This article argues that failure of Jerusalem to accept or recognise its fortune (Lk 19:41–44) may
be ascribed to a difference in expectations between the Temple rulers and the lowly, who
interacted with Jesus at their level. At the outset, the kairos was anticipated and welcomed by
the lowly, and throughout the two-part narrative the respective attitudes of the lowly and
Temple rulers towards Jesus are contrasted, whilst conflict between Jesus and the latter
culminated in the crucifixion. The problem as suggested by the narrative is that a highly
political messianic programme may have been expected, whereas Jesus offered an individual
and community empowerment as the content of God’s kairos. The article concludes that the
content of a kairos is determined by the potential beneficiaries; its delivery vehicle and timing
(kairos) are God’s prerogative, whereas the ability to recognise and accept it is predicated on a
consensus among beneficiaries about the content. South Africa should learn from this if its
National Development Plan is to become a reality.
INTRADISCIPLINARY AND/OR INTERDISCIPLINARY IMPLICATIONS : This article employs insights from
the narrative approach and Greek mythology to question the sterile approach to the kairos
discourse. It introduces a new hermeneutical and epistemological paradigm that opens up
possibilities for a developmental approach and sheds light on the behaviours of Jerusalem and
the early Church. In the process, views from Biblical Studies, Hermeneutics and Church
History are engaged.
This article is part of ongoing research on kairos through the eyes of Greek mythology. It is the second of three articles written to
test the waters on various aspects of the term kairos.