IV. The Mission of Paul: The Ingrafting of the Gentiles and the Time Between the Times
Many scholars have discussed the apparent tensions between Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God and Paul’s relative lack of attention to that theme. As noted in our lectures, however, Paul’s letters can hardly be understood as a “later” institutional accretion over Jesus’ simpler message of the Kingdom, since the Jesus traditions collected in the synoptic Gospels likely were not written in their canonical form until after Paul’s letters were composed and circulated.[1] Moreover, Paul’s letters themselves sometimes refer to proto-creedal affirmations that relate to the Jesus traditions.[2] It is better to understand the Pauline corpus as an extension of Jesus’ teaching about the “Kingdom of God” as well as the start of a wisdom tradition about how to live in the “time between the times” when the Kingdom is inaugurated but not yet consummated.
Paul’s theology extends Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God to the Gentiles. As noted in Section III.A. of this paper, Jesus himself prefigured the notion that the hope of “restoration” would extend beyond the nation of Israel. Paul makes this theme explicit and explores the theological and praxiological implications of this move in detail.
This is perhaps most majestically expressed in Romans 1-11, particularly in the (in my view) widely misunderstood chapters 9-11. High scholastic Calvinism, and the degenerative forms of neo-Calvinism often represented in populist Evangelicalism, tend to view Romans 9-11 primarily as statements of exclusion. In this view, these chapters are about the particularity of election and double predestination.
But the direction of Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 is in fact about inclusion. Paul is offering here a defense of his teaching that the blessings of the Kingdom are available to the Gentiles in Christ. Romans 9-11 could be viewed as a theological exposition of Jesus’ parables and teaching in Matthew 21-24, particularly the parables of the laborers in the vineyard and the wedding feast. That God has surprisingly extended the Kingdom to the Gentiles should provoke no complaint from Israel, for God is free to show mercy and compassion to whomever God chooses.[3]
Although Paul does not often use the term “Kingdom of God,” his narrative of an alternative “empire” under Christ echoes Jewish critiques of Babylon and Rome.[4] Rather than the Hebraic concept of “Kingdom,” Paul prefers the Greco-Roman notion of “Lordship.” This may reflect Paul’s missional posture as the “Apostle to the Gentiles.” A pressing concern for Paul’s Gentile readers would have been the notion that Jesus, not Caesar, is kyrios, and that God’s Kingdom is not the Roman Empire. Indeed, this notion is the crux of Paul’s argument in Romans 10: faith in the resurrection and Lordship of Christ, rather than cultural identity, are the hallmarks of inclusion in the Kingdom.[5]
Paul’s praxiology also is central to his mission. One of Paul’s central pastoral concerns was to manage tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians, particularly regarding adherence to Torah. This is reflected in Paul’s participation in the Jerusalem Council, narrated in Acts 15, in the Pastoral instructions in Paul’s letters (for example, Romans 14-15), and in the detailed discussion of law and grace in Galatians.
Finally, Paul offered practical instructions for Christian living prior to the consummation of the Kingdom at Christ’s return. Although Paul, along with other first-century Christians, probably believed that Christ would return during his own generation, he laid the ethical foundations for wise living in the time between times — which as we know has now extended over two millennia. This can be seen, for example, in Paul’s teaching about sexual immorality, lawsuits, marriage, the sacrament of the Eucharist, and spiritual gifts.[6]
V. The Mission of the Early Church: Faithful Expectancy
From Luke-Acts, we see the mission of the early Church as a missionary endeavor. The Church is established and sent into the world to proclaim the Gospel, accompanied by the signs and wonders of the Spirit that indicate the Kingdom of God is breaking into the present age.[7]
From the Pauline corpus, we see the mission of the early Church as an exercise of patient fellowship. The “body of Christ” (1. Cor. 12) is to incarnate Christ in the local culture, anticipating the immanent resurrection, at which time those in Christ will become like him, all enemies of God’s shalom, including the enemy of “death,” will be vanquished, and “God [will] be all in all.” (1 Cor. 15). Paul’s vision for the community of the Church is that it would embody God’s Kingdom on earth:
So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful.[8]
In the Church, then, God’s purposes for the creation are being realized, even as the creation itself “waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God” and “groans and suffers the pains of childbirth,” and even as we continue to “groan within ourselves” as we wait for the completion of God’s redemption at the resurrection.[9]
The New Testament’s apocalyptic literature takes on similar themes, but from a somewhat different angle. In the Petrine (or pseudo-Petrine)[10] epistles and particularly in Revelation, the mission of Jesus is pictured from the perspective of consummation. Here the Lamb of God is also the Rider on the White Horse, the cosmic Christ who rides out “conquering and to conquer.”[11]
This literature is saturated in the imagery of Second Temple apocalyptic, but the vision of the “age to come” is more holistic. There is no “temple” because God Himself is present in the heavenly city, all of the “kings of the earth . . . bring their glory” through the city gates, and the “tree of life,” not seen since Genesis 3, now offers its leaves “for the healing of the nations.”[12]
The primary mission of the Church from this vantage point is to bear witness and to persevere, despite opposition and persecution. John offers this beatitude at the close of his apocalyptic vision: “[b]lessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.”[13] We are reminded that the Church’s incarnational mission does not encompass winning the final victory through the exercise of temporal power. Instead, the Church patiently lives out its calling as it eagerly awaits the one who is “coming quickly,” the “Lord Jesus.”[14]
[1] I find this point interesting and possibly helpful, but I confess that I’m not conversant enough with current scholarship on the synoptic tradition to evaluate fully whether the “date of authorship” of the synoptic Gospels vis-à-vis Paul’s letters is significant. James R. Edwards’ book The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (Eerdmans 2009), for example, suggests that the synoptic Gospels draw significantly from an earlier “Hebrew Gospel,” which presumably would predate the Pauline epistles. Edwards’ hypothesis responds to and critiques the notion of the “Q” source underlying the synoptic tradition. If something like the “Q” thesis is correct, that also would imply a textual Jesus tradition that predates Paul. In any event, various verbal Jesus traditions, including Jesus’ extensive “Kingdom of God” sayings, must predate the canonical Pauline and pseudo-Pauline epistolary literature, such that, in one way or another, the Pauline tradition is “later” than the Jesus traditions.
[2] An excellent example is 1 Cor. 15:3-8.
[3] Romans 9:14.
[4] For a discussion of this theme, see the chapter “Gospel and Empire” in Wright, supra Note 9. Paul does, of course, occasionally use the Jewish concept of the “Kingdom of God.” See, e.g., 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 5:21.
[5] Romans 10:9-10.
[6] See, e.g., 1 Cor. 5-14.
[7] For an excellent “missional” perspective on Acts, see Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries, Acts (Abingdon Press 2003).
[8] Col. 3:12-15.
[9] Romans 8.
[10] For a discussion of the authorship of 2 Peter and Jude, See Richard J. Bauckham, Word Biblical Commentary: Jude, 2 Peter (Word 1983).
[11] Rev. 6:2.
[12] Rev. 21:-16 – 22:2. For an excellent discussion of how this eschatological vision relates to the “cultural mandate,” see Andy Crouch, Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling (InterVarsity 2008) and Richard Mouw, When the Kings Come Marching In: Isaiah and the New Jerusalem (Eerdmans 2002). For a discussion of the physical, this-worldly nature of the new heavens and new earth, see N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (HarperOne 2008).
[13] Rev. 22:14.
[14] Rev. 22:20. Would that our evangelical churches in North America could rekindle this vision and turn from our political, economic and cultural idolatries!
2 replies on “Jesus, Paul, and the Mission of God — Part III”
Enter your comments here…I appreciate your thoughts here especially regarding Paul’s intent in Romans 9-11. I am not Calvinist in any form but do see the exclusion/inclusion clash you speak of.
For Paul, he was but a servant of the Lord entrusted with care of the churches. Any extension of the teaching of Christ would be fully inspired and in no conflict at all with what Jesus had said previously. The apostle stood firmly in the wisdom of God and not of men.
As to the question of a relationship between the Pauline corpus and the Gospel we would said only that it is all inspired. So, to a point, relative dating is little more than a curiosity.
Hi Bryant. Thanks for the comment. At the end of the day, I probably agree with you to a significant degree about reading Paul and the Gospels together theologically and canonically because we take them all as scripture. I want to be careful, however, not to be too glib about harmonizing them simply because they are all scripture. I think scripture offers a great deal of diversity within the overarching unity of the narrative of God’s redemptive mission, and we miss quite a bit if we flatten that diversity based on a priori assumptions about what the text(s) should look like.