The Messianic Mission of Jesus (The Kingdom of God, part 5)

This is the fifth installment of an article on the Kingdom of God.

Part 1 began with Jesus’s proclamation at the start of his ministry about the kingdom of God. Part 2 looked at Jesus’s sermon at Nazareth, in which he explained the nature of the kingdom he was inaugurating.

Part 3 shifted to the biblical backstory of the kingdom, beginning with the royal calling of humanity created to image God, including how we squandered our calling through sin and violence, culminating in the tower of Babel. Part 4 traced the story of Israel from Abraham to the Babylonian exile, with a focus on the theme of “rule” (power and agency).

Against the backdrop of the kingdom of God in the Old Testament, the current installment picks up the story with the ministry and mission of Jesus, leading to his confrontation with the powers in Jerusalem at Passover.

The Rise of Messianic Expectation

Israelite prophets during and after the Babylonian exile began to articulate an expectation of renewal for God’s people, which intensified as the first century approached. God was going to bring about a new age of righteousness and justice for Israel and for the entire world.

As the Isaiah passage Jesus quoted at Nazareth made clear (see part 2 of this multi-part blog post), the prophetic vision of social and personal healing that arose in the exile remained unfulfilled even after Israel was back in the land. Isaiah 58 and 61 both addressed the moral state of the people, which had not changed; they continued to be embroiled in sin and disobedience to God. So beyond the bare fact of return to the land, the rest of the prophets’ vision of restoration had not yet come to pass.

It was this lack of fulfillment that generated messianic hope in the centuries leading up to the New Testament. The term Messiah (lit. anointed one) is derived from the fact that the kings of Israel were anointed for their leadership role (1 Samuel 9:26–10:1; 1 Samuel 16:12–13). The hope for a Messiah (a royal leader, in the lineage of David) arose out of the obvious failure of the Israelite monarchy in combination with God’s promise that the people would once again have righteous leaders.

The dominant messianic expectation was of a new Davidic king who would unify the nation and cast off Roman oppression, yet ideas about the coming Messiah were actually quite varied: would there be one or two leaders (one royal, the other priestly); would the agent of God’s coming rule be human, angelic, or divine?

Despite this variety there was a consistent expectation that one day God would establish his righteous rule both in Israel and throughout the world. The coming of this kingdom would eradicate evil and restore justice for God’s people and among all the nations. Indeed, the entire cosmos would be renewed, such that this coming age could rightly be called “a new heaven and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17–25).

Jesus’s Confrontation with the Powers of Evil

It was this expectation for a radical reorientation of the world that set the stage for the ministry of Jesus, including his proclamation that the kingdom of God was at hand, his teaching about the kingdom (often in parables), and his embodying the kingdom in his healings, his exorcisms, and his forgiving of sins. Jesus both announced and demonstrated that the powers of evil were being overthrown, that God’s rule was coming.

But the powers of evil are never easily overthrown. Jesus encountered opposition throughout his ministry, which led to his crucifixion by a coalition of Roman and Jewish leaders, who considered him a threat to the status quo. Jesus was not, however, a passive victim of his opponents. His entire life and ministry were oriented towards this deathly confrontation.

The Messiah’s Destiny of Suffering

After three years of his public ministry, Jesus asked his disciples who they thought he was. When Peter confessed that he was “the Messiah of God” (Luke 9:20), Jesus explained that his destiny (in contrast to most messianic expectation of the time) was not immediate victory over the powers of evil. His destiny was suffering and rejection at the hands of “the elders, chief priests, and scribes,” resulting in his death—followed by resurrection (Luke 9:22; this episode is recounted in Matthew 16:21–23; Mark 8:31–33; Luke 9:21–23).

Jesus understood that the Messiah’s destiny of the ultimate triumph over evil was grounded in his suffering on behalf of his people—a theme found in what are known as the servant songs of Isaiah. These prophetic poems, in that section of the book written during the Babylonian exile (Isaiah 40–55), affirm that Israel is God’s servant (Isaiah 41:8; 49:3), whose mission is to bring light to the nations and to establish justice throughout the earth (Isaiah 42:1, 4, 6). This understanding of Israel as God’s servant draws on God’s promise that through Abraham and his descendants blessing would come to all the families of the earth (Genesis 12:1–3).

Yet in Isaiah’s servant songs, Israel is said to be a blind and deaf servant who does not understand or obey God’s purposes (Isaiah 42:19–20), This leads to a distinction between the servant and Israel in some texts; there the mission of the servant of YHWH is to bring light not only to the nations, but also to Israel (Isaiah 49:5–6).

While Isaiah 50 mentions briefly that the servant will suffer before his vindication by God (Isa 50:5–8), this theme is explored in depth in Isaiah 52:13–53:12, the so-called Suffering Servant song. The New Testament understands this vivid portrayal of the servant’s suffering to be fulfilled in Jesus, understood as the representative of Israel (Matthew 8:14-17; Luke 22:35–38; John 12:37–41; Acts 8:26–35; Romans 10:11–21; 1 Peter 2:19–25).

Jesus Sets Out for Jerusalem

Soon after Jesus predicted his suffering and death, he set out to meet his destiny. Perhaps alluding to Isaiah’s servant who “set [his] face like flint” to endure opposition (Isa 50:7), Jesus “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51).

As he journeyed toward Jerusalem, stopping in other places on the way, he twice more reminded his disciples of his coming death (first in Matt 17:22–23; Mark 9:30–32; Luke 9:43–45; then in Matthew 20:17–19; Mark 10:32–34; Luke 18:31–34); this was clearly on his mind.

In each case, his disciples found this difficult to comprehend; wouldn’t this mean the defeat of the Messiah? Even after Jesus reached Jerusalem, he again reminded them of his destiny (Matthew 26:1–2).

Jesus and the New Exodus

Not only did Jesus intentionally embrace his destiny, he chose the timing of it to coincide with the festival of Passover, when pilgrims were flocking to Jerusalem to celebrate the exodus from Egyptian bondage. But no-one in Jerusalem would have focused simply on that event in the past. Isaiah 40–55 had already viewed Babylon as a new Egypt and the return from Babylonian exile as a new exodus. The city would have been rife with expectation: would God act again to free his people from the latest incarnation of Egypt and Babylon?

Some centuries before Jesus, the Persians had conquered the Babylon empire and allowed exiled Jews (inhabitants of Judah) to return to their homeland; so technically the exile was over. But after Babylon’s defeat, Judah (now known as Yehud) became a province of Persia, After that came the Greek empire, and finally the Romans—all of whom continued to subject the land and people of Israel to imperial domination. It would have been impossible for Jews in Jesus’s day to separate the message of the exodus of old from the need to be liberated from Roman oppression. A new exodus was called for.

Continuing Bondage and Exile

The idea that Israel was still in bondage—even after return to the land—is expressed in the anguished prayer of Ezra, the Jewish scribe and priest, during the early postexilic period:

“Here we are, slaves to this day, slaves in the land that you gave to our ancestors to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts. Its rich yield goes to the kings whom you have set over us because of our sins; they have power also over our bodies and over our livestock at their pleasure, and we are in great distress.” (Nehemiah 9:36–37; see also Ezra 9:8–9)

The Babylonian exile was over, but the bondage to foreign empires continued unabated.

The problem, however, was not simply the external oppression of empires. The internal problem of sin had to be dealt with. The prophets had declared that the Babylonian conquest and the ensuing exile was a consequence of Israel’s disobedience to God (Jeremiah 32:28–35; Isaiah 42:24–25; 43:27–28). This was a fundamental difference between Egyptian bondage (which was not attributed to Israel’s sin) and the Babylonian exile (which was).

Ezra himself combined recognition of continuing national bondage with the people’s ongoing sinfulness. “From the days of our ancestors to this day we have been deep in guilt, and for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been handed over to the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plundering, and to utter shame, as is now the case” (Ezra 9:7).

Now, even back in the land, the moral state of the people remained unchanged; their sin still had to be dealt with.

As we shall see in the next installment, the problem of Israel’s bondage was greater than either the external oppression by empires or the internal sinfulness of the people.

Biblical Eschatology Video Course: Exploring the Bible’s Big Story

Many Christians have a narrow, truncated understanding of what God is up to in the world. Given the size of the shark, police chief Martin Brody said in Jaws, “You’re going to need a bigger boat.” So we today need the full scope of the biblical story from creation to consummation to address the crises in our world and in our lives.

I have a video course on Biblical Eschatology (tracing the biblical story from creation to eschaton), which you can access at Seminary Now. There’s a sale on this week! You can start learning from 90+ streaming courses taught by leading authors and professors in Bible, theology and ministry. Get one year of access for only $120 with discount code SUMMER60 here: seminarynow.co/biblical-eschatology.

If you have taken the video course and have feedback or questions arising from the material, feel free to leave a comment on this post.

If you would like to delve deeper into the biblical story of creation and redemption and how this dynamic story impacts our contemporary world, you are invited audit my Fall course at Northeastern Seminary called Biblical Worldview: Scripture, Theology Ethics.

Find out more about the course here.

Serious Contextual Theology in Jamaica

Last September I traveled to Jamaica, where I attended what may well be the first in a series of theology conferences held at Jamaica Theological Seminary (my alma mater). The conference topic was “Biblical Interpretation for Caribbean Renewal” and I was one of the organizers.

The event began with the Zenas Gerig Memorial Lecture on Friday, September 8, 2017, and continued the next day (Saturday, September 9) with a series of papers given by professors, students, and alumni of the Jamaica Theological Seminary (JTS) and the Caribbean Graduate School of Theology (CGST), including some overseas presenters (such as myself).

The Friday keynote lecture was delivered by Steed Davidson, Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament at McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago, with a response by Garnett Roper, the president of JTS. Since this conference was in honor of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, Davidson addressed “The Hazards and Opportunities of Sola Scriptura for Caribbean Biblical Interpretation.”

Sola Scriptura as a Positive Value

Davidson emphasized the value of Luther’s protest against a corrupt and authoritarian papal church, and how Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) functioned to ground his protest. Beyond Luther’s appeal to what the Bible teaches (in contrast to the accretions of tradition), was the importance of the Bible being translated into the various European vernaculars (including Luther’s German and the later King James Version).

Davidson further noted that the positive effect of having the Bible in the vernacular of one’s own culture (instead of Latin, which had been understood only by a small elite) was that each culture was able to hear God’s word in their own language.

But no changes are purely innocent.

The Reformation’s Unintended Consequences?

Although translating the Bible into the vernacular may have been intended to open up the Bible to the ordinary believer, most people were not literate enough to read it even in their own language. So while power did shift from the Pope, instead of being transferred to the ordinary people, it was Protestant pastors who became the authoritative interpreters of the Bible; and secular princes filled the vacuum of papal authority (and both were often just as elitist and authoritarian as the Catholic hierarchy had been).

Further, one of the effects of hearing God word in the cadences of one’s language is that when the various European Protestant nations began to exercise colonial power in the “New World,” they understood God as underwriting their colonizing campaigns. Thus “Christianization” and colonization went hand-in-hand.

So it was never really Sola Scriptura in Reformation times. But rather the Bible and its authoritative interpreters, and (even more problematically) the Bible as part of a package of empire, colonization, and oppression.

Neither is it (or should it be) Sola Scriptura today. Rather, we all interpret the Bible through our cultural lenses. Paradoxically, many Christians in the Caribbean downplay their own experience and treat the Bible as a magical book in which to find guidance for making ordinary decisions (this is itself a cultural lens). But since oral tradition and experience are an integral part of Caribbean culture, many Caribbean Christians end up denying part of their identity and heritage in the way they treat the Bible.

Davidson therefore encouraged Caribbean people to consciously and intentionally read Scripture in light of their Caribbean culture and experience, both their historical heritage and their contemporary experience of the world. This involves not only bringing their culture and experience to Scripture, but allowing Scripture to speak to their culture and experience.

(There was more to Davidson’s lecture that this brief summary; but it suffices to highlight some of his emphases.)

After Davidson’s stimulating presentation, Garnett Roper (the president of JTS) gave a response. Roper agreed with much of Davidson’s argument, but raised the question of whether the imperial and colonial use of the Bible was as integrally related to the Reformers’ actions as Davidson portrayed, or was more in the vein of unintended consequences. The presentation by Davidson (originally from Tobago) and Roper (a Jamaican) generated a great deal of stimulating discussion from the audience.

A Variety of Papers on Scripture, Theology, Identity, and Culture in the Caribbean

Although we had nine papers lined up during the day on Saturday, one presenter who was coming from Philadelphia could not make his flight connection from Florida because of Hurricane Irma (and had to return home).

The paper topics varied quite widely; they included analysis of the Bible (both in whole and in part, addressing both familiar/comforting and troubling texts from the Old and New Testaments); priorities for biblical interpretation in the Caribbean church; the use of systems theory to understand a case study in Jamaican church conflict; the sort of “productive hermeneutics” of the Bible exemplified by Rastafarian discourse; a psychological / anthropological analysis of possession in Haitian voodoo; and how Caribbean people who have been shaped by the experience of slavery might grapple with God’s sovereignty in the process of history.

Since I previously gave the titles of papers to be presented (in an earlier blog post about the conference) I won’t repeat the list here. But you can see the full conference schedule at a glance.

Essay Award for Excellence in Bible and Theology

I have been involved with organizing theology conferences for a number of years (since 2012) and at many of these I have offered an essay prize to stimulate the intersection of the Bible and theology. This prize is awarded in honor of my parents, Jack and Phyllis Middleton. Jack Middleton was a Christian who served as a police officer in the Jamaica Constabulary Force from the end of World War II until his retirement in 1973. Beginning as an Inspector, stationed in Sav-la-Mar (in the parish of Westmoreland), he rose through the ranks to become the head of Special Branch and then Commissioner of Police (the first non-expatriate to hold the office).

At this conference, The Jack and Phyllis Middleton Memorial Award for Excellence in Bible and Theology was given to Erica Campbell ( Head of the Department of Humanities and Lecturer in Humanities, Theology, and Biblical Studies at JTS) for her paper “The Parable of the Good Samaritan: A Political Reading from a Caribbean Perspective.” This paper (like the previous five papers that have received this award) is to be published in the Canadian-American Theological Review, the journal sponsored by the Canadian-American Theological Association (of which I was president from 2011-2014).

The Importance of This Theology Conference

Instead of commenting on specific points of note in particular papers, let me mention a couple of general observations, two things that struck me as important about the conference as a whole.

First, I saw students and recent alums of JTS and CGST (who were often also pastors), as well as current and past professors, articulate their theological claims in papers presented publicly for an academic audience. I don’t think we can underestimate the value of this both for the presenters (whose proposals were taken seriously and engaged) and the model of academic integrity and boldness that they modeled for the attendees. Grounded in faith, we may engage in serious intellectual grappling with important issues; and faith is enlarged, rather than diminished, even when there is honest disagreement.

This is crucial, because in the Caribbean faith is often separated from scholarship, and the latter is denigrated. The appropriate response is not simply to become “intellectual,” as if this is somehow better than simple faith. Rather, what we need (and what this conference showed) is that not only can faith ground serious intellectual grappling with important issues, but that faith is thereby enriched by such grappling.

Second, I was struck by the significant degree of engagement from audience members (composed primarily of pastors and students, with at least half being women). Some of those in the audience boldly jumped right into the discussion at the start of the day, raising questions and voicing their opinions; others only found their voice as the day progressed.

Although discussion was always charitable and respectful, it was also vigorousindeed, so vigorous that I had a hard time (as conference chair) keeping the sessions to the prescribed time limits. But I look at that as a positive feature.

In this cordial, yet vigorous exchange of views between people of deep faith who value theological reflection for the sake of the church, I saw the beginnings of a genuine academic community of Caribbean theologians and practitioners reaching toward the goal of serious scholarly discourse in the service of faith. This bodes well for the intellectual health of the Caribbean churchif such discourse can be further stimulated and extended.

With that in mind, JTS is considering making a theology conference like this an annual (or possibly biennial) event. So stay tuned for an announcement in the near future. As these conferences become more regular we hope to invigorate the conversation about the Bible and theology for the sake of the Caribbean church and wider society.

A Publication Coming from the Conference

Selected papers from the conference have now been published in a theme issue of the Canadian-American Theological Review. These papers join Erica Campbell’s award-winning paper in a special issue of the journal devoted to the conference theme, “Biblical Interpretation for Caribbean Renewal.” The issue is available both in hard copy and as a PDF file, as are individual articles.

The Canadian-American Theological Review has previously published articles by theologians and scholars from parts of the world beyond Canada and the USA—including Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Caribbean.

A recent issue of the journal (2016) contained two articles by Caribbean authors. One was by Las Newman (president emeritus of the Caribbean Graduate School of Theology), entitled “Theology on the Move: Discerning Global Shifts in Theological Thinking in the Global South.” The other was my own paper, entitled “God’s Loyal Opposition: Psalmic and Prophetic Protest as a Paradigm for Faithfulness in the Hebrew Bible.”

I am delighted that we now have an entire issue of the Canadian-American Theological Review devoted to Caribbean theology.

Just a reminder: The journal is always open for new submissions of articles and book reviews, and that certainly includes submissions from Caribbean authors. Click here to see the guidelines for articles and book reviews. You are invited to participate in a global theological discussion.

In a follow-up post you can read about what some of us did after the conference, visiting two Rastafarian cultural heritage sites.