One of the things I've been diving deeply into lately is the concept of 'The Kingdom of God'. The motivational verse for me was Matthew 4:23 (corollary verses in Luke 8:1, Mark 1:14) which reads, "Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and healing every disease and sickness among the people." Two things occurred to me as I read this recently - a) this is Jesus, preaching THE GOSPEL before he was crucified and b) the Gospel and the Kingdom of God are tied together. To flesh that out just a little more - the Gospel can't simply be, "Jesus died for our sins and that by believing in his sacrificial death, we can have Eternal Life with Him in heaven" (which is a Romans 10 verse taken out of context IMHO). If that was the extent of the Gospel, what was Jesus talking about before he died? For that matter, what was John the Baptist talking about, before Jesus was even officially on the scene, since he was also preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God (Matthew 3)? So that got me thinking about the question, "what is the Gospel", but it also seemed that the Good News was intimately tied to The Kingdom of God (interchangeable in Scripture with the Kingdom of Heaven). After all, news, no matter what kind of news it is, is always about something - that seems self-evident, right?
What I set out to try and understand is what a 1st century Jew would have thought the Kingdom of God is. When John the Baptist and Jesus started going around preaching about the good news of the kingdom of God, no one was saying, "Kingdom of God? What's that? We've never heard of that before!". They all knew and so I wanted to know what their understanding was. I have so far read two books, along with innumerable articles - "The Gospel and the Kingdom" (1955) by George Eldon Ladd (the 'already/not yet' guy) and "The Kingdom of God in History" (1988) by Benedict T. Viviano, a New Testament scholar at the University of Freibourg. Ladd's book, to me, was lacking any real examination of the Old Testament. Though he does cite some old testament passages, and some inter-testamental material - his work seems more like an attempt at bringing together very different views that were held by predecessors in theology. It was Viviano's work which I was really impressed with and he did dive into the OT and into the inter-testamental literature that is available. His definition of 'The Kingdom of God' is the best one I have found so far. He says, "To attempt to define the undefinable, we could say that the Kingdom of God is a future apocalyptic divine gift not built by human beings directly but given as a response to hopeful prayer, longing and hastening struggle. It is the final act of God in visiting and redeeming his people, a comprehensive term for the blessings of salvation, that is, all the blessing secured by that act of God." In the Lord's prayer recorded in Matthew 6, Jesus teaches his disciples to pray, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done" - Viviano points out, what is the necessity of praying 'thy Kingdom come' if it is in some way already here? Even up to the very point at which Jesus departs this Earth, he is affirming that The Kingdom is future. Acts 1:3, "...appearing to them [his disciples] over a period of forty days and speaking of the thing concerning the Kingdom of God." Interestingly, the Disciples' recorded question after all that teaching is, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the Kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6) Jesus doesn't correct their understanding of the content he has been teaching them - he addresses the time aspect of their question and says, "It is not for you to know the times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority..." (Acts 1:7).
I think it is precisely that focus on the timing of the Kingdom which really colors ones view on whether the Kingdom is in any part 'now', or if it is altogether future. From reading Ladd's book, and some commentaries written by other modern theologians, it is clear what the modern consensus is...but the question everyone needs to ask themselves is, "what is actually true?" Does an interpretation of Scripture, outside of its historical context, mean anything? I'm starting to believe it does not. If one thinks of the Bible as a historical document, not in the sense that it is literal history (though it certainly is at times), but that its contents were directed at a certain people in a certain time and place in history -- or that it was produced by people, under the divine leadership of the Holy Spirit, who had a certain worldview and who had a specific set of things they 'knew' about their faith, then any interpretation of Scripture that does not take a serious effort at examining that context is faulty at best, if not outright wrong. I will not sit here and claim that Ladd didn't 'do his homework' so to speak, in that contextual regard, but I will say, I think he did what a lot of people in modern theological thought have done, and that is relying on the work of others to inform the baselines of the arguments they make. It is my personal opinion that he didn't go back far enough, he didn't take into account that a Hebrew belief system and Hebrew scriptures were essentially translated into a Greco-Roman worldview...and worldview makes a huge difference. There is much more to be said on this specific topic, but that is for another post (or book?) - if you are curious now, read Viviano's book because he dives DEEP into this particular topic.
The bottom-line is that the Apostles had a totally future view of The Kingdom. They would know the Kingdom was here when Jesus was sitting on the throne of David, in Jerusalem, with a fully restored Israel, having been completely vindicated in the eyes of their oppressors and enemies; all of which are Covenant promises. In fact, their view would have included their own involvement in that scene because Jesus says to the Twelve in Matthew 19:28, "Jesus said to them [the Twelve disciples], "Truly I tell you, in the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Put another way, there was no spiritualized or individualized element to the Kingdom of God. It was a literal Kingdom - it's elements were understood as physical, political, and social. If there was an individualized element to it, it was more that it gave an individual's life meaning and purpose, not that there was some element of the Kingdom that was realized within an individual.
Which brings us back around, taking the scenic route, to salvation. If the Kingdom is entirely future - then salvation, which is an aspect of the Kingdom (one is saved when one is IN the Kingdom) also becomes an entirely future hope.
"Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." (Hebrews 9:27-28)
One can put their hope and trust (faith) in Jesus and His coming Kingdom now, in this life, but salvation is not a thing that we possess on this side of the great and terrible Day of the Lord (aka Judgement). This is a total tangent, but I recently heard a commentary that much of Western Christianity rails against the 'prosperity gospel', but that many of the people railing against that type of gospel preaching believe a very similar thing, but instead of possessing physical prosperity, it's possessing spiritual prosperity (I'm saved now, I can experience the joys of heaven now, etc). Anyway, when you read the words of Jesus and of the Apostles, the continual theme is perseverance and endurance in one's faith, until the End. In this way, the things motivating a Disciple of Jesus never change. Our own internal motivation-level might wax and wane, but the driver is always there - never very far from the mind of a Disciple who is regularly spending time in prayer and in reading Scripture. When our hope is entirely future - suffering is put into proper context. Someone smart I know once said, "Eschatology is the engine of discipleship." Focusing on where this is going gives us an accurate balance of God's goodness and God's wrath - it provides something to strive towards and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit some real significance. It creates urgency within the Disciple and, when treated with a sober mind, causes the Disciple to walk in humility.
I want to touch on the Holy Spirit in a little more detail - because I feel that the Holy Spirit was the thing Ladd was misinterpreting. When you view of The Kingdom of God as entirely future, the purpose of the Holy Spirit becomes so much more clear. The Holy Spirit is the power of God to help you do something you cannot do on your own...to help you take up your cross daily, and to deny yourself - to say 'no' to the flesh and yes to the one who gives Life. Also - in the life of a Disciple, the Holy Spirit is the one who comes to confirm the truth of the Gospel - it is the witness of the truth of the things to come. Rather than the Holy Spirit facilitating the growth of God's Kingdom now as Ladd suggested, it is the thing turning men's hearts, with Jesus, towards the End and the Renewal of all thing - towards the hope of Eternal glory - giving them the ability to be Disciples of Messiah Jesus, to walk and remain on the narrow path that leads to Life (Matthew 7).
I have this heightened sense of urgency lately in my own life. Most of the time, I don't want to work, I just want to read and write and pray. When I'm around people - I want to tell them about this. Partly, I am concerned about the faith of most people I know. I don't want to sound arrogant or judgmental, far from it - no one is as much of a sinner as me - but the reality is, the gift is free, sure, but it requires everything. I was reading in Deuteronomy this morning, Chapter 1, and it's the story of God saving the Israelites from Egypt and it gets to the section about the Israelites being on the cusp of the promised land (you know the story, the 12 spies, 10 were bad and 2 were good), and after the spies came back from scoping things out, the people didn't trust God. Then in verse 34 it reads, "When the Lord heard what you said, he was angry and solemnly swore; "No one from this evil generation shall see the good land I swore to give your ancestors, except Caleb son of Jephunneh. He will see it, and I will give him and his descendants the land he set his feet on, because he followed the Lord wholeheartedly." It was that last line that struck me - ...because he followed the Lord wholeheartedly. There is no such thing as a halfway disciple. What is a disciple? Jesus said many things - but two things that stick out to me are: Luke 9:23 "Then Jesus said to all of them, "If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." and also Acts 2:42 - immediately after Peter preaches the Good News, it says how the people who believed responded, "Those who embraced his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to the believers that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." The Apostles' teaching would have been Scripture, basically - so two of the main things were Scripture and prayer. I would add fasting into that mix as well (Matthew 9:15). I have much work to do in my own life - but I don't feel as though I live under any illusion. I'm not walking around thinking I have secured anything. Hopefully, as the days go by, I am getting more and more serious about emulating the conduct, cares and concerns of Jesus. I know I have the Holy Spirit to help me persevere and endure, the Scriptures to guide me, and brothers and sisters to encourage me. That's all that I need to think about - the rest is just, as they say, details.
As a means of closing - I pray regularly that God would keep my heart soft; that I would always be open to the Truth and not get stuck in theological camps or ideas just because I've decided that I need to make up my mind. Some people find it scary to let go the doctrine of eternal security and I can certainly understand that. But with that being said, I just don't see a backing for it in Scripture. Rather - I see a call to lifelong discipleship and how one lives their life as being the evidence of faith in God and a truly changed heart. I write these posts for myself and to distill my own thinking, but if you're reading this, chances are you probably know me, and if you want to talk this out - by all means, I would absolutely love that.
No comments:
Post a Comment