This is the fifth volume of the series Issues in Religion and Theology, and like its predecessors it offers a collection of significant pieces on its subject. These range from a 1934 contribution by Rudolph Otto to two recent views first published in 1979. There is also a 26-page introduction by the editor, charting the progress of the debate, and a four-page bibliography (with, alas, a sizeable percentage of the titles in German). Modern authors and New Testament references are indexed.
It would be possible to carp at the selection offered—no Schweitzer (nor any of his predecessors), no Dodd, no Jeremias—but what is here offered is a good sample of high points of the discussion. Otto’s essay is the only one of the eight over twenty years old, and the rest reflect aspects of the wide variety of approaches which have been brought to the attempted elucidation of the phrase in contemporary study. M. Lattke (1975) discusses the Jewish background both to the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ and to the idea of God’s kingship. T. F. Glasson (1977) roundly condemns all followers of Schweitzer’s eschatological interpretation of the kingdom, and pronounces his influence baneful. N. Perrin (1976) uses the categories ‘sign’ and ‘symbol’ as developed by the linguistic philosopher P. Ricoeur. Here Chilton has skilfully extracted much of the meat of Perrin’s book, presenting short extracts stitched together with brief summaries of the intervening argument. There is also an extract from the end of Chilton’s own contribution to the debate, God in Strength (1979).
This is certainly a valuable way for a student to immerse himself in the literature rather than relying on one scholar’s view in a standard Theology. If I have a complaint, it is that the form of the introduction does not make it particularly easy to put the individual essays into their historical context as one reads them; nor are we offered any critique of the views presented here. A brief introduction to each essay would have been a real help. It would also have been very valuable to have some reflection on the extent to which the contributors actually differ in substance. Are they not, to some extent, saying the same things in different words? That may perhaps be left as a valuable exercise for the reader.
