24th November, Sunday Next Before Advent, Christ the King
Readings: Dan 7. 9-10, 13-14; Rev. 1. 4b-8; Jn. 18. 33b-37
Theme: Kings and Kingdoms
What does the language of ‘kings’ and ‘kingdoms’ mean in the bible? Living in the modern world, especially since the French Revolution of 1789, it can seem as if we enter another world with all this biblical talk about ‘kings’ and ‘kingdoms’, can’t it? However, over the span of human history, the language of kingship and kingdoms has been primarily the means by which rule and governance have been understood. So, the biblical world, or rather worlds, are in step on these points with the sweep of human history.
Nevertheless, though they are in step, the idea of kingship and governance promoted by Jesus are a radical transformation of these governing concepts. This is brought out clearly in those mysterious words uttered by Jesus in the gospel to Pilate that “My kingdom is not of this world”. What does Jesus mean here in his conversation with Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world?
Jesus’s statement to Pilate should be understood against the background of the experience of kingship in Israel. When, in the so called ‘First Temple Period’, the time of the temple of Solomon, around 968-586 BC, the phrase Yhwh mālak (God is king) was sung as a refrain in liturgies, the Israelites proclaimed three central characteristics of God’s chosen kingship. First, that ruling the people was a vocation. It was a call from God to service and not to oppress people. Second, that it had a clear purpose of leading people into a place of peace, justice and order. Third, that it required an exemplary form of leadership in order to embody this type of rule in a way acceptable to God. Yet, as we know from the biblical story, Saul, David and Solomon, the three kings of the united Israel prior to its split into the two kingdoms of northern Israel and southern Judah, each in their own ways had a rather chequered history in their embodiments of Jewish kingship.
This ambiguity of the practice of Jewish kingship is part and parcel of a long debate within ancient Judaism about whether the Israelites needed a king to stand in God’s place or whether God himself should rule them directly. The conversation between Jesus and Pilate is a step forward in this debate within the Christian understanding of ancient Judaism and its notions of kingship and kingdom. It is indeed God himself who will be the king of Israel and this is to be the role of the second person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus the Christ, the anointed one chosen by the Father to rule all the nations.
This is why Jesus says to Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world, because unlike Saul, David and Solomon, Jesus embodies the will of the Father to rule all peoples with true justice; a justice which goes well beyond the normal manner of earthly thinking and embodies a justice which can only be understood as a new kingdom, the kingdom of God. Jesus as ‘son of David’ is the true king who is to rule according to God’s way of being king.
So, in his discussion with Pilate, Jesus is speaking into a situation in which the way in which power and rule are to be understood, through the categories of ‘kingship’ and ‘kingdom’, are now transformed in this new dispensation, which is inaugurated by the Christian era. This is important for us because it addresses two central questions of our contemporary world; namely, how should we understand authority?; and what type of leadership is compatible with a Christian vision? The answer to both of these questions is patterned by the life of Jesus. Jesus is the exemplar of what it means to lead and how the authority required for leadership are to be exercised. This answer provides us with a normative yardstick with which to judge forms of leadership in church and society, in religion and in politics.
Yes, in politics too, because the cry of Yhw mālak is not only a religious expression. It unites both the religious and the political in one liturgical act of praise to God. So, when we sometimes hear it said that religion should keep out of politics, we should be rather more nuanced when we respond to this injunction than is sometimes the case. Yes, of course, religious leaders should never tell people how to vote in democratic elections when there are legitimate choices of candidates. There is more than one way to arrive at the goals societies set for themselves. However, there are certain styles of political leadership which are not compatible with a Christian understanding of leadership. The judgement about when forms of leadership depart from an acceptable Christian understanding is to be exercised in the light of the kingship of Jesus which though not of this world speaks to this world about the destiny of both religion and politics. Yes, ‘destiny’ is the right word here. For the destiny of all forms of leadership and rule are to foster the ground for the sprouting of the kingdom of God. Leaders need to till the soil which enables the seeds of the kingdom to grow, knowing that they will never be fulfilled completely until the end of time. The mistake of some of the ideologies of the twentieth century was to forget the so-called eschatological reserve of the kingdom. That is to say, because Jesus’s kingdom is not of this world, it nevertheless always needs to come into this world and to convert it. It is never a simple transplantation of heaven on earth as Marxism attempted in a secular form and some forms of theology have attempted. The coming of the king of history and the inauguration of his kingdom has already begun with the advent of the messiah, Jesus. The growing of this kingdom and the eventual return of this king are to be prepared for by all forms of leadership until the end of time. So, leaders always need to point beyond themselves to the one who is the true king of history: Jesus the Lord. ‘Yhw mālak’: ‘God is king’ should always be our cry when we think about questions of leadership and the true exercise of both religious and political authority.
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.