The Jesus of the Bible is defined by his teaching and his titles. He is firstly “King of the Jews.” This should alert us to one of the great hazards of Bible study: do not approach the Bible with the assumption that Jesus stood for and campaigned for all the ideals which you as one living in the 20th century hold dear. The Jesus of the Bible is the King of the Jews, the Messiah. He is also the Son of God, entitled to that description because of his supernatural creation in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:35).
Jesus came with a public message, a message from the God of Israel for whom he spoke as a prophet — in fact the ultimate prophet promised by the Hebrew Bible (see Deut. 18:15-18 and Acts 3:22; 7:37). Jesus came with a public announcement about what we as the human race need to believe and do, if we are to comply with the designs and intentions of the Creator, for us and the whole of the world. The Jesus of the Bible was interested in more than dying for the sins of the world, essential as that part of his mission was. Jesus’ overarching task was to preach the Gospel about the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is the comprehensive summary title of his whole work. To understand and respond to Jesus, we must understand his Kingdom message. Below we reprint from the celebrated Hastings Dictionary of the Bible the description of the Kingdom as reported by Matthew who documented the work of Jesus. The data gathered in the following article is not hard to understand. The learned Oxford Bible scholar who penned this summary deserves our thanks for his insightful work on the heart of the Gospel:
“The Kingdom — The central subject of Christ’s doctrine [Is it the central doctrine of today’s churches which claim to be representing Jesus?] was the near approach of the Kingdom of the Heavens. With this he began his ministry (4:17), and wherever he went he taught this as Good News [Gospel] [It is fair to ask ourselves: Is this true of me and my ministry?]. The Kingdom he taught was coming, but not in his lifetime. After his ascension he would come as Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (16:27-28; 19:28; 24:30), would send his angels to gather together his elect (24:31; 13:41) and would sit on the throne of his glory (16:27; 19:28; 25:31). This would happen immediately after the great tribulation accompanying the destruction of Jerusalem (24:29); but God alone knew the exact day and hour (24:36) [proving that Jesus, as God’s representative, was not God Himself, since he was not omniscient]. Then the twelve Apostles would sit on twelve thrones administering the twelve tribes of Israel (19:28).
“In the meantime he himself must suffer and die, and be raised from the dead. How else could he come upon the clouds of heaven? And his disciples [until his coming] were to preach the Good News [Gospel] of the coming Kingdom (10:7; 24:14) [Has anyone ever seen a contemporary tract where the gospel is defined in those terms?] among all nations making disciples by baptism (28:19). The body of disciples thus gained would naturally form a society bound by common aims (16:18; 18:17). They would be distinct from the existing Jewish society, because the Jews as a people, ‘the sons of the Kingdom,’ i.e., those who should have inherited the Kingdom [notice: not ‘gone to heaven’] (8:12) would definitely reject the Gospel (21:32, 42-43; 22:7). Hence the disciples of the Kingdom would form a new spiritual Israel (21:43, ‘a nation’) which would include many who came [at the return of Jesus on the clouds of heaven] from east and west [including the resurrected patriarchs].
“In view of the needs of this new Israel of Christ’s disciples, i.e., of the true sons of the Kingdom (13:38), who were to await his coming on the clouds of heaven, it is natural that a large part of the teaching recorded in the gospel should concern the qualifications required in those who hoped to enter the Kingdom when it came [notice: not ‘hoped to get to heaven when they died’]. They were still to live in allegiance to the revelation of God made in the Old Testament, which was permanently valid…but they were to search beneath the letter of the Law for its spiritual meaning. Their ‘righteousness was to exceed that of the Pharisees,’ because they were to interpret the Law of Moses in a sense which would make it more far-reaching in its effects upon conduct than ever before (5:21-48)….In relation to their fellow men they were to cultivate humility and to suppress self-assertiveness (18:1-14); to exercise forgiveness (7:1-5).”
0 comments:
Post a Comment