We both see the gospel Jesus preached as the good news about the kingdom of God. It is not an individualistic rescue plan from the present system, but the promise that the entire cosmos will be redeemed from sin and the curse. As such it is bound up in the fabric of time and space.
I think we agree that these are the parameters within which the expression ‘kingdom of God’ would have been understood by a first Century Jew. Set within this context would have been the resolution of more immediate concerns such as the end of Roman occupation. ‘In that day’ Israel expected to be established at the head of the nations with Jerusalem as the world capital.
Having said that, you suggest that we have passed through the eschatological crisis of the end of the age. That this has something to do with the eventual displacement of the imperial cult by a gospel that proclaimed Jesus as Lord. Furthermore you see the Son of Man as already enthroned. You conclude that we are now living in ‘post eschatological’ times. Does that mean that the ‘olam haba’ has already come?
You acknowledge that there is some incongruity between this and the expected future of Jesus’ contemporaries, necessitating a ‘reconstruction’ of the gospel.
I propose an unaltered and unreconstructed gospel of the kingdom, defined in much the same way as prior to Jesus’ ministry. I would suggest that no change is needed if the age to come, the enthronement of the Son of Man and establishment of the kingdom of God are yet future.
I’m intrigued by just how different our conclusions are and sense that we have the potential for some very illuminating discussion about how it is that we arrived at our present understanding.
Perhaps the most constructive way for me to enter this dialogue would be to imitate you by providing a ‘broad-brush’ picture of my own views. Hopefully this will enable us to gain some sense of where the fault-lines lie.
STEPPING BACK TO SEE THE BIG PICTURE
The promise of kingdom in the Hebrew Bible
The kingdom of God promised in the scriptures goes right back to the beginning. Man was placed in a paradisiacal earth. He had access to the tree of life. This would have enabled him to live forever. The first covenant that God made with man was a commission to govern the earth. To fill the world with descendants, thus subduing and taking dominion over it. In spite of human rebellion, sin and the curse, it is to achieve this ultimate purpose that God has been working in human history ever since.
The Abrahamic covenant promised an individual who would bring a ‘blessing’ of some sort to all of humanity. This seemed tied in some way to both Abraham his descendant/s inheriting ‘the promised land’.
The Davidic covenant promised David a Son who would be at the same time God’s son and reign from his throne in Jerusalem forever. From this point on, the Jerusalem throne begins to be referred to as ‘the throne of Yahweh’ and Israel as ‘the kingdom of Yahweh’. The Davidic reign and the kingdom of God appear to become synonymous.
(1Ch 28:5)
5 And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of Yahweh over Israel.
(1Ch 29:23)
23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.
(2Ch 13:8)
8 And now ye think to withstand the kingdom of Yahweh in the hand of the sons of David; and ye be a great multitude, and there are with you golden calves, which Jeroboam made you for gods.
The book of Psalms and the prophets add further detail and piece these covenants together into one harmonious picture. The themes of God’s government spreading ‘from the river to the ends of the earth’ through an obedient and restored humanity, headquartered at Jerusalem, and Abraham’s blessing thus coming on all nations are all brought together in texts such as Psalm 2, 72; Isaiah 2, 11 etc.
(Jer 3:17)
17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of Yahweh; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of Yahweh, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.
Throughout the Old Covenant period, when not explicitly stated, this promise was constantly alluded to in the offer, here and now, of long life in the land which Yahweh swore to the patriarchs. Yet this did nothing to alter God’s ultimate purpose to grant, not only long life, but immortality and the inheritance, not only of the land, but of the whole earth to the Israel of God at the establishment of the kingdom.
The expression ‘kingdom of God’ would seem to have been shorthand for all of this. It is good news indeed! The absence of any kind of definition of it in the very gospels where it is continuously preached would seem to attest to a widespread understanding of all this among Jesus’ hearers. It was salvation, defined in these terms which Jesus gave unqualified endorsement to when he told the Samaritan woman that ‘salvation is of the Jews’. Paul saw the gospel he preached and as a proclamation of the Abrahamic covenant. He goes so far as to describe God as having ‘preached the gospel to Abraham’ in Gal 3:8.
Whatever conclusions we draw about the impact of the ministry of Jesus on this, and the subsequent gathering of all nations in the church, there still remains a literal and concrete fulfillment of God’s purpose in the future.
THE OLIVET DISCOURSE AND THE END OF THE AGE
Let him that reads understand
In Jesus’ Olivet prophecy he makes explicit reference to the book of Daniel. It seems as though the message of this book is the key to interpreting his description of events leading up to his coming and the end of the age, which he says will follow ‘immediately’ (Matthew 24:29).
In Daniel, the arrival of an archetypal enemy of God is predicted.
He is introduced in chapter 7 as a ‘little horn’ (I love how the KJV puts it in v.20- “whose look is more stout than his fellows”). He is to be a blasphemous person with a big mouth, extremely hostile to God and to his people. He will prevail over them for a time but will be cut off by the giving of the kingdom ‘under the whole heaven’ to the son of man/saints.
Detail of his provenance is given in Chapter 8- the Seleucid quarter of the four divisions into which Alexander’s empire was split subsequent to his death. He will stop the sacrifices and cast the sanctuary to the ground. He will cause a ‘desolation’.
Chapter 11 gives more detail concerning this act. It is to be the result of him placing in the temple something so detestable to God as to cause him to abandon it, leaving it desolate.
Just as the vision in Ch7 climaxed with the coming of the kingdom, so the vision of Ch11 climaxes in Ch12. ‘At that time’, a period of unprecedented tribulation will lead to the resurrection of the dead. Then the ‘wise’ will ‘shine like the brightness of the firmament’ (Matt 13:43).
The question this raises is- does this event still lie ahead of us? The answer will inform our understanding of whether Jesus’ coming and end of the age has yet occurred.
We have read the job description. Two candidates have so far applied for the post.
The first was Antiochus Epithanes. He was a Seleucid ruler, a Syrian, a blasphemer and all round bad-guy. Never more content than when throwing babies onto bonfires. He massacred many Jews and sacrificed a swine on the altar in the temple.
This individual would seem to fit the bill perfectly. Were it not for the fact that, according to Jesus our Rabbi, whose exposition of the Hebrew Bible has absolute authority, the abomination that causes desolation described in Daniel is yet future. He is thus ruled out.
The second was the Roman general, Titus. He also slaughtered the inhabitants of Jerusalem and is said to have set his standard in the holy place of the temple. The desolation he caused is such that there is no temple and no holy of holies to this day.
But Titus comes from the wrong part of the world. Like Antiochus, he would appear to be some sort of a prefigure of an individual yet to arise, in the last days. There is clearly a sense in which, not only prophetic utterances, but also concrete historical events can adumbrate the primary meaning of a promise or prediction.
Indeed, if a man such as Antiochus Epithanes, who so closely matches the description of Daniel’s ‘desolator’ isn’t the ‘little horn’, then Titus is excluded by a sort of a-fortiori-in-reverse (how much less…)
The strongest reason to discount both these figures is that the coming of the kingdom Described in Dan 7 did not immediately bring about their destruction. Neither did the resurrection of the dead, described in Daniel 12 immediately follow.
Like Daniel’s description of event surrounding the ‘abomination that causes desolation’, Jesus’ account includes the same details:
(Mt 24:29-31)
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
The coming of the Son of Man, the trumpet/shofar-blast, the gathering of the elect… We have multiple images here, all related to the resurrection and establishment of the kingdom.
(Th 4:16,17)
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
(1Co 15:50 & 52)
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(Rev 11:15)
15 And the seventh angel sounded [his trumpet]; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
I have a concern that viewing the end of the age and the coming of Jesus with the kingdom as past events will result in a radically altered eschatological picture. Moreover, since this good news is the good news, a different gospel may result. Attention must not be directed so much on the past as to distract our focus on the future, because that is the direction from which the fulfillment of God’s promise is coming to us. We must focus our eyes on the prize.
The issue of timing is addressed in Luke 19. The parable of the pounds. Significantly, it is explained that Jesus gave this teaching ‘because he was near to Jerusalem and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear’.
Jesus made it clear to his followers that there will be an unspecified period of time between his departure ‘to a far country’ and his return to judge his followers and grant them positions of rulership in the kingdom, a promise he will expand on later in 22:30 (Matt 19:28; Rev 5:10; 1Cor 6:2-3).
Even the authority over cities needn’t be interpreted symbolically in light of the Abrahamic promise that ‘your seed shall possess the gates of their enemies’ (Gen 22:17). The place of government in a middle-eastern city was the gate (Job 29:7).
So the fundamental change to God’s eschatological scheme did not concern the substance of the promise, but rather the timing of its fulfillment.
As a result, the apostles made that the fact that the Lord was away and that the kingdom would not come until his return, the centerpiece of their theology of the present age.
UNTIL…
The unfulfilled promise
The most quoted verse from the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament is:
(Ps 110:1)
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
This formed the cornerstone of the apostolic understanding of the present role of Jesus. It provided the justification to their Jewish audience for the failure of Jesus- so far- to establish the kingdom.
As we know, contrary to expectation the Son of David had not assumed the position which rightly belonged to him, on Zion’s throne. Instead he had he suffered rejection and been executed. Nevertheless, he had risen from the dead, and this was evidence enough that he would be back.
In Acts 1, after a six week seminar on the subject (v3), the apostles are still asking when the kingdom will come. Note that in response to their question, Jesus does not redefine the meaning of kingdom, but the timing of its establishment:
(Ac 1:6,7)
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
So rather than alter the definition of ‘kingdom’ to fit the present circumstances, the apostles used Psalm 110 to provide a job description for the Messiah during the intermediate period.
Jesus had come as the prophet like Moses and preacher of the good news of the kingdom, confirming, not redefining, the covenant/promises of God:
(Ro 15:8)
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.
He is now in session as high priest, after the order of Melchizedek, but none of this means that he will have to forfeit David’s throne. His kingly role continues to be defined in exclusively Davidic terms.
For the apostles, the word ‘until’ is pregnant with all the Messianic expectations stirred up by the covenant which God had made with their fathers and expanded on through the ministry of the prophets.
For all their application of eschatological prophecy to present circumstances (an avenue of discussion which it may be useful to pursue further), the apostles continued to hold fast, with eager anticipation to the Jewish kingdom promise. All things had not yet been restored and would not be until the return of Jesus.
(Ac 3:20,21)
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
At the time of the writing of the New Testament, there remained a massive hole, in the shape of the kingdom promises to Israel, which the apostles fill until the time of their consummation, with hope.
THE POWER OF HOPE
Just as the Hebrew Bible could equally be styled ‘the book of the kingdom of God’, the New Testament epistles are ‘letters of hope’.
(Ro 8:18-25)
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
An over-emphasis on the present aspects of the kingdom (it’s demonstrable power and attesting signs during the ministry of Jesus and the apostles, it’s message, it’s population) at the expense of the future fulfillment weakens the force of this momentous event. It drains water from the well of expectant hope, which is the God given source from which the believer is to draw strength to overcome life’s trials:
(Ac 14:22)
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
The formula for spiritual strength would seem to be a joy and security derived from the utter conviction that God will be faithful to his kingdom promise. The process towards spiritual maturity would seem to consist in a growing persuasion concerning this (Romans 5:1-5; 1John 3:3).
Paul explicitly acknowledged the devastating impact the removal of future hope would have on his joy:
(1Co 15:19)
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
We must beware of anything that would obscure something of such vital importance that the prophets, apostles and Jesus himself were at pains to keep at the forefront of the believer’s minds.
The seed which must grow in order for us to bear fruit, and which will cost us dearly if it becomes choked is according to Matthew ‘the word/message of the kingdom’ (Matt 13:19).
IN CONCLUSION
The substance of the promises God has made with Israel historically are of vital importance to us today, since they form the shape of the good news which we must believe in order to enter into covenant with him. It is in this way that we become grafted into his elect people and participate in the blessings of Abraham.
God has really been saying the same thing all along, calling out a people to take him at his word. Of course, the death burial and resurrection of Jesus plays a crucial part in this, but it was added to the kingdom gospel relatively late in Jesus’ ministry. It should not eclipse the original hope. It ratifies God’s contract with mankind as well as providing living proof that God can give immortality to a human being. In the resurrected Christ, the apostles looked upon and handled the manifestation of the word of life which was with the Father but was also now walking, talking and eating in their midst. They glimpsed the future of our race.
God bore witness to the veracity of his son’s message by fulfilling in him the promised blessing of immortality. He is now the son of God in power, begotten from the dead in anticipation of the day when the Father will say to him ‘ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession’.
I hope that this somewhat random scattering of observations and thoughts will at least serve as a springboard for some discussion. I am interested to find out exactly where our views correlate and diverge.
Hope and glory
Alex, there’s a lot to address here. Thanks for taking the trouble to set the argument out at such length. I can’t deal with every point you’ve made, but hopefully these comments will get to the heart of the difference between our divergent understandings of the kingdom of God. Of course, these arguments really require a lot more careful reading of the texts.
I would put this slightly differently because it appears to suggest that the desolator in Daniel and the desolator in Jesus’ discourse have to be the same person. I would rather say that Daniel describes the crisis provoked by Antiochus Epiphanes - as you say, he fits the bill perfectly - and that Jesus reinterprets or reuses this ‘typology’ to describe an analogous crisis still to come. In this reuse of the typology, there is plenty of scope for an adjustment of the details: it doesn’t matter that it is now a Roman rather than a Syrian ruler who opposes the God of Israel and threatens the sanctity of the temple; and I’m not sure how necessary it is to identify this desolator / man of lawlessness with a particular Roman leader (Nero is probably a better candidate than Titus).
Does the language of prophecy really demand an ‘immediate’ destruction of Israel’s enemies? Assyria and Babylon weren’t destroyed immediately; and we have the recurrent refrain ‘how long?’ - the Jews were used to not seeing instant fulfilment of their hopes. The point is that pagan Rome eventually collapsed, was overrun by its own enemies; the followers of Jesus of Nazareth won the battle for hearts and minds.
As for Daniel’s ‘resurrection’… This is not a resurrection of all the dead - it appears to be a resurrection of certain Jews on the basis of how they responded to Antiochus’ provocation: some are raised to glory, others to shame. If this is to be taken literally and not as a metaphor for judgment and renewal in Israel, I would be inclined to connect it with a New Testament conviction (John’s ‘first resurrection’) that those who suffer and die during the eschatological crisis of the end of second temple Judaism will be raised and will reign with the messiah throughout the age to come.
The timing of the event is certainly of importance, but I would point to i) the repeated insistence that the eschatological climax would come within a generation, within the foreseeable future of those alive at the time; and ii) the consistent connection between the future event and the suffering of the church. It had to be a realistic hope because those who chose to follow Christ faced persecution and death.
And surely there is a redefinition of the substance, for example: i) the application of Pss. 2 and 110 to one who suffered for the sins of the people and was raised from the dead certainly entails a redefinition of Davidic kingship; the entry into Jerusalem entails a redefinition of kingship; Paul reinterprets the Abrahamic inheritance in terms of the Spirit rather than the land over which a king might rule. The vindication of the Son of man entails the transfer of sovereignty from the blasphemous little horn and the beast to the one who represents, embodies, a suffering faithful community of YHWH.
I disagree. On the one hand, my argument about the coming of the Son of man does not preclude the fundamental ‘eschatological’ hope of judgment and the renewal of creation. The Son of man vision offers hope specifically to a church oppressed by an overwhelming pagan power - it is not designed to embody a universal hope for the church at all times. On the other hand, we are left to grasp a no less real and powerful hope for this world now: Jesus died (and others suffered after him) not just for the sake of the people but for the sake of the mission of God.
Very true, but why shouldn’t they have had a mind a moment within history - a moment of enormous significance for the people of God as it confronted the massive spiritual powers of the ancient world? Why should these prophecies have been projected over the heads of the early church into a remote and unforeseeable? Jesus and Paul kept these hopes at the forefront of believers minds precisely because they mattered so much to that generation.
On emphasizing a literal, physical, earthly kingdom of God
Andrew, if you don’t mind, I’d like to make some comments regarding your response to theocrats post on Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom. Even before doing that, I would like to let you know how much I have benefited from this site. I feel like I have something to contribute to the discussions taking place, but more than that, a whole lot to learn as well.
Andrew, I acknowledge and agree with the point you make here. It seems that there is an original and intended meaning and one that is adjusting the same idea/prophetic word to ones present circumstance. In order to be consistent, I would hesitate to say that the Psalm 2 and 110 passages are only used in reference to a suffering servant. Although, we could surely say that there are two lines of thought and both must be taken into account.
I would also agree that there is not a need to see immediate fulfillment, nevertheless it might be lacking to say that the fulfillment has transpired with merely a winning over of hearts and minds. We need to take into consideration that all of the previous fulfillments of Daniel’s vision were literal, earthly advancements of kings, peoples, and conquests of land.
This seems very reasonable and even-handed.
The timing seems to be the gospel. The Jews had been awaiting a kingdom (overthrow of the gentile powers), but were granted the good news of God that their hopes were on the horizon, the kingdom was ‘at hand’. How joyous it would have been, preparing for and associating with the kingdom message through the cleansing waters of the Jordan. Yes, I agree that the eschatological climax was intended for that generation, yet as with most or maybe all prophetic utterances, they are conditional. Is it possible that Israel rejected and killed the king, ultimately delaying the literal, earthly kingdom to an unknown and possibly distant future (Acts 1:6)?
Andrew, it seems that the hope laid out by Jesus and the apostles was one of life in the age to come. This is very realistic given the immortal resurrection of the anointed man from Nazareth. An immortal resurrection was no longer based on faith, but sight. (extremely realistic).
I’m not so certain that these passages as used by the apostles are a redefinition, excluding the original meaning of what it is to be a Davidic king, but as you said in your post, a new application for a new circumstance. Assuming that we are speaking of the early chapters of Acts, after the quoting of Ps. 2 and 110, Luke then states in vs. 21, "He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets." I mention this text because it seems to reaffirm the original, earthly, literal kingdom promises (restore everything) including a Davidic ruler (Jesus). New applications do not seem to cancel out original intent.
Could you please provide further explanation of this point? In my understanding, ‘redefinition’ can be a slippery word with variations of meaning.
I would love to hear further comments on this point. I’m unfamiliar with this idea. As far as I can tell, Paul thought that inheriting the kingdom came after God’s people received imperishable bodies (1 Cor. 15:50). Secondly, doesn’t comparing land to spirit seem mystical and unintelligible without further explanation?
Yes, all power on heaven and earth was transferred to Jesus, but we seem to be awaiting that time when he will utilize and display that power. Jesus said the son of man would come in glory, with the angels, sit on his throne, gather the nations, and distribute inheritances (Matt. 25). Paul said Jesus would judge the world with justice (Acts 17). Would you suggest that this has happened, and it is proper to call the present time, unequivocally, the kingdom of God?
I don’t think that the article posted by theocrat implied that you didn’t have an eschatological hope, but that it is de-emphasized because of a stronger focus and attention to the present hope (which seems to be that there is a post-eschatological community?). I personally have a difficult time taking solace knowing and understanding that this specific, particular (Christian) community exists since there are many groups of people that offer comfort, love, and community. Maybe I’m missing the point entirely? As far as what I think should be distinctive about this community, it is that they focus and emphasize the age to come; no more pain, suffering, sorrow, death, etc… This seems to have very practical implications as Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians indicates (ch. 4).
Yes, I agree, the hope has to be within reach, yet this is the tension that the apostles seemed to be dealing with. The kingdom seemed to be right there, yet it tarried. We must remember that the Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, but he is being patient, not wanting people to perish as the author of 2 Peter relays to the Diaspora.
Andrew (and others), I look forward to hearing your thoughts as this exchange progresses. May we continue to energize each others walk.
Israel and kingdom
Thanks for the careful comments. There’s rather too much to address all at once, but hopefully the following pursues one of the key issues a bit further.
You would need to show that the New Testament imagined a renewed earthly kingdom (Israel?) beyond the destruction of AD 70. This is the important point: the New Testament sees the possibility of repentance and renewal before war against Rome breaks out (I would include Romans 11 here); but does it speak of hope after the destruction of Jerusalem? Jesus presented two paths - one leading to life the other to destruction. Wouldn’t your suggestion imply the possibility of a third path emerging somewhere on the other side of destruction? You refer to Acts 3:21 but is it so clear that Peter is speaking of an earthly kingdom in the sense that you appear to suggest? The verses that follow (22-26) give the substance of what God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets: those who do not listen to the prophet will be destroyed; those who repent will enjoy the blessing of Abraham and will be a blessing to all the families of the earth. This is the same choice that Jesus offered the Jews: destruction, or an alternative path that would lead to global mission.
In what way was the entry into Jerusalem a ‘redefinition of kingship’? Zechariah’s vision was of a day when God would (presumably literally) defeat Israel’s enemies. The king will be able to ride into Jerusalem on an ass rather than on a war horse because God will ‘cut off the chariot from Ephraim’, etc. (Zech.9:10). Clearly this was not the case when Jesus rode into Jerusalem - the road would have been lined with Roman soldiers. So how did he think his action would have been understood ? Possibly he was saying that Israel’s enemies would eventually be defeated, but Jesus does not generally seem interested in the fate of Rome. It seems more likely that he is saying something like: ‘To understand what God is doing for the sake of Israel’s salvation from the hands of her enemies, you have to look at me, grasp the significance of what is about to happen. The victory that you are looking for cannot be achieved apart from this journey that I am making that will end in my suffering at the hands of your oppressors.’ Isn’t that a redefinition of kingship: he acts out the prophecy under very different conditions.
My argument is that we need to look out at the future and make sense of the prophetic language from the point of view of the New Testament. We may want to say that we are still ‘awaiting that time when he will utilize and display that power’, but I would suggest that from the perspective of the early church the overriding issue was the threat that Rome posed to the people of God. The Son of man passage in Daniel describes the overthrow of a pagan oppressor, the end of suffering, and the transfer of kingdom or spiritual authority to the saints of the Most High; in subsequent chapters we also see the punishment of those who were disloyal to YHWH. It seems to me inconceivable that they could have heard or used this language and not applied it to their own circumstances. The judgment that most mattered to them was the judgment of God’s enemies. The kingdom of God was a kingdom in conflict with, opposed by, the nations of the world.
I know we still need the hope of a new creation, etc., but I think what we need far more now is an appreciation of what the people of God was chosen for in the first place, which Peter reiterates - to be a blessing to the nations of the world. Abraham was not saved - he was chosen for a purpose. By fulfilling this purpose we always point forward to the renewal of creation and we do so (in theory) as a God-centred, Christ-like, Spirit-filled community - a people for that reason fundamentally different from other groups that ‘offer comfort, love, and community’. It is rather misguided to sit here waiting for Jesus to ‘utilize and display that power’. We are not under oppression. We are not crying out for vindication against our enemies. We have the fulness of the Spirit. We are the people of God - a place for his dwelling in the midst of the nations. That is as much as we need to be.
Jesus' gospel of the Kingdom
This is a fascinating discussion! It seems to me that the message of the Kingdom is, for us, both a practice and a promise. In that sense, I’m with Theocrat in that there is direct continuity with Jesus.
It is a practice because it shaped the way in which Jesus acted and related, preached, believed, prayed, interpreted the Scriptures and died. It is a promise because it embodied his vision for created reality - the transformation of this world into the Kingdom of God. I understand this to mean something like "a world in which everyone loves God with heart, soul, mind and strength, and neighbour as self", and constructs the self, relationships and the world accordingly (ie erects "signs" of this Kingdom, or anticipations of transformed reality.
Something that we understand with increased sophistication now is the fact that "the way things are" is not a "given" but a construction. "The rich man at his castle/the poor man at his gate/God has made them high and low/and ordered their estate" is rightly left out of our hymn books because it is a lie. God has nothing to do with the structures of poverty and oppression which divide the world into north and south. We human beings create our societies and our global economy. We make the decisons and implement the policies that make the world as it is today and determine the lives of its inhabitants. To take seriously Jesus’ message of the Kingdom and to live out the prayer to make the earth the place where God’s will is done (ie to pray for the coming of the Kingdom) is to engage in the transformation of the structures of human living.
Furthermore, Jesus asks us to recognise and celebrate these instances of transformation as the presence of the Kingdom (albeit in mustard seed form). So the end of Apartheid, the coming down of the Wall and so on are instances of the Kingdom.
The vision and promise of the Kingdom is what defines Christian mission, which is participation in the bringing about of the Kingdom. "Kingdom life" is therefore christological praxis - the practice of Jesus - in the contemporary context. It is this praxis which defines the Church as the Church.
The Abrahamic promise and the good news of the kingdom