Chapter 8
THE TRADITION OF JESUS' RETURN
(First publication in October 1997; Minor revision in
March 2005)
The belief in the return of Jesus is an extremely early
belief, since it is found not only in many different sources such as Paul (1
Thess 1:10, 1 Cor 16:22 etc), Mark (14:25, 62 etc), Q (Matt. 23:37-39=Luke 13:34-35) and John (14:1-3, 16:16 etc) but
also found frequently and in many different forms. This chapter is concerned
with the question: How did the
belief in Jesus' return start so early? In addition, the chapter also outlines
the main ways in which the function and manner of Jesus’ return was seen by his
followers after his departure.
(A)
Explaining
the Belief in the Return
The belief is difficult to explain if we assume Jesus'
execution. One explanation runs as follows: Jesus emphatically taught that the End will follow his death almost
immediately with the coming of the Son of Man, whom Jesus did not identify with
himself. The primitive community, however, came to identify Jesus with the Son
of Man and therefore imminent coming of the Son of Man after the death of Jesus
became imminent return of Jesus. (Cf. C. K. Barrett, Jesus and the Gospel Tradition, 68ff.) Another somewhat similar
explanation is that Jesus talked not of the Son of Man but of the
kingdom of God or the day of the Lord. He taught that he would die
but the disciples will see the day of the Lord. After his death his disciples
identified Jesus with the Son of Man and the day of the Lord became the day of
Jesus. (Cf. W. G. Kummel, Promise and
Fulfilment, 64ff and G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future, London, 1954, 183ff.). But such explanations
leave some basic questions unanswered. Thus they do not answer the question: how did the disciples come to identify their dead
master with the Son of Man? One may try to answer the question by assuming that
the disciples believed Jesus to have risen and therefore no longer dead. But
this would only replace one difficulty by another, since starting with the
execution of Jesus the explanation of the belief in his resurrection has been
found as difficult as that of the belief in his return.
The belief in Jesus' return finds immediate and natural
explanation, if we start with his disappearance and not with his known
execution. As a natural explanation of his disappearance, Jesus was believed by
some to be living somewhere, either on earth or in heaven. This naturally led
them to believe that at a suitable time he will return to participate in or
bring about the kingdom that he talked so much about during his ministry.
The same explanation, of course, applies if we start
with Jesus' ascension after his resurrection from the dead instead of starting
with his disappearance. But there are two problems with an explanation on the
basis of the ascension after death and resurrection. First, resurrection itself requires explanation, which, as already
noted, is at least as difficult as the explanation of the belief in Jesus'
return. Second, the sequence
death-resurrection-ascension-return is never mentioned in the earliest
tradition and is the result of a development. In Mark Jesus three times
predicts that he will be killed and then rise after three days (which in Mark
may refer to resurrection and ascension as a composite event). But the
sequence is never completed with any mention of the return, as one should
expect if the death, resurrection/ascension and return were part of the
Christian tradition from the beginning. As for Q, it does not even mention the
death and resurrection much less bring them together with the return. Among the
gospels only Luke presents properly the sequence
death-resurrection-ascension-return and that too when we read his gospel
together with the Acts. As for Paul, he does make a reference in 1 Cor 15 to
the parousia or return of Jesus (v. 23) after first referring to his death and
resurrection (vv. 3-7). But while the reference to the death and resurrection
is part of what Paul received from tradition ("I handed over to you, among
the first things, that which I also received" (v. 3)), his reference to
the parousia is not part of the same received tradition but a separate one and
the two traditions are here coming together because of the particular concerns
that Paul is addressing. Likewise in 1 Thess 1:9-10 (where Paul tells his Gentile converts in Thessalonica "how
you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for
his Son whom he raised from the dead") and other similar passages, Paul is
not quoting earlier tradition but formulating his own summary of earlier
traditions that could originally be independent.
But while the earlier Christian tradition does not
connect Jesus' return with his death and resurrection, it often connects the
return with his disappearance or ascension:
You
shall not see me henceforth, till you shall say, Blessed is he who comes in the
name of the Lord (Q: Matt. 23:37-39=Luke 13:34-35).
Verily
I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day
when I drink it new in the kingdom of God (Mark 14:25=Matt. 26:29=Luke 22:18).
In my
Father's house there are many abodes; if it were not so, I would have told you;
for I go to prepare a place for you [or, if it were not so, would I have told
you that I go to prepare a place for you?]. And if I go and prepare a place for
you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, you may
be also (John 14:2-3).
It is
like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in
charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch
(Mark 13:34; see also Matt 24:45-51=Luke 12:42-46 (Q), Luke 12:36-38).
A
little while, and you see me no more; and again a little while, and you shall
see me (John 16:16).
[Two
angels say at Jesus' ascension:] This Jesus
who was received up from you into the heaven will come thus in the same manner
as you have beheld him going into the heaven (Acts 1:11).
In all the above passages, the return of Jesus is
mentioned together with his departure without any reference to the death and
resurrection. It is also significant that the belief in the return of Jesus was
probably first professed by some Palestinian community, one which spoke
Aramaic and not the Greek-speaking Hellenists of Jerusalem and that it is
precisely the Aramaic-speaking Jesus followers who rejected or had reservations
about the death of Jesus (see Chapters 2, 3, 5).
In view of Jesus' disappearance it would have been
easy enough for the disciples to come up with the belief in Jesus' return. But
in all probability they did not even had to make that easy connection
themselves. Some of the above sayings have as much claim to authenticity as any
in the gospels and therefore it is highly probable that Jesus himself made the
connection by telling his companions just before his disappearance that he
would soon return to participate in the kingdom of God.
Thus the belief in the return of Jesus originally
assumed the disappearance and not the death of Jesus. The belief in the death
of Jesus was an alternative explanation of the disappearance. The final
form of tradition is the result of a combination of the two beliefs. When Jesus
mysteriously disappeared under threat to his life, some believed that he had
gone into hiding or into heaven, from where he would return at a suitable time.
Others assumed that his enemies succeeded in putting him to death. The two
beliefs combined to produce a third belief, which was to prove very enduring: Jesus indeed died but he is now alive because he was
raised from the dead and will return at some time in the future. This final
form then finds expression in the Apostles’ Creed, which in its present form is
dated to c. 700, but probably existed in the second century. In its most
primitive form the Creed included the following:
I believe in Jesus Christ … who … was crucified, died,
and was buried …. On the third day he
rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the
Father, and he will come again ….
Starting with the disappearance of Jesus we can not
only better understand the belief in his return but also the belief that this
return must take place within the lifetime of the first generation of
Christians (Mark 9:1 etc) as well
as the difficulty faced in the early church in coming to terms with the death
of some of its members (1 Thess 4:13-18). The
return of a leader who is in hiding or in exile is naturally expected to take
place in his lifetime and therefore in the lifetime of some of his
contemporaries. This together with the fact that the pious Jews often hoped to
see the kingdom of God come during their lifetime (see below) adequately explains why the
early Jesus followers expected his return to take place within their lifetime.
Also, since the belief in Jesus' return started with the understanding that he
was alive, many of his followers naturally thought that, like him, they too
will not die and expected themselves to be alive when his kingdom will be
established. This attitude continued in most churches that accepted the belief
in Jesus' return, so that when some of their members began to die, the living
needed to be taught, or reminded of, the belief in the eschatological
resurrection of the dead. Had the belief in Jesus' return and messiahship been
founded from the very beginning on the assumption of his death and resurrection
the believers would have also from the beginning thought in terms of the
possibility of their own death and the certainty of their subsequent resurrection
and Paul would have had no need to remind them of that possibility.
THE
BELIEFS IN THE RETURN OF SOME OTHER FIGURES
The explanation of the belief in Jesus' return in
terms of his disappearance is not only inherently plausible but is also supported
by the beliefs in the return of some other figures. Usually such beliefs
develop in case of figures who are believed not to have died but to be living
somewhere either on earth or in heaven.
In Judaism the figure that is most often believed to
return is that of Elijah and he is also the figure who is believed not to have
ever died. Moses is also sometimes believed to return. But this belief is
relatively late and not well established, being nowhere found in the Old
Testament. Outside the Old Testament the belief seems to be created by the fact
that the grave of Moses was not known, leading to speculations about his
assumption into heaven, which in turn led to a belief about his return. The
example of Moses may suggest that the belief in the return of a figure can
arise even when his death is taken for granted. But considering that the belief
in Moses’ return could not get established like that of Elijah one can with
equal justification argue that when the death of a figure is taken for granted
the belief in his return has difficulty getting established.
We do not have much certain knowledge about the
history of the earliest tradition about Elijah and Moses. But we have examples
of two other figures whose return has been expected and who are more in the
light of history: The Roman
emperor Nero and the twelfth Shi‘i
Imam, Muhammad bin Hasan al-Askari.
According to Suetonius, when it became clear to Nero
that he could no longer hold on to power, he considered three options: suicide, fleeing to Parthia and throwing himself upon the mercy of Galba or
appealing to the Roman people, beseeching them for the
prefecture of Egypt. He finally opted for suicide. But he killed himself
outside the city of Rome and the
circumstances of his death were not widely known at the time (Nero, 47-49). As a result the belief
developed that he was alive and would soon return in an attempt to regain
power. In the Book of Revelation the beast mentioned in 17:8 is probably the emperor Nero who is expected to
return as the anti-Christ. The description of the beast as one who "was,
is not and is to come" suggests a return from the dead but this is not how
the belief in the return of Nero arose. Commenting on the expectation in
Revelation, Yarbro Collins says:
“The earlier Greek and Latin authors did not suggest
that Nero would return from the dead; rather, they believed that he had not
died at all but was in hiding somewhere, preparing to return to Rome and seize
power again; from Dio Chrisostom (Discourses
21:10) we learn that this belief
was still held even as late as the time of Trajan. If we are to rely on
extra-Biblical evidence and not read ideas into the Apocalypse, it would appear
that the view that Nero would actually return from the dead is of later origin,
from the period following the death of Trajan, when Nero would have been close
to 80 years old and could no longer easily be believed to be still alive.”
(Yarbro Collins, Combat Myth, p.
176).
The twelfth Imam in Shi‘i Islam is said to be concealed from childhood by his father Hasan
al-Askari and after the latter's death in 874 C.E. remained in concealment.
Some other people called safirs spoke on his behalf and guided the
community until 941 C.E. when no further direct contact with him was claimed.
At that point he was believed to have gone into occultation (ghayba); some believed that he was
hiding somewhere on earth while others believed that he had gone to heaven. At
the same time he was believed to return to establish truth and justice on
earth, a belief that still defines the largest Shi‘i sect in Islam, the ithna
'ashari sect (Jassim M. Hussain, The
Occultation of the Twelfth Imam, pp. 156-157). Although in many ways the
twelfth Shi‘i Imam is shrouded in
mystery, there is enough reliable information about him to make it clear that the
belief in his return is closely connected with the belief that he did not die
at all, this latter belief probably developing because the circumstances of his
death were hidden from all but a few who chose to be his spokesmen.
From the above examples it is clear that the belief in
the return of a figure originates with his disappearance under ambiguous
circumstances which lead some to believe that he is alive. Once the belief is
created it is capable of surviving any subsequent reports of the death of the
figure. The beliefs in the death and the return may then either exist side by
side with some people preferring one over the other, or they may be reconciled
by the belief in the figure's resurrection, as in case of Nero and Jesus.
(B)
The
Kingdom of God and the Salvation it Brings
Belief in the return of Jesus naturally gave rise to
extensive traditions dealing with questions such as: What function will he perform upon his return? When and how will he return?
Traditions give different answers to such questions, especially the first one.
These answers depend mainly on the view assumed of the
kingdom of God and the salvation it brings.
Our primary sources, Q, Thomas, James, Paul and Mark,
assume two different types of views of kingdom of God and salvation: gnostic and futuristic, which are sometimes combined as in some later
letters of Paul. The futuristic view, found in Q, James, Paul, and Mark,
sees salvation in the future. It is expressed in terms of two ages, the present
age, often viewed as evil and full of suffering and a future age of salvation.
Also, in this view the salvation is primarily a national or collective event
which is brought about either by God directly or by some figure empowered by
him. The futuristic view has strong roots in Jewish nationalism and often uses
apocalyptic ideas borrowed from the Persian religious tradition.
The gnostic view, found in Thomas and Paul, and
later in a much more developed form in John, sees salvation as a present
possibility and as something that happens primarily to the individual. It is
expressed in terms of two modes of existence, one of darkness and the other of
light. The two modes are associated with two worlds -- this world which is
covered in darkness and another world of light. Also, salvation is brought by a
revealer who descends from the heavenly world of light, awakens some chosen
ones from sleep or "death", and then ascends to where he came from.
(See the next chapter for more details about the two systems.)
Which of the two types of views of salvation is the
earlier? What was Jesus' own view? Since most of our primary sources contain the
futuristic view, one may conclude, as many scholars have concluded since the
appearance of Albert Schweitzer's book, The
Quest of the Historical Jesus, that this view represents the earliest view
and comes from Jesus himself. But an approach better than simply counting the
number of sources or traditions containing a view is to compare sources and see
what common material lies behind them. This should allow us to reach the
earliest traditions and Jesus’ own view with greater confidence. Such a
comparison proves to be particularly interesting in case of Q and Thomas.
More than a quarter of the 114 sayings in Thomas (sayings 6b, 16, 21b, 26, 33a, 33b, 34, 36,
39a, 44, 45, 46, 47a, 54, 55, 64, 68, 69b, 73, 76b, 78, 86, 89, 91(?), 92a, 94,
95(?), 96, 101, 103, 106b(?), 107) have
parallels in Q. This common part consists mostly of wisdom sayings. It does not
identify Jesus as an eschatological figure and does not contain any reference
to futuristic kingdom of
God. It includes references to the kingdom of God, e.g.,
Thomas, logion 54 = Q, Matt 5:3 = Luke 6:20 (blessing for the poor who have the kingdom of heaven) and Thomas, logion 96 = Q, Matt 13:33 = Luke 13:20-21 (the
parable of the leavened bread) but the
kingdom of God in these references is not necessarily futuristic.
If Thomas and Q are independent, as appears from the
fact that some sayings are preserved in a more primitive form in Thomas while
others appear more primitive in Q, then the material common to them would be
earlier than both and therefore very early, since most of Q may be dated to
about 50 C.E.Some of Paul’s letters were written around the same time, but Paul
is not a reliable witness of the early Palestinian tradition (see Ch. 11). One
may conclude that very early Palestinian tradition did not have any apocalyptic
or some other type of futuristic eschatology and presented Jesus primarily as a
teacher of wisdom; moreover, in doing so, it was true to the historical Jesus,
as has been concluded, for example, by Koester ("Gnomai Diaphoroi") and Mack ("Lord of
the Logia: Savior or Sage?" and The Lost Gospel, pp. 37-38). Mack further suggests that Jesus' wisdom was akin
not so much to the Jewish type found in the Book of Proverbs as to the Greek
type found in the Cynic tradition of philosophy. This latter type of wisdom did
not recommend principles needed for "well-being either in a conventional
society or in a well-defined subcultural group." It did not "intend
an elucidation of the way the world works in order to recommend fitting
attitudes and behavior." Rather, it was "decidedly aphoristic,
delighting in extreme cases, and in imagery that was more pungent and evocative
than observational and instructive." Cynic tradition experimented with
counterculture rather than created subculture. It called for the individual to
live against the stream, for unconventional behavior which included
"disentanglement from one's family, voluntary homelessness, eschewing
normal standards of cleanliness, simple attire, and unashamed begging."
The Cynic believed himself to be living "according to nature" as
opposed to the prevailing social order. He practised parresia, a bold, outspoken manner of social critique, which
expressed what was embarrassing and often covered by pretensions. (The Lost Gospel, pp. 45-46).
The view that Jesus was a teacher of wisdom is
supported not only by the material common to Thomas and Q but also by two other
observations:
a) Q
explicitly presents Jesus as a messenger of Wisdom. In one saying preserved in
Luke in a more original form, Jesus, referring to John and himself, says: "Yet Wisdom is justified by all her
children" (Luke 7:35 = Matt 11:19), meaning that he and the Baptist were children of
Wisdom and as such its servants or messengers. In another Q passage, again
preserved by Luke more faithfully, the Wisdom of God is actually quoted (Luke 11:49-51=Matt 23:34-36).
b) Kloppenborg
has identified in Q three layers: Q1,
Q2, and Q3. The earliest layer, Q1, consists
of wisdom sayings.
The above evidence is impressive but for the following
reasons it is not sufficient to lead to the conclusions that scholars like
Mack, Koester, and Kloppenborg have drawn from it:
First, the material common to Thomas and Q may not be limited only to the
material common to all of the three gospels, Matthew, Luke and Thomas. [Here we
think of Q as a document used by Matthew and Luke and not simply the material
common to the two gospels.] It is possible that some of the Q material in
Thomas was not reproduced by one or both of the two canonical evangelists,
Matthew and Luke. Thus logion 57 which talks of the future judgement has a
parallel in Matthew (13:24-30) but not in Luke. It is possible that for some
reason Luke failed to include it in his gospel. Similarly, logion 113, which
talks of the kingdom of
God being already spread on earth has a parallel in Luke
(17:20) but not in Matthew. Again, it is possible that the saying may have
been in Q but Matthew failed to reproduce it. Thus both sayings may have been
in Q, in which case the material common to Thomas and Q talked about both a
future kingdom of God and a present one. It is also a distinct possibility that some of the Q
sayings known to Thomas were not included in the final form of that gospel.
Thus logion 6 rejects the necessity of prayer and this may be a reason that
Thomas did not include the Lord's prayer (Matt 6:9-13=Luke 11:2-4), which
clearly expects a kingdom of
God in the future. Moreover, in some cases the Q version
assumes a futuristic eschatology while the Thomas version assumes a
gnostic-type soteriology and it is not certain which, if any of the two is the
original (cf. sayings 46, 78 with Luke 7:24-28 = Matt 11:7-11).
Second, Kloppenborg's reconstruction of the earliest layer behind Q is subject
to the usual doubts. Certain parts of Q do seem to be late, as for example, the
saying which refers to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar
and the sanctuary (Luke 11:4). But the
same cannot be said with equal confidence for many other parts that Kloppenborg
excludes from the earliest layer. Kloppenborg's reconstruction assumes a degree
of coherence for the original layer which is not fully justified. If Q
originated as a collection of sayings of Jesus and/or of leaders in a Jesus
group, it must have consisted of sayings spoken at different times, in which
case there is no reason why it could not have seams of the type that
Kloppenborg uses for separating different layers of tradition. Also, Q is a
Galilean production and it is very plausible that Galileans did not adopt a
"pure" form of Cynic tradition but one combined with some Jewish
traditions, such as the apocalyptic tradition. It is quite understandable why
apocalyptic tradition and the Cynic tradition would attract each other.
Apocalyptic tradition rejected the present world order and Cynic tradition
provided a life style that expressed this rejection in the period between the
present time and the future end of the world. Thus it is quite possible that Q
arose out of a way of thinking in which wisdom teaching of the Cynic type and
apocalyptic tradition had already been combined, and not, as Mack suggests,
that one tradition entered Q before the other. This is supported by the fact
that a combination of wisdom teaching and a futuristic eschatology is also
found in James, another very early Christian document (see Ch. 2). This epistle
essentially belongs to wisdom literature (John Reumann, Variety and Unity in New Testament Thought, 195-198). But it also
contains the expectation of a future but imminent coming of God and his
judgement (James 5:8-9). Like
Thomas, James also has contact with the Q tradition. There are several
parallels between the ideas or statements in James and the sayings of Jesus in
the gospels. Most of these parallels are found in Q (compare, e.g., James 1:4, 5, 17, 22-25, 2:5, 10, 4:12, 5:1-3, 10-11 with Matt 5:48, 7:7, 11, 24-27, 5:18-19, 7:1, 6:19, 5:12=Luke 6:36, 11:9, 13, 6:47-49, 16:17, 6:37, 12:33, 6:23). Thomas tradition also has some
remote contact with the James tradition, as is shown by logion 12 where Jesus
tells the disciples that after he is gone they are to go to James for whose
sake the heavens and earth were created. The expectation of a future coming of
(the kingdom of) God and teaching of wisdom, common to Q, James and, to a
lesser degree, Thomas are held together by the idea that the righteousness
and/or knowledge needed to enter the kingdom of God is partly or entirely
obtained through some special wisdom which is imparted by Jesus or a teacher in
his movement. That wisdom mythology and apocalyptic tradition had been combined
independently of Q seems to be admitted by Mack when he says: "Wisdom mythology also occurs in apocalyptic texts.
In this literature, wisdom did once reside in Jerusalem, but then she fled from the evil and violence that
destroyed its glory. Now she waits in heaven for the judgments that must fall,
ready to return as the water of life for a parched earth in need of
regeneration." (The Lost Gospel,
p. 151). It is also significant to note that even Q1 may contain
references to the future kingdom of
God. Thus in Luke 10:9, which is included by Kloppenborg in Q1, the missionary is
instructed: "cure the sick who are there
and say to them, 'The kingdom of
God has come near to you'." Also, in Lord's prayer,
which has the closest parallels to Jewish prayers and not to Cynic tradition
and which is also part of Q1, there is expectation of the future
kingdom of God of a Jewish type. Mack's attempt to explain these
references in terms of Cynic tradition (The
Lost Gospel, pp. 125-127) is hardly convincing.
Third, it needs to be noted that we cannot base our conclusions about Jesus
entirely on the material common to Thomas and Q or on our reconstruction of the
earliest layer of tradition in Q, since we do not know enough about how such
sets of material arose and how much of Jesus' teaching they represented. The
material common to Thomas and Q and the reconstructed set of traditions Q1
are no doubt very early. But in the Jesus tradition "very early" does
not mean "faithful to history". At the very least even the earliest
traditions can represent only one aspect of Jesus' teaching, since there were
very few people who heard all what Jesus said. Indeed, had Jesus talked only in
terms of the present kingdom of
God and only as a teacher of wisdom, the widespread and
very early presence of the expectation of a future age of salvation would be
difficult to understand.
AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION
An alternative explanation of the data is that Jesus'
teaching about the kingdom of
God was such that it had the potential, if not elements,
for the development of both the futuristic and gnostic interpretations. But
what was such a teaching?
It seems Jesus thought in terms of two kingdoms: the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God. At present the two kingdoms coexist but soon Satan
will be destroyed and the kingdom of
God will be all in all (Matt 13:24-30=Thomas
57; Q: Matt 12:28 = Luke 11:20;
Q: Matt 12:27-28 = Luke 11:19-20;
Mark 3:20-30, cf. 3:27
with Thomas 35, 98; Luke 10:18-19). The apocalyptic tradition can also talk of the
kingdom of God and of the Satan, as in the following passage from
the Assumption of Moses (first or second century C.E.):
Then
shall his kingdom appear throughout all his creation,
And
then Satan shall be no more,
And sorrow shall depart with him (The Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol 2, pp. 407-424).
But, in apocalyptic tradition "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of Satan" are not typical expressions and to the extent
that the two kingdoms are implicit in that tradition, they are viewed as
following one another in a strict temporal sequence, so that the focus is on
two ages and not on two kingdoms. "The Most High has made not one age but
two" (4 Ezra 7:50).
Jesus, however, does not seem to think in terms of two
ages. The concept of two ages is not attributed to him in Q. It is found in
Mark 10:30 only in secondary additions
to an earlier saying (see next chapter). Elsewhere in Mark we have only the
expression "unto the age" which is used for "never" without
an eschatological context. Thus Mark 3:29 says that there will be no forgiveness to those who
blaspheme against the Holy Spirit "unto the age," that is,
"never." Likewise, when in
Mark 11:14 Jesus curses the fig tree,
saying that it may not bear fruit "unto the age," the meaning is
again "never" without any apocalyptic context. The two ages are
assumed in Matt 13:39-30, 49 and
in Luke 16:8 but they are clearly mentioned
only in Luke 20:34-35 which is
evidently a Lukan version of what is formulated without reference to the two
ages in Mark 12:25 (no
marriages after the resurrection because the resurrected will be like angels).
Of course, Jesus' teaching is not inconsistent with the concept of two ages,
since the future manifestation of the kingdom of God brings an essentially new age (Mark 12:25). However, there is an
important difference between Jesus and the Jewish apocalyptic idea of two ages: for Jesus the distinction between the two ages is not
as sharp as in the apocalyptic eschatology. Jesus is not pessimistic about this
age. He may talk of this evil and adulterous generation but not of this evil
and adulterous age. It is in this age that he performs exorcisms showing that it
is worthwhile to inflict defeats on Satan even in this age.
Some further clarification of Jesus' view of the
kingdom of God may be obtained by comparing the
kingdom of God in the sayings of Jesus and in the Book of Daniel,
the single most influential apocalyptic work in Judaism. In Daniel God is
viewed as the King of heaven who completely controls the kingdoms on earth (4:37). God's kingdom is ever present
and manifests itself in God's power to replace one ruler by another as he
wishes and in signs and wonders such as rescuing Daniel from the lions:
His
kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his sovereignty is from generation to
generation (4:3).
...
the Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of mortals; he gives it to whom he
will and sets over it the lowliest of human beings (4:17).
He
delivers and rescues, he works signs and wonders in heaven and on earth; for he
has saved Daniel from the power of lions (6:27).
In these passages the kingdom of God is a present, transcendental reality. Daniel also
talks of a future, everlasting kingdom but not of God:
And
in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall
never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush
all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever (2:44).
This future, everlasting, kingdom is talked about
again in the famous vision of 7:13-14:
I saw
one like a son of man ... To him was given dominion and glory and kingship that
all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an
everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that
shall never be destroyed.
This future kingdom is none other than the everlasting
Jewish kingdom ruling the world which is expected in different forms in the Old
Testament and elsewhere in Jewish writings. To the extent that this kingdom is
everlasting it is a reflection of the eternal kingdom of God but in Daniel it is not identified with the
kingdom of God. Indeed, at one level it stands in the same relation
to God's kingdom as the mortal kingdoms: it is God who establishes it, for, it is God who gives one like a son
of man dominion and kingdom just as he gives mortal kingdoms to whom he wishes.
The establishment of the everlasting Jewish kingdom is another manifestation of
the power that God exercises as King of heaven over the kingdoms on earth.
The view of the kingdom of God in the sayings of Jesus differs from Daniel's view in
two important ways.
1) In
Daniel the kingdom of God is manifested at the present time primarily in what happens to the
mortal kingdoms -- their destruction and replacement by other equally mortal
kingdoms. Even when the Book of Daniel talks of the deliverance of Daniel as an
individual (6:27), it presents this deliverance as a sign for the
nations and their kingdoms to recognize the sovereignty of the God of Daniel (6:25-26). In Jesus' sayings, the