A Way Forward
What does it mean that the kingdom of God is present today? This is obviously a broad and all encompassing question, in fact it is the question of this entire series. So then we must go to the follow up questions in order to begin a narrower journey down its tributaries. The follow up questions that many use to validate this larger question is by trying to define what a kingdom is. They ask ‘what is a kingdom?’ or ‘what makes a kingdom?’ which are undoubtedly good questions but they are necessarily skewed in favor of a quasi-medieval rendering of what a kingdom is. These represent some of the misleading questions that only lead many along a path that is well trodden and dead ends. In a sense, the way forward is backwards. The task of understanding the idea of the presence of the kingdom needs to be done by reverse engineering. By this I mean we need to look first and foremost that the actions of the early church, then look at the symbols that they used to reinforce it, then to examine the questions they were asking and answering and then we can hopefully come to some clarity.
Now the early church no doubt believed something had happened on Easter Sunday, something significant enough to cause them to act in an entirely different way. Many changed their eating habits, fellowship habits and even their nationalistic habits. Each one of these changes is very telling. It is especially telling when we see Jesus exhibiting the otherwise and at times even endorsing a very much traditional Jewish line of action. Was then the early church going rouge on the founder’s precepts, or did they understand something that gave them the fluidity to modify their actions? Although the former has be the response of many over the past few centuries, I think it is the latter that is the most likely. The early church believed themselves to be living on the other side of one profoundly significant event – the resurrection of Jesus. They believed that in that event a radically different moment was upon them. Hopefully, in the course of this series, the resurrection will be discussed, but for now it is sufficient to leave it here. How then did they explain or even symbolize this new moment?
They symbolized it with the Eucharist, Baptism and Table Fellowship with Gentiles. It was also explained it by way of New Creation, New Covenant, and the Kingdom of God. They saw themselves living in a time of fulfillment. Those who have other agendas will argue at this point, but it seems that these well-worn terms are profoundly used within the Jewish tradition. Therefore, those who object would have to argue that the early Christians used these ideas in a completely incongruous way than they were previously and commonly used. The first Christians certainly did change the way they lived and believed, but it was never in such a way as to completely disown their heritage without a clear line of reasoning. Rather those who came to faith in the Messiah saw that it changed scenario and did what any faithful Jew would – they began to act, think and talk like had in fact changed.
This then begs the question – How did they begin to act, think and talk? They spoke in terms of fulfillment. They acted as if age-old prophecies were being fulfilled in them. They thought, if I may be so bold, as if they themselves were the inheritors of Gods new world.
Can I consider this a resurface? Available for debate?
By: Bradley on February 1, 2012
at 9:31 am
Yes… it is a resurface of sorts (I have been ranting on Facebook recently). And yes, totally available for debate – I would love it. I am in the midst of looking at women in ministry at the moment (hopefully i’ll post that), but I am always willing to discuss.
By: jonathancombrink on February 1, 2012
at 12:45 pm