Categories
Theological Hermeneutics Theology

Jesus, Paul, and the Mission of God — Part III

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!

Categories
Theological Hermeneutics Theology

Jesus, Paul and the Mission of God — Part II

III. The Mission of Jesus: Restoration and Prolepsis

A. Jesus in Narratival Perspective

If the story of creation from the Divine perspective is one of Trinitarian love, the story of creation from the human perspective is one of rebellion and death. Some narratival approaches to the Bible suggest that the diversity of the scriptural canon frames an overarching, unifying narrative of creation, fall, complication, cross, and consummation.[1] This is a helpful approach, which enables us to understand that Jesus’ mission during his first advent represented a sort of climax in the drama of redemption.

This narratival structure views the drama of redemption from the human perspective: how do we find ourselves in the current broken mess of the world, and how can this mess be fixed? Jesus is the answer to these questions, which burn through the pages of the Hebrew Bible. After humanity’s fall into sin, God takes the initiative to “clothe” the man and the woman.[2] He continues to pursue and preserve humanity in the covenant with Noah, and He calls a particular people to experience and spread His righteous fellowship in the covenants with Abraham and David.

By the close of the Hebrew Bible, however, God’s chosen people, His putative agents of redemption, have rebelled against God and have suffered the judgment of defeat and exile at the hands of Assyria and Babylon. The holy city of Jerusalem and its Temple, the place of God’s presence, have been destroyed. When the exiles are permitted to return to Jerusalem, the hope of Israel’s prophets turns towards a deliverer, a Messiah, who will restore the nation and the Temple.

During the “intertestamental” period, the hope of restoration becomes ever more pregnant as the remnant of Israel experiences Greek and Roman rule. The Roman puppet ruler Herod rebuilds a magnificent Temple in Jerusalem, but for many zealous Jews, this represents an abominable counterfeit of God’s holy purposes. Some of these Jews, including the Maccabees, attempt military rebellion, only to be crushed by Rome. Others, particularly the Pharisees, attempt to practice holiness within the daily context of Roman oppression, while yet others, such as the Essenes, withdraw into chiliastic communes; and still others, particularly the Sadducees, attempt to reach some accommodation to Hellenistic culture. Jesus steps into this milieu of “restoration eschatology” and both fulfills and upsets this hope. In this sense, we can say that the mission of Jesus is to inaugurate the Kingdom of God by restoring God’s reign over humanity through a people called to be God’s own holy people. N.T. Wright and others have helpfully situated Jesus’ frequent teaching about the “Kingdom of God” within this framework of the Second Temple Jewish hope of restoration.[3] Jesus, however, reframes Second Temple restoration eschatology by suggesting that the hope of redemption will extend beyond the Jewish people and that the power of redemption lies in his own person rather than in a revitalized Temple.

These themes are particularly poignant in the events and teachings of Matthew 20-24. In the parables of the laborers in the vineyard and the marriage feast, Jesus suggests that the Kingdom of God relates to a person’s disposition towards God and results from God’s broad and generous grace, rather than deriving primarily from a national identity. In Matthew 21, Jesus is hailed as a Messiah, consistent with restorationist expectations, but his action of “cleansing” the Temple is an unexpected symbol of the Kingdom’s extension to the “outer courts” of the Gentiles. In Matthew 24, Jesus somewhat obliquely predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, which eventually occurred in A.D. 70 under the Roman Emperor Titus.

The synoptic Gospels each in their own way conclude with the theme that will be picked up in Paul’s epistles: not the restoration of the Temple, but the death and resurrection of Jesus, represent the inauguration of the hoped-for “age to come.”

B. An Excursus on Proleptic Eschatology and the Drama of Scripture

In my view, the five or six-act narratival structure of the Bible, with the death and resurrection of Jesus as a climactic point in the story, is helpful, but ultimately insufficient. From the divine perspective, the story of redemption proceeds proleptically. For God, the story in a sense starts at the end and is told backwards. The “sixth” act of the drama, that of consummation, was God’s purpose from “before the foundation of the world.”[4] The “new heavens and new earth” and “new Jerusalem” of Revelation 21 are not things God improvised in order to fix a mistake. The heavenly city is rather the telos of which Eden, the Tabernacle, the Temple, and the Church are beginnings.[5] If we fail to emphasize the “divine,” proleptic side of the Biblical narrative, I fear that we lose something important about the Trinitarian shape of the missio Dei.


[1] See N.T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Fortress Press 2005) and The New Testament and the People of God (SPCK 1992); Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story (Baker Academic 2004).

[2] Gen. 3:21.

[3] See, e.g., N.T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Fortress Press 2005).

[4] Eph. 1:4.

[5] For more on the notion of proleptic eschatology, see, e.g., Jugen Moltmann, Theology of Hope (Fortress Press ed. 1993); Stanley Grenz and John Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context (Westminster John Knox 2001). Some of the early Eastern Patristic sources, particularly Irenaeus, also offer helpful teleological correctives to the Western theology in this regard. See Gustav Wingren, Man and Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Ireneaus (Wipf & Stock 2004).

Categories
Science & Technology Theological Hermeneutics Theology

Jesus, Paul, and the Mission of God — Part 1

Here is some material from a paper I had to write in my Reading the New Testament Missionally class. The subject of the paper is “How do you understand the mission of Jesus in his historical context and the relationship of Jesus’ mission to the mission of Paul and the early church?”

I. Introduction

The mission of Jesus, Paul, and the early church are about the same thing: God’s eschatological redemption of the world. Each of these actors play different, but complementary, roles in God’s mission.

II. Background: the Mission of God

Before we consider the specific mission of Jesus, Paul, and the early church, we must first briefly explore the missio Dei in which these actors participate.

Often we think of God’s mission in the world as one of rescue or repair. In this view, the original good creation was God’s “Plan A,” and human sin required a “Plan B,” the sending of Christ to save a few from judgment. This view of God’s plan for creation is profoundly mistaken. Jesus said that God loved him “before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24), and texts such as Ephesians 1:4 tell us that God “chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world. . . .” God’s redemptive mission in Christ and in the Church, then, was “Plan A.” Redemption was God’s plan from eternity past.

The story of God’s mission is ultimately the story of the eternal life of the Triune God.[1] As David Bosh notes, “[m]ission [is] understood as being derived from the very nature of God. It [is] thus put in the context of the doctrine of the Trinity, not of ecclesiology or soteriology.”[2] Creation results from the abundance and generosity of the perichoretic fellowship of Father, Son and Spirit.

The God who created knew beforehand that the creation would experience human sin and suffering, and that His act of creation therefore would also entail an act of sending and redemption. We cannot know for certain why God chose to create in light of this knowledge. Perhaps St. Augustine was right — perhaps this is the best of all possible worlds, and it is better for God to have created, with the result of some ultimate good, than not to have created at all.[3] Or perhaps Augustine’s classical theodicy should be tempered with the fact that God Himself enters into the suffering of creation through the cross.[4]

The problem of evil and the theodicy of creation remain mysteries.[5] A Trinitarian theology of creation and mission, however, provides a helpful glimpse into these often overwhelming existential questions. The immanent Trinity — the inner-Trinitarian relations of the Divine Persons — is also the economic Trinity — the actions of the Divine Persons with respect to creation and redemption.[6] God’s mission in creation is the extension of the shalom of the perichoretic Trinitarian dance to all of creation.


[1] In fact, if we were to follow the “Plan B” logic through the entire Biblical narrative, we would presently be in something like “Plan I,” which would encompass creation, fall, flood, Babel, Israel under Moses, Israel under the judges, Israel under the kings, and Israel in exile. It would seem that God continually engages in failed experiments, which would leave little hope for the success of the “Church Age” or even for the return of Christ.

[2] David Bosh, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Orbis 1991).

[3] See, e.g., Augustine’s exploration of this theme in The City of God.

[4] See Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: the Cross of Christ as the Foundation of Criticism and Christian Theology (Fortress Press 1993).

[5] For an excellent exploration of the problem of evil, see Nigel Goring Wright, A Theology of the Dark Side (InterVarsity 2003). Nigel Wright leans towards Karl Barth’s understanding of “evil” as “nothingness,” which seems fruitful to me.

[6] For a discussion of this formulation, referred to as “Rahner’s Rule” after Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, see Stanley Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God (Fortress Press 2004).

Categories
Science and Religion

Rachel Evans on the Gordon BioLogos Conference

Here’s a nice summary from Rachel Evans about the recent BioLogos faith-and-science conference at Gordon College.

Categories
Law and Policy

Evangelical Support for Immigration Reform Growing

A good article in The Christian Century about growing evangelical support for immigration reform.

Categories
Law and Policy

New Article on Antitrust and Patent Law

Just in time for summer beach reading, here is my latest legal academic article, Rational Antitrust Policy and Reverse Payment Settlements in Hatch-Waxman Patent Litigation, 98 Geo. L.J. 1303 (2010).

Categories
Humor

My Son the Party Animal

This is an excerpt from my son’s school report about his 12th birthday party. Hmmm. Somehow dad got the bum deal here.

For the rest of the night we either played X-box or just talked. Soon we got tired and watched television. One by one people fell asleep and it was only me, Kyle and Adam left awake. Eventually the three of us got tired and we agreed to fall asleep at the same time.

In the middle of the night I got sick and threw up. My dad came down and cleaned it. In the morning I felt great and none of my friends even knew. It was a fun party.

Categories
Law and Policy Spirituality

Travis Greene on Patriotism in Church

I posted my Memorial Day reflection on Jesus Creed, and got this comment from Travis Greene, which I think is awesome:

I wonder if those who are able, according to them, to easily hold patriotism and faith together without idolatry would do us weaker folks, whose consciences are troubled by this particular meat we see as sacrificed to idols, the favor of not singing loud songs in praise of America during church. You may be easily able to pledge allegiance to a nation but keep God first. You may be able to have a flag above the altar and remember which is more important. But it sickens me, and I know I’m not alone, and I wonder if for reasons of mission, ecclesiology, and simple compassion, you could just let this go.

Categories
Spirituality

Churches and July 4

There’s a good discussion going on at Jesus Creed on how churches should handle July 4.  It’s interesting and encouraging to see how some of the pastor-commenters wrestle with the fact that July 4 falls on a Sunday this year.  The sentiment seems to be that some kind of recognition is appropriate, but that the dangers of idolatry and triumphalism are real.

Categories
Spirituality

Pruning the Vines

Below is a wonderful video I found on a winemaking site called Crushnet.  I used it recently to facilitate a discussion of Jesus’ parable of the vine.  Two things struck me:  (1) pruning is the most important part of growing wine grapes; and (2) the pruning and growing seasons take up much of the years’ work before any fruit is ready for harvest.