Surprised by Hope Part 3: A King and a Kingdom

There's no escape for you, except in someone else
Although you've already disappeared within yourself
The invisible man who's always changing clothes
It's all about taking the easy way out for you I suppose
~~Elliott Smith

Thanks to everyone that has taken the time to comment thus far. It's been illuminating to get feedback and glean from your insights. I will try to answer as many of the questions as I can in turn.

JB noted that he wanted to hear more about a few of the points I made in my first post. Today I'd like to deal with some of the misconceptions that circle around the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven;" and, in doing so, I hope to answer some of the crucial points Cor brought up about "average Joe pewsitter." It should be noted that much of what will follow may be review for some of my readers, but I trust that you will all bear with me for the sake of those who may be new to this discussion.

The phrase "Kingdom of heaven" is only used in Matthew. It is an unquestioned fact of Biblical studies that the phrase "Kingdom of God" found in Mark and Luke are equivalent in both meaning and referent to Matthew's phrase. (The reason for Matthew's change from the text of Mark, which he likely used as a source, is an interesting topic but takes us too far afield at this point). And while most 'pewsitters' wouldn't question that fact, many read both phrases as referring to the afterlife because of the prevalent false understanding of the meaning of 'heaven' I discussed in Part 2. The practical result of this misreading is that all of Jesus' teaching that begins with the phrase, "The kingdom of God/heaven is like..." is read as a description of a posthumous spiritual reality.

Is such a reading warranted? If such a reading is not warranted, what is the right reading of such texts and how do we know? Does it really matter?

Having been shaped by Wright's writing over the past few years, I have come to the firm conclusion that such a reading is not warranted for a number of reasons (here I'm drawing on Wright's The New Testament and the People of God). First and foremost, the intracanonical evidence does not support such a reading. Whenever the idea is referenced in the Old Testament literature--particularly in the Psalms and in Isaiah, it always describes the idea of God once again becoming king of Israel (See in particular Psalms 145, 93, 96, 97 and Isaiah 33 and 52).

Second, no one within the world of first century Judaism would have understood the phrase that way. First century Jews were not looking for the end of the space time universe. Rather, they were anticipating God's deliverance from their present oppression. The phrase (or its lexical cousin "No King but God") were used in other first century writings, and it never referred to the end of the world--but rather, the end of the present state of affairs in which the Jews were ruled over by Gentile pagans. Wright comments on this in NTPG, p. 302:

"The kingdom of God" historically and theologically considered is a slogan whose basic meaning is the hope that Israel's God is going to rule Israel (and the whole world), and that Caesar, or Herod, or anyone else of their ilk, is not.

Interestingly enough, the enacting of this kingdom was not always associated with a messianic figure--an interesting discussion in its own right. Hopefully we can discuss that in a future post.

So, having established that neither history nor theology support a futuristic reading of the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven/God," what can we say are the affects of this popular misreading? First, such a reading neuters the radical call Jesus was making on his countrymen and contemporaries. Jesus favorite topic of teaching was the "Kingdom of God," and if he was just speaking about a new world order that will take place in the distant future, there is little reason anyone in his time would have been very upset about it. Or, to use Wright's terminology from Jesus and the Victory of God, such a Jesus would not have been "crucifiable." If the Jesus we read in the gospels wasn't a Jesus who radically challenged the power structures of his own time, we're reading a different gospel. And, by extension (and this is where it really hits the average 'pewsitter') if Jesus didn't radically challenge the power structures and priorities of his own time by inaugurating the rule and reign of God through his teaching of the kingdom, he has little hope of doing so in our own time.

Second, such a reading creates the impression that God did something powerful in and through Jesus 2000 years ago, but He hasn't shown any particular interest in humanity since--and he won't again until the end of time. A Jesus whose kingdom preaching refers only to end of time realities is a Jesus who has colluded with deists--he is an absentee landlord that can only help his followers endure the present evil instead of seeking to transform it. He is a Jesus who, with regard to the two important questions about salvation--"From What?" and "To What?"--can only answer the former with any kind convincing authority. He is a Jesus who reduces the work of the Holy Spirit to an afterthought. Bluntly, he is not a Jesus that can, in any sense, claim the title of "Lord" over this present world.

Let me be clear--Jesus will finally and ultimately institute the rule and reign of God in the new heavens and new earth. But to pretend that the bulk of Jesus' teaching was about this subject stretches the bounds of historical and theological plausibility beyond the breaking point. Our world needs a group of people, empowered by the Spirit, to join the mission of God by living every day in the realities that were made possible by Jesus' kingdom inauguration; it needs Christians to be people of the resurrection. It is to that vocation that scholar and pewsitter alike are called.