I have a friend whose opinions and positions on important things are typically on target and sometimes formidable. A few years ago, this friend shared an idea that was troublesome to me. I don’t know whether he meant to be provoking thought in me, but I experienced a pragmatic (not necessarily theological) challenge to “king” and “kingdom” language, which is language I’ve spent a lot of time with.
Since then, I have considered numerous times the use of phrases such as “King Jesus” and “the Kingdom of God,” wondering if I might be doing a disservice to eternal truths by using such language in present contexts. This is no sideline matter. First, concerns around “who’s in charge” (i.e., who is “king”) tend to be integral in human affairs. Moreover, the Kingdom of God is a cardinal life-emphasis for me.¹
Conceptually, I see “kingdom” and “reign/rule” everywhere. Kingdom concerns seem to sit atop all others. I believe that the more often kingdom/kingship ideas are prioritized in human spheres, the more problems will be resolved, both now and forever. I happen to think that that generalization is appropriately broad and sweeping! I believe it is applicable to personal and interpersonal matters, church matters, and more. As long as there are nation-states, there will be a conflicts between illusory human sovereignty on the one hand and God’s kingship on the other. But matters of the world will eventually dissolve in acknowledgment of God as King.
Despite all that, any time there is a potential for language to get in the way of communicating what’s important, it is good to reexamine that language. The understanding of words, and language itself, are ever changing. If a phrase such as “Kingdom of God” does not communicate well, reconsideration is warranted, and revision might be advisable.
I have and appreciate my own copy of N.T. Wright’s Kingdom New Testament—which uses “King” where other English Bibles use “Christ.” I use this Bible sparingly when interacting with others, and when I do, I seem to want to apologize for its incessant “King Jesus.”² Thinking about that feeling further . . . I must ask myself why I haven’t apologized for the now-glossed-over the loanword “Christ” all these years. Do I really think about that word as much as we should? Maybe we should all be apologizing for not paying attention to the range of meanings behind the words Messiah and Christ! One meaning, for example, would be “anointed one” . . . and what does that really mean, unless we appeal to another time and place for historical context?
The introduction of the Mark-gospel doesn’t beat around the bush: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” But what is this gospel, this good news, and what is it to be “Christ”? Mark quotes from Isaiah, who promised the way would be prepared for the One who was to come. And in the first section after the introduction, Jesus’ authority is highlighted:
1:22 The people there were amazed by his teaching, because he taught them like one who had authority, not like the experts in the law. 1:23 Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, 1:24 “Leave us alone, Jesus the Nazarene! Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” 1:25 But Jesus rebuked him: “Silence! Come out of him!” 1:26 After throwing him into convulsions, the unclean spirit cried out with a loud voice and came out of him. 1:27 They were all amazed so that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He even commands the unclean spirits and they obey him.” 1:28 So the news about him spread quickly throughout all the region around Galilee. (bold emphases mine, of course -bc)
Could it also be that the theophany (in this case, the voice from heaven) of Mark 1:10-11 is intended to show a kind of bestowing of authority? And could that authority have something to do with the kingly identity of Jesus the Messiah?
The next episode shows four people almost inexplicably following Jesus, so that would be a natural result of the authority. Mark is notoriously short-winded overall, not indulging in lengthy explanations, but the reader/hearer of this opening gets a clear picture, right off the bat, that Jesus is unique, uniquely gifted, and uniquely tasked. He is the Son of God. He is also the One Who Was To Come, the Christ, and the Anointed King. And all those appellations would seem to involve authority.
And that is good news: that this One has come and is reigning: Jesus the Messiah. Jesus the King. Jesus the Reigning Authority.
¹ Here is my current life emphases, in no particular order:
- being a dad
- responsible, devoted reading of scriptures
- musical pursuits
- faithfulness as a disciple
- worship
- Kingdom of God
² We would need to ask Wright why he chose “King” instead of “Christ” as a persistent rendering of χριστός | christos throughout all his New Testament. I suspect it has something to do with wanting readers to pay attention to the present, positional dominion of Jesus, who is now and forevermore the “Lord and King” (Philippians 1:9). It also could be related, in broader perspective, to concepts of “empire.” Whatever his reasons, at least it makes us think. Shaking up hackneyed language can do that.
Dr. Brian Casey 