with the ēngiken-type of sayings the ephthasen
logion implies an advance, but not quite the presence of the kingdom of God which, in the
context of Matthew 12:28 and Luke 11:20, is still future. What Jesus is saying in effect is,
“If it is by the Spirit/finger of God (rather than by Beelzebul, as you claim) that I drive out
the demons (i.e., preparing for the coming of the kingdom of God by defeating the forces of
evil), then the kingdom of God is about to break in upon you (and overtake you in your
obstinate and unrepentant state)” (see Holy Spirit).

Ephthasen implies that the coming of the kingdom of God is so imminent that the
kingdom of God may be considered as being virtually here. This means that the force of the
saying is not purely informative, in which case the force of eph˒ hymas (“upon you”) would
have been lost, but one of warning, almost threat. This threatening force of eph˒ hymas
shows clearly that the kingdom of God has not yet arrived. The relation of the miracles (see
Miracles and Miracle Stories) of Jesus to the kingdom of God is that they bear witness to
the warfare of the Son of man (i.e., the agent of the kingdom of God) against the powers of
evil for the establishment of the kingdom of God. But the kingdom of God does not consist
of those miracles. Jesus’ miracles are only the preliminaries, not the kingdom of God itself
(contra Dodd). The kingdom of God is the dynamic reign of God over his people. The
saying looks forward to the cross.

4.3.2. Entos Hymōn Estin (Lk 17:21). Another saying often adduced as evidence of the
presence of the kingdom of God is Luke 17:21. Here Jesus is represented answering the
Pharisees’ question about the time of the coming of the kingdom of God by saying, “the
kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it
is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you” (entos hymōn estin) (NIV).
The basic meaning of entos is “within,” “inside,” being the opposite of ektos, “with out”
(i.e., “outside”). This meaning is borne out by the entire Greek literary corpus including the
papyri and Modern Greek. The attempt has sometimes been made to construe entos hymōn
in the sense of “in your midst,” “among you,” “in your domain,” “within your grasp,” etc.
in accordance with whether hymōn is interpreted of the Pharisees or of eventual followers
of Jesus, in which case the estin (“is”) is taken with future significance (i.e., “the kingdom
of God will suddenly be among you,” etc.).

An examination of the ancient Greek texts that have been appealed to for these
meanings (e.g., Herodotus, Xenophon, Symmachus’ translation of the OT, Papyri) shows
that the meaning is regularly “within” and that the sense of “among” has been based on a
few (sometimes obscure) instances in Aquila and Symmachus. On the other hand, P. Oxy
654, 16 (which is parallel to the Gospel of Thomas) has a saying similar to Luke’s, where
the meaning is unambiguously “the kingdom (of God) is within you.” Luke’s usage must be
considered decisive. The sense of “among” occurs a good many times in Luke-Acts, but the
expression is always en (tōi) mesō hymōn, never entos. The entos hymōn is the opposite of
meta paratē-rēseōs (“with (apocalyptic?) signs that can be observed”) with its amplification
“ ‘Here it is’ or ‘There it is.’ ” Therefore any interpretation that fails to set entos hymōn in
its intended contradistinction to meta paratē-rēseōs fails to do justice to Luke’s intention.
Jesus is here trying to discourage (apocalyptic) speculations and calculations based on
observable signs (see Apocalyptic Teaching). “Within you,” therefore, seems to be Luke’s
way of expressing the inward nature and dynamic of the kingdom of God, rather than refer
to any actual presence in or among the Pharisees.

In the Synoptics there does not seem to be a single kingdom of God saying which
unequivocally demands to be taken in the present sense. The kingdom of God is presented
either timelessly (notably in the parables), or as the object of proclamation, or in its
demands (Mk 9 [10]x; Lk 17 [19]x; Mt 25 [31]x) or as something future from the
standpoint of the utterance (Mk 5 [6]x; Lk 19 [21]x; Mt 19 [25]x; the figures in [ ] fitting
either category).

4.4. The Kingdom in Jesus’ Teaching. The Synoptics present Jesus from the start as
charged with one message, compelling and irresistible, the message that the kingdom of
God was at hand. The impression is that the eschaton has drawn near, the long-promised
kingdom of God is about to appear, and the hour of decision has come. The kingdom of
God is presented in two ways: (1) it forms the heart of Jesus’ teaching and (2) it is
confirmed by his mighty works (see e.g., Mt 4:23; 9:35). A third component is that the
kingdom of God is inextricably connected with Jesus’ person as Son of man (see 4.5.
below).
 4.4.1. The Conditions and Demands of the Kingdom. The first condition is to “repent
and believe the gospel” (see Repentance; Mk 1:15; Mt 4:17). A childlike (see Children)
faith is a presupposition for entering into the kingdom of God (Mt 18:3; Mk 10:14 par.).
The gospel is the good news about the sovereignty of God. God’s eschatological, salvific
act demands an undivided heart (Mk 12:29–30 par.). Therefore, it is not lip service or even
the use of Jesus’ name in performing miracles, but the performance of God’s will that opens
the door to the kingdom of God (Mt 7:21–23). Nothing may stand in the way of the
kingdom since no one who has put his hand on the plow and looks back is fit for the
kingdom of God (Lk 9:62). The kingdom may demand the sacrifice of marriage and family
(Mt 19:12) as well as of possessions (see Rich and Poor; Mk 10:21–27 par.). At the other
end it holds the promise of repaying to a hundredfold (Mk 10:29–31 par.). The demand is
radicalized still further when the would-be disciple is given the choice of either letting the
tempting hand be cut off or the tempting eye plucked out for the kingdom of God, or
keeping them and being cast into Gehenna (see Heaven and Hell; Mk 9:47 par.). The
kingdom must be preferred to everything. All this illustrates the seriousness with which
people must act with regard to the kingdom of God rather than superior moral attributes
qualifying for entrance into it. In other words, they must seek to enter in by the narrow gate
(Mt 7:13–14); in fact they must actively storm the kingdom (Mt 11:12).

4.4.2. The Ethics of the Kingdom. The ethics of the kingdom of God (see Ethics of
Jesus) are the ethics that God expects from those who are set to do his will. The ethical
demands are scattered throughout Jesus’ teaching but occur in more concentrated form in
the Sermon on the Mount (see Sermon on the Mount; Mt 5–7; cf. also Lk 6:17–49). Here
we see a continuation with the ethical teaching of the OT, although Jesus’ requirements go
beyond it by penetrating behind the letter to the spirit and intent of it. In the end Jesus lifts
up a performance motivated by pure love and devotion to God and love to one’s neighbor.
Thus, for example, the commandments “Do not murder,” “Do not commit adultery,” “Do
not break your oath” are only partial and particular aspects of the greatest commandment of
all, namely undivided love toward God and neighbor. Love is the fulfilling of all the
commandments (cf. Mt 22:40), in fact the logical conclusion would seem to be that love
makes commandments superfluous.

4.4.3. The Parables of the Kingdom. Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God also
through the medium of parables (see Parable). After centuries of allegorical interpretation
of the parables (in which every detail was given a particular significance), A. Jülicher
demonstrated that the parables had one essential point, the other details being the necessary
trappings of the story. (Jülicher’s principle should not be applied rigidly as there are
occasions when more than one point may have been intended.)

The parables of the kingdom have been regarded as the most authentic element in Jesus’
teaching (see Form Criticism) and occur in concentrated collections in Mark 4 and Matthew
13. These parables illustrate different aspects of the kingdom of God: people’s response to
the message of the kingdom of God (the sower, Mk 4:3–9; Mt 13:3–9), the unobtrusive
character of the kingdom of God as contrasted with the apocalyptic expectation of upheaval
(the seed growing quietly, Mk 4:26–29), the immense growth of the kingdom from an
insignificant beginning (the mustard-seed, Mk 4:30–32; Mt 13:31–32, and the leaven, Mt
13:33), the mixed nature of those presently involved in the kingdom of God, who will be
separated at the end (the weeds, Mt 13:24–30, with its probably later allegorical
interpretation, Mt 13:36–43, and in all probability the dragnet, Mt 13:47–50) and the
inestimable value of the kingdom of God, for which people must be prepared to give up
everything (the treasure and the pearl, Mt 13:44–46).

Jesus’ use of parables raises the question of their purpose or function. Matthew has the
disciples raise the question (Mt 13:10). Jesus’ answer, “to you it is given to learn the
mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but to those it is not given” (Mt 13:11), has given rise
to many interpretations. The point of the explanation seems to be that, having rejected the
message of Jesus when exposed to it, these “outsiders” (Mk 4:10) have willfully chosen to
keep their eyes shut and their hearts hardened, that the continued message is now given in
the form of half-revealing, half-concealing parables. But though the interpretation—and
therewith the precise meaning—is denied to them, they still perceive their gist sufficiently
well (cf. Mk 12:12 par.: “they knew he had spoken the parable against them”). It is not
therefore an exaggeration to say that sometimes the parables have a polemical tone in
addition to their usage to illustrate the kingdom of God.

4.5. The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man. The kingdom of God should not be
dissociated from the Son of man, who in Jesus’ teaching, as in Daniel, is its agent. The
destiny of the Son of man is therefore directly connected with the coming of the kingdom
of God. The present activity of the Son of man, especially his casting-out of demons, is an
integral part of the proclamation of the kingdom of God, but they should be seen not so
much as indicating the actual occurrence of the decisive event of the kingdom of God, but
as the preliminary warfare of the Son of man against the evil powers in his work of making
possible the entrance of the kingdom of God in human history. This warfare, the Son of
man’s attacks on the kingdom of evil, ought not to be construed in terms of the Hellenistic
or Jewish exorcist’s activity, but rather be connected with the Son of man’s mission to
“serve and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45 par.), otherwise the link between
the kingdom of God and the cross becomes illegitimately obscured.

We would thus submit that it was the near prospect of a violent death (see Death of
Jesus), to which Jesus attributed atoning significance (see Ransom Saying), that led him to
change the ēngiken to ephthasen and thus characterize the coming of the kingdom of God
as unprecedentedly certain and imminent. Viewed from this perspective, though the
kingdom of God had come nearer than in the ēngiken type of sayings, it had not arrived, as
the last pre-passion occurrence(s) of kingdom of God in all three Synoptics would seem to
testify.

4.6. Potential Eschatology. By way of conclusion it may be said that during Jesus’
ministry the kingdom of God is spoken of always as a future event. It is expected, hoped for
and prayed for. But it is never said explicitly to have arrived, not even at the Last Supper
(see Last Supper). What is present is the agent of the kingdom of God, Jesus. But because
the agent of the kingdom of God is present and active through his teaching and mighty
works, the kingdom of God may also be said to be potentially present. However, the
decisive event for its coming, that is, for the release of its powers in salvific blessings, still
lies ahead.
 The term potential does not qualify the term “kingdom of God,” but only the term
“present in Jesus.” Thus, it should not be construed as in any way implying uncertainty as
to the kingdom’s coming. Potential simply means that the kingdom of God in Jesus’
ministry is not present in any absolute or independent sense but only in so far as it is
represented by Jesus. Its arrival and presence in its own right is depicted as a future event.
Thus if we are to speak of eschatology in connection with the kingdom of God during
Jesus’ earthly ministry at all, then it is more accurate to speak of potential eschatology. This
is an eschatology that has not yet begun to unfold itself in final, catastrophic events, but the
eschaton is, nevertheless, in principle present in Jesus, because he, as Son of man, is the
agent of the kingdom of God. Nonetheless, the ministry of Jesus and his teaching look
forward to the awful and more immediate event of the cross, the event in which the Son of
man fulfills his God-given mission for the arrival of the kingdom of God.

4.7. The Consummation. But even this decisive event (the cross-resurrection complex)
does not exhaust the entire content or expectation of the promise. It seems to be the key
event that makes possible the arrival of the kingdom of God in time, but also in principle its
full manifestation and consummation which lies at the end of history (see Ladd 1966, 307–
28). In this regard the concept of the kingdom of God is parallel with the Johannine concept
of eternal life (see Life) and the Pauline concept of salvation. Precisely as those who put
their faith in the atoning work of Christ are said to possess eternal life, to be in Christ or to
be saved, in spite of the fact that eternal life or salvation (see Salvation) are essentially
eschatological concepts, so also believers may be said to have entered into the kingdom of
God despite the fact that the kingdom of God, like eternal life and salvation, can be
properly experienced only at the end of time.

5. The Gospels

The Synoptic Gospels contain 76 different kingdom sayings, or 103, including the parallels:

(1) Mark-Matthew-Luke (Mk 4:11 par. Mt 13:11 and Lk 8:10; Mk 4:30 par. Mt 13:31
and Lk 13:18; Mk 9:1 par. Mt 16:28 and Lk 9:27; Mk 10:14 par. Mt 19:14 and Lk 18:16;
Mk 10:15 par. Mt 18:3 and Lk 18:17; Mk 10:23 par. Mt 19:23 and Lk 18:24; Mk 10:25 par.
Mt 19:24 and Lk 18:25; Mk 14:25 par. Mt 26:29 and Lk 22:18);
(2) Mark-Matthew (Mk 1:15 par. Mt 4:17);
(3) Mark-Luke (Mk 15:43 par. Lk 23:51);
(4) Matthew-Luke (Mt 5:3 par Lk 6:20; Mt 6:10 par. Lk 11:2; Mt 6:33 par. Lk 12:31; Mt
8:11 par. Lk 13:29; Mt 10:7 par. Lk 9:2; Mt 11:11 par. Lk 7:28; Mt 11:12 par. Lk 16:16; Mt
12:28 par. Lk 11:20; Mt 13:33 par. Lk 13:20);
(5) Mark (4:26; 9:47; 10:24; 12:34);
(6) Matthew (3:2; 4:23: 5:10, 19 [bis], 20; 7:21; 8:12; 9:35; 13:19, 24, 38, 41, 43, 44,
45, 47, 52; 16:19; 18:1, 4, 23; 19:12; 20:1, 21; 21:31, 43; 22:2; 23:13; 24:14; 25:1, 34);
(7) Luke (1:33; 4:43; 8:1; 9:11, 60, 62; 10:11; 12:32; 13:28; 14:15; 17:20–21; 18:29;
19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 29–30; 23:42);
 In addition, Matthew has one more reference to “kingdom of God” (7:21) and one to
“kingdom” (6:13) in part of the textual tradition. The Gospel data on the distribution of the
various expressions is as follows:

Mt Mk Lk Jn
Kingdom of God 5 14 32 2
Kindgom of Heaven 32 — — —
Kingdom 13 — 7 3
Total 50 14 39 5

The Johannine sayings have no parallels in the Synoptics. The three expressions “Kingdom
of God” (KG), “Kingdom of Heaven” (KH) and “Kingdom” (K) are distributed as follows:

Gospel Total Peculiar Mt-Mk-Lk Mt-Mk Mt-Lk Mk-Lk

Mt 50 32: 20 KH 8: 5 KH 1 KN 9: 6 KH —
2 KG 1 KG — 2 KG —
10 K 2K — 1K —
Mk 14 4 KG 8 KG 1 KG — 1 KG
Lk 39 21: 17 KG 8 KG — 9: 7 KG 1 KG
4K — — 2K

5.1. Mark. Mark (see Mark, Gospel of) introduces the public ministry of Jesus with the
summary statement that Jesus proclaimed the gospel of God saying, “The time is fulfilled,
and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel” (1:15). The position of
the statement within the structure of Mark indicates that the proclamation of the kingdom of
God was at the heart of Jesus’ preaching. The saying announces the fulfillment of the time
for the arrival of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is still future, but has drawn
near and already makes its demands for preparation to receive it: these are repentance and
believing (see Faith) acceptance of the gospel. This saying does not give any clear
indications whether “kingdom” refers to the national or to a more apocalyptic type of hope.
The collocation of “repent” and “believe” might favor the second alternative, but even for
the national hope Israel was expected to keep the Law flawlessly for at least one day (see b.
Ta˓anit 64a).

In Mark 4 Jesus’ parabolic teaching is concerned with the mystery of the kingdom of
God which is given to the group of Jesus’ inner disciples, while to the outsiders the
kingdom of God is being conveyed in dark, unintelligible parables (4:11). The description
of the kingdom of God as seed sown, shooting up and growing quietly (4:26) implies that
the kingdom of God here is conceived neither in nationalistic terms of open revolt and
warfare for liberation, nor in the style of apocalyptic upheavals. The emphasis in the similar
idea expressed at 4:30 is on the contrast between the insignificant beginning and the
immense growth of the kingdom of God.

In an isolated logion at 9:1 the kingdom of God is described as imminent, to occur

within a generation or two. At 9:47 in the context of resisting various temptations, the
importance of entering the kingdom of God at any price—even losing one’s eye—is
underlined, and entering the kingdom of God is compared to entering “life” (9:43–44).

According to 10:14 children should be allowed access to Jesus because the kingdom of
God belongs to such as these. In fact the kingdom of God demands a childlike faith (10:15).

In the group of sayings at 10:23, 24 and 25, love of possessions is a hindrance to

entering the kingdom of God, which demands the sacrifice of everything and implies being
“saved” (10:26).

The scribe who recognized that the heart of Hebrew/Jewish religion lay in undivided
devotion to God was told that he was not far from the kingdom of God (12:34). In the Last
Supper (14:25) the king dom of God is eschatological. In traditional Jewish imagery Jesus
will feast with his own (see Table Fellowship). Finally, at 15:43 Joseph of Arimathea is
described as awaiting the kingdom of God, presumably in the sense of the traditional hope
of Israel.

5.2. Matthew. As implied above, Matthew (see Matthew, Gospel of) offers a richer and
more nuanced picture of Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God than Mark. For in addition
to his nine Markan and his nine Q sayings, he has another thirty-two sayings peculiar to
himself.

At the very outset of his Gospel Matthew describes the preaching of John as being one
of repentance in view of the nearness of the kingdom of Heaven (3:2). The wording—
probably stylized by Matthew to bring out the continuity—is placed on Jesus’ lips by way
of a summary of his proclamation from the time of John’s arrest onwards (4:17). The
summary character of Jesus’ preaching is repeated at 4:23 (and again at 9:35) along with
the information that Jesus’ preaching was accompanied by healing. The same emphasis
occurs in the mission of the Twelve (10:5–8).

The kingdom of God figures at the first and last beatitude (5:3, 10), thus framing the
collection of Beatitudes (an inclusio) and suggesting that they must be understood within its
thought-compass (note: autōn estin [“theirs is”] occurs only in these two beatitudes. The
beatitude of 5:11 is in different form [second person]). Humility and righteous suffering are
necessary presuppositions for possessing the kingdom.

The three logia at 5:19–20 teach that even the least commandments affect people’s
relation to the king dom of God and that scribal or Pharisaic (i.e., Jewish) religiosity is
insufficient for entrance into it. The centrality of the kingdom of God is seen also in the
Lord’s Prayer (see Prayer), where its future coming constitutes the first petition (6:10).
Some textual witnesses end the Lord’s Prayer with the mention of the kingdom. If this
uncertain reading were original, it would imply that here too, as in the case of the
Beatitudes, the prayer occurs within the frame of the kingdom of God.

The radicalism associated with the kingdom of God is underscored at 6:33 where the
interests of the kingdom of God are to go before all other interests. The Sermon on the
Mount actually closes by emphasizing that entrance into the kingdom of God will depend
not on mere lip-service, but on a faithful performance of God’s will (7:21). Indeed, not only
will there be a distinction among the Jews as far as entering into the kingdom of God is
concerned, but with faith rather than descent as a condition the door to it will be opened to
many Gentiles, while many of the “children of the kingdom” (i.e., physical descendants of
the Patriarchs) will be excluded (8:11–12; 21:43; 22:2).

In a dispute concerning John, Jesus declares him to be the greatest of those born, but
still lesser than the least in the kingdom of Heaven (11:11), the kingdom being pictured as
the final eschatological reality. John’s crucial role in salvation history is underscored by the
statement that his day marks a new period in the realization of the kingdom. From his time
on the kingdom of God is proclaimed and is being stormed by those who are eager to get in.
His coming has given the signal that the kingdom of God has now drawn near and people
can prepare themselves by repentance and baptism (11:12). From 21:31 we understand that
those most eager to enter the kingdom of God are precisely the ones considered furthest
from it. The imminence of the kingdom of God is expressed in unprecedentedly strong
terms at 12:28, where Jesus’ miracles, wrought by the Spirit of God, are interpreted as a
sign of it.

The chapter on the parables of the kingdom contains no less than twelve kingdom logia
(see 4.4.3. above). The point made in 16:19, where Peter is given the keys of the kingdom,
is probably in polemic against the Jewish dispensers of God’s truth, who according to 23:13
not only would not enter the kingdom themselves, but also closed the door to those who
wanted to enter. The logion is often understood as the Christian counterpart to the Jewish
way of speaking of authority in teaching as binding and loosing.

Matthew ascribes a kingdom to the Son of man (16:28; 20:21), which is thought of as
being future. The disciples’ questions as to who is greatest in the kingdom of Heaven (18:1)
elicits from Jesus the statement that a condition for entering into the kingdom and being
greatest in it is childlike faith and humility (18:3–4). In fact the kingdom belongs to such
(19:14).

The kingdom of God illustrates God’s forgiveness (see Forgiveness of Sins) and
demands a spirit of forgiveness from those who would enter it (18:23). It may demand
abstention from marriage (19:12), and it certainly demands being taken seriously and loved
more than possessions (19:23–24).

The rewards of the kingdom are apportioned by different principles. Personal

achievement is of little importance. In God’s evaluation scheme the last can become first
and the first last (20:1).

In the Olivet discourse the kingdom of God is presented in future, apocalyptic terms.
Those who persevere faithfully to the end will be saved. But the end will not come until the
gospel of the kingdom has been proclaimed throughout the world. The parable of the ten
virgins (25:1) was intended to teach perseverance and watchfulness. This finds its fitting
sequel in the great judgment, when the Son of man invites the faithful to inherit the
kingdom which had been prepared for them from the time of the foundation of the world
(25:34). The righteous are to go into its bliss, while the unjust are to go to everlasting
torment. This picture bears the well-known features of apocalyptic thought.

The last occurrence of kingdom in Matthew is in connection with the Last Supper, when
Jesus, looking forward to the eschatological feast in the Father’s kingdom, promises to
abstain from wine until that day.

5.3. Luke. Luke’s (see Luke, Gospel of) presentation of the kingdom of God is richer
than Mark’s but less nuanced than Matthew’s, having no less than twenty-one sayings
peculiar to himself.

The first mention of kingdom occurs at 1:33 and is put on the angel’s lips, when he
brought Mary the message of the birth of the Messiah who was to sit on the throne of his
father David, reigning forever as the definitive Messiah (see Birth of Jesus).

The first clear reference to kingdom in connection with Jesus’ ministry occurs at 4:43,
in which Jesus’ mission consists of the proclamation of the kingdom of God. This gives the
saying the character of a summary statement and implies that Jesus’ previous ministry too
was concerned with the kingdom of God. The same is repeated at 8:1.

In his Sermon on the Plain Luke has a logion similar to Matthew’s first beatitude, but
the saying is here directed to the poor rather than the humble (6:20). This is in line with
Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth (4:18) and Luke’s sociological interests. Luke also has the saying
on the least in the kingdom of God being greater than John (7:28). In interpreting the
parable of the sower Luke too affirms that the knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom
of God are given to Jesus’ disciples, but the rest must be content with unexplained parables
(8:10).

Luke has both a mission of the Twelve and a mission of the Seventy-Two. The Twelve
were to proclaim the kingdom of God (9:2), while the Seventy-Two were to proclaim that
the kingdom had drawn near (10:9, 11). The preaching of both groups was to be
accompanied by healing. And the crowds (see People, Crowd) that followed Jesus were
instructed by him in the kingdom of God (9:11).

Luke connects the death of the Son of man with the coming of the kingdom of God and
envisages the latter event as taking place within the lifetime of some who were present on
the occasion (9:27). This indicates not only that the kingdom is thought of as future, but
also that its coming is fairly imminent. The urgency of the kingdom makes it imperative
that those who aspire to it do not let anything stand in the way—even the death of relatives
(9:60)—but must devote themselves wholly to it, never looking back (9:62).

As in Matthew the coming of the kingdom figures prominently in the prayer Jesus
taught his disciples (11:2). In the Beelzebul controversy Jesus’ works of power
accomplished through the finger (Mt: “Spirit”) of God are a strong indication of the
imminence of the kingdom (11:20).
 The concerns of the kingdom of God are to affect all attitudes toward life. Undue worry
about worldly matters is to be laid aside and the interests of the kingdom to be given
priority. Then God will see to it that all legitimate needs are supplied (12:31). Trust rather
than fear is to characterize Jesus’ followers since God has been pleased to give them the
kingdom (13:18, 20). Like Matthew, Luke too makes it clear that entrance to the kingdom
of God is not based on physical acquaintance with Jesus or physical descent, but it is based
on accepting the conditions of the kingdom—entering through the narrow gate. This, while
leaving out many descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, will open the door for many
Gentiles to feast with the Patriarchs in the kingdom (13:28–29).

The comment made by an outsider as to the blessed state of those who feast in the
kingdom of God (14:15) leads to the parable of the great banquet, in which, with a view to
the Jewish rejection of Jesus and his message, the point is made that those called first were
not worthy and were replaced by the sordid mob of Gentiles. Luke does not record the
incident of the man who had no wedding gown.

Luke too considers John’s ministry as the beginning of a new era distinguished from
that of the Law and the Prophets. It is the era of the proclamation of the kingdom of God
when everyone has the chance to force their way into it (16:16). This shows that Luke does
not share the apocalyptic view of the kingdom of God as being introduced suddenly
following great eschatological upheavals. The subject is broached by the Pharisees. The
answer is that the kingdom does not come in a way open to physical observation (17:20).
No one will be able to point to it as being here or there. The kingdom of God is “within
you” (17:21; see 4.3.2. above). The view of the kingdom advocated here is one in which
God is at work quietly in those who have accepted his claims and faithfully take on them
the yoke of his will.

The kingdom of God must be accepted in childlike trust (18:16–17). On the other hand,
those who put their trust in their riches will not be able to enter into it (18:24–25). But to
those who forsake everything for the kingdom of God a rich reward is promised, not only in
the life to come, but even in this world (18:29–30).

By relating the parable of the pounds, Luke has Jesus correct the popular notion that the
kingdom of God was about to break out in the apocalyptic way (19:11). The point is that
Jesus’ hearers had rather see to it that they administer faithfully what was entrusted to them
and wait quietly for its full realization than speculate on the time of its full arrival. Luke
generally discourages such speculation (cf. Acts 1:6–8). Even in the prediction of the
destruction of Jerusalem, only general signs are given for the arrival in power of God’s
kingdom (21:31). It is obvious that Luke thinks of the kingdom of God as something that in
a way has drawn near, so that from John’s time onward people can prepare for it and be
actively engaged in it, while in its full power it is something future, promised to appear
after the fulfillment of certain events. Thus the apocalyptic element is not altogether absent
from Luke.

That the kingdom can be spoken of as a future event is confirmed by the Last Supper,
where Jesus promises to abstain from further eating and drinking until he can do so in the
kingdom of God (22:16, 18).
 Occasionally the kingdom is ascribed to Jesus as given to him by the Father (22:29–30).
The context is again eschatological.

Finally, the thief on the cross asks to be remembered by Jesus when the latter comes in
his kingdom (23:42), and Joseph of Arimathea is described as a man waiting for the
kingdom of God (23:51), though it is by no means easy to decide whether his expectation
was for a mundane or a transcendental kingdom.

5.4. John. The kingdom of God plays no significant role in John’s Gospel (see John,
Gospel of), its place being taken by the typically Johannine concept of “eternal life”
(seventeen times) or simply “life” (nineteen times; see Life). The equivalence of eternal life
with kingdom of God is proved from the occasion al interchange of the two terms in the
Synoptics (Mk 9:43–47 par.; 10:17–30 par.; Mt 25:31–46) and has its roots in rabbinic
tradition (see Dalman, 116–17, 156–58). John’s avoidance of the term “kingdom of God”
may be owing to his desire to avoid association with current apocalyptic hopes. It may also
be due to his writing for non-Jewish readers to whom a typically Jewish conception might
pose communication problems, and especially because the term had been in rather rare use
in the church, where the emphasis had been laid on Christ’s person and work (christology
and soteriology) as well as on the church (ecclesiology).

The concept kingdom of God occurs twice in the Nicodemus story and the expression
“my kingdom” occurs three times in Jesus’ answer to Pilate (see Pontius Pilate). In the
Nicodemus incident no indication is given that the kingdom of God had been the main
emphasis in Jesus’ teaching or even a subject of discussion. But with Nathanael’s
confession, “Rabbi … you are the king of Israel!” (1:49), the reader is, however, not totally
unprepared.

At John 3:3, 5 Jesus tells Nicodemus that spiritual regeneration is the condition to
seeing or entering the kingdom of God. From this it becomes obvious that the idea bears no
relation to the Jewish national hope. It is the sovereignty of God under which people place
themselves by accepting the message of Jesus in faith and undergoing a spiritual rebirth
(see New Birth).

In Pilate’s interrogation Jesus answers the question “Are you the king of Israel?”
(18:33) by explaining that “my kingdom is not of this world” (18:36, “my kingdom” being
repeated three times). No clearer statement than this could be made to show that the
kingdom of which Jesus thought had very little relation to Israel’s national expectation.
This accusation, which stemmed from the Jews as well as from the titulus on the cross,
indicates that in John’s Gospel the rejection and condemnation of Jesus depended to a large
extent on the Jews’ disappointment by Jesus’ refusal to accept the role of the national,
political messiah (cf. also 6:15, 26).

6. The Kingdom of God and the Church Today

Does the concept of the kingdom of God have any relevance for the present proclamation
of the church? Here we are confronted with the kind of dilemma that led R. Bultmann to
launch his controversial demythologization program.

In his proclamation of the kingdom of God Jesus was standing firmly on OT ground. At
the same time he was proclaiming a subject that made every Jewish heart throb. Yet Jesus
took this concept and transformed it from a narrow-minded nationalistic hope to a
universal, spiritual order in which humankind could find the fulfillment of its ultimate
desires for righteousness, justice, peace, happiness, freedom from sin and guilt, and a
restored relationship to God—an order in which God was king. Given the fact that the basic
human problem of sin and alienation from God is as true today as it ever has been, the
message of the kingdom of God ought to have as great a relevance today as it ever had.

The kingdom of God need not be demythologized (see Myth). But it is instructive to
note that the early church, addressing primarily Gentile converts, avoided using a term
loaded with Jewish national or apocalyptic connotations which might introduce confusion,
seeking instead other dynamic equivalents such as “eternal life” or “salvation” as more
appropriate, though “kingdom of God” did not disappear entirely from its lips. The church
continued to proclaim the legacy of its Master, but in dynamic forms. Every age has to find
its own appropriate forms for expressing the ever-relevant message of Jesus on the
kingdom of God. The forms may change but the essence remains.