What Did Paul Really Mean by the Kingdom of God? | Daniel Pollorena

Paul only mentions the Kingdom of God eight times across all his letters — yet it was central to Jesus' teaching. Why does Paul seem to avoid it?

Paul's contemporaries — both Jewish and Gentile — were steeped in kingdom language. Roman imperial power dominated every city. The Jewish hope for God's kingdom was alive. Yet Paul rarely uses βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (basileia tou theou, "Kingdom of God") in his letters. Was this deliberate? And does the popular idea that Paul's kingdom language directly challenges Roman imperial power actually hold up to historical scrutiny?

In this episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, Daniel Mikkelsen sits down with Daniel Pollorena, PhD researcher at the University of Vienna specialising in the Kingdom of God in Paul's letters, to explore one of Pauline theology's most misunderstood themes.

Together they examine why Paul uses βασιλεία language so sparingly, whether βασιλεύς (basileus, "king") was ever realistically applied to Caesar in Paul's day, what Roman titles like imperator actually meant historically, and how Paul's kingdom theology connects to ethics, justification, and resurrection.

If Paul teaches that Christ is King and his kingdom is concerned with how believers live — what does that mean for Christian ethics and how we face suffering and death today?

Whether you're a Greek student, seminary student, pastor, or everyday Christian wanting to go deeper into Paul's theology, this episode will change how you read his letters.

📖 Free Greek Guide — 'Why Learning Greek Could Be a Struggle and How to Move Forward' 👉 https://ntgreektutoring.com/why-struggle-with-greek

🔜 Don't Miss the Next Episode: Daniel welcomes Ben Castaneda to discuss how Jesus' teaching are received and used in 1 Peter.

In this episode:

00:00 Coming Up 01:02 Meet Daniel Pollorena — researching the Kingdom in Paul 04:27 How seminary introduced him to biblical Greek 06:13 Why learning the biblical languages opens a new world 09:46 How Greek changes the way you read scripture 13:03 Why reading multiple Bible translations helps 21:08 Translating Greek literally vs idiomatically 24:26 What Greek reveals about the Kingdom in Paul 25:45 Why study the Kingdom of God in Paul 31:16 How this research project developed 33:05 Why Paul rarely uses Kingdom of God language 34:53 Paul the preacher vs Paul the letter writer 38:12 Evidence from Galatians and Paul's preaching 46:32 Understanding Kingdom language in the Roman world 51:23 Is Paul's Kingdom language anti-Roman? 54:07 Kings, Caesar and Roman political language 56:59 How Rome viewed kings and kingdoms 01:02:11 The Kingdom of God is not in word but power 01:07:53 Why local historical context matters 01:10:12 Final reflections on the Kingdom in Paul

Music Credits: Music from #Uppbeat 

🔗 https://uppb

If you enjoyed this episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, please consider becoming an Explorer! Your support helps keep the podcast ad-free, allows us to bring in more guests, and enhances the content we create. By joining our Explorer community, you’ll receive exclusive benefits, including Q&As, priority for Greek tutoring applications, and discounts on tutoring. Explore more and join the Explorer programme here: Become an Explorer. 

Podcast Keywords:
biblical languages, New Testament, Old Testament, Christ, bible study,  Relationship with God, learn biblical languages, Biblical Theology, Christianity, Covenants, New covenant, old covenant, language acquisition, Biblical Greek, Biblical Hebrew.

Transcript

0:00

Paul writes extensively about faith, grace and justification, but he rarely mentions the kingdom of God. In fact, he only uses this phrase about eight times across all of his letters. So why does Paul seem to downplay something central to Jesus' teaching? The very popular idea that Paul is using Basilea language against Rome, it sounds nice and all of that, but where's the evidence for that? One of the things that in my research I found is that when Paul uses Basilea language, he is not antagonizing Rome. We have to research Basilea Toteu in Paul and understand what also could that also have meant for his original readers. The term used, know, imperator didn't really mean emperor. It was kind of a military title. Christ reigning, Christ as King of the Kingdom of God. And Paul uses this to tell the churches, well, live godly lives. Welcome back to another episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, brought to you by NT Greek Tutoring the place for personalized Greek learning in your spare time. I'm your host, Daniel Mikkelsen the founder of NT Greek Tutoring and a PhD candidate in New Testament at University of Edinburgh. This podcast exists to make gems from biblical studies accessible to everyday Christians and show how the biblical languages opens up scripture. Our aim is to increase your love for God and his word so that we become more joyful witnesses for his mission. Paul writes extensively about faith, grace, and justification, but he rarely mentions the kingdom of God. In fact, he only uses this phrase about eight times across all of his letters. So why does Paul seem to downplay or maybe downplay the central teaching, uh something central to Jesus' teaching? Today we'll explore what the kingdom of God meant to Paul and how this deepens our understanding and our reading of his letters. To explore this with us, I'm delighted to welcome Daniel Pollorena Sorry. So my Spanish is not for good, so I'm sorry for that. em Who is currently writing a PhD on this particular question at the University of Vienna before Daniel started his studies He did his MDiv at Reform Theological Seminary in Charlotte. And he also served as a Pastoral Minister during his MDiv studies. And on a more personal note, I had the pleasure of meeting Daniel at the last year's ETS, or Evangelical Theological Society, and SBL, Societal Political Conferences in Boston, as we shared an Airbnb together, doing the 10 days of conferencing, which was a great joy. We had lots of interesting and good conversations. And it was a pleasure to get to know you and it's a pleasure to welcome you on the podcast today. Daniel, welcome here. Thank you. Thank you so much for first for inviting me, my Danish brother, my Danish tocayo that is a Spanish word for someone who has the same name that that you have. So I am Daniel, you know, you're Daniel. don't know if there is a Danish word for that, uh but you will be my tocayo. What is the word? OK. OK. OK. Yeah. So no, thank you. Thank you. The pleasure is mine to be here. Thank you for inviting me. m Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Looking so much forward to this conversation. Anything else you want to add before we jump into some questions? No, I just hope that the people that listen to this may profit from our conversation. And again, thank you for creating this podcast and this space for the biblical languages. It's incredibly important. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah, so we will begin to talk a little bit about biblical languages, then we will move into Paul and what he meant by the Kingdom of God, before we will then finish with some practical implications, how does that actually affect our lives? So, but because this podcast is rooted in biblical languages, we always like to begin with people's personal journey behind getting into the Udham. So how did you get into? to biblical languages. Yeah. So I really got into biblical languages because of seminary at RTS Charlotte Reform Theological Seminary in Charlotte. You know, over there, they're very serious about learning the biblical languages. uh one of our professors is William Ross, who is a linguist. And he really tries to drill the biblical languages with you. But also, You know, they not just academically, but they insist on just the responsibility that it is to learn the languages. Right. So when I went to seminary, I went with the purpose of getting my Master of Divinity and then go back to ministry. ah But again, during my time there, you know, it was like a whole new world on many different ways was open to me. or for me. And yeah, that was really my introduction to biblical languages. So that's my journey. of course, I guess unless you're a Septuagint guy, you choose the language that you feel more comfortable with or the language chooses you. I don't know. But yeah, of course, for me, that is Greek. And yeah, I mean, I read Greek every day and I love doing so. I love languages in general, I will say. That is also a thing that I do have. mean, of course, Spanish is my native tongue. I learned English, I'm in the process of learning German, and I want to learn other languages as well. But yeah, that was my introduction with the Biblical languages during my time at RTS Charlotte. Yeah, very good. And it's interesting how people get into the biblical languages, because all stories are different. A lot of people learn it in seminary. Some people teach themselves. My own supervisor, Paul Foster, he said he taught himself Greek from a textbook. that's not, I think that's very impressive. It's quite difficult to do that way. Yeah, well, and I think that, you know, like the professor should be a guide, but like with any language, it really the responsibility falls on the student. And, you know, and that can be for Greek or Hebrew or German. doesn't matter. Like a lot of the work is you make creating this relationship with the language. uh And yeah, the professor will be a guide is going to help you. You may go to a grammar book and great, but the rules, but you have to develop this relationship with the language. I'm convinced of that. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I agree. It is down to your own, like, continuous work. It's it's a skill development, a skill. If you play music, for example, I know that you studied music in the past, you need to play the guitar. I play the guitar, but I never really use it these days. But it's a skill. It's something that takes time to develop. And even if you lay it aside for a little bit and come back to it, some of it will come back quicker. because it's skill, it's not like learning about church history or something like that. Yeah, so, but I think it's important also to get good tools and sometimes there are some tools that are not as great and not all seminaries have access to good school, good tools or teachers in a way that is possible, but so that is good for the student to learn. I think that there. The good is about also good tools, but it's about the student actually using these tools. Yes, yes, I completely agree with you. completely agree with you. And the professor, that is the part where, you mentioned about your doctor father, who he learned by himself, which is incredibly impressive. For me, one of my professors, Dr. Kara, he just, made the learning of Greek so fun and so... you know, just, yeah, so fun, so intuitive. And that has kind of always stuck with me. yeah, it also, of course, professors also have, you know, can encourage you in that sense. And I guess there are many different styles. But yes, good resources, good professors, and of course, the time that you have to put, you need to put in the work as well. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, and as you've been reading the biblical languages, how have you experienced that they opened up scripture for you? Yeah. So I think that reading the original language is for any written document, and this is not just for scripture, but for any written document, when you read it in its original language, it has a different vibe. It has a different feel than if you are only relying on a translation made by someone else. I don't mean write that I don't want to claim exegetical fallacies or like, you know, some people I think made these huge statements of, well, if you will really look at the Greek, then I mean, that stuff of course does happen, but not all the time. ah But the reality is that for not only for the Bible, but for any document, reading that in the original language gives you a different feel. And like right now, for example, I'm into poetry on my personal time. I'm writing poetry, of course, mainly in Spanish because that's my native tongue. But I've read some Spanish poetry translated and it's just a different feel. And that is because, you know, the translations can be very accurate, but the feel is different, you know? And so I think the same... thing happens with scripture. I think we have very good translations, but reading it in the original languages, then you have to make a of interpretation, a lot of decisions of interpretation by yourself. And I'll give a few examples a little bit later. about a few instances where like really in the Greek, you know, you can understand why some translations render it this way and some other translations render translated in another way. But when you read it in the Greek, you have to make that choice for yourself. know, and so it really, again, it opens that up. I'm also going through the Heidelberg catechismus in German, for example, and I read that in English, which is beautiful. But again, in German, it's also a different field. It's still the same document. So again, for me, it's something that not just happens with the Bible, but with any written document, approaching it in the language in which it was written. It's just a different vibe. And one profits from that, I think. Yeah. Yeah, there's an interesting thing about this, like the different vibe it also... so the Lutheran confession of Confession Augustana, so Melanchthon wrote it both in German and Latin simultaneously. And, but the interesting thing is that the German one, because that was not what the Catholic or the... the anti-reformers or what you would call counter-reformers, were not what they were supposed to read. So sometimes he renders the German slightly more sort of like strongly, where the Latin is more sort of like smoothing it a bit out. It's quite interesting. em So, but to Lutherans, both of them are authoritative because originally the original, is eh it? 1530 edition, if I remember correctly. Some think it's 1636, but I think it's 1530. Yeah, because he edited after Luther's death and most Lutherans think that that's not the right one. Yes, yes. Yeah, there is adaptation in translation. There has to be. By definition, you are translating something. And the point, and I'm sure you agree with this, point of going to the original language is make those decisions by yourself. And that will bring you closer to the text. And I think more convinced. of your own beliefs uh for interpretation. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. Some other people on the podcast have said that it's like kissing your wife through a veil to read in translation. em I've heard that. I've heard that before. Mm. Yeah. Or others have said on the podcast as well, it's like watching in color rather than black and white, or it's like seeing something in 3D rather than 2D. So it's like you can still see it and still clear to you, but just that little bit more. Yes. Yes. And yeah, perhaps it is the the experiential aspect. Like if, you know, it's almost as if like you are. You can describe me and an aroma and, know, how this cake tastes or smells like or or this particular color. You can give me excellent descriptions. But when I unless I experience it, there is something even if I have all the knowledge. in the world, when I experience that, I'm gaining something new, right? And I think maybe it's not the best analogy, but it's something like that. It's like, okay, I'm finally dealing with the Greek. And that is something that is, you have to experience that union, I think. Yeah. Yeah, that relationship. It's really a relationship with the language, I believe. Yeah. Thanks for showing that. Maybe you could give us a couple of specific examples of where you've seen something in the original that you didn't see in translation. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the first one is from 1 Corinthians 7, chapter 7, verse 2. I saw this when I was in seminary at RTS Charlotte, in fact, during my time doing the MDiv. So in... In many translations, in verse two, so Paul is saying, like in verse five, has dealt with sexual immorality, sorry, in chapter five, he had dealt with sexual immorality. Okay, by the time we get to chapter seven, you know, he's talking about pretty much that every man should have his own wife. But at the beginning of verse two, it says, but because of πορνείας (porneias), right? Because of sexual immorality. And for example, the ESV says, but because of the temptation to sexual immorality, okay? The NIV says, But since sexual immorality is occurring, the Greek doesn't say that actually. The Greek doesn't even say because of temptation. The NLT, I think New Living Translation says, but because there is so much sexual immorality. ah The NASB to me, I love the NASB and I'll make a case for it. But the NASB seems to me, in this particular instance, the most faithful one, says, but because of sexual immoralities, which is what the Greek says. And the interesting thing again is that I'm not even claiming that the NIV or the NLT would say because sexual immorality is happening or occurring are wrong. But you can see why they are making this interpretation. And that is because In chapter five, Paul devotes a chapter to say, sexual immorality is occurring, a case which is so horrible that not even the pagans tolerate, right? So the translators of the New International Version, when they get to chapter seven and they read διὰ δὲ τὰς πορνείας because of sexual immoralities, they are making the decision, hmm, Paul... is referring back to chapter five, although the Greek doesn't say that. So they are making this interpretation of verse two and making a translation decision saying, because sexual immorality is taking place or occurring. The ESV, again, it says, because of the temptation. But again, the NASB just says what the Greek says. because of sexual immoralities. so again, and I read that, I realized that when I was in seminary at RTS Charlotte, and I was like, you know, because I knew the verse from the translation, right? Because I used to really love the new international version. So that was the version that, you know, I knew the best in English. And then I was like, wait a minute, The Greek doesn't say that. So that was one aspect. This is one instance where the Greek... ah I saw something in the Greek that wasn't in the translation. But at the same time, like I said, the people that translated the NIV are not necessarily wrong. No, yeah, that's right. are in some way an interpretation and they're just deciding to justify. So it is to translate it the way the NIV did it is justifiable from the context. It's just not what the Greek says. Yeah. Yeah. And he's also talking a lot about sexual immorality in chapter six as well. So he's making this list as well saying you were doing this, blah, blah. We'll come might might come into that again, later because there was a famous phrase of kingdom of God in that chapter. But Yeah. Yeah, it's quite interesting. How do you render this? Do we need to add anything or should we just render the Greek? There's always a choice of the translator. Yes, yes. and, you know, I recommend, and again, this is just a recommendation. I really like the NASB because I do like, for, for the translation to let me decide as much as possible. Like if, and this is a recommendation that I would, that I would tell someone who doesn't read Greek, you know, try to read a translation. that is trying to, without being too wooden or too literal, to leave space for you to make exegetical decisions. So that's why I like the NASB because I think it does that fairly well. It really tries to render sometimes even the syntax of the Greek in some passages. So it leaves that up more to the reader than saying, because sexual morality is taking place. uh So anyway, that's just a recommendation that I have. And that's really the version that I like the best in English ah because of that. Yeah. And I think that that's a fair point. Yeah. I can say my issue with the NASB is sometimes that it renders, like it basically writes as if like not proper English because it follows the syntax in Greek more. Yes. Yes. But I like that, honestly. Look, English is not even my first language. like it. Just, yeah. Yeah. So it's, my wife loves the NASB and that's what she reads. em And that's great. But sometimes we've been reading it together. like, can you not see that this is not proper English? Like this is following the Greek syntax. Like this is because the Greek syntax has moved this preposition in the beginning for emphasis. So the NASB is putting it there for emphasis as well. But in English, it doesn't really work very well. Yes, yes. Well, you know, it's funny because when I do translations, yesterday I was at a New Testament seminar, you know, at the university and I was going through Galatians just quickly because a friend was sharing her research on slavery, etc. ah And that's kind of a wooden way. That's how I do my translations in Greek. So, example, when I was reading, what is it? Chapter five, I believe. No, no, chapter four, think. Galatians. Let me just see. Yeah. So. Yeah, chapter four, verse 26. ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν· But the Jerusalem above or from above is free. then, and I translated, she is the mother of us. Although that is like, you know, this is how I, when I read my Greek, Hmm. If this is how I translated on the fly, because I know it's not idiomatic in English to say, you know, she's the mother, she's the mother of us. It's she's our mother. But I have at this point always done this when I translate, you know, especially on the fly with the Greek that I try to follow the Greek syntax, you know, she's the mother of us, although it's not really idiomatic. But that's like my practice. I guess, you I don't think the NASB goes to those lengths, but that's just like, I don't have a problem doing those kinds of things. Like that's kind of what I do really. Yeah. fine. It's fine. I just sometimes I feel like that's that's why I maybe the new Bible readers I would recommend the NIV or ESV for example, because it probably would be easier for them to understand where the NASB is excellent for if you want to do like Bible study and you want and if for example, you don't know Greek that is that is an excellent translation to read alongside an ESV for example, because it makes you stop because it says things differently. Yeah. Yeah. that is why I think it's great to have more than one translation if you're not reading the original languages. And even sometimes if you're preparing a sermon, reading the Greek and then reading a couple different translations to see like, okay, what's going on here? oh How are the people reading it? So I think that that's, yeah, excellent example. Yeah, but you spent a lot of time walking through the Greek of Paul in particular, without giving too much away, which of which we're going to talk about in a moment. How you've seen something in Paul's letters regarding the kingdom that enhanced your understanding, which you didn't see in translation. Learning New Testament Greek can be a real challenge. If that's been your experience, I've put together a free PDF guide called Why Learning Greek Could Be a Struggle and How to Move Forward. Inside you'll find the most common pitfalls and my simple three step framework to help you start reading Greek with more confidence. Get your free copy today by clicking the link in the description below or the pinned comment. Now back to the episode. How you've seen something in Paul's letters regarding the kingdom that enhanced your understanding, which you didn't see in translation. Yeah, so it wasn't really on Paul. And this wasn't just something that I would say I discovered by myself. I definitely attribute this to EA George. He's the only one I've read this point out. And it was in Luke, three, in fact. So I'm researching on βασιλεία (basileia). And we'll get to that. One of the things that in my research I found is that when Paul uses βασιλεύς (basileus) language, he is not antagonizing Rome. This term is not used for Rome, even less the term βασιλεύς (basileus) is used for Caesar. It's not during the Julio-Claudians anyway, and that's the period that I'm researching mainly because that's Paul's time. ah EA Judge points out that in Luke 3, a lot of translations translate. I'll just read Luke 3. OK, it says, this is ESV translation. In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea. That's Luke chapter three. In the Greek, a lot of versions say in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor or while Pontius Pilate was governing or governor of Judea. The Greek uses ἡγεμονίας (hēgemonias), where we get the word in Spanish. hegemony or English hegemony, which would be more like governance. A lot of translations or most translations say reign of Tiberius Caesar. And that is actually a little problematic because Tiberius is not reigning. He's governing. And in fact, Luke seems to be very aware of this. because then he uses the participle for hegemonias for Pilate. So Tiberius has hegemony, ἡγεμονία (hēgemonia), but also Pilate has the same thing in Judea. And so there is a distinction of degrees in hegemonyas, but it's not that Pilatus is a governor and Tiberius Caesar is a king reigning. And a lot of translations say in the 15 year of the reign. And George points this out, you know, this is anachronistic. In fact, some versions do it even worse and change the Greek Καίσαρος, right? Tiberio Kaisaros. And they say something like, they use Καίσαρος and say, emperor Tiberius, for example. So they changed Caesar to emperor. And that becomes incredibly anachronistic because when we think of emperor, we're thinking of a king pretty much just a Roman version. And again, this is something we'll delve into, but that's really not taking place historically. during Tiberius, during the Julio-Claudians. So anyway, uh many, many versions say reign. And I think it should say something like of the government of Tiberius Caesar or of his governance, something like that to match better what Luke is making the connection between Pilatus and Tiberius using the same word instead of. either saying reigned of Tiberius Caesar or was reigned of Emperor Tiberius. ah Again, the only versions I saw rendered government was the literal standard version and the young literals version. And those are like literal versions, you know. So anyway, that is related to the βασιλεία (basileia thing that I'm studying. just because of this idea that Caesar was a king and βασιλεία (basileia language in Paul is against Caesar and against Rome. quite frankly, I mean, one can say that we just don't have historical evidence. That's fascinating, So that's NT Wright's hobby horse, as we say. Yes, yes, yes, a lot. Yes, yes. And I'm not for my hearers, for our hearers, I'm not claiming Paul never uh antagonizes Rome or I'm not claiming he doesn't say things against Rome. I'm claiming βασιλεία (basileia- language is not used for that. Historically, it doesn't make sense. know, yeah, yeah. So. that's... Interesting. Yeah, there are a lot of interesting things in the Greek. It is, there is a lot of interesting things in the Greek, absolutely. But why did you decide to look at the phrase βασιλείαν θεοῦ kingdom of God, in the Pauline letters? Yeah. So I actually did not begin with this. This was not my project when I entered the PhD in Vienna. ah The long story short is I entered with the project of exploring whether Luke used the seven undisputed epistles as a source for his own writings. So that was really my project. And of course, right, you know, in Europe, you enter and you're already doing research. during, I think in the UK is the same thing that you have to defend your project after the first year. So that first year you're like really, really diving deep and you know, parsing everything out. So I was doing that. And of course that question of Luke using the Pauline Epistles as a source became much more specific. The next question was regarding what? Regarding the missionary journeys, regarding polling identity. He could have used the polling epistles as a source on many things. We have to narrow one down. And the missionary journeys has been done before, for example. So note that one. So anyway, as I was doing the research and guided by my Doktorvater we came to... to this question of, okay, using, potentially using the Paulian epistles as a source for Jesus, okay, for the historical Jesus. The next question then became, okay, well, that's two separate questions. First, you have to establish how much Paul knew about Jesus before you can establish direction of dependence. from Luke to Paul. So I focus, then I focus really on Jesus and Paul, the Jesus and Paul question. And, you know, I was really diving into that. And we became much more specific. OK, Paul and Jesus, but regarding what? Jesus preaching, Jesus life, the crucifixion, the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Supper account. We have the Pauling Lord's Supper account in 1 Corinthians 11. which you can do a synopsis with the synoptic gospels, right? And 1 Corinthians 11 is written before the gospels. So where did Paul get this from, right? So there is some Jesus tradition in Paul, but the Lord's upper account has been done, for example. So we kept narrowing it down and the question that we got to was, okay, Jesus preaching, what aspect? Okay, let's do kingdom of God. So that's how we sew into kingdom of God. But my supervisor is very big on epigraphy. He's very big on social history in the Greco-Roman world, know, a historian pretty much. And when we were discussing this, it became very evident. We have to research βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Paul and understand what could that also have meant. for his original readers. And that hasn't been done before. So that really became, that's how we ended up in βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, βασιλεία (basileia language in Paul, in its Greco-Roman context. So what was the understanding of βασιλεία (basileia in Thessaloniki and in Corinth and in province of Galatia and Rome, and not assume that everyone understood the same thing. Yeah. So. absolutely. That's that's interesting. So it's yeah, sometimes it's always about narrowing down my own project almost died. But that's another story. um Because, because it has to be original, it has to be moving the field forward. Maybe it's not necessarily original in like in a significant, significant way, but it has to be something that is saying something that is moving the field forward. And Yeah. Yeah. had, I've been talking about like Kingdom of God, how it's used outside the gospel with Tyler Hoagland and this podcast. And it does also reveal that there are some interesting differences here as well. but the next question I want to ask is by actually Paul doesn't use, usually talk very much about the Kingdom of God. it's depending on how you count. I've said eight times in the introduction. And I think there definitely eight clear references in his letters. Why is that? Yeah, there are a few options for why that is the case. Some scholars have claimed that he had reservations to use the phrase. supposedly, one of these reservations was that he didn't want to be accused of sedition language, which, again, historically, that's highly unlikely. ah Another supposedly reservation was that of unintelligibility. So some scholars have said, well, his Greek audience probably would not have understood so much this term, so he doesn't use it that often. uh Another option that scholars gave is that this term had been hijacked by his opponents. I don't agree with any of these options, to be honest. Others have suggested that for Paul, righteousness and kingdom of God are pretty much interchangeable. And that's why, know, yeah, he doesn't use it that often, but he uses righteousness. And my... My view is that we have to distinguish between Paul the preacher and Paul the epistolary writer. And I am of the opinion that he probably preached a lot on the kingdom of God. And because a lot of his letters are circumstantial, we don't get to see that a lot. And I think you can see that sometimes, for example, in the Galatian saying of the Kingdom of God. me go to Galatians 5.21. Yeah, he says, ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν I say to you, Or I for one, you, some translations say it, just as I have said, προεῖπον, right? That, right, those who practice these things, οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν right? The kingdom of God will not inherit. Will not inherit the kingdom of God. When you go... back to the letter, he hasn't said that before at all. And to me, that is a clear indication that he has already told this to them in his preaching. and this is, of course, is not something that I came up with, the division or parsing out Paul, making a distinction between the Paul, preacher versus Paul, the epistolary writer. I think he probably talked quite often about it. Also about the Jesus story. doesn't talk a lot about Jesus. I mean, sorry, he talks a lot about Jesus. He doesn't talk a lot about things that you can see in the gospel, for example, like the Lord's Supper account. But when he says it, he's letting us know knowledge that he has. So I think something like that happens with Kingdom of God. to be honest. mean, we see in Acts, for example, that he's preaching on the kingdom of God. And I think he probably, you know, he was doing that. But in the letters, because of their circumstantial nature, many of these letters are response or addressing something. He's not going to, you know, talk a lot about it. So that's my answer. I don't buy the seditious language hypothesis or on intelligibility, I really don't buy these things. No, also makes no sense when you think about all the gospels are written in Greek and they use it all the time. Yeah, yeah. So and it's a central theme for Jesus preaching. It really is, you know. And again, when we when we look at the Pauline epistles, these are circumstantial letters. They are with a purpose, you know. ah But again, I am assuming in his preaching, it would be fantastic to have had a conversation with Paul, you know, like, yeah. So so, yeah, that's my take on it. Mm, yeah. why he didn't write it alone. Yeah, but when we then look at βασιλεία (basileia) in Paul, so he uses the term βασιλεία(basileia a few more times than βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ or βασιλεία θεοῦ em Are they in any way, any of them, are more, that are helpful in actually understanding what he meant by this term? Yeah, I think so. in They are helpful for sure. even in terms of, for example, in Romans five and six, he says that θάνατος (thanatos) reigned, and he uses the verb form. And then he talks about also sin. And he also uses the verb form of κύριος (kurios). So these things are helpful, I think, for us to understand what he could have meant with βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ And it's interesting because in the Romans five and six passages, he contrasts, in fact, and he says that death reigned from Adam to Moses, right? Because of one man. But then he says that those who receive grace and righteousness will reign in life through Jesus Christ. And that's fascinating. That is really fascinating. So yes, I think it does help us. Yeah, it illuminates us a little bit too. to kind of know and okay, what concept does he have in mind when he talks about βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ and βασιλεία (basileia language uh in general. Yeah, so what would you say that that these this language actually illuminate about the concept? Yeah, think it really gives us guard rails. So I've shared with you that a big part of my research on βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ is, well, I'm going into material evidence, writing inscriptions and coins, et cetera. But a big part of my research is the question, what could the people in the local context have understood with just the term kingdom. Not even just kingdom of God, but just kingdom, right? And a danger could be saying, well, it means radically different things. And I don't think that's the case. I think the way we approach the differences, because there were differences in local context and in social history of each context are going to be much more like overtones. But I think Paul using this kind of language in Romans five and six gives us some guardrails of things that are kind of inherent for the idea of kingdom, like reigning, for example, like having power over something or dominion over something. The analogy that I use now is the word football. You know, in Europe, football means what it means in the in all of the world. You know, but in the US, the word is soccer. Right. They have football, but it means something different. Now, there are still a lot of things that overlap. mean, they use their legs in American football. They use the legs. They use a ball. You know, they have teams, but so there will be things that are even even in the US football has, you know, one can argue. Well, you have the same elements. Yes. But there's but there is a different, you know, connotation going on there. So so all that to say, yes, I think it illuminates us in saying βασιλεία (basileia has some connotations that are just going to be. prevalent everywhere. Even if in Thessaloniki their social history conditions the hearers to, to, you know, have maybe different overtones of what kingdom is, you know. Yeah. that's interesting. I want to take the conversation in a little bit different direction for now, at least. Because what is interesting is that when you look at Paul's use of βασιλεία θεοῦ or τοῦθεοῦ about if we count as eight, half of them are negative statements that actually says something about who will not inherit the kingdom of God. uh It is quite interesting that he is using that term this many times in a negative sense. It's like, why do you think that that is Paul's focus so often? Yeah, that's a fascinating question. You know, what I have been... finding in my research. again, the question is, one of the questions in my research is, what were concepts of kingdom from Roman's perspective, from Greek perspective, and from Jewish perspective? And you have to account the three of them for someone like Paul. ah He's conversing with these three worldviews, really. Yeah, absolutely. I wish I could have a solid answer right now. What I will say is that these negative statements, those who practice these things will not inherit the kingdom of God, or the immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God. One thing that I am doing in my research, really just touching the surface right now, is going into inheritance laws. in the Greco-Roman world because that has to be taken into account. And Roman inheritance laws were different than in the Greek East. They had different practices. So again, that is going to be a fascinating question. Why they cannot inherit the kingdom of God? And these are the historical questions that we have to make ourselves. before answering a question like that, especially these negative statements. What I will say I have found about inheritance and kingdom, and when you read a Greek historian, Polybius, and he goes into, he explains kind of Greek political thought on government and stuff like that. And he makes the case, he's trying to analyze Rome, in fact. And he makes the case that all societies begin with monarchy. Well, first it's like everyone is just in their natural state. Then you have a monarchia, which is different from kingship. And that's even weird for us because we tend to think that a king is a monarch, for example. But for the Greeks, that was different. And one of the main differences for the Greeks was that Polybius says, the fittest, the strongest, like in animals, for example, becomes the leader. But the difference between a monarch and a king is that the king has virtue and people follow him not just because of his strength. The monarch as soon as he's weak, he's deposed The king, because people follow him because of his leadership, his virtue, his care for the people, even when he's old and feeble, the people will not overthrow him. And he starts going in this Greek political thought, which is fascinating. But then he says, when kingship becomes hereditary, and the son and the grandson never had to fight for this, but the power fell on his lap, he becomes complacent. And he becomes a tyrant. Kingship becomes tyranny. And then people overthrown him. The leaders of the society overthrown the tyrant. and it becomes an aristocracy. then when this becomes hereditary, Polybius puts a lot of blame on when things become hereditary, that you don't have to do anything for that. And he makes the same case for kingship, for aristocracy, et cetera. Anyway, he keeps saying that it cycles and then it devolves everything into anarchy. I am not claiming though that Paul is necessarily thinking on this, but the idea of inheriting a kingdom, know, for Polybius, example, inheriting a kingdom without you doing anything was actually counterproductive. It really was. For the society and for you, you became a tyrant. It is interesting for me, and this is Greek political thought, it is interesting to me that Paul doesn't say, you have to do this to inherit the kingdom, but he says it in the negative. If you do these things, you're not inheriting the kingdom. So I think he's, know, telling his hearers, don't just assume, you know, that you're gonna have the kingdom of God. uh And it makes a lot of sense that he mentions this to the Galatians and to the Corinthians, for example. So anyway, that's, yeah, I'm sharing some of my research, which again, I'm going a lot into just Greco-Roman society uh to understand. you know, what things Paul wrote, but also what things maybe his hearers could have on those two. So, Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. It's obviously it's difficult to know what people understood about these terms in relation is always hard, especially because especially because we have to say, go on. Yes, especially because we don't know everything we have like limited resources, not everything has survived. we can't know for certain that this was what like you can definitely not know what everybody believed about a certain concept or a certain idea. You can maybe assert what was popular and and sometimes you can say okay this is probably more likely than other times but like absolute statements about history is is kind of dangerous in some ways. um Yeah. Yeah. And I completely agree with you. like the research that I'm sure you're doing in Edinburgh, the research I'm doing here in Vienna, like what we're trying to do is give options that are historically plausible. And then that's it. you know, and like I'm not with Kingdom of God, you know, and in Greco-Roman context, definitely. When you try to reinvent the wheel, it's problematic. You can just say, this is evidence we have in research before. We bring it here. now, maybe the hearers, this was their context. They could have understood this. Maybe not. But at least we know now one of the options that we have available. And really, that's what research does. You're exactly right. As historians, you know of of antiquity really old historians but we we have to really be careful with saying this is 100 % you know what it was or what they understood because because we just we just don't know and history is not made in that way We can talk about probabilities, can talk about things that are more likely than others, and then let it rest for sure. Yes. Yeah. I agree. I agree with you. yeah, in a sense. Yeah, my own research I'm trying to demonstrate that a certain concept of resurrection probably didn't exist, but at least argued by my modern scholars that that's probably not like didn't exist. But it's hard to like say that no one said afford this. We just might not have evidence for it. Yes, exactly. We don't have evidence. It's the same thing of Basileus language used for the Caesars during the Julio-Claudians. ah You know, like if we find a coin or an inscription translated, you know, to the Greek that says Basileus, you know, for Augustus or Tiberius, mean, great. That would be fascinating, you know, but ah But what we can do is we can say, so far as the evidence goes, this is historically unlikely, you know, and it goes both ways. the very popular idea that Paul is using βασιλεία (basileia) language against Rome, it sounds nice and all of that. But where's the evidence for that? You know, it's just become popularized. And many times in New Testament studies and in different branches of theology, an author said something and people bought into it and it became a dogma. OK, but let's do the historical arguments and say, well, this is more likely or less likely. uh I think that, like, for example, N T Wright his book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, he, especially when he's exegesis of Romans, he just talks about this stuff all the time. It's like, I thought you were looking at resurrection, not kingdom language. And it's like, it kind of like makes his argument weaker. What he is trying to, because he's kind of like, I think he's blending this stuff in with Paul's language of salvation, justification, saviour, whatever. Yeah, yeah. And quite frankly, even, it even like, again, right now I'm in the stage in my research where, so far as the evidence allows me, I have falsified that βασιλεία (basileia language is against Rome or Caesar. Now I'm building the positive case of okay and what does it mean? You know? Um. But it also, to be honest, also, I think, touches on Gospels studies just from a historical point of view. Like, for example, the Gospel of John. And of course, in New Testament studies, many people are of the view that it's not historically reliable. I think that view has been changing lately that we can find a lot of historical information there, blah, blah, OK. Whatever you want to make of this, the dialogue between Pilatus and Jesus, when Pilatus says, you know, are you the king of the Jews? You know, and because he's been accused, right? And Jesus says, well, you have said so. And then Pilatus answer is really odd. He says, I haven't found any fault this man. After Jesus gives that answer and many commentaries say things like, you know, Jesus presenting himself as the King of the Jews, you know, is clearly him going against Caesar or like, you know, there is a... But like historically, because Caesar was not a king, yet simultaneously the Romans understood that they... took down kings and instituted kings at will. But they were no kings. Caesar was not a king. Remember, they are still the República. They have the Senate. Caesar is a princeps. He's a first among equals. Right? So they're no kings. And yet, they institute and depose kings at will. Sure, you can claim yourself to be a king. There's no power play between you and Caesar. You're just a king. And historically, makes a lot of sense that Pilatus doesn't find out, King of the Jews. Sure. Even the INRI inscription would make a lot of sense historically. Like, sure, he's the King of the Jews. Because Rome, although Caesar was not a king, they were above kings. They were above kingdoms, you know. And this is the fascinating dynamic, you know, of their politics during the respublica. It's really fascinating because, you know, even the author of First Maccabees, which is, of course, antecedent to all of this, but when he talks about the Romans, he says, you know, they destroy kings and kingdoms near and far. And yet they never take the diadem for themselves and they never dress themselves in purple. So they take kings and kingdoms out, but they don't take the crown for themselves. They don't dress themselves like a king. so again, like historically, right? Instead of like, well, yeah, when Jesus says, well, you have said so, yeah, Jesus, know, being the king of the Jews competing against Caesar. Historically, Historically, Pilatus... I haven't found any fault with this, man. Put the inscription on his head. Mmm. Yeah, because to him it was not a problem. Because we... we above the king. not. Yes, and you even see this power play between Herod and Pilatus, you know, sent to him, sent to him like so. So and Rome recognized that the kings that they had, the client kings they had because they lured over them. You know. Yeah. this is not Pauline studies, but I'm just saying like when we started digging, you know, historical things, it really illuminates, think, you know, our understanding of scripture, really of any text. You know, we have to understand the local context better in order to understand whatever text was produced in this specific local context. So anyway, that's. interesting. I think that's fascinating. Actually. It's something, you know, because they saw themselves so it was only when people rebelled, that was the problem. Because then they were taking trying to take power that they had, whereas like, yeah, okay, you can have your king like Herod fine, you can have some power, as long as you just obey, obey what we say. em Yeah, there is a mother things to be interesting. I don't know if we can, we will have time to touch on it. But in terms of like the divine claims of the empress and in relation to like Jesus claims, which they might have found more problematic in some ways. em Maybe not per se, but at least that would wish but Paul says like Jesus is above everything. This is would be a claim that they would find, take time, take issue with. Yes, yes. Yeah. So and yeah, like the again, like I said at the beginning of the video, I do think Paul, you know, sometimes make statements, you know, that are polemic, if you will, you know, uh the against Rome, etc. I though I think he's extremely careful and extremely sharp with his words. But Hmm. what I'm saying is with kingdom language, she's not doing that. Which again, is like this a lot of like empire criticism. know, when you're going to look, when you are looking for something, you're going to find it, you know, really in anything. that's like, that's why my research is not empire criticism stuff. You know, I'm like, just doing βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ what was the local context of this. Let's look at material evidence and these are the results and then let's see. Yeah, yeah, I think it would be interesting to touch a little bit on what we already touched upon a little bit, but how Paul's language of inheritance, because he is clearly using that in relation to kingdom of God, but in negative statement. So, but he does talk quite a lot about like positively about being heirs or co-heirs with Christ. How does that illuminate Paul's understanding of kingdom of God? Yeah, uh Yeah, I'm sure it will illuminate it, but honestly, I think I'm going to have a much solid answer once I get into inheritance laws and things like that. Because again, the idea of sonship tied to inheritance, But ah yeah, I will have a much better answer. Yeah, hopefully next time. But I definitely think it's going to help us for sure, because he ties inheriting the kingdom, you know, and in Galatians he says, right, and if your sons then heirs, right. So he ties these ideas. In fact, this British scholar, I think it's William Ramsey. Ransai, I don't remember how to pronounce his name. He's from late 1800s. Amazing historian. He wrote a commentary, historiographical commentary on Galatians. And it's unbelievable. He actually talks about Roman inheritance law and Greek inheritance law. Of course, we have much more information than what he had. But he starts seeing some differences in how Paul uses inheritance and sonship in the literature of the Romans versus the Galatians, for example. And it is fascinating. And he's giving you like evidence, you know. So again, because but this guy was like a historian. He, you know, so when he's coming to scripture, he's like knows the local context extremely well. So but yeah, yeah, hopefully next time I can have a solid answer or least a much more informed answer this question. I'll take you up on that. It be interesting to see how that develops. Of course, you're in the middle of the research and appreciate you sharing your insights. Yeah, so maybe we could turn focus to the other instances of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ to view and how that illuminates our understanding of the phrase. in Paul. So the other instances we could find like do I could mention some specific ones but but I like you what do you think? Yeah, mean, we have the First Corinthians, well, one of the First Corinthians, because he mentions several times this in First Corinthians. But right there, the Kingdom of God is not in war, but in power. this is what I'm honestly, I'll try to find out. Mainly, I have been dealing with Galatians and a lot of like just Greco-Roman context. What I will say though is that this is where the difference in local context will help us, think, illuminate a little bit. Again, you need to, of course, account the literal context of the letter. You need to situate this literal context of the letter in its wider. just historical context. yeah, I guess right now we can say things that everyone knows. The kingdom can be inherited or can be not inherited. um The kingdom, Christ will deliver the kingdom to his father, um For example, but But yeah, for example, this odd phrase in Corinth, it's going to be interesting to really, really explore. I haven't really gotten into it. It will take a lot of, again, of local context to understand it, I think, not just a literary context. It's extremely odd. Yeah. yeah, it was my next question is, in a way that how do we deal with this particular phrase? Yeah, it's it is a very fascinating phrase. Because because it is actually so like a literal translation of it could be like for the kingdom of God is not in a word, but in power. Because and what I'm trying to put the emphasis on it actually that it's ἐν λόγῳ it's singular rather than plural in Greek. There's no verb either, so we don't actually, this is quite an interesting phrase because what does that mean? Because they had, like I think most translations render it's in plural, like it's not in words, but that can also be that because English find that more, about rhetoric or uh-huh. Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh Yeah, but it's in logo. Yeah Uh-huh important in that part of 1 Corinthians. And it would be interesting to maybe compare it with Timothy Brookins' work on, like he argues that the wisdom in Corinth was like stoic philosophy. Which is basically the opposite of what most other people think. Many people think it's sophistic rhetoric, as you were mentioning all. It can still be a philosophical term that he is saying, God's kingdom is power, is the Spirit, is Jesus that is the center there, the power of God has he has identified that as Jesus earlier in the letter. So it's quite interesting that there seems to be like this, that Jesus is more central to the kingdom of God in a way that and to our faith in him and that he's central, know, trying to like, from thinking on the fly, that's why I'm sort of stopping a little bit here. yeah. And you know, he says that he will know, right, because of these people, he will know not their words, but their power, right? And then he says that the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. And again, like the exegesis, of course, right, has been done before. ah But again, right, the... We'll see maybe, yeah, once I review inscriptions, hopefully we can find something. ah But yeah, it has to make sense in the literary context. can say that. We have to do the exegesis and he has to make sense in the literary context. But knowing more on Corinth will for sure help us illuminate this because yeah, so it's not in word but in power. Yeah. What does that mean? Oh, you know, yeah. And Paul is kind of, honestly, Paul is kind of cryptic, because he, like in Romans he's like, know, kingdom of God is not eating or drinking, you know. Okay. Okay. Okay, Paul. uh and it might have been cryptic to the original readers at all, actually. This might have been very, like, they might have known exactly what he meant by it. But it might have been lost in history to us, at least in our conversation today. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I am assuming his readers, I'm assuming he knew his audience. uh You know, and I'm assuming he knew at least the local context of Rome. know, yeah, mean, yeah, sure. So, but yeah, no, it's again, you know, something I didn't mention is that Kingdom of God has been explored in Paul. But it has either been explored via the Jesus and Paul approach, which I'm not doing that. But it has not been explored, taking into account the respective local context of the addresses. So that is really the new part of the research. ah Yeah. So we'll see. Yeah, have some of your preliminary look at the inscriptions because you're looking at your inscriptions in your research. Have that helped some of your thinking about it at this current stage in your research? Yes, it has helped at least in the falsification of kingdom language used for Rome and king being used for Caesar. It really has helped on that, you know, even touching... actually something on translation, know, the res guestae, this famous inscription of the deeds of Augustus, which, you know, there have been some copies of this found in the province, in what was the province of Galatia, right? But we have a bilingual inscription found in Ankara, know, in modern-day Turkey, but It was in North Galatia. And even there, you can see in the intro, like the Latin and the Greek, the Greek is translated. It takes out things like the Latin begins with like, you know, the deeds of Augustus. I don't remember exactly, but like how he subjected the whole world to the Roman, you know, imperium, et cetera, not to the Roman people. And the Greek takes that part of, you know, the translation. It's a faithful translation, they're like adapting this for the Greek audience. It's fascinating. ah But yeah, like in the inscriptions and, you know, like in the, well, in the coins, we really don't find the Caesar address, you know, with Kingly language and really in the inscriptions, we don't either. The term used, you know, imperator didn't really mean emperor. It was kind of a military title. You you held power, of course, you had imperium. But it didn't mean when we say emperor, we think it's super loaded for us now. know, Franz Josef, emperor, you know, they have from the Habsburg dynasty. Like, it's very loaded for us. And it didn't mean, of course, that. But the Greek translates imperator with autocrator, never with basileus. and it's not used for any of the Cesar's until like hundreds of years later, you finally start seeing, you know, Basileus used for Cesar. So the inscriptions have helped me, the material evidence has helped me to falsify or at least say, well, we don't find Kingly language for Cesar, you know, or for Rome. that's interesting. That's interesting, especially because it's, it's a very popular kind of, if you follow NT Wright he's probably the one who's popular, popularized this view. I don't know if he invented it, but that's, so it's definitely something that is, is very prominent. It's like this. And, and Mike Bird is kind of following in his footsteps with this, like his book, like that's I have not read Mike Bird's new book which seems to go a little bit in the same from the title. It looks to go in the thread of like the day the revolution began with by Wright. But the question is also how Paul uses it in comparison to the gospels and there are differences. Yes, yes, there will be differences. Yeah, can you highlight some of the differences from your research, for the audience? Yeah, mean, uh what I would say is that the local context, you know, again, we have to give, think, credence to the New Testament authors that they knew the well, first of all, they had particular provenances, right, places from from from what they wrote their things, but also that we have to give them credits that they knew their local audience and the people to which they were writing. And for me, least, if, you know, I was talking about this in this New Testament seminar yesterday, if Paul would have written a letter to Jerusalem, that would have been fascinating, you know. Maybe he wrote one and got lost, I don't know. But like, yeah, it does seem to me, again, especially because the gospels are more biographical, you know, in nature, whereas the Pauline Epistles, again, they're circumstantial. And they are addressed to different people, you know, in different places of the Greco-Roman world. There will be differences. Again, I'm no gospel, you know, scholar, so I don't want to overstep. think for the gospels, for example, you have to take much more into account the Jewish background. of this, the connotations of the Jewishness of kingdom, of God, cetera. I think for the Paulian epistles, it's important because of Paul himself, but you have to take into account much more the Greco-Roman context. So I don't want to overstep. I'm not a gospel scholar, and I don't want to say something that maybe a gospel scholar says like, well, please teach me. You know how it is. This is my little corner of the world. yeah, yeah. Sometimes it's also better to say less than more. Yes, yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. So I have this, it's also in relation to like Tyler Hoagland says basically, there seems to be like a differentiation between, and his reason is that, reason he says that the reason why Paul is not using it is because it seems like other early Christians than the gospels, the gospel talks a lot about the kingdom of God because the king is here, Jesus is here, and as he is not present on earth, the kingdom is not present, at least not in the same sense. And he's actually arguing that early Christians thought of it that way. So I don't know if that is helpful or meaningful. em can you repeat that? He's that the king has left. ah So Jesus is in heaven now, so he's not present, so his kingdom is not present because he is not here in that sense, not at least in the same senses in the gospels. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So I don't want to overstate it. We'll need to go back and listen to what he argues. And it is his PhD. It's not been published. It's fairly recent that he finished it. em And that could explain why he is using it so much less. That he is, yeah, we need to be ready for the Kingdom when it comes. And Jesus returns, need to be ready. And you will not inherit it if you live in this way. Mm hmm. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Although I have to say, I think there are some elements, you know, kind of a now not to get to systematic, you know, because I'm not a systematic theologian. But I think there are some elements of a now and not yet kind of thing, you know, approach from Paul. ah It could be that there is like a suffering aspect of the kingdom because indeed he warns people that they will not inherit the kingdom. you know, it's eschatology. There is some eschatology involved there. And I think in First Corinthians, we can see that, right? This full consummation and... And right. It's Jesus is raining on to all his enemies, right. Are defeated. And the last enemy is death. So of course, that's like the consummation that he gives the kingdom to the father. But I think there is an aspect in Paul that for him, the kingdom seems to also be a present reality, even if, know, some people don't inherit that. Yeah. I think, know, at least in Greek thought, kings were virtuous, had to be virtuous, you know. And I think there is a lot of, again, not saying that this is Paul's thinking, but this is something that at least his Greek audience could have understood, you know, tying concepts of being virtuous and not vicious with inheriting. you know, something, uh yeah, like a kingdom. But yeah, I see elements of a now aspect as well. So anyway, it would be fascinating to talk, you know, again, yeah, I could be wrong, completely wrong, you know, and yeah, but yeah, we, yeah, we're... just listening to the Tyler and it's interesting what he's kind of like found in the early Christian literature. m And, and there may, I, I'm assuming that there is definitely lots of already not yet in Paul that is the tension between an inaugurated reality. Thank you. in our inaugurated kingdom, you're kind of part of the kingdom, but it's not like been inaugurated in the world yet. So in that sense, maybe potentially we could talk about it that way. yeah, and that's why it's interesting because when we look at 2 Thessalonians, Paul connects believers who endure persecution and affliction with people being worthy to the kingdom or actually for the kingdom, depends on how you relate the genitive. Yeah, yeah. Yes. Yeah, so, which is a little bit interesting because it kind of is, and it's also an interesting phrase because it is an infinitive clause, which could be purpose or result as well. it's, but how should we understand it in Paul's, like we've been talking about how Paul talks about the kingdom of God and how does that fit into the concept that we have been uncovering? The second Thessalonians passage? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think honestly that may be related to the kind of like inaugurated reality, but not this now not yet thing. And the wordiness aspect of it. I think this is something that his Thessalonians, the Thessalonians would have probably had in the back of their minds. oh Yeah, yeah, it's gonna be interesting. Now, I will say that I am mainly focusing on the seven undisputed epistles. I don't want to get into debates with people about authorship, the reality is that of course, you know... Like for my own research, know, not for this dissertation, but for my own research, I'm going to look at all of Paul, you know, all the epistles. ah But yeah, in the second Thessalonians passage, I do think, you know, we have this, we see a little bit of this element of a, of a not yet, you know, aspect. uh while being worthy and well suffering here, et cetera. Yeah. But again, I think this concept of worthiness, of virtue, if you will, is something that the Thessalonians, this will resonate with the Thessalonian audience. uh Yeah. Yeah. he talks about how they suffered and did like it's and you suffered for this and you will endure and God will will. Yeah, and God will repay those people who have persecuted you. He they're not going to get away with it. And in the first letter to Thessalonians, he's also praising them because they have suffered. Yeah. And the first letter to Thessalonians is extremely, I mean, we're talking about the second one, but the first one is extremely eschatological. mean, he goes to eschatology at the end of all the chapters. And the theme of suffering is very present also in the first letter to Thessalonians. yeah. He praises them for that, for the example that they have. He says, you know, have suffered just like the churches in Judea have also suffered, et cetera, et But yeah, yeah, it's interesting. Yeah, exactly. thought that. But maybe the pre-ultimate question I would like to ask you is, how do you see the language of Kingdom of God relate to his justification language? I don't know, honestly. Like, can you expand on that? I... Yeah. It was, it's more sort of like, when we talk about kingdom, like, is it like justification? Is that how we get into the kingdom or we are ready to, worthy to become part of the kingdom? Is that related to the heir? But maybe it's because these concepts actually is, are in Paul quite connected. Mm-hmm. in the first place. was just that was sort of like my interest in it in the question. That was what I was thinking. yeah, yeah to be honest, um, I mean Right, in Paul, I'm assuming all his terms are interconnected in some way, right? um But yeah, right now, I'm not sure how justification and basilea, know, tuteu, are tied. I'm not even claiming they're not, but I'm not sure. I see much more. a poignant question, inheritance and βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, you know. And of course we can claim, well, inheritance and sonship are tied. So then, right. And the question then for a PhD student is where do you draw the line and say, cannot keep like, for me, it's a, you know, with inheritance, I'm going to stop really because otherwise, you know, I'll finish my project. But yeah, I, yeah, at this point I'm, I'm honestly not sure. uh how it ties to it. ah And I guess it also would depend, right? uh If you ask a Lutheran or a Roman Catholic or a Presbyterian, I know, but yeah, I'm not sure right now, to be honest. Yeah, sorry, audience. Yeah. okay. I did come to think of something because of my interest in resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15.50, which is flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, which is he sets up as a parallel and with like the corruptible cannot inherit the indecorruptible. incorruptible guess And in a sense, this I think ties to justification as well, in a sense, because I think the point is that the kingdom of God is something that is undying, it kind of, doesn't corrupt, it will be there forever. Kind of Daniel, Daniel is at four, like the... the stone that will come and overthrow the kingdoms of the world kind of idea that sort of flows into this. And I think that the point is that in one of the things that he is trying to do here is that he is trying to say that that incorruptibility is something that you you inherit through your justification and the transformation that comes for that kingdom. Because what's interesting is that he goes on to explain that you need to be transformed. And what he doesn't do is that he says like you need to strip off the flesh. He actually says you need to be clothed. You need to put something on. So in that sense, I could go on and on. And I've already done an episode on 1 Corinthians 15. and my view on this, but. But I think in relation to the kingdom of God and how it relates to incorruptibility, it does relate to his justification language in the sense that you need to be able to stand righteous before God in order to be incorruptible. Mm. Mm. So that's my sort of more loose thoughts on this and the connection between the two. Yeah, okay. No, that's fascinating. Honestly, I'd love to pick your brain on that more. Because that stuff of flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God is, yeah, it's fascinating. yeah. Yeah, have you read, yeah, yeah, yeah, tell me. Have you read Joachim Jeramias on this? I'll send you. I'll send you the paper he wrote. Yeah. But no, this passage is... Yeah. I've not read his, maybe I've skimmed it, I've not, I'm aware of it. And I've read exegesis of his stuff on this, but I think James P. Ware in his new monograph actually goes into more detail on it. Okay. Okay. Yeah. trying to make the most sophisticated reading of 1 Corinthians 15, almost extensive reading of 1 Corinthians 15 that has ever been done in modern research. It's, yeah, it is also, I think it has a big claim to it because it is very long. It's 400 pages, 400 pages on one chapter. yeah, it's a very good book. Yeah, but. But I think we're getting off topic on this one now. how would now as we like to apply what we've been talking about. how can the listeners and viewers of our conversation today, how can they apply what you've been talking about to their everyday life? Yeah, I You know I think even if we don't know exactly what βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ means, and we have more negative statements of who cannot inherit it, and it's not in this, but in that, I think there are some things that we do know that first is concerned with ethics, the Kingdom of God, is concerned with ethics. I think that's important for Christians everywhere. ah know, Christ reigning, know, Christ as King of the Kingdom of God. You know, and Paul uses this to tell the churches, well, live godly lives. And I think for us, you know, as Christians everywhere, this is an important thing to be aware of, you know, it's not just this. Paul doesn't just make these statements and it's like, well, you know, he has direct implications. You know, he's concerned with ethics. He's concerned with how Christians live. So yeah, I believe this applies for us, like I said, setting, you know, our minds and things that are pleasing to God, loving our neighbors, you know, as ourselves. Second Greatest Commandment. So I would say on a practical point of view, on the daily walk of the Christian, again, even if we don't know exactly what it means, it has implications that we know. ah I think we can also write rest assured because God is in control, especially in moments of uncertainty, political unrest. It seems that there's political unrest every week now, every day. yeah, know, remembering that, you know, according to 1 Corinthians, Christ will reign until all his enemies are defeated uh and, you know, then deliver the kingdom to his father. And I think lastly, on a personal level, and it ties to, you know, to Christ reigning over all his enemies. I've shared with you, my mom has, for example, she has stage four cancer. My dad was about to die like a month ago, induced coma, et cetera. know, First Corinthians, Paul says in First Corinthians that the last enemy will be death, defeated. And I think on a personal level, and I hope this encourages our heirs, yes, that Christ will, you know, well, he has defeated death, but the last enemy will, you know, to be destroyed will be death. And I think for all Christians, that is a beautiful thing. And it can encourage us to keep going, you know, with a hope that transcends, you know, just this present reality. Even death doesn't have, you know, the last world. So I think for the Christian life, for Christians, that can be an application of kingdom. Again, ethics, how we live, also peace in the midst of political unrest, and then personally with the struggles of life and death, I think. So that's what I would say. Yeah, thank you. That's helpful to just sum it up is that it's the notion that we know that God reigns and he will reign and he will establish a kingdom. He will destroy death and death will not be problem for those who live and live for Christ and hope in him. And that give us hope when the sufferings of life Hit, hit us. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, indeed. Yeah. I think that's that's a beautiful way to end. Thank you for joining me on the podcast Daniel. Yeah Absolutely, it was my pleasure and see you guys out there. I'll see you in the next one But before you go, if you enjoyed this podcast and you want more people to see it, please subscribe and leave a like. It really helps us create more episodes like this one. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Have a great day and I'll see you in the next one.