For Further Reading: 7SBE, 3:1794-97; Kittel, 3:744-53; Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 1:91-98.
Charles W. Carter
KINGDOM OF GOD. To appreciate the significance of this term in its historic biblical and theological usage, an understanding of the correlative "king" motif is essential. The Israelite concept of "king" and its cognates had its linguistic roots in the Syro-Canaanite understanding of the "God most high" as a king (melek) accorded unlimited authority. This authority took two forms: one affirmed that "Yahweh is king" (the essential, or ontological mode: cf. Ps. 93:1; Jer. 10:7); the other that "Yahweh has proved to be king" (the existential, or dynamic mode: cf. Ps. 47:8; 97:1). In the cultic setting of Israel the enthronement psalms in particular declared the experience of the present reality of Yahweh's kingship, connecting this theme with His historical acts, such as the Exodus, and future expectation of His eschatological consummation of history (cf. the Messianic theology of Isa. 9:7; 11:1 ff). This stress on covenant kingship in Israel became a primary differentiation of Israel from the divine kingship ideas of their neighbors.
From Israel's initial political stance as a loose confederacy waging holy war, there developed the institution of a monarchy. This was in direct response to the perennial Philistine pressure and at the express command of Yahweh (1 Sam. 9:1—10:16). This predominantly favorable view of the monarchy was vigorously opposed by many in Northern Israel who perceived monarchy as a rejection of theocracy (1 Sam. 8:1-22; 10:17-27). This tension over what was Yahweh's will for His people persisted throughout the monarchic period and beyond, with the "eternal" Davidic kingdom of the South vying for supremacy with the charismatic leadership of the North. The concept of an everlasting Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7) with the adoption of the king as son of Yahweh (in contrast to other Near Eastern views of the king as divine by nature, e.g., Egypt) led to the enhancement of the eschatological kingship motif, as the reality of earthly kingship expectation deteriorated (Isa. 11:1-9; 9:2-7).
Thus, Israel experienced Yahweh's kingship fundamentally in His historical actions toward them, seen in the covenantal provisions and demands of His absolute power and the guidance of His elect people through a tortured history. Despite these sometimes ambivalent historical indicators (e.g., the Exilic period), Israel affirmed that Yahweh was still actively exercising kingship, in a functional and not merely formal sense, and that He would continue to rule variously but emphatically over the whole creation, over Israel and the nations of the world.
This pattern of Yahweh's cosmic, historical, cultic, and eschatological kingship (malkuth) was discerned in secular, political kingdoms (Jer.
302
KINGDOM OF GOD (cont.)
49:34); in cosmic ideological terms (Ps. 145:11-13); in the eschatological sense of a universal, immanent kingdom (Isa. 24:23; Zech. 14:9); and finally in an apocalyptic mode (Dan. 7:13). The hallmark of this mode was the tension between narrow nationalism arid transcending eschatology.
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-
KINGLY OFFICES OF CHRIST
303
phasizes constantly the crisic importance and urgency of the present moment (kairos), thereby imposing radical demands on His hearers. This kingdom of God springs from divine power and grace in the present because of what the covenant God has accomplished in the past and guarantees to effect in the future (see Luke 12:32; 22:18). The true nature of the world can only be understood in the light of God's kingdom, but the kingdom of God is neither the extension nor the projection of anything in this world. Thus Jesus teaches and preaches in the parabolic mode concerning the value of the Kingdom, conditions for membership in it, its productivity and growth, and the final Judgment.
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.
For Further Reading: Bright, The Kingdom of God; Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom; Harkness, Understanding the Kingdom of God; Jeremias, The Parables of fesus; Ladd, The Presence of the Future; Lundstrom, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus; Schnackenburg, God's Rule and God's Kingdom; Vos, The Pauline Eschatology; GMS, 38-340, 612-23. JOHN S. LOWN
KINGLY OFFICES OF CHRIST. Christian theologians have for many generations described Christ's work by means of the three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. He is the One who perfectly combines all three functions (cf. Wiley, CT, 2:213-15). That Jesus should have fulfilled a kingly role is only a natural consequence of His identity as the Messiah, God's Anointed One. However, the manner whereby that identity was manifested in His life and work involved a more accurate interpretation of the OT hope than the popular Messianic expectation of first-century Judaism.
That reinterpretation is introduced by the Synoptic Gospels from the very beginning of Jesus'
304
KNOWLEDGE—KOINONIA
public ministry. The episode of Jesus' baptism by John, and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus with the accompanying voice from heaven, is Jesus' inauguration into the role of Messiah. Its significance is explained by the words of the heavenly voice. Those words identify Jesus by joining the OT concept of the kingly Messiah with the figure of the Servant of the Lord. The voice from heaven combines words from Ps. 2:7 and Isa. 42:1. This means that the kingly authority of Jesus, His identity as the Anointed One, will be exercised, lived out, as He fulfills the role of the Servant Messiah. Jesus will be the crucified Messiah. That King Jesus reigns from the Cross is accentuated by the Gospel of John. There the hour of Christ's glorification is the moment when He is lifted up on the Cross.
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.
For Further Reading: Barclay, Jesus as They Saw Him, 38-42, 93-159, 240-44; Bright, The Kingdom of God, 187-274; Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 57-80, 135-58, 237-53, 408-22. HAL A. CAUTHRON
KNOWLEDGE. This area is regarded as so important in philosophy that one of its major branches of study is epistemology or theory of knowledge.
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
Because God loved them, believers are to love; loving one another is to be the trademark of the Church (John 13:35). Christians are to forgive, serve, encourage, instruct, admonish, and weep with one another. Two examples of the new quality of group life are the Jerusalem church in the Book of Acts (John Wesley thought highly of that common life), and the relief offering Paul gathered in his third missionary journey for the saints in Jerusalem. In total, the goal of koinonia is that the Body of Christ might attain "the full measure of perfection found in Christ" (Eph. 4:13, Niv).
A further aspect of koinonia is the common task of sharing the gospel message. Jesus called His disciples to be fishers of men, colaborers in spreading the faith. Paul speaks highly of those who worked with him in proclaiming the Good News. All believers are to work together in the fulfilling of the Great Commission.
See fellowship, love, unity, body life.
For Further Reading: Stott, One People, 69-90; Snyder,
The Problem of Wineskins, 89-150; Bonhoeffer, Life To-
gether. Martin H. Schrag
L
LABOR. This is the investment of energy and time in productive, purposeful activity. The purpose is the accomplishment of a task or the rendering of a service.
The Genesis record indicates that before the Fall, God instructs, "Have dominion ... over every living thing" (1:28). Of Adam God says, "I will make an help meet for him" (2:18). Ruling over the world involves labor, and for that Adam receives a helper. After the Fall God declares, "In toil shall you eat of it [the ground] all the days of your life" (3:17, nasb). The Fall is not the occasion of labor but rather the reason for the way in which labor is often performed: "in sorrow"
(kjv).
The biblical view is that labor is a part of God's gracious and requisite plan for man. The Psalmist praises God for the fact that man "goes forth to his work" (104:23, nasb). The Lord Jesus is known as "the carpenter" (Mark 6:3). The apostle Paul sees work as an essential element in Christian discipline. The Christian cannot accept the thinking of a society in which there is inordinate concern for ease, pleasure, security; and little or no concern for honest and hard work. Paul writes, "If anyone will not work, neither let him eat" (2 Thess. 3:10, nasb). There is no place in the Christian life-style for drones. However, not all labor is manual; it may equally be mental. It may also be clerical, professional, or in the category of services.
The early Methodists, in both Britain and North America, following the example of John Wesley, were oftentimes occupied with the concerns of the laborer. Their serious interest in this area reflects the view that labor must not be passed over in the total Christian view of stewardship.
The Bible teaches that the exertion of spiritual effort is also labor. Jesus' assignment from the Father is seen as "his work" (John 4:34). The Christian is to appreciate the labor of those who are leaders in the Church (1 Thess. 5:12).
See vocation, work (works), christian socialism.
For Further Reading: Hoffner, Fundamentals of Christian Sociology, 90-109; Kaiser, Theology of Work 521; Wirt, The Social Conscience of the Evangelical, 57-64.
Alden Aikens
LAITY. This term derives from the root word laos, the "people," and is virtually synonymous with laymen or laypeople. From some time in the second century the Christian church began to distinguish its general membership from the clergy by the use of this term. In later years it has had a more general usage in distinguishing nonprofessionals from professionals in a number of areas, as, for example, in law and in medicine.
It is probably true that Christendom has swung constantly between the extremes of clericalism on one side and anticlericalism on the other. Certain it is that the Scriptures articulate both the universal priesthood of believers and the special calling of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:7-12).
The distinction between the spiritual privileges, duties, and services of the laity and the clergy are not absolutes. Under certain conditions, any Roman Catholic may offer the sacra
306
LAMB, SACRIFICIAL—LAMB OF GOD
ment of extreme unction to a dying man. In emergencies there are few things laymen cannot do which clergymen customarily do. And the clergymen must, as did the OT priests, seek forgiveness and grace quite as earnestly as do the laity.
Nevertheless, there are relative distinctions which set the clergy apart. These include the sense of divine call; the recognition of gifts and calling by the church, and even by civil authorities; the advantages of advanced study; the financial support of a congregation; and also special powers officially bestowed on him by his particular church discipline.
Furthermore, the God-called clerics are specifically charged with the responsibility of the "equipping of the saints for the work of service" (Eph. 4:11-12, nasb). Laymen are to be trained in churchmanship, that they may fill their places in the body effectively (Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 12:14-18). The fact that laymen may be especially Spirit-gifted is the counterpart of their training, not a substitute for it.
The present generation of the Church is vividly conscious of the need for and privilege of lay service in the evangelization of the world.
See great commission, minister (ministry), evangelism, clergy, discipling.
For Further Reading: Baker's Dictionary of Practical
Theology, 322-25, 414 ff. john E. RlLEY
Share with your friends: |