Introduction

Arguably, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is an eschatological community. With great yearning, we anticipate the imminent glorious appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ which is our blessed hope. We eagerly await the consummation of the promise of the establishment of God’s eschatological kingdom.

However, the perspective of the Kingdom of God that is fixated in the future had been criticized to detach us from the present realities of life and had disengaged us from our social responsibilities. The anticipation of the glorious Kingdom of God and the future blessed hope per se is not wrong. Yet, the practical and present implications of our eschatological belief regarding the Kingdom of God has not received much attention in the Church.

Eschatology is basically defined as the “theology of the last things.”¹ But, it is not only about prophetic charts, millennial views, Sunday Law, and mark of the beast. It is also about present social concerns in view of the ongoing judgment, the nearness of the parousia, and the establishment of God’s eschatological kingdom. I concur with Hans Schwarz as he points out that “eschatology is not just something that has to do with the so-called last things out there but it is also essentially connected with the here and now.”²

A key to understanding the interrelatedness of the present and future aspects of eschatology is found in the theology of the Kingdom of God. The view regarding the Kingdom of God has vast ramifications on the present moral and social aspect of the believer. I agree with Mark Chapman in his observation that “perhaps more than any other theological concept, the Kingdom of God carries a profound ethical burden.”³

Along this line of thought, this study presents a brief survey of the different perspectives on the Kingdom of God, giving emphasis on the view that it is both a present and a future reality. This paper does not intend to be exhaustive. This attempts to provide a framework in creating an awareness that the correct understanding of the Kingdom of God as a present and future reality, therefore has a bearing on how we live today and impact our social actions. The idea of the kingdom of God, which is purely eschatological and detached from the present realities, must be reconsidered.

Different Perspectives on the Kingdom of God

The subject of the Kingdom of God is a popular theme in eschatology and “central in Jesus teaching.”⁴ A widely accepted view on the Kingdom of God as espoused by George Ladd describes the Kingdom of God as God’s “reign,” “rule,” and “authority.”⁵ Jeremias understands the Kingdom of God in the same manner, reasoning that in the OT in almost all cases “it stands for the government, the authority, the power of the king.”⁶ The same view is endorsed by Adventist theologian, Raoul Dederen, who includes the realm as a secondary aspect.7 However, the bone of contention in the debate regarding the Kingdom of God is centered on its timing. From among other NT passages that talk about the Kingdom of God (e.g., Mark 1: 14-15 [eggiken]; Matt 5; 11:2, 5; Luke 10:9 [eggiken]; 11:20 [ephthasen]; and kingdom parables in Matt 13), three prevalent understandings exist among Bible scholars: (a) eschatological, (b) non-eschatological, and (c) both present and future. Each view will be briefly discussed and critiqued with their respective implications to the believer’s moral and social responsibility.

The Kingdom of God as Eschatological

The view that the Kingdom of God that is purely eschatological or apocalyptic is also known as consistent eschatology. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) and Johannes Weiss (1863-1914), representatives of this view, put forward the idea that Jesus initially believed that the apocalyptic Kingdom was imminent and would come in His lifetime but later realized that it would come shortly after His death on the cross.⁸

Weiss argues that the kingdom of God is yet in the future and that, in the mind of Jesus, is not “something subjective, inward, or spiritual” but an “objective messianic Kingdom.”⁹ He adds that the Kingdom of God is pictured not only as a rule but a realm; therefore, one has to strive to enter into.¹⁰ In his book, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, Weiss examines several biblical passages like Matt 11:3, 6, 11 and 21:31 and contends that these references give “little support” to the idea that the Kingdom of God is already present.¹¹ He reasons that Matt 21:31 should not be interpreted that the tax collectors and prostitutes are already in the Kingdom of God but rather, they will be ahead into it than the religious leaders of Jesus’ time.¹²

Another component of consistent eschatology is the unworldliness of the Kingdom of God. Weiss is emphatic that the Kingdom of God is granted to His people; “it does not come by the hand of man”¹³; but rather “would come by a miraculous intrusion of God to terminate human history.”¹⁴ In other words, the “actualization of the Kingdom of God is not a matter of human initiative, but entirely a matter of God’s initiative.”¹⁵ Mark Chapman calls this view of the Kingdom as the “wholly other.”¹⁶

Consistent eschatology does not see the Kingdom of God as an ethical paradigm. For Schweitzer, Jesus’ eschatological understanding had shaped his ethical teachings but he clarifies that it is “not so much as an ethic as a penitential discipline” to prepare one to enter into the Kingdom.¹⁷

Consistent eschatology repudiates liberal theologians and those who believe that the Kingdom of God is already present by arguing that the emphasis on the ethical aspect of the Kingdom of God is “thoroughly unbiblical.”¹⁸ To the disapproval of liberal theologians, Schweitzer, argues that Jesus’ ethical teachings are not to be considered as the standard for human conduct today but merely an interim ethics due to the immediate parousia.¹⁹ For Weiss, the opinion that the realization of the Kingdom of God has arrived through human ethical conduct is completely absent in the mind of Jesus.²⁰

The purely eschatological view of the Kingdom of God does not enjoy a great following for theological and practical reasons. Nonetheless, consistent eschatology is to be commended on its position that it is only through God’s initiative will the Kingdom of God will be fully realized. But then, perhaps the strength of a purely thorough-going eschatology is also its weakness.

A purely futuristic outlook of the Kingdom of God does not take into consideration several biblical passages that proclaim that the bridegroom has come and the Kingdom of God had arrived.²¹ Moreover, “When the kingdom of God is understood as ‘wholly other’ it implies an ethic of withdrawal, a longing for an escape from the corrupt sinful world, which leads naturally to the ethics of the sect.”²² Simply said, consistent eschatology seems to ignore the social aspect of the Kingdom of God. This may be brought about by its perspective that in the eschaton which is quite imminent, God in His own time and initiative will renew all things and put an end to all evil.

The Kingdom of God as non-eschatological

In contrast to the view that the Kingdom of God is literal and eschatological is the understanding that it is purely a present spiritual state.²³ Propounded by Charles H. Dodd (1884-1973), “realized eschatology” teaches that the Kingdom of God is a present reality and not a future apocalypse.²⁴ He is convinced that “the eschaton has moved from the future to the present, from the sphere of expectation into that of realized experience.”²⁵ He asserts that the futuristic eschatology in the Gospels is a mere “reflection of the experience of the early Church,” but the Kingdom of God as seen in the ministry of Jesus is that of “realized eschatology.”²⁶ If there is any future element in the Kingdom of God according to Dodd, it would rather be spiritual than historical. For him, the coming of the Kingdom of God or the second coming of Christ is not a historical future event for this already happened during the resurrection.²⁷

Unlike Weiss and Schweitzer, for Dodd, Jesus’ ethical teaching is not an interim ethics but rather a moral ideal of all who accepts the Kingdom of God and lives in the light of the judgment.²⁸ Although Dodd considers the Kingdom of God as a present reality and acknowledges its ethical dimension, he warns that this should not be interpreted that the Kingdom of God will be realized through an ethical and moral order of society.²⁹ He clarifies that “there is no hint that the Kingdom of God is Utopia.”³⁰ His view attracted a great following among NT scholars in English universities and American seminaries from the 1930s until the 1940s.³¹

A nuanced version of realized eschatology espoused by modern liberal theologians and critical scholars denigrate the future and eschatological aspect of the Kingdom of God which to them is also an early church interpretation.³² For them, it is purely ethical and is “realized in the interaction of men on the principle of love.”³³ Moreover, they believe that the Kingdom of God “represents a new social order on earth achieved by human effort and guided by the ethical teachings of Jesus.”³⁴ Still others, according to Ladd, “have understood the Kingdom of God to be essentially an ideal pattern for human society.”³⁵ They advance the idea that “the kingdom is not primarily concerned with individual salvation or with the future but with the social problems of the present.”³⁶

Albrecht Ritschl, a proponent of this view, holds the opinion that “the reign of God was concretely identified with the institutional Church and even with the structure of the state, which meant that God’s rule was manifested in divinely inspired human institutions”³⁷ Walter Rauschenbusch, another adherent of realized eschatology, believes that the Kingdom of God is a combination of the social and religious facets but also denied that it is apocalyptic. He writes, “The Kingdom of God had to ‘slough off apocalypticism if it is to become the religious property of the modern world.’”³⁸

On the one hand, Vos who supports realized eschatology, debunks the one-sidedness of the non-eschatological understanding of the Kingdom of God.³⁹ Although it is obvious that he places greater weight on the present reality of the Kingdom of God through the Church or even as the Church,⁴⁰ he does not negate its eschatological aspect. He writes, “while the kingdom is now actually coming, a complete separation between the evil and the good cannot be effected until the end of the world.”⁴¹

Liberation theology resonates realized eschatology’s understanding of the Kingdom of God as a presently reality. However, liberation theologians adopt a more radical view of the Kingdom of God in the sense that they go beyond the understanding of it as being the reign of God in a spiritual sense but more importantly a realm in the present which could be realized through human efforts. Liberation theologians’ understanding of “realized eschatology” places primary emphasis on the present aspect of the Kingdom of God which serves as framework of their social gospel. They strongly criticize a concept of religious experience which dichotomizes between the religious and socio-political life.

Not that this understanding is altogether wrong, but the idea of the primacy of the social and political concerns with regards to the Kingdom of God is biblically suspect. In his critique of liberation theology, Craig Nessan correctly observes that, in an effort to avoid a dualism on religious and political practice, liberation theologians have placed more emphasis on the social-political dimension that the distinction between the divine initiative and the human response has frequently come blurry.”⁴² In the same line of thought, Schwarz adds that in liberation theology “often the human role seems to dominate, and the divine initiative is placed second by insisting that the kingdom of God has a dynamic, even, utopian significance for human history already in the present.”⁴³ Schwarz, quoting John Paul II, writes, “A theology of liberation which is not founded on the gospel . . . is a false theology.”⁴⁴ He adds, “Those who are concerned about liberation are similar to many of the earliest followers of Jesus. They attempt to take the inauguration of the kingdom in their own hands.”⁴⁵

Dodd’s eschatology is to be commended for its emphasis on the present realization of the Kingdom of God. Furthermore, his warning against making the present interpretation of the Kingdom of God as a utopia is noteworthy. However, his insistence on realized eschatology as solely a present reality and his spiritualization of the Kingdom of God is biblically untenable. As David P. Gushee and Glen H. Stassen correctly mention that realized eschatology does not consider NT passages that point to the consummation of the Kingdom of God.⁴⁶ The Bible is clear that God Himself will set up a Kingdom that never will be destroyed (Dan 2). Moreover, the time is coming that Satan will be totally eradicated and the whole humanity will be freed from the powers and presence of evil (Rev 20). Gushee and Stassen add that realized eschatology ignores “the terrible sinfulness, brokenness, and misery that still characterizes human life.”⁴⁷ All these ills show that “the Kingdom is not yet realized.”⁴⁸ Having considered all the preceding arguments one can see that realized eschatology is correct in what it affirms-that the Kingdom of God has come, yet is wrong on what it denies-that the Kingdom of God is non-eschatological.

The Kingdom of God as both present and future (inaugurated eschatology)

There is a growing consensus among Bible scholars on the perspective that the Kingdom of God is both a present and future reality.⁴⁹ Two of the most influential evangelicals who advance this view are G. R. Beasley-Murray and George Eldon Ladd. Beasley-Murray convincingly argues that the Kingdom of God according to Jesus is “the fulfilment of the promises of God in the OT of the time when God puts forth his royal power to end injustice and oppression by the worlds evil powers to establish the rule of righteousness, peace and joy for humanity.”⁵⁰ Clearly this points to the future consummation of God’s Kingdom. However, Beasley-Murray asserts that the ministry of Jesus inaugurated the eschatological Kingdom of God and the sovereign action of God that brings salvation and transformation in the universe has begun.⁵¹

Ladd maintains that the Kingdom of God is both a present and future reality.⁵² Furthermore, he claims, “The Age to Come remain no longer exclusively in the future but have become objects of the present experience in This Age.”⁵³ On the same vein, Dederen believes that “God’s kingdom which will come in glory at the end of the age (Matt. 25: 31-46; cf 13: 36-43) which will bring the rebirth of the material order (Matt. 19:28), has come into history in the person of Jesus Christ (Luke 17:21).”⁵⁴

Inaugurated eschatology presents a tension of the already and the not yet regarding the Kingdom of God.⁵⁵ Louis Berkhof articulates the tension of the present and the future aspects of the Kingdom of God when he wrote that “though the Lord refers to the Kingdom as a present reality, He more often speaks of it as the future state of consummation of happiness, in which the whole life of man and society will be in perfect harmony with the will of God . . . clearly the kingdom of God is ultimately an eschatological concept.”⁵⁶

Likewise, Schillebeeckx reads in Jesus’ eschatological parables the present and future reality of the Kingdom of God. He contends that “the lordship of God, which is in Jesus is ‘at hand’ (Mk 1:15) and already operative (Lk 11: 20), and yet still is ‘still to come.’ (Mt. 6:10).”⁵⁷ Further, he reasons that “God’s lordship or dominion is the divine power itself in its saving activity within our history, but at the same time the final, eschatological state of affairs that brings to an end the evil world, dominated by the forces of calamity and woe, and initiates the new world in which God ‘appears to full advantage.’”⁵⁸ For him, the consummation of the Kingdom of God refers to a more “definitive state of ‘final good’ to which God’s saving activity is directed.”⁵⁹

Of all the perspectives of the Kingdom of God discussed above the view that it is both a present and a future reality is the most plausible. Taking into consideration all the arguments presented, one can agree with the view that the Kingdom of God is a present reality although its consummation is yet in the eschaton.

The Kingdom of God and Its Implications to Social Responsibility

The view that the Kingdom of God is both a present and an eschatological reality, bears practical and moral implications in the life of the believer here and now. As mentioned earlier in Adventist circles, the eschatological dimension of the Kingdom of God as our ultimate hope is duly emphasized. However, its present reality and practical dimension calls for equal attention. Both its moral and ethical aspects must be considered.

Unlike Protestant Liberalism, which views the Kingdom of God as a present reality and purely ethical and consistent eschatology which is thorough-going futuristic and denies its social dimension, the eschatology espoused in the Scriptures is a present reality which look at its consummation in the eschaton. This understanding has a direct bearing on how we live today and relate to all creation. The present realization of the Kingdom of God must be demonstrated in moral and ethical life of the believer as he/she anticipates its consummation during the parousia.

In consonance with the implication of the understanding of the Kingdom of God as both a present and a future reality, C. S. Song brings out an idea worth reflecting. He says that we often think of the Kingdom of God in eschatological and futuristic terms in connection with the notion that the saints will reign with God in His kingdom.⁶⁰ Consequently, “all too easily we think of God’s reign in relation to heaven and not to earth, in relation to the future rather than to the present.”⁶¹ However, he is emphatic that “the future is not the negation of the present but the fulfillment of it and then the transformation of it. The future is the fulfilled and transformed present. It is only in this way that we perceive the vital connection between the coming of God’s reign and the doing of God’s will on earth.”⁶²

Robert E. Webber likewise acknowledges the social implications of the present and future dimensions in Christian eschatology. He writes that Christ’s death and resurrection broke the strong hold of death and evil powers over men but “the completion of Christ’s work against the powers will not occur until the Second Coming.”⁶³ He adds that “Christ power over evil is both a present reality and a future hope.” With this in mind, he writes,

We are called to a social involvement that seeks to transform the present culture, moving it toward a greater approximation of the ideal. We ought not to expect a utopia to result. But we ought to believe that change is possible and that working for this change is a way of witnessing to the ultimate reality of God’s kingdom. The Christian hope that sin will be destroyed and peace will reign is more than a dream. It is a task that we are to work toward even though we know it will be universally realized only by the consummation of Christ’s work in His Second Coming.⁶⁴

When the Kingdom of God is correctly understood, it should propel us to be actively engaged in our social responsibility. We cannot be insensitive to the social concerns around us believing that everything will be fine in the “sweet by and by.” The eschatological community must be engaged in caring for people, the needy, helping the poor, seeking justice, and taking care of the environment while we wait for the consummation of the Kingdom of God. To be able to be in the future Kingdom of God means to be in the Kingdom of the present. To be in the present Kingdom of God is demonstrated by being engaged in social actions as shown in the ministry of Jesus. I agree with Kis that “as an integral part of the civic community, a Christian cannot evade responsibility toward society.”⁶⁵

Ladd is right when he states, “The church is an eschatological community not only because it witnesses to God’s future victory but because its mission is to display the life of the eschatological Kingdom in the present evil age.”⁶⁶ Indeed, “the Church is called to be now what the world is called to be ultimately.”⁶⁷ Kabwena Dounker brings out the same idea by stating that the Church as the agency of the Kingdom of God in anticipation of the imminent parousia must be actively engaged in social action-to help the poor and the needy.⁶⁸

Eschatology and Social Responsibility As Found in the Scriptures

The social implications of one’s eschatological belief finds backing in the Scriptures. Numerous OT and NT passages about the day of the Lord and the Kingdom of God show the correlation of eschatology and social responsibility. The social implications of eschatology can be found in the teachings of the OT prophets, the Gospels, in the teachings of Jesus, as well as in the writings of the apostles. These we will find in the succeeding section.

Eschatology and social responsibility in the OT

As previously mentioned, the Kingdom of God could be interpreted as His kingly reign. Jeremias looks at this as “the reign of God in action” as the king of righteousness. He adds that from the earliest period, the oriental view of kingly righteousness as was also held in Israel during the time of Jesus is that of protecting the helpless, the weak and the poor, widows and orphans.”⁶⁹

In another aspect, Ladd observes that in the OT, in reference to the understanding of the Day of the Lord, “there is a close relationship between the ethical concern of the prophets and their eschatological perspective.”⁷⁰ He writes,

The prophets were not primarily concerned about the time of the eschatological redemption, nor were they primarily concerned with that redemption in itself. They were concerned with the state of God’s people in their day and with God’s will for his people Furthermore, the prophets were not primarily concerned with the question of chronology but with the ethical impact of the future upon the present.⁷¹

Ladd argues that the prophets’ “warning of the nearness of the Day of the Lord is more a note of ethical exhortation that it is a chronological reference.”⁷² In reference to the day of the Lord, Amos warns, “Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord!” but do not “let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream” (Amos 5:18, 24).

Moreover, Murray Dempster points out that “in formulating his moral judgments about individual behaviors and social practices, Jesus drew on many Old Testament concepts” such as the value of humanity, the moral significance of the law and its fulfillment in real life, justice in human affairs, among others.⁷³ As we shall see, the correlation of eschatology to social action become more pronounced in the Kingdom parables of Jesus in the NT.

Eschatology and social responsibility in the NT

In the NT eschatological themes in relation to the Kingdom of God occupy an important place. As previously mentioned, it is central to the teaching of Jesus, in the Gospels as well as in the Epistles.

Darrell L. Bock notes that Lukan eschatology functions as “hope and accountability.”⁷⁴ He adds that one of the great tensions in NT eschatology is the fact the Jesus’ return, which is said to be soon, is placed alongside the fact that the church has a mission to the whole world.”⁷⁵

Social responsibility and eschatology in the teachings of the Apostles.

Eschatological themes are dominant in the writings of the apostles. Although it is apparent that they anticipate an imminent parousia, their teaching on eschatology is not purely futuristic but rich with social implications. In 2 Peter, the eschatological themes like entrance into the eternal kingdom (1:11), coming of the day of the Lord (3:4), day of judgment (3:7), and new heaven and new earth (3:13) carry “moral and practical import.”⁷⁶ Peter, in the context of the expectation of the “Coming day of the Lord,” calls the believers to holy living in this present world (2 Peter 3:3-18).

One can agree with Peter H. Davids that Peter’s primary concern is “the present lived in the future.”⁷⁷ Davids’ claims that 2 Peter teaches that although in this world, virtue seems of little value for this age has no future and that living for this life alone has no hope, but the present virtue is beneficial for the coming age in light of the coming judgment. He concludes, “Eschatology is there to support ethics, for Christian ethics only make sense in the light of Christian eschatology.”⁷⁸

Likewise, Paul exhorts that the future glorious hope must impact the present moral, and ethical life (Titus 2: 11-15, NIV). Again good works, though not a requirement to salvation, are inevitably the result of it. Moreover, godliness (eusebia) which is considered “the bridge between faith and good works,” is a description of an authentic Christian experience.⁷⁹

Social Responsibility and eschatology in the teachings of Jesus

The teachings of Jesus regarding the eschatological day of the Lord clearly show that the present and future are interrelated. In Matt 24, when Jesus was pressed by his disciples to tell the day of His coming, He pointed to its hiddenness (v. 36) and exhorted them to be ready for that day and the judgment. “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming” (v.42 NIV). He refers to the coming of the Kingdom and the judgment as related events.⁸⁰ In fact “the setting up of the Kingdom was to be preceded by the Day of Judgment.”⁸¹

In Matt 25 through a series of parables, Jesus taught his disciples how to be ready for the Kingdom. As R. T. France observes, the parables in Matthew chapters 23-25 carry the theme of judgment. He points out that the call for readiness for the parousia and the question what constitute readiness are prime issues in these parables.⁸² Referring to the parable of the sheep and the goats, France maintains that “this is a straight forward judgment scene, similar in its conception to the prophetic and apocalyptic visions of the ‘day of the Lord’ in the Old Testament and in the later Jewish literature.”⁸³ He adds that “the criterion of judgment is not their (Gentiles) attitude to Israel, or even to God’s law, but their treatment of Jesus’ ‘little brothers.’”⁸⁴

France explains that this should not be understood that salvation is based on merit through acts of kindness or any other ethical practice outside doctrinal belief. I can fully agree with France that judgment is not merely based on philanthropy but rather on “men’s response to the kingdom of heaven as it is presented to them in the person of Jesus’ ‘brothers.’”⁸⁵ Christ identified himself with the social outcast, the poor, and hungry. Therefore, one’s attitude towards the marginalized members of the society is a considered as one’s attitude towards Christ Himself, thus demonstrating if one is in our out of the Kingdom of God. France concludes that in the parable the real issue rests on the question of one’s relationship to Jesus.⁸⁶ Through the parable of the sheep and the goats Jesus teaching on the day of the Lord and the judgment show the implication of the Kingdom of God in the praxis of the believer.

Stressing the relation of the eschatological kingdom to the present life, Schillebeeckx correctly states that

Jesus makes a connection between the coming of God’s rule and metanoia, that is, the actual praxis of the Kingdom of God. The Lord’s Prayer suggests a fundamental connection between ‘your kingdom come’ and ‘your will be done on earth’: carrying out God’s will in our mundane history has to do with the coming of God’s kingdom, always in that dialectic, typical of Jesus, between ‘present’ and ‘future.’ The latter is always greater than the present, but stimulates us in the present to religious and ethical conduct in accord with the Kingdom of God.⁸⁷

Schillebeeckx continues that the Lordship of God and orthopraxis is demonstrated in the ministry of Jesus “in his ‘going about, doing good,’ in his taking sides with the dispossessed and outcasts.”⁸⁸ Likewise, these loving acts must be demonstrated in the lives of those who profess to be in the Kingdom of God. Schwarz observes that the kingdom parables “seem to indicate that at one point it will become evident who has entered the Kingdom of God and who has not, or in other words, good and evil will be separated (cf. Matt. 13:30, 49-52).”⁸⁹ He makes it clear that although the final separation will be in the future, “there exist already an invisible separation” that will “become visible and irreversible.”⁹⁰ One can see that in the teachings of Jesus especially in the Kingdom parables, particularly the parable of the sheep and the goats, give us the hint that those who profess to follow Jesus and show concern to the needy are in the present Kingdom of God.

Conclusion

This study has shown that Christian eschatology is not purely about end time doctrines or events but also connected with the present. In biblical eschatology there is a tension of the already and the not yet. The interrelatedness of the present and the future of eschatology is demonstrated in the correct understanding of the timing or the realization of the Kingdom of God. Although proponents of the different perspectives of the Kingdom of God all look at the Scriptures to find backing of their position, this study has shown that most Bible scholars favor the view that the Kingdom of God as understood by Jesus and the apostles is both a present and future reality.

Moreover, this study has shown that the understanding of the Kingdom of God as both a present and future reality has a bearing on one’s social action. Furthermore, Jesus’ and the apostles’ teachings show that entering into God’s eschatological Kingdom is preceded by the judgment. In turn the verdict of the judgment is related to work or one’s social action as shown how Jesus Himself treated the underprivileged and the outcasts. As shown in the Kingdom parables preparation in anticipation of the eschatological Kingdom of God must be done in in the present. In other words, the present aspect of the Kingdom of God must be demonstrated in the moral and practical life of the believer in view of the judgment and the Parousia.

Finally, as a Church, we are called to be more actively engaged in our social responsibility while we long for the consummation of God’s glorious Kingdom. We have a mission in the present in anticipation of the future. Our biblical understanding of the Kingdom of God as both a present and future reality must lead us to reconsider an eschatology that is purely fixated in the future.