A capstone theological–political integration with contemporary application
1. Purpose of the capstone
Across this series we have traced one sustained claim: the Triumphal Entry (and the Passion that follows) is not a sentimental procession but a public, politically legible sign-act through which Jesus announces messianic kingship, redefines power through peace and humility, and provokes both Temple leadership and Roman administration. The wider Greco–Roman context matters because Rome governed, Greek culture mediated public life, and Jewish religious institutions negotiated authority within an imperial order. (Wright, 1996; Carter, 2001). (eBay UK)
This final episode integrates everything into a single interpretive frame: Kingdom, Empire, and the Modern State.
2. Three political imaginaries: what they are (and what they are not)
2.1 Empire
“Empire” is not merely a large country; it is a mode of sovereignty characterised by:
- asymmetric power (centre over periphery),
- coercive enforcement (military-backed order),
- symbolic legitimation (rituals, titles, public spectacle),
- extraction and compliance (taxation, tribute, surveillance), and
- a tendency to sacralise the political order (explicitly or implicitly).
Rome in Judea exemplified this: governors prioritised stability; crucifixion functioned as a deterrent theatre of domination; political language (e.g., “king”) was inseparable from security concerns. (Carter, 2001; Wright, 1996). (Bloomsbury)
2.2 Kingdom of God (as Jesus announces it)
The “Kingdom” in the Gospels is not a private spirituality. It is God’s reign made public in Jesus’ messianic vocation—yet non-identical to the coercive logics by which empires secure order. In the Triumphal Entry, Jesus claims kingship by fulfilling Zechariah 9:9, but rejects the war-horse in favour of the donkey: a deliberate political-theological declaration that his rule is real yet non-imperial in means. (Wright, 1996; Yoder, 1972). (eBay UK)
This is why the Passion is not a contradiction of kingship but its unveiling: the Kingdom’s authority is disclosed through truthful witness, suffering love, and vindication—not through coercive consolidation. (Yoder, 1972). (Wikipedia)
2.3 The Modern State
The modern state is neither “Rome” nor “Christendom.” It is typically defined by:
- territorial sovereignty and borders,
- bureaucratic administration,
- codified law and citizenship,
- mass politics, and
- national identity narratives that often function as a “moral story” of peoplehood.
This matters because modern political loyalty is frequently organised around nation and peoplehood (Episode 21), and modern borders (Episode 22) are often late and historically contingent, not timeless givens. A core risk follows: the state (or nation) can become a substitute object of ultimate meaning—what political theology calls a form of idolatrous sacralisation of the political.
Benedict Anderson’s account of nations as socially constructed “imagined communities” is useful here: modern nationhood is real in consequence, but it is mediated through symbols, narratives, and shared imaginaries rather than being a natural or eternal political form. (Anderson, 1983). (AbeBooks UK)
3. The Triumphal Entry as the pivot: Kingdom confronting Empire
When read against imperial political theatre, the Triumphal Entry becomes a concentrated case study in counter-imperial proclamation:
- Claim: Jesus enacts Zechariah 9:9 and receives royal acclamation—an intelligible public claim to messianic kingship.
- Redefinition: the donkey signals kingship without militarism; peace is not weakness but an alternative political ethic.
- Provocation: the act forces interpretation. Temple leaders fear destabilisation and Roman retaliation; Roman authority fears disorder and rival claimants, especially in Passover’s volatile atmosphere.
This is consistent with why Rome could appear hesitant: the Kingdom’s claim is politically significant in meaning, yet not immediately legible as an armed revolt in method—until elite pressure reframes it as a threat to “Caesar’s” order. (Wright, 1996; Carter, 2001). (eBay UK)
4. From “Christendom” to modern nationalism: the central warning
A major through-line from the later historical episodes (Rome’s long afterlife, medieval Christian political order, modernity’s rise) is this: the church is repeatedly tempted to translate the Kingdom into the dominant political form of the age.
- Under Christendom, the temptation is to equate Kingdom and imperial order (or to baptise the sword as a Christian instrument). Augustine’s distinction between the City of God and earthly political orders remains a key resource for resisting that collapse. (Augustine, 2003). (waterstones.com)
- Under modernity, the temptation shifts: Kingdom becomes fused with nation, peoplehood, or state identity—a civil religion that borrows Christian moral language while relocating ultimate allegiance.
A practical diagnostic is: What receives ultimate loyalty, ultimate fear, and ultimate hope? When the answer is “the nation” or “the state,” the Kingdom has been displaced.
5. A disciplined integration: how Christians can live politically without becoming “imperial”
A robust synthesis does not require political withdrawal; it requires ordered allegiance.
Oliver O’Donovan frames political theology as an enquiry into how God’s rule relates to public authority without collapsing the two. The state’s authority can be real and instrumentally necessary, but it is not ultimate; it remains accountable to justice and truth, and the church remains a distinct community shaped by the gospel’s moral logic. (O’Donovan, 1996). (Google Books)
Similarly, Hauerwas and Willimon argue that the church’s primary political task is to be a truthful community—forming disciples whose habits embody a different polis. Whether or not one adopts all their conclusions, their central warning is apt: confusing the church’s mission with the nation’s project deforms both. (Hauerwas and Willimon, 1989). (alisonmorgan.co.uk)
Applied commitments (non-exhaustive):
- Allegiance: Christ’s kingship is ultimate; civic loyalty is secondary and morally conditioned.
- Means: Kingdom witness rejects coercion as the defining tool of righteousness; it privileges truth, mercy, justice, and reconciling practice. (Yoder, 1972). (Wikipedia)
- Discernment: not every political cause is “Kingdom work,” even when it borrows biblical vocabulary.
- Public courage without sacralising power: resist injustice, but do not baptise domination as though it were redemption.
- Forming communities, not merely winning arguments: the church’s credibility is sustained by embodied practices—hospitality, care for the vulnerable, truthful speech, integrity with money and status, reconciliation.
6. Contemporary application: a practical “Kingdom–Empire–State” checklist
Use this as a reflection tool for sermons, teaching, or personal examination:
A. When you hear political promises, ask:
- What vision of “salvation” is being offered—security, prosperity, purity, revenge, order?
- What is demanded in return—fear, scapegoating, silence, unquestioning loyalty?
B. When you engage politically, ask:
- Are my means consistent with the cruciform character of Christ’s kingship?
- Have I confused winning with faithfulness?
C. When you read Scripture, ask:
- Where does Jesus affirm public order, and where does he expose its pretensions?
- How does the Triumphal Entry redefine kingship before the Cross interprets it fully?
7. Conclusion: the capstone claim
The most precise synthesis is this:
- Empire secures order through coercion and spectacle, demanding loyalty as a condition of peace.
- The Kingdom of God announces ultimate authority through humility, truth, and sacrificial love—publicly proclaimed, yet refusing the empire’s methods.
- The modern state can serve genuine goods (law, stability, protection), but it becomes spiritually dangerous when it absorbs ultimate allegiance and becomes a substitute “kingdom.”
The Triumphal Entry therefore functions as a perpetual test for every age: Will we recognise the King who comes in peace, or will we demand a war-horse because we prefer power that looks like us?
References
Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. (AbeBooks UK)
Augustine (2003) City of God. Translated by H. Bettenson; introduction by G.R. Evans. London: Penguin Classics. (waterstones.com)
Carter, W. (2001) Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Hauerwas, S. and Willimon, W.H. (1989) Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. (alisonmorgan.co.uk)
O’Donovan, O. (1996) The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Google Books)
Wright, N.T. (1996) Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. (eBay UK)
Yoder, J.H. (1972) The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. (Wikipedia)
The Holy Bible (1989) New Revised Standard Version (Anglicised Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.