Vintage21 Church

bredelings · Joined: 18 Mar 2008 Posts: 20 Location: Raleigh

I've been thinking about the "kingdom of God", and how we relate to it. I've heard that we should "live in the kingdom" and that we should "build the kingdom". Is one of these optional? How might they work together? I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, and get a discussion going.

Eric Butler · Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 49

dallasblue · Joined: 27 Mar 2008 Posts: 2 Location: Downtown Raleigh

Mark 1:14-15 tells us:

Rob Davis · Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 85 Location: Raleigh, NC

Eric Butler · Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 49

So let's continue this Old Kingdom/New Kingdom idea (the Davisian model, not the Egyptian).

The Old Kingdom (Israel, Israel and Judah):

1) Land. The Promised Land, and people. A geopolitical entity.

2) A King. The Messianic promises are not a restoration of the tribal existence depicted in Judges, but of the Davidic Kingship. The King, if all was working correctly, led the nation, defended the nation, and expanded the nation.

3) A covenant. The Law, in this case, which specified how the Kingdom was God's, and what the duties of the people to retain the blessings of that relationship were.

4) Priests, who mediated the covenant, and, ideally, kept the people on the right side of things.

The New Kingdom, proclaimed by Christ, is, I believe, a replacement Israel.

John the Baptist is engaging in some sort of "Israel-within-Israel" business. (A model that hearkens back both to Scripture, with its talk of remnants that remain and to recent [to John] history and theology, which showed numerous groups claiming this status - the Essenes and the "righteous ones" who fought with the Maccabees being among the more prominent.) First, John is warning of judgment on Israel, and providing a way out. That alone suggests that he believes in some sort of Israel-within-Israel concept, in which the larger Israel (defined by Abrahamic descent through Isaac) is not safe from God's wrath. Second, the method of entry into this safe community is baptism in the Jordan. Baptism is a ritual that marks entry into Jewish society from non-Jewish society, and symbolizes the cleansing of non-Jewish ways from a person. This, again, argues for a true Israel that one enters from the larger Israel, whose evil ways one must be cleansed of. Additionally, the Jordan is the entry point for the Promised Land, and so one cleanses oneself of the old ways and joins this new community by re-playing the entry into the Promised Land. We know that at least one Messianic pretender used the symbolism of the Jordan in a similar way (he claimed that he and his followers would literally re-enact the crossing of the Jordan depicted in Joshua 3, complete with the waters splitting before them), which suggests that it would be a clearly read symbol to 1st century Jews.

Jesus, then, is baptized not to cleanse his sin (which is nonexistent, and is a later model of baptism, anyway) but to confirm this Israel-within-Israel (and John's message overall) and enter into it. Of course, he enters into it as King and God, and continues this by calling twelve disciples, representationally making him God Who calls twelve tribes to be His people.

So, the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus is the New Kingdom the replaces Israel. It has:

1) People. No land (or, maybe, all land), and no ethnic restrictions on these people. All people are potential subjects, and all people are held to the covenant (the covenant having both blessings and curses, as per the first).

2) A King. This being Jesus, who leads the Kingdom, defends the Kingdom, and expands the Kingdom. Jesus' frequent clashes with demonic powers are part of this.

3) A covenant, the New Covenant, which, as before, relates the people to God.

4) A priesthood of all believers, who all are responsible for mediating this covenant.

Rob Davis · Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 85 Location: Raleigh, NC

Hao · Joined: 29 Feb 2008 Posts: 26

Rob Davis · Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 85 Location: Raleigh, NC

I know this is Wikipedia, but it does have some helpful info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikvah
_________________
http://v21missionality.wordpress.com

Rob Davis · Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 85 Location: Raleigh, NC

I've been looking into the Jewish Mikveh, and then re-reading the accounts of Jesus' own baptism. It seems that even modern Jewish scholars admit that in the Hebrew Bible there is no specific reference to baptism for conversion, but rather as a symbol of cleansing for various reasons. The conversion aspect came into being through tradition over time, and has remained to this day in different forms.

But, there are some differences I'm noticing between what the tradition required and John's practice:

1. John was baptizing in the Jordan, rather than in the Temple. I don't know what the significance of this is, but tradition has this being done in the Temple.

2. It doesn't seem to be that John was baptizing for "conversion" per say, but rather for the same cleansing aspect. It says they were "confessing their sins," that he was baptizing "for the forgiveness of sins."

Obviously the cleansing aspect was something that had to continually be repeated for Jewish individuals, but the greater baptism would be a once-and-for-all event.

3. John says "I baptize you with water for repentance... but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." So, John is implying that another baptism will be required for those receiving his baptism - a baptism of conversion, not just cleansing.

In John saying "I need to be baptized by you," it seems he was referring to the Spirit baptism from Jesus.

Then Jesus says, "it is fitting to fulfill all righteousness/justice." Somehow Jesus' baptism was a "fulfillment" of something. I think this could be pointing back to the Suffering Servant idea, that Jesus' baptism was representative of his life of suffering/sacrifice/substitution.

4. We also see that Jesus' baptism was the confirmation of the role as Israel's true King ("Son").

5. In John's gospel, we see the priests sent from the Pharisees telling John that he basically has no authority to be baptizing anyone (obviously based on Jewish tradition).

Luke lays out the prophecy about John from John's father, which rehearses the Jewish story of redemption, then points forward to the ultimate salvation/restoration/redemption, the forgiveness of sins (which includes concrete deliverance from evil/oppression).
_________________
http://v21missionality.wordpress.com

Eric Butler · Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 49

Eric Butler · Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 49

Eric Butler · Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 49

In fact, let me expand on this part of the case a bit more. I've been thinking about it and I think that I can demonstrate that baptism served as the entrance into an Israel-within-Israel community that John was establishing without requiring any a priori knowledge about baptismal practices beyond the purification rituals in the Law (if that).

First, let us establish that John was creating an Israel-within-Israel.

The idea of a true Israel within a larger ethnic Israel (or even a true Israel that only overlapped with parts of ethnic Israel) is a theme that appears multiple times within the Old Testament.

Examples:

1) Noah and Abraham demonstrate the idea that some are selected out of a greater whole, which is ignored (Abraham) or cast aside (Noah).

2) Genesis 21:8-21 describes how the two sons of the Abrahamic covenant (Ishmael and Isaac) are both party to that covenant, but only one becomes part of the continuing story of God's people. Jacob and Esau provide another example of this idea - specifically based, in this case, on their characters. Esau loses his inheritance of the patriarchy because he doesn't really care - much as Jacob is depicted as tricking Esau in common thought it would appear that Esau is simply bad at prioritizing. He's tired from working in the fields, he's not really starving. He'd just rather get what he wants now and ignore the future.

3) The culling of the Israelites in the desert continues this theme. Numbers 14:26-35 describes God rejecting the older Israelites with two exceptions (the two faithful ones) and passing the promise on to their children.

4) 1 Kings 19:17-18 is the first really clear example: here God threatens destruction on Israel, except for a group of 7,000 who remain faithful.

5) The prophets also talk about a remnant that will survive God's wrath. There are too many examples to list, but to give some idea of the scope:

Isaiah (10:20-21):
"In that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no more lean on him who struck them, but will lean on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God."

Jeremiah (23:2-4):
"Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: "You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD. Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the LORD."

Micah (5:7-8 ):
"Then the remnant of Jacob shall be
in the midst of many peoples
like dew from the LORD,
like showers on the grass,
which delay not for a man
nor wait for the children of man.
And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations,
in the midst of many peoples,
like a lion among the beasts of the forest,
like a young lion among the flocks of sheep,
which, when it goes through, treads down
and tears in pieces, and there is none to deliver."

6) Post-exilic Jews frequently refer to themselves as a remnant.

2 Chronicles 30:6-7 describes a message using this term for the remnant of the northern tribes destroyed by the Assyrians:
"So couriers went throughout all Israel and Judah with letters from the king and his princes, as the king had commanded, saying, "O people of Israel, return to the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, that he may turn again to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria. Do not be like your fathers and your brothers, who were faithless to the LORD God of their fathers, so that he made them a desolation, as you see.'

Ezra 9:7-8 depicts the events of the Exile and return in this way:
"From the days of our fathers to this day we have been in great guilt. And for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been given into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plundering, and to utter shame, as it is today. But now for a brief moment favor has been shown by the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant and to give us a secure hold within his holy place, that our God may brighten our eyes and grant us a little reviving in our slavery."

Haggai 1:12 describes those who returned to Israel's land as a remnant: "Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of the LORD their God, and the words of Haggai the prophet, as the LORD their God had sent him."

This clearly establishes the idea that God's covenant may be with Abraham's descendants, but that it nowhere says that it is with all of them. Instead, God repeatedly judges most of Israel (and act that often obliterates, not chastises, them) and reserves for Himself a true Israel within the larger group which continues as heir to the promise.

This theme is further reinforced by the events of the 160's BC, in which a group of faithful Jews rebels against their Selucid rulers, succeeds, and founds the first independent Jewish kingdom in four centuries. This is seen (as the book of 2 Maccabees makes clear with its spiritual interpretation of the events) as God restoring His promises to the faithful. These same faithful Jews are also engaged in campaigns against the Hellenized Jews, which would be, by extension, God's judgment.

We know that the Essenes picked up this theme in the first century. The texts at Qumran include the Old Testament, but also numerous "interpretations" of these texts which establish that the Day of the Lord will come and that God will find that the only true Israelites left are the Essenes, who will be saved while God destroys everyone else.

This is not a particularly uncommon theme in intertestamentary apocalyptic literature, if I remember correctly.

John has clearly attached himself to this idea.

His statements in Matthew 3:7-11 establish his views rather directly.

"You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

"I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

This passage is directed to the Pharisees and Sadducees, which establishes, first, that John does not believe that all Israel is faithful to God. The comment, "And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham," is especially telling, as it shows that John is using the ideas we have previous discussed - that being an Israelite is no defense against God, and that God is perfectly happy to use other criteria to select heirs to His promises.

The two direct mentions of repentance reinforce this. If those who are supposed to be holy need to repent then they are clearly in danger of judgment (and it is always important to remember that the covenant is blessing and curse - breaking the covenant with God brings about disaster that is in some ways worse than simply not being in the covenant). Secondly, this establishes what one must do to be safe - that is, to be a member of this new community that enjoys God's favor. Repent. John's teaching elsewhere (Luke 3:10-14) establishes what, exactly, one is repenting of and turning to. Notably, the major criteria outlined in that passage appears to be charity, not Law, which again breaks with the perceptions of ethnic Israel.

Finally, John anticipates one who comes after him and will enact judgment and blessing. To whatever extent John thinks of his followers as a distinct community (and John does have his own disciples [Matthew 9:14]) this would appear to be a community prepared for the Messiah.

Our second major point is much easier to establish: entrance into John's true Israel comes about through baptism.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all refer to John as "John the Baptist", which, to make my point clearer, I will render in an alternate translation as "John the Baptizer". John also affirms that John's major activity was baptizing. Messengers from the Pharisees ask him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" (John 1:25). This would indicate that John's baptizing was of note to the religious authorities. What's more, this emphasis on John as a baptizer exists outside of Christian sources. Josephus also mentions John, and says, "called the baptist/baptizer".

Therefore, John's major activity is baptizing. John's major theological concern is that Israel is in such a state that when the Messiah arrives (very soon) Israel will be judged. This alone should demonstrate that John views baptism as the solution to this problem, but we also have his own words to confirm it. In the passage quoted above John speaks of repentance as the key to avoiding judgment, and then refers to his baptism as "water for repentance".

Thirdly, this view makes sense out of some thorny theological issues.

The classic Christian question about Jesus' baptism is, "If baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, and is a sign of repentance, why did Jesus get baptized, since he was without sin?"

My answer would be that baptism was twofold: it was for repentance, but also for entrance into the community (both of which are attested to by Christian practice). This community for John may have been much looser than the early church, but it was certainly not looser than Jesus' early followers, composing a core group of disciples and then numerous people across the province whose contact with the leader had been a one-time event.

Jesus had no need to repent, but by being baptized he ratified John's message (that Israel was in need of repentance, and was in danger of judgment) and symbolically joined the true Israel that had marked themselves by receiving John's baptism.

John's objection to this procedure, then, is not a matter of sin, but more akin to the objections of a man who has been sent to recruit an army for a king and finds that the king would like to sign up for that army as well. John, I posit, has assumed that the Messiah would baptize him, thereby declaring his rulership over the true Israel that John has been establishing for him and firmly placing John into that Israel. Instead, Jesus insists that he should be baptized. If we return to my metaphor this makes sense - it may be symbol only for a king to sign recruitment papers, but it is a symbol of solidarity with the men who fight for him. Jesus, who as God joined the human race, takes this step of baptism for similar reasons. He is one of the true Israelites, which allows him both to lead by example and to atone for their sins.

What John doesn't know, of course, is that a voice from heaven will take care of establishing Jesus' position within this community as soon as he is baptized.

Therefore, I would suggest that the idea I have put forward (that baptism serves as the entrance into a community) has three things going for it. First, the concept of an Israel-within-Israel is firmly Biblical and part of first century Judaism. Second, John's own words and actions demonstrate that he agrees with this vein of theology and believes that baptism is linked to it. Finally, it provides resolution to a theological dilemma with greater explanatory power than other suggestions.