Jesus as Lord
September 15th, 2008 by JohnO
As I’ve given a more historical and social focus towards understanding the New Testament and Jesus things start to fall together much much neater. We all recognize that the Jewish people were longing for God to save their nation and restore them to their former glory. Ultimately, through Israel the world would be brought to order. This whole future hope is given the name “Kingdom of God” during this time period. And the Jewish zeal for this to happen was so very strong. It caused so many popular leaders, prophets, and messiah-claimants to cause violent uprisings over this two hundred year period.
At certain points in their history, it almost appeared that God was re-establishing Israel in their land. Some of these points were the Hasmonean rulers (starting with Judas Maccabee revolting under Greece) and the Herodian rulers. Each of these times were extremely turbulent and violent. Judas Maccabee literally waged war with Greece while they were busy at war with Rome on their western front. During hard economic times banditry and raiding of the cities and outlying areas were common. This banditry was done by the Israelite people to other Israelite people. It was done out of a perceived necessity to survive, and was rationalized by the fact that they were really stealing from the ruling empire, whether they be Greek or Roman. The Herodian takeover was from within, with murder and changing loyalties all around it. It was clear, from both the circumstances around the rulers and authorities, and the way in which they ruled their own people that it was certainly not God restoring Israel to their hope. Since Israel believed their prophets telling them about a future hope, a restored Davidic Kingdom – and they were not currently experiencing that fulfillment – it must be coming.
Since the current rulers of Israel were, to both the common people, groups like the Pharisees and Essenes, and popular leaders, the prophetic announcement of the Kingdom of God, or of a coming Messiah became, of necessity, a critique of the current Jewish ruling class. These proclamations would be like the modern call for a presidential impeachment or a lack of confidence vote in the legislative body. And the frequency with which these claims were voiced in the first century is staggering. There are at least six Messiah claimants in this time period!
So, if Jesus, who claims to be the Messiah, is announcing the Kingdom of God he is a serious threat to the ruling class. Because he is telling them, they are doing a horrible job. This isn’t a nobody doing it either. This is a powerful prophet, doing miracles, and YHWH is clearly in his corner on this issue. Isaiah 11 describes the character of God’s ideal King for Israel, and Jesus looks a lot closer to it than the current Jewish rulers. They obviously took his threats seriously and crucified him. But to everyone’s surprise, God resurrected and vindicated Jesus and his claims. So, Jesus’ critique of the Jewish ruling class was dead on – and he was the ideal ruler as the Messiah.
As we’ve gone over in the “Politics of the Message” blog posts, Paul takes this idea to its next step. Since it was the Romans who executed Jesus, and Jesus came out victorious, Jesus is the real Lord and Caesar is not. The progression is simple and clear. If Jesus’ Kingdom proclaimation was a social critique to his Jewish contemporaries – it is the same toward Rome. And Jesus was victorious over Caesar who had him crucified for attempting to usurp authority. Caesar’s claim of authority, symbolic in the word kyrios, Lord, is not appropriate, he fails to match God’s description of a good ruler also. Jesus is the real Lord.
The Gospel proclaimation of a crucified Messiah who proclaimed the Kingdom and is now Lord, at a fundamental level, contains the implicit idea of a critique of all those in authority. The further from Jesus they look like, the more in danger of judgment they are. Look what God did to the Jewish people in 70AD, they didn’t listen to Jesus and John the Baptist to repent. Rather, both the common people and the Jewish rulers continued to act violently. No doubt it was their zeal for restoration that prompted them, but they didn’t listen to Jesus as to how to live out that zeal.
So what does it mean that Jesus is Lord? On one level it means that Jesus is the type of leader we are looking for. Only his character and attributes are what God seeks in a leader. On another level it means that Jesus is the only one who is saving (one of the biggest claims for Caesar, Lord and Savior) at this time. He is bringing order and salvation here and now to those who repent and have faith. Yet on another level it means that Jesus is the one who has authority over the world. And he is going to come and claim it. May we all bow down to the King.
That last paragraph is a good summation of the current state of the Kingdom, as being present in a hidden, seed form. “He is bringing order and salvation here and now to those who repent and have faith.” This is a partial fulfillment, as well as a foreshadowing of the complete fulfillment. “Yet on another level it means that Jesus is the one who has authority over the world.” But the world doesn’t see it yet. Heb. 2:8 – “YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.” However, one day, “…he is going to come and claim it,” as you say. It’s in the works even now. “May we all bow down to the King,” indeed.
Am I the only one who doesn’t believe in partial fulfillments?
Well, you could read that Heb. 2:8 line as, “we do not see ALL THINGS subjected to him” or “we do not see ALL things subjected to him”
If a partial subjection today is the obedience of the faithful ones then perhaps we have partial fulfillment, but (now you don’t have to feel so lonely Sean) as I propose that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world and will begin at the end of the age.
(John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. AND 2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; AND 1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.)
As to the pointing out of Jesus’ lordship, indeed, all bow in reverence the our King.
John, excellent article. I think when we come to talk about Jesus as Lord we should first get clear what Jesus is saying (in his own 1st century, Jewish context) then ask the question of how those in that context reacted to what he was saying. Then once the Jesus movement moved beyond Judea and Galilee (and Samaria, cf. John 4; Acts 8 ) to the wider Mediterranean (Roman) world, we have to ask how the early evangelists communicated Jesus’ message to that world and also look at how the Mediterranean world reacted. I think this is what you have done in this brief article. It is a good methodology and yields some significant fruit.
One may also add the moment in John’s crucifixion narrative when the chief priests (ruling Jewish party) effectively committed high treason by saying, “we have no king but Caesar” to Caesar’s representative (Pilate) in order to get Jesus (who was condemned for claiming to be the Messiah) killed by the State. Further we may add as supporting evidence of your thesis concerning Jesus-as-Lord as threat/critique of ruling powers, that in Thessalonica the (violent) opponents of Paul and his companion(s) had this to say, “These men who have upset the world have come here also; and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” (Acts 17.6-7). Yet, we need to also work out the fact that later Paul does defend himself by saying, “I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar” (Acts 25.8). Perhaps, this statement needs to be synthesized with the notion that Paul was a politically subversive radical who preached Jesus rather than Caesar as the true Lord of the world.
Furthermore, what was conspicuously absent from your short essay was the notion of Jesus as personal lord in the sense that we obey him (Luke 6.46). But, once someone grasps the bigger idea of Jesus-as-Lord of the world, of course, submission/acceptance of that fact results in individual obedience. (Of course we would live the way he said to sense he is the Lord of the world).
Also, I would argue that the “Jesus is Lord” declaration of Pentecost (Acts 2) is interpreted from the grid of Ps. 110.1ff (which of course confirms what you’ve already been saying). Thus, the Jewish notion of “Lord” or more accurately “David’s lord” is the one whom the true God has invested with the authority to rule the world (from Zion) in apposition with Caesar or whatever incarnation empire may take at the moment we live.
It is interesting that the Zealots maxim was “no King but God”. I’m sure that Jesus and the gospel writers would have known that, and therefore, for the chief priests to say “no King but Caesar” would have been likened to Jewish treason against Israel and against YHWH.
And good observation about the personal lord part. No one really argues that point, so I didn’t feel it necessary to include it in a more historical analysis. But of course, if you recognize Jesus as lord of the world and repent, you’re going to do what he says. That is the lord you’re going to obey. Don’t know if the “personal” part really applies. We might consider shedding that language since it suggests relativity, i.e. I accept Jesus as my own lord, based on personal preference – and you might have different ones, therefore it is fine he is not your lord. Rather, Jesus is lord of the world, that is the Christian challenge to the world, to fall in line under that lord. Otherwise the king will slay all those who refuse to be ruled over by him – like the parable.
I think it is interesting in the difference between the KJV and the NASB in the translation of Romans 10:9
KJV That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
NASB that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.
The Greek fits with the KJV. We are not confessing Jesus as Lord, but rather we are recognizing the reality of the Lordship of Jesus.
Sean
You wrote: “I think when we come to talk about Jesus as Lord we should first get clear what Jesus is saying (in his own 1st century, Jewish context)”
How does one know the 1st century Jewish context?
Brian,
The first century Jewish/Second Temple Judaism context can be found through history, sociology, archeology, and analyzing all of the writings from the time period. Those would include Josephus, DSS, parts of the apocrypha, other wisdom writings, and the new testament. Of some, but lesser, importance is the Talmud and philo. The so-called “third quest” mounted by Sanders, Dunn, Wright, Blomberg, Evans, et al works with all this data to create a picture of context.
Indeed, to be thorough, one would have to do what John just said. But I was thinking more along the lines of looking in the Gospels and seeing how Jesus spoke and how his disciples and enemies reacted.
When I referred to the “partial fulfillment,” I was referring to what Jesus spoke of in his parables. Many of the parables about the kingdom involved the image of a seed being planted and growing. In them, Jesus described the nature of the Kingdom of God as being hidden, and growing in a way that is not seen for the most part. He compares it with wheat and tares, showing that it will continue to grow in the midst of this evil age, until the time of the harvest. He compares it with a mustard seed, and with leaven as well.
These parables present a slightly different view of the Kingdom than what is presented in the Old Testament prophecies. Yet Jesus confirmed the prophecies at other points. His presentation of the mysteries of the Kingdom did not involve a redefining of the Kingdom, of course, but rather an added understanding of an interim period before the inauguration of the Age to Come.
Hebrews 2:8 says that God has (already) put all things in subjection under his feet, but adds that “…now we see not yet all things put under him.” Hebrews 6:4-5 refers to those who have “tasted of the heavenly gift…and the powers of the world to come.” The blessings of the Age to Come can be tasted, to an extent, in the midst of this present evil age.
I think this is the only way to maintain the eschatological nature of the Kingdom, but still understand passages where the Kingdom is said to be present in some way, such as:
-Matthew 12:28 (and Luke 11:20), where Jesus said that if a demon is cast out, “The Kingdom of God is come upon you”
-Luke 10:9-11, where Jesus instructed his disciples to heal the sick and say to them, “The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you”
-Luke 17:21, where Jesus said, “The kingdom of God is in your midst”
-Rom. 14:17, “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost”
-I Cor. 4:20, “the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power”
-Colossians 1:13, God “hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.”)
In addition, the outpouring of the holy spirit on Pentecost was said to be a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy in Acts 2, but obviously was not the complete fulfillment, since the prophecy included signs in the heavens and other references to an eschatological event. The holy spirit is referred to as a token in several places (Eph. 1:13-14; II Cor. 1:21-22; 5:5). The New Covenant as prophesied in the OT included the outpouring of spirit, and the Word planted in people’s hearts. We have a partial fulfillment of that now as well, foreshadowing the complete fulfillment when Christ returns.
As I understand it, Jesus is Lord now, not only in each person’s life, but as head of the Church. He reigns in heaven, so his reign is hidden, but one day he will return and reign visibly on earth. “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
Hi everybody
Mark C. mentions a “partial fulfillment” of prophecy …. I used to think along such lines also because of what I had been taught and what I had read in many theological books ….
BUT do the Scriptures even speak of such a thing as a “partial” fulfilment of a prophecy? or is such simply an invention of a theological mind that wants to hold on to a certain interpretation and idea which doesn’t quite seem to fit with all that is prophesied and revealed about a particular matter?
Can a prophecy even PARITALLY fulfilled? Doesn’t the use of the term “FULFILLED” in itself already exclude the idea of “partial”? A prophecy has either been fulfilled or it hasn’t been fulfilled as of yet …
It seems that folks do recognize that there is kind of a dilemma with something in their understanding of the kingdom of God as being a political earthly kingdom … Ever thought that perhaps that premise is what causes the dilemma?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
I provided Scripture references. If you have Scripture to back up your view, then present it. And you would also need to explain how the Scriptures that I presented fit with your interpretation better than mine.
PS –
I just reread my previous post (#9) and realized that while I mentioned Jesus’ parables, I didn’t give the reference. The ones dealing with the mysteries of the Kingdom are primarily in Matthew 13, Mark 4, and Luke 8.
Hi Mark C.,
you wrote above
Yes, you gave scripture references … but those do NOT necessarily prove or show something like a “partial” fulfilment of prophecy. That is what you (and other theologians and authors of various books) interpret those scriptures … BUT the question remains, whether the idea of a “partial fulfilment” (which in itself already contradicts the plain concept of something either being fulfilled or not) is a valid premise for understanding Biblical prophecy.
I refer to the same Scripture references you gave and would say that they do not promote the idea of partial fulfilment of the prophecies to which reference is made … instead, a careful reading in context shows that fulfillment at the time of writing was in some cases imminent and in other cases already a reality …
There is no such thing as a “partial fulfilment” mentioned or indicated … or do you read Jesus saying that the kingdom of God had partially come or certain aspects of it were already a reality while other aspects of what was prophesied in the OT Scriptures concerning it were not a reality as of yet and would not be until some undefined far away future time? I do not read of such an idea … such ideas I used to read into those verses in following what I had read or heard and endeavouring to make sense of what seemed a dilemma (because no earthly, political kingdom of God has come about in almost 2000 years since Jesus made his declarations.
This thread is about Jesus being Lord and already reigning …. and yet, many folks say he doesn’t really reign in his kingdom as of yet (because no earthly political kingdom as they expect has come to pass until now) but only reigns partially in heaven (and yet, at other times they boldly say his reign is not in heaven but in a political kingdom on earth) … lots of self-contradictory theological ideas …. Why is it so difficult to realize that Christ indeed ascended to the Ancient of Days and received his kingdom and is now reigning in his kingdom (cp Daniel’s prophecy)? Why promote essentially 2 different reigns of Christ (kingdoms of God) => (a) one now in heaven, and (b) a yet future one in an earthly political kingdom … when the Bible clearly does not even hint at any such idea?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
I don’t really believe in partial fulfillments either. I don’t think that fits with the biblical picture and history of jewish prophetic movements. Rather, most of the time when we think we’re dealing with partial fulfillments, we’re really dealing with a recombination of material, in some ways a midrash. Only fundamentalist theologians talk in the language of partial fulfillment, and, if I had a guess, it is because of their western intellectual “literal” approach to the Scriptures, combined with their doctrine of inerrancy and inspiration – not actually because a partial fulfillment is the best solution.
Wolfgang,
Daniel states clearly that when the kingdom of God comes all the earthly, political nations will be ruled by him (think Australia, US, Germany, etc.). Please note it says “all the kingdoms under the whole heaven…” This is clearly talking about an earthly political kingdom being set up by God through the Son of Man at the end when the saints will inherit it.
cf. the Lord’s prayer (Mt 6.9-10)…a petition that God’s kingdom would come on earth and his will would be done here…it is already being done in heaven.
John
You indicate that fundamentalist theologians are in error do, in part, to “their doctrine of inerrancy and inspiration” I was wondering what this meant and what your position was on the correct way to approach the Scriptures?
Sean
Unless the return of Jesus comes fairly soon, I doubt if Australia, USA or Germany will be nations.
Wolfgang,
Once again you simply restate your position without citing Scripture to prove your point; nor do you offer any alternative explanation of the Scriptures I referred to. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
There are actually quite a few non-fundamentalists who speak of partial fulfillments. Have you read George Ladd’s The Gospel of the Kingdom? There is also a good video presentation by Russell Magaw & Steve Taylor called The Kingdom: Present, Future, or Both?. It’s on the Age To Come Media page, and can be found here:
http://videos.theagetocome.org/atc01-06.wmv
If you don’t believe in a partial fulfillment, what do you make of Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares, growing together in the field until the harvest? What do you make of his other parables that describe the Kingdom as being in the world in a hidden “seed” form for a period of time, before the eschatological aspects of the Kingdom come to pass? What do you make of those verses I quoted in post #9 which speak of the Kingdom being present in some way? What do you make of Hebrews 6:4-5, which refers to those who have “tasted of the heavenly gift…and the powers of the world to come”? And what of the references to the holy spirit being a “token” of what is to come?
You say you don’t think it “fits with the biblical picture and history of Jewish prophetic movements.” That’s because they didn’t know about this aspect until Jesus revealed it. He taught the disciples about the “mysteries of the Kingdom” which gave added understanding about the Kingdom beyond what was prophesied, but which didn’t contradict or redefine the primary meaning of the Kingdom which was eschatological. Check out my article here:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/KingdomCome.htm#mysteries
John,
Depending on how you read prophesy, Germany will be here only stronger!
I know some don’t agree with me, but, I still see the government of the Beast as the European Union. The revived Roman Empire, with the Pope as the false prophet.
The seemingly more popular view being that the king of the north being the northern Arab countries and those countries that are wrapped around the top of the Meditaranian Sea. This being lead by an Assyrian beast and an Islamic false prophet.
Both the Islamic religion and the Catholic religion have a very bloody past.
Though the Catholics may have had a Pope apoligize for the Inquistion both Spanish and European, they still reserve the for themselves the power to reignite the inquistion to draw all men under the umbrella of the “Mother Church”.
As we can see the Islamics are a bloody people and religion.
It will truly be amazing how all the speculation matches up with the conclusion of this age!!
Mark E. DeYoung
Mark C,
Our tradition is fundamentalist, as well as the COG tradition. So point to Steve Taylor, and I find Steve to be a wonderful teacher, pastor, and Christian whom I’ve had the pleasure of fellowship with in Atlanta, only re-iterates my point. And Ladd would disagree with the common exegesis of Mt 24 found here.
What Jesus was talking about was not a partial fulfillment of the Kingdom now, though I understand how one could see it that way. I suggest taking a look at The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation by Brad Young (I’ve used his work on KR before) for a first century Jewish way of understanding Jesus’ parables.
Hi Mark C.,
you don’t seem to realize that “citing Scripture to prove a point” is not even what you and others do here either … you cite scripture and then you INTERPRET them a certain way based on a particular premise of a definition of the term “kingdom”, sort of like “earthly political nation governed by a king”. It’s not the citiing of Scriptures which supposedly proves your point, it is the premise of the definition given to the term “kingdom” which supposedly proves your point.
I was referring to the same scriptures you or others had mentioned and spoken of as being a reerence to “partial fulfillment of the kingdom prophecies” … should I have just re-cited the same scripture reerences and then you would have accepted my point concerning the matter of “partial fulfillment” as being something I don’t think to be biblical?
My point is not linked to any particular scripture reference … I am questioning that the interpretation of a “partial fulfillment” of prophecy can be correct, because – as I see it – such a concept is nOT found in Scripture, where prphecy is either said to have been fulfilled or it has not been fulfilled.
CHeers,
Wolfgang
Hi Sean,
once again, it seems that it is an assumed definition of the term “kingdom” as an “earthly political rule over a nation or nations” which leads to the interpretation and understanding you mention here of what Daniel prophesied.
What Daniel says doesn’t have to describe a political rule over political nations at all …
See, in the OT age, the sphere of God’s reign in a people and nation on earth was rather distinct to one nation, which He had chosen (the nation of Israel). There was a change wihen that nation rejected God’s Messiah and all nations then became the sphere of influence of God’s reign (Jew and Gentile) afterwards (cp Jesus’ prediction that the kingdom would be taken from Israel and given to another, as well as various other NT Scriptures which speak of the expansion to all nations)
You also seem to view “the kingdom” as sort of an absolute political dictatorship of Jesus where no other person can be in power anywhere in a nation on the earth .. but is that what God’s reign via His Messiah is about? How about the OT example when God Himself was still Israel’s king (before the Davidic kingdom)? Was even all Israel all the time in obedience to God’s reign? Was God’s reign a political earthly reign? Later on, when there was an earthly political king (who supposedly was to reign as God’s representative), was all Israel in submission and obedience and did that king reign as a sort of dictator in absolute political power? No …. Who says then that when the Messiah reigns over all earthly kingdoms, it is a political reign and dictatorship? Have you considered how with OT Israel, the introduction of an earthly political king was NOT God’s idea at all, but a rebellious desire of the people? Had God’s reign (HIs kingdom) over Israel been earthly political? No… Why should it be earthly political now after the Messiah has received his reign and is reigning in all kingdoms under heaven from his throne at the right hand of God?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
These very scriptures from Daniel are used in the first century by Jesus, his allies, and his opponents to refer to an “earthly political rule over a nation or nations” EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Yes, it *could* not mean that. But clearly in the context of second temple judaism it DOES mean that.
JohnO,
Out of curiosity how do you define fundamentalist? What is the fundamental? Is it belief in the Bible as true? Also, what are the other categories? Do you see only fundamentalists and liberals? Are there moderates? Isn’t the term fundamentalist pejorative? It sure is used that way in the media. Sorry…that’s a lot of questions, but I’m just curious how you self-identify and how the categories/labels work.
Hi John O.,
actually, it is NOT ever used by Jesus in this sense …
His opponents (the Jewish leadership) certainly did expect a kingdom in this manner, and because Jesus did not “fit their bill”, they eventually got rid of him … and due to their failure of recognizing what the true meaning of God’s reign via His Messiah was about, they set their own doom in motion with their rebellion against Rome while expecting to the last day that the Messiah would show up on the scene and defeat the Roman army and every other nation to make them the top nation of the world … when they recognized that they were wrong in their expectations, they finally killed themselves …
How do you understand the points I mention by way of question in my last paragraph in my earlier post?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
You can assert that Jesus never referenced Daniel with the expectation of an earthly political involvement – but Mt 24 as read within a Second Temple Judaic view (not a 21st century western Christian view) fits the bill to a ‘T’. See any biblical studies scholar doing historical Jesus work in the last forty years, from Sanders, to Borg, to Crossan, to Wright, to Evans, to Blomberg, and even as far back as Schweitzer, and Weiss.
I’m sorry this does not fit with your current position and interpretation based on looking backwards from the twenty first (and beyond) centuries. But when talking about original intent and social context – this is exactly what Jesus is talking about. Feel free to re-read Jesus and put a theology together – but do not imagine that it is the original intent of Jesus. That can only be gained through historical, and sociological research into the second temple period. If you want to convince/persuade us concerning the idea that Jesus never ever was concerned with an earthly israelite-centered political entity, you have to do it from second temple judaism. You cannot argue the means from the ends (i.e. a Kingdom did not come, therefore Jesus was not talking about that).
Sean,
As far as a fundamentalist goes, I would suggest a few markers; one, an attempt to remove cultural influences from the text, two, an attempt to remove literary types from the text, third, an extremely high view of the text – by which God himself writes each and every actual word, resulting in the need for a super-literal reading of the text, and fourth, an attempt to socially mandate God’s will.
I don’t consider myself a fundamentalist, though in the past I would have been one. There is absolutely a moderate position, that might or might not hold to any one of those four distinctions. There is absolutely a liberal position that would not in any way hold to any of those distinctions.
From your definition, I wouldn’t categorize COG as fundamentalist, especially regarding the “attempt to socially mandate God’s will.” But regardless, that doesn’t affect what Steve or others teach. Also, regardless of how Ladd understands Matt. 24, his explanation of the Kingdom as both present and future makes sense from a plain reading of the NT, IMO.
I don’t have the time to search out a book. Could you summaraize the points of Brad Young’s explanation?
But also, it’s not just the parables. There are quite a few references to the nature and especially the power of the Kingdom to come being seen in a “hidden” or “seed” form during this interim period. This was among the “mysteries of the Kingdom” which Jesus revealed to his disciples. Allow me to repost my previous references.
If you don’t consider what we have now to be a partial fulfillment and a token of what is to come, then what do you consider us to have now? Do you subscribe to the theory that we have only the promise of what is to come? Hebrews 6:4-5 indicates that we have more than just a promise. It refers to those who have “tasted of the heavenly gift…and the powers of the world to come”? The transforming and regenerating power of the holy spirit begins its work even now, as a foreshadowing of the ultimate fulfillment.
Being a fundamentalist is certainly a “worldview” issue, it affects everything you do, including what and how you teach it. I’ll have to send you an email with some of the writing I’ve done on Brad Young, it was a fantastic book. I’d suggest putting on your holiday wish list
(I know you’ve got one!! We all do).
We do have more than a promise. We don’t have half a Kingdom, nor a partial Kingdom. We have just what Jesus intended to bring – the power of the Kingdom in the present. This is why the church is the signpost of the coming Kingdom, because the Kingdom is at work in it. The Kingdom isn’t here, and not here, all at the same time (the common already/not-yet language). The eschatalogical Kingdom is clearly not here, the NT says as much. But some eschatalogical things have happened. And to atomistically approach this in a western mindset and say: “This is partially here, this isn’t here, this is totally/fully here” is not the mindset they had in the first century. So I question why we should have it. When Matthew writes “fulfilled” he means it, he doesn’t mean “half-fulfilled” or “partially fulfilled”. It might be a midrash that is entirely fulfilled, but it is entirely fulfilled. The “partial fulfillment” to me, seems like double-speak to ignore hard questions, aka, “have our cake and eat it too”.
This sounds like another way of saying the same thing as I’m saying. Of course the eschatological Kingdom is not here. but we can experience a foretaste of it now.
I wouldn’t say “this is partially here.” But I would say “this is here in a limited form” or “in its seed form.” Even the resurrection of Jesus is a “partial fulfillment” of the promise of a mass resurrection. And the New Covenant (as we have it now), along with the New Birth and the regenerating power of the holy spirit can be said to be temporary, “token” or “seed-form” fulfillments which point toward the ultimate fulfillment to come.
The resurrection of Jesus has nothing to do with a partial fulfillment of the general resurrection. The question of resurrection and restoration was very much in doubt in the first century. It was clung to strongly as hope. The resurrection of Jesus proves that resurrection is possible, that restoration will come, and that Jesus’ message is vindicated. The “token” of the spirit doesn’t mean “small dose in advance”. I think the mindset of down-payment is incorrect. It brings lots of connotations that I think are misdirected. The Scriptures in no way indicate that the spirit is a small gift, or only part of what God wants for us. The “token” is to signify that God is faithful to his promise of restoration. I think to interpret Jesus’ mustard seed parable as saying a “small interim period” is wrong, and does violence to its Jewish context. Again if the eschatological Kingdom is not here, why are we saying it is partially here?
also, we might add that Hebrews 10 indicates the New Covenant is here. For those who think the New Covenant is future I would be curious why they are not keeping the Old Covenant (i.e. no pork, sabbath, feast days, etc.). The NC is here in full for the covenant people.
Regarding Mat 12.28; Luke 11.20 see this post
Luke 10.9-11 “the k has come near to you” is in my understanding a way of saying that the k message has been preached which means that entrance to the k has been offered. I take the phrase figuratively, not that the k literally moved spatially or temporally near to them, but that the invitation to the k has come near to them.
Regarding Luke 17.21 see this post or this one
Rom 14.17 and 1 Cor 4.20 are not convincing to me as evidence that the kingdom is here. In the first case Paul is saying that what we eat doesn’t really matters what matters are righteousness, peace, joy in the HS (i.e. the things that last). In the second case 1 Cor 4.20 can easily apply either way. When the kingdom does come it will be with power (not just a bunch of talk).
Col 1.13 is probably the most difficult expression. It seems to indicate that the church is already living in the kingdom. Even so, our preterist friends would disagree with this because Col. is pre a.d.70. Furthermore, Paul himself regularly speaks of entering the k as a future event which is thwarted by sin (1 Cor 6.9-10; Gal 5.19-21; Eph 5.3-5). So we have two options with Col 1.13. (1) It is literal and we are already living in the kingdom as a sort of existential reality in our hearts such that God reigns among us. (2) We have another instance of figurative language, similar to what Weiss says (see the link to Mat 12.28; Luke 11.20 above)–that God has established the kingdom in the spiritual realm which means it will undoubtedly come to pass on the earthly scene (i.e. it is predestined). In this view we “have been translated into the kingdom” in the sense that we have the ticket to the concert. In other words, Col 1.13 is saying that once the kingdom comes we will enter it (of course, this assumes we do not fall away first).
When the OT talks about the outpouring of the spirit it is a corporate event that occurs at the end of the age (i.e. it is a kingdom event). see Isaiah 32:13-18; 44:1-5; Ezekiel 11:17-20; Ezekiel 36:24-28, 33-35; 37:12-14; 39:25 – 29; Joel 2:28 – 3:2. Thus, what Jesus does in Acts 1, by promising the spirit to come soon triggers the question: is this the time to restore the k to Israel? Jesus responds by saying that thought it is not given for us to know when the k will come, the spirit is coming soon. This is the first time the idea of the outpouring of the spirit was to precede the coming of the k. In other words, Jesus promised that the spirit was going to be poured out early, in only a few days. This is what happened on Pentecost. It was a kingdom event. The spirit belongs there, in the future, not here. But, God in his wisdom has poured it out early in order to enable us to live the k lifestyle and speak the k message in the power of the spirit as a foretaste of the k, and as a signpost of its coming.
This is how the spirit is a token. It is a token of the coming kingdom. It is not a token of a future outpouring of the spirit. And the spirit is how God has fulfilled the New Covenant promise as well.
At least that’s how I see it all.
With bringing the New Covenant and the Spirit into the conversation, (I know Mark brought spirit up earlier, but Sean covered it a bit more extensively) I thought of how this discussion on the fulfillment of Scripture regarding the kingdom up until now was somewhat “atomistic” if that’s the right word. It seems that we, with our 21st Century, Western mind set want to categorize things in a way that our 1st Century brethren would not. I know this makes things a bit difficult to discuss at times; but the further we get from a holistic understanding of the Scriptures, the more we tend to get off track. One cannot go very far in the discussion of the kingdom, without bringing in things like the New Covenant, the Spirit, and I might add, the King. I have wondered how does the partial fulfillment of the prophecies relating to the Messiah play a part in our understanding of the kingdom?
Brian,
I would say it is very influential. I know that when I learned that there was no uniform ‘messiah’ figure that Judaism expected – it blew my socks off. Of course, because the popular christianized myth is exactly the opposite. Either, the Jewish people expected the Messiah to die – and Jesus did exactly that. Or, the Jewish people expected a warrior Messiah to come and get rid of the Romans – and Jesus did exactly the opposite of that. Surely, some Jews wanted a warrior Messiah, and did lots of work to make that happen – but to say it was an expectation across the board is to go too far. Often it is the vocal minority that makes history. So to say that Jesus “partially fulfilled” a “niche” understanding of Messiah is strange (to me at least). It seems the better course of action is to see just what “Messiah” means to Jesus in his first century Jewish context. And then, we can see whether he fulfilled it or not.
I can’t help but think that we need more so to understand what the Scriptural anticipation of the Messiah is and was. I recognize that there was no uniform expectation in reference to the Messiah, but to me that speaks all the more how the 1stC Jewish thought on messiahship is secondary to what the Scriptures teach about God’s Messiah. Jesus came to the Jews in the 1st C, yet most of them did not believe that he was the Messiah. My reading of the Gospels causes me to think that Jesus was not all that concerned whether he met THEIR idea of who the Messiah should be and what he should do. Even those who did believe that he was the Messiah had a limited understanding who he was and what he was doing. Jesus was much more concerned with fulfilling those things which his Father wanted him to. By “partially fulfilled” I don’t mean that a specific prophecy was only partially carried out, but rather that when one looks at the whole of prophecy concerning the Messiah, some of them have been fulfilled. For example Luke 4:
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
Other prophecies concerning the birth of the Messiah come to mind as well.
I don’t think we can think about the word, “messiah,” apart from the words, “son of David.” In other words, the messiah idea (at least from the birth narratives in Mat & Luke) is centered on the notion of ruling on the throne of David. This is also what people shouted out when Jesus enacted the Zecharaiah 9 prophecy by riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. They said, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord; Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in the highest!” (conflation of Mt 21.9; Mk 11.10; Lk 19.38).
Furthermore, the crucifixion narratives are loaded with terms that are roughly synonymous in reference to Jesus. In particular, ‘son of God.’ ‘messiah,’ ‘king of the jews,’ and ‘son of man.’
Then of course, we should note that Jesus preferred to ‘son of man’ for himself. This one, I still think, is from Dan 7.13-14, though it seems to be more complicated than I used to think. Anyhow, ‘son of man’ is an important title that needs to be reckoned with if we are to get at Jesus’ self-understanding of his role.
He didn’t go around telling ppl he was the messiah. (of course there are exceptions like Jn 4 — woman at the well). Furthermore, he told ppl not to tell others that he was the messiah (presumably so as to not instigate a crucifixion before it was time).
One more thing. Jesus also spoke with a certain authority. This authority often leads our fellow trinitarian Christians into finding evidence that Jesus is God, but I would lump it into the category of ‘messianic authority’ or ‘messianic perogatives.’
Brian,
Just to throw in one more wrench, some Jewish people expected no messiah at all. But do go on with your point: what the Scriptures say according to who? Us western Christians today? The third century Greek ‘fathers’? The first century Jewish people? Paul? Jesus? The original writer? All of them?
What happens when they don’t agree? What happens when Paul or Jesus uses a passage in a new innovative way? What happens when the gospels disagree?
Isn’t Jesus’ understanding similar in some ways to the first century Jewish people? Or does he stick out like a sore thumb?
I assume the “some Jewish people” you are referring to were the Sadducees? If I understand correctly, they did not believe in any kind of after-life, resurrection or angels. I suspect they didn’t believe in a coming messiah either. Anyhow, this would fit because they were sell-outs who participated with Rome to keep the peace in Jerusalem and keeping the money flowing (through the temple).
Regarding your very post-modern/deconstructionist approach to messianic prophecy I would suggest a strategy. First let’s understand (to the best of our ability) what the messianic prophecies meant in their original historical context. Then let’s move towards the time of Jesus, and allow the history to unfold (including especially the Hasmonean Disaster and the Roman Occupation). Then we move to just before the 1st century when Gabriel prophecied concerning the destiny of the messiah to his soon to be mother (in Matthew & Luke).
We can definitely say that one strand of messianic expectation, grounded in the Hebrew Scriptures, and also present post-Hasmonean Dynasty was the idea of a “son of David” to rule on the throne and restore sovereignty to Israel.
A second strand is preserved in the cosmic picture portrayed in the son of man figure in Dan. 7 (and then elaborated upon by popular fiction, i.e. the book of Enoch). This title is especially important because Jesus prefers it for himself and specificially quotes Dan 7.13-14 and conflates that prophecy with Psalm 110.1.
A third strand is priestly, about which the writer of Hebrews has much to say, with the Melchizedekan idea (also from Psalm 110).
Last of all is the suffering servant strand–the crimson thread–running throughout the songs between Isaiah 42 to 53.
Could it be that any one man could be all of these things at once?
Sean,
Yes the Saducees expected no Messiah, because they expected no restoration. They felt that God had restored them to the throne of Israel. And whether or not they were doing a good or bad job – a full on restoration was not necessary.
My approach is only post-modern because it questions the modernist assumption that a text (specifically the Scriptures) always and only means one thing to all peoples of all times. In addition to being post-modern, it would also be pre-modern. The modernist fallacy only comes into the picture with the Enlightenment period.
With the standard firs picture you give of a Messiah, the Davidic descent is sometimes unnecessary for Messiah-claimants.
I don’t believe that the Daniel texts prompted the idea of a Messiah at all. It did prompt the ideas of restoration, vindication, and restoration, but the son of man was not initially seen as one single man – it was rather a literary representation of Israel.
And the third priestly strand has lots of variations from the dead sea scrolls, the idea of the messiah subserviant to the high priest, or two messiahs, one priestly, and one Davidic.
I’m not sure whether the suffering servant was seen as Messianic. However it was extremely popular for prophet figures and martyrs to lean on these passages as individuals, that their suffering for God’s law and ways was efficacious to the coming restoration.
What group(s) did not believe in a davidic messiah?
Also, it appears you have no place for biblical theology. The notion that God may be unfolding his purposes throughout the Scripture from early times to Jesus and beyond along specified themes is apparently incompatible with your approach. In other words, the way Christians have generally sought to understand a given text (especially prophecy) was, I think, to ask the question, what is God communicating here. This certainly avoids all of the post-modern baggage.
The resurrected Jesus is called the “firstfruits.”
1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
He is also called “the beginning, the firstborn from the dead.”
Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
The Greek word for ‘earnest’ in KJV (‘pledge’ in NASB) is arrhabon, which Strongs defines as “a pledge, i.e. part of the purchase-money or property given in advance as security for the rest.”
The OT prophecies of the New Covenant included not only pouring out the spirit, but also planting the Word in the people’s hearts. See Jer. 31:31-34; 32:27-42; Isa. 59:21. Pouring out God’s spirit in a future time is also mentioned in Isaiah 32:15 and 44:3, although the word “covenant” is not specifically used.
In addition, two other passages from the Prophets refer to God’s promise to pour out His spirit on His people, Ezek. 36:25-27 and Joel 2:28-31. We know that the complete fulfillment of the New Covenant has not come to pass yet, since not everyone knows God the way Jeremiah said they would. Yet the prophecy in Joel is specifically cited in Acts 2:16ff, when the outpouring of the holy spirit on Pentecost took place. It obviously was not a complete fulfillment of that prophecy, since it refers to signs in the heavens, the sun being darkened and the moon turned to blood, etc., and we haven’t seen those things come to pass. But the holy spirit is referred to as a ‘pledge’ or ‘token’ of what’s to come in several passages of the NT, especially Eph. 1:13-14, “…ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.”
The spirit is also called the firstfruits in Rom 8:23, “And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”
Sean wrote,
Why can’t it be both? The promised outpouring of the spirit (and implanting of His Word) were characteristics of life in the coming Kingdom. When Jesus spoke of the coming holy spirit in Acts 1, the apostles immediately asked, “Are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel now?” The two things are inseparable in the OT prophesies, and the holy spirit we receive now is specifically called a pledge or token of our inheritance. Why separate them?
The mustard seed parable, as well as the leaven, refer to something which, while hidden, ends up growing and having a widespread impact on everything around it. This is different from the picture of the Kingdom as being a dominant, irresistible force which conquers the world, as the OT prophecies describe. The parable of the tares and wheat, and the parable of the dragnet, both describe the people of the kingdom living among the people of the world, and not being separated till the end. Jesus specifically said, “the good seed are the children of the kingdom.”
As part of the “mysteries of the Kingdom” Jesus described what it would be like in between his first presence on earth and his return. The kingdom would be here in its “seed” form. That is, the Word of the Kingdom is preached, with the identification of who the Messiah is, and the proof of the resurrection. The children of the kingdom live in the midst of the world and have a token of the holy spirit. The power of the future Kingdom is seen in a foretaste. As Sean pointed out, the New Covenant is definitely here now (otherwise we should be keeping the Old Covenant). But we also saw that it would be more fully fulfilled in the end, when Christ returns.
I’m not crazy about the term “partial fulfillment” especially when it is understood to mean an “atomization” of the prophecies. That makes it sound like the Word is splintered or fragmented. I prefer to say that the Kingdom is “here” in its “seed” form. The Kingdom has not lost its primarily eschatological significance, but certain things are now in place in a hidden and temporary form, which keep us for now until the Kingdom comes. That explains why Paul could say in Col. 1:13 that we are translated into the Kingdom.
Sean,
The Pharasaic Psalms of Solomon makes a clear Davidic expectation. Though, before the Dead Sea Scrolls it was the only text with such an expectation. The Dead Sea Scrolls add additional weight to the Davidic expectation. However, they also add other ideas about a non-Davidic Messiah. Also, Bar Kosiba was hailed as the son of David by Rabbi Akiva.
Also, a note about Dan 7, specifically verse 9, was seen by Rabbi Akiba to refer to a messiah ruling. He got this from ‘thrones’ being plural, and took that to mean one for God and one for his Messiah. So, messiahship was seen in Daniel 7, but not in the term son of Man (which, even after Jesus’ personal usage could have been applied, as we so often do, to a human Messiah figure), but rather in a small plural.
As for biblical theology being lost, I don’t see how in any way this eliminates it. The questions I posed are merely hermanuetical, one step before creating a biblical theology. We have to reconcile with the fact that the people who wrote texts wrote them primarily for themselves and their own time. And that these writings posses history, cultural information and influences that we have to reconstruct and understand. That’s all I’m asking for.
Mark C,
As for the “pledge”, yes a token is a pledge. It’s much like when we watch a movie and a father goes off to war, he gives his son a watch, or token that he pledges to come back. The spirit is a pledge indeed – but not for more spirit. The spirit is a pledge that the coming Kingdom, the coming restoration is indeed coming! It is a public display that God is righteous and will not forget his covenant with Israel, but rather fulfill it – and here is proof in the real world, miracles, tounges, etc.
John
John
I can’t keep up with the comments in this post! So here are some
thoughts.
You wrote:
In what way would understand that the writings of Scripture are inspired by
God?
Here’s a brief and woefully incomplete explanation of my thoughts on this.
God has revealed Himself and His plans to us by revealing these things to
people who wrote them down so they can be read. I recognize that being
knowledgeable of the culture, context, way of thinking and expression of the
people who wrote this revelation down is very important, but I don’t believe it
is primary. I believe that there is an overall theme and continuity to the
Scriptures. There is an internal integrity to the Scriptures that allows
people from other cultures and languages and time periods to study it out and
come to an understanding of that Revelation. You may say that this is
merely a post-enlightenment way of thinking about the Scriptures, but if this is
not the case, I really cannot think of a solution for understanding what the
Scriptures mean. Any way of looking at the Scriptures that does not come
with the presupposition that it is a revelation from God will always fall
short. There are MANY who have great technical knowledge of texts,
history, culture, mindset, etc. that see the Scriptures as nothing more than a
very popular myth. I may be able to take some of their information and
learn a thing or two, but in in the end, their line of thinking only leads to
the rejection of the risen Lord and Savior and ultimately of his God.
@"pledge"
So the spirit is a pledge, token of our inheritance, which to mind, means the
kingdom and possibly more.
Brian,
just for clarification…in your last sentence, did you mean that the spirit means the kingdom or do you mean that the spirit is a token of our kingdom inheritance?
JohnO,
It seems that the Strong’s definition implies more than just a token in the sense of the watch as the father’s promise to return, in your analogy. It is, “a part of the purchase-money or property given in advance as security for the rest.” The NLT and the NRSV both translate it as “first installment.” Weymouth renders it as “a pledge and foretaste.” A “down payment” is another way I’ve heard it described.
In addition, comparing what we have now with what the Prophesies foretold shows this. The promise was that a New Covenant would be made with God’s people, involving an outpouring of His Spirit, and an implanting of His Word. This will be completely fulfilled in the coming Kingdom, but in the meantime we are said to have been given a pledge, or down payment, as a foretaste of what is to come. Besides the miracles, etc., there is also the regenerating power of holy spirit. Right now we are not people who know God and His ways, the way Jeremiah says He will be known. But the Word and the Spirit working in us enable us to grow more and more Christlike. Ultimately, though, we will be completely transformed at his return.
Mark C,
Sean previously posted that the Scriptures unilaterally declare the New Covenant to be fulfilled in full, nothing partial, correct?
I understand what the Strong’s definition says. But in this case, the first installment of the spirit is not in anticipation of the more full installment of the spirit – but rather the Kingdom. This is where understanding the first century situation helps us out a great deal. The Jewish people, by that point, are so desperate for God to fulfill the covenant. They’ve practically lost hope and are frantically running around looking for it. In their writings they show it is important that God grant them a sign that he will fulfill his covenant with his people Israel. For Christians, the spirit is that sign!
Brian,
Of course there is an internal integrity to the Scriptures, the Jewish people leaned on that. And yes there is a central story that God is trying to fulfill – fixing the problem of the fall, and renewing his creation. He tried to do it with the flood. Then he tried to do it with Abraham, through Israel. And now he is trying to do it with the Church. But ultimately God will intervene and restore everything. We can recognize all of these basic facts without any understanding of the culture if we’re paying attention while we read the Scriptures. But, that is only a surface reading of the basics. The rest, the details, they fill out the picture come with the culture and history. And when, through time and tradition, the basics have become so distorted as they have in Christianity, we need the details to sort out what have become the basics into what they really were back then. That is what I’m attempting to do. No doubt it is a lot of work, very confusing, and requires lots of rethinking – even to come to the same conclusions I already have.
How does God inspire these people to write? The same way he inspires us to do what we do. The same way he inspires us to pray for those we care about. The same way he inspires us to preach the Gospel to that person we see on the street. Some are inspired to write down the visions and explanations he has given them.
Mark C,
I’d be interested to see how you interact with my comment #31 on New Covenant as being here already by virtue of Hebrews 10.
Also, as Johnny stated, the spirit is indeed a piece of the future kingdom we have in the present. The outpouring of the spirit is eschatological in the OT prophecies. Thus, it is the kingdom spirit which has been poured out early to enable the kingdom people to live the kingdom lifestyle and preach the kingdom message in anticipation of the coming kingdom.
JohnO,
you said,
This perspective makes God look like a failure. Like he can’t get it right. Perhaps there is more to it than trying going on when he caused the flood, called Abram, established Israel as his nation, etc. Also, the last sentence seems like God has tried all these things, none of them have worked, the church idea is going to work either, so he is going to send Jesus back to do the job right. You probably don’t think that, but that is the impression I got from what you said.
Sean,
I meant that the inheritance is the kingdom. The spirit, which is present now as a token, will continue on into the kingdom period.
Ok, that’s what I believe too, I just wasn’t sure.
thanks for clarifying
I don’t think it makes God the failure – rather people. Don’t we learn that from the fall? It is plain (and I’m sure you already believe this) that the flood was an attempt by God to fix the problem, no? If you don’t, then what was the purpose of the flood? Also, what then was the purpose of calling Abraham and Israel?
As I said in my last post, why can’t it be both? The outpouring of the spirit is closely linked with the Kingdom. It is one of the characteristics of the Kingdom. Jesus’ mention of the holy spirit prompted the apostles to ask if the Kingdom was now going to be restored. The outpouring on Pentecost is specifically identified with the prophecy in Joel, which includes references to signs in the heavens and eschatological events.
The spirit does serve as a sign that the Kingdom is coming, but it is more than that. It is called a pledge, an earnest, or a foretaste, and there are other references to having a foretaste of the Kingdom’s power. The fact that the first century Jews had given up hope is not a sufficient reason to give a “special” meaning to the word arrhabon. It fits with everything else I’ve quoted.
JohnO,
I think we agree on this, but I thought it might be helpful to press you a bit. God’s reason flooding the world was to check the rampant evil–it was a judgment. I don’t think he tried to but failed to solve the problem of evil with the flood, as if Noah was supposed to be perfect after that. Further, with God’s call of Abram, it was to begin the process of redemption that ultimately would culminate in the inheritance of the land under Joshua. Etc. Again, I don’t think we disagree on this stuff, I just wouldn’t put it the way you did (it makes God sound incompetent).
MarkC,
The pledge is something given to guarantee the rest is coming. I always think back to Judah and the prostitute pretender, Tamar. He gave her his bracelets and, I think, his ring, as a pledge that he would send the payment (I think it was two goats). Thus, the pledge is not a small part of the payment, though it can be, but rather the idea is broader.
I think the exciting thing is that the holy spirit is here. Peter said so at Pentecost. He doesn’t say that the spirit is partially here and no one in the NT says the spirit will be poured out…rather they confirm that it already has been poured out. Besides, if we say the spirit poured out on Pentecost was not the eschatological spirit of Joel’s prophecy then we are disagreeing with Peter…which is, of course, a bad idea.
Sean,
The passage in Hebrews which you quoted is dealing with the sacrifice aspects of the Old Covenant. But back in chapter 9, we read of the purpose of the new covenant.
It’s all pointing to that eternal (aionios) inheritance. In order to receive the inheritance of the coming age, man’s sin had to be dealt with. Because God is perfectly righteous and holy, no one who is unrighteous can inherit His Kingdom. That’s what Jesus’ sacrifice accomplished.
The temporary solution for the children of Israel was a system of sacrifices and offerings which pointed toward the ultimate sacrifice which the coming redeemer would fulfill, and which would establish a new covenant. Hebrews 10 explains this. The problem with the Old Testament law was that it could not change peoples’ hearts. Even with the great miracles and wonders that God did for His people, they still did not keep the covenant, because the human heart is “desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9). This is discussed in Hebrews 8.
The references to the new covenant in Hebrews 8 and 10 are quoting from Jeremiah. Isaiah also mentions this new covenant that God would make, in which He would put His Word into their hearts and His spirit and words would not depart from them. This is also referred to in Ezekiel.
Note the connection in the contexts of those passages between restoring Israel to the land and establishing the new covenant with the pouring out of God’s Spirit.
The prophecy and visions referred to in Joel are only part of what the spirit would accomplish. It is primarily God’s putting His law in their inward parts, putting His Word and His Spirit in His people so that they would walk in His ways and not depart.
Entrance into the Kingdom requires people to be righteous, but people can’t be perfectly righteous on their own. So God promised His Spirit in order to make them righteous.
The New Covenant which Jesus ratified with his blood was for the purpose of redeeming the sins of mankind, so that “they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Hebrews 9:15, above). The payment for sins was more than just a way for us not to feel guilty in this life. It was the “price of admission” into that future Kingdom, which we could not pay on our own. In addition, the Prophets spoke of a coming time when God would put His Words in His people’s hearts, and all would know God, from the least to the greatest. Obviously that has not happened yet. Neither has Jesus established his Kingdom and begun to rule the world and subdue the kingdoms of the world. These are all things that will happen in the future.
Yet, Hebrews tells us that the New Covenant was established by the shed blood of Jesus. The spirit we have is a pledge or down-payment, enabling us to live more Christ-like and get closer to the ultimate goal of walking totally in His ways. But as long as we are in this fallen world, with imperfect flesh, we will not fully achieve that goal. Yet the pledge or earnest of the Spirit assures us that we will be completely transformed when Christ returns. That’s what the Holy Spirit is for, and that’s why it’s a foretaste of what is to come.
(You can read all of this put together more succinctly here:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/KingdomCome.htm#covenant
as a follow-up to the article on the Mysteries of the Kingdom here:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/KingdomCome.htm#mysteries)
Yes it can be, and when you compare the OT prophecies with what we have now, it seems clearly to be a down-payment and a foretaste, as several Scriptures refer to it.
But they say, more than once, that it is a down-payment of our inheritance.
I’m not saying that the spirit poured out on Pentecost was not the eschatological spirit of Joel’s prophecy. I’m saying that it can’t be the complete fulfillment of it, since Joel refers to the signs in the heavens, which didn’t happen, and since the complete fulfillment of the outpouring of Holy Spirit is closely connected with the Age to Come, as demonstrated in the passages in my previous post.
Re the spirit, I think more accurately I would say that the inheritance is the spirit and the kingdom and some other things which can probably be put in with the spirit and the kingdom. Spirit is here now (as a token) and will continue on into the kingdom period where it will no longer be a token but part of the inheritance. I think some of this discussion on partial fulfillment can miss the point. I think most of the commenters on this topic believe the same thing in content, and tend to disagree a bit on how to describe it.
Brian,
That why I said in a previous post that I don’t care for the term “partial fulfillment” because it doesn’t communicate well the concept of having a foretaste now of what is to come. I prefer speaking of the pledge or down payment of the spirit, as well as the Kingdom being observed in its “seed” form, with a foretaste of its power, the Word of the Kingdom preached, and the “children of the Kingdom” living among the world until the end.
I’m not sure I agree with the “seed form” idea of the kingdom. In the parable of the seed, I don’t see any reason that the seed should be understood as here now. Maybe I’m missing something.
Mark C,
I’m not so sure I think we are right in our description of the New Covenant and Old Covenant in the way that you’ve described it.
The sacrifices were a way for Israel to remain in relationship to God – but the sacrifices did not make an Israelite righteous. I think we’ve been wrong on that idea all along.
If by speaking in tounges and seeing visions is only part of what the spirit does – then I agree. But the second sentence there is also what the spirit does NOW, not at some later time.
I’m not so sure the spirit makes one righteous. I really do think we’ve been wrong on what the term ‘righteous’ means in the scriptures. The spirit seems to only be poured out on the already righteous.
And that is the crux of the atomistic, “partial fulfillment” reading that we use as western 21st century Christians. I’m not entirely sure what Joel’s signs mean. And yes, the spirit is very closely connected with the age to come, that is very clear. That is why it is a total surprise that it came – as well as Jesus’ resurrection – in the middle of history. As before, I think it is wrong to think that God only poured out a drop of spirit. All the Greek words indicate that they were literally doused with it, or drowned in it.
And I have to echo Sean, and as I stated before, I don’t think reading the parables with a ‘kingdom seed’ presupposition is valid. One does not get that implication from any Jewish thought, or other similar Jewish parables spoken at the time. It is far easier to read Jesus in the light of his own time, rather than subtly (and not directly or clearly) inserting a drastic change to the Jewish worldview.
I thought this was interesting. In E.P. Sander’s “The Historical Figure of Jesus” he states the following (page 175):
When Jesus spoke about his kingdom, he most definitely referred to his original purpose of his Father since the founding of the world. He came to confirm this as direct spokesman of the Most High. He was the only one that could confirm the true of God’s purposes since he had a pre-existence life and intimate relationship with his Father before becoming human. As the Father gave him the authority over heavens and earth. He understood that in order for mankind to be redeemed from their sins, it was necessary to offer himself as a perpetual sacrifice before God’s glory and holiness on behalf of those who will be willing to accept him as Lord and Saviour. Since the priests in the ancient Israel were the ones in charge of doing this for the entire nation of Israel presenting themselves in the holy place of the tabernacle whereas they had to offer sacrifices for forgiveness of sins and holy communion with God. Jesus became the Chief Priest and Lamb for the forgiveness of our sins. After he provided the ransom for mankind (of our sins) now he is playing the role of King appointed by his Father for this coming Kingdom.
Wally Folgar,
Wally,
Out of curiosity, what do you believe Jesus was up to before he became a human being?
Hey everyone,
What do you think of passage from John 12:40-41 and how Trinitarians use this verse to tie in Christ as God because of the Glory that Isaiah spoke of?…
Jhn 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Jhn 12:41 These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
Here is an article written by the JW, Greg Stafford in response to prominent trinitarian apologist Dr. James White
http://divinetruth.homestead.com/John12.41.G.Stafford.pdf
Thanks Sean, great read!