The Politics of the Message, Part 5
April 25th, 2007 by Sean
Is it cheating to hijack someone else’s series title? I hope not. JohnO has produced four posts on this subject, The Politics of the Message, and for whatever reason a lot of what he has been saying has just hit me. I have looked around a bit and google is filled with articles talking about the phrases used (especially by Paul) to talk about Jesus in light of the political/religious terminology of the time (i.e. the Caesar cult).
I wanted to summarize what has been said and add a couple of more phrases to this discussion. Then, I’d like to bring out the implications of using this political terminology.
- lord kyrios: Caesar was known as “the lord kyrios of the world” the one who was to be submitted to by all in the empire.
- coming parousia: This word was used of emperors coming parousia to the city after he had been triumphant in battle.
- peace and safety eirene kai asphaleia: A slogan of Rome used on coins which Paul mocks in 1 Thes 5.3.
- meet apantesis: Citizens would go out out the city to meet apantesis the emperor when he visited in order to escort him back (unless you expected to be condmened)
- gospel euaggelion: The emperor’s reign, victory, accesion, birthday, were anounced from town to town as gospel euaggelion. The gospel was the good news that the emperor had established peace and safety for the world.
- savior soter: Caesar was called the savior who brought salvation to the whole world (i.e. saved the world from chaos and lawlessness).
- son of God uious theou: At deatht the old emperor was deified (made into a god). Since the emperor had been adopted by the old, he called himself “son of god” (this was at the top of the coins).
- assembly ekklesiai: The Roman assemblies was where Caesar was celebrated
It was asserted that Caesar had saved the world out of chaos and brought peace and safety and justice. In fact the time that Jesus lived in was dubbed the Pax Romana (peace of Rome) because the gods had granted peace to Caesar who was now lord of all. Furthermore, the primary demonstration of the power of Rome was the cross. Crucifixion said to the people, “if you oppose Caesar this is what happens to you.” John Dominic Crossan aptly sums up the theological revolution that results from reinterpreting the Christian proclamation in light of the imperial context.
One thing that I noticed in researching for this book is that way back in the beginning of the last century, 1907, two different scholars, a British scholar named William Mitchell Ramsay and a German scholar named Gustav Adolph Deissmann, got on a train and a boat and a horse and went around the Pauline sites and saw the inscriptions that say that Caesar Augustus was divine, was the son of god, was god, was lord, was redeemer, was savior of the world. They saw all that and they said, as it were: Oh, my God! That is what it’s all about! They saw that when Jesus was called by those same titles it was not simply the result of picking up the cultural debris of his contemporary world. It was saying, in effect: these are the titles of Caesar, but we refuse them to Caesar and assign them instead to Jesus. They were not simply applying to Jesus ordinary words in everyday language. So in 1907 these scholars saw the implications. But instead of the twentieth century building a theology on this realization – which of course would have been one-hundred percent political and one-hundred percent religious, something capable of pointing to that deep basis where religion and politics coincide – we went off into existential demythologization and it was the last thing the twentieth century needed. We went into a kind of personalized, existentialized individualism when what we needed was the kind of powerful political/religious understanding of Christianity authentic to the first century. I’m not even talking about an application of it. I’m just talking about seeing what was there, seeing why Jesus was crucified, seeing that the Romans got it right. That’s part of what I see happening right now. On the one hand we have – though they are only straws in the wind at the moment, they are big straws in a big wind – a growing insistence on the political and religious implications of Christianity. I’m extremely excited. This is not just talking politics but talking about what Jesus called the kingdom of God, what Paul called the Lordship of Christ, which is simply a way of saying who is in charge of the world. And counterpointed with this I find a Gnosticism that coalesces magnificently with American individualism – inside not outside, religion not politics, spirituality not religion – everything that makes the whole thing Gnostic and safe.
Much of this political language is brought together in the letters of Paul. JohnO has already pointed out how 1 Thessalonians uses several of these terms. Even so, the first paragraph of Romans seems to be the most concentrated example of this imperial terminology (not the least of which is the fact that the epistle of Romans was written to the capital of the empire!) Philip Goodchild summarizes this nicely:
For Paul’s political thought we must turn to his announcement of the gospel at the opening of his epistle to the Romans:
Paul, a slave of king (christos) Jesus, called to be a herald (apostolos), appointed to the task of the proclamation of the kingdom of God (euangelion theou), which God had promised beforehand through his proclaimers in the sacred writings, the proclamation of the God’s Son, the successor to king David, who was revealed as God’s king (huios theou) in power and holiness by resurrection of the dead, king Jesus our master, through whom I have received the commission and power to bring about the loyalty of all the Gentiles to honour him, including yourselves who are called to his service. (Rom. 1:1-6 – my translation ).
The lengthy argument of Romans is bracketed by this and a concluding quotation from Isaiah: ‘The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles shall hope.’ (Rom. 15.12) To write this to Rome is to announce that Caesar has been superseded by the Jewish messiah. Paul’s ‘gospel’ or euangelion recalls the good news of Isaiah that God is returning to Zion to judge and redeem the nations (Is. 40.9, 52.7 – cited in Rom. 10.15); it also echoes the imperial announcement of a great victory or the accession of an emperor (Wright 2000:165). The phrase ‘son of God’ has Davidic messiahship as its primary meaning (as in Ps. 2.7, 2 Sam. 7:14; see Wright 2000: 167); it also parodies the divine pretensions of the Roman imperial dynasty (Elliott 2000: 23).
- What do you think are the implications of ascribing political titles to Jesus? The subversive tone of Romans shows that Jesus is the true lord (and Caesar is not).
- What did this mean to them then in practical application (they still paid their taxes)?
- What does this mean to us today (i.e. if Bush is not President, but Jesus is)?
bibliography:
Paul and Empire An Interview with John Dominic Crossan
Up Against Caesar: Jesus and Paul Versus the Empire by John Dart
Mark’s Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription by Craig A. Evans
The Exceptional Political Theology of Saint Paul by Philip Goodchild
Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans by N.T. Wright
The Problem with Evangelical Theology by Ben Witherington III quoting K.P. Donfried on pg 120 (also pg 119)
I love it when my posts get hijacked! I’ll refrain from taking it back over through comments too
Anyone have thoughts?
Are people confused about this idea?
I think itis great. JESUS IS KING Thats comforting. Is he making intercession for us presently as King, What do you think he is doing?
Hi Sean,
I’d be careful not “to overshoot” on a certain idea ….
Just because the language used in Scripture includes terms that were also used in everday language and in entirely different contexts, I don’t think it is a good idea to then sort of make a shift and claim that therefore the language in the Bible is using “political terminology” and must be about “a political matter”.
Take the term “king” … Pharaoh is called “king (of Egypt)”and some other folks are mentioned who are described as being “kings”. GOD Himself is said to be KING ….however, was or is God a “king” in a political sense? NO!!
Yes, the Roman emperors were called (among a number of other things) “Lord”, and so was Jesus called “Lord” …. and so were folks who owned slaves called “Lord” by their subjects …. Does the use of the term “Lord” make Jesus a Lord in the sense of “ruling an empire in a political sense similar to an emperor”? NO! (Just as the use of the term didn’t make the owner of slaves to be a ruler in a political sense)
Oh yes, Jesus is both Lord and Christ …. Oh, yes, he is king …. but in what sense and over what type of “empire”? Should we compare him to the rulers over political earthly empires of the day or instead to God and His reign which is not political in nature?
Perhaps we should be thinking of terms like these in their JEWISH contexts rather than the Roman one. What did it mean to a Jew when you said someone was the Anointed, or Lord, or Son of God, or Saviour? And was the ekklesia a Roman/Greek assembly, or the Assembly of God’s Covenant People?
I think that Sean’s point in highlighting these terms was to introduce the context in which the NT reader would understand certain terms in the 1st century. If you are a recent Gentile/Roman convert, you understand these words in a certain way and now you are reading them in the context not of Caesar but of Jesus. This I imagine would be a big deal.
The NT is written in a way that one must understand the Hebrew mindset and OT writings to understand it fully – but at the same time, Paul is writing and words such as Sean has listed would stand out to the Christian living in a Roman world.
Imagine getting a letter that said the following:
“Jesus is the only leader. He alone is worthy to be President. All other so called commanders in chief are powerful but for a moment, but Jesus has been made our President forever!”
This would challenge a few in our day I’d think. I think this is what Sean (and JohnO) have been trying to highlight.
-VG
Wolfgang,
First of all, I appreciate your cautiousness in regard to me (or anyone) presenting new ideas here. Secondly, I believe that the words “messiah/christ,” “son of David,” “son of God,” “son of man,” and “king of the Jews” are all political (and religious). The whole idea of separation between politics and religion is a modern one. Each of these phrases is rife will political implications (in a Jewish context).
messiah means the one anointed by God to rule the world (crush the nations with a rod of iron, etc. cf. Ps 2)
son of David means literally somoene who can trace their lineage back to king David, but THE son of David is the one that God promised to set upon the throne of David to rule forever (cf. 1 Chron 17.11-14; Luke 1.31-33)
son of God is a title given to the “son of David” who is to rule the world. God says of him “I will be his Father and he shall be my son” (cf. 1 Chron 17.13; Ps 2.7; Heb 1.15)
son of man is the title given to the one who approaches the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7.13-14. In the vision, Daniel sees the son of man given “dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve him. his dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.” In the immediate context the saints also inherit the kingdom (Dan 7.18, 22, 27).
king of the Jews this is a title for Herod the Great which is why he was so upset when he was asked by the magi “where is he who has been born king of the Jews?” (Mat 2.2). In addition, Herod asks the chief priests where the messiah was to be born (Mat 2.4) essentially equating the two.
So Jesus is already a thoroughly political figure. Scholars agree on this point (I’m not inventing anything here). Furthermore, the Jews never split their religion from their politics. They believed that they had a divine right to the land because God gave it to them. God promised them restoration of the throne of David over and over again. The hope of the religion of Judaism was and is that one day the Messiah will come and establish Israel as the chief nation and then establish peace and prosperity through Israel to the world.
Now, enter Paul the Apostle and Slave of the Messiah. He travels throughout the Roman Empire (he does not spend much time in Palestine). He is hearalding the gospel from town to town. He is becoming all things to all men. He needs to be able to express the truth of the gospel of the kingdom (Mat 4.23; 9.35; Luke 4.43; Mark 1.15)–which is by nature very political–to these people living in the imperial context. How does he do it? To the Jews he uses Jewish messianism terminiology but to the Greeks he uses imperial terminology.
The Caesar cult was alive and well during the missionary journeys of Paul. The emperor was worshiped (about 100 years later, thousands of Christians would be executed for refusing to burn incense/sacrifice to the image of Caesar). People are not ignorant of the political import of the terms “lord,” “savior,” “son of God,” etc. Paul preaches firstly in a Jewish context (to Steve’s point) but then also (and I would say in full knowledge of the political connotations) he uses imperial language to talk about Jesus.
It would be like me going from town to town saying Jesus is President, Jesus is commander and chief, Jesus is the leader of the free world, Jesus is in charge of the country, etc. No one would mis the affront to Pres. Bush.
I agree that all these terms have Jewish counterpart meanings. Perhaps we can explore those too in time. For the time being, we’re focusing on the Gentile meanings, because in the Epistles that is who Paul is writing too, the Gentile world. Furthermore the Jewish people in these Gentile lands, and even in Palestine, would know what these references are. The Jews were appalled that Caesar had these titles as an affront to them! So from a first-century Jew who lives either in Palestine, or the Diaspora these same points have just as much emphasis, perhaps more.
Is this a question of either/or?
It seems as though the claims of both Yahweh, through his Messiah, and Caesar through his legions are the same, converging in political sphere. Both sets of terminology are laying claim to the world and commanding the allegiance of those who live in it, so we are not forced to choose between a Hebrew or Roman interpretation.
But we are forced to choose who we will serve. From the moment Jesus was born into an empire making ‘Isaianic’ claims of universal rulership, the stage was set for conflict with Caesar.
And yet it is precisely here that Jesus triumphs. Through the very cross of Rome, its ultimate sanction and symbol of power -that of brute force and fear. Jesus endured its worst and refused to bow the knee. The great irony is that Yahweh effected through this such a dramatic reversal. Jesus was paraded not only as alive, but also as immortal, proving conclusively that the weakness of God is more powerful than the worst that man can do. This offers inspiration to the church whenever she is threatened.
However, the conflict between the gospel and men such as Bush and Blair today is not the same. They do not claim to be God on earth and they recognise the right of the individual to say “I refuse to vote for you.” We are even allowed, within the confines of the law, to speak out against them and protest. As such we can say that they are our leaders without endorsing blasphemous claims.
We have it so easy. All the more reason to be bold in our proclamation that Jesus is lord!
Absolutely right Alex, we needn’t pick between the two. For a Jew living in a Greek world, the claims of Caesar are already very offensive – they would find more meaning in the claims of Jesus as Messiah against a Greek ruler claiming to be Savior and then ruling as a tyrant.
Excellent point Alex, but I fear that you and I are so used to splitting religion from politics that we do not even realize when we are doing it. You say that because the politicians are not making a religious claim we need not worry about being blasphemous by saying they are our leaders (swearing allegiance?). You may be right especially considering these two facts (1) the NT explicitly commands us to obey and pray for the government in which we find ouselves (2) in fact God has not sent THE ruler, Jesus, to rule yet, so some sort of government is necessary.
I’m wary of taking Paul’s statment to obey the gov’t from our context and getting meaning from it. I think we have to take that statement from Paul’s context to understand what it meant when he said it.
Paul is imprisoned, beaten, and ultimately killed by the Roman government, along with many other Christian martyrs. This would obviously upset many Christians to be zealous against the government. Meanwhile Paul says not to be. This is yet another example of passive apocalypticism that we clearly see Jesus teach. To your second point – if we are to recognize that Jesus is the true ruler and not our governments – shouldn’t that mean that we are not concerned about what our governments do? Doesn’t it seem to be very inconsequential? We follow the true ruler, let all others do as they see fit.
So we are to pray that the government would leave us be to practice our faith without killing us. We are to not be worried about what our rulers do and think – but rather with what Jesus does and thinks. And we aren’t to assault the government on the grounds that it is unjust or unholy – we recognize that they are both!
I think what is clear from these two sections is that we are to submit to the governing authorities. The repeated theme is that governments are in place to punish the wicked and since we are to be righteous we have no reason to fear the government. When government begins persecuting us (as it will in the great tribulation) we should take the posture of David as he was hunted by the ordained governing authority, Saul.
Just wondering could submit also include defense such as national defense, Its possible to live in a country were it is mandatory to participate in the countrys defense. I also think of countries such as nazi Germany what was the christian citizen to do support their country? The above sciptures seem to me at least to be alittle confusing if you resist authority you oppose the ordinace of God. Do these sriptures only apply to a relatively nice government?
I think Patty’s comment (and Sean’s realization that it will get worse in the end times) shows us that we can’t understand what Paul means outside of understanding everything he and other Christians at the time of his writing have been going through. We can read those words as 21st century Americans and come up with a wrong understanding if we don’t allow Paul’s context to speak with more force than our own.
JohnO, I’m not quite sure what you are getting at. What specific elements of the historical context change what we are saying so that submit to government means something else?
Patty, the precedent for obeying God over government is when Peter & John said when told by the governing authorities not to speak in Jesus’ name, “we ought to obey God rather than man.” We submit to the government and even suffer injustice by them when God allows it but we never obey government over God.
Sean, I’m saying that because the government of our day is much different than the government of their day. A phrase’s meaning can change a lot of through the centuries. To understand the principle behind Paul’s words we have to think about to whom he is speaking with and their circumstances, like I outlined above.
JohnO, I’m still not clear on what you are saying. Is the principle you mention that Paul was advising the zealous Christians not to rebel against Rome in the face of fierce persecution/martyrdom? Would you agree that we need to submit to “every human institution” (i.e. the government) unless they ask of us something that God forbids?
John O The historical context of Paul as compared to our 21 cn. how is it different? If anything arent their more similarities then differences? Maybe he needed to say what he did because the Christians tended to isolate themselves and feel antagonistic to the government. They took the fact that Christ Jesus was the King seriously and maybe it was difficult for them to live in both realms?
To answer Patty’s question, How is it different:
Under a Roman government, only citizens had rights, and most people under the empire were not citizens. The citizens couldn’t do much to alter political process at all. For most of Rome’s history, the Senate had zero power. The government, to enforce peace, used extreme violence in their provinces. Furthermore, Rome ultimately didn’t care much for its own people. When the plauge ran through only the Christians stayed to help the people – the government left. Plus, all the Caesars thought they were divine and beyond question. As much as I disagree with our governments today – we are in a much better state.
Sean, to answer your question of submission:
I think the thrust of Paul’s argument is to be a passive apocalypticist – not to be active. Do the petty things the government asks of you. But overall be consumed with love, make no provision for the flesh, knowing that Christ is returning. I think we need to understand this distinction because of these times we live in where the government is supposedly Christian. To “give unto Caesar what is Caeser’s” – which is what Paul clearly draws on here in Rom 13 – in no way means to align oneself with the government, to think it will help you, or to think it will make the world a better place. Rather align yourself with Jesus and his government.
I think another thing to add as far as the context of the Romans spistles is as follows:
When you have Christians living on Romes doorstep, there may be the urge to adopt the mindset of a zealot because of 3 reasons:
a- you want the kingdom to come soon
b- Rome is very pagan
c- Caesar claims to be God
Paul wants to dispell any sort of urges to act in a violent and threatening way towards Rome, so he asks that church to obey those leaders. This way, the Christian community there can live in peace, preach the gospel without oppression, and continue to grow. Paul would have never imagined that by writting the 13th chapter of Romans that they would have entertained the idea joining the Roman military….. who let us not forget crucified Jesus!
Dustin
In our country perhaps the temptation is to think we are protected and we can effect change so we get further removed from the idea that we are pilgrims. Its a much easier place to live in but we can therfore be deceived. Deceived into thinking that we dont have to align our lives with the precepts of Jesus, because laws and government will help us live well. We can get sweept away in political involment to do good works all along not realizing that we are entagling our lives in a evil system. I agree with Dustin about w hy Paul gave them instuctions in Romans 13 and Peter in 1 Peter I mentioned a similiar idea in my last comment. I think this makes sense and I am glad to understand it alittle better.
I’ve been thinking, and I think it is wrong of us to say “Jesus is President” based on these scriptures. Jesus (in Paul’s interpretation) and Caesar were claiming to be Lord – the highest of all rulers to whom all submitted. Paul didn’t write that Jesus was Caesar, but Lord. Caesar was a Roman title, Paul didn’t confer to Jesus the ruling of the Roman empire. Jesus rather is over all empires. Jesus is both Lord and Saviour. He is the one to whom all will submit. He is the one who will rid the world of tyranny and war.
Deas John,
it seems like you are beginning to recognize the fundamental problem with the idea of a political nature of the coming kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven …. You may now as well “go all the way” and recognize that the lordship of Jesus (that is, his reign) has nothing to do with a political reign in terms of an earthly country or world-wide empire over several or all worldly countries …
As he himself affirmed, “My reign is not of this world” … And when he mentioned earthly rulers in a teaching example, it was to tell his disciples to NOT think in those terms at all (not be served, but he would be highest make himself servant of all, remember)?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang, welcome back. I think that you bring up a good verse that is commonly misunderstood as a categorical statement about the kingdom not being earthly.
There are two ways to understand this that do no violence to the obvious political nature of the kingdom (Ps 2.6-8; 1 Chron 17.11-14; Dan 7.13-14, 18, 22, 27; Ps 110.1-7; Luke 1.31-33; Mat 25.31-34; Is 2.1-4; Is 11.1-10; Is 9.7; Rev 11.15; etc.).
1. This statement could refer to the current status of the kigndom–right now his kingdom is not on earth, it will be, but right now it’s not. When the kingdom comes his servants will fight (Ps 149.5-9; 110.3; Rev 19.11-21; Rev 2.26-28).
2. That his kingdom is not of this world refers to the origin of the kingdom. The Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology states this well:
So rather than being established by selfish desire to rule over others and having its authority base in human institutions the Christ’s kingdom is powered by the benevolent divine will to solve the problem of human government and to establish a virtuous rule for all to enjoy. The basis for this idea and the authority originate in heaven (i.e. with God), not on earth.
Hi Sean,
these are all nice interpretations which would keep in line with Christ reigning as a poilitical leader over an earthly political kingdom / empire …. BUT Christ nowhere even hints at being a king of that type of a worldly political nature. All the verses you mention there do not show that Christ’s reign will be a political rule and that Christ will be an emperor or president or king in the traditional earthly sense .
We should consider how God Himself was king over Israel … was He a political ruler? was His reign that of a political nature? NO! God’s reign or rule over Israel was not of a political nature, God IS Spirit, and His reign was of a spiritual nature. Remember how Israel did not like that and desired a “political king” (like the other nations around them had)? Only, that type of king or ruler is NOT along God’s desires and plans …. Yes, Israel then was granted to have such a political ruler, BUT that was not God’s intent of how His reign over man is or will be.
Christ’s reign is earthly, in that it also encompasses the lives of people on earth … but his reign is not political, he is not a worldly ruler of the likes as Ceasar or a president, king, or emperor of our day and time. This is what John O. apparently is beginning to notice and realize as well.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
So when Jesus preached about a coming Kingdom, what exactly is he talking about then? What would be the point of making a new earth if God wouldn’t use it?
Wolfgang, what an exciting interchange! I must admit that I am baffled at your statement, “all the verses you mention there do not show that Christ’s reign will be a political rule.” Please look at these Scriptures with me.
Psalm 2.6-9 clearly states that God will install his king (messiah cf. v2) on Zion (Jerusalem) and that all nations (America, Germany, etc.) will be his inheritance to rule over with “a rod of iron.” 1 Chron 17.11-14 tells us that God will set up a king to be on the throne of David forever. In Luke 1.31-33 the angel Gabriel clears away any confusion by telling Mary that the child she will have (Jesus) will be given the throne of his father David to reign over Jacob (Israel) forever (as king). Daniel 7.13-14 teaches us that all nations (real countries) and people groups will come under the dominion of the Son of Man’s kingdom which will last forever. Psalm 110.2 confirms that Jesus will rule with a scepter over his enemies on earth (Zion is on earth). Mat 25.31-34 again confirms that when the Son of Man comes he will judge the nations (also Is 11.4). I will conclude this little survey by quoting two more Scriptures:
Jesus is the king of the Jews. He was not crucified for proclaiming that people go to heaven. He was crucified for political reasons. He is the long awaited Son of David promised to rule over the throne of David forever. The throne of David was not, is not, nor ever will be in heaven. It is in Jerusalem, the city of God. Jesus is coming back, and he is coming to make this world right. At the last trumpet all earthly nations will submit to the ruling Messiah. At this last moment God will suddenly act in human history by invading it, conquering it, taking it over, with his righteous rule via his agent, the Christ.
Perhaps some definitions could help (all from m-w.com)
Wolfgang,
I find it obvious that Jesus will be returning to take over the whole earth politically and physically. I am talking about serious war with true justice being accomplished finally.
Sal,
The point of making a new earth is so God WILL use it. Wiping away all that is horrible, painful, and evil with this present world, to begin a new society abundant with life, holiness, love. What a glorious day it will be when the earth is completely restored, ready, and purged of all unrighteousness and evil. This all will allow God to come and dwell with us forever!
Well, I have many defenders. Wolfgang, in no way do my remarks mitigate any political sense. Rather they affirm a political dimension of Jesus! My point was that Lord/Kyrios is not a specific title to a specific nation. It is a title regarding the entire world. Perhaps an equivalent phrase of today would be “Leader of the World”. And again Wolfgang, for you to say that none of the verses have any political sense to them at all really does not speak well. Nearly all of the OT verses Sean gave are all widely regarded in ancient and modern Judaism as talking about the future rule of the Messiah. And they are regarded as Messianic by Christians as well.
How about these other NT verses which speak of the political nature of the coming Kingdom:
Revelation 11:15 – Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, ” The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.”
Luke 22:29-30 – and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matthew 19:28 – And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Destiny and description of Jesus the Messiah as given by Gabriel:
Luke 1:31-33 – “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
In light of our current discussion, I found the following very interesting from http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm
Revelation 5:9-10 – And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”
Isaiah 11:3-4 – And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, and He will not judge by what His eyes see, nor make a decision by what His ears hear; but with righteousness He will judge the poor, and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.
Hello all,
why has nobody commented on my point about God and the nature of his reign, even over the nation of Israel, before they decided they wanted a political earthly king?
If God had no intentions about being a political ruler over Israel, why would He set up His kingdom with His Son reigning as a worldly political empire?
As long as one holds to a wrong premise, one will not arrive at a correct understanding in conclusion.
Also, I wonder, if we would even think of “political dimensions” IF the word had been translated “reign” instead of “kingdom” ??? It is the translation of the original words as “kingdom” rather than “reign” which may very well be at the root of understanding God’s and Christ’s reign as a worldly, political matter
Wolfgang,
Our understanding doesn’t hinge on a single word of Kingdom. Certainly basilea has the understanding of reign. Our understanding is centered on hundreds of Biblical texts. If you’ve seen any of the Glad Tidings for the last year I’ve been covering theses texts (you can see them online here).
God had no intention of having an unjust King over his people. God was literally the King over Israel – politically. God laid the laws, set the boundary of their lands, punished their wickedness, and rewarded their obedience. The Kingdom is not “worldly” (your previous quote proves exactly this point) – but it is on the earth. You would do well to remove the Gnostic influences to your Christianity. All that is material is not bad. All that is spiritual is not good.
Wolfgang,
You are right that God is referred to in this non-political sense as ruler of the universe (i.e. feeding the animals, keeping the sun rising, etc.). A good example of this is found in Psalm 145:
I think that this usage does occur in regard to God in his duties as sustainer. However, this does not invalidate nor contradict the dozens of texts that indicate that God will set his Messiah on Mt. Zion to rule forever. As sure as the sun keeps rising so sure is it that God will set up a king on the throne of David to rule over his people forever!
Excellent points from Jeremiah Sean. The covenant being tied to the sun’s rising and setting indicates its longevity and God’s committment to fulfill it.
Also, I would say that it also has not changed in nature because of God’s covenant with the sun and moon remains unchanged as well.
Why not take these verses literal as we do the rising and setting of the sun?