The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Twofold Nature of the Kingdom of God

Theology Eschatology
#1

In 2009, Dr. Barry D. Smith, an associate professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Atlantic Baptist University in New Brunswick, Canada, wrote a book titled Jesus’ Twofold Teaching about the Kingdom of God. Though I have not read this book for myself, the title caught my eye when searching for anything that conveyed a similar belief that I had about the Kingdom. In regards to this twofold teaching of Jesus about the Kingdom, I want to expand on the idea of a twofold nature of the Kingdom in light of Jesus’ discourse in Matthew 13:3-52.

It is obvious to me that the parables of the Kingdom that Jesus tells in Matthew 13 are set up against each other in a comparative style. In my view, as well as Dr. Smith’s, it is necessary to look at the Kingdom of God as conditional upon the acceptance or rejection of its message and messenger. Here is a quote from a portion of the introduction to Dr. Smith’s book on the Sheffield Phoenix Press website (sheffieldphoenix.com/showbook.asp?bkid=133):

The Gospels and other New Testament scriptures attest to the fact of most of Israel’s rejection of their Messiah. In this scope, NT eschatology should be based on the context within the ‘last days’ of the first century A.D., preceding the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:1-32; Acts 2:16-21), in which the parables of the Ten Virgins (Matt. 25:1-13), the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30), and even Lazarus and the Rich Man (Lk. 16:19-31) can be applied. Of course, their rejection and stubbornness were prophesied by Moses (Deut. 28:15-68), and Isaiah (53:1-12), but it wasn’t inevitable, for they did have a choice (Deut. 28:1-14). Nevertheless, Christ still reigns in heaven and is given all authority and judgement (Matt. 28:18; Jn 5:22), even over Satan (although Satan is still the ruler of this world [Jn. 16:11]).

What would have happened had the Jewish people accepted Jesus as their Messiah? Would he have established his Kingdom physically and inherited the throne of David as foretold by the angel Gabriel to the virgin Mary (Lk. 1:33)? This is certainly the image that the chief priests and scribes in Matthew 2:4-6 had in mind. However, due to their disbelief, the people of Israel had Pontius Pilate sentence the Lord to death by crucifixion, and even invoked a curse on their own children so that Pilate would concede (Matt. 27:25). This curse was fulfilled during the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem forty years after Christ’s death and resurrection.

This leads us to question whether or not the image of the Kingdom coming in judgement against Israel was the original message of “[t]he time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mk. 1:15 - NASB). The message of the good news seemingly turns to bad news when much of Israel rejects the coming of the Christ as seen in the latter parts of the Synoptic gospels. Moreover, the climax of this apparent “bad news” is found throughout the book of Revelation, but we should view it from the standpoint of the avenging of the Old Testament and first century martyrs (Preston, 2006).

It appears to me that the original message of the good news of the Kingdom is that which is found in Matthew 10:6-10, Luke 4:18,19 and Romans 1:16,17. “Both to Jew first, and to Greek” (Rom. 1:16 - YLT) was the formula by which the message was to be proclaimed in the first century before the fall of Jerusalem, but it was quickly reversed after that destruction. From then on, to this very day, the formula has been “to the Greek [Gentile] first, and to the Jew.” But as Saint Paul later proclaimed in his letter to the Romans, “…all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, ‘THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB’…” (Rom. 11:26 - NASB). However, this would not occur “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25 - NASB).

No matter which of the above formulas are used, the spirit of the Gospel message is the same: ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news’ (Mk. 1:15 - NIV), and ‘seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.’ (Matt. 6:33 - ESV). Though I agree with what most of Dr. Smith’s book is implying, I believe Christ’s teaching about the Kingdom is more practical, rather than just “hypothetical.” One must follow his teachings, with the Gospel message as its base, in order to real-ize the Kingdom of God ‘on earth as it is in heaven’ (Matt. 6:10 - NIV). This is irrefutably the ‘narrow path’ which Jesus commanded his disciples to trod (Matt. 7:13,14).

Lest one think that I am advocating a strict legalism by saying ‘one must follow his teachings,’ keep in mind that the law Christ gave to his disciples was different from the law of Moses and the works put into effect by it. Saint James refers to the sum of the law given by Christ (in Matt. 22:34-40) as the “perfect law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25 - KJV) and the “royal law” (Jas. 2:8). Yes, God has given us grace through faith to believe in Jesus Christ, but what are we going to do with such grace? We are to do good works, and further his Kingdom on the earth! ‘For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them’ (Eph. 2:10 - NKJV).

Extra-Biblical References:

Preston, D.K. (2006, August 29). Avenging the prophets. Retrieved from eschatology.org/index.php/articles-mainmenu-61/40-revelation/303-avenging-the-prophets.

Smith, B.D. (2009). Jesus’ twofold teaching about the kingdom of God. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

P.S. This is my first topic that I’ve started on this forum, so I would appreciate any questions, comments, and criticisms from anyone well versed in biblical eschatology. Improvements are always good!

#2

Hello Blackiebori,

Like yourself, I have not read the quoted book. I have, however, done some research on the Kingdom of God and have written an article on it that probably presents a little different perspective:

ernestlmartin.com/kingdomofgod-firstresurrection.htm

I likewise would appreciate any feedback on it. Thanks for bringing up the subject.

Ken

#3

Hello Ken,

Thank you for comment. I will certainly read your article and give some feed back when I can.

One question: Would you like me to respond to your article in this thread of the forum, or should I message you in a private message? Let me know!

God bless,
Kalvin

#4

Hello blackiebori,

Either way is fine with me. Thanks!

Ken

#5

Hi Ken,

I apologize for not getting back to you after several weeks, but I’ve gotten around to reviewing your article.

Most, if not all, of what you say within your article is biblically sound. However, I take somewhat of a different standpoint on the nature of the Kingdom of God. While I do believe it has a twofold nature, the non-rejection context of the Kingdom is most certainly the ideal that Christ came to establish. On the other hand, Christ’s Kingdom was one in which there was to be no end (Greek: οὐκ ἔσται τέλος - Luke 1:33). This, I believe, is parallel to what Jesus said in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (ASV). In other words, the reign of the Old Covenant age would disappear at the end of that age (perhaps dating to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70), but the everlasting Kingdom in the New Covenant would be established. The end of the age was coming in spite of whatever choice most of Israel would make, but in what way the Kingdom would manifest in that generation was contingent on Israel’s choice of rejection or non-rejection.

While your article cites two sources arguing against the translation of “the Kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21), I will have to respectfully disagree with those sources. The “ἐντὸς” in “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν” literally translates to “within” and not “among,” which is also clear from the context. The root of the Greek word “ἐντὸς” is “ἐν,” meaning “in”, and is obviously cognate with words of the same meaning in other Indo-European languages. The suffix -τὸς makes the word an adverb.

But what did Jesus mean when he said “the Kingdom of God is within you” in response to the Pharisees’ question? I don’t think we need to look for some complex esoteric explanation to understand what he is saying to them. Jesus was saying that the “light” was inside of them as he told his disciples in Matthew 5:14-16. Jesus knew of Israel’s original value and dignity, for this is what he came to give back to that nation, and through them, all humanity. If the Pharisees only recognized who he was, and who they were called to be in light of God’s providence, they would not have rejected and crucified their Messiah (1 Cor. 2:8). Nevertheless, Jesus’s passion on the cross and his resurrection provided spiritual redemption from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1,2; Hebrews 9:15), and leeway for Israel’s future redemption (Romans 11:25-29).

My view of the Millennial reign of Christ is that it was literally 1,000 years, starting from the AD 30s to the early AD 1000s, until the time of the Crusades. Perhaps Satan was released from his “prison” during the Crusades to “deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth – Gog and Magog – and to gather them for battle” (Rev. 20:8 - NIV©2011). A duration is not given as to how long Satan would be released, but I do not believe his reign on earth has ended just yet. However, I do not consider the end of the Millennial reign to be the end of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom does indeed reside in the hearts and minds of people, especially believers, and it has no end (οὐκ ἔσται τέλος).

In order for the Kingdom of God be physically manifested here on earth, believers have to be willing to build and live it “on earth as it is in heaven” (see Matthew 6:10; Luke 11:2). This seems to fit perfectly with what you say about attitudes of Christians within this twenty-first century “Information Age.” Putting what we know into action is the key to building the Kingdom of God here on earth, no matter who we are or what out background is. But this calls for repentance on our part, and on the part of our ancestors in regard to their sins. In other words, we have to be willing to take responsibility for both our sins and our ancestors’ sins.

I would like to comment more on why I think the first resurrection took place within the first century, but I don’t want this response to be too long. I will leave the discussion on the first resurrection for a later comment within this thread. For now, please share your thoughts on what I said above.

All the best,
Kalvin