103924615 G Ladd a Theology of the New Testament

A THEOLOGY OF THE N E W T E S T A M E N T

A Theology of the New Testament George Eldon Ladd

Revised Edition Edited by Donald A. Hagner

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Grand Rapids, M i c h i g a n

First edition © 1 9 7 4 by W m . B. I x r d m a n s P u b l i s h i n g C o . 2 1 4 0 O a k Industrial D r i v e N . E . . Grand R a p i d s , M i c h i g a n 4 9 5 0 5 / P.O. B o x 163, C a m b r i d g e C B 3 9 P U U . K . www.eerdmans.coin R e v i s e d edition

Printed in the United States o f A m e r i c a

12 II

10 0 9 0 8 0 7

19 18 17 16 15 14

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN

978-0-8028-0680-2

The Scripture quotations in this publication are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, c o p y i i g h t 1946, 1952, and © 1971 by the D i v i s i o n of Chiistian Education, National Council of Churches o f Christ in the U . S . A . , and used by permission.

Contents

Preface to the Revised Edition Preface to the First Edition

viii xi

Abbreviations

xiii

1. Introduction

I: T H E S Y N O P T I C G O S P E L S 2. John the Baptist

3. The Need of the Kingdom

4. The Kingdom of God

5. The New Age of Salvation

6. The God of the Kingdom

7. The Mystery of the Kingdom

8. The Kingdom and the Church

103

9. The Ethics of the Kingdom

118

10. The Messiah

133

11. The Son of Man

143

12. The Son of God

158

13. The Messianic Problem

170

14. The Messianic Mission

181

15. Eschatology

193

16. Matthew, Mark, and Luke (R. T. France)

212

CONTENTS

II: T H E F O U R T H G O S P E L 17. The Critical Problem

249

18. The Johannine Dualism

259

19. Christology

273

20. Eternal Life

290

21. The Christian Life

306

22. The Holy Spirit

322

23. Eschatology

334

III: T H E P R I M I T I V E C H U R C H 24. The Critical Problem

347

25. The Resurrection of Jesus

351

26. The Eschatological Kerygma

364

27. The Church

379

IV: P A U L 28. Introduction

397

29. Sources of Paul's Thought

414

30. Humanity outside of Christ

435

3 1 . The Person of Christ

448

32. The Work of Christ: Atonement

464

33. The Work of Christ: Justification

478

34. The Pauline Psychology

499

35. The New Life in Christ

521

36. The Law

538

37. The Christian Life

555

38. The Church

576

39. Eschatology

595

Contents

vii

V: H E B R E W S A N D T H E G E N E R A L E P I S T L E S 40. Hebrews

617

41. James

634

42. 1 Peter

640

43. 2 Peter a n d J u d e

649

44. Johannine Epistles

657

VI: T H E A P O C A L Y P S E 45. The Apocalypse

669

46. Appendix: Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (David Wenham)

684

Indexes Authors

721

The Bible and Other Ancient Writings

725

Subjects

757

Preface to the Revised Edition

Before his death in 1980, George Ladd had planned a new edition of this book in which he hoped to remedy two deficiencies that had been pointed out by reviewers: the lack of discussion of the theologies of the individual Synoptic writers and the lack of a full treatment of the issue of unity and diversity in the New Testament. Unfortunately Ladd did not live to fulfill this desire. For this new edition, however, we have been fortunate in obtaining essays on these subjects by two exceptional New Testament scholars from Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, R. T. France (Chapter 16) and D. Wenham (the Appendix). Ladd would have been particularly pleased with these essays, in my opinion. The present volume has been improved in several other ways. When Ladd wrote, masculine language was still the rule; nowadays that language grates on one's sensitivities. Diane Bradley has carefully gone through the text and re moved the objectionable language. Although masculine pronouns in reference to God have been retained, it is perhaps worth reminding readers that God is not masculine (or feminine). The bibliographies have been updated in this new edition. It has been an enormous challenge to survey the literature of the last twenty years on the whole range of topics covered by Ladd. Since the bibliographies are necessarily short, there has been no way of avoiding a certain arbitrariness in deciding what to include. On the model of the original bibliographies, I have by no means restricted the new bibliographies to evangelical works or to works with which Ladd would have agreed. One problem in updating bibliographies in a work written twenty years ago is that many of the new entries are devoted to issues that have emerged only in the interim — issues to which the original work was necessarily oblivious. That is true in the present instance, and I am conscious of the oddity this causes. Yet the bibliographies are intended to be of service to readers precisely in pointing them to more recent literature where they can become acquainted with some of these new issues. vni

Preface to the Revised Edition

The new bibhographies contain no references to the major reference works that often contain important entries that are relevant to the subjects of New Testament theology. Here I mention not only the works to which Ladd had access, and which remain in the footnotes, such as the old International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, and the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, but especially more recent works such as Colin Brown's New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (3 vols., 1975-78), the "Supplementary Volume" of the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1976), the new International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (4 vols., 1979-88), the Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols., 1992), the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (1992) and its companion volume, the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (forthcoming), and finally the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (3 vols., 1990-93). Also not present in the bibliographies are repre sentatives of the several excellent new series of commentaries underway, such as the Hermeneia commentaries, the New International Greek Text Commentary, and the Word Biblical Commentary. Deserving of special notice here is the new series of volumes on the theology of the different books of the New Testament currently appearing from Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Professor J. D. G. Dunn. All of these volumes provide in addition to their own contributions wonderful bibliographical resources. In keeping with Ladd's orig inal practice, the bibliographies in the new edition are limited to works in the English language. Occasionally I have updated editions of standard works referred to in the footnotes. References to Ladd's outstanding volume Jesus and the Kingdom, however, have not been changed to the later edition of the same book. The Presence of the Future (1974), since pagination differs by only a couple of pages. Also new in the present volume is a subject index, the lack of which in the original edition was a drawback noted by many. The new index will enhance the book's usefulness for students. When I first conceived the idea of a new edition of this book I had in mind a rather extensive revision. As I began to work on the project I found myself wanting to change the text altogether too much. The final product would no longer have been Ladd, nor would it have been tmly my own work. I have decided therefore to let the work stand as it is, and to make only very minor changes and adjustments to the text. I have for the most part contented myself with adding only a few editor's footnotes here and there, which are indicated with asterisks. I hasten to add that this does not mean that where there are no such editor's footnotes I necessarily agree with Ladd! At only one point have I added an extensive section to bring the discussion up to date, namely in Chapter 1 at the end of the presentation of the history of New Testament theology. There I attempt briefly to sketch the trends of the past two decades and to give readers an idea of the present state of the discipline. But why produce a new edition of Ladd at all? Not because Ladd offers

PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION

anything "new" to a guild of scholars whose ears always itch for the novel or because a new edition of this book will rock the scholarly world. No, the reason is a better one. Despite its datedness and whatever weaknesses one might care to pick on, this book is and remains a superb, comprehensive introduction to New Testament theology. Generation after generation of students have taken to this book as to no other in my nearly twenty-five years of teaching. The reason for this is that it does for them what it did for me when I first encountered it in humble mimeographed form as a student in Ladd's classes. It makes the New Testament understandable; it enables one to see how the New Testament coheres, how its teaching developed, how it relates to and differs fi-om the streams of thought in its environment. Ladd's approach, of course, is not the only way of looking at these documents — he was careful to call his book A, not The, Theology of the New Testament — but for the beginner (and not only the begin ner) it certainly is one of the most helpful. His approach to the New Testament using the framework of salvation history is wonderfully illuminating. This new edition, in short, is primarily for seminary students, the same readership Ladd originally wrote for, as he says at the beginning of his preface. Ladd's influence on evangelical students through his writings has been impres sive (see historian Mark Noll's Befwee/i Faith and Criticism [19912]). Our hope is that this book in its new dress will influence yet another decade or two of New Testament students. It remains for me to thank those who have worked with me on this new edition. I am especially grateful to Dick France and David Wenham for their fine new contributions, which enrich the volume so much. I am also grateful to Diane Bradley for her work in ridding the book of its masculine language. Thanks are also due to my research assistants Michael Vines and Dwight Sheets for their help on the bibliographies. And finally I thank Eerdmans' editor John Simpson for his valuable suggestions and work on the manuscript. As this project approached its final stages I received the unexpected honor of being appointed to a newly endowed chair named for George Ladd. There is no connection between the lx»ok and the appointment, but it is a happy coinci dence. To have been first a student of Ladd, drawn like many others to doctoral study in the New Testament through his influence, then later to become his faculty colleague, and now to hold a chair named in his honor — all of this is naturally a source of deep gratification for me. Donald A. Hagner George Eldon Ladd Professor of New Testament Fuller Theological Seminary

Preface to the First Edition (1974)

This book is intended to introduce seminary students to the discipUne of New Testament theology. It does not purport to be an original contribution or to solve difficult problems, but to give a survey of the discipline, to state its problems, and to offer positive solutions as the author sees them. Since all theology is a human undertaking and no one's position can be considered final, the author has continually engaged in interaction with the most important recent literature, sometimes to gain support, sometimes to debate solutions to problems. Some times the discussion is primarily a dialogue with other outstanding theologians. In this task, the author has deliberately imposed upon his words several restric tions. He has limited bibliographical references largely to materials available in English, since the book is designed for seminary students and not for research; and he has limited the bibliographical materials for the most part to modern works. Valuable materials will be found in the three Hastings encyclopedias, but he has not drawn upon such older works, with a few exceptions. It is his hope that the student will find guidance into the most important recent literature on all the main topics of New Testament theology. The reader should note that sometimes, especially in the case of commen taries, abbreviated titles are used. When two dates appear after a given work, they represent two different printings, or, in the case of works by German scholars, the date of the German and of the English translation, unless these dates are close together. Common abbreviations are used for periodical and encyclopedia literature. The author approaches his task feeling that New Testament theology must be primarily a descriptive discipline. However, he is convinced that any person's presupposhions distinctly influence his or her approach. For this reason, while the primary objective is to outline what the various New Testament authors teach, critical questions are not neglected, even though they obviously cannot be thoroughly discussed. The author has often learned most from those with whom he disagrees, and he tmsts he has represented other scholars accurately xi

xii

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

and treated them with respect. It is his hope that initiates to the study of New Testament theology will not only find a positive exposition, but will be stimu lated to wrestle with the problems for themselves. A debt of gratitude is due Professor David Wallace, who carefully read the entire manuscript and offered many helpful suggestions. The author would express his appreciation to the Trustees and Adminis tration of Fuller Theological Seminary whose generous sabbatical program made possible the writing of this book. Some of the material on the Kingdom of God appeared in my book, Jesus and the Kingdom. A second revised edition of this book has now appeared under the title The Presence of the Future, published by the Eerdmans Publishing Company. Part of Chapter 29 appeared in Apostolic History and the Gospel, edited by W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin, published by Paternoster Press. Chapter 36 was published in Soli Deo Gloria, edited by J. McDowell Richards, from John Knox Press. These sections are used by permission of the publishers. George E. Ladd

Abbreviations

AB ATR AUSS BAGD

BBR Bib BibRev BibSac BJRL BR BTB CBQ CJTh CTJ CurTM DCG DJG EQ ET EvTh Greg HDB HERE HorBT HTR HUCA IB

Anchor Bible Anglican Theological Review Andrews University Seminary Studies W. Bauer, W. F. Amdt, F W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Chris tian Literature (Chicago, 19792) Bulletin for Biblical Research Biblica Bible Review Bibliotheca Sacra Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Biblical Research Biblical Theology Bulletin Catholic Biblical Quarterly Canadian Journal of Theology Calvin Theological Journal Currents in Theology and Mission Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (Hastings) Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Evangelische Theologie Gregorianum Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (Hastings) Horizons in Biblical Theology Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Interpreter's Bible xiii

xiv ICC IDB Int ISBE JBL JBR JETS JJS JR JSNT JTS NCB NIBC NIC NT NT NTS OT PSTJ RejTR ResQ Rev and Exp RGG RQ RSR SB SJTh StEv StTh SWJT TB TDNT ThSt Th Today TLZ TZ USQR VigChr WBC WThJ WW ZNTW ZSysTh

ABBREVIATIONS International Critical Commentary Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Interpretation International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Bible and Religion Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal of Theological Studies New Century Bible Commentary New International Bible Commentary New International Commentary (in titles) New Testament Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies (in titles) Old Testament Perkins School of Theology Journal Reformed Theological Review Restoration Quarterly Review and Expositor Religion in Geschichte and Gegenwart Revue de Qumran Recherches de science religieuse Scripture Bulletin Scottish Journal of Theology Stadia Evangelica Studia Theologica Southwestern Journal of Theology Tyndale Bulletin Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel) Theological Studies Theology Today Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Zeitschrift Union Seminary Quarterly Review Vigiliae Christianae Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal Word and World Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fiir Systematische Theologie

1. Introduction

A . T h e History o f N e w T e s t a m e n t T h e o l o g y Literature: R. Bultmann, "The History of NT Theology as a Science," Theology of the NT (1955), 2:241-51; K. Stendahl, "Biblical Theology," IDB 1 (1962), 418-32 — s e e extensive bibliography; O. Betz, "History of Biblical Theology," IDB 1 (1962), 432-37; R. C. Dentan, Preface to OT Theology (1963^) — valuable for parallel movements in the Old Testament; D. H. Wallace, "Biblical Theology: Past and Fuhire," TZ (1963), 88-105; A. Richardson, "Present Issues in NT Theology," ET 75 (1964), 109-12; A. M. Hunter, "Modem Trends in NT Theology," in The NT in Historical and Contemporary Perspective, ed. H. Anderson and W. Barclay (1965), 133-48; G. E. Ladd, "History and Theology in Biblical Exegesis," Int 20 (1966), 54-64; G. E. Ladd, "The Problem of History in Con temporary NT Interpretation," StEv 5 (1968), 88-100; H. Conzelmann, "History of the Discipline," An Outline of the Theology of the NT (1969), 3-8; M. Dibelius, "Biblical Theology and the History of Biblical Religion," in Twentieth Century Theology in the Making, ed. J. Pelikan, 1 (1969), 23-31; B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970); G. E. Ladd, "The Search for Perspective," Int 25 (1971), 41-62 — a defense of Heilsgeschichte; W. J. Harrington, The Path of Biblical Theology (1973); L. Goppelt, Theology of the Aff (1981), 1:251-81; S. Neill and T. Wright, The Interpretation of the NT, 1861-1986 (1988). See also the bibliography on pp. 14f. The Middle

Ages

During the Middle Ages, biblical study was completely subordinated to eccle siastical dogma. The theology of the Bible was used only to reinforce the dogmatic teachings of the church, which were founded upon both the Bible and church tradition. Not the Bible alone, historically understood, but the Bible as interpreted by church tradition was the source of dogmatic theology. The

Reformation

The reformers reacted against the unbiblical character of dogmatic theology and insisted that theology must be founded on the Bible alone. Dogmatics should be the systematic formulation of the teachings of the Bible. This new emphasis

INTRODUCTION

led to a study of the original languages of Scripture and to a consciousness of the role of history in biblical theology. The reformers insisted that the Bible should be interpreted literally and not allegorically, and this led to the beginnings of a truly biblical theology. However, the reformers' sense of history was im perfect, and the Old Testament was often interpreted not in its own historical setting but in terms of New Testament tmth. For instance, Calvin writes as though the Jews knew and understood, albeit imperfectly, the New Testament doctrine of Christ (Institutes II, vi, 4). Orthodox

Scholasticism

The gains in the historical study of the Bible made by the reformers were soon lost in the post-Reformation period, and the Bible was once again used uncriti cally and unhistorically to support orthodox doctrine. The Bible was viewed not only as a book free from error and contradiction but also without development or progress. The entire Bible was looked upon as possessing one level of theological value. History was completely lost in dogma, and philology became a branch of dogmatics. The Rationalist

Reaction

Biblical theology as a distinctive discipline is a product of the impact of the Enlightenment upon biblical studies. A new approach to the study of the Bible emerged in the eighteenth century that gradually freed itself altogether from all ecclesiastical and theological control and interpreted the Bible with "complete objectivity," viewing it solely as a product of history. Several interrelated influ ences produced this movement. The rise of rationalism with its reaction against supematuralism, the development of the historical method, and the rise of literary criticism led to the treatment of the biblical records viewed no longer as the Word of God, given by the inspiration of the Spirit, but as human historical records like any other ancient literature. These influences led to the conclusion that scholarship was not to seek a theology in the Bible but only the history of religion. The Bible is a compilation of ancient religious writings that preserves the history of an ancient Semitic people, and is to be studied with the same presuppositions with which one studies other Semitic religions. This conclusion was first clearly articulated by J. P. Gabler, who in an inaugural address in 1787 distinguished sharply between biblical theology and dogmatic theology. The former must be strictly historical and independent of dogmatic theology, tracing the rise of religious ideas in Israel and setting forth what the biblical writers thought about religious matters. Dogmatic theology, on the other hand, makes use of biblical theology, extracting from it what has universal relevance and making use of philosophical concepts. Dogmatic theology is that which a particular theologian decides about divine matters, considered philosophically and rationally in accordance with the outlook and demand of his or her own age, but biblical theology is concemed solely with what people believed long ago.

Introduction

Gabler was essentially a rationalist, and his approach to biblical theology prevailed for some fifty years. Works on the theology of the Bible were written by Kaiser (1813), De Wette (1813), Baumgarten-Crusius (1828), and von Colin (1836). Some scholars of this period were extremely rationalistic, finding in the Bible religious ideas that were in accord with the universal laws of reason. Others tried to reconcile Christian theology with the thought forms of the modem period. While rationalism as such is long since passe, it is obvious that this basic approach to the study of the Bible is still used by modem scholarship; and even the evangelical scholar employs the historical method, although with limitations. The Rise of the Philosophy of Religion Rationalism was superseded under the influence of the idealist philosophy of Hegel (d. 1813), who saw the Absolute Idea or Absolute Spirit eternally manifesting itself in the universe and in human affairs. Hegel taught that the movement of human thought followed the dialectic pattern from a position (thesis) to an opposite position (antithesis); and from the interaction of these two emerged a new insight or aspect of reality (synthesis). Hegel saw in the history of religion the evolution of Spirit in its dialectical apprehension of the divine, from nature religions, through religions of spiritual individuality, to the Absolute Religion, which is Christianity. Under the influence of Hegel, F. C. Baur abandoned the rationalistic effort to find timeless tmth in the New Testament, but in its stead found in the historical movements in the early church the unfolding of wisdom and spirit. The teaching of Jesus formed the point of departure. Jesus' teachings were not yet theology but the expression of his religious consciousness. Theological reflection began over the question of the Law. Paul, the first theologian, took the position that the Christian was freed from the Law (thesis). Jewish Christianity, represented particularly by James and Peter, took the opposite position, that the Law was permanently valid and must remain an essential element in the Christian church (antithesis).* Baur interpreted the history of apostolic Christianity in terms of this conflict between Pauline and Judaistic Christianity. Out of the conflict emerged in the second century the Old Catholic Church, which effected a successful harmonization between these two positions (synthesis). Baur was less concerned with the truth of the Scriptures than with the effort to trace historical development. He has made a lasting contribution, for the principle that biblical theology is inseparably related to history is sound, even though Baur's application of this principle is not. Baur's interpretation

gave rise to the so-called "Tubingen School," which had great influence in German New Testament studies. *More commonly scholars have referred to Jewish Christianity, since it is the earlier, as the thesis, and Pauline Christianity as the antithesis. What is important for Baur's hypothesis is the later synthesis of the two in so-called early Catholicism.

INTRODUCTION

The Conservative

Reaction

These new approaches to the study of the Bible naturally met with strong resistance in orthodox circles, not only from those who denied the validity of an historical approach but from those who tried to combine the historical ap proach with a belief in revelation. Influential was E. W. Hengstenberg's Chris tology of the OT (1829-35) and History of the Kingdom of God under the OT (1869-71). Hengstenberg saw little progress in revelation and made little dis tinction between the two testaments, and interpreted the prophets spiritually with little reference to history. A more historical approach was stmctured by J. C. K. Hofmann in a series of writings beginning in 1841 (Prophecy and Fulfillment). He attempted to vindicate the authority and inspiration of the Bible by historical means, developing his Heilsgeschichte ("history of salvation") theology. Hof mann found in the Bible a record of the process of saving or holy history that aims at the redemption of all humanity. This process will not be fully completed until the eschatological consummation. He tried to assign every book of the Bible to its logical place in the scheme of the history of redemption. These scholars, who comprised the so-called "Erlangen School," did not regard the Bible primarily as a collection of proof texts or a repository of doctrine but as the witness to what God had done in saving history. They held that the propositional statements in Scripture were not meant to be an end in themselves nor an object of faith, but were designated to bear witness to the redemptive acts of God (cf. also J. A. Bengel and J. T. Beck). The Erlangen school had great influence in conservative circles upon such scholars as F. A. G. Tholuck, T. Zahn, and R Feine, and is represented in the theologies of F Buchsel (1937), A. Schlatter (1909), and Ethelbert StaufTer (1941).! Stauffer rejects the "systems of doctrine" approach and does not try to trace the development of the Christian understanding of the person and work of Jesus. Rather, he presents a "Christocentric theology of history in the New Testament," i.e., the theology of the plan of salvation enacted in New Testament history. The book has the defects of not distinguishing between canonical and noncanonical writings and of ignoring the variety of the several interpretations of the meaning of Christ in the New Testament. A new form of the Heilsgeschichte theology has emerged in recent years, for there is a widespread recognition that revelation has occurred in redemptive history, and that Heilsgeschichte is the best key to understand the unity of the Bible. This will be developed later. Liberalism and Historicism in New Testament

Theology

Bultmann has pointed out that the logical consequence of Baur's method would have been a complete relativism,^ for the liberal mind could not conceive of 1. Only Stauffer has been translated into English (1955). 2. R. Bultmann, Theology of the NT (\95\), 1:245.

Introduction

absolute truth in the relativities of history (cf. Lessing's "ugly ditch"). This was avoided by the influence of romanticism, by which personality is interpreted as a history-forming power. Under the influence of Ritschlian theology, the essence of Christianity was interpreted as a pure spiritual-ethical religion, which was proclaimed by and embodied in the life and mission of Jesus. The Kingdom of God is the highest good, the ethical ideal. The heart of religion is personal fellowship with God as Father. This theological interpretation was reinforced by the solution of the Syn optic problem with its discovery of the priority of Mark and the hypothetical document, Q. Scholars of this "old liberalism" believed that in these most primitive documents, historical science had at last discovered the true Jesus, freed from all theological interpretation. Biblical theologians of this school began with this "historical" picture of the ethical reUgion of Jesus and then traced the diverse systems of doctrine (Lehrbegriffe) that emerged as the result of later reflection and speculation. The great classic of this school is H. J. Holtzmann's Lehrbuch der NT Theologie (1896-97, 19112). paul Wemle's The Beginning of Our Religion (1903-4) is another illustration. Adolf von Hamack's What Is Christianity? (1901) is a classic statement of this liberal view. This "old liberal" approach influenced even conservative writers. Both B. Weiss (Theology of the NT, 1868, Eng. 1903) and W. Beyschlag (NT Theol ogy, 1891, Eng. 1895) interpreted Jesus primarily in spuitual terms, placing great emphasis upon the centrality of the Fatherhood of God. These men are conser vative in that they recognize the reality of revelation and the validity of the canon; but their picture of Jesus shares the features of liberalism. They also employ the "systems of doctrine" method, Weiss going so far as to discover four different periods of theological development in Paul, which he treats separately. This approach is found in English in the writings of Orello Cone, The Gospel and Its Earliest Interpreters (1893); G. B. Stevens, The Theology of the NT (1899); E. P Gould, The Biblical Theology of the NT (1900); and A. C. Zenos, The Plastic Age of the Gospel (1927). The same method is used by even more conservative writers in Germany, such as T. Zahn, Grundriss der NT Theologie (1932) and P Feine, Theologie des NT (1910, 1950). The Victory of ReUgion over Theology Along with liberalism developed the religionsgeschichte Schule ("history-ofreligions school"). Liberalism found the distinctive element in biblical theology in the simple ethical teachings of Jesus. While its representatives paid some attention to the influence of the religious environment of early Christianity (Holtzmann's theology devoted 120 pages to sketching Jewish and Hellenistic backgrounds), yet the essence of Christianity was treated as something unique. Holtzmaiui does recognize Hellenistic influences on Paul. Otto Pfleiderer presaged a new approach. The first edition of Das Urchristentum (1887) took the same position as Hamack and Holtzmann; but in

INTRODUCTION

the second edition (1902, Eng. 1906, Primitive Christianity), he interpreted many elements in New Testament theology in terms of their religious environment. The program for this new approach was sounded by W. Wrede in 1897 in a little book entitled "Concerning the Task and Method of the So-called NT Theology."^ He attacked the prevailing method of interpreting New Testament theology as a series of doctrinal systems, for the Christian faith is religion, not theology or a system of ideas. New Testament theology has the task, not of formulating timeless truths, whether these be mediated by a supernatural rev elation or discovered by rational thought, but of formulating expressions of the living religious experiences of early Christianity understood in the light of the religious environment. Therefore the theology of the New Testament must be displaced by the history of religion in primitive Christianity. This new approach had distinct centers of interest: the interpretation of New Testament ideas in terms of expressions of religious experience, and the explanation of the rise of these religious experiences and ideas in terms of the religious environment. One of the first to attempt the former task was H. Weinel in his Biblische Theologie des NT (1913, 1928"). Weinel had no interest in the value or tmth of Christianity but only in its nature in comparison with other religions. He set forth types of religions against which Christianity is to be understood as an ethical religion of redemption. Books in English that reflect this influence are S. J. Case, The Evolution of Early Christianity (1914); E. W. Parsons, The Religion of the NT (1939); and E. P. Scott, The Varieties of NT Religion (1943). The basic assumptions of this approach led to very different treatments of Jesus and Paul. In 1892, J. Weiss published a slim little booklet of sixty-seven pages on The Preaching of Jesus about the Kingdom of God* in which he interpreted Jesus' message of the Kingdom in terms of the milieu of Jewish apocalyptic. This approach was made famous by Albert Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906, Eng. 1910), which gives a history of the inter pretation of Jesus and then in a hundred pages interprets Jesus in terms of "Consistent Eschatology," i.e., as a Jewish apocalyptist who belongs to firstcentury Judaism and has little relevance for the modem person. This preacher of eschatology is diametrically opposed to the ethical teacher of the pure religion of the Fatherhood of God of Hamack and Holtzmann, and it has become clear that the "old liberal" Jesus was a distinct modernization. Eschatology, instead of being the husk (Hamack), was shown to be the very kernel of Jesus' message. If Jesus was interpreted in terms of the milieu of Jewish apocalyptic, Paul was interpreted in terms of Hellenistic Judaism or the Hellenistic cult and mystery religions. Some scholars, like W. Bousset, still interpreted Jesus along the lines of liberalism but applied the religionsgeschichte Methode ("history-of3. Translated by R. Morgan in The Nature of NT Theology (1973), 68-116. 4. Eng. ed. Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (1971).

Introduction

religions method") to Paul. M. Briickner argued that Paul found a ready-made doctrine of a heavenly man in Judaism, which he applied to Jesus. H. Gunkel held that there had spmng up in the Orient a syncretistic religion, gnostic in character, with faith in the resurrection as its central doctrine. This pre-Christian gnosticism had penetrated Judaism, and through this medium influenced Chris tianity, even before Paul. W. Bousset put this view on a firmer basis by arguing that gnosticism was not an heretical new formation in Christianity, as Hamack had supposed, but was a pre-Christian pagan phenomenon, oriental rather than Greek, and religious and mystical rather than philosophical. In his Kyrios Christos^ Bousset traced the history of belief in Jesus in the early church, and sharply distinguished between the religious consciousness of Jesus, the faith of primitive Christianity that held Jesus to be the transcendental Son of Man of Jewish apocalyptic, and the view of the Hellenistic church and Paul, who held Jesus to be a divinity, like the Greek cult lords. The most important theology embodying this approach is that of Rudolf Bultmann (1951). Bultmann differs from Bousset in that he interprets Jesus in terms of Jewish apocalyptic; but he follows him in his understanding of the Hellenistic church and Paul. However, Bultmann added a new feahire in his existential understanding of these New Testament myths that will be discussed below. The Contemporary Return to Biblical

Theology

During the 1920s a new viewpoint began to make itself felt that resulted in a revival of biblical theology. Dentan suggests three factors that contributed to this: a loss of faith in evolutionary naturalism; a reaction against the purely historical method that claimed complete objectivhy and believed in the adequacy of bare facts to disclose the truth of history; and the recovery of the idea of revelation.^ This led to the conviction that the Bible contained both history and a word concerning the ultimate meaning of history. This new approach to theology has changed the complexion of New Testament studies. The historical assurance of liberalism had been challenged by Martin Kahler in a far-seeing book that was ahead of its times but that has proven to be crucial for the modern debate. Kahler structured the problem in terms of "The So-called Historical (historische) Jesus and the Historic (geschichtliche) Biblical Christ."^ The historische Jesus was the picture of Jesus reconstructed by the liberal critical method. Kahler argued that this Jesus never really existed in history but only in the critical reconstruction of scholarship. The only Jesus who possesses reality is the Christ pictured in the Bible, whose character is such that he cannot be reconstmcted by the methods of modem scientific historiography. The Gospels

5. 1913, 1921; Eng. ed. 1970. 6. R. C. Dentan, Preface to OT Theology (1963^), 59. 7. 1896, 1956; Eng. ed. 1964.

INTRODUCTION

are not historical (historische) documents in the scientific sense of the term, but witnesses to the Christ. They are kerygma, not "history"; and it is impossible to get behind the kerygma. Indeed, the "historical Jesus" serves only to obscure from us the living biblical Christ. The real geschichtliche Christ is the Christ who is attested in the Gospels and preached by the church. Another signpost pointing in the same direction was the book by W. Wrede, The Messianic Secret in the Gospels (1901).8 Wrede shattered the liberal portrait of the historical Jesus by showing that the Jesus of Mark was not the inspired prophet but a messianic (divine) being. Wrede differed from Kahler in that he did not accept the Markan portrait of Jesus as true but attempted to explain historically how the nonmessianic, historical Jesus became the messianic Christ of the Gospels. In the years that followed, gospel criticism turned to the study of the oral stage of the gospel tradition (Formgeschichte ["history of forms"]) to try to discover the laws controlling the tradition that could explain the transformation of the "historical" Jesus into the kerygmatic (divine) Christ. One outstanding positive result of this study is the admission that form criticism could not find in any straUim of the gospel tradition a purely "historical" (i.e., human) Jesus. This has issued in two different results. On the one hand is the agnosticism of such form critics as Rudolf Bultmann, who feels that the historical Jesus has been so hidden beyond the Christ of faith that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus. Bultmann sees only discontinuity between the Jesus of history and the Christ of the kerygma, and he has excluded Jesus from the subject matter of New Testament theology. R. H. Lightfoot in England has taken a similar position. On the other hand, E. H. Hoskyns and Noel Davey in The Riddle of the NT (1931) show that all of the evidence of the New Testament converges on a single point: that in Jesus God revealed himself for human salvation. The critical method has revealed most clearly the living unity of the New Testament docu ments. The historian is compelled to state that both the unity and uniqueness of this claim are historical facts. This claim, while occurring in history, transcends history, for it demands of the historian what an historian may not give: a theological judgment of ultimate significance. This "kerygmatic" interpretation of New Testament theology received its greatest impetus through the writings of C. H. Dodd. In his inaugural lecture at Cambridge University, Dodd called for a new emphasis on the unity of New Testament thought in place of the analytic approach that had prevailed throughout the preceding century. In the same year he implemented his own suggestion in The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. Dodd finds the unity of the New Testament message in the kerygma, the heart of which is the proclamation that the New Age has come in the person and mission of Jesus. 8. Eng. tr. 1971.

Introduction

Here, for the first time, a single biblical concept was used to relate all the New Testament materials into a unified development. Dodd has enlarged upon this thesis in The Parables of the Kingdom (1935) and The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (1953), interpreting both the message of Jesus and of the Gospel of John in terms of the inbreaking of the Age to Come. While this approach is sound in principle, Dodd's work has the defect of understanding the Age to Come in terms of platonic thought rather than biblical eschatology. The Age to Come is the wholly other, the eternal breaking into the temporal, instead of the future age breaking into the present age. This kerygmatic approach has produced an extensive literature. The out standing American protagonist has been F. V. Filson. His One Lord, One Faith (1943) defends the unity of the New Testament message, and his Jesus Christ the Risen Lord (1956) argues that New Testament theology must understand New Testament history from the theological point of view, i.e., of the living God who acts in history, the most notable event being the resurrection of Christ. Filson interprets the entire New Testament theology in the light of the resurrec tion. A. M. Hunter expounded The Unity of the NT {1944; published in Amer ica under the title The Message of the NT) in terms of One Lord, One Church, One Salvation. More recently, in a slim volMme Introducing NT Theology (1957), he has interpreted the "Fact of Christ," including in this term "the totality of what Jesus Christ's coming involved, his person, work and words, of course, but also the Resurrection, the advent of the Spirit and the creation of the new Israel. . ." (9). Oscar Cullmann also follows the Heilsgeschichte ("history of salvation") interpretation, and provides an excellent corrective for Dodd's platonic approach. In Christ and Time (1946, Eng. 1950), he argued that the New Testament finds its unity in a common conception of time and history rather than in ideas of essence, nature, eternal or existential tmth. Theology is the meaning of the historical in time. In CuUmann's work, Heilsgeschichte theology has emerged in a new form; and the principle of Heilsgeschichte as the unifying center of New Testament theology has been widely recognized. We can accept the basic validity of CuUmann's approach without agreeing with him that the New Testa ment shows no interest in questions of nature and being but only in "functional Christology."^ Cullmann has published a second volume. Salvation in History (1967), in which he contrasts Heilsgeschichte with existential theology. Alan Richardson in his Introduction to the Theology of the NT (1958) assumes the kerygmatic approach by accepting the hypothesis that the "brilliant re-interpretation of the Old Testament scheme of salvation which is found in the New Testament" goes back to Jesus himself and is not the product of the 9. The Christology of the ^fT (1959), 326-27. See CuUmann's defense inSJTh 15 (1962), 36-43.

INTRODUCTION

believing community. In an essay on "Historical Theology and Biblical Theol ogy," Richardson argues that biblical theology cannot use a purely objective, scientific, neutral approach, but must interpret the biblical history from the standpoint of a biblical faith. W. G. Kiimmei's The Theology of the NT according to Its Major Witnesses (1969, Eng. tr. 1973) may well be characterized within the Heilsgeschichte school. In this first volume he deals only with Jesus, the Primitive Church, Paul, and John, and he is particulariy concemed to find the central message of the chief witnesses. He finds this in the saving act of God in Jesus Christ. In Christ, God has begun his salvation promised for the end of the world, and in this Christ event, God encounters us to rescue us from imprisonment in this world and free us to love. This divine activity is expressed differently by the several witnesses, but all four in different ways attest to the central redeeming event in the history of Jesus Christ. The Bultmannian

School

The exponents of this "kerygmatic" approach assume that the Christ proclaimed in the kerygma is continuous with the historical Jesus. The "kerygmatic" factor is the interpretive element that necessarily accompanies the event. This position has been radically rejected by the most influential twentieth-century German New Testament scholar, Rudolf Bultmann. Bultmann is also a "kerygmatic" theolo gian, but he uses the concept of the kerygma and of Geschichte ("history") very differently from the scholars discussed above. The Jesus of history, for Bultmann, has been quite obscured behind the layers of believing tradition, which reinter preted the significance of the Jesus of history in terms of mythology. Historically, Jesus was only a Jewish prophet who proclaimed the imminent apocalyptic end of the world and warned people to prepare for the catastrophe of judgment. He conceived of himself neither as Messiah nor as Son of Man. He did, however, possess an overwhelming sense of the reality of God, and he realized that he was the bearer of the Word of God for the last hour, which placed men and women under the demand for decision. His death was an incomparable tragedy, which was, however, redeemed from meaninglessness by the Christian belief in his resurrec tion. The early church reinterpreted Jesus, first in terms of the Jewish apocalyptic Son of Man, and then in terms of a conflated apocalyptic Son of Man and gnostic heavenly man. All of this is, however, mythological kerygma by which the early church reinterpreted the meaning of Christ for them. The kerygma, i.e., the early church's proclamation of Christ, is an historical fact in the life of early Christianity, and therefore there is continuity between the Jesus of history and the kerygma. It was Jesus who gave rise to the kerygma. If there had been no Jesus, there would have been no kerygma. However, the Christ who is proclaimed in the kerygma is purely a mythological constmction and had no existence in history, for mythology 10. See an

1 (1955), 157-67.

Introduction

by definition is nonhistorical. Therefore, there can be no continuity between the Jesus of history and the Christ of the kerygma. The kerygma is the expression of the meaning Christ had for the early Christians, formulated in mythological terms. Bultmann's interpretation of New Testament theology is controlled by three facts. First, historical reality must be understood in terms of unbroken historical causality. If God is thought to act in history, the action must always be hidden in historical events and evident only to the eye of faith.^ All ideas of supernatural acts — real incarnation, virgin birth, miracles, bodily resurrec tion, etc. — are ipso facto unhistorical but mythological. Second, the Synoptic Gospels give us such a theological picture of Jesus that they cannot be historical. The historische Jesus is neariy lost from sight behind the geschichtliche Christ of the church's faith. Third, this is no loss for theology, for faith cannot rest itself upon the security of historical research but must trust only the bare Word of God in the kerygma. However, the kerygma itself is expressed in mythological terms and must therefore be "demythologized" to yield its existential meaning. Humankind can achieve "authentic existence" — freedom from the past and openness to the future — only by faith in the demythologized kerygma, not in the Jesus of history. Bultmann sees no continuity between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith — only between the Jesus of history and the kerygma. The New Quest for the Historical

Jesus

Bultmann's followers have been disturbed by the extremeness of his position, which divorced the historical Jesus from Christian faith and removed him from Christian theology. They have therefore initiated a "new quest" for the historical Jesus, who will stand in a measure of continuity with the Christ of the kerygma. This new quest takes its beginning in the 1954 essay of Bultmann's student Ernst Kasemann (Eng. tr., "The Problem of the Historical Jesus" [Essays on NT Themes (1964), 15-47]). The new quest proceeds by postulating the same authentic existence in response to the historical Jesus as to the kerygma. The most notable products of this "post-Bultmannian" school to date have been James Robinson's A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (1959), G. Bomkamm's Jesus of Nazareth (1960), and Hans Conzelmann's A« Outline of the Theology of the NT (1969). Joachim Jeremias represents an independent position. He does not con sider himself one of the "new questers," for he has never given up the old quest. He thinks that by form criticism he can strip off the layers of accretion in the gospel tradition and discover the ipsissima vox if not the ipsissima verba of the historical Jesus. Here alone is revelation to be found in the message of Jesus. The epistles are not revelation but the response of the believing community to the revelation in Jesus. Jesus possessed unique authority as the Son of God to reveal the Father. In the historical Jesus, we find ourselves confronted by God 11. See also J. D. Smart, r/ie Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church (1970), for the same position.

INTRODUCTION

himself. Jesus proclaimed the imminent Kingdom of God and anticipated his own exaltation as the heavenly Son of Man. He saw himself as the Suffering Servant giving his life for the sins of humanhy. In the resurrection, his disciples experienced his parousia, which meant his enthronement in heaven and the coming of the eschaton. His most notable works in this connection are The Problem of the Historical Jesus (1964) and NT Theology (1971). The American

Scene

American scholarship has not been noted for its creative contribution to New Testament theology. The last full-scale textbook that treated the discipline in a comprehensive manner was that of George Barker Stevens, The Theology of the AT (1906). The last twenty-five years have witnessed a debate between a theological approach to New Testament interpretation and a strictly "scientific" approach that insists that considerations of faith belong to the discipline of systematic theology. New Testament theology must interpret the Scripmres by the thorough going application of the "historical-crhical" method. C. C. McCown argued that history is the result of the complex interaction of natural and social forces and the actions and reactions of men and women. God acts only through human beings (JBL 75 [1956], 12-18; see his book The Search for the Real Jesus [1940]). H. J. Cadbury labeled the "theology of history" approach as archaizing and therefore unscientific (Int 3 [1949], 331-37). This "scientific" approach was more interested in religion than in theology.i^ Millar Burrows wrote An Outline of Biblical Theology (1946) in which he defines theology as the elements in biblical religion that are of timeless worth and abiding significance. As we might expect, this school, if it can be called such, has been little interested in trying to produce works in New Testament theology. Other scholars have espoused a theological approach to the interpretation of the New Testament, insisting that so-called scientific objectivity was neither desirable nor attainable, and maintaining that revelation has tmly occurred in history, but is recognizable only by the eyes of faith.i^ This has been the most notable movement in American New Testament theology, and it has been docu mented in Connolly Gamble, Jr., "The Literature of Biblical Theology," Int 7 (1953), 466-80, and in G. E. Ladd, "The Search for Perspective," Int 25 (1971), 41-43. A. N. Wilder, surveying the scene in New Testament theology, con sidered Heilsgeschichte or Geschichtstheologie ("theology of history") to be the most promising approach to the contemporary task.''* While this approach is to be found in numerous periodical articles, it has produced only a few books.

12. See above, pp. 5-7. 13. See P. S. Minear, Eyes of Faith (1946). 14. "NT Theology in Transition," in The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, ed. H. R. Willoughby (1947), 435.

Introduction

Among these are Otto Piper's God in History (1939), which explicitly defends Heilsgeschichte; Floyd V. Filson's Jesus Christ, the Risen Lord (1956), a brief New Testament theology as seen through the perspective of the resurrection; and John Wick Bowman's Religion of Maturity (1948) and Prophetic Realism and the Gospel (1955). Bowman strongly defends the position that revelation has occurred on the plane of history, but he appears to go altogether too far in rejecting "the religion of the throne," namely, apocalyptic.'5 Even F. C. Grant recognizes the concept of Heilsgeschichte. One of the characteristics of most of these books is that they use the topical or synthetic rather than the historical or analytical approach. W. D. Davies has produced an excellent survey that deals with the Synoptics, Paul, and John,''' but its level is more for laypeople than for students. Ralph Knudsen and Frank Stagg have both written topical surveys in New Testament theology,"* but they are both too limited in scope to serve theological students. Although this movement of "biblical theology" has recently been pro nounced dead,i9 Brevard Childs surveys it \n Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970). The crisis, he feels, is due to the fact that the biblical theology movement tried to combine a liberal critical methodology with a normative biblical theology. The movement failed to bridge the gap between exegesis and theology. This can be done, Childs thinks, only by viewing the Bible in its own context, that of canonical literature. The Bible must be recognized as the normative vehicle of revelation, and therefore as inspired. Gerhard Hasel has given us an excellent survey of Old Testament theol ogy in OT Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (1972) in which he deals with the same issues that confront us in New Testament theology. He insists that there is "a transcendent or divine dimension in Biblical history which the historical-critical method is unable to deal with" (85). Biblical theology must be done from a starting point that is biblical-historical in orientation. Only this approach can deal adequately with the reality of God and his inbreaking into history. This is the methodology employed by the present writer in the study of New Testament theology. With the exception of dispensational writers,20 American evangelicals

15. See G. E. Udd, "Why Not Prophetic-Apocalyptic?" JBL 76 (1957), 192-200. 16. F. C. Grant, An Introduction to NT Thought (1958), 41. 17. W. D. Davies, Invitation to the NT (1966). 18. R. E. Knudsen, Theology in the AT (1964); F. Stagg, NT Theology (1962). 19. See the editorial in Interpretation, 23 (1969), 78-80. R. Grant pronounced the movement a failure and has summoned "New Testament scholars to come to themselves, stop trying to feed on pods, and return to the father's house." Cf. "American NT Study, 1926-1956," JBL 87 (1968), 43. 20. See J. F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (1959); J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come (1959); A. J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (1959). Dispensationalism is refuted in G. E. Ladd, Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God (1952).

INTRODUCTION

have made little contribution to New Testament theological literature. The only comprehensive work is that of Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (1948), but it breaks off abmptly in the middle of Jesus' ministry, and is more a long essay on revelation in the Old Testament than a biblical theology. His Self-Disclosure of Jesus (1926), long out of date, has some chapters that are still of great value for the christological problem of the New Testament. A spokesperson for Evan gelicalism has said, "If evangelical Protestants do not overcome their preoc cupation with negative criticism of contemporary theological deviations at the expense of the construction of preferable alternatives to these, they will not be much of a doctrinal force in the decade ahead."2' It is to meet this challenge that the present book was written. Biblical Theology in the Last Twenty Years (D. A.

Hagner)

Literature: B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia, 1970); N. Perrin, "The Challenge of NT Theology Today," in NT Issues, ed. R. Batey (New York, 1970), 15-34; G. E. Ladd, "The Search for Perspective,"/nr 25 (1971), 41-62; J. M. Robinson, "Introduction: The Dismantling and Reassembling of the Categories of NT Scholar ship" and "Kerygma and History in the NT," in J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia, 1971), 1-19, 20-70; R. Morgan, The Nature of NT Theology: The Contribution of William Wrede and Adolf Schlatter (London, 1973); R. C. Morgan, "A Straussian Question to 'NT Theology,'" NTS 23 (1977), 243-65; G. Hasel, NT Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, 1978); H. Boers, What is NT Theology? The Rise of Criticism and the Problem of a Theology of the NT (Philadelphia, 1979); J. D. Smart, The Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia, 1979); P. Stuhlmacher, "The Gospel of Reconciliation in Christ — Basic Features and Issues of a Biblical Theology of the NT," HorBT 1 (1979), 161-90; R. R Martin, "NT Theology: A Proposal. The Theme of Reconciliation," £ T 9 1 (1980), 364-68; C. K. Barrett, "What is NT Theology? Some Reflections," HorBT 3 (1981), 1-22; L. Goppelt, Theology of the NT (Grand Rapids, 1981-82), especially 1:3-11; D. Guthrie, NT Theology: A Thematic Study (Downers Grove, IL, 1981); B. S. Childs, "Some Reflections on the Search for a Biblical The ology," HorBT 4 (1982), 1-12; G. F. Hasel, "Biblical Theology: Then, Now, and Tomorrow," HorBT 4 (1982), 61-93; W. Zimmerli, "Biblical Theology," HorBT 4 (1982), 95-130; C. K. Barrett, "The Centre of the NT and the Canon," in Die Mitte des NT, ed. U. Luz and H. Weder (Gottingen, 1983), 5-21; R D. Hanson, "The Future of Biblical Theology," HorBT6 (1984), 13-24; B. C. Ollenburger, "Biblical Theology: Situating the Discipline," in Understanding the Word, ed. J. T. Butler, E. W. Conrad, and B. C. Ollenburger (Sheffield, 1985), 37-62; idem, "What Krister Stendahl 'Meant' — ANormative Critique of 'Descriptive Biblical Theology,'" HorBT4 (1986), 61-98; L. Morris, AT Theology (Grand Rapids, 1986); H. G. Reventlow, Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century (1986); J. D. G. Dunn, "The Task of NT Theology," in J. D. G. Dunn and J. P. Mackey, NT Theology in Dialogue: Christology and Ministry (London, 1987), 1-26; R. Scroggs, "Can NT Theology Be Saved? The Threat of Contextualisms," USQR 42 (1988), 17-31; J. R. Donahue, "The Changing Shape of 21. C. F H. Henry in Jesus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord, ed. C. F H. Henry (1966), 9.

Introduction

NT Theology," HorBT 11 (1989), 1-30; R. H. Fuller, "NT Theology," in The NT and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. E. J. Epp and G. W. MacRae (Philadelphia and Atlanta, 1989), 565-84; 1. H. Marshall, "NT Theology," in Jesus the Saviour (Downers Grove, IL, 1990), 15-34; H. Raisanen, Beyond NT Theology: A Story and a Programme

(Philadelphia, 1990); A. K. M. Adam, "Biblical Theology and the Problem of Mo dernity: Von Wredestrasse zu Sackgasse," HorBT 12 (1990), 1-18; J. M. Bassler (ed.), Pauline Theology 1 (Minneapolis, 1991), especially 1-36 (J. P. Sampley, J. C. Beker, and P. J. Achtemeier); J. Reumann (ed.), The Promise and Practice of Biblical Theol

ogy (Minneapolis, 1991); C. H. H. Scobie, "The Challenge of Biblical Theology," TB 42 (1991), 31-61; idem, "The Structure of Biblical Theology," TB 42 (1991), 163-94; B. C. Ollenburger, E. A. Martens, and G. E Hasel (eds.). The Flowering of OT The ology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century OT Theology, 1930-1990 (Winona Lake, IN,

1992); C. H. H. Scobie, "Three Twentieth Biblical Theologies," HorBT 14 (1992), 51-69; B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis, 1993).

Theological

This section presents a very brief description of the developments in biblical theology, more specifically New Testament theology, in the two decades since the first edition of this book. Already by the time Ladd wrote, the discipline of biblical theology was in turmoil; indeed, it was said to be in a serious crisis.^2 The crisis was not one that Ladd felt, however, for two reasons. First, he had not bought fully into the American form of neoorthodoxy found in the so-called "biblical theology movement"; second, he was willing to modify the historicalcritical method to make it more appropriate to the subject matter of the New Testament (see the remainder of this chapter). Thus Ladd wrote his New Testa ment theology with what today may look like an astonishing amount of selfconfidence. The prophecies of the death of biblical theology were, fortunately, premature. But apart from recent notable exceptions from Germany and from English-speaking evangelicals (see below), the ongoing work of New Testa ment theologians has been limited to certain aspects of the subject or to method rather than including the actual production of comprehensive theologies.23 L. E. Keek's vivid metaphor can also be applied to New Testament theology when he describes the state of theology in general as being "like a state fair without a midway: Everything is going on at the same time and there is no main exhibit."^'' The situation of New Testament theology at present, or at least much of it, may be fairly described as one of methodolog ical confiision. This confusion is caused by the emergence of a great variety of new

22. Ladd mentions Childs's important book Biblical Theology in Crisis in the preceding section, but with very little comment. 23. See J. Reumann, Promise and Practice, 185; cf. B. C. Ollenburger, "Biblical Theology: Situating the DiscipUne." 24. The Church Confident (1993), 47.

INTRODUCTION

methods in the study of the New Testament. It is, in fact, astonishing how the field of New Testament studies has developed in the two decades since Ladd wrote. In their quest for better understanding of the New Testament, scholars have tumed increasingly to other disciplines. The list has become almost endless: Some, like semantics and semiology, come from linguistics; others, like narratology, rhetorical criticism, and reader-response theory derive primarily from what must be called the "newer" literary criticism.25 The lines are not always clear, however. Some, like stmcturalism, deconstruction, and newer emphases in hermeneutics, overlap categories; some like canon criticism form their own categories. In addition, some have turned to such disciplines as sociology, anthropology, and even psychology. Also impinging on recent study of the New Testament are what may be called "special agendas," such as feminist, black, and two-thirds world hermeneutics. Precisely how all this ferment will affect New Testament theology remains unclear. Certain of the newer emphases would seem very problematic. We restrict ourselves here to two related areas of concem. First, some advocates of the newer literary-critical approaches insist that the narratives of the New Testament be understood in a strictly nonreferential way. From their point of view the Gospels, for example, should be understood as stories of self-contained meaning altogether apart from any reference to the real world. This means that historical questions are sidestepped as irrelevant. We derive meaning from these narratives in the same way that we do from novels and other works of art. Second, some advocates of reader-response criticism argue that the only significant meaning a text has is that imposed upon it by the reader. All attempts, therefore, to ascertain the intended meaning of the writers of the New Testament are not only unnecessary, but futUe. One interpretation — any interpretation, nearly — of the texts is as good as another. It should be obvious how disastrous such conclusions as these are for New Testament theology, at least as traditionally understood. Fortunately, it is only extremists who want to push these new methods to such lengths. We can still leam many vaHd insights from the application of these new disciplines to the New Testament. This includes not only those disciplines that can be regarded as refined extensions of what has already been studied as a part of ti'aditional historical-critical exegesis, but even those that treat the text as an object in itself. Thus reader-response criticism rightiy calls attention to the unavoidable involvement of the reader in the constiiial of the meaning of a text. Nonreferential approaches to texts rightiy remind us that texts should be con sidered as whole entities and that analysis of story-like aspects of historical narratives can prove enlightening. What remains vitally important, however, is that these methods be seen as supplementary to, and not as displacing, the 25. For a perceptive assessment of these trends in relation to New Testament theology, see Reumann, Promise and Practice, 194-99; cf. J. R. Donahue, "The Changing Shape of NT Theology," 15-18.

Introduction

historical-critical method. The latter must continue to hold its fundamental place in the interpretation of the biblical documents. It is nothing less than indis pensable.^6 The newer methods have already begun to impact New Testament theology through specialized studies.^'' But we are less likely to see comprehensive New Testament theologies written strictly from the perspective and orientation of any of these new approaches.^* The reason for this is that a comprehensive New Testament theology of necessity must grapple with questions that the newer methods in themselves are not equipped to handle. Much more probable will be an enriching of the standard approaches. In some respects it is easy to see how this might happen — for example, in the use of sociological insights. In others, for example some of the newer literary criticism, it is less easy to envision. In only one instance thus far has there been an attempt to do a compre hensive theology from the perspective of one of the newer trends. The same Brevard Childs who articulated the crisis of biblical theology in 1970 has now produced a theology of the Bible, i.e., of both testaments, from the perspective of canonical criticism.^' In surprisingly many respects, however, this new work seems traditional, a kind of historical-critical biblical theology done only with special emphasis on the totality of the canon. For all the differences that could be noted, one does not feel that one has moved into a thoroughly different orbit than Ladd's. Among less substantial treatments we may note the work of H. C. Kee, who under the mbric "covenant and social identity" has made "an approach to New Testament theology" that utilizes the results of a sociological approach to the New Testament.^o Narrative analysis has been applied thus far primarily in the area of christology.^' The few comprehensive theologies that have appeared in the last twenty years show little signs of the influence of the recent trends in New Testament studies. Two New Testament theologies written in the English language from

26. Cf J. Fitzmyer, "Historical Criticism: Its Role in Biblical Interpretation and Church Life," ThSt 50 (1989), 244-59; Donahue, "The Changing Shape of NT Theology," 18f. 27. For some examples, see Reumann, Promise and Practice. 28. R. Scroggs is rather more pessimistic, seeing the new trends as possibly endangering "the very existence of New Testament theology." For Scroggs what began as the approach to the texts known as a "hermeneutic of suspicion" has become a "hermeneutics of paranoia." He calls now for a respect for the "intentionality of the text," wherein the text is allowed to control the conversation that results in New Testament theology. Ladd would heartily agree with such a call. See Scroggs, "Can NT Theology Be Saved? The Threat of Contextualisms," USQR 42 (mS), 17-31. 29. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible 30. Knowing the Truth: A Sociological Approach to NT Interpretation (1989), 70-102. 31. E.g., Hans Frei, The Identity of Jesus Christ (1975); R. C. Tannehill, "The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Theology," Semeia 16 (1979), 57-95; R. Krieg, Story Shaped Christology (1988).

INTRODUCTION

an evangelical perspective have been published since Ladd's. The first, and superior of the two, is by the late D. Guthrie (1981). Guthrie proceeds by subject, beginning with "God," "Man and his world," "Christology," etc. To some extent Guthrie alleviates the problems associated with a thematic approach by grouping the material in each section according to source, thus providing some historical perspective. Still, it must be said that Guthrie's use of the framework of system atic theology does not do full justice to the historical nahjre of the enterprise of biblical theology.^^ Leon Morris published his much smaller Theology in 1986. He proceeds in the more customary manner of examining the various writers of the New Testament in approximately chronological order, beginning with Paul. While Morris does not deny development in the New Testament writers, he is not optimistic about our ability to trace that development. Large-scale New Testament theologies continue to come from German scholars. That of L. Goppelt appeared posthumously in 1974 and became avaUable in a two-volume English translation in 1981 and 1982. Ladd's and Goppelt's theologies, though completely independent of each other, share basically the same perspective, namely that of salvation history, and the similarity of approach shows that Ladd's theology still has reason to be considered viable. Two new German multivolume New Testament theologies have begun to appear. Hans Hiibner has produced a volume devoted to prolegomena, in which he deals at length with the theological relationship of the Old Testament and New Testament.33 Peter Stuhlmacher covers Jesus and Paul in his first volume.34 Stuhlmacher's work is certain to be translated into English and will be of particular interest to evangelical readers. Here again is a major work that in significant ways can be aligned with both Goppelt and Ladd. Thus it does not seem that Ladd's theology, although approaching twenty years old, should at all be thought of as outmoded or pass6. Indeed, in its basic orientation, Ladd continues to remain appealing. The reason for this is very simply Ladd's commitment to the historical study of the New Testament, but with an openness to its theological truth. He sees his task as fundamentally a descriptive one, focusing on what the text "meant." But since he accepts the Bible as the record of the acts of God for the redemption of the world, he therefore accepts the normative character of the New Testament witness and its 32. Guthrie justifies his approach by his conviction that the subject matter "is a revelation of God rather than an exploration of man" (73). This seems to overlook the very way in which God reveals himself to human beings. What lies at the root of biblical theology is the fact that God speaks through the concrete and occasional particularities of fully human situadons. In these situations it is hardly the case that the concerned individuals are passive recipients of revelation. There is thus a sense in which biblical theology must be thought of as the exploration of the early Christians as well as of God's revelation. 33. Biblische Theologie des NT, Band 1: Prolegomena (1990). 34. Biblische Theologie des NT, Band 1: Grundlegung, Von Jesus zu Paulus (1992).

Introduction

ongoing relevance for humanity today, i.e., the importance of what it "means."35 Ladd thus refuses to regard New Testament theology as merely the history of early Christian experience.36 Ladd employs the historical-critical method, but in a modified form that allows him to remain open to the possibility of the transcendent and thus enables him to do justice to the content of the materials being studied. It is for these reasons that when J. D. Smart spoke of the fuhire of biblical theology, one place he saw hope was in the Evangelicalism represented by Ladd, whom he names specifically. For Smart the promise lies with scholars who have begun "to combine a thorough-going historical scholarship with their deeply rooted devotion to a biblical faith."^^ If one looks furthermore at G. Hasel's basic proposals toward a New Testament theology,'* one must conclude that if Ladd has not succeeded totally, he must certainly be judged as heading in the right direction. Without question Ladd's theology reflects the orientation of a specific interpretive community, that known widely as "Evangelicalism." It was Ladd who was especially instrumental in helping many fundamentalists to see for the first time not merely the acceptability, but the indispensability, of historical criticism.39 Evangelicals — at least many of them — have become more open to many of the conclusions of critical scholarship (in regard to, for example, the authorship and dating of New Testament writings and the implications for development within the New Testament) in the twenty years since Ladd wrote. They continue, however, to share the basic convictions embodied in Ladd's approach to biblical theology. For all the actual diversity in the New Testament writings there remains an unforced and genuine unity among them at the same time."*' For all the historical particularity of these writings they continue to possess a normative authority for the church. And if, as J. Reumann has recently written, "the ultimate test for any biblical theology will be whether it enables faith and obedience to God's word,"'*' that practical concern was close to the heart of Ladd. Ladd's interpretive community continues to cherish the goals of

35. J. R. Donahue has stressed the appropriateness of this concem in New Testament theology: "Every description involves choice and selection, which are elements of interpreta tion; every description, however objectively carried on, reflects the situation of the interpreter, and neutrality is foreign to texts which advocate clear positions and summon to full commit ment." "The Changing Shape of NT Theology," 19. 36. In a provocative book H. Raisanen calls for a return to Wrede's notion of a full dichotomy between history and theology and thus for reducing New Testament theology to a history of religious thought, with only subsequent reflection on the meaning of the texts for the modem world (Beyond NT Theology). 37. The Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology, 155. 38. NT Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 204-20. Cf. "Biblical Theology: Then, Now, and Tomorrow," HorBT 4 (1982), 61-93. 39. See his influential book The NT and CrUicism (1%7). 40. See David Wenham's Appendix (pp. 684-718 below). 41. The Promise and Practice of Biblical Theology, 203.

INfTRODUCTION

faith and obedience. At their best, evangelicals will cuhivate openness to all that increases faith and leads to a more effective obedience.

B. Biblical Theology, History, a n d Revelation Literature: Richardson, History Sacred and Profane (1964); V. A. Harvey, The His torian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Christian Belief (1966); E. Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (1975); R Sftihlmacher, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture (1977); F. Hahn, Historical Inves tigation andNTFaith (1983); R. H. Nash, Christian Faith and Historical Understanding (1984); C. Brown, History and Faith (1987); D. A. Hagner, "The NT, History, and the Historical-Critical Method," in NT Criticism and Interpretation, ed. D. A. Black and D. S. Dockery (1991), 73-96.

Biblical theology is that discipline which sets forth the message of the books of the Bible in their historical setting. Biblical theology is primarily a descriptive discipUne.'*2 It is not initially concerned with the final meaning of the teachings of the Bible or their relevance for today. This is the task of systematic theology.''^ Biblical theology has the task of expounding the theology found in the Bible in its own historical setting, and its own terms, categories, and thought forms. It is the obvious intent of the Bible to tell a story about God and his acts in history for humanity's salvation. For Bultmann the idea of revelation in history is mythological. He argues that the real intent of the New Testament is to describe humanity's existential situation. However, this is modernization. Mythology or not, the intent of the Bible is to tell a story about what God has done, which also affects human existence. However, biblical theology cannot be blind to the second question: the tmthfulness of the biblical story. The problem is that presuppositions about the nature of history have con tinued to interject themselves into the reconstmction of the biblical message. For instance, the Gospels represent Jesus as a divine man and as being conscious of his divine power. Can this be tme to history? For scholars who feel bound by a secularistic historical method, history has no room for divine persons. Therefore, behind the Jesus of the Gospels must be hidden an historical Jesus. The New Testament pirtures the church as being founded by the resurrection of Christ. Did Jesus actually rise from the dead? In ordinary historical experience, dead people do not rise. Such presuppositions affect the methodology of biblical theologians. However, since biblical theology is concemed with the self-revelation of God and with the redemption of women and men, the very idea of revelation and redemption involves certain presuppositions that are everywhere implicit and often explicit in the Bible. These presuppositions are God, humanity, and sin. The reality of God is everywhere assumed. The Bible is not concerned to 42. K. Stendahl, "Biblical Theology," IDB l:422f. 43. O. Piper, "Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology," JBR (1957), 106'11.

Introduction

prove God or to discuss theism in a philosophical manner. It assumes a personal, powerful, self-existent being who is creator of the world and of humankind, and who is concerned about humanity. The divine concern is caused by human sin, which has brought humanity into a state of separation from God and carries with it the doom of death. The human plight has affected not only individual existence, but also both the course of history and the worid of nature in which humanity is placed. Redemption is the divine activity whose objective is the deliverance of human beings, both as individuals and as a society, from their sinful predi cament and their restoration to a position of fellowship and favor with God. Biblical theology is neither the story of humanity's search for God, nor is it a description of a history of religious experience. Biblical theology is theology: it is primarily a story about God and his concern for human beings. It exists only because of the divine initiative realizing itself in a series of divine acts whose objective is human redemption. Biblical theology therefore is not exclu sively, or even primarily, a system of abstract theological tmths. It is basically the description and interpretation of the divine activity within the scene of human history that seeks humanity's redemption. Biblical Theology, Revelation, and History The bond that unites the Old and the New Testaments is this sense of the divine activity in history. Orthodox theology has traditionally undervalued or at least underemphasized the role of the redemptive acts of God in revelation. The classic essay by B. B. Warfield acknowledges the fact of revelation through the instramentality of historical deeds but subordinates revelation in acts to revelation in words."*^ Another evangeUcal has defined "revelation, in the biblical sense of the term, [as] the communication of information."''5 Such a view does not require history, but only communication via thought or speech. It is more accurate to say that "revelation moves in the dimension of personal encounter. . . . This is indeed the end of all revelation, to see the face of God!""* What God reveals is not only information about himself and human destiny; he reveals himself, and this revelation has occurred in a series of historical events. This is why Henry has written, "Revelation c a n n o t . . . be equated simply with the Hebrew-Christian Scripmres; the Bible is a special segment within a larger divine activity of revelation. . . . Special revelation involves unique his torical events of divine deliverance climaxed by the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ."'*^ The greatest revelatory act of God in the Old Testament was the deliver44. See B. B. Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Revelation," The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (1948), 71-104. 45. E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth (1947), 41. 46. R K. Jewett, "Special Revelation as Historical and Personal," in Revelation and the Bible, ed. C. F. H. Henry (1958), 52, 56. 47. C. F H. Henry in Inspiration and Interpretation, ed. J. Walvoord (1957), 254f. See now Henry's magnum opus, God, Revelation, and Authority (6 vols., 1976-83).

INTRODUCTION

ance of Israel from bondage in Egypt. This was no ordinary event of history like the events that befell other nations. It was not an achievement of the Israelites. It was not attributed to the genius and skillful leadership of Moses. It was an act of God. "You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings" (Exod. 19:4). This deliverance was not merely an act of God; it was an act through which God made himself known and through which Israel was to know and serve God. "I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage . . . , and you shall know that I am the LORD your God" (Exod. 6:6-7). In the later history of Israel, the Exodus is recited again and again as the redemptive act by which God made himself known to his people. Hosea appeals to Israel's historical redemption and subsequent experiences as evidence of the love of God. "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son I led them with the cords of compassion, with the bands of love" (Hos. 11:1,4). History also reveals God in wrath and judgment. Hosea goes on immedi ately to say that Israel is about to return to captivity because of her sins. Amos interprets Israel's impending historical destmction with the words: "Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel; because I will do this to you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel!" (Amos 4:12). The revelation of God as the judge of his people in historical events is sharply reflected in the designation of Israel's historical defeat by the Assyrians as the Day of the Lord (Amos 5:18). Israel's history is different from all other history. While God is the Lord of all history, in one series of events God has revealed himself as he has nowhere else done. German theologians have coined the useful term Heilsgeschichte ("history of salvation") to designate this stream of revelatory history. In English we speak of "redemptive history" or "holy history." To be sure, God was superintending the course of Egypt and Assyria and Babylon and Persia. There is a general providence in history, but only in the history of Israel had God communicated to men and women personal knowledge of himself. The New Testament stands in this stream of "holy history." The recital of God's acts in history is the substance of Christian proclamation. The earliest semblance of a creedal confession is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., and it is a recital of events: Christ died, he was buried, he was raised, he appeared. The New Testament evidence for God's love does not rest on reflection on the nature of God but upon recital. God so loved that he gave (Jn. 3:16). God shows his love for us in that Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). The revelation of God in the redemptive history of Israel finds its clearest word in the historical event of the life, deatii, and resurrection of Christ (Heb. l:l-2).'»8 New Testament theology therefore does not consist merely of the teachings 48. K. Stendahl recognizes that Heilsgeschichte is more accurate than existential philos ophy in describing the theology of the Bible. "Biblical Theology," IDB 1:421.

Introduction

of the several strata of the New Testament. It consists primarily of the recital of what God has done in Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, the redemptive act of God in Jesus is but the end term in a long series of redemptive acts in Israel. The message of the prophets places great emphasis on hope — what God wDl yet do in the future. The New Testament constantly sounds the note that what God had prom ised, he was now doing. Mark summarizes Jesus' message with the words, "The time is fulfilled" (Mk. 1:15). Luke strikes this key by citing the words, "Today this prophetic scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (Lk. 4:21). Matthew frequentiy cites the Old Testament prophecies to show that what God was doing in Jesus is what he had promised through the prophets. The Gospels record the works and words of Jesus; the Acts relates the establishment and extension of the movement set up by Jesus' ministry; the epistles explicate further the meaning of Jesus' redemptive mission; and the Revelation outlines the consummation of the redemptive work of Christ for the world and human history, which is made possible because of what he has done in history (Rev. 5). Biblical Theology and the Nature of History The biblical view of Heilsgeschichte raises two difficulties for the modem thinker. First, is it conceivable that history can receive a revelation of God? Plato viewed the realm of time and space as one of flux and change. History by definition involves relativity, particularity, caprice, arbitrariness, whereas revelation must convey the universal, the absolute, the ultraiate. History has been called "an abyss in which Christianity has been swallowed up quite against its will." How can the Infinite be known in the finite, the Eternal in the temporal, the Absolute in the relativities of history? From a purely human perspeaive, this seems impossible; but at precisely this point is found perhaps the greatest miracle in the biblical faith. God is the living God, and he, the Eternal, the Unchangeable, has communicated knowledge of himself through the ebb and flow of historical experience. This, as Cullmann has pointed out, is the supreme scandal of Christian faith.*' It is at this point that scholars like Rudolf Bultmann take offense. It is to them incredible that God could act in history in the terms in which the New Testament represents it. To Bultmann, "mythology" includes not only ideas of God and his acts, but also the acts of God within the phenomena of world history, Bultmann thinks that "we must speak of God as acting only in the sense that He acts with me here and now."5o For Bultmann, by definition there can be no Heilsgeschichte in the sense in which we have described it, and he has tried to reinterpret the meaning of God's redemptive activity in terms of personal human existence. However, he has done this only at the sacrifice of the gospel itself. 49. Cullmann, The Christology of the NT, 315-28. 50. Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (1958), 78. See also Kerygma and Myth (1961), 196.

INTRODUCTION

which proclaims a redemptive history of which Christ is the end term. The fundamental issue at stake is not the nature of history but the namre of God. A second difficulty must be faced. Not only is the Bible conscious that God has been redemptively active in one stream of history in a way in which he is not active in general history; it also is conscious that at given points God has acted in history in ways that transcend ordinary historical experience. This can best be appreciated by a brief consideration of the nature of "history." The layperson thinks of history as the totality of past events; but a moment's reflection will show that we have no access whatever to vast areas of past human experience. There can be no history unless there are documents — records of past events. However, ancient records do not themselves constitute "history." The writings of Herodotus are a sort of history, but they are replete with fancy, imagination, and errors. "History" therefore must be understood as the modem historian's reconstmction of the events of the past by the critical use of ancient documents. In such a reconstmction, there must be accepted critical procedures, "ground-mles." When one reads in Greek literamre of the alleged activities of the gods among human beings, one does not consider this to be history but mythology. Many historians feel that this same critical definition of history must be appUed to the study of biblical history.^i This, however, mns head on into a difficult problem. Frequently, the Bible represents God as acting through "ordi nary" historical events. The course of events that brought Israel into captivity in Babylon and later effected their restoration to Palestine were "natural" his torical events. God used the Chaldeans to bring defeat to the chosen people and banishment from the land; but it was nonetheless a divine judgment. He also used Cyms, "his anointed" (Isa. 45:1), as an agent to accomplish the divine purpose of restoring his people to the land. In such events, God was active in history, carrying forward his redemptive purposes through the nation Israel. This one stream of history carries a meaning that sets it apart from all others in the river of history. Within the historical events, the eye of faith can see the working of God. Frequently, however, God is represented as acting in unusual ways. Some times the revelatory event assumes a character that the modem secular historian calls unhistorical. The God who reveals himself in redemptive history is both Lord of creation and Lord of history, and he is therefore able not only to shape the course of ordinary historical events but to act directly in ways that transcend usual historical experience. The most vivid illustration of this is the resurrection of Christ. From the point of view of scientific historical criticism, the resurrection cannot be "his torical," for it is an event uncaused by any other historical event, and it is without analogy. God, and God alone, is the cause of the resurrection. It is therefore causally unrelated to other historical events. Furthermore, nothing like it ever 51. See C. C. McCown, "In History or Beyond History?" HTR 38 (1945), 151-75.

Introduction

occurred elsewhere. The resurrection of Christ is not the restoration of a dead man to life but the emergence of a new order of life — resurrection life. If the biblical record is correct, there can be neither "historical" explanation nor analogy of Christ's resurrection. Indeed, its very offense to scientific historical criticism is a kind of negative support for its supernatural character. The underlying question is a theological one. Is such an alleged supernat ural event consistent with the character and objectives of the God who has revealed himself in holy history? Is history as such the measure of all things, or is the living God indeed the Lord of history? The biblical answer to this question is not in doubt. The Lord of history is transcendent over history yet not aloof from history. He is therefore able to bring to pass in time and space events that are genuine events yet that are "supra-historical" in their character. This merely means that such revelatory events are not produced by history but that the Lord of history, who stands above history, acts within history for the redemption of historical creatures. The redemption of history must come from outside of history — from God himself. This does not mean the abandonment of the historical method in studying the Bible. It does mean that at certain points the character of God's acts is such that it transcends the historical method, and that the historian qua historian can say nothing about them. History and

Revelation

While revelation has occurred in history, revelatory history is not bare history. God did not act in history in such a way that historical events were eloquent in and of themselves. The most vivid illustration of this is the death of Christ. Christ died. This is a simple historical fact that can be satisfactorily established by secular historical criticism. But Christ died for our sins. Christ died showmg forth the love of God. These are not "bare" historical facts. The cross by itself did not speak of love and forgiveness. Proof of this may be found in the experience of those who watched Jesus die. Were any of the witnesses over whelmed with a sense of the love of God, conscious that they were beholding the awesome spectacle of atonement being made for their sins? Did John, or Mary, or the centurion, or the High Priest throw himself in choking joy upon the earth before the cross with the cry, "I never knew how much God loved me!" The historical events are revelatory only when they are accompanied by the revelatory word. This, however, is not an accurate formulation if it suggests two separate modes of revelation. The fact is that God's word is his deed, and his deed is his word. We would therefore be more accurate if we spoke of the deed-word revelation. God's deed is his word. Ezekiel describes the captivity of Judah with the words, "And all the pick of his troops shall fall by the sword, and the survivors shall be scattered to every wind; and you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken" (Ezek. 17:21). Captivity was itself God's word of judgment to Israel. The event is a word of God.

INTRODUCTION

Yet the event is always accompanied by words, in this case the spoken words of the prophet Ezekiel. The event is never left to speak for itself, nor are people left to infer whatever conclusions they can draw from the event. The spoken word always accompanies and explains the revelatory character of the event. Therefore, not the deed by itself, but the deed-word is revelation. This is equally tme in the New Testament. Christ died is the deed; Christ died for our sins is the word of interpretation that makes the act revelatory. It was only after the interpretive word was given to the disciples that they came to understand that the death of Christ was revelatory of the love of God. We must go yet a step further. God's word not only follows the historical act and gives it a normative interpretation; it often precedes and creates the historical act. The test of whether a prophet speaks the word of the Lord is whether his word comes to pass (Deut. 18:22). For when God speaks, something happens. Events occur. "I, the LORD, have spoken; surely this will I do to all this wicked congregation . . . they shall die" (Num. 14:35). "I the LORD have spoken; it shall come to pass, 1 will do it" (Ezek. 24:14). "You shall die in peace. . . . For I have spoken the word, says the LORD" (Jer. 34:5). The revelatory word may be both spoken and written. Jeremiah both spoke and wrote down the word of the Lord. Both his spoken and written utterances were "the words of the LORD" (Jer. 36:4, 6). It is against this background that the New Testament refers to the Old Testament Scripmres as "the word of God" (Jn. 10:35). It is for this reason that the theologian is justified, indeed required, to recognize the Bible as the word of God. Revelation has occurred in the unique events of redemptive history. These events were accompanied by the divinely given word of interpretation. The word, both spoken and written, is itself a part of the total event. The Bible is both the record of this redemptive history and the end product of the interpretive word. It is the necessary and normative explanation of the revelatory character of God's revealing acts, for it is itself included in God's revelation through the act-word complex that constitutes revelation. Biblical Theology and the Canon The question will arise why the smdy of biblical theology is limited to the sixty-six canonical books of the Bible. Ought we not include the Jewish intertestamental literature? Is not Enoch as important a book as Daniel? 4 Ezra as the Revelation of John? Judith as Esther? In fact, Stauffer insists that the "old biblical tradition" upon which biblical theology draws should include this noncanonical Jewish literature.52 However, Stauffer neglects a very important fact. The canonical writings are conscious of participating in redemptive history while the noncanonical writings lack this sense of redemptive history. Antiquity is replete with literary records that preserve the historical expe52. E. Stauffer, NT Theology (1955), ch. 1.

Introduction

riences, the religious aspirations, the literary exploits of the times. In one sense of the word the canonical Scriptures are like other ancient writings in that they are the historical and literary products of people living in a distinct historical milieu to serve specific immediate objectives. Yet there is a difference: the writings of the canonical Scriptures partake of the character of holy history. They are those records which embody for us the story of God's activity in history. There are many elements shared in common by canonical and noncanonical books. Jubilees and Genesis cover much of the same ground, and Enoch and Daniel share many traits of apocalyptic literature. But the books outside the canon lack the sense of holy history found in the canonical books. The Apoca lypse of Bamch and the Apocalypse of John were written at about the same time and both deal with apocalyptic eschatology; but one reflects Jewish hopes for a happy future, and the other forms a conclusion to the entire biblical narrative in which the purposes of God, expressed in the prophets, manifested in the incarnation of Christ, and explained in the epistles, are brought to a consumma tion. These divine purposes, which have been operative within holy history, finally are perfectly accomplished in a consununation that brings history in its entirety to its divinely ordained end. The canonical books thus share in a unity of redemptive history that is intrinsic within them rather than superimposed upon them from without.^' collection of sixty-six books drawn from the Jewish apocryphal writings and from the Christian apocryphal literature can be as sembled that will share in any sort of inner unity such as that which we find in the books of Scripture.* Unity and Diversity Since biblical theology traces the divine acts in redemptive history, we must expect progression in the revelation. The various stages of the prophetic inter pretation of redemption history are equally inspired and authoritative, but they embody differing degrees of apprehension of the meanings involved. The Old Testament interpretation of the divine redemption gives the broad outlines of the consummation of God's uUimate purpose. Some students make much of the fact that the prophets have little if anything explicit to say about the church age. However, the perspective from which God granted the prophets to see the great

53. See B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970), 70ff. *The argument from content, however, does not seem to work in every instance. Does the canonical wisdom literature, for example, really "partake of the character of holy history"? Are there not noncanonical writings that on the basis of content alone may be judged as superior to certain canonical writings? It seems better to accept the canon as the result of decisions concerning source rather than content. Thus our Old Testament depends on the first-century Jewish decision based on the office of "prophet," while the New Testament depends on the parallel decision of the early church based on "apostle" or the circle associated with the apostles. The canon comes to the church as a given, based on human decisions concerning authorship, but simultaneously superintended by the sovereignty of God.

INTRODUCTION

redemptive events is that of their own environment — the history of the nation Israel. Again, some shidents distinguish sharply between the "gospel of the Kingdom" proclaimed by Jesus and the "gospel of grace" preached by Paul as though they were different gospels. However, the gospel of the Kingdom is essentially the same as the gospel of grace; the seeming differences are due to the different points of perspective along the line of redemptive history. It should be obvious that if our Lord experienced great difficuhy in conveying to his disciples that the messianic death was a fact in the divine purpose (Mt. 16:21-23), he could hardly instmct them in the gracious and redeeming significance of that death. It was unavoidable that the gospel, the good news of redemption, should be couched in different terms before the event than those used by the apostles after the event of the messianic death and resurrection had become a part of redemptive history. For the same reason, we must expect diversity within a basic unity; and, in fact, this is what we find. A generation ago, it was customary for some scholars to find in biblical theology diversity so radical as to desfroy any real unity. However, recent criticism gives larger recognition to the fundamental unity. In fact, A. M. Hunter goes so far as to express the desire that all future textbooks in New Testament theology be written from the synthetic rather than the analytic point of view.55 We feel, however, that this synthetic approach, which is followed by Richardson, Filson, Stauffer, and even F. C. Grant, ignores the important fact of historical development within the New Testament. There is great richness in the variety of New Testament theology that must not be sacrificed. The teachings of the Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Gospels, eternal life in John, justification and the life in Christ in Paul, the heavenly High Priest in Hebrews, and the Lamb who is a Lion and a conquering Son of Man in the Revelation are diverse ways of describing various aspects and depths of meaning embodied in the one great redemptive event — the person and work of Jesus Christ. Great loss is incurred when this variety is not recognized. Our procedure therefore will not be a monochromatic treatment of the several redemptive themes, but will attempt to set forth the development, progress, and diversity of meanings that are em bodied in the redemptive events of New Testament theology. For further discussion of this subject, see the essay by David Wenham at the end of this volume (Chapter 46).

54. Cf. F. V. Filson, One Lord, One Faith (1943); E. Stauffer, NT Theology; C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching (1936); H. H. Rowley, The Unity of the Bible (1955). 55. A. M. Hunter, The Message of Oie NT {1944), 121.

I. The Synoptic Gospels

2. John the Baptist

Literature: H. H. Rowley, "Jewish Proselyte Baptism,"//[/C4 15 (1940), 313-34; C. H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (1951); T. W. Manson, The Servant Messiah (1953), 36-58; T. W. Manson, "John the Baptist," BJRL 36 (1953-54), 395-412; W. F. Flemington, The NT Doctrine of Baptism (1953), 13-24; H. H. Rowley, "The Baptism of John and the Qumran Sect," in NT Essays, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (1959), 218-29; E. Best, "SpiritBaptism," AT 4 (1960), 236-44; G. R. Beasley-Murray,Sopfism in theNT(1962), 31-44; J. A. T. Robinson, "The Baptism of John and the Qumran Community," Twelve NT Studies (1962), 11-27; C. Scobie, John the Baptist (1964); W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (1968); J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (1970), 8-22; L. R Badia, The Qumran Baptism and John the Baptist's Baptism (1980); J. P. Meier, "John the Baptist in Matthew's Gospel," JBL 99 (1980), 383-405; K. Pusey, "Jewish Proselyte Baptism," £ 7 9 5 (1983-84), 141-45; D. C. Allison," 'Elijah Must Come First,'" JBL 103 (1984), 256-58; B. Reicke, "The Historical Setting of John's Baptism," in Jesus, the Gospels and the Church, ed. E. R Sanders (1987), 209-24; J. Murphy-O'Connor, "John the Baptist and Jesus: History and Hypotheses," ATS 36 (1990), 359-74. A New

Prophet

The significance of the ministry of John the Baptist can be appreciated only against the historical setting of the times. For cenmries the living voice of prophecy had been stilled. No longer did God speak directly through a human voice to his people to declare his will, to interpret the reason for the oppression of Israel by the Gentiles, to condemn their sins, to call for national repentance, to assure judgment if repentance was not given and to promise deliverance when the nation responded. In place of the living voice of prophecy were two streams of religious life, both deriving from a common source: scribal religion, which interpreted the will of God strictly m terms of obedience to the written Law as interpreted by the scribes, and the apocalyptists, who in addition to the Law embodied their hopes for the future salvation in apocalyptic writmgs usually cast in a pseudepigraphal mold.' We 1. Cf. 4 Ez. 14:37-48 where reference is made to seventy such books that partake of the same inspiration as the canonical Scriptures. 31

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

possess no evidence that any of the apocalyptists who produced such an extensive literary corpus ever moved among the people as heralds of the coming eschrtological deliverance, as preachers of salvation, i.e., as prophetic voices announcing to the people, "Thus saith the Lord." There is also no evidence that their writings created popular eschatological movements among the people, stirring them up to expect the imminent intervention of God to brmg his Kingdom. Such would have been the inevitable result had the apocalyptists embodied the tme prophetic spirit. The Qumranians looked for an early apocalyptic consummation, but they withdrew into the wilderness and did not try to prepare the people for the end. The movements of which we do have evidence were rather polhical and military rebellions against Rome, and these were not a few. To strike a blow against Rome meant to strike a blow for the Kingdom of God. Again and again, large groups of the people took up arms, not merely in the interests of national independence, but to achieve the Kingdom of God, that God alone rather than Rome might reign over his people.^ Some scholars have interpreted the Qumran community as a prophetic eschatological movement. These sectarians did indeed believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit; but this inspiration led them to find new meanings in the Old Testament Scriptures, not to speak a new prophetic word, "Thus saith the Lord." In the real sense of the word, the Qumran conununity was a nomistic movement. Further, it had no message for Israel, but withdrew by itself into the desert, there to obey the Law of God and to await the coming of the Kingdom. The historical significance of the unexpected appearance of John will be appreciated against this background. Suddenly, to a people who were chafing under the mle of a pagan nation that had usurped the prerogative belonging to God alone, who were yearning for the coming of God's Kingdom, and yet who feh that God had become silent, appeared a new prophet with the announcement, "The kingdom of God is near." As he approached maturity, John felt an inner urge thmsting him forth from the centers of population into the wilderness (Lk. I:80).3 After a number of years, apparently of meditation and waiting on God, "The word of God came to John" (Lk. 3:2), in response to which John appeared in the valley of the Jordan announcing in prophetic manner that the Kingdom of God was near. John's garb — the hairy mantle and the leather girdle — appears to be a 2. See T. W. Manson, The Servant-Messiah (1953), and W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, andJosephus (1956), for Jewish religious nationalism. 3. The theory of C. H. Kraeling that John's withdrawal to the wilderness requires for its explanation a catastrophic experience (John the Baptist, 27) with the priestly order, creating in John a violent revulsion for the established cultic order, is nothing but conjecture. Far better explain it in Kraeling's own words by "the essential mystery of prophetic insight and divine inspiration" (50). Other more recent scholars (Brownlee, J. A. T. Robinson, Scobie) are sure that John was a member of the Qumran sect "in the wilderness." This is an obvious possibility, but it must remain in the reahn of speculation.

John the Baptist

deliberate imitation of the external marks of a prophet (cf. Zech. 13:4; 2 Kings 1:8, LXX). Some scholars think that John by this means indicated that he thought himself to be Elijah,"* but according to John 1:21 John denies this. John's entire bearing was in the prophetic tradition. He announced that God was about to take action, to manifest his kingly power; that in anticipation of this great event people must repent; and as evidence of repentance must submit to baptism. This he does on his own prophetic authority, because of the word of God that had come to him. It is not difficuh to imagine the excitement that the appearance of a new prophet with such a thrilling announcement would create. God, who for centuries, according to current Jewish thought, had been inactive, now was at last taking the initiative to fulfill the promises of the prophets and to bring the fullness of the Kingdom. Apparently news of this appearance of a new prophet spread like wildfire throughout Judea and moved throngs of people to flock to the Jordan River where he was preaching (Mk. 1:5) to listen to his message and submit to his demands. At long last, God had raised up a prophet to declare the divine will (Mk. 11:32; Mt. 14:5). The Approaching

Crisis

John's announcement of the impending divine activity in the Kingdom involved two aspects. There was to ensue a twofold baptism: with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt. 3:11 = Lk. 3:16). Mark in his greatly condensed account of John's ministry mentions only the baptism with the Spirit (Mk. 1:8). This announcement of John has been subject to diverse interpretations. The majority view is that John announced only a baptism of fire. He proclaimed an imminent judgment of purging fire. The idea of baptism with the Spirit is seen as a Christian addition in the light of the experience of Pentecost.* An alternate view is that the baptism of pneuma is not the Holy Spirit but the fiery breath of Messiah that will destroy his enemies* (Isa. 11:4; 4 Ez. [= 2 Esd.] 13), or the wind of divine judgment that will sweep through the threshing floor to carry away the chaff.^ A third view is that John announces a smgle baptism that includes two elements, punishing the wicked but purging and refining the righteous.* A further view is suggested by the context. The Coming One will baptize the righteous with the Holy Spirit and the wicked with fire. John announces, as Dimn insists, a single baptism, but it is a baptism that involves two elements. 4. a . J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (1952), 243. 5. See V. Taylor, Mark (1952), 157; W. F. Flemington, Baptism, 19; T. W. Manson, The Servant-Messiah, 42. For further references see G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 36; J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 8. 6. See C. H. Kraeling, JoAn the Baptist, 61-63. 7. C. K. Banett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (1947), 126. For further literature, see J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 8-9. 8. J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 12-13.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The word "baptism" is, of course, used metaphorically and has nothing to do with water baptism. It is true that the Old Testament and Judaism did not expect the Messiah to bestow the Spirit,' but there is no reason to deny to John a novel element.'" The expectation of an eschatological outpouring of the Spirit finds a broad base in the Old Testament. In one of the "servant" prophecies of Isaiah, God promises to pour out his Spirit on the descendants of Jacob in quickening and life-giving power (Isa. 44:3-5). Such an outpouring of God's Spirit will be a basic element in effecting the transformation of the messianic age when the messianic King will reign in righteousness and prosperity, and justice and peace will prevail (Isa. 32:15). Ezekiel promises the resurrection of the nation when God will put his Spirit within them to give them Ufe (Ezek. 37:14). God will then give to his people a new heart and a new spirit by putting his Spirit within them, enabling them to walk in obedience to God's will (Ezek. 36:27). A similar promise is reiterated in Joel (2:28-32). The great and terrible Day of the Lord is to be attended by a great outpouring of the Spirit and by apocalyptic signs in heaven and on earth. John announces that these promises are about to be fulfilled, not through himself, but through one who is to follow him. The Coming One will baptize with the Holy Spirit. The great messianic outpouring of the Spirit is about to take place. Against this background of prophetic expectation there is no valid reason to insist that John announced only a baptism of judgment. John also announces a baptism of fire. That this refers to judgment is clear from the context of the saying. The meaning of the twofold baptism with the Spirit and fire is further described in the clearing of the threshing floor: the wheat will be gathered into the granary but the chaff will be burned up with unquenchable fire (Mt. 3:12; Lk. 3:17)." The description of the fire as "un quenchable" points to an eschatological judgment, for it extends the limits of the ordinary means of consuming chaff (cf. Isa. 1:31; 66:24; Jer. 7:20). The coming of the Kingdom, the impending divine visitation, will affect all people. A separation is to take place: some will be gathered into the divine granary — theirs will be a baptism of the Spirit; others will be swept away in judgment — theirs will be a baptism of fire. This prospect of coming judgment is further emphasized in John's warning: "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" Judgment is impending and unfruitful trees will be cut down and thrown into the fire (Mt. 3:7-10; Lk. 3:7-9). The drastic character of this announcement may be understood from the fact that in a poor country like Palestine, unfruitful trees would normally not be destroyed by burning but would be saved so that 9. V. Taylor, Mark, 157. 10. The possibility of a twofold baptism is suggested by G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (1%0), 46; J. A. T. Robinson in Twelve NT Studies, 19; C. Scobie, John the Baptist (1964), 70-71. Robinson bases his view on similar ideas in the Qumran literature that are very impressive. 11. Cf Isa. 17:13; Jer 23:28f.

John the Baptist

the wood might be used for domestic and manufacturing p u r p o s e s . I n John's announcement such fmitless trees will be consumed in a flaming holocaust of judgment. John's announcement of the Kingdom anticipated the fulfillment of the Old Testament expectation in a twofold duection. God is to act in his kingly power for the salvation of the righteous and the judgment of the wicked — the two central themes that mn throughout the Old Testament. The character of judgment falls in the "apocalyptic" category. The judgment of fu-e does not contemplate an historical visitation when God would act through an historical nation, an "anointed" agent (Isa. 45:1) to visit Israel as a nation with an historical judgment of war. It is rather a judgment of individuals carried out by a messianic personage in apocalyptic fire. Such a judgment is anticipated in the Old Testa ment (Mai. 4:1; Nah. 1:6; Isa. 3 0 : 3 3 ) , a n d the idea is developed at great length in the intertestamental literature. It is clear that John, like the prophets of the Old Testament, views these two messianic acts as two aspects of a single visitation, even though there is no explicit affirmation of that fact. Undoubtedly John thought of them as taking place simultaneously.''' They were to be carried out by a messianic personage whom John describes merely by the rather colorless phrase, the Coming One (Mt. 3:11), which was not a contemporary messianic tide. The character of this messianic deliverer and judge in John's thought is not clear. John uses neither "Messiah" nor "Son of Man" nor "Servant" to describe him. The fact that he would be the agent of apocalyptic judgment suggests that he will be a super human person, far more than a Davidic king. The Psalms of Solomon, written less than a hundred years before, anticipates a Davidic king, the Lord's Anointed, who will establish the Kingdom by destroying the wicked "with the word of his mouth" (Ps. Sol. 17:27), i.e., by supernatural power. Something more than this is involved in John's expectation. The fiery judgment would suggest an event terminating this age and initiating the Age to Come. It is notable that John's announcement transcends the usual Old Testament expectation in that the mes sianic personage is to be both Savior and Judge, whereas in the Old Testament he is a Davidic king who is not the agent for establishing the Kingdom. John's

Baptism

To prepare the people for the coming Kingdom John calls on them to repent and to submit to water baptism. Repentance (metanoia) is an Old Testament idea and means simply to turn (Stib) from sin to God. God called upon apostate Israel to "repent and turn away from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations" (Ezek. 14:6; see 18:30; Isa. 55:6-7). The idea of conver12. Cf. C. H. Kraeling, John the Baptist, 44. 13. See especially Zeph. 1:2-6, 14-15, 18. 14. Cf. G. Vos, Biblical Theology (1948), 339.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

sion is expressed in the idiom of turning or returning to the Lord (Isa. 19:22; 55:7; Ezek. 33:11; Hos. 14:1; Joel 2:13). "Conversion" expresses the idea better than repentance. "Repentance" suggests primarily sorrow for sin; metanoia suggests a change of mind; the Hebrew idea involves the turning around of the whole person toward God. Apocalyptic literature placed little emphasis on conversion. Israel was the people of God because it alone of all nations had received the Law (4 Ez. [= 2 Esd.] 7:20, 23). God made the world for Israel's sake (4 Ez. 6:55; 7:11) and gave to them the Law so that they might be saved (Apoc. Bar. 48:21-24). When God brings the Kingdom, Israel will be gathered together to enjoy the messianic salvation (Ps. Sol. 17:50), and to witness the punishment of the Gentiles (Ass. Mos. 10:7-10). The problem of the apocalyptic writers was that God's people were obedient to the Law but still suffered grievous evil. In rabbinic writings, there is an apparent contradiction about repentance. On the one hand, the children of Abraham believed that the faithfulness of Abraham provided a treasury of merit that was available to all Jews.'* On the other hand, the rabbis placed great value on repentance — so much so that repentance has been called the Jewish doctrine of salvation.'* The reason for this is that repentance is understood in the light of the Law. The prevailing view of l^subah ("repentance") is legal.'^ Conversion means turning to the Law in obedience to the expressed will of God. It means, therefore, the doing of good works. Conversion can be repeated when one breaks the commandments and then turns again in obedience.'* The idea of repentance is also emphasized in the Qumran literature, where the sectarians called themselves "the converts of Israel" (CD 6:5; 8:16), and stressed both ceremonial purity and inner conversion. "Let not (the wicked) enter the water to touch the purification of the holy, for a man is not pure unless he be converted from his malice. For he is defiled as long as he transgresses His word" (IQS 5:13-14). The sectarians practiced daily repeated bodily lustra tions to achieve ceremonial purity. But these waters of purification were mean ingful only when there was a corresponding moral uprightness (IQS 3:4-9). However, the whole context of Qumranian conversion meant social separation from "the sons of darkness" and rigid obedience to the sectarian interpretation of the Law. Their view has been summarized as a "legalistic [i.e. nomistic] understanding of conversion," when a person "mras away from sin and separates himself radically from sinners in order to observe the Law in its purest form."" 15. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times ofJesus the Messiah (1896), 1:271; S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (1909), ch. 12; H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zumNT, 1:117-19. 16. G. E UooK, Judaism (1927), 1:500. 17. J. Behm, TDNT 4:991. 18. Ibid., 997-98. 19. J. B. Bauer, "Conversion," Sacramentum Verbi (1970), 1:138.

John the Baptist

John's baptism rejected all ideas of nationalistic or legal righteousness and required a moral-religious turning to God. He refused to assume a righteous people. Only those who repent, who manifest this repentance in changed con duct, will escape the impending judgment. It will be futile to rely on descent from Abraham as a ground of experiencing the messianic salvation. Unfmitful trees will be cut down and burned up, even though they are, according to contemporary belief, the planting of the Lord.2" The basis of messianic salvation is soundly ethico-religious and not nationalistic. In violent terms, John warned the religious leaders in Israel (Mt. 3:7) to flee, like snakes before a fire, from the coming wrath. This again is eschatological language with an Old Testament background.^! Current Jewish thought looked for a visitation of God's wrath, but it would fall upon the Gentiles. John turns the wrath upon Jews who will not repent. Luke gives illustrations of the change John demanded. Those who have an abundance of possessions are to help those in need. Tax collectors, instead of gouging the people for all they could get, must collect no more than is appointed. This demand would "set them at odds with the social and economic stractures of which they were a part."22 Soldiers were told to be satisfied with their wages and not to engage in unwarranted pillaging. A difficult question rises as to the precise relationship between John's baptism and the forgiveness of sins. Many scholars read a sacramental meaning into his baptism; it is "a sacramental act of purification which effects both remission of sins . . . and conversion."23 Mark (1:4) and Luke (3:3) speak of "a baprism of repentance for (eis) the forgiveness of sins." Luke 3:3 shows that "repentance for (eis) the forgiveness of sins" is a compact phrase, and we should probably understand the whole phrase in Luke 3:3 as a description of baptism, with eis dependent only on repentance. It is not a repentance baptism that resuhs in forgiveness of sins, but John's baptism is the expression of the repentance that resuhs in the forgiveness of sins.24 The Sources of John's

Baptism

Scholars are not agreed as to the source of John's baptism. Some (Robinson, Brown, Scobie) think that John adapted the lustrations of the Qumranians for his baptism of repentance. Scobie makes a great deal of a passage in the Manual of Discipline (IQS 2:25-3:12) where he finds an initiatory lustration (baptism).25 However, it is not at all clear that the Qumranians had a distinct inhiatory 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

1 En. 10:16; 83:2, 5, 10. Isa. 13:9; Zeph. 1:15; 2:2f.; Mai. 3:2; 4:1. J. A. T. Robinson, "John the Baptist," IDB 2:960. J. Behm, TDNT, 4:1001. J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 15. See C. Scobie, John the Baptist,

112f. 25. C. Scobie, John the Baptist, 104f.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

baptism. The context of this passage suggests the daily lustrations of those already members of the sect.^* It is still possible that John adapted the daily lustrations of the Qumranians to a single, unrepeatable, eschatological rite. Others see the background in the baptism of proselytes. A Gentile who embraced Judaism had to submit to a rimal bath (baptism) and to circumcision, and offer sacrifice. The problem is whether proselyte baptism is as early as New Testament times. This is sometimes denied,^^ but affirmed by experts in Jewish literamre.28 Since the immersion of proselytes is discussed in the Mishnah by the schools of Hillel and Shammai,^' we have the practice carried back very close to New Testament times. Some scholars have argued that it would be too paradoxical for John to treat Jews as though they were pagans,'" but it may well be that this is precisely the point of John's baptism. The approach of God's Kingdom means that the Jews can find no security in the fact that they were children of Abraham; that the Jews, apart from repentance, had no more certainty of entering the coming Kingdom than did the Gentiles; that both the Jews and the Gentiles must repent and manifest that repentance by submitting to baptism. There are certain points of similarity between John's baptism and proselyte baptism. In both rites, John's and proselyte baptism, the candidates completely immersed themselves or were immersed in water. Both baptisms involved an ethical element in that the persons baptized made a complete break with their former manner of conduct and dedicated themselves to a new life. In both instances, the rite was initiatory, introducing the baptized person into a new fellowship: the one into the fellowship of the Jewish people, the other into the circle of those who were prepared to share in the salvation of the coming messianic Kingdom. Both rites, in contrast to ordinary Jewish lustrations, were performed once for all. There are, however, several distinct differences between the two baptisms. John's baptism was eschatological in character, i.e., its raison d'etre was to prepare people for the coming Kingdom. It is this fact which gives to John's baptism its unrepeatable character. The most notable difference is that, while proselyte baptism was administered only to Gentiles, John's baptism was applied to Jews. It is possible that the background for John's baptism is neither Qumranian nor proselyte baptism, but simply the Old Testament ceremonial lustrations. 26. See H. H. Rowley, "The Baptism of John and the Qumran Sect," NT Essays (1959), 220f. A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (1961), 76, heads this section with the caption "The Annual Census." 27. T. M. Taylor, "The Beginnings of Jewish Proselyte Baptism," NTS 2 (1956), 193-97. 28. See H. H. Rowley, "Jewish Proselyte Baptism," HUCA 15 (1940), 313-34. See also T. F. Ton-ance, "Proselyte Baptism," ATS 1 (1954), 150-54. 29. Pes. 8:8. See H. Danby, The Mishnah (1933), 148. 30. G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 47.

John the Baptist

The priests were required to wash themselves in preparation for their ministry in the sanctuary, and the people were required to engage in certain lustrations on various occasions (Lev. 11-15; Num. 19). Many well-known prophetic sayings exhort to moral cleansing under the figure of cleansing with water (Isa. l:16ff.; Jer. 4:14), and others anticipate a cleansing by God in the last times (Ezek. 36:25; Zech. 13:1). Furthermore, Isaiah 44:3 conjoins the gift of the Spirit with the future purification. Whatever the background, John gives a new meaning to the rite of immersion in calling to repentance in view of the coming Kingdom. Jesus and John The significance of John's ministry is explained by Jesus in a difficult passage in Matthew ll:2ff. After he was imprisoned, John sent disciples to ask Jesus whether he was the Christ or not. Many have interpreted this to mean that in his imprisonment at the hands of Herod Antipas, John became despondent and began to question the reality of his own call and message. However, the clue is found in Matthew 11:2, "When John heard . . . about the deeds of the Christ." The point is that they were not the deeds John expected. There was a baptism neither of Spirit nor of fire. The Kingdom had not come. The world remained as before. All Jesus was doing was preaching love and healing sick people. This was not what John expected. He never questioned his own call and message; he only questioned whether Jesus was indeed the one who was to bring the Kingdom in apocalyptic power. In answer, Jesus asserted that the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 35:5-6 was being fulfilled in his mission. The days of the messianic fulfillment had arrived. Then he uttered an accolade of praise for John; no greater man had ever lived, yet whoever is least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he. "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven biazetai [on this, see pp. 6 9 f . ] . . . . For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John" (Mt. 11:11, 13). Then Jesus asserted that John was the Elijah who was to herald the Day of the Lord (Mai. 4:5). It is impossible to decide with certainty whether the ex pression "from the days of John" is meant inclusively or exclusively: beginning with the days of John, or since the days of John. Wink makes a great deal of this passage, arguing that the preposition apo in temporal expressions is always inclusive. He argues that the language includes John in the era of the Kingdom." However, this does not seem to be accurate. In Matthew 1:17 "from David to the deportation" is exclusive; David belongs to the period from Abraham to David. The expression "nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions" (Mt. 22:4-6) means "after that day," with the exclusive sense. They were asking Jesus questions on that day. Furthermore, in the context John is not in the Kingdom although he was the greatest of the prophets. The least in the 31. W. Wink, John the Baptist, 29. See also J. Jeremias, NT Theology (1971), 47.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Kingdom is greater than John (Mt. I L I l ) . ' ^ We conclude that Jesus means to say that John is the greatest of the prophets; in fact, he is the last of the prophets. With him, the age of the Law and the prophets has come to its end. Since John, the Kingdom of God is working in the world, and the least in the new era knows greater blessings than John did, because he or she enjoys personal fellowship with the Messiah and the blessings this brings. John is the herald, signaling that the old era has come to its end, and the new is about to dawn. John in the Fourth Gospel The account of John's ministry in the Fourth Gospel is quite different from that in the Synoptics, for John describes the Coming One as the Lamb of God who will take away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29). It is customary for modem criticism to see in the Johannine account a radical reinterpretation of John's ministry by the Christian church in the light of the acmal ministry of Jesus.* The apocalyptic announcement is set aside in favor of soteriology. John's account therefore is not history but theological reinterpretation.'' However, this conclusion is quite unnecessary and ignores certain important facts. The record is historically con sistent and psychologically sound as it stands. The account in John's Gospel presupposes the events of the Synoptic Gospels. This is indicated clearly in John 1:32-33 where the baptism of Jesus has already taken place, and by the fact that the mission of the priests and Levites to challenge John as to his authority must have been occasioned by some such events as those described in the Synoptic Gospels. The Fourth Gospel does not purport to give a different story from that of the Synoptics but represents an independent tradition. This further proclamation of the messianic ministry by the Baptist is to be understood as John's own interpretation of his experience at the baptism of Jesus, illuminated by further prophetic inspiration. It should be remembered that while the Baptist's ministry in the Synoptics has several points of contact with contemporary eschatological and apocalyptic thought, it has even more striking elements of divergence. "The essential mystery of prophetic insight and divine inspiration" cannot be explained by the limitations of a naturalistic methodol ogy.''' The Christian historian will not therefore deny its reality, for it is one of the basic facts of biblical history. The same prophetic inspiration that drove John to announce the imminence of the divine activity for the messianic salvation now, in the light of his experience with Jesus, impels him to add a further word. When Jesus came to John for baptism, John recognized that he stood in the presence of a person of different quality from other human beings. Jesus neither 32. Wink meets this problem by viewing this verse as a later addition of the church. Ibid., 25. *See editor's note below on p. 258. 33. Cf., for instance, C. J. Wright, Jesus the Revelation of God (1950), 112-13. 34. Cf. C. H. Kraeling, John the Baptist, 50. "What John knew of the Christ, he knew by way of revelation." L. Morris, 7o/in (1971), 149.

John the Baptist

had sins to confess nor a sense of guilt to lead him to repentance. Whether John's recognition of the sinlessness of Jesus was based upon a conversation in which he directed to him searching questions, or solely upon prophetic illumination, we cannot say. Probably both elements were involved. In any case, John was convicted of his own sinfulness in comparison with the sinlessness of Jesus. Nevertheless, Jesus insisted on baptism that he might thereby "fulfill all righ teousness" (Mt. 3:15). In the act of baptism, God showed to John that Jesus was not only a sinless man but was indeed the Coming One whom John had heralded (Jn. 1:31-33). As John further meditated on the significance of these events, he was led by the prophetic Spirit to add a new feature to his message that the Coming One is to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the worid.'* Another element in John's description of the Coming One, according to the RSV, is that he is the Son of God (1:34). However, the NEB renders it, "This is God's Chosen One," and this reading is followed by both Brown and Morris.'* This is based on a rather strong textual variant found possibly in a third-cenmry papyras and definitely in the original hand of Sinaiticus, in the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions, and in several fathers. As both Brown and Morris point out, it is easy to account for changing the text from "God's Chosen" to "God's Son" but not easy to account for the reverse process. If we accept this reading, John is saying that Jesus is the object of the divine call, and it presents no theological problem.

35. If this language were due to Christian reinterpretation, we would expect it to be more explicit in referring to Jesus' death. The verb airo does not emphasize the means of removal of sin as phem would have done (1 Pet. 2:24; cf. Isa. 54:4); it means "to take away," not "to bear." For the theology of "the Lamb of God" see Chapter 19. There is a notable tendency in recent critical scholarship to recognize the possible historicity of the Fourth Gospel at this point. J. A. T. Robinson, Twelve NT Studies (1962), 25. R. E. Brown thinks that the Baptist uttered these words, but with a different meaning from that which the Evangelist saw in them. d. CBQ 22 (1960), 292-98. 36. R. E. Brown, John, 55; L. Morris, John, 153-54.

3. The Need of the Kingdom: The World and Humanity

Shortly after his baptism by John the Baptist, Jesus entered upon a ministry of proclaiming the Kingdom of God. Mark describes the initiation of this ministry with the words, "Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand'" (Mk. 1:14-15). Matthew summarizes his ministry with the words, "He went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people" (Mt. 4:23). Luke records an incident in Nazareth when Jesus read a prophecy about the coming of one anointed by the Spirit of the Lord who would proclaim the coming of the acceptable year of the Lord, and then an nounced, "Today this scriphire has been fulfilled in your hearing" (Lk. 4:18-21). We cannot understand the message and miracles of Jesus unless they are inter preted in the setting of his view of the world and humanity, and the need for the coming of the Kingdom. Eschatological

Dualism

Literature: G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (1964), 83-97; D. S. Russell, TTie Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (1964), 264-71; R Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (1972^); L. Morris, Apocalyptic (1972); G. E. Ladd, "Apocalyptic and NT Theology," in Reconciliation and Hope, ed. R. Banks (1974), 285-%; C. Rowland, The Open Heaven. A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (1982), 156-89.

The Old Testament prophets looked forward to the Day of the Lord and a divine visitation to purge the world of evil and sin and to establish God's perfect reign in the earth. We find, then, in the Old Testament a contrast between the present order of things and the redeemed order of the Kingdom of God.' The difference 1. The tenn "the Kingdom of God" is not used in the Old Testament to describe the new order that is introduced by the Day of the Lord, but the idea runs throughout the prophets. See J. Bright, The Kingdom of God (1953). 42

The Need of the Kingdom: The World and Humanity

between the old and the new orders is described in different terms, with differing degrees of continuity and discontinuity between the two; Amos (9:13-15) de scribes the Kingdom in very this-worldly terms, but Isaiah sees the new order as new heavens and a new earth (Isa. 65:17). The idea of a new redeemed order is described in different terms in the literature of late Judaism. Sometimes the Kingdom of God is depicted in very earthly terms, as though the new order meant simply the perfection of the old order;2 sometimes it involves a radical transformation of the old order so that the new order is described in transcendental language.' In some later apoca lypses, there is first a temporal earthly kingdom, followed by a new transformed eternal order.* Somewhere in this historical development emerged a new idiom — this age and the Age to Come.* We are unable to trace witii precision the history of this idiom. The first extant evidence of it is 1 Enoch 71:15, which refers to the "world to come," probably representing the Hebrew 'olam habba' —the coming age.* The idiom emerges into full expression in Jewish literature only in the first century A.D. in the books of 4 Ezra (= 2 Esd.) and Apocalypse of Bamch.^ The idiom of two ages became common in rabbinic literature, beginning with Pirke Aboth, which contains sayings of the rabbis dating back to the third century B.C.* The eariiest of these references do not seem to be earUer than the late first century A.D.' Whatever be tiie origin of the specific idiom, the idea expressed by it goes back to the Old Testament contrast between the present world and the future redeemed order. It provides the framework for Jesus' entire message and ministry as reported by the Synoptic Gospels. The full idiom appears in Matthew 12:32: "Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." While the idiom at tiiis place may be a Matthean formulation,"' the expression also appears in the request of the rich young-mler

2. See 1 En. 1-36; Ps. Sol. 17, 18. 3. 1 En. 37-71. 4. 4 Ez. 7:28ff.; Apoc. Bar. 40:3. 5. Unfortunately, the concepts involved in this terminology are often obscured because the term aion (Heb. 'olam) is translated "world" instead of "age." The AV is guilty of this mistranslation throughout. 6. H. Sasse, TDNT 1:207. Sasse thinks that 1 En. 48:7, "this world of unrighteousness," also embodies this same idiom. See also 1 En. 16:1, "The age shall be consummated." 7. See 4 Ez. 7:50, "The Most High has made not one Age but two" (G. H. Box's translation); 8:1, "This age the Most High has made for many, but the age to come for few." See also 4 Ez. 7:113; Apoc. Bar. 14:13; 15:7. 8. See Pirke Aboth 4:1, 21, 22; 6:4, 7. 9. P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der jUdischen Gemeinde (1934), p. 65. Aboth 2:7, which speaks of "the life of the age to come," may go back to Hillel in the first century B.C. See G. Dalman, The Words Jesus (1909), 150. 10. Mk. 3:29 has "is guiky of an eternal sin."

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

for the way to eternal life. In the following discussion with his disciples, Jesus contrasts their situation "in this time" with the eternal life that they will expe rience "in the age to come" (Mk. 10:30). The idiom "this time" (en to kaird touto) is a synonym for "this age" (see Rom. 8:18). Cullmann has conectly expounded the view that the eschatological dual ism is the substructure of redemptive history." There is no New Testament word for "eternity," and we are not to think of eternity as the Greeks did, as something other than time. In biblical thought eternity is unending time. In Hellenism people longed for release from the cycle of time in a timeless world beyond, but in biblical thought time is the sphere of human existence both now and in the future. The impression given by the AV at Revelation 10:6, "there should be time no longer," is corrected in the RSV, "there should be no more delay." The enthe New Testament expresses the idea of eternity by the idiom eis ton aiona, translated "forever" (Mk. 3:29), or eis tous aionas (Lk. 1:33, 55), and sometunes eis tous aionas ton aionon (Gal. 1:5; 1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:18) — "unto the ages of the ages," translated "forever and ever." The Age to Come and the Kingdom of God are sometimes interchangeable terms. In response to the rich young mler's request about the way to eternal life, Jesus indicates that eternal life is the life of the Age to Come (Mk. 10: 30). The Age to Come is always looked at from the viewpoint of God's redemptive purpose for men and women, not from the viewpoint of the unrighteous. The attaining of "that age," i.e., the Age to Come, is a blessing reserved for God's people. It will be inaugurated by the resurrection from the dead (Lk. 20:35), and is the age when death will be no more. Those who attain to that age will be like the angels in that they will become immortal. Only then will they experience all that h means to be children of God (Lk. 20:34-36). Resurrection life is therefore eternal life — the life of the Age to Come — the life of the Kingdom of God. Not only resurrection marks the transition from this age to the coming age; the parousia of Christ will mark the close of this age (Mt. 24:3). The Son of Man will come with power and great glory and will send his angels to gather the elect together from the four comers of the earth into the Kingdom of God (Mt. 24:30-31). Matthew's version of the parables of the Kingdom speaks three times of the end of the age (Mt. 13:39, 40, 49), but the concept is consistent throughout the Gospels. The parable of the wheat and the weeds (Mt. 13:36-43) contrasts the situation in this age with that which will exist in the Kingdom of God. In this age, the wheat and the weeds — children of the Kingdom and children of the evil one — live together in a m k e d society. The separation of the wicked from the righteous will take place only at the harvest — the judgment. Then "all U. O. Cullmann, Christ and Time (1950), 37ff. 12. E. Jenni, "Time," IDB 4:648.

The Need of the Kingdom: The World and Humanity

causes of sin and all evildoers" will be excluded from the Kingdom of God and will suffer the divine judgment, while "the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Mt. 13:42-43). The character of this age is such that it stands in opposition to the Age to Come and the Kingdom of God. This is shown in the parable of the soils. The sower sows the seed, which is "the word of the kingdom" (Mt. 13:19). The word seems to take root in many lives, but the cares of the age (Mk. 4:19; Mt. 13:22) choke out the word and it becomes unfruitful. From this point of view, this age is not in itself sinful; but when the concems of the life of this age become the major object of interest so that people neglect the message about the Kingdom of God, they become sinful. Paul goes further than do the reported sayings of Jesus and speaks about "this present evil age" (Gal. 1:4). The wisdom of this age cannot attain to God (1 Cor. 2:6). He exhorts the Romans not to be conformed to this age but to be transformed by a new power working in those who believe in Christ (Rom. 12:2). All this is consistent with the concept of the two ages appearing in the Synoptics. In this eschatological dualism, Jesus and Paul shared the same worldview that prevailed in Judaism. It is essentially the apocalyptic view of history. Some scholars defend the view that this was not a natural development of the tme Hebrew prophetic hope, which looked for an earthly kingdom within history. However, it can be argued that the Old Testament prophetic hope of the coming of the Kingdom always involved a catastrophic inbreaking of God and always involved both continuity and discontinuity with the old order. 13 Vos believed that this eschatological dualism which was developed in Judaism was incorporated by divine revelation into the writers of the New Testament era.'"* If so, it was a natural development of the Old Testament prophetic hope. In brief, this age, which extends from creation to the Day of the Lord, which in the Gospels is designated in terms of the parousia of Christ, resurrection and judgment, is the age of human existence in weakness and mortality, of evil, sin, and death. The Age to Come will see the realization of all that the reign of God means, and will be the age of resurrection into eternal life in the Kingdom of God. Everything in the Gospels points to the idea that life in the Kingdom of God in the Age to Come will be life on the earth — but life transformed by the kingly mle of God when his people enter into the full measure of the divine blessings (Mt. 19:28). Therefore, when Jesus proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of God, he did so against the background of Hebrew-Jewish thought, which viewed people 13. This is one of the main arguments in the chapter on the Old Testament promise in the author's Jesus and the Kingdom (1964). 14. G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (1952), 28.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

living in a situation dominated by sin, evil, and death, from which they needed to be rescued. His proclamation of the Kingdom includes the hope, reaching back to the Old Testament prophets, that anticipates a n e w age in which all the evils of the present age will be purged by the act of God from human and earthly existence.

The Spirit-World Literature: A. Fridrichsen, "The Conflict of Jesus with the Unclean Spirits," Theology 22 (1931), 122-35; W. O. E. Oesterley, "Angelology and Demonology in Early Judaism," in A Companion to the Bible, ed. T. W. Manson (1939), 332-47; E. Langton, Good and Evil Spirits: A Study of the Jewish and Christian Doctrine (1942); G. H. C. MacGregor, "Principalities and Powers," NTS 1 (1954), 17-28; G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers (1956); J. Kallas, The Significance of the Synoptic Miracles (1961); T. Ling, The Signif icance of Satan (1961); H. Schlier, Principalities and Powers in the NT (1961); D. S. Russell, "Angels and Demons," The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (1964), 235-62; W. Manson, "Principalities and Powers: The Spiritual Background of the Work of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels," Jesus and the Christian (1967), 77-90; J. G. Kallas, Jesus and the Power of Satan (1968); C. B. Bass, "Satan and Demonology in Eschato logical Perspective," in Demon Possession, ed. J. W. Montgomery (1976), 364-71; J. D. G. Dunn and G. H. Twelftree, "Demon-Possession and Exorcism in the NT," Churchman 94 (1980), 210-25; R. Yates, "The Powers of Evil in the New Testament," EQ 52 (1980), 97-111; W. Wink, Naming the Powers (1984); G. H. Twelftree, Christ Triumphant: Exorcism Then and Now (1985); W. Wink, Unmasking the Powers (1986); A. G. Van Aarde, "Demonology in NT Times," in Like a Roaring Lion, ed. P. de ViUiers (1987), 22-37; W. Wink, Engaging the Powers (1992).

Satan After his baptism, Jesus w a s led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil (Mt. 4:1). One of the temptations consisted of being taken to a very high mountain — probably in imagination — and being shown all the kingdoms of the world with their glory. Then the devil said to Jesus, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been delivered to m e , and I will give it to w h o m I will" (Lk. 4:6). Throughout the Synoptic Gospels, Satan'* is pictured as a supernatural evil spirit at the head of a host of inferior evil spirits called demons. A s such he is "the prince of demons" (Mk. 3:22). The background of this concept stems from the Old Testament, which pictures God as surrounded by a heavenly host of spirits w h o serve him and do his bidding (Ps. 82:1; 89:6; Dan. 7:10). Many scholars see in Deuteronomy 32:8, where the R S V has "sons of God," a reflection of the idea that God superintended 15. "Satan" comes from a Hebrew verb meaning "to oppose, obstruct." In the LXX the word is uniformly translated diabolos, which means "the slanderer." From the Hebrew back ground it carries the meaning "the adversary" (1 Pet. 5:8). The two words are used interchange ably, both in the Gospels and throughout the New Testament. He is also called Beelzebul (Mk. 3:22; the spelling is uncertain), "the tempter" (Mt. 4:3), "the evil one" (Mt. 13:19), "the enemy" (Mt. 13:39).

The Need of the Kingdom: The World and Humanity

the nations through subordinate spiritual beings.'* In Job 1-2 Satan is one of these "sons of God" who appears before God to accuse Job and to receive permission to put him to the test. In 1 Chronicles 21:1, Satan incited David to sin.''' Intertestamental Judaism proUferated the concept of evil spirits. Seldom is the chief of spirits called Satan; instead such names as Mastema, Azazel, Semjaza, Beliar, and Asmodaeus appear. Belial is the most common term in the Qumran writings. The term "demons" does not often appear, but there are hosts of evil spirits who are subject to the chief of spirits. In Enoch, these evil spirits were the spnits of giants who were the offspring resulting from the mating of fallen angels, called "watchers," with women (1 En. 15). These evil spirits are the source of all kinds of evil on earth. The fall of these angels is described in 1 Enoch 6, with the names of eighteen leaders, all under the headship of Semiazaz. They came down from heaven to earth because they lusted after women and mated with them. These angels taught men and women all kinds of practices; and the whole earth was cormpted through the works of these fallen angels, particularly Azazel, to whom all sin is ascribed (1 En. 10:8). Sometimes in Enoch the evil spirits are called satans who accuse people as in the Old Testament (1 En. 40:7; 65:6) and who tempt people to sin (1 En. 69:4ff.).i8 A smgle chief, Satan, is mentioned twice (1 En. 54:3, 6). The chief function of Satan in the Gospels is to oppose the redemptive purpose of God. In the temptation narrative he claims a power over the world that Jesus does not question. The temptation consists of the effort to tum him aside from his divinely given mission as the Suffering Servant and to gain power by yielding to Satan. This same idea is even more vividly expressed by Paul when he calls Satan the "god of this age" (2 Cor. 4:4). The same theology of a kingdom of evil is found in Judaism. The Testament of Dan describes the present as "the kingdom of the enemy" (Test. Dan 6:4). The Manual of Discipline speaks of this age as the time of "the dominion of Belial" (IQS 1:17, 23; 2:19), as does the War Scroll (IQM 14:19). The same idea is reflected in Matthew 12:29 where Jesus invades the "strong man's house" — this age — to despoil him. Neither in Judaism nor in the New Testament does this antithetical king dom of evil opposing the Kingdom of God become an absolute dualism. The fallen angels are helpless before the power of God and his angels. In the New Testament, all such spiritual powers are creatures of God and therefore subject to his power. In the apocalyptic literature, they will meet their doom in the day of judgment. 16. See also Dan. 10:13,20-21. 17. On Satan and the heavenly assembly in the Old Testament, see E. Jacob, Theology of the OT (1958), 70-72; T. H. Gaster, "Satan," IDB 4:224-25; G. E. Wright, "The Faith of Israel," IB 1:359-62; J. Kallas, The Significance of the Synoptic Miracles (1%1), ch. 4. 18. For demonology in Judaism, see D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (1964), 235-62. That Satan is a fallen angel is nowhere explicitly taught in biblical Uterature, except Jude 6 and 2 Pet. 2:4.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The doctrine of Satan and demons has several distinct theological impli cations. Evil is not imposed upon people directiy by God, nor is evil blind chance or capricious fate. Evil has its roots in personality. Yet evil is greater tiian human beings. It can be resisted by the human will, although the human will can yield to it. Yet evil is not a disorganized, chaotic conflict of powers, as in animism, but is under the direction of a single will whose purpose it is to fmstrate the will of God. Furthermore, a rationale for the creation of spirimal powers that were allowed to become hostile to God is not lacking. "When once the fantastic and mythological trappings of the apocalyptic scheme are removed, there re mains the central postulate which is the foundation of all attempts to find a satisfactory solution for the problem of evil, namely, tiiat it is the price that must be paid for freedom."" In the Synoptics, the activity of Satan is seen in several aspects. In one case, a woman who had been a cripple for eighteen years is spoken of as bound by Satan (Lk. 13:16). But Satan's activhies are mainly ethical. In the parable of the weeds and the wheat, which represents the mbced society in this world, the wheat represents the "sons of the kingdom" while the weeds are "die sons of the evil one" (Mt. 13:38). Here society is divided into two antithetical classes: those who hear and receive die word of the Kingdom and tiiose who either do not know it or reject it. Furthermore, it is Satan's purpose where he can to snatch away the word of the Kingdom from hearts that are too hard to receive it (Mk. 4:15). He tried to divert Jesus from his redemptive mission in the temptation, and he spoke through Peter urging that it could not be the role of Messiah to suffer and die (Mk. 8:33). Satan entered into Judas, leading him to betray Jesus to the priests (Lk. 22:3). He also desired to lay his hands upon Peter to prove the unreality of his faith (Lk. 22:31), to show that in tiiith he was nothing but chaff. The satanic purpose in this mstance was fmstrated by Jesus' prayer. This background of satanic evil provides the cosmic background for the mission of Jesus and his proclamation of the Kingdom of God. As to whether such an evil spiritual personage exists, neither science nor philosophy has any thing to say. There is really no more difficulty in believing in the existence of a malevolent spirit behind the evils in human history than to beUeve in the existence of a good spirit—God. Our purpose is primarily to show that the theology of the Kingdom of God is essentially one of conflict and conquest over the kingdom of Satan. One fact is very significant. Neither die Synoptics nor the rest of the New Testament shows any speculative interest in either Satan or demons as do some of the Jewish apocalypses. This is seen in the diverse names given to Satan in the apocalypses. The New Testament interest is altogether practical and redemp tive. It recognizes the supernatural power of evil, and its concem is the redemp tive work of God in Christ delivering people fi'om these malignant forces. 19. T. W. Manson, 77ie Teaching of Jesus (1935), 158.

The Need of the Kingdom: The World and Humanity

Demons In the Synoptics, the most characteristic evidence of the power of Satan is the ability of demons to take possession of the center of people's personalities. Clearly, demons are represented as evil supernatural spirits. At the very outset of his ministry in Capernaum, Jesus came face to face with demonic power, taimediately, the demon recognized Jesus by direct intuitive insight and said, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God" (Mk. 1:24). In Judaism, the destruction of satanic powers was expected at the end of the age when the Kingdom of God should come. The demon recognizes a supernatural power in Jesus that is capable of cmshing satanic power here and now. Demon possession manifested itself in various ways. Sometimes it was associated with other afflictions of a physical nature: with dumbness (Mt. 9:32), with blindness and dumbness (Mt. 12:22), and with epilepsy (Mt. 17:15, 18). There is only one place where demon possession is identified with mental illness. Obviously, the Gadarene demoniac who dwelt in the tombs and was possessed of superhuman strength was insane. The record says that after his healing the man was found clothed and in his right mind (Mk. 5:15). While this suggests that the man had been insane, we need not conclude that his illness was a case of simple insanity. Rather the derangement was due to the center of personality falling under the influence of foreign powers.^" It is not accurate, however, simply to explain away demon possession by saying it is an ancient interpretation for what we now know to be various forms of insanity. Frequently in the Synoptics demon possession is distin guished from other diseases. Jesus healed both the sick and those possessed by demons (Mk. 1:32). Demon possession is distinguished from epilepsy and paralysis (Mt. 4:24), from sickness and leprosy (Mt. 10:8). However, demon exorcism was one of the most characteristic of Jesus' acts of power. There were, to be sure, those who practiced magic arts and incantations, and claimed to exorcise demons.^' However, belief in demons and their exorcism in the ancient world at large was intertwined with magic of a cmde sort. By contrast, the amazing factor in Jesus' ministry was the power of his mere word: "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands the unclean spirits, and they obey him" (Mk. 1:27). The role that demon exorcism plays in the ministry of our Lord has been a stumbling block to modem interpreters. Since biblical theology is primarily a descriptive discipline, our primary task is to set forth the mission of Jesus in its historical setting; and we cannot avoid the conclusion, as we shall see, that Jesus' message of the coming of the Kingdom of God involved a fundamental stmggle 20. W. Foerster, TDNT 2:19. 21. See Acts 19:19-20, and the account of the exorcism of demons in Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

with and conquest of this spiritual realm of evil. However, we cannot be in different to the relevance of New Testament theology for our own age. Some scholars admit that Jesus appears to have believed in Satan and demons; but this represents a mere adaptation to the concepts of the age and in no way represents the content of Jesus' teachings; nor is his authority as a teacher impaired by a recognition that demons do not exist. Jesus' purpose was ethical, and he used the concepts of his time as symbols to serve ethical ends. He did not purpose to give information about the existence or the conduct of supernat ural beings.22 This explanation is utterly inadequate.23 A second interpretation is similar to this. Jesus was a child of his day and was mistaken in his belief about demons. What the ancients call demon possession was, in fact, nothing but mental derangement, and the modern person would have described the phenomenon of ancient demon possession in terms of mental sick ness.^ McCasland goes on to affirm the wisdom and the high character of Jesus. He was a man of great authority, possessed by the Holy Spirit. However, if this is so, a serious difficulty is raised by the admission that Jesus was mistaken in his belief about demons; for the exorcism of demons was no mere peripheral activity in Jesus' ministry but was a manifestation of the essential purpose of the coming of the Kingdom of God into the evil age. We must recognize in the exorcism of demons a consciousness on the part of Jesus of engaging in an actual conflict with the spirit world, a conflict that lay at the heart of his messianic mission. To say that "demons and angels are for Jesus' Gospel mere surds or irrational elements without obvious functions in his teachings as a whole"25 does not reflect the facts of the Gospels. The demonic is absolutely essential in understanding Jesus' interpretation of the picture of sin and of humanity's need for the Kingdom of God. People are in bondage to a personal power stronger than themselves. At the very heart of our Lord's mission is the need of rescuing people fi^om bondage to the satanic kingdom and of bringing them into the sphere of God's Kingdom. Anything less than this involves an essential reinterpretation of some of the basic facts of the gospel. A third interpretation goes further than either of the first two. It finds in the biblical concept of demons an essential tmth: there is a demonic element in human experience. "As we look at history, what we see is often not merely tiie impersonal and unmeaning but the irrational and the mad. The face that looks through at us is akin often to the insane. Certainly as Jesus looked at people. He saw them not always as rational moral units or self-contained autonomous spirits; He saw their souls as a battle-ground, an arena or theatre of tragic conflict between the opposed cosmic powers of the Holy Spirit of God and Satan."^*

22. G. B. Stevens, Ue Theology of the AT (1906), 86-91. 23. E. Langton, Essentials of Demonology (1949), 173. 24. S. V. McCasland, By the Finger of God (1951). 25. J. W. Bowman, The Religion of Maturity, 258. 26. W. Manson, "Principalities and Powers," Jesus and the Christian (1967), 87.

The Need of the Kingdom: The World and Humanity

Certainly the history of the church's belief in demons and witches has been used by superstitious people to bring about much evil and suffering. But in spite of abuses of the concept, neither science nor philosophy can pro\ e or reasonably affuTO that superhuman spirits or beings do not exist. If for a priori rationaUstic reasons we reject Jesus' beUef in the existence of a realm of evil spiritual powers, it is difficult to see why Christ's belief in a personal God may not be eliminated also, or why such a process of evaporation might not be successfully applied to all contemporary literature.^'' When theories of accommodation and mental ilhiess and the impact of a powerfiil personality have been taken into account, "we are left with a kind of mystery and with many unanswered questions."^* The World While Jesus shared the general New Testament atthude toward this age as the domain of Satan, he does not view the created world as evil. Greek dualism contrasted the noumenal world to which a person's soul belongs with the phe nomenal world, including a person's body. The wise person was one who so disciplined the mind and controlled the bodily appetites that the soul was freed fi-om the clogging, cloying influences of the material world. In later gnostic thought, the material world was itself ipso facto the realm of evil. Hebrew thought, on the other hand, regarded the world as God's creation, and even though it was plagued with evils, it was in itself good. Jesus shared the Hebrew view of the world. He clearly regarded God as the creator, and both humanity and the worid as his creation (Mk. 13:19; Mt. 19:4). Jesus constantly drew upon illustrations from nature to illustrate his teachings, assuming the order and regularity of namre as a proof of the stead fastness and unchanging care of God for his creamres.2' God not only created but also sustains the world. He clothes the Ulies of the field and feeds the ravens (Lk. 12:22ff.). He is even concemed for the sparrows — one of the most insig nificant of birds (Lk. 12:4-7). God makes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain upon the just and unjust (Mt. 5:45). He is Lord of heaven and earth (Lk. 10:21). There is no spirit of worid-denial or asceticism either in Jesus' teaching or conduct. Indeed, he drew upon himself the wrath of the reUgious purists of his day because of his habit of eating together with people considered irreligious (Mt. 9:10; Lk. 15:1-2). He frequently used tiie metaphor of banqueting and feasting to illustrate the joys of the eschatological Kingdom of God.'*' He was even accused of being "a dmnkard and a glutton" (Mt. 11:19). Qearly, while Satan was the mler of this age, the world was still God's world. Nothing in creation is morally bad, and human sinfulness does not inhere in the

27. O. C. Whitehouse. "Satan," HDB 4:411. 28. E. Langton, Essentials of Demonology, 162. 29. E. C. Rust, Nature and Man in Biblical Thought (1953), 162. 30. See G. E. Udd, Jesus and the Kingdom, mt.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

fact that people are creatures with bodily appetites. Jesus taught his disciples to trust God to meet their physical needs. At the same time humanity's highest good cannot be found on the level of creation. It will profit one nothing "to gain the whole world and forfeit his life" (Mk. 8:36). In this context the "world" (kosmos) is not the physical worid or the world of humankind, but the whole complex of human earthly experience. To achieve everything one could desire on the human level is not evil, but it does not minister to one's trae life. A person can gain everything on the human level but forfeit his or her tme life, which can be found only in relationship to God. When the riches of the world become the chief end of one's interest so that they crowd out the things of God, they become an instmment of sin and death (Lk. 12:16-21, 30). It is easy for those who have much to love their possessions. Only a work of God, enabling them to put God first, can overcome this natural human love for the world (Mk. 10:27). Humanity The old liberal interpretation of humanity had wide influence both in theological and pastoral circles. "In the combination of these ideas — God the Father, Providence, the position of men as God's children, the infinite value of the human soul — the whole Gospel is expressed."'' "The whole idea of a family — fatherhood, sonship, brotherhood — is the unifying conception in his doctrine of human nature; we do well to classify and test all our resolves by it, including our whole idea of the kmgdom of God."'^ Robinson would distinguish between that which is transitory and external and that which is permanent in Jesus' teaching. Eschatology belongs to the transitory elements; the permanent core is the filial relationship between humankind and God. Four basic teachings are deduced which constitute the main outlines of this permanent core. First is the supreme value of humans as children of God. In the eyes of God human life is of unique and priceless worth. Second is the duty of people as children of God. Humanity owes to God a relationship of filial tmst and obedience. Third is the namral deduction of the "brotherhood of man." This is universal because God's Fatherhood is universal. Fourth, it is recognized that sin has broken the relation of sonship but has in no way impaired God's Fatherhood. The mission of Jesus aims at the restoration of that which ideally belongs to humanity." This, however, misrepresents Jesus' view of humanity. We shall see later'* that while God's Fatherhood is one of the most important characteristics of Jesus' view about God, he never speaks of God as Father of any but his disciples. Fatherhood is the gift of the Kingdom of God.

31. 32. 33. 34.

A. Hamack, What Is Christianity? (1901), 74. H. Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man (1926), 78-79. Ibid., 80-92. See below, pp. 82-85.

The Need of the Kingdom: The World and Humanity

Jesus does indeed view humankind as of more value than the animal world. While humans are creatures of God, they are of more worth than the birds of the air or the lilies of the field (Mt. 6:26-30; 10:31). God cares for people; the very hairs of their heads are numbered (Mt. 10:30). As God's creatures, humans are bound to serve God. They can make no claim upon their divine Master, When they have done all they possibly can do, they have done no more than is to be expected of servants who do their duty (Lk. 17:7-10). As God's creatures, people are completely dependent on God. They cannot make their hair white or black; they cannot add to their stature; they cannot determine the length of their lives (Mt. 5:36; 6:27). A person may seek security in possessions, but God can snatch away the rich farmer from his possessions before he can enjoy them (Lk. 12:16-21). God can condemn people to hell (Mt. 10:28) and judge them in accordance whh their behavior in the face of tasks assigned to them (Mt. 25:41ff.). Jesus viewed all men and women as sinful.'* This is proven by the fact that he addressed his summons to repentance and discipleship to all. The trage dies of human experience are not laid upon people in proportion to their sinful ness; but all must repent or they will perish (Lk.l3:l-5). Even Israel, the people of the covenant, are lost; Jesus came to seek and to save them (Mt. 10:6; 15:24; Lk. 19:10). When Jesus said that he did not come to call the righteous but sinners (Mk. 2:17) or when he speaks of the righteous who have no need of repentance (Lk. 15:7), he does not mean to say that there are some who are actually righteous, who do not need repentance. He is only reflecting the view of religious Jews who considered themselves righteous and did not heed his summons. "It is His intention to tell His opponents who see themselves as righteous rather than sinful, tiiat His call to salvation is directed precisely at those who are ready to listen to Him because they are aware of their sinfulness. His opponents' mistake lies in the fact that they exclude themselves from insight into their own sinfulness, whereas Jesus presupposes that all men, including these 'righteous ones,' are sinful."'* People find their ultimate value in terms of their relationship to God. The parable of tiie rich fool teaches that a person cannot satisfy his or her life with bams of grain and physical comforts; one must also have riches toward God (Lk. 12:15-21). It is folly to gain the whole worid and suffer tiie loss of one's tme life (Mt. 16:26), which is realized only in fellowship with God. Humankind is tfius created to be God's children. God takes delight in people not because of what they are in themselves, for they are lost sinners; but every person is capable of responding to God's love and becoming a child of God. It is only when the sinner repents that there is joy in heaven (Lk. 15:7).

35. See the excellent discussion by W. G. Kummel, Man in the NT (1963), 18ff. 36. Ibid., 20.

4. The Kingdom of God

Literature: J. Weiss, Jesus 'Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (1892, Eng. ed. 1971); A. von Hamack, What Is Christianity? (1901); A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical

Jesus (1911); R. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (1934); T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1935); C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (1936); W. G. Kummel, Promise and Fulfilment (1957); R. Schnackenburg, God's Rule and Kingdom (1963); H. N. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (1963); G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom

(1964); B. E. Gartner, "The Person of Jesus and the Kingdom of God," Th Today 27 (1970), 32-43; R. Hiers, The Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Tradition (1970); J. Jeremias, NT Theology (1971); W. G. Kummel, "Eschatological Expectation in the Proclamation of Jesus," in TTie Future of Our Religious Past, ed. J. Robinson (1972); B. Chilton, "Regnum Dei Deus Est," SJTh 31 (1978), 261-70; C. L. Mitton, Your Kingdom Come (1978); B. Chilton, God in Strength: Jesus'Announcement

of the Kingdom (1979);

R. Recker, "The Redemptive Focus of the Kingdom of God," CTJ 14 (1979), 154-86; A. J. Hultgren (ed.), "The Kingdom of God," WW (1982); D. C. Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come (1985); A. J. Borg, "A Temperate Case for a Non-Eschatological Jesus," Forum 2 (1986), 81-102; G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (1986); C. C. Caragounis, "Kingdom of God, Son of Man and Jesus' Self-Understanding," TB 40 (1989), 3-23; O. Betz, "Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom," in The Gospel in the Gospels, ed. P Shihlmacher (1991), 53-74. Modem scholarship is quite unanimous in the opinion that the Kingdom of God was the central message of Jesus. Mark introduces Jesus' mission with the words, "Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel'" (Mk. 1:14-15). Matthew sum marizes his ministry with the words, "He went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom" (Mt. 4:23). Luke's introductory scene does not mention the Kingdom of God but instead quotes a prophecy from Isaiah about the coming of the Kingdom and then relates Jesus' affirmation, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (Lk. 4:21). 54

The Kingdom of God Interpretations

of the Kingdom of God

Literature: For surveys of the history of interpretation see G. E. Ladd, Crucial Ques tions about the Kingdom of God (1952), 21-60; H. N. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (1963), xi-xxxiv; N. Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (1963); G. Lundstrom, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (1963); G. E. U d d , Jesus and the Kingdom (1964), 3-38; B. Chilton (ed.), The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (1984); W. Willis (ed.), The Kingdom of God in 20th Century Inter pretation (1987).

Interpretations of the Kingdom of God have taken several distinct forms, with almost infinite variety in detail. From Augustine to the reformers, the prevalent view was that the Kingdom was in some sense or other to be identified with the church. This view is seldom defended now, even among Catholic scholars. The church is the people of the Kingdom but cannot be identified with the Kingdom. The old liberal view is represented by Hamack's What Is Christianity? and understands the Kingdom of God as the pure prophetic religion taught by Jesus: the Fatherhood of God, the "brotherhood of man," the infinite value of the individual soul, and the ethic of love. The obvious apocalyptic element in Jesus' teaching was only the time-conditioned husk that contained the kernel of his real religious message. Noneschatological interpretations of the Kingdom of God have been legion. Many scholars have understood the Kingdom primarily in terms of personal religious experience — the reign of God in the individual soul.' In 1892, Johannes Weiss published a slim book entitled "The Preachmg of Jesus about the Kingdom of God,"2 in which he argued that Jesus' view of the Kingdom was like that of the Jewish apocalypses: altogether fumre and eschatological. The victory of the Kingdom of God over Satan had already been won in heaven; therefore Jesus proclaims its coming on earth. The Kingdom will be altogether God's supernatural act, and when it comes, Jesus will be the heavenly Son of Man. Albert Schweitzer picked up this idea and interpreted the entire career of Jesus from the point of view of the eschatological understanding of die Kingdom, which Jesus expected to come in the immediate fumre — an interpretation that he called konsequente Eschatologie (Consistent Eschatology). Jesus' ethical teaching was designed only for the brief interval before the end comes (interim ethics), not for the ordinary life of people in society. The Kingdom did not come, and Jesus died in despair and disillusionment. Such to Schweitzer was "the historical Jesus" — a deluded first-century apocalyptist. Since Weiss and Schweitzer, most scholars have recognized that the apoc alyptic element belongs to the kemel and not the husk of Jesus' teachings, but few contemporary scholars view the Kingdom as exclusively eschatological. 1. See T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1935), 135. 2. Eng. ed. Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (1971).

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Richard Hiers is an exception. Rudolf Bultmann has accepted the iimninent approach of the eschatological Kingdom as the correct historical interpretation of Jesus' message, but the tme meaning must be understood in existential terms: the nearness and the demand of God. In Great Britain, the most influential interpretation has been the "Realized Eschatology" of C. H. Dodd. Dodd does not simply discard the apwcalyptic language as did Hamack; he understands it as a series of symbols standing for realities that the human mind cannot directly apprehend. The Kingdom of God, which is described in apocalyptic language, is in reality the transcendent order beyond time and space that has broken into history in the mission of Jesus. In him, the "wholly other" has entered into history. This transcendent "wholly other" in Dodd's thought is more platonic than biblical. In this event, all that the prophets had hoped for has been realized in history. This is what Dodd means by "realized eschatology." Dodd has been criticized for minunizing the futuristic aspect of the Kingdom,' and in his latest publication he admits that the Kingdom yet awaits consummation "beyond history."* However, many scholars have followed Dodd in his view that the most distinctive thing about Jesus' teaching was the presence of the Kingdom. If a majority of scholars have approached a consensus, it is that the Kingdom is in some real sense both present and future. W. G. Kiimmel under stands that the primary meaning of the Kingdom is the eschaton — the new age analogous to Jewish apocalyptic. Jesus proclaimed that tiie new age was near. But Kiimmel holds that it is also present, but only in the person of Jesus, not in his disciples. The fumre eschatological Kingdom has already begun its activhy in Jesus' mission. It is not altogether clear how in Kiimmei's view the Kingdom can be both the fumre eschaton and a present activity in Jesus. Other scholars have solved this problem by holding that the Kingdom was altogether fumre, but it was so very near that its power could already be felt — as the dawn precedes sunrise;* or else the signs of the Kingdom were present but not the Kingdom itself.* Jeremias defends a distinctive position. While commending C. H. Dodd for achieving a real breakthrough in the history of interpretation by his emphasis on the present irmption of the Kingdom, he criticizes him for minimizing the eschatological aspect. In place of Dodd's "realized eschatology" Jeremias sug gests "eschatology in process of realization."'' Jeremias understands Jesus' entire ministry to be an event in which the Kingdom is realized. He even sees John the Baptist as standing in the time of fulfillment, because the Spirit has come 3. See below. 4. C, H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity (1970), 115. 5. C. T. Craig, The Beginning of Christianity (1943), 87. 6. M. Dibelius, Jesus (1949), 68-88. 7. "Sich realisierende Eschatologie." See J. Jeremias, The Parables ofJesus (1963; rev. ed.), 21, 230.

The Kingdom of God

upon him and the time of salvation has begun.* With Jesus' message of the Kingdom of God and his miracles of exorcism, the Kingdom has broken into history. However, Jesus looked forward to the imminent eschatological consum mation of the Kingdom that would involve his own resurrection and parousia. Jeremias follows Dodd's suggestion that Jesus regarded his resurrection, parousia, and the consummation of the Kingdom as a single event in which the triumph of God would be manifested.' In the resurrection appearances, the disciples experienced Jesus' parousia.'" Only after Easter did the eariy church separate the parousia from the resurrection." It is difficuU to see any material difference between Jeremias's view and the view of Dodd that he criticizes. In certain evangelical circles in America and Great Britain, a rather novel view of the Kingdom has had wide influence. Starting from the premise that all Old Testament prophecies to Israel must be fulfilled literally, dispensationalists have distinguished sharply between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. The latter is the mle of heaven (God) on earth and has primary reference to the earthly theocratic Kingdom promised Old Testament Israel. Matthew's Gospel alone gives us the Jewish aspect of the Kingdom. When Jesus announced that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, he had reference to the earthly theocratic Kingdom promised Israel. However, Israel rejected the offer of the Kingdom, and instead of establishing the Kingdom for Israel Jesus introduced a new message, offering rest and service for all who would believe, and initiating the formation of a new family of faith that cuts across all racial lines. The mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 13 is the sphere of Christian profession — Christendom — which is the form God's mle over the earth takes between the two advents of Christ. Leaven (Mt. 13:33) always represents evil; in the Kingdom of Heaven — the professing church — tme doctrine is to be cormpted by false doctrine. The Sermon on the Mount is the law of the Kingdom of Heaven — the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament theocratic Kingdom, interpreted by Christ, destined to be the governing code of the earthly Kingdom. The Kingdom of Heaven, rejected by Israel, will be realized at the remm of Christ when Israel will be converted and the Old Testament promises of the restoration of David's Kingdom literally fulfilled. The basic tenet of this theology is that there are two peoples of God — Israel and the church — with two destinies under two divine programs.12 8. J. Jeremias, NT Theology (1971), 47, 82. 9. Ibid., 286. 10. Ibid., 310. 11. Ibid., 286. 12. Recent literature: J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come (1958); A. J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (1959); J. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (1959); C. C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (1%5); The New Scofield Reference Bible (1967). A thorough criti cism of this view will be found in the present author's Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God {1952).

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Within a year (1963-64), three books appeared independently of each other that interpreted the Kingdom in basically the same way in terms of the unfolding of redemptive history. The Kingdom is God's kingly mle. It has two moments: a fulfillment of the Old Testament promises in the historical mission of Jesus and a consummation at the end of the age, inaugurating the Age to C o m e . " The Kingdom of God in Judaism Literature: J. Bright, The Kingdom of God (1953); S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (1956); G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (1964), 41-97; P D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic

(1979).

While the idiom "the Kingdom of God" does not occur in the Old Testament, the idea is found throughout the prophets. There is a twofold emphasis on God's kingship. He is frequently spoken of as the King, both of Israel (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15) and of all the earth (2 Kings 19:15; Isa. 6:5; Jer. 46:18; Ps. 29:10; 99:1-4). Although God is now King, other references speak of a day when he shall become King and shall mle over his people (Isa. 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:9ff.).i'» This leads to the conclusion that while God is the King, he must also become King, i.e., he must manifest his kingship in the world of human beings and nations. The form of the future Kingdom is expressed differently by different prophets. Many scholars see two distinctly different kinds of hope in the Old Testament and Judaism. The tmly Hebraic, prophetic hope expects the Kingdom to arise out of history and to be ruled by a descendant of David in an earthly setting (Isa. 9, 11). When this hope faded after the return from exile, the Jews lost hope of a Kingdom in history. In its place, they looked for an apocalyptic inbreaking of God in the person of a heavenly Son of Man with a completely transcendental Kingdom "beyond history" (Dan. 7). The present author has argued elsewhere that while there is considerable diversity m the description of the Kingdom in the Old Testament, it always involves an inbreaking of God into history when God's redemptive purpose is fully realized. The Kingdom is always an earthly hope, although an earth redeemed from the curse of evil. However, the Old Testament hope is always ethical and not speculative. It lets the light of the future shine on the present, that Israel may be confronted by history in the here and now. For this reason, there is a coalescing of the near and the distant future. God will act in the near future to save or judge Israel, but he will also act in the indeterminate future to bring about the fulfillment of the eschatological hope. The prophets do not sharply distinguish between the near and the distant future, for both will see the act of God for his people.

13. See the studies by H. N. Ridderbos, R. Schnackenburg, and G. E. Ladd. 14. See G. von Rad, TDNT 1:567-69. Bright's excellent books deal almost exclusively with the Kingdom of God as a future hope.

The Kmgdom of God

Apocalyptic Judaism also had diverse hopes. Some writers emphasize the earthly, historical aspect of the Kingdom (En. 1-36; Ps. Sol. 17-18), while others emphasize the more transcendental aspects (En. 37-71). However, the emphasis is always eschatological. In fact, Jewish apocalyptic lost the sense of God's acting in the historical present. At this point, apocalypticism had become pessimistic — not with reference to the final act of God to establish his Kingdom, but with reference to God's acting in present history to save and bless his people. Jewish apocalyptic despaired of history, feeling that it was given over to evil powers. God's people could only expect suffering and affliction in this age until God would act to establish his Kingdom in the Age to Come.'* The Qumran community shared a similar hope for the Kingdom. In the eschatological consummation, they expected the angels to come down and join battle with them — "the sons of light" — against their enemies — "the sons of darkness" — and to give victory to the Qumranians over all other peoples, whether worldly Jews or Gentiles.'* The rabbinic literature developed a similar eschatology, but made some what more use of the term "the kingdom of the heavens." The Kingdom of God was the reign of God — the exercise of his sovereignty.'"' Throughout the course of human history, God exercised his sovereignty through his Law. Those who submit to the Law thereby submit themselves to the reign of God. A Gentile turning to Judaism and adopting the Law thereby "takes upon himself the sovereignty (kingdom) of God."'* Obedience to the Law is thus equivalent to the experience of God's Kingdom or mle. It follows that God's Kingdom on earth is limited to Israel. Furthermore, it does not come to people; it is there, embodied in the Law, available to all who will submit to it. At the end of the age, however, God will manifest his sovereignty in all the world. A very ancient prayer concludes with the wish, "and may He [God] set up His sovereignty in your lifetime, and in your days, and in the lifetime of the whole house of Israel, [yea] speedily, and in a time that is near."" The Assumption of Moses reads, "And then His Kingdom shall appear throughout all His creation" (Ass. Mos. 10:1). In this age, God's mle is limited to those who accept the Law; at the end of the age, it will appear to subjugate all that resists the will of God. The experience of God's sovereignty in the present is dependent upon the free decision of men and women;20 but when it appears at the end of the age, "the Heavenly One shall arise from His royal throne" (Ass. 15. See G. E. I^dd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 72-97. 16. See the War Scroll in A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (\96l), 164-97; H. Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran (1963), 152ff. 17. G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (1909), 91-101. 18. Loc. cit. 19. Ibid., 99. Probably late firet century B.C. 20. See K. G. Kuhn, "Basileus," TDNT 1:572.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Mos. 10:3) to punish the wicked and gather righteous Israel into a redeemed order of blessing.^' Another movement in Judaism was quite certainly concemed with estab lishing the Kingdom of God: the Zealots. In the early decades of the first cenmry A.D., insurrection broke out again and again, promoted by the Zealots, against Rome. The New Testament speaks of insurrection under Judas and Theudas (Acts 5:36, 37), and another revoU under an unnamed Egyptian (Acts 21:38). Josephus speaks of other revolutionary movements not mentioned in the New Testament. He does not label these revolutionaries, but in the last rebellion of A.D. 132 the leader. Bar Kokhba, was styled by the Akiba, most famous rabbi of the time, as the Messiah.22 The Zealots were Jewish radicals who were not content to wait quietly for God to bring his Kingdom but wished to hasten its coming with the sword.23 It is possible, and even probable, that the whole series of revolts against Rome were messianic, i.e., that they were not conducted solely for polhical or nationalistic goals, but were religiously motivated to hasten the coming of God's Kingdom.^* In any case, throughout all Judaism, the coming of God's Kingdom was expected to be an act of God — perhaps using the agency of human beings — to defeat the wicked enemies of Israel and to gather Israel together, victorious over its enemies, in its promised land, under the mle of God alone. The Meaning o/basileia tou theou ("Kingdom of God") Scholars are not agreed as to the basic meaning of basileia (Heb. mallcuf). Many have defended the view that the basileia is the "eschaton" — the final eschatologi cal order.25 If this is taken as the point of departure, it is difficult to see how the eschaton can be both future and present; it must be exclusively fumre. However, the Hebrew word has the abstract dynamic or idea of reign, mle, or dominion. "They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and tell of thy power. . . . Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endures throughout all generations" (Ps. 145:11,13). "The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom mles over all" (Ps. 103:19).^* In late Judaism, the Kingdom of God means God's mle or sovereignty.^'^ This is also the best point of deparmre for

21. For this twofold emphasis, see J. Jeremias, AT Theology (1971), 99. 22. E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), rev. ed. (1973), ed. M. Black, G. Vemies, and E Millar, 1:534-57. For newly discovered letters from his hand, see J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (1959), 136. 23. E. Schiirer, The Jewish People, 80. 24. S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (1956), 284f. 25. See W. G. Kummel, Promise and Fulfilment (1957). 26. See G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (1964), 43ff. 27. See G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 91-101; G. F Moore, Judaism (1927), 2:37176.

The Kingdom of God

understanding the Gospels. Several times the RSV renders basileia by the English word "kingship," or "kingly power" (Lk. 19:12; 23:4-2; Jn. 18:36; Rev 17:12). The meaning "reign" or "mle" is obvious in other passages.^* The coming of the Kingdom for which we pray in the Lord's Prayer means that God's will be done on earth, i.e., that his mle be perfectly realized (Mt. 6:10). The "kingdom" that Jesus appointed for his disciples (Lk. 22:29) is "royal mle."^' This is important for the interpretation of Jesus' message, for one of the major problems is that of how the Kingdom of God can be both future and present. If the Kingdom is primarily the eschaton — the eschatological era of salvation — it is difficult to see how this future realm can also be present. However, we have seen that both in the Old Testament and in rabbinic Judaism, God's Kingdom — his reign — c a n have more than one meaning. God is now the King, but he must also become King. This is the key to the solution of the problem in the Gospels. The Kingdom

ofHeaven(s)

The phrase "the kingdom of the heavens" occurs only in Matthew,'" where it is used thirty-two times. Several times in Matthew," and everywhere in the rest of the New Testament, the phrase "kingdom of God" is used. "The kingdom of the heavens" is a Semitic idiom, where heavens is a substimte for the divine name (see Lk. 15:18). Since the gospel tradition shows that Jesus did not consistently avoid the word "God," it is possible that "the kingdom of the heavens" is native to the Jewish-Christian milieu, which preserved the gospel tradition in Matthew rather than reflecting the actual usage of Jesus.'^ Possibly he used both phrases, and the Gospels that were addressed to a Gentile audience omhted the Semitic idiom, which would be meaningless to their ears. As a matter of fact, both "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of the heavens" are seldom used in Jewish literature before the days of Jesus." Jeremias stresses this fact, that in Jesus' teaching a large number of new phrases about the basileia appear that have no parallels in the literature of the world of Jesus — a fact to which sufficient attention has not yet been paid.'* The Eschatological

Kingdom

We have seen above that the basic stmcture of Jesus' thought is the eschatological dualism of the two ages. It is the coming of God's Kingdom (Mt. 6:10) or its 28. See G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 130. See also "The Kingdom of God — Reign or Realm?" m 31 (1962), 230-38. 29. BAGD, 134. 30. An exception is some manusaipts of Jn. 3:21. 31. Mt. 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43. 32. J. Jeremias, NT Theology (1971), 97. 33. G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 126-27. 34. J. Jeremias, NT Theology, 96.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

appearing (Lk. 19:11) that will bring this age to its end and inaugurate the Age to Come. It is important to note, however, that basileia can designate both the manifestation or coming of God's kingly rule and the eschatological realm in which God's rule is enjoyed. In this sense, inheriting eternal life and entrance into the Kingdom of God are synonymous with entering into the Age to Come. When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, he was thinking of the eschatological life of Daniel 12:2. Jesus replied that it is hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God.'* Then, mrning to his disciples, he assured them that because they had left house and family to follow him, they would receive eternal life in the Age to Come (Mk. 10:17-31). The coming of God's Kingdom will mean the final and total destmction of the devil and his angels (Mt. 25:41), the formation of a redeemed society unmixed with evil (Mt. 13:36-43), perfected fellowship with God at the messi anic feast (Lk. 13:28-29). In this sense the Kingdom of God is a synonym for the Age to Come. One of the most distinctive facts that set Jesus' teaching apart from Judaism was the universalizing of the concept. Both in the Old Testament and in Judaism, the Kingdom was always picmred in terms of Israel. In the Old Testament, sometimes the Gentiles would be conquered by Israel (Amos 9:12; Mic. 5:9; Isa. 45:14-16; 60:12, 14), sometimes they are seen as converted (Zeph. 3:9, 20; 2:2-4; Zech. 8:20-23). But the Kingdom is always Israel's. Late Judaism had become quite particularistic, and the establishing of God's Kingdom meant the sovereignty of Israel over her political and national enemies: "Then thou, O Israel, shalt be happy, and thou shall mount upon the necks and wings of the eagle . . . and thou shalt look from on high and shalt see thy enemies in Gehenna, and thou shalt recognize them and rejoice" (Ass. Mos. 10:8-10). We have seen that John the Baptist rejected this Jewish particularism and looked upon the most religious of the Jews as being in need of repentance to enter the coming Kingdom. Jesus made response to his own person and message the determining factor for entering the eschatological Kingdom. In fact, Jesus affirmed that Israel, the natural "sons of the kingdom," will be rejected from the Kingdom and their place taken by others (Mt. 8:12). The tme "sons of the kingdom" are those who respond to Jesus and accept his word (Mt. 13:38). One must receive the present proclamation of the Kingdom of God with a childlike attitude of complete dependence to enter into the eschatological Kingdom (Mk. 10:15). The Present

Kingdom

The expectation of the coming of the eschatological Kingdom in Jesus' teaching was nothing new. It goes back to the prophets and was developed in different 35. It is significant that the parallel passage in Mt. 19:23-24 has both "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of the heavens," used synonymously.

The Kingdom of God

ways in Judaism. C. H. Dodd is right in affirming that the most characteristic and distinctive of the gospel sayings are those which speak of a present coming of the Kingdom. Such sayings have no parallel in Jewish teaching or prayers of the period.3*

Jesus saw his ministry as a fulfillment of the Old Testament promise in history, short of the apocalyptic consummation.'' This is particularly clear in two passages, hi the synagogue of Nazareth, Jesus read die messianic prophecy from Isaiah 61:1-2 about the coming of an anointed one to proclaim the accept able year of the Lord; and he then solemnly asserted, "Today this scriphire has been fulfilled in your hearing" (Lk. 4:21). When John the Baptist, in doubt, sent emissaries to ask Jesus if he really was the Coming One, Jesus replied by citing the messianic prophecy in Isaiah 35:5-6 and told them to report to John diat the prophecy was indeed being fulfilled (Mt. 11:2-6). Throughout the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus' mission is repeatedly understood as the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. The sayings about the Kingdom of God as a present realhy must be interpreted against this background. The strongest statement is Matthew 12:28: "But if it is by the Spirit of God'* that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you." One of Jesus' most characteristic miracles was the exorcism of demons. Jesus amazed people because he spoke words of command and people were at once delivered from satanic bondage (Mk. 1:28). When accused of himself exercising satanic power, he replied that he cast out demons by the power of God, and this was proof that the Kingdom of God had come upon them. A vigorous debate has been waged over the precise meaning of the Greek word ephthasen, "has come," in Mt. 12:28. Many have interpreted the word to designate proximity, not actual presence. But other uses make it clear tiiat the verb connotes actual presence, not merely proximity." What was present was not the eschaton, but the kingly power of God, attacking the dominion of Satan and delivering people from the power of evil. "Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his goods" (Mt. 12:29). In these words, Jesus declares that he has invaded the kingdom of Satan and has "bound" the strong man. In these two verses is embodied the essential theology of the Kingdom of God. Instead of waiting until the end of the age to reveal his kingly power and destroy satanic evil, Jesus declares that God has acted in his kingly power to 36. 37. 101-17. 38. 39. 137ff.

C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kmgdom (1935), 49. See G. E. Ladd, "Fulfillment without Consummation," Jesus and the Kingdom, The parallel verse, Lk. 11:20, reads "finger of God." See Rom. 9:31; 2 Cor. 10:14; Phil. 3:16. See G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom,

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

curb the power of Satan. In other words, God's Kingdom in Jesus' teaching has a twofold manifestation: at the end of the age to destroy Satan, and in Jesus' mission to bind Satan. Before Satan's final destmction, people may be delivered from his power.*" "Binding" is of course a metaphor and designates in some real sense a victory over Satan so that his power is curbed. Sometimes the metaphorical nature of the idiom is not recognized, and it is thought that the saying must mean that Satan is rendered completely powerless.*' However, Satan continues to be active: he snatches away the word of the Kingdom when it does not find real acceptance among men and women (Mt. 13:19); he was able to speak through Peter (Mk. 8:33); he entered into Judas (Lk. 22:3); and he wanted also to take possession of Peter (Lk. 22:31). Cullmann interprets the binding of Satan by his quaint idiom that he is bound, but with a long rope.*^ Satan is not powerless, but his power has been broken. Cullmann again illustrates this by resorting to a military idiom. The decisive battle in a war may be won and the tide of battle tum before the gaining of final victory.*' The whole mission of Jesus, including his words, deeds, death, and resurrection, constituted an initial defeat of satanic power that makes the final outcome and triumph of God's Kingdom certain. "Every occasion in which Jesus drives out an evil spirit is an anticipation of the hour in which Satan will be visibly robbed of his power. The victories over his instmments are a foretaste of the eschaton."** Scholars have debated when the binding of Satan occurred. Many refer it to the specific event of Jesus' victory over Satan in the wilderness;** but "the simplest explanation is that the exorcisms themselves are regarded as a victorious combat with the devil and his kingdom. Whenever a demon is cast out from a body it signifies that Satan has been defeated and spoiled of his goods."** "In each act of exorcism Jesus saw a defeat of Satan."*'' The same victory over Satan is seen in the power Jesus gave to his disciples when he commissioned them to travel throughout Galilee preaching the King dom of God (Lk. 10:9). When the missioners remmed, they reported with joy that even the demons were subject to them in Jesus' name. Then Jesus said, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Lk. 10:18). There is no need to postulate a vision in which Jesus saw Satan cast out of heaven.** The context suggests that Jesus saw in the successful mission of the seventy an evidence of the defeat of Satan. Here again is metaphorical language that employs a different

40. G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 145-57. 41. E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion (1965), 12. 42. O. Cullmann, Christ and Time (1964), 198. 43. Ibid., 84. 44. J. Jeremias, NT Theology, 95. 45. E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion, 15. 46. R. Leivestad, Christ the Conqueror (1954), 47. 47. A. Fridrichsen, Theology, 22 (1931), 127. 48. J. Jeremias, NT Theology, 85.

The Kingdom of God

idiom to affirm that in the mission of Jesus, a decisive victory has been won. Satan has been bound; he has fallen from his place of power; but his final destruction awaits the end of the age.*' Here is an insoluble mystery in New Testament theology, which is found not only in the Synoptics but elsewhere as well. The enemies of God's Kingdom are now seen not as hostile evil nations as in the Old Testament but spiritual powers of evil. The victory of God's Kingdom is a victory in the spiritual world: God's triumph over Satan. Paul affirms the same truth in 1 Corinthians 15:25: "He must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." The interesting question is: Why does the New Testament not picture this as a battle exclusively in the spiritual world? Why can the victory over evil be won only on the plane of history? No explanation is given, but the answer lies in the fact that the fate of human beings is involved in this struggle. In some way beyond human comprehension, Jesus wrestled with the powers of evil, won a victory over them, that in the end of the age these powers may be finally and forever broken. This sets the Christian gospel apart from Judaism. Contemporary apoca lyptic conceived of the age as under the power of evil while God had retreated from the scene of human history. In the Dream Visions of Enoch, God is pictured as withdrawing his personal leadership from Israel after the captivity. He sur rendered his people to wild beasts to be torn and devoured. God "remained unmoved, though He saw it, and rejoiced that they were devoured and swallowed and robbed, and left them to be devoured in the hand of all the beasts" (En. 89:58). In the day of judgment Israel would be delivered and her tormentors punished; but in history God was aloof and unmoved by the sufferings of his people. Jesus' message is that in his own person and mission God has invaded human history and has triumphed over evil, even though the final deliverance will occur only at the end of the age. The presence of the Kingdom is asserted in Luke 17:20. When the Pharisees asked when the apocalyptic Kingdom was coming, Jesus answered them, rather enigmatically, that the Kingdom was already in their midst, but in an unexpected form. It was not accompanied by the signs and outward display the Pharisees expected and without which they would not be satisfied. The phrase entos hymon can mean either "within you," i.e., in your hearts, or "in your midst." While Mark 10:15 makes it clear that the Kingdom is to be received in the inner person,*" it is unlikely that Jesus would have said to the Pharisees, "the Kingdom of God is within yoM." The translation "in your midst," in Jesus' person, best fits the total context of his teaching.*'

49. See G. E. l^dd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 150-54. 50. L. H. Marshall takes this idea as "the point of departure for understanding Jesus' message of the Kingdom." The Challenge of NT Ethics (1947), 26ff. 51. For further discussion, see G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 224.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The New Eschatological

Structure

Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom of God radically modifies the redemptive time line. The Old Testament and Judaism looked forward to a single day — the Day of the Lord — when God would act to establish his reign on the earth. It can be diagrammed by a straight line:

Midpoint This Age

Age to Come

Cullmann argues that Christ has modified the time line by giving it a new center. It retained the same basic stmcture as in Judaism, but the center shifted.*^ Cullmann has been justly criticized for overemphasizing the midpoint of history at the expense of the end.*'

Midpoint This Age

Age to Come

Long ago Geerhardus Vos suggested a similar but perhaps better time line.5*

The World to Come realized in principle

Age to Come

This Age This scheme has the advantage of illustrating that the Age to Come moves on a higher level than this age, and that the time between the resurrection and the parousia is a time of the overlapping of the two ages. The church lives

52. O. Cullmann, Christ and Time, 82. 53. C. K. Barrett in ET 65 (1953-54), 372. 54. G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (1952), 38.

The Kingdom of God

"between the times"; the old age goes on, but the powers of the new age have irrupted into the old age. We would suggest a further modification better to illustrate the New Testament time line: God's Reign = Kingdom of God on

Period

This

NT Period

Age to Come^

Age

There is a twofold dualism in the New Testament: God's will is done in heaven; his Kingdom brings it to earth. In the Age to Come, heaven descends to earth and lifts historical existence to a new level of redeemed life (Rev. 21:2-3). This is hinted at, although not elaborated on, in the Gospels. Those who "attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given ui marriage, for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Lk. 20:35-36). Here is a tmly inconceivable order of existence. There are no human analogies to describe existence without the physiological and sociological bonds of sex and family. But this is the will of God: to conquer evil and to bring his people finally into the blessed immortality of the eternal life of the Age to Come. This diagram also suggests that God's Kingdom was active in the Old Testament. In such events as the Exodus and the captivity in Babylon, God was acting in his kingly power to deliver or judge his people. However, in some real sense God's Kingdom came into history in the person and mission of Jesus.

5. The New Age of Salvation

Literature: See Chapter 4. We saw in the last chapter that the meaning of basileia ("kingdom") cannot be reduced to a single concept but is a complex concept with several facets. Its root meaning is the reign or mle of God. It can designate the eschatological act of God when God acts in kingly power to destroy his enemies and save his people. It can also designate the future realm of salvation into which God's people will be gathered to enjoy the blessings of his reign. As such, it is interchangeable with the Age to Come. The most distinctive fact in Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom was its present inbreaking in history in his own person and mission. We should not be surprised to find basileia tou theou ("kingdom of God") used of a new realm of redemptive blessing into which people enter by receiving Jesus' message about the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom as a Present Realm of Blessing There are several texts that speak of entering the Kingdom as a present reality. Jesus uttered a woe against the scribes and Pharisees because, "You shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in" (Mt. 23: 13). The parallel verse in Luke is even clearer: "Woe to you lawyers! You have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves; and you have hindered those who were entering" (Lk. 11:52). On another occasion Jesus said, "The tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you" — the religious leaders of Israel (Mt. 21:31). The most namral interpretation of such passages is of a present situation. "The outcast classes are entering the Kingdom, and there is no evidence that the outwardly respectable leaders will respond. Even the sight of the outcasts streaming into the Kingdom has not changed their attitude."' L E V . Filson, Manhew (1960), 227.

The New Age of Salvation

The most interesting, and at the same time most difficuh, saying is Mat thew 11:11-13. In reply to the emissaries of John the Baptist, Jesus answered their question as to whether or not he was the Messiah by alluding to the messianic prophecy in Isaiah 35:5-6, saying in effect, "This prophecy is now being fulfilled; the age of the messianic salvation is here" (Mt. 11:2-6). Then, speaking of the Baptist, now in Herod's prison, Jesus declared that "among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven biazetai, and men of violence take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John" (Mt. 11:1113). This passage involves three difficult problems: the meaning of biazetai, of "men of violence," and of "he who is least in the kingdom of heaven." The verb biazd means "to use force or violence," and the form can be either a passive voice, "to be forcibly treated," or a middle, "to exercise force." Else where, we have discussed six different interpretations of this word^ and can here present only our conclusions. It fits best the dynamic view of the Kingdom of God as God's kingly reign active in the mission of Jesus to take the verb as a middle voice, "The kingdom of heaven has been coming violently" (RSV mg); and there are no philological objections to this interpretation.' God's mle makes its way with great force and keen enthusiasts lay hold on it, i.e., want to share in it.* The mission of Jesus has set up a powerful movement. The power of God is at work mightily among human beings. It requires an equally powerful reaction. This set Jesus' teaching apart from rabbinic teaching. The rabbis taught that people should take on them the yoke of the Kingdom and accept the Law as the norm of God's will. Jesus taught that this was not enough. On the contrary, God was acting mightily in his own mission; and because the dynamic power of the Kingdom has invaded the world, people are to respond with a radical reaction. Jesus sometimes described this reaction with violent acts. "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; . . . and if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out" (Mk. 9:43,47). These are acts of violence required of those who would enter the Kingdom.* Elsewhere Jesus uses violent language of hating one's family for his sake (Lk. 14:26). He said that he did not come to bring peace but a sword (Mt. 10:34). The presence of the Kingdom demands a radical reaction. It is clear that Luke understood this passage in this way. He renders this saying, "The good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one 2. G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (1964), 155-58. 3. In addition to the reference in Jesus and the Kingdom, 158-59, see also M. Black in £ r 63 (1951-52), 290; R. Schnackenburg, God's Rule and Kingdom {\963), 131; H. N. Ridder bos, The Coming of the Kingdom (1963), 54. 4. R. Schnackenburg, God's Rule and Kingdom, 132. 5. For this interpretation see R. Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man (1943), 111; T W. Manson. The Sayings of Jesus (1949), 134; S. E. Johnson, IB 7:383.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

enters it violently" (eis auten biazetai, Lk. 16:16). Here is the same use of biazetai in the middle voice. In both of these sayings, the Kingdom of God is the dynamic mle of God active in Jesus; it is also a present realm of blessing into which those enter who receive Jesus' word. Jesus calls John the Baptist the greatest human being. All the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. He was the last of the prophets. Since the days of John* something new has been happening, creating a new situation, with the result that, "great as John was, the least in the dawning Kingdom was greater; not in personal achievement and worth but by God's gift he, unlike John, was in the Kingdom."' The contrast is not between John and other people but between the old age of the prophets and the new age of the Kingdom that had begun with Jesus' ministry.* The Kingdom as a Present Gift When we ask about the content of this new realm of blessing, we discover that basileia means not only the dynamic reign of God and the realm of salvation; it is also used to designate the gift of life and salvation. Here is another original element in Jesus' teaching. The Kingdom of God stands as a comprehensive term for all that the messianic salvation included.' Dalman recognized that the Kingdom in Jesus' teaching could be "a good which admits of being striven for, of being bestowed, of being possessed, and of being accepted."'" In the eschatological consummation, the Kingdom is something to be freely inherited by the righteous (Mt. 25:34). The word here designates neither the reign of God nor the Age to Come but the blessing of life that is the gift of God's rule in the coming age (Mt. 24:46). In answer to the young man's question about inheriting eternal life (Mk. 10:17), Jesus spoke of entering the Kingdom (10:23-24) and receiving etemal life (10:30) as though they were synonymous concepts. The Kingdom is a gift that the Father is pleased to bestow upon the little flock of Jesus' disciples (Lk. 12:32). If God's Kingdom is the gift of life bestowed upon his people when he manifests his mle in eschatological glory, and if God's Kingdom is also God's mle invading history before the eschatological consummation, it follows that we may expect God's mle in the present to bring a preliminary blessing to his people. This is in fact what we find. The Kingdom is not only an eschatological gift belonging to the Age to Come; it is also a gift to be received in the old aeon. This is reflected in numerous sayings. The Kingdom is like a treasure or a costly pearl w h o s e possession outranks all other goods (Mt. 13:44-46). It is

6. For the exclusive use of apo, see Jesus and the Kingdom, 197. 7. F V. Filson, Matthew, 138. 8. See G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 197. 9. R. Schnackenburg, God's Rule and Kingdom, 94. 10. G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (1909), 121.

The New Age of Salvation

something to be sought here and now (Mt. 6:33) and to be received as children receive a gift (Mk. 10:15 = Lk. 18:16-17). In this saying the Kingdom is God's rule, but it includes the gift of his mle. The divine reign is not a fearful power before which people are compelled to bow, but a gift. Children exemplify the trustfulness and receptivity required of the "sons of the Kingdom." The Kingdom belongs to them, not because their humility is a virtue that merits it, but because they are responsive. "The Kingdom belongs to such because they receive it as a gift. . . . [It] is the gift of the divine rule."" Matthew 19:14 echoes the same thought that the Kingdom of God is a present possession of the childlike. The promise that those who ask shall receive, and those who seek shall find (Mt. 7:7), is to be understood in this context. "The thing to be sought is the Kingdom of God, which, being found, is the sadsfacdon of all needs (Lk. 12:31). The door to be knocked at is the door which gives entrance into the Kingdom of God.">2

The Beathudes view the Kingdom as a gift. The poor in spirh, those persecuted for righteousness' sake, receive the gift (Mt. 5:3, 10). It is not easy to decide whether the Kingdom in these sayings is fumre or present. The Beatitudes certainly have an eschatological cast. The sayings about inheriting the earth, obtaining mercy (in the day of judgment), and seeing God are primarily eschatological. However, the main objective of the Beatitudes is to teach a present blessedness rather than to promise blessing in the consummation." The comfort for those who grieve because of their spiritual poverty'* is both present and future, as is the satisfaction of the hungry (Mt. 5:4, 6). The gift of the Kingdom, twice mentioned, probably includes both present and future. The Beatitudes expound both the eschatological salvation and the present blessed ness. The Gift of Salvation The Kingdom as God's gift may be further illustrated by a study of the word "salvation." In the Gospels, the words "to save" and "salvation" refer both to an eschatological and a present blessing. Salvation is primarily an eschatological gift. In Jesus' answer to the rich young ruler about eternal life, salvation is synonymous with eternal life and entrance into the Kingdom of God in the Age to Come (Mk. 10:17-30). This eschatological salvation is elsewhere described merely as a saving of one's (true) 11. V. Taylor, Mark (1952), 423. We differ with Taylor when he eliminates the eschatological significance of the last phrase. See also T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1935), 135. Acceptance of God's present rule is the condition of entrance into the eschato logical order. 12. T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 81. 13. Even Windisch admits this, although he attributes this meaning to theological exegesis (The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount [1951], 175f.). 14. See J. W. Bowman and R. W. Tapp, The Gospel from the Mount (1957), 31 f.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

life in contrast with losing one's physical life (Mk. 8:35; Mt. 10:39; Lk. 17:33). This eschatological salvation can be described simply as entrance into (eternal) life (Mk. 9:43; Mt. 25:46) or into the joy of the Lord (Mt. 25:21, 23). This future salvation means two things: deliverance from mortality, and perfected fellowship with God. The Gospels do not say much about resurrection, but the saying in Luke 20:34-36 (cf. Mk. 12:24-27) makes it clear that eschato logical salvation includes the whole person. Resurrection life will have some thing in common with the angels, namely, the possession of immortality. This immortal resurrection life is the life of the Age to Come (Lk. 20:35). The evils of physical weakness, sickness, and death will be swallowed up in the life of the Kingdom of God (Mt. 25:34, 46). Eschatological salvation means not only the redemption of the body but also the restoration of communion between God and humanity that had been broken by sin. The pure in heart will see God (Mt. 5:8) and enter into the joy of their Lord (Mt. 25:21, 23). This eschatological consummation is usually described in pictures drawn from daily life. The harvest will take place and the grain will be gathered into the bam (Mt. 13:30, 39; Mk. 4:29; cf. Mt. 3:12; Rev. 14:15). The sheep will be separated from the goats and brought safely into the fold (Mt. 25:32). The most common picture is that of a feast or table fellowship. Jesus will drink wine again with his disciples in the Kingdom of God (Mk. 14:25). They will eat and drink at Jesus' table in the Kingdom (Lk. 22:30). People will be gathered from all corners of the earth to sit at table whh the Old Testament saints (Mt. 8:11-12; Lk. 13:29). The consummation is likened to a wedding feast (Mt. 22:1-14; 25:1-12) and a banquet (Lk. 14:16-24). All of these metaphors picture the restoration of communion between God and human beings that had been broken by sin." The religious dimension of the eschatological salvation is set in sharp contrast to what it means to be lost. The one Greek word (apollymi) carries two meanings: to destroy or kill, and to lose (passive: to be lost, to die or perish). Both meanings, to be destroyed and to perish, are used of the eschatological destruction {apoleia, Mt. 7:13). Not to be saved means to lose one's life (Mk. 8:35; cf. Mt. 10:39; 16:25; Lk. 9:24; 17:33), and to lose one's life is to lose everything (Mk. 8:36), for one has lost oneself (Lk. 9:25). Thus to lose one's life is to be destroyed. It is within God's power to destroy not only the body but also the soul; and this destmction is described in terms of the fire of Gehenna (Mt. 10:28; Mk. 9:42-48), etemal fire (Mt. 18:8; 25:41), and darkness (Mt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). Since fire and darkness are not homogeneous concepts, the central fact is not the form of this ultimate destruction but its religious significance. This is found in the words, "1 never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers" (Mt. 7:23; Lk. 13:27). Here is the meaning of destmction: exclusion from the joys and pleasures of the presence of God in his Kingdom. 15. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (1963), 222.

The New Age of Salvation

Jesus' mission to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt. 10:6; 15:24) stands against this eschatological background. Their "lostness" is both present and future, for they have strayed from God and forfeited their lives. Because they are now lost, they stand under the threat of eternal destruction. The lost son was considered dead; his "salvation" or restoration to his father's house meant restoration to life (Lk. 15:24). Jesus' mission to save the lost has a present as well as a future dimension. He sought sinners not only to save them from future doom but to bring them into a present salvation. To a repentant Zacchaeus Jesus said, "Today salvation has come to this house. . . . For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost" (Lk. 19:9-10). Against the background of the meaning of "lost," one can approve of the decision of Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, following Bauer, to list "lost" in Luke 19:10 under the meaning "perish, die."'* The lost have not only gone astray but are in danger of perishing unless rescued. God promised through Ezekiel (34:16, 22), "I will seek the lost I will save my flock." This mission Jesus claimed to be fulfilling. The salvation Jesus brought to Zacchaeus was a present visitation, although its blessings reach into the fumre. The parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son are not eschatological but describe a present salvation (Lk. 15). The restoration of the lost son to the joy of his father's house illustrates the blessing of a present salvation that Jesus brought to Zacchaeus and to the tax collectors and sinners who welcomed his fellowship. The elder brother represented the Pharisees and the scribes. As they claimed to be the tme Israel who alone obeyed the Law of God, so the elder brother dwelt under his father's roof. But he too was lost, for he knew neither real fellowship with his father nor the joy of his father's house. This gift of present fellowship in anticipation of the eschatological con summation is the motif illustrated by the acted parable of table fellowship. The scribes were offended because Jesus joined in a dinner party whh tax collectors and sinners (Mk. 2:I5ff.). This was no ordinary meal but a feast. The Jews did not follow the Gentile custom of reclining at ordinary meals but sat at the table. Only on special occasions — parties, wedding feasts, or royal banquets — did the Jews recline." The metaphor of a feast was a common Jewish picture of the eschatological salvation;'* and the fellowship of Jesus with his disciples and those who followed them is to be understood as an anticipation of the joy and fellowship of the eschatological Kingdom. The religious significance of this meal is reflected in Jesus' words, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mk. 2:17). He was fulfilling his messianic mission when he gathered sinners into fellowship with himself

16. BAGD, 95. 17. See J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (1955), 20-21 and references. The translation of the RSV, "sat at table," renders the idea in modern idiom. 18. G. F. Moore, Judaism (1927), 2:363ff.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

That this was no isolated instance can be seen in two other sayings. Luke records that one of the main grounds of criticism by the scribes and the Pharisees was the fact that Jesus received sinners and ate with them (Lk. 15:1-2). All three parables that follow emphasize the fact of joy at the recovery of lost sinners. The central tmth is the joy in heaven over one sinner who repents (Lk. 15:7); but it is a joy that was anticipated on earth in the table fellowship of Jesus and repentant sinners. So typical of Jesus' ministry was this joyous fellowship that his critics accused him of being a glutton and a drunkard (Mt. 11:18). The same note of messianic joy is heard in Jesus' answer to the criticism that he and his disciples did not follow the example of the Pharisees in fasting. Fasting does not belong to the time of a wedding. The presence of the bridegroom calls for joy, not fasting (Mk. 2:18-19). While we have no evidence that the metaphor of a bridegroom was applied to the Messiah in Judaism, the wedding feast was a symbol of the Kingdom of G o d . " During the seven days of the wedding festivi ties, the friends and guests of the bridegroom were excused from the observance of many serious religious duties that they might share in the festivities. Jesus described his presence in the midst of his disciples by this messianic symbol of the wedding. The day of salvation has come, the wedding songs resound; there is no place for mourning, only for joy. Therefore Jesus' disciples cannot fast.^" The presence of the messianic salvation is also seen in Jesus' miracles of healing, for which the Greek word meaning "to save" is used. The presence of the Kingdom of God in Jesus meant deliverance from hemorrhage (Mk. 5:34), blindness (Mk. 10:52), demon possession (Lk. 8:36), and even death itself (Mk. 5:23). Jesus claimed that these deliverances were evidences of the presence of the messianic salvation (Mt. 11:4-5). They were pledges of the life of the eschatological Kingdom that will finally mean immortality for the body. The Kingdom of God is concerned not only with people's souls but with the salvation of the whole person. The limhation of these physical deliverances illustrates the nature of the present Kingdom in contrast to its future manifestations. In the eschatological Kingdom, all "who are accounted worthy to attain to that age" (Lk. 20:35) will be saved from sickness and death in the immortal life of the resurrection. In the present working of the Kingdom, this saving power reached only a few. Not all the sick and crippled were saved, nor were all the dead raised. Only three instances of restoration to life are recorded in the Gospels. People must come into direct contact whh Jesus or his disciples to be healed (Mk. 6:56). The saving power of the Kingdom was not yet universally operative. It was resident only in Jesus and in those whom he commissioned (Mt. 10:8; Lk. 10:9).

19. See J. Jeremias, roAT 4:1101.

20. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 117; C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (1936), 115f.; H. Seesemann. TDNT 5:163.

The New Age of Salvation

However, not even all who came into contact with Jesus experienced the healing life of the Kingdom; this physical salvation required the response of faith, h did not work ex opere operato. "Your faith has saved you" (Mk. 5:34; 10:52). A spiritual response was necessary to receive the physical blessing. The miracles of healing, important as they were, were not an end in themselves. They did not constitute the highest good of the messianic salvation. This fact is illustrated by the arrangement of the phrases in Matthew 11:4-5. Greater than deliverance of the blind and the lame, the lepers and the deaf, even than raising of the dead, was the preaching of the good news to the poor.^' This "gospel" was the very presence of Jesus himself, and the joy and fellowship that he brought to the poor. That salvation from physical sickness was only the extemal aspect of spiritual salvation is shown by a saying about demon exorcism. While this miracle was one of the most convincing evidences of the presence of the Kingdom (Mt. 12:28), it was preliminary to God's taking possession of the vacant dwelling. Otherwise, a person is like a house that stands in good order, clean but empty (Mt. 12:44 = Lk. 11:25). Unless the power of God enters that life; the demon can retum bringing along seven other demons, and the person will be worse off than at first. Healings and demon exorcisms were the negative side of salvation; the positive side was the incoming of the power and life of God. The bond between physical salvation and its spiritual aspect is illustrated by the heahng of the ten lepers. All ten were "cleansed" and "healed" (Lk. 17:14f.) To the one, a Samaritan who retumed to express his grathude, Jesus said, "Your faith has saved you" (Lk. 17:19). These are the same words used elsewhere of healing. Are we to suppose that the other nine were not really healed? Many commentators suspect confusion in the text. However, in view of the fact that these same words are clearly used of "spiritual" salvation (Lk. 7:50), we may agree with those expositors who see a greater blessing bestowed on the Samaritan than on the nine. His "salvation" or wholeness was more than physical healing. It implied a sound spiritual state.22 That this present "salvation" is spiritual as well as physical is proved by the incident of the sinful woman in the house of Simon. Her tears and display of affection proved her repentance. To her Jesus said, "Your faith has saved you, go in peace" (Lk. 7:50). No miracle of healing was performed. Her disease was altogether moral and spiritual. The meaning of her "salvation" is expounded in the words, "Your sins are forgiven" (Lk. 7:48). The Gift of Forgiveness This mention of forgiveness points to the deeper significance of the messianic salvation. According to Mark, the conflict between Jesus and the scribes began when Jesus claimed to forgive sins. Such a claim was nothing less than 21. G. Friedrich, TDNT2:1\%. 22. See L. Ragg, St. Luke (1922), 228; W. R Arndt, St. Luke (1956), 372.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

blasphemy, for only God had the right to forgive sins (Mk. 2:7). On their own presuppositions, the scribes were right (Ps. 103:3; Isa. 43:25). In the prophets, forgiveness will be one of the blessings of the messianic age. The Lord who is judge, mler, and king will save his people so that there will no longer be any sick, for the Lord will forgive all iniquity (Isa. 33:24). The saved remnant will be pardoned and forgiven, for their sins will be cast into the depths of the sea (Mic. 7:18-20). God will make a new covenant and will inscribe his Law in the heart, granting a perfect fellowship with himself and the forgiveness of sins (Jer. 31:31-34; cf. also Ezek. 18:31; 36:22-28). A fountain will be opened for the house of David that will cleanse God's people from all sin (Zech. 13:1). With one possible exception, this function was limhed to God.^' One prophecy tells of the servant of the Lord who will bear the iniquities of the people and give himself as an offering for sin (Isa. 53:11-12); but Judaism did not apply this prophecy to the Messiah until the third century and later.^'i There is no source known to us in which the Messiah by virtue of his own authority promises the forgiveness of sins. Furthermore, while God was believed to forgive sins, Judaism never solved the problem created by the tension between God's justice and his grace.^* The righteous person was not one who had been freely pardoned by God, but one whose merit outweighed his or her debt. Righteous ness is the divine acquittal in the day of judgment, but this eschatological acquittal is determined by a theory of merit. A person's standing before God is settled by the balance between good deeds and transgressions. If the former outweigh the latter, that person will be acquitted.^** Against this background, one can readily understand the amazement and dismay among the scribes when Jesus on his own authority pronounced the free forgiveness of sins. John the Baptist had promised forgiveness (Mk. 1:4); Jesus fulfilled this promise. The healing of the paralytic was the external proof that "the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Mk. 2:10). The Son of

23. "Forgiveness is a prerogative of God that he shares with no other and deputes to none" (G. F. Mooie, Judaism, 1:535). 24. G. Quell in7DAT2:187. 25. Note the struggle with this same problem by the modern Jewish scholar, J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (1925), 379. 26. See G. Schrenk, TOAT 2:196-97; W. O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (1907), 244-51. *lt is now widely agreed that the representation of Judaism as a religion of merit, wherein one's relationship with God is earned through a righteousness based on works, is a caricature. Judaism is correctly understood as being a "covenantal nomism," i.e., a law-centered religion within the larger framework of the covenant. God's grace reflected in the election and redemption of Israel from Egypt precedes the call to follow the L.aw. Those Jews who may have lapsed into a true legalism (i.e., the attempt to earn one's way with God) in the first century had not correctly understood their own faith. Christians have occasionally misunder stood their faith in a similar way. See especially E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia, 1977).

The New Age of Salvation

Man was the heavenly figure in Daniel 7:13 representing the saints of the Most High, who would come with the clouds of heaven to bring the Kingdom of God, and to judge human beings. In this saying, Jesus claimed that he was this heavenly judge, but that he had appeared on earth among men and women exercising the divine prerogative to forgive sins. This was the sign of the presence of the messianic salvation. The centralhy of the forgiveness of sins in the concept of the Kingdom of God is illustrated by the parable of forgiveness (Mt. 18:23-35). It sets forth the relationship between the divine and human forgiveness in the Kingdom of God. The divine forgiveness precedes and condhions human forgiveness. While Jeremias emphasizes the eschatological element of judgment, he recognizes that the parable teaches primarily God's mercy; for the eschatological judgment will be based on a prior experience of the gift of God's forgiveness.2' The free gift of God's forgiveness lays upon people the demand of a forgiving spirit. Jesus did not teach a new doctrine of forgiveness; he brought to lost sinners a new experience of forgiveness. He did not tell the woman in the house of Sunon that God was forgiving her or explain to her the way she might find salvation; he pronounced her sins forgiven (Lk. 7:48). This was her "salvation." Jesus did what he proclaimed. The presence of the Kingdom of God was not a new teaching about God; it was a new activity of God in the person of Jesus bringing to people as present experience what the prophets promised in the eschatological Kingdom.^* The Gift of

Righteousness

Closely related to forgiveness is righteousness. Righteousness is not primarily an ethical quality, but a right relationship, the divine acquittal from the guilt of sin.29 To seek the Kingdom means to seek God's righteousness (Mt. 6:33); and to receive the Kingdom of God means to receive the accompanying righteous ness. Righteousness in Jewish thought was a human activity.'" The rabbis taught that it was a human work consisting of obedience to the Law and acts of mercy. Jesus taught that it was both God's demand and God's gift. A righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and the Pharisees was demanded for entrance into the eschatological Kingdom (Mt. 5:20). This righteousness includes freedom from anger, from lust, from retaliation (Mt. 5:21-48). If the attainment of such a perfect righteousness is left to human effort, no one can acquire it; it must be God's gift. Here is the very heart of Jesus' ethical teaching: the renunciation of 27. 28. 29. 30.

J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 213. See the excellent note on forgiveness in V. Taylor, Mark, 200f G. Schrenk in TDAT 2:185-95. G. Schrenk, TDNT 2:196.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

self-attained righteousness and the willingness to become like children who have nothing and must receive everything. The scribes were unwilling to lay aside their pride in their righteousness to become nothing that they might receive the gift of God's righteousness. So long as they considered themselves to be righ teous (Mk. 2:17; Lk. 18:9)," they felt no need of God's gift. In contrast to the self-righteous Pharisee stands the tax collector, who cast himself entirely upon God's mercy. He had nothing: no deeds of righteousness, no acts of merit. He was therefore open toward God. "This man went down to his house justified" (Lk. 18:14), declared righteous by God. Obviously his righteousness was no attainment of his own, but the gift of God. The teaching of this parable is the same as the Pauline doctrine of free justification with the exception that there is no mention of the cross.'^ The righteousness of the Sermon on the Mount is also God's gift. The promise of satisfaction to those who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Mt. 5:6) is a promise to those who are conscious of their own unrighteousness but hunger and thirst to be right with God. In opposition to the Jewish thought of merit, dikaiosyne ("righteousness") is plainly regarded as a gift that God gives to those who ask for i t . " Thus the unforeseen presence of the eschatological salvation is illustrated in many aspects of Jesus' message and mission and is to be seen far beyond the actual terminology of the Kingdom of God. The mission of Jesus brought not a new teaching but a new event. It brought to people an actual foretaste of the eschatological salvation. Jesus did not promise the forgiveness of sins; he be stowed it. He did not simply assure people of the future fellowship of the Kingdom; he invited them into fellowship with himself as the bearer of the Kingdom. He did not merely promise them vindication in the day of judgment; he bestowed upon them the status of a present righteousness. He not only taught an eschatological deliverance from physical evil; he went about demonstrating the redeeming power of the Kingdom, delivering people from sickness and even death. This is the meaning of the presence of the Kingdom as a new era of salvation. To receive the Kingdom of God, to submit oneself to God's reign meant to receive the gift of the Kingdom and to enter into the enjoyment of its blessings. The age of fulfillment is present, but the time of consummation still awaits the Age to Come.

31. While Jesus adopted the usual Jewish terminology of "the righteous" and "the unrighteous," "there is in the Syn. a stern rejection of the hypocrisy of a righteous appearance and of the confidence of the dikaios in his own piety." G. Schrenk, TDNT 2:190. 32. G. Schrenk, TDNT 2:215. 33. G. Schrenk, TDNT2A9S. See D. A. Hagner, "Righteousness in Matthew's Theol ogy," in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church, ed. M. J. Wilkins and T. Paige (1992), 101-20.

6. The God of the Kingdom

Literature: R. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (1926), 133-219; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1935), 89-115; H. F. D. Sparks, "The Doctrine of the Divine Father hood in the Gospels," in Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham (1955), 241fE.; H. W. Montefiore, "God as Father in the Synoptic Gospels," NTS 3 (1956), 31-46; J. Jeremias, The Central Message of the New Testament (1965); A. W. Argyle, God in the NT (1966); J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (1967), 11-65; H. Conzelmann, "The Idea of God," Theology of the NT (1969), 99-105; J. Jeremias, NT Theology (1971), 56-75; R. Hamerton-Kelly, God the Father: Theology and Patriarchy in the Teachings of Jesus (1979).

The dynamic understanding of the basileia tou theou ("kmgdom of God") has been drawn first from a linguistic and exegetical study of the meanmg and use of the term itself. This dynamic interpretation is further illustrated by the theol ogy of the Gospels, strictly speaking, i.e., by their doctrine of God. The Kingdom is God's Kingdom, not humanity's: basilieia tou theou. The emphasis falls on the third word, not the first; it is the Kingdom of God "The fact whh which we have to reckon at all times is that in the teaching of Jesus his conception of God determines everything, including the conceptions of the Kingdom and the Messiah."' If the Kmgdom is the mle of God, then every aspect of the Kingdom must be derived from the character and action of God. The presence of the Kingdom is to be understood from the namre of God's present activity; and the fumre of the Kingdom is the redemptive manifestation of his kingly mle at the end of the age. This was also tme in Judaism. God's Kingdom was God's overall sovereign mle. He never ceased to be the God whose kingly providence ulti mately superintended all existence. Furthermore, God's rale could always and everywhere be known through the Law; and God would act to establish his Kmgdom at tiie end of the age. Jesus' proclamation of the presence of the Kingdom means that God has become redemptively active in history on behalf 1. T W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1935), 211.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

of his people. This does not empty die eschatological aspect of the Kingdom of its content, for the God who was acting in history in the person and mission of Jesus will agam act at the end of the age to manifest his glory and saving power. Both the present and fumre display God's Kingdom, for both present and future are the scene of the redemptive acting of God. The Seeking

God

This thesis is supported by a study of the particular concept of God found in Jesus' teachings. Here we find a striking fact: the novel element in Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom is paralleled by a new element in his teachuig about God, namely, that God is the seeking God. We do not mean to suggest that it was Jesus' purpose to impart a new theoretical truth about God. God is one who is to be experienced, not a teaching to be imparted. This does not exclude the question of what concept of God is reflected in and through Jesus' teaching and ministry. In one sense the God of Judaism was not the God of the Old Testament. The God of the prophets was constantly active in history both to judge and to save his people; the God of Judaism had withdrawn from the evil world and was no longer redemptively working in history.^ One final redemptive act was expected at the end of the age; but meanwhile God stood aloof fi-om history. Jesus' message of the Kingdom proclaimed that God not only will finally act, but that God was now again acting redemptively in history. In fact, God had entered into history in a way and to a degree not known by the prophets. The fulfillment of the Old Testament promises was taking place; the messianic salvation was present; the Kingdom of God had come near. God was vishuig his people. In Jesus, God has taken the initiative to seek out the sinner, to bring the lost into the blessing of his reign. He was, in short, the seeking God. Some scholars interpret Jesus' view of the Kingdom along the lines of rabbinic thought, except that the role of the Law is replaced by Jesus' reUgious experience. The heart of the Kingdom of God was Jesus' inner experience of God as Father. His mission was to share this experience whh men and women. As people enter into Jesus' experience of God, the Kingdom of God, his rule, "comes" to tiiem. As increasingly large circles of people enter into this experi ence, God's Kingdom grows and is extended ui the world.' While there is an important element in this interpretation that must be preserved, it is inadequate because it overlooks the dynamic character of the Kingdom of God. At the very heart of our Lord's message and mission was

2. See the essay by W. G. Kummel in Judaica 1 (1945), 40-68. Bultmann's way of expressing this same phenomenon is "The God of the future is not really God of the present" (Jesus and the Word [1934], 148). 3. a. H. E. W. Turner, Jesus Master and Lord (1953), 256-60.

The God of the Kingdom

embodied the reality of God as seekmg love. God was no longer waking for the lost to forsake their sins; God was seeking out the sinner. The fact was embodied in Jesus' own mission. When he was criticized by the Pharisees for violating their standards of righteousness and associating with sinners, he replied that it was his mission to mmister to smners (Mk. 2:15-17). It is those who know they are sick who need a physician. Jesus must bring the savuig good news of the Kingdom to such sinners. He does not deny that they are sinners, nor does he make light of their guilt. Rather he points to their need and ministers to it. The great tmth of God seeking out the sinner is set forth at length in Luke 15 in three parables given to silence the criticism that Jesus welcomed sinners to the mtimacy of table fellowship. He said that it was the divine purpose to search out the sheep that had strayed; to seek the com that had been lost; to welcome the prodigal into the family even though he did not merit forgiveness. In each parable there is a divine initiative: the shepherd searches for sheep; the woman sweeps the house for the coin; the father longs for the prodigal's retum. The central character in the parable of the "prodigal son" is not the son but the longing father. The parable illush-ates primarily not the prodigality of humankind but the love and grace of God. Jewish scholars admh that this concem for the sinner was something new. Abrahams insists that Pharisaism taught that God was always ready to take the first step; yet he admhs that the uihiative was usually left to the sinner to mm to God.* Montefiore recognizes that the "greatness and originality" of Jesus opened "a new chapter ui men's attitudes towards sm and sinners" because he sought out sinners rather than avoidmg them.* This concem for shiners is something entirely unheard of in Judaism and contrasts strikingly with such sentiments as those expressed in 4 Ezra (= 2 Esd.), where the author, grieving over the small number of the righteous, is told, "For indeed I will not concem myself about the fashioning of those who have sinned, or about their death, their judgment, or their destmction; but I will rejoice over the creation of the righ teous, over their pilgrimage also, and theh salvation" (8:38f). The heart of the "good news" about the Kingdom is that God has taken the initiative to seek and to save that which was lost. The Inviting God The God who seeks is also the God who uivites. Jesus pictured the eschatological salvation in terms of a banquet or feast to which many guests were invited (Mt.

4.1. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (First Series, 1917), 58. 5. C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels (1927), 1:55. The validity of Montefiore's observation stands even though his view that Jesus looked upon these sinners as the children of God is to be questioned. It is not because people are God's children that Jesus sought out the sinner, but because God would make them his children.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

22:lff.; Lk. I4:16ff.; cf. Mt. 8:11). Against this background we may understand the frequent table fellowship between Jesus and his followers as an acted parable representing an offer of and summons to the blessings of the Kingdom of God.* Table fellowship to the Jew was a most intunate relationship, and it played an important role in Jesus' ministry (Mk. 2:15). The Pharisees were offended because he ate with shiners (Lk. 15:2). He was called "a glutton and a dmnkard, a friend of tax collectors and smners" (Mt. 11:19). The word "call" means invite. "To invite sinners to the Great Banquet of the Kingdom was precisely the Lord's mission."^ Jesus called people to repentance, but the summons was also an invitation. In fact, the character of Jesus' summons to repentance as invitation sets his call apart from the Jewish teaching. In Judaism, the doctrine of repentance held a place of greatest unportance, for it was one of the means by which salvation was to be obtained.* Repentance was understood largely in terms of the Law and meant, negatively, breaking off evil works and offenses against the Law and, positively, obedience to die Law as the expression of the divine will. The "yoke of the Law" could also be called the "yoke of repentance." The order of events is: a person repents, God forgives. The human action must precede the divme. "According to Jewish teaching, tiie forgiveness of sins depends upon the smner, for there is no question of a mediator."' Jesus' demand for repentance was not merely a summons to men and women to forsake their sms and to tum to God; it was rather a call to respond to the divine invhation and was conditioned by this uivitation, which was itself nothing less than a gift of God's Kmgdom. This distinguished Jesus' call to repentance from that of John the Baptist. John called upon people to forsake their sms in view of the coming day of judgment; Jesus called on them to accept an invitation.'" Jesus' message of the Kingdom of God is the announcement by word and deed that God is actuig and manifesting dynamically his redemptive will in history. God is seeking out sinners; he is inviting them to enter into the messianic blessing; he is demanding of them a favorable response to his gracious offer. God has again spoken. A new prophet has appeared, indeed one who is more than a prophet, one who brings to people the very blessing he promises. The Fatherly God God is seeking out sinners and inviting them to submit themselves to his reign that he might be their Father. An inseparable relationship exists between the 6. Cf. G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (1960), 81. 7. A. E. J. Rawlinson, Mark (1925), 20. 8. See W. O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (1907), 245ff.; G. F. Moore, Judaism, 1:507-34. Moore describes repentance as "the Jewish doctrine of salvation" (500). 9. Oesterley and Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, 247. 10. See G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 82f,

The God of the Kmgdom

Kingdom of God and his Fatherhood; and it is particularly notable that this affinity between the two concepts appears most frequently in an eschatological setting. In the eschatological salvation, the righteous will enter into the Kingdom of their Father (Mt. 13:43). It is the Father who has prepared for the blessed this eschatological inheritance of the Kingdom (Mt. 25:34). It is the Father who will bestow upon Jesus' disciples the gift of the Kingdom (Lk. 12:32). The highest gift of God's Fatherhood is participation in God's sovereignty, which is to be exercised over all the world. In that day Jesus will enjoy a renewed fellowship with his disciples m the Father's Kingdom (Mt. 26:29). Suice the greatest joy of children of God is that of sharing the blessings of the Kingdom, Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Our Father who art m h e a v e n . . . thy kingdom come" (Mt. 6:9, 10). Cleariy kingship and Fatherhood are closely related con cepts." These eschatological sayings illustrate one important fact about God's Fatherhood. It is a blessing and a relationship that cannot be enjoyed by all people but only by those who enter the eschatological Kingdom. The concept of Fatherhood is quaUfied by that of the Kingdom. It is as the Father that God will grant women and men entrance into the eschatological Kingdom; and it follows that those who do not enter that Kingdom will not enjoy the relationship to God as their Father. The gift of Fatherhood belongs not only to the eschatological consumma tion; it is also a present gift. Furthermore, the future blessing of the Kingdom is dependent upon a present relationship. This is shown from the fact that Jesus taught his disciples to call God their Father and to look upon hun as such. But even in this present relationship, Fatherhood is inseparable from the Kingdom. Those who know God as their Father are those for whom the highest good in life is the Kingdom of God and its righteousness (Mt. 6:32, 33; Lk. 12:30). This raises the important question of the source and nature of Jesus' teaching about the Fatherhood of God. The concept has its roots in the Old Testament where Fatherhood is a way of describing the covenant relationship between God and Israel. Israel is God's firstbom son because of this covenant (Exod. 4:22). God is therefore frequendy conceived of as the Father of the nation (Deut. 32:6; Isa. 64:8; Mai. 2:10). This is not a relationship that is grounded in namre,'2 but was created by the divine initiative. Although God was the Father of the nadon as a whole, when Israel became fahhless, God's Fatherhood was limited to the faithful remnant of the righteous within Israel (Ps. 103:13; Mai. 3:17). In the postcanonical literature, God's Fatherhood was particularly stressed with reference to the individual (Sir. 23:1; Wisd. Sol. 2:16). The full meaning of Fatherhood is eschatological and will be experienced in the Kingdom of God

11. G. Schrenk, TDNT 5:995. 12. Paul has a doctrine of God's universal Fatherhood resting upon the fact of creation (Acts 17:28-29), which represents a different line of thought.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

(Ps. Sol. 17:30; Jub. 1:24). In the rabbinical literature, the Fatherhood of God is an ethical relationship between God and Israel." The old liberal view of the Kmgdom of God seized upon this concept of Fatherhood in Jesus' teaching and made it the determinative theme, interpretmg it in universal terms. Jesus allegedly took up the Jewish teaching of God's Father hood, deepened and enriched it, extendmg h to all people. God is Father to all because he is perfect in love, and love is the sum of all his moral perfections. God is the universal Father because he always remains what he ought to be.'* Recent criticism has recognized that "in spite of what is commonly sup posed, there is no ground whatever for asserting that Jesus taught a doctrme of 'the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of m a n . ' " " Two facts emerge from a study of the termmology. (1) Jesus never grouped himself together with his disciples as children of God. The usage in John 20:17 is only more explich than that in the Synoptics: "I am ascendmg to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." Jesus is the messianic son, but not in the same way that his disciples are children of God. (2) Jesus never called anyone but his disciples chddren of God. People became children of God by recognizing his messianic sonship.'* A universal Fatherhood of God has been seen in Jesus' saying, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so diat you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Mt. 5:44f). This saying has been interpreted to mean that love for one's enemies is required because God is the universal Father and Jesus' disciples must love all people because God loves all people as his children. This mterpretation reads something into the saying. Actually, God is viewed only as the Father of Jesus' disciples. The goodness of God in sending rain to all, good and evil alike, is not to be confused with the divme Fatherhood. The same exegesis should lead to the conclusion that God is also the Father of all creatures. "Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into bams, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them" (Mt. 6:26). It is not as Father that God cares for the birds, and it is not as Father that God bestows his creaturely blessuigs on those who are not his children. The Fatherhood of God belongs to those who have responded to the divine seeking love and have submitted themselves to God's Kingdom. God seeks people, not because he is then Father, but because he would become their Father. The universal Fatherhood of God has also been seen in the parable of the 13. See T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 89-92. 14. W. Beyschlag, Arr77ieo/ogy (1895), l:79ff.;T.Rees,"God,"/SB£(1929),2:1260ff.; G. H. Gilbert, "Father," DCG l:580ff. See H. W. Montefiore in NTS 3 (1956), 31-46. 15. H. F D. Sparks in Studies in the Gospels (D. E. Nineham, ed., 1955), 260. 16. For this teaching of "limited sonship" see H. F. D. Sparks in Studies in the Gospels, 241-62; G. S. Duncan, Jesus Son of Man (1949), 43-45; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 98, 102; J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (1967), 43; C. F D. Moule, "Children of God," IDB 1:560.

The God of the Kingdom

prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-24). The prodigal has been interpreted to teach that every person is by nature a child of God and needs only to return where he or she belongs. This ignores the fact that a parable is a story drawn from daily life whose purpose is to set forth a basic truth and whose details cannot be pressed. It is improper exegesis to say that this parable teaches that people are by nature children of God just as it would be to say that dumb beasts (Lk. 15:1-7) are children of God. The central tmth of all three parables is that of the yearning God. God is like one who seeks lost sheep, who searches for a lost coin, who longs for the remm of a prodigal. This is a parable about the Father, not about the son. The one element all three parables embody about the lost is belonging — the lost sheep belongs in the fold; the lost coin belongs in the housewife's possessions; the son belongs in his father's house. Humankind's proper place is in the house of the Father. This certainly teaches the potential universal Fatherhood of God but not an actual Fatherhood. While the son was in the strange land, his sonship was an empty thmg, void of content. However, he belonged in the Father's house; and "when he came to himself," he retumed where he belonged. So is God not only willing but longing to receive all who will come to themselves and mm to the Father, that they may enter mto the enjoyment of the Father's blessings. The meaning of God as Father has been investigated by Jeremias. It is clear that Jesus used the Aramaic word 'abba' to address God, and also taught his disciples to do so. This Aramaic form of address appears in Greek clothing in the epistles (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The word 'abba' was taken from children's speech, and is something like our "Daddy." The Jews did not ordinarily use this word in their address to God, for it was too intimate and would have seemed disrespectful. Jesus spoke to God like a child and taught his disciples so to speak. He forbade them to use "Father" in everyday speech as a courtesy tide (Mt. 23:9); they were to reserve it for God. 'Abba' represents the new relationship of confidence and indmacy imparted to men and women by J e s u s . " The Judging

God

While God seeks the sinner and offers him or her the gift of the Kingdom, he remams a God of retributive righteousness to those who reject the gracious offer. His concem for the lost does not dissipate the divine holiness into a benign kindluiess. God is seeking love, but he is also holy love. He is the heavenly Father. His name is to be hallowed (Mt. 6:9). Therefore those who reject the offer of his Kingdom must stand under his judgment. Indeed, the very fact that God is seekmg love throws humanity into a predicament. People must respond to this overmre of love; otherwise a greater condenmation awaits them. Bultmaiui speaks of God as one who has come near 17. J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, 57-61.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

to people as "the Demander."'* When confronted by Jesus a person stands before God and must make a decision. The outcome will be either the salvation of the Kingdom or judgment. This note of retributive righteousness sounds repeatedly in Jesus' procla mation of the Kingdom. In the preaching of the Baptist, the coming of the eschatological Kingdom will mean salvation for the righteous but fiery judgment for the unrighteous (Mt. 3:12). Jesus taught the same thuig. The obverse of inherhing the Kingdom will be to suffer the punishment of everlasting fire (Mt. 25:34,41). To those who refused to enter the Kingdom and who tried to prevent others from entering (Mt. 23:13), Jesus said, "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape the sentence of hell?" (Mt. 23:33). The power of the Kingdom was present and active in Jesus to dehver people from bondage to evil, and God not only offers free forgiveness to the penitent but even seeks out the sinner to bring him or her to himself. When one has become so bluid as to be unable to distmguish between the power of God's Kingdom and the working of the devil but thinks that the Kingdom of God is demonic, diat person can never be forgiven, but is guilty of an etemal sm (Mk. 3:29). A fearful doom awaits those who try to mm believers away from the Kingdom of God (Mt. 18:6). The great tmth of God as seeking love does not nullify the righteousness and justice of God. The meaning of God's Kingdom is both salvation and judgment. This eschatological judgment of God's Kingdom is in pruiciple decided in Jesus' mission among human beings. As people reject Jesus and his procla mation, their eschatological doom is determuied (Mk. 8:38; Mt. 10:32-33). When Jesus' disciples vished various cities proclaimmg the Kingdom and were re jected, they were to wipe the dust from their feet in an acted parable of judg m e n t , " and their announcement "Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near" becomes a threat instead of a promise. Fearful judgment awaits such a town. Jesus also pronounced judgment upon cities where he had preached and performed the works of the Kingdom: Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum (Mt. 11:20-24; Lk. 10:13-15). The nature of the judgment pronounced on Capernaum is not altogether clear. Luke (10:14) like Matthew (11:22) describes the judgment that will befall Chorazin and Bethsaida in eschatological terms. But both Luke (10:15) and Matthew (11:23) speak of Capernaum's judgment ui less eschato logical terms, sayuig merely that this proud city, which was the center of Jesus' Galilean ministry and had heard the message of the Kingdom repeatedly, would 18. Der Fordemde; cf. R. Bultmann, Theology (1951), 1:24. 19. This gesture in rabbinic thought indicated that the persons concerned were thereafter to be viewed as heathen and all intercourse broken off (Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 1:581). The context of the act seems to suggest that the towns concerned would be forever after aliens to the Kingdom of God and would be no part of the true Israel, the "sons of the kingdom" who accept it. Theirs would be judgment instead of blessing.

The God of the Kingdom

be brought down to Hades. Even though Matthew adds an eschatological note (Mt. 11:24), h is evident that he understood this saying to refer to a judgment in history, for he adds that if the works of the ICingdom seen in the streets of Capernaum had been performed in Sodom, "it would have remained until this day" (Mt. 11:23). In this judgment of Capernaum, Jesus uses the taunt song directed against Babylon in Isaiah 14:13-15, even though he does not quote it direcdy.20

Here is an unportant note recorded by both Matthew and Luke: the judgment for rejecting the Kingdom occurs in history as well as at the eschatological day. Capernaum, which was lifted up with worldly pride, would be dragged down to the lowest level of shame. Capemaum would suffer the same fate as Sodom: extinction. Here is the relevance of the allusion to Isaiah 14: Capemaum, like Babylon, would be dragged down to ruin. Jesus, like the prophets, could view the divine visitation for judgment in historical as well as eschatological terms. The destmction of Capemaum would be the judgment of the Kingdom of God. This is not the only time Jesus spoke of judgment in historical terms. A number of sayings pronounce judgment upon Jemsalem and its inhabitants for their spiritual blindness and failure to recognize the proffered messianic salva tion. Jesus wept over Jemsalem because it had rejected the offer of the Kingdom (Mt. 23:37-39; Lk. 13:34-35). The metaphor of a hen gadiering her brood is drawn from the Old Testament (Deut. 32:11; Ps. 17:8; 36:7); and the Jew who converts a Gentile is said to bring him or her under the wings of the Shekinah (the presence of God).2i "The sense is the quite simple one of bringing men into the Kingdom of God."22 Rejection of this invitation will mean that "your house is forsaken and desolate." It is not clear whether "your house" refers to the temple or to the Jewish commonweahh, but the sense is the same, for the temple and the Jewish commonwealth stand and fall together. Because the offer of the Kingdom has been rejected, Jemsalem, which the Jews expected to be the capital of the redeemed worid, and the temple, the only sanctuary of humankind, are to be forsaken by God and to become a desolation. This idea is repeated in Luke 19:41-44. Jesus wept over Jemsalem because she did not recognize "the time of your visitation." In this word (episkope) is reflected the prophetic idea of the God who comes to visit his people.^' In this saying, God has graciously vished Jemsalem in the mission of Jesus to brmg peace. The Kingdom of God had drawn near to Israel in grace and mercy. But Israel rejected the offer of mercy and chose the road that led to disaster.^* The catastrophe is an historical visitation bringing death and destmction to the city. 20. F. V. Filson, Matthew (1960), 141; T. W. Manson, Sayings, 77. 21. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 1:943. 22. T. W. Manson, Sayings, 127. 23. Episkope is used in the LXX in this sense in such passages as Isa. 10:3; 23:17; 24:22; 29:6. 24. T. W. Manson, Sayings, 321f.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

We do not need to survey other sayings about the historical judgment that is to overtake Jemsalem (Lk. 21:20-24; 23:27-31) and the temple (Mk. 13:2; cf. 14:58; 15:29). Wilder is right when he says that Jesus can look at the future in two different ways. He can describe the coming visitation sometimes ui terms of an imminent historical catastrophe and sometimes as an apocalyptic transcen dental event.25 Both the historical and die eschatological are divine vishations bringing upon Israel judgment for havmg rejected the Kingdom of God. God has once again become active in history. He has visited his people in the mission of Jesus to bring them the blessings of his Kmgdom. But when the offer is spumed, a visitation of judgment wUl follow: both a judgment in history and an eschatological judgment at the end. Both are judgments of God's kingly rale.

25. A. N. Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus (1950), ch. 3.

7. The Mystery of the Kingdom

For bibliography see: W. S. Kissinger, The Parables of Jesus (1979). Literature: C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kmgdom (1936); W. O. E. Oesterley, The Gospel Parables in the Light of the Jewish Background (1936); O. Piper, "The Mystery of the Kingdom of God," Int 1 (1947), 183-200; C. E. B. Cranfield, "St. Mark 4:1-34," SJTh 4 (1951), 398-414; 5 (1952), 49-66; N. A. Dahl, "The Parables of Growth," StTh 5 (1951), 132-66; A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables (1960); M. Black, "The Par ables as Allegory," BJRL 42 (1960), 273-87; H. N. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (1963), 121-35; R. Schnackenburg, God's Rule and Kingdom (1963), 143-59; 1. H. Marshall, Eschatology and the Parables (1963); G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (1964), 214-38; E. Linnemann, Jesws of the Parables: Introduction arui Exposition (1966); D. O. Via, The Parables (1967); R. E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term Mystery in the NT(1968); A. M. Hunter, The Parables Then and Now (1971); J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (rev. ed., 1972); C. E. Carlston, The Parables of the Triple Tradition (1975); J. C. Little, "Parable Research in the Twentieth Century," ET 87 (1976), 356-60; L. Sabourin, "Parables of the Kingdom," BTB 6 (1976), 115-60; S. J. Kistemaker, The Parables ofJesus (1980); P R. Jones, "The Modem Study of Parables," SWJT22 (1980), 7-22; J. Lambrecht, Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus (1981); R. Stein, An Introduction to die Parables of Jesus (1981); P. Ricoeur, "The 'Kingdom' in the Parables of Jesus," ATR 63 (1981), 165-69; K. E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant and Through a Peasant's Eyes {198^); R. Bauckham, "Synoptic Parables Again," ATO 29 (1983), 129-34; R. H. Stein, "The Parables of Jesus in Recent Study," WW 5 (1985), 248-57; B. Gerhardsson, "The Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels: A Comparison with the Narrative Meshalim in the OT," NTS 34 (1988), 339-63; D. Wenham, The Parables of Jesus (1989); B. Scott, Hear then the Parables: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (1989); C. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (1990); B. Gerhardsson, "If We Do Not Cut the Parables Out of Their Frames," NTS 37 (1991), 321-35.

Our central thesis is that the Kingdom of God is the redemptive reign of God dynamically active to establish his mle among human beings, and that this Kingdom, which will appear as an apocalyptic act at the end of the age, has already come into human history in the person and mission of Jesus to overcome 89

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

evil, to deliver people from its power, and to bring them into the blessings of God's reign. The Kingdom of God involves two great moments: fulfillment whhin history, and consummation at the end of history. It is precisely this background which provides the setting for the parables of the Kingdom. Canons of

Interpretation

Modem critical study has posited two canons for interpreting the parables that are necessary for a correct historical understanding. The first of these was enunciated by Jiilicher, who established the essential principle that parables must not be interpreted as though they were allegories.' An allegory is an artificial story created by the author as a teaching medium. Since the details of an allegory are under the control of the author, it can be structured so that every detail bears a distinct and important meaning. A simple allegory is the story of the thistle and the cedar in 2 Kings 14:9-10. A parable is a story drawn from everyday life to convey a moral or religious tmth. Because the author does not create the story and therefore does not have control over the details, they are often of little importance to the tmth conveyed by the story. A parable is designed to convey essentially a single tmth rather than a complex of tmths. This principle can be clearly demonstrated in the parable of the unjust steward (Lk. 16:1-13). If the details are pressed, this parable teaches that clev erness is better than honesty; but this is obviously impossible. Such details as ninety-nine sheep (Lk. 15:4) and ten coins (Lk. 15:8) carry no particular signif icance. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the allegorical meaning of the robbers, the priest and the Levite, the significance of oil and wine, the reason for two coins, the meaning of Jemsalem, Jericho, and the hotel are no more to be sought than is the identity of the donkey. We must therefore seek in each of the parables of the Kingdom a central truth. The second canon of criticism is that the parables must be understood in the historical life setting of Jesus' ministry and not in the life of the church. This means that it is not a sound historical approach to understand the parables as prophecies of the working of the gospel in the world or of the future of the church. Exegesis of the parables must be carried out in terms of Jesus' own mission in Palestine. This admission should not blind us to the fact that if analogies exist between Jesus' mission and the role of the word and the church in the world, important, even necessary, applications of the parables may be made to the later situation. However, we are here concerned to try to find the historical meaning of the parables in Jesus' ministry. Jiilicher's method was defective at this point because he found in the parables religious tmths of general and universal application. Recent scholarship, especially the work of C. H. Dodd, has shown that the Sitz im Leben ("life setting") 1. A. Julicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (1910).

The Mystery of the Kingdom

of the parables is Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Jeremias considers this to be a breakthrough of historical criticism that introduced a new era in the interpretation of the parables.^ However, he criticizes Dodd's one-sided emphasis that resulted in a contraction of eschatology, emptying it of its futuristic content. Jeremias proposes to correct Dodd's conclusions while accepting his method; and he attempts to discover the original message of the parables by recovering their primitive historical form. Jeremias suggests "an eschatology in process of realiza tion."' Jesus' mission inaugurated an eschatological process that he expected would shortly carry through to its eschatological consummation. The early church dissolved this single process into two events, and in so doing applied to the parousia parables that originally had a noneschatological meaning. However, Jeremias goes too far in taking as his main presupposition that the original meaning of the parables can be recovered only in terms of what they must have meant to Jesus' Jewish hearers. This assumes that the proper life setting of the parables is Judaism, not the teachings of Jesus. This tends to limit the originality of Jesus. We must make allowance for the possibility that his teachings transcended Jewish ideas. Therefore the proper life setting of the parables is Jesus' teachings, not Judaism. The Mystery of the

Kingdom

The parables as they stand are susceptible to an adequate historical interpretation in terms of the life settuig of Jesus without the assumption of such a radical transformation as Jeremias assumes. The historical Sitz im Leben of the parables is summed up in the single word "mystery." Mark summarized the message of the Kingdom parables by reporting the words of Jesus to his disciples: "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they mrn again, and be forgiven" (Mk. 4:11-12). The mystery of the Kingdom is the coming of the Kingdom into history in advance of its apocalyptic manifestation. It is, in short, "fulfillment without consummation." This is the single truth illustrated by the several parables of Mark 4 and Matthew 13." While the word mysterion is found in the Old Testament in Daniel, the idea of God disclosing his secrets to human beings is a familiar Old Testament concept.* In Daniel is found the background of the New Testament use of the word. God granted a dream to the king that was meaningless to him and whose meaning could 2. The Parables of Jesus (1963), 21. 3. Jeremias' words are "sich realisierende Eschatologie." See Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (1947), 114; The Parables of Jesus, 230. 4. Mt. 13:11 and Lk. 8:10 speak of the "mysteries" of the Kingdom. Mark's wording suggests a single truth, the others a truth embodied in several aspects. Cf. O. Piper in Int 1 (1947), 183-200. 5. R. E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term "Mystery" (1968), 1-30.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

be recognized only by revelation through a vision given to Daniel, God's inspired servant. The dream had to do with the mystery of God's eschatological purpose.* The concept of mystery (raz) also appears in the Qumran literature. To the Teacher of Righteousness, "God made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets."^ This means that God has given special illumina tion to the Teacher of Righteousness to find m the prophetic Scriptures dieir tme and hidden meaning. These mysteries have to do both with the events the Qumran community expected to occur in the endtime* and with the "divine unfathomable unalterable" decisions of God.' There is ample background for the idea of mystery in the Old Testament and in Jewish literature. While the term enters upon a new career in the New Testament, it is not altogether novel but further develops the idea found in Daniel. Paul understood "mysteries" to be revealed secrets, divine purposes hidden from humanity for long ages but finally disclosed by revelation to all people (Rom. 16:25-26). A mystery is not something esoteric, proclaraied only to the initiated. Mystery designates "the secret thoughts, plans, and dispensations of God which are hidden from the human reason, as well as from all other comprehensions below the divine level, and hence must be revealed to those for whom they are intended."'" However, the mystery is proclaimed to all even though it is understood only by diose who believe. All are summoned to faith; only those who respond really understand. This interpretation of mystery reinforces the view of the Kingdom of God supported in this study. The mere fact that God proposes to bring in his Kingdom is no secret; practically every Jewish apocalyptic writing reflects that expectation in one form or another. Those who follow Schweitzer's Consistent Eschatology quite fail to do justice to this fact. That the Kingdom was to come in apocalyptic power was no secret; it was affirmed also by orthodox Jewish theology. The mystery is a new disclosure of God's purpose for the establishment of his Kingdom. The new tmth, now given to men and women by revelation in the person and mission of Jesus, is that the Kingdom that is to come finally in apocalyptic power, as foreseen in Daniel, has in fact entered into the world in advance in a hidden form to work secretly within and among human beings." 6. G. Bornkamm, TDNT AMA. 7. Commentary on Habakkuk 7:1-5. The passages have been collected by E. Vogt in Biblica 37 (1956), 247-57. See also R. E. Brown, SemUic Background, 1-30; Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran (1963), 60-67. 8. See F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (1959), 16, 66f. 9. J. Licht, Israel Exploration Journal 6 (1956), 7-8. 10. BAGD, 530. 11. Essentially this view is held by Flew, Cranfield, Piper, and W. Manson {Jesus the Messiah [1946], 60). N. A. Dahl {StTh 5 [1952], 156f.) finds this tmth in the parables but discounts the validity of Mk. 4:11. J. Jeremias, Parables, 16: "a particular revelation, namely, the recognition of its present irruption." For the problem in Mk. 4:12, see Jesus and the Kingdom, 222ff.

The Mystery of the Kingdom The Four Soils (Mt. 13:3-9,18-23

andparaUels)

The parable of the soils mvolves allegorical elements, but the authentichy of either the parable or the interpretation may not reasonably be rejected for this reason. There is no a priori ground for assuming that Jesus could not have employed allegorical p a r a b l e s . H o w e v e r , this is not a tme allegory, for the details are quite secondary to the central teaching of the parable. There are four kinds of soil, only one of which is fmitful. The message of the parable would not be affected in the least if there were only two kinds of soil, or if there were three, or six. Neither would the message be affected if the three unfmitful soils were unfmitful for entirely different reasons than those illustrated. Some seed might be washed away by an unseasonable cloudburst. Tender shoots of grain might be cmshed under the feet of a careless passer-by. Some seeds might be devoured by rodents. Such details would not affect the central message: the Kingdom of God has come into the world to be received by some but rejected by others. The Kingdom is in the present to have only partial success, and this success is dependent on a human response. While the parable may have an application to the gospel m the world during the church age as older interpreters thought," this is not its historical meanuig. The Sitz im Leben of the parable is Jesus' announcement that the Kingdom of God had come among women and men. The Jews thought that the coming of the Kingdom would mean the exercise of God's mighty power before which no one could stand. The Kingdom of God would shatter the godless nations (Dan. 2:44). The dominion of wicked mlers would be destroyed and the Kingdom be given to the saints of the Most High, that all nations should serve and obey them (Dan. 7:27). In apparent disagreement with the Old Testament promises, which were elaborated in great detail in the contemporary apocalyptic expectations, Jesus said that the Kingdom had indeed come upon humankind, but not for the purpose of shattering evil. It is now attended by no apocalyptic display of irresistible power. Rather, the Kingdom in its present working is like a farmer sowmg seed. It does not sweep away the wicked. In fact, the word in which the Kingdom is proclaimed may lie like seed on the roadside and never take root; or h may be superficially received only to die; or it may be choked by the cares of the age, which is hostile to the Kingdom of God. The Kmgdom is working quietiy, secretly among people. It does not force itself upon them; it must be willingly received. But wherever it is received, the word of the Kingdom, which is practically identical with the Kingdom itself,'" 12. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, SJTh 4 (1951), 405-12, for a detailed study of the authenticity of the parable. 13. See the standard studies by Trench, A. B. Bruce, and M. Dods. See also A. Plummer, Mark (1914), 125; N. Geldenhuys, Luke (1950), 240f. 14. For the presence of the Kingdom in Jesus' words, see G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 160ff.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

brings forth much fruit. There is no emphasis upon the harvest, either in the parable or in its interpretation. The single emphasis is upon the nature of the sowing: the present action of God's Kingdom and the response to it. The Tares (Mt. 13:24-30,

36-43)

The parable of the tares further illustrates the mystery of the Kingdom, i.e., hs hidden, unexpected presence in the world. At the outset we should note that there are details in the parable that do not bear any meaning in its interpretation. The identity of the servants is utterly irrelevant. The fact that the enemy goes away after sowing seeds is unimportant. The bundles into which the weeds are gathered is entirely local color. Similarly, the sleeping of the servants does not suggest negligence. This is only what workmen did after a hard day. In the same manner, nothing is to be made of the fact that the tares are gathered first before the gathering of the wheat. The interpretation of the parable that dominated the older Protestant scholarship sees an identification of the Kingdom with the church. The parable describes the state of things that is to exist in the Kingdom-church. When the Son of Man comes, he will gather out of his Kingdom all causes of offense and all evildoers (Mt. 13:41). This shows that the church contains both good people and evil, and that the Kingdom exists in the worid as the church before the final consummation." However, the parable says that the field is the world (v. 38), not the church. The coming of the Kingdom, as predicted in the Old Testament and in Jewish apocalyptic literature, would bring about the end of the age and inaugu rate the Age to Come, dismpting human society by the destruction of the unrighteous. Jesus affirms that in the midst of the present age, while society continues with hs intermixture of the good and the bad, before the coming of the Son of Man and the glorious manifestation of the Kingdom of God, the powers of that future age have entered into the world to create "sons of the kingdom," those who enjoy its power and blessings. The Kingdom has come, but society is not uprooted. This is the mystery of the Kingdom. The only real difficulty for this interpretation is the expression, "they [the angels] will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers" (Mt. 13:41). This language appears to distinguish between the Kingdom of the Son and the Kingdom of the Father. Does this not plainly indicate that the wicked are already in the Kingdom (perhaps in the church) before the eschatological consummation? Granted that at first sight such an interpretation suggests hself, it is by no means the only interpretation, nor is it a compelling one. There is no

15. Cf. N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (1944), 238. A similar view is found in B. F. C. Atkinson in The New Bible Commentary (F. Davidson et ai, eds., 1953), 790; and in the studies on the parables by A. B. Bruce, R. C. Trench, S. Goebel, and H. B. Swete.

The Mystery of the Kingdom

adequate warrant, from either the Gospels or the rest of the New Testament, to distinguish between the Kingdom of the Son of Man and the Kingdom of God.'* Furthermore, there are no sayings of Jesus where the Kingdom is clearly iden tified with the church; and such an identification ought not to be made here unless it is unavoidable. Neither the parable nor its interpretation requires this identification. The language of Matthew 13:41 cannot be pressed to mean that the evddoers who will be gathered "out of his kmgdom" have actually been in the Kingdom. It means no more than that they will be separated from the righteous so that they do not enter the Kingdom. This is supported by Matthew 8:12 where strangers will come from afar to enter the Kingdom of Heaven along with the patriarchs, while "the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness." The Greek word for "will be cast out" indicates that the Jews who by history and covenant were "sons of the kingdom" will be excluded from entering the King dom, not rejected after having once entered. So the statement that the evil are to be gathered "out of his kingdom" means no more than that they will be prevented from entering it. The meaning of the parable is clear when interpreted hi terms of the mystery of tiie Kingdom: its present but secret working in the world. The Kingdom has come into history but in such a way that society is not disrapted. The chddren of the Kingdom have received God's reign and entered into its blessings. Yet they must continue to live in this age, intermingled with the wicked in a mixed society. Only at the eschatological coming of the Kingdom will the separation take place. Here is indeed the revelation of a new tmth: that the Kingdom of God can actually come into the world, creating children who enjoy its blessings without effecting the eschatological judgment. However, this sep aration is sure to come. The Kingdom that is present but hidden in the world will yet be manifested in glory. Then there wiU be an end of the mixed society. The wicked will be gathered out and the righteous will shine like the sun in the eschatological Kingdom. The Mustard Seed (Mt. 13:31-32 and parallels) The parable of the mustard seed illustrates the tmth that the Kingdom, which one day will be a great tree, is already present in the world in a tiny, insignificant form. Many interpreters have seen in the parable a forecast of the growth of the church into a great institution." This interpretation is based on the identification 16. O. Cullmann in Christ and Time (1950), 151, and in The Early Church (A. J. B. Higgins, ed., 1956), 109ff., attempts to distinguish between the Kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of God. This may be a valid theological distinction, but it cannot be exegetically supported. See Eph. 5:5; Rev. 11:15; Jn. 3:5; Col. 1:13. 17. Cf. Trench, Goebel, and H. B. Swete on the parables; cf. also N. Geldenhuys, Luke, 37T, and B. F. C. Atkinson, The New Bible Commentary (F. Davidson et ai, eds., 1953), 790; H. Balmforth, Luke (1930), 227.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

of the Kingdom and the church,'* a view that we hold to be untenable. Other interpreters, whhout applying the parable to the church, find its meanmg m the growth of the circle of Jesus' disciples," who may be considered to be the new community.20 However, the quick-growing mustard plant is not an apt illustration of slow, gradual growth, if that is what was intended. An oak growing from an acorn would provide a much better illustration of this tmth (Amos 2:9). The majority of modem exegetes see the emphasis of the parable in the contrast between the tiny beginning and the large end,2' and this certainly lies at the heart of the parable. The mustard seed, while not actually die smallest seed known, was a proverbial illustration of smallness.22 The burning question faced by Jesus' disciples was how the Kingdom of God could actually be present in such an insignificant movement as that embodied in his ministry. The Jews expected the Kingdom to be like a great tree under which the nations would find shelter. They could not understand how one could talk about the Kingdom apart from such an all-encompassing manifestation of God's mle. How could the coming glorious Kingdom have anything to do with the poor little band of Jesus' disciples? Rejected by the religious leaders, welcomed by tax collectors and sinners, Jesus looked more like a deluded dreamer than the bearer of the Kingdom of God. Jesus' answer is, first the tiny seed, later the large tree. The smallness and relative insignificance of what is happening in his ministry does not exclude the secret presence of the very Kingdom of God.23 The Leaven (Mt. 13:33; Lk.

13:20-21)

The parable of the leaven^" embodies the same basic tmth as that of the mustard: that the Kingdom of God, which one day will mle over all the earth, has entered into the world in a form that is hardly perceptible. This parable is of particular interest because it has been used to prove diametrically different things. Many interpreters have found the central tmth in the slow but persistent process of permeation and penetration. The parable is thought to show how the Kingdom grows. On the one hand are those who find 18. Other interpreters who would deny that Jesus foresaw the church believe that this is in fact what the parable taught, and therefore the parable cannot be authentic. Cf C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels (1927), 1:107-8. 19. Cf. C. J. Cadoux, The Historic Mission of Jesus (n.d.), 113-14, 131; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1935), 113. 20. R. N. Flew, Jesus and His Church (1943), 27f. 21. Cf. W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment (1957), 131; A. E. Bamett, Under standing the Parables of Our Lord (1940), 55-57; B. T. D. Smith, The Parables of the SynopHc Gospels (1937), 120-21. 22. Cf. Mt. 17:20; Lk. 17:6. 23. N. A. Dahl, StTh 5 (1952), 147-48; Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 148. 24. This parable is missing in Mark, but it appears in Lk, 13:20 alongside the parable of the mustard seed.

The Mystery of the Kingdom

the truth that the Kingdom of God is destined to permeate all human society until all the world is transformed by a process of slow, gradual penetration and inner permeation.^* Some of these interpreters contrast the leavening character of tiie Kingdom with the apocalyptic view, to the detriment of the latter. On the other hand is the interpretation of so-called Dispensationalism, which interprets leaven as evil doctrine permeating an apostate Christian church.26 However, leaven in Hebrew and Jewish thought was not always a symbol of evil,^' and the concept of the Kingdom as a transforming power by slow, gradual penetration may be an attractive idea in a world familiar with concepts of progress and evolution, but it is foreign both to Jesus' mind and to Jewish thought. The interpretation that suits the historical setting of Jesus' ministry is that which sees the central tmth to lie in the contrast between the absurdly small bit of leaven and the great mass of more than a bushel of meal.^* It is tme that emphasis is placed on the fact that the entire mass of dough is leavened, not on tiie small size of the leaven.29 Here is the difference between this parable and the parable of the mustard seed. The latter teaches that the manifestation of the Kingdom, which will become like a great tree, is now like a tiny seed. The leaven teaches that the Kingdom will one day prevail so that no rival sovereignty exists. The entire mass of dough becomes leavened. This parable gains hs significance only when interpreted in the life setting of Jesus' ministry. The mighty, hresistible character of the eschatological King dom was understood by all Jews. The coming of the Kingdom would mean a complete change in the order of things. The present evil order of the world and of society would be utterly displaced by the Kingdom of God. The problem was that Jesus' ministry initiated no such transformation. He preached the presence of the Kingdom of God, but the world went on as before. How then could this be the Kingdom? Jesus' reply is that when a bit of leaven is put in a mass of meal, nothing 25. W. O. E. Oesterley, The Gospel Parables in the Light of Their Jewish Background (1936), 78; R. Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man (1943), 125; W. Manson, The Gospel of Luke (1930), 166. 26. The Scofield Reference Bible (1967), 1015; J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come (1958), 147. 27. Unleavened bread was prepared at the time of the Exodus because it symbolized haste (Exod. 12:11, 39; Deut. 16:3; cf. also Gen. 18:6; 19:3); leavened bread was offered at the Feast of Weeks (Lev. 23:17), elsewhere called the Feast of Harvest, and First Emits (Exod. 23:16), because it represented the ordinary daily food that God provided for human sustenance. See O. T. Allis, EQ 19 (1947), 269ff. I. Abrahams (Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospel [First Series, 1917], 51-53) shows that leaven did not always symbolize evil in rabbinic thought. 28. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 147; W. G. Kummel, Promise and Fulfilment, 131f.; A. H. McNeile, Matthew (1915), 199; A. E. Bamett, Understanding the Parables of Our Lord, 58-60. 29. H. Windisch, TDNT 2:905.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

seems to happen. In fact, the leaven seems quite engulfed by the meal. Eventually something does happen, and the result is the complete transformation of the dough.30 No emphasis is to be placed upon the way the transformation is accomplished. The idea of the Kingdom of God conquering the world by a gradual permeation and inner transformation was utterly foreign to Jewish thought. If this was Jesus' meaning, he certainly must have reiterated the tmth again and again, even as he did the unheard-of tmth that the Son of Man must die. The idea of gradualness is contradicted by the parables of the tares and the dragnet where the Kingdom comes by apocalyptic judgment and separation of evil rather than by its gradual transformation of the world. The emphasis of the parable lies in the contrast between the final, complete victory of the Kingdom when the new order comes, and the present, hidden form of that Kingdom as it has now come into the world. One would never guess Jesus and his small band of disciples had anything to do with the future, glorious Kingdom of God. However, that which is now present in the world is indeed the Kingdom itself. This is the mystery, the new tmth about the Kingdom. How or when the future Kingdom will come is no part of the parable. The Treasure and the Pearl (Mt.

13:44-46)

We need not tarry long over the parables of the treasure and the peari. The identity of the man or of the field, as well as the contrast between the accidental discovery of the treasure and the purposeful search of the merchant, is not part of the message of the parables but only local color. We must admh that the conduct of the man who found the treasure involved a bu of sharp practice, but this belongs to the lifelike character of the parabolic form. People did things like this. Nor can any objection be made to the fact that in both parables the treasure and the pearl are acquired by purchase." The one thought in both parables is that the Kingdom of God is of inestimable value and is to be sought above all other possessions. If it costs one e^'erything one has, that is a small price in return for gaining the Kingdom. Thus stated, however, it is a truism. If there is no "mystery" of the Kingdom, Jesus here said no more than devout Jews believed already. They longed for the Kingdom of God. What gives these parables their point is the fact that the Kingdom had come among men and women in an unexpected way, in a form that might easily be overlooked and despised. To accept the "yoke of the Kingdom" and join the circle of the Pharisees in their utter devotion to the Law gave one great prestige in the eyes of the Jews.'^ The offer to lead an insurrection

30. Cf. N. A. Dahl, StTh 5 (1952), 148-49. 31. G. C. Morgan permitted this feature to determine his interpretation. This is a complete misunderstanding of the parabolic method (The Parables of the Kmgdom [1907], 136). 32. Cf. io^^\\\is. Antiquities 13.10.6.

The Mystery of the Kingdom

against Rome to establish the Kingdom could arouse an enthusiastic response." But to follow Jesus meant association with tax collectors and sinners. How could such an association have anything to do whh the Kingdom of God? These parables gain their central point from the fact that, contrary to every superficial evaluation, discipleship to Jesus means participation in the Kingdom of God. Present in the person, and work of Jesus without outward display or visible glory was the Kingdom of God itself. It is therefore a treasure worth more than all other possessions, a pearl exceeding all else in value. Every person should seek to gain possession of it at any cost. The Net (Mt. 13:47-50) In the final parable illustrating the mystery of the Kingdom, a net is dragged through the sea catching all kinds of fish. When the catch is sorted out, the good fish are kept and the bad discarded. The older interpretation saw in this parable a prophecy of the church. The Kingdom-church is to consist of a mixture of good and bad people who must be separated in the day of judgment.^" Other interpreters, while not insisting upon the church, see in the parable an identification of the Kingdom of God with a society of people that includes the good and the bad.'* This view has the weakness of failing to give due recognition to the historical setting of the parable in Jesus' ministry, and it involves an identification of the Kingdom with the church, for which clear exegetical support cannot be found. This parable is similar to that of the wheat and the weeds, but it adds another element. Both parables must be understood in terms of the life setting of Jesus' ministry, that the Kingdom has now come into the world without effecting this eschatological separation and is to work in a mixed society. The parable of the net adds this fact — that even the community created by the working of the Kingdom in the world is not to be a pure community until the eschatological separation. Historically, the parable answers the question of the strange character of Jesus' followers. He attracted tax collectors and sinners. In the popular expec tation, the coming of the Kingdom would mean not only that the Messiah would "destroy the godless nations with the words of his mouth; . . . and . . . reprove sinners for the thoughts of their hearts"; he would also "gather together a holy 33. See Acts 5:36-37; 21:38; Jn. 6:15; T. W. Manson, The Servant-Messiah (1953), 8. 34. Cf. Trench, Goebel, and Swete on the parables. In more recent writings, a similar view appears in B. F. C. Atkinson, The New Bible Commentary {¥. Davidson etal, eds., 1953), 790; N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, 238; H. Martin, The Parables of the Gospels (1937), 79. 35. W. O. E. Oesterley, The Gospel Parables in the Light of Their Jewish Background, 85: "Bad as well as good elements must exist in the kingdom during the period of its development." C. J. Cadoux, The Historic Mission ofJesus, emphasizes that here the Kingdom is clearly likened to a society (114).

100

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

people whom he shall lead in righteousness," "and there shall be no unrigh teousness in his days in their midst, for all shall be holy" (Ps. Sol. 17:28, 36). Jesus did not gather together such a holy people. On the contrary, he said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mk. 2:17). The invhation to the messianic feast was rejected by those who were invited and their places taken by loiterers in the streets (Mt. 22:1-10). How could the Kingdom of God have anything to do with such a strange fellowship? Is not the function of the Kingdom by definition to destroy all sinners and to create a sinless community? Jesus answers that the Kingdom will indeed one day create such a perfect community. But before this event an unexpected manifestation of God's King dom has occurred that is like a net gathering both good and bad fish. The invitation goes out to all kinds of people, and all who respond are accepted into present discipleship in the Kingdom. The perfect, holy community must await the last day.3* While the parable has an application to the church, which, as a later development of Jesus' disciples, is indeed a mixed people, its primary application is to the acmal situation in Jesus' ministry. The Seed Growing by Itself (Mk.

4:26-29)

Mark records a parable omitted by the other evangelists that illustrates the supemamral character of the Kingdom of God. We must be reminded that the parables are not allegories and that the details of the parables are not essential to their central message. The identity of the sower and the reaper should not constitute a problem, for the message of the parable has to do with the activity of the Kingdom and not with the identity of the sower. That a person sows seed means no more than that seed is sown. The sleeping and rising of the sower mean only that one cannot contribute to the life and growth of the seed. The element of growth has often been made the central tmth in the parable, and great significance has been seen in the stages of growth: the blade, the ear, and finally the full grain. This has been taken to illustrate the analogy between the namral world and the Kingdom of God. Just as there are laws of growth resident within namre, so there are laws of spirimal growth through which the Kingdom must pass until the tiny seed of the gospel has brought forth a great harvest. The interpretation of gradual growth has been espoused by representatives of many theological positions.^' However, three facts oppose this interpretation. In his nonparabolic teach ings, Jesus nowhere set forth the idea of gradualness and growth of the Kingdom. If this were an essential element in his teaching, he must have made it clear, 36. See N. A. Dahl, StTh 5 (1952), 150-51. 37. A. B. Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ (1882), 117ff.; H. B. Swete, The Parables of the Kingdom (1920), 16ff.; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Gospel Parables, 71; J. Orr, HDB 2:852-54; C. J. Cadoux, The Historic Mission of Jesus. 113-14; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 133; G. C. Morgan, The Parables and Metaphors of Our Lord (1943), 145ff.

The Mystery of the Kingdom

101

since the gradual growth of God's Kingdom was an utterly novel idea to firstcentury Jews. Second, the concept of sowmg and planting is frequently found in Christian and Jewish literamre but is never used to illustrate gradualness and development.'* Third, the metaphor of sowing and reaping is used in Christian literamre to illustrate the supernatural.'^ The clue to the meaning of the parable was discovered by the eschato logical school, although we feel that the consistent eschatological interpretation must be modified to fit the total context of Jesus' message. The Kingdom is seen as the eschatological event, which is utterly independent of all human effort. J. Weiss felt the parable taught that Jesus had nothing to do whh the coming of the Kingdom. He could not foresee it; only God could bring it. Humanity can do nothing but wah."" Many other interpreters have found the truth of the parable in the utter independence of the fumre eschatological harvest of all human activity."' This is certainly an indispensable tmth about the Kingdom. However, this interpretation is as one-sided as that of Realized Eschatology, for it neglects the central and unique element in Jesus' message — the presence of the Kingdom in his own mission. It fails therefore to relate Jesus' mmistry to the eschatological coming of the Kingdom except as an advance announcement. The most obvious difficulty whh a strictly fumristic interpretation is that it is colorless; no Jew needed to be told that the eschatological consummation of the Kingdom was a miracle. It could be nothing but a supematural act of God. It is not allegorizing to insist that there is in the parable a necessary relationship between sowing and harvest. In some sense or other, the ministry of Jesus involved the "seed" of the Kingdom that would one day come in fullness of harvest. The seed was being sown; a harvest would one day come. Both are manifestations of God's Kingdom. "The present hiddenness and ambiguousness of die Kingdom of God [will] be succeeded by hs glorious manifestation.""^ Here is the central tmth of the parable. Seedtime and harvest: both are the work of God. Both are essentially supemamral. The earth bears fmit of itself. The seed has resident whhin h powers that human beings do not place there and utterly transcend anything they can do. A person can sow the seed, but the Kingdom itself is God's deed. The supernatural character of the present Kingdom is confirmed by the words found in association with it. A number of verbs are used whh the Kingdom itself as the subject. The Kingdom can draw near to people (Mt. 3:2; 4:17; Mk. 38. See N. A. Dahl, StTh 5 (1952), 140-47, for references. 39. See 1 Cor. 15:35ff.; 2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7-8; 1 Qem. 24. Qement uses the phenom enon of growth in nature as a proof of the resurrection, which is altogether supematural. 40. J. Weiss, Die Schriften des NT (4th ed., 1929), l:115f. 41. a. W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment, 128f.; B. T. D. Smith, The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels, 129ff.; M. Dibelius, Jesus (1949), 66-67. 42. C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark (1959), 168.

102

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

1:15; etc.); it can come (Mt. 6:10; Lk. 17:20; etc.), arrive (Mt. 12:28), appear (Lk. 19:11), be active (Mt. 11:12). God can give the Kingdom to people (Mt. 21:43; Lk. 12:32), but they do not give the Kingdom to one another. Furthermore, God can take the Kingdom away from people (Mt. 21:43), but they do not take it away from one another, although they can prevent others from entering it. Men and women can enter the Kingdom (Mt. 5:20; 7:21; Mk. 9:47; 10:23; etc.), but they are never said to erect it or to build it. People can receive the Kingdom (Mk. 10:15; Lk. 18:17), inherit it (Mt. 25:34), and possess it (Mt. 5:4), but they are never to establish it. They can reject the Kingdom, i.e., refuse to receive it (Lk. 10:11) or enter it (Mt. 23:13), but they cannot destroy h. They can look for it (Lk. 23:51), pray for its coming (Mt. 6:10), and seek it (Mt. 6:33; Lk. 12:31), but they cannot bring it. People may be in the Kingdom (Mt. 5:19; 8:11; Lk. 13:29; etc.), but we are not told that the Kingdom grows. They can do things for the sake of the Kingdom (Mt. 19:12; Lk. 18:29), but they are not said to act upon the Kingdom itself. People can preach the Kingdom (Mt. 10:7; Lk. 10:9), but only God can give it to women and men (Lk. 12:32). The character of the Kingdom reflected in these expressions is summed up in a saying preserved in John's Gospel: "My basileia is not of this worid; if my basileia were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my basileia is not from the world" (Jn. 18:36). The RSV is correct in translating basileia "kingship." The source and the character of Jesus' Kingdom are of a higher order than this world; it comes from God and not from this worid. The Kingdom is the outworking of the divine will; it is the act of God himself. It is related to human beings and can work in and through them; but it never becomes subject to them. It remains God's Kingdom. It is significant that although people must receive the Kingdom, this individual human act of reception is not described as a coming of the Kingdom. The Kingdom does not come as men and women receive it. The ground of the demand that they receive the Kingdom rests in the fact that in Jesus the Kingdom has come into history. God has done a new thing. He has visited his people in Jesus' mission, bringing to them the messianic salvation. The divine act requires a human response even though it remains a divine act.

8. The Kingdom and the Church

Literature: G. Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church (1903); G. Johnston, The Church in the NT (1943), 46-58; R. N. Flew, Jesus and His Church (1943), 17-99; G. Lindeskog, "The Kingdom of God and the Church," in This Is the Church, ed. A. Nygren (1950), 136-47; K. E. Skydsgaard, "Kingdom of God and Church," SJTh 4 (1951), 383-97; O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple-Apostle-Martyr (1953); S. M. GUmour, "The Kingdom and the Church," Int 7 (1953), 26-33; P. S. Minear, Images of the Church in the NT (1961); D. H. Wallace, "An Exegesis of Matthew 16:13-20," Foundations 5 (1962), 217-25; L. E. Keck, "An Exegesis of Matthew 16:1320," Foundations 5 (1962), 226-37; R. O. Zom, Church and Kingdom (1962); H. Ridder bos, The Coming of the Kingdom (1%3), 334-96; R. Schnackenburg, God's Rule and Kingdom (1963), 215-48; G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (1964), 239-73; D. M. Stanley, "Kingdom to Church," The Apostolic Church in the NT {1961), 5-37; R. P Meye, Jesus and the Twelve (1968); R. Schnackenburg, The Church in the NT (1%8). One of the most difficult questions in the smdy of the Kingdom of God is h s relationship to the church. Is the Kingdom o f God in any sense of the word to be identified w h h the church? If not, what is the relationship? For Christians of the first three cenmries, the Kingdom was altogether eschatological. An early second-century prayer says, "Remember, Lord, Thy church, to . . . gather it together in its holiness from the four whids to thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for it."' Augustine identified the Kingdom of God with the church,^ an identification that continues in Catholic doctrine,' although Schnackenburg claims that the new Catholic concept conceives of the Kingdom in heilsgeschichtlichen ("salvation-historical") terms as the redemptive working of God through the church." A measure of identification between the Kingdom and the 1. Didache 10:5. See A. von Harnack, "Millennium," Encyclopedia Britannica (9th ed.), 16:328-29; D. H. Kromminga, The Millennium in the Church (1945). 2. City of God 20.6-\0. 3. D. M. Stanley in Theological Studies 10 (1955), 1-29. 4. God's Rule and Kingdom (1963), 116f. 103

104

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

church was perpetuated, though in a modified form, through the Reformed tradition* to recent times.* It is necessary to examine closely these two concepts to determine what relationship exists between them. Many scholars have denied that Jesus had any idea of creating a church. Alfred Loisy has given this viewpomt classic expression: Jesus foretold the Kingdom of God, but it was the church that came.' Amazingly, a view somewhat similar to this is that of Dispensationalism: Jesus offered Israel the earthly (millennial) Davidic kmgdom, but when they rejected it, he introduced a new purpose: to form the church.* In this view, there is no continuity between Israel and the church. We must therefore examine many facets of the problem. If Jesus' mission was, as we contend, that of inaugurating a time of fulfillment in advance of an eschatological consummation, and if in a real sense the Kingdom of God in his mission invaded history even though m an utterly unexpected form, then it follows that those who receive the proclamation of the Kingdom were viewed not only as the people who would inherit the eschato logical Kingdom, but as the people of the Kingdom in the present, and therefore, in some sense of the word, a church. We must first examine Jesus' attimde toward Israel, the concept of discipleship, and the relation of Israel and Jesus' disciples to the Kingdom of God. Then, against this background, we may discuss the meaning of the logion about foundhig the church. Jesus and Israel In this examination, several facts are crucial. First, Jesus did not undertake his ministry with the evident purpose of starting a new movement ehher widiin or outside of Israel. He came as a Jew to the Jewish people. He accepted the authority of the Old Testament, conformed to temple practices, engaged in synagogue worship, and throughout his life lived as a Jew. Although he oc casionally journeyed outside Jewish terrUory, he insisted that his mission was directed to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt. 15:24). He directed tiie mission of his disciples away from the Gentiles, commanding tiiem to preach only to Israel (Mt. 10:5-6). The reason for this is not difficult. Jesus took his stand squarely against the background of the Old Testament covenant and the promises of the prophets, and recognized Israel, to whom the covenant and the promises had been given, as the natural "sons of the kingdom" (Mt. 8:12). The saying about the lost sheep of the house of Israel does not mean that the Gentiles were not also lost but that only Israel was the people of God, and to them

5. 6. Parables 7. 8.

See Calvin on Mt. 13:47-50. See J. Orr, The Chrisnan View of God and the World (1897), 358; H. B. Swete, The of the Kingdom (1920), 31, 56. A. Loisy, The Gospel and the Church (1908), 166. See above, p. 57.

The Kingdom and the Church

105

therefore belonged the promise of the Kingdom. Therefore his mission was to proclaim to Israel that God was now acting to fulfill his promises and to bring Israel to its tme destiny. Because Israel was the chosen people of God, the age of fulfillment was offered not to die world at large but to the children of the covenant. The second fact is that Israel as a whole rejected both Jesus and his message about the Kingdom. It is trae that Jesus appealed to Israel to the very end, but il is most unlikely that he expected, to the end, to be accepted by the nation and to establish a kingdom of morality and righteousness that would have led the Jewish people to a moral conquest over Rome.' The reality of Jesus' disappointment and grief over Israel's rejection (Mt. 23:37ff.) and the prophecy of her destruction (Lk. 19:42ff.) do not demand the conclusion that Jesus failed to recognize at an early hour the reality and intransigence of her rejection. 10 While we may not be able to reconstract the exact chronology of events or to trace all the stages in Jesus' rejection because of the character of the Gospels, we can conclude that rejection is one of the early motifs in his experience. Luke deliberately placed the rejection at Nazareth at the beginning of his Gospel (Lk. 4:16-30; cf. Mk. 6:1-6) to sound the notes of messianic fulfillment and rejection by Israel early m Jesus' ministry." Mark pictures conflict and rejection from the beginning and records a saying that probably contains a veiled allusion to an expected violent end: "The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them" (Mk. 2:20). While the reasons for Jewish rejection of Jesus were complex, J. M. Robinson finds at the heart of the straggle between Jesus and the Jewish authorities their rejection of the Kingdom that Jesus proclaimed and of the repentance that proclamation demanded. 12 The proclamation of the Kmgdom and the call to repentance characterized Jesus' mission from the start, and it is therefore both psycholog ically and historically sound that opposition was early incurred, which grew in intensity until Jesus' death was accomplished. A third fact is equally unportant. While Israel as a whole, includuig both leaders and people, refused to accept Jesus' offer of the Kingdom, a substantial group did respond in faith. Discipleship to Jesus was not like discipleship to a Jewish rabbi. The rabbis bound their disciples not to themselves but to the Torah; Jesus bound his disciples to hhnself. The rabbis offered something outside of themselves; Jesus offered himself alone. Jesus required his disciples to surrender whhout reservation to his authority. They thereby became not only disciples but also douloi, "slaves" (Mt. 10:24f.; 24:45ff.; Lk. 12:35ff., 42ff.). This relationship 9. This is the thesis of R. Dunkerley, The Hope of Jesus (1953). 10. A. M. Hunter, The Works arui Words of Jesus (1950), 94. 11. N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Luke to Christ (1951), 70-76; N. Geldenhuys, Luke (1950), 170. 12. The Problem ofHistory in A/ar* (1957), 49. See also V. Taylor, The Life and Ministry of Jesus (1954), 89.

106

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

had no parallel in Judaism." Discipleship to Jesus involved far more than following in his retinue; it meant nothing less than complete personal commhment to him and his message. The reason for this is the presence of the Kingdom of God in Jesus' person and message. In him, people were confronted by God himself. It follows that if Jesus proclaimed the messianic salvation, if he offered to Israel the fulfillment of her tme destiny, then this destiny was actually accomplished in those who received his message. The recipients of the messianic salvation became the tme Israel, representatives of the nadon as a whole. While it is tme that the word "Israel" is never applied to Jesus' disciples, the idea is present, if not the term. Jesus' disciples are the recipients of the messianic salvation, the people of the Kingdom, the tme Israel. The Believing

Remnant

This concept of Jesus' disciples as the tme Israel can be understood against the background of the Old Testament concept of a faithful remnant. The prophets saw Israel as a whole as rebellious and disobedient and therefore destined to suffer the divine judgment. Still there remained whhin the faithless nation a remnant of believers who were the object of God's care. Here in the believmg remnant was the tme people of God. It is true that Jesus makes no explicit use of the remnant concept. However, is not the designation of the disciples as a "Ihde flock" (Lk. 12:32) an express reference to the Old Testament concept of Israel as the sheep of God's pasmre, now embodied in Jesus' disciples (Isa. 40:11)? Does this not suggest precisely the faithful remnant? This does not mean a separate fold.'" Israel is still ideally God's flock (Mt. 10:6; 15:24); but it is a disobedient, willful flock, "lost sheep." Jesus has come as the shepherd (Mk. 14:27; cf. Jn. 10:11) to "seek and to save the lost" (Lk. 19:10) in fulfillment of Ezekiel 34:15f., to rescue the lost sheep of Israel, to bring them into the fold of the messianic salvadon. Israel as a whole was deaf to the voice of her shepherd; but those who heard and followed the shepherd constimte his fold, the little flock, the true Israel. There are direct and explicit links between the image of the flock and the covenant community of Israel." While the saying in Luke 12:32 emphasizes the eschatological aspect of the Kingdom, Jesus' disciples will inherh the Kingdom because they are now his little flock. The shepherd has found them and brought them home (Lk. 13. K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT 4:441. 14. Jeremia.s is right in his insistence that Jesus refused to gather a separate remnant but extended the call to salvation to all Israel (ZNTW 42 [1949], 184-94). However, the prophets often think of a faithfiil remnant within the unfaithful nation, not separated from it. Campbell has pointed out that the remnant in the Old Testament is never identified with any special group or class, such as the Rechabites (J. C. Campbell, SJTh 3 [1950], 79). See Jer. 5:1-5; Amos 5:14-15; Isa. 6:13. 15. R S. Minear, Images of the Church in the NT (1961), 85.

The Kingdom and the Church

107

15:3-7). It is because they are already the true flcx;k, God's people, that God will give them the eschatological Kingdom. Jesus' call of twelve disciples to share his mission has been widely rec ognized as a symbolic act setting forth the continuity between his disciples and Israel. That the twelve represent Israel is shown by their eschatological role. They are to sit on twelve thrones, "judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Mt. 19:28; Lk. 22:30). Whether this saying means that the twelve are to determine the destiny of Israel by judgment'* or to rule over t h e m , " the twelve are destined to be the head of the eschatological Israel. Recognition that the twelve were meant to constitute the nucleus of the tme Israel does not exclude the view that the number 12 also involved a claim upon the enthe people as Jesus' qahaU^ Twelve as a symbolic number looks both backward and forward: backward to the old Israel and forward to the eschatological Israel." The twelve are destined to be the mlers of the eschatological Israel; but they are already recipients of the blessings and powers of the eschatological Kingdom. They therefore represent not only the eschatological people of God but also those who accept the present offer of the messianic salvation. By the acted parable of choosing the twelve, Jesus taught that he was raising up a new congregation to displace the nation that was rejecting his message.^o Matthew

16:18-19

Agamst this background of discipleship and its relation to Israel and the Kingdom of God, the saying in Matthew 16:18f. is consistent with Jesus' total teachmg. In fact, the saying expresses in explich form a basic concept under lying Jesus' entire mission and Israel's response to it. The saying does not speak of the creation of an organization or institution, nor is it to be interpreted in terms of the distinctively Christian ekklesia as the body and the bride of Christ, but in terms of the Old Testament concept of Israel as the people of God. The idea of "building" a people is an Old Testament one.2' Furthermore, ekklesia is a biblical term designating Israel as the congregation or assembly of Yahweh, rendermg the Hebrew word qahal.^^ It is not certain whether Jesus 16. See K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT 2:2,21. 17. See 1 Sam. 8:5; 2 Kings 15:5; Ps. 2:10; 1 Mace. 9:73; Ps. Sol. 17:28. So W. G. Kummel, Promise and Fulfilment (1957), 47. 18. Qahal is the Hebrew word for Israel as the congregation of God. This significance of the twelve has been emphasized by W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment (1957), 47. 19. See K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT 2:326. 20. See C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark (1959), 127; J. W. Bowman, The Intention of Jesus (1943), 214. 21. See Ruth 4:11; Jer. 1:10; 24:6; 31:4; 33:7; Ps. 28:5; 118:22; Amos 9:11. 22. Acts 7:38 speaks of Israel as the "ekklesia in the wilderness," and does not refer to the church in the New Testament sense. See Deut. 5:22; Ez. 10:12; Ps. 22:22; 107:32; Joel 2:16; Mic. 2:5. See also G. Johnston, The Doctrine of the Church in the NT (1943), 36f.

108

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

used the word qahal or 'edah, each of which is used commonly in the Old Testament of Israel as God's people.23 K. L. Schmidt has argued for a later term, hnista', on the ground that Jesus viewed his disciples as a special synagogue embodying the tme Israel.^'' However, Jesus showed no purpose of establishing a separate synagogue. Jesus could have looked upon the fellowship of his disciples as the tme Israel within the disobedient nation and not as a separatist or "closed" fellowship. He did not instimte a new way of worship, a new cult, or a new organization. His preaching and teaching remained within the total context of Israel's faith and practice. Jesus' announcement of his purpose to build his ekklesia suggests primarily what we have already dis covered in our study of discipleship, namely, that the fellowship established by Jesus stands in direct continuity with the Old Testament Israel. The distinc tive element is that this ekklesia is in a pecuUar way the ekklesia of Jesus: "My ekklesia" That is, the tme Israel now finds hs specific identhy in its relationship to Jesus. Israel as a nation rejected the messianic salvation pro claimed by Jesus, but many accepted it. Jesus sees his disciples taking the place of Israel as the tme people of God. There is no need to discuss at length the meaning of the rock on which this new people is to be founded. In view of the Semidc usage lying behind the Greek text, we should see only a secondary play on the two Greek words, pe^ros (Peter) and petra (rock). Jesus, speaking Aramaic, probably said: "You are kepa' [Gk. kephas], and on this kepa' I will buUd my church." Many Protestant interpreters have reacted strongly against the Roman view of Peter as the rock in an official capachy, and have therefore interpreted the rock to be ehher Christ himself (Luther) or Peter's faidi in Christ (Calvin).^* However, Cullmann has argued persuasively that the rock is in fact Peter, not in an official capacity or by virtue of personal qualification, but as representative of the twelve confessing Jesus as Messiah. The rock is Peter the confessor.2* Jesus anticipates a new stage in the experience of his disciples in which Peter will exercise a significant leadership. There is no hint in the context that this is an official leadership that 23. 'Edah is usually translated in the LXX by synagoge; it is not translated by ekklesia. In the first four books of Moses and in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, qahal is also rendered in the LXX by synagoge. Both qShal and 'edah were displaced in the first century A.D. by k'neset; (Aram, k^niita'), which was also used by the local Jewish synagogue. 24. K. L Schmidt, TDNT 2:525. See also I. H. MarshaU, ET 84 (1972-73), 359-64. 25. See B. Ramm, Foundations 5 (1962), 206-16. Knight contends that the rock is God himself (G. A. R Knight in 7T 17 [1960], 168-80). 26. Peter: Disciple-Apostle-Martyr (1941), 206-12; see also A. Cepke, StTh 2 (1948), 157; O. Betz. ZNTW 48 (1957), 72f.; D. H. Wallace and L. E. Keck, Foundations 5 (1962), 221,230. That such an expression need carry no official authority is illustrated by an interesting analogy in a rabbinic midrash on Isa. 51:1. God was troubled because he could build nothing upon godless people. "When God looked upon Abraham who was to appear, he said, 'See I have found a rock upon which I can found and build the world.' Therefore he called Abraham a rock" (Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 1:733).

The Kingdom and the Church

109

Peter can pass on to his successors. Indeed, Peter the rock foundation can readily become the rock of shimblmg, as the next verses show.27 The saying about foundhig the church fits the total teaching of Jesus and means that he saw in the circle of those who received his message the children of the Kingdom, the true Israel, the people of God. There is no intimation as to the form the new people is to take. The saying about disciplhie in the "church" (Mt. 18:17) views the disciples as a distinct fellowship analogous to the Jewish synagogue, but h throws little light on the form or organization the new fellow ship is to take.2* The church as a body separate from Judaism with its own organization and rites is a later historical development; but it is an historical manifestation of a new fellowship brought into being by Jesus as the true people of God who, having received the messianic salvation, were to take the place of the rebellious nation as the tme Israel. The Kingdom and the Church We must now examhie the specific relationship between the Kingdom and the church, accepting the chcle of Jesus' disciples as the incipient church if not yet the church itself.2' The solution to this problem will depend upon one's basic defmhion of the Kingdom. If the dynamic concept of the Kingdom is correct, h is never to be identified with the church. The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly mle of God, and derivatively, the sphere in which the rule is experienced. In biblical idiom, the Kingdom is not identified whh hs subjects. They are die people of God's mle who enter it, live under it, and are governed by it. The church is the community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom hself Jesus' disciples belong to the Kingdom as the Kingdom belongs to them; but they are not the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the mle of God; the church is a society of women and men.^o The Church Is Not the Kingdom This relationship can be expounded under five points. First, the New Testament does not equate beUevers whh the Kingdom. The first missionaries preached the Kingdom of God, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). h is hnpossible to substimte "church" for "kingdom" in such sayhigs. The only refer ences to the people as basileia are Revelation 1:6 and 5:10; but the people are so designated not because they are the subjects of God's reign but because they will share Christ's reign. "They shall reign on earth" (Rev. 5:10). In these sayings, "kingdom" is synonymous with "kings," not with the people over whom God rules. 27. See P. S. Minear, Christian Hope and the Second Coming (1954), 186. 28. The authenticity of this passage is frequently rejected, but "nothing justifies the view that Jesus could not have spoken the words" (F. V. Filson, Matthew [1960], 201). 29. Via speaks of them as the "embryo church." Cf. D. O. Via, SJTh 11 (1958), 271. 30. See R. N. Flew, Jesus and His Church (1943), 13; H. Roberts, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (1955), 84, 107.

110

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

None of the sayings hi the Gospels equates Jesus' disciples with the Kingdom. Such an identification has often been seen in the parable of the tares; and indeed the statement that the Son of Man wUl gather all causes of sin "out of the kmgdom" (Mt. 13:41) before the coming of the Kingdom of the Father (13:43) seems to suggest that the church is equated with the Kingdom of Christ." However, the parable itself expressly identifies the field as the world, not as the church (Mt. 13:38). The message of the parable has nothing to do with the nature of the church but teaches that the Kingdom of God has invaded history whhout dismpting the present stmcture of society. Good and evil are to live mixed in the world until the eschatological consummation, even though the Kingdom of God has come. The language about gathering evil out of the Kingdom looks forward, not backward.'^ h is also erroneous to base an identification of the Kingdom and the church on Matthew 16:18-19. Vos presses metaphorical language too far when he insists that this identification must be made because the first part of the saying speaks of the founding of the house and the second part sees the same house complete with doors and keys. "It is plamly excluded that the house should mean one thmg in the fust statement and another m the second." Therefore Vos confidently affirms that the church is the Kingdom." However, it is precisely the character of metaphorical language to possess such fluidity. This passage sets forth the mseparable relationship between the church and the Kingdom, but not their identhy. The many sayings about entermg into the Kingdom are not equivalent to entering the church. It is confiising to say that "the church is the form of the Kingdom of God which it bears between the departure and the retum of Jesus.''^" There is indeed a certam analogy between the two concepts in that both the Kingdom as the sphere of God's mle and the church are realms into which people may enter. But the Kingdom as the present sphere of God's rule is invisible, not a phenomenon of this world, whereas the church is an empirical body of human beings. John Bright is correct in saying that there is never the slightest hint that the visible church can ehher be or produce the Kingdom of God.'* The church is the people of the Kingdom, 31. This identification is found in the studies on the parables by Trench, A. B. Bruce, S. Goebel, and H. B. Swete. See also N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, 238; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1935), 222; S. E. Johnson, IB 7:415, 418; A. E. Bamett, Understanding the Parables of Our Lord (1940), 48-50; G. MacGregor, Corpus Christi (1958), 122. 32. See above, Chapter 7, for the interpretation of this parable. 33. The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church (1903), 150.

34. E. Sommerlath, ZSysTh 16 (1939), 573. So Lindeskog, "Christ's kingdom on earth is the church" (This Is the Church [A. Nygren, ed., 1958], 144); S. M. Gihnour, "The Church [not as the institution, but as the beloved community] has been the Kingdom of God within the historical process" (Int 7 [1953], 33). 35. The Kingdom of God (1953), 236.

The Kingdom and the Church

111

never that Kingdom itself. Therefore h is not helpful even to say that the church is a "part of the Kmgdom," or that in the eschatological consummation the church and Kingdom become synonymous.'* The Kingdom Creates the Church Second, the Kingdom creates the church. The dynamic mle of God, present in the mission of Jesus, challenged men and women to response, bringing them into a new fellowship. The presence of the Kingdom meant the fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic hope promised to Israel; but when the nation as a whole rejected the offer, those who accepted it were constituted the new people of God, the children of the Kingdom, the tme Israel, the incipient church. "The church is but the resuh of the coming of God's Kingdom into the world by the mission of Jesus Christ."'^ The parable of the draw net is instmctive as to the character of the church and its relation to the Kingdom. The Kingdom is an action that is likened to drawing a net through the sea. It catches in its movement not only good fish but also bad; and when the net is brought to shore, the fish must be sorted out. Such is the action of God's Kingdom among humankind. It is not now creating a pure fellowship; in Jesus' retmue could even be a traitor. While this parable must be interpreted in terms of Jesus' ministry, the prmciples deduced apply to the church. The action of God's Kingdom among human beings created a mixed fellowship, first in Jesus' disciples and dien in the church. The eschatological coming of the Kmgdom will mean judgment both for human society in general (tares) and for the church in particular (draw net). Until then, the feUowship created by the present acting of God's Kingdom will include those who are not tme children of the Kingdom. Thus the empirical church has a twofold character. It is the people of the Kingdom, and yet it is not the ideal people, for h includes some who are actually not children of the Kingdom. Thus entrance into the Kingdom means participation in the church; but entiance into the church is not necessarily synonymous with entiance mto the Kingdom." The Church Witnesses to the Kingdom Third, it is the church's mission to witness to the Kingdom. The church cannot build the Kingdom or become the Kingdom, but the church witnesses to the Kingdom — to God's redeemhig acts m Christ both past and fuhire. This is illustrated by the commission Jesus gave to the twelve (Mt. 10) and to the seventy (Lk. 10); and h is reinforced by the proclamation of the apostles in the book of Acts.

36. R. O. Zom, Church and Kingdom (1962), 9, 83, 85ff. In spite of this confusing language, Zom for the most part adequately distinguishes between the Kingdom and the church. 37. H. D. Wendland in The Kingdom of God and History (H. G. Wood, ed., 1938), 188. 38. R. Schnackenburg, God's Rule and Kingdom, 231.

112

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The number of emissaries on the two preaching missions appears to have symbolic significance. Most scholars who deny that the choice of twelve dis ciples-apostles was intended to represent the nucleus of the tme Israel recognize hi the number the symbolic significance that Jesus intended his message for the whole of Israel. Therefore, we should also recognize that seventy had a symbolic meaning. Suice h was a common Jewish tradhion that there were seventy nations m the world and that the Torah was fust given in seventy languages to all people, the sending of seventy emissaries is an implich claim that Jesus' message must be heard not only by Israel but by all people.'' The inclusion of the Gentiles as recipients of the Kingdom is taught in other sayings. When Israel's rejection of the offer of the Kingdom had become hreversible, Jesus solemnly announced that Israel would no longer be the people of God's mle but that theh place would be taken by others who would prove tmstworthy (Mk. 12:1-9). This saying Matthew interprets to mean, "The kmg dom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of h" (Mt. 21:43). Jeremias thinks that the origmal meanuig of this parable is the vindication of Jesus' preachmg of the gospel to the poor. Because the leaders of the people rejected the message, their place as recipients of the gospel must be taken by the poor who hear and respond."" However, m view of the fact that m Isaiah 5 the vineyard is Israel hself, it is more probable that Matthew's interpretation is correct and that the parable means that Israel will no longer be the people of God's vineyard but will be replaced by another people who will receive the message of the Kingdom."' A sunilar idea appears in an eschatological setting in the saying about the rejection of the children of the Kingdom — Israel — and their replacement by many Gentiles who will come from the east and the west to sit down at the messianic banquet in the eschatological Kingdom of God (Mt. 8:11-12). How this salvation of the Gentiles is to be accomplished is indicated by a sayhig in the Olivet Discourse. Before the end comes, "the gospel must first be preached to all nations" (Mk. 13:10); and Matthew's version, which Jeremias thinks is the older form, makes it clear that this is the good news about the Kingdom of God (Mt. 24:14) that Jesus himself had preached (Mt. 4:23; 9:35). Recent criticism has denied the authentichy of this saying"^ or has interpreted h as an eschatological proclamation by angels by which a salvadon of the Gendles will be accomplished at the end."' However, Cranfield pohits out that the verb keryssein 39. K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT 2:634. 40. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (1963), 76. A. M. Hunter points out that this interpretation appears to be arbitrary (Interpreting the Parables [1960], 94). 41. See F. V. Filson, Matthew, 229f. The rabbis taught that in the past the Kingdom had been taken away from Israel because of her sins and given to the nations of the world (Strack and Billerbeck,/kommenwr, l:876f.). 42. W. G. Kummel, Promise and Fulfilment, 85f. 43. J. Jeremias, Jesus'Promise to the Nations (1958), 22f.

The Kingdom and the Church

113

("to preach, proclaim") in Mark always refers to a human mmistry and that h is therefore far more probable that the word m Mark 13:10 has its characteristic New Testament sense, li is part of God's eschatological purpose diat before the end, all nations should have the oppormnity to hear the gospel."" Here we find an extension of the theology of discipleship, that it will be the mission of the church to witness to the gospel of the Kingdom in the world. Israel is no longer the witaess to God's Kingdom; the church has taken her place. Therefore K. E. Skydsgaard has said that the history of the Kingdom of God has become the history of Christian missions."* If Jesus' disciples are those who have received the life and fellowship of the Kingdom, and if this life is in fact an anticipation of the eschatological Kingdom, then it follows that one of the main tasks of the church is to display in this present evil age the life and fellowship of the Age to Come. The church has a dual character, belonging to two ages. It is the people of the Age to Come, but it stUl lives in this age, being consthuted of sinful mortal persons. This means that while the church hi this age will never attain perfection, h must nevertheless display the life of the perfect order, the eschatological Kingdom of God."* Implich exegetical support for this view is to be found in the great em phasis Jesus placed on forgiveness and humilhy among his disciples. Concern over greatness, whUe namral in this age, is a contradiction of the life of the Kingdom (Mk. 10:35ff.). Those who have experienced the Kingdom of God are to display its life by a humble willingness to serve rather than by self-seekuig. Another evidence of the life of the Kingdom is a fellowship undisturbed by ill-will and animoshy. This is why Jesus had so much to say about forgiveness, for perfect forgiveness is an evidence of love. Jesus even taught that human forgiveness and divine forgiveness are inseparable (Mt. 6:12, 14). The parable on forgiveness makes it clear that human forgiveness is conditioned by divine forgiveness (Mt. 18:23-35). The point of this parable is that when people claim to have received the unconditioned and unmerhed forgiveness of God, which is one of the gifts of the Kingdom, and then are unwilling to forgive relatively trivial offenses against themselves, they deny the realhy of their very profession of divine forgiveness and by their conduct contradict the life and character of the Kingdom. Such people have not really experienced the forgiveness of God. It is therefore the church's duty to display in an evil age of self-seeking, pride, and animoshy the life and fellowship of the Kingdom of God and of the Age to Come. This display of Kingdom life is an essential element in the witness of the church to the Kingdom of God. 44. C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 399: "The Preaching of the Gospel is an Eschatological Event." F. V. Filson, Matthew, 254; G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future (1954), 194ff. 45. In SJTh 4 (1951), 390. 46. This theme has been splendidly worked out in the article by Skydsgaard cited in the preceding footnote.

114

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The Church Is the Instrument of the Kingdom Fourth, the church is the instrument of the Kingdom. The disciples of Jesus not only proclaimed the good news about the presence of the Kingdom; they were also instruments of the Kingdom in that the works of the Khigdom were performed through them as through Jesus himself. As they went preaching the Kingdom, they too healed the sick and cast out demons (Mt. 10:8; Lk. 10:17). Although theirs was a delegated power, the same power of the Kingdom worked through them that worked through Jesus. Their awareness that these miracles were wrought by no power resident in themselves accounts for the fact that they never performed miracles in a competitive or boastful spirit. The report of the seventy is given with complete disinterestedness and devotion, as of those who are instmments of God. The truth is implicit in the statement that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against the church (Mt. 16:18). This image of the gates of the realm of the dead is a familiar Semitic concept."' The exact meaning of this saying is not clear. It may mean that the gates of Hades, which are conceived as closing behhid all the dead, will now be able to hold its victims no longer but will be forced open before the powers of the Kingdom exercised through the church. The church will be stronger than death, and will rescue people from the domination of Hades to the realm of life."* However, in view of the verb used, it appears that the realm of death is the aggressor, attacking the church."' The meanuig then would be that when men and women have been brought into the salvation of the Kingdom of God through the mission of the church, the gates of death will be unable to prevail in their effort to swallow them up. Before the power of the Kingdom of God, working through the church, death has lost its power over them and is unable to claim final victory. There is no need to relate this to the final eschatological conflict, as Jeremias does;*" it may be understood as an extension of the same conflict between Jesus and Satan*' in which, as a matter of fact, Jesus' disciples had already been engaged. As instmments of the Kmg dom they had seen people delivered from bondage to sickness and death (Mt. 10:8). This messianic stmggle with the powers of death, which had been raghig in Jesus' ministry and had been shared by his disciples, will be continued in the future, and the church will be the instmment of God's Kingdom in this stmggle. The Church: The Custodian of the Kingdom Fifth, the church is the custodian of the Khigdom. The rabbinic concept of the Kingdom of God conceived of Israel as the custodian of the Kingdom. The

47. Isa. 38:10; Ps. 9:13; 107:18; Job 38:17; Wisd. Sol. 16:13; 3 Mace. 5:51; Ps. Sol. 16:2. 48. 49. 50. 51.

This is the view of Cullmann (Peter: Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, 202). J. Jeremias, TDNT 6:927. Loc. cit. P S. Minear, Images of the Church in the NT, 50.

The Kingdom and the Church

115

Kingdom of God was the mle of God that began on earth in Abraham, and was committed to Israel through the Law. Since the mle of God could be experienced only through the Law, and smce Israel was the custodian of the Law, Israel was in effect the custodian of the Kingdom of God. When Gentiles became Jewish proselytes and adopted the Law, they thereby took upon themselves the sovereignty of heaven, the Kingdom of God. God's mle was mediated to the Gentiles through Israel; they alone were the "sons of the kingdom." In Jesus, the reign of God manifested itself in a new redemptive event, displaymg in an unexpected way within history the powers of the eschatological Kingdom. The nation as a whole rejected the proclamation of this divme event, but those who accepted it became the tme children of the Kingdom and entered into the enjoyment of its blessings and powers. These disciples of Jesus, his ekklesia, now became the custodians of the Kingdom rather than the nation Israel. The Kingdom is taken from Israel and given to others — Jesus' ekklesia (Mk. 12:9). Jesus' disciples not only witness to the Kingdom and are the instmments of the Kingdom as h manifests its powers m this age; they are also hs custodians. This fact is expressed m the saying about the keys. Jesus will give to his ekklesia the keys of the Khigdom of Heaven, and whatever they bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:19). Since the idiom of bmding and loosing in rabbinical usage often refers to prohibiting or permitting certain actions, this sayhig has frequendy been hiterpreted to refer to administrative control over the church.52 Background for this concept is found in Isaiah 22:22 where God entrasted to Eliakim the key to the house of David, an act that included administration of the enthe house. Accordmg to this mterpretation, Jesus gave Peter the authority to make decisions for conduct in the church over which he is to exercise supervision. When Peter set aside Jewish rimal practices that there might be free fellowship whh the Gentiles, he exercised this administrative authority (Acts 10-11). While this is possible, another interpretation lies nearer at hand. Jesus condemned the scribes and the Pharisees because they had taken away the key of knowledge, refusing either to enter into the Kingdom of God themselves or to permit others to enter (Lk. 11:52). The same thought appears in the first Gospel. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you nehher enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in" (Mt. 23:13). In bibhcal idiom, knowledge is more than intellectual perception. It is "a spirhual possession resting on revelation."*' The authority entmsted to Peter is grounded upon revelation, that is, spirhual knowledge, which he shared with the twelve. The keys of the Kingdom are therefore "the spuitual insight which will enable Peter to lead others in through the door of revelation through which he has passed himself."*"* The authorhy to 52. For literature, see O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, 204. 53. R. Bultmann, TDNT IJOO. 54. R. N. flew, Jesus and His Church, 95.

116

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

bind and loose involves the admission or exclusion of people from the realm of the Kingdom of God. Christ will build his ekklesia upon Peter and upon those who share the divine revelation of Jesus' messiahship. To them also is commhted by virme of this same revelation the means of permitting people to enter die realm of the blessmgs of the Kingdom or of excluding them from such partici pation (cf. Acts 10). This interpretation receives support from rabbinic usage, for bmdmg or loosing can also refer to putting under ban or to acquhting.** This meaning is patent in Matthew 18:18 where a member of the congregation who is unrepentant of sin against his brother is to be excluded from the fellowship; for "whatever you bmd on earth shall be bound m heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The same tmth is found in a Johannine saying where the resurrected Jesus performs the acted parable of breathmg on his disciples, thus promismg them the Holy Spirit as equipment for their future mission. Then Jesus said, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retahi the sms of any, they are retained" (Jn. 20:23). This cannot be understood as the exercise of an arbitrary authority; it is the inevhable issue of witnessmg to the Kingdom of God. It is furthermore an authorhy exercised not by Peter but by all the disciples — the church. As a matter of fact, the disciples had already exercised this autiiority of binding and loosing when they visited the chies of Israel, proclaiming the Kingdom of God. Wherever they and theh message were accepted, peace rested upon that house; but wherever they and their message were rejected, the judg ment of God was sealed to that house (Mt. 10:14, 15). They were mdeed instmments of the Kingdom in effecting the forgiveness of sins; and by vhtue of that very fact, they were also custodians of the Kingdom. Theh ministry had the actual result either of opening the door of the Kingdom to men and women or of shutting it to those who spurned their message.** This tmth is expressed in other sayings. "He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me" (Mt. 10:40; see Mk. 9:37). The dramatic picture of the judgment of the sheep and the goats tells the same story (Mt. 25:31-46). This is not to be taken as a program of the eschato logical consummation but as a parabolic drama of the ultimate issues of life. Jesus is to send his disciples (his "brethren"; cf. Mt. 12:48-50) into the worid as custodians of the Kingdom. The character of their mission-preaching is that pictured in Matthew 10:9-14. The hospitality they receive at the hands of tiieir hearers is a tangible evidence of people's reaction to their message. They will arrive in some towns worn out and ill, hungry and thirsty, and wUl at times be imprisoned for preaching the gospel. Some will welcome them, receive their message, and minister to their bodily needs; others will reject both the message 55. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 1:738. 56. See the excellent discussion in O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, 205.

The Kingdom and the Church

117

and the missioners. "The deeds of the righteous are not just casual acts of benevolence. They are acts by which the Mission of Jesus and His followers was helped, and helped at some cost to the doers, even at some risk."*^ To interpret this parable as teaching that people who perform acts of kindness are "Christians unawares" without reference to the mission and message of Jesus lifts the parable altogether out of its historical context. The parable sets forth the solidarity between Jesus and his disciples as he sends them forth into the world with the good news of the Kingdom.** The final destiny of individuals will be determined by the way they react to these representadves of Jesus. To receive them is to receive the Lord who sent them. While this is no official function, in a very real way the disciples of Jesus — his church — are custodians of the Kingdom. Through the proclamation of the gospel of the Kingdom in the world will be decided who will enter into the eschatological Kingdom and who will be excluded.59 In summary, while there is an mseparable relationship between the King dom and the church, they are not to be identified. The Kingdom takes its point of deparmre from God, the church from human beings. The Kingdom is God's reign and the realm in which the blessings of his reign are experienced; the church is the fellowship of those who have experienced God's reign and entered into the enjoyment of hs blessmgs. The Kingdom creates the church, works through the church, and is proclaimed in the worid by the church. There can be no Kingdom without a church — those who have acknowledged God's mle — and there can be no church whhout God's Kingdom; but they remain two distinguishable concepts: the mle of God and the fellowship of men and women.

57. T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (1949), 251. 58. Loc. cit. See also J. R. Michaels, "Apostolic Hardship and Righteous Gentiles," JBL 84 (1%5), 27-37. 59. D. O. Via, SITh 11 (1958), 276f

9. The Ethics of the Kingdom

For bibliography see: W. S. Kissinger, The Sermon on the Mount (1975). Literature: M. Dibelius, The Sermon on the Mount (1940); L. Dewar, NT Ethics (1949), 13-98; A. N. Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus (1950); W. Schwdtzei, Eschatology and Ethics (1951); H. Windisch, The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount (1951); A. M. Hunter, A Pattern for Life (1953); T. W. Manson, Ethics and the Gospel (1960); H. K. McArthur, Understanding the Sermon on the Mount (1961); H. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (1963), 285-333; J. Jeremias, The Sermon on the Mount (1963); G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kmgdom (1964), 274-300; R. Schnacken burg, The Moral Teaching of the NT (1965), 15-167; V. Furnish, The Love Command in the NT (1972); J. H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (1972); R S. Minear, Commands of Christ (1972); J. Piper, "Love Your Enemies": Jesus' Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis: A History of the Tradition and Inter pretation of Its Uses (1979); B. Gerhardsson, The Ethos of the Bible (1981); R. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (1982); J. Lambrecht, The Sermon on the Mount (1985); W. A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (1986); B. Chilton and J. I. H. McDonald, Jesus and the Ethics of the Kingdom (1987); L. S. Cahill, "The Ethical Implications of the Sermon on the Mount," Int 41 (1987), 144-56; W. Schrage, The Ethics of the NT (198T); G. R. Beasley-Murray, "Matthew 6:33: The Kingdom of God and Ethics of Jesus," in NT und Ethik, ed. H. Merklein (1989), 84-98; E. Lohse, Theological Ethics of the NT (1991).

Much of Jesus' teaching was concemed with human conduct. The Beatitudes, the Golden Rule, and the parable of the Good Samaritan are among the choicest selections of the world's ethical Uterature. We must here attempt to understand the relationship between Jesus' ethical teachmg and his preachmg about the Kingdom of God. As background for our analysis, we may outlme several of the more important interpretations.

118

The Ethics of the Kingdom

119

Survey of the Problem Many scholars disapprove of Jesus' theology but laud his ethical teaching, finding in it an enduring significance. Accordmg to F. G. Peabody, Jesus' first demand was not for orthodox mstmction or for ecstatic religious experience but for morality.' The Jewish scholar Klausner would like to omh the miracles and the mystical saymgs, which tend to deify the Son of Man, and preserve only the moral precepts and parables, thus purifymg one of the most wonderful collections of ediical teaching in the world. "If ever the day should come and this ethical code be stripped of its wrappings of miracles and mysticism, the Book of the Ethics of Jesus will be one of the choicest treasures of the Iherature of Israel for all time."2 The old liberal interpretation found the essential tmth of the Kingdom of God m personal religious and ethical categories. Apocalyptic was the husk that encased this spiritual kernel of Jesus' religious and ethical teaching and could be cast aside without affecting the substance of his teaching. From this point of view, the ethic of Jesus was the ideal standard of conduct, which is vaUd for all time in all simations and carries in hself its own authentication and sanction. Reference to this old liberal mterpretation would have only archaic mterest except for the fact that the same basic viewpoint is still whh us. L. H. Marshall's analysis of Jesus' ethics gives eschatology Ihtie more place than did Klausner's. Marshall expresses skepticism about efforts to define and classify the concep tions of the Kingdom of God in the Gospels. However, the relationship between Jesus' idea of the Kingdom and ethics is as "clear as crystal." The locus classicus is Luke 17:20-21, which teaches that the Kingdom of God is God's mle in the individual soul. Marshall appeals to Hamack for this interpretation. While he admits that Jesus often spoke of an eschatological commg of the Kingdom, this plays no role m Marshall's study; for if the Kingdom comes to society only as it is realized in the present, it follows that the consummation of the Kingdom will occur when all people have been won. "All the ethical teaching of Jesus is simply an exposhion of the ethics of the Kingdom of God, of the way in which men inevitably behave when they actually come under the mle of God."' C. H. Dodd's widely influential Realized Eschatology, although using eschatological language, amounts to the same kind of mterpretation. The teach mg of Jesus is not an ethic for those who expect the end of the world but for those who have experienced the end of this world and the coming of the Kingdom of God. Jesus' ethic is a moral idea given in absolute terms and grounded in fundamental, timeless, religious principles," for the Kmgdom of

1. F. G. Peabody, Jesus Christ and Christian Character (1906), 103. 2. J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (1925), 414; see also 381. 3. L H. Marshall, The Challenge of NT Ethics (1947), 31. 4. C. H. Dodd, History of the Gospel (1938), 125; "The Ethical Teaching of Jesus," in A Companion to the Bible (T. W. Manson, ed., 1939), 378. Dodd's viewpoint is accepted by L. Dewar, An Outline of NT Ethics (1949), 58f., 121.

120

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

God is the coming of the eternal into the temporal. W. Schweitzer made no mistake in saying that it is difficult to see any difference between Dodd's view and an ethic based on the idea of the continuous creative activhy of God or a belief in providence. The upshot would seem to be that ethics can in die last resort dispense with eschatology, and that all that is really needed is the Old Testament doctrine of the judgment and grace of God in history.* Diametrically opposed to these noneschatological interpretations is Albert Schweitzer's "interim ethics." Albert Schweitzer held that Jesus did not teach the ethics of the future Kingdom, for the Kingdom would be supra-ethical, lymg beyond distinctions of good and evil. Jesus' ethics, designed for the brief uiterval before the Kingdom comes, consisted primarUy of repentance and moral re newal. However, the ethical movement would exert pressure on the Kingdom and compel its appearance. Since Jesus' ethics is the means of bringing die Kingdom, eschatological ethics can be transmuted into ethical eschatology and thus have permanent validity.* Few scholars who have accepted the substance of Albert Schweitzer's eschatological interpretation have adopted his interim ethics. Hans Windisch^ re-examined the Sermon on the Mount in the light of Schweitzer's view and discovered that it contained two kinds of ethical teaching standing side by side: eschatological ethics, conditioned by the expectation of the coming Kingdom, and wisdom ethics, which was entirely noneschatological. Win disch insists that historical exegesis must recognize that these two types of ethics are really foreign to each other. Jesus' predominant ethics is eschato logical and essentially diverse from wisdom ethics. It is new legislation, i.e., mles of admittance to the eschatological Kingdom; therefore it is to be understood literally and fulfilled completely. Its radical character is not con ditioned by the imminence of the Kingdom but by the absolute will of God. It is irrelevant to ask whether or not these ethical demands are practical, for the will of God is not governed by practical considerations. Jesus considered men and women capable of fulfilling his demands; and their salvation in the coming Kingdom depended on obedience. The religion of the Sermon on the Mount is predominantly a religion of works. However, this eschatological ethic is an extreme, heroic, abnormal ethic that Jesus himself was unable to fulfill. Other scholars, such as Martin Dibelius, who believe Jesus proclauned an eschatological Kingdom, interpret his ethics as the expression of the pure, uncondhioned will of God, without compromise of any sort, which God lays upon people at all times and for all time. It is incapable of complete fulfillment 5. W. Schweitzer, Eschatology and Ethics (1951), 11. This pamphlet in the "Ecumenical Studies" is an excellent but brief survey of this problem in recent thought. 6. A. Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (1913), 94-115. 7. The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount (1951).

The Ethics of the Kingdom

121

in an evil world and will therefore attahi full validhy only in the eschatological Kingdom of God.* A. N. Wilder's study Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus is one of the most important recent analyses of this problem. Wilder, as we have noted (p. 88), appears to admh the importance of eschatology. Jesus cast his ethics in the form of entrance requirements into the commg eschatological Kingdom, and the sanctions of reward or punishment are patent. However, Wilder believes that apocalyptic by its very namre is mythical in character. It is an imagmative way of describmg the ineffable. Jesus looked forward to a great historical crisis which he described in poetical apocalyptic language that is not intended to be taken Iherally. Therefore the eschatological sanction of Jesus' ethics is formal and secondary. In addition to the apocalyptic Kingdom with hs eschatological sanction, Jesus taught that a new shuation had arisen with the presence of John the Baptist and himself; and the ethics of this new shuation was determined not by eschatology but by the nature and character of God. The relation between tiie fumre eschatological Kingdom and the present time of salvation is only a formal one.' Rudolf Buhmann accepts Consistent Eschatology but finds the meaning of Jesus' message not hi the immmence of the Kingdom but in his overwhehning sense of the nearness of God. Buhmann views Jesus' ethics as setting forth the conditions for entering the commg Kingdom. These condhions are not, however, mles and regulations to be obeyed in order that one may merit entrance into the coming Kingdom. The content of Jesus' ethics is a simple demand. Because the Kingdom is at hand, because God is near, one thing is demanded: decision in the final eschatological hour.io in tiiis way, Bultmann translates Jesus' ethics into the existential demand for decision. Jesus was not a teacher of ethics, ehher personal or social. He did not teach absolute principles or lay down rules of conduct. He demanded only one thing: decision. Dispensationalism with its theory of the postponed Davidic kingdom inter prets the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount as a new legalism that has nothing to do with the gospel of grace but only with the Davidic form of the Kingdom. This sermon has a moral application to the Christian but its Iheral and primary applica tion is to the fumre earthly kingdom and not to Christian life. It is the constitution of the righteous government of the earth for the millennial era. "It tells us not how to be acceptable to God, but h does reveal those who will be pleasing to God in the kmgdom " "The Sermon on tiie Mount is legal in its character; it is the law of Moses raised to its highest power."" "All the kingdom promises to the individual 8. M. Dibelius, The Sermon on the Mount (1940), 51f.; see also Jesus (1949), 115; P. Ramsey, Basic Christian Ethics (1952), 44; E. R Scott, The Ethical Teaching of Jesus (1924), 44-47. 9. A. N. Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus (1950). 10. R. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (1934), 72ff. 11. C. Feinberg, Premillennialism or AmiUermialism? (1954), 90.

122

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

are based on human merit It is a covenant of works only and the emphatic word is do As the individual forgives so will he be forgiven.'''^ "As a rule of life, it is addressed to the Jews before the cross and to the Jew in the coming Kingdom, and is therefore not now in effect."" "How far removed is a mere man-wrought righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees from the 'gift of righteousness' bestowed on those who receive 'abundance of grace.' Yet many embrace a system demanding supermerit requirements and seem not to recognize that the priceless things pertaining to both a perfect standing and etemal security in Christ are omitted."'" Recent dispensational writings have been more cautious in the form of expression and have tried to combine the Law of the earthly kingdom — the Sermon on the Mount — with grace. "The Sermon on the Mount expresses the legal demands of the kingdom which only grace can enable men to fulfill."'* This, however, is to misunderstand the Kingdom of God and the Sermon on the Mount. This survey makes it obvious that Jesus' ethical teaching and his view of the Kingdom must be studied together. We would contend that Jesus' ethics can be best interpreted in terms of the dynamic concept of God's mle, which has already manifested itself in his person but will come to consummation only in the eschatological hour.'* Jesus and the Law Jesus stood in a relationship to the Law of Moses that is somewhat analogous to his relationship to Israel as the people of God. He offered to Israel the fulfillment of the promised messianic salvation; but when they rejected it, he found in his own disciples the tme people of God m whom was fulfilled the Old Testament hope. There are also elements of both continuity and discontinuhy in Jesus' attimde toward the Law of Moses. He regarded the Old Testament as the inspired Word of God and the Law as the divinely given mle of life. He himself obeyed the injunctions of the Law (Mt. 17:27; 23:23; Mk. 14:12) and never criticized the Old Testament per se as not being the Word of God. In fact, his mission accomplishes the fulfillment of the tme mtent of the Law (Mt. 5:17).'7 The Old Testament therefore is of permanent validity (Mt. 5:17-18). This note of fulfillment means that a new era has been inaugurated that 12. L. S. Chafer, Systematic. Theology (1947), 4:21 If. 13. Ibid., 5:97. 14. Ibid., 112. For a thorough discussion and critique, see G. E. Ladd, Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God (1952), 104ff., and the literature there cited. 15. See especially A. J. McQain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (1959), and The New Scofield Reference Bible (1967), 987. 16. See S. M. Gilmour in 21 (1941), 253-64, for a similar argument. See also A. M. Humer, A Pattern for Life (1953), 106-7. 17. The word translated "fulfill" can mean to "establish, confirm, cause to stand" and

The Ethics of the Kingdom

123

requires a new definition of the role of the Law. The Law and the prophets are until John; after John comes the tune of the messianic salvation (Mt. 11:13 = Lk. 16:16). In this new order, a new relationship has been established between humanity and God. No longer is this relationship to be mediated through the Law but through the person of Jesus himself and the Kingdom of God breaking in through him.'* Jesus viewed the entire Old Testament movement as divinely directed and as having arrived at its goal in himself. His messianic mission and the presence of the Kingdom are the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets. Therefore Jesus assumed an authority equal to that of the Old Testament. The character of his preaching stands in sharp contrast to the rabbinic method, which relied upon the authority of earlier rabbis. His preaching does not even follow the prophetic formulation, "Thus saith the LORD." Rather, his message is grounded in his own authorhy and is repeatedly introduced by die words, "I say unto you." His frequently repeated "Amen," by which he introduced so many sayings, is to be understood in this light, for it has the force of the Old Testament expression, "Thus saith the LORD."'' On the authority of his own word, Jesus rejected the scribal interpretations of the Law, which were considered part of the Law hself. This includes the scribal teachmgs regarding the Sabbath (Mk. 2:23-28; 3:1-6; Lk. 13:10-21; 14:1-24), fasting (Mk. 2:18-22), ceremonial purhy and washings (Mt. 15:1-30; Mk. 7:1-23; Lk. 11:37-54), and distinctions between "righteous" and "sinners" (Mk. 2:15-17; Lk. 15:1-32). Furthermore, he remterpreted the role of the Law in the new era of the messianic salvation. When he declared that a person could not be defiled by food (Mk. 7:15), he thereby declared all food clean, as Mark explains (7:19), and in principle annulled the entire tradition of ceremonial observance. On his own authority alone, Jesus set aside the principle of cere monial purhy embodied in much of the Mosaic legislation. This is a corollary of the fact that the righteousness of the Kingdom is to be no longer mediated by the Law but by a new redemptive act of God, foreseen in the prophets but now in process of being realized in the event of his own mission. The Ethics of the Reign of God We must now consider the question of the positive relationship between Jesus' ethical teaching and his message about the Kingdom of God. One of the most need mean only that Jesus asserted the permanence of the Law and his obedience to it (see B. H. Branscomb, Jesus and the Law of Moses [1930], 226-28). However, in terms of Jesus' total message, "fulfill" probably has the meaning of bringing to full intent and expression. "His own coming is the fulfillment of the law" (H. Kleinknecht and W. Gutbrod, TDNT 4:1062). 18. H. Kleinknecht and W. Gutbrod, TDNT 4:1060. 19. J. Jeremias, NT Theology (1971), 36. 20. The sayings about a new garment and new wineskins indicate that the blessings of the messianic age, now present, cannot be contained in the old forms of Judaism (Mk. 2:21-22),

124

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

important contributions of Windisch's book^i is his distmction between historical and theological exegesis. Historical exegesis must interpret the Sermon on die Mount strictly in terms of Old Testament and Jewish categories and regard the Kingdom as the "holy habhation of the messianic salvation, etc.," i.e., the Age to Come. This is Consistent Eschatology; and in this light, Jesus' ediics are mles to determme who wUl enter the eschatological Kingdom. This historical inter pretation has little relevance for the modem person, for he or she is no longer looking for an apocalyptic Kingdom; and Jesus' eschatological ethics are really impractical and unfulfillable. Therefore the modem individual must resort to the theological exegesis that "will make grateful use of the important discovery of historical exegesis that in the Talmud the word that Jesus must have used (malkuth) almost always means the Lordship of God, the mle that is established wherever men undertake to fulfill God's law."22 Windisch's use of this distinction appears to the present writer arbitrary, obscuring the fundamental meaning of the Kingdom of God. If historical ex egesis has discovered that malkut in rabbinic thought means the Lordship of God, and if rabbinic thought is an important fact in the historical milieu of Jesus, is it not possible that tiiis was historically the fundamental meaning of the term in Jesus' teachmg?^' Wmdisch admits that the imminence of the eschatological Kingdom is not the central sanction; it is the fact that God wUl mle.^" In the light of these facts, we would contend that Jesus' proclamation about the King dom of God historically considered meant the mle of God. Furthermore, the two types of ediics can be understood against this background, for the so-called wisdom ethics are ethics of God's present mle. Windisch admhs that the Sermon on the Mount is for disciples, "for those already converted, for the children of God whhin the covenant of Israel. . . . " ^ Yet when Wmdisch adds, "or the Christian community," he has said far more than the text suggests. Granted that the Gospels are the product of the Christian community, the Sermon presupposes nothing about the new birth or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or the new life in Christ, but only about the Kingdom of God, which may be understood as the reign of God both fumre and present. It is true, as Jeremias has pointed out,2* that the Sermon presupposes sometfiing: the proclamation of the Kingdom of God. The Sermon is not Law but gospel. God's gift precedes his demand. It is God's reign present in the mission of Jesus that provides the inner motivation of which Windisch speaks.27 The God whom Jesus proclaimed is the God who 21. H. Windisch, The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount. 22. Ibid., mt, 62, 28f. 23. See G. E. Ladd, JBL 81 (1962), 230-38. 24. H. Windisch, The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, 29. 25. Ibid., 111. 26. The Sermon on the Mount (1963), 23, 30. 27. See above, pp. 62ff. Dibelius, like Windisch, denies that the Kingdom of God is a present power; but when he says that the message of the Kingdom "lays hold on [one's] entire

The Ethics of the Kingdom

125

has visited human beings in the person and mission of Jesus to bring them the messianic salvation of forgiveness and fellowship. It is this fact which binds together wisdom and eschatological ethics. It is those who have experienced the present mle of God who will enter into the eschatological consummation. The "different soteriology" that Windisch detects in the Beatitudes is not really different; it is in fact the most distinctive feature about Jesus' mission and message. "Understood apart from the fact that God is now establishing his realm here on earth, the Sermon on the Mount would be excessive idealism or patho logical, self-destmctive fanaticism.''^* A second important recent study comes to very different conclusions from Windisch's. Wilder, like Windisch, finds both eschatologically sanctioned ethics and noneschatological ethics of the present time of salvation whose sanction is the pure will of God. Wilder differs from Windisch in insisting that the primary sanction is the will of God, while the eschatological sanction is merely formal and secondary. As we have seen, this led some critics to conclude that Wilder had attempted to eliminate the significance of the eschatological sanction alto gether. We agree with Wilder that apocalyptic imagery is not meant to be taken whh wooden literalness, but is employed to describe an ineffable future.^' This is also tme of nonapocalyptic statements about the future. Jesus said that in the resurrection redeemed existence will differ from the present order to such a degree that sex will no longer function as it now does, but that "the sons of that age" will be like the angels, having no need for procreation (Mk. 12:25 = Lk. 20:35). Who can imagine in terms of known human experience what life will be like without the sex motivation? Who can picture a society that is not buih around the home and the husband-wife, parent-child relationships? Such an order is indeed ineffable. The recognition of the symbolic character of eschatological language does not require the conclusion that the eschatological sanction is really secondary and only formal, for symbolic language can be used to designate a real, if ineffable, future. Perhaps one might say that the form of the eschatological sanction, such as the lake of fire or outer darkness, on the one hand, and the messianic banquet, on the other, is formal and secondary; but it does not follow that the eschatological sanction itself is secondary. The heart of the eschatologi cal sanction is the fact that at the end people will stand face to face with God and will experience either his judgment or his salvation; and this is no formal sanction but an essential one, standing at the heart of biblical religion. Wilder has not clearly established that Jesus used apocalyptic language only as symbolic

being and changes him" {Jesus [1949], 115), he is in effect admitting the presence of the Kingdom as the transforming power of God. 28. O. Piper, "Kerygma and Discipleship," Princeton Seminary Bulletin 56 (1962), 16. 29. A. N. Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus, 26, 60. For the author's view of apocalyptic language, see Jesus and the Kingdom (1964), 45ff., 58ff

126

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

imagery of an historical, this-worldly crisis that he saw lying in the future. Wilder admits that beyond the historical crisis, Jesus saw an eschatological event. In our view those critics who feel that Wilder is attempting to eliminate the es chatological dimension altogether have not correctly interpreted him, for he expressly denies that he wishes to mle out entirely the place of the eschatological sanction. Therefore, although apocalyptic language is symbolic language used to describe an ineffable fumre, h is nevertheless a real future that will be God's future. If then, as Wilder correctly says, the primary sanction of Jesus' ethics is the present will of God made dynamically relevant to people because of the new situation created by Jesus' mission, which may be characterized as the time of salvation,'" the eschatological sanction is also to be taken as a primary sanction, because the eschatological consummation is nothing less than the ultimate, complete manifestation of the reign and the will of God that has been disclosed in the present. The ethics of Jesus, then, are Kingdom ethics, the ethics of the reign of God. It is impossible to detach them from the total context of Jesus' message and mission. They are relevant only for those who have experienced the reign of God. It is tme that most of Jesus' ethical maxims can be paralleled in Jewish teachings; but no collection of Jewish ethics makes the impact upon the reader that Jesus' ethics do. To read a passage from the Mishnah is a different experience from reading the Sermon on the Mount. The unique element in Jesus' teaching is that in his person the Kingdom of God has invaded human history, and people are not only placed under the ethical demand of the reign of God, but by virme of this very experience of God's reign are also enabled to realize a new measure of righteousness. Absolute

Ethics

If Jesus' ethics are in fact the ethics of the reign of God, it follows that they must be absolute ethics. Dibelius is right: Jesus taught the pure, unconditioned will of God without compromise of any sort, which God lays upon human beings at all times and for all d m e . " Such conduct is actually attainable only in the Age to Come when all evil has been banished; but it is quite clear from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus expected his disciples to practice his teachings in this present age. Otherwise the sayings about the light of the world and the salt of the earth are meaningless (Mt. 5:13-14). Jesus' ethics embody the standard of righteousness that a holy God must demand of women and men in any age. It is this fact which has raised the difficult question of the practicality of Jesus' ethics. Viewed from one point of view, they are impractical and quite unattainable. If the Sermon on the Mount is legislation to determine admission into the future Kingdom, then all human beings are excluded, as Windisch 30. Ibid., 145ff. 31. See above, note 8.

The Ethics of the Kingdom

127

recognizes. We might add, even Jesus hhnself is excluded; for Windisch admits that Jesus did not fulfill his own heroic ethic. His castigation of the Pharisees does not sound like an expression of love (Mt. 23); and before Annas he did not mrn the other cheek (Jn. 18:22f.).32 Jesus taught that anger is sin and leads to condemnation. Lust is sm, and whoever looks upon a woman to lust is guilty of sin. Jesus requhed absolute honesty, an honesty so absolute that Yes and No are as good as an oath. Jesus requhed perfect love, a love as perfect as God's love for humankind. If Jesus demanded only legalistic obedience to his teaching, then he left people hanging over the precipice of despair whh no word of salvation. However, the Sermon is not law. It portrays the ideal of the person in whose life the reign of God is absolutely realized. This righteousness, as Dibelius has said, can be perfectly experienced only in the eschatological Kingdom of God. It can nevertheless to a real degree be attamed m the present age, insofar as the reign of God is actually experienced. An important question is whether the perfect experience of God's mle in this age is a necessary prerequisite to enter the eschatological Kingdom, and this question cannot be answered apart from Jesus' teaching about grace. There is an analogy between the manifestation of the Kingdom of God itself and the attainment of die righteousness of the Kingdom. The Kingdom has come in Jesus in fulfillment of the messianic salvation within the old age, but the consummation awaits the Age to Come. The Kingdom is actually present but in a new and unexpected way. It has entered history whhout transforming history. It has come into human society whhout purifying society. By analogy, the righteousness of the reign of God can be actually and substantially experi enced even in the present age; but the perfect righteousness of the Kingdom, like the Kingdom hself, awaits the eschatological consummation. Even as the Kingdom has invaded the evil age to bring to people in advance a partial but real experience of the blessings of the eschatological Kingdom, so is the righ teousness of the Kingdom attainable, in part if not in perfection, in the present order. Ethics, like the Kingdom hself, stands in the tension between present realization and fumre eschatological perfection. Ethics of the Inner Life The ethics of the Kingdom places a new emphasis upon the righteousness of the heart. A righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees is necessary for admission into the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 5:20). The illustrations of this principle contrast with the Old Testament as h was interpreted in current rabbinic teaching. The primary emphasis is on the inner character that underlies outward conduct. The Law condemned murder; Jesus condemned anger as sin (Mt. 5:21-26). It is difficuh to understand how this can be interpreted nomistically. Legislation has to do with conduct that can be controlled; anger belongs 32. H. Windisch, The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, 103-4.

128

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

not to the sphere of outward conduct but to that of mner atthude and character. The Law condemned adultery; Jesus condemned lustful appetite. Lust cannot be controlled by laws. The regulations about retaliation are radical illustrations of an attitude of the will; for a person could actually mrn the other cheek in legal obedience to an external standard and yet be raging with anger or inwardly poisoned with a longing for revenge. Love for one's enemies is deeper than mere kindliness in outward relationships. It mvolves one of the deepest mysteries of human personality and character that a person can deeply and earnestly deshe the best welfare of one who would seek his or her hurt. This and this alone is love. It is character; it is the gift of God's reign. T. W. Manson has insisted that the difference between Jesus' ethics and those of the rabbis was not the difference between the inner springs of acdon and outward acts." It is of course tme that Judaism did not altogether neglect the inner motivation. The ethical teaching of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is a moving demand for an inner righteousness. "Love ye one another from the heart; and if a man sin against thee, speak peaceably to him, and in thy soul hold not guile, and if he repent and confess, forgive him. But if he deny h, do not get into a passion with him . . ." (Gad 6:3). "He that hath a pure mind hi love looketh not after a woman with a view to fornication; for he hath no defilement in his heart, because the Spirh of God resteth upon him" (Benjamin 8:2). However, this is not typical. The most casual reading of die Mishnah makes it clear that the focus of rabbinic ethics was upon outward obedience to the letter of the Law. In contrast, Jesus demanded a perfect mner righteousness. Wilder summarizes Jesus' teaching as demanding "no anger, no deshe to re taliate, no hatred, that hearts must be wholly pure."'" Anger, desire, hatred belong to the sphere of the inner person and the intention that motivates her or his deeds. The primary demand of Jesus is for righteous character. This demand appears elsewhere in Jesus' teachings. Those who are good out of the good treasure of their hearts produce good, and those who are evil out of their evil treasure produce evil. Conduct is a manifestation of character (Lk. 6:4-5). Good or evil fmit is the manifestation of the inner character of die tree (Mt. 7:17). In the judgment, people will render account for every careless word they utter (Mt. 12:36); for in the careless word when one is not on guard, the tme character of the heart and disposition is manifested. Final acquhtal and condemnation will rest not on one's formal conduct but on conduct that evi dences the true nature of one's inner being. Thus the essential righteousness of the Kingdom, since it is a righteousness of the heart, is actually attainable, qualhatively if not quantitatively. In hs fullness it awaits the coming of the eschatological Kingdom; but in its essence it can be realized here and now, in this age. 33. Ethics and the Gospel (1960), 54, 63. 34. A. N. Wilder, "The Sermon on the Mount," IB 7:161, 163.

The Ethics of the Kingdom The Attainment of

129

Righteousness

How is the righteousness of the Kingdom to be attained? While Windisch insists that Jesus' ethics are nomistic, i.e., a righteousness determined by obedience to commandments, he also admits that Jesus presupposed an inner renewal that would enable people to fulfill his teachings. This inner renewal is either assumed to have been already experienced by the covenant people of God, or Jesus believed that his own teaching would implant God's commands in the hearts of his hearers. "The faith in the Kingdom that is thus kindled by Jesus' proclamation is therefore also the particular attimde that releases the willingness and the power to obey these new Kingdom commandments." "Power becomes available to the person who believes in the Kingdom."'* "Jesus, having demonstrated the inter relation of being a child of God and of having a loving disposition toward one's persecutors, is convinced that he has actually planted this disposition in the hearts of his pious hearers."'* The problem is that Windisch does not explain how this new disposition and energizing of the will is accomplished. This problem is unavoidable for the adherents of Consistent Eschatology; but h is no problem if die Kingdom of God is not only the fumre eschatological realm of salvation, but also the present redeeming action of God. The fumre Kingdom has invaded the present order to bring to human beings the blessings of the Age to Come. People need no longer wait for the eschatological consummation to experience the Kingdom of God; in the person and mission of Jesus h has become present reahty. The righteousness of the Kingdom therefore can be experienced only by the one who has submitted to the reign of God that has been manifested in Jesus, and who has therefore experienced the powers of God's Kingdom. When a person has been restored to fellowship with God, that person becomes God's child and the recipient of a new power, that of the Kingdom of God. It is by the power of God's reign that the righteousness of the Kingdom is to be attained. Gutbrod summarizes this new situation by saying that Jesus looked upon the Law no longer as something to be fulfilled by humanity in an effort to win God's verdict of vindication. On the contrary, a new status as a child of God is presupposed, which comes into existence through companionship whh Jesus and has its being in the forgiveness tiius bestowed.''' The righteousness of the Kingdom is therefore both attainable and un attainable. It can be attained, but not in hs full measure. S. M. Gilmour has expressed this idea vividly from the later Christian perspective: "In so far as the Christian is part of the church . . . the ethics of Jesus is a practicable ethic. In so far as he is part of the world, it is relevant but impracticable."'^

35. H. Windisch, The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, 113, 115; cf. also 102,

73. 36. Ibid., 120. 37. H. Kleinknecht and W. Gutbrod, rDA^r4:1064f. 38. JR 21 (1941), 263.

130

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

This interpretation is supported by the fact that the most basic demand Jesus laid upon people if they would be his disciples was for a radical, unqual ified decision.'' A person must make a decision so radical that it involves turning his or her back upon ah other relationships. It may involve forsaking one's home (Lk. 9:58). The demand of the Kingdom must take supremacy over the normal human obligations (Lk. 9:60). It may even involve the rupture of the closest family relationships (Lk. 9:61). In fact, when loyalty to the Kingdom conflicts with other loyalties, even though they involve life's most cherished relationships, the secondary loyalties must give way. Discipleship will mean sometimes that a man is set against his father, the daughter against her mother, the daughter-inlaw against her mother-in-law; and a person's foes will be those of that person's own household. One who loves father or mother more than Jesus is not worthy of the Kingdom (Mt. 10:34-39). The affection one sustains for loved ones is described as hate (Lk. 14:26) compared to one's love for the Kingdom of God. Any tie or human affection that stands in the way of a person's decision for the Kingdom of God and for Jesus must be broken. This is why Jesus commanded the rich young mler to dispose of his possessions and then to become a disciple. Jesus put his finger on the particular object of this man's affection; it must be renounced before discipleship could be realized. One must be ready to renounce every affection when rendering a decision for the Kingdom (Lk. 14:33). The most radical form of this renunciation includes a person's very life; unless one hates his or her own life one cannot be a disciple (Lk. 14:26). Obviously, this does not mean that every disciple must die; one must, however, be ready to do so. One no longer lives for oneself but for the Kingdom of God. What happens to him or her is unimportant, for the fate of the Kingdom is all-important. This is the meaning of the words, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mt. 16:24). This does not mean self-denial, i.e., denying oneself some of life's enjoyments and pleasures. Self-denial can have a selfish end. By practicing self-denial people have sought their selfish advantage. Denial of self is the opposite; it means the renunciation of one's own will that the Kingdom of God may become the all-important concern of life. Taking up one's cross does not mean assuming burdens. The cross is not a burden but an instrument of death. The taking of the cross means the death of self, of personal ambition and self-centered purpose. In the place of selfish attainment, however altruistic and noble, one is to desire alone the rule of God. Humanity's destiny rests upon this decision. When people have made this radical decision to deny and mortify themselves, when they have thereby for feited their lives, they have the promise of the Son of Man that in the day of the parousia they will be rewarded for what they have done. In the person of 39. To this extent Bultmann is right in saying that God is the Demander (der Fordemde) who requires absolute decision.

The Ethics of the Kingdom

131

Jesus, people are confronted here and now by the Kingdom of God; and whoever decides for Jesus and the Kingdom will enter into the future Kingdom; but whoever denies Jesus and his Kingdom will be rejected (Mt. 10:32, 33). Those who experience the Kingdom of God and its righteousness m this age will enter into the eschatological Kingdom in the Age to Come. A corollary of the demand for decision is the demand to love God with all one's being (Mk. 12:28ff.; Mt. 22:40); Jesus demands love with an exclusiveness which means that all other commands lead up to it and all righteousness finds in it its norm."" Love is a matter of will and action. Love for God means "to base one's whole being in God, to cling to him with unreserved confidence, to leave whh him all care or final responsibility.'"" Love for God excludes love of mammon and love of self. Love of prestige and personal stams is incompatible whh the love of God (Lk. 11:43). Love for God must express itself in love for neighbor. Judaism also taught love for neighbor, but such love does not for the most part extend beyond the borders of the people of God.''^ The command to love one's neighbor in Levhicus 19:18 applies unequivocally toward members of the covenant of Yahweh and not self-evidently toward all people."' Stiiking in this connection is the ideal of the Qumran community to "love all the sons of light" — the members of the community — and to "hate all the sons of darkness" — all who were outside the community (IQS 1:9-10). Jesus redefines the meaning of love for neighbor: it means love for any person in need (Lk. 10:29ff.), and particularly one's enemies (Mt. 5:44). This is a new demand of the new age Jesus has inaugurated."" Jesus himself said that the law of love subsumes all the ethical teaching of the Old Testament (Mt. 22:40). This law of love is origmal with Jesus, and is the summation of all his ethical teaching. Rewards and Grace Many sayings in Jesus' teachings suggest that the blessings of the Kingdom are a reward. Contemporary Jewish thought made much of the doctrine of merit and reward, and at first sight this seems to be tme also of Jesus' teachings. There will be a reward for persecution (Mt. 5:12), for practicing love toward one's enemies (Mt. 5:46), for the giving of alms when done in the right sphit (Mt. 6:4), for fasting (Mt. 6:18). The relation between God and humankind is that of employer or master to laborers or slaves (Mt. 20:1-16; 24:45-51; 25:14-30). Reward seems sometimes to be posited as a strict equivalent for something done (Mt. 5:7; 10:32, 41f.; 25:29), or a compensation for loss or self-sacrifice (Mt. 10:39; Lk. 14:8-11). Rewards are sometimes promised according to the measure 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

E. Stauffer, "Agapao," TDNT 1:44. Ibid., 45. Ibid., 43. J. Fichtner, "Plesion," TDNT 6:315. E. Stauffer, TDNT 1.46.

132

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

of success with which a duty is performed (Mt. 5:19; 18:1-4; Mk. 9:41; Lk. 19:17, 19); and sometimes punishment is similarly graduated (Mt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; Lk. 12:47f.), In such sayings Jesus' teachings seem close to the ordinary Jewish concept of merh in which reward was payment quandtadvely conceived. There are, however, other sayings that place the teaching about rewards in an entirely different light. While Jesus appeals to reward, he never uses the ethic of merit. Faithfulness must never be exercised with a view to reward; the reward itself is utterly of grace. Precisely those parables which speak of reward make h clear that all reward is after all a matter of grace."* When one has exercised the largest measure of faithfulness, one still deserves nothing, having done no more than his or her duty (Lk. 17:7-10). The same reward is accorded to all who have been faithful regardless of the outcome of their labor (Mt. 25:21, 23). The reward is the Kingdom of Heaven itself (Mt. 5:3,10), which is given to those for whom it has been prepared (Mt. 20:23; 25:34). Even the opportuniries for service are themselves a divine gift (Mt. 25:14f.). Reward therefore becomes free, unmerited grace and is pictured as out of all proportion to the service rendered (Mt. 19:29; 24:47; 25:21, 23; Lk. 7:48; 12:37). While people are to seek the Kingdom, it is nevertheless God's gift (Lk. 12:31, 32). It is God's free act of vindication that acquits a person, not the faithfulness of her or his religious conduct (Lk. 18:9-14). This free gift of grace is illustrated by the healing of the blind, the lame, the lepers, the deaf, the raising of the dead, and the preaching of the good news to the poor (Mt. 11:5). The parable of the laborers in the vineyard is designed to show that the divine standard of reward is utterly different from human standards of payment; h is a matter of sheer grace (Mt. 20:1-16). The laborers who put in the full day received a denarius, which was a usual day's wages; this was what they deserved. Others who were sent into the field at the eleventh hour and worked only one hour received the same wages as those who had home the heat and burden of the day. This is God's way: to bestow upon those who do not deserve it on the basis of grace the gift of the blessings of the Kingdom of God. Human reckoning is: a day's work, a day's pay; God's reckoning is: an hour's work, a day's pay. The former is merit and reward; the latter is grace."* In view of these teachings, we can hardly conclude that the Kingdom in its eschatological form is a reward bestowed in remm for obedience to Jesus' teachings, h is the gift of God's grace. But the Kingdom is not only a future gift; it is also a present gift to those who will renounce all else and throw themselves unreservedly upon the grace of God. To them both the Kingdom and its righteousness are included in God's gracious gift.

45. C. A. A. Scott, NT Ethics (1943), 53, 54. See A. N. Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of the Jesus, 107-15. 46. The fact that the one-hour workers had worked for one hour and therefore deserved something, if not a full day's pay, is one of the colorful details of the parabolic form and cannot be pressed.

10. The Messiah

Literature: K. Lake and F. J. Foakes-Jackson, The Beginnings of Christianity, 1 (1920), 345-418; V. Taylor, The Names of Jesus {1953); J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (1955); S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (1956), 3-186, 261-345; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the NT (1959), 109-36; G. Bornkamm, "The Messianic Question," Jesus of Nazareth (1960), 169-78; W. C. van Unnik, "Jesus the Christ," NTS 8 (1962), 101-16; R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of NT Christology (1965), 23-30, 109-14; F Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology (1965), 136-60; M. de Jonge, "The Use of the Word 'Anointed' in the Time of Jesus," NT 8 (1966), 132-48; R. N. Longenecker, The Chris tology of Early Jewish Christianity (1970), 63-81; G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism (1971); F. F. Bruce, "The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts," in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies, ed. G. A. Thttle (1978), 7-17; W. S. LaSor, "The Messiah: An Evangel ical Christian View," in Evangelicals and Jews in Conversation, ed. M. H. Tanenbaum (1978), 76-95; R. H. Fuller and R Perkins, Who Is This Christ? (1983); W. Harrelson, "Messianic Expectations at the Time of Jesus," Saint Luke's Journal of Theology 32 (1988), 28-42; I. H. Marshall, The Origins of NT Christology (1990), 83-96; B. Witherington III, The Christology of Jesus (1990); N. A. Dahl, Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine, ed. D. Juel (1991); J. H. Charlesworth (ed.). The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (1992).

The title and concept o f Messiah (Christos = MdSiah = anointed) is the most important of all the christological concepts historically if not theologically, because it became the central w a y o f designatmg the Christian understandmg of Jesus. This is proven by the fact that Christos, which is properly a thle designating "the anointed one," early became a proper name. Jesus became known not only as Jesus the Christ or Messiah (Acts 3:20), but as Jesus Christ or C3irist Jesus. Only occasionally does Paul speak of Jesus; he almost always uses the compound name; and he more often speaks of "Christ" than he does of "Jesus." Although w e caimot be sure, it s e e m s that Christos b e c a m e a proper name w h e n the gospel of Jesus as the Messiah first m o v e d into the Gentile worid that did not understand the Jewish background o f anointing and for w h o m therefore "the anomted one" w a s a meaningless term. This is suggested by the 133

134

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

fact that disciples were first called "Christians" (Christianoi) in Antioch (Acts 11:26); and this word designates partisans of a certain group.' The historical question arises, Why did the early Christians designate Jesus as the Messiah when the role he filled was so different from current Jewish expectations? Does the title "the Christ" go back to Jesus himself? Was he recognized in the days of his flesh as the Messiah? To answer these questions, we must survey both the Old Testament messianic hope and contemporary Jewish messianic expectations, and then smdy the messianic question in the Synoptic Gospels. Messiah in the Old

Testament

Literature: See particularly J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (1955), 7-243; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (1956), 3-186; J. Becker, Messianic Expectations in the O7"(1980); D. Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the OTin Early Christianity (1988).

In the Old Testament economy, various persons were anointed with oil and thereby set apart to fulfill some divinely ordained office in the theocracy. Thus priests were anointed (Lev. 4:3; 6:22), kings were anomted (1 Sam. 24:10; 2 Sam. 19:21; 23:1; Lam. 4:20), and possibly prophets (1 Kings 19:16). This anointing indicated divine appointment to the theocratic office concemed and therefore indicated that by virme of the unction the anointed persons belonged to a special circle of the servants of God and that their persons were sacred and inviolable (1 Chron. 16:22). The persons anointed were conceived as participating in the holiness of their office (1 Sam. 24:6; 26:9; 2 Sam. 1:14).2 Sometimes God speaks of certain persons as "his anomted" because in the mind of God they were set apart to carry out the divine purpose even though they were not actually anointed with the consecrating oil. Thus Cyms the Persian is called "his [the Lord's] anointed" (Isa. 45:1), the patriarchs are called "my anointed" (Ps. 105:15), and Israel is also called God's anointed (Hab. 3:13). It is frequently supposed that the Old Testament is replete whh the mes sianic title "the Messiah." This, however, is contrary to the facts. In fact, the simple term "the Messiah" does not occur m the Old Testament at all. The word always has a qualifying genitive or suffix such as "the messiah of Jehovah," "my messiah." Some scholars msist that nowhere in the Old Testament is messiah applied to an eschatological king.' This conclusion is, however, debatable. In 1. See Herodianoi (Mk. 3:6). See H. J. Cadbury in Beginnings of Christianity, ed. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake (1933), 5:130. Neufeld believes that the earliest Christian con fession is not "Jesus is Lord" but "Jesus is the Christ." V. H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (1963). 2. G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (1909), 295. 3. Ibid, 289.

The Messiah

135

Psalm 2:2, the title seems to refer to a messianic kmg." This is the most outstanding messianic use of the word in the Old Testament. The coming king is both God's son and the anomted one who wUl mle m behalf of God and over all the earth. Daniel 9:26 is probably also messianic: it speaks of the coming of "an anomted one." Conservative scholars have seen this as a prophecy of Christ.* Others see it as a reference to Onias III, who was high priest at the tune of the Maccabean uprising, or to some other unknown leader in Maccabean times. The earliest use of "messiah" m a messianic context is that in the song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:10) when she prays, "The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king, and exalt the power of his anointed." This prophecy looks beyond its immediate fulfillment in the house of David and Solomon to its eschatological fulfillment in the greater messianic King, the Son of David. In most of the prophecies looking forward to the final Davidic King, "messiah" is not applied to him. There are, however, a number of important prophecies that look forward to the mle of a Davidic king. The prophecy in 2 Samuel 7:12ff. promises that David's kmgdom will last forever. When history seemed to deny the fulfUlment of this prophecy, its fulfillment was expected in a greater Son of David m a day of eschatological fulfillment.* The most notable Old Testament messianic prophecies, which set the tone for later Judaism, were Isaiah 9 and 11. Although he is not called "messiah," he is a king of David's line who will be supematurally endowed to "smhe the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked" (Isa. 11:4). He will purge the earth of wickedness, gather fahhful Israel together, and reign forever from the throne of David over a transformed earth.^ Zechariah picmres the kmg as one who has secured victory and won peace for the children of Jemsalem. He will ride into Jemsalem m triumph and victory upon an ass, and will banish war, bring peace to the nations, and rule over all the earth (Zech. 9:9-10). The fact that he rides upon an ass instead of a horse or chariot (Jer. 22:4) suggests that he has won the victory and retums to Jerusalem in peace. The Messianic Idea in Judaism The word "messiah" does not occur with great frequency in mtertestamental literature. The Psalms of Solomon were produced by an unknown author who moved in the circle of the Pharisees shortly after Pompey brought Palestine under the mle of Rome in 63 B.C. This devout Jew prays for the coming of God's 4. G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (1954), 105-6. For further study of this problem in the Psalms see Vos, "The Eschatology of the Psalter," in The Pauline Eschatology (1952), .321-65. 5. E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (1949), 206-7. 6. See Ps. 89:3f; Jer 30:8f.; Ezek. 37:21ff. 7. The idea of a Davidic messianic king appears in Ps. 89:3f; Jer. 30;8f.; Ezek. 37:21ff.; Amos 9:11. See the surveys by Mowinckel and Klausner.

136

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Kingdom (17:4) through the promised kmg, the Son of David (17:5, 23). This king is to be "the anomted of the Lord" (17:6), who when he arises will smite the earth with the word of his mouth, will purge the earth from sm, will cmsh the heathen nations and deliver Jemsalem, and after gathering the tribes of Israel will reign as king forever. Here is a prayer for fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of the Davidic kmg who should rise fi-om among the people to deliver Israel from its enemies, to bring in the Kmgdom of God, and to mle over it as God's Anointed King. The desired Kingdom is earthly and political in form although a strongly religious note is sounded. This Davidic king will be endowed with supernatural gifts, for his weapons will not be those of mere physical violence and military armament, but "with a rod of iron he shall break in pieces all their substance, he shall destroy the godless nations with the word of his mouth" (17:26, 27). The Qumran community looked for two anointed ones: an anointed priest (of Aaron) and an anointed king (of Israel).* The priestly messiah takes prece dence over the kingly messiah because the Qumran sectarians were of priestly extraction and exalted their office. However, the Davidic messiah plays an important role in their expectations. "A monarch will not be wantmg to the tiibe of Judah when Israel mles, and a descendant seated on the throne will not be wanting to David. For the commander's staff is the Covenant of kingship, and the feet are the thousands of Israel. Until the Messiah of Righteousness comes, the Branch of David; for to him and to his seed has been given the covenant of the kingship of his people for everlasting generations."' The Similitudes of Enoch have a different concept: a pre-existent, heavenly, supematural Son of Man, kept m the presence of God until the time comes, and then establishing the Kingdom of God on earth. This is obviously a midrash on the "one like a son of man" in Daniel 7:13. This heavenly Son of Man is quite different from the earthly Davidic king, and h has been customary for scholars to use the term "messiah" only for the Davidic king. However, in two places (1 En. 48:10; 52:4) the Son of Man is called Messiah. The Messiah appears in two first-century-A.D. apocalypses. In 4 Ezra (= 2 Esd.), "My son the Messiah" is "revealed" and reigns over a temporary messianic kingdom of four hundred years' duration. Then he dies, together whh all other human beings; and after that is maugurated the world to come (4 Ez. 7:28, 29). In another passage the Messiah is one "whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the posterhy of David. . . . He will set them (the wicked) before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them

8. For reference see R. N. Longenecker, Christology, 65f. 9.4Q Patriarchal Blessings. See A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumrcm (1961), 314f. See also IQSb 5:20 {ibid., 112) where the "Prince of the Congregation" wiU rule with equity, devastate the earth by his scepter, and slay the ungodly with the breath of his mouth.

The Messiah

137

he will destroy them. But he will deliver m mercy die remnant of my people" (4 Ez. 12:32-34). In the Apocalypse of Bamch, the principate of the Messiah is revealed that he may reign in a temporary messianic kingdom (Apoc. Bar. 29:3; 30:1). He will destroy the "last leader of that time" and reign (Apoc. Bar. 40:1-3). He will judge the nations in terms of their treatment of Israel, and will reign in a kingdom of peace (Apoc. Bar. 72: Iff.). While these two apocalypses are themselves post-Christian, they undoubtedly preserve views current in the days of Jesus. In rabbinic literature, no rabbi before A.D. 70 can be cited as usmg maSiah in the absolute sense. The index to the Mishnah lists messiah only twice, i" However, m the rabbinic literamre as a whole the Davidic kingly messiah becomes the central figure in the messianic hope, while the Son of Man drops out of usage. The Messianic Expectation

in the Gospels

Many studies of the Jewish messianic hope omit one of the most important sources: the Gospels themselves. When one reads them to find the hope enter tained by the Jewish people, he fmds a hope sunilar to that reflected m the Psalms of Solomon. It is quite clear that die people expected a messiah to appear (Jn. 1:20, 4 1 ; 4:29; 7:31; Lk. 3:15). He was to be a son of David (Mt. 21:9; 22:42), and while he would be bom hi Bethlehem (Jn. 7:40-42; Mt. 2:5), there was a tradhion that he would suddenly appear among the people from an obscure origin (Jn. 7:26-27).i2 When the Messiah appeared, he would remain forever (Jn. 12:34). The most important element m this expectation is that the messiah would be the Davidic kmg. The wise men from the East came seeking the one who was bom king of the Jews. The scribes understood the significance of the question of the wise men about such a king and directed them to Bethlehem where the promised mler would be bom. Herod the Great understood this prophecy in terms of polhical power, for he feared for his own throne. He could brook no rival and therefore sought to destroy Jesus (Mt. 2:1-18). That Jesus' mmistry appeared to involve a messianic element with political implications is apparent from the fear of the Pharisees and the priests that his popularity would sdr up a movement of such a character that the Romans would interpret h as rebellion and would mtervene to cmsh both the movement and die Jewish nation (Jn. 11:47-48). A mighty leader who would overthrow Rome is precisely what the people desired of their messiah. At the zenith of his popularity, when Jesus had manifested the divine power resident whhin him m the multiplication of the

10. H. Danby, The Messianic Hope (1933), 3, 396. 11. J. Klausner, The Messianic Hope in Israel (1955), 458-69. 12. Cf. E. Schurer, The Jewish People (1890), II, 2, pp. 163-64; P. Volz, Die Eschato logie der judischen Gemeinde (1934), 208.

138

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

loaves and the fish to feed five thousand people, a spontaneous move resulted in which crowds attempted to take Jesus by force and to make him theh kmg (Jn. 6:15), in the hope that he might be persuaded to employ his remarkable powers to overthrow the pagan yoke and deliver God's people from their hated bondage and thus maugurate the Kingdom of God. The significance of this hope that Jesus would be such a political messianic deliverer can be appreciated when one recalls the series of messianic revolts that characterize these t i m e s . " Had it been Jesus' purpose to offer to the Jews such an earthly, political Davidic kingdom, they would have accepted h on the spot and have been willing to follow him to death if need be to see the inauguration of such a kingdom. However, when Jesus refused this and indicated that his mission was of an entirely different character and that his Kingdom was to be a spiritual Kingdom in which people were to eat his flesh and drmk his blood, the crowds mmed against him and his popularity waned (Jn. 6:66). They wanted a king to deliver them from Rome, not a savior to redeem them from their sins. When brought to trial before Pilate, Jesus was accused of claiming to be king, messiah (Lk. 23:2). Pilate must have understood the meaning of "the anointed," but Jesus looked like anything but a threat to the Roman mle. When he referred to Jesus as "the so-called Christ" (Mt. 27:17, 22), he was probably speaking in sarcasm. Jesus was certamly not a messianic kmg.'" On the cross, the priests and scribes mockingly called Jesus the Christ, the King of Israel (Mk. 15:32). If then, as appears to be the case, "messiah" suggested to the minds of the people a kingly son of David who would be anointed by God to bring to Israel polhical deliverance from the yoke of the heathen, and to estabhsh the earthly kingdom, it is at once evident that it would be necessary for Jesus to employ the term only with the greatest reserve. Had Jesus publicly proclahned himself to be the Messiah, that proclamation would have been received by the people as a rallying call to rebellion against Rome. In this case the fear of the Pharisees and priests would certainly have been fulfilled at once (Jn. 11:47-48). The messiahship that Jesus came to exercise was of a very different character from that which the term suggested to the popular mmd. In the epistles of Paul, the messianic concept has come to have very different connotations of a soteriological sort; and if Jesus' mmistry actually lay m such a direction and was not to involve at this time any form of polhical manifestation, we can understand why he did not make extensive use of a term that suggested to the popular mind something very different from what Jesus intended. Against this background we can understand why the word became generally used of Jesus only after his resurrection when his messianic mission was finally understood and the messi anic category so completely reinterpreted that the term underwent a complete transformation (Jn. 20:31). 13. Cf. W. F. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, andJosephus (1956). 14. A. H. McNeile, Matthew (1915), 411.

The Messiah

139

Jesus and the Messiah The word Christos with very few exceptions appears hi all four Gospels as a title and not as a proper name. In four places" the word is used as a proper name in editorial passages where h is enthely legitimate. Pilate apparently used the word in sarcasm.'* In several other places, the word occurs without the defmite article, but it seems to have been used, nevertheless, as a tide and not as a proper name.''' According to our Greek text m Mark 9:41, Christos appears on the lips of Jesus as a proper name; but there is the real possibility of a text that has been cormpted in transmission, and that Mark originally wrote, "because you are mine."'* Nowhere do the disciples address Jesus as Messiah. In all other references, the word is used as a title of the Messiah. These data at once suggest a strong element of historical control over the gospel tradhion in the Christian community. If the tradition had really been as radically colored by the faith of the Christian community as many form critics allege, we would expect to find the word "Christ" as a proper name in the gospel tradition, for the word was widely used as a proper name m the Hellenistic church when the Gospels were wrhten. That the Christian church preserved the messianic termmology in its correct historical form without blending mto it its own christological terminology suggests that the tradition is historically sound. There are two passages that must receive close attention: Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi and Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin. Mark records that m the midst of his miiustry, Jesus confronted his disciples with the question of his identity: "Who do men say that I am?" (Mk. 8:27)." Peter answered, "You are the Messiah" (Mk. 8:29). Jesus tiien charged them tiiat they tell no one about hhn. From that tune Jesus began to teach die disciples that he must suffer and die. When Peter rebuked him for such an idea, Jesus hi turn rebuked Peter, callmg him Satan (Mk. 8:33). Mattiiew enlarges the incident. Peter's answer is, "You are the Christ, the Son of die livmg God" (Mt. 16:16). Matthew then adds a brief section from his special source that records the words about the budding of his church on the rock, Peter, and Jesus' answer to Peter's confession: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Mt. 16:17). What Peter meant by his confession of Jesus' messiahship is disputed. Some critics believe that by "messiah," Peter had in mind the contemporary Jewish hope of a divinely anointed, supemamrally endowed Davidic king who would destroy the contemporary evil political power shiictures and gather Israel into God's Kingdom. A radical form crhicism reduces the Markan narrative to

15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Mt. Mt. Mt. See Mt.

1:1; Mk. 1:1; Jn. 1:17. 27:17, 22. 26:68; Lk. 2:11; 23:2; Jn. 1:41. the commentories by V. Taylor and C. E. B. Cranfield, in loc. 16:13 interprets, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"

140

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Peter's confession and Jesus' flat rejection of messiahship as a diabolical temp tation. Jesus calls Peter Satan not because Peter rejected the idea of a sufferhig Messiah but because he entertamed the idea of messiahship at all. 20 A similar solution understands the Matthean form of Peter's confession and Jesus' beati tude given to Peter as an event that occuned m a different historical context (see Jn. 6:69) but that is wrongly conflated by the Evangelist whh the Caesarea Philippi incident. In this view, Jesus also rejects Peter's confession of messiah ship as a complete misunderstandmg of Jesus' mission that embodied a satanic temptadon that Jesus rejects and for which he rebukes Peter.21 However, it is a serious question whether Peter meant by "the anointed one" the kingly conqueror of the Psalms of Solomon. The request of James and John to have positions of honor in the Kingdom reflects the apocalypdc Kingdom of the Son of Man rather than the victorious kingdom of the Davidic conqueror (Mk. 10:37). Furthermore, there was nothing in Jesus' conduct that could have suggested that he was to be a conquering king. The disciples must have heard Jesus' answer to the question of John the Baptist in which Jesus affirmed that he was indeed the fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic hope, but in a way that could give people offense (Mt. 11:2-6). Peter had heard Jesus' message about the Kingdom of God and seen his miracles of exorcism and healing. It is easier, therefore, to conclude that by Messiah, Peter means die one who is to fulfill the Old Testament messianic hope, even though it is not in terms of a conquering king. Peter does not yet understand what Jesus' messiahship means, but he has caught a glhimiermg of h. Matthew makes this explicit by interpretmg his confession of messiahship as referrmg to one who is the Son of God. It is clear, too, that this must have been Mark's understandmg of Jesus' messiahship, for Mark has a Son of God Christology (Mk. 1:1). The blessing Jesus pronounced on Peter because this tradi had been revealed to him (Mt. 16:17) must have to do with sonship to God more than messiahship. An understandmg of Jesus' divme sonship would mdeed require divme revelation as messiahship would not. A second passage is Jesus' hearhig before the Sanhedrui, who sought some legal ground for putting Jesus to death. A series of whnesses gave conflicthig testimony and are therefore called false witnesses (Mk. 14:56). Fmally, the High Priest addressed to him the dhect question, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"22 (Mk. 14:61). It is not altogether clear what tiie Priest meant by "Son of God." Since this was not a popular messianic tide,23 it is probable that the High Priest had heard mmors that Jesus had made some such claim-^" Accordmg to Mark's account, Jesus answered with an unqualified affirmative, "1 am" (Mk. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. above.

R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of Christology, 109. O. CuUmann, Christology, 122, 280f. "The Blessed" is a typical Jewish synonym for God, akin to "heaven" (lk. 15:18). See below. Chapter 12. C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 43. This supports our interpretation of Mt. 16:16

The Messiah

141

14:62), but immediately defines the nature of this messiahship; h is of the heavenly Son of Man sort, not that of messianic king. Matthew has a variant form of Jesus' answer: "You have said so" (Mt. 26:64). A well-attested alternate text for Mark has the same reading as Matthew. If Jesus did not answer with an unqualified affirmative, the variant form of the answer is no denial. "The reply is affirmative, but it registers a difference of hiterpretation,"^* a difference that Jesus expounds by the words about the heavenly Son of Man, and on the basis of which he was at once condemned to death on the ground of blasphemy. There is no evidence that a claim to be Messiah was blasphemous.^6 It was Jesus' claim that he would be seated at the right hand of God that led to his condemnation by the Sanhedrin; however, this would be of no concem to a Roman governor, and he was accused before Pilate of claiming to be a "messiah" (Lk. 23:2). Pilate asked hhn if he was the King of the Jews (Mk. 15:2), and Jesus answered m words similar to his answer to the Sanhedrin, "You have said so." This was neither a bold denial nor a flat affirmation; but it was obvious to Pilate that Jesus was innocent of sedition. Yet PUate yielded to pressure from the Jewish leaders, and Jesus was executed under the formal accusation of sedition, of claiming to be a kmgly pretender m defiance of Rome (Mk. 15:26). We summarize this survey whh the conclusion that Jesus made no overt claim to be Messiah, yet he did not reject messiahship when h was attributed to him; and before the Sanhedrin, when directly accused of claiming messiah ship, he assented, but gave his own definition to the term. He was the heavenly Messiah of the Son of Man sort. It is probable that in his last entrance mto Jemsalem, riding upon an ass, Jesus intended by this symbolic act to fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 of a peaceful king. The enthusiastic welcome of the crowd and their cry, "Blessed be the kingdom of our fatiier David that is coming" (Mk. 11:10), make it clear that Jesus' words and deeds had roused tiie messianic hopes of the people to fever pitch. However, when a few days later Jesus was presented to the crowds by PUate, beaten, bound, and bloody, he looked like anythmg but a victor over die enemies of Israel. Their complete reversal of judgment about Jesus and their readiness to see him cmcified (Mk. 15:13) are psychologically sound agamst the background of Jewish messianic hopes. The Son of David The Old Testament looked forward to a king who would be of Davidic descent (Jer. 23:5; 33:15). The Lord's anointed hi the Psalms of Solomon is the Son of David (Ps. Sol. 17:23). In post-Christian Judaism, "Son of David" occurs frequently as a titie of the Messiah.^^ On several occasions, Jesus was recognized

25. V. Taylor, Mark, 568. See also C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 444. 26. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 1:1017. 27. G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 317

142

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

as the Son of David, according to Matthew's account.^* This title appears only once in Mark (10:47), for it would have less meaning to a Gentile audience than to Jewish readers. That Jesus was known to be of Davidic descent is clear from Romans 1:3. Jesus was "descended from David according to the flesh." One passage is of particular interest. Jesus took the offensive agamst the Jewish leaders with the question, "How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sh at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.' David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?" (Mk. 12:35-37). Some scholars mterpret this to be a complete rejection of Davidic sonship. This is unlikely, for the Davidic descent of the Messiah is never denied in first-century Christian writings. Others interpret it to mean that Davidic sonship is of no value in Jesus' messianic mission.29 A better interpretation is that Jesus is accusing the scribal experts of an inadequate understandmg of the Messiah. He is indeed David's Son; but this is not enough. David himself wrote, "The Lord [God] said to my Lord [the messianic King], Sh at my right hand." There is, of course, no rational answer to the question. How can the Messiah be David's Son if he is also David's Lord, at least from scribal presuppositions. Here Jesus touches on the tme messianic secret. "It [Mk. 12:3537] suggests but does not state the claim, that Jesus is supematural in dignhy and origin and that his Sonship is no mere matter of human descent."3" This is the clue to Jesus' use of messiah. He was the Messiah, but not the warlike conqueror of contemporary Jewish hopes. He avoided the dde because of hs nationalistic implications to the Jews; on occasion he accepted the tide, but he reinterpreted it, particularly by his use of the term "Son of Man." Historically, there is every reason to accept the accuracy of the gospel tradition. Jesus started a movement that led many people to believe that he was the "messiah."'! He clahned to be the one who was fulfillmg the messianic promises of the Old Testament (Lk. 4:21; Mt. 11:4-5), through whom the Khigdom of God is present in the worid (Lk. 11:20 = Mt. 12:28).'2 The Sanhedrin queried hhn as to whether he was the Messiah, and tumed him over to Pilate with the accusation of claiming to be a messianic king. For this reason he was cmcified. So important was the category of messiahship that Christos was converted mto a proper name. The memory of the church clearly viewed hhn as the Messiah. The most natural explanation for these facts is that Jesus m some way acted like the Messiah; yet a Messiah very different from contemporary Jewish hopes. It is difficult to believe that Jesus filled a role of which he was uncon scious. He must have known himself to be the Messiah. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Mt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30. O. Cullmann, Christology, 132. V. Taylor, Mark, 493. G. Bornkamm calls it a "movement of broken messianic hopes." Jesus of Nazareth,

172. 32. See W. C. van Unnik, "Jesus the Christ," NTS (1962), 101-16.

11. The Son of Man

Literature: There is an enormous literature on the Son of Man. For surveys see M. Black, "The Son of Man in Recent Research and Debate," BJRL 45 (1962-63), 305-18; 1. H. Marshall, "The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion," NTS 12 (1966), 327-51; R. Marlow, "The Son of Man in Recent Journal Literahire," CBQ 28 (1966), 20-30; M. Black, "The Son of Man Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition," ZNTW 60 (1968), 1-8; A. J. B. Higgins, "Is the Son of Man Problem Insoluble?" in Neotestamentica et Semitica, ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (1969), 70-87; J. N. Birdsall, "Who Is This Son of Man?" EQ 42 (1970), 7-17; 1. H. Marshall, "The Son of Man in Contemporary Debate," EQ 42 (1970), 67-87; G. Vermes, "The Present State of the 'Son of Man' Debate," JJS 29 (1978), 123-34; J. A. Fitzmyer, "The NT Title 'Son of Man' Philologically Considered," A Wandering Aramean (1979), 143-60; M. Hooker, "Is the Son of Man Problem Really Insolvable?" Text and Interpretation (1979), 155-68; J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (1980), 65-97; C. Tuckett, "Recent Work on the Son of Man," SB 12 (1981), 14-18; B. Lindars, "The New Look on the Son of Man," BJRL 63 (1981), 437-62; W. O. Walker, "The Son of Man: Some Recent Developments," CBQ 45 (1983), 584-607; R. Fuller, "The Son of Man: A Reconsideration," in The Living Text, ed. D. Groh and R. Jewett (1985), 207-17; D. Jackson, "A Survey of the 1967-1981 Study of the Son of Man," ResQ 28 (1985-86), 67-78; R. Donahue, "Recent Studies on the 'Son of Man' in the Gospels," CBQ 48 (1986), 484-98; I. H. Marshall, The Origins of NT Christology (1990), 63-82. For studies see: G. Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (1926, 1954), 227-54; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1945), 210-33; V. Taylor, "The Son of Man Sayings Relating to the Parousia," ET58 (1946-47), 12-15; W. Manson, 7ejj« the Messiah (1946), 158-68, 237-49; M. Black, "The 'Son of Man' in the Teaching of Jesus," £ 7 60 (1948-49), 32-36; V. Taylor, The Names of Jesus (1953), 25-35; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (1956), 346-450; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the NT (1959), 137-92; E. Schweizer, "The Son of Man," JBL 79 (1960), 119-29; idem, "The Son of Man Again," NTS 9 (1963), 256-61; H. M. Teeple, "The Origin of the Son of Man Christology," 7BI 84 (1965), 213-50; H. E. TCdt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (1965); M. D. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark (1%7); N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (1967), 164-99; F H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (1967); R. Maddox, "The Function of the Son of Man according to the Synoptic Gospels," NTS 15 (1968), 45-74; R Hahn, The Titles 143

144

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

of Jesus in Christology (1969), 15-67; R. N. Longenecker, "Displacement of Son of Man," The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (1970), 82-92; J. Jeremias, AT Theology (1971); R. Leivestad, "Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man," ATS 18 (1972), 243-67; R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man (1973); B. Lindars, "Re-enter the Apocalyptic Son of Man," ATS 22 (1975), 52-72; A. J. B. Higgins, The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus (1980); H. Gese, "Wisdom, Son of Man, and the Origins of Christology: The Consistent Development of Biblical Theology," HorBT 3 (1981), 23-57; 1. H. Marshall, "The Son of Man and the Incarnation," Ex Audita 1 (1981), 29-43; C. Tuckett, "The Present Son of Man,"ySAT 14 (1982), 58-81; E R Bruce, "The Background to the Son of Man Sayings," in Christ thelord, ed. H. Rowdon (1982), 50-70; B. Lindars, Jesus, Son of Man (1983); S. Kim, "The 'Son of Man' " as the Son of God (1983); R. Bauckham, "The Son of Man: 'A Man in My Position' or 'Someone'?" iSA^r 23 (1985), 23-33; W Horbury, "The Messianic Association of 'Son of Man'," 7 7 5 36 (1985), 34-55; C. C. Caragounis, The Son of Man (1986); A. Y. Collins, "The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as the 'Son of Man,' " HTR 80 (1987), 391-407; D. R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (1990).

Theologically, one of the most important messianic designations m the Synoptic Gospels is the Son of Man. Three facts are of superlative importance. In the gospel tradition the Son of Man was Jesus' favorite way of designating hhnself; in fact, h is the only title he freely used. Second, the tide is never used by anyone else to designate Jesus.' Third, there is no evidence m Acts or the epistles that the early church called Jesus the Son of Man. The only appearance of the thle outside the Gospels is in the vision of Stephen (Acts 7:56). The Gospels place h on the lips of Jesus over sixty-five times. It is a striking thing that the title never became a messianic designation for Jesus m the early church. The church fathers understood the phrase to refer primarily to the human ity of the incarnate Son of God. Jesus was the God-man, the Son of God and Son of Man. Many of the older discussions and commentaries assume this theological meaning of the phrase and interpret it to refer primarily to Jesus' humanity and his identhy with human beings.^ This interpretation is in error because it neglects the historical background and significance of the expres sion. One objection to the gospel portrah is that Jesus could never have applied this thle to hhnself because the thle does not exist in Aramaic — Jesus' mother tongue — and for linguistic reasons is an impossible term. It is tme that the Greek expression ho huios tou anthrdpou is intolerable Greek and is a literal translation of the Aramaic bar '"naSa". This idiom could mean nothing more than "man." This is clear from the Old Testament. "God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent" (Num. 23:19). "O LORD, 1. Jn. 12:34 is not a true exception, for here the crowd is only echoing the words of Jesus. 2. Cf. W. Hoyt, The Teaching of Jesus concerning His Own Person (1909), 87-121; B. E Westcott in The Bible Commentary: The NT, 2:33-35; A. Plummer, The Gospel according to Saint John (1882), 88-89.

The Son of Man

145

what is man that thou dost regard hun, or the son of man that thou dost think of him?" (Ps. 144:3). This argument has been carefully examined by Dalman, who has concluded that while h was not a common thle, it could be used as a messianic designation in the elevated diction of poetry and prophecy.' It is indeed stiange, if the linguistic argument holds any weight, that the expression is never used elsewhere m the Gospels as a periphrasis for humanity, an argument that is especially forceful in view of the fact that the plural, "the sons of men," does occur in Mark 3:28. Dalman's conclusion that "Son of Man" could be a messianic titie has been widely accepted hi contemporary biblical scholarship." A further objection has been raised that "Son of Man" on the lips of Jesus is nothing but a substimte for the fust person pronoun and therefore means no more than "I."* A few places occur that suggest such a usage (cf. Mt. 5:11 with Lk. 6:22); but again Dalman has pointed out that it was not a general custom among the Jews to speak of one's self in the third person, and if Jesus had done so, the term he employed for that purpose was so uncommon as to require a special explanation.* The way in which a common expression can become a technical title may be illustrated in modem times by the German "Der Fiihrer." The word means simply the leader, guide, conductor, director; but as applied to Hider, h becomes the technical designation of the head of the German Reich. Several questions must be discussed in connection with the title "Son of Man." What connotations did it have for Jesus' contemporaries? This is a very important consideration, for it should be obvious that Jesus would not employ a designation whhout regard to the significance and overtones of meanmg it conveyed for his hearers. Second, how did Jesus use the titie? And finally, what content did he pour into the expression? What meaning did he seek to convey? The Background

of "Son of Man"

We have already seen that "son of man" is not an uncommon idiom in the Old Testament, shnply designating humanity. This usage has frequently been ap pealed to, to explain some of the gospel idioms. The expression occurs in the book of Ezekiel as the particular name by which God addresses the prophet.' Some interpreters have found the background for Jesus' usage in Ezekiel.* 3. See G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (1909), 234-41. 4. Cf. the references in J. W. Bowman, The Intention of Jesus (1943), 122-25. See J. Jeremias, NT Theology (1971), 260-62. 5. See R. Uivestad, NTS 18 (1972), 243-67. 6. G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 249-50. 7. Ezek. 2:1, 3, 6, 8; 3:1, 34, etc. The expression occurs some ninety times. 8. W. A. Curtis, Jesiis Christ the Teacher (1943), 135-43; G. S. Duncan, Jesus, Son of Man (1947), 145f.; A. Richardson, Theology of the NT {195S), 20f., 128ff.; E. M. Sidebottom, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (1961), 73-78.

146

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

However, this quite fails to explain the eschatological use of "Son of Man" in the Gospels. The probable Old Testament background is the vision of Daniel, where he sees four fierce beasts arise successively out of the sea. These symbolize four successive world empires. Afterwards "1 saw . . . and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everiasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed" (Dan. 7:13-14). In the following verses, which interpret this vision, the one like a son of man is not mentioned. In his place are "the saints of the Most High" (Dan. 7:22), who are first oppressed and afflicted by the fourth beast, but who receive an everlasting kingdom and mle over all the earth (Dan. 7:21-27). One thing is clear. In Daniel the idiom "son of man" is less than a messianic title. It is a form resembling a human being in contrast to the four beasts who have already appeared in the visions. Beyond this, interpretadons differ' partic ularly at three points: Is the one like a son of man to be understood as an individual person, or is he only a symbol representing the saints of the Most High? Does the one like a son of man come to earth, or is his "coming" only to the presence of God? Is the one like a son of man only a heavenly figure or does he combine suffering with vindication? That the one like a son of man is identified with and represents the saints is clear; but this does not negate the possibility that he is also an individual personage.'" While the text does not affhm that the humanlike figure comes to earth, it seems to be clearly implied. He does indeed come into the presence of God with clouds, but when the kingdom is given to the saints to reign over all the dominions on earth, we may assume that this happens because the humanlike figure who has received the kingdom in heaven brings it to the saints on earth. While many scholars feel that the Danielle figure combines suffering and vindication because the saints are first oppressed and later vindicated," this is not at all clear; for the saints suffer on earth while the son of man receives the kingdom in heaven, and then presumably brings it to the afflicted saints on earth.'2 We

9. See M. Black, "The 'Son of Man' in the Old Biblical Literature," £ 7 6 0 (1948-49), 11-15; T. W. Manson, "The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch, and the Gospels," BJRL 32 (1950), 171-93; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (1956), 346ff.; O. Cullmann, Christology, 137ff. 10. 1. H. Marehall in EQ 42 (1970), 72; E E Bruce, NT Development of OT Themes (1968), 26. Mowinckel (He That Cometh, 352f.) thinks that an individual concept lies behind Dan. 7. 11. See C. E D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the NT (Wf,!), 34f., 87ff.; R E Bruce, NT Development ofOT Themes, 29; M. Hooker, The Son of Man, Hit 12. The question of the origin of the concept in Daniel need not concern us. See the writings of Mowinckel, Cullmann, and Borsch.

The Son of Man

147

conclude that the Danielle son of man is a heavenly messianic eschatological figure who brings the kingdom to the afflicted samts on earth. In the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), the Son of Man has become a messianic title of a pre-existent heavenly figure who descends to earth to sh upon the throne of judgment to destroy the wicked of the earth, to deliver the righteous, and to reign in a kingdom of glory when the righteous wUl be clothed with garments of glory and of life and enter into a blessed fellowship with die Son of Man forever." It is not altogether clear what use can be made of this heavenly Son of Man for New Testament backgrounds. Enoch obviously consists of five parts, and fragments of four parts have been found among the Qumran writings, but no fragments of the Similitudes have been found. This has led many scholars to the conclusion that the Similitudes cannot be pre-Christian and cannot be used for interpreting the New Testament concept of the Son of Man.'" While this is persuasive, it seems impossible to accept the Similimdes as a Jewish Christian writing, for it lacLs entirely all Christian feamres." Therefore we must conclude that while the date of the Similitudes is later than the rest of Enoch, h is a Jewish writing that reflects how certain Jewish circles interpreted the Danielle son of man in New Testament times. There is, however, no evidence that Jesus knew the Similitudes. At best, we can use it only to understand contemporary Jewish thinking in which the Son of Man has become a messianic thle for a pre-existent heavenly being who comes to earth with the glorious Kingdom of God.'** "Son of Man" in the Synojaic

Gospels

The use of "Son of Man" in the Synoptics falls into three distinct categories: the Son of Man on earth serving; the Son of Man in suffering and death; the Son of Man in eschatological glory.

13. See En. 46:48; 62:6-16; 69:26-29. 14. See J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea (1959), 33f.; F. M. Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran (1957), 150f.; R. N. Longenecker, Christology, 83f 15. See J. Jeremias, NT Theology, 269. 16. There are many debated questions about Enoch that we caimot here discuss. See M. Black, "The Son of Man in the Old Biblical Literaftire," ET 60 (1948-49), 11-15; idem, "The Eschatology of the Similitudes of Enoch," 775 3 (1952), 1-10; T. W. Manson, "The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels," BJRL 32 (1950), 171-93; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 358ff.; R. H. Fuller, NT Christology, 34-41. The Son of Man concept also appears in 4 Ez. 13:3, 26, 37-38. •The viewpoint expressed in this paragraph has now been strengthened by the emerging consensus reported by J. H. Charlesworth, who writes that "no specialist now argues that 1 Enoch 37-71 is Christian and postdates the first century." Quite the contrary: "This conclusion means that 1 Enoch 37-71 is Jewish, Palestinian and probably predates the burning of Jerusalem in 70" (Charlesworth's italics). The OT Pseudepigrapha and the

Afr(1985), 89.

148

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

A. The Earthly Son of Man Mk. 2:10 = Mt. 9:6 = Lk. 5:24. Mk. 2:27 = Mt. 12:8 = Lk. 6:5. Mt. 11:19 = Lk. 7:34. Mt. 8:20 = Lk. 9:58. Mt. 12:32 = Lk. 12:10. [Mt. 16:13] (Mk. 8:28 omhs). Mt. 13:37. [Lk. 6:22] (Mt. 5:11 omits). Lk. 19:10. Lk. 22:48.

Authority to forgive sins. Lord of the Sabbath. The Son of Man has come eating and drinking. The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head, A word against the Son of Man will be forgiven. Who do they say that the Son of Man is? The Son of Man sows the good seed. Persecution on account of the Son of Man. The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost. Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?

B. The Suffering Son of Man Mk. 8:31 = Lk. 9:22 (Mt. 16:21 omits). Mk. 9:12 = Mt. 17:12. Mk. 9:9 = Mt. 17:9. Mk. 9:31 = Mt. 17:22 = Lk. 9:44. Mk. 10:33 = Mt. 20:18 = Lk. 18:31. Mk. 10:45 = Mt. 20:28. Mk. 14:21 = Mt. 26:24 = Lk. 22:22. Mk. 14:41 = Mt. 26:45. Mt. 12:40 = Lk. 11:30.

The Son of Man must suffer. The Son of Man will suffer. The Son of Man risen from the dead. The Son of Man delivered into human hands. The Son of Man delivered to chief priests, con demned to death, rises again. The Son of Man came to serve and give his life. The Son of Man goes as written but woe to the betrayer. The Son of Man is betrayed to sinners. The Son of Man will be three days in the earth.

C. The Apocalyptic Son of Man Mk. 8:38 = Mt. 16:27 = Lk. 9:26. Mk. 13:26 = Mt. 24:30 = Lk. 21:27. Mk. 14:62 = Mt. 26:64 = Lk. 22:69. Lk. 12:40 = Mt. 24:44. Lk. 17:24 = Mt. 24:27. Lk. 17:26 = Mt. 24:37. Mt. 10:23 [This may not be apocalyptic].

When he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. They will see the Son of Man coming whh clouds and great glory. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. The Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. As the lightning flashes across the sky, so will be the Son of Man in his day. As in the days of Noah, so in the days of the Son of Man. You will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

The Son of Man Mt. 13:41. [Mt. 16:28] (Mk. 9:1). Mt. 19:28. Mt. 24:30. [Mt. 24:39] (Lk. 17:27 omits). Mt. 25:31. Lk. 12:8 (Mt. 10:32 omits).

Lk. 17:22. Lk. 17:30. Lk. 18:8. Lk. 21:36.

149

The Son of Man will send his angels. Some will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom. The Son of Man shall sit on his glorious throne. The powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man. . . . So will be the coming of the Son of Man. When the Son of Man comes in his glory. Everyone who acknowledges me before human kind, the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God. You will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man. So will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth? Praying that you may have strength to escape all these things . . . and to stand before the Son of Man.

The references that are bracketed are probably editorial. Mark reports saymgs of all three types; Q reports only one possible saying about suffering; Matthew's source and Luke's source report sayings about the earthly Son of Man and the apocalyptic Son of Man. There is a fahly wide distribution in all sources of the Gospels. The question of whether these sayings go back to the times of Jesus or have been incorporated into the gospel tradition at various stages of its history is answered in different ways. Five major types of interpretation may be listed." (1) The "conservative" wing of scholarship, represented by Vos, Turner, Mowinckel, Cranfield, Taylor, Cullmann, Maddox, and Marshall accept all three types, if not all the particular sayings, as coming from Jesus and representing his own mind. (2) The position of A. Schweitzer, now supported by J. Jeremias, that only the eschatological sayings are au thentic, and that Jesus expected to be the heavenly Son of Man at the imminent end of the age. (3) The view of Bultmann, followed by Bornkamm, Todt, Hahn, and Higgins, that only the apocalyptic sayings are authentic, but Jesus was not referring to himself as the future Son of Man but to another apocalyptic figure who would judge people at the end of the age on the basis of their relationship to Jesus (Uc. 12:8). (4) Recently, a few radical scholars have rejected the authenticity of all the sayings and attributed them 17. See 1. H. Marshall in EQ 42 (1970), 68. Marshall's conclusions are here modified and enlarged.

150

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

to the Christian community. See Teeple and Perrin. (5) A few scholars, pri marily E. Schweizer, argue for the authenticity of the sayings about the earthly Jesus, but are skeptical about the present form of the other two groups. Schweizer does accept the authenticity of a few apocalyptic sayings, but interprets them in terms of exaltation. Jesus expected God to exalt him out of his sufferings and humiliation and to witness for or against those who appear before the throne of God in the last judgment. M. Black has expressed approval of Schweizer's view.'* Dogmatic considerations influence the judgment of scholars in their eval uation of the Son of Man sayings. It is clear that a given scholar's understanding of the nature of history will help determine what he or she decides could have been tme about Jesus. "The decisive issue at stake in the Son of Man problem is not the authenticity of one group of sayings against the others, but the question of the namre of history."'' Modern scholarship recognizes that the gospel portrait of Jesus is that of a man with a transcendent self-consciousness, who, the early church believed, had claimed that he would be the eschatological Son of Man in the day of judgment. However, "history" is the story of human beings, not of divine men. History has no room for the category of incarnate deity. Therefore, the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels must be a community product — the creation of Christian fahh. A somewhat different approach to the same question is seen in those scholars who are sure that Jesus could not have claimed to be the eschatological Son of Man, for this is a claim that no sane or good person could make.^" Furthermore, the use of the title "Son of Man" for his earthly ministry involves an explich claim that few scholars have noted; it involves the claim to be a pre-existent heavenly kind of messiah who has unexpectedly appeared as a man among humankind. Teeple has recognized this significance of "Son of Man": "If Jesus believed that he already in his present career was the Son of Man, he would have to take equally improbable steps in his thinking. He would have to believe that he himself had existed in heaven as the Son of Man from the beginnmg of time, had descended to earth, would ascend to heaven again and would return to earth again."^' The very statement that such a belief on the part of Jesus is "improbable" reflects presuppositions about what could and could not be tme in history.

18. M. Black in BJRL 45 (1963), 305-18. 19. P. Hodgson, "The Son of Man and the Problem of Historical Knowledge," JR 41 (1961), 103. 20. See E C. Grant, The Gospel of the Kmgdom (1940), 63; J. Knox, The Death of Christ (1959), 52-77; A. J. B. Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man (1964), 19, 199. Bultmann calls it "fantastic." The History of the Gospel Tradition (1963), 137. 21. H. M. Teeple, "The Origin of the Son of Man Christology," JBL 84 (1965), 221. See also 250. Cullmann recognizes that Jesus' use of "Son of Man" implies incarnation. Christology, 162.

The Son of Man

151

Another factor influencing scholarly judgment is the insistence upon a formal consistency. If one set of sayhigs is authendc, this ipso facto excludes the authenticity of another group. "If the Son of Man can only mean the supraterrestrial transcendent Messiah . . . then we cannot explain how Jesus already in the present could claim for hhnself die predicate and rights of the Son of Man."22 That the ideas of an apocalyptic and an earthly Son of Man are not necessarily mutually exclusive is proven by die fact that these two concepts are brought together in the Gospels. There is therefore no a priori reason why they might not have been brought together in the mind of Jesus.^^ The idea that the Son of Man might be an eschatological figure other than Jesus — the pre vailing view in German theology — is exceedingly difficult because there is no scrap of evidence that Jesus expected one greater than himself to come, but there is much evidence to the contrary.^" We mamtam that the one solid crhical poshion is the fact that in all our New Testament sources, Jesus and Jesus alone used the term "Son of Man" to designate himself. Form crhics emphasize the criterion of dissimUarity; i.e., only those sayings can be surely reckoned authentic which have no parallel ehher in Judaism or in the early church.^* If this principle is applied to die Son of Man sayings, the idea diat the Son of Man would appear on earth in humUiadon to suffer and die has no parallel m Judaism or m the early church. The church often spoke of the sufferings of the Christ or of Jesus Christ, but never of the Son of Man. The fact that the Son of Man appears only in Jesus' own words, "seems to prove conclusively that the thle Son of Man must have been tmly and incontestably Jesus' own designation of himself "2* This is bedrock, ahhough the majority of crhics, includuig Bornkamm, fail to recognize the force of it. If Jesus did speak of himself as the Son of Man m his earthly activity, tiien the only compelling argument against tiie authentichy of the eschatological sayings is their alleged incompatibility with the earthly sayings.^? Furthermore, it fits the criterion of dissimilarity to apply the idea of an eschatological Son of Man to one aheady on earth in humiliation.^* There is, therefore, good critical reason for an open-mmded inductive approach to accept all three classes of sayings as authentic.

22. W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1913, 1970), 40. 23. I. H. Marshall itiNTS 12 (1%6), 338. 24. Loc. cit. See also C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 274. 25. Perrin makes much of this principle. See Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (1 %7), 39. 26. G. Bomkamm,yes«j of Nazareth (1960), 176. Bornkamm does not, however, accept this conclusion. 27.1. H. Marshall, NTS 12, 343. 28. For the problem around 1 En. 71, where Enoch may be identified with the heavenly Son of Man, see S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 437£f.

152

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The Earthly Son of Man There is a pattern that can be detected in Mark's Gospel.^' Caesarea Philippi and Peter's recognition of Jesus' messiahship marks a mming point in Jesus' self-disclosure to his disciples. Before Caesarea Philippi, he had spoken of himself only as the earthly Son of Man. After Caesarea Philippi, two new notes are introduced: the Son of Man must suffer and die, but afterward he would come as the eschatological Son of Man to judge and to mle m the eschatological Kingdom of God. Mark records two uses of the title early in Jesus' ministry. When criticized for forgiving the sins of the paralytic, Jesus said, ". . . the Son of man has authorhy on earth to forgive sins" (Mk. 2:10). The expression in diis saying has often been mterpreted as a synonym for humankind and not as a messianic dde, but in the context this is hardly possible. It must remam the prerogative of God rather than human beings to forgive sins. Indeed, Jesus was here accused of blasphemy since God alone could forgive sins (v. 7). Jesus as Son of Man here claims the authorhy to forgive sins. Furthermore, the expression "on earth" cannot be overlooked. A contrast between heaven and earth is involved, but the contrast may not be between the divme prerogative exercised in heaven as against Jesus' authority on earth.30 The contrast may suggest rather two spheres of Jesus' authority. As the heavenly Son of Man he possesses this authority; now he has brought that authorhy to earth and is exercising it among human beings.'' Jesus contrasted his own conduct with that of John the Baptist. John came as an ascetic; Jesus, on the other hand, as the Son of Man came as a normal human being, eating and drinking (Mt. 11:19 = Lk. 7:34). Again, Jesus was condemned by the Pharisees for fading to observe the traditions of the scribes with reference to sabbath keeping. Defendmg his conduct, Jesus said, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath" (Mk. 2:27,28). Whatever this saying involves, it cannot suggest that humankind as such is sovereign over the Sabbath and therefore each person can make his or her own regulations for sabbath keeping. Jesus claims authority as the Son of Man to mterpret the scribal regulations concerning the Sabbath. The principle here employed is that the Sabbath is not an end in itself but was made for human beings. In this context, the title "Son of Man" involves certain implications with reference to Jesus' human nature. Jesus' messi29. Form criticism assumes that all connectives of time and place indicating historical sequence are editorial and not historical. There is clearly some truth in this; many pericopes are strung together without clear connectives (see G. E. Ladd, The NT and Criticism [1%7], ch. 6). However, the tradition about Jesus preserved by the church consisted not only of many detached pericopes; it included a memory of the basic outline of Jesus' career. See C. H. Dodd, "The Framework of the Gospel Narratives," in NT Studies (1953), 1-11. 30. V. Taylor, Mark, 198. 31. See Maddox's appealing interpretation that in the mission of Jesus the eschatological judgment has already begun. NTS 15 (1968), 57.

The Son of Man

153

anic office involves participation in human nature; and whatever concems humankind as such therefore falls under the authority of the Son of Man. It is quite impossible that Jesus could have considered that humanity as such was sovereign over the Sabbath. It is further significant that Jesus said that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. The authority that the Son of Man possesses is manifested at this particular point, even to the extent of reachmg to the Sabbath. In speakmg of the blasphemy against the Holy Sphit, Jesus associated himself with the power that was at work in his person. One may speak against the Son of Man and be forgiven; but when a person is so spiritually blind as to be unable to distinguish between the Spirit of God and satanic power and therefore attributes the power at work in Jesus to the devil, that person has reached a state of obduracy that can never be forgiven (Mt. 12:31-32). Jesus did not mean here to contrast his own work as the Son of Man whh that of the Holy Spirit; he describes rather two stages in the progressive darkening of people's hearts. They might speak a word against Jesus, the Son of Man, and yet be forgiven. Jesus recognized that his messianic role was such that it was easy for people to take offense at him (Mt. 11:6). But when one goes beyond the point of speaking against Jesus to that of asserting that Jesus' messianic power is of satanic origin, that person is beyond salvation. Another saying that is very difficult to place chronologically is best un derstood in terms of messianic dignity. To a scribe who would foUow him Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes, and bhds of the a h have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head" (Mt. 8:20; Lk. 9:58). This saying is quite colorless if "Son of Man" is only a synonym for "I"; but when the heavenly connotations in the title are recognized, this saying is filled with significance. "I who possess die messianic dignity of the Son of Man am subjected to a life of humiliation that is not in keeping whh the dignity of the Son of Man." The consciousness of messianic mission is reflected in the saying, "The Son of man came to seek and to save the lost" (Lk. 19: lO).'^ All of these earthly saymgs would be perplexing to Jesus' Jewish hearers. Whether or not the SimUitudes of Enoch represent current Jewish thought, they did know Daniel's vision of one like a son of man, and if Jesus used this title to designate himself m his earthly ministry, h embodies an hnplicit claim to be a heavenly, pre-existent, manlike being. In this context, the use of the title embodied an amazing claim, amounting to a claim to deity.'' It was at the same time an unheard-of thing that the Son of Man should appear on earth as a man among human beings. How Jesus could be the heavenly Son of Man in humility and lowliness, and at the same time the heavenly, pre-existent Man was the essence of the messianic secret. 32. J. Schneider, TDNT 2:668. 33. See A. W. Argyle, "The Evidence for the Belief That Our Lord Himself Claimed to Be Divine," £ 7 61 (1949-50), 231.

154

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The Suffering Son of Man Once the disciples have become convinced that Jesus was in some real sense the Messiah who was fulfilling the prophetic hope of Israel, Jesus began to sound a new note: "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mk. 8:32). It was for this idea that the Son of Man must die that Peter rebuked him; the idea of a dying Son of Man or Messiah was incredible and a contradiction in terms. This raises another question about contemporary Jewish expectadons: Had any conflation occurred between the concepts of the messianic Son of Man and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53? It is clear that Judaism sometimes interpreted this great prophecy messianically. It is of little relevance to us what Isaiah 53 meant in its own historical context; we are only concemed about the way the Jews understood it. Jeremias has argued that the idea of a suffering Messiah can be traced back to pre-Christian times.'" However, when in Judaism the Messiah suffers it is not in an atoning death but in conflict with his enemies.'* It is trae that the Son of Man in Enoch shares certain characteristics with the Servant of Isaiah 53,'* but the important characterisdc — that of vicarious suffering — is completely lacking in Enoch.'"' Therefore we must agree with those scholars who cannot find any conflation of the Messiah and Suffering Servant in preChristian Judaism.'* After the initial announcement, Mark records that Jesus told his disciples repeatedly that he must be delivered up into human hands and be put to death. Jesus spoke of his death in terms of the Son of Man, not Messiah; but this only intensified the problem for the disciples. If the Messiah is a Davidic king who destroys his enemies with the breath of his mouth, the Son of Man is a heavenly, supematural being. How could such a one possibly die? The most vivid statement about his death is found in Mark 10:45, which states that it is his messianic mission as the Son of Man to die for humanity. "The Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mk. 10:45). "Here we hear the central theme of the ebed Yahweh hymns, and this is a clear allusion to Isa. 53:5. . . . Jesus con sciously unhed in his person the two central concepts of the Jewish fahh, 34. J. Jeremias and W. Zimmerli, TDNT 5:654-717; also published as The Servant of Gorf (1957). F. F. Bruce believes that the servant of Isaiah 53 is also the Davidic king, on the basis of Isaiah 55:3, but he fails to show the relationship between suffering and reigning. See NT Development ofOT Themes, ch. 7. 35. S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 327f. 36. See W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah (1946), 233-36. 37. See M. Black, "Servant of the Lord and Son of Man," SJTh 6 (1953), 19f. 38. See H. H. Rowley, "The Suffering Servant and the Davidic Messiah," The Servant of the Lord (1952), 63-93; O. Culhnann, Christology, 52-60; R. H. Fuller, NT Christology, 43-46.

The Son of Man

155

barnasha and ebed Yahweh.The idea of ransom (lytron) alludes to the offering for sin in Isaiah 53:10, and the phrase "for many" looks like an echo of the repeated "many" in Isaiah 53:111."° This has been the widely accepted "conser vative" view of Jesus' use of "Son of Man." He took over a term that appears in Daniel but that was not widely used in contemporary Jewish hopes, but radically reinterpreted it. The Son of Man is not only a heavenly, pre-existent being; he appears in weakness and humility as a man among human beings to fulfdl a destiny of sufferhig and death. In other words, Jesus poured the content of the Suffering Servant into the Son of Man concept."' The Apocalyptic

Son of Man

At the same time that Jesus announced his suffering, he announced his coming in glory. After Caesarea Philippi, predictions of his glorious coming as the Son of Man occur with relative frequency. This idea would be familiar enough to his hearers, for they knew the prophecy of Daniel. But the idea that the heavenly Son of Man should first live as a man among human beings and submh to suffering and death was an utterly novel idea. Perhaps the most vivid of the apocalyptic sayings is one already discussed — Jesus' answer to the question of the High Priest as to whether he was the Messiah, the Son of God. Whether Jesus answered, "I am" (Mk. 14:62), or "You say that I am" (Mt. 26:64), the result is the same."^ He immediately defines what he means by his claim to messiahship: "You will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Jesus is the Messiah, but a heavenly Son of Man kind of Messiah, not an earthly Davidic king. Jesus said, m effect, to his accusers that the day would come when the situation would be reversed. Now he was standing before their tribunal being tried. The day would come when they — his judges — would stand before his tribunal, and he, the heavenly Son of Man, would fill the role of eschatological judge. Ever since Glasson's study The Second Advent, many scholars have accepted his suggestion that Jesus in his answer to the priest speaks not of a coming to earth but only of an exaltation and a commg to the presence of God."' However, h is difficult to avoid the argument about the order of the words. The coming follows the sittmg."" The saying combines exaltation (sitting) and parousia (coming)."* 39. O. Cullmann, Christology, 65. Fuller says, "It should be taken as firmly established that Isa. 53 is constitutive for Mark 10:45b and 14:24" (NT Christology, 153), but he attributes it to the early church and not to Jesus. 40. C. E. B. Cianfield, Mark, 342. This is denied by M. Hooker, Jesus and the .Servant (1959). 41. M. Black, "Servant of the Lord and Son of Man," SJTh 6 (1953), M l . 42. See pp. 140f. 43. T. F Glasson, The Second Advent (1963), 54-62. 44. C. E. Cranfield, Mark, 144. 45. R. H. FMti, NT Christology, 145. Fuller, however, takes it as a secondary saying.

156

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Conclusion We may conclude, then, that by the use of the term "Son of Man," interpreted in the light of its historical and religious background, Jesus laid claim both to messianic dignhy and to a messianic role. In fact, the claim involved implicidy more than mere messianic dignity, for h carried overtones of essential supernat ural character and origm.''* He did not call himself the Messiah, because his mission was utterly different from that connoted to the popular mind by this messianic term. He called himself the Son of Man because this title made an exalted claim and yet at the same time permitted Jesus to fill the term whh new meaning. This he did by coupling the role of the "Son of Man" whh that of the Suffering Servant. Once the disciples were convinced that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, although a Messiah of a novel sort, he instmcted them in the larger aspects of the destiny of the Son of Man. He was fhst to suffer and die, and then he would come in glory as Daniel 7 prophesied to inaugurate the Kingdom of God with power and glory. By the term "Son of Man," Jesus laid claim to heavenly dignity and probably to pre-existence itself and claimed to be the one who would one day inaugurate the glorious Kingdom. But in order to accomplish this, the Son of Man must become die Suffering Servant and submit to death. Jesus' teachings about the Son of Man and the Kingdom of God are closely analogous in certain aspects of their sttucture. We have seen that the Khigdom of God is the perfect realization of the glorious reign of God that will be experienced only whh the inauguration of the Age to Come. In advance of the manifestation of the Kingdom in glory, however, this same Kingdom of God, his kingly reign, has manifested itself among men and women in an unexpected form. The Kingdom is to work secretiy among diem. While the evU age con tinues, tiie Kingdom of God has begun to work quietiy in a form almost unno ticed by the world. Its presence can be recognized only by those who have spiritual perception to see h. This is the mystery of the Kingdom: the divine secret that in the ministry of Jesus has for the first time been disclosed to human bemgs. The future apocalyptic, glorious Kingdom has come secretly to work among them in advance of its open manifestation."^ So it is with the Son of Man. Jesus wUl be die heavenly, glorious Son of Man coming with the clouds to judge people and to bring the glorious Kingdom. However, in advance of this apocalyptic manifestation as the Son of Man, Jesus is the Son of Man living among them incognito, whose ministry is not to reign in glory but in humhiation to suffer and to die for them. The future, heavenly Son of Man is already present among women and men but in a form they hardly expected. There is indeed a messianic secret even as there is a mystery of the Kingdom of God. 46. "In using this self-designation, Jesus implied his own pre-existence." R. G. Hamer ton-Kelly, Pre-existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man (1973), 100. 47. See T. W. Manson, "Realized Eschatology and the Messianic Secret," in Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham (1955), 209-21.

The Son of Man

157

By designating himself the Son of Man, Jesus clahned to be the Messiah; but by the way in which he used the terai, he indicated that his messiahship was of a very different order from that which was popularly expected. The "Son of Man" permitted hhn to lay claim to messianic dignhy but to interpret that messianic office in his own way. It was a claim, therefore, that would not be readily recognized by the people who possessed an erroneous concept of the Messiah, but that nevertheless was designed to alert those who were spirhually responsive to the acmal presence of the Messiah, although in an unforeseen messianic role.

12. The Son of God

Literature: G. Dalman, The Words ofJesus (1909), 268-88; G. Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (1926, 1954), 141-70; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1935), 89115; R. Bultmann, Theology of the NT (1951), 121-33; V. Taylor, The Names of Jesus (1953), 52-65; O. Cullmann, ne Christology of the NT (1959), 270-89; W. D. Davies, " 'Knowledge' in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Matthew 11:25-30," in Christian Origins and Judaism (1962), 97-118; A. M. Hunter, "Cmx Criticonim — Matt, xi:25-30 — A Re appraisal," NTS 8 (1962), 241-48; A. J. B. Higgins, "The OT and Some Aspects of NT Christology," in Promise and Fulfilment, ed. F. R Bmce (1963), 128-41; R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of NT Christology (1965); J. Jeremias, The Central Message of the NT (1965), 9-30; W. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God (1966), 108-28; I. H. Marshall, "The Divine Sonship of Jesus," Int 21 (1967), 87-103; R Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Chris tology (1969), 279ff.; R. N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (1970), 93-99; M. Hengel, The Son of God (1976); C. R D. Moule, The Origins of Christology (1977), 22-31; G. Stanton, "Incarnational Christology in the NT," in Incar nation and Myth: The Debate Continued ed. M. Goulder (1979), 151-65; J. A. Fitzmyer, "Addendum: Implications of the 4Q 'Son of God' Text," A Wandering Aramean (1979), 102-14; J. M. McDermott, "Jesus and the Son of God Title," Greg 62 (1981), 277-318; B. Van lersel, " 'Son of God' in the NT," Jesus, Son of God? ed. E. Schillebeeckx and J.-B. Metz (1982), 37-48; B. W. Anderson, "The Messiah as Son of God: Peter's Con fession in Traditio-Historical Perspective," in Christological Perspectives, ed. R. Berkey and S. Edwards (1982), 157-69; D. J. Verseput, "The Role and Meaning of the 'Son of God' in Matthew's Gospel," NTS 33 (1987), 532-56; 1. H. Marshall, Jesus the SaviorStudies in NT Theology (1990), 121-33; idem. The Origins of NT Christology (1990), 111-25.

Introduction The most important messianic phrase in the study of the self-disclosure of Jesus is "the Son of God." In the history of theological thought, this expression connotes the essential dehy of Jesus Christ. He is the Son of God, i.e., God the Son, the second person of the triune Godhead. However, as we approach the study of this expression in the Synoptic Gospels, we ought not to conclude

158

The Son of God

159

without careful study that the expression conveys such lofty connotations, for h is a matter of historical fact that this expression was used in the religious literamre of Judaism and in the Old Testament with different meanings from that which we customarily recognize. Therefore we must survey die history and the use of this expression in hs several meanings and then come to the Gospels to attempt to determine how high a concept is conveyed by the use of the term. Meaning of "Son of God" Vos has pomted out that "son of God" can be used in at least four different ways.' Creatures of God may be called children of God in a nativistic sense because they owe their existence to the immediate creative activity of God. Adam is called the son of God in approxhnately the same sense that Seth was the son of Adam (Lk. 3:38). This would appear to be, in part, the meaning of Exodus 4:22 where God speaks of Israel as his son, his firstbom. "Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us?" (Mai. 2:10). It is probably in this sense that Jesus is to be called son of God in Luke 1:35, because his birth was due to an immediate creative act of the Holy Spirit in the body of Mary.2 This is not a distmctive Jewish conception; Plato, speakmg of God, says, "Now to discover the Maker and Father of this Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered Hhn, to declare Him unto all men were a thing im possible."' A similar theology is found in Paul's speech at Athens, where he draws upon Stoic idiom to illustrate Christian tmth: "For we are indeed his offsprmg" (Acts 17:28). Here is a theology of the universal Fatherhood of God; and it follows that all people, being the creamres of the one God, are brothers and sisters. However, this is a theology of creation, not of redemption. In this theology sonship to God is a universal tmth that belongs to all by nature, and since all are intrinsically the children of God, this fact should be determinative of their attimde toward God and of their relationship to one another. We must try to determine to what extent this theology of common creaturehood entered into Jesus' teaching. Second, the expression "child of God" can be used to describe the relation ship people may sustain to God as the peculiar objects of his loving care. This is the moral-religious use and may be applied both to people and to the nation Israel. This is the deeper meanmg of Exodus 4:22. Israel is not only a nation brought into being by the activity of God, but also God's firstbom, the special object of his fatherly love. Israel is God's elect people. Repeatedly throughout the Old Testament, the relationship that Israel sustains to God is described in temis of

1. See G. Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (1954), 141f. 2. Ibid., 183. No discussion of the theology of the virgin birth has been included in this book because the Gospels make no explicit theological use of it. For its place in Heilsgeschichte, see O. A. Piper, "The Virgin Birth," Int 18 (1964), 131-48. 3. Timaeus 28C (Loeb ed.).

160

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

sonship.'' In the New Testament, this concept is filled whh deeper significance as Christians are called God's children, whether by bhth (Jn. 3:3; 1:12) or by adoption (Rom. 8:14, 19; Gal. 3:26; 4:5). We have aheady considered this dhnension of sonship in the discussion of the Fatherhood of God.* A third meaning is messianic; the Davidic king is designated "the son of God" (2 Sam. 7:14). This usage involves no necessary hnplication as to the divine nature of the messianic personage; it has reference to the official poshion of messiahship. A fourth meaning is the theological. In the New Testament revelation and later in Christian theology, "Son of God" came to have a higher signifi cance; Jesus is the Son of God because he is God and partakes of the divine nature. The purpose of the Gospel of John is to demonstrate that Jesus is both the Christ and the Son of God, and it is clear from the prologue of John that Jesus as the Son of God, the Logos, was personally pre-existent, was himself God, and became incarnate for the purpose of revealing God to human beings. This is what Paul means when he says that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to do for humanity what the Law could not do (Rom. 8:3; see also Gal. 4:4). In describing the high-priestly ministry of our Lord, the author of Hebrews speaks of him as "Jesus, the Son of God"; and by placing the two titles side by side, he suggests the two natures of our Lord (Heb. 4:14). Our primary question is whether Jesus is the Son of God merely in the religious sense; or is he the messianic Son of God; or does the theological concept that he is Son of God in the sense of sharing God's nature as John and Paul conceive it go back to Jesus hhnself? We have already seen that Jesus in some way set himself apart from his disciples in their relationship to God. In some sense, God is the Father of Jesus in a way that he could not be to Jesus' disciples.* What this involves can be determined by a closer survey of "Son of God." Messianic Son of God in Judaism The idea of the messianic Son of God goes back to the promise to David with reference to his descendants who should succeed him on the throne of Israel, and it looks beyond the immediate descendants of David to that greater descen dant who should be the messianic Son of God in the fullest sense of die word. Of David's son, God said, "I will be his father, and he shall be my son" (2 Sam. 7:14). This promise is enlarged in Psalm 89 where God said of David, "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. . . . I will establish his line forever and his throne as the days of the heavens" (vv. 27, 29).

4. See, e.g., Deut. 14:1; Jer. 3:19, 20; Hos. 11:1; cf. also 4 Ez. 7:58; Ps. Sol. 18:4. 5. See pp. 82-85. 6. See p. 84.

The Son of God

161

David's posterity is included in his person, and the high promise, never fully realized in any of his successors, pohits forward to the greater son of David who should become the Prince of the kings of the earths The messianic significance of this phrase is most clearly seen in Psalm 2 where the coming mler is called the anointed of the Lord, the king, and God's Son: "You are my son, today I have begotten you" (Ps. 2:7). The anointed King by virme of his office is here called God's Son. It is of considerable importance that whde there is an Old Testament background for messianic sonship, the expression "Son of God" never became a familiar messianic designation. It appears in only one passage before the first century. In the fifth book of Enoch, God says, "For I and my Son will be united with them forever" (En. 105:2). However, this chapter does not appear in the Greek Enoch fi-agment.* "Son of God" appears as a messianic tide in a firstcentury-A.D. apocalypse, 4 Ezra. Here hi several places the supematural Messiah is called "My Son."' G. H. Box has demonstrated that this usage rests squarely upon the messianic interpretation of Psahn 2.'° However, most scholars agree that the term underlying the extant versions of this writing was "the Servant" radier than "the Son."" A kindred writing, the Apocalypse of Bamch, speaks of "my Servant Messiah" (Apoc. Bar. 70:9). Contemporary scholarship agrees with Dalman that "Son of God" was not a common messianic designation in New Testament thnes,'^ although some think it was possible." One reference has been found m Qumran, where the Davidic Messiah is referred to in die words of 2 Samuel 7:14." This has led R. H. Fuller to the conclusion that "Son of God" was first coming into use as a messianic titie in pre-Christian Judaism." Therefore we must be open to the possibiUty that "Son of God" in the Gospels is a term designating Jesus as the Messiah. The Divine Man Another possible background for "Son of God" is the Greek idea of divine men. In oriental reUgions, all kings were thought to be begotten of gods. In Hellenism, there were men supposed to possess divine power and the abUity to work mhacles; they were called theioi andres —divine men. Bultmann has supposed

7. A F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (1900), vol. 2-3:538. 8. See C. Bonner, The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek (1937). 9. 4 F.Z. 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9. 10. G. H. Box, The Ezra Apocalypse (1912), Ivi. 11. O. Cullmann, Christology, 274. 12. O. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (1909), 272; W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1970), 92-93. 13. R. Bultmann, Theology, 1:50. 14. 4Q Florilegium 10-14. See A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (1961), 313. 15. R. H. Fuller, NT Christology, 32.

162

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

that this Hellenistic concept of the divine man lies behind the "Son of God" in the Gospels. "They picture Jesus as the Son of God who reveals his divine power and authority through miracles."'* "Son of God" in the Gospels Mark makes it obvious at the outset that his understanding of Christ is that of the Son of God (Mk. 1:1), and Matthew understands Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah in the sense of being Son of God (Mt. 16:16). We must examine the Gospels to discover what this means. One thing at once strikes us: in the Synoptics Jesus never uses the full title to designate himself; but he frequently refers to himself as the Son. This leads at once to the conclusion that whatever it means, "Son of God" was not a title by which Jesus designated hhnself. This is all the more striking in view of the fact that in the epistles," "Son of God" is a favorite designation for Jesus. Jesus is called "the Son of God" by the heavenly voice at his baptism (Mk. 1:11) and at the transfiguradon (Mk. 9:7). The temptations assault Jesus on the assumption that he is the Son of God (Mt. 3:11 = Lk. 4:41). Demons recognize hhn as the Son of God (Mk. 5:7). The High Priest challenges him with the question of whether he is "the Son of the Blessed" (Mk. 14:61). Matthew adds "Son of God" in several places where Mark does not have h;'* and h is clear that the traditions embodied in Mark and Q represent Jesus as bemg acknowledged as the Son of God by human beings, demons, and God. Places where Matthew adds the phrase do not change but only accentuate this ttadition. It is obvious that in these passages, "Son of God" is not the equivalent of "Messiah." The Messiah is a Son of David, divinely anointed to establish the Kingdom of God in power. Jesus is hailed as the Son of God because of his power over the spirh worid (Mk. 3:11; 5:7). The taunt to Jesus on the cross that he should save himself if he was the Son of God indicates that he claimed to stand in a special relationship to God so that he had supernatural power. This verse, if it is not a secondary Matthean addition (Mark and Luke lack the verse), reflects a situation in which the people believed that Jesus claimed to be not only Messiah but also the Son of God. These verses could be interpreted to mean that Jesus was viewed as a typical Hellenistic divine man or wonder-worker. But there is one bit of evidence that makes this impossible. The temptations during the forty days challenged Jesus to fill precisely this role and convince the people that he was the Son of God by performing miracles; to satisfy his hunger by changing stones to bread; to amaze the crowds by leaping down from the wing of the temple unharmed; and to assert a polhical mastery over the world (Mt. 4:1-11 = Lk. 4:1-13). Jesus 16. R. Bultmann, Theology, 1:130. 17. Seven times in Romans, six times in Hebrews, sixteen times in 1 John. 18. Mt. 14:33; 16:16; 27:40; 27:43.

The Son of God

163

firmly rejected this role of the Son of God. As we shall see, at the baptism Jesus was called as the Son of God to fulfill the mission of the Servant of tiie Lord. The temptations suggested that he forsake that role and pursue his path by miraculous means. Jesus' rebuff of Satan meant in effect that he would not forsake the role of the Servant of God. "Jesus is the Son of God not as a mhacle-worker, but in the obedient fulfilhnent of his task — precisely his task of suffering."!' We can determine the content of "Son of God" by examining several passages where Jesus is called, or calls himself, the Son. The

Baptism

At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus was acclaimed by a voice from heaven to be the Son of God and the chosen Messiah: "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased" (Mk. 1:11). In what sense is Jesus here designated God's Son? Some would mterpret it in terms of the filial love toward God that dawned on Jesus at his baptism.^" Others interpret this in terms of an adoptionist Chris tology. At his baptism Jesus was appointed to be the Messiah, the Son of God, and was installed in that office.^' This has been a very influential interpretation, identifying sonship and messiahship. Jesus became God's Son because he was chosen at his baptism to be the Messiah. However, if this declaration means inauguration into messianic office ex pressed in terms of sonship, we would expect different language. The verse is an allusion to Psalm 2:7, which reads, "You are my son, today I have begotten you." These words would be much more suitable to designate installation into the messianic office of sonship.22 However, instead of quoting Psalm 2:7 in hs entirety, the voice conflates the first half of the verse with the words from Isaiah 42:1, "Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights." The Greek word tianslated in Mark 1:11, "I am well pleased," might be rendered, "On whom my good pleasure has settled," involving the idea of choice. "What is meant is God's decree of election, namely, the election of the Son, which includes His mission and His appomtment to the kingly office of Messiah. As huios ho agapetos Jesus is the Recipient of diis elective good pleasure."23 Furthermore, the Greek word agapetos, translated "beloved," is sometimes a synonym for monogenes: "only.''^" The heavenly voice may therefore be ren dered, "This is my only Son; him have I chosen." Sonship and messianic stams are 19. O. Cullmann, Christology, 277. 20. Cf. W. Manson, Luke (1930), 32. 21. Cf. B. H. Branscomb, Mark (1937), 16ff. 22. The Western text of lAike 3:22 has these very words. 23. G. Schrenk in TDNT 2:740. It should be noted that the words in Mk. 1:11 are an allusion, not a direct quotation, of Ps. 2:7; the word order differs. 24. In Gen. 22:2; 12:16; Amos 8:10; Jer. 6:26, agapetos appears in the Septuagint for Hebrew yahid, "only"

164

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

not synonymous. Rather, sonship is the prior ground and the basis of Jesus' election to fulfill his messianic office. The reference to Isaiah 42:1 also includes a hint of the fact that the messianic office is to be carried out in terms of the servant of the Lord.25 The voice from heaven confirms the already existing filial consciousness that was at the heart of the temptation experience (Mt. 4:3,6) and on the basis of this filial relationship confirms Jesus' dedication to his messianic mission in terms of the servant.2* "This is my only Son" describes the permanent status of Jesus. He does not become the Son; he is the Son. Sonship is antecedent to messiahship, and not synonymous whh it: "Messiahship is n o t . . . the prhnary category here, nor is the 'Son of God' to be explained in terms of messiahship. The voice is . . . a confirmation of His already existing filial consciousness.''^'' The

Temptation

The temptation of Jesus is to be understood against this background. Satan did not challenge Jesus whh the words, "If you are the Messiah," but "If you are the Son of God." Satan recognized that Jesus, as the Son of God, could call upon angelic aid to assure personal safety. The temptations have to do mdeed whh Jesus' messianic office, but whh the messianic office that is grounded in his sonship. That sonship involves a supernatural element is further supported by the recognhion of Jesus by the demons. Mark records that at the very outset of his ministry, a demon-possessed man in the synagogue at Capemaum saw Jesus, recognized hhn, and cried out, "What have you to do witii us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God" (Mk. 1:24). Recognhion by the demons was hnmediate and direct. It was not grounded upon observation and interpretation of Jesus' words or deeds; h was not acquired, inferential knowledge; h was rather inmitive recognition of a supemamral kind. A comparison of this incident with Paul's experience whh the demon-possessed girl in Acts 16 gives support to this interpretation. The expression "the Holy One of God" is not a known messianic title nor a common primitive Christian designation of Jesus. Its background is the designation in the Old Testament of God as the Holy One .2* The demoniac recognized in Jesus the presence of a supemamral person.^' Matthew

11:25-27

The most important passage for the study of Synoptic Christology is a Q passage in Matthew 11:25-27 = Luke 10:21-22. Dibelius admits that this pericope is

25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

V. Taylor, Mark, 162. C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 55. C. E. B. Cranfield, "A Study of St. Mark 1:9-11," SJTh 8 (1955), 62. Cf. Isa. 40:25; 57:15. Cf. also the meeting with demons in Lk. 4:41; Mk. 3:11; 5:7.

The Son of God

165

penetrated by a "mythological," i.e., supemamral idea.'" It has been widely held, especially in German theology, that this was a late product of Hellenistic Christianhy." However, Jeremias has established that its Semitic character demands a Jewish milieu,'^ and "if we reject it, it must be on the grounds of our general attimde to the person of Jesus, not on the ground that its form or language is 'hellenistic' in any intelligible sense."" Referring to the kingly activity of God that is at work in his own person in the world, Jesus said, "I thank thee. Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes." The meaning of Jesus' ministry can be understood only by divine revelation. The presence and the power of the Kingdom of God among human beings were not universally acknowledged. John the Baptist had an nounced that the Kingdom of God was at hand, and Jesus had manifested the power of the Kingdom in his messianic ministry. WhUe some recognized that prophecy about the coming Kingdom was being fulfilled, "this generation" as a whole was blind, calling John a demoniac and Jesus a glutton and dmnkard, and sometimes, demon-possessed (Mt. 12:24). Correct understanding of the person and mission of Jesus could be acquired only by revelation from the Father who is sovereign Lord of heaven and earth and who manifests his sovereignty by hiding these things from the wise and understanding but re vealing them to babes. In the process of revelation, the Son fills an indispensable role. "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (11:27). "All things" refers to "these things" in verse 25, namely, to the entire content of the divine revelation.'" God, the Lord of heaven and earth, has imparted to the Son the exercise of authority in revelation; it involves the act of entmsting the trtith to Christ for communication to others. The ground of this hnpartation is Jesus' sonship; h is because God is his Father (v. 25) that God has thus commissioned his Son. Because Jesus is the Son of God, he is able to receive all things from his Father that he may reveal them to others. The messianic mission of revelation thus rests upon the antecedent sonship. What is involved in this relationship is made clear in verse 27: "No one knows die Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son." Something more is involved in this knowledge of God than a mere filial con sciousness. Jesus knows the Father

in the same way that the Father knows

the

30. M. Dibelius, From TradUion to Gospel (1935), 279. 31. W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 84ff. 32. J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (1967), 45ff. 33. W. L. Knox, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (1944), 7. See also A. M. Hunter, "Crux Criticonim," NTS 8 (1962), 241-48. 34. See J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, 49.

166

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Son. There exists between the Father and the Son an exclusive and mutual knowledge. God possesses a direct and hnmediate knowledge of the Son because he is the Father. It is very clear that this knowledge possessed by the Father is not an acquired knowledge based on experience, but a direct, inmitive and immediate knowledge. It is grounded in the fact that God is the Father of Jesus. In the same sense Jesus knows the Father. His knowledge of the Father is thus direct, inmhive, and immediate, and is grounded upon the fact that he is the Son. Thus both the Father-Son relationship and the mutual knowledge between the Father and Son are tmly unique and stand apart from all human relationships and human knowledge. Christ as the Son possesses the same innate, exclusive knowledge of God that God as the Father possesses of him. Because Jesus is the Son and possesses this unique knowledge, God has granted to him the messianic mission of imparting to people a mediated knowledge of God. One may enter into a knowledge of God only through revelation by the Son. As the Father exercises an absolute sovereignty in revealing the Son, so the Son exercises an equally absolute sovereignty in revealing the Father; he reveals him to whom he chooses. This derived knowl edge of God, which may be imparted to women and men by revelation, is similar but not identical with the knowledge that Jesus has of the Father. The Son's knowledge of the Father is the same direct, intuitive knowledge that the Father possesses of the Son. It is therefore on the level of divine knowledge. The knowledge that human beings may gain of the Father is a mediated knowledge imparted by revelation through the Son. The knowledge of the Father that Jesus possesses is thus quite unique; and his sonship, standing on the same level, is equally unique. It is a derived knowledge of God that is imparted to men and women, even as the experience of being God's children is mediated through the Son. It is clear from this passage that sonship and messiahship are not the same; sonship precedes messiahship and is in fact the ground for the messianic mission. Furthermore, sonship involves something more than a filial consciousness; it involves a unique and exclusive relationship between God and Jesus. The Ignorance of the Son Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God in his word about the tune of his parousia. "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mk. 13:32). The force of this saying is found in the fact that such things ought to be known to angels and to the Son as well as to the Father The point is that Jesus classes himself whh the Father and the angels — all partaking normally of supematural knowledge. At this point, contrary to expectations, the Son is ignorant.'* 35. For the authenticity of this saying, see I. H. Marshall, "The Divine Sonship of J e s u s , " 2 1 (1967), 95.

The Son of God The Wicked

167

Husbandman

In the parable of the wicked husbandman (Mk. 12:1-12), sonship is again differentiated from messiahship and provides the antecedent ground of the messianic mission. After the visit of the several servants had proven fruhless, the landowner sent his son to receive the inheritance. It is because he is the son that the owner expects this last mission to be successful, and his sonship is quite independent of and anterior to his mission. It is because he is the son that he becomes the heir of the vineyard and is sent to enter into his inheri tance. The Debate with the Pharisees In the debate with the Pharisees during his last week, Jesus asked them the question, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?" Jesus did not deny the tmthfulness of their claim. The Davidic descent of the Messiah was so widely accepted that it could not be denied (Rom. 1:3), and there is no evidence that Jesus resented being called the Son of David. Jesus corrected the current evaluation of the Messiah by pointing out that he must be more than David's Son, since David calls hhn Lord. "The LORD said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet" (Ps. 110:1). Then Jesus pressed the question: "David himself calls hhn Lord; so how is he his son?" (Mk. 12:37). The point is that the Pharisees' concept of Messiah was not wrong; h was inadequate. The Messiah must be not only the Son of David; he must also be the Son of God, and as the Son of God he is David's Lord. As the Son of God, he is to sit at God's right hand to exercise a universal sovereignty. David's Son was to mle the world; God's Son was to mle the world to come. Jesus suggests that, according to the Psalm here quoted, the Messiah must be a supernatural being who will be seated at God's right hand. These words may even involve a reference to Jesus' pre-existence.'* The Messiah is at the same time an earthly man of Davidic descent and the coming world Judge — David's Lord and Judge. Before the Sanhedrin A similar claim to sonship of an exalted order is found on the occasion of Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin. Various charges were laid against Jesus, to which he did not reply. Finally, the High Priest put him under oath (Mt. 26:63) and asked him the direct question, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" (Mk. 14:61). Some scholars insist that it is inconceivable that a high priest should have asked such a question,''' but if the High Priest had heard reports that Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God and was seeking a ground to condemn him, there is nothing incredible about the question. It is not clear 36. J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Matthaus (1949), 163. 37. Cf. J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (1925), 342.

168

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

whether on the lips of the High Priest the expression "the Son of the Blessed," or "the Son of God" involved anything more than a designation of the messianic office and is synonymous to "the Christ"; but in view of the fact that the expression is not a familiar title for the Messiah, we may suspect that there is more involved in the question. At least Jesus' reply removed a measure of this ambiguity. He said, "1 am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and commg with the clouds of heaven" (Mk. 14:62). Immedi ately the Sanhedrin agreed in condemning him to death, and that on the ground of blasphemy. It is important to note that the claim to messiahship of itself was no ground in the Jewish law for condemnation. The assertion of mere messianic rank could not of itself have led to the death sentence. Such a claim would never have been constmed as blasphemy.'* Jesus' claim then involved far more than messiahship; it involved messiahship of an exalted Son of Man kind. Jesus in effect said this: Now I am standing before your court and being judged; but the day will come when this circumstance will be reversed and when you will see the one whom you are now judging sitting as the Son of Man to judge the world. He whom you are now condemning will henceforth be your Judge. Thus Jesus claimed the prerogative of final judgment, a function that belonged to God alone, and it is because of this claim to future exaltation and to the exercise of the prerogatives of God himself that he was condemned to death on the ground of blasphemy. Conclusion We conclude that Jesus thought of himself as the Son of God in a unique way, that he was set apart from all others in that he shared a oneness with God hnpossible to ordinary human beings. There are other evidences;" we have limited our discussion to the use of the term "Son of God." There is a close connection between "Son of Man" and "Son of God." Marshall has suggested that Jesus used the tide "Son of Man" "to give cautious expression to his own unique relationship with God as his Son and agent of salvation. The title Messiah was both inadequate . . . and misleading... while that of Son was only too clear in its implications. But the title of Son of man had distinct merits. It was admirably fitted to express Jesus' conception of his own person, since h referred to a person closely linked with God and of heavenly origin.... 'Son of Man' was thus a perfect vehicle for expressing the divine self-consciousness of Jesus while at the same thne preserving the secrecy of his self-revelation from those who had blinded their eyes and closed their ears.'""" In the early church "Son of God" could be used without restraint to indicate the supreme place occupied by Jesus.

38. Cf. G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 313. 39. A. W. Argyle, "The Evidence for the Belief That Our Lord Himself Qaimed to Be Divine," ET 61 (1949-50), 228-32. 40. I. H. Marshall, "Synoptic Son of Man Sayings," NTS 12 (1%6), 350f.

The Son of God

169

Lord In the early church, one of the most honorific titles for Jesus was "Lord." It was the primary confession of faith m Jesus (Rom. 10:9), and it carried connotations of deity. As Lord, Jesus, resurrected and exalted, was seated at God's right hand (Acts 2:36,33), where he would reign until all creation recognized his Lordship (Phil. 2:9-11). If the tradhion of the Jesus of history has been as radicaUy transformed by Christian fahh as the form critics say, we would expect this title to find its way into the tradition about Jesus. This, however, is not what we find. The word does indeed frequently occur, but not usually whh high christological connotations. The word is frequently used in the vocative as a form of poHte address (Mt. 18:26; 15:27; Lk. 7:6; 9:57, etc.) where it has the force of the English "Sir" or "Milord." Its Hebrew equiv alent is "Rabbi" — the term by which pupils addressed their master."' Luke uses the term many times in a deliberate anachronism, equal to, "He, whom we now know to be the Lord" (Lk. 7:13, 19; 10:1, 39, 4 1 , etc.).''^ There are several sayings where the word is used as a designation of high honor, but whh less than the Christology of the early church (Lk. 5:8; Mt. 7:21)."'* Jesus used the word to designate his own dignity m Mark 2:28; 11:3; and 12:37. The last passage, in which Jesus points to Psalm 110:1 where the Messiah is called Kyrios, is very hnportant. Taylor thmks that this is probably one of the factors that led the early Christians to think of Jesus as Kyrios.** The use of the title in the Fourth Gospel is impressive. In the first nineteen chapters, Kyrios appears only three times (4:1; 6:23; 11:2), aside from those places where the vocative is a form of respectful address. However, in the last two chapters there are fifteen appearances of the term. "It is clear that the Evangelist feels h appropriate to speak of 'the Lord' in these contexts, but does not feel at liberty to use the thle in connection whh the eariier ministry.""* Taylor rightly concludes that h is highly improbable that this tide was in use in the lifedme of Jesus. It is as the risen and ascended Lord that he is Kyrios.

41. V. Taylor, The Names of Jesus (1953), 41. 42. Ibid., 42. 43. See G. Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus, 119f.; O. Cullmann, Christology, 204f *At points in Matthew the use of kyrios reflects a Christology that does not seem appreciably lower than that of the early church (cf. 14:30 [cf. v 33]; 22:44f.). It is generally true, however, that the Evangelist's high Christology intmdes into the narrative relatively seldom, remaining more often implicit than explicit. 44. V. Taylor, The Names of Jesus, 42. 45. Ibid., 43.

13. The Messianic Problem: The Jesus of History and the Historical Jesus

Literature: A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the HistoricalJesus (1911, 1969); T. W. Manson, "The Life of Jesus: Some Tendencies in Present-Day Research," in The Background of the NT and Its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (1956), 211-21; C. F. D. Moule, "The Intention of the Evangelists," in NT Essays, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (1959), 165-79; J. M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (1959); G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (1960); R. Bultmann, Existence and Faith, ed. S. M. Ogden (1960); B. Reicke, "Incarnation and Exaltation," Int 16 (1962), 156-68; C. E. Braaten and R. A. Harrisville, Kerygma and History (1962); M. Kahler, The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, ed. C. E. Braaten (1964); H. Anderson, Jesus and Christian Origins (1964); J. Jeremias, The Problem of the Historical Jesus (1964); C. E. Braaten and R. A. Harrisville, The HistoricalJesus and the Kerygmatic Christ (1964); A. Hanson (ed.). Vindications. Essays on the Historical Basis of Christianity (1966); G. E. Ladd, "History and Theology in Biblical Exegesis," Int 20 (1966), 54-64; idem, "The Problem of History in Contemporary NT Interpretation," StEv 5 (1%8), 88-100; C. C. Anderson, Critical Quests of Jesus (1969); H. K. McArthur, In Search of the Historical Jesus (1969); C. H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity (1970); L. Keck, A Future for the Historical Jesus: The Place of Jesus in Preaching and Theology (1971); G. E. Ladd, "A Search for Perspective," Int 25 (1971), 41-62; H. Conzehnann, Jesus (1973); G. Aul6n, Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research (1976); 1. H. Marshall, / Believe in the Historical Jesus (1977); B. R Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (1979); B. Gerhardsson, TTie Origins of the Gospel Traditions (1979); R. H. Stein, "The 'Criteria' for Authenticity," in Gospel Perspectives, vol. 1, ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham (1980); W. B. Tatum, The Quest ofJesus: A Guidebook (1982); A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History (1982); E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (1985); W. S. Kissinger, The Lives of Jesus: A History and Bibliography (1985); N. T. Wright, " 'Constraints' and the Jesus of History," SJTh 39 (1986), 189-210; M. Borg, Jesus, a New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship (1987); C. A. Evans, "The Historical Jesus and Christian Faith: A Critical Assessment of a Scholarly Problem," Christian Scholars Review 18 (1988), 48-63; M. J. Borg, "A Renaissance in Jesus Studies," Th Today 45 (1988), 280-92; J. H. Chariesworth, Jesus within Judaism (1988); P. H. HoUenbach, "The Historical Jesus Question in North America Today," BTB 19 (1989), 11-22; C. A. Evans, "Authenticity Criteria in Life of Jesus Research," Christian Scholars Review 19 (1989), 6-31; D. A. Hagner, "The New Testament, History, and the Historical-Critical Method," in NT Criticism and Interpreta170

The Messianic Problem

171

tion, ed. D. A. Black and D. S. Dockery ( 1 9 9 1 ) , 7 3 - 9 6 ; H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; P. Stuhlmacher (ed.). The Gospel and the Gospels ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; J. P. Meiet, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the HistoricalJesus ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; N. T. Wright, Who W4J5 J e s u s . ' ' ( 1 9 9 2 ) .

For special bibliography see: The

A. Evans, Jesus

(1992).

Problem

In the preceding chapters we have studied the portrait of Jesus as found m the Synoptic Gospels. At various points in the study we have found objective grounds in the gospel data for believing that this is fundamentally an accurate portrayal; for example, that the portrah basically corresponds to the facts of the history of Jesus. We must deal at somewhat greater length whh this question, for many scholars today would discount the portrah we have drawn with the objection that it represents the faith of the church, not the acmal history about Jesus. Such scholars insist that we must go behind the Jesus of the Gospels, who is essentially one with the Christ of fahh, to recover the historical Jesus, i.e., a Jesus uncolored by fahh. The problem must be frankly faced. The Gospels portray a man who was conscious that in him dwelt transcendence. He was the Messiah in whom God's kingly reign had come to humanity; but he wasn't the nationalistic, polhical Messiah corresponding to the contemporary Jewish hopes. He was the anointed of the Lord to fulfiU the messianic promises of the Old Testament, but their fulfillment was occurring in the spirhual realm, not in the socio-political realm. He was also the Son of Man — a heavenly, pre-existent, divine being now appearing on earth in humilhy to suffer and die but who is destined to be exalted to heaven and to come in glory to judge the world and to inaugiuate the Kingdom of God in the transformed order of the Age to Come. In the earthly stage of his mission, however, he is the Suffering Servant who is to give his life a ransom for many, pouring out his blood m a sacrificial, atoning death. Furthermore, Jesus not only claims to be the heavenly Son of Man; he also reflects a con sciousness of enjoying a unique relationship whh God. His designation of himself as the Son includes elements that go beyond the messianic and point to a unique sense of oneness with God, i.e., a divine self-consciousness. The issue must be honestly faced. The essential issue is that of transcen dence. Jesus is picmred as a transcendent being who is conscious of this dimen sion of transcendence. It is because he knows hhnself to be uniquely tiie Son of God that he brings directiy to men and women the immediate presence of God.i

1. Bornkamm accepts this immediate presence of God in the words and deeds of Jesus as belonging to the historical Jesus (Jesus of Nazareth [1960], 58). He would reject our conclusions about Jesus' use of the messianic titles.

172

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Why has the historical accuracy of the gospel portrait of Jesus been so widely rejected in modern critical smdy? Have the Gospels been proven untmstworthy? Has new archeological and historical evidence come to light that has undermined their reliability in reporting history? The problem is the modern understanding of the namre of history. The rejection of the gospel portrait does not arise from an objective, open-minded, inductive study of the Gospels, but from philosophical presuppositions about the namre of history and the nature of the Gospels. History, it is claimed, is exclusively the study of humanhy and its experiences. The Gospels, on the other hand, are witnesses to fahh in God and what this faith believed that God had done in Jesus. Since God is not an historical character but a transcendent being, history cannot deal whh the claim of faith that God was actually revealing himself in Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore historical study of the Gospels must lay aside this postulate of faith and re-create the story of Jesus of Nazareth in purely "historical," i.e., nonsupemamral terms. The Nature of the Gospels At the outset, it must be freely admitted that the Gospels were written by men of fahh who belonged to the believing community. They are not "neutral, objective" historical reports, if by neutral and objective we mean an attitude of detached indifference. They are gospels —good news of what God has done in Jesus.2 An unbeliever could not have written a gospel. An unbeliever could report Jesus' words and deeds, but would do so in a context of doubt and skepticism that would view Jesus either as a charlatan or one deranged. The question is: Does the fact that the Evangelists were committed, believing men require them to distort and misrepresent the facts of history? Many studies about Jesus place fahh and history in antithetical categories. Whatever in the Gospels corresponds to Christian faith cannot be historically tmstworthy. This, however, is a false assumption. Exactly the opposite may be tme; only faith could really appreciate and adequately report what happened in the Jesus of history. Most historians today admit that all good history is interpreted history. History that is not interpreted is not real history; it is only a dry, meaningless chronicle of people, places, events, and dates. History always tries to under stand the meaning of the events it reports; and the fact that a person has a viewpoint does not mean that person is a poor historian and distorts facts to support his or her interpretation. Again, it is obvious that the Gospels are not historical and biographical in the strict modem sense of the word. The Evangelists clearly exercised a certain measure of freedom in reportmg both the words and deeds of Jesus that violates the technical norms of modem history writing. Matthew and Luke feel free to rearrange Markan material, and to report Jesus' words with some variation from 2. See G. E. Ladd, The NT and Criticism (1967), 153ff.

The Messianic Problem

173

their Markan source,' in a way that a modern historian would not do. Also, there can be little doubt that the Evangelists often wrote as they did to meet the current life and needs of the church. Furthermore, it is also obvious that the gospel tradition existed for some years in oral form before it was reduced to wrhing, and it is highly probable that during the oral state the tradhions assumed more or less stylized forms and were to some degree modified in transmission." Form Criticism and the Gospels The radical form critics have treated the gospel tradition as an uncontrollable, free-floatmg tradition that passed through a series of stages from the historical Jesus to orthodox Christology. The "criterion of dissimilarity" has become almost a sacred tenet of "orthodox" crhicism. Only those sayings of Jesus can be accepted as authentic which cannot be paralleled in either Judaism or the eariy church. Wherever parallels are found, the saying in question may have been produced by Jewish or Christian influences. This norm violates the rights of historical probability. It is incredible that Jesus as a Jew would not have made use of ideas current in Judaism that in mm rested squarely upon the Old Testament. It is incredible that Jesus would have interpreted the Old Testament at complete variance with the scribes. It is in credible that the early church, looking back to Jesus and remembering his words, would not have made use of his teachings in their interpretations of hhn.* Nevertheless, such form critics ignore the norm of historical probability and seek to create the history of the gospel tradition by postulating several stages in its development: from the historical Jesus to the primitive Jewish church, the Hel lenistic Jewish church, and the Hellenistic GentUe church.* However, these several alleged stages do not clearly emerge from our historical sources; they are created only by a critical hypothetical reconstmction of the materials preserved in the Gospels. They rest on a general historical presupposhion in which form-critical mvestigations are carried out in terms of a religionsgeschichdiche ("history-ofreligions") mterpretation of primitive Christianhy.^ This is not inductive historical criticism but a methodology based on a set of presuppositions as to how history must have unfolded. The "radical negative results [of many form critics] are due more to their presupposhions than to the data with which they deal."*

3. Ibid., 109-40. 4. Ibid., 141-69. See F. F. Bruce, Tradition: Old and New (1970), 39ff. 5. W. G. Kummel rejects the criterion of dissimilarity and casts the burden of proof on those who reject sayings as unauthentic. See JR 49 (1969), 60. 6. See Bultmann's Theology and F. Hahn's and R. H. Fuller's worlcs on Christology. Bultmann omits the Hellenistic-Jewish phase. 7. R. Bultmann, Existence and Faith, ed. S. M. Ogden (1%0), 52-53. 8. F. V. Filson, A NT History (1%4), 78. See also the penetrating critique of form CTiticism by R. R C. Hanson in Vindications, ed. A. Hanson (1%6), 28-73.

174

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Over against this approach is the fact that the gospel tradhion throughout its entire life was under die control of eyewhnesses who had seen and heard Jesus (see 1 Cor. 15:6). The Gospels assumed wrhten form m about a generation after Jesus' death when eyewitnesses were still hi the church. The controlling influence of eyewitnesses is ahogether ignored by the form cridcs. In the famous words of Vincent Taylor, "If the Form Critics are right, the disciples must have been tianslated to heaven immediately after the resurrection."' Form critics ignore another fact: whUe the early church did indeed preserve the words and deeds of Jesus to meet her own hnmediate needs, one of the most urgent of these needs was the question: Who was Jesus? What did he say and do? In our view, there can be Ihtle question that the mtention of the Evangelists was to set down in writing the church's living memory of Jesus' person, words, and deeds. 10 Historicity As a matier of fact, the Gospels contain many evidences that the tradition was not completely recast by the faith of the prhnitive community but embodies a sound historical sense. We have noted in our study of the messianic terminology that the Gospels reflect the Sitz im Leben Jesu ("setting in the life of Jesus") rather than the Sitz im Leben der Urkirche ("setting in the life of the eariy church"). Although the eariy church attributed messiahship to him so freely that "Christ" soon became a proper name, this fact was not read back into the Gospels. Jesus avoided the title "Messiah," and "Christ" as a proper name appears anachronistically on only a very few occasions. Jesus' favorite desig nation for hhnself was "the Son of Man," but this was never picked up by the early church as a messianic designation. WhUe the early church regarded Jesus as the Son of God, the Gospels do not attribute this thle to hun, but only the rather veiled term "the Son." While one of the earliest confessions of the church is that Jesus is Lord, and while Luke uses this freely as a deliberate anachronism, it is seldom used of Jesus in the theological sense. Jesus was caUed the Servant (pais) in the eariy church (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:25, 30), but this usage is not read back into the gospel tradition. Other evidences stiengthen the view that the gospel tradition is historicaUy sound and not the creation of early Christian theology. While the redemptive meaning of the death of Christ was a central theological tenet in the early church, the Gospels have little to say about the meaning of Jesus' death. The Lord's 9. V. Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (1936), 41. The importance of eyewitness control over the tradition is recognized by C. H. Dodd, About the Gospels (1950), 13f; E V. Filson, A NT History, 78; O. Cullmann, Salvation in History (1967), 90, 98 et passim; B. M. Metzger, TheNT(1965), 87; C. F D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the NT (1961), 79. 10. See C. F. D. Moule, "The Intention of the Evangelists," in NT Essays, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (1959), 165-79; A. R. C. Leaney in Vin^cations, ed. A. Hanson (1966), 114.

The Messianic Problem

175

Prayer in both Matthew and Luke contams no word that is explicitly Christian. The Sermon on the Mount has never a word about the grace of God." Other evidences indicate that the remembered teachings of Jesus and the needs of the church were not fused as form criticism suggests. One of the most pressing issues in the early church was the validity of the Gentile mission and the terms under which Gendles might enter the church; no support for either side of this problem is read back into the teachmg of J e s u s . J e s u s concentrated his mission on Israel; the early church did n o t . " Enough has been said to suggest that the church possessed a sound memory in reportmg the words and deeds of Christ. The Gospel wrhers do not intend to give anydimg like a modern biography, and they obviously exercise considerable freedom in reportmg many details; diey are painting a portrait of Jesus. They knew die difference between the pre-resurrection Jesus and the glorified Christ," and they were mterested m tellmg the story of Jesus not only because his words and deeds met many of the needs m the church but for its own s a k e . " The Historical

Jesus

The problem of the historichy of the gospel portrah of Jesus has been raised largely because of die modern concept of history and die historical Jesus. From the christological controversies in the early centuries, the integrhy of the gospel portrait was seldom seriously questioned; but the use of modem "critical" biblical study has challenged its historicity. The rise of deism m England and the Enlightenment (Auflcldrung) in Germany made an impact on biblical scholar ship that persists to this day. The same secularistic methodology employed in die humanities was applied to biblical interpretation. This movement was mo tivated m part by antisupernaturalistic presuppositions. Albert Schweitzer, an excellent spokesman for the new pomt of view, attributes to Greek theology the creation of a "new supernatural-historical Gospel." The Christ of Chalcedonian formulation clouded the historical Jesus. "This dogma had fhst to be shattered before men could once more go out in quest of the historical Jesus, before they could even grasp die thought of His existence."!* In diis idiom, tiie "historical Jesus" is a technical phrase, designating a hypothetical Jesus who could be mterpreted exclusively in human, ordinary historical categories. The gospel portiah of Jesus is that of a divine man; die "historical Jesus" could not be divme, for history has no room for the category of deity. The "historical Jesus" is a hypothesis reconstmcted from the Gospels by the use of the historical-crhical 11. See, for these illustrations and others like them, C. F. D. Moule in NT Essays, 172f. 12. A. 13. C. 14. C. 15. H. 16. A.

R. C. Leaney, Vindications, 125. F D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the NT, 66. E D. Moule in NT Essays, 173. Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings (1957). Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1911), 3.

176

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

method on the basis of naturalistic presupposhions. Such a Jesus must by defmhion be altogether and only human — a Jesus without transcendence. "If we want to speak of the historical Jesus we must accustom ourselves at first to disregard the christological dogmas of the Gospels.'''^ Robinson has cleariy recognized this fact. He acknowledges that the "historical Jesus" is not shnply identical with "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth" but is a technical term designatmg "what can be known of Jesus of Nazareth by means of the scientific methods of the historian The clear implication is that 'Jesus of Nazareth as he actually was' may be considerably different from the 'historical Jesus.'"i* It is Buhmann's merit to have made his methodology crystal clear. "The historical method includes the presupposhion that history is a unhy in the sense of a closed continuum of effects in which individual events are cotmected by the succession of cause and effect."'' The "historical Jesus" is a pure hypothesis, a cipher so far as the Gospels are concerned.^o An "historical Jesus" has not been found who stands the tests of scholarship. Old Liberalism thought it had discovered an ethical prophet. Schweitzer discovered an apocalyptic Jesus, who he himself admits is not a help but an offense to modem humanity. Bultmann became skeptical of ever reconstmcting the historical Jesus. The post-Bultmannians, illustrated by Bornkamm and Robmson.^i have found an existential Jesus who achieved authentic existence. But now the post-Bultmannians seem to have lost their zest for the new quest and are mming to other interests.22 The futility of the quest illustrates Piper's judgment that "there is no satisfactory method by which the Gospel records can be brought into agreement whh the modem idealistic or poshivistic views of history."23 This failure of the historical-critical method to discover an historical Jesus who was big enough to account for the rise of the Christian fahh and the gospel portrah long ago led M. Kahler to postulate a difference between the historische Jesus and the geschichtliche Christ. The historische Jesus is the creation of the historical-crhical method — a Holzweg, a road that leads nowhere. The Jesus who lived in history is the geschichtliche, biblical Christ who is porfrayed in the Gospels. Kahler believed in the principle of causalhy; he insisted that only the Christ pictured in the Gospels, in whom dweh the supematural (iibergeschichtlich), is big enough to account for the rise of the Christian fahh.2"

17. E. Fuchs, Studies of the HistoricalJesus (1964), 56. 18. J. M. Robinson, A New Quest of the HistoricalJesus (1959), 26, 31. 19. R. Bultmann, Existence and Faith, 291. 20. B. Reicke in Int 16 (1962), 163. 21. G. Bornkamm, Jestis of Nazareth; J. M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus. 22. G. E. Ladd, "The Search for Perspective," Int 25 (1971), 45. 23. O. A. Piper, "Christology and History," Th Today 19 (1962), 333. 24. For a discussion of Kahler, see G. E. Ladd in Int 25, 52-55. It is important to note that Bultmann et al. use these two terms differently from Kahler. See ibid, 54.

The Messianic Problem

111

"Whoever tries to account for the beginnings of Ciuistianity by some purely historical, nontranscendental event, mns up against the difficulty that there seems to be no such event of sufficient magnimde or of a kind such as to fulfill the need."25 The rejection of the biblical portrait of Jesus m favor of a hypothetical historical Jesus, and the effort to trace the stages between the two, is not the result of open-minded inductive smdy of our sources, but of philosophical presupposhions about the namre of history. There is good reason to accept the gospel portrait as basically sound. History and Faith Our conclusions raise the question of the relationship between history and faith. Does historical and critical study prove the transcendence of Jesus? How can fahh really be faith if it is established by historical and critical findings? Bult mann is the outstanding advocate of the position that faith must be faith in the Word of God alone. If faith rests upon historical verification, it is no longer authentic fahh but is reduced to good works — of the historian. However, h has not been our purpose to verify faith by critical findings. Our purpose has been to try to discover the historical simation in which Jesus taught and lived, for it is the first task of bibUcal theology to be a descriptive discipline.26 It is difficuh to agree whh Jeremias that the final result of critical smdy of tiie historical Jesus is "always the same: we find ourselves confronted with God himself."^'' History does not necessarily lead to God. A rationalistic orthodoxy could give intellecmal assent to the findings of the present smdy and not be confronted by God. Theology and history are intellecmal pursuits; faith is commitment of the whole person. The historian might possibly conclude that Jesus claimed to be the incarnate Son of Man, the unique Son of God, and yet laugh at his claims. History is smdded whh those possessed of a Messiah complex. Faith is a second step to historical research and is not necessarily demanded by it. While history does not prove the validity of my faith, history is essential to tme faith — at least to the individual who is concemed about history. Most people come to faith m response to tiie proclaimed Word of God without critically testing the historicity of the events that Word proclaims. But when one has beUeved the Word and then becomes aware of history, if he or she is compelled to conclude that the alleged events are unhistorical, it is difficult to see how faith can sustam itself. In this sense we agree whh Moule: "Nehher is blind fahh real faidi. For belief h is necessary to see — at least something. The decision to accept Jesus as Lord cannot be made without historical evidence — yes, historical — about Jesus. If it were a decision whhout any historical evi25. C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the NT, 11. 26. G. E. Ladd in Im 25, 48. 27. J. Jeremias, The Problem of the HistoricalJesus (1964), 21.

178

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

dence it would not be about Jesus (a historical person) but only about an ideology or an ideal.''^" If the construct "the historical Jesus" is the product of philosophical presuppositions about the nahire of history, is not the construct "the biblical Christ" the product of faith? The answer is No. The biblical portrait of Christ is the product of the apostolic biblical witness. My faith does not create that construct but my faith that the nature of God and history has room for such a Jesus as the Gospels picture makes it possible for me to accept the biblical witness. For the person aware of history, history must provide an adequate foundaUon for faith. But in the last analysis, fahh comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). The Messianic

Secret

Literature: D. Aune, "The Problem of the Messianic Secret," NT 11 (1969), 1-31; J. J. Kilgallen, "The Messianic Secret and Mark's Purpose," BTB 1 (1977), 60-65; C. Tuckett (ed.). The Messianic Secret (1983). Before we leave this chapter, we must consider briefly the theory of "the messianic secret." There is another important line of evidence appearing m the Gospels concerning the question of Jesus' messiahship that goes along with Jesus' reticence in the use of the title. On a number of occasions when Jesus had performed some miracle that would gain for him great public attention, he wamed the persons healed to keep the matter quiet and to avoid publicity. A cleansed leper is sternly charged to say nothing to anyone (Mk. l:43f). Demons who recognized Jesus were forbid den to speak and make him known (Mk. 1:34; 3 : l l f ) . When Jesus raised Jaims's daughter, he forbade the parents to make the events known (Mk. 5:43). A deaf and dumb demoniac after being healed was charged to tell his deliverance to no one (Mk. 7:36). After Peter's confession of Jesus' messiahship, Jesus commanded the dis ciples not to disclose this fact until after the resurrection (Mk. 8:30; 9:9). These commands to seaecy provided the basis for an elaborate theory called the messianic secret.29 Wrede suggested that all of these commands to secrecy are not historical but are editorial additions by the Evangelist. The eariy church — so theorizes Wrede — was faced whh a contradictory situation. It possessed a completely nonmessianic tradition about the life of Jesus. Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, and he was never recognized as such in his earthly ministry. However, the early church had come to believe that he was the Messiah — Messiah of a supernatural kind — because of the resurrection. Here was a contradiction! The church believed in Jesus as a supernatural Messiah, but its tradhion about Jesus was nonmessianic. 28. C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the NT, ISi. 29. See W. Wrede, The Messianic Secret (1901; Eng. tr 1973), and A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the HistoricalJesus (1911), 336f

The Messianic Problem

179

To resolve this contradiction and to explain how the Messiah could have left a nonmessianic tradition, there arose the theory of the messianic secret. Jesus was in fact the Messiah, but this was not recognized until after the resurrection (Mk. 9:9 is the key verse). Throughout his ministry Jesus kept h a secret. Therefore the tradhion of Jesus' life was a nonmessianic tradhion. Jesus was known to be the Messiah only after his resurrection. The Gospel of Mark conflates the two traditions — Christian belief in Jesus as the Messiah with a tradition in which Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah — by the device of the messianic secret. This is a clever theory, but utterly lacking in evidence. There is no his torical trace whatsoever that a nonmessianic tradhion ever existed.^" Every detectable strand of gospel tradhion is thoroughly messianic. The existence of a nonmessianic tradition is a critical hypothesis without historical foundation. It has been accepted almost as a fact of "crhical orthodoxy" in Germany, but many scholars remain completely unconvinced. T. W. Manson called the "Wredestrasse" the "road to nowhere."3i There is no compelling reason not to accept the messianic secret as an historical fact that was an important element in the mission of Jesus.32 The secret of messiahship is closely analogous to the secret about the Kingdom of God. The Gospels reveal two strands of evidence. They clearly represent Jesus as possessing a messianic consciousness, of accepting the designation Messiah when it was applied to him, of pronouncing a beathude upon the disciples when they began to apprehend the character of his messiahship, and of flatly affirming his messiahship when challenged by the Sanhedrin. On the other hand, Jesus did not widely and publicly proclaim his messiahship, and he frequently enjoined secrecy upon those who recognized it. This tension may be adequately solved by the recognition that Jesus knew himself to be the Messiah but not the sort of Messiah popularly expected. His mission was to bring the Kingdom of God but not the sort of kingdom the people wanted. He was indeed recognized as the King of Israel (Mt. 2:2; Lk. 1:32; Jn. 1:50), but his Kingdom was a spiritual Kingdom and his messianic mission was 30. This is the thesis of the exciting book by E. Hoskyns and N. Davey, The Riddle of the NT (1941). 31. T. W. Manson, "Present-day Research in the Life of Jesus," in TTte Background of the NT arui Its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (1956), 216. Perrin has replied that "the Wredestrasse becomes the Hauptstrasse" (JR 46 [1966], 296-300), but he can do so only by a myopic view that regards advanced German criticism as the only scholarship worthy of serious consideration! 32. See V. Taylor, Mark, 122-24; C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 78-79; G. H. Boobyer, "The Secrecy Motif in St. Mark's Gospel," NTS 6 (1%0), 225-35; J. C. O'Neill, "The Silence of Jesus," NTS 15 (1969), 153-67; R. P Meye, Jesus arui the Twelve (1968), 125-36; R. N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (1970), 71-73; idem, "The Messi anic Secret," EQ 51 (1969), 207-15; and especially J. D. G. Dunn, "The Messianic Secret in Mark," Tyndale Bulletin 21 (1970), 92-117.

180

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

a spiritual mission. In the future he will be the glorious King (Mt. 25:34), and his Kingdom will then be manifested in great power (Mt. 13:41-43; Lk. 22:2930). But meanwhile, his messiahship involved not a throne but a cross, not glory but humility, not reigning but dying. His present role is that of the Suffermg Servant; only in the future will he be the glorious messianic King. The messianic concept, as entertained by the people, must undergo a radical transformation. Jesus could not therefore make free usage of the word "Messiah," for h connoted to the people a kind of messiahship that h was not his purpose now to fulfill. Yet, since he actually was the Messiah, he could not m honesty deny the application of the term when it was attributed to him. For he was the Messiah; but he must suffer before he should enter his glory (Lk. 24:26). The messianic consciousness of Jesus must be distinguished from the messianic revelation. The Gospels unquestionably portray Jesus as possessmg a messianic consciousness. His infrequent public affirmations of this fact and his emphasis upon secrecy must be understood against the settmg of the popular expectations of the Messiah and Jesus' self-revelation of a radically differ ent messianic function. His messianic self-revelation therefore mvolves the re education of his disciples to a new interpretation of the messianic mission as h was acmally embodied in his person.

14. The Messianic Mission

Literature: V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice (1937); idem, The Atonement in NT Teaching (1945), 13-16; J. Denney, The Death of Christ (1950), 17-40; R. Schnacken burg, GodiTJufeanrfffingdom (1963), 182ff.; H. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (1963), 397-443; J. Jeremias, "The Sacrificial Death," The Central Message of the NT (1965), 40-50; L. Morris, The Cross in theNT(1965), 13-143; J. Jeremias, "The Passion," NTTheology (1971), 276-99; J. Jeremias, "This Is My Body," £T83 (1971-72), 196-203; V. Taylor, The Passion Narrative of Luke: A Critical and Historical Investigation (1971,

1972); H.-R. Weber, The Cross: Tradition and Interpretation (1975); D. P Senior, The Passion Narrative according to Matthew (1975); W. H. Kelber (ed.), The Passion in Mark: SOidies on Mark 14-16 (1976); M. Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the NT (1981); L. Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance

(1983); J. R. W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (1986); F. J. Matera, Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies: Interpreting the Synoptics through Their Passion Stories (1986); J.

Green, The Death of Jesus (1988). The messianic mission of Jesus had as its objective the preparation of men and women for the future Kingdom of God. Jesus constantly looked forward to the coming of the eschatological Kingdom when the final judgment would effect a separation of humankind, the righteous entering into the life and blessings of the Kingdom, and the wicked into the doom of punishment. This fumre destiny was dependent upon present decision, for the powers of the fumre eschatological Kingdom of God were present in Jesus, confronting people in his person, and demanding of them decision for or against God's mle. People encountered the powers of the fumre eschatological Kmgdom in the person of the messianic King. As they rendered a decision for the King, which meant a decision for the future Kingdom, they experienced the forgiveness of their sins. As they repented and tumed from their sins to submh themselves to the reign of God, they were able to realize m die present die blessings of the Khigdom in reality, diough in part. They were delivered from the bondage of Satan's kingdom and from slavery to sin, and experienced an hmer righteousness that is entirely the gracious work of God. It was the messianic mission of Jesus to bring the history of God's redemptive purpose to 181

182

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

a great crisis. By his presence on earth and by his mission, he brought into history such a manifestation of the powers of the Kingdom of God that its fumre, glorious consununation was guaranteed. This centrahty of the person and work of Christ in the history of redemption is the key to the entire Bible. The whole New Testament bears explicit testimony to this fact, and the Old Testament cannot be property understood apart from it.' The messianic mission of Jesus, as reflected in the Gospels, bears the same witness. Because of this crisis in the person and mission of Christ, die fumre Kingdom is not only guaranteed, but people may already experi ence the powers of the fumre Kingdom and the reality of its soteriological blessings. The eariy church viewed Jesus' death as one of the most essential events in the accomplishing of his mission. This is proved by the earliest confessional statement — that of 1 Corinthians 15:1-3, which includes the words, "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures." The Event of the

Crucifixion

Historically, the death of Jesus was a tragedy of a man caught between the forces of power politics. Jesus had incurred the deadly hostility of the scribes and Pharisees by rejecting their interpretation of the Law and thus undercutting die whole foundation of scribal Judaism. He incurred the fear and hostiUty of the noble and priestly classes by his triumphal enti^ into Jerusalem and by chal lenging their audiorhy by cleansing the temple. There can be littie question of the Sanhedrin's sincerity in seeking Jesus' death. As a religious teacher, he was a threat to Pharisaic religion, and his popularity with the people made hhn polhically dangerous. John reports an historically credible reaction of the Sanhe drin: "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on thus, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destioy both our holy place and our nation" (Jn. 11:47-48). When the Sanhedrin con demned Jesus for blasphemy for claiming to be the heavenly Son of Man who would be enthroned at the right hand of God (Mk. 14:64), they were acting according to their understanding of the Old Testament. Their sin consisted in hardness of heart that blinded them to the meaning of the new revelatory and redemptive event occurring m Jesus before their very eyes. Pilate must share the blame for the acmal execution of Jesus. He recognized that Jesus was a harmless man and not a dangerous revolutionary, yet he yielded to pressure from die Sanhedrin and cmcified Jesus as a seditious zealot. Our concem is with the theology of Jesus' death. Did he foresee his death? What meaning did he see in h? Predictions of the Passion The Gospels represent Jesus as cleariy predicting his passion. The gospel record makes Peter's confession of Jesus' messiahship at Caesarea Philippi a mming 1. O. Cullmann, Christ and Time (1950), 81-93, 121-49.

The Messianic Mission

183

point in his ministry. After Caesarea Philippi a new note entered Jesus' teaching, "He began to teach diem that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mk. 8:31). This instmction about his impendmg death became an important element in the teaching of the subsequent days (Mk. 9:12, 3 1 ; 10:33; Mt. 17:12; 20:18, 19; Lk. 17:25). How is this new note to be explained? An older criticism interpreted Caesarea Philippi as marking off two phases in our Lord's ministry: the first phase was one of success and happiness; the second, one of disappointment and failure. In the first part of his ministry, Jesus' message was widely accepted and he was confident of success.^ However, hostdity arose among the scribes and Pharisees, and it soon became evident to Jesus that his death was inevitable. Caesarea Philippi marks the mrning point in Jesus' interpretation of his own mmistry. However, this interpretation is not popular today. "The Gospels seem more likely to be historically correct when they report that success and failure, popularity and enmity, had been part and parcel of Jesus' life from the start."^ It is popular to question the historicity of these passion sayings on the ground that they are such a detailed prediction of what happened that diey must be a vaticinium ex eventu ("prediction from the event") — a product of the early church in the Ught of Jesus' death and resurrection. While it is probable that the form of these sayhigs has been molded by the church in the preservation of the tradition, two facts are hnpressive. The idea of a suffering Son of Man is Ihnited to the words of Jesus. We have seen that there is no clear evidence that Judaism had merged the Old Testament concepts of Son of Man and Suffering Servant; and the early church did not apply to Jesus the titie "Son of Man."* If we apply the criterion of dissimilarity, we ought to conclude that the nucleus of these sayings stems from Jesus. Furthermore, unless Jesus had some interpretation for his own death, it is difficult to explain how the theology of atonement arose in the early church. Long ago, Schweitzer criticized Wrede's nonmessianic tiieory on the grounds that resurrection would never constimte Jesus as Messiah in the mind of the church,* and the validhy of this criticism still stands.* No more could belief in Jesus' resuaection have caused the church to attribute atoning value to his death. The source of a theology of Jesus' death must go back to Jesus himself. Jesus' Expectation of Death The importance of his death in the accomplishment of his mission does not rest on these few predictions. In fact, the death of Jesus is one of the main themes 2. R. Dunkerley, The Hope ofJesus (1953), interprets Jesus' eschatology upon this basic premise. 3. G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (1960), 153. 4. See above, Chapter 11. 5. A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1911), 343.

184

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

of the Gospels. This is obvious from the space the Evangelists devote to the story of his death. The Gospel of Mark has often been described as a passion story with a long introduction. Indeed, one of the best explanations for the writing of the Gospel was to explain to Gentile readers how it could have happened that if Jesus was the Son of God, he could have come to such an ignominious death as execution on a Roman cross. The question of Jesus' death is inseparable from the question of the Servant of the Lord. We have maintained that Jesus understood his mission in terms of the Son of Man who fulfills the mission of the Suffering Servant,'' who deliberately identified himself with human beings in their suffering and death. When John was reluctant to baptize Jesus, he insisted, saying, "Thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness" (Mt. 3:15). These words are best understood to mean identification with the people. In baptism, Jesus united hhnself with those who were undergoing John's baptism, even though he had no confession of sin. The righteousness he would fulfill is probably that of Isaiah 53:11: "By this knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquhies."* Jesus began his ministry by numbering hhnself with sinners. We have seen' that the voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism combined allusions to Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1, and constituted a call to die mission of God's Servant. Because he was the Son of God, God had chosen him to fUl the role of the obedient Servant. This allusion to the servant passage in Isaiah indicates that Jesus realized from the very beginning that his messianic mission was to be carried out in terms of the Suffering Servant of the Lord radier than in terms of die mling Davidic king. Numerous sayings in the Gospels reflect Jesus' consciousness that a violent fate awaited him. When asked why he did not teach his disciples to fast, Jesus replied that the wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them. However, "the days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day" (Mk. 2:20). The concept of the bridegroom is admhtedly a messianic one,io and the taking away of the bridegroom cannot be interpreted in terms of ordinary human experience. It indicates, on the con trary, tiiat Jesus expected some unusual fate to befaU him that would bring grief to his disciples. A tragic event will take place that will dismpt the festivities usually associated with the joy of the bridegroom and his feUows. This can be nothing other than his death. On one occasion James and John came to Jesus with a request for places 6. O. Betz, What Do We Know about Jesus? (1968), 86. 7. See Chapter 11. 8. L. Morris, ne Cmss in the NT (1965), 41. 9. Cf. above. Chapter 12. 10. The metaphor of the bridegroom is never applied to the Messiah in late Judaism; but this is the obvious meaning in Mk. 2:20. See J. Jeremias, roA7"4:1102£f,

The Messianic Mission

185

of honor in his coming Kingdom. Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drmk the cup that I drink or to be baptized whh the baptism with which I am bapdzed?" (Mk. 10:38). The cup is clearly the cup of suffering and deadi;" but in the light of the metaphor of the cup in die Old Testament, Jesus is apparently thinking of the cup of God's wrath against sin.12 The same idea of being overwhelmed in death appears in a saying in Luke 12:50: "I have a bapdsm to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until h is accomplished!" Such a saying indicates not only diat Jesus is conscious that death awaits him; it suggests more than this — that somehow his death is the goal of his mission. At the last supper Jesus told his disciples, "You will all fall away; for it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered'" (Mk. 14:27). This is a citation from Zechariah 13:7. The prophet sees not only the smiting of the shepherd and the scattering of the flock; he also sees the purifi cation of a surviving remnant who become God's people in the time of salvation. Zechariah does not suggest how this cleansing is to be accomplished. However, a hint is given in the context. On the day of lament for the one "whom they have pierced" (Zech. 12:10), a fountain shall be opened for the house of David to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness (Zech. 13:1). This leads to die thought of a representative deadi for the flock." This passage illustrates the way the thought of Jesus' death absorbed his mind and led him to ponder the meaning of the Old Testament prophecies.'" These several passages suggest that Jesus is conscious not only that he is the Son of God and the one by whom God brings his Kingdom to humankind; his very mission includes suffering and death. In the predictions of his death and in the several passages we have considered, there is Ihtie by way of ex planation as to the reason for his death or its theological meaning. It is seen somehow simply as an essential element in his mission. The Meaning

of the Cross

There are two places where Jesus explains something of the meaning of his death: the important saying in Mark 10:45, and at the last supper. After the request of James and John for places of honor and Jesus' answer about the cup and the baptism that awah him, Mark adds the saying, "The Son of Man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." This saying has often been attributed to Pauline influence in the later formation of the gospel tradition,'* but there is no good reason for rejecting its authenticity. 11. W. G. Kummel, Die Theologie des A^f (1969), 77. 12. C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark (1959), 337. Cranfield lists many Old Testament refer ences. 13. J. Jeremias, NT Theology (1971), 297. 14. V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice (1937), 147. 15. W. Parsons, The Religion of the NT (1939), 129f.

186

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

"Anyone who regards the nucleus of the eucharistic words as genuine wUl have no hesitation in deriving the substance of this logion from Jesus."'* All three Gospels, and Paul in addition, record words of Jesus instimting the last supper with his disciples. Here we meet an amazing variation in the reported words of Jesus — amazing because we would think that Jesus' words instimting the one repeated Christian ritual would be remembered whh precision. Matthew (26:28) follows Mark (14:24): "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many."'^ Matthew alone adds the words, "for the forgiveness of sins." Again, Matthew follows Mark in the saying that Jesus will not drink again of the fmit of the vine until he drinks it "new in the kingdom of God" (Mk. 14:25). Paul adds a word of explanation with an eschatological reference: "As often as . . . you drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). It is notable that these are the only two sayings (Mk. 10:45 and the last supper) that speak of the meaning of Jesus' death. The realization diat death is an essential element in his messianic mission is found throughout his ministry, as we have seen. However, most of the passion passages include no theology of the passion. If the gospel tradition had been as completely recast in terms of early Christian faith as form criticism supposes, we would expect to find a far more explicit theological interpretation read into the passion sayings. As the tradition stands, only on a few occasions did Jesus speak of the meanuig of his death. From these passages the following conclusions can be drawn. Jesus' Death Is

Messianic

This is deduced pardy from the evidence cited that Jesus regarded his death as an essential element in his total ministry, and partly from the language of his predictions of his sufferings: "The Son of man must suffer many things" (Mk. 8:31). Jeremias argues tiiat this cannot represent the acmal words of Jesus, because there is nothing in the Semhic languages to correspond to the Greek dei ("it is necessary").'* That this is not a compelling argument is proven by the occurrence of dei several times in the Septuagint, particularly in the translation of Daniel 2:28: "But there is a God in heaven revealing mysteries, who has made clear to the king Nebuchadnezzar the things which must (dei) happen in the last of the days." This may not be an exact translation of the Aramaic. There is therefore good reason to conclude that Mark's dei may represent the meaning of Jesus' words. Some would interpret this necesshy as belonging to the outward sphere and urge that Jesus recognized that the movement of events was such that it

16. J. Jeremias, NT Theology, 294. See also R Buchsel, TDNT 4:342. 17. Lk. 22:20 has the same words in a famous Lukan "noninterpolation." See E. E. Ellis, Luke (1966), 253-54. 18. J. Jeremias, NT Theology, 277.

The Messianic Mission

187

became apparent that his death was inevitable. He would therefore cooperate with the inevitable and transform an outward necessity hito an experience possessing religious value. This interpretation, however, does not suit the evi dence, for when Peter rebuked Jesus for announcing his impending death, Jesus in turn rebuked Peter whh the words, "Get behind me, Satan! Because you do not understand the things of God but the things of men" (Mk. 8:33). Peter was thinking on a purely human level; he was unable to rise to God's level of thought at this point. Jesus' death was not an event that was merely the result of human forces; it was part of the divine purpose of things — it was God's affair. This interpretation is supported by the otherwise unnecessarily sharp rebuke of Peter in which he is labeled the mouthpiece of Satan. This suggests that it would be Satan's purpose to deter Jesus from death; or at least that Satan's purpose would be served by mrning aside from the path that leads to death. His death therefore is one of the deepest elements in his messianic mission and is in fact God's purpose for him. This interpretation is further supported by the language of Mark 10:45: "The Son of man came to give his life." The giving of his life is the objective for which Jesus came; the consummation and the purpose of his messianic mission are embodied in the laying down of his life. His death will not be merely the resuh of external forces coming to an unfortunate and tragic climax; it is rather the realization of die very purpose of his mission, the highest manifestation of his entire life of service to God and humanity.'' That Jesus' death is an essential part in his messianic mission is made more explicit in John than in the Synoptics. John makes it clear that Jesus' death is not merely an event in history; h is also a deliberate redemptive act of Jesus: he is the good shepherd who laid down his life (psyche) for his sheep (Jn. 10:11, 15, 17). If h were not within his messianic mission, no one could take his life away from him. His death is a deliberate act of laying down his life; this is a charge he has received from his Father (Jn. 10:18). Jesus' Death Is Atoning The redemptive significance of Jesus' death is seen in the ransom saying of Mark 10:45. A complex of ideas is involved in this saying that the Son of Man will give his life (psyche) for many. The first is that the life (psyche) of an individual can be lost or forfeited. "For what does h profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?" When a person's life has been lost, there is no possible way of buying h back. No price will prove sufficient to redeem it. The entire worid does not possess sufficient value to ransom a life when h has become forfehed. Viewing the lives of the many as forfeited, Jesus would give his life to redeem them. 19. It has been argued that the cause of Jesus' death was nothing extemal but was a dehberate act of his will. See J. Wilkinson, ET 83 (1971-72), 104-7.

188

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The second concept is that of ransom. "The idea of ransom (lytron) was a common one in the Hellenistic world and involved the price which was paid to redeem a slave from servitude''^" or to ransom prisoners of war or to gain release from a bond. The Jewish view is the same as the general view of antiquity. "Ransom money . . . is . . . an equivalent for forfeited life."2i The word also has the wider meaning of substimtionary offering, atonement offer ing, that 'aSam has in Isaiah 53:10.22 xhe goal of Jesus' mission is to give his life as a ransom price that those whose lives were lost might be regained. We need not recoil from this concept of ransom because of the use made of it by the early Greek fathers, who interpreted the ransom as the price paid to the devil so that people might be redeemed from his control. Origen taught that God offered die soul of Christ to the devil in exchange for the souls of human beings, and Satan after accepting the bargain found that he was unable to hold Christ after he had him in his possession. Through the divine stratagem, the devil lost his domination over both humanity and Christ. The cross was some times interpreted as the bait by which God hooked the devil, or the mousetrap baited whh Christ's blood by which the devil was trapped.23 There is no hint either in this word of our Lord or in the later teaching of Paul that Christ's life was paid to the devil. Jesus did nevertheless view his own death as the price by which the forfeited lives of women and men might be reclaimed; but he does not explain how this is to come about. We must look to Isaiah 53 for the background of this concept: there the servant of the Lord pours out his soul unto death, is numbered with the transgressors, and bears the sin of many (v. 12).24

Jesus' Death Is

Substitutionary

Jesus' death is not only redeeming; the atonement is accomplished by substimtion. A substimtionary element must be recognized both in the general concept involved and in the particular language employed-^* The preposition in Mark 10:45 is anti, which means specifically "in the stead of." The many whose lives have been forfehed will be redeemed because Jesus gives his life in their place. What is involved in this element of substhution is not explained in this passage, nor could we expect a satisfying explanation before the event had taken place. As we have seen, the very fact of the messianic death was a stumbling block to the disciples. How Ihtle, then, should we expect to find an articulated doctrine of atonement. Nevertheless the basic elements are indeed present, including the element of substhution. This factor is admitted by such modern writers as 20. A. Deissmann, Ught from the Ancient East (1910), 331ff. 21. F. Biichsel, TDAT 4:341. 22. J. Jeremias, NT Theology, 293. 23. Cf. H. H. Rowley, The Unity of the Bible (1953), 126f., for references. 24. Cf. V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, 102. 25. Cf. F Buchsel, "Lytron," TDNTAMi.

The Messianic Mission

189

Vincent Taylor. "Undoubtedly, it contains a substihitionary idea, since something is done for the many which they cannot do for themselves. "26 Jesus'Death

Is Sacrificial

The death of Christ is not only redeeming by way of subsdmtion; h is also a sacrificial death. The descripdon of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, which, as we have seen, lies behind our Lord's interpretation of his own death, envisages God's servant as making his soul an offering for sin (Isa. 53:10).2'' The sacrificial element is present in the words of our Lord connected whh the last supper. Not only is his body to be broken; giving to his disciples the cup, he said, "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many" (Mk. 14:24). Matthew's account adds the words, "for the forgiveness of sins" (Mt. 26:28). The form in 1 Corinthians 11:25 differs slightly. "This cup is the covenant in my blood." Background for this teachmg about the covenant, which certainly can be nothing but a new covenant, is found in the covenant of Sinai and that of forgiveness. When Moses received the Law from the hand of God, he took the blood of burnt offerings and peace offerings and threw half of h against the altar. After reading to the people the covenant and securing from them the promise of obedience, he threw the other half of the blood upon die people, saying, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you in accordance whh all these words" (Exod. 24:8). This covenant is connected with sacrifice, but there is no mention of the forgiveness of sins. The second covenant is specifically a covenant of forgiveness. God prom ised through the prophet Jeremiah a new covenant when he would write his Law whhin the hearts of his people and would enter into a new mtimacy of relation ship with them m which he would forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more (Jer. 31:34). In the symbolism of the cup, Jesus in effect asserts the fulfillment of this new covenant, whose objective is the forgiveness of sins. Furthermore, this new covenant is associated whh his broken body and his blood poured out for many. This terminology involves the fundamental question of the significance of shed blood. Some scholars recognize formally at least the sacri ficial element and yet insist that the primary significance of the shedding of blood is the releasing of life, which is thus made available for the participation of humankind.28 Elsewhere Taylor explicitly denies that the biblical allusions to blood are synonyms for death. The blood of Christ rather signifies "the life of Christ, freely surrendered and offered for men. " 2 ' By the blood of the covenant, 26. V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, 104. Taylor prefers the term "representative" rather than substitutionary; and while he is compelled to recognize the substitutionary element in this saying of our Lord, it is clear that he is unwilling to admit the implications of this fact. Cf. 282f. 27. Cf. H. H. Rowley, The Unity of the Bible, 129, where the death of the servant as a sacrifice is fully recognized. See also the parallels cited by Jeremias, NT Theology, 286-87. 28. V. Taylor, yestts and His Sacrifice, 125, 124, 138. 29. The Atonement in NT Teaching (1945), 63.

190

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Jesus meant that "his life, surrendered to God and accepted by him, is offered to, and made available to men. Of this life the wine is a symbol; but, since it is given to them to drink, it is more than a symbol. It is a means of blessing, an opportunity for appropriation. It is not transformed into blood, but is a vehicle of the life released for many in the shedding of blood. " 3 " This concept of the shedding of blood as symbolizing life that is poured out and made available to humanhy was defended by Bishop Westcott^i and has found a warm reception among many English scholars. However attractive this mterpretation may seem to be, the biblical concept of shed blood is not that of life released: it is of life poured out in death, especially in the form of sacrificial death. Shed blood is not life released for others, it is life surrendered in death. The blood of Christ is a synonym for the death of Christ, for the shedding of blood involves the destmction of the seat of life. The blood of Christ is "only a more vivid expression for the death of Christ in its redemptive significance."32 Jesus' blood shed for many refers to his sacrificial death by which the many shall profit. That his disciples are to drink the cup does not symbolize a participation in his life but rather a share in the redemptive blessings that were wrought by the sacrificial death of Christ. The objection that this teaching about a redemptive sacrificial death can hardly be an authentic part of our Lord's teaching because h is not consonant whh the body of his teaching about the nature of God cannot be successfully sustained, either from the exegesis of specific passages or from his teaching about the character of God as a whole, h has often been insisted that the central theme in our Lord's teaching about God and the forgiveness of sins is that God out of his fatherly disposhion toward human beings forgives them their sins freely whhout any need of sacrifice or atonement. The parable of the prodigal son has often been cited as an illustration of this free, unmediated forgiveness of God. The father forgave the prodigal when he returned home without sacrifice or shedding of blood. This, however, is a dangerous argument, for in the parable of the prodigal, there is no mediator of any sort; and if on the ground of this parable we are to eliminate atonement, we must also eliminate the mediation of any savior whatsoever. The parable of the prodigal is designed to teach one tmth, namely, the character of God's love toward sinners. No theology of forgiveness can be erected on a single parable. We have already seen that Jesus' teaching about the nature and character of God involves the recognition that God is both love and vindictive righteousness. In other words, God is holy love. Since God is love, he provides forgiveness for the sins of men and women; and since he is holy love, he provides that forgiveness

30. V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, 138. 31. B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John (1883), 34-37. 32. Cf. A. M. Stibbs, The Meaning of the Word "Blood" in Scripture (1947), 8 and 9, and the literature there cited.

The Messianic Mission

191

through the medium of the sacrificial, atoning death of Christ. While Vmcent Taylor has not adequately recognized all that is involved in the death of Christ, he has expressed himself effectively when he says, "The idea that no act of requital is due to a holy God, or is needed by men, is a modem notion which h would be a libel to attribute to the ancient world; and to say that Jesus cannot have spoken of his death in this way is to modemize his figure and his thought."^3 Jesus'Death

Eschatological

The death of Christ has an eschatological significance, for he said, "Tmly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fmit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God" (Mk. 14:25). The death of Christ creates a new fellowship that wUl be fully realized only in the eschatological Kingdom of God. This eschatological orientation may also be seen in Paul's comment, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death untU he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). The Experience

of the Cross

Two details of Jesus' passion suggest a far deeper meaning in his dying than physical death, fearful as it was. All three Synoptics relate Jesus' agonizing prayer m Gethsemane that his Father would remove "this cup" from him (Mk. 14:36). Luke adds that he was in such anguish of sphit that "his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground" (Lk. 22:44). Cullmann confrasts the deaths of Socrates and Jesus, pointing out that Socrates died impassively and heroically, whde Jesus cried out in real fear of death.34 Cullmann recognizes that death meant to Jesus to be separated from God, surrendered to the hands of the enemy; but this seems to be the meanmg of death for all human beings. "It is alien to the spirit of Jesus that He should ask for the cup to be taken away if it is no more than one of personal suffering and dying,"35 especially in light of subsequent Christian martyrdoms when people gladly suffered the same form of death out of love for Jesus. Something deeper must be seen in the cup than simply physical death. In the Old Testament, the cup is a metaphor for punishment and divine retribution for sin.3* In his identification with sinful humankind, he is the object of the holy wrath of God against sin, and in Gethsemane as the hour of the passion approaches the full horror of that wrath is disclosed.3'' Even though he has known that his death was at the heart of his messianic mission, and even though he has set himself to fulfill this mission, the awfulness of the cup of God's wrath against sin is so

33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, 105. O. Cullmann, Immortality or Resurrection? (1958), 19ff. V. Taylor, Mark (1952), 554. Loc. cit. C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 433.

192

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

bitter that he cannot but cry out for deliverance — "if h were possible" (Mk. 14:35). Yet he submits himself in full surrender to accomplish his mission.^* The second event is the cry of dereliction on the cross: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mk. 15:34). This is indeed a quotation from Psalm 22:1, and certainly means, at least, that Jesus is one whh suffermg humanity.^' More satisfactory is the view that Jesus experienced a feeling of utter abandon ment by his Father."" Still, it is possible that "the burden of the world's sm, his complete self-identification whh sinners, involved not merely a feh, but a real abandonment by his Father.""i Jesus' Death a Victory A few sayings in John bring out another aspect of the meaning of Jesus' death. We have seen that at the heart of Jesus' mission was a spiritual stmggle whh the powers of evil. In Jesus' person and mission the Kingdom of God was conquering the kingdom of Satan. John indicates that this stmggle extends to the cross. The hour of death meant that "the mler of this world" tries to engulf Jesus. His betrayal by Judas is described as an act motivated by the devU (6:70; 13:2, 27). Yet the death of Jesus means that the mler of this world is "cast out" (Jn. 12:31; see also 16:11). Somehow, in a way the Evangelist does not try to 'describe, the death of Jesus is both an act of Satan and an act in which Jesus wins the victory over Satan.''^

38. See V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, 152; L. Morris, 77ie Cross in the NT, 46-48. 39. S. E. Johnson, Mark (1960), 256. 40. V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, 160f. 41. C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 458; see L. Morris, The Cross in the NT, 48f.; D. H. C. Read, "The Cry of Derelicdon," ET 68 (1956-57), 260-62. 42. See L. Morris, The Cross in the NT, 170f.

15. Eschatology

Literature: T. W. Manson, "The Final Consummation," The Teaching of Jesus (1935), 244-84; V. Taylor, "The Apocalyptic Discourse of Mark 13," £ 1 6 0 (1948-49), 94-98; A. N. Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus (1950); C. K. Barrett, "NT Eschatology," SJTh 6 (1953), 136-55, 225-43; C. E. B. Cranfield, "Mark 13," SJTh 6 (1953), 189-96, 287-303; 7 (1954), 284-303; O. Cullmann, "The Retum of Christ," in The Early Church, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (1956), 141-62; W. G. Kummel, Promise and Fulfilment (1957); G. R. Beasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mark Thir teen (1957); J. A. T. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming (1957); F. F. Brace, "Escha tology," London Quarterly and Holborn Review 27 (1958), 99-103; H. R Owen, "The Parousia in the Synoptic Gospels," SJTh 12 (1959), 171-92; T. F. Glasson, The Second Advent (1963^); W. G. Kummel, "Futuristic and Realized Eschatology in the Eariiest Stages of Christianity," JR 43 (1963), 303-14; 1. H. Marshall, Eschatology and the Parables (1963); H. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (1963), 444-539; G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (1964), 303-26; A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the NT (1966); R. H. Hiers, The Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Tradition (1970); G. F Snyder, "Sayings on the Delay of the End," BR 20 (1975), 19-35; G. R. BeasleyMurray, "NT Apocalyptic — A Christological Eschatology," Rev and Exp 72 (1975), 317-30; F. F. Bruce, "A Reappraisal of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature," Rev and Exp 12 (1975), 305-15; G. E. Ladd, The Last Things (1978); K. Brower, "Mark 9:1: Seeing the Kingdom in Power," JSNT 6 (1980), 17-41; D. Wenham, " 'This generation will not pass': A Study of Jesus' Future Expectation in Mark," in Christ the Lord, ed. H. Rowdon (1982); C. E. B. Cranfield, "Thoughts on NT Eschatology," SJTh 35 (1982), 497-512; M. D. Hooker, "Trial and Tribulation in Mark 13," BJRL 65 (1982), 78-99; G. R. Beasley-Murray, "Second Thoughts on the Composition of Mark 13," NTS (1983), 414-20; D. Hellholm (ed.). Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (1983); R D. Hanson (ed.). Visionaries and Their Apocalypses (1983); E. Schweizer, "The Significance of Eschatology in the Teaching of Jesus," in Escha tology and the NT, ed. H. Gloer (1988), 1-13; M. J. Harris, From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the NT (1990); B. Witherington III, Jesus, Paul, and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in NT Eschatology (1992); G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (1993).

193

194

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The subject of eschatology is the most difficult problem in the Synoptics. It is attended by a host of difficult, complex questions that we can do little more than mention in this chapter, and state conclusions without argument. Individual Eschatology:

The Intermediate

State

Jesus had little to say about the destiny of the individual apart from his or her place in the eschatological Kingdom of God. The entire New Testament distin guishes clearly between Hades, the intermediate state, and Gehenna (hell), the place of final punishment. Hades is the Greek equivalent of the Old Testament Sheol. In the Old Testament, human existence does not end with death. Rather, a person continues to exist in the netherworld. The Old Testament does not speak of one's soul or sphit descending to Sheol; people continue to exist as "shades" (repa'im). The r^pa'im are "weak shadowy continuations of the living who have now lost their vitality and strength" (cf. Ps. 88:11; Prov. 2:18; 19:18; 21:16; Job 26:5; Isa. 14:9). They are "not extinct souls but their life has littie substance."' Sheol, where the shades are gathered, is pictured as a place beneath (Ps. 86:13; Prov. 15:24; Ezek. 26:20), a region of darkness (Job 10:22), a land of silence (Ps. 88:12; 94:17; 115:17). Here the dead, who are gathered in tribes (Ezek. 32:17-32), receive the dying (Isa. 14:9,10). Sheol is not so much a place as the state of the dead. It is not nonexistence, but h is not life, for life can be enjoyed only in the presence of God (Ps. 16:10, 11). Sheol is the Old Testament manner of asserting that death does not terminate human existence. There are a few intimations in the Old Testament that death will not be able to destroy the fellowship that God's people have enjoyed with him. Since God is the living God and the Lord of all, he will not abandon his people to Sheol, but will enable them in some undefined way to enjoy continued commu nion with him (Ps. 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:24; Job 19:25-26).^ These passages do not have a clear teaching of a blessed intermediate state, but they embody the germ of such a teaching. The psalmists cannot conceive that communion with God can ever be broken, even by death. In the Old Testament, Sheol is not a place of punishment. The fate of the righteous and unrighteous is the same. In Judaism there emerges a distinct doctrine of Sheol as a place of blessedness for the righteous but a place of suffering for the unrighteous (En. 22-23; 4 Ez. 7:75-98). Jesus has almost nothing to say about Hades. The word occurs a few times (Mt. 11:23 = Lk. 10:15; Mt. 16:18) as a well-known concept. In one parable Jesus draws upon contemporary ideas about Hades to set forth the danger people face if they refuse to hear the word of God. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31) has often been taken as a didactic passage to teach explicidy the state of the dead. This, however, is very difficult, for if this is a 1. R. F. Sclinell,/DB 4:35. 2. See R. Martin-Achard, From Death to Life (1960), 146-81.

Eschatology

195

didactic passage, it teaches something contrary to the rest of Jesus' teaching, namely, that wealth merits Hades and poverty itself is rewarded in Paradise.^ This parable is no commentary on contemporary social life, nor does it intend to give teaching about the afterlife. It is really not a parable about the rich man and Lazarus, but about the five brothers. Jesus used contemporary folk-material to set forth the single truth that if people do not hear the word of God, a miracle such as a resurrection would not convince them." In a single saying, Jesus sheds a ray of light on the fate of the righteous. To the dying thief who expressed faith in Jesus, he promised, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Lk. 23:43). Here is a clear affirmation that the soul or sphit of the dying man would be with Jesus in the presence of God. "Paradise," meaning park or garden, is used in the LXX of the garden of Eden (Ezek. 28:13; 31:8) and is sometimes used of the messianic age when the conditions of Eden will be restored (Ezek. 36:35; Isa. 51:3). The word is also used in intertestamental Iheramre of the messianic age of blessedness (Test. Lev. 18:10f.; Test. Dan 5:12; 4 Ez. 7:36; 8:52; Apoc. Bar. 51:11). There also developed in this Iherature the idea that the blessed dead were at rest in a garden of God (En. 60:7,23; 61:12). The word appears only three thnes in the New Testament — in the passage in Luke, in 2 Corinthians 12:3, and in Revelation 2:7 — where it simply designates the dwelling place of God. We must conclude that Jesus gives no information about the state of the wicked dead, and only affirms that the righteous dead are with God. Resurrection It is clear that individual destiny is seen in terms of bodily resurrection. On several occasions Jesus raised dead people to life. These are not isolated miracles but signs of the messianic age.* It is obvious that Jesus shared the prevailing Jewish view of the resurrection. In the Old Testament there is a hint of resurrection in Isaiah 26:19, and a positive affirmation in Daniel 12:2. While there was no orthodox eschatology in Judaism and a great variety of views are to be found in the literature, resurrection became a standard belief of the Jews,* with the exception of the Sadducees, who denied it. This provides background for their insincere question about the woman who had seven husbands (Mk. 12:18-23). Jesus replied that the life of the resurrection will be a different kind of life: it is undying and therefore will no longer need the natural functions of male and female. It is important to note that Jesus does not say that human beings will become angels — only that they will be like angels in that they no longer die (Mk. 12:25). Luke adds that the resurrection introduces people to the life of the future age, i.e., the Kingdom of God. One

3. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (1963), 184. 4. Ibid., 186f. 5. A. Oepke, TDNT 1:370. 6. Loc. cit.

196

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

other casual reference to resurrection occurs in Luke 14:14: "You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just."'' Hell The New Testament word for the place of final punishment is Gehenna, which derives from Hebrew ge hinnom. Ge hinnom was a valley south of Jerusalem where sacrifices were offered to Moloch in the days of Ahaz and Manasseh (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). The threats of judgment uttered over this sinister valley in Jeremiah 7:32; 19:6 are the reason why the Valley of Hinnom came to be equated with the hell of the last judgment in apocalyptic Iherature.* In the Synoptics, Gehenna is a place of eternal torment in unquenchable fire (Mk. 9:43, 48). While only the bodies of people are in the grave, the whole person can be cast into hell (Mt. 10:28). It is pictured as a fiery abyss (Mk. 9:43), as a fumace of fire (Mt. 13:42, 50), as an eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt. 25:41). Vivid pictures of the punishments to be endured in hell, which are frequently met in apocalyptic wrhings, are quite lacking in the Gospels. On the other hand, final punishment is picmred as outer darkness (Mt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). This suggests that both fire and darkness are metaphors used to represent the indescribable. "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers" (Mt. 7:23); "Truly, I say to you, I do not know you" (Mt. 25:12). Exclusion from the presence of God and the enjoyment of his blessings — this is the essence of hell. Jesus' View of the Future: The

Sources

Most of the eschatology of Jesus as reported by the Synoptics has to do with the events attending the coming of the eschatological Kingdom of God. Eschato logical ideas and hints are found scattered throughout his teaching. The Gospels report two eschatological discourses: a passage in Luke (17:22-37) in response to a question from the Pharisees about the time of the coming of the Kingdom, and the Olivet Discourse (Mk. 13; Mt. 24; Lk. 21). Matthew adds considerable eschatological material, some of it paralleled in Luke (Mt. 24:27-51), and three eschatological parables (Mt. 25) that are found only in the first Gospel. Two facts make it obvious that even the Olivet Discourse does not report a single entire sermon of Jesus. This is not to say that Jesus did not give an eschatological discourse on Olivet; quite certainly he did. However, the three reports of this sermon, in their present form, are clearly the result of the editorial work of the Evangelists drawing upon available traditions.' This is proven by 7. See Oepke's interesting comment on this verse in ibid., 371. 8. J. Jeremias, TDNT 1:657. 9. We need not be detained by the famous "Little Apocalypse" theory of T. Colani (1864) that the Olivet Discourse of Mark 13 is not a trustworthy report of Jesus' words but is a brief apocalypse reflecting Jewish messianic ideas that Mark embodied in his Gospel. This

Eschatology

197

the fact that Mark 13:9b-12 is not reproduced in Matthew 24 but is found in Matthew 10:17-21 in the missionary discourse to the twelve. Again, the brief pericope in Matthew 24:26-28 appears to be a bit of Q material, and appears also in Luke 17:23-24. A second fact makes the problem even more difficult. According to Mark 13:4, the disciples asked Jesus a twofold question: When will the temple be destroyed (Mk. 13:1-2), and what will be the sign "when these thmgs are aU to be accomplished"? There can be little doubt but that the disciples thought of the destmction of the temple as one of the events accompanying the end of the age and the coming of the eschatological Kingdom of God. Matthew interprets the disciples' question to involve these two events: "When will this be [i.e., the destruction of the temple], and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" (Mt. 24:3). The question is: Did Jesus, like the disciples, expect the destmction of the temple and the end of the age both to occur in the near future? The problem is compounded by the fact that these two events seem to be inextricably interwoven in the three reports, ahhough the eschatological stands out most clearly in Matthew and the historical in Luke. All three Gospels relate the commg of the Son of Man in the clouds whh power and great glory (Mk. 13:26 and par.), to gather his people mto die eschatological Kmgdom (Mk. 13:27; omhted by Luke). It is reasonably certain diat the "great tribulation" (Mk. 13:19 and par.) refers to the "time of messianic woes" that finds hs roots in the Old Testament (Jer. 30:7; Dan. 12:1). The identity of the "desolating sacrilege" (Mk. 13:14) is more difficult. The word translated "sacrilege" (bdelygma) is used in the Old Testament of everythmg connected with idolatry. The phrase is used in Daniel 11:31 of the profanation of the altar by the representative of Antiochus Epiphanes m 167 B.C.'o The phrase is also used in Daniel 12:11, where it is more likely that it refers to the eschatological antichrist." The phrase in the Olivet Discourse has usually been understood to be a reference to antichrist.i^ Beasley-Murray has made a strong case for understanding the phrase to refer to the profanation of the sacred precincts by the Roman armies bearing their heathen insignia-'^ in any case, some of the admonitions fit the historical shuation better than the eschatological. The warning to flee to the mountains, to haste, the hope that the tribulation occur not in winter when the wadis are flooded with water, can be related to an historical situation but only whh difficulty to a worldwide tribulation waged by an eschatological antichrist. The greatest difficulty is found in the fact that if the "desolating sacrilege" has been exhaustively studied by G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future (1954), but the theory in one form or another persists. See E. Schweizer, Mark (1970), 263. 10. The phrase is used of this sacrilegious act in 1 Mace. 1:54. 11. See E. J. Young, Daniel (1949), 255ff. 12. See W. Foerster, TDNT 1:600. 13. G. R. Beasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mark Thirteen (1957), 56-57.

198

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

in Mark, and Matthew is primarily eschatological, in Luke it has become "Jem salem surrounded by armies" (Lk. 21:20). This striking difference between Mark, Matthew, and Luke has been solved m several ways. Many conservative interpreters would follow Luke's account and interpret Matthew and Mark in the light of Luke. The great tribu lation and the desoladng sacrilege are to be understood historically to refer to the siege of Jemsalem and the destruction of the temple by Thus in A.D. 66-70. i" The difficulty with this view is that the parousia will take place "immediately after the tribulation of those days" (Mt. 24:29). It places the tribulation and the abomination of desolation eschatologically in the events of the last days. Another solution to the problem is that Mark and Matthew record accu rately what Jesus taught while Luke gives us his interpretadon m the light of later history. Jesus' teaching was primarily eschatological; but when the destmc tion of Jerusalem occurred, Luke, writing after the event, interpreted the teach ings of Jesus to refer to the historical event.'* However, it is by no means certain that Luke's Gospel was written after A.D. 70; an eariier date is far more lUcely, in the late fifties or early sixties.'* Again, some interpreters have suggested that the Gospels record two different discourses spoken at different times; and while the two prophetic addresses are similar in stmcmre, one deals with the immediate historical futare, the other with the eschatological consummation.'"' However, the stmcture of the discourse in the three Gospels is so similar that this is most unlikely. There is another solution. We have noted that die discourse was spoken by Jesus to answer a twofold question: When will the temple be destroyed, and what will be the sign of Jesus' parousia and the end of the age (Mk. 13:4; Mt. 24:3)? We have also seen that Mark's account embodies both historical and eschatological references. We must conclude that m spite of the exhaustive work of the form critics, we cannot recover the history of the tradhion and re-create the ipsissima verba of Jesus. However, from the totality of his teaching one thing is clear: Jesus spoke both of the fall of Jemsalem and of his own eschato logical parousia. Cranfield has suggested that in Jesus' own view the historical and the eschatological are mingled, and that the final eschatological event is seen through the "tiansparency" of the immediate historical.'* The present author has applied this thesis to the Old Testament prophets and found this foreshort ened view of the future to be one of the essential elements in the prophetic perspective. In Amos, the Day of the Lord is both an historical (Amos 5:18-20)

14. Cf. J. A. Broadus, Manhew [American Commentary] (1880), 485f.; A. Plummer, Matthew (1909), 332-34; G. Vos, "Eschatology of the NT," ISBE (1929), 2:983. 15. Cf. T. Zahn, Introduction to the AfJ (1909), 3:157-59. 16. Cf. E E Bruce, ne Acts of the Apostles (1951), 13-14. 17. G. ampbell Morgan, Luke (1931), 236. 18. C. E. B. Cranfield, "St. Mark 13," Sjn 6 (1953), 297-300.

Eschatology

199

and an eschatological event (Amos 7:4; 8:8-9; 9:5). Isaiah describes the historical day of visitation on Babylon as though it was the eschatological Day of the Lord (Isa. 13). Zephaniah describes the Day of the Lord (Zeph. 1:7,14) as an historical disaster at the hands of an unnamed foe (Zeph. 1:10-12, 16-17; 2:5-15); but he also describes it in terms of a worldwide catastrophe in which all creatures are swept off the face of the earth (Zeph. 1:2-3) so that nothing remains (Zeph. 1:18).!' This way of viewing the future expresses the view that "in the crises of history the eschatological is foreshadowed. The divine judgments in history are, so to speak, rehearsals of the last judgment and the successive incarnations of antichrist are foreshadowings of the last supreme concentration of the rebellious ness of the devil before the End."20 Jesus' View of the Future:

Historical

The Gospels report Jesus as anticipating certain events to happen in the historical future. We have already seen that Jesus anticipated a divine judgment to fall upon Israel because of its spiritual obtuseness. This judgment would be both historical and eschatological.21 Judgment will fall upon Jemsalem and its inhabitants (Lk. 13:34f = Mt. 23:37-39; Lk. 19:41-44; 23:27-31). The temple is to be destroyed and razed to the ground (Mk. 13:1-2). Judgment will fall upon this evil generation (Mt. 11:16-19; Lk. 13:1-5). The Kingdom of God will be taken away from Israel and given to another people. In the parable of the faithless tenants, Jesus taught that because Israel has rejected the prophets and even God's own Son, God wUl visit Israel in judgment to "destroy the tenants, and give the vineyard to others" (Mk. 12:9). The interpretadon of this parable is vigorously debated. Many critics think that in its present form it is an allegory created by die church.22 Jeremias insists that smce the parable in its present form has allegorical details, it cannot be authentic. The original parable must have had a single point: it vindicates Jesus' mmistry to the poor. The leaders have rejected Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom while the poor have accepted h.23 However, Hunter remarks that this is "a choice example of how doctrinaire theory can lead a fine exegete astray."2" Furthermore, the parable is not pure allegory.25 The details are necessary elements of the story. The substance of the parable is found in an unquestioned Q saying in Luke 11:49-51 = Matthew 23:34-35, where Jesus speaks of the murder of the prophets and God's judgment on the present generation. The parable of the wicked tenants adds only the fact that the Son is also to be killed, and the Kingdom given to "others." Mark's account does not identify who the "others" are. However, the 19. See G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (1964), 60-66. 20. C. E. B. Cranfield in SJTh 6, 300. 21. See above, p. 87. 22. E. Schweizer, Mark (1970), 239. 23. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 76. 24. A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables (1960), 95. 25. V. Taylor, Mark, 474. See also C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 366.

200

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

parable clearly affirms that because Israel as represented by her religious leaders has rejected God's offer of the Kingdom, God has rejected the nation Israel, whose place as God's people is to be taken by "others"; and if, as we have argued above,^* Jesus regarded his disciples as the remnant of the tme Israel because they have accepted God's offer of the Khigdom, the "others" must be the circle of Jesus' disciples. Matthew only makes this more explich by adding the words, "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it" (Mt. 21:43).27

Jesus foresees a period of time in which his disciples will carry out a mission of preaching the Kingdom beyond the confines of Palestine. Matthew 10 follows Mark 6 (see also Lk. 9:1-6) in relating a preaching mission of the twelve that was to be limhed to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt. 10:6). They are expressly charged not to go to tl^e Gentiles. However, Matthew inserts a passage found in Mark's Olivet Discourse (Mk. 13:9-13) that anticipates a mission among the Gentiles. Jesus' emissaries will be delivered to councils, dragged before governors and kings for his sake (Mt. 10:17 = Mk. 13:9 = Lk. 21:12). It is in this context that Mark has the saying, "And the gospel must first be preached to all nations" (Mk. 13:10). Matthew includes an expansion of this verse in his account of the Olivet Discourse: "This gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come" (Mt. 24:14). This need not be interpreted as a prophecy of the present worldwide mission of the church; but h definitely announces a woridwide mission of Jesus' disciples. In his mission discourse, Matthew has a different interest. He includes a difficult saying: "Tmly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes" (Mt. 10:23). This verse was used by Schweitzer to mean that Jesus expected the mission of the twelve to create a great movement of repentance among Israel so that the eschatological Khigdom would come before they had finished their mission.28 This interpretation does not reckon with the composite character of the chapter. This pericope cleariy looks beyond the immediate mission of the twelve to their future mission in the world. The present verse says no more than that the mission of Jesus' disciples to Israel will last until the coming of the Son of Man. It indicates that in spite of its blindness, God has not given up Israel. The new people of God are to have a concern for Israel until the end comes. There are other hints in the Gospels that Jesus sees not only a mission to the Gentiles but also the final salvation of Israel. When Jesus wept over Jeru26. See Chapter 8. 27. The dispensational interpretation is that "nation" means "generation"; the Kingdom is taken from the Jews of Jesus' generation but will be given to a future generation of Jews who will believe. See J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come (1958), 465. This, however, is a forced interpretation. 28. A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the HistoricalJesus (1911), 358-60.

Eschatology

201

salem because of the impending divine judgment, he added, "For I tell you, you will not see me agahi, undl you say, 'Blessed be he who comes in the name of the L o r d ' " (Mt. 23:39). This is a saying that anticipates the repentance of Israel so that when he comes at the end of history to carry out God's judgment and final redemption,29 a repentant Israel will welcome him. A similar idea is implicit in a saying included by Luke in his version of the Olivet Discourse. After teUing of the destmction of Jemsalem and the scattering of the people, Luke adds the words, "Jemsalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Lk. 21:24). Here Jesus clearly anticipates a time between the fall of Jemsalem and the parousia that he names "the times of the Gentiles."3o Furthermore, it is possible that this saying implies a future repossession of Jemsalem by Israel when the "times of the Gentiles" are ended.^i The sayings we have just considered make it clear that Jesus has an indeterminate historical perspective in which he sees the historical judgment of Israel, the destmction of the temple, the scattering of the Jewish people, a mission of his disciples both to the Gendles and to Israel, and probably the fmal repentance of Israel. This is supported by the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13. The first section of the Discourse contains two parts: the signs of the end (Mk. 13:5-23) and the events of the end (Mk. 13:24-27). The signs of the end include false messiahs, woes, persecution, worldwide evangelization, the des olating sacrilege, and the great tribuladon. The disciples had asked, "What will be the sign when these things all are to be accomplished?" (Mk. 13:4). Matthew understands this to mean "the sign of your coming" (Mt. 24:3). Jewish apoc alyptic was fond of relatmg the signs that would presage the imminence of the end. The author of 4 Ezra (2 Esd.) writes: "Concerning the signs: . . . the sun shall suddenly shine forth at night and the moon during the day. Blood shall drip from wood, and the stone shall utter its v o i c e . . . . The sea of Sodom shall cast up fish . . . and fire shall often break out, and the wild beasts shall roam beyond their haunts, and menstmous women shall bring forth monsters, and sah waters shall be found in the sweet, and all friends shall conquer one another; then shall reason hide itself, and wisdom shall withdraw into its chamber" (4 Ez. 5:lff.).32 The motif of the apocalypses is that the evil that has dominated the age wUl become so intense at the end that complete chaos will reign, both in human social reladonships and m the national order. When evil has become so intense that it is practically unendurable, then God will intervene and bring in his Kingdom.^' However, this is not the motif of the Olivet 29. F. V. Filson, Matthew (1960), 249. 30. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future, 128. 31. E. E. Ellis, Luke (1966), 245. 32. For other references, see G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 323. 33. It is interesting to note that a similar motif is found in dispensational theology in its interpretation of the course of the age.

202

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Discourse. The troubles Jesus describes are not really signs of the approaching end. In fact, he expressly said that when these "signs" appear, "the end is not yet" (Mk. 13:7). Far from being signs by which the coming of the end can be calculated, these are signs that the end is delayed. Cranfield suggests that the topic of the entire first part of the Discourse is "the End is not yet."34 Perhaps the most important verse in the Discourse is the saying, "This is but the beginning of the sufferings" (Mk. 13:8). The word used (odines) means "woes" and is used in the Old Testament of the pains of birth (Isa. 26:17). The Old Testament speaks of the birth of a nation through a period of woes (Isa. 66:8; Jen 22:23; Hos. 13:13; Mic. 4:9f.), and from these verses there arose in Judaism the idea that the messianic Kingdom must emerge from a period of suffering that was called the messianic woes or "the birth pangs of the Messiah."^* This does not mean the woes that the Messiah must suffer, but the woes out of which the messianic age is to be bom.^* Explicit reference to these messianic woes is made m Mark 13:19-20: "For in those days there will be such tribu lation as has not been from the beginning of the creation . . . until now. And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human bemg would be saved." This is a direct allusion to the time of trouble in Daniel 12:1. The wars and persecutions that characterize the time of the delayed end will only be the beginnings of the woes that immediately precede the end. The motif in the Olivet Discourse is different from that of the apocalypses. It is the contrast between the character of the age and the Kingdom of God, and the conflict between the two. God has not abandoned the age to the powers of evil. "The gospel must first be preached to all nations" (Mk. 13:10). But the gospel is not to conquer the world and subdue all nations to itself. Hatred, conflict, and war will continue to characterize the age until the coming of the Son of Man. Not only that, but the age is hostile to the gospel and will persecute its emissaries. Here is a somber note miming throughout the teachings of Jesus. More than once he said that to be a disciple, a person must be wUling to take up his or her cross (Mk. 8:34 and par.; Mt. 10:38 = Lk. 14:27). The saying in Matthew 10:38 is in the setting of the disciples' mission in the world. They are not to expect a uniformly cordial response. They will be flogged and condemned and put to death; govemors and kmgs wiU oppose them (Mt. 10:17-21). Suff'ering, persecution, and martyrdom must be the expectation of Jesus' disciples. The saying that the one that endures "to the end" (eis telos, Mt. 10:22; Mk. 13:13) may well mean "to the point of death." Across is not a burden; it is an instrument of death. To take up one's cross means to be willing to go as Jesus went to a martyr's death. The nexus between suffering and participation in the community 34. C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 394. 35. See J. Klausner, TTie Messianic Idea in Israel (1955), 440-50. 36. See H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT (1922), 1:950.

Eschatology

203

of the Son of Man is not accidental but rooted m the very bemg of that com munity. It came into existence dirough obedience to the call of the rejected Messiah and by virme of his sacrificial death. "The rebellion of the world agamst God expressed hself m the murder of the Son of God; the communhy that stands by him must needs be the object of the same hostUhy."^'' From the perspective of the conflict between the world and the Kingdom of God, the loss of life is not the real issue. Luke's account reads, "some of you they wdl put to death; . . . But not a hah of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives" (Lk. 21:16-19). Seen from this perspective, the final fearful persecution of the messianic woes of "the great tribulation" (Mt. 24:21) is in character whh the relationship of the church to the world throughout the age. Jesus agrees with the apocalyptists that evil will mark the course of the age; the Kingdom of God will abolish evil only in the Age to Come. But God has not abandoned the age to evil. The Son of God has brought the life and power of the Kingdom of God into history. It is entmsted to Jesus' disciples to be proclaimed in all the world. But their mission will not be an unalloyed success. They will indeed take the gospel into all the world but wdl do so only in the context of the same stmggle with the powers of evU in the age that sent Jesus to his death. At the end the hatred of the world for God's gospel will find expression m a last convulsive persecution that will decimate the church. This wUl be new only in its mtensity. But in the end God's Khigdom will come and vmdicate his people .3* The Coming of the

Kingdom

The end of the age and the coming of the Kingdom are briefly described in Mark 13:24. Fhst, Jesus speaks of a cosmic catastrophe: the darkening of the sun and of the moon, the falling of the stars, and the shaking of the powers of the heavens. This is poetic language and must be understood against its Old Testament background. The present author has made a thorough study of this language and has concluded that it is poetic and not meant to be taken whh strict literalness, yet at the same dme it is meant to describe actual cosmic events.39 We agree with Beasley-Murray: "Poetic expression is not to be con fused with allegorism. . . . When God steps forth for salvation, the universe pales before him.""" This language does not mean necessarily the complete break-up of the universe; we know from similar language elsewhere that it designates the judgment of God upon a fallen world that has shared the fate of humanhy's sin, that out of the ruins of judgment a new world may be bom."' 37. G. R. Beasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mark Thirteen, 51. 38. For the entire question of signs of the end, see G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future, 172-82. 39. See G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 41-71. 40. G. R. Beasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mark Thirteen, 87-88. 41. See Rev. 6:12-14; 21:1-4.

204

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

In the Olivet Discourse, the coming of the Kingdom of God is described altogether in terms of the coming of die Son of Man. He will be seen "commg in clouds whh great power and glory" (Mk. 13:26). This language is based directly upon Daniel 7:13 where one like a son of man comes with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days to receive an everlasting khigdom. The same tmth is expressed in the Lukan passage: "For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of man be in his day" (Lk. 17:24). Several recent scholars have tried to empty this language of any fumristic eschatological significance. C. H. Dodd interpreted such apocalyptic language as symbolic of the inbreaking of the eternal order in which there is no before or after. "The Day of the Son of Man stands for the timeless fact."'*^ T. F. Glasson''^ argues that the parousia hope was no part of Jesus' teaching but arose in the church in the middle of the fhst cenmry, while J. A. T. Robinson"" interprets the parousia sayhigs m terms of the vindication of Jesus hi his Father's presence. Background for this is sought in the argument that m Daniel 7:13 the one like a son of man comes to the Father, not to earth; and h pictures vindication by God, not a "second advent" to earth. However, m Daniel 7, while the son of man comes first to the Father to receive his kingdom, this kingdom is then given to the saints on earth, and this clearly implies that their representadve, the son of man, brings h to them. "It is distinctly stated m Dan. 7:22 that the Ancient of Days came, i.e., to earth, for the purpose of judgment and deliverance.""* It is impossible to render a visual image of this event, but the idea is clear. Jesus has already been exalted to heaven; the clouds of his parousia unveil his hitherto hidden glory, which is the glory of God, the Shekmah; he is seen to be the eternal Son of God, sharing in the majesty and power of God."* The underlymg theology is that the coming of the Kingdom of God in hs eschatological consummation is altogether an act of God. The history of this age will be one of conflict, war, hatred, and persecution; only an act of God in the parousia of Christ can establish his Kingdom."^ It is of great mterest that the Olivet Discourse says almost nothing about the nature of the Kingdom. We have noted the diversity with which the prophets describe the messianic Kingdom. Somethnes Jewish apocalyptic described the Kingdom m very earthly terms, sometimes m more transcendental terms."* Some-

42. C. H. Dodd, TTie Parables of the Kingdom (1936), 108. Dodd now admits to a future consummation of the Kingdom "beyond history." See The Foimder of Christianity (1970), 115-16. 43. The Second Advent (1963). 44. Jesus and His Coming (1957). 45. G. R. Beasley-Munay, A Commentary on Mark Thirteen, 91. 46. Ibid., 89. 47. See F. F. Bruce, "Eschatology," Lowcton Quarterly arui Holborn Review 27 (1958), 103.

48. See above. Chapter 4.

Eschatology

205

times Judaism combined the two, picmring first a temporal earthly kingdom,''' then an eternal Kingdom. Later Judaism spoke of this temporal kingdom as "the days of the Messiah" in contrast to the etemal Age to Come.*" The Revelation of John anticipates a temporal kingdom of a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-5). American Evangelicalism has placed an unwarranted emphasis on this doctrine of a millen nium. However, the Synoptic Gospels give no hmt as to the namre of the Kingdom Jesus expected. One thing is clear; he is not concemed to teach a temporal earthly kmgdom before the etemal order in the Age to Come. If he shared such an expectation, a temporal kingdom was not important in his thinking. The reason for this is clear. As Kiimmel has put it, Jesus was interested in holding out an eschatological promise, not to give apocalyptic instmction.*' The preaching of Jesus was directed to impress people with the hnportance of recognizing the present sovereignty of God in order that they might live in the Age to Come.*^ The fact is that when Jesus speaks of the consummation, he always uses symbols.*^ God is King, and on the right hand of his throne sits the Son of Man (Mk. 14:62), who is accompanied by his twelve disciples in a new world (Mt. 19:28), and who is surrounded by the holy angels (Mk. 8:38). As the Good Shepherd, he feeds the purified flock (Mk. 14:28; Mt. 25:32f.). Judgment of the living and dead has taken place (Mt. 12:41f.) and the final separation has been completed (Mt. 13:30, 48). Satan and his angels have been thrown into eternal fire (Mt. 25:41); death is banished (Lk. 20:36). The pure in heart see God (Mt. 5:8); they receive a new name (Mt. 5:9), and have entered mto immortality (Mk. 12:25) or etemal life (Mk. 9:43), and live unto God (Lk. 20:38). God recom penses the righteous (Lk. 14:14) whh blessed rewards (Mt. 5:12); the treasure laid up in heaven is distributed (Mt. 6:20). The harvest is gathered in (Mt. 13:30), the marriage is celebrated (Mk. 2:19), Gentiles pour in to enjoy the feast with the patiiarchs (Mt. 8:11) at the table of the Son of Man (Lk. 22:29). With them he drinks the wine of the Kingdom of God (Mk. 14:25), and the communion between God and humankind, broken by sin, is restored. The one emphasis in the Olivet Discourse is the gathering of his elect from the four comers of the earth (Mk. 13:27). This is represented as being accompUshed by the angels. Again, we cannot visualize this event. This appears to be the same event described by Paul as "the rapture" of the saints, when the dead in Christ are raised from their graves and the living saints shall be caught up (rapiemur) m the air to meet the returning Christ (1 Thess. 4:17). Although the Olivet Discourse says nothing about it, we must assume that the resurrection of the dead occurs at this time.*'' 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

See 4 Ez. 7:28; Apoc. Bar. 29:3ff. See J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel, 408-19. W. G. Kummel, Promise and Fulfilment (1957), 88. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity (1920), 1:282. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 221. G. R. Beasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mark Thirteen, 90.

206

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Judgment Jesus, as reported by Matthew, often spoke of judgment. To the Sanhedrin he claimed to be the eschatological judge (Mk. 14:62), and he often made casual reference to a day of judgment (Mt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36, 41, 43; 23:33) and to a final separation of human beings (Mt. 13:41, 49). Apart from the parable of the judgment, he says Ihtle about it. It is impossible to constmct an eschato logical scheme from Jesus' teaching. He is concerned with the certainty of the future and the bearing of the future on the present, not whh apocalyptic sche mata. The only extended passage that deals with the judgment is the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46. The Son of Man will sh on the throne of his glory to judge the nations. The basis of judgment will be the way the nations have treated Jesus' "brethren" (Mt. 25:40). This is not didactic escha tology but a dramatic parable. It has been interpreted in two utterly diverse ways. A prominent interpretation is that many will be saved by their good deeds. Those who, out of human compassion, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and imprisoned are "Christians unawares." Jesus' "brethren" are all people in need. Those who in love mmister to the needs of suffering people are manifest ing the love of Christ; and even though they have never heard of Christ, they will inherh eternal life in the day of judgment as a reward for their good deeds. A radically different interpretation is that of Dispensationalism. Jesus' "brethren" are a Jewish remnant who will go among the nations during the great tribulation proclaiming the "gospel of the kingdom." In earlier dispensationalist literature, the purpose of the judgment was to determine which nations entered the millennial kingdom and which were excluded, dependent upon their treat ment of the converted Jewish remnant. More recent literature holds the same basic interpretation but admits that the issue of the judgment is final salvation or condemnation, as Matthew 25:46 makes clear.** The clue to the meaning of the parable is Jesus' "brethren," and we have clear evidence as to hs meaning. Jesus himself said that his brothers and sisters are those who do the will of the Father — Jesus' disciples (Mt. 12:50). Jesus used a parabolic incident of the nightly separation of sheep and goats to tell his disciples that they have a mission to the nations of the world. The destiny of individuals will be determined by the way they treat Jesus' representatives — his brothers and sisters. They are to go as itinerant preachers, fmding lodging and food from those who receive them (Mt. 10:8-11). However, they will meet persecution and imprisonment (Mt. 10:17-18). Those who receive these preach ers and treat them well in realhy receive Christ. "He who receives you receives me" (Mt. 10:40). Those who reject these preachers and treat them ill do so because they are rejecting their message, and in doing so reject Christ. Judgment awahs them (Mt. 10:14-15). The destiny of the nations wdl be determmed by 55. See J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come, 420.

Eschatology

207

the way they respond to Jesus' representatives.** This is not a program of eschatology but a practical parable of human destiny. The Time of the Kingdom The most difficuh problem in Jesus' view of the future is his expectation of the dme of the coming of the Kingdom. The difficulty resides in the fact that the Synopdcs record three different types of sayings about the future. Imminence Three sayings have been interpreted to mean that Jesus expected the eschato logical Kingdom to come in the immediate fumre. When he sent out the twelve on their preaching mission in Galilee, his instmctions included the saying, "You will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes" (Mt. 10:23). We have seen that Schwehzer interpreted this to mean that Jesus expected the Kingdom to come before the twelve had completed their mission in Galilee, i.e., within a few days. We have already examined this verse and found that it looks into an indeterminate fumre when the disciples will pursue their mission both among the Gentiles and to Israel.*^ A second saying is found just before the transfiguration. After Peter's confession of Jesus' messiahship, Jesus began to mstmct the disciples in the fact of his messianic death and his parousia. Although he is now to be humiliated in suffering and death, the way people relate to him here and now will determine their future destmy (Mt. 9:38). Then Jesus said, "There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power" (Mk. 9:1). Matthew renders the saying, "before they see the Son of man coming m his kingdom" (Mt. 16:28). Luke has simply, "before they see the kingdom of God" (Lk. 9:27). This is hnmediately followed by the account of the transfigu ration. A third saying is found m the Olivet Discourse. Mark, followed by both Matthew and Luke, records, "Tmly, I say unto you, this generation will not pass away before all these thmgs take place" (Mk. 13:30, par.). On the surface of it, the last two sayings appear to be a bald affirmation that the eschatological Kingdom would come within a generation — some thhty years or so — when some of the disciples would still be alive. Delay These sayings are balanced by other sayings that emphasize delay rather than inuninence. We have already seen** that in the Olivet Discourse Jesus had taught that troubled times would come whh wars and mmors of wars; and pretenders 56. For this interpretation see T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (1949), 251. 57. See above, p. 200. 58. See above, pp. 201f.

208

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

would arise claiming to be the Messiah; "but the end is not yet" (Mk. 13:7). In fact, the gospel must first be preached to all nadons (Mk. 13:10). Luke records a parable about a nobleman who went into a far country to get a kingdom and then retum because the people "supposed that the kmgdom of God was to appear immediately" (Lk. 19:11). A note of delay is heard in the saymg, "The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you will not see it" (Lk. 17:22). The disciples will fmd themselves in difficuh situations where they will desire the deliverance of Christ's retum, but they will not see it. Delay is sounded in the parable of the impormnate widow (Lk. 18:1-8). Those who believe in God are to remain steadfast in supplication for divine vindication, even though it seems to be delayed. The parables Matthew attaches to the Olivet Discourse sound the note of delay. When the bridegroom delayed, the wedding guests went to sleep (Mt. 25:5). A wealthy man entmsted various sums of money to his servants, and did not retum to settle accounts with them until after a long time (Mt. 25:19). Uncertainty The stiongest note is one of uncertainty as to the time of the commg of the Kingdom. Jesus flatly affirmed that he did not know when the Kingdom would come (Mk. 13:32). "Take heed, watch; for you do not know when the time will come" (Mk. 13:33). "Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house wdl come . . . , lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say to you I say to all: Watch" (Mk. 13:36). Matthew adds some Q material emphasizing the indefinheness of the time and the need to watch. In the days of Noah, the flood came suddenly and swept away the wicked. "Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming" (Mt. 24:42). If the householder knew when the thief would break mto his house, he would be awake. "Therefore, you also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect" (Mt. 24:44 = Lk. 12:40). The wicked servant who utilizes the master's delay as an occasion for mistieatmg his fellow servants will be surprised. "The master of that servant will come in a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know" (Mt. 24:50 = Lk. 12:46). The parables of Matthew 25 of the delayed bridegroom and the delayed nobleman were told to emphasize the theme: "Watch therefore, for you know nehher die day nor the hour" (Mt. 25:13). The word translated "watch" in these several verses does not mean "to look for" but "to be awake." It does not denote an intellectual attitude but a moral qualhy of spiritual readiness for the Lord's retum. "You must also be ready" (Lk. 12:40). The uncertainty as to the thne of the parousia means that people must be spirihially awake and ready to meet the Lord whenever he comes.

Eschatology The

209

Problem

These three kinds of sayings appear to be flatly cx)ntradictory to each other, and many commentators see them as mutually exclusive. The prevailing tendency is to accept the sayings about the imminence of the Kingdom as authentic on the grounds that the church never would have invented sayings that were not fulfilled. In fact, in much of Continental scholarship imminence is understood to be the most central emphasis in Jesus' teaching about the eschatological Kingdom. When the parousia did not occur, the church had to adjust to the delay of the parousia; and this is taken as one of the determinative facts in the development of Christian doctrine.*' The sayings about the delay of the parousia are understood to be church formulations, not words of Jesus. Others try to reconcile the differing statements by the position that Jesus affirmed that the Kingdom would come soon — within the present generation — 'out only God knows the exact day and hour.*" Others frankly admit that Jesus was mistaken in his expectation of the imminent coming of the Kingdom; but this was inevitably one of the human factors involved in the incarnation — the sharing of human perspective about the fumre.*' Cullmann contends that Jesus was in error in his expectation of the time of the end, but this mistake does not affect the basic stmcture of his teaching about the Kingdom, which is the tension between the already and the not yet. Jesus was not mistaken about the real futurity of the Kingdom, although he was mistaken about the time of the Kingdom. Indeed, the fundamental meaning of the neamess of the Kingdom is not chronological but is the certainty that the future determines the present.*^ Kummel interprets the emphasis on the imminence of the Kingdom to mean that people are confronted "widi the end of history as h advances towards the goal set by God."*3 A. N. Wilder interprets the eschatological language as mytho logical in that it represents the unknown future. The fumre lay beyond Jesus' knowledge but he used apocalyptic concepts to express his confidence that the fmal outcome would be decided by the power of God.*" Exegetical

Considerations

It is not altogether certam that the two saymgs in Mark 9:1 and 13:30 refer to the parousia or advent of Christ. Many scholars understand the word about the Kingdom of God commg in power (Mk. 9:1, par.) to be a reference to the transfiguradon, which was itself a kind of preview of the parousia.** F. F. Bmce sees the fulfillment of Mark 9:1 in Pentecost. "The outpouring of the Spirit and the coming of the 59. See M. Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma (1957). 60. V. Taylor, "The Apocalyptic Discourse of Mark 13," ET 60 (1948-49), 61. H. P. Owen, "The Parousia in the Synoptic Gospels," SJTh 12 (1959), 62. O. Culhnann, "The Retum of Christ," in The Early Church, ed. A. J. (1957), 153. 63. W. G. Kummel, Promise and Fulfilment, 152. 64. A. N. Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus (1951),

97. 171-92. B. Higgins

50f.

210

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

kingdom of God are two different ways of viewing the ministry of Jesus; both are manifested in partial measure before his death, but only after his death . . . will the kingdom come with power, will the Sphh be poured out in fulness."** In the interpretation of Mark 13:30, the exegetical question is the antece dent of "all these things" (tauta panta). In the preceding verse, Jesus has said, "When you see these things (tauta) taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates" (Mk. 13:29). Tauta cannot mclude the parousia itself h would be obviously pointless to say, "When you see the Son of man coming, you know that he is near." The word tauta in verse 29 must refer to the signs of the end outlined in verses 5 to 23; and tauta in verse 29 appears to be the antecedent of the tauta panta that are to take place in this generation. What Jesus appears to be saying is that the signs that presage the end are not to be confined to a remote future; his hearers would themselves experience them.*'' Other scholars have hiterpreted "this generation" (genea) to mean the Jewish people, or this kind of people, namely, unbelievers.** Another possibilhy has been pointed out by Ellis.*' In the Qumran commentary on Habakkuk, the last genera tion is said to last long and to exceed everythmg spoken by the prophets (IQpHab 7:2, 7). The last generation is that in which the Qumranians lived, and designated the fmal period before the end, however long. However, Cranfield's solution (in the preceding paragraph) seems to be the most probable one. The Meaning of Imminence We conclude that it is not proven that Jesus flatly affirmed in error that the eschatological Kingdom would shortly come. He does teach that a great mani festation of God's Kingdom would be seen by some of his disciples, and that the signs that point to the coming of the Kingdom would be seen by his own generation. Other sayings point to a delay of the Kingdom to an indeterminate future. The predominating emphasis is upon the uncertainty of the time, in the light of which people must always be ready. This is the characteristic perspective of the Old Testament prophets. The Day of the Lord is near (Isa. 56:1; Zeph. 1:14; Joel 3:14; Obad. 15); yet the prophets have a future perspective. They are able to hold the present and the future together in an unresolved tension. "The tension between imminence and delay in the expectation of the end is charac teristic of the entire bibUcal eschatology."'"' "One word can sound as though the end was near, another as though it only beckoned from a distance."^' This may 65. C. E. B. Cranfield. Mark, 286-88; A. L. Moore, ne Parousia in the NT (1966), 125-31, 175-77. 66. F F Brace, NT History (1969), 197. 67. See C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 409; "St. Mark 13," SJTh 7, 291. 68. For references, see C. E. B. Cranfield, SJn 7, 290-91. 69. E. E. Ellis, Luke, 246. 70. A. Oepke, StTh 2 (1949-50), 145. 71. M. Meinertz, Theologie des NT (1950), 1:58.

Eschatology

211

not be the thought pattern of the modern scientifically trained mind, and the dissection of the prophetic perspective by a severe analytic crhicism may serve only to destroy it. A proper historical methodology must try to understand ancient thought patterns in terms of themselves, rather than forcing them mto modem analytical categories. The overall impression of the Synoptics is clear. They leave readers in a situation where they cannot date the time of the end; they cannot say that h wdl surely come tomonow, or next week, or next year; nehher can they say that it will not come for a long time. The keynote is: "Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour."

16. Matthew, Mark, and Luke R. T. France

Part I of this book is entitled "The Synoptic Gospels." Its content has, however, been focused up to this point on the words and deeds of Jesus as they are recorded in those Gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke have been cited as reporters of Jesus' teaching, rather than as each having his own distinctive contribution to make to the total theology of the New Testament. Only very occasional references have been made to an emphasis or interpretation that is peculiarly the mark of one of the Synoptic Evangelists. It might thus have been more accurate to enthle Part 1 "The Teaching of Jesus." As such. Part I has placed the emphasis in the right place. Matthew, Mark, and Luke clearly intend their books to be read as records of what Jesus said and did, and that record is the essential basis of all New Testament theology. But modern study of the Gospels has increasingly recognized that, without in the least detracting from the centrality of the teaching of Jesus, it is possible at the same time to identify some of the pastoral and theological concerns that caused each Gospel writer to present his record of Jesus in a distinctive way. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, no less than John, were not mechanical compders of traditions but presenters of a message, writing in the light of their own particular under standing of Jesus and of the situations of the different churches for which their Gospels were originally composed. While we come to them primarily to leam what Jesus said and did, that information comes to us through their interpretation of the tradition they had received. If, therefore, it is appropriate for an account of New Testament theology to present a separate treatment of the interpretation of the gospel offered by John, by Paul, by the writer to the Hebrews, and by the other New Testament writers, as the remainder of the book will do, it is surely no less appropriate for us to note the contributions of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. That is the aim of this chapter, though limitations of space do not allow a treatment on the same scale as that accorded to the other New Testament writers.

2 1 2

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

213

The Fourfold Gospel It is a remarkable fact that we have four canonical "lives of Jesus." A few other figures of ancient history gave rise to more than one record (e.g., the rather different "lives" of Socrates by Plato and Xenophon), but the four Gospels are a unique literary and historical phenomenon. Written within the space of a few decades at most, they display a blend of interdependence and individuality that has intrigued scholars for centuries. Nor were they the only accounts of Jesus to be written, for Luke 1:1 refers to "many" who tried their hand at writing works similar to his own, and "Gospels" of various kinds continued to be produced in the second century and beyond.' But by the middle of the second century h was generally agreed that it was not in any single book that the authoritative account of Jesus was to be found, but in the four books attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Before the end of that century Irenaeus could take it for granted diat there could be nehher more nor less than four Gospels, just as there are four points of the compass.^ To some Christians this multiple wimess to Jesus has been not an enrich ment but an embarrassment, as it has presented problems of harmonization, both with regard to specific events or forms of words, and with regard to the overall impression of Jesus given by the different Gospels (particularly in tiie clear differences between John and the Synoptics). A result of this embarrassment has been the attempt to produce so-called "harmonies" of the Gospels, which attempt to hon out all the differences and so produce a single smoothly flowing account. Soon after A.D. 150 the Syrian apologist Tatian produced his Diatessaron ("Four fold"), and similar efforts have been made ever since. But the aim of such efforts has generally been to produce (if we may exploh the musical idiom) not "harmony" but unison, to make all four play the same notes together. Tme "harmony" is achieved when each of the four plays a different line of music, and the four together blend into a whole far richer than a mere unison could ever be. Dropping the musical metaphor, we need to accept and welcome the fact that the church has not been given a single "autiiorized biography" of Jesus but four canonical Gospels, related and yet different, as complementary whnesses to the tmth about Jesus. To do justice to such a revelation, it is important that we listen to each witness individually as well as to all together. This is not to suggest that there is no place for "harmonization" of the Gospel accounts, provided that this is done with due literary and historical sensitivity and not with a mechanical determination to eliminate all differences at whatever cost to historical probability. Just as any ancient historian has the 1. See the collection in E. Hennecke, NT Apocrypha, ed. W. Schneemelcher, trans. R. McL. Wilson, et al., vol. 1 (revised ed., Cambridge and Louisville, 1991). 2. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer 3.11.8.

214

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

duty to account as realistically as possible for discrepancies between sources, so the student of the Gospels may rightly consider how it is likely that the differences between the various accounts may have arisen. It is a proper exercise to try to reconstruct as far as possible the historical words or events that may lie behind the different forms in which the Evangelists report them, even if sometimes the result may be a confession of ignorance. The danger for the shident of the Gospels arises when the result of such harmonization is accorded, perhaps unconsciously, an authority greater than that of the canonical texts from which it is derived. The impression is sometimes given that the tme authority is located in the ipsissima verba of Jesus (presumably in theh original Aramaic form) rather than in the Greek words reported by, say, Matthew, which were only the starting point from which the supposed ipsissima verba have been reconstmcted. In that case, whatever in Matthew's record is of the nature of paraphrase or interpretation (and all tianslation is necessarily interpretation!) is to be set aside carefully, so that we may hear the uncorrupted words of Jesus. Such an understanding of the student's task may seem legitimate to those who hold no doctiine of the inspiration or canonical authority of Scripture. If Matthew is merely a fallible (and possibly deliberately tendentious) reporter of Jesus' words, then we do well to elhninate his personal contribution, as far as possible, so that Jesus' voice may come through unhindered. But this is a quhe inconsistent view for those who claim to believe in the inspiration of Scripture, for Matthew is a wrher of Scripmre, and it is in what he has wrhten, not in the (unrecoverable) tradition that lies behind it, that the scriptural revelation is to be found. If Matthew has paraphrased and interpreted the words of Jesus, then tiiat interpretation comes to us with all the authority of canonical Scripmre.' His interpretation, and that of the other EvangeUsts and the other New Testament wrhers, is now the only means by which we have access to what Jesus said and did. The different mterpretations of die four Evangelists are thus an essential part of the biblical record of Jesus' teaching, and it will be an incomplete New Testament theology that ignores the theological insights of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. TTie essential place of interpretation along with record in biblical revelation has already been noted above." The discussion there was focused on revelation through events, and that discussion is cleariy relevant to the Gospels' records of the events of Jesus' ministry. But the same considerations apply also to teaching, for Jesus' teaching comes to us in the Gospels through the interpretations of the writers whose task it was to select and arrange say ings that they remembered or that tradition

3. Compare the program of "canonical criticism," developed especially by B. S. Childs with regard to the Old Testament, which aims to give priority to the text as we have it, in its finally developed ("canonical") form, rather than ignoring the actual text in favor of recon structing supposed earlier traditions and sources. 4. See above, pp. 25f.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

215

had preserved for them mto an appropriate record of Jesus' teaching for theh particular circumstances. At some stage in the process of transmission Jesus' words were translated into Greek. Moreover, a comparison of the wording of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels soon reveals that even the Greek translations/ paraphrases of Jesus' words were not maintained in verbally identical form. Those who regret this fact would do well to recall that the same phenomenon can be observed m the way that the sacred words of the Old Testament were treated by the New Testament writers, including these same Evangelists. If, for instance, Matthew can in 2:6 present a significantly altered version of Micah 5:2 in order to make h quite clear how that prophecy applied to the chcumstances of Jesus' bhth,* it should surely cause no surprise that the same Matthew should also draw out by the way he worded Jesus' sayings the particular emphases or pomts of application diat he wanted his readers to notice. This recognition of the Evangelists' role as pastors and preachers rather than mere annalists is endorsed by all modem study of the Gospels, and h in no way impugns the veracity of theh accounts or theh aim and ability to provide us with historical records of what Jesus did and said.* Some people fear that to recognize the interpretative role, and therefore the disdnct message, of each Evangelist wdl cause the real message of Jesus to recede out of sight behind a barrier of later "theologizing." But if the mterpreter is a writer of msphed Scripture, aimmg to draw out more clearly and relevandy the tme substance of Jesus' teaching, that fear is out of place. It may sometimes be possible widi some confidence to separate Matthew's interpretation from die earlier tradi tion of Jesus' words. But when we have done so, the difference is not between canonical and uncanonical, stUl less between tme and false, but between two stages of revelation. And both stages are part of New Testament theology. In this chapter, then, we mm from study of Jesus' teaching to some comments on the interpretation of tiiat teaching by Mattiiew, Mark, and Luke. In this attention to the individual Gospels, we enter the area of what has come to be known as "redaction criticism," and before we mrn to the three Synoptic Gospels individually it is appropriate to say a Ihtle about this type of smdy.^ The German term Redaktionsgeschichte was coined to mdicate a new approach to the study of the Gospels that came to prominence m the 1960s, particularly in the school of Bultmann, as a development fi^om Formgeschichte.^ Whereas form criticism had concentrated on getting behind the Gospels to the 5. See the discussion of this quotation by R. T. France in NTS 27 (1981), 241-43. 6. Cf. above, pp. 172f., on the nature of the Gospels and Chapter 13 as a whole on the relation between history and faith. 7. For brief introductions to redaction criticism see, e.g., S. S. Smalley in I. H. Marshall (ed.), NT Interpretation (Exeter and Grand Rapids, 1977), 181-95; R. E Collins, Introduction to the NT (London, 1983), 196-230; C. M. Tuckett, Reading the NT (London, 1987), 116-35. 8. See above, pp. 173f., for some comments on the excesses of the more radical form criticism.

216

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

earlier forms and history of the traditions about Jesus, redaction criticism, building on the results of form criticism, aimed to smdy the use made of these eariier traditions by the Evangelists, in order to identify their particular interests. In this process two separate methods were generally combined: fhst, the changes made by an Evangelist to what was assumed to be the previous form and wordmg of an individual pericope were carefully catalogued and explained; second, the composition of each Gospel as a whole was studied, whh attention to what it includes and omits and how the work is stmctured.' Neither of these methods was new. Long before the term Redaktions geschichte was heard commentators had noted the particular concems of the Evangelists, such as Matthew's fascination with fulfillment of prophecy or Luke's emphasis on the Holy Spirh and on prayer.'" But redaction crhics became more rigorous in theh search for distinctive tiaits, and tended to emphasize the differences between the Gospels more strongly than had been done previously. Some have taken this approach to absurd lengths, findhig deep theological significance in every change of conjunction or every omission of a detail in the narrative. But much valuable work has been done, enablmg us to listen more effectively to the distinctive messages of Matthew, Mark, and Luke." It is probably misleading to describe redaction crhicism as a "method." While its raw materials are the observable differences between forms of peric opes in the Gospels and the stiuctures and contents of die Gospels as a whole, the way tiiese raw materials are used and the weight given to different types of evidence vary widely from one "redaction critic" to another. The critic's own pre-understanding of the namre of the Gospels plays a vhal role. A scholar who regards the Evangelists as essentially creative artists with Ihtie concem for factual accuracy will tend to attribute more of the content of the Gospels to the inventiveness of their authors than will one who believes that the tradhion of 9. This second meUiod is sometimes, andrightty,distinguished as "composition criticism"; but it is clearly an integral part of the search for an Evangelist's individual aims and belief, and so the approaches are usually for convenience described together as "redaction criticism." 10. Two interesting articles by M. Silva in WTfiJ 40 (1977-78), 77-88, 281-303, under the title "Ned B. Stonehouse and Redaction Criticism," show how that stalwart of conservative scholarship in many ways anticipated the insights and methods of later "redaction criticism." 11. The key pioneering redaktionsgeschichtlich studies in Germany were, for Matthew: G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held, Uberlieferung und Auslegung im Matthausevangelium (1960) = Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London, 1963); for Mark: W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus (1956) = Mark the Evangelist (Nashville, 1969); for Luke: H. Conzelmann, Die Mitte der Zeit (1954) = The Theology of St. Luke (London, 1960). For a survey of all significant redaction-critical writers in the German context up to 1%6 see J. Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists (t^ondon, 1%8). Since the 1960s most work on the Synoptic Gospels has been to varying degiees influenced by redaction criticism, and a list of such works would be immense. It would reveal that this is far from just a German approach, and tiiat, while the best-known redaction critics in die early period belonged to the school of Bultmann, the method has been enthusiastically adopted in a wide range of theological contexts, Catholic as well as Protestant, conservative as well as liberal.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

111

what Jesus said and did exercised a fhm control on the creativity of the authors. One scholar wdl therefore credh the Evangelist with introducing radically new ideas where another will recognize only differences of emphasis or of applica tion. But however varied the results may be, redaction cridcism does represent an important and salutary change of dhection from form criticism, for it recog nizes the Evangelists as Christian thmkers and communicators and aUows them to speak for themselves rather than being treated merely as a source for the discovery of earUer traditions, as fossils might be dug out of a quarry. Following the rise of redaction criticism some scholars, particularly in the English-speaking worid, have further emphasized the distinctiveness of each of the Gospels by drawing on the insights of contemporary literary c r i t i c i s m . C o n cerned less with the author than with the Gospel itself as a literary work in its own right, they have focused on the dramatic development of the plot in each Gospel, the depiction and function of its characters, its narrative pattems, and other Iherary features. Such studies have emphasized the importance of treating each Gospel as a whole "story" (a key word in this new phase of Gospel criticism), which makes its impact on the reader by its own inherent dynamic rather than on the basis of detaUed comparison with parallel accounts. This new phase of scholarship has therefore tended to give less weight to the properly "redactional" element in redaction criticism (i.e., the "editorial" work done by the author on the tiadhions received) and more on the "compositional" element (the selection and stmcturing of the material). The effect, no less than in the earlier phase of redaction criticism, has been to emphasize the individuality of each of the Gospels. The term "redaction crhicism" has been applied mamly to the study of the Synoptic Gospels. The distmctive character and rich theological contribution of John has always been recognized, and Part II of this book wdl take up that smdy in some depth. By contrast, the similarity in general outiine and in literary character between the three Synoptics previously resulted m inadequate attention bemg devoted to their individual contributions. And yet the close literary rela tionships between Matthew, Mark, and Luke offer an opportunity for detailed comparison, and therefore for redaction-critical study, which is seldom available in the same way for John. Of course tiiere is always a danger of over-emphasizing differences and of failing to allow for simple literary variety and stylistic pref erence. But where consistent patterns emerge m one Evangelist's treatment of the tradition, it is reasonable to take these pattems as guides to his special theological and pastoral concems.'^ 12. Some relatively accessible representatives of this movement are D. Rhoads and D. Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia, 1982); J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (PhUadelphia, 1986). Cf. also E. Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh, 1983), a more wide-ranging introduction to Markan shidies that incor porates this literary approach. 13. Clearly any method that depends on noticing the "changes" introduced by one Evangelist in relation to the work of another must presuppose an agreed understanding of the

218

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS Matthew"

Literature: G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia and London, 1963); W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1963); W. Trilling, Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthaus-Evangeliums (Munich, 1964'); G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthaus (Gottingen, 197P); J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia, 1975); L. Goppeh, Theology of the NT (Grand Rapids, 1982), 2:211-35; G. N. Stanton (ed.), The Interpretation of Matthew (London, 1983); G. N. Stanton, "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980," in H. Temporini and W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt 11.25/3 (Berlin, 1985), 1889-1951; R. T. France, Mat thew: Evangelist and Teacher (Exeter and Grand Rapids, 1989). The structure of Matthew's Gospel gives evidence of careful composhicn. The most obvious pointer to this is the formula repeated in 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1, which has long been recognized as marking out the five major "discourses" of chapters 5-7, 10, 13, 18, and 24-25, each of which is a careful compdation of sayings of Jesus on a particular theme (discipleship, mission, parables, rela tionships, and the future). But even more significant is the clear dramatic pro gression through the Gospel, which introduces Jesus the Messiah in 1:1-4:16, describes his public ministry in Galilee, with the growth both of response and of opposition in 4:17-16:20,'* reveals the trae goal of his messianic mission in rejection and death through the private teaching to his disciples in 16:21-18:35, describes the confrontation of the Messiah with the official leadership of Israel in his climactic (and only) visit to Jerasalem in 19:1-25:46 (with ch. 23, the fmal public utterances, expressing the final repudiation of unbeHeving Judaism that has rejected his appeal), and concludes with his suffering, death, and res urrection, which accomplish his messianic mission, in 26:1-28:20. The Gospel literary relationships of the Synoptic Gospels. Almost all redaction criticism has assumed the priority of Mark and has worked with some version of the "two-source theory"; those most active in redaction criticism have been, understandably, markedly reluctant to consider alter native Synoptic theories. If, however, Markan priority is not assumed, quite different results may be drawn from the same data, as has been showm by C. S. Mann's commentary on Mark in the Anchor Bible series (New York, 1986), the first large-scale commentary to reflect the recent revival of the theory of Matthean priority. As scholarly opinion on the Synoptic problem is now less dogmatic than it was in the earlier part of this century, redaction-critical conclusions that rely on noting, for instance, how Matthew has "changed" Mark may need to be more cautiously expressed. 14. For recent summaries of the main theological emphases of Matthew see L. Goppelt, Theology of the NT, 2:211-35; more fully, R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist arui Teacher, especially chs. 5-8. 15. J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom, 7-25, rightly notes the formula "From Uiat time on Jesus began . . ." in 4:17 and 16:21 as marking cmcial new developments in the story; less satisfactory is his attempt to account for the whole structure of the Gospel on the basis simply of these two phrases.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

219

is thus a dramatically constmcted presentation of Jesus as Israel's Messiah in confrontation whh Israel's unbelief. This narrative outline is essentially the same as that of Mark. In particular, Matthew shares whh Mark a positive view of Galilee as the place of response and hope, and a contrasting view of Jerusalem as the place of opposition and death. In Matthew, however, this symbolic geography is more clearly marked (see, e.g., 2:3; 4:12-16; 21:10-11) and reaches its triumphant climax in the final pericope, where Jemsalem is left behind whh its leaders engaged in a sordid cover-up plot, while the risen and vindicated Jesus meets with his disciples in the hills of Galilee to send them out on a mission to all nations. The one word that best characterizes Matthew's theological perspective is "fulfillment." It is most prominently seen in the most frequent of Matthew's formulas: "This took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet," or simdar words (1:22; 2:15, 18, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 27:9; cf 13:14; 26:54, 56). The so-called "formula quotations" introduced by this clause are Matthew's own comment on the story, and they illustrate the fertile abilhy of his mind to notice and draw attention to links between the Old Testament revelation and the story of Jesus.i* Nor is this tendency restiicted to formal quotation of explicit predictions. Matthew's Gospel is rich in allusions to the Old Testament, many of them drawing out a "typological" relation between Jesus and the main aspects of God's activity in Israel's past. A stiiking instance of this is in the formula repeated three times in chapter 12: "Something greater than the temple/Jonah/Solomon is here" (12:6,41,42).'^ Thus Matthew portrays Jesus as the successor of, yet superior to, those through whom God led his people in the past — priest, prophet, king, and sage. The first two chapters of Matthew illustrate well his emphasis on fulfill ment. The fhst two words of the Gospel translate literally as "book of genesis." They introduce a genealogy (1:1-17) showing Jesus as the climax of the history of Old Testament Israel, especially of the royal line of David. The remainder of chapters 1-2 consists of five short narrative sections, each focused around an Old Testament quotation, the object of the story being in each case to show how that scripmre was fulfilled in Jesus. The whole "infancy narrative" thus presents a demonstration of the scriptural evidence for the person and origin of Jesus as the Messiah.!* And the explich quotations are only a part of the scripmral coloring that mns through these stories, with unmistakable echoes of Moses and 16. Matthew's fonnula quotations have been the subject of extensive study. See espe cially K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew (Uppsala, 1954); R. H. Gundry, The Use of the OT in St. Matthew's Gospel (Leiden, 1967); G. M. Soares Prabhu, The Formula-Quotations in the Infancy Narratives of Matthew (Rome, 1976). 17. The argument about the showbread in 12:3-4 implies the same idea: "Something greater than David is here." 18. So especially K. Stendahl, "Quis et Unde?" in G. N. Stanton (ed.). The Interpretation of Matthew, 56-66. See further R. T France, NTS 27 (1981), 233-51.

220

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Pharaoh, and aUusions in the story of the magi to several royal or messianic themes of the Old Testament." We will introduce some of the main themes of Matthew's theology by focusing on three main areas in which this fulfillment motif is worked out. Christology To speak of fulfillment is, for any Christian, necessarily to speak of Christ, in whom God's purposes have reached their goal. Matthew is therefore not unique in this emphasis, and yet there is a distinctiveness about his presentation of Jesus. It is on his conviction that Jesus is the focus of the fulfillment of God's purposes that the other aspects of "fulfillment" to be considered in the foUowing sections are based. Matthew's Christology is more explich than Mark's. The "secrecy" motif of Mark (to be discussed below) is still there, but it is balanced by a more open recognition by the disciples of who Jesus is. Thus, while the form of address kyrie ("Lord") need not in itself indicate more than social politeness, it is striking to find it regularly used in Matthew's narrative as an address by Jesus' disciples where Mark has "teacher" or "rabbi.''^" In 14:33, where Mark records only that the disciples were "utterly astounded" by Jesus walking on the water, Matthew tells us that they "worshiped him, saying, 'Tmly you are the Son of G o d ' " ("Son of God" is an important thle for Mark, as we shall see, but he does not allow the disciples to use it).2i Similarly Peter's confession of Jesus as "the Christ" (Mk. 8:29) is in Matthew's version confession of him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (16:16); and while Jesus' subsequent command to keep the confession secret remains, h is preceded in Matthew (only) by Jesus' enthusiastic acceptance of Peter's words (16:17-19). Where Mark's narrative might be read as casting doubt on the uniqueness and particularly the sinlessness of Jesus, Matthew has taken care to avoid this danger by including the discussion whh John the Baptist of the need for Jesus to be baptized (3:14-15) and by a careful rewording of the rich man's question and of Jesus' reply (19:16-17). In Luke there are a few places where Jesus speaks apparendy as the messenger of the divine Wisdom, but in Matthew's parallels, as well as in an

19. W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 67-83, analyzes the saiptuial themes of chs. 1-2. 20. 44 times in Matthew, compared with 6 in Mark. See further G. Bornkamm in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 41-43. For the use of "teacher" in Mark and Matthew see R. T. France, "Mark and the Teaching of Jesus," in R. T. France and D. Wenham (ed.). Gospel Perspectives, 1 (Sheffield, 1980), 106-9. 21. J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom, chs. 2 and 3, argues that "Son of God" is "the central christological tide of Matthew," as it is also for Mark. Few would disagree, but see D. J. Verseput, NTS 33 (1987), 532-56, for a suggestive argument that the title serves in Matthew to highlight the obedient, gentle, suffering ministry of Jesus in deliberate contrast to triumphalistic notions of a Davidic Messiah.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

221

important passage peculiar to Matthew (11:28-30; cf. Sir. 51:23-27), the wording suggests rather that Jesus is himself that divine Wisdom present on earth.22 One of the most striking passages of Jesus' teaching peculiar to Matthew is the great judgment scene of 25:31-46. Here Jesus is "the King," sitting on the throne of his glory, attended by angels, and pronouncing sentence on all nations.23 Other passages peculiar to Matthew underline this theme of majesty: the "kingdom of the Son of Man" is referred to in 13:41; 16:28, and his "glorious throne" in 19:28, while 28:18 sees all authority vested in him in fulfillment of the prophecy in Dan. 7:14. This last passage leads directly into the trinitarian formula of 28:19, where Matthew's Christology reaches hs climax with "the Son" joined with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the object of Christian allegiance and worship. So the Gospel that began with Jesus identified as "God with us" (1:23) concludes with the assurance of his presence "with you always, to the close of the age" (28:20; cf 18:20).24 Matthew's Christology is thus "higher" and more explicit than that of Mark and Luke. The same christological titles, especially "Son of Man" and "Son of God," are used, generally in similar ways,^* but underiying diem is a greater whlingness to present Jesus, even in his earthly ministry, as a figure of majesty and even as divine. Equally distinctive of Matthew is his consistent emphasis on Jesus' role as the fulfillment of the hopes of Israel. We have seen already the way the Gospel is introduced by a concentrated series of pointers to this fulfillment, and we have noted the typological links that Matthew loves to point out. Among these themes that of Jesus as the true king of the line of David is prominent (see above on the genealogy and on 12:6, 4 1 , 42, etc.). It is therefore not surprising to find Jesus addressed as "son of David" seven times in Matthew (only twice each in 22. See Mt. 11:19, 25-30; 23:34-36, 37-39, with their Lukan parallels. For an extreme statement of this view see M. J. Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew's Gospel (Cambridge, MA, 1970); more moderately J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (London, 1980), 197-206. On the most important such passage, 11:25-30, see C. Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke (Sheffield, 1987). 23. The language used is full of echoes of Old Testament passages that describe God as judge of all; see R. T. France, Jesus and the OT (London, 1971), 157-59. The centrality of judgment in Matthew's Gospel, whether exercised by God or by Jesus, has often been noted; so especially D. Marguerat, LeJugement dans I'Evangile de Matthieu (Geneva, 1981), with a useful chart of the occurrence of die theme on p. 31. R. Mohrlang, Matthew and Paul (Cam bridge, 1984), 48-57, underlines the importance of reward and punishment in Matthew. 24. The christological importance of the theme of "being with" in Matthew is empha sized especially by H. Frankemolle, Jahwe-Bund und Kirche Christi (Munster, 1984^), 7-83. 25. There is an interesting exchange of articles on Matthean Christology, with special reference to these titles, between J. D. Kingsbury and D. Hill in JSNT 21 (1984), 3-52; 25 (1985), 61-81. See also M. Pamment, "The Son of Man in the First Gospel," NTS 29 (1983), 116-29; D. J. Verseput, "The Role and Meaning of the 'Son of God' Title in Matthew's Gospel," NTS 33 (1987), 532-56.

222

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Mark and Luke), or that the first narrative scene of the Gospel is about how Joseph, "son of David" (1:20), was persuaded to accept Jesus as his son. All three Synoptic Gospels record Jesus' questioning of the value of this thle (22:4145), presumably because it was open to a too nationalistic interpretation; but for Matthew it nevertheless enshrines a truth too important to be discarded. Another typological theme that emerges cleariy in chapters 1-2 is that of Jesus as the new Moses, hounded by Herod as Moses was by Pharaoh.^* AVhile Bacon's suggestion that Matthew's whole Gospel is stmcmred as a "Christian Pentateuch," setting out the new law of the "prophet like Moses,"^'^ is not now generally accepted, there is probably a deliberate presentation of Jesus as the new Moses at least in the mountain scene in 17:1-8 (which is not, of course, peculiar to Matthew) and in the introduction of the Sermon on the Mount (5:1-2), which suggests the "fulfillment" of Moses' giving of the Law at Mount Sinai.^s We shall see in the next section how important Jesus' relation to the Old Testament Law is for Matthew; it is a christological, not just an ethical, question. A further important typological strand is the presentation of Jesus as himself constimting the new Israel, to which we shall retum below. Matthew's Christology naturally shares many motifs whh the other Syn optic Gospels, as he records many of the same incidents and sayings. But both in his selection and structuring of material and in his detailed wording he has emphasized particularly (1) Jesus' role as the one in whom Israel's history and hopes come to their fulfillment, and (2) Jesus' uniqueness as the sinless Son of God, the Lord, King, and Judge, the ever-present "God with us." Jesus and the Law If Jesus fulfills the Old Testament revelation, what does this mean in reladon to the central part of that revelation, the Law? This was clearly a question of great importance for Matthew, and one with serious practical implications for the church(es) for which he was writing. From various indicadons in the Gospel it seems he was fighting on two fronts. On the one hand there were those who taught that Jesus had come to abolish the Law (5:17) and who therefore became antinomian in practice^' {anomia, "lawlessness," is condemned several times in the Gospel: see

26. See 2:20 with its echo of Exod. 4:19; see further R. T. France, AT 21 (1979), 105f., 108-11. 27. B. W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (London, 1930), and others since. W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 14-93, discusses the theory at length, and pronounces it "questionable, though possible." 28. See the sober assessment by W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 92-93. 29. The significance of antinomianism in Matthew's simation has been emphasized particularly by G. Barth, in G. Bornkamm, et ai. Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (summary on 159-64), and by G. Zumstein, La Condition du Croyant dans I'Evangile selon Matthieu (Fribourg and Gottingen, 1977), especially 199-200.

Manhew, Mark, and Luke

223

7:23; 13:41; 23:28; 24:12). On the other hand were the legalists, represented by the scribes and Pharisees,'" who failed to look beyond the detailed regulations to the more fundamental ethical principles of the Law, and whose "righteousness" (another distinctively Matthean word'') was therefore inadequate (5:20).32 Here again the key word is "fulfillment." Jesus has come to "fulfill" the Law and the prophets (5:17). If the prophets point forward to a "fulfillment," so also does the Law: "The prophets and the law prophesied until John" (11:13). Jesus is that to which the Law pointed forward; it finds its goal in him. From now on, therefore, the Law must be understood and applied only in relation to him who alone has the right to declare "/ say to you" (5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44) and who teaches with his own authority, unlike the scribes (7:28f.). Matthew sets out Jesus' relation to and use of the Law in detail in 5:17-48. Much discussion of this important passage has focused on whether Jesus' six examples in verses 21-47 do in fact endorse the Law (as vv. 17-19 seem to require) or either go beyond it (as v. 20 might suggest) or even abrogate some parts of it (despite v. 17). But in an important discussion of this passage R. J. Banks has rightly argued that this is to approach the question from the wrong end. "It is not so much 7e5Ms'stance towards the Law that Matthew is concerned to depict: it is how the l a w stands with regard to him, as the one who brings it to fulfillment and to whom all attention must now be directed."'' The issue is ultimately one of Christology, with the Law, like the prophets, as a witness to the climax of God's purpose in Jesus. Jesus has introduced "the kingdom of heaven,"'* focused on a new relationship with God that far transcends a mere keeping of mles (5:20). Several of the examples in 5:21-47 show Jesus going beyond the idea of a literal obedience to a deeper grasp of the essential will of God, to principles of conduct and of relationship that lie behind the regulations of the Old Testament Law. In

30. The sustained attack on the "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" in ch. 23 goes far beyond anything in the other Synoptics (though compare the hostility to "the Jews" in John). Many have commented on Matthew's anti-Pharisaic stance, e.g., G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 137-43; D. R. A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St A/aH/iew (Cambridge, 1967), 80-96. See, however, D. E. Garland, The Intention of Matthew 23 (Leiden, 1979), 41-46, for the view that "scribes and Pharisees" function for Matthew as a general term for "the genus, false leaders of Israel" rather than expressing specific hostility to the Pharisees as such. 31. Mt. 3:15; 5:6,10,20; 6:1,33; 21:32; see G. Bornkamm, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 24-32; G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 149-58; B. Przybylski, Righteous ness in Matthew and His World of Thought (Cambridge, 1980). 32. Note that it is only in Matthew that we read of Jesus (twice) quoting Hos. 6:6, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," in each case in response to Pharisaic criticism (9:13; 12:7). 33. R. J. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge, 1975), 226. The section dealing with Mt. 5:17-48 is on 182-235. 34. Matthew's Jewish idiom for what the other Synoptic EvangeUsts call "the kingdom of God"; see above, p. 61, and cf. p. 57 for comments on the misleading approach of "dispen sationalism" at this point.

224

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

some cases (notably w . 31-32, 33-37, 38-42) the resuh is in effect that the regulations themselves can no longer function directly as guides to conduct. Preeminent among the principles laid down is that of love ( w . 43-47), a principle that Jesus elsewhere presents as a summary of all the teaching of the Law and the prophets (7:12; 22:35-40; cf 19:19). The whole series of examples is then sununed up in the all-embracing demand, "You shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (5:48). The "fulfillment" of die Law is, then, not a new law, but a new relationship with God. It is this that Jesus came to achieve.'* But if this attitude suggests that "law" has no further role, Matthew insists on the other side that "lawlessness," however spiritually presented, can lead only to ultimate condemnation (7:21-23). 7:15-27 focuses on "doing" as the mark of tme discipleship, and much of Matthew's Gospel (not least the magnificent collection of Jesus' teachings on discipleship that we call the "Sermon on the Mount") is devoted to setting out the ethical demands of the new life in the kingdom of heaven. With regard to the Old Testament Law, 5:18-19 insists that it has lost none of its importance, however much its role may have been modified by the coming of "fulfillment." It is on this basis that it has often been insisted that Matthew represents a markedly "conservative" attitude to the Law.'* It is noted that 15:1-20 is apparently less radical in hs attitude to the food laws than Mark 7:1-23,''' and 23:3, 23 seem even to endorse scribal legal traditions outside the Old Testament'* (though other parts of 5:21-47 and 15:1-20 no less emphatically reject them). Interpreters of Matthew's attitude to the Law therefore tend to come to conclusions that are not easily reconciled. The reason is probably that Matthew is carefully steering a middle course between legalism and antinomianism. But the key to his position is Sesus' fulfilment of the Law. The authorhy of the Law as God's word to Israel is taken up into, and interpreted by, the authority of the one who can declare "/ say to you," because in him "all is accomplished" (5:18). Israel, Jesus, and the

Church

If Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel's hopes, how did he relate to the Israel of his own day, particularly to its official leadership, and how does the community of 35. The understanding of 5:17-48 outlined here is essentially that of Banks (n. 33 above) and has been increasingly followed in recent studies, notably J. P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel (Rome, 1976), 41-124, 160-61; R. A. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount (Waco, 1982), 134-74; D. J. Moo, "Jesus and the Authority of the Mosaic Law," JSNT 20 (1984), 3-49. 36. For a recent endorsement of this view see R. Mohrlang, Matthew and Paul (Cam bridge, 1984), 7-26, 42-47. 37. Matthew omits the editorial comment in Mark 7:19b, "Thus he declared all foods clean," and Mt. 15:20 seems to restrict the issue to scribal conventions on washings rather than directly questioning the validity of the Levitical food laws. 38. It should be noted, however, that in 23:3, 23 the emphasis falls on the other member of the sentence, to which the proposed keeping of scribal rules serves as a foil. One might paraphrase, "Keep their rules if you like, but. . . ."

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

225

those who responded to his ministry relate to the nation out of which they were drawn? Qearly by the dme Matthew wrote this was a burning issue, particularly as the success of the Christian mission among Gentiles made an ever wider gulf between the church and Israel as a nation. Matthew wrote as a Jew,'' conscious of his national heritage, eager to demonstrate the Old Testament roots of Jesus' ministry; and yet his work has been described as violently anti-Jewish! In exploring this paradox we come close to the heart of the theological concems of his Gospel. Matthew's essential Jewishness has already become clear in our discussion of his constant reference to the Old Testament, his focus on fulfillment, and his concem with the role of the Law. The Jewish coloring of his language and his Jewish cultural milieu have often been documented. Only Matthew includes an explicit restriction of the mission of Jesus and his disciples to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (I0:5f.; 15:24; cf. 10:23). Such considerations have led some to describe Matthew as a converted rabbi,*" or to fmd his own self-portrait in the "scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven" (13:52). But throughout Matthew's Gospel Jesus is shown as increasingly in con flict with the leaders of the nadon (particularly, but not only, the Pharisees). This opposition reaches its climax in chapters 21-23. Here Jesus' deliberately pro vocative symbolic acts in 21:1-22 (including the immediate destruction of the fruhless fig tree, a symbol of Israel's failure*') lead into a long series of "debates" whh various official representatives of Israel, in which the lines are more cleariy drawn, showing the total incompatibility of Jesus' message with the religion of the estabUshment. Included in this section is a group of three polemical parables (21:28-22:14), all clearly expressing God's rejection of those who have failed to live up to their status as his chosen people, and their replacement by others whom they have despised. The last of these parables contains a transparent allusion to the coming destruction of Jemsalem as the inevitable consequence (22:7). Then in chapter 23, in a public attack on the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus expresses his total repudiation of their way of religion, leading up to the decla ration (23:29-36) that the climax of Israel's rebellion has now been reached*^ and to the consequent prediction of the destmction of the temple, the symbol of Israel's status as the people of God (23:37-24:2). 39. It has been argued that the paradox of the Gospe) may be solved by the hypothesis that while the material is mostly of Jewish Christian origin, the final editor was a Gentile with little sympathy for Judaism. So, e.g., K. W. Clark, JBL 66 (1947), 165-72; P. Nepper-Christensen. Das Matthausevangelium: Ein judenchristUches Evangelium? (Aarhus, 1958); G. StsecksT, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 15-35; S. Van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden, 1972), 171-72. This view has not won wide support. The tension that is clear in the Gospel is better explained by the life-situation of a loyal Jew who yet finds himself distanced from his own people by his recognition of Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel's hope. 40. So E. von Dobschiitz in G. N. Stanton (ed.). The Interpretation of Matthew, 19-29. 41. So most commentators, citing Jer. 8:13; Mic. 7:1 for the imagery. 42. Cf. the frequent condemnations of "this generation": 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 24:34.

226

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

While much of the material in these chapters is shared with Mark and Luke, neither of those two Gospels matches this sustained and consistent dem onstration of Israel's failure and its consequences. Moreover, while the attack has been directed prhnarily against the leaders of the nation, Matthew makes it clear that their atthude, and therefore theh fate, is shared by the nation as a whole (23:37ff.; 27:24f.). So the Jewish messianic banquet will be attended by Gendles lUce the believmg cenmrion, while the "sons of the kingdom" will find no place there (8:11-12, a saying significantly included by Matthew in the story of a Gentile's faith that was greater than any found in Israel). And it is only Matthew who draws out explicitly the moral of the parable of the vineyard: "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation which will produce its fmits" (21:43). Not that Matthew suggests that all Jews are automatically lost; Jesus and his first disciples (including Matthew) were all Jews. The "nation" of 21:43 is therefore not simply "the Gendles," replacing "the Jews." Rather the point is that the tme people of God wdl no longer depend on membership in a national community, but on a new basis of repentance and faith, which is potentially open to all, Jew and Gentile. This was the message of John the Baptist (3:8-9), and it was the necessary result of the mission of Jesus to introduce a new covenant (26:28) and therefore a new covenant communhy of the forgiven. AU this may be found in Jesus' teaching m all the Gospels,*' but h is in Matthew that it comes most sharply into focus. So the mission that was inhially addressed only to Israel came to be universal. Many see 28:18-20 as the key to the theology of the whole Gospel.** The universal mission there introduced is the climax to several earlier hints: the "Gentde" women in Jesus' genealogy (1:3-6), the magi from the East (2:1-12), the Gendle centurion (8:5-13), the Canaanite woman (15:21-28), the "other nadon" of 21:43, the guests from the streets (22:8-9), and the future universal preaching of the gospel (24:14; 26:13). Israel's Messiah has indeed fulfilled Israel's hopes — but "Israel" is now both narrower and potentially far wider than the nation, which as a whole has failed to respond to its Messiah. The key to understanding Matthew's idea of the tme Israel lies partly in the typology we noted earlier, whereby it is in Jesus himself that the various strands making up the nation's life find their fulfillment. When 2:15 applies to Jesus the words of Hosea 11:1 about Israel as God's "son" rescued from Egypt, this is no arbitrary misquotation, but a reflection of Matthew's belief that Jesus 43. The theme runs through much of chs. 2-15 above, especially chs. 8 and 14. See ftirther G. E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids, 1974), chs. 10 and 11; R. T. France, TB 26 (1975), 53-78. 44. E.g., O. Michel in G. N. Stanton (ed.). The Interpretation of Matthew, 30-41; W. Trilling, Das wahre Israel, 21-51; G. Bornkamm in J. M. Robinson (ed.). The Future of our Religious Pasf (London, 1971), 203-29; T. L. Donaldson, yexus on the Mountain (Sheffield, 1985), 170-90.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

227

is Israel, and that hi his experiences a new exodus is taking place.** He is the representative head in whom the nation's destiny is now concentrated. Hence forth, therefore, to belong to "Israel" must mean to belong to Jesus, and it is through their relationship to hhn that his people, whether Jew or Gentile, become God's people Israel. Thus in a passage that has been described as "the nearest that Matthew . . . comes to the conception of the Church as the Body of Christ"** Jesus says that what is done to "the least of these my brothers" is done to him (25:40). Christ's disciples*' are, as Paul would have put it, "in Christ" (or rather he is in them; cf. 10:40-42 and 18:20 for sunilar ideas). It is this relationship with Jesus, the true Israel, that constitutes them as a distinct communhy, the people of God of the new covenant. It is for this reason that they can be called (in Matthew alone among the Gospels) the ekklesia, the Septuagint term for the "assembly" of Israel.** The difference is that now Jesus can describe it as "my ekklesia " (16:18). Matthew is often described as the "ecclesiastical" Gospel. If this is in tended to mean that he reflects a developed church stmcmre with a formal mmistry, disciplinary code, etc., h is misleading;*' such a view can be sustained only by reading later meanings into words and ideas that have a perfectly namral meaning within the context of Jesus' ministry. But if it means that Matthew emphasizes that the result of Jesus' ministry was the creation of a new commu nity of the believing and forgiven remnant, the people of the Messiah m whom the destiny of Israel is to be fulfilled, then it is a tme and important observation. It is for this new community that Matthew writes, and his concern is that hs corporate life should be worthy of hs high calling. The two ekklesia passages (16:17-19; 18:15-20) are only the most obvious expressions of this emphasis, which emerges also particularly in the application to Jesus' disciples of Old Testament texts and concepts that were the special prerogative of Israel as the people of God.*" So for Matthew (and of course he is not alone in this perception) the 45. This theme is prominent also especially in 4:1-11, where Jesus' role as "Son of God" is explored in the light of the wilderness experiences of Israel recorded in Deuteronomy 6-8; for other indications of this typology see R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 207-10. 46. H. B. Green, The Gospel According to Matthew (Oxford, 1975), 206. 47. For the view, now quite widely supported, that the "brothers" are disciples, not the needy in general, see above, pp. 116f.; also J. Manek, "Mit wem identifiziert sich Jesus (Mt. 25:31-46)?" in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (ed.), Christ and Spirit in the NT (Cambridge, 1973), 15-25; R. H. Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia, 1981), 130-40. 48. See above, pp. 107f. 49. See the refreshing article by E. Schweizer, "Matthew's Church," in G. N. Stanton (ed.). The Interpretation of Matthew, 129-55. 50. See R. T. France, Jesus and the OT, 60-67, where several of the instances quoted are peculiar to Matthew.

228

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

coming of Jesus has marked a decisive new phase in the working out of God's purpose, so momentous that history falls into two periods, with Jesus himself as the dividing point.*' With his coming to be "God with us" a new age has dawned, and nothmg can ever be the same again. Henceforward it is in Jesus that all God's purposes, including his purpose for his people Israel, are centered. So Christology is the key to all of Matthew's interpretation of the gospel, including particularly his views of the Law, of Israel, and of the church. In all these areas, as m the presentation of Jesus hhnself, Matthew proclahns fulfillment in Jesus.

Marksz Literature: R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford, 1950); J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark (London, 1957); E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology (Cambridge, 1965); W. Marxsen, Mark the Evan gelist (Nashville, 1969); R. P. Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter and Grand Rapids, 1972); H. C. Kee, The Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia and London, 1977); S. P. Kealy, Mark's Gospel: A History of Its Interpretation (New York, 1982); E. Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh, 1983); J. D. Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia, 1983); W. R. Telford (ed.), The Interpretation of Mark (London, 1985); R. T. France, Divine Government: God's Kingship in the Gospel of Mark (London, 1990).

Within the prevailing view that Mark's Gospel was earlier than those of Matthew and Luke and was used by their authors, the attempt to discern Mark's distinctive theology faces an obvious disadvantage: Whereas we may note the changes Matthew and Luke have made to their supposed source, in the case of Mark we have no source available, and therefore it is more difficult to determine what is Mark's own contribution and what is simply traditional material that he has incorporated as it came to him. If R. Pesch is right to characterize Mark as "no inventor, but an edhor of tradition, . . . not really literarily creative, but 'unlherarily' conservative,"*' then we must beware of finding distinctively "Marcan theology" in all he records. Much effort has been put into the attempt to distm51. See J. D. Kingsbury, CBQ 35 (1973), 466-74, for this two-stage understanding of Heilsgeschichte in Matthew, as opposed to the three-stage scheme that Conzelmann proposed for Luke; G. Strecker, in G. N. Stanton (ed.). The Interpretation of Matthew, 67-84, prefers a three-stage understanding for Matthew too. 52. For a survey of discussion of Markan theology up to about 1970, see R. P. Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian, especially chs. 4 and 5. For more recent discussion see W. R. Telford, The Interpretation of Mark 1-41. 53. R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (Freiburg, 1980^), 22. Subsequent stody has moved strongly away from the idea of Mark as "unliterary," in terms of the dramatic effec tiveness of his narrative, but Pesch's conwnent warns us against understanding Mark's "cre ativity" as a lack of concern for and control by the contents of the tradition he received.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

229

guish tradition from redaction in Marie,** and where such results find general agreement they may be expected to enlarge our understanding of Mark's theo logical concerns. But it must be primarily from a study of the overall shape and contents of the Gospel that we may expect to understand Mark's interpretation of what he recorded. It is generally agreed that use of the term "gospel" (euangelion) to describe a genre of literature derives from its use in Mark 1:1, whether or not Mark himself so intended it. He introduces his story with the words "The beginning of the euangelion of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God." This is no mere historical record, but "good news"; and the good news is Jesus. The very first verse therefore alerts us to expect a theological, indeed "evangelistic," presen tation of the life and teaching of Jesus.** Martin Kahler's famous description of Mark and the other Gospels as "passion narratives with extended introductions,"** even if it does not do justice to the range of material in the earlier chapters, appropriately indicates the focal point of Mark's book. The very structure of the Gospel (which is essentially also the basis for that of Matthew outlined above) conveys its message. The Jesus who is declared in the first verse to be both Messiah and Son of God, and who is introduced as such in 1:2-13, is then traced through his Galilean ministry, a period largely of popular acceptance (1:14—6:13), through a wider ministry in the north, during which opposition grows (6:14—8:26), then on his fatal journey toward Jerusalem, as he prepares his disciples for his rejection and death (8:2710:52), culminadng in his eventual arrival in Jerusalem where his confrontation with the religious authorities seals his fate (chs. 11-13), and so to the inevitable clhnax in his passion (chs. 14-16), which nevertheless ends on a note of mystery and hope (16:7-8). Galilee, then, is the place of revelation and response, and also the place of hope for the future (14:28; 16:7), while Jerusalem is the place of rejection and death, doomed because of its unbelief. This "geographical theology," to which E. Lohmeyer drew attention,*' was developed by W. Marxsen** into the theory that Mark was writing in Galilee shortly before the destruction of Jem salem in A.D. 70 to urge Christians there to get out before it was too late, and to come to Galilee where Jesus was shortly to reappear. Marxsen's specific

54. Especially the very detailed work of E. J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge, 1978). See also several of the essays in M. Sabbe (ed.), L'Evangileselon Marc: Tradition et Redaction (Leuven, 1974), especially that of E. Best, 21-34 (reprinted in W. R. Telford [ed.]. The Interpretation of Mark, 119-33). 55. On euangelion see W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, 117-50; R. P. Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian, 21-28. 56. M. Kahler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ (Philadelphia, 1964), 80, n. 11. 57. E. Lohmeyer, Galilaa und Jerusalem (Gottingen, 1936). 58. Mark the Evangelist, 54-116.

230

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

theory has not been widely accepted, but the underlying observation of the contrasting symbolism of Galilee and Jemsalem accords well with the dramatic development of Mark's story; we have seen above that in Matthew it is even more fully developed.*' Already in considering the structure of the Gospel we have found our attention directed to Mark's presentation of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. It is on his Christology that a study of Mark's thought must necessarily focus. Christology We have seen that "Son of God"*" is the title with which Mark introduces Jesus the Messiah in 1:1, and it is generally agreed that this thle is at the heart of his christological message. It recurs at key points in the Gospel: God declares Jesus to be his beloved Son at his baptism (1:11); the demons recognize Jesus as such in his ministry of exorcism (3:11; 5:7); the baptismal pronouncement is repeated in 9:7, significantiy immediately after Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah and Jesus' warning that messiahship means suffering and death; in 12:6 Jesus himself all but openly claims the title in the parable that sets him over against Israel's failed leadership; in 14:61-62 he at last openly and defiantly accepts h in the face of those same Jewish leaders; and the paradoxical climax is reached when Jesus' death on the cross provokes even a Gentile centurion to recognize him as God's son (15:39). Thus, through all the rejection and misunderstanding that Jesus encounters, Mark does not allow his readers to forget who Jesus really is. So Mark's Gospel is one of paradox. Jesus is the Son of God, he who acts with all the authority of God himself (2:1-12) and whose glory is once revealed in visible form (9:2-8), and yet he appears in humility, weakness, and suffering. There is a deliberate concealment about Mark's Jesus that contrasts with the much more explicit Christology we have seen in Matthew. W. Wrede's theory of the "Messianic Secret" as a Markan invention has rightly been judged his torically untenable,*' but it was based on a true observation of the character of 59. A different "geographical symbolism" in Mark has been argued at length by U. Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness (London, 1963). The significance of the "wilderness" in the prologue (1:1-13), in the light of the wilderness theme in the Old Testament, has been noted by most recent commentators, but Mauser traces this as a redactional perspective in the Gospel as a whole. 60. This phrase is absent from some early witnesses to the text of 1:1, notably the first draft of Codex Sinaiticus (to which it has been added by an early corrector). Its absence is better explained by an error at the period when christological tides were conventionally abbreviated in manuscripts (resulting at this point in four abbreviated genitives concluding a sequence of six, all with the same -ou ending), than by its not being part of the original text, which goes on to pick up this title at the climax of the prologue in 1:11. 61. See above, pp. 178-80, and the literature referred to there. See also the useftil collection of articles on the subject in C. M. Tuckett, The Messianic Secret (London, 1983), especially Tuckett's introductory chapter. Further important discussions include G. Minette de

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

231

this Gospel. Jesus, as Mark presents him, did avoid publicity, was reluctant to make grandiose claims for himself in public, and not only commended (9:33-37; 10:42-45) but also exemplified the unassuming, "low-key" atthude that contrasts with the world's self-importance. He was, and knew himself to be, the Messiah, the conqueror of Satan, but his mission was to suffer and be rejected by his own people, not to mle in earthly triumph. He was, and knew himself to be, the Son of God, but he shared fully in human emotion and stress (e.g., 3:5; 6:5-6; 8:12; 9:19; 10:14; 14:33-36; 15:34). He had supemamral knowledge (e.g., 2:8; 5:30; 8:17; 13:2), but he confessed his ignorance of that which only his Father knew (13:32). He healed and exorcised, performed miracles and taught whh unheardof authority, but he fell asleep on a boat's cushion while a storm raged around him (4:38). So paradoxical is this portrait of Jesus that scholars have tried to explain it in terms of particular emphases in Mark's church that Mark was keen to oppose.*^ Perhaps they were beginning, as Christians quickly did (particularly those influ enced by Gnosticism), to forget or even deny the real humanity of Jesus, turning him into a sort of theophany. Or, perhaps more plausibly for the time and place where Mark is generally supposed to have been written, they were so taken up with the spectacular achievements of this wonder-working Messiah that they were forgetting the tme focus of his mission, and so were in danger of mming him into just another in the succession of charismatic wonder-workers who amazed and impressed the ancient world. Several scholars have seen such "divine men"*' as a category into which the Hellenistic mind would namrally classify Jesus, and so see Mark's Gospel as a sustained attempt to prevent Jesus from being hailed as such a theios aner, while still maintaining his mission and status as the Son of God.** It would be appropriate to such a potential misunderstanding that Mark's presenta-

Tillesse, Le secret messianique dans I'Evangile de Marc (Paris, 1968); D. E. Aune, NT 11 (1969), 1-31. 62. More recent scholarship has reacted against this trend, which J. D. Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark's Gospel, refers to as "corrective christology." Cf. E. Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, ch. 8; of the assumption that Mark is a polemical writing, Best comments wryly: "It is probably a scholars' mirage created by the attitude they take up to other scholars' writings; they are so used to writing polemically against one another that they assume it is the only reason why people write!" (p. 46). 63. L. Bieler, THEIOS ANER (Vienna, 1935-36), strongly argued the case for theios aner as a recognized title for such figures in the Hellenistic world. Cf. also M. Hadas and M. Smith, Heroes and Gods (New York, 1965). More recent scholarship has questioned the validity of Bieler's case for the New Testament period: see especially D. L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (Missoula, 1972); C. R. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism (Missoula, 1977). 64. This approach is analyzed and discussed by W. L. Lane, "Theios aner Christology and the Gospel of Mark," in R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (ed.). New Dimensions in NT Study (Grand Rapids 1974), 144-61. Lane responds especially to the work of T. J. Weeden, to which we will refer below.

232

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

tion of Jesus' miracles emphasizes not only Jesus' power but also the importance of faith in the recipient (2:5; 5:34; 9:23f., etc.), even to the extent of allowing unbelief to fmstrate Jesus' power (6:1-6), and has no room for wonder-working as a mere "sign" of Jesus' authority (8:11-13). R. P. Martin** offers the related suggestion that Mark wrote for a church that was in danger of misunderstanding Paul's message. Paul's own letters offer ample evidence that his gospel was liable to distortion by those who concentrated on his theme of the believer's union with the risen Lord, and for whom the cross became a scarcely relevant preliminary to resurrection and exaltation, even an embarrassment. Such triumphalistic discipleship would have no place for human rejection, failure, and suffering. Mark, as a faithful follower of Paul, saw the danger of this distortion of his master's thought, and therefore corrected it by emphasizing that the risen Lord had reached his glory by way of rejection and the cross — and that so too must those who desire to be identified with the Lord. It is too ambhious to expect to be able to reconstmct Mark's shuation in detail, but some such milieu might account for his complementary stress both on the messianic mission and divine glory of Jesus and on his suffering, humh iation, and death. There is a theologia gloriae, but it is carefully balanced by and grounded in a theologia crucis. Nowhere is this range of thought better exemplified than in the use of the title "the Son of Man" (more promment in Mark even than the title "the Son of God"), which encompasses both Jesus' essential mission of rejecdon and suffering (8:31; 9:12,31; 10:33f., 45, etc.) and the heavenly glory to which that suffering wiU lead (8:38; 13:26; 14:62). If this is paradox, then paradox, for Mark, is the very heart of the gospel. A similar paradox appears in Mark's handling of the theme of "the king dom of God," which has been fully discussed in earlier chapters in relation to the Synoptic tradition as a whole.** As in the other Synoptic Gospels, Jesus announces the arrival of God's rule (1:15: note that in Mark the debatable engiken, "has come near," is parallel with the unambiguous phrase "the time has been fulfilled"), but also looks forward to a future time when the Kingdom will have "come in power" (9:1), and at the Last Supper speaks of drinking new wine "in the kingdom of God" as something yet to be (14:25). This tension between the "already" and the "not yet" is worked out in the parables in chapter 4, most obviously in the development of the mustard seed from insignificance to impressive growth (4:30-32), but also in the mysterious growth ("by its own power") of the seed in 4:26-29. The theme of secrecy is strongly emphasized:*' 65. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian, 156-62; the theory is further examined on 163-205. 66. See above. Chapter 4, and much of the content of the succeeding chapters. 67. T. J. Geddert, Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology (Sheffield, 1989), ch. 8, discusses "the theology of the secret kingdom" as "the hermeneutical key to Mark's Gospel." He argues that Mark's concern in including ch. 13 in his work was to focus on the very uncertainty that the secrecy of God's purpose fosters. Ch. 13 is therefore designed to discourage

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

233

the "secret of God's rule" is available only to disciples, not to "those outside" (4:11, echoing the prominent symbolic use of "outside" in 3:31, 32, where h contrasts with the "circle" of Jesus' disciples, as v. 34 literally describes them). This incognito presence of God's mle, unrecognized by society at large, will give way to the "power" of its coming while some of Jesus' hearers remain alive (9:1); but for now they must live with paradox.** Discipleship Mark's Gospel is not the story of Jesus alone, but of Jesus and his disciples. If Mark's main theological emphasis is on Christology, a vital subplot is the analysis of what it means to follow Jesus. This theme is explored through a portrayal of Jesus' first disciples in their privilege and in their failures, in their experience of being with Jesus, and especially in the teaching he gave them.*' This concentration on discipleship is particularly evident in the section linking the Galilean ministry to the climactic vish to Jerusalem (8:27-10:45),'° but from 1:16 on the disciples are never far out of the picmre. If one aim of Mark's Gospel was to dispel false ideas of the namre of messiahship, another almost equally prominent aim was to instmct his readers in what their Christian profession really hivolved." If messiahship involves rejection and suffering rather than popularity and triumph, then the Messiah's followers must expect no better (8:34-38; 13:9-13, etc.). This theme of suffering for the cause of Jesus suggests that Mark was writing for a church that had already experienced persecution for its faith and that found it hard to reconcile this experience with its members' status as the followers of the Son of God. Mark therefore shows that the theologia crucis applies to the disciple as well as to the master. There is no room for a privileged triumphalism. "Mark campaigns against balcony-type Christians who are too

rather than to promote interest in "the timing of the end," which has been at the heart of modern interpretation of that chapter. 68. For a shidy of the Kingdom of God specifically in Mark see R. T. France, Divine Government, where ch. 2 focuses on the theme of secrecy and ch. 4 on the "coming with power," and where ch. 5 draws out the christological implications of Mark's development of this theme. 69. See R. C. Tannehill, "The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role," in W. R. Telford (ed.), The Interpretation of Mark, 134-57. 70. Mark 8:(22)27-10:45(52) is now generally recognized as the "discipleship section," where Jesus prepares his disciples for his coming passion by re-educating them in the revo lutionary new values of the Kingdom of God. So especially E. Best, Following Jesus (Sheffield, 1981). The two healings of blind men by which this section is framed (8:22-26; 10:46-52) are understood by many to have a symbolic function in relation to the whole section, in which the disciples' eyes are (gradually) opened (Best, 134-45). 71. T. J. Geddert, Watchwords, 257-58, finds in Mark 13, as in the Gospel as a whole, a focus on "the twin and inseparable themes of 'discernment' and 'discipleship' " as the key to Christian living.

234

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

high for the mission and discipleship that in Mark's terms necessarily involves cross-bearing and self-sacrifice."'^ Mark's account tells us that Jesus' disciples found diis a hard lesson to learn. Indeed, their whole understanding of Jesus' mission was at best superficial, if not dangerously misleading. There is a recurrent emphasis on their failure to understand (6:52; 7:18; 8:21, 32f.; 9:10, 32, 33-37; 10:13f., 35-45, etc.). Mark's portrait of the disciples (particulariy of Peter) is remarkably unflattering, so much so that Matthew and Luke in several instances tone down or omit the uncomplimentary aspects of his account. Some have even spoken of Mark as having a "vendetta" against the disciples! This "dullness" of the disciples functions in Mark as an opportunity for Jesus to correct their wrong ideas by poshive teaching. It is therefore a con venient literary aid to Mark's purpose. This observation has been developed by T. J. Weeden" into the view that Mark has deliberately cast the disciples in the role of the "opposition" to Jesus. They represent the false Christology (of the "divine man" type mentioned above) against which Mark is wrhing his Gospel. The whole dramatic plot of the Gospel therefore portrays the conflict between the Christology that Mark espoused (represented by Jesus himself) and that of Mark's opponents (represented by the disciples). Weeden believes that this opposhion owes more to Mark's literary ingenuity than to historical reality and traces in the Gospel a progressive deterioration in the disciples' relations with Jesus, from dullness (1:16-8:26) to misunderstanding (8:27-14:9) to eventual rejection and abandonment (14:10-16:8). While this reconstmction of Mark's literary aim has not been widely accepted,'* Weeden's thesis (like Wrede's "messianic secret") does draw atten tion to an important aspect of Mark's Gospel. For all his desire for others to "be with him" (3:14), Mark's Jesus does stand essentially alone as he carries out a mission that they cannot yet grasp. The arresting cameo of Jesus striding pur posefully toward Jerusalem while the disciples follow "amazed" and the crowd are "afraid" (10:32) summarizes Mark's presentation. In his disciples, as well as in the wider community, Jesus has to overmrn a deep-seated natural reluctance to see his mission from the divine perspective. Discipleship, therefore, must necessarily be an uncomfortable process of reorientation and of abandonment of the self-centered values of human society in favor of the divine economy, in which "Many who are first wid be last, and the last first" (10:31).'* 72. H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (tendon, 1976), 55. 73. T. J. Weeden, "The Heresy that Necessitated Mark's Gospel," in W. R. Telford (ed.). The Interpretation of Mark, 64-77; T. J. Weeden, Mark — Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia, 1971). 74. See, e.g., H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, 49-52; R. P Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian, 150-53; R. C. Tannehill, "The Disciples in Mark" (see n. 69 above). 75. The "revolutionary" values of the Kingdom of God in Mark are discussed in R. T. France, Divine Government, ch. 3.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

235

But over against the dullness and failure of the disciples we find in Mark also an important emphasis on the privilege of discipleship and on the funda mental distinction between Jesus' disciples and "those outside" (4:11). The discussion of Jesus' parables in 4:10-12, 33-34 is an important counterbalance to the theme of the disciples' dullness. Even if they cannot understand Jesus' parables (and therefore also the nature of his mission) by their own insight, Jesus gives to his disciples, m private, the necessary explanations, which are not granted to others. Mark often refers to such private instmction "in the house" (e.g., 7:17; 9:28, 33; 10:10), which may be his symbolic way of underlining the special and private teaching given only to disciples. The result is that they alone receive "the secret of the kingdom of God" (4:11). The more they fail to understand, the more Jesus concentrates on their private instmction, for it is on their evenmal grasp of his mission that the continuation of that mission depends. So to be a disciple, while it mvolves drastic renunciation, is to enter a realm of privUege (10:29-31), and die dullness and failure of the first disciples is offset by the special revelation that will enable them ultimately to fulfill their high responsibility. Two contrasting aspects of discipleship thus reflect the two poles of Mark's paradoxical Christology. Words and Deeds It is somethnes suggested that to speak of Mark's "theology" is inappropriate. Mark is essentially an enthusiastic teller of stories. In comparison with the other Gospels, Mark comes across as a book of action, of dramatic conflict'* and amazing miracle, not of speculative theology. For a vivid portrait of Jesus in action, h is said, we should mm to Mark, but for the teaching of Jesus we need to consult the other Gospels. It is tme that Mark contains no lengthy instmction like the Sermon on the Mount, fewer parables than Matthew and Luke, and nothing to compare with the last supper discourses of John 13-17. The author of Mark apparently ehher did not know of much of the teaching of Jesus recorded elsewhere in the Synoptic tradition, or found no place for h in his work. Yet it is also tme that Mark lays greater stress on the teaching activity of Jesus than either Matthew or L u k e . " For him, "teacher" is a title of honor, the namral way for disciples and others to address Jesus, and Jesus is characterized as one who went about teaching, both publicly and particularly in private with his disciples. Is Mark then more interested in the fact of Jesus' teaching than in 76. E.g., J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark, who sees the Gospel as presenting Jesus' life in terms of a cosmic struggle with the powers of evil. 77. See R. T. France, "Mark and the Teaching of Jesus," in R. T. France and D. Wenham (ed.), Gospel Perspectives, 1 (Sheffield, 1980), especially 103-12. Also R. P Meye, Jesus and the Twelve (Grand Rapids, 1968).

236

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

the content of what Jesus taught? Is "teaching" for Mark, like healing and exorcism, shnply an aspect of Jesus' dynamic attack on the powers of evil?'* There are two reasons for questioning such a conclusion. The first is the common false assumption that a writer has only one aim in compiling his book. There is no necessary incompatibility between a desire to present a dynamic portrait of Jesus in action and an interest in the content of Jesus' teaching as "theology." The fact that Mark's is a Gospel of messianic activity does not rale out that he also wishes his readers to assimilate and be guided by the Messiah's teaching. The second reason for doubdng the common view that Mark was uninterested in the content of Jesus' teaching is that this view arises from a failure to assess Mark on his own terms. In comparison with the much longer Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark does contain less teaching. But if we may assume that they had not yet been written when Mark wrote, they do not constimte a "norm" from which Mark deviated. If his Gospel is considered on its own, h is seen that a very significant proportion of it is in fact devoted to the content of Jesus' teaching, whether in short sayings or in longer collections (particulariy chs. 4 and 13), and that much of the narrative is also stmctured around hnportant sayings of Jesus, which are in fact the reason the stories that lead up to them are included. A statistical analysis indicates that "virtually fifty percent of Mark's gospel is devoted to presendng Jesus' teaching. . . . Judged on his own terms, Mark has achieved an entirely appropriate balance between narrative and teaching."" So while there may be some trath in describing Mark as "no speculative or reflective theologian who could have fulfilled his task by an expert treatise on christology,"*" h is entirely legidmate to discuss "Mark's theology," a theol ogy found in both the deeds and die words of Jesus die Messiah, the Son of God. Theology, h is increasingly being recognized, is not confined to propositional discourse, but may equaUy be expressed in narrative form. The result, in Mark's Gospel, is a balanced account of Jesus' mission that in its mrn forms the basis for a reahstic assessment of what h means to be Jesus' disciple. It is a theology in which rejection and triumph, humiliadon and glory, meet in the new scale of values of the Kingdom of God.

Luke" Literature: H. Conzelmann, The Theology of Saint Luke (New York, 1960); I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter and Grand Rapids, 1970); J. JerveU, 78. So J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark, especially 49-50. 79. R. T. France, "Mark and the Teaching of Jesus," 118; this is the conclusion to an analysis of the contents of the Gospel presented on 112-18. 80. H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, 56. 81. A useful brief summary of Luke's main theological concems is in L. GoppeU,

Matthew,

Mark, and Luke

237

Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis, 1972); S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (Cambridge, 1973); E. Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study

of the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia, 1975); J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, 1-9 (AB; Garden City, NY, 1981), 143-270; L. Goppelt, Theology of the NT, 2 (Grand Rapids, 1982), 266-88; N. Richardson, The Panorama of Luke (London, 1982); R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh, 1982); D. Juel, Luke-Acts (Atlanta, 1983); F. Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Thirty-Three Years of Re

search (1950-1983)

(Allison Park, PA, 1987); R F Esler, Community and Gospel in

Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (Cambridge, 1987); J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian: Aspects of his Teaching (London and New York,

1989). Since Luke wrote two of the New Testament books, we have more opportunity to smdy his particular interests than we have in the case of Matthew and Mark. The Book of Acts is, of course, primarily a record of the life and development of the church in the thirty years after Jesus' death and resurrection, and as such is an invaluable source for our understanding of Christian thought in those cmcial years between the ministry of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament books.82 But this does not preclude our using it to discover its author's own views and emphases — in the same way that a recognition of the Evangelists' fahhfulness to the traditions about Jesus does not prevent our discerning also their own theological contribution. In fact, Luke's distinctiveness was clear to commentators long before Redaktionsgeschichte was heard of — more obviously so than that of either Matthew or Mark. His particular perspective as a Gentile believer has been noted, and certain recturent emphases in both the Gospel and Acts have often been commented on. His frequent reference to the Holy Spirit will be noted below, as will his concem whh the disadvantaged in society, the poor and outcast, women, children, Samaritans, and Gentiles, all of whom are seen in Luke's writings as the special objects of God's concern. It has often been noted how often prayer is mentioned by Luke: seven accounts of Jesus' prayers are found in this Gospel alone, as well as several parables about prayer and exhortations to pray. The eariy Christians are often seen at prayer in Acts, and the Gospel is full of praise, especially in the unique collection of "canticles" in the first two chapters. All this and much more can be found in any older commentary on Luke. But more recent study has brought certain features of Luke's theology into sharper focus and debate.

Theology of the NT, 2:266-88. More fully, see 1. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, and more recendy J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, 1-9, 143-270. R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, offers an excellent more recent study, especially of the central themes of ecclesiology and eschatology in Luke. 82. See Chapter 24 below for a discussion of the value of Acts as a source for the theology of "The Primitive Church."

238

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Heilsgeschichte (Salvation

History)

Much recent study of Luke finds the key to his theology in his concept of the "history of salvation." The seminal work of Hans Conzelmann, Die Mitte der ZeitP found in Luke's writings a conception of God's purpose in history being worked out in three stages: first, the period of preparation up to the coming of Jesus; then the period of Jesus' ministry; and last, the period since the ascension — i.e., the time of Israel, of Jesus, and of the church. Conzelmann rather oddly defines the mrning points between these periods quite precisely as Luke 4:13 and 22:3, on the basis that Luke in these verses indicates a special period during which Satan was not active, the period of Jesus' ministry. This debatable preci sion is not, however, essential to his thesis, the focus of which is on the impor tance of the three-stage pattern, in that it highlights Luke's desire to give a rationale for the continued existence and mission of the church after the end of Jesus' earthly ministry. Conzelmann sees this as a deliberate attempt by Luke to solve the problem posed by the delay of the parousia. As long as the parousia was expected in the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries, the time of the post-Easter church was merely a period of wahing, whh no meaning of its own. But the delay of the parousia called for a reappraisal, which Luke, according to Con zelmann, achieved by "de-eschatologizing" the gospel. So in place of the im minent expectation of the parousia Luke offered both a heavenly salvation for the individual and a concept of the indefinite continuation of God's saving purpose through the church. Thus Luke has depicted a transfer of the mission from Jesus to the church, by means of the sequence of events linking his two books: resurrection, postresurrection teaching, ascension (twice mentioned, and clearly important to Luke),** and so to Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit now present in the church takes up the mission that Jesus "began" (Acts 1:1). Luke not only records history, but sees meaning in the historical process; he is St. Luke: Theologian of Re demptive History.^^ Jesus' mission and its sequel was what must happen (Lk. 24:6-7, 26-27, 44-47). It was God's purpose proclaimed in the Old Testament and now ftilfilled, and that purpose includes the continuing mission of the church as witness to the salvation that Jesus has brought (Lk. 24:47-49; Acts 1:4-8). So the progressive spread of the gospel in fulfillment of Acts 1:8 is portrayed in the rest of Acts: to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, to the Gentiles (in die person of Cornelius), to Antioch, Cypms, Asia Minor, Europe, and so to Rome where Acts triumphantly concludes. And all this was not the haphazard result of circum stances, but was planned and directed by the Holy Spirit, from whose coming

83. Translated as The Theology of Saint Luke. 84. The importance of the ascension for Luke's theology is particularly emphasized by E. Franklin, Christ the Lord. 85. This is the title of the English translation (London, 1967) of H. Flender, Heil und Geschichte in der Theologie des Lukas (Munich, 1965).

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

239

the mission began, and who directed it stage by stage (see Acts 16:6-10 for a strdcing example of this conviction).** There are problems in Conzelmann's understanding of Luke, particulariy in the idea that the delay of the parousia must inevitably be a theological embarrassment. This notion fails to recognize the frequent combination in both Jewish and Christian apocalyptic of the complementary themes of imminence and delay.*' Nor is it tme that Luke eliminates eschatological expectation from his writings (see especially Lk. 12:35ff.; 17:22ff.; 21:25ff.).«* But by drawing attention to Luke's positive view of salvation history Conzelmann has made a significant contribution to our understanding of his thought. I. H. Marshall has argued, however, that Conzehnann has overemphasized the "history" aspect, and that Lidce's primary concem is really with the broader concept of "salvation," the language of which is prominent in his writings.*' This salvation is derived not from a historical process, but from the sovereign initiative of God in Christ, which requires a response to Jesus as Savior, rather than simply adherence to the church. In making this point Marshall is rightiy reacting against the tendency of some scholars, who classify Luke as an exponent of FriihkathoHzismus ("early Catholicism"), i.e., as one for whom the instimtional church has become the locus of salvation.'" Jews and Gentiles We shall see below" how the narrative of Acts focuses on questions raised by the spread of the gospel beyond the Jewish people, devoting much attention to the debates in the Jemsalem church on this subject (especiaUy Acts 11 and 15) and deUberately seeking to expose the contrast between Israel's unbelief and the ready response of many Gentiles to die gospel. Lying behind these issues is the question of the theological relationship between the church and Israel, which, as we have seen above, is also a major concem of Matthew. It is generally agreed that Luke was a Gentile,'^ though one whose knowl edge of Judaism, and especially of the Old Testament in tiie Septuagint version, was remarkable. As such, it is to be expected that his work would be to some 86. See L. Goppelt, Theology of the NT, 2:272-80, for Luke's concept of history and of the design of God in the church's mission. 87. See R. J. Bauckham, "The Delay of the Parousia," TB 31 (1980), 3-36. 88. See especially R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, 100-157; also E. Franklin, Christ the Lord, 9-47. 89. I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, ch. 4, especially pp. 84f., 92ff.; this thesis also undergirds the rest of Marshall's book. 90. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 81-82, 212-15; idem, " 'Early Cathol icism' in the NT," in R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (ed.). New Dimensions in NT Study (Grand Rapids, 1974), 217-31. 91. Pp 391-93. 92. For a recent summary of the discussion see J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, 1-9, 41-47.

240

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

extent an apologia for the Gentile mission over against the conservatism of some Jewish Christians. But how far does this orientation entail a hostile attitude toward Judaism, a concept of the rejection of Israel in favor of what Matthew calls "another nation"? Passages like Acts 13:44-51 and 28:17-18 have tradi tionally been seen to express such a view — Israel's rejection of the gospel opens the way for the Gentiles to take their place as the people of God. A sharp challenge to such an understanding of Luke came in the work of J. JerveU.'' JerveU denies any idea of the rejection of Israel in Luke. Rather, Israel was "split in two" by the unbelief of some; but in those Jews who believed, God's purpose continued unbroken. The entry of Gentiles into the people of God is the result not of Jewish unbelief but, on the contrary, of the success of the gospel among the Jews, thousands of whom were converted according to Acts, and from among whom came the missionaries who "bring the gospel to the Gentiles, thus fulfilling God's promises to Israel that Gentiles would join with them at the end of time."'* There is thus no idea of a "new Israel." It is certainly tme that Luke-Acts presents the salvadon of the Gentiles as no new idea, but rather as both foretold and already beginning to be accomplished in the Old Testament.'* Thus the "manifesto" of Jesus at Nazareth, righdy regarded as a key passage for Luke's theology, expounds Jesus' liberating mission predicted in Isa. 61:If by pointing out how God has in the past blessed Gentiles even m preference to Israelites (Lk. 4:25-27). And the very passages that speak of "mnung to the Gentiles" in the face of Jewish unbelief do so on the basis of Old Testament principles (Acts 13:47; 28:26f). Luke therefore has no idea of a radical discontinu ity between Israel and the church; his view may be close to (and influenced by?) that of Paul in Romans 11, where the loss of some branches of the olive tree (Israel) through unbelief does not negate the continuing identity of the tree, even when it receives new branches in place of the old. Such a theology would also explain the remarkable prominence of Jem salem in Luke's work. Whereas in Matthew and Mark Jerusalem functions as a symbol of opposhion to the Kingdom of God, in Luke its image is much more positive. Jerusalem is the scene of much of Luke's first two chapters, and the temple is the natural place for Jesus to be welcomed as an infant and to vish his "Father's house" as a boy. The journey to Jemsalem is more prominent in Luke's narrative (9:51-19:44) than it is in Matthew and Mark, though there is no reduction in the sense of foreboding: Jemsalem is the right place for a prophet to die (13:33-35). But it is in and around Jemsalem, rather than in Galilee, that the risen Jesus meets with his disciples in Luke and Acts; it is there that the Spirit comes upon the disciples and that the church begins its corporate life whh

93. J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God. 94. From the summary of Jervell's main thesis, Luke and the People of God, 15. 95. This theme is demonstrated especially by J. Dupont, The Salvation of the Gentiles (New York, 1979).

Matthew, Mark, and Luke

241

the conversion of many inhabitants of the chy. Official opposition continues in Jerusalem and leads eventually to the scattering of the church, but even so the apostles stay there (Acts 8:1), so that it is there that the crucial church conference of Acts 15 is held. Even Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, regards Jerusalem as the namral center of the Christian movement (Acts 19:21; 20:16, 22; 21:10-17, etc.). In this continuing focus on Jemsalem Luke picks up an important theme of Old Testament prophecy.'* But while Jervell has rightly disputed too radical a discontinuity, his alternative has generally been felt to lean too far the other way. The inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles in the people of God was a major new departure, as the debates in Acts 11 and 15 make clear, and the rejection of the gospel by the majority of Jews is strongly emphasized in both Luke and A c t s . " At the opposite extreme, J. T. Sanders'* presents Luke's work as consistentiy and bhterly antiJewish; particularly in the speeches in Acts, Sanders finds unremitting hostility toward all Jews as such, not simply to those who actively opposed the Christian mission. Sanders argues that for Luke keeping the Jewish law is a mark of the misdirected zeal of the failed religious system of Judaism, not, as Jervell argued, a part of the fulfillment of Judaism in the church. Sanders's presentation has rightly been criticized as artificially isolating one aspect of Luke's complex position and dismissing significant evidence to the contrary." But the fact that two such opposhe conclusions can be drawn from the same New Testament writings indicates that Luke is not easily fitted into a neat logical position. It is therefore understandable that one major smdy of the subject has concluded, perhaps a little too pessimistically, that "the most striking characteristic of Luke-Acts is precisely the lack of any consistent theology of the Gentiles."!** S. G. WUson goes on, "In comparison with the profound logical and complex theology of Paul, Luke cannot be said to have produced a theology at all. His main interests were historical and p r a c t i c a l . . . . He was a pastor and a historian rather than a theologian.""" In a subsequent study devoted specifically to the status of the Law, "'2 Wilson dismisses Jervell's view of Luke as consistently "conservative" with regard to the Law and again focuses on the lack of consistency in Luke's wrhings. He concludes that Christian Jews are expected to continue to keep the Law, but with regard to Gentiles Luke appears more ambivalent.!"'

%. See, e.g., I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 148-56, 182f. 97. See below, p. 393. 98. The Jews in Luke-Acts (London, 1987). 99. E.g., J. A. Weatherly, TB 40 (1989), 107-17. 100. S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts, 239. 101. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts, 255. 102. S. G. Wilson, Luke and the Law (Cambridge, 1983). 103. Wilson's argument is usefully analyzed and criticized by C. L. Blomberg in JSNT 22 (1984), 53-80. Blomberg directs attention particularly to the role of the Law for Luke as a pointer to Christ, rather dian as a regulator of conduct.

242

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

To describe Luke as not a "theologian" is perhaps to operate with too rarefied a definition of the term. That he was no Paul may be granted. But Wilson's smdy has in fact demonstrated a number of strongly emphasized themes in Luke's understanding of the Gentile mission, which, if they do not add up to a "theology," are far from being simply a collection of incompatible ideas. In Luke's writings we see a senshive Gentile Christian with a good knowledge of and sympathy for Judaism wrestling with one of the most difficult issues for the church of his day and reaching some important conclusions. These include at least the view that the people of God is henceforth decisively different from the national group that has hitherto occupied that position, but that this change, deriving from the response of both Jews and Gentiles to Jesus, the Jews' Messiah, represents not a vohe-face on God's part, but the fulfillment of a plan to which the Jewish Scriptures bear witness. The accomplishment of God's master plan to bring salvation to all the ends of the earth will be seen as the fulfillment of the vision of Israel's prophets. And in this master plan the church. Gentile as well as Jewish, is the instmment that fulfUls the God-given responsibility of bearing whness to Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit, i"" "Good News to the Poor" God's purpose for the Gentiles is one central aspect of a wider emphasis in Luke: that God shows no partiality (Acts 10:34). All classes, high or low, rich or poor, male or female, Jews, Samaritans, or GentUes, come within the scope of his saving purpose. The great parables of Luke 15 wam against despising those whom God rejoices over. "The disreputable . . . have a way of mming up in the parables in this Gospel";'"* and the story of Zacchaeus is one of many examples which prove that Jesus "came to seek and to save the lost" (Lk. 19:10). Indeed, it almost seems that Luke attributes to God a sort of "inverted partialhy" in that the gospel is particularly for the poor, the despised, and the disadvantaged. This is the focus of the text from Isaiah 61 that forms the basis of Jesus' programmatic presentation of the purpose of his mission (Lk. 4:18ff.). Luke apparently sets great store by this particular episode, Jesus' vish to Nazareth: unlike Matthew and Mark, who include a brief notice of it among other Galilean stories, Luke has brought it into a prominent position at the start of Jesus' public ministry; the dramatic introduction that he provides for Jesus' sermon, as well as its actual content, makes it clear that he sees the liberating mission and the "good news to the poor" of Isaiah 61 as at the heart of Jesus' purpose. 104. J. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the NT (2nd ed., London, 1990), 352-58, depicts Luke as confronting a situation of serious divisions within the church, between Jewish and Gentile believers, and between the "conservatism" of the Jerusalem church and the "radicalism" of Paul. Luke's aim, on this view, was to offer a compromise position ("a kind of early catholic papering over the first-century cracks"). 105. L. Morris, The Gospel according to St. Luke (London, 1974), 42.

Matthew,

Mark, and Luke

243

This note has aheady been sounded strongly in the Magnificat (Lk. 1:4655) with its theme of the reversal of the world's scale of values. It follows naturally that it is despised shepherds, not rich dignitaries, who attend the baby Jesus in 2:8ff., and Jesus' own family makes the offering prescribed for the poor (2:24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Luke's version of the great sermon begins with a blessmg pronounced on "you p o o r . . . you that hunger," balanced by a woe against the rich and the well-fed (6:20-26; cf the "spiritual" tone of the beatitudes in Mt. 5:3-10). Three concentrated sections of teaching on wealth and possessions in Luke 12:13-34; 14:7-33; 16:1-31 add up to a scathing denunciadon of callous materialism and a call to reckless generosity arising out of a fundamental detachment from concern for worldly property. While it is tme that Luke stands in the succession of the Old Testament writers (particulariy of the Psalms) who spoke of "the poor" in the sense of the oppressed and dependent people of God, these passages leave no doubt that literal material poverty was very much part of his concem. The inequalities of current society wdl have no place in the new age. It therefore behooves those who belong to it both to show compassionate concem for the poor and to avoid the danger of an affluence that recognizes no need for salvation.'"* In this, as in many other ways, the Kingdom of God turns the world's values upside down. And this is no mere theoretical reorientation, for Luke describes with evident approval the radical sharing of goods that characterized the eariy Christian communhy in Jerusalem (Acts 2:44f.; 4:32- 5:11). The "good news to the poor" that Jesus has brought thus works itself out in the formation of a new community, an altemative order, in which the conventional values of human society are set aside and internal divisive baniers are thus destroyed.'"'

106. Several studies have been devoted specifically to the issue of poverty and the poor in Luke-Acts. See especially L. T. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (Missoula, 1977); D. P. Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts (Linz, 1983); T. E. Schmidt, HostiUty to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels (Sheffield, 1987), 135-62. Each of these studies in different ways emphasizes the symbolic significance of the Old Testament theme of "the poor" for Luke; Schmidt finds in Luke not a concem for the plight of the poor but a call for true disciples to be detached from material concern. 107. It is disputed how far Luke wished his readers to draw concrete socio-political conclusions from his writings. While the authors cited in the previous note find his focus more in the realm of personal discipleship, a more political application is urged by, for instance, R. J. Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society (Maryknoll, NY, 1978); cf. R. J. Cassidy and P. J. Scharper (ed.). Political Issues in Luke-Acts (Maryknoll, NY, 1983). The theory that lerience (1969), 71-86; E. Schweizer, "Dying and Rising with Christ," va NT Issues, ed. R. Batey (1970), 173-90; L. B. Smedes, All Things Made New (1970); M. M. B. Turner, "The Significance of Spirit Endowment for Paul," Vox Evangelica 9 (1975), 56-69; G. T. Montague, The Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical

Tradition (1976); P W. Meyer, "Holy Spirit in the Pauline Letters: A Contextual Explora tion," Int 33 (1979), 3-18; A. J. M. Wedderbum, "Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrase 'in Christ' and 'with Christ,'" JSNT 25 (1985), 83-97; C. H. Talbert, "Paul's Understanding of the Holy Spirit: The Evidence of 1 Corinthians 12-14," in Perspectives on the NT, ed. C. H. Talbert (1985), 95-108; S. J. Hafemann, Suffering and the Spirit (1986); R. P Martin, "The Spirit in 2 Corinthians in Light of the 'Fellowship of the Holy Spirit,' " in Eschatology and the NT, ed. W. Gloer (1988), 113-28. The New Life in Christ The new life in Christ is summarized in Paul's classic statement, "If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come" (2 Cor. 5:17).' This verse is popularly interpreted in terms of subjective experience. All of the desires and appethes of this unregenerate individual have passed away and have been replaced by an entirely new set of desires and appetites. However, this statement must be interpreted in the context of Pauline thought in particular and New Testament thought in general. The idea of newness is distinctly eschatological. The prophets looked 1. The reading of die AV, "all things are become new," is based on the Textus Recepms and is a distincdy inferior reading. 521

522

PAUL

forward to the day when God would do a new thing (Isa. 43:19; cf. Jer. 31:21). When God completes his redemptive work, he will make a new covenant with his people (Jer. 31:31ff.; cf. Ezek. 34:25; 37:27); he will implant a new heart and a new spirit within them (Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26); he will call them by a new name (Isa. 62:2), give them a new song (Ps. 96:1), and create new heavens and a new earth (Isa. 65:17; 66:22).^ The idea of newness preserves its eschatological character in the New Testament. God will create new heavens and a new earth (Rev. 21:1; 2 Pet. 3:13); the new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven and be planted among human beings (Rev. 21:2; cf. 3:12); God will provide new wine for the eschato logical banquet (Mk. 14:25); he will give to his people a new name (Rev. 2:17; 3:12) and a new song (Rev. 5:9; 14:3); he will make all things new (Rev. 21:5). A new creation is the glorious end of the revelation of God's salvation;^ h is the supreme goal of the entire biblical Heilsgeschichte ("history of salvation"). The Pauline statement that in Christ the old has passed away and the new has come is an eschatological statement. "The new aeon, which has dawned with Christ, brings a new creation, the creation of a new man."" This must be understood within Paul's total eschatological perspective. The "new creation" obviously does not refer to a renovation of the physical world; this new creation awaits the eschatological consummation (Rom. 8:21). The statement must be defined in terms of what Paul sees new in Christ. The passing of the old does not mean the end of the old age; it continues until the parousia. But the old age does not remain intact; the new age has broken in. In Christ there is deliverance from the present evil age (Gal. 1:4). In Christ people need no longer be con formed to the old age (Rom. 12:2). The new covenant with God has already come into existence (1 Cor. 11:25). God has wrought a new creation in Christ that should express itself in good works (Eph. 2:10). He has created "one new man" that is constituted of all who are in Christ, whether Jews or Gentiles (Eph. 2:15). That this new creation does not refer primarily to a new inner moral nature is shown by the fact that Paul tells those who are in Christ that they are to live upright lives because they have already put off the old person' and have put on the new, "which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator" (Col. 3:9-10). The putting on of the new person is something deeper than moral renewal, but it demands moral conduct. The renewal of the new person* does not designate gradual renewal of the character, but that the new humanity, already existing in Christ, is progressively actualized in the Christian church.^

2. F. F. Bruce, "New," IDB 3:542. 3. Sec J. Behm in TDNT 3:449. 4. Loc. cit. 5. The RSV translates it "nature," but the word is anihropos. 6. The Greek has a present participle. 7. C. F. D. Moule, Colossians (1957), 120.

The New Life in Christ

523

While the putting on of the new person is viewed as something that has already happened in Christ, it is not a once-and-for-all event, for Paul exhorts to put off the old person that manifests itself in pagan conduct and to put on the new person that is created after the Idceness of God (Eph. 4:22-24). The underiying idea is that while believers live in the old age, because they are in Christ they belong to the new age with its new creadon (indicative), and they are to live a life that is expressive of the new existence (imperative). In Christ The expression "in Christ" is one of Paul's most characteristic formulations and its precise meanmg has been vigorously debated.* Deissmann brought the theo logical significance of the phrase to the attention of the scholarly world by emphasizing its "mystical" dimension. Basic to Deissmaim's interpretation is the identificadon of Christ and the Sphit (2 Cor. 3:17). The "Spirit-Christ" has a body that is not earthly or material, but consists of the divine effulgence.' The Spirh-Christ is the Christian's new envhonment. It is analogous to the air As we are in the air and the air is in us, so we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Something simdar to this is expressed by Johannes Weiss, who understands the Pauline doctrine of the Christ-Spirit as "a fluid which surtounds and also pene trates us . . . a formless, hnpersonal, all-penetrating being."" This very idea will seem intolerable to people unfamiliar with ancient ways of thought who conceive of "sphimal" as ipso facto nonmaterial. However, the ancient worid had different thought categories. "Spirit" could be understood m terms of fine invisible matter that could interpenetrate all visible forms of m a t t e r " Deissmann's central contention, namely, that the basic meaning of "in Christ" is one of mystical fellowship, has been accepted by many scholars. "In Christ" designates conscious communion with h i m . " Nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:39). The new life means righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Sphit (Rom. 14:17)." There is encouragement in Christ (Phil. 2:1) and in humble service (Phil. 2:5). The peace of God guards the hearts and minds of those who are in Christ (Phil. 4:7). Paul can be content in every kind of human situation in Christ (Phil. 4:13).

8. One of the best surveys is that of E. Best, One Body in Christ (1955), 8-19. See also A. Wikenhauser, Pauline Mysticism (1956), 95ff. 9. A. Deissmann, Paul (1926), 142. 10. J. Weiss, The History of Primitive Christianity (1937), 2:464, 405. 11. See H. Kleinknecht, TDNT 6:339, 358; E. Schweizer, TDNT 6:392. 12. See, for instance, A. Wikenhauser, Pauline Mysticism, 25{f.; 1. Stewart, A Man in Christ (1935), 158ff. Stewart takes this as the center of the Pauline theology. C. A. A. Scott, Christianity according to St. Paul (1927), 153f.; E. Andrews, The Meaning of Christ for Paul (1949), 83; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1958), 87. 13. For our present purpose, we will not try to distinguish between "in Christ" and "in the Spirit." For a discussion, see A. Wikenhauser, Pauline Mysticism, 49-64.

524

PAUL

Other scholars do not deny the fundamental truth of Deissmann's view of personal mysticism but point out that there are many passages that have a collective emphasis. "In Christ" is practically equivalent to being in the church.'" The churches of Judea are in Christ (Gal. 1:22).'5 Those who lead the church as ministers do so in Christ (1 Cor. 4:15). There is one body in Christ (Rom. 12:5). All believers are one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). Gentiles and Jews partake of the same promise in Christ (Eph. 3:6). The saints and believers in Colossae are together in Christ (Col. 1:2). In such sayings, there is an unmistakable corporate emphasis. Believers are in Christ not only as individuals but as a people. The centrality of the "mystical" interpretation has waned m recent scholar ship.'* In addition to sayings that can be interpreted mystically and ecclesiologically, there are numerous statements involving objective facts stating what God has done in Christ. Such statements cannot be subsumed either in the mystical or ecclesiological categories. God has chosen us in Christ (Eph. 1:4), and foreordained us (Eph. 1:7). Both redemption (Rom. 3:24) and sanctification (1 Cor. 1:2) have been wrought in Jesus Christ. Reconciliation of the world has been accomplished in Christ (1 Cor. 5:19). Justification comes to men and women in Christ (Gal. 2:17). Access to God is available in him (Eph. 2:12). Forgiveness of sins occurs in him (Eph. 4:32). The totality of salvation is in Christ (2 Tim. 2:10). In addition to such "juridical" sayings^^ are many sayings that have to do with everyday Christian life and service. Paul speaks the truth in Christ (Rom. 9:1). He is proud in Christ (Rom. 15:17); his whole life is conducted in Christ (1 Cor. 4:17); his imprisonment in Rome is in Christ (Phil. 1:13); believers even die in Christ (1 Thess. 4:16). The clue to this dismaying diversity of usage may be found in the parallel phrase "in Adam." As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22). This involves a twofold idea: that of solidarity and of the es chatological contrast between the two ages.'^ Paul conceives of two races of human beings. Natural people are in Adam; renewed people are in Christ. As Adam is the head and representative of the old race, so Christ is the head and representative of the new humanity. In Adam came sin, disobedience, condem nation, and death; in Christ comes righteousness, obedience, acquittal, and life (Rom. 5:12ff.). Those who are in Adam belong to the old aeon with its bondage to sin and death; those who belong to Christ belong to the new aeon with its 14. Cf. R. N. Hew, Jesus and His Church (1943), 152; C. H. Dodd, Romans (1932), 87f. This meaning is also recognized by W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 86; C. A. A. Scott, Christianity according to St. Paul, 15ff. 15. The RSV obscures this verse. 16. See A. Oepke, TDNT l:541f.; R. Schnackenburg, NT Theology Today (1963), 83; H. Conzelmann, Theology of the NT (1969), 210. For an extended criticism, see E. Wahlstrom, The New Life in Christ (1950), 89-94. 17. See H. Conzelmann, Theology of the NT, 209. 18. For the idea of solidarity "in Adam," see above, p. 443.

The New Life in Christ

525

freedom and life. Best expresses it in terms of the history of redemption. "The phrase 'in Christ' is the phrase for the salvation-historical (heilsgeschichtlich) situation of those who belong to Christ in virtue of their existential union with the death and resurrection of Christ."'' The same idea can be expressed in terms of eschatology. "It is best explained as originating neither in mysticism nor in the realistic ideas of sacramental communion, nor in the idea of the Church as an institution, but in primitive Christian eschatology. The death and resurrection of Jesus were eschatological events, effecting the transition from this age to the Age to Come. Believers could take advantage of this transition, but the trans ference from the one age to the other could take place only 'in Christ.' Those who belonged to him by faith passed through death and resurrection and so came to be alive to God."20 Therefore to be "in Christ" means to be in the new sphere of salvation. To be in Christ means to experience the newness of the new aeon. In the realm of faith, if not in the realm of nature and society, the old has passed away, the new has come (2 Cor. 5:17). In a sense, even believers are still in Adam, for they die; they are still in the old aeon, for they live in a sinful world and share the fallenness of creation. But redemptively, heilsgeschichtlich, they have entered into a new existence in Christ — the life of the new aeon.^' In the Spirit The person in Christ is also "in the Spirit." If the opposite of "in Christ" is to be in Adam, the opposite of "in the Spirit" is to be "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:9). We have seen that the idiom "in the flesh" can have several meanings.22 It has only a physiological and social meaning when it designates merely human existence in the body (Gal. 2:20), but here it carries a religious connotation and designates life that is lived solely on the human level, to the exclusion of everything related to God. It is synonymous with life in the old aeon of sin, bondage, and death. Those who are "in Adam" are also "in the flesh." However, the person who is "in Christ," in the aeon of life and freedom, is also in the Spirit. At this point it is difficuh to find any meaningful difference between the two terms.23 To be "in the Spirit" means to be in the realm that the Spirit has created, where the Spirit blesses and gives new life. It is difficult to see in this 19. E. Best, One Body in Christ, 18. 20. C. K. Barrett, Romans (1957), 127. 21. See A. Oepke, TDNT 1:542. "En christo is not a formula of mystical fellowship but means that the believer belongs to Christ. The new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17) designates not a mystical but an eschatological fact. In Christ man has righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 2:17), freedom (Gal. 2:4); he belongs to the new aeon, to the new humanity which has come into being with the salvation event." R. Bultmann, Glauben und Verstehen (1933), l:257f. Of course Bultmann interprets this existentially and not heilsgeschichtlich. 22. See above, pp. 509ff. 23. On the basis of 2 Cor. 3:17, Deissmann identified Christ and the Spirit. For efforts to distinguish between "in Christ" and "in the Spirit," see E. Best, One Body in Christ, llf.; A. Wikenhauser, Pauline Mysticism, 49ff.

526

PAUL

verse anything of the inner experience of the believer;^* it appears to have the full local sense.25 Life "m the Spirh" is not a blessing bestowed on a particular category of believers; it is true of them all. To be a Christian means to have received life by the Holy Spirit. The two go together: inner life granted by the Holy Sphit, and life in the new realm of the Holy Sphh. "Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ [i.e., the indwelling of the Holy Spirit] does not belong to him" (Rom. 8:9). Lde in the Sphh means eschatological existence — life in the new age. This is established by the fact that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church is hself an eschatological event.^* This heilsgeschichtlich meaning of "in the Spirit" is supported by 1 Corinthians 6 : n : "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified . . . m the Spirit of our God." Washmg may include the symbolic act of baptism, but its prhnary meaning is cleansing from sin. Justification is the act of acquittal, sanctification the fact of dedication to God.^^ These are all viewed as facts that have already occurred in the life of those who are in the Sphh. In the same way. Gentiles who were formerly unclean have been sanctified in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 15:16). In the Holy Spirit, believers are sealed for the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30). Through Christ, but in the Spirh, people have access to God the Father (Eph. 2:18). h is in the Spirit that believers are budt together so as to form a dweUmg place for God (Eph. 2:22).28 The affhmation that the Khigdom of God means "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17) is probably to be taken in the same sense. Righteousness and peace usually designate an objective relationship to God.^' To be "in the Spirit" has the same meanmg as being m the Kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13), for h was in the coming of the Holy Sphh into the world, fhst in the ministry of Jesus (Mt. 12:28) and then at Pentecost, that the new age was inaugurated. To be in the Spirit means to be in the sphere of God's redemptive reign, which is mediated through the Spirh. Other sayings about those who are in the Spirit are concemed with matters of the Christian life. Prayer should be in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18) as well as love (Col. 1:8). The ministry of the gospel is carried out in the Spirit (1 Thess. 1:5). Worship of Christ is carried out in the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). Other passages carry 24. Against E. Best, One Body in Christ, 11. 25. See A. Oepke, TDNT 1:540. 26. See above, pp. 408f. This has been carefully worked out by N. 0 . Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul (1957). 27. See above, Chapter 33. 28. This phrase could be taken as an instrumental or a phrase qualifying God; but it may also qualify the whole statement and mean, "It is by your being in the Spirit that this is taking place." S. D. E Salmond, The Expositor's Greek Testament, 3:301. See also J. A. Robinson, Ephesians (1904), 166. 29. C. K. Barrett, Romans, 265.

The New Life in Christ

527

a more instrumemal meaning: Epliesians 3:5; 1 Corinthians 12:9; and probably 1 Corinthians 12:13.30

Not in the Flesh Corresponding to the fact that believers are in the Spirit is the fact that they are no longer in the flesh. "You are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit" (Rom. 8:9). It is difficult to understand this proleptically, referring in a promissory manner to the glorified state.^i The same idea is found in Romans 7:5: "when we were m the flesh," clearly indicating that those in the Spirit are no longer in the flesh. Here again is the contrast between two modes of existence — two realms of life: the old aeon — in the flesh — of sin and death; the new aeon — in the Spirit — of righteousness and life. Those who are in the Spirit continue to live in their human, mortal flesh (Gal. 2:20), but they have entered a new realm of life in the Spirit. In the old aeon, the concerns of the flesh, of the world, of natural life were the focus and chief end of their existence; in the new aeon, the things of God and of Christ have become their chief love. Every person is in one realm or the other. The determining factor is whether the Spirit of Christ dwells in an individual. One does not pass from one realm to the other by gradual growth or progress, but by receiving Jesus Christ as Lord. Dead to the Flesh Another way Paul expresses the same truth is the idiom of dying and of cruci fying the flesh. When one comes to be in the Spirit, that person is delivered from the realm of the flesh. It is viewed as dead; it has been crucified (Gal. 5:24). Paul can express the same truth by saying that he has died. "I have been crucified with Christ" (Gal. 2:20). This is not a subjective statement of something that happens in the Chrisdan consciousness but a theological statement of one's posiUon in Christ; but it has great consequences for the Chrisdan consciousness and life. The same idea is expressed whei^Paul says that he has been crucified to the world and the world to him (Gal. 6:14). That Paul can say that the world has been crucified to him proves that this is no subjective experience. He lives in the world, but he no longer belongs to the world, for he has entered a new existence. These are not mystical experiential statements but affirmations of theological fact that the believer is to accept by faith as the whole basis of his or her life. They are different ways of expressing the one eschatological fact: the person in Christ — or in the Spirit — is a new creature for whom the old life of bondage to sin and death has passed away and the new life of freedom and righteousness has come.

30. See below, pp. 587f. Some of the passages that Oepke takes to be instrumental may well be locative. TDNT 1:541. 31. R. Bultmann, Theology (1951), 1:245.

528

PAUL

Dead-Alive with Christ Again, Paul uses the idiom of dying and rising with Christ to express the same truth (Rom. 6:1-11). Baptism mto Christ (v. 2) means union with hhn m his death, burial whh him, which in turn means death to sin, the crucifixion of the old person, the destruction of the "body of sin" (v. 6). On the positive side, h means freedom from sm and life unto God. In this passage resurrection whh Christ is future and eschatological (vv. 5, 7), but Ephesians 2:5-6 speaks of a present resurrection with Christ, and the statement that we are alive unto God (v. 11) shows that the idea is in his mind in Romans 6. This passage has often been mterpreted m temts of individualistic mysti cism of inner personal experience, or of the contemporizing of the benefits of the past events of Christ's death and resurrection through the sacrament of baptism. However, recent studies'^ have shown that the passage is to be mter preted m terms of Paul's eschatological thought. Dying and rising whh Christ means death to the old aeon of sin and death, and participation m the new aeon of life and righteousness. The death and resurrection of Christ were not merely events m past history but eschatological events. By death and resurrection Christ introduced a new aeon. "Paul thinks of an aeon or dominion as a unified sphere which is mled by certain powers which determme the character of existence there."'' Adam, who introduced sin and death, is determinative of existence in the old aeon, and Christ is the inclusive man "who represents and embodies the whole of the new aeon because he determines the nature of existence there."'* This death and resurrection is not a mystical experience that ipso facto changes one's inner nature when a person believes, nor is it a transformation accom plished by the sacramental efficacy of baptism. It is rather an eschatological fact that has happened in the mission of Jesus Christ but that can only be perceived by fahh. Since Christ, there exist two dominions: of Adam and of Christ. "The new world and its salvation are already present, but they are hidden in the midst of the old world."'5 Since God's act in Christ, humanity is faced with the choice of standing within one of two dominions. An individual may remain indifferent and so go the way of sin and death or may decide for Christ and by fahh be brought into the new dommion of life and righteousness. This is an eschatologi cal fact that every believer should know (Rom. 6:2, 6), and on whose basis the believer is to consider himself or herself alive to God. It means a change in dominion. In the old aeon, sm reigned (v. 12); but in the new aeon, the dominion of sin has been broken (v. 14). Believers are to recognize this change of domin ions, and for this reason they are to change their alliance from sin to God (vv.

32. See R. C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ (1967); E. Schweizer, "Dying and Rising with Christ," in NT Issues, ed. R. Batey (1970), 173-90. 33. R. C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ, 39. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid., 74.

The New Life in Christ

529

17, 18, 22). It is because this change has occurred in Christ that believers are exhorted to yield themselves to righteousness (v. 19). Circumcision The metaphor of death and resurrection is coupled with circumcision in Colos sians 2:11-12. "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."^* This is a notoriously difficult passage to exegete. Many commentators understand the circumcision of Christ to be a metaphor for his death, and "putting off the body of flesh" to refer to Christ in his crucifbcion.^^ However, since Paul has referred to a circumcision of the heart, it is easier to understand the circumcision made without hands to refer to this "spiritual" circumcision (cf. Rom. 2:29), especially since circumcision is an unusual metaphor to refer to Christ's death.^s Following this, "putting off the body of flesh" is equivalent to putting off the old person (Col. 3:9).39 This group of metaphors — circumcision, putting off the flesh, burial in baptism, resurrection with Christ — is expounded in verse 13 where Paul changes the idiom to say that outside of Christ people were dead in trespasses, and, as Gentiles, were alienated from the covenants of Israel (see Eph. 2:11-12); yet God has made them alive with Christ. Death,'"' burial, and resurrection with Christ; a state of death and making alive — these are two different ways of stating the same eschatological truth. Again, they do not refer first of all to a subjective experience of the individual believer but to an event that has occurred in the death and resurrection of Christ. The believer enters into this new realm of life by faith and baptism. The life into which the believer has been introduced is explicated in terms of the forgiveness of our trespasses (v. 13), and the canceling of "the bond which stood against us with its legal demands" (v. 14). A "bond" is a legal statement of indebtedness — an lOU signed by the debtor. The Jew is in debt to God because he or she has not fulfilled the Law; the Gentile is in debt to God because he or she has followed neither the light of creation (Rom. 1:20) nor that of conscience (Rom. 2:15). Christ in his crucifixion took this bond of debt, of sin, of condemnation and discharged the debt by assuming its penalty — death. Thus Christ's death avails to transfer the believer from the reahn of indebtedness, of condemnation and death — the old aeon — to the realm of life in the new aeon. 36. See C. F. D. Moule, Colossians, 94-%. 37. This is Moule's conclusion. See also J. A. T. Robinson, The Body (1952), 43ff. 38. See R. Meyer, TDNT 6:83. 39. See E. Schweizer, TDNTl:\36. 40. Rom. 6:5. 41. For ta stoicheia tou kosmou, translated "the elemental spirits of the universe" in the RSV, see pp. 442f. above.

530

PAUL

Death to the World This union of the believer whh Christ in his death means that he or she has also died to the elements of the world (Col. 2:20).*' This is not an experience but a fact on the basis of which Christians are to live their lives. Since they have died to the world, they are no longer to live as though they were mere worldlings. In the context, this is defhied as submitting oneself to mles of ascetic practices to achieve a higher level of holmess rather than experiencing the freedom that is in Christ. The pursuit of such perversions of the gospel is a denial of tme Christian existence. Christ has been raised and seated in heaven at the right hand of God. He is Lord over the new aeon of redemption. The believer has been raised with Christ, exalted to heaven, and her or his "life is hid with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3). Again, it should be obvious that this is no subjective experience; it affirms the new sphere in which the believer carries on his or her life. Because they have been exahed to heaven, believers are to set their mind "on thmgs that are above, not on things that are on earth" (Col. 3:2). Obviously this command does not mean complete mdifference to human affairs and the details of everyday existence. While this language sounds quite dualistic, it embodies neither a platonic dualism nor a gnostic doctrine of matter as evil. The dualism is religious and not cosmological.''^ The "things that are above" represent the realm of God that has already invaded human history in the person and mission of Jesus and brought to human beings'" the new realm of life. The same theology of deadness, being made alive with Christ, and bemg exalted with him to sit m the heavenly places is found in Ephesians 2:5-6 with no mention of baptism unto Christ's death or resurrection. This new life is further described as a new creation of God, designed for good works (v. 10). The Indwelling

ofChrist

Not only is the renewed person m Christ and in the Spirit; both Christ and the Spirit dwell m hhn or her That these are two aspects of the same realhy is seen in Romans 8:9-10: "But you are not m the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. . . . But if Christ dwells m you. . . ." Here are the objective and the subjective sides of the same reality. It is, however, surprismg, in view of the frequency of tiie phrase "in Christ," that Paul only mfrequently refers to the mdwelling of Christ but speaks often of the mdwelling of the Spirit. He does make h clear that he conceives of Christ indwelling the believer. The believer has been cmcified with Christ, but has a new life because Christ lives in her or him (Gal. 2:20). It is Christ in the believer that assures him or her of the hope of final redemption (Col. 1:27). Christ himself is our life (Col. 3:4). This is not a once-andfor-all experience, for Paul prays that believers may be strengthened in the inner person, "and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through fahh" (Eph. 3:17). 42. F. Buchsel, TDNT 43. See G. E. Ladd, The Pattem of NT Truth (1968), ch. 4.

The New Life in Christ

531

Much more frequently does Paul speak of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God has poured out his Spirit (Rom. 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Gal. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:8), and Christians have received the Spirit (Rom. 8:15; 1 Cor. 2:12; 12:13b; 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 3:2) and have the Spirit (Rom. 8:23), who indwells them (Rom. 8:9,11; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Tim. 1:14). The Spirit works in Christians, witness ing to them (Rom. 8:16), helping them in weakness (Rom. 8:26), guiding them (Rom. 8:14). The Spirit is the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9), the "Spirit of his Son" (Gal. 4:6). The Lord Is the Spirit The close relationship between Christ and the Spirit is affirmed in 2 Corinthians 3:17: "The Lord is the Spirit." Some scholars have taken this to mean that Paul completely identifies the risen Christ with the Holy Spirit, drawing upon Hel lenistic ideas in which Spirit is conceived of as a fluid that surrounds and penetrates us, and the exalted Christ is thought of as "formless, impersonal, all-penetrating being." However, the saying is to be taken in a Christian and not a gnostic context."" Christian thought conceives of two worlds: the world of God and the world of human beings. The whole history of New Testament thought is to be under stood as the invasion of God's world into the realm of history to secure human ity's redemption."' While Paul may often use language similar to that of gnostic dualism, the basic theology is fundamentally different."* Salvation does not mean flight and escape from the lower material world to a higher spiritual world; it means the redemption of the realm of human history by the invasion of the spiritual realm of God, so that the historical realm is lifted to a new and higher level of existence. The "spiritual bodies" of the resurrection are notijbodies composed of a fine ethereal substance—pneuma ("spirit")—but are bodies adapted for new redeemed existence governed by the pneuma theou ("Spirit of God")."^ It is impossible to understand in concrete terms basically what Paul meant, either in terms of ancient comparative religions or of modem chemistry. He conceives of a real body but one that has been transformed by pneuma so that it is quite different in substance from physical bodies. This worldview of Paul is fundamental for his understanding of the rela tionship between the Jesus of history and the ascended Lord. Jesus was "de scended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:4). This does not reflect two ways of looking at Jesus but two stages in his

44. See above, pp. 523ff. 45. See G. E. Ladd, The Pattern of NT Truth. 46. See E. Schweizer on Spirit, TDNT 6:415-34. Schweizer's view is a bit confusing, for he does conceive of Paul as thinking of pneuma in terms of celestial substance. 47. E. Schweizer, TDNT 6:421.

532

PAUL

mmistry. On tiie human level he was a Son of David; after his resurrection he entered a new realm of existence in which he was shown to be the Son of God in power "in the sphere of the Holy Spirit."** This is not adoptionist Christology but an affirmation that "after the Resurrection, that Sphit becomes the mode or manner of Jesus' existence as Lord: the limitations and infirmhy of the flesh have given way to power m the Spirit. By the resurrection there has been brought into being the age of the Spirit, the age of power, in which the impact of Christ becomes effective upon all believers."*' This truth is more clearly affirmed m Paul's statement that "the first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (1 Cor 15:45). There is no Adamic speculation here of a heavenly and earthly being. In Philo the fhst man was the ideal person in the mind of God — the archetype of creation; the second man was the acmal human Adam.^o The fhst Adam does not descend to earth as Savior or Redeemer but remams the ideal human bemg in the mind of God. For Paul, the last Adam is Christ in his resurrected glory who has entered into a transformed realm of existence. Paul does not speculate as to the nature of this existence. "Paul, unlike the gnosdcs, never speaks of die spiritual substance of the pre-existent Lord."^' The ascended Christ has not only entered the realm of spirh; he has become a life-giving spirh, able because of his new mode of existence to impart life to men and women as he could not do m the days of his flesh. This background enables us to understand the much-debated saying where Paul verbally identifies the risen Lord and the Spirit: "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Cor. 3:17). This cannot mean complete personal identification, for Paul speaks both of the Lord as the Spirh and the Spirit of the Lord. In the context, Paul is contrasting the old order of the Mosaic Law with the new order in Christ. The old order was a "dispen sation of death" (2 Cor. 3:7); the new order a dispensation of the Sphit that means life. This new order has been inaugurated by the risen Lord, who has entered into the realm of spirit. The Lord and the Spirit are not personally identdied, but the Spirit is the mode in which the Lord works in the new dispensation. The Spirit is Christ himself present in his church.52 This is why Paul can exchange so freely the idioms "in Christ — in the Spirit"; "Christ in you — the Spirit in you." Probably the precise idiom would be, "Christ indwells his people in the Spirit." When we seek more closely the meaning of the indwelling of Christ and 48. See C. K. Barrett, Romans, 18. 49. D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (1967), 281. 50. See J. Jeremias, TDNT 1:143 and references. 51. E. Schweizer, TDNT 6:420. Schweizer insists that while Paul uses Hellenistic vocabulary, the substance is Jewish (ibid., 421). 52. See E. Schweizer, TDAfJ'6:433-34; D. Hill, Greek Words, 278-81; N. Q. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul, 12-15.

The New Life in Christ

533

of the Spirit, there is no question but that Paul conceives of this as a new inner power and dynamic by which God accomplishes a renewal of the "inner man." Christ dwells in the inner person, giving strength (Eph. 3:16-17) and renewing the individual day by day (2 Cor. 4:16). The first work of the Spirit is to enable people to understand the divine work of redemption. This is affirmed in gnostic-sounding language that sets forth a very ungnostic theology. Paul speaks of a hidden wisdom of God — of the revelation through the Spirit of divine truths — of being enabled by the Spirit to think the thoughts of God — of a wisdom that transcends all human wisdom (1 Cor. 2:6-13). All this can be understood only by the inner illumination of the Spirit. "The unspiritual \psychikos —"natural"] man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). Taken out of context, this language could refer to heavenly mysteries of the spiritual world that are perceived only by an esoteric circle who are spiritually illuminated. However, the context of the passage is the proclamation in preaching of an event in history together with its inner meaning. It is the word of the cross (1 Cor. 1:18) — the execution of the Jesus of history. This was an event whose meaning was folly to Greeks and an offense to Jews. But to those enlightened by the Spirit, it is the wisdom of God. In other words, Paul recognizes a hidden meaning in the historical event of the death of Christ ("God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself," 2 Cor. 5:19) that is not evident to the human eye but that can be accepted only by a supernatural illumination. The Spirit does not reveal heavenly realities but the true meaning of an historical event. He does not impart some kind of "gnostic" esoteric truth but the real meaning of an event in history. Only by the illumination of the Spirit can people understand the meaning of the cross; only by the Spirit can they therefore confess that Jesus who was executed is also the Lord (1 Cor. 12:3). This is why Paul can call the Spirit "a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him" (Eph. 1:17).'^ "Revelation" does not mean abstract theological truth but the meaning of the person and work of Jesus — what God "accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places" (Eph. 1:20). The Spirit is also the "spirit of faith," i.e., the Spirit who imparts faith (2 Cor. 4:13).''* Possessing the "earnest" (arrabon) of the Spirh means to walk by faith (2 Cor. 5:5, 7 ) . " An apparent contradiction to the idea that it is the Spirit who enables people to believe is found in Galatians 3:2, where Paul seems to say that faith precedes the reception of the Spirit. "Did you receive the Spirit by the

53. The RSV does not understand this to be a reference to the Holy Spirit, but see Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, 683; E. Schweizer, TDNT 6:444. 54. Again, the RSV does not translate this as a reference to the Holy Spirit, but see Arndt-Gingrich, loc. cit.; E. Schweizer, TDAT" 6:426. 55. E. Schweizer, loc. cit.

534

PAUL

works of the law, or by hearing with faith?" (Gal. 3:2). However, Paul is not here primarily concemed to present the relationship between faith and the reception of the Spirh; he is concerned whh the contrast between the era of the Law and the gospel. The former was an era of works m the flesh, the latter of fahh in the Sphh.s* Not only does the Spirit create faith, enabling people to accept the saving significance of the a o s s ; he hidwells the believer enablmg hhn or her to live "accordmg to the Sphit." He creates a "spirit of sonship" givmg to believers an mner conviction that they are children of God (Rom. 8:15-16; Gal. 4:6), and enabhng them to have direct access to the Father (Eph. 3:16-17). He enables people to offer tme worship to God (Phil. 3:3).^^ He enables them to grasp something of the vastness of the love of God (Eph. 3:16-17). He helps m prayer (Rom. 8:26; Eph. 6:18). He brmgs hope that is not merely an opthnistic attimde toward the future or a stance of the emotional life but the deep conviction of the certamty of the eschatological consummation of God's redemptive purpose (Rom. 15:13; Gal. 5:5). He produces the fmh of the Spirit, the chief of which is love. God's love is poured into the believer's heart tiirough the Holy Spirh (Rom. 5:5). The "love of the Spirit" (Rom. 15:30) may well be translated, "love created by the Sphh" (see Col. 1:8).58 This love manifests itself prhnarily m its relationship to other people; h is patient, kind, good, tmstworthy, gentie, and self-disciplmed (Gal. 5:22-23). Coupled with love are joy and peace (Gal. 5:22; Rom. 14:17; 15:13). These terms may be easdy misunderstood and mterpreted in terms of human emotional experience: joy is emotional happiness and peace is emotional tranqudity. How ever, these are theological words that carry profound hnplications for the emotional life but that in tiiemselves convey a far deeper meaning. Joy is primardy a religious sentiment that finds hs deepest satisfaction m the Lord. Therefore one can rejoice even when he or she is sorrowing (2 Cor. 6:10) or experiencmg physical suffermgs (Col. 1:24). One can rejoice m the gospel m the midst of severe afflictions (1 Thess. 1:6). It is significant that the eschatological gift of the Sphit is given while we groan mwardly because of the curse of sm and decay m the world (Rom. 8:23) and "sigh witii anxiety" m tiie face of death (2 Cor. 5:4).59 In the same way peace is not primarily emotional tranquility but a term encompassmg the salvation of the whole person. The "gospel of peace" (Eph. 6:15) is the good news that God has made peace whh humankind so that we may now have peace with God (Rom. 5:1). Peace is practicady synonymous with salvation (Rom. 2:10) and is a power that protects people in theh inner bemgs (Phil. 4:7) and that rules hi their hearts (Col. 3:15).«>

56. Loc. cit. 57. See Amdt-Gingrich, Lexicon, 682 (5a). 58. C. K. Barrett, Romans, 279. 59. On the whole subject, see R. Bultmann, Theology, 1:339. 60. See W. Foerster, TDNT 1:413-14.

The New Life in Christ

535

Summary In summary, we conclude that union with Christ in his death and resurrection, the indwelling of Christ in the Spirit, and the blessing of eternal life*' are different ways of describing the same reality: the situation of the person of faith who has become a new creation in Christ and entered the new era of salvation and life. We would seek further what this new life in Christ — the indwelling of Christ in the Spirit — means in terms of Paul's anthropology. We have seen that it involves a definite cognitive element. Only by the inner illumination of the Holy Spirit can one understand the real meaning of the cross.*2 However, there is no idea that a renewed mind possesses higher intellectual faculties than it did before. The new life is experienced in the realm of the spirit.*^ When Paul says that outside of Christ people are dead (Eph. 2:1), he must mean spiritually dead. He cannot mean that unredeemed people have no spirits — that spirit is a gift of the new life in Christ. That men and women are dead in their spirits means that they are not living in fellowship with God. That they have been made alive means that they have been brought into fellowship with the living God. This is affirmed in a verse whose exegesis is disputed, but which bears full and lucid meaning in this context. "If Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness" (Rom. 8:10). Furthermore, if our spirits have been made alive by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, this same Spirit wUl one day give life to our dying bodies. While this verse is often interpreted in terms of the Holy Spirit indwelling humanity,** it fits the Pauline context better to understand it of the quickened human spirit.*^ The body is still mortal and stands under the doom of death, but the human spirit has been made alive. Another way of saying the same thing is in terms of the renewal of the mind (Rom. 12:2).** While nous can sometimes refer to the cognitive faculty in humanity, here h refers to the human being in terms of "the inner direction of

61. It is probably only a coincidence that Paul, unlike John, never clearly speaks of "eternal life" as a present reality. The phrase usually designates life in the eschatological consummation (Rom. 2:7; 6:22; Gal. 6:8; 1 Tim. 1:16; Tit. 1:2; 3:7). In its immediate context (Rom. 5:21 and 6:23), the phrase could be understood as eschatological. However, since the new aeon in Christ is the aeon of life (Rom. 5:18; 6:4; 8:2; Col. 3:4; 2 Tim. 1:10), it is clear that Paul conceives of eternal life as a present possession even though he does not emphasize it in the way John does. 62. See above, p. 533. 63. See above, pp. 525f. 64. See C. K. Barrett, Romans, 159; F. F. Bruce, Romans (1963), 164. 65. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans (1896). in loc.; G. W. H. Umpe in IDB 2:636; W. D. Stacey, The Pauline View of Man {195% 135. 66. See above, pp. 518f.

536

PAUL

[his] thought and will and the orientation of [his] moral consciousness."*'' The internal work of Christ is to be understood not m terms of a complete transfor mation of the human personality or the displacement of something human by something divine, but in terms of an mflux of divine power accomplishmg a reorientation of the will toward God. Now a person is enabled to do what the Law could not accomplish; she or he is enabled to love and worship and serve God and thus fulfill the highest demand of the Law (Rom. 8:4). The practical outworking of this new hfe is, however, one of tension — the tension between the indicadve and the imperative. Because the person of fahh is a new creation and has entered the new aeon of salvation, that person has died with Christ (Rom. 6:5); he or she has been cmcified with Christ (Gal. 2:20); the old self has been cmcified with him (Rom. 6:6); the flesh has been cmcified (Gal. 5:24); the body of flesh has been put off m circumcision of the heart (Col. 2:11). This is the indicative. This is not something subjective and automatic and spontaneous; h mdicates a new state of existence that must manifest itself in a new life. Negatively, one must put to death the deeds of the body (Rom. 8:13) — "what is earthly in you" (Col. 3:5). It is clear that Paul is not advocating physical asceticism;** the deeds of die body — "what is earthly" — are synonymous with the flesh — the old, natural, rebedious human nature with its sinful deeds: "immoralhy, hnpurhy, passion, evd desire, and covetousness" (Col. 3:5). Paul changes the idiom from death to clothing: "Put off your old nature [the old man] which belongs to your former manner of life" (Eph. 4:22). The "old man" denotes "the sinful bemg of the unconverted man."*' The important thing to note is the tension between the indicative and the imperative: the old person — the old nature — the old self has been put to death — h has been put off m prmciple; yet believers are exhorted to do in practice what has already been done in principle. Paul does not say that sin is dead but that the believer has died to sin. He does not say that the flesh is done away, but that we no longer live m the flesh and therefore are not to waUt according to the flesh. He never says, "Do not sm," but rather, "Do not let sin reign over you."™ The positive side of the outworkmg of the new life is expressed in several ways. "Be renewed m the sphit of your minds, and put on the new nature [new man]" (Eph. 4:23-24). This can be done only because h has already been accomphshed m principle in Christ (Col. 3:10). The same idea is expressed in the idiom of walking in newness of life (Rom. 6:4), walking after the Sphit (Rom. 8:4; Gal. 5:16). The power of the indwelling Spirit is not a spontaneous, all-possessing power; h requires a human response. Walking after the Sphh means to live each moment and to make each decision under the guidance of the indwelling Sphit.

67. J. Behm, TDNT 4:958. 68. See above, p. 508. 69. J. Jeremias, TDNT 1:365. 70. See G. Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience (1969), 80-82.

The New Life in Christ

537

Walking in the Spirit is walking in tension between the Spirit and the flesh. While the flesh has been crucified with Christ in principle, it can still be an active power in the Christian's life and he or she must be constantly vigilant to keep the flesh under the control of the Spirit. "The desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would" (Gal. 5:17). The crucifixion and death of the flesh does not mean that it need no longer be reckoned with in Christian experience. The Christian will never be the person he or she wishes to be — free from temptation, struggle, tension. The old self is ever present; only by a constant walking after the Spirit can the dominance of the flesh be broken.

36. The Lawt

For surveys: A. J. M. Wedderbum, "Paul and the Law," SJTh 38 (1985), 613-22; J. M. G. Barclay, "Paul and the Law: Observations on Some Recent Debates," Themelios 12 (1986), 5-15; D. Moo, "Paul and the Law in the Last Ten Years," SJTh 40 (1987), 287-307; F F. Bruce, "Paul and the Law in Recent Research," in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, ed. B. Lindars (1988), 115-25; T. C. Geer, Jr., "Paul and the Law in Recent Discussion," iJesg 31 (1989), 93-107; A. J. Bandstra, "Paul and the Law: Some Recent Developments and an Extraordinary Book," CTJ 25 (1990), 249-61. Literature:* C. H. Dodd, "The Law," The Bible and the Greeks (1935), 25-41; C. L. Mitton, "Romans VII Reconsidered," E7"65 (1953/54), 78-81; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1958), 147-76; H. J. Schoeps, Paul (1961), 168-218; G. A. F Knight, Law and Gospel (1962); W. G. Kummel, Man in the NT (1963); R. N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (1964); G. von Rad, "The Law," OT Theology (1965), 2:388-409; H. L. Ellison, "Paul and the Law," in Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. W. W. Gasque and R. R Martin (1970), 195-202; J. A. Fitzmyer, "Paul and the Law," To Advance the Gospel (1981), 186-201; C. T. Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law (1981); W. D. Davies, "Paul and the Law: Reflections on Pitfalls in Interpretation," in Paul and Paulinism, ed. M. Hooker and S. Wilson (1982), 4-16; E. R Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (1983); J. D. G. Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," BJRL 65 (1983), 95-122; H. Hubner, Law in PauVs Thought (1984); R. Badenes, "Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4," Pauline Perspectives (1985); H. Raisanen, Paul and the Law (1987^); K. R. Snodgrass, "Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the Law," JSNT 32 (1988), 93-113; S. Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (\9%8); B. L. Martin, Christ and the Law in Paul {\989); F. Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul's View of the Law in Galatians and Romans (1989); T. R. Schreiner, "The Abolition and FulfUlment of the Law in Paul," 7 5 ^ 7 35 (1989), 47-74; J. D. G. Dnnn, Jesus, Paul and tThis chapter was first published in Soli Deo Gloria, ed. J. McDowell Richards. © M. E. Bratcher 1968. Used by permission of John Knox Press. *The larger bibliography here indicates the amount of attention the important subject of Paul and the Law has received in recent years.

538

The Law

539

the Law (1990); P. J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (1990); M. Winger, By What Law? The Meaning of Nomas in the Letters of Paul (1991); R. B. Sloan, "Paul and the Law: Why the Law Cannot Save," NT 33 (1991), 35-60; T. R. Schreiner, " 'Works of Law' in Paul," NT 33 (1991), 217-44; F. Thielman, "The Coherence of Paul's View of the Law: The Evidence of First Corinthi ans," NTS 38 (1992), 235-53; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (1992).

Paul's thought about the Law is difficuh to understand because he seems to make numerous contradictory statements. He asserts that those who do the Law shah be justified (Rom. 2:13) and shall find Ufe by the Law (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12); but at the same time he affirms that no person shall be justified by the Law (Rom. 3:20) but is only brought to death by the written code of the Law (2 Cor. 3:6), for the Law cannot give life (Gal. 3:21). He claims that he was blameless in his obedience to the Law (PhU. 3:6) and yet asserts that no one can perfectly submh to the Law (Rom. 8:7). Paul's teaching about the Law is often approached from the perspective of the historical experience either of Paul himself as a Jewish rabbi, or of a typical first-century Jew under the Law. However, Paul's thought must be seen nehher as a confession of his spiritual autobiography, nor as a description of the nomistic character of first-century Pharisaism, but as a theological interpretation by a Christian thinker of two ways of righteousness: nomism and faith. This is made clear in Romans 10, where Paul bemoans the fate of Israel m havmg failed to recognize Jesus as its Messiah and embrace the divine gift of a free salvation. Why was Israel blind to the claims of Christ? Paul's answer is that there are two ways of righteousness, and because Israel pursued one way, they missed the other. Israel followed the "law of righteousness" (Rom. 9:31), i.e., the Law that revealed the will of God and showed what a right relationship with God was; but Israel failed to attain to that goal because they misused the Law by making it a means of attaining righteousness by their own works instead of through faith (Rom. 9:32). Thus they showed themselves to be ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God and is received by faith; instead, they tried to establish their own righteousness of works and did not submit to the righ teousness of God through fahh (Rom. 10:1-3). In these words, Paul makes the fundamental issue clear: the establishing of one's own righteousness (by works), or submission to the righteousness of God (by faith). In writing as he does about the Law, Paul is writing from a distinctiy Christian viewpoint. His experience of justification through faith in Christ and the subsequent conflict with the Judaizers led him to insights he could not have held as a Jew, and to a fundamental reinterpretation of the role of the Law in redemptive history.

540 The Background

PAUL of Paul's Thought about the Law

To understand Paul's thought on the role of the Law, we must interpret it against the threefold background of Old Testament religion, Judaism, and his own experiences. The heart of Old Testament religion cannot be characterized as legalism, nor was the Law given as the means of achieving a right relationship with God by obedience. On the contrary, the context of the Law was the covenant that preceded and underlay the Law; and the covenant was initiated by the gracious act of God. Israel was constituted God's people not because of merit gained by obedience to the I^w, but because of God's free election.' Israel belongs to God because he has revealed himself by delivering his people out of Egypt. The Law was given as the means of binding Israel to hs God. Obedience to the Law did not constitute Israel God's people; rather, it provided Israel with a standard for obedience by which the covenant relationship must be preserved. "Thus the object of the law is to settle the relationship of the covenant-nation and of the individual to the God of the covenant and to the members of the nation who belong to the same covenant."^ The reward for obedience to the Law was preservation of the positive relationship to Yahweh. This is the meaning of Leviticus 18:5: "The man who obeys the law shall live," i.e., enjoy the blessings of God.3 However, life was not a reward earned by good works; it was itself God's gift. This is illustrated by Deuteronomy 30:15-20 where Moses lays before the people the choice of life or death, which is determined by whether or not Israel chooses the Word of God. "Only by faith, i.e., by cleaving to the God of salvation, will the righteous have life (cf. Hab. 2:4; Am. 5:4, 14; Jer. 38:20). It is obvious that life is here understood as a gift."" Furthermore, the obedience demanded by the Law could not be satisfied by a mere legalism, for the Law itself demanded love for God (Deut. 6:5; 10:12) and for neighbor (Lev. 19:18). Obedience to the Law of God was an expression of trust in God; and only those who offered God such trust were really his people. One of the most important factors in the old covenant was the twofold character of the people of God. On the one hand, they constituted a theocracy — a nation; but they were also a spiritual people. Membership in the nation

1. See W. Eichrodt, Theology of the OT (1961), l:ch. 2; G. A. F Knight, Law and Gospel (1962), 25f. 2. H. Kleinknecht, Bible Key Words: Law (1962), 27. "The U w of Moses in itself was originally given not as a code, the observance of which was necessary to salvation, but as a set of principles for the guidance of the people of God." R. McL. Wilson, "Nomos," StTh 5 (1952), 39. 3. The primary concept of "life" in the Old Testament is not the life of the Age to Come, as in Dan. 12:2, but the enjoyment of the good gifts of God in fellowship with God in this life. 4. G. von Rad, TDNT 2:845. See also his essay on "Law" in OT Theology (1965), 2:388ff., where he shows that the apostasy of Israel consisted not in breaking individual commandments, but in failing to respond to God's saving acts for his people.

The Law

541

required obedience to extemal commands, for example, circumcision; but cir cumcision of the flesh did not make a person right with God; there must also be a circumcision of the heart (Jer. 4:4; Deut. 10:16). When the nadon proved disobedient to the demands of the covenant, the prophets announced that God had rejected the nation as a whole and would raise up in her place a fahhful renmant that was righteous in heart as wed as in deed. Thus there is found even in the Old Testament the disdnction between the nation and the "church," between physical Israel and the trae, spiritual Israel,^ who have the Law wrhten on theh hearts (Jer 31:33). In the mtertestamental period a fundamental change occurred in the role of the Law m the dfe of the people. The hnportance of the Law overshadows the concept of the covenant and becomes the condition of membership in God's people. Even more importandy, observance of the Law becomes the basis of God's verdict upon the individual. Resurrection whl be the reward of those who have been devoted to the Law (2 Mace. 7:9). The Law is the basis of the hope of the fahhful (Test. Jud. 26:1), of justification (Apoc. Bar. 51:3), of salvation (Apoc. Bar. 51:7), of righteousness (Apoc. Bar. 57:6), of life (4 Ez. 7:21; 9:31). Obedience to the Law will even bring God's Kingdom and transform the entire sin-cursed world (Jub. 23). Thus the Law attams the position of an intermediary between God and humankind. This new role of the Law characterizes rabbinic Judaism; and for this reason, "the basic starting point of die Old Testament is characteristicady and decisively ahered and invalidated."* The Torah becomes the one and only me diator between God and humanity; all other relationships between God and humanity, Israel, or the world are subordinated to the Torah. Both righteousness and life in the world to come are secured by obeying the Law. "The more study of the law, the more life. . . ." "If (a man) has gained for himself words of the law, he has gained for himself life in the world to come" (Pirke Aboth 2:7).^ This does not mean that the Judaism out of which Paul came was utterly destitute of any spiritual values. There were circles in Judaism where the higher elements of inner devotion and piety were coupled with strict obedience to the Law.* Nor are we to forget that at the heart of first-century Jewish personal 5. See J. Bright, The Kingdom of God (1953), 94. 6. H. Kleinknecht, Bible Key Words: Law, 69. 7. For other references see H. Kleinknecht, Bible Key Words: Law, p. 76; Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 3:129ff., 237. Schoeps recognizes the change in the concept of the Law in apocryphal writings and the LXX, but not in classical Judaism. He maintains that Paul's opposition to the Law was based in part upon this distortion and misrepresentation of the Law in Hellenistic Judaism. Paul (1961), 215ff. 8. See such writings as The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Hymns of the Qumran Community. See also R. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (1964), ch. 3, who differentiates between "legalism" with its emphasis on law-keeping as a human action, and "nomism," which offers obedience to the Law as the reaction to the goodness and saving acts of God — an expression of trust in God.

542

PAUL

devotion as well as the synagogue worship was the recital of the s^ma' with its call to love God with the whole heart.' However, the tendency to externalism is evident even at this point, for the very repetition of the S^ma' was seen as a submitting to the reign of God.'" It is true that repentance played a large role in Jewish piety. While the Jews never despaired about the "fulfillability of the law," it was nevertheless a real problem.^ All of the commandments, both written and oral, must be kept. "To violate one of them was equivalent to rejecting the whole law and refusing God's yoke (Sifre on Num. 15:22)."i2 However, salvation did not depend upon faultless conformity to the Law. Humanity is indwelt by an evil impulse as well as a good impulse, and therefore no one can attain to sinless perfection. Therefore the "righteous" person is not the individual who obeys the Law flawlessly, but the one alone who strives to regulate his or her life by the Law. The sincerity and supremacy of this purpose and the strenuous endeavor to accomplish it are the marks of a righteous person.'" Because God knew that humankind could not perfectly keep the Law because of the evil impulse God himself had implanted in his creature, God provided repentance as the way by which a person's sins could be forgiven. Repentance therefore must be coeval with the Law, and is one of the seven things pre-existent before creation. Repentance plays such a large role in Judaism that Moore calls it "the Jewish doctrine of salvation."'* The righteous person, therefore, is not the one who actually succeeds in keeping the Law, but the one who intends to, strives to do so, and is repentant when he or she fails. This repentance is the sole but inexorable condition of God's forgiveness, and is efficacious however great the sin may have been, or however late a person comes to repentance.'^ Repentance is purification of the inner person, and so annuls the sinner's past that he or she is in effect a new creation.'^ Sacrifices were carried out because the Law commanded them; but Judaism had no theory of atonement. It was repentance that secured the efficacy of the sacrifices." It is this background in Jewish thought that leads Schoeps to say that whether a person actually fulfills the Law or not, the mere intention to fulfill it 9. E. Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (1890), II, 2:77-115; G. P. Moore, Judaism (1927), 1:291. 10. G. E Moore, Judaism, 2:465. 11. See H. J. Schoeps, Paul, 177, 193. 12. J. Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus Christ (1964), 95. 13. See G. F. Moore, Judaism, l:467f. We are dependent on Moore for the following summary. 14. Ibid., 1:494. 15. Ibid., 1.266, 526. 16. Ibid., 1:114, 117, 500.

n.Ibid., 1:520-21. 18. Ibul., l:532f. 19. Ibid., 1:500-504, 508.

The Law

543

brings one close to God. This good intention is "an affirmation of the covenant which precedes the law."20 Paul, however, was fatally ignorant of the Jewish doctrine of repentance. He failed to understand the relationship between the covenant and the Law, and isolated the I^aw from the controlling context of God's covenant with Israel.2' Schoeps bases his argument on the Old Testament view of the relationship between covenant and Law, attribudng this understanding to Judaism.* How ever, the reverse appears to be the historical fact: namely, that Judaism had in reality substimted the Law for the covenant, or identified the covenant whh the Law. Schoeps in effect admits this when he says, "By covenant is meant nothing other than the Torah."22 it is significant that the concept of the covenant plays a very small role in rabbinic wrhings,23 and tends to be identified with circum cision and the Sabbath.2'* Moore on the basis of Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1 argues that eternal life is ultimately assured to every Israelhe25 "on the ground of the original election of the people by the free grace of God, prompted not by its merits, collective or individual, but solely by God's love."26 This conclusion is difficult to sustain, if for no other reason than that of the exclusion of certain classes of Israelhes from etemal dfe in the paragraphs that follow. It is refuted by the discussion of the fate of the righteous, the wicked, and the middle class whose righteousness and sins balanced each other. The righteous enter at once into eternal life. Certain extremely wicked classes of people wid be locked up to punishment in hell forever. Others less wicked, together whh the wicked of the nations, are thrown into hell to be punished for twelve months and then destroyed.2'' As for the great majority of Israelites who were "half righteous and half sinful," the Schools of Hillel and Shammai differed. The School of HiUel maintained that God in mercy would incline the balance to the side of mercy and not send them into hell at all, while the School of Shammai held that they

20. Paul, 196. 21. Ibid., 213. •This view has now become widely accepted due to the influential work of E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism [Philadelphia, 1977]), who describes Judaism as a "covenantal nomism," i.e., a law-centeredness, but within the larger framework of the grace of the covenant. Judaism should be judged by its best representatives and by its best theology. It must not be portrayed as a religion of works-righteousness and made to serve as a foil for the gospel. If Judaism has its ill-informed legalists, so does Christianity. 22. Ibid., 216. 23. See J. Behm in TDNT 2.128-29. 24. See G. E Moore, Judaism, 2:16-21. 25. "All Israelites have a share in the worid to come." See H. Danby, The Mishnah (1933), 397. 26. Judaism, 2:95. Krauss interprets this saying in light of Sanh. 6:2, which assures extreme sinners of a share in the world to come, provided they make confession of their sin. S. Krauss, Die Mischna (1933), IV, 4/5:264. 27. Judaism, 2:387.

544

PAUL

would be plunged into hell but would come up healed. ^8 While it is true that it was God's kindness that gave the Law to Israel, thus providing a basis for salvation, salvation itself is dependent on good works, including the good work of repentance. This conclusion is strongly supported by the numerous references in Jewish literature to the books in which the good works of the righteous are recorded,^' treasuries in which good works are stored up,^ scales on which the merits and demerits are weighed.^' God's grace grants forgiveness to the repen tant person who has transgressed the Law, but the devout individual who fulfills the Law, insofar as he or she fulfills it, does not need grace. In any case, it is clear that Paul's life as a Jew was one of nomistic obedience to the Law. He himself tells us that he was a committed Jew, a Pharisee who was blameless in his obedience to the letter of the Law (Phil. 3:5-6). He was outstanding in his zeal not only for the written Law but also for the oral scribal traditions (Gal. 1:14). In view of these clear statements, it is impossible to accept the autobio graphical interpretation of Romans 7^2 that pictures Paul torn by an inward struggle that plunged his soul in darkness and confusion, making him feel that the Law had broken him and hope was almost gone.33 In fact, the key to Paul's understanding of the Law lies in the fact that his very devotion to the Law had led to pride (Phil. 3:4, 7) and boasting (Rom. 2:13, 23). Boasting is the very antithesis of faith (Rom. 4:2), for it means the effort to establish a human righteousness of works (Rom. 3:27) that seeks glory before God and that relies on itself rather than on God. This human pride and boasting is an affront to the very character of God, who alone must receive glory and before whom no human being may boast (1 Cor. 1:29). The only object for a person's boasting is God himself (1 Cor. 1:31; 2 Cor. 10:17).34 Here is the shocking fact that compelled Paul to a complete re-evaluation the Law. It was his very zeal for the Law that had blinded him to the revelation

28. Ibid., 2:318. The text from Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:3ff. is quoted by J. Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism, 250. 29. 1 En. 47:3; 81:4; 89:61-70; 90:20; 98:7-8; 104:7; Apoc. Bar. 24:1; 4 Ez. 6:20; Asc. Isa. 9:22; Jub. 30:22; Aboth 3:17. 30. 4 Ez. 7:77; 8:33; Apoc. Bar. 14:12; Ps. Sol. 9:9. 31. Test. Abr. 13; 1 En. 41:1; 61:8; Ps. Sol. 5:6; Pesikta 26. See J. Bonsirven, fa/esrw/on Judaism, 239; R Weber, Judische Theologie (1897), 279ff. 32. W. Gutbrod, Bible Key Words: Law, 119. 33. See C. H. Dodd, The Meaning of Paul for Today (1920), 71, 73. Others who follow this autobiographical interpretation of Rom. 7 are A. Deissmann, Paul (1926), 92ff.; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1955), 24ff.; J. Klausner, Paul (1944), 498f.; A. C. Purdy, IDB 3:685, 692. J. Murray, Romans (1959), 1:255, sees an unregenerate person under convic tion of sin. J. Knox, "Romans," IB 9:499, thinks Paul describes twth past and present experi ence. 34. On the theological significance of boasting, see R. Bultmann, TDiVT 3:649; Theol ogy, 1:242.

The Law

545

of God's righteousness in Christ. What he as a Jew had thought was righteous ness, he now realizes to be the very essence of sin, for his pride in his own righteousness (Phil. 3:9) had blinded him to the revelation of the divine righ teousness in Christ. Only the divine intervention on the Damascus Road shat tered his pride and self-righteousness and brought him to a humble acceptance of the righteousness of God. The Law in the Messianic

Age

Many features of Paul's interpretation of the Law not only find no parallel in Judaism, but in fact so differ from Jewish thought that modem Jewish scholars refuse to accept his claim to have been a Palestinian rabbi but insist that he represents a distorted Judaism of the Diaspora.^^ On the contrary, Paul represents a fresh Christian interpretation that can be understood only from Paul's eschato logical perspective. With Christ the messianic age has been inaugurated. In Christ, "the old has passed away, behold, the new has come" (2 Cor. 5:17). Before he was in Christ, Paul understood the Law kata sarka, from a human point of view, in terms of the standards of the old aeon, even as he interpreted all his experience (2 Cor. 5:16). Viewed kata sarka, the Law was the basis of good works, which led to pride and boasting. Viewed kata pneuma, from the perspective of the new age in Christ, the Law assumes an entirely different role in God's redemptive purpose. The prophets had foretold a day when God would make a new covenant with his people, when the Law would be no longer primarily an outward written code, but a Law implanted within people, written on their hearts (Jer. 31:33). This promise of a new dimension of inwardness does not carry with it the complete abolition of the Mosaic Law. On the basis of such Old Testament promises, the Jews debated the role the Law would play in the messianic age and in the worid to come. Moore concludes that in the messianic age the Law would be more faithfully studied and better applied than in this world; and in the Age to Come, although much of the Law will be no longer applicable because of the changed conditions on the new earth, the Law will continue to express the will of God, but God himself will be the teacher.3* With Christ a new era has come in which the Law plays a new and different role. Paul designates these two eras of the Law and the gospel as two covenants. The old covenant is one of the "letter" (gramma) and is a dispensation (diakonia) of condemnation and death, while the new covenant is one of the Spirit, a 35. See C. G. Montefiore, Judaism and Si. Paul (1914), 93; S. Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the NT (1956), 37-51; H. J. Schoeps, Paul, 198, 206, 218. 36. G. F. Moore, Judaism, 1:271 f. See also W. D. Davies, Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come (1952), who cites some evidence for the expectation of a modified Torah in the messianic age. Schoeps cites rabbinic sayings that anticipated the cessation of the Law in the messianic Kingdom as a basis for Paul's view of the abolition of the Law (Paul, 171-72). However, this is not the prevailing Jewish view, and Paul does not teach the complete abolition of the law. See also R. N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 128-32.

546

PAUL

dispensation of life and rigliteousness (2 Cor. 3:6ff.). These words do not refer to two ways of interpreting Scripture: a literal and a spiritual or allegorical approach. They contrast the ages of the Law and of Christ as two different forms of the Law. Under the old covenant, the Law was an external written code that set before people the will of God. When they failed, it condemned them to death. The new covenant in this passage says nothing explichly about the permanence of the Law. The difference in the new age is that the Holy Spirit has been given to people to write the Law upon their hearts, as Jeremiah foretold, and thus the Law is no longer merely an extemal written code but an inward, life-giving power that produces righteousness.''' Most interpreters of this passage have overlooked the fact that since the Holy Spirit is an eschatological gift, the entire passage has an eschatological orientation. The new age, which is the age of Christ and the Spirit, has come in fulfiUment of Jeremiah 3 1 , ' " even whUe the old age goes on. While this passage in 2 Corinthians says nothing about the permanence of the Law, Paul tells the Romans, "telos gar nomou Christos eis dikaiosynen panti to pisteuonti" (For Christ is [the] end of [the] Law unto righteousness to everyone who believes, Rom. 10:4). This verse can be rendered in two different ways. "Christ is the end of the Law with the objective of righteousness for everyone who believes." That is, Christ has brought the Law to its end in order that a righteousness based on faith alone may be available to all men and women. Another rendering is, "Christ is the end of the Law so far as righteousness is concemed for everyone who believes." That is, the Law is not itself abolished, but it has come to its end as a way of righteousness, for in Christ righteousness is by faith, not by works. In view of the fact that Paul has just contrasted the righteousness of God with that of the Law, and continues immediately with the righteousness of the Law (v. 5), the latter rendering is preferable." Paul does not affirm the total abrogation of the Law, that by its abrogation righteousness might come to believers.'*" He affirms the end of the Law in its connection with righteousness in Christ apart from the Law, with the result that the Law has come to an end for the believer as a way of righteousness. This is not tme historically; the Jews continue to practice the Law. It is tme heilsgeschichtlich —for people of faith. This is tme because Christ is the end of the Law. Telos can mean both end and goal, and both meanings are to be seen here. Christ has brought the era of the Law to hs end because he has fulfilled all that the Law demands.

37. See G. Schrenlc in TDNT l:765ff. 38. R. A. Harrisville, The Concept of Newness in the NT (1960), 60. It is recognized by W. D. Davies, Paul, 225. Davies points out that this emphasis is largely missing in rabbinic Judaism. 39. See R. N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 144ff 40. See below, pp. 553f., for the permanence of the Law.

The Law

547

Paul expounds the life of the believer in the new age in several different ways. The new age is the age of life; and since the believer has been identified with Christ in his death and resurrection, he or she is dead to the old life, including the rule of the Law. Paul uses the metaphor of a woman being freed from her husband when he dies, and applies it by saying that it is the believer who has died with Christ who is therefore free from the Law (Rom. 7:4). Therefore we no longer serve God under bondage to a written external code but with the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6). It was the Law itself, which had become a basis of boasting, and therefore of sin, that convinced Paul that he must die to the reign of Law (Gal. 2:19). An apparent contradiction appears in Paul's thought when he insists, on the one hand, that the believer is no longer under Law, but at the same time, according to the Acts, approves of the Law for Jewish Christians (Acts 21:20ff.), and even circumcised Timothy when he joined Paul in missionary work because he was half Jewish (Acts 16:3). However, this contradiction corresponds with Paul's eschatological perspective. While beUevers have experienced the freedom of the new age in Christ, they still live in the present evil age. The Law with its ceremonial demands belongs to this world — the old order. The proper atthude for people of the new age toward the old age is not a negative one but neutral: "For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation," because circumcision belongs to the world, and the individual in Christ has been crucified to the world (Gal. 6:15). An application of this principle is that Paul himself as a Jew observed the Law when he was in a Jewish environment (1 Cor. 9:20). As a man in Christ, he was no longer under Law, and therefore, where the human situation required it for his ministry to the Gentiles, he "became as one outside the law" (1 Cor. 9:21). This involves, admittedly, an inconsistency in conduct; but the very inconsistency rests upon the consistent application of a profound theological truth: that Christians belong to two worlds at once and have obligations to both orders."' The Law as the WiU of God Paul never conceived of the claims of the Law coming to their end because of any imperfection in the Law itself. The Law is and remains the Law of God (Rom. 7:22, 25). The Law is not sinful (Rom. 7:7) but is holy and just and good (Rom. 7:12) because it comes from God ("spiritual," Rom. 7:14). At this point it is important to note that Paul can speak of the Law from several different points of view. The Greek word nomos is not equivalent to the Hebrew tord. Nomos is fundamentally "custom," hardening into what we call "law," and is human in its perspective. Tord means "instruction" and is used not 41. See R. N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 245ff., w h o comes to similar conclusions from the perspective of Paul's doctrine of liberty.

548

PAUL

only of the legislation God gave to be obeyed but also divhie instructions and teachings. In its broadest sense it designates the divine revelation as a whole.''^ Under the influence of the Old Testament, Paul uses nomas not only to designate legislation — "the law of commandments and ordinances" (Eph. 2:15), but, like tord, also to refer to the Old Testament where no legislation is involved."' In still other places Paul uses nomos in a Greek way to designate a principle (Rom. 3:27; 7:23, 25; 8:2)."" Thus we can understand how Paul can reflect the Jewish point of view that the Law is a standard for life by which he as a Pharisee lived blamelessly (Phil. 3:6). This level of interpretation had led hhn to pride and boasting in his own righteous achievements. At the same time, there is a deeper demand of the Law, for the Law expresses the total wiU of God. The Law itself witnesses to the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:21). The Law's demand is such that only love can satisfy it (Rom. 13:8). When Paul says that the mind set on the flesh "is hostUe to God; h does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot" (Rom. 8:7), he is referring to more than legal statutes. Hostility to God is in reality rejection of the Law of God; what God's Law requires is not merely outward obedience but an obedient and submissive heart. Israel's problem lay at precisely this point. Pursuing a "law of righteousness," i.e., a Law that would make people right with God, they failed to attain this very righteousness because they refused to submit to God's righ teousness by faith but instead sought a righteousness by works, which is no tme righteousness at ah (Rom. 9:31-32; 10:1-2). The human righteousness that is achieved by works (Phil. 3:6) is itself a denial of tme righteousness; it is "a righteousness of my own" (Phil. 3:9), and is therefore a ground of boasting (Rom. 2:23; Eph. 2:9); and this very boasting is the essence of sin, for h is the exaltation of self against God. Boastmg in one's own righteousness is equivalent to having confidence in the flesh (Phil. 3:3). Legal righteousness leads to this selfish, sinful pride and fmstrates the tme righteousness demanded by God. When the Jews boast in the Law and sit in prideful judgment on those who do not have the Law, they show by this very fact that they do not know tme righteousness (Rom. 2:17-21). The very act of judging convicts them of being sinners (Rom. 2:1). Sin is humanity's ambition to put itself in the place of God and so be its own lord. This is precisely what judges do when they assume the right to sit in judgment on theh fellow creatures.''^ When Paul accuses the Jews of inconsistency for breaking the Law at the very points where they condemn others — stealing, adultery, temple robbing — he must have the higher demand

42. H. Kleinknecht, Bible Key Words: Law, 46. 43. Rom. 3:10-18 cites passages from Isaiah and Psalms as utterances of the nomos (3:19). 1 Cor. 14:21 quotes Isa. 28:11 as nomos. 44. See C. H. Dodd, "The Law," in The Bible and the Greeks (1935), 25-41. 45. C. K. Barrett, The Epistle of the Romans (1957), 44.

The Law

549

of the Law for an inner righteousness in mind, for instances of such flagrant conduct did not characterize first-century Jews, who were in fact recognized by the Gentiles for their high moral standards. Paul must be referring to robbmg God of the honor due him, spiritual aduUery, and profaning the devotion due God alone by exalting themselves as judge and lord over their fellow creatures (Rom. I-.nfi.).*^ Paul immediately goes on to say that circumcision — the symbol of all law-keeping — is really of the heart and not of the flesh, and to be a true Jew is to have a right heart toward God (Rom. 2:25-29). If, then, the Law in fact embodies the full will of God, it follows ideally that full conformity to the Law would lead to life (Rom. 7:10). Those who do the Law will be justified (Rom. 2:13). But at this point Paul goes beyond Judaism. Judaism based salvation on conformity to the Law, but recognized that most people really did not keep the Law. Therefore it had to mix its doctrine of salvation by obedience to the Law with a doctrine of forgiveness and repentance, by which God in his mercy grants salvation to those who are partly righteous and partly sinners."'^ Paul sees that this involved the confession of two contradictory principles: works and grace. He therefore insists upon something that no Jewish rabbi would accept,"* namely, that if righteousness is obedience to Law, then obedience must be perfect — without a single flaw. One who submits to the Law must keep the whole Law (Gal. 5:3). Anyone who does not do all things written in the Law is cursed (Gal. 3:10). Paul would assent to the words of James that whoever obeys the entire Law but fails in a single point is guiUy of being a lawbreaker and stands under condemnation (Jas. 2:11). The problem of perfect fulfillment of the Law is most acute at the point where the Law demands more than conformity to outward regulations. This is revealed when Paul says that a person may accept circumcision and yet not keep the Law (Rom. 2:25). On the surface this is a nonsensical statement, for the very act of circumcision is obedience to the Law. When Paul goes on to say that true circumcision is a matter of the heart and not something external and physical (Rom. 2:28-29), it is clear that "obedience to the law does not mean carrying out the detailed precepts written in the Pentateuch, but fulfilling that relation to God to which the law points; and this proves in the last resort to be a relation not of legal obedience but of faith.""' The Failure of the Law Although the Law remains for Paul the righteous and holy expression of the will of God, the Law has failed to make people righteous before God. It is

46. Ibid., 56ff. See for a similar imerpretation L. Goppelt, Jesus, Paul and Judaism (1964), 137. 47. See above, p. 542. 48. See G. F. Moore, Judaism, 3:150-51. 49. C. K. Barrett, Romans, 58.

550

PAUL

impossible for an individual to be justified by the works of the Law (Gal. 2:16). In fact, there is no possible law that can make one right with God (Gal. 3:21). The reason for this failure is twofold. The most fundamental reason is that the weakness and the sinfulness of human beings render them mcapable of giving the obedience the Law demands. The condition of the human heart is such that no law could help it. The weakness of the flesh (Rom. 8:3) and the sinfulness of human nature (Rom. 7:23) could not be changed by the Law. The idea of some rabbis that humanity's evil impulses could be overcome by study of the Law,50 Paul would firmly reject. The reason why the Law cannot make sinful people righteous is that it is an external code, whereas their sinful hearts need a transforming inward power. The Law is a wrhten code, not a life imparted by God's Spirh (Rom. 7:6). This idea is extended in the contrast between the new and the old covenant. The old covenant of Law consisted of commands written on tables of stone, which could only declare the will of God but not provide the power to sinful women and men to obey God's will. Therefore, even though it was glorious, the written code condemns them as sinners and places them under the judgment of death. "The written code kills," whereas what people need is life (2 Cor 3:6). The Reinterpretation

of the Law

In reflecting on the failure of the Law m contrast with the work of Christ to bring him to a knowledge of the righteousness of God, Paul achieves a new interpretation of the role of the Law in God's overall redemptive purposes. First, he explains the inabdhy of the Law to procure salvation by showing that this was not the divine intention. The Law is secondary to the promise, and God's way of salvation by fahh is found in the promise. To the Galatians, Paul argues that God made a covenant of promise with Abraham long before he gave the Law to Moses (Gal. 3:15-18). Making a play on the word diatheke, which can mean both will-testament and covenant, Paul points out that as a valid human testament cannot be contested or altered by additions, so the promise of God given to Abraham cannot be invalidated by the Law, which came later.5' And since this covenant with Abraham was one of promise, the possibility of righteousness by works is excluded, for promise and Law are mutually exclusive. The promise is no longer promise if it has anything to do with the Law.52 This idea is further supported in Romans by the argument that Abraham did not have the Law but was accounted righteous by faith (Rom. 4:1-5). Paul points out that this righteousness was attained by faith even before the sign of circumcision had been given. Circumcision, then, in its tme significance does not belong to the Law but is a sign and seal of justifying faith (Rom. 4:9-12). 50. G. F. UooK, Judaism, 1:491. 51. See J. Behm, TDNT 2:129. 52. J. Schniewind, TDNT 2:5S2.

The Law

551

It is disappointing to the modern student of Paul and Judaism that Paul does not work out a consistent pattern of the relationship between covenant and Law. Thus he uses diatheke for the covenant of promise made with Abraham (Gal. 3), but he also uses it for the covenant of the Law (2 Cor. 3:14), as well as for the covenant in Christ. Quite certainly, while Paul says that the Law was a dispensation of death, he would not maintain that the old covenant of the Law meant death to all who were under that covenant. On the contrary, the implication of the line of thought in Galatians 3 and Romans 4 is that all Israelites who trusted God's covenant of promise to Abraham and did not use the Law as a way of salvation by works were assured of salvation. This becomes explicit in the case of David, who, though under the Law, pronounced a blessing on the person to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works (Rom. 4:6-7). When Paul speaks of the coming of faith (Gal. 3:25), he does not mean that no one had previously ever exercised saving faith. On the contrary, for Paul faith appeared with Abraham; but fahh could be frustrated when the Law was made a basis of human righteousness and boasting. If salvation is by way of promise and not Law, what was the role of the Law in God's redemptive purpose? In answering this question, Paul comes to conclusions that were both novel and quite unacceptable to Judaism.^3 The Law was added (pareiselthen) not to save people from their sins but to show them what sin was (Rom. 3:20; 5:13, 20; Gal. 3:19). By declaring the will of God, by showing what God forbids, the Law shows what sin is. By forbidding coveting, it shows that coveting is sin (Rom. 7:7). Thus the power of sin is the Law (1 Cor. 15:56), for only by the Law is sin clearly defined. Sayings about the Law making sin to increase (Rom. 5:20) do not mean that it was the Law that actually brought sin into being and made humankind more sinful than it was without the Law. The Law is not itself sinful nor sin-producing (Rom. 7:7). Rather, the Law discloses one's true situation, that one's accountability to God as a sinner may be revealed (Rom. 3:19). Thus the Law is an instrument of condemnation (Rom. 5:13), wrath (Rom. 4:15), and death (Rom. 7:19; 2 Cor. 3:6). It is not the Law itself that produces this tragic situation; it is sin in humankind that makes the Law an instrument of death (Rom. 7:13). The dispensation of the Law can be called a dispensation of death (2 Cor. 3:7), of slavery to the world (Gal. 4:1-10), a covenant of slavery. (Gal. 4:21-31), a period of childhood when one is under the control of guardians (Gal. 3:23-26).54

Certainly Paul does not mean to suggest that all those who lived between

53. H. J. Schoeps, Paul, 174, 183. However, this reinterpretation is due to his Christian perspective and not to the Hellenistic background that Schoeps assumes. 54. These verses describe a time of immaturity and subjection in contrast to maturity and freedom. Eis Christon (v. 24) should therefore be rendered "until Christ" (RSV), not "to hring us to Christ" (KJV).

552

PAUL

Moses and Christ were in such bondage to sin and death that there was no salvation until Christ came. His reference to David (Rom. 4:6-8) disproves that. The promise antedates the Law and was valid both before and after its fulfillment in Christ. Nor does Paul mean that this was his experience as a Jew under the Law. This is his understanding of what the Law, apart from the promise, really accomplishes. Paul's argument in both Romans and Galatians is not designed to instmct Jews how they should understand the Law, but to keep Gentile Christians, who had no racial tie to the I ^ w as Jewish Christians did, from exchanging salvation by grace for salvadon by the works of the Law.55 It is from this same Christian perspective that the much contested passage in Romans 7:13-25 is to be interpreted. The older autobiographical interpretation is very difficult in the hght of Paul's own descriptions of his Jewish life in Galatians 1:14 and PhiUppians 3:5-7.^* It is equally difficult to understand the passage to describe the experience of the defeated Christian who still relies on the flesh in contrast to the victorious Christian who has learned to rely on the Spirh (Rom. 8).^'' Paul's concem in this passage is not life in the flesh but the nature of the Law. "Is the law sin?" (Rom. 7:7). No; but because sin dwells in humanity, the holy Law shows sm to be sm and thus becomes an instmment of death. But it is sin, not the Law, that brings death (Rom. 7:10-11). This theme is further expanded in verses 13-24. The entire chapter em bodies a Christian understanding of the acmal plight of humankind under the Law, whether this corresponds to conscious experience or not. As a Pharisee, Saul was quite satisfied with his obedience to the Law and found therein a cause for pride and boasting. But as a Christian, Paul understands that he was deceived because he had misused the Law. Only in the light of his life m Christ can he understand what his situation under the Law really was; and only as a Christian can he understand why the Law can in fact only condemn a person to death when it is itself holy and just and good. The reason is not the sinful nature of the Law but the sinful nature of humanity. Thus Romans 7 is a picmre of existence under the Law understood from a Christian perspective.^* The will of God therefore is a delight to the individual, and he or she desires to fulfill the highest demand of the Law to love both God and neighbor As Paul looks back 55. See L. Goppelt, Jesus, Paul and Judaism, 147. Also G. F. Moore, Judaism, 3:151. 56. See above, p. 404, for this interpretation. 57. See W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans (1896), 184ff.; W. D. Stacey, The Pauline View of Man (\95f>), 212. C. L. Mitton, "Romans VII Reconsidered," ET(>5 (1953/54), 78ff., 99ff., 132ff., considers it to be the Christian who falls back into reliance on the Law. F. F. Bruce, Romans (1963), 150, the Christian who lives in two ages at once. 58. This viewpoint was supported by J. Denney, Romans: Expositor's Greek Testament, 3:639. The basic work today is W. G. Kiimmel, Romer 7und die Bekehrungdes Paulus (1929), who has been followed by the majority of German scholars. See references cited in Kummel's Man in the NT (1963), 51f. See also C. K. Barrett, Romans, 140, 152; L. Goppelt, Jesus, Paul and Judaism, 146. R. N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 114ff., includes with this interpretation "the human cry . . . of the spiritually sensitive."

The Law

553

on his life as a Jew under the Law, he realizes, contrary to his previous convic tion, that he had not fulfilled the Law. Because of sin residing in his flesh, he was incapable of providing the righteousness God requires, for the good demanded by the Law is not mere outward, formal obedience, but the demand of God for true righteousness.^' Of this a human being is incapable — so in capable, in fact, that it is as though a person's own will was overcome completely by sin, which rules his or her life (vv. 17, 20). Freedom from this bondage to sin and death is found only in Jesus Christ. The Permanence

of the Law

By fulfilling the promise given to Abraham, Christ has ended the age of the Law and inaugurated the age of Christ, which means freedom from bondage and the end of the Law for the believer. However, it is clear that inasmuch as Paul always regards the Law as holy and just and good, he never thinks of the Law as being abolished. It remains the expression of the will of God. This is evident from his frequent assertion that redemption in Christ enables believers in some real sense to fulfDl the Law. In Christ, God has done what the Law could not do, namely, condemned sin in the flesh, that the just requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit (Rom. 8:3-4). Here is paradox: by being freed from the Law, we uphold the Law (Rom. 3:31). It is obvious that the new life in Christ enables the Christian to keep the Law not as an external code but in terms of its higher demand, i.e., at the very point where the Law was powerless because it was an external written code. Thus Paul repeats that the essential Christian ethic of love, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5:22), is the fulfilling of the Law. The whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Gal. 5:14). In place of the Law as a written code is now the law of Christ. This "new law" cannot be reduced to specific rules but goes far beyond legislation. No set of mles can tell one how to bear the burdens of another (Gal. 6:2); only love can dictate such conduct. However, the law of Christ, which is the law of love, does fulfill the Law. Love will not commh adultery, or lie or steal or covet, or do any wrong to one's neighbor (Rom. 12:8-10). Probably Paul refers to this same law of Christ when he expounds his own personal relationship to Law. As a man in Christ, he is no longer under the Law, and therefore he can minister to Gentiles as though he were a Gentile who had no Law (anomos). Yet he is not therefore an antinomian (anomos theou) but ennomos Christou —"subject to the law of Christ."60 Because he is motivated by love, he adapts himself to people of all kinds of conditions to bring them the gospel.*' 59. R. Bultmann, "Romans 7 and the Anthropology of Paul," in Existence and Faith, ed. S. Ogden (1960), 145ff. 60. Cf. BAGD, 267. 61. C. H. Dodd, "Ennomos Christou," in More New Testament Studies (1968), 134-48,

554

PAUL

The permanence of the Law is reflected further in the fact that Paul appeals to specific commands in the Law as the norm for Christian conduct. He appeals to several specific commandments (entolai) of the Decalogue that are fulfilled by love (Rom. 13:8-10). His reference to "any other commandment" designates everything in the Law that relates to one's neighbor. Yet it was the character of the Law as entolai that marked its extemality. Again, Paul quotes the command to love father and mother as the fhst commandment with a promise (Eph. 6:2). It is clear that the Law continues to be the expression of the will of God for conduct, even for those who are no longer under the Law. It is quite clear, however, that the permanent aspect of the Law is the ethical and not the ceremonial. "For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God" (1 Cor. 7:19). Most of the studies on Paul emphasize the fact that Paul does not explicitly distinguish between the ethical and ceremonial aspects of the Law. This is of course tme; but the implicit distincdon is unavoidable and should be stressed. Although circumcision is a command of God and a part of the Law, Paul sets circumcision in contrast to the commandments, and m doing so separates the ethical from the ceremonial — the permanent from the temporal. Thus he can commend the entolai theou to Gentiles, and yet adamantly reject the ceremonial entolai, such as circumcision, foods, feasts, and even sabbath keeping (Col. 2:16), for these are but a shadow of the realhy that has come in Christ. Thus Christ has brought the Law as a way of righteousness and as a ceremonial code to its end; but the Law as the expression of the will of God is permanent; and the person indwelt by the Holy Spirit and thus energized by love is enabled to fulfill the Law as people under the Law never could.

followed by R. N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 183-90, feels that the law of Christ is not the law of love but a body of traditional sayings of Jesus that provided an objective basis for Christian conduct. While the existence of such a tradition is established, we do not feel that the "law of Christ" is this tradition conceived as a new law for die Christian community.

37. The Christian Life

Literature: C. H. Dodd, "The Ethics of the Pauhne Epistles," in The Evolution of Ethics, ed. E. H. Sneath (1927); M. S. Enslin, The Ethics of Paul (1930); C. A. A. Scott, NT Ethics (1930); F. V. Filson, St Paul's Conception of Recompense (1931); E. H. Wahlstrom, The New Life in Christ (1950); W. A. Beardslee, Human Achievement and Divine Vocation in the Message of Paul (1961); R. Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the NT (1965); R. C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ (1967),

77-83; C. F. D. Moule, "Obligation in the Ethic of Paul," in Christian History and Interpretation, ed. J. Knox, W. Farmer, et al. (1967), 389-406; V. R Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (1968) — with extensive bibliography; idem, The Love Command in the NT (1972); E. Schweizer, "Traditional Ethical Patterns in the Pauline and Post-Pauline Letters and Their Development (Lists of Vices and House-Tables)," in Text and Interpretation, ed. E. Best (1979), 195-209; L. E. Keck, "The Law and 'the Law of Sin and Death' (Rom. 8:1-4): Reflections on the Spirit and Ethics in Paul," in The Divine Helmsman, ed. J. Crenshaw (1980), 41-57; J. D. G. Dunn, "Salvation Proclaimed, 6: Rom 6:1-11: Dead and Alive," £ 7 93 (1982), 259-64; R Perkins, "Paul and Ethics," Int 38 (1984), 268-80; S. Westerholm, "Letter and Spirit: The Foundation of Pauline Ethics," NTS 3 0 (1984), 229-48; M. D. Hooker, "Interchange in Christ and Ethics," 7 5 ^ 25 (1985), 3-17; R. B. Hays, "Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ," CBQ 49 (1987), 268-90; R. Banks, " 'Walking' as a Metaphor of the Christian Life: The Origins of a Significant Pauline Usage," in Perspectives on Lan guage and Text, ed. E. Conrad and E. Newing (1987), 303-13; W. Schrage, The Ethics of the NT (1988); J. M. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance:

Staying

In and

Falling

Away (1990); V. P. Furnish, "Belonging to Christ: A Paradigm of Ethics in First Corinthians," Int 44 (1990), 145-57; W. A. Meeks, "The Circle of Reference in Pauline Morality," in Greeks, Romans and Christians, ed. D. Balch (1990), 305-17; E. Lohse, Theological

Ethics

of the NT (1991).

We have already outlined Paul's v i e w of the situation of the person in Christ. We must n o w ask about Paul's v i e w of the Christian life, of Christian conduct, of Christian ethics. What is his concept of the g o o d life? H o w does the n e w life in Christ manifest itself in practical conduct?

555

556

PAUL

Wc are defining "ethics" in the broadest sense of the word to include both personal conduct and the Christian attitude toward social ethics. When one reads Paul with this question in mind, it becomes obvious at once that he has no ethical system. This can easily be illustrated by the most casual reading of Paul's lists of virtues. The "fmh of the Spirh" in Galatians 5:22, 23 is often taken as normative for Paul's concept of the good Christian life, but these virtues must be compared with the similar lists in Philippians 4:8 and Colossians 3:12-15.1 There is no overlapping between the list in Philippians and the other two lists; and there are only four virtues that occur more than once: love, kindness, meekness, and longsuffering. Such lists do not offer a formal ethic, nor are they designed to portray the pattern of the good person or the Christian ideal toward which all are to strive.^ They are rather different ways Paul addresses himself to concrete historical situations to explain how the new life in Christ is to express itself. Sources Closely related to the namre of the Pauline ethic is the question of the sources upon which he drew, and the influences that formulated his thmking about Christian conduct. It is highly improbable that his ethical instmction is his original creation, or that he received it by divine revelation. On the contrary, several different influences can be detected if they cannot be cleariy isolated.' It seems beyond question tiiat one of the strongest influences was the Old Testament. While Paul strongly affirms that for those in Christ the Law has come to its end (Rom. 10:4), yet he regards the Old Testament as the revelation of the will of God." He appeals to several specific commands of the Decalogue that the Christian fulfills by love (Rom. 13:8-10). He refers to the command to love father and mother as a standard of Christian conduct (Eph. 6:2). As a Christian, he continued to regard the Old Testament as a book "wrhten for our instmction" (Rom. 15:4). However, it is significant that Paul never quotes the Old Testament at length for the purpose of developing a pattem of conduct. "There is no evidence which indicates that the apostle regarded it as in any sense a source book for detailed moral instruction or even a manual of ethical norms."^ He never attempts to codify or interpret in a formal way the ethical and moral teachings of the Old Testament. No direct influence from the intertestamental literature can be established. Some scholars detect a strong mfluence from Paul's rabbinic background. Indeed, W. D. Davies thinks that Paul would describe himself as a "Christian 1. See L. Dewar, NT Ethics (1949), 143. 2. V. P. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (1968), 87. 3. See particularly Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, part one; M. Enslin, The Ethics of Paul (1930), part one. 4. See above, pp. 432ff. 5. V. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 33.

The Christian Life

557

Rabbi," teaching a new Torah* While we would expect to find rabbinic influ ences, it is going too far to say that Paul is a self-conscious bearer and interpreter of that tradition, or that his ethical teaching embodies substantial reformulation of rabbinic materials.^ Clear evidences of Hellenistic influence can be detected in the Pauline terminology and style.* Once Paul quotes a Greek proverb, "Bad company ruins good morals" (1 Cor. 15:33), but this does not prove literary dependence. Greek influence is seen in Paul's use of the metaphors of warfare (2 Cor. 10:3ff.; 1 Thess. 5:8) or of athletic competition (1 Cor. 9:25); in the use of the idioms "what is fitting" (Phlm. 8; C o l . 3:18; Eph. 4:5), "what is seemly" (Eph. 5:3), "what is shameful" (Eph. 5:12); and particularly in the virtues listed in Philippi ans 4:8. The words for "lovely" (prosphiles), "gracious" (euphemos), "excel lence" {arete, which means moral excellence or virtue), and "praiseworthy" (epainos) are drawn from Hellenistic ethical vocabulary. While there can be no doubt that Paul used the language drawn from the vocabulary of Hellenistic popular philosophy, he uses it differently than contemporary Greek teachers. He is not concerned to portray the ideal of perfect humanity; he is altogether concerned with the new life in Christ and how it should manifest itself. Thus he makes use of two common Hellenistic concepts — "freedom" (eleutheria) and "contentment" (autarkeia) — b u t gives them a very different meaning. The free person is the one who is a slave of Christ, and contentment does not mean self-sufficiency but contentment with God's provision for life. Hellenistic thought is detected at two particular points. Paul frequently refers to the conscience {syneidesis; eleven times in the Corinthian correspon dence). The important fact here is that there is no word for conscience in Hebrew. The one place where the word appears in the LXX whh the same meaning it has in Paul is Wisdom of Solomon 17:10, which was influenced by Greek philosophy. Conscience for Paul, as in the Hellenistic world, was the universal human capacity to judge one's own actions.' However, Paul does not conceive of the conscience as an authoritative guide for moral action or a norm for conduct. Conscience tells a person that there is right and wrong; it is not a safe guide to give him or her the content of the right.'" Another term of distinctive Hellenistic philosophy is "nature" (physis).

6. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1955), 45. 7. V. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 42. 8. See ibid, 45-49; R. Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the NT (1965), 303-6. For efforts to detect direct literary influence from Greek writers, see the literaUire in V. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 45. For parallels with Stoicism, see J. B. Lightfoot, "St. Paul and Seneca," Philippians (1878), 270ff. 9. See V. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 229. See also R. Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the NT, 287ff.; C. A. Pierce, Conscience in the NT (1955); W. D. Davies, IDB 1:67]-76. 10. R. Bultmann, Theology of the NT (1951), 1:218.

558

PAUL

Paul asserts that Gentiles who do not have the revealed Law of God are able "by nature" to do what the Law demands (Rom. 2:14). Some scholars understand this to be a reflection of popular Greek philosophy." However, while the lan guage may be borrowed from Greek thought, Paul uses it m a non-Greek way. His thought is not that there is a universal natural law intrinsic to human nature, but that God the Creator has implanted in humanity a knowledge of right and wrong. When anyone obeys the positive leadings of conscience, he or she does "by nature," i.e., insdnctively, die right thing. However, the reason for Paul's appeal to nature and conscience is not primarily to suggest that human beings have an intrinsic inner guide for correct ethical conduct. It is rather to assert that even those who do not have the revealed Law do have an inner sense of right and wrong, but have failed to be obedient to the light they have even as the Jews have faded to keep the Law. Another important source for Paul's ethical teaching is the teaching of Jesus. Some scholars have felt that Paul's ethic was basically a fresh interpreta don of Jesus' ethical teaching in a completely different serting," while others feel that the Pauline ethic was a radical distortion of Jesus' teaching." The question is by no means an easy one. On a few occasions Paul appeals directly to the authority of the Lord: in the matter of divorce (1 Cor. 7:10-11), concerning the support of Christian workers (1 Cor. 9:14), concerning conduct of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. ll:22ff.), concerning the coming of the Lord (1 Thess. 4:15), and in general (1 Cor. 14:37). In other places Paul cleariy echoes teachings of Jesus whhout referring to them: Rom. 12:14 = Mt. 5:44; Rom. 12:17 = Mt. 5:39ff.; Rom. 13:7 = Mt. 22:15-22; Rom. 14:13-14 = Lk. 17:1-2; Rom. 14:14 = Mk. 7:15: 1 Thess. 5:2 = Mt. 24:34; 1 Thess. 5:13 = Mk. 9:50; 1 Thess. 5:15 = Mt. 5:39-47. Such references make it clear that Paul was familiar widi a body of ethical tradition coming from Jesus. His statement that he has no word of the Lord concerning those who are not married (1 Cor 7:25) confirms this. That he is careful to distinguish between his own opinion and the word of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:12) reinforces tiiis conclusion. However, we cannot but be impressed by the fact that Paul appeals to the ethical teaching of Jesus very infrequently and even less frequently directly quotes him. "One must regard with some surprise the fact that the teaching of the earthly Jesus seems not to play as vital, or at least as obvious, a role in Paul's concrete ethical instmction as the Old Testament."''' Furthermore, Paul never refers to Jesus as a teacher or to his followers as disciples. A few scholars have interpreted Paul's reference to the "law of Christ"

11. For references see M. Enslin, The Ethics of St. Paul, 102ff.; V. Furnish, Theology arui Ethics in Paul, 49. 12. C. A. A. Scott, NT Ethics (1930). 13. J. Knox, The Ethic of Jesus and the Teaching of the Church (1961). 14. V. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 55.

The Christian Life

559

(Gal. 6:2) to refer to a more or less fixed body of tradition coming from Jesus; and when Paul asserts that he is "under the law of Christ" (ennomos Christou, 1 Cor. 9:21), he means that he is bound by an ethical tradition coming from Jesus.1* This conclusion is difficult to sustain.'^ There is no proof that Paul knew an extensive body of ethical tradition coming from Jesus. It is far more likely that the law of Christ is the law of love that Jesus said embodied the totality of the Old Testament Law (Mt. 22:40).i8 From this survey of the possible sources for Paul's ethical thought, several conclusions emerge. It is clear that Paul is no nomist. He does not try to substitute a new Christian code of ethics to replace the Old Testament Law. On the other hand, he has strong convictions about correct Christian conduct. The sources of his ethical thinking are complex. The substructure of his thought is the Old Testament. He does not hesitate to make use of Hellenistic concepts, but these are always interpreted in terms of the new life in Christ. Paul draws upon all the ethical ideals available to him to express his convictions about how the Christian should live. Motivations What are the motivations for Christian living?" A popular view is that the central motivation is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Paul is said to have taught that "The Spirit of God in action in a man's heart was an adequate ethical guide, and that a man under the sway of the Spirit knew from within what the will of God was and was enabled both to will and to do i t . . . ."^o Marshall does go on to say that Paul recognized that few Christians were mature and that the majority were babes. However, such a sweeping statement is misleading, for Paul appeals not only to the indwelling of the Spirit as a motivating power but to many other principles as well. Furthermore, it is not altogether clear to what extent Paul considered the Spirh to impart to beUevers an mtuitive knowledge of the right; and we shall see that his doctrine of the indwelling of the Spirit is not thought of as an inner spontaneous power but involves the tension between the indicative and the imperative. Nor is it clear that the indwelling of the Spirit is thought of as the most important motivation.

15. See W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1953), 136ff.; IDB 2:175. For the existence of pre-Pauline oral didache, see D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul (1964), 207f. 16. C. H. Dodd, "Ennomos Christou," in Studia Paulina (1953), 96ff. 17. Cf. the thorough criticism by V. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 56-65. 18. See ibid, 64 and references. 19. For some of the older points of view, see M. E. Andrews, "The Problem of Motive in the Ethics of PiuW JR 13 (1933), 200-215. See C. A. A. Scott, NT Ethics, ch. 4. 20. L. H. Marshall, The Challenge of NT Ethics (1947), p. 220. Wahlstrom thinks that the indwelling Christ enables Christians to know of themselves what is right or wrong. See E. H. Wahlstrom, The New Life in Christ (1950), 152.

560

PAUL

Sometimes Paul simply appeals to reason and good sense.^' Drankenness is debauchery and min (Eph. 5:18). Christians should so live as to command the respect of outsiders (1 Thess. 4:12) and the approval of others (Rom. 14:18). Christians should shun anything that brings shame (Eph. 5:12). The list of virmes in Philippians 4:8-9 is self-commending, and Paul's appeal here is simply to the good judgment of his readers. Such motivations are, however, quite secondary; the primary motivations are profoundly theological. Paul does make some use of the motivation of the imitation of Christ, but he refers explichly to such imitation only once. The Thessalonians had become "imitators of us and of the Lord" in the way they received the gospel (1 Thess. 1:6). The emphasis appears to rest on the fact that they received h "in much affliction." The same idea appears in Corinthians: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1). The context of this imitatio Christi is sacrificial service. Paul did not pursue his own personal ends but sought the welfare of those to whom he ministered. "I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage" (1 Cor. 10:33). The same idea is behind the great christological passage in Philippians 2:5ff., where Paul holds up the example of Christ's sacrificial obedience to the Father to show that Christians should not seek theh own interests but the interests of others. By inference, Paul points to the example of Christ, who, though he was rich, "yet for your sake . . . he became poor" in his incarnation (2 Cor. 8:9) that the Corinthians might serve their fellow Christians in Jemsalem by making a generous gift to them in their poverty. It is true that Paul does not hold up the earthly life of Jesus as a standard of moral excellence.22 Christ is, however, to be imitated in his self-effacing love and in the giving of himself in suffering and death.23

It has been frequently recognized that the Pauline ethic is firmly rooted in his theology. Paul saw the root of all wickedness in irreligion.2* The negative picture Paul paints of pagan society with hs cormption and vices stems from the fact that they did not see fit to acknowledge God (Rom. 1:28). Ungodliness precedes wickedness and is hs ultimate source (Rom. 1:18). Rejection of God led to darkness and all kinds of ethical folly. On the positive side, one of the main theological motifs is that of union with Christ. This tmth is expressed in several ways. Paul had to deal whh a very lax moralhy in Corinth, apparently because of gnostic influences, which led certain of the Corinthians to claim that what was done with the body was a matter of indifference to the spirit; for the body was of no consequence to the 21. C. A. A. Scott calls this "The Intuition of an Educated Conscience." NT Ethics, 101. 22. W. Michaelis, TDNT 4:672. 23. See V. Furnish, Theology ami Ethics in Paul, 218-24; L. Dewar, NT Ethics, 134. 24. L. H. Marshall, The Challenge of NT Ethics, 234; see also L. Dewar, NT Ethics, 122ff.; D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul, 205-9.

The Christian Life

561

spiritual person. Their call was "All things are lawful to me" (1 Cor. 6:12), even sexual license. Paul answers this aberration by reminding the Corinthians that they were united to Christ, not only in their spirits but in their total being. "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" (1 Cor. 6:15). Here emerges the tension between the indicative and the imperative. Because of certain redemptive facts, certain resuhs inevitably accrue. I have been joined to Christ (indicative); therefore I must live in a certain way (imperative). I have been joined to Christ; therefore 1 cannot enter into illicit relationships with prostitutes. That this way of thinking stands at the heart of Paul's theology is proven by Romans 6, where the same truth of union whh Christ is expressed in a somewhat different idiom. If one has been acquitted in justification from all guih in the eyes of God, is he or she therefore not free to sin with impunity? This Paul says is impossible. "We were buried therefore with him by baptism unto death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4). Baptism is a representation of union with Christ in his death and resurrection. "You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were raised with hun through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:12). By faith men and women are united with Christ in his death and raised up into a new life (mdicative); therefore they should walk in newness of life (imperative), and this new life cannot be one in which the believer is indifferent to sin. Therefore the position reflected in the question, "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Rom. 6:1) embodies a patent internal contradiction. The ethical significance of union with Christ is again illustrated in Ephesians 2, where this union is expressed in terms of new life through identification with Christ in his resurrection and ascension. The believer is raised to newness of life, and even exalted to heaven to be seated with Christ at the right hand of God. The contrast between the old life and the new life is expressed primarily in ethical terms. Outside of faith in Christ, people are dead — but dead through trespasses and sins, living under the domination of "the passions of [the] flesh, following the desires of body and mind" (Eph. 2:3). The new life in Christ, which is a new creation, expresses itself in good works (Eph. 2:10). Here again are the indicative and the imperative: the believer who was dead in sins is now alive with Christ (indicative); she or he is therefore to live a life of good works (imperative). Another motivation for conduct well pleasing to God is the indwelling of Christ and the Holy Spirit^s As we have seen, some interpreters of Paul feel that this is for him the most important motivation. Marshall places great emphasis upon the contrast Paul makes between the old economy and the new age with its inner dynamic of the Sphit. Paul insists that for the Christian the code-method is no more and the spirit-method has taken its place. The Law has been abolished both as a 25. See above, pp. 530f.

562

PAUL

principle of salvation and as the principle of conduct. "Paul insists that Christianity is not a Code (an extemal control), but a 'Spirh' (an intemal control)."^* Paul found the secret of the good life in a good disposition, and the secret of a good disposition is the sway of the Spirit of God over the inner life of humankind.^^ This interpreta tion of Paul is flatly contradicted by the fact that Paul appeals to the statutes of the Law as the revealed will of God normative for Christian conduct.^* His contrast between the extemal written code and the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:3) does not mean that Paul views the indwelling of the Spirit as a spontaneous power that will enable people to do the right automatically, nor does Paul set aside the Old Testament Law in toto. The Law has come to an end as a way of righteousness (Rom. 10:4). But Paul distinguishes between the Law as legal code and as the abiding revelation of God,^' and more than once he asserts that h is the new life of the Spirit that enables the Christian tmly to fulfill the Law (Rom. 8:3-4; 13:10; Gal. 5:14). It is clear that Paul conceives of the Spirit as a new indwelling power that manifests itself in conduct. The new life is the gift of the Sphit (2 Cor. 3:6; Gal. 6:25), and this life evidences itself in the "fruit of the Spirh" (Gal. 5:20), which Paul interprets in terms of Christian virtues. An obvious contrast is intended between works and fmit: between human effort and an inner spiritual dynamic. The indwelling of tiie Sphit means a new experience of love (Rom. 5:5), freedom (Rom. 8:2), and service (Rom. 7:6). However, it is not clear that Paul conceives of the indwelling of the Spirh as an inner spontaneous power that issues in gradual progress and growth in Christian virmes.^" That Paul expects growth in moral character is clear. "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness fi'om one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirh" (2 Cor. 3:18). However, in this passage the Spirit is not the indwelling power of the new life but is identified whh the ascended, glorified Lord. The Christian's preoccupation with the exalted Lord whl mean that he or she will be more and more conformed to the image of Christ. However, the context of the passage is that of ministry. "Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God . . . " (2 Cor. 4:1). "What is described is the doxa of the office, of proclamation, of keryssomen (4:5),"" not general moral excellence.

26. L. H. Marshall, The Challenge of NT Ethics, 229. 21. Ibid., 231. 28. See above, pp. 547ff. 29. See pp. 553f. 30. V. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 240-41; M. BouUier, Christianity accord ing to Paul (1%6), 22ff. In his discussion of "Progress, Growth, and Perfection," W. A. Beardslee makes very little reference to the transforming power of the indwelling Spirit. See Human Achievement and Divine Vocation in the Message of Paul (1961), 66-78. 31. G. Kittel, TDNT 2:251. P. Ramsay understands this to refer to fully obedient love. Basic Christian Ethics (1950), 259.

The Christian Life

563

It is striking that Paul does not appeal to the Spirit as a direct source of moral enlightenment. Paul is conscious that the Holy Spirit reveals the things of God (1 Cor. 2:10), but this does not mean that Paul feels himself to be independent of the Old Testament and the teaching of Jesus.^^ There is only one place where Paul appeals to the Spirit as a moral guide, and here, while he claims to have the Spirit, he only gives his opinion (1 Cor. 7:40). In his most extended hortatory passage (Rom. 12:1-15:13), there are only three passing references to the Spirit (Rom. 12:11; 14:17; 15:13), none of which suggests that the Spirit is a moral guide. It is doubtful whether Paul conceives of the Spirit as a source of the spontaneous knowledge of right and wrong. In fact, he never propounds any theory about how the right is known.^^ The Spirit is an indwelling power to enable the believer to live in accordance with the will of God. Even here we find the tension between the indicative and the imperative. "If we live by the Spirit [indicative: the new life is from the Spirit], let us also walk by the Spirit [imperative]" (Gal. 5:25). However, this new life of the Spirit is not a free, inner, spontaneous power but one that finds itself in tension with the flesh. The flesh and the Spirit are opposed to each other, "to prevent you from doing what you would" (Gal. 5:17). This dialectic is solved only by a life of sustained decision. This requires a constant denial of the flesh and an equally constant "walking in the Spirit." "As you have always obeyed, so now . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you" (Phil. 2:12). This is what it means to be led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 5:18). Closely associated with the indwelling of the Spirit is the doctrine of sanctification.3" A widely prevailing view is that justification is the term designating the beginning of the Christian life, while sanctification designates development of that life through the internal work of the Spirit.35 This, how ever, is an oversimplification of the New Testament teaching, and it obscures an important truth. In fact, the idea of sanctification is soteriological before it is a moral concept.^^ The very idea of "holiness" is first of all cultic, and secondarily moral. Procksch goes so far as to say that holiness in the New Testament does not refer to ethical conduct but to a condition of ethical innocence.37 Sanctification is not a synonym for moral growth.^* What is holy is dedicated to God or in some way belongs to the service of God. Israel as a

32. See the claim by E. F Scott, The Spirit in the NT (1923), 172-73. 33. V. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 231-33. 34. See articles by O. Procksch, TDNT 1:107-15; E. C. Blackman in IDB 4:212f.; V. Taylor, Forgiveness and Reconciliation (1941), section 5; V. P. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 153ff. 35. See G. B. Stevens, The Theology of the NT (1906), 437. 36. See V. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 155. 37. See O. Procksch, TWNT 1:110. The German at this point is very difficult and the English translation {TDNT 1:109) is not altogether clear. 38. See E. Blackman, IDB 4:212.

564

PAUL

people even in disbelief remains a holy people for the patriarchs' sake (Rom. 11:16). The children of mixed marriages are holy because of one beheving parent (1 Cor. 7:14). The church as a whole is a holy temple (Eph. 2:21). When Paul says that the unmarried girl or woman is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirh (1 Cor 7:34), he cannot be referring to an ethical state, or else marriage itself is unclean; and this completely contradicts Paul's thought. Holiness here is complete, undisturbed dedication to the things of God. The RSV does well to render the verb "consecrated" where Paul speaks of foods that some people regarded as unclean for cultic reasons but that cannot be considered culdcally unclean when consecrated to God (1 Tim. 4:5; see also 2 Tim. 2:21). When applied to Christians, holiness or sanctification is not in the first place an ethical concept although it includes the ethical aspect. It denotes first of all a soteriological truth that Christians belong to God. They are God's people. This is why the most common use of hagios in Paul is to designate all Christians as saints'' — the people of God. Christians are holy even in their bodily exis tence when they give themselves to God (Rom. 12:1). Believers from among the Gentiles come into the holy people of God, "sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 15:16). Even more important than this is the fact that all believers are viewed as aheady sanctified in Christ. In this sense, sanctification does not designate growth in ethical conduct but is a redemptive truth. Paul addresses the Corinthians among whom existed scandalous sins not only as saints but as those sanctified in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:2; see also 1:30). Cleansing, sancdfication, justification are factual events of the past. Sanctification here means inclusion in the people whom God claims as his own."" "Sanctification consists not in a particular moral quality which has been attained but in a particular relationship to God which has been given.""' Sanctification has an eschatological goal. It is God's purpose that the church should be finally presented to him in splendor, "without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:27; see Col. 1:22; 1 Thess. 3:13; 5:23). Because believers do belong to God — because they have been sanctified — they are called upon to experience sanctification and to shun uncleanness. Whhe sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirh (2 Thess. 2:13), h also involves a human response. Paul calls upon the Corinthians to cleanse them selves from every defilement of body and spirit, and to make holiness perfect in fear of God (2 Cor 7:1). Believers are no longer to yield themselves to impurity but to righteousness for sanctification (Rom. 6:19). God has not called us for uncleanness but in holiness (1 Thess. 4:7). It should be noted that when the ethical aspect of sanctification is stressed. 39. See below, p. 589. 40. C. K. Barrett, First Corinthians (1968), 142. 41. V. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 155.

The Christian Life

565

it is concerned primarily with purity. The opposite of holiness is uncleanness (akatharsia) (1 Thess. 4:7). Sanctification is particularly concerned with sexual purity (1 Thess. 4:4), but closely associated with sexual unpurity is covetousness (lit., "a desu-e to have more"). The idea of covetousness is greediness, possessiveness, acquisitiveness. Immorality is sinful because people seek to possess something that does not belong to them, to which they have no right or claim. Both immorality and covetousness are viewed as uncleanness or filthiness. Covetousness means in the ultimate issue insatiableness, to the final exclusion of all spu-itual values.''^ Paul's emphasis on moral purity was undoubtedly due to the prevalence of sexual sins in the Hellenistic world, particularly in the practice of pagan religions. The one who is completely devoted to God will manifest his or her Christian devotion by separation from typical pagan sinfulness. Sanctification is not a term designating the totality of the good Ufe as such, but one that denotes the dedication of Christians to God in contrast to the prevailing evils of their society. The important point to note is that there is a tension between the indicative and the imperative. Sanctification is a factual past event (indicative); therefore it is to be experienced here and now (imperative). Believers have been sanctified; tiierefore they are to cleanse themselves from all that defiles. Therefore it is not correct to say that justification is the beginning and sanctification the continua tion of the Christian life. Both involve the tension between indicative and imperative. Since we have been justified by faith, we have''^ peace with God (Rom. 5:1). Since we have been sanctified — set apart to be God's people — we are to live as God's people and shun all tiiat would defile. Therefore the fact of accomplished sanctification is one of the motivations to which Paul appeals for ethical conduct, particularly in the sexual sphere. Another strong motive influencing conduct is eschatology. Christians as well as the world must stand before the judgment seat of God (Rom. 14:10) and of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10) "so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body." While believers have not received the spirit of bondage to fear (Rom. 8:15), they are nevertheless exhorted to "make holiness perfect in the fear of God" (2 Cor. 7:1). Slaves are exhorted to exercise obedience in fear and trembling (Eph. 6:5), and Christians are to work out their salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12); wrongdoers will be paid back for the wrong they have done (Col. 3:25). Two different questions are raised in consideration of the eschatological motive: those of rewards and punishment for believers.''" As to rewards, Paul's thought is fairly clear. He uses the motivation of rewards more as an incentive 42. a. C. A. A. Scott, NT Ethics, 112£f.; G. Delling, TDNT 6:271-13. 43. A strongly attested reading is "let us have." 44. See F. V. Filson, St. Paul's Conception of Recompense (1931), 83-115.

566

PAUL

to faithful and effective ministry than to ethical living; but the two cannot be completely separated. The day of judgment will test every person's service for Christ. Those who have built upon the foundation of Christ will receive a reward. "If any man's work is burned up, he wdl suffer loss, though he hhnself will be saved, only as through fire" (1 Cor. 3:15). Those who have a proper foundation but produce an unworthy work will not experience exclusion from the Kingdom but die loss of privdege and poshion in the Kingdom. We must conclude that Paul thought of graded poshions in the Kingdom, which would be bestowed on the basis of Christian faithfulness.''^ A more difficuh question is whether Paul thinks that believers wdl lose their salvation if they deny their profession by grossly sinful lives. Several passages sound Idee it. When Paul writes the Galatians that he who "sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap cormption" (Gal. 6:8), h is difficult to think that this is only of theoretical interest to Christians but that all believers will ipso facto sow to the Spirit. The stem warning of destmction upon those who destroy the church by false teaching and schism (1 Cor. 3:17) certainly refers to leaders in the church. Paul's admonhion to the Corinthians not to emulate the fad of the Israelites in the wildemess (1 Cor 10:6ff.) by immoral conduct suggests that salvation must evidence itself in moral living if it is real. The wammg that humoral or hnpure people or idolaters wid not inherh the Kingdom of God (Eph. 5:5) is addressed to Christians. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that when Paul describes his own self-discipUne because he is engaged in a race to win an imperishable prize (brabeion) that is the goal of all Christians, he is referrmg to the prize of etemal life. In another passage the same word is used to refer to the resurrection (Phil. 3:11).''* The crown he hopes to win at the end of the race is the crown of life — the eschatological gift of God."^ Therefore when Paul contemplates the possibility that if he should "run aimlessly" he would be "disqualified" {adokimos, 1 Cor 9:27), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is thmking of the possible failure to reach the goal of the Christian lifc-^ From these passages and others like them, we must conclude that Paul uses the motivation of the final attainment of salvation in the Kingdom of God as a motivation to faithful and devoted Christian living. It is significant that Paul does not use the ethical sanction in any theoretical way that leads him to discuss the possibilhy of losing salvation; he uses it as a sanction to moral earnestness to avoid having the gospel of grace distorted into Hellenistic enthusiasm, liber tinism, or moral passivity."' There is a deliberate tension in Paul's ethical 45. Ibid., 108, 115. 46. See E. Stauffer, TDNT 1:638-39. 47. See W. Gmndmann in TDNT 7:630. 48. See E V. Filson, St Paul's Conception of Recompense, 93, 103; C. K. Banett, First Corinthians, 218. 49. H. Preisker, TDNT 4:722.

The Christian Life

567

exhortations: work out your own salvation . . . for it is God who works in you (Phil. 2:12). Eternal life is a free gift of God (Rom. 6:23), but it is at the same time a reward bestowed on those who have manifested steadfast loyahy in persecutions and afflictions (2 Thess. l:4ff.). Those who sow to the Spirit will reap the harvest of eternal life (Gal. 6:8). The most important motivation for Christian living is love. Love is the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2).^*' This means that the whole of ethical conduct can be subsumed in the principle of love, as Jesus taught (Mk. 10:30-31). Love fulfills the demands of the Law.'i The Spirit is the Spirh of love (Rom. 15:30; Col. 1:8) who has shed abroad the love of God in our hearts (Rom. 5:5). The fruit of the Spirh is nothing but a commentary on the first fruit, showing how love acts (Gal. 5:22-23). The most excellent charisma, which all should covet, is love (1 Cor. 13). "It is love which activates all human conduct (Col. 3:14). . . . The noble hymn of 1 Cor. 13 is at the centre of all Paul's teaching both for individual and social ethics."52 One of the most vivid illustrations of how love should work out in Chris tian fellowship is seen in the problem raised by foods offered to idols. Every Hellenistic city had a large quota of temples, and most of the meat sold in the macellum or market (1 Cor. 10:25) had come from a temple where it had first been sacrificed to a pagan dehy, part of h possibly eaten at a feast in the temple, the rest sold to the public in the market. Jews were forbidden to eat foods that had been sacrificed to idols. The early church advised Gentile Christians in Asia Minor to abstain from these meats, not as a ground of salvation but as a modus Vivendi with Jewish Christians who were deeply offended by the practice (Acts 15:20). In such chies as Rome and Corinth (Rom. 14:1-23; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 10:1433), the situation was different. Paul seems not to have imposed the terms of the Jerusalem decree beyond Asia Minor. Christians in European chies were divided over the issue. Some felt that such food was unclean because it had been in association with pagan worship, while others feh that the food itself was not cultically contaminated and could be freely eaten. This created dissension in the churches. Those who ate these foods despised the narrow scruples of those who did not, while those who abstained sharply crhicized and condemned those who ate (Rom. 14:2-4). Paul's solution to the problem embodies a tension between freedom and love. He expressly forbids active participation in feasts in the temple (1 Cor. 8:10). However, he clearly sides with those who feel that such foods are not 50. V. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 64 and references in n. I l l ; R. N. Flew, Jesus and His Way {\9()y), 104ff.; L. De war, AT ErWcs, 27ff., 128. For a different interpretation of the "law of Christ," see above, pp. 558f 51. See p. 553. 52. A. S. Herbert, "Biblical Ethics," in A Companion to the Bible, ed. H. H. Rowley (1963), 434.

568

PAUL

unclean, and Christians are free in Christ to partake of any foods; nothing is unclean of itself (Rom. 14:14). He characterizes those who have strong scruples in such matters as weak in faith (Rom. 14:1). He clearly advises Christians to eat whatever they buy in the market without raising questions of conscience (1 Cor. 10:25). Furthermore, if a Christian has a pagan friend who invhes him or her to dinner, the Christian is free to engage in such social intercourse and to eat what is served without asking questions (1 Cor. 10:26). Those who have scruples against such food are to exercise love by not condemning those who have no such scruples (Rom. 14:3). On the other hand, those who feel free to eat are to show love by not despising those whh strong scruples (Rom. 14:3). Those whose conscience offends them must not eat (Rom. 14:22); those whose conscience is clear are free to eat. However, love requires that when those whh a free conscience find themselves in a situation where the exercise of their freedom would really offend other Christians and cause them to violate their conscience and thus lead them to sin, in love those with a free conscience are to abstain. It would seem obvious that such abstinence is recommended only in cases where the weaker Christian would be actually caused to sin; otherwise the whole standard of conduct in such matters would be decreed by the rigorism of the weakest members. "If the weaker brother's conscience is to govern the behavior of Christians generally, then Christian morality is inevhably bound in the fetters of rigorism."53 The basic principle is clear: personal freedom must be tempered by love for other Christians. It is clear that such love is not an emotion but Christian concern in action. Indicative and

Imperative

We have found in several of the Pauline motivations for Christian living a tension between the indicative and the imperative. This is a reflection of the fundamental theological substructure of the whole of Pauline thinking: the tension between the two ages.^" Christians live in two ages. They are chizens of the new age while they still live in the old age. The new has come (2 Cor. 5:17) while the old remains. The indicative involves the affirmation of what God has done to inaugurate the new age; the imperative involves the exhortation to live out this new life in the setting of the old world. The new is not wholly spontaneous and irresistible. It exists in a dialectical tension with the old. Therefore the simple indicative is not enough; there must always be the imperative — humanity's response to God's deed. This has profound significance for Pauline ethics,'^ and it can be explicitly illustrated from the hortatory portion of Paul's most theological letter: Romans

53. L. Dewar, NT Ethics, 173. 54. See above, pp. 407ff. 55. It is the merit of V. Furnish to have accomplished this theological basis of the Pauline ethic as no previous scholar had done. See Theology and Ethics in Paul.

The Christian Life

569

12:1-15:21.5* "I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spirimal worship. Do not be conformed to this world (aion), but be trans formed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom. 12:1-2). The mercies of God (indicative) mean all that has been accompUshed in the revelation of the righteousness of God (Rom. 1:17, indicative). On the basis of what God has done, Paul summons Christians to the uhimate act of worship by offering themselves to God (imperative). This meaning of the imperative is further expanded in the exhortation not to be conformed to this age. Christians live in this age, but their life pattem, their standard of conduct, their aims and goals are not those of this age, which are essentially human-centered and prideful. The aim of the individual who has experienced the life of the new age is to conform to the will of God. However, the will of God is not a decision that arises from within in answer to each moral decision that must be made; it must be "proven" — discovered, affirmed. The wiU of God here is not proper conduct in specific situations; it is the redemptive purpose of God for humankind. "God's will is that one should put his whole being at God's disposal. In this total 'belonging' to him he is to apply hhnself to what is good."^'' This is accomplished only by an inner renewal of the mind. Only by a renewal of the mind can one prove what the will of God is. In biblical tiiought mind (nous) is not a term representing a person's emotions or simply her or his inteUecmal and rational capacity; it designates particulariy the will. "By it (nous) is meant not the mind or the intellect as a special facuhy, but the knowing, understanding, and judging which belong to man as man and determine what attimde he adopts.''^* The Christian's newness does not mean, as the AV has it, that "old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Con 5:17). It means rather that the new has broken into the context of the old. What is renewed — or made alive — is a person's sphh (Eph. 2:1; Rom. 8:10) and his or her mind or will. Believers now will to do the will of God; they now have dedicated themselves to God as living sacrifices in an act of spiritual worship. The renewed mind stands in obvious contrast to the "base mind" (adokimon noun) of Romans 1:28, which obviously does not refer to erroneous ideas or false theology but to a perverse will that manifests itself in all kinds of evil and cormpt conduct. Conversely, the renewed mind is conformable to the will of God. That this does not mean total inner ethical renewal is evident fi-om the fact that Paul devotes three chapters to the exposition of proper Christian ethical conduct. "Even the renewed mind needs a good deal of instruction."^'

56. 57. 58. 59.

See C. E. B. Cranfield, A Commentary on Romans 12-13 (1965). V. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 189. R. Buhmann, Theology of the NT, 1:211. C. K. Barrett, Romans (1957), 233.

570

PAUL

Asceticism This nonconformity to the world has often been understood in terms either of asceticism or of social disengagement. Paul does indeed teach self-discipline and the rigorous control of his body. "1 pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others 1 myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27). This does not mean that Paul tried to smother his bodily appetites as though they were in themselves evil. On the contrary, God is to be glorified through the body (1 Cor. 6:20), and the Christian is to eat and drink to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). However, since the body is a medium in which sin can function, the believer must control his or her body so that sin does not have the ascendancy (Rom. 6:12). The "deeds of the body" — its potential sinful activities — are to be put to death (Rom. 8:13; Col. 3:5). On the other hand, Paul expressly rejects ascetic practices. He rebukes the Colossians for following a dualistic teaching that sought to disparage the sacredness of bodily appetites by such regulations as "Do not handle. Do not taste. Do not touch," because they have an appearance of promoting a religious life of deep devotion to spiritual realities by treating the body whh severity, when in reality "they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh" (Col. 2:23). It is clear that "flesh" here is not bodily existence but the prideful human self that finds status in the externals of religion rather than in devotion and trust in God.*" In fact, Paul designates this very ascetic interpretation of religion as an element of the world, because its appeal is to human pride and attairunent rather than to humble trust in the salvation in Christ. The Christian view is that "the earth is the Lord's, and everything in h" (1 Cor. 10:26). Paul was himself an ascetic in sexual matters (1 Cor. 7:7), but he recognized that this was a special gift given him that he might devote himself without distraction to. the ministry of the gospel. He further wishes that all Christians could possess the same gift (1 Cor. 7:1), but not because there is anything sinful in sex or because the celibate has achieved a higher level of morality and holiness than married people. His concern is entirely practi cal: "The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord, but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (1 Cor. 7:33-34). Paul feels that the ideal would be for every Christian to be like him — a full-time missionary whh no distractions; but this is to promote the gospel, not to achieve greater sanctification. Separation In social relationships, Paul does command that the believer should not be mismated (Hterally, "unequally yoked") with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14). This cannot mean the breaking of all ties and relationships that ordinarily relate believers and unbelievers in social intercourse. Paul expressly approves of a Christian fellowshiping whh pagans on a social level; and in such a situation,

60. For "flesh," see pp. Stiff.

The Christian Life

571

the believer is not to raise questions of scrupulosity about whether the meat on the table has come from an idol temple (1 Cor. 10:27). On the other hand, he expressly forbids joining with pagans in feasts in an idol temple (1 Cor. 8:10), because the Christian's conduct might be interpreted as indifference to idolatry. The warning against the "unequal yoke" is directed against close ties that link Christians whh unbelievers in pagan ways of thought and action. The fact that Paul interprets this prohibhion in terms of idols (v. 16) and defdement of the body (7:1) suggests that he has in mind primarily the worship in pagan temples with the accompanying licentious revels and flagrant immorality. Nonconformity to this age means neither asceticism nor a rejection of the social mores of the world, but a rejection of its idolatry and sinful conduct. The Christian is both a citizen of her or his own culture and a citizen of the Age to Come at one and the same time. Vices The kind of life to which the regenerate person is not to be conformed is set forth in several hsts of vices (Rom. 1:29-32; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9; 2 Cor 12:20; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 4:31; 5:3-4; Col. 3:5-9). These sins compose five groups: sexual sins — fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, adultery, sodomy, homosexu ality; sins of selfishness — covetousness, extortion; sins of speech — whisper ing, backbiting, railing, boastings, shameful speaking, foolish talking, jesting, clamor; sins of attitude and personal relations — enmity, strife, factiousness, jealousy, wrath, dissension, heresies, envy; and sins of drunkenness — dmnkenness, reveling, as well as idolatry.*' If sexual sins predominate, it is not because such sins were considered worse than others, but because of the notorious immorality of the Greco-Roman world. A famous saying illustrates this: "We have harlots for our pleasure, concubines for daily physical use, wives to bring up legitimate children and to be faithful stewards in household matters."*^ Furthermore, temple prostitution was commonplace. The temple of Aphrodite in Corinth had a thousand sacred prostitutes. Fomication heads each list in which it appears. However, covetousness and idolatry occur in five of the lists, while wrath appears in four. Paul was greatly concerned about how Christians con ducted their business affairs. Selfish ambhion expressed in covetousness (liter ally, "the desire to have more") should have no place in the Christian's life. It is of considerable interest that similar lists of vices are to be found in the pagan philosophical texts.*' In his concept of sins to be avoided, Paul was not original, but is similar to the best in pagan thought. However, the funda61. For these lists, see L. Dewar, AT Ethics, 147-48. See also L. H. Marshall, The Challenge of NT Ethics, 278ff. Full lists are given in E. Wahlstrom, The New Life in Christ, 281-87. 62. See TDNT 1:118. 63. See A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (1911), 320ff.; M. Enslin, The Ethics of Paul, 160ff

572

PAUL

mental motivation is radically different. The Greeks were interested in how the virtuous person might avoid that which would impair his or her moral stature; the vices Paul lists, on the other hand, belong to the old age and are antithetical to the newness that has been introduced by Christ. The one exalts human achievement; the other is centered in the redemptive act of God in Jesus Christ. Social

Ethics

Paul does have a good bit to say about the Christian's relationship to the social institutions of the day. In our modern Christian outlook, social ethics commands a predominant place in our ethical thinking. By social ethics, we mean a concern that social structures should be based upon principles of humanity and concern for human well-being. It is difficuh to find a clear social ethic in Paul. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Paul's eschatological perspective af fected his attitude toward social structures. He seems to have no genuinely historical perspective nor to be concerned about the impact of the gospel on contemporary social structures. In fact, he expressly says, "In view of the impending distress, it is well for a person to remain as he is" (1 Cor. 7:26). Married people should not seek to break the marriage bond, Jews should not try to appear like Gentiles and vice versa, slaves should not seek to be free even if the opportunity presents itself.** However, the context of the passage is one of indifference to one's situation in the social structures of the old age. "Every one should remain in the state in which he was called" (1 Cor. 7:20) because "the form of this world is passing away" (1 Cor. 7:31). The "impending distress" (1 Cor. 7:26) and the shortness of the time (1 Cor. 7:29) have been differently interpreted. The present distress may refer to the inevitable tension that arises between the new creation in Christ and the old age,*^ or to the idea that the eschatological woes (the great tribulation) are immediately impending and are already anticipated in the sufferings of Christians.** In any case, Paul clearly is dominated by a sense of the imminence of the parousia and the end of the world that rendered questions of social ethics comparatively irrelevant. "In the NT perspective, the interadventual period is short, however long it may be from our historically oriented viewpoint."*'' From this Murray draws the conclusion, "The eschatological perspective should always characterize our attitude to things

64. The language of 1 Cor. 7;21 is ambiguous. The RSV, "avail yourselves of the opportunity," i.e., to be free, is one interpretation of the Greek, and simply says, "Make use of it." This could mean, "Make use of your freedom if you have the opportunity to be free," but in the context it probably means "Make good use of your servitude" (NEB mg.). See L. H. Marshall, The Challenge of NT Ethics, 328; D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul, 226-27. 65. See W. Grundmann,TOAT"1:346. 66. C. K. Barrett, First Corinthians, 175; see R. Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the NT, 190. 67. J. Murray, Principles of Conduct (1957), 72.

The Christian Life

573

temporal and temporary."** This is difficuh in our modern world if h means indifference to the hnpact of the gospel on social stmcmres. The cuhural shuation and stmcture of the church are very different from that of first-century Chris tianhy, and the modem Christian cannot apply the teachings of Scripture in a one-to-one relationship but must seek the basic tmth underlying the particular formulations in the New Testament. 'Women This principle is obvious in the Pauline teaching about the status of women. Paul does indeed state a new Christian principle about the place of women in the eyes of God. "There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Before God, women stand in a position not at all inferior to men. Furthermore, Paul admonishes men to love their wives with a concem analogous to the love of Christ (Eph. 5:25). In view of the low regard for women both in Judaism*' and the Greco-Roman world,™ this was a revolutionary principle. However, Paul retains the Jewish idea of the subordination of woman to man. The head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is her husband (I Cor 11:3). As man is the image and glory of God, so woman is the glory of man (1 Cor. 11:7). This means that "the origin and raison d'etre of woman are to be found in man."^' Women are to show theh subordination by never participating in public worship without having their heads veiled; only men may pray whh bare heads (1 Cor. ll:4ff.).72 Furthermore, Paul says that he does not allow women to speak publicly in the gatherings for worship (1 Cor. 14:34ff.).73

Marriage While Paul was himself a celibate and considered celibacy a gift of God that all should desire,^" he recognized that not all people possessed this gift, and he expressly recommends that they marry rather than be consumed with unsatisfied sexual desires (1 Cor. 7:9). This obviously indicates a rather low view of marriage, but it is clearly nonascetic. Whhin the marriage bond, Paul counsels unselfishness and self-giving. Neither husband nor wife should withhold sexual

68. Loc. cit. 69. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (1969), 359ff. 70. A. Oepke in TDNT 1:777-80. 71. H. Schlier, TDArr 3:679. 72. The entire problem of praying with covered or uncovered heads involves a social situation in Corinth that we cannot precisely recover. One fact is clear: a veiled head was a sign of the subordinate position of women. See W. Foerster, TDNT 2:57M. and commentaries. 73. For the apparent contradiction between this and 1 Cor 11:4, see C. K. Barrett, First Corinthians, 33If. Whiteley thinks the prohibition is directed against women addressing the assembly. D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St Paul, 223. 74. See above, p. 570.

574

PAUL

pleasure from the other (1 Cor. 7:4-5), but each should be concerned to provide satisfaction for the other. Sex is here regarded not merely as a means of pro creation but of mutual pleasure. Paul flatly refuses to countenance divorce on the authority of the Lord himself. If a separation occurs, the woman must not marry again, and the husband may not divorce his wife (I Cor. 7:10-11). If one partner in a maniage becomes a Christian and the unbeliever does not wish to continue this relationship, the separation is admissible (1 Cor. 7:12-15): "in such a case, the brother or sister is not bound" (1 Cor. 7:15). This phrase is ambiguous and has been interpreted to mean "is not bound to continue to live with an unbeliever" or "is not tied to the marriage bond" and is therefore free to marry again. However, in view of Paul's clear refusal to recognize divorce, the former meaning is probably correct. If a man dies, the wife is free to marry again, provided the mate is a believer (1 Cor. 7:39). Paul does not discuss whether a husband may marry if his wife dies; presumably it would be permitted.^^ Slavery One of the most evil institutions in the Greco-Roman world was that of slavery. Slavery was universal and inseparable from the texture of society. It has been estimated that in the time of Paul there were as many slaves as free people in Rome, and the proportion of slaves to free people in Italy has been put as high as three to one.''* In the fortunes of war, the population of entire cities were sold into slavery, and slaves were often more educated and cultured than their masters. While they were often treated with kindness and consideration, legally they were the property of their owners — things and not human beings. Their fate rested altogether on the whim and fancy of their masters. Paul has no word of criticism for the institution as such. In this sense, he was unconcerned about "social ethics" — the impact of the gospel on social structures. In fact, he admonishes slaves to be indifferent to their social status (1 Cor. 7:21), because a human slave is really a freedman of the Lord. The Christian faith is to be lived out within the context of existing social structures, for they belong to the form of this world, which is passing away (1 Cor. 7:31). Therefore slaves as Christians are to be obedient and loyal to their masters, giving a full measure of service (Col. 3:22-25; Eph. 6:5-8), while masters are to treat their slaves whh justice and consideration (Col. 4:1; Eph. 6:9). When a runaway slave, Onesimus, met Paul in Rome and became a Christian, Paul sent him back to Philemon, his owner, with instructions to Philemon to welcome him as a brother in Christ (Phlm. 16). There is no explicit word of setting the slave

75. For a discussion of the difficult passage in 1 Cor. 7:31-38, which has little modern relevance, see D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul, 218-22. 76. G. H. C. MacGregor and A. C. Purdy, Jew and Greek: Tutors unto Christ (1936), 264.

The Christian Life

575

free. However, within the fellowship of the church, such social distinctions have been transcended (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28), even though they cannot be avoided in society. Paul's atdtude toward the state is set forth in the letter to the Romans.^ Even though it was an authoritarian structure in whose functioning pagan rehgion played an important role, it was the agent of law and order, and as such is "the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer" (Rom. 13:5). Even Christians — indeed, especially Christians — must be subject to the state be cause it is divinely ordained, and support it by paying the duly levied taxes. Support of law and order rests upon physical force: "he does not bear the sword in vain" (Rom. 13:4). It is probable that Paul's reference to a restraining power holding back the lawlessness of antichrist (2 Thess. 2:6) is to the Roman govern ment as an instmment of law and order.''* It is clear that Paul was not concemed about social stmcmres but only with how the Christian should live out the Christian hfe within the contemporary social simation. He did indeed introduce Christian principles that, if fahhfudy practiced, would inevitably make a profound impact on social stmctures once Christians became an influential people in society. But in his view social stmc tures belong to the old age that is passing away. There is no evidence that Paul looked upon the church as a stmcture that would take its place with other social stmctures and change them for the good.

77. See G. E. Ladd, "The Christian and the State," His (Dec. 1967), 2ff. 78. See below, pp. 605f.

38. The Church

Literature: F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (1897); G. Johnston, The Doctrine of the Church in the iVJ (1943); J. A. T. Robinson, The Body (1952); E. Best, One Body in Christ (1955); L. Cerfaux, The Church in the Theology of Paul (1959); R S. Minear, Images of the Church in the NT (1961); E. Schweizer, Church Order in the NT (1961);

N. A. Dahl, Das Volk Gottes (1963); A. Cole, The Body of Christ (1964); E. Schweizer, The Church as the Body of Christ (1964); B. Gartner, The Temple and the Community

in the NT (1965); R. Schnackenburg, The Church in the NT (1%5); R. Morgan, "The One Fellowship of Churches in the NT," in Tensions between the Churches, ed. V. Eli-

zondo (1981), 24-33; R. Y.-K. Fung, "Some Pauline Pictures of the Church," EQ 53 (1981), 89-107; idem, "The Nahire of the Ministry according to Paul," EQ 54 (1982), 129-46; J. D. G. Dunn, "Models of Christian Community in the NT," in Strange Gifts, ed. D. Martin and R Mullen (1984), 1-18; R. Y.-K. Fung, "Ministry, Community and Spiritual Gifts," EQ 56 (1984), 3-20; A. T. Lincoln, "The Church and Israel in Ephesians 2," CBQ 49 (1987), 605-24; R T. O'Brien, "The Church as a Heavenly and Eschatological Entity," in The Church in the Bible and the World, ed. D. A. Carson (1987), 88-119; E. E. Ellis, Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society (1989).

Form The outward form of the church as reflected in the Pauline episties is basically the same as that reflected in Acts, with a few notable differences in emphasis. The church was made up of groups of believers scattered throughout the Med iterranean world from Antioch to Rome with no external or formal organization binding them together. The one obvious point of external or formal organization binding them together was apostolic authority. Paul as an apostle claimed an authority, especially in teaching, that he insisted must be recognized by all the churches.' However, this authority was that of spiritual and moral suasion, not formal and legal. Acts pictures Paul exercising his authority at the Jerusalem council in terms of persuasion rather than official authority. The final decision was made by the "apostles and the elders, with the whole church" (Acts 15:22ff.). 1. See above, pp. 417ff.

576

The Church

577

While Paul utters an anathema upon false teachers (Gal. 1:8), he took no formal or legal action against them. James exercised great authority in Jerusalem and was later thought to have been the first bishop of that city,^ but it is not clear to what extent his authority extended beyond the city. "Those from James" (Gal. 2:12; cf Acts 15:1) may have formally represented him, or may only have claimed his authority. In any case, the idea that the unity of the church found expression in some kind of extemal organization or ecclesiastical stmcmre finds no support in the New Testament. Furthermore, the idea of denominations would be abhorrent to Paul. The nearest thing to denominations was the sects in Corinth that Paul heartily condemned (1 Cor. l:12ff.).3 The form of the church in a given city is not clear. The Corinthian correspon dence suggests that all believers in Corinth gathered together in one place (1 Cor. 14:23). Acts refers to gatherings in upper rooms in private houses (Acts 1:13; 12:12; 20:8), but it is difficult to believe that such a meeting place would be large enough to accommodate all the Christians in a given city. Archeology confirms that for the first three cenmries, the meeting place of Christians was private homes, not disdnctive church buildings. Sometimes an entire house would be set aside for the Chrisdan gathering." On the other hand, Paul refers to "house churches," i.e., to groups of believers who gathered together in a particular house (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phlm. 2; see also Rom. 16:14,15).5 There were probably enough Christians in each of the large Pauline cities to constitute several house churches These facts leave the outward form of the local church rather unclean The organizadon of the local church is somewhat unclear in the major Pauline episUes, although a clearer picture emerges in the pastorals. Acts says that Paul appointed elders in the churches he founded (Acts 14:23), thereby extending into the Hellenistic churches the same stmcture that had developed in the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:30). The language of Acts suggests that the elders (presbyteroi) could also be called overseers or bishops (episkopoi, Acts 20:17, 28). In Paul's major epistles, elders are never mentioned; bishops and deacons provided leadership for the Philippian church (Phil. 1:1). That the Pauline churches had a formal leadership is clear from Paul's appeal to the Thessalonians to respect those who "are over you (proistamenoi) in the Lord and admonish you" (1 Thess. 5:12). The same participle is used of church leaders in Romans 12:8. In view of the fact that the same participle is used in the pastorals of bishops (1 Tim. 3:4), deacons (1 Tim. 3:12), and elders (1 Tim. 5:17), there is good reason to conclude that proistamenoi designates the office of elder-bishop and deacon.* 2. See W. A. Beardslee, "James," IDB 2:793. 3. See A. Richardson, Theology of the NT (\95S), 286. 4. See J. Finegan, Ught from the Ancient Past (1946), 399-409. 5. See F V. Filson in JBL 58 (1939), 105-12; L. Goppeit, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times (1970), 205. 6. Hebrews 13:7, 17 also refers to church leaders without calling them elders or bishops.

578

PAUL

In Ephesians Paul refers to evangelists and pastor-teachers (Eph. 4:11). Evangelists are preachers who carry on the missionary task of preaching the gospel but without the authority of the apostles. The term denotes a function rather than an office.^ Teaching is also mentioned as being next to apostles and prophets among the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 14:28f.). Since prophets were pneumatics, it is likely that teachers were nonpneumatics.* Teachers are also coupled with prophets in Acts 13:1. The language of Ephesians 4:11 suggests that pastor-teacher is a single office embodying a twofold function: that of shepherding or overseeing the flock, and of teaching. It is probable that this term designates leaders in the local church and is basically the same as presbyteroi and episkopoi."^ Paul also lists one of the gifts of the Spirh as "administration" (1 Cor. 12:28). The word literally means "steersman," "helmsman," and must refer to the gift of leadership in the churches, "a true director of its order and therefore of its life." It is highly probable that this is the gift exercised by the episkopoi and the proistamenoi.^^ The organization of the church appears in clearer outline in the pastoral epistles. The functions of deacons are not specifically described (1 Tim. 3:8-12) because they were well known, but their qualifications are emphasized. Like elders, deacons must have the ability to rule well and be devoted to the gospel, but no reference is made to teaching. They must not be double-tongued or avaricious since they have access to many homes and are entrusted with the administration of funds." Paul refers to women in the same context; these women obviously assisted the deacons and were probably deaconesses (see Rom. 16:1). Both the qualifications and duties of elders are set forth in 1 Timothy 5:17-22. They exercise a threefold function: ruling, preaching, and teaching. The wording of the passage suggests that all elders rule but not all engage in preaching and teaching. This coincides with the injunction of Paul to the Ephe sian eiders to shepherd the flock, oversee it, and feed it (Acts 20:28). The duties of bishops are outlined in 1 Timothy 3:1-5. Aside from qualities of personal excellence, they must manifest gifts of teaching and ruling. The same qualities arc listed in Titus 1:5-9, whh the addition of hospitality and ability to defend the gospel against false teachers. In the apostolic fathers, especially in Ignatius, the bishop emerges as distinct and superior to the elders, giving rise to the office of monarchical bishop. Many have contended that the pastorals reflect the beginning of this develop ment. Menoud points out that the bishop is always spoken of in the singular

7. G. Friedricli in TDNT 2:131. 8. K. H. Rengstorf in TDNT 2; 158. 9. See J. Jeremias in TDNT 6:498. 10. H. W. Beyer in TDNT 3:1036. 11. Ibid.. 2:90.

The Church

579

while deacons and elders are invariably mentioned in the plural. He concludes that there was only one bishop to a communhy and that the bishop was re sponsible for duties distinct from those of the elders." However, Lightfoot's famous e s s a y " has persuaded many scholars that the two terms are interchange able. Both elders and bishops engage in mling and teaching, and the two words are used to describe the one office in Titus 1:5, 7.'* However, the variety of scholariy opinion suggests that one can hardly be dogmatic in one's understand ing of the organization of the Pauline churches. Even if presbyter and bishop are two words for the same office, the picture is less than clean That the presbyters acted as a college is clear from 1 Timothy 4:14, where Timothy was ordained by "the laying on of hands of the presbytery." However, h is not clear whether there was a single eider-bishop over each local congregation or a college of elders as in the Jewish synagogue; and in a large city with several congrega tions, it is not clear whether the elders of the several congregations constituted a single presbytery for the Christian community of the entire city. It appears likely that there was no normative pattern of church government in the apostolic a g e , " and that the organizational stmcture of the church is no essential element in the theology of the church. In view of the central theological emphasis on the unity of the church, it is important to understand that unity does not mean organizational uniformity. Charismata Another important fact in the visible form of the Pauline churches was the exercise of spiritual gifts or charismata. The table below provides a survey of the several lists of spiritual gifts.

1. Apostle 2. Prophet

1 Cor. 12:28 1'* 2

12:29-30 1 2

12:8-10

Rom. 12:6-8

Eph. 4:4 1 2

12. P. H. Menoud in IDB 1:624. But see H. W. Beyer in TOAT 2:617. M. H. Shepherd also holds that elders and bishops represent two different orders. Bishops were elders appointed to the disdnctive ministerial office, while elders enjoyed a position of honor, not of ministerial office. See IDB 3:391. 13. See J. B. Lightfoot, "The Christian Ministry," Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (1890), 181-269. 14. See H. W. Beyer in TDNT 2:617. Goppeh believes that the local church leaders were called elders in Jewish Christianity and bishops in the Pauline churches, and that these two terms later conflated. L. Goppeh, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times, 186-89. 15. See W. D. Davies, "A Normative Pattem of Church Life in the NT," in Christian Origins and Judaism (1962), 199-230. For an effort to interpret the New Testament data, see C. W. Dugmore, "The Organization and Worship of the Primitive Church," in A Companion to the Bible, ed. H. H. Rowley (1963), 549-59. 16. The numbers indicate the order of the gifts in the several passages.

580

PAUL

3. Discernment of spirits 4. Teacher 5. Word of wisdomknowledge 6. Evangelists 7. Exhorters 8. Faith 9. Miracles 10. Healings 11. Tongues 12. Interpretation 13. Ministry 14. Administration 15. Rulers 16. Helpers 17. Mercy 18. Giving

6 3

3 1 4

4 5 8

4 5 6 7

2 4 3 7 8 2

7 6 6 7 5

Some scholars have argued that the leadership of the Pauline churches was altogether charismatic and not official. However, a careful study of these several gifts makes it clear that while some of them are truly charismatic, others are obviously natural gifts used by the Holy Spirh. Such functions as ministry, administration, ruling, helping, showing mercy, and giving employ the natural talents of people while prophecy, miracles, healings, and tongues are supernat ural endowments beyond the control of the individual. The noncharismatic functions were probably those exercised by elder-bishops, teachers, and deacons. However, Paul is discussing functions and not formal poshions in the church. He writes 1 Corinthians 12 not out of an interest in correct organization but proper ordering of the entire Christian fellowship. He conceives of every Chris tian as an active member of the body of Christ — "to each is given the mani festation of the Spirh for the common good" (1 Cor. 12:8). The charisma granted to each is not so much a supernatural gift as the call of the Sphit to serve the church, so when Paul enumerates the charismata, he refers partly to offices and partly to functions.''' It is obvious that, apart from the priority of apostles and prophets, Paul attaches no special order of importance to the several gifts. Apostles and prophets were of primary importance because they were the vehicles of revelation (Eph. 3:5) and thereby provided the foundation for the church (Eph. 2:20). All apostles were prophets but not all prophets were apostles. Apostles were commissioned with an authority in the churches that the prophets did not possess. Prophets spoke by direct 17. L. GoppeU, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times, 183.

The Church

581

illumination of the Spirit (the Word of God). We must remember that the early churches did not possess the New Testament Scriptures that preserve for successive generations the prophetic witness of the meaning of the person and work of Christ. We do not know, although we can assume, that they possessed a fixed body of catechetical tradition. In any case, U is clear from I Corinthians 12 and 14 that prophets were people inspired by the Sphit to speak in intedigible language a revelation from God. Theh purpose was to edify the church (1 Cor. 14:3). Prophecy was not an office but a gift that the Spirit could bestow on any member of the congregation. Christian prophets were concemed about future events so far as they involved the consummation of redemptive history, as the Revelation of John indicates (Rev. 1:3); but this element is not emphasized in the Pauline writings. Prophecy is the medium for disclosing the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 13:2). The gift of the Spirit most coveted in Corinth was the gift of tongues or glossolalia. People experiencing this gift would utter praises to God in language that was intelligible neither to them nor to their hearers. Those speaking expe rienced great exaltation of spirit but had no rational communication of the will of God (1 Cor. 14:14) as did the prophets. The experience was altogether mean ingless to the hearers unless a gift of interpretation was given either to the one speaking (1 Cor. 14:13) or to another, who would then interpret the unintelligible jargon using rational speech. Then the hearers would understand what was said and join in saying "Amen" (1 Cor. 14:16). However, the Corinthians feh that tongues was the superlative evidence of the Spirit, and excesses in the exercise of this gift had introduced disorder and strife in the church. Paul declares the proper order The goal is not personal ecstasy but the edifying of the church (1 Cor. 14:26). No more than two or three may speak in a tongue in a single meeting, and only then in turn, and only if someone is present to interpret. Tongues are to be subordinate to prophecy, but prophetic utterance must also be conducted in an orderly manner (1 Cor 14:29). It is important to note that some of the charismata are distinctly supematural and can be exercised only by the sovereign activity of the Spirit, while others, such as helping, showing mercy, and giving are gifts that should be exercised by all Christians. The question as to whether all the charismata should be normative for the life of the entire church receives different answers. Since the gifts of apostleship and prophecy were given for the founding of the church (Eph. 2:20), it is possible that the distinctly supernatural gifts belong primarily to the apostolic period. In any case, Paul makes it clear that the highest manifestation of the Spirit is love. It is not always noted that 1 Corinthians 13 is part of Paul's discussion of the charis mata. Other gifts such as prophecy and tongues will cease, but love abides as the highest evidence of a Spirit-endowed believer Ekklesia The theology of the church can best be approached by surveying Paul's use of the word ekklesia. The word in its Hellenistic setting can designate an assembly

582

PAUL

gathered as a political body (Acts 19:39) or an assembly as such (Acts 19:32, 39). However, in Paul the background of the word is the Old Testament use of ekklesia of Israel as the people of God.'** Implicit in the word is the claim that the church stands in direct continuity with the Old Testament people of God. Ekklesia can designate a meeting of Christians for worship; en ekklesia (1 Cor. 11:18; 14:19, 28, 35) can best be rendered simply "in church." This does not mean in a building called a church; ekklesia is never used of a building as is the English word "church." It is the assembling of the saints for worship. As such, ekklesia can designate the believers who gather in a particular home as a house-church (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phlm. 2); h can designate the totality of believers living in one place — in Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1), Laodicea (Col. 4:16), or the cities of Judea (Gal. 1:22) and Galatia (Gal. 1:2). The most significant use, as in Acts,'' is of the universal or catholic church. It is clearly used of the totality of all believers twice in Colossians (1:18, 24) and nine times in Ephesians (1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32). This usage probably appears also in 1 Corinthians 12:28; 15:9; Galatians 1:13; and Philippians 3:6, but this is contested.2" The very usage of ekklesia is suggestive of Paul's concept of the church. The local congregation is the church; the totality of all believers is the church. This leads to the conclusion that the church is not conceived of numerically but organically. The church universal is not thought of as the totality of all the local churches; rather, "each community, however small, represents the total commu nity, the Church."2i The correct rendering of such verses as 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 2 Corinthians 1:1 is not "the Corinthian congregation standing side by side with other congregations," but "the congregation, church, assembly, as it is in Corinth." The local church is not part of the church but is the church in its local expression. This means that the whole power of Christ is available to every local congregation, that each congregation functions in its community as the universal church functions in the world as a whole, and that the local congregation is no isolated group but stands in a state of solidarity with the church as a whole.22 People of God The church is the new people (laos) of God. The term "people" in biblical thought often has a technical sense designating those who stand in a special relationship to God. This usage is by no means unique to Paul but appears frequently in the New Testament. In the old dispensation, Israel was the people of God. Israel's rejection of its Messiah leads Paul to the question, "Has God rejected his people?" (Rom.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

See above, pp. 107ff. Acts 7:38 reflects this usage. See above, pp. 390f. See D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of Si. Paul (1964), 187. K. L. Schmidt, TDNT 3:506. D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul, 190.

The Church

583

11:1). No further qualifier is necessary to designate Israel as God's people.^^ Paul devotes a long discussion to the problem of Israel (Rom. 9-11) in the course of which he makes it clear that the church is God's new people. This is most vividly expressed in the use of quotations from Hosea. The prophet speaks of the present apostasy of Israel and its eschatological salvation. Hosea was directed to name one of his sons "Not my people," for apostate Israel was no longer God's people and he was not Israel's God (Hos. 1:9). However, in the day of salvation, this situation will be changed; they will be called "Sons of the living God" (Hos. 1:10). "And I will say to Not my people, 'You are my people'; and he shall say, 'Thou art my God'" (Hos. 2:23). In Hosea these prophecies clearly refer to Israel, but Paul applies them to the church, which consists of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 9:24)?* This does not mean that the title laos is taken from Israel, but that another f)eople is brought into being along with Israel on a different basis. That Israel in some real sense remains the people of God is seen in Paul's affhmation that the Jewish people are still a "holy" people (Rom. 11:16), a people belonging to God. The fate of the Jews is seen in the light of the whole of Heilsgeschichte. If the patriarchs — the firstfiiiits and the root — are holy, so is the whole people. They are still "beloved for the sake of their forefathers, for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom. ll:28f.). Israel This opens up the whole question of the relationship between the church and Israel. Paul clearly distinguishes between empirical Israel and sphitual Israel — between the people as a whole and the faithful remnant. "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" (Rom. 9:6). Here Paul sets over against the Israel according to natural descent the true Israel who have been faithful to God. While the nation as a whole has rejected its Messiah, there is a remnant chosen by grace (Rom. 11:5) who have believed. A real Jew is not one who is outwardly a Jew; he or she is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is not a thing of the flesh but of the heart (Rom. 2:28f.). This may not refer to ail believers but only to those Jews who have truly fulfilled the Law. To this believing remnant have been added believing Gentiles. Paul's metaphor of the olive tree suggests the unity of the old people of God — Israel — and the church. The olive tree is the one people of God. Natural branches — unbelieving Jews — were broken off, and wild branches — believing Gentiles — were grafted onto the tree. "This makes it perfectly clear that the church of Jesus Christ lives from the root and the trunk of the Old Testament Israel."25 Thus, while God has not finally and irrevocably cast away his people Israel, the church consisting of both Jews and Gentiles has become the branches of the olive tree — the people of God — the true Israel. Not only faithful Jews, but all 23. See H. Strathmann, TDNT A:52. 24. See also 2 Cor. 6:16; Tit. 2:14. 25. H. J. Kiaus, The People of God in the Or (1958), 89.

584

PAUL

believers, including Gentiles, are the true chcumcision who worship God in spirit and glory in Christ Jesus (Phd. 3:3). All such have been circumcised in heart (Col. 2:11). As the spirituaUy circumcised, they are the children of Abraham (Gal. 3:7), theh father (Rom. 4:11,16,18); they are the offspring (Gal. 3:29) and descendants of Abraham (Rom. 4:16). Those who formeriy were alienated from the common wealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:12) have now been brought near to the God of Israel. In view of such statements, it is highly probable that when Paul speaks of the "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) he is referring to the church as the tme sphimal Israel.^* This is also implied when Paul speaks of "Israel after the flesh" (1 Cor. 10:18), which is implicitly contrasted with "Israel after the spirit."^'' This does not mean that Paul shuts the door to Israel after the flesh.^* The whole tenor of Paul's use of the metaphor of the olive tree is that while natural branches — Jews — have been broken off the olive tree and wild branches — Gendles — grafted mto the people of God, it is God's sovereign pleasure yet to bring the namral branches to faith and so graft them back into the tree (Rom. 11:23-24). Paul's argument is chcular. Israel did not smmble in unbelief so as finally to fall (Rom. 11:11), but that through theh unbelief salvation might come to the Gentiles. The salvation of the Gentiles will in tum provoke Israel to jealousy. "If their trespass means riches for the world, and if theh failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean?" (Rom. 11:12). Even in unbehef, Israel remams a "holy" people (Rom. 11:16) and will finally be grafted back into theh own olive tree (Rom. 11:24). In this manner — by provocation by the Gentiles — "ad Israel wid be saved" (Rom. 11:26). This is the language of Heilsgeschichte and does not mean that every last Israelite will be saved but the people as a whole.^' Paul does not speculate when or how the salvation of the Jews will take place, but it is probably an eschatological event to occur at the end of the age.'" Whatever form the salvation of Israel

26. So W. Gutbrod, TDNT 3:387; A. Richardson, The Theology of the NT, 353; R Minear, Images of the Church (1961), 71; E. Schweizer, Church Order in the NT (1961), 89; it is contested by P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (1969), 74ff. Richardson insists in a detailed study that the phrase designates the believing remnant in Israel. "Israel" is not applied to the church, though all Christians become a part of Israel by virtue of their faith in Christ (147). 27. The RSV omits "after the flesh." 28. "Christianity could not pre-empt the title 'Israel' without shutting the door to Judaism." P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, 201. 29. W. Gutbrod, TDNT 3:387. See P Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, 126ff. 30. See J. Munck, Christ and Israel (1967), 136f. O. Piper suggests that the salvation of Israel does not mean that the Jews will be transformed into a Gentile church. Rather, they will form a distinct type of Christianity in which they will preserve everything in their heritage compatible with their dedication to the Messiah. "Church and Judaism in Holy History," 77i Today 18 (1961), 70-71.

The Church

585

takes, it is clear that the terms of salvation must be the same as those for the Gentiles: faith in Jesus as the crucified and risen Messiah. The Temple of God Another metaphor Paul uses that shows that the church is the true Israel is that of the temple. Both the Old Testament and Judaism anticipated the creation of a new temple in the Kingdom of God (Ezek. 37:26ff.; 40:lff.; Hag. 2:9; 1 En. 90:29; 91:13; Jub. 1:17, 29). Jesus had spoken of the formation of his church as the erection of a building (Mt. 16:18). He was also reported as uttering an enigmatic prophecy: "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands" (Mk. 14:58). It is possible that this was understood by the early Christians to mean the establishment of the new messianic community.^' While the primitive community continued as Jews to worship in the temple (Acts 2:46), Stephen was the first to realize that temple worship was hrelevant for Christians (Acts 7:48f.). Paul sees the Chris tian communhy taking the place of the temple as the eschatological temple of God, as the place where God dwells and is worshiped. This metaphor had a threefold emphasis. The individual believer has become a temple of God because the Spirit of God indwells her or him (1 Cor. 6:19). As the temple of God, believers are holy; they belong to God. Therefore they are not their own and may not dispose of their lives as they may desire. Immorality is a contradiction of the essential character of the believer. There was a libertine tendency in Corinth that disparaged the body under the slogan, "All things are lawful for me" (1 Cor. 6:12), even sexual license. Paul corrects this view by the affhmation that the body is the temple of God's Spirit. Not only the individual believer but also the local congregation is the temple of God because the Spirit indwells the corporate fellowship. This again has a very practical application. As the dwelling place of God, the congregation is a holy people. The community in Corinth was rent by schisms that clustered around four prominent names: Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ. This seems not to have been mere sectarianism but to have resuhed from the impact of gnosticizing Judaism^^ that had in turn disrupted the church. This situation Paul condemns in frightening language. Because the local church is God's dwelling place, whoever "destroys," i.e., brings ruin upon, the local congregation by false teaching and destroys hs unhy, that person will God destroy (1 Cor. 3:17). The fact that the church is the temple where God dwells excludes the logical possibilhy of becoming "mismated whh unbelievers" (2 Cor. 6:14). This must refer to relationships with idolatrous pagans of such a sort that it com promised one's Christian testimony, h is clear that Paul does not mean to prohibh all social contacts with unbelievers, "since then you would need to go out of 31. See O. Michel, TDNT 4M3,

886.

32. See L. Goppelt, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times, 98ff.

586

PAUL

the world" (1 Cor. 5:10). The clue to Paul's meaning is found in the words, "what agreement has the temple of God whh idols?" (1 Cor. 6:16). Any yoke with unbelievers that compromised one whh idolatrous and unusual practices (1 Cor. 6:15) was excluded because of the hoHness of the church. Paul applies the same metaphor to the universal church (Eph. 2:19-22). Gentile believers are no longer aliens from God's people; they are God's tme household; they are in fact a temple budt upon the foundation of Christ, die apostles, and the prophets, who grow into a holy temple in the Lord. Here in the church rather than in Judaism is the dwelling place of God to be found. The presence of God has moved from the Jemsalem temple to the new temple, the Christian church.'' The fact that Paul uses the metaphor of the temple to designate both the local and the universal church reinforces a fact already evident m the use of ekklesia,^* namely, the unity of the church in its diversity. The local congregation is not part of the church; the universal church is not thought of as the sum and total of its parts; rather, the local congregation is the church in its local expres sion. An Eschatological

People

This leads us to the idea that the church is an eschatological people. We have found that the expectation of a new temple was an eschatological concept that was applied to the church. The church is also the people of the Kingdom of God and therefore an eschatological people. This means two things. They are destined to inherit the Kingdom in hs eschatological consummation (1 Thess. 2:12; Rom. 8:17; Eph. 1:18) because they have already experienced that same Kingdom (Col. 1:13; Rom.

14:17).35

This fact is expressly affirmed in Philippians 3:20, where Paul affirms that the Christians' tme homeland (politeuma)^ is heaven; and we await the coming of the Lord, who will fulfill the eschatological hope by the transformation of our lowly bodies. This statement had particular significance to the Phdippians, who constituted a Roman colony in the heart of Greece. The word politeuma designates a colony of foreigners whose organization reflects theh native home land. "We have our own home in heaven and are here on earth a colony of citizens of heaven."'^ The life and fellowship of Christians in history is to be a 33. See B. Gartner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the AT" (1965), 65; see also S. Hanson, The Unity of the Church in the NT (1946), 133. The fact that the new temple grows proves that it is an organic and not a static concept. 34. See above, p. 582. 35. The eschatological nature of the church is a theme pervading S. Hanson's work (The Unity of the Church in the NT), but he applies if primarily to the concept of unity, which is an eschatological concept aheady realized in the church. 36. The translation of the AV, "conversation," is utterly misleading. 37. See M. Dibelius, An die Thessalonicher I. II. An die Philipper (1937), 93.

The Church

587

foretaste of life in the Kingdom of God and is to reflect in the world something of what the eschatological reality will be. This truth is affirmed also in Galatians 4:24f., where Mount Sinai as the mother of children of slavery is contrasted whh the heavenly Jerusalem as the mother of children of freedom — Christians. The Holy Spirit The eschatological character of the church is seen in the fact that the church is created by the Holy Spirit. We have seen above^s that the presence of the Holy Spirit is an eschatological fact. It is the coming of the eschatological Spirit in history that created the church. The church is therefore the product of the powers of the Age to Come. While the Holy Sphit works diversely m the church bestowing different gifts upon different individuals (1 Cor. 12:7), the Holy Spirit himself is the possession of all believers. Peter said on the day of Pentecost that all who repent and are baptized would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; appositive genitive). Paul affirms that possession of the Spirit is necessary to belong to Christ (Rom. 8:9). While Paul places great emphasis on the work of the Spirit in individual Christian experience, it also has a corporate side: it is the work of the Holy Spirit to create the church. "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and were all made to drink of one Sphit" (1 Cor. 12:13). Most contemporary scholars believe that baptism here refers to water baptism as the means by which the Spirh is imparted to believers. "Baptism in water is baptism in the Spirit."^' This, however, is not self-evident and should not be taken for granted. It makes considerable difference whether Paul means to say that water baptism is "the means of incorporation into the Christian communhy,"'*" or that an act of the Holy Spirh is the means of incorporation into the Christian community. It appears highly probable that "the baptism of 1 Cor. 12:13 . . . is not water baptism but baptism in the Spirit. Water baptism is the sign and seal of this latter baptism.""' If Paul has water baptism in mind, he does not emphasize h; the entire emphasis is on the work of the Sphh. Both John the Baptist (Mt. 3:11) and the resurrected Lord (Acts 1:5) distinguished between water baptism and Sphit baptism, and Paul's central thought is the work of the Holy Spirit in forming the church. It can be debated whether baptism en heni pneumati ("by" or "in one Spirit") should be understood as a dative of agent or of sphere. If we use Matthew 3:11 and Acts 1:5 as an analogy, the Spirh is the sphere of baptism in contrast to water; but the analogy of the context in 1 Corinthians 12:9 suggests that the

38. See pp. 408f. 39. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism Today and Tomorrow (1966), 56. 40. W. F. Flemington, "Baptism," IDB 1:350. 41. E. Best, One Body in Christ (1955), 73; J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (1970), 127-31.

588

PAUL

Spirit is the agent of the baptism.''^ In either case, the role of the Spirh is emphasized; it is the work of the Holy Sphit to form the body of Christ. This remains true even if water baptism is also in Paul's mind, ahhough few com mentators emphasize this fact. When a person believes m Christ and is baptized, that person becomes a member of the body of Christ. This fact is not to be confused with the New Testament teaching about the indwelling of the Spirit or the gifts of the Sphit for service (1 Cor. 12:5); h is viewed as an objective fact. In New Testament thought there can be no such thing as an isolated believer — a Christian who stands remote from other Chrisdans. When we believe in Christ, we are made members of Christ's body; we are joined to Christ himself and therefore to all others who in union with Christ constitute his body. In the biblical sense of the word, it is tme that extra ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the church there is no salvation"). The Holy Sphit has been given by the exalted Christ to form a new people in history who constimte his body. The eschatological character of this new people carries whh it the fact that it cuts across our normal human sociological stmcmres. Race does not matter; social status does not matter; by Spirit baptism all kinds of people are equally members of the body of Christ because we have ad experienced the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit.*' Fellowship One of the most notable feamres in this eschatological people is that of fellow ship (koindnia).** Fellowship was one of the distinctive marks of the Jemsalem church (Acts 2:42). This is something more than human feUowship or the pleasure people of like mmd fmd in each other's presence, h is more than a fellowship in a common religion. It is an eschatological creation of the Holy Spirit. Probably 2 Corinthians 13:14 should be rendered "die fellowship created by the Holy Spirh"; and Philippians 2:1 may be rendered "if the Spirit has reaUy created a feUowship.""^ This reladonship exists between people because they share a common relationship to Christ (1 Cor. 1:9). A bond exists between aU who are in Christ that is unique and transcends all odier human relationships.

42. See G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NT (1962), 167ff.; H. Oepke, TDNT 2:541. 43. The phrase rendered "all were made to drink of one spirit" is taken by many scholars to refer to the cup at the Lord's Supper (L. Goppeh, 7D7VT4:160,147), but the idea of drinking the Spirit is not a New Testament idea. The word (epotisthemen) can also mean "we were immersed in one Spirit . . . and were saturated in His outpouring" (G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NT, 170). 44. See C. A. A. Scott, Christianity according to St. Paul (1927), 158ff.; A. R. George, Communion with God (1953), 169ff. 45. See C. A. A. Scott, Christianity According to St. Paul, 160; see also E. Schweizer, TDNT 6:434. Other scholars interpret these verses as involving objective genitives. A. R. George, Communion with God, 178f.

The Church

589

The Elect From the divine side, those who have entered this fellowship do so because they have been called of God (1 Cor. 1:9). The church is a fellowship of the elect (Eph. 1:4; 1 Thess. 1:4), regardless of social status, education, wealth, or race (1 Cor. 1:27). The church can be designated simply as the elect of God (Rom. 8:33; Col. 3:12; 2 Tim. 2:10; Th. 1:1). This emphasizes the fact that the church is not primarily a human institution nor a religious movement founded on good works or even allegiance to a great teacher or leader; it is a creation of God based on his gracious purpose (Rom. 9:11; 11:5-6). It can never be a people, like Israel, formed upon natural or racial lines. There is in the church, indeed, a nucleus of Jews; but they are a remnant, chosen by grace (Rom. 11:5). The idea of election is not primarily that of the mdividual to salvation, but a Heilsgeschichte concept of the election of the people of God. The background of the term is Israel as the elect people of God,''* and it designates the church as the successors of Israel. It is prunarily a corporate concept.'''' The Saints Again, from the divine side, the church is a fellowship of the samts (hagioi) or the sanctified (hegiasmenoi). This is one of Paul's most common terms for Christians. The root idea of holiness is carried over from the Old Testament and designates anything set apart for divine use. Jerusalem is the holy chy (Mt. 4:5; 27:53); the temple is the holy place (Mt. 24:15; Acts 6:13); the altar is holy as well as the gift offered on the ahar (Mt. 23:19); the Law is holy (Rom. 7:12); Israel is a holy people (Isa. 62:12); the church as the new Israel is the fellowship of holy ones or samts.''* Almost never is hagios used in the singular designatmg individual mem bers of the church.*' That the term carries prunarily a Heilsgeschichte rather than an ethical connotation is proven by Paul's address to the Corinthians as "those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints" (1 Cor. 1:2). The congre gation m Corinth was anything but a "holy" people in terms of life and conduct; false teaching, schisms, and immorality marred the church. Still, it was a con gregation of saints, of the sanctified, because in spite of the sinful conduct of many of hs members and the worldly character of the church itself, it was still the church of God in Corinth. As such, Christ has become its sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30; 6:11) as well as hs redemption. Paul's challenge to his churches was that they should realize in life and conduct what was already theirs in Christ. Because they were die saints of God, they were to live holy lives. 46. See references in BAGD, 242f. 47. See A. Richardson, The Theology of the NT, 274f.; P. Minear, Images of the Church in the NT, 81f. 48. References in BAGD, 10. 49. R Minear, Images of the Church 136.

590

PAUL

Believers If from the divme side the church is a fellowship of elect saints, from the human side it is a fellowship of those who respond to the proclaimed Word of God and who believe m Jesus Christ and confess hhn as Lord (Rom. 10:9). The church consists of those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:2) and can be designated by the term "believers" (hoi pisteuontes) (1 Cor 1:21; 14:22; Gal. 3:22; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 2:13). That personal faith m Jesus Christ is consthutive of the church is clear from Romans 4, where Paul argues that the salvation wrought by Christ is effective only to those who, like Abraham, believe. Abraham was not accepted by God because of good works of religious rites (chcumcision) but because he believed God. Circumcision was the sign or seal of the righteousness that he had by faith. Thus he is the father of all who believe apart from the rhes of Judaism but who emulate the fahh of Abraham (Rom. 4:1 If.). The indispensable role of saving faith is again dlustrated in Romans 9:30-32. Israel according to the flesh was rejected because they sought righ teousness by works, whereas Gentiles attained unto righteousness and were brought into the tme Israel because they sought h by fahh. Here is an outstanding difference between participation m the old and the new Israel. Membership in the old Israel required circumcision and acceptance of the Law; membership in the new Israel requires individual personal faith and confession of Christ as Lord (Rom. 10:9). The Body

ofChrist

The most distinctive Pauline metaphor for the church is the body of Christ. Scholars have debated the source of this concept and numerous theories have been propounded.^o However, the background for the idea is not hnportant. What is important is the use Paul makes of it. Possibly Paul may have formulated the idea of the body of Christ out of his own creative mind.^i Paul never speaks of the church as a body per se; it is the body in Christ (Rom. 12:5) or the body ofChrist (1 Cor. 12:27). As his body, the church is in some sense identdied with Christ (1 Cor 12:12). This is an amazing statement. "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is whh Christ." We would have expected Paul to say, "so h is with the church." Paul uses the metaphor of the body to express the oneness of the church with her Lord. The church is not a body or society of believers but the body of Christ. The primary emphasis of the meta phor is the unity of believers whh Christ;52 but Paul introduces the concept both 50. See E. Best, One Body in Christ, 83-93, where he discusses seven different theories. Sl.lbid., 94. 52. Ibid., 93; C. F. D. Moule, Colossians and Philemon (1957), 6.

The Church

591

in Romans and Corinthians to deal with the problem of Christians' relations to one another. This truth of the solidarity of believers whh the Lord has a background in the teaching of Jesus and m Paul's conversion experience. "He who receives you receives me" (Mt. 10:40); "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did h to me" (Mt. 25:40). The voice Paul heard on the Damascus Road where he was journeying to persecute the church asked him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4). This close relationship faUs short of being one of complete identity. Paul does say once that "your bodies are members of Christ" (1 Cor. 6:15). But in the discussion in 1 Corinthians 12, Christians are thought of as members of Christ's body rather than members of Christ. It is too much to say that Paul thought of the church as an extension of the incarnation — that just as God was incarnate in Christ, Christ is incarnate in the church. Paul preserves a clear distinction between Christ and his church. The reason Paul draws upon the metaphor of the church as the body of Christ in Romans and Corinthians is, as already noted, to establish the proper relationship of Christians to each other. There is one body but it has many members, and these members differ greatly from one another. There was a tendency, particularly in Corinth, to make distinctions among Christians and to covet the more spectacular gifts of the Spirit. This led to tensions and dissensions in the congregation. Paul argues that there are admittedly great differences in the roles of different members of the body, but they all belong to the body, and the least member is hnportant. Since h is God who has arranged the members of the body as it has pleased him, there should be no discord but only mutual love and concern among the several members of the church (1 Cor. 12:24f.). Indeed, the inferior members should receive the greater honor. Paul carries the metaphor a step further in the Prison Epistles and speaks of Christ as the head of the body — an idea not found in Romans or Corinthians (Eph. 4:15; Col. 1:18). This makes h clear that Paul does not completely identify Christ and his church. He is the Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23). Paul obviously goes beyond the ordinary analogy of the physical body and its head, for the body is pictured as derivmg its nourishment and unhy from the head (Col. 2:19); and the body is to grow up in every way into him who is the head (Eph. 4:15).^^ This emphasizes even more than the earlier epistles the complete dependence of the church upon Christ for all of its life and growth. This also means that the church is the instrument of Christ in the world. It is "the fullness of him who fills all in all" (Eph. 1:23). "Fullness" (plerdma) has two different meanings.

53. Some scholars think that Paul is here making use of the gnostic concept of a heavenly anthropos who is the head of the universe, which is his body (H. Schlier, TDNT 3:680). However, this is quite unlikely (G. Delling, TDNT 6:3Q4; S. Hanson, The Unity of the Church, 113ff.).

592

PAUL

Some take it to mean that the church completes Christ — fills hhn up. However, it is easier to take it to mean that the church as the body of Christ is filled whh his hfe and power.s* which are to work through Christ m the world. The church is a "partaker of all that He owns and is for the purpose of condnuing his work."^^ This metaphor emphasizes also the unity of the church, especially since ekklesia in Ephesians and Colossians refers to the universal church radier than the local congregation. The fmal goal of Christ's redemptive ministry is to restore order and unity hi the whole universe, which has been dismpted by sm. God's plan is "to unite all thmgs m him, thmgs in heaven and thmgs on earth" (Eph. 1:10). This cosmic unity in Christ has already been achieved m principle. He has already been exalted far above every hostUe power and has been made head over all things for his church (Eph. 1:22). In this context, "head" is not analogous to the head of the body but represents primacy.^* Probably the goal stated in Ephesians 4:13 is eschatological: "untd we ad attahi to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mamre manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fuhiess of Christ."57 However, the very certainty of the eschatological unity demands the effort to realize this unity in Christ in history. This unity is not something to be created; h is given m Christ, although it can be dismpted (Eph. 4:3). There is and can be only one church because there is only one Christ, and he cannot be divided (1 Cor 1:13). "There is one body and one S p i r i t . . . one hope . . . one Lord, one faith,58 one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Eph. 4:4-6). This unity is not a static thing consistmg of outward stmcmre or formal organization. Indeed, m outward form the church of A.D. 50-60 consisted of many scattered autonomous communities.59 There does not seem to have been a single prevailing form of church government. The unity is one of Spirit and life, of faith and fellowship. It is a unity that is realized m considerable diversity. It is a unity diat should exclude schism in the local congregation (1 Cor. 1:13), which expresses itself in humble preference of one another (Rom. 12:3) and in mumal love and affection (1 Cor. 12:25-26), which means the end of racial distinctions (Eph. 2:16), and which should exclude doctrinal and religious aberrations (Col. 2:18-19). The Eucharist The unity of the body of Christ is further Ulustrated by the Eucharist. "Because there is one loaf [artos —bread], we who are many are one body, for we ad

54. E. Best, One Body in Christ, 142; G. Delling, TDNT 6:304. 55. S. Hanson, The Unity of the Church, 129. 56. So 1 Cor. 11:3, where man is the head of woman. 57. H. Chadwick in Peake's Commentary (1962), 984; O. Michel, TDNT 3:624. In 1 Cor. 13:11-12, Paul uses the same contrast of childhood-maturity to illustrate life in this age in contrast to life in the Age to Come when we shall see face to face. 58. Objective, meaning a single confession of faith. B. F. Westcott, Ephesians (1906), 59; S. Hanson, The Unity of the Church, 154. 59. See above, pp. 389f.

The Church

593

partake of the same loaf' (1 Cor. 10:17). Paul here uses the symbolism of a loaf of bread broken in pieces and distributed among the worshipers to illustrate the oneness of the mdividual members (see Didache 9:4). Unhy must exist among the participants of the Eucharist because they have a prior unity with Christ. The drmking of the cup is participation in the blood of Christ, and the eating of the bread is participation in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). Believers fmd their unity in Christ. The question of how realistically these words should be taken is widely debated. The cup and the bread are indeed a memorial of the death of Christ, and are used in memory of Jesus' death (1 Cor. 11:25). But eating and drinkmg involve more than a memory of a past event; they also represent participation in the body and blood of Christ, and therefore participa tion m his body. "The bread and the wine are vehicles of the presence of Christ. . . . Partaking of bread and wine is union (sharing) with the heavenly Christ."*o However, the Eucharist mediates fellowship with Christ in the same sense that the altar in the Old Testament economy mediated fellowship with God, and sacrifices to idols mediated fellowship with demons (1 Cor. 10:18-21). Some mterpret these words in a very realistic, sacramental sense, others in a more symbolic, metaphorical sense. It is faith by which one is identified with Christ in his death and becomes a member of his body; partaking of the bread and cup consthutes an event in which faith apprehends Christ. "The real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper is exactly the same as his presence in the Word — nothing more, nothing less."*' Baptism Baptism also symbolizes union whh Christ. Unless 1 Corinthians 12:13 refers to water baptism,*^ baptism does not have the same corporate emphasis as the Eucharist. Baptism is the rite of admission into the church, but h represents the identification of the believer whh Christ. People are baptized "into Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 6:3). Baptism "into Christ" means to put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). Baptism means union with Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:12). It is not a repetition of the death and resurrection of Christ, nor does h symbolize his death and resurrection. It symbolizes the believer's union with Christ in which one dies to his or her old life and is raised up to walk in newness of life. It is a symbol of spiritual death and resurrection. Paul does not speak of baptism as a cleansing, unless 1 Corinthians 6:11, Ephesians 5:26, and Titus 3:5 are oblique references to the baptismal waters. As with the Eucharist, h is widely debated to what extent baptism is

60. F.Hauck,rDAfr 3:805. 61. E. Schweizer, The Lord's Supper according to the NT(1967), 31. Schweizer includes an extensive bibliography. See also an older book, J. C. Lambert, The Sacraments in the NT (1903), which still is of great value. 62. See above, pp. 587f.

594

PAUL

sacramental and to what extent symbolic. The question cannot be finally re solved, for in the early church saving faith and baptism were practically syn onymous. However, in New Testament terms, "we should never of course say 'baptism' without also thinkmg 'faith.' Whhout fahh, baptism has no mean ing. "You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God" (Col. 2:12). In 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 Paul combats a materialistic and genuinely sacramental view of baptism and the Lord's Supper.*"* Certainly Paul did not think that the Israelites were united whh Moses m any truly sacramental sense when they were baptized m Moses m the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2). Furthermore, it is doubtful whether Paul would have written about baptism as he does m 1 Cormthians 1:13-16 if he had considered it a true sacrament. This is not to mmimize the hnportance of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Surely Paul could not have conceived of any believer who did not partake of the two Christian rites. It is not at all clear that Paul conceived of baptism as the Christian equivalent of cu-cumcision.*^ The "chcumcision of Christ" (Col. 2:11) is easiest to understand as the chcumcision of the heart that Christ performs.** This is an altogether sphhual event, one "made without hands," and is synonymous with dying to sin. Chcumcision then stands in contrast to baptism, not in correlation whh

it.*7

63. D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul, 170. 64. A. Oepke, TDNT 1:542. 65. "He can even call baptism the peritome Christou." R. Meyer, TDNT &.S3. 66. The alternative view is that the circumcision of Christ is his putting off his body of flesh in his death on the cross. See G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NT, 153. 67. See R. E. O. White, The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation (1960), 212. For bibliography on baptism, see G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NT, 396-406. See also R. Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul (1964).

39. Eschatology

Literature:

R. H. Charles, A Critical

History

of the Doctrine

of a Future Life (2nd ed.,

1913), 437-75; G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (1952); C. K. Barrett, "NT Escha tology," SJTh 6 (1953), 136-55, 225-43; W. D. Davies, "The Old and New Hope: Res urrection," Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1955), 285-320; J. Jeremias, "Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God," NTS 2 (1956), 151-59; N. Q. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology

in Paul (1957); O. Cullmann, Immortality

of the Soul or

Resur

rection of the Dead? (1958); E. E. Ellis, "The Stmcture of Pauline Eschatology," Paul and His Recent Interpreters (1961), 35-48; H. J. Schoeps, Paul (1961), 88-125; D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul (1964), 233-73; C. F D. Moule, "St. Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Concept of Resurrection," NTS 12 (1966), 106-23; H. M. Shires, The Eschatology of Paul (1966); F R Bruce, "Paul on Immortality," SJTh 24 (1971), 457-72; S. H. T. Page, "Revelation 20 and Pauline Eschatology," JCTS 23 (1980), 31-43; A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet (1981); J. M. Court, "Paul and the Apocalyptic Pattem," in Paul and Paulinism, ed. M. Hooker and S. Wilson (1982), 57-66; B. Lindars, "The Sound of the Tnimpet: Paul and Eschatology," BJRL 67 (1985), 766-82; H. C. Kee, "Pauline Eschatology: Relationships with Apocalyptic and Stoic Thought," in Glaid>e und Eschatologie, ed. E. Grasser and O. Merk (1985), 135-58; R. N. Longenecker, "The Nature of Paul's Early Eschatology," NTS 31 (1985), 85-95; A. C. Perriman, "Paul and the Parousia: 1 Corinthians 15:50-57 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-5," NTS 35 (1989), 512-21; M. C. De Boer, "Paul and Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology," in Apocalyptic and the NT, ed. J. Marcus and M. Soards (1989), 169-90; M. J. Harris, From Grave to Glory: Res urrection in the NT (1990); D. M. Scholer, " 'The God of Peace Will Shortly Cmsh Satan under Your Feet' (Romans 16:20a): The Function of Apocalyptic Eschatology in Paul," ExAuditu 6 (1990), 53-61; R. Collins (ed.). The Thessalonian Correspondence (1990); B. Witherington III, Jesus,

Paul and the End of the World (1992).

Introduction We have already seen that the framework of Paul's entire theological thought is that of apocalyptic dualism of this age and the A g e to C o m e . ' It is clear that this w a s no Pauline creation, for w e find it emerging in Judaism in the first 1. See above, pp. 402f. 595

596

PAUL

century; and the Synoptics represent it as providing the basic structure for Jesus' teachings. However, we have seen that Paul as a Christian made a radical modifica tion in this temporal dualism. Because of what God has done in Jesus' historic mission, the contrast between the two ages does not remain intact. On the contrary, the redemptive blessings brought to humankind by Jesus' death and resurrection and the giving of the Holy Sphit are eschatological events. This means that the Pauline eschatology is inseparable from Paul's theological thought as a whole.2 The events of the eschatological consummation are not merely detached events lying in the future about which Paul speculates. They are rather redemp tive events that have already begun to unfold whhin history. The blessings of the Age to Come no longer lie exclusively in the future; they have become objects of present experience. The death of Christ is an eschatological event. Because of Christ's death, the justified person stands already on the age-to-come side of the eschatological judgment, acquitted of all guilt. By virtue of the death of Christ, the believer has already been delivered from this present evil age (Gal. 1:4). He or she has been transferred from the rule of darkness and now knows the life of the Kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13). In his cross, Christ has already defeated the powers of evil that have brought chaos into the world (Col. 2:14f.). The resurrection of Christ is an eschatological event. The fhst act of the eschatological resurrection has been separated from the eschatological consum mation and has taken place in history. Christ has already abolished death and displayed the life and immortality of the Age to Come in an event that occurred whhin history (2 Tim. 1:10). Thus the light and the glory that belong to the Age to Come have already shone in this dark world in the person of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6). Because of these eschatological events, the believer lives the life of the new age. The very phrase describing the status of the believer, "in Christ," is an eschatological term. To be "in Christ" means to be in the new age and to experience its life and powers. "If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come" (2 Cor. 5:17). Believers have already experienced death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-4). They have even been raised with Christ and exalted to heaven (Eph. 2:6), sharing the resurrection and ascension life of theh Lord. Yet the experience of this new life of the Age to Come is not a secular event of world history; it is known only to believers. This good news of the new life is hidden to unbelievers. Their eyes are blinded so that they cannot behold it (2 Cor. 4:4). They are still in the darkness of this present evil age. Furthermore, the new life of believers is an ambiguous experience, for 2. The eschatological character of Paul's theology is emphasized by C. K. Barrett, N. Q. Hamilton, and H. M. Shires.

Eschatology

597

they still live m the old age. They have been delivered from its power, yet they must still live out their lives in this age, although they are not to be conformed to its life but are to experience the renewing powers of the new age (Rom. 12:1-2). The believer's new life is only "in the Spirit." He or she still has to make use of the world, but is no longer concemed to make full use of it (1 Cor. 7:31), for this world is transitory. Although Christ is in the individual, and the believer's Spirit has been made alive by the powers of the new age, his or her body is dying (Rom. 8:10). Therefore the transition from the sin and death of the old age to the life of the new age is as yet only partial, although it is real. All that the new age means cannot be experienced in the old age. It must pass away and give place to the Kingdom of God in the Age to Come when all that is mortal is swallowed up in life (2 Cor 5:4). Thus believers live in a tension of experienced and anticipated eschatology. They are already in the Kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13), but they await the coming of the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). They have already experienced the new life (2 Cor. 2:16), but they look forward to the inheritance of etemal life (Gal. 6:8). They have already been saved (Eph. 2:5), but they are sdll awahmg dieh salvation (Rom. 13:11). They have been raised into newness of life (Rom. 6:4), yet they long for the resurrection (2 Cor. 5:4). The present ambiguhy of the new life in Christ demands the remrn of Christ to complete the work of redemption already begun. The central theme of the Pauline eschatology is the consummation of God's saving purpose. Apart from tiie remm of Christ and the inauguration of the Age to Come, God's saving work remains unfinished. The Intermediate

State

Paul's eschatology is concemed mainly whh the events that will mark the transition from this age to the Age to Come: the retum of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. However, before these themes are considered, a prior question must be raised: tiie state of tiie dead between death and the resurrection. We have already seen that whde the Old Testament usually conceives of the shades of the dead existing in Sheol, the Psalms contain intimations of life beyond the grave. Judaism developed the idea of Sheol as a place of both punishment and blessing, which is reflected in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazams (Lk. 16:19-31). Jesus assured the dying thief that they would both enter Paradise after death.' The question of tiie intermediate state in Paul rests largely upon the interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. The most namral way to interpret the passage is to understand it in the light of Paul's strong emphasis on the resur rection of the body. According to this view, Paul affirms that after the dissolution of this earthly, tentlike body, the believer will receive from God an eternal, 3. See above, pp. 194f.

598

PAUL

heavenly body at the resurrection. In this earthly body we groan because of hs weakness and frailty. What we desire is to put on the new body, not to be a naked, disembodied soul or spirh. The fraihies of this body bring anxieties; even so, the idea of being unclothed, i.e., a disembodied sphit, is repugnant; we long for the resurrection body so that what is mortal may be swallowed up in life. Nevertheless, in sphe of Paul's natural abhorrence of being disembodied, he finds courage in the fact that to be away from the body — a disembodied spirh — means to be at home whh the Lord." One of the chief difficulties in this interpretation is the word "we have," which suggests that we have this body at death, not at a future resurrection. However, the present tense may be Paul's way of simply expressing the complete certainty that we are to have it.' The tense need not be pressed. In this interpretation, Paul has no light on the mode of existence in the intermediate state. He has the conviction, beginning to emerge in the Psalms, and expressed by Jesus to the dying thief, that "death could not bring the believer into any situation which meant separation from the Lord."* So far as he knows, the death of the body means the survival of the spirit,^ although in a disembodied, "naked" state; and his view of the role of the body m human existence leads him to shrink from this. But his Christian conviction overcomes his natural aversion to this disembodied state, for nothing, not even death, can separate from the love of Christ (Rom. 8:38); and if one is closer to the Lord, she or he will be hi a blessed state. This interpretation is confhmed by a passing allusion in Philippians 1:23: "My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better" than the frustrations and fraihies of mortal existence. "With Christ" — this is all Paul knows about the intermediate state. It does not surpass what Jesus said to the dying thief (Lk. 23:43). Many scholars have rejected this interpretation. Long ago R. H. Charles fraced four stages in the development of Pauline thought, the third of which is reflected in 2 Corinthians 5, where Paul expects to receive an immortal body at death.* He emphasizes the word "we have." When we die, we come into pos session of an hnmortal body in heaven. W. L, Knox believed that this change of view was due to "a complete revision of Pauline eschatology in a Hellenistic

4. This interpretation will be found in H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conception of the Last Things (1904), 264ff; A. Plummer, Second Corinthians (1915), 140ff.; R E. Hughes, Second Corinthians (1%2), 160ff. (excellent discussion); F. V. Filson, "2 Corinthians," in IB 10:326; J. Hiring, Second Corinthians (1967), 39ff.; J. N. Sevenster, "Some Remarks on the Gumnos in II Cor. v.3," in Studia Paulina (de Zwaan Festschrift, 1953), 212-14. 5. E V. Filson in IB 10:326. 6. H. A. A. Kennedy, 5f. Paul's Conception of the Last Things, 269. 7. In view of Paul's use of soul and spirit (see above. Chapter 34), he would probably speak of the spirit rather than the soul, even though in this passage he refers to neither soul nor spirit. 8. R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (1913), 455-61.

Eschatology

599

sense."' W. D. Davies iias rejected tiie thesis of Hellenisdc influence and has tried to show that the dual expectation of a body at death and a body in the Age to Come could be understood against rabbinic backgrounds. He accepts, how ever, the thesis that Paul experienced a significant change of mind between the writing of First and Second Corinthians."* This thesis has also been supported whh differing arguments by several recent scholars." As foreboding an array of scholarship as this may be, it seems difficult to understand why, if the believer puts on a heavenly, eternal body at death, there remains a need for the "resurrection and redemption of the Body [to be] achieved [at] the end of the a g e . " " This criticism is all the more pointed because there is no hint in Paul's other writings of an intermediate body, and it is easier to interpret 2 Corinthians 5 in the light of his extensive references to resurrection at the parousia. It would seem, therefore, that this interpretation definitely diminishes the significance of the coming consummation, in spite of the denial of this fact." The Sleep of the Dead The thesis that between death and the resurrection the soul is in a condition of sleep has recently received the weighty support of Cullmann.''' Cullmann is of course right that Paul, and all other biblical writers, look upon the final destiny of humanity in terms of resurrection of the body and not immortality of the soul. At this point Paul's expectation of the state of the dead in 2 Corinthians 5 is very Hebraic, for he abhors the idea of existing as a disembodied spirit, while the Greeks welcomed it. In fact, the very essence of the Greek idea was the flight of the soul from its imprisonment in the body, that h might find its tme freedom in the heavenly worid.'^ Paul's view stands in sharp contrast to the Greek view. What he longs for is the new body to be received at the resurrection. His expectation of being disembodied in the intermediate state is not due to Greek influence. It is tme that Paul often describes the state of death in terms of sleep (1 Thess. 4:13; 1 Cor. 15:16, etc.). However, sleep was a common term for death both in Greek and Hebrew literamre'* and need not carry any theological significance. To interpret Paul's references to depart and be with Christ (Phil,

9. W. L. Knox, 5/. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (1931), 128. 10. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1955), 309ff. 11. See C. H. Dodd, NT Studies (\953), 122ff.; R. F. Hettlinger, "2 Corinthians 5.1-10," SJTh 10 (1957), 174-94; F F Bruce, "Paul on Immortality," SJTh 24 (1971), 457-72; H. M. Shires, The Eschatology of Paul (1966), 89-91. 12. R. F HettUnger in SJTh 10, 193. 13. F F Bruce in SJTh 24, 472. 14. O. Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? (1958). 15. See G. E. Ladd, The Pattern of NT Truth (1968), 13-37. 16. R. Bultmann, TDNT3:U.

600

PAUL

1:2), to be absent from the body but at home with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8), as a state in which we "continue to hve with C h r i s t . . . in the condition of sleep,"'^ and thus are nearer to God, aUhough in an unconscious state, is difficult in spite of what Cullmann says about the pleasure of dreams.'* The Return of Christ In the Old Testament "the Day of the Lord" could designate a day in the immediate historical future when God would vish his people in judgment (Amos 5:18; cf. Isa. 2:12ff.). It could also designate the final vishation of God when he would establish his Kingdom in the world, bringing salvation to his faithful people and judgment to the wicked (Zeph. l:14ff.; Joel 3:14ff.)." In the New Testament the term has become a technical expression for the day when God will visit the world to bring this age to its end and to inaugurate the Age to Come.2o The term is not to be thought of as a single calendar day but as the entire period that will witness the final redemptive vishation of God in Christ. The expression assumes different forms: the Day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; cf. also Acts 2:20; 2 Pet. 3:10); the Day of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14); the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:8); the Day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6); the Day of Christ (Phil. 1:10; 2:16); that Day (2 Thess. 1:10; 2 Tim. l:18).2i In view of the fact that the exalted Christ is for Paul as for the early church the Lord (Phil. 2:11; Rom. 10:9), it should be obvious that efforts to distinguish between the Day of the Lord and the Day of Christ and to find in them two different eschatological programs, one for Israel and one for the church, are misguided.22 The coming of Christ to gather his people, both living and dead, to himself (1 Thess. 4:13-17) is called the Day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:2), as is his coming to judge the man of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:2). Paul uses three words to describe the retum of the Lord. The first is parousia, which may mean both "presence" (Phil. 2:2) and "arrival" (1 Cor. 16:17; 2 Cor. 7:7). The word was used in a semitechnical sense of the visit of persons of high rank, especially of kings and emperors vishing a provmce. Since his ascension, Christ is pictured seated at the right hand of God m heaven. He will visit the earth again in personal presence (see Acts 1:11) at the end of the age (see Mt. 24:3) in power and glory (see Mt. 24:27) to raise the dead m Christ

17. O. Cullmann, Immortality, 56. 18. For a strong refutation of this view, see D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul (1964), 262-69. 19. See H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel (1956), 177ff. 20. See Acts 2:20. It is curious that while Jewish apocalyptic often speaks of an apocalyptic "day," it does not use the full technical term "the Day of the Lord." See P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der jiidischen Gemeinde (1934), 163-65. 21. See also the Day of God in 2 Pet. 3:12. 22. See J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come (1958), 229-32, who relates the Day of the Lord to Israel, and the Day of Christ to the church.

Eschatology

601

(1 Cor. 15:23), to gather his people to himself (2 Thess. 2:1; cf. Mt. 24:31), and to destroy evd (2 Thess. 2:8; see also 1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23). The coming of Christ will also be an apokalypsis, an "unveding" or "disclosure." The power and glory that are now his by virtue of his exahation and heavenly session must be disclosed to the world. Christ has already been elevated by his resurrecdon and exaltation to the right hand of God, where he has been given sovereignty over all spiritual foes (Eph. 1:20-23). He now bears the name that is above every name; he is now the exalted Lord (Phil. 2:9). He is now reigning as King at God's right hand (1 Cor. 15:25). However, his reign and his Lordship are not evident to the world. His apokalypsis will be the revealing to the world of the glory and power that are now his (2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:7; see also 1 Pet. 1:7, 13). Thus the second coming of Christ is insep arable from his ascension and heavenly session, for it will disclose his present Lordship to the world and be the means by which every knee shall finally bow and every tongue acknowledge his Lordship (Phd. 2:10-11). A third term is epiphaneia, "appearing," and indicates the visibility of Christ's retum. Although this term is limited largely to the Pastoral Epistles, Paul tells the Thessalonians that Christ will slay the man of lawlessness by the breath of his mouth and destroy him "by the epiphaneia of his parousia" (2 Thess. 2:8). The return of the Lord will be no secret, hidden event but a breaking into history of the glory of God. The inseparable connection between the two acts in Christ's redemptive work is illustrated by the twofold use of epiphaneia to designate both the incarnation and the second coming of Christ. God has already broken the power of death and displayed the reality of life and immortality within history through the appearing (epiphaneia) of our Savior Christ Jesus in the flesh (2 Tim. 1:10). However, this is not the final term of redemption. Hope still awaits us in the future in the "appearing (epiphaneia) of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Tit. 2:13). In view of this twofold usage, the objections sometimes made against speaking of a "second" coming of Christ are overly critical.^' Dispensational theology separates the retum of Christ into two parts: a secret coming of Christ before the great tribulation for the church, and a glorious appearing at the end of the tribulation to bring salvation to Israel and to establish his millennial kingdom. These two comings have usually been called the rapture and the revelation.^" While dispensationalist theologians retain the view of a twofold retum of Christ, many of the usual exegetical arguments have been surrendered. In fact, Walvoord goes so far as to admit that "pretribulationism," i.e., a coming of Christ before the great tribulation for the church, is not explicitly 23. See Heb. 9:28, "Christ . . . will appear a second time." 24. See W. E. B., Jesus Is Coming (1908), ch. 9; C. L. Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism? (1954), 162ff.; J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come, 206-7.

602

PAUL

taught in Scripture.^^ This is a significant admission. The fact is that the hope of the church is not a secret event, unseen by the world. The Christian hope is the visible appearing of the glory of God in Christ's retum (Tit. 2:13), the revelation to the world of Jesus as Lord when he comes with his mighty angels (2 Thess. 1:7). It has often been argued in defense of a twofold future coming of Christ that if he is to come "with all his saints" (1 Thess. 3:13), he must of necesshy have come first "for" them.^* His coming for his saints is the rapture at the beginning of the great tribulation; his coming "with his saints" is a later event at the end of the tribulation. This phrase, however, provides no proof for such a view of two comings of Christ. If the "saints" (hagioi, "holy ones") of 1 Thessalonians 3:13 are redeemed human beings, this says no more than 1 Thessalonians 4:14, where Paul says that at the coming of Christ to rapture the church, "God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep." However, the "holy ones" of 1 Thessalonians 3:13 may be another reference to the holy angels who will accompany the Lord at his return.^^ The background of this language of the coming of Christ in glory is the Old Testament language of theophany. The Old Testament conceives of God working in history to accomplish his redemptive purposes; but it also looks forward to a day of divine visitation when God will come in judgment and salvation to establish his Kingdom.2* In the New Testament this divine theophany is fulfilled in the coming of Christ; and the glorious return of the Lord is necessary to bring salvation to his people (1 Thess. 5:8-9) and judgment upon the wicked (2 Thess. 1:7-8) and to establish the Kingdom, which is now his, in the world (2 Tim. 4:1). The theology of the coming of Christ is the same in Paul as in the Synoptics. Salvation is not a matter that concerns only the destiny of the in dividual soul. It includes the entire course of human history and humankind as a whole. The coming of Christ is a definitive event for all people; it means ehher salvation or judgment. Furthermore, salvation is not merely an individual matter; it concerns the whole people of God, and it includes the transformation of the entire physical order. This redemption is altogether the work of God. The coming of Christ is a cosmic event in which God, who visited men and women in the humble historical Jesus, will vish them again in the glorified Christ. The goal of redemp25. J. Walvoord, The Rapture Question (1957), 148. This admission, which appears in the first printing of the book, was deleted from later printings. 26. G. B. Stanton, Kept from the Hour (1950), 265. 27. The word hagioi is used of angels in the LXX in Ps. 89:5, 7; Dan. 4:13 (Theodotion; see RSV); 8:13; Zech. 14:5. Angels are frequently called "the holy ones" in the Qumran literature. See E M. Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran (1957), 73; M. Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns (1961), 82. 28. See Isa. 2:12-22, esp. v. 21; 26:31; 35:4; 40:10; 66:15ff.; Zech. 14:5.

Eschatology

603

tion is nothing less than the establishment of God's rule in all the world, "that God may be everything to every one" (1 Cor. 15:28). The Kingdom of God In our discussion of the messiahship of Jesus, we have had occasion to outline Paul's teaching about the Kingdom of God. We have seen^' that the Kingdom of God is the messianic mle of God in Christ that began at his resurrection and ascension and will continue "until he has put all his enemies under his feet" (1 Cor 15:25). The Kingdom of God — the perfect rule of God in the world — is the eschatological goal of redemption; but it is a goal the achievement of which reaches back to Easter. Here we must deal with the question of the eschatological aspect of the Kingdom — in particular, whether Paul looked for an interim messianic king dom before the inauguration of the Age to Come. Background for this idea is found in the prophecy of Ezekiel. The prophet looks forward to the restoration of a believing remnant to whom God has given a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek. 33-37). This is not, however, the goal of God's redemptive purpose. Before the era of peace is completely established, there will occur the final terrible war with the barbarous, unrepentant forces of evil from the distant places of the worid (Ezek. 38-39). Only after this battle will the world be completely purified and ready for the new Jemsalem to which the glory of God shall return.'" Judaism had a great variety of ideas about the nature of the Kingdom of God. In addition to those already discussed," sometimes we find a temporal kingdom preceding the coming of the Age to Come, similar to the pattem in Ezekiel. This temporary messianic kingdom is found in 1 Enoch (91:13-14), in 4 Ezra (7:28), and the Apocalypse of Bamch (29:3ff.). Similar ideas are to be found in rabbinic literature, which sometimes distinguishes between the tem porary "days of the Messiah" and the eternal "Age to Come."'^ This pattern is also found in Revelation 20. Because of this passage, the "days of the Messiah" are often spoken of as the millennium by Christian theologians. In 1 Corinthians 15:23-26, Paul pictures the triumph of Christ as being accomplished in several stages. The resurrection of Christ is the first stage (tagma). The second stage will occur at the parousia when those who are Christ's will share his resurrection. "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

29. 30. 31. 32.

See above, pp. 450f. G. E. Wright, "The Faith of Lsrael," IB 1:372. See above, pp. 58ff. See J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (1955), 408-19.

604

PAUL

Vos thinks that by proving that Christ's messianic reign began with his resurrection-ascension, he has established that Christ's Kingdom must lie in its entirety before the parousia.^^ Schoeps takes a similar view, arguing that Paul adapted the scheme of a temporal messianic kingdom to his conviction that the resurrection had already begun and Christ was already the Exalted One. He holds that Paul probably knew a rabbinic tradition that the days of the Messiah would last forty years. Therefore Paul expected the heavenly reign of Christ to be very short, and looked for the parousia and the Age to Come within forty years at most.^" We agree with both Vos and Schoeps that Paul views Jesus' messianic reign as beginning at his resurrection-ascension. But this does not exclude the natural sense of the passage cited. The adverbs translated "then" are epeita, eita, which denote a sequence: "after that." There are three distinct stages: Jesus' resurrection; after that (epeita) the resurrection of those who are Christ's at his parousia; after that (eita) the end (telos). A few scholars understand to telos to designate the end of the resurrection, i.e., the resurrection of unbelievers;^' but this seems impossible.36 The natural meaning of to telos is the consummation, which will see the inauguration of the Age to Come. An undefined interval falls between Christ's resurrection and his parousia; and a second undefined interval falls between the parousia and the telos.^'^ The Mystery of

Lawlessness

The coming of Christ is to be preceded by certain eschatological events. In his first letter to the Thessalonians, Paul spoke only of the return of Christ to gather the saints, both dead and living, to be with him (1 Thess. 4:13-18). He wrote with earnest anticipation, admonishing the Thessalonians to live with an attitude of expectancy of that day so as not to be taken by surprise (1 Thess. 5:1-11). As a result, believers in Thessalonica became upset and excited, and some claimed to have revelations from God or a special word from Paul indicating that the end was upon them and the events of the Day of the Lord had actually begun (2 Thess. 2:1-2). Paul corrects this erroneous view of imminency by saying that before the end comes, there will appear an evil ruler, the man of lawlessness, who will arrogate to himself all authority, both secular and sacred, and will demand the total submission of human

33. G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (1952), 246. 34. H. J. Schoeps, Paul (1961), 101. 35. J. Weiss, The History of Primitive Christianity (1937), 532. 36. J. Hering, First Corinthians (1962), 166. 37. This interpretation is found in H. St.-John Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (1900), 120-28; O. Cullmann, "The Kingship of Christ and the Church in the NT," in The Early Church, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (1956), 11 Iff.; C. T. Craig, IB 10:36ff.; N. A. Dahl, "The Messiahship of Jesus in Paul," in Jesus the Christ, ed. D. Juel (1991), 22.

Eschatology

605

beings to his rule, including worship (2 Thess. 2:3-4). The statement that he will take his seat in the temple of God is a metaphorical way of expressing, in Old Testament language, his defiance of God (see Ezek. 28:2: Isa. 14:1314). He will be satanically empowered to deceive people and turn them away from the truth (vv. 9-10). The essence of his character is his "lawlessness." He defies both the Law of God and the laws of humanity, insisting that his will alone is law. This "man of lawlessness" is called the Beast in Revelation 13, but he is usually spoken of as the antichrist. His appearance will be accompanied by "the rebellion" (2 Thess. 2:3). The word apostasia is sometimes translated "falling away" and is understood to designate an apostasy within the Christian church. It is better translated "rebellion" or "revolt" as in the RSV. The idea is not so much that of drifting away from the Lord into apathy as a deliberate setting of oneself in violent opposition to God. This rebellion is to be a definite event, an apocalyptic happening.'* Antichrist not only will oppose all divine authority, but will be supported by a general rebellion against God. The "revealing" of the man of lawlessness will not be a new thing in human history, but only the final manifestation of a principle that was operative even in the days of Paul (v. 7). Paul could see the spirh of opposition and rebellion against God already at work. However, this evil principle is at present held in check. There is something that is restraining the appearance of the man of lawlessness (v. 6). Paul does not tell us what this restraining principle is. Again, Paul indicates that this restraining principle is embodied in a person; "only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way" (v. 7). When the restraining one is removed the lawless one will be revealed. There are no darker words in the entire Pauline corpus than these, and any interpretation must be at best a hypothesis. In many evangelical circles, the only interpretation that is considered possible is that the restraining power is the Holy Spirit; and this verse is often cited in support of the rapture of the church before the tribulation. The Holy Spirit will be taken out of the world when the church is raptured. When this divine restraining power is removed, then lawlessness is free to break o u t . " It is tme that some early fathers saw the restraining principle in the Holy Spirit,''" but this view has little to commend it. There is no hint of the teaching that the Holy Spirit, who was given at Pentecost, will leave the world at the parousia. Recently the view has been propounded that the passage must be under stood in the light of Paul's missionary work. Paul believed that the whole world must be evangelized before the parousia of Christ, and he was the chief mis sionary in carrying out this mission to the Gentiles. Until this mission should 38. W. Neil, Thessalonians (1950), 160. 39. J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come, 204f.; G. B. Stanton, Kept from the Hour, ch. 5. 40. B. F. Westcott, Thessalonians (1908), 101.

606

PAUL

be complete, the end could not come. Therefore the missionary mission is the restraining principle and Paul himself is the person restraining."' The traditional view has been that the restraining principle is the Roman empire and the restrainer the emperor."^ This view, or a modification of it, fits best into the Pauline theology. In Romans 13:4, Paul affirms that the ruling authority (even though it be pagan Rome) is "God's servant for your good." God has ordained human authorities to preserve order, i.e., to approve those who do good and to punish those who do wrong. The antithesis of this is the lawlessness of 2 Thessalonians 2:4: the deifying of the state so that it no longer is an instmment of law and order but a totalitarian system that defies God and demands the worship of human beings. This is the demonic state. "The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power . . . and with all wicked deception" (v. 8). This is the same demonic, totalitarian state pictured in Revelation 13. In Paul's day, God had invested this authority in the Roman empire and its head, the emperor. Paul sees a day when the rule of law will collapse, when political order will be swept away and be unable any longer to restrain the principle of lawlessness. Then the last defenses that the Creator has erected against the powers of chaos whl break down completely."^ This can well be understood in the principle of the deification of the state in defiance of the divine ordinance. The principles of both order and lawlessness can be at work at the same time, even in the same state. These two principles will be in conflict during the course of the age. At the very end, law and order will break down, demonic lawlessness will burst forth, and the church will experience a brief period of terrible evil that will be quickly terminated by the return of Christ (v. 8). The Mystery of Israel's Hardening and Final

Salvation

Literature: See commentaries on Romans 9-11; J. Munck, Christ and Israel (1967); R Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (1969), 126-47; W. D. Davies, "Paul and the People of Israel," NTS 24 (1977), 4-39; W. S. Campbell, "The Freedom and Fahhfulness of God in Relation to Israel," JSNT 13 (1981), 27-45; G. Wagner, "The Future of Israel: Reflections on Romans 9-11," in Eschatology and the NT, ed. W. Gloer (1988), 77-112; H. Raisanen, "Paul, God and Israel: Romans 9-11 in Recent Research," in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism, ed. J. Neusner (1988), 178-206; on the subject of "Israel and the Church (Romans 9-11)," see ExAuditu 4 (1988); O. Hofius, " 'All Israel Will Be Saved': Divine Salvation and Israel's Deliverance in Romans 9-11," Princeton Seminary Bulletin Suppl. Issue 1 (1990), 19-39; T. Hohz, "The Judgment on the Jews and the Salvation of All Israel: 1 Thes 2,15-16 and Rom 11,25-26," in The Thessalonmn Correspondence, ed. R. Collins (1990), 284-94; R. Hvalvik, "A 'Sonderweg' for Israel: A Critical Examination of a Current Interpretation of Romans 11:25-27," JSNT 38 (1990), 87-107.

41. O. Cullmann, Christ and Time (1964), 164f.; J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (1959), 31-39. 42. R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, 440. 43. See E. Stauffer, NT Theology (1955), 214; L. Morris, Thessalonians (1959), 225-27.

Eschatology

607

Another event Paul expects to occur in connection with the consummation is the salvation of Israel. This tmth Paul expounds in Romans 9-11. The rejection of Christ by Israel and its subsequent fall was not a mere accident of history but a factor in God's redemptive purpose — an event in Heilsgeschichte. Even in the rejection of Israel, God had a purpose: that by Israel's fall, salvation might come to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:11). Then Paul makes a key statement: "Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentdes, how much more their fulness?" (11:12). In this statement is embodied Paul's theology of the future salvation of Israel. If the fall of Israel has brought salvation to the Gentiles, in how much larger measure wdl salvation come to the Gentile world if the "fulness," i.e., full salvation of Israel, comes? Israel was God's chosen instmment to bring salvation to the world. This was the heart of the promise given to Abraham. He was to be the father of many nations, and in him would all famUies of the earth be blessed (Gen. 12:1-3; 17:6). This is why Christ came into the world as an Israelhe. Israel's rejection of her Messiah and her subsequent fall were the means used by God to bring salvation to the Gentiles. But this is not the last chapter of the story. The church age as we know it is not the end. Two things must yet happen: the fullness of literal Israel must come in, and by her salvation greater riches be brought to the Gentile worid. Paul further develops this truth in the following verses. Israel is still the chosen people. She is slid the special object of God's care and will yet be the instmment of salvation. This is asserted in Romans 11:15-16. The firstfmits of Israel (the patriarchs) were holy, i.e., the objects of God's election and care; and the entire lump (Israel as a people) is also holy. If the root of the tree is holy, so is the entire tree. The people Israel continues to be a "holy" people — a people whom God has designated for his redemptive purpose in the world. This future purpose is indicated in the following words: "For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?" (v. 15). Here is the twofold contrast: the present rejection of Israel because of unbelief is contrasted with a future receiving of Israel in belief. The other contrast is even more significant. The present rejection of unbelieving Israel means that the message of reconciliation has gone out to all the world; Israel's future restoration will mean much more than this — a state of blessedness that Paul describes by the phrase "life from the dead." The balanced structure of the sentence shows that this is a blessing that comes upon the Gentile world. The balance of the sentence is the key to its interpretation, and the following diagram illustrates this balance.

608

PAUL I a. Present rejection of Israel b. Future restoration of Israel

II a. Reconciliation of the world b. Life from the dead

Israel is the subject of the two members in I; and the Gentile world is the subject of the two members in II. "Life from the dead" (lib) is not a parallel member with "Israel" (lb) but with "the world" (Ila). It stands m contrast with Israel (lb). "Life from the dead" does not refer to Israel's restoration but to the resuhs for the Gentiles of Israel's restoration. Israel's future salvation will issue in a new order of blessedness and happiness for the Gentile world that is likened to the emergence of life from the dead. There remains in the future for the world an enjoyment of the reality of the life in Christ extending far beyond anything we have now experienced; and this will be accomplished through the instrumentalhy of Israel's conversion. Paul does not here tell us when or how this era of blessing will occur.*" Paul sums up the entire matter m verses 25-27. Israel is now hardened. The Gentiles are now being brought in. Finally, "all Israel shall be saved." "All Israel" does not need to mean every single Israelite but the people as a whole."' Paul does not here add the thought that through this salvation of Israel a new wave of life will come to the whole world; his concern at this point is only the destiny of Israel. Paul does not explain how the salvation of Israel is accomplished. One thing, however, is clear: h must take place in fundamentally the same terms as the salvation of the Gentiles, namely, through savmg faith in Jesus as the crucified Messiah. The words of Romans 11:26, "Then shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob," may refer to the second coming of Christ, but not necessarily so. This is a composite quotation from Isaiah 59:20 and 27:9, nehher of which refers to the Messiah. So far as the passage in Romans 11 is concerned, the salvation of Israel could occur by a great evangelistic movement that would bring Israel into the church; however, Paul says nothing about Gentile Christians evangelizmg the Jews. Whatever the means of Israel's salvation, it appears to be an eschatological event in Paul's thought. It is impossible that Israel should be saved in any way but by faith in Jesus as Israel's Messiah. Saul of Tarsus was brought to faith by a special vision of the glorified Christ; yet he was saved by faith like any believer and was brought into the church. Literal Israel, temporarily rejected, is yet to come to faith and be grafted back into the olive tree — the tme people of God (Rom. 11:23). Piper has suggested that in God's plan of redemptive history, converted Israel may become for the first time in history a truly Christian nation.'*^

44. See W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans (1906), 325. They also consider the possibility that Paul is referring to the first resurrection of the dead. See also J. Murray, Romans (1965), 2:82-84. 45. W. Gutbrod, TDNT 3:387. 46. O. Piper, "Church and Judaism in Holy History," Th Today 18 (1961), 60-71.

Eschatology

609

The Resurrection and the Rapture Paul has more to say about the resurrection than any other writer in the New Testament. Redemption applies to the whole person, including the body (Rom. 8:23). Paul often contrasts the sufferings of earthly existence whh the future glory (Rom. 8:18), but he never considers bodily life m hself an evil thing from which he longs to be freed. Rather than being discarded, the body, which often humiliates us, is to be transformed and glorified (Phd. 3:21). The Holy Spirit who has quickened our spirits wdl also give fullness of life to our mortal bodies in the resurrection (Rom. 8:11). Paul's doctrine of the resurrection is grounded in his unitary view of humanhy. We have seen, however, that as Paul reflected on death, he could not conceive that even death could separate the believer from the love of God. To be absent from the body means to be at home with the Lord, apparently as a disembodied spirit."'' However, this is not what Paul longs for. The intermediate state, although one of blessing, is not the goal of salvation. The consummation of salvation and the full possession of our inheritance at the resurrection (Eph. 1:14) await the return of Christ when God wid "bring whh him those who have fallen asleep" (1 Thess. 4:14). Then the sphits of the dead will be reunhed whh their bodies, but transformed, glorified. Paul knows nothing of glorified spirhs apart from the body. The problem that called forth his long discussion of the resurrection was some form of denial of the resurrection of the body (1 Cor 15:12, 35). If Paul had taught some form of blessed immortality of the soul or resurrection of the spirit out of its entanglement in the world of matter into the realm of God, the Corinthians would have had no problem. They have difficulty accepting the idea of bodily resurrection. The resurrection body as described by Paul transcends present historical experience. A body suited to the life of the Kingdom must be different from the bodies of this age. That there can logically be such a body Paul establishes by pointing to the fact that there is a difference between a kernel of grain and the shoot that comes from it (1 Cor. 15:35-38). There are also different kinds of flesh — of human beings, beasts, fish, bhds (v. 39), and there are different kinds of bodies — earthly and heavenly — which differ in their glory (vv. 40-41). Therefore it should not be surprising that God has a new and different kind of body adapted to the life of the Age to Come. However, Paul does not attempt to describe the nature of the resurrection body. He knows nothing of its constitution; but he can speak of some of the qualities in which h differs from the physical body. The latter is perishable, dishonoring, and weak. The new body will be imperishable, glorious, and power ful (vv. 42-43). The contrast is summarized in the words psychikon versus pneumatikon (v. 44). The former word is impossible to translate Iherally. While psyche can mean "soul," it often means the totality of natural life,"* and this is 47. See above, pp. 597f. 48. See above, pp. 502f.

610

PAUL

the meaning here. The psychikon soma is the "natural" (KJV) or "physical" (RSV) body adapted to life in this age. It is clearly not a body whose substance is psyche. The resurrection body will be pneumatikon ("spiritual"), i.e., not constituted of pneuma ("spirit"), but adapted to all that the life of the pneuma, God's pneuma, means."' Echoes of this idea are found elsewhere. It is the indwelling Holy Spirit who will give life to our mortal bodies (Rom. 8:11). The present experience of the Holy Spirh is the initial "down payment" (arrabon) that guarantees the final swallowing up of mortality by the life of the resurrection body (2 Cor. 5:4-5; see also Eph. 1:14). The Holy Spirit is also called the firstfruhs (aparche) of the completed eschatological harvest, which will be the redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23). Paul's "spiritual body," then, is a new body that stands in some kind of real continuity with the physical body, which will yet be different because it has been transformed by the Holy Spirit and made like the glorious body of the resurrected Jesus (Phil. 3:21). The physical body was of dust, like Adam's body; the spiritual body will be heavenly, like Christ's body (1 Cor. 15:45-49); but it is still a body. Paul inseparably associates the resurrection of the saints with the resurrec tion of Christ. The same power that raised Christ will raise up his people (1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14). In fact, Christ's resurrection was itself the first act of the final resurrection. It is the "first fruhs" of which the eschatological resurrection will be the harvest (1 Cor. 15:20). Therefore Paul is concerned only with the resurrecfion of "the dead in Christ" (1 Thess. 4:16). Paul has no word in his epistles as to the resurrection of those who do not stand in solidarity with Christ — the unsaved. Luke quotes him in Acts 24:15 asserting resurrection of both the just and the unjust; and we may well believe this, for Paul does teach the judgment of all people (Rom. 2:6-11). But he says nothing about the time or the nature of the resurrection of any except Christians. Nehher does Paul refer to the state of the unsaved after death. He does not even mention Hades in his letters.'" The resurrection will occur instantaneously at the coming of Christ (1 Thess. 4:16; 1 Cor. 15:52). The change that will occur for the dead in Christ will also overtake the living in Christ. Those "who are left until the coming of the Lord" will have no advantage over those who have fallen asleep (1 Thess. 4:15). The same transformation will overtake both the living and the dead (1 Cor. 15:51). The living will, as it were, put the new resurrection body on over the mortal body (ependysasthai, 2 Cor. 5:4) without the dissolution of the latter. This is what Paul means by the so-called "rapture"" of the church. The "catching up" of living believers, immediately after the resurrection, to meet the Lord in 49. See D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul, 252. 50. Hades in 1 Cor. 15:55 (KJV) reflects the inferior Textus Receptus. The reference m Eph. 4:8 to "the lower parts of the earth" does not refer to a descent into Sheol. See E. K. Simpson and F. E Bruce, Ephesians and Colossians (1957), 91. 51. "Rapture" comes from the L^tin raptus. "We . . . shall be caught up" in 1 Thess. 4:17 is rapiemur in the l^tin.

Eschatology

611

the ah is Paul's vivid way of expressing the sudden transformadon of the living from the weak, cormptible bodies of this physical order to the powerful, incormptible bodies that belong to the new order of the Age to Come. It is the sign of passing from the level of mortal existence to immortality. The important words are "so shall we always be with the Lord" (v. 17). Paul is referring to the rapture, i.e., the transformation of the living saints, when he says, "We shall not all sleep [in death], but we shall all be changed" (1 Cor. 15:51). He has just asserted that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable iidierit the imperishable" (v. 50). In these words he is probably referring to the saints who are living at the parousia, who will put on their resurrection bodies without experiencing death. He calls this a "mystery" (v. 51) — the revelation of a new tmth, namely, that the change of the living as well as of the dead will take place immediately at the parousia.^^ Judgment While Paul refers frequendy to judgment, he nowhere develops this doctrine as he does the resurrection. He speaks of those who store up "wrath for themselves" on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment wdl be revealed (Rom. 2:5). In that day God will judge the secrets of women and men by Christ Jesus (Rom. 2:16). Other passmg references to judgment are found in Romans 13:2; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Romans 3:6; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:12; and 2 Timothy 4:1. In some way not explained to us, the saints are to assist God in the judgment of the world, even to the point of judging angels (1 Cor. 6:2-3). The most developed passage on judgment is Romans 2. There will be a day of judgment (Rom. 2:5) when God will judge all people according to their works. To the righteous he will give eternal life, to the wicked wrath and fury (vv. 6-10). Furthermore, people will be judged by the light they have. All men and women have the light of namre by which they should recognize the existence of the tme God and worship him alone (Rom. l:18ff.). The Jews will be judged by the Law (Rom. 2:12), and those who have not had the Law will be judged by the law of God written on theh hearts — by conscience (vv. 14-16). While these verses suggest theoretically that people can survive the day of judgment on the basis of good works, Paul states clearly that they have not lived up to their light. The Gendles have perverted the light of general reveladon (Rom. l:21ff.), and the Jews have failed to keep the Law (Gal. 3:10-12). However, God in his mercy has provided a way of salvation in the redeeming work of Christ, and the final basis of judgment will be the gospel (Rom. 2:16; 2 Thess. 1:8). God's final judgment wiU be absolutely just and not arbitrary. TTiere is another important element in the Pauline teaching of judgment. The constant New Testament tension between experienced and futuristic escha tology is found in the doctrine of judgment. Justification is an eschatological 52. See J. Jeremias in NTS 2 (1956), 151-59.

612

PAUL

fact that has occurred in history, h means acquittal from the guilt of sin by a favorable decision of the Judge. This decision has already been rendered for believers on the ground of the death of Christ (Rom. 3:21-26). Because of present justification, we shall be saved from wrath on the day of judgment (Rom. 5:9). Nevertheless, judgment remains an eschatological fact, even for believers. The righteousness we hope for (Gal. 5:5) is acquittal at the final judgment." "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (2 Cor. 5:10), which is also the judgment seat of God (Rom. 14:10, RV, RSV, NRSV). However, because of the justification in Christ, the day of judgment has lost its terror for the person in Christ (Rom. 8:1, 33-34). Nevertheless, believers will be judged for their works. Our life will be laid bare before the divine scrutiny that each one may receive the proper recompense for the things done through the life of the body, in accordance with the things that he or she has done, whether that life record is good or bad.'" This judgment is not "a declaration of doom, but an assessment of worth,"'' involving not condemnation or acquittal, but rewards or loss on the basis of the worthfulness or worthlessness of the Christian's life. The same principle of judgment is expounded in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. Paul is here speaking of the work of Christian leaders, but the principle is valid for all believers. The only foundation upon which anything permanent can be built is Jesus Christ. However, not all build alike. Some erect structures whh gold, silver, or precious stones; others will build worthless houses of wood, hay, or stubble. Clearly, Paul is applying his metaphor rather loosely, for these materials were not generally used in ancient construction. Paul is deliberately using a radical metaphor to contrast great value with worthlessness. Some Christians will live worthless lives; their works, like wood, hay, and stubble, will be consumed in the flames of judgment so that nothing remains as a result of their life on earth. This does not mean the loss of salvation: "he himself will be saved," but will suffer loss of the "well done, good and faithful servant." Those who have buih faithfully and effectively will be rewarded for their love and devotion. Paul does not indicate what the reward will be. The principle involved in this judgment is that while salvation is altogether of grace. Christians are left in no doubt that they are regarded by God as fully answerable for the quality of their present lives in the body. The

Consummation

The goal of God's redemptive purpose is the restoration of order to a universe that has been disturbed by evil and sin. This includes the realm of human experience, the spiritual world (Eph. 1:10), and, as we shall see, even nature itself. God wiU finally reconcile all things to himself through Christ (Col. 1:20). 53. See G. Schrenk, TDNT 2:207. 54. See F. V. Filson in IB 10:332. 55. See P. E . Hughes, Second Corinthians, 182.

Eschatology

613

All things were originally created through Christ and for hhn (Col. 1:16), and he will finally enjoy the pre-emhience that is his due (Col. 1:18). The very cosmos, which has been rent by conflict and rebellion against God, will be restored to peace with its Creator. This eschatological reconciliation will be accomplished through the blood of his cross (Col. 1:20). Paul sees in the death of Christ a triumph over evd spiritual powers (Col. 2:14-15), although he nowhere explains what this involves; and the fmal eschatological reconciliation is but the effective extension of the victory won on die cross. This same emphasis on universal reconciliation is repeated elsewhere. In the great kenosis hymn, Jesus is now exalted as Lord; and because of the exaltation, every knee is yet to bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10-11). No rebellious will can finally remain outside the sway of Christ's Lordship. The final subjection of every hostile will is also asserted in 1 Corinthians 15 as the extension of Christ's kingly mle in the universe. He is to reign (basileuein) as king untd he has subdued every enemy, the last of which is death (1 Cor 15:25). When he has subdued every hostile spirhual power, he will deliver the Kingdom to God the Father (v. 24). In view of the Pauline emphasis that Jesus has now been exalted and is reigning as Lord at God's right hand (Eph. 1:20-23; Phil. 2:9), we must think of Christ as beginning his kingly reign at his ascension. Lord and king are interchangeable concepts expressing Christ's exalted sovereignty. His sovereignty rests in this passage on his resurrection. The final restoration includes the very material worid. Creation itself awaits the disclosure of the children of God when they shall experience the redemption of theh bodies, for creation shall be freed from the bondage to decay and shall experience freedom from the burden of evil to which h has been subjected (Rom. 8:19-23). Whde Paul does not develop this tmth of the redemp tion of nature, there is profound biblical theology underlying it. The redemption of the namral world from evil and decay is the corollary of the redemption of the body. The prophets constantly described the establishment of God's Kingdom in terms of a redeemed world (Isa. 11:6-9; 65:17-25); and the New Testament shares the same theology. Creation is never viewed as sometiiing evil that m-'St be escaped. The human being as body is a creamre of God. Humans are not sinful because they are creamres but because they have rebelled against God. In the final consummation, the whole person and the world of which he or she is a part will be delivered from the curse of evil. Some interpreters have seen in the language of this final reconciliation a "universal homecoming," interpreted in terms of a universal salvation of all sentient creamres, both human and angelic.^* Such an interpretation can indeed be read into such verses as Colossians 1:20 if they are taken out of the context of the total Pauline teaching. However, the universal reconciliation means that 56. See E. Stauffer, NT Theology, ch. 57.

614

PAUL

peace is everywhere restored. The universal acknowledgment of Christ's Lord ship (Phil. 2:10-11) is not synonymous with universal salvation. There is a stem element in Paul's eschatology that cannot be avoided. There remain recalcitrant wills that must be subdued and that will bow before Christ's rule, even though unwillingly. How they will be dealt with Paul does not say except in very general terms. Paul describes the final state of those who have not obeyed the gospel of Christ by saying that they "shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thess. 1:9; see 1 Thess. 5:3). The rebellious and impenhent store up for themselves wrath on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed (Rom. 2:5, 8; see 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9). Paul also describes the fate of the unsaved by the concept of perishing (apollymi). This is both a present condition (1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15; 4:3) and a future doom (Rom. 2:12; 2 Thess. 2:10). This eschatological doom is also destmction (apoleia, Phil. 3:19; Rom. 9:22). A companion idea is that of death. Death, in the full inclusiveness of the term, is the penalty of sin (Rom. 5:12; 6:16, 23). While this death is the death of the body (Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22), the term includes much more. This is shown by the fact that death is the opposite of eternal life (Rom. 6:23; 7:10; 8:6; 2 Cor. 2:16). It is both a present fact (Rom. 7:10f; Eph. 2:1) and a ftiture fate (Rom. 1:32; 6:16, 21, 23; 7:5). The central idea is exclusion from the presence of the Lord in his consummated Kingdom (2 Thess. 1:9) and the subsequent loss of the blessings of life that come from the enjoyment of the divine presence. However, the terms Paul uses make h clear that the final judgment will issue in a fearful condemnation that is the just desert of sin and unbelief; but he nowhere describes what this doom involves. However, the judgment of the wicked is not an end in hself, but only a necessary act in the establishment of God's reign in his world. God has done all things possible to bring men and women to hhnself; if they reject his will, they must face his judgment, for in the end God can brook no opposition to his holy will. The divine purpose is that people may be gathered in willing subordi nation to the divine mle, that in the end "God may be everything to every one" (1 Cor. 15:28).

V. Hebrews and the General Epistles

40. Hebrews

For surveys: G. W. Buchanan, "The Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews," in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, ed. J. Neusner (1975), 1:299-330: W. G. Johnsson, "Issues in the Interpretation of Hebrews," AUSS 15 (1977), 169-87 idem, "The Culms of Hebrews in Twentieth-CenUiry Scholarship," ET 89 (1978), 104-8: J. C. McCuUough, "Some Recent Developments in Research on the Epistle to the He brews," Irish Biblical Studies 2 (1980), 141-65; R Ellingworth, "Hebrews in the Eighties," Bible Translator 39 (1988), 131-38. Literature: B. R Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (1906); J. Moffatt, The Epistle to the Hebrews (1930), 30-49; W. Robinson, The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1950); W. F Howard, "The Epistle to the Hebrews," Int 5 (1951), 80-91; C. K. Barrett, "The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews," in The Backgrowtd of the NT and Its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (1956), 363-93; A. Wikgren, "Pat terns of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews," NTS 6 (1960), 159-67; F V. Filson, "Yesterday," A Study of the Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13 (1967); F. F. Bruce, "The Kerygma of Hebrews," Int 23 (1969), 3-19; M. Silva, "Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews," WThJ 39 (1976), 60-71; A. Vanhoye, Our Priest Is Christ: The Doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1977); D. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the "Epistle to the Hebrews" (1982); W. Horbury, "The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews," ySAT 19 (1983), 43-71; E. Kasemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews (1984); J. J. Scott, "Archegos: The Salvation History of the Epistle to the Hebrews," JETS 29 (1986), 47-54; R Ellingworth, "Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews," EQ 58 (1986), 337-50; L. D. Hurst, "The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2," in The Glory ofChrist in the NT, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (1987), 151-64; M. C. Parsons, "Son and High Priest: A Shidy in the Christology of Hebrews," EQ 60 (1988), 195-215; L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought (1990); B. Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (1991).

Introduction The questions of the authorship and the destination of the Epistle to the Hebrews are unsolved problems. The traditional view has been that Hebrews is correctly 617

618

HEBREWS AND THE GENERAL EPISTLES

named,' and that it was written to a community of Jewish Christians, probably in Rome (13:24), who in the face of threatening persecution were apostatizing from Christ and going back into Judaism. However, there is no reference to the Jewish-Christian controversy; Christ is made superior to the Old Testament, not to Judaism; furthermore, the warning against "falling away from the living God" (3:12) points to the possibilhy of Gentile-Christian rather than to JewishChristian readers.2 For the purpose of discussing the theology of Hebrews, we may leave this question open. In either case, the epistle^ was written to a group of Christians who were facing persecution (10:32; 12:4), whh whom the author was acquainted (13:18, 19, 23), who were on the point of falling away from Christ. The author writes to warn them against apostasy. This purpose is clear from the several hortatory passages scattered throughout the book." The author tries to steady his readers' loyalty to Christ by the line of argument that the blessings that have come to people in Christ are superior to all that has preceded him: Christ is superior to the old revelation (1:1-3), to angels (1:4-2:18), to Moses (3:1-19), to Joshua (4:1-13), to the Old Testament priesthood (4:1410:31). If the readers are Gentile Christians, they must be former Jewish pros elytes who would be very familiar with the Old Testament. We may study the theology of Hebrews without deciding whether the readers were Jewish or Gentile Christians. The problem faced by the author would be basically the same in either case. Dualism The basic worldview of Hebrews has been much debated. There is a twofold dualism in Hebrews: a dualism of the above and below — the real heavenly world and the transient earthly world; and there is an eschatological dualism: the present age versus the world to come. It has been often argued that the spadal dualism of two worlds — above and below — reflects platonic thought as me diated through Philo, while the eschatological dualism is a remnant of primitive Christian eschatology. Some scholars have insisted that the spatial dualism of two worlds is the real center of the theology of Hebrews, and the eschatological dualism is an unassimilated leftover from tradhion. Whereas Jewish and Christian Apocalyptists envisaged the difference between imperfection and perfection primarily under the categories of time, distin guishing between this age and the age to come, the language of Hebrews suggests categories of space, distinguishing between this world and the heavenly world of spiritual realities. For the author of Hebrews, the present 1. 2. 3. 4.

The title, "To the Hebrews," is not original but came into use at an early date. For this problem, see the introductions by W. G. Kiimmel and D. Guthrie. Hebrews sounds more like a sermon than a letter. 2:1-4; 3:7-4:11; 5:11-6:12; 10:19-39.

Hebrews

619

reality of the heavenly sphere into which Christ has passed and to which we are anchored, is the fundamentally important fact.^ Like Philo, our author accepts a kind of philosophical and cosmological framework which is more Platonic than biblical. Two successive aeons . . . are replaced by two co-existent, superimposed planes — the suprasensible world and the phenomenal world. The former contains the etemal ideas, which the second one attempts to embody materially. The former is "heaven" for Philo, as it is in our epistle.* Other scholars have given greater weight to the role of eschatology but have concluded that the writer was unable to assimilate two utterly diverse theologies. "Our author is content to leave the two presentations side by side. He tries to find room for both of them in a theology which is at once primitive and Hellenistic, and which therefore suffers, m spite of its grandeur and suggestiveness, from a lack of inner harmony."'' Other scholars have disagreed whh these conclusions and have recognized that the eschatological perspective is fundamental to the theology of Hebrews.* This problem must be carefully examined. The idea of two worlds appears in chapters 8 and 9 in the discussion of the priestly institution of the Old Testament. The Israelite priests offered gifts and sacrifices in an earthly temple. These, however, did not embody ultimate realhies; "they serve as a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary" (8:5). The Old Testament tabernacle was made in accordance with the pattern of the real in heaven. The earthly copies were purified with animal sacrifices; the heavenly realities must be purified with better sacrifices (9:23). Christ after his ascension entered into the real heavenly sanctuary (9:24). The institution of the Law provided only a shadow of the good things to come, not the true form of the heavenly realhies (10:1). Faith is the means by which the believer can now lay hold of this invisible world of heavenly realhies (11:1). This indeed sounds very much like Philonic dualism. Phil

103924615 G Ladd a Theology of the New Testament - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2024)