|
THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM
by George Eldon Ladd
One of the most difficult questions in the study of the Kingdom of God is its relationship to the church. Is the Kingdom
of God in any sense of the word to be identified with the church? If not, what is the relationship? For Christians of the
first three centuries, the Kingdom was altogether eschatological. An early second-century prayer says, "Remember, Lord,
Thy church, to gather it together in its holiness from the four winds to thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for it."
Augustine identified the Kingdom of God with the church, an identification that continues in Catholic doctrine. A measure
of identification between the Kingdom and the church was perpetuated, though in a modified form, through the Reformed tradition
to recent times . It is necessary to examine closely these two concepts to determine what relationship exists between them.
Many scholars have denied that Jesus had any idea of creating a church. Alfred Loisy has given this viewpoint classic
expression: Jesus foretold the Kingdom of God, but it was the church that carne. Amazingly, a view somewhat similar to this
is that of Dispensationalism: Jesus offered Israel the earthly (millennial) Davidic kingdom, but when they rejected it, he
introduced a new purpose: to form the church." In this view, there is no continuity between Israel and the church. We
must therefore examine many facets of the problem.
If Jesus' mission was, as we contend, that of inaugurating a time of fulfillment in advance of an eschatological consummation,
and if in a real sense the Kingdom of God in his mission invaded history even though in an utterly unexpected form, then it
follows that those who receive the proclamation of the Kingdom were viewed not only as the people who would inherit the eschatological
Kingdom, but as the people of the Kingdom in the present, and therefore, in some sense of the word, a church. We must first
examine Jesus' attitude toward Israel, the concept of discipleship, and the relation of Israel and Jesus' disciples to the
Kingdom of God. Then, against this background, we may discuss the meaning of the logion (saying) about founding the church.
JESUS AND ISRAEL.
In this examination, several facts are crucial. First, Jesus did not undertake his ministry with the evident purpose of
starting a new movement either within or outside of Israel. He came as a Jew to the Jewish people. He accepted the authority
of the Old Testament, conformed to temple practices, engaged in synagogue worship, and throughout his life lived as a Jew.
Although he occasionally journeyed outside Jewish territory, he insisted that his mission was directed to the "lost sheep
of the house of Israel" (Mt. 15:24). He directed the mission of his disciples away from the Gentiles, commanding them
to preach only to Israel (Mt. 10:5-6). The reason for this is not difficult. Jesus took his stand squarely against the background
of the Old Testament covenant and the promises of the prophets, and recognized Israel, to whom the covenant and the promises
had been given, as the natural "sons of the kingdom" (Mt. 8:12). The saying about the lost sheep of the house of
Israel does not mean that the Gentiles were not also lost but that only Israel was the people of God, and to them therefore
belonged the promise of the Kingdom. Therefore his mission was to proclaim to Israel that God was now acting to fulfill his
promises and to bring Israel to its true destiny. Because Israel was the chosen people of God, the age of fulfillment was
offered not to the world at large but to the sons of the covenant.
The second fact is that Israel as a whole rejected both Jesus and his message about the Kingdom. It is true that Jesus
appealed to Israel to the very end, but it is most unlikely that he expected, to the end, to be accepted by the nation and
to establish a kingdom of morality and righteousness that would have led the Jewish people to a moral conquest over Rome.
The reality of Jesus' disappointment and grief over Israel's rejection (Mt. 23:37ff.) and the prophecy of her destruction
(Lk.19:42ff.) do not demand the conclusion that Jesus failed to recognize at an early hour the reality and intransigence of
her rejection. While we may not be able to reconstruct the exact chronology of events or to trace all the stages in Jesus'
rejection because of the character of the Gospels, we can conclude that rejection is one of the early motifs in his experience.
Luke deliberately placed the rejection at Nazareth at the beginning of his Gospel (Lk. 4:16-30; cf. Mk. 6:1-6) to sound the
notes of messianic fulfillment and rejection by Israel early in Jesus' ministry. Mark pictures conflict and rejection from
the beginning and records a saying that probably contains a veiled allusion to an expected violent end: "The days will
come when the bridegroom is taken away from them" (Mk. 2:20). While the reasons for Jewish rejection of Jesus were complex,
J. M. Robinson finds at the heart of the struggle between Jesus and the Jewish authorities their rejection of the Kingdom
that Jesus proclaimed and of the repentance that proclamation demanded. 12 The proclamation of the Kingdom and the call to
repentance characterized Jesus' mission from the start, and it is therefore both psychologically and historically sound that
opposition was early incurred, which grew in intensity until Jesus' death was accomplished.
A third fact is equally important. While Israel as a whole, including both leaders and people, refused to accept Jesus'
offer of the Kingdom, a substantial group did respond in faith. Discipleship to Jesus was not like discipleship to a Jewish
rabbi. The rabbis bound their disciples not to themselves but to the Torah; Jesus bound his disciples to himself. The rabbis
offered something outside of themselves; Jesus offered himself alone. Jesus required his disciples to surrender without reservation
to his authority. They thereby became not only disciples but also douloi (slaves) (Mt. 10:24f.; 24:45ff.; Lk. 12:35ff., 42ff.).
This relationship had no parallel in Judaism .13 Discipleship to Jesus involved far more than following in his retinue; it
meant nothing less than complete personal commitment to him and his message. The reason for this is the presence of the Kingdom
of God in Jesus' person and message. In him, men were confronted by God himself. It follows that if Jesus proclaimed the messianic
salvation, if he offered to Israel the fulfillment of her true destiny, then this destiny was actually accomplished in those
who received his message. The recipients of the messianic salvation became the true Israel, representatives of the nation
as a whole. While it is true that the word "Israel" is never applied to Jesus' disciples, the idea is present, if
not the term. Jesus' disciples are the recipients of the messianic salvation, the people of the Kingdom, the true Israel.
THE BELIEVING REMNANT.
This concept of Jesus' disciples as the true Israel can be understood against the background of the Old Testament concept
of a faithful remnant. The prophets saw Israel as a whole as rebellious and disobedient and therefore destined to suffer the
divine judgment. Still there remained within the faithless nation a remnant of believers who were the object of God's care.
Here in the believing remnant was the true people of God. It is true that Jesus makes no explicit use of the remnant concept.
However, is not the designation of the disciples as a "little flock" (Lk. 12:32) an express reference to the Old
Testament concept of Israel as the sheep of God's pasture, now embodied in Jesus' disciples (Isa. 40: 11 ) ? Does this not
suggest precisely the faithful remnant? This does not mean a separate fold. 14 Israel is still ideally God's flock (Mt. 10:6;
15:24); but it is a disobedient, willful flock, "lost sheep." Jesus has come as the shepherd (Mk. 14:27; cf. Jn.
10: 11 ) to "seek and to save the lost" (Lk.19:10) in fulfillment of Ezekiel 34:15f., to rescue the lost sheep of
Israel, to bring them into the fold of the messianic salvation. Israel as a whole was deaf to the voice of her shepherd; but
those who heard and followed the shepherd constitute his fold, the little flock, the true Israel. There are direct and explicit
links between the image of the flock and the covenant community of Israel.
While the saying in Luke 12:32 emphasizes the eschatological aspect of the Kingdom, Jesus' disciples will inherit the
Kingdom because they are now his little flock. The shepherd has found them and brought them home (Lk. 15:3-7). It is because
they are already the true flock, God's people, that God will give them the eschatological Kingdom. Jesus' call of twelve disciples
to share his mission has been widely recognized as a symbolic act setting forth the continuity between his disciples and Israel.
That the twelve represent Israel is shown by their eschatological role. They are to sit on twelve thrones, "judging the
twelve tribes of Israel" (Mt. 19:28; Lk. 22:30). Whether this saying means that the twelve are to determine the destiny
of Israel by judgment16 or to rule over them," the twelve are destined to be the head of the eschatological Israel.
Recognition that the twelve were meant to constitute the nucleus of the true Israel does not exclude the view that the
number also involved a claim upon the entire people as Jesus' qahal (congregation). Twelve as a symbolic number looks
both backward and forward: backward to the old Israel and forward to the eschatological Israel. The twelve are destined to
be the rulers of the eschatological Israel; but they are already recipients of the blessings and powers of the eschatological
Kingdom. They therefore represent not only the eschatological people of God but also those who accept the present offer of
the messianic salvation. By the acted parable of choosing the twelve, Jesus taught that he was raising up a new congregation
to displace the nation that was rejecting his message.
MATTHEW 16:18-19.
Against this background of discipleship and its relation to Israel and the Kingdom of God, the saying in Matthew 16:18f.
is consistent with Jesus' total teaching. In fact, the saying expresses in explicit form a basic concept underlying Jesus'
entire mission and Israel's response to it. The saying does not speak of the creation of an organization or institution, nor
is it to be interpreted in terms of the distinctively Christian ekklesia as the body and the bride of Christ, but in terms
of the Old Testament concept of Israel as the people of God. The idea of "building" a people is an Old Testament
idea. Furthermore, ekklesia is a biblical term designating Israel as the congregation or assembly of Yahweh, rendering the
Hebrew word qahal. It is not certain whether Jesus used the word qahal or edhah, each of which is used commonly in the Old
Testament of Israel as God's people. K. L. Schmidt has argued for a later term, kenishta (gathering), on the ground that Jesus
viewed his disciples as a special synagogue embodying the true Israel. However, Jesus showed no purpose of establishing a
separate synagogue. Jesus could have looked upon the fellowship of his disciples as the true Israel within the disobedient
nation and not as a separatist or "closed" fellowship. He did not institute a new way of worship, a new cult, or
a new organization. His preaching and teaching remained within the total context of Israel's faith and practice. Jesus' announcement
of his purpose to build his ekklesia suggests primarily what we have already discovered in our study of discipleship, namely,
that the fellowship established by Jesus stands in direct continuity with the Old Testament Israel. The distinctive element
is that this ekklesia is in a peculiar way the ekklesia of Jesus: "My ekklesia." That is, the true Israel now finds
its specific identity in its relationship to Jesus. Israel as a nation rejected the messianic salvation proclaimed by Jesus,
but many accepted it. Jesus sees his disciples taking the place of Israel as the true people of God.
There is no need to discuss at length the meaning of the rock on which this new people is to be founded. In view of the
Semitic usage lying behind the Greek text, we should see no play on the two Greek words, petros (Peter) and petra (rock).
Jesus probably said, "You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church." Many Protestant interpreters have
reacted strongly against the Roman view of Peter as the rock in an official capacity, and have therefore interpreted the rock
to be either Christ himself (Luther) or Peter's faith in Christ (Calvin). However, Cullmann has argued persuasively that the
rock is in fact Peter, not in an official capacity or by virtue of personal qualification, but as representative of the twelve
confessing Jesus as Messiah. The rock is Peter the confessor. Jesus anticipates a new stage in the experience of his disciples
in which Peter will exercise a significant leadership. There is no hint in the context that this is an official leadership
that Peter can pass on to his successors. Indeed, Peter the rock foundation can readily become the rock of stumbling, as the
next verses show.
The saying about founding the church fits the total teaching of Jesus and means that he saw in the circle of those who
received his message the sons of the Kingdom, the true Israel, the people of God. There is no intimation as to the form the
new people is to take. The saying about discipline in the "church" (Mt. 18:17) views the disciples as a distinct
fellowship analogous to the Jewish synagogue, but it throws little light on the form or organization the new fellowship is
to take. The church as a body separate from Judaism with its own organization and rites is a later historical development;
but it is an historical manifestation of a new fellowship brought into being by Jesus as the true people of God who, having
received the messianic salvation, were to take the place of the rebellious nation as the true Israel.
THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH.
We must now examine the specific relationship between the Kingdom and the
church, accepting the circle of Jesus' disciples as the incipient church if not yet the church itself. The solution to
this problem will depend upon one's basic definition of the Kingdom. If the dynamic concept of the Kingdom is correct, it
is never to be identified with the church. The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God, and derivatively,
the sphere in which the rule is experienced. In biblical idiom, the Kingdom is not identified with its subjects. They are
the people of God's rule who enter it, live under it, and are governed by it. The church is the community of the Kingdom but
never the Kingdom itself. Jesus' disciples belong to the Kingdom as the Kingdom belongs to them; but they are not the Kingdom.
The Kingdom is the rule of God; the church is a society of men.
THE CHURCH IS NOT THE KINGDOM.
This relationship can be expounded under five points. First, the New
Testament does not equate believers with the Kingdom. The first missionaries preached the Kingdom of God, not the church
(Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). It is impossible to substitute "church" for "kingdom" in such sayings.
The only references to the people as basileia (kings) are Revelation 1:6 and 5:10; but the people are so designated not because
they are the subjects of God's reign but because they will share Christ's reign. "They shall reign on earth" (Rev.
5:10). In these sayings, "kingdom" is synonymous with "kings," not with the people over whom God rules.
None of the sayings in the Gospels equates Jesus' disciples with the Kingdom. Such an identification has often been seen
in the parable of the tares; and indeed the statement that the Son of Man will gather all causes of sin "out of the kingdom"
(Mt. 13:41) before the coming of the Kingdom of the Father (13:43) seems to suggest that the church is equated with the Kingdom
of Christ. However, the parable itself expressly identifies the field as the world, not as the church (Mt. 13:38). The message
of the parable has nothing to do with the nature of the church but teaches that the Kingdom of God has invaded history without
disrupting the present structure of society. Good and evil are to live mixed in the world until the eschatological consummation,
even though the Kingdom of God has come. The language about gathering evil out of the Kingdom looks forward not backward.
It is also erroneous to base an identification of the Kingdom and the church on Matthew 16:18-19. Gerhardus Vos presses
metaphorical language too far when he insists that this identification must be made because the first part of the saying speaks
of the founding of the house and the second part sees the same house complete with doors and keys. It is plainly excluded
that the house should mean one thing in the first statement and another in the second. Therefore Vos confidently affirms that
the church is the Kingdom.
However, it is precisely the character of metaphorical language to possess such fluidity. This passage sets forth the
inseparable relationship between the church and the Kingdom, but not their identity. The many sayings about entering into
the Kingdom are not equivalent to entering the church. It is confusing to say that the church is the form of the Kingdom of
God which it bears between the departure and the return of Jesus. There is indeed a certain analogy between the two concepts
in that both the Kingdom as the sphere of God's rule and the church are realms into which men may enter. But the Kingdom as
the present sphere of God's rule is invisible, not a phenomenon of this world, whereas the church is an empirical body of
men. John Bright is correct in saying that there is never the slightest hint that the visible church can either be or produce
the Kingdom of God. The church is the people of the Kingdom, never that Kingdom itself . Therefore it is not helpful even
to say that the church is a "part of the Kingdom," or that in the eschatological consummation the church and Kingdom
become synonymous.
THE KINGDOM CREATES THE CHURCH.
Second, the Kingdom creates the church. The dynamic rule of God, present in the mission of Jesus, challenged men to response,
bringing them into a new fellowship. The presence of the Kingdom meant the fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic hope
promised to Israel; but when the nation as a whole rejected the offer, those who accepted it were constituted the new people
of God, the sons of the Kingdom, the true Israel, the incipient church. The church is but the result of the coming of God's
Kingdom into the world by the mission of Jesus Christ.
The parable of the draw net is instructive as to the character of the church and its relation to the Kingdom. The Kingdom
is an action that is likened to drawing a net through the sea. It catches in its movement not only good fish but also bad;
and when the net is brought to shore, the fish must be sorted out. Such is the action of God's Kingdom among men. It is not
now creating a pure fellowship; in Jesus' retinue could even be a traitor. While this parable must be interpreted in terms
of Jesus' ministry, the principles deduced apply to the church. The action of God's Kingdom among men created a mixed fellowship,
first in Jesus' disciples and then in the church. The eschatological coming of the Kingdom will mean judgment both for human
society in general (tares) and for the church in particular (draw net). Until then, the fellowship created by the present
acting of God's Kingdom will include men who are not true sons of the Kingdom. Thus the empirical church has a twofold character.
It is the people of the Kingdom, and yet it is not the ideal people, for it includes some who are actually not sons of the
Kingdom. Thus entrance into the Kingdom means participation in the church; but entrance into the church is not necessarily
synonymous with entrance into the Kingdom.
THE CHURCH WITNESSES TO THE KINGDOM.
Third, it is the church's mission to witness to the Kingdom. The church cannot build the Kingdom or become the Kingdom,
but the church witnesses to the Kingdom-to God's redeeming acts in Christ both past and future. This is illustrated by the
commission Jesus gave to the twelve (Mt. 10) and to the seventy (Lk. 10); and it is reinforced by the proclamation of the
apostles in the book of Acts. The number of emissaries on the two preaching missions appears to have symbolic significance.
Most scholars who deny that the choice of twelve disciples-apostles was intended to represent the nucleus of the true Israel
recognize in the number the symbolic significance that Jesus intended his message for the whole of Israel. Therefore, we should
also recognize that seventy had a symbolic meaning. Since it was a common Jewish tradition that there were seventy nations
in the world and that the Torah was first given in seventy languages to all men, the sending of seventy emissaries is an implicit
claim that Jesus' message must be heard not only by Israel but by all men.
The inclusion of the Gentiles as recipients of the Kingdom is taught in other sayings. When Israel's rejection of the
offer of the Kingdom had become irreversible, Jesus solemnly announced that Israel would no longer be the people of God's
rule but that their place would be taken by others who would prove trustworthy (Mk. 12:1-9). This saying Matthew interprets
to mean, "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it" (Mt.
21:43). Jeremias thinks that the original meaning of this parable is the vindication of Jesus' preaching the gospel to the
poor. Because the leaders of the people rejected the message, their place as recipients of the gospel must be taken by the
poor who hear and respond. However, in view of the fact that in Isaiah the vineyard is Israel itself, it is more probable
that Matthew's interpretation is correct and that the parable means that Israel will no longer be the people of God's vineyard
but will be replaced by another people who will receive the message of the Kingdom.
A similar idea appears in an eschatological setting in the saying about the rejection of the sons of the Kingdom--Israel--and
their replacement by many Gentiles who will come from the east and the west to sit down at the messianic banquet in the eschatological
Kingdom of God (Mt. 8:11-12). How this salvation of the Gentiles is to be accomplished is indicated by a saying in the Olivet
Discourse. Before the end comes, "the gospel must first be preached to all nations" (Mk. 13:10); and Matthew's version,
which Jeremias thinks is the older form, makes it clear that this is the good news about the Kingdom of God (Mt. 24:14) that
Jesus Himself had preached (Mt. 4:23; 9:35). Recent criticism has denied the authenticity of this saying or has interpreted
it as an eschatological proclamation by angels by which a salvation of the Gentiles will be accomplished at the end. However,
Cranfield points out that the verb kiryssein (preach, proclaim) in Mark always refers to a human ministry and that it is therefore
far more probable that the word in Mark 13:10 has its characteristic New Testament sense. It is part of God's eschatological
purpose that before the end, all nations should have the opportunity to hear the gospel.
Here we find an extension of the theology of discipleship, that it will be the mission of the church to witness to the
gospel of the Kingdom in the world. Israel is no longer the witness to God's Kingdom; the church has taken her place. Therefore
K. E. Skydsgaard has said that the history of the Kingdom of God has become the history of Christian missions.
If Jesus' disciples are those who have received the life and fellowship of the Kingdom, and if this life is in fact an
anticipation of the eschatological Kingdom, then it follows that one of the main tasks of the church is to display in this
present evil age the life and fellowship of the Age to Come. The church has a dual character, belonging to two ages. It is
the people of the Age to Come, but it still lives in this age, being constituted of sinful mortal men. This means that while
the church in this age will never attain perfection, it must nevertheless display the life of the perfect order, the eschatological
Kingdom of God.
Implicit exegetical support for this view is to be found in the great" emphasis Jesus placed on forgiveness and humility
among his disciples. Concern over greatness, while natural in this age, is a contradiction of the life of the Kingdom (Mk.
10:35ff.). Those who have experienced the Kingdom of God are to display its life by a humble willingness to serve rather than
by self-seeking.
Another evidence of the life of the Kingdom is a fellowship undisturbed by ill-will and animosity. This is why Jesus had
so much to say about forgiveness, for perfect forgiveness is an evidence of love. Jesus even taught that human forgiveness
and divine forgiveness are inseparable (Mt. 6:12, 14). The parable on forgiveness makes it clear that human forgiveness is
conditioned by the divine forgiveness (Mt. 18:23-35). The point of this parable is that when a man claims to have received
the unconditioned and unmerited forgiveness of God, which is one of the gifts of the Kingdom, and then is unwilling to forgive
relatively trivial offenses against himself, he denies the reality of his very profession of divine forgiveness and by his
conduct contradicts the life and character of the Kingdom. Such a man has not really experienced the forgiveness of God. It
is therefore the church's duty to display in an evil age of self-seeking, pride, and animosity the life and fellowship of
the Kingdom of God and of the Age to Come. This display of Kingdom life is an essential element in the witness of the church
to the Kingdom of God.
THE CHURCH IS THE INSTRUMENT OF THE KINGDOM.
Fourth, the church is the instrument of the Kingdom. The disciples of Jesus not only proclaimed the good news about the
presence of the Kingdom; they were also instruments of the Kingdom in that the works of the Kingdom were performed through
them as through Jesus himself. As they went preaching the Kingdom, they too healed the sick and cast out demons (Mt. 10: 8;
Lk.10:17).
Although theirs was a delegated power, the same power of the Kingdom worked through them that worked through Jesus. Their
awareness that these miracles were wrought by no power resident in themselves accounts for the fact that they never performed
miracles in a competitive or boastful spirit. The report of the seventy is given with complete disinterestedness and devotion,
as of men who are instruments of God.
The truth is implicit in the statement that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against the church (Mt. 16:18). This
image of the gates of the realm of the dead is a familiar Semitic concept. The exact meaning of this saying is not clear.
It may mean that the gates of Hades, which are conceived as closing behind all the dead, will now be able to hold its victims
no longer but will be forced open before the powers of the Kingdom exercised through the church.
The church will be stronger than death, and will rescue men from the domination of Hades to the realm of life. However,
in view of the verb used, it appears that the realm of death is the aggressor, attacking the church. The meaning then would
be that when men have been brought into the salvation of the Kingdom of God through the mission of the church, the gates of
death will be unable to prevail in their effort to swallow them up. Before the power of the Kingdom of God, working through
the church, death has lost its power over men and is unable to claim final victory. There is no need to relate this to the
final eschatological conflict, as Jeremias does; it may be understood as an extension of the same conflict between Jesus and
Satan in which, as a matter of fact, Jesus' disciples had already been engaged. As instruments of the Kingdom they had seen
men delivered from bondage to sickness and death (Mt. 10:8). This messianic struggle with the powers of death, which had been
raging in Jesus' ministry and had been shared by his disciples, will be continued in the future, and the church will be the
instrument of God's Kingdom in this struggle.
|
