The Politics of The Message, Part 1 – Kyrios
February 5th, 2007 by JohnO
I think the message about the Kingdom of God, and even who Jesus is is muddied by Christianity today. Unfortunately we are separated from the environment the Bible was written in and their customs. Even their use of language is foreign to us casual readers today. If we read a lot of ancient documents we’d understand the references, but we don’t. As a result some of the emphasis that the first readers would understand we have lost. I find that the most affected part of our faith is in regard to politics, specifically the political aspects of the message of Jesus and his identity. So with that in mind, I want to embark on a three part mission to reclaim some of it. I’ll be focusing specifically on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11.
First a word about the people of Thessolonike and the city. Pompey an Emperor of Rome called Thessolonike the “capital of Rome in exile”. In other words, this is a mighty Roman city. So, Paul in writing to these people has a unique situation on his hands to convey a political truth about Jesus and the Kingdom to the people there (who knew of Pompey’s statement). This is why this book, and particularly this section is profitable for looking at this subject.
In the New Testament after Jesus’ ascension he is almost universally referenced as “Lord”, or in the Greek kyrios (κυριοs). Usually we’ve just brushed off this word as common, or uncontroversial. However, in the time of Jesus and after Jesus this is not true. The Caesar’s were all called κυριοs! So to have another κυριοs besides Caesar was to oppose him:
Paul is also busily deconstructing the extant pagan value system so his converts will not lapse back into allegiance to it… This message qualified as a subversive one, violating Caeser’s decrees. – Witherington, “The Problem with Evangelical Theology”
Paul’s opposition to Caeser and adherence to a very high, very Jewish Christology were part of the same thing. Jesus was Lord – kyrios… and Caeser was not… It [concerning Jesus' Kingship] claims to be the reality of which Caeser’s empire is the parody. – N.T. Wright
Did you catch that last line? More to come…
It seems that the ruler Herod during the time of Jesus’ birth knew enough about the Messiah that he would be King and so was quite upset at the prospect of his birth there during his tenure. A lot of misunderstandings seem to have come into play with the disciple Judas and others who were looking for the Messiah of the second coming. I have been very blessed to recognize this political piece to the history of the times in which Jesus was present on earth. It helps with, as you stated, putting the life of Christ into an environmental historical context. How were people to know that this wasn’t the time for Jesus to be King?
Well I mean to show that the writers after the ascension clearly understand Jesus politically. Just like Herod did. And despite the fact he didn’t flex his muscle – he is the one who will come and rule. I have an interesting quote that basically says – the only difference between Christian and Jewish apocalyptic literature is that the Christians know who the figure is! The figure is Jesus, and he is portrayed in many characters and symbols – such as the lamb, the one who treads the wine press, the conquering King, and the Son of Man.
Perhaps the reason why Psalm 110.1 is the most quoted OT verse in the NT is because the early Christians needed to explain to their non messianic neighbors why if Jesus was indeed Messiah, he was not ruling from Jerusalem.
Thus this verse gives a intermediate state of sitting at God’s right hand until…
Jesus did state that his coming is not for peace but division. Is his ruling from the right hand of God for peace or division now ?
Luke 12:47-52 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth?against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, …”
Isn’t this a political statement of his rule? I am assumint the fire on earth – the second coming? what is this baptism he undergoes now?
I think the baptism is a reference to his suffering and death.