e only other popular view was that of the classical Dispensationalists. ey argued
that there is a temporal dierence in meaning between “Kingdom of God” and
“Kingdom of Heaven.” is view proves quite untenable biblically and has since been
abandoned by most modern (“progressive”) Dispensationalists.
Some manuscripts also have “Kingdom of God” at :, but the original was almost
certainly only “kingdom.” Inexplicably the ESV includes the whole phrase even though
the critical editions of the Greek New Testament do not recommend it (nor does the
RSV have it).
is is necessarily a very brief overview of the argument. A full exploration of the issue
and documentation can be found in my Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew
(Leiden: Brill, ), -. is whole article is a concise explanation of the main idea
in this book, and I would refer the reader to that volume for more information on all
the following arguments.
Ορανό occurs eighty-two times in Matthew ( percent of all the New Testament
occurrences) and οράνιο, seven times.
Mk : is parallel to one of Matthew’s occurrences of πατρ ν οράνιο (:).
Who is dependent on whom is unclear. ere is also the less exact parallel πατρ
[] ξ ορανο in Luke :, which in context is best understood as a reference to the
Father giving the Holy Spirit from heaven.
ese three translations are all potentially good glosses for the genitive phrase here.
Indeed, we are not forced to choose only one and dismiss the others. As many scholars
have observed, there is much ambiguity with regard to the Greek genitive and oen
more than one category is appropriate. Cf. Nigel Turner, Syntax (vol. of A Grammar
of New Testament Greek, ed. James Hope Moulton; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ),
; Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek (trans. Joseph Smith; Rome: Pontical Biblical
Institute, ), §; Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev. Gordon M. Messing;
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ), §.
is corresponds closely with the interpretation of heaven language in Matthew
oered by Robert Foster. Foster states that the “heavenly language” of the Sermon
“purposefully centres the lives of Matthew’s community on the reality that counts:
heaven’s reality. Sociologically, the language of heaven encourages the disciples to
continue in their counter-cultural lifestyle as they are assured that the FH [Father in
heaven] cares about their earthly struggles and needs and will give them a heavenly
reward. . . . eologically, this language guides the community’s decisions as they
look toward heaven for their standard of righteousness, their strength for holy living,
and their reward for their labours.” Robert Foster, “Why on Earth Use ‘Kingdom of
Heaven’?: Matthew’s Terminology Revisited,” New Testament Studies (): -.
Bauckham and Hart give an excellent account of how a grand Christian vision (via
imagination) re-sources the Christian life in Richard Bauckham and Trevor Hart,
Hope Against Hope: Christian Eschatology at the Turn of the Millennium (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, ). I suggest that Matthew’s vision of the world now and in the
eschaton, described regularly with reference to heaven and earth, provides the kind of
imaginative vision Bauckham and Hart are describing.
For example, Col :- makes the basis for godliness the fact that the believer has
been raised up with Christ, therefore his or her mind should be set on “things above,
not on the things that are on the earth.” is is followed by the exhortation: “Put to
death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and
covetousness, which is idolatry” (:). Cf. Eph :-; :-.