King, Kingdom p.372.
basileia (basileus) ruler,king: basileia (basileia), kingship, kingly rule, kingdom; basileuw (basileuo) to be king, rule: sumbasileuw (symbasileuo), share the rule; basileioz (basileios), royal: basilikoz (basilikos), royal, kingly; basilissa (basilissa), queen.
CL 1. The noun busileus occurs as early as Linear B, and is originally a general term for a ruler; later more specifically a king,.
(a) In Mycenaean Gk. basileus does not mean sovereign of a state, but a subordinate prince or leader: the king is here the anax, i.e. divine ruler. The title anax and the ideas that went with it disappeared with time, and basileus took on the meaning of king in this sense (cf. T. B. L. Webster, From Mycenae to Homer, 1958).
(b) In Homer basileus is used of an hereditary, legitimate rule,whether his sphere of influence be great or small. Thus Odysseus can be describe as a basileus in Ithaca. The power of the king, from Homer onwards, is traced back to Zeus, and the king described as "nourished by Zeus [diotrephes]” (cf Homer, II,196). Hesiod extols the king's wisdom and competence to judge, and makes him inspired by the Muses (Theogonia 886).
(c) After monarchy had given place to the rule of a aristocracy, and then in various Greek cities one of the nobles set himself up as monarchi, a new term came into being for those who ruled in this fashion , tyrannos, one who has gained the rule by illegitimate means. Nothing Derogatory is implied by this term about the way the rule is exercised. Not until the “ Slaying of the tyrants “ (511 B.C in Athens ) and the subsequent glorification of those reponsible . Harmodioss and Aristogeiton does the word tyrannos take on a negative meaning, and the term basileus, which has no logger no longer any more than a marginal place in Greek political life, re-emerge as the title of a just and legal ruler. Plato in particular took this view, with his strong condemnation of the tyrant and his moral upgrading of the basileus by the requirement that kings should be philosophers and philosophers kings (Republic, 5, 473 d :Politicus 292e: cf. Aristotle. Politics 3, 1284a, 13).
(d) The Hellenistic concept of divine kingship is not derived from Plato. The development is adequately explained by the political tradition of the Macedonian monarchy and of the divine kingship of the Achaemenidae, and the overshadowing of both by the personality of Alexander the Great (1356-323 a.c) The special names of the Diadochoi, e.g. “benefactor”, euergetes, serve in the process of eliminating rivals, and are to be understood as devine attributes. One of the Diadochoi. Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Syria (c.215-163 B.C), became as a result of his attempt to force Hellenization on the Jews a symbol of man’s opposition to
373
God (on the erection of an altar to Zeus in the temple at Jerusalem. (Mrk 13:14. Abomination of Desolation)
(e) The Hellenistic idea of divine kingship originating with Alexander the Great was revived again in the Roman emperor cult. It was only by taking over the Hellenistic concept of the incarnation of divinity in the emperor that Augustus(63.B.C.A.D. 14) was able to comprehend in his own person the imperium as a single whole, a unification for which there was neither national nor cultural precedent. The effect of the confession Kyrios Iesous used by the Christians in proclaiming Jesus as the Lord, was to destroy this vital ideology of the Roman Imperium, and the reaction it called forth was the persecution of Christians during the first three centuries (=>Confess). (On ruler worship in the Roman Empire see H. Lietrmann. The Beginnings of the Christian Church, 1949, 163ff.)
2. The abstract noun basileia is of later origin than basileus, and is attested first in Hdt. 1, 11 (in the Ionic form basileie).
(a) The original meaning of the term basileia is the fact of being king, the position or power of the king, and it is best translated office of king, kingly rule (e.g. Aristotle. Politics 3, 1 285b, 20).
(b) Besides this meaning there is a second meaning which emphasizes the geographical aspect of basileia: for the status of a king is shown by the area over which he reigns. basileia assumes therefore the meaning kingdom, signifying the state or area over which a king reigns (P.Oxy 1257, 7).
3. The vb. basileuo (Homer) means: (a) to be king, to reign (e.g. Homer, II. 2, 203: Od. 2, 47): (b) inceptive: to become king, to begin to reign (Hdt. 2, 2). The vb. symbasileuo expresses the idea of ruling with (cf. Polyb. 30, 2, 4). The adjectives basileios and basilikos (Hdt., Aesch.) both express that which appertains to a king: royal. Finally the fem. term for king must be mentioned, basilissa, queen. This superseded the Attic forms basilis and basileia, and is found in the comic poet Alcaeus and in Xenophon, Oeconomicus 9, 15, and frequently in later writers (e.g. Philo and Josephus).
OT In the LXX the words of this root are very frequent, mostly as translations of Heb. derivatives of the root malak, to be king, to reign. In contrast to the NT (see below NT introductory paragraph), the term basileus, which appears frequently in almost all the books and especially in the historical writings, is far and away the most common. basileia occurs comparatively rarely (400 times) and not until Daniel does it begin to have a meaning of its own beside basileus. It is also important to observe that the words are used first and foremost for earthly kings and their secular government, and only secondarily of Yahweh's kingship. This means that the concept of Yahweh's kingly rule can only be presented in connection with the Israelite monarchy.
1. (a) From the conquest onwards, all the peoples with whom Israel came in contact had kings. Israel herself did not adopt monarchy as an institution until relatively late. This is all the more surprising in view of the fact that the Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites, who conquered their own territories during the same Period as Israel, went over to government by a national monarchy soon after their settlement. The Israelites, on the other hand, continued for two centuries after the conquest of Canaan to function as a sacred confederation of tribes with a central
p. 374
sanctuary Israel’s initial hesitation to adopt the institution of monarchy is bound up with the concept of the holy war, wich Yahweh himself conduct on Israel’s behalf (Exod. 14:14; Jos.23:10: Jdg.7:22:Cf.G. von Rad……) Yahweh himself is seen as commander-in-Chief of the Israelite army, and as the on to whom the land uncondicionally belongs.
(b) Israel’s constant harassment by the occasional subjection to the philistines was the surface reason for the introduction of the monarchy. According to the older tradition (1 Sam.9:1-10; 16:11:1-11, 14f) Yahweh himself took the iniciative in view of political extremity of his people, and had Saul the benjaminite anointed King by Samuel (1Sam.9:16). Along side this positive assessment of the monarchy, there was from the very beginning a rejection of it on the ground of the theocratic lordship of Yahweh. This view flourished particularly in the northern kingdom. Thus there is a line stretching from Gidion of manasseh (“I will not rule over you… Yahweh will rule over you” [Jdg. 8:23]), trough Hosea the last prophet of the northern kingdom with his anti-monarchical tendency (Hos.3:4, 7:3,13:10f). to the Deuteronomistic account of the setting up of the monarchy in Israel (1Sam.8:1-22a, 10:17-27). Here the demand of the people “appoint for us a king to govern us like all the nations”, received the answer from Yahweh “They have rejected me from being king over them” (1Sam.8:5-7). The juxta position of the two accounts, one positive and the other critical, of the introduction of the monarchy (1Sam.8-12), makes clear the problem wich beset the Israelite monarchy from the outset. On the one hand it was seen as Yahweh’s gift: on the other as his rival.
(c) Of decivise significance for the Judean monarchy was the religious ratification it received through Nathan’s prophetic promise to=>David (2 Sam.8:1-11b, 16). The house of David is here promised everlasting duration (verse 16). Because of this Davidic=>covenant,the right of David’s hereditary successors to kingdom of Judah was never called in question. The dynasty assured of continuance despite all the ups and downns which the throne underwent. By contrast the monarchy of the northern kingdom, after the non-renewali under Jeroboam I of the union with Judah ( 1 Ki.12: 1ff.), never achieved the stability of the Davidic dynasty. Here the old ideal of charismatic leadership,as it had been known in Israel’s formative period, lived on According to it, only Yahweh’s call fitted anyone for the office of ruler.
Another feature of the theology of kingship in judah, in contrast to the Egyptian concept of a king who is divine by nature, is the adoption of the ruler as the son of Yahweh. This was celebrated at the festival of enthronement and hymned in the royal Psalms (e.g. Ps. 2:7;45:7;110:1). However, the less the kings of Judah in their historical reality measured up to the standards set forth in the theology of kingship, the more strongly did the expectation of an eschatological messianic king develop,who would finally fulfil the prophecy of Nathan and the associated concept of kingship (Amos 9:11-15;but cf. Gen.49:8-12). Isaiah in particular, a prophet who had close associations wiyh the theology of kingship, prophesied of a branch of david that would bring in a new era of righteousness (Isa 11:1-9;9:2-7;cf. also the messianic prophecies of Mic. 5:2 ff; Jer.23:5f;Ezek.17:22 ff.;=> Jesus Christ,art,Christos or;=> Son of God, art.hyios David).
2. The kingship of Yahweh is an aspect of faith found neither in the wisdom
p.375
literature, the oral teaching of many of the prophets, nor in a considerable number or historical narratives. It is frequent, on the other hand, in the hymns of the psalter (the so-called enthronement-Psalms), later prophetic writings including the prophecies to the nations in Jeremiah (e.g. ier. 46: IS; 48:15: 51:57), and in the narrative Parts of the book of Daniel. Thus it tends to feature in the later parts of the OT. This suggests that the concept of yahweh’s, kingship was not a constitutive element in the original faith of Israel (cf. A.Alt. Kleine Schriften zur Gesehichte des Volkes Israel, I, 1968, 348) This is not to say that Israel did not from the first place herself under the ruleod Yahweh. On the contrary, faith in the absolute lordship of Yahweh within the tribal confederacy goes back to the days before the formation of a political State (see above l (a)).
(a) The earliest example of the title king being used of Yahweh is in the 8th century "MY eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts" (Isaiah 6:5). It is no coincidence that the title of king for Yahweh appears in the course of a vision which came to Isaiah in the central sanetuary at 4 Jerusalem. Texts discovered at Ugarit (in Syria) have revealed that in the Syro-Canaanite world there existed the idea of the "God most high" (cf. Gen. 14:18 f who bore the title of king (melek). The use of melek as a title for Yahweh has as its background the Syro-Canaanite world of ideas, and was probably originally drawn from the sacral traditions of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem and transferred to Yahweh there (Isa. 6:5). There is evidence of the existence of the molek cult (AV Molech, Moloch) among the original inhabitants of pre-Israelite Jerusalem (lev. 18:21; 2Ki. 23:10). Yahweh therefore would not have been described as melek before the time of the monarchy.
The divine title melek brought with it even in the Syro-Canaanite setting, a claim to universal authority which found expression particularly in lordship over the pantheon of gods. This universal claim is also reflected in the OT passages which talk about Yahweh the melek. Yahweh's kingship has a cosmic dimension: he is the creator of the world (cf. Pss. 24:I ; 93:1; 95;3 ff)”'.1; his kingdom rules over all the earth" (Ps. 47:2): he is the king of the nations (cf. Jer. 10: 7; Ps. 47: 3; 99: 2).
(b) In addition to this concept of Yahweh being king, we find the dynamic concept of Yahweh becoming king. This finds expression especially in the enthronement-Psalms in the cry "Yahweh has become King!" (Pss. 47:8; 93:1: 96:10; 97:1; 99:1). (Note: Eng. versions have "The Lord reigns" for this Heh. perfect.)
The inseparability of the two concepts "Yahweh is king" and "Yahweh has become king" becomes especially evident in the later chapters of Isah. Yahweh is King of Jacob" or "King of Israel" (Isa. 41:21; 44:6). Put in context of announcing the new exodus, a herald now brings to the city of Jerusalem the message: God reigns" (Isa. 52:7). The enthronement-Psalms do not primarily announce an eschatological event, but a present reality experienced in the cultic ceremony. The proclamation of the reign of Yahweh as an eschatological event is now associated with the historical act of the new exodus. It is not nature and the cycle of the seasons (as in Babylonia), but the historical actions of Yahweh which form the basis of his "enthronement". (On the much-debated theory of an enthronement-festival of Yahweh in Israel. cf. H.-J. Kraus. Psalmen. BKAT 15, I, 6XLIII; Excursus on Ps. 24, pp. 201 ff.: Might, art. thronos or 4)
(c) In the Judean messianic theology of kingship the lordship of Yahweh is combined with the hoped-for lordship of the messiah. Thus it is the same prophet,
p. 376
Isaiah of Jerusalem, who was the first to use the royal title for Yahweh and whoalmost always related it to the currently reigning son of David. Even the messianicprince of the future is for Isaiah no autocrat, but one who is appointed (sar, official, vizier) and receives his office from God (Isa.9:7; 11:1 f.). The rule of thefuture, messianic son of David is accordingly a delegated exercise of authority, representing the kingly rule of Yahweh.
The anti-monarchical bias of the northern kingdom (1 Sam. 8:7) stands in contrast to this, with a non-messianic eschatology (Hosea). This is also represented by Deutero-Isaiah who proclaimed from exile the kingship of Yahweh (Isa. 41:21; 44:6) and his eschatological enthronement (Isa. 52:7). Finally, in Ezekiel we find side by side the titles of king (Ezek. 37:24) and prince (Ezek. 37:24) for the messianic servant David.
3. The noun malekut is an early Heb. abstract noun with the meaning kingdom, reign. The reference is to power rather than to locality.
(a) The term malekut in the OT usually refers in a purely secular sense to political kingdoms (cf. 1 Sam. 20:31; 1 Ki. 2:12; 1 Chr. 12:23; 2 Chr. 11:17; Jer. 49:34; Dan. 9:1).
(b) Although the secular meaning of malekut is the most common one, there are occasional references to God's rule as his malekut, kingship, which he is presently exercising (Ps. 103:19; 145:11-13; Dan. 4:3). This is analogous to the use of melek, king, as an epithet of Yahweh.
(c) In later texts Yahweh's kingship is interpreted in an eschatological sense. The recognition begins to emerge of a kingdom of Yahweh at the end of time which breaks through all national barriers. One day Yahweh will rule over the whole earth. His throne will be in Jerusalem, and all nations will make their pilgrimage to Zion to worship him there (Isa. 24:23; Zech. 14 :9; Obad. 21). A characteristic of the eschatological expectation of the later prophets is that Yahweh's malekut is always presented as immanent (cf. G. von Rad, TDNT I 568 ff.).
(d) Finally, in Dan. 7, this immanent eschatology is elevated to a transcendent level, in the concept of the kingdom of the "son of man" (v. 13 f.) and the kingdom of "the saints of the Most High" (v. 27). The son of man (à Son of God, art. hyias tou anthropou) is an individual (v. 14) who represents the Most High (v. 27), as the king of Judah represented the people. In other words, when power is committed to the son of man, it is at the same time being given to the saints of the Most High. By these are meant the heavenly beings who surround God (M. Noth The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966, 215-28; cf. Ps. 89:5-7; Job 15:15; Deut. 33:2; Zech. 14:5). The transfer of power to the son of man, representing the saints of the Most High, takes place within the heavenly realm (v. 12: "with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man"), so that the earthly empires symbolized by the four beasts are replaced by the transcendent rule of the saints of the Most High represented by the son of man. In the idea that God has a definite plan for the world (the four empires in succession), and in the dualism of the four world empires seen as the era of the evil one as over against the kingdom of God seen as transcendent, we have already the most important elements of apocalyptic.
4. (a) The expression kingdom of heaven (malekut samayim; Gk. basileia ton ouranon) owes its origin to the endeavour of Rab. Judaism to find an alternative for the divine name in the phrase malekut YHWH (kingdom of Yahweh) by using
p.377
either sekinah, glory (Gk. doxa) or samayim, heaven (Gk. ouranos). Kingdom of heaven is therefore a term which implies the essential idea that "God rules as King". It is a Jewish expression which is purely theological in its reference.
Since the kingdom of heaven is not evident in this world, it is necessary to decide for or against it by a decision of will. The expression "to take upon oneself the yoke of the kingdom of Yahweh" means to confess allegiance to the one God as King (cf. SB1 173 ff.). The opportunity to accept or reject the kingdom will, however, come to an end when Yahweh reveals himself at the end of time. In the theology of Rab. Judaism the kingdom of God is a purely eschatological concept (K. G. Kuhn TDNT I 574).
(b) As happened earlier with the OT eschatology of the northern kingdom (see above 2 (c)), there is a tension in Judaism between the expectation of the messiah, as a nationalistic, Israelite king at the end of time, and the hope of the eschatological revelation of the kingdom of God. In the last days the messiah will come, ascend the throne of Israel, and subject to himself all the nations of the earth (cf. SB IV 968 f.). Not until then will the hitherto hidden kingdom of heaven emerge from the transcendent realm. But there is in Judaism no inner connection between the coming of the national messianic king and the coming of the rule of God. This is further confirmed by the fact that the people of Israel as such receives no mention in statements concerning the kingdom of God. Membership of the nation can no longer be a determining factor, when it is a personal decision before God that is required. Thus proselytes can also take upon themselves the "yoke of the kingdom of God" (SB I 176). It should be noted further that in Rab. literature the term kingdom of heaven is comparatively rare and that it does not carry the same theological significance that it does in the preaching of Jesus. This helps to explain why those Jews who thought along nationalistic lines in terms of a nationalistic kingly messiah were bewildered by Jesus, while in the apocalyptic circles the expectation of the kingdom of God continued to live on. In the Qumran writings there are occasional references to the kingdom of God, but the Essenes had no expectation of its coming.
(c) The Apocryphal writings of the LXX in general follow the OT pattern of thought about the kingdom of God. In some places, however, where there is no Heb. equivalent, we may detect Hellenistic influence. Thus the LXX can identify the basileia with the four cardinal virtues (4 Macc. 2:23), and in Wis. 6:20 we read, "The desire for wisdom leads to a kingdom.- This shift to an ethical meaning, in keeping with popular philosophy, is completed by Philo (cf. Migr.Abr.97;Abr. 261; Sacr. 49; Som. 2, 244). The actual content of the basileia is the rule of the sage, seen as the true king (see above ct. 1 (c)). The result of this shift of meaning was that the eschatological character of the term as used in the OT was inevitably lost. "The basileia constitutes a chapter in his moral doctrine. The true king is the Wise man" (K. L. Schmidt, TDNT 1576). Josephus does not speak of basileus and basileia, but of hegemon, governor, and hegemonia, direction, administration (cf. A. Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott ?, 1910, 11 f.; for these terms in the NTàCaesar, art. hegemon).
NT In the NT basileia is used more frequently than hasileus and basileuii (cf. above OT introductory paragraph). Taking the words from this root together, we find
p.378
that they belong chiefly to the vocabulary of the Synoptic Gospels, In Matt.and LK. Acts basileus, and to an even greater extent basileia, play a positively decisive role. The two nouns are used only occasionally in Jn., The Pauline corpus, and the other NT epistles, but they come to the fore again in Rev. The vb. basileuo, on other hand, appears only occasionally in the Synoptic Gospels, though more often in Rev. It has its maximum theological significance in Paul (Rom., 1Cor.)
1. basileus in the NT follows closely the precedent set by the OT and Judaism in giving to God and Christ alone the full right to the title king. Human kings, by contrast, are generally regarded ats of limited importance.
(a) The earthly kings referred to are frequently those who set themselves against God and his Christ: Pharaoh (Acts 7:10: bleb. 11:23, 27); Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1 ff: Lk.1:5); Herod Antipas (Matt. 14:; Vlerod Agrippa 1 (Acts 12:1. 20): Herod Agrippa 11 (Acts 25:13 I. etc.); Aretas (2 Cor. 11:32); and the Roman emperor (I Tim. 2:2: I Pet. 2:13; Rev. 17:9 ff.). These rulers arc called "kings of the earth" (Matt.17:25; Acts 4:26; Rev. 1:5; 6:15); "kings of the Gentiles (Lk. 22:25): or "kings of the whole world" (Rev. 16:14: cr. Ps. 2:1 and 89:27; cf. TDNT.I 576 f.).
Just as the OT is at variance with oriental views of divine kingship, so the NT is opposed to Hellenistic and Roman ideas of this kind: the earthly king is not an incarnation of the deity, since no one but God or the messiah can occupy such a position. Thus in Rev., in sharp contrast to the presumptuous claims to divinity of Domitian. only God is recognized as king of the nations basileus ton ethnon (Rev. 15:3 v.l ), and only Christ as the king of kings, basileus basileon (Rev. 19:16; 17:14). The OT attitude to the great kings is found again in the NT with reeard to the "kings of the cast" (Rev. 16:12): the supremacy of God is asserted by making them a rod in his hand, only to destroy them at the last day if they do not submit to him in obedience (Rev. 17:2 It • 18:3 fl:: 19:18 1E; 21:24).
(b) Only àDavid and àMelchizedek receive a positive assessment, by contrast with the earthly kings mentioned otherwise in the NT: David, because as the king chosen by God (2 Sam. 7) he is the forefather of Jesus Christ (cf. Matt. 1 :6; Acts 13:22): Melchizedek. because as the priest-king of Salem (Gen. 14:18) he is the OT type of the high priesthood of Christ (Heb. 7:1 ff).
(c) Jesus "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3; Matt. 1:6) is described in the NT as the messianic King of the Jews (basileus ton Ioudaion) or king of Israel (basileus Israel) (à Israel, art. Israel NT). Son of David, King of the Jews. king of Israel arc messianic titles (àSon of God).
(i) The first thing we notice here is that these titles are used principally in the section of the Gospels portraying the trial before Pilate (Mk. 15; Matt, 27:Lk.23 Jn. 18f), and here exclusively on the lips of the Jewish opponents of Jesus. or of Pilate and his soldiers. basileus ton Ioudaion does not appear as a self-designation of Jesus. Thus Jesus was accused by the throng of saving that he was asked by Pilate, "Are you the king of the Jews?. (Mk 15:2 par. Matt, 27:11. Lk. 23:3). The people were confronted by Pilate with a decision: "Do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews ?” (Mk.15:9 par. Matt. 27:17: cf Lk. 23:17). And after the condemnation of Jesus, the solder mocked him in the praetorium with the words. "Hail. king of the Jews!”. (Mk. 15:18 par. Matt. 27:29). On the cross the inscription of the charge read "The
p. 379
King of the Jews " (Mk. 15:26 par. Matt. 27:37, Lk. 23:38, Jn. 19:19). Like the soldiers on guard (Lk. 23:37), the rulers of the people mocked as they passed by, -Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe" (Mk. 15:32 par. Matt. 27:42, Lk. 23:35).
(ii) if it is true, as the Roman inscription on the cross makes probable, that Jesus was condemned on a charge of claiming to he the messianic king of Israel, and if this claim is never found on the lips of Jesus, we may suppose that the basis of the charge is to be seen and found largely in the way Jesus behaved. (0. Cullmann regards the inscription as "almost irrefutable proof that Jesus in some way made himself the subject of his preaching on the Kingdom of God soon to come" [Salvation in History, 1967, 109; cf. The State in the New Testament, 1957, 8-49]) At any rate it is unlikely that the Jewish leaders acted out of pure malice in accusing Jesus of being a pretender to the throne, or that Pilate had no other intention in ordering the inscription on the cross than to make mock of Jewish messianism. (On the crucifixion of Jesusà Cross, art. stauros NT 1 ; on the trial of Jesus see D. R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography, from 1770 to the Present Day, 1971.) Rather we should note that Jesus himself saw his miracles of healing, his casting out of demons, and his preaching of the gospel to the poor as the fulfilment of Isaianic prophecies (Isa, 29:18 f.; 35:5 f.; 61:1 f.), and accordingly as messianic events (Matt. 11:2-6; Lk. 4:16.-77). Moreover, his two principal actions during the last days at Jerusalem-the entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21 :1-9; Mk. 11 :1-10; Lk. 19:28-38; Jn. 17:12-19) and the cleansing of the temple (Matt. 21 :12 I; Mk. 11 :15-19; Lk. 19:47 f.)—make it clear that Jesus knew himself to he the fulfiller of messianic prophecies (cf. Isa. 62:11: Zech. 9:9; 2 Ki. 9:13; Ps. 118:26; and Exod. 30:13; Lev. 1 :14; Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11 for OT allusions in these narratives).
(iii) It is also demonstrable that Jesus was confronted during his ministry with the question whether he was the messiah, when for instance in connection with the feeding of the five thousand the people wanted "to make him king" (Jn. 6:15). Similarly, in the "old reliable tradition" (W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment, 19612, I 1 1) John the Baptist's question (Matt. 11:3 par. Lk. 7:19 f.) used a term for the messiah which was not at all common among the Jews, "the coming one [ho erehomenos] (àCome, art. erchomai NT 3), in asking whether Jesus was he. Jesus' answer here is characteristic, in that he did not respond to the question directly with an open declaration of his messiahship. Instead he pointed to the fulfilment of Isaianic prophecies in veiled language that challenged the hearer to make up his mind (Matt. 11 :5 par. Lk. 7 :22). In view of the lowliness of Jesus the messiah, it is the visible messianic actions which retain more significance for the outsider. The fact that Jesus saw himself to,be the king of the Jews and messiah of his people, and yet concealed it in this way, is his "messianic secret" (on the question of Jesus' messianic consciousnessà Jesus Christ, art. Christos NT 5 and the literature under both Iesous and Christosàalso Secret).
The same point is brought out by the short answer of Jesus, recorded by all the evangelists, this n iegeis)" Pilate's question, whether he is the Kim! of the Jews: "You say so [sy Iegeis]” (Matt. 27:2; Mk. 15;2; Lk. 23;3). Only once did Jesus openly reveal this messianic secret, and that is in the trial before the Sanhedrin (Matt. 26:57-75; Mk. 14:53-72; Lk. 22:54-71). To the question of the high priest, "Are you the
p. 380
Christ ?" he replied unequivocally with the statement, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mk. 14:62; cf. Matt. 26:64; Lk. 22:69; on the son of man, à Son of God, art. hyios tou anthropou NT).
(iv) In the earliest Christian Writings outside the Synoptic tradition and John’s, Gospel, i.e. in Acts and the writings of Paul, there is no mention of “King of Israel” or "King of the Jews". Nevertheless, it can be seen from a passage like Acts 17:7 that Christians in Thessalonica were being denounced by the Jews for confessing allegiance to Jesus as another king (basilea heteron). There is a certain irony in the way the Jews accused Christians of opposing the quasi-divine claims of the Roman emperor. However, it is basically true to say that with the application of the messianic title Christ to Jesus, the proclamation of Jesus as king of Israel faded eventually into the background, giving way to a christological, sot eriological kerygma which focussed on theà Cross and à resurrection of Jesus (cf. Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:3 f.). (On the formation of the kerygma see C. H. Dodd , The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, 1936; "The Framework of the Gospel Narrative", New Testament Studies, 1953, 1-11; cf. the not altogether convincing critique by D. E. Nineham, "The Order of Events in St. Mark's Gospel — an Examination of Dr. Dodd's Hypothesis" in D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memoir of R. H. Lightfoot, 1955, 223-40; à Proclamation.).
(d) In his institutes of the Christian Religion 2, 15 Calvin expounded the three offices of Christ as à prophet, à priest and king, showing how these offices were anticipated by the corresponding figures in the OT and how they are appropriated by believers. The thought of the people of God sharing in kingship goes back to the OT. Exod. 19:6 contains the promise based on the à covenant : "And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests [basileia hierateuma] and a holy nation" (cf. Isa. 61:6). This thought is applied to Christian believers in Rev. 1:6 and 5:10 (where basi/eia is used in both cases). In the former passage it refers to believers in the present time; in the latter it is part of the "new song" of the saints before theà lamb.
The same thought occurs in 1 Pet. 2:9: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood [basileion hierateuma], a holy nation, God's own people that you maydeclare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (RSV). The word translated here as ”royal” basileion, can be taken of kings (cf. E. Best, I Peter, 1971, 107 f.). Although there is no actual accurrence of the word in this sense, Best holds that its form indicates
that such a meaning is possible. Moreover, it accords with the Targumic interpretation of Exod. 19:6 and the Christian tradition of Rev. 5:10, where the glorified saints "shall reign [basileusousin] on earth" (cf. Rev. 1:6).
The vb, basileuo, reign, is used of the reign of believers in Rom. 5:17 (where it is contrasted with the reign of death, cf. 5:14, 17,21 cf. also the reign of sin, Rom. 6:12); 1 Cor. 4:8 (here ironically of the lordly beh aviour of the Corinthians which, in fact, falls short of true reigning); and Rev. 20:4, 6; 20:5 (of the reign of the saint on the earth and in glory). For the idea of reigning expressed in other terms see Eph. 2:6; 2 Tim. 2:12; Jas. 2 ,:5 (cf. the third Beatitude "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth, Matt. 5:5;à Inheritance, art. Kleroo). For other
p. 381
Instances of basileuo see Matt. 2:22: Lk. 1;31; 9:14; 1 (Cor: 15:25 1 Tim. 6:15; :15, Rev.11:15,17; 19:6. See further J.H.Elliott, The Elect and the holy, Supplements to NovT 12, 1966; E. Best, "I Peter 2:4 10, A Reconsideration", NovT 11, 1969, 270-93.
(e) basilissa, queen, accurs only 4 times in the NT. Matt. and Lk. both record the saying about the qeen of the South in the context of the sign of à Jonah. “The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon,behold something greater than Solomon is here" (Matt. 12:42 par. Lk. 1 :31: cf. 1Ki. 10:1-10; 2 Chron. 9:1-12:à Solomon). Although Sheba is today identified with Arabia, Josephus connected the Queen of Sheba with Ethiopia (Ant. 2, 10, 2. 8, 6, 5 f.). Later Arabic legend made her Solomon's wife, and the Ethiopian royal line claims descent from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. In the NT she is an example to the Jews of the lengths to which a non-Jew might go in seeking wisdom. All the more reason have the Jews themselves cause to leave their ways, for paradoxically there is in Jesus the Galilean preacher "something greater than Siomon." Acts 8:27 might be regarded as an illustration of a similar response of a non-Jew. The Ethiopianà eunuch is described there as "a minister of Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, [who] had come to Jerusalem to worship." He too was a seeker. The episode is all the more pointed in the light of the persecution by the Jews which has just scattered the Jerusalem church (Acts 8:1), the eunuch's study of scripture (ha. 53:7 1.; Acts 8:32 1.), and the fact that he was a eunuch. By contrast Babylon who plays the queen is judged (Rev.18:7)
2. The use of basileia in the NT.
(a) General. For the earthly, human king there is a corresponding earthly, human kingdom. In this sense basileia means, according to context, the office of king (e.g. I.k. 19:12, 15; Rev. 17:12) and also the area governed, domain (e.g. Matt. 4:8 par. Lk. 4:5: Mk. 6:23; Rev. 16:10). In almost all these passages the earthly kingdoms stand in contrast-though this is often unexpressed to the basileia tou theou, kingdom God, since they are subject to “the god of this world", the diabolos, devil,à Satan (Matt. 4:8). In Matt. 12:26 There is even explicit mention of the basileia of the devil. This is particularly true with regard to the Roman Empire, described in Rev. expressly as the beast (Rev.13:1;à Animal, art. therion).
(b) Kingdom of God. Hebasileia tou theou, is a term of central importance onlywithin the Synoptic tradition. The form of the expression varies: Mk. and Lk.speak of the kingdom of God, while Matt. has kingdom of heaven and kingdom ofthe Father. Evidence that Mk. and Lk. preserve in basileia tou theou the older formJesus himself is provided by two observations. First, both the sayings source and Mk. have this formula in the places where Matt. speaks of the basileia tou auranon, kingdom of heaven (Mk. 1;15; Matt. 4:17; Lk. 6:20 par. Matt. 5:3). Secondly and more important, Matt. itself' contains four instances of the olderOrn of God (12:28; 19:34; 21;31; 21;43). Jesus probably, therefore, spoke exclusively of the basileia ttou theou. This is not to say that he never used a circumlocution for the divine name. It is exemplified by Matt. 5:4, where thepassive paraklethesontai, "they shall be comforted**, means that God will comfort them: and Lk. 16:9, where the plur. "they" i.e. the angels, will receive you into the
p.382
eternal habitations means that God will receive you (cf. also Lk. 12:20; 23:31) ([Ed.] The “they” in Lk 16:9 might, however, also be taken to refer to those benefited by the use of mammon.) Where basileia is used alone, without the addition of tou theou, it is qualified by its context : ten hetoimasmenen hymin baasileian, “the kingdom prepared for you” (Matt. 25:34; cf. 6:10); God will throw the sons of the kingdom into the outer darkness (Matt. 8:12; cf. Lk. 12:32;22:29).
(c) The Kingdom of God to come in the future. In order to understand Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom of God, it is best, in accordance with the apocalyptic, eschatological character of that proclamation, to start with those passages which deal with the coming of the Kingdom of God in the near future. Mk. 1:15 records the theme of Jesus' preaching in a pregnant sentence: "The kingdom of God has come near [engiken he hasileia tort theou] (cf. Matt. 3: 2; 5:17). The same theme is found in other places: "The kingdom of God is near [engys estin}" (Lk. 21:31;
Goal, art. eng)%c); it "is coming [er•hetai]" (Lk. 17:20; Conte, art. erchomai,NT 3). Thus Jesus did not preach that there was a kingdom of God to which one must confess allegiance (cf. Rab. Judaism, see above OT 4 (a)), but that the rule of
God is coming.
Just as when the fig-tree puts out leaves summer is known to be near, so the events of the present guarantee that God's rule will soon break in on the world (Matt. 24:32 f.: Mk. 13:28 f.; Lk. 21: 29 ff.; , Fruit, art. syke). It is to this sudden, unexpected irruption of the kingdom of God that Jesus' parables of the Parousia point: the sudden coming of the flood (Matt. 24:37 ff. ; Lk. 17:26 fr.; Noah), the unexpected entrance of the burglar (Matt. 24:43 f.; Lk. 12 : 39 f.), the surprise of the doorkeeper and the servant at the homecoming of their master (Matt. 24:45 ff.; cf. Lk. 12:42-6), the sudden arrival of the bridegroom (Matt. 25:1-13). All these are pictures of the sudden irruption of the catastrophe, of the eschatological crisis which is impending a short time ahead: "Truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power" (Mk. 9:1; cf. Matt. 16:28; Lk. 9:27).
For Jesus the advent of the kingdom was so imminent that he vowed not to "drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" (Lk. 22 :18; cf. Mk. 14:25). The Parousia (-÷ Present) of the Son of man will take place even before the disciples have finished proclaiming the kingdom of God in Israel (Matt. 10 : 23). From these references it may be concluded that Jesus proclaimed the imminent advent of the kingdom of God within the lifetime of his hearers' generation (Mk. 9:1: 13:30). (On the interpretation of this Generation, art. genea NT ; Present).
(d) The Kingdom of God in the present. Although for 'Jesus the realization of God's rule is still in the future, its urgent proximity already casts its shadow over the present: "if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt. 12:28; cf. Lk. 11 : 20) The casting out of => demons reveals that the devil has been bound b one stronger than he (Matt. 12:29:Mk. 3:27; Lk. 11:21). The disarming of => Satan, an event which the Jews expected in the end-time (SB I 167 f.), has taken place (Lk. 10:18); in the works of Jesus the kingdom of God is already a present reality.
To the Pharisees' question, "When is the kingdom of God corvine?". Jesus can therefore answer, "The kingdom of God is in the midst of you" ( Lk. 17:20 f.: not
p.383
as AV within you"). (On the prep. entos used here see Arndt, 268 f. and the literature there referred to.) Because the kingdom is already present, the friends of bridegroom cannot fast (Mk. 2:19; cf. Matt. 9:15: Lk. 5:34); and it is the Father’s good pleasure. eudokesen (aorist). to give Jesus' disciples (the "little flock”) the kidngdom (Lk. 12:32). With the appearance of John the Baptist, according to an early logion, the era of the old revelation of God came to an end, and at the same time the new era began.The kingdom of God, already present, is "violently assaulted [biazetai]" (Matt. 11:12 f.: cf. Lk. 16:16). "The allusion may be to the opposition of Satan and evil spirits to the Kingdom, or to the violence of Herod Ataipas to John: but a more likely explanation is that the reference is either to zealots who try to bring in the Kingdom by employing force against the Romans or to Jewish antagonists of Jesus who continue to persecute Christians" (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew. 1972. 200).
(e)The Kingdom of God and the person of Jesus: an eschatology in process of realization. In comparing the eschatology of Jesus with that of Judaism, it is not sufficient to characterize the former as the ultimate extreme of imminent expectation. Of far more importance is Jesus' claim that the verdict to be passed on men in the final judgment is already determined by the attitude they adopt to himself in the present age. "Every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 10:32; cf. Lk. 12:8). He who hears the words of Jesus and does them will survive the eschatological crisis. The unrepentant cities, on the other hand, will be condemned, because in spite of the "mighty works" done inthem by Jesus (Matt. 11 : 21 ff. : cf. Lk. 10 :13 ff.), they have not repented. Jesus himself will appear as the eschatological judge (Matt. 25:31). He will disown those who merely say "Lord, Lord" (Matt. 7:23; cf. Lk. 13:27). and plead before the Father the cause of those who have confessed him (Matt. 10:32: cf. Lk. 12:8). A man's final destiny is decided by the attitude he adopts to Jesus' word and action (Matt. 7:24-27; cf. Lk. 6:47 ff.). in other words by his attitude to Jesus himself. Forth's present age, marked as it is by the activity and preaching of Jesus, bears a special relation to the coming day of à judgment. The new and distinctive factor, compared with the Rab. view of the kingdom of God, is nbt simply that it is coming, but that it is inextricably bound up with the person of Jesus. As W. G. Kamm' puts it, "It is the person of Jesus whose activities provoke the presence of the eschatological consummation and who therefore stands at the centre of his ttehatological message" (op. cit., 108). The future rule of God has already in the person of Jesus become a reality in word and deed. The coming, imminent kingdom of God is already present in him. The interpretation of this teaching has led to radically divergent theses in the course of theological discussion. ( For a more detailed oresehatological interpretationàPresent: The Parousia and Eschatology in the NT.)
The school of Ritschl regarded the kingdom of God in the present as an ethical Which produces a moral society. Ritschl discarded apocalyptic, eschatological expectation as an outdated relic of Judaism. Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer took the opposing view known as “consistent eschatology" or "thorough going eschatology". They rightly pointed out that Jesus himself linked his message with Jewish apocalyptic by making its central theme the announcement that the end of the world was impending (A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus,
p.384
(1910) 1954. See especially ch. 19 on “Thoroughgoing Scepticism and Throughgoing Eschatology", 328-95). According to Schweitzer, the distinctively new element in the preaching of Jesus. as compared with apocalyptic, is the nearness of the world catastrophe.
In contrast to this solution offered by "consistent eschatology". a large proportion of scholars in the English-speaking world have, under the influence of C. H.Dodd, completely eliminated “futurist eschatology" from the proclamation, seeing it as a product of re-Judaizing within the Christian community, and speak of “realized eschatology” in Jesus' preaching. In view of the presumed Aramaic original Dodd translates Mk 1:15 as "The kingdom of God has come” (The Parables of the Kingdom,1935, 44). He has thus reinstated an important element in Jesus' prodamafion of the kingdom of God, as against the views of A. Schweitzer„ though he too has over-emphasized one side. Dodd subsequently modified his was of describing his understanding of NT eschatology. He came to speak of "an eschatology that is in process of realization", a view which comes close to that of J. Jeremias (The Parable's of Jesus, 19632, 230; cf. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, 447),
Rudolf Bultmann is in basic agreement with Schweitzer's "consistent eschatology-. "There can be no doubt that Jesus like his contemporaries expected a tremendous eschatological drama" (Jesus and the Word, 1935, 38). However. Bultmann attempts by means of his existential interpretation to distill from the mythical, apocalyptic future hope of Jesus the real meaning in existential terms. For him the expectation of the end of the world as a future event in time is an expression of the conviction that it is in the present moment that man is faced %% ith a decision. Thus "every hour is the last hour" (op. cit., 52; cf. History and Evehotology, [1957] 1962, 154 1). The true meaning of the eschatological preaching of Jesus concerning the impending kingdom of God lies, according to Bultmann, in the assertion that man is faced with a decision. "The future Kingdom of God, then, is not something which is to come in the course of time, so that to advance its coming one can do something in particular, perhaps through penitential prayers and good works, which become superfluous in the moment of its coming. Rather, the Kingdom of God is a power which, although it is entirely future, wholly determines the present- (op. cit., 51).
Against this view it must be maintained that it is not the purposef Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God simply to call men to repentance and face them with a decision. At the centre of Jesus' message is the proclamation of the urgent proximity of God's kingdom, the announcement that God is about not inaugurate his world-wide reign. Repentance and decision are consequences, but not the actual theme of Jesus' proclamation of the impending kingdom (cf. Matt. 3:2. 4:17). The fact that Jesus averted a question which sought an apocalyptic timetable (Lk. 17:20 f.) must not be interpreted as an indication that the announcement I the kingdom of God is concentrated in the existential meaning.
Jesus, therefore, preached the kingdom of God neither solely as a present reality, nor exclusively as a future event. Rather, he was aware that the future rule of God was present in his actions and in his person. He spoke, therefore, of the future kingdom, which would suddenly dawn, as already realizing itself in the present. Thus the nature of Jesus “eschatology is probably best described by the expression
p.385
“an eschatology in process of realization" E. Haenchen quoted by J. Jeremias. Op.cit., 230). For the connection between the proclamation of the kingdom of God and the Son of man sayings, Son of God, art hyios tau anthropau.
3 The Kingdom of God in the preaching of Jesus.
(a) As depicted in the preaching of Jesus, the kingdom of God may be characterized as being "opposed to every- thing present and earthly to everything here and now. It is thus absolutely miraculous- (K. L. Schmidt. TDAT 1584). Man can, therefore, neither hasten the coming of the kingdom of God by doing battle with God's enemies (as the Zealots hoped), nor force it to appear by scrupulous observation of the law (as the Pharisees hoped). He can only await its coming in patience and confidence. as in the parables of the mustard seed (Man. 13:31 1: Mk. 4:30 ff.). the leaven Matt. 13:33), and the seed growing secretly ( Mk. 4:26-29).
(b) This kingdom is coming in the form of a cosmic catastrophe (Lk. 17:26: Mk. 13: 26; 14:62), ushered in by the appearance of the àSon of man. Jesusthus aligned himself, not with the concept of an earthly, nationalistic messiah, but with the apocalyptic tradition in Judaism with its expectation of the Son of man. At the same time he avoided describing events in detail, although he clearly used apocalyptic imagery (e.g. the heavenly feast in the kingdom of God. Mk. 14:25: Matt. 8:11). Also connected with this toning down of apocalyptic ideas is Jesus' rejection of all attempts to discern signs of the end : "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed" (Lk. 17:20).
(c) Although Jesus shared with apocalyptic writers a cosmic, universal type eschatology, in contrast to the political and nationalistic concept of the messiah, he nonetheless upheld the OT doctrine of election (Matt. 10:6) with the associated belief that it is the will of Yahweh to reach the whole world through the nation of àIsrael. This is not to say that Israel has a special claim on God's favour. Indeed. Israel is in danger of being put to shame by the heathen on the day of judgment (Matt. 12:42 par. Lk. 11:31). The kingdom will be taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles Matt. 21:43). God will cast the sons of the kingdom (Israel) into outer darkness (Matt. 8:12: cf. Lk. 13:28). But Jesus promised the Twelve (àApostle), as the representatives of the eschatological people of God, the office of judges and rulers in the future kingdom of God (Matt. 19:28 Lk.22:28 ff.: cf. Mk. 10:35-45).
(d) The facts that the kingdom is the gift of God (Lk. 12 32) and that it is appointed to men (diatithemi) by à covenant (Lk. 22:29) have their counterparts in the teaching that a person can only receive it like a child (Mk. 10:15 par. Lk. 18:17: cf. Matt. 18:3; Jn. 3:3) and that it is something for which one must wait (Mk. 15:43 par. Lk. 23:51). Particularly frequent is the metaphor of entering (eiserchesthai) the kingdom of God (Matt. 5:20: 7:21; 18:3; 19:23 f.: 23:13; Jn. 3:5). Entry into the kingdom in the fullest sense lies in the future (Matt. 25:34; Mk. 9:43 ff.). But the presence of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus faces the individual with a clear-cut decision. The Yes or No nature of this situation is illustrated by the hyperbole of Jesus: "lf your right hand causes you to sin, cut it of and throw it away; it is better to lose one of your members than let your whole body go into hell" (Matt. 5:30: cf. 18:8 11; Mk' . 9:43-48). Some have even made themselvesàeunuchs for the kingdom's sake (Matt. 19:12). "No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God" (Lk. 9:62). The decision is
p.386
not a result of mere enthusiasiasm; it is to be made after careful previous consideration ( Lk. 14:28-32) and in obedience to Jesus' word (Matt.7:24-27). But when it is made, it involves a readiness for sacrifice which may mean self-denial to the point of being hated by one’s own family (Matt. 10:17 ff., 37). Yet the decision is not born of a rigid fanaticism, but against a background of overwhelming joy at the greatness of God's gifts (cf. the parables of the hidden treasurersnd the Pearl of great price. Matt. 13:14 16).
(e) The kingdom of God is utterly transcendent and supernatural: it comes from above, from God alone. When God's kingdom comes,. the hungry will be filled and the sad will be comforted (cf. the Beatitudttes, Matt 5: 3-10; Lk.6:20ff) It demands that men should love their enemies (Matt. 5:38-42; LK.6:27f., 32-36), and they will be as free from care as the birds of the air and the lilies of the field (Matt. 6:25-33: Lk. 12:22-31). Here again it is Jesus himself, in whom alone the future kingdom of God is present, in whose words and deeds that kingdom has already appeared. It has come already, in that Jesus seeks out the company of tax-collectors and sinners, offering them fellowship at table and so promising them forgiveness of their sins. As the king invites to his feast the beggars and homeless (Matt. 22:1-10), as the father's love receives back again the prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-32), as the shepherd goes out after the lost sheep (Lk. 15:4-7), as the woman searches for the lost coin (Lk. 15:8-10), as the master out of the goodness of his heart pays the labourers hired at the last hour the full day's pay (Matt. 20:1-15), so Jesus goes to the poor to give them the promise of forgiveness, "for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:3). Only sinners, who know what it is like to have a great burden ofà guilt (Lk. 7:41-43), can appreciate the remission of sins through the goodness of God. For "those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick" (Mk. 2:17; cf. Matt. 9:12; Lk. 5:31).
The distinctive feature of Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God is not therefore that he brought a new doctrine of the kingdom, or that he revolutionized people's apocalyptic and eschatological expectations, but that he made the kingdom of God inseparable from his own person. The new thing about Jesus’s preaching of the kingdom is "He himself, simply his person" (J. Schniewind).
4. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Christ outside the preaching of Jesus. (a) The Kingdom of Christ. Jesus himself spoke only of the basileia tou theou, the kingdom of God, which he tied up inextricably with his own person. Only in this sense did he declare it to be already y present. After the resurrection the church, convinced that he had been exalted to the status of àLord (krrios, Phil. 2:9-11: Acts 2:36), maintained Jesus' christological emphasis in the preaching of the kingdom, and accordingly went on to speak of the basileia of Christ. They thus preserved the christological interpretation which Jesus had given to the kingdom of God, i.e. the inseparable connection between Jesus and the kingdom: only in himself is the kingdom of God present.
Where we read of the basileia of Christ we are dealing with the language of the early church. This is shown. not only by the fact that the "conception of the Kingdom of Christ is foreign to the oldest stratum of tradition" (J. Jeremias. Op.cit.,82), but also by the observation that the majority of texts which speak of the basileia of Christ may be recognized as redactional adaptations of an older original. Mk. 9:1 is older than Matt. 16:28; and Mk.10:37 is older than Matt. 20:21
p.387
basileia tou hyou tou anthropou in Matt. 13:41 is an expression peculiar to Matt. and if found otherwise only at Matt.16:28. The subordinate clause "that you may eat and drink in my kingdom” in Lk. 22:30 is lacking in the Matthaean parallel, Matt. 19:28.
This redaction of older versions is a legitimate development. Thus according to in 18:36, Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world”. Likewise 2 Tim. 4:18 speaks of the confidence of being delivered from every kind of live and of being “saved for his heavenly kingdom [eis ten basileian autou epouranion]" (cf. 2 Tim. 4:1: 2 Pet. 1 :11). The inseparable connection between the person of Jesus and the presence of God's kingdom is expressed most clearly of all when Jesus Christ himself becomes an equivalent for "kingdom of God", as is shown by the following comparisons. Whereas Joseph of Arimathea was waiting for "the kingdom of God" (Mk. 15:43), believers are awaiting "their Lord" (Phil. 3:20). Whereas Jesus' message may be summed up as "The kingdom of God is at hand [engiken he basileia tou theou]" (Mk. 1:15), James says, "The coming of the Lord is at hand [he parousia tou kyriou engiken]" (Jas. 5:8). The disciple forsakes his family for Jesus' sake (heneken emou, Mk. 10:29) or for the sake of the kingdom of God (heneken ten basileias tou theou, Lk. 18:29). This presentàgeneration is to see the coming of "the kingdom of God" (Mk. 9:1), or of "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:28; cf. also Lk. 21 :31 and Mk. 13:29). In Samaria Philip preached "good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8 :12: cf. 28:31).
The phrase "basileia of Christ" and the equation of "kingdom of God” with Jesus Christ are thus seen to be the result of the change-over from an implicit to an explicit christology. They make it clear that Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God was in no way displaced in the early church by the proclamation of Jesus Christ. The post-resurrection christology, in which Jesus Christ is the centre of the kerygma, is rather the outcome of the realization that the kingdom of God is present only in the person of Jesus Christ, so that one can only properly speak of the kingdom of God by speaking of Jesus Christ. Since the kingdom is bound up with the person of Jesus, the good news which Jesus preached of the dawning of God's kingdom becomes, after Easter, theàgospel of Jesus Christ and the proclamation of his kingdom.
(b) Jesus' proclamation of the kinadom of God and the kerygma outside the synoptic tradition. The kingdom of God, which is the central concept in the preaching of Jesus, has only a peripheral place outside the Synoptic Gospels. In its place we find the christological kerygma of theà cross andà resurrection of Jesus, the expectation of the Parousia and the general resurrection of the dead, and the use of terms such as à life (zoe. in Jn.) andà righteousness (dikaiosyne, in Paul). Is there a logical sequence from Jesus' preaching of the kingdom to the christological kerygma and the Pauline doctrine of justification ?
At this point a survey of the synonyms used in the synoptic tradition for the term basileia tou theou is illuminating. Matt. 6:33 says that men are to seek thebasileia of God and his dikaiosyne; in the par. Mk. 9:42-48 we find instead nextto one another the expressions eiselthein eis ten zoen, to enter life (Mk. 9:43, 46:cf. Matt. 7:13) and eiselthein eis ten basileian tou theou, to enter the kingdom ofGod (Mk. 9:47). Following the question of the rich young man. "What must I do
p.388
to inherit eternal life [zoen aionion]? (Mk. 10:17), Jesus remarks in conversation with his disciples "How hard it will be for those who have richerhes to enter the kingdom of God [ten basileian tou theou]! “The phrase "to inherit eternal life” (Mk. 10:17) has a counterpar in “to inherit the Kingdom prepared for you [by God] (Matt. 25:34). Paul says at Rom. 15: 17 (it must be Rom 14:17 (has150310): The Kingdom of God …is righteousness and peace and Joy in the Holy Spirit (dikaiosyne kai eirene kai chara en pneumati hagio). Likewise in Rev. 12:10 we find he soteria (salvation), he dynamis (power) and he basileia tou theou linked together. In place of the request for seats "in your glory [en te doxe sou)". Mk..10. :37) the par. Matt. 20:21 has a request for seats "in your kingdom [en to basileia sou]" . Lk. 21:31 refers to the nearness of God's kingdom, whereas a few verses earlier Jesus declares, "Raise your heads, because your redemption [apolytrosis] is drawing near" (Lk. 21:28).
The Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-10; cf. Lk. 6:20 ff.) which promise God's salvation to the poor, the parables of the Kingdom which testify to God's mercy towards sinners (Matt. 22:1-10; Lk. 15:11-32; 15:4-7, 8-10), and finally the synonyms for kingdom of God to be found within the synoptic tradition itself (àRighteousness, àLife,à Redemption, àGlory), all go to demonstrate that the future kingdom of God, already present in the person of Jesus, is God's saving activity towards the individual. This saving activity of God, which is tied to Jesus and mediated by him alone, is likewise at the centre of the kerygma outside the synoptic tradition. Thus John speaks of eternal life (zoe aionios, Jn. 3:15, 36 etc.), referring to the goal of salvation, while Paul speaks of the righteousness, life or redemption which is given in Christ. In the writings of Paul and John these terms are to be understood with strict reference to christology (cf. "I am the resurrection and the life" [Jn. 11:25; cf. 3:15]; and the Pauline "in Christ", especially in Rom. 6). When in Rom. 4:5 Paul declares that the righteousness of God consists in "justifying the ungodly", he is taking up the central concern of Jesus' preaching of the kingdom, namely the promise of salvation to the poor and the sinners. The futurist eschatology in the preaching of Jesus is likewise retained in the expectation of his Parousia and the general resurrection of the dead. Pauline theology which is a development of christology contains, like the preaching of Jesus, both a present and a future element, since the crucified and risen one is also the one who is to come. By tying salvation to the person of Jesus and by developing christology along the lines of soteriology, pneumatology and eschatology, Paul has maintained a consistent and legitimate extension of Jesus' preaching of the kingdom of God, although he has adapted this to the post-resurrection situation as regards the cross and resurrection.
(c) Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Christ. Evidence that the kingdom of Jesus Christ is in the NT view the same as the kingdom of God is also to be seen in the fact that in parts of the NT outside the synoptic tradition both expressions are found together, sometimes God being named first, and sometimes Chris. Thus it is equally acceptable to speak of the kingdom of Christ and of God”, (Eph. 5:5) and of the world dominion "of our Lord and of his Christ” (Rev. 11 :15,)' The rule of Christ and the rule of God are in other words identical. When the rule of Christ has become established, it is taken up into the rule of God (Rev. 5:10; 2:4,6; 22:5); at the end of time Christ hands back to the Father the kingdom he has received from him (1 Cor. 15:24-28)
p.389
John's prophecy of the saints reigning a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-7) is, from the point of view of histotical criticism (Traditionsgeschiehte), an interpretation of the apocalyptic motif of a messianic kingdom as a period preceding the final realization of the kingdom of God. The doctrine of the millennium represents a coming together of the two parallel kinds of eschatology current in 1st century Judaism: the nationalistic, messianic eschatology, and the cosmic, universal view. The length of this messianic reign as a period preceding the kingdom of God is variously given in Jewish apocalyptic writings. The rule of Christ and the rule of God are not, however, two kingdoms following one another in succession, but one kingdom of Christ which issues finally in the kingdom of God. (On the interpretations of pre-millenarianism, post-millenarianism and amillenarianism àChiliasm in the Glossary of Technical Terms, and à Number, art. chilias.) B. Klappert
àCaesar, àParable,à Present
Source : THE NEW INTERNNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. VOL. 2
basileia (basileus) ruler,king: basileia (basileia), kingship, kingly rule, kingdom; basileuw (basileuo) to be king, rule: sumbasileuw (symbasileuo), share the rule; basileioz (basileios), royal: basilikoz (basilikos), royal, kingly; basilissa (basilissa), queen.
CL 1. The noun busileus occurs as early as Linear B, and is originally a general term for a ruler; later more specifically a king,.
(a) In Mycenaean Gk. basileus does not mean sovereign of a state, but a subordinate prince or leader: the king is here the anax, i.e. divine ruler. The title anax and the ideas that went with it disappeared with time, and basileus took on the meaning of king in this sense (cf. T. B. L. Webster, From Mycenae to Homer, 1958).
(b) In Homer basileus is used of an hereditary, legitimate rule,whether his sphere of influence be great or small. Thus Odysseus can be describe as a basileus in Ithaca. The power of the king, from Homer onwards, is traced back to Zeus, and the king described as "nourished by Zeus [diotrephes]” (cf Homer, II,196). Hesiod extols the king's wisdom and competence to judge, and makes him inspired by the Muses (Theogonia 886).
(c) After monarchy had given place to the rule of a aristocracy, and then in various Greek cities one of the nobles set himself up as monarchi, a new term came into being for those who ruled in this fashion , tyrannos, one who has gained the rule by illegitimate means. Nothing Derogatory is implied by this term about the way the rule is exercised. Not until the “ Slaying of the tyrants “ (511 B.C in Athens ) and the subsequent glorification of those reponsible . Harmodioss and Aristogeiton does the word tyrannos take on a negative meaning, and the term basileus, which has no logger no longer any more than a marginal place in Greek political life, re-emerge as the title of a just and legal ruler. Plato in particular took this view, with his strong condemnation of the tyrant and his moral upgrading of the basileus by the requirement that kings should be philosophers and philosophers kings (Republic, 5, 473 d :Politicus 292e: cf. Aristotle. Politics 3, 1284a, 13).
(d) The Hellenistic concept of divine kingship is not derived from Plato. The development is adequately explained by the political tradition of the Macedonian monarchy and of the divine kingship of the Achaemenidae, and the overshadowing of both by the personality of Alexander the Great (1356-323 a.c) The special names of the Diadochoi, e.g. “benefactor”, euergetes, serve in the process of eliminating rivals, and are to be understood as devine attributes. One of the Diadochoi. Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Syria (c.215-163 B.C), became as a result of his attempt to force Hellenization on the Jews a symbol of man’s opposition to
373
God (on the erection of an altar to Zeus in the temple at Jerusalem. (Mrk 13:14. Abomination of Desolation)
(e) The Hellenistic idea of divine kingship originating with Alexander the Great was revived again in the Roman emperor cult. It was only by taking over the Hellenistic concept of the incarnation of divinity in the emperor that Augustus(63.B.C.A.D. 14) was able to comprehend in his own person the imperium as a single whole, a unification for which there was neither national nor cultural precedent. The effect of the confession Kyrios Iesous used by the Christians in proclaiming Jesus as the Lord, was to destroy this vital ideology of the Roman Imperium, and the reaction it called forth was the persecution of Christians during the first three centuries (=>Confess). (On ruler worship in the Roman Empire see H. Lietrmann. The Beginnings of the Christian Church, 1949, 163ff.)
2. The abstract noun basileia is of later origin than basileus, and is attested first in Hdt. 1, 11 (in the Ionic form basileie).
(a) The original meaning of the term basileia is the fact of being king, the position or power of the king, and it is best translated office of king, kingly rule (e.g. Aristotle. Politics 3, 1 285b, 20).
(b) Besides this meaning there is a second meaning which emphasizes the geographical aspect of basileia: for the status of a king is shown by the area over which he reigns. basileia assumes therefore the meaning kingdom, signifying the state or area over which a king reigns (P.Oxy 1257, 7).
3. The vb. basileuo (Homer) means: (a) to be king, to reign (e.g. Homer, II. 2, 203: Od. 2, 47): (b) inceptive: to become king, to begin to reign (Hdt. 2, 2). The vb. symbasileuo expresses the idea of ruling with (cf. Polyb. 30, 2, 4). The adjectives basileios and basilikos (Hdt., Aesch.) both express that which appertains to a king: royal. Finally the fem. term for king must be mentioned, basilissa, queen. This superseded the Attic forms basilis and basileia, and is found in the comic poet Alcaeus and in Xenophon, Oeconomicus 9, 15, and frequently in later writers (e.g. Philo and Josephus).
OT In the LXX the words of this root are very frequent, mostly as translations of Heb. derivatives of the root malak, to be king, to reign. In contrast to the NT (see below NT introductory paragraph), the term basileus, which appears frequently in almost all the books and especially in the historical writings, is far and away the most common. basileia occurs comparatively rarely (400 times) and not until Daniel does it begin to have a meaning of its own beside basileus. It is also important to observe that the words are used first and foremost for earthly kings and their secular government, and only secondarily of Yahweh's kingship. This means that the concept of Yahweh's kingly rule can only be presented in connection with the Israelite monarchy.
1. (a) From the conquest onwards, all the peoples with whom Israel came in contact had kings. Israel herself did not adopt monarchy as an institution until relatively late. This is all the more surprising in view of the fact that the Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites, who conquered their own territories during the same Period as Israel, went over to government by a national monarchy soon after their settlement. The Israelites, on the other hand, continued for two centuries after the conquest of Canaan to function as a sacred confederation of tribes with a central
p. 374
sanctuary Israel’s initial hesitation to adopt the institution of monarchy is bound up with the concept of the holy war, wich Yahweh himself conduct on Israel’s behalf (Exod. 14:14; Jos.23:10: Jdg.7:22:Cf.G. von Rad……) Yahweh himself is seen as commander-in-Chief of the Israelite army, and as the on to whom the land uncondicionally belongs.
(b) Israel’s constant harassment by the occasional subjection to the philistines was the surface reason for the introduction of the monarchy. According to the older tradition (1 Sam.9:1-10; 16:11:1-11, 14f) Yahweh himself took the iniciative in view of political extremity of his people, and had Saul the benjaminite anointed King by Samuel (1Sam.9:16). Along side this positive assessment of the monarchy, there was from the very beginning a rejection of it on the ground of the theocratic lordship of Yahweh. This view flourished particularly in the northern kingdom. Thus there is a line stretching from Gidion of manasseh (“I will not rule over you… Yahweh will rule over you” [Jdg. 8:23]), trough Hosea the last prophet of the northern kingdom with his anti-monarchical tendency (Hos.3:4, 7:3,13:10f). to the Deuteronomistic account of the setting up of the monarchy in Israel (1Sam.8:1-22a, 10:17-27). Here the demand of the people “appoint for us a king to govern us like all the nations”, received the answer from Yahweh “They have rejected me from being king over them” (1Sam.8:5-7). The juxta position of the two accounts, one positive and the other critical, of the introduction of the monarchy (1Sam.8-12), makes clear the problem wich beset the Israelite monarchy from the outset. On the one hand it was seen as Yahweh’s gift: on the other as his rival.
(c) Of decivise significance for the Judean monarchy was the religious ratification it received through Nathan’s prophetic promise to=>David (2 Sam.8:1-11b, 16). The house of David is here promised everlasting duration (verse 16). Because of this Davidic=>covenant,the right of David’s hereditary successors to kingdom of Judah was never called in question. The dynasty assured of continuance despite all the ups and downns which the throne underwent. By contrast the monarchy of the northern kingdom, after the non-renewali under Jeroboam I of the union with Judah ( 1 Ki.12: 1ff.), never achieved the stability of the Davidic dynasty. Here the old ideal of charismatic leadership,as it had been known in Israel’s formative period, lived on According to it, only Yahweh’s call fitted anyone for the office of ruler.
Another feature of the theology of kingship in judah, in contrast to the Egyptian concept of a king who is divine by nature, is the adoption of the ruler as the son of Yahweh. This was celebrated at the festival of enthronement and hymned in the royal Psalms (e.g. Ps. 2:7;45:7;110:1). However, the less the kings of Judah in their historical reality measured up to the standards set forth in the theology of kingship, the more strongly did the expectation of an eschatological messianic king develop,who would finally fulfil the prophecy of Nathan and the associated concept of kingship (Amos 9:11-15;but cf. Gen.49:8-12). Isaiah in particular, a prophet who had close associations wiyh the theology of kingship, prophesied of a branch of david that would bring in a new era of righteousness (Isa 11:1-9;9:2-7;cf. also the messianic prophecies of Mic. 5:2 ff; Jer.23:5f;Ezek.17:22 ff.;=> Jesus Christ,art,Christos or;=> Son of God, art.hyios David).
2. The kingship of Yahweh is an aspect of faith found neither in the wisdom
p.375
literature, the oral teaching of many of the prophets, nor in a considerable number or historical narratives. It is frequent, on the other hand, in the hymns of the psalter (the so-called enthronement-Psalms), later prophetic writings including the prophecies to the nations in Jeremiah (e.g. ier. 46: IS; 48:15: 51:57), and in the narrative Parts of the book of Daniel. Thus it tends to feature in the later parts of the OT. This suggests that the concept of yahweh’s, kingship was not a constitutive element in the original faith of Israel (cf. A.Alt. Kleine Schriften zur Gesehichte des Volkes Israel, I, 1968, 348) This is not to say that Israel did not from the first place herself under the ruleod Yahweh. On the contrary, faith in the absolute lordship of Yahweh within the tribal confederacy goes back to the days before the formation of a political State (see above l (a)).
(a) The earliest example of the title king being used of Yahweh is in the 8th century "MY eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts" (Isaiah 6:5). It is no coincidence that the title of king for Yahweh appears in the course of a vision which came to Isaiah in the central sanetuary at 4 Jerusalem. Texts discovered at Ugarit (in Syria) have revealed that in the Syro-Canaanite world there existed the idea of the "God most high" (cf. Gen. 14:18 f who bore the title of king (melek). The use of melek as a title for Yahweh has as its background the Syro-Canaanite world of ideas, and was probably originally drawn from the sacral traditions of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem and transferred to Yahweh there (Isa. 6:5). There is evidence of the existence of the molek cult (AV Molech, Moloch) among the original inhabitants of pre-Israelite Jerusalem (lev. 18:21; 2Ki. 23:10). Yahweh therefore would not have been described as melek before the time of the monarchy.
The divine title melek brought with it even in the Syro-Canaanite setting, a claim to universal authority which found expression particularly in lordship over the pantheon of gods. This universal claim is also reflected in the OT passages which talk about Yahweh the melek. Yahweh's kingship has a cosmic dimension: he is the creator of the world (cf. Pss. 24:I ; 93:1; 95;3 ff)”'.1; his kingdom rules over all the earth" (Ps. 47:2): he is the king of the nations (cf. Jer. 10: 7; Ps. 47: 3; 99: 2).
(b) In addition to this concept of Yahweh being king, we find the dynamic concept of Yahweh becoming king. This finds expression especially in the enthronement-Psalms in the cry "Yahweh has become King!" (Pss. 47:8; 93:1: 96:10; 97:1; 99:1). (Note: Eng. versions have "The Lord reigns" for this Heh. perfect.)
The inseparability of the two concepts "Yahweh is king" and "Yahweh has become king" becomes especially evident in the later chapters of Isah. Yahweh is King of Jacob" or "King of Israel" (Isa. 41:21; 44:6). Put in context of announcing the new exodus, a herald now brings to the city of Jerusalem the message: God reigns" (Isa. 52:7). The enthronement-Psalms do not primarily announce an eschatological event, but a present reality experienced in the cultic ceremony. The proclamation of the reign of Yahweh as an eschatological event is now associated with the historical act of the new exodus. It is not nature and the cycle of the seasons (as in Babylonia), but the historical actions of Yahweh which form the basis of his "enthronement". (On the much-debated theory of an enthronement-festival of Yahweh in Israel. cf. H.-J. Kraus. Psalmen. BKAT 15, I, 6XLIII; Excursus on Ps. 24, pp. 201 ff.: Might, art. thronos or 4)
(c) In the Judean messianic theology of kingship the lordship of Yahweh is combined with the hoped-for lordship of the messiah. Thus it is the same prophet,
p. 376
Isaiah of Jerusalem, who was the first to use the royal title for Yahweh and whoalmost always related it to the currently reigning son of David. Even the messianicprince of the future is for Isaiah no autocrat, but one who is appointed (sar, official, vizier) and receives his office from God (Isa.9:7; 11:1 f.). The rule of thefuture, messianic son of David is accordingly a delegated exercise of authority, representing the kingly rule of Yahweh.
The anti-monarchical bias of the northern kingdom (1 Sam. 8:7) stands in contrast to this, with a non-messianic eschatology (Hosea). This is also represented by Deutero-Isaiah who proclaimed from exile the kingship of Yahweh (Isa. 41:21; 44:6) and his eschatological enthronement (Isa. 52:7). Finally, in Ezekiel we find side by side the titles of king (Ezek. 37:24) and prince (Ezek. 37:24) for the messianic servant David.
3. The noun malekut is an early Heb. abstract noun with the meaning kingdom, reign. The reference is to power rather than to locality.
(a) The term malekut in the OT usually refers in a purely secular sense to political kingdoms (cf. 1 Sam. 20:31; 1 Ki. 2:12; 1 Chr. 12:23; 2 Chr. 11:17; Jer. 49:34; Dan. 9:1).
(b) Although the secular meaning of malekut is the most common one, there are occasional references to God's rule as his malekut, kingship, which he is presently exercising (Ps. 103:19; 145:11-13; Dan. 4:3). This is analogous to the use of melek, king, as an epithet of Yahweh.
(c) In later texts Yahweh's kingship is interpreted in an eschatological sense. The recognition begins to emerge of a kingdom of Yahweh at the end of time which breaks through all national barriers. One day Yahweh will rule over the whole earth. His throne will be in Jerusalem, and all nations will make their pilgrimage to Zion to worship him there (Isa. 24:23; Zech. 14 :9; Obad. 21). A characteristic of the eschatological expectation of the later prophets is that Yahweh's malekut is always presented as immanent (cf. G. von Rad, TDNT I 568 ff.).
(d) Finally, in Dan. 7, this immanent eschatology is elevated to a transcendent level, in the concept of the kingdom of the "son of man" (v. 13 f.) and the kingdom of "the saints of the Most High" (v. 27). The son of man (à Son of God, art. hyias tou anthropou) is an individual (v. 14) who represents the Most High (v. 27), as the king of Judah represented the people. In other words, when power is committed to the son of man, it is at the same time being given to the saints of the Most High. By these are meant the heavenly beings who surround God (M. Noth The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966, 215-28; cf. Ps. 89:5-7; Job 15:15; Deut. 33:2; Zech. 14:5). The transfer of power to the son of man, representing the saints of the Most High, takes place within the heavenly realm (v. 12: "with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man"), so that the earthly empires symbolized by the four beasts are replaced by the transcendent rule of the saints of the Most High represented by the son of man. In the idea that God has a definite plan for the world (the four empires in succession), and in the dualism of the four world empires seen as the era of the evil one as over against the kingdom of God seen as transcendent, we have already the most important elements of apocalyptic.
4. (a) The expression kingdom of heaven (malekut samayim; Gk. basileia ton ouranon) owes its origin to the endeavour of Rab. Judaism to find an alternative for the divine name in the phrase malekut YHWH (kingdom of Yahweh) by using
p.377
either sekinah, glory (Gk. doxa) or samayim, heaven (Gk. ouranos). Kingdom of heaven is therefore a term which implies the essential idea that "God rules as King". It is a Jewish expression which is purely theological in its reference.
Since the kingdom of heaven is not evident in this world, it is necessary to decide for or against it by a decision of will. The expression "to take upon oneself the yoke of the kingdom of Yahweh" means to confess allegiance to the one God as King (cf. SB1 173 ff.). The opportunity to accept or reject the kingdom will, however, come to an end when Yahweh reveals himself at the end of time. In the theology of Rab. Judaism the kingdom of God is a purely eschatological concept (K. G. Kuhn TDNT I 574).
(b) As happened earlier with the OT eschatology of the northern kingdom (see above 2 (c)), there is a tension in Judaism between the expectation of the messiah, as a nationalistic, Israelite king at the end of time, and the hope of the eschatological revelation of the kingdom of God. In the last days the messiah will come, ascend the throne of Israel, and subject to himself all the nations of the earth (cf. SB IV 968 f.). Not until then will the hitherto hidden kingdom of heaven emerge from the transcendent realm. But there is in Judaism no inner connection between the coming of the national messianic king and the coming of the rule of God. This is further confirmed by the fact that the people of Israel as such receives no mention in statements concerning the kingdom of God. Membership of the nation can no longer be a determining factor, when it is a personal decision before God that is required. Thus proselytes can also take upon themselves the "yoke of the kingdom of God" (SB I 176). It should be noted further that in Rab. literature the term kingdom of heaven is comparatively rare and that it does not carry the same theological significance that it does in the preaching of Jesus. This helps to explain why those Jews who thought along nationalistic lines in terms of a nationalistic kingly messiah were bewildered by Jesus, while in the apocalyptic circles the expectation of the kingdom of God continued to live on. In the Qumran writings there are occasional references to the kingdom of God, but the Essenes had no expectation of its coming.
(c) The Apocryphal writings of the LXX in general follow the OT pattern of thought about the kingdom of God. In some places, however, where there is no Heb. equivalent, we may detect Hellenistic influence. Thus the LXX can identify the basileia with the four cardinal virtues (4 Macc. 2:23), and in Wis. 6:20 we read, "The desire for wisdom leads to a kingdom.- This shift to an ethical meaning, in keeping with popular philosophy, is completed by Philo (cf. Migr.Abr.97;Abr. 261; Sacr. 49; Som. 2, 244). The actual content of the basileia is the rule of the sage, seen as the true king (see above ct. 1 (c)). The result of this shift of meaning was that the eschatological character of the term as used in the OT was inevitably lost. "The basileia constitutes a chapter in his moral doctrine. The true king is the Wise man" (K. L. Schmidt, TDNT 1576). Josephus does not speak of basileus and basileia, but of hegemon, governor, and hegemonia, direction, administration (cf. A. Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott ?, 1910, 11 f.; for these terms in the NTàCaesar, art. hegemon).
NT In the NT basileia is used more frequently than hasileus and basileuii (cf. above OT introductory paragraph). Taking the words from this root together, we find
p.378
that they belong chiefly to the vocabulary of the Synoptic Gospels, In Matt.and LK. Acts basileus, and to an even greater extent basileia, play a positively decisive role. The two nouns are used only occasionally in Jn., The Pauline corpus, and the other NT epistles, but they come to the fore again in Rev. The vb. basileuo, on other hand, appears only occasionally in the Synoptic Gospels, though more often in Rev. It has its maximum theological significance in Paul (Rom., 1Cor.)
1. basileus in the NT follows closely the precedent set by the OT and Judaism in giving to God and Christ alone the full right to the title king. Human kings, by contrast, are generally regarded ats of limited importance.
(a) The earthly kings referred to are frequently those who set themselves against God and his Christ: Pharaoh (Acts 7:10: bleb. 11:23, 27); Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1 ff: Lk.1:5); Herod Antipas (Matt. 14:; Vlerod Agrippa 1 (Acts 12:1. 20): Herod Agrippa 11 (Acts 25:13 I. etc.); Aretas (2 Cor. 11:32); and the Roman emperor (I Tim. 2:2: I Pet. 2:13; Rev. 17:9 ff.). These rulers arc called "kings of the earth" (Matt.17:25; Acts 4:26; Rev. 1:5; 6:15); "kings of the Gentiles (Lk. 22:25): or "kings of the whole world" (Rev. 16:14: cr. Ps. 2:1 and 89:27; cf. TDNT.I 576 f.).
Just as the OT is at variance with oriental views of divine kingship, so the NT is opposed to Hellenistic and Roman ideas of this kind: the earthly king is not an incarnation of the deity, since no one but God or the messiah can occupy such a position. Thus in Rev., in sharp contrast to the presumptuous claims to divinity of Domitian. only God is recognized as king of the nations basileus ton ethnon (Rev. 15:3 v.l ), and only Christ as the king of kings, basileus basileon (Rev. 19:16; 17:14). The OT attitude to the great kings is found again in the NT with reeard to the "kings of the cast" (Rev. 16:12): the supremacy of God is asserted by making them a rod in his hand, only to destroy them at the last day if they do not submit to him in obedience (Rev. 17:2 It • 18:3 fl:: 19:18 1E; 21:24).
(b) Only àDavid and àMelchizedek receive a positive assessment, by contrast with the earthly kings mentioned otherwise in the NT: David, because as the king chosen by God (2 Sam. 7) he is the forefather of Jesus Christ (cf. Matt. 1 :6; Acts 13:22): Melchizedek. because as the priest-king of Salem (Gen. 14:18) he is the OT type of the high priesthood of Christ (Heb. 7:1 ff).
(c) Jesus "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3; Matt. 1:6) is described in the NT as the messianic King of the Jews (basileus ton Ioudaion) or king of Israel (basileus Israel) (à Israel, art. Israel NT). Son of David, King of the Jews. king of Israel arc messianic titles (àSon of God).
(i) The first thing we notice here is that these titles are used principally in the section of the Gospels portraying the trial before Pilate (Mk. 15; Matt, 27:Lk.23 Jn. 18f), and here exclusively on the lips of the Jewish opponents of Jesus. or of Pilate and his soldiers. basileus ton Ioudaion does not appear as a self-designation of Jesus. Thus Jesus was accused by the throng of saving that he was asked by Pilate, "Are you the king of the Jews?. (Mk 15:2 par. Matt, 27:11. Lk. 23:3). The people were confronted by Pilate with a decision: "Do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews ?” (Mk.15:9 par. Matt. 27:17: cf Lk. 23:17). And after the condemnation of Jesus, the solder mocked him in the praetorium with the words. "Hail. king of the Jews!”. (Mk. 15:18 par. Matt. 27:29). On the cross the inscription of the charge read "The
p. 379
King of the Jews " (Mk. 15:26 par. Matt. 27:37, Lk. 23:38, Jn. 19:19). Like the soldiers on guard (Lk. 23:37), the rulers of the people mocked as they passed by, -Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe" (Mk. 15:32 par. Matt. 27:42, Lk. 23:35).
(ii) if it is true, as the Roman inscription on the cross makes probable, that Jesus was condemned on a charge of claiming to he the messianic king of Israel, and if this claim is never found on the lips of Jesus, we may suppose that the basis of the charge is to be seen and found largely in the way Jesus behaved. (0. Cullmann regards the inscription as "almost irrefutable proof that Jesus in some way made himself the subject of his preaching on the Kingdom of God soon to come" [Salvation in History, 1967, 109; cf. The State in the New Testament, 1957, 8-49]) At any rate it is unlikely that the Jewish leaders acted out of pure malice in accusing Jesus of being a pretender to the throne, or that Pilate had no other intention in ordering the inscription on the cross than to make mock of Jewish messianism. (On the crucifixion of Jesusà Cross, art. stauros NT 1 ; on the trial of Jesus see D. R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography, from 1770 to the Present Day, 1971.) Rather we should note that Jesus himself saw his miracles of healing, his casting out of demons, and his preaching of the gospel to the poor as the fulfilment of Isaianic prophecies (Isa, 29:18 f.; 35:5 f.; 61:1 f.), and accordingly as messianic events (Matt. 11:2-6; Lk. 4:16.-77). Moreover, his two principal actions during the last days at Jerusalem-the entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21 :1-9; Mk. 11 :1-10; Lk. 19:28-38; Jn. 17:12-19) and the cleansing of the temple (Matt. 21 :12 I; Mk. 11 :15-19; Lk. 19:47 f.)—make it clear that Jesus knew himself to he the fulfiller of messianic prophecies (cf. Isa. 62:11: Zech. 9:9; 2 Ki. 9:13; Ps. 118:26; and Exod. 30:13; Lev. 1 :14; Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11 for OT allusions in these narratives).
(iii) It is also demonstrable that Jesus was confronted during his ministry with the question whether he was the messiah, when for instance in connection with the feeding of the five thousand the people wanted "to make him king" (Jn. 6:15). Similarly, in the "old reliable tradition" (W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment, 19612, I 1 1) John the Baptist's question (Matt. 11:3 par. Lk. 7:19 f.) used a term for the messiah which was not at all common among the Jews, "the coming one [ho erehomenos] (àCome, art. erchomai NT 3), in asking whether Jesus was he. Jesus' answer here is characteristic, in that he did not respond to the question directly with an open declaration of his messiahship. Instead he pointed to the fulfilment of Isaianic prophecies in veiled language that challenged the hearer to make up his mind (Matt. 11 :5 par. Lk. 7 :22). In view of the lowliness of Jesus the messiah, it is the visible messianic actions which retain more significance for the outsider. The fact that Jesus saw himself to,be the king of the Jews and messiah of his people, and yet concealed it in this way, is his "messianic secret" (on the question of Jesus' messianic consciousnessà Jesus Christ, art. Christos NT 5 and the literature under both Iesous and Christosàalso Secret).
The same point is brought out by the short answer of Jesus, recorded by all the evangelists, this n iegeis)" Pilate's question, whether he is the Kim! of the Jews: "You say so [sy Iegeis]” (Matt. 27:2; Mk. 15;2; Lk. 23;3). Only once did Jesus openly reveal this messianic secret, and that is in the trial before the Sanhedrin (Matt. 26:57-75; Mk. 14:53-72; Lk. 22:54-71). To the question of the high priest, "Are you the
p. 380
Christ ?" he replied unequivocally with the statement, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mk. 14:62; cf. Matt. 26:64; Lk. 22:69; on the son of man, à Son of God, art. hyios tou anthropou NT).
(iv) In the earliest Christian Writings outside the Synoptic tradition and John’s, Gospel, i.e. in Acts and the writings of Paul, there is no mention of “King of Israel” or "King of the Jews". Nevertheless, it can be seen from a passage like Acts 17:7 that Christians in Thessalonica were being denounced by the Jews for confessing allegiance to Jesus as another king (basilea heteron). There is a certain irony in the way the Jews accused Christians of opposing the quasi-divine claims of the Roman emperor. However, it is basically true to say that with the application of the messianic title Christ to Jesus, the proclamation of Jesus as king of Israel faded eventually into the background, giving way to a christological, sot eriological kerygma which focussed on theà Cross and à resurrection of Jesus (cf. Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:3 f.). (On the formation of the kerygma see C. H. Dodd , The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, 1936; "The Framework of the Gospel Narrative", New Testament Studies, 1953, 1-11; cf. the not altogether convincing critique by D. E. Nineham, "The Order of Events in St. Mark's Gospel — an Examination of Dr. Dodd's Hypothesis" in D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memoir of R. H. Lightfoot, 1955, 223-40; à Proclamation.).
(d) In his institutes of the Christian Religion 2, 15 Calvin expounded the three offices of Christ as à prophet, à priest and king, showing how these offices were anticipated by the corresponding figures in the OT and how they are appropriated by believers. The thought of the people of God sharing in kingship goes back to the OT. Exod. 19:6 contains the promise based on the à covenant : "And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests [basileia hierateuma] and a holy nation" (cf. Isa. 61:6). This thought is applied to Christian believers in Rev. 1:6 and 5:10 (where basi/eia is used in both cases). In the former passage it refers to believers in the present time; in the latter it is part of the "new song" of the saints before theà lamb.
The same thought occurs in 1 Pet. 2:9: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood [basileion hierateuma], a holy nation, God's own people that you maydeclare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (RSV). The word translated here as ”royal” basileion, can be taken of kings (cf. E. Best, I Peter, 1971, 107 f.). Although there is no actual accurrence of the word in this sense, Best holds that its form indicates
that such a meaning is possible. Moreover, it accords with the Targumic interpretation of Exod. 19:6 and the Christian tradition of Rev. 5:10, where the glorified saints "shall reign [basileusousin] on earth" (cf. Rev. 1:6).
The vb, basileuo, reign, is used of the reign of believers in Rom. 5:17 (where it is contrasted with the reign of death, cf. 5:14, 17,21 cf. also the reign of sin, Rom. 6:12); 1 Cor. 4:8 (here ironically of the lordly beh aviour of the Corinthians which, in fact, falls short of true reigning); and Rev. 20:4, 6; 20:5 (of the reign of the saint on the earth and in glory). For the idea of reigning expressed in other terms see Eph. 2:6; 2 Tim. 2:12; Jas. 2 ,:5 (cf. the third Beatitude "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth, Matt. 5:5;à Inheritance, art. Kleroo). For other
p. 381
Instances of basileuo see Matt. 2:22: Lk. 1;31; 9:14; 1 (Cor: 15:25 1 Tim. 6:15; :15, Rev.11:15,17; 19:6. See further J.H.Elliott, The Elect and the holy, Supplements to NovT 12, 1966; E. Best, "I Peter 2:4 10, A Reconsideration", NovT 11, 1969, 270-93.
(e) basilissa, queen, accurs only 4 times in the NT. Matt. and Lk. both record the saying about the qeen of the South in the context of the sign of à Jonah. “The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon,behold something greater than Solomon is here" (Matt. 12:42 par. Lk. 1 :31: cf. 1Ki. 10:1-10; 2 Chron. 9:1-12:à Solomon). Although Sheba is today identified with Arabia, Josephus connected the Queen of Sheba with Ethiopia (Ant. 2, 10, 2. 8, 6, 5 f.). Later Arabic legend made her Solomon's wife, and the Ethiopian royal line claims descent from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. In the NT she is an example to the Jews of the lengths to which a non-Jew might go in seeking wisdom. All the more reason have the Jews themselves cause to leave their ways, for paradoxically there is in Jesus the Galilean preacher "something greater than Siomon." Acts 8:27 might be regarded as an illustration of a similar response of a non-Jew. The Ethiopianà eunuch is described there as "a minister of Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, [who] had come to Jerusalem to worship." He too was a seeker. The episode is all the more pointed in the light of the persecution by the Jews which has just scattered the Jerusalem church (Acts 8:1), the eunuch's study of scripture (ha. 53:7 1.; Acts 8:32 1.), and the fact that he was a eunuch. By contrast Babylon who plays the queen is judged (Rev.18:7)
2. The use of basileia in the NT.
(a) General. For the earthly, human king there is a corresponding earthly, human kingdom. In this sense basileia means, according to context, the office of king (e.g. I.k. 19:12, 15; Rev. 17:12) and also the area governed, domain (e.g. Matt. 4:8 par. Lk. 4:5: Mk. 6:23; Rev. 16:10). In almost all these passages the earthly kingdoms stand in contrast-though this is often unexpressed to the basileia tou theou, kingdom God, since they are subject to “the god of this world", the diabolos, devil,à Satan (Matt. 4:8). In Matt. 12:26 There is even explicit mention of the basileia of the devil. This is particularly true with regard to the Roman Empire, described in Rev. expressly as the beast (Rev.13:1;à Animal, art. therion).
(b) Kingdom of God. Hebasileia tou theou, is a term of central importance onlywithin the Synoptic tradition. The form of the expression varies: Mk. and Lk.speak of the kingdom of God, while Matt. has kingdom of heaven and kingdom ofthe Father. Evidence that Mk. and Lk. preserve in basileia tou theou the older formJesus himself is provided by two observations. First, both the sayings source and Mk. have this formula in the places where Matt. speaks of the basileia tou auranon, kingdom of heaven (Mk. 1;15; Matt. 4:17; Lk. 6:20 par. Matt. 5:3). Secondly and more important, Matt. itself' contains four instances of the olderOrn of God (12:28; 19:34; 21;31; 21;43). Jesus probably, therefore, spoke exclusively of the basileia ttou theou. This is not to say that he never used a circumlocution for the divine name. It is exemplified by Matt. 5:4, where thepassive paraklethesontai, "they shall be comforted**, means that God will comfort them: and Lk. 16:9, where the plur. "they" i.e. the angels, will receive you into the
p.382
eternal habitations means that God will receive you (cf. also Lk. 12:20; 23:31) ([Ed.] The “they” in Lk 16:9 might, however, also be taken to refer to those benefited by the use of mammon.) Where basileia is used alone, without the addition of tou theou, it is qualified by its context : ten hetoimasmenen hymin baasileian, “the kingdom prepared for you” (Matt. 25:34; cf. 6:10); God will throw the sons of the kingdom into the outer darkness (Matt. 8:12; cf. Lk. 12:32;22:29).
(c) The Kingdom of God to come in the future. In order to understand Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom of God, it is best, in accordance with the apocalyptic, eschatological character of that proclamation, to start with those passages which deal with the coming of the Kingdom of God in the near future. Mk. 1:15 records the theme of Jesus' preaching in a pregnant sentence: "The kingdom of God has come near [engiken he hasileia tort theou] (cf. Matt. 3: 2; 5:17). The same theme is found in other places: "The kingdom of God is near [engys estin}" (Lk. 21:31;
Goal, art. eng)%c); it "is coming [er•hetai]" (Lk. 17:20; Conte, art. erchomai,NT 3). Thus Jesus did not preach that there was a kingdom of God to which one must confess allegiance (cf. Rab. Judaism, see above OT 4 (a)), but that the rule of
God is coming.
Just as when the fig-tree puts out leaves summer is known to be near, so the events of the present guarantee that God's rule will soon break in on the world (Matt. 24:32 f.: Mk. 13:28 f.; Lk. 21: 29 ff.; , Fruit, art. syke). It is to this sudden, unexpected irruption of the kingdom of God that Jesus' parables of the Parousia point: the sudden coming of the flood (Matt. 24:37 ff. ; Lk. 17:26 fr.; Noah), the unexpected entrance of the burglar (Matt. 24:43 f.; Lk. 12 : 39 f.), the surprise of the doorkeeper and the servant at the homecoming of their master (Matt. 24:45 ff.; cf. Lk. 12:42-6), the sudden arrival of the bridegroom (Matt. 25:1-13). All these are pictures of the sudden irruption of the catastrophe, of the eschatological crisis which is impending a short time ahead: "Truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power" (Mk. 9:1; cf. Matt. 16:28; Lk. 9:27).
For Jesus the advent of the kingdom was so imminent that he vowed not to "drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" (Lk. 22 :18; cf. Mk. 14:25). The Parousia (-÷ Present) of the Son of man will take place even before the disciples have finished proclaiming the kingdom of God in Israel (Matt. 10 : 23). From these references it may be concluded that Jesus proclaimed the imminent advent of the kingdom of God within the lifetime of his hearers' generation (Mk. 9:1: 13:30). (On the interpretation of this Generation, art. genea NT ; Present).
(d) The Kingdom of God in the present. Although for 'Jesus the realization of God's rule is still in the future, its urgent proximity already casts its shadow over the present: "if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt. 12:28; cf. Lk. 11 : 20) The casting out of => demons reveals that the devil has been bound b one stronger than he (Matt. 12:29:Mk. 3:27; Lk. 11:21). The disarming of => Satan, an event which the Jews expected in the end-time (SB I 167 f.), has taken place (Lk. 10:18); in the works of Jesus the kingdom of God is already a present reality.
To the Pharisees' question, "When is the kingdom of God corvine?". Jesus can therefore answer, "The kingdom of God is in the midst of you" ( Lk. 17:20 f.: not
p.383
as AV within you"). (On the prep. entos used here see Arndt, 268 f. and the literature there referred to.) Because the kingdom is already present, the friends of bridegroom cannot fast (Mk. 2:19; cf. Matt. 9:15: Lk. 5:34); and it is the Father’s good pleasure. eudokesen (aorist). to give Jesus' disciples (the "little flock”) the kidngdom (Lk. 12:32). With the appearance of John the Baptist, according to an early logion, the era of the old revelation of God came to an end, and at the same time the new era began.The kingdom of God, already present, is "violently assaulted [biazetai]" (Matt. 11:12 f.: cf. Lk. 16:16). "The allusion may be to the opposition of Satan and evil spirits to the Kingdom, or to the violence of Herod Ataipas to John: but a more likely explanation is that the reference is either to zealots who try to bring in the Kingdom by employing force against the Romans or to Jewish antagonists of Jesus who continue to persecute Christians" (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew. 1972. 200).
(e)The Kingdom of God and the person of Jesus: an eschatology in process of realization. In comparing the eschatology of Jesus with that of Judaism, it is not sufficient to characterize the former as the ultimate extreme of imminent expectation. Of far more importance is Jesus' claim that the verdict to be passed on men in the final judgment is already determined by the attitude they adopt to himself in the present age. "Every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 10:32; cf. Lk. 12:8). He who hears the words of Jesus and does them will survive the eschatological crisis. The unrepentant cities, on the other hand, will be condemned, because in spite of the "mighty works" done inthem by Jesus (Matt. 11 : 21 ff. : cf. Lk. 10 :13 ff.), they have not repented. Jesus himself will appear as the eschatological judge (Matt. 25:31). He will disown those who merely say "Lord, Lord" (Matt. 7:23; cf. Lk. 13:27). and plead before the Father the cause of those who have confessed him (Matt. 10:32: cf. Lk. 12:8). A man's final destiny is decided by the attitude he adopts to Jesus' word and action (Matt. 7:24-27; cf. Lk. 6:47 ff.). in other words by his attitude to Jesus himself. Forth's present age, marked as it is by the activity and preaching of Jesus, bears a special relation to the coming day of à judgment. The new and distinctive factor, compared with the Rab. view of the kingdom of God, is nbt simply that it is coming, but that it is inextricably bound up with the person of Jesus. As W. G. Kamm' puts it, "It is the person of Jesus whose activities provoke the presence of the eschatological consummation and who therefore stands at the centre of his ttehatological message" (op. cit., 108). The future rule of God has already in the person of Jesus become a reality in word and deed. The coming, imminent kingdom of God is already present in him. The interpretation of this teaching has led to radically divergent theses in the course of theological discussion. ( For a more detailed oresehatological interpretationàPresent: The Parousia and Eschatology in the NT.)
The school of Ritschl regarded the kingdom of God in the present as an ethical Which produces a moral society. Ritschl discarded apocalyptic, eschatological expectation as an outdated relic of Judaism. Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer took the opposing view known as “consistent eschatology" or "thorough going eschatology". They rightly pointed out that Jesus himself linked his message with Jewish apocalyptic by making its central theme the announcement that the end of the world was impending (A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus,
p.384
(1910) 1954. See especially ch. 19 on “Thoroughgoing Scepticism and Throughgoing Eschatology", 328-95). According to Schweitzer, the distinctively new element in the preaching of Jesus. as compared with apocalyptic, is the nearness of the world catastrophe.
In contrast to this solution offered by "consistent eschatology". a large proportion of scholars in the English-speaking world have, under the influence of C. H.Dodd, completely eliminated “futurist eschatology" from the proclamation, seeing it as a product of re-Judaizing within the Christian community, and speak of “realized eschatology” in Jesus' preaching. In view of the presumed Aramaic original Dodd translates Mk 1:15 as "The kingdom of God has come” (The Parables of the Kingdom,1935, 44). He has thus reinstated an important element in Jesus' prodamafion of the kingdom of God, as against the views of A. Schweitzer„ though he too has over-emphasized one side. Dodd subsequently modified his was of describing his understanding of NT eschatology. He came to speak of "an eschatology that is in process of realization", a view which comes close to that of J. Jeremias (The Parable's of Jesus, 19632, 230; cf. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, 447),
Rudolf Bultmann is in basic agreement with Schweitzer's "consistent eschatology-. "There can be no doubt that Jesus like his contemporaries expected a tremendous eschatological drama" (Jesus and the Word, 1935, 38). However. Bultmann attempts by means of his existential interpretation to distill from the mythical, apocalyptic future hope of Jesus the real meaning in existential terms. For him the expectation of the end of the world as a future event in time is an expression of the conviction that it is in the present moment that man is faced %% ith a decision. Thus "every hour is the last hour" (op. cit., 52; cf. History and Evehotology, [1957] 1962, 154 1). The true meaning of the eschatological preaching of Jesus concerning the impending kingdom of God lies, according to Bultmann, in the assertion that man is faced with a decision. "The future Kingdom of God, then, is not something which is to come in the course of time, so that to advance its coming one can do something in particular, perhaps through penitential prayers and good works, which become superfluous in the moment of its coming. Rather, the Kingdom of God is a power which, although it is entirely future, wholly determines the present- (op. cit., 51).
Against this view it must be maintained that it is not the purposef Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God simply to call men to repentance and face them with a decision. At the centre of Jesus' message is the proclamation of the urgent proximity of God's kingdom, the announcement that God is about not inaugurate his world-wide reign. Repentance and decision are consequences, but not the actual theme of Jesus' proclamation of the impending kingdom (cf. Matt. 3:2. 4:17). The fact that Jesus averted a question which sought an apocalyptic timetable (Lk. 17:20 f.) must not be interpreted as an indication that the announcement I the kingdom of God is concentrated in the existential meaning.
Jesus, therefore, preached the kingdom of God neither solely as a present reality, nor exclusively as a future event. Rather, he was aware that the future rule of God was present in his actions and in his person. He spoke, therefore, of the future kingdom, which would suddenly dawn, as already realizing itself in the present. Thus the nature of Jesus “eschatology is probably best described by the expression
p.385
“an eschatology in process of realization" E. Haenchen quoted by J. Jeremias. Op.cit., 230). For the connection between the proclamation of the kingdom of God and the Son of man sayings, Son of God, art hyios tau anthropau.
3 The Kingdom of God in the preaching of Jesus.
(a) As depicted in the preaching of Jesus, the kingdom of God may be characterized as being "opposed to every- thing present and earthly to everything here and now. It is thus absolutely miraculous- (K. L. Schmidt. TDAT 1584). Man can, therefore, neither hasten the coming of the kingdom of God by doing battle with God's enemies (as the Zealots hoped), nor force it to appear by scrupulous observation of the law (as the Pharisees hoped). He can only await its coming in patience and confidence. as in the parables of the mustard seed (Man. 13:31 1: Mk. 4:30 ff.). the leaven Matt. 13:33), and the seed growing secretly ( Mk. 4:26-29).
(b) This kingdom is coming in the form of a cosmic catastrophe (Lk. 17:26: Mk. 13: 26; 14:62), ushered in by the appearance of the àSon of man. Jesusthus aligned himself, not with the concept of an earthly, nationalistic messiah, but with the apocalyptic tradition in Judaism with its expectation of the Son of man. At the same time he avoided describing events in detail, although he clearly used apocalyptic imagery (e.g. the heavenly feast in the kingdom of God. Mk. 14:25: Matt. 8:11). Also connected with this toning down of apocalyptic ideas is Jesus' rejection of all attempts to discern signs of the end : "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed" (Lk. 17:20).
(c) Although Jesus shared with apocalyptic writers a cosmic, universal type eschatology, in contrast to the political and nationalistic concept of the messiah, he nonetheless upheld the OT doctrine of election (Matt. 10:6) with the associated belief that it is the will of Yahweh to reach the whole world through the nation of àIsrael. This is not to say that Israel has a special claim on God's favour. Indeed. Israel is in danger of being put to shame by the heathen on the day of judgment (Matt. 12:42 par. Lk. 11:31). The kingdom will be taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles Matt. 21:43). God will cast the sons of the kingdom (Israel) into outer darkness (Matt. 8:12: cf. Lk. 13:28). But Jesus promised the Twelve (àApostle), as the representatives of the eschatological people of God, the office of judges and rulers in the future kingdom of God (Matt. 19:28 Lk.22:28 ff.: cf. Mk. 10:35-45).
(d) The facts that the kingdom is the gift of God (Lk. 12 32) and that it is appointed to men (diatithemi) by à covenant (Lk. 22:29) have their counterparts in the teaching that a person can only receive it like a child (Mk. 10:15 par. Lk. 18:17: cf. Matt. 18:3; Jn. 3:3) and that it is something for which one must wait (Mk. 15:43 par. Lk. 23:51). Particularly frequent is the metaphor of entering (eiserchesthai) the kingdom of God (Matt. 5:20: 7:21; 18:3; 19:23 f.: 23:13; Jn. 3:5). Entry into the kingdom in the fullest sense lies in the future (Matt. 25:34; Mk. 9:43 ff.). But the presence of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus faces the individual with a clear-cut decision. The Yes or No nature of this situation is illustrated by the hyperbole of Jesus: "lf your right hand causes you to sin, cut it of and throw it away; it is better to lose one of your members than let your whole body go into hell" (Matt. 5:30: cf. 18:8 11; Mk' . 9:43-48). Some have even made themselvesàeunuchs for the kingdom's sake (Matt. 19:12). "No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God" (Lk. 9:62). The decision is
p.386
not a result of mere enthusiasiasm; it is to be made after careful previous consideration ( Lk. 14:28-32) and in obedience to Jesus' word (Matt.7:24-27). But when it is made, it involves a readiness for sacrifice which may mean self-denial to the point of being hated by one’s own family (Matt. 10:17 ff., 37). Yet the decision is not born of a rigid fanaticism, but against a background of overwhelming joy at the greatness of God's gifts (cf. the parables of the hidden treasurersnd the Pearl of great price. Matt. 13:14 16).
(e) The kingdom of God is utterly transcendent and supernatural: it comes from above, from God alone. When God's kingdom comes,. the hungry will be filled and the sad will be comforted (cf. the Beatitudttes, Matt 5: 3-10; Lk.6:20ff) It demands that men should love their enemies (Matt. 5:38-42; LK.6:27f., 32-36), and they will be as free from care as the birds of the air and the lilies of the field (Matt. 6:25-33: Lk. 12:22-31). Here again it is Jesus himself, in whom alone the future kingdom of God is present, in whose words and deeds that kingdom has already appeared. It has come already, in that Jesus seeks out the company of tax-collectors and sinners, offering them fellowship at table and so promising them forgiveness of their sins. As the king invites to his feast the beggars and homeless (Matt. 22:1-10), as the father's love receives back again the prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-32), as the shepherd goes out after the lost sheep (Lk. 15:4-7), as the woman searches for the lost coin (Lk. 15:8-10), as the master out of the goodness of his heart pays the labourers hired at the last hour the full day's pay (Matt. 20:1-15), so Jesus goes to the poor to give them the promise of forgiveness, "for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:3). Only sinners, who know what it is like to have a great burden ofà guilt (Lk. 7:41-43), can appreciate the remission of sins through the goodness of God. For "those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick" (Mk. 2:17; cf. Matt. 9:12; Lk. 5:31).
The distinctive feature of Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God is not therefore that he brought a new doctrine of the kingdom, or that he revolutionized people's apocalyptic and eschatological expectations, but that he made the kingdom of God inseparable from his own person. The new thing about Jesus’s preaching of the kingdom is "He himself, simply his person" (J. Schniewind).
4. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Christ outside the preaching of Jesus. (a) The Kingdom of Christ. Jesus himself spoke only of the basileia tou theou, the kingdom of God, which he tied up inextricably with his own person. Only in this sense did he declare it to be already y present. After the resurrection the church, convinced that he had been exalted to the status of àLord (krrios, Phil. 2:9-11: Acts 2:36), maintained Jesus' christological emphasis in the preaching of the kingdom, and accordingly went on to speak of the basileia of Christ. They thus preserved the christological interpretation which Jesus had given to the kingdom of God, i.e. the inseparable connection between Jesus and the kingdom: only in himself is the kingdom of God present.
Where we read of the basileia of Christ we are dealing with the language of the early church. This is shown. not only by the fact that the "conception of the Kingdom of Christ is foreign to the oldest stratum of tradition" (J. Jeremias. Op.cit.,82), but also by the observation that the majority of texts which speak of the basileia of Christ may be recognized as redactional adaptations of an older original. Mk. 9:1 is older than Matt. 16:28; and Mk.10:37 is older than Matt. 20:21
p.387
basileia tou hyou tou anthropou in Matt. 13:41 is an expression peculiar to Matt. and if found otherwise only at Matt.16:28. The subordinate clause "that you may eat and drink in my kingdom” in Lk. 22:30 is lacking in the Matthaean parallel, Matt. 19:28.
This redaction of older versions is a legitimate development. Thus according to in 18:36, Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world”. Likewise 2 Tim. 4:18 speaks of the confidence of being delivered from every kind of live and of being “saved for his heavenly kingdom [eis ten basileian autou epouranion]" (cf. 2 Tim. 4:1: 2 Pet. 1 :11). The inseparable connection between the person of Jesus and the presence of God's kingdom is expressed most clearly of all when Jesus Christ himself becomes an equivalent for "kingdom of God", as is shown by the following comparisons. Whereas Joseph of Arimathea was waiting for "the kingdom of God" (Mk. 15:43), believers are awaiting "their Lord" (Phil. 3:20). Whereas Jesus' message may be summed up as "The kingdom of God is at hand [engiken he basileia tou theou]" (Mk. 1:15), James says, "The coming of the Lord is at hand [he parousia tou kyriou engiken]" (Jas. 5:8). The disciple forsakes his family for Jesus' sake (heneken emou, Mk. 10:29) or for the sake of the kingdom of God (heneken ten basileias tou theou, Lk. 18:29). This presentàgeneration is to see the coming of "the kingdom of God" (Mk. 9:1), or of "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:28; cf. also Lk. 21 :31 and Mk. 13:29). In Samaria Philip preached "good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8 :12: cf. 28:31).
The phrase "basileia of Christ" and the equation of "kingdom of God” with Jesus Christ are thus seen to be the result of the change-over from an implicit to an explicit christology. They make it clear that Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God was in no way displaced in the early church by the proclamation of Jesus Christ. The post-resurrection christology, in which Jesus Christ is the centre of the kerygma, is rather the outcome of the realization that the kingdom of God is present only in the person of Jesus Christ, so that one can only properly speak of the kingdom of God by speaking of Jesus Christ. Since the kingdom is bound up with the person of Jesus, the good news which Jesus preached of the dawning of God's kingdom becomes, after Easter, theàgospel of Jesus Christ and the proclamation of his kingdom.
(b) Jesus' proclamation of the kinadom of God and the kerygma outside the synoptic tradition. The kingdom of God, which is the central concept in the preaching of Jesus, has only a peripheral place outside the Synoptic Gospels. In its place we find the christological kerygma of theà cross andà resurrection of Jesus, the expectation of the Parousia and the general resurrection of the dead, and the use of terms such as à life (zoe. in Jn.) andà righteousness (dikaiosyne, in Paul). Is there a logical sequence from Jesus' preaching of the kingdom to the christological kerygma and the Pauline doctrine of justification ?
At this point a survey of the synonyms used in the synoptic tradition for the term basileia tou theou is illuminating. Matt. 6:33 says that men are to seek thebasileia of God and his dikaiosyne; in the par. Mk. 9:42-48 we find instead nextto one another the expressions eiselthein eis ten zoen, to enter life (Mk. 9:43, 46:cf. Matt. 7:13) and eiselthein eis ten basileian tou theou, to enter the kingdom ofGod (Mk. 9:47). Following the question of the rich young man. "What must I do
p.388
to inherit eternal life [zoen aionion]? (Mk. 10:17), Jesus remarks in conversation with his disciples "How hard it will be for those who have richerhes to enter the kingdom of God [ten basileian tou theou]! “The phrase "to inherit eternal life” (Mk. 10:17) has a counterpar in “to inherit the Kingdom prepared for you [by God] (Matt. 25:34). Paul says at Rom. 15: 17 (it must be Rom 14:17 (has150310): The Kingdom of God …is righteousness and peace and Joy in the Holy Spirit (dikaiosyne kai eirene kai chara en pneumati hagio). Likewise in Rev. 12:10 we find he soteria (salvation), he dynamis (power) and he basileia tou theou linked together. In place of the request for seats "in your glory [en te doxe sou)". Mk..10. :37) the par. Matt. 20:21 has a request for seats "in your kingdom [en to basileia sou]" . Lk. 21:31 refers to the nearness of God's kingdom, whereas a few verses earlier Jesus declares, "Raise your heads, because your redemption [apolytrosis] is drawing near" (Lk. 21:28).
The Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-10; cf. Lk. 6:20 ff.) which promise God's salvation to the poor, the parables of the Kingdom which testify to God's mercy towards sinners (Matt. 22:1-10; Lk. 15:11-32; 15:4-7, 8-10), and finally the synonyms for kingdom of God to be found within the synoptic tradition itself (àRighteousness, àLife,à Redemption, àGlory), all go to demonstrate that the future kingdom of God, already present in the person of Jesus, is God's saving activity towards the individual. This saving activity of God, which is tied to Jesus and mediated by him alone, is likewise at the centre of the kerygma outside the synoptic tradition. Thus John speaks of eternal life (zoe aionios, Jn. 3:15, 36 etc.), referring to the goal of salvation, while Paul speaks of the righteousness, life or redemption which is given in Christ. In the writings of Paul and John these terms are to be understood with strict reference to christology (cf. "I am the resurrection and the life" [Jn. 11:25; cf. 3:15]; and the Pauline "in Christ", especially in Rom. 6). When in Rom. 4:5 Paul declares that the righteousness of God consists in "justifying the ungodly", he is taking up the central concern of Jesus' preaching of the kingdom, namely the promise of salvation to the poor and the sinners. The futurist eschatology in the preaching of Jesus is likewise retained in the expectation of his Parousia and the general resurrection of the dead. Pauline theology which is a development of christology contains, like the preaching of Jesus, both a present and a future element, since the crucified and risen one is also the one who is to come. By tying salvation to the person of Jesus and by developing christology along the lines of soteriology, pneumatology and eschatology, Paul has maintained a consistent and legitimate extension of Jesus' preaching of the kingdom of God, although he has adapted this to the post-resurrection situation as regards the cross and resurrection.
(c) Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Christ. Evidence that the kingdom of Jesus Christ is in the NT view the same as the kingdom of God is also to be seen in the fact that in parts of the NT outside the synoptic tradition both expressions are found together, sometimes God being named first, and sometimes Chris. Thus it is equally acceptable to speak of the kingdom of Christ and of God”, (Eph. 5:5) and of the world dominion "of our Lord and of his Christ” (Rev. 11 :15,)' The rule of Christ and the rule of God are in other words identical. When the rule of Christ has become established, it is taken up into the rule of God (Rev. 5:10; 2:4,6; 22:5); at the end of time Christ hands back to the Father the kingdom he has received from him (1 Cor. 15:24-28)
p.389
John's prophecy of the saints reigning a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-7) is, from the point of view of histotical criticism (Traditionsgeschiehte), an interpretation of the apocalyptic motif of a messianic kingdom as a period preceding the final realization of the kingdom of God. The doctrine of the millennium represents a coming together of the two parallel kinds of eschatology current in 1st century Judaism: the nationalistic, messianic eschatology, and the cosmic, universal view. The length of this messianic reign as a period preceding the kingdom of God is variously given in Jewish apocalyptic writings. The rule of Christ and the rule of God are not, however, two kingdoms following one another in succession, but one kingdom of Christ which issues finally in the kingdom of God. (On the interpretations of pre-millenarianism, post-millenarianism and amillenarianism àChiliasm in the Glossary of Technical Terms, and à Number, art. chilias.) B. Klappert
àCaesar, àParable,à Present
Source : THE NEW INTERNNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. VOL. 2
