The Kingdom of God: A Traditional Dispensational View
Kyle C. Dunham
Kyle C. Dunham is the Associate Professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI.
Christ Jesus has initiated the eschatological age, of which the kingdom of God is an integral part. Yet the prophesied Davidic kingdom has not yet come to fruition, as evident in the mystery form of the kingdom explicated by Christ in the parables of Matthew 13. In these parables a dichotomy is discernible between a present, mystery form of kingdom, called the kingdom of the Son of Man, and a future, consummative kingdom, called the Father’s kingdom.
Introduction[1]
Traditional dispensationalism has often lacked consensus not only in its view of the nature of the kingdom of God but also in its efforts to correlate New Testament (NT) teaching concerning Christ’s present rule over the church. This shortcoming has provided an occasion for developments such as progressive dispensationalism and more recently progressive covenantalism to flourish. The purpose of this essay is to provide an alternative to inconsistent approaches within traditional dispensational views on the kingdom while avoiding the shortcomings of other systems that fail to distinguish discrete biblical kingdom programs.
The first part of the study surveys the historical contours of the kingdom debate within dispensationalism. Here, I identify the ways in which inchoate or inconsistent views on the kingdom provided a venue for other approaches such as progressive dispensationalism to emerge. Next, I look at the concept of inaugurated eschatology to draw upon helpful perspectives for comprehending the kingdom of God concept in the New Testament. After this, I will advance implications from this understanding toward a synthesis of the mystery kingdom parables in the Gospel of Matthew.
I contend that the NT develops the kingdom of God theme as a two-stage eschatological kingdom program. The first stage of this kingdom program encompasses roughly the present church age and is identified specifically in Matthew as the kingdom of the Son. The current stage entails Christ’s Melchizedekian sacral kingship, as expounded in Hebrews, although this reign subsumes additionally the angelic sphere and the cosmos itself. The reign proceeds from the right hand of the Father and shares in the Father’s sovereignty along the lines of co-regencies in the Old Testament (OT). The second stage of this eschatological kingdom program encompasses the terrestrial millennial kingdom. This reign entails the dominion of Christ from the Davidic throne on earth for a thousand years, fulfilling OT promises to the nation of Israel and consummation of the Davidic covenant. Given the suggested schema for understanding the kingdom of God, I conclude that other interpretive approaches fall short by attributing to the presently exalted Christ Davidic kingship. The current kingship of Christ consists instead of Melchizedekian kingship, in which Christ reigns over the church and the cosmos as a royal priest.
Dispensationalism and the Kingdom of God
Evangelical NT scholar George Ladd reserved his most vigorous polemic for dispensational scholars.[2] He found them, among other shortcomings, too separatist, too exclusive, and too narrow-minded.[3] His review of The Greatness of the Kingdom by Alva J. McClain exemplifies his disdain:
McClain, like most dispensationalists, has lost contact with the world of theological thought. Dispensationalism has never thrived upon dialogue with other theological points of view; it flourishes only in the hothouse of its own exclusive system. Most of the literature, exegetical and theological, cited to give support to his interpretation, is about two generations old. Almost no modern literature on the Kingdom of God is used. Certainly a theology designed to meet the needs of the twentieth century should be relevant to the issues of the hour.[4]
Ladd’s disparagement of dispensationalism touched a nerve, spurring a new generation to think outside inherited dispensational lines when correlating NT eschatology.[5]
The Fraying of Dispensationalism
The fabric of dispensationalism emerged from this twentieth-century ideological struggle with Ladd and other scholars frayed but not entirely rent. Still, its cohesion had come apart in many quarters.[6] A considerable portion of dispensationalists, becoming known as progressive dispensationalists, modified long-cherished, key tenets of traditional dispensationalism.[7] Principal among these was the traditional dichotomy between the present church age and the prophesied millennial kingdom, born out of desire for stringent theological distinction between Israel and the church.[8] For traditional dispensationalists, the present church age held no immediate connection with the coming millennial kingdom because the latter relates primarily to the nation of Israel and fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, while the church age serves as a parenthesis in that program.[9] Moreover, for many traditional dispensationalists, no biblical kingdom program is entirely to be identified with the church. Therefore, the nation of Israel and the NT church must be strictly distinguished.[10]
Progressive dispensationalists, on the other hand, recognize more continuity between Israel and the church as well as among between the kingdom programs.[11] They concur with Ladd on the weakness of conventional dispensational distinctives.[12] They simultaneously seek rapport with evangelical theologians of other traditions by synthesizing the kingdom programs beyond their traditional dispensationalist predecessors.[13] They argue that the present session of Christ at the right hand of God entails initial fulfillment of Davidic provisions, so that Jesus now reigns on the Davidic throne over the church. The church age is the “already” of the messianic kingdom, while the millennial reign of Revelation 20:4–6 constitutes the “not yet” consummation.[14] Bock affirms: “Being seated on David’s throne is linked to being seated at God’s right hand. In other words, Jesus’s resurrection-ascension to God’s right hand is put forward . . . as a fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, just as the allusion to Joel fulfills the new covenant.”[15] Thus, whereas traditional dispensationalists maintain a strict distinction between the kingdom programs and between Israel and the church, progressive dispensationalists blend these entities, introducing the messianic, Davidic kingdom into the church.
Insufficient Clarity and Synthesis in Traditional Dispensationalist Approaches to Kingdom
One likely contribution to dispensationalism’s fraying was some traditional dispensationalists’ inconsistency in articulating the connection between biblical kingdom programs and the church.[16] Telling is the fact that progressive dispensationalists such as Bock argue that dispensationalism contains sufficient leeway to accommodate their merging of the kingdom programs.[17] Blaising, wishing to emphasize the historical lack of cohesion in dispensational kingdom thinking,[18] insists that mid-twentieth century dispensationalism contained four entirely distinct views of the church age’s relationship to the Davidic kingdom: (1) an absence of a mediatorial kingdom in the church age, but only a limited interim rule (McClain and Toussaint), (2) a spiritual kingdom currently entailing the church within a mystery form of the kingdom which is Christendom (Ryrie), (3) a spiritual form of kingdom which is the church (Walvoord), and (4) a present theocratic kingdom program existing in four divergent spheres of authority in which is the kingdom operative in the church age (Pentecost).[19] For progressive dispensationalists, this lack of a unified traditional dispensational view of the continuity versus discontinuity between the church age and biblical kingdom programs allowed further development in kingdom interpretations.[20]
In seeking commonality with non-dispensationalist kingdom thinking, progressive dispensationalists concluded that traditional dispensationalism needed revision. For them, traditional dispensationalism’s zeal for stringent distinction between Israel and the church, as well as the Davidic kingdom and the church age (as well as other categories including law versus grace), forced the movement to emphasize discontinuities and neglect legitimate continuities between the people(s) of God. Joined with this overemphasis was inattention toward the unified nature of God’s historical plan of redemption, or Heilgeschichte.[21]
In presenting an underdeveloped and sometimes conflicting understanding of the relationship of the kingdom programs in Scripture, some traditional dispensationalists thus catalyzed progressive dispensationalism.[22] A survey of dispensational literature suggests that, at times, scholars have inconsistently integrated the church and the kingdom of God.[23] One example is Charles Ryrie in his understanding of the church’s relation to biblical kingdom programs. In his Basic Theology,Ryrie presents a puzzling and superficially contradictory argument for four biblical concepts of kingdom: (1) the universal kingdom, (2) the Davidic/messianic kingdom, (3) the mystery form of the kingdom, and (4) the spiritual kingdom.[24] In defining the spiritual kingdom, Ryrie inconsistently equates it with the church.[25] Although he argues that the church is a spiritual kingdom, earlier in the work he denies current regal authority for Christ, suggesting that Christ possesses all the trappings but no functions of kingship.[26] He claims the church is a kingdom but denies a reigning king. Such discrepancies have perplexed dispensational students.
The Church and the Kingdom
In light of traditional dispensationalism’s inconsistency on the kingdom of God, a more integrated approach to Scripture’s teaching is necessary. On the one side, traditional dispensationalism should seek to avoid ambiguity concerning the kingdom’s relationship to the church, and, on the other, to avoid the kingdom mingling of non-traditional approaches. Here I argue, in keeping with a primary concern of Ladd and progressive dispensationalists, that the NT links the kingdom to the current church age under the premises of inaugurated eschatology. At the same time, I maintain that traditional dispensationalism has correctly argued that the church age and millennial kingdom are distinct programs in the historical redemptive plan of God. Christ does not rule currently from the Davidic throne. This reign pertains rather to the fulfillment of promises with the nation of Israel during the terrestrial millennial kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament and delineated in Revelation 20.
Christ reigns presently in one respect over the church by presiding over an eschatological kingdom in which the Melchizedekian sacral king governs by dispensing salvific benefits and mediates before God for his people as the ideal high priest.[27] Furthermore, in his triumphant ascension/exaltation to the right hand of the Father, Christ has achieved initial reign over the heavens, expressive particularly in his dominion over principalities and powers in the angelic sphere. In addition, Christ possesses a veiled reign over the cosmos. Such an understanding of the church lies within traditional dispensationalism and develops its conventional kingdom thought. Traditional dispensationalists have diligently constructed a polemic against the erstwhile spiritualistic kingdom of amillennialism[28] but often have neglected to flesh out sufficiently their own formulation of the relation between the church and biblical kingdom programs.[29] This study seeks to specify the nature of Christ’s current kingdom while affirming the vital distinctions within traditional dispensationalism.
New Testament Theology as Inaugurated Eschatology
One of the most fruitful insights of twentieth-century New Testament theology[30] was its rediscovery that all NT doctrine should be viewed through the lens of inaugurated eschatology.[31]While systematic theology often relegates the doctrine of eschatology to the study of last things, biblical theology posited that eschatology touches every aspect of the NT. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., points out the sweeping nature of this approach to NT theology:
In the newer consensus, eschatology is expanded to include the state of affairs that has already begun with the work of Christ in what the New Testament calls ‘the fulness of time(s)’ (Gal 4:4; Eph 1:10), ‘these last days’ (Heb 1:2), ‘at the end of the ages’ (Heb 9:26). Involved also . . . are basic and decisive considerations already realized in the present identity and experience of the Christian, and so too in the present life and mission of the church.[32]
Eschatology thus constitutes not merely a branch of systematic theology but the very lens through which to view the NT.
From this basic vantage point, Ladd argued earlier that “eschatology provides a basic unifying structure for NT” because “the Kingdom of God, eternal life, justification, and the life of the Spirit all belong to the age to come, all are eschatological.” The incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus has thrust the church into the last days (Heb 1:2; 9:26; 1 John 2:18). The church is experiencing the eschatological age in a new aeon linked organically to the future aeon culminating at the parousia of Christ. This understanding squares with Jesus’s paradoxical statements concerning the blessings of the messianic era enjoyed both currently (Matt 13:16; Luke 10:23) and in the future kingdom (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30). This eschatological orientation radiated not only in Jesus’s teaching but also in the apostles’.[33] The roots of this turn toward the eschatological in NT theology lie in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century with a young biblical theologian teaching at Princeton Theological Seminary.
Geerhardus Vos
Seminal to this eschatological turn to the NT were the writings of Princeton Seminary professor Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949).[34] Vos concluded that Christ’s first coming signaled a new epoch for the people of God. Furthermore, the resurrection of Christ and his bestowal of the Spirit commenced the eschatological age. Vos establishes this correspondence first by arguing that the resurrection means nothing less in NT, and particularly in Pauline thought, than the initiation of the eschatological resurrection program.[35]
Inasmuch as the resurrection program’s commencement heralds the coming eschatological age, the bestowal of the Spirit equally announces its beginning, for the Spirit is part of the unfolding resurrection program for the believer.[36] The Spirit marks the eschatological age in four ways: by marking the near approach of the future world (Joel 2:28 [Heb. 3:1]), by his close association with the Messiah (Isa 11:2), by his heralding of the future new life for Isarel (Isa 32:15–17), and by his transcendental and supernatural work which signals the incursion of the heavenly order (John 3:6–7, 31).[37]
Vos coalesces this thinking by contending not only that the Spirit is indicative of the eschatological age, but that this Spirit-inclusive eschatological age is specified in Scripture as the entrance of the kingdom of God. Thus, the manifestation of the Spirit signals the present reality of the kingdom of God as much as it does the inauguration of the eschatological age.[38] Insofar as the Spirit and the kingdom of God were linked in the present age but did not constitute the consummation of the spiritual state, Vos could speak in terms of a proto-already/not yet framework between the stages of the present kingdom of God and the consummative kingdom of God.[39]He posits a current form of the kingdom of God as springing from the eschatological tone of the present era and the initiation of the resurrection program together with the granting of the messianic Spirit, along with a future instantiated kingdom to come. In furnishing these insights, Vos may be viewed as a pioneer of inaugurated eschatology.
Later Reformed Interpreters
While traditional Reformed theology defined the kingdom of God in spiritualistic terms as Christ’s reign in the hearts of his people through salvation,[40] Anthony Hoekema incorporated inaugurated eschatology within Reformed theology to establish the kingdom of God as an eschatological manifestation of the unfolding reign of Jesus Christ over the cosmos.[41] He summarized NT eschatology with three pivotal observations: (1) the grand eschatological event predicted in the Old Testament has occurred, (2) the occurrence which the OT authors appeared to describe as one movement is now understood to involve two stages: the present age and the future, and (3) the relationship between these two stages is that the blessings of the present age are the pledge and guarantee of greater blessings to come, directed ultimately to the renovation of the cosmos.[42] Hoekema set a new tone within Reformed theology by utilizing an already/not yet framework to argue that the kingdom of God in two stages involves the enjoyment of present blessings which are indissolubly linked and serve as a precursor to the consummate blessings of the future age.
Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. likewise has been of key importance in developing the implications of inaugurated eschatology upon kingdom formulation.[43] He argues for evidence of biblical corroboration for an expanded NT eschatology along three lines. First, the holistic eschatological hope of the Old Testament with its single focus on the Day of the Lord, inaugurated by the Messiah’s coming, presents an organically unified understanding in which the two advents of Christ are to be viewed as two episodes of one eschatological coming.[44] Second, this broadened eschatology coincides with renewed attention at the close of the nineteenth century to the Gospel writers’ central theme of Jesus’s proclamation, viz., the kingdom of God. This fresh understanding of the kingdom came to be divested of its older, liberal conception of a timeless, always present moral order and understood to mean “the arrival now, at last, of the final rule of God in creation, present in and through [Jesus’s] person and work.”[45]Third, Paul’s teaching on the manifestly eschatological event of the resurrection of Christ must be viewed as the “firstfruits,” or actual beginning of the momentous resurrection-harvest at the end of history. Furthermore, the entirety of Paul’s teaching on the Spirit as the Spirit of the resurrected Christ, the certain down-payment on the eschatological inheritance of the saints, belongs within this eschatological paradigm.[46] Gaffin clearly preserves the essence of Vos’s insights while further clarifying their bearing upon the (eschatological) kingdom of God exercised through the person and work of the exalted Messiah Jesus Christ.
Implications of Inaugurated Eschatology for the Kingdom of God
Inaugurated eschatology offers three primary benefits toward a fuller understanding of the nature of the kingdom of God. First, it underscores the importance of what Blaising terms “new creation eschatology.”[47] That is, emphasizing the continuity between the present eschatological experience of the believer and future consummative blessings correctly portrays the scope of redemption as embracing the whole cosmos. Second, inaugurated eschatology recognizes that the kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus and preached by the apostles is one eschatological kingdom program.[48] This formulation may incite initial discomfort for the traditional dispensationalist. Yet, the careful student must observe that when Jesus discloses the mysteries (Matt 13:11; Luke 8:10) or mystery (singular, Mark 4:11) of the kingdom of God, he addresses the prophesied (and already rejected) Messianic kingdom, as nearly every traditional dispensationalist would affirm. Thus, he furnishes a precedent for unity between the church age (that is, the mystery of the kingdom) and the prophesied Davidic kingdom. The present, so-called mystery form of the kingdom is a form of the kingdom, not a wholly discrete kingdom program.[49] Furthermore, the distinction between the present form of kingdom for which I am arguing and the future Davidic kingdom remains clear as the distinction between a Melchizedekian, high-priestly kingdom (Ps 110:4) and a Davidic, geo-political kingdom (Ps 132:11). The latter fulfills OT promises given to the nation of Israel; the former does not. The latter views Christ as reigning from the terrestrial throne of David, while the former views Christ as reigning from the celestial throne at the Father’s right hand. The two kingdoms, while both grounded in the Messiah’s inherent right to rule, involve different purposes. Their unity is founded on the fact that the exalted Christ is the instated monarch over both realms, as implied in the phrase “inaugurated eschatology.”
Third, inaugurated eschatology maintains an essentially Christological focus. Although Ryrie criticizes this element in progressive dispensationalism,[50] the Christological fulcrum of NT eschatology cannot be dismissed. The eschatology of the resurrected and exalted Christ forms the centerpiece of NT hope.[51]Jesus’s incarnation, death, resurrection, and exaltation infused eschatology into every aspect of Christianity. Therefore, to speak of inaugurated eschatology is to speak of the Christ event.
With these emphases in mind, inaugurated eschatology has contributed much to the understanding of the kingdom of God in its dual stages. We may speak legitimately of an already/not yet framework with reference to the kingdom of God. Having traced the understanding of contemporary dispensationalism regarding the kingdom as well as the nearly solidified consensus concerning the NT outlook as that of inaugurated eschatology, I turn now to examine in more detail the initial textual basis in the NT for this understanding of the present Melchizedekian kingdom of Christ.
The Kingdom of God in Matthew
Those who wish to assimilate Jesus’s conception of the kingdom must begin with the Gospel of Matthew, for here shines most illustriously the motif of the coming kingdom.[52] Given Matthew’s eagerness to develop the theme of the kingdom, the following study will concentrate on his account with the other Synoptic Gospels adding details to provide a full purview of the kingdom of God motif. Particularly, I survey the structure of Matthew to determine the significance of the kingdom in the Gospel together with the manner in which his elucidation of the kingdom fits his overall strategy. Following this I will examine the significance of Jesus’s opening proclamation of the imminence of the kingdom and Jesus’s development of the kingdom as an approaching reality for his disciples, focusing on the mystery parables of the kingdom in Matthew 13.
The Place of the Kingdom in the Structure of Matthew’s Gospel
Although the Gospel of Matthew is notoriously difficult to outline in its basic structure because of the author’s use of multiple structural features,[53] Kingsbury has identified a crucial key for discerning transitions among the major movements of the work. The phrase ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς (“from that time Jesus began”) functions as a transitional phrase denoting the three sections of the book. The phrase appears at 4:17 and 16:21, demarcating the movements of the book roughly as the following: (1) the person of Jesus the Messiah (1:1–4:16), (2) the proclamation of Jesus the Messiah (4:17–16:20), and (3) the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah (16:21–28:20).[54]
However, not all Matthean scholars are satisfied with this simple arrangement. Others have recognized another prominent structural feature of the book, the five discourses contained in Jesus’s great teaching orations: (1) the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5–7), (2) the address to the disciples on mission and martyrdom (chap. 10), (3) the exposition on the kingdom of heaven (chap. 13), (4) the discourse on community regulations (chap. 18), and (5) the discourse on eschatology (chaps. 24–25).[55] Stonehouse notes that each of the five discourses concludes with the identical formula: καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς (“and so it was when Jesus had finished” [Matt 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1]).[56] The five discourses, while not providing a seamless structure for the book, do furnish major panels around which the book is constructed. Focusing the structural coherence of Matthew around the five discourses has the advantage of supporting the dispensational interpretation that chapter 11 serves as a pivotal point in the development of Matthew’s argument.
Here Matthew begins to delineate the rejection of the messianic kingdom by the Jewish people.[57] In keeping with the first structural schema, Jesus’s initial proclamation of the kingdom of heaven is the commencement of the second major movement of the Gospel, the proclamation of Jesus the Messiah (4:17–16:20). Coinciding with the theme of Matthew as the presentation of the king and his kingdom the nation of Israel,[58] much of Jesus’s kingdom proclamation to his Jewish contemporaries is to be found in this section. The following will focus on this portion, with particular reference to one of its features, the third of Jesus’s five great discourses (Matthew 13), concerning his unveiling of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus’s Proclamation of the Imminence of the Kingdom
By repeating verbatim John’s opening public proclamation, Jesus inaugurated his ministry in Matthew’s account by enjoining repentance in light of the imminently approaching kingdom of heaven (Matt 4:17). With such a terse yet elusive statement, questions confront the reader. How did Jesus himself understand or expect his audience to understand his announcement of the kingdom of heaven? Did Jesus intend for his Jewish audience to understand his kingdom of heaven as the prophesied messianic kingdom of the Hebrew Scriptures or did he intend to imbue his proclamation of the kingdom with new revelation concerning its content and meaning? Moreover, what did Jesus mean by the pronouncement that the kingdom of heaven is “at hand”? Had the kingdom arrived in some sense in his person and work (actually or proleptically) or was it merely from their vantage point imminent? If so, upon what was its imminence contingent? Clues are furnished from a careful analysis of the context.
The Meaning of βασιλεία in Jesus’s Proclamation
In solving the original question of Jesus’s and his contemporaries’ understanding of the kingdom of heaven, diverse suggestions have been offered. Several have observed in Jesus’s teaching on the kingdom a dynamic quality, centering principally upon salvific redemption and allegedly loosed from the confinements of its overtly physical connotations in OT prophecy. Peter Toon, for example, contends that for Jesus the kingdom differed from the understanding of his contemporaries because it was a living, dynamic reality which made an abrupt demand on the people and at the same time offered them immediate salvation and wholeness.[59]
Partly this understanding follows from Gustaf Dalman’s landmark work, The Words of Jesus, in which he argues that βασιλεία refers to the “sovereignty of the transcendent God,” alluding to the “kingly rule” of God primarily and only tangentially to the realm or territory governed by him.[60] Numerous scholars have built their understanding of the kingdom of God on this proposition,[61] such that Marshall pointed to this understanding as one of five points of consensus which emerged in kingdom discussion in the latter half of the twentieth century.[62] Since then, however, the scholarly trend has moved away from this understanding of βασιλεία toward a recognition of “realm” as part of its core meaning.[63]
O’Neill and Kvalbein have argued persuasively against Dalman’s understanding. O’Neill posits that while מַלְכּוּת in the OT can refer to “royal power,” as for instance in referring to David’s “royal rule” (1 Chron 29:30), this meaning does not correspond unilaterally to βασιλεία.[64] Rather, only a handful of NT texts carry the connotation for βασιλεία of “right to reign as king” (Luke 1:33; Rev 17:12, 17), for “rule” cannot operate without a correlative “realm” over which to exercise the rule.[65] Kvalbein concurs with this understanding, contending that βασιλεία carries concrete connotations, with spatial/locative nuances primary as the realm over which rule is exercised.[66] This understanding has long been advocated by dispensationalists.[67]
With an understanding of βασιλεία as incorporating ruler, rule, and realm, does this conclusion necessitate that the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus was in fact the messianic reign and realm prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures? Scholars have often dismissed this correlation, arguing instead that Jesus introduces a wholly new concept of kingdom in his teaching that applies exclusively to rule, not realm.[68] Such a view, however, falls short at the very least in that it fails to take into account that Jesus’s revelation of the kingdom changed over the course of his ministry as his initial offer of the kingdom predicated upon national repentance was rejected by the Jewish people and consequently withdrawn (a point evident from a careful analysis of the structural progression of the Gospel, seen in a comparison of Matt 10:5–7 with Matt 13:1–7 culminating in Matt 21:43).[69] Such a view falls short in comprehending how Jewish audiences would have discerned the phrase “kingdom of God” because it neglects to give sufficient attention to Second Temple Judaism of the first century.[70] A more compelling rationale can be garnered to support the traditional dispensational conclusion that the kingdom Jesus preached was firmly rooted in OT prophecies concerning the messianic kingdom.
Stanley Toussaint champions the traditional dispensational interpretation that Jesus’s proclamation of the kingdom of heaven could have been no other kingdom than that prophesied in the Old Testament. This follows from several factors: (1) Jesus offers no definition of the kingdom, he simply assumes that his listeners possess sufficient background understanding that no precise classification is provided; (2) Jesus’s message is restricted to the nation of Israel (Matt 10:5–6), the kingdom was theirs initially to gain or to lose; (3) the disciples to the very end of Jesus’s earthly career anticipated a literal kingdom on earth in keeping with OT prophecy (Matt 20:20–21; Acts 1:6); (4) the kingdom in view cannot viably be the church because the church is a heretofore undisclosed mystery, the kingdom cannot be the universal kingdom of God, for such is an eternal kingdom which has always existed. Furthermore, his proclaimed kingdom cannot be a spiritual kingdom because such a reign would hold no special importance for Israel.[71]
Barry Gridley adds several reasons to conclude that Jesus was proclaiming the prophesied, messianic kingdom. First, Jewish expectations focused upon this kingdom.[72] Several synoptic texts reveal that the Jews related their understanding of the kingdom to the impending eschatological reign of the Messiah.[73] Second, Jesus must be charged with duplicity if the kingdom he proclaimed was not the prophesied kingdom, inasmuch as he did not seek to clarify or correct the people’s misunderstanding had he intended otherwise. Third, Jesus frequently appeals to the Hebrew Scriptures for his concept of the kingdom. Fourth, Jesus’s preaching concerning the kingdom includes all the elements of the messianic reign: spiritual, moral, social, ecclesiastical, political, and physical aspects.[74] Based upon these observations we conclude that when Jesus inaugurated his public ministry by proclaiming that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, he intended to convey nothing less than that the messianic kingdom prophesied in the OT was imminent. I turn now to examine several passages that elucidate this coming kingdom, following the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as Messiah and his ethical demands.[75]
Jesus’s Shift to the Mysteries of the Kingdom in Matthew 13
From Matthew 13 onward a three-fold alteration is evident in Jesus’s teaching on the kingdom of God, following his rejection by the Jewish people, including a shift to instructing the disciples specifically, an introduction of the concept of “mystery,” and a change to teaching about the kingdom through parables.[76] A visible shift transforms the kingdom from being “at hand” in Jesus’s pronouncements to being a veiled phenomenon disclosed only by means of parables with the full meaning kept obscure to outsiders. The disciples ask Jesus privately why he speaks to the masses in parables. Jesus replies: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given” (Matt 13:11).[77] Jesus here points out the basis for his shift to speaking in parables: he has turned to parables chiefly because God has determined to grant this new revelation to Jesus’s disciples. Davies and Allison observe that this statement does not merely ostracize outsiders but emphasizes God’s gracious bestowal to the disciples: “Eschatological knowledge is the gift of God.”[78]
The Mystery of the Kingdom
As part of the shift to kingdom teaching in parables a keyword distilling this new approach is the pivotal term μυστήριον, which pertains to two basic semantic categories: God’s unmanifested, private counsel or that which transcends normal human understanding as an ultimate reality or secret.[79] Matthew 13:11 falls under the first category, involving as BDAG denotes, “The secret thoughts, plans, and dispensations of God which are hidden from human reason, as well as from all other comprehension below the divine level, and await either fulfillment or revelation to those for whom they are intended.”[80] The use of the word in Matthew 13:11 and its parallels (Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10) is the only occurrence of the term in the synoptic Gospels. Here, μυστήριον pertains to the secret counsel of God concerning the kingdom now revealed to humans. What does this new disclosure entail? Likely the mystery relates not singularly to new content about the kingdom but rather fresh revelation of the manner and time of the kingdom’s coming. Rather than a distant phenomenon for the prophesied future, the mystery kingdom is a present (though eschatological) reality. The term μυστήριον involves not only the timing of the coming kingdom but also its nature. In contrast to the vivid and dramatic inauguration of the messianic Davidic kingdom as foretold in the OT, the mystery kingdom comes as unobtrusively as crops growing in a field. The overtly tranquil manner of the coming of the kingdom underscores its nature as a present manifestation of Christ’s rule in this age rather than the abrupt advent of the Davidic kingdom at the end of the age. Revelation of this mystery entails divinely-given knowledge of the kingdom’s origin, timing, and mediation.[81]
Jesus employs parables to distinguish genuine disciples from outsiders. Beyond the purpose of parables, I turn now to examine the content of the parables. Jesus’s parables deal almost exclusively with the kingdom of God.[82] The parables of Matthew 13 serve as an important insight into the nature of the eschatological kingdom in its mystery phase.
Mystery Parables as a Present Manifestation of the Kingdom
Some dispensationalists contend that the parables of Matthew 13 have no relation to the course of the kingdom of God in the present age. Toussaint, for example, argues that the kingdom parables of Matthew 13 merely provide additional information relative to the present postponement of the future millennial kingdom (that is, the interregnum) rather than revealing a presently active phase of the kingdom.[83] Toussaint suggests that in view of the Jewish rejection of the rightful King, the parables cannot reveal any form of present kingdom. There is no kingdom activity in the current age prior to the parousia.
Despite Toussaint’s arguments, the nature of kingdom revelation in Matthew 13 is difficult to square with an exclusively future kingdom. For example, the parable of the mustard seed can only refer to a present age. The kingdom of this parable cannot be the Davidic kingdom since Jesus is emphasizing the inconspicuous beginning of the kingdom, in distinction to the majestic inauguration of the future millennial reign. Further, the kingdom cannot be the monophyletic Jewish kingdom of David because it embraces Jews and Gentile alike, as the symbolism of the birds vividly portrays.[84] Other parables which emphasize organic growth and development, such as the parables of the leavening process or of the weeds and the wheat, must pertain also to the present age rather than to the future Davidic kingdom. These parables portray Jesus’s present lordship and exaltation, which began rather inconspicuously with eleven disciples in the upper room rather than with the fanfare of a typical coronation.[85] Rather, the parables of Matthew 13 disclose a phase of kingdom operative in the present age. Each parable will be examined briefly with respect to its development of the kingdom motif.
The Parable of the Sower and the Soils (Matt 13:1–9, 18–23)
Jesus’s first parable in chapter 13, which concerns the sower and the soils, often has been interpreted popularly as dealing with general evangelism rather than with the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, this parable along with the others pertains to Jesus’s instruction on the kingdom of God in its mystery stage. It is placed strategically on the heels of the episode in chapters 11–12 of Jesus’s rejection at the hands of his Jewish people. Thus the parable underscores the truth that the apparent failure of the kingdom to come victoriously as Jesus had indicated originally is no failure at all. Instead, those who welcome Jesus’s word and bear fruit are the perpetuators of the kingdom in its present, mystery form. The parable deals not so much with the identity of the sower or even with the seed itself but rather with the outcome of the seed’s insemination, a success dependent directly upon the type of soil receiving the seed.[86] Although the kingdom of God is beset with difficulty and apparent loss in certain areas of its yield, the sown seed results ultimately in a stunning harvest.[87]
The essential point is that this parable concerns the church-age progress of God’s work on earth as a development of Jesus’s present reign. The reasons for this conclusion are several. First, the parable is tied directly by Jesus to the fresh revelation he is granting the disciples about the kingdom of heaven. Jesus shares this parable immediately prior to explaining the purpose of parables in general. The disciples have asked Jesus after the giving of the parable why he speaks to the people in this way. His reply is that the disciples have been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, whereas the throngs of people have not. Jesus thus links the parable of the sower and the soils along with the purpose of parables in general to his provision of fresh revelation concerning the nature of the kingdom of heaven.
Second, insofar as the parable concerns the kingdom of heaven, the organic nature of the parable demands a present significance. The concept of seeds being sown, gradually growing, and ultimately bearing fruit does not square with Old Testament imagery of the inauguration of the Davidic kingdom as one that will “break in pieces all these [other] kingdoms and bring them to an end” (Dan 2:44). The kingdom described in the parable grows and develops commensurate with typical agricultural processes instead of the spectacular appearance the OT prophets expected of the end-time Davidic kingdom (compare Zech 9:14–17; Zeph 1:7–18; Amos 9:11–15; Isa 34–35).
Third, the imagery of the parable demands a present fulfillment. Thorns and thistles crowd out some of the shoots, while birds plunder the misplaced seeds. These images do not harmonize readily with the foretold binding of Satan to take place during Christ’s millennial reign (Rev 20:2–3). Furthermore, in Jesus’s explanation of the parable (vv. 18–23), the complex of events including Satan’s threatening to eradicate the blades, the ominous tribulation and persecution foretold, and the imminent peril of the suffocating cares of the world smothering the shoots, all relate to trials believers face in the present age. If the parable of the sower and the soils in fact develops the mystery kingdom of heaven, this mystery kingdom can only relate to the present era of the church age.
The Parable of the Weeds and the Wheat (Matt 13:24–30, 36–43)
The next parable, which pertains to the growth and harvest of weeds and the wheat in a field, including Jesus’s explanation of the analogies, is one of the most significant parables to affirm the present vis-à-vis future kingdom of Jesus.[88] The parable is unique to Matthew, although it is viewed by some to be simply Matthew’s conflation of the parable of the seed growing spontaneously in Mark 4:26–29.[89] Though the two parables share some affinity, it is doubtful that literary dependence exists between them.[90]
The parable of the weeds and the wheat ties more explicitly to revelation concerning the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, as Jesus opens with the introductory formula “the kingdom of heaven may be compared to” (ὡμοιώθη ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν) (compare with 18:23; 22:2). The parable is linked to the preceding one of the sower and the soils only in that both utilize the agrarian context of Jesus’s listeners in depicting a man planting seed on a piece of land. Here a man sows “good seed” in his field but is thwarted by his enemy who works to destroy the crop by surreptitiously planting weeds alongside the wheat.
The laborers query the master as to whether he wishes them to uproot the weeds, to which the master replies that out of concern for the preservation of the wheat both will be permitted to grow until the harvest at which time the counterfeit grain will be gathered and burned. In vv. 36–43 Matthew records Jesus’s explanation of the parable in private to the disciples after they had gone into the house. Here Jesus identifies the meaning of seven of the symbols of the parable: sower equals the Son of Man, the field equals the world, the good seed equals the sons of the kingdom, the weeds equals the sons of the evil one, the enemy equals the devil, the harvest equals judgment, and the harvesters equals the angels. Viewed through the lens of Jesus’s explanation, the parable signifies that the Son of Man, who sows the children of the kingdom in the world, is opposed by the devil who plants sons of the evil one alongside the sons of the kingdom. At the end of the age, the angels sort out everyone and everything offensive from the kingdom of the Son of Man and cast them into the fiery furnace to be consumed.
Interpretations of the Parable
The explanation given by Jesus has led to two principal interpretations for the application of the parable. The first application is the universalistic interpretation, which posits that the parable describes the operation of God’s kingdom in the world until the end of the present age.[91] This interpretation allegedly accords well with the missiological emphasis in Matthew and with the OT roots of the kingdom of God concept. The second application is the ecclesiastical interpretation, which contends that the parable takes place within the community of faith. That is, the parable describes the situation chiefly of the church until the end of the age.[92] The latter interpretation claims to align well with themes found elsewhere in the Gospel and with the fact that the interpretation of the parable is provided exclusively for the community of faith—namely, the disciples—rather than for the general population.[93]
Often advocates of the universalistic interpretation dismiss the ecclesiastical reading out of hand because of Jesus’s explicit statement that the field is the world, under the assumption that Matthew would have used the term church if this is what he meant.[94] A mediating interpretation is preferred, however, due to several factors. First, to mention the concept of church here would be anachronistic in the flow of Matthew’s Gospel because Jesus has not yet unfolded the mystery of his church (compare Matt 16:18). Second, the crop represents the believing community, not the field. The field instead represents the sphere in which the gospel is proclaimed and believers are won, a gospel with worldwide pervasiveness.[95] Insofar as the “field” (ἀγρός) is the sphere in which kingdom activity takes place, the parable relates universally to the worldwide incursion of the kingdom of the Son of Man in this age. Insofar as the nascent weeds and the wheat look identical to the casual observer and coexist until the end of the age, the kingdom activity has much to do in application to the visible church.[96]
Although the parable may be applied in some respects to the visible church, it in no way suggests the repudiation of the practice of church discipline (again, the field is not the church). Keener, who also recognizes an application in the visible church, observes: “The point is that the kingdom remains obscure in the present world, and only the final day will bring God’s true children into their vindicated glory and banish the wicked from among them.”[97] Thus, if we posit that the parable applies in some fashion to the visible church, it applies in the context of the church’s antithetical relationship to the world in the present age: in the world but not of the world, in Christ while at the same time in the world.
Implications of the Parable
Several observations rising from this parable merit brief notice. First, the kingdom outlined in the parable of the weeds and the wheat must entail a present scheme of kingdom. Here, attention should be given to the use of the aorist passive tense of ὁμοιόω (“to be made like,” “be like”) in Jesus’s opening phrase. Matthew uses the aorist passive of ὁμοιόω twice elsewhere in his Gospel (18:23; 22:2). The future passive (ὁμοιωθήσεται) appears once (25:1). The selective usage underscores Matthew’s purpose. The aorist appears when focus centers on what the kingdom is becoming, while the future tense relates to the future consummation of the kingdom.[98]
Second, the present mystery kingdom is here portrayed as universal in its operation. The field is the world, in contrast to the promised Davidic territory. This fact differentiates the present universal, multi-ethnic Melchizedekian kingdom from the consummative kingdom of David which centers upon Jewish ethnicity. The kingdom of the Son is not simply a dynamic reign over the church but a veiled regency over the cosmos itself. Jesus declares that the sower plants good seed in his field (13:24), which Jesus later identifies as the world. Thus, the Son of Man plants good seed in his world: the cosmos that belongs to him. The word κόσμος represents “the abode of men, the theater of history, the inhabited world, the earth.”[99] Antagonists of the ecclesiastical interpretation often render the term here as “humanity which is hostile to God.” However, the word has the neutral connotation of “inhabited world, earth” elsewhere in the Gospel of Matthew (4:8; 6:32; 16:26; 26:13). The kingdom of the Son of Man has a truly universal scope because the world belongs to Jesus inferentially through his extending reign.
Third, we see in this parable for the first time an important key for understanding the kingdom concept in this Gospel as well as in the rest of the NT. Jesus makes a distinction in his explanation of the parable between the kingdom of the Son of Man, out of which every offensive thing is expunged in the judgment at the end of the age, and the kingdom of the Father which is the eternal, luminous reward for the saints. At times exegetes are reluctant to distinguish between the two kingdoms as constituting different referents.[100] A better conclusion is that the kingdoms are distinct for two reasons. First, other passages within the Gospel, such as Matt 11:12; 12:28; and 21:43, show the kingdom of God as pertaining to clearly present or future reigns. Second, the two kingdoms correlate while remaining distinct, as the elastic phrase “kingdom of heaven (God)” may stand in both for the present kingdom of the Son of Man as well as for the future kingdom of the Father in the synoptic Gospels (compare Matt 26:29 with Luke 22:18).
Legitimate Kingdom Distinctions within the Parable?
It is now asked, is a distinction between the kingdom of the Son of Man and the kingdom of the Father exegetically defensible? Several observations confirm that it is. First, the texts that mention the Father in conjunction with the kingdom in Matthew are consistently related to the future, consummative kingdom (6:10; 13:43; 20:23; 25:34; 26:29; also see Luke 22:29). On the other hand, the kingdom of the Son of Man (compare with the Pauline expression “kingdom of his beloved Son,” Col 1:13) points inevitably to the present age as outlined above (compare with Matt 16:28, “Some standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”).[101] Second, the prophecy in Matt 13:43 that the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father is a clear allusion to Daniel 12:3. Jesus’s allusion to the prophecy of Daniel establishes that the kingdom of the Father is to be identified with the consummative messianic kingdom of David in Daniel 12, the kingdom which Daniel’s prophecy consistently unfolds. The consummative kingdom of glory stands in visible contrast to the present kingdom of the Son of Man, marked by its unobtrusiveness. The book of Daniel stands out as an important background source for the kingdom motif in Jesus’s teaching, “including most notably the prophet’s depiction in Dan 7:13–14 of the culminant eschatological event in which the Ancient of Days delivers the kingdom to “one like a son of man.”[102] This act is the eschatological bequeathal of the reign of God which will establish the millennial kingdom as a subsequent phase of Christ’s mediated rule in the age to come (see “my throne” Rev 3:21; “his [equals the Son of Man’s] throne” Matt 25:31).
Finally, the kingdom of the Son of Man and the kingdom of the Father while chronologically distinct are not disparate realms. Rather, structurally the two realms stand connected vitally and systemically. The dual realms are essentially one eschatological kingdom bifurcated into distinguishable phases. Christ’s present kingdom is connected to and preparatory for, while at the same time discernibly distinct from, the definitive, consummative Father’s kingdom. Both kingdoms are in the ultimate sense stages of Christ’s eschatological reign, although they serve varied purposes. The kingdom of the Son is the indispensable precursor for the outfitting and populating of Matthew’s crucial eschatological objective, the Father’s kingdom. The Son of Man’s kingdom is present though inconspicuous, universal though clandestine, and marked by latent turmoil (for example, the similarity of the plants elicits concern from the laborers, and the crops are exposed to the potentially harsh elements of weather as they grow [vis-à-vis their future safekeeping in the barn). The Father’s kingdom on the other hand is dramatically clear, resplendent, peaceful, and perpetual. This two-age thinking serves to contrast the present, invisible reign of the Son from the future, manifest reign of the Father (which in actuality will take place through the agency of the Son).
While the kingdom of the Son of Man certainly is present in this age, its actual inauguration relative to the context lay in the proximate future, as the Son of Man still had yet to plant the good seed in the (sphere of the) world. This would take place only by means of the universal proclamation of the gospel after all authority had been given to Christ (compare Matt 28:18–20; Acts 1:8), conjoined with the promised outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost and its aftermath (Acts 1:8; 2:1–4; 11:15–18). Thus, the parable of the weeds and the wheat implies that the kingdom of the Son is a sure reality, however inconspicuous it may appear during the present age. Therefore, a legitimate distinction (not estrangement) is to be made between the kingdoms of the Son of Man and of the Father.
The Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (Matt 13:31–33)
Jesus continues in Matthew 13 to describe the kingdom of heaven by two additional parables. The first parable likens the kingdom of heaven to a mustard seed which, although proverbially minuscule and seemingly insignificant, flourishes to become a large shrub.[103] Matthew’s version appears to be based loosely upon the Marcan rendering (Mark 4:30–32).[104] The point of the parable is to emphasize both contrast (the tiny seed paradoxically becomes a large shrub)[105] and extent of growth (the smallest of seeds naturally develops into a sizeable garden plant).[106] These twin themes emphasize both the inconspicuous commencement of the kingdom in Jesus and the magnitude of the kingdom in its culmination.[107] The parable derives a portion of its kingdom imagery from the book of Daniel, where Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom is likened to a large tree (Dan 4:10–12) in which the birds of heaven perch, representative of the nations of the earth (Dan 4:20–22). If the book of Daniel is the key for discerning the meaning of the symbols, the imagery of the parable insinuates the multi-ethnic inclusion of Gentiles in the present kingdom of the Son.[108]
The next parable compares the mystery of the kingdom of heaven to a woman who hides leaven in three measures of flour until the entire batch of dough is leavened. The parable has no Marcan parallel but is found likewise in Luke 13:20–21. An interesting detail in the parable is that three measures of flour is roughly equivalent to forty liters, a meal sufficient to feed some one hundred people, an imposing task for the single female baker.[109] Some have suggested from this that Jesus is hinting at the lavish eschatological banquet.[110] The unusual verb which depicts the woman concealing (ἐγκρύπτω, “to hide”) the leaven in the flour reinforces that the secret beginnings of the kingdom are revealed only to privileged disciples.[111] Often leaven symbolizes the spread of evil in Scripture (Exod 12:15–20; 23:18; 34:25; Lev 2:11; Matt 16:5–12; 1 Cor 5:6–8; Gal 5:9). This connection has led some to see leaven as indicating evil within the kingdom.[112] However, ζύμη occasionally carries a neutral connotation (compare with Lev 7:13), and it is doubtful the term possesses a negative sense here. The leaven cannot represent evil, for the parable would be depicting a situation in which the leaven is completely victorious in permeating the dough.[113] Rather, the pervasiveness of the leaven rather than its metaphorical connotations is the pressing point of the parable.[114] The purpose of the picture is rather to illustrate that the leaven represents a kind of power which, although present only in small measure, is divinely ordained and able to penetrate the whole earth. This is likely a reference to the efficacy of the gospel of the kingdom Due to the thorough diffusion of the yeast it may represent the Holy Spirit’s work in bringing salvation to the nations.[115]
The three preceding “growth” parables, concerning the weeds and the wheat, the mustard seed, and the leaven, all portray the mystery scheme of the kingdom as that which has become a present reality during this age. Collectively, the parables picture expansive growth from paradoxically small or hidden beginnings, leading toward a triumphant climax.[116] The hidden, inconspicuous beginning of the kingdom of the Son gives way to the dramatically inaugurated, resplendent kingdom of the Father at the parousia.
Given the suggested schema for understanding the kingdom of God, I conclude that other interpretive approaches fall short by attributing to the presently exalted Christ Davidic kingship. The current kingship of Christ consists instead of Melchizedekian kingship, in which Christ reigns over the church and the cosmos as a royal priest.
The Parables of the Hidden Treasure and of the Pearl Merchant (Matt 13:44–46)
Two more parables in Matt 13:44–46 are used by Jesus as a point of comparison with the kingdom of heaven. In the first parable of the hidden treasure, the kingdom is represented by a hidden treasure in a field, discovered by a laboring excavator who in turn covers up the treasure again and sells everything he has to purchase the field. The vivid imagery of the parable has lent itself to some strange interpretations of its significance. However, the point is clear: the kingdom of heaven is inherently of such value as to be worth risking all to obtain it.[117] The second parable in this section corroborates this interpretation. In this parable a wealthy merchant discovers a pearl of tremendous value and consequently liquidates his assets to purchase the jewel. The point of both parables is to emphasize the value of obtaining the kingdom. This view of the kingdom coincides with the present kingdom phase or namely with the sphere of salvation itself which is depicted elsewhere in the Gospels as something of great worth requiring strenuous yet rewardable effort to obtain (compare Matt 16:24; 19:23–24; Luke 14:26; 18:24–27).
The Parable of the Net (Matt 13:47–50)
Another parable which emphasizes the operation of the kingdom in the current age is the parable of the dragnet. Here Jesus underscores kingdom activity as comparable to a net which draws in fish of every kind and which in turn must be sorted upon returning to shore to conserve the good fish while discarding the refuse. Jesus then in an unusual move offers a formal explanation of the parable immediately after telling it. He places the activity of sorting the fish in the judgment event at the close of the age. Thus, the kingdom activity taking place pertains to the present age and the inconspicuous kingdom of the Son. In its focus and motif the parable is quite similar to the parable of the weeds and the wheat.[118] Fishing is the responsibility of Christ’s followers, while sorting is the prerogative of Christ and his angels, indicating thus present and future aspects.[119] The parable consequently reinforces the present nature of the kingdom of Christ.
The Parable of the Householder (Matt 13:52)
Jesus concludes his discourse on the mystery kingdom with a terse parable concerning the kingdom of heaven as comparable to a householder who furnishes out of his treasure trove what is new and what is old. Since Jesus offers in this account no formal explanation of the parable, scholars are divided as to its significance.[120] One of the noteworthy elements to discern first is the identification of the scribes whom Jesus mentions in his introduction. The scribes mentioned here must refer to Jesus’s disciples since they have been addressed directly by Jesus in the preceding question (v. 51) and since the verb μαθητεύω (esv, “trained”) describes their preparation for the role (v. 52).[121] What exactly they are expounding that is new, however, is unclear. The motif of the kingdom is the principal thought of the entire discourse, so it must be the governing concept here as well. Since the disciples have been granted insight into the kingdom of heaven they will serve as the scribes who correlate the new kingdom understanding (from Jesus’s parables) with the old kingdom concepts (from the OT Scriptures). The mention of “new” things substantiates again that the preceding discourse has disclosed new revelation concerning the kingdom of heaven and that this is the purpose of the parables.[122] Jesus has, by relating the parables concerning the mystery phase of the kingdom of heaven, revealed for the first time a prelude and interval prior to the establishment of the Davidic kingdom in which the kingdom of the Son develops and pervades the world until the parousia of Jesus. This process is consonant with the Melchizedekian kingdom of the present age.
Conclusion
In this essay, I have suggested that traditional dispensationalism has at times faltered in its insufficient clarity and development of the kingdom of God theme in Scripture, especially vis-à-vis the church. A more consistent explanation is needed that provides greater clarity to the discrete kingdom programs. To this, a seminal insight of biblical theology helps to correlate kingdom passages, as evident in the perspective of inaugurated eschatology. Christ Jesus has initiated the eschatological age, of which the kingdom of God is an integral part. Yet the prophesied Davidic kingdom has not yet come to fruition, as evident in the mystery form of the kingdom explicated by Christ in the parables of Matthew 13. In these parables a dichotomy is discernible between a present, mystery form of kingdom, called the kingdom of the Son of Man, and a future, consummative kingdom, called the Father’s kingdom.
As argued throughout, the best understanding of this distinction is that it entails one kingdom program in two distinct stages. The first stage of this kingdom program encompasses the present church age and is identified specifically in Matthew as the kingdom of the Son. The current stage entails Christ’s Melchizedekian sacral kingship (as expounded in Hebrews) that also subsumes the angelic sphere and the cosmos itself. The reign proceeds from the right hand of the Father and shares in the Father’s sovereignty along the lines of co-regencies in the OT. The second stage encompasses the terrestrial and still-future millennial kingdom. This reign entails the dominion of Christ from the Davidic throne on earth for one thousand years, as a fulfillment of OT promises to national Israel and consummation of the Davidic covenant. As such, the current kingship of Christ consists of Melchizedekian kingship, in which Christ reigns over the church and the cosmos as a royal priest. His Davidic kingly rule still awaits the future at the second advent. I believe that by recognizing these stages, traditional dispensational thought has much to offer in correlating scriptural truth concerning the divine kingdom program.
[1] The present essay is based in part on my forthcoming monograph on the kingdom of God in the Studies in Judeo-Christian Thought Monograph Series published by SCS Press (used with permission).
[2]See George Ladd, “Dispensational Theology,” Christianity Today (October 1959): 39.
[3] George Ladd, review of The Greatness of the Kingdom, by Alva J. McClain, Evangelical Quarterly: An International Review of Bible and Theology 32, no. 1 (August 1960): 50. Ladd upbraided dispensationalists for their “exclusivism and separatist mentality both in theological discussion and in practical church life.”
[4] George Ladd, review of Greatness of the Kingdom, 40–41. Walvoord, on the other hand, boasted that McClain’s work might well become the greatest piece on the kingdom of God written in the twentieth century; John Walvoord, review of The Greatness of the Kingdom, by Alva J. McClain, Bibliotheca Sacra 117, no. 465 (January 1960): 67.
[5] Craig Blaising suggests, “Although they refused to acknowledge him, revised dispensationalists appear to have taken Ladd’s criticism to heart.” Darrell L. Black and Craig A Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor, 1993), 39.
[6] Perhaps the nadir in dispensational/nondispensational exchange came with the publication of Robert G. Clouse, ed., The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1977). Anecdotally, as a student at a traditional dispensational Bible college, I recall my professors lamenting Herman A. Hoyt’s defense of dispensationalism. Ladd appears to have the upper hand, and nearly every criticism he levels against the dispensational system found its way into the progressive dispensational movement. Compare with George Ladd, “An Historic Premillennial Response to Dispensational Premillennialism,” 93–94.
[7] For the progressive dispensational point of view, see Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993); Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993); Darrell L. Bock, “Current Messianic Activity and OT Davidic Promise: Dispensationalism, Hermeneutics, and NT Fulfillment,” Trinity Journal 15, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 54–87; Bock, “The Son of David and the Saint’s Task: The Hermeneutics of Initial Fulfillment,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150, no. 600 (October 1993): 440–57; Bock, “The Kingdom of God in New Testament Theology,” in Looking Into the Future: Evangelical Studies in Eschatology, ed. David W. Baker (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001); Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism,” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999); Bock, “Progressive Dispensationalism,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, ed. Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2022), 112–46.
[8]This consistent distinction between Israel and the church is part of Ryrie’s well-known sine qua nonof dispensationalism. See Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 38–41.
[9] Lewis S. Chafer, The Kingdom in History and Prophecy (Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1926); John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Dunham, 1959), 198–99; Charles L. Feinberg, Millennialism: The Two Major Views, 3rd rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1980); Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah, 1980), 61–65.
[10] Dwight L. Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964), 142–43; Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “Israelology: Part 2 of 6,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 5, no. 3 (July 1999): 33–56.
[11] Robert L. Saucy, “Contemporary Dispensational Thought,” Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 7, no. 4 (March–April 1984): 10–11; Saucy, “The Crucial Issue Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Systems,” Criswell Theological Review 1, no. 1 (Fall 1986): 149–65; David L. Turner, “The Continuity of Scripture and Eschatology: Key Hermeneutical Issues,” Grace Theological Journal 6, no. 2 (Fall 1985): 275–87; Darrell L. Bock, “Charting Dispensationalism,” Christianity Today (September 1994): 29.
[12] For the methodological similarity and congruence of theological premises between Bock and Ladd, see David A. Dean, “A Study of the Enthronement of Christ in Acts 2 and 3” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1992), 92, 114; compare also with Stephen J. Nichols, “Already Ladd—Not Yet Dispensationalism: D. Bock and Progressive Dispensationalism,” (paper presented at the eastern regional conference of the Evangelical Theological Society, Philadelphia, PA, 2 April 1993).
[13] Walter A. Elwell observes: “The earlier movement had an ‘in-groupish’ feel about it that showed little interest in anyone outside the camp. Progressive dispensationalism, on the other hand, wants to find common ground with non-dispensationalisms. Saucy’s section on the kingdom of God goes out of its way to avoid quoting the dispensationalist ‘old guard,’ while quoting at length from standard New Testament scholars.” Elwell, “Dispensationalisms of the Third Kind,” Christianity Today (September 1994): 28.
[14] Bock, “Reign of the Lord Christ,” in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic), 53.
[15] Bock, “Reign of the Lord Christ,” 49, emphasis his.
[16] Not all traditional dispensationalists are inconsistent or inchoate on the kingdom of God. Arguably, consistent traditional dispensational theologians would include Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom; John F. Walvoord, “Biblical Kingdoms Compared and Contrasted,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, eds. Wesley R. Willis, John R. Master, and Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody, 1994); John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom. However, two susceptibilities have been common within traditional dispensationalists’ approach. First, they have been apt to change or develop their own views on the kingdom over time (e.g., Ryrie and Pentecost). This shifting gave the appearance of fluidity to dispensational definitions of the kingdom. Second, aside from a few articles and popular treatments, traditional dispensationalists have not produced many academic treatments of the kingdom of God except in response to polemical concerns. An exception is Michael J. Vlach, He Will Reign: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God (Silverton: Lampion, 2017). Though, as his essay in the current journal makes clear, Vlach considers himself a sort of hybrid between traditional (or “revised’) and progressive dispensationalism.
[17] See Darrel L. Bock, “Progressive Movement (1980–Present)” in Discovering Dispensationalism: Tracing the Development of Dispensational Thought from the First to the Twenty-First Century, ed. Cory M. Marsh and James I. Fazio (El Cajon: SCS Press, 2023), 333–51.
[18] Blaising attributes the development of progressive dispensationalism to the inability in classical dispensationalism to synthesize sufficiently its dualistic eschatology. Classical dispensationalism sought to maintain a dichotomy between what he terms spiritual vision eschatology for the church and new creation eschatology for the nation of Israel (a more recent treatment of this distinction is Michael J. Vlach, The New Creation Model: A Paradigm for Discovering God’s Restoration Purposes from Creation to New Creation (Sun Valley, CA: Theological Studies Press, 2023). This dichotomy, according to Blaising, began to be abandoned by dispensationalists during the period of so-called “revised dispensationalism” beginning in the late 1950s. During this period, dispensationalists took sides, advocating either an entirely spiritual vision eschatology for the church (Ryrie and Walvoord) or a strictly new creation eschatology for the church and for Israel (McClain and Pentecost). Progressive dispensationalists have abandoned the “systemic dualism” of classical dispensationalism in favor of a holistic approach in the integration of the people of God. Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 182–86.
[19] Block and Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, 39–46.
[20] Blaising, “Developing Dispensationalism, Part One: Doctrinal Development in Orthodoxy,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145, no. 578 (April–June 1988): 133–40; Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145, no. 579 (July–September 1988): 254–80. Bock contends: “Dispensationalism has never been as monolithic as its proponents and critics have contended” Bock, “Kingdom of God,” 30n6.
[21] Saucy Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 29.
[22] This is not to deny that an incentive for progressive dispensationalism was to garner respect in the larger evangelical tradition. However, nascent progressive dispensational thought such as that espoused by Saucy faulted the legitimacy of Ryrie’s sine qua non as determinative of dispensationalism. Also problematic was the manner in which traditional dispensationalists such as Ryrie failed to integrate the phases of redemptive history. Saucy, “Crucial Issue” 156.
[23] Such a criticism may be leveled against dispensationalism in other topics as well, such as in explicating the relationship between the church and the new covenant. For an example of this inconsistency in Walvoord and Ryrie, see R. Bruce Compton, “Dispensationalism, the Church, and the New Covenant,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 8 (Fall 2003): 6n12.
[24] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton: Victor, 1986), 397–98; Ryrie, Dispensationalism rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 156.
[25] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 399. Ryrie sounds closer to Berkhof than a dispensationalist when he argues that this kingdom is “the spiritual rule of God in individual hearts today.” Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 156.
[26] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 259.
[27] My views on the kingdom of God develop those of Elliott Johnson. Johnson, “Hermeneutical Principles and the Interpretation of Psalm 110,” Bibliotheca Sacra 149, no. 596 (October–December 1992): 428–37; Johnson, “Premillennialism Introduced: Hermeneutics,” in A Case for Premillennialism, ed. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody, 19920, 32–34. Other dispensationalists have expressed similar views: Cleon L. Rogers, Jr., “The Davidic Covenant in the Gospels,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150, no. 597 (October–December 1993): 475; Mark L. Bailey, “The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Matthew 13,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156, no. 624 (October–December 1999): 443–51.
[28] See, for example, McClain’s critique of the Platonic dualism of Berkhof in Alva McClain, “The Spirituality of the Millennial Kingdom,” Bibliotheca Sacra 113, no. 449 (January 1956): 16–23.
[29] John Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, 297, admits that a form of kingdom exists in this age, although it is to be distinguished from the millennial reign of Christ. However, Walvoord falls short of defining clearly what he intends the present kingdom to be. Charles Feinberg similarly argues for a present, spiritual form of kingdom without defining the nature of this kingdom. Feinberg, Millennialism, 269.
[30] Jürgen Moltmann notes that the discovery of eschatology as bearing primary significance for NT theology has its roots in the last stages of the nineteenth century in the works of Johannes Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 1892; Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, trans. and ed. Richard H. Hiers and David L. Holland (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), and Albert Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God, 1914 ed., trans. Walter Lowrie (reprint, New York: Schocken, 1964). See Moltmann, Theology of Hope, trans. James W. Leitch (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), 37. As the twentieth century unfolded several scholars, including Cullman, Kümmel, and, most notably, Ladd, would incorporate these insights, apart from portions of their critical thought, into the mainstream of NT scholarship.
[31]Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 18, prefers the terminology “inaugurated eschatology” over “realized eschatology”: “‘Inaugurated eschatology’ implies that eschatology has indeed begun, but is by no means finished.”
[32] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “The Usefulness of the Cross,” Westminster Theological Journal 41, no. 2 (Spring 1979): 228–29.
[33] Gregory Beale, “The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology,” in Eschatology in Bible and Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium, ed. Kent E. Brower and Mark W. Elliott (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 17–18.
[34] For a biographical overview of Vos’s contribution to twentieth-century biblical scholarship, see Ransom L. Webster, “Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949): A Biographical Sketch,” Westminster Theological Journal 40, no. 2 (Spring 1978): 304–317. In addition to Cullman, Ladd attributes much of his thinking on inaugurated eschatology to the insights of Vos. See Ladd’s A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 44–45, 66–67. Richard B. Gaffin also is much indebted to the thinking of Vos. See Gaffin’s introductory essay in Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr.(Phillipsburg: P&R, 2001).
[35] Geerhardus Vos, “The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit,” in Gaffin, Jr., ed., Redemptive History, 92–93.
[36] Vos, “Eschatological Aspect,” 101.
[37] Vos, “Eschatological Aspect,” 95–97.
[38] Vos, “Eschatological Aspect,” 110.
[39] Vos, “The Kingdom of God,” in Gaffin, Jr., ed. Redemptive History, 109–110.
[40] Louis Berkhof, The Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 167; Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 1941 ed. (reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1958), 410–11.
[41] Moore observes that while the shift in kingdom thinking within Reformed theology has enjoyed less fanfare than the advent of progressive dispensationalism within traditional dispensationalism, the groundbreaking work of Hoekema and others has had a jarring impact on traditional Reformed formulations of the kingdom of God. Moore, Kingdom of Christ, 45–46.
[42] Moore, Kingdom of Christ, 21–22.
[43] Sinclair Ferguson compares the work of Gaffin to that of John Murray and credits Gaffin with synthesizing the insights of Princeton (Alexander, the Hodges, Warfield, Vos) with those of Amsterdam (Kuyper and Bavinck) so as to build upon the thought of Murray (“The Whole Counsel of God: Fifty Years of Theological Studies,” WTJ 50 [Fall 1988]: 261). Moore, The Kingdom of Christ, 209, n135, notes that “the importance of Gaffin for understanding the role of inaugurated eschatology within Reformed evangelicalism would be difficult to overestimate.”
[44] Gaffin, “Usefulness of the Cross,” 230.
[45] Gaffin, “Usefulness of the Cross,” 231.
[46] Gaffin, “Usefulness of the Cross,” 231. Compare with Gaffin, “The Holy Spirit,” Westminster Theological Journal 43, no. 1 (Fall 1980): 58–78; Gaffin, “‘Life-Giving Spirit’: Probing the Center of Paul’s Pneumatology,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, no. 4 (December 1998): 573–89.
[47] Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 157–227.
[48] Gaffin argues “for Jesus it is a matter of one (eschatological) kingdom that is both present and future in its coming.” Gaffin, “Usefulness of the Cross,” 231.
[49] McClain and Toussaint who do not see the mystery of the kingdom as pertaining to the present age. See Mark L. Bailey, “Doctrine of the Kingdom,” 443-451.
[50] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 94.
[51] Elliott Johnson recognizes as well that a “Christological unity” ties together the various phases of the dispensations in his essay, “Hermeneutics and Dispensationalism,” Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 252.
[52] Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian Guardian, 1944), 228, observes that Matthew is unique with fifty references to the kingdom, while a combined Mark and Luke offer scarcely more with fifty-four references (John only has five). Most Matthean scholars recognize his paramount concern for the motif of fulfillment, particularly with respect to the kingdom of heaven. See, Jack D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 128; Rudolph Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew, 40; Michael Green, The Message of Matthew (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 43–47; R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989), 197–205; Alan H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: MacMillan, 1938), xix– xxiv; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1993), lx; John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 30–31.
[53] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, li. Robert H. Gundry warns: “We should avoid imposing an outline on Matthew.” Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 10.
[54] “The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel and His Concept of Salvation-History,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly73 (October 1973): 453–54. See also D. R. Bauer, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel (Sheffield: Almond, 1988); Hagner, Matthew 1– 13, li; Stonehouse, Matthew and Mark, 129.
[55] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 1:59, 61, following B. W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (London: Constable, 1930). Davies and Allison make much of triads in the structure of Matthew (1:62–72).
[56]Stonehouse, Matthew and Mark, 130–31.
[57] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The Argument of Matthew,” Bibliotheca Sacra 112, no. 446 (April-June 1955): 148; see also Verseput, Rejection, 55–56; Barry Gridley, “The Offer of the Kingdom: A Defense of the Dispensational Interpretation” (Th.M. thesis, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1984), 21.
[58] Johnson, “Argument of Matthew,” 144.
[59] Peter Toon,God’s Kingdom for Today (Westchester: Cornerstone Books, 1980), 44–45.
[60] Dalman, Words of Jesus, 92–94.
[61] Vincent Taylor, The Life and Ministry of Jesus (London: MacMillan, 1954), 66; Rudolph Schnackenburg, Matthew, 40; Jack D. Kingsbury, Matthew, Proclamation Commentaries (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 58; Palmer, Kingdom of God, 44–45; George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 74; George Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 117; Robert Recker, “The Redemptive Focus of the Kingdom of God,” Calvin Theological Journal 14, no. 2 (November 1979): 157; Joel Marcus, “Entering into the Kingly Power of God,” Journal of Biblical Literature107, no. 4 (December 1988): 663–75; James L. Mays, “The Language of the Reign of God,” Interpretation 47, no. 2 (April 1993): 117–26; Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, trans. John Bowden (New York: Scribner’s, 1971), 96–102.
[62] I. Howard Marshall, “The Hope of a New Age: The Kingdom of God in the New Testament,” Themelios 11, no. 1 (September 1985): 5.
[63] J. C. O’Neill, “The Kingdom of God,” Novum Testamentum 35, no. 2 (April 1993): 130–41; Robert K. McIver, “The Parable of the Weeds Among the Wheat (Matt 13:24–30, 36–43) and the Relationship Between the Kingdom and the Church as Portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew,” Journal of Biblical Literature114 (Winter 1995): 654n32; Hans Kvalbein, “The Kingdom of God and the Kingship of Christ in the Fourth Gospel,” in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, ed. David E. Aune, Torrey Seland, and Jarl H. Ulrichsen (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 216–18.
[64] O’Neill, “Kingdom of God,” 131.
[65] O’Neill, “Kingdom of God,” 131.
[66] Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “βασιλεία,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, transl., Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1964), 1:579; Rudolf Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, trans. Floyd V. Filson and Bertram Lee-Woolf (revised ed., London: Lutterworth, 1943), 54.
[67] McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom, 17.
[68] Sverre Aalen, “‘Reign’ and ‘House’ in the Kingdom of God in the Gospels,” New Testament Studies8, no. 3 (1962): 216; Rudolph Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, trans. Floyd V. Filson and Bertram Lee-Woolf, revised ed. (London: Lutterworth Press, 1943), 72; Norman Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1963), 184–85.
[69] Mark Saucy points to Matthew 13 as the turning point for Jesus’s explication of the nature of the kingdom of God. Subsequent to Matthew 13 the kingdom of God is far rather than near, nonracial rather than ethnic, related to suffering rather than overtly powerful, and secretly disclosed to insiders rather than open to all. See Saucy, “The Kingdom-of-God Sayings in Matthew,” Bibliotheca Sacra 151, no. 602 (April–June 1994): 196.
[70] TDNT, s.v. “βασιλεία,” 1:584.
[71] Touissaint, Behold the King, 62.
[72] Gridley, “Offer of the Kingdom,” 6. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 100. Carson contends that in the first century there was little agreement among the Jews as to what the messianic kingdom would be like. However, James D. G. Dunn has identified fourteen common, contemporary expectations from Second Temple Judaism of what the kingdom would entail, nearly all observations in keeping with what traditional dispensationalism has delineated as the current expectations of the day. Dunn, “Jesus and the Kingdom: How Would His Message Have Been Heard?” in Neotestamentica et Philonica, Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, Novum Testamentum Supplements, 106 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 7–13.
[73] For example, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, pronounces the following: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David” (Luke 1:68–69). Simeon likewise waited expectantly for “the Lord’s Christ” (Luke 2:26). In addition, the scribes and chief priests fully expected the Messiah’s birth to be born in Bethlehem in keeping with Micah’s prophecy (Matt 2:4–6). Furthermore, at the Triumphal Entry the crowd shouted: “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!” (Mark 11:10).
[74] Gridley, “Offer of the Kingdom,” 7–13.
[75] Full development of the thesis of the Jewish rejection of Jesus’s offer of the kingdom lies beyond the scope of the present essay. Readers are referred to my upcoming monograph on the kingdom of God for more details, SCS Press (forthcoming).
[76] Rogers, “Davidic Covenant,” 472.
[77] All Scriptural citations, unless otherwise noted, are from the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016).
[78] Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:390.
[79] BDAG, s.v. “μυστήριον,” 661–62. Compare with Raymond Brown, “The Pre-Christian Semitic Concept of ‘Mystery’,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly20, no. 4 (October 1958): 417–43; also, Brown, The Semitic Background to the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament, Biblical Series, ed. John Reumann, vol. 21 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1958), 426–48; Werner Bieder, “Das Geheimnis des Christus nach dem Epheserbrief,” Theologische Zeitschrift 11 (September/Oktober 1955): 329–43; Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Mystery of Christ and the Church: Head and Body, ‘One Flesh’,” Trinity Journal 12, no. 1 (Spring 1991): 79–94; A. E. Harvey, “The Use of Mystery Language in the Bible,” Journal of Theological Studies31, no. 2 (April 1980): 320–36.
[80] BDAG, s.v. “μυστήριον,” 661–62.
[81] TDNT, s.v. “μυστήριον,” 4:818–19.
[82] Archibald M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 39; Mark L. Bailey, “Guidelines for Interpreting Jesus’ Parables,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155, no. 617 (January–March 1998): 37; J. Dwight Pentecost, The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 17; Floyd V. Filson, The Gospel According to Matthew, Black’s New Testament Commentaries, 2nd ed. (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1971), 159.
[83] Toussaint, Behold the King, 171. Compare with McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom, 325.
[84] Bailey, “Parable of the Mustard Seed,” 458.
[85] Pentecost, Parables of Jesus, 57.
[86] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 369.
[87] Bailey, “Parable of the Sower,” 184–86.
[88] Contra those scholars who see Jesus’s explanation of the parable of the weeds and the wheat (vv. 36–43) as exclusively the free-hand work of Matthew (for example, Schnackenburg, Matthew, 133; Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 488; Joachim Jeremias, Parables, 82–85; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:426; Nolland, Matthew, 558), I attribute the explanation as well as the parable itself to Jesus.
[89] Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 192; Gundry, Matthew, 262; McNeile, St. Matthew, 196. Davies and Allison discredit this hypothesis on the basis of word statistics (a nonetheless tenuous criterion for making textual decisions) (Matthew, 2:409).
[90] Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:409; McNeile, St. Matthew, 202; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 382.
[91] So Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:428; Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 132–34; Carson, Matthew, 8:327; Gundry, Matthew, 275; France, Matthew, 224–25.
[92] So Augustine, Against Donatists, chap. 9; Robert K. McIver, “The Parable of the Weeds Among the Wheat (Matt 13:24–30, 36–43) and the Relationship Between the Kingdom and the Church as Portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew,” Journal of Biblical Literature114, no. 4 (Winter 1995): 643–59; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 394; William F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, Anchor Bible 26 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), LXXXVI.
[93] See McIver, “Parable,” 650–52.
[94] Gundry, Matthew, 275; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:428.
[95] McIver, “Parable,” 652.
[96] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 394.
[97] Keener, Matthew, 390.
[98] Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:411.
[99] TDNT, s.v. “κόσμος,” 3:890.
[100] Gundry, Matthew, 275; Carson, Matthew, 8:327.
[101] As for the disciples’ mention of “your kingdom” in 20:21 (your equals Jesus’s), this is best understood to refer loosely to the future kingdom, principally because the Father bequeaths the future kingdom to the Son (Luke 22:29 “I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom”). This is illustrated in the fact that following the parousia Jesus sits upon his throne because he as the faithful Davidic descendent and rightful heir to the Davidic Covenant has legitimate claim to the throne (Matt 25:31; Rev 3:21). Only Jesus exhausts the promises of the Davidic covenant.
[102] Eugene H. Merrill, “Daniel as a Contribution to Kingdom Theology,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 212.
[103] The minute size of the mustard seed was proverbial in the rabbinical and talmudic writings. See Keener, Matthew, 387–88; McNeile, St. Matthew, 198; Hill, Matthew, 233.
[104] Matthew uses 45 words in the parable; Mark uses 55 words. Luke follows Mark more carefully in certain points (namely, the introduction) than does Matthew (compare with Luke 13:18–19).
[105] Jeremias, Parables, 148–49; Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 71–72; McNeile, St. Matthew, 198.
[106] Bailey, “Parable of the Mustard Seed,” 458; Dodd, Parables, 153; Otto, Kingdom of God, 124; Kingsbury, Matthew, 147; Hunter, Parables, 50. Davies and Allison see both motifs in the parable. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:419.
[107] Gundry, Matthew, 266–67.
[108] France, Matthew, 227; T. W. Manson, Teachings of Jesus, 133; Bailey, “Parable of the Mustard Seed,” 458.
[109] France, Matthew, 227; Jeremias, Parables, 147.
[110] Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:423; Gundry, Matthew, 268.
[111] TDNT, s.v. “κρύπτω,” 3:973.
[112] Walvoord, Matthew, 103.
[113] McNeile, St. Matthew, 199; Hill, Matthew, 234.
[114] France, Matthew, 228.
[115] Bailey, “The Parable of the Leavening Process,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156, no. 621 (January–March 1999): 70.
[116] France, Matthew, 228.
[117] Green, Matthew, 160; Nolland, Matthew, 564; Keener, Matthew, 390–91.
[118] France, Matthew, 230.
[119] Bailey, “The Parables of the Dragnet and of the Householder,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156, no. 623 (July–Sept 1999): 288.
[120] Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:44, list nine prominent suggestions for what was intended to be the new and the old.
[121] Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:444; France, Matthew, 231; Gundry, Matthew, 281.
[122] Gundry, Matthew, 281.