For Further Reading: 7SBE, 3:1794-97; Kittel, 3:744-53; Vincent

Within later Judaism the national, Messianic eschatology of kingship became prevalent among the masses (cf. Psalms of Solomon, the Qumran sectarian War Scroll), and rabbinic thought affirmed the kingship of God in the world by its unswerving loyalty to the one true God and precise observation of His Torah. Whereas in the Qumran literature heaven was a special realm where God's kingship was ac­knowledged in deed and truth, in rabbinic terms one could take on "the yoke of the kingship of heaven" and thus assist in bringing in the king­dom by penance, study of the Torah, and good deeds.

Alongside these Jewish contributions to the developed concept of kingship which formed the Palestinian religious and social setting of Jesus' ministry was the Graeco-Roman understanding of kingship. Though the king (basileus) of Myce-nean times was merely a subordinate prince un­der the divine ruler (anax), by Homer's time the king was generally a hereditary ruler who could trace his power and lineage back to Zeus. Subse­quently the term basileus was replaced by ty-rannos. Though initially a neutral concept, tyrannos took on a negative connotation in the political upheavals of sixth-century (B.C.) Greece, and basileus became the term for a wise, just ruler. Further intimations of divine kingship were infused into the word by the accomplishments of Alexander the Great. The geographical extent of influence and the power of the emperor's office summed up in a kingship terminology reached a climax in the Roman emperor cult begun with Augustus. It was against such a political back-cloth of the kingship of Caesar that Christians were challenged to affirm the Kingship of Christ by declaring, "Jesus is Lord."

The kingdom of God motif in the NT affirms the continuity of its OT roots. God alone truly wields Kingship, over against the "kings of the earth" (Matt. 17:25). The positive evaluation of the Davidic monarchy and its Messianic over­tones is impressive (2 Samuel 7; Acts 13:22), though the only other king applauded is Mel­chizedek (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1 ff), the type of Christ, the High Priest, the Son of David.

John the Baptist becomes the turning point of "kingdom" understanding, appearing as he does on the fulcrum of prophetic prediction and eschatological fulfillment (see Luke 7:28), with an appeal for repentance and baptism which can reasonably be explained only from a Messianic, eschatological understanding of the kingdom of God. With his focus on the judgment of God im­mediately pending, and the advent of a stronger man (Matt. 3:7-10), he invites comparison with Jesus and His message. Indeed, it is suggested (Luke 16:16) that history can be divided into two phases: the Law and the Prophets prior to John, and the presence of the kingdom of God after John (cf. Matt. 11:11 ff and 5:17).

The differences between John and Jesus, how­ever, are crucial. The former threatens judgment, demands repentance and its fruits, promises con­tingent escape from Messianic judgment, and ad­vises preparation for the future cataclysm. He is the continuation of the prophetic line (cf. Mai. 3:1) and a living symbol of the imminent dawn of salvation. The latter offers himself as the im­plicit revelation of God's kingdom of love, grace, forgiveness, and salvation, and the eschato­logical reality of the kingdom of God made present in His own person and claims (cf. Mat­thew 5—7). In Jesus' gospel of the Kingdom, all previous hopes of salvation find their culmina­tion and fulfillment in the kingdom of God.

This new age of salvation depicts the kingdom of God present as the dynamic of divine activity. It is the sovereign rule of God here and now challenging and demanding our response. It is societal in nature, for the Kingdom is composed of redeemed people who function often under pressure and opposition. It is salvific, in that the summons to repentance is present alongside the offer of mercy in Jesus' words and works (Isa. 52:7; Mark 1:15). It is purely religious in char­acter, a kingdom which transcends nationalistic boundaries (cf. Matt. 4:1-11) in being directed to all mankind. It is the eschaton functioning in the present situation, for the primary thrust of Jesus' teaching is not the imperative but the indicative. In Jesus' life and death the present and future kingdom of God stand side by side: in Him who heals miraculously, exorcises demons, and preaches to the poor (Isa. 61:1); in Him who tri-umphally enters Jerusalem as a new Kingdom bearer and cleanses the Temple for a new reign of God (see Isa. 62:11; Zech. 9:9; John 5:15).

The kingdom of God, therefore, is actually present in Jesus' ministry, portraying a new pat­tern for living, Christocentrically affirmed, and related to a king who functions as a Father (Matt. 6:9 ff). It is a truly eschatological gospel that Jesus preaches, one of power and authority, which em-

Outside the Synoptics the kingdom of God ter­minology tends to be replaced by Christological affirmations (cf. Acts 2:36; 8:12; 2 Tim. 4:18). The implicit Christology of the Synoptics is made ex­plicit in the rest of the NT as the kingdom of God present in the person of Jesus now is seen in the person of the risen Lord.

Particularly in Acts God's kingdom is operative in a new way: Jesus as exalted Lord exercises a real rule, indicative of the new age of the Spirit (Acts 2:36; con. 1:6). Where the Kingdom teach­ing of Paul preserves the "here-not yet" polarity by a Christocentric, ethical motivation, Acts moves towards incorporating God's kingdom into the ecclesia framework of the Early Church. In John's writings the eschatological Kingdom community has become a present fellowship re­ality, a concept reflected in the General Epistles. By the time of Revelation, of course, the escha­tological kingdom of God is identical with the kingdom of Christ (Rev. 11:15), which in turn is equated with the community of saints on earth, where history is merely the battlefield for the ultimate cosmic struggle.

The "here-not yet" teaching of Paul is es­pecially significant. In the Epistles traditionally credited to him, there are 13 references to the Kingdom as such. Three of them assume the kingdom of God to be spiritual in nature and a present reality—e.g., "For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17, rsv; cf. 1 Cor. 4:20; Col. 1:13). The balance are either probably or obviously eschatological in orien­tation; e.g., "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50; cf. 6:9-10; 15:24; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 4:11; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18).

The history of theological interpretation of "the kingdom of God" reflects not only the dis­putes over specific biblical passages (e.g., Matt.

11:12; 13:23; Mark 1:15; 4:11; 10:15; 12:34; Luke 7:28; 17:20), but also the apparent ambivalencies or surface paradoxes in the words of Jesus. Is "building the kingdom" consistent with the "kingdom of God"? Is the Kingdom prophetic or apocalyptic in character? Is it transcendent or immanent?

From the imminent parousia teaching of Ter-tullian, the enthusiasm of Montanism, the spiri-tualization of Origen and the Eastern wing of Christendom, the reification of the kingdom of God in the West (cf. Charlemagne, the Crusades, the social gospel, Pietism), and the assaults of world conflict, the kingdom of God motif has emerged into the 20th century, where the inter­pretations of the kingdom of God fall roughly into the following camps: futuristic/apoca­lyptic/consistent eschatology (see J. Weiss, A. Schweitzer); prophetic eschatology (see W. Rau-schenbusch, L. Harold DeWolf); realized escha­tology (see C. H. Dodd); proleptic/existential eschatology (see R. Bultmann and demy-thologization); and dual dimension eschatology —Kingdom both present and future (see G. E. Ladd, Oscar Cullmann, W. Kummel). Each view­point attempts to reconcile the nature of the Kingdom as future, present, or in process of real­ization, and to do justice to the symbols used while appropriating the message to historical re­ality. The kingdom of God, however, remains ultimately a mystery still to be revealed.

See CHURCH, ESCHATOLOGY, LAST DAYS (THE), NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH, NEW COVENANT, KINGLY OFFICES OF CHRIST, DISPENSATION OF THE SPIRIT.

That reinterpretation is introduced by the Syn­optic Gospels from the very beginning of Jesus'

The major theme of Jesus' public ministry was the proclamation that the kingdom of God had come near. But He did more than speak words about the reign of God. He acted in ways which demonstrated to the eyes of faith that the King­dom was present in His very person. He exer­cised the kingly authority of God when He healed the sick, cast out demons, forgave sins, and reinterpreted the ethical demand of God (cf. Matt. 11:2-6; Luke 4:16-27).

The ultimate demonstration of Jesus' kingly of­fice was His resurrection. It was because God vindicated Jesus by resurrecting Him that the first disciples were able to confess, "Jesus is Lord" (cf. Acts 2:32-36; Phil. 2:5-11).

See CHRIST, ESTATES OF CHRIST. KINGDOM OF GOD.

One of man's most important abilities is to be aware, to know, to have knowledge. This grasp of the mind may be almost totally missing, as when there is innocence in the case of the infant or mature person who has the capacity but not yet the experience; or as in the case of ignorance when a person possibly should or could know something but does not. Misinformation is a con­dition in which something is known, but it is not adequate or is distorted so that there is signifi­cant failure to apprehend the situation.

Rising to the level of opinion is progress be­yond the preceding stages, because here through a number of ways or through a fairly secure method the person knows something. The level of truth occurs, however, when the method of knowing is fully adequate to the objects being known.

Some of the avenues by which one knows (from philosophic and theological methods) are perception (as in sensory experience), scientific method, custom, tradition, authority, intuition, coherence, and revelation.

While some Christians may occasionally or even frequently speak of the absolute character of their knowledge, others may prefer to speak of assurance. Some stress revelation as found in the Scriptures as the source of sure knowledge. Some believe that the basis of religious knowledge is a reasoned and systematic interpretation of the Bi­ble. For others, the key certainty is a personal assurance of acceptance with God, a knowledge that the God of the Bible is the true God who is the Savior of all mankind and especially of that specific individual. For such persons only the experiential knowledge of the heart is sure, while knowledge of the truth in the form of concepts is relative. The Christian seeks to know truth both propositionally and experientially.

The apostle Paul said, "I know whom I have believed" (2 Tim. 1:12). The person who believes God and His Word is being delivered from the frenetic seeking which fails to turn up genuine knowledge (3:7), for he drinks from a well of truth which deeply satisfies (John 4:7-15).

See EPISTEMOLOGY, WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT.

For Further Reading: Concise Encyclopedia of Western
Philosophy and Philosophers; Weinberg and Yandell,
Theory of Knowledge; Barrett, A Christian Perspective of
Knowing. R. Duane thompson

KOINONIA. Koinonia, usually translated "fellow­ship," is the Greek word that identifies the depth fellowship of the NT Christian community. As the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:14), the Church is to be the caring, sharing commu­nity.

One aspect of koinonia is that of Christians sharing in their common relationship with God. Being joint partakers of grace (Phil. 1:7) is the result of the vertical koinonia made possible by the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit (John 16:5-15). John Stott summarizes the Christian's mutual participation in God's grace: "Begotten by the will and word of the same Father, redeemed by the blood of the same Son, indwelt by the presence of the same Spirit—that is our koi­nonia, the common salvation we ... share" (One People, 76).

The vertical koinonia is the basis for the hori­zontal koinonia experienced among the saints.



LABOR—LAITY

305