Jesus and the Collaborative Rule of God
Chris Marshall
Jesus promised the kingdom of God, French biblical scholar Alfred Loisy famously quipped at the turn of last century, and what we got was the church! In saying this Loisy was actually making a comment on Jesus’ eschatological outlook. He was suggesting that the historical Jesus never expected the church or the church age to follow after his own ministry because he believed that the end of the world – the advent of God’s kingdom – was imminent. Such a
reading of Jesus’ eschatology is, it should be said, seriously flawed. But the sense of let down implied in Loisy’s contrast between the kingdom of God and the empirical reality of the church remains palpable. In some ways it resonates even more powerfully with our cynical generation than it did in Loisy’s day. If Jesus announced the kingdom, why is it that all we’ve ever heard about since then is the church? And the church, after all, isn’t worth getting very excited about.
Whether or not Jesus intended to found the church is debatable. But he certainly didn’t focus much of his attention on it. What excited Jesus, what totally dominated his horizons, was God’s kingdom. The phrase is constantly on his lips; there are around 60 different sayings in the gospel tradition in which Jesus uses the term. His whole mission centred on the happy announcement that “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near”. The kingdom of God is the key to everything Jesus said and did. Without some understanding of this term, it is impossible to make proper sense of the gospel narratives.
What did Jesus mean?
Although he used the phrase “kingdom of God” dozens of times, Jesus never defined precisely what he meant by it. There were perhaps two reasons for this. On the one hand, Jesus could assume his hearers already knew what he was talking about. The notion of God’s kingship pervades the Jewish Scriptures and was the presupposition of all Jewish theology. On the other hand, Jesus intended his entire ministry to give content to what he meant by the term. The kingdom of God was not one idea among many in his theological lexicon; it was the master-theme from which all else flowed, and which everything he said and did further illuminated.
Put differently, Jesus took a familiar concept in Palestinian Judaism and infused it, through his own teaching and practice, with fresh meaning, or at least with a distinctive set of implications. It is not really possible therefore to capture the richness of meaning of the kingdom of God in a simple definition. To do justice to the concept we need to appreciate both its standard biblical-Jewish connotations and the particularities of Jesus’ use of it.
An activity, not an abstraction
The first thing to note is that the word “kingdom” in biblical and Jewish tradition has a dynamic rather than a static sense. It denotes an activity more than a territory, a power more than a place. God’s kingdom is not a piece of real estate; it is God’s action of ruling. It is God exercising royal power, God functioning as a king. Accordingly the term “kingdom of God” in Jewish tradition is perhaps better translated as the reign or rule or kingship or government of God.
Jesus shared this dynamic understanding. That is why is he spoke of the kingdom of God “coming upon” or “arriving” or “appearing”. That is why he could appeal to his miracles, especially his exorcisms, as evidence of God’s kingdom in action. The kingdom of God was not, for Jesus, simply a theological proposition. It was not a set of laudable values. It was an event. It was a divine energy at work in him to overthrow the powers of darkness and set captives free, to feed the hungry, to heal the sick and raise the dead. When Jesus spoke of “entering” God’s kingdom he meant entering the sphere of God’s power. To “see” or “receive” the kingdom is to be receptive to God’s redeeming power. To “inherit” the kingdom is to be a beneficiary of the future triumph of God’s transforming power. The kingdom of God, then, is God’s power at work to put right what is wrong in the world, and so to accomplish God’s will on earth as it is in heaven.
An awaited event to confirm present faith
Scripture speaks of God’s kingly activity in two distinct senses. On the one hand, throughout the Old Testament there is a repeated affirmation that God’s kingdom already exists in fact. As the one true God and the creator of all that exists, God alone “is a great king over all the earth”. He is also the only true of king of Israel, which is a unique theocracy within the family of nations. In both cases, God’s kingdom is even now a present reality.
But it is a contested reality. According to the biblical narrative, a major rebellion is underway. Satan (the personification of evil) has risen in opposition to God’s rule; humanity has fallen under the sway of evil powers; even creation itself seems out of control. Despite the reality of God’s heavenly rule, all is not well in the realm. Sin, sickness, death and disease seem to deny the fact that God is in charge. Empirical experience contradicts theological affirmation.
To resolve this contradiction, as well as affirming the present kingship of God, the Old Testament also speaks, on the other hand, of the coming of God’s kingdom. It looks forward to a final day when God will exert his ruling power to defeat evil, to regather Israel and restore her sovereignty, to heal creation of its distortions and end the tyranny of sin, sickness and death. The coming of the kingdom is the hope for the coming of God in person to bring all reality back under his loving lordship, so that the earth is once more filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea.
It is this future dimension of God’s kingship that Jesus directly evokes when he commences his ministry by declaring “the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God has come near”. The time of waiting is up! The time for the manifestation of God’s final rule has at last arrived. Future hope is becoming present experience, precisely in and through the activity of Jesus himself.
Jesus’ total ministry was concerned with demonstrating the fulfilment of this biblical hope. His exorcisms were proof that Satan had been bound and his house was being plundered. His healings were testimony to Isaiah’s prophecy that God’s coming reign would enable the blind to see, the deaf to hear and the lame to walk. His feeding miracles anticipated the end of famine. His calming of storms and walking on water reasserted God’s rule over the natural order. His parables were coded invitations for people to discover the kingdom in unexpected places and make it their own. His eating with tax collectors and sinners enacted the end of religious prejudice and showed that God was now drawing all people into a new relationship of intimacy with God’s self. Through the person and activity of Jesus, the long awaited act of God to reclaim the world was underway.
The beginning of the end
But biblical hope was not to be fulfilled in one fell swoop. God’s eschatological reign was busting in, but not in its totality. Yes Jesus healed many sick people, but sickness and death were not ended forever. He even raised the dead, but they all died again. He fed the multitudes, but hunger and famine were not abolished. He spoke of setting the oppressed free, but the Romans remained in control. He sought to reunite Israel around himself, but he was accused of blasphemy and repudiated by his own leaders. He announced God’s peace, but suffered a violent death. How on earth then could he claim that God’s awaited kingdom had dawned?
Because it had dawned, though only in a partial way. Evidently Jesus came to inaugurate God’s end-time rule, to make a beginning, to establish a bridgehead for the future, to set a process in motion that would eventually result in a transformed creation…but not just yet. This is probably what Jesus meant by the “mystery of the kingdom”. God’s kingdom was already here, making an enormous difference in the lives of those who could recognise it. But it was not yet here in all its apocalyptic splendour. The fullness of that reality must await Jesus’ death, resurrection, and future return in glory to complete what he has begun.
This “already…not yet” dynamic made agricultural metaphors a particularly appropriate way for Jesus to speak of the kingdom. Just as a seed is the present form of a future crop, so Jesus’ ministry is the present manifestation of God’s future triumph. Just as a tiny seed looks insignificant to the human eye but is in fact charged with life-giving potential, so Jesus’ embodiment of the kingdom seemed unimpressive on the outside but was in fact the beginning of cosmic redemption. Just as a planted seed is hidden from sight while it grows and changes, so God’s kingdom is invisible to the naked eye but powerfully at work behind the scenes. Only those with “eyes to see and ears to hear” can discern its presence, and when they do, things must change.
An announcement and a demand
According to Mark 1:15, Jesus’ message of the kingdom consisted of two parts – a declaration and a demand, an indicative (a statement of fact) and an imperative (a summons to response).
Fundamentally Jesus’ proclamation was an announcement of something that God was doing. God was taking the initiative. God was drawing near to his people in a fresh way, satisfying their yearnings for his intervention to liberate them from their bondage to evil, both spiritual and political. That’s why Jesus calls his message a “gospel”. It is joyous good news about God’s arrival on earth to set his people free. “The time is fulfilled, God’s saving power is here!”
But the indicative of God’s saving action brings with it an ethical imperative. Unless people respond to God’s action, unless they “repent and have faith in the gospel”, unless they are prepared to change the way they live and place all their confidence in God’s action, they will miss out on the marvel of what is happening. They will not only fail to benefit from it; they will fail even to comprehend it. The only way to understand what is taking place is to respond wholeheartedly to what understanding one already has, however limited. Only then – only when one is committed to action – does further insight follow. Jesus advocated what New Testament scholar Dominic Crossan helpfully terms a “collaborative eschatology”. God’s redemptive activity invites, and requires, human collaboration in order to achieve its goal.
The kind of collaboration the kingdom demands is nothing if not radical. It involves, as the parables of the hidden treasure and pearl of great price suggest, a total disinvestment in the world system as it is and a reinvestment of all that we are and all that we have in God’s work of transforming the world. It means changing our allegiances, priorities, values, ambitions, relationships, politics and practices. It requires living now in a manner that is consistent with what life will be like when God’s rule is complete and, at last, “God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven”.
So what?
One of the most attractive things about recovering the kingdom-focus of Jesus is that it enables us to integrate into our practice of discipleship a diversity of commitments that are often assumed to be mutually exclusive. Some Christians champion personal piety and spiritual growth; others stress political involvement and social transformation. Some give priority to miracle-working power and spiritual warfare; others emphasise verbal proclamation and individual evangelism. Some focus on personal holiness, others on social justice or environmental responsibility. The good news is that all these concerns may be affirmed as inseparable components of living within the orbit of God’s rule.
If we take Jesus as our paradigm, then “seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” involves the integration of three overarching commitments. First of all, the kingdom meant for Jesus the presence of divine power to rectify what is wrong in the world. This is most clearly demonstrated in his miracles and exorcisms. These were not just cheap party tricks or random displays of paranormal power. They were representative tokens of how human brokenness will be remedied when God finally gets his way on earth. Christians therefore, above all else, ought to a healing presence in the world as a testament to God’s transformative intentions. Healing in all its dimensions – physical, mental, spiritual, social and relational.
For Jesus the kingdom also meant, secondly, the closeness of God’s personal presence, as a loving parent, drawing men and women into deeper levels of spiritual intimacy. Jesus was clearly concerned to universalise the experience of God’s love. He emphatically disregarded all social and religious boundaries that functioned to exclude the “unworthy” from closeness to God. He welcomed everyone to the messianic feast. Accordingly Christians ought to be not only people of prayer and joyful worship, but also people of hospitality, those who embrace outsiders and who expect to find in their fellowship fresh experiences of God.
Finally, for Jesus the kingdom meant radical community. Jesus did not set out to found a new religion; instead he sought to radicalise his existing religious community, so that it more fully resembled the eschatological will of God. Three main features of this new community stand out in Jesus’ teaching. It is to be an inclusive or international community, that transcends barriers of race, class and gender. It is also to be a non-violent community, that foreswears the sword and prays for its enemies. And it is to be a reconciling community, one that practices forgiveness in all its relationships, that cares for the poor and seeks justice for the oppressed, and that lives sustainably in the midst of God’s good creation as testament to its eventual liberation and restoration.
If the Christian church today aspired to be more like the radical community Jesus imagined, Alfred Loisy’s wry observation would lose its sardonic bite. The church would no longer be viewed as a counterpoint to Jesus’ vision of God’s fair reign but as concrete evidence for it. It would be seen as the instrument of God’s kingdom, the very means by which God’s reign is progressively, and collaboratively, implemented in the world, a world which otherwise would never understand what the “rule of God and his justice” is really all about.
Chris Marshall is the St John’s Associate Professor of Christian Theology in the Religious Studies Department at Victoria University of Wellington.
Comments
Leave a Reply
