Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was

All utopias have one thing in common: the utopian society does not exist within the world we know, or else it does not yet exist, in which case it is located in the future. Consequently, students of utopias distinguish between those that are spatially distant and those distant in time, in short, between space- and time-utopias. Ultimately, the intent is the same: what the utopia depicts is far, far away.

In terms of this basic structure of all utopias we must say that the reign of God, as Jesus sees it, is no utopia, because utopia means “nowhere.” The reign of God of which Jesus speaks, however, has a location: its place is Israel, the people of God (see chap. 3). Obviously Israel is not an end in itself. The Old Testament already sees the people of God as the entry-way for the whole world. The “pilgrimage of the nations to Zion” shows that Israel is God’s way to reach all peoples (see chap. 4). So also the concept of the reign of God ultimately always applies to the whole world. But the transformation of the world that is at stake in the proclamation of the reign of God begins in Israel because what is to happen in the whole world must begin in a concrete and strictly defined place.

That is why Jesus does not go to the Gentiles but concentrates on the people of God. And he sends the Twelve not to the Gentiles but to the twelve tribes of the house of Israel. That is his program. That is precisely why he chose the Twelve.

So for Jesus the reign of God has a fixed place that is not somewhere in the distance but precisely where he proclaims the reign of God, where he heals the sick, where he drives out the demons of society (chap. 9). In reality the place of the reign of God is even more concretely defined: Jesus begins, from the very first day of his public activity, to gather disciples around him (chap. 5). He wants the signs of the reign of God to be immediately present to every eye; he wants those signs to be tangible, visible, the objects of experience. Hence the group of disciples to whom Jesus says, “Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32). All that speaks against the idea of calling the reign of God a utopia. But I have already indicated that, in the long series of utopias produced in the West, the utopian society is sometimes set spatially at a distance and sometimes in the future—thus either in a spatial not-here or in a temporal not-yet. How did Jesus view the temporal aspect of the reign of God? When is it coming?

We have seen that there are many texts from Jesus showing that the reign of God is not yet announced, it is still coming, people in Israel must first open themselves to it, so that from a certain point of view it is not yet here. But that was only one side of the coin, because much more prominent were all the texts in which Jesus speaks of the presence of the reign of God. For Jesus the reign is not “coming” in the sense that it lies somewhere in the unattainable future; that future is already dawning, is already visible in Jesus and his deeds. Everyone can already share in the reign of God now (chap. 2).

So in terms of the temporal dimension also the reign of God is not a utopia, but a future already in realization. Future hopes, promises, prophetic proclamations had existed in Israel for a long time. What is new with Jesus is precisely that he says: today it is all beginning, today it is fulfilled in your midst. That is, the longed-for future is here. The people of God need only believe and repent. Utopia means “not here” or “not yet.” But Jesus says instead: “today already” and “really here!”

The Function of Utopias

Thus far I have based my remarks primarily on the Greek roots of the word “utopia,” but such purely linguistic considerations are inadequate since the real impetus for the conception of utopias was not the pleasure of fantasizing but the desire to change the present. Thomas More himself, when he wrote his Utopia, had in mind the English society of his time. This is evident in the first book of Utopia, in which he gives no account at all of his distant island but instead criticizes the bad social conditions in England. We should not be overly influenced by the fact that he called his work “Nowhere.” He was altogether concerned with the society in which he lived.

Such is the case, fundamentally, with all those who write utopias. They are depicting something that does not exist in order to change society as they find it. All utopias are counter-projects that are critical of the authors’ own societies. Hence I must pose my question anew.