JSHJ 2004 Beavis the Kingdom of God, Utopia and Theocracy

http://jhj.sagepub.comHistorical Jesus

Journal for the Study of the

DOI: 10.1177/147686900400200104 2004; 2; 91 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

Mary Ann Beavis The Kingdom of God, 'Utopia' and Theocracy

http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/1/91 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

found at:can beJournal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Additional services and information for

http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 http://jhj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

91

THE KINGDOM OF GOD, UTOPIA AND THEOCRACY

Mary Ann Beavis

St. Thomas More CollegeSaskatoon, SK, Canada

ABSTRACT

While the phrase the kingdom of God has obvious political overtones, its use byJesus has most often been interpreted in social, eschatological and theologicalterms. This paper will survey representative interpretations of this concept in thesecondary literature, and attempt to situate Jesus understanding of the rule ofGod within the spectrum of Greco-Roman and hellenistic Jewish political thought,with special reference to utopian and theocratic ideas. In addition, the paper willexamine Jesus use of this utopian and theocratic phrase in the context of Jewishnationalism under Roman rule, as explicated by D. Mendels.

Key Words: historical Jesus, kingdom of God, utopia, theocracy

It would be an understatement to say that the analysis of the phrase thekingdom of God (fi j3aotAeKX Tou OEo6) has generated a vast amount of schol-arship over the last century. The contemporary scholarly consensus that thekingdom of God was central to the message of the historical Jesus is not matchedby agreement over the meaning of the phrase. This study hopes to offer a freshperspective on the significance of the kingdom in the teaching/preaching ofJesus by interpreting it in the context of Greco-Roman, and particularly hellenis-tic Jewish, political thinking, with particular reference to ideas about divine rule(theocracy) and descriptions of ideal polities (utopianism). In addition, the workof D. Mendels on Jewish nationalism in ancient Palestine will be used to assessthe historical Jesus attitude to native PacytXEta.1 This project is necessarilyexploratory and partial, and meant to consider Jesus use of the phrase in the

1. D. Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism: Jewish and Christian Ethnicityin Ancient Palestine (New York: Doubleday, 1982).


92

context of material with which it has seldom been juxtaposed, as a starting pointfor further investigations.

Main Areas of Kingdom of God Research2 2

In general, it is safe to say that scholarship on the kingdom of God has beenpreoccupied with several key issues:

TranslationThe phrase fi packet a Tou OEo6 (or Ta3v o6pavc3v) has generally been relatedto the Hebrew expression CCV2 MI : ~n.3 The Matthean variant fi Pacy i Xct 0( TC3Voupavc3v (the kingdom of the heavens) is interpreted as a Jewish circumlocu-tion for the divine name, otherwise synonymous with the more usual Gospelformula fi ~3aotAsia T06 OEo6. Further, it is typically argued that the Kingdomof God/Heaven is not primarily spatial, territorial, political, or national:therefore it should be translated as kingly rule, reign, or sovereignty ratherthan &dquo;kingdom&dquo; .4 4

Tradition HistoryIn an effort to understand the context of Jesus use of the phrase, the many andvaried usages of the phrase kingdom of God (and similar formulas) have beensurveyed in the Hebrew scriptures, the Palestinian and Greek Pseudepigrapha,the Dead Sea Scrolls, hellenistic Jewish authors, ancient Jewish prayers, therabbinic literature, the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Ingeneral, it can be observed that there is a development from the general notionthat God is king over Israel and the world (Hebrew scriptures) to the apocalypticidea that Gods reign will be established eschatologically when God (with orwithout a messianic figure) judges the nations and rewards his people defini-

2. Since this section summarizes material that has been analyzed at length by manyother scholars, it is heavily dependent on surveys of the academic literature on the kingdom ofGod, especially Dulings comprehensive article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (D.C. Duling,Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, in David Noel Freedman [ed.], ABD, IV [New York:Doubleday, 1992], pp. 49-69). For other surveys, see B. Chilton, The Kingdom of God inRecent Discussion, in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus: Evalu-ations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 255-80; B. Chilton, Intro-duction, in idem (ed.), The Kingdom of God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London: SPCK,1984), pp. 1-26; W. Willis (ed.), The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation (Peabody,MA: Hendrickson, 1987).

3. Duling, Kingdom of God, p. 50.4. Duling, Kingdom of God, p. 50.5. See the survey in Duling, Kingdom of God, pp. 50-56.


93

tively (Daniel, Palestinian Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls).6 Aramaic syna-gogue prayers (Kaddish, Shimoneh Esreh) express the hope that God will soonestablish his kingdom,~ whereas the rabbinic literature tends to conceive of Gods sreign in individualistic, nonpolitical terms (to take the yoke of the kingdom ofheaven upon oneself Jewish Diaspora literature frequently expresses the notionthat God is king (Tob. 13.6, 7, 10, 11, 15, Add. Est. 13.15; 14.3b, 12; 2 Macc.1.24; 7.9; 13.4; 3 Macc. 2.2; 6.2), sometimes with apocalyptic overtones (Sib.Or. 3-5).9 The Stoic notion of the philosopher-sage as king governed by reasonand virtue is appropriated by some hellenistic Jewish writers (4 Macc. 2.23;7.10; Wis. 6.17-20; 10.9-10; Philo, De Abrahamo 26). 10Concept, Symbol or Metaphor?While the majority of scholars have treated the kingdom of God as a definableconcept or idea, N. Perrin distinguished between the kingdom as a univocalapocalyptic sign (apocalyptic usages) and Jesus usage, which evokes an ancientmyth that God had acted in the creation and history of Israel, and would con-tinue to do so; it made sense of Israels experience as a people under God.... [I]trelates Israel to the myth of God as king through the whole range of his experi-ence, not in any one event or circumstance.11 Thus, Jesus kingdom languagedoes not so much refer to a concept as evoke a vision of Gods activity in theworld. 12 Using the Targumic references to the kingdom of God (or of the Lord),B. Chilton has come to similar conclusions about the meaning of the phrase inJesus preaching: The kingdom was not a regime, whether present or future atall... Rather, Jesus was impelled to preach by his certainty that God would revealhimself powerfully; the kingdom announcement affirmed vividly but simply thatGod was acting and would act with strength on behalf of his people.13 ForChilton, the kingdom is not a concept or event that can be fixed in time, space orpolity, but a theolegoumenon-a way of expressing Gods relationship to Gods speople. 14

6. E.g., Dan. 7.13-14, 27; Jub. 1.28; Ps. Sol. 17.1-3; T. Mos. 10.1,3; 1QM 6.6; 12.3, 16;19.8 (cf. Duling, Kingdom of God, pp. 50-52).

7. Duling, Kingdom of God, pp. 52-53; M. Weinfeld, Expectations of the DivineKingdom in Biblical and Postbiblical Literature, in H. Graf Reventlow (ed.), Eschatology inthe Bible and Christian Tradition (JSOTSup, 243; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997),pp. 218-31.

8. E.g., Sipre Leviticus 20.26; Sipre Deuteronomy 20.26; Qiddushin 59b; Berakhot 2.2(Duling, Kingdom of God, p. 53).

9. Duling, Kingdom of God, p. 55.10. Duling, Kingdom of God, pp. 56-57.11. As summarized in Chilton, Introduction, pp. 19-20.12. Chilton, Introduction, p. 20.13. Chilton, Introduction, p. 23.14. Chilton, Kingdom of God, p. 258.


94

Future, Realized or Inaugurated Eschatology?Perhaps more than any other issue, the question of the temporal reference of thekingdom of God has occupied contemporary scholarship. The three main optionsare: a purely futuristic, apocalyptic kingdom; a realized eschatology, where thekingdom is fully available in the present (identified with the ministry of Jesus);and an inaugurated or partially realized eschatology, where the kingdom isseen to have begun, but will be fully manifested in the future. This discussion iswell summarized by Chilton,; 15 it is safe to say that the majority of contemporaryscholars have opted for the third, now-and-not-yet option.

Despite the vast amounts of interpretation that the phrase has inspired, it isdifficult, from reading most of the scholarship, to describe or visualize what thekingdom of God would be like, once established. On the purely futuristic inter-pretation, this is understandable, since, in general, apocalyptic discourse is morepreoccupied with detailing events that will precede the establishment of Gods srule than with describing what it will be like. Interpretations which see the king-dom as already present in the ministry of Jesus-whether in the form of therealized eschatology of C.H. Dodd or the literary-theological interpretationsassociated with Perrin et al.-have often described an ethical or spiritualrealm that is, as Duling notes, atemporall6-a development of traditional Jewishmythic/theological language expressing the presence and power of God in theworld. Arguments that Jesus conceived of the kingdom as inaugurated in hisministry render a glimpse of what the contours of the divine realm might be; ifhis own prophetic activity was the sign of its dawning, then Jesus fondness forbanqueting, his exorcisms and healings, his proclamation of hope to the poor,hungry and sorrowful, reveal the shape of the kingdom

Political Interpretations of the Kingdom 18 8

One significant scholarly position arguing for a political interpretation ofthe (3a6t~sia proclaimed by Jesus is the Jesus as revolutionary hypothesis,most prominently associated with the work of S.G.F. Brandon.l9 According to

15. Chilton, Kingdom of God, pp. 255-80.16. Duling, Kingdom of God, p. 64.17. See R.W. Funk, A Credible Jesus: Fragments of a Vision (Santa Rosa, CA: Pole-

bridge, 2002), pp. 19-28, 133-40.18. As with the previous section, this discussion is not meant to be an exhaustive survey,

but a brief sketch of the relevant contours of the research.19. S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive

Christianity (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967); for a survey of earlier Jesus-as-revolutionary hypotheses, see E. Bammel, The Revolution Theory from Reimarus to


95

Brandon, the evangelists apologetic portrayal of a pacific Christ, unjustlycondemned by Jewish authorities, was meant to obscure the reality that Jesuswas a radical Jewish nationalist, executed under Pontius Pilate for sedition. Notonly did Jesus publicly oppose the payment of taxes and lead an assault on thetemple; he was also an advocate of armed resistance to Roman occupation. Afterhis crucifixion, Jesus Judean followers continued his opposition to Rome, andthe early Jewish-Christian church took part in the Jewish revolt of 66-70 CE. Onthis hypothesis, the kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus involved the immi-nent overthrow of the Roman authority by force.

As M. Borg notes, this interpretation has been deemed unsatisfactory by themajority of scholars.2 A variant on this approach that has met with more schol-arly acceptance is to interpret Jesus as a social, rather than political, radical, whoanticipated the establishment of Gods reign through non-violent social, eco-nomic and religious means.2l However, the effect of the emphasis on social,economic and religious dimensions of the kingdom is to downplay any specifi-cally political aspects oft (3aotAeta Tou 6EO6.A third approach that takes the politics of Jesus more literally is represented

by scholars such as G.B. Caird, G.R. Beasley-Murray, N.T. Wright, W. Herzog,R.A. Horsley and S. McKnight.22 This line of scholarship interprets Jesus as areligious/political reformer who spearheaded a movement to restore Israel to itsancient relationship with God, not through revolution, but through covenant faith-fulness. The scholars in this group differ as to the import of Jesus kingdom-

Brandon, in E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of his Day (Cam-bridge : Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 11-68.

20. M. Borg, Reflections on a Discipline: A North American Perspective, in B. Chiltonand C.A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of CurrentResearch (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 9-31 (14-15); an exception is G.W. Buchanan, whoplaced Jesus, and the kingdom of God, squarely in the tradition of Jewish conquest the-ology (Jesus: The King and His Kingdom [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984]).

21. E.g., E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987); M. Borg,Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), pp.97-126; J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), pp. 265-302.

22. G.B. Caird, Jesus and the Jewish Nation (London: Athlone Press, 1965); G.R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986); N.T. Wright, Jesusand the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996); R.A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiralof Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row,1987); R.A. Horsley, Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Continuum, 1997);R.A. Horsley and N.A. Silberman, The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and PaulIgnited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002);S. McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (GrandRapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1999); W. Herzog, Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God: AMinistry of Liberation (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1999).


96

language (especially with regard to its eschatological overtones), but there isgeneral agreement that the j3aotAsta envisioned by Jesus was first and foremosta restored Israel.

The Kingdom of God and Politics : An Alternative Context

Jesus use of the phrase the kingdom of God suggests two interrelated bodiesof political reflection expressed variously in hellenistic Jewish and Greco-Roman literature: speculations about the ideal state (utopianism) and the idea ofdivine rule (theocracy). Below, I will sketch the possible relevance of thesediscourses as a context for a fuller understanding of Jesus kingdom language.

UtopianismOf course, the term utopia was not coined until the sixteenth century; however,utopian thinking has a history that goes back thousands of years, and it was verymuch a part of hellenistic/Greco-Roman political theorizing and literary expres-sion.23 Here, the term utopia will be used in the awareness of its ambiguity, asou&horbar;TOTros, or nowhere, an imaginary ideal society, or eu&horbar;TOTTO~, a goodplace that is realistically achievable.

Scholars of utopian studies have often classified Judeo-Christian conceptionsof the kingdom of God as among the many utopian traditions of antiquity.24However, since most utopian scholars have limited knowledge of biblical schol-arship, they tend to portray the kingdom of God as a universally understood andundifferentiated expression of a uniquely Jewish messianism, without muchawareness of the range of meanings of the phrase within Judaism, or of possibleconnections with other hellenistic/Greco-Roman conceptions of ideal societies. 25In fact, it is arguable that the tendency of the Jewish scriptural tradition generallyis to portray the history of Israel in somewhat utopian terms: as the divinelypromised land flowing with milk and honey; as the powerful tribal federationestablished under the leadership of Joshua; as the golden age of David andSolomon; or as the ethnically uniform hierocracy of Ezra-Nehemiah. This utopianpropensity is carried through in the varied prophetic expressions of hope for a

23. J. Herzler, The History of Utopian Thought (New York: Macmillan, 1926), pp. 7-98;J. Ferguson, Utopias in the Classical World (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975); F.E.Manuel and F.P. Manuel, Utopian Thought in the Western World (Cambridge, MA: BelknapPress, 1979), pp. 33-92.

24. E.g., L. Mumford, The Story of Utopias (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1922), pp.59-60; Manuel and Manuel, Utopian Thought, pp. 46-48; Ferguson, Utopias, pp. 146-55.

25. E.g., Mumford, Utopias, pp. 59-60; Manuel and Manuel, Utopian Thought, pp. 46-48;Ferguson, Utopias, pp. 146-55.


97

future ideal age.26 In hellenistic/Greco-Roman times, Jewish utopianism is oftenexpressed in apocalyptic terms, although other expressions are possible. Forexample, Jesus Sirachs discourse in praise offamous men (Sir. 44.1-50.20) isa litany of utopian moments in Israels history, culminating in the gloriousreign in Jerusalem of the high priest Simon, son of Onias (219-196 BCE), thesages near-contemporary. The anti-messianic author of Pseudo-Philos BiblicalAntiquities (c. 70 CE) presents the charismatic leadership of the Judges as a foilfor the Israelite monarchy. 27

In most cases, early Jewish hopes for a future utopian age hark back toidealized eras in the sacred history, interpreted as models of divine rule to beimplemented perfectly in the future. 28 As J.J. Collins notes, Jewish hopes for thefuture are locative, envisioning the Land of Israel or Jerusalem and its environs,rather than some remote isle of the blessed, as the ultimate good place.29 Themost frequently evoked template for the future is the united monarchy of Davidand (especially) Solomon, when Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man underhis vine and under his fig tree, from Dan to Beer-Sheba, all the days of Solo-mon ( Kgs 5.5; cf. Mic. 4.4).3 However, the future idyll can be portrayed as areturn to Eden;31 as an eschatological state of Jubilee (Lk. 4.16-21; 11 QMelch2.1-9; Jub. 23.26-31 ); as the restoration of the land promised to the children ofIsrael in the time of Moses (Jer. 31; 32.40-41; Mal. 3.17-4.6); or in terms ofreturn from exile (e.g., Dan. 9.2). The prophetic tradition idealizes the period ofIsraels wilderness wanderings as a time of covenant faithfulness (Jer. 2.2; 31.2;Ezek. 34.25; Hos. 2.14; 9.10; 13.5-6; Amos 2.10; cf. Neh. 9.21). In early Judaism,both the Essenes and the Zealots seem to have imagined themselves as wilder-ness communities, as did the Therapeutai/Therapeutrides-perhaps in anticipa-tion ofthe imminent restoration of the Promised Land (cf. War 2.258-63; Philo,De Vita Contemplativa 2).32 Philo does not harbour any hopes for a renewal ofJewish sovereignty, but idealizes the kingship of certain figures in Israels

26. D. Talmon, King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,1986), pp. 140-64.

27. See the discussion in Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, pp. 261-75.28. Cf. Horsley, Sociology, pp. 94-96.29. J.J. Collins, Models of Utopia in the Biblical Tradition, in Saul M. Olyan and

Robert C. Culley (eds.), A Wise and Discerning Mind: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long(Brown Judaic Studies, 325; Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), pp. 51-67 (51-52).

30. Cf. Talmon, King, Cult and Calendar, pp. 140-64.31. See the references in J.H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I (New

York: Doubleday, 1983), p. xxxiii; Collins, Models of Utopia, pp. 65-66.32. See Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 273; J. Neusner characterizes the Pharisees, as

well as the Qumran covenanters and the Essenes, as utopian communities (Qumran andJerusalem: Two Jewish Roads to Utopia, Journal of Bible and Religion 27 [1959], pp. 284-85[284-90]).


98

remote past: Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, and especially Moses (De Vita Mosis1.148-54).

Arguably, the oldest reported utopian communities are Jewish: the Essenes inJudea and the Therapeutai/Therapeudrides in Egypt.33 Mendels has argued thatthe Essenes (which he identifies with the Dead Sea covenanters) not only regardedthemselves as the New Israel, but that they were founded under the directinfluence of hellenistic utopian literature, especially Iambulus fictional islandsof the sun (third century BCE; Diodorus Siculus 2.55-60). 34 Although the ideathat the Essene communities were modeled on a hellenistic utopia may seemimplausible, Mendels adduces an impressive list of parallels: location in isolatedareas; distinctive national identities; emphasis on internal harmony; leadershipof elders; community of property; common meals; asceticism; uniformity ofdress; natural derivation of subsistence; ritual baths; rejection of marriage; com-munal child-rearing; rejection of temple worship; simple burial system; dualisticworld view; association of the deity with the sun; love of learning, especiallyastrology; cryptic writings; special skill in healing.35 Since all of these parallelsare substantiated not just by the descriptions of Philo and Josephus, but also byreferences in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Mendels is confident that the resemblancebetween the Essenes and Iambulus islanders is more than the portrayal of aJewish utopia by hellenized Jews for a pagan audience.36

Divine Rule (Theocracy)The philosopher R.S. Bluck provides the following definition of theocracy:

A theocracy, we may say, is a state wherein the sanction of all law lies not in any man-made code, or even in the will or opinions of one or more human rulers, but in absolutestandards revealed to man by divine agency, so that in theory at least the real ruler ofthe community is the divine agency that sets the standards, while the earthly rulers arein the nature of High Priests whose task is to interpret and enforce them. The exactnature of the divine agency concerned is irrelevant to the definition; what matters is thatthe ultimate author of all law, whether written or unwritten, be said to be divine. Suchwas the case, of course, with the Jewish community at the time of Moses.

33. On the question of whether the Therapeutai/Therapeutrides were an actual utopiancommunity or merely a product of Philos philosophical imagination, see T. Engberg-Pedersen,Philos De Vita Contemplativa as a Philosophers Dream, JSJ39 (1999), pp. 40-64.

34. D. Mendels, Hellenistic Utopia and the Essenes, in J.H. Charlesworth and L.L.Grabbe (eds.), Identity, Religion and Historiography: Studies in Hellenistic History (JSPSup,24; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 420-39.

35. Mendels, Hellenistic Utopia, pp. 420-39.36. Mendels, Hellenistic Utopia, pp. 436-37.37. R.S. Bluck, Is Platos Republic a Theocracy?, Philosophical Quarterly 18 (1955),

pp. 69-73 (69).


99

The idea that divine rule was exercised through the medium of humankingship (j3aotAE(a) was a commonplace of Greco-Roman political thought, forthe king was considered to be the god-like representative and revealer of thedivine law of nature in his realm. The hellenistic ideal of kingship is wellexpressed by Diotogenes:

For the Best must be honored by the best man, and the Governing Principle by onewho is a governor. So just as God is the Best of those things which are most honorableby nature, likewise the king is best in the earthly and human realm. Now the kingbears the same relation to the state [TT6Xiv] as God to the world; and the state is in thesame ratio to the world as the king is to God. For the state, made as it is by a harmo-nizing together of many different elements, is an imitation of the order and harmonyof the world, while the king who has a absolute rulership, and is himself AnimateLaw, has been metamorphosed into a deity among mean.38Of course, the ideology of divine kingship has deep roots in the Ancient

Middle East, and finds Israelite expression in the tradition that the Davidic kingis the adopted son of YHWH (2 Sam. 7.14; Ps. 2.7). Philo develops this traditionby interpreting the kingdom of God ((3a6t ~s i a T06 OEo6) as the imprint of thedivine Torah on the soul of the wise king; thus the human king/sage reflects theimage of the divine archetype (De Specialibus Legibus 4.164; cf. Wis. 6.17-21;10.10). Philo could also use the term ~3aat~sia to refer to the minds or wis-doms control over the sage and his affairs (~3aot7~s i a T06 co~o6), or to Gods scontrol over the mind of the wise man (Philo, De Abrahamo 261; De MutationeNominum 135; Vita Mosis 2.241 ; De Specialibus Legibus 1.207). As B. Mackobserves, this hellenistic Jewish language of the kingdom emanates from wisdomcircles, not apocalyptic tradition, which (according to Mack) never explicitly usesthe kingdom of God/heaven formula,39 but it could also emanate from the Deu-teronomistic history and the covenantal hope associated with it.

The term theocracy, however, was not coined by an ancient politicalphilosopher or by a contemporary social scientist, but by a first-century Pales-tinian Jew, in an attempt to explain the unique polity of the Jewish nation. In theapologetic work Against Apion 2.164-65, Flavius Josephus observes:

There is endless variety in the details of the customs and laws which prevail in theworld at large. To give but a summary enumeration: some peoples have entrusted thesupreme political power to monarchies, others to oligarchies, yet others to the masses.

38. The only surviving writings of Diotogenes are fragments of treatises On Piety and OnKingship preserved by Joannes Stobaeus (fifth century CE [?], Macedonia). The translationabove is of Stobaeus IV.7.63, by E.R. Goodenough, The Political Philosophy of HellenisticKingship, Yale Classical Studies 1 (1928), pp. 55-102 (68). For the Greek text, see Stobaeus,Ioannis StobaeiAntologium (ed. C. Wachsmuth and O. Henze; Berolini: Apud Weidmannos,1884-1912).

39. B.L. Mack, The Kingdom Sayings in Mark, Foundations & Facets Forum 3.1 (1987),pp. 3-47 (16-17). However, cf. Ps. Sol. 17.3; Duling, Kingdom of God, pp. 50-52.


100

Our lawgiver, however, was attracted by none of these forms of polity, but gave to hisconstitution the form of what-if a forced expression be permitted-may be termed atheocracy [6soKpaTia ani6EixE To TTOXiTSUpa], placing all sovereignty andauthority in the hands of God. 40For Josephus, writing in the last decades of the first century, the ideal mediator

of theocratic rule in the sacred past had been aristocratic rule by a council ofelders (yepoucyt a) as practiced in the time before Saul (Ant. 4.223-224; 5.135 ),41as opposed to the corrupt, unqualified and foolish priests who had held thatposition in the decades preceding the Jewish rebellion (see Ant. 15.22; 20.180-81, 199-203, 213-14, 216-18, 224-5 1).42 The destruction of the temple by theRomans had been divinely mandated ( War 5.288-315) and the kingship over theJews had been passed on by God to Vespasian, the Roman emperor acclaimedin Judea (War 6.312-13; cf. 3.399-408; 4.585-629).43

Although like other Jews of his time, Josephus looks back to a (in Josephuss scase, premonarchic) golden age of divine rule over Israel, in his late work,AgainstApion (c. 95-100 CE), the historian portrays his Jewish contemporariesin highly idealized terms as an international community regulated by theMosaic law. The Jews dispersed throughout the world, claims Josephus, are apeople whose law teaches them to love and not hate each other; to share withone another; to oppose injustice and practice righteousness; to be hard-working,frugal and content with their labours; to make war not for gain, but only todefend the law, to punish evildoers, to avoid sophistry, but to let their actionsspeak for themselves (2.291-93):

I would therefore boldly maintain that we have introduced to the rest of the world avery large number of very beautiful ideas. What greater beauty than inviolable piety?What higher justice than obedience to the laws? What more beneficial than to be in

40. H.St.J. Thackeray (trans.), Josephus: The Life; AgainstApion (Loeb Classical Library;London: Willliam Heinemann; New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1926), p. 359.

41. See D.R. Schwartz, Josephus on the Jewish Constitution and Community, ScriptaClassica Israelica 7 (1983-84), pp. 30-52 (33-34). Josephuss attitude to Jewish monarchy istoo complex to discuss in detail here. He elaborates on the Deuteronomistic historians negativeappraisal of the Israelites wish for a king in the time of Samuel (Ant. 6.38-44), and paints anunflattering portrait of Aristobolus, the first Hasmonean king (Ant. 13.301-319). While hisportrayals of David and Solomon are generally positive, his source is the Deuteronomistichistory, with its ambivalence towards Israelite monarchy (Ant. 7.18.211). The one king heeulogizes is the ill-fated Saul (Ant. 6.343-50), for his courage in fighting for his subjects in theface of divinely mandated death.

42. On Josephuss contemptuous attitude to the high priests prior to the rebellion, seeS. Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 18;Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1990), pp. 92-96.

43. S.J.D. Cohen argues that Josephuss prophecy that Vespasian would rule the worldconstitutes the divine authorization of the Roman victory (Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius,History and Theory 21.3 [1983], pp. 366-81 [369-77]).


101

harmony with one another, to be a prey neither to disunion in adversity nor to arro-gance and faction in prosperity; in war to despise death, in peace to devote oneself tocrafts or agriculture; and to be convinced that everything in the whole universe isunder the eye and the direction of God? (2.293-94).44

For Josephus, theocratic rule, whether humanly mediated by Moses himself, bythe elders of Israel, or by the Jewish nation dispersed throughout the Romanempire, was the unique contribution of the Jewish people to the world, admiredby others, but epitomized by the Jews of the diaspora.

Josephuss coinage of the term theocracy may be interpreted as a Jewishresponse to a concrete political reality that Josephus knew all too well: the recentJewish attempt to restore native rule to the homeland had failed, and the Jewishnation-state was truly defunct. If Gods rule over the Jewish people was going toendure, it would have to be without a Jewish ruler, temple and nation-state.

Y. Amir has argued that Josephuss idea of8EoKpaTa (theocracy) is notrelated to the kingdom of heaven/God as it was conceived in the Second Templeperiod:

... in the Hebrew of that time the term ~ ~7~ melekh always appears in the phrasemelekh al kol ha-aretz r~i1 f ~7~ ~7~ ~7t~ (king over the whole world) and never inthe context b7V 1 bt melekh Yisrael (king of Israel). In the religious thought ofJosephus time, the phrase Kingdom of Heaven denotes a cosmic entity, to whicheven the Angels are considered subordinate.45

However, Amir fails to note that Josephus actually uses 8EoKpaTi a in a cosmicsense, in that Gods rule is exercised over the Jewish people dispersed through-out the world; indeed, for Josephus, Jews simply recognize the fact of Godsuniversal rule more perfectly than non-Jews. Further, Amirs assertion that inthe second temple period, the idea of the universal rule of God had replacedmore particularistic notions of divine kingship is simply not borne out bythe evidence (e.g., Dan. 2.44; 7.27; Obad. 1.21; 2 Chron. 13.8; 28.5; Jub. 1.28;1 Enoch 90.20; T Mos. 10; T Dan 5 ; 13; Ps. Sol. 17).46 The idea that the legiti-mate leadership of Israel is imparted by divine authority is so ubiquitous in thebiblical and post-biblical tradition that it is difficult to conceive of a hellenisticJew denying that the kingship of Israel, however it might practically be imple-mented, ultimately belonged to God.4~ Josephuss distinctive conception of the

44. Thackeray (trans.), Josephus, p. 411.45. Y. Amir, Theocratia as a Concept of Political Philosophy: Josephus Presentation of

Moses Politeia, Scripta Classica Israelica 19 (1985-88), pp. 83-105 (92).46. See also the discussions in Duling, Kingdom of God, pp. 50-52, and M. Hengel, The

Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70A.D. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989), pp. 308-11.

47. See O. Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1956), pp.10-23; M. Buber, Kingship of God (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1967), pp. 136-63;Talmon, King, Cult and Calendar; Horsley, Jesus Movement, pp. 90-96.


102

Jewish polity, at home or in diaspora, as a theocracy epitomizes an ancientIsraelite precept: Indeed, all the earth is mine, but you shall be to me a priestlykingdom and a holy nation (Exod. 19.6; cf. Deut. 7.6; 14.2; 26.18). As Talmonnotes, taken as a whole, the Jewish biblical tradition represents universalism(all the earth is mine) and particularity (you shall be to me a priestly king-dom) not as opposites, but as complementary: the universalistic orientation,which in the Hebrew Bible appears especially, but not exclusively, in propheticliterature, is in no way impaired by the recognition of Israels particularity, towhich both the prophets and other biblical thinkers equally subscribe: Israel isGods chosen people in the community of nations. 48

In virtually all of the utopian eras remembered by the biblical and extra-biblical Jewish authors, and in the prophetic and apocalyptic hopes for an idealfuture Israel, Gods rule is the source and authorization for legitimate politicalleadership, whether it be prophetic, charismatic, priestly, kingly, gerontocraticor messianic. While Josephus agreed that the human right to rule over Israel wasdivinely ordained, the divine mandate to rule both Israel and the known worldhad now been granted to a Roman, Vespasian. Under this legitimate humanauthority, God still reigned over the Jews, and over the universe. Josephuss par-ticular interpretation ofesoxpccna (theocracy) approaches an early expressionof the principle of the separation of religion and state; the polity of the Jews dis-persed throughout the world, governed by their sacred laws, is purely religious,exercised through the non-political medium of the TTPOCYTaGl a (collegium) ledby priests.49 The historians description of Jewish theocracy as an invisible king-dom dispersed throughout the world is also somewhat reminiscent of the present-oriented

~3a6u~ia-sayings attributed to Jesus (e.g. Lk. 17.20b-21; Gos. Thom.113.4; Mt. 13.33//Lk. 13.20-21//Gos. Thom. 96.1-2; Mk 4.30-32//Mt. 13.31-32//Lk. 13.18-19HGos. Thom. 20.2-4; Mt. 13.44-45//Gos. Thom. 109.1-3;76.1-2). 50

Jesus in Political Context

D. Mendels, who considers the career of Jesus within the context of Jewishnationalism prior to 70 CE, remarks on the non-political tenor of his preachingof the kingdom. 51 In fact, with very few exceptions (e.g. Lk. 22.30; cf. Mt. 19.28),

48. Talmon, King, Cult and Calendar, p. 142.49. Schwartz, Josephus on the Jewish Constitution, pp. 49-52.50. All of these sayings were classified as undoubtedly (red) or probably (pink)

authentic sayings by the Jesus Seminar; see R.W. Funk and R.W. Hoover, The Five Gospels:The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Polebridge/Scribner, 1993), pp. 364,531, 195, 347, 523, 59, 194, 346, 484, 196, 515, 529.

51. Especially Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, pp. 223-30; cf. Cullmann, State, pp. 8-23.


103

the ~3aot7~sia sayings attributed to Jesus by the evangelists-whether they

express a present, futurist or inaugurated eschatology-are remarkably innocentof nationalistic content, that is, they do not associate the kingdom of God withIsrael as a hoped-for national, political entity.52 The few sayings that seem toequate kingship with Israels rulers predict its demise (Mt. 21.43; Lk. 13.28-29//Mt. 8.11-12) or are critical of it (Lk. 16.16//Mt. 11.12; Mk 12.35-38//Mt.22.41-46//Lk. 20.41-44).53 Unlike most of his contemporaries, Jesus does nothark back to any of the utopian eras in the history of Israel as a template for the~3a6os i a (although this is not to say that the kingdom was not conceived byJesus as continuous with and in fulfillment of the sacred history of Israel). Theevidence suggests that Jesus interpretation of the kingdom stressed the univer-sality of divine rule, almost to the exclusion of its particularity. Even more thanJosephus, Jesus seems to have emptied what O. Cullmann called the Jewishtheocratic solution of concrete political overtones.54 Mendels interprets this asimplying that, for Jesus, the (3aotAeta was a transcendental kingdom, to be ruledby him as a purely spiritual messiah: He wanted to be some kind of spiritualking, not a physical or political one... He wanted it to remain as vague as pos-sible.55 Mendels contrasts the nebulousness of Jesus

~amE a with concreteplans devised by the Hellenistic utopists,56 and the Davidic-messianic hopes ofsome of his contemporaries;5~ it can also be contrasted with the tendency of theearly Jewish utopists to conceptualize the kingdom of God in terms of the king-dom of Israel in some idealized historical era.

Mendels situates Jesus historically in the context of Jewish attitudes to (3aot- -hE i a from the Roman occupation (63 BCE) to the end of the Bar Kochba Revolt(135 CE),58 a period marked by the accelerating decline of Jewish kingship.59In Jesus time, the idea that an actual king of the Jews was a viable option hadbeen undermined by the civil strife that marked the end of the Hasmoneandynasty, by the Roman occupation, and by the illegitimate rule of the hellenizerHerod, who damaged his slender claim to the ~3aQtA~ i a by murdering the last of

52. For an inventory of i sayings, see Crossan, Historical Jesus, pp. 457-60. Thepassages listed in the paragraph above are adduced to make the general point i o&thetas;o/ ou is not identified with Israel in the Jesus-tradition; it is not assumed thatany or all of them can confidently be attributed to the historical Jesus.

53. See Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, pp. 227-29. Lk. 22.29-30 (// Mt. 19.28) is an excep-tion ; it will be argued below (cf. n. 70) that the authenticity of this saying is highly questionable.

54. Cullmann, State, p. 10.55. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 229.56. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 229.57. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, pp. 225-28.58. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, pp. 209-42.59. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 214.


104

the Hasmoneans. 60 Even in Herods time, Mendels observes, there were a greatmany Jews who preferred peace, even under Roman aegis, to any sort ofpolitical unrest; 61 after Herods death, a delegation to Rome supported by morethan 8,000 Roman Jews wanted to abolish the kingship and create a Roman-ruled state: In fact, many groups in the Diaspora were unhappy with Jewishkingship altogether, and even felt embarrassed at certain junctures by the Jewishstate.62 The 4 BCE riot in Jerusalem over the succession to the throne, crushedby the Romans in that year, added to the disrepute of native kingship.63 Jesuslived in a partitioned Palestine, where a certain amount of local patriotism hadsupplanted Jewish nationalism, although Jerusalem maintained its religious andspiritual significance.64 After the death of Agrippa I (44 CE), the last fiaai hE4s(king) of Judea, the idea that native Jewish sovereignty was a live issue seemsto have fallen into abeyance until the disastrous revolt of 66-70 CE.65

Jesus, then, lived during the low point in a decline of popular regard forJewish kingship as a desirable political reality or source of spiritual leadership.The lack of concrete political content in Jesus ~3a6u~ i a-sayings-the stress onthe universality of Gods kingship, the lack of allusions to any of the idealperiods in Israels past as templates for the kingdom, the vagueness of its tem-poral referents-bespeaks not a political Jesus, or even (contra Mendels) anapolitical Jesus, who wanted to be the messiah of a spiritual kingdom. Rather, itsuggests an anti-political Jesus, who used the phrase in a manner that down-played explicitly nationalistic and particularistic overtones and aspirations.66 Inpostcolonial terms, Jesus paradoxical conception of a non-political kingdom ofGod could be described as his attempt to grapple with (or elide) Israels com-plex history as both colonizer and colonized; as L. Gandhi observes: the post-colonial dream of discontinuity is ultimately vulnerable to the infectious residueof its own unconsidered and unresolved past. 67 If, as some interpreters assert,

60. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, pp. 214-17.61. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 216.62. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 217.63. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 218.64. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 219.65. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 222.66. One of the referees for this article raised the issue of how the eschatological son of

man hope fits in with the anti-political tenor of the kingdom of God I am arguing for here. Forthe purposes of this paper, I am following Crossans analysis of the son of man sayings, whichfinds that this strand is much less deeply embedded in the Jesus tradition than the kingdom ofGod material, implying that the historical Jesus did not view himself as the eschatological uoso &thetas;o&upsi; (Crossan, Historical Jesus, pp. 454-56).

67. L. Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction (Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press, 1998), p. 7.


105

Jesus used the language of the kingdom to subvert Roman imperialism, 68 hemay have wished to disavow Jewish dreams of ~3a6usia as well. Needless tosay, Mendels assumption that Jesus regarded himself as a kingly or messianicfigure, spiritual or otherwise, does not fit the evidence; no (3aat~sia-saying ofJesus that has any claim on authenticity implies that Jesus regarded anyone butGod as the legitimate king of Israel. The few references to Jesus as king ofIsrael are either ironic, placed on the lips of his adversaries (Mk 15.32; Mt.27.42); or expressions of Johannine christology (Jn 1.49; 6.15; 12.13-15). Like-wise, where the phrase son of David is applied to Jesus, it is placed on the lipsof others by the evangelists (Mt. 12.23; 15.22; 20.30-31; 21.9, 15; Mk 10.47-48;Lk. 18.39-39); elsewhere, Jesus even seems to deny the messiahs Davidiclineage (Mk 12.35-37; Mt. 22.42-45; Lk. 20.41-44).69 Jesus reference to hiskingdom in Lk. 22.29-30 is otherwise unattested. 70 Jesus enigmatic saying,Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that areGods (Mk 12.17//Mt. 22.21//Lk. 25/lGos. Thom. 100.2), bespeaks a tacitacquiescence to Roman rule. 71

As stated at the outset, this paper has been a partial and exploratory attemptto cast new light on the concept/metaphor/symbol of the kingdom of God, asconceived by Jesus, using material with which the Jesus tradition has seldombeen juxtaposed. Consequently, my conclusions are partial, provisional and pre-liminary. Jesus emphasis on the universalistic aspect of the rule of God fits wellwithin the range of Jewish political sentiments in his lifetime, which were in-clined to be suspicious of native Jewish aspirations to kingship. The lack of anyconsistent portrayal of the kingdom in terms of some idealized age in Israels spast complements the universalistic interpretation of Gods rule, and suggeststhat Jesus utopianism emphasized the no-place (06-T6TrO5) character ofthe

~3a6u~ i a. For Jesus, although God is the rightful and only king of Israel and

68. E.g., Crossan, Historical Jesus, pp. 265-302; Funk, Credible Jesus, pp. 21-28, 133-39, 147-62.

69. The discussion above does not imply that the question regarding the messiahsDavidic lineage is anything other than a secondary composition (see Funk and Hoover, FiveGospels, p. 105). Funk and Hoover attribute the discussion to a segment of the Jesus move-ment in which there was some tension between the messiah as the son of Adam (a heavenlyfigure) and the messiah as the son of David (a political, royal figure). Admittedly, there is verylittle evidence for such tension, but there is even less evidence for such a debate in Jesus owntime (Five Gospels, p. 105; cf. the debate regarding the Davidic lineage of the messiah in Jn7.42).

70. The parallel in Mt. 19.28 is not a i-saying. Funk and Hoover note that theLukan verses may have served as the original conclusion to the hypothetical sayings-gospel, Q(Five Gospels, p. 389).

71. This is one of the few sayings of Jesus coded red by the Jesus Seminar (Funk andHoover, Five Gospels, p. 102).


106

of the earth, the kingdom is not Israel, past, present or future, but, similar toJosephuss portrayal of the Jewish polity in AgainstApion, it is everywhere andnowhere, not here or there but present to those who perceive it (Lk. 17.21;Gos. Thom. 3.3; 113.2).


JSHJ 2004 Beavis the Kingdom of God, Utopia and Theocracy

Documents

Transcript of JSHJ 2004 Beavis the Kingdom of God, Utopia and Theocracy