Well... I'm not sure how you reconcile these?
I'd presented this statement:
Well don't Postmil believe some sort of "material / socio / political" manifestation of "His Kingdom" here on earth?
To which this was your reply:
Yes to all of the above. Like some other Postmils I believe we are still in the early church with perhaps two or three thousand years before Christ's second coming. The Kingdom advances like one climbing up a mountain, sometimes straight up, other times sideways or even backwards to find another way forward.
Yet would not an outcropping of some "golden age" of Christianity be a "kingdom of this world"? Jesus also defines "not of this world" as "if it was; my servants would fight". And in the political realm; how does a particular form of ideology become manifest?
The concept of a form of government existing by consent of the people; does give space for a particular form of ideology to become manifest; but that concept existed in the Old Testament too. Moses was instructed to appoint wise men to help him rule the nation. So though that concept (self governance through some form of democratic process); in the fact that it can be found in the Old Testament, doesn't actually make it a "post-millennial concept" / "necessary" manifestation of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Would you call that more a "natural consequence" of how righteous or wicked any given group of people are? (I suppose one could make that argument.)
"not of this world" simply means the Kingdom does not find its authority from the world, the Kingdom doesn't look like a human Kingdom setup by force, it is not temporal.
But this world is temporal. And if you look at history; you see the concept of this "natural consequence" of how just or unjust a group of people are; but what you'll also see is how that changes (obviously assuming the agent of that change is God; despite what side of Pentecost that proverbial "moral pendulum" swung.
He was saying to Pilate, “My kingdom does not gain its authority from Rome or the Sanhedrin. My authority comes from on high.” Pilate understood this. The irony is that the pagan tyrant understood, but Christians don’t today!
Well the fact that Pilate didn't perceive Jesus as being a political danger to Rome, doesn't mean he understood the whole concept of the power of Christ's Kingdom being "not of this world".
There were social factors playing on Pilate too. He was keen enough to understand the political implications of the greed and envy of the Jewish ruling classes. And Pilate had been "around" enough to know here's someone; this entire city, including gentiles, his own wife, members of the legion that occupied Pilate's chain of command. He was keen enough to not just pick up on the social back drop; but also for us to consider Pilate himself likely witnessed first hand that miracles that had happened.
Now obviously at the time of the trial; Pilate didn't totally grasp what he was dealing with. Although I don't believe he was totally clueless either. He certainly did though deal with Jesus in a manner that was a departure from his normal mode of dealing with "political" rabble rousers.
I don't know if you know this historically; but at the time of Jesus's trial, Pilate was on "probation" for how he'd dealt with civil unrest that sprung from rabbis in Galilee that had a political agenda. Barabbas was probably what we'd call "an insurgent". And Pilate in the previous year or so had very brutally put down a rebellion.
Now there were probably other factors going on too. One being eluded to in Luke about Galileans who's "blood was mingled with their own sacrifice". (Pilate sent soldiers into the temple; probably because certain elements of Judaism had murdered people (what history called "blood libel sacrifices"); which if that was the case, I understand why Pilate was so brutal about it. There are records from Greek historians post Babylonian captivity of Jews abducting Greek citizens and sacrificing them in the temple in some weird "oath" to "hate the Greeks" which was connected to the "Greekification" (Hellenized) of Hebrew culture. According to the Jews, the Maccabean revolt was about Greek oppression. The Greeks though had a different take on what was really happening though. Josephus said it was "Greek propaganda". Yet even going back into the Old Testament; Jews were performing human sacrifices.
So, politically / sociologically; Pilate was operating out of that back drop.
But I agree with your premise that a lot of people try to make the Kingdom of God into a political something that it's not.
So the authority of Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, but nonetheless, the kingdom has invaded the civil realm, the family realm, “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1). Every aspect of society is touched by the kingdom of God.
And I agree here. Yet, as I mentioned before; how much of that is a natural consequence of societies obeying the law written on their conscience and not necessarily a manifestation of the spreading of the Gospel. I think it could be both / and / or; but how common this was prior to Pentecost? We could only confess that we don't really know; based on sparsity of written record.
Now how does this work practically? If every time we will confess, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow … that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (
Philippians 2:10-11) then monarchs, kings, state representatives, congressmen and presidents must bow their knee before God. By what standard will they bow the knee? Yes, it gets back to God’s Law. The kingdom has no place in terms of seeking approval or legitimacy here in the earth. It doesn’t need the president’s approval to exist. Its authority comes from the other world, and therefore it is superior and higher. But the kingdom is manifest in the world and Christ’s Lordship is manifest in the world in the civil realm, in the family, in every aspect of society, economics, science, etc. Christ’s Lordship has the claim.
You made an interesting point in the context of Jesus could have just called down a bunch of angels and God demonstrates His authority to supersede the kingdom of satan. And He did that at points. Pharaoh's idiocy at "throwing Egypt under the bus" back in Exodus is a prime example.
So, I'd venture to guess that "my Kingdom is not of this world" has broader application than we are even taking into consideration here.
Since the Church has now received the Holy Spirit, this has changed. Now Jesus has his servants on the earth. Scripture even calls us His “Body” (
Romans 12:4-5;
1 Corinthians 12:12-27;
Ephesians 5:30) to explain the close relationship. Thus the kingdom of God has reached the earth. Although not of this world, it is in the world. The people of God are called to overcome in the world and not escape this world (Roman Medvid, “Whose Kingdom Is Here?” Predvestnik).
How do believers overcome the world though; in considering the dichotomy between the eternal and the temporal. The reality still remains that a world that is incorruptible and without sin and death is still yet to come. And in looking at that; the post-millennial concept of some "golden age" that appears to be a component of certain peoples' eschatology (pre-mil and dispensationalists are guilty of the same thing) I don't see any "global" evidence of in Scripture.
Granted I know concepts; as well as definitions of post-millennialism has changed over the past 150 years or so; but the "golden age" aspect of it seems as far fetched to me as the pre-mil dispensationalists.