The Kingdom of God in Jesus and Paul
By: Reuben M. Bredenhof rm.bredenhof@gmail.comwww.reubenbredenhof.com
Introduction
With drama and consequence Jesus announced the coming of the Kingdom of God at the beginning of his ministry (Mark 1:15).1 The arrival of the Kingdom is clearly a central theme in the preaching of Jesus as recorded in the different Gospel accounts.2 The terminology and imagery of the Kingdom is closely tied to the whole of Jesus’s ministry on earth and his announcement of the good news of salvation. A concept that is so central to the teaching and life of Jesus might then be expected to set the tone for the rest of the New Testament. Its frequency of occurrence in the Gospels might be anticipated to assure its centrality in the other New Testament writings, yet this is not what is discovered, at least upon a superficial reading. Especially notable for the purposes of this paper is that the apostle Paul only occasionally refers to the Kingdom in his letters, which gives rise to various questions. Why does Paul not refer to the Kingdom with more frequency? Conversely, why does Jesus refer to the Kingdom as much as he does? And more basically, what do both Jesus and Paul mean when they refer to the Kingdom?
In this paper we will attempt to answer the first two questions, in reverse order. Firstly, we will look at why Jesus might have used the language so frequently. Second, we will investigate why Paul might have used the language of Kingdom less. Before considering this material, however, the question lastly posed about the meaning of the Kingdom will be briefly answered, with a particular
1 “Kingdom” is used as a shorthand reference throughout this paper.
2 This refers particularly to the three Synoptic Gospels, as the Gospel of John has few references to the Kingdom. It is broadly agreed among scholars that Matthew’s usual reference to the Kingdom of heaven can be understood as being synonymous with Kingdom of God; see e.g., Geerhardus Vos, The Kingdom of God and the Church (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972), 24-26.
regard to its Old Testament background, in order to provide us with a basic framework for our investigation.
A Basic Definition of Kingdom
There is a long-standing debate over what and when exactly the Kingdom is.3 In this paper, we will assume that the Kingdom is the actual (not the ideal or abstract) exercise or sway of God the Father’s sovereignty. This rule has the goal of redemption through the agency of God the Son. This rule is exercised in the interest of divine glory and for the salvation of sinners. This Kingdom comprises those who belong to the Lord, and the Kingdom is entered only through true faith. The Kingdom can describe both the personal heart relationship between the individual and God, and the reality of God’s present rule in history and over the universe, a rule that will culminate in the consummation of the apocalyptic eschaton.4 Indeed, with respect to the time of the Kingdom, Johnston’s words are apt: “‘The Kingdom of God’ means God in his royal redeeming work in each of the tenses…past, present, and future.”5
As can be seen from what is predicated of it, there are many and varied aspects of the Kingdom: “present and future, inward and outward, spiritual and apocalyptic.”6 Such great variation does not make the concept of “Kingdom” amenable to being associated with one specific connotation or definition. Though the Kingdom will be referred to as a concept or idea in this paper for ease of reference, “kingdom should be regarded as a symbol rather than a single concept…[This perspective] would facilitate an understanding of kingdom wide enough to embrace all that is
3 Jakob Van Bruggen, Jesus the Son of God. Nancy Forest-Flier, tr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 74.
4 George E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (London: SPCK, 1964), 38
5 George Johnston, “ ‘Kingdom of God’ Sayings in Paul’s Letters.” In From Jesus To Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare. Peter Richardson, and John C. Hurd, eds. (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984), 156.
6 Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 38.
central to the teaching of the NT.”7 Kingdom is then a variegated descriptive symbol for the entirety of God’s gracious rule of all things and his relation to man.
The Old Testament Background of Kingdom
While many scholars properly turn to the Old Testament for insight into the New Testament symbol of the Kingdom, the connection of ideas should not be made facilely. Van Bruggen summarizes the emergent scholarly consensus about the period during which Jesus ministered:
“There was no generally held and well-defined doctrine of the kingdom of heaven.”8 Though it was not a central theme in the centuries around the time of Christ, the concept is present in the Old Testament.9 For example, God is often depicted in the Old Testament as a king (e.g., Isa 6:5). It is regularly said that He reigns over creation as a monarch and that He shall also reign into the future (e.g., Ps 93:1-2). Yet, the substantive noun for kingdom is relatively rare and is used in connection with God only with the possessive pronoun (e.g., Ps 103:19; 145:11-13). Notably, “Nowhere in the OT are the two elements combined into the expression ‘reign of God’ as a standard phrase.”
10
However, the LORD’s promise to David that his throne would stand eternally (2 Sam 7:1-11, 16) must be considered as an important link of God to the idea of an earthly kingship. The adoption of a ruler as a son of God is celebrated in the enthronement Psalms (e.g., Pss 2; 45; 110).
While the phrase “Kingdom of God” does not explicitly occur in the Old Testament, in the New Testament writings we can understand it as a general description of the new and better age which various Old Testament prophets had foreseen in Israel’s history. In the future, “[God] will in
7 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), 431; emphasis added.
8 Van Bruggen, Jesus, 75.
9 Some suggest that the Kingdom is the unifying theme of the Old Testament, and indeed, of all Scripture, while not glossing over differences between the presentation of the Kingdom in the Old and New Testaments; see, e.g., John Bright, The Kingdom of God (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1953).
10 Leonard Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament. Volume 1. John E. Alsup, tr. Jürgen Roloff, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1981), 45.
an unprecedented sense make Himself the Saviour of and Ruler of Israel.”11 Not only over Israel, but over the whole world the LORD would rule: his throne would be at Jerusalem, and the nations would gather there to worship him.12 The prophecy of Daniel continues in this same line concerning an eschatological rule, where he speaks of the new kingdom from heaven that will destroy all other kingdoms, a kingdom that will be given to the Son of Man for his rule and government.13 This evidence notwithstanding, the expectation of the coming Kingdom was an unaccented idea not only in the Old Testament but also in the later non-canonical writings. As Lattke notes, the Kingdom “plays a minute role within the whole of Jewish literature.”14 Where it does occur in the later Jewish writings, the Kingdom connotes a more perfect enforcement of the legalistic principle than could be attained in the present state and remained “politicallynationalistically coloured,” a signification that Jesus differed from greatly in his presentation of the Kingdom.15 It is this fact which “helps to explain why those Jews who thought along nationalistic lines in terms of a nationalistic kingly messiah were bewildered by Jesus.”16
Jesus and Kingdom Language
Summary of Jesus’s Kingdom Teaching
It is not controversial to say that the Kingdom is of central importance in the synoptic Gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus. A simple perusal of these books bears out this observation. The frequent references to the Kingdom are of a highly varied character. At times, Jesus spoke of a Kingdom that was to come in the near future (Mark 1:15; Luke 21:31), when God’s
11 Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1948; 2000 reprint), 373
12 See Isa 24:23; Obad 21; Zech 14:9.
13 See Daniel 2:44; 7:11-14; 9:24-26.
14 Michael Lattke, “On the Jewish Background of the Synoptic Concept, ‘The Kingdom of God.’” In The Kingdom of God. Issues in Religion and Theology 5. Bruce Chilton, ed. (London: SPCK, 1984), 72.
15 Vos, Biblical Theology, 374; cf. Lattke, “Jewish Background,” 77-87.
rule would break in on the world (Matt 24:32). He also referred to the Kingdom in the present (Matt 12:28; Luke 17:20), and even when its fuller consummation belonged to the future, “its urgent proximity cast its shadow over the present.”17
Jesus understood his work as constituting, in part, a battle between kingdoms. This perspective begins early in Jesus’s ministry when Satan tempts Jesus with the attraction of world dominion (Luke 4:5-7). Especially the frequent casting out of demons was seen as indicative of the coming of the Kingdom. Wenham has a contemporary image: “The picture is of Satan having hijacked God’s world and usurped God’s proper authority and of Jesus casting out the hijacker and restoring the rule of God.”18 It was the powerful empire of Satan that Jesus was directly undermining with these exorcisms; thus, “The rule of God in and through its representative had begun, powerfully and effectually.”19 When the seventy are sent out and return jubilant with their success in casting out demons, Jesus explained, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:17-18). It is Satan’s rule that is overthrown with the establishing of God’s new rule in Christ.
A key aspect of his teaching on the Kingdom are the many parables of Jesus on this subject. The claims of Jesus that he was bringing the Kingdom near through his miracles, his promises, and his very person, were claims that demanded explanation.20 Thus, the “secret” of the Kingdom of God, and the significance of what transpired in the ministry of Jesus, were unfolded through the use of parables (Mark 4:11). Jesus used vivid and contemporary imagery in these elaborations on the Kingdom, such that the listener was persuaded by the impact of the images.21
16 B. Klappert, “King, Kingdom.” In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Volume 2. Colin Brown, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 377.
17 Klappert, “King, Kingdom,” 382.
18 David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 43.
19 G.R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1986), 80; cf. Darrel L. Bock, Luke. Volume 2. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1996), 245-247.
20 Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, 64.
21 Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, 67.
When Jesus instructed his disciples about the Kingdom, he made little explicit reference to the Old Testament expectation. He no doubt was aware of the political hopes of the oppressed people of his day, but invariably focused on the arrival of the Kingdom in him: “The distinctive feature of Jesus’s proclamation of the kingdom of God is not…that he brought a new doctrine of the kingdom, or that he revolutionized people’s apocalyptic and eschatological expectations, but that he made the kingdom of God inseparable from his own person.”22 His recognition of his own role in the present unfolding of God’s rule is evident throughout the synoptic Gospels.23 He taught that the Kingdom had began to come already, in his words and deeds.
Reasons for Jesus’s Emphasis on Kingdom
Concerning the question why Jesus might have spoken so frequently about the Kingdom, we can suggest a few possible reasons, basing ourselves particularly on the New Testament evidence as found in the synoptic Gospels.
Connection with Old Testament Expectation
With his use of Kingdom language, Jesus likely connected with the body of Old Testament literature that related to the coming of a new age, especially to the coming of another Davidic king. The ideas of Kingdom and King are obviously linked, though there are no instances of Jesus declaring himself to be king that parallel those instances when he did make clear his link to the Kingdom. Despite Jesus’s own silence about his kingship (until his trial), his Davidic kingship does appear as a theme of his ministry. He is recognized as a son of David (Matt 9:27, 21:9), as king of Israel (Matt 2:2; John 1:49; cf. John 6:15), and at his trial the charge of claiming to be a king figures prominently (Mark 15:2, 9, 18, 26). Though this claim of kingship is not found on his lips during his ministry, “We may suppose that the basis of the charge is to be seen…in the way Jesus
22 Klappert, “King, Kingdom,” 386.
behaved.”24 In sum, Jesus came as the one who was fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies, those prophecies that related to the Davidic kingship (Luke 22:42-43) and to the broader Kingdom (Matt 11:4-5; Luke 4:18-21), the promised new age.
A “Coined” Phrase
Though the Kingdom constitutes the heart of Jesus’s teaching, it is noteworthy that he does not explain what precisely he means with the term. “He apparently assumes that his listeners already have a concept of what he is talking about and that he can simply go ahead with further teaching on this theme.”25 Jesus seems to presume that his audience already has a concept of Kingdom in their theological repertoire, an understanding which allows them to understand his words and actions. This assumption suggests that his use of the term Kingdom was both broad enough to encompass the picture of the promised redemption, and simple enough to be understood, even though it was not a concept in current usage at that time. In this sense, we can see that Jesus coins the phraseology of the Kingdom, giving it a startling new place of prominence in the presentation of the salvation work of God.
In connection with the broadness of the Kingdom in the instruction of Jesus, we may note some illuminating synonyms of “Kingdom” in the synoptic accounts. In the teaching of Jesus, Kingdom was employed as a versatile term, with reference to different aspects of God’s salvation: eternal life, heavenly glory, and redemption. In Mark 9, the expressions “to enter life” and “to enter the kingdom of God” are placed in parallel (vv. 43 and 47, respectively). In Mark 10, in response to the young man’s question about inheriting eternal life (v.17), Jesus teaches his disciples about how hard it will be for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (v. 25). The request of James and John for having seats “in your glory” (Mark 10:37) is paralleled with receiving seats “in your kingdom”
23 E.g., Matthew 7:23, 24-27; 10:32; 11:21; 25:31.
24 Klappert, “King, Kingdom,” 379.
(Matt 20:21). In Luke 21, Jesus placed the announcement that “your redemption is drawing near” (v. 28) in tandem with the recognition that “the kingdom of God is near” (v. 31). Such parallels illustrate the versatility of the phraseology of Kingdom as used by Jesus in his teaching, and as such they anticipate Paul’s use of the term. To a consideration of the Kingdom in Pauline literature we now turn.
Paul and Kingdom Language
Summary of Kingdom References in Paul
How then was the concept of Kingdom, so central in the teaching of Jesus, utilized in the teaching of Paul? For some, this question concerns firstly a matter of familiarity and influence: “At first sight Paul’s failure to reproduce Jesus’s emphasis on the kingdom of God looks like a strong point against him being influenced by Jesus’s teaching.”26 While assuming that there was a body of tradition regarding the life and teaching of the Lord with which Paul must have been familiar, we seek to investigate why Paul might have used the Kingdom concept differently in his writings than it had appeared in Jesus’s teachings? It is undeniable that, numerically speaking, the Kingdom does not occur as a central motif in the letters of Paul as it does in the Gospels. We note a few handfuls of references to the Kingdom in the Pauline corpus: Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 4:20; 6:9-10; 15:24; 15:50; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 1:13; 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:4-5; 2 Timothy 4:1; 4:18. Besides these explicit references, we may also cite Paul’s references to kingship and ruling, where God is referred to as “King” in 1 Timothy 1:17 and 6:15, and Christ’s authoritative position is described in Ephesians 1:20-22.
25 Van Bruggen, Jesus, 75; emphasis original.
26 Wenham, Paul, 71.
Kingdom Language in the Rest of the New Testament
While scholars are quick to point out that the Kingdom language so indigenous to the accounts of Jesus’s ministry infrequently occurs in the writings of Paul, this observation demands some clarification. A simple comparison of the number of occurrences of “Kingdom” in the Gospels and in Paul does give one pause at this discrepancy. Yet we do well to note that Paul’s so-called “neglect” of Kingdom terminology is not so remarkable within the rest of the New Testament canon. While Paul did pen a large portion of the New Testament corpus, it is to be noted that, outside of Paul and the book of Revelation,27 there is very little reference to the Kingdom of God.28 We cite Hebrews 1:8 (an Old Testament quotation); 11:33; 12:28, James 2:5; and 2 Peter 1:11. Importantly, these references to Kingdom are not explained in their context by the various authors, making it “reasonable to suppose that the expression was sufficiently well understood not to require elucidation.”29 This fact of the paucity of Kingdom references in the New Testament ought to be included in our consideration of the difference between Jesus and Paul on the Kingdom, noting that Paul was not alone in generally refraining from making explicit mention of the Kingdom.
Paul’s General Avoidance of Kingdom Language
Though Paul is not alone in ostensibly departing from the pattern of Kingdom language set by Jesus in his teaching, we ought to consider why Paul does not use the terminology as frequently. Such reasons are hard to reconstruct from the limited data that is available. Yet such a study, even resulting in “probabilities” alone, will still be useful to us both in exegeting those passages where Kingdom terminology is found in Paul, and those passages where we might expect it.
27 See Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 430.
28 The references to the Kingdom in Acts will be considered separately, below.
29 Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 429.
Argument of Broader Unintelligibility
There have been various suggestions from scholars concerning why Paul generally avoided Kingdom terminology in his letters. The first suggestion can be called the argument of broader unintelligibility: “‘The kingdom of God’ language that would have been so familiar and intelligible to Jews in Palestine would have been much less intelligible to Paul’s Greek-speaking readers.”30 James Stewart’s dated analysis is typical of this view, “Paul, writing to Gentile Christians, would doubtless feel constrained to translate into other terms an idea whose background and associations were predominantly Jewish.”31 On the face of it, this argument seems tenable. This was an Old Testament concept that Jesus now applied in his ministry among his compatriots who were expecting the imminent establishment of a messianic reign. But how could non-Jews relate to such an idea so intertwined with Israelite messianism and nationalism?
There are problems with the suggestion of a broader unintelligibility, however. What must be stated first, as we have observed earlier, is that there was not a clear expectation in the Jewish conception of the Kingdom, neither in the Old Testament nor the later Jewish writings. In the ministry of Jesus he certainly made some allusion to the Old Testament promises regarding Davidic kingship and the new age, as we noted before. But in a sense, as we have noted, Jesus was presenting a new idea with vastly broadened connotations, and such an idea demanded extensive teaching and illustration among his audience.32
Secondly, it can be disputed that the Jewish idea of Kingdom would have had little resonance with the Hellenistic Gentiles to whom Paul preached.33 “The suggestion [is not ] all that convincing that the associations of ‘kingdom’ were different in Galilee and in the Hellenistic
30 Wenham, Paul, 78.
31 James S. Stewart, A Man in Christ: The Vital Elements of St. Paul’s Religion (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935), 293.
32 See e.g., the numerous Kingdom parables in Matthew 13.
33 Contra Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, 45.
11 cities.”34 The Hellenistic Gentiles had a frame of reference in the historical kings and kingdoms and in the contemporary emperor and empire. A word study of basileia (and its cognates) indicates that such terms were in current usage in the Hellenistic world and had common reference to political rule that was often hereditary.35 Not far semantically from these terms is the noun kurios, which also signifies a ruler, with connotations of his legality and authority.36 It must be noted, of course, that there is not exact semantic equivalence between basileia and kurios, and that the latter term has other connotations as well (i.e., the OT revelation of Yahweh), but importantly the notions of supremacy and dominion are at the heart of each term. Of the appellation “Lord” Guthrie says, “It is a title which made sense to both Jews and Gentiles…[their] common denominator is the notion of divine sovereignty.”37 Paul’s regular proclamation of Jesus as Lord (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11) is then not far from the proclamation of Jesus as King. As Schnackenburg observes, “[Christ’s reign over the world] is established through his victory on the cross that took away their power from the rebel ‘princes of this world.’”38 It is therefore contextual neglect which leads to the suggestion that Paul avoids kingdom language because of his Gentile, not Jewish audience. Ladd writes, “If we had Pauline correspondence addressed to Jews, we would probably find much more about Jesus’…Kingdom.”39 Such an assertion runs contrary to what we know of the socio-cultural context of Paul’s day and the Pauline churches; there were Jewish communities throughout the cities of the Roman empire, not to mention proselytes and Godfearers, among whom Paul typically
34 Alexander J.M. Wedderburn, “Paul and Jesus: The Problem of Continuity.” In Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays A.J.M. Wedderburn, ed. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 111.
35 Klappert, “King, Kingdom,” 372-373
36 H. Bietenhard, Kurios, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Volume 2. Colin Brown, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 510.
37 Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 299; emphasis added.
38 Rudolf Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom. John Murray, tr. (Freiburg: Herder, 1963), 308-309.
39 George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), 409.
began his mission work in a given city.40 By adopting Ladd’s reasoning, we might expect especially the letter to the Hebrews to contain extensive teaching on the Kingdom but, as we have noted, it does not.
Argument of Political Sensitivity
Another typical suggestion of the reason why Paul would have avoided Kingdom language relates to his urban Greco-Roman context.41 Such a subject as the Kingdom was “capable of gross misrepresentation. To proclaim any king other than Caesar made one liable to the charge of sedition.”42 It is thus postulated that the potential political overtones of such language would have led Paul to make a usual practice of avoiding it.
A number of observations in response to this argument are in order. First, this argument directly contradicts the first: if the Gentile Christians did not understand Kingdom language (argument of unintelligibility), there would be no fear of the charge of sedition (argument of sensitivity). People who do not understand the full import of a concept will not talk about it with the conviction or excitement that would warrant suspicion on the part of the civil authorities. Granted, the arguments of unintelligibility and sensitivity do not have to be taken together, but can function independently in the attempt to explain Paul’s avoidance of Kingdom language, yet their patent inconsistency does make us cautious in accepting this argument.
Secondly, we can refer back to the earlier discussion of kurios as confirming that even though Paul might have faced the charge of sedition on occasion (Acts 17:6-7), he did not shy away from proclaiming the exclusive rule and sovereignty of Christ. Subsidiary to this point, Paul’s broader teaching by no means countenanced civil disturbance or political sedition. We refer to
40 Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993); see especially, “Jews in the Early Roman Empire,” 403-406; “Proselytes and Godfearers,” 512-517.
41 Wenham, Paul, 78-79.
42 Ladd, Theology, 409-410.
Romans 13 or to 1 Timothy 2:1-2, which urges that prayers be made “kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”43 The words “king” and “kingdom” and “lord,” whether written or preached, were not enough of themselves to warrant fears of sedition; the broader witness of a peaceable Christian life was enough to counter any suspicion of rebellion.44 Further, the one charge of civil disobedience (Acts 17), notably occurs only as part of the jealousy-motivated Jewish scheme to upset Paul’s preaching at Thessalonica. Finally, there was little greater proof of the inherent “harmlessness” of Kingdom teaching than the consideration that Paul preached the Kingdom of God for two years “without hindrance,” while under armed guard, in Rome, the very heart of the empire (Acts 28:23,31).
Argument of Heretical Contamination
A final argument sometimes proffered in an attempt to explain the lack of Kingdom language in the Pauline literature suggests that “Jesus’s kingdom language had been…hijacked by some of his opponents and that [Paul] was therefore wary of such language.”45 The charismatic Christians of Corinth, it is said, might have boasted of “reigning” with Christ in an arrogant and inappropriate way, an attitude to which Paul responds in 1 Corinthians 4:8 and 20.
While the suggestion of the character of the charismatics’ attitude is certainly plausible in the context of 1 Corinthians 4, to apply this argument to the entire Pauline corpus based on one isolated reference is dubious. Wenham notes, “It may well be that Jesus’ teaching of ‘the kingdom’ was the basis of their ideas—Paul speaks more of ‘the kingdom’ in 1 Corinthians than in any other letter.”46 Yet a numerical basis alone constitutes little support, and even on this numerical basis we
43 It is noteworthy that this directive to pray for authorities is found in one of Paul’s most “potentially seditious” letters (see his “king” references in 1 Tim 1:17, 6:15).
44 Historically, it may be observed that early Christians were never persecuted for rebellion as such, except in that they did not recognize the divinity of the emperors.
45 Wenham, Paul, 79-80.
46 Wenham, Paul, 79.
may respond with the simple observation that Kingdom language occurs more often in 1 Corinthians simply because it is a longer letter.47
Another Look at Paul’s Kingdom Language
What then can be said about the manner in which Paul does use Kingdom language? As noted earlier, we cannot advance beyond the realm of probabilities when speaking of Paul’s reasons for his use of Kingdom terminology. Yet through looking at a few of the texts in which it does occur, we may make the simple but important conclusion that Kingdom language in the Pauline epistles is used as though familiar to the readers. Far from being foreign to his thought, the Kingdom was a central, though sometimes understated or unstated concept for Paul.
Romans 14:17
In Romans 14 and 15 we have Paul’s pastoral instruction to the “weak” and “strong” in the Roman congregation. Paul roots his admonition in the example of Jesus: loving your brother, denying oneself for the sake of others, putting aside your own rights, requires following the model of Jesus (15:3, 8). This admonition as framed in 14:13-21 is part of a chiasm which has at its heart, “Paul’s appeal to the nature of the kingdom of God and what is pleasing to him.”48 This brief reference to Kingdom alerts us to the Paul’s assumption that his audience at Rome has already been instructed in the Kingdom: “What he says is not new to them, but an appeal which needs no justification.”49 Even writing to Christians he had not previously met, he may use Kingdom terminology and assume their familiarity with it.
47 “Kingdom” occurs four times in 1 Corinthians, two times in Colossians, two times in 1 Timothy, and two times in 2 Timothy.
48 Michael Thompson, Clothed With Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1-15.13. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 59 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 203; the chiasm “is attested formally by the parallel gar statements which contrast with the asyndetic commands which preceded and eventually follow; the ara oun of v. 19 confirms that we have struck the centre of Paul’s argument and are now on our way back out from there” (203).
49 Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 207.
1 Corinthians 4:20
We have already mentioned this text in the foregoing, but now return to it. Paul is responding to the arrogance of the charismatic Corinthians, and points out that the Kingdom of God is not a matter of word but of power: “The real action is not where they are currently trying to place it, in merely human wisdom that ‘boasts’ in men. What Paul is concerned about is the ‘kingdom of God.’”50 Paul’s appeal for a right perspective, one oriented to the true nature of the Kingdom, is surprising in the context, for the Kingdom has not been mentioned or alluded to previously in the letter. Fee observes, “The very casual way in which it here appears indicates that it was a regular part of his own understanding of the gospel.”51 Paul points to the present reality of the Kingdom, one characterized by the Spirit, as the Corinthians were saying, but one that also demonstrated power: in rebuke (v. 19), and also in human weaknesses testifying to God’s power and grace (1:25).
1 Corinthians 15:24-28
Kingdom occurs explicitly only verse 24 of this section, yet the broader idea of having authority and reigning is central to the passage. Here Paul associates the Kingdom of God with resurrection and salvation: Christ’s rule as king commenced with his resurrection (v. 25). This reign of Christ will be completed when “he has put all his enemies under his feet,” including death (v. 26). At that time Christ will hand over the Kingdom to God the Father (v. 28).
This passage is striking, for Paul here “portrays the entire mission of Jesus in terms of his Kingdom or reign.”52 The saving work of Christ is thus closely linked with his Kingdom and authority, something that we have a few times already observed. The Kingdom in this passage “is the redemptive, dynamic rule of God exercised in Christ’s total messianic mission to bring order to
50 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), 192.
51 Fee, Corinthians, 192.
52 Ladd, Theology, 410.
a disordered universe, to accomplish God’s total redemptive purpose.”53 The subordination and subjection of spiritual powers as effected by Christ’s sacrifice is maintained in his kingly rule.54
The Testimony in Acts
Paul’s familiarity with the Kingdom terminology as evidenced in his incidental references to it throughout his epistles is confirmed with an examination of the testimony of Luke in the book of Acts regarding the missionary enterprise of the apostles. The vital link from the teaching of Jesus throughout his ministry to the worldwide preaching task of the apostles is made in Acts 1:3, “[Jesus] appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” In this time of instruction, “He presumably gave them instructions about what to preach.”55 The apostles were pointed to the centrality of the crucifixion and resurrection in Jesus’s message of the Kingdom.56 Thus, the Kingdom concept was continued in the ongoing church as basic to the proclamation of the message of Jesus. The central and complex concept of Kingdom had been taught to Jesus’s Jewish listeners, and now also needed to be taught to Gentile converts who could not be excluded from this crucial instruction. It can be assumed that when Paul received instruction from the other apostles after his Damascus road experience and his commissioning as an apostle, he was thoroughly taught about the centrality of the Kingdom concept.
The portrait of Paul’s preaching in Acts certainly accords with the suggestion that Paul was intimately familiar with Kingdom teaching.57 On five occasions, Paul’s preaching and teaching in a given location is characterized as concerning chiefly the Kingdom. Two of these times the
53 Ladd, Theology, 410.
54 We also refer to Colossians 1:12-13, which presents the work of Christ in terms of kingdoms: “We have been rescued from the dominion of darkness and brought into the kingdom of the Son.” See also Ephesians 6:12, “the rulers,” “the authorities,” “the cosmic powers” (cf. discussion in Wenham, Paul, 62).
55 Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 430.
56 F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts. New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1968), 34.
characterization is found on Paul’s own lips. In 20:25 he addresses the Ephesian elders in farewell, “Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again” (see also 14:22). We have already noted Paul’s preaching in Rome centred on the Kingdom (28:23, 31). In this connection, we also cite the summarizing accounts of Paul’s preaching in Acts 19:8 and 17:7.
The objection might be made that this presentation of Paul as being occupied with preaching and teaching the Kingdom is merely Luke’s theological perspective coming to the fore. Though Paul might not have mentioned Kingdom, with this concept Luke has a convenient summarizing term for the content of Paul’s itinerant preaching.58 Further, “it could be attributed to Luke’s apologetic programme to show how Paul closely corresponded to the pattern of Jesus.”59 But this suggestion of apology runs counter to the words of Paul himself (Acts 20:25; 14:22), and “it is hard to believe that in these passages Luke has imputed to the apostle an emphasis completely foreign to his preaching and teaching.”60
Toward an Explanation of Paul’s Use of Kingdom Language
Summing up Paul’s use of Kingdom language, Guthrie’s comments are helpful: “It is rather assumed than specifically stated. There are no definitions of it, although there are conditions which are laid down. Whereas Jesus frequently used parables to explain the kingdom, this is no longer necessary for Paul. Everyone is presumed to know what the kingdom is.”61 We will give further attention to a couple aspects of Guthrie’s summation, and then make a few additional observations.
57 Guthrie’s observation that “Luke, in his record of the earliest Christian preaching, makes no reference to [the Kingdom]” (New Testament Theology, 430) is puzzling, unless he means specifically the first sermons of Peter and Stephen (but see the description of Philip’s preaching in 8:12).
58 Johnston, “Kingdom of God,” 152.
59 Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 205.
60 Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 205; cf. Colossians 4:11 where “the kingdom of God” appears as a general description of the purpose of Paul’s labours.
61 Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 427.
Conditions for Kingdom Entrance
A closer examination of the explicit Kingdom references in Paul reveals his emphasis on an individual’s “moral” worthiness to enter the Kingdom. Firstly, “Paul is very clear about the sort of behaviour which disqualifies persons from entering the future kingdom.”62 We cite Galatians 5:21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Ephesians 5:5 as texts which highlight that behaviour which excludes a person from the Kingdom. Conversely, Paul speaks positively about that which makes one “worthy” of the Kingdom. We cite Romans 14:17 (where the proper way of conduct is explained: “righteousness, joy, peace”), 1 Thessalonians 2:12 (where the moral example of the apostles is one to be imitated; cf. Eph 4:1), and 2 Thessalonians 1:4-5 (where faith, love, and suffering constitute the basis of worthiness for the Kingdom). Thus, six of the approximately fourteen references in the Pauline corpus relate in some sense to the conditions (positive or negative) for entering the Kingdom. Where he might have preferred other language to Kingdom terminology in certain contexts, it seems that for Paul the image of “entering” or “inheriting” the Kingdom is a useful one for his ethical directives.
No Explanation Necessary
As already noted in our brief review of Paul’s Kingdom texts, the concept of Kingdom appears to be well known among Paul’s readers. Repeating Guthrie’s observation, “Whereas Jesus frequently used parables to explain the kingdom, this is no longer necessary for Paul.”63 The Kingdom is typically mentioned without explanation, and on occasion even takes a central place in Paul’s argumentation. The character of his audience, whether it was predominantly Jew or Gentile, seems to have had no impact on his use of Kingdom language. Says Johnston, “The frequency of [Kingdom of God] in the Gospels and Acts supports the hypothesis that basic Christian instruction
62 Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 206.
63 Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 427.
included at least Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom, which Paul could take for granted when writing.”64 As another example, the reference to Kingdom in Colossians 4:10-11 is a “general way of describing what Paul was up to in the Roman empire,” which is notably a reference that is “included in a letter to people who had formerly been heathen.”65 As a core idea, the Kingdom had been well-exposited, beginning with Jesus and continuing with his apostles.
Kingdom and Spirit
In a fascinating study, James Dunn notes how Paul’s emphasis on righteousness and the Spirit basically replaces Kingdom language while still preserving its essence. Dunn observes the inverse ratio of basileia references (105 in the synoptic Gospels, 14 in Paul) to references to pneuma (13 in the synoptics, 110 in Paul) and dikaiosune (7 in synoptic, 57 in Paul). He says: “An obvious inference is that Jesus’ emphasis on the kingdom has been effectively replaced by Paul’s emphasis on righteousness and on the Spirit.”66 The connection between Spirit and Kingdom in particular goes beyond simple numerical tabulation and ratios. Dunn also notes that in Paul’s teaching, the Spirit prepares a man for the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:16-23), and the Spirit, as the first installment of the inheritance of the Kingdom, enables the Christian to experience the full future Kingdom already in the present (Eph 1:14).67 In Paul’s view, “The Spirit is the executive, ambassador or steward of the Kingdom: his power and authority are those of the King.”68
Paul is not the first to present the symbiotic relationship between Kingdom and Spirit, but a few references to the Spirit in the synoptic Gospels are sufficient are enough to demonstrate this link. In all three synoptics, the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus at the Jordan River with echoes of
64 Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 207.
65 Johnston, “Kingdom of God,” 155; similarly, the concept of Kingdom is employed in Galatians 5:21 to refer to Paul’s previous preaching to the Galatians.
66 James Dunn, Romans. Volume 2. Word Biblical Commentary 38b (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988), 822.
67 James Dunn, “Spirit and Kingdom,” Expository Times 82 (1970-71), 36-37.
68 Dunn, “Spirit and Kingdom,” 37.
Psalm 2, a coronation song: Jesus is anointed by the Spirit as King. Furthermore, it is the Holy Spirit who drives him to the wilderness to be tempted with regard to the kingdoms of the world (Luke 4:1-7). Jesus’s key work of exorcism is done by the power of the Spirit (Matt 12:28), which proves that the Kingdom has come upon men, for where the Spirit is at work and manifesting himself, the Kingdom is present. Finally, Jesus’s general proclamation of his Kingdom work, described in Luke 4:18-21, is necessarily preceded by God’s anointing him with the Spirit.
The close connection between Kingdom and Spirit throughout the New Testament Gospels points us toward another reason for the decrease in references to Kingdom in Paul. Dunn says, “In the period of Jesus the Kingdom was still future because only at Pentecost would other men be baptized in the Spirit into the Kingdom…[and] enter the new age of the Spirit.”
69 While we question whether the Kingdom was strictly a future reality in the time leading up to Pentecost, the pouring out of the Spirit on all believers was undoubtedly a turning point in the Kingdom, as it would now be spread to the ends of the earth. There is a shift from expectation to reality, as the rule of God on earth is expressed through the power of the Spirit.
Conclusion: The Kingdom in Jesus and Paul
Present Though Absent
Much of the foregoing discussion underlines the truth that an idea or concept can be present in a letter without its terminology being included explicitly. As Guthrie observes, “The absence of the name [Kingdom] is no indication of the absence of the fundamental idea….Preaching about Jesus was preaching about the kingdom, because Jesus himself was proclaimed as king.”70 Though we do not find a host of references to Kingdom in the Pauline literature, “Paul has maintained a
69 Dunn, “Spirit and Kingdom,” 39; emphasis added.
70 Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 431.
consistent and legitimate extension of Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God, although he has adapted this to the post-resurrection situation.”71 Preaching and teaching in the new epoch of the Spirit, Paul teaches a modified perspective on the Kingdom.
Conclusion: Progression in Revelation
The decrease in the number of Kingdom references in the Pauline epistles (and in the rest of the New Testament) relative to the Gospel accounts is fully to be expected with a consideration of the trajectory of the history of revelation. There was a shift in emphasis “from an expected reality to a revered person.”72 Indeed, the Kingdom is still present in the rest of the New Testament, “but the path to the kingdom (Christ) is preached more directly and now receives all attention as the trajectory of faith.”73 The broad term “Kingdom” that was utilized by Jesus now has a new framework: faith in Christ, justification, sanctification. We have already noted the tight connection in the Gospel accounts of specific terms such as life, glory and redemption with the broader concept of Kingdom. This terminological connection is solidified in Jesus’s epoch-making death and resurrection, for the promised work of redemption has seen its greatest moment in the cross, necessitating a change in the presentation of the Kingdom: teaching about the Kingdom is now preaching Christ or preaching the Gospel.74 This progression is also evident in the new emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost. What had been anticipated in the teaching of Jesus was now a reality in the hearts and lives of Christians, as the Spirit made known the work of Christ.
The difference concerning the Kingdom in the Gospel accounts and in the Pauline epistles is therefore to be explained to a large degree by the more fulsome message of Christ’s atoning death on the cross. There is a movement from implicit to explicit Christology, and that “Jesus’
71 Klappert, “King, Kingdom,” 388.
72 Van Bruggen, Jesus, 82.
73 Van Bruggen, Jesus, 82.
74 Van Bruggen, Jesus, 82.
proclamation of the kingdom of God was in no way displaced in the early church by the proclamation of Jesus Christ.”75 Rather, this placement of Christ at the centre of the preaching is due to the realization that “the Kingdom of God is only present in the person of Jesus Christ.”
76
In conclusion, it need not be alarming to see the ostensible disconnect between the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of Paul with regard to the Kingdom. A closer look at the evidence reveals not only continuity, but also progression from Jesus to Paul, particularly when we observe how the Kingdom received new significance and deeper meaning after the death and resurrection of Jesus and following the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
75 Klappert, “King, Kingdom,” 387.
76 Klappert, “King, Kingdom,” 387.
Bibliography
Beasley-Murray, G.R. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.
Bietenhard, H. “kurios” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Volume 2. Colin Brown, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986.
Bock, Darrell L. Luke. Volume 2. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996.
Bright, John. The Kingdom of God. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1953.
Bruce, F.F. Commentary on the Book of Acts. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968.
Duling, Dennis C. “Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 4. David N. Freedman, ed. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993.
Dunn, James D.G. Romans. Volume 2. Word Biblical Commentary 38b. Dallas, TX: Word, 1988.
Dunn, James D.G. “Spirit and Kingdom.” Expository Times 82 (1970-71): 36-40.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.
Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.
Goppelt, Leonhard. Theology of the New Testament. Volume 1. John E. Alsup, tr. Jürgen Roloff, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1981.
Johnston, George. “ ‘Kingdom of God’ Sayings in Paul’s Letters.” In From Jesus To Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare. Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd, eds. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984.
Klappert, B. “King, Kingdom.” In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Volume 2. Colin Brown, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986.
Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974.
Ladd, George Eldon. Jesus and the Kingdom: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. London: SPCK, 1964.
Lattke, Michael. “On the Jewish Background of the Synoptic Concept, ‘The Kingdom of God.’” In The Kingdom of God. Issues in Religion and Theology 5. Bruce Chilton, ed. London: SPCK, 1984.
Louw, Johannes P., and Nida, Eugene A., eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Volume 1 and 2. Second Edition. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1989.
Machen, J. Gresham. The Origin of Paul’s Religion. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1925.
Perrin, Norman. Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976.
Perrin, Norman. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1963.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. God’s Rule and Kingdom. John Murray, tr. Freiburg: Herder, 1963.
Stewart, James S. A Man in Christ: The Vital Elements of St. Paul’s Religion. London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited, 1935.
Thompson, Michael. Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.115.13. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 59. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.
Van Bruggen, Jakob. Jesus the Son of God. Nancy Forest-Flier, tr. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.
Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1948.
Vos, Geerhardus. The Kingdom of God and the Church. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1972.
Wedderburn, Alexander J.M. “Paul and Jesus: The Problem of Continuity.” In Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays. A.J.M. Wedderburn, ed. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.
Wenham, David. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.
Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996.