In 1964, when this book was published as Jesus and the Kingdom, George Eldon Ladd said, “There is a growing consensus in New Testament scholarship that the Kingdom of God is in some sense both present and future.”[1]
THE
PRESENCE OF THE FUTURE
The
Eschatology of Biblical Realism
If the Kingdom
of God is defined as an eschatological redemption realm of the age to come, and
we know that Jesus proclaimed that this new age was imminent, then we have
insuperable difficulties. Alternatively, if the Kingdom of God is defined as an
experience in the human heart, then all that Jesus said about it as being
imminent etc can be sloughed off as notions that he shared with Jews, which
have nothing to do with his message. But,
If, however,
the Kingdom is the reign of God, not merely in the human heart but dynamically
active in the person of Jesus and in human history, then it becomes possible to
understand how the Kingdom of God can be present and future, inward and outward,
spiritual and apocalyptic. For the redemptive royal activity of God could act
decisively more than once and manifest itself powerfully in more than one way
in accomplishing the divine end.[2]
THE PROMISE OF THE KINGDOM
The Old Testament promise
When
Jesus entered Galilee preaching, he said, “The time is fulfilled, and the
kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:14-15), yet nowhere does Jesus define the
Kingdom of God for us. He could only have assumed that everyone understood the
definition already. Therefore, we investigate the promise of the Kingdom of God
in the Old Testament as well as the Jewish interpretations in apocryphal
literature to discover how the Kingdom of God was understood.[3]
A dynamic hope
The Old
Testament hope is fundamentally grounded in “faith in God who reveals himself
dynamically in history” and he guarantees the vindication of the revelation.
God is King over the earth and Israel’s King, ruling over all, but there are
“special times of visitation when his royal purposes find concrete expression,
the most important which will be the final visitation to consummate his will
and to bring salvation.”[4]
An eschatological hope
The
earliest prophetic eschatology that we have is from Amos reflects convulsions
of nature on a cosmic scale, where God himself brings disruption to the
physical order and a cosmic catastrophe.[5]
The Day of the Lord is a visitation of God, who breaks into history in a cataclysmic
irruption “to manifest his rule in judgement as well as in salvation” as the
earth and its creatures are destroyed, while a remnant escapes, who will
experience God’s ultimate salvation.[6]
The Kingdom of God is not a product of historical forces so that we can call it
“historical” or “this-worldly.” It is suprahistorical because God himself
visits his people.[7]
The biblical perspective of the Kingdom of God can be obscured if we speak of
it as being beyond history or in history, making the break between eschatology
and history too sharp. The final visitation of God is eschatological because whatever
existence ensues is considered final – God’s redemptive purpose will have been
brought to its ultimate consummation.[8]
An earthly hope
The
notion of redemption as purely spiritual is a Greek idea. Biblical redemption
has always included the earth. The earth is not an indifferent stage, but an
expression of God’s glory.[9]
Everything is purged of evil: the human heart, society, and nature, so that the
glory of God can be manifested in his creation as the earth is shaken (Isa.
13:13) and the structure of the world disrupted (Hag. 2:7), and a new universe
replaces the old (Isa. 65:17; cf. 66:22). The hosts of heaven will be dissolved.
All the hosts will fade away. The dissolution of the old makes way for the new.
The redeemed earth is the place for the Kingdom of God.[10]
Man
is not just saved from creaturehood or delivered from creaturely existence. The
whole man is redeemed at the resurrection.[11]
It is not just a rescue from sin and evil.
The world was and remains God’s world and therefore is destined to play
a role in the consummation of God’s redemptive purposes. However, the curse
which lies upon nature because of man’s sin means that it cannot be the scene
of the final realization of God’s Kingdom apart from a radical transformation;
and the new age of the Kingdom will therefore be so different as to constitute
a new order of things.[12]
History and eschatology
The
prophets could stand in the present and view the future redemptive work of God
without strict chronological differentiation, caring about God’s will for the
people in the present.[13]
To separate the hope of the immediate future and the hope of the consummated
future is to obscure the Old Testament perspective because the hope of Israel
“was not in the future but in God.”[14]
The future and the present stand in tension with one another. Eschatology is
not a future end in and of itself, its relationship to history finds its
primary significance in God’s will for his people. God’s will for the ultimate
future was proclaimed to the people by the prophets so that they could proclaim
God’s will for the people in the present; the Kingdom of God was not a topic
for speculative conjecture or detached study or even a subject of importance
for its own sake as philosophers and theologians do. Rather, it was a burden
for the will of God being conveyed. [15]
God, who will bring the people into his Kingdom in the future, is concerned
with their sin in the present.[16]
When future events were prophesied, the people were told how to behave in the
present, in light of the future event.
Yet as Amos gazes into the future, he sees behind the impending event a
further visitation: the eschatological Day of the Lord. The future holds a day
of universal judgement (Amos 7:4; 8:8-9; 9:5), and beyond that a day of
salvation when the house of David will be revived, the earth become a blessing,
and Israel restored (9:11-15). These two visitations, the near and the far, or,
as we may for convenience call them, the historical and the eschatological, are
not differentiated in time. In fact, sometimes the two blend together as though
they were one day. Isaiah 13 calls the day of the visitation of Babylon the Day
of the Lord.[17]
The
historical judgement of Babylon and the Day of the Lord are two events but seen
as if they are one visitation of God and one day, but it is the picture of the
universal judgement; it is the eschatological judgement of mankind.[18]
In Joel the tension between history and eschatology is blended such that the
two are almost indistinguishable. The prophets did not focus on a chronology of
the future but on viewing “the immediate historical future against the
background of the ultimate eschatological goal…of Israel’s God to judge and
save his people.”[19]
A redeemed remnant emerges (Zeph. 2:3, 7, 9) and there is salvation for Israel
(Zeph. 3:11-20) and the Gentiles (Zeph. 3:9-10).[20]
God is the God of history who has already come in judgement and for deliverance
by historical visitations and will also come for final judgement and final
deliverance by an eschatological visitation.[21]
The future and the present are therefore related because the same God visits
and acts in both the present and the future, for his people; the proclamation
of the future visitation is designed to bring the people into conformity with
the will of God in the present.[22]
An ethical hope
The
prophetic promise has an ethical emphasis: it is only for the faithful! When
the prophets portrayed the future, whether they were talking about judgement or
redemption, the focus was the conduct of the righteous; it was about getting
right with God and in line with his immediate will, in the present.[23]
When prophets like Ezekiel focused on the future of Israel as their primary
eschatological concern, it was about a regenerated and purified Israel (Ezek.
36:25-27) whose restoration was connected to the land (Ezek. 11:17-20) and two
kingdoms would be reunited (Ezek. 34:23 ff; 37:24 ff). Under David’s rule
(Ezek. 34:23; 37:24-25) there would be a restored temple (Ezek. 40 ff) and
universal blessings in a kingdom that would be eternal, and full of peace and
righteousness (Ezek. 37:26-28; 36:28-30); “participation in the Kingdom is
grounded on moral and religious principles and not upon the fact of Israelitic
descent.[24]
Ezekiel was more clear than any other prophet about “the freedom and
responsibility of the individual (Ezek. 11:17-20; 18:23, 30-32; 33:11). Being a
recipient of God’s blessing was not based on being part of the chosen people,
but it was based on faithfulness. Each person was personally responsible before
God and would live or die based on their righteousness. Isaiah 24-27 is also
clear that at God’s visitation when his wrath comes and catastrophic judgement
comes, “a new order of blessing will emerge (Isa. 27:2-5)” and God will “spread
a rich banquet for all people and will remove from them the veil of mourning
(Isa. 25:6-7) but the promise is extended “only to a regenerate people” and not
to all Israel.[25] When
salvation comes to Judah (Isa. 24:23) it is “only to a Judah which has become a
righteous nation and keeps faith (Isa. 26:2).”[26]
It is the believing, purified, remnant who enter the eschatological Kingdom of
God, not Israel, and this is the most significant outcome connected to the
prophets’ ethical concern.[27]
Amos likens this remnant to a brand plucked from the fire. Only the redeemed
will experience “eschatological salvation not because they are Israelites but
because they are faithful, holy, righteous.”[28]
Paul illustrates this Old Testament teaching when he says, “not all who are
descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom. 9:6).[29]
Jeremiah distinguishes between circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of
the heart (Jer. 4:4; see also Deut. 10:15-16). Here is the concept of distinguishing
between spiritual and physical Israel; actual Israel versus ideal Israel; the
distinction rests on faith; it is a spiritual relationship; it is a “church”
within Israel; “The Israel which will experience salvation is the “church”
rather than the nation, the spiritual rather than the physical Israel.”[30]
The prophets were more concerned about the state of God’s people and redemption
than the timing of eschatological redemption. The Day of the Lord was both an
immediate act of God that the prophets expected in history, as well as an
ultimate eschatological visitation, but “the prophets were not primarily
concerned with the question of chronology but with the ethical impact of the
future on the present.”[31]
This tension between the immediate and the ultimate future, between
history and eschatology, stands at the heart of the ethical concern of the
prophetic perspective. For the important thing is not what is going to happen
and when it will happen, but the will of God, who is Lord of both the far and
the near future, for his people in the present.[32]
The apocalyptic interpretation of the promise
Between
200BC and 100AD, Jewish writers produced apocalyptic writings.[33]
The word apocalyptic can describe a genre of literature or a particular kind of
eschatology.[34] Several
features set apocalyptic literature apart from prophetic literature. Firstly,
apocalyptic literature is revelatory.[35]
Secondly, it is imitative and artificial in the nature of its revelations.[36]
Thirdly, it has pseudonymity.[37]
Fourthly, it is pseudo-prophecy.[38]
Fifthly, apocalyptic genre uses “symbolism in declaring the will of God for his
people.”[39] Apocalyptic
eschatology is known firstly for its dualism,[40]
secondly for its nonprophetic view of history,[41]
thirdly, pessimism, which is an element of “the loss of the prophetic concept
of history.[42]
Determinism is a fourth characteristic of apocalyptic eschatology,[43]
and the final characteristic is ethical passivity.[44]
Essentially,
apocalyptic eschatology is a development of prophetic eschatology in the sense
that the Jewish people were interpreting the post-Maccabean evils in the same
way that their prophets had interpreted eschatology.[45]
Both envision a Kingdom of God being established - a transformed order, free of
all evil and corruption - only as God breaks into history once more in a
catastrophic manner.[46]
However, as the Jewish people obeyed, and did not see this Kingdom coming, they
began to despair and started to redefine eschatology as only future, and they
lost the dynamic imminence that the prophets had always held on to – that
tension between the historical and the eschatological;[47]
that the God who had already acted would act again. As they waned in their hope,
they concluded that
God is alone the God of the future; he is God of the present only in a
theoretical sense. Redemptive history becomes altogether eschatology; and
eschatology has become a guarantee of ultimate salvation, not an ethical
message to bring God’s people face to face with the will of God.[48]
THE FULFILMENT OF THE PROMISE
Fulfilment without consummation
The prophetic promise of John the Baptist
The role of the
ancient prophets was revived in John as God spoke once again.[49]
His message was that God would act once more and visit the people, and that the
Kingdom was at hand and “This divine visitation will be accomplished by a
Coming One who will be the agent of the eschatological salvation and
judgement.”[50] John
had a dynamic, imminent view of this two-fold messianic work, and when he was
in prison, and confused about how Jesus was fulfilling this, he sent men to ask
Jesus if he was indeed the Coming One (Matt. 11:2-3).[51]
The Jews expected the Kingdom of God to bring salvation to them, and judgement
on their enemies, but John saw that judgement must begin in God’s house – he
demanded repentance, not in the form of accepting the law but in the form of
changed conduct as sinfulness is acknowledged, with baptism as evidence of the
repentance.[52] John’s
baptism was an adaptation of the Jewish proselyte baptism. The message this
gave to the Jews is that they were on the same level as the Gentiles in light
of the coming messianic visitation; they had no advantage. The Jews were
required to “experience personal repentance as though he were no son of
Abraham.”[53]
The fulfilment in Jesus
After
John’s arrest, Jesus entered Galilee saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the
Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel!” (Mark 1:14,15).
Where John declared an imminence “of the visitation of God which would mean the
fulfilment of the eschatological hope and the coming of the messianic age,”
Jesus says it is in progress and that “this promise was actually being
fulfilled.”[54]
The presence of the Kingdom was “a happening, an event, the gracious
action of God.” The promise was fulfilled in the action of Jesus: in his
proclamation of good news to the poor, release of captives, restoring sight to
the blind, freeing those who were oppressed. This was no new theology or new
idea or new promise; it was a new event in history. “The wretched hear the good
news, the prison doors are open, the oppressed breathe the air of freedom, blind
pilgrims see the light, the day of salvation is here.”[55]
The fulfilment
of the promise is reiterated when Jesus says that the disciples do not fast
because the bridegroom is with them (Mark 2:19). Matthew and Luke both
associate this saying with the Kingdom of God and “agree that it means that the
hope of former generations has become experience.”[56]
The fulfilment took place in unexpected terms. Jesus knew that the character of
this messianic fulfilment was in an unexpected form and called a special
blessing on those who were not offended by this (Matt. 11:6); “The promise of
the last days and of the eschatological salvation is being fulfilled even now.”[57]
Fulfilment without consummation
Whilst Jesus
spoke of a present fulfilment, his message was accompanied by a futuristic and
eschatological view of the Kingdom of God. The new age cannot come until God
destroys Satan.[58] This
age is hostile to God’s Kingdom. The Parousia and Judgement will separate this
age from the age to come, and usher in eternal life and the Kingdom of God.[59]
Until that day Satan remains the “god of this age” until the Kingdom of God
comes, and then “Satan will be destroyed, and this age of evil and death will
give way to the age to come and eternal life.”[60]
In the theology of the Gospels, the central problem is that the Kingdom of God
is both future and present.[61]
The solution to the problem lies in the dynamic meaning of Gods’ Kingdom.[62]
The kingdom: reign or realm
Jesus’ burden
was God’s Kingdom. While he didn’t define for us what he meant by Kingdom of
God, we know that he emphasized that the messianic salvation which the prophets
foretold was fulfilled in his person and work, and that an eschatological
consummation of the messianic salvation was also future, in the age to come.[63]
The Gospels use Kingdom of God in four ways: in the abstract meaning of rule or
reign; as a future apocalyptic order that only the righteous will enter into;
as present among men; and as a realm into which men now enter into.[64]
Is it the reign of God or the realm over which he reigns?[65] It is both, but the Kingdom of God “as the dynamic rule of reign of God has become the most
widely accepted definition of the concept.”[66]
If God’s Kingdom is by definition God’s rule then it makes sense that the rule
of God is manifest in Christ – the person and work of Jesus – and also at the
end of the age again.[67]
Most exegetes recognize the meaning of basileia (the Hebrew for malkuth)
“is the abstract or dynamic idea of reign, rule, or dominion rather than the
concrete idea or realm.”[68]
The dynamic concept of the rule of God binds the two testaments together.[69]
The abstract meaning of the rule of God is mostly how Jewish literature uses Kingdom
of God.[70]
John’s preaching illustrates the dynamic eschatological use of the meaning of
God’s Kingdom[71]
Jesus uses Kingdom as eschatological reign in some of his sayings[72]
and the Lord’s Prayer also “looks to the future perfect establishment of God’s
rule in the world. It is an act of God resulting in the eschatological order of
the new age.”[73] In
other of Jesus’ sayings it is a present reality that people can seek here and
now.[74]
Furthermore, it is to be received here and now. A reign is received, not a future
or present realm, but God’s reign.[75]
“To receive the Kingdom of God is to accept the yoke of God’s sovereignty.”[76]
This is similar to the Jewish rabbinical notion that the rule of heaven had to
be taken upon oneself through strict adherence to the law. “Jesus swept away
this legalistic learning and taught that God’s reign may be accepted by the
simple and the childlike; and one must submit to God’s reign in complete
childlike obedience and trustful receptiveness.”[77]
The Gospels use Kingdom of God as his rule which can be received in the present
and which will also be manifested eschatologically in the future:[78]
…before the eschatological appearing of God’s Kingdom at the end of the
age, God’s Kingdom has become dynamically active among men in Jesus’ person and
mission. The Kingdom in this age is not merely the abstract concept of God’s
universal rule to which men must submit; it is rather a dynamic power at work
among men. This is not only the element which sets our Lord’s teaching most
distinctively apart from Judaism; it is the heart of his proclamation and the
key to his entire mission. Before the apocalyptic coming of God’s Kingdom and
final manifestation of his rule to bring in the new age, God has manifested his
rule, his Kingdom, to bring to men in advance of the eschatological era the
blessings of his redemptive reign.[79]
Where the
apocalyptists lost the essential tension between the historical and the
eschatological, Jesus recovered the prophetic tension by designating “both the
fulfilment of the prophetic hope in the historical present in his own person
and mission and the eschatological consummation of the prophetic hope at the
end of the age.”[80] The
reason why he could do this was because it is the same redemptive purpose of
the same divine rule being manifested in a visitation of the same God in both the
eschatological future and the historical present.[81]
The conceptual milieu of the message of Jesus is the prophetic hope as opposed
to apocalyptic concepts; therefore, the correct historical meaning of what
Jesus proclaimed as the Kingdom of God is to be interpreted as God’s reign or
rule.[82]
The kingdom present, as dynamic power
Having
said in the previous chapter that the Kingdom of God is fulfilment in the
present of the prophetic hope, while the eschatological consummation is yet
future; the presence of the Kingdom is a dynamic reign that is present in this
age without having yet transformed it into the coming age.[83]
This is supported by the binding of Satan. “The exorcism of demons was one of
the most characteristic activities of Jesus’ ministry.”[84]
These exorcisms reflect the cosmic struggle of history in the move toward the
inauguration of God’s eschatological reign. [85]
In the Old Testament God’s Kingdom would come and defeat Israel’s enemies, but
Jesus redefines this prophetic hope according to spiritual conflict as opposed
to military conflict; “The coming of the Kingdom as an eschatological event
will mean nothing less than the destruction of the Devil and his angels in
eternal fire (Matt. 25:41) at the Parousia of the Son of Man.”[86]
The spiritual victory of the Kingdom of God is primary because the opponents of
the Kingdom of God are spiritual; being saved from spiritual powers is an
inescapable aspect of biblical redemption.[87]
Jesus’ exorcisms in relation to God’s Kingdom mean that “before the
eschatological conquest of God’s Kingdom over evil and destruction of Satan,
the Kingdom of God has invaded the realm of Satan to deal him a preliminary but
decisive defeat.”[88]
Furthermore, the exorcisms are not a solution in and of themselves: deliverance
from Satan only creates a vacuum; the person needs to be possessed by God.[89]
The dynamic presence of God’s Kingdom in the words and deeds of Jesus is about
both power and preaching. Jesus spoke with authority because his words are
inseparable from himself; he is the message that he proclaims.[90]
Whilst the prophets would announce that the Kingdom of God was coming, Jesus
embodies its presence and its power in himself and his mission. “This was the
new element in the gospel which set Jesus apart from Judaism.”[91]
The Kingdom of God and his redemptive rule is present in Jesus – in his person, words, and deeds. This message is exemplified in the parable of the sower: that God’s Kingdom which both rabbinic and apocalyptic Judaism expected as a divine visitation that would be catastrophic and world-shattering, “has occurred in the proclamation of good news, in words which in and of themselves are weak and powerless.”[92] Like seed, the working of the present Kingdom’s success is not uniform. It only bears fruit in those who receive it, but in others it can be futile and fruitless. Yet, God’s Kingdom is active and present “in the word of the gospel.”[93] “In Jesus’ person, in his deeds, in his words, the Kingdom of God and its blessings are present and dynamically active among men.”[94]
The kingdom present as the divine activity
The
Kingdom is God’s Kingdom; as the rule of God, every aspect of God’s Kingdom is
derived from and flows from the action and character of God. “The presence of
the Kingdom is to be understood from the nature of Gods’ present activity; and
the future of the Kingdom is the redemptive manifestation of his kingly rule at
the end of the age.”[95]
The display of God’s Kingdom for both the future and the present “are the scene
of the redemptive acting of God.”[96]
Jesus teaches us that God is a seeking God.[97]
“The heart of the “good news” about the Kingdom is that God has taken the
initiative to seek and to save that which was lost.”[98]
This seeking God “is also the God who invites.”[99]
Jesus’ message of the Kingdom of God is the announcement by word and
deed that God is acting and manifesting dynamically his redemptive will in
history. God is seeking out sinners; he is inviting them to enter into the
messianic blessing; he is demanding of them a favourable response to his
gracious offer. God has again spoken. A new prophet has appeared, indeed one
who is more than a prophet, one who brings to men the very blessing he
promises.[100]
The reason why
God seeks and invites, is because he wants to be their Father. Due to the
Kingdom of God’s present activity, the content of Fatherhood, compared to
Judaism, is deepened and enriched. Midst all of this, God remains the judge “to
those who reject his gracious offer.”[101]
Furthermore, the Kingdom of God is supernatural; it is “God’s supernatural
breaking into history as well as its eschatological consummation is miracle –
God’s deed.”[102] It
is “the act of God himself” and does not become subject to men even though it “is
related to men and can work in and through men.”[103]
God has “visited his people in Jesus’ mission, bringing to them the messianic
salvation. The divine act requires a human response, even though it remains a
divine act.”[104]
The kingdom present as the new age of salvation
While
the fundamental meaning of Malkuth is to rule or reign, and God’s “reign
has invaded human history in advance of the eschatological consummation,” however,
it has also been noted that many sayings of Jesus “picture the Kingdom as an
eschatological realm into which men enter.” [105]
To receive messianic salvation includes the receiving of blessings. The Kingdom
is not only God’s dynamic rule revealed in history, but it includes, as the
prophets foretold, a realm of blessing.[106]
Basileia “is also used to designate the gift of life and salvation;” it
is a comprehensive term encapsulating all that is included in messianic
salvation.[107] In
the eschatological consummation when the righteous inherit the Kingdom, the
word here designates the gift of God’s rule as the blessing of life in the
coming age (Matt 25:46).[108]
The Beatitudes also view God’s Kingdom as a gift.[109]
Salvation / to save refers both to present blessing and to the
eschatological gift – further illustrating the Kingdom as God’s gift.[110]
Forgiveness is also a messianic age blessing,[111]
which is closely connected to righteousness, as in a right relationship; “the
divine acquittal from the guilt of sin.”[112]
Seeking the Kingdom is synonymous with seeking God’s righteousness (Matt. 6:33),
“and to receive the Kingdom of God means to receive the accompanying
righteousness.”[113]
In Jewish thought righteousness was a human activity consisting of obedience to
acts of mercy and the law, but “Jesus taught that it was both God’s demand and
God’s gift.”[114] Yet,
we cannot be righteous in our own human effort. Here is the heart of the
ethical teaching of Jesus: self-attained righteousness must be renounced and
replaced with a child-like willingness to have nothing and receive everything.[115]
Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will be satisfied; righteousness
is not merit but a free gift to those who desire it.[116]
Jesus brought us a foretaste of eschatological salvation: he bestowed
forgiveness, he didn’t just promise it; he bestowed righteousness, he didn’t
just promise vindication; he delivered men from sickness and death, he didn’t
just teach about deliverance from physical evil; as the bearer of the Kingdom Jesus
invited people into fellowship with himself – this is the presence of the
Kingdom as a new era of salvation.[117]
“To receive the Kingdom of God, to submit oneself to God’s reign meant to
receive the gift of the Kingdom and to enter into the enjoyment of its
blessings. The age of fulfilment is present, but the time of consummation still
awaits the age to come.”[118]
The mystery of the kingdom
This book’s
thesis is that a dynamically active God is redemptively reigning his Kingdom to
establish his rule among men. At the end of the age, this Kingdom that has
entered human history in Jesus Christ to deliver men from the power of evil,
will appear as a cataclysmic apocalyptic act to overcome evil and bring men
into the blessings of the reign of God. This great Kingdom of God has a
fulfilment in history and a consummation at the end of the age. Against this
background we investigate the parables.[119]
Canons of interpretation
Modern critics
turn to two canons for the interpretation of parables. The first canon of
criticism, according to Julicher, holds that a parable should not be treated as
an allegory.[120]
An allegory is a teaching method that draws from an artificial story where
details are structured to have specific meaning; for example, the cedar and the
thistle in 2 Kings 14:9-10.[121]
Whereas, a parable is drawn from everyday life and teaches a truth. There is
less control over details because the author is not in control of it as he
would be over an artificial story. In fact, details may be meaningless in the parable,
which is designed to teach a truth, rather than a complex set of lessons; for
example, the fact that there were ninety-nine sheep is irrelevant.[122]
We seek a central truth in a parable.
The
second canon of criticism says that parables should be understood based on
their historical life setting; the “exegesis of the parables must be carried
out in terms of Jesus’ own mission in Palestine.”[123]
Historical meaning is the focus. However, Dodd has shown that the setting /
life situation of the parables are Jesus’ teaching of the Kingdom of God.
Whilst this was considered a breakthrough in historical criticism, Dodd’s
one-sided emphasis yields “a contradiction of eschatology, emptying it of its
futuristic content.”[124]
Jeremias proposes a correction of Dodd’s conclusions, to seek the primitive
historical form, without changing his method; “an eschatology in process of
realization.” Since it appeared that Jesus expected an eschatological
consummation, the early church blended the two events into one and hence
applied parables to the Parousia which were originally non-eschatalogical.[125]
Jeremias’
presupposition that original meaning can be recovered by grasping what the
parable meant to the Jewish audience “assumes that the proper Sitz im Leben
of the parables is Judaism, not the teachings of Jesus.”[126]
Yet we should allow for “the possibility that his teachings transcended Jewish
ideas. Therefore, the proper Sitz im Leben of the parables is the
totality of Jesus’ teachings, not Judaism.”[127]
The mystery of the Kingdom
The
parables’ Sitz im Leben is historically summarized in the one word,
mystery.[128]
“To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for those
outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not
perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they turn again, and be
forgiven” (Mark 4:11-12). The mystery of the Kingdom is the coming of the
Kingdom into history in advance of its apocalyptic manifestation.[129]
The word, mysterion, appears
in Daniel, although the concept of God disclosing secrets is familiar in the
whole Old Testament. In Daniel we see that revelation was required to
understand the mystery. Qumran literature agrees that special illumination is
given to the Teacher of Righteousness. [130]
The New Testament develops the idea found in Daniel, further.
Mystery designates “the secret thoughts, plans, and dispensations of
God which are hidden from the human reason, as well as from all other
comprehension below the divine level, and hence must be revealed to those for
whom they are intended.” However, the mystery is proclaimed to all men, even
though it is understood only by those who believe. All men are summoned to
faith; only those who respond really understand.[131]
The fact that
God brings his Kingdom is no secret. Almost every Jewish apocalyptic had this
expectation.[132] The
mystery has to do with the new disclosure of the plans and purposes of God as
he establishes his Kingdom.[133]
The mystery, the new truth through Jesus’ person and mission “is that the
Kingdom which is to come finally in apocalyptic power, as foreseen in Daniel,
has in fact entered into the world in advance in a hidden form to work secretly
within and among men.”[134]
God’s redemptive purpose within history is being carried forward in the person
of Jesus; the same God doing this will end history and manifest his Kingdom in
apocalyptic glory at the end of the age.[135]
Thus the coming of the Kingdom in history is a real fulfilment of the
Old Testament expectation. This secret of the Kingdom now revealed was what
many prophets and righteous men longed to see but did not experience (Matt.
10:17). The Kingdom for whose coming they longed has not become experience.[136]
Did Jesus use
parables to conceal truth (Mark 4:12) or because the hearers were spiritually
dull (Matt. 13:13). Surely it is no different to Isaiah 6 which teaches that
God’s word forces men to make decisions, it can create life, and it can impose
death; it can convert and it can harden (Isa. 28:13; Jer. 23:29). The New
Testament teaches the same; “the word brings both salvation and destruction
(Heb. 4:12; 1 Peter 2:8; Acts 5:3 ff; John 12:40; Acts 28:26).”[137]
The notion of revelation only being perceptible to the spiritually responsive
is not novel. The Kingdom of God was at work since the days of John the Baptist;
it was shared with babes – those who responded – but hidden from the religious
leaders of the day.[138]
Jesus mediates intimate knowledge of the Father, included in the present
Kingdom; while there is an exclusiveness about God’s Kingdom as it is withheld
from those who reject it, “it is not esoteric in character, for Jesus openly
invites all men to take upon them his yoke.”[139]
It may well be that the mystery of the kingdom is the solution to our unlocking
and understanding the parables, because whilst we are told that it has come
upon men, it is not altogether self-evident nor self-explanatory.[140]
The Kingdom of God was manifesting in the person of Jesus on the human level –
but not just historically, but in the spiritual realm too through exorcisms and
the defeat of Satan as well as through imparting Kingdom blessings to men.
“Therefore, this working of the Kingdom could be apprehended only by
revelation. It required response to be intelligible. While the activity of the
Kingdom is conceived of as an objective fact, its recognition by men requires
their personal participation.”[141]
The four soils
The
parable of the four soils contains allegorical elements although it is not a
true allegory because there is one central teaching to which the details are secondary.[142]
The central message of this parable is that God’s Kingdom has entered the world
– it is rejected by some and received by others; the success of the Kingdom
depends on human response. There is no apocalyptic shattering of evil now. The
Kingdom is working like a farmer who sows seed. The wicked are not being swept
away. Some seed may lie on the roadside without ever taking root. Some seed is
received superficially and eventually dies. Some seed is choked by the things
of the world that are hostile to the Kingdom. Yet the Kingdom works quietly and
secretly among men without forcing itself on them – being received willingly –
and wherever it is received, much fruit is brought forth. There is no harvest
emphasis – neither in the parable nor in its interpretation. “The single
emphasis is upon the nature of the sowing – the present action of God’s
Kingdom.”[143]
The tares
The
mystery of the Kingdom, that is, its unexpected and hidden presence in the
world, is further illustrated by the parable of the tares.[144]
The central point is that “good and evil men must grow together in the world
until a separation takes place at the end of the world.”[145]
Some interpretations identify the kingdom with the church in this parable, but
this should not be done.[146]
When interpreted in light of the mystery of God’s Kingdom and its secret but
present working in the world, then the meaning becomes most clear. God’s
Kingdom has entered history in such a manner as not to disrupt society. Those
who have received God’s reign are sons of the Kingdom and have entered into its
blessings. However, they live in a mixed society, intermingled with the wicked
in this age. The separation between the righteous and the wicked is
eschatological and will therefore only take place at the coming of the Kingdom.
Indeed, a new truth is revealed: God’s Kingdom can enter the world and create
sons who come under its blessings without creating societal chaos and effecting
the eschatological judgement. However, the separation will come. The present
hidden Kingdom will yet be manifested in glory. The mixed society will end.
“The wicked will be gathered out and the righteous will shine like the sun in
the eschatological Kingdom.”[147]
The mustard seed
Again,
some have tried to draw associations between the mustard seed and the church;
this is untenable.[148]
Others have tried to apply it to a gradual growth of the circle of disciples,
however, a mustard tree grows quickly.[149]
Most exegetes see the heart of the parable as being about the tiny beginning
and large end. “The burning question faced by Jesus’ disciples was how the
Kingdom of God could actually be present in such an insignificant movement as
that embodied in his ministry.”[150]
The Jews were obviously expecting the Kingdom to be more like a big tree that
would provide shelter for the nations. Jesus’ perfect answer in this parable
is, “first the tiny seed, later the large tree.”[151]
The leaven
The
leaven parable is similar to the mustard seed parable in the sense that it
teaches that God’s Kingdom, which will one day be all encompassing and rule
entirely, has come into the world quite imperceptibly.[152]
Various interpretations exist[153]
but the interpretation most fitting to the historical setting of the ministry
of Jesus is the one that recognizes “the central truth to lie in contrast
between the absurdly small bit of leaven and the great mass of more than a
bushel of meal.”[154]
The leaven points to the fact that God’s Kingdom will prevail one day, such
that there will be no rival sovereignty; “the entire mass of dough becomes
leaven.”[155]
The parable only makes sense in light of the historical setting of Jesus’
ministry. The Jews always understood that God’s Kingdom would bring a complete
transformation that would displace the present evil order entirely. It was
problematic to them that Jesus’ ministry did not initiate such a
transformation; he was preaching the Kingdom, but nothing was changing. “How
then could this be the Kingdom? Jesus’ reply is that when a bit of leaven is
put in a mass of meal, nothing seems to happen. In fact, the leaven seems quite
engulfed by the meal. Eventually something does happen, and the result is the
complete transformation of the dough.”[156]
The emphasis of the leaven parable is found in the contrast between the initial
present, hidden Kingdom that has come into the world, and the final victory of
the eschatological Kingdom which will be a completely new order.[157]
The treasure and the pearl
The
idea that the parable of the treasure and the pearl is to be equated to a man
who sold all that he had to get a treasure is only truism; there is no mystery
of the Kingdom in this interpretation. “What gives these parables their point
is the fact that the Kingdom had come among men in an unexpected way, in a form
which might easily be overlooked and despised.”[158]
If the yoke of the Kingdom was equal to joining the Pharisees and following the
law, it would have yielded great praise. An insurrection against the authority
of Rome would have received a favourable response. But following Jesus wasn’t
impressive since it meant reaching out to sinners and tax collectors;
“discipleship of Jesus means participation in the Kingdom of God.”[159]
The treasure that is worth more than any other possession is the Kingdom of God
in the person and work of Jesus, without any visible glory or outward display.
It is a pearl that exceeds all else in value. We are called to seek it and to
gain possession of it at all costs.[160]
The net
There
are various interpretations of this parable.[161]
Before the perfect community of the eschatological Kingdom, “an unexpected
manifestation of God’s Kingdom has occurred which is like a net gathering good
and bad fish. The invitation goes out to all kinds of men, and all who respond
are accepted into present discipleship of the Kingdom.”[162]
Jesus, Israel, and his disciples
The saying
concerning founding the church is in line with Jesus’ teaching and it shows us
that saw those who received his teaching as the true Israel, the sons of God’s
Kingdom, the people of God. What form this group would take is not intimated. Talk
of discipline in the “church” intimates that it is a distinct group analogous
to the synagogue of the Jewish people but it does not enlighten us as to the
form of the new fellowship. The church as separate from Judaism with own rites
and as its own organization is a historical development that occurred later;
“but it is a historical manifestation of a new fellowship brought into being by
Jesus as the true people of God who, having received the messianic salvation,
were to take the place of the rebellious nation as the true Israel.”[163]
The kingdom and the church
The
church is the body of believers who have experienced God’s reign, as well as
entered into the blessings of that reign, and they fellowship together – that
is the church. Whereas God’s Kingdom is his reign as well as the realm where
the blessings of God’s reign are experienced. So the church takes its point of
departure from men while God is the point of departure for the Kingdom. Hence,
whilst the relationship between the church and the Kingdom are inseparable,
they cannot be identified with one another.[164]
“The Kingdom creates the church, works through the church, and is proclaimed in
the world by the church. There can be no Kingdom without a church – those who
have acknowledged God’s rule – and there can be no church without God’s
Kingdom; but they remain two distinguishable concepts: the rule of God and the
fellowship of men.”[165]
The ethics of the kingdom
The
Kingdom of God has been interpreted as being the ideal human society, and the
ethics of Jesus have been held out as the standard of social conduct that is
able to form a true society. The social interpretation of God’s Kingdom had a
wide influence in America at one time.[166]
Sadly, the Kingdom of God has not featured in recent studies [this was said in
1974] where eschatology and social ethics have been investigated; the basis for
social ethics was sought in the Kerygma rather than Jesus’ teachings.[167]
The reason why there is not a lot of teaching on social ethics found in the
Gospels is because “social ethics must be an outworking of a properly grounded
personal ethics,” for which God’s dynamic Kingdom has several principles: the
ideal social order can only be achieved through the coming eschatological
Kingdom of God, and not by the work of man; God’s Kingdom has invaded,
attacked, and defeated the evil power of this evil age through the teachings of
Jesus in a “dynamic conflict with the realm of Satan, and God’s reign is to
manifest its powers in history through the church.”[168]
The world will feel the impact of the Kingdom of God – we are “the light of the
world and the salt of the earth (Matt. 5:13-14).[169]
Furthermore, the Kingdom of God, in
Jesus, cared about the physical welfare, not only the spiritual welfare of
people. In the eschatological consummation of the Kingdom, the complete man
will be redeemed – the body will be resurrected as well as the natural social
order transformed; Jesus’ healings and miracles were a pledge to this ultimate
eschatological redemption.[170]
“The Kingdom of God is concerned with the evils that bring misery and suffering
on the physical level.”[171]
A “social gospel” is implicit in these principles because when God reigns in
people’s lives he cares about the total person and about “the conquest of evil
in whatever form in manifests itself.”[172]
The people of God are the instruments of God’s Kingdom and they are in conflict
with evil.[173]
THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PROMISE
The consummation of the kingdom
Like
the prophets, Jesus’ eschatological teaching is fundamentally ethical in
purpose and character. Like the prophets, his reason for speaking about the
future was for the purpose of its impact on the present.[174]
For this reason it is very difficult to put together a neat eschatological
scheme of Jesus’ teachings and sayings on the matter. The prophets used
eschatology to warn Israel of sin and to challenge the people of God with his
will in the present, whilst the apocalyptists used eschatology to make sense of
present suffering and to assure the people of coming salvation and deliverance.[175]
Readiness and watchfulness for the end seems to be the primary exhortation and
ethical objective of the Olivet Discourse, “for you do not know when the master
of the house will come” (Mark 13:33-37).[176]
There is warning against false security and carelessness. The whole of Matthew
25 has an ethical intention; one’s place at the eschatological banquet should
not be taken for granted in a careless manner; to not be prepared is to risk
finding the door shut (Matt. 25:1-13).[177]
Furthermore, the idle, unfaithful servant will be shut out (Matt. 25:14-30).[178]
Participation in discipleship is no guarantee; salvation must not be taken for
granted because “it will be given only to those who are awake and spiritually
prepared.”[179] Jesus
did not want to depict and portray eschatological conditions; rather, he wanted
to prepare people for judgement day![180]
This ethical concern conditioned Jesus’ proclamation of the time of the eschatological event. William Michaelis has pointed out that the seemingly contradictory emphasis on the imminence and the remoteness of the last day was designed precisely to make it impossible to know the time, but it demanded readiness for a sudden event. This is where the Gospels leave us: anticipating an imminent event and yet unable to date its coming. Logically this may appear contradictory, but it is a tension with an ethical purpose – to make date-setting impossible and therefore to demand constant readiness.[181]
CONCLUSION
The abiding values of theology
If we are to hold on to
the elements of the Gospel that are essential, then modern theology must
preserve the following abiding values.[182]
God does not merely care about the authentic existence of individuals; “he is also
in control of history and has acted in history for man’s salvation.”[183]
The Christian faith announces that the Kingdom of God is the hope of man’s
redemption and the goal of history.[184]
Everything hostile to God is annihilated as God’s sovereignty is consummated.[185]
The gospel of Christianity cares about individuals and the whole of mankind. It
is the God of Christianity who is the Lord of history who not only acts in
history but will also establish the Kingdom of God at the end of history.
God
acts in history
Any definition of the
Kingdom of God must acknowledge that “God acts on the plane of history” as he
acts in history and brings it to its divinely directed goal.[186]
The
nature of evil
All of history does not
move towards the Kingdom of God. The radical nature of evil and its demonic
forces move against God’s Kingdom as an enemy of human well-being. Only God can
intervene to purge it; Jesus did not expect us to overcome it by bringing in
the Kingdom since evil is greater than man.[187]
Evil is societal in nature, and characterizes this age by wars, conflict, and strife
– even religion can be hostile to God’s Kingdom. Humanity, and Christians in
particular, are called to suffer and should even “expect opposition and
suffering to be their normal experience.”[188]
Jesus rooted evil in personality when he attributed our suffering to Satan.[189]
The
kingdom is God’s act
The second coming of
Christ is the world-transforming act of God that will be “the inbreaking of God
into history,” to overcome evil as only the Kingdom of God can; this
destruction of evil is inherent in fundamental Christian belief.[190]
Jesus, who will have supreme place in this Kingdom. He is not just a prophet
but “one in whom God has redemptively entered into history.”[191]
Jesus taught that not only is the Kingdom of God the supernatural acting of God
in its mysterious presence, but “this supernatural power was resident in his
own person.”[192] The
Christian doctrine of the incarnation expresses the conviction that in the
ministry and person of Christ, “God has revealed himself in saving action.”[193]
God has entered history through Jesus to redeem history. That which was done in
a veiled form in Jesus, the Word that became flesh, will be publicly manifested
in the glorious eschatological redemption. The presence of the Kingdom of God
in Jesus was a hidden presence, but the redemptive act of God in Jesus will yet
be seen for what it is: God’s victory over evil. That which God did in Jesus,
in history, he will do in the Parousia at the end of history; these are the two
forms of God’s redemptive rule, “and the former demands the latter.”[194]
The death and resurrection of Christ are consummated in the future; “even
though the goal of history is beyond history, it nevertheless means the
redemption of history, when history is transformed into a new and glorious mode
of existence.”[195]
The
present situation
The church is a witness to its own
historical victory and events as well as a witness to future victory as an
eschatological community whose mission is to show the life of the
eschatological Kingdom in this current evil age and be a witness and testimony
of the triumphant victory of God’s Kingdom accomplished in Jesus.[196]
Yet, having experienced the victory of the Kingdom of God, and awaiting the
final future victory, God’s people are between the times and at the mercy of
evil powers in this age. The tension and conflict for the church between good
and evil is severe until the end of the age. Struggle, conflict and persecution
is the experience of the church, but ultimate victory is sure.[197]
However, not only is the church an instrument of the Kingdom, it also stands
under the judgement of the Kingdom. Jesus said, “Watch therefore, lest he come
suddenly and find you asleep” (Mark 13:35-36). For this reason, the church
remains in constant tension between history and eschatology. The sense of
immanence between history and eschatology is a tension that is surely God’s
purpose for the church, since the prophetic imminence has always had an ethical
orientation; this gives it abiding significance. As the church lets go of the
imminent, biblical eschatology becomes more remote in the church. The church
will preserve its eschatological character if it holds on to the dynamic sense
of imminence. The biblical church needs to keep the long perspective in mind
for future generations whilst simultaneously praying fervently for the Kingdom
of God to come as if they could be the last generation of believers; this
biblical tension between history and eschatological immanence should be the
position of every generation, thereby keeping the church separate from the
world.[198]
Bibliography
Ladd, George Eldon. The Presence of the Future:
The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974.
[1] George
Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 3.
[2] Ibid,
42.
[3] Ibid, 45.
[4] Ibid,
52.
[5] Ibid,
57.
[6] Ibid,
58.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid, 59.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid,
61.
[11] Ibid,
63.
[12] Ibid,
64.
[13] Ibid,
64-65.
[14] Ibid, 65.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid,
66.
[17] Ibid,
66-67.
[18] Ibid,
67.
[19] Ibid, 68.
[20] Ibid,
67.
[21] Ibid,
69.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid,
70.
[24] Ibid,
71.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid,
72.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid,
73.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid,
74.
[31] Ibid, 74-75.
[32] Ibid,
75.
[33] Ibid,
77.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid,
79.
[36] Ibid,
83.
[37] Ibid,
84.
[38] Ibid,
85.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid,
87.
[41] Ibid,
93.
[42] Ibid, 95.
[43] Ibid,
98.
[44] Ibid,
99.
[45] Ibid,
101.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Ibid,
101.
[49] Ibid, 106.
[50] Ibid,
108.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Ibid,
109.
[53] Ibid,
110.
[54] Ibid, 111.
[55] Ibid,
111-112.
[56] Ibid,
113.
[57] Ibid,
114.
[58] Ibid,
119.
[59] Ibid,
118.
[60] Ibid, 119.
[61] Ibid,
120.
[62] Ibid,
121.
[63] Ibid,
122.
[64] Ibid,
123.
[65] Ibid,
124.
[66] Ibid,
126-127.
[67] Ibid,
128.
[68] Ibid,
130.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Ibid,
132-133.
[71] Ibid,
135.
[72] Ibid,
136.
[73] Ibid,
137.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ibid.
[76] Ibid.
[77] Ibid.
[78] Ibid,
138.
[79] Ibid, 139.
[80] Ibid,
146-147.
[81] Ibid,
147.
[82] Ibid,
148.
[83] Ibid,
149.
[84] Ibid.
[85] Ibid,
150.
[86] Ibid.
[87] Ibid,
151.
[88] Ibid.
[89] Ibid,
152.
[90] Ibid,
167.
[91] Ibid,
168.
[92] Ibid,
169.
[93] Ibid.
[94] Ibid,
170.
[95] Ibid,
171.
[96] Ibid,
172.
[97] Ibid.
[98] Ibid,
176.
[99] Ibid.
[100] Ibid,
178.
[101] Ibid, 184.
[102] Ibid,
189.
[103] Ibid,
194.
[104] Ibid.
[105] Ibid,
195.
[106] Ibid,
205.
[107] Ibid.
[108] Ibid.
[109] Ibid,
206.
[110] Ibid, 207.
[111] Ibid,
213.
[112] Ibid,
215.
[113] Ibid.
[114] Ibid,
215.
[115] Ibid,
216.
[116] Ibid.
[117] Ibid,
217.
[118] Ibid.
[119] Ibid,
218.
[120] Ibid.
[121] Ibid,
218-219.
[122] Ibid,
219.
[123] Ibid, 220.
[124] Ibid,
221.
[125] Ibid.
[126] Ibid,
221.
[127] Ibid.
[128] Ibid.
[129] Ibid, 222.
[130] Ibid,
223.
[131] Ibid,
224.
[132] Ibid.
[133] Ibid,
225.
[134] Ibid,
225.
[135] Ibid,
226.
[136] Ibid.
[137] Ibid, 227.
[138] Ibid.
[139] Ibid.
[140] Ibid,
227-228.
[141] Ibid,
229.
[142] Ibid.
[143] Ibid,
230.
[144] Ibid,
231.
[145] Ibid, 232.
[146] Ibid,
231-233.
[147] Ibid,
234.
[148] Ibid.
[149] Ibid,
235.
[150] Ibid.
[151] Ibid.
[152] Ibid, 236.
[153] Ibid.
[154] Ibid,
237.
[155] Ibid.
[156] Ibid.
[157] Ibid,
238.
[158] Ibid, 239.
[159] Ibid.
[160] Ibid.
[161] Ibid,
239-241.
[162] Ibid,
242.
[163] Ibid, 261.
[164] Ibid,
277.
[165] Ibid.
[166] Ibid,
302.
[167] Ibid.
[168] Ibid,
303.
[169] Ibid,
[170] Ibid,
303-304.
[171] Ibid,
304.
[172] Ibid.
[173] Ibid.
[174] Ibid, 327.
[175] Ibid,
328.
[176] Ibid.
[177] Ibid.
[178] Ibid.
[179] Ibid.
[180] Ibid.
[181] Ibid, 328.
[182] Ibid,
331.
[183] Ibid,
332.
[184] Ibid,
332-333.
[185] Ibid,
333.
[186] Ibid,
331.
[187] Ibid, 333-334.
[188] Ibid,
334.
[189] Ibid.
[190] Ibid,
335.
[191] Ibid.
[192] Ibid.
[193] Ibid,
336.
[194] Ibid, 336-337.
[195]
Ibid, 337.
[196] Ibid,
337-338.
[197] Ibid,
338.
[198] Ibid, 339.
Comments
Post a Comment