Читать книгу Offer Them Life - Dan W. Dunn - Страница 7

Tension between the “Already” and the “Not Yet” of the Kingdom

The Synoptic Gospels present the kingdom as a primary focus of Jesus’s ministry. Mark shows Jesus’s public ministry commencing with the announcement that “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”44 Matthew portrays a similar beginning after Jesus’s wilderness experience, noting that “from that time Jesus began to preach, saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”45 Luke introduces Jesus’s connection with kingdom thinking even before Jesus’s birth, as the angel Gabriel tells Mary that the child to whom she will give birth “will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”46

The importance of kingdom to Jesus’s ministry and teaching is seldom in dispute. However, Jesus’s kingdom imagery has been interpreted in a wide variety of ways through the years. One of the most important is whether and/or when the kingdom of God will be (or has been) fulfilled.

Albert Schweitzer, for example, believed that Jesus was originally awaiting a kingdom consummation in some sort of parousia. When that failed to materialize, Jesus and his followers began to reformulate their views about the kingdom’s nearness, pushing the coming of the kingdom out to the future. Schweitzer follows the lead of the “thoroughgoing eschatological school,” noting that “the whole history of ‘Christianity’ down to the present day, that is to say, the real inner history of it, is based on the ‘delay of the parousia.’”47

C. H. Dodd, on the other hand, believed that the predominant lens through which we should view Jesus’s kingdom language is that of “realized eschatology,” by which he meant that “it is not that the Kingdom of God will shortly come, but that it is a present fact.”48 This perspective led Dodd to interpret most of Jesus’s kingdom-related parables as focusing on present impact rather than referring to future events. Thus, in commenting on the four “parables of crisis”49 (“therefore keep watch”), Dodd observes that “it seems possible, therefore, to give to all these ‘eschatological’ parables an application within the context of the ministry of Jesus. They were intended to enforce His appeal to men [sic] to recognize that the Kingdom of God was present in all its momentous consequences, and that by their conduct in the presence of this tremendous crisis they would judge themselves as faithful or unfaithful, wise or foolish.”50

For Dodd, therefore, the kingdom had already arrived in the person and ministry of Jesus. For Schweitzer the kingdom had not yet made its appearance or reached its fulfillment.

A large number of scholars today prefer to include both of these dimensions in their thinking about the kingdom, so that they reach what Caragounis calls “mediating positions according to which the kingdom of God is conceived as both present and future.”51 The basic concept is that in Jesus the kingdom has already come, as validated by his miracles (especially his power over Satan), confirmed through his sacrificial death (a coronation of sorts), and vindicated through his resurrection; and yet the final fulfillment of the kingdom is still to come in the end times with the parousia and the great wedding banquet of the Lamb.

There is a wide variety of perspectives on how one might conceive of the balance or tension between the already and the not-yet of kingdom fulfillment. Beasley-Murray writes that “the believer’s experience of grace is set between an accomplished redemption and an awaited consummation.”52 Kummel prefers to think of the kingdom as being expected in the near future (and therefore not yet here), so that Jesus’s miracles served as “premonitory signs in the present.” Yet he notes that there is also a sense in which the kingdom is already present in Jesus, the Strong Man. The tension, therefore, lies between the promise of a future consummation of history and the fulfillment of that history in Jesus.53

Cullman grounds his views in the understanding of time among early Christians, who thought not in terms of “the spatial contrast between the Here and the Beyond, but from the time distinction between Formerly and Now and Then.”54 This means that the Judaic view of two ages (this age and the age to come) has been altered in Christianity, for Jesus has divided time in a fresh way, having become the center of the age to come. Believers, therefore, know that although the war is still being fought, the decisive battle has already been won.55

These examples serve to illustrate that a great deal of material has been written on the theme of the already and not-yet character of the kingdom’s fulfillment.56 For my purposes, the most important factor to note is how the tension between the already and not-yet dimensions of kingdom fulfillment relates to the biblical theme of life, and then consequently how this relates to the theory and practice of evangelism. Tension is the critical word here, for it helps us understand that the dynamic more appropriately has to do with the tension between the both–and of the already and not-yet dimensions of the kingdom than with any attempt to choose between these two dimensions in an either–or way.57 James Dunn suggests that Paul sees an eschatological gap opening up with Jesus, so that the starting point of the future age has been “pulled back into the present age, to begin with Christ’s resurrection” and the “distinctive feature of Paul’s theology is not the eschatology, but the tension which his revised eschatology sets up.”58 Peter Davids also characterizes the already and not-yet dynamic as a tension, observing that “the king may have come, but he is still coming. The kingdom is already here in the presence of the king, but the kingdom has not yet arrived.”59 Bosch shares these sentiments, and he helpfully notes that not only is this tension unresolved in Jesus’s usage (he prefers the designation of reign of God), but should remain that way, for “it is precisely in this creative tension that the reality of God’s reign has significance for our contemporary mission.”60

In keeping with the spirit of Bosch, I suggest that the tension between the already and not-yet dimensions of kingdom fulfillment bears a strong relationship to the biblical theme of life. Recognizing this tension prompts us to ask: Has the kingdom come fully enough in Jesus that we can experience the life that God intends for us when we submit to Jesus’s reign and rule, or, is it only possible to experience partial life in Christ because the kingdom’s fullness remains to be seen at some future time?

The tension between the already and not-yet dimensions of kingdom fulfillment helps us understand that while there is a certain measure of life that we will only be able to experience in the future, there is also a vibrant fullness of life that can be experienced now. It’s not that we receive a little bit of life now and then at a later point we will receive eternal life; we receive eternal life now. We receive the very Spirit of God. We are renewed in Christ and the Spirit. We are transformed. We are made alive in a way we neither experienced nor understood before.

Is this transformation made instantaneously complete? Not at all. What has begun is a process of transformation that will endure a lifetime and beyond, into chronological eternity. However, our incomplete transformation is not because we receive an incomplete (or insufficient) life, but because the two ages (the old age and the age to come) overlap. It is not that we have been given only partial life in Christ, but rather that the full life in Christ that is ours is “crowded out” and “cluttered” by the old age.

Please note: I am not proposing a reformulation of the no-more-problems version of the gospel. I affirm the truth that we will not experience the complete and final fullness of God-intended life prior to our own death. We will continue to struggle with sin, illness, sickness, and death. This is due to the fact that we are living between the times. We are living in the overlap of the old age and the age to come.61 We cannot (nor should not) do away with the tension between these two ages. However, too many Christians erroneously assume that the tension is between a fully powerful-and-present old age and a partially powerful-and-present age to come. Thus, the biblical and theological concern here is that we not undermine or minimize the fullness of what God has done in Christ. The new age (the age to come) has come in its fullness. We have already received the possibility of new life in Christ in full measure. The reason we sometimes do not yet experience the full measure of this new life is that we live in the overlap between the old age and the age to come, and thus, the complete destruction of the old age has not yet taken place.62

It is also not that we live in some third age in which the fullness of life is weaker than it will be in the age to come. Rather, it is that the old age continues to exert its influence and power, or as Dallas Willard phrases it, “other ‘kingdoms’ are still present on earth along with the kingdom of the heavens.”63 These other kingdoms play a role in the extent to which we experience the full measure of life that God’s kingdom brings, but their presence does not mean that God’s kingdom has only come in partial measure.64

Thus, instead of focusing on the impossibility of experiencing full life in Christ due to the presence and power of the old age, Christians, in both discipleship and evangelism, should focus on the possibility of experiencing full life in Jesus due to the presence and power of the age to come.

In this recommendation I do not assume that the ministry of evangelism will deliver full God-intended life-in-Jesus, for that is more appropriately the role of the ministry of discipleship. I do, however, suggest that the ministry of evangelism should cast the vision of the full God-intended life-in-Jesus. This is more faithful to the core message of the good news of the gospel, it helps non-Christians more fully understand what they are being invited to embrace (on the front end of their journey), and it more appropriately “sets up” the ministry of discipleship by providing a more complete biblical frame of reference for the full life that discipleship is to help us grow into.

Life Is Central: It Is God’s Prior Intent

You might surmise from this discussion that the kingdom provides the foundation for an understanding of life. To a certain extent this is true. The prevalence of kingdom language in the Synoptic Gospels prompts us to consider the kingdom to be a central (for some people, the central) theme for biblical and theological work. However, a strong case can be made from a different perspective: the biblical theme of life could also quite legitimately serve as the central organizing principle of the Bible.

Several Old Testament scholars highlight the importance of life in the Bible. As mentioned in chapter 1, Hans Klein postulates that the Old Testament focuses on life and the New Testament on new life. Edmond Jacob notes that “the idea of eternity is secondary to that of life. God is not living because he is eternal, but he is eternal because he is living.”65 Otto Baab observes that the designation of God as living (or alive) is attached more than sixty times to formulaic oaths that include God’s name.66 Eichrodt refers to two leading motifs regarding the Jewish attitude to the defeat of death. One relates to “the conquest of death as an eschatological event.”67 The second refers to the belief that prior to history’s end there is a sense in which, through our relationship (encounter) with God, life “acquires an indestructible content.”68 Eichrodt notes that we are speaking not so much of resurrection as we are of the realization that included in our life with God is an understanding that God provides a life-filled yes to God’s worshippers. This yes provides the God-follower with a vision and experience of life that supersedes whatever may happen in physical death.

John’s Gospel offers insightful perspectives on the life theme too. Raymond E. Brown suggests that “the Fourth Gospel may be called the Gospel of life,”69 and Rudolf Schnackenburg remarks that “everything the Johannine Jesus says and does, all that he reveals and all that he accomplishes as ‘signs’, takes place in view of man’s [sic] attaining salvation, in view of his gaining divine life.”70 D. Moody Smith concurs, writing that “the eschatological goal, the essence of salvation, according to the Fourth Gospel is life.”71 Finally, Leon Morris writes that John’s purpose is to convince his readers that Jesus is the Christ, “in order that he may bring them to a place of faith and accordingly to new life in Christ’s name.”72

These are a few examples that illustrate the importance of the life theme among some Old Testament and Johannine scholars. Space does not permit further treatment at this time, but more attention will be given to this subject in a subsequent chapter. For the moment, my purpose is simply to illustrate that a strong case can be made for placing a premium value on the theme of life in the Bible. One may agree, however, that the life theme is important in the Bible, yet question whether it could serve as the Bible’s central organizing principle. Some persons believe that it is inappropriate to even look for a central organizing principle of the Bible.73 Others may find such a search to be appropriate but would choose some other theme, such as covenant, promise, or redemption. I will not attempt to address all the permutations of an objection to the life theme as the central organizing principle of the Bible. It would be helpful, however, to deal with the life theme in relation to the kingdom, and proceed from there.

In chapter 1, in my discussion concerning the evangelistic visions of William Abraham and Scott Jones, I offered examples of how we could link kingdom-based evangelistic visions with a life-based evangelistic vision. I would now like to introduce a related yet different concept for you to consider: that we frame the relationship between life and kingdom in reference to ultimate goal or purpose, as distinct from the instruments or means that lead to that ultimate goal or purpose. In this context, the kingdom of God could symbolically serve as an instrument of God’s desire (goal) to bring restoration of life to God’s human creatures (and all of creation).

It is helpful to analyze kingship in the Ancient Near East (hereafter referred to as ANE) and ancient Israel, for kingship bears a direct relationship to kingdom. It is worth asking: What role does kingship serve? What are kings supposed to accomplish?

There is widespread agreement among scholars that in the ANE, at least until the first millennium BC, kings (in a political sense) were to provide a secure and just environment for the enjoyment of prosperous well-being. In conjunction with this, in a religious sense, they were to mediate the blessings of the gods (or God). Thus, for example, Whitelam writes that “it was the king’s primary duty to guarantee the true administration of justice,” which “also guaranteed prosperity and fertility for the nation as a whole.”74 Lambert agrees, noting that in the three ancient Mesopotamian cultures of Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria, “rulers ruled by the express authority of the gods, and were expected to create a prosperous, well-governed land.”75

Some scholars believe that the Israelites shared this positive view of kingship in the ANE and its direct correlation to the well-being of the people. In a study of the priestly role that Israelite kings occasionally fulfilled, Rooke concluded that the king would not assume normal priestly duties related to the sanctuary, but that on occasion it would have been “necessary for him to undertake the mediating, priestly role when national interests were at stake, because he was responsible under Yahweh for the nation’s well-being.”76 Whitelam concurs that Israel shared the ANE view of kingship, stating that the Israelite view of kingship was “remarkably consistent” with similar views in the ANE.77

Others scholars disagree, however, about the Israelite appreciation for kingship, especially during the first millennium BC. Some suggest that the positive view remained until the time of Jesus (reformulated among Jews primarily in messianic terms), while others suggest that this positive outlook waned dramatically. Some writers, for example, view Deuteronomy as a pivotal example of this diminishing appreciation of kingship. John Baines characterizes the Deuteronomistic tradition as being hostile to kingship,78 and J. G. McConville suggests that Deuteronomy elevated the role of the Torah (constitutional law) in the life of the people, so that “it provides for a kind of kingship that is radically different from kingship as it is known from ancient Near Eastern custom and practice.”79 Ezekiel is also cited as an anti-kingship document in Israelite tradition. Paul Joyce suggests that with Ezekiel’s strong focus on the holy God Yahweh, the mediating function of the monarchy has disappeared (“melted away”).80

Given this divergence of opinion about the positive appreciation of kingship in the Judean world during the time of Jesus, some might suggest that it is difficult to place much stock in the idea of kingship being seen as one of God’s instruments to bring about God-intended fullness of life. However, the prevalence of kingdom language in the Gospels demonstrates that Jesus assumed at least some basic level of common understanding among the people regarding kingship. Furthermore, Jesus assumed this understanding to be positive (or at worst, neutral). If kingship was in such a state of disrepute, as some scholars believe, Jesus would not have used that image, nor would he have assumed that people would respond to it in any positive way (as illustrated in the link he makes between the announcement of the kingdom and the call to repentance). The key distinction is that the Judean population may not have valued human kingship as strongly as in the past, but they maintained a high esteem for God’s kingship. Thus, Jesus’s primary goal in announcing the kingdom and inviting people to respond to it was not so that they could be counted as citizens of the kingdom for the sake of the king or the kingdom, but for their own sake, because it is through submission to the rule of King Jesus that they would receive new life in him.

I do not intend to devalue the concept of God’s reign. There are times when finite languages simply cannot do justice to thoughts involving the infinite God. The reference to kingdom as the instrument and life as the goal is meant to elevate the concept of life for the theory and practice of evangelism; it is not meant to diminish the concept of kingdom. It may be that the two themes could be considered parallel concepts that offer different conceptual images for us to choose from as we develop theological constructs and ministry practices. Perhaps future scholars will develop improved ways to treat both of these vital topics without diminishing either one. It might even be that we could find ways to link the two.

On the other hand, I want to be careful that the attempt to avoid devaluing the kingdom concept does not in turn diminish the clear point that full, vibrant, teeming life is portrayed in the creation narratives as God’s original intention for us and God’s creation. If, therefore, we think of Jesus’s purpose to be restoration of God’s original intention, we must view this full, vibrant, teeming life to be what God seeks to give us in Christ.

Furthermore, this proposal of life as the goal need not be limited to how it relates to the kingdom. The Mosaic covenant could be considered in the same way. The purpose of the covenant was not so Yahweh or the Jews could announce that they were in a covenantal relationship. The covenantal relationship was the vehicle through which the people could experience life as God intended. You may recall those powerful words that Moses spoke just prior to his death: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.”81

Going back further in biblical history, we see that the purpose of the covenant God made with Noah included both preservation of life and a fertile experience of life: “And you, be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it.”82 The Abrahamic promise and call can be viewed in the same light: “And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”83 The goal of the Abrahamic promise was to bring the rich blessing of God-intended life to all the families of the earth.

Again, having a covenant is not God’s ultimate purpose for us. Being a citizen of the kingdom is not God’s ultimate purpose for us. These kinds of statements could be conceived of as instrumental. Covenant, kingdom, promise, reconciliation, and atonement: these (and many others) are vitally important concepts, but their value lies in what they relate to—vibrant, abundant life.84 From the perspective of Scripture this emphasis on life as the initial and central intention of God does greater justice to the fact that the biblical tradition begins with creation. What God intended for all of God’s creation in the beginning is reflected in the creation narrative(s), with beautiful expressions of teeming life, fertile abundance, and multiplication, all of which God pronounced as good. If creation of and participation in life was God’s original intention for creation, then God’s intention in Jesus is a restoration and re-creation of that same life: teeming, fertile, abundant, and good.85 This directly and powerfully impacts the theory and practice of evangelism, for it helps shape our understandings of what we are offering in our communication of the good news. We are offering the possibility of participation in the fully orbed life that God originally intended in creation. We are communicating the good news that vibrant living is possible now. We are inviting people to follow the way (reign) of Christ in their lives so they can participate with him in all that he intends and desires for us. The shape or contours or ingredients of this life will be more fully developed in subsequent chapters. At this juncture, I simply (yet importantly) want to reaffirm that while the theological foundation for this project rightly begins with considerations concerning Jesus’s synoptic emphasis on the kingdom of God, it more rightly ends with an emphasis on God’s ultimate goal of full life, which even more rightly provides the starting place for evangelism.

44. Mark 1:15.

45. Matt 4:17. Although some scholars believe that Matthew’s designation of the kingdom of heaven should be interpreted differently than the designation of the kingdom of God in Mark and Luke, most scholars believe these designations refer to the same symbolic concept. In “Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven,” Caragounis, for example, says that the “equivalence” of these two designations “is indicated by their content, context and interchangeability in the Gospels” (417).

46. Luke 1:33.

47. Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 328.

48. Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom, 143.

49. The Faithful and Unfaithful Servants (Matt 24:45–51 and Luke 12:42–46); The Waiting Servants (Mark 13:33–37 and Luke 12:35–38); The Thief at Night (Matt 24:43–44 and Luke 12:39–40); and The Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1–13).

50. Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom, 138–9.

51. Caragounis, “Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven,” 421.

52. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 338.

53. Kummel, Promise and Fulfillment, 21, 109, 155.

54. Cullman, Christ and Time, 37.

55. Ibid., 81–87.

56. As one might imagine, much has been written concerning other dimensions of the kingdom too, with a broad variance of perspectives. Perrin, for example, building on his own work in biblical studies plus the work of Philip Wheelwright in Metaphor and Reality, contends that the kingship-of-God myth in ancient Israel led to the emergence of the symbol of the kingdom of God, and that Jesus’s use of this symbol is tensive (carries a wide range of meanings) rather than steno (a more fixed meaning). To interpret the kingdom symbol in the New Testament, therefore, one must consider whether the kingship-of-God myth has meaning to those who hear Jesus’s use of the kingdom of God symbol, and what that symbol might evoke in the hearers in relation to that myth (Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, especially 1–45; 202). Bock, however, is uncomfortable with Perrin’s insistence that all of Jesus’s kingdom language is tensive, so he argues in “The Kingdom of God in New Testament Theology” that Jesus’s kingdom language was tensive but built on a stable (steno) base (36). From a completely different perspective, Houtepen in “Apocalyptics and the Kingdom of God” refers to the kingdom more as a prophetic reality than an apocalyptic one, and speaks of “eschatological ontology” in terms of God as “creative advance” (291–311). Waltke in “The Kingdom of God in Biblical Theology” speaks of the kingdom in terms of God’s establishment of his moral rule, and then discusses the four related primary Old Testament themes (common people, land, law, ruler), and how those themes were reinterpreted in the New Testament (15–27). I could give a myriad of other illustrations, but these suffice to portray the broad diversity of views related to the kingdom of God. My project is not finally about the kingdom of God but about the evangelistic implications of a strong emphasis on the biblical theme of life. Thus I want to limit my focus in the theological foundation to the relationship between the already and not-yet dimensions of kingdom fulfillment, the biblical theme of life, and evangelism.

57. O. V. Jathanna in “Jesus Christ—The Life of the World” addresses the tension by suggesting that “life” is an “intensive metaphor,” which means that its meaning goes beyond both the literal and metaphorical associations of the term. “It refers to what is transcendentally and eschatologically real—i.e., in view of reality-as-it-should-be and reality-as-it-will-be, and in the proleptic event of Christ reality-as-it-already-is” (78).

58. Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 464–5.

59. Davids, “The Kingdom of God Come with Power,” 19.

60. Bosch, Transforming Mission, 32.

61. For an excellent treatment of the tension created by this overlap, see Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 461–98.

62. Another factor involved in our less-than-full experience of life on earth is that we are created as finite beings. I will deal with this topic in chapter 5, using insights from David Kelsey (who speaks of living on “borrowed breath”) and Karl Barth (who talks about the provisional nature of our life in Christ).

63. Willard, Divine Conspiracy, 29.

64. Perhaps a similar belief in the fullness of God’s kingdom that was present in Jesus’s life, ministry, death, and resurrection is what led John Wesley to believe in Christian perfection to the extent that he did. He acknowledged that Christians are not exempt “either from ignorance, or mistake, or infirmities, or temptations,” due to their continued presence in the old age; and yet because they also experience the full power of the age to come, “Christians are saved in this world from all sin, from all unrighteousness; that they are now in such a sense perfect, as not to commit sin, and to be freed from evil thoughts and evil tempers” (Wesley, “Christian Perfection,” 1–19).

65. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 38.

66. Baab, Theology of the Old Testament, 26.

67. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Vol. II, 509.

68. Ibid., 517.

69. Brown, Gospel According to John (i–xii), 505.

70. Schnackenburg, Gospel According to St. John, Volume One, 155.

71. Smith, Theology of the Gospel of John, 149.

72. Morris, Gospel According to John, 39–40.

73. Some scholars say that it is impossible to conceive of an Old Testament theology or a New Testament theology, much less a biblical theology. I do not share this perspective, but neither do I want this project to get overly burdened with this discussion. Thus, I am consistently referring to the biblical theme of life, rather than the biblical theology of life. For my purposes, it is sufficient to note that the life theme is quite important in the Bible and to attempt to discern the evangelistic implications of a strong emphasis on that theme. For more reading regarding biblical theology, I recommend James Barr’s book, The Concept of Biblical Theology, and Brevard S. Child’s book, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments.

74. Whitelam, Just King, 36.

75. Lambert, “Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 55.

76. Rooke, “Kingship as Priesthood,” 94.

77. Whitelam, Just King, 36.

78. Baines, “Ancient Egyptian Kingship,” 46.

79. McConville, “King and Messiah in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History,” 281.

80. Joyce, “King and Messiah in Ezekiel,” 337.

81. Deut 30:19.

82. Gen 9:7.

83. Gen 12:2–3.

84. I am grateful to Joseph Dongell for helping me more fully grasp the distinction between instrumentality and goal (personal conversation, February 2, 2010).

85. Jurgen Moltmann in The Source of Life (30) disagrees with this perspective. He argues that we should not conceive of God’s intention to be that of a restoration back to the original situation that existed in creation. Because the resurrection of Jesus is “something completely new in history,” we should visualize God’s intention to involve something that has yet to be created, rather than visualizing a return to the old Eden. I applaud this mindset and see no problem with envisioning a full life that goes even beyond God’s original intention in creation. However, because this “new thing” that will be created in God’s resurrection future does not yet exist, we find ourselves limited to the biblical portrayals of what was created by God in the beginning. It might be possible to develop a theology of life based on portrayals of the new heaven and the new earth in the book of Revelation, but I would not want to do this at the expense of leaving out references to God’s original intentions in creation. The creation narratives and various references to creation throughout the Bible are essential ingredients to a biblically based theology of full life in Jesus.