Joel Green on the kingdom of God, part 3

In his rather short third post on the kingdom of God, Joel Green begins by asking what we can learn about God’s royal rule by examining how the expression is used in the Gospels. He summarises the various contexts: the kingdom of God is entered, proclaimed, possessed, has drawn near, etc. Then he makes the important point that, contrary to much contemporary talk, the kingdom of God does not depend on what people do. “Humans do not create, build, construct, extend, or make present the kingdom. The kingdom is God’s” (emphasis removed).

The conceptual priority given to entrance into the kingdom of God suggests that it must be understood as a “container” or “place,” which makes little sense if the kingdom is “all-pervasive and eternal.” So better to think of it as a sphere or field of divine influence or activity.

To enter the kingdom of God, therefore, consists in “experiencing, identifying with, participating in, coming under the influence of, and joining the community formed in relation to God’s kingdom.” The kingdom cannot be confined to a particular “set of borders” because “God’s rule knows no geographical boundaries.”

What shall we say about this?

1. That the kingdom of God is “all-pervasive and eternal” is a theological assumption, underpinned by the common confusion of creative action with political management. The contingent historical and geographical dimensions to the idea of the kingdom of God in scripture are overruled on the grounds that they infringe upon a theological principle.

2. It is a biblical principle that the God served by Israel ultimately, if sometimes belatedly, determines the political destiny of all nations: “the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will” (Dan. 4:25). The big hermeneutical question we face is whether we move from there in the direction of theological abstraction, which is Green’s method, or whether we preserve the essentially historical orientation of Daniel’s prophetic outlook. My argument would be that we understand both the New Testament and the challenges facing the church today much better if we take the latter course.

3. The God of the Bible is both the creator of all things and ruler over the nations, particularly those more powerful nations with which Israel historically came into conflict—the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans. These are two distinct divine functions. The first function cannot be delegated: only God is the creator of all things. The second function can be delegated to the messianic ruler seated at his right hand, which is precisely the apostolic testimony about Jesus.

4. The narrow focus on entering the kingdom has the effect of marginalising the historical and geographical aspects of the theme in the Gospels and elsewhere. Time and place are critical elements: after the arrest of John the Baptist, Jesus entered Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, saying that the time was now fulfilled, that the kingdom of God was imminent (Mk. 1:14-15). The coming of the kingdom of God is proclaimed to the Jews, at a critical moment in Israel’s history (cf. Gal. 4:4), within a clearly defined “set of borders”:

Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ (Matt. 10:5-7)

5. The same can be said, arguably, about the apostolic mission to the nations. The specific expression “kingdom of God” recedes from view, but the conviction that the Son, seated at the right hand of the Father, would rule over the nations is everywhere apparent. But the kingdom is still not treated as an “all-pervasive and eternal” state of affairs in the way that Green understands it. It is a rule envisaged in regional terms, over the nations of an oikoumenē or civilisation that had for too long been an affront to the glory of the God of Israel.

6. The emphasis in the Gospels is not on experiencing a new reality; it is on obedience, righteousness, and a radical change of behaviour. Jesus does not explain what life will be like in the kingdom of God; he sets out the exacting requirements for entry.

• The righteousness of the disciples must exceed that of the leaders of Israel or they will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:20).
• Only those who do the will of Jesus’ Father in heaven will enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 7:21).
• If the disciples do not become like children—as those of least social value—they will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3; Mk. 10:15; Lk. 18:17).
• The rich will find it hard to enter the kingdom of heaven and may have to renounce their wealth (Matt. 19:23; Mk. 10:23-25; cf. Lk. 18:18-22, 24-25).
• The person whose eye causes him or her to sin will not enter the kingdom of God (Mk. 9:47).
• A person must be “born of water and the Spirit” in order to enter the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).
• The disciples would enter the kingdom of God “through many tribulations” (Acts 14:22).

These demands can, of course, be generalised, their contingency blurred, the narrative boundaries removed, for the purpose of making scripture speak into the life of the modern church. But in view here are the particular demands imposed on the early Jesus movement as it faced the severe hardships that would attend the end of the age of second temple Judaism and the clash with classical paganism.