SAET Blog

Kingdom of God Posts

  • April 29, 2012 by Jason Hood

    The Key to Interpreting Biblical Prophecy

    Or at least, one of the most important keys: when the OT prophets speak to their audiences, they often speak of an ongoing redemptive process that began in their era and continues forward to our own and beyond to New Creation.

    Willem VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word, was one of my favorite textbooks in seminary, and now I get to return the favor for my OT students. Here is one gem of an observation, from p. 316:

    [T]he new covenant is an eschatological reality whose fulfillment takes place in the progression of redemption, including the postexilic era, the renewal of covenant in Jesus Christ, and the present church age.

    He then cites Calvin at length:

    Hence the Prophet here intimates that God’s favor would be certain, because he would not only give leisure to the Jews, when they returned, to plant vines, but would also cause them to enjoy the fruit in peace and quietness. . . . He extends God’s favour to the country and the villages, as though he had said, that the land would be filled with inhabitants, not only as to the fortified towns, but as to the fields…Now, were one to ask, when was this fulfilled? We must bear in mind what has been said elsewhere,—that the Prophets,…included the whole Kingdom of Christ from the beginning to the end. And in this our divines go astray, so that by confining these promises to some particular time, they are compelled to fly to allegories; and thus they wrest, and even pervert all the prophecies. But the Prophets, as it has been said, include the whole progress of Christ’s Kingdom when they speak of the future redemption of the people. The people began to do well when they returned to their own country; . . . It was, therefore, necessary for them to look for the coming of Christ. We now taste of these benefits of God . . . We hence see that these prophecies are not accomplished in one day, or in one year, no, not even in one age, but ought to be understood as referring to the beginning and the end of Christ’s Kingdom.

    Calvin is commenting on Jer 31:5, 24 (emphasis is WVG’s). We can also cite similar comments from Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah 52:8.

    When he restored the Jews to liberty, and employed the ministry of Zerubbabel, Erza, and Nehemiah, these things were fulfilled. Yet at the same time they ought to be continued down to the coming of Christ, by which the church was gathered out of all parts of the world. But we ought also to go forward to Christ’s last coming, by which all things shall be perfectly restored.

    Categories: Biblical Theology | Calvin | General | Jason Hood | Kingdom of God | biblical studies | kingdom | prophecy

    1 Comment

  • April 24, 2012 by Jason Hood

    Putting This Christianity Stuff to the Test

    Joseph Frank identifies something important about Dostoevsky and Christianity, which is neither full-on acceptance of the status quo nor the cold self-serving shrug:

    If we place The Idiot in the perspective of Dostoevsky’s work as a whole, it may be considered his most courageous creation. Not, however, because he tackled the almost impossible creative task of presenting a “perfectly beautiful man” within the limits of a novel form he wished to respect.

    It was courageous because, in doing so, he was putting his own highest Christian values to the same test as those to which he had been most opposed. The inspiration for his best novels, before and after The Idiot, had been provided by his polemical relation to the doctrines of Russian nihilism….[In Raskolnikov et al] Dostoevsky had dramatized the disastrous consequences of such nihilist ideas if taken to their ultimate ideas in human action. But this is exactly what he ends up by doing in The Idiot as well–except that the values in this instance are those that he himself cherished with a fervor made more ardent by his full awareness of their fragility.

    With an integrity that cannot be too highly praised, Dostoevsky fearlessly submits his own most hallowed convictions to the same scrutiny that he had used for those of the nihilists. What would they mean for human life if taken seriously and literally, and lived out to their full extent as guides to conduct?

    The moral extremism of his own eschatological ideal, incarnated by the prince, is portrayed as being equally incompatible with the normal demands of social existence as the egoistic extremism of his tormented and tortured nihilistic figures.

    Categories: Ethics | General | Jason Hood | Kingdom of God | Literature | discipleship

    0 Comments

  • November 9, 2011 by Matthew Mason

    Reign or Realm?

    Jesus comes preaching the gospel of the kingdom. Paul could summarise his ministry as “testify[ing] to the gospel of God’s grace” or, equally, “proclaiming the kingdom” (Acts 20:24-25). Similarly, Luke summarizes Philip’s evangelism as “preach[ing] good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus the Messiah.” (Acts 8:12). To preach the gospel preached by Jesus and the apostles, we must preach the kingdom. Well and good. But what is it?

    When evangelicals discuss the kingdom, it’s common to pose a dichotomy between reign and realm. That is, to say that God’s kingdom isn’t a geographical entity (realm). Rather, it’s a dynamic relational concept (reign).

    Joel Willitts, a fellow in the SAET’s first symposium has been addressing this helpfully on his blog. Let me supplement his proposal with five provocatively framed theses. If I think of another ninety, I’ll let you know.

    Thesis 1. Reign or realm? This is a political question, so let’s learn from the politicians—don’t accept the premise of the question. The kingdom of God must be both: reign and realm. Otherwise it’s not a kingdom. At least, not one worthy of the name.

    Thesis 2. To reject thesis 1 requires a dichotomy between nature and grace that is found nowhere in Scripture.

    Thesis 3. In reality, both sides of the debate believe the kingdom includes a realm. The question is, how big? Does it encompass the kingdoms of this world? Or does it only include the one square foot of real estate between my ears?

    Thesis 4. Building on Thesis 3, I suspect that the differing definitions of the kingdom expose a deep fault line between competing implied anthropologies. To state the matter provocatively, are we embodied beings, or would I be as truly me if I were simply a brain in a jar?

    Thesis 5. Kingdom of God: reign or realm? When David’s Son is on the throne, what does it look like? One way to answer the question, a way that should be regarded as indispensable, is a close, imaginative reading of 1 Kings 1-10.

    Categories: Kingdom of God | Matthew Mason

    0 Comments