Others may find such a search to be appropriate but would choose some other theme, such as covenant, promise, or redemption. I will not attempt to address all the permutations of an objection to the life theme as the central organizing principle of the Bible. It would be helpful, however, to deal with the life theme in relation to the kingdom, and proceed from there.
In chapter 1, in my discussion concerning the evangelistic visions of William Abraham and Scott Jones, I offered examples of how we could link kingdom-based evangelistic visions with a life-based evangelistic vision. I would now like to introduce a related yet different concept for you to consider: that we frame the relationship between life and kingdom in reference to ultimate goal or purpose, as distinct from the instruments or means that lead to that ultimate goal or purpose. In this context, the kingdom of God could symbolically serve as an instrument of God’s desire (goal) to bring restoration of life to God’s human creatures (and all of creation).
It is helpful to analyze kingship in the Ancient Near East (hereafter referred to as ANE) and ancient Israel, for kingship bears a direct relationship to kingdom. It is worth asking: What role does kingship serve? What are kings supposed to accomplish?
There is widespread agreement among scholars that in the ANE, at least until the first millennium BC, kings (in a political sense) were to provide a secure and just environment for the enjoyment of prosperous well-being. In conjunction with this, in a religious sense, they were to mediate the blessings of the gods (or God). Thus, for example, Whitelam writes that “it was the king’s primary duty to guarantee the true administration of justice,” which “also guaranteed prosperity and fertility for the nation as a whole.”74 Lambert agrees, noting that in the three ancient Mesopotamian cultures of Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria, “rulers ruled by the express authority of the gods, and were expected to create a prosperous, well-governed land.”75
Some scholars believe that the Israelites shared this positive view of kingship in the ANE and its direct correlation to the well-being of the people. In a study of the priestly role that Israelite kings occasionally fulfilled, Rooke concluded that the king would not assume normal priestly duties related to the sanctuary, but that on occasion it would have been “necessary for him to undertake the mediating, priestly role when national interests were at stake, because he was responsible under Yahweh for the nation’s well-being.”76 Whitelam concurs that Israel shared the ANE view of kingship, stating that the Israelite view of kingship was “remarkably consistent” with similar views in the ANE.77
Others scholars disagree, however, about the Israelite appreciation for kingship, especially during the first millennium BC. Some suggest that the positive view remained until the time of Jesus (reformulated among Jews primarily in messianic terms), while others suggest that this positive outlook waned dramatically. Some writers, for example, view Deuteronomy as a pivotal example of this diminishing appreciation of kingship. John Baines characterizes the Deuteronomistic tradition as being hostile to kingship,78 and J. G. McConville suggests that Deuteronomy elevated the role of the Torah (constitutional law) in the life of the people, so that “it provides for a kind of kingship that is radically different from kingship as it is known from ancient Near Eastern custom and practice.”79 Ezekiel is also cited as an anti-kingship document in Israelite tradition. Paul Joyce suggests that with Ezekiel’s strong focus on the holy God Yahweh, the mediating function of the monarchy has disappeared (“melted away”).80
Given this divergence of opinion about the positive appreciation of kingship in the Judean world during the time of Jesus, some might suggest that it is difficult to place much stock in the idea of kingship being seen as one of God’s instruments to bring about God-intended fullness of life. However, the prevalence of kingdom language in the Gospels demonstrates that Jesus assumed at least some basic level of common understanding among the people regarding kingship. Furthermore, Jesus assumed this understanding to be positive (or at worst, neutral). If kingship was in such a state of disrepute, as some scholars believe, Jesus would not have used that image, nor would he have assumed that people would respond to it in any positive way (as illustrated in the link he makes between the announcement of the kingdom and the call to repentance). The key distinction is that the Judean population may not have valued human kingship as strongly as in the past, but they maintained a high esteem for God’s kingship. Thus, Jesus’s primary goal in announcing the kingdom and inviting people to respond to it was not so that they could be counted as citizens of the kingdom for the sake of the king or the kingdom, but for their own sake, because it is through submission to the rule of King Jesus that they would receive new life in him.
I do not intend to devalue the concept of God’s reign. There are times when finite languages simply cannot do justice to thoughts involving the infinite God. The reference to kingdom as the instrument and life as the goal is meant to elevate the concept of life for the theory and practice of evangelism; it is not meant to diminish the concept of kingdom. It may be that the two themes could be considered parallel concepts that offer different conceptual images for us to choose from as we develop theological constructs and ministry practices. Perhaps future scholars will develop improved ways to treat both of these vital topics without diminishing either one. It might even be that we could find ways to link the two.
On the other hand, I want to be careful that the attempt to avoid devaluing the kingdom concept does not in turn diminish the clear point that full, vibrant, teeming life is portrayed in the creation narratives as God’s original intention for us and God’s creation. If, therefore, we think of Jesus’s purpose to be restoration of God’s original intention, we must view this full, vibrant, teeming life to be what God seeks to give us in Christ.
Furthermore, this proposal of life as the goal need not be limited to how it relates to the kingdom. The Mosaic covenant could be considered in the same way. The purpose of the covenant was not so Yahweh or the Jews could announce that they were in a covenantal relationship. The covenantal relationship was the vehicle through which the people could experience life as God intended. You may recall those powerful words that Moses spoke just prior to his death: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.”81
Going back further in biblical history, we see that the purpose of the covenant God made with Noah included both preservation of life and a fertile experience of life: “And you, be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it.”82 The Abrahamic promise and call can be viewed in the same light: “And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”83 The goal of the Abrahamic promise was to bring the rich blessing of God-intended life to all the families of the earth.
Again, having a covenant is not God’s ultimate purpose for us. Being a citizen of the kingdom is not God’s ultimate purpose for us. These kinds of statements could be conceived of as instrumental. Covenant, kingdom, promise, reconciliation, and atonement: these (and many others) are vitally important concepts, but their value lies in what they relate to—vibrant, abundant life.84 From the perspective of Scripture this emphasis on life as the initial and central intention of God does greater justice to the fact that the biblical tradition
