Hi Lloyd thanks a lot for the answers. To truly start to understand exactly what the Kingdom of God is we need to first look at when the phrase was first used and what it meant. I dont see the phrase ‘Kingdom of God’ used in OT but I would argue that the Kingdom language used in Daniel points to the evolotion of this phrase. Based on this ‘logic’, I would agree with you on the answer to the first question. To digress - I read some stuff by Brad Young and some of his friends the other day (Bard Young writes to help christians understand the Jewish culture and better interpret difficult texts) and they seemed to think that for the first century Jews the Kingdom of God was wherever Torah was obeyed. So here’s a jewish/christian scholar saying something totally different.

Anyway, if we take some of the NT texts seriously we have to ask some hard questions about the more metaphysical rules of God. For example take Matt11:11. It says that no one that has lived before has been as great as John the baptist but the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Now whatever we believe the Kingdom of God to be, it needs to make sense of these words. For example my interpretation would be that Israel had been waiting for the great day of their liberation which the prophets had foretold and hoped for. Now John was proclaiming the start of the establishment of this kingdom, the great turn in Israel’s history had begun. The prophets dreamed of this day but John gets to announce its immenent arrival. Hence, he had a great honour that no other person before him had ever had. On other hand John does not get to experience the new age, the Kingdom of God, but the least who are alive when the kingdom comes, whoever that is, get to experience the coming and consumation of the great dream. How would other interpretations make sense of this? Also the famous or infamous Matt16:28 scripture? If the kingdom was a reality to be entered into as opened up by Jesus or if the kingdom was Jesus or if the kingdom was in heaven (John would be there?) then why these confusing texts? However, scriptures like Matt11:12 and Matt12:28 are often problems for the interpretation of the Kingdom of God I have adopted.

I disagree that the location of the Kingdom of God is in heaven. For me this changes everything about the nature of the kingdom of God and how it was used in the first century. Yes God rules, he is sovereign, the earth and evrything in it is his. But I think the ‘Kingdom of God’ phrase was not developed to explain this rule. It was a hope that God would be who they knew he was i.e. their one and only king on earth, not in heaven. I think God rules from heaven but the kingdom of God is on earth.

You use harpazo (to seize?) very interestingly. I think I can see how you would interpret Matt 11:12? But what exactly is the parousial resurrection? I thought Jesus’ parousia comes after his resurrection?

And finally regarding heaven. I feel being in heaven with God can be overemphasised to the detriment of what God was doing in establishing his Kingdom on earth. Going back to Matt 11:11, a more heavenly perpsective is hard to reconcile with what the writer is saying about John in this text, in my opinion. As always due to my inexperience and rashness to adopt new perspectives, I am open to correction. (I think)

Thanks
 Ryan