The kingdom of god

In the previous study it was revealed that the kingdom of god is contextually connected to the coming wrath, at least according to the gospel of Matthew.

What would that mean to a first century public?

In the first century Jewish thought, the idea had already been formed that there will be a coming Messianic kingdom.

Jesus’ teaching in Mark is apocalyptic: “The time has been fulfilled” (Mark 1.15) implies that this current evil age, seen on a time line, is almost over. The end is almost within sight. “The Kingdom of God is near” (Mark 1.15) means that God will soon intervene in this age and overthrow its wicked powers and the kingdoms they support, such as Rome, and establish his own kingdom, a kingdom of truth, peace, and justice. “Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1.15) means that people need to prepare for this coming kingdom by changing their lives, beginning to align themselves with the forces of good instead of the forces of evil, and by accepting Jesus’ teaching that it was soon to happen. [1]

In modern days the word apocalypse is loaded with images of total earthly destruction, but the word it self comes from the greek word 'αποκαλυψις' and means to reveal something. But what is it to be revealed?

...we misunderstand ancient Jewish and/or Christian eschatology if we think it was about the end of the world, if we think it was about the divine destruction of this physical earth. In the King James Version of the Bible, the phrase “end of the world” is repeated in (Matthew 13.39,49) and in chapter (Matthew 24.3,20). But the Greek term translated there as “world” is actually 'αιων', from which we get our word eon, meaning a period, a time, an era. What is to end is this present “era” of evil and injustice, suffering and oppression. ... For ancient Jews and Christians,only God could destroy the earth, but God would never do that. Why? Because six times during creation God declared the product “good,” and when all was finished,“God saw everything ... was very good” (Genesis 1:31)... therefore, God would never destroy God’s own creation. [2]

To the Jews of the first century, the reference to the coming kingdom of god would have certainly brought the promised Messianic kingdom in mind, which was expected to endure for ever (Daniel 2.44). The coming wrath is that of god, against those that did not align them with the forces of good.

The kingdom of god was certainly not about a transfer of recently destroyed earth to heavenly realms. It was about rejuvenating the earth, transforming it into peaceful place.

... for example, for Jesus in the Lord’s Prayer the Kingdom of God is about the will of God “on earth as in heaven.”The original mock-up for God’s earthly kingdom has been retained in heaven—like the model in an architect’s office—but the final construction site will be on the earth itself. [3]
see also (Isaiah 11.6–9)

According to Mark and Matthew, John and Jesus were preaching the imminence of the coming of the kingdom of god. People had to repent and make their paths straight, otherwise they will experience the wrath of god. At least Matthew thought that god's forgiveness was restrained from the religious elite.

---

1. Barth Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, p. 78 ↩
2. John Dominic Crossan, God and Empire, p. 78 ↩
3. John Dominic Crossan, God and Empire, p. 79 ↩

The coming wrath

Eschatology involves a judgment and punishment of those who have transgressed against a deity. The deity on the  other hand is offering rewards to those who have been faithful. The opening of the earliest gospel does not include judgement allusions, yet the later gospel who follow it's opening appears to gradually introduce this aspect into the story.

The earliest gospel introduces the John the Baptist in it's opening chapter! His mission is to prepare the way for the coming Messiah (Mark 1.1), and Mark thinks that this is a fulfilment of a prophecy (Mark 1.2-3; Malachi 3.2; Isaiah 40.3).

The prophecy has it's first century cultural significance that Mark had to address, and will be examined in later study, although he failed to address it properly, because he attributes the prophecy falsely to Isaiah.

The later gospel of Matthew basically follows the story line in Mark. According to Mark and Matthew people were drawing from the "whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him" (Mark 1.5; Matthew 3.5).

At this point Matthew introduces an interesting aspect of the story, something not known to the gospel of Mark; John the Baptist is now addressing part of his public directly:

But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
(Matthew 3.7)

The wrath the Baptist is talking about is a imminent wrath. It is so imminent in so far that the "ax is already at the root of the trees" (Matthew 3.10). Taken in context, the imminent wrath is directly linked with the "Kingdom of Heaven that has come near" (Matthew 3.2), and the one that is coming in power (Matthew 3.11)  most likely the awaited Messiah, the main protagonist of Matthews story.

In other words, what Matthew is telling his public, is that John the Baptist has singled out his enemies. This are the  Pharisees and Sadducees, the established religious elite of the time, and they are subjects of the wrath that is coming with the future kingdom of god, established by the Messiah.

The gospel that follows is that of Luke. In this gospel John the Baptist addresses the coming wrath as well:

John said to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
(Luke 3.7)

The wrath is still imminent (Luke 3.9), but is not connected contextually to the kingdom to come or the Messiah who is going to establish it. Unlike Matthew, here the coming wrath extends to all those who were coming to John, not just the religious elite!

This is the situation we find here; in Marks gospel after the introduction to the John the Baptist, Jesus' is baptised, and his message is about the nearness of the kingdom of god (Mark 1.15) but has no explicit mention to any coming wrath. Matthew goes along this line and syncs the message of John with that of Marks Jesus' (Matthew 3.2; Matthew 4.17) and contextually connects it to the coming wrath (Matthew 3.7). Luke on the other hand has retained the reference to the coming wrath (Luke 3.7) but contextually has no link to the kingdom to come.

It appears that the introduction to the coming wrath has different narrative purpose in both of the gospels.

Eschaton

If a scripture is interpreted in many different ways, the most likely reason for that is its obvious meaning and its implication.

Eschaton is a Greek word that means an ending of something. It is mostly used to convey a world view that envisions a divine intervention in human history in order to bring injustice to an end.

The Olive discourse is a part of the synoptic gospels, where Jesus is explaining Christian eschatology to his inner circle disciples. This very words of Jesus have brought about many different eschatology doctrines, that still deeply divide the Christian world.

This notes will be mostly concerned with the Preterist eschatology.

“Preterism is a view in Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days refer to events which took place in the first century after Christ’s birth, especially associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning past, since this view deems certain biblical prophecies as past, or already fulfilled.”[1]

Preterism maintains that in the Olive discourse Jesus does not describe the great tribulation that should take place at the end of the word, but the “full end of the age” of the Jewish temple and the age of Judaism, in 70 AD.


Close examination of the material suggests that prophecies given in the Olivet Discourse were understood in a such a way, that a new age would usher in the life span of the gospel writers, culminating into the new kingdom of god, Israel, which would effectively bring the end of times, end of the world. Only after the fall of Jerusalem, the Preterist view subsequently emerged as response to unfulfilled prophecy.

---

1. Theopedia: Preterism↩