Disciples and Eschatology Part 2 -- The Kingdom of God
Note: This is the second of three posts exploring Eschatology in a Disciples of Christ context. Part 3 will appear next week.
The
realm of God stands at the center of Jesus’ preaching. As Mark puts it, after
his temptation in the wilderness and the arrest of John the Baptist, “Jesus
came into Galilee, proclaiming the goodness of God, and saying, ‘The time is
fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the good
news’” (Mark 1:14-15). The kingdom has come near, so repent and believe the
good news. When those who heard this good news joined his band of disciples,
they asked him to teach them how to pray. The result is the prayer that so many
Christians recite each week. As we pray the Lord’s Prayer, ask that God’s kingdom
will come into our midst, and as we make this request, we are, I believe, pledging
our allegiance to God our King. We make this pledge of allegiance, even as a
competing realm (that of Rome) is demanding allegiance [Cornwall, Ultimate Allegiance: The Subversive Natureof the Lord’s Prayer, pp. 15-18].
Kingdom language dominates the New
Testament, reflecting language from the Old Testament. But, what do we mean by
the kingdom of God? As we ponder this
question, another question emerges. That question has to do with the words we
use to refer to the Kingdom or realm of God. Should we replace kingdom language
with language of the realm, because it is less patriarchal. Yes, the first
century was a patriarchal age, but we live in the twenty-first century. With monarchy
on the wane, might we replace monarchical language with more democratic
language, like the Presidency of God? After
all, we now live in a world of liberal democracy, how can we affirm monarchy in
religion when we reject it in politics? These
are good questions, but since the biblical texts use this kind of language, it
would be fruitful to try to understand what is meant by the term kingdom, even
as we seek to bring the idea into the present.
The
Greek word that is translated in our New Testaments as kingdom is Basilieia. Thus, the phrase kingdom of
God can be written as basileia tou theou.
Scholars are not in agreement as to
the meaning of the term in the biblical context. Some ask whether this kingdom
should be even discussed in an eschatological context. That is, could it be that the kingdom of God
is already with us? George Ladd, for
instance, suggested that the Hebrew word for kingdom (malkuth) has an "abstract dynamic" sense, and therefore,
as an active verb, its meaning of reign, rule, dominion, can have both a
present and a future sense. The
Psalmist, for example, writes: “The Lord has established his throne in the
heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” (Ps. 103:19). Later Judaism, together
with the New Testament writers used kingdom language in a way that carried with
it the idea of God’s present sovereignty (Lk 19:12; 23:42; Jn. 18:36). Ladd
notes that in the Lord's prayer, when we pray the phrase "thy kingdom come"
has the sense of God's rule being "perfectly realized" (Mt. 6:10). [George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 63].
As we
think about the kingdom imagery, there is another dynamic that needs to be
lifted up. Too often we simply think of this as a future, otherworldly
event. But, there is every reason for us
to affirm God’s present reign, and its implications for life in the present. It
is in this context that Marcus Borg reminds us that the biblical message is not
just personal and spiritual, it is also political. Therefore, what we say about
God’s kingdom speaks to how we live in this world. Unfortunately, due to the
Constantinian-embrace of Christianity, it has been too easy to link
Christianity and the dominant culture. What this means is that we tend to miss
the Bible’s radical criticism of our social order. Thus, God’s justice is seen
as punishment for personal sin, and not a concern for structures in society [Marcus
Borg, The Heart of Christianity, (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), pp. 126ff].
While
the phrase, "kingdom of God," does not appear in the Hebrew Bible,
the idea of God’s sovereignty is most definitely present. God is described as
the king of Israel (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5) as well as king over
the entire world (2 Kings 19:15; Isa. 6:5; Jer. 46:18; Ps. 29:10; 99:1-4). Although speaking of God as the reigning
King, Old Testament writers also speak of God's coming reign (Isa. 24:23;
33:22; 52:7; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:9ff).
George Ladd notes that these distinctions lead us to conclude that
"while God is the King, he must
also become King, i.e., he must
manifest his kingship in the world of men and nations." There is present in early Judaism a contrast
between an earthly kingdom of God, ruled over by a Davidic king (Is. 9, 11; 1
Enoch 1:36; Psalms of Solomon) and an apocalyptic inbreaking of God’s rule in
history that includes a transcendental kingdom beyond the earth (Dan. 7; Enoch
37-71). These two concepts seem to be held in tension, with one or the other
being emphasized at different times [Ladd, Theology
of the New Testament, p. 61].
Kingdom
language is very much present in the New Testament. It is central to Jesus’s message in the
synoptic gospels. In these texts, Jesus gives a twist to a typical Jewish
understanding of the kingdom of that era. Ethnic nationalism is replaced by the
introduction of a new world order. There is also an eschatological dualism that
allows for the language to be applied to both the present and the future. In
the present tense, God is reigning over history, but the messianic claims of
Jesus point to something that is clearly future in tense. We see in Jesus teachings, as presented in
the Gospels, that he understood himself to be the promised messiah (Isaiah
61:1-2—Lk 4:21; and Isaiah 35:5-6—Mt. 11:2-6). On the other hand, there is also
the sense in the New Testament that the kingdom will come in its fullness in
the future—when God’s reign will be revealed to all. At that time, devil and his angels will be
destroyed (Mt. 25:41); a redeemed society without mixture of evil will be
established (Mt. 13:36-43), and we will enjoy fully the messianic feast (Lk.
13: 28-29). Thus, it is both now and not yet—God is both the reigning monarch
and is becoming the reigning monarch. [Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, pp. 64-67].
The
question for the church today, is whether there is a connection between the
visible church and the realm of God, over which God is already reigning, as
George Ladd suggests? Alexander Campbell was one who envisioned the visible
church as an expression of God’s reign, with the New Testament being its
constitution. Clark Gilpin suggests that Campbell’s vision of the “church as a
constitutional monarchy stood in the tradition of covenant theology, which
asserted that the order of human history, indeed of the entire cosmos, was
suspended upon the unfailing promises of the sovereign God.” Campbell
understood history in terms of a series of covenants, leading to the New
Testament era. As Gilpin notes, Campbell understood the church to be a
harbinger of this millennial reign of God. [“The Integrity of the Church: The
Communal Theology of the Disciples of Christ,” in Classic Themes of Disciples Theology, Kenneth Lawrence, ed., (Fort Worth: TCU Press, 1986), 33-37].
This millennial vision is expressed missionally, and for Disciples this mission
expressed ecumenically. The commitment to unity among Christians is understood
to be a means of moving toward the full expression of God’s realm. Indeed, it includes
a call to move beyond “intra-faith” unity toward “interfaith unity.” Michael
Kinnamon and Jan Linn ask Disciples to consider whether we are “ready to accept
that the validity of Christianity does not depend upon the invalidity of other
religious traditions? Are we willing to acknowledge that we can tell the truth
we know without claiming to know all the truth there is?” (Kinnamon and Linn, Disciples, p. 92].
Comments