“What exactly does ‘salvation’ mean?” – Salvation Pt. 2

Before venturing into the Scriptures with the ins and outs of salvation, it would be helpful to get a basic understanding of both the Hebrew and Greek definitions. Having a good handle on the word and theme will position us to move more efficiently through the primary sources we will encounter. 

The earliest instance of “salvation” in the Hebrew writings is found in Genesis 32:11 with Jacob praying that God would “save” him from the hand of his brother Esau. This common understanding of salvation from calamity from a fellow human is common. However it is in Exodus 14:30 we see a divine component of being introduced where it is God doing the saving. These citations and many others like them explain “salvation” or the act of getting saved in the context of being redeemed or recused from situations taking place around them. The various Hebrew cognates for salvation include 

nāṣal (“deliver”), pālaṭ (“bring to safety”), pādāh (var. pādaʿ, “redeem”) and mālaṭ (“deliver”). Two major salvific terms are gāʾal (“redeem,” “buy back,” “restore,” “vindicate,” or “deliver”) and yāšaʿ (“save,” “help in time of distress,” “rescue,” “deliver,” or “set free”).”[1]

In the New Testament the term “salvation” or the verb “to be saved” does not span as large a range of meaning as we find in the Old Testament. In the NT the core word used to describe salvation is sozo. The Anchor Biblie Dictionary explains 

that within the NT verb sǭzō (“save,” “keep from harm,” “rescue,” “heal,” or “liberate”) 106 times, and its compound diasozō 9 times. The corresponding nouns sōtēria (“salvation”), sōtēr (“savior”) and sōtērion(“salvation”) turn up 45, 24, and 4 times respectively. We find the very ruomai (“rescue”) 15 times in the NT, which also uses many other terms (“freedom,” “justification,” “life,” “reconciliation,” “redemption,” “resurrection,” and “rule of God”) to express salvation.” [2]

The earliest usage of any of these in the NT is found in Matthew 1:21 when the angel of the Lord appears to Joseph speaking about Mary saying, “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” Like the OT the action of being saved can apply to both interpersonal human dynamics as well as divine. I.H. Marshall communicates well the role salvation often plays in the NT: (1) To rescue from danger and restore to a former state of safety and well-being; (2) To cause someone to become well again after becoming sick; or (3) To cause someone to experience divine salvation –“to save.”[3]

Taking both of these understandings above we can confidently gather an idea of what salvation entails before we look at how it functions so as to arrive at a more nuanced and well-rounded understanding for today’s dialog in the church of the 21st century. In looking at both Testaments and their respective meaning of “salvation,” we can say with confidence that it is the verb or noun (depending on the context) in which an individual or group enacts to bring deliverance, restoration, and/or redemption for another individual or group. When the agent of the action is divine, salvation takes on an entirely new dimension. However, asking the right questions just might help us arrive at a place of solid footing. Questions like those author Adrian Plass asks, albeit humorously, in his book Bacon Sandwiches and Salvation. Questions which I myself was asked in 2004. 

But what is it all about? What does it mean to be saved? Saved from what? Saved for what? Should the whole business of salvation have a significant impact on my present as well as on my future? Speaking of the future, what can we expect from an eternity spent in heaven? How can we possibly make sense of heaven when our feet remain so solidly on Earth? Where is the interface, The meeting point between the flesh and the spirit?? And when all the strange religious terms and voices and patterns and mantras and man-made conventions have faded away, what will be left?[4]

Having observed a birds eye view of the various nuances of what salvation means in different contexts in both Hebrew and Greek, we are now able to explore these kinds of questions to extract the clearest understanding of the divine salvation of God.[5]

Salvation in the Old Testament 

Salvation evokes images of being set free as well as profound redemption emerging from the human experience. It points to the fact that there is a deep inherent need of being redeemed, rescued, and restored. For the Hebrew people these themes wove a beautiful tapestry of salvific language when describing and speaking to and about God. The origin for this is found in Genesis 1:27 where it reads, “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them.” It may surprise some that this is the origin for salvation but it cannot be denied. The reason this text within the creation narrative is because it points toward the very foundation of salvation: relationship and identity. 

The children of God[6] were created in solidarity with the rest of the created order but He then gave them dominion over all as they were created in the very image of Himself. Man and woman as the divine image bearers is a crucial aspect of their covenant relationship with Yahweh. Joel B. Green communicates that humanity is created uniquely in relationship to God and finds itself as a result of creation in covenant with God. He adds, “Humanity is given the divine mandate to reflect God’s own covenant love in relation with God, within the covenant community of all humanity, and with all that God has created.”[7] As can be seen, covenant language encapsulates the creation story and Man’s relationship to his Creator. But what happens when this divine relationship is harmed or marred by an entity such as Sin? Something needs to happen. Someone needs to act. For the image bearers are now in need of saving in both an earthly manner as well as spiritual. What was pure in its creation has now been opened to destruction and danger. 

Salvation is focused on Yahweh rescuing a people for Himself and his purposes; doing whatever it takes to restore what has been tarnished by the rebellious actions of Adam and Eve.  If this is not kept in tandem with his children as image bearers, the covenantal aspect of God and Israel can be lost. The prescription for encountering his salvation is deeply connected to the covenant made with Israel—through whom we can see the salvific heart of God on display across many pages of the OT. Without the covenant there is no unrelenting bond prompting the saving actions of God. Similar to a partner longing to be loved, adored, and rescued if need be; without a marriage covenant, that one could experience the anguish of being ignored or walked out on. Ideally, a marriage covenant would reinforce every salvific action from one spouse to another. 

Throughout the Pentateuch (especially the Abrahamic and Patriarchal narratives) it is apparent that the groups of people who receive redemptive blessings from the God of Israel do so because of a deep loving relationship—thought at times not reciprocated. The blessings given all vary in context and yet point to one cohesive theme: that Yahweh is the only One they can trust to guide and save them. This is apparent throughout the story of Joseph in Genesis 37-50 whether it is with Joseph himself or even his father Jacob and other siblings. God is seen bringing earthly salvation by taking care of their physical needs. Before Joseph we see within the Great Flood in Genesis 6:5-9:19 a clear example of God’s desire to save his people following the opposite. Outside of these two in Genesis the most significant salvific act of God for a group of people is none other than Israel itself when they suffered under the tyranny of Pharoah in Egypt in Exodus 1-15. In all three examples above, the groups represented comprise the people Israel, who have been called out to be God’s children.[8] Their stories illustrate that their salvation is stemming from their God Whom they know because of covenant love and allegiance.

Moving outside of the Pentateuch a continued thread on salvation runs through the rest of the OT with variations depending on the genre and era. Throughout 1 Samuel, Judges, Nehemiah, Ruth, and especially the Psalms, salvation coming from Yahweh for the people Israel is a dominant theme that cannot be ignored.  The prophets, more so than any other section of the OT, carry on the theme of salvation attempting to draw Israel back to a place of alignment with the Law. J.C. Moeller, in discussing the priority of salvation coming from the various prophetic oracles writes 

The theme of salvation, expressed in rich and varied language and communicated by the prophet with the oracle, occupies a prominent place in the prophetic books. Only God can save, and he will do so how, when, for whom, and for whatever reason he pleases.[9]

This tone throughout the prophetic books continues to challenge Israel’s faithlessness as well as another angle of salvation which we will explore shortly. But again and again the prophetic writers seek to remind rebellious Israel from where their salvation comes from. Isaiah the prophet in 43:25 of his own book reminds everyone that it is God alone who blots out their transgressions and remembers sin no more. Shortly before in 25:7-8 we can see God’s salvific actions taking center stage. “The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth.” Apart from Isaiah there is Zechariah who declares that on a certain day “a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to clean them from sin and impurity.” (Zechariah 13:1) 

Any individual with a good concordance or bible software could continue for quite some time down this path looking at the vast number of examples of prophets and OT writers longing for God to intervene and bring his redeeming self into their time and space assuming that Israel is seeking to live up to its end of the covenant. As J.C. Hartley observes, “The saving deed then is determinative for the nature of each generation’s relationship with Yahweh and its proclamation inspires the faith to establish to maintain the relationship.”[10] According to much of the OT’s rationale, if there was no covenant faithfulness; there was no salvation to be sought. Each generation needed to reaffirm its faithfulness to Yahweh. A primary way of achieving this was through Torah observance. 

Torah and Salvation

Throughout the OT narrative leading into 2nd Temple Judaism salvation was intended to be a continual enjoyment. It was not meant to be an event they cry out for when disastrous situations arose but rather a perpetual relationship of salvation—if you will. To live in the saving presence of God required covenant faithfulness as the prophets challenged Israel and Judah to. The Torah was meant to be the guide or tutor to enable them to deal with any and all challenges that would arise seeking to compromise Israel’s covenant loyalty resulting in the loss of the blessings for which they were originally created.[11]

The Torah and covenant go hand in hand. The Torah was not a weapon or check list for salvation; it was the life-giving record of God’s covenant with them. Israel was to be his own and they were to remain his through the adoration and obedience of Torah. When this happened, there was firm conviction that many blessings (or curses when disobeyed) would be conferred upon Israel as seen in Deuteronomy 28. This journey between obedience and disobedience regarding the Torah was a tension that, as Chris Wright explains, “included what God had done on the one hand (he had chosen, called and redeemed them), and what Israel was to do in response (to love and worship Yahweh alone, and to obey him fully).”[12] God expected his Law to take center stage setting up a continual salvific presence for Israel. The result being that Yahweh would be known as the God of Israel for all the world to see and be drawn to. This was the covenant relationship the entire OT is built upon which is explained and expanded upon in the Law and later writings as well. 

A core distinguishing factor of Torah that is important to remember is that even though this collection of writings affirms what is said above; it also clarifies and communicates the will of Yahweh for the people on a practical and governance level. And so within it we find numerous types of laws, commands, decrees, and other words used to denote the commands of Yahweh for his children. The intention was to protect them and bring them into a place of existence marked by unity and shalom. The presence of these types of laws for governance does not negate the ultimate and chief aim of the Torah which was to enable Israel to live as Yahweh’s people. Or as Exodus 19:6 puts it, “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This kind of state of being for Israel was achieved when like David, they treasured and savored each word and syllable of the Torah itself. as seen throughout Psalm 119. 

In Summary

In summary, the Israelites experienced salvation primarily through the present and the central focus of realizing and living this salvation was through obedience through Torah and what it commands. If adherence to Torah was maintained and participated in; they could expect the saving actions of Yahweh to be present. When it was not, the prophets sought to bring the children of God back to obedience to the Law.

In taking a step back from the common elements of salvation and Torah as explained above we can see other core ideas associated with OT salvation.. Among the many are the prospect of a messianic leader or “servant of the Lord” (Isaiah 42); the restoration of a Davidic monarchy (Isaiah 16:5); the presence of a second or renewed “exodus” back into the land (Ezekiel 37:12); and the knowledge of God reaching the nations outside of Israel (Isaiah 51:4). These ideas and more surrounding national salvation by God was focused on the present side of death.[13] 

However, within the prophetic books there is a new understanding of salvation beginning to subtlety emerge focusing on the hopes for salvation involving a possible afterlife. Isaiah 26:19 is a text often viewed as speaking of salvation in the life to come by the statement, “Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!” Similar aspects of salvation can also be observed in Isaiah 53:8-10, Ezekiel 37:1-14; and Daniel 12:2 which will be highlighted in the following section on salvation in 2nd Temple Judaism. David as well as Isaiah and some of the prophets dips his toes into “afterlife” salvation from the depths of Sheol. These are found in Psalm 30:3; 86:13; and 116:3-8. 

If Torah is followed and the children of God continue down a path of loyalty and faithfulness to their covenant with Yahweh, they can expect salvation in their time and space as well as in the life to come. The all of this leads to a reality for Israel where the nations will see that Yahweh is the one true God chiefly because of the continued salvation he is bringing to them as well as promising into the future. M. J. Harris writes, “At that time all the nations will stream into Zion, ‘the city of the Lord’ (Is. 2:2–3; 60:3, 14). In the last days ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance’ (Joel 2:32).”[14] The salvation which is to be observed from Israel for the nations serves as the beginning steps towards a NT understanding of salvation where the Gentiles are involved and the Gospel of Jesus is on display. Understanding how we get to that place requires us to travel through the era leading up to the time of Jesus. More on this in “Salvation Pt. 3.”


[1] David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York London Toronto [etc.]: Doubleday, 1992), 907-908.

[2] Freedman, 5:910.

[3] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 720.

[4] Adrian Plass, Bacon Sandwiches and Salvation: An A-Z of the Christian Life (London: Authentic Media, 2007), 163–64.

[5] While it is of course acknowledged that salvation can refer to many things within the biblical text, the scope of this chapter will highlight how Israel and the early church understood salvation from a sin and present danger issue. 

[6] Throughout this paper the name of God will vary from context to context interchanging between “Yahweh”, “God”, and “Father.” 

[7] Green, Salvation, 19.

[8] Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 5:908.

[9] Mark J. Boda and J. G. McConville, eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2012), 700.

[10] Terence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 416.

[11] T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 856–57.

[12] Christopher J. H Wright, Salvation Belongs to Our God: Celebrating the Bible’s Central Story (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity, 2008), 58.

[13] Michael D. Morrison, “Salvation,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016)

[14] M. J. Harris, “Salvation,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 764.

Jesus and His Kingdom – Part 1

What exactly is this “Kingdom” Jesus speaks of?

On May 2nd, 2011, the news broke. Osama Bin Laden had been killed for his role in the September 11th, 2001, attacks on U.S. soil. The reception of this news for many was marked with euphoria, joy, and deep seated—decade long—emotions of revenge. The masses gathered in front of the White House in celebration with liturgy of song and chant. The singing of “God Bless the U.S.A” as well as the repetitious and synchronized yelling of “Rot in Hell.” Many interviewed in the streets were speechless in their attempts to communicate their relief. In watching these interviews, it was easy to see a disturbing and shocking trend woven throughout their thinking: God’s approval. 

In the following months details began to come forward from the “situation room” where the president and other cabinet members watched the operation play out. We were told that if the mission were successful and Bin Laden was captured dead or alive a code word would be given, “Geronimo.” What was said through satellite communications to the President that night was, “For God and Country, Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo.” There it was again. 

Following that night over ten years ago now I had many conversations with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ about the subtle tension I and others were feeling. It was a disturbing tension I could not remove myself from: rejoicing over the death of another while simultaneously invoking the name of God and His approval. It just didn’t feel right though I did understand it’s origin. I battled in my own flesh the emotions of satisfaction that this man received what my flesh felt he deserved. However, deep-seated within me is an ethic of love and non-violence formed by the teachings of Jesus which challenged those emotions. 

Nonetheless, I struggled to see how invoking God’s blessing over this action differentiated us from those who also perpetrated these attacks in the name of their own god. But it was one comment from an individual that stands above everything I had seen on T.V. After graciously putting up with my long discourse regarding what I felt to be so un-Christlike and un-befitting for Jesus followers in celebrating the death of Bin Laden, a friend said to me, “I felt like what happened was just. It was a win for the Kingdom of God.” 

Really? A win for the Kingdom?[1] I could not believe that someone I had trusted and admired as a mature student of the Scriptures would say something like this. I was determined to seek out a fresh understanding of the Kingdom of God in response to his statement. Since that moment to the present, I have come to realize this may be the most important area to grapple with for the modern church. Judging from that one conversation to many others I have had as a leader in the Church I have also realized it might be one of the most diluted and misunderstood aspects of Jesus’ message. If the Church has any hope at all in displaying the awe-inspiring wonder, beauty, and creativity of the Gospel—we must go backwards before we can go forwards. We must do the hard work of recovering the width and depth of what the Kingdom of God meant to Jesus as well as those who came before him.  

When looking at the New Testament it is beyond clear that the central fulcrum on which his entire message swings is this very topic. The Kingdom is, as Bruce Chilton says, “…the center of Jesus’ message both as a fact and as a mystery.”[2] If this is true, which I believe it is, then how this message is understood and conveyed is of the utmost importance in our desire to bring profound hope and truth to an unbelieving world. These noble aspirations unfortunately will never come to fruition if this Kingdom message is not embraced in its right context. Failure to do so can and is already resulting in a crisis of identity for the Church and her mission. 

Thankfully there is hope. A fresh re-understanding of the Kingdom opens the doors for both disciples and churches to reemerge as beacons of light and substantial hope in a weary and worn culture. Again, Chilton states, “But if it is true in general terms that we can know Jesus, then it must be possible to understand what he stood for…the Kingdom of God, is conveyed to us powerfully within the gospels. They invite us to share the power of that vision.”[3] If our pursuit is to know Jesus and his central message thereby becoming faithful disciples and Churches, then our journey, as already stated, must go backward before it can go forward. 

What didKingdom” Mean Before Jesus? Was it Original to Jesus?

Often where there is a lack of clarity in any topic the result is almost always due to vague and incomplete explanations. This same truth could be applied to our endeavor in seeking to understand what Jesus, in Mark 1:15 as well as John the Baptist in Matthew 3:1, are seeking to convey when they both respectively declared this coming Kingdom.[4] We are wise to assume that this understanding of a kingdom was widespread at the time within early Judaism thus contributing to a lack of need to spell it out in detail.[5] However, this does not mean we are left in the dark. We are still able to comb through the Old Testament as well as literature within Second Temple Judaism to ascertain a firm understanding of what this phrase meant as well as the emotion it evoked when declared. 

Beginning first from the Old Testament we see a complete absence of the phrase “Kingdom of God” however there is present a certain “kingly” rule that is often mentioned. The language is used to describe earthly kingdoms throughout Judah and Israel to “denote a territory or politically organized unit under monarchial rule (e.g., Gen. 10:10; Num. 32:33).”[6] Related but still an offshoot of this would be found in 1 Chron. 28:5 and 2 Chron. 13:8 where the phrase “Kingdom of Yahweh” occurs. However, to be fair we need to differentiate between the relationship of the two above. The implied “Kingdom of Yahweh” was not synonymous to the “kingdom of Israel.” Dennis C. Duling rightly communicates that even though Israel adapted near eastern ideas of divine kingship for the earthly king, God and the king were not identical; the god/king of the world was also the god/king over the people of Israel, and therefore superior to any earthly ‘divine king.’ Correspondingly, there was also tension between these two kingdoms.[7]

This tension continued through Israel’s history through the time of the prophets and well into the era of Second Temple Judaism. This becomes especially clear when we leaf through the late prophetic book of Daniel. Though it is found within the canonical Old Testament it deserves to be treated in the next portion looking into the literature of the Second Temple period due to its dating of ca. 165 B.C.E. 

The book of Daniel has long been used when talking about Jesus’ conception of the Kingdom and his own eschatology because of Daniel 7 and its corresponding usage by Jesus in Matthew 24:30 and 26:64 as well as Mark 14:62. It could be said that Daniel 7 and the “Son of Man” phrasing is a favorite saying of Jesus.[8] But what exactly do these connections mean? Up to this time in history there was a clear separation between the secular kingdoms of humans and the Kingdom of Yahweh even if the former was led by a client king. But in Daniel 7:13 where it is prophesied that “One like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven… to the Ancient One and was presented before him.” we see a major shift. Obviously, this is a serious departure from a human client king. 

What is represented in Daniel 7 can be described as a continuation of development regarding the eschatology from within Judaism. In his masterful study of the Kingdom of God, G.R. Beasley-Murray rightly summarizes that this vision of Daniel “accords a prime place to the coming of Yahweh to subdue evil and to deliver his people.”[9] This coming and arrival of “one like a human being” should be kept in its proper category as a theophany. This is God showing up on the scene in both a redemptive and punitive sense. To the faithful within Judaism the one who is coming on the “clouds of heaven” is meant to symbolize consolation to the people of God.[10] This is the ushering in of a heavenly Kingdom led by a “human-like” individual. Murray states that this individual is representative of God and his sovereignty over the world.[11] The desire of Daniel is to place in juxtaposition both earthly and heavenly kingdoms. In doing so he makes it clear that the origin of this Kingdom is from above.[12] Martin J. Selman synthesizes this prophecy of Daniel and its implication for how this era of Judaism viewed the coming Kingdom as something God will give his everlasting Kingdom to Men [and Women]. Although human kingdoms arising from the earth are doomed to failure, God does not in consequence keep his Kingdom for himself and his untainted angels…. The Kingdom of God will be given to ‘the holy ones, the people of the Most High’ (Dan. 7:18, 27), and to ‘one like a son of man.’[13]

This development within Daniel 7 represents an emerging eschatology consonant with other examples in surrounding literature. Paying attention to a small sampling out of many will help our goal of understanding the development of the Kingdom of God theme from the Old Testament through to the time of Jesus in the first century C.E. 

1 Enoch and the Book of Watchers (1 En. 1-36) contain clear statements which reflect a belief that the elect people of God, including those who are resurrected will live in a final state with God whose throne is situated upon a mountain. He will be known as a King of Kings, Eternal King, and King of the Universe.[14] The core writings from Enoch which represent this are found in 9:4; 25:7; 12:3; 25:3-5, and 27:3. Outside of the Book of Watchers other elements of similar beliefs regarding the Kingdom can be found in the “Book of Dreams,” “Animal Apocalypse,” “Apocalypse of Weeks,” and the “Book of Similitudes.”[15] As Duling makes clear, in 1 Enoch God is called King and the Son of Man is a king/messiah.[16] The book of Enoch along with the prophecy of Daniel represent a unique turn from the Old Testament and it’s understanding of the Kingdom.

Another example can be found in the Testament of Moses which is dated around the Maccabean period down through to the time of Jesus. In 10:1,3-4 it reads as the following

And then His Kingdom shall appear throughout all His creation, and then Satan shall be no more, and sorrow shall depart with him…. For the Heavenly One will arise from His royal throne, and he will go forth from His holy habitation with indignation and wrath on account of His sons. And the earth shall tremble; to its confines shall it be shaken; and the high mountains shall be made low and the hills shall be shaken and fall.[17]

This text holds three elements that give us a window into the apocalyptic nature of the Kingdom and how this points to Jesus’ own understanding. First, we see the appearance or revelation of a divine Kingdom impacting all the earth. Is this not the connotation we read from Jesus’ first declaration of ministry in Mark 1:15? The usage of ἤγγικεν regarding ἡ βασιλεία τοῦθεοῦ in Mark 1:15 gives the impression that this Kingdom has either arrived or is on the precipice of arrival. Could it be that Jesus is flowing in this same stream of thought regarding the arrival of God’s Kingdom? More on this verse shortly. Second, this apocalyptic Kingdom is one that will be in direct opposition with Satan. In Luke 11:18 Jesus gives a line of demarcation between the kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of God. Joel Green communicates that “Jesus thus positions the work of exorcism within the larger matrix of the struggle between the dominion of Satan and the dominion of God.”[18] Lastly, the phrase “high mountains shall be made low” is significant to our knowledge of what the Kingdom was expected to usher in. The immersion of Isaiah 40 in the messaging of John the Baptist in Luke 3 along with this verse from the Testament of Moses makes clear that there are kingly expectations of equity and justice being dispersed with the coming reign of the One from  Daniel 7.

By only looking at three examples from this era of Second Temple Judaism we can be confident of a few things. There was an already implanted understanding of a coming King who would be other worldly as seen in Daniel 7. In addition to this was a deep hope that one day the righteous will experience a new Kingdom marked by justice and equity led by a transcendent Lord of lords and God of gods, and King of kings. Enoch seeks to capture all of this when speaking of Kingly rule or the Kingdom of God as a whole. The Testament of Moses showcases what can be found in many other writings of this time. Namely, a line between the righteous and the evil as well as Satan and God. All of these common expectations, hopes, and tensions were part of the economy of religion in this era where a definitive concept of “good vs. evil” is apparent.

Another collection of writings from this era which give us a glimpse into the cultural thinking of the Kingdom of God were discovered in the caves at Qumran commonly called the “Dead Sea Scrolls.” The importance of these diverse writings cannot be overstated enough in terms of their importance for understanding Jesus in his own context. Scot McKnight explains that Jesus’ life and thinking took place within a diverse Judaism where there “options were many and orthodoxies were few.”[19] He further argues that Jesus and his thinking must be observed while keeping in mind the many complex societal communities of his day, especially the “sectarian Essenism of the Dead Sea Scrolls.”[20] Another noted scholar who would agree is James H. Charlesworth. On the similarities between Jesus and the Essenes he writes that they possessed the following:

the same territory and race; they were devout, religious, conservative, and anti-Gentile. They struggled against common enemies…were close to some Pharisees, were animated by the belief that God was about to bring to fruition his promises and were apocalyptically and eschatologically oriented.”[21]  

Within the large collection of writings found at Qumran the language and context of the Kingdom of God is well attested. For the present study we will focus on two primary areas: The War Scroll (1QM) and the Rule of Blessings (1QSb) due to their apocalyptic and eschatological orientation. Both scrolls highlight the thinking of the Essene community as it pertains to the reign of God in their time and space as well as the ethical implications of this coming Kingdom.

In 1QM 12:8 we see God being called “King of Honor” and “King of Kings” in 14:6. Around the portion where King of Kings can be found there is also an eschatological focus on a future kingdom being within Israel which will be established by the priestly prince of the congregation.[22] It is a kingdom where justice, peace, and a refined or renewed gathering of worshippers in a new Temple will manifest. 1QM 13:10 could easily have been the ideological atmosphere where many would be messiahs found their footing: “From of old you appointed the prince of light to assist us, and in […] and all the spirits of truth are under his dominion.”[23] The scroll reads like an anticipatory piece of literature marking out clearly who is righteous and who is not. The focus is on the eschatological reign of God that will soon be breaking in with the fighting of the “Sons of light vs. darkness.” (1Qm 1:11) The similarities thus far ought to be evident. The lines of demarcation as well as polemical language found here can also be found in the tone of Jesus and John the Baptist. 

The Rule of Blessings, though different from the War Scroll, gives a similar perspective on the eschatological Kingdom that is yet to break in. Our focus from this scroll is the “Prince of the Congregation.” In 1QSb 5:20-22 the prince will receive a special blessing from the Master which will confer upon the prince certain eschatological actions. 

The prince of the congregation… and shall renew for him the covenant of the community for him to establish the Kingdom of his people forever, [to judge the poor with justice] to reproach the humble of the earth with uprightness, to walk in perfection before him on all his paths.[24]

In this text we again see a focus on the ethical dimensions of the coming one. Both the War and Blessing Scroll illustrate something obvious: the time and era was ripe for an individual to come and dip their toes into the apocalyptic and eschatological pressure cooker which was continuing to grow by the day while Palestine was under Rome’s rule. 

Part 1 in Summary

In summary we can confidently see that: (1) the Old Testament had an understanding of the Kingdom of God that was connected to earthly kingdoms and client kings. There was tension brewing within the desires of the Kingdom of Yahweh in comparison with the kingdom of man, however, these references are scarce. So where did this development arise of a Kingdom that was to break in apocalyptically or eschatologically? (2) While Daniel (especially Daniel 7) is found within the Old Testament, for our purposes we included it in the framework of Second Temple Judaism due to its late dating. Within Daniel we see an expectation of a savior who is coming to establish a Kingdom in the here and now. As stated by Murray above, the vision accords a prime place in the vision and expectation of Yahweh who will subdue evil and redeem his people. The juxtaposition Daniel creates between two kingdoms in the Old Testament continues until “One like the Son of Man” comes from above. (3) In examining the Pseudepigrapha we can observe similar imagery and language in that of Daniel.

There is a coming one, an establishment of kingly rule, and his name will be Lord of Lords, God of Gods, and/or King of Kings. (4) All of this is continued not as a progression per se but more like the deepening of a well when we come to the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls. In both the War Scroll and Blessing Scroll there is all the above with the addition of ethical components regarding this coming Kingdom. To be fair, a full exploration of the Old Testament, Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, and Dead Sea Scrolls would yield a multitude of ethical expectations for the coming redemption of God’s Kingdom. However, for our brief study we have chosen only a few. Now let us turn to see how these influences had an impact on Jesus’ own understanding of the coming Kingdom. But what did Jesus, as a Jewish first century rabbi think about the Kingdom? To this we will turn next.

(The above is an excerpt from a doctoral paper I wrote in late 2021)


[1] Moving forward in this paper, any reference to the divine Kingdom of God (except when quoted from scholarship) will be capitalized while other occasions involving earthly kingdoms and kings will not be. The same will done with “Church” when in reference to the corporate body of Christ which is to carry out the Kingdom mission of God. Both are inherent in the title of this paper which focuses on a robust and healthy theology of the Kingdom understood in its context (going backward) which is the remedy the church needs for today (to move forward).

[2]  Bruce Chilton, Pure Kingdom: Jesus’ Vision of God, Studying the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich. : London: Eerdmans ; Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1996), ix.

[3] Ibid, Chilton, x.

[4] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 417.

[5] A common parallel to this would be if someone were to comment on how well they did at something in saying, “Wow! You hit it out of the park!” Most in North America would readily understand this to refer to hitting a homerun in baseball which is a tremendous positive. Thus, there would not be a need to explain in detail how one hits a home run in the game of baseball. 

[6] John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, eds., The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), 860.

[7] Duling, Dennis C. “Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven: OT, Early Judaism, and Hellenistic Usage.” Ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York London Toronto [etc.]: Doubleday, 1992), 50.

[8] As confirmed by Scot McKnight in my first Doctorate seminar at Northern Seminary on the eschatology of Jesus. 

[9] George Raymond Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, reprinted (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1987), 35.

[10] Ibid. 

[11] Ibid. 

[12] Barrick, William D. 2012. “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 23 (2): 171. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=reh&AN=ATLA0001924487&site=ehost-live.

[13] Ibid. 

[14] Duling, Kingdom of God, 51. 

[15] Murray draws an interesting conclusion when analyzing the Book of Similitudes from Enoch. He states, “We are brought to the startling realization that the evidence points to the Similitudes as having been written at the same time as or during the generation after the ministry of Jesus. Does this suggest that the idea of the Son of Man as messianic representative was in the air, as it were, at that time?” He goes on to say that perhaps “we have the precipitate of two parallel movements of thought leading back to one source—namely, the vision of Daniel.” This statement by Murray furthers the mosaic of belief that was developing during and before the time of Jesus. (Murray, Kingdom of God, 68.)

[16] Duling, Kingdom of God, 51

[17] James H Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Volume One Volume One, 2016, 931–32.

[18] Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1997), 455.

[19] Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1999), 2.

[20] Ibid. 

[21] James Hamilton Charlesworth, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1992, 9–10.

[22] Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1992, 4:52.

[23] Florentino García Martínez, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, 2nd ed (Leiden ; New York : Grand Rapids: E.J. Brill ; W.B. Eerdmans, 1996), 107.

[24] García Martínez, 433.