Exploring The Kingdom Of God

Attempting to define the Kingdom of God can feel a bit like trying to nail jello to a wall. The concise definition is “the dynamic reign of God.” But this leaves much unexplained. I would note three nuances where we must first say what the kingdom is not, or, more, accurately, is not just, since it is related to, but not captured by, these elements.

First, it is not primarily a place. As the common language goes, it is less of a realm and more of a reign. Less a geographical designation than a temporal one.

Second, it is not primarily the principle of God's sovereignty. While we can see the kingdom of God as the principle of God's sovereignty given full expression, the two must be distinguished, and collapsing them into one another erases the eschatological dimensions of the kingdom.

Third, the kingdom is not primarily a people. It is closely related to the church, and propagated by a people, but it should not be identified with the church per se (contrary to Scott McKnight and a few others). The Church is contained within the Kingdom, but the kingdom is not = the church.

So, if it is not just a place, not just a principle, and not just a people, then what is it? George Ladd summarized Herman Ridderbos' views, and in that summary I find an excellent, concise definition of the kingdom of God. It is,

"the reign of God active in history, in fulfillment of the Old Testament hope in the historical mission of Jesus, which must come to eschatological consummation at the Parousia of Jesus."

I think this captures the various strands of thought well. It is the active (or dynamic vs. static, as the current language goes) reign of God in history. It is the age promised in the OT hope, and it is primarily an "epoch" or an "age," and is thus first and foremost a temporal designation. The Jewish conception of "two ages" was a conception of a coming kingdom that would supplant the current evil kingdoms of the world. But it is an age that both finds fulfillment "in the historical mission [and ministry] of Jesus" and finds consummation "at the Parousia of Jesus." Here we find its most important characteristic, which is the "inaugurated eschatology" that we have discussed in these forums before. The kingdom is in some sense present in and fulfilled by the person and ministry of Jesus. But it is in another sense still future and awaits the second coming of Jesus to find consummation. It is thus both already and not yet. The two ages don't, after all, stand back to back and come one after another. Rather, they overlap, and we currently live between them, in a fuzzy time when the old age still exists, though it has already been supplanted, and the new age is not yet fully here, though it has already broken in.

Both the friends and foes of Jesus were primarily asking when the kingdom would come (; . etc.). This is because of the common Jewish conception that the coming of the new age would also mean the passing of the current one. But Jesus was usually more concerned to explain how it would come. It would come in weakness, grow slowly, and ultimately dominate forever (see the Kingdom parables in and ). This is the "mystery" of the kingdom that was so unexpected to the followers of Jesus. This mystery does address the when question (since is teaches that the kingdom is both present and coming), but its focus is on the how question. The disciples had all the right answers to all the wrong questions. And we haven't gotten terribly farther along than they. It is this counter-cultural mystery that we still must struggle to penetrate, as we seek to orient our lives around kingdom values and kingdom purposes, living the life of the future in the present.

Related Media

Related Sermons