In Jesus' day, there were two kingdoms: the kingdom of Rome and the kingdom of the Jews--aka the Kingdom of God. (Of course, the kingdom of the Jews was subordinate to the kingdom of Rome.) There were also two "sons of God." Cesar declared himself to be the son of God. Jesus' followers also made the politically subversive claim that Jesus was the son of God. To the Romans this would have sounded like Jesus was posing a threat to Cesar's power. This challenge to the throne is part of the motivation that the Jews in power had to turn Jesus over to the Romans for execution: The Jesus movement threatened the status quo of power between the Jews and Rome. When we read the terms "kingdom of God" and "Son of God" out of their historical context we imagine and project onto those terms "otherworldy " meanings that distort their original political meanings.
I have often suspected a political import - perhaps not only imputed, but perhaps even *actually there* - in the primal ministry. Perhaps, after Constantine and the reconciliation with Roman authority, it was necessary to edit somewhat?
ReplyDelete