My thesis (M.Div.) will discuss the themes of Temple and Kingdom from the Gospels of John and Matthew, respectively. As always seems to happen with research, I've run across tangents that I'd still like to explore. This may well be the best venue, at least until I have something in publishable form.
This particular tangent was a thought I had regarding the purpose of the Temple. Here goes:
The overarching purpose of the Tabernacle (and, by extension, the Temple) is God's presence, out of which flows the need for atonement in order to enter his presence, and the need for worship to respond to his presence. These three—presence, atonement, and worship—describe all of the major ritual roles of the Tabernacle described in the Law. For example, Exodus 25-30 recounts the structures of the Tabernacle and their purposes. Each item either plays a part in the atonement ritual or celebrates God's presence in a tangible way. Leviticus 1-9 describes the rituals of atonement and worship, and the degree to which the two are consistently so closely intertwined throughout the text suggests that their interweaving is intentional. In addition, the many passages within the Law that dictate proper expressions of worship all hold a common thread: worship is to be in the presence of God, at the Tabernacle.
So, to restate, while presence is the key symbol here, atonement and worship are the active images describing the responses of the people to God's presence, and the structures and rituals of the Temple all reflect this in some way.
Any ideas on this? I'd welcome any refining or critique. It's an intriguing enough idea that I believe it merits a lot more thought. More than I currently have to devote to it, I'm afraid. It also occurs to me that I've missed the purification aspect of so many of the rituals. Purification has obvious ties to God's presence, as his people must be clean/pure/sanctified in order to enter his presence. I'm sure I've missed something else--feel free to let me know in the comments.
The ramifications of this view of the Temple extend to the church, as well. Jesus, as the preeminent Temple in his incarnation, certainly fulfilled the atonement imagery perfectly. How should the church, as God's Temple on earth now (1 Cor. 6, among others), fulfill the worship and purification imagery?
Thoughts to ponder, I suppose.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
The Kingdom and the Church
In the conclusion of his book The Kingdom of God, George Beasley-Murray makes a case that the kingdom and the church are not the same entities; they cannot be used interchangeably, suggesting that members of one are not automatically members of the other. However, he seems to be making his case by defining the church as an organization, an institution. (He doesn't actually offer an explicit definition of church, but his usage suggests this definition.) He does provide a short definition of the kingdom of God, though, as the reign or rule of God.
Given these definitions, I can agree that the organization or institution known as the church should not be blithely equated with the kingdom. However, I find it surprising that Beasley-Murray, who has so consistently throughout his book depended on biblical usage to determine definitions (especially of the kingdom), to then use a definition of the church that holds no resonance with the New Testament. NT usage of ekklesia refers to the gathering of those who believe, not to an institution of attendees.
The church is made up of those who believe and seek to obey God, who have been brought into "the kingdom of the Son he loves" (Col. 1.13). So the church is part of God's kingdom. And by Jesus' definition, those who believe his words, love him, and obey his commands belong to his family, the church (John 15, Mark 16, Luke 8). So these, then, belong to the kingdom. The members of the one really are automatically members of the other, because obedience is the proof of membership for both. Yes, I can concede that the kingdom transcends the church because I would include God's supernatural working as key to kingdom momentum, but I do wish Beasley-Murray's discussion was more detailed. As it is, I just can't buy it.
Given these definitions, I can agree that the organization or institution known as the church should not be blithely equated with the kingdom. However, I find it surprising that Beasley-Murray, who has so consistently throughout his book depended on biblical usage to determine definitions (especially of the kingdom), to then use a definition of the church that holds no resonance with the New Testament. NT usage of ekklesia refers to the gathering of those who believe, not to an institution of attendees.
The church is made up of those who believe and seek to obey God, who have been brought into "the kingdom of the Son he loves" (Col. 1.13). So the church is part of God's kingdom. And by Jesus' definition, those who believe his words, love him, and obey his commands belong to his family, the church (John 15, Mark 16, Luke 8). So these, then, belong to the kingdom. The members of the one really are automatically members of the other, because obedience is the proof of membership for both. Yes, I can concede that the kingdom transcends the church because I would include God's supernatural working as key to kingdom momentum, but I do wish Beasley-Murray's discussion was more detailed. As it is, I just can't buy it.
It's late . . .
and I suppose one shouldn't decide on the spur of the moment to make one's thoughts open to the world, but the blogging bug has bitten, and I'm too tired to fend it off.
Really, thesis research is just daunting--a lot of work with not so much to show for it--and I'm badly in need of feeling that I've accomplished something today, not to mention hoping that a little stream-of-consciousness might jar some itty bit of brilliance loose from a rather sticky corner somewhere. Too much Chilton, Schweitzer, and Dodd will do that to you, not to mention trying to put together a syllabus for a new class. Urgh! Writing lesson objectives and course rationales have always given me hives, and never more so than this weekend!
Reality has struck hard, though, and convinces my procrastination to take a hike. What's not done now must be done later, and I've no guarantee I'll have the buckets of time later, or that my toddler will compliantly take her nap on deadline day. But my mind is fuzzing over now, and some bit of conscious thought remaining reminds me I'll regret staying up tonight.
Ah, well. I suppose it's too much to hope for that piece of brilliance to shake loose while I sleep and present me with an Einstein-ian solution to a very knotty introduction? Yeah . . . I was afraid so.
Really, thesis research is just daunting--a lot of work with not so much to show for it--and I'm badly in need of feeling that I've accomplished something today, not to mention hoping that a little stream-of-consciousness might jar some itty bit of brilliance loose from a rather sticky corner somewhere. Too much Chilton, Schweitzer, and Dodd will do that to you, not to mention trying to put together a syllabus for a new class. Urgh! Writing lesson objectives and course rationales have always given me hives, and never more so than this weekend!
Reality has struck hard, though, and convinces my procrastination to take a hike. What's not done now must be done later, and I've no guarantee I'll have the buckets of time later, or that my toddler will compliantly take her nap on deadline day. But my mind is fuzzing over now, and some bit of conscious thought remaining reminds me I'll regret staying up tonight.
Ah, well. I suppose it's too much to hope for that piece of brilliance to shake loose while I sleep and present me with an Einstein-ian solution to a very knotty introduction? Yeah . . . I was afraid so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
