THE PAULINE PROCLAMATION OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST WITHIN ITS NEW TESTAMENT SETTING

A Thesis Presented for the Degree of Ph. D, in New Testament Exegesis at the University of Aberdeen

by

Gary Steven Shogren B. S., Philadelphia College of Bible M. A., M. Div., Biblical Theological Seminary

1986

Disclaimer I, Gary Steven Shogren, do certify that this thesis is my work alone, both in the research and in the i.riting. It has riot been accepted in any previous application for a degree. ll quotations have been distinguished by quotation marks and the sources of information acknowledged.

Signed by,

30 July 1986

Table of Contents

Table of Contents Acknowledgments - Preface -

- ix

INTRODUCTION -

I. Paul's Doctrine of the Kingdom: the Ma j or Issues II. Proposals concerning Changes in the Teaching of the Kingdom within the Pauline Corpus III. Method of Study

PART I: PAUL'S PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESENT AND FUTURE KINGDOM Chapter One: Pauline Eschatology: An Introduction and a Review of Background - 9 Jntroducti on I. The Influence of Christian Tradition A. A Christian Understanding of the Old Testament Promises B. Christian Eschatolagy C. Paul and the Hellenistic Churches II. The Influence of Jewish Eschatology A. Apocalyptic Judaism B. Rabbinic Judaism III. A. B. C. D. E. The Traditional Understanding of "Kingdom of God' The Kingdom as God's Sovereign Rule The Kingdom as Human Submission to the Torah The Kingdom as an Ethical Rule The Kingdom as the Eschatological Realm Summary

-1-

Chapter Twos An Exegetical Analysis of References in the Pauline Corpus - 39 Introduction

BCcIBW

I. The Kingdom Sayings in the Undisputed Pauline Epistle; - 41 A. 1 Thess. 2:12 and 2 Thess. uS - Worthiness for the Kingdom B. Gil. 5:21 and I Car. 6:9-10 - Exclusion from the Kngdom C. I Car. 4:20 and Ram. 14:17 - God's Rule as the Ultimate Reality D. I Car. 15:23-28 - The Rule of Christ over God's Enemies E. 1 Car. 15:50 - Human Existence in the Future Realm 'I. The Kingdom Sayings in the Disputed Epistles - 83 A. Cal. 1:13 - The Church's Experience of Christ's Rule B. Cal. 4:11 - Announcing the Rule of God to the World C. Eph. 5:5 - Exclusion from the Kingdom D. 2 Tim. 2:12 - The Church's Future Rule with Christ E. 2 Tim. 4:1 - Christ's Kingdom and his Epiphany F. 2 Tim. 4:18 - Christ's Present Kingdom in Heaven Cosio: The Role of the Kingdom in the Pauline Corpus

Chapter Three: The Future Realm of Salvation in Pauline Theology - Introriucti on

118

I. The Eschatological New Creation: Rom. 8:18-22 A. The Purpose of Rom. B within the Context of the Epistle B. The Doctrine of the Second Adam as the Basis for the New Creation C. The Nature of the New Creation 0. Jewish Expectations of the New Creation E. The Time of the Coming of the New Creation II. The Future Salvation of Israel: Ram. 9-11 A. The Theme of Israel in the Epistle to the Roman; B. The Purpose of Ram. 9-11 C. The Interpretation of Ram. 11:25-32 IapcX in Rem. 11:26 I. The Meaning of "n 2. The Time of Israel's Conversion 3. Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Ram. 11:26-27 D. Jewish Expectation; Regarding the Eschatological Salvation of Israel 'II. A. B. C. The Final Epiphany of God The Jewish Theology of the Epiphany of God Jewish Theology relating to the Mediation of the Epiphany of God The Doctrine of the Final Epiphany in the Pauline Corpus 1. 1 Thessalonians 3:13 2. 2 Thessalanjans 1:6-10 3. Titus 2:13 0. Summary: the Coming of God-in-Christ

Conclusi on

-ii-

Chapter Four: The Mediatorial Kingdom of Christ in Pauline Theology - Introducti on I. The Nature of the Kingdom of Christ: An Analysis of Three Modern Models A. Albert Schweitzer: A Future Apocalyptic Messianic Kingdom B. H. 3. Schoeps: An Apocalyptic Kingdom Transferred to the Present C. Oscar Cullmann: A Salvation-historical Bridge Between the Ages II. Jewish Expectations of a Kingdom of an Eschatological Figure III. The Nature of the Kingdom of Christ in Pauline Theology A. Evidence for a Present Kingdom of Christ in the Pauline Epistles 1. References Using Bac 2. References Not Using Bca?cCc a. Present Kingdom Elements b. Future Kingdom Elements B. The Revelation of the Kingdom of Christ according to Pauline Theology 1. The Kingdom of Christ initiated in his Resurrection/ascension 2. Christ's Mediation in Creation and New Creation 3. The Role of Heaven in Pauline Kingdom Theology 4. The Relationship between Christ's Rule and the Kingdom of God 5. Paul ' g Use of BcaXcCc within his Theological Framework Conclusion

153

Chapter Five, The Results of the Kingdom of Christ in Pauline Theology - Introduction I. The Manifestation of the Kingdom in Resurrection Power and the Spirit II. The Salvation-historical Fulfillment of Did Testament Kingdom Promi ses A. Paul's Use of the Old Testament: Proof-text or Contextual Proof' B. Salvation-historical Fulfillment of the Old Testament: a Case Stuuy of the Epistle to the Romans C. Paul's Use of the Old Testament against his Jewish Background 0. Conclusions about Paul and the Old Testament UI. The Formation of the New People of God A. The Kingdom and Life under the New Covenant ,B. The New Exodus as Kingdom Fulfillment C. The Church is Following in Christ's Pattern in its Pilgrimage toward the Kingdom 0. Summary and Conclusion

197

-iii -

IV. The Victory over the Enemies of God: the Time of their Subjugation Conclusion

Chapter Six: The Preaching of the Kingdom and the Pauline Kerygma - 250 Introduction I. The BcaAEC and Kerygma in the Pauline Corpus A. The Kingdom in Paul's Missionary Preaching in Galatia, Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus 3. The Use of BcaACci in Romans and Colossians C. The Kingdom in Paul's Theology of Mission 1. Col. 4:11 - God's Sovereignty as the Goal of Iission 2. Rom. 15 - Christ's Rule over the Nations 3. Paul as the Eschatological flissionary to the Gentiles 4. The Preaching of the Kingdom in I 5. Summary and Conclusion II. The Proclamation of the BcoAcCa according to Acts A. Acts and the Historical Paul B. The Gospel of the Kingdom in Acts 1. BcaXcCc in the Preaching o Philip - Acts 8:12 in the Preaching of Paul 2. a. Bc)c as the Gospel which Paul Proclaims b. BcoXcCc as the Eschatological Goal of Believers - Acts 14:22 c. Jesus called "BaAcU ETEpo- Acts 17:7 C. Did Luke Possess Tradition that Paul Preached the Kingdom? Conc] usi on

PART II: THE KINGDOM HOPE IN THE DISPUTED EPISTLES Chapter Seven: The Kingdom Hope in Colossians and Ephesians - 288 Introduction

I. The Background of Colossians and Ephesians

A. The Colossian Heresy B. The Background of Ephesians II. Eschatology and the Kingdom A. Realized Elements of a Future Kingdom 1. Resurrection and Life a. Does Spiritual Resurrection Displace Future Bodily Resurrection? b. The Future Revelation of Life Reserved in Heaven c. Spiritual Resurrection and Spiritual Life in Roe. d. The Polemical Function of Spiritual Resurrection 2. Co-exaltation to Heaven 3. The Time of Salvation

-i v-

B. The Imminency of the Parousia 1. Has the Parousia Hope Faded? 2. Eschatology and Ethics III. Cosmology and the Kingdom 4. Pileged Differences between the Cosmology of Pauline Theology and that of the Prison Epistles B. Heaven in Judaism C. Heaven in the Teaching of Jesus and the Early Church D. Heaven in the Prison Epistles IV. The Church and the Kingdom . The Church as the "Body of Christ", the "Head" 1. Their Religious Background 2. Their Meaning in Colossiaris and Ephesians B. The Role of Christ in the Kingdom 1. Does Christ Usurp the Father's Throne? 2. The Role of God in Salvation History 3. The Sovereignty of God and the Kingdom of Christ C. The Relationship of the Church to the Kingdom of Christ 1. Col. 1 13 and Entry into the Kingdom of the Son 2. Eph. 5:5 and the Church's Inheritance Conclusi on

Chapter Eighti The Kingdom Hope in the Pastoral Epistles - 346 Introducti on I. The Eschatology of the Pastoral Epistles 4. Eschatoloqical Vocabulary 1. ' Envec* 2. BcxocO 3. Zupc*aNOa B. Eschatology and Formal Traditions C. The Imminency of the Parousia 0. Eschatology as Ethical Motivation II. The Kingdom in Second Timothy A. The Future Kingdom of Christ in 2 Tim. 2:12 and 4:1 o1y The Meaning of Christ's Rule in Relation to Pauline 1 2. The Meaning of Christ's Rule in Relation to Rev. 11 and 20 B. The Future Co-rule of the Saints with Christ in 2 Tiii. 2:12 1. The Future Co-rule in 2 Tim. 2:12 compared with 1 Cor. 6:2-3 2. The Relationship between Resurrection and Ruling in Paradise 3. The Context of Suffering in 2 Tim. 2 and the Meaning of 1 Cor. 4:8

C. The Heavenly Kingdom of Christ in 2 Tim. 4:18 1. The Background of the 'Heavenly Kingdom" a. Old Testament, Apocalyptic, and Rabbinic Literature b. Hellenistic Judaism c. Paul 's Theology of Heaven 2. The Heavenly Kingdom in the Greek Fathers 3. Is Paul 's Reward Heavenly or Eschatological? Conclusion

PART III: PAULINE KINGDOM THEOLOGY WITHIN THE NEW TESTAME!jI Chapter Nine: The Kingdom in Pauline Theology and the Kingdom in Jesus' Teaching - 383 Introduction I. Jesus' Message of the Kingdom of God II. The Interpretation and Modification of Jesus' Message after Easter A. The New Covenant in Christ's Blood B. Christ's Resurrection C. Christ's Exaltation as the KUpo 1. The Origin of the KOpo Title a. The Theory of its origin in the Hellenlstic church b. The Theory of its origin bath in Palestine and in the Hellenistic church 2. The Kpo Title and Jesus in the Gospels 3. The K(ipo Title in the Hellenistic Church 4. The Kpo Title in Pauline Theology III. A. B. C. The Theology of Paul and the Kingdom Preaching of Jesus Does Justification Replace the Kingdom? Does the Holy Spirit Replace the Kingdom? Solution: For Jesus and Paul the Kingdom is Multifaceted

Conclusion

Chapter Ten: The Kingdom in Pauline Theology and the Kingdom in Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation - 411 Introduction I. Comparisons between the Kingdom Theology of Paul and that of the other New Testament Authors A. The Acts of the Apostles B. The Epistle to the Hebrews 1. The Kingdom and Eschatology 2. Heb. 1:8 - Christ as the Priest-King 3. Heb. 12:2B - The "Unshakeable" Kingdom of God 4. Paul and Hebrews

-vi -

C. The Epistle of James "Heirs of the Kingdom" 1. James 2:5 2. James 2:8 - The "Royal Law" 3. Paul and James D. The First Epistle of Peter 1. The Eschatology of 1 Peter 2. The Future Kingdom in 1 Peter 3. The Heavenly Kingdom in 1 Peter 4. "Realized Eschatology" in I Peter 5. Paul and 1 Peter E. The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude 1. 2 Pet. 1:11 - The Eternal Kingdom of Christ 2. Paul and 2 Peter F. The Johannine Epistles 6. The Revelation of John 1. The "Millennial" Kingdom of Christ in Rev. 20:4-6 a. The Tradition of a Temporally-limited Messianic Kingdom b. The Redaction of the Tradition of the Temporary Messianic Kingdom in Revelation c. The Meaning of the "Millennial" Kingdom of Christ (I) History of Interpretation of Rev. 20:4-6 (2) Critical Interpretations of Rev. 20:4-6 d. Paul and the Millennial Kingdom of Christ 2. Co-rule with Christ 3. Paul and Revelation II. Paul 's Particular Contribution to the New Testament of the Kingdom of Sod A. The Pauline Contribution to the Doctrine of the Future Realm of Salvation 1. The Pauline Kingdom-Exclusion Formula 2. The Pauline Mystery of the Future of Israel 3. The Pauline Development of Resurrection and Kingdom Entry B. The Pauline Contribution to the Doctrine of the Realized Kingdom of God 1. The Pauline Realized Kingdom Sayings (1 Car. 4:20 and Ram. 14: 17> 2. The Pauline Pneumatology and Kingdom Theology 3. The Pauline Use of the Old Testament and Kingdom Theology C. The Pauline Contribution the the Doctrine of the Kingdom f Christ 1. 2. 3. Christ 4. The Pauline Doctrine of the New Adam and Kingdom Theology The Lordship of Christ and the Present and Future Kingdom The Pauline Use of Ps. 110:1 and the Temporal Kingdom of The Pauline Theology of the New Covenant and Kingdom Theology

Conclusion

CONCLUSION - 457

-vi i -

Appendix 1: The Kingdom of God in the Gospel Tradition - 467 I. The Meaning of 'Kingdom of God' in the Message of Jesus A. The Kingdom in the Synoptic Gospels B. The Kingdom in the Gospel of John C. Summary II. The Place of Jesus in the Kingdom in Gospel Tradition A. Jesus' Teaching about his Role in the Kingdom of God 1. Jesus' Miracles, Exorcisms, Preaching and the Kingdom of God 2. The "Son of Man" Sayings and the Kingdom B. The Kingdom of Jesus and the Kingdom of the Son of Man in the Gospel Tradition 1. The Future Coming of the Son of Man 2. The Royalty of Jesus 3. The Kingdom of the Son of Man, the Kingdom of the Father 4. Summary and Conclusion Bibliography - 496 Abbreviations - Summary - 535 33

-vi i i -

Writing a doctoral thesis is perhaps one of the most solitary of exercises. I wish to thank those people who have shown me again and again that even when I am apparently alone, I am surrounded by loving and caring friends, family, and fellow believers: My wife Karen, who besides laboring in typing has proven herself to be a companion of many layers of help, encouragement, strength, and laughter. My son Steven Andrew, who entered this world a scant seven days after I finished the rough draft of this thesis, and whose smiles and antics never fail to bring us joy. Dr. Ruth Edwards and Prof. I. Howard Marshall, for their very helpful supervision during research. Our parents, who have been an inexhaustible source of help and support throughout a string of degrees. The people of Stony Lane Baptist church in Rhode Island, who have always stood by us, demonstrating the patience and generosity that stems from their life in Christ. The believers at Bridge of Don Baptist Church, who have endeavored to make American expatriates feel at home in Scotland, and who have given us a great deal of practical help. The Tyndale Fellowship, which provided us with research grants and the use of their marvelous library. The post-graduates at Kings College, who have never failed to be I wish to thank encouraging, challenging, and thought-provoking. Clinton Arnold for offering criticism and approval in the areas of research in which we overlapped; I especially wish to thank Conrad Gempf, my long-suffering office partner, for being a constant source of good cheer, practical advice, and friendship. Our friends, both in America and in Scotland, who have ever been ready with their words of encouragement. In particular, Dave and Karyl Henry, Pete and Lisa Sarcewicz, Bill and Karen Troppmann, and Mike and Robin Fiorello have always been a telephone call away, and their physical absence from our lives has been our only cause of sadness while in Aberdeen. Our fellow students Evan and Janet Hock also deserve special thanks: Evan for his keen appreciation for that which is truly important for the Christian, and Janet for warmly providing us with much-needed Swedish hospitality.

-ix-

Pr ef ace All quotations from the Greek Testament are taken from Ib_ Greek e 3rd. ed. United Bible Societies, 1975. Septuagirit I!iD ed. quotations are taken from Alfred Rahlfs, 1935. Unless otherwise indicated, the English Bible quotations are taken from the Revised Standard Version (New York and Glasgow: Collins, 1952 and 1971). English quotations of other works are taken from the following sources: the Quinran scrolls from Andr Dupont-Sommer, Ita Essene by 6. Vermes from the 2nd. French edition ns from Queran, trans. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1961). The 1ishnah from Herbert Danby, I Mishnah (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1933. The Talmud from I. Epstein, (London: Tile Sonciao Press, 1935). The English translations of Jewish apocalyptic and testamentary literature are all e taken from I_e QI L LtL e _ _ E5 m_ n t QA g r2b. I. Aoca1y2tic Lg by James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: and Testaments, ed. 1983>. Doubleday & Company, lnr. &reek versions of Apostolic Fathers are from Ie !21L 2 vols. , in the Loeb Classical Library. The English translation of Xrenaeus is from The in Ancient No. 6. Christian The quotation from Thucydides in Chapter Six from Thucydides, ory of the Peloponnesian Wars, trans. by Rex Warner, introduction . Finley (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972). The and notes by N. quotation from the Orphic Fragments in Chapter Seven is taken from Otto Apud Weidmannos, 1922). Kern, Orpj.2 rym Ea e_n_t_a (Berolini

-x -

I NTRODUCT ION

The mention of Paul's theology of the kingdom usually arouses a reaction of surprise at the concentration upon Paul rather than Jesus. Theologians may pass over asking the question "What is it?" asking "Where is it?". in favor of

The evangelists record a staggering 63 different in contrast there

traditional kingdom sayings from Jesus' preaching;

are in the Pauline corpus a mere fourteen explicit references to the 2 even then, only eight of these are indisputably Pauline, two puaXLc; of those appear in the repetitive 1 Car. 6:9-10, and the sayings in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 1 Cor. 15:50, Gal. 5:21, and Eph. 5:5 are clearly based on traditional Jewish language and are not strictly Pauline inventions. The statistical evidence alone might indicate that Paul was much less interested in the theme than was Jesus, and it is all too easy to conclude either that Paul had no particular doctrine of the kingdom, or that he merely echoed well-known Jewish and Christian traditions.

The same is true of the "kingdom of Christ 0 . Many scholars suppose that Paul's one allusion to the concept (in 1 Car. 15:24-28; see also Cal. 1:13) indicates that this idea was foreign to his theology, and that it was only in the later Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Peter, Revelation that the doctrine of the kingdom of Christ was fully developed.

We propose that, despite appearances, the apostle Paul was deeply

1. See the full listing by Jeremias, Theoioq, I, pp.

31-35.

2. That is, 1 Thess. 2:12, 2 Thess. 1:5, Gal. 5:21, 1 Car. 4:20, 1 Car. 6:9-10, 1 Cor. 24-28, 1 Car. 15:50, Rom. 14:17, Col. 1:13, Cal. 4:11, aw in Rom. Eph. 5:5, 2 Tim. 4:1, 2 Tim. 4:18. Paul uses the verb 5:17; this is not a reference explicitly to God's kingdom, although in later chapters we shall discover that it is related to the age to cDme. 1 Car. 4:8 is an ironic use of aupaiJUto, but 2 Tim. 2:12 has that verb in genuine teaching about the kingdom, so that we may consider it a kingdom saying in the broad sense.

-1-

interested in the concept of God'; rule, that he meaningfully proclaimed the reality of both the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Christ, and that he pictured the rule of Christ as the present and future medium of the kingdom af Gad. Statements which Include the word fact Just the tip of the iceberg. aXc( are in

In the course of this study we hope

to show that the idea of the kingdom underlies many other tenets of Paul's doctrine.

Although most of the kingdom studies of the last century have understandably centered upon Jesus' message, there have been several examinations of the kingdom teaching outside the synoptic gospels. The

article on pca)cCc written by K. L. Schmidt for TDT of necessity goes beyond the gospels. 1963), S. E. Ladd ( Rudolf Schnackenburg ('s 1! !Qgdorn, El

Ib!9L9 y

tb

1974), C. Leslie

Mitton (Your Kingorn Corn!, 1978), and Jean Carmignac (Le Mirage de L'ct2L2gL!, 1979), have not only contr1buted to the modern understanding of Jesus' use of puatXcc; they have also broadened their discussion to include the other New Testament writers. The most recent

articles on Paul's kingdom theology are George Johnston's "Kingdom of God Sayings in Paul'; Letters' (1984) and Gnter Haufe's "Reich Gottes bei Paulus und in der Jesustradition" (1985).

Beyond these works there are many commentaries and other writings in which the theme of the kingdom is developed as one concept among many. In particular the older works by Lucien Cerfaux, (Christ in and Th Church in ToIogy, both published in

Y1!Q! Thix

English in 1959), and books and articles by Heinrich Schlier, Oscar Cullmann, Ernst I(semann, H. J. Schoeps and J. Christiaan Beker have all contributed to a modern understanding of Paul's kingdom theology. We

2-

shall have ample opportunity to refer to these works and many others in the course of this study.

Nor is Paul's doctrine of the kingdom merely a matter of minor exegetical interest. Within the field of systematic theology, Jurgen

Moltmann has appropriated Paul's kingdom theology as a major paradigm of "the suffering God". Thus in Reich Gottes (1980) he claims

that in 1 Cor. 15:24-28, Paul's teaching about the Sons exaltation is based not upon an attitude of triumphalism, but upon his humble submission to suffering.

I. EL'!

L2: the Maor Issues

At this point it will be helpful to survey the current state of research as a prelude to developing fresh proposals. Two major

questions shape the study of Paul's kingdom theology: (1) when does the kingdom come? i.e., is it present or future or both; (2) what is the

role of Christ in the kingdom?

Some notable scholars have supposed that Paul taught a kingdom of 3 God which is entirely future. Texts such as Col. 1:13 have been taken either as proleptic announcements of the future kingdom or as post-Pauline references to the present kingdom of Christ. Such theories

3. So Dunn,

fl

and Diversity, pp. 345-46.

-3-

usually rest upon two shaky foundations: first, that Paul is basically "apocalyptic", and second, that an apocalyptic theologian can teach only
a future kingdom of Sod. We shall see in our first chapter that both

suppositions are faulty.

At the other extr,me, C. H. Dodd concluded that in the New Testament the kingdom of God is realized in the cross and resurrection of Jesus. Paul thus taught that the elements of the kingdom, namely, the manifestation of God's righteousness and his condemnation of sin, were revealed in Jesus: "This is the 'mystery of the Kingdom of God'; not only that the eschaton, that which belongs properly to the realm of the 'wholly other,' is now matter of actual experience, but that it is experienced in the paradoxical form of the suffering and death of Gad's 4 representative.' Dodd's weakness is that he rejects the so-called "apocalyptic" coming of the kingdom on the basis of the handful of texts in which the kingdom is present; he then must explain away or ignore the New Testament references to the future kingdom.

Most scholars have correctly recognized that Paul (like Jesus) thought that God's rule is revealed both in the future and in the present. They disagree as to whether this present rule Is actually the kingdom of Sod, or the kingdom of Christ, or both. Jrg Baumgarten, for

example, thinks that in three passages (Rom. 14:17, 1 Car. 4:20, 5 15:24-28) Paul speaks of both Sod and Christ as presently ruling.

In I Car. 15:24-28 Paul speaks of a kingdom of Christ. It may take

4. C. H. Dodd, I

EIe

c.f

ti

p.

l. 9091.

5. J. Baumgarten, Pau]us und ie Poka1tik, pp.

-4-

place after the Parousia and correspond to the so-called Zwischenreich 6 or it may be a reference to a present rule of Christ in Rev. 20:4-6 7 (as in Cal. 113).

A host of scholars have supposed that there is a temporal distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Christ. For example, C. K. Barrett states that "kingdom of God" always refers to the future, whereas in Cal. h13 and 1 Car. 15:24 the kingdom of Christ is B present. It would indeed be helpful if exegetes could distinguish

between a present kingdom of Christ and a future kingdom of God, but even Barrett admits that the New Testament data are not so clear.

6. Lietzmann thus holds that Paul, like the author of Revelation, took Cf. H Lietzmann, An die over this idea from apocalyptic tradition. 218-19; 81; E. Stauffer, New 1-2, p. I9!pgy, pp. 550-68. pp. G. E. Ladd, I!i99

7. So C. H. Dodd, "Natthew and Paul," in New Testament Studies, pp. 54-57. He never satisfactorily explains what is the exact relationship between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of God. 8. Barrett must therefore interpret present-sounding statements such as See C. K. Rom. 14:17 as proleptic experiences of the future kingdom. 99-lO2j also Bultmann, "Der st, pp. Adam to Barrett, From 35; also Mensch zwischen den Zeiten," in Glauben und Ver!h, III, p. pp. ristoiq Hans-Heinrich Schade, Aokaltische 101-02; Beker, b.S 96-97; H. J. Schoeps, Paul, pp. pP 176-81; with substantial modifications by Oscar Cullmann, "The Kingship in The giy of Christ and the Church in the New Testament (1941) , 103-04. Cu; Baumgarten, pp.

Eirt

-5-

Il

Qc1I.uIUQ

1_ri

tti

j t_h

We have already hinted that there are difficulties in detertitining Paul's view of the kingdom from books which some consider to be deuteroor trito-Paul3ne. According to Schnackenburg, the eschatological

kingdom of God was gradually displaced in Christian thought by the "heavenly kingdom of Christ, which the believer enters upon death." holds that this kingdom is pre-existent, it is already "up there" in 9 If the disputed epistles are not heaven, waiting to be revealed. directly from Paul's hand, there is difficulty in determining to what extent their eschatology is Pauline. If they are genuine, then there is a possibility that Paul changed his thinking at some point. What He

remains is a problem that primarily concerns interpretation, and only secondarily concerns authorship.

We believe that it is a mistake to place an impermeable barrier between these two groups of epistles, as if to say that the disputed epistles all have a new doctrine of a present kingdom. Eph. 5:5 and 2

Tim. 4:1 seem to refer to the future kingdom; on the other hand, in Rom. 14:17 and 1 Cor. 4:20 the kingdom of God is in some way present (even if only proleptically) , and, as Baumgarten points out, Paul was not incapable of devising new, non-traditional ways of speaking of the

9. Schnackenburg, Go's Ru

and Kjgo, pp.

318-22.

-6-

kingdom.

We may conclude, therefore, that rather than approaching each

a?cCc reference in terms of authorship, it is better first to examine each text on its own merit.

III.

Qf. ti

After we explore Pauls background, it is logical to move immediately to an examination of the contexts. aXcc* references within their

Although the Pauline doctrine of the kingdom is not limited exegesis of those texts will

to a handful of references to the

reveal Paul 's thinking so that we may determine when he is speaking of the concept of the kingdom without using pmai.Xc. On that basis we will develop the Pauline doctrine of the kingdom with primary reference to the non disputed epistles. Within this study we will discuss the time

of the coming of the kingdoms and the role which Christ plays in its revel ati on.

We shall then face up to the problem of the scope of the Pauline corpus by charting a course between two extremes: it is unhelpful to survey the teaching of the entire corpus uniformly, but limiting our study to the H tj !f e may produce a reductionistic picture of Pauline

theology, especially if Colossians or other disputed epistles are authentic. Our plan will be to discuss Colossians, Ephesians, and the

Pastoral Epistles in their own right, in order to determine what their author(s) teach about the kintdom. The Issue of Pauline influence will

'-7-

be considered as a secondary concern when it arises in the course of discussion. We shall understand "Pauline" theology not strictly as the but in addition those ideas in the

teaching found in the

disputed epistles which seem to have been taken over from Pauline tradition or otherwise reflect Paul's thought. Thus a statement such as

"the author of Colossians teaches (or does not teach) the Pauline doctrine of the kingdom" is a comment concerning the epistle's substance rather than its literary origin. Again, a sentence such as "in 2

Timothy Paul tells Timothy..." is a literary statement rather than a Judgment about authenticity.

Rut first we need to discuss the influences upon Paul's theology of the kingdom before approaching his Xc.Ct* sayings. Within the

scope of introductory matters we shall begin to understand Paul's unusual position amid Judaism and the fledgling Christian church.

-8-

PART I:

PAUL S PROCLAFIAT ION OF THE PRESENT AND FUTURE K I N t3 D 0 M

CHAPTER ONE:

PAULINE ESCHATOLOL3V: AN INTRODUCTION AND A REVIEW OF BACKGROUND

Introduction

Long before Paul 'm conversiori

Jewish writers predicted the end of

human history, the coming of a new age, and the establishment of the divine kingdom. Even in the earliest communities Christians asked how Within this

the coming of Christ would alter the course of the future.

chapter we shall begin to discriminate ideas which Paul took over from Judaism or the church from those which he himel+ discovered, We shall

at the same time interact with modern theories and misconceptions about Pauls background, including the perennial scholarly debate over the labels "eschatological" and "apocalyptic".

I. The Influence of Christian Tradition

Although Paul offered his own contributions to kingdom theology1 he owed a great deal to the churches among which he moved. From them he

drew the skeletons of his Old Testament interpretation and ecchatology; against them he argued for a traditional Jewish-Christian world view.

-9-

It is generally accepted that Paul took over many interpretations of the Old Testament from the early church. In his letters he often

presupposes an understanding of a prophetic passage without offering explanation or Justification (for example, note his use of isa. 2:8 and Hos. l314 as descriptive! of resurrection life in I Cor. ISi545).

Since the New Testament writers propound broadly similar interpretations of the Old Testament, C. H. Dodd has reasonably deduced that there existed early on a consensus of oral I!stirnonia consisting of Christian interpretations to passages of Scripture. He also suggested

that 'we have seen reason to believe that the unit of reference was sometimes wider than the usually brief form of words actually quoted, and that the citation by different writers of adjacent or contiguous passages within a single context may be evidence of a common 2 When Paul and others mentioned a few words pre-canonical tradition." from the Old Testament, they sparked their readers' memory of the text's literary context. Dodd's theory illuminates many of Paul's scriptural

citations and allusions, although it must be added (as Dodd himself notes) that the apostle was not confined to the Testirnonia nor to conventional Christian applications of the Scriptures. Although Paul's theology did not develop apart from contemporary influences, it was fundamentally marked by Christian interpretations of the Did Testament.

28-60. Cf. also our ures, p. 1. See C. H. Dodd, !. cordinq full discussion of Paul's hermeneutic in Chapter Five. 2. Ibid., p. 61.

- 10 -

_1_cb.t919Y
It is self-evident that the early church looked forward to the return of Christ; some have suggested that its eventual disappointment in Christs delay was the major factor leading to the development of Christian theology. Erich Graer, for example, has produced several

studies in which he interprets the entire New Testament from the 3 standpoint of this so-called P j?g-g.

In 2 Pet.

3:4

some

indeed

are

demanding

"floU ai-v

ncyyE?U Tr

ncpouac c*1JToi;" The author answers that "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years ) and a thousand years as one day (3:8)." It must be emphasized, however, that it is not the church which was doubting. Rather, the taunt arose from without, from those who the author believes may be end-time apostates (3:3).

Within the Pauline corpus we search in vain for evidence that the delay of the Parousia resulted in panic or disappointment. One psible

explanation, again supported by C. H. Dodd, is that Paul himself has abandoned the "apocalyptic" thinking of his Thessalonian epistles; Dodd theorizes that the Parousia hope is dimmed in 2 Corinthians, and

3. See, for example, Grer, d Aoste1geschichte (3rd. ed., 1977).

(1973);

- 11 -

4 finally lost in his Prison Epistles. He desires to show that Paul

turned away from a futuristic expectation to a "realized" eschatology in a way which supports Dodd's own non-apocalyptic interpretation of the synoptic tradition. This "development theory" has rightly been

criticized by those who observe that the hope of Christ's coming is 5 John Lowe writes: prevalent throughout the Pauline literature. ...the basic eschatological outlook, the conviction that the coming of Christ meant the beginning of the end, the belief that the crisis is at hand, the consequent sense of tremendous urgency, the ardent looking forward to the final consummation --all this runs...the whole way through. Indeed, a major difference between 1 Thessalonians and Philippians Is that in the latter Paul reckons with his own death before Christ's return (Phil. 1:19-2 's). He does not therefore stress his hope in being personally "caught up" as he does in 1 Thess. 4:172 "tnvrc flpc ot 6 &.ic aC,v i'ro tpncyflad1iE8c tv vXix." iv1 ot

One of the major contributions of Cullmann and others in the mold is their assertion that the delay of the Parousia was much less of an influence upon the church than its belief in the realization of salvation, the gift of the Spirit, and other blessings

4. Dodd, "The Mind of Paul: Change and Development," 109-10. pp.

18 (1934),

5. Lowe, "An Examination of the Attempts to Detect Developments in 133. 42 (l94l) p. Paul's Theology," 47-54; 6. So Smalley, 'The Delay of the Parousia," JBL 83 (1964), pp. he helpfully states that the reason for the change between the epistles He is due to whether Paul was identifying himself with his readers. does so in 1 Thess. 4, but in 2 Car. 5 and Phil. 1 he is thinking in terms of his own destiny.

- 12 -

7 in Christ. We shall see in later chapters that Paul and the early

Christians primarily based their theology on the Old Testament and on the past work of Christ.

C. Paul and the Hellenistic Churches

Many scholars cleanly separate the "apocalyptic" eschatology of Paul (and the Palestinian church) from the theoretically "vertical" enthusiastic thought which Paul may have encountered in the Hellenistic churches. Although some would suggest that Paul is dealing with

enthusiasm in a variety of letters (in Romans, for example, according to Ksemann), the most important consideration here is the theology of the Corinthian church. From Paul's arguments we can infer that the

Corinthians boasted of their wisdom (1:18-2:16), acted like kings (4:8), and overemphasized the charL!at. Some believed that vcorca
VCKp(V

atn< taiv" (1 Cor. 15:12). Although we cannot conclude with certainty how much Paul knew about this last belief, he perceived within the Corinthian church a denial of future physical resurrection. He is

therefore attempting both to show the need for resurrection (because Christians are united with Christ in all things), and to assuage philosophical doubts about the resurrection body.

7. Cullmann, Salvation in History, pp. 131-38. pp.

248-68 (Paul); Christ and lime,

- 13 -

B Some have suggested that the Corinthian error was Gnosticism. But

many important elements of Gnosticism are missing from Paul's epistle. He does not, for example, mention any christological error; Paul indicates that the Corinthians were offended by th. cross of Christ, but he does not claim that they denied Jesus' humanity (despite the possible 9 interpretaticns of 1 Car. 12:3). Paul speaks about the flV(UTIK0 in 2:6ff., a term which had Gnostic significance in the 2nd. century A. U., but he does not imply that it is a technical self-identificatiDn among the errorists. Dunn admits these deficiencies and resorts to speaking Another difficulty is that Paul would have

of a pre-Gnostic philosophy.

to have radically misunderstood the Corinthian Gnosticism and concluded that spiritual resurrection was in fact a denial of resurrection. But

In the epistle there is no reference at all to spiritual resurrection 10 nor to its misinterpretation.

Because the Gnostics drew ideas fro the Hellenistic world, many so-called proto-Gnostic elements would be circulating wherever Paul traveled. But it is not logically necessary that the Corinthians'

o_rJn_th_; semann, B. As examples, cf. Schmithals, ntic 125-34; Beker, Paul the 'Primitive Christian Apocalyptic," pp1 165-66; Grundmann, "Uberlieferung und Eigenaussage im pp. eschatologischen Denken des Apostels Paulus," NIS 8 (1961-62), pp. 275-79; Barrett, 14-15; Dunn, Unity and Diversity, pp. Corinthians, pp. 360-61.

Ei!t

9. Cf. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth, pp. 126-30, who understands 12:3 as an indication that the Corinthians rejected the human nature of Jesus. 10. See the discussion by Wilson, pp. 51-53, and the criticisms of the Gnostic interpretation by Pagels, Gnostic Paul, esp. pp. 157-64, in which she shows that it was the Gnostics who used Pauline terms and not the reverse. Contra Klauck, 38. p.

- 14 -

philosophy would j Gnosticism.

the next century blossom specifically into classical

It is thus wiser to put aside the Gnostic label and to(

examine te Corinthian theology in the light of known Hellenistic 11 ideas.

the

Hellen

clear that the Corinthians were enamored with the wisdom of 12 it )C world, a wisdom not specifically Gnostic. Paul is

of the condemning their philoophlcal rejection of the 13 gospel. Their quest for wisdom made the Corinthians disdain the

Hcrud1ties

mi nistry and the scruples of the "weak", that is, the less-sophis ticated members the church who would loathe the taint of
apostles
0+

idolatry.

lany Hellenistic philosophers taught that after death the

cja1Iy the caution exercised by A. J. M. Wedderburn, "The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I Corinthians xv," NovI 23/ (1981), 229-41; Wilson, Gnosis, pp. 51-53; "How Gnostic were the Corinthians?" _NI_S 19 (1972-73), p. 69. Beker, Paul the AQostle, pp. 164-65, tinguishes a Hellenistic world-view from what he labels the "apocalyptic" (by which he means "future-eschatological") world-view. His suggesti 0 suffers from an overbroad definition of "apocalyptic", since a belief in eschatology was widespread among most Jews. Beker, p. 165, and Becker, Auferstehunq, pp. 55-65, propose that Paul often went along with Hellenistic thinking ust far enough to introduce his own "apocalyptic" ideas. Becker, for example, believes that all of the Hellenistic churches held to a theoretical "Antiochene" theology, which included the idea of dying and rising with Christ. Such reconstructions of Paul's letters are extremely arbitrary; they involve speculations about his readers' beliefs and his own theological agenda, as well as the historically improbably presupposition that Paul radically disagreed with all of the Hellenistic churches, many of which he founded.

11. See

esp pp. dis

12. Wedderburn, p. 234, suggests that the philosophically-minded were the educated rich of the Corinthian church. His proposal has merit, since Paul does allude to boasting about "riches" (4:8) and to tensions over social inequities within church feasts (11:18-22). The language of I Cor, 4:8 may be taken from the claims of the Stoic philosophers, who claimed to be rich and to rule. 87, Cf. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. n, 28; contra Barrett, 108-09. pp.

Eit Corinthians,

135-38, who claims 13. Contra Schmithals, Snosticism in Corinth, pp. that it was salvation history in the cross which they were rejecting.

- 15 -

14 human soul would continue in a disembodied existence. Such an

anti-materialistic prejudice led the later Gnostics to reject physical resurrection in favor of sacramental regeneration; the creed "vckuTcav 6tl y'ovvt" (2 Tim. 21G) may also be an overemphasis upon spiritual 15 resurrection.

Paul defends physical resurrection in 1 Car. 15 and 2 Car. 4-5 nat against spiritual resurrection, but against an anti-materialistic view 16 of the afterlife. He does not reject baptismal new life (an idea which he affirms in Romans), but rather Hellenistic anti-materialism. Paul agrees with Jews and Christians that since God, and not some Demiurge, is the creator, and since (according to Christian belief) God affirmed his interest in earthly creation by physically raising Jesus from the dead, then it is antithetical to the Christian gospel merely to expect an immaterial existence after death. Unlike Hellenistic

philosophers, Paul did not hope for deaths liberation from material

Rohde, Pshe: 14. See esp. 524-49. He discusses the popular eclectic beliefs the Greeks 3 pp. rnor of the immortality of the soul in late Hellenistic thinking and their origin in earlier philosophical thinking. Rohde claims that the destiny of the soul was the "burning question" among people of those times. 125-26; Beker 3 pp. 166-67, who believe that 15. Contra Kasemann, pp. the error attested in 1 Corinthians and 2 Timothy is baptismal resurrection with a subsequent denial of future corporeal resurrection. 53. As we shall argue in Chapter Four, Paul 16. So Wilson, p. is not adding to his "apocalyptic" resurrection theology a Hellenistic belief in the soul's ascent to heaven; rather, he is affirming the church's belief in the interim state of dead Christians (being "at home with the Lord") while at the same time stressing the superiority of eschatological physical resurrection (being "clothed").

- 16 -

existence, but rather for a deliverance into a better existence in the 17 resurructi on.

As an alternative to the Gnostic theory, This

Lb

has suggested

that the problem in Corinth was charismatic enthusiasm combined with over-realized eschatology. The believers thought themselves fully

within the kingdom (4:8) and resurrected in the spirit (15:12), and thus 18 But Paul connects became arrogant about their position in Christ. neither the Corinthians' triumphalism nor their misuse of the with their denial of physical resurrection. On the contrary, when Paul

first mentions the spiritual gifts he recognizes that they are awaiting flV
bflOK?U,lI (,V

'rou KupLou f)pv Iqao Xpa'roU" (1:7); there is no It is natural to conclude

evidence that Paul is speaking ironically.

that their arrogance is connected with their desire for wisdom rather than with their denial of resurrection. Paul's use of (auj-)

in 4:8 is either irony or a quotation of the Corinthians' boasting p it is not proof that they have perverted his tcCc* teaching. Paul

recognized that Christians obsessed with philosophy would eventually reject both the cross and the future resurrection, tenets which were

17. As affirms Grundmann, "tiberlie+erung," pp. 14-15, although as a See also C. F. D. Moule, "St. Paul and part of his own Gnostic theory. Dualism: The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection," NIB 13 (1966-67), 106-23. pp. Q_.to "Realized Eschatology at Corinth," NIB 24 (1978), 18. A. C. 512-25. See also N. A. Dahi, "The Church at Corinth (1967)," in pp. intiians, pp. C 108-09. 59-60; Barrett, E.t! jrj. pp. But see Doughty, "The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth," ZN 61-90, who shows that the Corinthians problem was not 66 (1975), pp. realized eschatology, but their assumption that their position in Christ allowed them to exalt themselves over their fellow Christians. He rightly shows (pp. 89-90) that the "apocalyptic" return of Christ does not determine Paul's polemic in 1 Corinthians; he is much more interested in Christ's first coming, particularly in his death and resurrection.

il,

- 17 -

seen by him as a sine gua non o the gospel, and through which God worked "np rv ctthvwv 6dcv tiv" (1 Car. 2:7). In 1 Corinthians Paul once again teaches that the resurrection and the kingdom are inseparable, and are fundamental to the Christian hope.

- 18 -

II. Ib 1fl

21

E2L2gY

Although all accept that Paul was influenced by Judaism, some scholars have sought to locate him within apocalyptic Jewish Christianity. In his programmatic works, Albert Schweitzer criticized nineteenth-century scholars such as Reitzenstein and Holtzmann for ignoring the eschatological nature of Pauline thought, and for 19 He suggested that Jesus' constructing a mystical or "Liberal" Paul. death and the delay of the coming of the kingdom made it impossible for the church to carry on with his apocalyptic message. Paul then resolved

this dilemma under the influence of apocalyptic writings (primarily 4 Ezra and 2 Aoc. Baruch) , by regarding the time between Jesus' 20 resurrection and his return as the interim messianic kingdom.

Schweitzer's desire to explain Paul by means of apocalyptic Judaism has lately received increasing support. Thus Ernst Kasemann has He

proposed that apocalyptic is "the mother of Christian theology."

suggests that Jesus and the early church were much more oriented to the

19. Schweitzer, Pa1 and Hs

pp.

55-66, and

79-100. We shall be 20. Schweitzer, 1sticism of t. Paul, pp. dealing with Schweitzer's view of the messianic kingdom in some detail in Chapter Four.

- 19 -

end of the age than the New Testament reveals, and that Paul received a 21 tradition of apocalyptic from the early church. J. Christiaan Beker has also tried to locate the center of Paul's thinking in the 22 apocalyptic world-view. His position is that Paul's original ideas, drawn from his Pharisaic background, were modified by the Christ-event.

One difficulty with comparing Paul with "apocalyptic" is defining the latter. Strictly speaking, the word is an ad j ective which describes

that which pertains to the apocalypses; but through the influence of the 23 German Aypt , k it has been taken over into English as a noun. Schweitzer defined "apocalyptic" as the type of eschatology found in Daniel, I Enoch, 4 Ezra and 2 A2oc. Baruch. His successors have not been so unambiguous. For exair',le, Ksemann states: "I speak of primitive

Christian apocalyptic to denote the expectation of an imminent 24 But even then Kasemann continues to confuse his definition Parousia." (which he admits may be subsumed under the term "eschatology" properly used) with the "apocalyptic" expectation of the intertestamental writings. He also 5peaks of "the apocalyptic scheme of the two aeonsN

21. Kasemann, "On the Topic of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic," pp. 132-37. 16-18. Cf. also his 22. Beker, Paul L' pp. Beker criticizes the old Liberals, Bultmann, Dodd, and even Go ! e. Kasemann for de-emphasizing the crucial role of apocalyptic. 23. Cf. Keck, p. 230. Keck suggests that "apocalyptic" is not simply a description of the eschatology of the apocalypses, but rather "an adjective which characterizes a type of theology, not merely a type of eschatology." (p. 241). 1. 24. Ksemann, "Primitive Christian Apocalyptic," p. 109, n. 16, also limits early Christian Baumgarten, Paulus und A 2 okalyptik , p. apocalyptic to "futurist eschatology." See also John M. Court, "Paul and the Apocalyptic Pattern," in Paul and Pauiinisrn; Court suggests that apocalyptic pattern, summed up in the technical terms 6ivc, 8Aq.i.c, and TtXo, is the driving force in Pauline eschatology.

- 20 -

(p. 134), a scheme which is not a Unique characteristic of the apocalyPses.

J. C. Beker, following Vielhauer and Koch, tries to define "apocalyptic" by listing its characteristics: determinism, the 25 periodization of world history, the catastrophic end of the age. then states that "apocalyptic" beliefs influenced not only the apocalypses, but also the Old Testament, the Psalms of p 1oinon, and rabbiniC theology. Beker refuses to label Pauls theology with the He

nebulous qualifier "eschatological"; he prefers "apocalyptic" as a more 26 Granted, there are problems in using "eschatological" specific term. in discussions of Pauline thought: many theologians use the term in a vague or distorted manner by consistently labelling the present time as "eschatological", either to impress the reader with the importance of

13-38. Dunn, Uniti 25. Beker, EauL th Aoste, pp. 310-15, and Russell, flj s5age of Jewish Aocaltjc, od and pp. 104-39, do the same. Russell seems to assume that his readers pp. understand the meaning of "apocalyptic literature", because he does not (1975), shows a P. 0. Hanson, Ib. define the term. 2L similar reticence, although to his credit he clearly states that he is only discussing the relationship between the eschatology of the prophets and that of the apocalypses. 211-18, argues Goppelt, pp. against an "apocalyptic" view of Paul. Goppelt is using his opponents' terminology and arguments, but still he does not adequately define the term. Cullmann, Saviton in History, pp. 80-83, repeats the oft-heard plea that "apocalyptic" be dropped since it often has derogatory connotations of a negativistic world view. Although Culimana will not himself define the term, he Judiciously states that if it were used as a technical term then it would be useful (p. 81). The negative connotations of "apocalyptic" have been to a great extent lost with the wider use of the term in this half of the century, but this fact does not excuse scholars from properly using the term. 26. Beker, 18-19. Beker incongruously does not e2!Ue, p. uL clearly define "apocalyptic" in this section; he seems to agree with Ksemann that it relates to the expectation of the end of the age (p. 15). He disagrees with Ksemann, however, in that he believes that "Pauline apocalyptic" is still the core (and not Just the "mother") of Pauline thought, and that Paul's version of apocalyptic consists in showing how the coming of Christ determines the coming consummation.

- 21 -

their conclusions, or in the mistaken belief that the term is synonymous with "salvation-historical. Such abuses ensure that the term is robbed 27 But Beker's suggestion thab everyone of any technical meaning. understands "apocalyptic" is equally problematic. This term also

succumbs to misapplication and loose definition, and in many cases bears 28 Because no relationship to the features of the Jewish apocalypses. the characteristics which Beker lists are neither found in each apocalypse, nor limited to such works, "apocalyptic" seems entirely too 29 vague a system with which to compare Pauline thought.

The problem of deflning "apocalyptic" is made more acute when scholars try to list the "apocalyptic" works. Discussions purportedly of apocalyptic literature frequently include examinations of the P!i of Solomon, Jubilees, the 91 !

I1

Patriarchs, Qumran

NIS 1 (1954-55), pp. 27. Cf. Bultmann, "History and Eschatology, 13-16, in which he states that for Paul "history is swallowed up in eschatology," so that eschatoiogy is no longer concerned with the future, but with the quality of life in the present. He is defining "eschatology" in terms of ultimate values rather than in terms of See J. Carmignac, "Les Dangers de ultimate future values. 365-90, in which he notes the l'Eschatologie," IS 17 (1970-71), pp. dangers of abusing "eschatological". 28. Cf. the scathing indictment by T. F. Glasson, "What is Apocalyptic?" 98-105. He urges the reader to become as he is and 27 (1981), pp. renounce the use of the word "apocalyptic". Although the examples which Glasson cites are indicative of the abUses the term has undergone, one suspects that Glasson's true motive is to expurgate the concept of futurist eschatology from Christian doctrine. 18-22. He cites the 29. Contra Koch, Rediscovery of AocaLytic, pp. "cloudiness" of most definitions of "apocalyptic" as the reason he The resorts to listing the characteristics of apocalyptic works. logical inconsistency here should be obvious to all: how may one define the characteristics of a set of books which themselves cannot be listed until one is able to define their characteristics? Perhaps the collection of literature made by R. H. Charles is the framework from which to draw literary and theological characteristics, but his work by no means has the status of canonicity.

- 22 -

L v literature, and/aocrYhal (or deutero-canonical) works.

Clearly the

scope of "apocalyptic" literature must be more restrictive than works written neither by the rabbis nor Philo.

The best way forward is to use "apocalyptic" to describe not a strong expectation of the end times nor a belief in the divine control over human history, but in its etymological sense, to describe a literary work marked by divine revelation. This has been the approach

taken very successfully by the Apocalypse Group of the SBL Genres 30 Project. According to John J. Collins, "Apocalyp5e" is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which the revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.

There is no monolithic entity which is identifiable as "apocalyptic eschatology". Apocalyptic eschatology is simply the

eschatology of the apocalypses, literary works which are distinguishable not by the teaching of the end of the world, but by revelatory visions. A rabbi is not "apocalyptic-influenced" when he teaches, for example, about the new creation. That which separates the rabbi from the author

of 4 Ezra is that the latter believes (or claims to believe for literary reasons) that he has received confirmatory visions. As Rowland notes,

30. J. 3. Collins, "Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre," Srneia 14 (1979), p. 9. This is by no means a modern innovation. In T!e Oen Hea, p. 9, Rowland notes that Bornkamm in TDNI, IV, p. 815, states that "the disclosure of divine secrets is the true theme of later Jewish apocalyptic." Christopher Rowland's I Open Heaven: A (1982) is the 9 29YP!c i rJ magnum opus of the "revelatory" definition of apocalyptic. Also I. Gruenwald, Aocatic and Merkabah Msticisrn, pp. 3-28, who develops apocalyptic from the standpoint of Wisdom speculation and the revelation of wisdom from heaven.

- 23 -

"as such Capocalyptic] differs markedly from other ways of ascertaining the divine will which tend to rely on more indirect modes of 31 That which ties discernment, like the interpretation of scripture." together such varied writings as Daniel 7-12, 1 Enoch, lees 23, and Such a

the Revelation of John is the claim to supernatural revelation.

criterion would exclude the Eighteen Benedictions and works such as the

!1!

of Solomon from "apocalyptic literature", even though such

non-apocalyptic works are equally-important attestations of Jewish eschatology.

Because Dunn defines "apocalyptic" in terms of eschatology, he must concede that "there is a fair amount of overlap" between apocalyptic and the prophetic hope of the Old Testament. He concludes that "in apocalyptic the picture is painted on a larger canvas, with bolder, more sweeping brush strokes. At each of the characteristic

points of apocalyptic there is a radical heightening of eschatology 32 But Dunn is only recognizing that which leaves prophecy behind." "apocalyptic" literature sometimes contains eschatology which is unusually vivid in its presentation.

It is therefore improper to use "apocalyptic" as a virtual synonym of "eschatology". It is better to speak of 'apoca1yptic eschatology",

31. Rowland,

Qa Heaven, p.

10.

32. Dunn, Unity and Diersi, pp. 315-16. Schmithals, Movement, pp. 199-212, ultimately discriminates between "apocalyptic" (revelatory) literature and works such as the Psalms of SoL2, the and the Qumran literature which I!!!n 2 His canon contain "apocalyptic motifs" (imminent future eschatology). is the "apocalyptic understanding of existence" (p. 200). Schmithals' work, which is remarkably even-handed, would be improved if he saw that future eschatology in Judaism is not necessarily derived from the revelations of the apocalypses.

tb IIY! Er!rb,

- 24 -

"Qumran eschatology", and "rabbinic eschatology" as closely-related 33 expressions of the Jewish hope in God's future intervention. Paul's doctrine of the end time is "eschatology", not "apocalyptic".

Some have suggested that the "apocalyptic Paul" was misunderstood by later writers who wrote in his name. I.. E. Keck observes that the more epistles one accepts as genuine, the more complex becomes Paul's relationship to apocalyptic theology (Keck himself accepts seven 34 epistles as authentic). Beker believes that "apocalyptic Christianity" became spiritualized in Colossians, Ephesians, and John, 35 with a resulting loss of emphasis upon the imminent end.

A great advantage of the "revelatory" definition of apocalyptic, however, is that it shows that apocalyptic is not a type of 36 eschatology. All too often scholars picture apocalyptic theology as a simple, temporally moving, future-oriented system which excludes "horizontal" categories of theological thinking. This opinion raises

problems even when discussing Paul's view of heaven in the undisputed

33. This is the reason why we must ultimately disagree with Glasson's conclusions in "What is Apocalyptic?" Properly defined, "apocalyptic" has a 1egtimate role in scholarly vocabulary as a descriptive of works characterized by revelatory visions. Thus, see Beasley-Murray, who exhibits a very clear and even-handed use of "apocalyptic" and "eschatology" in "New Testament Apocalyptic - A Christological EschatDlogy," RevExE 72 (1975), p. 317. Carmignac, "Les Dangers," pp. 365-90; I.e Miraqe 1'EJtgLoqi, pp. 189-201, renounces the confusing practice of identifying "kingdom of God" and "eschatology". 34. Keck,p. 229.

Apocco

35. Cf. Beker, Paul the Apostle, p.

162.

36. See the very helpful chart by Collins, "The Jewish Apocalypses," Serneia 14 (1979) , p. 28, in which he notes the presence and type of the Manner of Revelation, the Temporal Axes, the Spatial Axes, Paraenesis by the Revealer, and Concluding Elements.

- 25 -

epistles, which must thereby logically be interpreted as non-apocalyptic. Within many apocalypses, heavenly categories actually

predominate over temporal ones, giving such works a more vertical" orientation than anything found in the Pauline corpus.

Paul's dependence upon apocalyptic eschatology (that is, the eschatology of visionary works) is not as clearly attested as Beker might think. Many of the so-called Hapocalypticfl motifs in Paul are

actually taken from a christological reading of texts such as Pss. Band 110. In many other cases, Paul takes over traditional Jewish elements Which are also widespread outside the apocalypses. When Paul speaks,

for example, of the appearance of the new creation, we may legitimately label this idea an apocalyptic doctrine, if at the same time we point 37 out that it is equally a prophetic and a rabbinic idea.

At the same time, the Pauline literature lacks any clear allusions 38 Approaching Paul with a list to te non-canonical Jewish apocalypses. of "apocalyptic" traits shows that he gives little attention to the courSe of history, the angelic world, and details of the age to come. He doe s join in with the other writers of the New Testament in teaching the ypicallaPoCa1yPtiC Jewish idea of present suffering and future Q l ory, but he does so from a Christian perspective. He comes closest to

the genius of apocalyptic when he mentions his vision of the third he aven in 2 Cor. 12:1-4, but even then he says virtually nothing of what

37. ap

231, who points out that the apocalyptic writers Keck, p. 0 priated all sorts of ideas from other sources.

231: "the problem of Paul and apocalyptic would be more 38 jeck, p. soluDle if one could show that Paul had read an apocalypse (especially Indeed, one must wait until Jude 14-15 to find one 1qe too can read)." h9. an actual quotation from an apocalypse, taken from 1

- 26 -

39 he saw and heard (for the reverse see Col. 2:18).

Where Paul 's thought seems to differ from the theology of the Jewish apocalypses, one cannot automatically speak of evidence of This label presupposes a knowledge of some 40 Conzelmann, for example, asserts that in supposed pristine tradition. 'modified apocalyptic". Car. 15, Paul's reasoning is influenced by apocalyptic determinism concerning the course of the age. Christ is introduced in 15:23, Conzelmann also suggests

however, and changes the meaning of history.

that Paul retains the idea of the messianic kingdom but demythologizes 41 But the defeat of the demonic powers into the conquest of death. Conzelmann must reconstruct an original apocalyptic framework which the early church and Paul subsequently reworked. While Paul here does

allude to two psalms which the church interpreted christologically, he does not speak in terms of radical determinism, nor does he use a recognizable apocalyptic motif.

Paul does draw heavily from the Old Testament in his epistles (although it is noteworthy that he hardly ever uses Old Testament apocalyptic material). All too often, Paul is portrayed as a

39. Cf. the full discussion of Paul's visions by Rowland, The Qp 374-86. Heaven, pp. 40. Thus Bultmann thinks that while Paul really believed in the apocalyptic ideas, what he was in fact teaching was the possibility of a d new existence in Christ. Cf. R. Bultmann, Jesus Chri 33. Bultinanns existentialist approach to Paul is weakened by the p. fact that he must use a "motif-versus-meaning" dialectic in order to prise Paul away from apocalyptic tradition. He must assume a greater acceptance of apocalyptic theology by Paul than is obvious from his writings in order to produce a picture of Pauls own de-mythologization which in turn provides a trajectory toward Bultmann and Heideggerian existentialism. 41. Conzelmann, Qiin!, pp. 280-82.

- 27 -

freethinker who was able to pick and choose from the various writings of his day. But he does not demonstrate the same high regard for non-canonical writings as he does for the Old Testament prophets. Goppelt, for example, has concluded that a typological interpretation of the Old Testament was far more important for Paul than was the later 42 apocalyptic tradition.

It is even less likely that Paul himself underwent a major transformation in eschatological thinking. J. A. T. Robinson, it is

true, believes that there is a noticeable shift between the Corinthian epistles: he argues that this is a change from an apocalyptic to a non-apocalyptic eschatology. He then concludes that Paul had already

abandoned "apocalyptic" before it was taken up by the church and allowed 43 But when Robinson speaks of to alter the synoptic tradition. non-apocalyptic eschatology, he does not mean eschatology from outside the apocalypses; he is thinking of realized, non-futurist eschatology. By imposing exaggerated distinctions upon letters whose eschatology is broadly homogeneous, he is trying to explain why Paul teaches the "apocalyptic" (that is, future eschatological) elements which Robinson wishes to expunge from genuine Christianity.

42. L. Goppelt,

IQ!.I pp.

218-37.

43. He thus follows the approach of C. H. Dodd and T. F. Glasson. Cf. 1. 1. See also Hunter, iso, n. A. 1. Robinson, and His Coi, p. Paul and H Prssor5, p. 98.

- 28 -

B. Rabbinic Judaism

Since there exists the danger of exaggerating the importance of apocalyptic eschatology for Paul, it is useful to note that he sometimes 44 Although used the peculiar language of his rabbinic contemporaries. scholars have traditionally driven a wedge between apocalyptic and rabbinic forms of Judaism, this false division has been increasingly rejected with the realization that first-century rabbinic theology shared many elements with the apocalypses, such as the doctrines of the two ages, the messianic kingdom, and the new creation.

On at least three occasion; (Gal. 5:21, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 1 Cor. 15:50; cf. Eph. 5:5) Paul uses a modified version of a common rabbinic J. G. Gager rightly concludes

formula about inheriting the age to come.

from this evidence that Paul was not locked into the language of the apocalypse;, but used language and arguments appropriate to the 45 situation he faced.

44. For example, T. W. Manson believes that 1 Cor. 15:24-28 is much closer to the rabbinic theology of the kingdom than to that which is pp. CF. Manson, Qf found in the apocalypse;. 139-40. 45. J. 8. Gager, Jr., 'Functional Diversity in Paul's Use of End Time Language," 325-37. L 89 (1970), pp.

- 29 -

III. I

Ir!iti g

cif

Before we can ask in what way Paul used

we mu5t discuss

the ways in which it was used within Jewish and Christian theology. Within the last century a great deal of light has been shed on the 46 cannot *o.7cCc*. The Hebrew rnalkth and the Greek meaning of simply be translated Hkingdomh in the sense of a realm". Within the Old Testament they usually have the meaning of "kingship" or "sovereignty". This so-called "abstract" or "dynamic" meaning of the terms refers to the king rather than to his subjects or territory. popularized rendering pc*alcCc ou G. Dalman thus

8('U nDt as Gottesreich ("kingdom of

47

God"), but as Gottesherrschaft ("rule or reign of GodN).

Since Dalman's time, it has been a point of honor among most 48 In some cases, an German scholars to speak of God's Herrschat. abstract translation is indeed appropriate: "he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:33); "it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke

46. Within Jewish literature in particular we often find "king" or the verb "reigns" instead of the noun "kingdom". 91. It has been demonstrated many 47. Dalman, Words of Jesus, I, p. times that "kingdom of heaven" is a reverential softening of "kingdom of God" which is attested both in later Jewish literature and in the gospel of Matthew. Therefore, that which we say about "God's kingdom" in this Cf. Strack section usually applies equally to "the kingdom of heaven," 97. and flillerbeck, Kommentar, I, p. 172; Jeremias, Tegjg, I, p. 48. Cf. Bousset, Die Re1iion des Judenturns, p. 354-57. pp. 199; Schnackenburg,

- 30 -

12:32), But there is a danger in always interpreting

as "rule":

for example, it is a fault of Dalman's English translator that he renders as "sovereignty of God" and sometimes simply

as "theocracy", expressions which are too distant from the idea of God 49 This practice yields many dubious actively ruling the universe. renderings of some dominical sayings for which a concrete translation of "kingdom' is needed: it is meaningless, for example, to think of 50 reclining at table...in the sovereignty of God" (Mitt. 8:11).

It is inappropriate to claim that the abstract interpretation of caXcGx is the "basic" meaning, which was thereupon supplemented with a 51 Because the meanings of words less-than-authentic "concrete" meaning. are determined by their use in context, both concrete and abstract definitions may be legitimate meanings of p.)(c*. In the case of Jesus' sayings, Jeremias points out that many of his expressions are at 52 any rate unparalleled in Jewish literature. We are free, therefore, to recognize that in Jewi5h literature kingdom terms are usually applied abstractly, and at the same time to interpret acc as "reign" or

I realm N as it seems appropriate within a New Testament context.

49. Cf. the translator's note, Dalman, p.

vii.

50. See Dalman, p. 108. Note the balance which is reflected by the t_t original title of Schnackenburg's study of the theme: See also the fine discussion by Ladd, Ihe Presence of 130-48, and the carefulness shown by Carmignac, Le Mirag, pp. 70-76 (Pauline theology). pp.

Er!,

37273, demonstrates the 51. Klappert, "King, Kingdom," NIDNIT, II, pp. historical development of the concrete use of pcai.)cCc in Greek literature, showing that it arose later than the dynamic use, meaning "the fact of being king." 52. Jeremias, Iheology, 1, pp. 32-34.

- 31 -

At the root of any Jewish statement about the coming of God's kingdom is the belief that God rules the universe as its creator and sustainer. Within the Old Testament books, God is repeatedly called

"King". In some cases this attribute is related to his rule over the cosmos: "The Lord is the true God [in contrast to idols]; he is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes, and the nations cannot endure his indignation" (Jer. 10:10); "The Lord reigns; let the people tremble! let the earth quake!" He sits enthroned upon the cherubim;

(Ps. 99:1). At other times God is pictured as the

King uniquely of Israel: "You said tD me, 'No, but a king shaH reign over us,' when the Lord your God was your king" (1 Sam. 12:12; cf. 53 Josephus' sole reference to God's kingdom in Jos. Ant. 6:66).

The concept of God's sovereignty is fundamental to the theology of the New Testament, but it is rare to find aXcCc used in such

affirmations; the acciamations of God as King in 1 Tim. 1:17 and 615 are unusual, although we also possess the blessings which ascribe everlasting dominion (Kpc'ro) to God in Jude 25 and Rev. 5:13. Throughout his epistles Paul implicitly affirms the sovereignty of God

53. Cf. Schmidt, "caXU, I, p. 98; Schnackenburg, Dalman, p. 96.

TDNT, I, pp.

IbQL gq ,

568-69; Jeremias, 11-30; pp.

- 32 -

54 without so using

A later development of the kingdom concept particularly within rabbinic Judaism was the picture of receiving the "yoke of the kingdom of heaven." Dalman cites the saying attributed to R. Eleazar ben Azaria (C. A. D. 100), who defines obedience to the Torah as taking upon 55 Sira Deut. 32, 10, 113 refers to the oneself the kingdom of heaven. revelation of God's kingdom to Israel: "Before our father Abraham came into the world, God was, as it were, only the king [sic] of heaven; but 56 when Abraham came, he made Him to be king over heaven and earth." In particular, reciting the Sherna was defined as receiving the (abstract) kingdom of heaven. Submission to God was thus considered an

actualization of his sovereignty over Israel. This rabbinic interpretation of God's rule is not as God's actions on behalf of Israel; rather, God has given the Law, and it is the pious Jew who confirms the kingdom through submitting to the king. Such a picture of the passive God is generally lacking in the New Testament. The closest

54. See T. W. Manson, The Tecinq of Jesus, pp. 139-40. He claims that behind I Car. 15:24-28 lies the idea of the eternal kingdom: it is "implied in the statement that God is the ultimate source of all power and authority by which this triumph is brought about." 55. Dalman, pp. 377. 96-98; Strack and Billerbeck, I, pp. 172-78; Kiappert,

p.

56. Dalman, p.

96.

- 33 -

parallel in which

ca'..Xcc* is used as an ethical standard is Rom. 14:17,

although we shall see that there are vast differences between Paul's saying and the Jewish idea of the "yoke of the kingdom".

In the literature of Hellenistic Judaism, the rudiments of the 57 I yoke u idea were interpreted into an ethical model. Thus wisdom and purity of life would lead one into a position of dominion: "rr8uic r*pc
ao$Cc* vyci. nt c*a.cCc*v" (Wis. 6:20). God's rule is manifested not

in confession, but in virtue: "iccd.

roU vdpov

t6WKCV,

xc8' by

no)vrcuOjjcvo

c*aAcioc

ocuv a$pov& ic

xC 6u<cav

xc*i

yc8iv xc

*v6pcCcv" (4 Macc. 2:23). Schmidt shows that "this ethicising of the

uat)cCc* concept in term5 of popular philosophy was carried through more

58 even [sic] comprehensively and clearly by Philo." Thus while Philo

often speaks of wise human kings participating in God's kingdom, he never speaks of
an

eschatological kingdom of God. But once again, there

is no clear evidence that the New Testament authors were affected by such an understanding of "cai.XcCcc". In Rom. 14:17 Paul speaks not of ethics, but of the work of the Spirit in the present dynamic operation of the kingdom.

57. See the full discussion by Schmidt, pp. 377. 58. Schmidt, p. 574.

574-76; also Kiappert, p.

34 -

With their consciousness of God's perpetual kingship, the Jews came to believe that God would one day manifest his sovereignty to the world. NThe fundamental idea in the future hope is always the kingly

rule of Yahweh, His victorious advent as king and His reckoning with His enemies. kingship. Yahweh's victory is followed by the manifestation of His 59 He appears as king and takes possession of His realm."

The

Exodus from Egypt provided much of the basis for such a hope; if God manifested his power in such visible ways for his people, then surely he would one day reveal himself to the idolatrous nations who spurned his law. The future age was only infrequently called God's kingdom, but the 60 The eschatological kingdom is idea of God's sovereignty was implicit. predicted in Zech. 149 and connected with Deut. 64: "And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one."

Although scholars often talk about the "apocalyptic" future kingdom of God, the relevant literature reveals how rarely kingdom 61 There are notable language is used within the apocalypses.

59. Mowinckel, H

2rneth, p. 31-32.

143.

60. So Schnackenburg, pp.

61. See Schnackenburg, pp. 41-54. K. L. Schmidt is sometimes criticized for generally ignoring the apocalypses in his discussion of the future kingdom (TDNT, I). Although the concept is present in those works, it is true that actual kingdom terminology is not widespread.

- 35 -

more noteworthy because of its proximity to the Lord's Prayer is the Kaddish petition: "May he let his kingdom rule in your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime of the whole house of Israel, speedily and 66 soon."

Far from being merely an "apocalyptic" hopes the expectation of 67 As Jeremias says: God's kingdom was a universal Jewish theme. "Judaism acknowledged God as king. In the present his reign extends

only over Israel, but in the end-time he will be acknowledged by all 68 1c 'roU OcoU, he almost always nations." When Jesus spoke of the pca referred to the coming eschatological age; his example is followed by many New Testament writers, including Paul.

-y

"Kingdom of God/of heaven" would have been a term generally recognized within Judaism, but also variously defined. The "kingdom of

God" was both a realization of God's present "rule" (abstract use of "kingdom") and a part of the eschatological hope (both abstract and

66. Cf. Jeremias, p.

19B; Schackenburg, p.

44.

67. Schnackenburg oddly mentions a wide variety of literature in which the kingdom is the future age, but he then heads a chapter "The Apocalyptic Expectation of the Universal and Cosmic Reign of God" (p. 63) jg 100. But see Buchanan, Jesus: 68. Jeremias, p. 16-25, who explains all the Jewish uses of kingdom pp. language as political; he does so in preparation for a political interpretation of Jesus' preaching.

I!

- 37 -

concrete uses of "kingdom"). The ethical implications of 6od's dynamic sovereignty were developed alongside the eschatological hope by the rabbis, and to the exclusion of that expectation by same Hellenistic Jews.

- 38 -

CHAPTER TWO:

AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS

OF

BXCc*/iiw

REFERENCES

IN THE

PAULINE CORPUS

Introducti on

The purpose of this chapter is to study the cai.Xc(c* references within their contexts. We will draw together this data at the close in

order to to determine the meanings of paa?cCc as it is used within the Pauline corpus.

Although any discussion of the Pauline view of the kingdom must take into account the possibility of a post-Pauline composition of some epistles, in this chapter we will be focusing our attention on exegesis. Even if we could prove that certain phrases or Ideas in the

disputed epistles are Pauline, it could still be argued that these were borrowed from Paul or formulated by a Pauline school. On the other

hand, those who use predetermined categories of authorship may be tempted to twist the meaning of a text in an attempt to unify or diversify the evidence.

We will examine each paa)cLc reference from several different perspectives. For the Pauline literature the following questions are

the most meaningful, and we will address them when possible:

1. 2.

What is the exact term or label used to denote the kingdom? What is the relationship of the kingdom to history (Time Element)?

1. Schnackenburg in fact follows this line of argument in his study of 2 Tim. 418, in which he sees Pauline words used in a non-Pauline way. 318-19. Cf. Schnackenburg, Rule and pp.

- 39 -

3.

What is the relationship of the kingdom to the cosmos (Spatial Aspect)? What is the role of Christ in the kingdom? What is the role of the saints in the kingdom? What is the relationship of the kingdom to an ethical admonition? What is the place of the saying in its context (first within the context of the eschatology of the epistle, then within the immediate context)?

4. 5. 6. 7.

Passages which do not contain

a?cCa or a cognate will be taken

We will begin with passages up and explored in subsequent chapters. 2 and examine together those texts which that are indisputably Pauline, are similar in wording and content.

2. An exception to this will be 2 Thess. 1z5 which will be examined in connection with the very similar 1 Thess. 2:12

- 40 -

CHAPTER TWO ( I ) :

THE KINGDOM SAYINGS IN THE UNDISPUTED PAULINE EPISTLES

A. 1 Thessalonians 2:12 arid 2 Thessalonians 1:5 - Worthiness for the

KC*t ncpcqiu8oOpcvo piup6iEvo 1 Thess. 2:12 - nc*pcKcoOvTE iic KC t To npncrcv ii tw TQU 8cou TOIJ KcXol)vTQ J(n \. V 6dcv. c*uioO pc*a)ccV xc*

r 6Kc KpCacw ioG BoU, t r0 2 Thess. 1:5 - tv6cLy)J Cc iou 8Eo, tinEp KC bp ifl Kc8flv naxEi,

1 . I!E!19y:
In I Thess. 2i12 Paul uses genitive, but ioU 8oU. a?cCc without an explicit qualifying *oc ta)cCc

cuio implies iou Soti, making it equivalent to

The author of 2 Thess. 1:5, 11 uses the traditional

ioU 8oU and thus reflects Paul s usual expression.

In 2 Thess. 1:5

Paul or the author apparently borrows from the phrasing of I Thess. 2:12.

In neither passage does pc*at.?eC

appear to be used in any formal These texts

way (as in the Pauline "exclusion" sayings - see below).

show that Paul was not bound to one or two formulas received from Jewish Christianity, and Haufe cites these as examples of the early churchs 3 familiarity with kingdom language outside baptismal contexts.

3. Haufe, "Reich Gottes," pp.

470-71.

- 41 -

2. Time Element:

With the string of three participles in

Thess. 2:12, Paul

describes the qualities of his ministry in Thessalonica; he indicates the content of his message with an infinitive used as an object of a 4 verb of entreaty. Paul's intention was that these believers might walk in a manner worthy of God. Only the aspect of the participle of KcAw depends on whether the reading i.s the present participle or the less well attested aorist participle. defined. The time of the kingdom is not clearly

The infinitive of result in 2 Thess. 1:5 could also possibly

refer to a state of worthiness maintained by a believer who is presently Indeed, the Thessalonians are said to be suffering on 5 account of the kingdom. in God's kingdom.

Despite the syntactical ambiguity in I Thess. 2:12,

however,

the

context indicates that Paul intends the more obvious eschatological 6 In I Thess. 5:23-24 Paul offers a parallel: believers are meaning. kept by God (who calls them) until the Parousa. In I Thess. 2:12 he binds together "the kingdom" and "glory" and implies that these are one

aima . e 1072. E p. 4. A. 1. Robertson, A TO with an infinitive is used 72 times in the New Testament; 50 of these Cf. Robertson, Grammar, p. 1071. occur in Pauline literature. 5. A kingdom experienced in the present is deduced from this passage by 145-47; Johnston, "Kingdom of God Sayings in Paul's Letters," pp. 109. It may be objected that Mitton's Mitton, Your Kingdgrn Came, p. inqdom Come is written on too popular a level to be of use here. Vo While it is true that he does not interact with scholarly literature within that book, he exhibits some keen insights into the meaning of the kingdom throughout the New Testament. 102; Marxsen, 6. Cf. von DobschUtz, Thesa1oniche-B , p. 46-47; Rigaux, Ihessal ebrjf, pp. pp. 71. 108-09; Carmignac, Le Mirage, p. Best, pp.

433-34;

- 42 -

In the New Testament 6c usually has an eschatological end-time goal. 7 1 Thess. 2:19-20 shows that this 6 refers to the end time: meaning. the kingdom arrives with the glorious Parousia of Christ and the resurrection of the saints. God's glory contrasts sharply with the

transient human glory which Paul shuns in 1 Thess. 2:6.

Again, in 2 Thess. 1:5, the kingdom is discussed in terms of the 8 Christian's worthiness to enter it in the Eschaton. KcTcOw here means 'to regard as worthy" and is thus not substantially different from 9 While these people could possibly be found worthy in their U6w. present existence, 2 Thess. 1:5 is most likely a reference to the day of In 2 Thess. 1:6-10 the author demonstrates this divine o recognition is to be eschatological. The usetOw and its cognates to judgment. denote 6od' favorable Judgment is present in Matt. 22:8 and Rev. 3:4

(cf. also its use in ethical admonitions for the present life in Phil. 1:27, Col. 1:10, Eph. 4:1). In 2 Thess. 1:6-10 the author presents the egative side of God's judgment, namely, the condemnation of the wicked

II, pp. 250-51; he points out 7. Cf. 8. Kittel, "6dc, K.r.A.," that the New Testament authors overwhelmingly use 6c* in the eschatological sense as the counterpoint to present suffering. Contra 109, who believes it usually has a Mitton, 12 p. Lq9! present meaning. 69; Trilling, 8. Marxsen, 2.TIa1onicherbrief, p. 50-51; von DobschUtz, ., . 2.Ihessaioni 621; Best, ThessaLcnans, p. 242-43; Rigaux, Ihessalcnicierrs, p. pp. 255; Carmignac, l 71. Windisch shows that "entering" the p. kingdom and "inheriting" the kingdom are closely synonymous Cf. Hans Windisch, "Die Spruche vom Eingehen in das Reich expressions. Gottes,' ZKI 27 (1928), p. 167.

tf pp.

379-80. The statement 9. So Foerster, "tc6, ,.i.X.," 1, pp. resembles Jesus' word about marriage and the resurrection in Luke 20:35 - at 6E KcTcw8vTe TOU ctivo tcvoi TuXcv. Otherwise, KaTadW is only found in Luke 21:36 t.r. and Acts 5:41; Paul and the other New Testament writers usually use

IDI,

- 43 -

at Christ's coming.

He evokes the theme of the final judgment again in

2 Thess. 2:8, 2:12 and 2:14. So then, both of these epistles convey the firm eschatological link between being judged worthy by God and entering his )cic.

i . 21I

ets:

The location of the eschatological kingdom is not developed in either of these passages. In 1 Thess. 2:12, Paul states that God is

This preposition should calling the believer t his kingdom and glory. 10 Both passages coincide here be translated either as "into" or "unto". with the "entering into the kingdom" sayings common tD the New Testament 11 and reflect a concrete use of uLc.

!1!!P

hi:

Both of these passages have a strong ethical purpose.

In each the

writer contrasts believers, who are members of the future kingdom and should live accordingly, with unbelievers, whom God will judge because 12 of their evil deeds.

10. See Robertson, all read "into". 11. Cf. Dalman, pp. 116-lB.

p.

591-96. The RSV, NIV, NEB, and the JB

46-47; he claims that 12. But see Marxsen, 1.IhesaLonicherbrief, pp. because Christians are already the "Sons of light" in I Thess. 5, they This is true only in a are now experiencing "eschatological existence". strongly qualified sense, since Paul still speaks of an eschatological judgment through which they enter the final kingdom.

- 44 -

c1!c1

c9.t 9

The eschatology of 1 Thessalonians revolves around the two themes of the Parousia and the judgment of Sod. Evildoers will face God's punishment (4:6); this group jnclude the persecutors of the Christians (it seems best to take 2:16 as a proleptic announcement of judgment). On the other hand, believers have escaped God's anger through Christ (1:10, 5:9), and Paul will rejoice at the salvation of these believers at the Parousia. Their salvation demands holy living; believers are to live in anticipation of Christ's coming (1:10, 5:1-11), and Paul prays that God's preserving power may keep the Thessalonians living holy lives until the end (3:13, 5:23).

6. Immediate Context: I Thess. 2:12

The setting for 2:12 is

p aul's

description of his owfl mini3tr'/.

He was righteous and caring as he labored in Thessalonica. He taught that the God who was calling into his end-time kingdom was himself the standard for holiness in their lives.

Z.

Eschatological Context of

The author of 2 Thessalonians also stresses both the parousia and the judgment. Christ will come to earth with his angels (1:7), and will

punish those who have rejected the gospel (1:6, B-'?, 2:11-12). Conversely, those who have believed the gospel will be rewarded for their suffering (1:6-7, 10, 214). Precedinq the Parousia will be the great apostasy and the rise of the Man of Sin (2:1-12). The author

- 45 -

ecnphasises the glory of Christs appearing (1:9-10) which in fact will destroy the Man of Sin (2:8).

B. Immediate Context: 2 Thess. 115

The immediate context of 1:5 is a section on persecution.

The

Thessalonians' faith and steadfastness are tokens that they will be 13 found worthy of God's kingdom.

Summary:

These two texts refer to the future realm, the manifestation of God's rule, which appears with the Parousia of Christ. This is th traditional Christian concept of the kingdom which came down to the early church from Jesus and from Jewtsh eschatology. Since Paul regards himself to be within the stream of thought of the early church, he sees no need to elaborate on the meaning of the kingdom.

13, See the detailed study on the role of suffering as a sign of divine Justice by J. H. Bassler, "The Enigmatic Sign: 2 Thessalonians 1:5," CBQ 46 (1984), pp. 496-510.

- 46 -

ioc* loOio, & npo7yw Gal. 5:21 - ...48Ovo, p8cu, KwjJo, xu o't. r& rouic np000v'r 1cCcv Oco5 ou U1ji.v Ku8 npocCnov tir KXflpOVOI.tflOoUaP..V.

6ico Go a.c*v oti 1 Cor. 6:9-10 - ) o.n< ocrc 8'r obi xXpovo.z(aouav; ii n vaBe otiT riOpvo t6wXorpc*i. ob'r rrcu orc Ot'T tpacvoKovrci. otIIC ioot OO'TC pc?KQ pncy paacv 8o nXcovtK1c, oU iBuao, cU XoL6opoi., otJ KXflpOVOpfaOUaV.

Terminology:

In both of these references Paul employs ca caL?Cc) without the definite article.

cCc 8eoU (or 8oO

Paul only uses the anarthrous

form in inheritance sayings (see 1 Cor. 15:50, subsection E below; the "inheritance" formula in Eph. 5:5 has a different formulation of the phrase). The anarthrous use of "kingdom of God" shows that this form

has become stereotyped in Paul s speech, and in fact Paul uses similar 14 phraseology at least three times in his epistles.

There is a long history of tradition behind Paul s concept of eschatological exclusion, although there are no exact verbal parallelS to 15 "will not inherit the kingdom" in Jewish literature. According to Dalman the words associated with inheritance mean "to take possession of" and may imply a title or a right to inheritance prior to taking

14. Cf. Muner, Galaterbrief, p. 15. Cf. Haufe, "Reich Gottes," p.

3G4. 467.

- 47 -

possession.

The idea of "inheritance" has iti roots in the Old

Testament process of taking possession of the land under the covenant. It came to be used in both the Old Testament and rabbinic literature for 16 receiving the blessings of salvation in the Eschaton.

The closest Old Testament parallel to these sayings is Dan. 7:18, 22, which predicts the possession of the kingdom by the saints of the Most High. Dan. 7:27 foretells that this kingdom will be handed over to the "holy ones", which may be human saints. In inheriting God's kingdom Dan. 7 may indicate

they will also receive the privilege of reigning.

that that idea of co-rule is implicit in the New Testament inheritance passages. Matt. 5:4 and James 2:5, for example, are predictions of the

end-time reversal in which society's downtrodden will receive the right to rule over the earth. Paul's inheritance concept also includes

co-rule; 1 Cor. 6:9-10 is located in a context of present humility and the ultimate right of judgment (cf. 1 Car. 6:1-B; cf. Rom. 4:13).

There are some rabbinic parallels to Paul's formula about inheriting the kingdom of God. The rabbis declared that heretics "have no portion of the world to come," a phrase identical in meaning to "will not inherit the kingdom of God." This or a similar formula partly influenced Paul's language, but his use of pma'cc within the exclusion formula is even closer to Jesus' teaching. The synoptic evangelists

record several expressions of Jesus concerning an end-time possession; these include "inherit the earth" (Matt. 5i5) and "inherit the kingdom" (Matt. 25:34). Paul seems to have used no set formula in Greek; 1 Car. 15:50 and Eph. 5:5 attest alternative forms of "not inheriting the

16. Dalman, pp.

125-27.

- 48 -

James 2:5 offers yet another form which is derived from 17 Jesus' teaching. Paul thus seems to have invented his own speech form about exclusion from the kingdom.

kingdom."

The fact that Paul repeatedly uses a formula about exclusion which is based upon known Jewish elements does not necessarily indicate that he is using a formal threat the eschatological significance of which he only lightly apprehends. Paul's eschatology indicates that his teaching

about the kingdom is thoroughly integrated with the re5t of his thinking; the kingdom sayings fit well into their respective epistles. He also uses in ways which are by no means traditional (1 Car.

4:20, Rom. 14:17), and speaks of the various manifestations of the kingdom without using c*aXeCu (see our Chapters 3-6).

2. Time Element:

The theme of inheritance points to a final judgment.

Although

exclusion from the future kingdom of God has present ramifications for the wicked, these verses make sense only when interpreted as warnings of 18 God's final judgment.

17. Justin Martyr also spoke of "inheriting the kingdom" in terms of either the millennium or the eternal kingdom. See the examples and analysis given by K. L. Schmidt, "c*o?c, 593. p. 18. Thus Oepke, An die Galater, pp. 379-84; Mupner, Ga1aterf, p. 384; Betz, Galatians, p. 285; Bruce, Galatians, pp. 250-51; Barrett, 200-01; First Corinthians, p. 140; Orr and Waither, 1 Corinthians, pp. Fascher, 1.Korintherbrief 1-7, pp. 171-72. Carmignac, e pp. 72, 74, states that these refer to the future kingdom, although like many French scholars he keeps vascillating back and forth between interpreting the verses to mean entry into heaven at death or at the final judgment.

- 49 -

2!! Aspects:

The picture of inheritance conveys the spatial imagery of receiving land or property in the future; the significance here is the idea of exclusion from the eschatological realm. As J. 0 Hester points

out, Paul does not reject the traditional Jewish expectation of the content of the inheritance; rather, Paul is newly defining who will 19 enter in (cf. especially Gal. 3).

LtL

t_2 t.ti

Q!L:

rn both of these passages Paul relates his exclusion formula to his previous teaching to these groups of Christians. In Gal. 5i21, he specifically reminds the Galatians that he had warned them about these vices and their inevitable result. The bT introduces an indirect

discourse, which indicates that Paul actually used this formula with the 20 Gal at i ans.

1 Cor. 6:9-10 contains the rhetorical

"OIJK

oL6c*'r?", the

OIJK

revealing Pauls opinion that the Corinthians did indeed know this fact. We can suppose, then, that Paul did teach the Galatians and the Corinthians about the kingdom when he was with them. it is possible

that the exclusion formula was part of catechetical instruction to new Christians; Haufe claims that both contexts in which Paul uses the

19. J. D. Hester, Inheritance, p. yptik, pp. 89-90. 20. Cf. Bruce, Galatians, p. 251.

69

also Baumgarten,

und die

- 50 -

21 form indicate an origin in baptismal exhortation. He mentions the

reference to the "washing" in 1 Cor. 6:11 and the fact that Gal. 5:21 is 22 like the baptismal teaching of Qd. 7.!. 1 Cor. 6:11 may be adduced for circumstantial evidence for a baptismal meaning, although this is not strong. On the other hand, the affinity of Gal. 5:21 with the later

Did. 7.1 consists merely o their use of npoXtyw; but even then, Paul uses the temporal significance of npo- in the sense of "I told you before now," whereas the Didahe presumably uses it as a command to "recount" or "rehearse" before the ba2tisrn.

Since a baptismal interpretation is not demanded here, these two passages may have originally been warnings to non-Christians. "Inheriting the kingdom" would have been theologically understandable for Jews, but the warning against unrighteousness would hardly have compelled them to become Christians. But although it is questionable whether Hellenistic Gentiles in Salatia and Achaia would have understood the Jewish terminology, it would appear that the apostolic kerygma almost always contained a warning of a final day of reckoning. It is

conceivable, therefore, that Paul would have explained the exclusion formula and used it with Gentiles.

21. Haufe, "Reich Gottes," p.

Ir!t19fl!!S.t1Lb! WQt!Y!
pp.
26-30. 22. This reads: flcpC 6

468; cf.

also 3. S. Vos,

2!!!E!!2

E!i1

v rE,

crrrCapcio, obTw iou cniCacic: fu* flI(VT( nT(:ocTc t To OvoJc ioU ncipO, etc." Did. 7.1 has

clear affinities with Matt. 2819-20.

- 51 -

!112!2

Although Paul found this form helpful for preaching the gospel, it was also useful as a part of Christian instruction. Throughout the New

Testament there are predictions of judgment which are used as admonitions to believers. Either these sayings are warnings about

apostasy, or they are developments of the idea that since believers have been saved from such vices it is paradoxical to return to them. 1 Cor.

6:11 indicates that the latter is the case for 1 Cor. 6:9-10, and Gal.
23

5:21 appears to be similar.

Paul nowhere balances the negative character of the exclusion oc sayings with a iistj positive qualifications for entering the caACs. In 1 Cor. 6, the exclusion warning is followed by words about salvation in the name of Christ and in the Spirit; in Gal. 5 his warning is followed by a catalogue of virtues which are engendered by the Spirit within oI....io Xp.0To. Hester observes that the rabbis offered both negative and positive qualifications for entrance into the age to come. While entrance could be obtained through N the study of the Torah and membership in the nation of Israel," exclusion could come about due to a number of sins, whether committed by Jew or Gentile (cf. the full discussion in Sanh. 107b-lOBa). According to Hester, Paul implies a single qualification for one to enter the kingdom, which is being 24 Christ". While Jewish theologians believed that salvation was
U1

23. Wendland, An die Korinther, pp. 44-46, asserts that 6entile vices such as idolatry were posing a real threat to the purity of the Corinthian church. Pauls ironic warning by no means excludes this possibility. 24. Hester, Inheritance, pp. 83-87.

- 52 -

ultimately brought about by the grace of God, this idea was clouded by legalism; Paul's thinking contains no 5UC3 ambiguity.

1i:

Paul's epistle to the Galatians contains surprisingly little eschatological teaching, but this phenomenon can be explained by the grave situation in Galatia. The apostle's main purpose is to persuade his converts to reject legalism as well as licentiousness. According to Gal. 1:4 the purpose of redemption through Christ is rescuing believers from "this present evil age." 'Evca'rth, the strong perfect participle of tvCaTrp, was commonly used as the opposite of pV)wv; Paul may here be implying a two-age schema.

In Gal. 4:26 Paul refers to "the Jerusalem above"; the New Covenant also corresponds to the Isaac and Mt. Zion. He contrasts the children of the heavenly Jerusalem with the legalists, who are not the
heirs to God's promised salvation.

If we take the heavenly Jerusalem to

mean "the kingdom" which is to be revealed from heaven then, Gal. 4:26 corresponds to Phil. 3:20 and Col. 1:5.

Gal. 5:5 makes best sense if it is eschatological.

It would thus

refer to the final redemption and reception of righteousness at the Par ousi a.

7. Immediate Context: Gal. 5:21

In the immediate context of Gal. 5:21 the apostle deals with those who would take advantage of their freedom from the law. Paul points out

- 53 -

that the gospel of grace actually promotes righteousness, not 1Mulness. righteous. The flesh produces evil behavior, but the Spirit Those who follow the flesh have no portion in the final

salvation of God. This idea is further reinforced in the sowing/reaping metaphor of future reward in 6:7-9.

8. Es

gial

f.

1.

1 Corinthians contains more kingdom sayings than any other epistle as well as a great deal of other eschatological teaching. Paul begins

by stressing the inadequacy of "this age" (roi) ctivo iotrou - cf. 1:20, 26, 8, 3:18), which is to be identified with "the world" (xOapo; cf. 120-31). Paul also uses "present ageN terminology in Rom. 122, 2

Cor. 4:4, and Gal. 1:4, and in all cases he denotes the period of time up to the Parousia which is characterized by demonic influence and rebellion against God.

Paul mentions the return of Christ only in 1 Cor. 4:5 and 15:23, and connects it with judgment and resurrection respectively. It is

likely that Paul also indicates in 13:12 that at the Parousia the believer will obtain perfect knowledge. He extensively discusses the

resurrection of believers in 1 Cor. 15. It is after the pattern of Christ's resurrection and will take place at his Parousia (15:23). The final eschatological reference is Paul's use of the traditional "Maranatha prayer in 16:22.

The theme of judgment appears again and again in 1 Corinthians. It will come upon unbelievers for their sins (3:17, 4i5, 16:22). Judgment will be averted only by repentance before the end (5:4-5, 9-13). God

- 54 -

will judge Christians or reward them for their works (1:8, 3:10-15, 4:5, 9:24-27); they will in turn act as judges over angels (6:1-11).

Future events provide the basis for ethical exhortation in several passages. The advice to the Corinthians to remain in the state in which

they were called is clarified by Paul, who explains that the time is short and this world is "passing away" (7:29, 31). 1 Cor 1011 is probably salvation-historical (since Christ we are now in the "fulfillment" of previous ages) rather than eschatological (the "end" is upon us; cf. I Cor. 15:24). The context which precedes 15:58 indicates

that the resurrection is a motive to hard work, since Christians will be following Christ's pattern of labor followed by glory; not even the threat of death should hinder the believer.

9. Immediate Context: 1 Cor. 6:9-10

The immediate context concerns the problem of taking other Christians to court before unbelieving judges. Paul points out that

since believers will judge in the future, they should presently be able to discern church matters. tinbelievers, on the other hand, will neither Paul poi nts out that lawsuits are He uses the

judge angels nor inherit the kingdom.

merely the occasion for returning evil for evil.

"exclusion" saying to dissuade them from evil-doing; since they are cleansed from sin they should not act unrighteously. 1 Cor. 6:11 is a

rebuke to the Corinthians rather than an encouragement that all will be forgiven. Paul has already strongly condemned immoral Christians in the

previous chapter and has even commanded the Corinthians to disassociate themselves from such people.

- 55 -

Once again Paul uses ma)cCc in a traditional way.

This kingdom

is the future realm which the Christian will enter as the culmination of salvation in Christ. He does not give any details of this kingdom since it is a familiar concept.

- 56 -

C. 1 Corinthians 4:20 and Romans 14:17 - Gods Rule as the Ultimate

1 Cor. 4:20 - oj ycp tv 7dyp fl

c*a)eCc* To Bco t*?%)' tv 6wviic.

Rom. 14:17 - oti yp taiv t1 ctptvi 6KOGUVT Kc*

KcL

a?cc 'roQ 8co pOt tv nvcti.iceri. tyip

&XX&

These sayings are similar in form as well as in meaning.

In

couplet form Paul states with oti y&p what the kingdom is not (ta'rv must be supplied in 1 Cor 4:20); beginning with t*XX he states what it is.

Paul is not attempting to define fully the uacCa iou 8oO; as Haufe 25 notes: Freilich handelt es sich in beiden Fallen nicht urn Definitionsstze im strengen Sinn, insofern jeweils die positive Aussage nicht das Ganze des Reiches Gottes, sondern im Moment wichtiges Merkmal desselben beschreibt. nur em So the apostle is using this form to construct an "antithetical 26 definition" of God's kingdom.

There are no available parallels to this

cai.?cCc formula in

i 25. Haufe, l Reich Gottes," p.

469.

26. This label is from Gnter Haufe, Ibid., who speaks of Paul's use of a Hellenistic-phllosophical "antithetische De+initionsstil U

57 -

27 Jewish literature, and most regard this as Paul's own creation. It Ii

not necessary to j oin Haufe in seeking for the origin of Paul 's speech form in Hellenistic philosophical language. 1 Macc. 3:19 is constructed
OLJK

in the same style, and refers generally to the kingdom of God: "on. niO 6uv&icw
VIKfl

no.ioU

O'TV,

tX7t'

'ro ot,pc*vo t1

Cor. 7:19 differs from Ram. 14:17 and 1 Cor. 4:20 only in that it is concerned with human response to God's sovereignty.

Ram. 14:17 closely resembles the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. Jesus there blesses the "peacemakers" (ct.pvonooC - 5:9), those who hunger and thirst for
6LKcoaOVq (5:6,

10), and those who rejoice

( x cCpw) in suffering (5:12). These are the people who will inherit the
aiJcc.

In Ram. 14:17, Paul characterizes the p*oc with Xp v nvCiiceri.. yLp.

6oatvq

Kt((.

tpflvr vc*

The striking verbal similarities

with Matt. 5:1-12 may indicate that Paul was familiar with that 28 tradition and that he modified it for the benefit of the Romans. Even

though in Matt. 5 ttie kingdom is eschatological, and in Ram. 14:17 Paul speaks of a present kingdom, the change in time is cau5ed by exaltation of the resurrected
tyLq).

po (Ram. 14:9)and the resultant life v nVcn.

89-91; Haufe, "Reich 27. Baumgarten, Paulus und die pp. Gottes," p. 469. Lietzmann cited Ber. 17a ("In the future world there as a possible parallel to Rom. 14:17, is no eating or drinking, etc.") See but he did not admit to any influence of this on Paul's statement. 117. Actually, this Jewish denial af Lietzmann, An die Rdrner, p. worldly pursuits in the age to come reduces their importance for Christians who believe that the kingdom is now being revealed. 28. Other similarities include: Jesus encouraged "hungering and thirsting" for righteousness (5:6); Paul argues that the kingdom is not nvI1cr" physical "eating and drinking". Jesus blesses the "poor (5:3); for Paul the fruits of the kingdom come tv nvcUpcn. The use of dL(oKw as persecution in Matt. 5:11-12 becomes Paul's admonition to "seek" peace in Ram. 14:19.

- 58 -

"kingdom of God' in Paul as an eschatological realm.

For Kummel this is

problematic, since he thus denies Paul what he allows Jesus, the doctrine that the kingdom was breaking into the present age. Jesus used

the term both as a future realm and as God's dynamic rule (see for example Matt. 12:28 par.). It is therefore illogical to say that the

kingdom's power is present in I Cor. 4.20, but that the kingdom is not; 30 God's power is a token of God's kingdom.

It is better to interpret Paul as teaching that the kingdom of God is being manifested in this age, and that it produces the qualities 31 listed in 1 Cor. 420 and Rom. 14,17. Paul bases his rebukes both to the talkative Christians in 1 Corinthians and to the insensitive "strong brothers" in Romans on his belief that the kingdom Is operating even 32 now.

Although Paul here indicates that the kingdom is presently operating, it is very important not to exaggerate the degree or the quality of its presence. Paul also believes that the kingdom is still

30. That Paul is so flexible is shown by 1 Corinthians, in which he uses kingdom language in four different ways: he speaks of a future kingdom of God, a present kingdom of Christ, a present kingdom of God, and ironically of a false understanding of the present life (4;8). In Revelation the author speaks of a future kingdom of God and of Christ, in 1:6. and of the saints as a priestly 31. Contra Otto, Kingdom of 9 Man, pp. 152-53, who claims that these texts push the kingdom into the background. 32. This "realized kingdom" view is shared by Lietzmann, An die Korintheri-2, p. 22; Cranfield, Rornans, II, pp. 717-18; Orr and 179; Schlier, R 9! 415-16; Waither, I Corinthians, p. brief , pp. Schmidt, An die Rorner, p. 233; Carmignac, 1 72-74; H. K. pp. Nielsen, "Paulus Verwendung des Begriffes 'v' ," pp. 155-56 Gloege, Reich Got!s und 147-48; Schelkie, Paulus, p. 250; PP Mitton, ! gy Kin9do Come, pp. 98-102, 112-114.

1r!,

- 60 -

33 For him th. end has not arrived. Mitton to come in the future age. 34 keenly observes This use of the kingdom with sometimes a present and sometimes a future reference is not careless inconsistency It is characteristic of Paul 's whole view on Paul's part. For him God's gifts had already been of the Christian life. received through Christ---in a preliminary but very real measure; but what had already been received was but a +oretaste;...it was not yet the full measure; that was still to come. For Paul the tension between the future kingdom and the blessings now 35 materialized is intact and keenly felt.

For Paul, as for Jesus, the kingdom was first and foremost an act of God. Whereas Jewish theologians placed its coming partially in human hands (through the efficacy of legal holiness in affecting God's intervention, through apprehension of the signs of the end), Paul leaves 36 intact God's sovereign power over history. For Paul the caXc means l'exercice d'une fonction royale de Dieu et la situation 37 religieuse qui s'ensuit." Thus the kingdom comes when God exercises his rule; the kingdom cannot be divorced from divine sovereignty.

33. Cf. Leenhardt, Romans, pp. 354-55, who says that in the Spirit 'some of the graces of the kingdom are realized.'1 34. Mitton, !2r c2!, p. 114.

35. ksemann, 377, states that Paul is refuting the p. over-realized eschatology of the enthusiasts with a teaching about a partly realized kingdom, manifested in the reality of the Spirit, not in feeling. 101-02. But Kasemann Cf. also Mitton, VOUC Kingdom Come, pp. is inventing a problem for the Romans which may not have arisen even within Corinth. 36. Cf. E. Schweizer, "l.Korintherbrief 15,20-28," pp. 302-03.

37. Cf. R. Plorissette, "'La chair et la sang ne peuveat hriter du Rgne de Dieu' (I Car, ,xv, 50) ," ScE 26 (1974), p. 57.

- 61 -

Whereas we believe that the kingdom is at least partly present whenever God sovereignly breaks into history, 3. Baumgarten voices an anthropocentric/ecciesiological interpretation, stating: "Da, wo Gerechtigkeit, Friede und Freude (im heiligen Geist) herrschen, ist 38 Gottes Herrschaft prasent." By predicating that the kingdom is present in terms of Christian existence, Baurngarten precisely reverses the order of its coming in Pauline thought.

Paul preserves the divine prerogative by his doctrine of the Spirit, through whom God conveys his virtues to the church. In Porn.

14:17 Paul states that the kingdom is characterized by "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." It is possible that "in the Holy Spirit" is only connected with "joy" (cf. I Thess. 1:6), but most commentators rightly conclude that that all three qualities are of the 39 In 1 Cor. 4:20 the kingdom is characterized by Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:22). the Spirit's power. The Spirit is also prominent in Gal. 5:19-24, where

Paul contrasts those who live by the flesh and will not enter the future kingdom, and those who live by the Spirit and who are heirs of the 40 kingdom.

also Haufe, 91; cf. 38. Baumgarten, p. 469-70, who believes that the kingdom is present "Reich Gottes," pp. either in the sense that its values are reflected in the community, or, Johnston implies the more likely, in a symbolic ("zeichenhafte") sense. same when he interprets Porn. 14:17 as a equ1a dei which corresponds with the "yoke of the kingdom" idea in rabbinic Judaism. Cf. Johnston, 153. p. 39. So KAsemann, Roqans, p. 377.

E1!

u die gokalatik, p. 91, who states that 40. Cf. Baumgarten, the presence of these three qualities in this age shows that this is not the fulfillment of the eschatological kingdom.

- 62 -

If Paul believed that the kingdom of Christ is presently operating (see below, 1 Cor. 15:2U, why, then, does he speak of the present "kingdom of God"? The answer is that for Paul all divine rule could be ultimately termed the kingdom of God. Even Christ's kingdom is a mediation of God's rule over creation. While Paul does teach that there

is a rule of Christ during this age, he never calls it the "kingdom of Christ" (even Eph. 5:5 is eschatological). The only phrase he ever uses

in a technical way is pcaAcc ('ro) 8o, although in his mind the 41 kingdom is christologically present through the exalted Lord.

42 3. Immediate Context: 1 Car, 4:20

The opponents of Paul delighted in wise-sounding words and arguments which represented not the wisdom of God, but the wisdom of the 43 In I Cor. 4, Paul argues that true world; they were too "wortreichen". apostles rather serve God with selflessness and faithfulness. Their

effectiveness appears to be meager, but actually they are filled with the power of God's kingdom , which is manifested in the effects of the gospel. The dichotomy between the empty Ayo and the 6i)vcp of the

nvic* of God underlies much of 1 Car. 1-3 (see especially 1 Car. 2:4-5; 1 Thess. 1:5).

41. This is confirmed by Cranfield, II, pp. 372-73,

717-18, and Kasemann, pp.

42, For a discussion on the eschatology of the epistle, see the discussion given in subsection B above. 43. So Haufe, "Reich Gottes," p. 469.

- 63 -

Lt9Iggi1

of Romans:

The theme of Judgment plays a larger role ifl Roinans than in any other of Paul's epistles. The apostle states that a day is coining when

Sod's wrath will be revealed against mankind (1:18, 2:8-9, 2:12). God will judge through the glorified Christ (2:6, 2:16, 14:9-10), and all will be judged (2:5-10, 2:16, 14:11-12; cf. 14:3-4). The saints will

receive eternal life (2:7) and will be raised and glorified along with Christ (2:10, 8:11-12, 17-25, 29-30). Since Judgment is the prerogative of God (or Christ) it is inappropriate either to condemn others at this time (2:1-11, 14:9-10.) or to take revenge (12:19). Admonitions based on the future include encouragement to obedience (8:11-12), perseverance in suffering (8:17), patient yet fervent expectation for the new creation (8:18-25), Christlikeness (implied in 8:29), the putting off of immorality (13:11-14), and refraining from criticism of other believers (Rom. 14). Ram. 16:20 is probably not eschatological, but rather a word of present hope to the Romans.

5. Immediate Context: Ram. 14:17

The immediate context of Rom. 14:17 is the section which concerns u disputable matters. Paul gives warnings to both scrupulous and brash

Christians. His final word to the "strong" believers is that while nothing they eat is wrong of itself, it can become sinful if their liberty destroy their fellow Christians. The force of Ram. 14:17 is this: God is more concerned with love for others and faithfulness to himself than he is with eating habits. In this way, Paul raises the

- 64 -

discussion to a level higher than petty quarrels: while both sides have their sound arguments, Paul invalidates their obsession with diet by stressing the essential aspects of God's government.

urnrnary:

In these verses, Paul moves away from traditional kingdom language. Perhaps the early church of his day used of the

reality of God's present rule, but Paul is the first to put it into an extant writing. This aspect of the kingdom is closely rel ated to the

future realm and to the work of Christ; one cannot speak of two or three kingdoms here, since it is the one God who rules in both ages. mentions the kingdom in order to convey a sense of what is truly important for the Christian. The rule of God is the ultimate reality in the universe, and it is the canon for determining what is right and wrong, essential and peripheral. Paul

- 65 -

D. 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 - The Rule of Christ over God's Enemies

iii tv 'ri t6k 1 Cor. 15:23-28 - tKualo bnuPX? Xpaid, ct'rc iOo, 'rcv npouaCc xtjtoii tnvrc* o. 'roU Xpa'ro v 'r riacv nwrpC, b'rv gcuipyt'jo Ke 0t1CaV 14) 9e nupu66i 'rf)V aO.)C(CLV 6 niov ouaCcv KC 6ivcqiv. y&p UtJTV tp%i'v xc tacero nxvic 'ro 9poO inO ro'i nd6c cvroG. oG 8 ntiv'ru yp t,n'rc*v Un 'ro n6c b 8vcero x8poc xaic*pyC'rc x'r coU nvia tJnOrIc*KIc*, 6Xov b'r tnq bi- iTcV 6 utiio. & nlvie, 'rdT tiT i* niViu. iev 6 JflO'rc(yT) tsnorievio c*Li'r c*bTip r& fltvTc(, Cvu (Jnoi(cvI xc c(1P'r b u.o inoicyiocic 'r b 8 'r n&vic v nov.

1'

I!i919Y

Although in 1 Cor. 15 Paul uses some Df his most figurative language, Mitton exaggerates when he states that Paul "is describing an other-worldly transaction which lies beyond all normal historical expectations N and therefore "it is a mistake to try to press for literal 44 Paul himself supplies apparently literal interpretations meanings." for many of his images. Thus he interprets the symbol of God placing

everything under Christ's feet to mean in part the eschatological end of human corruption. His "firstfruit symbol defines the

salvation-historical meaning of Easter in relation to the final resurrection. Paul's teaching about "heavenly existence is the very

opposite of otherworldliness; rather, he is arguing for a genuine 45 heavenliness which is future historical.

44. Mitton, Your Kingdom Come, p.

104.

45. Cf. our discussion in Chapter One. Wilcke, Das Probtem pp. 61-2, states they do not deny the Pauline view of resurrection but merely the somatic and eschatological nature of it.

- 66 -

In the previous chapter we discussed the possibility that Paul took over and transformed the tradition that a transitory messianic kingdom would connect this age with the age to come. This idea likely

arose because of conflicting eschatological hopes in Jewish theology. There was no unanimity about the nature of the kingdom, the role of the Messiah, nor the order of specific events.

However, the writings which teach the Zwischenreich are too late for Paul to have used them. If they record ideas which circulated

before being written down, then their effect on Paul was minor compared with the undeniable influence of Ps. 8, Ps. 110, and the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel (the influence of which we shall di;cuss in subsequent chapters). Paul believed that the doctrine of Christ's rule

came from the prophetic psalms.

2. Time Elementi

The question of when Christ rules is the main issue in interpreting this section. There are three main interpretations:

1. The kingdom of Christ is present and lasts from the 46 resurrection/ascens io n of Christ unt1 the Parousia.

pp. 46. Thus Barrett, FLt. 356-57; Schoeps, pp. 104-06; Vos, PL tQL2g, pp. 226-60; Ridderbos, Pau, pp. 560-61; Froitzheim, Christoiog1, pp. 145-47; Hring, Roaurne, pp. inqdorn Corne, pp. 104-05. 175-76; Mitton, I D Ur

- 67 -

2.

The kingdom of Christ is a totally future "millennium" which 47 corresponds to Rev. 20:4-6 and begins at the Parousia.

3.

The kingdom of Christ begins with the resurrection/ascension and 48 ends sometime after the Parousia; it spans the two ages.

This rule of Christ may start QAtQt

his resurrection or at his Scholars

Parousia: these are the only two major events in this passage. such as Stauffer, along with a number of millennarian and

Dispensationalist theologians, would place the inception of this reign of Christ at the Parousia.

The majority of critical scholars, however, claim that Paul has "christologized" the Jewish expectation which the author of Rev. 20 portrayed as a literal future kingdom. Thus for Paul the messianic

kingdom would be the age in which he lives, lying between Christ's ascension and his return, the final judgment, and Christs submission to the Father.

The time of Christ's rule in 15:24 is intertwined in the sequence of the resurrection. While Paul was interested in Christian

resurrection in 1 Car. 15, the possibility remains that he mentions a 49 resurrection of unbelievers. Hering in fact uses 15:22 to deny that Paul taught a resurrection of the unbelievers. Thus only the new

humanity, through union with Christ, would experience a reversal of the

47. Schweitzer, Msticfsrn, pp. 84-94; Kingdom o Stauffer, I 218-19. g L gg , pp. 48. Cullmann, "Kingdom of Christ," pp. 109-17.

God, pp.

159-61;

49. See Schweizer, "l.Korintherbrlef 15,23-28," pp.

30607.

- 68 -

Fall in bodily resurrection.

He stresses the similarity of this idea 50 with Ram. 5-6 and 1 Cor. 15:45-50.

It should be noted, however, that in 1 Cor. 15:22 Paul does not state 'all in Christ" but rather "in (or by) Christ all" who sleep shall 51 "Falling asleep" had been a popular euphemism for be made alive. death since Homer; while the early church commonly used it to denote Christian death, it was not early restricted to Christians. Paul is thus speaking at the outset of all the dead before he narrows his perspective 52 to dead (and then living) believers.

'Anxpi stands in apposition to "Christ" in both 15:20 and 23. While it may be rendered as "the first H, here it has the meaning "firstfruit". This idea has its basis in the Old Testament Feast of Firstfruits, in which the farmer would present an offering of early grain as a token of the coming full harvest. Since Paul regards Christ

as a "firstfruit" or "prototype", he is implying a future resurrection "harvest" of many people. 15:35-38, 42-44. He pursues this imagery in the metaphor of

also 50. Hering, Deux Resurrections?" RHPR 12 (1932), pp. 300-20; cf. 164-68; Wilcke denies the presence of three c!L a , pp. groups in this verse, and states that the idea of a three-fold resurrection originated in Judaism after A. D. 70. Cf. Wilcke, Das blem, pp. 113-15. 78-80. Contra Klauck, 1.Korintherbrief, pp.

ELt

51. Wedderburn, "Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases 'In 89, asserts that here Christ' and 'with Christ'," JSNT 25 (1985), p. "tv may retain its instrumental, causal sense." 52. See BAG, 10 1-02.

"KOw."

Contra Rengstorff,

.'Ai PP

- 69 -

The interpretation of this text rests upon the temporal adverbs and cic in 15:23-24. Although they can be used to indicate what logically follows, they usually mean "then 1' in the sense of temporal succession. There is every indication here that they are temporal.

rc

Paul uses the same type of construction in listing successive resurrection appearances in 15:5-7. The tncTc* in 15:23 denotes an event that takes place after the "firstfruit" resurrection of Christ in the preceding clause. Some would suggest that since crc seems to start a

new sentence in 15:24, therefore the chain of temporal events is broken: cm would thus introduce the logical result of the resurrection of the 53 But this is hardly the natural sense of the sentence, saints. especially in light of the temporal nature of r i?o after the adverb.

In 15:23 the apostle uses ryic to label those to be resurrected; 54 Paul is probably thinking of military it is best rendered "order". orders which march in strictly defined groups. His argument is directed

toward those who teach only a spiritual resurrection, and thus see no intrinsic identification between Christs resurrection and their own destiny. Paul responds that Christians are in the "parade" of

resurrected people, but that they have not yet moved forward into resurrection existence; their turn comes at the Parcusia. His use of ry IJc* and the length of time which lay between Easter and the Parousia

53. Cf. Hering, "Deux Resurrections?" pp.

305-06.

76-78, understands to mean a 54. Wilcke, Das Problem, pp. collective group of people, whether soldiers, members of an ideological alliance, or a group distinguished by a symbol to which people gather. Although he wishes to reject a translation of rypc as "order", (p. 83) his translation allows for a further r?pc apart from Christ and his people.

- 70 -

(if only a few decades) together indicate that he is thinking of a chronological sequence of events.

If there is a resurrection of unbelievers in 15:24 it is related to the it)o, Hring rightly ob j ects to Lietzmann's unparalleled 55 translation of "the rest", that is, the remainder of mankind.

Some

understood iOO as having the adverbial meaning "finally"; it would thus start a very complex sentence which concludes with "the last enemy be destroyed is death." 56 supplying tau. A third option is to render it "then the end",

A better choice, however, is to stress the balance between iXo and t*nmpxfl in 15:20 and 23. IOo can mean "consummation" as well as "end". Paul uses it in place of rypx in 15:24; this is syntactically awkward, but so is the connection between nmp1 and iy iic ("firstfruit" is used instead of "first order"). Paul is therefore using the two

words to replace "adjective + 1yc*." He does virtually the same thing in 15:8 by using the adjective ta)c*rov as the last in a line of appearances, each of which are introduced by ct'rc and nEvrc*. The final

i*ypt* is the consummation, j ust as 15:8 is the close of Christs

appearances to apostles. Paul could have used it?o by itself in a 57 traditional sense, but considering his present theme, it is more natural that it relates to the end of the resurrection. This

55. Hring, "Deux Resurrections?" pp. 85-92. pp.

304-07. Also Wilcke, Das ProbL!!,

56. A view favored by Wilcke, Dam Problem, pp.

85-92.

57. In fact, Paul never assigns a techincal meaning to rtXo. Cf. 1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 11:15, Phil, 3:19; but see also the synoptics and Hebrews in icc,

- 71 -

interpretation has the advantage of avoiding translating 'rtXo as "the rest" while retaining the same meaning. nature of itXo. The combination of It also reflects the temporal

nc*p...iXo to mean
58

"first...last" is well attested in the New Testament.

Remembering that

the parade of iuyi'ri* must underlie these verses, we can postulate the following orders at their respective times of resurrections

1.

First Order U*ncpy, f of the ia'irc*) - Christ at Easter

2.

Next Order - Christians at the Parousia

3.

Final, or Consummative Order ('rO 'rXo of the icyii*) - everyone else, j ust before Christ turns over the kingdom to the Father

The two temporal clauses in 15:24 are actually given in reverse chronological order: the first has a present subjunctive, which shows the simultaneity of the final resurrection with the "handing over" of the kingdom. The aorist subjunctive in the next clause suggests the

sense of the future perfect ("at which point he will have..."), which would indicate that the handing over of the kingdom is the very last event.

Although Hiring is correct in stating that Paul does not wish to delve into the raising of non-Christians, it was also necessary for him to prove that Christ would entirely conquer death and not simply resurrect the relatively few Christians. Paul quotes from Ps, Bi in 15:27 and alludes to Pm. 11O:lb in 15i25 to show that the Messiah must

58. Cf. G. Delling, " * pfl,

.y,?.,"

IDNI, I, pp.

479-86

- 72 -

reign (caXcw) over all.

So then, Christ is now subjugating all enemies of God, and we may term this
work

the kingdom of Christ. But when does this reign end?

Some would avoid thi5 question by claiming that time is meaningless after the Parousia; Paul, however, did conceive of at least one temporal event after this point. Christ's rule is made manifest when Christians

are raised to appear with him in glory at the Parousia, but we have implied that Paul envisioned further conquering at some later point.

Christ's kingdom is incorporated into God's kingdom at the tXo: the Son will turn the uaXcCu over to the Father, that God may be nvit* It is possible to understand I Cor. 15:28 as teaching 59 thoroughgoing subordinationism. In this interpretation, however, the
v nxav.

change of sovereignty (undoubtQL the meaning of

a?Lc* here) is

taken in terms of ontological christology rather than in terms of Paul's theme: the mediation of God's kingdom over creation in salvation 60 history.

Christ's kingdom is essentially a mediatorial rule; God through 61 Christ destroys his enemies and reconciles his people. Thus, when Paul speaks of the end, when all enemies are destroyed and all human beings physically transformed, he is speaking of an end to the

59. So Wilcke, Das P C2 b]

, pp.

107-08.

60. The patristic debate over modalistic christology often centered on 1 Cor. 15. 312, states that the 61. Thus Schweizer, "l.Korinther 15,23-28," p. kingdom of Christ is wholly the work of God, not God working through a delegate as in some forms of Jewish eschatology. So also Carmignac, Le La Fin du Nonde tout se concentre dans le Christ, qui Mirage, p. 73: lul-mme n'est qu'offrande a son Pre."

- 73 -

reconciling rule and the full manifestation of the perfect rule of God. Paul believes from his exegesis of Ps. 110:1 that there is an eschatological stage of Christs kingdom. The prepositions c (Ps.

110:IbMT) and tw (Ps. 109:1LXX) can be understood in either of two ways. Either the KJpIO will rule until the enemies are subdued, and Or they can indicate a temporal limitation to

then continue to rule. the regency.

Paul indicates that he accepts the first rendering.

1though Christs kingdom will change after the defeat of death, his 62 Schweizer astutely concludes: glory and supremacy do not end. Paulus meint auch nicht, da Christus aufhbre zu Die Vollendung herrschen oder einfach im Vater aufgehe. besteht darin, dap er mit allen, die ihm zugehren...ganz Gott zugehbrt, so da er als Herrscher wie die mit ihm richtende Gemeinde nur noch Teil der einen Herrschaft Sottes ist. Thus in the future kingdom, Christ returns the finished work to the Father, and he himself is subsumed into the Godhead as Lord. The kingdom of God-in-Christ is thus everlasting, even though the emphasis shifts from Son to Father. A comparison may be drawn between two uses of "all in all"; in 1 Cor. 15:28 Paul states that God will be "all in all" in the Eschaton. In Eph. 1:23, however, the author claims that Christ is already such in this age. This difference is not a flat contradiction,

nor do p s it mean that whereas Christ is now all in all he will cease to be so and God will become so in the age to come. The change comes about

with the accession of the kingdom of Christ into the eternal kingdom of God.

62. S chweizer, p.

312.

- 74 -

63 3. Immediate Context: 1 Car. 15:24

In 1 Car. 15 Paul deals thoroughly and exclusively with the destruction of death through the resurrection of the body. He even

obliges the exegete by mentioning in 1:35 the two specific objections which some Corinthian skeptics offered to this doctrine.

This chapter is a fine example of Paul's rhetorical ability. delays refuting his opponents until 15:12 and instead begins with a point of doctrine on which all agree - the gospel.

He

He takes his time in

reminding them of all it; component;, with special attention to the resurrection of Jesus. This belief is a foundational tenet of the apostolic kerygma which is the basis for their lives and salvation (15:1-2). The resurrection was predicted in the Old Testament (15:4). Paul even lists all of the principal witnesses of the event (15:5-7). The resurrected Jesus transformed Paul himself from persecutor to apostle (15:B-12).

In 15:12-19 Paul introduces the vital connection between Jesus' resurrection and Christian salvation and hope for the future.

The apostle then continues in 15:20-28 with an eschatological proof of Christian resurrection. He demonstrates that this expectation

is not peripheral but is the very purpose of Christ's entire mission. The Christian will be resurrected because Christ is the "firstfruit" of all (15:20) and the head of this new race which is not bound to death

63. For the eschatology of 1 Corinthians see subsection B above.

- 75 -

(15:21-22). Paul then gives an outline in 15:23-24 showing God's plan for the future.

In 1 Cor. 15:25-2B Paul explains that if Christ is King in fulfillment of Ps. 110:1 and Ps. 8:6, then he must necessarily rule over death. In fact, this great enemy is the last to be destroyed. Paul's

point is that without the resurrection of believers, Christ is not truly King, and God's power to subjugate everything to Christ is severely curtailed.

The apostle uses a practical argument in 15:29-34 which asserts that living as a Christian with no resurrection hope is a foolish idea; one might just as well remain a pagan and enjoy life while there is time.

The major objections of the skeptics define the content of the rest of the chapter. To those who cannot picture existence in a different form, Paul responds by reminding them that God has created more kinds of bodies than they can imagine; the solution will not depend on human ingenuity but on God's own creative power. Paul uses both the

Adam/Christ and the sowing/reaping metaphors to broaden their perspective of their own future. In 15:50-54 he expands this future

transformation to living believers as well; no one can enter the future kingdom as he or she now exists. Paul concludes by rejoicing in that

Christ delivers us from all the burdens of the old man: sin, law and death. His final exhortation in 15:58 is rooted in 15:29-34: if death

is not the end then the Corinthians should be able to give all for the work of God, even their very lives.

Fr Paul the death and resurrection of Christ were central. They

- 76 -

were essential for understanding both the person (Rom. 1:4) and the work (Rom. 4:24, 10:8, 9) of Christ. In the whole of 1 Cor. 15 he deals with the destruction of death through the resurrection of the body 1 which is experienced by Christ and the believer.

It is also clear that it is Christs rule that will destroy death just before he turns the kingdom over the the Father. Paul is unambiguous in interpreting Ps. 8:6 to refer to the subjugation of all creation to the Messiah by God the Father; he is not as specific regarding when this will take place. All we know from Paul is that it It

is to be wholly completed before the transferral of sovereignty. follows from this that if we define the kingdom of Christ as the

conquering of all enemies of God (especially Death) before the end, then the victory of Christ over his own death must mark the beginning of his rule over creation.

Paul thinks of the reign of Christ as an intermediary step between the reign of sin and death ("in Adam") and the kingdom of God. God is not absent in this messianic kingdom; he is the one who is defeating his enemies and putting them under Christ's rule. The power of God is

evident in his first victory over the final enemy, death, in Jesus' resurrection. Christ's reign began at his resurrection; from then until

the end he is overcoming all of God's enemies 1 which indeed God has given to him. This kingdom will appear openly at the Parousia and will

end with the final destruction of death at the resurrection of the "last order" of mankind. The kingdom of Christ is thus

the part of God's

- 77 -

sovereign rule which is mediated to the present age. Paul puts no time limit on the interval between the Parousia and consummation - it may be long or short. His main task is to show that since in this age Christ

is overcoming death, the Christian may expect physical resurrection at his coming.

- 78 -

E. I Corinthians 15:50 - Human Existence in the Future Realm

uo?c*v Boii Kc*t atlJc 4rpu, b6EA$ol 1 Cor. 15:50 - To(rro 6 b'ru a&p rpovopC. KXqpOVOifac oU 6Ovc*'icn, oL6 i $Bop& 'r?v t48cpoCiv

1 . I!i9192y:

Paul here follows the formula which he used in Gal. 5:21 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10. The major syntactical difference is that he now uses a 64 present tense of 6vicu with the aorist infinitive of
KpOV0t(U.

Pauls intention here is not the same as in Gal. 5 and I Cor. 6, in which he spoke of exclusion from the future realm because of moral unworthiness I Cor. 15:50 concerns the mode of existence which the 65 "Inheriting the kingdom" is paralleled by future kingdom will entail. "inheriting the incorruptible". Paul conceived of the kingdom as a

place which includes none of the physical corruption of the pre5ent world.

2. Time Element:

There is no question but that Paul is speaking of the future realm of salvation which the believer will enter at the Parousia. The

64. The textual tradition reflects later harmonization with the o pov000uov fl I Car. 6:9-10, Sal. 5:21. Cf. the discussion in is also used of Morissette, "La chair et le sang," pp. 40-41. Ajv*pc* exclusion from the kingdom in John 3:3, 5. 65. Cf. Haufe, "Reich l3ottes," p. 468-69.

- 79 -

transformation of believers from "flesh and blood" will take place when Christ returns from heaven and both dead and living Christians are 66 changed to suit their new eternal existence (15:51-52).

3. Satia1

5ect:

Like the other exclusion sayings, this is like many of the sayings of Jesus which portray the kingdom as a realm which people will inherit 67 or enter, and from which people are excluded.

4. Role of the Saints:

In the context Paul says much about future participation of the believer in the future kingdom of God. He reaffirms with Jesus (Matt. 22:30) that people cannot enter this realm in their earthly physical existence. But if unbelievers are resurrected, does this mean that they

may enter the future kingdom? No, that conclusion involves a non seguitur, implying that since transformation is a requirement for entry, then all who are transformed may enter. that the Paul s point here is rather He uses this as

must be changed to enter the kingdom.

more proof of his argument, that the physical resurrection of the believer is a crucial part of the Christian message.

66. Although see Orr and Waither, p. 350, who say that the time of the kingdom in 1 Car. 15:50 is as vague as the kingdom in 1 Car. 4:20. Here Paul is not specific because of the axiomatic nature of the saying, but the time of the kingdom is far from unclear in the context of 1 Cor. 15. Thus Wolff, 1.Korintherbrief 8-16, p. 205. 73, who typically speaks of this 67. Contra Carmignac, Le Mirage, p. inheritance as both heavenly and eschatological.

- 60 -

Jeremias has argued for a slightly different translation of 15:50 which bears investigation. He interprets this text as a synthetic He thus makes the first line

rather than a synonymous parallelism.

about "flesh and blood" a reference to transformation, and the second line about "corruption" a reference to the decomposed bodies of dead Christians. Pauls point would not be that resurrection is necessary, but that resurrection of the dead and the transformation of the living 68 are both to take place at the Parousia. But while this interpretation allows 15:50 to introduce the double transformation which is taught in the following verses, the nature of this parallelism does not have any bearing on the manner of entering the kingdom, since the necessity of both living and dead to be changed at the Parousla is indeed stressed in the broader context.

69 5. Immediate Context: 1 Cor. 15:50

Paul here continues the line of thinking we have already outlined in the previous section. He is devoting much effort in order to prove Paul goes on to allude

the necessity of a future physi cal resurrection.

to Isa. 25:8 in 1 Cor. 15:54 in order to show that the Jewish hope of the messianic banquet would be fulfilled only after the resurrection of the saints, Since his opponents undervalued the future kingdom, Pauls Although the apostle

teaching in 6:9-10 and 15:24 would correct them.

would surely have taught the doctrine of the future resurrection while

68. Jeremias, "Flesh and Blood cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God," NIS 2 (1955-56), pp. 151-59. 69. Again, see subsection B above for the eschatological context of the letter.

- 81 -

with them (see 1 Thess. 4i 13-17, written from Corinth!), his warnings even concerning immorality were perverted by some.

In this letter Paul introduces the doctrine of transformation. is a "mystery" which they perhaps were hearing for the first time.

It The

apostle can deflate the proud opponents by informing them that without resurrection, neither they nor dead Christians may enter the age to come by living until the Parousia. Paul is pointing out this inconsistency in order to change their minds about the resurrection of Christians who have already died.

The concept of the kingdom here is identical to that of the other inheritance passages and the Thessalonian references. Paul speaks of the future realm of salvation which awaits the Christian at Christ's Parousi a.

- 82 -

CHAPTER TWO C I I ) :

THE KINGDOM SAYINGS IN THE DISPUTED EPISTLES

Col. 1:12-14 - ... JxcpLaTouvTc 4) ric*'rpC 4) .KCVIbOCVT Up c T?lv icpCSc TOU KXflpou rv tq'Cwv v 4wr ppawro fp K ifj ouoc TOU oKdTou KI TEo'rflov L tv aXcicv 0U utoi i

tycknq cdJTo, tcpiCwv

v 1

oiv

t'V

txnoipwav,

T1V

4Cav

(V

1. I!!Q91Qgy
Col. 1:13 is unusual in several respects. uaXccv is parallel to v 4) wiC in 1:12. First, c 'rfv

Second, the author speaks

of the "kingdom of the Son". Third, the aorist of the verb I.tc8oni. refers to a past entry into this kingdom. 2 Col. 1:12-14 has a close parallel in Acts 26:18. In the account

of Pauls speech before Agrippa, he describes the purpose of hiB Gentile

mission; "txvoc b$8cXpoO cdruiv, oU aipc* tn adiou

KL r t.ouac iou Ecicvc

t*pcpi.tv KCd KAqpov

nC iv 8dv, iou AECv cro)

4av

v io tiyc*opvoc naie

11) c 'p." Such an

obvious correspond-nce between texts probably indicates, not that one author copied from another, but rather that both drew from a common traditional source. Both Marshall and Haenchen claim that the passages

1. The NIV renders this "in the kingdom of light", thus picturing two This translation is opposing kingdoms of light and darkness. misleading, since the inheritance in 1:12 is closely related but not identical to the "kingdom" in 1:13; the RSV rightly translates this simply as "in light", although "in t! light" would be even better. 2. Clement alludes either to Col. 1:12-14 or to Acts 26:18 in 1 Clern. 59. Cf. the similar teaching about moving from darkness to light in fulfillment of the New Exodus in 1 Pet. 2:9-10.

- 83 -

3 reflect traditional Christian missionary language. The problem with

proposing a source in a general tradition is that both authors attribute the wording specifically to Paul's mission. Thus Bruce is probably 4 correct in saying that Acts and Colossians reflect Pauline tradition.

R. Deichgraber (who affirms the Pauline authorship of Colossians) claims that the language of Col. 1:12-14 is throughout non-Pauline and 5 But much of the evidence Deichgrber reflects an earlier tradition. cites is dubious: for example, it is doubtful that 'rrv tyCwv and t.ouac are non-Pauline words; they only appear to be so when Deichgraber assigns them non-Pauline meanin3sin thi5 context. Although some of the

words are rare, this passage may be explained as a fresh application of the vocabulary of the New Exodus.

fflJ.0

Col. 1:12-14 is strongly colored in the language of the Exodus. For Israel, the Exodus from Egypt was the paradigm of divine deliverance for Gods covenant people. The author of Colossians, who is the

likeliest candidate for the composition of 1:12-14, describes the deliverance of the church in terms of the Exodus of Israel. He draws his

3. Cf. Marshall, 4. Bruce,

ts, p. pp.

397; Haenchen, Acts, p.

686.

491-92.

5. R. Deichgraber, Gotteshrnnus und Christushrnnus in frihen Christenheit, pp. 79-82. He is joined by Cannon, pp. 12-16; Cannon, however, produces proofs which share similar weaknesses. He cites 1 Thess. hIO, Ram. 7i24, and Ram. 11:26 to show that Paul never used Oopc in the past tense, but the first two references are temporally vague, while the third is a quotation from Isa. 59:20. He also dismisses the reference to the yoi. as non-Pauline because, like Deichgrber, he insists that it must here mean "angels". He then goes on t concede that in 1 Thess. 3:13 Paul applies it to angels.

- 84 -

Exodus language from three levels: that of the historical Exodus; that of an eschatological New Exodus (from Deuteronomy and Isaiah); and that of a spiritual transaction which is fulfilled in the church.

The reference to individuals gaining a 1cpCu 'roU KXpou in 1:12 is clearly recognizable as Exodus language. In the Exodus icp and

xAflpo referred to one's legal right to a part of the Promised Land. Deut. 1O:9LXX and 12:12LXX both mention these two words in restricting the Levites from an inheritance of land. In Isa. 57:6LXX they are used

in a condemnation of idolatry as a contrast to the true portion of the saints in the eschatological kingdom; this section of Isaiah has deeply affected our author's language.

The yoi. in 1:12 are not, as some have suggested, angels in 6 rather, the author thinks of Christian "saints" (cf. the use heaven; 7 Ksemann interprets iiiiv tywv of "yo" in Col. 1:2, 4, 22, 26, 3:12). as angels, and the IipC6c 'iou K)1pOU as present heavenly existence. be sure, Kasemann found some Jewish parallels, such as . To

39 (his

essay is too early to take into account the Qumran literature) in which the author states that his "portion" is with the "holy ones" in heaven under the wings of the Lord of Spirits, although it is unclear who the "holy ones" might be; either holy humans or angels would fit the context of

Enoch. But although a translation of ot &yo

as "angels" is

corroborated by some New Testament authors, the contexts make this clear. There is no ambiguity involved in Cal. 1:12; even if the author

6. E. g., Kasemann, "A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy," in p. 160.

I!.t Th!!,

7. So O'Brien, Co1osians, Philernon, p.

26.

- 85 -

is taking over a tradition about holy angels, the holy ones in his mind 8 are people whom God has sanctified. In the historical Exodus the saints were the sanctified Israelites. This language is reflected in the affirmation that God's "lot" or "inheritance" is in his saints in Wis. 9 5:5 (see also Eph. 1:18). In the New Testament, Christians are added to the roll of "saints", that is the people of God throughout the ages. Thus in Acts 20:32, Paul is said to have taught that God gives the Ephesians "'rtiv
K

povoiCcv

v 'roC

nav."

The "light" in 1:12 is not a cosmological sphere of existence in the author's understanding, but rather spiritual existence based on his metaphorical interpretation of certain Old Testament predictions. "Light" describes the quality of life in the kingdom in Isa. 40ff. It speaks of the Jewish hope of the epiphany of God in the glory of his 10 kingdom (Isa. 40:5). His coming in glory is described as the shining out of light in Isa. 60:1-3; then the sun is no longer needed (60:19-20). This eschatological light Df God's holiness is contrasted with the darkness of the world, as also in isa. 9:2: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has the light shined." The author of Colo5sians

spiritually applies the eschatological light of Isaiah to salvation in Christ. Christ's indwelling brings not only present salvation-light, but also the guarantee of eschatological glory (1:27, 3:4). The dominion of darkness found in Col. 1:13 is, within the Exodus story, the land of

8. So Bruce, c9191.fl!, p.

2!!Li!, 51.

pp.

49-50; Schweizer,

9. See the list given by Schlier, E E heserbrief , 10. Cf. Schweizer, Cc ! ossians , pp. 51-53.

p.

G4, n.

2.

- 86 -

Egypt with its darkness of oppression and its literal darkness of the plague. comes. In Isaiah it is the creation bound in evil into which God The author of Colossians understands darkness not only as

non-salvation, but also as the world under the influence of the evil angelic powers (cf. Col. 1:16, 2:8, 2:15, 2:20 C?)). The church has been transferred into the glories of the kingdom, as can be seen from the parallel between "light" in 1:12 and the "kingdom" in 1:13.

In the Septuagint

oie is commonly used in a manner which is God delivers his people from opcu usually

highly relevant for kingdom language.

their bondage to freedom in the Exodus (in Exodus LXX,

translates the Hiphil of nasal). Ex. 12:27LXX records escape from the Passover death plague, whereas in Ex. 14:3OLXX pioi.tc refers to the safe Oopc

passage through the Red Sea. In the latter half of Isaiah

describes the redeeming work of Yahweh in rescuing his people from Babylon (here it usually translates the Hebrew q'ai). b ivo is an

important title for God in this part of Isaiah. In Col. 1:13 deliverance is soteriologically fulfilled in salvation through the cross.

The verb which describes the transferral in Col. 1:13, M8orrpI, appears in Jos. Ant. 9:235 within the context of the transplanting of the children of Israel from Palestine to Assyria by Tiglath-Pilesar 11 III. It does not appear to be used in the Exodus LXX with this precise meaning, but the idea of a migration effected by a sovereign from one land to another is clearly appropriate in that book, as it is in Col. 1:13; God has brought his people from one spiritual realm to another and

11, Josephus states: b 6 riov ' Aaaupwv pc*oAi GxyXcB Xkacp iovopc* noTpc*rEuopvo ioC 'IapcqCrIxt...ToI) otKl'Topm cxw'racc !fl g
d.c r?v c*UTou co?cCcv.

- 87 -

12 in so doing Q..ffected their salvation in Christ.

The "kingdom of the Son" in 1:13 is also recognizable with regard to the three levels of imagery. The children of Israel traveled from

Egypt to Palestine, but relatively shortly after their arrival they were given a king and a royal dynasty in David. The kings of Israel were regarded as the Sons of God, but Lohmeyer notes that "Son of His Love" 13 In fact, the kingdom in Isaiah is soon became a messianic title. pictured in terms of the fulfillment of the covenant to David, God's 14 Thus the author of Colossians proclaims a kingdom beloved (Isa. 55:3). of Christ, the messianic Son of God, as the new sovereignty to which the 15 church owes allegiance.

Redemption is the underlying idea in the Exodus, even though tnoXi)'rpwai.. does not appear in the Septuagint. The redemption which the church receives (1:14) is not a literal deliverance from Egypt to Palestine; rather the term is a symbol for salvation, particularly for deliverance from oppressive spirit beings and forgiveness of sins. Redemption through the cross of Christ is expanded with regard to the law in 2:8-3:4.

There are two Old Testament passages in which many of these elements are integrated in such a way that it is possible that the

12. Lohse, Colossians a 13. Lohmeyer, Phi1ier,

EL1!2,

pp.

3638. 51.

.1!.!2a, p.

14. In Acts 13:34 it is said that Paul quotes Isa. 55i3 and applies it to Christ; this shows the text was interpreted messianically in the early church. 15. Stanley identifies the "beloved Son" motif as genuinely Pauline; cf. 203. Stanley, Resurrection, p.

- 88 -

author of Colossians had one or both of the texts in mind (neither passage seems to have been quoted in the Qumran literature). Both are The

within the context of the formation of a covenant with the ungodly. first of these is Deut. 32:5-14. The relevant phrases are (taken from

the RSV): "they are no longer his children because of their blemish (the adjective pw lj rVr) " (cf. qiwio in Col. 1:22); Moses says of Sod: "Is he

not your Father (flcp) , who treated you, who made you ('rii) and established you?" (cf. flc'rp in Col. 1:12, the K'rat. in 1:15-17);

sinful Israel is urged: "Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations..." (cf. the stress on salvation history in 1:12-14);

"...when the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance (6*pcpCci)...For the Lord's portion (icpC) is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage" (the "lot" in 1:12-13); "He found him in a desert land...the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no foreign god with him" (the Exodus in 1:13, the false "gods" of 1:16); uHe made him ride on the high places of the earth" (the exaltation of being in union with Christ in Cal. 1-3). 16 In Isa. 63:15-19 Israel rebels against the Lord despite his

marvelous deeds on their behalf. God is then requested: "Look down from heaven and see..." (as in the emphasis on heaven in Colossians, see

especially 4:1); "For thou art our Father..." (flc'np as in 1:12); "...though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us" (e5trangement from Israel); "our Redeemer from of old is thy name" (historical redemption in 1:13) "Return to the tribes of thy heritage"

16. We would suggemt that Cal. I is closer to the PIT than tD the LXX; the latter is quite different from the MT: far example, instead of saying "our Redeemer from of old is thy name, the LXX reads "redeem us tp), from of old your name is upon us." (Uac

- 89 -

("lot" in 1:12); 'Thy holy people possessed the sanctuary for a little while" (the saints in 1:12); "We have become like those over whom thou has never ruled" (again the theme of the kingdom as in 1:13). In this passage the author of Colossians could find justification for the New Exodus of the church which was estranged from the covenant of Israel. His exegesis would be very close to Paul's interpretation of "my people" from Hosea in Rom. 9:25-26 (Cf. 1 Pet. 2:10).

So then, the author presents salvation with language drawn from three sources - the historical Exodus, the eschatological Exodus, Christian soteriological language - to speak of a Christian Exodus of the church. His use of the plural pronouns corresponds to the fact that this isa collective church experience, and not an individual one.

b_.

ci

tL!!

Despite his appreciation of the Exodus terminology in Col. h12-14, Ernst Ksemann asserts that the tradition is taken from a "primitive Christian baptismal formula" which included transferral between two spheres, a "deliverance" as through the Red Sea, and the baptismal "Beloved Son" title of Christ. The "inheritance" in Col. 1:12 would therefore be new heavenly existence, that is, present life among 17 the angels in Paradise.

There is indeed a strong connection between kingdom transferral and baptism. In Cal. 2:11-14 the author speaks of this rite as

identification with Christ. But the picture of entering the kingdom in

159-61; cf. 17. Ksemann, "Baptismal Liturgy," pp. also Cannon, 16-19; Lohse, "Christusherrschaft und Kirche im 1sjn, pp. Kolosserbrief," pp. 210-11.

- 90 -

1:13 is not that of individuals straggling into the Promised Land, but
0+

a mass movement of the people of God in one "historical" event.

Col.

1:12-14 speaks of the deliverance of the church; the baptismal teaching in Col. 2 speaks of the manner in which converts enter into the blessings of the Exodus. This is typical of Jewish theology; a proselyte, upon circumcision and later through the tbi1h baptism, became one with Israel and identified himself with the historical events in which he literally took no part. Thus at Passover the convert could

state on the basis of covenantal solidarity, that he was delivered from 18 The rabbis came to equate baptism with entering into the Egypt by God. Sinai covenant, on the basis of the sprinkling of Israel with blood In 19 This idea is Exod. 24:8, before which there must have been ablution. present in Colossians: through baptism, the individual joins the redeemed Body, which collectively has already entered into the covenant and entered the kingdom of Christ. Thus while Kasemann discovered two crucial and related themes in the epistle, it is incorrect to try to make baptism and the Christian Exodus identical.

C.

Suggetions

a QUmran background t9 c.

Because of the presence of the New Exodus motif, the

103-05. The schools of Shammai 18. Cf. Strack and Billerbeck, I, pp. and Hillel were agreed that Gentiles entered Israel after immersion, and that eating the Passover was the sign of admission their disagreement was over the time the proselyte had to wait to eat Passover. The school of Shammai allowed such to eat the Passover that evening; the school of Hillel followed the example of cleansing after contact with death and insi!ted upon a seven-day period of purification, after which the Cf. Sahlin, "The New Exodus of proselyte could partake of the meal. 89-90. Thi5 is apparently the Salvation according to St. Paul," pp. Cf. reason why some interpret this passage as Eucharistic liturgy. Cannon, p. 16. 19. Cf. Beasley-Murray, Ba

ati

i
- 91 -

1k.'

P'

27, fl.

1.

light/darkness dualism, and the "lot of the holy ones" in Col. 1:12-14, some have proposed that the Qumran literature provides the background 20 for this kingdom tradition.

There are indeed several verbal and theological 5imilarities between Colossians and the Qumran scrolls. The Qumran community

possessed a consciousness of being the eschatological remnant, which 21 provides a possible background for teaching about a Christian Exodus. 22 Those The covenanters divided the cosmos between light and darkness. who entered the covenant community were withdrawing from the "dominion 23 God had led the covenanters away of Selial", the kingdom of darkness. from apostate Israel "through the wilderness" to the Qumran settlement (1 OM 8:10-16).

The Qumran sectarians expected that the angels would come to their aid during the eschatological battle with darkness (1 OM 7:6). They also believed that God had assigned them a "lot" with the angels, that they had in their midst the holy angels of God: "He has granted them a share in the lot of the Saints, and has united their assembly, the Council of

20. For example: Lohse, "Christusherrschaft und Kirche im Kolosserbrief," pp. 208-09. There is a full catalogue of those who hold to a Qumran background for Col. 1:12-14 and why they do so, in Braun, Qumran and the Neue Testament, I, p. 226. 21. P. Benoit and R. Deichgrber both hold that it was Paul himself who knew Essene theology well enough to reformulate their tradition into a Christian statement. Qumran Essenism, they claim, was a major influence See P. Benoit, "Qumran and the New Testament," in the Colossian heresy. 20-21; R. in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New lestarnent Exegesis, pp. Deichgrber, Gott h 'L mnus , pp. 80-81. 22. See 1 QM 13:5-6: "For they are the lot of darkness whereas the lot of God is for CeternaJi light." 23. 1 QS lilB, 23+.; 1 QM 14:9.

- 92 -

the Community, with the Sons of Heaven' (1 QS 11:7-8). This communion with the "holy ones" affected the liturgy of their Hodaoth (cf. esp. 24 WI 3: 19ff.). 1

But despite the apparent points of contact between Coloslians and the Qumran literature, many of these are superficial. The "lot of the Rather,

holy ones" in Col. 1:12 does not denote fellowship with angels.

the author is demonstrating that the church was given the inheritance which God promised to his people; it is not gained through Jewish ritual law, circumcision, or asceticism, but through Christ. In Christ the church comes into the blessings of the kingdom. The author of

Colossians is not spiritualizing the prophets any more than did Paul in 1 Thess. 5, Rom. 15, and 2 Cor. 3-s; Paul had already found spiritual meaning in the motifs of "light and darknessu, the kingdom, and the New 25 Exodus. These motifs can also be found in non-Qumran Jewish thought from Paul's time. For the author of Colossians, the issue is not

whether humans may enter into that which is reserved for angels; rather, God gives to Jews and Gentiles that which was originally intended only for Israel. If the author took over a Qumran tradition, then he have deeply modified it to meet his theological aims in the epistle. If, as

Benoit and Dechgrber suggest, the author was doing battle specifically with Qumran Essenism, it is difficult to detect what purpose he would

24. See J. J. Collins, "Patterns of Eschatology at Qusran,." in 365-66; Kuhn, EQ4erwarung, pp. in Iransformation, pp. 72-75. He points out that the priestly "lot" from the tiosaic Law is spiritualized from Qumran theology to mean present fellowship with angels. But he then concedes that this arose from the influence of Jewish language about eschatological inheritance.

Iti9

25. That the author of Col. 1:12 appreciates Paul's understanding of 19-21. light, see Benoit, "Qumran," pp.

- 93 -

have had in stating that it was the church which had true angelIc fellowship. Otherwise, the tradition is as close to DeuteronomY and

Isaiah in language as to Dumran literature, and it is certainly Closer to the Did Testament writings in spirit. While a Qumran influence is

not impossible for 1:12-14, it is certainly not necessary or helpful.

There is a strong parallel to Cal. 1:13-14 in Eph. 1:6-7. In Ephesians, the author has taken over the ideas found in Colossians, and stripped them of much of the Christian Exodus coloring. The author of

Ephesians is interested in the forgiveness of sins which the church has in Christ, and not the salvation-historical legitimation far the church.

2. Time Element:

As in the Thessalonian passages on the kingdom, Col. 1:12 may grammatically speak of a proleptic share of the future inheritance Cthe inheritance is future in Ccl. 3:24). Rut the timing of 1:13 is unmistakable; the aorist verbs confirm that in the past God transferred The Christian is even 26 now living under this kingdom "in light" in advance of the Parousia. Col. 1:13 does not exclude the possibility of a future kingdom s nor 27 does the author totally "spiritualize" the messianic rule. the church out of one kingdom and into another.

26. Cf. Schweizer, Colossians, pp. 74-75.

51-55; Carmignac, Le MIrae, pp.

27. As implies Lohmeyer, PhiLiaer, Contra Schumacher, pp.

LL!a pp.
15657.

49-51.

- 94 -

ti#1

2t

Some have suggested that the decisive difference between Cal. 1:13 and the accepted Pauline epistles is that the kingdom is changed from a historically future event to a present "power sphere" ruled by Christ. If the kingdom is here thought of as a sphere of control, then it may be 28 more closely related to the church than before.

In its language Ccl. 1:13 seems more spatially oriented than statements of Paul, but this emphasis should not be exaggerated. all, the ouac*, or domain, of darkness is not taken as a sphere. After In

later chapters the meaning of the dark

ouaCc* is life without Christ in

which evil powers exercise their rule, and in which the individual has no access to God. The author has drawn his images, not from the spherical dualism of Oumran, but from the Old Testament; its language contains a mixture of literal and metaphorical language. In the Exodus,

'darkness" is Egypt, but in Isaiah darkness is a metaphor for evil and the absence of God's glory. In Colossians the author speaks of a

removal from darkness in picturesque language, but this way of speaking does not mean that he is thinking of two cosmic spheres. The kingdom of

Christ is a dynamic relationship between Christ and the church, not a place to which the church moves.

49, KLossrbrief, p. 299. L3nilka, 28. Cf. Coppens, Rel, I, p. believes that whereas Paul spoke of a present kingdom of Christ he did not picture this in spatial terms; this would mean that Colossians is completely different from Pauline theology, a view which fits into Gnilka's opinion that the epistle is not at all Pauline.

- 95 -

4. Role of Christ:

As in 1 Cor. 15:24 the kingdom is said to be Christ's. Significantly, both texts have the messianic term uY.o and speak of a present kingdom of Christ; this kingdom contrasts with Pauls future and present kingdom of God sayings.. Once again, the Christian Exodus motif Thus, within

has influenced Col. 1:13 and the theology of the epistle.

the hymn to Christ, he is called the "image of the invisible God" (1: 15), in contrast to the command against false images (Deut. 4:16). As the "first-born of creation" and the ruler over the powers (1:16) he corresponds to the creator who controlled nature in the Egyptian plagues in contrast to the Egyptian idols. As the "first-born from the dead"

(1:18) he appears as the antithesis to those who fell under the plague of death. Peace with God comes through his blood, as of the Passover

lamb (1:20), and through identification with their Head, believers are also clean like the cultically unblemished sacrifices (1:22).

The Colossians are urged not to be taken into captivity again by false teaching (2:8). Rather than becoming physically circumcised after leaving Egypt, they are to be spiritually circumcised (2:11). Again, in contrast to the Israelites, they are not to serve God through the law (2:14); even the Old Testament history shows that the law had no restraining power over the sin of the Jews (2:23). In Christ there is no nationalism (3:11; cf. Eph. 2:19). Cultic regulations are interpreted As in the cleanliness regulations, the

in terms of personal hDliness.

believers are to remove their "old clothes" of sinful practices, and to put on "clean clothes" of Christian virtue in Christ (3:5-17). Even

- 96 -

Christian speech is to correspond to cultic purity and to be 'seasoned with salt" in 4:6. The author's development of these phenomena indicates that he is not merely adding Exodus images to his message rather, his epistle and his christology is in part a development of the Christian Exodus itself.

2LggLcL

gf.

The author of Colossians recognizes the importance of both present and future realities. The Christian should work hard and the unbeliever

should repent because God will hold a final judgment (3:5-6, 3;23-25). Believers will be glorified with Christ and be holy (1:22, 28 - if these are eschatological3 3:4). They should alsD concentrate on their position before God in Christ (1:22, 3:10-11) and on the inheritance God has reserved for them in heaven (1:5, 3:1-4). The hidden/revealed tension is taken over from Jewish eschatology, in which the inheritance of the saints is reserved in heaven until the breaking through of the age to 29 come.

The wrath of God is coming and its cause is the sin of the flesh...and this i the very reason why the Colossians must put them to

death through Christ. The bases for this ethic are that they have died, the Eschaton is coming, and they have new life in Christ.

Kirche als Leib Christi," p. 29. Cf. Schweizer, xlvi-xlix. C19ssin, PhiIern9, pp.

247; O'Brien,

- 97 -

6. Immediate Context: Col. 1:13

This verse is 5et in a prayer for the Colossians in which Paul asks that they might understand God's will so that they might live 30 within his plan. The prayer contains some implied exhortations, and these are based upon the present gifts of God. This is especially true in 1:12-14; he has positioned them in Christ's kingdom. Thus they can

fully enjoy Sod's blessings as well as deliverance from the power of evi 1

Summary:

Col. 1:12-14 speaks of a rule of Christ over creation and the church in this age. The author of Colossians does not intend paXcic As

to be understood in the rabbinic sense of the "yoke of the kingdom". in 1 Cor. 4:20 and Rom. 14:17, he speaks of a theocentric movement in salvation history as Sod acts on behalf of his people.

The author uses New Exodus language as a metaphor of the church's salvation, a divine work which includes deliverance from the evil angelic powers, the establishment of Christ as Head and Lord, access to the Father through Christ, and the hope of glory in the future age, Thus in Colossians we find a repudiation of all means of access to God outside the Body. As in the Exodus, salvation is firmly rooted in salvation history.

13-14, think; that pt.o1ouv'rc 30. Although Cannon, Co1osian5, pp. is meant to introduce a creeda] statement.

- 98 -

Col . 4 10-11 - ' Aanrcu (ii ApCarc*pXo b ouvxiicXwrOc pou 1 Kc*C Mc*pKo b tvcp Bpvcii (rrpL oU vio). )prc v t)8t np Ui 6ca9c cdiTv) , KC IooiJ b ?cydivo ' IouoTo, o bv'r
npropfl oOio yvr8qatcv io pOvo auvpio nc*pr1ydpu.

t<

ct r?v pc*aiJuv iou 8o, otiLvc

1 . I!!Q1Y:
This saying about co-workers for the kingdom is not unusual in comparison with Acts or the synoptics, but it is unique within the Pauline corpus. It should be understood in the sense of "co-workers in

proclaimtng the kingdom of God" (see the similarity of Col. 4:11 with Luke 9:62, with its phrase about service in preaching the kingdom of God). There is no Justification for saying, as Martin does, that Col. 4:11 denotes evangelists to Israeli he even says that they preached a Jewish gospel and that Paul is an example of ecumenical 31 "Preaching the gospel of the kingdom" may be Jewish broad-mindedness. language, but the danger here is of making two Christian gospels for Jews and Gentiles, an idea which the author would certainly have rejected. Mark and Aristarchus (Jewish Christians) and Demas and Luke Col. 4:14) are also mentioned together in

(Greek Christians, cf. Philemon 24 as "o

ouvpyoC 1ioU."

31. Martin, Co1osians and Phgn, p.

132.

- 99 -

2. Time Elementi

This phrase is a parallel to Pauline statements about his co-workers in the gospel. The kingdom reference is most likely based

upon the announcement of the rule of God in Isa. 52:7 (which, as we shall see, Paul himself understood as the gospel). It is close in

spirit to the idea of "preaching the kingdom" in the ministry of Jesus in the synoptics and the work of Paul as recorded in Acts. As shown by the parallels which concern apostolic preaching, Col. 4:11 is not speaking of the future realm but rather of the effective action of God 32 for salvation in Christ.

3. Immediate Context: Col. 4:11

This is very simply a list of Paul's co-workers. to him in announcing the reign of God.

They labor next

Surnrnar:

The reference is to the rule of God which is exercised in this age and which leads to the salvation of his people. The statement is unique

in the Pauline literature, but it resembles statements in non-Pauline works.

32. So Bruce, Colossians, 240. p.

p.

B1; Schweizer,

- 100 -

Eph. 5:5 -

ioro

I7XCOVtK'rfl,

pc*a?C

nc &p tore yvlIioKov1c 6i OIJK 6 kai,v .6Wo iplic, Beo. 'roO XpaTo

npvo ? tx&Bc*p'ro f KXflpOVopUV tv rl:j

1 I!r.I9Yl
The affinities of this verse with Col. 3:5 have led some to claim 33 But while this suggestion corresponds with literary dependence. certain ideas about the composition of Ephesians, the text is closer to 34 If Eph. 5:5 is dependent on either of these, then its list Gal. 5:21. of vices is abbreviated and altered; the author has substituted singular substantival adjectives for abstract nouns just as I Cor. 69-10 has plural adjectives.

The differences between Eph. 5:5 and Paul's exclusion sayings are many. The most striking change is the reference to Christ along with

God. Because there is only one article this phrase may graiimaticaUy 35 But there may have been other reasons why refer to just one person. the article was not used with 8oU.
GEO

is often found in the

33. So Mitton, Ehe, pp.

180-81.

34. Kuhn, 'Ephesians in the Light of Qumran," in Paul and Qurnran, pp. 121-23, tries to show special affinities f this vice list with Qumran ethics; but while he is able to show parallels, he does not explain how Colossians and the other letters have the same emphasis. 35. Robertson, pp. 785-86. Thus H. Barth allows that Eph. 5:5 may be like Heb. 1:8, so that this is the kingdom of Christ who is God. 54-65. pp. Cf. H. Barth,

- 101 -

36 Ne Testament without the article, but the same could also be said of

Xparo. Eph. 5:5 can better be explained as using a traditional Pauline

idiom for the kingdom which omits the article for 8o. While 'kingdom of God" with the article is the usual New Testament wording (cf. Mark 1:14), the phrase appears without the article only in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 15:50, and Gal. 5:21. There are thus good reasons for accepting that Christ and God the Father are both mentioned here. Eph. 55 denotes one kingdom of Christ and of God.

Eph. 5:5 also contains the unusual construction tar

yvoKovi,

which parallels the fl otJK ot6ai of 1 Car. 6:9. This form is taken by E. Percy to be a strengthened form of yi.v(oaxr, who compares it to
yVdaKCIV yvthal) of Gen. 15:13LXX and yVthOKUV o6cv of 1 Kngdms.

37 20: 3LXX.

There are only a few references to a kingdom of Christ outside of the gospels (cf. esp. 1 Cor. 15:24 and Cal. 1:13), but the closest

parallel to this phrase is found in Rev. 11:15, which speaks of "the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ"; the singular verb ("he shall retgn") probably refers to Christ.
cOai

2. Time Element:

The other major difference between Eph. 5:5 and the Pauline parallels is the difference in verb tense: Gal. 5:21 and I Car. 6:9-10

36. Robertson, Grammar, p. 37. Percy, also Schlier,

786. 201, n. 39;

der Kolos;er- und Eheserbriej, p. Eheser,

- 102 -

both have

K POVQIflOOUOI.V

and emphasize a future distinction by which

God will exclude the wicked from the kingdom; it is the reverse of "being counted worthy" of the kingdom (2 Thess. 1:5). 1 Cor. 15:50 has a present verb 6Uvrc*t,, but it is used to denote a general principle.

Some have understood the change to the present tense in Eph. 5i5 to be much more than an arbitrarily-constructed description of entering 38 Thus the author of Ephesians may be purposely the future kingdom. changing the end-time kingdom of God into a transcendental kingdom of 39 Christ and God in which the believer now has a part.

Paul Hammer goes to great lengths to prove a complete break between Paul and the later author of Ephesians. He concludes from Gal. 3:18 that inheritance for Paul is oriented to the past (in Abraham) and the present (in Christ). He then claims that the author of Ephesians 40 only thinks of inheritance in terms of the age to caine (Eph. 1:21). Hammer's thesis is inadequate in that he ignores Gal. 5:21, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 1 Cor. 15:50, and Eph. 5:5. He assumes that traditional forms must not have held any real meaning to the authors, despite the fact

38. Those who think that the future kingdom is intended include Schlier, 23; also Mitton, E2hsians, pp. 180-81, who Schnackenburg, An die Epheser, believes that this is probably future. pp. 224-26, and Bruce, Co1ossv, 372, think that this is the one kingdom which exists as the present kingdom of Christ/future kingdom of God.

p.

11!9, Ehesians, p.

565; Steinmetz, Protalo9i.sche 39. Cf. Barth, EQhesians 4-6, p. 249; Foulkes, 33-34; Gnilka, EheseEj!, p. Heils-Zuversicht, pp. 209. 144; Coppens, Rej, I, p. sians, p. 40. Hammer, "A Comparison of KLERONOMIA in Paul and Ephesians," JBL 79 (1960), pp. 267-272.

- 103 -

that this particular exclusion tradition appears only within the Pauline 41 corpus. Thus Eph. 5:5 is closer to Paul than to any other literary influence. Hammer's emphasis on the supposed new temporal dualism in His conclusion that this future emphasis

Eph. 1:21 is also misplaced.

is distinct from Paul is based on his assumption that "f or him (Paul] the age to come has come in Christ"; but this claim is true only in a strictly qualified sense.

The strong distinction which some have made between Eph. 5:5 and the Pauline exclusion formula is based on the supposition that presently possessing a K)r)povopct is esential1y different from inheriting that 42 This distinction is much too subtle. H. Barth astutely possession. points out that xXpovopCc may denote either taking possession of a 43 bequest or merely the title to receive such a bequest. It is Paul's tendency to describe the future kingdom with other than future tenses (cf. Rom. 8:30), and the inherent ambiguities of the vocabulary of inheritance make the present tense an understandable idiom when speaking of the eschatological promise. Surely the author does not intend to say

that "unbelievers do not currently possess God's blessings," which would be the meaning If a transcendent kingdom is in view; the statement concerns eschatological judgment rather than the lack of divine blessing

41. For this reason Hammer comes under the wholly justified criticism of Q 54 (1982), pp. D. R. Denton, "Inheritance in Paul and Ephesians," 157-62. 42. In the Septuagint, the idea of receiving a share in the Promised Land was usually expressed either with a future tense of KXrtPOVOiW or with a present or aorist infinitive of the verb. 564. Cf. Mitton, 43. Barth, Ehesians p. 108: "The wording describes a present right rather than a future possession." p.

- 104 -

for non-Christians (cf. Eph. 5:6). The author of Ephesians believes in a future kingdom, and he is stating that the wicked have no right to share in t. The reference is to the time when all will be consummated in

Christ (Eph. 1:10).

t1 As2ect:

If the "inheritance' in this verse were actually heavenly, then this may be evidence of a new emphasis on "spatial eschatology. There

is no warrant, however, to go as far as Gnilka, who interprets Eph. 5:5 44 The text and Ccl. 1:13 to teach a fully-developed spherical dualism. points toward the time when Christians will receive their inheritance and the wicked will be punished; this interpretation does j ustice both to the traditional form and its context within Ephesians; since judgment is involved, then the future day of judgment is implied as well.

4.

LLc.L

2f.

!La!

This epistle is similar to Colossians in its balance between eschatological and present blessings. In he future "day of redemption"

the Christian will realize the inheritance which God has stored in heaven and pledged by the Holy Spirit (1:14, 1:18, 4:30, 5:27). Sinners will come under God's condemnation at that time (5:5-6). There is some tension between the two ages (1:21) and the two kingdoms (1:9-10, 2:2, 2:1, 5:8-20, 6:12). But Christ is the authority which Bod has set up to rule over the whole universe (1:9-10, 1:21).

44. Gnilka, De

aerbrie+, p.

249.

- 105 -

5. Immediate Context: Eph. 5:5

The setting for thi, reference ii similer to that of th. other inheritance" verses in the Pauline literature. They are used not to

condemn unbeliever!, but rather to exhort Christians to turn away from their old behavior and live a life which pleases the Lord.

Surnrnar:

The formula in Eph. 5:5 implies both a future exclusion and a present lack of the right of inheritance; it is thus essentially negative. Thus to say "has no right of possession" and "will not take

possession" is essentially to present two sides of the same destiny. While this exclusion has import for the present, is at heart eschatological. Thus this saying is not to be regarded as substantially

different in meaning from the other exclusion sayings in the Pauline corpus.

- 106 -

2 Tim. 2:12 - c'., bnopvopcv auaOaoiv t.il ct *pvrapcBu 1 ivo pviarc

2 Tim. 2:11-13 is apparently hymnic and of an earlier composition. The stich about enduring and reigning with Christ stands

second in a series of four "if - then" statements; together they make up one of the N faith+ul sayings". 2 Tim. 2:12 contains the only use of

auca.?uw in the New Testament to denote the co-rule of the saints 45 Like the other auv- compounds in 2 Tim. 2:11, this verb with Christ. brings enduring Christians into close eschatological relationship with their Lord.

2. Time Element:

The tenses of this series of verbs follow a present-future pattern, except for the at the end of the fourth line. Both the

future tense and the author's stress on a future reckoning indicate that

45. Unlike Paul's facetious usage of the verb in 1 Cor. 4:9. The verb ca.?Ow is used of Christ in Luke 1:33 19:14, 19:27; 1 Car. 15:25; Rev. 11:15, 20:4, 20:6.

- 107 -

46 co-reigning is an element of the future kingdom. Other statements in

the New Testament prove the existence of a tradition of 'ruling with Christ". Besides the passages in Revelation (1:6, 2:26-7, 3:21, 5:10, 47 20:4-6) and 1 Pet. 2:9, there is parallel statement in Luke 22:29-30.

3. !

2129J..L

t!

The author of 2 Timothy points forward to three future events: the resurrection, the judgment, and sharing in Christ's glory. The

resurrection of the Christians is based on the revelation of life in Christ (1:10); they are in fact to share essentially in his resurrection (2:10, 11). The Judgment primarily concerns the rewarding of believers. It is Christ who will do the Judging (4:1). Judgment will take place on "that day", that is, the Day of the Lord. "Day (of the Lord)" is used of the Eschaton in 1:12, 1:18 and 4:8; the particular phrase is used elsewhere in the Pauline corpus in 2 Thess. 1:10, and Paul used fpc in 48 Paul looks forward to the many forms to denote the judgment of God. reward in Christ which already awaits him in heaven (1:12, 4:8), but which will be revealed in the future (1:12, 1:18, 4:8). The kingdom of

46. That 2 Tim. 2:12 refer5 to a future rule of Christ and the saints is 47; Nasler, Pastoralbriefe, p. held by Jeremias, P!!f!, p. 168; Schumacher, Reich Christi, p. 66; Holtz, Pastoraj!f!, p, 386. 157-58; Cerfaux, Ib p. is alluded to in 22:28, the sharing in 47. Holtz notes that inopov Christ's kingdom in 22:29, and the participating in Judgment in 22:30. 168. p. Holtz, 48. "Day of wrath" in Rom. 2:5, 16, "Day of the Lord" in 1 Cor. 5:5, 1 Thess. 5:2, 2 Thess. 2:2, "Day of Christ" in Phil. 1:10, 2:16, "Day of the Lord Jesus CChrist]" in 1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 1:14, Phil. 1:6, "Day of Redemption" in Eph. 4:30, present "Day of Salvation" in 2 Cor. 6:2, "Day" used alone in Rom. 13:12, 1 Cor. 3:13, 1 Thess. 5:4, 2 Thess. 1:10.

- 108 -

Christ and the co-rule of the saints will take place after the Parousia (2:12, 4:1), but the kingdom, like the believer's reward, already exists in heaven waiting to be revealed (4: 18). There is also teaching about the growing depravity and false teaching which will arise in the "last days" (3:1-9, 4:3-4).

4. Immediate Context: 2 Tim. 2:12

This statement is et within an exhortation to Timothy to follow the examples of Jesus and Paul, and to remember that Christians are rewarded for their suffering and obedience. This lays the foundation

for the charge to be a faithful worker before God in 2 Tim, 2i14-26.

Surnrnar:

While the author does not here speak directly of the final uaXcCc, this is the idea behind the promise in 2:12. This passage is probably taken from earlier Christian tradition about suffering and glory, but its traditional character does not mean that the author receives it lightly. He is all too aware of the problem of Christian

suffering in this age, and he indicates elsewhere that a present and future rule of Christ is a part of his theology (2 Tim. 4:1, 4:18). Here in 2 Tim. 2:12 the exact nature of Christ's future rule is not explained; we are only told that he begins to rule at the Parousia and that Christians will participate in this after their own resurrection.

- 109 -

2 Tim. 41 - A piOpopc vbnuov iou BoU KUC XpicroO wvic Kc(C vEKpoI, KC( Iit))ovToc KpV(I.V 'riv ii'v ?cCc*v ckJioU.

Iaoii, ioU c*tjroU

KC

.1 . I!

!.Q9!9Y'

This kingdom reference is couched in a solemn charge to proclaim 49 the Christian message in faithfulness. As in Eph. 5:5, the object of vcnov is not explicit. Either the text mentions one person ("before

God, Christ Jesus") or two ("before God, and before Christ Jesus" WEB). But the grammatical difficulty is solved by analogy to Eph. 5:5: "Christ Jesus" does not take the article since he is called by name. the context of 2 Timothy the phrases which follow describe one person only, who is Christ. In

The kingdom reference is added on with icC, which in many manuscripts was replaced with the easier
Kc

ic*r

(translated "and at"

in the AV). The double accusatives refer, as does the phrase beginning with vdniov, directly to 6pipoicu. Thus this verb, along with other verbs of swearing or adjuring, may take an accusative to denote "by" or "in view of".

49. Dibelius has claimed that an earlier kerygmatic formula lies behind the charge. See Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, p. 120.

- 110 -

2. Time Element:

The two uses of ctvroU refer to Christ. The charge is based on three future acts of Christ: his judgment on all, his appearing, and his There is no indication either that the kingdom of Christ is 50 51 established at his coming or that it is then merely revealed. Since the kingdom pre-exists in heaven in 2 Tim. 4:18, the author seems to believe that both Christ and hi kingdom are revealed at his coming. kingdom.

52 3, Immediate Contexts 2 Tim. 4:1

This kingdom of Christ is identical to the one in 2:12. In 4:1 Paul again reminds Ti mothy of the end events as the basis for steadfastly preaching the word (4:2-5). The only difference an this occasion is that the teaching about the Parousia is a warning rather than a comfort.

Summary:

The concept of the kingdom here is the same as that in the letters in which Paul speaks of a kingdom which appears at the Parousia. The kingdom is here said to be Christ's, and so the time of his rule is different from that mentioned in Cal. 113.

50. As says Holtz, Pastoraibriefe, p.

190. p. 106;

51. So Grabner-Haider, Paraklese und Eschatoiogie beL Hasler, Pastoralbriee, p. 77.

52. See subsection U for the eschatological context of the epistle.

- 111 -

2 Tim 4:18 itv p ctthvwv.

tiarcC i a i<Opo *n ncv'rO tpyou novr)poi KcL auai. . noupckvov, t1 6d Etc oc ctvc 'rev )Ccv atJio V

iIv
iv b v ro oupcxvoC, tyco8fliw
aou,

Matt. 6:9-13 - flrp

To vou* aou,

t8TW t1 pxa ?Cc aou, 1 vrl Bil'rw rO

v oUpc,

xc

pv 'rO y ooov 60 iv aI1cpov . rxi c Tdv tpTov nC ifjc. IKtIEV 'ro bcTccL pc1c* tJiv, u KU t1Ii c b Cv r aCvyK11c 11pcc t nci.pcaidv, tX1& ac lpc tnO KCCL 11 1pWV BYZANTINE ENDING: 'r. ooU oiv t1 pcaAcc Kut i 'roQ novrpoO. t 6du t 'roO utwvu. qiiv. Ovup

.1 .

I!!n2!gy:
53 This kingdom is said to be noupvov, which means "in heaven".

The "kingdom in heaven" is not the same as Matthew's "kingdom of heaven" 54 (or, "of the heavens"), which t.lSQca circumlocution for the name of God. The author of 2 Timothy obviously has no such scruple about using the divine name.

This kingdom is said to belong to b xJpo. While this could 55 it here apparently denotes Christ. "The Lord" is refer to the Father, obviously Christ in 2 Tim. 1:2, 8, 2:19, 22, and probably Christ in most of the other uses. The Lord is named as the one who stands by Paul in

53. Traub, "rToupvoc", IDt[, V, pp. 54. Dalman, pp. 92-94.

538-42.

55. As argues Kelly,

220.

- 112 -

hi

ministry (3:11, 4:17) and who will Judge people for their deeds

(1: 18, 4:8, 4:14).

2 TIm, 4:17-18 bears a striking resemblance to the Matthean 56 version of the Lord's Prayer. The prayer is addressed to the Father tv iot opcvo (Matt. 6:9). The parallelism between "your kingdom come" and "your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" also comes close to 2 Tim. 4:18: while in the future this rule will become manifested on earth, it is now perfectly fulfilled in his heavenly abode. The

doxology found in the Byzantine manuscripts of Matt. 6:13 is like the one in 2 Tim. 4:18. This similarity does not prove literary dependence; Jeremias notes that while support for the traditional doxology is late, first-century Christians would have added an oral blessing to the abrupt end of the prayer; eventually one version became generally accepted in Christian liturgy. 57 textual apparatus. Another similarity is the note about deliverance Thus, a variety of endings can be found in the

from evil; Matt. 6:13 is in the form of a petition, whereas in 2 Tim. 4:18 the author expects atiindividual fulfillment of this request in Matthew speaks of deliverance from 'iou novpo (probably 58 but the author of 2 Timothy speaks of rescue from human Satan), death. opponents and from "the mouth of the lion". The lion may be a reference

to literal torture by beasts 1 or to Satan, or to persecution in general. The hope which is expressed in 2 Tim. 4:18 corresponds with

56. So affirm Jeremias, Pa 220. E2ist1e, p

oralbrefe, p.

58; Kelly, Pstora1

57. Jeremias, Theologi, 1, pp.

202-03.

58. Jeremias' interpretation of this "evil" as end-time apostasy is Cf. Jeremias, Iheo1oy, I, p. rather far-fetched. 202.

- 113 -

the general intent of the Lard's

Prayer,

indicating that the author of 2

Timothy knew it, probably from oral tradition.

2 Tim. 4:18 i

also like acts 14:22:

"through many

tribulat3ofls we

must enter the kingdom of God." Unl2ke 2 Tim. 4:18, the Acts passage is a reference to the end-time kingdom.
opr*.

While Cal. 1:13 also makes use of

in speaking of entering the kingdom, the theology of the two

texts is quite different, as may be readily demonstrated by the tenses of the verb in the two
verses.

2. Time Element:

The time element in this saying is unlike any other reference; the author speaks of entering a kingdom after death, but
59

before the Parousia.

The generally-accepted view that Paul will enter

the k.ngdom upon death is challenged by some, who understand the kingdom to be future thus the NEB: "And the Lord will rescue me from every attempt to do me harm, and keep me safe until his heavenly reign 60 begins." Although this translation harmonizes the "heavenly" kingdom the force of rioupvo. It

with 2 Tim. 2:12 and 4:1, it diminishes

seems best to accept that the heavenly kingdom in 4:18 is slightly

318-19; Holtz, p. ! 59. So state Schnackenburg, 821; Jeremias, 198-99; Spicq, p. Pastoralbriefe, pp. 76. In Dibelius and p. 58; Carmignac, L p. EstL, there is no discussion whatever of the Conzelmarin,

Ea!2L

kingdom in 4:18

cf. p.

124).

60. The NEB gives an alternate rendering in a footnotesi "into his heavenly kingdom.'1 The RSV has the ambiguous reading "will save me for 81-82: "Der lcd pp. his heavenly kingdom." See Hasler, Pst2 wird zum Durchgang in das himmlisChe Reich, in das der Herr den Apostel rict hineinretten und ihn so aus den irdiechen Leideci 231. See also Stanley, Resrretio, p. erldsen wird [emphasis mineJ."

- 114 -

different from the picture which is given by the two other kingdom references. 2 Tim. 4i8 thus coincides with the account of the thief on

the cross in Luke 23:42-43: the thief asks for Jesus' remembrance in the eschatolagical kingdom, but Jesus promises that he will enter Paradise immediately after death.

. Stia1

P!ct'

In 2 Tim. 4:18 the author locates the kingdom presently in heaven. It is said to be tnoupvo; unlike obpvo, this can only The context of Paul's death Thus Jeremias

mean "in heaven", and not "from heaven".

also corroborates the interpretation as a heavenly realm. 61 rightly connects this kingdom with Paradise.

62 4. Immediate Context: 2 Tim. 4:18

Here the author speaks of God's vindication of the Christian. But this time, the believer does not enter the kingdom when it comes to earth in the Eschaton. Paul is personally rescued by God at his death, just as he is rescued from danger in his life (3:11).

V, p. 769. See also 1 Car. 15:49, 61. Jeremias, "flcp&6.ao", Heb. 3:1 for similar uses of the adjective. 62. See subsection D for the context of the epistle.

- 115 -

jary:

This use of pco)cC

to denote a present heavenly kingdom is

unique in the Pauline literature, but there are allusions to such a concept in Pauls letters and in other books. According to the author

of 2 Timothy, Paul trusts that God will bring him to this realm at his death.

!.L2O)

It

2L 2

.t!!

2L

L!2 i!

!LL

2LP.!

Let us summarize the ways in which Pauline corpus.

cat.)cc* is used throughout the

First, it is used in the traditional sense of the

of Saivai g. The eschatological meaning entered the language of the early church through Jewish tradition and through Jesus teaching. This meaning is found in the four "exclusion" sayings and in 2 Tim 2:12 and 4:1 speak of Christ

the two Thessalonian references. ruling in this realm.

In 1 Cor. 4:20 and Rom. 14:17 Paul shows that the kingdom of God is operating in the present age. lynamic use of
c*ai.?.cCc

In these two verses Paul uses a

("rule") rather than the concrete meaning of Paul is referring to the

'realm" as in the "inheritance" sayings.

of o; the Rule which will be revealed openly in the the Future Realm is operating in the present in the lives of those who

- 116 -

now submit to God.

The

QjL

Kingdom of Christ is in actuality the Manifested

Rule of God which he exercises over the believer through the exalted Christ. This invisible kingdom of Christ connects the present age with the age to come, and will become manifest to the earth at the Parousia (1 Cor. 15:23; cf. Eph. 5:5, 2 Tim. 4:1). Col. 1:13 teaches that the

believer has experienced a transfer of kingdom; the author understands pcXcic in the abstract sense of "rule".

2 Timothy 4:18 is the only

aLECc reference which indicates the

present existence of a transcendental Heavenly Kingdom of Christ.

Simply knowing how to interpret

c*a'.XcCc in the Pauline corpus Thus we shall

answers few questions about Pauline kingdom theology.

begin in the following four chapters to unpack the meaning of the kingdom concept for Paul, based on our study of his kingdom vocabulary. It will be in that context that we shall find that Paul s kingdom theology has far-reaching implications for his understanding of history, christology, salvation, and the church.

- 117 -

CHAPTER THREE:

THE FUTURE REALM OF SALVATION IN PAULINE THEOLOGY

Introducti on

Paul several times used

caLXcCc( to refer to the

Salvation; here we shall see that he also taught that concept using other language. Compared with other topics, the apostle said relatively

little about the future kingdom of God. Although we possess his "exclusion" sayings, in which he used c*a XCc in a conventional, formal

way, as well as the other references to the future co)i.c*, these give little information about the nature of the final kingdom. data remains a problem even when we move beyond This lack of

the small set of

a)Lc references and look at other eschatological statements: Paul 2 This simply did not elucidate his beliefs about the future realm. pattern can be explained in three ways. Perhaps he was not interested But this seems

enough in the topic to inform his readers about it.

inconceivable; Paul emphasized the historical importance of the coming Nor can we agree with the existential age as the goal of salvation. 3 that eschatological symbols are merely used to define interpretation,

1. In I Thess. 2:12, 2 Thess. 1:5, and I Cor. 15:24 (cf. also 2 Tim. 4:1). 2. 0+ course, Paul used other terms to describe the future kingdom. He did not use the rabbinic terms "age to come" or "Eden" or "Paradise". He did however use terms such as "the coming Parousia", "the revelation of the Lord", "the revelation of the Sons of God", arid the "revelation of Cf. Kmmel, the sons of glory". 145, for a discussion of p. his language. especially Bultmann's "History and 3. A view taken by Bultmann; cf. 5-1. Eschatology in the New Testament," pp.

- 118 -

present life and therefore should not be interpreted as truths in themselves. Paul, as a Jew and as a Christian, clearly thought of the

Eschaton as future reality which could be experienced, which would fulfill the prophetic hope, and which cou]d be interpreted, debated, or denied by individuals in this age.

A third, best option is that Paul did not teach about the future kingdom because there already was a general consensus among Jewish converts to Christianity and among those who had heard his missionary preaching. For the same reason, Paul did not teach the Old Testament He

unless it was to give it a specifically Christian interpretation.

was not in any event obliged to give his readers a comprehensive Pauline theology. Paul did not expand his own view of this future age for his

readers, except to show in what ways the incarnation of Christ modified tradi ti onal expectati ons.

Paul was not the first to avoid giving details concerning the future kingdom. Jesus too seems to have concentrated on who will enter

or be excluded from the kingdom, and how the kingdom operated in his person. Those statements which clearly describe the Future Realm

usually contain conventional metaphors and language, even when their 4 lessonS were not traditional. In the New Testament, only the author of Revelation discusses the future kingdom in any detail. Even then he

uses imagery familiar from Isaiah and Ezekiel and later Jewish

4. Jesus Is said to have pictured the kingdom as a Banquet or a Wedding Feast in Matt. Billf.=Luke 13:28-29, Matt. 221-14=Luke 14:15-24, and Platt. 25:1OLuke 12:35-38 (cf. also Matt. 26:29Mark 14:25?). According to the Beatitudes, the faithful are to enjoy a reward. Finally, Mark 123OMatt. 22:25=Luke 20:35 deny the continuation o" human sexuality in the age to come.

- 119 -

traditIons.

Since Jewish literature abounded with a variety of predictions about this kingdom, we must carefully examine how Paul selected and shaped this material in light of the Christ's coming. There is no one

model of the future age which could be called 'the Jewish hope", but certain expectations for the future appear again and again in the Did 5 God would appear on the earth with Testament and in later literature. his angels, and cosmic signs would mark the end of human history (Zech. 14:3-11, I. Mos. 10:7). God would then judge the nations with righteousness (Mic. 1:3-4, 1 Enoch 1:9) and deliver his people Israel (Isa. 35:4, 59:20, 1. Mos. 10:8-10). In the kingdom salvation would come to Israel and to some Gentiles. Israel would be regathered from the nations to live in the land (Pmos 9:11-15), and the Lord himself would dwell within Zion (Mic. 4:1-8, Zech. 14:9, ib. Or. 3:703-731, 767-795).

God would establish a New Covenant with the people of Israel which would change their hearts and give them the means to obey him (Jer. 31:31-34, Sib. Or. 3:619-23, Jub. 1:15ff.). Under this New Covenant, the Spirit would be poured out (Joel 2:28-29), forgiveness would be freely given (Mic. 7:18-19, I . Dan 5:8-13), and righteousness, peace (Isa. 2:2+., 1 Enoch 5:10) and the knowledge of God would prevail (Isa. 11:9). There would be a renewal of Paradise-like conditions because God would recreate the world (Isa. 65:17, 66:2, Sib. Or. 3:619-625). Victory over death was fulfilled either in extreme human longevity (Isa. 65:20, Enoch 25:6-7) or in resurrection from the dead (Dan. 12:2, I . 25).

5. Cf. 3. Gray, Reign of God; Russell, Jewish AaocaltiE. See Strack and Billerbeck, "Diese Welt, die Tage des Messias und die zukunftige Welt," Exc. 29, in Korn,nentar, IV, 2, pp. 799-976; they give the many rabbinic references to these expectations.

- 120 -

At times another person is said to rule for God (examples include: "David" in Hos. 3:5 and Ezek. 34:23, 37:24-25; the "shoot" in Isa. 11:1-5; I. Jud. 24:4; the "Son of Man" or "Elect One" in 1 Enoch 48-49; the "Anointed One (Messiah)" in 4 Ezra 7:26-29 and 2 A2ac. Bar. 28-29).

In contrast to his Jewish background, Paul taught that the work of 6 This God in Christ has drawn some future blessings into the present. is not to say that Paul "spiritualized" the Jewish eschatological hope; the future kingdom does not disappear from his thinking. But while Paul

accepts that Christ has not obliterated the traditional division of the ages, his coming has softened its dualism with the establishment of the New Covenant in advance of the Eschaton.

It is helpful, therefore, to examine those aspects of the kingdom which Paul expected to be fulfilled Dnly in the Future Realm. We will trace the sources of these expectations and determine whether Paul modified them with his christology. The three most important concepts

are (1) the renewal of creation in Romans 8, (2) the salvation of Israel in Romans 11, and (3) the revelation, or epiphany of Sod upon the 7 earth.

Our method of first examining the future kingdom and then its present aspects may seem to confuse the flow of history, but it best

6. We shall be dealing with the eschatology of Qumran in another section. 7. That these elements are the major elements of the age to come in Paul's thought is independently verified by Mowinckel, H! Ib pp. 143-49. He there states that the Jewish hope for the future was composed of the rule of Yahweh (or, the kingdom of God), the new creation, the New Covenant (which we are studying under the title "the salvation of Israel"), and the epiphany of God.

- 121 -

8 represents Paul's own development. Although Paul's understanding of

the present was changed the most radically, Christs coming also modified his expectations of the future.

83-103, CominQ,, pp. 8. Despite the claims of Robinson, and C. L. 1earns, Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of I and II Thessalonians,' NTS 27 (1981), pp. 1377. They argue that the original "realized eschatology" of Jesus and the early church became "apocalypticized" some time after Paul.

- 122 -

I.

It

c9!99!c1

Romans e:i-

In this section of Romans Paul is not concerned first and foremost with the future of creation, but rather with the new creation as the Christians goal. Rom. B stands at the pinnacle of Pauls development of justification, a divine act which leads to eschatological 6Oc (83O). Salvation is not merely personal or existential; it also affects 9 the cosmos (Rom. B) and salvation history (Ram. 9-11),

Paul may have sensed a need in his audience which made him develop his teaching on adoption (found in Gal. 3-4). Ksemann, for example, imagines that some in Rome held to an "over-realized" eschatology similar to that of the Corinthian enthusiasts and therefore wished to glory rather than to suffer for the cross. Paul would then have

combatted this otherworldliness with an apocalyptic emphasis upon I0 Or the problem may have been a present suffering and future glory. Gnostic contempt for the material world which Paul refuted by showing 11 But both suggestions suffer that God has not abandoned his creation.

9. As notes Ksemann, Rorna, p.

236.

10. ib. , pp.

230-32.

11. As suggested by Nebe, ,Hoffnung'

EL!

pp.

86-88.

123 -

from needless complication and a lack of evidence.

Paul seems to have

stressed the suffering/glory dualism in accordance with one of his purposes in writing: to prepare the Roman church as a base for his mission to Spain. This suggestion requires little imagination; Paul merely suspected that the Romans might express a natural human desire to avoid the complications of missionary work.

B. The Doctrine of the Second Adam as the Basis for the New Creation

In Romans B Paul wishes to demonstrate that the Adam-Christ typology of Romans 5 is rd evant with regard to the new creation as well as to redemption. Christ's removal of the curse of Gen. 3:17-19

provides the basis for the new creation even as the reversal of Gen. 2.17 brings life (Rom. 5:12-21). Christ will come to bring a new creation, which will be inhabited by glorified "sons of God".

Although Vogtle is correct in claiming that Paul is primarily concerned with anthropology rather than cosmology, he goes too far in asserting that Paul is merely exploiting apocalyptic cosmology in order to teach the reality of the Christian's future glory. Paul is rather 12 still thinking in terms of a cosmic new creation. Here the human

12. Cf. A. Vogtle, "Rdm. 8, 19-22: eine schpfungstheologische oder anthropologische-soteriologische Aussage? in Mianqes Bijqs, pp. 365-66, and the full discussion of this theme in Baumgarten, 170-78. See also Hester, inheritane, pp. 80-81, who 291Y2t!, pp. states that Paul did not reject the Jewish concept of the Land as the inheritance but rather expanded it to include the whole earth.

- 124 -

participation in divine renewal merely is paramount, and thus the future resurrection determines the time and the significance of the renewal of 13 the non-rational creation.

C. The Nature of the New Creation

It is not immediately apparent whether the xiCa in Roe. 8:19, 21-23 includes people or angels or simply unreasoning creation, but the 14 context points to subhuman nature, both animate and inanimate. Although the renewal of the humanity is Paul's major theme, he here differentiates between Christian people and the creation which is metaphorically "groaning" for the kingdom (Rom. 8:19). This interpretation best agrees with Gen. 3:17-19 and with the long history of Jewish thought concerning the new creation.

The key words in this section are tXu8pCc and tXcu8pdw (cf. 15 The ultimate basis for liberation from corruption is a Roe. 8:21). reversal of the Fall in the work of Christ. But Paul also uses Exodus

234 Wilckens, Rdrn. 6-11, pp. 13. As affirm Ksemann, Rornas, p. 635; 332; Kss, Rrnerbrief, III, p. 152-53; Nygren, Rornans, p. de Pa4us, pp. 142-46; ie thegLogishe Schmithals, g22Lgg 192-94. Stanley, pp. 14. As asserts Cranfield, Rornans, I, p. the previous footnote. 412; cf. also authors cited in

13. The concept of freedom is extremely important in the (Greek) Old The word Paul Testament, as is the related (no)?iipwac word group. cuGcpCc) is not, and thus in Schlier's study of the word group uses the concept is mistakenly portrayed as Hellenistic rather than in Jewish. See Schiler, ")i8cpo, 487-502. IDNI, II, pp.

IPI

- 125 -

imagery to give n impression of a pilgrimage toward the kingdom.

Even

as Palestine "awaited" the children of Israel, so the whole creation is awaiting the f2nal redemption of the saints for whom t was created. This motif corresponds with the traditional picture of the reqathering of Israel to the land.

The hope of a new or renewed creation is found throughout Jewi;h 16 theo]ogy. The Jews generally thought of the age to come as a return to Paradise and the rabbis even spoke of 'inheriting the garden of 17 Eden." The Jews expected that animals would lose their antipathy to humans 1 and the ground would readily yield its fruits. Israel would

dwell securely and Jerusalem would become the center of the cosmos. Corresponding to the two parts of creation in Gen. 1:1, it was thought that the heavens would also be renewed (as in Isa. 65:17). In some 18 works, the new creation was pictured as already existing in heaven

. Lev. 16. Cf. Isa. 11:6-9, 60:19-20, 65:17, 66:22, Ezek. 34:25-27, B2c. Bar. 15. 18:10-14, 1 Enoch 45:4-5, 90:37-39, Sib. Or. 3767-95, 282, who follows Dahi in See Russell, Jewish Aocaiypj, p. distinguishing between different categories of expectation. 829. The description of 17. Cf. Strack and Billerbeck, , 2rnrnet, . the city in Rev. 22:1-5, 14 includes details of a river and of the tree of life, both symbolic of the conditions of Paradise. 18. In Hebrews the kingdom is pictured as a country or city (11:10, 16, 39-40, 12:22-23, 28, 13:14) which will survive the final destruction of the heavens and earth (1:11-12, 12:28). According to Revelation the preexistent New Jerusalem will descend from heaven (2t:2) to be the dwelling place of God and the Lamb (21:3-U.

- 126 -

i Enoch 70:3, 4 Ezra, and some references in 2 Aoc. Baruch). Sometimes Paradise takes on a non-earthly, transcendental character and becomes the heavenly abode of the saints after the final judgment

(I.
19

10:8-10, 1 Enoch 39:1-8, 45:2, 4 Ezra 7:31-44). As such it stands apposite Gehenna, the place of torment for sinners (4 Ezra 7:36). world was originally made for Israel, but God's intent was spoiled because of Adam's sin (4 Ezra 7:11-16). The real purpose of creation was hidden from the nations by God (I. Mos. 1:11-13), and the author of 4 Ezra uses this principle to explain why God's people must suffer in this age (4 Ezra 6:3-18). Although the belief that the future age was made for Israel was prominent in the apocalypses, it was also present in The rabbis especially thought that the cosmos 20 was created for the ideal humanity as the crown of creation. other Jewish literature. The

In Jewish theology the coming of the new creation usually coincides with the epiphany of God, but according to some models it arrive5 with the appearance of the Son of Man or some other figure. Isa. 11 the new creation coincides with the coming of the "Root"; it comes with the interim kingdom of the Messiah in 2 A2oc. Bar. 29:5-B, with the Son of Man in 1 E9 45:4-5, and with the messianic priest in In

19. Cf. Russell, Jew 20. Cf. Ginzberg,

Aoca1tic, p. Legends g

283. V, pp. 67-68.

- 127 -

I. Levi 18:10. However, the idea that the new creation does not appear 21 with the coming of God is less widespread than S. Mowinckel suggests.

A major difference between Pauline theology and Revelation is the relationship between the epiphany of Christ and the new creation. new creation does not appear until Rev. 21, after the "millennial" kingdom and the final judgment. with the new creation. At that time God appears on earth along The

But even in Revelation the coming of Christ is

not separable from the epiphany of God; both the messianic kingdom and the final kingdom are said to be of Sod and the Lamb. The rel ationship between creation and the messianic kingdom is not made explicit.

Paul generally took over traditional Jewish ideas about the future Paradise. He seems to have thought in terms of the renewal of creation 22 The transformation would take place at rather than its replacement. the revelation of Sod-in-Christ as a reversal of the curse on 23 Paul attached the time of the new creation to the arrival creation. of the final redemption of Christians at their resurrection. He did not

CD!eh, pp. 21. See h3s overgeneralizations in Mowinckel, H I!a 403-407. In Matt. 19:28 the nc'..yycvcoci is connected with the future rule of the Son of Man. 22. The author of Second Peter teaches that the heavens and earth are being reserved by God until the day of judgment (3:7). They will be destroyed by fire (3:10-12), and then the new creation will appear (3i13). In Rev. 2-3, it is said that the old heavens and earth will 'pass away" (iitpopc*.), but also that God (or Jesus?) will "make all things new" (21:). 179, who states that 23. Cf. Baumgarten, Paulus und Aokalti, p. Paul basically shares the view of the new creation prevalent in the 22, says that Paul thought Judaism of his day. Schelkie, Pau1u, p. that the new creation was Indescribable; he knows that it is completely But he assumes that Paul cannot different, but not in what way. describe that which he in fact does not describe; he is arguing from silence.

- 128 -

concentrate on the particulars of the future world as did many Jewish 24 theologians.

The anthropocentricity which we have found in Romans 8 is not specifically Christian, in view of the same focus in some Jewish writings. What is unique about Paul s thought is that through union

with Christ the believer already has a foretaste of the new creation (cf. 2 Cor. 17, Rom. 8:12-17, 23-25). Paul teaches that the

cosmological new creation cannot be divorced from the soteriological; both are part of the same creative work of God.

24. As notes Baumgarten,

p.

179.

- 129 -

11. The Future Salvation of Israel: Romans 9-11

Romans 9-11 is one of the most enigmatic sections of the Pauline literature. It forms a complete unit in itself, and Dodd may be correct

in thinking that Paul here inserts an earlier sermon about the problem 25 Rather than being an intrusion upon Paul's loftier of Israel. soteriological teaching, it is a fresh development and application of his doctrine of justification.

The apostle is conscious of the problem of Israel's intransigence throughout his epistle. The Jewish Messiah (1:3) has become the

Gentiles' Savior (1:5), but the Jews have not accepted salvation even 26 Paul argues that the Jews though they heard the gospel first (1:16). are not enjoying the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises because they, like all peoples, fall short of God's standards. The Jews do not

live in Gentile darkness, but they do err by being self-righteously

25. Dodd, Rornan3, pp.

148-49.

26. In Acts 5:31 Peter announces that God resurrected Jesus to bring repentance and forgiveness to Israel, but this says nothing more than Paul's "to the Jew first".

- 130 -

judgmental (2:1-11) and by relying on the law for justification (2:12-13). But this law in fact condemns the Jews to t3od's judgment (2: 17-24) rather than Justify them (3:19-20). Paul shows that both Jews and Gentiles must be justified by faith, and that Abraham is the prime example (Rom. 4). Paul's frequent references to the Jews show how difficult the problem of Jewish unbelief was for Paul and the first-century church.

Paul puts aside the issue of Israel in Rom. 5-8 and waits until Rom. 9-11 to ask whether God has fulfilled his promises to his ancient people. He also warns Gentile Christians not to think themselves

favored of God; in that case, they might exchange roles with the Jews and suffer the same separation from God (11:17-21).

In these chapters Paul does not simply discuss salvation history nor give an optimistic message of hope. He solves the dilemma of

Israel's unbelief by asserting that certain Old Testament predictions will be fulfilled only in the Eschaton; this contrasts with his teaching 27 His argument is as that some promises are fulfilled in this age. follows: (1) Gentile individuals and a "remnant" of Jewish individuals have received salvation in advance of the Future Realm of Salvation.

27. Matt. 19:28 records a prediction about the apostles sitting on thrones to rule over the twelve tribes of Israel, but this is hardly an explicit statement about eschatological salvation for Israel.

- 131 -

(2)

In

accordance with the predictions of the prophets, the remainder of

ethnic Israel has not yet turned to Sod. (3) The same prophets predict that Israel would be saved in the Eschaton. The call to salvation, although announced in this age, will extend into the future. (4) This

divine plan will seem unfair only to those who do not appreciate the 28 elective purpose and grace of God in saving Gentiles.

i I

!aL

ir

i2!

fl:

At the climax of this section Paul announces "and so all Israel will be saved" (Ron. 11:26). Perhaps no two words in the New Testament have been more fervently debated than rc IapcA; they have been interpreted as a reference to part or all of ethnic Israel, or part or 29 all of the Church as the spiritual Israel.

One may interpret' Iapc*X as "the church" only by ignoring the allusions to ethnic Israel previous to Ron. 11. It is most natural to conclude that "Israel" and "Jacob" in 11:26 correspond to the

28. Cf. W. D. Davies, "Paul and the People of Israel," in udje, p. 147, who rightly calls this a "tortuous E!i! discussion...where Paul is far more sensitive, mellow, and aware than in 1 Thessalonjans and Balatians and even 2 Corinthians." 29. See Ksemann, Rornans, pp. 314-18 for a full discussion of the history of interpretation. See also the study by Gorday,

2f.

t!!

2-11 1

igs,

132 -

unbelieving greater part of ethnic Jews which Paul labels "Israel" in 11:25. Kasernann points to Paul 's careful demolition of objections in Rom. 9-10 and to the iva'rpov in Rom. 11:25 as evidence that the 30 apostle is introducing a new doctrine. Most of the commentators who interpret Iapc*fl) in this passage as ethnic Israel agree that Paul does

not necessarily speak of each Jewish individual. Rather the term 31 comprehends ethnic Israel as a whole. This corresponds to the Mishnaic interpretation of Isa. 60:21 in Sanl. 10.1, in which the phrase "all Israelites" is qualified with a list of exceptions: All Israelites have a share in the world to come, for it is written, Thy people also shall all be righteous, they shall inherit the land for ever; the branch of my planting, the work of my hands that I may be glorified [Isa. 60:21]. And these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says that there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law, and the that says] that the Law is not from Heaven, and an Epicurean, etc.

Paul asserts that it is the scriptural promise which is the basis for his whole argument (11:28-29). It is true that his general theological development in Romans seems to indicate that Pauline soteriology must exclude the salvation of Israel. Paul does not, however, simply let the doctrine of justification run its logical course; he allows fresh scriptural evidence to shape his thinking,

142-43, 314-18; W. D. Davies, "Israel," p. 30. Ksemann, Rornans, pp. points out that the revelatory origin of Paul s prediction will foil the attempts of modern Pauline scholars to reduce this teaching to forms with which Paul would have been familiar from his religious background. 574-77; Schmidt, An die Rdrner 31. Thus see Cranfield, Rornans, II, pp. 96-98; Wilckens, Roe. 6-11, pp. 200-01; Murray, Rornans, II, pp. pp. 237-43 (who 255-56; Nygren, Rarnans, pp. 403-08; Sche]kle, Paulus, pp. agrees with some doubts); Dahi , "The Future of Israel," in 136; A. Feuillet, Paul, p. 153; J. Munck, Christ and Israel, p. 491-92; Schumacher, "L'esprance de Ia 'conversion' d'Israel," pp. 259-60. 162-65; D. Zeller, Juden und Heid!n, pp. pp.

!b

- 133 -

32 perhaps in accordance with new revelation (the i,luaTflpLov of 11:25).

Schmidt rightly apprehends Pauls insight, which is that Gods predestination 1 and not just human sin, will determine the course of the 33 Paul points out that even his readers must history of salvation. 34 affirm that their election stood prior to their faith.

2. The Time of Israel's Conversion

Paul thought that the conversion of Israel would be a future event, to take place after "the full number of the Gentiles come in" (11:25). Since the Gentile mission must move forward until Christ's 35 Paul has already Parousia, the fullness will come in the end times. quoted Isa. 5917-8 in Rom. 3:15-17 to describe the universal depravity both of Jews and of Gentiles. in the context of Isa. 59 this wickedness precedes the appearance of the Deli verer and the salvati on of Israel (Isa. 59:20-21). All of this evidence points toward an end-time

149. Goppelt claims that Paul was only able 32. So Davies, "Israel," p. to predict Israel's conversion in the light of the imminent Parousia. 130-34. But although imminency may have Cf. Goppelt, Theoiog, II, pp. been a part of Paul's thinking here, he did not cite that hope as proof of his expectation. 33. Schmidt, An die Rbrner, p. 201.

132-33. Goppelt understands this in 34, Cf. Goppelt, II, pp. connection with infant baptism, but it is better to understand it in the light of the general election of Gentiles taught in Rom. 9:24-33. in the traditional sense of 35. Paul probably does not use cipxopc "entering" the future kingdom of God at the Parousia, but more generally II, pp. Cf. Cranfield, as "entering in" to God's salvation. 574-77.

12Li,

- 134 -

conversion of the Jewish nation around the time of the Parousia of 36 Christ. Paul seems to have appreciated that his prediction was without parallel in his previous epistles; the grace of God revealed thereby overwhelmed him, so that he could only respond in heartfelt worship (11:33-36) in words based partly on the attributes of God extolled in Isa. 40:13-14. He has not shown, however, in what manner Israel will be converted, nor what is the role of Israels free will.

3. Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Rom. 11:26-27

Within the New Testament Paul alone cites isa. 59,20-2

and then

only &n Romans 11. Isa 59:20-21 contains an Old Testament promise which Paul believed was unfulfilled in his day, but which he thought would take place within the broad scope of the future kingdom. Within Rom.

9-11 he alludes to many parts of the canonical Isaiah in order to describe Jewish blindness and to announce the coming of the Stone (Isa. 37 28: 16).

In Rom. 11:26-27 Paul combines Isa. 59:20-21b with Isa. 27:9. 38 Similar conflations are common in Romans. Both citations are very close to the Septuagint text, except that isa. 59:2OLXX reads vv E(ov ("for the sake of Zion") rather than the Pauline
t1

E.thv ("out of 1 ("to" or

Zion"). Both Paul and the Septuagint differ from the use of

36. Although see Dahi, "Future of israel," pp. 154-55 who believes that the time of Israel's conversion with regard to the Parousia is left amb I guous. 37. Cf. P. Dinter, "Paul and the Prophet Isaiah," in whIch he traces the many allusions to Isaiah in Roe. 9-IL. 38. Cf. the list in Ellis, e)L'! L QL p. 186.

- 135 -

possibly "for" Zion) in the MT. Since Paul seems to have used the Septuagint here, it is therefore likely that he himself altered the text 39 an for theological reasons. Paul interprets "Etd,v" as heaven, understanding which accords with hi symbolism in Gal. 4:24-27: the

heavenly Jerusalem, not the earthly, is the "mother" of those who are justified by faith (cf. also Heb. 12:22). The "deliverer" of isa. 59:20 was interpreted messianically in the rabbinic literature (cf. 19). "He will banish ungodliness" in Romans and in the Septuagint differs from the MT, in which the deliverer comes to the repentant, "to 40 The rabbis thus used those in Jacob who turn from transgression." Isa. 59:20 to prove that repentance leads to redemption (cf. Yorn 86b). When Paul read about the epiphany in Isaiah, he thought of the Parousia, the revelation of God in the glorious return of Christ from heaven (cf. 41 The partial quotation from Isa, 27:9 (Tcv tWIJcR 1 Thess. 1:10). & piCc cdiTv) differs from the Septuagint, which reads c*ti'roU ri'v 98a

upiCv; Paul made this change for the sake of grammatical agreement with the Isa. 59 reference to "Jacob".

By combining two texts of similar content Paul indicates that he 42 He seems to understood both to teach a future conversion of Israel.

39. So W. D. Davies, "israel," pp. 40. Cranfield, Rornans, II, pp.

141-42.

577-78.

41. Most commentators say that Paul understands the Redeemer to be the list Christ, but some have thought that it is God himself; cf, 140-42, 259. Contra W, D. Davies, "Israel," pp. compiled by Zeller, p. who says it is Christ. 42. Cf. Davies, "Israel," pp. 142-43; he states that Israel is not SD much converted as brought to its true fulfillment; while he correctly recognizes that Paul thinks of Christ as the true redeemer of Israel, "conversion" is not too strong a word to describe the operation of the New Covenant.

- 136 -

have introduced Isa. 27:9 in order to clarify the nature of the covenant 43 For Paul forgiveness was 'the which is mentioned in Isa. 59:21. 44 essential content of the eschatological covenant"; within the framework of his theology it was necessary for him to show that Israel would be delivered out of sinfulness and not from purity.

It was the universal Jewish belief that when God came he would rescue Israel. But an end-time conversion of Israel from unrepentance and idolatry is an idea which is rare in apocalyptic literature, even 45 and even more thought it is present in Deut. 30:1-10 and 32:34-38, prominently in the eschatological passages Jer. 23:6-8, Jer. 31:31-34, 33:1-9, Ezek. 34:11-16 and Ezek. 36:22-33. The last passage in particular strongly emphasizes the sinfulness of Israel which God will 46 He will bring them back to the land and cleanse them, and forgive. only then will they repent from their idolatry and uncleanness (Ezek. 36:31). Isa. 59 is somewhat similar, except that there repentance seems to take place immediately before the New Covenant in 59:2LMT; in the Septuagint it is clearly a result of divine prerogative rather than of

43. Ps notes Cranfield, aoinans, 11, pp. 44. So Ksemann, p. 314.

578-79.

387, who believes this deliverance 45. Contra Craigie, t.!2uorn, p. is predicated upon Israels repentance. 46. Cf. Ezek. 36:22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33

- 137 -

human initiative.

Later interpreters of the New Covenant consistently ignored its motif of God converting Israel from sin. The picture in most of the

non-canonical apocalypses is that the saints have merely to wait for God to act so that they may enter the kingdom. God's people must continue

to be faithful to the law, and indeed, their faithfulness may actually 47 bring about the kingdom. Ksemann labels Paul's doctrine of the conversion of Israel an "apocalyptic" idea and cites I. Has. 1:10, Jy. 1:15, 23; 23:26ff. , and Ps. Sal. 18:4-5 [sic] as background evidence. But he fails to notice that none of these books approximate the conversion motif found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel; they speak only 48 generally of Israel i s repentance and restoration to the land. 97b-99a records an unusual rabbinic discussion concerning the end-time restoration of Israel: R. Joshua tDok an apparently exceptional view, based on Dan. 12:7, that Israel does not need to repent for the Messiah to come with salvation; the only thing necessary is Israel's prostration before the Lord, He also seems to give some weight to God's elective 49 purpose as described in Jer. 3:14. The New Covenant Scroll from Qumran predicts that God will establish the eschatological covenant with the sect on the basis of their ritual and moral purification from the sins of the world and of greater Israel. But the order of Israelite

47. See the study of this motif by 0. Cullmann, "Wann kommt das Reich Gottes?" 48. Cf. Ksemann, Rornans, pp. 312-13. As a particular example, see Charles, Jubilees, pp. 145-51, who shows that Israel s conversion is before the coming of God in Jubilees. 49. Jer. 3:14: "Return, 0 faithless children, says the Lord; for I am your master; I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion."

- 138 -

repentance followed by end-time deliverance as it is taught in the Talmud and in Qumran literature is essentially different from the earlier tradition that God will appear in order tg convert Israel.

Paul's modification of Jewish eschatology consisted of a reversal of roles between Israel and the (mainly Gentile) Church, as exemplified in the olive tree allegory in Roe. 11. Israel was seeking for salvation (through the law; Roe. 10:3), salvation which in fact the Gentiles eventually received without seeking. This Gentile salvation, and Paul's

own conversion (Gal. 1:13-16), are fundamental to his understanding of the New Covenant, with its promise of unexpected conversion from rebellion. Throughout much of Jewish literature room is allowed for the

eschatological salvation of some 6entiles after Paul's commission his thinking was changed to allow for Gentile salvation in this age.

If the coming of Christ enlarged Paul's perspective concerning Gentile salvation, what of the future of Israel? From what we can gather in Roe. 9-11, the incarnation has not nullified the covenantal promises regarding ethnic Israel no matter how unlikely may seem their fulfillment. modified. Some minor aspects of this expectation are of course

Perhaps Paul the Jew had already understood the "redeemer" of

Isaiah 59 to be the Messiah, but the fact that this was Jesus Christ, through whom God had already provided salvation, reversed Paul's perspective on the timing of soteriological fulfillment. He no longer

thought of Jerusalem as Zion; the true city of God was in heaven, and was the "mother" of the church.

Although Paul viewed the church as the new people of God under the promised New Covenant, he continued to believe that the physical

- 139 -

descendants of abraham retain the promises made to specifically to them; God loves the Jews "for their fore+athers' sake". Paul thus thought in

terms of a Jewish I5rael; J. C. Beker points out that it was not until the next century that Barnabas and 3ustin Martyr explicitly identified 50 the church with Israel.

50. 0+ course this depends on the interpretation of Pauls blessing "nL 'rO y ' IapcX 'ro Bo" in Gal. 6:16, but this is not explicitly a label 328-32; Davies, Cf. Beker, Paul for the church. ! 221!, pp. 275. The image of 144,000 "Israel," p. 143, F. F. Bruce, Galatjans, p. Israelites standing with the Lamb on Mt. Zion in Rev. 7 may indicate Jewish salvation, but most commentators view this as a picture of the 94-99; church. So Swete, A2ocaiypse, p. 7; Caird, Revelati9, pp. 89-90. Wikenhauser, Ofenbarurtg, pp. bt.fl9, pp. 67-68 Roloff, Off

- 140 -

III.

Ib. ELflL

2f

The idea of the epiphany or glorious revelation of God upon the earth lies at the very heart of Jewish eschatology: 1 Then his kingdom will appear throughout his whole creation...For the Heavenly One will arise from his kingly throne. Yea, he will go forth from his holy

habitation with indignation and wrath on behalf of his sons. t'

(I.
in

10:1, 3). The Jewish hope in God's coming has its historical roots

the Exodus: j ust as God redeemed Israel from Egypt with power and signs, so it was expected that God would act on behalf of his people in the future. This eschatological appearance would bring judgment upon the

wicked (especially those that oppressed Israel) and deliverance for the pious, whether all Israel or a faithful remnant. accompanied by signs and divine glory. God's coming would be

The language of epiphany was not

limited to eschatology; it was also used to describe other acts of God

in judgment or salvation (cf. Nahum's prophecy against Assyria). But it as the ultimate revelation of God that became the focus of Jewish

- 141 -

eschatology. 51 people.

Thus the kingdom of God is the coming of God to his

isa. 40:5, 9-11, like many other epiphany predictions, links the revelation of God with that of another eschatological figure (here it is 52 Isa. 59:20 probably speaks of a Redeemer whom God sends the Servant). after he himself prepares to save his people (cf. 59:16). This motif is not limited to the Servant Songs of Isaiah, but is found in many strata 53 of Jewish literature. In several works there is a tradition of a double epiphany in which God's representative appears before God himself 54 comes to the earth.

The older prophets do not equate the epiphany of a messianic figure with that of but they do envision an essential link

between the Messiah's rule and the glorious presence of God. A good

51. Cf. the discussion by Westermann, I22 g i! Lti God, and Jes nd pp. 49-51. See also Beasley-Murray, Ib_ e ingdo f Gd, pp. 3-68, in which he develops the Jewish and Christian expectations of the kingdom in terms of the "coming" of Sod to save and to judge. 52. According to Isa. 49:7 the Servant's work results in the submission of the kings. In Isa. 52:7-10 the announcement of God's reign is an introduction to the Servant's suffering. 53. For example, God's coming is mediated through the davidic "Branch" in Jer. 23:5-7 and 33:14-26; "David" in Ezek. 34:2324, 37:22-25; the "Elect One" or "Son of Man" in 1 Enoch 48-50. 54. Cf1 4 Ezra 7:26-44; 2 420c. Bar. 29-30.

- 142 -

example is found in Isa. 2 and Isa. 11. Isa. 2 is a description of the exaltation of Zion at the coming of Jehovah (2:21). The coming age is characterized by glory, peace and righteousness. On the other hand, the

Root in Isa. 11 performs most of the functions associated with the coming of God; his coming lies parallel to Isa. 2. In the Root, Jehovah inaugurates the renewal of creation (11:6-9), judges the nations (11:15), and brings about the eschatological Exodus (11:10-16).

Later apocalyptic writings also contain this parallel between God 55 and an eschatological figure. Thus, in 1 Enoch 45:4-5 the "Elect One" brings the new creation with him (cf. also 1 Enach 51, T. Levl 10). When the Son of Plan or Elect One appears, it is called his "day' 1 , by analogy 56 with the "day of the Lord". Behind this coming of the Son of P'an is 57 the sovereign work of God in establishing him as king and judge.

The Pauline literature abounds with references to the Parousia of Christ, but we will concentrate on a few passages which link Christ's return with the epiphany of God and so connect the Parousia with the kingdom. The three most significant references come from the widest

55. Cf. Mowinckel, 56. Cf. Mowinckel, p. 62:2. 57. Mowinckel, p.

pp.

368-92. B_t.

392; see I Enoch 61:5, 4 Ezra 8:52,

389; Russell, pp.

324-31.

- 143 -

scope of Pauline material: 1 Thess. 3:13, 2 Thess. 1:-10 and Titus 2:13.

1. 1 Thessalonians 3:13

1 Thess. 3:13 is one of the references to the Parousja which form the basis for paraenesis in this epistle. Paul here prays that these

Christians will be holy and blameless before (inpoaBv) God when Christ comes from heaven with the "holy ones" ('Ev is used temporally here).

Paul thus implies that Christians will be in God's presence when Christ returns. ambiguous. The exact significance of the preposition npo8v is

Paul usually prefers tvinov; the other times npoa8v

occurs in this letter signify being spiritually in the presence of God in prayer (1:3, 3:9) and in the presence of Christ at the Parousia (2:19; see also 2 Cor. 5:10). It seems best to interpret I Thess. 3i13 as a coming "God-in-Christ"; when Christ comes to judge people they will 58 Paul is not here necessarily teaching actually be in God's judgment. the deity of Christ, but he is speaking of the unique revelation of God through Christ. The Parousia is not only the appearance of Christ to the world; it is at the same time the "epiphany of God-in-Christ".

In stating that Christ will come per

nv'rwv Tthv tyCwv ci'roU Paul

252-53, who says that the New Testament 55. Cf. Schelkie, Paulus, pp. is like I Enoj unlike the Old Testament, these both have God judging 1:4, 9 for a through the Son of Man. But Schelkie cites 1 Eno reference God judging, and I Enoh 4Sf., 55, 71 for the reference to the Son of Man judging, and so refers to two different works. But see isa. 11:15, in which God judges through the Root. Cf. also the "judgment seat of Christ" teaching in 2 Cor. 5:10.

- 144 -

strengthens the tie between Christ and God by attributing to Christ's Parausia a phrase usually associated with God's epiphany. The Jewish

picture of God coming with his angels is based on Deut. 33:2, which describes the presence of God on Si nai with his angels. is closest to Zech. 14:5 (also I Thess. 3: 13

alluded to in 2 Thess. 1:7, 10), an

59

epiphany prediction in which God's angels are termed the "holy ones". Jude 14 applies the similar 1 Enoc 1:9 to Christ as well.

1 Thess. 3:13 is grammatically vague as to whether cdi'roU means 60 or "Christ's". This ambiguity is rooted in Pauline "God's" christology; the concept of God acting in Christ means that Paul can apply passages such as Zech. 14:5 to Christ without giving the reader a detailed explanation (cf. 1 Thess. 3:11 in which both God and Christ are the subject of a singular verb). It is this ambiguity which marks many 61 such passages in the Pauline corpus and throughout the New Testament.

2. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10

2 Thess. 1:6-10 reflects the Pauline "God-in-Christ" eschatology which we have found in I Thess. 3:13. To be sure, Trilling thinks the

490-92, has a full discussion of the 59. Rigaux, pp. three major interpretations of "holy ones" in 1 Thess. 3:13: as angels, The interpretation as "angels" is upheld by as humans, or as both. Rigaux, by Best, !L2nL., p. 152-53; Marshall, Thessalonians, 102-03. Did. 4.2, 16.7 seems to interpret this as human saints pp. (cf. von Dobschtz, Thessa her-Brief, p. 152, for a full discussion of the Patristic evidence.) Morris, p. 114-15, thinks the "hol' ones" are both humans and angels, but Rigau dismisses this idea as an admission of the ambiguity of the word (p. 492).

60. As von Dobschtz, p.

246. 48.

61. C+. Marxsen, 2.Ihessalunicherbrief, p.

- 145 -

reference to Christ's divine tnoXu in 1:7 is evidence of a higher christology. But he fails to acknowledge that the Parousia of Christ is 62 The equated with the Day of the Lord throughout the Pauline corpus. author states that Christians will be accounted worthy of Gods kingdom, and that it is God himself who either judges or saves. These proce.ins

take place at the Parousia, when Christ (not Jehovah) is revealed with 63 and their He (probably Christ) will punish the wicked, the angels. punishment consists of exclusion from the presence of the Lord (again, probably Christ).

All of these events occur

pc

ev; the "Day of the

Lord" tradition in 1:9-10 is taken from Isa. 2: lii "the Lord (Jehovah] 64 Christ is thus said to fulfill alone will be exalted in that day." eschatologically not the coming of the Root in Isa. 11, but the epiphany 65 Once again, God appears in order to judge and of Jehovah in Isa. 2. save within Christs judgment and salvation. If 1:7b-10 is hymnic, this

54-55. This theory was 62. See Trilling, 2.Thessalonicherbri.ef, pp. taught by Frame, who stated that "tnoKuq,oc" is taken from the Son of Man revelation in I g 48:6, 62:7, 4 Ezra 13:32, 2 Apo. Bar. 39:7 258). Contra Marshall, Ihe_ss_alona_n_s, p. (cf. Best, Thessa1onan!, p. 267, agree with W. Bornemann that 176. Marshall, p. 175, and Best, p. 2 Thess. 1:6-10 is of Jewish-Christian composition: hence, it is probably Pauline. Trilling, pp. 72-73, agrees that this is a Jewish-Christian didactic piece. 259; contra Marshall, p. 63. So Best, p. who view God as Judge here. 102; von Dobschtz, p. 152,

180; he also cites possible parallels in Pss. 64. Cf. Marshall, p. 89:7, 68:35. Cf. also Froitzheim, Christo1oe und Eschatologie !! 9-17, who shows that while the various eschatological Paulus, pp. "days" in Pauline literature are formally different, they are identical in meaning. also Mowinckel, He That Corneh, pp. 65. C. Trilling, pp. 59-60; cf. 388-89; he states that in 1 Enoch the Son of Man is subordinate until his epiphany, which is also his enthronement and glorification (.1 Enoch 51:3, 55:4. 69:29); he seems to sit upon God's throne in

- 146 -

may explain the difference between judgment by God in 1:6 and judgment by Christ in 1:8; as in 1 Thess. 3:13, the author does not notice any 66 contradiction.

3. Titus 2:13

In Titus 2:13 we read of the epiphany r 6dr TOU iyou GoQ Kc.L awifpac tuiv Iriao XpaToCI. Here it is unclear (as it is in 2 Tim.

4:1) whether the author is predicting the eschatological revelation of one person or two. The main reason for interpreting this as one person

is the use of xc* to connect two nouns, the first of which is articular. This would render: "the appearing of the glory of our great

God and Saviour Jesus Christ (RSV)." It can also be argued that one person must be intended because the Pastorals only teach one epiphany of Christ, and not a double appearance of Christ and of God. 'God and Savior" was a recognizable title from the Roman world, and would thus 67 Some believe, however, that there are not likely refer to two people. 68 The main argument for this two persons in view here: God and Christ. case is a weak one: it is rare to find Christ called "God" in the New Testament.

53-54; von Dobschtz, p. 246, shows that Paul 66. Cf. Trilling, pp. Christ judges would not have been conscious of any contradiction here. Rissi, Studien, pp. 96-98. in 2 Cor. 50; cf. 205, who also adduces a great deal of 67. Cf. Spicq, p. patristic evidence that this is "God who is Christ". 68. This two-person view is held by Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pator1 143 because of their belief that "subordinatlonism" is EistIes, p. found throughout the Pastoral Epistles; cf. also Jeremias, 246-47. 64; Kelly, Pastoral E2isU s, pp. Pastoraibriefe, p.

- 147 -

Titus 2:13 is therefore a further devel opment of what Paul has said about the appearance of Christ to rule; while the exact relationship between God and Christ in 1 Thess. 3:13 and 2 Thess. 1:6-10 is left ambiguous, the author of Titus does not at all separate God and Christ; he blurs the distinction between them in the eschatological 69 Again, the author uses Jewish imagery to describe the epiphany. return of Christ, although the traditional motifs are less vivid than those in 2 Thess. 1:6-10.

. Summary: t

of God-in-Christ

The Pauline conception of the epiphany is closely connected with the other two expectations considered in this chapter: the Parousia of Christ is the epiphany of God which brings about the new creation and the salvation of Israel. In apocalyptic and rabbinic eschatology these expectations were tied to the the age to come, which sometimes was thought to follow the messianic age. Paul states that the single

appearance of the Messiah and God brings about the change of ages and inaugurates the rule of God over the earth.

It was not Paul alone who connected the divine epiphany with the

69. This the conclusion of Holtz, Pastoralbriefe, pp. 227-28, who says that even if this speaks of "God and Christ", then it means "God-in-Christ". Cf. 1 John 3:2: this saying refers to the Parousia of Christ, but in the context the author is speaking of God rather than Christ. Hebrews refers to a future kingdom of Christ, who is called God in Heb. 1:8 (quoting Ps. 45:6, 7).

- 148 -

Parousia of Christ. In fact, this idea appears throughout the New flh ' vrl mayings attributed to Jesus speak of the coming of

the Son of Man with the holy angels, with the manifestation of God's 70 In the account of glory and power, and bringing the final judgment. the Pentecost speech the eschatol ogi cal "calling on the name of the Lord" is applied to Jesus (2:20-21; also Rom. 10:13). According to 1 Peter, Jesus Christ will be revealed to judge (1:7) 3 but in fact it is Sod who judges (1: 17). The glory of God is revealed at the Parousia (4: l, 5:10).

Even the author of Revelation does not neatly delineate the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of God. Again and again he states that the one kingdom is of God and of the Lamb (e.g. 11:15, 12:10). Judgment also belongs to both God and the Lamb, or properly, to God through the Lamb; both are said to judge Babylon the harlot (17:14, 18:8, 20). The kingdom of God is what overcomes the rebellious world order (11:17), but the acts of God are closely rel ated to the work of the Lamb who shares his throne (15:4). In Rev. 19:4, 6 it is said that God decides to act in earthly affairs, but this is manifested in the epiphany of the "Word of God" who reveals God's wrath against sin (19:11-21; cf. also Isa.

59:15-21). The epiphany of God-in-Christ thus lies behind the idea of the millennial kingdom, in which the resurrected saints are to be the priests of both God and the Lamb (20:6). This picture is complicated by the announcement of the revelation and presence of God in 21:3-4, but even in the eternal kingdom the saints enjoy the presence of both God and the Lamb in the New Jerusalem (21:22-23),

70. Cf. Mark B:3BMatt. 16:28=Luke 9:26, Mark 13:26-27Matt. 24:30-31Luke 21:27, Mark 14:62 = Matt. 26:64Luke 22:69.

- 149 -

Paul foresaw a revelation of God-in-Christ, leading to the kingdom of God and Christ, and then the consummation of all when the Son hands the kingdom over to the Father. The new creation presumably appears at the Parousia, but he is not clear. The author of Revelation expected a

slightly different epiphany of God in his Word, followed by a millennial messianic kingdom, and then a final revelation of God along with the New Jerusalem and the new creation. These two perpectives are certainly

different, but they are not so diverse that one must consider Revelation to be merely a "christianized" apocalypse similar in structure to 4 Ezra or 2 4oc. Baruch.

- 10 -

Concl us,. on

Paul demonstrated that he had not abandoned the traditional structures of the future kingdom; rather, he interpreted the kingdom from a Christian point of view. Thus, while he did not share the late

Jewish obsession with the details of Paradise, Paul believed in the new creation. He has reinterpreted traditional Jewish anthropocentricity in

the light of the emergence of the new humanity in Christ, the humanity which will inherit the promises made to abraham.

The end-time salvation of Israel from sin is a notion which Paul rediscovered in the the prophets and in the 'conversion" aspect of the New Covenant. In the theology of apocalyptic Judaism, Qumran, and the rabbis the New Covenant was almost always thought to be a reward which God would give to the pious, and which would equip them for life in the new creation. Paul 's concern for ethnic Israel forced him back to

Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. He could teach the new creation and the epiphany of God in Christ with mere allusions to Scripture, because these expectations would be generally familiar to the Christian reader. The salvation of Israel for the kingdom was not a

well-known theme, and Paul acknowledged this problem by employing careful logic and direct biblical citations in order to convince the Roman s.

The doctrine of the epiphany Df God underwent some modification in the apostle's hands. Paul rejected the tradition of a double epiphany;

- 151 -

instead, he modified the parallel epiphany teaching of Isaiah into a two-level epiphany of God in Christ. Paul demonstrated that he was capable of interpreting the prophets from a new christological perspective.

The role of the Final Realm of Salvation in Pauls theology is less than the role of the Parousia; the main emphasis throughout the Pauline corpus is upon the initial revelation of the kingdom in the epiphany of God in Christ. The teaching of Jesus was different: he is said to have used the promise of life and authority in the kingdom to encourage or challenge his disciples. The author of Revelation is

closer to Jesus than to Paul in this respect, especially when we examine Rev. 2-3 and hear the risen Lord challenge the churches of Asia with the promise of a portion in the kingdom.

We conclude, therefore, that Paul did expect an "age to come" as the fulfillment of those kingdom promises which he thought were unfulfilled in this age. fullness in this age. He in no way located the kingdom of God in its

On the other hand, Paul also believed that Christ

in his incarnation and exaltation to rule from Gods right hand had not only made kingdom blessings eschatologically possible; he has also actuated some kingdom blessings. The establishment of the New Covenant

means that both Jews and Gentiles can enjoy forgiveness, new life, the Spirit, and messianic peace and Joy in this age and the next. According

to Paul, Christian blessings anticipate the future kingdom rather than rob it of slgnificance without a future kingdom, present redemption would lose its historical context. But Paul (somewhat understandably)

neglected speaking about the age to come in favor of announcing the presence of kingdom blessi ngs.

- 152 -

CHAPTER FOUR:

THE MEDIATORIAL KINGDOM OF CHRIST IN PAULINE THEOLOGY

Introduction

In our study of the Pauline uaXcCc references three things became clear. First, Paul did not restrict the term to the He used it of the age to come along with other

eschatologi cal future.

traditional terms, but to call the eschatological the "real meaning" of acic is to do Paul an injustice. Second, Paul clearly believed that

God was acting in history, in the work of Christ and in the life of the church, and he found a dynamic interpretation of a)cCc an appropriate Third,

term for describing the revelation of God's sovereign action.

Paul thought that the present manifestation of God's kingdom was closely connected with the kingdom of God's Son (i.e., 1 Cor. 15:23-28; cf. Col. 1:13).

In this chapter, we will be discussing Paul's theology of the Mediatorial Rule of Christ and of the Manifested Rule of God. We shall begin by looking over several modern reconstructions of the kingdom of Christ in Pauline theology. We shall then compare Paul with his The greater part of the chapter,

background in Jewish eschatology.

however, will be taken up with our own study of Paul's epistles; there we will find a great deal of teaching about the kingdom of Christ, often in teKts which lack

aAcc.

- 153 -

I.

I
f!J

9 t

fl99 of Christ:

1Y! 9

!i9P!

9!I

Although mast Pauline scholars acknowledge that Paul taught the kingdom of Christ, most confine their observations to a few casual remarks. But some have studied this concept on its own merit, to

delineate when this kingdom begins and ends, and at what time certain events of the kingdom take place. Albert Schweitzer, H. 3. Schoeps, and

Oscar Cullmann have all proposed such models, which together represent most of the spectrum of scholarly opinion.

Albert Schweitzer has advanced Pauline studies by stressing the apostle's eschatological orientation. He had already written about

Jesus' eschatology, which Schweitzer believed was patterned after the Son of Man hope of Daniel and 1 Enoch. Thus, after the tribulation, the Son of Man would come on the clouds of heaven to Judge the earth and to inaugurate the eternal messi anic kingdom. to participate in this final blessedness. The faithful would be raised

1. Albert Schweitzer, The Msticisrn of Paul, pp.

79-84.

- 154 -

Schweitzer distinguishes this 'Son of Man" eschatology from that represented by 4 Ezra and 2 A2oc. Baruch. These works teach that there will be a mes5ianic judgment and kingdom interposed before the final resurrection, judgment, and kingdom of God. Schweitzer claims that this was the eschatology of the first-century "Scribes" (including Paul) 2 Paul then which stood opposed to Jesus unscholarly popular model. modified the theology of Jesus and the early church by predicting the institution of a messianic kingdom after the imminent Parousia; this 3 In would give way to the eternal kingdom of God at 'rO 'rOo. Schweitzer's hypothesis, Paul began to move in the direction of the eschatology of Revelation. He then contrived th hope of a Christian

resurrecti on at the Parousi a so that dead beli evers could rise to have a 4 share in the messianic kirgom (first proposed in I. Thess. 4i13-i7). Through the sacraments and the Spirit, even those believers who would not die before the Parousia could participate in the pattern of Christ's 5 death and resurrection.

One of Schweitzer's weakest points is his treatment of Jewish eschatology. He traces its development through the three categories of But his most

Prophetic, Son of Man, and Davidic Messianic expectations.

obvious flaw is his presupposition that Paul came specifically from a homogeneous miIie represented by the post-Pauline books of 4 Ezra and

2. Msticisi, pp.

84-91;

ngqo

9+ God, pp.

159-61.

3. See contra, Hring, Ro i aurne , pp. Schweitzer's view. 4 5. pp. sicsrn, p. 65-68; 94-97.

171-77, for a discussion of

101-40. Cf. al5o Kingdom g+ God, pp.

161-65.

- 155 -

2 Ao.

6 His circular argument is: ...The eschatology which he CPaul] presupposes is...the same as that of the Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra. This th tj beri the accepted view of the Scribes among whom he was brought up (emphasis mine).

We saw in Chapter Two that 1 Cor. 4:20 and Rom. 14:17 are important evidence of the presence of the kingdom, but Schweitzer does not discuss their significance. He does express that through union with

Christ believers "are already partakers of the Kingdom of God 1 although 7 It they will not be made manifest as such until the Kingdom begins." is because the messianic interval kingdom is at hand and has been made possible by the work of lesus that Paul can think of his time as part of B the "messianic age" (not the "messianic kingdom"). Because of his heavy stress on the imminent Parousia in Pauline thought, Schweitzer fails to realize that the kingdom can be said to be present whenever it is dynamically operating.

Even if one makes the dubious concession that Paul taught a future messianic kingdom in the pattern of 4 Ezra, Schweitzer certainly exaggerates its importance for Paul. Paul believed in a temporally-defined kingdom of Christ, but this is very different from the earthly messianic kingdom in later Jewish theology. For Paul, this

kingdom is presently operating since the time of the glorification of Christ.

90. His assumption that the "Scribes" of Pauls day 6. p. held to such a uniform eschatology is nec e s sitated by his belief that this pattern is the (somewhat elusive) basis for Paul 's thought. Contra, WIlrke, Das 46-47. 91!! p. 7. p. 120.

100; Although cf. Kinqdorn of 15: he states 8. p. p. that the Kingdom of God is present because of Jesus resurrection.

- 156 -

H. J. Schoeps is representative of numerous scholars who begin with Schweitzer's "apocalyptic" picture of Paul and propose a further stage of developments in view of the resurrection and ascension of Christ, Paul became persuaded that the messianic kingdom had begun 9 This reign would give way to the eternal kingdom of God at already. Christ'; Parousia. Schoeps supposes that Paul agreed with the rabbis Aqiba and Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who calculated that the messianic kingdom would last only forty years. Since Paul thought that the

messianic kingdom had already been established in the resurrection, the hope of an imminent Parousia motivated Paul to preach the gospel to the 10 Schoeps unfortunately repeats one of whole Gentile world. Schweitzer's exegetical oversights by failing to explain the meaning of 1 Cor. 4:20 and Rom. 14:17 (he also ignores Col. 1:13, even though it would actually support his position). Paul clearly taught that not only

the rule of Christ is revealed, but also the kingdom of God.

9. See Schoeps,

pp.

105-06.

100-02. Schoeps' obvious admiration for and 10. Schoeps, Pad, pp. dependence upon Schweitzer unfortunately leads him into blurring the He constantly affirms huge differences between Schweitzer and himself. that Schweitzer is correct and even quotes him at length, but he then This is nowhere more proceeds to expand his own, quite different ideas. apparent than in his discussion Schweitzer's proposals concerning the Their messianic kingdom, which he implies are similar to his own. similarity lies in their understanding of Paul's background, but in practice Schoeps and Schweitzer proposed very different models of the kingdom of Christ.

- 157 -

Even Schoeps concedes that Paul 's theology of the kingdom is defined by the exaltation and rule of Christ. The similarities between Paul and some apocalypses are not strong enough to establish Paul's dependence on any one model. Apocalyptic Jews did not number among

their ideas a temporally-limited rule of the Messiah from heaven in this age. Only the later writers predict an interval kingdom at all, and Rabbi Aqiba's conjecture

then only in terms of an terrestial dominion.

of a forty-year reign is appropriate only within that framework.

Schoeps also emulates Schweitzer in not carefully defining his eschatological terms. He thinks Paul capable of labeling this age both

as the preliminary Me!sianic Age (which one would expect) and as the 11 first stage of the Age to Come.

The other major problem in Schoeps' system is his claim that Christ's kingdom must end when he returns to earth. Schoeps offers no

proof that this is the correct interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:24-28. He merely assumes that since in some expressions of Jewish theology the "age to come" follows the messianic kingdom, that Paul therefore must have taught that the Parousia would mark the end of Christ's kingdom. Schoeps' reconstruction actually contradicts the Jewish expectation of the Messiah's glorious coming to rule over the earth; instead of the Messiah a ppearing to rule, Christ rules in the church age and appears in glory O nly to mark the end of his kingdom.

11. Cf. S choeps, pp. 97-99, 101, 106-07. W. 0. Davies observes that the root of thj 5 confusion is the fact that Schoeps does not define the See W. 0. precise Significance of Christ's resurrection for this age. Davies, "A Review of H. J. Schoeps Paulus; !! 29!!! i Lionsjcht," Appendix 0 in tudies, pp. 344-45.

- 158 -

Oscar Cullmann has reacted strongly against the stress which many Pauline scholars place upon certain apocalypses. He sees that this

consisterthy leads to an overemphasis upon the church's expectation of an 12 imminent Parousia and the subsequent torment of its delay. Cullmann has tried to counteract this tendency by suggesting that Christianity is at its core the record of the saving work of God in history. Since the

time of crisis and change had already occurred in the coming of Jesus, Paul could concentrate on the blessings of the present as benefits of the resurrection and rule of Christ, rather than as mere proleptic gifts 13 of the future age.

In his treatment of the kingdom of Christ, Cullmann continues to make saving history central. Paul, along with all of the New Testament

writers, regarded the kingdom of Christ as a bridge which connects this age (dominated by the "kingdom of this world") to the age to come (the eternal kingdom of God) . His kingdom began at the mid-point of history, 14 at his exaltation to God's right hand.

12. Cf. Cullmann, "Das ausgebliebene Reich Gottes als theologisches Problem (1961) ," pp. 40-47. 445-55; S vation in History, pp. 13. Cullmann, ! y ti9 i pp. 248-70.

14. His best discussion of his kingdom theology comes in Cullmann, "The Kingship of Christ," pp. 105-17.

- 159 -

Like Schweitzer, Cullmann interposes a period of time between the Parousia of Christ and the 'r?o in 1 Car. 15:24; this interval corresponds to the millennium of Rev. 20:4-6. In short, Cullmann posits a rule of Christ which mediates the coming of the kingdom of Sod and is 15 composed of the church age plus a "millennium".

Cullmann acknowledges that the New Testament writers did not consistently distinguish between the terms "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of Christ". He attributes this ambiguity to the intrinsic unity of God's rule. The two kingdoms thus differ only in the time of their Since Jesus claimed that the kingdom of God had come in his

disclosure.

own person, Cullmann surmises that his phraseology affected the (later) New Testament authors. Thus Paul could use ioU OcoU in 1 Car.

4:20 and Ram. 14:17, even though, he was referring properly to the 16 kingdom of Christ.

Cullmann's theory is helpful in that he corrects the unbalance of Schwettzer's opinion by recognizing that the kingdom which is operating in this age is an entity in itself. Cullmann's major weakness is that In

he dulls the strongly future emphasis of much of Paul's theology. Cullmann's estimation (which is partly reactionary) the Parousia of Christ is not very important for Pauline theology.

Whereas it is clear

that Paul regarded the Parousia as the catastrophic end of history,

112-13. He is followed in this by his student M. 15. "Kingship," pp. ydy 9 Rissi, Lhe Etr 9 the Wor!d: A I12 pp. 116-21. a 29-34; Ii pp. 12 : 11 -: 1, 115-16. He criticizes Schweitzer for the same 16. "Kingship," pp. Cf. Cullmann, "Albert Schweitzers Auffassuflg der confusion. urchristlichen Reichsgotteshoffnung im Lichte der heUtigen neutestamentlichen Forschung," EvI 25, pp. 643-56.

- 160 -

17 Cullmann reduces Christ's return to a mere revelation o his kingdom.

17. See the critique of Cullmann's views by Schnackenburg, 6od' 296-97. and Kin9dorn, pp.

Rule

- 161 -

II.

1b

2tt!9Q. Q

!92.! 2 !2

cb

g 19 g !1

E.g!

It is clear that many wish to identify Paul's kingdom concept as a modified Jewish expectation. It is therefore important to know what The most

eschatological notions were circulating in Paul's day.

striking aspect of Jewish eschatology is its wide variety of

expectations with regard to the kingdom and a messianic figures works there is no such person and the kingdom of God comes alone.

In so

In his work on Jewish apocalyptic, D. S. Russell includes a study of the messianic kingdom. Unfortunately for our purposes he does not

adequately distinguish between the messianic kingdom and the final kingdom of God. In certain Jewish writings these are indeed indistinguishable, but Russell confuses the issue when he remarks: "although much is said about the coming of a messianic kingdom...the figure of the Messiah is frequently absent, i.e., the Messiah and the 19 messianic concept are not always or necessarily found together." For our purposes it is important to recognize that there can be a messianic kingdom which exists independently from either the kingdom of God or a

18. For a full discussion see Volz, "Die besonderen Heilspersonen," In 382ff. Pt! 19gi! der jdishen Grnnde,pp. 19. Russell, I! ( 1964.), p. 285. Russell tries to clarify this further on with an appeal to the Old Testament prophets, whom he credits with weaving a similar pattern. Cf. Russell, Aoca1tic, p. 309. Rus.sell is somewhat more consistent in his use of the term "messianic kingdom" in his earlier work (1960), pp. 119-21. I!

- 162 -

general eschatological consummation.

As Lipiski aptly states: "On peut

donc dire que le messianisrne au sens fort du mot presuppose comme cadre Mais linverse nest pas vrai: on peut 20 attendre 1 'avnement du rgne de Dieu sans songer a un Messie. les vnements eschatologiques.

Even though Russell claims to be able to detect the messianic kingdom in a wider range of literature than seems reasonable (as in . Enoch 6-36 and 83-90), there is indeed evidence for such a kingdom in Jewish literature. forms, The kingdom of God appears in

three different

isa. It, the lestarnents of the Iwelve (cf. 1. Dan 5LOL3

Le!i

18) and Pss. Sal. 17 and 18 all presume the coming of the royal

Messiah who is enthroned as God's regent in a perpetual earthly 21 kingdom.

The traditional expectation/heavenly kingdom excludes the rule of For example, in I. Mos 10 the goal of history is a 22 In the transcendent realm in the presence of God in heaven. a messianic figure. jitudes o Enoch there as a pre-exi stent Son of han who executes 23 divine judgment at the very beginning of such an eternal kingdom.

A third form, which many believe influenced Pauline theology, is the concept of a provisional messianic kingdom, or (ZR).

In this view, popular in both apocalyptic and rabbinic circles, the

20. Lipiski, L

p.

31.

21. Russell, Aoca1tic, pp. 288-89; Rowley, Ao Isa. 11 see von Rad, Message, pp. 139-40; Klausner, 384-86. pp. 22. Russell, A a ocaitic , pp. 108-110. 23. Russell, A2ocaltic, pp. 290-91; Rowley,

L12L,
!!!O.

p.

79; for

PP

289-90; Rowley,

pp.

61-63.

- 163 -

Messiah appears and rules over an earthly kingdom of specific duration. His rule ends with the coming of final judgment and the eternal kingdom 24 of God.

The temporary ZR is featured in 4 Ezra,

and

According to 4 Ezra 7:26-44 (dated around A. D. rabbinic literature. 25 After this time, he 100 ) the Messiah dwells on earth for 400 years. and all people die and the creation returns to primeval silence for seven days; then follow the resurrection and the judgment, in ic

individuals are sent to Hell or Paradise. The messianic "Man from the 26 natitivs r is the Son of God who wtU det t Sea" in 13:21-58 rule over Israel from Zion.

The messianic kingdom which is taught in 2 Aoc. Baruch (dated 27 ) is very similar to that found in 4 Ezra; it is around A. D. 100 28 In 2 probable that both books are dependent on an earlier tradition. Aoc. 8ar. 29:3-30:5 there is a prediction of a twelve-part tribulation, after which the Messiah comes to earth. His kingdom is marked by

291; Rowley, pp. 24. Cf. Russell, p. 408-26; Strack and Billerbeck, 115-123; Klausner, pp. IV, 2, Exc. 29, "Diese Welt, die Tage des Messias und die zukunft Welt"; 274. The references to the Bousset, Q p. two-age schema before A. D. 70 are rare, but the general usage of this in the New Testament shows that it was fairly prevalent before then. 230-42. Cf. Bousset, pp. 25. Cf. Metzger, "The Fourth Book of Ezra," in PseudeairaEha, I, p. 520. 26. This person may have been taken from a quite different tradition, but the final literary product binds him together with the King of 4 521-22. Ezra 7. Cf. Metzger, pp. 27. Kli j n, "2 (Syrian Apocalypse of) Baruch," in P!y2igpb, 1, pp. 616-17. 28. Ibid., p. 617.

- 164 -

agricultural productivity, health, miraculous signs, and the reappearance of heavenly manna. At the end of this rule the Messiah is

gloriously manifested (or appears again); his appearance is followed by the resurrection and judgment.

The post-christian rabbinic literature teems with the idea of the "days of the Messiah". Rabbinic speculations concerning the duration of this messianic kingdom range between forty and 7000 years. with a universal revolt against God
and the

It would end
and

rebel2iaa o# Gag

aqog.

God would then initiate the age to come with the final universal 29 judgment.

Thus far the literary sources which attest messianic kingdom can all be dated after A.
D.

a temporary

70. 4 Ezra and

Baruch appeared several decades after this date; the rabbinic sources extend from the late 1st. cent. centuries. A. D. through several succeeding

But apart from these sources, some have argued that there Russell, for
Enoh

are earlier works which contain the same doctrine.

example, cites Jubile! and the so-called Apocalypse of Weeks in I 30 91-104.

Russell surmises from I Enoch 91:12 that the eighth week is the 31 This kingdom supposedly continues until the tenth messianic kingdom.

29. See Strack and Billerbeck, IV, p.

893.

Isaac, "1 (Ethiopic 30. This tradition is early pre-Maccabean; cf. 6-7. It divides history Apocalypse of) Enoch", Pseudeiraha, I, pp. The seventh of these, in which the author into ten "weeks" of time. locates himself, describes the culmination of human apostasy. 31. . 91:12: "A sword shall be given to it in order that judgment shall be executed in righteousness on the oppressors, and sinners shall be delivered into the hands of the righteous."

- 165 -

32 week, in which is the consummation. But there are problems with

interpreting the eighth week as "messianic". F. Dexinger, who is an expert on 1 E2c, notes: "Hit fast gleichlautenden Worten kennzeichnen die Kommentare diese achte Woche als den Beginn der messianischen Zeit, als den ersten Akt des letzen Gerichts. Diese Ausdruckweise ist 33 unprzise." Since no important eschatological elements remain

outstanding, the eighth week of the apocalypse is not the messianic 34 kingdom, but the beginning of the eternal kingdom.

Ru5sell also claims that "the evidence of the Book of Jubilees is much less clear, but here again we may detect the idea of a temporary 35 kingdom." But once again, the Messiah is conspicuous by his absence.

The author seems to say that if future generations devote themselves to the law, they will enjoy a Golden Age of peace and longevity (23:26-31). This is a time of bliss which gives way to the final judgment and the 36 eternal state; it is no messianic kingdom.

291-92; Bailey, "The Temporary 32. Cf. Russell, pp. 172; Bousset, ReLigion, 53 (1934), p. Messianic Reign in Judaism," 89. 274; Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. p. 33. Dexinger, Henoc Yci fin t 136. The concept is not explicit in the text, Aokaiytikforschung, p. Wilcke asks, "1st nicht and must be read in from other sources. vielmehr jenes Stadium der Gerechtigkeit und des Reichtums fr die Gerechten bereits Endperiode, die durch nichts mehr getrubt wird?" 38. Wilcke, Das Pr9!, p. (emphasis mine). 34. Wilcke, pp. 38-39.

292. Cf. also Bailey, pp. 173-75, who 35. Russell, aEtLc. p. seems to agree with this, but will not definitely commit himself. 36. That Russell s citation of Jubilees far-fetched is shown by that fact that Wilcke does not even include this text in his discussion of 64-68, agrees that possible sources for a ZR; Rowley, AocaItic, pp. Jubilees cannot be used as evidence of a ZR.

- 166 -

37 In Sib. Or. 3:652-731 (dated 163-45 B. C. ) a king appears and ot think this

an marthl y -indom in

ru;al#m. Wi1k

king is a messianic figure; he also warns that the varied traditions which stand juxtaposed in the book allow for no systemizing into a 38 The ambiguity of this prediction is seen in chronological sequence. the fact that Russell interprets this as an eternal messianic 39 In that case it would be closer to Pss. Sol. 17 and 18 than kingdom. to 4 Ezra.

As far as literary evidence is concerned, therefore, we can find no clear attestation of a temporary messianic kingdom before A. D. 70. The earliest written sources of this tradition are at the earliest from 40 A. D. It is often asserted1 the last two decades of the 1st. cent. however, that if written sources remain from within three decades of the time of Paul, then surely the idea was circulating much earlier as oral tradition or in non-extant books. origin of the idea around 100 B. C. R. H. Charles, for example, dated the 41

37. Collins, "The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3," PseuEha, I, pp. 354-55. 38. Wilcke, pp. interpolation. 39-41. He also considers this to be a secondary

274-75, 288-89; Bousset, pp. 39. Russell, 4 a ocait Lc., pp. 77, believes that this work refers to a ZR. Rowley, Aaocaitic, p. says that there is no kingdom and no Messiah here. 175-76, adducem some other, more obscure, possibilities 40. Bailey, pp. for literary evidence of the ZR. He mentions Tobit 14i5 (whose evidence is "indefinite and uncertain") and edarn and Eve 42:2-5 (the 500 year ZR 2!' He adduces the was an interpolation from the f. Samaritan hope for a restoration under the rule of the Taeb (p. 179), which he thinks may have been the source for the thousand-year duration of the kingdom of Rev. 20. 41. Charles, Revelation, II, p. 142

- 167 -

But while religious traditions may follow such a pattern in normal circumstances, it must be remembered that the destruction of Jerusalem was hastened by and in turn modified the eschatological aspirations of the Jewish nation. Strack and Billerbeck think that A. D. 70 was the

point of crisis which precipitated a synthesis of kingdom ideas, as Jews became frustrated with the fact that the Romans wielded earthly power over the people of God. The remnants of the old nationalism were welded to the ideas of an otherworldly transcendental kingdom to form the idea of a temporary earthly kingdom. Those who held to the new eschatology

looked forward to both earthly and heavenly realms in successive 42 order.

Indeed, Paul's eplstle3 do not attest the idea of the messianic ZR as it is found in 4 Ezra, 2 A2oc. Baruch, and Revelation. Paul's understanding of the messianic kingdom is that in the present age Christ rules as Lord from heaven; this is an idea which is not directly derived from any known form of Jewish expectation. It can be concluded both

from the Pauline epistles and from the Jewish literature that Paul the apostle did not teach a messianic kingdom based on a modification of the tradition underlying 4 Ezra and 2 Aoc. Baruch. The church's christological exposition of Psalm 110:1 - found throughout the New Testament - was much more influential in shaping the early Christian belief in the kingdom of Christ.

42. Strack and Billerbeck, IV, pp.

799-810; cf.

Wilcke, pp.

48-49.

- 168 -

III. I

tb

ia g Q! QL

E1t

It21Q

At this point we will turn to Paul's undisputed epistles and sift through his teaching about the rule of Christ. We will attempt to muster the separate pieces of evidence in order to reconstruct the framework which lay behind Paul's teaching about Christ's royal supremacy. is much evidence that Paul indeed thought in terms of a kingOoin
of

There

Christ which has significance both for the present and for the future. By examining these data it is possible to define Paul's picture of the kingdom of Christ with regard to its beginning, end, and purpose, and its relationship to heaven and to the kingdom of God.

1
We have already scrutinized the two passages which refer to a present ua?ccc of Christ. 1 Car. 15:24 and Cal. 1:13 both use the

traditional term uto (of God) to describe Christ as King. Both mention that this kingdom stands opposed to the enemies of God.

The major difference between these two passages is the author's

- 169 -

purpose.

In 1 Cor. 15:23-28, Paul states that the kingdom of Christ is In Col. 1:12-14,

the tool by which death is destroyed in resurrection.

the author speaks of an act of God to remove the church into the kingdom of Christ; to enter this realm is to experience redemption. The farmer

deals with the eschatological resurrection of the new race, while the latter emphasizes the realization of forgiveness in the church. 15:23-28 (like Eph. 1:19-23) is colored by the imagery of the Enthronement Psalms, while Ccl. 1:12-14 is tempered with New Exodus terminology. Christ's preeminence i epenent upon is resurrecton as I Cor.

the npwIOloKo tx iGv vxpv (Col. 118); this idea is also present in 1

Cor. 1

and in Eph. 1:20-23.

These two pc*o)cc* references indicate that the present kingdom began when Christ rose from the dead and was exalted by God. According to Colossians, believers can affirm and enter his dominion in a deeper way than is possible for the rest of mankind and the non-sapient cosmos.

tjg

a.

Paul does not frequently use

ac to describe Christ's

supremacy in this age; the language of 1 Cor. 15:24 (and Ccl. 1:13) is an exception to hi; normal practice. future realm without But just as he can describe the

c*a'JcCa (as we saw in Chapter Three), Paul is able When

to convey the reality of Christ's sovereignty through other words. these non-mo?cCc statements are correlated with the two pc*ac( statements, we are able to expand significantly our understanding of

- 170 -

Paul's doctrine of the kingdom.

That christology is the major medium of 43 kingdom theology in Pauline theology is affirmed by L. E. Keck. As H.

M. Shires states: "The Jewish hope of the kingdom of God is for Paul inseparable from the revelation of God already made in Christ"; thus in the apostolic and sub-apostolic church the exalted Christ takes the 44 place of the kingdom.

According to Rom. 14:9, Christ rose from the dead "that he might be Lord (xOpi.o) both of the dead and of the living." PavJ inzcates that Christ's lordship is effective in the time before the eschatological resurrection, when the categories of "living and dead" 45 are no longer valid. As in 1 Cor. 15, Paul here posits a vital connection between Christ's resurrection and his lordship; his entire 46 mission was directed toward the goal of total sovereignty. Rom. 14:9 is evidence that Paul can speak of Christ's sovereignty without using

pc.a).cLc. In Paul's thinking,

po may be used as a cipher for "the

kingdom of Christ"; even though the word is not related etymologically to "c*a?cCu", it is a title which in context may be as royal as 47

Christ's rule also has its roots in the creation of the cosmos.

43. He contrasts Pauline thought with apocalyptic, in which the messianic figure is usually not so prominent. Cf. <eck, "Paul and Apocalyptic Theology," pp. 239-40. 44. See Shires,

I!

Eschatolo9y of Paul, p.

61.

45. Thus Wilckens, Ram. 12-16, p. 84; Stanley, Resurrection, p. 199. Contra Baumgarten, Paulus und A 2 oka1tik , pp. 83-85, who thinks that the phrase comes from the baptismal motif of Rom. 6. 46. Thus cf. Cerfaux, Christ, pp. 96-97.

47. So Coppens, Relve, I, pp.

286-87.

- 171 -

1 Cor. 8:6 reflects the widely-held dogma that Christ was the one 6' oU 48 r& nv'rc came into being. It is stated in the hymn of Cal. 1:15-16 that1 as the nprO'roKoc of all creation, Christ was the medium of its origin (cf. also John 1:10; Heb. 2:6-8).

Paul teaches that Christ's kingdom is a mediatorial rule; as the executive of God's kingdom, Christ rules by means of the sovereignty of God operating through him. So then, just as the motif of

"God-in-Christ" transforms the eschatological epiphany of God into the Parousia of Christ, so God now effects kingdom blessings through him. According to 1 Cor. 15:57 God is giving Christians victory

(vCko) over

death (and sin and the law) through Christ the icCpo. Christ's lordship over death is accomplished through his own resurrection. very purpose in coming t In fact, his

otspc*vo (from heaven - 15:47-49) was to become

the head of the new, immortal race.

The christological hymn contained in Phil. 2:6-11 also attests the 49 but it is vague as to whether his universal dominion rule of Christ,

7-10, who thinks that this is h_bj.f 48. Cf. Wolff, L.K9 pp. the earliest attestation of Christ's work in creation. 49. This hymn is much discussed with regard to its origin and The study byE. Kasemann has been most influential pre-Pauline meaning. in the current debate; he asserts that the hymn was originally a Cf. Hellenistic ode to the mythological Urmensch/gnostic redeemer. Kasemann, "Kritische analyse von Phil, 2:5-11," in und 8esinnunen, I, pp. 57-95. He has been directly opposed by Cullmann and others who see Old Testament themes a; the basis of the hymn. See Cullmann, Christology, p. 175. It seems best to agree with Cullmann and others that the background of most of this hymn is to be found in the Servant Songs of Isaiah; this portion of Scripture was widely used in early Christianity.

- 172 -

50 is viewed as present or future. The statements of 2:6-9 are clearly

intended to refer to the historical life, death, and exaltation of 51 Jesus. When Christ received the supreme title (apparently "KOpoc"
) it

resulted in a christological fulfillment of isa. 45i23 (2:10-ha). Those who acknowledge Christ's sovereignty are not merely Christians, but all beings. The hymn does not connect this universal submission with any This is not to say that this call to acclamation is a It is rooted in the

particular event.

"timeless truth" or an enthusiastic exaggeration.

paradox over when Christ consummates his victory over the angelic Powers. Martin says that in Phil. 2:6-11 the tension lies between Christ's work completed in heaven versus the earthly suffering of those 52 What Martin does not who confess Christ's victory through faith. mention is that throughout the New Testament the victory of Christ is not always viewed as a accompli (cf. 1 Cor. 15:24-28). The tension 0.

is not between earth and heaven, but between present and future.

Hofius therefore states that while the complete victory is future, the 53 decisive act is past, in Christ's resurrection and enthronement.

Thus, while the church acknowledges Christ as Lord, the creatures of the three-story universe of 2:10 do not .tniversally chime in. This

is only fulfilled in the Eschaton; Phil. 2:10-11 is a notice of the day

50. Phil. 2:10-11 - "...tva

v 'rip bvdi

Iooi) n&v ydvu Knr

nOUpVwv K( flE($V KcC KcrocX8oV'wV, Kc nac* yaac IrooG Xpt.ai .c Oc*v BcoU ncvrp." po bi

51. Cf. the support for thi5 cited in Martin, Carmen Christi, p. 52. Martin, Carmen Chris, pp. 268-70. pp. 65-67.

245.

53. Hofius, Christushmnus Phi1ier. 2,

- 173 -

of judgment, and thus corresponds with the eschatological nature of isa. 54 45:23. The creedal statement Kipo lroou Xpai'o included in the hymn does not suggest a present ephemeral universalism; rather, the church confesses Christ as Lord before his lordship becomes universally visible and conceded (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3). It is under rOv vdi.tov 'ror XpaoU (Gal. 6:2; cf. the vOpov aaLAv of James 2:8). Believers are

under a new divine system of government in which Christs law constrains them to obedience.

The kingdom of God is by definition channelled through the power of God. If the kingdom of Christ is present and effective, then we would expect that at would be accompanied by an emphatic outpouring of divine power. In fact, Paul repeatedly emphasize the function of Gads power First, the resurrection of Christ is the supreme

in salvation history.

example of the exercise of Gods power; second, it is also the guarantee 55 Christians that God can and will raise Christians from the dead. believe that the same power af God which raised Jesus works in their 57 56 and in their assemblies. lives

Paul reiterates the connection between Gad s kingdom arid his power 58 When he says that the kingdom is operating in his in 1 Car. 4:20.

54. So Hofius, p.

65; contra 6. Barth, An die Phi1iper, pp.

44-45.

55. Cf. Rom. 6:4, 1 Car. 6:14, 8:6, 2 Car. 4:4, Gal. 1:1, Phil. 3:10-11, Cal. 1:18. Indeed, individual; are able find salvation and 20-21; cf. encouragement by believing that God acted in power to resurrect Christ: Cal. 2:12-15. Rom. 4:17-21, 24-25, 10:9-10, 2 Car. 1:9; cf. cf. 56. 2 Car. 3:3-4; cf. 57. 1 Car. 5:4-5. 59. Cf. Fascher, .Korthbr 1-7, p. 154. Eph. 1:19-21.

- 174 -

work, he does not mean that the world has entered into the age to come. Rather, the might of God which will be visibly and universally exercised in his future kingdom is now unveiled in and through Christ's He implies the same in the resurrection, his lordship, and his kingdom. 59 the connection between faith faith/confession motif in Rom. 10:9-10: and confession is the church's belief in the fulfillment of all in Christ. Thus resurrection-confession and Kyrios-confession belong 60 intrinsically together.

Another area in which we can find the kingdom of Christ is in Paul's doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Paul was in sympathy with other expressions of pneumatology which portray the Spirit as a proleptic gift of the age to come. Thus, in Acts 2: 14-21 the prophecy of Joel is cited

to prove that the disciples had procured an eschatological gift and to prove Jesus' exaltation as

K0po

in his sending of the Spirit, and to

underscore the immediate need for the Jews to repent of their rejection of the Messiah. There, as in Pauline thought, the emanation of the Spirit is a divine blessing, a gift which the Jews expected to receive in the final kingdom, but which the church anticipates in its present experience.

Thi Holy Spirit plays a part/Rom. 14i17, where Paul states that the kingdom is characterized by
6KcO0OVfl KC(

tpflvq

Kc(t

nvcc'ri. t*yLqi. In 15:13 Paul asks the God of hope to fill the Romans

59. Roe. 10:9-10 is probably a baptismal-confession; see Wilckens, b-fl, pp. 227-28. 60. Cf. H. W. Schmidt, An die Rdrner, pp. 178-79. Schmidt also claims Cf also that this pair forms the very center of Pauline theol ogy. Schlier, Rbrnerbrief, p. 314.

- 175 -

with n&aq xpc Kc(t Lpflvq so that they might abound in hope v nvEOIic(Toc iqiCou. Xmpth and Lpivq are listed as fruits of the 61 Spirit in Gal. 522. uvp

Paul believed that the Holy Spirit is a dynamic emblem of the 62 presence of God's rule through Christ. In 1 Cor. 12:3 the presence or absence of the Spirit of God determines whether an individual is able to make the confession KUpLoc Iriao. So then, the Spirit is channelled

through the kingdom of Christ, but it also draws people into recognizing Christ's authority.

!fl9!

Apart from 1 Cor. 15:24, there are several non-p in which Paul implies a future reign of Christ. He 1ik

?cCc statements Christ as the

eschatological judge of all, although, of course, God judges through Christ (2 Cor. 5:10). In the judgment, Christians participate in the sentencing of people and angels (1 Cor. 6:2-11). The final judgment involves not simply receiving punishment or reward, but also the universal submission of all sapient beings to Christ and God. Rom. 14:11 and Phil. 2:10-11 both contain allusions to Isa. 45:23, in which God demands that all nations submit to his sovereignty, instead of to their gods.

Paul based some of his christology on a messianic interpretation of Ps. 8 in con j unction with his typological application of Gen. 1-3.

61. AKcQaOvr is implied but not mentioned; *ycGwaiv here.

may be a synonym

62. Cf. Wolff, 1.Ko r j nthb,-jef 8-u, pp. 99-101, who states that 'AvBqu* ' IqaoO is the exact opposite of saying Ki1po Iqooi.

- 176 -

When he identifies Christ with the Second Adam in 1 Cor. 15 and Ram. 5, he does not only mean that Christ is victor over death: he is also thm 63 and prototype of a new humanity, which will share in his immortality 64 glory in the resurrection.

There is evidence in Paul's epistles that the apostle taught a rule of Christ, a dominion which is not identical to the kingdom of God. Now we must ask: in what way does Paul think that this kingdom is revealed in the present age, in heaven, and in the future? How are the rule of Christ and the kingdom of Sod related? How do we explain the apparent lack of kingdom language in Paul's letters?

k . 1

f_

2 !i

/Si.iQ

The oracle in Psalm 110 (IO9LXX) was fundamental for the Christian keryqma and as a key to the church's understanding of the Old Testament. Its influence is independently attested by Mark (with it 65 Acts, Paul, Hebrews and I Peter. parallels),

43. 1 Car. 15:42-57. 64. Ram. 817, 29, 30. 34-35. It is probably 45. Cf. Dodd, Acordinq to the Scrits, pp. d.g stich in the hymn of I Tim. 3:16. the basis of the "t*vArp$8r tv 22-24. Cf. Jeremias, pp.

r1i!!,

- 177 -

Psalm 110 probably originally referred to the priestly function of 66 the king in representing God on earth. Later Jewish theologians did not always interpret Ps. 110 as a messianic prophecy. In 1 Macc. 14:41, The e

the king Simon is acclaimed a "leader and high priest forever'.

eventu prophecy of I. !. 6:1 also describes the Hasmoneans in terms of 67 Job seems to be the fulfillment of the psalm according to this psalm. 68 . JOb 33:3.

While there is little literary evidence before the 3rd. century , D. to indicate that the Jews understood Ps. 110 messianically, this 69 The superscription "To David" indicates indeed was probably the case. that the compilers of the psalms thought this referred to the messianic 70 Most importantly, Matt. 22:41-45, Mark king from the line of David. 12:35-37, and Luke 20:41-44 record Jesus' argument about the Christ being David's son, using Ps. 110:la as a basis for discussion about the Messiah. The fact that Jesus does not apply the psalm to himself is a strong argument that the church did not read the use of that psalm back

and the Psals, 692-93; also Eaton, Kingshi 66. So Weiser, Psa l! s , pp. 112, thinks it may be III, p. 124-25; Dahood, pp. Gray, ReiQn of God, pp. 77-79, believes that Ps. 110 twelfthCeflturY. is clearly non-messianic; also Allen, PsaLms 101-150, pp. 83-85. 67. Hay, 24-26.

1Y t

!
22-24.

gt Hand; Psalm 110 in Early christianity, pp.

68. Cf. Hay, pp.

69. See Strack and Billerbeck, IV, Exc. 18: "Der 11O.Psalm in der 452-465; so also Loader, "Ps. 110:1," altrabbiilischefl Literatur," pp. 199. 24 (1978), p. 70. Weiser, p. 692.

- 178 -

71 into the synoptic tradition.

With the rise of Christianity, the messianic understanding of the psalm fell out of favor among Jews until about A. D. 250, when it began to regain its former prominence. In Jewish exegesis before that time, 72 Ps, 110:1 was applied to individuals such as David or Abraham.

The New Testament citations of Ps. 110:1 are almost identical to the Septuagint, which is very close to the MT. The major exception is that Mark 12:36 and Matt. 22:44 have bnox&'rw instead of non6uov as in

the Septuagint and the rest of the New Testament. The author of Hebrews alone develops the idea of the Melchizedekian priesthood from Ps. 110:4. 75 73 74 cited P g . 8:6 and Peter Paul and those who penned Hebrews and I Ps. 110:1 together. There is thus sufficient evidence to assign this 76 pairing to a pre-canonical tradition.

71. See Grundmann, Mataus, 480-81; Gourgues, 141-43; Fitzmyer, "The Son of David Tradition and Mt 22:4-46 and Parallels," in Essays, pp. 113-126; Marshall, 9tY 9! 743-47. 72. See Grundmann, "o," [DNT, Ii, pp. 73. In 1 Cor. 15:25 and 15:27; cf. 39-40.

PP. PP'

Eph. 1:20,22.

74. See Heb. 2:6-B and Heb. 1:3, 5:6, 10, 7:17, 21. 75, 1 Pet. 3:18-22. 32-34; Loader, 'Ps. to the 76. Thus Dodd, rtures, pp. 110:1," pp. 209-13. Contra Schade, Aoka1tische . j!2L2g! Paulus, pp. 34-35; Schade's literarily improbable theory is that Paul first connected these two psalms together in 1 Cor. 15 and that the rest of the New Testament reflects his interpretation of the psalms. Pm. 110:1 was used for polemical reasons by the Apostolic Fathers. See Carr, 89-92. pp. En

- 179 -

Although Paul nowhere formally quotes Ps. 110:1, he often alludes to 77 it. Christ's position at God's right hand is a "symbole d'honneur, de 78 gloire et de puissance". In 1 Cor. 15:25, Paul alludes to 110:lb to teach that Christ's enthronement has as its goal the destruction of all of God's enemies, and principally death. In Rom. 8:34 he lists the

stages in Christ's exaltation as resurrection, enthronement at the right 79 Paul regards the hand, and present intercession for Christians. complete fulfillment of Ps. 110:lb as eschatological (1 Cor. 15:25), but he also believes that Christ is presently in the process of defeating God's enemies (cf. the use of c*a ciw to denote present ruling in

15:25). This shows that the enthronement at God's right hand in Ps. t10:la is a past event. Col. 3:1 connects the enthronement with the Eph. I links Christ's exaltation with his v

"heavenly" basis for ethics.

destruction of death, the position of believers their access to God in prayer.

To

noupcvCoc, and

In Psalm 109: 1LXX king-priest.

poc is applied both to Jehovah and to the

Gourgues contends that the early Christian reflection on

this psalm, as seen in Acts 2:36, "a jou un rOle capital dans la

77. Cf. allusions to Ps. 110:lb in 1 Cor. 15:25; Ps. 110:la in Rom. 8:34; see also Ps. 110:la in Col. 3:1, Ps. 110:Ib in Eph. 1:20. 95-96, who 78. So begins Gourgues, p. 213; also Cerfaux, Christ, pp. views "right hand" statements as ciphers for the Reign of Christ. Cf. 1. H. Eaton for an historical analysis of Ps. 110 in the kingdom of Israel, 124-25. in Kin9shi2 arid the PsaIrn, pp. 12. Gourgues thinks that this is a present 79. Gourgues, p. 51, n. intercession, against Hay (pp. 131-32), who regards it as eschatological advocacy. The list of events in Roe. 8:34 is chronological: Christ dies, is raised, is enthroried at the right hand, is interceding.

- 180 -

80 representation primitive de l'exaltation" of Jesus. This strengthens

our contention that Christ's kingdom is vitally dependent upon his ascension, his lordship, and his rule over God's enemies. Cerfaux

rightly observes that when the primitive church confessed "Jesus is Lord" they were actually affirming the kingdom of Christ; by 81 acknowledging Christ's present glory they did the same.

It is clear, then, that Psalm 110 (and Psalm 8) played a major part in the formation of the church's understanding of Christ's rule. The time of his exaltation to the right hand of God was at his ascension, and this is clearly bound with the resurrection victory in most of the Pauline references (as it is in Acts 2:29-36). For Paul and the early church, the exaltation of Christ was the initiation of the kingdom of Christ.

2. Christ's Mediation in Creation and New Creation

In Pauline theology, Christ's lordship is based on creation as well as his resurrection. As the last Adam, he has defeated death by

submitting to God; this is a reversal of the Fall, in which Adam's refusal to submit to God brought about death and humanity's loss of 82 authority over creation.

213, who holds 218; but see Loader, "Ps. 110:1," p. 80. Gourgues, p. that Mark 14:62, which uses Pm. 110:1 in the context of future enthronement, is more primitive than the interpretation of it in terms of present lordship. 94-95. Cf. also S. Kim, Christolog, pp. 81. Cf. Cerfaux, Christ, pp. 100-36: the earliest, pre-Pauline confession is that the law is invalid because Jesus the true Wisdom of God has appeared. 82. Cf. Barrett, E2

Ei!t

Adam to

pp.

16-21.

- 181 -

The reason that the early church, and especially Paul, chose Psalm 8 to express the work of Christ was that it reflects the ideal picture 83 of mankind ruling over 6ds creation. Thus the church did not simply read Ps. 8 as a prediction of the Messiah, but also as a prediction of the new humanity of which Christ is the forerunner; it pointed to the ultimate restoration of Paradise in the kingdom of Sod.

Paul does not explicitly attribute the institution of the eschatological new creation to either the Father or the Son. It is Christ who transforms believers at the resurrection (Phil. 3:20-21), but the Father and the Spirit also take part (Rom. 8:11). Paul envisioned the new creation as an event which ensues from the revelation of Christ 84 in glory. Christ's kingdom has as its goal the new creation. In Rom. 8 creation awaits the restitution of the original order; this renewal is only possible through the bringing of sons and daughters to God, who promises them a share in Christs glory.

83. So Dahood,

I, pp.

49-52. n*vrc 6

84. This is probably the teaching also of Col. 1:16 - cthioG c*ijrOv tKaTc".

182 -

. Ib

9i

!E

I!91

Paul's picture of the kingdom cannot be thought of simply in terms of a linear historical process. This misconception is based upon

simplistic assumptions about apocalyptic Judaism. Both Paul and the apocalyptic writers stressed the importance of "vertical' categories with regard to the coming of the kingdom. Wikenhauser correctly states:

"Das Reich Gottes ist aber auch eine Uberweitliche oder transzendente 85 Paul's writings lack the Brbpe, und zwar nicht erst der Zukunft." cosmic speculation of the Jewish writers concerning heaven or the 86 But since the coming of Christ, both the future kingdom and kingdom. heaven take on new meaning as Christ breaks the hold of sin and death and ascend5 to the right hand of God to rule and to inaugurate the 87 kingdom of God.

One of the more conventional references to Paradise comes in Paul's self-defense in 2 Cor. 12. He describes in veiled but unmistakable terms that he was transported to Paradise and the third 88 heaven to hear "unspeakable" words. That he makes use of no fantastic details of the wonders he saw separates him from the apocalyptic writers. He is merely proving that he was a true apostle to whom God

d Krch !tisct Leib Christi, p. 47. See a 55. Wikenhauser, especially Rowland, O 2 r Heavefl, for an excellent presentation of this aspect of Jewish eschatology. 86. Jeremias, "flcp6o," TDNI, V, p. 771.

87. We shall refer often to the very helpful monograph on the idea of heaven in Pauline theology, i. e. , Andrew 1. Lincoln's Yet: ! !21Y P! DI9D ID EYI' 1b9b Ii I t 91! Q with Special frence to his Eschatology (1981). 88. Cf. Baumgarten, Paylus und Apokyptik, pp. 136-46.

- 183 -

89 granted revelations (2 Cor. 12i1).

In 2 Cor. 12:2-4 Paul implies that Paradise now exists in some 90 part of heaven. Bietenhard objects that we are not told whether Paul saw Christ in this Paradise, whether Paradise is located in the third heaven or if they are two different places, and most importantly, whether Paradise is the present abode of deceased Christians (as in 2 91 But the presence of some ambiguities does not dilute the Cor. 5:8). facts that Paradise at least denotes the end-time realm of the saints and that it now exists in heaven.

In Phil. 3:20-21 Paul states that the Christians citizenship (noAC'rupc) is in heaven, and that it is from heaven that they await the final resurrection. At the end of 3:21, Paul again states that it is

the kingdom power of Christ with which he will transform believers at the resurrection. In Phil. 1:21-23 he states that being in heaven with

Christ is the intermediate state for Christians after they depart from 92 Paul thus connects the hope the body (Phil. 1:20, see 2 Cor. 5:6-9). to be revealed in the future with heavenly citizenship in the

89. Cf. the discussion in Rowland, Oen Heaven, pp. 90. Cf. Lincoln, Paradise, pp. 80-81.

380-86.

165-67. Although there is 91. Bietenhard, Die hirnrnlische Welt, pp. doubt over whether 2 Cor. 12:2 and 12:4 refer to the same event it seems In fact, Paradise is located in the third best to take it in this way. heaven in 2 Enoch B (long rescension). Cf. Hering, 435-38; Martin, 2 89-90; Hughes, pp. pp. 404-05; Rowland, Q2en Heaven, p. 3: "...to know what tL a !, pp. is now in heaven is in consequence almost the same as knowing what will be on earth." 92. Cf. 6. Barth, An die Philier, pp. EbiLi22!n, pp. 62-65. 93. Cf. Stanley, Resurrection, p. 106. 33-35; F. W. Beare,

- 184 -

93 present. Christians are not like the evil-doers who have their minds

set upon the nCyi,c (3:19) and whose eschatological fate is destruction. come. They are reconciled both to heaven and to the age to

In Phil. 3 Paul refutes the legalists by proving his past superiority within the Old Covenant. He turned his back on all of this in order to know Christ's resurrection power, the power which works in and through the kingdom, and to attain the final resurrection 94 (3: 10-11)

Within his "race' 95 metaphor, Paul's goal is not the future kingdom per e. Rather, he lives according to the pattern of the upward call (ifl &vw <?iaw 3:14) of God in Christ Jesus. There is thus a strong ethical motive in the heavenly citizenship. The noun no)C'ru)i in Phil. 3:20 is a haax

Paul then rejects any notion of perfectionism.

within the Pauline literature, and is best interpreted as 96 Paul's "race" is therefore primarily vertical, away 'citizenship". 97 from the tnyc* toward his home with God (3:14). Like 2 Cor. 12, this whole section of Philippians is based firmly upon the Jewish motif of

68, who states that Paul is Phi1ier, p. 94. Cf. 6. Barth, A stressing the dualism between present dying with Christ (3:10-11) and future resurrection (3:21), a reservation directed against Hellenistic 133-34. Thus also P. Siber, Mit Christus Leben, pp. enthusiasm. 95. Although the goal will be reached only in the Eschaton, as 6. Barth demonstrates in An die Philipper, pp. 63-64. 96. Strathmann, "nO, K.r..," IDNI, VI, p. 535; contra Lincoln, Paradise, pp. 99-101, who prefers the translation "commonwealth". 97. That is, not primarily toward heaven, but toward God and Christ. Cf. Gnilka, Phiiipperbrief, p. 200; contra F. W. Beare, Philippians, p. 130, who would render this phrase as a "high vocation".

- 185 -

the heavenly reservation of Paradisi.

In Gal. 4:25-31 Paul contrasts Christians and legalists with a symbolic interpretation of the heavenly Jerusalem. According to Lincoln, tk Paul reasons that the Judaizing Christians revered the ealy Jerusalem as emblematic of the law as well as the city where Christ was crucified. He calls earthly Jerusalem t1 vuv ' IpouocMii and thus

characterizes it by its temporal trait.

But the heavenly Jerusalem is t1 98 vw ' Icpouoc)flp; it is described in spatial terms. By using two

different categories, Paul implies that the city in Palestine is also earthly as well as confined to "this age"; simultaneously the Jerusalem above is by implication the Jerusalem of the future, the capital of the 99 kingdom of God. Paul uses this picture to show that it is Christians, not his opponents, who have a portion in the future kingdom, as well as a living relationship with the God who now keeps their inheritance in 100 heaven. The legalists are bound both spatially and temporally into a 101 position of inferiority.

Paul not only believed in the heavenly, eschatological Jerusalem,

98. Lincoln, 29-32. Contra Bruce, Galatians, p. 221, who pp. holds both Jerusalems merely to be metaphors for two covenant peoples. This is not unlike the equation of the church with this Jerusalem by Schlier, Galaterbrief, p. 223f.;Schnackenburg, Church, p. 80; Cerfaux, rch, pp. 357-62. Cf. also John 3:3, in which being "born tvwGv" is the prerequisite for entering the roU 8o. 99. Cf. the background of this theme in Judaism in 6. Fohrer and E. Lohse, "Ev, K.r.X.," VII, pp. 312-17, 325-27.

1I,

100. Cf. thus Betz, pp. 246-48 for the correct, eschatological interpretation. Although Gnilka, Galaterbrief, pp. 326-27, agrees with Schlier in dismissing the idea that "Jerusalem above" is an eschatological entity, he does correctly view this as very close in spirit to Col. 3i1-4. 101. Lincoln, Paradise, pp. 29-32.

- 186 -

but also in changes brought about in cosmology by Christ's death and resurrection. Believers do not simply nurse the hope that they have a Ln Christ this

portion in the heavenly city and the future kingdom.

hope is made alive through the Spirit which enables them to follow the heavenly kingdom fruits of the Spirit in this age.

In the concluding section of I Car. 15 (vv. 47-49) Paul uses iioupvi.o to describe Christ, the man of heaven; he contrasts Christ 102 Just as Christ with Adam and his race, who are tK y (15:47). ascended to heavenly existence after his resurrection, so Christians will be transformed Into this heavenly image (15:49). Lincoln 103 observes: The heavenly dimension is so integrally related to the resurrection of Christ that Paul's way of describing the present order of existence entered on by Christ at his For the apostle resurrection is to speak of it as heavenly. Because of heavenly existence is resurrection existence. union with their heavenly Lord believers participate in this existence and can themselves be called heavenly (V. 48).

Thus Paul links kingdom existence both with heaven and with the resurrection. In Rom. 8 he teaches that in the resurrection believers

are destined for the new creation, whith will itself be a physical transformation of the old earth. In Ram. 8 as well as in 1 Car. 15, it

is the Spirit which transforms the earthly state of the believer both for heaven and for the final kingdom.

102. See ?lurphy-Q'Connor, "Interpolations in 1 Corinthians, 1 ' CB 48 94, for the most recent discussion of the theory of Gnostic (198), p. influence on 1 Car. 15:44b-4B. He disproves Widmans claims about a Wolff is quite correct in denying that this motif later interpolation. is influenced by the myth of the heavenly Urmensch. Cf. Wolff, 134, p. 1 ,r ibr1 8-16, p. 203. P. Siber, cbEi says that this whole section is an "apocalyptic" polemic against future-less enthusiasm. 103. Lincoln, Paradise, pp. 52-54.

- 187 -

Paul understood heaven in basically a traditional sense.

Thus

while it is the abode of God, it is also the place where Paradise exists during the course of "this age". Believers go to this realm when they Paul teaches that

die and await the Eschaton and their resurrection.

the Christian is truly a creature of the heavenly realm who is watching for the kingdom of God from heaven. Heaven and the future creation meet

at the first coming of Christ (in his resurrection), but even more at his second.

That which separated Paul from Judaism is the present kingdom of Christ. Bietenhard proposes that the Son of tlan teaching in the

i.U,

des

0+

Enach is the closest Jewish parallel to Paul s doctrine:

he is always seen in connection with the congregation of the just which is in heaven: he will judge the world and rule over the time of salvation in the kingdom. 104 not rule in this age. He is unlike Christ, however, in that he does

Christs presence in heaven is in Pauline thought the foundation of the Christian life. Heaven becomes the source for the kingdom gifts,

since kingdom power and the reserved Paradise are presently in heaven and affect life now. In addition, believers who die before the Parousia

enter the heaven (probably Paradise) where Christ himself dwells.

104. Bietenhard, PL

PP. - 188 -

68-70,

. I

1t!i
One of the intricacies of Paul 's theology of the kingdom is his

seeming inconsi stency with regard to whether it is the kingdom of God or the kingdom of Christ which is present. Cullmanns attempt to explain

this ambiguity by assuming that Jesus' language reemerged in later vocabulary (see above) does not take into account that there is theological justification for this apparent muddle.

Paul's normal custom was to define po.(u ioG 8oU as the eschatological realm of salvation, whether by means of the traditional sayings or in the fresh statements such as 1 Thess. 2:12 (oQ implied by the context; cf.

8o

being

2 Thess. 1:5). The Hkingdom of the Son s of

I Cor. 15:24 (and Col. 1:13) is a factor of the present age.

This leaves the two exegetically difficult passages in the Pauline corpus which Cullmann conceded could spoil hi kingdom language. theory of New Testament

In 1 Cor. 4:20 and Rom. 14:17, Paul uses antithetical

definitions of t1 po.?u ioCi 8o as a canon for measuring Christian priorities in the interval between Easter and Christ's return, The role

of the kingdom of God in these two texts is different from that of all other Pauline kingdom sayings. Models of the Pauline doctrine of the

kingdom such as those devised by Schweitzer and Schoeps have no room for these verses, as a study of their works has shown. Presumably, they

would agree with the Kummel's statement that these references use caA because they are addressed to people who will participate in

the future kingdom of God. Cullmann, on the other hand, argues for an essential unity between the presence of the kingdom of God in Jesus'

- 189 -

life and the present kingdom of Christ. He does not, however, carry this observation through to its logical conclusion, namely: if God's kingdom is present in the earthly life of Jesus, then it is certainly present in 105 Christ's investment with his kingdom and rule as the exalted Lord. royal sovereignty at the ascension does not mean that God is finished exercising his rule through his person and works. On the contrary, Paul

emphatically states that in fulfillment of the prophetic psalms, it is God who is subjecting his enemies through Christ's kingdom from his resurrection to the end. This is nowhere clearer than in the hymn of

Phil. 2:6-ui in 2i6-8 Christ's submissive suffering is the prominent theme, but in 2:9-11 Gods exaltation of Christ is in the forefront. The aim of God's work is that all might submit to Christ (in fulfillment 106 of Isa. 45:23); but even this is " ct 66cv 8oiJ rrTp' (2:11).

In Rom. 14, Paul says much about the lordship of Christ before he mentions the kingdom of God in 14:17. In 14:6-B BcO and po are

mentioned together several times; the xUpi.o in these verses is clearly Christ, and he is Lord over all through his resurrection (14:9). This rule of Christ is oriented toward the judgment of God in 14:10 Cpresumably through Christ) and the Pauline interpretation of Isa. 45:23 107 the in 14:11. Although uthe Lord" in 14:11 could possibly be Christ,

182: "Gott ist also bel der 8-16, p. 105. See Wolff, gegenwartigen Herrschaft des Christus nicht etwa suspendiert, sondern durch den Christus wirksam. 106. This theme is certainly Pauline, but that does not indicate that he modified the tone of an enthusiastic christological hymn by adding it in 45. to the tradition, as thinks 6. Barth, An die Phili2Eer, p. 107. Thus Wilckens, p. 85.

190

108 emphasis is on giving an account to God. But in truth this submission

to God is channelled through acknowledging Christ a; Lord.

The reason Paul uses

'iou 6o for the present in I Car.

4:20 and Ram. 14:17, therefore, is not necessarily because the end is temporally imminent (cf. Schweitzer and Schoeps), nor because he nostalgically uses the now invalid language of Jesus (Cullmann). He is in fact using an abbreviation: "kingdom of God" is a short, familiar version of "the kingdom of God which is operating through the executive kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ in this age."

We have already mentioned that Cullmann does not take into account the cataclysmic transition which accompanies the Parousia. He tends to view present and future in the kingdom of Christ as fairly uniform. even though the kingdom of Christ does not essentially change at Christ's return, there is an explosive escalation in the degree of its manifestation. After the Parousia, this kingdom of Christ will continue The kingdom of Christ But

to operate in order to effectuate several goals.

in this age is drawing history to an eschatological climax in the Parousia and in the future kingdom of God. Beginning with the Parousia, God begins through Christ to accomplish in earthly reality what Christians now experience spiritually. The three expectations we

discussed in Chapter Three are included in this hope: God will reveal himself in the epiphany of Christ; Christ will also bring about the new creation in the same way as he did the original; as divine redeemer he xill rescue Israel from their sinfulness and turn them back to God.

108. Although 1$ 8 is omitted from 14:12 in some witnesses, the idea is mentioned in 14:18, 20, and 22. Cf. Schlier, Rrnerbrief, p. 411.

- 191 -

Paul's scenario for the future includes a final stage in which Christ completes the restoration of all things and provides the foundation for the everlasting kingdom of God: he judges and grants final salvation; he reintroduces the bliss of creation; he transforms believers to fit that creation; he annihilates all of God's enemies. There is therefore a sense in which the interval after the Parousia is still the mediatorial kingdom of Christ, but also a sense in which it is the final kingdom of God. As Cullmann points out, the kingdom of Christ for a time overlaps the age to come. This overlap may also provide an

explanation for the language of Eph. 5:5; for one looking forward to the time of the Parousia, the kingdom which begins at that point could be attributed to both Christ and God.

The raison d'tre of the mediatorial kingdom of Christ could be summed up in one word: "restoration". Paul teache5 that Christ's rule is concerned with restoring creation and mankind to its original purpose; when this is accomplished, then the kingdom of God will be manifested directly, without an intermediary.

5.

b.i.s I 2L2gcL

One of the problems with studying Paul 's theology of the kingdom is this: if, as we have suggested, the kingdom is such an important concept for Paul, why are there so few ccCc* references in the Pauline corpus (and a good number of these in traditional formulas)?

We have argued that the kingdom was more important for Paul than a tabulation of UGXCc references would seem to indicate. H. A. A.

Kennedy disagrees; he asserts that Paul always brought his favorite

- 192 -

concepts to the foreground of his teaching; thus if he intended to teach the kingdom of God, he would have said Kennedy can only

conclude that for Paul the kingdom was an idea of rather minor 109 J. C. Beker explains this importance and limited application. scarcity by placing more stress on the breakdown of the traditional two-age structure. Beker thinks that the mixing of the two ages in the

Christ-event lessened the validity of this dualism and thus made kingdom 110 W. Sanday argues that since Paul was already a teaching obsolete. mature theologian when he was converted, trained in the schools of Pharisaism, that his language would have developed apart from the Jesus caXcCc* were foreign to his 111 vocabulary, which was shaped by the Psalms and deutero-Isaiah. tradition. Thus, his references to the

All of these proposals have major flaws.

Kennedy held to the now

outmoded idea that Paul could not have spoken of the kingdom without using certain terminology, a stricture which places severe limitations upon the study of any theological concept. supposing that the kingdom resurrection. Beker goes too far in

became outdated after Christ's

It is not enough simply to suggest that dualism breaks

down in Pauline theology, especially since we have concluded that the reservation of several important eschatological expecations to the

109. H. A. A. Kennedy, Payj' 290-92. 110. Baker,

Co

Qt io

9f.

Ihings, pp.

22!U!, p.

146.

111. W. Sanday, "St. Paul's Equivalent for the 'Kingdom of Heaven" JIS 1 (1900), pp. 481-91. According to Sanday, the key to understanding Paul's connection with Jesus is his doctrine of God's righteousness. This article foreshadows the more recent work done by Jngel in a1us und Jesus (1972), in which he views God's active righteousness in Pauline thought an equivalent to his kingdom in Jesus' message (see our discussion of Jungel in Chapter Nine).

- 193 -

future is a crucial part of Paul's theology.

Sanday's theory, while

nore attractive, does not explain why the other New Testament writers

use the same Old Testament texts that Paul uses and while they too usually avoid using aaL?c.

Although we believe there is evidence that Paul "preached the kingdom" (see Chapter Sifl) , it would have been confusing for him constantly to apply aiCu to the circumstances of this age. The two

Pauline present-kingdom-of-God passages were helpful in their original contexts, but measuring everything by the eoXcLc would have left his readers (or listeners) saying, "Ah, then this is the kingdom here and now; so what of the future"" Paul had to be discreet in his language,

particularly in his epistles, in order not to give the impression that Christ had completely negated the dualism of the two ages.

Another, more practical, reason why Paul had to avoid kingdom language was the problem of wordiness. It would not be expedient for

him to write to the Thessalonians and say (paraphrasing 1 Thess. 1:5): "knowing...that our gospel, which is the announcement of the reign of God through his Servant Jesus, did not come to you in word alone, but also in power, that is the divine power of the kingdom which operates in the apostolic ministry, and in the Holy Spirit, which is also an eschatological gift according to Old Testament prophecy, but which is now operating because of the exaltation of Christ, and who himself points individuals toward acknowledging that Christ is Lord, kingdom of Christ, etc." rgo the

The very nature both of theological language

and of epistle writing demands that Paul would say: "(Granted my kingdom theology, which you know, understand that:L..our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit."

- 194 -

Rather than making every significant theological word a the apostle allowed the kingdom to be a (sometimes muted) framework on which to spread his doctrine. BcaXcc iou BoU is

a fairly broad concept, so that constant teaching about it would serve only to overgeneralize the Christian faith. Instead, Paul concentrates

his attention on the more obvious trees in order to define more clearly his theological forest. His method and his language are based on the

principle of describing the known, more concrete, particular phenomena of the kingdom in order that Christians might better grasp the constituent elements of their salvation.

- 195 -

Conci usi on

Paul believed in an eschatological kingdom of God, which would be the perfect stated of humanity and creation under the direct, unobstructed rule of God. Adam fell from perfect fellowship with God, but God is working in Christ to restore the conditions of Paradise. This is accomplished by Jesus' destruction of sin and death through the cross and resurrection, and his battle to conquer all of God's enemies as the individuals can come under the authority of God's rule in Christ and experience the essential blessings of the New Covenant in advance of the Eschaton. After the Parousia, Christ will cDmplete the restoration of all things by fully revealing God's power and righteousness; these are the characteristics which are to a varying degree present in the salvation life. Thus, Paul was able to use aXc 'iou 8o as a short

label for the saving work of God.

- 196 -

CHAPTER FIVE:

THE RESULTS

OF THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST

IN PAULINE THEOLOGY

Introducti on

Since Paul believed that the kingdom is partially present and operating through Christ, we might wonder the church and for the cosmos. what effect this has for

The enthronement of the Messiah has not

brought about the new creation or the conversion of Israel, but it has brought about its own measure of prophetic fulfillment.

Thus in this chapter we will draw attention to some of the major results of Christ's kingdom. His rule has brought about radical changes

in the work of the Spirit, in Old Testament interpretation, in the meaning of the people of God, and in the activity of the cosmic Powers.

I.

!!t!9 2! !r!t19

in

Since the kingdom of God is the revelation of the rule of God, Christ's enthronement is accomplished by an outpouring of divine power. Paul clearly teaches (in 1 Cor. 4:20, 1 Cor. 15:24-28, and in

1. See, e.g. Schlier, Ze, pp. 58-59.

CJber die Herrschaft Christi," in

- 197 -

scores of non-pc*aiACc texts) that the revelation of God's power is indeed an essential characteristic of the kingdom of God in Christ.

Within the theology of Paul, it may be said: kingdom power = Spirit power = resurrection power = power to preach the gospel. Bda 2 Rigaux thus claims: La marque ultime paulinienne semble consister dans la C'est relation entre dunamis-pneuma et la resurrection. vers cet acte eschatologique de Dieu que se trouve dirigee toute manifestation prsente de l'Esprit. God's power has been made available in this age through the resurrection 3 Thus, in 1 Thessalonians Paul states that he proclaimed the of Christ. gospel not only tv Xdyq but also in power and in the Holy Spirit (1 Thess. 1:5; cf. 1 Car. 4:20). The result of this power is that the

Thessalonians have turned from idols to serve the God who is 'living and 4 God's qualities are epitomized in his ability to raise Christ true". from the dead (1 Thess. 1:10). In 2 Thessalonians the author prays that his readers may be filled with 6vcqi (2 Thess. 1:11) in order that they may glorify God until they are taken into the kingdom 2 Thess. 5 1:5).

In 6alatians Paul bases his apostleship on the call of the God who

2. Rigaux, "L'anticipation du salut eschatologique par 1 'Esprit," in 117 p.

i1

3. See Hester, Inheritance, pp. 145-46. pp.

98-99; Gloege, Rei

Gottes und Kirc

4. Marxsen, 1.Thessalonicherbrief, p.

23. Xfla in 2

63, who views 5. Cf. Trilling, 2.Thessalonicherbrief, p. Thess. 1:11 as the equivalent of acCc in 1:5.

- 198 -

6 By faith the Galatians received from God both 7 the Spirit and miracles (3:5). The fruits of the Spirit in 5:22-24 are the antithesis of the works which bar the wicked from the end-time kingdom (cf. 5:19-21); thus the Spirit breeds kingdom qualities in Christians. raises the dead (1:1).

Paul's doctrine of the power of God is integral to 1 Corinthians. The cross of Christ, although outwardly a symbol of weakness, is 8 actually the revelation of divine 6Ovc1p. The gospel came by the power of the Holy Spirit (2:4-5), and the Spirit reveals eschatological 9 blessings to believers (2:9). In 1 Cor. 6:14 Paul finds the basis for both Christ's resurrection and the believers' resurrection in the vcq of God. Even the royal acclamation Kipoc ' Iqaou (12:3) is impossible (ou6ci 6Ovc*'rc. cntv) apart from the Spirit of God.

This pattern is no less evident in 2 Corinthians. Paul learned to trust in the God who raises the dead (1:9). The Spirit who works in Paul is at once the guarantee of the future kingdom (1:21-22). The Spirit mediates the New Covenant according to 2 Car. 3-6, the covenant which is the constitution for the present inbreaking of the kingdom. raise believers in the way that he resurrected Christ (4:14). God will

6. This title is found also in the second of the Eighteen Benedictions. 73, 152. Cf. Bruce, Ga1s, pp. 7. Cf. Bruce, Galati ns, p. 151.

8. Although the power of the cross stands in apposition to the power of the resurrection in 1 Car. 15. Peter Richardson argues that Paul purposely bound his letter on either side with the cross and resurrection of Christ in order to show that the power of God surpasses Cf. Peter Richardson, ' 1 Judgment in Sexual 1atters all human strength. in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11,' NovI 25 (1983), pp. 37-58. 9. Cf. Fascher, 1.Korintherbrief 1-7, p. 126.

- 199 -

Again, when he indicates that the apostolic power is revealed both in preaching and resurrection despite human weakness (4:7, 12:9), Paul locates himself in the same pattern as that followed by Jesus (i3:34).

In Romans, Paul teaches that Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power, the resurrection power of God (1:3-4). When Paul preaches the gospel he is vindicated because through this message the 10 According to Ram. 8:11 power of God saves those who believe (1:16). the power of the Spirit will effect future resurrection.

Phil. 3:10-11 shows that Paul looks forward to the future resurrection. In 3:21 he connects resurrection power with the kingdom iou 6(.vcoBc* cdi'rv inoicu.

of Christ by calling it "rtv tvp?v c*b'rc r& rv'rc."

Many of the statements found in Colossians and Ephesians are not discernably different from undisputed Pauline theology. For example,

according to Col. 2:12 salvation comes by faith in the power of the God who raises the dead (although the result of faith is said to be spiritual resurrection). The author of Ephesians declares that the

Spirit is able to make the believer wise concerning both the future inheritance (1:17-18) and the power of the resurrection by which God exalted Christ, that is, the efficient power of the kingdom of Christ 11 (1:19-23).

83, argues persuasively that Christs 10. Wilckens, Ram. 1-, p. resurrection is the central act of this saving power in Ram. 1:16. 11. The author of the Pastoral Epistles has very little to say about divine power, but his sole reference to it in 2 Tim. 1:8 links God's power in preaching with suffering: ". . .but share in suffering for the gospel in the power of God."

- 200 -

It would be an oversimplification to equate the Spirit with the 12 kingdom of God, as if in Pauline thought the one replaces the other. But within Pauline theology there is a Father-Son/Lord-Spirit-Church revelation of kingdom power which is matched by the Godward direction of worship and submission. If the role of Christ is to rule for the

Father, then "Der Geist ist die Kraft der Selbstvergegenwrtigung des 13 erhbhten Herrn und seiner Herrschaft." Thus, the Spirit draws the Christian toward heaven and toward the future, and in so doing unleashes the power of the kingdom of God.

12. As is suggested by N. Q. Hamilton, Ho1 22.

air1.

g1g,
p.

13. Schlier, "Reich Sottes und Kirche," in Das Ede

48.

- 201 -

II. The Salvation-historical Fulfillment

Q.f

Another consequence of Christs enthronement is that the post-Easter church understood the Old Testament in the light of God's present work. It believed that the prophets predicted the royal

intervention of God into human history; thus, in the rule of Christ many of the ancient promises reached their fulfillment in saving history. Nor was Scripture being fulfilled simply because the imminent Parousia placed the community in the latter days (as was thought at Qumran). The scriptural promises were brought to fruition because of the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus in the past. It was the decisive

turn of history in Christ that caused the church to say that God's 14 promises are "Yes" in him.

14. Cf. Goppelt, Tip.os. The research done by Goppelt shows that in "a small proportion numerically" (p. 225) of Old Testament references, Paul applied the Scriptures to the church by means of a typological exegesis. We agree with Goppelt that this is the case in Rom. 5:12-19 and I Cor. 10:1-11. But in many cases Paul is doing a great deal more than making comparisons between past and present. The major reason why Paul draws such analogies is that he thinks all of God's promises are fulfilled in Christ. Christ does not reflect the Old Testament; the Old Testament reflects his coming through prophetic inspiration. Thus Christ is not merely "one greater" quantitatively, but also qualitatively.

- 202 -

P, Paul's Use of the Old Testament: Proof-text or Contextual Proof?

Paul concurred with the early church that the Old Testament as a 15 S. Bornkamm asserts that the whole is fulfilled in the work of Christ. apostle j ust as equally drew from the kerygmatic traditions of the early 16 But although he cites 1 Cor. 15:3-5 as an example 3 that there church. are many more is doubtful. The traditions he uses are the only way in

which he can demonstrate recent events in the work of Christ, but even these traditions (in their original form) were backed up by the Old Testament (cf. the "icr

& ypccc" references in 1 Cor. 15:3-4).

C. H. Dodd has adduced proof for the idea that the New Testament writers drew from a pool of Old Testament Scripture which the church generally held to be predictions of Christ and the establishment of the church. He based his studies on the work done earlier in the century by source

Rendel Harris, who suggested that there was a written

made up of a list of out-of-context proof-texts for arguing with the Jews. One of Dodd's contributions was his suggestion that Old Testament citations were by no means randomly chosen or used as flimsy proof-texts. Rather, the authors produced Did Testament texts which

15. Cf. Gal. 3:16, 2 Cor. 1:20, and Luke 24:44; this point is brought out by Hughes, Second 36-37. pp. 16. 5. Bornkamm, p. 113.

- 203 -

17 would remind the reader of a whole section of Scripture.

Not all have accepted that Paul quoted the Old Testament with a 18 view to context. Fitzmyer states: Paul, writing frequently in the rhetorical style of a preacher, often fails to take into consideration the original context of the Old Testament and twists the quotation which he uses to his own purpose. Fitzmyer adduces the quotation of Isa. example of Paul's sloppiness. 2:5 in Roe. 2:23-24 as an

His picture of Paul is that of a preacher

who even as he speaks is mouthing biblical phrases with neither forethought nor knowledge of their original meaning. But Fitzmyer's

claim is controverted by the style of Romans, in which there is evidence of Paul's deep reflection on passages such as isa. 40ff. Besides, Paul is writing this epistle, not speaking extemporaneously.

James Barr ob j ects that the practice of reading the Old Testament in its context is probably a modern idea of how Paul hauld have read 19 the Scriptures. But although throughout Jewish literature there are hundreds of examples of proof-texting with no regard for context, the only one who can tell us how Paul used the Old Testament is the apostle himself. Barr's assertion that it is modern scholarship which forces

17. Dodd, Scritures, p. 61. Dodd's theories have been accepted by . M. Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors, pp. 131-34; R. Longenecker, 90-91. Hanson, Studies in Paul's LLL pp. 174, stresses that in Romans, Paul uses the Scriptures not p. 12 lO , simply for illustration but for theological proof. Lindars, New A2oloetic, pp. 222-46, seems to appreciate that Paul reflected upon the Old Testament - especially the Psalms and deutero-Isaiah - with the result that he interpreted the Old Testament in ways different from the early church and also an that he developed a doctrine of j ustification by faith. 18. Fitzmyer, "The Use of Explicit Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament," NIS 7 (1960-61), p. 324. 19. James Barr, Old and New in Interaretation, pp. 142-43.

- 204 -

Paul into the mold of a careful exegete is a rather faint gesture in the light of the many scholars who wish to prove that he was the opposite.

The theory that Paul studied the Old Testament with attention to context and flow of thought seems to be confirmed by C. J. A. Hickling's research. He concludes that the quotations of Isaiah indicate that the

apostle read continuously through extended sections of that book in order to find answers to the theological perplexities of living in 20 post-resurrection times. Hickling observes that fully 26 percent of Paul's quotations are from Isaiah, and that these are drawn mainly from 21 three "clusters" in the book.

The pattern in which Paul quotes the Old Testament is highly suggestive. While there are allusions to the Scriptures in every letter

of the Pauline corpus (except for Philemon), direct quotations are 22 mainly found in the four 2tfe. Longenecker observes that within the epistles addressed to churches, conscious Old Testament allusions and quotations appear only within those addressed to congregations with 2 a large Jewish element. This is generally true, although the lack of biblical allusions in the shorter epistles may be due in part to length and in part to differing theological agendas.

20. Hickling, "Paul's Reading of Isaiah," in Studia Bib1a 19Th, p. 218. 21. p. 215.

22. As shown by Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, p. 112. There is a fne, short study of the Old Testament in Galatians in LIndars, New Iestarnent Ao1o9et1c, pp. 222-38. His conclusions about that epistle are remarkably similar to what we shall find in the epistle to the Romans. 23. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, p. 112.

- 205 -

A large portion of Paul's Old Testament citations presuppose that the readers have some acquaintance with the themes of the kingdom of God and the eschatological New Covenant. The epistle to the Romans provides the best example of this pattern. Written by Paul with an eye to

expanding his Gentile mission, he was deeply concerned with establishing 24 He expends much effort to show why the true gospel of salvation. Gentiles and Jews can be justified in an identical manner, and why Gentiles seem better disposed toward repentance and belief than Israel. This epistle contains fully half of all of Paul's Old Testament quotations: he wants his readers to look to the prophets for 25 The epistle begins with a notice about the Scriptures; it guidance. 26 may have originally ended with a very similar statement in 16:26.

The prescript of Romans is noticeably different from that of other epistles. Since the Roman church did not know Paul firsthand, he takes

care to introduce himself as a preacher of the gospel which they know

24. Cf. Dahi, "Missionary Theology of Romans," in Studies in Paul, 77. 25. For a full study of the Old Testament quotations in Romans, cf. 107-32. Longenecker, Biblil Exegesis, pp.

26. A close parallel to this description of Paul's gospel is to be found in 2 Tim. 2:8: "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel."

- 206 -

27 and believe. Rom. 1:1-6 begins with Paul's self-designation, after

which he moves into a statement about the gospel before greeting the Romans in 1:7. In 1:2 he says that the gospel was promised through the prophets (Cf. also 1 Cor. 15:3-4). His quotations are primarily from the canonical prophets, but they are also taken from Deuteronomy and several 28 "prophet i c" psalms.

Paul mentions the content of the ancient promise in 1:3b-4a: np Christ was a 29 descendant from David's line according to the flesh. He was also appointed or declared (bpa8v'ro) to be God's Son at his resurrection. The result of this (1:5) is that God has given grace and apostleship through Christ, and for the sake of his name (presumably the name "Jesus Christ our Lord"). This gift results in the "obedience of faith" (bnKov na'rw) among the Gentiles. Paul's description of his gospel here is very similar to 1 Cor. 15:24-28, in that Jesus is enthroned as the Son of God at his resurrection. 'iou utoO cdJ'roU. . . ' IraoO Xpa'roi) 'iou

KUOU

Some scholars have theorized that this description of Paul's gospel in 1:3-4 may not be Pauline at all. Ksemann supposes that Paul

is here modifying a Hellenistic hymn which makes Christ KJpo at his exaltation to heaven. Paul himself would have preached a Jewish

eschatological gospel which included Christ's exaltation at his return

27. Cf. Schlier, Romerbrief, pp.

21-22.

28. Paul is following the common practice of grouping all of the Old Testament writers together as prophets who taught the promised salvation 63-64. of God. Cf. Wilckens, Rorn. 1-5, pp. 29. Cf. Bultmann, Iheoiog, I, pp. 49-50, who views this as a traditional phrase about a nationalistic Messiah. Cf. Dugandzic, D! 128-31. cbEi, pp. !

- 207 -

as the Son of Man. Kasemann concludes that Paul is adapting his ideas for a new situation and using adaptionist language, with which he 30 thought the Romans would be familiar.

Ksemann's argument is not a convincing one, especially since Paul constantly affirms his belief in Christ's present lordship. Neither

will his theory of a Hellenistic hymn affect Paul's own attitude toward the Old Testament. Paul's use of the Old Testament witnesses to his belief that the whole of the prophetic Scriptures spoke of Christ. For Paul, both the Son of David and the Son of God predictions converge in 31 Christ's present reign of salvation (cf. especially Ram. 15:12).

Ron. 16:26 provides a closing notice about the Scriptures: the ypc$iiv r mystery (the truths of the gospel) is now revealed 6 32 It has many elements in nvrmyf)v TO c*wvCou Bco. npo$q'ru.(ov Kc*'r common with Rom. 1:2-6: the gospel was promised by God in the past; it

10-15. That Paul is using tradition here is 30. Kasemann, Rornans, pp. 49-50; Wilckens, pp. affirmed by Bultmann, TheD1oq, 1, pp. . 8-9; 23-27; Kss, Rornerbrief . , pp. 64-65; Schlier, Rrnerbrtef, pp. Leenhardt, Rarnans, pp. 36-38. 46-49, states with 31. Thus A. 1. Hanson, Living Utterances, pp. j ustification that Paul's use of the Old Testament is deeply chr i stocentr it. 32. The textual problems of this closing section of 16:25-27 are Some manuscripts place it after 14:23, although this may well-known. well be explained by Marcion's removal of 15:1-16:23. Others propose an earlier edition of the letter to which Paul appended chapter 16; he then sent the longer version to Ephesus. Cf. Schenke and Fischer, Einleitung, I, pp. 136-153. The editors of the third version of the (JBS New Testament were certain that the doxology did nDt originally stand after 14:23. They included it, with some reservations, after 16:23 "on the Cf. Metzger, A strength of the impressive manuscript evidence." 540. See also the impressive lestarnent, p. 9Q monograph by Harry Gamble, Jr. , LeLua1 History of Rornans, who puts forward a strong case for the inclusion of Ron. 16, based upon comparisons with Hellenistic epistolary conclusions.

IL

- 208 -

is fulfilled in Christ; the Old Testament prophets are significant in its understanding; it is apprehended by inc g oiv nlu'rw; and it is proclaimed to all nations. If this is the original conclusion of the

letter, then Paul is repeating what he must have regarded as a major point of his argument.

Some reject the closing doxology not on the basis of textual evidence but on theological grounds. Ksemann thinks that Paul could

not express such a high view of the Old Testament. He claims that the Old Testament, according to Rom. 1:2-6, attests the divine promise, but it is not the means of present revelation. Ksemann declares that the

doxology must have been formulated in a later community which regarded 33 the New lestarnent canon as prophetic Scripture.

Kasemann gives too much weight to the change between c*vcpdw and yvwpw. Paul could certainly have used these terms to refer to the 34 Rom. 3:21 indicates prophets' contribution to the church's theology. the correct Pauline balance: salvation is revealed apart from the vdio, but the law and the prophets testify (iicp'ruptw) of its coming. With or

without Roe. 16:26, the epistle is plainly a broad development of Paul's gospel, and "... a very considerable part of Paul 's argument in support 35 of his major theme is drawn from the Old Testament.t'

The problem for which Paul musters many of his Old Testament citations is that of the Gentiles' belief in the gospel and Israelis

33. Ksemann, 34. Cf. Schmidt,

p.

426. 264.

die Rdrner, p. 3,

35. Murray, Rornans, p.

- 209 -

36 rejection of it. This tension posed fundamental problems for a Paul could not reconcile the present

traditional Jewish eschatalogy.

effects of his kerygma with a traditional picture of God coming to save pious Jews and some Gentiles. The apostle therefore asserts that Jewish recalcitrance is an intrinsic part of the New Covenant pattern. He

reckons that isa. 52:5 predicted that when the Servant would come to announce salvation the Jews in Exile would be causing the Gentiles to 37 blaspheme God. Paul combines this verse with the similar Ezek. 36:20 to produce the conflation found in Rom. 2:24. The contexts of both Old Testament verses speak
of

God graciously working salvation despite

[sraet's rejection of him.

Paul also quotes Isa. 59:7-8 in his catena describing human 38 Again, the context of Isaiah 59 is a sinfulness (Ram. 3:10-18). declaration that God can save even in the midst of human evil. The

section ends with Sod putting on his armor and "coming to Zion" to redeem Jacob (59:20), the very verse which Paul applies to Israel in

36. Lindars cites this as an example of Paul's "Apologetic of Response"3 that is, his explanation of why the gospel does not compel belief in its Apologetic, p. hearers. Cf. Lindars, Ne 241. 37. Smart interprets 52:5 as a prelude to a new Exodus, but that the slander to Gad's name is due not to Israel's sin but to its weakness. 189-90. Smart, Second Isaiah, pp. 38. Schlier, Rrnerbrief, p. 99, believes this to be of non-Pauline composition, but there is no evidence that Paul could not have written this. Cf. Leenhardt's suggestion that this is a Pauline "psalm" Leenhardt, Rcrnans p. 96.

- 210 -

39 Rom. 11:26-27.

By quoting Isaiah 59 Paul may be considering the genaral 40 it seems more likely, however, wickedness of the whole human race; 41 Paul desires to prove that he is thinking more specifically of Israel. (3:8-9) that Jews are just as sinful as Greeks; quoting from the Old Testament is a powerful reminder of this fact from the Jewish Scriptures. His use of 59:20-21 in Romans 11 seems to confirm that he is thinking of the prophetic warning in Isa. 59 as a whole: the present Jewish unbeliei would give way to salvation in the future kingdom.

In Romans 10, Paul quotes from the Servant Song of Isa. 52:13-53:12 as well as its prelude in 52:7-12. He cites Isa. 52:7 (in 10:15) to show that Israel has heard the preaching of God's rule through Christian preaching. Paul's omission of the content of the message in

52:7b is telling, in that the knowledgeable Jew would certainly know 42 The fact that the herald is expected to tell Zion "Your God reignsY'

Claus Westermann 39. Isa. 59 is a very difficult chapter to interpret. thinks that all of the accusations of sinfulness are made by the prophet against Israel, even though the speaker changes from the second person to the third in Isa. 59:4-9. The community then laments their wickedness in 59:9-15a, and Jehovah acts in Judgment and salvation in 59:15b-21. 344-45. Westermann, Isaiah pp. 40. Leenhardt, Rorns, pp. 95-9k. p. 172.

41. See the note in Wilckens,

Odendaal, 42. That this would conjure up a whole range of motifs, cf. r!o P!!1 c19 9 1H I !99i1 and the Nations. The aoc' oo b 8E of the Septuagint uses 1!1 a future tense, which may have a different sense from the Hebrew perfect tense: it would probably turn the announcement of God's kingdom from a To be sure, this present reality into a promise for the future. difference would not greatly affect Paul's understanding of the Pauls citation of Isa. 52:7a is closer to the MT than to the passage. LXX, so this is not a real problem.

- 211 -

that Paul goes on to quote 53:1 in Rom. 10:16 (not to mention 52:15 in Rom. 15:21) shows that he is not merely searching for evangelistic proof-texts: the reader could infer that Paul understands the preaching of the gospel as an announcement that God is reigning, that the kingdom of God is being manifest in Christ the Servant (Rom. 10:17).

Paul therefore cites Isa. 53:1 (10:16) to show that Jewish 43 unbelief is not an unforeseen development. Although in the context of Isa. 53:1 the "incredulous" are kings and nations (52:15), the context of Rom. 10:16 shows that Paul is thinking of Jewish skepticism over the salvation which God revealed in the Servant's humiliation.

Nowhere does Paul state that the Servant of Isaiah 52-53 is Christ 44 in his suffering. The early Church generally applied this prediction to Jesus, and so Paul was not compelled to prove the messianic 45 interpretation.

In Rom. 10:19 Paul adduces Deut. 32:21, which is a part of the promise of covenant renewal. This verse is a prediction of how God will

use the Gentiles to provoke Israel into repentance and renewal in the

43. Lindars, New Testament Aoiogeti, p. 240, believes that this is a new application of this text by Paul; the early church used it as a messianic prediction, whereas Paul uses it to defend his Gentile mi ssi on. 44. Lindars, New 240, thinks that he alludes Aoiogetic, p. to Isa. 53:4-5 in Rom. 4:25, but this is not a conscious allusion in the sense that the other references to Isaiah are. 45. Cf. C. North, The f+erin SeI L 2L!.L?, pp. 2226; 88-96. He uses these references in this C. H. Dodd, Scritures, pp. section, plus Isa. 52:11 in 2 Car. 6:17 and 52:15 in 1 Car. 2:9. Some have thought that this motif Is post-Pauline, but Paul's constant use of Cf. A. 1. texts from Isa. 52-53 shows that he knew Servant christology. Hanson, Living Utterances, pp. 56-58.

- 212 -

New Covenant. The Gentiles are described in the original context as 46 those who are "not a people" and are foolish. The startling convolution of history was that Israel was not destined to be provoked by Gentile pagans. Rather they are vexed by Gentiles who have turned to

Israel's God before Israel's own conversion (Rom. 1:5-6). Rom. 10:20-21 47 is a quotation of Isa. 65: 1-2. Paul's interpretation imposes a 48 division between two groups of people. The people who sought not God are now the new people of God, the church, but the ones whom God implores to turn to him in 65:2-7 (and perhaps 65:lb) are the Jews of Paul's day. The prophet then goes on to describe the judgment which

Israel will incur, God's promise of salvation for a future remnant, and the creation of the new heavens and earth. We can only speculate

whether Paul thought of the future remnant as the church or as Israel at the Parousia (or whether he considered this problem at all ) , but the interpretation of the remnant as Israel would correspond neatly with his understanding of Isa. 59:20-21. In that case Isaiah 65 (in Paul's mind) predicts the salvation of the church, Israel's unrepentance, the salvation of Israel with attendant kingdom blessings, and the new creation.

The motif of the new people of God is also found in Rom. 9:25-29. In 9:25-26 Paul conflates Hos. 2:1, 2:3, and 1:10; these passages

46. Cf. Craigie, Deuteronorn, pp.

383-84.

47. This quotation is closest to the Septuagint, except that Paul's version interchanges the two verbs of seeking in 65:1. The MT has Niphal verbs which could be translated as "ready to be sought" and "able to be found" respectively. The Septuagint and Paul translate these simply as acrist passive verbs, denoting a past passive action. 48. In the original, no such distinction is made. aiah, p. 276. Cf. Smart, Second

- 213 -

originally were a prediction of how God would restore Israel as his 49 chosen people. Paul does not apply this picture only to Jews or only to Gentiles; he states in Rain. 9:24 that God called some from both Jews 50 and Gentiles to be "my people". In 9:27-28 Paul cites Isa. 10:22-23, which speaks of the restoration of Israel in the same way as Hosea. He then quotes Isa. 1:9 in Rom. 9:29. In both Paul takes passages which speak of Israel's restoration under the New Covenant and applies them to Christians in this age. For Paul Isa. 10:22-23 and Isa. 1:9 are

identical in meaning to Hosea.

In Romans 15 Paul exercises great care to show that his Gentile mission is not simply an accident of history, but is actually a major theme of the Old Testament promise. Thus in 15:10 he refers to Deut.

32:43. He has already demonstrated what he thinks of Deut. 32:21 in Rom. 10:19: Christian Gentiles are a provocation to unbelieving Israel. But Paul points out further on that the Gentiles are conscious of the salvation which God provides for Israel. This realization causes them to 51 rejoice along with the nation.

In Roe. 15:12 Paul repeats Isa. 11:10, which speaks of the Root of Jesse who rules over a renewed creation. Isaiah predicts that this

49. Cf. Wolff, Hosea,

p.

27; Rudolph, Hosea,

pp.
I

55-59.

50. Cf. R. Bring, "Paul and the Old Testament," 25 (1971), 42. Bring rejects the idea that Paul is spiritualizing Hosea for the church; rather, he is stressing that election is purely a work of God for all who are chosen. 51. "EUpv8rc, pc'r ro ?coG cthroU" is an exact reproduction of the Septuagint. In fact, the MT lacks this phrase entirely. It is possible that the MT has lost it through homoioteleuton, and that the Septuagint correctly retains it. Cf. Archer and Chirichigno, Old 49-50.

p.

IDt Quotations, pp.

- 214 -

individual is to restore Israel, whereupon the Gentiles will seek 52 him. Once again, Paul follows the wording of the Septuagint, which has the phrase *pct.v 8vv ("he who rises to rule the Gentiles" - Rom. Although

15:12) in place of "shall stand as an ensign to the peoples."

an ensign or banner may symbolize sovereignty over the nations, the idea of dominion is explicit only in the Septuagint. The reference to Israel's redemption may have suggested the future kingdom to Paul, but since Christ is already exercising his messianic rule and Gentiles are 53 seeking him, it is applicable to the present.

In Rom. 15:21 Paul again links his Gentile mission with the Servant Song of Isaiah 52-53. He justifies his philosophy of not building on another's foundation by Isaiah's prediction that the gospel should be proclaimed among the ignorant (Isa. 52:15). The context of Isa, 52-53 speaks of nations and kings who will hear of the sufferings of the Servant and be astonished; Paul transfers this prediction to the unevangelized nations of the Roman world.

241, thus correctly sees this as a proof 52. Schmidt, An die Rrner, p. Wilckens, Rorn. 12-16, p. 108, of a universal call to salvation. believes that Paul's emphasis is on davidic kingship, but this passage speaks of universal kingship. 53. See Ksemann, Rornans, p. 387.

- 215 -

Paul was able to quote and allude to Old Testament Scriptures in a way which implied that the kingdom was being partially fulfilled in the church. disputes. He had a Jews high regard for Scripture as an end to

Although in his epistles he does not use the Old Testament to 54 we can conjecture that this would prove that Jesus is the Messiah, have been the case in his missionary preaching. Paul and other

authors of the New Testament used passages which the Jews considered 55 messianic and passages which were not so regarded.

In rabbinic exegesis, theological arguments often rested on the atomizing of Old Testament texts, on the supposed theological significance of textual variants, or on conjectures about the etymological roots of words. Although Paul uses other methods which are

recognizably rabbinic, he generally refrains from these more myopic exegetical practices.

The conventional belief in the uniqueness of the the churchs application of eschatological texts to the present has of late been challenged by the discovery of the Qumran scrolls. This sect differed

from mainstream Judaism in that it believed that it constituted the godly remnant which God had raised up in the latter days. Because the

sectarians believed that they lived under the New Covenant, and because

4. Cf. Lindars, 55. Longenecker,

Ao1oetic, pp. .jcai Exegesis, p. 89.

247-50.

- 216 -

they believed Scripture was being immediately fulfilled in their community, it is important to compare their use of the Old Testament with Paul's.

At times the Qumran sectarians used the Old Testament literally, or in a way which gave a fresh application of a text to the present. But they could also find the divine fulfillment of an Old Testament text These texts included both eschatological and 56 non-eschatological scriptural passages. Through the Teacher of Righteousness they came to understand the encoded truth of the Old 57 Testament, based on the belief that the end was imminent. That which distinguishes the sectarians from Paul is that they almost always applied eschatologically-interpreted Scriptures to the (immediate) future of the sect (cf. their understanding of Zech. 13:7, the "strike the shepherd" saying, in CD 19:7-9). There are several scriptural quotations in the War Scroll, but they are for the use of the leader of the group in preparation for the final battle with darkness (cf. 1 OM 10-11). Thus the Qumran sect considered itself to be eschatological; it was not the recipient of divine salvation in fulfillment of the Old 58 Testament apart from the approaching Eschaton. in their experience.

According to 4QFlor 1:12, the coming of Isaiah's "Shoot" of David 59 is an eschatological event which will occur after the final victory.

56. See the analysis by Fitzmyer, "Explicit Quotations," pp. 57. Cf. Bruce, Biblical Exe9esis, pp. 9-17.

305-06.

58. So Brooke, Exegesis at Qunran, pp. 175-78. Cf. Fitzmyer, "Explicit Quotations," pp. 325-30 for a full discussion of the Old Testament citations. 59. Cf. Brooke, Exegesis at Queran, pp. 197205.

- 217 -

In the New Testament, Paul interprets Isa. 11 as pre-eschatological and as the basis for the pilgrimage of the nations to the true God before the end. In this sense he differs from Qumran: after the coming of

Jesus his Old Testament exegesis was not merely eschatological (in the original sense of the word) but also christological, in accordance with 60 the unfolding of salvation history and with the prophetic word.

0. Conclusions about Paul and the Old Testament

Paul's vocabulary was influenced by his constant exposure to the Old Testament, and therefore it is no surprise to find fragments of biblical language in all of his epistles. But he did not study the He desired to

Scriptures merely to improve his writing style.

understand the prophetic message in the light of Christ's coming and his own apostolic mission. When he wrote to churches in which there were

people (usually Jewish believers) who appreciated the importance of scriptural proof, he felt obliged to share his exegetical findings. Although at times he recalled the Old Testament simply to reiterate an eternal truth, many of his quotations and allusions reflect a keen awareness of the original. Paul thus drew from the prophets' literary

context and thematic development as well as from their actual words in order to demonstrate that Christ's coming is an inbreaking of God's kingdom. The coming of the kingdom results in a present fulfillment of

60. Cf. Bruce, Biblical Exeqesis, pp.

69-77.

- 218 -

(what were to Jewish thinking) eschatolagical gifts.

In his epistle to

the Romans, Paul's major concern in this regard is the conversion of Gentiles and the unrepentance of Israel. He therefore argues that in the Old Testament, Gentile salvation was thought to be a consequence of the coming of God; therefore Gentiles are now saved. Conversely, the

prophets also predicted Israel's rebelliousness before the coming of God, a state which would be alleviated by the eschatological coming of the Redeemer. Paul's study of the Scriptures causes him to solve the Jew/Gentile dilemma by thinking of coming of God's kingdom before the end in the person of Jesus.

- 219 -

III.

E9ti

9 t!!

p2!! 9

We have shown that Paul's study of the Old Testament allowed him to solve problems by reinterpreting the prophets. As a part of his

theology Paul developed a doctrine of the church. For Paul, the new people reflects both the prophecies of the kingdom and the life and sacrifice of Jesus.

At the heart of the church's self-conception is its consciousness that it is the people of the New Covenant. On the whole, the way in which Paul handled the Jewish eschatological hope shows a profound 61 awareness of the New Covenant concept.

61. Cf. van Unnik, "Nouvelle Alliance,' in Pauliennes, pp. 110-12; he overthrows the misconception that since Paul only uses the term in 1 Cor. 11:25 and 2 Cor. 3:6, therefore the New Covenant is of minor value for him. See also Furnish, 2 Corints, 199. Paul is clearly speaking of a concept with which his readers p. are familiar. Cf. Jaubert, La Notion d'Alliance dans le Judar e 1'r-e chrtienne, pp. 57-66, for a discussion of the Old Testament idea of the covenant. 40-41. Cf. also Rissi, Studien, p. Rissi rightly claims that Paul's interpretation of the Old Testament depended upon the church's understanding of the New Covenant in Christ: "Mit dem Kommen des Christus, mit den Anbruch des neuen Bundes, ist nun aber der alte Bund und damit das Alte Testament nicht einfach ungultig gemacht. Denn der alte Bund war bereits eingesetzt im Buck auf den neuen.

- 220 -

Jer. 31-32 and Ezek. 36 both contain predictions of an Jeremiah predicts a new covenant with the 62 houses of Israel and Judah. Unlike the Sinai covenant, Gd will supply with it the means for its fulfillment, by writing his law upon the 63 hearts of the people (31:33). The picture of universal knowledge of 64 God is taken from the similar section in Deut. 30:5, 6. eschatological covenant.

In Ezek. 36:22-32, the prophet Ezekiel predicts a covenant which 65 shares substantially the features of Jer. 31. Like Jeremiah, he 66 concentrates on the difficulty of obedience to the Law of 1oses. In speaking through the images of sprinkling, a new heart, and a new spirit he describes the kind of internal transformation which would enable 67 Israels obedience.

62. Thompson, while acknowledging that some attribute this section to a Deuteronomic editor, nevertheless points out the integral place the New Covenant has in the book. Cf. Thompson, pp. 579-80. Bright, pp. lv-lxxxv, 285 also contends for the basic authenticity of Jer. 30-31; including the New Covenant section in 31:31-34. 63. Cf. the exposition by von Rad, Message, pp. 181-86.

64. Thus Thompson, p. 581. Cf. Buis, La Notian dAlliance dans 1'Ancien lestarnent, pp. 182-84. He concludes that Jer. 32:37-41 is the same situation as written about in Jer. 31:31-34; in the Jer. 32 passage the idea of covenantal newness is implied if not explicit. 65. Contrast Thompsons potentially misleading remark concerning Jer. 31, that 'ths is the only reference to a new covenant in the Old Testament." Thompson, p. 579. 66. So Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 248.

67. Cf. W. D. Davies, in t Come. He demonstrates that the New Covenant idea in the Old Testament and in Judaism did not include an eschatological abolition or replacement of the Mosaic Law. The prophets simply predicted an eschatological infusion of divine enablement, presumably so that Israel could obey the Torah itself.

- 221 -

In the Old Testament the New Covenant was seen as an eschatological gift as well as the foundation for other kingdom blessings such as the return of Israel from Exile, the reunion of Israel 68 Paul and Judah, the Spirit, cleansing, forgiveness, and conversion. thought that Israel would experience the New Covenant in the Eschaton after the salvation of the "fullness of the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:26-27). The New Testament writers widely attest that Christ established the New Covenant through his death; this is reflected in the eucharistic tradition and in Heb. 8:8-12.

2 Cor. 3:1-7:1 reveals Paul s attitude toward the old covenant and his understanding of the New. It is evident that much of this section is based on Paul 's reflections upon Jer. 31-32, Ezek. 36-37 and Isa. 49-52. Paul believed that the New Covenant has come in the wake of the kingdom of God.

It seems likely that at least 2 Cor. 3:1-6:13 was originally a unity. There is wide consensus that 2 Cor. 6: 14-7:1 is an

interpolation; some suggest that it is a fragment of another Pauline 70 69 If 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 is an or a tradition taken from Qumran. epistle interpolation, our understanding of 2 Cor. 3:1-6:13 remains unchanged. In fact the use of the Old Testament in the fragment is appropriate to

68. Cf. the brief yet helpful discussion by P. Buis, d'Alliance, pp. 180-88. 69. Cf. 3. C. Hurd, Oriq
+ EL

Notion

Corinthians, pp.

235-39.

70. See Fitzmyer, "Oumran and the Interpolated Paragraph of 2 Cor. . DaM, "2 Cor. 6:14-7:1," 6:14-7:1," in Essays, pp. 216-17; also N. in Studies, p. 63; Martin, 2 Corinthians, p. 195. Fitzmyer thinks that the similarities between 6:14-7:1 and Qumran Essenism indicate that this is a concantenation of Old Testament texts from Qumran tradition.

- 222 -

what Paul says about the Old Testament beforehand; this may indicate 71 that Paul himself took over a Qumran tradition.

In 2 Cor. 3-6, Paul constructs a polemic against those who are 72 disturbing the Corinthian church. The apostle validates his Own ministry by showing firstly that the New Covenant is superior to the Old, and secondly that he is the minister of that New Covenant; therefore, his ministry is ordained by God at this point in history 73 (3:5-6).

In 3:1-3 Paul declares that the Corinthian Christians are the only 74 commendation that he needs. Paul here uses a As Mama Hooker notes, mixed metaphor: these Christians are like a living letter of authority; and they have God's law written on their hearts. The evidence of this

inner law is a result of the New Covenant, and thus validates Paul's apostolic ministry. The mixed background of the Corinthian Christians

means that the blessings of the New Covenant are available to all.

71. N. A. Dahl suggests that it was added by the same redactor who appended 2 Cor. 10-13 to the letter. Cf. DahI, "2 Cor. 6:14-7:1," p. 68. 72. There have been many attempts to reconstruct the theology of these false teachers; Hickling's suggestion that this is Paul's personal "It defense rather than a doctrinal polemic maybe nearest the truth. was not their beliefs that he was here controverting in addition to their slanders on his person and claims, but only the latter." Hickling, "Sequence of Thought," p. 381. Furnish, 2 CQrinthians, p. 197, doubts that Paul's emphasis on the New Covenant implies the presence of Judaizers in Corinth. 53; also Hering, 73. Cf. Martin, 2 Corinthians, p. p. 22, who stresses that service in the New Covenant is not by native endowment". 74. Hooker, "St. Paul's Use of Scripture," MiS 27 (1981), p. Martin, 2 Corinthians, p. 52. 296. Also

- 223 -

Paul teaches that the old covenant was superseded by the coming of 75 Christ, but he does not denigrate the Mosaic covenant. His point is that following the old covenant is to ignore what God has just done in 76 Christ. He desires to prove that the New Covenant not only corresponds generally to the Old Testament promises and typology, but also 77 establishes the expectations of the prophets. Thus in 3:3 he speaks of the law written upon the hearts of the people of God. Behind this picture lies Jer. 31:33, although the verbal similarity of Kcp6lc 78 acpKlv is with KUp6CUV apvv in Ezek. 36:26LXX.

The KcvtI x'ro of 2 Cor. 5:17 is the renewal in Christ" which 79 comes as a result of the New Covenant. It recalls the "new things" ( g rv) which God promised Israel in their return from Exile in Isa. 43: 1B-I9LXX; the apostle is relating salvation to Israel's return

75. Rissi, Studien, pp.

40-41.

119. Although the New Covenant pattern 76. See Dugandzic, Das "Ja", p. did not originally include the annuilment of the law of Moses (cf. von 182; Davies, Iorah) , Paul himself concludes that the Rad, Messg!, p. Contra P. E. Hughes, relationship of Christians to the law has changed. Second Co nthians, pp. 94-95, who believes that the New Covenant gives enablement to believers that they may obey the Old Testament law. 77. In this vein Rissi believes that Paul's opponents, while believing that Christ was God's servant, did not fully appreciate the fact that he eschatological revelation; thus, their christology was was 35. Rissi, Studien, p. deficient. 89-90; Barrett, 78. Cf. Hughes, Second Corinthians 3 pp. Corinthians, pp. 108-09; Hring, Second Corinthians, pp. econ 22-23.

79. Cf. Furnish, 2 Corinthians, pp. 314-15, who refutes Stuhlmachers opinion that the new creation is totally anthropological. Cf. Stuhimacher, "Erwgungen zum ontologischen Charakter der KVfl K'rtI, bei Paulus," EvI 27 (1967), pp. 1-35. Paul's teaching included the traditional cosmic hope of the new creation.

- 224 -

80 through the desert.

Paul cites Isa. 49:8 in 2 Cor. 6:2 in order to warn the Corinthians not to neglect the salvation which can be obtained at this 81 point in history. The context of Isa. 49:8 speaks of the work of the Servant who brings salvation not only to Israel, but also to the Gentiles (49:6). In Isa. 49:8 God tells the Servant that he has made him 82 a covenant for Israel. Paul states in 2 Cor. 5:20 that he speaks Unp 83 XpaToU; he is a co-worker with the Servant. By quoting this section of Isaiah he is linking both the New Covenant and his ministry to the 84 rule of God which is revealed in the Servant.

1 Cor. 11:25 is the only other explicit reference to the New Covenant. The saying about the cup of the New Covenant reflects the

80. So Hughes, Second Corinthians, p. 203, who points out that in Rev. 21:4+. the "new things" are still eschatological as well. 81. Cf. Hering, Second Corinthians, p. 46; Cullmann, Salvation in 169-70. History, pp. 254-55 Martin, 2 Corinthians, pp. 82. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah, p. to the nation. 188, applies this to Isaiahs ministry

83. This is substantially the same as the Lukan picture of Paul, who in Acts 13:47 applies Isa. 49:6 to his mission work. But contra Knight, 2 - 1L, pp. 185-86 who interprets the 'light" of Isa. 49:6 as Israel; thus Luke 2:32 and Acts 13:47 apply the text to aesus and Paul as members of the new Israel. 84. In fact, Paul goes on to allude to Isa. 49:13 in 2 Cor. 7:6; if this allusion appeared in isolation the phrase about the "God who comforts the afflicted" would likely be drawn from the pooi of Biblical phrases which make up a part of Paul s vocabulary. In this context however it corroborates the quotation of Isa. 49:8 in 6:2 and demonstrates that this prophecy was on Paul's mind (if not actually before him) while writing. This citation is, like the previous one, similar to the 224. Septuagint. See Martin, 2 Corinthians, p.

- 225 -

85 churchs belief in the atoning death of Jesus. In the synoptics the

meal is both an acknowledgment of Gods actions and an anticipation of 86 his coming with the kingdom. But Paul does not develop the connection between kingdom and Eucharist. In I Cor. 10 he compares Christian baptism with the Exodus and the Eucharist with the Passover, but he is drawing an analogy with history to illustrate his contention that 87 participation in the sacraments is not a guarantee of security.

The stress on the New Covenant in the early church is somewhat Both groups believed that 88 both considered Jer. 31 was fulfilled in their own experience; analogous to the theology of the Qumran sect. themselves the true people of God; both developed their self-awareness under the influence of eschatology. But there are major differences in

their theology of the New Covenant. The Oumran sect viewed itself not as a new people, but as the godly remnant of Israel. This remnant concept was made possible only by its belief that the age to come was imminent. The church (especially in Pauline thought) saw itself not strictly as the end-time remnant, but as the new people composed of Jews and Gentiles. Christ is enthroned in Zion (Isa. 11:10 in Rom. 15:12) and the Gentiles are flocking to him (cf. also Matt. 12:21).

The New Covenant in Qumran literature is not the New Covenant of which Paul speaks. In Christian thinking, the covenant was established

117-18, and our discussion of the New 85. Cf. Dugandzic, Das 'Ja", pp. Covenant in the teaching of the early church in Chapter Nine. 86. R. H. Fuller, Mission and Achievement, pp. 64-77. pp.

87. Cf. Goppelt, iypos, pp. 218-23; Conzelmann, . 39-40. 165-66; Wolff, !.Korintherbrief 1-7, pp. 88. Thompson, p. 580.

- 226 -

by God through the fulfillment of the Servants work. It was thus not a 89 renewal of the Torah, but a breaking away from the principle of legal righteousness. In Qumran theology, the Spirit was an aid to legal 90 obedience, while in Pauline thought the Spirit stood contrary to both 91 the law and the flesh. The "New Covenant" document of Qumran is an example of extreme legalism: God approved of the sect because of its obedience (cf. also CD 12-20). This is the very antithesis of Pauls teaching in 2 Cor. 3-6, where God renews both Jews and Gentile pagans to live in obedience to him.

Paul based much of his theology about the kingdom - the ultimate movement of God in history - upon the idea of the New Covenant. By predicting the eschatological conversion of Israel, he indicated that he still applied the New Covenant principle to Israel. But he also taught that through the death of Christ (1 Car. 11:25) the New Covenant already provides for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles. By faith all may receive the blessings of the New Covenant which were originally promised 92 The Spirit is given to to Israel, such as the Spirit and adoption. bind together the new people of Gad and to lead them away from the sin of the world into the bliss of kingdom life (Rain. 1417). It is this movement which Paul often described in terms of the New Exodus.

89. Jaubert, pp. 90. Jaubert, pp.

209-212. 243-45. See I QS 4:2-6.

91. Thus see W. D. Davies, "Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and the 181-82. See also the detailed discussion in G. R. Driver, Spirit," pp. The Judaean Scrolls, pp. 53240. 92. See van Unnik, "Nouvelle Alliance,' 1 pp. 123-24.

- 227 -

The New Exodus was one foundation upon which Paul built his 93 David Daube shows what an important pattern this kingdom theology. 94 was from Israel's history: At one time I planned to write on Patterns of Deliverance in the Bibles believing that there must be I soon discovered that several of about equal eminence. there was none remotely comparable to the exodus. That epic stands out in imposing its presuppositions and categories on others. L. Fisher lists four essential elements of this traditional 95 pattern: 1. It was a deliverance accomplished by Bod...2. It was a deliverance from bondage and oppression to the freedom It was a deliverance which God and dignity of sonship...3. It was a deliverance which accomplished through a man...4. created a lasting relationship between God and Israel, a relationship both of privilege and responsibility.
F.

Westermann states that "for Deutero-Isaiah the most important event in Israel's history was the Exodus....Ehe] proclaimed the release from 96 Babylon as a second Exodus." The removal of the Jews from Babylon is a clear example of a pilgrimage away from the oppressor through the desert. The stimulus for the New Exodus idea was the Passover

celebration: Sahlin notes that "...the feast was observed not only as an act of commemoration but still more as something which pointed forward

93. As affirms W. 0. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, p.

108.

94. Cf the introduction to Daube's The Exodus Pattern in the Bible, p. 11. 95. Fisher, "The New and Greater Exodus," pp. 96. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, p. 21. 69-70.

- 228 -

97 to a new and still greater deliverance." rnessiani The tendency to describe

salvation with New Exodus imagery grew more pronounced in the 98 priting5 of the rabbis and Qumran.

Paul often used the New Exodus motif to describe Christian 99 salvation. The work of Christ is its starting point: ".. .the death and resurrection of Christ have the same meaning for the Church as the 100 crossin g of the Red Sea has for Israel." Paul thought of the Christi a n Exodus as a New Exodus, and not just as a typological counterpart to the historical Exodus; thus he applied the Exodus prophecies of Isaiah to the church. This new nation has arisen because

of the introduction of the New Covenant; God has created a new race by joining together those who experience a common redemption.

The present form of 2 Car. 3-6 ends with an important allusion to the New Exodus pattern. 2 Car. 614-7:1 forms a unit of exhortation

97. Sahlin, "The New Exodus of Salvation according to St. Paul," p.

81.

98. Fisher, pp. 70-71. Cf. Gray, Reign of God, pp. 182-83, who thinks that beginning with Amos the concept of the New Exodus began to replace the autumn enthronement festival in importance. The idea of the New Exodus came to include a new possession of the land in deutero-Isaiah and Ezekiel, a New Covenant in Jeremiah, and also a new davidic King. 99. Although this is apparently restricted to the Roman and Corinthian epistles. Cf. R. E. Nixon, 24. Exodus in the New Testament, p. 100. Sahlin, p. 91.

- 229 -

101 about separating from evil. The list of Old Testament references in

6:16-18 form an independent message to which Paul or a redactor would need only to add the conclusion in 7:1: "Since we have these promises..." The "voxflow tv m1rro
Kc

t!inpncIfow" in 6:16 is taken

from Lev. 26:11-12, which speaks of the presence of God among those who obey the Mosaic covenant. Although the tradition is abrupt, it is a

fitting example of how the New Covenant can accomplish that divine presence which the Old Covenant offered upon condition. toojc* cdJTwv Bcd
KU1

The line "xc

c1i'ro

aovic

iou AcO" is paraphrased from Ezek.

37:27LXX and is introduced to explain the significance of the quotation from Lev. 26; its context in Ezekiel develops the idea of the cd.wvCa (37:26) from Ezekiel 36-37.

The greater part of the quotation in 6:17 mainly differs from Isa. 52:11 in word order; the last line is from Ezek. 20:34LXX, which is in a context similar to Isa. 52. Isa. 52 and Ezek. 20 were originally directed toward the exiles who would leave Babylon to return to the land. Both were presented with the imagery of the Second Exodus. Isa.

52:11 emphasizes that cleanliness should be a response to the saving action of God. Within the context of 2 Cor. 6: 14-7:1 it is used to stress the need for Christian rejection of the worlds evil.

101. Cf. Collange, Enigrne, pp. 303-04 for a catalogue of opinions on this section. It is thought to be authentic by Hughes, pp. 241-44. J. C. Hurd thinks it was a part of a "Previous Letter" to Corinth before 1 Corinthians. See Origin of. 1 Corinthians, pp. 235-39. Cf. the discussion in Schenke and Fischer, Einieitunq, I, pp. 117-18. The New Exodus themes in this passage correspond to the New Covenant teaching in the previous section. Thus in 6:14-7:1 was probably employed by Paul in this context; thus also Barrett, 194-95; Q t. ians, pp. Furnish, p. 383. A. Bultmann's commentary moves immediately and glowingly from 6:13 to 7:2. Bultmann, Second Corinthians, p. 177.

- 230 -

The reference in 2 Car. 6:18 may be taken from a number of Old Testament contexts. It is verbally similar to 2 Kgdms. 7:6LXX, but it

is also like Isa. 43:6LXX (which includes the reference to 'daughters' 102 If the words are taken from Isa. 43, its context as well as "sans"). too predicts Israel s return from the nations in the Second Exodus. 2 Car. 6:18 might then be an ethical foundation which is based on the same picture of salvation that is found in Col. 1:13.

The New Exodus is not lacking from other epistles in the Pauline corpus. Col. 1:13 is unique in that the present kingdom of Christ is

therein combined explicitly with the New Exodus. These are two elements which we know to be Pauline; their union here, perhaps by the apostle himself, is a fresh combination of two Pauline concepts. The Pastoral

epistles also seem to contain allusions to the New Exodus. 2 Tim. 2:13 ("the Lord knows those who are his") is from Num. 16:5, and Titus 2:14 alludes to Exod. 19:5 and Deut. 14:2. Other New Testament writings, notably 1 Peter and Revelation, also contain the New Exodus theme.

The fact that the Pauline composition of 2 Car. 6:17-7:1 and Col. 1:12-14 is disputed and that both have been traced to Qumran parallels does not weaken our proposal concerning the connection between the Exodus and the kingdom. In other, undisputed, passages (cf. Sahlin),

Paul presupposes a fulfillment of the prophesied New Exodus by the new people of God.

The church e s Exodus is not merely a metaphorical application of

51, Martin, 102. Contra Hring, Second Corinthians, p. 206-07, who assume that this is a paraphrase added by Paul to suit pp. his own view of sexual equality.

- 231 -

the Exodus from Egypt. FirstlyL Paul based the Exodus upon redemption in Christ; secondly, the Exodus is clearly connected to the death of Christ by the eucharistic tradition found in 1 Cor. 11:2; thirdly, Paul clearly understood the predictions of Isaiah 40-66 as a unity. If the

New Exodus in that work is based on the work of God and the announcement of his rule through the Servant, then it has in Paul's thinking been fulfilled in Christ. The church has been brought out of idolatry and cleansed by God, and is now enjoying the freedom of God's kingdom. realized work of God is balanced in Paul's mind with the forward movement of the church to its final goal in the age to come. This

When Paul taught that the church is travelling from this age to the age to come, he meant that it is following in Christ's movement from obedience to exaltation, from death to life. Paul (like Jesus) taught a

typically-apocalyptic pattern of present suffering and future glory. Apart from Paul's admonitions to endure suffering like Jesus, there is also an eschatological sense in which the believer will follow Christ s pattern. In Paul's letters, and indeed throughout the New Testament, we

find this order for the experience of Jesus: 1. Earthly Life: Obedient submission to God with the help of the Spirit; the partial revelation of the kingdom of God in his person and work. 2. Exaltation to Glory: Obedience to God resulting in death; resurrection and partaking of the divine glory; revealed to be the Son of God; exaltation to rule as Lord of the cosmos.

- 232 -

3.

Eschatological Rule: return in the Parousia and in glory; final stage of his rule resulting in the subjugation of the enemies of God; return of the kingdom to the Father.

As imitators of Christ, Christians proceed one step behind Christ. In effect, they began the first stage of the process as soon as Christ moved on to the second (i. e. , in his exaltation), thus: 1. Earthly Life: Submission to God with the help of the Spirit; the partial revelation of the kingdom of God through the rule of Christ and the work of the Spirit (Rom. 14:17). 2. Exaltation to Glory: Obedience to God which may result in loss of life; resurrection or transformation at the Parousia when Christ vindicates the church as his own people; partaking of Christs glory; exaltation to co-rule with Christ over creation in fulfillment of Psalm 8. Eschatological State: when Christ returns the kingdom to the Father, Christians continue as lords over creation under God.

3.

Rom. 8:12-17 and 2 Tim. 2:11-13 are clear examples of this pattern. The reason that Christians, the eschatological Judges of 103 angels, must suffer is precisely because they are members of Christ. Paul wrote I Thessalonians to Christians who were suffering for their faith (cf. also 2 Thess. ) , and it is here that he stressed the relationship between present suffering and future glory and kingdom The rabbis considered suffering not as an indication of a 104 righteous life, but generally as the result of some sin or as entry. expiation for Israel's sin. The apocalyptic writers thought that

suffering was for individual purification; Paul relegates this function to a position secondary to that of union with Christ.

103. Cf. the helpful development of this idea by Johnston, 'Kingdom of God Sayings,TM p. 145. 104. J. D. Hester, Inheritance, pp. 94-96. Hester desires to show how "non-rabbinic" Paul is in this area; he does not mention that this concept of present suffering/future bliss is found throughout the apocalyptic literature (e. g. , 4 Ezra 7:9-14).

- 233 -

In Phil. 2 Paul cites the hymn of Christ's suffering and exaltation under the heading " 'roo povCi v b1iv o rC v XpGT

'IqaoO" (Phil. 2:5). Whereas Paul emphasizes Christ's resurrection in 105 Rom. 1:3-4, in Philippians he stresses Christ's obedient suffering unto death as an example for Christian humility (cf. Phil 2:1-4).

Christians will co-rule with Christ on the basis of this pattern. 2 Tim. 2:12 is explicit: the author connects future rule with following Christ's example of submission. In 1 Corinthians, Paul's eschatological But by the same

hope is that Christians will judge in the future.

token, it is inappropriate for them to live as kings, even if this is their eschatological destiny (1 Cor. 4:8). No, suffering XpTdv is

appropriate for the present age (4:10), and Paul knows that the 106 Corinthians would do well to follow his example (4:16).

Paul believes that future life in the kingdom also follows the pattern of Christ: he was raised by the power of the Spirit and transformed into a glorious state to enter and rule in the kingdom. "Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom" applies to Christ and

105. So Stanley, Resurrection, pp.

163-65.

106. The book of Revelation has a similar theology of suffering for Christ. Some of the churches of Asia are suffering, and they are promised a share in the kingdom. The Laodiceans, who say "l1Aoa tp!" in this age (Rev. 3:17, cp. 1 Cor. 4:8 - "fl 6ri nou'rarc'") are told to abandon all in favor of obeying Christ. They are promised a share in his throne if they conquer (Rev. 3:21). As in 2 Tim. 2:11-13, the vindication of the martyrs comes in the final judgment (e.g. Rev. 6:9-11, 16:6, 17:6, 19:2) and in the messianic kingdom (Rev. 20:4-6). According to the gospels, the suffering/glory dualism was a part of Jesus' kingdom teaching. Thus, when James and John request thrones in the kingdom, Jesus replies with a call to suffering (cf. Mark 10:35-45 par.; also Luke 22:28-30; Mark 10:29-31 par.).

234

107 Christians. As says Rigauxi Si resurrection de Jsus et puissance de l'sprit se rencontrent dans l'acte eschatologique de Dieu, l'union de la condition des chrtiens a celle du Messie les entraine dans la meme mouvement eschatologique de la force divine.

Christians experience a partial revelation of the kingdom of God in a way similar to the working of the kingdom through Jesus' ministry. But this retracing of Jesus' movement by Christians is not divorced from Christ's present rule. It is through his lordship that the Spirit is It is Christ

sent; it is for his sake that Christians are to suffer.

who will transform Christians at the Parousia, when he manifests in himself the epiphany of God.

Paul viewed the church as the new people of God established before the end of the age. The church is not simply an eschatological remnant

before the Parousia (as at Qumran), but a nation established through past salvation history in Christ, a people united with their Lord through the Spirit's baptism. Its charter is the New Covenant in the

death of Christ. It is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles who receive the Spirit and are freed from the law. This nation also fulfills the

New Exodus motif of Old Testament expectation, not merely through a political deliverance from the nations, but through soteriological

107. Rigaux, "L'anticipation du salut eschatologique par 1 Esprit," p. 118.

- 235 -

redemption.

The members of this community live in the same pattern as They are called upon to suffer in

Jesus, its Saviour and prototype.

obedience to God and given the premise of future resurrection and sovereignty. But they are also given the benefits gained through the

coming of the kingdom in Christ.

- 236 -

IV. IP! ic9rY PY

I I1!P.

!1

9 1ir

The church has submitted to the Lord before the end of history and has escaped Gods condemnation. But Paul teaches that Christs rule is

not only concerned with humanity; his dominion will include the cosmic enemies of God. In 1 Cor. 15:25 Paul says that "he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet"; in Col. 2:15 it is said that "he disarmed the Principalities and Powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him"; Eph. 1:20-21 says that God "made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion," while Eph. 6:12 says that the churchs battle is "against the Principalities, against the Powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." The two most important

questions in this field are: (1) what are the Powers? and (2) when does Christ completely destroy them?

There have been several modern authors who have proposed that the Principalities and Powers are not the angels of traditional understanding. Such an interpretation is popular especially among those

who advocate political and social liberation from the oppressive 108 "structures" of society. W. Wink takes the relatively moderate view

lOB. This "power structures" view seems to be held by Froitzheim, 153-54. g !2919 g !!, pp.

- 237 -

that Paul's Powers are "power structures" which nevertheless are 109 energized by some kind of cosmic force of evil. He concludes from 110 Col. 1:20 that the Powers will be eschatologically reconciled to God.

There is a great deal of evidence to show that Paul is teaching 111 the existence of angelic cosmic beings. M. Barth asserts that Paul is distinctively late Jewish in his approach to the Powers, and is paralleled by the literature of the Old Testament, apocalyptic, and Qumran. The titles which he gives to these beings are not easily 112 definable, but they are recognizably Jewish.

Although the Powers are most likely angelic beings, some have suggested that the idea of evil angels was foreign to Jewish theology of the first century. Gnilka asserts that only in Gentile Hellenism were Since Eph. 6:12 speaks of believers

they imagined as hostile.

them in battle, the author of the letter must have drawn his view of

109. Wink, Narnin the Powers: Lagg La t Testament, p. 3; he refuses to define "Powers", claiming that N. Perrin has demonstrated that it is impossible to define a myth! 110. Wink,

pp.

50-55.

111. Cf. the older discussions by Strack and Billerbeck, III, pp. 581-83; Mupner, Christus, pp. 12-27. 112. See the full discussion by Barth, L-, pp. 170-83. Barth goes on to say that modern people cannot accept the existence of such beings, and that Pauls true intention was to describe "those institutions and structures by which earthly matters and invisible realms are administered," that is, societal structures, science, psychology, politics. But Barth's de-mythologizing application of Pauline thinking to today does not preclude that Paul actually believed in spiritual Powers.

- 238 -

113 Christ's enthronement from Hellenistic ideas.

Gnilka is hardly convincing in his analysis of the Powers, and he concedes that evil angels are prominent in Qumran literature. Thus, it

seems clear that the Powers in Eph. 6 are evil heavenly beings whereas those in Eph. 1 are angels in general. Gnilka is un j ustified in

removing the picture of Christ's exaltation in Eph. 1 from the realm of Jewish imagery. It is similar to the picture of the Son of Man in the 114 of Enoch. The session at the right hand is derived from

Ps. 110. Thus the author takes over the christological hymn in order to have his readers understand that no being escapes Christ's control. This is the same approach which is taken in Ram. 8:38 and 1 Pet. 3:22, in which the generic title titles. yy?o is used with other, more specific,

In 1 Car. 15:24-28 Paul states that Christ will destroy or abolish (xicpyt) the enemies of God after the Parousia (15:24), when God places his enemies UnO 'roO nd6c c'ro (15:25, 26). Paul bases this eschatological expectation and the "under his feet" phrase upon Ps. 8:6. The last of the enemies is death, and in 1 Car. 15 Paul finds its

95-96. This opinion is quite different 113w Gnilka, Eheerbrief, pp. from that expressed by Cerfaux, tst, pp. 99-105, who pictures Eph. as referring to good angels, and Eph. 6 to evil. See also the radical proposals by W. Carr, Angels i;!paiities; Carr believes that the idea of "evil angels" is a late development and does not appear in the Pauline literature; he therefore interprets the enemies of God in 1 Car. 15:24-28 as human powers. In order to support his theme, Carr is forced into a great deal of extreme redating and reinterpretation. For example, he labels Eph. 6: 10ff. as a later interpolation. He also disregards much of the New Testament, including the gospel traditions about demons. Contra Schlier, efli2 aiities 13-16, pp. who defends the view that the Powers are evil angels. 114. Cf. M. Black, "floc. touaCc 77-81. pp. cdvr Unorcyioovrc," in Paul ad

- 239 -

destruction in resurrection.

In Eph. 1:15-23 the author develops the ascension and kingdom of Christ in order to address the problem of fighting the enemies of God (not especially 8&vTo. He too draws upon Ps. 8:6 and Ps. 110:1. God seated Christ Unp*vw all of his enemies (Eph. 1:21) and gave him a name above all other names. The phrase from Ps. 8:6 is placed parallel to
TT tKKqa

the statement that God gave Christ to be Kc4cOflv inp n(v7c (Eph. 1:22).

Our interest in these two passages concerns time: when does Christ achieve complete victory over God's enemies? This is not merely an exercise in harmonizing possible Pauline parallels; even within Ephesians there is tension between realized and eschatological victory over the Powers.

According to some, Eph. 1 is a later development of 1 Cor. 15:24-28 (and the intermediate Col. 1:16, 2:10, and 2:15). Snilka and others claim that rather than achieving the final victory at the Parousia, Christ becomes supreme at his ascension (1:21); the Principalities and Powers are totally defeated in a non-eschatological 115 heavenly victory.

It must be noted, however, that the elevation of Christ over the Powers in Ephesians does not result in their immediate annihilation. They still exercise influence over world affairs and in the spiritual realm (Eph. 2:2, 6:12). Gourgues, for example, concludes that Eph. 1 and

115. See Gnilka, Eheserbrjef, pp. 96-97; Steinmetz, pp. 84-85; Merklein, "Rezeption," pp. 40-44; Schnackenburg, E 2 heser , pp. 76-78.

- 240 -

1 Cor. 15 need to be examined in terms of the "already/not yet" 116 dialectic: La perspective du d1 ne pose pas des difficults ici puisqu'il ny est pas question "danantissement" des Puissances, mais seulement d'une suprioriti et d'une domination a leur gard ce qui nimplique pas ncessairement Ia manifestation dune victoire definitive (emphasis the author s)

We would suggest that the relationship of Eph. 1 to 1 Cor. 15 is slightly different, since this present/future tension exists not just between Ephesians and 1 Corinthians, but also within Ephesians itself: the rule of Christ is consummated only in the future according to Eph. 117 1:10.

The key to understanding the tension between I Corinthians and Ephesians is rather that the purpose of Eph. 1 is different from that of 1 Cor. 15. In Corinth some doubted the bodily resurrection through the influence of Hellenistic philosophy. Pauls plan was to convince them

of the fundamental importance of future physical resurrection based on the raising of Christ and on the creation of the new humanity. To that

end, he mentions the kingdom of Christ for a polemical purpose: to demonstrate that the aim of his dominion (and the concomitant salvation-historical plan of God) is to destroy Bcvcro without

resurrection the lordship of Christ would be emptied of significance.

116. Gourgues, A la droite de Dieu, p. 69. See also the discussion of Ps. 110:1 by Lincoln, 'The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians," JSNT 14 (1982), pp. 40-42. 117. Contra Gnilka, E a heserbrief , p. 96, who thinks that this is too ecclesiastically conceived to be an eschatological event. But this is to limit the possible connection between the church and the Eschaton in the epistle. The epistle to the Hebrews has the same tension: the author locates the fulfillment of Ps. 1I0:la in the past (1:13), and that of Ps. 110:lb in the future (1:13, 10:13).

- 241 -

The purpose of Eph. 1

s quite different; the author is trying to

prepare believers for the battle to which they are summoned in Eph. 6. In Eph. 1 (as in 1 Cor. 15) Christ's resurrection and exaltation are preeminent (Eph. I stresses the latter more). Mthough the author of

Ephesians does not explicitly mention the end-time resurrection, he does pray that the Ephesians may come to understand three things (1:18-19): ?nC r) K)flow cdi'roU, 1. fl
2. b

n?oGio iF1 6d.q ifj

povoiCc ct,'roU uvIcw c*Li'roU

v oc xyoLc, L ic
TO1c flaTOVTC*

3.

'rO brrpp&?Xov i'8c 'r

1l three of these blessings are related to the future and yet presently affect the life of the Christian. Even Gnilka concludes that while Christians are partly experiencing these blessings in the present, they are according to 1:13-14 fulfilled in the future: "Dennoch sind das Erreichte und die Vollendung nicht ems. 118 kanri noch verfehit werden." Die ?nC als Hoffnungsgut

The third point of this petition leads in to what is possibly a 119 traditional christological hymn (1:20-23). In 1:19 the 'ivcqi which is effective in present Christian experience is connected with
T)V

vEpycv 'ro'J KpL'rou 'rfj toxtoc

ftJTOu

the insurmountable power of God

which corresponds qualitatively to the power by which he raised (and enthroned) Christ, that which is in Pauline thought the equivalent of kingdom power.

This information is useful in understanding the difference between 1 Corinthians and Ephesians. We have seen that God sometimes subdues his

118. Gnilka, Eheserbrief, p. 119. Cf. Gnilka, pp.

92.

93-94 for a full discussion.

242 -

enemies through resurrection.

In 1 Cor. 15, the resurrection is not so

much Christ's as it is the Christians'. The r?o of 1524 is related directly to the final annihilation of death as the ultimate enemy. Paul

stresses that the victory predicted in the psalms is only fulfilled 120 eschatologically as it affects mankind. When Paul speaks of nv'rc 'roJ t8poU, he is not thinking of cosmic beings as such; he is thinking of death, which is one of God's enemies and therefore is properly subsumed under the prediction of Ps. B. Paul simply does not mention when it is that all of the other 8pol are defeated, except

that they must be sub j ected (uno'roaw) and destroyed (Kcerpyw) sometime before the destruction of death (in resurrection). Paul simply desires

to show that bodily resurrection is an assured eschatological event.

Needless to say, the issue in Ephesians is not the resurrection of the individual. Whereas in 1 Corinthians the issue is the destruction

of death through resurrection, here the believer is inquiring about his relationship to the cosmic Powers (that is, the enemies of God other than death). Since the answer to this query is also to be found in the

kingdom of Christ, the author is free to use the Pauline interpretation of Ps. 8; the one doctrine answers problems with any enemy of God, whether it be a cosmic Power or Bvo.

It is clear that many of the differences between these two passages are due to the type of enemy which is at issue. problem of when Gods enemies are destroyed remains. But the

As we have

120. Contra G. Barth, An die Phi1ier, p. 48, who holds that this is an eschatological reservation of the final establishment of the kingdom until the Parousia; Paul is thus speaking against the kingdom which in Hellenistic enthusiasm is presently experienced.

- 243 -

mentioned, in 1 Cor. 15 Paul states or implies the following (we make explicit the sense of the verb tenses):

- Christ will have destroyed (xcrupytw) all of Gods enemies by the time of the consummation (15:24). - Christ will destroy (xc*'rc*pyw) death as the last act of his rule (15:26). - Christ will have subjected (bnoTaaw = put under font) all things by the time he transfers the kingdom to the Father. Again, death is presumed to be the last to be subjected (15:27-28).

In these epistles tsno'raow has the sense of "subjecting". Delling 121 believes this verb is a counterpart to aw and its equivalents. 122 It denotes involuntarily entering into the kingdom of Christ. Kc*ic*pytw may be translated as "to make completely inoperative" or "to put out of use." However, with regard to 1 Cor. 15, Delling says that

"the provisional disarming of demonic Powers...wiIl obviously end with 123 their complete destruction at the parousia."

It is significant, therefore, that in Eph. 1 the enemies of God are not now "destroyed" (xcrcpyw), even though in 1:22 they are "subjected" (tjno1aaw) to the Lord at the point of his resurrection and exaltation. Although Christ is above ('unpcvw) these beings (cf. 1:21, By

Col . 2:10), they are neither destroyed nor completely disarmed.

implication the spiritual resurrection of Eph. 2:4-6 is not as effective against the enemies of God as the future physical one. In 1 Cor. 15

death ceases to be a threat in the Eschaton this gift is still

121. G. Delling, "UnoTuow, x.r..," IQ N I, VIII, pp. 122. Ibid. 123. 6. Delling, "tpy, K.T.).," IDNT, I, p. 454.

41-42.

- 244 -

outstanding in Ephesians. Cosmic enemies are destroyed in the age to come in 1 Car. 15, and they still menace Christians in this age in Eph. 124 2:2 and 6:10-12.

On the other hand, knowing that they are 'in Christ" in his resurrection and enthronement (1:15-2:7) must have been a great help to the readers of Ephesians in their battle against powerful spiritual forces. They could know that it was for the church (cf. the use of the

dative in 1:22) that Christ was raised and exalted, and it was this kingdom power which worked in them. In the present age, therefore, the Even though the

eschatological victory has not been consummated.

Ephesian Christians could regard themselves as spiritually raised, this was no substitute for the final victory. Spiritual resurrection brings

no assurance of the church's ability to destroy the Powers, but only the 125 divine authority to put them into temporary retreat.

The similarity of Eph. 1 to Phil. 2 should likewise be obvious. In that hymn, which Paul may have borrowed from tradition, it is said that God exalted Christ above all and bestowed upon him the Name above all names (Phil. 2:9). In comparing Phil. 2:9-11 with Eph. 1:20-23, l3nilka notes that in all respects they are alike except that in Eph. 1 126 those over which Christ is superior include cosmic Powers. The hymn of Phil. 2:6-11 speaks of the acknowledgement of Christ as Lard by all.

24. This view is held by Schweitzer, gd gf. God, pp. 157-59; chlier, Princi2alitie, pp. 46-47; Loader, "Ps. 110:1," pp. 20B-09. f. also Heb. 2:8, in which there is a much clearer statement concerning he church and the Powers: the authors solution to the cosmic tension ,s " vtv 6 orjiiti bnv b'rUp 'r ncv'rc tinoiyivc." 125. Cf. Gnilka, Eheserbrief, p. 126. Cf. Gnilka, Eheserbrief, p. 95. 95.

- 245 -

This includes all heavenly and netherworidly beings as well as human 127 bei ngs.

One common misunderstanding is the belief that Eph. 1:2022 must be read in the light of 1 Car. 15:24-28. Although 1 Corinthians is the earlier epistle, it does not follow that Paul's discussion there is the earlier idea. There is a good deal of evidence, however, that Paul

developed his argument for resurrection from the christology which was known to all of the churches of the Hellenistic world and which he himself accepted (based on Ps. 11O:la). Upon this basis he then argued for physical resurrection with the help of known christology (based on Ps. i1O:lb).

In Phil. 2:6-11 Paul probably quotes a tradition which was known Despite theories of Pauline redaction by some modern to his readers. 128 it seems clear that Paul saw nothing in this hymn scholars, offensive enough to prevent him from casually inserting it into an epistle merely to reinforce a lesson on humility. A radical reworking

of the tradition would have overweighted the simple admonition of 2:1-5. Paul's ostensibly casual acceptance of this hymn in Phil. 2:6-11 corresponds to the christology found throughout his epistles. For Paul, Christ is even now the

KIipo over the Hellenistic deities (1 Cor. 8:6).

Paul's teaching in Roe. B closely matches the teaching of Eph. 1,

53. Contra 6. Barth, An dj p. 127. Cf. 0. Hofius, 44, who regards this as a reference purely to the angelic p hili2Eer, p. world. c 6c*v 8o 128. Particularly concerning the possibility that Cf. E. Schweizer, ncerp" is a Pauline gloss. 89; cf. 373; Ksemann, "Kritisch Analyse,, 11 p. 93, n. ErhOhung, p. 272-78. the review of literature in Martin, ChritJ.., pp.

- 246 -

and not merely in its pneumatology.

The resurrected Christ is at the

right hand and intercedes for Christians (8:34). This work results partly in the assurance that angelic Powers (8:38) cannot separate believers from God's love. In Ephesians the inner unity of the church

with God's love is developed not in the christological hymn in Eph. I but rather in the prayer of Eph. 3:14-21 (although the church's representation of God's grace to angelic Powers is mentioned in 3:10).

Although Colossians and Ephesians were written to emphasize a cosmic christology, it must be remembered that Christ's exaltation and decisive victory over the Powers is the universal confession of the New 129 Testament writers. At the same time the New Testament literature also reflects the belief that the evil angels are not completely vanquished; this is especially clear in Ephesians and Revelation.

Thus, 1 Cor. 15:24-28 is unusual within the New Testament and within the Pauline corpus. When the apostle states that all of God's

enemies will be destroyed only in the coming age, he has two things in mind. First, he knows that Christ's victory over death is decisively to

be found in his resurrection, but that the final victory is eschatological (cf. also Rom. 8). Second, while Christ's exaltation over the Powers is past, their destruction is future. The ambiguity here is

caused by Paul's personification of Thanatos as an enemy of God, and by

129. This is acknowledged in Rom. 8:38; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:15-20, 2:10; Eph. 1:20-22, 3:10; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 5:6-14. Cf. Gourgues, pp. 69-73.

- 247 -

his fresh interpretive application of Ps. 110:lb to Thanatos rather than 130 simply to angels. N. Barth suggests that the author of Ephesians modified the idea of 1 Cor. 15 by stressing Ps. 8 over Ps. 110 so as to 131 emphasize the present victory of Christ. While Barth's observation about the use of the psalms in Eph. 1 is correct, his analysis is not: the New Testament writers always applied these psalms to the present when speaking about Christ's victory. It was Paul alone who altered

that idea by means of a futuristic emphasis upon Ps. 110:lb. His purpose is not to reserve to the end Christ's exaltation over angels, but rather his destruction of death in physical resurrection.

To summarize, Eph. 1 and 1 Cor. 15 are both variations of the church's belief that Christ is the exalted Lord over all. The author of

Ephesians emphasized the enthronement in order to give aid to the Christians in Eph. 6. Paul modified the concept by means of a new reading of Ps. 110:1 for polemical reasons to speak of the destruction of death.

130. Cf. Loader, "Ps. 110:1," pp. 208-29, who notes that Ps. 8 and Ps. 110 are already in tension within 1 Cor. 15:24-28. 131. Barth, E2hesians 1-3, p. 153, n. 46.

- 248 -

Conclusi on

The kingdom of Christ is no mere confession on the lips of Christians. Rather, it is a revelation of God's will and sovereignty which results in the fulfillment of his promises. He pours out his

power on his new people and accomplishes the ancient predictions, and in this way the church can understand its relationship to saving history. In the heavenly realm Christ breaks the authority and control of evil powers over the cosmos for the benefit of the church.

When we view Christ's kingdom from the standpoint of its results, two things become clear. past. Firstly, the rule of Christ points toward the

It fulfills the promise of salvation, but it is based upon God'5

exaltation of Christ. Secondly, the kingdom of Christ points toward the future. It is in itself a pledge of things to come. Only in the future

age will this rule consummate in the full revelation of God's power, the fulfillment of all divine promises, the resurrection and enthronement of God's people, and the utter destruction of all of God's enemies. Paul

urges his readers to look to the past, to anticipate the future, and above all to revel in their consciousness of Christ's present kingdom.

- 249 -

CHAPTER SIX:

THE PREACHING OF THE KINGDOM AND THE PAULINE KERYGMA

Introduc t ion

The synoptic evangelist5 often summarize the message of Jesus as "preaching the kingdom." By this is meant not only that he

announced the coming of God's kingdom; he also taught how people could find salvation, and demonstrated God's rule with miracles and exorcisms. He proclaimed both the ua).C itself and its meaning.

We have concluded from Paul's letters that the theme of the kingdom was for him both meaningful and teachable. Whether he used the

exact term "caXcc" or not, his doctrine partly consisted of unpacking the significance of God's rule and Christ's supremacy for the church.

It is still necessary, however, to ask in what way the

acCc

was the object of Paul's missionary preaching and his early teaching of the churches he founded. about preaching the The author of Acts records that Paul went

just as Jesus had, but this testimony has 2 been disputed as late and tendentious. Our plan will be to examine Paul's epistles (as well as the disputed Colossians) , and ask whether or not he proclaimed the aXcLc and the kingdom concept. We will then

aXC

examine the Acts record in order to compare its claims for the apostle with Paul's claims for himself.

1. Mark 1:15; Matt. 4:17, 23, 9:35, 13:19; Luke 4:43, 8:1, 9:11, 1:16.

Ib!i-P!f!,

2. Cf., for example, the ironic criticisms given by von Dobschtz, 102. p.

- 250 -

I.

It is possible to glean information about the relationship between "cacc*" and the kerygma from a variety of sources: from epistles to churches which Paul had founded, and those to churches which he had not founded; from Col. 4:11 and Rom. 15:7-22; finally, from Paul s self-conception as a preacher to the Gentiles in fulfillment of the Old Testament.

In 1 Thessalonians (cf. also 2 Thessalonians) Paul implies that he spoke to the Thessalonjan believers about the c*a?tc 'roO 8oU during his original tour of Macedonia. He probably penned 1 Thessalonians directly after this first visit; if he wrote the canonical second letter

- 251 -

3 to that church, it is likely that he did so a short time later. In

both epistles the author promises that believers will enter the future kingdom as a result of favorable divine Judgment. Paul's literary

freedom to use pcLXlc does not prove beyond doubt that he employed pcac in his preaching in Thessalonica, but it is reasonable to conclude that this was the case. By his casual insertion of puaLc*

into his discussion, Paul implies that the Thessalonian Christians are familiar with the kingdom as the Final Realm, which is established by the return of Christ (1 Thess. 1:10, 2:19, 3:13, 4:13, 5:3, 5:9, 10). It is likely that Paul's original proclamation to this Macedonian audience included both information about the Future Realm of Salvation and instruction on how to enter that realm.

There are also hints in Galatians and 1 Corinthians that Paul employed kingdom language in his preaching to these churches. In Gal.

5:21 he reminds the Galatians that evil-doers will not inherit the eschatological kingdom, and he begins with: "tx npo?yw )iiGv Kc8ti npocnov." The verb npoyw means "to tell beforehand" or "in advance"

in this context it carries the force of "to warn" and gives Paul's o.Cc saying the character of a prophetic warning about the Eschaton. The significance of npocnov for our purposes is that Paul is explicitly stating that he has previously given this warning to the Galatians,

3. Cf. Kmmel, Introduction, pp. 263-64 for a discussion of the chronological sequence of the two letters. He argues that the canonical order is correct and that Paul was the author of both (pp. 264-69). Schenke and Fischer, Einieitung, I, pp. 65-74, allow the possibility that our 1 Thessalonians is a composite of fragments of Pauline correspondence, but the complexity of this reconstruction makes that suggestion improbable. At any rate, they would place 1 Thess. 2:12 within the earliest epistle (p. 68). They label 2 Thessaloriians as non-Pauline (pp. 194-95).

- 252 -

4 either by letter or, most likely, on his missionary visit to Galatia. Paul is not simply stating that he had warned them generally about God's future judgment upon sin; as implied in the position of the npoAyw phrase, it is specifically exclusion from the 5 spoke. Lc of which he

Unlike Paul's proclamation of the

Cc to the Thessalonians,

which evidently took place during his first visit to that city, it is not clear at what point he taught the Salatians about eschatalogical exclusion. Both the relative frequency of Paul's visits to Galatia and

the repetitive nature of missionary preaching make it impossible to state at what point Paul would have introduced the "exclusion" formula 6 to the Christians there.

The role of the exclusion formula in Paul 's preaching was

4. Cf. the discussion of the North and South Galatian theories in 85-88. Their arguments for a North Galatian Schenke and Fischer, 1, pp. destination of the epistle are not compelling. Kummel, Introduction, 296-98, takes the South Galatian view as the most reasonable, and pp. suggests that Paul wrote the Galatian epistle during his third journey, either from Ephesus or Macedonia (p. 304). 5. The possibility of exclusion from the kingdom is one of the few concepts which Paul implies were part of his earlier teaching to the Galatians. We can deduce from the epistle that he told them about the gospel (1:6-9, 11, 4:13); he informed them about his "former life in Judaism" (1:13-14); he portrayed "Christ crucified" (3:1); he taught something about the Spirit (3:2), baptism (3:27), and freedom from the law (5:13). 6. According to Acts 14:22, kingdom teaching was indeed a part of Paul's earliest teaching to the Galatian convertst "6 no?iv 8Xywv 6 tac?Bv Luke attributes to Paul a . r?v pc*accv io 8oO." teaching which is not specifically Christian, but fits in j ust well with Judaism. Since the same could be argued for Gal. 5:21, it becomes clear that the Jewish-style formula in the epistle is Christian by means of Paul's integration of the theme of the age to come into his soteriology. The two formulas of Acts 14:22 and Gal. 5:21 are the positive and negative sides of entering the eschatological kingdom of God.

- 253 -

two-fold.

It was designed primarily to be evangelistic, but in his

letter to the Galatians he uses it to warn Christians that they are not to live in Gentile wickedness.

According to Acts, the apostle visited Corinth once on his second journey (Acts 18:1-18) and that he stayed there i . pc tKcv? (18:18).

This testimony is quite credible considering the depth of the theology which Paul broaches in the Corinthian epistles. The epistle was

probably written after Paul had only paid one visit of substantial 7 length to Corinth.

In 1 Cor. 6:9-10 Paul uses the rhetorical interrogative oUx o6wrc in a way which indicates that the Corinthians were familiar with the exclusion formula and its significance. So once again, it is probable

that Paul used the exclusion formula as part of his teaching within the Corinthian church. It also seems clear that in his epistle he is

imposing a secondary application on the formula (in 6:11) by indicating that believers have been removed from the category of those who will riot inherit the kingdom.

Throughout 1 Corinthians, Paul reveals that the Corinthians could understand aXcCc in contexts other than evangelistic. In 1 Cor.

4:20, Paul uses pua?cCc in a polemical definition.

Although he does

not state that the Corinthians already knew that the kingdom of God is the revelation of divine power in preaching, it is suggestive that he introduces the antithetical formula in such a matter-of-fact manner:

7. Thus KUmmel, Introduction, pp. 278-79. Paul seems to have written at least one letter previous to 1 Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9-11). It is also quite possible that Paul had made at least one shorter visit to Corinth.

- 254 -

Paul seemed to believe that the sentence would be intelligible enough to introduce it at the decisive point of his argument without explanation or fear of misunderstanding. So then, the balance of information

indicates that Paul had taught the Corinthian church about the dynamic outworking of God's kingdom in Christian experience. This doctrine

presumably would have been a part of Christian instruction, rather than of evangelistic preaching.

Paul also speaks about the mediating kingdom of Christ in I Cot. 15:24-28. Here he is not so much teaching eschatology, as he is using eschatalogy to prove the reality of future physical resurrection. logically would not have introduced a new doctrine here in order to prove a disputed point. His careful argumentation throughout 1 Car. 15 Paul

indicates that he is adducing points of dogma on which all Christians should agree (starting with the gospel), in order to show that the purpose of the kingdom of Christ is to defeat death.

In 1 Cor. 15:50 3 Paul introduces the kingdom statement with 'IOUTO 6t 4i .ii.' ; he is introducing a familiar formula in order to prove the Although his argument in I

necessity of eschatological resurrection.

Car. 15:50 is therefore similar to his polemical use of kingdom theology in 15:24-28, in 15:50 it is the form which is old, and the application which is new.

It could be objected that Paul s use of

o?c* dues not

necessarily imply that he used the term meaningfully in his preaching. His epistolary kingdom teaching could have been one of the "6uavdrrr( rivc" mentioned in 2 Pet, 3:16. But it seems more reasonable to suppose that Paul actually did preach the kingdom. After all, he mentions the

- 255 -

lc in letters to all of his major missionary fields (Galatia, 8 There Achaia, Macedonia, possibly Asia ) without a word of explanation. are traditions in both Acts and Colossians which suggest that he spoke of the kingdom in his evangelistic teaching. Finally, Paul was usually

misunderstood (even in his own day) for his teaching on law and grace. Although the Corinthians may possibly have twisted Paul's own teaching of the kingdom, this was not due to Paul's silence on that subject (nor on the subject of resurrection), but to the influence of extra-Pauline ideas.

So then, there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that Paul did indeed preach about the at.?cc and taught ideas which

correspond to our own analysis of what constitutes Paul's kingdom concept. In his capacity as evangelist, he taught both Jews and

Gentiles that the kingdom was the future realm of God's salvation, that evil deeds would exclude them from this kingdom, and that it was through repentance and faith in Christ apart from the law that they could enter into it. At some point he taught the new disciples that Christ was

ruling in this age, and perhaps also that Christ's kingdom would be subsumed into the final realm of God. He probably also taught that the kingdom is not simply an end-time realm, but that God's sovereignty is presently manifested through Christ's lordship in the church.

8. According to Acts 19, Paul spent a great deal of time in Ephesus during his third journey, and we have noted that Luke twice states that he spoke to them about the kingdom of God (19:8, 20:25). In the disputed letter to the Ephesians, there is no indication that "Paul" is talking In Eph. 5:5 the about things they would have known from his message. inheritance formula is introduced by 'roOio y&p 'Cor yvbaKov'r, in a way which does not indicate whether they had heard this before, although they would certainly have some idea about the future kingdom if the at all useful. formula

- 256 -

B. The Use of Bc .X(c in Romans and Colosians

We have inferred from some epistles that Paul preached the pcaXcc, and also that his readers were familiar with such language through contact with him. This inference runs into some difficulty, Cc in Romans and

however, when one examines the incidence of pc*a

Colossians. Both of these letters were written ostensibly to churches which Paul had not visited, and yet both are replete with kingdom language.

Within the epistle to the Romans, Paul uses an antithetical definition of the kingdom of God (Rom. 14:17); he also discusses the intricacies of Christ's present rule with regard to the interpretation of the Old Testament, his Gentile mission, and the new creation. He

thus connects kingdom theology both to salvation history and to the Eschaton.

It is unclear how Paul came to find out about the Roman church, and how much he knew of its theology. The uncertainty which still

surrounds the founding of this church makes it impossible for us to draw any firm conclusions. It does not appear likely that the church was

- 257 -

9 founded by an associate of Paul. It is logical to assume that Paul

learned about this church from some of his acquaintances (e.g., Aquila and Priscilla are said to have traveled from Rome to Corinth in Acts 18:2). Thus Paul probably had only a general knowledge of the state of the church and its doctrine. He may have been laying the foundation for

a future visit by presenting the full outline of his message in order to confirm that the church would be in agreement with his teaching and his 10 ml ssi on.

The same problem arises if Colossians is Pauline. Unlike Romans, this epistle contains an elaborate description of how the apostle purportedly came to know about this church: the Colossian Christians had heard the message from Epaphras (Col. 1:7-8, 4:12), who in Cal. 1:7 is called Paul's ov6ouAo. According to the epistle, Paul's knowledge of the church and its doctrine allows the author to pronounce an elaborate blessing based on their transferral into the kingdom of the Son (Cal. 1:13). He also speaks of the Pauline co-workers in the kingdom in Col. 4:11.

We may therefore conclude that within these two epistles there is a slight tension between the state of the historical church, and the author's opinion that the church would understand a theological explication of the meaning of the kingdom. In the epistle to the

9. The extensiveness of the list of greeting which now appears in Rom. 16 would indicate that Paul knew many individual members of the Roman congregation, but this may have originally been a note to Ephesus or another Pauline church. Although Cf. Kmmel, Introdudion, pp. 314-320; he accepts Rom. 16:1-23 as original. See also our discussion Df Rom. 16 in Chapter Four. 10. Cf. KUmmel, IntroductiQo, pp. 311-14.

- 258 -

Romans, Paul's lack of personal contact with the congregation is a problem which for modern minds raises a question mark over the appropriateness of all of Paul's teaching in that epistle. In

Colossians, the allusion to Paul's contact with Epaphras is historically plausible, although it may also be explained as a literary device designed to explain the propriety of a Pauline letter to a non-Pauline church. In the undisputed letter to the Romans, Paul does not fully

explain either his motives for writing or his source of information.

- 2S9 -

We have concluded that Paul went about Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia teaching about the kingdom of God. It is reasonable to ask: would Paul have found "preaching the kingdom" an appropriate description of his missionary activity? In order to answer this we will begin at the statement about Paul's co-workers in the kingdom in Col. 4:11. From there we will move to non-c*a)cCc statements in epistles which are undoubtably Paul's.

i.

2!

! t

In Col. 4:11 there is a reference to auvcpyo

TOU 8co.

t 'riv pc*aACav

It is admittedly possible to translate 4:10-11 as: "...these

(Jews] only are co-workers in the kingdom of God," that is, by definition only Jews can be workers in the kingdom. Thus Martin regards 11 these men as evangelists to Israel. The most natural way to understand this phrase, however, is that all of the auvpyoC are auvpyo etc iiv but that these three men are the only Jewish Christians who 12 are involved with Paul s mission. W.- H. 011rog correctly notes: "etc ist am besten mit 'im Dienste' (der Gottesherrschaft) wiederzugeben.

11. Martin,

2L2!!fl!

p.

132.

12. ThIs is the translation taken by the RSVs "These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God" (see Johnston, "Kingdom of God Sayings," pp. also the NEB). Thus cf. 155-56.

- 260 -

13 Die Mitarbeiter werden auch hier als Missionare apostrophiert." 14 Mitton, however, disagrees: This is an unusual phrase for Paul to use since it seems to imply that man's labours can serve in furthering the interest of the kingdom...Here Christians can co-operate in the aims of the Kingdom and by what they do further its interests. This idea has proved very attractive to twentieth-century Christians, who have welcomed any emphasis on man's part in the achievement, but it is not typical of Paul. Mitton's cautious approach does not do justice to the passage; it is a case of allowing one's reaction against a modern tendency to distort the exegesis of a text. If there is "synergism' in this passage, then there

is synergism also in 1 Thess. 3:2, in which Paul calls Timothy a 15 yc?Cp 'toO Xpia'roG." "auvpy 'toG OcoG tv 't c

The language of Col. 4:11 fits firmly within the missionary terminology of that epistle. Although the author speaks of auvcpyo in

4:11, he is familiar with other phrases, including 6oUXo (4:12) and av6ou?o (1:7, 4:12). His favorite label, however, is 6Lcxovoc.

und seine Mitarbeiter, p. 13. OlIrog, Eauiu 240, n. 9. p.

L2LB,

71. Also Schweizer,

Oscar Cullmann, 14. Mitton, Your Kindorn Come, pp. 108-09. Also cf. "Wann kommt das Reich Gottes? Zur Enderwartung der christlichen 535-47. In this article Schriften des zweiten Jahrhunderts (1938) ," pp. Cullmann examines the idea that human efforts can hasten the coming of the kingdom of God. He shows that there was a strain of thought in rabbinic Judaism according to which God would only bring his kingdom to earth when all of Israel was repentant. This had the effect of making Cullmann thought that this its coning contingent upon human action. idea was absent from first-century Christianity, although he is certain that the NT teaches that the kingdom will only come when the gospel is preached to every individual. He then examines later literature, especially the E E istle o+ Barnabas and 2 Clement, in which he finds a reversion to the rabbinic Jewish attitude. 15. Paul also speaks of co-workers "iv Xp.o't4" (Ron. 16:9); 'tv Xpta'r IooO" (Ron. 16:3); "pou" (Ron. 16:21, Philemon 24); "'inc x"c bv" (2 Cor. 1:24); "'iou ScoG" (1 Cor. 3:9). See the comparison between Col. 4:11 and I Thess. 3:2 by 011rog, Mitarbeiter, p. 71.

261

Although this is used in the New Testament of servants in general and of the office of deacon, Paul uses it in the sense of "minister", particularly in 2 Corinthians (3:6, 6:4, 11:15, 11:23). In this sense a 6&covo is not a lowly slave, but is a representative and minister of God the King. In some cases 6oU7o is used to convey the same 16 meaning. In Colossians Paul is styled a minister of the gospel (1:23) and of the church (1:25). Tychicus is a rri.aTO 6uicovo (4:7), as

i5

Epaphras (1:7). The Colossians have become subjects of the kingdom of the Son (1:13), and the author rejoices that as citizens they are in good order (r&, 2:5). All races and classes are incorporated into this kingdom (3:11), and there the peace of Christ rules (pc*Ew. in Christian hearts (3:1).

So then, the ministry of the gospel is according to the author of Colossians a royal service. Paul and his associates are ministers of this kingdom, not in that they rule, but in that they serve the King. Their service, like that of Epaphras in 1:7-8, is to bring individuals into the kingdom of the Son through the gospel.

At first appearance this does not precisely corroborate the Acts record. In Acts "preaching the kingdom" consists of speaking about the

work of God in the death and resurrection of Christ, and of Gods future realm of salvation. The author of Colossians seems to indicate in 4:11

that the purpose of "preaching the kingdom" is to bring about the 17 acknowledgment of divine sovereignty. But it is clear in other parts

16. See K. H. Rengstorff, "6oOXoc

g .r.A.," IQNI, II, pp.

276-77.

239, who thinks that the kingdom in 17. Cf. Gnilka, Kolosserbrief, p. Col. 4:11 is therefore a non-Pauline concept.

- 262 -

of the epistle as in Acts that entry into the kingdom of the Son is accomplished through iv tnoO'rpwoi..v, 'rfv tav 'rv ticp'rv (1:14;

cf. also 1:20, 1:21-22, 2:14-15), through the cross of Jesus Christ. Thus the kingdom is the work of Gad toward redemption, as well as the establishing of his rule. Although the authenticity of Colossians is disputed, it is quite credible that the author attributed such language to Paul either through his own understanding of Paul's epistles, or more likely, through his knowledge from tradition that such a statement suited Paul's vocabulary. As 011rog points out: "auvcpyoC ct 'riv pa Ccv
TOO

die bei Paulus zwar keine Entsprechung hat, der Sache riach aber seine 18 Intention trifft."

2. Ram. 15 - Christ's Rule over the Nations It is not only the author of Colossians who emphasizes the connection between Paul's mission and the sovereign rule of God. Paul does the same in Rornans 15, although he actually uses earlier and slightly different context. caLcCc in an

In this chapter, Paul speaks of

Jesus' coming to bring salvation to the Jews, but he then argues that the Old Testament writers predicted that salvation would extend to the Gentiles. In fact, in 15:12 he quotes Isa. 11:1OLXX to show that Christ is even now ruling over Gentiles for the sake of their redemption. In Ram. 15:14-21 Paul paints his ministry in colors of the

18. 011rog, tlitarbeiter, p. p. 240, n. 9.

68, n.

32. See also Schweizer, Colossians,

- 263 -

fulfillment of prophecy in salvation history.

His Gentile ministry

which is God-ordained (15:17), consists of Christ operating in him "by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit" (15:18-19). Through him Christ is working L bnCKOflV t8vwv (15:18; cf. JncKoflv na'rcw in Ram. 1:5). This obedience is directed to

God through the work of Christ, the xUpo of the living and the dead (14:9). Paul leads Gentiles to submit to Christ the Lord and thereby to God in advance of the eschatological judgment (14:11-12). Within the scope of Christ's saving rule they experience the realized rule of God in their lives (14:17).

Although Paul does not here specifically designate himself as a worker for the
TOO

BoO, he does indicate that the end of his His

work is the fulfillment of God's rule through human submission.

evangelistic message includes teaching about Christ's lordship, his future judgment, and the need for all to submit to him. To believers,

Paul gives details concerning the blessings and the responsibilities entailed in their new relationship to the kingdom of God.

3.

EL

cLgLc.L

ai t

Paul believed that Old Testament predictions were being fulfilled, not simply in the gospel as such, but also specifically in his awn ministry. Peter Stuhlmacher theorizes that the basis for the tension

between present and future in Pauline theology had its basis in the call of Paul to be the apostle to the Gentiles. On the Damascus Road, God himself revealed that he could only be known through Christ. But this revelation was also an anticipation of the Eschaton, since end-time

- 264 -

salvation was being revealed in the Messiah in the present age.

In

announcing the coming of salvation to the Gentiles, Paul was hastening 19 the coming kingdom in the same way that Christ hastened it in heaven.

Stuhimacher attaches too much importance to Paul s self-concept and to the apostle as an "eschatological" figure. While Paul believed

that he was ordained by God as an apostle, he certainly did not refer to himself, to use Stuhlmachers term, as a "Christ-Epiphany', nor is "hastening the kingdom" a part of his vocabulary. On the other hand,

Stuhlmacher does point out an important aspect of Pauline thought, that he viewed himself as playing a specific and important part in salvation hi story.

Paul sensed a special affinity between his Gentile mission and the Servant Song of Isaiah 49. This section speaks of the Servant, who in 20 This addition to redeeming Israel brings salvation to the Gentiles. chapter from Isaiah is alluded to throughout the New Testament as a 21 According to Acts 13:47, Paul prediction of Christ and his church. applied isa. 49:6 to himself in order to Justify his turning to the Gentiles. Paul uses Isa. 49:13 in 2 Cor. 7:6 to show that he is experiencing the comfort of messianic salvation in the present age; this is from another oracle, but in context it continues the theme of

19. Stuhlmacher, "Erwagungen zum Problem von Gegenwart und Zukunft in 4230. der paulinischen Eschatologie," ZTK 64 (1967), pp. 183-86. Contra Westermann, Isa!# 20. Cf. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah, pp. 211-12 who believes that this song refers to deutero-Isaiah 40-66, pp. himself. 21. See the Nunc Domittis in Luke 2:29-32, which speaks of Israel s salvation and a light for the nations. Cf. also Isa. 49:10 in Rev. 7:16.

- 265 -

salvation for God's people.

The pattern of Paul's interpretation of isa. 49:6 in the Acts account does not prove that he (or Luke) regarded the Servant Song as non-messianic. In fact, in the speech before Agrippa II it is said that

Paul alludes to Jesus' fulfillment of the oracle (Acts 26:23). Paul's understanding of Isa. 49:6 is that he regards himself as participating in the Servant's work of preaching to the Gentiles. The apostle's application of Isa. 49 in 2 Car. 6:2 (and perhaps in Acts 13:47) is similar to the interpretation of Isa. 52:7 and 53:1 in Rom. 10:14-17: the work of the Servant is continued in the message of those who declare 22 the kingdom of God.

cMiq

L I

The Apostolic Fathers seemed to believe that the apostles went around the world preaching the kingdom of God. Thus Clement of Rome states that after Pentecost: " BcoO p)tv p X aBu " fi ?Bov cyy Ovo,
'Ti'v

o)icv 'roU

(1 CLern. 42:3). The language of Clement comes,

not from Acts, but from Jesus' commissioning of the Twelve (Mt. 10:7, Luke 9:2) and the Seventy (Luke 10:9, 11) to preach that the kingdom 'has drawn near" (?'yyKv - but not in Luke 9:2). Clement seems to have taken "KflpCIaow" in 1 Clern. 42:4 from this same tradition. The

eschatological kingdom appears in Acts only once (Acts 14:22). In Paul's proclamation the kingdom could be future or present. It is impossible

22. Cf. Buchanan, Iti oneuence f. p. 89, who states that all New Testament statements about preaching the kingdom resemble Isaiah; they announced the coming Exodus/kingdom of God.

- 266 -

for us to prove whether Clement possessed non-biblical tradition according to which the Twelve or Paul preached the kingdom in their missionary work (Clement is speaking of evangelistic preaching in this passage). Although such a tradition would clearly support our case, it

must be conceded that Clement could have derived his statement from Luke-Acts.

. gy!!ry

Some may claim that Paul preached a kingdom message without using 'caAcCc". Even if Col. 4:11 is Pauline or Pauline tradition, being a co-worker in the "kingdom of God" does not prove that the apostle used that precise term in his evangelistic preaching.

We have shown, however, that kingdom theology and language both played a substantial role in Pauls early sermons in his new churches. In almost all of the instances of puaXcc in his epistles, the apostle is either referring to previous preaching or presupposing an understanding of the concept. his vocabulary of evangelism. But Col. 4:11 may give another clue about In speaking of auvcpyoC L r?v a)Ccv

ioU 8coU, the author is using a formula about co-workers which is familiar from Pauline language. In saying that Timothy is a co-worker

in the gospel in 1 Thess. 3:2, Paul is delineating the gospel message as the object of his preaching. In making the kingdom of God the

complement of auvcpyo in Col. 4:11, the author shows that Paul and his associates actually speak about the kingdom. This does not mean that

Paul went through the Empire calling "ii polic ioU 8coU" any more than he simply shouted "i cyyO.ov ioU Xpi.aroU" to bemused Gentiles. No,

- 267 -

all of Paul's preaching, and especially his evangelistic preaching, involved a careful explanation of his terms within a framework of instruction about Jesus' death and resurrection and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. All in all, therefore, it seems quite credible not only that Paul spoke about the kingdom of God in his Gentile mission, but that he could also have labeled his message as "proclaiming the kingdom."

268 -

II. Ib

91

Throughout Luke-Acts the disciples of Christ are said to join with 23 Jesus in proclaiming the kingdom. In Acts 1:3, 6-7 the author (to whom we shall refer as Luke) states that the resurrected Jesus taught his disciples about the kingdom from a post-Easter perspective, showing them that they should not now think of the kingdom in terms of national restoration.

For Luke, the time from John the Baptist onward was the age in which "ti o)Cc 'ro BcoG

bc*yyc)C'rc

(Luke 16:16)." Thus, in Acts

8:12 Philip is said to have preached the kingdom to the Samaritans. The author likewise summarizes Paul's message with uo?cc* in Acts 19:8, 28:23, and 28:31. In Pcts 14:22 and Acts 20:25 Luke seems to imply that he is giving the actual wording of Paul's kerygma. Although the notice

in Paul's speech in 20:25 is similar in meaning to the three Lukan summarizing statements (here Paul is merely stating that he preached the gospel), the indirect discourse in 14:22 contain; a reference to the eschatological kingdom toward which Christians are moving. gives the reader to understand that idiom. Luke thus

Jc was a part of Paul 's own

Because of the connection which Paul himself drew between his preaching and the kingdom, it is important to determine Luke's motives

23. See Luke 9:2,

9:60), 10:9, 11, 16:16; Matt. 10:7.

- 269 -

in attributing a kingdom label to Paul's (and Philip's) gospel; we shall also ask how his editorial decision impinges on his relationship to the Paul of history.

A. Acts and the Historical Paul

The relationship of Luke's account to history has been rigorously debated since the last century. F. C. Baut dismissed the Acts account

as a later smoothing over of the theological chasm between Peter and Paul. More recent scholars have suggested that Luke was attempting to As compose not sober history, but rather a theological treatise. 24 Haenchen concludes The question of the historical reliability of the book By of Acts does not touch the central concern of the book. telling the history of apostolic times through many individual stories, the book primarily intends to edify the churches and thereby contribute its part in spreading the Word of God farther and farther, even to the ends of the earth.

A part of the discussion of Lukan reliability is the issue of his speech reporting. The essay by Martin Dibelius is programmatic, in that

he approaches the speeches as literary compositions rather than as purported historical accounts. Citing Thucydides' principle of speech

composition (among other writers), Dibelius argues that ancient historians were interested in constructing speeches which were

24. Haenchen, "Book of Acts as Source Material,' in 9tuds, p.

278.

- 270 -

25 appropriate literarily rather than historically.

We heartily concede that the most striking property of Luke's uses of a'.XcCc is that it is theologically appropriate within the context The author is thus demonstrating that Paul not

of his two-fold work.

only carried on with Jesus' message of the kingdom (Luke 4:43, 8:1, 9:11); he also followed the changes which Jesus himself is said to have introduced in Acts 1:3. Upon this basis C. H. Dodd concluded that while Paul himself did not use cacCc in his missionary preaching, Luke attributed the term to him only in order to reinforce the unity of the 26 early kerygma with Jesus' teaching.

While "appropriateness' may be the driving force behind the author's use of ai.,cCcx, it must be noted that the presence of

theological or literary appropriateness does not necessarily exclude the possibility of historical appropriateness. A. W. Mosley has surveyed

the major historians of the ancient world and demonstrated that historical accuracy was an idea known to many writers. Each historian

balanced literary and historical concerns in a manner best suited to the availability of historical sources, the author's evaluation of their

25. M. Dibelius, "The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography 138-85. Thucydides' much-examined philosophy (1949) ," in Studies, pp. War, I, 22: "In this f speech-writing is found in history I have made use of set speeches some of which were delivered I have found it difficult to Just before and others during the war. remember the precise words used in the speeches which I listened to myself and my various informants have experienced the same difficulty so my method has been, while keeping as closely as possible to the general sense of the words that were actually used, to make the speakers say what, in my opinion, was called for by each situation."

Lgj

26. Cf. Dodd, A2ostolic Preaching, pp. 26170. Rule and Kingdom, pp.

21-24; also Schnackenburg,

- 271 -

27 accuracy, and the author's own personality. E. Haenchen has rejected

any suggestion that the author of Luke-Acts had an interest in 28 historical events. But the idea that Luke's purpose was totally unrelated to historical tradition has been challenged by I. Howard Marshall in 1: Histori

IgLgqi.a.

He rejects the "history or

theology" dichotomy as simplistic in the light of Luke's stated desire "to stress the accuracy of the historical facts which formed part of 29 In the light of recent research into the early Christian teaching." philosophy of history writing in ancient times, it is best to allow that Luke could possibly have had an interest in historical facts, that he may have possessed tradition, and that he understood that not all tradition was necessarily accurate.

According to modern critical standards, Luke would be inaccurate if Paul did not use aXc in the direct discourse reported in Acts

20:25 (and to a lesser extent, in Acts 14:22). By the same standards, he would be considered to be more justified in using acCc* in his

editorial comments which, after all, he attributes to no-one but himself.

On the other hand, Luke's interest in attributing kingdom language to Paul does not prove that Paul never used caiJcCc in such a manner (so Dodd, Schnackenburg) , or that Luke could not have possessed tradition which suggested that Paul used this idiom. At this point,

27. Cf. A. W. Mosley, "Historical Repertory in the Ancient World," NT 10-26; cf. 12 (1965-66), pp. also C. Hemer, "Luke the Historian," BJE 60 (1977-78), pp. 22-34. 28. Haenchen, "Source Material," p. 29. Marshall, Luke: Histor1 258. p. 39.

I!9gJ,
- 272 -

therefore, we must examine the acts record in order to evaluate the complexities of Luke's method of attributing pcaACu to Paul (and Philip), and also to compare the Lukan Paul with Paul's self-portrait.

I .

kc!

i.

QL tRLL2 -

In Acts 8:12 it says that the Samaritans trusted in the message ncpL 'rrj c*acAcc 'iou 8oG xcd 'roU bvdpcero IrooU XparoO. It is

unusual in that this is the first reference in Acts to the kingdom as the content of the post-resurrection kerygma; it is the first time the gospel of the kingdom has been preached outside Israel; and it is the only time Luke attributes the phrase to anyone but Paul. Its parallelism, which is like that of 28:31, is not a designation of two parts of the gospel, but rather a clarification of the phrase coc(c

by the reference to Christ. Acts 8:12 is itself a further development of xflpuaov. . . 'rO y Xpa'rOv in Acts 8:5. Otto Merk states that the various components of the parallelisms in 8:12, 28:23 and 28:31, are meant to give a complete picture of Jesus' work, especially his death and resurrection. der 1k. Thus he can claim that "Die inhaitliche Spezifizierung 30 Predigt hat darum sachgema im LkEv einzusetzen." This is

corroborated later in Acts B35 where it is said that Philip approached

30. Merk, "Das Reich Gottes in den lukanischen Schriften," in Jesus und 206 Paulus, p.

- 273

the eunuch and Isa. 53:7-8.

EUq

Cacro tdii4

TO

'

Irjaoiiv based on the fulfillment of

Here Philip does not proclaim the future kingdom; he speaks of present salvation through the KUpo in fulfillment of the Old 31 Luke's interest in the Name as the ob j ect of salvation is Testament. clear from Acts 2:21, and especially Acts 4:12: "xc oU6cv 66oivov ow pic, okit yp voi v tv8pthnoc,
v

oUx

av

toiv t'rpov (mO Ov oipcvOv iO (."

i 6C aw8fivc

It is not immediately clear to all what meaning Luke attaches to c*oAcCc as the object of preaching. Acts as the future realm. Some interpret its meaning within

Haenchen, for example, thinks that since

believers are living in anticipation of the kingdom, Luke feels justified in using a)cCc to denote one aspect of the gospel. But

although an eschatological kingdom is intended in Acts 1:

and Acts

14:22, there is nothing in Acts 8:12 or the other kingdom references which would suggest an eschatological meaning. On the other hand, there o

is a good deal of evidence in Acts that the author is using GcoU as a synonym for the Christian kerygma (Acts 8:12, 19:8, 20:24,

204-15, claims that this is a spiritualization 31. 6rer, Prob1e, pp. of the original coming of the kingdom of God. Cf. Lake and Cadbury, 91; they conclude that any interpretation is passLble for this p. vague verse, but that it likely means that Philip proclaimed the church One cannot help but as the society in which salvation is possible. believe that Lake and Cadbury desire to "ecciesiasticize" Luke's use of coCc in order to prove a later composition. In fact, it is clear from the patristic literature that the church was not identified with the kingdom until much later: the Greek Fathers never identified the two, and in fact it was not until Augustine's time that they generally 65. Cf. Lampe, p. came to be regarded as the same.

- 274 -

32 28:23, 31). The fulfillment of the rule of God in this age through the

Lord Jesus is stressed in places such as the Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:32-36). Luke is there demonstrating that the Old Testament predictions of the davidic king (e. g., Ps. 16:8-11, Ps. 110:1) were fulfilled in Jesus' exaltation. The consummation is still to be revealed in the

future (cf. Acts. 3:21). Thus, Luke wishes to show that Jesus' message of the double manifestation of God's kingdom was continued by the apostles.

tii

2.

.1.

a.

Bc*oCt* as the gospel which Paul proclaims

In four passages the author of Acts describes Paul as one who went about preaching the kingdom of God (cf. Acts 19:8, 20:2, 28:23, 31). The first two texts relate to his Ephesiari ministry. According to the

description in 19:8 he was 6yOp ' vo KaC rt8wv ("arguing and pleading") ('ru] npC ri .cua 'ro 8oO. The message of the kingdom

in Acts 19:8 is paralleled by the general label iOv ?Oyov 'roiJ KupCou in 19:10 (cf. Matt. 13: 19). Later in that chapter, there is a message about Christ's lordship which is followed by the account of the attempt at exorcism in To voic iou K'JpCOU reverence for that name in 19:19. Irao in 19:13 and the subsequent

In Acts 20:25 and its context there is a parallelism even more

21-24; also pp. 32. Cf. especially C. H. Dodd, Aosgjj 159; 57-58; Conzelmann, Marshall, Acts, pp. p. 162; Lane, "The Aosje, p. Ladd, Theo1o, p. 333; Beker, PauL 50-51. Pauline Kerygma and the Kingdom of God," pp.

- 275 -

elaborate than that of Acts 8:12. In Miletus Paul tells the elders of the Ephesian church that he went among them xrpoou)v flv 33 is juxtaposed with the Luke 9:2, Matt. 9:35). BcaXcc things" in 20:20, rv Iri000v in 20:21, declaration of iflv
To

(cf. profitable jiv

L 8Ov

c'rvov xc*

ra'jv
TOO

L 'ro y iiipov

yyov Inc XPTO

BEau in 20:24, and the

ou)iv 'roO BEOU in 20:27. These phrases do not denote

different messages; rather they describe with varied terms the Pauline 34 Although it may appear from Acts 19:8 and 28:23, 31 that the kerygma. preaching of the kingdom is specifically intended for a Jewish audience, there are indications that Luke does not understand it as such. 20:25 Paul states that he preached the kingdom to Ji.icCc nviE In Acts v o

6i?Gov. Within the context it is abundantly clear that Paul is not speaking merely to Jewish Christians. This is also the case regarding Acts 14:22; according to the Acts record the Galatian churches were composed of Jews and Gentiles (Antioch in Acts 13:43, 48; Iconium in Acts 14:1), but Paul's eschatological encouragement is given to all.

Lake and Cadbury regard Acts 20:24-25 as a paradigm of the transformation of the gospel within the Hellenistic world. They claim

caAnc TOO BcoO; pcaACc* is used alone in Acts only in 20:25 33. Not and, within a very different context, in Acts 1:6. This is best explained as an abbreviation of the full term found in 19:8; the shortened version is used because of the abundant usage of TOO BoO elsewhere in the speech; there is no obvious theological motivation for the omission of IOU Bou. 214. Cf. F. F. Bruce, who equates the p. 34. Cf. W. Neil, "testimony of grace" in 20:24 with the kingdom-message of 20:2; Bruce, 54. It is a commonplace in Dispensationalist theology 415, n. cts, p. that Paul 's message of the kingdom in Acts is a message to Jews concerning the age to come, whereas the "gospel of grace" is the But there is no Christian gospel developed in his epistles. justification whatever for making a distinction between a kingdom-gospel and a grace-gospel in the context of either Lukan or Pauline vocabulary.

- 276 -

that while the Palestinian kerygma was an apocalyptic message of the coming kingdom, Luke here introduces a new emphasis upon the present life of the church, in this case represented by the Ephesian elders: the kingdom of God becomes the church of Christ; the final judgment becomes the destiny of those outside of the church; repentance becomes the means 35 for receiving the salvation available through the church.

This reconstruction of Acts 20:24-25 does not correspond to the context of Acts 19-20 nor does it take into account Luke's known practice of employing

pca)cCc as a label for the gospel of Christ.

Schnackenburg correctly concludes that for Luke, "preaching the 36 There is no aLcCc" is the perpetuation of Jesus' message. noticeable increase in emphasis upon the church in Paul's message to the elders.

The preaching of Paul to the Jews in Rome is summarized in Acts 28:17-31. In 28:23 it is said that Paul spent an entire day speaking to the Jews about 'rflv
aicv roU BcoO and np 'rOLl ' IqaoO from the Law

and the Prophets. It is not clear whether he spoke of both the kingdom and Jesus from the Scriptures, or 5imply about Jesus, but the method of argument is the same as that found in earlier statements.

Acts 28:31 is a summary of Paul 's two years in Rome stating that he was Kqp000wv 'rflv
ma Ccv 'roU GcoG K( 66(QKWV rc rrpL 'ToG kUPCOU

Iri aoG XpL.a'roO without hindrance.

Luke's purpose is to show that Paul

continued to teach the same message with which he began on his first

35. Lake and Cadbury, Acts, p.

261. ingdorn, pp. 262-63.

36. Schnackenburg, God's Rule and

- 277 -

37 day in Rome.

In Acts 28:31 there is once again a strong link between proclaiming the kingdom and proving the gospel from the Old Testament; Paul even cites Isa. 6:9-10 to warn the Jews about the dangers of unrepentance. In it is a warning to those who choose not to heed the

word given through Isaiah. A quotation of this passage is attributed to Jesus (Mark 4:12, Matt. 13:14-15, Luke 8:10, 19:42) as a warning against those Jews who heard the parables of the kingdom and yet did not believe. Although Luke may have interpreted Isa. 6:9-10 messianically,

it is appropriate to find Paul applying this passage to himself; in rejecting his gospel, the Jews were similar to those who ignored Isaiah's message, which included predictions of the coming kingdom of 38 God and his messianic king.

Some scholars (notably Wilfred Knox) have suggested that Paul underwent a transformation in eschatology and kingdom language at some

37. Luke may also have had a political motive here, in showing that the kingdom of God was not a political threat to the Empire. But this idea at best is likely to be very minor, since the author's primary motives are to show the arrival of the gospel at the capital, and the continuing rejection of the gospel by the greater part of Israel. 38. Another suggestion which is interesting but highly unlikely is that given by Philip Davies, "The Ending of Acts," ExTirn 94 (1983), pp. 334-45. Davies thinks that Luke imitated the ending of 2 Kings with its reference to the imprisonment of Jehoiachin in the court of the Although he is in bonds, Jehoiachin is the last of the Babylonian king. "But Luke's gospel opens by tracing Jesus' ancestry back royal line. through David. Jesus is the hope of Israel in the sense...that he is the Davidic king...In Roman captivity the prisoner and servant of the son of David proclaims the kingdom of God. He too will die, and other servants. But the 'hope of Israel' cannot thus be extinguished." Davies thus claims that there are traces of literary dependence upon the Old Testament book, but it is unlikely that even the most learned readers of Luke's work would have lighted upon this rather obscure connection.

- 278 -

point in his missionary career.

Because of the political

misunderstandings in Thessalonica and Athens (Acts 17), Paul decided to forego the use of kingdom terminology in favor of the expressions "new 39 world-age' and "new creation". Knox bases his ideas upon his opinion that 2 Corinthians represents a 'Hellenized" eschatology. He appeals to

Acts 17:7 for corroborative proof of his theory, but he apparently does not appreciate the relevance of Acts 19:8, 20:25, 28:23, or 28:31. His proposal is weakened in that the timing of the Athens speech in Acts (which Knox view5as an example o Pau1s "new" message) does not correspond either with a change between the Corinthian epistles, nor with the fact that Luke ascribes to Paul all but one of the instances of 40 According to the Acts record, Paul himself a)1c* after Acts 17. used cac1c once in his first journey, and once in his third. Luke

applies pca ?cCc to his gospel once during the record of his third journey, and twice while Paul is in Rome.

b.

Bca?Ca as the eschatological goal of believers - Acts 14:22

Acts 14:22 is unusual in several ways.

It is not unlike the

statement about moving from earthly hardship to the kingdom in 2 Tim. 4:18. As in Acts 20:25, Luke leads the reader to believe that Paul himself used and that it is not just an editorial label.

Although the passage is in indirect discourse, Paul is not merely

39. W. L. Knox, S. Paul and the Church of th 90-110.

pp.

126,

40. C. S. C. Williams, although pursuing a less detailed reconstruction of Pauls preaching, agrees that Paul used the language of the kingdom Speaking of Jesus as the King of a less and less as he moved westward. Williams new divine order could have been interpreted as seditious. See points to Acts 14:22 as one example of Paul s earlier style. Williams, Acts, p. 173.

- 279 -

preaching a general gospel message.

Rather, he is speaking of the Thus, while it is

suffering which will occur before the age to come.

perfectly legitimate to view this as a Lukan paraphrase or invention in his own language, the eschatological emphasis is an integral part of the saying. Acts 14:22, therefore, is the only case in Acts (excepting Acts 41 1:6) in which the kingdom is defined as the eschatological realm.

The kingdom-reference in Acts 14:22 is part of the encouragement which Paul gives the Galatian churches on his return to Antioch, and it is designed to help them to understand the significance of their suffering. It is hardly necessary to list the references in the Pauline

epistles in which Paul uses the typically-apocalyptic motif of present suffering and future deliverance (cf. 2 Thess. 1:5, 2 Tim. 2:12 in which pooAcC or a cognate are used). But although there are references both XCc as the Final Realm of

to the purpose of suffering and to the

Salvation in Pauline literature, these themes find an even closer counterpart in the gospels, and Luke in particular. explained with regard to the coming Suffering is

caCc in Marcan material (Luke

18:29-30), Q material (Luke 6:20, 9:59-62, 10:9-10, 13:24-30, 22:28-30), and L material (Luke 12:32-33). But 8?C is not frequent in the synoptics; it is not used in Luke, but it appears five times in the Olivet discourse in Mark and Matthew, plus once each in the parable of the sower. The verb 8?pw is used only in Mark 3:9 and Hatt. 7:14. Un

the other hand, the noun and the verb appear very frequently in the Pauline corpus, both in terms of present suffering (esp. I Thess. 3:3;

41. Cf. Haenchen, Acts, p. 141, n. 2; but see p. 436, in which he claims that entry into the kingdom is by death. See also Lake and Cadbury, Acts, p. 168; Marshall, Acts, p. 241; Schnackenburg, Qg Rule and Kingdom, p. 263; Ladd, Iheology, p. 333.

- 280 -

2 Cor. 1-B), and in terms of the eschatological tribulation.

We have earlier concluded that 2 Tim, 4:18 is a reference to entering the kingdom upon death 1 rather than at the Parousia. In Acts 14:22, Luke relates suffering to entering the kingdom, but the saying is not identical to 2 Tim. 4:18. It conveys the Jewish and Christian principle of suffering in this age and glory in the next.

Although there is evidence that Acts 14:22 is a reference to the eschatological realm 1 Hans Conzelmann thinks that the statement backs up his own reconstruction of the Lukan metaphysic. Luke therefore is no

longer interested in the "coming" of an apocalyptic kingdorn he desires readers the earthly path which leads the individual 42 While it is true that Luke is through death to the kingdom in heaven. to show to hi not here primarily interested in eschatology, the age to come is still a part of his theology in Acts and especially in his gospel. The affinity

of Acts 14:22 to Jewish eschatology is as clear here as it is in Paul s exclusion sayings. Any evidence brought against an eschatological

interpretation of this verse must therefore be much more compelling than Conzelmanns general assertion about the authors metaphysic.

c.

Jesus called a "Bc*oX "Eipo" - Acts 17:7

Although it is sometimes thought that Paul s westward movement 43 politically dangerous, it is debatable made the use of whether kingdom vocabulary was more offensive the closer one drew to Rome. Claiming to follow a new king would invite imperial investigation

42. Conzelmann, A2aste1eschi'jhte, p. 43. See Williams, Acts, pp. 173-74.

89.

- 281 -

whether one was in Jerusalem, Galatia, Thessalonica, or Rome. This state of affairs is all the more clear when one considers that it was in the 44 East that pca?Csc was applied to Caesar.

W. Elliger notes that the charge of anti-imperialism in Acts 17:7 could have been exacerbated by the unusual religious atmosphere in 45 There were two major cults in that city, namely that of Thessalonica. Dionysus and the mystery cult of the Cabin. Elliger also provides evidence of the existence of the cult of Caesar from the first 46 In his preaching against idolatry U Them;. 1:9), Paul would century. have been condemning all three forms of worship. The apostle's

monotheistic exclusiveness would have been incomprehensible to the polytheistic Roman;, and thus he was easily misrepresented by the Jews. Thessalonica was also the capital of that region, and a charge brought before the ethnarchs would have been politically more serious than a similar charge before the ruler; of the colony of Philippi. The Jews of Philippi (16:22) and of Thessalonica (17:5-6) both enlisted Gentile mobs as evidential demonstrations of the social dangers of Pauls 47 preachi ng.

The accusation which is brought to the rulers of Thessalonica in

44. Cf. Schmidt, "ai..O, Pet. 2:13, 17. 45. Cf. W. Elliger, Athen, Korinth, pp. a 78-116.

pp.

576-77; also 1 Tim. 22; 1

LuLci :

Philii, Thes5a1onik,

46. As evidence he mentions a first-century coin from the cult, as well as an exemplar which has on the obverse the head of Julius Caesar with a diadem with the inscription '8EO', and on the reverse the head of 97. Augustus with with inscription "GEEEAAONIKEQN'. Elliger, p. 47. Elliger, pp. 95-96.

- 282 -

Acts 17:7 contains many problems for the exegete.

The account begins

with Paul preaching his usual message in that city; according to 17:2-3 he taught in the synagogue according to a common two-fold pattern; first, that the Scriptures predict that the Messiah would die and rise again, and second, that this was fulfilled in Jesus. The result of this preaching was a false accusation; Paul was charged with preaching a new political king.

The accusation parallels precisely the charges against Jesus in Luke 22:66-71 and 23:1-5. The first passage is the inquiry before the Jewish Sanhedrin, and the charges are purely religious. accused of blasphemy by claiming to be Jesus was

XpaTo (22:67). This is followed

by his prediction about the Son of Man (22:68-69) and the Jews' question about him claiming to be the Son of God (22:70). Before the Romans, however, there is no mention of these titles. Instead, the Jews tell

Pilate that he is subversive and forbids paying taxes to Rome; they also give Pilate a deceptive rendering of "Xpcaio" as coi,U", which

Pilate understood to mean a political rival to Caesar.

According to Act5 17, the same problem arises for Paul. While in the synagogue, the Jews are content to argue whether Jesus is the Messiah; they surely would have understood that Paul had no illusions about Jesus as a political liberator. Luke thus emphasizes the

duplicity of the Jews as they too reinterpret XpoiO in a way which would harm Jason and Paul; Neil notes that "this was doubtless deliberate perversion of missionary teaching about the kingdom of 48 God." They were unlike the Corinthian Jews, who brought religious

48. Neil, Acts, p.

188.

- 283 -

charges before the uninterested Gallio (19:13-15).

Moule concludes: '...in both cases these are represented as charges leveled against Christians by Jewish opponents and obviously 49 understood by the narrator himself to be false.' Luke, therefore, is not trying to prove that Paul called Jesus caAci). He is drawing

parallels between Paul and Jesus by noting that both were extremely conservative in their use of and that both were misrepresented

by the rhetorical craftiness of unbelieving Jews.

Let us now return to our earlier proposal, that Luke's use of c*aAcCc for the Pauline message is not historically unwarranted. The

idea that Luke is using tradition is reinforced by the pattern in which pcaACc* appears. Although after Acts 1:6 the reader understands that

the kingdom will not be restored to Israel, and that the apostles are to preach the gospel world-wide, it is not until 8:12 that is

again mentioned, as a label for the Christian gospel (although, to be sure, this space is nearly equaled by the next gap from 8:12 to 19:8 14:22 contains a different use of the term). After the many kingdom

references in Luke's gospel, this leaves a gap of some seven chapters before anyone actually takes up the message of Jesus. This cannot be explained by finding some religious or ethnic significance for the

49. Cf. C. F. D. Moule, "The Christology of Acts," in

j, p.

176.

- 284 -

Samaritan audience in Acts 8, since Paul preaches the kingdom to both Jew and Gentiles; Peter, on the other hand, is not said to preach the kingdom at all.

Luke desired to underline the continuity from Jesus to Paul, but he obviously had a high regard for Peter and Stephen as well. If the

kingdom references are purely editorial inventions, then there is no apparent reason why Luke could not have inserted a caCc or two in the Pentecost speech, in Acts 3, or in Acts 7 as a sign of his theological approval. If the kingdom label has such a subtle meaning

for Luke, then it is pointless for him to make the relatively minor character Philip speak of the kingdom of God.

No, Luke regarded all of the apostolic preaching as the preaching of the kingdom concept. When he comes to tell of Philip, he summarizes

his ministry with a phrase which leads the reader to understand that Philip told the Samaritans the same basic message which is recorded in the fuller apostolic speeches. The same is true for the account of

Paul; Luke uses c*aACc* as one of several labels for the apostolic message. This same freedom also allows Luke not to use "kingdom" in the

speeches of Peter and of Stephen.

The fact that Luke alludes to Paul "preaching the kingdom" may indicate that he had acquaintance with general tradition about Paul s vocabulary. He seems to have had an accurate idea of what that kingdom This is evidenced by the reference to the

meant in Pauline theology.

eschatological kingdom in 1422, and the relationship of the kingdom of God to the fulfillment of the Old Testament in Jesus in the other texts. This pattern by no means indicates that Luke had

s2cLf.

285 -

tradition behind each editorial summary; rather, he considered that there was warrant from what he knew of Paul to label these episodes as "preaching the kingdom of God." The idea that Luke may have used such g !E1 traditions about Paul in composing Acts is argued by C. K. 50 Barrett: If the Pauline echoes [of the Miletus speech] are not due to literary contact with the letters they will be due to It is however traditional contact with what Paul said. equally possible that they are due to the Pauline tradition, or Pauline "legend", on which Luke certainly drew; this tradition may not have been a historical source of high quality, but it was by no means completely out of touch with the historical Paul.

Luke is concerned to show the continuity between Jesus and the All of the Acts' speeches tie together the prophetic acts 51 This is of God with their fulfillment in the earthly life of Jesus. early church. equally true for speeches which do not have the word Luke's

message is thus not solely expressed in kingdom language, but it is there reinforced.

50. Barrett, "Paul's Address to the Ephesian Elders," in God s Christ 110. Cf. L. Cerfaux, Church, p. 384. Cerfaux thinks PeoIe, p. that Paul indeed did speak about the kingdom. He also thinks that the term was more meaningful than simply as a traditional formula both for Paul and for Luke. H. Schlier also believes that there is a strong connection between the conventional use of pc*o Cc terminology in Acts and in the Pauline epistles. Cf. H. Schlier, "Reich Gottes," pp. 46-47. 51. Cf. Dodd, A a ostoiic Pchinq, p. 21.

- 286 -

Conci

USi

On

Both kingdom theology and kingdom language played a part in Paul's evangelistic and instructive sermons. where In almost all of the instances

caACc* appears in his epistles, he either refers to his previous

preaching or he presupposes that preaching by assuming that his readers understood his kingdom theology. about his evangelistic vocabulary. But Col. 4:11 may give another clue In speaking of "auvpvo cL
TI'V

caLAccv

TOG

BcoO" the author implies that Paul and his associates

actually spoke about the

caAcCc. cavcc

The evidence indicates not only that Paul spoke about the
TOO

BoG, but that he, like Luke, could also have labeled his message as The evidence of the epistles shows that this

"proclaiming the kingdom".

was not a relatively frequent practice, since Paul apparently found it expedient to use terms other than "pcaiNcCc" when speaking about more 52 But all the same, the churches he specific theological themes. founded would have had an understanding of

'pcat?c" and the

theological substance which the term expressed in Pauline theology.

52. Haufe, "Reich Gottes," pp. 467-72, argues that Paul would have used kingdom language more in evangelistic preaching than in epistle writing, but there is little evidence to support this contention.

- 287 -

PaRT II:

THE KINGDOM HOPE

IN THE

DISPUTED EPISTLES

CHAPTER SEVEN:

THE KINGDOM HOPE IN COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS

Introducti on

Colossians and Ephesians occupy an unusual position in the Pauline literature. While they are clearly influenced by the apostles theology

and language, they contain ideas which many have thought to be too far distant from the theology of the non-disputed letters to be considered Pauline. We have already discussed the meaning of the with

regard to the subjection of the angelic Powers. Mt this point we will examine Colossians and Ephesians in order to evaluate the context in which their authors speak of the rule of God and of Christ.

It is immediately apparent that the kingdom theology of Colossians and Ephesians is strongly influenced by the general purposes of the letters. These epistles were not written in a theological void; they

were directed against a particular teaching (Colossians) and for readers who feared a hostile cosmos (Ephesians). In discussing questions such as the role of realized eschatology, cosmology, and the relationship between church and kingdom in these letters we need to pay attention to the polemical aims of their writers.

- 288 -

I.

9 c919

Few questions evoke a heartier discussion than that of the nature of the Colossian heresy (or even if such a heresy ever existed). One

of the older proposals was that put forward by Bishop Lightfoot in 1875, that the heresy was a gnosti.cizing variety of Essenism. With the discovery of the Qumran literature, this opinion has undergone a 2 More prevalent still is the idea that it was the author of revival. Colossians himself who was influenced by Oumran Essenism, with its 3 But many emphasis upon spiritual exaltation within the community. prominent elements of Qumran Essenism (such as cultic washing) are missing from the catalogue of ascetic practices in Col. 2:16-23. It is also difficult to imagine how the author of Colossians could refute exalted worship by encouraging the same doctrine.

1. The simplest recent catalogue of the major issues within this debate xxx-xxxviii. is given by O'Brien, CoLosans, Philernori, pp. 2. See W. D. Davies, "Flesh and Spirit" P. Benoit, "Oumran and the New Testament." 3. So f3nilka, E2heserbri!, p. 126.

- 289 -.

The other classical solution to the Colassian dilemma is that the church was threatened by some form of Gnosticism (this idea was popularized by F. C. Baur). Most regard this as something other than fully-developed Gnosticism: Bornkamm states that 'the Letter to Colassians leaves no doubt that the heresy was a variety of (Christian-] 4 Jewish Gnosticism." Although Bornkamm mentions a few elements which he believes to be Gnostic, he fails to account for the lack of substantial 5 Both Schlier and Ksemann Gnostic teaching in Colossians and Ephesians. regard Colossians and Ephesians as "gnosticizing anti-Gnostic" polemic. Thus, their authors are agreeing as far as possible with their opponents, while christianizing what were originally odes to the Anthropos/Snostic Redeemer in order to make their own particular 6 A variation of the Gnosticism proposal is that the authors of points. the two epistles were having to deal with pagan Hellenism. E. Schweizer believes that the authors edited Hellenistic-Christian hymns about the cosmic Christ in order to bend the readers back toward Pauline 7 theology.

4. Bornkamm, "The Heresy of Colossians (1948) ," in ConfLL. 2; he thinks Paul has to 130; see also Schlier, n dte E 2 heser , p. p. deal with Jewish-Christian Gnosis. 5. See especially M. Barth, Ehesians 1-3, pp. 12-18; Percy, 55-57. 176-78; Wilson, Gnasis and the New Testament, pp. pp. 139-50; see also 6. Schlier, Christu, pp. 37-60; Ksemann, Leib, pp. Schnackenburg, An dte Eheser, pp. 187-89. Cf. also Martin, and Philemon, p. 54, who suggests that Cal. 1:13 may be a polemic against a Gnostic acerdatalism in baptism. 7. We shall deal with this suggestion in detail in Section IV of this chapter. Cf. Schweizer, "Kirche als Leib Christi in dem paulinischen ntilegomena," 86 (1961), pp. 251-56. A more specific variation of 919. He this idea was proposed by Martin, Colassians and pp. takes up Dibelius' suggestion that "tiiperOw" in Cal. 2:18 is a Thus, semi-technical term denoting "initiation" into a mystery cult. the errorists boasted about the "things they have seen" upon initiation.

- 290 -

Because of the evident difficulty in narrowing the Colossian error down to one known philosophy, many scholars have been led to speak of a retism" of diverse elements. This error may have contained elements 8 9 from Hellenistic Judaism, Qumran Judaism, a mixture of Jewish, 10 Gentile, and Gnostic Hellenism, or a mixture of Gnosticizing Judaism, 11 enthusiasm, and Gentile paganism.

In the midst of this discussion, F. 0. Francis has put forward a fresh proposal which best accounts for many of the elements of the heresy. His theory is that the Colossian heresy was a Jewish-Christian

movement which encouraged asceticism as a prelude to receiving visions 12 of heaven. Francis translates the difficult phrase "Bprlaxcir 'riiv tyy?&v" (Col. 2:18) not as an objective genitive (i.e., worship directed toward angels, a practice which is altogether rare in Judaism),

B. Lona, Eschatoiogie, pp.

235-38.

9. Lyonnet, "Paul's Adversaries at Colossae (1956) ," in Conflict at Colossae, pp. 147-53. He has argued elsewhere that this was also the Corinthian error. 10. Thus E. Lohse, "Christusherrschaft und Kirche,' p. 11. Lahnemann, Der Kolosserbrief, pp. 174-75. 203.

12. In Judaism this philosophy was known as "Merkabah mysticism'. Cf. the very full work by I. Gruenwald, 2oca1y2tic and Merkabah Mysticism (1980). Those who promote the "visionary" interpretation include F. 0. Francis, 'Humility and Angel Worship in Col. 2:18 (1963) ,' in Conflict 163-95; Evans, "The Colossian Mystics," Biblica 63 t pp. (1982), pp. 188-205; this theory was expounded along with material from apocalyptic literature by A. J. Bandstra, "Did the Colossian Errorists Need a Mediator?" in New Dimensions, pp. 329-43; C. Rowland, "Apocalyptic Visions," JSNI 19 (1983), pp. 73-74. This proposal is not entirely new: John Calvin propounded the same general idea in his Colossians commentary through deductions made from the epistle. This position is taken in recent commentaries by O'Brien (with caution), Colossians, Philemon, pp. xxxvi-xxxviii; F. F. Bruce, Colossians, 17-26. E 2 hesians , pp.

bi1!9,

- 291 -

13 but as a subjective genitive, denoting "angels' worship" of God. He

thus translates: "Let no one disqualify, being bent upon humility and the worship of angels -- which he has seen upon entering -- being vainly 14 puffed up by his mind of flesh." There is some disagreement over how one should render "pc'riiw" in Col. 2:18: Evans takes over the initiatory meaning which Dibelius thought denoted entry into a mystery 15 but Francis and Rowland are probably correct in interpreting cult, 16 the verb as entering into heaven itself through visions. The mystics thus boasted to the Colossian Christians that by means of fasting and other rigors they were able to induce themselves into receiving visions of the angels worshiping God in heaven. This new experience could

ultimately have lead the church's attention away from Christ into an 17 individualistic piety with its promise of direct access to heaven.

176-81, for a good discussion of the 13. See Francis, "Humility," pp. history of interpretation of "angel-worship'. He notes that within apocalyptic theology the highest function of the angels is to praise God (see Asc. Isa. 7:13-9:33). Although John was tempted to worship a particular angel in Rev. 22:8-9, the problem in context is caused by John's confusion rather than by a cultic ritual. At the Council of Laodicea, Theodoret spoke against the cult of Michael, and connected that practice with Col. 2:18, but this late application of the text proves little about its original meaning. Francis does assert, however, that even if this phrase should be translated as an objective genitive, his theory of Jewish visionary asceticism is not at all weakened. 14. Francis, "Humility," pp. 163-66. See also Evans, "Colossian Mystics," pp. 196-97, Bruce, Colossians, Philernon, Ehesians, pp. 118-29. C. Rowland attributes both "humility" and "worship" to the angels, thus "the angels' humility and worship." Rowland, "Visions," 74-75. It seems best, however, to attach "humility" to the ascetic pp. practices of the human worshipers themselves. 15. Evans, p. 98.

16. Cf. Francis, "Humility," pp. 171-73; further development in his "The Background of EMBATEUEIN (Col 2:18) in Legal Papyri and Oracle at Cg1ossa, pp. Inscriptions (1969) ," in Confli 197-204; Rowland, "Visions," pp. 75-76. 17. Cf. Rowland, "Visions," p. 77.

- 292 -

Within Colossians the author's polemic corresponds well with such a visionary heresy. Although he speaks about Christ as superior to all,

he does not act as though he were attacking a chri stological heresy such 18 The (Jewish) Christians who followed after visions were as Gnosticism. not rejecting Christ entirely cf. 2:19). They rejected redemption in the cross of Christ; the salvation-historical basis of the corporate church in entering into Christ's kingdom, becoming Christ's body; the abrogation of the Mosaic Law; the necessity for heavenly moral standards in this age; the defeat of the evil angelic powers along with an appreciation that all angels are subject to Christ the Head.

The author shows that Christ is superior to all of the angelic Powers, and that the cross of Christ removes the legalistic, ascetic basis for visionary Judaism. He points to the Exodus of the church and its experience of true redemption, and as a corollary, he shows that the new rite of baptism is superior to the old way of circumcision. The

Christian life entails true heavenly-mindedness: Christ is at the right hand, he reserves the believers' resurrection life with God, and Christians are to assimilate the heavenly standards of holiness. This

leads to the author's affirmation of this-worldly morality based upon otherworldly standards in Col. 3:5-4:6.

18. See Evans, p.

203.

- 293 -

Although there are striking similarities between Colossians and Ephesians, it is clear that they were written for different purposes. Whereas there seems to have been a definite heresy which prompted the composition of Colossians, Ephesians is much less specific in its polemic. It may not have been addressed to a particular group of 19 Christians, much less the church at Ephesus. On the other hand, its author may still have written his epistle against a specific background of problems, and taken the epistle to the Colossians as his point of 20 departure.

Accordingly, Ephesians shares the substantial elements of the christology of Colossians, including Christ's cosmic superiority over the Powers, the church's favored position as Christ s body, and the blessings of spiritual resurrection and exaltation. Ephesians does,

however, contain several new or further-developed ideas: there is more emphasis on the unity of the Body of Christ (Eph. 2:11-22) and more teaching about the growth of the church into maturity, especially in connection with the use of the charismata in Eph. 4:1-17. There is more of an emphasis upon the corporate nature of the church as the symbol of God's work in the cosmos (Eph. 2:7, 3:7-13), and a lessening of the

19. Cf. the discussion of "iv ' Ea" in Eph. 1:1 by Kummel Introduction, pp. 352-56. 20. See the excellent discussion by Lana, Eschatoiogie, pp. 428-30.

- 294 -

emphasis on individual entry into the church.

tiost important

for our

study, however, is the heightened emphasis upon the struggle between the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of Christ (2:2, ;1O-2O). When he ends

his letter to the Ephesians in a call to arms against Satan and the spiritual Powers, the author implies that his readers were overawed by the cosmic Powers. His aim of bolstering up frightened Christians fits 21 well into a Hellenistic milieu. Schweizer states; Die Bewltigung des Kosmos wird vordringliches Problem. Astrologie, Horoskope und tiagie erheben den Anepruch, der damaligen Menschheit die verlorene Sicherheit wiederzugeben, und jene Gegenbewegung zu Paulus, die alles Gewicht auf die offenbarten Seheimnisse, gerade auch in bezug auf kosmische tlchte und Gewalten, leyte, bot Ahnliches an. H. E. Lona agrees: when the Roman empire brought about the disintegration of the Hellenistic cities along with resulting social and religious instability, men and women felt themselves to be at the mercy of cosmic elements. Their response was often found in worshiping the

cosmic Powers in order to receive a measure of control and cosmic 22 The author of Ephesians was therefore saying that the protection. answer to such Weltangst is not in giving more attention to the Powers (which is idolatry! cf. Eph. 5:5), but in engaging these Powers by

means of union with the cosmic Head, who works in and through the church. As Ernst expresses it: 'Die christliche Gemeinde wei sich frei

von solchen Bindungen und Zwangen, denn Christus ht die Herrschaft 23 aller bbsen Geister gebrochen."

21. Schweizer, "Kirche als Leib Christi," p. 253. He thinks such Hellenistic spiritual threateriings formed the background for both epistles, although his suggestion seems more relevant for Ephesians. 22. See Lona, Eschatologie, pp. 430-40. t!

23. J. Ernst, Die Brief an die Philier, rj d 290. E a heser , p.

- 295 -

The ktngdom teaching in Colossians and Ephesians has a clear polemical function when it is accepted that Colossians was directed against Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, and Ephesians was written within a background of Hellenistic Weltanst, with attendant cosmic speculation and superstition. it is with this in mind that we will discuss the

realized eschatology, cosmology, and ecclesiology of Colossians and Ephesians, with a view toward the part they play in the theology of the kingdom.

- 296 -

II.

g!ggy

It is best to study Paul s theology of the kingdom within the context of his eschatology and his beliefs about present salvation history. For Colossians and Ephesians, it is the same. Texts such as

Col. 1:13 and Eph. 5:5 must be read as parts of a whole theological presentation, and much can be gained by examining the way in which the is integrated into the authors messages.

One of the most critical problems facing the interpreter of Colossians and Ephesians is the apparent shift away from the strongly future eschatology of Pauline theology. Paul was always careful to

distinguish between that which the believers may now experience and that for which they must wait (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8). In these two epistles there are several phenomena which appear to be present realizations of blessings which are regarded as future in the undisputed letters. know that Paul assigned an important function to 'realized eschatology". In Colossians and Ephesians, therefore, we are dealing We shall consider We

with a question of degree rather than of kind.

spiritual resurrection (Cal. 2:12-13, 3:1, and Eph. 2:1-5), spiritual

- 297 -

enthronement with Christ (Eph. 2:6), arid past salvation (Eph. 2:5,8) and ask whether their authors have brought the kingdom completely into the present.

1. Resurrection and Life

a.

Does spiritual resurrection displace future bodily

resurrection?

In Pauline thought future resurrection holds great importance as the eschatological rite of passage into the kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50). But Gerhard Sellin has proposed that in the Prison Epistles the final resurrection is only a distant hope, and that the author of Colossians 24 has replaced it with the concept of spiritual resurrection. Sellin dates Colossians and Ephesians within the span of A. D. 60-80, during which time he supposes that the "apocalyptic" ideas of Paul were being reinterpreted by the Hellenistic church. This trend was later reversed

by a renewal of "apocalyptic" emphasis from A. D. 80 onwards (cf. the polemic against spiritual resurrection in 2 Thess. 2:2 and 2 Tim. 25 2:18).

b.

The future revelation of life reserved in heaven

Col. 3:4 and Eph. 4:30 indicate that life is to be revealed at the

24. Sellin, "Die Auferstehung ist schon geschehen: zur Spiritualisiering apokalyptischer Terminologie i.m Neuen Testament," NovI 25 (1983), pp. 230-32; see also the fuller discussion by Becker, Auferstehung, pp. 55-96. Both believe that this was the doctrine which Paul was refuting in 1 Cor. 15. Cf. also Steinmetz, pp. 29-30. 25. Sellin, pp. 233-37.

- 298 -

Parousia. Some claim that this "revelation' concept is a mere remnant of 26 Pauline eschatology.

c.

Spiritual resurrection and the spiritual life in Romans 6

The relationship between the spiritual re s urrection in Colossians and Ephesians and the baptismal life of Ram. 6-8 is a continuing topic 27 for debate in Pauline studies. On the one hand, Schlier thinks that 28 Eph. 2:5-6 attests a developed view of Paul's baptismal theology. But on the other hand, Achtemeier claims that while Paul had the perfect opportunity to spiritualize the resurrection in Ram. 6, he studiously 29 avoided doing so.

In Romans Paul defines death in two ways.

Death personified holds

sway over the Adamic race (6:9). It is the end of the walk of the old humanity in sin and under the law. But death is also the point of

identification with the crucifixion in Christ which results in the believer's liberation from death, sin, and the law (cf. Cal. 2:11, 13, 20; Eph. 2:1, 5). In Colossians and Ephesians it is the believer's new

214. See Lohse, Co1osians, 26. Cf. Schnackenburg, An die Epheser, p. 134-35: this reference to the Parousia is merely the future pp. revelation of the past reality in baptism (Cal. 2:12-13). Merklein concedes that Col. 3:4 may have been influenced by Pauline tradition. Merklein, "Rezeption," p. 45. 22, admits that one s view of authorship 27. Lindemann, Aufhebun, p. will make a great difference in interpreting this relationship. 28. Schlier, An die Egheer, pp. 110-12. Lindemann, Auhebung, p. regards Schlier's harmonizing as "dismissing contradictions". 22,

29. Achtemeier, "An Apocalyptic Shifts" p. 235. See also Lohse, 103-06: he states that even in Ram. 6, Paul was going pp. along with Hellenistic baptismal theology in order to prove a point, but he gives too much credit to the modern interpreters' ability to glean Paul's "real" message from between the lines of his apparent message.

- 299 -

life in Christ for which new vocabulary is used.

D. M. Stanley proposes

that this difference rests on Paul's own development of baptism: "It is characteristic...that he conceives the Christian in this world as participating rather in Christ's new LIFE than in his resurrection." Thus in Rom. Paul speaks of an antithesis of death/life, while his 30 later epistles (so Stanley) contrast death/resurrection.

It is a fact that Paul does normally use (xw and its cognates to 31 He reserves the verbs tyipw and speak of the state of the baptized. wanotw for physical resurrection (cf. Rom. 8:11). The authors of Colossians and Ephesians use the resurrection terms ouvCpw and auvwonotw to speak of the new life, believers have their while in Col. 3:3-4 the

wfl temporarily hidden in heaven.

But despite this shift in language, we must remember that in the -Jewish-Christian mind there was not an essential distinction between God 33 The former is giving new life in Christ and God giving resurrection.
j ust as much a spiritualizing of eschatclogy as the latter.

According

to Bultmann, Paul was the first to think of the Christian walk as the present possession of life, which anticipates the reception of life in the resurrection. Thus any mention of present life in Christ which is

not at the same time possessed by the whole race is a reference to the

199. He states: 'Only in his later 30. Stanley, Res c!t on , p. letters, Colossians and Ephesians, will he state that the Christian has already been raised with Christ in this present state of existence." 227-30. Contra Sellin, 'Auferstehung,' pp. 31. Cf. Gal. 2:20, Rom. 6:11, 6:13, 8:10. 32. The actual verb is used in the New Testament only in Col. 2:12 and Eph. 2:5. But see Col. 2:12-13, 3:1, Eph. 2:5-6. 33. Thus O'Brien, Colossians and Philern2n, pp. 119-20.

- 300 -

proleptic reception of an eschatological gift.

Bultmann thus sees no

essential difference between saying that the believer is spiritually 34 alive and the believer is spiritually raised with Christ. Any life which is received after death of any kind may be called resurrection.

Thus we can understand that Achtemeier is arguing from false presuppostions when he states: "Indeed it is precisely Pauls conviction that the resurrection includes the transformation of the physical body into a body of another order of being...that makes any notion of present 35 resurrection palpably absurd." According to Paul, God offers the believer life in Christ; neither life nor spiritual resurrection replaces the need for the future resurrection of the body within the context of Romans, Colossians, or Ephesans.

d.

The polemical function of spiritual resurrection

Paul teaches about spiritual life in Ram. 6-B in order to show that the believer is dead to the power of sin and the law. in Cal. 2 it is freedom from the downward pull of the aro x Similarly c which is

crucial (see 2:8). The author gives to the reader a partial definition of "being made alive with Christ" with the two participial clauses which define "auvwano(qav (ii" in Col. 2:13. When God makes believers alive with Christ he has (1) forgiven ( x cpac* .Ivo c) their trespasses,

presumably featuring sins against the law, and (2) he canceled (cXEc*) the bond, the written code which he nailed to the cross.

34. Cf. Bultmann,

"wfl,

.T.A, , " IPNI

pp.

II, pp. 866-70; Tannehill , Din 7-10. See also Oepke, "yCpw.

II,

II, pp.

334-37. 235.

3. Achtejiieier, "An Apocalyptic Shift," p.

- 301 -

It is not spiritual resurrection a er se which brings liberation from the a 'roL x c*, but rather spiritual death (Ccl. 2:20). The authors

of both epistles separate the results of spiritual death and life at the same j uncture. Because the author of Colossians does not distinguish

between oToL%ctc as written laws and as elemental spirits, he is able to define spiritual death as that act of God which brings liberation from all of the forces which dominate the unregenerate. The subsequent

co-resurrection, not the liberating death, provides the primary basis for the paraenetical section.

Achtemeier also asserts that for Paul "it is Christ alone who does 36 the living which follows such death" (as in Gal. 2:20). But Paul can speak of new life without an immediate, reflexive reference to Christ: Ram. 6:13 is such an example ("ricpcaTf)ocurc curoO 'r 8c Iiia(. ic vI<pv

bv'rc*"), as is his logically deduced "8ua

ioc" paraenesis of Rem.

12:1. Cal. 2:12-13 is by no means less christocentric than the statements in Romans and Galatians. In Ccl. 3:1-4 spiritual resurrection 37 is defined as " wi iptv kKpurITc aiv rj XpaT v 'r 8c."

It is unfruitful to attempt to excise future resurrection from

36. Achtemeier, "An Apocalyptic Shift," p.

235.

37. Steinmetz thinks that the author of Colossians pictures life as existing in heaven now and merely revealed at the Eschaton (3:4); since there is no talk of "meeting the Lord in the air," Colossians cannot be Pauline. Cf. Steinmetz, pp. 29-30. His error is in ignoring the mass of Jewish and Christian literature in which the end is pictured as a revelation of heavenly reality.

- 302 -

Colossians and Ephesians, or to conclude that it iS of necessity 39 emptied of meaning. fter all, life is a present experience in the undisputed letters as well as in Colossians and Ephesians. Each epistle is unique in its development of eschatology; only in 1 Cor. 15 does the apostle come close to matching his announcement of the Parousia in I Thess. 4. Because of the resurrection of Christ, Paul teaches that God will not create salvation and life ex nihilo at the return of Christ. In him God has created life, the quality of which provides the basis both for the present Christian walk and for the resurrection of the new humanity.

2. Co-exaltation to Heaven

Only the author of Ephesians teaches that believers have been exalted to heaven as a consequence of spiritual resurrection: xc. auviycpv Kcd ouvBov tv 'ro tnoupcvCo v Xpo'rr IqaoU (Eph.

2:). Many scholars have pointed to this as the clearest point of departure from Pauline theology: the hope of co-ruling in the future 40 kingdom ha become transformed into spiritual exaltation. Both the early Schlier and Nsemann pointed to the Gnostic Anthropos myth as the 41 matrix for the church's extension into the heavens. Since the

38. M. Barth finds several references to the future return of Christ, Cf. M. Barth, "Die Parusie im Epheserbrief: Eph. 4,13," in Neue 239-50. pp. 39. 4s Merklein, "Rezeption," p. 40. See Conzelmann, Outline, pp. 122-25. 41. See Schiler, Christus, pp. 40-45. 314-15; Gnilka, Eaheserbrief, pp.

53-56; Ksemann, Leib, pp.

14344.

- 303 -

ErAqo'tc constituted the cosmic cody, and its Head dwelt in heaven, therefore the church could be said also to be in heaven by literal, 42 organic connection. Others locate the origin of the heavenly 43 fellowship idea within Qumran Essenisin. The hymns of the Hodayoth presuppose that the assembly has in its midst the holy angels of God, and that God has exalted the covenanters into heavenly worship. clearest example is found in 1 OH 3:19-23: The

I give Thee thanks, 0 Adonmi, for Thou has redeemed my soul from the Pit and from Sheol of Abaddon Thou has made me rise to everlasting heights, and I have walked in an infinite plain! And I knew there was hope for him whom Thou hast shaped from the dust for the everlasting assembly. Thou has cleansed the perverse spirit from great Sin that he might watch with the army of the Saints and enter into communion with the congregation of the Sons of Heaven. And Thou has cast an everlasting destiny for man in the company of the Spirits of Knowledge, that he might praise Thy Name in joyful concord and recount Thy marvels before all Thy works. But the picture of communing with angels from Qumran is due to the angels' proximity to the community; the exaltation of the saints does not mean that they have entered heaven, but that heaven has metaphorically come to Qumran. In Ephesians the church has entered into Christ, who is in turn in heaven at God's right hand. Colossians and

42. The Gnostic interpretation of Eph. 2:6 has come under broad attack, but N1uner must be credited with the liveliest arguments. He points out that the Anthropos is missing from Eph. 2:lff. , and in fact, he believes it does not appear at all in Colossians and Ephesians. Instead, Muner shows that both in Colossians and Ephesians life and exaltation belong together as one act of God. See Muner, Christus, pp. 91-94; also Gnilka, Epheserbrie+, pp. 123-24. 43. See Snilka, Eheser-brie1, pp. 120-26; J. 1. Collins, "Patterns of Eschatology at Qumran," pp. 365-66.

- 304 -

Ephesiafls are in truth no more like the Qunran hymns than other Pauline letters, so that there is no need to propose any special influence in 44 their writing.

A better interpretation is to understand Eph. 2:6 as a further development of the baptism teaching in Ram. 6 and in Cal. 2:12-13. The key to interpreting the co-ascension motif is the phrase 'tv Xpoit 'IqaoU". Snilka wrongly translates this as an instrumental dative, so that the text merely denotes that Christ is the means for the church's enthronement; such a translation misses the fact that it is only by union with Christ that Christians are made alive and exalted to sit with 45 Although the statement in Eph. 2:6 OUV - KC8W). him (auv - yECpil, is more developed than that found in Cal. 2:12-13, we may add to the latter text Cal. 3:1-4: "t wt (jiv puniu ouv 'r Xpur" (3:3).

Within Pauline theology, Christ's resurrection and ascension to the glory of the kingdom are not two events, but two parts of the realized rule of God. Thus in Cal. 2-3 the believer is spiritually raised, and also know5 that both wfl and oc* are hidden in heaven in and with Christ. In Ephesians, the church is spiritually raised and is spiritually exalted; even so, both benefits will only be revealed from heaven in the day of redemption (4:30). From the Parousia onward the church will be revealed as God's people. This is the teaching of Paul

in Phil. 3:20-21, in which he shows the tension between present heavenly "no?.C'rui" and the revelation of this citizenship at Christ's

44. So Barth,

-3, p.

21. 120; contra Schnackenburg,

45. See Gnilka, E a heserbrief , p. 95-96. pp.

- 305 -

46 return. As Mupner aptly expresses it: "Die Gabe der wfl bewirkt

zugleich Teilhabe an der Herrschaft Christi. . .Die in der Taufe von Gott mit Christus zum 'Leben' Auferweckten nehmen jetzt schon tell an der 47 Herrschaft des erhOhten Herrn." This interpretation is not necessarily a careless harmonization of Ephesians with Ram. 6, as claims Lindemann. The authors of Colossians and Ephesians both clearly have the Pauline baptismal theology in mind as they write, and it is thus fair to ask whether Cal. 2-3 and Eph. 2 are faithful to Paul's teaching.

In this context being seated with Christ does not mean that Christians are now reigning with him, as if the kingdom has become fully realized. The author's point is that the church is united with the Head There is a clear continuation from the statements

of the universe.

about the Body in 1:22-23 through to 2:5-7. Christians are not tapologically in heaven; the author teaches that their "ca-seating' simply means that they have access to the King: in Christ they have a 48 Since the author of Ephesians teaches that Christians royal position. still must battle with the evil Powers (Eph. 2:2, 6:12), it is clear that he is not promoting a kind of fanatical triumphalism. No, he

desires to encourage Christians that as people of the King, they are able to fight God's enemies with God's own eschatological armor (cf. the parallels between 6:11-17 and Isa. 59:17). They are gifted by the ascended Christ to do his work (Eph. 4:1-16). Most of all, they have

46. See O'Brien,

p.

167.

236-38; 94; Barth, Eahesians 47. See Muner, Christus, p. -3, pp. 118-21; Schlier, O'Brien, Colossians, Philernon, pp. 287. 110-lI; Bruce, Colossians, Philernon, Ehesian, p. pp. 236-38; Mupner, Christus, pp. 48. So Barth, EEhesians 1-3, pp. Schlier, An die Eher, pp. 110-11. 93-94;

- 306 -

access to 6od through the Spirit (Eph. 2:18).

The authors of Colossians and Ephesians are not therefore promoting the type of arrogance which Paul encountered in Corinth ("xwpC p&v

tpcaAac'r!").

Whereas the Corinthians were boasting of

their glory in their own wisdom and strength, the Colossians were being distracted by anti-ecciesiologists with claims of personal access to God; they needed to hear that it was in the enthroned Christ alone that they had full knowledge and status with the Father. The author of Ephesians writes that if one is in Christ (in the church), then one need 49 not fear the cosmic Powers.

3. The Time of Salvation

The presence of salvation has also been distinguished for its 50 alleged deutero-Pauline flavor. In Eph. 2:5, 8 the author reiterates "('nj) XP I'' C n

o'rc aaivo." Some theorize that under the pressure of

Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity the temporal (horizontal) tension of Pauline eschatology has been changed into a spatial (vertical) tension. Baptism is made the reception of the new life, so that Christians can 51 even now experience life in the "noupcvioi".

49. Thus Schnackenburg, An die 2eser, p. 96, shows that the strong ecclesiological emphasis in Ephesians is due to a stress on Christ's cosmic headship. 50. Bultmann stated that in Colossians and Ephesians the present "is conceived as a time of salvation brought about by God's deed in Christ." Bultmann, Iheoioq, II, pp. 158-61; 175-80. 51. So Merklein, "Rezeption,' pp. 40-45. Gnilka believes that this present reception of salvation is the key theme of Ephesians. Gnilka, heserbrief, p. 122.

- 307 -

Merklein makes the claim that in Pauline theology salvation is always future, and that even the one exception (Roe. 8:24) refers to 52 But the fact that past salvation which is based upon the future hope. Paul can use the aorist passive of "ow" in Roe. 8:24 ('ri yp oth8iipi'v) must indicate that he himself does not absolutely distinguish 53 The cognate salvation as future, even if this is his usual practice. noun ow'rpCa is used relatively frequently in the Pauline epistles, and often with a clear present meaning. in the "t6o vUv tWpc This is nowhere more obvious than

w'rqpCc" interpretation of Isa. 49:8 in 2 Cor.

6:2: Paul's use of the noun in this way means that God is saving people 54 Again, in 1 Cor. 1:18 and 2 Cor. 2:15, Paul uses the in the present. phrase "'roi acoIJvoc" in order to denote those who are presently 55 being saved.

In Col ossi ans and Ephesi ans the strong "realized eschatol ogy" is based upon polemic against those who emphasize individual exaltation to life or the powerlessness of individuals in the face of the cosmic Powers. Thus the authors of Colossians and Ephesians develop Pauline eschatology in a way which is ecciesiological (I. e. , non-mystical) and salvation-historical (i. e. , non-Qumran)

52. Merklein, "Rezeption," p.

42.

53. In fact 3 within Colossians and Ephesians, aw appears only in Eph. 2:5 and 2:8. 54. See also Foerster, who on the basis of these texts acknowledges that extends into the present too," but also claims that "in Paul awTqpC "there is some shift of Pauline usage in Eph. and Col." Cf. W. Foerster 993-94. TDNT, VII, pp. and 6. Fohrer, "o4w, claims that in I Cor. 1:18, Paul Aole, p. 165 55. Beker, Paul th is using the "present salvation" language of his Corinthian opponents; this suggestion, however, rests entirely upon Beker's assumptions about the Corinthian theology, and owes nothing to an exegesis of 1 Cor. 1:18.

- 308 -

_I_1iY_9_tb_E9i

..t

E9Yi

H02e Faded?

It appears that some scholars begin with the non-eschatological elements of Colossians and Ephesians and upon that basis conclude that the eschatology of the epistles is merely a repetition of older 56 It is better to traditions, or is spiritualized, or is non-existent. follow the example set by scholars who carefully weigh all of the evidence before sweeping future eschatology under a Hellenistic mat. Let us therefore discuss what role the Parousia plays in each 57 epistle.

It is generally conceded that future eschatology is more prominent in Colossians than in Ephesians. The Parousia plays an important role in

56. Cf., among other scholars we have discussed in thi g section, Beke, 160-63; Bultmann, "Der Mensch zwischen den Zeiten pp. Py 1 37. nach dem Neuen Testament," p. 57. Steinmetz points to Col. 1:6, which uses ncippt to denote the corning of the gospel; he then claims that the author believed not in the return of Christ, but in the Parousia of the Word of Truth, the Word Cf. which comes from the heavenly sphere to the earthly sphere. 29. His conclusion, however, is based on a rather dubious Steinmetz, p. use of Greek vocabulary; a good semantical interpretation of a passage means that an author need not be speaking of a technical "Parousia" In fact, see Paul's whenever he uses what is a fairly common verb. statements in 2 Cor. 10:2, 13:2, 13:10; see also 2 Pet. 1:12. The verb is in fact never used in the New Testament of Christ's return; only nc*pouaCc is used in such a semi-technical manner.

- 309 -

58 Col. 3:4 in conjunction with mystical union with Christ. In Colossians

the final judgment determines the present behavior of the Christian and the unbeliever alike (Col. 3:5-25). It is only at the end that believers are to be glorified with Christ (Ccl. 3:4; probably 1:22 and 28 as well). Christians should live with an eye on the heavenly hope, but

again this hope is only revealed at the Parousia (Ccl. 1:5, 3:1-4). In the important Ccl. 3:1-4, the Parousia is far from being incidental; 59 indeed, it provides the logical climax to the traditional hope.

Ephesians is more problematic.

Gnilka comments that the reason

the future has lost its importance in Ephesians is that the church is even now situated in the age to come, the position of blessing in the exalted Christ. The church only awaits the age to come inasmuch as it 60 Gnilka will then be revealed as the recipient of divine blessing. blithely states that the Parousia is nowhere expected in the epistle. He also suggests that no Pauline epistle of this length could lack all 61 In the same vein, Lindemann reference to the return of Christ. declares that one is only able to find traditional "Pauline' eschatology

58. Cf. Steinmetz, pp. 30-31 for a discussion of this text. Contra 6rer, "Kol. 3,1-4," p. 152, who believes that Ccl. 3:1-4 is shaped by the authors polemical style: "Da unser Verfasser bei solcher Polemik Vorstellungen seiner Gegner Ubernimmt und sich sit ihnen bis an den Rand der Hresie wagt, gehbrt zu seiner apologetischen Methode." 59. Graer wrongly claims that Col. 3:4 is not the "apocalyptic" Parousia, but merely an individualistic revelation of heavenly reality. He fails to acknowledge that the future revelation of heavenly reality is at the very core of apocalyptic and rabbinic eschatology; it is thus not necessary for Graer to propose a Hellenistic matrix for Col. 3:4. Cf. Grer, "Kol. 3,1-4," pp. 16668. 60. Gnilka, E 2 heserbrief , pp. 61. Gnilka, p. 127-28. 122.

- 310 -

62 in Ephesiaris if one subscribes to "Catholic or conservative opinion".

The author of Ephesians teaches that the inheritance of the believer is to be fully realized at the "day of redemption" (Eph. 4:30). The gift of the Spirit is a pledge of this inheritance (Eph. 1:14, 1:18, 4:30, 5:27). The day of judgment will determine the fate of the wicked only at the end (Eph. 5:5). If we take these texts at face value 3 they indicate that a future "day" of union with Christ rounds out the strongly realized emphasis of the epistle. By means of careful

exegesis, Barth concludes that Eph. 4:13 is also a reference to the Parousia rather than a promise of ecclesiastical triumphalism (as 63 Steinmetz). He is thus able to propose that Eph. 1:14, 4:13, and 4:30 are written in the style of Jewish eschatology, in which the idea of gradual perfection is rejected in favor of eschatological perfection. Thus, both Colossians and Ephesians contain teaching concerning the return of Christ and the consummation of the program of God in the church. The importance of eschatology is further reinforced by

examining its role within the authors message.

cg9gy

Paul often teaches that believers are to live in a way which reflects an awareness of the coming of the kingdom. Steinmetz concedes

21. In the context, Lindemann is 62. Lindemann, Aufheburig, p. attempting to drop Franz Muner into his "Catholic/conservative" box. Those who see elements of traditional Pauline eschatology in the epistle A. 1. Lincoln, "Heavenlies," p. include H. Schlier, Dr 38. Schnackenburg, 482. Bultmann, "Der Mensch zwischen den Zeiten," p. 24, 59-60. die Ephe5er, pp. 63. Cf. H. Barth, "Die Parusie im Epheserbrief," pp. 239-50.

- 311 -

that while there are certainly traces of Pauline 'apocalyptic" eschatology in Colossians and Ephesians, these are few in number and used by the authors in a more casual manner than would suit Paul. His argument rests partially upon the fact that these statements are most often located in paraenetical sections. He asserts that the writers

grasped whatever ultimate truths they could think of in order to support their call for holy living; eschatological references formed a part of 64 this theological pooi.

Paul did not use the future as his sole doctrinal or ethical foundation. Gnilka's claim that Ephesians is too long to be Pauline and

not to have any reference to the Parousia falls apart when we compare Ephesians with Galatians; the undisputed epistle is roughly the same length as Ephesians and contains no reference to the Parousia or its imminence; the author does, however, stress the heavenly reality. In it

Paul says almost nothing about the Parousia. The only clear reference is the inheritance saying of Gal. 5:21, but this is traditional and not much different from Eph. 5:5. The sowing and reaping metaphor in Gal. 6:7-10 maybe eschatological, but it only contains a general reference to the judgment which will come "xcp 6ci" ("in due season"), and 65 On the other again, the section is likely to be traditional as well.
tl

hand, Paul teaches that one's relationship with

vw

Ipouac*A?i (Gal.

4:26) determines one's state before God and one's position in salvation

24. He regards 35. Schnackenburg, An die Eaheser, p. 64. Steinmetz, p. But see the discussion of eschatology and Eph. 5:5 in the same way. u Eschatg ethics of both epistles by Grabner-Haider, Paa bei Paulus, pp. 99-105. 264-65. Betz, Galajans, p. Bruce, Galatians, pp. 65. See esp. hastily adds, "In Gal. 6:7 Paul thinks, of course, of the divine retribution at the Last Judgment." 307

- 312 -

history.

It is important to remember that Paul, for all of his

eschatology, did not hesitate to base his ethical admonitions upon the salvation Christians have in Christ, the presence of the Spirit, and the inheritance which awaits the believer fri heaven.

- 313 -

III. c99199Y

along with the increased emphasis upon realized blessings, the Prison Epistles are renowned for their stress on the vertical, or heavenly element of the kingdom. Some have suggested that, fr their

author(s), the ultimate reality is no longer eschatological salvation. Salvation is rather to be found in heaven; the cosmos is ordered by Christ's ascension over the Principalities and Powers, and not by his 66 Parousia. The future will bring little that is new.

While it is true that the church's future is reserved by God in heaven, this does not mean that the authors of Colossians and Ephesians envision a cosmos of spatial, timeless spheres. Nlerklein's approach

owes much to the outdated idea that apocalyptic theology is purely eschatological. Just as the apocalyptic writers thought of the end in

terms of heaven, so Paul taught that the historical progression toward

66. So Merklein, "Rezeption," pp. 46-49. Contra Dodd, "The Mind of Paul: Change and Development," pp. 93-101; Dodd thinks that Paul himself moved away from apocalyptic theology in later life.

- 314 -

the Eschaton could not be divorced from the enthroned Christ. His eschatological framework is not abandoned in Colossians and Ephesians, but rather 15 presented with more emphasis upon heaven. Let us examine

in greater detail the relationship of Colossians and Ephesians to Jewish cosmol ogy.

B. Heaven in Judaism

It is a mistake to assume that apocalyptic Judaism was uniformly 67 In recent years concerned with that which was temporally future. scholars have recognized that apocalyptic Jewish thought also involved an emphasis on heaven, angels, and visions. One of the leading experts

in apocalyptic theology, John J. Collins, interprets the apocalyptic message primarily as a means of transcending earthly persecution and death. While he concedes that "traditionally apocalyptic has been

defined purely in terms of future expectation," such definitions "fail to account For a considerable amount of material in the apocalyptic books, which deals with celestial and cosmic secrets." Thus, while

apocalyptic literature may portray future events, "the purpose of apocalyptic is to foster the cherishing of values which transcend death

67. This would indeed be the conclusion one might reach after perusing the standard texts on Jewish apocalyptic. The heavenly element is all but ignored by 0 S. Russell, Method and Messaqe and downplayed by H. H. in favor of what they believe to be the Rowley, Qgi gf 'real" message of apocalyptic, that is, future eschatology.

- 315 -

68 and thereby the experience of transcendent life."

In the extant literature of Jewish apocalyptic there is an emphasis on cosmic and heavenly speculation which is absent from the New 69 There was much calculation concerning the angels and the Testament. levels of the heavenly world. Whereas the authors of

Enoch and 4 Ezra

know of one heaven, the author of

Aoc. Baruc speaks of five, and the

and the Tannaitic tradition authors of 2 Enoch, the ssumgtion of 7 t) This interest was complemented by the late speak of seven levels. Jewish fascination with the angelic and demonic worlds.

The world of Jewish speculation about heaven touches upon our topic in two areas. First, apocalyptic (and rabbinic) theology knows of

a heavenly reservation of Paradise or eschatological reward until the Eschaton. Second, it also relies upon a heavenly, or vertical, basis for 71 ethics.

It is wrong to limit the scope of such a study to apocalyptic theology, since rabbinic writings also attest most of the ideas which we

7, 11; Rowland, 68. Collins, "Symbolism of Transcendance," pp. 78-123. Cf. also Collins, "The Jewish Apocalypses," in Heaven, pp. which he points out that most apocalypses have both heavenly and eschatological elements. 69. Hans Rietenhard has catalogued these ideas in his book on the Cf. Bietenhard, Die hirnrnlische Welt irn Urchristy heavenly world. 49-52. und pp. 70. Cf. Bietenhard,

LLtc.

.Lt., pp.

5-6.

71. We have already noted that a whole strain of theology views heaven as the final abode of the righteous, as opposed to a new creation upon This seems to be the teaching of 1. Dan 5:G-l3 the the earth. righteous will be delivered to the New Jerusalem, Eden, but they will But this is an area of eschatology which does also reign from heaven. not presently concern us.

- 316 -

72 shall here discuss. But the specific misunderstandings about the

nature of apocalyptic eschatology make it imperative to clarify the role of heaven in the apocalypses. Let us look first of all at those books

which teach an earthly reward which nonetheless is stored in heaven during this age. When in 1 Enact 39 Enoch expresses his desire to dwell

"under the wings of the Lord" he is told that his "portion' awaits him until he receives it; it is reserved there by the Lord. In I Enoch 48 it is said that the Son of Man is the one who has preserved this portion for the righteous until the judgment day. This reservation comes to

fulfillment in the resurrection in I Enoch 51. Eden is also kept in 73 Many apocalypses record that heaven awaiting the saints (1 Enoch 61). while God created the age to come for the saints, he is purposely concealing this fact from the non-elect (I. Mos. 1:12-13, 4 Ezra in bc.), comfort. The knowledge of this is revealed to the elect for their

The presence of the eschatological Paradise in heaven is a major 74 Enoch ascends through the levels of heaven, and in theme of 2 the third he sees Paradise with its tree of life (2 Enoch 8). He is then told that it is being prepared for the righteous (2 Enoch 9). Even though the saints are not generally recognized as God s chosen people, "for them this place has been prepared as an eternal inheritance." The

72. Cf. Schriackenburg, Gods

le

Kin

pp.

54-62.

73. In 4 Ezra 7:36 both Paradise and the place of torment are existing In 4 Ezra 10:25-59 and in this age but are revealed on judgment day. 13:21-58 it is Zion or the New Jerusalem which shall be revealed in this way. 74. We follow the longer, J rescension of this work as presented by F. I. Andersn,11 eudepi9raha, I, pp. 102-221.

- 317 -

time when the righteous will inherit Paradise is two-fold.

On the one

hand, Enach says that when he ascends to heaven (in death) he wall go to the highest Jerusalem and there receive the inheritance. other hand it says in 2 Enc But on the

50:2: "...in patience and meekness abide

for the number of your days, so that you may inherit the final endless age that is coming. The tension between heaven and the age to come is

also evident in 4 Ezra 7; although the righteous enter Paradise after the eschatological judgment (7:3 'b) , they are also said to enter into 75 their habitations seven days after they die (7:101).

Let us now discuss briefly the relationship of the heavenly element to ethics within the apocalyptic literature. In the classical

apocalyptic writings paraenesis may take the form of encouragement in the face of suffering (4 Ezra), or exhortations to strict Sabbath observance and keeping pure from idols and blood (Jubilees).

Most apocalyptic book5 emphasize that judgment is to come upon the unrepentant in the Eschaton. The strong emphasis on the dualism of the ages and upon the eternal reward means that apocalyptic ethical admonitions are often based upon future (perhaps imminent) events. In 2

Enoch, for example, Enoch instructs his children to live piously because

75. In 4 Ezra 7:77 Ezra is told that his works are being stored up in heaven until the judgment day. In 4 Ezra 7:35 it is poetically expressed: "And recompense shall follow, and the reward shall be manifested; righteous deeds shall awake, and unrighteous deeds shall not sleep."

318

in so doing they will inherit the age to come (which he has seen in a 76 vision).

The apocalyptic writers did not, however, base their ethics only upon the future. In fact, paraenesis is only made possible by a This revelation may be mediated, as in the Although

revelation of the future.

Enochic literature, by a recounting of a visit to the heavens.

the seer may see future events, in the case of the Enochic writings in particular a vision of the future is combined with or replaced by a vision of heaven itself. The seer is given a vision of Paradise, the

abode which God is storing in heaven until its eschatological revelation. In the case of 2 Enoch this visionary experience provides

the prophet with the information and motive with which to admonish his 'children" about holy living.

Thus the authors of the apocalyptic literature were perfectly capable of giving exhortation based on the coming kingdom, on the kingdom reserved in heaven, or even on the reality of heaven itself. They were interested not so much in revealing the future as they were in disclosing divine truth in all of its manifestations.

76. E.g. 2 Enoch 66:6: "Walk, my children, in long-suffering, in meekness, in affliction, in distress, in faithfulness, in truth, in hope, in weakness, in derision, in assaults, in temptation, in deprivation, in nakedness, having love for one another, until you go out from this age of suffering, so that you may become inheritors of the never-ending age.'

- 319 -

As in apocalyptic literature an emphasis upon heaven was an important motif in the teaching of Jesus. He related heaven to the kingdom of God in both its present and future manifestations.

First, Jesus taught that heaven is the transcendent abode of the Father. This is an idea which has unmistakable roots in the Old Testament doctrine of God as the creator and maintainer of the universe The height of heaven denotes the moral superiority of God 77 as lawgiver, and also the strength of God as Savior. from heaven.

Second, the gospels record that Jesus taught that heaven is both the location for the believers' eschatological rewards and abode of the dead saints before the final resurrection. When the disciples are

persecuted they are to rejoice because their eschatological reward is 78 The gospels also record him even now reserved for them in heaven. teaching that the saints have their names written in heaven (Luke 10:20).

There are also two key passages in Luke which indicate that Jesus taught that the righteous go immediately to heaven when they die (and that the wicked go immediately to torment). The parable of the rich man

and Lazarus in Luke 1&: 19-31 has been hotly debated throughout church

77. Cf. Traub, "oupvd 1 V,

pp.

514-17.

78. Matt. 5:12Luke 6:23. Cf. also Matt. 6:20, 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 12:3334.

- 320 -

history as to its eschatological significance; its most obvious interpretation is that the righteous Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom (or the heavenly Paradise, the abode of the patriarchs) upon death. The

counterpart to this parable is found in the exchange between Christ and 79 If the thief imagined that the repentant thief in Luke 23:42-43. Jesus' kingdom would arrive imminently (although after his own death H then his hopes were transformed by Jesus' response that he would that 80 day enter Paradise.

Jesus' teaching about heaven influenced the teaching of the church. Paul regarded heaven as the throne-roam of the ascended Christ, He also regarded heaven as the location

from which he rules the cosmos.

of the eschatological blessings which are reserved until the coming of the kingdom. An emphasis on heaven is even stronger in Hebrews and

Revelation. In the former, the author magnifies the idea of heavenly reservation; in the latter, heaven is portrayed in detail as the royal center of God and the Lamb, who control history and keep a Book of Life. In 1 Peter, the perspective is similar to Colossians and EphesianS the author points the readers toward the inheritance reserved in heaven in order to encourage them in persecution (1:3-9). This inheritance is still to be revealed with Christ at his return.

79. The history of the understanding of this text is reflected in its textual history. crneC1t-y, p. Cf. Metzger, Textua 181. 80. According to Mark 13:27 angels are sent to retrieve the elect from both heaven and earth. This may indicate that while the earth is the abode of the living saints, heaven is the realm of the righteous dead. Cf. Jeremias, "flt*p6ao," TDMI, V, p. 769.

- 321 -

The celestial emphasis in Colossians arose from the author's presentation of the kingdom of Christ against a background of Jewish cosmology. The letter is directed toward those who wish to approach

heaven apart from the Body of Christ. The author's ethical message is clearest in Col. 3:1-4: because Christians have been raised with Christ the author exhorts them to learn to focus upon heavenly values. He uses terms which reflect the dualism of Phil. 3, vw and nL rr iic.

Through union with Christ the believer is the recipient of eschatological and heavenly blessings and is expected to act according to appropriate values.

Steinmetz thinks that the "above" and "below" schema in Cal. 3:1-2 lessens the impact of the reference to the Parousia in Cal. 3:4: the revelation of life is one of the traces (SEUra) of apocalyptic Pauline 81 eschatology in the letter. But Steinmetz overlooks precisely the point which shows this motif's close connection to Jewish and to Pauline theology 3 both of which stress the role of heaven as the place in which the final reward is kept. In Christian theology there is one person who

unites all of the elements of heaven and eschatology in himself, and in whom Christians trust. The reference to the Parousia in Col. 3:4 is no

sentimental repetition of a traditional motif; it is a strong

81. Steinmetz, pp. 29-35; cf. Schnackenburg, die Eaheser, pp. 167-68, who believes that there is a shift (albeit a minor one) away from the apocalyptic hope.

- 322 -

re-affirmation of eschatology which is properly juxtaposed with the 82 emphasis on heaven as the focus for ethics in 3:5-17.

In Cal. 1:5 it is said that Urrl is stored in heaven for the believer. Bornkamm has argued that the objective use of the word (i.e.,

hope is a thing in heaven, rather than an attitude) is un-Pauline and places too much emphasis on the vertical. But there are other examples

where Paul undoubtably understands XnL in such an objective sense, as 83 in Rorn. 8:24 and Gal. 5:5.

The theology of Ephesians is dominated by the claim that the church is v 0Cc tnoupcvCo. This is an example of the adjective

noupvoc - meaning "heavenly" or "in heaven" - being used as a noun. This realm is the heaven of Pauline theology and it is best identified with the Jewish view of the universe. The 'heavenlies" are not the

exclusive realm of the church, since Christ is there, and since it is in 84 this realm that they do battle with the spiritual Powers in Eph. 6:12. The theology of Eph. 1:3 is not foreign to the Pauline doctrine of the kingdom blessings which are channelled to those "in Christ": if the church is united with the ascended Christ, then it is at that point of contact that blessing flows. The "heavenlies" are also the battle field

of the spirit world (3:10, 6:12). The blessings in the present age means that the church has a great responsibility: it fights in the cosmic

11, who claims 82. Cf. J. J. Collins, "Symbolism of Transcendance," p. that Cal. 3 is one of the clearest New Testament examples of an "apocalyptic" celestial hope. 83. Cf. O'Brien, Colossians and Philernon, pp. 11-12,

84. Cf. Lincoln, 'A Re-examination of 'the Heavenlies' in Ephesians," 19 (1972-73), pp. 479-83.

- 323 -

battle before the Eschaton, wearing the end-time armor of God predicted in Isa. 59:17 (cf. 1 Thess. 5:8). The Qumran community placed a great 85 deal of stress on this final battle, but even they saw it as future. The author of Ephesians teaches that in Christ the church is given the means to fight and resist the hostile Powers through the ascension and victory of Christ.

In Colossians the author is arguing against a system which barred the church from heavenly blessings with a mixture of legalism and visionary mysticism. From the standpoint of Pauline theology this

constitutes a denial of the sufficiency of union with Christ by denying his ability to connect the church to heavenly blessing. The author of

Colossians stressed the superiority of Christ and the present relationship of the church to the kingdom of the Son and the importance of "heavenly" ethics.

In Ephesians the author uses the same arguments to make a new point. His readers apparently were feeling entrapped by hostile spiritual beings. Christ's universal kingdom means that they are They are not earth-bound, but they

equippeq for their spiritual battle.

are exalted to heaven a'ong with the risen Christ. Not only has God planned for them to be the demonstration of his grace, but he has also given them the enablement to fight in the battle until they are redeemed by God in the Eschaton.

Thus the cosmology of Christ's kingdom in Colossians and Ephesians is the result neither of a Hellenistic influence nor of a rejection of

85. Cf. Lincoln, "Heavenlies," pp.

475-76.

- 324 -

traditional ideas about the kingdom of God. Rather, these letters owe their strong heavenly element to a Jewish view of heaven and eschatology, a view which has been modified by the traditional christology of the exalted Christ. It is the church which united with Christ is corporately enabled to enjoy the benefits of the kingdom, and it is Christ who is exalted over all of the cosmic Powers.

- 325 -

IV.

crc

tb

Within Colossians and Ephesians the church universal is portrayed as the Body of Christ, and it is this Body which has an integral connection with Christ's kingdom. Thus, studying the meaning of the We

kingdom in these epistles necessitates studying the church as well. will therefore begin by examining the Head/Body motif as a prelude to our discussion concerning the role of the church in Christ's kingdom.

1.

I!

1A g !9!

grgyn

Throughout Colossians and Ephesians we encounter the Head/Body motif of Christ and the church (see Cal. 1:18, 2:10, 2:19; Eph. 1:22, 3:6, 4:4, 4:12-13, 4:15-16, 4:25, 5:23, 5:30). Because the church and Christ are coordinated as Body and Head, some have suggested that the picture is influenced by traditions other than Paul's "body" analogy (1 Car. 12:12-31, Roe. 12:3-8).

86. Cf. E. Lohse, s Christusherrschaft und Kirche im Kolosserbrief," 11 (1964-65), pp. 204-07.

- 326 -

Heinrich Schlier proposed that the Head/Body motif in Colossians and Ephesians has its matrix in Gnosticism. Because the evidence for the idea is post-Pauline, he argued that earlier Hellenistic texts indicate 87 that the idea preceded its use in developed Gnosticism. Later, in Gnostic theology, the Hellenistic myth supposedly came to be modified; "Its concepts and vocabulary are here put in the service of the first man-redeemer myth, which is soteriologically oriented" in that the Head 88 brings salvation to its Body.

The lateness of the Gnostic writings has rightly prompted others to seek for the origin of the Body motif in earlier sources. In the

Hellenistic world, Zeus was commonly known as the xc?fl of the universe. In the Orphic Fragments it is said: "Zcii icfl...Zi

aXi...ro 6i' 'roe

4?i pv t6tv i'e. xc(A& npdaune obpcv

t?fla" (Orp. Frag. 1o8.5-12). Most theorize that the authors of

these two epistles have redacted Hellenistic Christian hymns about 89 Christ's universal headship.

27-37; 'K$fl," IDNT, III, 87. H. Schlier, Christus, pp. 680-81. . See the full development of the Gnostic interpretation by Kasemann, Leib and Leib Christi, pp. 138-59. H. Schlier has since rejected the Gnostic interpretation of Ephesians; he now holds that it is Paul's last epistle, and that its christology was derived from Jewish Wisdom speculation. See Schlier, Eheserbrief, pp. 19-28. Christus, pp. 88. Schlier, "K+c7fl, 677; cf. 37-48; Ksemann, p. "Baptismal Liturgy," pp. 154-59; (with reservations and claims of a pre-Christian "developing myth") Jack 1. Sanders, Chrstological Hymns, 75-80. For criticisms of the Gnostic view see H. Barth, Ehesians pp. 183-191; K. H. Fischer, .i-, pp. heserbriefes, pp. 54-68.

I!!

89. Those who take this view include E. Lohse, "Kirche," Cerfaux, Church, pp. 365-70; Schweizer, "Die Kirche mis den paulinischen Antilegomena," pp. 241-56; Colossians, Fischer, E 2 heserbriees , pp. 76-79; Dibelius, Kolosser, Martin, Colassians d 59. , p.

204-207; pp. Leib Christi in 58-59; pp. 16-17; pp.

- 327 -

While it is possible that the author of Colossians has altered an original hymn to speak of Christ's headship over the church this theory rests upon a supposed original version of a hymn which we no longer 90 possess, if it ever existed at all. The authors of Calossians and Ephesians were not cautious of speaking of Christ's cosmic headship elsewhere: Christ is said to be the xc$cXt nca tpxic (Col. 2:10); Sod's plan is to tvu 91 (Eph. 1:10); [God] c*b'rv 6wrv c*3Bc c $cXiv
Kc

ouuCe v 'r Xp'r

i& nv'rc

rip nvic (Eph. 1:22). In

these contexts it seems clear that "Head should be understood broadly a; a position of ruling. Indeed H. Schiler has demonstrated that in

Hellenistic Judaism, Kcc4 could have the meaning of a "supreme ruler", 92 or a "head over kings".

in N. Barth rejects this interpretation as "ruler", since xcc 93 this sense was not used with awpc. He argues that Paul himself took over the Head/Body metaphor from contemporaneous physiology of the type propounded by Hippocrates and Galen. They believed that the head, not the heart, controlled the body through its reasoning and creative 94 functions.

90. See the criticisms by O'Brien, Colossians, Philernon, pp.

48-50.

91. Although the author of Ephesians finds the fulfillment of this in the past, it is also clear that Christ's cosmic headship is as yet 45-46; incomplete in its manifestation. See flupner, Christus, pp. 57-60. Barth, E2hesians 1-3, p. 91; Schnackenburg, An die Eheser, pp.

p.

92. Schlier, "KcXfl," p. 675. Cf. also K. Muner, "Head," 158; W. White, "rO'h," TWOT, II, p. 825: in the Old Testament "head" often means a divinely-appointed chief. 93. N. Barth, Ehesia p. 183. 186-91. See also E. Best, Q

jII,

II,

94. M. Barth, 115-38. pp.

hjc!

I-, pp.

- 328 -

The advantage of the biological interpretation of Head/Body is that it provides an explanation for the meaning of KE4c*)fl as it relates to the care t o. Within that scope, it is

advisable to seek the simplest explanation for the Head/Body metaphor, and the popular medical idea would have been the most widespread and understandable meaning. The weakness of the biological view is that it

provides no explanation for the cosmic headship found in Col. 2:10 and Eph. 1:10 and 1:22, a motif which seems to demand a translation of 95 as supreme ruler1.

There are thus two viable explanations of the meaning of the Head. But before we try to reach a conclusion about the meaning of

Kc?

in

Colossians and Ephesians, we must discuss the meaning of "aiipc*".

Ir !Q!

1!Q

Schweizer differentiates the christology of the Hellenistic Christian hymns in Col. 1:15-20 and Eph. 1:20-23 from the christology of the authors, who edited a o Iic* from the universe to the church. Redemption is now accomplished though the blood of the cross, not the

95. Muner, Christus, pp. 153-160, desires to explain Christs headship in terms of the Hebrew view of marriage as a fusion of man and wife (Ben. 2:24). This image was carried over into the relationship of Jehovah (husband) and Israel (unfaithful wife) in the prophets 1 and, of course, in the picture of Christ and the church in Eph. 5. But God is not called the Head of Israel, nor is Israel his Body. P1uner cannot explain the cosmic headship of Christ as taught in both epistles. It is best to understand Eph. in terms of Eph. 1, and not the reverse.

- 329 -

96 Thus the authors were defending 97 Pauline doctrine against Hellenistic enthusiasm. In Cal. 1:15-20, Schweizer must suggest that the stich HKr*i ci'rd arv i Kc$c(A
OU

reconciliation of heaven and earth.

acro u is modified by the poetically extraneous "'rij xxXoCc" 98 (1:18). Although common, the method of proposing an original form of Ccl. 1:15-20 is highly speculative; witness the total lack of agreement concerning the original among the commentators. It is quite possible

that the author took over a hymn either without comment, or simply added explicit explanations of matters which Hellenistic Christians understood as implicit, or even that he composed the section himself.

What is clear is that the authors of Colossians and Ephesians desired to demonstrate the unity between Christ and the church. Since "vital union" seems to be the main thrust of the Body metaphor, it seems best to follow M. Barth in understanding it in a biological-metaphorical! 99 Thus in Eph. 1:15-23 the blessings of the kingdom are realized sense. through the kingdom of Christ. In 1:22 the phrase 'r shows that

245; 96. Cf. Schweizer, "Die Kirche als Leib Christi," p. 83-84. He also assumes that the authors interpreted k$c*Afl, not as pp. a cosmic Head, but with its Septuagint meaning of "Lord over" (as 1 Car. 11:3). Col,. 2:15 shows that the relationship of Christ to the Principalities is still one of ruling. 97. Schweizer, "Kirche," p. 98. Schweizer, "Kirche," p. 245; Co1ossjj, pp. 245; Colg pp. 151-52. 82-83.

QL2!La,

192-99. Barth also rightly demonstrates 99. Barth, E2hesians 1-3, pp. that the "Body of Christ" is not simply defined "vertically", that is, by its relationship to Christ. It also has a "horizontal" function of representing the exalted and absent Christ to the world: "The church is the self-manifestation of the crucified and risen Jesus Christ to all powers, all things, all men...She is proof and manifestation of the living Christ who is 'enthroned at God's right hand in the heavens' (1:20), that is, who shows the authority and strength which was given to him to live and make alive, and who demonstrates his presence on earth." (p. 199).

- 330 -

since the church is his body, it can live within the victory of Christ. Thus it is not through individualistic mysticism by which one meets God and gains control over the Powers. In the plan of God, it is Christ who is at God's right hand and the or King, over the cosmos. But it

is Christ's a'oic which alone "corporately" experiences the blessings achieved by its Kc)%fl.

The evidence suggests that in Colossians and Ephesians, "cc?" is used in two slightly different ways. When it is discussed in terms But

of the cosmos and the Powers, Christ's headship is one of dominion.

when his headship is discussed in relation to the church, Christ is no longer simply King; he rules for the good of his people. In Eph.

1:22b-23 Christ the Supreme Head becomes Christ the Nurturing and Saving Head. Christ's headship is used as an example for the marriage relationship in Eph. 5:22-33; as the Head, Christ rules over the church (see the use of "Uno'roaw" in 524), but the pattern which he gives for the husband's role is not simply one of dominion, but one of cherishing, nurturing, saving, and self-sacrifice.

The Head/Body metaphor thus tells much about the kingdom of Christ. Christ is the Supreme Head over the cosmos, but it is the church which has been graced with a special entrance into Christ's kingdom (Col. 1:12-20). Even Gentiles are no longer "aliens" (Eph. 2:11-13); they have been "brought near" to the royal seat of power through union with Christ. Christ's headship over the Powers is for the good of the church, his kingdom people; they need not fear dominion by a foreign power as long as Christ protects them.

This picture of the saints enjoying a special position in the

- 331 -

universal kingdom is prominent in Jewish thought and in the New Testament, especially in the undisputed p auline epistles. In Roe.

14:9-1.1 Paul speaks of a univeral rule of Christ, but in Roe. 8l8-25 he points out that the entire cosmos is awaiting the resurrection of the saints to glory (see also Roe. 8:37-39). Christ rules for the benefit of his people. Again, in 1 Cor. 15:24-28 Paul states that the rule of

Christ will one day extend over all of God's enemies, so that believers can expect to be raised from the dead. But in 1 Cor. 6:3 he shows that

the church will participate in the judging of those very Powers over which Christ rules. The same emphasis is found in Colossians and

Ephesians: Christ's rule over all includes dominion over the church, but 100 the church in turn receives the blessings of the kingdom.

100. Cf. Meyer, Kirche u

Miio, pp.

24-25.

- 332 -

1 P

Er'

Throne?

Beginning with Holtzmann, many have suggested that in Colossians 101 and Ephesians one finds a heightening of Pauline christology. J. Christiaan Beker selects Col. 1:19-20 as the theological turning point away from "apocalyptic" christology to christological eschatology. The

ultimate victory of God at the Esthaton thus fades into insignificance 102 in the light of Christ's rule.

Since some claim that Christ's rule displaces the final kingdom, christology is an important factor in the kingdom teaching of Colossians 103 and Ephesians. But in genuine Pauline kingdom theology it is clear

101. See Holtzmann, Kritik der Eheser- ud Kolosserbriefe, pp. 235-38. Steinmetz concludes that in Colossians there is a fusion between christology and theology resulting in a perpetual exaltation of Christ, and in Ephesians Christ is clearly portrayed in terms of the Gnostic descending-ascending Redeemer. Cf. Steinmetz, pp. 84-85. Contra Schlier, "xc$cOi," pp. 680-81. Thus the christology of both letters is not eschatological but "protological": Christ is exalted because he existed in divine glory all along. 102. Beker,

y 1

p.

356.

103. Cf. Baumgarten, Paulus 90, n. 168. He passes over the "kingdom of God" in 2 Thess. 1:5 and Col. 4:11 much too quickly. See also Percy, Problerne, pp. 2-13. Percy points out that only in Eph. 1:23 and 4:10 does Christ fulfill the divine role of filling heaven and earth (cf. Jer. 23:24 - "Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord."). While Percy's observation is correct, he draws too firm a line between theological and christological prerogatives. The sovereignty in Isa. 45:23 is God's sole right in the Old Testament, but it is applied to Christ in the hymn which Paul approves in Phil. 2:10-11. The difference between Christ's role in Ephesians and that in earlier epistles is one of degree.

n21U, p.

- 333 -

that the kingdom of God, in both its eschatological and present 104 manifestations, is mediated by means of Paul's christology.

Whatever

ideas Paul may have originally held about the Messiah's coming, he was forced to reinterpret them in the light of Christ's resurrection and exaltation as

Therefore, it is not enough simply to assert that a rule of Christ in Colossians and Ephesians is a post-Pauline invention which replaces an apocalyptic rule of God. Nor is it sufficient to note the lack of any mention of the end of Christ's regency, such as we find in the unique and highly-polemical kingdom teaching in 1 Cor. 15:23-28. It is necessary to examine the exact manner in which God and Christ achieve ultimate victory in Colossians and Ephesians before proposing a theory of post-Pauline christologizirig.

2. The

L
J. C. Beker assumes that the heightening of christology in

Colossians and Ephesians must come at the expense of the glory of God 105 but the evidence shows that this is simply not the case. the Father, God the Father is specifically mentioned in many strategic texts in both

104. Cf. Coppens, Relve, I, pp. 105. Beker, 22!U, p.

286-87. 356.

- 334 -

106 epistles. The Father is pictured as the Lord of redemptive history

and the universe in a way reminiscent of Isa. 40-55. Far from being pushed into the background by christology, theology proper is amplified 107 by Gods actions in the work of Christ.

In Colossians and Ephesians, therefore, it is God to whom the apostle directs his prayers and thanksgiving: it is God who can give wisdom of the divine mystery in Christ. That the references to Sod the Father are not merely due to traditional or liturgical formality is 108 Salvation is in Christ, shown by the liveliness of these prayers. but it was God himself who planned redemption, and his grace which made 109 Although in Christ all the fullness of God dwells, it possible. still it is true that the Father raised Christ from the dead and exalted 110 Salvation is defined as knowing God, being reconciled him to heaven. to God, being "in God", and having one' s life hidden with Christ "in 111 God"

106. "The Father" is mentioned in Col. 1:3, 1:12, 3:17; Eph. 1:2, 1:3, 1:17, 2:18, 3:14, 4:6, 5:20, 5:31, 6:23; God (without "Father") is mentioned inCol. 1:1, 1:2, 1:6, 1:10, 1:15, 1:25, 1:27, 2:2, 2:12, 2:19, 3:1, 3:3, 3:6, 3:12, 3:15, 3:16, 4:3, 4:11, 4:12; Eph. 1:1, 2:4, 2:8, 2:10, 2:16, 2:19, 2:22, 3:2, 3:7, 3:9, 3:10, 3:19, 3:20, 4:18, 4:24, 4:32, 5:1, 5:2, 5:5, 5:6, 6:6, 6:11, 6:13, 6:17. 357, argues that in Pauline thought, AostLe, p. 107. Beker, Paul t. the plan of God determines the meaning of christology, whereas in But while Christ's Colossians and Ephesians we find just the opposite. elevation in, for example, Eph. 1:15-23, is a crucial doctrine, it is God who raised Christ from the dead and exalted him over the Powers, and it is he who helps Christians to understand his plan (Eph. 1:17-19). 108. These references are not necessarily intended to be exhaustive. Col. 1:3, 1:12, 3:16-17, Eph. 1:3, 1:15, 2:18, 3:15, 5:20. 109. Col. 1:6, 1:27, 3:12, Eph. I:3ff., 2:44+., 3:9, 4:32. 110. Col. 1:15, 2:2, 2:l2ff., Eph. 1:15ff. 111. Col. 1:10, 3:3, Eph. 2:12, 16, 4:6, 18.

- 335 -

Christians are to imitate not only Christ, but unusually, God as 113 112 Gods plan results It is God who gives spiritual growth. well. in the mission to the Gentiles, their conversion, and their equality in 114 the Body of Christ.

God has a role in eschatology and the kingdom equal to that taught
in Pauline theology. The final judgment is defined as

'fl

bpyt) 'rod 8oU" 8oU" (Eph.

115
in both epistles. The future kingdom is " ioU XporoU

KCl

5:5). It is God who is the Lord of history.

. I

2f

H. Schlier appreciates the fact that Christ is the channel of the 116 He states kingdom, both in his life and in his present lordship. Und so kommt in dem zur Rechten Gottes erhohten Jesus Christus, als der sich der gekreuzigte Jesus nun erweist, Sie gibt sich das Nahesein der Herrschaft Gottes zu sich. in dem vom Kreuz her ErhOhten in ihrer, und das ist: in In der seiner Macht nun bleibend zu erfahren. nachosteruichen Situation hat sich die Nahe der Herrschaft Das wird in den Aussagen Gottes in Jesus vollends enthulit. des NT, die sie im Auge haben, sehr deutlich [emphasis Schlier 's].

Thus while Col. 1:13 is an important testimony of Christ's role in the kingdom, the Son is the passive recipient both of God's love and of those whom God has transferred to hi kingdom. The author of Colossians

112. Eph. 5:1. 113. Cal. 2:19. 114. Col. 1:27, Eph. 3:1-2. 115. Col. 3:6, Eph. 5:6. 116. Schlier, "Reich Gottes und Kirche," p. 46.

336

attributes to God the election of the saints (3:12), as well as the authorship of the plan of salvation.

It is God who establishes the lordship of Christ in both epistles, by resurrecting and enthroning him to his right hand (Cal. 3:1 and Eph. 1:20). It is not too trivial to point out that 'the right hand" is not an independent cosmic position: it is a label of relationship to the Father, and God is not distanced either in Paul or in these two epistles.

Although Christ is the one whose name is over all names in the eternal kingdom (otj iidvov v rc oiq
KC

v 'rc

,it?ov'ri.,

Eph. 1:21), his supremacy is not evidence that God is thereby dethroned After all, this high position is given to ac 'ro'3 8Eo. 117 Christ's supremacy is God's sovereignty in Christ by God himself. from the action, that is, the kingdom of God. The plan of God taught in 1 Car. 15 is certainly mirrored in Eph. 1:10; despite the latter epistles emphasis upon Christ's exaltation, the final victory is only achieved through the plan of the Father.

The authors of Colossians and Ephesians bath attest the idea of the messianic kingdom, under the labels i cUio and i
GC(

ioU utoU 'rrj tycuTr Neither of these references

ioU XpaioO xcl BoU.

117. It is surprisifig how few exegetes explain the role of the Father in 1 Car. 15:24-28. When it is said that all things are in the future "(mO ioU ndcc 1jioU in 15:24, "ncvic" certainly does not include God; it is God who subdues all things and places them under his regent, Jesus Christ. Nor can it be said that the Son is unsubmissive to the Father prior to the end (15:28). In turning over the cosmos to the Father in the end of time, Christ as the Second Adam reverses the Fall. But as the Thus, even Second Adam, he and his race reign over creation in glory. though Christ bears "iO bvoc iO (inp rrv vo(1c," both now and in the Eschaton (Phil. 2:9, 1 Cor. 12:3), it is always "ct 6dtv 8om) nc'rpO."

337

posit a

kingdom of Christ apart from the kingdom or sovereignty of God.

The first is paralleled by the Pauline "kingdom of the Son" in 1 Cor. 15:24. The idea of sonship is not absent even from Eph. 1, as shown by 118 the reference to b n'rip ir 6or in 1:17. There is no Pauline verbal parallel to "caCc 'ro Xpo'roO" (as in 2 Pet. 1:11); this theological label does, however, capture the essence of Paul's thought. The use of "XpioTO in Eph. 1:20 probably determines the new wording in the formula of 5:5; XpLaO is used to remind the reader of the lessons 119 In Eph. 5:5 the author has in mind the final consummated of 1:15-23. form of the kingdom of Eph. 1:10 rather than the present intermediate rule of Eph. 1:15-23.

Although determining a particular author's emphasis is always a subjective enterprise, the evidence of the epistles seems to point toward an expanded role both for Christ and for God the Father in salvation history and in the kingdom. Although Christ's lordship and

exaltation are stressed more than in the other epistles of the Pauline corpus, the work of God the Father also overshadows the teaching of the other epistles. One cannot speak of a new christocentricity apart from Both emphases are rooted in the proximity of

this fresh theocentricity.

God and Christ through the blessings of realized eschatology, and through the possibility of heavenly communion in the present age.

118. Bee also Col. 1:13; Eph. 4:13. nilka expresses surprise, not 119. In his commentary on Ephesians 5:5, at the mention of Christ, but at the mention of God. Cf. Onilka, 249. His incredulity is doubtless derived from his 2!r!!, p. deficient understanding of the meaning of the Father's work in Christ's rule throughout that epistle.

- 338 -

One of the chief concerns in this chapter is the relationship of the Body of Christ to the kingdom of Christ. In Col. 1:12-14 the Pauline penchant for Exodus terminology is united with the idea of the Mediatorial Rule of Christ to produce a fresh expression of Christian existence in advance of the Eschaton. Eph. 1:20-23 speaks of the superiority of Christ in this age over all of the cosmic forces for the benefit of the church.

With regard to the church and the kingdom Oscar Cullmann 120 states: That there must be a remarkably close connection between them is due to the very nature of the two concepts, and the New Testament does, in fact, reveal an intimate connection between them, inasmuch as the Church of Christ is also mentioned in some of the key-passages concerning the !gfl Particularly in Colossians and Ephesians, the church plays a key role in the revelation of God's kingdom since believers stand in unity with the 121 heavenly Christ.

l. 1:13

ag

cif

The key to understanding the kingdom in Col. 1:12-14 is the traditional picture of corporate redemption. Thus some have suggested

120. Cullmann, "Kingship of Christ," p. 121. Cullmann, "Kingship of Christ," pp. approach by Schlier, "Reich Gottes," pp.

107. 123-24; see also the balanced 49-51.

- 339 -

that the author comes close to identifying the church with the kingdom. 122 Cerfaux asserts: The equation of Church with kingdom occurs in the captivity epistles. Only one text is completely explicit, namely Col. 1:12 Csic]...The kingdom of the Son is identical with the Church simply because of the sanctifying power of Christ that exists in it.

The precise relationship between church and kingdom in Col. 1:12-14 depends heavily on one's understanding of that "us" passage. If

the author means to say that Christians as individuals have entered the kingdom in baptism, then the church may be identical to or a part of Christ's kingdom. But this view is based upon a misunderstanding of the

nature of baptism as an individual's rite of initiation (cf. the analogy between baptism and circumcision in Col. 2:11-12). One should therefore paraphrase the RSV: "God has qualified the church (composed of Jews and Gentiles) to share in the inheritance of the saints (Sod's people generally, although historically the promise was made to Israel) in light. He has delivered the church from the dominion of darkness (the

world under the Powers, Gentile alienation from the covenant) and has brought the church under the sway of Christ's rule (providing blessings, forgiveness, protection)." The Exodus picture means that it is the whole church which is transferred from one dominion to the other. individuals are converted, they participate in this past corporate action in the same way in which proselytes entered Israel's Exodus from Egypt. Through baptism the individual receives not only redemption from sin (Col. 2: 13-14), but also receives the benefits of Christ's victory When

122. Cerfaux, Church, pp. 216: 384-85. See also Lohse, "Kirche," p. "Diese Friede aber waltet in dem Bereich, in dein Christus als der geliebte Sohn des Vaters herrscht -- in der Kirche, seinem Leibe, ber dem er das Haupt ist." See also Stanley, Resurrection, p. 204; H. Bietenhard, Das tausendhrige Reich, pp. 69-70.

- 340 -

over the evil Powers (CoL 2;15. The Christian dwells within the sphere of light; his or her obe4jence to the king consists in living according to the values of heaven, the capital of the messianic kingdom (3:1).

Within this framework, Cal. 1:12-14 is paralleled by the Body/Head motif (Cal. 1:18, 2:10, 2:19; Eph. 1:22, 4:15, 5:23). The church (us" in Ccl. 1:12-14) is to the Body what the King is to the Head. In both pictures, the church submits to Christ and in return receives from him sustenance (Cal. 2:7, 2:19; Eph. 1:23, 4:15-16) and royal protection from its enemies (Col. 1:15-16, 2:10, 2:15, 2:20; Eph. 1:20-22, 2:1-2). The reason that the theology of Ephesians seems more oriented toward 123 is that the author is not corporateness than that of Colossians stressing the individual's entrance into the church in baptism. The

author of Colassians, however, is arguing against those who wish to achieve mystical access to Gad apart from the church. He cuts off such

scheming with the charge that Christians who follow this route are "au xpcv
TT'V

i ccX?jv" (Cal. 2:19). They have rejected God's plan of

corporate redemption in the cross, and have sought to enter Christ's kingdom apart from the New Exodus. They have become the "aliens" of the kingdom, while Gentiles have entered in as full citizens (Cal. 1:23, 1:27, 2:11, 3:11; cf . Eph. 2:11-3:1!).

Schnackenburg thus correctly defines kingdom and church as 124 somewhat different categories. "Kingdom of Christ" is, therefore, a more comprehensive term than "Church". In the Christians present existence on earth his share in Christ's kingdom and his

123. Cf. esp.

Schnackenburg,

4L Ehese, p.
p. cti! pp.

76. 301. See also the very 4147.

124. Sc hnackeriburg, Gods Rule and balanced treatment by Wikenhauser,

- 341 -

claim to the eschatological kingdom...find their fulfilment in the Church, the domain in which the graces of the heavenly Christ are operative...But Christ's rule extends beyond the Church. In the course of church history the kingdom came to be equated with the church as ecclesiastical organization, to the great detriment of both ecciesiology and eschatology. But since Paul saw a connection between

church and kingdom, it is misleading to point to their close relationship in Col. 1:12-14 as a theological turning point.
Ps in the

Body/Head analogy, the author of Colossians understood church and 125 kingdom to be two entities which are inseparably linked.

5:5

The formula in Eph. 5:5 is not a transcription of the future kingdom to the present; Eph. 5:5 is therefore much closer to the Pauline inheritance formula than it is to Cal. 1:12-14. The author makes plain that which is implicit in 1 Car. 15:24-28: the kingdom of Christ extends temporally past the Parousia. When Christ gives the kingdom to the Father, his supremacy over the cosmos does not then come to an end; rather, his submission to God is actually a perpetual taking over of Christ's exaltation and supremacy into the Godhead for eternity. God, like Christ (Eph. 1:23), will be perfectly ''r Car. 15:28). nvn Then

v rrEav" (1

Thus when Paul, or another who writes from a Pauline perspective,

125. Both historical and modern misunderstandings stem partly from the belief that coc* may be understood as "the people of the King." This definition is partly derived from the difficult "royal priesthood" passages in I Peter and Revelation (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:5, 5:10), which in any case are based upon Exod. 19:6.

- 342 -

looks from the present age to a point just beyond the Parousia, he sees not just the kingdom of God, but rather the kingdom of Christ and of God. The dominion is revealed at the Parousia with the final stage of the "reconciling kingdom of God-in-Christ", and then flows into the kingdom of God which in turn embodies Christ's supremacy. The author of

Ephesians would find this perspective wholly commensurate with his purpose of teaching the present and future exaltation of Christ over all. The two age formulation of Eph. 1:21 is not a somewhat exaggerated

attribution of Christ with great authority.

Rather, this rule of Christ 126 is truly supreme both in this age arid in the age to come.

126. So Bietenhard, Das tausend

Reic, pp.

69-70.

- 343 -

Conc 1 usi on

The author of Colossjans has taken Pauline kingdom theology and directed it toward Christians who are being distracted by JewishChristian visionary ascetics. He stresses the priority of the church

within Christ's kingdom by pointing to its exalted position; the church has experienced the New Exodus, and alone possesses the blessings of Christ's rule. While in one sense Christ is the Head of the entire

universe, his headship results in blessing and salvation for his Body, the church. Those who have been baptized into Christ and the church tnay

know that they have experienced spiritual death and resurrection, the means whereby they may live a life of true heavenly orientation.

The author of Ephesians begins with the perspective of Colossians and addresses Christians who feel trapped in a world in which the cosmic Powers are thought to be both powerful and hostile. He shows that the

church is connected with the cosmic Head, and thus it has a unique position as the witness to God's grace in the coseos. God has ensured

that Christ is superior to all spiritual forces, whether good or evil. Thus, believers may engage the forces of darkness in combat and expect that with God's protective armor they may emerge triumphant.

The cosmology of both epistles is neither Hellenistic nor for that matter purely apocalyptic-Jewish. Rather, the messages of the letters

are based upon a Jewish cosmology which has been revolutionized by the ascension of Christ. Christians thu5 look toward both to heaven and to

- 344 -

the eschatological 'day". Since God in Christ has transformed both the heavenly hope and the eschatological hope, Colossians and Ephesians contain the same fundamental message: since the ascension of Christ, one cannot reverse salvation history and return either to Jewish mysticism or nationalism or to the supersition engendered by Hellenistic Weitanqst. True salvation is found in the cross, and it is through the historical cross of Christ and the universal Body of Christ that it is offered to the world.

- 345 -

CHAPTER EIGHT:

THE KINGDOM HOPE

IN

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

Introduction

the kingdom statements of 2 Timothy are contained in a collection of three epistles, the understanding of which has in the last two centuries undergone a dramatic shift. Whereas the church (with the

exception of Marcion) had for centuries affirmed their Pauline authorship, critical scholars have almost universally concluded that they are pseudonymous compositions from a time possibly as late as the mid-second century A, D.

Several scholars have tried to account for the presence of Pauline ideas or biographical details within epistles which are generally thought to be post-Pauline. The unwieldy "Fragment Hypothesi s' of P. N.

Harrison was an attempt to find genuine Pauline literary fragments 2 within these epistles.

The problem has recently been discussed by several scholars who are willing to label ideas which are an accurate reflection of the apostles own thought as "Pauline tradition". Peter Trummer in

particular has argued that the author of the Pastoral epistles had a

1. See the discussion by Kummel, Introd A. D. a date in the early 2nd. cent. 2.

ti 2a, pp.

370-87, who suggests

Cf. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Eistles, pp.

45.

3. Cf. A. Grabner-Haider, Parakle und c bt.2L92L! und Welt irn Ansruch der Zukunft Gottes (1968); P. Trummer, Paulustradition der Pastoralbriefe (1978).

EL

- 346 -

genuine understanding of several areas of Pauline thought. the possibility that the kingdom theology
0+

This opens

2 Timothy is not simply a

post-apostolic repetition of Pauline tradition.

Before examining the kingdom references of 2 Timothy, it is important to examine the general eschatology of the three Pastoral Epistles. It would be misleading to assume that the author of 2 Timothy had a vital kingdom eschatology from 2 Tim. 2:12, 4:1, and 4:18 if these texts do not correspond to the author's own theology.

Those who wish to prove that the eschatology in 2 Timothy is out of place usually will put forward one of four objections. be argued that the return of Christ (usually labeled his First, it may in

the Pastoral Epistles) is no longer an imminent 'apocalyptic" event, but rather a general divine manifestation such as is attested in Hellenistic literature. Second, some would suggest that the eschatological

statements in these epistles are not personal expressions of the author's hope, but rather faded slogans from a bygone age of "apocalyptic' Christianity. Third, some would argue that the Parousia is now regarded as a distant event. Fourth, it is suggested that the

ethics of the Pastoral Epistles are not as greatly influenced by the end as were Paul's ethics, but are the product of a church settled into the world for a long period of time. We will briefly discuss each of these

problems, as well as the kingdom terminology of the Pastoral Epistles, not for the sake of fully reconstructing their eschatology, but in order to clear the ground for a full appreciation of the kingdom statements within their eschatological context.

- 347 -

1 . Ib. ctLQ

EL

One of the striking characteristics of these epistles is their The noun nxvEc* used as a label for the 5 4 P. N. and the verb tn4ctvw twice. Lord's return appears five times eschatological vocabulary. Harrison has made the oft-repeated claim that the use of this word group 6 shows a decided shift away from Paul's normal term, iicpouaCcx.

This is in fact a false distinction, since

is used as a

synonym for npouaCc* in 2 Thess. 2:8. But the real difficulty is that is almost as rare in the accepted Pauline epistles as it is in 7 It is used to refer to the Second Coming four times in 1 the Pastorals. nupauoC Thessalonians and twice in the disputed 2 Thessalonians. Outside of these two epistles Paul only uses ncpouoCc of the Lord's return in

4. 1 Tim. 6:14, 2 Tim. 1:1O 5. Titus 2:11, 3:4. 6. P. N. Harrison,

I

4:1

4:8, Titus 2:13.

p.

29. P.

7. This observation has also been made by Kelly, Pastoral 145.

- 348 -.

1 Cor. 15:23. Neither is

T1OUL1

a common word in the rest of the New

Testament. Throughout his epistles Paul uses a variety of terms for Christ's return, such as noxu4i and "the Day of the Lord". Thus for

Harrison's suggestion about a post-Pauline substitution of npoua is unnecessary. His claim is further weakened in that he

thinks that the Pastoral Epistles contain remnants of authentic Pauline B notes: in fact, he thinks 2 Tim. 4:1 and B are Pauline, and these contain two of the five allegedly non-Pauline references to Christ's tnt. *v

' En $ vcI.c* was used in Hellenistic literature to describe the 9 helpful intervention of God or a god. The adjective tnt.vi was used in the cult of the divine ruler, as seen in the name Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It is not clear how the tn4vct. word group was assimilated into the language of New Testament eschatology. It may be that the Some

early church borrowed the term from pagan Hellenistic vocabulary.

suggest that both t fll,vt.c( and EcTflP were taken over from the emperor 10 cult in order to show the Surpassing glory of the Christian God. But a closer source of the tnt.$vct.c* word group is the Septuagint and other Jewish literature. The adjective tn cvi is used in Joel 3:4LXX and

Hal. 3:22LXX to describe the awesomeness of the Day of the Lord, and in 3 Macc. 5:35 to describe God's present intervention. The divine name is

said to be "awesome" among the nations in Hal. 1:14LXX. The verb

B. See Harrison, PP. 12627. See also criticisms made by Guthrie, pp. 23-24 and Appendix, pp. 212-28. t9i

E21A!

9. R. Bultmafln and D. LUhrmann, "4c(t.VW, K.1.).,"

IL,

Ix, pp.

9-10.

10. So Holtz, 158, asserts that Paul himself may p. have borrowed tnu$vct.c from Hellenistic vocabulary.

- 349 -

rii.,Cvw is used for the appearance of the Lord to Jacob at Bethel in Ben. 35:7LXX. It is also used of the revelation of the Lord to the nations through his deeds on behalf of Israel in Ezek. 39:2GLXX and through the nations destruction in Zeph. 2:IILXX. The noun n4,vcu is used of Gods actions in 2 Kgdms. 7:23LXX. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that the author of the Pastoral Epistles was drawing from a long Jewish and Christian tradition rather than directly from contemporary Hell eni sti c vocabul ary.

In 2 Tim. 1:10 both mvepw and tn$vuc* are used of Christs 11 earthly coming (not necessarily his birth). Elsewhere the noun form is used as a synonym of nc*poualm and speaks of the Lords return in judgment (see 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1, 4:8; Titus 2:13). Lorenz Oberlinner has recently questioned such an eschatological interpretation by using 2 Tim. 1:10 as the canon for interpreting the other references; he asserts that the term retains its meaning of the "helpful intervention of a god" and would therefore be a label For the whole Christ-event, including the incarnation, death, resurrection, the present preaching of the gospel, and the coming of Christ to judge. Its

meaning in the Pastoral Epistles is not primarily eschatological; rather the author uses it to show how Christ determines the Christians' 12 In effect he is saying that the author bvior at the present time.

11. Cf. Holtz, pp.

18-60.

12. Oberlinner, "Die Epiphaneia' des Heilswillens Gottes in Christus Jesus," Z 200-03. 71 (1980, pp.

- 350 -

13 uses a non-Pauline word to express a non-Pauline concept.

Oberlinner fails to mention that throughout Jewish and Christian literature, eschatology has consistently been taught in order to warn the sinful and to comfort the saints in the present age. Even the

authors of the more speculative apocalypses strive to promote piety partly by describing future events. When read in this light, we can see

how the n,4vci.m statements other than 2 Tim. 1:10 function in their context: the author points to the return of Christ as one more reason 14 for the Christian pastor to remain faithful.

Another new language development, found in 1 Timothy, is the use of ca7eU as a divine title. It is used of God the Father and then

only in blessingsj this indicates that the author is taking over language from Jewish (or Jewish-Christian) liturgical tradition. blessing in 1i17 is addressed to the i The

caAi rv cUvwv; in 6:15 God

104-05, 13. Cf. also Dibelius and Conzelmann, astoraI pp. who claim that 2 Tim. 1:10 transfers all of the expectations of the Parousia to the birth of Jesus in a way which brings salvation into the present and empties the Eschaton of significance. 200-02; he has written a 14. As states Trunimer, Paulustradition, pp. in the Pastoral Epistles to detailed study of the uses of See also, Philip H. demonstrate their basically eschatological meaning. Towner, "The Structure of the Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral 97. Epistles," unpublished Aberdeen University Ph. 0. Thesis, 1984, p.

- 351 -

15 is called b ai rv a?uvTwv K( x(ipo 'rv gupcudvrwv. The

first reference is Similar to Rev. 15:3 where this ascription of God 16 In the stands in parallel with the title xp b B b nc*vToKprwp. New Testament the "King of kings" title is used of Christ only in Revelation, in the superlative titles "xUpoc KupCwv caXEwv" (Rev. 17:14; cf. Dan. 4:34LXX), and "poJcU 17 pc?.c ot.?wv Kc

KOpOc KupCwv" (Rev. 19:16).

The use of caXc(i in prayers or praise to God is by no means 18 Indeed, it unusual within a Jewish or Jewish-Christian environment. is traditionally so used by Jesus in the Matthean parables of the 19 kingdom of God. What is more perplexing is that Paul never applies the

15. But see K. L. Schmidt, "pca1cOc, K.T..," pp. 578-79. He interprets 1 Tim. 6:15 as a reference to Christ and not, as he concedes is true for 1 Tim. 1:17, to God. He then compares 1 Tim. 6:15 with the post-apostolic literature, perhaps with the motive of demonstrating a later christology in 1 Tim. 6:15. But the literature he adduces is weak indeed: Did. 14:3 is not a direct reference to Christ. The author applies Mal. 1:14 with its "pc LtcU py" title (cf. Matt. 5:35) to the xUpo. The Lord is probably Christ, but the connection is far from convincing. I Tim. 1:17 is argued to be a doxology to Christ by C. Cl. Oke, "A Doxology not to God but to Christ," aItrn 67 (1956), pp. 367-68. Spicq argues compellingly that the attributes listed in I Tim. 1:17 indicate that the referent is God the Father. Cf. Spicq, Pastorales, pp. 346-48. 16. The Jewish background of this title can be found in the three-fold acclamation in I cb 9:4; cf. also 2 Macc. L3:4, 3 Macc. 5:35, where the title is used with n$cvr. 17. The title uaXcO is applied ironically to Christ by the Christians antagonists in Acts 17:7. In the gospels 1 and particularly in John, the evangelists approvingly use pi of Jesus in contexts of his fulfillment of messianic prophecies and disapprovingly in contexts of popular political aspirations. 18. God is called King in the Septuagint in 1 Kgdms. 12:12; Pss. 94, 98, 143, 144; Isa. 6:5, 33:22; Dan. 4:34; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:1617 Mal. 1:14. 19. Cf. Matt. 14:9, 18:23, 22:2, 7, 11, 13.

- 352 -

term either to God or to Jesus in his undisputed epistles.

The author

of 1 Timothy uses traditional language of God, but it is left to the author of Revelation to apply o7ci as a divine title to Christ (not,

as in the four gospels, as a messianic title from passages such as Zech. 9:9LXX). The sense of the kingly title for God is that of the eternal King, who rules over his creation from heaven.

This compound appears in the New Testament only in 1 Cor. 4:8 and 2 Tim. 2:12. Although the primary reference of 2 Tim. 2:12 is to the Christians destiny, the use of this auv- compound forcefully binds the 20 future rule of Christians with that of Christ. It is not unusual to find cocUa in Pauline literature and Revelation, although it is only used elsewhere of Christ in Luke (1:33, and in parable form in 19:14 and 27). Paul uses the simple verb of Christ in 1 Cor. 15:25, of Christians who eKalt themselves in this age in I Cor. 4:8, and of Christians who will "rule" in life at the resurrection in Rom. 5:17. In Revelation the verb is used of God (11: 15?, 11: 17, 19:6), of Christ (11: 15?, 20:4, 20:6), and of Christians (5:10, 20:4, 20:6, 22:5). The closest verbal parallel to 2 Tim. 2:12 is found in the millennial section of Rev. 20:4, 6 where the resurrected martyrs rule with Christ; there, however, the author uses the simple verb pcalcOw with pci plus the genitive.

20. The verb appears in the Septuagint only in 1 Esdr. 8:26 to refer to King Artaxerxes courtiers.

- 353 -

It has often been claimed that the eschatological statements in the Pastoral Epistles are not heartfelt expressions of hope but are rather clichd repetitions of Pauline sayings or of other Christian traditions or liturgy. Holtz, for example, thinks that the four stanzas

of 2 Tim. 2:11-13 and the charge to Timothy in light of Christ's return 21 Dibelius and Conzelmann in 2 Tim. 4:1 are from baptismal tradition. think that 2 Tim. 4:1 is merely an example of a 'charge formula", that is, a form of exhortation which refers to the return of Christ simply to 22 give the message added weight.

Although it is entirely possible that the author used traditional language to speak of the end, this in itself is not a convincing proof that his eschatology has grown stale. After all, he also may be using

traditional language to speak of the incarnation of Christ to bring salvation, which is a very prominent theme in his theology (cf. 1 Tim, 3:16). Jesus himself appears to have used conventional Jewish metaphors 23 Paul had a deep interest and phrases in his eschatological teaching. in the end times, but he used traditional speech patterns such as his exclusion formula and the early Christian "Maranatha" prayer. The

21. Holtz, Pastor

rjf, pp.

168, 190.

22. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pa

QrL

Eist1e, p.

120.

23. Cf. the personification of God as an the picture of the glorious appearing of phrases such as "eternal life", "the age use of traditional phrases in the Lord's

earthly king in some parables, the Son of Man, the very use of to come", the "kingdom"; the Prayer.

- 354 -

charge that the author of the Pastoral Epistles has little regard for eschatology must ultimately rest not on the language he uses - which, not demonstrably traditional - but rather on the role he 24 assigns to the return of Christ within the structure of his theology. after all,

i5

f. -

One of t,e proofs brought forward for a late composition of the Pastoral Epistles is that the Eschaton, which is so important in Pauline theology, has lost its earlier prominence. Rather, the church should

prepare itself for a long existence in this age while awaiting the 25 But this theory neglects two areas: somewhat remote return of Christ. firstly, that the author of the Pastoral Episites believes that he may be living in the last days; secondly, that he teaches that Christian behavior must be shaped by the hope of Christs return.

In both of the epistles addressed to Timothy, the author gives strong warnings about the coming of false teachers. In 1 Tim. 4:1

24. The phenomenon of using traditional language may indicate that the author or speaker wishes to emphasize a 'ey point by using a phrase familiar to all. Thus, modern Christian preachers may borrow wording from the uthorjzed Version of the Bible, or from works such as the Book of Common Prayer, in order to elevate their point above the mundane This in no way indicates a tack of expression of everyday idiom. familiarity with the topic at hand, nor does it necessarily indicate that the speaker is not able to articulate the theme in his or her own words. 25. See for example Achtemeier, "pocalyptic Shift," pp. 23e39.

- 355 -

and 2 Tim. 31 these individuals are pictured as arising in the last 26 In 1 Tim. 4:1 the prediction is said to have been days. supernaturally inspired (TO 6 nvUIJ qTw). In 2 Timothy 'PauI"

expects that he himself will not be involved with this doctrinal struggle, but in both epistles he expects that Timothy will have to be 27 on his guard (1 Tim. 4:6-16 and 2 Tim. 3:5, 3:10-4:5).

The expectation of an eschatological apostasy was prominent both in Jewish and early Christian theology. The rabbis comments on

passages such as Isa. 2:Sff. and Mic. 7:Sff. were full of references to the complete ruination of the nation before the coming of the kingdom of God. Jesus, too, is said to have predicted the appearance of false teachers before the end (notably in Mark 13:21-22 and its parallels). We may thus locate the predictions in 1 and 2 Timothy firmly within the 28 realm of traditonal eschatological expectation.

Stephen Wilson compares the oracles of the Pastoral Epistles with the Lukan literature and concludes that 'v Uar 'tpoi xcpoC in 1 Tim. 4:1 is best translated "later times" or "future times", and not "eschatological times'. He suggests that the anticipation of false

teachers in 1 Timothy is not necessarily a sign of a vital

26. 1 Tim. 4:1 has v apostasy

v Uortpo xcpoc, while 2 Tim. 31 locates the pmi..

94, 193. Lestapis, L'Enjg, 27. Thus Kelly, EEistles, pp. 64, 374-76. Contra Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral P. pp. who claim that Timothy is not expected to encounter these heretics. 28. Cf. Holtz, PtoraLbrjefe, pp. 178-79.

- 356 -

29 eschatological hope.

Wilson does regard the warning of 2 Tim. 3:1-9 as eschatological, but he refuses to give full weight to this evidence because he himself thinks that it goes against the "overall tenor" of the whole book. Thus

the warnings in these epistles are equivalent to the warning of Paul to the Ephesian elders of the things which would come i'r 30 in Acts 20:29. 'rtv 4uCv iou

Wilson's work demonstrates the possibility of reading the epistles with prejudices against their vital eschatology. The best solution is

to regard 1 Tim. 4:lff. and 2 Tim. 3:lff. as warnings about apostasy which the author believed was eschatological and which he may have 31 He warns Timothy that he may have to already encountered in part. withstand this demonic heresy prior to the return of Christ (1 Tim. 4:1): the end-time apostasy is a genuine threat.

12-19. Wilson's 29. S. 6. Wilson, Luke and the Pastra1 E . istLes, pp. comparison of the Pastoral Epistles with Acts is, of course, part of his He does not take program of assigning Lukan authorship to the epistles. into account that the text of the Septuaint reading was amended by Luke ppc given with the axc'rci.c v 'rcC in Acts 2:17. The phrase quotation from Joel 2:28 is not a part of the original text but is an editorial insertion in order to show the fact that the Spirit is a part of the eschatological promise which is now fulfilled in advance of the Eschaton. The cosmic signs of the Joel passage are retained in the quotation as well, even though they are reserved until the end times by Luke. This shows that the author does not believe that the day of Pentecost is part of the end times so much as he believes that the disciples were proleptically experiencing an eschatological blessing. 179, who virtually argues the same case by Cf. Haenchen, cts, p. 'rU'rc, is the preferring an alternate reading: "The text of B, ic original: in Lukan theology the last days do not begin as soon as the Spirit has been outpoured!" 30. So Wilson, pp. 13-16. 64.

31. Cf. Dibelius and Conzelmann, p.

- 357 -

There are other indications that Timothy may live until the Parousia, and such statements are similar to Paul's expectation in the 32 earlier epistles. Timothy is told to keep the commands until the tnthvc (1 Tim. 6:14), and to live with his gaze fixed upon the age to come (1 Tim. 4:8 and 6:19). The epiphany also plays a strong part in the instructions in 2 Tim. 4:1, 4:8, and Titus 2:13, showing that the return 33 of Christ is still prominent in these epistles. Kelly also draws attention to Titus 2:13, which "contains a glowing expression of the eschatological expectation of the primitive Church, which impatiently 34 awaited the Lord's second coming at the right hand of God." Wilson conjectures that on the one hand the statement in Titus 2:13 is traditional, and on the other hand that Kelly's analysis is wrong 35 because the passage does not specifically mention imminence. But it is paradoxical in the extreme that Wilson rejects Kelly's similar interpretation of 1 Tim. 6:14-15; even though Wilson assents that the end will occur within Timothy's lifetime, Wilson thinks that it is 36 "safer" to stress the note of "divine prerogative".

Although eschatological predictions are fairly common in the

32. Contra Dodd, "The Mind of Paul: Change and Development," pp. 93-101. He thinks that the idea of the imminent Parousia fell from favor Thus the Prison Epistles after Paul wrote the Thessalonian epistles. reflect the later stage of Paul's thinking, in which heavenly existence is prominent. Dodd does not point out the differences between the Pastoral Epistles and the Captivity Epistles, nor does he justify basing his theory of a Pauline turning-point on the meager evidence of the highly-contextual ized Thessalonian epistles. 33. Cf. Holtz, Pastoralbriefe, pp. 34. Kelly, Pastoral 35. Wilson, pp. 17-19. 15-18. , p. 21, 227. 246.

36. Cf. Ibid., pp.

- 358 -

37 Pastoral Epistles, their significance. some theologians virtually ignore their presence or One outstanding example of this is the commentary

by Dibelius (revised by Conzelmann). If we were to look up their comments on the verses we have listed, we would find that they say almost nothing about their eschatology; instead, they concentrate on whether they are based on liturgical sources, whether they are polemic, and what could be their background in comparative religion. If

anything, the authors take these verses as springboards for their declarations that eschatology is not important for the Pastoral 38 They have a theological reason for doing this; at the very Epistles. beginning they state that in the Pastoral Epistles "the presupposition is that salvation has become a reality in the epiphany of the past; salvation in the future appears to be nothing but the shadow of this 39 past epiphany."

Many would agree that Dibelius and Conzelmann have misrepresented

the evidence, and that there are indeed genuine eschatological 40 The debate rages on, however, over the statements in this collection. g!1fl! of eschatology in the Pastoral Epistles. Do these epistles reflect a living hope in the return of Christ? The answer must be found not in whether the author uses a predetermined "vocabulary of imminency", but in how the Eschaton affects life in the present age.

37. These texts include: 1 Tim. 4:lff, 4:16, 5:24, 6:14, 6:15, 6:19; 2 Tim. 1:12, 1:18, 2: 10, 2:11-13, 3: 1ff , 4:1, 4:3, 4:8; Titus 2:11-13. 38. See, for example, Dibelius and Conzelmann, p. 39. , p. 20. ?

10. and comments on eschatologi.cal portions 9.

40. Cf., for example, Lestapis, L'(nirne, p. 375, who speaks of Paul's "obsession" with the coming of the Day of the Lord!

- 359 -

Many of the ethical exhortations in the Pastoral Epistles are based on eschatology. 2 Tim. 4:1 is a good example of eschatology 41 determining the present pastoral ministry. In his study on eschatology and ethics, Grabner-Haider concludes that the primary basis for holy living in the Pastoral Epistles is the present possession of salvation, but that eschatology is also very influential. The major

difference that he finds between these statements and Pauline theology is the loss of some tension between the present and the future, with the 42 result that the end seems more remote.

Peter Trummer thinks that the Pastoral Epistles closely reproduce the Pauline balance of eschatology and ethics; he therefore criticizes Grabner-Haider for being too cautious. Trumrner begins by pointing out

that Paul 's eschatology did not prevent him from molding his ethics to fit in with the everyday world in which Christians had to live. In

addition, Paul thought that Christians have a motive for righteous living, not just because of the return of Christ to the earth, but also because believers were already experiencing Gods salvation.

190. Contra, among many 41. s affirms Holtz, Pastoralbrie'fe, p. others, Kummel, Introduction, pp. 383-84; he states that the ethical instructions in these epistles are those of a so-called "christliche Burglichkeit" rather than those of a church which anticipates an imminent end. 42. So Grabner-Haider, Paraklese und Eschatlogie, pp. Bultmann, Iheology, II, pp. 183-86. 105-07. Cf. also

- 360 -

Trummers comments serve to underscore one of the misunderstandings which hamper the study of eschatology and ethics: the myth that where there is a strong eschatology, then ethics will invariably be based solely upon the imminent future. Even in the

classical apocalypses this was not the case, in that their authors were able to buttress their ethics by other means. In fact, this is the same
43

for Paul. As Anders Nygren says in his commentary on Rain. 12:2: Everywhere it is the same: God has done something for us, we have received something from Him, we have received his call, we have received Christ or the Spirit; so we are to live a life that is in harmony with what we have thus received.

The basis for ethics in the Pastoral Epistles is not radically dissimilar from what we find in the undisputed Pauline literature. Christians are to live holy lives because of the acts of God. These acts may be his work in salvation through past redemption in Christ, his present work in the Spirit, or his future actions in the Parousia and the kingdom. In some epistles one or another of these may predominate,

but they reflect a common basis in the churchs awareness of the saving work of God.

The Pastoral Epistles thus retain an eschatological consciousness in which Christs return to earth, the resurrection, the judgment, and the future kingdom still predominate. Eschatology is expressed in Although

language recognizable from Jewish and Christian theology.

"Paul" expects his imminent demise, the prediction that "Timothy" may encounter the eschatological apostasy and afterwards the appearance of

43. A. Nygren, Rornans, p. 417. See also the full study of motivation in Pauline ethics by A. A. Thompson, Motjyion tI Eics gj yj: Summary, Harvard University Ph. D. Dissertation, 1952.

- 361 -

Christ shows that the end time is far from being remote.

If Christians

have settled into the world, then this is a product not of a failing hope, but of the fact that the church had to learn to cope with earthly life in the time which had alreadyelapsed since Christ's ascension. This conclusion leaves us free to explore the kingdom references in 2 Timothy as sincere expressions of Christian hope for the future.

32 -

II. Ib,

i9! Lti

2 Timothy is the only Pastoral epistle which contains specific teaching about the kingdom, arid the only epistle in the Pauline corpus with explicit teaching about a future kingdom of Christ. 2 Tim. 2:12 is contained in a poetic section which may well be borrowed from tradition; its promise is that the believer who suffers in this age will rule alongside of Christ in the age to come. time when his kingdom shall appear. 2 Tim. 4:1 further defines the

1. Ib

!i g 9 cti'

!41! i

!t!9 t9

'1!!

Ib9129Y

Taken on its own, 2 Tim. 4:1 is somewhat vague as to whether the kingdom of Christ begins or ends w1th the epiphany. Hasler implies that

the invisible rule of Christ is made visible at his coming immediately 44 This before Christ turns the kingdom over to the Father. interpretation reconciles 2 Tim. 4:1 with 1 Cor. 15:24-28, but it does not do justice to the eschatology of 2 Timothy. While the epiphany could possibly be the revelation of the kingdom's end, it is more natural to

44. See Hasler, Patara1briefe, pp.

76-77.

- 363 -

compare 2 Tim, 4:1 with 2 Tim. 2:12 and to interpret Christ's coming as 45 the beginning of the visible manifestation of his kingdom.

Some hold that this future kingdom of Christ, a kingdom which apparently meets no end, is another example of the development of christology in the early church. Not only does Christ fulfill the

divine epiphany (2 Tim. 4:1 and Titus 2:13), but he also takes over the 46 roles of judge and king of the age to come.

IUthough there is a heightening of both christologY and theology proper in Colossians and Ephesians, it is difficult to find evidence for the same within the Pastoral Epistles. Timothy is adjured to be faithful before (vthniov) both God and Christ, and indeed it i Christ who

performs the divine eschatological roles, but Paul had already attributed these roles to Christ f. 2 Cor. 5:10). HiS belief that

Christ will mediate the Eschatori is attested as early as 1 Thessaloriiafls (cf. 1 Thess. 2:19, 4:6, 5:2-3, 5:23).

Throughout the Pauline corpus Christ has taken over the roles of God and of the Messiah from the Old Testament prophets; Paul has 47 combined both traditions by means of a God-in-Messiah christology. The epiphany of God-in-Christ to judge and rule in 2 Tim. 4:1 and Titus

2; 386, n. p. 45. So Brox, Pastoralbriefe, p. 26:; Cerfaux, !c)1 383-84. Typically, Dibelius and also apparently Spicq, Pastorales, pp. 2 Tim. Conzelmann do not even address the question of Christ's kingdom. gc. 4:1 has parallels in apocalyptic literature, for example, C 63:7: 'The end of the world will then show the great power of our Ruler since everything will come to judgment.' 46. See Holtz, 190; Hasler, Po 1.!, p. believes that this role is based on the Son of Man figure from apocalyptic eschatology. 47. Cf. Kelly, Pastoral E 2 istles , pp. 246-47. p. 76

- 364 -

2:13 reinforces the idea that the future kingdom is not simply God's kingdom; rather, the rule of God continues to be revealed in Christ even at the Parousia and beyond.

A program in which Christ will reign in the +uture does not necessarily involve a higher christology than one in which he does not. After all, a messianic figure rules throughout the age to come according to many pre-Christian Jewish works (cf. Ps. Sal. 17). The heart of Pauline christology is that Christ has been exalted to the right hand and is now ruling as God's executive. We have interpreted Paul to teach

that this rule does not end at the Parousia, but that it is eventually subsumed into the eternal kingdom of God. In Pauline eschatology, the Parousia reveals that Christ is Lord and that Christians are his people; both are glorified together in sharing resurrection glory in the new creation. 1+ the author of 2 Timothy clarifies the nature of the future

rule of Christ, then he does not heighten christology; he further 48 defines it.

2.

aL

in Relation to Rev. 11 and 20

There are grounds apart from 2 Timothy for believing that Paul taught a future rule of Christ, although it would be anachronistic to ask whether Paul was therefore a "chiliast": the idea of a temporal messianic kingdom probably arose in Judaism after Paul's death but

48. In 2 Timothy and Titus the author does not mention any future transferal of the kingdom to the Father, but the apostle did not He only speaks of it in one emphasize the transferal idea either. to the work of the Son passage, and then only to give a terminus ad gu in destroying the enemies of the Father in order to reinforce his teaching of future resurrection.

- 365 -

before the writing of Revelation (although, in that case, it may also antedate the writing of the Pastoral Epistles). But even Revelation makes it plain that while the rule of Christ is to last for one thousand years (20:4-6), the rule of "the Lord" through "his Christ" is to last forever (11:15); an everlasting rule for Christ is juxtaposed with the teaching of a rule of limited duration. Paul's teaching of a

conciliatory rule of Christ which extends into the age to come is based on Christ's enduring lordship and glory as the and as the Second 49 Thus in 2 Timothy the author develops, by means of traditional Adam. language, that which is implied by Paul and the author of Revelation: Christ rules in this age and the age to come.

1 . I

Eri Q1!

in

IU! .

c92

iib

I Cor. 6:2-3

The author of 2 Tim. 2:12 expands that which Paul taught in 1 Cor. 6:2-3: the eschatological role of Christians now includes not only the judgment of angels but also the kingdom of Christ. The twin functions of judging and ruling are taken over from Jewish eschatological 50 tradition.

49. This is reflected in Eph. 1:21: Christ's title is supreme in this age and in the age to come. 50. Cf. Strack and Billerbeck, parallels. 2rnrnentar, III, p. 363, for Jewish

- 366 -

The future co-rule of the saints in 2 Tim. 212 is theologically based upon the believers' union with Christ, In the larger context about willingness to suffer (2: 1-10), and in the hymn of 2: 11-13, the believer follows that same pattern of present suffering/future glory which is St fundamental to Paul's theology of the kingdom of Christ. This is not obviously the case in 1 Cor. 6:2-3. There, the future iudgmentis only partially corroborated with the "inheritance" formula in 6:9-10. Paul gives no justification for promising future sovereignty; we may assume from the rhetorical questions (starting with
OJK

otc'r) in 1 Cor. 6:2,

3 that his readers already knew enough about the promise and its significance that Paul could use it as the basis for his denunciation of lawsui ts.

. 1

L LQa!b.LE

Paul taught that Christians are to follow Jesus' pattern of obedience and resurrection life, and it is Paul's thought which provides the basis for 2 Tim. 2:11-13. The earthly elements of death, suffering, and faithfulness receive their eschatological retribution in 52 resurrection life, ruling, and acquittal at judgment.

But Paul also bases the Christian's eschatological hope on being in union with Christ as the head of the new humanity. This is the theme

51. Thus Jerernias, PastoraLbriee, pp. martyrdom 3 possibly composed by Paul.

46-48, calls this a hymn of

S2. Cp. 2 Tim. 2i11-13 with its exposition by Polycarp in Pol. Phil. noflpC8U KCl TOY vv 5.2: '1 PCaTIaWIJCV tv 'r v C iv typ bit. tv no)rCuothiC8c t)i tK vCKpwv, KC( xx8li rraco .yc nt.a'rCoIv." tw ctiioG, Kcd. aupsat.?EaoI1cv c*1iic,

- 367 -

of Ram. 5-8, a passage in which Paul takes the Christian from the time of justification by faith up to co-glorification with Christ. As the Second Adam, Christ is preparing people for the kingdom by reconciling them to God and by placing his Spirit within them.

Paul 's doctrine of the Second Adam is based partly on Psalm 8, which speaks of humanity being created to rule over creation and gives an idealized picture of mankind's dominance over nature. Paul used Ps.

8:6 in 1 Cor. 15:27 (cf. also Eph. 1:22) in order to show that Christ must reign until all things are (mO
To

I nO6e cdlTou.

The psalm had a

messianic significance for Paul which is not exhausted either by an idealized human interpretation nor by a straightforward messianic fulfillment. Paul's teaching that Ps. B is fulfilled both by Christ and

by the church is followed in Eph. 1:22 and 2 Tim. 2:11-13.

2 Tim. 2:11-13 reinforces the Pauline doctrine that Christians will rule as those who are glorified with Christ in resurrection (cf. Rom. 8:30). The resurrection of the body is crucial in Pauline theology, not just because it provides the soul with eschatological lodging, but because it is the means by which the new humanity gains admission to the renewed Paradise (1 Car. 15;50). The believer like b 6upo *v8pwno
must

physically become 53

oJpvo (1 Cor. 15:47).

We can say then, that the hymn in 2 Tim. 2 e'<presses the inner logic of Paul's teaching about the future of the new race. The first,

53. The reference to Christ's davidic lineage along with his resurrection in 2 Tim. 2:8 is quite similar to the notice of Ram. 1:3-4, so that Trummer (pp. 202-04) believes the author took it over from Romans. In 2 Timothy the participation of Christians in resurrection and Cf. Stanley, Re ruling is more immediately apparent. rec j9o., PP 248-49.

- 368 -

second, and fourth straphes do not simply promise three rewards for faithfulness (namely: life, co-rule, acquittal at judgment); in fact, they all converge as expressions of union with Christ and membership in the new humanity. As such, life, dominion, and innocence before God are The third strophe gives the destiny

the blessings of Paradise restored. 54 of apostates.

2 Timothy in turn illuminates the use of Ram. 5 Paul contrasts the old humanity with the new.

in Rom. 5:17. in The Adamic race

has a share in Adam's condemnation (5:16) which resulted in the reign of death (5:12 et al.) and the rule of sin in the human heart (5:21).

Those who are in Christ, however, are freed from sin and death. Sin is dethroned so that the believer can serve God in righteousness (Ram. 6). The condemnation of God has changed to justification (5:lff.). But the factor which interests us is that found in 5:16-17. Just as Death reigned (pcal? uacv) over humanity through its union with Adam, so the new humanity which will in the Eschaton rule in life (v caAcuaouoL.v) through Christ Jesus. in Christ believers will overcome death and sin; like Christ their future is a "reign" untouched by foreign influences, enemies of God such as death and sin. In the

context of Paul's thought this victory finds its fulfillment exclusively 55 in the end-time resurrection (Rom. 6:5-10).

1BO. But contra Dibelius and 54. Cf. Kelly, PastDral Et1es, p. 109, who think that the first three Conzelmann, PastDral E E is s , p. strophes are original and refer to Christians in various circumstances, and that the fourth strophe is added to the tradition from another source.

fl,

55. Cf. H. W. Schmidt, An die Rbrner, p. 325-26. -5, pp. 172; Wilckens, Rbrn.

101; Schlier, Rbrnerbrie, p.

- 369 -

It is tempting to seek a parallel between Rom. 5:17 and 2 Tim. 2:12, but in fact 2 Tim. 2:11 is closer to Romans. Part of the Christian's inheritance is to rule individually over death through union with Christ's resurrection. This victory is integrally related to the

Christian's co-rule in the kingdom of Christ, but they are not precisely identical.

Ib

QL f. I g.

L!i

IL . tb.

In both Romans B: 18-39 and 2 Timothy 2:1-13 the context of the promise of future life and dominion is that of suffering in the service of Christ. The promise of future life and glory is a strong motivation for one to endure suffering (cf. also Rev. 1:9).

Another reference in which Paul uses kingdom language is 1 Cor. 4:8. Here Paul rebukes the Corinthians for their assumed regal arrogance. He uses pc*acUw and au caAcOw ironically in order to show Paul and the other

the Corinthians the incongruity of their attitude.

apostles are examples of how the Christian is to live: this age is for obedient suffering, the age to come for glory and dominion. Paul's

teaching here is the same in substance as that found in 2 Timothy and in passages such as Rom. 8:17. But the Corinthians' problem was not that they were merely tempted to be timid; they arrogantly shunned suffering by avoiding the situations in which it could be encountered. Paul asserts that they may indeed receive the glory of Christ, but only after

- 370 -

56 they have been raised in his likeness.

The call to obedient suffering in 2 Tim. 2 gives way in 2:l4ff. to warnings about the heretical teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus (2:17-18), which in part consisted of asserting that 'rflv tv.oTc*ov fl6q yyovtvct,. Some have identified this heresy with the problems of 57 Corinth. Some in Corinth doubted the future corporeal resurrection; but the doubts expressed in 1 Car. 15:12, 35 are not connected with the attitude which Paul rebukes in 1 Car. 4:8. again, in 2 Tim. 2 there is a call to present suffering in view of the future resurrection and kingdom. This is followed by a warning about the two who deny the

futurity of the resurrection, although again it is vague whether they believed in a past bodily resurrection or, as most conclude, in some 58 kind of spiritual awakening. The author does not connect their teaching with reluctance to endure suffering; the logic of the passage is: be willing to suffer for the true gospel, since suffering leads to future glory; one of the impediments to the truth is heresy for example that of Hyrnenaeus and Philetus; Timothy should guard against them, and also make sure that he himself does not also fall into the trap of becoming a false teacher.

We may conclude that the hymn of 2 Tim. 2:11-13 not only fits well

56. Cf. the discussion in Holtz, Pastoraibriefe, p.

173.

57. This identity is affirmed by Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Eist1es, p. 112 (Gnostic spiritualizing). See also J. Becker, Auferstehunq, pp. 55-96. 58. Thus Holtz, pp. 172-73; Dibelius and Conzelmann, p. 112; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, pp. 184-85. Cf. the well-worn tradition in Irenaeus, Haer. 1.23.5, which attributes the origin of this teaching to Simon Magus. See our discussion of S. Sellins proposals in Ch. 7.

- 371 -

p ithin the context of the epistle

it also corresponds to Paul s

doctrines of union with Christ and the rule of the Second Adam, along with his emphasis upon the dualism of the two ages. With such a

theological background, the author urges the Christian pastor toward a life of boldness and self-sacrifice in the light of Christs coming kingdom.

372 -

The content of 2 Tim. 4:18 is the most unusual

c*a

Cc reference

in the Pauline corpus, in that it speaks of a present, heavenly kingdom. We shall first explore the theological background for such an

idea, and then discuss its relation to the theology of Paul and of some of the Greek Fathers.

1 lb.!
a.

c g r9Y

rb.! ' 1

LY!1Y !1g9!!i"

Old Testament, Apocalyptic, and Rabbinic Literature

When Jesus spoke of b pi.aBo

v i-a o(ipuvo (Matt. 5:12) he had

firm precedents in Judaism. In the Old Testament, Ps. 3h20 and Prov. 2:7 speak of God storing up reward for the righteous, and the concept 59 abounds even more in later apocalyptic and rabbinic literature. Dalman, however, rejects the idea that there was a widespread dogma of 60 reward being stored up in heaven: All these passages merely have in view some form of book-keeping on the part of God. The good works recorded by Him are merely so many claims to future recompense. Dalman seems to want to keep the idea of stored-up reward away from the background of Jesus teaching, but his attempt fails in the face of the 61 evidence, as he himself nearly concedes:

59. Cf. Dalman, 60. Ibid., p. 61. Ibid. 208.

of

I, pp.

206-08.

- 373 -

In contrast with this, a celestial pre-existence of the reward might 2ossibl be presupposed in Shern. R. 45, where God is represented as having shown to Moses "all the treasure-chambers of rewardu (emphasis the author's].

There is evidence that Jewish cosmology provides the background for 2 Tim. 4:18. In apocalyptic cosmology, heaven was thought of as Paradi se, Eden, the New Jerusalem, or the abode of God and the angels. The fact that heaven appears never to have been called the in

apocalyptic and rabbinic literature is not significant: the age to come is not often called the "kingdom either. What is important is that

these apocalyptic and rabbinic writers describe the Eschaton with the very terms which they use to describe heaven.

In 1 Enoch 39, "Enoch" speaks about his reward which the Lord of Spirits reserves in heaven. He is enabled to see the present abode of

the righteous in 39:3-B: they dwell in heaven under the wings of the Lord. Enoch's desire to live in heaven is reinforced in 1 Enoch 93:8 (a text which is part of another work) by his realization that his "portion" is there already. The author seems to teach that the saints

can receive their heavenly reward either at death or at the final consummation. In 4 Ezra 7:77, Ezra is told that his works are stored up But in 7:88-101 it

in heaven awaiting their revelation in the end time.

is said that when the righteous die they enter heaven and see the habitation which God has prepared for them. In Deut. 32, 10, 313

it says that before Abraham the kingdom of God was limited to heaven; this means the kingdom was Dnly there acknowledged: "So mute sich die 62 lerrschaft Gottes auf den Himmel beschrnken."

. Strack and Billerbeck,

ornrnentar, I, p.

172.

- 374 -

b.

Hellenistic Judaism

The references to God's kingdom from Hellenistic Judaism mainly refer to God's moral and ethical rule. But despite the apocalyptic and

rabbinic parallels to the idea that the kingdom of God is revealed in heaven, Schnackenburg believes that 2 Tim. 4:18 has its roots in 63 Hellenistic Jewish literature. He states: If Judaism believed that God's will is fulfilled perfectly in heaven and God is king in heaven in a special way, heaven was still not called his "kingdom" but mostly his "dwelling" or something similar. It was reserved for the Hellenistic Book of Wisdom to inform us with an allusion to his vision in Bethel that Wisdom showed Jacob the "kingdom of God" (10:10), that is, permitted him a glance into God's transcendent world.

Schnackenburg places too much weight upon Wis. 10. In that passage the author is speaking of the way in which Wisdom delivers people from affliction. In 10:10 he speaks of the flight of Jacob from Esau and the

guidance which Wisdom supplied: c*'rq $uyc6a bpyi t6e4oU 6(c*ov

6iyav

v pCpo cb8ECc,

6.cv r*b'r4 pua1teCc*v 8coU

6wv

An adequate interpretation of this shadowy 64 passage is given in the commentary by David Winston: There seems to be more implied here than what is found in the Genesis passage. According to Lest. Levi 9:3, Jacob saw a vision concerning Levi, that he should be a priest unto God...Moreover at 5:1-2, Levi is privileged with a vision of the heavenly temple and told that he has received the blessings of the priesthood. Burrows conjectured that our author may be alluding to Jacob's vision of the heavenly temple...and of the heavenly Jerusalee which will one day descend to earth when the kingdom of God is established. cti'rj yvwov tyCiiv, etc.

Even though the divine

atJec is said to be a part of Jacob's

vision, we have no way of knowing to what extent the author views the

63. Schnackenburg, 64. D. Winston,

Ruj

p. 320. 217.

I'i

L!.2! f. 2L2!2, p.
- 375 -

65 kingdom as heavenly. The text does not approximate the thought behind

2 Tim. 4:18, in which heaven is the location of the kingdom and the abode of the saints until the Parousia.

c.

Paul's Theology of Heaven

In 2 Car. 4-5 and Phil. 1 Paul teaches that Christians enter heaven after death and before the Parousia. Jean Hring's exegesis of 2 Car. 4-5 is an attempt to understand this doctrine in harmony with the emphasis on eschatolcgical resurrection in 1 Car. 15. Hering points to the Qt6q1V of 2 Car. 5:1 as a clear indication that Paul is reminding them of Christian tradition which he had already passed on to them. 61:2-3) that the resurrection body exists in 66 He heaven already, and will be reserved there until the resurrection. Paul teaches (cf. delineates two alternatives: he may live until the Parousia and be transformed ("clothed"), or he may die beforehand and be "naked", an 67 existence which in itself he finds undesirable and even distasteful. But Paul then concludes that even "nakedness" is acceptable, since this allows him to enjoy the presence of Christ before the Eschaton. But

65. In fact, the NEB translates Wis. 10:10 "she showed him that God is a)Cc dynamically as 'sovereiqrity". This is king," thus rendering probably the best way of understanding this text. In Wis. 6:4 and 6:20 human kings are portrayed as instruments of God s sovereignty, but this is a generally-accepted concept throughout Judaism. 66. Cf. Hering, p. 36.

67. Hering understands the difficult ending of 5:3 as the resurrection hope, which is mentioned without the discussion of an intervening time: Never at any time did the Apostle envisage taking possession of the Ibid., pp. 38-39. glory-body before the parousla. "

- 376 -

68 experiencing resurrection at the Parousia is still the best state.

In Phil. 1:19-26 the doctrine is the same, although Paul s 69 . Here the attitude is quite different from the polemical 2 Cor. contrast is not between being unclothed and clothed; it is the difference between fv
v ocp' (1:22) and oUv Xptou.

vc*

(1:23).

Although he still has a sound appreciation for dying and going to heaven, now the high value placed upon living is not because earthly life is the existence of being "clothed". Paul regards his life in this way: "roQ'rO Kc(pnO tpyou" (1:22).

One of the reasons why 2 Tim. 4:18 is such a crucial passage is the possibility that it forms the bridge between Pauline "apocalyptic" and the Hellenized eschatology of the Greek Fathers. From the second century A. D. onward there was a strain of thought in which the kingdom of God or of Christ became closely identified with heaven. It is this

Hellenistic turn which Schnackenburg uses to bolster his claim of a

73-74. He seems to 39. Cf. also H. Rissi , Studien, pp. 68. Ibid., p. agree with Hering that the hope of Paul in 2 Cor. 4-5 is the hope of Thus he allows for non-bodily existence in heaven, bodily resurrection. but only as a temporary measure. 69. See the full discussion of this difference in Hasler, pp. 76-78.

- 377 -

70 Hellenistic background for 2 Tim. 4:18.

The Fathers continued to use meanings.

aU BcoU with its older

Thus Clement of Rome, Justin, and Chrysostom, among others,

pictured the kingdom as the state which would be established at the 71 consummation of the age.

Beyond this, there appears a wide variety of new interpretations 72 of the kingdom of God. Says Lampe: It very often becomes simply the equivalent of 'heaven" as opposed to yvvc or KO?cai...0ccasionally the Kingdom, as the abode of the righteous, is regarded as a place, situated in the second heavenly plane. So lrenaeus speaks of two ways of life and says in A. Pr. 1: For the road of all those who see is a single upward path, lit by heavenly light; but the way of those who see The former road leads not are many and dark and divergent. to the kingdom of heaven by uniting mswith God, but the others bring down to death by severing man from God. It says in Dioan. 10.2: ".. .o ifv 6lE ToC t*ycnfloeaiv cdrrOv." v oUpuv iAEL.CV xcC

There is a paraphrase of 2 Tim. 4:18 in a

late fourth-century addition to the Martyrdom of PoIycar2 by Pionius3 who passed on the record of Polycarp's death: 'vc xtq.i upoc ' Ioo XpiorO pr rwv tKK'rwv atro 't riv auviq'cyl]
b

321-22. 70. Thus Schnackenburg, God s Rule and Kingdom, pp. Schnackenburg mentions a few representative kingdom passages from the Fathers as evidence, but a fuller guide is the extremely helpful article by 6. W. H. Lampe caAcCc TOO "Some Notes on the Significance of 58-73. He alc XpaioO, in the Greek Fathers," JIB 49 (1948), pp. offers the reader lists of references as well as analytical classifications. Some of the references here given are suggested by this article. 71. Lampe, p. 72. Ibid., pp. 60. 60-61.

- 378 -

73 oUpevov pca cv cthioO" gi. 22.3).

The heavenly kingdom of God or Christ is commonly associated with the doctrine of tvtnuag, or eschatological Sabbath rest. In itself

this is not radically different from 2 Tim. 4:18, but the Greek writers go far beyond Paul and 2 Timothy in attributing ultimate bliss to heaven 74 without reference to the eschatological realm.

L EL'!

schatoiogicai?

A foundation of Pauline kingdom theology is that saints do not rule until the Eschaton; their rule is connected with entering glory through the portal of physical resurrection. Indeed, there is nothing

tn the Pastoral Epistles to indicate that Paul will be glorified at his death. It is clear from 2 Tim. 2:11-13 that glory comes with the divine

Judgment and resurrection at the beginning of the kingdom. The heavenly

73. The theme of martyrs entering the heavenly kingdom of Christ is an important one in that work. Cf. o1. 14.2, 20.2, 22.1. It is interesting to note, that some writers understood the kingdom as inward spiritual reality, the work of the Spirit, the indwelling Logos, or Christian virtues. The kingdom of Christ shares many of the characteristics of the kingdom of God. It is associated with either an eternal (Clem. Protr. 10, Hippl. Q!3 . 4.55) or millennial rule in the future age (esp. Irenaeus). "It is also commonly interpreted as equivalent to the heavenly state of the blessed...In this sense it is indistinguishable from the Kingdom of God." (Lampe, p. 71.) There were also some interpretations of the kingdom of Christ as the spiritual life or the people of Christ. Origen thought the kingdom of Christ was Christ himself as the ctiiopc*aicCc. The popular Latin idea of Christ ruling "from the tree" in fulfillment of Ps. 95:10 is found only in Barnabas and Justin (Lampe, pp. 71-72.). 74. Cf. Schnackenburg, God's and Kingdom, pp. 321-22.

- 379 -

kingdom is simply the place to which Paul is delivered away from the perils of earth; his crown is reserved until the final Judgment (2 Tim. 75 4:8)

This hope contrasts with that taught in some apocalyptic literature, in which heavenly Paradise displaces the final kingdom as the place of reward. In this sense, the Pastoral Epistles retain a

strong eschatological reservation of the reward which becomes a heavenly 76 hope in the Sirnilitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra.

With his exclusion formula and other sayings, Paul teaches about entering (or being excluded from) the kingdom at the Parousia. We find a different conception in the Prison Epistles, which speak of the soul entering the kingdom of Christ - which spatially is situated in heaven during the earthly life (Col. 1:13). This kingdom of Christ is in heaven and is inhabited by angels. In 2 Corinthians and Philippi.ans the

believer goes to be with Christ upon death.

In Chapter Two we discussed the proposal that the author of 2 Timothy paraphrased the Lord's Prayer to describe the heavenly hope. This provides an explanation for the curious wording of 2 Tim. 4:13 without resorting to the theory of a Hellenistic influence, which we have concluded to be unsatisfactory. In 2 Tim. 4:18 there exists the

same kind of language synthesis that we have suggested lies behind Col. 1:13. In that passage there is a coincidence of the Pauline conception of the kingdom of Christ (1 Cor. 15:24), the New Exodus pattern, which

75. Not so for Polycarp! Cf. Mart. Pol. 17.1, 19.2. 76. Contra Conzelmann, Outline, p. 310, who views 2 Tim. 4:18 as a new presentation of the kingdom in spatial terms.

- 380 -

is also a Pauline theme, and perhaps language borrowed from the opponents in sia Minor. In 2 Tim. 4:18 we see a coincidence of several

elements of the Lords Prayer, the Pauline theology of heavenly existence after death, and the dogma (present in Pauline thought, but especially in Colossians and Ephesians) that Christ's present rule is 77 revealed in heaven, where Christ is seated at the right hand.

This type of verbal and theological synthesis accounts for the 78 po in 4:18. The author takes into ambiguity in the use of b account both the Pauline christology of the heavenly kingdom and the wording of 'flcicp pcv b tv roi opcvo" in the Matthean Lord's Prayer

(Matt. 6:9). So, while the clearest, synoptic parallel would indicate that the kingdom belongs to Sod the Father, the author's christology would also allow for an understanding that the kingdom is Christ'5.

The importance of 2 Tim. 4:18 should not be judged by tne amount of space we have devoted to it. Whether its teaching is taken by itself

or as a parallel to 2 Car. 5 ana Phil. 1, entry into a heavenly kingdom does not cancel or diminish the future kingdom of Christ, nor does it involve rewards such as resurrection, co-judging, or co-reigning. The

predominant blessing in the earlier epistles is being with Christ; in 2 Timothy the author is thinking of deliverance from earthly persecution. Present life is not so much characterized by fruitful service" as by "the lion's mouth".

77. This coincidence of language is affirmed by Schnackenburg, Gad's 320, who nevertheless holds that the results of d Kingdom, p. the ascension are presented under a Hellenistic influence. 78. In Mart. Pol. the heavenly kingdom of the Lord is clearly Christ's,

- 381 -

Conci usi on

Although the expressions of kingdom hope in 2 Timothy are verbally different from those found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, there is little justification for regarding them either as insincere on the one hand, or particularly "Hellenized" on the other. The author of the

Pastoral epistles retained a firm hope in the return of Christ as well as an awareness of the coming day of judgment. Within this eschatology

he seems to have expected an imminent return of Christ - an event which "Timothy' could possibly witness - which effects the quality of the pastoral mini stry.

The awareness that Paul would enter the kingdom upon death is not at all like the Hellenistic-Jewish theology of the kingdom (where the kingdom was generally used as an ethical standard); rather it is identical in concept to the Jewish/Pauline teaching that Paradise is reserved in heaven until the age to come, and that Christians may enter heaven upon death. The only difference between 2 Tim. 4:18 and other rather than

expressions is that this realm is called the "Paradise" or some other title.

While this lan9uage/2 Tim. 4:18

verbally similar to the writings of some Greek Fathers, conceptually the verse is similar to Jewish cosmology. The language shift in this text

is due to the use of tradition and to christology rather than to later theology in which the kingdom is made equivalent to heaven.

- 382 -

PART III:

PAULINE KINGDOM THEOLOGY WI THI N THE NEW TESTAMENT

CHAPTER NINE:

THE KINGDOM IN PAULINE THEOLOGY AND THE KINGDOM IN JESUS' TEACHING

Introducti on

The evidence of Paul's epistles belies the claims that while Jesus preached the kingdom, Paul preached Christ. Paul proclaimed both the present and the future kingdom. He grounded his beliefs in his

christology, but such was not a new development: Jesus also identified in himself the realization of God's kingdom. To be sure, the

evangelists regard Easter as the divine affirmation of Jesus' claims, and Paul regards it as the initiation of Christ's lordship, but it is not fitting to construct an impermeable theological barrier at the point of Easter morning. It is more likely historically that Jesus' teaching

about the kingdom and about himself was not created at Easter, but rather heightened. The possibility therefore exists that there was an

essential unity between Jesus and the Palestinian churches, and from there to the Hellenistic churches and to Paul himself.

This is a Pauline study, and it is appropriate that we discuss 'Paul and Jesus" rather than "Jesus and Paul". hile it is possible to

begin with Jesus' teaching and from there trace the developments leading to Pauline theology, it is more helpful in this instance to begin with Pauline thought and ask, 'What connection does this have with Jesus" Let us therefore briefly summarize Jesus' message about the kingdom and

- 383 -

1 thence move to a discussion of Paul's theological roots.

I.

2f.

Perhaps no other exegetical quest has proved more perplexing than that of discovering the meaning of the kingdom in Jesus' teaching. But

after a century Df intense critical discussion, two facts have become more and more clear. The first is that Jesus' message of the kingdom is

more complex than was once thought, and the second is that the kingdom of God is inseparable from Jesus' own person and consciousness.

The complexities of the kingdom of God arise from the problem of attaching its coming either to the future or to the present. scholars have attempted so to limit the kingdom. Those of the Various

"consistent eschatology" school taught that Jesus was basically an apocalyptic Jew who announced only the coming of an imminently future kingdom. This "apocalyptic Jesus" - a picture based on several basic

misunderstandings about the nature of "apocalyptic" - announced not the coming of salvation but the end of the world.

Other scholars have argued that the "historical Jesus" of

1. Much has been written concerning Jesus' message of the kingdom of God, but because we wish to concentrate on Paul, we will mention the major lines of discussion with general comments. In Appendix I: "The Kingdom of God in the Gospel Tradition" there is a full, documented discussion of the history of research on this topic, the meaning of "Son of Man", and the gospels' teaching about a kingdom of Christ.

- 384 -

Comparative Religion was the result of trying to limit a unique person to the confines of common first-century beliefs. They asserted that the

genius of Jesus' message was not to be found in its continuity with Judaism, but rather in its discontinuity. Thus, Jesus should be taken

most seriously when he spoke of present salvation and the operation of God's kingdom in himself; it was these elements of "realized eschatology" that separated Jesus from contemporary prophets of doom.

It is fortunate that in most recent times a majority of scholars has come to understand that Jesus could have taught a combination of both the future kingdom and the presence of God's saving actions as King. We showed at the outset that the Jews defined the kingdom in a variety of ways, and that Jesus had precedents for speaking of God's saving rule as well as his eschatological kingdom. It is clear that it

as his particular combination of ideas which made Jesus' message unique and at the same time recognizable to his Jewish listeners. Paul too

carried on the message of Jesus in proclaiming both a present and a future kingdom.

In Pauline theology the belief that God is ruling and will rule is intimately bound up with Paul's christology. history, he acts in Christ, his regent. Whenever God acts in

Thus Christ is no mere

messianic king or eschatological intermediary: he represents God to the cosmos, and as Lord he rules on God's behalf. In saying that Jesus

connected the kingdom of God with his own person, we are not claiming that he taught his own universal lordship or that the church received a fully developed christology from the tradition of his teaching. Rather,

Jesus indicated that as God's servant, he himself would accompany and mediate both the present and the future manifestations of the kingdom.

- 385 -

It is clear from dependable synoptic traditions that Jesus regarded his preaching, healings and exorcisms as manifestations of God's kingdom. Although some have claimed that he regarded his

miraculous works as signs of the impending end of the age, he would have had little precedent for such a claim from Jewish eschatology. In most

traditions, the Jews expected that the supernatural revelation of God's saving power would be a part of the kingdom itself. On the other hand,

there is a strain of tradition, seen most clearly in the older prophets, that the bringing of Israel's redemption from Exile would be accompanied by the manifestation of God's kingly rule. By analogy, Christ's work

was a sign not necessarily that the Eschaton was near but that God's kingdom was being dynamically fulfilled in the coming of salvation in history.

Jesus seems to have spoken about the Son of Man, an eschatological figure that would appear with the angels and be the instrument of God's kingdom. This does not preclude the almost certain fact that Jesus

spoke of himself as a "son of man" in a generic sense of "a man" or "someone like myself". But the best explanation of the gospel evidence

is that he also thought of himself as the person mentioned in Dan. 7:13, as the one who would rule on behalf of God. Such a claim would not necessarily have been understood by his casual listeners; it is best to assume that at that time in history the "one like a son of man" in Daniel was regarded only by some as an identifiable eschatological igure. The four evangelists believe that Jesus is destined to rule as

he Messiah, but their aim is not to prove his royalty so much as it is o show that Jesus must suffer and be resurrected.

- 386 -

11. Iti

Li.2 !g

Paul s doctrine of the I.ingdorn of Christ was not taught directly by Jesus; nor did the idea spring directly from the apostles head. He

labored in a milieu in which Christ was already worshiped as the exalted Lord who would return to establish the final kingdom. already interpreted Jesus The church had

in the light of his vindication by God.

The creeds of the early church which shaped Pauline theology were based upon three events in the history of ChrLst: (1) the establishment of the New Covenant by his death, (2) his resurrection, and (3) his ascension and enthronement as xupo at God's right hand. These three

concepts more than anything else prompted the changes in kingdom theology between Jesus and Paul.

A. The New Covenant in Christ's Blood

The establishment of the New Covenant forms one part of Paul's theology of the realization of the kingdom. he mentions it in 2 Cor. 3

in order to prove that the law is invalid, and thus that his ministry is ordained by God. The gift of the Spirit and freedom from the law, two

- 387 -

major benefits of the kingdom, are thereby mediated to the believer.

That Paul ha taken the New Covenant motif over from Christian tradition (and hence possibly from Jesus) is demonstrated by his 2 citation of Eucharistic tradition in 1 Car. 11:25. He uses a form which is similar to the Lukan words of institution for the cup (Luke 22:20), including the phrase about 'i c*ivi 6rri in Jesus' blood. Mark

14:24 and Matt. 26:28 speak of a covenant in his blood, but since they lack the attribute

"KcRVT", some have suggested that theirs is an

earlier form which is based on Exod. 24:8, rather than on Jer. 31:31; 3 this has they therefore lack the Pauline emphasis of the New Covenant, led some to locate the origin of New Covenant theology within the Hellenistic church, rather than in the teaching of Jesus and the 4 But this speculation - based upon earlier Palestinian church. proposals about a Hellenistic origin of the Eucharist - fails to account for the covenantal significance of the Last Supper, reflected in the 5 Both the references to a 6ic8ir in both forms of institution. Markan-Matthean and the Lukan-Pauline traditions emphasize atonement and the Covenant, concepts which are not directly related to a messianic figure in the Old Testament, but which are clearly connected to the

2. Contra Kasemann, who believes that Paul himself added the reference Cf. Kasemann, "The Pauline to the New Covenant to his tradition. Doctrine of the Lord's Supper," in Essays on New p Ib 131. 3. So Kasemann, "Lord's Supper," pp. 8-I, pp. 86-87. 4. See Bultmann, I, pp. 130-32; Wolff,

97-98. 91; also Jeremias,

5. Cf. Marshall, Last Suer and Lord's uer, p. Th91 gy , I, pp. 168-69.

- 388 -

fulfillment of the Scriptures in Christ according to Christian 6 interpretation. Both Paul and the author of Hebrews stand in the tradition, taken from the earliest churches, that in Christ's death God established the promised New Covenant.

_cbrist 's Resurrection

A second factor in the transformation of Jesus' kingdom teaching is his resurrection. It was in Jesus' resurrection that the disciples

found divine confirmation that he was the Christ of God arid, importantly for our topic, that God was sovereignly acting in Jesus in revealing his kingdom.

According to Pauline theology, the resurrection is the supreme demonstration of the power of God, the resurrection power which Paul viewed as the authority behind the rule of Christ. Although Paul believed Christ's exaltation to be factual and a divine fulfillment Of Scripture, it was the resurrection for which human testimony could be adduced (see 1 Cor. 15:3-8). Paul can offer no such testimonial evidence for the enthronement of Christ as Lord (see the shift within Phil. 2:6-11). His kingdom is an invisible, heavenly rule which must be acknowledged by faith. Paul's logic (probably taken over from Christian

tradition) is that the resurrection of Jesus is the sign that the

6. So B. Delling, Der Kreuzestod Jesu in de 31. Contra Conzelmann, 1 p.

p.

200.

- 389 -

messianic Scriptures are fulfilled in Christ; thus, Christ's lordship and kingdom are as certain as his resurrection.

An important difference between Jesus and Paul, therefore, is their historical perspective. Jesus looked forward to the future

actions of God's kingdom, but Paul had to look back in history in order to view the kingdom's (partial) inception in Christ. The resurrection unites the historical Jesus with the Christ of faith and kerygma. As

Jngel shows, Jesus has become identified as the deed of God, and as 7 such is legitimately the object of faith.

_L_!Lga___Qc
One of the most crucial tenets of Pauls kingdom theology is that he regards Jesus as the Lord of all: it is through Christ's sovereignty that God rules as King. Since this creed is by definition a post-Easter dogma, it is necessary to determine at what point the church acclaimed Jesus as KUpo. Relatively little time could have elapsed after Easter, since Paul unreservedly called Jesus "Lord" as early as A. D. 50-52 (see I Thess. 1:1, 1:3, 1:6, etc.), and he presumably would have been familiar with the title long before then.

7. So E. Jungel, "Die GrundzUge des Verhaitnisses der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre zur Verkundigung Jesu," in d Jesus, p. 267.

- 390 -

1 Ib.

9f

liti.

The matrix of the

po title is sharply debated.

Critical

scholars seem unanimous in their opinion that the Hellenjstjc milieu of the first century of church history played a significant role in the development of that christological title. Their opinions are divided

over whether the xpo title became a part of Christian language under the influence of both Palestinian and Hellenistic speech-forms, or merely under influence of the latter.

a.

The theory of its origin in the Hellenistic church

Since there is a wide consensus that the po title was partly developed within non-Palestinian Hellenistic Christianity, we shall begin with the Hellenistic sphere of influence, b xOpo was used in

Greek as a general title of respect or to mean a "master" of slaves or B property. This secular use is attested in the New Testament (e.g., 9 Luke 19:33, Col. 3:22, 1 Pet. 3:6). In Hellenistic Greek ' upo" came to be used of kings and Roman emperors; Foerster points out that Jews were not scrupulous about calling the eaperor "upo", because it did 10 not originally figure asadivine title.

In his Kirios Christos, Wilhelm Bousset theorized that Jesus was

B. Cf. W. Foerster, "iUp.o x.i.?31' II 9. Foerster, p. 10. Foerster, pp. 1086. 1054-58.

III, pp.

1041-46.

- 391 -

recognized as the exalted divine xCIpLo only within a Hellenistic 11 He examined the gospels and decided that the absolute use of a miii. po (I. e., the substantive without a possessive pronoun; in Aramaic, without a pronominal suffix) could not have originated in a 12 Bousset suggested that as the Palestinian-Aramaic honorific title. church spread out to ntioch, Hellenistic Christians came to think of

Christ in terms of a god s mystical presence in a cult, and in terms of his preeminence over the many "ipo' and "GoC" of the Helienistic 13 The early church was enthusiastic, 'and over this whole world. swaying sea of inspiration reigns the Lord Jesus as the head of his community, with his power immediately present in breathtaking palpable 14 The presence and certainty" as the assembly invoked his name. Hellenistic Christians used the Septuagint, and Sousset claims that its translation of 'Yahweh" as b tupo led them to apply new divine prerogatives to Jesus. This eventually led the church to believe in the deity of Christ.

Bousset s theory has been widely criticized throughout this century, not least by those who realize it isa false distinction to place such a wedge between Palestine and the Hellenistic world.

s as: 11. Cf. W. Bousset, Krios f. 119-52. This the Bginnin of Christianity to Irenaeus, pp. position was completely taken over by Bultmann and so has regained some 123-28. 1, pp. of its former influence. Cf. Bultmann, 12. He thus denied the accuracy of the early Acts speeches which attest to an early use of b xupo for Christ; he employed the rather circular argument that this use shows that the speeches were purely Lukan compositions. Bousset, Krios Christos, p. 125. 13. Bousset, Krios Christos, pp. Foerster, pp. 1046-54. 14. Dousset, Christos, p. 129-38. See the discussion by

135.

- 392 -

Fitzmyer has uncovered a good deal of evidence against the assertion that the title "Lord" was first applied to Christ outside of 15 There is, for example, evidence of a Semitic Gentile use of Palestine. the absolute an outside of Palestine (in Punic inscriptions calling Baal 'the Lord"), so that one cannot simply assume that "the Lord" is by 16 Fitzmyer also shows that an absolute use of definition non-Semitic. e' upo (for Yahweh) is attested by the pre-Christian form f the Septuagint, and by Greek-speaking Jewish authors such as Josephus and 17 Ar i ste as.

b.

The theory of its origin both in Palestine and in the

Helleni stic church

The theory that the xt)po title of Christ had its origins both within and without Palestine i.s accepted with variations by many 18 scholars today in a deliberate rejection of Bousset' proposals. Firstly,

There are three major reasons why we may reject his theory. the so-called "Achilles heel"

f Icyrios Christos was that Bousset could

not satisfactorily eplain the origin of the Aramaic "Maranatha"

15. J. A. Fitzrnyer, "Der semitische Hintergrund des neutestamentlichen 276-79. u Kyriostitels," in Jss Christus in Histo pp. 16. Fitzmyer, pp. 17. Fitzmyer, pp. 278-79. 279-90.

9 18. This view is 5UppOrted by F. Hahn, Ib 209; Jhitely, 102-03; Cullmann, christoiogy, p. Cistoloy, pp. 114. Cf. also the important 105; Kummel, Theo1og, p. Iheoog, p. in which he argues that the 'upo title can be monograph by 1husing llun und traced to the earliest church Thsing, ErQflQ

- 393 -

19 petition which Paul cites in I Cor. 161.22. this transliteration of an

ramaic prayer into Greek can be translated either as a present cultic exclamation ('Our Lord comes"), or as a prayer of eschatological expectation ("Our Lord, come!"). The latter seems preferable, given the

corroborating Greek version of the same prayer in Rev. 22:20, and the eschatological fervency which would accompany the Eucharist in an early 20 Palestinian setting.

Secondly, Boussets theory does not adequately take into account the ways in which Jesus could have been addressed. The Jews sometimes

used 'adanai for kings, high priests, and God. On the other hand, fiar 21 and bi were used as titles of respect or courtesy. Hahn justifiably concludes that the latter two terms were used of Jesus during his ministry, and that this practice had no connotations of 22 Bousset had placed too much emphasis on the divinity at that time.

19. In fact, Cullmann demonstrates that Bousset changed his mind after the first edition of 'yrios Christos (1913) (iii which he argued that 'tlaranatha' developed in bilingual Syria), adopted a new explanation in Jesus der Herr (1916) ("tlaranatha" was originally applied to God, later it was transfered to Jesus), then reverted to the original explanation for the second German edition of kyrios chr!t9 in 1921. Bultmana accepted the solution found in dec 4err in his Theology, 1, pp. 51-52, even though Bousset had already found it unfeasible. Cf. 213-15; Schwei:er, "Jesus 3 the Lord of his Cullmann, ChristoLo, pp. Church," thisBR 19 (1971), pp. 56-57. 20. Cf. the eschatological emphasis of the prayer within a Eucharistic context in Did. 10.6: "8rw ci nep1G'rw b Kdo(io o&ro. p pcpv B& 1q41'jv. 21. Cl. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, pp. 916-17: they point out that it "Rabbi" probably came to be used as a technical title denoting an ordained teacher at the end of the 1st. cent. A. D. , but that it is clear that teachers were addressed as "rabbi" by their disciples long before the establishment of ordination for Rabbis (possibly attested as early as 110 B. C.). 22. Hahn, litles, pp. 78-79.

- 394 -

difference between the use of Aramaic honorific titles with suffixes and the absolute use of xpI.o in Hellenistic Christianity. Cullmann points out that both 'adn in Judaism and ip.o in I-(ellenism could be used with modifiers in a secular sense, but that over tine both came to be used absolutely in a religious sense of a supreme lord. With these

analogies it is possible that the church changed from calling Jesus !!L ("my lord") to calling him xipo (the Lord). In the resurrection the one they had called marl was exalted as the one Lord of all (Acts 2:36, 23 I Cor. 8:6).

Thirdly, in recent research account is taken of the fact that there probably never was such an entity as a non-Hellenistic church, even in Palestine. Fitzmyer believes that the two groups of believers in the Jerusalem church in Acts 6, the Hellenists and the Hebrews, were those Christian Jews who spoke only Greek, and those who were bilingual in Aramaic and Greek. Since Greek-speaking Jews already called Jehovah 'b kupo", then the oldest kerygma in circulation among the early Hellenistic-Palestinian churches could have included the absolute use of 24 the xupo title for both God and Jesus.

The application of Ps. 110:1 to Jesus in the wake of the resurrection need not have arisen from a Hellenistic Christian reading

203-04. Kummel likewise accepts that 23. Cullmann, Chr1stoloq, pp. Acts 2:36 is ancient and reflects the Palestinian church's use of the 112-13. Hahn, po title for Christ. Cf. KUmiuel, Theoiog, pp. 106-08, thinks that only the "adoptionist" portion of the LL!!, pp. tradition is Palestinian; the rest is from HelleniStiCJeWish Christianity. 288-90; Marshall, 24. Fitzmyer, "Der semitische Hintergrund," pp. "Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical Comments," NIS 277-79. 19 (1972-73), pp.

- 395 -

of the Septuagint; indeed there is every possibility that Jesus himself used this psalm in debating with the Jews in hark 12:34-35=Matt. 22:43-45Luke 20:42-44, not of himself in particular, but of the davidic 25 Messiah. This provides evidence of its early messianic interpretation in Judaism, so that its "ii 26 applied to Christ. up(q, iou" could have been immediately

Although the acclamation of Jesus as Lord was modified within the Hellenistic churches outside Palestine, there is still room for a Palestinian use of the language of lordship for Jesus based upon the Aramaic and Greek honorific titles and the implications of the resurrection. As Cullmann has expressed it: 'On the basis of the

conviction that with Christs resurrection the end had already begun, the first Christians could no longer think of him only as the coming Son of Man. He must mean something also for the present, for time already 27 fulfilled.

Iiti
We may conclude that the use of the rupo title for Jesus

25. Cullmann believes that the tradition is mostly authentic; cf. 67, thinks that 204. Schweizer, Jesus, p. Cullmann, Chr-istology, p. the ending this quotation in the gospels has been modified by means of Ps. 8:6 which presumably indicates its influence by the early church. 215, also assigns this pericope (as well as Loader, 'Ps. 110:1," p. Phil. 2:6-11) to the Hellenistic church. 103-104, 130-33, who agrees that the 26. Cf. Hahn, Titles, pp. position, Palestinian church applied Ps. 110:1 to Jesus but who cannot accept that such a present exaltation motif is Palestinian. 27. Cullmann, Christoiog, p. 207; cf. also Hahn, Titles, pp. 78-79.

396

probably originated in the Palestinian custom of addressing rabbis with honorific titles as a term of secular reverence (with the corresponding practice with KOpoc in the Hellenistic world). Indeed, this practice 28 is attested by the secular usage found even in John's late gospel. Within the gospel tradition there are relatively few anachronisms of speech with regard to Jesus' universal lordship.

a.

Mark

Although the oft-cited Mark 7:28 speaks of a Syrophoenician woman who calls Jesus KOpI., this is not the only reference to gospel.
puo in that

Jesus refers to himself as the KUpo of the Sabbath in Mark

2:28, in Mark 11:3 and in several parables, Jesus is pictured as the

KOpoc or Master of a house in a general secular sense (cf. Mark 13:35).

Thus, Mark does not refer to Jesus as anything other than "Sir" or "Master" (although see Mark 16:20 in the longer ending of Mark).

b.

Luke

The Q material has many more references to Jesus as KOpo, but most of these are again with a secular meaning. Luke cites several Q sayings which in his version do not have either KUpo or KOpl., but which do have one or the other in Matthew. In the L tradition there are several uses of po as the divine Lord for Jesus, in his Infancy 29 Narrative and Resurrection account. Luke also contains many references in which xUpo is used as a part of a third-person

28. The woman at the well calls Jesus iUp Philip is called KUpc in John 12:21. 29. Luke 1:43, 1:76, 2:11; Luke 24:3, 24:34.

("Sir") in 4: 11, 15, 19;

- 397 -

30 narrative, and which again are only found in his special material. In

addition, there are a few texts which he has apparently modified (either by means of redaction or with additional tradition) by adding xOpo to 31 Mark or 0 material. The L material also contains a number of uses of the vocative KUpL.; it is used by believing disciples 3 but not by 32 unbelievers. Otherwise Luke takes over 0 and Markan traditions and 33 retains their use of either ICJpuo or the vocative KPip.E.

Thus the Lukan special material abounds with examples of K0po in narrative sections, and xOpi.c on the lips of believers. The final

edition of the gospel is highly colored by this L material and the relatively few Lukan redactions.

c.

Matthew

Matthew is quite different from Luke in his use of KUpo. The 0 material which he shares with Luke retains the same vocative uses of except that it is likely that Matthew adds a vocative to Peter's two cries in the episode of walking on the water in Matt. 14:28, 30. He also adds KUp I. to the Markan tradition of Peter's rebuke of Jesus in Matt. 16:22, and to the debate among the Twelve as to who would betray Jesus in Matt. 26:22. Matthew's modifications, which are few, appear in contexts in which vocal loyalty to Jesus is contradicted by inward

30. Luke 7:13, 10:1, 10:39, 10:41, 11:39, 13:15, 17:5, 18:6, 19:8. 31. Luke 17:6, 17:37, 22:33, 22:49, 22:61. 32. Cf. Peter in Luke 5:8, James and John in 9:54, the Twelve in 10:17, some there" Martha in 10:40, the disciples in 11:1, Peter in 12:41, (probably disciples) in 13:23, the disciples in 22:38 and 49. 33. Luke 3:4, 5:12, 6:5, 6:46 (?), 7:6, 7:19, 9:59, 61, 18:41, 19:34.

- 398 -

faithlessness or even infidelity.

For Matthew, this pattern is

determined by the programmatic Matt. 7:21 (apparently an Il tradition), in which Jesus condemns those who call him Father.
KUpiE

but do not obey the

d.

John

The gospel of John is filled with cases in which people address Jesus as Rabbi and
xpL.

4lmost of all the latter may be explained as a

34 secular use of xuplo. In this same sense, Jesus observes that the b rpo' (John 13:13-14). There In some

disciples call him 'b 6u6Caxco are only two places in which

puo is used in another manner.

early manuscripts the evangelist calls Jesus b tipo at John 4:1; this is not strongly attested, however, and if it is the correct reading it would have the same sense as the use of the term in Lukes narration. The more important reference is found in John 20:28: faced with the resurrected Christ Thomas declares b vupi.Oc iou
K

b 8O iou."

This

is probably addressed to Jesus, but it is in fact a post-resurrection acknowledgment of his lordship and deity. John s gospel thus contains

no anachronisms of speech with regard to the resurrected po.

e.

Summary

We can state, therefore, that the gospels contain relatively few anachronisms of speech regarding Jesus as Lord. Most of the references have a secular sense of "Sir"; it is likely that even Matt, 7:21 originally had that meaning. The Lukan practice is the most

34. Cf. John 4:49, 6:34, 6:68, 8:11, 9:36, 11:21, 27, 32, 34, 39, 12:21, 13:6, 9, 12, 25, 36, 37, 14:5, 8, 22, 20:2, 15, 18, 25, 21:7, 21:15-17, 20.

- 399 -

anachronistic, but again Luke as redactor has plainly shown his intentions; he does not deceive his readers about an early use of the full title of exaltation before the resurrection.

. Ib.

UtL

The gospel tradition in general does not attest the widespread use of the pi..o title for Christ. But Bousset stressed that Paul did not

have a close connection with the Palestinian community; he must have developed his theology under the influence of the churches in which 35 Although it is true that Christ was worshiped as the present Lord. Paul was influenced most by the non-Palestinian church, Bousset bases his conclusion upon his theory that Jesus' lordship was a purely Helleni sti c innovation.

Although we believe that the KCJpo title had its roots in Palestine, nevertheless the idea of Christ's lordship developed further within the Hellenistic churches. But even then the title did not come

to signify a xpI..o present in the cult, but rather the uniqueness of Christ in comparison to Hellenistic pagan KipoL. In fact s Paul passes on what may be an Antiochene tradition in 1 Cor. 8:6, a verse which we 36 have found to be significant in discussing Paul's kingdom theology. Although this tradition could have been understood by Palestinian Christians, who lived among Palestinian Gentiles, it is more likely to

35. See Bousset, Krios

hr t sto

, pp.

119-21.

36. 1 Cor. 8:6 " ct KCspo ' Jr o Xpa'rO"; see also the "c Kpio" creed of Eph. 4:5. 1 Cor. 8:6 is thought to be Hellenistic-Christian by Fitzmyer, "Der semitische Hintergrund," p. 276; Cullmann, 197. p.

400

have arisen in response to non-Palestinian polytheism.

While the present lordship of Christ over the Powers is a the Palestinian Hellenistic-Christian idea, it is strongly rooted i 37 But as the church belief that Jesus had exercised power over demons. spread out from Palestine, demon possession became less of a problem; thus exorcism was less of an aid than the belief that Christ ruled over all of the world's "lords'.

Ib

1LtL 1-

tbL2

Hellenistic pagan idolatry was the background of many of Paul's Gentile converts (as in I Thess. 1:9), and Paul believed that idols were vehicles of evil spiritual forces. Thus, one presupposition for his use

of xOpo was the idea that Christ was supreme over the enemies of God. Paul uses what appears to be traditional language in Rom. 1:3-4 to express the two-fold nature of Christ s rule as the eschatological E. Schweizer shows that davidic king and as the present Lord over all. 38 in this two-fold tradition: ...the basic emphasis rests on Jesus' lordship over the people of God, his community; but the Lord of the disciples is naturally Lord also of all dominions and powers, against which he protects his band of followers.

The early Christians' belief in the exaltation of Christ to the right hand forced them to re-think their relationship to heaven in the light of union with Christ. Even the Jewish picture of the majestic King of heaven came to be modified by the church's christolagy. The fact

37. See ThUsing, pp.

38-39; cf. 71-72.

Schweizer,

p.

69.

38. Schweizer, Jesus, pp.

- 401 -

that they expected Christ to return from heaven made it imperative that they watch the heavens for his return. Paul's emphasis on heaven is

thus based upon the church's belief that Christ rules over the universe; from the church he also received the hope in Jesus' return in eschatological glory.

- 402 -

III. Ib.. I9!9 gy 9

!fl99!

cb!2

In what way did Paul carry on Jesus' preaching of the kingdom of God? Eberhard JUngel proposes that there are two ways of studying this topic: one can either concentrate on the dissimilarities of their language, or approach the language differences on the basis of their common theological elements. 39 most useful. We agree that the latter method is the

Paul usually used non-pca?cCc language in his epistles since kingdom terminology could have been inappropriate or too broad. But

while the concept of the kingdom is an important element of Paul's theology, some suggest that in his thought another doctrine has replaced the kingdom of God as the center of theology. There are two popular

candidates for this new center: justification by faith and the work of 40 the Holy Spirit.

39. See E. Jungel, "Die GrundzUge des Verhltnisses der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre zur Verkndigung Jesu," in Paulus und Jesus, p. 263. 40. Although it is necessary to point out that some have seen the church as the replacement for the kingdom in Pauline or deutero-Pauline theology, this option has been dealt with in previous chapters. Likewise we have also dealt with the theory that the lordship of Christ replaces the kingdom of God by demonstrating the theological connection between the two doctrines in Pauline thought.

- 403 -

Jungel has produced a programmatic article on the problem of the relationship between Jesus and Paul. He bases his own theory upon lbert Schweitzer's assertion that righteousness is the main benefit of the 41 Jungel argues that the gift of God's righteousness a is kingdom. central idea for both Jesus and Paul. The nearness of the kingdom caused Jesus to supersede the law with his new message, and caused Paul to teach justification by faith and to show its relation to the puaA1c 42 Thus he claims that the language differences between (Rom. 14:17). Jesus and Paul are to be found in the fact that the Eschaton was future for Jesus but past for Paul. Jesus could interpret the kingdom in his own person, his deeds and teaching, while Paul had to construct a theology which could propositionally explain the kingdom as an event 43 lthough Jungel is substantially which was fulfilled in Christ. correct, that which is past for Paul is not the Eschaton, but the establishment of salvation in the cross and the enthronement of Christ. Jungel has interpreted salvation not in terms of redemptive history but in terms of existentialism.

. J. ti. Wedderburn, while rejecting Jngel's conclusions

also

41. Cf. Jungel, 'Grundziige des Verhaltnisses," pp.

23-65.

42. JUngel understands the revelation of this righteousness through j ustification as the divine "Yes" which existentially brings people a new meaning in life. 266-67. pp. 43. p. 267.

- 404 -

turns to the concept of righteousness as the key to Paul's translation 44 of "kingdom of God". Justification is merely the principal conductor of the active righteousness of God; the real similarity between the theology of Paul and the teaching of Jesus is the nature of God as the "Giving God", the one who takes the initiative in saving his 45 creatures. But again, as with Jesus' language of the "kingdom of God", central is the intervention of the God who is righteous, who in faithfulness and self-consistency carries through his purposes towards his creatures and heals the broken relationship between the world and its Creator...So "Gods kingdom" and "God's righteousness" can both be ways of referring to God himself which concentrate on two different aspects of his nature and activity.

The idea of the active God is indeed crucial for understanding kingdom theology: it is the confession of divine initiative in Christ which separates the church's theology from the rabbinic idea of the "yoke of the kingdom". The problem with Wedderburn's position is that

he equates the self-giving of God in Paul with eschatological righteousness, an element which does not exhaust the breadth of the kingdom. The Jewish hope also included the full revelation of God's

glory, the new creation, and receiving the Spirit, concepts which are still tied to the kingdom in the Pauline epistles. The kingdom is

antithetically defined as "power" in 1 Cor. 4:20, but neither Jngel nor Wedderburn regard this as important as Ram. 14:17. Paul continues to use kingdom language for both the present and the future, and his kingdom

44. Cf. A. 3. 1. Wedderburn, "Paul and Jesus: The Problem of 38 (1985), pp. 189-203. Continuity,"

197-98. I'Jedderburn tries to 45. Wedderburn, "Paul and Jesus," p. explain Paul's rare use of ac* by appealing to political expediency and the fact that it was righteousness, not the kingdom, which Paul had 201-03. Cf. Wedderburn, p. fervently sought before his conversion.

- 405 -

concept is broader then any one aspect of salvation.

It is therefore better to regard justification (the gift of God's righteousness before the kingdom) as one part - however prominent - of the realization of the kingdom in Pauline theology. It

i5 closely

related to Paul's interpretation o the New Covenant, so that it includes the end of the Law of Moses as the means of achieving holiness.

George Johnston ha concentrated not on Ram. 14:17 but on 1 Car. 4:20. He proposes that the revelation of the kingdom which was present personally in Jesus was replaced in Pauline thought by the Spirit's 4 power. ...although he [Paul] and his disciples felt the force of exile from heaven and though they longed for the olessedness of the age to come 3 anxiety took second place to a sense of wonder that God had already released the supernatural powers of his Spirit for the benefit of each member and the entire body. Johnston is certainly correct insofar as he recognizes that the Spirit was a part of the Jewish hope.

James D. 6. Dunn also states that the tension between present and future in the message of both Jesus and Paul was a function of the Spirit. Jesus was uniquely anointed by the Spirit, and Paul saw the

4, Johnston, "Kingdom of God Sayings in Paul's Letters," p.

151.

- 406 -

Spirit as the tppthv of the coming age.

Dunn does not interpret Jesus

or Paul to mean that the kingdom was actually present 1 but only that the 47 Spirit was the first "installment" of the future kingdom.

The Spirit in the teaching of Jesus and Paul is in one sense a channel of the blessings of the kingdom. But according to the church's

interpretation of the Jewish hope, the Spirit is regarded not only as the conduit of kingdom blessings, but also as a gift of the kingdom itself. Paul understands the Spirit as a benefit of the New Covenant

and that which enables that covenant to operate in the heart of the believer. Mitton strikes a better balance: while he states that "the

Holy Spirit is often elsewhere associated with the Kingdom of God, and may even on occasions be used as a kind of equivalent of it," he goes on to mention that the kingdom is also close to righteousness, joy and 48 it is best conclude that the gift of the Spirit and the gift peace. of righteousness are parts of a larger whole: both are benefits of God's kingly activity in salvation history; neither exhaust or supplant the coming of the kingdom in this age and the next.

It is ultimately futile to try to find one word or concept in

47. See Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, pp. 82 (1970), pp. 3640. 'Spirit and Kingdom," ExI. 48. Cf. Mitton, Your Kinqdom Come, pp. 14; 17.

213-15;

98-101, for his comments on Rom.

- 407

Paul's proclamation which is the equivalent to Jesus' preaching of the kingdom of God. Paul used a variety of language to describe the + r the present and for the 49 Paul found future in ways which correspond to the vocabulary of Jesus. kingdom. He first of all used in Jesus' lordship the realization of the kingdom in the church in the outpouring of the Spirit, the gift of righteousness, and the availability of divine power.

Although their common belief that the kingdom was both present and future is a broad similarity, it should be remembered that it was Jesus who introduced that idea and so distanced himself from contemporary Jewish expectation. By taking over that distinctive belief, Paul and

the early church demonstrated that they shared a distinctive, fundamental tenet of Jesus' message. two-fold definition of operation The apostle passed on Jesus'

c*a?Cc as a future realm and as the dynamic

f God's sovereignty.

Some have gone further and tried to find traces of dominical kingdom sayings in Paul's letters. Richard Sneed, for example, cites caAc
TOti

the tradition which is attested in Luke 17:21: "L6ou yp t 8o0 tv'r Unv o'ri.v".

He theorizes that Paul encountered this 5 C)

tradition during his travels and then applied it anew in Rca. 14:17.

49. Kmmel has concluded that Jesus, Paul, and John all taught the coming of the age 0+ salvation, and also that some eschatological phenomena were breaking into the present through the person of Christ. 325-30. pp. Cf. Kmmel, 50. R. Sneed, "'The Kingdom of God is Within You' (Lk 17,21)," CBQ 24 363-82. Sneed asserts that the Lukan setting of the (1962), pp. tradition within Jesus' disputation with the Pharisees is also This means that Paul would have had to strip the saying from original. See Sneed, p. 376. its context before he himself expanded it.

- 408 -

Sneeds proposal, while attractive for our purposes, demands that Paul knew a Lukan tradition which, after all, he does not quote. He is

undoubtably correct, however, in tracing Paul's understanding of the aXtc in Roin. 14:17 to the teaching of Jesus. Thus Rom. 14:17 may be regarded as conceptually descended from the thought behind Luke 17:21 even if it is impossible to trace its exact traditional or literary
51

history.

An essential truth about the coming of the kingdom is that the kingdom of God s multifaceted. This has led some mistakenly to Cc to one concept. When Paul

disparage all attempts to restrict pua

uses c*aCc*, he does so in clearly defined ways.

But because the term

is an expression of a theology based on the mighty works of God, it was often inadequate to express the breadth of its own implications. this reason Paul partly abandoned the actual term For

in his

attempts to describe the work of God in Christ in terms understandable to Jew and Gentile.

Conci usi on

When the early Christians looked back in history to the work of God in Christ, their theology of the kingdom underwent dramatic

51. Sneed is criticized by Beasley-Murray, Qf. Ji 101, because he is too anthropoceritric and does not recognize the p. divine initiative which is involved in the gift of righteousness.

2S

- 409 -

changes.

In the resurrection they perceived that God visibly worked in

Jesus; it was this belief which allowed the disciples the theological freedom to acknowledge their master as the exalted Lord and the one through whom God effected salvation and reconciliation. Bultmann goes

further and asserts that it does not matter what Jesus taught about himself, since the kerygma is an expression of the church e s faith rather 52 than a fact of history. We have found, however, that it fits the events of the first century better to affirm that there were elements in Jesus' thought and deeds which indicated to the disciples that he was 53 the Messiah; this belief in Christ was confirmed by the resurrection.

The legitimacy of such a theological transformation from the teaching of Jesus to the preaching of Christ the Lord depends heavily upon the resurrection faith. It is this belief which separated the

church from Judaism, and for that matter from the disciples of Galilee. Paul demonstrates the inner logic of the church's theology, with its confession of the enthronement based upon its belief in Jesus' resurrection. For Paul, the reality of the kingdom could thus be summed

up in the creed I<Opo ' IqaoU", the confession that God has acted in Christ and is still at work through his lordship in this age and the next.

52. See Bultmann,

I, p.

26. 170-89.

53. Cf., for example, Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, pp.

- 410 -

CHAPTER TENi

THE KINGDOM IN PAULINE THEOLOGY AND THE KINGDOM IN ACTS, THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES, AND REVELATION

Introducti on

One way of gaining a firmer understanding of Pauline doctrine is to compare and contrast his teaching with that of the other New Testament writers. Underlying the theology of the New Testament is the hope in a future age, but this hope is expressed in a variety of ways. The authors of 1 Peter and Revelation attempt to apply the future kingdom to present suffering; the writer of Hebrews to the problem of apostasy during persecution; James to Christian ethics; the authors of 2 Peter and Jude to heresy, the author of the Johannine epistles to perfectionism. The authors of Acts, the Catholic Epistles and

Revelation, like Paul, are trying to apply Christian theology to their own situations.

- 411 -

1. c9Q !9

b!

Ib1Y

!1

and that of the other New Testament Authors

_I!__9_!_P91!

In Chapter Six we implied that the "gospel of the kingdom" in Acts is a label for the Christian gospel. Luke has included Acts 1:3, 6 in ca?cCc references. In

order to introduce programmatically the later

1:3 it is said that Jesus spent the forty-day interval before his ascension proving his resurrection and ?ywv 'r OEoU. ncp if ac 'roi

Thus the gospel of the kingdom included references to God's

working in Jesus.

Although the foundation of the church is a prominent theme in

1. According to I. H. Marshall the kingdom of God is "the saving, sovereign action of God" through Jesus Christ. Cf. Marshall, cts, p. 34-38. according to Otto Merk, Luke 57. See also Bruce, acts, pp. taught that the kingdom of God was present only in the person of Jesus; it is not present in the church at all. Luke's purpose was rather to show the church how to make best use of the delay by preaching the gospel in the power of the Spirit. Cf. Otto Merk, "Das Reich Gottes in den lukanischen Schriften," pp. 201-20. But Luke does not show the precise relationship between the church and the kingdom. He does believe, however, that the church is to proclaim the kingdom. Merk's theory would make more sense if the kingdom references in Acts were purely eschatological, but this is clearly not the case.

- 412 -

Acts, it is gratuitous to claim that caiJCc really means "the 2 church, especially when the *o).cCc* references are so similar to traditions about Jesus' and the disciples' preaching (cf. Luke 4:43, 8:1, 9:2, 60, 16:16, along with their parallels). Granted, Luke may

possibly be using traditional language to disguise a change of message the Christian gospel he thereby denotes is plainly different from Jesus' - but nothing in Acts compels us to translate Npreaching the kingdom" as 3 "preaching the church".

The connection of facts about Jesus with the gospel is reinforced in the Pentecost sermon. Peter proclaims the resurrection of Christ in fulfillment of Ps. 16:8-11 and his enthronement at the right hand according to Ps. 110:1. Thus, according to Acts 2:33, the Spirit and its power are poured out because of the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus. There is a close connection between the preaching of the kingdom 4 and the assertion that Jesus is 0po. The exaltation of Christ constitutes the kingdom of Christ, and the author of Acts , provides a

2. See Lake and Cadbury, 2-8, 91, 168, 239, 261, 347. Cf. ct s , pp. also Otto, The Kingdom of God nd the Son g f. Mae, pp. 150-54; Stanley, "Kingdom to Church," pp. 1-22. 1. F. Glasson, The eco advent, p. 151, thinks that while Acts accurately records the preaching of the early church, this message later became re-apocalypticized. 3. See Williams, 278, 283-86; Cullmann, "Das ausgebliebene pp. Reich Gottes als th.ologisches Problem," pp. 445-55. 4. This emphasis on the present lordship of Christ may help answer Dunn's claim that Luke must have removed an emphasis on the tension between the present and the imminent coming of the kingdom when he wrote about life in the early church. As in Pauline theology, imminence is partly replaced by belief in Christ's present heavenly supremacy. Cf. 17-18. E. Franklin rightly J. D. G. Dunn, Diversiti, pp. asserts Luke does not replace eschatology with history (as Conzelmann supposes), but rather expounds history in the light of the ascension of Christ; Christ is now reigning as Lord at God's right hand. Cf. 23 Franklin, "The Ascension and the Eschatology of Luke-Acts," (1970), pp. 191-200.

- 413 -

theology of divine power by which God vindicated Jesus and rescued him from death. Although the cai.?cCc* references are few, they are

augmented by the proclamation of Jesus as Christ, as Lord and as Savior.

The name of the Lord is the object of faith in the citation of Joel 2:32 in Acts 2:21 and also in Acts 4:12. It is the power of God which works through the name of the Lord Jesus Christ which effects the healing of lame man (Acts 3:6, 16, 4:7, 10, 12) and other miracles (4:41). Throughout Acts, the power and salvation of God are channeled 5 through the name of Christ (cf. esp. Luke 9:49, 10:17; Acts 19:13). Paul too emphasizes that salvation comes through the name of 6 (Rom. 10:13; 1 Cor. 1:2, 6:11; cf. 2 Tim. 2:19).
b

xpo

As happens in Pauline kingdom theology, the author of Acts teaches

7

that the power of God, salvation, the Spirit, healings and miracles are working in the lives of Christians because of the exaltation of Jesus and his reception of the name xOpo. Although Luke does not use "kingdom of Christ" to describe this phenomenon, the theological labels which we have devised in studying Paul apply here; the kingdom of God

5. Cf. Haenchen, Acts, p.

141, n.

2.

6. J. A. Ziesler regards Luke's understanding of the name of Jesus as a reflection of a background in Hellenistic magic, in which invoking a god's name involves gaining control over that divinity for magical purposes. Cf. J. A. Ziesler, "The Name of Jesus in the Acts," LSNI 4 (1979), p. 37. Ziesler discounts the Old Testament background of invoking the name of Yahweh with reference to his non-magical lordship and power, although this seems to be a closer parallel to Acts. Cf. Bietenhard, "vo1c, K.'r.X.,' IDNI, V, pp. 277-78. 7. See the article by Smalley, "Spirit, Kingdom and Prayer in Luke-Acts," !I 15 (1973), pp. 59-71.

- 414 -

B is manifested though the kingdom of Christ, its executive.

The epistle at hand attests a theology of the kingdom which is not Pauline, but which draws from much of the same material to which Paul had access.

1I
Erich 6raer asserts that Hebrews was written at a time when "realized eschatology' and the hope of an imminent consummation had been replaced by a remote futurist eschatology (that is, through "Early 9 The earlier joyfulness had given way to a life of weary Catholicism"). pilgrimage to a heavenly existence.

It is difficult to locate any proof for Graers conclusions. Certainly the Christian life is portrayed as a pilgrimage in Hebrews, but not as a prolonged trek. The exhortation which is implied in

11:13-16 (they all died in faith, not having received what was promised") is directed to those who die not because of the delay of the Parousia, but through persecution. Sections such as the "race" allegory

146. Cf. Schnackenburg, 8. See Gloege, ReicI Gottes und Kirche, p. 260-69, although he tends to force a Gods Rule and Kingdom, pp. theological wedge between Christs exaltation and the kingdom of Sod. 9. Graver, Der Glaube im Hebrerbrie+, pp. 64-71.

- 415 -

in 12:1-3 also check any ideas of dreariness.

Paul uses a similar

picture in Phil 3:12-14 in order to demonstrate the futurity of perfect sanctification. The author stresses the position of the believer in the

present, partially-experienced kingdom in Heb. 12. On the other hand, the backsliding of the readers and their intense suffering called for a look to a "better" existence in the future in order to give them both warning and comfort. This explains why the Eschaton is mast prevalent

in the ethical sections, but it does not prove that the author was misleading his readers with an illusion of eschatological hope (so Graper). Many scholars rightly affirm that the future is important for the author, and that there is a typically-Christian tension between this 10 and the present position of the believer.

2. Heb. 1: B - Christ as

-Lu

One of the major christological motifs of this books is the author's development of Ps. 110:4 to prove that Christ is a royal priest of the order of Meichizedek. He begins by citing the fulfillment of the 11 messianic psalms in him alone.

10. So Manson, ebrews, pp. 52-73; Schnackenburg, Kingdorn, pp. 323-24; G. Hughes, Hebrews d Herrneutics, pp.

66-74.

11. He cites Ps. 2 and 2 Sam. 7:14, and he goes on to include Psalms 110, 8, and 22 and other scriptural references. Cf. Bruce, 11-15. pp.

- 416 -

12 In 1:8-9 the author quotes Ps. 45:6-7 and predicates an eternal

throne for Christ. The second stich in the quotation speaks of the scepter of the kingdom; here there is a textual problem over whether the scepter belongs to aoU (Jesus) or, less likely, c(JToU (God or Jesus). Either way, it is Christ who is said to wield the scepter from the The author of Hebrews assumes the kingship of 13 Christ in order to prove his priesthood. everlasting throne.

3.

b_.

Ihe

'a!L"

According to Heb. 12:28, believers are inheriting an 11unshakeable kingdom 1

(caXcCu &a&Acuro).

The picture of God shaking" an earthly

kingdom is common in the Old Testament. Heb. 12:28 may have a literary dependence on Hag. 2:21b-22a: "I am about to shake the heavens and the earth, and to overthrow the throne of kingdoms; I am about to destroy 14 the strength of the kingdoms of the nations. 1 It is implied by the use of the adjective t*a&Acuro in 12:28 that the kingdom presently exists in heaven: if the kingdom did not exist in this age it could

The RSV reads: 12. The translation difficulty in 1:8 is well-known. "Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever " , and gives the alternative "God is thy throne for ever and ever" in the margin. See the completely different interpretations of the Hebrew psalm by Dahood, Pa1rns, I, p. 363: "Your throne, 273: "God...has enthroned you!"; Weiser, P1rns, p. 0 divine king." 13. See the discussion by Strobel, An je fbrae, pp. 87-95. 14. The Septuagint version of Hag. 2:22 reads pcaXtwv ("of the kings") rather than a form of paAcCc; either the author uses the Hebrew text here or he has changed "king;" to "kingdom" to suit his purpose. Hag. 383-84. 2:6 is cited in Heb. 12:26. Cf. F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, pp.

- 417 -

15 hardly remain unshaken during God's judgment.

The kingdom mentioned in Heb. 12:28 is connected with the "heavenly city" of 11:10, 16, 12:22. Both are presently in heaven, and 16 It seems both are part of the eschatological goal of the believer. clear that the author has taken over the picture of the New Jerusalem in heaven, but it is not obvious whether he understands it as literal. "you have come" section of Heb. 12:18-24 is most susceptible to a figurative exposition in terms of access to God. C. Gpicq interprets 17 this city in a purely spiritual and ecclesiastical sense. ...il s'agit manifestement de I 'Egiise militante et triomphante, vitalement unies, constituant une sociti organise cotnrne une nO?i., dorit Dieu est le fondateur et le roi , et o I 'on participe au salut [emphasis mine). He states: The

Although there is a deeper spiritual meaning to the "heavenly city", it does not necessarily preclude a literal meaning. In Heb. 11

the patriarchs were looking foward to a literal fulfillment of God's promises. Christians continue to look for an eschatological kingdom in

12:28, and this is understood as a realm which is more real and lasting than the physical creation.

A mediating Interpretation is called for here, and a glance at Paul's cosmology also helps. Paul interprets Zion as "heaven" in the i

E(ov paraphrase of Isa. 59:20 in Rom. 11:26. He speaks of "Jerusalem

222. According to 6. W. Buchanan the 15. Cf. Moffatt, Hebrews, p. fulfillment in Christ of the Enthronement Psalms affects the author's understanding of the "unshakeable kingdom" in 12:28. In the psalms the Lord is said to make the world "unshakeable" or "straight", that is, he would firmly establish the new kingdom (see also Heb. 1:6). Cf. 225. Buchanan, p. 16. Cf. P. E. Hughes, Hebrews, p. 17. C. Spicq, Hb, II, p. 405. 559.

- 418 -

above" in Gal. 4:25-26, and demonstrates that while he does not disbelieve in a literal city, he is primarily interested in it fr illustrating salvation apart from the law. Thus, he retains the Jewish The writer of

tradition, but then adds to it new, Christian meaning. Hebrews does the same.

When he attaches import to the spiritual

significance of the "city", he does not thereby reject its literal existence. instructive. Both aspects are retained in his thinking as necessary and

The author of Hebrews uses the "city" motif to warn his readers against sliding backward into apostasy (= the shakeable world) and to urge them to press forward to receive salvation ( the unshakeable 18 In this sense, there is an underlying kingdom and the heavenly city). unity between Hebrews and that which Paul affirms in Galatians. In both cases, the authors appeal to present heavenly reality to show that the true gospel is that which brings people into a relationship with heaven, the abode of God, and in order to prove the bankruptcy of any theology which calls for a return to Jewish principles (cf. Phil. 3).

4. Paul and Hebrews

The major difference between Hebrews and Pauline theology is that Paul does not speak of the destruction of the earth nor therefore of the need for an unshakeable kingdom. He speaks of the renewal or

transformation of the creation in Rom. 8:18-25 without predicting its

18. So 6. Hughes, Hebrews and Herrneneuti, pp.

66-74.

- 419 -

19 initial destruction.

Like Paul 3 the author of Hebrews speaks of the New Covenant and quotes the relevant passage Jer. 31:31-34 in Heb. 8:8-12. He teaches that in Christ God has made obsolete the old way of worship. Hughes

argues that the New Covenant of the kingdom is only proleptically applicable to this age, since the old covenant is still "fading away" 20 (Heb. 8:13), and not destroyed or replaced outright. But the attitude attested in Hebrews is precisely that which we have found in Paul's letters, particularly in 2 Corinthians. The New Covenant is a kingdom blessing which is made fully available in this age by virtue of the death of Christ (see 1 Cor. 11:25).

19. F. F. Bruce points out that Hebrews holds to the Jewish conception of the transient universe as opposed to the Platonic model of its eternal existence; see the quotation of Ps. 102:25 in 1:10-12 for one example. Cf. Bruce, Hebrews, pp. 383-84. 20. Cf. Hughes, Hebrews, pp. 364-67.

- 420 -

_E2ith_c_!p

Throughout his epistle James stresses the centrality of Christian ethics; he teaches with an orientation to the future, especially toward the judgment of Gad. There are two passages which warrant specific attention, James 2:5 and 2:8.

- "i!L! 2f.

James 2:5 is the only reference to the pc*altcc in the letter. While it is based upon the tradition of inheriting the kingdom, it is unusual in that James uses the noun K)rpovOpo rather than KXqpovop I c or the verb K)ulpovoptfa. James also makes the poor heirs simply of iij

ua.cCa,

not of "the kingdom of God". KlqpovOpoc is not used in the

sense of "eschatological heirs in the four gospels, although it has 21 that meaning in the Pauline literature and in Hebrews. The use of the cognate verb is more common in Jesus teaching. It is used with wi 22 mtvo, and once with the object iiv yfiv (Matt. 5:5). According to gospel tradition, Jesus specifically speaks of inheriting the aacCc only in Matt. 25:34.

Although Paul uses an exclusion formula, he does not otherwise speak of "inheriting the aiJcLc*". The closest parallel to James 2:5 is

21. See Rom. 4:13, 8:17; Gal. 3:29, 4:1, 4:7; Titus 3:7; Heb. 1:2 (of Christ), 6:17, 11:7. 22. In Matt. 19:29, Mark 10:17, Luke 10:25, and Luke 18:18.

- 421 -

in the Jesus tradition. blesses the nioo

According to tlatt. 5:3 (and Luke &:20) he riv

(iii nvtpwn) because c*b.iv ka'rv 1)

otipuvv. James may have combined the tradition behind Matt. 5:3 specifically with that of Matt. 5:5, which speaks of the blessedness of the meek, 8'r cdiio
K OVOfl')60UV

iiv yq 1 it seems as likely,

however, that he could have alluded to "inheriting the kingdom" in general terms. At any rate, it is the reference to the poor which shows 23 that this is based on Jesus tradition.

So then, the eschatological kingdom is the same as that found in the teaching of Paul and Jesus. James teaching about riches and poverty throughout the epistle reflects the imagery of Jesus' teaching about the 24 kingdom of God.

"ii.
Only

In James 2:8 there is an allusion to the here in the New Testament is the adjective used in a non-political sense. It has often been suggested that

oi.XK is a property of the

vdpo itself rather than a means of relating it to the kingdom. Dibelius and Greeven, for example, interpret "royal law" as the whole

23. Thus Knowling, James, pp. xix-xxiv, 46. James 2:5 is one more proof that the teaching of Jesus 11 a strong influence on this epistle. Cf. tlltton, arnes, pp. 86-87; Laws, Jame, p. 103; Cantinat, Saint
pp. 27-28;

f1uner 1 Jakobusbrie, pp.

47-53, 120.

24. Cf. 1:9-li and the hlfadingN of the rich man; the vanity of the pursuit of wealth in view of the "last day" in 4:13-5:6; and the exhortation to be patient in trials (including economic) in 5:7-it. Cantinat, pp. 126-27, believes that the kingdom is the church in this age, so that James is teaching that the poor have a rightful place in the church. But he then concedes that the context of James shows that the kingdom is probably the latter, eschatological part of the kingdom.

- 422 -

law of God. Citing the many Hellenistic and Patristic parallels, they conclude that the law is royal in that it is universally binding. Hellenistic Jews so described the Law of Moses, and the designation was taken over to describe the Christian law, based on the ethical 25 instructions of the Old Testament. On the other hand, it is also possible that James is implying that the law of love is itself 26 in the sense that it controls and interprets all other laws. royal'

While these two approaches offer plausible explanations of

c*aLXKo, they do not adequately explain why this term is used in this
context. There is no other law over against which God's law must be

exalted (as Dibelius and Greeven) , nor does James indicate that Lev. 19:18 is a supreme law (as Mayor), since all of the laws are interdependent and equally valid (James 2:9-13).

Taking James 2:5 into account, it is best to understand the "royal 27 The principles of this law law" of 2:8 as the law of God's kingdom. are rooted in the Old Testament (here, Lev. 19:18), but they are amplified and re-explained by Jesus. Lev. 19:18 is one part of this Christi an "law".

In Jesus' teaching the law of love is the most important command 28 The connection of this among those governing human relationships.

25. See Dibelius and Greeven, James, pp. 26. Cf. J. B. Mayor,

142-44; Mupner, p. 132-33. 109-10.

124.

ij, pp.

89-91; Cantinat, pp. Cf. Laws, pp.

27. Not specifically Christ's kingdom.

114-15; Reicke, James, Peter, Jude, pp. pp. 28. Cf. David, 109-10; although she expresses some doubts over 28-29; Laws, pp. the theological dependence of James 2:8 on Jesus' teaching.

- 423 -

vOjo with inheriting eternal life is found in the Markan tradition of the rich young ruler (and in Luke, the account of the lawyer as well). In this tradition the inquirer asks how he might inherit eternal life, and Jesus answers with a reference to Lev. 19:18 (in Matt. 19:19 and Luke 10:27). In Mark 10:21-22 and particularly in Luke 18:22-30 Jesus commands the rich man to give all of his wealth to the poor and to follow Jesus. In Luke 18:25 Jesus goes on to say that the rich will have great difficulty in entering the aCc* ioG 6o. This message is

closely related to the teaching of James. The rich should be apprehensive about the judgment day, but the poor will be rewarded when they enter the kingdom. Paul develops the idea of the poor inheriting James

the kingdom les5 in all his epistles than does James in his one.

expounds the "royal law" in terms of fairness to the poor, and in 2:11 he even quotes the commandments forbidding stealing and adultery, which Jesus has quoted (among others) in the pericope of the rich man in Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20.

3. Paul and James

In the epistle of James, therefore, we find teaching about the kingdom which bypasses the developments found in Pauls epistles. Jesus

taught that the law was immutable and that those who would enter the eschatological kingdom of God had better heed his interpretation of it. Paul interprets the law by means of the establishment of the New Covenant in the cross of Jesus. James, however, understands Jesus and the kingdom of God by means of the Sermon on the Mount. He also picks up the theme of suffering and glory from Jesus: the Lord of glory (2:1) is not to be emulated by preferring the rich, but by identifying with the

- 424 -

suffering (1:2, 12), the lowly (1:9), the meek (1:21), the poor (2:5). The God of Jesus Christ is the one who exalts the humble (4:10).

Paul and James thus begin at Je5us message and proceed along different lines in their understanding of the kingdom. They are united

in their understanding of suffering and glory, but their approaches to the law reflect their own interpretations of the kingdom theme.

There are no actual c*aiJcCc references within 1 Peter, the Johannine Epistles, or Jude. But although there is no specific mention of the future c*aXcCc* in 1 Peter, the concept is clearly present within 29 a traditional program of present suffering and future glory.

I . I

!2LQg

0+

ter

Because of the strong future eschatology of this work it is difficult to iUstify labeling it a work from a 1i1!u of a dim 30 eschatological hopp. Conzelmann, for example, concludes that the author of 1 Peter (like the authors of John's gospel and Hebrews) has added to the or iginal temporal, "apocalyptic" kingdom of God a spatial,

29. Cf. esp.

Mi llauer, Leiden

Gnade, pp.

185-87.

30. Cf. 1 Pet. 1:4-7, 1:13, 2:12, 3:10, 4:5, 4:7, 4:13, 5:1, 5:4, 5:10.

- 425 -

31 heavenly one which believers are now experiencing.

Conzelmann's assertion rests upon the same misconception against which we have argued all along: that any perspective which admits of ideas other than that of a strictly futuristic kingdom is non-apocalyptic and Hellenistic. We have seen that apocalyptic eschatology may contain both a future kingdom and a transcendent heavenly realm to which the pious are now related. The reservation of

the future kingdom in heaven is essential to apocalyptic and rabbinic Judaism, and the idea was widespread in early Christianity.

1 Peter is arranged around the traditional theme of present suffering and future glory. In order to explain the problem of

suffering the author emphasizes the believers' hope from the perspective of future, heavenly, and realized hope.

2. I

t222! 2. 24 Lfl 1.

The future realm of salvation is extremely important for this letter. Like Paul, the author understands that not all eschatological

blessings have been realized; he regards several important aspects as outstanding. Salvation, although "tasted" now (1:9), is reserved by God t that time Gods grace will

until it is revealed in the end (1:4-5).

be revealed (1:13). The most important aspect of the future kingdom for 1 Peter is the eschatological dc (1:7, 4:13, 5:1, 5:10), which is the

divine compensation for suffering in this age.

31. See Conzelmann, OutLi, p.

313.

- 426 -

Some scholars disbelieve that an author who can teach the "this-worldly" ethics of 1 Pet. 2:13-3:7 could also have an awareness of the impending end. Norbert Brox, for example, concedes that while these were alien to

1 Peter does contain eschatological elements, the author's way of thinking.

The expectation of the end is thus either

used as the basis for ethical admonition (4:13-17) or as a key to interpreting the church's present situation. The author draws out old

ideas such as that of the imminent end (4:7) from the church's treasury 32 of stock motifs.

Such criticisms must be weighed against the message of the whole letter rather than simply against 2:13-3:7. Brox's assertion that future eschatology is used in ethical teaching and as an aid to understanding the present is not so much a dismissal as an admission that eschatology is in two ways extremely important. The author everywhere appeals to

the approaching Parousia and judgment, with a frequency and intensity 33 that approaches that of Paul in 1 Thessalonians.

I
The kingdom in I Peter is not only revealed in the future; in the

tradition of Judaism and Pauline theology it is also presently in heaven; "...t povouv tBupiov
KUC

icviov xc*

ti*ptviov,

32. Brox is more to the point when he suggests that the epistle must be relatively late in order to explain the type of persecution which the author discusses. But this suggestion alone does not negate the possession of a lively eschatology among suffering believers as developed in 1 Thessalonians or Revelation. Cf. N. Brox, especially pp. 203-04. 33. So F. W. Beare, pp. 84-85, 183.

- 427 -

qprtvv tv oipc*voC

. tii

(1 Pet. 1:4). As in Colossi ans and

Ephesians, heaven has a dual role: it is the storehouse of future blessings and the capital of the kingdom of Christ. The key to understanding the heavenly reservation of the kingdom is the tnoxc?u. Salvation, the enthroned Christ, and grace are all presently existing in heaven awaiting their revelation at the end (1:6, 1:13, 5:1). By comprehending this hidden/revealed dualism, believers may withstand Since Christ is enthroned in heaven, believers can know 34 1 Pet. 3:22 contains one of the clearest that he rules now as Lord. persecution. New Testament statements of Christ's ascension and enthronement in fulfillment of Ps. 110:1. In a manner similar to Eph. 1:18-23, the author stresses the superiority of Christ over the evil Powers (here 35 The author of 1 Peter does not specifically "angels") in this age. explain the meaning of Christ's enthronement with regard to battling the Powers; he gives what is appropriate for his own readers. In intense

suffering they do not take much comfort in the defeat of the evil angels - a creed which the author of Ephesians thought crucial - but in the divine pattern of present suffering and eschatological glory which the Old Testament prophets foresaw (1:11), and through which Christ has himself already traveled. As Beare puts it: "above all other thoughts,

this writer sees in Christ, both in His sufferings and in his glory, the Pattern which is set before the Christian that it may be unfolded

34. Cf. Brox, p. theme.

179-80, for a full discussion of the enthronement

35. Cf. H. Balz and W. Schrage, Di Beare, 176; Best, eter, p. and Jude, p. 164.

EL!

105-06; katholischen Briee, pp. 148-49; Kelly, Peter Pete, pp.

- 428 -

36 anew in his own life."

4 JIze

!QL2 g

" L

The object of the Christians hope in I Peter is drawn close in that they possess the Spirit of 6 (4:13-14). The Spirit is the seal

of approval upon Gods people, and the guarantee that God will continue to draw them through to glory (the second half of Jesus' pattern) in the coming age. The assurance of glory yields both joy (1:6) and hope

(3:15) in suffering, joy and hope rooted firmly in the expectation of the future kingdom.

5. PauL and 1 Peter

The eschatology of 1 Peter bears some clear resemblances to Pauline eschatology. The similarities to the enthronement theme in

Colossians and Ephesians are important, but those with the undisputedly Pauline letters are also many. The characterization of the age to come

as 6.c is Pauline, as is the role of the Spirit as the pledge of coming glory. He also joins the author of Revelation in teaching the

persecuted to keep their focus on the future.

36. So Beare, p.

53.

- 429 -

2 Pe

1:

Ib

The author of Second Peter mentions the

a.)C only in 1111. The

eschatological affinities between 2 Peter and Jude are such that we may equate Jude's 'eternal life" (V. 21) and being in God's presence (v. 24) with the "kingdom" of 2 Pet. 1:11. 2 Pet. 1:11 is noteworthy in two ways. First, it ascribes the future kingdom to Christ. This is not an

entirely new idea; we believe that it is to be found in the gospels and 37 But it is also the only explicit New Testament the epistles of Paul. reference to an everlasting kingdom of Christ ("rt)v 'oU KupCou uaiAccv

pv icut owipo ' Ioo Xpoio"), although the idea is

implicit in Luke 1:33 and Rev. 11:15.

2. Paul and 2 Peter

The perspective of 2 Pet. 1211

5 supposed by Kelly to have been a

later modification of the Pauline present kingdom of Christ. This would therefore complete a circle from the original thought of entering a future kingdom of God, to the Pauline idea of presently entering the

37. Cf. Schelkie, Die Petrusbriee - Der Judasbrief, pp.

192-93.

- 430 -

kingdom of Christ, to a new concept of a future entry into Christ's 38 kingdom.

Such a theoretical cycle is based upon a simplistic reading of the New Testament, in which there is generally a tension between the idea of an everlasting reign of Christ and that of a limited one. does not pose a unique problem. Again, while the author of 2 Pet. 1:11

y teaches a temporally-limited messianic kingdom, in 2 APBC. Bar. 40i3, it is saidi "And his (my Anointed One's] dominion will last forever ij the world of corruption has ended and utj the times

which have been mentioned before have been fulfilled (emphasis mine]." So this speaks of a never-ending messianic kingdom which nevertheless comes to an end! In Pauline theology the kingdom of God in Christ

becomes the heart of the eternal kingdom. This idea is reflected in Jude 2, in which God's eternal kingdom is "&
KupCOu

IrooU XpaioU 'iou

t1pv" (cf. also 2 Pet. 3:18).

EJb!bQi!_EP11!!
The author(s) of these short epistles says very little about the future kingdom of God, and only I John has any actual eschatalogy. There he tells his readers that they can now know that they have eternal

38. Cf. Kelly, pp. 309-310; BaIz and Schrage, hoIjn Briefe, 129; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 192; Schnackenburg, God's Rule p. 325. Grundmann, 76, sees the three rus, p. p. stages represented by Paul, the author of Revelation (cf. Rev. 11:15), and the author of 2 Peter. See also Fuchs, xjme Pier, p. 61.

- 431 -

life from Sod by whether they love each other (3:15). He also teaches 39 The that there are future events which will make that life manifest. return of Christ brings both judgment and transformation. Believers

have no need of fearing Christ's judgment since they can know that they have life (4:17) and that they will experience no shame at his ntpouac (2:28). The wicked have much to fear: Christ's mission was to destroy the works of the devil (3:8), the ruler of this age (5:19); since this age is passing away, it is foolish to cling to the devil's works (2:17). Believers, however, will become like Christ "when he appears" (3:2). Although the context of I John 3:2 would indicate that God or the Father may be the subject of t$cvcpc8q, this type of saying normally concerns Christ; in the author s mind the Father and the Son are so closely related he does not have to change the subject of the sentence from 40 "Sod" to "the Son" (see the similar tension in 2:28).

The epistle of 1 John thus contains a present-future tension w)ich the author directs primarily to the question of perfection. He is

unlike Paul in his strongly dialectical propositions concerning forgiveness. But in essence Paul too could claim that for Christians on

39. A characteristic phrase of the Johannine literature is the description of the author's time as the "ocq )bpm" (see 1 John 2:18). The term may mean that the end of history is imminent (Brown, of John, pp. 330-32) or that the Christian era is qualitatively close 148-50; Schnackenburg, to the end (so Marshall, Eaisties of John, pp. 9haflflesbriefe, p. 97). The author's 142; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, p. point is that his own position in history allows him to be contemporary The author to false teachers who carry an the spirit of the antichrist.

2!1!

does not give any clear indication that he is "de-mythologiziflg" the Jewish/Christian expectation of an ultimate enemy of God; rather it seems that he is trying to discredit the false teachers by identifying them with the spirit of that figure, that is, with Satan. 40. Cf. R. E. Brown, Eistle% f John, p. 423; 6. Schunack, ! des Johannes, pp. 17273. Istis of 54-55; Marshall, ohn, pp.

- 432 -

the one hand " oti6v tpc vUv

Kipt,ic

'roC tv Xpa'r

'IqaoG" (Rain. 81),

while on the other hand they must live " in Christ" and walk " as children of light". Thus both Paul and the author of 1 John comprehend that

Christians may sin in this age, and also will be acquitted at God's 41 future judgment.

R. E. Brown believes that I John was written against secessionists who read the gospel of John and adopted an otherworldly enthusiasm which 42 Brawn's denied the importance of future eschatology for the Christian. suggestion is too subtle especially since the end clearly is not the author's main concern, In order to explain the author's reserve, Brown

must resort to stating that he had to be careful not to undermine the faith of his readers too much. I. H. Marshall puts the case more

persuasively when he states that perfectionism and not antieschatologizing er s was the chief problem; thus the author places heavy emphasis upon the distinction between false perfectionism and true 43 eschatological perfection throughout the epistle.

41. Cf. Schnackenburg, Johannebriefe 3 p. 42. Brown, p. 99. E 2 istles f pp.

177.

43. Cf. Marshall, I

181-83.

- 433 -

6. The Revelation of John

Let us now conclude this survey with the most important book for our topic. 44 kingdom. above everything else, Revelation is a book of the The two unusual characteristics of its kingdom theology are

the "millennium' and the eschatological co-rule of the saints with Christ.

1. I

"Nil

al'

L g 2!

L Christ in Rev. 2O:-

There must be three levels within a study of Rev. 20:4-6: the meaning of the original traditions behind the text, the redaction of those traditions; and the author's or final redactor's intended meaning in these verses.

a.

The tradition of a temporally-limited messianic kingdom

Wilhelm Bousset promoted the view that Jewish tradition formed the background of Revelation. He thought that the tension between early conceptions of a political, nationalistic kingdom on earth and the later idea of a transcendent, spiritual kingdom in heaven eventually reached the synthesis of the temporal messianic kingdom on earth, which would

44. Thus Beasley-t'lurray views the christological nature of the kingdom as the focal point of the book. Cf. Beasley-Nurray, Revelation, pp. 25-26.

- 434 -

45 precede the consummation. In 4 Ezra 7:28-29 it is calculated that the

Messiah would reign for 400 years; he would then die, and the resurrection and final judgment would occur. Pccording to AQc..

30 this interregnurn would end when the Messiah would return his kingdom to heaven; the resurrection would follow. The later rabbis were deeply interested in fixing the duration of the messianic kingdom; estimates ranged from forty to 7000 years. Only 2 EngI 33 (3 recension) reckons 46 its length as 1000 years.

The possibility that traditional Jewish imagery is not the basis for the "millennium" in Rev. 20 has been argued unconvincingly by 47 The closest parallels for a theologians such as 6. R. Beasley-Murray. Zwischenreich are definitely in apocalyptic and rabbinic literature. Although it is doubtful that the concept of a temporary messianic kingdom influenced 1 Cor. 15:24, it is clear that Revelation, written probably in the last years of the first century, easily falls into the ! j l ieu of Jewish eschatological speculation concerning length of the messianic kingdom.

There are, however, vast differences between the message of Rev. 48 concept of the kingdom of 20 and that of Jewish eschatology. Its

45. Cf. Bousset, Re LL i. on

pp.

273-76.

275-76. The concept thus cannot 46. So claims Bousset, Re1iion, pp. simply be called "apocalyptic", as does Bousset. 47. Beasley-Murray admits that there are similarities between Revelation and "apocalyptic", but he suggests that the source for the idea of a temporally-limited kingdom in Rev. 20 is to be found in Ezekiel 3648. Cf. Beasley-Murray, pp. 287-92. 48. Cf. 3. Sickenberger, Johannesapokalypse, p. 179-82. Contra Bultmann, Theology, II, p. 175, who calls its theology "a weakly Christianized Judaism."

- 435 -

Christ is uniquely Christian in that it is the culmination of the redemption through the blood of the Lamb, and because of its christology, according to which the millennium is a part of the kingdom 49 of God-in-Christ.

b.

The redaction of the tradition of the temporary messianic

kingdom in Revelation

Long before the rise of the redaction criticism of the synoptic;, scholars were suggesting that 1 John" had modified his original sources 50 to suit his new message. Because of the presence of Jewish images in Revelation, some have suggested that the book is a confused collection of traditional material with little originality or unity. R. H.

Charles, for example, concluded that Rev. 20l-6 transmitted an earlier text which the redactor had crudely modified. The original message was

that the future millennium would be a time for the re-evangelization of the nations of the earth; it was based on the Old Testament image of the Ge tiles coming to Zion. Thus, says Charles, the martyrs, resurrected to rule with Christ, would be ceaselessly active in preaching and healing and bringing converts back to live in Jerusalem. The final redactor of Revelation completely missed this point, and so it has been obscured 51 from view. The obvious weakness of Charles viewpoint is that

49. Cf. especially Beasley-Murray, ReveL 50. See, for example, Bousset, Religion, pp. 51. So R. H. Charles, Revelation, I, pp.

pp.

2426.

27576.

li-lv.

- 436 -

it rests upon a reconstruction of the text which is highly 52 speculative.

c.

The meaning of the "millennial

kingdom of Christ

(1) History of interpretation of Rev. 20:4-6

History abounds with a wide variety of possible interpretations 53 A chiliastic kingdom in Revelation. for the "millennial

interpretation seems to have taken root quite early in the second century. Justin taught that Jerusalem would be rebuilt and inhabited by the saints (Just. DiaL. 80-81). The idea that history would last six millennia, followed by a millennial Sabbath was also popular (cf. urn. 15.3-5). lrenaeus specifically denounced those who interpreted Rev. 204-6 as anything other than a literal future thousand-year kingdom (Iran. Haer. 5.32-36); it must be noted that lrenaeus did not mean that the kingdom of God in its entirety was future, but that the millennium would come only after the Parousia.

The futuristic view of the millennium came to be successfully challenged by the theologians of the Alexandrian school. Origen

52. Cf. also J. N. Ford, who divides the book into a variety of explicitly-identified Christian and Baptist traditions. Schnackenburg correctly asserts that while traditional sources may be present In Revelation, the final product consists of a united form and message. Schnackenburg, Go's Rule and ingdorn, pp. 342-47. 53. For the history of interpretation see .1. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 459-89; Peter HUnermann, "Reign of God," pp. Sacrarnentuni Mundi V (1970), pp. 233-34; Beckwith, 318-36; Bietenhard, Ds ic!; "Millennial Hope," 6 (1953), pp. 189-90. A review which is 12-30; Roloff, pp. very Informative, if polemically slanted toward his version of "realized eschatology", is Glasson's jgg: ppg cLrst! iy (1953). Ub 2! i

Ib e

- 437 -

rejected the idea of an earthly millennial kingdom in favor of a spiritual one. This spiritualized interpretation became predominant to

the extent that the Council of Ephesus in A. D. 431 moved to condemn chiliasm. Augustine rejected what he thought was the gross materialism

of the chiliasts, and developed the formula that Rev. 20 referred to the Catholic Church in this age. The kingdom eventually came to be

identified completely with the churchi the resurrection of the martyrs was taken as the ascension of the souls of the martyrs to heaven, and the thousand years either literally or figuratively as the span of church history. The Augustinian view predominated for centuries, and it

became thoroughly integrated with the theocratic role of the Roman Church.

The Reformer; did not give much emphasis to eschatology, but Protestants did formally reject chiliasm in the Lutheran Church (Augsburg Confession) and in the Reformed Church (Helvetic Confession). Some Anabaptist groups revived millennialism; but extremists such as Hoffmann at Strasburg and Jan Matthys of MUnster unwittingly ensured that millennial theology was associated by mainline churches with abuses such as polygamy and the use of physical force.

Millennialism enjoyed more popularity in the eighteenth century. J. A. Bengel 's works led to a revival of millennial eschatology in Germany, England, and America (notably in the Dispensationalist movement). New sect; such as the Plymouth Brethren and the Irvingites Various models of amillennialism and

promoted millennialism.

postmillennialisvn have continued to predominate in Catholic and mainline Protestant churches. Postmillennialists, who enjoyed their greatest

prominence before the First World War, held to an actual temporary rule

- 438 -

of Christ in fulfillment of Rev. 20 which would begin and end before the Parousi a.

(2) Critical interpretations of Rev. 20:4-6

With the rise of critical methodology, the traditional dogma of a symbolic meaning for the millennium has been challenged as scholars seek 54 Bousset, for example, to understand the author's original intent. thought that Rev. 20:4-6 denotes a literal thousand-year kingdom, but he also thought that only martyrs are said to rise to share in its 55 glory.

G. E. Ladd is typical of those who take the classical millennarian approach to Rev. 20 today. All Christians will rise in the resurrection

of 20*4 (as in 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15), but the martyrs will receive special reward for their faithfulness. That this is a bodily

resurrection is proven by the use of "souls in 20*4. These are the same people mentioned earlier in 6*9-10 who were physically dead. Ladd

argues that a soul of a dead Christian does not experience a spiritual re-birth, which would seem to be the case If Rev. 20:4-6 is about the 56 it is also possible to accept the ascension of martyrs to heaven. "millennium" as a future part of the kingdom after the Parousia, but still regard the thousand years as symbolic of a long period of time.

Schnackenburg suggests that the destruction of the beast and the

! ' 29S!Y2!, pp.

54. See the synopsis of modern interpretations by A. Feuillet, 98-101. 436-38. pp. 249-56.

55. Cf. Bousset, Offenbarung, pp. 56. Cf. Ladd, Revelation, pp.

265-67; Caird,

- 439 -

false prophet in 19:20 and that of Satan in 20:10 are really one and the same event. Thus in Rev. 20:4-6 the author does not teach a literal

jy of Christ; his purpose is to assure the martyrs of victory The one final kingdom which starts at 57 But a the Parousia is described throughout Rev. 20-22. and reward by using symbolism. 'recapitulation" theory of Rev. 19-20 must be assumed rather than proven, since there is little evidence that the author would write so confusingly and place the section about a millennium between the two accounts of the kingdom. Schnackenburg must assume that John's original

readers, who may have been familiar with 4 Ezra or other works, would have been able to interpret correctly such difficult metaphors.

The acceptance of a critical stance toward Revelation has not necessitated a rejection of the position that John was transforming a future kingdom into a present, spiritual one. J. Sickenberger claimed

to reject the Augustinian-allegorical and the chiliastic-literal interpretations of the millennium. "One thousand 1' is rather a symbolic

expression for a long time, a part of the church age, in which Satan is bound and the Church enjoys rest and success. The specific predictions

about ruling here are for martyrs, who would die during this age and ascend to heaven for judgment (the "first resurrection" of 20:5). The "rest of the dead" are those who would apostasize in persecution. These

would be kept in a place of torment until their final condemnation after

344-47. Roloff ri Ri 57. See Schnackenburg, 6od' pp. believes that the "millenium" is a symbol of earthly, this-worldly 192. renewal of creation. Cf. Roloff, OenbarQg, p.

- 440 -

58 the millennium of this age. But despite Sickenbergers disclaimers,

this is not so very different from the Augustinian position, although he does limit the millennium to the latter part of this age in a postmi 1 lennial ist fashion.

We would suggest that despite the problems which accompany a chiliastic interpretation of Rev. 20:4-6, the author of Revelation intended the millennium to be understood as a temporary kingdom of Christ which would exist on earth from the Parousia until the final 59 judgment. He couples this kingdom with a rule of Christ in this age.

Although some of the Jewish writers thought of a timeless future kingdom, there is little internal indication that this is the authors intention here. In Rev. 19-22 there is a list of events such as the

Parousia, resurrection, rule, and judgment which occur in a specific order. While this could possibly a pictorial way of expressing the

logic of the end-time acts of God (Schnackenburg), it seems clear that the author used temporal categories because he thought they represented the actual chronological order of the end.

d.

Paul and the millennial kingdom of Christ

Several suggestions have been put forth for understanding Rev. 20 in comparison with Pauline eschatology. The first is that the author of

58. So Sickenberger, 179-82. This is also the 2 2 pp. position taken by Wikenhauser, Offenbarung, pp. 146-50; Lohse, fenbarung, pp. 104-05, who characterizes chiliasm as "schwrmerische Enthusiamus"; most recently by Gourgues, "The Thousand-Year Reign (Rev. 20:1-6): Terrestial or Celestial?" CBQ 47 (1985), pp. 676-81. 59. As shows Beasley-Ilurray, Revelation, pp. jory, pp. 116-21. 108-11; Rissi,

Johannesa okaly se ,

IL a me

- 441 -

60 Revelation teaches a higher, de-apocalypticized christology. Secondly, the book may be the result of a far-reaching re61 apocalypticization. A third, better, position is that Paul and the author of Revelation teach roughly the same christology with regard to 62 and his pupil Both Oscar Cullmann their doctrines of the kingdom. 63 understand the kingdom of Christ to have started at his Matthias Rissi resurrection. The age to come will commence with the Parousia and the subduing of evil by Christ. During this eschatological period of subduing the Church will be revealed and will reign visibly with Christ (for a length of time figuratively called "one thousand years"). At the

end of the "millennium TM Christ will hand over authority to the Father and the kingdom of Christ will be subsumed into the eternal kingdom of God. From our studies in Paul we can agree with Cullmann and Rissi that Paul and the author of Revelation share a common theology of the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of God, even though the author of Revelation alone gives a (possibly symbolic) millennial span to the earthly, latter part of the subjugation of the enemies of God. Both Paul and the Seer also believe that Christ is presently enthroned in heaven as Gods royal executi ye.

60. R. H. Charles thought he moved beyond the earlier Pauline I, pp. subordinationism in 1 Cor. 15. Cf. Charles, 61. So Glasson, Second ojg, pp. 198-205. 113-20. 30-34.

294-95.

62. Cf. Cullmann, "Kingship of Christ," pp. 63. Cf. Rissi,

Iti

Future of the World, pp.

- 442 -

2. Co-rule with Christ

The author of Revelation says a great deal about the future 64 The promise of this co-rule is co-rule of the saints with Christ. taught in Rev. 2:26, 3:21 and 5:10; the fulfillment appears in 20:4-6 and 22:5. He also labels the church as "royal" in 1:6 and 5:10. These two verses (along with paXLov tpiu = "royal priesthood" in I

Pet. 2:9) stem from the description of the ideal Israel in Exod. 19:6. If ai..XcCc is concrete, then this would be the only New Testament

example where the word is translated as "the people over whom God 65 Host scholars, however, rightly choose a dynamic meaning for rules." 6caXcc, meaning "those who rule". Indeed, in Rev. 5:10 the author

ociaouav tr iij interprets the noun for the reader by adding "c 66 The present royal position of the saints, now hidden is to be

64. Glasson believes that the royal nature of God's people seen throughout most of Revelation is distinctly non-Christian apocalyptic triumphalism; Rev. 5:9-10, on the other hand, reflects the genuine Cf. Glasson, concept of the kingdom as realm of service and humility. The 198-205. This interpretation is rather extreme. g, pp. doctrines of co-ruling and co-judging are present throughout the New Testament. There is no evidence of personal retribution nor crude vengeance in Rev. 20:4-6; both judgment and reward come ultimately from God. 65. So, for example, Swete, A aLa!, pp. reading of Aleph * A C et al.; also Roloff, 8-9, who follows the 34-35. pp.

QtLan q ,

66. The fulfillment of this co-rule is further confused by the textual variants at 5:10; the editors of the UBS third edition take the future cau)w; the present tense is the more difficult reading, but tense of acsoov. This interpretation is found it is poorly supported, as is 5758; Charles, in Beasley-Hurray, Revelation, pp. eveIation, II, pp. 16-17; and in the fine article by A. Geiston, "The Royal Priesthood,' EQ 31 (1959), pp. 152-63.

- 443 -

67 revealed to all at the Parousia. Gnter Klein thinks that in 1:5 and

5:10 the author came dangerously close to equating the kingdom and the church; foreseeing problems this would cause, he added to Rev. 5:10 the 68 This is an claim that they will reign only in the future. exaggeration; after all, the present and future relationship of the church to the kingdom as well as the careful distinction between present suffering and future rule are doctrines which are also prominent in Pauline theology. come. Church and kingdom are only united in the age to

3. Paul and Revelation

The theology of Revelation, therefore, is notably like Pauline thought in some essential matters, even though it is very unlike his letters in descriptive language and imagery. The author of Revelation

retains and strengthens the ideas of the epiphany and rule of God in Christ, the present enthronement of Christ, and the royal nature of the saints. The book is based on the plan of present suffering and future

rule in a way which fleshes out the more abstract statements of Paul. The additional elements of the millennial length of this kingdom, the two resurrections, the judgment at the Great White Throne, and the arrival of the new creation after the future rule of Christ are elements about which Paul is silent. But Paul is relatively silent about the

127-28. Cullmann 67. Cf. especially Beasley-Murray, Revelatioa, pp. expands this much too far by trying to prove that Christians are in some He cites I Cor. 4:8 for outside proof of this. sense now ruling. 131. Cf. also Rev. 1:9. Cullmann, "Kingship of Christ," p. 68. Cf. Klein, "The Biblical Understanding of the Kingdom of God," 26 (1972), pp. 414-15.

- 444 -

Echaton and the future kingdom of God in any event. Both Paul and the Seer point to the eschatological kingdom and the triumph of God in Christ in order to comfort and exhort believers in this age, but Paul does not think it necessary (or possible) to give details about the Eschaton.

The author of Revelation takes the Old Testament passages which are thought to be unfulfilled and presents a full picture of the future of the church. He is unique in this systematic presentation of the

Eschaton (the authors of Jude and 2 Peter come closest to this approach). The decisive event lies in the past, in the exaltation of

the king recounted in Rev. 4-5, so that the concept of the kingdom is 69 controlled by the idea of redemption accomplished by Christ.

69. See Beasley-Murray, Revelation, pp.

2526.

- 445 -

II. Paul's Particular Contribution to the New Testament Doctrine 9 g 1Q99 9

We must now direct our attention to the question: what original contributions did Paul add to the development of kingdom theology in the first-century church? The great difficulty in attributing anything specifically to Paul is that there is no objective standard by which to discern that which Paul held in common with the contemporary church. Because Paul wrote the earliest Christian literature, and because of the occasional nature of his epistles, there is no prior Christian theology with which to compare his teaching.

It is true, however, that many ideas developed by Paul do not seem to have directly affected later authors. In the sense that he expresses

and expands a specific set of ideas which is not developed by others, Paul makes it his own, regardless of whether he himself formulated them. Within this circumference we may discuss Paul's own contribution

to kingdom theology.

- 446 -

A. The Pauline Contribution to the Doctrine of the Future Realm of Salvation

1 I!

E9r1
Paul did not invent the concept of "inheriting the kingdom of

God". Judaism attests this thought, with phrases such as "inheriting the age to come" and "inheriting Paradise". Jesus stressed that the age to come was the the revelation of the kingdom of Sod. Thus he reportedly spoke of "inheriting the kingdom of God" along with "inheriting eternal life" and other phrases. The early church and Paul also understood

final salvation in terms of inheriting the kingdom (cf. James 2:5).

Only in Pauline or Pauline-influenced letters, however, do we find the formal use of "will not inherit the kingdom" or a variation with the intention of condemning a list of vices. The author of Revelation seems

to have in mind the same picture within three non-formal exclusion statements: the wicked are excluded into the lake of fire (Rev. 21:7-8), and barred from the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:27, 22:15). Indeed, Rev. 22:14-15 is very like 1 Cor. 6:9-11; both have eschatological exclusion, but both also separate Christians from the wicked by means of a past "washing" - washing U*rioXo(iw) by the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit in 1 Car. 6:11, and washing (n)vw) of the robes in Rev. 22:14 (by implication, in the blood of the Lamb). Paul states in a formula what the author of Revelation states in picture form, and in so doing both warn against sin in Christians.

- 447 -

. I

Y11! y

EY 9

th EYt!

1!1

In his discussion of Israel and salvation history in Rom. 9-11, Paul confronts the problem which must have frustrated the church's early missionaries. By means of a long discussion of God's sovereignty along

with a reinterpretation of some Old Testament predictions - and perhaps some fresh revelation - he predicts the future salvation of Israel. The other New Testament authors (esp. that of I Peter) speak of the church as the new people of God the author of Revelation is vague, but he probably also speaks of the church as the twelve tribes". The synoptic Paul is

tradition does not have any explicit discussion of this theme.

unusual here, both in dealing with the problem, and in discussing it in a systematic and partly theoretical manner.

3.

L2.ut. 2f.
Paul is not the only writer to present the dual model of

resurrection/transformation of the living before entering the kingdom, but it is quite probable that Paul was the one to introduce this idea in 1 Cor. 15. Unlike other aspects of Pauline kingdom eschatology, the doctrine of the transformation of the living saints became wide5pread throughout later literature and throughout church history. He introduces a "puo1flpLov"; as in Rom. 11 3 Paul may be implying that this teaching is something new and unknown in the church.

- 448 -

B. The Pauline Contribution to the Doctrine of the

L . Ib. ELLI!

L92!

L!!Q! ( I g.

U'LZ)

Outside the synoptic gospels, Paul alone in the New Testament speaks of the present working of the kingdom of God. But whereas Jesus spoke of the dynamic operation of the kingdom in his person and work, Paul connects the present kingdom with Christ's royal lordship and the presence of the Spirit.

All of the New Testament writers predicate the salvation of God through Christ, and the experience of kingdom phenomena such as the Spirit in the present age. The author of Revelation expresses an awareness of the sovereign rule of God in history in the tradition of the theology of Daniel. The world is supine beneath the throne of God; he rules over history, and even the forces of evil are under his ultimate authority. It Is in the worthy" Lamb of God that God asserts It is

his sovereignty in the world, both in this age and in the next.

Paul, however, who theologically integrates present blessings with the

. Ib.

L2gi

Lflq!! I.!2L2i

Pauls doctrine of the realized kingdom of God is heavily influenced - but not exhausted - by his doctrine of the Spirit. Although

- 449 -

the kingdom is not equivalent to the Spirit's work, the Spirit does mediate divine power, virtue, and salvation from Christ. The authors of neither Revelation nor Hebrews have such a concept of the Spirit with specific connection to the presence of the paAcc.

. Lh

EY11D! Q!

tb! P1 It

Perhaps the most subtle difference between Paul and the other New Testament writers Is his use of the Old Testament to describe the present blessings of the kingdom of God-in-Christ. Paul 's use of the Old Testament was not simply as a treasure-house of proof texts and illustrations; his use of it in quotations and in allusions reflects thoughtful and methodical interpretation and application. Again and again he uses ideas and motifs drawn from Old Testament passages which a Jew or Christian Jew might be expected to regard as predicting the eschatological kingdom. He then applies these to Christian living in a

way which reflects the realization of the kingdom in salvation history.

This method of applying the Old Testament is generally not practised outside the Pauline literature, and we may regard it as distinctively Pauline. Only in Paul's letters and in Pauline-influenced works (including, perhaps, 1 Peter) is the Old Testament quoted or alluded to in such a way.

Let us examine how the other New Testament authors use the Old Testament in order to illuminate Paul's distinctiveness. The author of

Hebrews uses Ps. 11O1 in the traditional manner of the early church, but he alone discusses Ps. 11Q4 as a prediction of Christ's present priestly activity. In the same way the writer cites Pss. 2, 8, 22, 40,

- 450 -

102 as fulfilled in Jesus, as well as isa. 8:17-18. Jer. 31:31-34 is quoted twice in order to express the New Covenant's superiority to the old (Heb. 8:8-12, 10:16-17). But apart from the use of .Jer. 31 there is little indication that the author used the Old Testament in the Pauline 70 method.

James quotes the Old Testament only as law or as historical examplej he alludes to Isa. 40:9-11 in 1:9-11, but he does not imply that the text has some eschatological deeper meaning.

The author of First Peter quotes the Scriptures often, but mostly as messianic prediction in a manner similar to Hebrews; he quotes the 71 and alludes to the Servant song of Isa. 53 three "Stone" predictions (53:5-6, 9, 12) in 1 Pet. 2:22-25. The string of descriptives in 1 Pet. 2:9 is applied to the church as the new people of God, and they are important phrases from the scriptural vocabulary of the New Exodus. The most interesting use of the Old Testament for our purposes occurs with an allusion to Isa. 8:12-13 in I Pet. 3:14-15. This is not unlike something Paul might have attempted, in applying the warnings which are in the context of the Stone prediction in Isa. 8:14-15 (1 Pet. 2:B) to his readers in the light of their status as God's people. conservative beginning of a Pauline method. It is a

The Johannine Epistles and Jude furnish us with no material which is presently relevant.

70. He also uses stock phrases from the Scriptures which seem to have no Cf. Ps. 95:7-11 in noticeable salvation-historical significance. 3:7-11; Isa. 45:17 in 5:9; Deut. 32:35-36 in 10:30; Isa. 35:3 in 12:12; Hos. 14:2 in 13:15. 71. Isa. 28:16, Ps. 118:22, and Isa. 8:14-15, in 1 Pet. 2:6-8.

- 451 -

The authors of Second Peter and Revelation do not explicitly cite the Old Testament, but they both use Old Testament allusions and partial quotations to interpret the prophetic predictions of the kingdom; both apply them not to the present work of God (as Paul), but to the future kingdom. Thus the author of 2 Peter alludes to Isa. 34:4 (3:12) and

isa. 65:17 and 66:22 (3:13). But these references are interpreted in a purely future sense which reflects the futuristic tone of the original contexts.

The book of Revelation is saturated with Old Testament literary allusions and motifs. Testament predictions: Allusions are taken from four categories of Old

1.

Messianic predictions (as we find used in Hebrews and I Peter): Ps. 2; Isa. 11, 66; Dan. 7, 10.

2.

Predictions of the final triumph of God's people: Deut. 32:43; Isa. 49, 60-62; Dan. 12; some are like I Pet. 2:9, but most stress eschatological blessings.

3.

Predictions of the fall of Babylon: Jer. 51; Ezek. 26-27.

4.

Predictions of the eschatological kingdom and new creation: Ps. 2; Isa. 44, 65-66; Ezek. 38-48.

In one place, Rev. 22:17, the author alludes to Isa. 55:1 as an invitation to come to God in Christ; but he uses even this Scripture in an eschatological way to invite people to come to the God who would bring them into the final kingdom j ust described; it is thus similar to

- 452 -

1 Thess. 2:12 and 2 Thess. 1:5.

The author of Revelation (and, in a minor way, the author of 2 Peter) is attempting to show the meaning of Old Testament predictions for the church's future in the way that Paul applied them to its present existence. unanswered. The apostle left many questions regarding the future kingdom If Paul's rnodus oerandi was generally to ignore all Old

Testament texts which could only be eschatological and then concentrate on what is fulfilled, the Seer's is to do the very opposite. He

stresses the scriptural predictions of the future - texts which until then had apparently remained unsystematized - by painting a picture of the age to come in the light of the exaltation of the Lamb and the eternal sovereignty of God.

C. The Pauline Contribution to the Doctrine of the

1 . Ib ELi!i

QtLU

2f.

IQL2

Paul 's doctrine of the new creation ir Romans 8 is presented in a manner which shows the vital link between the future kingdom and the new humanity in the second Adam, again in a fresh and unrepeated way. Although Paul is not unique in applying Ps. B to Jesus (cf. Heb. 2:5-9), he alone develops the psalm in relationship to the new creation. The

author of Hebrews uses it to prove that the Christ is superior to angels

- 453 -

by means of a messianic interpretation.

In Paul's mind, Christ is

related to the new creation, not just as its Lord and Messiah (as Hebrews), but also as the first citizen among the glorified race.

. t

In his epistles, Paul shows that there is a vital connection between the present lordship of Christ and the kingdom of God. In saying "Ktipo ' IraoU the believer is confessing that in Christ God exercises his authority.

The other New Testament writers place emphasis on the icOpoc title of Christ, but they do not link his lordship with the coming of the kingdom of God. Even in Revelation this is true! it is critically important that God has redeemed people through the Lamb of God, but his rule over history is not explicitly manifested through Christ's death and resurrection. Rather, these events were the means of bringing people into the final kingdom which in turn is brought about by a future rule of God within Christ's Parousia.

I!

!!! of Ps. 110: 1 and the Ternora1

Paul alone bases the idea of a temporally-limited mediating rule of Christ on Ps. 110:1. When the author of Revelation teaches the inereqnurn, he may have P g . 110:1 in mind, but the rule of Christ is portrayed with images taken from Jewish tradition.

- 454 -

. I

EiL

IQL2 g

Qf. t

aq

In 2 Corinthians Paul goes to great lengths tD show that Christians are not under the old Mosaic covenant. The reason that he can proclaim their freedom from the law is that God has done a new thing in Christj through his death God has already inaugurated the eschatological covenant (1 Cor. 11:25). When Paul nullifies the law's jurisdiction over Christians, he is usually denying the church's need for circumcision, ritual codes, and ethical laws. The kingdom of God is

thus manifested to the extent that the New Covenant is created in advance of the age to come, so that believers are able to enjoy the blessings of the Spirit, who in turn leads them into obedience and joy.

The author of Hebrews places an even greater amount of stress on the New Covenant. For the most part, he does so in order to invalidate the temple cult and, by extension, to draw people away from Judaism toward Christ. The "Sabbath rest" which believers have in Christ (Heb. 4) is seemingly a product of this covenants the believer gains peace with God, and a new relationship with the future kingdom which is now in heaven (12:18-29). But while the author understands the church's relationship to the kingdom to be a part of the covenant blessing, the kingdom to which he refers is not the realized kingdom of Pauline eschatology, but the future/celestial kingdom. In fact, the Sabbath

rest from the law is closer to Paul 's thinking with regard to the realized kingdom. The author of Revelation, like that of Hebrews,

teaches a New Covenant in the blood of the Lamb, including the cleansing which is a prerequisite to entering the kingdom.

- 455 -

Conci usi on

The evidence of the New Testament proves one thing clearlyt Paul's doctrine of the kingdom was substantially in line with the general theology of the early church. His eschatology was based on the tension

between present realization and future fulfillment, and most of the aspects of the end time which he teaches can be found in other books of the New Testament.

It is equally evident, however, that Paul's theology of the kingdom did not greatly influence that of the other writers, particularly with regard to the subtleties of his belief in the realized rule of God and the effects which this had on his Old Testament exegesis. The other writers, to be sure, understood that the Old Testament was fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah, and in the establishment of the New Covenant. They understood that the blessings of salvation were upon them unlike Paul they either did not believe or did not emphasize that these could be regarded as kingdom blessings which were proleptically fulfilled in Christ.

It may be concluded, therefore, that Paul's influence may have been felt in later works in general themes rather than in specific points. But even his general influence was limited because of his

theological proximity to the early church in which the New Testament writers worked and taught.

- 456 -

CONCLUSION

We have suggested that there is abundant evidence to demonstrate that Paul personally held to a particular doctrine of the kingdom of God and that this doctrine in turn colored his whole theology. Paul did not

provide a turning point away from Jesus' simple message of the coming kingdom. He joined the early church in proclaiming that God has raised

Christ from the dead and is now ruling through him as the exalted Lord of all. Thus his theology of the kingdom is that the present kingdom of

Christ is a temporary mediation of the divine rule.

When Paul speaks of the kingdom of God or the kingdom of Christ, he does not follow any one expression of Jewish eschatology. ie draws

from a Christian interpretation of the Old Testament as well as from traditional Jewish expectations. His eschatology cannot simply be Indeed,

reduced to either "apocalyptic" or even 'modified apocalyptic'.

John J. Collins and Christopher Rowland have shown that it is better to define "apocalyptic" as an attitude toward revelatory visions rather than as a particular version of eschatology or cosmology. Paul is

apocalyptic" in the sense that he makes claims to visions of heaven and of Christ, but his kingdom doctrine is based upon his belief that God has acted in sending Christ in fulfillment of certain key Old Testament propheci es.

Paul's use of

caCc is much like Jesus'. He uses the word to

denote either the exercise of Gad's sovereign rule or the eschatologiCal realm where that rule will be fully and immediately manifested. usually follows the Jewish/Christian meaning of pcaXt He

as the future

age of salvation, a realm in which Christians will be resurrected to dwell in a renewed Paradise. Although Paul uses traditional language and

- 457 -

motifs to speak of the age to come, he integrates his teaching of the kingdom into his greater theological structure, ensuring that what he proclaims becomes specifically Christian and Pauline.

Beyond the references to the future kingdom, in which he uses pa?Cc in the concrete sense of "realm', the apostle follows Jesus' example and demonstrates his own understanding of the dynamic outworking of God's kingdom in this age. Neither the word ?Cc nor his

development of the concept is limited to the Eschaton. The sovereign will of God is being exercised for the benefit of the church and for the destruction of God's enemies. This rule of God is being executed by

Jesus Christ, who as the Davi di c Messiah rules from the right hand of God. When God's will is fully accomplished, Christ's intre9flyrn comes to an end, not in that his supremacy ceases, but in that Christ is no longer needed to mediate the will of God over an errant cosmos.

Because the present realization of kingdom blessings is vital to Paul's doctrine, we need to note that he regards several essential kingdom elements to be outstanding. For example, although the apostle

teaches that everyone in Christ is a "new creation", this belief should not be regarded as a replacement for the eschatological renewal of the created order. Paul retains the Jewish idea that at the end of time,

God will return his creation to the conditions of Paradise. He does not, however, simply pass on this traditional hope; for Paul the new creation is the work of the Second Adam. The resurrection of believers in the likeness of Christ will signal the transformation of nature, so that the new creation is inseparable from Christ and the church.

Again, Paul expects that ethnic Israel will be converted at the

- 458 -

Parousia of Christ. His exegesis of the Old Testament shows that he continues to teach what he believes to be its eternal truths 3 even though their fulfillment is more christological than what Jewish theologians would have expected. He does not expect Israel's salvation

because of their supposed inherent moral or nationalistic superiority. Rather, he views their redemption as a work of grace in Christ.

The christological fulfillment of the Jewish hope is for Paul epitomized in the Parousia of Christ. Although many expressions of Jewish eschatology included the expectation of the Son of
1'an

or some

other eschatological figure in the end times, in Pauline theology Christ exceeds any traditional role; his coming is viewed as the symbol of God's own appearance upon earth. God comes to his people in Christ

Jesus, both in accomplishing salvation upon the cross, and in consummating history in the divine epiphany.

It is Christ's present rule, however, which achieves a huge impact in the lives of Christians and in the life of the cosmos.
his resurrection and exaltation

Christ has at

become enthro,7eO at Gad's rig/it t'iand as

the supreme ruler. We may even term the present rule of God as a 'kingdom of God-in-Christ". Christ therefore rules on God's behalf and extends his will over all. When Christians hail Jesus as the

they are not merely claiming him as their master; they are in reality confessing that the Lord of all is also their Lord through redemption.

Through Christ, God has reconciled the church to himself; this means that Christians are now related both to heaven and to the future age. Paul's doctrine of salvation history is not merely that of a

linear progression of time toward an imminent Parousia. Believers know

- 459 -

that through reconciliation to God, they are citizens of heaven, the sphere where God's nature and glory are fully revealed; when Christians die they go to be with Christ in heaven; at the Eschaton, Christ and the kingdom will be revealed from heaven to earth.

Paul does not often mention the terms "the kingdom of Christ" and 'kingdom of the Son", but this concept is very important for him. teaches that the Lord Christ is the one through whom the church experiences whatever divine blessings God wishes to bestow. Thus for the church, Christ's rule is the medium of the rule of God himself; Christ is the mediating face of God upon which the church gazes. Bc*acCc* itself is by no means Paul's favorite term, but it is one of the foremost concepts of his proclamation. His use of the term in his extant epistles shows that it is familiar and important to him, but he often wisely elects to explain the kingdom concept using non-coLXm terminology. Paul

When Paul teaches that God's kingdom is now operating, he does not simply mean that Christians are soteriologically reconciled to God. God also dispenses his gifts toward humanity in the church and in the cosmos. Thus although Christians may legitimately look forward to their

own physical resurrection, it is at the same time true that the potentially-unlimited power of the resurrection is even now available for the church's use; by means of divine power the apostle preaches the gospel, performs wonders, and overcomes his evil inclinations.

The church also is able to understand the work of God in relation to the predictions of the Old Testament, Paul especially believed that in Christ many of the ancient prophecies were fulfilled, some in ways

- 460 -

which Israel would not have expected.

Paul demonstrates that while his

general interpretation of the Scriptures is not unlike that of his jewish contemporaries, he usually avoids their exegetical extremes (such as textual atomization). Unlike the Qumran covenanters, he does not

believe that the Old Testament is being eschatologically fulfilled in Christ; in fact, he still holds many prophecies to be either unfulfilled or only partly fulfilled. No, for the apostle the Scriptures are not

being fulfilled because the end is near, but because God has condescended to earth and already acted in salvation history in the cross and resurrection of Christ.

One of God's greatest acts in Christ has been to form a new people and to lead it into Christ's kingdom in a way strikingly analogous to the paradigm of the Exodus from Egypt. In the cross God instituted the New Covenant, and nullified the law as a means of access to himself. The church is now moving through the traditional apocalyptic pattern of present suffering and future glory, although this pilgrimage too is modified in that Christ has already gone before, and is now aiding his people through the Spirit.

The sovereign actions of God also include the disarming of the angelic powers which would normally act to destroy God's people. cross and resurrection, they have been placed under the control of Christ already, even though their complete destruction is still future. In the

There is a great deal of evidence that as an evangelist and a church-planter, Paul taught about the kingdom of God, both by using catJcCm and by explaining his interpretation of the kingdom concept. Paul was no scholastic with regard to the theology of the kingdom; it

- 461 -

was a concept which he thought crucial for Jews and Gentiles to learn as they turned to God in Christ. In that the book of Acts reports that Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom, we might suspect that its author possesses accurate tradition in which Paul is portrayed as a proclaimer of God's sovereign rule in Christ.

The references to the pcaCc within the so-called 'disputed epistles" bear a resemblance to Paul's undisputed words, although in them we find fresh developments. There is more of an emphasis upon the

rule of Christ in the Prison Epistles, although the Jewish concept of the final kingdom is still evident. The Prison Epistles are in part

attempts to combat false ideas by means of a polemical/ecclesiological reshaping of Pauline kingdom theology. The author of Colossians is

arguing against a philosophy which ostensibly promoted access to God and heaven by means of mystical visions induced by Judaizing asceticism. The author points out that the Colossian Christians were in peril of losing that which allowed complete access to the Father: union with the one who is both Head of the cosmos and Head of the church. He recounts how that in baptism, Christians have entered into Christ's Body, the people which has metaphorically come from the bondage of Egypt into the kingdom of the Son of David. The church alone possesses such a salvation-historical heritage, and the Colossians must guard against denigrating the corporate possession of Christ's kingdom. Far from

proclaiming a new doctrine of the kingdom, the author has freshly applied that which we find in Paul's writings to the problem of Judaizing individualism.

The epistle we know as "to the Ephesians" was written from the same perspective as the epistle to the Colossians, but not against an

- 462 -

error as well-defined as the Colossian heresy.

The author is writing to

Christians who live among people terrified about the instability of the cosmos and the caprice of its spiritual rulers. The author addresses

this Weltangst by stressing the cosmic role of Christ and the church. Christ is enthroned above the angelic Powers, and this is for the church's benefit. There is now a greater emphasis upon heaven as the

sphere of Christ's rule, but the author still follows in the tradition of Jewish and early Christian cosmology. The church is the product of

the saving work of the sovereign God who acts through Christ in history. Christians have experienced spiritual resurrection and

exaltation by virtue of their union with Christ. Despite the strong emphasis upon Christ's total sovereignty in Eph. 1:20-23, the author has no illusions about the cosmos; the complete destruction of God's enemies is still eschatological. Thus the church must join in with God in

fighting the spiritual Powers.

In the Pastoral Epistles, Pauline eschatology is shaped into an exhortation for the Christian pastor. The author still retains a strong

hope in the return of Christ, and it is this eschatological event which he points to again and again as a motive for faithful service in this age. Particularly in 2 Timothy he speaks of the kingdom of Christ in a

way which reinforces the necessity of present suffering for the gospel. He recalls the traditional hope that in the age to come faithful believers will join Christ in ruling over the cosmos. His coming

kingdom is also one reason why Timothy must remain true to the gospel. In that epistle, the author also speaks of Paul's imminent demise as divine deliverance from earthly harassment. Using traditions about the

heavenly Paradise, the Lord's Prayer, and the Pauline doctrines of the

- 463 -

interim state of the departed and the kingdom of Christ, the author speaks of Paul entering Christ's heavenly kingdom at death. Although

this picture resembles (and may indeed have influenced literarily) statements in the late second-century of P2[c, the author

of 2 Timothy does not state that Paul will receive his final reward in heaven. Rather, heaven retains its role as the interim sphere for

deceased Christians, while the author anticipates in the strongest terms the eschatological hope of resurrection and ruling.

Because Jesus spoke so often of the kingdom, it is necessary to ask what theol ogi cal relationship Paul has to the teaching of his Lord. Like Paul, Jesus taught that the kingdom was both a concrete future realm and a presently-experienced manifestation of God's rule. to have surreptitiously taught that as the Son of Man he would inaugurate the final realm. Within the gospel tradition Jesus appears He seems

as a royal figure, although not much is made of his kingship during his earthly ministry.

Paul's theology of the kingdom differs from Jesus' in three major ways: for Paul the presence of the kingdom is not so much mediated by healings and exorcisms as by the New Covenant, the resurrection of Christ, and his exaltation as KOpo to the right hand of God. Following these events of salvation history Paul proclaims that the kingdom is being mediated through Christ. All three of these factors originated essentially in the earliest creeds of the Palestinian church, although they were also shaped by the realities of the polytheistic Hellenistic culture of the Roman Empire.

When one compares the kingdom theology of the greater Pauline

- 464 -

corpus with the other New Testament books, one finds both broad similarities and striking differences of detail. Paul develops a strong

doctrinal connection between Christ's resurrection and rule and the destiny of Christians. He alone of the New Testament authors speaks of the a?cCc as presently operating in the church, although to be sure

the other writers conceptually confess this dogma using other language. Paul, for example, develops a theology of Christ's present rule which places great stress on the KOpo title of Christ and the New Covenant in the theology of the present kingdom. The authors of Hebrews, Acts,

Revelation and the other Catholic Epistles seem to have their own ideas concerning the kingdom which, while showing traces of early Christian and possibly of Pauline influence, are also uniquely theirs.

All in all, therefore, we may conclude that the language and the doctrine of the kingdom of God are firmly situated within the structure of Pauline theology. Within the
Pauline

corpus, and even within

epistles which are indisputably from the apostle's own hand, we find a doctrine of the kingdom which is uniquely Paul's own combination of traditional and Christian ideas. This kingdom teaching is fully

developed and underlies many other Pauline concepts. He has not replaced the concept of the kingdom with another idea or ideas (such as\ j ustification or the Spirit), but he has sometimes replaced the term c*aAcCc with other words, such as K)t1 povo j c , and
t

pO1ouacc
I4,. tiim.

xOpo,

ixpytw,

ofUti4j Often he speaks not of the Spirit

as a blessing of the kingdom, but simply of the Spirit as the gift of God which draws individuals to the kingdom In the present and transforms them for kingdom existence in the age to come, Like Jesus, Paul goes

about proclaiming the rule of God; like the church, he preaches that

- 465 -

this rule is even now being fulfilled in the work of Gods Son, "who has been made both Lord and Christ."

The Pauline theology of Gods kingdom composes a small portion of the kingdom theology of the Old and New Testaments and of Christian doctrine through two millennia of church history. Some aspects of his

doctrine are relatively obscure, and are therefore difficult to interpret and apply in the church today. But perhaps Paul s greatest

service is to show that Gods kingdom is not exhausted by a Social Gospel, renewed human society, an ethic, the church, or interpersonal relationships. When Paul speaks of the kingdom, he follows Jesus in

speaking of the acts of God in history, the works which correspond to the crossing of the Red Sea, to the destruction of Israels slavemasters, to the freedom and tranquility of the Promised Land. The gospel of the kingdom in Pauls mind is that God has acted, acts, will act on behalf of the church through Jesus Christ the Lord. Within his anthropology, Paul asserts that God is in the process of destroying death. Within his eschatology, he states that God sovereignly acts for

the good of his people and will actually step in to end the continuation of normal human history. Within his churchly admonitions, he urges the

Romans to assess their ethical priorities in the light of the church's belief that God is now reigning in Christ. As a missionary, the apostle to the Gentiles announces that 'our God reigns". Paul does not need

continually to say puai.XcCcc: as his readers, we acknowledge that the apostle speaks in the firm belief that his God is King, and that at the Father's right hand is his regent, Jesus Christ the Lord.

- 466 -

APPENDIX I:

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE GOSPEL TRADITION

One of the most discussed issues of New Testament exegesis in the last century has been the interpretation of the kingdom of God as the focus of Jesus teaching. Most of the discussion over this topic is

concerned with the nature of the kingdom, and the time and manner of its coming. We will first discuss how Jesus used the phrase 'kingdom of

God", and from there we will explore Jesus own role in the coming of the kingdom.

I. I

aL

Qf " 1^LtQ2!!i QL

2" L

QL

ccording to the proponents of nineteenth-century Liberalism, the kingdom of Jesus' preaching was present and spiritual. For example,

Schleiermacher understood the kingdom as the community of believers who

1. Cf. the helpful synopses of the research on Jesus' teaching by N. Perrin, I Icin Jesus (1963); 6. (1973); for Lndstrom, Ic.tiq L post-1960 research see J. Schlosser, Le Reqne de Dieu dans les Dits de 50-64. Jsus (1980), II, pp.

- 467 -

2 are corporately becoming God-conscious. The promise of the Social

Gospel was that the kingdom would bring about a utopia of justice and love in which the natural goodness of humanity could be manifested. Jesus was considered to have merely clothed his social message in the 3 trappings of Jewish apocalyptic speculation.

In stark contrast to the Liberals, Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer rejected any reconstruction of the teaching of Jesus which involved the notion of an immanent or ethical view of the kingdom. Rather, they held that Jesus shared the outlook of his times: the kingdom would be the new age which would be ushered in after the 4 Their so-called catastrophic conclusion of the present age. (i.e., "thoroughgoing" or "consistent" eschatology) was an attempt to understand Jesus in strictly futuristic 5 terms.

Consistent eschatology was in turn partly checked by the proponents of urealized eschatology". According to C. H. Dodd, there

were elements of the kingdom teaching attributed to Jesus which did not

360-61. According to 2. Schleiermacher, I pp. iLi Ritschl, salvation is ethical renewal among those who practise the law of love. Cf. A. Ritschl, Ib! rii P2i! 9 isti 91llY! P!Y!12!Dt g this Doctrine, p. 271. 9DUi!9D : Th 3. Cf. Perrin, Kingdom
0

Qg, pp.

13-16.

!us Prag g 4. J. Weiss, Schweitzer, The Quest fc the Histoica1

j
s, pp.

, pp. 84-92; A. 328-95.

5. Other proponents of "consistent eschatology" include Rudolf Bultmann, who began with Weiss position as a starting point, and combined it with his own de-mythologizing hermeneutic. Cf. Bultmann, pp. 35-56; cf. also Jeremias, Thg1ggy, I, pp. 96-108; and, more recently, R. H. Hiers, Th! 1DQ! 2 1 t Y22.t1c Irii9, 93-97. pp.

- 468 -

correspond to contemporary Jewish theology; Dodd concluded that these sayings (among them Matt.12:28Luke 1120) are the most likely to be authentic. In these fresh statements we find that the kingdom is 6 present in that individuals are being confronted with the power of God.

Dodd has exposed the real difficulty in determining the data for recovering Jesus' teaching. "Consistent eschatology" rests upon the

assumption that only those elements which were in keeping with apocalyptic Judaism are genuine, while "realized eschatology" depends upon the opposite assumption, namely, that discontinuity with Judaism provides the key to Jesus' kingdom message.

The theories of consistent and realized eschatology have been synthesized by an increasing number of Continental and British scholars - led originally by W. G. KUmmel and 1. W. Manson - who contend that Jesus' understanding of the kingdom of God lies between the extremes of consistent and realized eschatology. According to this so-called

"Biblical Realism", Jesus taught that there are both present and future manifestations of the kingdom; thus, neither temporal manifestation 7 should be used to invalidate the other.

29-61 T. F. Parables of the Kinadorn, pp. 6. Cf. C. H. Dodd, I 106-16; Jesus and the End of the World, Glas5on, The Second Advent, pp. Cornng: I 5-15; J. A. 1. Robinson, Jesus d H pp. 83-103. Doctrine, pp. 49-54, 105-40 T. W. 7. See W. 6. KUmmel, Prornis and pp. 129-41. Other proponents of a model Manson, The tck of Jesu!, pp. of the kingdom which is present and future include R. Otto, 47-58; H. Ridderbos, I! gf , pp. 9 36-56; Ladd, Ib Er!! 2 t 114-21; R. Kingdom, pp. EYr!, pp. Schnackenburg, 1e an 77-159; Schiosser, Req jdorn, pp. Dieu, I, pp. 674-79; Mitton, Your Kinqdom Come, pp. 53-68; Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 90-95; G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus 4 Kingdom of 71-218. , pp.

- 469 -

The revelation that the kingdom of God can contain both present and future manifestations in a unified whole has culminated in some recent works, in which scholars attempt to give the kingdom a basic definition which will be broad enough to include both present realization and future consummation. Thus, in Jesus and he

(1976), Norman Perrin admits to having modified his position B concerning Jesus' use of the term "kingdom of God". He now believes that "kingdom of God" is not to be understood as a concept or as an idea; rather, it is a symbol designed to evoke a myth in the mind of the hearer, and thus to "mediate an experience of God as King." Perrin refused to define Jesus' usage of the term; since it is a symbol only, 9 he will not say whether the kingdom is present or future.

iflgd9

The driving force behind such an approach is the modern frustration at the polymorphous form of the kingdom of God in Jesus' recorded teaching. But the search for a lowest common denominator

ultimately detracts from the fact that Jesus spoke primarily of a future realm and of a present dynamic revelation of God's sovereignty. It is

(1976), p. ngg B. See Perrin, Jesus and the Language of th 29. Cf. of Jesus (1963), in Perrin's work, 1 Ii t which he adhered to Biblical Realism. Bruce D. Chilton similarly begins by assuming that Jesus was familiar with the vocabulary of the earlier Targums. He shows that eight times the Isaiah Targum has a stereotyped form of "kingdom of God" in passages which in the Hebrew text asserted that God was going to act: Jesus therefore used "kingdom of God" in a timeless sense in order to convey his belief that "God is active among us." fl 31 (1978), pp. Cf. B. D. Chilton, "Regnum Dei Deus Est," ideas in: od ij 261-70; see the further development of hi g the Kingdom (1979). , 9. Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the pp. 33-56. See also the criticisms concerning Perrin's definition of apocalyptic symbolism made by J. J. Collins, "The Symbolism of Transcendence in Jewish Apocalyptic," in ers of b! jgg 19 cit PIi.i (1974).

- 470 -

much more helpful to explore the different ways in which Jesus spoke of God's kingdom than to reduce his message to one idea.

One of the major ways in which the gospel of John differs from the synoptic gospels is its record of the content of Jesus' message. In the

synoptics we continually find pcalcCm on Jesus' lips; in John, the situation is completely changed. several passages, Although uaA0 is used of Jesus in 10 In John oiJ(. only appears in 3:3, 5 and 18:36.

18:36 it is best rendered as the "kingship" of Jesus, and so we will discuss that text in the next section.

It has been suggested that John 3:3, 5 are a paraphrase of Matt. 18:3: " 'Aiiv 7yw biv, toXBq'r cL i-tv yvqa8c T* nc6c, oi p &v pi 0TpIxcji Kt 11 The Matthean version employs a)ctav 'rv oUpcvv." Although "kingdom of God" could

the characteristic "kingdom of heaven".

have been taken from the synoptic parallels (Mark 10:15 or Luke 18:17),

10. Bultmann, John, p. 135, believes that John 3:3, 5 is taken over from synoptic tradition and has no meaning for the author(s) of John. But it is not meaningless for Jesus to be said to have told a Jewish leader that he cannot enter the final kingdom apart from regeneration. 11. Cf. J. H. Bernard, John, 1, pp. 150; Schulz, Das Eyage1 1 urn clxiii-clxvi; B. Lindars, 55-56. pp. p.

- 471 -

12 these verses are even less like the Johannine wording. But the major

problem with this theory is that "regeneration' is quite unlike "becoming like a child" in Matt. 18:3. It is impossible to state with confidence that Matt. 18:3 would have suggested to the author of John that regeneration is the way one enters the kingdom. Thus the theory of

literary dependence upon the synoptic tradition is not compelling.

The larger theological message of John's gospel has prompted some to suggest that acCc in John 3:3, 5 represents a later, Hellenized According to Haenchen, the kingdom here is Rather, through regeneration the believer

version of Jesus' teaching. not a visible earthly event.

gains a new heavenly existence and comes to acknowledge God's sovereignty in the present. 13 enabled to "see". It is invisible to all but those who are

The weakness of the "spiritual kingdom" position is that there is nothing in John 3 itself which would indicate that the kingdom of God itself is spiritualized, even though the reference to regeneration may

stjaI ILLa La 12. See C. H. Dodd, pp. 358-59; Brown, John, I, pp. 142-43. There is in fact a variant reading of "cacCcv icv oUpc*vtv" for John 3:5, but this is supported mainly by the original form of Sinaiticus and some Fathers; it does not affect the attested reading in John 3:3. We have no idea of knowing whether John would have understood the Matthean "kingdom of heaven" as a synonym for "kingdom of God". 13. Heenchen thus holds that John spiritualizes traditional formulas about a future, earthly realm. See E. Haenchen, John 2, pp. 200-01. Several scholars believe that John's "spiritualized" eschatology reflects Jesus' message more accurately than the "apocalyptic" synoptics: cf. Bultmann, I!A 76-79; C. H. Dodd, y , II, pp. Apostolic Preaching, pp. 65-73; 1. F. Glasson, I Second dvent, pp. 210-13; Jesus and the E of the World, p. 115-19; Robinson, Jeus and H 162-85. pp.

- 472 -

14 be Hellenistic-Christian. "Seeing" and "entering" the kingdom of Sod 15 A are idioms which are well attested in the gospels and Judaism. Jewish picture of the age to come is not inappropriate as the background of this tradition.

A principle which is extremely helpful in New Testament studies, is that individual theologians are able to substitute new language for terminology found in previous authors. This raises a second possibility, that the concept "eternal life" in John roughly corresponds 16 to the "kingdom" in the synoptics. According to this theory, John teaches not that believers will enter the kingdom at the end of the age, but that they may now enter into eternal life. But although John seems to have replaced "the kingdom" with "eternal life" in many cases, we must not fail to take into account the presence of John 3:3, 5. It is not said that Nicodemus may enter the kingdom or eternal life upon regeneration, but merely that regeneration must precede his entrance into the kingdom.

There ii a third possibility which better serves to explain the relationship of John 3:3, 5 to the synoptics, as well as the relationship of the kingdom to eternal life in John. In John "eternal life" is a present realization of an eschatological gift, while the

14. So Barrett, John, p. 15. Cf. Dalman, pp.

209.

108-09, 116-18.

16. Cf. A. Schiatter, Der Evangelist Johannes, p. 87. This thesis has been recently put forward again by John Roland While, "The Kingdom of God in the Fourth Gospel," unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, The Southern Baptist Seminary (Louisville), 1982.

- 473 -

17 'kingdom of God' is presented as future. It is noteworthy that

realized eschatology is connected with eternal life, rather than with the kingdom of God. The kingdom in John 3 is described with traditional eschatological Jewish language. The problem which Ncodemus has in this

context is not with the meaning of the future kingdom, but with the prerequisite which he must fulfill in order to enter that kingdom.

Thus in John there is a traditional Jewish-Christian future kingdom, and also eternal life which is realized in this age. John 3:3,

5 preserves the tension found in the synoptics, so that the future

kingdom is presented as a balance to the present possession

life.

_!
The teaching of Jesus concerning the kingdom of God is best recovered with an even-handed evaluation of the gospel records. The

synoptic gospels show that Jesus taught a kingdom which was future, but which was also being realized in the present. Although the author of

John uses very dilferent vocabulary, he understands the kingdom in its future sense, and uses "eternal life" as the sum of the present

17. Feuillet assents and also believes that John translated realized See A. kingdom traditions into the present eternal life concept. Feuillet, "Mans Participation in God's Life: A Key Concept in John also E. K. Lee, Ib (1959)," in 144-48 Copanion to John, pp. cxv-cxxi, 155; Brown, John, I, pp. ohn, p. !1L9!9Y Lh9U.t Q . 533. 18. Cf. Barrett, ohn, p. 207; Cullmann, Salvation in Hisg, p. 268.

- 474 -

blessings of God. Like the synoptic evangelists, Paul uses

a)cc with

both future and present significance; like John, he understands one of its present blessings o God. "life" (not "eternal life") in the Spirit of

- 475 -

II.

AQ

!!J

921 I.i9n

Jesus seems clearly to have spoken of the kingdom of God both in an eschatological sense and as the present in-breaking of the divine sovereignty. it is more difficult to explain Jesus' teaching about his

own role in the kingdom of God; yet it is precisely this heavily-debated aspect which is so important in comparing Paul's theology with Jesus'. Everyone will agree that Jesus is in some way related to the kingdom, even if it is merely as the one who proclaims its coming. What we wish

to demonstrate is that it is Jesus himself who reveals God's rule, both as its proclaimer, and in the future as the Son of Man.

,.

Y!'

t2!

LD.2! 2

We begin with elements of Jesus' teaching in which he is said specifically to have related himself to the kingdom of God. According to the synoptic tradition (particularly Q) Jesus teaches that his preaching, healings, and exorcisms are tokens of the presence of the 19 In this way Jesus must be differentiated from those who kingdom.

19. Cf. KUmmel, Promise and 105-21; pp. 58-63; see especially the discussion by H. Merklein, 71-72. pp.

ELflLa,
- 476 -

pp. n

proclaimed a purely futuristic kingdom, and from visionaries who claimed to see the future kingdom in heaven.

The clearest tradition about the presence of the kingdom in Jesus' work is found in tlatt. 12:28=Luke 11:20: Uct 6 6mxrC,X] ScoU
TOO

v nvcOp'r'. ELuke: tii& t atECc

yd txp&X

6cMOvi.c*, *pa

$Ocav

BcoU." Jesus portrays himself as the conduit of the power of the

kingdom of God, and here specifically through an exorcism.

One can, however, acknowledge that Jesus represented the kingdom of God and yet deny that Jesus claimed to be the royal Christ. In the gospels Jesus instructs his disciples to do the works which he is doing and to preach the message of the kingdom, but this does not make them 20 personally messianic. In fact, Paul also claimed that the kingdom is evident in his works (1 Cor. 4:20) and in the fulfillment of Old Testament predictions in his preaching (Roe. 1).

2.

Ib!

"9

In order to discuss Jesus' self-consciousness with regard to his own role in the kingdom, we must examine the meaning of the Son of ManH sayings within the gospel tradition. According to the synoptic

evangelists, Jesus predicted that he would return to earth as the glorious Son of Man in order to inaugurate the kingdom of Sod. However, the original meanings of the Son of Man sayings have come into doubt, as

20. Kmmel, who believes that Jesus' actions were highly significant, states that Jesus himself saw no definitive proof of his divine commission in them 2er SE. Cf. Kmmel, Iheo1oq, p. 61; Beasley-Murray, 146. p.

- 477 -

has the relationship of the Son of Man to 'one like a son of man' in Dan. 7:13 and the likelihood that Jesus used the designation of 21 himself.

It is a commonplace in the synoptic gospels that Jesus' favorite self-designation was "uo 'roU extent in John's gospel). v8pthnou" (the title is used to a lesser

Jesus traditionally used "Son of Man" in

three ways: (1) Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of Man" in the 22 (2) he speaks of the suffering, context of his present activities; death and resurrection of the Son of Man; (3) in a quite different manner he speaks of the future appearance of one called the Son of Man. In the New Testament, "Son of Man" is probably only once used as a title 23 outside the four gospels, in Acts 7:56. The significance that the early church was much more inclined to speak of Jesus as "Son of God", 24 "Lord", or "Christ" is often underestimated: the early church would bean unlikely candidate for creating "Son of Man" sayings. Most

scholars have rightly come to agree that the Semitic nature of "Son of

21. See the most recent summary of the critical discussion of the Son of 219-29. Man by Beasley-Murray, Je3us and e g God, pp. 22. For examples of each type see Colpe, "uto 'roU *v8pnou," IPMI, VIII, pp. 430-61. 23. John sees one "bioov uL vBpthnou" in Rev. 1:13, 14:14, but this vision is apparently taken directly from the language of Dan. 7:13, and not from any particular teaching of Jesus about the Son of Man. The author of Hebrews speaks of "the son of man" in quoting Ps. 8:4-6 in Heb. 2:6. Although he finds the psalm's fulfillment in Jesus (as did Paul), his interpretation is not based on the belief that Christ was the Son of Han in the apocalyptic sense, but on his belief that Christ was a "man" and a "son of man" as the ideal human being. This interpretation is very close to the Pauline theology of the second Adam in Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15; cf. Cullmann, Christology, pp. 171-72. 24. See, for example, Tdt, I IItL2!i, u f. ii Li pp. 222-28; Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, pp. 170, 189; Casey, Qf. Man, pp. 238-39.

478

Man" language (whatever its pre-Christian origin) makes it probable that this was Jesus' own phrase, either for himself, or for another 25 person

While the majority of scholars might agree that Jesus in some way used "Son of Man" language, most of the debate takes place over what meaning "uto evangelists.
Tol]

tvBpthnou" had for Jesus, the early church, and the

There are two major ways in which Jesus might have used

the phrase, and it should be noted at once that they are not mutually exclusive. First
O a]],

"son of man" may simply have been a modest way

in which Jesus referred to himself (cf. the designation of Ezekiel as a human being, or "son of man" in Ezek, 2:1, etc.). G. Vermes has 26 produced impressive evidence that Jesus used "son of man" to mean "I". He observes that only Jesus used th1s term in the gospels, and others did not call him "son of man". translates -' In the Targums usually

or simply 'drn. In the Talmudic literature, and

particularly in first-century Galilean traditions, "son of man" was always a first-person reference to oneself. Vermes also noteu "In most instances the sentence contain; an allusion to humiliation, danger, or death, but there are also examples where reference to the self in the

25. Note the assent given for very different reasons by Tddt, pp. 170-89; Casey, 257-76; Lindars, pp. 22-31; Jeremias, I_h_e_oggy, 1, pp. 207; Higgins, I S of u p. 125-26; Vermes, "The Use of BAR ENASHA/BAR ENASH in Jewish pp. Aramaic"; Merklein, BQt f von Sottesherrschaf, p. 164; Colpe, 430-61; Marshall, "The Synoptic "uto 'roU t*vBpthnou," II, VIII, pp. 327-51; 12 (1965-66), pp. Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion," NT 315-409; 110-11; Borsch, Son of Man, pp. Porteous, pp. 18-22. See 152-64; Schweizer, Jesus, pp. Cullmann, c j t ggg , pp. 28-32; Vielhauer, "Gottesreich und contra: Bultmann, Ib g 19 gy , I, pp. Men;chensohn in der VerkUndigung Jesu," in Festsjt f.0 atti 229-32. gf Nazareth, pp. Bornkamm, 26. See Vermes, "The Use of BAR ENASHA/BAR in Jewish Aramaic."

- 479 -

27 third person is dictated by humility or modesty."

In several texts it is clear that translating "son of man" as "I" A good example is found in Luke 9:58, 28 where it is best to translateu "I have nowhere to lay my head." On the other hand, it is clear that the theory of circumlocution does not give any aid for texts in which Jesus is said to have predicted the glorious appearing of the Son of Man. All too often it is assumed that if "son of man" can mean "I", therefore it can never refer to the figure mentioned in Dan. 7:13. produces a superior rendering.

Most of those who reject a eschatological person known as the Son of Man usually make the claim that "Son of Man" was not a messianic 29 title in Jewish theology. Thus in Dan. 7:13, the prophet does not see It is best to 30 render Dan. 7:13: "there came a human-looking figure." In the interpretation of the vision in 7:22, 27, the "one like a son of man" is no longer mentioned; instead, it is said that the Most High rules in favor of the "saints". The figure in 7:13 may be either simply a symbol "the Son of Man", but rather "one like a son of man."

27. Vermes, p. 224-39; Lindars, pp. 327; see also Casey, pp. 170-89, who argues that "son of man" had a generic meaning "a -man like myself." 28. This is not to say that the tradition originally read "I" (Hoffmann): see the discussion by Marshall, Cornentary on Lu, p. 410. Jeremias, LheoLogy, I, pp. 261-68, argues persuasively that sayings which have "son of man" preserve an earlier tradition than those which have "I" or some other paraphrase. 29. So Vermes, p. 327 R. Leivestad, "Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man," ediscoverin the 243-67; Perrin, 18 (1971-72), pp. 9 1-18; Casey, pp. 154-72; Lindars, pp. 99-141. pp.

Ici

30. Thus the prophet is not necessarily saying that he saw a "man". Cf. Colpe, p. 419.

- 480 -

31 for this godly remnant (which the author translates in 7:18, 22, 27 or he may be an angel or other person who is the representative of the 32 saints. ),

It must, however, be accepted that at some point, either in Jewish theology, in Jesus' teaching, or in the early synoptic tradition, 'Son of Man" did evolve into a title for a particular eschatological 33 The Son of Man as an individual comes to full prominence in figure. 34 Those who believe that the Son of Man title the Similitudes of Enoch. could not have influenced Jesus sometimes date the Jewish sources in

See Casey, 31. Casey understands the explanation as a later redaction. he Jews always thought of the "one B. t5e)' argies 7a 25-2 Although he does his best at proving like a son of man" as collective. this within 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, and other works, it is most likely that the Son of Man could also be regarded as an individual being, acting as a rerttt' 4 32. So Porteous, pp. 110-11.

1,

33. Among those who hold to the existence of a pre-Christian Son of Man 404-06; Dalman, Corneth, pp. theology are Mowinckel, He 9f 270-74. P. '33-3'5; Jeremias, Iheology, I, pp. pp. Yielhauer's thesis, that "Son of lan" eschatology and "Kingdom of God" tenable, and he has been rightly ciucive is ialy ra' re Cf. Vielhauer, "Gottesreich und criticized for that theor. Menschensohn." He limits the proclamation of Jesus to the kingdom, apparently because that doctrine is the hardest to excise from the The two sets of terms are not entirely gospel tradition. non-coincidental (cf. Matt. 13:36-43; 25:31-46), but beyond this it is most natural to see a coincidence of the motifs in texts from the V8pdTTOU. . . UBT3 earliest tradition, such as Mark 8:38 - "xc*(, b uto rou ii io
rTcTp

ti'ro."

420-30, Leivestad, pp. 34. Although Casey, pp. 99-112, Colpe, pp. Casey 246-48 are dubious that this is actually a messianic figure. believes that the authors of the Sirnilitudes and the book of Revelation both drew from the imagery of Dan. 7 without intending to teach about a 'Son of Man", but this is highly speculative.

- 481 -

35 which he appears after the death of Christ. They claim in effect that

the church applied Dan. 7:13 to Jesus, and that coincidentally a short time later Jewish theologians began also to think of the Son of Man as a messianic figure. Schweizer, for example, argues that apocalyptic Jews

and early Christians transformed the Son of Man into a heavenly 36 eschatological figure during the period between but our . D. 30-50; ability to pinpoint this short time as a period of theological transition within both Jewish and Christian theology is certainly more limited than Schweizer is willing to concede. It is much more likely

that "Son of Man" had by the time of Jesus begun to develop away from the human-looking figure of Dan. 7 into an individual; the detailed picture of the Son of Man in 1 Enoch did not suddenly arise centuries after the composition of Dan. 7; it is much more likely that there was a gradual growth in the tradition.

The evangelists' claim that Jesus spoke about an eschatological Son of Man. If, as we have argued, the Son of Man title is not a purely Christian invention, then Jesus could have spoken about such a Son of Man coming in the end times. Either he spoke about himself as returning

22-31; Lindars, pp. 1-18; see J. 1. Miljk, ed., 1 35. So Tdt, pp. ramaic Fragments of Cave 4, pp. 95-96: Milik argues Books of Enoch: that the lack of any fragments of 1 Enoch 37-71 indicates a late composition for this work; he then argues that the theology of the irniiLtudes (not least the teaching about the Son of Man) shows Milik's hypotheses have been generally rejected, Christian re-working. primarily because a Christian would not be likely to think of Enoch as the Son of Man. While a post-Christian date for the Simi1itude is certainly possible on other grounds, most scholars believe that it pre-dates Jesus. 36. Schweizer, "The Son of Man Again," in Neotestarnentica, pp. 85-92.

- 482 -

 37 in glory, Dr o a person other than himself. 38 Although Jews of the

first century might not have universally recognized "Son of Man" as a title (see John 9:35-36, 12:34), they would have been familiar with the "one like a son of man" in Dan. 7i13. Because the title was possibly still in the process of development, it would not have been out of the question for Jesus to refer to Dan. 7:13 in order to clarify that he 39 meant that "son of man".

Many scholars who accept that Jesus did speak of a future Son of Man then proceed to dismiss the "present' Son of Man sayings as later life of the eschatological additions, a reading back into Jesus 40 It is quite possible This conclusion is not at all demanded. title. that Jesus used the term "Son of Man" in two slightly different ways. While he used the Ararnaic term to denote himself, he may have also spoken of the coming of the "one like a son of man' and related it to

125-26; Hooker, S 441-42; Higgins, pp. 37. As argues Colpe, pp. 152-56. 182-89; Cullmann, Christo1oy, pp. pp. 38. So Merklein, Botschaft, p. 175-78. pp. 164; Tddt, pp. 222-27; Bornkamm,

g.f.

!,

214, thought that it was the 222-27, and Casey, p. 39. Thus Todt, pp. early church which inserted the references to Dan. 7:13 into the gospel While it is quite possible that they did so in their quest tradition. For Old Testaent predictions about Jesus, or because they had to explain the rather obscure "Son of Man" title, it is equally possible Verses that Jesus also had to explain the title to his hearers. protests that the figure in Dan. 7:13 is not properly th Son of Man, and thus the title could not have been used by Jesus. He begs the question, however, in that Jesus is said to have referred to Dan. 7:13 Verses contradicts himself, and aids our argument, to avoid confusion. when he concedes that even when Jews did speak of the (messianic) figure in Dan. 7:13, he was called not the Son of Man, but the "Cloud Man". See 327-28. Dan. 7:13 is used of the davidic "Messiah" in Verses, pp. 98a. By cementing the connection between this figure and the title "Son of Man", Jesus avoids ambiguity, even if that messianic person was not normally called "Son of Man". 40. See, for example, Colpe, pp. 441-42; Higgins, pp. 125-26.

- 483 -

Dan. 7:13 and other traditions.

The advantage of this suggestion is

that one need not look for a far-fetched reason why the church would invent either the present or the future Son of Man motif: if the present Son of Man sayings are authentic, then it is difficult to see how the early Christians and the evangelists would know to translate Son of Man 41 as "I" in some contexts and not in others. If the future Son of Man sayings are original, then it is even harder to imagine why the church would apply the title to Jesus either in his Passion or in more mundane matters, areas, why 'Son of Man" would have been limited to those two or how the church's anachronistic use of the title could have

coincided so smoothly with an obscure Palestinian Aramaic idiom.

Jesus' dual usage of "uo 'Too t*v8pdinou" would have been somewhat ironic. He would in effect be saying things about himself as a "son of

man", but alSo predicting the coming of the Danielic eschatological figure who is "like a son of man." While the evangelists clearly

believe that Jesus is the eschatological Son of Man, his actual sayings He was leaving open the 42 possibility that "I" am "one like the son of man." do not make this identification explicit.

41. Cf., for example, the difference between Matt. 20:28 and Luke 261-68, who rightly argues that the 22:301. Jeremias, 1be g 199 y , I, pp. original versions of such texts had "Son of Man". 350-51; Cullmann, 42. See also Marshall, "SDn of Man," pp. 227-29. 159; Beasley-Murray, Jesus arid t Kingdom gf God, pp. p. Lindars seems to be arguing in this general direction, although he is rather vague as to what the disciples of Jesus were supposed to have thought when Jesus spoke of "a man like myself." We are left with the impression that they could only guess that Jesus was something more than an ordinary "son of man", but we are never sure if Jesus intended for them to bridge the gap between himself and an eschatological figure.

- 484 -

We have seen that there is good evidence that Jesus implicitly identified himself as the eschatological Son of Man. This claim indicates that Jesus foresaw a role for himself in establishing the future kingdom of God. The four evangelists view Jesus as the bringer of the kingdom, but each presents this belief in a different manners We

will examine them with regard to the Son of Man and the kingdom of Sod, Jesus awn royal nature, and the expectation of a kingdom of Christ.

1 . Ib!

c2I

b!

The Son of Man sayings in Mark are predomLnantly concerned with 43 According although there are exceptions. Jesus present activities, to Mark 8:38, peoples reactions to Jesus are the criterion for the Son of Mans judgment (or witness in Judgment). return of the Son of Man with his own angels. Mark 13:26-27 speaks of the In the hotly-disputed

Mark 14:62, Mark shows clearly that Jesus is the Son of Man who will fulfill the predictions of Mark 8 and 13.

In Luke 21:36 there is an L saying which is located in the context of teaching about the Parousia and the signs of the end of the age. Although this saying may simply mean that the believer should pray to escape the end-time disasters and to remain alive until the Parousia,

43. E. g., '...the Son of Man (I") must suffer many things' in Mark 8:31.

- 485 -

the word

aiin..

probably implies "standing" unashamed in the judgment of

the Son of Man. Marshall states: "Here the thought is of securing a favourable verdict...or (less likely) of being acknowledged as a
44

disciple...The Son of Man here acts as judge."

The synoptic evangelists imply that

Jesus

as the Son of Man will

be the one who will inaugurate the future kingdom of God. In some traditions the Son of Man appears as the judge or as the instrument of judgment. As a teacher he points his listeners toward obeying the

Father; obedience is the criterion for the final judgment.

2. Ib

9Y!Y

1!!

In Mark 11:10 the crowd which witnesses Jesus' entry into

Jerusalem cries
coining!"

out

uBlessed

is the kingdom of our father David that is

and applies Ps. 118:25-26 to Jesus as well (cf. the "King of

the Jews" references in 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 2b, 32). It is Marks intention not to disprove Jesus' royal nature, but to refute some Jewish misconceptions about the Messiah and about the manner in which people could enter God's kingdom.

In the Infancy Narrative of Matthew, Jesus appears as the Son of David, descended through Solomon and the royal lineage through Joseph. The magi appear and seek for b TX8c pcai.1cU 'rwv ' Iou6cwv and
b

Xpa'rO (Matt. 2:2, 4). In Luke 1:32-33 it is said that the rule of

783. Although Marshall recognizes 44. Marshall, Commentari on Luke, p. that this saying is widely held to be secondary, he accepts its authenticity on the basis of its essential similarity to other nondisputed Lukan texts.

- 486 -

Christ will be everlasting (Cf. 2 Sam. 7:13). This distinguishes Jesus from a mere earthly king; his rule is rather the eschatological divine order beyond which there is no higher authority.

Even though John says little about the c*o)Cu

'TOO

BoO, he In

te speaks about Jesus' kingship more often than/synoptic evangelists. 1:49 Nathanael calls Jesus "the King of Israel" (this title is

Although John apparently approves of this 45 term, he wishes to make it plain that Jesus is not a political king. restricted to John's gospel). Thus, he alone records that after the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus withdraws into the mountains because the crowd has desired to make him king by force (6:15). In 12:13 the crowd going into Jerusalem calls him the King of Israel, and in 12:15 this is said to be the fulfillment of the coming of the king in Zech. 9:9. In the judgment hall and at the cross Jesus is ironically referred to as the "King of the Jews" (18:33, 37, 9, 19:3, 12, 14-15, 19, 21). Jesus himself acknowledges himself to In 18:36

be king in 18:36, 37, although he does so with qualification.

'roO Oaiou. he states that his kingship (pcocCc) is not t Correctly 46 indicates that it does not rendering caXa as "kingship" here derive its authority from this world but from God; it does not 47 necessarily mean that it is otherworldly or "non-apocalyptic". Thus

John seems to teach that while "King of Israel" is a legitimate title of Jesus, "King of the Jews" is a misleading term which Jesus would not

45. Cf. Hoskyns,

Fouh Gose1, I, p. 249.

228.

46. As Schnackenburg, John, III, p.

87. Schnackenburg, John, 47. Cf. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes, p. III, pp. 249-50, believes that in 18:36 Jesus' kingship is exhausted in people obeying the heavenly truth. See also Haenchen, 2, pp. 179-80.

- 487 -

48 choose for himself. When the crowd wants to make him king he

withdraws; when Pilate questions him about the title he assents its truth but modifies its meaning.

Although all four of the evangelists appear often to frown upon the application of caJi to Jesus by misled or cynical Jews and

Romans, they are united in seeing Jesus as the fulfillment of royal messianic predictions (notably Ps. 118:26 and Zech. 9:9).

Ii

1fl99!

9 tiJ ' . b!

9 t!

Although there is no mention of the rule of the Son of Man in the kingdom in Marks gospel, two things are clear. First of all, the Son

of Man will appear as the instrument of God to reveal Sod's power and righteousness and to accomplish the consummation. Secondly, although

Mark nowhere explicitly states that Jesus as the Son of Man will rule, this is implied in his use of tradition. According to Daniel the "one

like a son of man" is at least an instrument of judgment and the one who rules forever in the age to come (see also 1 Enoch 45:4, 1 Enoch 51). Mark alludes to Dan. 7:13 in Mark 8:38, 13:26-27, 14:62, but he is primarily concerned to show in what ways Jesus altered the traditional hope. The reader of Mark may assume that Mark presupposes an eschatological role for the Christ as a part of the kingdom of God.

More than the other evangelists Matthew speaks of a kingdom of the Son of Man which is not identical with the kingdom of Sod or the kingdom

48. Contra Dodd, Hioj. j Iradition, pp. 229-30, who seems to think that John accepted "King of the Jews" as a legitimate title.

- 488 -

of heaven; since Paul also stresses the supreme importance of the rule of Christ, it is helpful to compare him with this evangelist. Whereas

Mark and Luke record a prediction about the bystanders not tasting death 49 the object of seeing in Matthew is before they see the kingdom of Sod, " rOv utv
01]

tv8pthnou tpOivov

ct'ro," It is quite

possible that this teaches the same thing as its synoptic parallels, since all three synoptic gospels seem to interpret this prediction as a 50 Within this framework, Matthew prediction of the transfiguration. interprets the glory of Jesus, not in terms of the glory of the kingdom of God in Jesus, but as the kingdom-glory of the Son of Man.

One of the most explicit sayings about the kingdom of the Son of Man is located in a modified Q tradition in Matt. 19:28: "...v 'ri
ncXt.yycvcaC, b'rcv Ic8al) b utO 'roU xu8aa8 KeC ij.tC tn th6 v8pdinou tn Bpdvou

6oq

cdjio,

g c Gpdvou KpCvovrE 6

' tc 4u& 01]

IapcX" (cf. Luke 22:28-30). Dan. 7 provides the imagery of this rule

of the saints.

The text therefore indicates that the Son of Man will be

on his throne during the Eschaton. The terminus a quo of this enthronement is the return of the Son of Man.

In the parable of the sheep and goats in Matt. 25:31-46 there is the unusual designation of the Son of Man as uKingu, a fusing of ideas

49. Luke 9:27; Mark 9:1 also has

qu8uCcv

v 6uvcic'

187, who 50. Cf. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, p. thinks that this is the traditional interpretation which lies behind all He points out that this was the generally-held three synoptics. interpretation of this prediction until Reimarus. Maier, II, p. 20, believes that Matthew is spiritualizing the kingdom, making this a prediction of Pentecost, but there is little internal evidence for his suggestion. Cf. also Albright and Mann, p. cv.

- 489 -

51 which is not impossible for Jewish eschatology. Although it has been

suggested that this was originally a parable about the Father which has 52 been transfeed to the Son of'Man, this is not demanded by the main themes of the parable.

The commission to the disciples in Matt. 28:18 is the counterpart to Matt. 19:28 with its prediction of eschatological ruling for the Son of Man. Matt. 28:19 has verbal affinities with Dan. 7:13, including the use of "6o8q". Between the two texts Matthew teaches a hidden rule of Christ in this age along with its revelation at the coming of the Son of Man in glory.

Although Matthew's use of t paXtc paralleled by i

obpuviv is recognizably 53 acic IoU OcoU in Mark and Luke, it is Matthew who
TOu

uses two motifs which are lacking from the other synoptics, namely, the kingdom of the Son of Man and and kingdom of the Father (cf. Matt. 13:38-43 and Matt. 16:28).

The Matthean parable of the tares (13:24-30) is followed by Jesus

51. Cf. Sanh. 98a. E. Schweizer theorizes that Matthew linked the concepts of enthronement of Christ and the glory of the Son of Man, although the alternating between "Son of Man' and "King" indicates that he is handling different tradition. Cf. Schweizer, Matthew, p. 475-76. Aibright and Mann, however, conclude that Matthew is most consistent with Jewish eschatology, since Dan. 7 pictures the Son of Man as judge, and because it is illogical to have a king who does not judge his kingdom. Cf. Albright and Mann, p. 307. 52. E. g., Schweizer, 306-09. pp.

tb!w,

pp.

475-76; contra Albright and Mann,

53. Cf. Strack and Billerbeck, 172; Walker, "The 2 i a tar , I, p. Kingdom of the Son of Man and the Kingdom of the Father in Matthew," 30 (1968), pp. 573-74; but see the distinction made between the two terms in Matthean theology by many Dispensationalist commentators and by M. Pamment, 'The Kingdom of Heaven according to the First Gospel," 27 (1981), p. 211.

- 490 -

explanation (13:36-43). The parable is different from the others in this chapter in that it is not only about the "kingdom of heaven" (13:24), but according to the explanation it is also about the "kingdom of the Son of Man" (13:41). ThIs kingdom is present in ot uto i ma\ia

(13:38). According to the explanation of the parable (which is widely disputed) the Son of Man removes evil-doers from the kingdom at the Eschaton, and the children of the kingdom receive eschatological glory in the kingdom of the

Eh

(13:43). This function of the Son of Man is

the same as in the "winnowing" prediction of John concerning Jesus in Matt. 3:11-12.

6. E. Ladd is too cavalier in his treatement of Matthean 54 terminology when he states: His language appears to distinguish between the Kingdom of the Son and the Kingdom of the Father...Granted that at first sight such an interpretation suggests itself, it is by no means the only interpretation, nor is it the compelling one. There is no 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. Despite Ladd's skepticism, it is clear from Matt. 13 and from the rest of the gospel that the kingdom of the Son of Man is not viewed by the evangelist as identical to the kingdom of the Father.

At the Eschaton the Son of Man sends his angels to remove evil-doers, and it is significant that they are removed from him kingdom, not from the field/world (13:41); he is apparently purging his 55 realm at the outset of its earthly manifestation. But the kingdom of

54. 6. E. Ladd, Presence of the 233. Cf. also E. Schweizer, p. 30; Maier, I, p. 477; Walker, "Kingdom in Matthew," pp. tt Iw , p. 575-79. 55. Thus Maier, I, p. 477.

- 491 -

the Son of Man cannot be simply future, since the children of the kingdom are present in the world, and the kingdom of heaven is dynamically present. Matthew implies that the kingdom of the Son of Man

is present, although it is juxtaposed with the kingdom of Satan. While the Son of Man is in heaven the world is his legitimate, if unclaimed, possession. Thus the kingdom of the Son of Man is both present and 56 Kingsbury accurately states: future. ...this Kingdom [of the Son of Man] will not be limited to this age but will exist beyond the parousia...In other words, the idea which the term Kingdom of the Son of Man appears to express for Matthew is that following Easter God reigns over the world in the person of Jesus Son of Man and, beyond the parousia, will continue to reign through his agency.

There are several non-Matthean texts which speak of a kingdom of Christ. In the tradition of the thief on the cross in Luke 23:42, Luke clearly does not disagree that Jesus will possess a kingdom. The

enthronement of Jesus as the Son of Man is especially prominent in Luke 22:69. Whereas Matt. 26:64 preserves the emphasis found in Mark 14:62, in which Jesus informs the Jews that they will see him coming as the Son of Man, Matthew has added that they will
TOO

"n' rpi. ba8c 'to y uov

&vGpdnou xu8I'ticvov," that his judges will see that the Son of Man is

seated at the right hand of Power. This addition is reflected in Luke's "nO ioU vOv 6 b uto ioU v8pthnou ru84pcvo" and probably is a change

143-44. Albright and Mann believe 56. J. D. Kingsbury, Mthew, pp. that the "ki ngdom of heaven" is not the "ki ngdom of God" but the 'kingdom of the Son of Man"; they must suppose unknown prior Matthean ci-cv. Cf. Albright and Mann, Matthew, pp. tradition to support this.

- 492 -

57 introduced by means of a Q tradition. The reasons For Luke's

redaction are to be found partly in the Lukan christology and partly in the general synoptic christology of the Son of Man. Matthew also is interested in Jesus' investiture with power (Matt. 28:18). In Luke 22:69 Luke leaves out the teaching about the future coming of the Son of Man in favor of an emphasis upon his present enthronement.

The difficulty in Luke 22:69 is whether present enthronement was a part of the Son of Man teaching of Jesus. If this concept is authentic then Luke has presented that part of the whole to which Mark and Matthew (and John, in 1:51?) merely allude: Jesus as the future Son of Man is also enthroned in the present age. For Luke the present enthronement is

a symbol of the eschatological judgment (c4. Acts 3:21). Although he omits the warning about "seeing" the coming of the Son of Man, the condemnation of the leaders is the same: because they are judging the Christ of God, God will vindicate his Son and punish his enemies. Thus

the real dissimilarity between Luke and the others is partly offset by the essential unity of the doctrines involved within the Lukan framework.

Matthew and Luke are different from Mark mainly because of additional material about the kingdom of the Son of Man. We have concluded that a kingdom of Christ is implicit in Markan theology,

on Luke, p. 57. Cf. Marshall, Cornrnentar 850, who believes that Luke retain5 the eschatological emphasis. Conzelmann believes that the Lukan redactions af this saying fit in closely with Luke's writing the gospel for a later time: "Seeing the Parousia, however, is out of the question for the present generation. On the other hand, Jesus' suffering has to be shown as the entry upon his Lordship." Cf. Conzelmann, I IQL2g. iIe, p. 116, n. 1. 9 .

- 493 -

58 although to a great extent it is there presupposed from Daniel 7. Matthew and Luke have expanded upon Mark: they seem to have had additional tradition from 0 and from their particular sources with which they could fill out Mark's sparse teaching. It is also possible that

Matthew and Luke were writing for audiences which did not understand the Son of Man and davidic Messiah tradition as well as did the earlier Palestinian church. With their new material they were able to make this

explicit and apply it to Jesus for the benefit of Gentile Christians.

4.

Y!!P.rY

We have seen, therefore, that the four gospels presuppose a major role for Jesus in the kingdom of God. In their use of "King" and "Son of Man" all four presuppose that as the Christ Jesus is destined to rule. Mark has shown the pattern of early Christian teaching in this regard. His main intention is not to prove or deny that Jesus will rule; rather he wants to show his readers that Jesus has come to suffer. This is

taken up in Matthew and Luke in the same manner, although they present a fuller picture of Jesus' future role. John is concerned to show that

the King is not earthly and nationalistic, but that his rule comes from heaven and involves divine truth.

The evidence from the four gospels is that Jesus understood that the kingdom was mediated through his words and deeds. There is also

much evidence to suggest that he viewed himself as the eschatological figure, the "one like a sort of man" through whom the future kingdom

58. Contra Merklein, Bosc f.t, pp. 17-18, who regards the "kingdom of Christ" tradition as a late, secondary development.

- 494 -

would be instituted.

The gospel tradition reflects Jesus'

self-consciousness, and to a varying degree contains details of Jesus' future role.

- 495 -

B I BL I OGRAPHY

1!29PPY

Achtemeier, Paul 1. "An Apocalyptic Shift in Early Christian Traditions Reflections on Some Canonical Evidence." CBQ 45 (1983):231-48. Aibright, W. F. and Mann, C. S. Doubleday & Company, 1971. AG: 26. Garden City, NV:

Allen, Leslie C. Psalms 1Q1-150. WBC: 21. Waco: Word Books, Publishers, 1983. Arai, Sasuagu. 'Die Gegner des Paulus im I. Korintherbrief und das Problem der Gnosis." NIS 19 (1972-73):430-37. Archer, Gleason and Chiricigno, G. C. j L New Testament: A Comlete Survel. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983. Bailey, J. W. "The Temporary Messianic Reign in the Literature of Early Judaism." JBL 53 (1934):170-87. Baird, William. "Pauline Eschatology in Hermeneutical Perspective." NT 17 (1970-71):314-27. Balz, Horst R.. "Eschatologie und Christologie: Modelle apokalyptischer und urchristlicher Heilserwartung." In Das Wort u Festschrift for Gerhard Friedrich. Ed. by H. Balz and S. Schulz. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1973.

Lini
Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971.

na Rmer 8, 18-39. BEvT: 59. MCinchen:

and Schrage, Wolfgang. Die katholischen Briefe. NTD: 10, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Bandstra, A. J. "Did the Colossian Errorists Need a Mediator?" In New Dimensions in New lestament. Ed. by R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Barnett, Albert E. EL University of Chicago Press, 1941.

11Lu. Chicago: The I

Barr, James. Old and New in Interpretation: a Study of the Testaments. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1966.

Barrett, C. K. t h8 Cos. BNTC. 2nd. ed.; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1971. ary on the Sand Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. . A London: Adam & Charles Black, 1973.

Et Adam to Last: A Studi in Pauline 1heolo. . E London: Adam & Charles Black, 1962.
.

GosQel according to St. John: An Introduction with

- 496 -

Cornmentar K., 1978.

and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd. ed.; London: S. P. C.

. 'Paul s Address to the Ephesian Elders." In God's Christ an Q21! . Trans. by N. H. Dahi. Ed. by J. Jervell and W. A. t'leeks. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977.

bi

Barth, Gerhard. Der Brief an die Philipper. ZBK, NT: 9. ZUrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979. Barth, Markus. "Christ and All Things." In PU1 and Paulinism. Festschrift for C. K. Barrett. Ed. by Morna Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: S. P. C. K., 1982. AS: 34, 34A. 2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday . & Company, Inc., 1974. . "Die Parusie im Epheserbrief: Eph 4,13." In Neues Itt und Geschichte. Festschrift for Oscar Cullmann. Ed. by H. Baltensweiler and So Reicke. TUbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)/ZUrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972. Sassier, Jouette M. "The Enigmatic Sign: 2 Thessalonians 1:5." CBQ 46 (1984) :496-510. Bauckham, Richard 3. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC: 50. Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1983. .j e-glish LjC Bauer, W. A Qt. by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Christian Literature. Trans. and ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Gingrich from the 4th. Germ. ed. Press, 1957. Baumgarten, Jdrg. Paulu! und dj Aokaiytik: Pau.briefen. WMANT: 44. Neukirchen-Vluyn; Neukirchener Verlag, 1975. gmtry on the Epistle to th! Beare, Francis Wright. BNTC. London: Adam & Charles Slack, 1959. . The and Notes. 3rd. ed. Beasley-Murray, 6. R. Press, 1962.

i1in.

of Peter: it rev.; Oxford: Basil Biackwell, 1970.

It

pjn

Exeter: Paternoster

. The Book of Revelation. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1974. . TI p.ijq

f.

Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1983. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans

. Jesus and the Kingdom of Pub. Co., 1985.

. "New Testament Apocalyptic - A Christological Eschatology." RevExp 72 (1975):317-30.

- 497 -

ssianic Expectation in the Old Testament. Trans. by Becker, Joachim. David E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. Becker, Jrgen. Auerstehuna der Toten Stuttgart: Katholishes Bibeiwerk, 1976. SBS: 82.

Beckwith, Ibson 1. I 2Iyp 2 4 g Pn : Itr2Yc!on a Critical and Exegetical commentary. Limited Editions Library. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprint, 1967 (orig. 1919). Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul the A 2 o tL : 1ati . Edinburgh: 1. & T. Clark, 1980. of. La LLfI

. Paul's Aocalytic Gosel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. 2urnrn: Benoit, Pierre. "Qumran and the New Testament. In EL Itt Exegesis. Ed. by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968. Berkey, Robert F. "' EyyCi.v, (1963): 177-87. 8vcv, and Realized Eschatology." JBL 82

Bernard, J. H. A Critical oL ga t E!qtLL Ed. by A. H. McNeile. ICC. 2 vols.; St. o!a . Edinburgh: T. & 1. Clark, 1928. Best, Ernest. A Corn entary on the Eit !C2D g 21t1 2 BNTC. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1972. . I Peter. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1971. Lu chd: _ to h d t Lu t P. C. K., 1955. . One LLouL of La t LUi o the Aaostie Paul. London: S. !

Betz, Hans Dieter. GaLatians. Trans. by the author. Philadelphiai Fortress Press, 1979.

Hermeneia.

hirnrnlische Bietenhard, Hans. i WUNT: 2. TUbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1951. . "The Millennial Hope in the Early Church." (1954) :12-30. "vo.ia, K.T.A." tP.il V:242-83. i.a PtL-tb.oLooLC I 6

. P LC!a: Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1955.

Bigg, Charles. g Q!!!S 9 !9iC1 c9!BOtrY 9!3 U St. Peter and St. Jude. ICC. Edinburgh: 1. & 1. Clark, 1901. In Black, Matthew. "flacu ouatc*t. Ur tino'ryflaovicn.." 1ini . Festschrift for C. K. Barrett. Ed. by Morna Hooker and S. 6. Wilson. London: S. P. C. K., 1982.

- 498 -

-. Rornans. NCB. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1973. Blank, Josef. Plus und Jesus: eine theologische Grundiegung. SANT: 18. Mnchen: Kbsel-Verlag, 1968. Blass, F. and DeBrunner, A. Greek Grammar of the New Testament and by Robert W. other Early Christian Literature. Trans. and rev, Cambridge Cambridge Funk from the 9th.-tOth. Germ. ed. University Press, 1961. ohaanesag. EF: 41. Darmstadt: Bocher, Otto. ie Wi ssenschaftl I cher Buchgesel 1 schaft, 1975. Bonsirven, Joseph. "Le Regne de Dieu suivant l'ancien Testament." Mlanges Bibligues. Festschrift for Andr Robert. Travaux de d. I 'institut Catholique de Paris: 4. Paris: Bloud & Gay, n. Bornkamm, GUnther. "The Heresy of Colossians (1948)." In Conflict at i1ity 1!r2ti9 9 g r1 y g 1 i Studies. Trans. and ed. by Fred 0. !!ct! i!i y P Francis and Wayne A. Meeks. SBLSBS: 4. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973. of Nazareth. Trans. by I. and F. McLuskey with James . esu (1. Robinson. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1960. . Paul. Trans. by D. M. G. Stalker. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1971. of Man in Myth and Nistor. The New S Borsch, Frederick Houk. I Testament Library. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1967. Trans. by J. K. Bosc, Jean. I n1y Pic 9 the Lord Jesu S. Reid. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959. Bousset, Wilhelm. Jesu Predigt in ihrem Geensatz zum .ludentum: em Vergieich. GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892. . Krios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus. Trans. by John E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970. . Die Offenbarung Johannis. MeyerK: 16. 2nd. ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906. . Die !119!9 ! Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1903. Braun, Herbert. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1966. lestament. 2 vols. Z!1t!.

TUbingen: J. C.

Briggs, Charles Augustus. "Millennium, Millennarianism." In The New -!r9 g EY921 Of R1iiOUS Kno1d. VII (1910) :374-78.

- 499 -

Bright, John. Jeremiah. AB: 21. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1965. 2f. 2: 1b. 1 Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1953. Bring, Ragnar. "Paul and the Old Testament." Q2c2 ti

I 25 (1971):21-60.

at Queran: 4QF1ori1gium in its Jewish Brooke, George J. Egj Context. 3501 Supplement Series: 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Brown, Raymond E. I Chapman, 1982. Epistles of John. AB: 30.2. London: Geoffrey

. The Gosel according to John. AB: 29, 30. 2 vols.; London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966. Brownlee, William Hugh. 1 New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. er Brox, Norbert. Verlag, 1979. . Pustet, 1969. sbr. EKKNT: 21. ZUrich: Benziqer

RNT: 7. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. Ii Kingdom of God. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889. Bruce, F. F. Biblical ExeGesis in the ran Txts. Exegetica II, 1. Den Haag: Uitgeverii van Keulen N.V., 1959. . o Morgan and Scott, 1965. Q9 f the Acts. NLCNT. London: Marshall,

mmentar' on the Eistle to the Hebrews. NLCNT. London: . Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1964. . t t NICNT. Grand Rapids: Wm. 8. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1984.

Galatians: A Commentarl on the Greek . Ib L!L tG t It . NICGT. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982. Brdtsch, Charles. L Fides, 1966. de iAaocaise. 5th. ed.; Geneva: Labor et

Buchanan, George Wesley. Leiden: E. 3. Brill, 1970.

IB

of the Covenant. NovTSup: XX.

. t the Hebrews. AB: 36. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc. , 1972. Buis, Pierre. La Notion dAllian Paris: Cerf, 1976. 'j LD: 88.

- 500 -

Bultinann, Rudolf. tar1. Trans. by 6. R. 2!a1. 2 cQ! 2t!D) Beasley-Murray. Ed. by W. N. Hoare and 3. K. Riches. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971. . History and Eschatology in the New Testament. (1954-55) :5-1.6. NTS 1

. Jesus and the Word. Trans. by L. P. Smith and E. Huntress from the 2nd. Germ. ed. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1935. _M_t_h_o_og. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1958. . "Der Mensch zwischen den Zeiten nach dem Neuen Testament (1952)." In Glauben und Verstehen: III. 2nd. ed.; TUbingen: 3. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) , 1962. . The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Trans. by R. A. Harrsvi1le. Ed. in the German by E. Dinkier. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985. . London: SCM Press Ltd. , 1952-55. Trans. by K. Grobel. 2 vols.;

and Luhrmann, Dieter. "4cvw, K.r.).." and Rengstorff, K. ")nC, x.'r.A."

Dfl IX:1-10. 11:517-35.

IPI

Burtness, James H. Eschatolo9y and Ethics in the Pauline Epistles: A Current Interpretations. Princeton Th. D. Dtssertation, 1958. Caird, 6. B. A Cornrnentar of St. John the Divine. BNTC. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1966. Cannon, George E. Th! Y I_a_diti_oa1 Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1983. Cantinat, Jean. Les Si itres d Jacgues Paris: 3. Gabalda et C-ie, 1973. ai SB. Macon,

Cantley, M. J. "Kingdom of God." NCE VIII (1967):191-95. Carmignac, Jean. "Les Dangers de 1 Eschatologie." 365-90. .
L!sLL:

NIB 17 (1970-71):

Ro'1 aut, Rgne et Roiaurne de Paris: Letouzey et An, 1979.

Carr, Wesley. Angels and iciaaiies. SNTSMS: 42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Casey, Maurice. The Son gj M: 2L1 Z . London: S. P. C. K., 1979.
u4 L Laci L

Cerfaux, Lucien. Christ in the Theoioq of St. Pu1. Trans. by Geoffrey

501

Webb and Adrian Walker. New York, Ednburgh and London Thomas Nelson end Sons Ltd., 1959. . The Church in the Theology of St. Paul. Trans. by Geoffrey Webb and Adrian Walker. Edinburgh and London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. 1959. Charles, R. H. I Book of Jubilees, or the Little 6enesis London: Adam & Charles Black, 1902. . IflcL St. John. ICC. 2 vols.
g

Edinburgh: 1. & 1. Clark, 1920.

g f.

Chilton, Bruce David. God in Strength: Jesus' Anoce Kingdom. SNTU. Freistadt: Verlag F. Plbchl, 1979. . "Regnum Del Deus Est." JI 31 (1978):261-70.

Collange, J. -F. (nigmes E1 tude exegetigue de 2 Cor. 2:14-7:4. SNTSMS: 18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Collins, John J. Th Co., 1984. . The Aocaltic Vision of the Book of Daniel. HSM: 16. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977. . "Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre." Serneia 14 (1979) :1-20. "The Jewish Apocalypses." Semeia 14 (1979):21-59. . "Patterns of Eschatology at Qumran." In Ir_ _ i_ 0_n_s i ad t If g j g n : Irin g i1!1 Eiti . Ed. by Baruch 9!D 1 Halpern and Jon D. Levenson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. . "The Symbolism of Transcendence in Jewish Apocalyptic," In 19. Ed. by t icg ci y i1ic1 Paul E. Davies. Chicago: SBL, 1974. Colpe, Carsten. "uto ioU tv8pthnou."
QI VIII:400-77.

n Introduction 22c1Y2!c Irnaginaton: the cnit. New York: The Crossroad Publishing

Conzelmann, Hans. Die Agosteigeschichte. HNT: 7. Tubingen: 3. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1972. . I Corinthians. Trans. by James W. Leitch. Ed. by B. W. MacRae and J. W. Dunkley. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. . "Kingdom to Church." I 16 (1955):1-29.

stne. Trans. by . L t QtLia t2L2 gy gf th John Bowden from the 2nd. German ed. The New Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1969.

- 502 -

-, Ib! I_h!919y 9 . Faber & Faber, Ltd., 1960.

Copperis, J. L Gembloux: Ducu1ot ! accomlissement. 1974.

!' Trini. by B. Buw.11. London:

Prohtique: aomrniissement en JAsus. BElL: 38.

Son dveloernent. ori2lnes. Royal: S Paris: Cerf, 1968. LD: 54.

1 L L

Son

. La RelPve Aocaiytique
L

BElL: 50. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979. Court, John. M. "Paul and the Apocalyptic Pattern." In yj Paulinism. Festschrift for C. K. Barrett. Ed. by Morna Hooker and S. 6. Wilson. London: S. P. C. K., 1982. 9Q 9 Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Wa. B. Craigie, Peter C. I Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1976. Cranfield, C. E. B. A CriticaL aiL a qLL ICC. 2 vols.; Edinburgh: 1. & I. Clark, 1979. Cruvellier, Jean. "L'enseignement de Jesus sur le Royauine de Dieu dans les paraboles." EEv 20 (1961):50-64. Cullmann, Oscar. "Albert Schweitzers Auffassung der urchristlichen Reichsgotteshoffnung im Lichte der heutigen neutestamentlichen Forschung." El 25 (1965):643-56. "Das ausgebliebene Reich Gottes als theologisches Problem und Au+stze, 1925-1962. Ed. i Vort (1961)." In Q by Karifried Frohlich. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1966. c9E2 sf. ii IL: the and Hiy. Trans. by Floyd V. Filson. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1951. Trans. by S. C. . j: Guthrie and C. A. M. Hall. 2nd. English ed.; London: SCM Press Ltd., 1963. . Jesus and the Revolutionaries. Trans. by 6. Putnam. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. . "The Kingship of Christ and the Church in the New Testament (1941)." In e Early chur. Ed. by A. J. B. Higgins. London: S. C. M. Press Ltd., 1956. . Salvation in History. Trans. by Sidney 6. Sowers New Testament Library. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1967. . "Wann kommt das Reich Gottes? Zur Enderwartung der

EflI dItL

L.

The

- 03 -

christlichen Schriften des zweiten Jahrhunderts (1938)." In Oscar Cullmann: Vortrge und Aufstze, 1925-1962. Ed. by Karifried Frohlich. hibingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1966. Culver, Robert D. "rnak." WOI 1:507-10.

Dahl, N. A. "A Fragment and its Context; 2 Cor. 6:17-7:1." In Studies in 1: Ib1Q9Y fr b! Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977. . "The Future of Israel." In Studies a I2L2 Early Christian MissLon. Minneapolis, Minn: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977. . "The Missionary Theology in the Epistle to the Romans." In isign. I!91y !r t!e Early Christ1a n Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977. . "Paul and the Church at Corinth." In Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis, Minn: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977. Dahood, Mitctiell. PsaLms. AB: 16, 17, 17A. 3 vols. Doubleday & Co., 1965-70. Garden City, NY:

Dalman, Gustaf. The Wards of Jesus. Part I: Introdution ad EflL Trans. by D. M. Kay. Edinburgh; T. & 1. Clark, 1902. Daube, David. The Exodus Pattern in the Bj1e. All Souls Studies: 2. London: Faber and Faber, 1963. Commentary o Davids, Peter H. Lh_e Episti! of Jame: NICGT. Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982. Davies, Philip. "The Ending of Acts." ExI . m 94 (1983):334-45. Davies, W. D. "Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit." In lestament. Ed. by K. Stendahi. London: SCM N Press Ltd., 1958.

Lifi.

Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline theoiog. 4th. ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. . "Paul and the People of Israel (1977)." In Jewish and Pauline Studies. London: S. P. C. K., 1984. . "A Review of H. J. Schoeps' Paulus; die IsL gg s s AQostels im Lichte der jUdishen Re gionsgeschichte (1963)." Appendix D in Jewish and Pa1ine Studies. London: S.P.C.K., 1984. ni Age . d/or th Age to Came. JBLMS: 7. . Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1952. De Lestapis, S. L'nigine des Pastorales et Cie, 1976. j. Paris: J. Gabalda

- 504 -

Deichgraber, Reinhard. Gotteshmnus und Chri Cttieit: E, Ruprecht, 1967. Delling, Gerhard. "pyo, 'PX Kr.?,"

ushmnus

LBU Hmnen. SUNT: 5. Gttingeri: Vandenhoeck & II 1:452-54. II 1:478-89. Lia uLgua.

Lu . Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972.

.
"tJnOTtaOW K.T.)."

IDNI VIII:39-48. 54 (19B2):157-62.

Denton, D. R. "Inheritance in Paul and Ephesians."

Dexinger, Ferdinand. Henochs Zehnwochenaokaly2se und offee g cn g. SPB: 29. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. r gg l yg Dibelius, Martin. An die Kolosser, Eheer. An Philernon. Ed. by H. 6reeven. HNT: 53. 3rd. ed. rev.; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1953. . "The Speeches of Acts and Ancient Historiography (1949)." In Studies in the Acts 0 the Aost1es. Trans. by M. Ling. Ed. by H. Greeven. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1956. and Conzelmann, Hans. I gL Epistles. Trans. by P. Buttolph and A. Yarbro from the 4th. German ed. Ed. by H. Koester. Herrneneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972. and Greeven, Heinrich. grj f. Trans. by Michael A. Williams from the 11th. Germ. ed. Ed. by Helmut Koester. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. Dinter, Paul E. "Paul and the Prophet Isaiah." BIB 13 (1983):48-52. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scri2tures: I Iheology. London: Nisbet & Co., Ltd., 1952.

gLL -. I London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1944.

-. I_he 1932.

Lt

L9au.t. 2nd. rev.

ed.;

21t1 to the Rornans. MNTC: 6. New York: Harper & Row,

Four Gos. Cambridge:

. Historical Iradition in t Cambridge University Press, 1963. . I Cambridge University Press, 1953. . Ihe Johannine 1947.

Q2!!. Cambridge:

istls. MNTC: 6. London: Hodder & Staughton,

"Matthew and Paul (1947)." In New Testament Studies.

- 505 -

Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953. . "The Mind of Pauli Change and Development." BJRL 18 (1934) :69-110. t 1936. of the Kingdom. Rev. ed.; London: Nisbet & Co.,

ebate. Donfried, Karl Paul. "A Short Note on Romans 16." In Ed. by Karl Paul Dorifried. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977. Doughty, Darrell J. "The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth." ZNW 66 (1975):61-90. Driver, 6. R. The Judaean Scrolls: Schocken Books, 1965.

Ii

New York:

Dugandzic, Ivan. Das "Ja" Gottes ir Chri!tus: e des Alten Testaments fur das Christusverstndnis des Paulus. FB: 26. Wrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1977. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the pjj: 2 be 1!9!9Y Chri . The New . 2 Eir Testament Library. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1975. . "Spirit and Kingdom." .
QL LLi

cbi.tis E2!r!!c

82 (1970):36-40. Ne Testament: An Enquiry int2 jit. Philadelphia: The

Westminster Press, 1977. Eaton, John H. Kinqehia and the Psalms. SBT, Second Series: 32. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1976. Elliger, Winfried. Paulus i L!: ELLLL, IsLi, Athen, Korinth. SBS: 92/93. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978. EJ,lis, E. Earle. E!uL and js Recent Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1961. t ters. Grand Rapids: We. B.

. Pauls Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1957. qse: I Ellul, Jacques. Aqo oo 21 g UtLoa . Trans. by George W. Schreiner. New York: The Seabury Press, 1977. Ernst, Josef. Qj jf L! Ei1i2P, fl E11!!9Q, 1! !9!, an die E9heser. RNT: 7. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1974. Evans, Craig A. "The Colossian Mystics." Bi 63 (19821:188-205.

Fascher, Erich. D erste Pi! rib: c!r LeiA (1.Korintherbrief 1-7). THNT: 7.1. 2nd. ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1980.

- 506 -

Fawcett, Thomas. Hebrew Myth Ltd., 1973, Feuillet, Andr. L' Brouwer, 1963.

d Christian Gos2el. London: SCM Press

Li

tat de Ia Question. Paris; Descle de

. 'L'esperance de la 'conversion' d'Isral en Rm 11, 25-32: L'interpretation des versets 26 et 31." In Ii Festschrjft for Henri Cazelles. Ed. by M. Carrez, J. Dor, and P. Grelot. Lourain: Descle, 1981. . "Man's Participation in God's Life: A Key Concept in John." In A Cornanion to John: Readings in Johannn heolQgy. Ed. by M. 3. Taylor. New York: Alba House, 1977. sicht Fischer, Karl Martin. I!n un b!i!f. 111. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. FRLANT:

Fisher, F. L. "The New and Greater Exodus: The Exodus Pattern in the New 20 (1977):69-79. Testament." Southwestern Journal of ILs Fitzm ' yer, Joseph A. "Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph 2 Cor. he Sernitic Bacgrou of tb / 6:14-7:1." In Essays on lestarnent. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971. . "Der semitische Hintergrund des neutestamentlichen Kyriostitels." In I91!. E! 1t9r! 4E! Festschrift for H. Conzelmann. Ed. by 6. Strecker. Tbingen: 3. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1975. . "The Son of David Tradition and Mt 22:41-46 and Parallels." London: In Essays iic Pr 9 P! Geoffrey Chapman, 1971. . "To Know Him and the Power of His Resurrection (Phil, 3:10)." In Melanges Bibligues. Festschrift for Bda Rigaux. Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1970. . "The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament." MIS 7 (1960-61):297-333. Foerster, W. "o, x.'r.?" . "KJpo. K.r.?." 1:379-80. IDNT 111:1039-99. TI VII:965-1024.

and Fohrer, 6. "aqw xr.)." and Lohse, E. "Z(ov, x.'r.?"

1I VII:292-338.

Ford, 3. Massyngberde. Revelation. AB: 38. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1975. Foulkes, Francis. 1b. EiU gf EL g tb. and Commentary. TNTC. London: The Tyndale Press, 1963.

- 507 -

Francis, Fred 0. "The Background of EMBAIEUEIN (Col 2:18) in Legal Papyri and Oracle Inscriptions (1969)." In Conflict at Colossae: A tti g o g Selected Modern Studies. Trans. and ed. by Fred 0. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks. SBLSBS: 4. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973.

cbittn !1tt

. "Humility and Angel Worship in Ccl 2:18 (1963)." In Confijt at Colossae: e Inter2retation of Early Christianiy by Fred 0. y Trans. and ed. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks. SBLSBS: 4. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973.

Franklin, Eric. "The Ascension and the Eschatology of Luke-Acts." SJI 23 (1970): 191-200. & Pl: yl Fraser, J. W. Jes of. Kdmmel. Appleford: The Marcham Manor Press, 1974. Froitzheim, Franziosef. E Lggj.. b 35. 2nd. ed.; Wrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1982.
F

fg

to

.. Paulus. FR:

Fuchs, Erich and Raymond, Pierre. La Deuxime Eitre de Saint EoCe; Jude. CMI, 2nd. Series: 13b. Paris: Delachaux & L'itre de Niestl, 1980. iesus: An Examinati Fuller, Reginald H. Th! LLoa S Theology. SBT, First 2L1..O! of. f. t Series: 12. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1954. Furnish, Victor Paul. & Company, 1984. AB: 32A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday

Sager, J. 8., Jr. "Functional Diversity in Paul's Use of End Time 89 (1970):325-37. Language." Gamble, Harry, Jr. TextuaL

tr gf. t

a ItL
B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1977.

er to the Romans: A jjs. SD: 42. Grand Rapids: Wm.

Geiston, A. "The Royal Priesthood." EQ 31 (1959):152-63. 7 vols.; Philadelphia: The he Ginzberg, Louis. I! Lege o Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909-38. Glasson, I. Francis. His Aearing and His Kingdom: The Christian Hoae in the Light of its History. London: The Epworth Press, 1953. . Jesus and the End of the Won. Edinburgh: The St. Andrews Press, 1980. . The Second Advent: The Origin gf 2nd. ed.; London: The Epworth Press, 1947. . "What is Apocalyptic?" NI Gloege, Gerhard. Reich

1at

octe.

27 (1981):98-105. Tee. NIF: 2, 4.

- 508 -

2nd. ed.; 6Uterlch: Gtersloher Verlaghaus Gerd Mohn, 1929. GnUka, Joachim. er gp Herder, 1971.
$ gLg rr!!

. HTKNT

10.2. Freiburg, Basel, Wieni

HTKNT: 10.1. Freiburg, Basel, Wien:

Herders, 1980. . "Paranetische Traditionen im Epheserbrief." In Melanges Bibiigue. Festschrift for Bda Rigaux. Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1970. . De PhiLi2Eerrief. . HTKNT: 10.2. Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1968. . "2 Cor 6:14-7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs." In Paul ydies Exegesis. Ed. by J. Murphy-OConnor. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968.

Itt

Goppelt, Leonhard Chri.sto1oie und Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. the New lestarnent. Vol. 1. Trans. by J. . Ib Ib Roloff. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1981. of the New Testament. Vol. II. Trans. by J. E. . he Th olog Alsup. Ed. by J. Roloff. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982.
IQ! . L1P.QLQgLcL 1tJ2n i ti 1arnent in the New. Trans. by Donald H. Madrig. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. -Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982.

Gorday, Peter.

Qiqen, LL pJ EitL E iL : 2-11 !t22, and Augustine. SBEC: 4. New York: The Edwin Mellon Press, 1983.

Gottschick, Johannes. "The Kingdom of God." caf+-Herzog VI (1910):334-39. cYE192i 2 !!1919! Gourgues, Michel. A la Droite de Dieu: Resurrection de Jesus et Actualisation du Psaurne 110:1 EBib. Paris: 3. Gabalda et C-ie, 1978.

I.

. "The Thousand-Year Reign (Rev 20:1-6): lerrestial or Celestial?" CBQ 47 (1985):676-81. Grabner-Haider, Anton. Parakiese d Esc i Paulus: Mensch und der Zukunft Gottes. NTAbh: 4. Mnster: L! Aschendorff, 1968. Grper, Erich. er Glaube Elwert, 1965. MIS: 2. Marburg: N. 6.

. "Kol 3.1-4 als Beispiel einer Interpretation secundurn

- 509 -

r!ci2i!!."

64 (1967):139-68.

-. Die Naherwartung Jesu. SBSi 61. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibeiwerk, 1973.

und in der Aosteiqeschichte. ZNWKAK: 22. 3rd. ed.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1977. "Zum Verstndnis der Gottesherrschaft." ZNW 65 (1974):1-26. Grant, Frederick C. "The Idea of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament. In The Sacral Kingshi: attL t e t.b.e L1t Li2nL c2D.SS L2 ti2S t!t2 Reiiqions. Leiden: E. J. Grill, 1959. Gray, John. The i1R1 1. Clark, 1979.

2 uL

Ei!Pq i

2f.

Qttie f tbe

ejg

of

gd. Edinburgh: T. &

and Merkabah Msticisrn. AGJU: 14. Gruenwald, Ithamar. gj Leiden E. J. Grill, 1980. Grundmann, Walter. De Brief des Judas und der zweje Brjef des Petrus. flINT: 15. Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1974. .

"6eoc.

IDNI 11:37-40.

. Das E ngeiium nach Matth. THNT: 1. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968. . "Uberlieferung und Eigenaussage im eschatologischen Denken des Apastels Paulus." NTS 8 (1961-62):12-26. Guthrie, Donald. Galatians. NCB. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1969. . New Ie!eeD Introduction. 3rd. ed. IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970. . 1981. rev.; Downers Grove,

IsLarne_nt Lhg1cgy. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press,

. The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Cornrnentar. TNTC. London: The Tyndale Press, 1957. Guy, H. A. Lhe 1 s I_ L _ _ _ _ Pie 9 b! "s es a m e n t This" : p I ggy. London: Oxford University Press, 1948. tY 9

enar. Trans. by Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the A D Dstles: Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn from the 14th. Germ. ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971. . "The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of the Early Church." In Studies in Luke-Acts. Festschrift for Paul Schubert. Ed. by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. London: S. P. C. K., 1966.

- 510 -

-. John. Trans. by R. W. Funk. Ed. by R. W. Funk and U. Busse. Hermeneia. 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. . Der eg Jesu: Eine 1arunq des Markus-Evanelium kanonischen Parallelen. Berlin: Alfred Tdpelmann, 1966. Hahn, Ferdinand. I ia ILU t!t2L : IL Early Christianity. Trans. by Harold Knight and George Ogg. London: Lutterworth Press, 1969. ici

ar gch9iogy in Paul. SJT Hamilton, Neill Q. The Holy S2iri Occasional Papers: 6. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd Ltd., 1957. Hammer, Paul L. "A Comparison of KLERONOMIA in Paul and Ephesians.' 79 (1960):267-72. Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. Jesus Christ S.P.C.K., 1965. London:

. I LL y o Utterances of God: Te New Testament ExeGesis the Old. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983. Lu K., 1974. Hanson, Paul 0. The Dawn of AocalyGtic. Philadelphia: Fortress Press3 1975. Harnack, Adolf. What is Christianity?. Trans. by Thomas Bailey Saunders. New York: 6. P. Putnam's Son;, 1901. Harrison, P. N. I! r g 1! the Pastoral E2istles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Humphrey Milford, 1921. Hasler, Victor. Die Briefe an IL NT: 12. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1978. Haufe, Bunter. "Reich Gottes bei Paulus und in der Jesustradition." 31 U985):467-72. Hay, David M. Sb the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBLMS: 18. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973. Hemer, C. J. "Luke the Historian.' 60 (1977-78):28-51. ZBK,

L'

and Theoioy. London: S. P. C.

Hengel, Martin. "Between Jesus and Paul." In Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Cbritinity. London: SCM Press Ltd. , 1983. . "Reich Christi, Reich Gottes und Weltreich im 4.Evangelium." I_h_B 14 (1983):201-16. Hring, Jean. I the Corinthians. Trans. Eit Lut f by A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Alicock from the 2nd. French ed.

iL

- 511 -

London: The Epworth Press, 1962. . Js 1935. A d_ : 1'U ! !t lAotre Paul. EHPR: 35. Paris: Librarie Felix Alcan,

. 'Saint Paul a-t-il enseign deux resurrections?" (1932): 300-20.

12

Second istle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians. Trans. . 1 by A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Alicock from the 1st. French ed. London: The Epworth Press, 1967. Hester, James D. Paul's Concet of Inheritance: 2LtL2 t2 t! SJT Occasional Papers: 14. 2f. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1968. Hickling, C. J. A. "Paul's Reading of Isaiah." Studia Biblica 1978: III. Ed. by E. A. !! I8E! Livingstone. JSNTSS: 3. Sheffield: ]SOT Press, 1980. . "The Sequence of Thought in II Corinthians, Chapter Three." _NLS 21 (1975):380-395. 6 Iraditiop. UFHM: in the Sog . i Hiers, Richard H. I 33. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1970. . "The Problem of the Delay of the Parousia in Luke-Acts." 20 (1974):145-55.

!I

Higgins, A. J. B. The ttI ILa g f. Jesus. SNTSMS: 39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Hofius, 0. De chrIY!!OUS Philip2mr. 2,6-11: Untersucyg g! !1!! 9 y O ri1!cb!n Psalms. WUNT: 17. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) , 1976. Holm-Nielson, Svend. ! 1ri Salomos. JSHRZ 4.2. Gutersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1977. THNT: 13. 2nd. ed.; Berlin: Holtz, Gottfried. PA! Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1972. Holtzmanri, H. J. Kritik der Eheser- und Kolosserbriefe auf Grund einer Analyse Verwandtschaftverhltnisses. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1872.

of 6 inqdo j th Hooke, S. H. London: Gerald Duckworth and Co., 1949.

of Jesu. CLCTT.

Hooker, Morna D. "Beyond the things that are written? St. Paul's Use of Scripture." NIB 27 (1981):295-309. . The Son of Man in Mark. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1967.

- 512 -

Hoskyns, Edwyn Clement. Th! E g rt opel. Ed. by Francis Noel Davey. 2 vols.; 2nd. rev. ed.; London: Faber and Faber, 1947. Hnermann, Peter. "Reign of God." Th!9! y V (1970):233-40. Hughes, Graham. Hebrews and HerDeneutics:

ij:
Egis t2

cloedia of

I.ut

Uc.L Interretation.

t!
SNTSMS: 36.

as

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1977. . Paul's Second EpistLe to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962. Hunter, A. H. Ltd., 1961.

r!c!2r!.

Rev. ed.; London: SCM Press

. The Words and Works of Jesus. Rev. ed.; London: SCM Press Ltd., 1973. Hurd, John Coolidge, Jr. K., 1965. Jaubert, Annie. jpj

Qrqj of I Corinthians. London: S. P. C.

LLac.s ti PS: 6. Paris: Seuil, 1963.

Jeremias, Joachim. Die Briefe an I2Ss NTD: 9. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. . Ihe Eucharistic Words of Jesus. Trans. by A. Ehrhardt from Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955. the 2nd. Berman edition. . "'Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God' (I Cor.
XV. 50)." 2 (1955-56):151-59.

ILts

. 2!U c.f. - Er I: I Trans. by John Bowden. The New Testament Library. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1971.

Parables of Jesus. Trans. by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM . Press Ltd., 1954. . "ITcp6eao." V:765-73.

Johnston, George. Ehesia, Philipians, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1967.

1Qu

arid Phileinon. NCB.

. "Kingdom of God Sayings in Paul's Letters." In Essays in Ed. by P. Richardson and J. C. Erci rib Hurd. Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1984. Jones, Donald L. "The Title Kyrios in Luke-Acts." (1974) :85-101. 4

- 513 -

Jiingel

Eberhard. "Die Brundzuge des VerhaltfliSses der pauliriischen Rechtfertingungslehre zur VerkUndigung Jesu." In ail eine ntersuchung .L!t.2L2 g L . HUT: 2. 4th. ed.; Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1972.

Ksemann, Ernst. "The Beginnings of Christian Theology." In Ne 9 I9!Y . The New Testament Library. London: I!_ .! a g !!9 SCM Press Ltd., [969. by: Geoffrey W. 2 2'!!!i! . Trans. and ed. . London: SCM Press Ltd., Bromiley from the 1973 German edition. 1980. . "Kritische Analyse von Phil. 2,5-11." In n. Vol. I. 6th. ed.; Sttingen: Vandenhaeck iflfl & Ruprecht, 1970. . Leib und Leib Christi: Eine Un Begrifflichkeit. BHT: 9. Tibingen: 3. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1933. . "On the Topic of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic." In The New Testament Library. London:

812

9 I9Y .

SCM Press Ltd., 1969. . "The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord's Supper." In Trans. by W. 3. Montague. SBT: 41. London: es N! L _ t!!!t SCM Press Ltd., 1964. . "A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy (1949)." In Trans. by W. 3. MontagUe. 881: 41. I! London: SCM Press Ltd. , 1964. in Paul." In i . "The 'Righteousness of God The New Testament Library. Londoni SCM Press 9 !li9 Ltd., 1969. Kantley, N. 3. "Kingdom of God." NCE VIII (j947)t9195. Keck, Leander E. "Paul and Apocalyptic Theology." 5!

L'it. 38 (1984):229241.

Kehl, Nikolaus. Der Christushymnus in K.o1osser1!! Untersuchun9 zu ((ol i,i-Q. SBM: 1. Stuttgart: Katholisches Biblewerk, 1967. istles o Kelly, 3. N. 0. A Co entary on the London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969. BNTC.

. A commentary on the Pastoral Ejstl. BNTC. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1963. Ci 1958. Kennedy, H. A. A. St. Paul's Concetion of the Last ILa g.s . London: bLL!La g

tI'i

London: Adam & Charles Black,

- 514 -

.ee, Edwin Kenneth. Ib 1950. K.

1i g i g I gg

of St. John. London: S. P. C.

_eenhardt, Franz J. The E a imtie to the Rornans: Comrnentar. Trans. by Harold Knight. London: Lutterworth Press, 1961. _eivestad, Ragnar. 'Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man." NI (1971-72) :243-67. Lewis, Trevor F. W. I f i University of Nottingham M. Phil. Thesis, 1974. 18

brne. HNT: 8. 5th. ed.; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr Lietzmann, Hans. (Paul Siebeck) , 1971. and Kummel, ti. B. di Korinth 1-a . HNT: 9. 4th. ed.; Tubingen: J. C. B. tlohr (Paul Siebeck), 1949. in t Role of the Lincoln, A. 1. Paradie Now ad Not Yet: Lhgyg. g rc iIY i gscg 19 y. SNTSMS: 43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. . "A Re-examination of (1973): 468-83. the Heavenlies' in Ephesians." 19

. "The Use of the OT in Ephesians." JSNT 14 (1982):16-57. Lindars, Barnabas. I -- 1 9 NCB. London: OlLphants, t972.

Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man London: S. i g 2 ! t! 92!! i t P. C. K., 1983. Testj Aoiogetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the . QL It g uotations. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1961.

Auf,ebg der Zeit: Seschichtsverstndnis und Lindemann, Andreas. Eshatoiogie irn Eheserbrief. SNT: 12. Guterslob: Gutersicher Verlaghaus Berd Mohn, 1975. Lipiki, E. La Israel. Brussel: Paleis der Academin, 1965. t.oader, W. R. 6. "Christ at the Right Hand - Ps. cx. Testament." 24 (1978h199-217. e H eeijt Jesus: 0 hfink, Gerhard. Hahr- und Erhdhungstexten KDS2I-Verlag, 1971. _ohmeyer, Ernst. MeyerK: 9. 2 vols; 13th. ed.; GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. 1 In the New

suchungen en j ukas. SANT: 26. Munchen:

- 517 -

i! Offenbarung des Jgh. HNT: 16. 3rd. ed.; Tubingen: _. J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1953. Lohse, Eduard. "Christusherrschaft und Kirche im Kolosserbrief." NTS 11 (1964-65) :203-16. Trans. by W. P. Poehlmann from the -. Ed. by Helmut Koester. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: 14th. German ed. Fortress Press, 1971. . Die Offenbarunq des Johannes. NTD: 11. 10th. ed.; Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Lona, Horacio E. P!! Ec.tQ1291! nj Kolosser- und Epheserbrief. FB: 48. WUrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the AgostoliE Period. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1975. Jewish Christianity. SBT, Second . Th Series: 17. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1970. Lowe, John. "An Examination of the Attempts to Detect Developments in 42 (1941):129-42. Paul's Theology." Lhrmann, Dieter. Die Brief an die Galater. ZBK, NT: 7. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1978. Lundstrom, Gdsta. I Ii.ag of Jesu. Trans. by L a aa Joan Bulman. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1963. Paul's Adversaries in Colossae (1956)." In c9f1ic Lyonnet, S. J. t Colossae: A er!! 1 1 y cbrii#i 1rti Trans. and ed. by Fred 0. 111rt by S!!!! M! Francis and Wayne A. Meeks. SBLSBS: 4. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973. MacGregor, 6. H. C. "Principalities and Powers: The Cosmic Background of Paul's Thought." _NI_S 1 (1954-55) :17-28. Maier, Gerhard. Johann QLaa g und die Kirche. WUNT: 25. TUbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1981. -uqBLL!u!. 2 vols.; Neuhausen (Stuttgart): -. Hanssler-Verlag, 1979-1980. and Manson, 1. W. Th I!cin g g Jesus: f j 2nd. ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935. Manson, William. 1951.

eL!2a.

tL t g London:

Hodder

&

Stoughton,

Marshall, I. Howard. I act f. ii B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1980.

2.tLB! . TNTC. Grand Rapids: Wm.

. "The Development of Christology in the Early Church."

IP

18

- 518 -

(1967) :77-93. -. TJi E a itles of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Wm. 8. Eerdmans Pub. Cc., 197G. and Second Thessalonians. NCB. London; tlarshafl, Morgan & Scott, 1983. A Commenta 6ose1 of Luk 2 -. I Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1978.

Ie.

NICST.

. Last Su22er and Lords Suer. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980. -. 1970. -

ILLa.

Exeter: Paternoster Press,

. "Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical Comments." MIS 19 (1972-73):271-87. . "The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion." 12 (1965-66):327-51. Martin, Ralph P. Carmen Christi: Phi1ipians 2.5-li in Recent 2tUQa and in the Setting of Earj Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

hiffla

. Colossians and Philernon. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1974. . 2 Corinthians. WBC: 40, Waco: Word Books, Publishers, 1986. Marxsefl, Willi. Verlag, 1979. -- . Der zweite Thessalonicherbrie (2.Thessalonicherbrief. ZBK, NT: 11.2. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982. ed.; Ne York:

q;

ZBK, NT: 11.1. ZUrich: Theologischer

Iich

t. Jes. 3rd. rev. Mayor, Joseph B. IP! i! MacMillan & Company, 1913.

Mearns C. L. "Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of I and II Thessalonians." MIS 27 (1981):137-57. Merk, Otto. "Das Reich Sottes in den lukanischen Schriften." In Jesus und Paulus. Festschrift for W. 6. KUmmel. Ed. by E. Earle Ellis and Erich Graer. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Merklein, Helmut. .Jesu Botschat von der Gottesherrschaft: eine Skizze. SBS: 111. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983. . Das kirchliche Act nach dec Eheserbrie+. SANT: 33. MUnchen: Kbsel-Verlg, 1973. . "Paulinisthe Theologie in der Rezeption des Kolosser- und Epheserbriefes." In Paulus in den neutestarnentlichen

- 519 -

gjf. ij. Ed. by Karl Kertelge. DO: 89. Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1981. Metzger, Bruce 1. ItL t London, New York: United Bible Societies, 1971. Meyer, Regina Pacis. Kirche und Miss 10 Egheserb1!. SBS: 86. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibeiwerk, 1977. Plichel, Hans-Joachim. Die Abschried! Q, tZ-. MUnchen: Kdsel-Verlag, 1973. Milik, J. T. Th. Enoch: Ararnai E9o! Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. d h Ag Bedeutung. SANT: 35.

cY!

Millauer, Helmut. Leiden ale 6nade: des ersten Petrusbriefes. EH: L1 23, 56. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1976. Mitton, C. Leslie. Eghesins. NCB. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1973. It 1966. _. g LztL g arnes. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott,

Kingd

Came. London and Oxford: Mowbrays, 1978.

Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical a the Hebres. ICC, Edinburgh: 1. & 1. Clark, 1924. Morissette, Rodoiphe. "'La chair et le sang ne peuvent hriter du Regne de Dieu' (I Cor., XV, 50).0 ScEs 26 (1974):39-67. Morris, Leon. Ib! Eir Lh!a!9i_a_n_s. NICNT. 9 Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1959. Mosley, A. W. "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World." NTS 12 (1965-66) :10-26. Moule, C. F. 0. "The Christology of Acts." In t_udie in L.-AtI. Festschrift for Paul Schubert. Ed. by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. London: S. P. C. K., 1966. . "St. Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection." NTS 12 (1965-66):106-23. Moulton, James Hope. mm g LSyntax. Ed. by Nigel Turner. Edinburgh: T. & 1. Clark, 1963. Mounce, Robert H. "Pauline Eschatology and the Apocalypse." (1974):164-66. 46

Ioot

'gi..

Mowinckel, Sigmund. He Cameth. Trans. by 6. W. Anderson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956.

- 520 -

North, Christopher R. I_h! !!fl9 !E.t in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948. Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Trans. by Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949. Oberlinner, Lorenz. "Die 'Epiphaneia des Heilswillens Gottes in Christus Jesus: zur Grundstruktur der Christologie der Pastoralbriefe." ZNW 71 (1980):192-213. O'Brien, Peter T. CoiosLs, Publisher, 1982. WBC: 44. Waco: Word Books,

of the Universe in th t1e o the Odeberg, Hugh. The Lunds Universitets Arssdrift N.F.Avd. 1 Bd. 29, Nr. 6. Lund: C. N. K. Gleerup, 1934. Odendaal, Dirk H. The Eschatological 2L 1i Nas. Philadelphia: g Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1970. Lt

Oepke, Albrecht. Pe Bie des Paulus an die Galater. THNT: 9. 3rd. ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1973. . "ycCpw,

INI 11:333-39.

Oke, C. Cl. "A Doxology not to God but to Christ." Exglim 67 (1956) i367-68. 011rog, Wolf-Henning. PaL und e Mitarbet: Mission. WMANT: 50. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979.

ELtn

Orr, William F. and Waither, James Arthur. 1 Corinthians. AB: 32. Garden City, NY; Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1976. Otto, Rudolph. I Kingdom of 6od and the Son of Man. Trans. by F. V. German ed. Wilson and B. L. Woolf from the rev. London: Lutterworth Press, 1938. Page, S. H. T. "Rev. 20 and Pauline Eschatology." JETS 23 (1981):31-43. Pagels, Elaine Hiesey. I lic EA : ! etffr. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. Percy, Ernst. Die Probleme Lund: Gleerup, 1946. Perrin, Norman. Jesus and the Language 9!1 9 ! .1!O!

und Eheserbrief. SKHVL: 39.

te

It
Library. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1976. . I Press Ltd. , 1963. 9 ! ! I!ci

gdo: y9j The New Testament

9 Jesus. London: SCM

- 322 -

-.
1967.

I!Sb1

of Jesus. London: SCM Press Ltd.

Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentari O c2iLO.. ICC. Edinburgh: 1. & 1. --- i t2 Clark, 1915. Porteous, Norman W. Daniel: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press Ltd. 1965. Reardon, Bernard M. G. !1L12 I2 g New York: Longman Group Ltd., 1981. tt London and

Rehm, Martin. Der kdnliche essis is LL iJes Buches Jesaja. ES: 1. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon and Bercker, 1968. Reicke, Bo. I E 2j stles of James, Peter, and Jude. AB: 37. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964. Rengstorff, Karl Heinrich. Die Auferstehung Jet: E9r, , Q r g tc. 2nd. ed.; Ruhr: Luther Verlag cbr!t1Ic und Witten, 1954. . "600Xo, K.T.?." 11:261-80.

Richardson, Peter. "Judgment in Sexual Matters in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11." gy I 25 (1983):37-58. Riches, John. Jesus and the Transformation of Longman and Todd, 1982. London: Darton,

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Corning of the Xingdorn. Trans. by R. 0. Zorn. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962. is Iheology. Trans. by J. R. DeWitt. au: An Outline of . Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1975. In Rigaux, Bda. "Lanticipation du salut eschatologique par lEsprit." et Salut selon S. Paul (E2ttre aux Rornains 1, 16). AnBib: 42. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970. i Paul: L! -. Gabalda et C-ie, 1956. LtLB . Ihess o u i. EBib. Paris: 3.

2f of th World: An EgLL Rissi, Mathias. Th LUQ i9.ii-22.i. SBT, Second Series: 23. London: SCM Press Ltd. , 1972. Studien zum zweiten Korintherbrief. ATANT: 56. Z!.irich: Zwingli Verlag, 1969. Rec.jg.!i. Trans. by 6. C. Sf - Winsor. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1966.

- 523 -

Ritschl, Mlbrecht. i aLLth2 1 1 I2aD of this Doctrine. Trans. by H. R. MacKintosh and A. B. Macauley. Edinburgh: T. & 1. Clark, 1900. Robertson, A. 1. A Grammar of he Greek L Ia L2L1L Research. Nashville: Broadman Press 3 1934. Robinson, John A. T. Jesus and His Coming: I London: SCM Press Ltd., 1957. Lit Qf.

g of a Doctrine.

Rohde, Erwin. Psych!: Th! d Bfli!f i Immortality among 9!! ! r!! js. International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1925. Rolling;, Wayne. "The New Testament and Apocalyptic." NIS 17 (1970-71) :454-76. Roloff, Jrgen. Die Offenbarung Theologischer Verlag, 1984. Johannes. ZBK, NT: 18. Zurich:

Rowland, Christopher, "Apocalyptic Visions and the Exaltation of Christ in the Letter to the Colossians." JSNT 19 (1983h73-83. It! Q2!D
tY

9 P91Y2t! !

E1

jjjy. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1982.

Rowley, H. H. I

g LitL : i i!i Bi. t g tti. London: Lutterworth Press, 1963.

ud of Jewish and Rev. ed.;

Ruager, Sren. D i Gges und Pesg Bern, Cirencester: Peter 0. Lang, 1979. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Gerd Mohn, 1966. Russell, D. S. Between

ANTJ: 3. Frankfurt,

KAT: 13.2. GUtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus

! I!!!Ba!. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1960.

jytic. The Old ' 1!!! !t 1i2 B!BgB Bf. .BL! I1 Testament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964.

Sahlin, Harald. 'The New Exodus of Salvation according to St. Paul." In I!1! 22t 2!. ti!! L: i! iLLL t. Westminster: Dacre Press, 1953. Sand, Alexander. Rgh ! Matthus. SBS: 109. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibeiwerk, 1983. Sanday, W. "St. Paul's Equivalent for the 'Kingdom of Heaven'." JI 1 (1900) :481-91. Sanders, Jack T. I hristo1oqicaI Hymns: Ieir BtL Background. SNTSMS: 15. Cambridge, Cambridge Li.ti University Press, 1971.

- 524 -

Schade, Hans-Heinrich. Aokalygtische Christoiogie bei EeL : Studien Y9fl r!2i91! Y Paulusbriefen. GIA: 18. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Schelkie, Karl Hermann. EI! : Leben - Briefe - Theo1oie. EF: 152. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981. -. Pie eerPriee - Der Judasbrief. HTKNT: 13. 2nd. ed.; Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1964. Schenke, Hans-Martin and Fischer, Karl Martin. Einieitunq in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 1. Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlaghaus Gerd Mohn, 1978. Schiatter, Adolph. Per Evangelist Johannes. Stuttgart: Caluwer Verlag, 1948. by H. R. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. The Trans. and ed. !La Edinburgh: Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart from the 2nd. German ed. T. & 1. Clark, 1928. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Eheser: em Patmos-Verlag, 1957. Kornrnentar. Dsseldorf:

. r Br an d Galater. MeyerK: 7. 12th. ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. . htU und die Kirche irn E2heserbrief. BHT: 6. Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) , 1930. . "').Li8Epo KT.l'.' TDNT 11:487-502.

. "K$?, K.1.."

IDNI 111:673-82.

. PrinciaIities and Powers in the New lestarnent. QD: 4. London: Burns & Gates, 1961. "Reich Gottes und Kirche nach dem Neuen Testament." In Das e: e: egjb Austze und Vortrae. Vol. III. 2nd. ed.; Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1971. . Der ROmerbrief. HTKNT: 6. Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1977. "IJber die Herrschaft Christi." In Des Ende der Zeit: egetische Aufsatz und Vortrage. Vol. III. 2nd. ed.; Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1971. Schlosser, Jacques. La Rqn e Die dans 1e Dits de Jsus. 2 vols.; Paris: 3. Gabalda et C-ie diteurs, 1980. Rbiner. THNT: 6. 3rd. Schmidt, Hans Wilhelm. Der Brief ei ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1972. Schmidt, K. L. ' t cai.U, TDNT 1:564-93.

- 25 -

Schmithals, Walter. !!r2!ti9 197.

Ib

.AyIc gy ip ' I r9icUQD Trans. by J. E. Steely. Nashville: Ablngdon Prmm! t tb

n Investigation gj . Gnostiisrn in Corinth: Lst1s Corinthians. Trans. by J. E. Steely from the 3rd. German ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.

. Paul and the Gnostics. Trans. by J. E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972. Der Rdmerbrief als historisches Problem. SNT: 9. SUtersloh: GUtersioher Verlaghaus Gerd tlohn, 1975. . Die eoogj gp.kQgj s Kohihammer TaschenbUcher. Stuttgart: W. Kohihammer,

ZdZ-12 .
1980.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Benziger Verlag, 1982.

an die

EKKNT: 10. Zurich:

. London: Burns & Oates, 1974.

Trans. by W. J. O'Hara.

jgsi j. Trans. by John Murray. New York: . Herder and Herder, 1963.

. The Gose1 acggrdng to St. John. Vol. I. Trans. by Kevin Smyth. HTKNT: 4. London: Burns & Oates, 1968. to St. John. Vol. III. Trans. by D. J Smith and 8. A. Kon. London: Burns & Oates, 1982. . Die Johannesbriefe. HTKNT: 13.3. 4th. ed.; Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1970.

l gstJ..on. thi . IbgLgq Ii: StudNeot, Subsidia: 1. Paris: Descle de Brouwer, 1961.
Schoeps, H. J. !: Th! Th g 9!9 g 9 igb.t 9 9U Religjou jstory. Trans. by Harold Knight. Ed. by author for English translation. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961. Schreiner, Josef. Das . Bch a. JSHRZ: 5.4. GUtersloh: Gi.itersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1981. SchUrmann, Heinz. Gottes Rj Herder, 1983. - Ju Freiburg, Basel, Wien:

Schulz, Siegfried. g5nj na Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972.

Johannes. NTD: 4. Gttingen:

Schumacher, Heinz. s K2nigreich Stuttgart: Paulus-Verlag Karl Geyer, 1964. Schunack, Gerd. Die

Christi

f E.1su.

1!1! !! 9b!! .
- 526 -

ZBK, NT: 17. ZUrich:

Theologischer Verlag, 1982. Schweitzer, Albert. I Trans. by L. A. Garray. Ed. by Ulrich Neuenschwander. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968. Trans. by W. Montgomery. f. 2nd. ed.; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1953. History. Trans. by W. I2t!: A Critic . Montgomery. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1912. e Historical Jesus. Trans. by W. Montgomery. 3rd. ed.; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1954. Schweizer, E. Erniedrigung und Erhbhunq bel Jesus und semen Nachfolern. ATANT: 28. ZUrich: Zwingli Verlag, 1962. . "1. Korinther. 15,20-28 als Zeugnis paulinischer Eschatologie und ihrer Verwandschaft mit der Verkundigung Jesu. 8 In Jesus und Paulus. Festschrift for W. 6. KUmmel. Ed. by E. Earle Ellis and Erich Graver. 2nd. ed.; Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Good News According to Matthew. Trans. by David E. . Green. London: S. P. C. K., 1975. . Jesus. Trans. by David E. Green. The New Testament Library. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1971. . "Jesus, the Lord of his Church." AusBR 19 (1971):52-67. . "Die Kirche als Leib Christi in den paulinischen 86 (1961):241-55. Antilegomena." I Letter to the Colossians: A Cg entar. Trans. by A. . Chester. London: S. P. C. K., 1982. . "awpc*,

K.1.X"

TN1 VII:1024-94. e2testamentica. ZUrich!

. "The Son of Man Again." In Stuttgart: Zwingli Verlag, 1963.

Sellin, Gerhard. "'Die Auferstehung ist schon geschehen': zur Spiritualisierung apokalyptischer Terminologie im Neuen Testament QI 25 (1983h220-237. Shires, Henry H. Ib t21Qgi f La LLgt CL Schol, arshi. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966. Siber, Peter. tlit Christus Leben: Eine Studie zur 2aulinischen Auferstehunshoffnung. ATANT: 61. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971. Sickenberger, Joseph. Erklrung de JohannesaokaLyse. 2nd. ed., rev.; Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1942.

EL

- 527 -

Slingerland, H. Dixon.

Patriarchs: A 1ti Itt t IL of Research. SBLMS: 21. Missoula, Montana: dtLcL Scholars Press, 1977.

Smalley, Stephen S. "The Delay of the Parousia." JBL 83 (1964):41-54. . 1, 2, 3 John. WBC: 51. Waco: Word Books, Publishers, 1984. . "Spirit, Kingdom and Prayer in Luke-Acts." NovT 15 (1973) :59-71. Isaiah: Smart, James D. !tt2 IbQL2q Isaiah 35, 40-66. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965. Sneed, Richard. "'The Kingdom of God is Within You' (Lk 17,21)." CBQ 24 (1962) :363-82. Spicq, C. C-ie, 1952. EBIb. 2 vols.; Paris: J. Gabalda et

. Saint Paul: Les Eitres PastoL. EBib. 4th. ed. Paris: J. Gabalda et C-ie, 1969.

rev.;

Stanley, David Michael. Christ's Resurrection in Pauline Soterioiogy. AnBib: 13. Rome: E Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1961. . "I<ingdom to Church: The Structural Development of Apostolic (99) 16 (19551:1-29. Christianity in the New Testament." I Stauffer, Ethelbert. New the 5th. German ed. Steinmetz, F. J. o I9i99y. Trans. by John Marsh from 5th. ed.; London: SCM Press Ltd., 1955. Heils-Zuversicht:

E2heserbrief. FTS: 2. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1969. g: gu Zeue ale Angek Stolle, Volker. De BWANT: 102. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1973. Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P. und Midrasch. 4 vols.; Mnchen: C. H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung Oskar Beck, 1922-28. Strathmann, H. "no?l, IDNI VI:516-35.

Strobel, August. Der Brief an die Hebrer. NTD: 9. Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. . rygrna und A2okalyptic: Eine religionsgeschichtliCr und !gscher Beitrag zur Christus+rage. Gottingen: Vancienhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Stuhlmacher, Peter. "Erwgungen zum ontologischen Charakter der K'T(o bei Paulus." EvT 27 (1967):1-35.

KtVI

. "Erwagungen zum Problem von Gegenwart und Zukunft in der

- 528 -

pulinischen Eschatologie." ZIY 64 (1967)1423-50. Swete, Henry Barclay. I Co. , Ltd., 1906. AO1ESe of St. J2 . London: MacMillan and

Tannehill, Robert C. Dinq and Rising !LL 'L LO toiogi. BZNW: 32. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Tdpelmann, 1967. Thistleton, Anthony C. "Realized Eschatology at Corinth." tI (1978) :510-26. Thompson, Albert Aiphonso. Lo Harvard Univ. Ph. D. Dissertation, 1952.
tiLc

24

f.

l_:

P..

Thompson, J. A. I! Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. , 1980. ThUsing, Wilhelm. njrg L.S L'2 ltesten nachdsterlichen Christologie. 686: 42. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969. Tdt, H. E. The Son of Man in the Snotic Tradition. Trans. by 0. M. The New Testament Library. Barton from the 2nd. German ed. London: SCM Press Ltd. , 1965. Towner, Philip H. The Suc 2f. tora1 Eist1es. Aberdeen University Ph. 0. Thesis, 1984. Traub, Helmut. "noupvo, g .'r.X." TONI V:538-542.

Trilling, Wolfgang. P !!! !! Ib!!19!c!r (2.Ihessalonicherbrie+). EKKNT: 14. Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1980. Trummer, Peter. .Qaibrief. BET: 8. L! Frankfurt, Bern, Las Vegas: Peter Lang, 1978. Van Unnik, W. C. "La conception paulinienne de la nouvelle alliance." In Littrature et ThoLoqie Pauj. ein. RechBib: 5. Paris: Descle De Brouwer, 1960. Vermes, Geza. "The Use of BAR ENASHA/BAR ENASH in Jewish Aramaic." In Ed. by Matthew Black. 9 22rc 3rd. ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Vielhauer, Philip. "Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der VerkUndigung Jesu." In EestschiJ Ed. by W. Schneemelcher. Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1957. Vgtle, A. "Rbm 8, 19-22: eine schbpfungstheologische oder anthropologisch-soteriologische Aussage'?" In Mianges Festschrift for Bda Rigaux. Gembloux: Duculot, 1970. Vblkel, Martin. "Zur Deutung des 'Reich Gottes' bei Lukas." ZNW 65 (1974) :57-70. Volz, Paul. Die Eschatolog

4!

!inde

LL

- 529 -

2 1YQt1cb it! Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 19o Von DobchUtz, Ernst. Die nchr-Griefe. Ed. by F. Hahn. 7th. es ed.; Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Von Rad, Gerhard. I g the Pro2hets. Trans. by D. M. 6. Stalker. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1968. Bertram, 6., and Bultmann, R. "w, and Kittel, 6. "6oiw, Vos, Geerhardus. I House 1 1979. .'r.?.."

I1

11:832-75.

IDNI 11:232-55.

Escha9loy. Grand Rapids: Baker Book

-4 2f. . i gi Church. 2nd. ed.; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1955. Vos, Johannes Sijko.

ILLb. ED9LQ g i . Assen: Van

uga
Gorcum & Comp. B. V. , 1973.

Walker, William 0. "The Kingdom of the Son of Man and the Kingdom of the Father Lfl Matthew: An Exercise in Redaktionsgeschichte." c p 30 (1968): 573-79. Wallis, Wilber B. "The Problem of an Intermediate Kingdom in 1 Cor. 15:20-28." 18 (1975):229-42. Wedderburn, A. 3. M. "Paul and Jesus: The Problem of Continuity." 1985): 189-203. "The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I Corinthians xv.' t NovI 23 (1981):229-41. . "Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases 'in Christ' and 'with Christ'." JSNT 25 (1985):83-97. Weiser, Artur. I Psalm A Commentary. Trans. by H. Hartwell from the 5th. rev. German ed. The Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1962. Xindorn of God. Trans. by R. ati Weiss, Johannes. J' p f th Ed. and H. Hiers and D. L. Holland from the 2nd. German ed. introduced by R. H. Hiers. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1971. Wendland, Heinz-Dietrich. rij an Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954. NTD: 7. 6th. ed.;

38

Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 4O-6: A Commentary. Trans. by 0. 1. 6. Stalker. The Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1969. GrundzUgen. GAl: 6. . Theo1oie des Itiat! Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. White, John Roland.

- 530 -

Er

Gos9el. Ph. D.

thesis, The Southern Baptist Seminary (Louisville), 1982. White, William. "ro 3 sh." Whiteley, D. E. H. 1964. 11:825-26. Of St. Paul. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,

IQ2 g

Wikenhauser, Alfred. Der Kirche als der rnystische Leib ChristL Apos t8 l Paulus. Mnster: Verlag Aschendor+fschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1937. ! 3rd. ed.

!L8P
rev.; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1959.

RNT: 9.

Wilcke, Hans-Alwin. Das Problem ein!s iic 1co!1 Paulus. ATANT: 51. Zurich/Stuttgart: Zwingii Verlag, 1967.

P1

Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Rdmr. EKKNT: 6. 3 vols.; Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1978-82. and Ethics in the Teaching of Wilder, Amos W. Eschatoiog ed.; Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1950. Rev.

Williams, C. S. C. A Commentary on he A 9+ the Apostles. BNTC: 5. 2nd. ed.; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1964. Wilson, R. McL. Gnos 1968. and e New Test nt. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,

"How Gnostic were the Corinthians?" NTS 19 (1972-73):65-74. Wilson, Stephen 6. "Lukan Eschatology." 16 (1969-70):330-47.

r1

Epistles. London: S. P. C. K. , 1979.

Wink, Walter. Namiflg the Powers: I in Iestament. The Powers: I. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Winston, David. Th Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB: 43. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979. Wolff, Christian. Korinther: EL IiL (1.Korintherbrief 8-16). THNT: 7.2. Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1982. Wolff, Hans Walter. A Commentary on the Bo of the ProDhet Hosea. Trans. by Gary Stansell from the 2nd. German edition. Ed. by Paul D. Hanson. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Wright, 6. Ernest. God Acts: ibitcl Ibgg London: SCM Press Ltd., 1952. Yates, J. E. as Recital. SBT.

I!

Spirit and the Kingdom. London: S. P. C. K., 1963.

Zeller, Dieter. Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus: Studien

- 531 -

Rbrnerf. FB

1. Stuttgart; Katholisches Bibeiwerk, 1973.

Ziesler, J. A. "The Name of Jesus in the Acts of the Apostles.' JSNT 4 (1979) :28-41. on the Book of the Prohet Ezekiel Zimmerli, Waither. A Cornrnen Chater 25-48. Trans. by James P. Martin. Ed. by Paul 0. Hanson with Leonard Jay Greenspoon. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

- 532 -

ABB REV I PT IONS

Abbreviations All abbreviations of works ancient and modern are taken from "Instructions for Contributors," Journal blic 9 (1976)i335-46. Following is a list of abbreviations which are not included in the Instructions. ANTJ Arbeiteri zum Neuen Testament und Judentum

BNTC = Black's NT Commentaries BU CLCTT Biblische Untersuchungen Colet Library of Christian Thought and Teaching

EEv = etudes Evangeliques EF Ertrge der Forschung

EHPR = tudes d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses (Strasbourg) ES Eichsttter Studien

FB = Forschung zur Bibel SAT GTA HUT Grundrisse zum Alten Testament Gottinger Theologische Arbeiten Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie

JBLMS = JBL Monograph Series 9 JSHRZ !

c!I11 I21i!

2!!Y

Jdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rmischer Zeit

JSNT(SS) = Journal for the Study of the New Testament (Supplement Series) MIS = Marburger Theologische Studien NCB New Century Bible = LLu NLCNT NS PS Lu i2uL 9f.

I9L

The New London Commentary on the New Testament Neukirchener StudienbUcher Patristica Sorbonensia

OD = Quaestiones Disputae

533 -

!r.t1
SKHVL STh SNTU Skrifter - Kungi. Humanistika Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund Studla Theologica Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt

ThB Theologleche 8eitrge

I
TNTC

9!'

In.t (j)

!12!!

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

ITS = Trierer Theologische Studien

IQI Th!2129ic1

99 2 2!

UFHM = University of Florida Humanities Monograph WBC = Word Biblical Commentary ZBK Zrcher Bibelkommentare

ZNWKAK = Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentlichen Wissentschaft und die Kunde der altern Kirche

- 534 -

SUI'IMARY

Paul speaks of the kingdom within the broader framework of his eschatology and soteriology, and he demonstrates that the concept is of great concern to him. He uses 6coiJc(m in at least three ways: (1) as

the Future Realm of Salvation, (2) as the Manifested Rule of God, and (3) as the Mediatorial Rule of Christ. The contested epistlem, specifically 2 Tim, 4:18, add only one new definition to this range of meaning: (4) as the Heavenly Kingdom of Christ.

study of Paul s theology of the kingdom, however, must bt based on more than the pcaXCc references. For example, he uses the term

several times to speak of the future age, but he also speaks of the age to come with non-kingdom words.

The present kingdom of Christ is extremely important for Paul s theology in that this rule mediates essential kingdom blessings to the church. Paul is not limited to any one tradition about the messianic

kingdom: he is much more interested in interpreting the rule of Christ as an extension of his exaltation as For Paul the confession of

Christ as Lord is the equivalent of saying that the kingdom of God has been revealed. The partial realization of the kingdom has resulted in

the giving of kingdom blessings to the church: the power of the resurrection through the Spirit, the establishment of the church as the New People of God, the New Covenant, and the defeat of the angelic Powers. He will often allude to a prophetic prediction in speaking of present Christian experience. His allusions show that he uses the

Scriptures in an intelligent, sophisticated manner.

- 535 -

There are hints in the Pauline corpus that the apostle evangelistically "preached the kingdom of God." In the book of Acts, Luke records that the early Christians and Paul did the same. historians often fabricated speeches, not according to what was historically accurate, but according to what the historian felt was "appropriate" to the situation. But on the other hand, literary The Ancient

"appropriateness" does not necessarily preclude accuracy.

historical Paul was familiar with kingdom language and concepts of the kind envisioned by Luke. This leaves open the possibility that Luke believed kingdom language to be both appropriate and accurate when speaking of Paul.

Because of the fluid nature of the Pauline canon, it is important to compare the undisputed Pauline word with the kingdom teaching in the epistles which many consider to be pseudepigraphical. Colossians was

written apparently to combat Jewish mysticism which tempted Christians to seek access with God through asceticism and visions. The author offers the Colossians Christ who is above the angelic "Powers" and whose kingdom the church has already entered in a re-enactment of the Exodus. Ephesians was written from the same christological perspective, but in order to comfort Christians who felt threatened by evil angelic Powers. Colossians and Ephesians stress the churchs vertical relationship heaven. While some would suggest that this is a Hellenistic approach to

the cosmos, there are plenty of parallels which show that these epistles presuppose Jewish cosmology.

- 536 -

The future rule of Christ is a concept which is important especially for 2 Timothy (cf. 2 Tim. 2:12 and 4:1). The author follows the Pauline idea that the church will follow the pattern of Christ in suffering, resurrection, and ruling.

The kingdom in 2 Tim. 4:18 is located presently in heaven.

The

wording is based on the Lords Prayer and other traditions from Pauline and Christian theology. One Jewish doctrine of heaven is that the New Jerusalem is there reserved until the end; this idea is present in the undisputed Pauline epistles as well as in 2 Timothy. Some have viewed 2 Tim. 4:18 as the stepping-stone to the kingdom theology of the Hellenized Greek Fathers - some Fathers speak of the kingdom as heaven but there is no special affinity between the traditional heavenly kingdom in 2 Timothy and the kingdom in some sayings of the Fathers.

It is instructive to locate Pauls kingdom theology within the thought of the first-century church. Jesus taught that the kingdom was present in his person and future in the person and coming of the Son of Man. The church modified Jesus message of the kingdom, and this change is best seen in comparing Pauline theology with the preaching of Jesus. There were three new major factors which modified the doctrine of the kingdom: the new covenant in Christs blood, his resurrection, and his exaltation as KOpo. The other authors of the New Testament reflect this process, and they thus have both broad similarities and differences in detail with Pauline kingdom theology.

- 37 -