The kingdom is one of the most variable and subjective concepts in Christian theological history. One would expect more consistency in definition given its significance. If we are to “seek first his kingdom” (Matt 6:33), the “gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world” (Matt 24:14), and the content of Paul’s preaching can be summarized as “the kingdom” (Acts 19:8, 20:25), then surely Christians should have more clarity and agreement on the subject! Yet not only is there variety of interpretation and lack of consensus, but common ideas about the kingdom are themselves often insubstantial and questionable, making them unconvincing candidates for defining something as crucial as the kingdom of God.
While a more extensive and academic discussion is possible, for my purposes here I want to simply highlight two popular conceptions of the kingdom that many seem to default to and point out some practical concerns. The first is the kingdom as divine activity, that is, the kingdom is essentially any expression of God’s redemptive grace and power. Thus wherever God’s blessing and power are demonstrated, whether in conversion, moral renewal, revival, healing, missions, Christian influence, or some other form, there the kingdom is present. We can see this definition of the kingdom at work when the kingdom is described as expanding, advancing, spreading, and growing anywhere God is present, active, and working.
A problem with this notion of the kingdom is that it makes the kingdom practically meaningless. If the kingdom is essentially synonymous with anything that God does, anything that is spiritual and redemptive, then what is the point of the term? There is no meaningful benefit to the doctrine of the kingdom if the kingdom is merely another way to refer to God’s power and activity in general. In other words, the kingdom does not add anything substantial to the conversation if it only describes that which already can be described by other and even better means. Furthermore, if the kingdom rather refers to a specific work of God, then interpreting it to mean God’s work in general actually takes away from its uniqueness and significance.
A second common view of the kingdom is the church as the kingdom of God. The kingdom is established with the church and advances as the church advances and grows. To build God’s kingdom therefore means to build up the church, whether in quantity or quality. This interpretation of the kingdom, however, tends to lead to a miscalculation of the church’s importance. The gospel of the kingdom in effect becomes the gospel of the church. And this is precisely what we often see at both an academic and popular level. Many theologies assign the church an oversized role as the center of redemptive activity and the mediator of God’s rule on earth. The church does not merely bring the good news; it is the good news. Accordingly, many churches have a strong sense of self-importance, which they emphasize alongside the church’s various features and offerings to attract and retain people—effectively preaching a “gospel of the church.” Of course it will be argued that Christ, rather than the church, should be the focus, but if the church is the kingdom and the kingdom is integral to the gospel, then why not?
Yet everyone who has been a Christian long enough knows that the church is rife with all kinds of problems. If the kingdom has been advancing for thousands of years already, then surely things in the church would be better by now! We also find that wherever the church has accumulated significant wealth and power, which would seem fitting for a kingdom and should actually be desired if the church is supposed to rule and have influence as God’s kingdom on earth, corruption usually follows. Moreover, what about those who have been hurt and abused by the church? It is particularly difficult for victims of mistreatment and neglect at the hands of the church to accept the church as the kingdom of God. In contrast and unsurprisingly, those with authority and affluence tend to be more open to the idea. One can contend that the true kingdom is spiritual and hidden, composed only of those who are true Christians. But, again, if the kingdom is merely another name for believers, then what is the point of the term?
All this leads to confusion because these definitions of the kingdom simply do not square with both Scripture and experience. These definitions do not quite “fit,” so to speak. The Bible speaks of the kingdom of God very highly and idealistically. The kingdom is associated with greatness, glory, and justice. Does that line up with our experience of the kingdom according to these definitions? For example, if I boast about my wife’s apple pie as if it is the best in the country, but it turns out to be rather mediocre, you will suspect something is wrong. Either I lied, or perhaps what she actually baked was not apple pie, but her quite average lemon pie. But if I insist that she really baked an apple pie, even though she did not, and I continue talking it up like it is the best pie you have ever had, you will be left confused. This seems to be what happens with the kingdom. What people call the kingdom simply does not live up to the hype, yet they keep talking it up because their theology requires it. Confusion then ensues.
What should our definition of the kingdom be, then? What would live up to the way the kingdom is described in Scripture and also be proven in our actual experience of it? The answer is the eschatological, messianic kingdom, just as the Jews expected. Jesus will one day come with his angels in glory and set up an everlasting kingdom that will rule the world in perfect righteousness and justice. It will not be hidden. No one will be left confused or disappointed. It will be obvious, striking, profound, and permanent. It will change everything. And it will most certainly live up to the hype.