Why Did Matthew Use "Kingdom of Heaven"?

(avg. read time: 10–19 mins.)

Matthew has a peculiar interest in the heavens, as he uses οὐρανός eighty-two times in his Gospel, far more than even Revelation. Although Matthew uses the phrase for the kingdom of God that appears in the other Synoptics (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ) in four instances (12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43), Matthew has a clear preference for ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (“the kingdom of the heavens”). He uses some variation of this phrase thirty-two times (Matt 3:2; 4:17; 5:3, 10, 19 [2x], 20; 7:21; 8:11; 10:7; 11:11–12; 13:11, 24, 31, 33, 44–45, 47, 52; 16:19; 18:1, 3–4, 23; 19:12, 14, 23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1) in addition to twenty references to God as the “Father who is in heaven” (5:16, 45; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; 10:32–33; 12:50; 16:17; 18:10, 14, 19; 23:9) and the “heavenly Father” (5:48; 6:14, 26, 32; 15:13; 18:35). As such, the titular question that is raised about why Matthew uses the “kingdom of heaven/the heavens” phrase also intersects with larger questions about his use of references to heaven. To guide us in this task of answering this question, I will also be reviewing the most extensive and relatively recent review of this subject that I am aware of: Jonathan Pennington’s Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew.¹

Evaluation of Pennington’s Work

Pennington’s book—a revised version of his 2005 dissertation—presents an important attempt to argue that Matthew’s cosmology (Weltbild) and ontology (Weltanschauung)—particularly the use of references to heaven—are essential ingredients of his theology. In his words, “by focusing on the patterns of Matthew’s use of heaven and the heaven and earth motif we will discover a key theme … that pays rich exegetical and theological dividends for our understanding of the First Gospel” (4). Namely, the uses of the heaven and earth theme all serve to emphasize tension between God’s kingdom in heaven and human kingdoms on earth (7). Pennington establishes this importance by varying forms of statistical analysis, lexical studies of the key terms in Matthew and Jewish texts, and thematic examination to determine how the terminology functions in Matthew. In the process, Pennington deconstructs popular—but shallow—explanations for Jesus’s use of “heaven” language in Matthew that have prevented scholars from perceiving the importance of this language in the theological themes of Matthew. He organizes his argument according to the basic uses of “heaven” language and what he identifies as four aspects of Matthew’s “idiolectic usage” (the language use of an individual; 7) of the heaven language: “1) an intentional distinction in meaning between the singular and plural forms of οὐρανός; 2) the frequent use of the heaven and earth word-pair as a theme; 3) regular reference to the Father in heaven; and 4) the recurrent use of the uniquely Matthean expression, ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν” (7).

While the typical explanation of Matthew’s most distinctive “heaven” language—in the phrase ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν—is that it is a reverential circumlocution in reference to God (in line with Jewish sensitivities to avoid saying the name of God), Pennington identifies numerous factors in opposition to this view that originated from Gustaf Dalman. First, there was no established custom at the time of the NT of avoiding using “God” in the generic term—much less by specifically using “heaven”—since there was no custom that can be found consistently across eras and geographical areas. Second, this thesis relies too heavily on later rabbinic literature. Third, this is too limited of an understanding of how “heaven” functioned in Jewish literature before and during the rabbinic era. Fourth, the actual proposed textual evidence for this tendency before the rabbis is meager. While one can, of course, point to 1 Maccabees as the clearest case of a text using “heaven” in contexts of indirect reference to God (3:18–19, 50, 60; 4:10, 24, 40, 55; 5:31; 9:46; 12:15; 16:3), it is not clear that this was done out of a degree of reverence for God that would dictate that even the generic θεός would be inappropriate. Indeed, this text is not even comparable to Matthew in terms of his use of “kingdom of heaven” because he uses “kingdom of God” on four occasions (12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43) and the generic “God” more often than he uses our key phrase. Pennington contends that where “heaven” indirectly refers to God, it is more likely that the function is that of metonymy, “where heaven refers indirectly to God, not a direct substitution out of avoidance of the divine name, but for a rhetorical and theological purpose: to contrast heaven (God’s realm) with earth (humanity’s realm)” (36; emphasis original). Although he is not the first to draw attention to the problems of the reverential circumlocution interpretation, his articulation of that critique is a notable contribution for its thoroughness and effectiveness in “clearing the ground” for a fresh assessment of Matthew’s cosmological theology.

Pennington notes that Matthew not only has a peculiar prevalence of “heaven” language, but also features an incredibly frequent use of the plural form in a way that must be intentional. The typical explanation for the plural form of οὐρανοί as being a result of the inherently plural form in the Hebrew equivalent does not work because this is not the overwhelming tendency in any other work (9% of all uses of οὐρανός in the LXX are plural, 17% in the Pseudepigrapha are plural, and 18% in the NT outside of Matthew are plural). In contrast, Matthew uses the plural 67% of the time (the exceptions being 5:18, 34; 6:10, 20, 26; 8:20; 11:23, 25; 13:32; 14:19; 16:1–2, 3 [2x]; 18:18 [2x]; 21:25 [2x]; 22:30; 23:22; 24:29, 30 [2x], 35; 26:64; 28:2, 18). Pennington proposes that Matthew uses the singular and plural quite intentionally and specifically. The singular refers to the visible world and functions as part of a pair with “earth,” while the plural refers to the invisible (divine) realm (132). This proposed pattern holds in all but four cases (meaning that it holds in ~95% of the eighty-two uses of οὐρανός). Unfortunately, Pennington’s explanations of these exceptional cases are not entirely convincing. He explains 22:30 by appeal to either an implicit heaven and earth contrast or a tendency of Jesus in Matthew to use varied language with opponents, but there is a further problem in that Mark 12:25 features the plural that Pennington expects Matthew would use. The implicit heaven-earth pairing is more likely in 23:22, as it is comparable to Matt 5:34–35. 16:19 and its parallel in 18:18 feature the plural and singular respectively, but Pennington’s explanation only involves stylistic consistency in the immediate context rather than consistency with the larger context. The more significant problem is that these two texts also tell against his view that specifically the plural is used in antitheses with earth (169), since these texts emphasize continuity between what is done on earth and what will be done in heaven. In fact, his discussion as a whole is too heavily reliant on the antithetical use of “heaven” language without properly examining the cases in which there is an emphasis on continuity. In these instances, one gets the impression that Pennington has found some important potential meanings of the “heaven” language, rather than that he has found Matthew’s distinct/idiolectic use. His insights are still mostly helpful when one is not as restrictive as he is.

Where there is certainly more continuity between Matthew and other Jewish sources is his use of the heaven-earth pair, which has been established in Jewish use since the opening of Genesis. What Pennington argues is idiolectic to Matthew is the connection he makes between Weltbild and Weltanschauung (172). Again, he is generally correct in linking the singular uses in heaven-earth pairs with Weltbild and the plural with an antithesis of the Matthean Weltanschauung, but as has been noted already, this is not consistently the case. And while he admits that the merismatic use of heaven-earth and the antithetic use should not be strictly separated in a key text like 28:18 (203–4), the fact that he engages in this discussion at all shows a weakness in his assumptions about Matthew’s strict paradigmatic use of one kind of “heaven” language as opposed to another. Rather, the use of both senses makes this a key text for illustrating what Pennington himself notes, “the goal of God’s redemptive plan in Jesus is not the removal of the earth in the sense of being replaced with a kingdom in heaven, but is instead the eschatological reuniting of the heavenly and earthly realms according to the heavenly pattern” (210). A better explanation for the overall patterns of “heaven” language in Matthew should account for possibilities of multiple senses and be less strictly reliant on the use of singular or plural as the criterion.

Pennington also sees greater continuity between Matthew and Jewish sources in his description of God as Father, particularly as the Father who is in heaven/heavenly. That this language is significant for Matthew is readily apparent in how these phrases (ὁ πατήρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς and ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος respectively) are especially frequent in his programmatic Sermon on the Mount and in the fact that these phrases are distinct to Matthew among the Gospels (except Mark 11:25). They are also frequently correlated with the theme of the kingdom of heaven, a truly unique Matthean term (though not necessarily a concept unique to Matthew; cf. John 18:36). Where his argument is weakest is in his attempt to uphold his emphasis on the heaven-earth antithesis by claiming that nearly every reference to earthly fathers in Matthew is negative (239). To reach this conclusion, he must underemphasize positive earthly fathers (especially Joseph and the fathers who ask Jesus to heal their children) and read the subordination of earthly fathers to the heavenly Father as somehow a negative portrayal.

Finally, Pennington examines the “kingdom of heaven” phrase. As already noted, he rejects the explanation that this is a phrase of reverential circumlocution to replace the typical “kingdom of God,” which Matthew includes in the four aforementioned cases anyway. Instead, he argues that Matthew, more than any other Gospel writer, has been influenced by Dan 2–7 and its frequent contrasts of the heavenly kingdom of God and the earthly kingdoms of the human emperors (not least because the divine “kingdom” language is especially prominent in this part of Daniel; 285–93). Given how thoroughly Daniel influences Matthew at several other junctures and the frequent antitheses of heaven and earth—despite Pennington’s overreading in this regard—this argument makes sense. It also comports with his semantic argument that the phrase ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν is a genitive of source and attribution (rather than a subjective one according to the typical interpretation) and that it includes a spatial sense in its semantic domain beyond “reign” or “rule” (294–99). The modifier of τῶν οὐρανῶν makes this significance even clearer, since “heaven” itself—whether conceived of as part of creation or as the realm of God’s throne—was considered a spatial reality of some kind.

Overall, Pennington’s work is helpful in moving readers past the popular and shallow views of how Matthew’s “heaven” language functions and enabling them to see the deeper significance in it. It should be required reading for the subjects of NT cosmology and the kingdom of heaven. However, one is left wishing that in his revision of his dissertation that he might have expanded on a few points. While one may agree that the “kingdom of heaven” phrase and the references to God as heavenly Father are part of Matthew’s idiolect, Pennington is less successful in establishing the idiolectic significance of other aspects of Matthew’s “heaven” language. This could be helped with a detailed study of how Matthew uses this language in comparison and contrast to how the Markan and Lukan parallels use it. It would also be helpful if Pennington had examined Matthew narratively to help readers see the function of this language in Matthew’s story as a whole. A narrative focus could also provide clearer coherence and less repetition of observations (as, e.g., chapters two and three are repeated at various points throughout the book).

Observations

With Pennington’s work as a starting point, let us now consider the uses of Matthew’s kingdom and heaven language in more detail. As noted above, the kingdom of heaven has connections with both of Matthew’s uses of the heaven-and-earth pair in terms of its merismatic sense and its antithetical sense. These uses come together in crucial texts like 28:18 to indicate the telos of God’s kingdom project in redeeming the earth so as to remove what opposes it to his heavenly kingdom and uniting heaven and earth together in this one kingdom (6:10). This kingdom is transcendent in that it is from heaven (hence the genitive of source), God’s royal realm, and in that it has heavenly qualities that set it apart from earthly kingdoms (hence the genitive of attribution), as Jesus demonstrates throughout the Gospel. As the inaugurator of God’s heavenly kingdom, Jesus is set above the earthly kings who otherwise might be considered his rivals. In the power struggle provoked over who is the true king of the Jews, Jesus is guaranteed victory by virtue of who he is (and thus what he does and what God the Father does for him) as King in God’s heavenly kingdom (esp. 19:28; 25:31–34, 40).

Let us, then, consider the references to “the kingdom of heaven” in light of the other uses of kingdom language. There is, of course, the more conventional “kingdom of God,” which is interchangeable with the “kingdom of heaven,” as indicated both by Matthew’s own usage (note esp. 19:23–24), including in cases where he refers to both as the eschatological inheritance that people enter (5:3, 10, 19–20; 7:21; 18:3; 21:31, 43; cf. 16:19), and by the parallels of “kingdom of heaven” where the other Synoptics use “kingdom of God” in ten cases (Matt 4:17 // Mark 1:15; Matt 5:3 // Luke 6:20; Matt 8:11 // Luke 13:28; Matt 10:7 // Luke 9:2; Matt 11:11 // Luke 7:28; Matt 13:11 // Mark 4:11 // Luke 8:10; Matt 13:31 // Mark 4:30 // Luke 13:18; Matt 13:33 // Luke 13:20; Matt 19:14 // Mark 10:14 // Luke 18:16; Matt 19:23 // Mark 10:23 // Luke 18:24). These instances in particular show how “heaven” is not so much a reverential circumlocution to avoid saying “God” as it is a metonym for God that is employed for particular purposes. The phrase “kingdom of God” is also used in contrast with Satan’s kingdom in 12:25–28. While there is an implicit contrast in the kingdoms of the world under the dominion of Satan in 4:8 with the kingdom of heaven that Christ proclaims, it must be remembered that the expectation was that all of these kingdoms would come under the heavenly dominion (Dan 7:13–14, 27), and so we cannot simply say that the key phrase only implies contrast. We also see the heavenly origin of the kingdom combined with this eschatological vision of it coming to earth in the references to it as Jesus’s/the Son of Man’s kingdom (13:41; 16:28; 20:21) and as God’s/the Father’s kingdom (6:10, 33; 13:43; 26:29). Other times, there is a more laconic reference to “the kingdom,” whether in reference to the gospel/word of the kingdom (4:23; 9:34; 13:19; 24:14), the sons/children of the kingdom (8:12; 13:38), or the kingdom that the righteous will inherit (25:34).

As for the key phrase itself, let us review in more detail its particular uses. First, in the initiation of the ministries of both John the Baptist and Jesus, the summary of the gospel they proclaim is about the kingdom of heaven, the coming of God’s promised eschatological reign (3:2; 4:17). Their description of it as approaching shows that the heavenly kingdom has earthly designs, that the kingdom is from heaven, but that it will be brought to bear on earth. This reality thus frames both of their ministries, though they have different roles to play in relation to that kingdom. Likewise, its approach frames the ministry of the disciples, as Jesus passes on this same message to them when he first sends them out (10:7).

Second, the sense of contrast is more apparent in the Beatitudes. For Jesus says that those who are poor in spirit and are persecuted for the sake of righteousness on earth have the kingdom of heaven as their possession (5:3, 10). The future inheritance is a contrast to the troubles of the present, but it is precisely because of what they are now that Jesus says the kingdom of heaven is theirs. It is embodied in the exchange of Jesus with his disciples, where they ask who will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven (18:1), perhaps assuming that there will be some pronounced mark of greatness that the greatest will bear now, but Jesus informs them that it is necessary to become like a child to enter the kingdom and to humble oneself on earth to be great in the kingdom of heaven (18:3–4; cf. 19:14). By contrast, those who are rich on earth will find it difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven/God (19:23). Similarly, those who would seek to unduly close the kingdom of heaven in the face of people will find themselves unable to enter it (cf. 23:13).

Third, in other cases reference to the kingdom of heaven appears in contexts stressing continuity, wherein one’s fate vis-à-vis the kingdom of heaven is the completion of how one lived their earthly life. This is already implied in the Beatitudes with the added element of contrast. It also appears elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus instructs keeping God’s commandments and what the results will be for doing (or not doing) them and teaching (or teaching against) them in the kingdom of heaven (5:19). This is also one of those texts that shows that the kingdom of heaven is something one enters, thereby implying a spatial reality for the first time—but (as seen elsewhere) not the last time—in the Gospel (5:20). Both of these points are also emphasized in 7:21, wherein Jesus says that those who enter the kingdom of heaven will be those who do the will of his Father, rather than only refer to him as “Lord.” We have also already noted this point in relation to 16:19, where the kingdom of heaven refers not only to the eschatological reality of God’s promises coming to fruition, for which Jesus gives the keys, but also to where what is bound or loosed on earth comes to fruition.

Fourth, consistently with the three previous uses, the phrase is used as a reference to the eschatological reality, but not necessarily with any of the other points in the previous contexts attached thereto. This kingdom brings heaven to earth and thus brings God’s resurrection power to bear in making the dead rise again. This is, after all, what is implied by people coming from all over the world to recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (8:11). This is only possible by resurrection, even if it is not explicitly referenced here. And as we are reminded in the next verse, the coming of this kingdom implies judgment, as others, people who should have been the children of the kingdom, will be left in the outer darkness (8:12). This eschatological sense animates what Jesus says about John the Baptist and his eschatological significance in relation to it (11:11–12). It is that reality that inspires such dedication that Jesus says some make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (19:12).

Fifth, the phrase appears several times in the contexts of parables, where it is used as the term of comparison with the various earthly counterparts. Why is this phrase used here? Besides Matthew’s preference for the phrase, it seems to be because the parables use earthly things to explain the heavenly kingdom, as Jesus says at multiple points what the kingdom of heaven “is like” (13:24, 31, 33, 44–45, 47, 52). This is why the parables, and particularly the explanations thereof, are said to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven to the disciples (13:11). When one considers the variety of other terminology used for referring to the kingdom just in the main parables chapter, such as the Son of Man’s kingdom (13:41), the Father’s kingdom (13:43), and simply “the kingdom” (13:19, 38), the use of “kingdom of heaven” at all of these key points appears all the more deliberate and not merely a convention. Though the phrase as such bears less of this freight, the contexts in which it is explicated—such as the parable of the sower, the parable of the wheat and weeds, and so on—show how the eschatological reality of the kingdom of heaven is brought to bear on earth because of God’s heavenly designs for earth. Thus, the phrase also appears in comparing the heavenly kingdom with earthly kings and rulers, but not in the sense of contrast, as Pennington all too often emphasizes, but in explanation of what it is like (18:23; 20:1; 22:2). In one other case, it is related to the conduct of ten virgins waiting for the coming of the bridegroom (25:1).

Conclusion

Given Matthew’s broader use of “kingdom” language beyond his characteristic “kingdom of heaven” phrase, we can fairly say that “heaven” in this phrase properly functions as a metonym for “God,” but not as a reverential circumlocution to avoid saying “God.” Why, then, did Matthew resort to the metonym so often as to make the phrase characteristic of his writing? Based on the review of usage, and in interaction with Pennington’s book, I offer a few suggestions. First, the phrase accentuates the heavenly origin/source of the eschatological kingdom and the heavenly qualities of the eschatological reality. Second, as such, it fits with Matthew’s theme of how God aims through Jesus to bring this kingdom to bear on earth so that his will may be done on earth as it is in heaven. That is, it particularly highlights the eschatological purpose of uniting heaven and earth in one kingdom. This is particularly drawn out in “heaven” language and implied kingdom language in 28:18 and elsewhere, where the kingdom of heaven brings to completion what has been done on earth (which fits with the third kind of usage we noted above). Third, in line with Pennington’s argument—even if I think he overemphasizes this point—“kingdom of heaven” serves well as a contrast with the earthly present and earthly kingdoms. Fourth, the phrase is particularly useful as a term of comparison with parables that draw from earthly experience, whereby earthly realities are used to explicate the heavenly kingdom.

1. Jonathan Pennington, Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009).