Kingdom Confusion
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.
Problems With “Already But Not Yet”
The most dominant theological framework among Christian scholars today is inaugurated eschatology. Also known as “already but not yet,” this idea is typically applied to the kingdom, as opposed to the other major elements of traditional Jewish eschatology. Rarely do you find declarations of an “already but not yet” day of the Lord, resurrection of the dead, or judgment of the wicked, probably due to inherent difficulties. It would be quite hard to argue, for example, that Jesus inaugurated the lake of fire at his first coming and will bring it to complete fulfillment when he returns!
But the kingdom gets special treatment, likely because it has historically been interpreted in ways that make it easier to fit into the inaugurated schema. This interpretive flexibility is in fact necessary because the kingdom of God as 1st century Jews understood it could not have been inaugurated at Jesus’ first coming. We can demonstrate this by considering what the coming of the kingdom entailed according to Jewish expectations at the time: 1) the Messiah would rule from David’s throne in a glorified Jerusalem, 2) Israel would be regathered to live safely in their land, 3) judgment on the enemies of God, 4) world peace and prosperity, 5) the Gentile nations would recognize and worship the God of Israel, 6) the healing of the nations. Let us go through each one.
2) Did Jesus inaugurate the regathering of Israel at his first coming? No. They actually got expelled from the land afterward.
3) Did Jesus begin judging his enemies at his first coming? No, he came to offer forgiveness to his enemies. Judgment comes later, at his return.
4) Is there an “already but not yet” world peace and prosperity?
5) Are the nations (i.e. governments, for example) “already but not yet” recognizing and worshiping the God of Israel?
It should be quite evident that the kingdom as Jews at the time understood it could not have been inaugurated in the ministry of Jesus. For “already but not yet” to work, then, it must not have been that kingdom that was inaugurated, but a different kind. In other words, for “already but not yet” to be plausible, the definitions have to change. For example, rather than the Messiah’s rule from a throne in Jerusalem to the nations, which is not “already” happening at all, the kingdom is recast to mean Christ’s rule in general. Only then can it be said that the kingdom has begun because Jesus “already” rules now in heaven, through his Spirit in the church, or in some other way, though his rule has “not yet” been consummated. Similarly, while the actual healing and rebuilding of nations did not begin when Jesus came, physical and spiritual healing at an individual level did happen. And so the kingdom can be defined as God’s healing power in general, which Jesus introduced in his first coming and will finalize at his second. Likewise, though world peace remains as elusive as ever, we can have a measure of peace now in Christ, and in this way the kingdom is “already” here in part, though “not yet” here in full.
Do you see what is happening here? Proponents of inaugurated eschatology take present blessings that are like the future blessings contained in the traditional understanding of the kingdom as indications of the kingdom being partially realized now and then redefine the kingdom around those blessings. But this will not do. You cannot on the one hand claim that Jesus realized the eschatological kingdom that the Jews anticipated and on the other hand conceptualize the kingdom as something else entirely. You cannot claim two different definitions for the kingdom of God at the same time. Thus “already but not yet” has a problem. If the kingdom is the messianic, eschatological kingdom, then, as previously demonstrated, it cannot be said to have “already” begun. Jesus is not presently on a throne in Jerusalem at all. But if the kingdom is simply God’s rule, power, authority, or presence in general, then the kingdom is not eschatological to begin with, which means what is being realized is not eschatology, but simply some feature of God that is always existent in his nature. Additionally, you would have to make the case that Jesus worked with a definition of the kingdom that was foreign to his Jewish audience.
There are two further problems worth pointing out. Some will argue that the kingdom is “already but not yet” because there are certain aspects of the future messianic kingdom that are present now. But this reasoning is fallacious. Yes, there are blessings that are of the same nature as those received in the kingdom that can be experienced now, but it does not follow from this that the kingdom, then, is present. We can draw an analogy using dating and marriage. Marriage is where love is consummated in shared life and sexual intercourse. Yet love and affection are also present while dating. Does this mean that a couple who is dating has already begun married life before the actual wedding? Are they “already but not yet” married because they love each other, spend time together, and enjoy some measure of physical intimacy, like holding hands, now, though fullness of intimacy still awaits? The answer is no, because marriage is not reducible to its parts. The preliminary enjoyment of benefits that are characteristic of marriage does not mean marriage has partially begun. Similarly, the present experience of blessings that find consummation in the kingdom of God does not mean that the kingdom has arrived.
Another problem with “already but not yet” is that those blessings that supposedly mark the arrival of the kingdom were present even before Jesus came. Did God not display his authority and power on many occasions well before Jesus arrived? And surely there were believers who experienced the Holy Spirit and had peace in God before the first coming of Christ. Also, has not God ruled all creation from the very beginning? Indeed, God has always been sovereign, active, and working. The idea that Jesus initiated the kingdom at his first coming is therefore suspect, as all the indications of this “already” kingdom were operative before Jesus ever showed up on the scene. What has never existed and still does not, however, is a perfectly righteous king on a throne ruling from a glorified Jerusalem, bringing healing and justice to the nations. That is altogether “not yet.”