SEAN - The Kingdom has come near in the person of Jesus (Yeshua/Joshua), and His gospel is the radical news of God's forgiveness of sins. Repent and believe! Back in high school, I got into reading a lot of Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne, and Tony Jones - all authors you probably haven't heard of, but they were a fairly big deal at the time. One of their big, common, revolutionary ideas was that the Kingdom of God was the advancing of God's peace upon the earth (basically, things get better and better until the end). Because Mark 1:14-15 can make it look like this news about the Kingdom is the gospel -the central message of the Christian faith- a lot of these authors were subtly pitting Jesus (Mark 1:14-15) against Paul (1 Corinthians 15:1-5), downplaying the message that Jesus died to take the wrath for our sins and arguing that Christianity is sort of like a big social renewal movement. But there is a more Biblical answer.The Gospel According to Jesus (Mark 1.14-15, With Additions)
"After he learned that the Pharisees knew he was making more disciples than John the Baptist, and when he heard that John had been arrested, Joshua withdrew from Judea and came back in the power of the Spirit to Galilee. A report about him went through all the surrounding country and he taught in their synagogues, being highly praised by all. And he left Nazareth in Galilee and went to live in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali. From that time he began to preach the gospel of God, explaining: 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel!"
Joshua of Nazareth[2] did not go straight from His temptation in the southern desert (Mark 1.12-13) back to Galilee in the north (Mark 1.14); check out John 3.26,33 and you'll find out that He stayed in the south for a little while baptizing and making converts. He only went up north when He started to get more publicity that John the Baptist was getting (John 4.1). The Gospel of John and the Gospel of Luke fill in a lot of the blank space surrounding this post's passage from Mark - so check out John 1.29 to John 4.1, and Luke 4.14-21 for context. It was after Joshua of Nazareth went back up north that He preached about the kingdom and the gospel: He said (1) "The time is fulfilled," (2) "the kingdom of God is at hand," (3) "repent," and (4) "believe the gospel." I'm going to break these phrases down a little bit and explain them.-Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (ESV)
(For note on the text, see end of blog post[1])
I Spy With My Foreseeing Eye... the Messiah
In the spring of 29-30 AD, Joshua of Nazareth moved up from His hometown to Capernaum by the Sea of Galilee (the sea is massive). The Gospel of Luke mentions that the whole people of Nazareth had tried to throw Him down a cliff (Luke 4.28-29) -which might have been a factor in His change of location- but this move to Capernaum also fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy from the Book of Isaiah about the Messiah (Matthew 4.13-16; Isaiah 9.1-7). The gist of the whole thing was that God would send a great king to the area around the Sea of Galilee, and that king would be descended from the ancient Israeli King David, and would be called 'Mighty God'. Joshua of Nazareth fit that bill (John 20.26-29). So when Joshua said "The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand," He was talking about Himself being the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The takeaway? When God promises that something will happen, it will. God keeps His promises.
The Kingdom Is Near
"The kingdom of God is at hand!" - but what is that supposed to mean? Some of my close friends, mentors, and (former) Voice colleague Seth C. argue that the Kingdom is what we call it when the reality of heaven breaks into our world and brings shalom (peace, righteousness - 'good stuff') to the earth. If this is the gospel of the kingdom that Joshua of Nazareth commanded us to believe in Mark 1.14-15, then Christianity is mainly about God inviting us to share with Him in the renewal of the earth. The name for this is the social gospel.
With all the respect in the world to these men, this is not the gospel or the kingdom that I find in the Lord's recorded sayings. Look at how Joshua of Nazareth talks about the kingdom and the gospel in Luke 4.14-21, or in John 3.3-5, which are the parallel passages to this section in the Gospel of Mark. If anything, entering the kingdom is basically the same thing as getting saved and being sure you'll go to heaven. That kingdom was close at hand -in the physical presence of the Messiah, the King of the kingdom- but also the means of being assured one's place in it was close at hand... and it still is; just check out Romans 10.8-9. If this is what the kingdom is all about, then there is no need to worry about a difference between our Savior's gospel (Mark 1.14-15) and St. Paul's gospel (1 Corinthians 15.1-5), because the two will have turned out to be the same thing. The takeaway? The central message of Christianity is that God sent His son to die for your sins, not that you've been enlisted in God's social renewal movement.
"The kingdom of God is at hand!" - but what is that supposed to mean? Some of my close friends, mentors, and (former) Voice colleague Seth C. argue that the Kingdom is what we call it when the reality of heaven breaks into our world and brings shalom (peace, righteousness - 'good stuff') to the earth. If this is the gospel of the kingdom that Joshua of Nazareth commanded us to believe in Mark 1.14-15, then Christianity is mainly about God inviting us to share with Him in the renewal of the earth. The name for this is the social gospel.
With all the respect in the world to these men, this is not the gospel or the kingdom that I find in the Lord's recorded sayings. Look at how Joshua of Nazareth talks about the kingdom and the gospel in Luke 4.14-21, or in John 3.3-5, which are the parallel passages to this section in the Gospel of Mark. If anything, entering the kingdom is basically the same thing as getting saved and being sure you'll go to heaven. That kingdom was close at hand -in the physical presence of the Messiah, the King of the kingdom- but also the means of being assured one's place in it was close at hand... and it still is; just check out Romans 10.8-9. If this is what the kingdom is all about, then there is no need to worry about a difference between our Savior's gospel (Mark 1.14-15) and St. Paul's gospel (1 Corinthians 15.1-5), because the two will have turned out to be the same thing. The takeaway? The central message of Christianity is that God sent His son to die for your sins, not that you've been enlisted in God's social renewal movement.
Repentance, Dust, and Ashes
Lots of Christians react against seeing other believers live in open sin, and makes them turn into this sort of local chapter of the 'back to legalism' movement. Being forgiven by faith alone is gone - in its place is this notion that God needs to be impressed with your morality before He'll call you saved. A respectable and mature older Christian man just sent me this highly recommended link to a blog post in which the author says things like "if I could remove one word from the Christian lexicon, it would be the word 'believe.'" He goes on to rip apart John 3.16 by putting it into the context of the rest of the chapter where Joshua the Messiah speaks about entering the kingdom. This is something that I did better in another post, with pretty much the opposite conclusion. So if entering the kingdom is only about faith, how do ethics fit in? One of the commenters on the last post that I linked to said it best: "belief is not merely assent to a proposition, but living as if it is the truth. That is belief.
Lots of Christians react against seeing other believers live in open sin, and makes them turn into this sort of local chapter of the 'back to legalism' movement. Being forgiven by faith alone is gone - in its place is this notion that God needs to be impressed with your morality before He'll call you saved. A respectable and mature older Christian man just sent me this highly recommended link to a blog post in which the author says things like "if I could remove one word from the Christian lexicon, it would be the word 'believe.'" He goes on to rip apart John 3.16 by putting it into the context of the rest of the chapter where Joshua the Messiah speaks about entering the kingdom. This is something that I did better in another post, with pretty much the opposite conclusion. So if entering the kingdom is only about faith, how do ethics fit in? One of the commenters on the last post that I linked to said it best: "belief is not merely assent to a proposition, but living as if it is the truth. That is belief.
I'm A Believer
Final phrase - Joshua of Nazareth said 'believe in the gospel!' in Mark 1.14-15, but we need to know what the gospel was supposed to be. What did He keep telling people to believe? Lucky for us that Luke and John picked up Mark's idea to write a gospel, otherwise we would never know the answer: Joshua the Lord mostly preached about Himself. He commanded people to believe in Him (John 3.17-18), and preached in synagogues about how He came to 'set people free' and proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, which is the Jubilee year when all debts are forgiven (debt being sin in this case - Luke 4.16-21). All of His 'believe this!' preaching in that context is about Himself. So the command to believe the gospel in Mark 1.14-15 is really very close to the isolated words of John 3.16: "God gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him will have everlasting life. Our faith is important. It might be the only important thing in life. And it keeps us in a sensitive but good place as Christians where we realize that our deeds are no good, and all we can do is come to God with our faith, crying, 'Lord, forgive me, a sinner.'
A Tale of Two Kingdoms
I never thought that I would be going to bat over kingdom theology, but here I am. There are two clear but different gospels represented in this article. One of them is that God is bringing His peace upon the earth and we're invited to join, and the other is that Christ saves us from our sins and we are called to believe in Him. (1) These don't have to be exclusive. Believing that Jesus is my savior doesn't keep me from helping to create a better world. (2) These can't both be the main point. Either the gospel is about what we do, or about what God did. One of these has to ride shotgun; they can't both be behind the driver's wheel of our faith (insert "Jesus Take the Wheel" country music reference). (3) Legalism against Grace. The idea of Christianity being a sort of social revolution is amazing. But then that social gospel is just about another set of things that we have to do to usher in God's reign, adding to that condemnatory list of things to do at which we fail. The social gospel is really just legalism with an inspiring-sounding shiny veneer. The gospel of belief in Jesus takes all the weight off of you and puts it on our Savior. THAT is something different, but good.
Final phrase - Joshua of Nazareth said 'believe in the gospel!' in Mark 1.14-15, but we need to know what the gospel was supposed to be. What did He keep telling people to believe? Lucky for us that Luke and John picked up Mark's idea to write a gospel, otherwise we would never know the answer: Joshua the Lord mostly preached about Himself. He commanded people to believe in Him (John 3.17-18), and preached in synagogues about how He came to 'set people free' and proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, which is the Jubilee year when all debts are forgiven (debt being sin in this case - Luke 4.16-21). All of His 'believe this!' preaching in that context is about Himself. So the command to believe the gospel in Mark 1.14-15 is really very close to the isolated words of John 3.16: "God gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him will have everlasting life. Our faith is important. It might be the only important thing in life. And it keeps us in a sensitive but good place as Christians where we realize that our deeds are no good, and all we can do is come to God with our faith, crying, 'Lord, forgive me, a sinner.'
A Tale of Two Kingdoms
I never thought that I would be going to bat over kingdom theology, but here I am. There are two clear but different gospels represented in this article. One of them is that God is bringing His peace upon the earth and we're invited to join, and the other is that Christ saves us from our sins and we are called to believe in Him. (1) These don't have to be exclusive. Believing that Jesus is my savior doesn't keep me from helping to create a better world. (2) These can't both be the main point. Either the gospel is about what we do, or about what God did. One of these has to ride shotgun; they can't both be behind the driver's wheel of our faith (insert "Jesus Take the Wheel" country music reference). (3) Legalism against Grace. The idea of Christianity being a sort of social revolution is amazing. But then that social gospel is just about another set of things that we have to do to usher in God's reign, adding to that condemnatory list of things to do at which we fail. The social gospel is really just legalism with an inspiring-sounding shiny veneer. The gospel of belief in Jesus takes all the weight off of you and puts it on our Savior. THAT is something different, but good.
---------------------------------
*NOTES ON THE TEXT: (1) Technically, the parallel stuff from the Gospel of John would have been melded into the composite text. But in this case that extra material is another 4 chapters. I would encourage you to go back and reference the links. (2) Joshua. Joshua and Jesus are different forms of the same name. Calling him Joshua sounds more common, and reinforces that God came as a man with a familiar name and without power or glory to attract people to him. It seems more familiar, more real. (3) The scripture references aren't just links - hover your mouse over the reference, and it should just pop up without you having to click through - try it!
*NOTES ON THE TEXT: (1) Technically, the parallel stuff from the Gospel of John would have been melded into the composite text. But in this case that extra material is another 4 chapters. I would encourage you to go back and reference the links. (2) Joshua. Joshua and Jesus are different forms of the same name. Calling him Joshua sounds more common, and reinforces that God came as a man with a familiar name and without power or glory to attract people to him. It seems more familiar, more real. (3) The scripture references aren't just links - hover your mouse over the reference, and it should just pop up without you having to click through - try it!
Posted by Sean on Facebook, in response to my response:
ReplyDeleteNate: "...the kingdom is fundamentally about God becoming king in visible social political realities."
I am not so sure - shalom theology is not the only eschatological option out there; there is a good bit of weight to the idea that the world isn't going to get progressively better and better until the end, and that the kingdom of God is not the reality of Heaven breaking into our reality and restoring peace and good things. The kingdom seems to be more inward than that - when Jesus told the scribe in Mark 12.32-34 that he was 'not far from the kingdom,' I don't think it was because the scribe was about to start a social revolution or go into politics. When Jesus was questioned about His kingdom by Pontius Pilate, He said "My kingdom is not of this world" (check John 18.36). So it seems like entering the kingdom is more about becoming right with God through faith in Jesus (see the links in the blog to John's gospel), and the advancing of His kingdom before the end involves the full number of the elect putting their faith in Him.
I wrote that blog post to encourage conversation though, so push-back is enthusiastically welcomed.
My response:
ReplyDeleteSean, I too roll my eyes at the pendulum swing of McLaren and other who want to distance themselves from this spiritual component of all of this. I get it. But I'm not arguing for a progressive-improvement post-millenial scenario. "Shalom-theology", as you call it, doesn't necessarily teach that. In this view, the kingdom is about God (the Father) being King over his creation, through his human-David-king (Jesus of Nazareth). That divine rule affects everything. God's claim to kingship is absolute: it demands the allegiance of the heart (THAT is Mark 12.32-34), peace of international communities, physical healing and wholeness, spiritual renewal. It is the complete restoration and rescue of the people of God in all respects, and will extend even to the whole created order.
There's absolutely no need to tear apart what is part of a beautifully and profoundly biblical whole. Don't strawman this nuanced theology so you can set it aside with a false "either-or" choice. Jesus wanted both. Paul wanted both. John of Revelation wanted both. In fact, I'd suggest that "becoming right with God through faith in Jesus" makes far less sense, and becomes distorted in certain ways if it's not seen as part of this much bigger picture.
(Oh, and check John 18:36 again-- "my kingdom is not FROM this world" is a better translation of the preposition "ek". Jesus' point is that his kind of kingdom doesn't operate by violence like Pilate would expect. His kingdom isn't sourced/rooted in worldly power structures.)
There are texts upon texts that take us where I'm pointing. We could explore them together; that would be fun. But I'll rest here for now, because this is already too long as it is.
We might be talking past each other.
ReplyDeleteI don't rule out that the Kingdom *results* in the things that you are talking about. But I don't believe that the Bible teaches the Kingdom *is* any of those things. The advancing of the Kingdom is all about people coming to faith in Jesus - not about social action or politics or shalom. As people enter the Kingdom through faith they will start to embody or push for those things, but,
The Kingdom's advance is not social action,
The Kingdom's advance is evangelizing the lost;
The Kingdom is not entered by charity work,
The Kingdom is entered through faith in Jesus.
But it results in charity and social action.
A couple of people have said that I am creating a false dichotomy, but I see it more as putting things in their proper place and perspective: (1) Spiritual Kingdom and social action don't have to be exclusive; (2) they also can't both be the main point.
It interests me that you say the Kingdom is "fundamentally" about what is happening with heaven breaking into our world in the present reality. What proof of that do you have? Why does the Kingdom as future-hope/salvation take a backseat to this?
I'd like to take a wider lens and consider how Jesus opens people to the kingdom (even where the kingdom is not mentioned explicitly in the immediate context). Let's reflect on the pharisee Nicodemus (John 3:1ff) and the expert in the law (Luke 10:25ff). Following what you've said, Sean, this is the line of thinking that naturally comes to me: "O.K. so yeah spiritual kingdom and social action are not mutually exclusive, but hold on a moment, Jesus, what's the _main_ point? We're trying to put things in their proper place and perspective. Which comes first, spiritual kingdom or social action? You say one thing here and another thing there, speaking like Piper in John 3 and Claiborne in Luke 10. Which is it?"
ReplyDeleteI'm going to weigh in on this but have to re-read all of this and do a little homework. Should get it on here today though.
ReplyDeleteJohn 3:1-21 (Nicodemus) and Luke 18:18-25 (rich ruler) would've been a better juxtaposition. In John 3: Jesus says to Nicodemus,"no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again." This comes right after Nicodemus has marveled at the signs Jesus has performed. In Luke 18:24-25, Jesus declares, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” This is right after Jesus has told the rich ruler to sell everything he has and give to the poor. Jesus doesn't seem to be bound to our dichotomous/hierarchical patterns of thinking.
ReplyDelete"John 3:1-21 (Nicodemus) and Luke 18:18-25 (rich ruler) would've been a better juxtaposition."
ReplyDeleteI was thinking that too, now that you mention it. I've got a series of replies (I can think of about 6 off the top of my head), but let me get some sleep and look at a few resources just so that I can fact-check myself first. Pleasure conversing with you Sean.
At the beginning of your post you write, "Back in high school, I got into reading a lot of Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne, and Tony Jones - all authors you probably haven't heard of, but they were a fairly big deal at the time. One of their big, common, revolutionary ideas was that the Kingdom of God was the advancing of God's peace upon the earth (basically, things get better and better until the end)." You then go on to say that "there is a more Biblical answer." Notice that you are allowing these authors to set the agenda for your study. You are treating the Bible as an answer to these guys. It seems to me that such a strategy compels you to privilege the part that McLaren, Claiborne, et al have neglected. It also suggests that those opposed to your interpretation are on the side of these authors you are reacting against. I like that you are seeking to draw out what's been neglected. This is really important. I'm wary because of how you've framed the problem at the outset and the way that your framing of the problem is leading you to limit the text rather than open it up fully.
ReplyDeleteHey Sean, I don't think that Luke 18 can be used in the way that you are wanting to use it.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Luke 18:26 follows right after Luke 18:24, and actually connects the Kingdom with the idea of being saved. (JESUS/JOSHUA: "The wealthy have difficulty entering the Kingdom." DISCIPLES: "Then who can be saved?" - the Kingdom is about salvation.)
Second, lest we go against the Briecrest College & Seminary statement of faith[1] here (you are a BCS prof, after all), let's clarify that the Lord wasn't telling the rich young ruler to earn his salvation through charity work. He was mostly trying to break down the young man - He starts off with "no one is good" in Luke 18:19, follows up with "only God is good" in the same verse, puts him up to the test of works-righteousness in Luke 18:20, and then exposes him as a failure and a sinner in Luke 18:23, thereby proving Jesus' first point that no one is good except for God, and taking away the young man's option of justifying himself by his own works in the end. That passage doesn't justify salvation by works/charity at all - it completely works against it.
Third, If Jesus was riffing on rich people in a sort of "poverty is more righteous than wealth" vibe in Luke 18:24, someone forgot to pass on the message to St. Paul who merely required the rich to be generous and humble, rather than to become poor in order to be saved, in 1 Timothy 6:17,18,19. St. Clement had pretty much the same tone in his letter to the Corinthians (chapter 38 "Let the rich man provide for the wants of the poor, and let the poor man bless God, because He hath given him one by whom his need may be supplied.") Also, didn't God have a pretty close relationship with some rich men in the Old Testament - people like Abraham and David and Daniel, for example?
So Jesus, like Paul, must have been commenting on the tendency of rich people to fall 'into a snare... into many senseless and harmful desires' (1 Timothy 6:9) which would keep them from coming to God in order to be saved.
So to summarize, Luke 18:18-24 (1) connects 'the Kingdom' to the idea of being 'saved'; (2) militates against the idea of being saved by works; (3) does not condemn wealth but comments on the harmful tendencies that wealth generally produces in sinful people. Jesus does not sound like Claiborne in this passage at all.
I like that you are seeking to draw out what's been neglected. This is really important. I'm wary because of how you've framed the problem at the outset and the way that your framing of the problem is leading you to limit the text rather than open it up fully.
If you could, maybe share some ways in which you believe the 'Gospel of the Kingdom' (Matthew 4:23) as having to do with salvation has been 'neglected?' I obviously see this as well, but it's something that's worth sharing notes over.
Just quickly, I don't think that I am limiting the text (see semi-thorough analysis up top; I even got into some patristics there), and if I were to allow my 'framing' to limit my reading of the text entirely, I probably would have sworn off any connection between The Kingdom and social action, and disavowed social activism entirely a la D.L. Moody. I didn't do that.
By the way, I am really enjoying our conversation. I think that sometimes because I approach theological conversations like debates (point-by-point rapid fire), I can sometimes give off the impression that I'm angry or direspectful. Neither one is true - thanks for taking the time to push me on this. I am thoroughly enjoying the sharpening experience, and you are a favorite conversation partner, Sean.
[1] STATEMENT FOUR: "The Salvation of lost and sinful humanity possible only through the merits of the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ received by faith apart from works, and as characterized by regeneration by the Holy Spirit." http://briercrest.ca/about/statement-of-faith/
ReplyDelete@Ryan: Looking forward to seeing what you've got to write man. I know you've been studying eschatology lately; does any of that study have an impact on how you see this whole Kingdom/Salvation/Social Acton thing?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing is, I'm getting your responses sent to my email (all comments get sent to my email). So the site is registering them, it's just acting up somehow. Let's wait for 20 minutes and see if they show up?
ReplyDeleteO.K. I sent you the post by email though. Maybe you can post it for me? Thanks man. Again, good chatting.
ReplyDeleteHey Sean D, I'm just going to copy and paste from my inbox - here are your original replies; sorry about the Blogger glitch.
ReplyDelete--------------------------------
SEAN D. - Let’s back up to the beginning. The rich ruler comes to Jesus and says to him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus replies in vs. 19 by zeroing in on this man’s use of “good.” “Why do you call me good?” he says. “No one is good except God alone.” What a fascinating exchange. Jesus resists being called “good” by the rich ruler. What’s going on there? I don’t think he’s simply setting up a doctrinal point. He’s exposing the man’s presumption concerning goodness. This becomes clear in vs. 21. There we learn that the ruler has come to Jesus believing that he’s a good person. He’s followed through on the commandments since he was a boy. Why has the ruler inquired about eternal life when he’s prepared to justify himself in this kind of manner? It seems to me that the rich ruler has come to Jesus to socialize his goodness. He’s expecting Jesus to answer his question along these lines: “You don’t need to do anything. You’ve already inherited eternal life. You are good like me.” The rich ruler’s response to Jesus in v. 21 reveals that his question in vs. 18 is disingenuous, and amazingly Jesus perceives this in v. 19 before the ruler confirms it in v. 21.
Jesus then turns the tables on the rich ruler. He says, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” What’s Jesus up to here? You’ve suggested two possibilities: 1) Jesus is trying to break down the man to disabuse him of works-righteousness; 2) Jesus is setting the man up for works-righteousness, expecting him to work for his salvation. You’ve gone with number one, and rejected number two. I’m with you. I’d agree that Jesus is doing something along the lines you’ve suggested in number one while guarding against number two. It seems to me, though, that he’s doing far more than that. Rather than simply making a point against works-rightoeusness, he’s also commanding the rich ruler to sell what he has and to give to the poor. Really. This is no game. Jesus doesn’t smile and say, “Listen, I’m not really asking you to give up everything. I’m just wanting you to recognize how incapable you are of following the law.” No, Jesus is firm on his command, and this is reinforced by the man’s sadness. Then Jesus takes it up a notch. He looks right at the rich ruler and says, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (whoa).
Again, I’m with you that Jesus seeks to break down the rich-ruler and to disabuse him of works-righteousness and the idolatrous self-satisfaction that comes of it. But it also seems that he opens up a gateway to God, to God’s goodness, and to His kingdom. If the rich ruler were to obey Jesus’ command to sell his possessions and give them to the poor, would he be in the position of working for his salvation? Think of it. The man’s already been working for his salvation. He’s been doing it his whole life. Following through on Jesus’ command is not about working for salvation. It’s about losing a life marked by pride, arrogance, complacency, etc. in order to gain a new life on God’s terms. It’s about about dying to self and coming alive to a God. Let me be bold: It’s about being born again, becoming a child of God.
SEAN D. - Continuing along ... The people who are listening in to this exchange and Jesus's teaching are astonished and wonder, “Who then can be saved?” I'm seeing the connection you've made, Sean, between kingdom and salvation. It would seem that entering the kingdom and and being saved (perhaps also, inheriting eternal life?) are closely connected, and Jesus confirms it in his reply: “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” O.K., so let's process this. Entering the kingdom to be saved is impossible on our own. Check. Entering the kingdom to be saved is possible only through God. Check. It looks like you’re right, Sean, the kingdom is about salvation that can only come from God. There’s more to say though ...
ReplyDeleteJesus has suggested that it’s hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, and he doesn’t recant. In context, this seems to be because the rich have got so much more to lose. And yet, salvation for the rich remains possible with God. So what does that look like in the case of the rich ruler? I would suggest that it looks like humble obedience to Jesus’ command and calling.
Reflecting beyond Lk. 18 … it seems that entering the kingdom and being saved by God always involves human action--not action that earns and merits, but action that gives up and receives. This is the kind of action that Jesus is looking for from the rich ruler. What does it look like to enter the kingdom, to be saved, to be born again? For some it takes the form of prayerful confession. For others it involves the selling of possessions and giving to the poor. In all cases, it is about responding to Jesus. It’s about giving ourselves up for lost and receiving what only God can give.
Sean R.,
ReplyDeleteYou and Sean D. have a sweet conversation going! I'd like to zero-in on the distinction you're making between what the kingdom is and what it results in.
Following your lead, let's start where Mark (and Jesus) start. Mark 1.14-15 has Jesus beginning to preach: "The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the good news [i.e. gospel]."
A few things to notice:
(1) The kingdom appears to be something they've been waiting for. It is something Israel was promised through the prophets and the time is now "fulfilled". Therefore, even though Jesus might modify their expectations, our starting point for saying what the kingdom is should be to read the prophets.
(2) The kingdom of God is "at hand"; Jesus goes on in this gospel (and the others) to show that it is already here (in mustard seed form) and yet not here in its fullness. So, we should ask: what do we learn about what the kingdom is from the way that Jesus sees it coming near at that time, around him?
(3) This is long before Jesus died on the cross and was raised back to life. He won't even start talking about that until much later. So it's all the more surprising that he calls the inbreaking kingdom of God the "gospel." The good news is that God is becoming king. And in the first instance, here, that doesn't have anything to do directly with Jesus' death and resurrection. Of course, I'm NOT saying that kingdom and cross don't belong together, or that the message of Jesus dying for sins and being raised for our justification isn't 'gospel'. I am saying that here that's not what Jesus is talking about, and that should stop and make us think about what the kingdom is, not to mention what the gospel is.
How does that sound to your ears, Sean? I want to push further into exploring what Mark does tell us about the kingdom, but I want to hear your thoughts first about this starting point.
(Thanks for getting this conversation going, Sean. It's cool hashing some of this stuff out together. So, thanks.)
Notice the slight changes below:
ReplyDelete"It seems that entering the kingdom to be saved by God always involves human action--not action that earns and merits, but action that gives up and receives. This is the kind of action that Jesus is looking for from the rich ruler. What does it look like to enter the kingdom, to be saved, to be born again, to repent, to believe? For some, the entry point takes the form of prayerful confession. For others it involves the selling of possessions and giving to the poor. In all cases, it is about responding to Jesus. It’s about giving ourselves up for lost and receiving what only God can give."
@Sean D:
ReplyDeleteSome great thoughts in that last reply. Thanks for taking part here, and being willing discuss what I am starting to believe is a pretty important subject in ‘What Is the Kingdom?’ (Especially considering the close connection that Jesus makes between ‘the Kingdom’ and ‘the Gospel,’ between ‘entering the Kingdom’ and ‘being saved,’ we’re talking about the central message of the Christian faith here.)
AGREEMENT: When you wrote “I don’t think He’s simply setting up a doctrinal point. He’s exposing the man’s presumption concerning goodness,” I’m with you. I was sort of parlaying that into a doctrinal point – giving it a wider (more universal?) application. By the way, good analysis of the interaction between Jesus and the rich young ruler. You’ve got a certain amount of story-telling ability that makes your writing quite readable.
Again, I’m with you that Jesus was actually commanding the man to give up his possessions – he wasn’t playing around, wasn’t ready to shout ‘no!’ and then swoop the money up out of the hands of widows and orphans at the last second like the Angel of the LORD saving Isaac from Abraham’s knife. The man really had to make a hard decision between his earthly possessions and following Jesus. Which one did he love more, trust in more? The dilemma was real.
When you wrote “let me be bold: it’s about being born again, becoming a child of God,” I am completely with you (assuming that this is salvation language). The Gospel of the Kingdom is all wrapped up in the concept of being saved and being made right with God. I also appreciate the careful thought here which avoids any concept of work-righteousness.
POTENTIAL DISAGREEMENT: I don’t want to devote too much writing to this without asking you about it first (it’s always embarrassing to refute what no one is saying), but it sort of sounds like you’re asserting –I don’t know, not really asserting, but at least exploring- the possibility of different ways of being saved by Jesus? I’m getting that from where you are saying ‘for some it takes the form of prayerful confession. For others it involves selling their possessions to the poor.’ I get that these two start from the same basic framework of dying to self and receiving from Jesus, but knowing how way leads on to way, I doubt that if we set things up like this for others that we should ever be able to travel back.
Second, maybe we are putting too much focus on the words “sell your possessions” when the weight should really be on the words “and follow Me?” Those possessions wouldn’t be much use if the young man followed Jesus around Galilee and Judea – like a lot of people these days who are held down to one geographical location by a house and a job, and by animals that they’ve acquired that need to be cared for, etc. So the choice between Jesus and Mammon would still be a potent spiritual factor, but now we are open to seeing it as also a very practical choice – placing the emphasis on the ‘follow Me’ part and sort of getting us beyond this business of money and possessions. I’m just exploring the idea here, on this second point.
@Nate: I'm on board completely with point #1, but I think I would go at points #2 and #3 from a different angle.
ReplyDelete(2) The Kingdom of God is "at hand" because the King (God) is physically present in the form of Jesus. For us, the Kingdom of God is at hand because the King is present via the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Of course God is present at all times, but the presence was more 'immediate' through the human Jesus and now the Holy Spirit. So I wouldn't explain it in terms of the reality of heaven breaking in to our reality. You didn't necessarily say anything different from this in your #2 point, but I sort of sense that this is not where you are going.
(3) Although Jesus' preaching happened long before the crucifixion/resurrection, my solution is to look at the parallel passages and figure out what Jesus *was* preaching during this time. The resources are pretty much Luke and John's Gospels - 4 chapters for John, and Jesus' preaching in Nazareth from Luke. I find that Jesus' preaching is centered around Himself - "He" comes to bind up the brokenhearted; "He" comes to declare the captives free (from Sin); "He" comes to declare God's jubilee; in John 3 people are clearly saved/enter the Kingdom by being born again and putting their trust in him. So the specifics of the resurrection and the cross aren't there yet, but the basic framework of having your sins forgiven by trusting in Jesus seems to be present.
What do you think, am I reaching here?
(2) The kingdom of God is "at hand"; Jesus goes on in this gospel (and the others) to show that it is already here (in mustard seed form) and yet not here in its fullness. So, we should ask: what do we learn about what the kingdom is from the way that Jesus sees it coming near at that time, around him?
(3) This is long before Jesus died on the cross and was raised back to life. He won't even start talking about that until much later. So it's all the more surprising that he calls the inbreaking kingdom of God the "gospel." The good news is that God is becoming king. And in the first instance, here, that doesn't have anything to do directly with Jesus' death and resurrection. Of course, I'm NOT saying that kingdom and cross don't belong together, or that the message of Jesus dying for sins and being raised for our justification isn't 'gospel'. I am saying that here that's not what Jesus is talking about, and that should stop and make us think about what the kingdom is, not to mention what the gospel is.
@Sean R.
ReplyDelete(1) Cool! I’d love to explore this more together. I’ll exercise a bit o' self-control and press on instead.
(2) Hear me clearly on this: I’m totally with you. I just don’t want to limit it in the way you do. The kingdom is “at hand” because Jesus is present. Yes, Jesus is king – in the first place because he’s the promised David king. That would be enough (according to the OT promises) for God’s kingdom to be present. What I love is that God surprises everyone and decides not to do the minimum . . . Jesus is the long-awaited Davidic King. But he’s much more than that too. I'm with you this far.
But why would we insist that the kingdom of God is only/primarily Jesus being present as God’s king, to the exclusion of all else? That seems unwise and unnecessary, because Jesus often defines the kingdom in other terms. Take the most famous of Jesus’ sayings about the kingdom: “Your kingdom come; your will be done on earth as it is heaven.” Right in this bit from the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus tells us what the kingdom is: God’s kingdom is his will being done on earth as it is in heaven. Yet that’s exactly what you’re saying it isn’t. The kingdom is what’s true of heaven becoming true of earth. As Jesus fills that out in the Sermon on the Mount, the inbreaking heavenly reality means obedience and worship. It means faith. It means justice. It means peace. It’s political, social, and spiritual.
This is where I’m not jiving with you. I want us to let Jesus tell us what the kingdom is.
(3) Actually, I’m with you here too—even more so. In retrospect, God’s kingdom had to be inaugurated by the death and resurrection of the Messiah. Jesus presents himself as playing the central, focal, instrumental role in the fulfillment of God’s big, big purposes. Of course, that doesn’t mean that he didn’t spend a lot of time preaching about God’s kingdom without direct reference to himself (which is exactly what he does in most of Matthew, Mark, and Luke).
One more note.
ReplyDeleteI never responded directly to an important question you asked me earlier, so let me say something briefly: I don't deny that the kingdom is about salvation/future hope. It is. The kingdom will one day be fully present, and we will be rescued! Jesus taught that on the last day, heaven and earth would overlap perfectly. He also preached that the end was beginning. This is that "already/not yet" thing that people talk about. "Inaugurated eschatology" is the fancy technical term.
(I must have been unclear about this before, and don't want us to be distracted going forward.)
@Sean
ReplyDeleteSean R: [I]t sort of sounds like you’re asserting –I don’t know, not really asserting, but at least exploring- the possibility of different ways of being saved by Jesus?
Sean D: I’m suggesting that there is only one way: dying to self and coming alive to God and his kingdom. The gospels help us to appreciate the variety of expressions that this takes in people’s lives. i.e. Jesus doesn’t work in a formulaic way, leading people through the four spiritual laws or something like that. He calls each person to die to self and to come alive to God and his kingdom, but he does not demand that this happen in exactly the same way for each person. Quite the contrary! Also, let’s not assume that this is just about individual people working through spiritual matters. There’s an important social-ethical dimension to individual people coming to the kingdom. All that to say, the kingdom seems to be as much a external-social reality as an interior-spiritual one. Jesus doesn’t seem to privilege one over the other. Sometimes the latter wells up and spills out into the former. Other times the former takes hold and press into the latter. It’s clear that both mattered to Jesus, and that he was free to begin at whatever point he chose.
Sean R: Second, maybe we are putting too much focus on the words “sell your possessions” when the weight should really be on the words “and follow Me?”
Sean D: I’d want to put maximum emphasis on both. That’s what Jesus seems to be doing.
I should say, that's what Jesus seems to be doing with the rich ruler ...
ReplyDeleteIndividual/social: Notice that Jesus' message to the rich ruler had important implications beyond the rich ruler himself--i.e. for the eavesdroppers and the disciples. This is a pattern we see throughout the gospels. What happens to/in individual people is never meant for them alone. Individual people obviously matter to Jesus, but never merely for their own sake.
ReplyDelete"Notice that Jesus' message to the rich ruler had important implications beyond the rich ruler himself--i.e. for the eavesdroppers and the disciples."
ReplyDeleteThere's an important observation there, and I'm completely on board with it. If, after all, this wasn't meant to have implications beyond the rich ruler... then why would it have been included in so concise a document as one of the four gospels?
I'll get back to you and Nate on the rest later - I'm about to help Kendra move some of her things to our place.
Hey Nate,
ReplyDeleteA couple of things. One, I'm glad there is so much there for us to agree upon. Two, I'm insisting on a pretty strictly defined view of the Kingdom, mostly to avoid saying something the Bible doesn't, and to avoid changing or adding to the gospel - which we've already established is pretty closely tied to our view of the Kingdom. This is pretty high-level stuff in terms of importance.
Here's the pitfall that I need to avoid: I have to make sure that I keep an open mind. Should I get to the point where I could find a way to reconcile the Bible's wording to my point of view no matter what it said, that would be a problem. I can't create an impossible burden of proof for you to overcome.
Here's the pitfall that you need to avoid: Reading into Scripture something that isn't there. It could totally get to the point where you start mentioning ethical teachings of Jesus, and say 'see? this is how Jesus talks about the Kingdom!' when in context Jesus might only be talking about the results of the Kingdom - the Biblical principles that his followers are supposed to live out.
I think your quoting of the Lord's Prayer fits this bill. In context, who is Jesus talking to? His disciples ('when they say all kinds of things against you on My account,' Matthew 5.11). What is the rest of the prayer about? God's name being honored as holy, us relying on Him for our daily bread, Him forgiving our sins, Him keeping His people from temptation, Him delivering His people from evil -or the Evil One- and so forth. God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven, in context, consists of people honoring his name, looking to Him for forgiveness and sustenance and delivery... there's not a bit of socio-political 'heaven breaking into our reality' language in there, in a socio-political sense.
Also, I get the "already/not yet" thing. But there is more than one way in which the Kingdom can be already here (but not quite), and the more oldschool approach that I'm advocating is one of them.
Sean D.,
ReplyDeleteI feel like entering the Kingdom has to have some level of: recognizing sin, repentance, and begging for God's acceptance through Jesus. It seems wrong somehow if God would accept a charitable donation as a consolation prize. But, since you said 'Sometimes the latter wells up and spills out into the former. Other times the former takes hold and press into the latter. It’s clear that both mattered to Jesus, and that he was free to begin at whatever point he chose.' I agree. I think we're both on the same page on this point.
Sean R: "I feel like entering the Kingdom has to have some level of: recognizing sin, repentance, and begging for God's acceptance through Jesus."
ReplyDeleteSean D: Maybe recognizing sin, repenting, etc. looks like giving everything away for some people. Why would we think of this as a "charitable donation"? The rich ruler didn't feel it like that. Jesus didn't command it like that. Maybe you're thinking that selling possessions and giving to the poor could be a way of masking over the spiritual problem. Well yeah, that's a possibility for some people. But the spiritual problem can be evaded any number of ways, including going through the motions of an altar call or repeating the words of the sinner's prayer. It seems that the recognition of sin, repentance, etc. for the rich ruler could be had in no other way than through the selling of possessions and giving to the poor. I'm thinking that we should expect the same dynamic in other cases as well.