The Upper Register Blog

As I said in my previous post, I have some reservations about Seyoon Kim’s argument that we can go where the NT authors themselves did not go. Even though Paul and Luke refrained from extending the implications of the exaltation of Christ into the political realm, we can do so, according to Kim. He writes:

It is … necessary to recognize that in many Western and non-Western countries our changed situation demands a more active Christian engagement in political processes than Paul and Luke exemplify. We have pointed out that both in Paul and Luke an imminent eschatology and political realism played their parts, along with other factors, in discouraging them from thinking about the present materialization of God’s reign or Christ’s Lordship in the political sphere … But most Christians today no longer feel the pressure of an imminent eschatology so greatly, and they therefore naturally are concerned about the present materialization of God’s reign or Christ’s Lordship, however tentative it may be … These … new factors make us free from the inhibition that an imminent eschatology and political realism laid on Paul and Luke. So we should actively seek what changes need to be brought about in the political sphere in obedience to Christ’s Lordship and thus help materialize the redemption of the Kingdom of God politically as well in other spheres of existence. (p. 201)

I disagree with this approach for at least two reasons.

First, I think Kim fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the eschatological context of the NT’s view of politics. For Kim, both Paul and Luke view the eschaton as imminent; therefore, they simply lack any interest in politics. We, on the other hand, “no longer feel the pressure of an imminent eschatology so greatly,” so we are free to develop the political dimension of the gospel. But this is to fundamentally misunderstand the eschatological position of the NT writers. It is not the timing of the eschaton but the nature of the eschaton that conditions their stance toward political issues. If the eschaton is going to bring about a radical change in the conditions of life such that the glory of the age to come totally transcends our present existence, then it matters little whether they viewed the eschaton as imminent (within their lifetime) or as far off in the future. The eschatological state, for the New Testament writers, is not continuous with the present state. Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (1 Cor 15:50). The eschatological state will be characterized by a glorified creation and glorified bodies to inhabit that glorified creation. The glorified state is one of incorruption and immortality. It is not merely the eternal continuation of our present fleshly state. Thus, for the New Testament writers, political questions, tied as they are to the fleshly state of this passing age, are necessarily secondary in importance. Furthermore, as a part of the fleshly state, political arrangements are not capable of being transformed or taken up into the state of glory, whether in its “already” state (experienced proleptically by the indwelling of the living Christ through his Spirit) or its “not yet” form (the glorified creation/body).
 
Second, I do not understand what Kim means by “the materialization of Christ’s Lordship” or “materializing the redemption of the Kingdom of God politically.” These sound like nice words, but what do they mean in practical terms? For those on the left it means increasing government funding for social welfare for the poor. Others on the left would say it means ending war in some sort of commitment to pacifism. Those on the right would say it means banning abortion, or having the constitution amended to exclude same-sex marriage, or reducing the size of government and government controls on the free market. What Kim concretely has in mind is left unstated. A related problem is that, even if we were to agree on a specific agenda, how do these things relate to Christ’s Lordship or the redemption of the Kingdom of God? In other words, why should any of the above items, left or right, be viewed in such exalted spiritual terms, as the materialization of the reign of Christ? In my view, the above policies can be debated pro and con, and perhaps some are pragmatically better for society than others, but none are distinctively Christian, and certainly they should not be characterized as the political materialization of the kingdom of God.

But I still have great appreciation for Kim’s book, particularly in the two main sections dealing with Paul and Luke-Acts. Although I am skeptical of his brief thoughts in “Some Implications for Today,” Kim raises some excellent critical doubts about the methodology and exegesis of counter-imperial reading(s) of the New Testament.

This is my third post in my series of posts reviewing Kim’s new book. The first two posts are available here and here. I plan to have one more post where I will interact with his final chapter, “Some Implications for Today.” Although I appreciate the substance of the book, in the final chapters he goes in a direction where I have some reservations.

Part 2:  Luke-Acts

Part 1 of Kim’s book was devoted to Paul’s view of the Roman Empire. Now, in Part 2, Kim addresses the issue of Luke’s view of the Roman Empire. He sets out two seemingly contradictory lines of evidence in Luke-Acts.

On the one hand, Luke in his 2-volume work is clearly at pains to show that both Jesus himself and the Jesus movement that continues in Acts, were politically innocuous and not a threat to Roman authority. In the case of Jesus himself, Luke shows that, even though the Jews accused Jesus, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king” (Luke 23:2), Pilate concluded after investigating that Jesus was not a revolutionary or an insurrectionist. He said to Jesus’ accusers: “You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him” (Luke 23:14). In the case of the Jesus movement, Luke shows that Paul, like Jesus, was accused of being a political threat to Rome, “advocating customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice” (Acts 16:19-21) and “acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7). And yet Luke also shows that the Roman magistrates consistently indicated that Paul was not guilty of the charges. See his favorable treatment at the hands of the magistrates of the Roman colony of Philippi (Acts 16:35-39); Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia (18:12-17); Porcius Festus, the governor of Judea (25:18, 25); and Herod Agrippa (26:30-32).

On the other hand, Luke also emphasizes that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah of Israel. He has the angel announce to Mary that Jesus will be the Son of the Most High, that the Lord God will give him the throne of David, and that his kingdom will last forever (Luke 1:32-33). This theme is continued in Acts which makes much of the fact that the risen Jesus has been exalted to God’s right hand as Messiah and Lord (Acts 2:29-36; cp. 4:25-28; 10:36; 13:23, 32-41; 15:17; etc.). In addition, the Messiahship of Jesus is presented as involving a liberation and redemption of Israel in fulfillment of the promises. Even more striking is the fact that Luke presents Jesus as the Davidic King against the backdrop of Caesar’s kingship in Luke 2:1 (“In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered”) and 3:1 (“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea,” etc.). Although Luke only hints at it, he seems to be implying that Jesus is the true Lord and Redeemer, as opposed to Caesar.

So how do we reconcile these two themes in Luke-Acts? Why would the same work contain such tension within itself, making claims about Jesus that are bound to be misunderstood politically and yet at the same time attempting to make an apologia for Christianity to show that it is not a threat to the Roman political order?

Kim resolves the conundrum by arguing that, for Luke, the redemption that Jesus the Messiah brings is not an earthly deliverance from Roman oppression but deliverance from the kingdom of Satan. Kim shows how the various facets of Jesus ministry all indicate the spiritual nature of the kingdom that he brings. Jesus’ ministry of healings and casting out demons shows that the kingdom of Jesus is a spiritual kingdom involving deliverance from the power of sin, death, and Satan, not overthrow of the Roman government. And the spiritual ministry of Jesus is continued on the spiritual plane after Jesus’ death and resurrection through the apostles who are commissioned and empowered by the exalted Jesus and filled with his Spirit. Like Jesus, they heal the sick, cast out demons, and proclaim a spiritual kingdom consisting in liberation from the power of Satan, but not the overthrow of the Roman Empire.

Now, in Kim’s view, Luke’s spiritual conception of the kingdom that Christ brings does not mean that there are no implications for the here and now. The ascension of Christ and his present reign in and through the ministry of the church empowered by the Spirit have implications outside of the church and beyond the inner private sphere of the individual Christian’s faith. For Kim, Luke’s “ascension Christology” (as he calls it) can and ought to be materialized in the social, political, and physical spheres. However, Kim argues, Luke refrains from drawing out the materialization of the Lordship of Christ into the political arena due to various situational factors. In Luke’s theology, the political dimension of Christ’s lordship is implicit but postponed until the time of the restoration of all things (p. 156, citing Acts 3:20-21). In chapter 11, Kim lays out a variety of situational factors that may have contributed to Luke’s refraining from drawing out the here-and-now, political materialization of the reign of Christ:  his expectation of the imminent parousia of Christ; his political realism and relative appreciation for the benefits of the pax Romana, especially as providing an opportunity for the church to pursue its mission; Luke’s desire to present Christianity as compatible with allegiance to the Roman Empire; and so on.

As I said, in my final post I plan to explain my reservations with Kim’s final thoughts on “Some Implications for Today” (epilogue). However, my summary in the paragraph above already provides some hints of where my reservations lie. For Kim, the political materialization of the present lordship of Christ is implicit in Luke’s Christology, but Luke refrained from drawing out those implications due to certain situational factors that do not apply to us today. Therefore, we are free to draw out those implications ourselves, even though Luke himself did not. I’m not comfortable with this approach, and I’ll explain more in my concluding post.