Peaceful Revolution

The Gospel According to Jesus

What is the gospel? Does it have any relationship to the gospel proclaimed by Jesus during his earthly ministry – “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand”? If so, how would Jesus’ gospel have been heard in his day? Why did his message initially generate so much excitement? What chord did it strike with its original hearers? Why was it ultimately rejected by the Jewish people, leading to Jesus being handed over to Roman authorities?

The Gospel of the Kingdom

The gospel according to Jesus is most fully summarized by Mark: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). [1]

The critical moment: “the time is fulfilled.” Jesus announced that the climax of God’s redemptive plan had finally arrived. With this one phrase Jesus connected what was about to happen with all of Israel’s rich history, and by extension, since Yahweh is the one true God over all the world, to all world history. Now was the time for Israel’s God to act in establishing his kingdom.

The content of his message: “the kingdom of God.” Jesus’ gospel did not arrive in an historical vacuum. The phrase, “the kingdom of God,” provoked in Jesus’ hearers aspirations for the prophetic hope of deliverance from exile under pagan oppression and the restoration of Israel as the purified people of God.

The required response: “repent and believe.” In Jesus’ historical setting, the call to repent would challenge the people to pursue God with their whole heart, in order to prepare for and hasten the day of God’s coming kingdom. Jesus called his hearers to respond to God’s immanent action with repentance and trust. He challenged them to alter their basic values, attitudes, and aspirations, most notably (as will be developed below) in regard to how the kingdom would be established.

The urgency: “at hand.”[2] He declared that it was his generation – “this generation” (Matt. 11:16; 12:41-42; 23:34, 36; Mark 8:12) – that stood upon the threshold of God’s climactic movement in human history. That which “many prophets and righteous men desired to see” was now a reality (Matthew 13:17). The imminent reality of God’s coming reign called for an immediate response.[3]

Obviously, Jesus’ message struck a chord with his original hearers. It did so because it was rooted in the story of Israel that his hearers knew quite well.[4] Jesus’ message created excitement and amassed a following because it connected with the aspirations of faithful Jews.

Jesus’ message also met with disapproval, and ultimately, rejection. Why was Jesus’ message ultimately rejected by the Jewish people, especially in light of its continuity with Jewish hopes? It is this question I hope to answer in the following pages. But first, if we are to understand the meaning of Jesus’ message – the gospel of the kingdom – we must hear it from within the world of first-century Judaism. It is only within its Jewish context that Jesus’ message can truly be comprehended. For this reason, we will attempt to understand the significance of the kingdom of God within the larger story of Israel as well as within the more immediate situation in which first-century Jews found themselves.

The Story of Israel: The Historical Context of Jesus’ Kingdom Message

Israel’s story can be understood in light of the following movements: creation and election, exodus and monarchy, exile and return.

Creation and Election. Israel’s story begins with one God creating all that exists and declaring it all good. God’s creation experiences a crisis due to human sin, calling for the election of a particular people, Israel, who are set apart for the salvation of the world.

Exodus and Monarchy. To this end – the salvation of the world – the elect nation of Israel is redeemed from the oppressive bondage of Egypt, brought into the Promised Land, and established as a kingdom under the reign of David.

Exile and Return. In time, due to Israel’s sin, the monarchy divides and eventually collapses. The Jewish people experience the ultimate curse – exile from the Promised Land and dispersion among the pagans. While in exile under Persian domination, King Cyrus makes allowance for Jews to return to Jerusalem. Only a few faithful Jews return and rebuild Jerusalem, including her walls and Temple (hence the term, Second-Temple Judaism). But in spite of their efforts, Israel fails to rise to the stature that she once possessed during the monarchy.

Israel’s Immediate Situation: The Exile Continues

The completion of the second Temple was anti-climactic in light of Israel’s glorious past and future glory grounded in prophetic expectation. Second-Temple Jews would remember that Moses’ tabernacle[5] and Solomon’s Temple[6] had been visited by the Shekinah glory, representing God’s sovereign presence – the Lord was with them! The Second Temple never experienced this divine visitation.[7] Furthermore, Yahweh had not come to triumphantly restore the Davidic monarchy. With the exception of a brief period of self-rule won in the Maccabean Revolt (162 – 63 BC), Israel remained under foreign domination – first by the Persians, then the Greeks, and finally, the Romans. Under Gentile oppression and with no sign of God’s Shekinah glory, the Jews continued to view themselves as a people in exile, in need of restoration by God. Like Ezra and Nehemiah of old, the Jews considered themselves slaves in their own land, still suffering for their sins under God’s judgment of exile.[8] Their only hope was that God would one day rise up and act, restoring his people and liberating them from foreign oppression.[9]

Jesus’ message of the kingdom directly addressed Jewish aspirations for deliverance from foreign bondage. Faithful Jews looked forward to the end of exile and the establishment of God’s kingdom. They remembered that God, through Moses, had told them from the beginning that they would eventually experience apostasy, resulting in the ultimate judgment of exile from the Promised Land.[10] But because of God’s faithfulness to his covenant, they also had the assurance that exile was not final. Even when warning of apostasy and exile, God had promised that he would eventually forgive the sin of his people, restoring them through the renewal (“circumcision”) of their hearts.[11] It was this hope that sustained first-century Jews still in exile – hope for the end of exile, vindication against enemies, and deliverance for faithful Jews. It is in the context of this hope that Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom must be heard, for Jesus held the same hope.[12]

Put simply, second-Temple Jews understood that their sin had resulted in exile which called for repentance in hope that God would personally act to liberate his restored people. This liberation would be a sign of God’s forgiveness of Israel’s sin. All of these things are summarized in Jesus’ pronouncement of “the kingdom of God.”

Sin --> Exile (repentance) --> {liberation / restoration / forgiveness / righteousness} Kingdom

There was nothing new about Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom insofar that it connected with Jewish aspirations for liberation from exile for a restored people. Both Jesus and his hearers agreed on the problem (“exile”), the reason for the problem (“sin”), and the solution (“liberation”, “forgiveness”, “restoration”). All these aspects of Jesus’ message struck a chord with his hearers. Why, then, was Jesus’ message ultimately rejected by the Jewish people, especially in light of its continuity with Jewish hopes? Obviously, the Jews disagreed about some aspect of Jesus’ kingdom pronouncement. What was it with which they disagreed?

The disagreement arose in regard to the means through which the solution (“liberation” and “restoration”) would be implemented. Jesus clashed with his contemporaries concerning how God’s kingdom would be inaugurated, or more precisely, what means would be used to establish it. To some degree, all of Jesus’ contemporaries advocated the use of violence as a legitimate means toward the liberation of God’s people. Jesus did not. It is ultimately for this reason that Jesus’ message was rejected.

Why did the Jewish people so readily accept the use of violence in establishing God’s kingdom? The answer is simple. The only successful revolt – the Maccabean Revolt – established the acceptance of violent destruction of the pagans in winning Israel’s liberation. It is this victory, celebrated yearly in Hanukkah, which set the stage for all future expectations of liberation from pagan oppression. This violent revolt remained fixed in the collective memory of first-century Jews. Because of its importance to all subsequent kingdom movements, it is vital to be familiar with the details concerning this paradigmatic revolution.

The Pagan as Enemy: The Maccabean Revolt as Pattern for Jewish Liberation

Between the time of the writing of Malachi and Matthew – the so-called “400 silent years” of the intertestamental period – the world drastically changed. Due to the world-conquering strategies of Alexander the Great and his love for all things Greek, the entire world was Hellenized. Greek culture, along with its accompanying paganism, dominated the world. Faithful Jews desperately sought to preserve their own traditional Jewish identity in the midst of this cultural shift. Though many cultures could easily incorporate Greek ideas, philosophies, and religion into their own cultural expressions, the Jews were much less able to compromise without serious distortion to their religion. The attempt to resist Hellenization (whether in its Greek or Roman expression) was at the heart of much conflict for a second-temple Jew.

In 167 BC Jerusalem was under the dominion of the Syrian king, Antiochus Ephiphanes. At this time, he officially sought to thoroughly Hellenize it by removing all vestiges of Jewish identity. He outlawed Torah-keeping and set up blasphemous worship in the Temple. Matthathias, a priest, refused to obey the king’s edict. Burning with “zeal for the law, just as Phinehas did” (1 Maccabees 2:26), Mattathias killed a fellow Jew who was offering pagan sacrifice. He and his sons fled into the hills, gathering together a band of faithful followers who engaged in sporadic attacks on pagans and Jewish renegades (Jews who failed to observe Torah). Before his death, Mattathias urged his sons to defeat the Gentiles and uphold the Torah. Judas Maccabaeus did just this, defeating the Syrians, entering Jerusalem, cleansing the Temple, and restoring true worship of Yahweh. It is this act of liberation that is remembered yearly in the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah.

This liberation was followed by almost a century of Jewish independence. One after another, the sons of Mattathias ruled over Israel as priest-kings. Over time, their rule became increasingly corrupt provoking diverse reactions from different groups within Judaism. A group who came to be known as the Essenes deemed the Temple worship and priesthood to be so corrupt that they left Israel to form their own community in the wilderness. The Pharisees, concerned for ritual purity, also experienced conflict with the Hasmonean dynasty.

But the troubles within Israel would be overshadowed by troubles without, as the rising Roman empire took control over Israel in 63 BC. Once again, Israel was under the dominion of a pagan nation. Her exile continued. Her short-lived time of liberation had resulted in a corrupt priesthood and the destruction of the Temple. However, one thing remained fixed in the Jewish memory: each year in their celebration of Hanukkah they would be reminded of the Maccabean revolt and how it had brought freedom, even if only for a limited time. Viewed as a pattern for future revolutions, faithful Jews agreed that it was through “[f]idelity to Torah, readiness for martyrdom, resistance to compromise, and resolute military or para-military action”[13] that God would redeem his people from exile to Gentile nations. With the Maccabean revolt lingering in Israel’s memory, first century Judaism produced a steady stream of revolutionary movements – kingdom movements. Messianic contenders came and went; all promising liberation from exile through violent revolt and all ending in failure.

Jesus’ kingdom proclamation was given within this politically turbulent climate where faithful Jews longed for liberation from exile. With the Maccabean revolt as the paradigm, the means of violent retribution against Gentile pagans and Jewish renegades was deemed acceptable, righteous, and even necessary to the establishment of God’s coming kingdom. Jesus rejected liberation through the means of violence, coercion, or holy war. Jesus advocated a kingdom of peace that would be established, not through the violent means of the Maccabees, but through the passive self-giving of Jesus and his followers. It was his unwillingness to use violence to establish the kingdom that ultimately caused Jesus’ message to be rejected.

The Real Enemy of God’s Kingdom: The Cosmic Powers of Evil

One reason Jesus rejected violence against pagans was that he did not view them as the ultimate enemy to God’s kingdom. The Jews understood the enemy to be either the Romans, the pagans, or renegade Jews (or all of the above). Jesus redefined the enemy altogether. To him, the real enemy of God’s kingdom was neither the Romans, nor the pagans, nor the renegade Jews, but rather, the enemy was a cosmic enemy – the Satan. He understood his battle as the true battle, a battle with the cosmic powers of evil associated with the devil and all his minions. His triumph over the evil powers was proof that God’s kingdom was advancing: “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:28). Indeed, the very first act of Jesus’ ministry is an encounter with the real enemy of the kingdom, an encounter in which he triumphs, setting the stage for the remainder of his ministry. The only holy war Jesus chose to fight was the war against the evil cosmic powers represented by the Satan and his demons.[14]

Since the real enemy of God’s kingdom was the cosmic powers of evil and not Greeks, Romans, or Jewish renegades, Jesus taught that people could enter God’s kingdom whether or not Caesar or Herod were supplanted. For Jesus, the real revolution was bigger than politics, nations, or regimes. Violent revolution was not revolutionary enough, for it was to capitulate to the evil powers. It was to compromise God’s kingdom, for evil cannot be defeated with its own weapons. Instead of violent revolt, Jesus called his followers to peacemaking.

Jesus denounced, as no better than pagans, not only those who compromised with Caesar by playing his power-games, but also those who compromised with him by thinking to defeat him with his own weapons. Those who take the sword will perish with the sword… His kingdom-announcement, like all truly Jewish kingdom-announcements, came as the message of the one true God, the God of Israel, in opposition to pagan power, pagan gods, and pagan politics. But, unlike the other kingdom-announcers of his time from Judas the Galilean to Simeon ben Kosiba, Jesus declared that the way to the kingdom was the way of peace, the way of love, the way of the cross. Fighting the battle of the kingdom with the enemy’s weapons meant that one had already lost it in principle, and would soon lose it, and lose it terribly, in practice.[15]

Jesus called the Jews to embrace God’s kingdom – a kingdom both like and unlike what they expected. God would liberate his people from exile, but not through violence. Jesus’ call to repentance was a call to abandon revolutionary zeal, particularly in light of its call to violent opposition to Gentiles and Jewish renegades. Jesus called upon his hearers to abandon one agenda and embrace his agenda, following him in the way of the cross,[16] rather than following his contemporaries in the way of anti-Roman violence.

This is the reason Jesus’ message was rejected: In advocating a kingdom of peace, where the real enemy is cosmic, and not human, Jesus cut against the central impetus of every Jewish kingdom movement, for all advocated or at least accepted some form of violence in establishing the kingdom.

This leads to a final question: Why did Jesus call upon the Jews to abandon their violent agendas? Precisely because the kingdom of God was at hand!

The Fullness of Time Means Blessing For, Not Slaughter Of, Gentiles

In light of the fullness of the times, God’s story was coming to its intended climax in the establishment of God’s kingdom. This surely meant blessing for Jews and Gentiles. The climax of God’s purposes did not simply mean that faithful Jews would be vindicated, but also, that Gentiles would be blessed in light of a restored Israel. Therefore, in light of the fullness of times bringing God’s redemptive plan to his intended goal, Israel’s vocation was not to violently overthrow the Gentiles, but instead, was to bring blessing to the Gentiles through God’s restoration of Israel. Not nationalistic victory over the pagans, but being a light to the world, was the God-intended vocation of Israel in the fullness of times.

The kingdom of the one true God was at last coming into being, and it would be characterized not by defensiveness, but by Israel’s being the light of the world; not by the angry zeal which would pay the Gentiles back in their own coin (as Mattathias had advised his sons).[17]

Summary

Jesus believed that his generation lived in the critical hour of the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan and that the restoration of God’s people and their liberation from exile was immanent (“the time is fulfilled… at hand”). For this reason, he preached the kingdom of God. Unlike John the Baptist, who had previously announced the exact same message, Jesus did not merely proclaim the kingdom, but understood himself to be the primary agent through which the reign of God would be realized. It is this realization that led Jesus to sacrificially give himself on the cross, seeking to conquer through the power of love, with the hope that God would vindicate his faithful servant. It is for this reason he called upon his disciples to choose the way of the cross over the way of the sword – a view Jesus not only taught, but demonstrated to the utmost. According to Jesus, it was the way of the cross that would bring liberation, the people of the cross who would comprise the restored people of God. Only those who positively responded to his message would be safe in light of God’s coming judgment. Those who failed to respond would be like a house falling to pieces (Matthew 7:24-27).

As a faithful first-century Jew, Jesus looked forward to God’s righteous deliverance, calling people to prepare for the coming of Yahweh. His proclamation of “the kingdom of God” is shorthand way of expressing this hope. Unlike his contemporaries, He disagreed with how God’s kingdom would be established. In particular, he rejected the means of violence against the pagans to achieve liberation. Armed rebellion against Roman forces would only result in defeat. The liberation of God’s people would not come through violence, but through the faithful obedience and sacrificial suffering of God’s anointed one.[18]

The Continuing Significance of the Gospel of the Kingdom

It is important to note that Jesus’ message continued to be heralded by his followers long after Jesus’ death. The early followers of Christ obviously understood Jesus’ message to have lasting significance. The gospel of the New Testament then, must be understood to be a repetition of Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom, albeit seen now in the light of Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. The same elements of Jesus’ message are reiterated throughout the New Testament: the need for repentance and faith, the fullness of times, the call to peace, the reality of the kingdom of God now experienced in the fullness of the Spirit, and the blessing of the Gentiles through the restored people of God. When this is admitted, many of our contemporary presentations of the gospel begin to sound horribly distorted, anemic, or just simply wrong.

In the days of Jesus’ earthly campaign, Jesus commissioned his disciples with the same message of the kingdom that he preached (Matt. 10:7). After Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension, Peter, in his first recorded sermon, proclaimed to the Jews that “God has made him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.” His call to them reflected the same content of John the Baptist and Jesus’ proclamations, but now reframed around Christ: “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:36, 38; cf. 3:19). In doing this, Peter’s hearers would be separated from “this perverse generation” and identified with the restored people of God (Acts 2:40).

After the first Jewish believers in the early church left Jerusalem in light of rising persecution, we immediately find Philip “preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12). Understandably, the first Christians were known by their enemies as people who claimed allegiance to “another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7).

Paul, after his conversion to the Christian faith, proclaimed “the kingdom of God” (Acts 19:8; 26:18). His message included the call to repentance and faith found in John and Jesus’ proclamations (Acts 20:21; 26:20). For Paul, to “testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God” was to “preach the kingdom” (Acts 20:24-25). To Paul, the message of the kingdom was a message of grace, and vice versa. In the closing paragraph of the Book of Acts, Paul is involved in “solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God… welcoming all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God” (Acts 28:23, 31).

In Paul’s epistles, the kingdom of God is so closely connected to life in the Spirit through union with Christ that these terms become inseparable. The believer’s present experience of the Spirit is the present experience of God’s kingdom: “the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17). The believer experiences the kingdom because of Christ’s saving work: “He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col. 1:13). Though the kingdom is truly present (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:19b-23; Col. 1:15-20; 1 Peter 3:22) it is not fully present. Therefore, Paul looks forward to a future consummation of the kingdom (2 Tim. 4:18).

In short, the preaching of the kingdom remains relevant in the New Testament, long after the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus are over. The call to repentance and faith continues with the paradox of a crucified (but risen) Messiah as the central figure of the kingdom. The kingdom is present and personally experienced, precisely because the Spirit is present and Jesus is king, but the restored people of God await the consummation of the kingdom. This hope is sure in light of the present reign of God in Christ.[19]

The kingdom message of Jesus has lasting significance. It is the gospel. The New Testament continues to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom – a gospel of peace – by advocating reconciliation, peace-making, gracious acceptance of others, forbearance, and love. The revolutionary overtones connected to zealous violence give way to the call to life in the Spirit – a life of peace, love, joy, and righteousness.

The Contemporary Gospel vs. The Gospel of the Kingdom

If the gospel of the kingdom is the gospel the church is called to proclaim, then our contemporary expressions of it leave much to be desired. At best, they often obscure the message. At worst, they completely abandon it, substituting a message that would have been incomprehensible to first-century Jews.

Unlike much popular packaging of the gospel, Jesus’ gospel was not primarily focused on a far-flung future in the sweet by-and-by. Contemporary evangelicals have transformed Jesus’ pronouncement of God’s immanent kingdom into a question about one’s heavenly or hellish destination. “If you were to die today, why should God let you into his heaven?” is a far cry from “The time is fulfilled. Repent for the kingdom of God is near.” Jesus’ message had to do with a present reality. A gospel of pie-in-the-sky blessings having little or no bearing on present reality would have been incomprehensible Jesus’ Jewish audience. His message was a message concerning life, not death. It had significance for one’s life in the present, not simply for one’s afterlife. We must seriously reevaluate why our gospel seems to have so little connection to Jesus’ gospel.

A commitment to the gospel of the kingdom is a commitment worked out in this present life. It involves a commitment to peace, acceptance, forbearance, and love. It rejects the use of violent force against human beings – either friend or enemy – as a means of righteous vindication.[20] Like Christ, we are called to fight the real enemy – the cosmic powers of evil centered in Satan and his minions, not in human beings – through faithful works of love. We are called to love others, even our enemies. We are called to be peacemakers, people who bless rather than curse. This kingdom call is at the heart of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.[21]

The Christian community follows the “slain lamb” who has conquered through the power of love. The fallen powers of this world – including violence,[22] hatred, racism, and arrogance – are doomed, having no real substance, being unable to ultimately stand before the power of self-giving love. Because of this, we are never to return evil with evil, but rather, to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21). By following our Master in sacrificial suffering and works of service to others, both friend and foe, we demonstrate the power of the cross – the power of the kingdom, the power of the Spirit – to the fallen powers. In this way, the kingdom is present in our midst, bringing light to a dark world, inviting people to join the peaceful revolution by following the way of the cross for the love of God and the good of the world.

© Richard J. Vincent, 2003