I have recently read two claims that are almost identical: Jesus spoke of the kingdom over one hundred times and the church only two or three times (one source said two, and one said three).
This was used to argue that the church should be about the kingdom work, ostensibly because Jesus was about kingdom work.
Now both of these sources are big on contextualization. And I think they have both missed the point.
Here’s my point: The reason Jesus spoke of the kingdom more than one hundred times and the church only a couple was precisely because of contextualization. He was preaching a message to the audience that was in front of him—an audience of people of the Jewish nation to whom the kingdom had been promised. Therefore he contextualized his message for the culture (Jewish) and the people (Jews) that were in front of him listening to him. He was not preaching to the church or preaching about the church. So why would Jesus mention the church to people for whom the church meant nothing (because it did not yet exist)?
He wouldn’t.
So counting the number of times Jesus spoke of the kingdom vs. the church does not help our eschatology or our ecclesiology unless we contextualize the message.
It would be more helpful, in my view, to look at how Acts and the Epistles deal with the kingdom and the church. One source points out that Paul spoke of the church forty-five times (a number certainly way below the actual count) and the kingdom only fourteen. And we have to get past word counts and look at contexts and how the two are presented.
I think that will give us a different picture of the issue at hand, and will be more helpful to us in our question to understand ecclesiology.
12 comments:
Good point, Larry.
>"He was not preaching to the church or preaching about the church. So, why would Jesus mention the church to people for whom the church meant nothing (because it did not yet exist)?"
Wow. Really? The church did not exist? What were Mary, Joseph, the apostles, and other believers to whom Jesus was speaking in the gospels a part of?
>"It would be more helpful, in my view, to look at how Acts and the Epistles deal with the kingdom and the church."
This sounds like a type of radical dispensational hermeneutic that I haven't encountered for a long time. Are you claiming that the gospels and epistles have fundamentally different messages? Are you claiming that we ought to focus on the epistles over the gospels because the gospels are for Israel/Kingdom/Millenium while the epistles are for the church in the great parenthesis?
Surely, I am once again misunderstanding you.
Keith
Wow. Really? The church did not exist?
Yes, really. The church is formed by Spirit baptism and that was still future in the gospels (at least if you trust John the Baptist, who was a Baptist and an OT guy at that ... just ribbing you a bit there).
What were Mary, Joseph, the apostles, and other believers to whom Jesus was speaking in the gospels a part of?
They were regenerate followers of God.
Are you claiming that the gospels and epistles have fundamentally different messages?
Of course. I don't think that is particularly radical or strange. I think many recognize this in some way, even among the non-dispesationalists.
Are you claiming that we ought to focus on the epistles over the gospels because the gospels are for Israel/Kingdom/Millenium while the epistles are for the church in the great parenthesis?
No, the gospels were written to the church as were the epistles. I am, in fact, preaching through Mark (which I should be studying now rather than replying to this ...). And I wouldn't call the church "the great parenthesis." It was always the plan of God.
You and I have differed on this before, and I am sure we probably won't convinced each other this time.
Yet, I am preaching on Mark 1:14-15 and the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, so I will in fact be dealing with this very issue this week. Maybe I will convert you ...
"Yes, really. The church is formed by Spirit baptism and that was still future in the gospels."
Funny how Acts doesn't agree:
"This is that Moses, which . . . was in the church (eclesia) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai." (Acts 7:37, 38)
"They were regenerate followers of God."
Then, according to Romans, they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit (your mark of the church):
"If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ." (Romans 8:9)
"Of course [the gospels and epistles have fundamentally different messages]. I don't think that is particularly radical or strange."
Surely we are not communicating here. FUNDAMENTALLY different messages? Fundamentally, the Bible has one message. I'm not sure even how to interact here. There are no fundamentall differnces in the Bible -- only different aspects and perspectives on the one message.
"I am sure we probably won't convinced each other this time."
Probably right.
"Maybe I will convert you ..."
Probably not.
Peace.
Keith
I am not sure why you are quoting Acts 7:37-38. That there was an assembly in the wilderness has never been disputed. But it cannot, by definition, be the church.
The NT church was formed by Spirit baptism (remember John said it was still future). So assuming John was preaching around 27 AD (something I think most agree on), Spirit baptism was at least after 27 AD which means that the people in the wilderness with Moses could not have been Spirit baptized and therefore could not have been in the one body, the body of Christ.
Furthermore, the body of Christ can only be formed after his death and resurrection.
Surely you don't think that a word can only have one meaning every time it is used, do you? The word ekklesia in Acts 7 refers to the congregation in the wilderness, not the church per se.
Second, you say they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit (your mark of the church):
That's not my mark of the church. I never said anything about the indwelling of the Spirit. And Romans 8:9 would need some work to plug it into the OT because it is based on the death and resurrection of Jesus (vv. 3, 8). Now, I believe OT saints were regenerated and indwelt, but not because of Rom 8:9.
When I say "fundamentally different messages," I am referring to what the message was about. Jesus was calling Israel to repent and believe because the kingdom was at hand. Acts and the epistles do not make the call of repentance and belief based on the kingdom being at hand. By that time, they all knew the kingdom had passed for then, and it would come again in the future.
So I think we are perhaps using fundamentally differently.
Thanks again
"it cannot, by definition, be the church."
I'll agree that it cannot, by your stipulated definition, be the church. The argument, of course, is whether or not your stipulated definition is acurate. It is certainly not a definition held universally by Bible believing Christians.
"The NT church was formed by Spirit baptism"
According to who?
"remember John said it was still future"
I believe John said something was future, but I don't think it was the church. What reference are you citing?
"the body of Christ can only be formed after his death and resurrection."
Huh? So all those folks in Hebrews 11 aren't a part of Christ's body?
"Jesus was calling Israel to repent and believe because the kingdom was at hand. Acts and the epistles do not make the call of repentance and belief based on the kingdom being at hand. By that time, they all knew the kingdom had passed for then, and it would come again in the future."
Again, huh? So the kingdom was at hand but then it wasn't? The kingdom IS at hand . . . it IS within you. Jesus didn't say, the kingdom is at hand unless you crucify me in which case it will go away again for a long long time and then come back later. His crucifiction was necessary for the kingdom.
Keith
According to who?
According to God by the hand of Paul who said that we are in "one body [which is the church, right?] by Spirit baptism" (1 Cor 12:13). There it is clear that the body cannot exist without Spirit baptism. No one is in the body unless they have been baptized in the one Spirit.
I believe John said something was future, but I don't think it was the church. What reference are you citing?
No he didn't say it was the church. He said Spirit baptism was future: "I baptize with water but he will baptize with the Holy Spirit" (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). It is the same phrase Paul uses.
Huh? So all those folks in Hebrews 11 aren't a part of Christ's body?
Exegetically and theologically, no they are not. I know of no passage that says differently. Do you? I mean an actual passage of Scripture, not a systematic textbook. The assertion that OT believers are in the body of Christ is never supported by exegesis that I have seen. It is all based on an ecclesiology that fails in some major exegetical areas.
Again, huh? So the kingdom was at hand but then it wasn't?
Yes, this is what Jesus sayss. It is at hand, and "it will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it" (Matt 21:43). That is future. The "nation" producing the fruit of it is the nation of Israel when they accept the Messiah (cf. Zech 12:10; Rev 1:7).
The kingdom IS at hand . . . it IS within you.
It's not with in you. The throne of David isn't in your heart. The phrase you cite, that the kingdom is within you, is given in the context of Jesus talking to the Pharisees who rejected him. Even by your ideas, it would be incorrect to say that the kingdom was in those who rejected him. He was saying, "It is in your midst." IOW, you are living in kingdom times. Look around and see it.
His crucifiction was necessary for the kingdom.
I agree, which is why the kingdom didn't start during Jesus' earthly ministry, as some suggest.
Have you actually ever read someone like McClain?
"It is all based on an ecclesiology that fails in some major exegetical areas."
What fails exegetically is an ecclesiology that posits two separate peoples of God. A grafted branch is part of the vine. Through engrafting it is no longer a separate entity. We are all one in Christ Jesus.
"The throne of David isn't in your heart."
I didn't say anything about hearts.
"The "nation" producing the fruit of it is the nation of Israel when they accept the Messiah"
Actually, the people who will produce its fruit is (pick your favorite synonym) the church, Israel indeed, the people of faith, the elect. These people "will produce its fruit." Jesus didn't say that the kingdom will be given to those who, on their own, produce its fruit by accepting the messiah. He said that the kingdome will be give to others who then will produce its fruit.
Keith
The NT clearly distinguishes between Israel and the church, and never clearly equates them. That is a staggering problem for your position.
We are all one in Christ Jesus. That is called the church. That is not the nation of Israel, however, for whom the of God are still good.
With respect to hearts, when you said the kingdom is within you, I assumed you were using the standard language of hte kingdom of God in our hearts.
The people who produce the fruit are called an ethnos, a nation. And the church is precisely a place where nationalities no longer matter (Gal 3:26 since we are all one in Christ). The only place where that langauge is used of the church is 2 Peter 2:9, where Peter assembles for designations that show the church is the people of God just as Israel was. He doesn't equate them. The passage cannot bear that weight.
Israel won't "produce its fruit by accepting the Messiah." The New Covenant makes it clear that this is the work of God.
AGain, these are exegetical and theological issues, and while many hold your position with good conscience, for my conscience, you have to disregard the text way too often. I can't do that.
"That is not the nation of Israel, however, for whom the of God are still good."
I'm guessing you meant "for whom the promises of God are still good." Well, I don't think God made promises to a nation he made promises to people (ethnos if you will). All the previous ethnic groupings are meaningless to those of us who are in the new ethnos -- the church. And, of course, all of God's promises are good.
Well, to those of us who aren't dispensationalists, you guys turn the text into a pretzel way too often for our consciences.
Anyway, your blog, so I'll shut up.
Keith
Yes, I missed the word "promises." Thanks for catching that.
I can't imagine how one would argue that the OT promises to Israel were not made to a nation.
That previous ethnic groups are meaningless to use in the church is clear.
But if all of God's promises are good, then there has to be a future for the nation of Israel in line with (at least) 16 centuries of commitments that God made to a group of people (if you prefer that).
And no problem about commenting. I appreciate the interaction.
Thanks for the interaction.
Post a Comment