Christ's Third Temptation: The Two Kingdoms and Two Loves

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW tells us that a scholar, one of the party of the Pharisees, was sent to Jesus in order to stump him with a question on which was the greatest of all commandments:

"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

(Matt. 22:36-40; see also Mark 12:28-32; Luke 10:25-27)

According to Jesus, there are therefore two great loves which should govern our lives: love of God and love of neighbor. It is an error to collapse them into one. It is as much an error to ignore or minimize the former as it is to ignore or minimize the latter. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

It is also an error to suggest there is a contradiction or even tension between the two loves. As Dom Jean Leclercq puts it in his classic Seul avec Dieu (Alone with God), "The soul that loves God in God participates in the love by which God unites all the creatures that He loves . . . . Thus the love of God in God extends to all the creatures loved by God but flows into each of them according to its property capacity."* These two loves are entirely consistent since the former orders the latter.

We live in a world, however, and perhaps always have and always will, in which these two commandments--these two loves--are opposed, are set one against the other as if inconsistent. Either that or the two loves are conflated so that one disappears into the other sort of like the Monophysites say what happened to Christ's human nature as it got completely absorbed into his divine nature. Secularists, for example, seem to stress love of neighbor (as they understand it) at the expense of love of God, and so the love of God becomes absorbed into love of man, and disappears. The product is secular humanism. Islamists, on the other hand, seem to stress love of God (understood more along the lines of submission or slaveship) at the expense of love of neighbor.** For Islamists, the love of neighbor becomes absorbed into the love of God, and essentially disappears. The product may be called theoism, or perhaps Allah-ism.***

In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict XVI suggests that the divine ordering of the two commandments is somehow related to the divine ordering in between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. We cannot ignore this divine ordering, for he observes that "without heaven, earthly power is always ambiguous and fragile." (p. 39) In the same way, without heaven, earthly love is always ambiguous and fragile.

"Only when [the earthly] power [of the kingdoms of this world] submits to the measure and the judgment of heaven--of God, in other words--can it become power for good. And only when power stands under God's blessing can it be trusted." (pp. 39) This would appear to be true for the love of neighbor. It is only when the love of neighbor "submits to the measure and judgment of heaven--of God, in other words," that it can become a power for good.

Christ's Temptation, by James B. Janknegt (1990)

There are two kingdoms, really distinct, with one subordinate to the other. There are two loves, really distinct, with one subordinate to the other.

It seems that Western history, and really the history of the world, is jam packed with a tendency of forgetting the real distinction between the two loves--and so conflating the love of God with the love of neighbor or conflating the neighbor with the love of God. In terms of kingdoms, the tendency is to forget the real distinction between the two kingdoms, and so conflate the kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world. In such instances, a kingdom of the world becomes confused with the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of God becomes confused with a kingdom of this world.

There is a constant temptation to conflate, to confuse, to collapse distinctions between the things of God and the things of man, and thereby reduce religion to politics or economics, or promote economics or politics to the level of religion. So men traveling through history are constantly confronted--like Christ--with a third temptation of their own:

The temptation to use power to secure the faith has arisen again and again in varied forms throughout the centuries, and again and again faith has risked being suffocated in the embrace of power. The struggle for freedom of the Church, the struggle to avoid identifying Jesus' Kingdom with any political structure, is one that has to be fought century after century. For the fusion of faith and political power always comes at a price: faith becomes the servant of power and must bend to its criteria.

(p. 40). It is true that historical circumstances have made the notions of Christian empire or the secular power of the Papacy obsolete, and so the temptation that was particular to that historical setting "is no longer a temptation today." (p. 42) And yet we ought not to fool ourselves that the temptation is still not with us. This temptation "is constantly take on new forms," (p. 39) and so it is like the Hydra, a monster which grows another head or two if one is chopped off.

In fact, this Hydra-like temptation simply shows itself in another way, in a way proper to the historical circumstances we face. Modernly, the temptation is to conflate the love of God into the love of neighbor, so that religion becomes a force by which political, economic, or social progress or justice is fanned, and the God whom we do not see becomes secondary, irrelevant.

[T]he interpretation of Christianity as a recipe for progress and the proclamation of universal prosperity as the real goal of all religions, including Christianity--this is the modern form of the same temptation. It appears in the guise of a question: "What did Jesus bring, then, if he didn't usher in a better world? How can that not be the content of messianic hope?

(p. 42-43)

But as the Pope reminds us in his encyclical on hope, Spe salvi:

Christianity did not bring a message of social revolution like that of the ill-fated Spartacus, whose struggle led to so much bloodshed. Jesus was not Spartacus, he was not engaged in a fight for political liberation like Barabbas or Bar-Kochba.

Spe salvi, 4.†

The devil is actually much more wilely and subtle than as presented in the third temptation as narrated in Scripture. "The tempter is not so crude" Benedict XVI states, "as to suggest to us directly that we should worship the devil. He merely suggests that we opt for the reasonable decision, that we choose to give priority to a planned and thoroughly organized world, where God may have his place as a private concern but must not interfere in our essential purposes." "Religion thus conceived," says James V. Schall who reflects on this passage, is one that is not so much at the service of God, but "at the service of our own world reconstruction."

The Pope continues his reflections and ties in the modern misinterpretations of Jesus as a sort of political or social messiah as nothing other than forms of the "third temptation." We must understand Christ's messiahship as Christ understood it, within the context of the suffering servant of Isaiah, and not as we want it. And the only way to understand Christ's messiahship is to set it within the context of what Jesus rejected in his third temptation.

Jesus' third temptation proves then to be the fundamental one, because it concerns the question as to what sort of action is expected of a Savior of the world. It pervades the entire life of Jesus. It manifests itself openly again at a decisive turning point along his path. Peter, speaking in the name of the disciples, has confessed that Jesus is the Messiah-Christ, the Son of the Living God. In doing so, he has expressed in words the faith that builds up the Church and inaugurates the new community of faith based on Christ. At this crucial moment, where distinctive and decisive knowledge of Jesus separates his followers from public opinion and begins to constitute them as his new family, the tempter appears--threatening to turn everything into its opposite. The Lord immediately declares that the concept of the Messiah has to be understood in terms of the entirety of the message of the Prophets--it means not worldly power, but the Cross, and the radically different community that comes into being through the Cross.

But that is not what Peter has understood. "Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, 'God forbid Lord, this shall never happen to you.'" (Mat. 16:22) Only when we read these words against the backdrop of the temptation scene--as its recurrence at the decisive moment--do we understand Jesus' unbelievably harsh answer: "'Get behind me Satan. You are a hindrance to me for you are not on the side of God, but of men.'" (Mat 16:23)

(p. 42)

What does this say to us? Those that reject the kingdom of God and opt only for the kingdoms of the world, such as the secularists, and those who confuse the kingdom of God with the kingdoms of the world, such as the Islamists or Allah-ists, deserve the "unbelievably harsh answer" that Jesus gave to Peter: Vade retro me Satanas.

Jesus . . . repeats to us what he said in reply to Satan [in the third temptation], what he said to Peter, and what he explained further to the disciples of Emmaus: No kingdom of this world is the kingdom of God, the total condition of mankind’s salvation. Earthly kingdoms remain earthly, human kingdoms, and anyone who claims to be able to establish the perfect world is the willing dupe of Satan and plays the world right into his hands.

(p. 43-44)

If Jesus does not bring us a political program or an economic program, what did he bring us? The answer is simple: Jesus brought us what we really need, for he knew that man does not live by bread alone:

The answer is very simple: God. He has brought God. He has brought the God who formerly unveiled his countenance gradually, first to Abraham, then to Moses and the Prophets, and then in the Wisdom Literature - the God who revealed his face only in Israel, even though he was also honored among the pagans in various shadowy guises. It is this God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the true God, whom he has brought to the nations of the earth. He has brought God, and now we know his face, now we can call upon him. Now we know the path that we human beings have to take in this world. Jesus has brought God and with God the truth about our origin and destiny: faith, hope, and love. It is only because of the hardness of hearts that we think this is too little.

(p. 44)

So let us not worry and say, "What are we or our neighbor to eat? What are we or our neighbor to drink? What are we and our neighbor to wear?" All these things the pagans seek without regard to God. God knows we and our neighbor need them all.

What then are we to worry about? We are to worry about seeking "first the kingdom of God and his righteousness"--which is to say, loving the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind, and with all our strength." (Matt. 6:31-33; Mark 12:30) Only after being informed by that love of God are we then to concern ourselves with the "kingdoms of this world," with politics and economics and social questions. Things then are added unto us. Only within that love of God, in other words, are we to love our neighbors as ourselves. (Matt. 22:39; Mark 12:31) There can be no social justice, in other words, without the love of God first.

As Schall so eloquently summarizes it:

The affirmation of the first three commandments of the Decalogue about the worship of God is also an affirmation to the second seven, the love of God and neighbor. But the second commandment comes about only by knowing the first and its primacy. This is what the third temptation was about. Jesus is the Son, "the new Jacob, the Patriarch of a universalized Israel." The conclusion remains, behind everything that we think and do, "God is the issue."

In his Urbi et orbi message of Christmas 2010, Pope Benedict XVI referred to priority that must be given to the Kingdom of God--that is, the love of God--as a condition of understanding our role of the kingdoms of the world--that is, the love of neighbor:

We know that his Kingdom is not of this world, and yet it is more important than all the kingdoms of this world. It is like the leaven of humanity: were it lacking, the energy to work for true development would flag: the impulse to work together for the common good, in the disinterested service of our neighbor, in the peaceful struggle for justice.

Love God. Love your neighbor for love of God. Do not fall victim to the Third Temptation. Give preeminence to the first, or you will sour or spoil the latter. Do not confuse the two loves, and do not collapse them into one. Remember, there are two kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the world. Do not fall victim to the Third Temptation. Give preeminence to the first, seek it first, and then, and only then, attend to the latter. Do not confuse the two, and do not conflate them. In a nutshell, that is the heart of Catholic social doctrine.
____________________________________________
*Dom Jean Leclercq, Alone with God (Ercam, 2008), 127.
**Qur'an 3:31("If ye love Allah, follow me.") Love of God represents a submission to, or following of, Muhammad and his dualistic teachings which call for struggle and indeed war (jihad) against non-Muslims and which reject a universal love of neighbor. There is nothing similar to the two great commandments of Jesus in Muhammad's Qur'an or in the Sunnah.
***"[T]here is a certain cryptic relation between the notion that we can construct our own world [secularism] and the notion that God, if He chooses, can will evil to be good or good to be evil [Islam]." (Schall) "Both the thesis that God is pure will and that he does not exist end up in the same place, as the Pope indicated in the "Regensburg Lecture." They allow us to do what we want and to justify it on theoretic grounds." (Schall) In terms of moral duty, the Islamist, theoist, or Allahist kingdom is starkly dualist. There is one moral law for the Muslim, there is another moral law for the non-Muslims. So Islam suffers from a moral dualism imposed, the Islamist or Allahist would say, positively by Allah. The Jew, the Christian, and Infidel, and the Muslim "hypocrites" (the kuffar, the mushrikun, and the munafiqun) are a different category of neighbor from the Muslim. So the two commandments of Christ become--under the teachings of Muhammad--something akin to love Allah, and love your fellow Muslim, but the Jew, the Christian, the infidel, and the hypocrite you shall not love. This is the upshot of such ayat of the Qur'an such as Qur'an 5:51 ("O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people"). See also Qur'an 3:10, 28, 85, 118; 5:80; 9:23; 53:29.
†Spartacus (ca. 109–71 BC) was a Thracian gladiator/slave who became a famous military leader of his fellow slaves in the Third Servile Was, an ultimately unsuccessful slave rebellion against the Roman Republic. Spartacus is frequently cited as an example of an oppressed people fighting for their freedom against their oppressors. Notably, he was an inspiration to modern revolutionaries such as Karl Marx (who mentions him as his "hero" in his Confession at Zalt-Bommel, April 1, 1865) and Fidel Castro's comrade-in-arms, the guerillero Che Guevara. Barabbas, of course, was the Jewish revolutionary who was released during the Passover season at the behest of the crowd when given an option by Pilate on whether to release Barabbas or Jesus based upon legal custom. (e.g., Matt. 27:15-26) Simon bar Kochba was a 2nd century Jewish leader who successfully spearheaded the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 A.D. He was head of a short-lived Jewish state, which eventually was re-conquered by the Romans in 135 A.D. As to those whose "struggle led to so much bloodshed" and those who "fight for political liberation," Pope Benedict XVI may have cited Muhammad, a self-acclaimed "prophet" who, more than anyone in the history of the world, fell into the temptation of advocating "the fusion of faith and political power," failing thereby to recognize the price that in such instances "faith becomes the servant of power and must bend to its criteria." (p. 40) But surely his recollection of the violent Muslim reception of his 2006 "Regensburg Lecture" and its tangential reference to Muhammad by quoting the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (1455-1512) ("Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.") suppressed any inclination at pointing out the obvious.

Christ's Third Temptation: Introduction

IN THE PAST TWO POSTINGS we have reviewed the Old Testament notion of Yahweh Malak, Yahweh as the real or final king or ruler of Israel. We also looked at the New Testament understanding of Jesus who announces the kingdom of God, and who is, himself, and seminally and mysteriously through the the New Israel,* i.e., the Church which He founded on Peter, the kingdom or ruleship of this Yahweh. We spent some time looking at the Scriptural references to the kingdom of God or, what is the same thing in typically Matthean language, the kingdom of heaven. With this background we are ready to look at the third temptation of Christ as related in the Gospels.* (Matt. 4:8-10; Luke 4:5-8) The version of the Gospel of Matthew is given first. The version in the Gospel of Luke is given next.

Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, and he said to him, "All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me." At this, Jesus said to him, "Get away, Satan! It is written: 'The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.'"

Then he took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant. The devil said to him, "I shall give to you all this power and their glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I may give it to whomever I wish. All this will be yours, if you worship me." Jesus said to him in reply, "It is written: 'You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him alone shall you serve.'"

The versions are essentially identical, and it seem little can be gained by contrasting them. What does yield some interesting fruit is the contrast between Christ's assumption of kingship, his preaching of the kingdom of God, and his insistence, immediately prior to his Ascension, that all power under heaven and earth had been given him (Matt. 28:18), with His rejection of the temptation of Satan presented in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Christ rejects ruleship of all "kingdoms of this world," but plainly accepts ruleship of the "kingdom of heaven" or the "kingdom of God." But Christ's rejection of the "kingdoms of this world" is not absolute. Ultimately, as those revelations in Scripture that point to the culmination of history, the eschaton, make plain, all nations, that is, all kingdoms of this world, will be placed under the ruleship of Christ. But this culmination is by God's proffer and in God's time, not through Satan's proffer and Satan's time. "The kingdoms of the world now belongs to our Lord and to his Anointed, and he will reign forever and ever." (Rev. 11:15; cf. Matt. 8:11; Daniel 2:44; 7:27)

The Third Temptation of Christ, by Duccio de Buoninsegna (ca. 1308-11)

While Jesus clearly rejected ruleship over the "kingdoms of this world" in the manner offered by Satan--one of which surely included the imperium of the Roman Emperor Augustus, the divinized "Caesar" of the Gospels--he did not for all that "directly oppose himself to the authorities of his time." (Compendium, No. 379) "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's." (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). Indeed, Christ insisted that all authority and the power of the "kingdoms of this world" are ultimately derived from God. (John 19:11; Rom. 13:1) He submitted himself to both religious and civil authorities as being part of the Father's plan, knowing that if he wanted he could easily call in heavenly aid. (Matt. 26:52)

How then are we to fit all this together? A kingdom of God for which we ought to sell all, the "kingdoms of this world," the temptations of which we are to shun, and yet whose authority we are not generally directly to oppose because it comes from God?

In contrasting these two kingdoms, we seem to confront what St. Augustine in his work De civitate Dei called the "two cities," "formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self." Indeed, St. Augustine uses the full talents of his Roman rhetoric to contrast the difference between these "two cities," which is nothing other the contrast between the "kingdoms of this world," the keys of which seem to be on Satan's keyfob, and the "kingdom of God" or the "kingdom of Heaven," the keys to which seem to be with the Lord but lent for a time to Peter, His Vicar:

Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience. The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, "Thou art my glory, and the lifter up of mine head." In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another in love, the latter obeying, while the former take thought for all. The one delights in its own strength, represented in the persons of its rulers; the other says to its God, "I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength." And therefore the wise men of the one city, living according to man, have sought for profit to their own bodies or souls, or both, and those who have known God "glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise,"--that is, glorying in their own wisdom, and being possessed by pride,--"they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." For they were either leaders or followers of the people in adoring images, "and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever." But in the other city there is no human wisdom, but only godliness, which offers due worship to the true God, and looks for its reward in the society of the saints, of holy angels as well as holy men, "that God may be all in all."***

To take this exploration between Christ's kingdom and the kingdoms of this world a littler further, we might turn to the insights of Pope Benedict XVI's private reflections on Christ's third temptation in his book Jesus of Nazareth.† What Benedict XVI suggests in his reflections is that what is involved in the interrelationship between the "kingdom of God" and the "kingdoms of this world" is the proper interrelationship between the two great commandments, which, of course, are a synopsis of the natural moral law in the light of Revelation.

(continued)

____________________________________________
*cf. Rom 9:6, Col. 2:11-12; see also CCC § 877, Vatican II, Ad gentes, No. 5.
**It is given as the second temptation in the Gospel of Luke.
***St. Augustine, De civitate Dei, XIV.28. The text is rich with scriptural references, including Ps. 3:4, 17:2, Rom.1:21-23, 25, and 1 Cor. 15:28. The text in Latin: Fecerunt itaque civitates duas amores duo, terrenam scilicet amor sui usque ad contemptum Dei, caelestem vero amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui. Denique illa in se ipsa, haec in Domino gloriatur. Illa enim quaerit ab hominibus gloriam; huic autem Deus conscientiae testis maxima est gloria. Illa in gloria sua exaltat caput suum; haec dicit Deo suo: Gloria mea et exaltans caput meum. Illi in principibus eius vel in eis quas subiugat nationibus dominandi libido dominatur; in hac serviunt invicem in caritate et praepositi consulendo et subditi obtemperando. Illa in suis potentibus diligit virtutem suam; haec dicit Deo suo: Diligam te, Domine, virtus mea. Ideoque in illa sapientes eius secundum hominem viventes aut corporis aut animi sui bona aut utriusque sectati sunt, aut qui potuerunt cognoscere Deum, non ut Deum honoraverunt aut gratias egerunt, sed evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum; dicentes se esse sapientes, id est dominante sibi superbia in sua sapientia sese extollentes, stulti facti sunt et immutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et volucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium: ad huiuscemodi enim simulacra adoranda vel duces populorum vel sectatores fuerunt: et coluerunt atque servierunt creaturae potius quam Creatori, qui est benedictus in saecula. In hac autem nulla est hominis sapientia nisi pietas, qua recte colitur verus Deus, id exspectans praemium in societate sanctorum non solum hominum, verum etiam angelorum, ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus.
†We shall also rely on the keen insights of Fr. James V. Schall, who wrote a series on Benedict XVI's book, including one piece that specifically reflected on this third temptation, and which also incorporates Pope Benedict XVI's "Regensburg Lecture." See James V. Schall, "God Is The Issue” The Temptation in the Desert and the Kingdoms of This World" in cuorliber.wordpress.com.

The Kingdom of God and His Christ

IN THE MIND OF HIS DISCIPLES, Jesus was and is and ever shall be King. That is why we pray in the Te Deum:

Tu Rex gloriae, Christe.
. . . .
Tu, devicto mortis aculeo,
aperuisti credentibus regna caelorum.

You are the King of Glory: O Christ.
. . . .
When you had overcome the sharpness of death:
you did open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers.

But Jesus not an ordinary King with an ordinary kingdom. The kingdom or ruleship Christ claimed for himself was not an ordinary kingdom. Christ's kingdom was a kingdom not of this world. (John 18:36) It was invisible, spiritual, internal, eternal one--though it was among us, about us, around us, and within us in time until the end of time when it would reach its fulfillment. "The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed," Jesus told the Pharisees, "and no one will announce, 'Look, here it is,' or, 'There it is.' For behold, the kingdom of God is among you." (Luke 17:20-21)

It is a strange kingdom whose King finds His earthly manifestation not on a throne, with gold crown, and lush raiment. But rather whose glory is to be nailed to a cross--a cross which St. John Eudes called the thronus amoris igneus, the wooden throne of love--with a crown of thorns, essentially disrobed and naked, and a sign, intended to be mocking, but which, ironically, declares his hidden kingship in the three sacred languages:

IESVS·NAZARENVS·REX·IVDÆORVM
IHΣOYΣ O NAZΩRAIOΣ O ΒΑΣΙΛEYΣ ΤΩΝ ΪΟΥΔΑΙΩN
ישוע הנצרי מלך היהדים

Crucifixion of Christ by Matthias Grunewald (Detail)

The kingdom of God, St. Paul further explains, "is not a matter of food and drink." Rather, it is a matter of "righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Spirit." (Rom. 14:17) This means it is a moral, and even more importantly, a spiritual and supernatural reality, and not a bodily, temporal, or social one. It is not something flesh and blood will inherit, like some sort of human realm or human property. (1 Cor. 15:50) It is not just talk, vain hope, empty words, since there is a real power behind it. (1 Cor. 4:20) Words don't allow us admittance; it requires something internal--repentance, a conversion, a "re-turn" to God--and a fixed intention on only doing the will of God the Father who is in heaven. (Matt. 7:21) This means, keeping the commandments and teaching others to keep the commandments is what this kingdom is all about. (Matt:5:19) It is a secret, a mystery, the knowledge of which has been imparted to to Christ's intimates, (Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10) and yet one which must be proclaimed to the world.

But what a precious secret which is to be proclaimed to the world and, as it were, made unsecret! It is one for which one should sell all he has. It is like a a field one discovers contains treasure, and one covers it up, sells all he he has, and buys it, so as to become rich in the bargain. (Matt. 13:44) It is the pearl of great price, one for which the spiritual merchant will sell all he has to acquire. (Matt. 13:46)

And yet that secret which is to be unsecreted is silent, inexplicable, marvelous, and has an organic tendency to grow and bear fruit. And so the kingdom of God is like the mystery of the seed sown by a farmer, which grows, whether tended or not, and which ultimately reaps a huge harvest. It is like a mustard seed, a tiny seed, but one which grows into a huge tree. It is like yeast which is mixed with dough and which makes it rise. (Mark 4:26-32; Luke 13:19-21)

In a sense, the kingdom of God was present in Christ, and is Christ, since he drove out demons and explained that this was a sing that the kingdom of God had come to us. (Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20) It, in fact, is also mysteriously, intimately, and indissolubly linked to Christ's Church, which is Christ's body, "the kingdom of Christ now present in mystery," (VII, Lumen gentium, No. 3), the "seed and the beginning of that kingdom," (CCC § 768 quoting LG, No. 5), a "sign and instrument of the kingdom." (Dominus Iesus, No. 18) "In fact, the kingdom of God which we know from revelation, 'cannot be detached either from Christ or from the Church . . . yet while remaining distinct from Christ and the kingdom, the Church is indissolubly united to both." (Dominus Iesus, 18) There is a "unicity" in the "relationship which Christ and the Church have with the kingdom of God." (Dominus Iesus, No. 19)

Because this kingdom exists with us in the Church, so the good wheat grow with the tares in the kingdom's field, there is good fish and bad fish in the kingdom's net, which might confuse us or cause scandal. (Matt. 13:24-30, 47-49) We must however remain faithful to Christ and his Church, as those who reject Christ are not part of a the kingdom of God. (Matt. 21:43) And yet, it is open to admission for those who, at the last moment of their lives, repent, for the first shall be last, the last shall be first.

The kingdom of God though akin to a secret, however, is something for which is preached, for we work for, for which we suffer and experience hardship, even persecution, and the coming of which we wait. (Acts 8:12; 14:22; 28:31, 2 Thess. 1:5, Col. 4:1, Matt. 5:10; Mark 15:43) It is something that sometimes requires the sacrifice of leaving home, wife, family. (Luke 18:29) It is something that requires preparation, wise custody, effort and planning. (Cf. Matt. 25:1-11) It is something which we enter by baptism, so it is closely linked, if it is not in fact equated, with the Church. (John 3:5) It is a difficult acquisition, hard to enter, and difficult to stay in. (Mark 10:24) We do not inherit it without condition, since we are banned from it if we are wicked. (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:21) "Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal. 5:19-21)

We are therefore to act forcefully to avoid any sin that threatens to keep us from entering it. (Mark 9:47) The rich whose heart is in their earthly treasure, and who focus upon acquiring riches in gold rather than riches in spirit, have a difficult time accessing the kingdom of God. (Mark 10:23) The selfish, self-regarding, self-sufficient rich are not our model. Rather, we must become innocent, poor in spirit, dependent, receptive, and full of wonder like little children. (Matt. 18:4; 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:17; Matt. 5:3) It is something that, once being in, we ought not to look back, for no one who "set his hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:62) The keys to that kingdom were given to Peter, the Rock, and it will be with us until the end of time, for the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18-19)

The kingdom of God, though present even in Christ when he walked on earth, and though present in us even now, and always near (Luke 10:11), will not be fully realized until the end of time, when, according to Scripture, an angel will blow his trumpet and voices in heaven will sing: "The kingdom of the world now belongs to our Lord and to his Anointed, and he will reign forever and ever." (Rev. 11:15; cf. Matt. 8:11; Daniel 2:44; 7:27) It is something the consummation of which ought devoutly to be wished, and indeed, the Lord taught us to pray to the Lord God, "thy kingdom come," adveniat regnum tuum." (Matt. 6:10; Luke 11:2) And St. Paul prays impatiently: Lord come! Maranatha! (1 Cor. 16:22)

The Kingdom of God was one that did not rely on violence, even justifiable violence, against properly constituted authority. (John 18:36) It was not one that relied upon the sword. It was not one that relied upon "oppressive and despotic power," such as the power "wielded by the rulers of nations." (Compendium, No. 379) And yet the Kingdom of God offered a huge challenge to the kingdoms of this earth.

The kingdom of God ushered in by Christ was one that operated above and beyond and around and within existing kingdoms and kings, those who claimed, falsely in an absolute sense, to have final authority over, and be the real benefactors (euergetai) of, their people, and thereby approach divinity.* (Luke 22:25) Such claims were false because Jesus knew that there was no authority exercised by any magistrate except that it was given to him by God. (John 19:11; cf. Rom 13:1) Such claims were also false because Jesus knew that the only real benefactor of men is God, the God who feeds the birds of the air who store not goods in barns, and who sees to it that the lilies, who neither labor nor spin, have beautiful raiment.

So do not worry and say, 'What are we to eat?' or 'What are we to drink?' or 'What are we to wear?' All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides.

(Matt. 6:26-33)

The Kingdom of God operated on a model entirely different from those under which the rulers of the world operated. In a sense it is topsy turvy. The model of leadership was service (diakonos), youth (neōteros), even slavery (doulos). (Luke 22:26; Mark 10:43-44) In this way, the leader was to imitate Christ, the "Son of Man [who] did not come to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many." (Cf. Mark 10:42-45) That is why the Pope, heir to St. Peter's keys, is called the servant of the servants of God, servus servorum Dei.
________________________________
*Interestingly, this is the only instance in the entire scriptures where the word benefactors (euergetai) is used. In Hellenistic thought, "For a man, to benefit others is a way to be divine." For a ruler to adopt the term "euergetai" was for that ruler to imply "an almost supernatural personality," since he gave without receiving. Following Alexander the Great's example, who saw himself as a great benefactor by freeing people from the barbarians and introducing them into Hellenistic culture and governance, many rulers called themselves benefactors of their people, euergetai. Significantly, the benefits given the euergetai were "welfare benefits," in the form of corn, food, shelter, and water. Gloria Vivenza, "Classical Roots of Benevolence," in B. B. Price, ed, Ancient Economic Thought (New York: Routledge, 2005), Vol. 1, 190-91. This seems almost an implied criticism of what we could call a nanny state where we put too much reliance upon the state, and not enough reliance upon God.

The Internal Economy of Jesus

JESUS THE MESSIAH "takes up the entire Old Testament tradition even with regard to economic goods, wealth, and poverty, and he gives it great clarity clarity and fullness." (Compendium, No. 325) Christ's teachings regarding the goods of this world, wealth, and poverty usher in "a new manner of social life," one that ought to be reflective of the Gospel values of "justice, brotherhood, solidarity, and sharing." This "new manner," however, is not one that can be brought into being or enforced by extrinsic, positive law alone, as it is based upon and inner transformation brought about by "the conversion of hearts" and the "gift of the Spirit." (Compendium, No. 325) The "Kingdom of God" ushered by Christ is not one which people can point to and say, "Here it is," or "There it is." The reason for this is that the kingdom of God is within the believers. (Cf. Luke 17:21)

Christ seeks an inner conversion and an inner change in man thereby seeking to perfect "the original goodness of the created order and of human activity, which were compromised by sin." However, this inner transformation, a combination of human turning and spiritual gift, will manifest itself in external activity, in fruits.* And so "man is called to render justice to the poor, releasing the oppressed, consoling the afflicted, actively seeking a new social order in which adequate solutions to material poverty are offered and in which the forces thwarting the attempts of the weakest to free themselves from the conditions of misery and slavery are more effectively controlled." (Compendium, No. 325)

This is the elusive Kingdom of God which, though not "of this world," is yet, "at hand," and in a marvelously ambiguous Greek phrase, both within us, and among us, in our very midst, and within our very grasp (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστίν). (Cf. John 18:36, Mark 1:5, Luke 17:21) That Kingdom of God is found personally in Christ, and continues in Christ's Church. The Kingdom of God, however, will not arrive in its fullness until the end of time when Christ returns and all creation will be truly "all, and in all." (Col. 3:11; 1 Cor. 15:28) (Cf. CCC 671, 782, 1042, 1060, 2816)

Nevertheless, it is manifest in Revelation that "economic activity is to be considered and undertaken as a grateful response to the vocation which God holds out for each person." (Compendium, No. 326)

And in your wisdom have established man to rule the creatures produced by you,
To govern the world in holiness and justice, and to render judgment in integrity of heart.

(Wisdom 9:2-3) It is clear that the world and its benefits are given to man so that it may be tended to, preserved, increased, and perfected. Adam's charge in the garden of Eden was therefore confirmed in Christ's parable of the talents, where the good servants invest the talents, not bury them, and thereby bring about an increase. (Cf. Gen. 1:26-30; 2:15-16; Matt 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27)

Christ Cleansing the Temple by El Greco

Yet at the same time we must recognized that it is harder for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to enter the eye of a needle. (Cf. Matt. 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25, and Luke 18:24-25) We are, moreover, not to put our trust in the uncertainty of riches (1 Tim. 6:17), for we know that he who puts his trust in riches will fall (Proverbs 11:28). Instead, we are to seek first the Kingdom of God and its righteousness, and then, and only then, will all these things be added unto us. (Matt. 6:33) We must not forget that we cannot serve two masters, God and Mammon. (Cf. Matt. 6:24, Luke 16:13) Finally, there is a part in our life which must never be affected by utilitarian, monetary considerations. The temple must on occasion be cleansed of economic activity and monetary gain. (Cf. Mark 11:15-19, 11:27-33; Matt. 21:12-17, 23-27; Luke 19:45-48, 20:1-8) Therefore, even if wealthy, we are to be "poor in spirit" (Matt. 5:3) so as to be "rich before God." (Luke 12:21)

Economic activity and wealth is not to be viewed as a private affair unrelated to the common good and unrelated to God. Rather, "[e]conomic activity and material progress must be placed at the service of man and society," that is, the common good. In fact, economic activity is not in any manner of speaking evil. Indeed, the economy itself properly ordered within the "faith, hope, and love of Christ's disciples" can be "transformed into places of salvation and sanctification." (Compendium, No. 326)

"Faith in Jesus Christ," the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church tells us, "makes it possible to have a correct understanding of social development, in the context of an integral and solidary humanism." (Compendium, No. 327) The Church's social magisterium, founded upon faith in Jesus Christ and grounded in natural law and the moral teachings and example of Jesus, is therefore a valuable guide to integral human development.

That social doctrine provides us guidance in the "task of collaboration" with others, in our "personal and collective effort to raise the human condition and to overcome obstacles which are continually arising along our way." It also warns us of sin, "which is always attempting to trap us and which jeopardizes our human achievements." At the same time, it assures us that sin is "conquered and redeemed by the 'reconciliation' accomplished by Christ. (cf. Col. 1:20)." (Compendium, No. 327) Economic or social development in a manner that contradicts the Church's social doctrine is bound to harm man, contradict the common good, and result in some sort of failure to render God his due.

___________________________________________
*Christ's teachings in the area of wealth and poverty can be the source of confusion. Two things seem to be behind most misinterpretations of his teachings. The first is the failure to recognize Semitisms in the Gospel, particularly the Semitic penchant for contrasting with extremes. The other is the failure to distinguish counsels from precepts. An example of these kind of Semitisms may be found in Christ's Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Luke 6:20-29). Christ's teaching that one should offer the other cheek, and give one's tunic to one who takes one's cloak, if taken literally as preceptive would result in the abandonment of the right to self-defense and the right of ownership of property. If held normative, it would mean that the violent and the brigand would rule the world and could never be brought to justice. Christ is obviously not advocating a world where injustice is the norm and justice ought not to be enforced. Nevertheless, there is a point behind these teachings that ought not to be lost, and there are instances where literal compliance has brought much fruit. A fictional character that lives up to this is Bishop Myriel in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. Another marvelous, this time real, instance is St. Maximilian Kolbe's giving up his life in exchange for Franciszek Gajowniczek at Auschwitz. The lives of the Saints are full of such heroic and extraordinary application of Christ's words. The Precepts are rules that are binding upon all (e.g., you shall not murder). These are the irreducible minimum of the Christian life, and violation of these precepts are sinful, and, if they involve a grave matter and sufficient knowledge and consent, would be mortally sinful Counsels are proposed to those who desire to go beyond the necessary requirements and aim for perfection. They are not binding upon all, but are voluntarily taken by those who wish a more perfect union with, or greater imitation of Christ. Perhaps the most notable instance of this is the story of the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16 ff.) who is asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. Christ states he must keep the precept of keeping the commandments. When the rich young ruler wants more, Jesus counsels him to sell all he has and give the proceeds to the poor and to follow him in the way of poverty. Sadly, the rich young ruler finds the evangelical counsel too burdensome, and loses--not his salvation--but his chance at a greater imitation of, and a deeper relationship with Christ, the God who had nowhere to lay his head. One of the three traditional evangelical counsels is a voluntary life of poverty. The other two are a life of celibacy and a life of obedience, which is to say, a voluntary giving up of one's freedom in submission to the legitimate will of religious superiors. Another instance of this might be the primitive "communism" or communal sharing of goods practiced by Christians and witnessed to in the Book of Acts. See Acts 4:32-35; 2:42-47 (Christians "shared everything they had" and "had everything in common"). As Tertullian put it in his Apolegeticum: "One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives."