The Kingdom of God
I have come up with a definition for the Kingdom of God, "Israel as it should be." One might then ask, "What is Israel as it should be?" And concluding that such a definition is unhelpful for understanding an already loaded concept. Let me give you the basic thrust of my thinking here. Offer corrections, suggestions, cautions and comments in general.
(1) Israel was always intended to be a Theocracy (1 Sam 8.4-9), but rejected God in seeking an earthly ruler.
(2) Regardless, God promised to establish his covenant through a King (1 Sam 7.12-16; ca. 1200-1000 B.C.)
(3) Through years of socio-political turmoil, from the split of the Northern and Southern Kingdom on including: Assyrian exile (701 B.C.), followed by Babylonian Exile (586 B.C.), Nehemiah as a glimmer of hope (445 B.C.), until the Seleucid Empire and Antiochus IV Epiphanes (ca 170 B.C.), another glimmer of hope in the Maccabean Revolt (167-170 B.C.) until the instituation of the Hasmonean ruling priestly class not sanctioned by levitical law (152 B.C. ), then Pompey and Roman control (63 B.C.) which included such tyrant rulers as Herod the Great (37 - 4 B.C.) follwed by his incompentent sons and a slew of anti-semite Roman governers until the Jewish war (66-70 A.D.) Richard Horsley in Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus, has a great overview of the socio-political conditions of Israel highlighting the majority peasant class. All that to say that the economic burden of the constant power struggle had crippled the majority lower class, in such a way that even if they didn't know the scriptures as well as the ruling elite, they knew they were not living in the Promised Land as God intended it. All that to say that N.T. Wright is correct in Jesus and the Victory of God to say the Jew's considered themselves to be in exile, or at least not living in Israel as God had intended it.
(4) The agenda of the popular movements in and around the time of Jesus was to bring the kingdom, they simply used different means to do so. Included in these movements are Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, and perhaps the controversial "Zealot" movement, others also found in Horsley's BPM.
(5) Jesus considered his role to be enacting the kingdom of God in a climactic way, which included taking such titles as "Son of Man" and "Messiah" among other indications including his prophetic preaching, healings and exorcisms. See Wright JVG.
Therefore, my definition makes sense of a variety of historical data, sets Jesus in his socio-political context as well as 1st century judaism, as far as we know, in addition to being theologically consistent with Xn doctrine and OT movements (both historically possible and theologically acceptable?). This is obviously a more complex proposal and requires more work espeically in the develop of OT theology of theocracy and what the prophetic movements in Israel both prior to and after Assyrian Exile, Babalyonian Exile, and the Maccabean period.
The significance of such a proposal is that:
(1) The church is the new Israel
(2) Jesus' actions are just as significant as his words for Xn theology and doctrine
(3) Jesus was political
(4) Xn politics revolve around bringing the Kingdom to the whole earth
And surely much more. These are not my own ideas as I have cited just a few of the great minds that have opened my eyes to trying to understand Jesus in his world.
Let me know what you think, I love you guys.
posted by Unknown @ 6:59 PM
9 Comments:
Yeah, the statement that the lower class communities thought they were living in Israel as they should be was a typo. I realized it after I had already posted. Sorry, leaving out a simple "not" can really mess you up. You have got to read some Horsley.
I haven't read Meyer yet, though I will this semester.
I still don't see the suggested methodology or the final picture. Are you introducing a methodology for bringing the kingdom that is innovative. If that method is successful, what does society look like? What makes what you are saying here any different than the hundreds of years in church history that people thought they were establishing the kingdom on earth through intertwining the church with existing governmental structures?
Michael, I won't use the Greek or Hebrew unicode, I did it in my posts to help with clairity. Sometimes I wish I knew what greek word was being talked about. I definately see your point, I suppose I also did it because it looks cool. Although on some of the other computers I have used to check the blog, it doesn't show letters with accents. I don't know about Jesus and empire, I have Paul and Empire, and its just a collection of Essays complied by Horsley, so if its the same with Jesus and Empire, I would recommend starting with Bandits Prophets and Messiahs.
Mike-
In Borg's Conflict Holiness and Politics, he suggests that instead of laying out a methodology and then trying to remain ridgidly consitent, one ought to use a variety of helpful methods to reach a conclusion. I agree in many ways with Borg's picture of Jesus. My intention is not to be innovative, doing history isn't inovative its important. I suppose a large part of what I am trying to think through is the relation between history and theology.I want to know Jesus historically, i.e. what was he like? what did he say? Why did he do and say what he did and said? I love what Luke Timothy Johnson does in Living Jesus talking about Jesus as the resurrected Lord that continues to reveal himself. But then I read his Luke and acts commentaries and come to find out that he too is doing history. I haven't set forth a methodology, or a final picture, I have put forward some historical information that seems consistent with theological developments of the church. I don't want to say something that the church hasn't said for hundreds of years, that would be unchristian, but I do want to say something that actually has to do with the Christ. I don't know what you mean by "through intertwining the church with existing governmental structures?" I haven't said anything about what the church should do in relation to existing governmental structures, I have only said that the church is political. What that looked like historically was not the intention of the post, nor what it ought to look like today. Though I certainly think that both at least ought to reflect the historical development of what faithfulness to Yahweh looks like. I appreciate the criticism, but I think you have critiqued something I haven't tried to say. Certainly methodology requires more work as well as an address to the question of how history and theology relate, if in fact they do, as it seems most Christians at least implicitly agree with. Also, in response to your above post about prayer being more interesting than politics, I don't know that such a distinction ought to be made. Jesus certainly seemed to think that our politics have to do with our prayers, "May your Kingdom come . . ." I do appreciate the call to have history be applicable. It isn't helpful to do history for the sake of history or theology for the sake of theology. How a political Jesus was and is certainly ought to form our politics and apparently our prayers. This post was intended put forth historical information to help understand Jesus better. I think if we begin to undersand him better we might be better Christians, and better pray-ers, and have a better understanding of what the presence of God my actually look like in a person, and thereby what it should look like in a people.
I hear ya. Right on bro.
Dont we all think that
(1) The church is the new Israel
(2) Jesus' actions are just as significant as his words for Xn theology and doctrine
(3) Jesus was political
(4) Xn politics revolve around bringing the Kingdom to the whole earth?
Were you relating new information or just something you are learning that is cool? Both are sweet, I am more trying to figure out if I missed your point. If I did please tell me.
By the way, as far as Church History goes, "Christianity Through the Centuries" by Cairns is excellent, though he doesn't go into extensive detail because he covers everything, up to the 20th century (I think. I haven't gotten that far). It might not be specific enough for you, especially for the time period you are talking about. But it is interesting to see what Christians did with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, both politically and personally/spiritually.
Logan-
I think it is quite an overstatement to say that we all think 1-4. Unless I am understanding the "we" too broadly. I would argue that most Christians in America do not agree with one or more of these conclusions. Not only lay Christians but scholars as well. No premillenialist would agree that the church is Israel. Most Jesus scholarship has been narrowly focused on only the words of Jesus neglecting his actions. There are probably more christians that think Jesus wasn't political than Christians that do. Most politics done by Christians in are not focused on bringing the kingdom of God but on baptizing whatever country they happen to live in along with its politics.
The only thing that I have said that could be described as "new" is that Israel as it should be is the Kingdom of God. It really isn't new, but a new way of phrasing an old idea, at least I hope. The point was to offer a plausible definition of the kingdom of God as well as some implications of such a definition. I hate it when people talk about Jesus as if it doesn't matter what the conclusion is. For instance if Jesus was wrong (i.e. apocalyptic expectation not met) then why is he worth listening to? or studying? Anyway, in regards to the book, I'll check it out, thanks.
I think it means he hates me...although I didnt mean to talk about Jesus as though the conclusion doesnt matter. BUT I may very well have because I dont even know what that means.
No I don't hate logan. What I meant by talking about hating people who make conclusions about Jesus and act like they don't matter is that I was defending "the significance of such a proposal section." I know that we all think that what we think about Jesus matters, but often history about Jesus is done in a vacuum. I'm not saying that this group does that but that to do so is an injustice to Jesus and studying him.
Maybe the definition isn't helpful. Certainly, I like Willard's but I think it is difficult to talk about because it is so general. When Kingdom becomes more specific, I think it begins to make sense. As far as whether or not everyone on this blog agrees with what I wrote, I cannot know. Maybe a better question is whether or not these statements are true, but how to communicate them best, surely I haven't done very well here.
Michael, I wrote a rather long and involved response, but then I accidently closed the window and lost it all. I hear what you're saying, I agree but I think that as much as Jesus talked about the kingdom, it might be helpful for us to as well. First, because it will help us to clarify what he meant and means when speaking to us. Second, because I think it will help us to communicate better with Joe Christian and each other. Thirdly, I don't think the kingdom is talked about, at least not explicitly very much. Consider the churches even that we are a part of, lead, teach, and preach in. How often do we talk about the Kingdom? How central was it to Jesus' message? At least in the gospels it seems to be pretty significant.
I really like what you are saying about connecting people up with the story of God and finding their story in his. I agree wholeheartedly, I think that most would, but how? Willimon talks about peculiar Christian speech, i.e. Christian language that is unique to Christians as being a good thing. It is supposed to be unintelligable to outsiders, because it doesn't mean anything without a Christian to embody and explain it. What do you think we could do in the churches we are a part of to embody kingdom language in such a way as to make it intelligable to other Christians? How far does this principle go in light of the seeker sensitive church model?
I know we have talked about this before, but in a very real way we have to transform the way people think which is largely molded into the questions they ask. How do we get people to ask the right questions? When do we simply say, "That isn't a good question for a Christian to ask." Do we ever? How ought we say it then?
Post a Comment
<< Home