Introduction
One of the main themes of the Gospel of Matthew is the
kingdom of God. In fact, “[a]ll three Synoptic Gospels emphasize that the theme
of the preaching and teaching of Jesus was the kingdom of God.”[1] Nearly every parable in the
book contains a kingdom message. The kingdom parables imply the inaugurated
eschatology and support the already-but-not-yet kingdom argument.[2] “The expression ‘already– not yet’
refers to two stages of the fulfillment of the latter days. It is ‘already’
because the latter days have dawned in Christ, but it is ‘not yet’ since the
latter days have not consummately arrived. Scholars often use the phrase
‘inaugurated eschatology’ to describe the beginning stage of the latter days.”[3]
The parables mostly indicate the features of both stages of
the kingdom. Walvoord and Zuck, who do not share this kingdom view, observe
that “the parables in Matthew 13 cover the period of time from Christ’s work on
earth to the time of the judgment at His return.”[4] We take this observation as
suggesting that the parables contain the features of both stages of the
kingdom. Four more kingdom parables are narrated after Matthew 13 and they appear
pointing to the future kingdom. But more careful analysis of the parables show
that they have implications to the inaugurated kingdom. Therefore, we believe
that all the kingdom parables in Matthew attest to the already-but-not-yet
kingdom view.
The most distinctive characteristic of the inaugurated
kingdom observed in the parables is the rule of God that is to be manifested in
the present realm of the kingdom. Note that “[t]he primary meaning of the term kingdom
relates to reign or rule. The kingdom of God is the reign or rule of God over
all.”[5] This kingdom is also used “as a
reference to the realm over which the king rules.”[6] Vlach maintains that three
elements of kingdom, “ruler,” “realm,” and “ruleship,” should exist to
constitute a kingdom. Particularly for the realm, he insists, “a territory,
domain or subjects” should exist. [7]
For Ladd, however,
the realm consists of two components – the present realm and the future realm,
and the kingdom of God has arrived at the present realm and is present, but
will come in fullness in the future realm.[8]
But the present realm is
not territorial. It does not take a physical domain; hence it is not spatial. Nonetheless
the kingdom that has been activated in the present realm and is active and
dynamic.
This paper begins with a brief discussion of the development
of the already-but-not-yet kingdom view. In that, the discussion draws a
distinction from the rejected kingdom argument. Exegesis of kingdom
terminology follows in the next section where the already-but-not-yet argument
is supported. Then we will examine the kingdom parables in the next section,
where we will focus on which stage of the kingdom the parables point to. We
believe this practice is important to discern what Jesus had in mind when He
gave the parables, whether He envisioned the proliferation of the inaugurated
kingdom or the millennial kingdom in the future.
As a corollary discussion, we will consider why He used the
parables. In particular, we will examine the claim that He switched to the
parables as an alternative messaging tool when He realized his kingdom messages
delivered through direct discourses and lectures was rejected. We will present an
alternative view that the parables were chosen as just an effective messaging
tool. The final section of the paper is devoted to defining the church and its
role in relation to the kingdom, while we are making a practical application of
the already-but-not-yet view to the church. We will then conclude the
paper with a brief summarization of the discussions.
Development of already-but-not-yet Kingdom View
For Covenant
theologians, the kingdom is spiritual and viewed as realized in the form of the
church. They may have paid attention to: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he
has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon
disappear” (Heb. 8:13). But this view is not generally followed today. Most Bible
scholars do not recognize the church as the realized kingdom.
Beale follows
the already-but-not-yet kingdom view and explains it that the apostles
and the first Christians “understood that they were already living in the end
times… [and] their present salvation in Christ to be already an end time
reality…eschatological in nature.”[9]
With an analogy of putting sun glasses, he explains that “everything they
looked at in the Christian faith had an end-time tint.”[10]
Then using Hoekema’s D-day and V-day analogy, Beale contends that “D-day was
the first coming of Christ, when the opponent was defeated decisively; V-day is
the final coming of Christ, when the adversary will finally and completely
surrender.”[11]
On the other
hand, classical and revised dispensationalists consistently hold the view that
the kingdom was offered, but rejected and postponed. John Darby, the front-runner
of Classical Dispensationalism, may not have explicitly stated the terms, but the
idea is seen as all present in his writings.[12]
Scofield, distinguishing the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, understood
that the former referred to a spiritual kingdom, while the latter, which is
found only in Matthew, was regarded as the Davidic kingdom that the prophecies
in the Old Testament (OT) refer to. He believed that the kingdom of heaven was “offered
[by Jesus, but] Israel rejected it, so it was postponed to a future time.”[13]
The rejected kingdom view is maintained by revised dispensationalists.
According to
Bock and Blaising, McClain views the Davidic kingdom as a mediatorial kingdom, distinguished
from the universal kingdom of God, and holds that with Jesus’ departure, there
is no mediatorial kingdom on the earth, but will appear at his second coming. Toussaint
agrees with McClain and argues any texts of the presence of the kingdom “should
be understood proleptically,” as “the future kingdom.”[14]
Ryrie, Walvoord and other dispensationalists also maintain the same line of argument
for rejected kingdom.[15]
Ladd, a
non-dispensationalist, criticizes the rejected kingdom view. He contends
that “the kingdom of God is dynamic rule of God active in Jesus”[16]
and does not take up a physical domain, affirming that it “does not come with
your careful observation” (Luke 17:20). Ladd views the kingdom as “the present
reality,” and for those responded and committed to the kingdom messages, it is “a
present realm of blessing” and “a present gift.”[17]
However, Schreiner views that Jesus' incarnation is
to reign in the space of the earth as the heavenly king, breaking the barrier
between the two realms,[18] and the kingdom of God in Matthew is more than a
temporal or imaginary kingdom, but one that is located in the space of the
earth.[19] Carson, however,
argues that the kingdom in the OT prophecies should no longer be contemplated
as a theocratic state in the Davidic dynasty, but the reign of God inaugurated
by Jesus’ ministry is now present and will be fully manifested at his return.
The proclamation of the good news is God’s decisive act for the fulfillment of
the OT prophecies.[20]
More recent
dispensationalists break the rank with the traditional dispensationalists. They
hold a unified view on the kingdom of God as having both spiritual and
political dimensions,[21]
and believe “Christ’s present relationship to the church today as a form of the
eschatological kingdom which affirms and guarantees the future revelation of
the kingdom in all its fullness.”[22]
For these progressive dispensationalists, “[t]he consistently held offer, rejection,
postponement, and fully future fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom is absent
from their teaching.”[23]
They reject the
claim that there is no present form of the kingdom today, and “[b]y viewing the
present form of the church as an inaugural stage of the Davidic kingdom with
Christ seated on the Davidic throne in heaven, the progressive dispensational
position has distanced itself from this distinguishing feature of
dispensationalism.”[24]
They claim that embracing both perspectives without rejecting any of the two is
possible.
They believe
that passages for “now” fulfillment and “not yet” fulfillment exist in the New
Testament (NT), and that “in some texts fulfillment can be initial or partial,
as opposed to being final and total.”[25]
Darrell and Blaising illustrate the “already-not
yet” dichotomy analogous to salvation: “I am saved now when I trust Jesus, but
God is going to complete that salvation in the future.”[26]
Similar to this analogy, one may understand the concept with eternal life. A
believer already has eternal life but not yet fully experiences it.
Exegesis of Kingdom Terminology
“The Kingdom of
God” occurs four times in Matthew (12:28; 19:24; 21:31; 21:43) whereas “the
Kingdom of the heaven” occurs thirty-three times.[27]
But the two terms are regarded as “linguistic variations of the same idea…[for]
Matthew preserves the Semitic idiom while the other Gospels render it into
idiomatic Greek.”[28]
In Matthew 19:23-24, both are used as an identical reference.
Moreover, a
different term is used in the different Gospels that refer to the term used in
Matthew. For example, “the secret of the kingdom of heaven” in Matthew 13:11 is
replaced by “the secret of the kingdom of God” in Mark 4:11 and “the secrets of
the kingdom of God” in Luke 8:10. Therefore, the classical dispensationalists’
distinction of the two kingdom terms and assignment of different meanings seem
unwarranted.
The first reference to the kingdom
is found in Matthew 3:2 and the same in Matthew 4:17. The proclamation of John
the Baptist in Matthew 3:2 is a herald of the coming kingdom. However, one
cannot misconstrue the one in Matthew 4:17 by Jesus as the same herald. His
role was much greater than heralding the kingdom. The term “near” or “at hand”
in the John the Baptist’s proclamation points to what Jesus would bring to the
world, but the same term in the Jesus’ proclamation cannot be understood as pointing
to a future. If so, that would put him on the equal position with John the
Baptist and that would be a diminutive proposition for him and his ministry.
Some pay attention to the word “at
hand,” engiken, how it is used in other passages in the NT (Matt. 26:45,
46; Luke 21:20; Rom. 13:12a; James 5:8; 1 Pet. 4:7a.). Vlach argues that “[n]one
of the examples above show the ‘near’ events had occurred yet, but they were
very close.”[29] He understands that the kingdom
is an imminent reality, not a present reality. Other traditional
dispensationalists interpret the term in a similar fashion. However, an
important theological principle is often disregarded in the literal exegesis.
Jesus is above all humans, the divine king, and had a
different mission that could not be the same as the mission of John the
Baptist. This theological principle compels us to understand that his kingdom
proclamation was different from that of John the Baptist, who humbly but
rightfully identified himself as “the voice” (John 1:23). If He was not another
herald, the term “at hand” can only be now. Jesus, the ruler, has
come as the kingdom and his ruleship is demonstrated by his
ministry (Matt. 12:28). The realm is represented by the repenting and
committed believers, who experience his power in spiritual realm and/or
physical realm.
Dispensationalists understand Matthew
11:12-13 as an evidence of the rejection of the kingdom. However, Ladd
understands it as the kingdom arrived. The different understandings hinge on
the interpretation of the verb biazetai, that is, “suffering violence.”[30] While the dispensationalists
understand the verb as a passive form, Ladd understands it as the middle voice and
finds the same usage of the verb in Luke 16:16. He translates the phrase as
“everyone enters it violently,” similar to: “every man entereth violently into
it” (ASV translation), and claims that it signifies the “dynamic” nature of the
present kingdom.[31]
One of the key elements of literal hermeneutics is
contextualization and a key exegetical guidance is to refer to other texts in
the Bible written by a different author.[32] Quoting 2 Peter 1:20, Benware
states that “Peter's point includes the idea that no
prophecy found in Scripture is to be interpreted by itself but, rather, in
reference to everything God has said on the subject.”[33]
This principle
upholds the Ladd’s interpretation. In Luke 16:16, the text is written in this
order: John the Baptist was the last prophet; the good news of the kingdom is
preached; and everyone enters it violently (or forcefully).
However, if it is: John the Baptist was the last prophet;
the good news of the kingdom is preached; and (or but) the kingdom is violently
attacked by everyone (or people), it does not flow plausibly. It would sound as
if Luke was giving a retrospective account about how the kingdom had been
rejected. That is not the proper context. Moreover, if it had meant rejection,
the author would have used a more fitting word than biazetai because there
was not much of anything to attack or suffer violence yet. It is more fitting
to understand it as active and enthusiastic response by the people who heard
the good news of the kingdom and received it affirmatively.
Interpretation of Kingdom Parables
In Chapter 13, seven parables for
the kingdom of heaven are written. The parable of the sower (vv. 3-23) focuses
on growth, production of a crop, and multiplication. The image of a seed
growing and producing a multiplied crop implies the kingdom that is expanding gradually,
and it can hardly be the apocalyptic, millennial kingdom that would come at
once, throwing the earth upside down. The parable indicates the kingdom
initiated by Jesus while on earth. The kingdom is spiritual, invisible, and
individualistic. It is not spatial, institutional, or political. [34]
The seed means “the message about the kingdom…sown in the
[hearer’s] heart” (v.19). Those who understand it yield a crop. The word
“understand” must have a greater meaning than a mere cognitive acknowledgement.
But it does not particularly imply actions. Then yielding a crop can mean inner
transformation or spiritual maturity. Here, the work of the Holy Spirit needs
to be assumed, for such is the work of the Spirit (Rom. 8:1-27; Gal. 5:16-26).
Again, mere a literal interpretation of the text without theological principles
may not properly grasp the meaning of the text.
The parable of the weeds (vv. 24-30)
points to both the present and future stages of the kingdom. From verse 24 to
verse 29 shows how the present kingdom will be contaminated with evil elements
and verse 30 indicates the judgment that will come at Jesus’ second coming. The
parable cannot be either of the two. As Walvoord and Zuck observe, this parable
covers “the period of time from Christ’s work on earth to the time of the
judgment at His return.”[35] They called it a “mystery
period” but denies Christ’s earthly reign.[36]
The parables of the mustard seed and the yeast (vv. 31-33) indicate
the expansion of the inaugurated kingdom. Both parables can be interpreted as
the expansion of the reign and realm of the kingdom. In contrast to this view,
Walvoord and Zuck interpret this kingdom as Christendom, which is also
characterized in the previous parable, and interpret “the birds of the air” as
unbelievers in that kingdom.[37] Others interpret the parables
simply as the growth of the kingdom – “unimpressive at first”[38] but will reach its full measure
in the end. For the yeast, Walvoord and Zuck, however, do not interpret it as evil
present in the interval of the time but as growing number of believers.[39]
The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl (vv.
44-46) mean the utmost value of the kingdom of heaven. The transaction of the
man or the merchant indicates that the kingdom in the parables point to the
present kingdom that wise believers eager to possess and cherish. Selling “all
he had” or “everything he had” refers to “whole-hearted response”[40] to the kingdom messages and
hence suggests eager participation to the kingdom. But, a seemingly unconventional
interpretation is made by Walvoord and Zuck apparently to fit their eschatological
kingdom view. They interpret the parable in reference to Israel, the God’s “treasured”
possession. Jesus sold all, i.e., the glories of heaven, to purchase the
treasure.[41] For the parable of pearl, since
a pearl is formed out of wounds in the oyster, they interpret that the church
was formed out of the wounds of Christ and that the pearl represents his
redemption through the death.[42] This interpretation, however,
is difficult to accept.
The parable of the net (vv. 47-50)
points to the judgment at the end of the age. But the functionality of the net
indicates the expansion of the present kingdom, invoking the image of people entering
the church, both genuine believers and the other. The practical significance of
the church in relation to the kingdom is surmised by Ladd: “if the Kingdom of God
is primarily God’s kingly rule, and secondarily the spiritual sphere of his
rule, there can be no objection to the recognition that the church is the organ
of the Kingdom as it works in the world.”[43] The parable signifies the work
of the church in the present kingdom.
Then there is a parable of the
workers in the vineyard (20:1-16). At first, the parable seems to be a message
of equal reward by God. But note to whom the kingdom of heaven is referred to.
It is to the landowner and not the hired hands or the vineyard (v. 1). So, the
parable signifies the ruler and his rule and authority, as well as the realm of
his rule. Doubtlessly, the kingdom in this parable refers to the millennial
kingdom in which the kingdom citizens will become equal receivers of glory.
However, the passage ends with a different remark: “So the last will be first,
and the first will be last” (v. 16).
This does not bode well with the order of citizenship in the
millennial kingdom because there will be no such order. It rather indicates the
order of citizenship in the present kingdom. Then how do we interpret the
parable? It means that there will be reward of glory shared equally among the
kingdom citizens in the millennial kingdom, but in the present kingdom, the
citizenship, that is, salvation, will be given in a different order. So, the
parable has an implication to the present kingdom as well.
In the parable of the wedding
banquet (vv. 22:1-14), again the kingdom is referred to the king, not the
invited guests or the banquet. So, the focus of the parable is on God the ruler
and his rule rather than the joyful feast in the millennial kingdom. The ending
remark of Jesus says, “For many are invited, but few are chosen.” Just as in
the parable of the workers in the vineyard, the Jesus’ remark points to the
citizenship to the present kingdom because the invitation and redemptive selection
is done in the present kingdom, not in the millennial kingdom.
The parable of the ten virgins (vv.
25:1-13) is given to make us vigilant and prepared. It has an implication to
the kingdom citizens’ faithful life while in the present kingdom. This parable is linked to the discourse in Matthew 24:40-44,
invoking an apocalyptic image of near the end of time. Some understand the
parable as a judgment on Israel at his second coming.[44] Others see it in
reference to the church.[45] The time of the
bridegroom’s return should be viewed as Jesus’ second coming. However, this parable has an
implication to the present kingdom because entering the wedding banquet implies
being a member of the church. For those who are not ready, that is, those who do
not have the Spirit and therefore do not profess faith in Jesus, are left out in
the enjoyment of the fellowship with Christ in the church.
The parable of the talents
(25:14-30) is also addressed to “a man…who entrusted his property to [his
servants]” (v. 14). So, the focus is not on the servants or the talents. The
parable is about the ruler God and his rule. The rewarding rule is already
given as “then he will reward each person according to what they have done”
(16:27). This will occur when He comes “in his Father’s glory with his angels”
(16:27). Clearly, this parable points to the millennial kingdom. But it has an
ample ramification for the present kingdom for which the church, the servants,
works hard with given talents.
The last kingdom parable in Matthew
is the parable of the sheep and the goats (25:31-46). This parable clearly
points to the kingdom coming at the parousia. The pattern of reward and
punishment or commendation and admonition is contrasted in the parable. It has
a strong implication to the judgment at the parousia. Sim holds that Matthew’s apocalyptic vision and discourse reflect the
apocalyptic sentiment felt by minority groups in the first century which were
undergoing a situation of crisis, experiencing a sense of alienation from the
oppressive society.
He
believes that “Matthew
adopts a markedly dualistic perspective which divides humanity into the good and
the wicked along the lines of his perception of the world.”[46]
This parable reflects this sentiment. From examining the parables, focusing on the relevance to
the two kingdoms, we have found that the parables were given envisioning the
present kingdom or both present and future kingdoms. Hence, we dismiss the view
that the kingdom was rejected, retracted, and nonexistent on the earth. The
kingdom parables support the already-but-not-yet kingdom view.
Parables are Jesus’ Primary Messaging Tool
Some scholars hold that the parables were used after the
kingdom messages delivered through discourses and lectures were rejected by
Israel in Chapters 11 and 12.[47] However, most New Testament
scholars do not view the Gospel of Matthew was written in a chronological
order. The battery of seven parables in Chapter 13 cannot be understood as they
were given at the same or near a same time. It is rather a collection of the
parables spoken in different times. Note that Chapter 23 contains seven woes.
The selection of seven parables and seven woes only reflects the author’s
preference. “Matthew’s selection of these elements shows his preference.”[48]
Jesus used parables to illustrate the seemingly abstract
concepts about the kingdom of God so that the images of the parables remain in
the hearers’ memories and the messages of the parables resonate in their minds.
“Doubtless, Jesus used parables in order to present his teaching vividly and
memorably.”[49] Parables are not used
exclusively to deliver the messages of the kingdom as in Matthew. Other Gospels
in the New Testament show that parables are frequently used for various
occasions. For example, the parable of the prodigal son in Luke is not directly
related to the kingdom of heaven, yet Jesus used the parable to deliver the
message of repentance and forgiveness. Jesus had different reasons to use
parables and the claim that He used them as an alternative strategy to deliver
the kingdom message seems tenuous.
A challenging view to this is that Jesus’ intention to use
the parables was for the hearers not to understand or perceive (13:14) the “the
secrets of the kingdom of heaven” (13:11), and only to reveal them to the disciples in the aftermath of
the opposition and rejection to the kingdom messages by the Israelites. First,
the argument of rejection and postponement reflects the Arminian position, for
it means that God was swayed by the will of humans. So, the will of humans not
only change their fates but the will of God. If that was the case, God did not anticipate
the rejection and it had not been in his pre-knowledge. This is a theological
fallacy and displays the danger of literal interpretation that disregards theological
principles.
If God anticipated the rejection and the retraction of the
kingdom had been a part of his overarching plan, and that the Jesus’ ministry was
not a waste or meaningless failure, then the dispensationalists should provide
the meaning. We know that the death of Jesus, which was viewed as a failure by
Islam and other cults, was a part of God’s redemption plan. It has a purpose
and meaning and was not a failure. But if we understand his mission of kingdom
inauguration in the same frame of thought, we need to find the purpose or meaning
of the rejected mission. But what is it?
Second, the rejected kingdom view does not necessarily
lead to the idea of retracted and postponed kingdom. Many OT stories reveal the
nature of God’s program dispensation. He started small. He chose one-man
Abraham to begin his salvation program. The Israel was a few in number (1
Chron. 16:19), but God chose them to operate his programs through them. The
land of Israel is tiny, but it is the center of the earth. The Triune God would
not intend to establish the kingdom in a large scale. The parable of “a”
mustard seed clearly indicates this intention.
Note that the twelve disciples received the secret of the
kingdom of heaven hidden in the parables. They were the initial kingdom citizens
or “the nucleus of the kingdom” that Jesus intended to establish. They were
more than “a” seed. Instead of raining down a hail of fire, God ignited a match
fire to burn the whole woods. Jesus’ ministry summarized in Matthew 11:5 may be
viewed as “a sample” of the full kingdom to come.[50] But that does not preclude the
inaugurated eschatology.
Application
of the View to the Church Today
From Augustine through the Reformers and to some modern
scholars, the church is understood as the kingdom. For classical
dispensationalists, the church is a parenthesis in the timeline of the Davidic
kingdom to come, having no bearing with the kingdom. Bible scholars, except for
those who hold Covenant theology, generally agree that the
kingdom is not the church. Many among them, however, believe that the church is
not dissociated with the kingdom.
In the OT the
nation Israel took the form of the people of God. In the NT it is the church which
began with Pentecost.[51]
For those who embrace the
inaugurated eschatology, “those who receive the proclamation of the Kingdom [are]
viewed not only as the people who would inherit the eschatological kingdom, but
as the people of the Kingdom in the present, therefore, in some sense of the
word, a church.”[52] The church, as the kingdom’s “instrument” and
“custodian,” binds and loosens the kingdom (Matt. 18:18).[53] “The kingdom creates the church, works through
the church, and is proclaimed in the world by the church.”[54]
The kingdom is
not spatial or institutional but manifests the dynamic and active rule of God by
the church through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.[55]
The church is the central locus or the realm of the rule of the King, and is
the anticipatory sign of the rule of the King. Christians live in anticipation
of the coming kingdom.[56]
Gladd and Harmon hold that God's
kingdom has inaugurated a new creation, a reality that should be reflected in
the life and ministry of the church. They lay out practical application of the
view for the church in three areas – worship, prayer, and mission. Worship
should be patterned after the heavenly worship. Prayer should be pleading to
the consummation of the new-creational kingdom, and the church should extend
the God’s eschatological presence to the end of the world.[57]
If the
functions of the church are evangelism, edification, worship, and social
concern,[58]
the already-but-not-yet kingdom view establishes the relationship
between the kingdom and the church by connecting the functions of the church to
the manifestation of the God’s rule of the kingdom. Then it has pastoral,
missiological and political implications for the church.[59]
The church cannot convincingly be a sign or a mark of the future unity of
humankind in the kingdom if it keeps in place the barriers that now divide it. “A
church that knows itself as the eschatological community will avoid being
ecclesiocentric and understand that the reign of God is the world’s future, not
only the church’s.”[60]
John Calvin,
who held the Covenant theology, is found to have this kingdom view: “Calvin
defines the kingdom as follows: God reigns where people have promised/submitted
themselves to his righteousness/sovereignty by striving for the heavenly life
through self-denial and contempt for the world and their life on earth. The
kingdom thus consists of two aspects, namely that God is to change our evil
desires through his Spirit, and that God is to reform our senses so that we can
obey his sovereignty (Inst. 3.20.42).”[61]
This
encouragement for a devout and godly life is upheld by all dispensational and
non-dispensational schools. Who would not? So, in the end, be it the
dispensationalists’ view or the non-dispensationalists’ view, it does not
matter when it comes to the practical application of a kingdom view to the life
of a Christian. They all call for the same godly and missional life. An
additional point to consider is that it is futile to try to discern the
eschatological timeline, for Jesus himself prevented it (Acts 1:7). What
matters is his final words for evangelism and mission (Acts 1:8).
Conclusion
We have affirmed the already-but-not-yet
kingdom view through an exegesis of kingdom terminology and an analysis of the
kingdom parables. This view is not shared by the traditional dispensationalists
but is subscribed by many non-dispensationalists and the progressive dispensationalists.
We have presented that the most distinctive characteristic of the present
kingdom is the rule of God over the present realm, and also proved that the
parables were a Jesus’ primary messaging tool to deliver the kingdom messages
rather than an alternative method. Finally, to make a practical application of
the view to the church today, we define the church as the instrument and
anticipatory sign of the coming the kingdom and is called to live a godly life
and spread the kingdom messages. We emphasize the universal applicability of competing
kingdom views to this call.
Bibliography
Bock, Darrell, and Craig Blaising. Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.
Carson,
Donald A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand
Rapids, MS: Zondervan, 2011.
Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of the
Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MS: Baker Academic, 2001.
Gladd, Benjamin L, Matthew S. Harmon, and G. K. Beale.
Making All Things New: Inaugurated Eschatology for the Life of the Church.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016.
Ladd, George Eldon. The Presence of
the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. Grand Rapids, MS:
Eerdmans, 1974.
_________________. A Theology of the
New Testament, rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MS: Eerdmans, 2000.
Lea, Thomas D., and David A. Black, The
New Testament: Its Background and Message, 2nd ed. Nashville,
TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.
Mostert, Christiaan. “The Kingdom
Anticipated: The Church and Eschatology.” International Journal
of Systematic Theology Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan. 2011): 25-37.
Nichols, Stephen J. “The Dispensational
View of Davidic Kingdom: A Response to Progressive Dispensationalism, TMSJ
7/2 (Fall 1996), 213-239.
Schreiner, Patrick. The Body of
Jesus: A Spatial Analysis of the Kingdom in Matthew. New York, NY: Bloombury
Publishing Inc., 2016.
Sim, David C. Apocalyptic
Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2009.
Van Engen, Charles. God’s Missionary
People: Rethinking the Purpose of the Local Church. Grand Rapids, MS: Baker
Book House, 1999.
Van Wyk, J. H. “John Calvin on the
kingdom of God and eschatology.” In die Skriflig Vol.
35, No. 2 (2001): 191-214.
Vlach,
Michael J. He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God.
Silverton, OR: Lampion House Publishing, 2020.
______________. “The Kingdom of God and the
Millennium,” MSJ 23/2 (Fall 2012), 225–254.
[1]
Thomas D. Lea and David A. Black, The New Testament: Its Background and
Message, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 2003), 205.
[2]
Vlach discusses three kingdom views – full kingdom, spiritual kingdom, and
already-but-not-yet kingdom views. He argues for the full kingdom view. See
Michael J. Vlach, He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom
of God (Silverton, OR: Lampion House Publishing, 2020), 269-71.
[3] Benjamin L. Gladd, and Matthew S.
Harmon, Making All Things New: Inaugurated Eschatology for the
Life of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 9.
[4]
John F.
Walvoord, and Roy B. Zuck, eds. The Bible
Knowledge Commentary (Wheaton, Ill.: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.,
1983), 50.
[5]
Lea and Black, The New Testament, 205.
[6]
Ibid. 205.
[7]
Vlach, He Will Reign Forever, 28-9.
[8]
George E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical
Realism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 122ff.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Ibid. 9.
[12]
Stephen
J. Nichols, “The Dispensational View of Davidic Kingdom: A Response to Progressive
Dispensationalism,” TMSJ 7/2 (Fall 1996), 220.
[13]
Darrell
Bock and Craig Blaising, Progressive
Dispensationalism (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 30.
[14]
Ibid. 39-40.
[16]
George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids,
MS: Eerdmans, 2000), 70.
[17]
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 68-70.
[18]
Patrick Schreiner. The
Body of Jesus: A Spatial Analysis of the Kingdom in Matthew (New York, NY: Bloombury
Publishing Inc., 2016), 21.
[19]
Ibid. 28.
[20]
D. A. Carson, The
Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids, MS: Zondervan,
2011), 254.
[21]
Vlach shares this unified kingdom view. However, he does not subscribe to the already-but-not-yet
view. He holds the rejected and premillennial kingdom view. See Michael
J. Vlach, “The Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” MSJ 23/2 (Fall 2012),
225–254.
[24]
Ibid. 238.
[26]
Ibid. 98.
[27]
Walter A. Elwell ed. Evangelical Dictionary of the Theology, 2nd
ed. (Grand Rapids, MS: Baker Academic, 2001), 657.
[28]
Ibid.
[29]
Vlach, He Will Reign Forever, 273.
[30]
See discussion on this in Vlach, He Will Reign Forever, 320.
[31]
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 69-70.
[32]
See Concentric Layers of Literary Context in Craig L. Blomberg, A Handbook
of New Testament Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MS: Baker Academic, 2010), 95.
[33]
Paul Benware, Understanding End
Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach (Moody Publishers, 2006), Chapter
1.
[34]
A direct opposite view is given by Schreiner who believes that the field
indicates the spatial kingdom. Likewise, he argues other places in the other
parables – palace, house, wedding hall, etc. – refer to metaphoric similes of
the spatial kingdom. Patrick
Schreiner. The Body of Jesus: A Spatial Analysis of the Kingdom in Matthew
(New York, NY: Bloombury Publishing Inc., 2016), 32-3.
[36]
Ibid. 51.
[37]
Ibid.
[38]
G.J., Wenham,
J.A. Motyer, D.A. Carson, and R.T. France, eds., New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition (Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 922.
[39]
Walvoord and Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 51.
[40]
Ibid.
[41]
Ibid.
[42]
Ibid. 52.
[43]
Ladd, Presence of the Future, 269.
[46] David C. Sim, Apocalyptic
Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2009), 223.
[47]
Vlach, He Will Reign Forever, 326.
[48]
Lea and Black, The New Testament, 138.
[49]
Ibid. 207.
[50]
Vlach, He Will Reign Forever, 295.
[51]
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand
Rapids, MS: Baker Academic, 2013), 970.
[52]
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 104.
[53]
Ibid. 116.
[54]
Ibid. 117.
[55]
Charles Van Engen, God’s Missionary People: Rethinking the Purpose of the
Local Church (Grand Rapids, MS: Baker Book House, 1999), 108-109.
[56]
Ibid. 110.
[58]
Erickson, Christian Theology, 971-979.
[59]
Christiaan Mostert, “The
Kingdom Anticipated: The Church and Eschatology,” International
Journal of Systematic Theology, Vol. 13, No. 1
(Jan. 2011), 25.
[60]
Ibid. 37.
[61]
J. H. van Wyk, “John
Calvin on the kingdom of God and eschatology,” In
die Skriflig, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2001), 192.
No comments:
Post a Comment