I hope that title grabbed your attention. When people hear or use the term “Kingdom of Heaven” they usually associate it to the 3rd heaven or the heavenly realm (2 Cor. 12:2-4). The same is often true of the Kingdom of God. But is this legitimate? Most have no proper understanding of what the phrase has in store.
The first thing that should be noted about the “Kingdom of Heaven” is that it is only found in Matthew’s Gospel account. The “Kingdom of Heaven” was the message preached by John the Baptizer, Jesus, and His disciples (Matt. 3:2, 4:17, & 10:7). It was the message that the King brought only to His people – Israel (Matt. 10:5-6). It was the message of the Kingdom that Israel had long expected and understood to refer to the Davidic Kingdom.[1] It was the message which Israel would reject by rejecting their King.
A question arises; why does Matthew refer to this kingdom as the “Kingdom of Heaven?” Older Dispensationalists use to distinguish between the terms “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven.” However, it must be seen as synonymous terms (Matt. 19:23-24). Fruchtenbaum and Walvoord suggest that the reason Matthew uses “of Heaven” is for the Jewish nature of the gospel account – “a Hebraism.”[2] Matthew was written for Jewish readers. That much is certain. For Matthew to not offend any Jews, he would simply substitute heaven for God. This idea is still used in modern times when people say, “heaven help us.” This is just another way to refer to God. If this were the case, then Matthew was not consistent in applying this principle. He uses the phrase “Kingdom of God” on at least 4 occasions (Matt. 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, & 21:43; 6:33 is a possible textual variant). Matthew even refers to the Kingdom as “My Father’s Kingdom.” This is an unlikely reason to substitute “of God” with “of Heaven.”
There is likely much more to the phrase “Kingdom of Heaven” than a substitute for God. First of all, it must be noted that the translation “kingdom of heaven” is not an accurate one, though virtually every English translation translates it as such. A literal translation of the phrase is actually “kingdom of the heavens.”[3] Whenever the plural of the noun ouranos is used, the idea is the sky, stellar heavens, or space (cf. Psalm 19:1). Matthew does not have in mind the 3rd heaven where the abode of God is. This is why I maintain that there is no such thing as the “Kingdom of Heaven.” That is not an accurate translation. When people hear that phrase, they automatically attribute the idea to the realm of heaven where God is. That is not the idea that Christ had in mind when He offered it to Israel.
It is very likely that Matthew is making reference back to Daniel. Daniel is a large contributor to Israel’s kingdom theology. There is much insight into the idea of a Messianic Kingdom for Israel. Thus it would make sense that Matthew would tap from this resource of “kingdomology.” Taking a closer look at Daniel 7:13, it seems that the phrase “kingdom of the heavens” bears its roots from that passage of Scripture. This phrase is very Messianic in nature. Christ quotes that passage on numerous occasions when He deals with His 2nd Coming (Matt. 24:30 & 26:64). What is interesting is the mention of clouds and the sky. The content of Daniel 7 speaks of the Kingdom actually coming from the sky. This might indicate why Matthew chooses to use the term “kingdom of the heavens.” He is referring to Daniel 7:13 as the source of this Messianic Kingdom.
This leads to the thought that the genitive twn ouranwn is not a descriptive genitive (“heavenly kingdom”). It is not an appositional/epexegetical genitive (“the kingdom which is the heavens”). It is likely that, due to its foundation from Daniel 7, it is a genitive of source (“the kingdom from the heavens”).[4] This is the most consistent with the idea of Daniel 7:13 being the root of the phrase.
I wonder what would happen to certain theological circles if all translations started to use the correct translation “the Kingdom of the heavens?”
[1] Since Christ never gave His audience a different definition of the Kingdom that He was preaching, it seem the most logical to assume that His audience understood what Christ meant by the Kingdom of God. Their understanding would be rooted in the OT concept of an earthly Kingdom (especially from the book of Daniel).
[2] Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, pg. 381 & Walvoord, The Church in Prophecy, pgs. 24-27.
[3] The Greek phrase being βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (basileia twn ouranwn).
[4] For more on this use of the genitive, see Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pgs, 109-110 & Black, It’s Still Greek to Me, pg. 51.
10 comments:
What are you saying? Is there a Kingdom the Messianic Kingdom or is it the Sovereign Rule of Almighty God?
You make me laugh, Daniel. You are kind of reading my mind. I am wanting to write about the popular Dispensational view of all the different aspects of the Kingdom. At least you hit on the only 2 that are legitamate.
To answer question (though I am pretty sure you know where I stand), the OT teaches only 2 aspects of the kingdom - a Sovereign Rule and the other Messianic. Context must determine which is being referred to. Christ wouldn't be teaching repentance to gain entrance into the Sovereign aspect of the kingdom. They would already be there under God's providential rule. Since Christ only preached this message to Israel, then it is likely that the kingdom of God/the heavens refers to the Messianic/Davidic Kingdom.
I think that you are right in your interpretation, "Kingdom from Heaven." Although, as you know, we would disagree as to the nature of that kingdom. Blessings.
Steve
Steven, I would love to hear your view as to the nature of that kingdom if you agree that my interpretation was correct.
Well I will do my best while trying to be very brief and not get too deply into the Scriptural considerations (that could be best served at a later date).
I see the kingdom as partially already arrived with Christ's first coming. He inaugurated a covenant community with hearts of flesh and filled them with the Holy Spirit, not just as empowerment for leadership, but for obedience to the law and relationship with himself and, through him, the Father.
The kingdom has not come in full, however. We are waiting for it to come in its fullness. (already but not yet tension that applies both to salvation and eschatology) At that point we will have a new heaven and new earth and Christ will reign on that new earth (and we will be with him. He will reign over us and yet we will also reign with him. That is my basic view. I am sure it raises more questions than it answers.
Steven, if you agree w/ my interpretation of the kingdom of the heavens, then please clarify how that relates to your notion of the kingdom.
Also, my interpretation was not "Kingdom from Heaven" as you said in your first comment but the "Kingdom from the heavens" (remember the roots from Dan. 7:13 and Christ using that referent in Matt. 24 in His 2nd Coming).
So you are saying you believe in a literal kingdom coming down from the sky?
I understand this as a general source - the Kingdom, is from Heaven in that it will be made and ruled by Christ (God).
I believe there is a problem in your interpretation of tos ouranos/tov ouranon. It carries a semantic range which according to other Greek works and the likelihood of meaning within the N.T., can mean either sky or heaven. Your eschatological hermeneutic is influencing your interpretation of Jesus' words and flying in the face of centuries of Christian thought.
jn 3:3 seems to indicate a third aspect of "Kingdom" - the spiritual Kingdom. Christ said that you will not enter the kingdom of God unless you are born again.
Is. 66, however, shows that in the Mill. Kingdom, hell will be on the face of the earth - even if you are unsaved you will be "in" the Mill. Kingdom, although not part of the "blessings" associated with it. Unless Christ was speaking of anihilationism (which He wasn't) it seems that He was showing another kingdom.
Nate, Jn 3:3 & 5 are pretty phsycial. To "see" and "enter" something sound much like a phsycail entrance, like entering the MK (which only regenerated people will enter at the beginning of the MK). Vs. 5 is even more physical with the two prepositions being used to emphasize "entering into." That sounds awefully physical to me. Not to mention what Nic would have understood by the Kingdom of God (as well as how Christ uses the term throughout all of His ministry).
As for Isa. 66, could you explain a little further. I don't see a passage explaining "hell on the face of the earth" as you put it. Before I can give a better response, perhaps it would help if I understood you better.
Post a Comment