Smoodock's Blog

If you have been with me during this study series, you know, we are looking at Jesus through the lens of N.T. Wright’s book, Simply Jesus. During the past few studies, we’ve looked at four different worldviews, concerning the Biblical statement that Jesus is King of Heaven and of Earth. How, then, could we resolve the great differences, we’ve discovered in these worldviews? Is it possible to resolve them? I have come to understand that human nature tends to go against the knowledge of God. Folks will believe whatever they believe and won’t be changed through the pressure of argument. Whether due to the teaching of others, whom they respect, family tradition or through a deep personal study of God’s word, folks don’t tend to be convinced of error, unless the convincing comes from within, from the Spirit of God.

I believe we can also correctly assume that the differences that exist in those worldviews, exist because something has been left out of the worldviews that are believed and embraced.[1] We’ve mentioned in an earlier study that, according to the Bible, Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). If we accept this statement as true, then God’s original plan in Eden could not have changed. God doesn’t change. We do, but God, his will, his desire for us etc., doesn’t change. Therefore, what are we able to say about Jesus’ Kingdom of Heaven and of Earth, in terms of what that might look like in the Garden of Eden?

From the beginning, mankind was supposed to image God (Genesis 1:27), vis-à-vis man was supposed to act like God in God’s creation. In other words, if God intended to rule Earth at all, he intended to rule the Earth through mankind, and, according to Hebrews 13:8, that plan hasn’t changed!

According to the word of God, God had formed man from the earth, planted a garden in Eden and placed man there, telling him he may eat the fruits of any tree in the garden but one, and that tree was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:7-9, 16-17). Most teaching that I’ve heard about this garden tells us, it was full of very tasty fruit, and the evil tree was a tasty apple tree. Some conclude it was a fig tree, due of Genesis 3:7, but essentially, according to the doctrine, the trees are literal fruit trees. However, what if that understanding is false? What can we conclude the trees represent?

According to the Bible, a tree may symbolize life, vis-à-vis eternal life (Genesis 2:9; 3:22, 24; Revelation 22:14). A tree may also symbolize a certain kind of knowledge (Genesis 2:9, 17), and acquiring this type of knowledge brings death (Genesis 2:17). Moreover, and according to the scriptures, a tree may also symbolize a man, someone who is wise and patterns his life after God (Psalm 1:1-3; cp. Jeremiah 17:8). The implication, however, also points to ungodly men, who behave differently than do the righteous. These folks are also symbolized by trees (Psalm 1:4-6). Likewise, Jesus spoke of men, both the righteous and the ungodly, as though they were trees that differ in the fruit they bear (Matthew 7:15-20).

In Daniel 4 we are given a prophecy that concerned Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. He had a dream about a great tree (Daniel 4:1-10), and Daniel interpreted the tree to be the king (Daniel 4:20-22). The dream of the tree concerned a certain knowledge. There seems to be a theme running through Daniel chapters 2 through 4, and that theme concerns Nebuchadnezzar coming to the knowledge that the God of Daniel is the most high God (Daniel 2:47; 3:28-29). Nevertheless, there were also opposing political conspiracies surrounding the throne that denied such an understanding (Daniel 3:8-12; 4:19). This, too, was knowledge, but differed from the truth; it is a kind of knowledge that opposed the truth that Daniel’s God was the most high God, who rules among men (Daniel 4:17, 25, 32-35). Although Nebuchadnezzar had been led to believe through dreams and miracles that Daniel’s God ruled the kingdoms of men, he wondered, perhaps because of men praising his wisdom, if he (Nebuchadnezzar) truly wasn’t responsible for his own success (Daniel 4:29-30). While the words were yet in his mouth, God’s warning against such a belief materialized, and the king temporarily lost his mind (Daniel 4:31-33).

The point is this. If, according to the word of God, God rules the kingdoms of men, whether they are good or evil, then the argument that Jesus couldn’t be King of Earth today, because of all the evil present in this world, is moot. We don’t reason in the same manner that the Lord reasons (Isaiah 55:8-9). Therefore, Jesus is able to rule evil men without compromising their freewill. His is able to rule the Earth without a literal, physical, return to do that. He doesn’t have to be the author of worldwide movements to ensure they work for the good of his people, and there doesn’t have to be a new word from God for the followers of Jesus to know what to do in our service to him.

_______________________________________________

[1] This is the understanding that N.T Wright takes, and I believe he is correct.