In this article, I will briefly outline the rising prevalence and danger of Statism, explain what Sphere Sovereignty is and what happens when it is violated, and then outline how Christians ought respond to Statism for the sake of the kingdom of God.

The Emergence and Expansion of Statism

Statism refers to an ideology that centralizes control and power in the hands of the state and extends its reach into all areas of life. It manifests in the increasing reliance on civil government to address a wide range of social issues, from economic disparities to personal health and moral education. Under this doctrine, civil government is elevated to a position of supremacy over all other societal structures, disregarding the unique roles and responsibilities of institutions such as the family and the church as outlined in a Christian world-and-life view.

The widespread acceptance of government intervention in numerous aspects of daily life evidences the growing reliance on the state. Progressive, confiscatory taxation, endless market regulations, as well as state-sponsored education, health, and welfare programs, are commonly accepted with little question of their legitimacy or limits. Even areas traditionally outside the state’s purview, such as family life and religious practices, are increasingly subject to government control. In China, state-approved churches are heavily regulated in their preaching and practices, illustrating a model where religious life is closely governed by the state. But a similar trend is emerging in Western countries, where churches may face regulations limiting their activities or teachings under the guise of public health, equity and inclusion, or social order.

The Dangers of State Absolutism

The danger lies not only in the state’s expansion into areas it should not rule but also in its fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of authority and governance. The Bible teaches that all authority belongs to God, who delegates authority to various spheres of life: the individual, family, church, private institutions, and state. Each of these spheres has its unique role and authority that should not be infringed upon by the others.

When the state oversteps its boundaries, it undermines the God-given autonomy of these other spheres, effectively setting itself up as the ultimate authority. This overreach is not only an abuse of power but also a denial of the fundamental Christian doctrine that all power is subject to Christ’s Lordship. Statism leads inevitably to a form of practical atheism, where the state assumes a god-like role, controlling every aspect of life and dictating the terms of human existence. This pattern directly opposes the biblical teaching that only God and his Kingdom rule has total authority and that all human institutions must operate within the limits He has established.

The Kingdom of God and the Principle of Sphere Sovereignty

The principle of Sphere Sovereignty, as helpfully articulated by Abraham Kuyper and further developed by Christian thinkers like Herman Dooyeweerd, provides a scripturally rooted framework for understanding the proper limits of political authority under the Kingdom of God. No given law-sphere should dominate or control the other spheres of life. Each must operate within the limits set by God’s law-word.

1. Sovereignty of God Over All Spheres

At the heart of Sphere Sovereignty is the belief that God is sovereign over all creation. Every sphere—whether political, social, familial, or ecclesiastical—is created by God and is subject to His authority. The state, therefore, is not an absolute power; it is a servant of God, with a specific role to play in maintaining justice in the public-legal order (Rom. 13:1-7). Its authority is limited by God’s law, and when the state exceeds its God-given mandate, it becomes tyrannical.

2. The Role of the State

The Bible clearly describes the state’s role as being concerned with public justice, punishing wrongdoing, and promoting good conduct. The state wields the “sword” to maintain public order and ensure that righteous laws are upheld (Rom. 13:4). However, its authority is not unlimited; it must respect the equally sphere-sovereign nature of other God-ordained law-orders, such as the family and the church. For instance, the state should not interfere in the doctrine, worship, or teaching of the church, which belong to the ecclesiastical sphere. Nor should it intrude into (let alone redefine!) the fundamental authority, role, and responsibility of the family, such as the upbringing and education of children, unless crimes are being committed.

3. Independence of Other Spheres

As such, each law-sphere has its unique role and authority, granted directly by God. The family is a government with authority over raising children, education, and domestic affairs, while the church has the authority to proclaim the gospel, administer sacraments, and exercise church discipline as another form of government. The state has no right to dictate how these spheres should operate within their God-given boundaries. Any attempt by the state to assume control over these areas represents an overreach of its authority and a usurpation of God’s sovereignty.

The Consequences of Violating Sphere Sovereignty

When the state overreaches and assumes authority in areas where it has no jurisdiction, the consequences are far-reaching and detrimental. Statism, by its nature, trends totalitarian. For example, when the state controls education, it can impose secular ideologies and ban Christian teachings. When it rules over the family, it can redefine marriage, control the upbringing of children, and interfere in parental rights. When it dominates the church, it can censor religious expression and limit the freedom to worship.

Moreover, when the state treats the other spheres of life as lower parts of itself as a greater whole, it diminishes personal responsibility, erodes freedom, and fosters a culture of dependency. This leads to a society where individuals, families, and churches become subservient to the state, losing their autonomy and their ability to fulfill their God-given purpose in service to His Kingdom.

A Christian Response to Statism

To counter the dangers of statism, Christians must recover a biblical understanding of authority and government in terms of the Kingdom of God. This involves insisting that all authority is delegated by God and is limited by His law. Christians are called to resist state overreach and advocate for a social order that honors the distinct roles of each sphere.

1. Advocating for Limited Government

Christians should promote the idea of a limited civil government that respects the autonomy of other spheres and recognizes its role as a servant of God. This means challenging the assumption that the state is the ultimate Lord of life and advocating for policies that protect the freedom and independence of families, churches, and other private institutions.

2. Engaging in Public Life

Christians must engage in public life, bringing their faith to bear in every area of society. This includes participating in politics, law, education, and business in ways that reflect a commitment to the principles of Sphere Sovereignty. By doing so, Christians can help shape a culture that respects the limits of state authority whilst promoting true freedom and justice.

3. Defending Freedom under God

Freedom under God is a key aspect of Sphere Sovereignty. Christians must defend the church’s right to preach the gospel, teach biblical doctrine, administer the sacraments, and exercise discipline without state interference. This includes advocating for laws that protect the freedom of the church and the preaching of the gospel whilst resisting policies that seeks to control the church’s function or its message.

4. Fostering a Culture of Responsibility

Christians should work to foster a culture of faithfulness, where individuals, families, and churches take up their God-given roles and responsibilities. This involves promoting values such as personal responsibility and accountability, community engagement from a distinctly Christian standpoint, and voluntary charity, rather than reliance on state welfare and intervention.

Conclusion: Upholding the Kingdom of God

The principle of Sphere Sovereignty offers a powerful framework for understanding the limits of political authority within the Kingdom of God. It affirms that all authority belongs to God and that He has established various spheres of life, each with its distinct responsibilities and limits. The state, like the family and the church, must operate within the boundaries set by God’s law, recognizing that the authority of its office-bearers is not absolute but delegated.

Believers are called to uphold this principle in our personal lives, our churches, and our public engagement. We must resist the trend toward state absolutism and advocate for a social order that respects the relative autonomy of each sphere and promotes true freedom, justice, and human flourishing under God’s rule. In doing so, we bear witness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the comprehensive nature of His Kingdom.

The Necessity of Confessing “Jesus is Lord”

This is the familiar passage we consider too glibly:

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart, one believes and is justified, and with the mouth, one confesses and is saved. (Rom. 10:9–10)

Paul’s mention of “your mouth” and “your heart” is patterned after “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” which he cites from Deuteronomy 30:14. As shown below, Paul’s chiasm emphasizes the mouth’s confessing of the heart’s believing—the central feature—while focusing fully on Jesus. Though taking place in the heart, belief in Jesus, whom God raised from the dead, is not private. It is a matter to be testified to with speech. Thus, what Paul affirms is in keeping with Jesus’s teaching: that from the abundance of the believing heart the mouth confesses, “Jesus is Lord.”

A   For if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and

B   believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

B¹ For with the heart the resurrection of Jesus is believed unto righteousness, and

A¹  with the mouth, the lordship of Jesus is confessed unto salvation.

Many readers of English Bibles do not realize that the two Greek verbs in the latter portion of Paul’s chiasm are in the passive voice—“it is believed” and “it is confessed”—as reflected above.[1] Our belief that God raised his Son, Jesus, from the dead is essential to our being declared righteous before God. The two central lines of the chiasm emphatically reiterate Paul’s assertion from Romans 4:23–25. Paul insists that Abraham, who observed that his nearly 100-year-old body was as good as dead, believed God could bring forth a living son from his barren wife. His belief typologically foreshadowed our belief in God who raised his Son from the dead. Thus, Paul wrote, “But the words ‘it was counted to him’ were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:23–25).

1. One commentator who makes this point is John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, reprint 1975 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 2.56.

The Confession, “Jesus is Lord,” Has Lost its Edge through Repetition

Properly preached, the gospel of Jesus Christ confronts everyone with totalizing ramifications, transforming our beliefs, practices, and policies concerning every aspect of life in this world. This call subsumes our philosophy on everything: public square issues such as law and justice, politics, economics, society, and culture. In this sin-corrupted world where “repetition breeds familiarity,” our hearts are too often dull to Jesus’s universal dominion, and the preaching of the exhaustive fullness of Jesus’s Lordship becomes commonplace.[2] Three major influences have aided and abetted this dullness: our culture, the enlightenment, and Pietism.

2. Some Evangelicals preach the deviant and erroneous notion that Romans 10:9–10 does not require sinners to confess “Jesus is Lord” and believe that “God raised him from the dead” to be saved. Bob Wilkin embraces this convoluted notion (“Must we Confess in Order to be Eternally Saved?”). This aberrant teaching prompted the so-called “Lordship Salvation Controversy” of the 1980s.

The Impact of Western Culture

Ironically, the first dulling influence is Western Culture itself. How? Christianity, which profoundly shaped Western Culture, played a significant role in establishing the United States and her founding documents—especially the defense of religious freedom. Convinced that our Creator endows all kinds of rights to mankind, the founders brilliantly drafted a Constitution restricting the government’s authority over citizens’ rights. Most formidable of these rights is the First Amendment, including the freedom of religion.[3]

3. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The U.S. Constitution established a nation where Christians would not be subjected to government-sponsored persecution as many of America’s earliest immigrants from Europe had experienced. Assurance that governing officials cannot restrict religious belief and practice or impose an official religion on the citizens removed fear of government-sponsored oppression. With no government-authorized lord threatening Christians, Christians became softer. Christians began to adjust how they read, heard, and heeded what is entailed in confessing “Jesus is Lord.”

The Impact of the Enlightenment

From America’s founding, the rule of law banished tyrants from outside—but this law did not protect against the tyrants from within. The Enlightenment—an anti–Christian worldview that puts the individual at the center—continued infecting North America from the late eighteenth to the early nineteenth century. Enlightenment thinkers shrunk the definition of “religion” and banished it from the public square to be sequestered in the church and home, far away from all that its devotees insist is religiously neutral secular turf.[4] And in that void, people increasingly looked to the state to provide our father the government to provide their daily bread. We all have been infected by this invasive worldview contrary to Christianity.

4. N. T. Wright, “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul 1978–2013 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 171–72.

Thus, Aaron Renn correctly observes that the secularization of American culture took place even during what he identifies as the “Positive World,” which he suggests finally ended in 1994.[5] In the 1960s Francis Schaeffer warned Christians that they had unwittingly separated truth, facts, and reality (conceived of as objective or neutral and occupying the lower story of thinking) from religion, beliefs, and ethics (regarded as subjective or partial and isolated to the upper story of feelings).[6] The false separation of the sacred from the secular strikes again.

5. Aaron M. Renn, “The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism,” First Things (February 2022).

6. Francis Schaeffer, Escape from Reason, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968), 60ff.

Born from the Enlightenment, modernism’s seduction has induced inattentive Christians to accept its bifurcated worldview of “two-story thinking,” to use Schaeffer’s apt expression.  Christians must be alert concerning how we engage life in this present evil age, understanding the times. We need to know how to read the times in which we live in light of God’s Word, and we need to be wary of reading the Scriptures and pondering God’s ways through an Enlightenment lens that filters the sacred from the secular as though the two were divisible.

Equally, we must guard against superimposing a lens that projects contemporary social-cultural-political-economic theories onto the biblical text. The Enlightenment’s peculiar child, postmodernism, has made it fashionable to read Scripture through neo-Marxist spectacles of “oppressor versus oppressed”—in economic, ethnic, or sexual dynamics. This thinking seduces many professing Christians who gravitate toward Evangelicals for Harris and The After Party project (created by Russell Moore, David French, and Curtis Chang). Both groups are subversive to the Christian worldview that rejects the lower story-upper story separation, and Christians ought resist this kind of thinking.

The Impact of Pietism

A third harmful influence on seeing Jesus’s universal lordship is pietism, which camouflages itself behind an appealing spiritual veneer. Pietism has dulled Christian sensibilities to the social-economic-cultural-political implications of the good news in Jesus Christ. Pietism is the mistress of the Enlightenment, and both attempted to shrink the definition of “religion” and banish it from the public square merely to churches and religious institutions. By retreating from the public square, pietist Christians ironically participated in and blessed the divorce of the sacred from the secular. Today, Evangelical and Reformed pietism attracts many to its upper-story spirituality away from the lower-story political-cultural fray. Pietistic thinking directs Christians to “stay in their own lane.” Pietists declare political neutrality that functionally allows the governing Leftist political worldview to gain more ground. Pietists claim that Christian ministers have no authorization from Christ to speak concerning civic and political matters. Hence, these contemporary pietists unwittingly teach their adherents that conversations about the public square are unacceptable to both gospel interests and wholesome Christian conversation—unless the conversation comes from the Pietists themselves! Is there any wonder why pollsters anticipate that perhaps 30 to 40 million Evangelicals will sit out this year’s national election on November 5?[7]

7. Leonardo Blair, “More than 100M people of faith could sit out 2024 election: study,” Christian Post (10–10–2024).

Recovering the Full Measure of the Confession “Jesus is Lord”

The U.S. government is restrained in its power on Christian citizenry in contrast to the unrestrained government of first-century Rome. To grasp this difference, it is worth comparing how Christians in America hear the Apostle Paul’s letter and how the first recipients of the letter in Rome heard it when read to them. Though he had not yet visited Rome, Paul, who traveled throughout the Roman Empire, recognized the dangers Christians encountered living in Rome. He had suffered animosity from civil authorities on multiple occasions. He understood state-sponsored threats against Christians whose exclusive allegiance was to Christ Jesus as “Lord.”

Also worth noting, several years before Paul sent his letter to them, Christian churches in Rome endured an emperor-imposed disruption. In A.D. 49, Claudius expelled all ethnic Jews from Rome without distinguishing Christian Jews from non-Christian Jews. So, Aquila and Priscilla left their residence in the empire’s capital city, relocating to Corinth (Acts 18:1–3). When Paul wrote his letter to the Roman Christians from Corinth (A.D. 57), three years after Claudius’s death, when his edict expired, some Jews were moving back to Rome under the new Caesar, Nero (A.D. 54–68), whose depravity and persecution of Christians became notorious.[8]

8. See Kenneth Berding, “Something About the Book of Romans that will Help You Really ‘Get’ It.”

How did Paul’s first recipients of his letter hear the famous confession of Romans 10:9 “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9)? They more than likely heard it as a totalizing claim that encompassed all of life. Only by God’s Spirit can one truthfully confess “Jesus is Lord,” affirming his incarnation, sacrificial death, resurrection, ascension, and investiture with universal dominion (cf. Phil. 2:11; 1 Cor. 12:3). Even if Rome’s later mandatory confession, “Caesar is Lord” (Kurios Kaisar), had not yet been imposed on its citizens by the time Paul sent his letter to Rome’s Christians, such inscriptions as “Nero, the lord of the entire world” already existed.[9] The emperor cult with Caesar acknowledged as a deity was emerging.

9. Vision. “Inventing Deities.”

Paul intended the Roman Christians to hear this confession, carefully crafted with chiastic repetition, as a declaration of Christ’s sovereignty over the governing authorities. Nero, in Rome, was the principal ruling official to which the apostle admonishes them to submit (Rom. 13:1).[10] Ponder Paul’s apostolic commission by the Lord Jesus Christ told to Ananias:  “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name” (Acts 9:15–16). So, Paul’s mission included preaching to kings the Lordship of the God-man enthroned on a Roman cross under the banner “King of the Jews,” and this meant nothing less than that Jesus is Lord over everything—Caesar included.

10. One could point to other familiar words—“good news,” “son of God,” “salvation,” and “justice”—as echoes of the “imperial language” associated with the worship of Caesar. See, for example, N. T. Wright, “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire” (1998), expanded in “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul 1978–2013 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 446–47.

Conclusion

Wherever idolatry reigns, whether in ancient Rome or various nations today, Christians have always faced great hostilities. Government guardians of idolatry are pleased to welcome Jesus Christ into their pantheon of deities and household gods. What they cannot allow is the confession “Jesus is Lord” to exclude acknowledgment of other deities. About 100 years after Paul sent his letter to Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna bore witness to this truth. After the Roman authorities arrested him because he refused to renounce only “Jesus is Lord” and confess divine honors to the Roman emperor, “the police captain Herod and his father Niketas met with him” in an effort “to persuade him and saying, ‘But what harm is it to say, “Lord Caesar,” [Kurios Kaisar] and to offer sacrifice . . . and to be saved [from death]?’”[11] His commitment to Jesus’s lordship is a model every Christian, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?”

11. The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8.2.

Vice President Kamala Harris held a political rally on Oct. 17, 2024 in La Crosse, Wisconsin. She berated her opponent, former President Donald Trump, for appointing three justices to the United States Supreme Court “with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe v. Wade, and they did as he intended.” At that instant, two male students from the University of Wisconsin—La Crosse proclaimed, “Christ is King!” then, “Jesus is Lord,” loudly enough for all in the arena to hear. V. P. Harris promptly retorted, “Oh! You guys are at the wrong rally,” drawing thunderous applause and cheers from the nearly 2500 attendees. The two confessors were promptly ushered out of the arena as V. P. Harris continued mocking them. What a commentary on the depths to which the Democratic Party’s candidate and voters have sunk! Of course, when she brought her rally to a close, without any hint of disconnect between her God-rejecting words and actions, Harris said, “God bless you. God bless the United States of America.”

The First Amendment seems to have lulled many Evangelicals into a slumber from engaging in political and cultural issues from which they must be awakened. The freedom to confess “Jesus is Lord” in the public square is in greater jeopardy than at any previous time. As hostilities increase in our nation against believers who confess exclusive allegiance to one Lord, will we stand firm and confess, “Jesus is Lord”? Are we prepared to acknowledge the exclusive lordship of Jesus, who died a criminal’s death on a Roman cross under that placard that specified his crime, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”? As Jesus taught us, the words we speak with our mouths confirm the beliefs resident in our hearts. Confession without faith is hollow. Faith without confession is proved spurious. Our mouth’s confession reveals and confirms the authenticity of our faith.

Jesus and the Kingdom

The kingdom of God is a term which occurs mainly in the Gospels of Mark and Luke; it is synonymous with Matthew’s ‘the kingdom of heaven’. There are about one hundred references to the kingdom of God/heaven in the Synoptics. There are two references in John (3:3, 5), where Jesus also speaks of ‘my kingdom’ (John 18:36). The kingdom of God is mentioned six times in Acts and eight times in Paul’s letters. Three passages indicate that the kingdom of Christ is the same as the kingdom of God (Eph. 5:5; Rev. 11:15; 12:10).

The kingdom of God in the Gospels

Our starting point must be the concept of the kingdom in the Gospels. Jesus began his ministry with the announcement, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand’ (Mark 1:14–15, RSV). The use of ‘fulfilled’ (Gk. peplērōtai) suggests that this kingdom answers to well-known expectations based on past promises. The Gospels expound what it means for this kingdom to be ‘at hand’. It would thus be a mistake simply to isolate the kingdom sayings of Jesus without reference to the broad strategy of all four Gospels which, notwithstanding the distinctives of each, can be simply stated: Jesus is declared to be the bringer of the kingdom through his life (which includes his miracles and his teachings), his death and his resurrection.

Matthew begins by identifying Jesus as the son of David (Matt. 1:1), thus immediately placing kingship on his agenda. In his birth narrative he stresses the Davidic link in Jesus’ family tree (1:20), and the perception that Jesus is born to be king (2:1–2) as a fulfillment of prophecy (2:6). Jesus’ message is the ‘good news of the kingdom’ (4:23). He speaks frequently of those who will partake in the kingdom (5:3, 10, 19; 6:33; 7:21). To enter it requires child-like trust (18:3–4; 19:14), while the self-righteous and self-sufficient will find great difficulty in entering (7:21; 19:23–24; 21:43; 23:13). His miracles are signs that the kingdom has come near (9:35; 12:28). Matthew records a series of parables of the kingdom (e.g. 13:24, 31, 33, 44–47; 18:23; 20:1; 22:2; 25:1) which use the wisdom form of comparison, usually likening the kingdom to some event in daily life in which wise perceptions lead to spiritual enrichment or some other desirable outcome. Yet the parables also reinforce the hidden, spiritual and distinctive characteristics of the kingdom which make it accessible only to those who are initiated into its truth (13:11). The natural heirs of the kingdom, the Jews, and especially the religiously self-righteous, are often shown to be on the outside (5:20; 8:12; 21:31, 43; 23:13).

Mark moves from the announcement of his theme (Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom) to an outline of the coming of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus. Like Matthew, Mark sees the kingdom in the miracles. Jesus exercises his dominion in nature, over people, over sickness and over the powers of darkness. The healing miracles are specifically linked with the forgiveness of sins (2:1–12). Mark also shares the perspective of the secret of the kingdom being hidden from the outsider through parables (4:11, 33–34). The kingdom grows in secret and unexpected ways (4:26–32); yet Jesus also demonstrates his rule in the miracles, which show him to be the savior-king (4:35–41).

Luke’s distinctives are partly in his unique introduction and structure. Whereas Matthew begins on a kingly note, Luke looks at the priestly pedigree of Jesus as he concentrates on the ministry of the temple as the context of Jesus’ birth. The priestly and royal roles are related: in the annunciation to Mary, Jesus is designated son of God, son of David, and ruler over the house of Jacob (Luke 1:30–33). Circumstances decree that Jesus is born in the city of David, his royal ancestor. Both Matthew and Luke record the baptism of Jesus and the accompanying word from heaven that almost certainly picks up the teaching of Psalm 2:7 that the son of God is the ruler of the kings of the earth (Luke 3:22). In Acts, which builds on Luke’s Gospel, the kingdom is presented as the central message of the risen Christ and then of the apostles (Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31).

John’s distinctive teaching links perception of and entrance into the kingdom to the miracle of birth from above (John 3:3, 5). Jesus is also quoted as pointing to the kingdom which comes without the usual displays of worldly power (18:36).

Definition of the kingdom

As we assemble the various data on the kingdom of God, certain difficulties arise in defining its nature.

1. The manner of its coming. The Gospels highlight two main points of tension between Jesus and his contemporaries. The first is the widening gap between Jesus and the religious teachers of his day, and especially the Pharisees. The second is the difficulty he has in persuading his own followers to forsake certain stereotypes and misconceptions of the kingdom of God. The rebuke given by the risen Christ to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:25–27) suggests that the information they needed was available in the OT but that even his devoted followers had to a degree misunderstood the kingdom: the Messiah had to become a suffering servant before being glorified as king. As Luke continues the narrative in Acts 1 it appears that the disciples are ready to acknowledge their mistake since they are now confronted by the fact of the resurrection. But their perceptions of the kingdom do not seem to have changed much: they ask, ‘Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?’ (Acts 1:6, NRSV). The answer points them to the manner of the kingdom’s coming; it is through the Spirit-empowered witness to Christ in all the world (Acts 1:7–8).

2. Reign or realm? The variety of Jesus’ references to the kingdom of God recorded in the Gospels contributed to the tension between Jesus and his hearers. Certain expectations about the kingdom of God had developed among religious Jews as a result of their traditions and their historical experiences. Jesus’ teaching focuses on dimensions of the kingdom that were not altogether anticipated and which thus clashed with popular views. If some Jews had come to expect a political solution to their affairs as the essence of the kingdom of God, the words of Jesus, which point to the presence of the kingdom without a political solution having been effected, would have caused tension. The disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 may well reflect an expectation of imminent political salvation, which is then corrected. The dying thief who asks Jesus to remember him, ‘when you come into your kingdom’ (Luke 23:42), seems also to express the expectation that, despite present evidence to the contrary, Jesus will one day be king. Jesus’ answer focuses on the present, ‘Today …’, indicating that the crucifixion is the means by which he enters the kingdom.

Because the teaching of Jesus about the kingdom virtually ignores the expectations of a renewed Jewish political realm in which God’s anointed is king, some commentators have proposed that Jesus taught a purely dynamic, spiritual kingdom. This is seen in ethical terms: the will of God is to be done ‘on earth as it is in heaven’. Almost all the kingdom sayings in the Gospels can be interpreted in this way. Even the many statements qualifying entry into the kingdom do not require us to adopt a spatial interpretation. The kingdom has not only come near; it is currently among Christ’s people (Luke 17:21), who have already been transferred into the kingdom (Col. 1:13).

There are, however, some references which are not so easily internalized and spiritualized. Many will come from east and west to eat with the patriarchs in the kingdom (Matt. 8:11), while others will be thrown out into darkness (Matt. 8:12). There will be a time when evildoers will be collected and excluded from the kingdom (Matt. 13:41). The Son of Man will be seen coming in his kingdom (Matt. 16:28). Jesus speaks of a day when he will eat and drink with his people in the kingdom (Matt. 26:29; Luke 22:16, 18, 30). This idea of a realm is reinforced by the emphases of the book of Revelation. God’s people are made a kingdom of priests who will reign on earth (Rev. 5:10). The kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of God (11:15). The final vision is of the new heaven and earth with a new Jerusalem let down from heaven to earth (21:1–4). The kingdom of God is finally seen to be located in the new earth, inhabited only by people whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (21:27).

3. Present or future? Closely connected with the question of the nature of the kingdom is that of the timing of its coming. It has long been recognized that the kingdom sayings imply both a present and a future perspective. A number of variations on the two major themes of present and future kingdom have been suggested. Some have tried to deal with this apparent contradiction by proposing that Jesus taught that the kingdom is fully present. This ‘realized eschatology’ was suggested by C. H. Dodd, who took Mark 1:15 to mean that the kingdom of God has come. It is not unlike the ‘liberal’ view of von Harnack, who accepted the idea of the ethical development of religion, especially in the Hebrew prophets, which led finally to the ethical religion of Jesus.

Some theologians, for example A. A. Hoekema (The Bible and the Future, pp. 1–75), have suggested that ‘inaugurated eschatology’ is a better term in that it allows for both a present and a future dimension to eschatological fulfillment. This position is to be favored as most consistent with the NT evidence, and will be considered below in more detail.

In contrast to realized eschatology is the view (sometimes termed ‘consistent eschatology’) that Jesus believed the kingdom to be wholly future. Albert Schweitzer, following Johannes Weiss, stressed the influence of apocalyptic on the futurist eschatological views of Jesus. Jesus’ ethical teachings constitute an interim ethic until the imminent kingdom arrives. He dies a disappointed man, because the expected kingdom does not come.

Old Testament Antecedents

The evidence of the NT overwhelmingly supports the view that Jesus and the apostles understood the kingdom of God as the fulfillment of the hopes and promises recorded in the sacred Scriptures of the OT. The fact that the term ‘the kingdom of God’ does not occur in the OT is not significant. The idea of the rule of God over creation, over all creatures, over the kingdoms of the world and, in a unique and special way, over his chosen and redeemed people, is the very heart of the message of the Hebrew scriptures.

God the creator Lord

The Bible begins with references to God, who freely creates by his word all that now exists. He creates the universe out of nothing, and this creation is ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31). God is not driven by any necessity to create, and all that he does is based solely on his sovereign will. Because God is the creator of all, he is the sole ruler to whom allegiance is owed by all his creatures (Gen. 14:19, 22; Exod. 20:11; Deut. 32:6; 2 Kgs. 19:15; Job 38:1–42:6; Is. 37:16; 40:12–28; 42:5; 43:15; 45:5–18). A number of Psalms celebrate the kingship of Yahweh on the basis of his being the creator (Pss. 93:1; 96:4–10; 104:1–35; 136:1–9).

Rule and dominion

The creation narratives in Genesis 1–2 establish a number of important concepts which relate to God’s kingship. At the heart of these accounts is the primacy of the human race among all creatures. Created in the image of God and given dominion over the rest of creation, the human pair have a unique role in the purpose of God (Gen. 1:26–28). The dominion of the human race is subject to the sovereign will of the creator who sets bounds on human freedom (Gen. 2:17). The privileged position of humanity is later celebrated in Psalm 8. The relationships expressed in these creation narratives are neither abstract nor purely ethical. Human beings are created as physical beings and are placed in a physical environment. The garden of Eden is the focal point of the creation, for it is in this place that the human pair relate both to God and to the rest of creation. These conditions are a prototype of the kingdom of God, and certainly involve both reign and realm.

Rebellion

The biblical teaching on the sinfulness of humanity is a reminder of the rightful rule of God over the whole creation, which is rejected by the human race in the garden of Eden and elsewhere. Sin is essentially rebellion against the claims of absolute lordship and rule which the Creator makes on his creatures. The early chapters of Genesis relate events which indicate that the whole human race is in rebellion against God and comes under the judgment of death. Judgment also involves the confusion of all the relationships in creation. The relationship of husband and wife is confused, and the dominion of humankind over the rest of creation is challenged (Gen. 3:16–19). Paul reflects on this dislocation of relationships in Romans 1:19–32 and 8:20–23.

Sovereignty and redemption

Scripture consistently makes a distinction between the sovereignty of God over the whole creation and over all history, and the coming of his kingdom in the context of a rebellious creation. The Bible teaches that God is not only rightfully Lord over all but also that, despite human rebellion, he has not lost control and works all things according to his sovereign will. This sovereignty is not merely one of a general providence in the world, an overall control of history, but has two principal outworkings: judgment and redemption. These are complementary truths. On the one hand, the kingdom of God will exclude all evil and rebellion. On the other hand, it will include all that is redeemed according to the gracious will of God. Eventually, when all evil is put down, the renewing process of redemption will result in the fullness of the kingdom of God. The OT story points towards this consummation; the gospel effects it.

The pattern of the kingdom in Israel

This kingdom is revealed in the OT in terms of a number of factors which make up the redemptive process. Following the loss of the Edenic kingdom, redemption is linked to the election out of the mass of humanity, of a people, the descendants of Abraham, to be the chosen people of God. They are promised a land to dwell in and that they will themselves be the means of blessing flowing out to all nations of the world. The fulfillment of these covenant promises leads to Abraham’s descendants (through Isaac and Jacob) becoming captives in Egypt. Under Moses the Israelites are led to freedom through a miracle which becomes a paradigm of redemption. At Sinai this people is constituted as a theocratic nation of God’s people. Though rebellion leads to a disastrous delay, the nation is eventually given possession of the promised land of Canaan. Here the structures of government develop towards a kingship under the dynasty of David ruling from Jerusalem. Solomon builds the temple in Jerusalem which becomes the focal point of the promised land as the place where reconciliation and fellowship with God are established. The rule of the Davidic kings is representative of the rule of God over his kingdom.

The kingdom in prophecy

Again human sin becomes a problem, especially among the kings of Israel. Solomon builds the temple but soon falls into apostasy. The kingdom divides, and both realms begin the decline that will lead to their respective destructions. During this decline a new form of prophecy emerges as the so-called ‘writing prophets’ point to the coming destruction and renewal which the faithful God will effect. The overall pattern of renewal is seen as a recapitulation of the past history of redemption: a new Exodus; a new covenant; a new entry into the land; a new Jerusalem with its new temple; and a new Davidic king to rule in a perfect, glorious, and eternal kingdom. Some of the prophets designate a ‘day of the Lord’ as the time when judgment and salvation will bring the fullness of the kingdom of God.

Apocalyptic

A feature of the book of Daniel is its use of apocalyptic imagery to describe the coming kingdom of God. Its theme is the eventual demise of all the godless kingdoms of the world as the kingdom of God is established. In Daniel 7 this human challenge to God is represented by the imagery of four beasts, and the kingdom of God is brought in by the mediation of a heavenly Son of Man, a human figure who restores dominion to the people of God. One significant difference from prophecy is that the focus is not so much on the renewal of the land and the institutions of Israel; rather, apocalyptic emphasizes the coming universal rule of God.

The Coming of the Kingdom in the New Testament

Against the background of the OT expectations of the coming rule of God, the NT declares that Jesus of Nazareth is the bringer of the kingdom. While the proclamation of Jesus concerning the kingdom is not novel and is based firmly on OT antecedents, there are nevertheless some surprises. The prophets consistently present the ‘day of the Lord’ in terms of one coming. The gospel presents the Lord’s coming in at least three distinct but related ways.

The kingdom has come in Jesus

The meek servanthood of Jesus which leads eventually to his suffering and death, despite being liberally punctuated with demonstrations of power, prevented many from perceiving the nature of the kingdom’s coming. While Jewish expectations focused on political solutions to the problem of foreign domination, Jesus was the kingdom in person. By claiming to be the temple of God (John 2:19–21) he expressed the truth of his being both God and human perfectly related in one person. He was at once both creator and creature, king and obedient subject, Word of God and listening servant. Thus Jesus of Nazareth not only brings the kingdom; he is the kingdom in himself.

The kingdom is coming to the people of God

Before his death, Jesus tells his followers that he will shortly leave them but that he will come to them as another counselor, the Holy Spirit (John 14:18–26). Pentecost marks the transition from the time when Jesus was present in the flesh to the period of his presence in the world by his Spirit. The Spirit controls the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom by the people of God and gathers the subjects of the kingdom to Jesus by faith. The reign/realm contrast is most obvious in this period because the subjects of the kingdom are not confined to any particular place. Even though they gather in fellowship as a church, the true, visible locus of the kingdom is at best ambiguous. But while the present, earthly expressions of the kingdom are imperfect, the gathering is described as having been raised with Christ to sit with him in heavenly places (Eph. 2:5–6), and as having come to Mt Zion (Heb. 12:22–24). Thus the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and the sending of the Holy Spirit, inaugurates an overlap of the ages. While believers belong through faith to the kingdom of God and the new age, they go on living in the old age, and will do so until Christ returns.

The covenant promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:3) concerning the blessing of the nations was confirmed by prophetic oracles such as Isaiah 2:1–4 and Zechariah 8:20–23. The coming of God’s kingdom is accompanied by the great ingathering of the nations to Jerusalem and to the temple. The apostolic mission of the present age fulfills this prophecy as the new temple, Jesus, gathers the new living stones into himself through the Spirit-empowered preaching of the gospel.

The kingdom will be consummated at Christ’s return

The third way in which the kingdom comes in the NT is the future or eschatological consummation. Thus the one coming of the Lord in the OT is shown to involve the coming of the end (the kingdom of God), in three ways: representatively for God’s people in Jesus of Nazareth; in them through the gospel and the Spirit; and finally with them at the consummation of the kingdom with the return of Jesus in glory to judge the living and the dead. In this way we see the ‘either-or’ polarity between reign and realm, present and future, resolved in terms of ‘both-and’.

The kingdom as a central theme

The kingdom comes through the ministry of Jesus and the preaching of the gospel in all the world. It is both the reign and the realm of God for, although in the present age the locus of the kingdom in the world is diffuse, it is defined by the presence of Jesus at the right hand of the Father. It is both present and future until its consummation at Jesus’ return. It is also at least one possible theme by which biblical theology can be integrated. It is the focus of both creation and redemption: God’s plan of redemption is to bring in a new creation. The entire biblical story, despite its great diversity of forms and foci, is consistent in its emphasis on the reign of God over his people in the environment he creates for them. The kingdom depicted in Eden is lost to humankind at the beginning of the biblical account. The history of redemption begins immediately the kingdom is lost, and tells of the way the kingdom of God will finally be established as a new people of God in fellowship with him in a new Eden, a new Jerusalem, a new heaven and a new earth.

Bibliography

G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids and Carlisle, 1986, 1988); C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1935); J. Fuellenbach, The Kingdom of God (New York, 1995); G. Goldsworthy, Gospel and Kingdom (Exeter, 1981); A. von Harnack, What is Christianity? (ET, New York, 1901); A. A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids and Exeter, 1978 and 1979); G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (London, 1966); A. Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (ET, London, 1913).

[Editor’s Note: This essay was originally published in pages 615–620 of the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, published by Inter-Varsity Press. Published here with permission.]