When you finish this session you should be able to:
- Understand the idea of the kingdom
- Comprehend the problems of interpretation of the kingdom
- Define the kingdom of God
- See the First Testament concept of the kingdom
- Discern the Second Testament concept of the kingdom
- Know the two ways the kingdom is viewed in the Second Testament
Session Preview
In this session we will introduce you to the kingdom of God, we will visit six different areas. First, we will introduce the idea of the kingdom of God. Second, we will examine the problem of interpreting the kingdom. Next, we will define the kingdom of God. Third, we will overview its concept as seen in the First Testament. Then, we will view its concept as viewed in the Second Testament. Finally, we will look at the two different views in which the Second Testament material has been seen.
Where We Are Going
Introduction
The Idea of the Kingdom
The Problem of the Interpretation of the Kingdom
The Kingdom Defined
Realm
Reign-Rule
The Kingdom of God in the First Testament
The Davidic Concept of the Kingdom
The Apocalyptic Concept of the Kingdom
he Kingdom of God in the Second Testament
Two Ways to View the Kingdom in the Second Testament
Satanward
Godward
Introduction
Central to the ministry of Jesus was the concept of the kingdom of God. The authors of the Synoptic Gospels fill their books with teaching about this concept. They had so much material about the kingdom that they often summarized it. The beginning of the Gospel of Mark is a great illustration. Mark 1.14-15 reads: “After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!’” His summary told his reader what Jesus did and said during his ministry.
Matthew summarized similarly. He succinctly shows the ministry of Jesus in Matthew 4.23 and Matthew 9.35 as it centered on the kingdom. Jesus also summarized the message of the kingdom when he gave instructions to his twelve disciples (Matt. 10.1ff.). The gospel of the kingdom is the only gospel that he instructed his disciples to preach. When Luke recorded the sending of the seventy disciples (Luke 10.1ff.), Jesus used a similar language. The term kingdom was frequently on the lips of Jesus.
The Idea of the Kingdom
The kingdom of God concept is rooted in the First Testament. The prophets declared the kingdom as a day in which men and women would live together in peace; where social problems would be solved and evil would pass away (Isa. 2.4; 11.6).
In the Second Testament (Matt. 4.17) the idea of the kingdom is central to the proclamation of Jesus. His works were designed to demonstrate for us how to enter the kingdom (Matt. 5.20; 7.21). His works authenticated that the kingdom was present in his ministry (Matt. 12.28). His parables informed us about the mysteries of the kingdom (Matt. 13.11). His prayers modeled for his disciples the desire of his heart, which was that the kingdom would come to earth (Matt. 6.10). His death, resurrection, and ascension made us the instruments of the kingdom (Acts 1.8). His second coming promised the consummation of the kingdom for his children (Matt. 25.31, 34).
The Kingdom of God Defined
Realm. Kingdom is normally understood as a realm over which a king rules. A modern-day example of this idea was the United Kingdom which was made up of many nations: Great Britain, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, etc. People live in a kingdom (a place) and are subjects of the King or Queen who exercises his or her authority over his or her subjects.
Reign-Rule. Another way to view the idea of kingdom is found in its dictionary definition: “The reign or rule a king has over his subjects.” This definition is closer to the primary meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words than the concept of realm. In Hebrew, the word for kingdom is malkût (mal-coot). The Greek word is basileia (bah-see-lay-a).
The Kingdom of God in the First Testament
Dr. James Kallas suggests in his book Jesus and the Power of Satan that Jesus never explained because the people to whom he was speaking knew what it meant or thought they knew what it meant (Kallas, Jesus… 1968, 119). The First Testament presents the kingdom in the context of Jewish messianic expectations and eschatology. They believed that God would deliver them, which was their hope for the future. Israel reached its apex during the rule of King David and Solomon. From that point forward Israel began to decline. At the death of Solomon, the kingdom divided into two kingdoms, each with their own kings and governments. This division set in place a longing among the Jews for God to restore to them their past blessings. There were two ways by which the kingdom began to be understood. The first is called the Davidic Concept and the Second the Danielic or Apocalyptic Concept.
The Davidic Concept of the Kingdom
Israel hoped that God would send a king like David, a military man. Israel’s focus was militaristic and geographic. Israel wanted a nationalistic kingdom to return. The prophets of the First Testament began using the phrase “the day of the Lord,” which was a two-sided belief system including restoration and judgment. Israel believed that the “day of the Lord” was a time when Israel would be fully restored (Amos 9.14; Isa. 11; Zech. 8.4-8). The nations would be judged (Amos 1). The message of Amos came to pass when the Northern Kingdom virtually ceased to exist after the Assyrian invasion. When the Southern kingdom went into exile, the hope remained and glittered again during the Restoration Period when Zerubbabel, a descendant of David, became king. This hope is reflected in Psalm 126. The Davidic hope for military and political power emerged again during the time of Zerubbabel. Judah hoped that the descendant of David was the one to return them to the glory of David’s rule. Haggai and Zechariah mirrored the expectation which surrounded Zerubbabel. But when his kingship failed, hope began to wane.
Once again during the Maccabean revolt, these old nationalistic aspirations had a revival. However, the rise of a Davidic king, an anointed one to bring them to political power with military might, did not occur. When you turn to the pages of the Second Testament, there is a remnant of those who still believed that God would restore a nationalistic kingdom to Israel (John 6.15; Acts 1.6). the kingdom of God was thought to be a kingdom of this world which would be peopled by the Jews. There was nothing spiritual or future about the kingdom was a dream of Jewish nationalism (Kallas. Jesus and the Power of Satan. 1968, 119-121).
The Apocalyptic Concept of the Kingdom
The second view which arose during the life of Judaism centered around the Intertestamental Period (404–6 BC). During this period there arose a new kind of writing within Judaism called apocalyptic Literature and the term the kingdom of God came into popular usage. Hope did not diminish; it only assumed a new language with a modified meaning. The prophets hoped for a nationalistic kingdom, while the hope of the Apocalyptic writers was for a heavenly kingdom that would end this present evil age. A new world would break into the present world and bring the rule of God. This view developed a belief that Satan dominated this present evil age; it was under his rule. When Antiochus Epiphanes unleashed his persecution on Israel (175-164 BC), this view began to flourish. This horrific deluge of evil could only be the result of a cosmic conflict. Evil was winning. Good was losing. The demonic and sickness were in control. It was here that the Jews’ consciousness of evil spirits began to develop. The books of the Intertestamental Period give us a window to view the beliefs of the people in a specific period of time. In First Enoch 54.3-6 Satan is pictured as the ruler of a kingdom of evil with many followers, the demons. The book of Jubilees 23.29 suggests a golden age to come in which God himself would usher in his kingdom reversing the evils of Satan. Good would triumph, healing would occur, the demonic would be defeated.
The Kingdom of God in the Second Testament
When you open the pages of the Second Testament, you may be struck by the apparent war in which Jesus is immediately engaged. John the Baptist proclaimed that there was one coming in which the age of the Spirit would come. The words of Jesus in Mark clearly denote that the kingdom had arrived with Jesus. The words and works of Jesus form a unity in which the kingdom of God is spoken about and demonstrated. In Jesus, we have the presence of the future. Jesus has brought the rule of God from the future into the present. Thus, we live in the presence of the future. This expression was often used by the late Dr. George Eldon Ladd to express kingdom reality. He often said that the ecclesiae is between the times; she lives between the inauguration and the consummation of the kingdom.
This “now-but-not-yet” concept is seen throughout the Second Testament.
- Matthew 12.28 illustrates this when he writes, But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
- Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15.24, Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
- John writes in 1 John 3.2, Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
What Jesus did was as important as what he said. Twentieth-first-century followers of Jesus are often more preoccupied with what he said, too often forgetting that what he did carries the same message. He taught as much by doing as by saying.
It is fair to ask the question: What did Jesus do in his ministry? Mark’s Gospel makes it clear that the mission of Jesus was to destroy the activity of Satan in the world. He gave his hearers an optical illustration of the kingdom in his ministry of healing the sick and casting out demons. Jesus and Satan were in a cosmic conflict that was being played out in the battle for ownership and rule in the lives of men and women. In like manner, other battles were afoot: hunger (John 6), natural catastrophes (Mark 4.35ff.), sickness (Luke 7.21), and death (Luke 7.11ff.).
Matthew’s Gospel (Matt. 12.22-31) clearly demonstrates that the war between Jesus and Satan is not a civil war within a kingdom. Rather, it is a battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. The strong man, Satan, is bound (deo: to bind-a metaphorical term indicating the curbing of power) so the strong man’s house (Satan’s kingdom) may be plundered. The power is curbed, but not rendered completely powerless (Matt. 16.23; Mark 8.33; Luke 22.3; Ladd. New Testament Theology. 1974, 66). In his book The Real Satan, (https://amzn.to/3cUWT6b ) Dr. James Kallas says, “A war is going on! Cosmic war! Jesus is the divine invader sent by God to shatter the strengths of Satan. In that light, the whole ministry of Jesus unrolls. Jesus has one purpose—to defeat Satan. He takes seriously the strength of the enemy” (Kallas. The Real Satan. 175, 60). Jesus won the war, but there are battles still left to be fought. Jesus gave his disciples the mission of continuing to bring the rule of God into the world in their lives and proclamation (Luke 10.8-9). In their preaching and miracles, Jesus saw Satan’s defeat (Luke 10.18). The last words of Jesus to his followers when he left (Acts 1.1-8) demonstrate that he would empower his followers to continue in the cleanup of the war.
An illustration from Oscar Cullmann’s book Christ and Time will help us understand this concept of cleanup. He shares a story from World War II’s D-day and V-day. D-day was June 6, 1944, a day that the result of the war was decided. However, the war did not officially conclude until May 7-8, 1945, on V-day (Cullmann. Christ and Time. 1964. 84, 2018 Edition). Between these two dates, almost a year, there were still battles being fought and allied lives being lost. More lives were lost during this period than in any other period during the war. Even though the battles went on, the war had been decided. So it was with Jesus. The earth was his. In his birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension, God had overthrown Satan. God planted his flag in the form of a cross and Jesus said, “It is finished.” The war is over, but the aftermath continues and will until the return of Jesus. To understand the kingdom of God is to understand the theme from which the ministry of Jesus and the writings of the Second Testament flow. We live in the presence of the future, the “now-but not-yet.” When we view any passage of Scripture in the Second Testament, we must put on our kingdom of God glasses and ask questions of that passage with that set of presuppositions.
Understanding that we live between the times will help us better comprehend matters of life as they occur day-to-day.
The diagram to the below will help explain the present and future aspects of the kingdom:
The graphic illustration suggests that the kingdom of God was in the First Testament. It can be clearly demonstrated that the kingdom is seen in events like the Exodus and Israel’s captivity in Babylon. God acted in kingly power to deliver and judge his children and the kingdom came into history once and for all in the person and works of Jesus.
Two Ways to View the Kingdom in the Second Testament
There are two ways in which the material of the Second Testament concerning the kingdom can be viewed: the Satanward view and the Godward view.
Satanward View: The Satanward view takes seriously the idea that Jesus came into the world to wage war against Satan. The Western Christian tends to accept the supernatural events which happened in Scripture in one of three ways:
The events happened then, but they do not happen today.
The events happened then and they still happen today.
The events never happened as they are reported, therefore, they cannot happen today.
When the Second Testament material is observed from the perspective that the ministry of Jesus was indeed aimed at Satan in a cosmic war fought on earth, it is called the Satanward view. This term was coined by Dr. James Kallas and is meant to demonstrate that followers of Jesus should take Satan seriously as God’s enemy.
Godward View: The second manner in which the material of the Second Testament can be seen is called the Godward view by Dr. Kallas. In this view, the mission of Jesus was to bring us salvation and return us to fellowship with God.
Which View?
Both the Godward and Satanward views are legitimate. According to Dr. Kallas, the following approximate percentages are found:
- Synoptics and Paul: 80% Satanward; 20% Godward
- John, Hebrews, Revelation: 80% Godward; 20% Satanward
Both interpretations are true. It is a fact that Biblical truth can never be discerned by choosing one truth over another. Both truths must be held in tension. “When the two are separated,” states Dr. Kallas, “it is not that one has half a truth, but that one has no truth, but distortion.” To accurately understand the kingdom of God, we must be committed to the Satanward view of Scripture as well as the Godward view. Within the Satanward view, the ecclesiae is seen as the army of God which continues the cleanup mission until the return of the King. In the Godward view, the ecclesiae is seen as the functioning body of the King left on earth to minister redemption to those outside and care to those inside the body. The chart below clarifies these concepts, (expanded from Kallas. The Satanward View. 1966, 30-31).
Community Discussion Questions
➡ |CDQ Info|
You must log in to post a comment. Log in now.