How Do You Understand The Kingdom Of God?

[journeyman]

I never should have borrowed this book from the library . . . there is no way I'm going to be able to return it on time


The core content of the Gospel is this: The Kingdom of God is at hand.

The phrase “Kingdom of God” occurs 122 times in the New Testament as a whole; 99 of these passages are found in the three Synoptic Gospels, and 90 of these 99 texts report words of Jesus
Whereas the axis of Jesus’ preaching before Easter is the Kingdom of God, Christology is the center of the preaching of the Apostles after Easter.
Does this mean, then, that there has been a falling away from the real preaching of Jesus?
Did Jesus preach the Kingdom of God, and what came was the Church? (Alfred Louisy)

Three dimensions in the Church Father’s interpretation of the term “Kingdom”

Origen – Christological – Jesus himself is the Kingdom; the Kingdom is not a thing, it is not a geographical dominion

Also Origen – idealistic or mystical – interiority - those who pray for the coming of the Kingdom of God pray without any doubt for the Kingdom of God that they contain in themselves . . . For in every holy man it is God who reigns . . . so if we want God to reign in us, then sin must not be allowed in any way to reign in our mortal body . . . then let God stroll at leisure in us as in a spiritual paradise and rule in us alone with his Christ

Ecclesiastical interpretation
Adolph von Harnack – Jesus’ message about the Kingdom of God was a double revolution against the Judaism of Jesus’ time. Judaism focused entirely on the collective, Jesus on the individual. Ritual worship (and thus the priesthood) dominated Judaism, Jesus set aside ritual and concentrated on morality . . . on man’s soul
Who went on to find the Germanic-Protestant form of Christianity was the one which restored the message of Jesus most purely (compared to Roman Catholic and Greek-Slavik)
Opponents in Protestant world argued it was not the individual, but the community, who stood under the promise, and salvation came as a member of the community.
Weiss/Schweitzer – message is radically eschatological – the imminent end of the world . . . Bultmann/Heidegger – what matters is existential attitude of “always standing at the ready.” . . . Molmann/Bloch – theology of hope, involvement in shaping of the future

Secularist reinterpretation
Ecclesiocentrism – Church is center of Chrstianity
Christocentrism – Christ is the center of everything
Theocentrism – God is the center of everything
Regnocentrism – the Kingdom is the center of everything
Kingdom – another name for a world governed by peace, justice and conservation of creation . . . each religious community is free to preserve their traditions, but must bring their identities to bear on the common task of building the Kingdom

What is justice
What is peace
Ratzinger labels as “utopian dreaming without any real content”

His observation: God has disappeared; man is the only actor left on the state. Faith and religions are now directed toward political goals. Only the organization of the world counts. Religion matters only insofar as it can serve that objective. . . . “disturbingly close to Jesus’ third temptation.”

(this resonates with the recent letter on ecumenism – he’s not ruling it out, but if the goal is this fuzzy regnocentrism – he’s not going to play)



Preliminary solution – to be explored further

The new proximity of the Kingdom of which Jesus speaks is to be found in Jesus himself. Through Jesus’ presence and action, God has here and now entered actively into history in a wholly new way. . . . in Jesus, God is now the one who acts and who rules as Lord – rules in a divine way, without worldly power, rules through the love that reaches “to the end”, to the Cross . . . in this context we understand Jesus’ statements about the lowliness and hiddenness of the Kingdom; in this context we understand the fundamental image of the see; the invitation to follow him courageously . . . He himself is the treasure; communion with him is the pearl of great price.

(I left out of the summary his description of those parables)

He closes the chapter with the Pharisee/Publican parable, as a lead in to the next chapter on the Sermon on the Mount – saying we can’t understand the Kingdom of God without looking at the term in light of the whole of Jesus’ preaching

Pharisee/tax collector – not ethics/grace debate – Pharisee does not look at God at all, he does not need God because he does everything right by himself, has no relation to God, “who is ultimately superfluous – what he does himself is enough” Tax collector sees himself in the light of God, knows he needs God, draws life from God (needs mercy, will learn from God’s mercy to be merciful; needs forgiveness, will learn from God’s forgiveness to forgive others; through God’s goodness, he becomes good)

[N/A Gone]

Bump for Brother Adam.

He gave me a great talk on this a while ago.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I understand the sentiment about the library. I bought the book last weekend and it's amazing! I've only just started chapter 5, lol. Chapter 4 takes forever, hehe...

[Era Might]

I thought one of the most interesting parts of the book was his discussion of law in the Old Testament and how it might be used to explain the nature of Catholic social teaching. And I also loved his discussion of Rabbi Neusner's book.

[N/A Gone]

this book is mynext in line to read after the Congar one im working on.

Im so excited!!

[shortnun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1377073' date='Sep 3 2007, 03:51 PM']this book is mynext in line to read after the Congar one im working on.

Im so excited!![/quote]
I should add this to my list of "books that I really hope to read one day before I die." (It's getting quite lengthy.)

Also, regarding the poll, I answered "a mystery" and "all of the above." In my catechesis with young children (ages 3-12), we place a great deal of time pondering the mystery of the Kingdom. I think that a wondering about the Kingdom and the proclamation of the parousia are two of the most underemphasized components of our faith in catechesis/faith formation today. (Steps off soapbox.)

[Ziggamafu]

Here is an excerpt from a letter I recently wrote to my Protestant mother-in-law regarding my reflections on Scott Hahn's take on the subject:

Now, after briefly explaining the Body of Christ, I believe it is important to address the second facet of the one sentence summary of the faith; that the kingdom of God is the restored House of David, in which all of God’s promises are delivered, all of his laws are fulfilled, and all of his covenants are understood. A quote from one of Scott Hahn’s online courses of study:

[size=1][i]Researchers have tended to focus on the importance and influence of Moses and the covenant at Sinai on the shape of the New Testament. By contrast there has been a relative scholarly neglect of the Davidic covenant.

However, it could be argued that the figure of David and his kingdom is more central - not only to the New Testament - but to the direction and meaning of the Old Testament.

David is generally acknowledged as a defining figure in the Psalms, with more than 70 psalms attributed to him. What is not widely recognized is his prominence throughout the Old Testament.

Indeed, while the name Moses occurs a little over 720 times, David is mentioned almost 1,020 times. David's career is the subject of 42 chapters, or nearly 30 percent of what scholars call the "Deuteronomistic History" (Joshua-2 Kings).

In the Chronicles, a review of Israel's history from a "Priestly" perspective, the percentage is the same.

David is mentioned 37 times in the prophets, Moses only seven times. And as we will focus on in our next lesson, the eschatological hopes of the prophets are frequently concerned with the return of a Davidic king and the restoration of his capital, Zion. The prophets say nothing about the return of Moses and a restoration of Sinai.
([color="#0000FF"]http://www.salvationhistory.com//online/advanced/course2_lesson1.cfm[/color])[/i][/size]

God made a permanent covenant with the kingdom that he gave to the world in David, particularly David’s son, Solomon, who God said would be as his own (see 1 Chronicles 17:7-17). The Lord promised that David’s house – that is, his dynastic rule – would grow and flourish, never to cease its role and function. For this reason David says in 2 Samuel 23:5, “Is not my house firm before God? He has made an eternal covenant with me, set forth in detail and secured.” Clearly, David’s kingdom was not of this world, but existed here to govern the world, with its origins in God (to whom belonged the throne, cf. Psalm 45:5-6). That is why the Jews were in despair when the dynastic line was apparently lost, the kingdom was destroyed, and the people were dispersed. Their entire worldview and heritage had seemingly collapsed. Where was the anointed one? Where was the Messiah – the Christ? Here, we see the real meaning of messiah; the people were awaiting a son of David to appear and restore his house, thus canceling the fears that God had broken his promises and abandoned his people. Thus do we hear the prophets cry out:

[size=1][i]6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.
Isaiah 9:6-7 (ASV)

And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
Dan 2:44 (ASV)

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Dan 7:14 (ASV)

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass.
Zech 9:9 (ASV)[/i][/size]

Of course we know that the Son of David would indeed appear. But although he was and is king, and although he did restore the house of David, he had much to accomplish in expanding the kingdom and revealing the true meaning of all God’s covenants by fulfilling them and confirming them with the seal of his own blood. “I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill,” he tells us. Because he had so much to do, and because these tasks would be impossible to accomplish if his kingship were immediately recognized and acted upon, he subjected himself to a life of patient humility and poverty, even running from those who would attempt to crown him by force (John 6:15). When he went about performing the functions of a king and organizing the re-established kingdom, he did so without the pageantry due to him. Nevertheless, he was the true king who would save his people from despair over God’s apparently broken promises; he was the anointed one, and the Gospels were written in part to make this clear.

One of the instances in which Christ’s role as king and restorer of David’s House is displayed in the Gospel when he conferred onto Peter the keys of the kingdom (an office that demands successors, just as we see in the Old Testament). In the Davidic kingdom, the man who held the keys had authority over all other governing offices beneath the king and he was the one who preserved unity and order with his rule in the king’s absence. There were good and bad key-bearers, but the office (and its authority) remained. The same office remains to this day, serving the same function in the directly physical absence of the king. I won’t give an exhaustive demonstration of the New Testament’s clarity regarding the restoration of the Davidic kingdom, but I recommend you watch the DVDs of Scott Hahn’s seminar that I attended awhile back. He covers more ground. Actually, it is helpful here to once again quote from Scott Hahn’s online course (the same one that I quoted from above, which, by the way, I highly encourage you to “take”):

[size=1][i]Twelve Thrones

If the true Davidic kingdom was to be restored, that would have to mean all twelve tribes, the descendants of the sons of Jacob (see Genesis 49), united under the King of Israel.
That was what the prophets had foretold: Judah (the tribe that had been loyal to the sons of David) and Ephraim (the prophets' name for Israel, the kingdom of the northern tribes) would be united again under the Son of David (see, for example, Ezekiel 37:15-28).
We remember from the previous lesson how Jesus had given His Apostles "thrones" from which they would judge the twelve tribes of Israel (see Luke 22:30), echoing the description of Jerusalem at peace in Psalm 122: the tribes all gathered together to give thanks to the Lord, and above them "the thrones of the house of David" (see Psalm 122:4-5).
The problem was that there were only eleven Apostles now. Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus (see Luke 22:47-48), had killed himself in despair (see Matthew 27:3-5, Acts 1:16-19).
Peter told the rest that it was necessary for them to have another "witness" to carry on in Judas's place (see Acts 1:21-22), quoting two psalms that curse the enemies of God (see Acts 1:20; the quotations are from Psalm 69:26 and Psalm 109:8).
Matthias was chosen, and from that point on he was numbered among the Twelve (see Acts 1:23-26).
Twelve tribes, twelve thrones: it was necessary to establish the Kingdom properly from the beginning.

The Prime Minister

The Twelve thus took their positions as the King's ministers. Just as David and his successors had had ministers to sit on thrones and judge the people (see, for example, 1 Kings 4:1-19, and compare Psalm 122:4-5), so Jesus, the ideal Davidic King, would have His ministers.
And just as in the original Davidic kingdom, one of those ministers would be the leader of the rest.
David had Joab (see 1 Chronicles 11:6), and every one of his successors had what we today would call a prime minister.
Following that pattern, we see that Jesus, too, had a prime minister.
As soon as He told His disciples that they would sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel (see Luke 22:28-30), Jesus turned to Simon Peter and told him that he must strengthen the others (see Luke 22:31-32).
Peter was the "Rock" (which is what the name Peter means) on which Jesus had promised to build His Church (see Matthew 16:18).
All the Apostles were Jesus' ministers, but Simon Peter was the prime minister.
Now we see Peter exercising that authority. It is Peter who announces to the Twelve and the rest of the church in Jerusalem that Judas must be replaced (see Acts 1:15-22), and his decision is accepted without debate (see Acts 1:23-28).
We see him acting as the unquestioned leader at Pentecost, too, when he speaks for all the Apostles in front of the astonished crowds (see Acts 2:14).
Peter speaks for them again before the leaders of the people and the priests (see Acts 4:8). He exercises a healing power like Christ's (see Acts 3:1-12), pronounces God's judgment on Anananias and Sapphira (see Acts 5:1-11), and gains such a reputation that people line up just to be touched by his shadow (see Acts 5:15).
Finally, it is Peter whose word determines the whole future course of the Kingdom on earth. When some converted Pharisees have argued that Christians are bound by the whole law (see Acts 15:5), Peter is the one who interprets the will of God for the rest of the Apostles (see Acts 15:7-11).
James, summarizing the decision of the Apostles, refers to Amos's prophecy about the fallen hut, in which the restoration of the Davidic kingdom comes about so that the rest of the world may also come to God (see Acts 15:14-18).
A kingdom that includes "the rest of humanity" is what God had promised through the Prophets, and the mission of the Church is to be the fulfillment of that promise.
Luke leaves us in no doubt whatsoever: Peter has taken over as leader of the Twelve, just as Jesus had ordained. He interprets the will of God, and he decides the course of the whole Church.
But Peter is only the first among the ministers of the Kingdom. Jesus, as Peter himself will tell us, is still the King.
([color="#0000FF"]http://www.salvationhistory.com/online/advanced/advcourse2_lesson5.cfm[/color])[/i]
[/size]
In this kingdom of God, the House of David, restored and renewed under a new covenant that fulfills and bonds together all of the preceding covenants, there exists a duality of the visible and the invisible, the physical and the spiritual; this is only proper as we’ve already seen that this new kingdom is nothing less than God, himself, a Body composed of both flesh and soul. Such a duality is expected and accounts for the otherwise apparent contradictions in the New Testament’s descriptions of the kingdom. How fitting it is that God has left us with two real presences of himself; one invisible and intangible in the Holy Spirit, the other visible and tangible in the Holy Eucharist. Likewise, how fitting that the real presence of the Holy Spirit may be discerned and worshiped in the invisible and spiritual aspect of the kingdom but the real presence of the Holy Eucharist may only be observed and worshiped in the visible and physical aspect of the kingdom. The Father, in his grace, allows the Holy Spirit to be received even by the invisible members of the Catholic Church. But the incarnate God in Eucharistic appearance – our Lord come in the flesh – may only be received by the visible members.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Ziggamafu

[journeyman]

Interesting point . . . and I'll have to re-read this when I finish the three projects on my plate . . . Ratzinger has mentioned the Moses - Jesus parallels a couple of time in the book, which was somewhat novel to me, but per Hahn, if I read this correctly, has been over emphasized?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1378220' date='Sep 4 2007, 08:30 PM']Interesting point . . . and I'll have to re-read this when I finish the three projects on my plate . . . Ratzinger has mentioned the Moses - Jesus parallels a couple of time in the book, which was somewhat novel to me, but per Hahn, if I read this correctly, has been over emphasized?[/quote]

I don't know if the term "over emphasized" would be the most appropriate choice, here. But yes, the point of Hahn is that David is the more important figure of the Old Testament. When we view the Church as the restored (and everlasting) House of David under a New Covenant, our arguments for the role of the prime minister's office (as well as the status of the Queen Mother) become much more forceful.

As I mentioned to my mother-in-law in my letter, I recommend taking Hahn's course on the subject. Also, check out [url="http://www.store.catholictelevision.org/talks.php"]this particular seminar of his on DVD.[/url] The talk specific to the topic I've raised is the one called "Why Scripture Matters". His course on the subject is much more thorough but come on, who doesn't love to hear Hahn preach?

[Era Might]

The verse the Holy Father kind of builds his book around is Deuteronomy 34:10:

[quote]And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.[/quote]
I had never read this passage before, it's a pretty amazing prophecy of Christ. The Holy Father points out that the Sermon on the Mount is essentially the giving of the new law by the true Moses (the old law was given on Mount Sinai). The Pope's book follows St. John's theme that "the law was given through Moses; grace and truth come through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). I think the Holy Father focused on Moses because his book was (at least somewhat) inspired by the Rabbi's book, which he discusses at length. He portrays Jesus in light of Moses because the law given by Moses was the foundation of Israel. The passage from Deuteronomy explains what Jesus gives that Moses could not: the knowledge of God "face to face." The Holy Father points out that Moses himself only saw God's back (Exodus 33:23). Also, the Holy Father seems to have a particular interest in the idea of God's face, which may explain his emphasis on Moses. He has an extended discussion of it in another book, and he says that this book is his "personal search for the face of the Lord."

[N/A Gone]

This book is getting alot of hype. In 20 years, how will we look back on it?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1379330' date='Sep 5 2007, 10:28 PM']This book is getting alot of hype. In 20 years, how will we look back on it?[/quote]
That is impossible to predict . . .

[N/A Gone]

OT,

Do you have an email address or space in your PM? I asked you some questions a while ago but could never get them to you. Thanks sir.

[Totus Tuus]

While I have discussed this chapter with others I'm still not certain of the answer. Shouldn't the poll be multiple choice or am I missing something? Edit: I realized that "All or some of the above" was on the poll. That's what I chose

Edited September 7, 2007 by Totus Tuus