In looking at the possibilities for making sense of Jesus' expectation of the coming of the Kingdom of God, here are all the ones I can think of (that fit within the mind-set of historical critical biblical scholarship). The possible spatial options are: the kingdom exists either in heaven, or on earth or both. The temporal options are: the kingdom exists in the future, or in the present, or both. The spiritualized interpretation holds that the kingdom of God is purely an interior phenomenon within the heart and mind of the believer (see Luke 17:21). The concept of the kingdom of God usually is meant in the sense of the rule of reign of God, since a purely spatial representation of the kingdom of God (such as a theocracy like modern day Iran or ancient Israel under King David) is not a possible option for what Jesus means by kingdom. Some modern day Christian apocalypticists will mention Jesus' coming 1,000 year reign in Jerusalem as referred to in Revelation 20:4. But I do not believe this picture of the kingdom does justice to Jesus' teachings.
With regard to the possibilities for explaining the form and time of the kingdom (as mentioned above as spatial-temporal options), most 20th century New Testament scholars who consider themselves Christians have opted for "both" in each instance, the kingdom being both present in Jesus ministry, but still to come in its fullness in the future, and existing both in heaven now completely,and on earth partially in the ministry of Jesus, but eventually to come in its fullness in the near or distant future (see Matthew 6:10).
This consensus was very much in vogue during my school years thanks to the influential writings of Norman Perrin (the same guy who came up with the list of the Criteria of Authenticity). Following a similar path as Perrin's in methodology, but coming to a different conclusion, Borg breaks up this consensus with his view that Jesus did Not at all expect a future kingdom. Jesus believed the kingdom was present in his ministry and would continue to be present through the work of his disciples as they practiced "radical egalitarianism." Borg seems to have been one of the earliest American scholars to push this view and get a hearing among his fellow academics. I suspect that his idea caught on quickly because Borg was a high profile presence in the Jesus Seminar at this time (1987) and that many of his colleagues in the Jesus Seminar were influenced by their affiliation with Borg. Also the other scholar that propelled this interpretation of Jesus and the kingdom to wider acceptance among American New Testament scholars is Crossan with the publication of his very large and influential book on Jesus in early 1992.
Bart Ehrman goes in a very different direction, resurrecting Albert Schweitzer's interpretation of Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet. For Ehrman, Jesus expected the kingdom to come to earth very soon with an apocalyptic cataclysm during his own lifetime. A similar but different interpretation is offered by E.P. Sanders in his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, in which he believes that Jesus expected the kingdom to come soon with a great flourish that would bring about the transformation of the present world order" (Sanders, page 176). But this does not include the expected destruction of the present world, but making everything right and in harmony with the ways of God.
In reading the statements that Jesus make about his expectation of the kingdom of God, it seems obvious that this kingdom (reign or rule of God) of which Jesus speaks will not look like the reign of Caesar or Herod. God certainly would not choose such a person to act as his governor of His kingdom. But exactly what it will look like (in Jesus' envisioning of this final event) is a big question mark for many scholars. It is clear that most early Christians expected that Jesus would return to exercise direct divine rule over all the earth (such as Paul in his letters). But many modern scholars doubt that Jesus expected that he would be the one to exercise this rule. If Jesus did not hold this expectation about his role in the kingdom, what did he expect this kingdom to look like?
In the scholarly consensus of the 20th century that I mentioned earlier, God's kingdom as present in Jesus' ministry would certainly be seen as a non-coercive, even hidden rule, that is unobservable to ordinary human sight, but rather working in a hidden way in the same was as leaven/yeast works or a mustard seed grows. But in the future, when the kingdom comes in its fullness, there would be the expectation that divine rule would be directly exercised over all the earth. There will be some kind of judgment in the future and those who reject Jesus will be excluded from the kingdom (see Matthew 7:21 & 10:33).
The "Lord's Prayer" (Matthew 6:9-13) gives the expectation the when this kingdom arrives on earth it will reflect the rule of God in heaven. I believe we can assume that Jesus believed this much for sure. If so, then also we can deduce that everything that is currently wrong in the world, whether in terms of interpersonal relations, the physical environment or our human physical bodies will be transformed so that they reflect God's ideal. But Jesus leaves unexplained the details concerning exactly how this will happen.
We of a western democratic mindset might like to think that in this kingdom Jesus is envisioning a society in which all people of all races, times and places are completely equal, but it is hard to find any Bible verses to support such a view. Usually what Jesus is saying is that many of the people who will be present in the kingdom would be unexpected. For instance, there will be the outcasts of society such as those who have physical defects (the crippled, lame and blind, see Luke 14:21) and those who are outcasts due to their occupations, like tax collectors and prostitutes (Matthew 21:31). And along this line of thinking, we must also consider the references in various sayings and parables about a great reversal taking place when the kingdom comes, where the first will be last and the last first (Matthew 20:16) and the humble are exalted and the exalted ones are humbled (Luke 14:11). This reversal certainly indicates some kind of divine judgment is expected.
Jesus also seems to indicate some kind of hierarchy will exist in his kingdom come on earth. For instance, Jesus speaks of the disciples "judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke 22:29) or that those who have left their homers and families will receive back a hundredfold in the time to come (Matthew 19:29). Thus, even though we might like to envision Jesus as the pure egalitarian, there is the element of judgment for those who have received preferential treatment during their earthly life, especially those who ignored or rejected the poor and outcasts of society (the best example of this is the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31).
I have avoided mentioning until now an important dimension of Jesus' teaching on the kingdom of God, the apocalyptic expectation, because I wanted to save it for last and so include Ehrman. As you are well aware by now, for Ehrman, the apocalyptic dimension to Jesus' teaching on the kingdom of God is the central feature of this teaching and (for Ehrman) the key to understanding the message and ministry of Jesus. This dimension of Jesus' teaching is no where more obvious than in the apocalyptic expectation of Mark chapter 13, which many scholars like to refer to as Mark's "little apocalypse." A scholar like Borg would say that Jesus never spoke such words, but that early Christians, influenced by apocalyptic Judaism, introduced such ideas into the Jesus tradition after Jesus' resurrection. In Mark 13 we find a definite expectation of cosmic events of earth shaking implications (literally), on a near but undefined future date.
Ehrman goes to great lengths to show that using the standard criteria of authenticity, especially multiple attestation (which Ehrman calls "independent attestation"), there is no doubt that Jesus uttered some kingdom sayings that must be interpreted as apocalyptic predictions (see Ehrman, pages 129-130). Ehrman takes on two figures from the Jesus seminar who have a different view (pages 132-134). The first alternative is the interpretation of the source "Q" which is interpreted as not containing any apocalyptic sayings in its oldest version. John Kloppenborg is the Q scholar Ehrman refers to, but we can also include Borg and Crossan within this viewpoint that the earliest version of Q was without apocalyptic sayings (earliest and oldest also means closest to Jesus). Ehrman also takes aim at Crossan's ingenious but far-fetched theory that there are other documents that contain material within them that are more reliable on Jesus' own views on eschatology than the Synoptic gospels. The best rebuttal to Crossan's thesis is that these other early Christian documents (often referred to as gospels) represent the continuation of the process of "de-apocalypticizing" Jesus' message as explained by Ehrman on page 131. Here Ehrman follows the lead of Rudolf Bultmann and interprets the gospel of John as offering the benefits of the kingdom in the present believer's experience (via the power of the Holy Spirit), and then Ehrman explains the eschatological stance of the gospel of Thomas as following in this trend of de-apocalypticizing the message of Jesus.
Ehrman is certain that Jesus expected a great cataclysmic cosmic event worthy of the title, "the end of the world," whereas Sanders would only say that Jesus expected the "transformation of the present world order" (Sanders page 183). Ehrman also sees Jesus' apocalyptic expectation as the key to understanding and interpreting the message and ministry of Jesus. Therefore, for Ehrman, Jesus' message emphasizes judgment of the present world order that will be conducted by a divine emissary Jesus calls "the Son of Man" (see Ehrman pages 144-148). Aside: it is clear that the gospel writers believed this Son of Man to be Jesus, but many modern scholars are not convinced that Jesus viewed himself in this light, but rather saw himself as a prophet announcing the coming of the Son of Man (an idea taken from Daniel 7:13).
Having established the central importance of the coming judgment, Ehrman proceeds to discuss the implications of this judgment. First and foremost, the theme of reversal characterizes the coming judgment (see Ehrman pages 148-154). Of course, the teachings on the coming reversals have direct implications for human behavior in the meantime until the big event, in order to avoid landing on the bad side of the judgment. Therefore, Jesus teaches that his disciples should look to the future, not the present for their rewards in life; they should serve others; they should become like children; they should recognize and accept God's offer of salvation for repentant sinners, and the humble and the humiliated will be recompensed for their suffering (pages 148-153). Finally there is the expectation that some serious destruction will also take place (see Ehrman page 154).
In chapter ten (pages 163-181), Ehrman addresses various other groupings of Jesus' sayings and interprets them in light of the apocalyptic expectation. My opinion is that many of these sayings addressed in this chapter do not require any kind of apocalyptic expectation to make sense out of them. Ehrman's approach is that, since he has now proven (to his satisfaction) that an apocalyptic expectation is the central feature of Jesus' message, therefore it is necessary to interpret everything else Jesus says in light of that context of apocalyptic expectation. Ehrman breezily makes a case that there is a connection between Jesus' sayings on divorce, forgiveness, judging others, loving enemies and care for the oppressed and the coming kingdom of God. In my opinion there is certainly nothing necessarily apocalyptic about such sayings. Also worth noting in this chapter is where Ehrman debates with those who would water down the apocalyptic dimension of Jesus' sayings (page 177) and note also his attack on Crossan's
anti-apocalyptic interpretation of the parable of the Mustard Seed (pages 179-180).
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)