Should we be setting aside the theme of the atonement in order to achieve a “rehabilitation” of the theme of the kingdom?

Source: De Reformatie, 1998. 6 pages. Translated by Wim Kanis.

  • Share

The Day of Atonement and the Kingdom of Heaven

Atonement: the Central Theme?⤒🔗

Name the central theme in Bible and faith! What would your answer be? Ten to one the answer would be, “The atonement (or: reconciliation) of the sinner with God.” Did Luther not wrestle with the question of how he would get closer to a gracious God? And was that not the start of the great Reformation?

No wonder our Catechism provides a framework for the traditional discussion of Faith, Law and Prayer. The framework of Lord’s Days 2 through 6: Is there any way by which we can escape punishment and be reconciled to God again? Every year since the Reformation this framework is presented to us before we traditionally discuss the creed, the law and the Lord’s Prayer: it has become for us the frame that holds the painting of the gospel.

Paul Through the Lens of Luther?←⤒🔗

Is this correct? In recent decades a lively debate has arisen in New Testament scholarship, especially as it relates to the interpretation of Paul’s letters. For years this apostle was said to have been misread, through the lens of Luther. As if Paul’s main concern was how we could be justified by faith and again be reconciled with God. As if that was also the key question in Judaism. So Paul would have remained in the line of Judaism, but only pointed to a new way: not the law, but Christ. It has been argued against this that Judaism was not concerned in this way with law and reconciliation, and neither was Paul. However, it is then not all that easy to discover what would constitute the core of Paul’s so-called theology.

Jesus Different From Paul?←⤒🔗

It seems much easier with the teaching of Jesus himself. There, the emphasis on justification, the reconciliation of the sinner, etc., is completely absent. It appears that the term “Kingdom of heaven” is more central there. You must have noticed this when reading the Bible. John the Baptist talks about it, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand!” Jesus teaches his disciples to pray for it, “Your kingdom come.” And he also tells parables about it: the kingdom of God resembles a sower, the owner of a vineyard, a banquet, etc. This kingdom is the rousing theme of the Gospels. Everything revolves around it. Therefore, at the ascension, the disciples have only one question: “Will you now restore the kingdom...?”

When one looks back from Paul’s writings to what would have been the original message of Jesus, many arrive at the preaching of the kingdom of God.

Return to the 19th Century←⤒🔗

This was already true in the nineteenth century. The entire liberal theology denied the deity of Jesus and did not regard him as a reconciler of sins. He would only have been the prophet of the redeemed reality of God. His concern was not mainly with sinners, but with the world: that it again might be God’s kingdom.

In the 20th century, partly as a result of the influence of the theology of Karl Barth, this line of thought was pushed back somewhat. At this point in time it is back again in full force. On the one hand there is the denial of the redemptive power of Jesus’ death and the reduction of Jesus to a Jewish prophet; and on the other hand, the identification of a new core of the gospel: not the atonement through Christ, but the kingdom of God.1

The Leiden Lectures←⤒🔗

This comes to the fore very clearly in a booklet that was published earlier this year [1998] and which contains so-called “Leiden Lectures”. The title is clear: “Reconciliation or Kingdom — About the priority in the preaching”.2 In this booklet we find from the hand of the Leiden professor of New Testament, Dr. H.J. de Jonge, an article entitled, “The rehabilitation of the Kingdom.”3 In this article De Jonge takes a very clear position. Unconditionally he wants to give priority in the preaching to what Jesus taught about the kingdom of God4 The person of the Christ, as a later dogma, disappears behind the doctrine of the man Jesus about the kingdom of heaven. It is regarded as a theme that would be far more important than the theme of the atonement as advanced since the Reformation.5

Now we will admit to De Jonge and many other New Testament present-day scholars that more than once the Bible is seen from a later church-historical perspective. And for the study of Reformed theology it remains an important duty to distinguish again and again between what Scripture says and what has been formulated in later times as regards good and evil in response to it. Evil is to be rejected as error, but the good has not yet become the lens for reading Scripture.

A Redundant Dilemma←⤒🔗

Does this also apply to the theme of the kingdom of heaven? Should the doctrine of the atonement/reconciliation disappear behind it?

In this particular case, it appears to me that people are posing a false dilemma. It is certainly true that Jesus Christ came to earth for more than saving the souls of believers. He came to bring peace on earth, to restore a paradise down here. He came to punish and eradicate injustice and to redeem the oppressed. He came to be all in all. His purpose is the restoration of the cosmos. And we humans, as sinners, are always only a part of that. God’s reconciliation with these sinners, however, is an important and indispensable part of the cosmic changes brought about by the coming of the kingdom of heaven.

The Pattern of Jesus’ Life←⤒🔗

In the gospel we discover a remarkable development. Jesus begins with preaching the kingdom of heaven: a broad spectrum of his focus. In this context he heals many and drives out many demons. Truly signs of the kingdom of God!

However, the further you get into the Gospels the less we read about miracles and the more we get to hear Jesus’ announcements of his suffering, very much against the will of the disciples. Toward the end, Jesus’ life ends in loneliness, suffering, imprisonment and death. Does this describe the failure of the world reformer? No, because Jesus repeatedly shows that he chooses himself to go this way and that this course needs to be followed.

Often he speaks about his hour that is yet to come. Here he refers to the hour of suffering, death, resurrection and glorification. When this hour will strike, the path to his glorification begins, but that path very clearly runs via Gethsemane and Golgotha.

Just before this hour began Jesus broke bread in front of his disciples with the words, “This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” Even the most inveterate Bible critics generally cannot get around the fact that this must have really happened, for how else can one explain the origin of the Lord’s Supper?

However, when the whole wonderful and majestic life of the great Healer and Preacher of the heavenly kingdom culminates in a deliberate death for others, it is difficult to drive a wedge between the kingdom of heaven and this Day of Atonement at Calvary!

What Happened After Easter←⤒🔗

Such a dilemma is all the less convincing because we do not see that the perspective of the kingdom of heaven is abrogated here. After Jesus’ death follows the resurrection and the ascension as planned in advance, along with the promise of the restoration of all things. In the book of Acts we again read about healings and the casting out of demons. We did not lose the right track of God’s reconciliation. On the contrary, we can remain forever on the road to the kingdom of heaven thanks to the path Jesus took at Gethsemane.

The atonement on the cross is the only means for the kingdom of heaven to be established on earth: on that fallen world filled with sinners.

The Atonement Ostracized←⤒🔗

The dilemma between the Day of Atonement (or, reconciliation) and kingdom of heaven exists only when one abandons or ignores the gospel as narrative and as history, losing sight of its dynamic and reducing the gospel to a number of separate ideas and parables. And, unfortunately, that is the disease within Christianity in the West today. History is widely exchanged for mere stories or narratives. People have thrown the wall plates of the Gospels into shards, and no matter how much they may cherish them, none of these shards will ever again show the original pattern!6

A Plea for a Cosmic Perspective←⤒🔗

The current debate can still teach us something. It reminds us again that when reading the Bible we should not narrow our focus entirely to the other side, and that we should not wrongly apply Lord’s Days 2-6 as a restrictive lens of the Bible. As a matter of fact, anyone who reads the confession in its entirety will find enough to be kept from this perceived narrower focus of the Heidelberg Catechism. Our confession has plenty of passages in which it is confessed that the reconciliation of the sinner with God culminates in the ultimate goal: the kingdom of heaven where God will be all in all and where also the entire cosmos will be redeemed from submission to vanity.

This is the perspective of biblical history. The great Day of Atonement on Good Friday teaches us to pray for all people, because God wants them to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. And that truth will set the world free. The revelation of the children of God is something that creation eagerly awaits (Rom. 8:19-22). Christians are called to be, in a sense, the “firstfruits of his creatures” (James 1:18).

A christianity that loses sight of this cosmic perspective and that limits itself to the Jesus-faith of the individual Christian, is forgetting that we were once put here as human beings to tend the garden of the earth. And that, thanks to the crucified and risen Lord, we will soon be able to take up that task again.

Rehabilitation for God!←⤒🔗

We return to the question asked at the beginning. Should we be setting aside the theme of the atonement in order to achieve a “rehabilitation” of the theme of the kingdom? People who break up the unity of Scripture easily arrive at such a fragmentation of focal points. But those who continue to take the Bible seriously as history will formulate it differently. There needs to be a “rehabilitation” of the Almighty God who is the Creator of heaven and earth. Such restoration of his honour puts the world and society back in the proper order: God’s kingdom is being restored. But such a restoration is not owing to our initiative or efforts. It is God himself who turns this into actual reality: through reconciling us with himself. Without this miracle, we would have had to wait a long time for God’s kingdom on earth to be restored.

Let us stick to the twelve articles of our catholic and undoubted Christian faith. In doing so we confess both our faith in God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth, as well as our faith in the forgiveness of sins through the Son of God who died, the child of Mary.7 Through this apostolic confession of faith the church is always kept from the one-sidedness of its own time and theology, and continues to have a view of the full reach and significance of God’s history with us and with this creation8

May God grant that we, as reconciled people, will know to find the way from the cross to the world, the environment and the cosmos. The reconciliation accomplished on the cross always aims to be the eternal focus of this: the kingdom of the Lamb!

Endnotes←⤒🔗

  1. ^ The occasion for the revival of an old battle was the book by Prof. Dr. C. J. den Heyer, Verzoening: bijbelse notities bij een omstreden thema (Reconciliation: biblical notes on a controversial theme; Kampen: Kok, 1997). The doctrine of the atonement was defended in the following publications, among others: J. Hoek, Verzoening, daar draait het om (Reconciliation: the crux of it all; Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum: 1998); H. Baarlink, Het evangelie van de verzoening (The gospel of reconciliation; Kampen: Kok, 1998); C. B. Elsinga (ed.), Om het hart van het gospel. (The heart of the gospel: A book for the church on the atonement; 1998). On this subject see also B. Wentsel, God en mens verzoend (God and man reconciled: incarnation, reconciliation, the kingdom of God; in Dogmatiek Vol. 3b; Kampen: Kok, 1991).
  2. ^ L.J. van den Brom et al, Verzoening of Koninkrijk (Reconciliation or Kingdom — About the priority in the preaching. Leiden lectures; Nijkerk/Kampen]: Callenbach, 1998.
  3. ^ “Eerherstel voor het koninkrijk”, Ibid., pp. 9-17. See also the second contribution by H.J. de Jonge in this volume, “The Place of the Atonement in Early Christian Theology” (Ibid., pp. 63-88).
  4. ^ .Decisive for De Jonge is the concept that Jesus’ resurrection was initially a “resurrection in heaven” (immediately after the cross). Based on the analogy of the Jewish martyr, this would mean that God sanctioned his preaching and performance. Thus, it is not about Jesus himself, but about the legal framework of his message regarding the kingdom of heaven. For a broader analysis and critical discussion of this view of Jesus’ resurrection, see my book, Jesus the Son of God: the gospel narratives as message. (Translation publ. by Baker, 1999.)
  5. ^ Ibid., p. 15: “When the main theme in the preaching and thus in theology needs to be: God’s kingship and the obedience required of people, then the consequence will be that other themes will have to relinquish their central place. This applies especially to the theme of reconciliation through Jesus’ death. It is not as if this subject should be abolished, however it should be given a less-important place.” See also Ibid., p. 82: “A Christian soteriology without reconciliation through the death of Jesus can, in the light of history, claim legitimacy. For it goes back to Jesus himself.”
  6. ^ [Trl. note] In ancient Greece the “shard judgement” was a voting process where an assembly could vote to banish (or: ostracize) an unwanted person.
  7. ^ For De Jonge and others, the person of Jesus Christ is in fact no longer the content of our confession. He writes (Ibid., p. 19), “Furthermore, the reversal of priorities advocated here can rid Christian theology of an unnecessary particular focus, which is tied too strictly to a historical person.” The use of the phrase “historical person” is striking. It is almost denigrating: Jesus is here merely someone who came before us! This focus on God as King of the world, advocated by De Jonge, should make one realize that God as King is free to give us an eternal, living, historical person to whom He (!) as the Father of this Son wants to bind us. It seems that De Jonge has introduced a narrower image of God. And that this “rehabilitation of the kingdom” does not at all mean Soli Deo Gloria.
  8. ^ .It is telling that De Jonge concludes his article with the remark that the earliest history of the church is not normative (Ibid., p. 16). So there is a very different reason for giving priority to the theme of the kingdom. “A stronger appeal will likely emanate from the concept of the kingship of God than from that of the atonement through Jesus’ death...  It is better to explain that God, as king of the world, has the last word and that he has the right to demand obedience from men, than what a political assassination accomplishes as salvation for innumerable people” (Ibid., p. 17).

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.