Abstract:
This is an essay on how the words and deeds
of Jesus as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels relate to his announcement of the
kingdom of God. We will first look at the background of the first century
Israelites in order to gain a better understanding of how Jesus’ audience would
have understood Jesus’ messages. Then we look at Jesus’ presentations of the
kingdom and see that Jesus’ titles show his authority over the kingdom, Jesus’ ethical
teachings show way people of the kingdom ought to live, Jesus’ miracles are
signs of the kingdom, and the parables are his teachings about the kingdom. We
will then focus our discussion on the parable of the wicked tenant farmers in
Matthew as an example of Jesus’ presentation of the kingdom. Finally, we will
briefly explore how our understandings of the kingdom of God impacts life and
ministry today.
This essay explores into Jesus’
announcement of the kingdom of God. We will first begin with a discussion of
how first century Israelites would have understood Jesus’ message that the
kingdom “had come near.” Then we look at how Jesus’ titles, ethical teachings, miracles,
and parables contribute to Jesus’ presentation of the kingdom. Then we will
examine Jesus’ parables in greater detail and formulate a focused discussion of
one passage of Jesus’ parables from the Synoptic Gospels. Finally, we will briefly
explore of how our understanding of the kingdom of God impacts life and
ministry today.
The kingdom of God appears as the core of
the message of Jesus. The “kingdoms” of the first century are foreign to our
daily life, comprising of puppet kings of the Roman Empire and tax collectors
who skim their share off the top of the arbitrary number they tax the poor.[1]
To understand how first century Israelites would have understood Jesus’ message
that the kingdom “had come near”, it is vital to look at society in first
century C.E. Beasley-Murray[2]
summarises that the great messianic passages of the Old Testament (OT) proceed
on the principle that the subjugation of the evil powers in the world, the
submission of the nations to God, and the establishment of the new order of the
saving sovereignty are the effect of the working of Yahweh, and that the task
of rule in the kingdom of God is given to the Messiah. The Messiah is the
representative of Yahweh in his Kingdom, in whom Yahweh is present and through
whom he acts. We can also see from the OT that the Israelites’ very origins lay
in God’s liberation of Israel from bondage to the pharaoh in Egypt, told
repeatedly in the exodus story and celebrated annually in Passover.
Furthermore, the Israelites had been under foreign occupation and oppression for
centuries. Since 586BC, a succession of empires, the Assyrians, the
Babylonians, the Medo-Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans had ruled over them.[3] To make
matters worse, the Romans were similar to the modern Mafia in that they
apparently viewed their relationship with other people in terms of a
competition for honour. Rome exerted its superiority by humiliating its
enemies.[4] Julius
Caesar and Marc Anthony chose the ruthless young military strongman Herod to
control Palestine.[5]
Given the prominence of resistance to oppressive alien rule in Israelite
tradition[6], it would
have seemed deeply wrong to the Israelites that Pagan nations would rule over a
people who believed in the one true and living God.
The question
intensified when Roman emperors like “the Divine Augustus Caesar” proclaimed
themselves as gods: the Israelites could not remain quiet and compliant
citizens when their “government” was divinising itself.[7] McLaren[8]
humorously describes the attitudes of the Jews living in that era. The Zealots
would say, “The reason we’re oppressed is that we’re passive and cowardly. If
we would have courage, if we would rise up and rebel, God would give us
victory,” and engage in some form of terrorism. The Herodians would say, “You
have no idea how powerful Rome is. To rebel is suicide.” And they would swear
greater allegiance to Rome. The Essenes would say, “The only way to please God
is to leave the corrupt religious and political system and create an
alternative society out in the desert.” The Pharisees would say, “If we would
obey the Bible’s teachings more rigorously, God would liberate us,” and launch
into a vigorous attack on drunks and prostitutes.
It was
not surprising then, in trying to bring about what they see as the kingdom of
God, the Israelites would have made attempt to restore the traditional
Israelite way of life that had been so severely disrupted and disordered by
Roman imperialism.[9]
Popular protests and resistance movements occurred
during first century of Roman imperial rule in Judea. The most remarkable of
all popular protests by the Judean and Galilean people occurred just before and
just after the mission of Jesus of Nazareth, whereby the subject people of
Palestine demonstrated willingness to suffer and die to defend their
traditional way of life.[10]
The revolts that erupted in Galilee, Perea, and Judea at the death of Herod all
took a readily discernible social form that could be called “messianic
movements”. Josephus, the historian, writes in each case that the rebels
acclaimed one of their number as “king.”[11]
These messianic movements had two interrelated goals: to attain freedom from
Roman and Herodian rule and to restore a more egalitarian social-economic
order.[12]
The Jews fervently believed that God would
one day act to liberate them from captivity. So when Jesus said he had been
sent to preach to release the captives, he would have been heard in these
terms.[13]
Reimarus[14]
observed that Jesus himself never defined what he meant by the kingdom.
Therefore how Jesus’ audience heard his words would have depended on how they
understood about the kingdom of God. They could have had a very political
understanding and taken Jesus to mean that the Messiah was coming to free them
from all their enemies and establish a kingdom centred on Jerusalem, in which
Israel would rule the rest of the world. The
Essenes’ messianic expectations, on the other hand, encompassed two major
eschatological figures, a Davidic Messiah and a high priest[15], who would
liberate them in the last great war against the force of darkness.[16]
Now that we understand the historical
context, we will look at how Jesus presents the kingdom through his titles,
ethical teachings, miracles, and parables. To understand the authority of Jesus
in his presentation of the kingdom, we have to understand who Jesus is through
his titles. We all know the titles “Christ” and “Messiah”. Keener[17]
notes that the prophets have foretold an eschatological anointed king and/or
dynasty, “anointed one,” which in Hebrew is “the Messiah.” Christ is the Greek translation of Hebrew Messiah. Another title is “Son of God,” which is particularly
prominent in John’s Gospel and focuses on Jesus’ special relationship with the
Father.[18]
This title can be interpreted in various ways. In the Greco-Roman culture, the
empire could hail a reigning emperor as “son of a god,” especially because the
preceding emperor was hailed as a god in the temples.[19]
However, given the Jewish context in which the expression could be understood,
a Hellenistic understanding of this phrase is unlikely. The OT and Jewish
tradition apply the title to those who belong to God: Israel is called God’s
son, and the title naturally came to be extended to a righteous man in general.
Moses and angels are also called God’s son.[20]
However, the biggest problem with Hellenistic and most Jewish parallels is
that, in extant Gospel tradition, Jesus is not merely a son of God, but the Son
of God, his beloved and unique son.[21]
In the Davidic covenant, the Lord promises
David concerning his descending that “I will be his father and he will be my
son”. By the first century, Son of God seems to have been coming into use as a
title for the Messiah. In many passages of the New Testament (NT), Son of God
essentially means “the Messiah from David’s line”.[22]
One title that actually does seem to intrinsically connote Jesus’ deity in much
early Christian tradition as well as in John’s Gospel is John’s post-resurrection
title “Lord”, which is the most common defining of title of Jesus in early
Christian text. It usually appears as a title for God[23]
and “is the ascription of Jesus to the functions of deity”[24].
Next, we look at Jesus’ ethical teachings. The
inauguration of the kingdom creates a new way of life and a radical kingdom
ethic.[25]
Jesus’ ministry is emphatically linked to
God’s chosen Servant who enacts “justice among the nations” and “brings justice
to victory” (Matthew 12:18-23; Isaiah 42:1-4).[26] On one
hand, Jesus affirmed the eternal validity of the law, stating that not even the
smallest letter would disappear from it (Matthew 5:18-20). On the other hand,
Jesus seemed to ignore and even alter aspects of the law, such as the dietary
laws of the Old Testament (Mark 7:18-19). Strauss believes two points should be
kept in mind: Jesus’ emphasis on the true essence and purpose of the law, and
his role as the fulfilment of the law.[27]
Biblical justice is a response that
relieves oppression and all forms of injustice that result in a distortion of
the way things should be: the restoration of all things to their original purpose.
The intent of justice is not primarily punitive but corrective.[28]
The inauguration of social structures that promote the prophetic vision of
justice and restore the shalom of
God's people fundamentally expresses God's kingship.[29]
When Jesus instructs his disciples to “seek first his kingdom and his
righteousness/justice” (Matthew 6:33), it is a lifestyle that makes the agenda
of God's reign the supreme concern of one’s life so that God’s “will be done on
earth as it is done in heaven” (6:11).[30]
In the Beatitudes (5:3-12), Jesus describes in ideal terms the character and
lifestyle of those who truly experience God's saving presence. The in breaking
of God's reign produces dramatic reversal of oppressive situations and
unfortunate conditions. The results are unexpected and radically challenge
conventional thinking concerning how unjust conditions should be viewed and
remedied.[31]
Much of Jesus’ teaching challenges the legalistic
and sometimes hypocritical manner in which the law was applied. The Pharisees
and ascribes neglected the fundamental aspects of the law, like justice, mercy,
and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42).[32]
Furthermore, Jesus is much more than an interpreter of the law, he is the “Lord
of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28). Sanders[33]
believe the Mosaic Law was twofold: To reveal God’s righteous standards, and to
provide the means of forgiveness when Israel failed to meet those standards.
Jesus fulfilled the first purpose through teaching, interpreting the true
meaning of the law, and living a life of perfect righteousness. Jesus fulfilled
the second purpose by becoming “a ransom for many” through his sacrificial
death. And because Christians are under the new covenant, God’s righteous
standards are now written on their hearts, not on tablets of stone.[34]
In the days of Jesus, the people would not
have understood miracles the same way we do. Jesus gave radically new meaning
to the ‘language’ of the miracles: they are signs of the kingdom, signs of what
God wants to do and is already doing in humankind in Jesus.[35]
The miracles include exorcisms, healings, raising the dead and nature miracles,
which are intended to reveal the presence and power of the kingdom.[36]
The connection between healings and the kingdom of God is particularly clear: ‘heal
the sick in it and say to them, “The kingdom of God has come near you”’ (Luke
10:9).[37]
Since disease was understood to be part of the disobedience of creation against
its creator, healing meant that God’s plan for the redress of humankind was
being activated.[38]
The miracles are also power struggles: Jesus is indignant, inveighs against
somebody, and speaks a commanding word. This is why the NT miracles are so
often presented as exorcisms[39],
which are spiritual assaults on the dominion of Satan by the kingdom of God[40].
Not only do miracles disclose the rule of
God is breaking in with the ministry of Jesus, they show also the way in which
this happens: where God establishes rule people become healed. This does not
mean ‘healed’ in a spiritual sense as, for instance, in the forgiveness of
sins, but also denotes that the entire person, including his/her corporality,
has been received by Christ and led to salvation. But just as the kingdom of
God has indeed begun but has not yet reached its final fulfilment, so too
Christ’s healing activity has indeed started but is not yet completed.[41]
The eschatological understanding of miracle has been considered a specific
feature of Jesus’ proclamation.[42]
Regarding the relationship between faith and miracle, it is surprising that in
many cases faith is clearly considered a prerequisite for a miracle. Mark
reports, eg. That since Jesus did not find faith in Nazareth, ‘he could do no
mighty works there’ (Mark 6:5). After
several healings Jesus says ‘your faith has made you well’ (Mark 10:52; Luke
17:19).[43]
Faith here is understood as trust in God’s power, and openness and sensitivity
to God’s power to perform mighty works.[44]
Jesus’ most important teaching device was
the parable, using vivid and memorable scenes from everyday life to teach
profound spiritual truths[45]
about the kingdom of God[46].
Jesus needed to use multiple parables that each illustrate different aspects of
God’s caring and faithful relationship with us and together help us appreciate
various aspects of that love, justice, forgiveness, persistence, mercy, and
kindness that is God.[47]
The parables Jesus taught are found almost exclusively in the Synoptic Gospels[48],
where we see that much of Jesus’ teachings comes in story forms, as parables.
By their nature, parables are meant to involve hearers and challenge them to
change their perspectives, their hearts, and their behaviour.[49]
Dodd[50]
tells us that a parable is a “metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common
life, arresting the hearer by its strangeness, and leaving the mind sufficient
doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought.” The use
of the word “parable” in the LXX shows that the term was not used in a narrow
sense.[51]
The Greek parabole usually translates
the Hebrew word mashal, which
embraces a variety of literary forms such as proverbs, riddles, taunts,
metaphors, and allegories. There is a spectrum of meaning to the term that
helps us to appreciate that, above all, parables use the language of symbols
that appeal to the imagination.[52]
In fact, Jesus explained to the disciples about why he spoke in parables in
Mark 4:11-12, citing Isaiah 6:9-10: he is giving the secret of the kingdom of
God. The term “secret” refers to a mystery hidden in the past, now revealed to
those who are responding in faith. This confirms that Jesus spoke in parables
to reveal and to conceal. To those responsive to his kingdom message, the
parables illuminate the meaning of the kingdom. But those who because of their
hard-heartedness reject the message, the parables hide the truth.[53]
Getty-Sullivan notes that this tells us
four things about a parable: it is a comparison, describing something new or
unknown in terms of something very familiar, with an unexpected twist, designed
to engage its hearers and prompt some reaction from them.[54]
From parables like the “Prodigal Son” (Luke 15:11-32) and the “Workers in the
Vineyard” (Matthew 20:1-16), Jesus seems to be saying that the kingdom of God
is unlike our notions of patriarchy, of justice, and sometimes even of common
sense.[55]
In fact, the parable of the good Samarian would have been shocking and
scandalous to Jesus’ first-century Jewish audience, who could not imagine that
a hated Samaritan would care more for an injured Jew than would a priest or a
Levite, Israel’s religious elite (Luke 10:25-37). And in the parable of the
Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14), the prayer of the Pharisee would
have sounded high-minded and holy to a first-century Jew and the very presence
of a tax collector in the temple would have been viewed as offensive.[56]
Getty-Sullivan[57]
summarises some common themes in the parables. First is the theme of great reversals,
where some parables exemplify proverbs such as “the last shall be first and the
first last.” Others, such as the Rich Man and Lazarus, show that the values of
this world are not consistent with those of the kingdom of heaven, which
reverses them. Second is the progress and hope of growth and transformation
over time, found especially in nature parables. Small seeds become great trees;
fig trees sprout leaves and indicate not only the present season, but help us
anticipate the future. Such parables urge listeners to expect change, to be
hopeful about limitless possibilities of transformation, to expect fulfilment
of promises and a manifestation of God’s power and grace. Third is the
surpassing joy of finding what had been lost, a joy that exceeds the original
feeling of having something. Listeners easily identify with the woman who threw
a party to celebrate finding the lost coin, or the overwhelming joy of the
father whose son he thought dead returned home. Fourth is the effect of mixing
ingredients: One parable speaks of a woman mixing yeast with flour to make
bread, another says salt flavours meat and preserves it like nothing else.
Weeds are found among the wheat that was sown. A dragnet hauls in fish together
with dregs and the two must be sorted out. To some extent, the parables are a
means by which the faithful are separated from the unfaithful.[58]
The parable of the wicked tenant farmers
(Matthew 21:33-46) is the most allegorical of Jesus’ parables which we will
examine in more detail.[59]
This parable appears near the end of Jesus’ ministry, just before the beginning
of his passion, in the setting of Jerusalem. Soon he will be arrested, tried,
and put to death.[60]
When interpreting parables, one has to look at it through the worldview of
Jesus’ Jewish hearers[61],
or we may fall into the trap of Adolf Jülicher’s wooden allegorical
interpretations[62],
which reduces the parables from exciting kingdom preaching to simple
wisdom-for-living lessons[63].
Jesus often borrowed imagery or allusion from the OT or from his own
cultural and historical contexts. In this case, the parable itself is based on
the song of the vineyard in Isaiah 5:1-7[64],
whereby the vineyard is an ancient symbol for Israel. Isaiah explicitly says
that it means Israel and that the vineyard owner is the “Lord of hosts,” a
reference to God. God has nurtured the vineyard, spading and clearing it,
installing a tower and a wine press in anticipation of its harvest.[65]
When, despite the owner’s continued efforts, the vineyard fails to produce, the
owner asks, “What more could I have done?” Not finding an answer, he decides to
“make a ruin” of the vineyard.[66]
There are a few notable differences in Matthew, Jesus evokes an image of a
landowner who goes on a journey, trusting his vineyard to the tenant farmers.[67]
In examining the historical context, although
the parable of the wicked tenant farmers was told in Jerusalem, the more likely
setting for the parable is Galilee, a region notorious in the first century for
fomenting revolution and unrest, therefore a focus of the Romans’ concern. In
Galilee, farming was a main occupation. Often large estates were owned by
foreigners who exacted rent in the form of a portion of the land’s productivity
from tenant farmers. Violence and seizure of property by the tenants were not
unknown. In cases of unclaimed property, when no heir was identified, it was even possible to acquire ownership of the land. Many in Jesus’ audience would
have been prone to sympathise with the tenant farmers’ standing up to their
oppressors.[68]
Many absentee landowners were notorious for their harsh treatment of their
tenants, but in this parable we see a shocking element of reversal where the
landowner’s servants are abused when they come to collect a portion of the
harvest.
The treatment of these “servants” calls to
mind the same fate that befell God’s prophets throughout the Old Testament
history.[69],[70]
Then the landowner sends his own son to make a collection, and this is an
unmistakable allusion to God the Father’s sending his Son, Jesus.[71]
The tenants represent Israel’s leaders who are accountable to its owner. Jesus
realises the intention of the leaders to execute him and lays responsibility
for the “Son’s” death on them.[72]
Matthew heightens the eschatological dimension of this rejection and the
judgmental nature of the parable itself. The owner of the vineyard will come
and judge the tenants. There is a strong warning and sense of urgency in this: The
vineyard, identified as “the kingdom of God” in 21:41, is at stake and it will
be taken away from “you” and entrusted to a nation (ethnos) or people who will produce its fruits.[73]
And in contrast to the parable of the sowings, this time the listeners clearly
perceive both the meaning of the parable and that it is addressed to them. In
this parable the crowds act almost as a kind of shield, for Jesus’ opponents
“fear the crowd.” But soon the crowds will follow their leaders and join their
voice in calling for Jesus’ execution.[74]
The kingdom of God will produce its fruit in the new nation of Jesus’
disciples, which points ahead to the work of the Holy Spirit in the
establishment of the new covenant.[75]
It is important to put all of the
discussion above into contemporary application in life and ministry today. To
summarise, Jesus displays his authority over the kingdom of God as the Messiah
through his titles. Jesus’ ethical teachings show us that the inauguration of
the kingdom creates a new way of life way of living whereby the participant in
God's dynamic reign actively and consistently strives to restore all things to
their rightful God-given role in the light of the values, priorities, and
ethical standards of God's presence manifested in Jesus.[76]
From the Beatitudes, we can see the in breaking of God's reign means the
dramatic reversal of oppressive situations and unfortunate conditions, which radically
challenge conventional thinking concerning how unjust conditions should be
viewed and remedied[77],
so as to inaugurate social structures that promote the prophetic vision of
justice and restore the shalom of
God's people fundamentally expresses God's kingship.[78]
The “social gospel movement” in the nineteenth century was one such attempt to
inaugurate these ethical teachings.[79]
The miracles are signs and manifestation of
the presence of the kingdom.[80]
They demonstrate the way in which the rule of God breaking in happens through
Jesus: where God establishes rule the entire person become healed, leading to
not only the healing of the body but to salvation and transformation. But just
as the kingdom of God has indeed begun but has not yet reached its final
fulfilment, so too Christ’s healing activity has indeed started but is not yet
completed.[81] The
parables are Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom. We can see from the example of
the parable of the wicked tenants that Jesus has handed the kingdom of God to
“a new nation”, ethnos, which is a
term Peter later uses in the context of the “stone” passage to refer to the
church (1Peter 2:9).[82]
And our role as the regenerated people in the kingdom of God means our lives
produce the fruit of righteousness (Matthew 5:20) and good works (Colossians
1:5-10), the fruit of the Spirit produced transformation of character
(Galatians 5:21-24), and the fruit of new generations of disciples (Matthew
28:18-20) that will bear witness to the reality of the kingdom on earth.
Bibliography:
Beasley-Murray, G.R. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1986.
Bultmann,Rudolf. Jesus and the Word. New York: Scribner's, 1958.
Bultmann, Rudolf. “Jesus Christ as the
eschatological event”. In Readings in
Christian Theology, edited by Peter Hodgson and Robert King, Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1985, 338-341.
Cho, Youngmo. “Spirit and Kingdom in
Luke-Acts: Proclamation as the primary role of the spirit in relation to the
kingdom of God in Luke-Acts.” Asian
Journal of Pentecostal Studies 6 (2003): 173-197.
Chouinard, Larry. The kingdom of God and
the pursuit of justice in Matthew, Restoration
Quarterly, 45 (2003): 229-242
Dodd, C.H. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Collins, 1961.
Duling, Dennis C. “The Kingdom of God in
the Teaching of Jesus.” Word & Word
2 (1982): 117-126.
Dunn, J. The Christ and the Spirit: Pneumatology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998.
Getty-Sullivan, Mary Ann. Parables of the Kingdom: Jesus and the Use
of Parables in the Synoptic Tradition. Collegeville: Liturgical Press,
2007.
Harnack, Adolf.What Is Christianity?New York: Harper & Row, 1957.
Harrington, Daniel J. The Gospel of Matthew. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991.
Harvie, Timothy. “Living The Future: The
Kingdom of Godin the Theologies of Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg.” International Journal of Systematic Theology
10 (2008): 149-164.
Hendrickx, Herman. The miracle stories of the synoptic gospels. London: Geoffrey
Chapman, 1987.
Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Massachusetts: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2003.
Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Marshall, I. Howard. “Kingdom of God.” Themelios 11 (1985): 5-15.
McLaren, Brian D. The Secret
Message of Jesus: Uncovering the truth that could change everything.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006.
Renan, Ernest. The Life of
Jesus. New York: Modern Library, 1955.
Seccombe, David. The King of
God’s Kingdom: A Solution to the Puzzle of Jesus. Cumbria: Paternoster
Press, 2002.
Smalley, S. “Spirit, Kingdom and Prayer in Luke-Acts.” Novum Testamentum 15 (1973): 59-71.
Starling, David I. “The Kingdom of God.”
Lecture Notes, Morling College, March 10, 2015.
Strauss, Mark. Four Portraits,
One Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
Wang, Ying-fan Yvonne. Dr Yvonne Wang’s Blabberings.
Last modified June 4, 2015. http://dryvonnewang.blogspot.com.au.
Wilkins, Michael
J. Matthew: The NIV application
commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.
[1]Mary Ann Getty-Sullivan, Parables
of the Kingdom: Jesus and the Use of Parables in the Synoptic Tradition (Collegeville:
Liturgical Press, 2007), 5.
[2]G.R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and
the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1986), 22. This is in harmony with what we have seen in the Day of the Lord in
the Old Testament; it is Yahweh who comes in judgment upon the rebellious
mankind and who effects the deliverance and salvation of his people; the
Messiah belongs to the new order.
[3]Brian D. McLaren, The Secret
Message of Jesus: Uncovering the truth that could change everything
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006), 12.
[4]Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and
Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2003), 30-31. Crucifixion was a way of terrorisation and
humiliation. In submission the people had to render up a portion of their
produce to their conquerors.
[5]Horsley, Jesus and Empire,
31. Once Pompey and other Roman warlords conquered various Middle Eastern
peoples, they generally controlled them through indirect rule, that is, through
native kings or other military strongmen.
[7]McLaren, The Secret Message of
Jesus, 12. Fusing what we call church and state in a strong and frightening
alloy.
[8]McLaren, The Secret Message of
Jesus, 13-14.
[9]Horsley, Jesus and Empire,
45. Compared to the scribal protests, popular protests and movements were far
more frequent, varied, and potentially massive.
[10]Horsley, Jesus and Empire,
47. In both cases the Roman provocation was blatant in its symbolism and
extreme in its aggressive threat of lethal military violence. In both cases the
Judean and Galilean people mounted massive, disciplined, nonviolent
demonstrations against the provocative Roman action.
[13]David Seccombe, The King of
God’s Kingdom: A Solution to the Puzzle of Jesus (Cumbria: Paternoster
Press, 2002), 162.
[15]Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of
John: A Commentary. (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 286. The
Hasmonean rulers had combined priesthood and kingship in the same persons, a
combination to which the Zadokite priest who founded the Qumran community
strenuously objected.
[16]Seccombe, The King of God’s
Kingdom, 188. Though only a small band, with the help of the angel armies
of God, lead by the prince whom God would send, they would ultimately triumph.
[17]Keener, The Gospel of John,
284.
[18]Keener, The Gospel of John,
290.
[19]Keener, The Gospel of John,
292.
[20]Keener, The Gospel of John,
294.
[21]Keener, The Gospel of John,
295.
[22]Mark Strauss, Four Portraits,
One Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 486. Luke 1:32; Matthew 16:16; Mark
14:61; Matthew 26:63; Mark 1:1; Luke 4:41; 22:70; John 11:27; 20:30; Acts 9:20,
22).
[23]Keener, The Gospel of John,
297.
[24]George Eldon Ladd, A Theology
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 416-417.
[25]Strauss, Four Portraits,
441.
[26]Larry Chouinard, “The kingdom of God and the pursuit of justice in
Matthew,” Restoration Quarterly, 45
(2003): 229.
[28]Chouinard, “The kingdom of God,” 230-231. The term translated
"justice" (κρίσις) occurs regularly in the LXX as a translation of
the Hebrew term mishpat. In the LXX
when κρίσις translates mishpat, it
often has a forensic thrust accenting a judicial decision either favourably for
the just or innocent or negatively for the unjust and wicked. The focus of mishpat seems to be on the verdict and
subsequent positive or negative actions taken. Hence the term does not focus
upon vindictive retribution but upon God's saving action to restore shalom by
making things right
[29]Chouinard, “The kingdom of God,” 236.
[30]Chouinard, “The kingdom of God,” 238.
[31]Chouinard, “The kingdom of God,” 238. In the first four Beatitudes
(5:3-6) Jesus describes the social, economic, and personal distresses now being
reversed by the manifestation of God's powerful reign (cf. Isa 61).
[34]Strauss, Four Portraits,
444.
[35]Herman Hendrickx, The miracle
stories of the synoptic gospels (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1987), 11. Nowadays
people speak of miracles in terms of a ‘violation of the laws of nature’. The
more important this ‘violation’, the greater the miracle. But Jesus and his
contemporaries would not have understood this way of thinking and speaking.
They were not familiar with our concept of ‘laws of nature’. In a biblical
perspective, therefore, one cannot speak of a miracle as a ‘violation of nature’.
[37]Hendrickx, The miracle stories,
11.
[38]Hendrickx, The miracle stories,
12.
[39]Hendrickx, The miracle stories,
13.
[41]Hendrickx, The miracle stories,
14.
[42]Hendrickx, The miracle stories,
15.
[43]Hendrickx, The miracle stories,
16. The relationship between miracle and faith cannot be expressed in a smooth
statement. In other cases, however, it is the miracle that leads people to
faith, eg. In Matthew’s report of the walking on the water (Matthew 14:33). In
numerous other passages no such requirement is stated.
[44]Hendrickx, The miracle stories,
17.
[45]Strauss, Four Portraits,
447.
[46]Getty-Sullivan, Parables of
the Kingdom, 5.
[51]Daniel J. Harrington, The
Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), 194. LXX=Greek translation
of the Old Testament.
[53]Strauss, Four Portraits,
449.
[56]Strauss, Four Portraits,
449-450.
[59]Strauss, Four Portraits,
448.
[60]Getty-Sullivan, Parables of
the Kingdom, 37.
[61]Seccombe, The King of God’s
Kingdom, 328.
[62]Seccombe, The King of God’s
Kingdom, 326. For example, interpreting the good Samaritan and Jesus, the
man who fell among thieves as a symbol of humankind, the thieves as the Devil
and his angels, Jerusalem as paradise, Jericho as mortality, the donkey as the
flesh of Christ, and the inn as the church.
[64]Strauss, Four Portraits,
450.
[65]Getty-Sullivan, Parables of
the Kingdom, 41.
[66]Getty-Sullivan, Parables of
the Kingdom, 42.
[67]Getty-Sullivan, Parables of
the Kingdom, 42.
[68]Getty-Sullivan, Parables of
the Kingdom, 40.
[69]Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew:
The NIV application commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 697.
[70]Getty-Sullivan, Parables of
the Kingdom, 43. In the Old Testament, prophets are often called
“servants,” and are thought to speak for God, helping the people interpret the
will of God as times change.
[71]Wilkins, Matthew, 697.
[72]Getty-Sullivan, Parables of
the Kingdom, 42.
[73]Getty-Sullivan, Parables of
the Kingdom, 72.
[74]Getty-Sullivan, Parables of
the Kingdom, 39.
[76]Chouinard, “The kingdom of God,” 238.
[77]Chouinard, “The kingdom of God,” 238.
[78]Chouinard, “The kingdom of God,” 236.
[79]Duling, “The Kingdom of God”, 120.
[80]Hendrickx, The miracle stories,
12.
[81]Hendrickx, The miracle stories,
14.
No comments:
Post a Comment