Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom by Norman Perrin
Chapter 2: The Interpretation of Kingdom of God in the Message of
C. KINGDOM OF GOD IN CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
2. The Use of Kingdom of God by Augustine
"Look, here!" or "Look, there!" only to the extent that these are false Christs, not that the Christ could never be found in that way — while in verses 24-25 a series of signs are given by which it may be known that the Son of Man is about to appear.
The first major interpretation of Jesus’ use of Kingdom of God in the Christian traditions is the interpretation of the coming of the Kingdom of God in terms of the coming of Jesus as Son of Man. This remains within the general framework of the myth of God as active on behalf of his people, but the change is unmistakable. The tensive symbolism has given way to the steno-symbolism more usual in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic. Under certain circumstances the Son of Man symbolism of Christian apocalyptic could become tensive symbolism, but this does not appear to be the case in the apocalyptic discourses which are its natural context in the New Testament. In any case the shift toward steno-
symbolism is unmistakable in the move from Jesus to earliest Christianity.
prior consciousness of sin gave itself form."88 The leit-motif of Ricoeur’s interpretation of symbols is that "the symbol gives rise to thought." So, in this instance, the primordial symbols give rise to the Adamic myth. But the matter does not end there for there is a third level, a level reached as the symbols and their mythic interpretation give rise to speculation. We have a "second-degree rehandling" of the symbols and the myth in "the more intellectualized symbols of original sin."89 Stated in summary form, Ricoeur’s insight is that we must "distinguish three levels, first that of the primordial symbols of sin, then that of the Adamic myth, and finally the speculative cipher of original sin; and we shall understand the second as first-degree hermeneutics, the third as second-degree hermeneutics."90 But we may distinguish three levels only if we start with the symbols themselves. Actually there is
something prior to the symbols: there is "the living experience of defilement, sin and guilt" in which "the fundamental symbols [are]
elaborated"; there is "the prior consciousness of sin" which "gave itself form" in the primordial symbols."91
In the discussion of primordial or archetypal symbols we may, therefore, distinguish four levels. First, the level of the consciousness or
experience of man as man which gives rise to or is expressed in the symbols. Then, secondly, the symbols themselves. Thirdly, we have the myths by means of which the symbols are interpreted. Fourthly, we may find the speculative reflection on the symbols and myths which further interprets them.
Assuming the first level, Ricoeur distinguishes the three further levels in connection with the symbolism of evil as follows: "first that of the
primordial symbols of sin, then that of the Adamic myth, and finally the speculative cipher of original sin."92 So we have the myth of the fall of primordial man, Adam, which interprets those symbols; then, further, we have speculation concerning original sin, which is secondary to the myth and tertiary to the symbols. In the context of our discussion it is important to note that Ricoeur recognizes that this speculative or reflective use of the symbols in Western thought is largely due to
Augustine. This speculative use of the symbol is only, as he describes it,
"a relationship of the second degree," and he deplores "the harm that has been done to souls, during the centuries of Christianity, first by the literal interpretation of the story of Adam, and then by the confusion of this myth, treated as history, with later speculations, principally
Augustinian, about original sin. . ."93
It is evident that we will have to make distinctions in the possibilities of the relationship between symbol and myth. Ricoeur, concerned with primordial symbols, sees myth as a hermeneutics of the symbol. If we are dealing with primordial or archetypal symbols then this is the case;
the symbol is prior to the myth which interprets it. But in the case of other classes of symbols this is not necessarily the case. The biblical symbol Kingdom of God is not a primordial or archetypal symbol. If we use the categories established by Wheelwright, summarized in note 91 above, then it is rather a "symbol of cultural range," a symbol having "a significant life for members of a community, of a cult, or of a larger secular or religious body." Kingdom of God is a symbol having a significant life for the members of the community using the ancient Jewish literature, and for the ongoing Christian community.
In the case of such symbols, and the major biblical symbols would belong in this class, the symbol does not arise from the primordial experience of man as man, but rather from the historical experience of the community for which the symbol has meaning, and from the myths by means of which the community comes to understand itself as a community and to make sense of its historical experience. Such is the case with the symbol Kingdom of God. As we have seen, the symbol came into being in the context of the historical experience of the ancient Israelites, and in the context of the amalgam of the two myths by means of which the Israelite community interpreted that experience and
understood itself as a community. It then came to function in the cultural continuity of that community through the centuries. In this instance the myth does not interpret the symbol, but rather the symbol evokes the myth; and I suspect that an investigation of other major biblical symbols would reveal a similar state of affairs.
But if the relationship between symbol and myth is different in the case of "symbols of cultural range" than it is in the case of "primordial" or
"archetypal" symbols, then that difference is at the first two levels of Ricoeur’s concern. These are the levels at which we have symbols and their mythic interpretation, or myths and their symbolic representation.
Once we reach the third level we find that both can give rise to
speculation, and both in fact do so in the writings of Augustine. At the hands of Augustine the primordial symbols of sin, which had produced the myth of the fall of Adam, came to produce the speculative idea of original sin. Also at the hands of Augustine the myth of God active as king in the world on behalf of his people, which had produced the symbol of the Reign or Kingdom of God, came to produce the
speculative idea of the church as the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of God as the totality of redeemed humanity. Except that Augustine called this entity the city of God, the city of the saints.
For the city of the saints is up above, although it produces citizens here below, and in their persons the City is on pilgrimage until the time of its kingdom comes. At that time it will assemble all those citizens as they rise again in their bodies; and then they will be given the promised kingdom, where with their Prince, they will reign, world without end.
Augustine, City of God, XV 1
This Kingdom of God, this City of God, is, for Augustine, the church, not necessarily the church as it now is but as it will be at the end of time (e.g., City of God, XX 9). It was, of course, easy enough for the church of the Middle Ages to take the next step and to equate the Kingdom of God with the hierarchical church in the world, and the omnipotent church became the Kingdom of God.
I do not have time to pursue these matters in any detail but I would like to point out that in the use of the symbol Kingdom of God to represent the church by Augustine and in the Middle Ages two very important factors are at work, one linguistic, and one sociological. The linguistic factor has to do with the use of the symbolic language involved. In Judaism, down to and including the proclamation of Jesus, the symbolic language is used directly in songs of praise, in exhortation, in the
interpretation of events, or it is the referent of similes and parables. The myth lies only one stage removed from the symbolic language and the purpose of the language is directly to evoke the myth. But by the time of Augustine we have reached a culture dominated by allegory, in which the symbol is not directly used but in which it is always represented by something else. If we take a characteristic passage from Augustine’s City of God we find him puzzling over the allegorical representation of the Kingdom of God in the texts of the New Testament.
We must certainly rule out any reference to that Kingdom [i.e., the ultimate Kingdom of God] which he is to speak of at the end of the world, in the words, "Come you that have my Father’s blessing, take possession of the
kingdom prepared for you" [a reference to Matt. 25:34];
and so, even now, although in some other and far inferior
way, his saints must be reigning with him, the saints to whom he says, "See, I am always with you, right up to the end of the world" [a reference to Matt. 28:20]; for
otherwise the Church could surely not be called his kingdom, or the kingdom of heaven.
Augustine, City of God, XX 9
Here we can see that the symbolic language of the Kingdom of God is not being used directly but rather it is being found represented in texts taken from the gospels. The direct reference to the symbol, and the evocation of the myth by the symbol is lost. Instead of evocation of the myth of the activity of God on behalf of his people we have reflection on the symbol indirectly represented in the text: we have room for speculation, in this instance speculation about the relationship between the church and the kingdom. The evocative power of the symbol is lost in the speculative reflection upon what are held to be indirect references to it in the text of the gospels.
The second factor is the sociological factor of the change in the status of the community using the symbol. Israel was never an important state in the ancient Near East, and we have seen how difficult it was to maintain the use of the symbol Kingdom of God when the Jewish state was, historically speaking, usually under the control of more important powers, her destiny shaped by events over which she had no control.
Moreover, the group of Jesus and his followers was an insignificant group in Roman-controlled Palestine, and for the first three centuries of her existence the Christian church was a small embattled sect in the Roman Empire. But by the time of Augustine Christianity was the official religion of the Empire, and after the fall of Rome in 410 the church was the hope for civilization in the ruins of the Empire. It is extremely interesting that precisely at this point the identification between the church and the Kingdom of God begins to be made. The dramatic change in the sociological status of the community using the symbol has made possible an equally dramatic shift in the use of the symbol.
This all too brief discussion of Augustine, and Ricoeur, will have shown that Reign or Kingdom of God is a symbol of a different order or class than the symbols of guilt or sin, which are primordial or archetypal symbols. If we adopt Wheelwright’s classification, then Reign or
Kingdom of God is a "symbol of cultural range." But more important for
our purpose is to notice the different function of myth in the case of the different symbols. In the case of the primordial symbols, the myth interprets the symbols, and the consciousness or experience of man which the symbols evoke or elaborate. But in the case of the symbol Reign or Kingdom of God, the myth is prior to the symbol and the
symbol is dependent upon it. The symbol evokes the myth, and when the myth becomes questionable or unacceptable then the use of the symbol changes, or the effectiveness of the symbol is lost. The symbol is effective only where the myth is held to be valid.
The relationship between the validity of the myth and the effectiveness of the symbol becomes evident in the use of Kingdom of God in
twentieth-century Christian tradition, but before turning to twentieth- century uses we will pause for a moment in the nineteenth century and consider further the work of Johannes Weiss.
3. Johannes Weiss: The Thoroughgoing Historical Understanding of