The Apocalyptic Jesus (Part II): The imminent kingdom of God

Let us continue with our series which attempts to highlight the imminent eschatology of Jesus (part I here), an eschatology we would label as apocalyptic. In the previous post I highlighted how important it is to interpret the ministry of Jesus against the backdrop of the worldview of second temple Judaism, and how this worldview shaped and catalyzed the apocalyptic framework. This will be important to keep at the forefront as we, in this post, delve into another focal point of Jesus ministry: the Kingdom of God.

To those familiar with the New Testament it should come as no surprise to hear that Jesus’ ministry was organized around and predicated on the Kingdom of God. Jesus spoke of this Kingdom probably more often than he spoke of anything else. In fact, in the book of Matthew alone the phrase “kingdom of God” (or kingdom of Heaven) is used thirty-seven times, while it is used thirty-two times in Luke’s Gospel! In the Lord’s Prayer Jesus famously asked for “Thy Kingdom come.” Scholar Craig Keener notes that “virtually every stratum of Gospel tradition testifies that Jesus regularly announced the kingdom, there should be no doubt that this was a characteristic emphasis of Jesus teaching.” In the same vein,  secular historian Michael Grant claims the following in his book Jesus:

[E]very thought and saying of Jesus was directed and subordinated to one single thing […] the realization of the Kingdom of God  upon the earth[…] This one phrase sums up his whole ministry and his whole life’s work. (p. 10-11)

So it’s clear then, Jesus’ ministry was about one general focal point: the kingdom of God. But what exactly was meant by this phrase? Was it metaphorical or literal? Christians these days interpret the phrase “kingdom of God” as meaning a Christian lifestyle of love, or some interpret it as world evangelization. But in order to find out what Jesus meant by the phrase we need to understand how it was used in second temple Judaism.

In The Historical Jesus of the Gospels Craig Keener claims that in Jesus’ time the phrase “kingdom” signified the concept of “rule”, “reign”, or “authority” (p. 196).  Again, Michael Grant, in agreement with Keener, claims that “the Hebrew term [kingdom] refers not so much to a realm as to the dynamic kingly rule and sovereign action of God.” (p. 15) So, the kingdom of God seems to represent God’s sovereign rule and reign. To quote Keener again, “When Jewish people prayed for God’s kingdom to ‘come,’ they weren’t simply invoking God’s mystical presence among them for the present time; they were praying for God’s future reign to come.” (p. 198)

Moreover, we can survey Jewish texts in the second temple Judaic period and see how they used the phrase “kingdom of God.” The Kaddish prayer states the following: “May he establish his kingdom in your lifetime and in your days, and in the lifetime of the whole house of Israel, speedily and at a near time.” In the Testament of Moses 10:1 it says that “[God’s] kingdom shall appear throughout his creation, and Satan shall be no more[.]” And from the Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q246 it states the following: “His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom and all his ways in truth. He will judge the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth and all provinces will worship him[.]” These uses of kingdom surely seem to imply the reign, rule and authority of God.

Thus, the phrase “kingdom of God” seems most plausibly to be conceived as the restoration of God’s rule and authority as seen through the Davidic Kingdom, brought about by divine intervention ( see part I).  Again, this is what was expected by most Jews and it makes perfect sense to interpret Jesus’ use of the phrase “kingdom” in this vein—any other interpretation only strains credulity and is anachronistic.  For, as the Jews believed, God’s authority obviously was not being exercised in second temple Judaism since the Jews were still being oppressed. But, His rule was soon to come, and his Kingdom would be established once and for all. At least this is what Jesus and many Jews believed.

This brings us to Jesus actual statements about the kingdom, and exactly how close he believed God’s rule was to being realized:

The kingdom of God has come near you. Luke 10:9

Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power. Mark 9:1

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the good news.  Mark 1:15

You must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour. Luke 12:40

Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Mark 13:30

And will God not grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. Luke 18:7-8

Obviously this is the tip of the iceberg. Anyone who’s ever cracked open the New Testament will see phrases of this kind peppered throughout. The point is that Jesus believed God’s intervention, which aimed at establishing his kingdom once and for all was right around the corner. So close in fact that his disciples wouldn’t even die before it happened. So close that Jesus’ own ministry was the first fruits of the ushering of this kingdom. This is apocalypticism, plain and simple.

But this line of thought can be taken even further, and can illuminate further elements of Jesus’ ministry. Think of some of Jesus’ extreme commands in the vein of asceticism: Taking no thought or concern for subsequent days.   To make oneself a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake. A lack of concern for material things, including personal possessions and even shelter. Jesus’ willingness to die etc. (This asceticism is also illuminated in Paul when he told the churches not to marry.) It should be obvious from reading the Gospels that Jesus kept a general distance from the way normal society took its course. He simply didn’t care about what most Jews and Romans cared about. And why should he have, since he believed the world was about to end due to God’s intervention. Why care about possessions if they won’t be important any longer? Why care about what’s going to happen tomorrow, since tomorrow might not come at all? Why care about your family or marrying a woman if such things won’t matter when God intervenes? This point is driven home in Karl Frank’s book With Greater Liberty when he states that “the conviction that the end of the world was near always fostered asceticism.” (p. 30) It should be obvious that this ascetic outlook fits like a glove with an apocalyptic worldview, and therefore gives us more reason to regard Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet.

Thus, we see that Jesus’ ministry rested on the fulcrum of the kingdom of God. Yet we’ve seen that in second temple Judaism the kingdom of God represented God’s eventual intervention which would establish once and for all his sovereign authority. And we’ve seen that Jesus made statements that explicitly state that this intervention was right around the corner and would happen within the lifetime of his disciples. Lastly, we saw that Jesus’ indifference to the common matters of the world makes perfect sense under the condition that Jesus believed the world would be ending soon. Everywhere we turn, the apocalyptic framework makes perfect sense when predicated of Jesus’ ministry. 

The metaphors of theology

Christianity (like other religions) is founded upon centuries of theological doctrine—e.g., the Trinity, the atonement, the virgin birth etc. And many of these doctrines that have been passed down are seen, especially by fundamentalists, to be unquestionable and infallible. Fair enough. But, the question can be posed regarding whether or not some (or many) of these doctrines are necessary, useful, and, more importantly for this specific post, univocal. That is to say, my point in this post is to ask “Can the meaning of these doctrines be pinned down unambiguously?”

Take the doctrine that I so vehemently oppose, namely, the inerrancy of scripture. Christians who adhere to inerrancy believe that God, in some sense, was behind the authorship of scripture and rendered the nature of scripture error-free. Ok, but if you ask an inerrantist exactly in what sense God “authored” scripture you run into problems. Did God himself take up a pen and a paper and write out the Bible? Of course not. But then how did it happen? Did God supersede the consciousness of the writer of scripture and control his mind? Some inerrantists will say yes, and some no. But, therein lies the ambiguity in the doctrine. How can we even promulgate this doctrine with certainty if the means by which it was carried out are extremely obscure?

This example can be multiplied over and over again: Was Jesus literally God, or only metaphorically God? And does Jesus have to be seen as God himself in order to be our Lord? Was the story of the fall really meant to be predicated of an original pair of humans, or is it simply a story that illuminates that humanity as a whole has “fallen”? Is Hell an everlasting torture chamber of fire, or is the language predicated of Hell mostly metaphorical, and Hell is a different place altogether? Etc.

My point regarding these examples is not that people disagree about doctrines, though this is an important periphery here. The point is that the language and concepts usually utilized about these doctrines is ambiguous and obscure. These doctrines are wrapped in so much metaphor, analogy, and mere approximations that it seems difficult to state some of them literally. The question of what exactly we mean when we promulgate a doctrine can always be posed, and clear answers are not always forthcoming. But, if this is the case, then can we really say that some doctrines are unquestionable and infallible? If there is so much semantic wiggle room with regards to a certain doctrine, then I don’t see how questioning or offering radical interpretations of said doctrine can constitute heresy.

Let it also be remembered that the doctrines that we have inherited from the Christian tradition were originally expounded by fellow humans; humans who share the same semantic and cognitive limitations as us. And those doctrines were based on those individual’s own subjective interpretations of scripture—interpretations that we still disagree on today. So, even though most of our doctrines have had a long line of tradition to back them up, this does little to help our confidence in their univocality.

All that being said, I do not mean to insinuate that Christian doctrine is useless and void. Far from it. It is through Christianity that I believe we come into the closest contact with God and Jesus, and I don’t believe that the metaphorical nature of doctrine negates this. What it should do, however, is make us more sensitive to the differences that our doctrinal interpretations produce. We shouldn’t be quick to put our own Christian denomination on a pedestal and proclaim that the other denominations” have it wrong”. We should realize that different interpreters necessitate different interpretations, and that we can still be fellow servants of God while harboring these differences.

Meeting the Mormons

A few weeks ago I had two young Mormon boys ride up to my house—you know the picture—prepared to tell me the good news that Joseph Smith had to offer me. I’m actually quite ignorant when it comes to Mormon theology, so I felt it might be interesting to invite them in and see what they had to say. They were very friendly and inviting, and seemed to be genuine “god-fearing” individuals. We proceeded to sit down, whereby the elder began the discussion with a prayer.

After the prayer they began by asking what I knew of Mormonism, and though I knew a little, I asked them to enlighten me as best they could. The novice (unfortunately, I don’t remember his name) decided to demonstrate why and where the Mormon church came from, and began by speaking of the early Christian church. He basically stated that after the apostles were martyred, there was no longer any authoritative appointed leadership in the church. This immediately struck me as blatantly false, since he was only begging the question regarding in what fashion church leadership is constituted as authoritative or divinely appointed. (Also, I’m not sure the Catholic Church would have agreed with such a statement.) Nevertheless, I stayed silent and respectfully listened to this young gentleman—I call him young as if I’m old, heck, I’m only twenty three—finish his point. He continued by claiming that this loss of leadership in the church is what led to the current Christian denominational branching that has taken place lo these past two-thousand years.

The novice continued by telling the story of Joseph Smith. Smith apparently prayed to God and asked him which church was the One True Church. God replied that none of them were, and subsequently arranged it so that Smith could translate some ancient golden tablets—which said that Jesus apparently found it necessary to float over to the Americas and evangelize to the Native Americans--and found Mormonism— which would now be the One True Church. Such is the happy ending of the Church of Latter Day Saints.

After the novice finished with his elucidation, I had several thoughts floating in my head. I knew I could attack the historical credibility of such a story, though I know the Mormons have several “explanations” for the complete lack of historical evidence of said story. But, I decided to take a much more subtle approach. I conceded the fact that Christianity has thousands of denominations, and that this manifests problems regarding whether or not there exists a “One True Church” (I bet it’s my church!). Then I asked them a question of my own, based on pure curiosity: “Does the Church of Latter Day Saints have any denominational splits?” The novice answered (apparently the elders don’t speak as much) that there have been a few splits in the church, but that the church recognizes these as apostates. Well well well, I think my point was made right there. His central argument against the complete validity of Christianity, and for the validity of Mormonism, was that Christianity has too many denominations, and this obviously blurs the lines between what constitutes orthodoxy and heresy. But, here was Mormonism with the same problems. I mean think about it, Christianity has been around for two-thousand years, and Mormonism has only been around for a few centuries. Give them a few more hundred years and you’ll see the same thing happen, namely, dozens and dozens of Mormon denominations.

After making this point I asked them how the unique truth of Mormonism can be validated by the disparity of Christianity churches, when Mormonism is already showing signs of the same. They quickly changed their tune, by then claiming that their leaders are divinely appointed. Well, if you say so! They seemed oblivious to the fact that the same argument could be promulgated by the Catholics regarding the Pope. I asked how I could know that their leaders are divinely inspired, as opposed to, say, my own pastor. They answered that the preaching of their leaders registers with their spirit and that’s how they know. Well…alright. I’m sure the reader can predict what my response was. The discussion ended with them handing me a Book of Mormon (yay!) and suggesting a few passages to read. “Just read it, pray, and let the Spirit lead you” they said, to which I replied “you got it!”

Needless to say, the discussion went just as I had expected. There were objective claims made in order to validate Mormonism, but when these claims were shown to be empty, they resorted to the old “let God lead you there” line. And obviously God has not done so. (Although The Mormon Agnostic might have a better ring to it!)