Kingdom of Heaven or God?
I was asked recently why the rest of the New Testament utilizes the phrase "kingdom of God" while the Gospel of Matthew alone uses the "kingdom of heaven." It is a good question, and a solution was proposed that "heaven" was utilized instead of "God" due the reverence held to the name of God by ethnic Jews (as Matthew was written to the ethnic Jews as an apologetic for Jesus as the Christ).
First we must establish what this phrase, which is clouded seemingly in much mystery, refers to, and George Eldon Ladd who is famous for his work on this topic elaborates:
When the word [basileia, βασιλεια] refers to God's Kingdom, it always refers to His reign, His rule, His sovereignty, and not to the realm to which it is excercised.
George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of The Kingdom (Quoted in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, pg. 65)
Establishing that the Kingdom of God refers to Christ's sovereignty and rule is not limited to the earthly realm but over all. Now we move to rationalizing why the terms "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" are used in different contexts.
Besides the phrase, "the kingdom of God," which is found in all four Gospels (also in Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy) we meet with the phrase η βασιλεια των ουρανων, which is peculiar to Matthew. This phrase has been explained on the basis of the Jewish custom to use "heaven" as a substitute for the name of God, against pronouncing which scruples were entertained, and traces of which custom are found even in the New Testament.
Compare Luke 15:21; 20:4. On this view the two phrases "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of heaven" would be entirely equivalent. The explanation is undoubtedly correct insofar as it finds in heaven a circumlocution for God. But it is not likely that the motive which led Jesus to put the one for the other was a desire to avoid the use of the divine name as such. Heaven stands for God not as a mere conventional substitute, but adds a new element to the conception expressed by the latter. Heaven is the center of all supernatural influence that is brought to bear upon the lower world. To say that a work is done by God leaves the mode of its accomplishment undetermined; to say that it is done from heaven is the strongest possible affirmation of its strictly supernatural origin. Heaven means God in a special mode of activity; compare Daniel 2:44, 7:13; Matthew 16:17, 18: 35; Romans 1:10; 1 Corinthians 15:47; 2 Corinthians 5:1, 2. Heaven is also, as the abode of God, in relation to earth the ideal pattern to which all things here below ought to conform. In this sense to say that a thing is "of heaven" means not only that it is "of God" in general, but in that specific sense in which the heavenly realities agree with God's nature (cf. Matt. 6:10).
Finally, heaven is in the consciousness of Jesus the goal towards which every aspiration of the disciple in the kingdom ought to tend (cf. Matt. 6:19-21). It is no longer possible to determine the exact proportion in which the two phrases "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" were used by our Lord. It seems likely that Matthew most faithfully reflects the original preponderance of the latter name, and that Mark and Luke, writing for Christians from the Gentiles, made freer use of the more intelligible "kingdom of God."
Geerhardus Vos, The Kingdom of God
Do you buy Geerhardus' reasoning?
Feb 14th 2006
I don't know if I fully understand Geerhardus' argument? Until it can be further explained to me I maintain that Matthew uses this phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" for the ultimate purpose of not losing the attention of the book's Judaic audience (hence the extensive geneaology at the beginning tracing Jesus' heritage through David.
Feb 14th 2006
He basically takes the opportunity to (verbosely) explain that "heaven" has a different meaning than God ("Heaven means God in a special mode of activity"). I would agree with you Perry in one sense since Geerhardus admitted that that phrase is used nowhere outside of Matthew.
But, and this is a big but, the "Kingdom of God" is utilized in Matthew in 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 21:43; and the interesting this is in each of those He is specifically addressing Jews. So, there seems to be a sense that "God" is utilized in Matthew. Hmmm...
Feb 14th 2006
Matthew refers to God over 50 times.
Feb 15th 2006
One of the handful of things "The Divine Conspiracy" by Dallas Willard is good for is talking about this. He explains the use of 'the Kingdom of the Heavens' similar to how you do above, Chris, but when it comes to the location of 'the Heavens' he explains that the readres would have understood that to be simply the air around us, not some far off and distant place. We don't think of the 'Kingdom of God' as a far off distant place so why would it be different for the 'Kingdom of the Heavens' if they are synonyms. The whole discussion about whether the term refers to a location is irrelevant if the premise is true that the heavens includes the air all around us. Changed my thinking on it.
Nov 7th 2007
Interesting comments, but as far as the kingdom of heaven and the Kingdom of God being 2 separate entities, I believe that idea goes into the realm of counting angels on a pinhead. I suggest you compare the parallel accounts in the various gospels of the exact same events, to see how Matthew records it as the kingdom of heaven, while the other writers refer to it as the kingdom of God. same occurence, same intent, different title. To me, they are one and the same, used interchangeably, like holy 'Spirit' and holy 'ghost'.God bless you all.
Nov 7th 2007
@William: That was how Geerhardus reasoned.
Jul 23rd 2008
I agree with 'with the proposal that "heaven" was utilized instead of "God" due the reverence held to the name of God by ethnic Jews (as Matthew was written to the ethnic Jews as an apologetic for Jesus as the Christ). what about the title Son of God?
Jul 23rd 2008
@Sam: Not sure, but it's interesting that Jesus never attributes that title to himself (at least in Matthew).
Jul 23rd 2008
@Chris: I know we are talking about Jesus as presented in Matthew's gospel, but Jesus clearly did refer to himself as 'Son of God' specifically at least 3 times in the Gospel of John, and in Matthew he is referred to by others many times as the Son of God and he never refutes their assertions. So it's a little misleading to say that ..."Jesus never attributes that title to himself". (not saying that you meant to mislead, but that statement does lead people off in the wrong direction)
Jul 23rd 2008
@William: Thanks. That's why I added in parenthesis "at least in Matthew".