Theological Journal – July 1 The Kingdom of God

Usually the kingdom of God Jesus announced is presented according to an “already/not yet” scheme. It “dawned” or was “inaugurated” by Jesus’ earthly ministry but is not wholly present at this point. The fullness of the kingdom will become present when Jesus returns in glory at his second coming.

Two scholars have recently challenged this usual way of understanding the kingdom. And their views are well worth considering.

-the first scholar to consider is Andrew Perriman. In his book Re: Mission and a host of articles on his blog Perriman makes the case that the kingdom of God is a political term denoting God’s rule over his world. This happened in Jesus’ earthly ministry. Through him God reasserted his rightful but usurped rule, first over that portion of his people who remained resistant to and rejected Jesus. The judgment for their perfidy was that Israel as a nation defaulted on its commission to be God’s Abrahamic people through whom God would bless the world. This judgment was sealed in 70 a.d. when Rome rolled through and over Jerusalem and the temple, a reality Jesus preached about when he spoke about the “end of the age” to Israel (Mt.24; Mk.13; Lk.21).

Jesus’ ministry also signaled judgment for the rebellious nations of the world. Through him and his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation to world rule God reasserted his rule over these nations. 

Perriman argues that it falls to Paul in his gospel to announce the reassertion of God’s lordship and  coming judgment to the nations. Their judgment would come, and here Perriman speculates a bit, when the Roman Empire fell and the Christian faith became the official religion of the empire. This is what Paul usually refers to when he speaks of “the end” of the age in his preaching and letters. There is a third horizon of judgment, a final end when Christ returns, but this horizon registers in the New Testament only occasionally in vague and obscure hints and imagery.

As regards the kingdom of God, however, Perriman’s view is that the kingdom fully arrived with Jesus. It makes little sense for him to say the kingdom, understood as the reassertion of the rule of God over his world, partially arrived with Jesus’ earthly ministry with its fullness to come at his return. After all, this reassertion of divine rule is the presupposition and assurance the church takes in its mission to the world!

The second view to consider is put forward by the German scholar Gerhard Lohfink in his 2012 book  Jesus of Nazareth What He Wanted, Who He Was. His argument is that it makes little sense for Jesus to proclaim the kingdom’s coming and arrival if it has not wholly arrived. The kingdom is about God’s rule (as with Perriman). Both John the Baptist and Jesus stress the immediacy and urgency of their message. The big moment for judgment and salvation, depending on the people’s response to Jesus, was on the doorstep.

But what does that mean? According to Lohfink,

“Is it that the reign of God is now closer than it was before in the dimension of linear time? That would inevitably mean that it is still not here. In that case the threshold to the new has not been crossed, and Jesus would have been no different, at least as far as his proclamation about the time of the reign of God was concerned, from the others who had preached ‘imminent expectation’ in Israel.

“The problem is solved if we take the first part of the proclamation seriously: ‘the time is fulfilled.’ This opening clause gives the accent and clarifies the question of time. ‘The time is fulfilled,’ of course, appears in the garments of solemn biblical language. But it means nothing different from our expression, ‘the time has come.’ The biblical clothing of the expression indicates that this is about the promises of the prophets: now they are being fulfilled. Paul means the same thing when he writes: ‘See, now is the acceptable time; see, now is the day of salvation’ (2 Cor 6:2). The second clause, ‘the reign of God has come near,’ following the groundbreaking opening statement, cannot mean that the time of fulfillment has not yet really arrived.

“It is true that ‘has come near’ contains a ‘not yet,’ but it is not about God’s action; it is about Israel’s response. The people of God, at this moment, has not yet turned back. It is still in the moment of decision for or against the Gospel. Therefore, the reign of God is near but not yet present. It is being offered to the people of God. It is laid at their feet. They are within reach of it; they can reach out and touch it. But as long as it is not accepted it is only near, and people must still pray: ‘Your kingdom come!’(Matt 6:10).”

For Lohfink, too, God’s kingdom is fully here in and with Jesus. This is the “already.” The “not yet” does not indicate something God is yet to do (as in the usual formulation) but rather Israel has not as whole repented and embraced the kingdom in Jesus. It is here and on offer. But at this decisive juncture in the people’s history, many (most) of Israel are rejecting him. There is still time yet there is not a moment to lose. Everything is on the line. The kingdom will be fully present when all embrace it.

There is a distinct difference between the usual view where the kingdom is partly here and partly not and the Perriman/Lohfink view that the kingdom is fully present with Jesus. They draw different but not incompatible conclusions from their conviction of the kingdom’s full presence in Jesus. Historically and logically considered the Perriman/Lohfink view has much to commend it.

What do you think?