God's promise fulfilled

On the third day

by N. T. Wright
the "sonship" of the messiah will share as well the "inheritance" spoken of in Psalm 2. The resurrection means that Jesus is the messianic "son of God," that Israels eschatological hope has been fulfilled; that it is time for the nations of the world to be brought into submission to Israel's God. The resurrection, interpreted in this sense, set the early Christians on a course of confrontation, not to say collision, with other Jewish groups of * their day. Any claim that Israel's w God h a d acted h e r e r a t h e r than S s o m e w h e r e else within Judaism w (the t e m p l e , for example), vindiM it had happened, in principle, to Iscating a m a n whose work a n d 3 rael as a whole. The messiah repreteaching had b e e n highly contross s e n t e d Israel, just as David h a d versial, was bound to create a r e p r e s e n t e d Israel w h e n h e faced storm. R e s u r r e c t i o n always h a d Goliath. Jesus had b e e n executed b e e n a novel, revolutionary docas a messianic pretender, as "king trine, a n d this new movement of the Jews," and Israels God had proved their worst fears about it to vindicated him. This, apparently, be true. "They were angry that the was how Israels God was fulfilling disciples w e r e a n n o u n c i n g , in his promises t o Israel. Again and Jesus, t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n from t h e again the early Christians e m p h a dead." sized that Jesus was raised from the With good reason. T h e and e a d b y God, and they m e a n t I s n o u n c e m e n t meant the inaugurarael's God, Y H W H . They saw the tion of the new covenant. Jesus' folresurrection as a life-giving act of lowers really did believe that Israel the covenant God, the creator who was being renewed through Jesus, h a d always h a d t h e p o w e r t o kill and that his resurrection, marking and make alive. T h e resurrection him out as messiah, was a call to Iswas the sign to the early Christians rael to find a new identity in followthat this living God had acted at last ing him and establishing his kingin a c c o r d a n c e with his ancient dom. Their belief in the resurrection p r o m i s e , and h a d t h e r e b y shown of the son of God, in this sense, himself to b e God, the unique creHE IS RISEN: Resurrection of Christ, by marked out t h e early Christians ator and sovereign of the world. The resurrection therefore con- Hans Pleydenwurff (c. 1425-1472), is in the from those of their fellow Jews who could not or would not accept such a stituted Jesus as messiah, as "son of Alte Pinakothek in Munich, Germany. thing. And it marked them out not as God" in t h e Davidic sense of 2 non-Jews or anti-Jews, not as some kind of pagan group, but Samuel 7 or Psalm 2 (texts upon which the early Christians precisely as people who claimed that the truest and most cendrew to explain and expound their belief). "Davidic" psalms MONG THE FIRST meanings that the resurrection opened u p to the surprised disciples was that Israel's hope had been fulfilled. The promised time had come, as Jesus himself had announced during his public career; but it looked very different from what they had imagined. T h e eschaton had arrived. T h e long narrative of Israel's history had reached its climax. "Resurrection" was a key part of the eschaton. If it had happened to one man whom many had regarded as Israels messiah, that meant that
7

CO

were ransacked for hints about the resurrection of David's coming son. We can watch this process in Acts, with Luke 24 as its programmatic basis, and we can see exactly the same in Paul. The entire argument of Romans is framed between two great statements of this theme. In between, at one of the letter's most climactic moments, those who share
CHRISTIAN CENTURY April5,2003

N. T. Wright, canon theologian at Westminster Abbey, was recently named bishop of Durham. This article is excerpted from The Resurrection of the Son of God (the third volume in his series "Christian Origins and the Question of God"), published this spring by Fortress.

tral hopes and beliefs of Israel had come true, and that they were living by them. To claim the risen Jesus as son of God in the sense of messiah was the most deeply Jewish thing the Christians could do, and hence the most deeply suspect in the eyes of those Jews who did not share their convictions. The "new covenant" beliefs of the early Christians meant that, in hailing Jesus as son of God, they believed that Israels God had acted in him to fulfill the covenant promises by dealing at last with the problem of evil. One standard Jewish analysis of evil did not hold that the created order was itself evil, but that human beings, by committing idolatry, distorted their own humanity into sinful behavior and courted corruption and ultimately death. Deaththe unmaking of the creator's image-bearing creatureswas seen not as a good thing, but as an enemy to be defeated. It was the ultimate weapon of destruction: anticreation, antihuman, anti-God. If the creator God was also the covenant God, and if the covenant was there to deal with the unwelcome problem that had invaded the created order at its heart and corrupted human beings themselves, it was this intruder, death itself, that had to be defeated. To allow death to have its wayto sign up, as it were, to some kind of compromise agreement whereby death took human bodies but the creator was allowed to keep human soulswas no solution, at least not to the problem as it was perceived within most of Second Temple Judaism. That is why resurrection was never a redescription of death, but always its defeat.

therefore be summarized as follows: Jesus is Israels messiah. In him, the creators covenant plan to deal with the sin and death that has so radically infected his world has reached its long-awaited and decisive fulfillment. A second level of understanding the resurrection has to do with claims to leadership. If the phrase "son of God" could mean "messiah" to a first-century Jewish ear, it had a significantly different sense in the world of early Christianity, where it was applied to pagan monarchs and to Caesar in particular. Not that the early Christians chose the phrase "son of God" on the basis of this pagan usage. But there can be no question that many in the GrecoRoman world considered the title a challenge to Caesar. And there is no question that some of the early writers, including Paul, intended it in this way. The long line of Jewish thought that ran from the stories of David and Solomon, through the psalms to books like Isaiah and Daniel, and then into the flourishing literature of the later Second Temple period, saw Israels true king as the worlds true lord. The early Christians, precisely because they regarded Jesus as Israels messiah, also regarded him as the true monarch of the gentile world. Calling Jesus "son of God" within this wider circle of meaning constituted a refusal to retreat, a determination to stop Christian discipleship from turning into a private cult, a sect, a mystery religion. It launched a claim on the worlda claim at once absurd (a tiny group of nobodies

W;

'ITHIN THE New Testament this perspective is most clearly articulated by Paul, especially in Romans 8 and the Corinthian correspondence, and in Revelation. In the most obvious passage, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, we find an explicitly messianic theology, rooted in messianically read psalms, in which Jesus, as the son of God, is the agent of the creator God in accomplishing precisely this task of ridding the world of evil and of death. As far as Paul was concerned, this was the defeat of death. The early Christians saw Jesus' resurrection as the act of the covenant God fulfilling his promises to deal with evil at last. Declaring their faith in his resurrection was a self-involving act in the sense that the world of meaning within which they made sense of Easter was the new world in which sins, their own included, had been forgiven. This did not, of course, reduce the meaning of "Jesus is risen from the dead" to "My sins have been forgiven." It was not simply a way of saying that Jesus' crucifixion had been a victory rather than a defeat. The first level of "a son of God" understanding of Jesus' resurrection can

DOCTOR OF MINISTRY
Applications are being accepted for a new group in our Doctor of Ministry Program/Parish Focus...to develop more effective ministry and enage in faithful theological reflection on the practice of ministry and the mission of the church.

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Faculty for the D.Min. classes beginning January 2004 include: Scott Sunquist, Theology of Church and Ministry Byron Jackson, Educational Ministry of the Church Craig Barnes, Church Leadership Andrew Purves, Pastoral Care Pittsburgh Theological Seminary also offers the Doctor of Ministry with: Urban Focus, Pastoral Care Focus, Reformed Focus (with the University of Aberdeen, Scotland), and Eastern Christian Focus.

30 years of D.Min. Education

33

Charles Hambrick-Stowe, Director Doctor of Ministry Program Pittsburgh Theological Seminary 616 North Highland Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15206 800-451-4194 www.pts.edu chambrick-stowe@pts.edu

C H R I S T I A N CENTURY April5,2003

thumbing their noses at the might of Rome) and very serious, so serious that within a couple of generations the might of Rome was trying, and failing, to stamp it out. It grew from an essentially positive view of the world. It refused to relinquish the world to the principalities and powers, but claimed even them for the messiah who was now the lord. To use the phrase "son of God" for Jesus, in a sense which was an implicit confrontation with Caesar, was to affirm the goodness of the created order, now claimed powerfully by the creator God as his own. The resurrection of Jesus supplies the groundwork for this: it is the reaffirmation of the universe of space, time and matter, after not only sin and death but also pagan empire (the institutionalization of sin and death) have done their worst. The early Christians saw Jesus' resurrection as the action of the creator God to reaffirm the essential goodness of creation and, in an initial and representative act of new creation, to establish a bridgehead within the present world of space, time and matter through which the whole new creation could now come to birth. Calling Jesus "son of God" within this context of meaning, they became by implication a collection of rebel cells within Caesars empire, loyal to a different monarch. The Sadducees were right to regard the doctrine of resurrection, and especially its announcement in relation to Jesus, as political dynamite. This is why to imply that Jesus "went to heaven when

he died," or that he is now simply a spiritual presence, and to suppose that such ideas exhaust the meaning of "Jesus was raised from the dead," is to miss the point, to cut the nerve of the social, cultural and political critique. Death is the ultimate weapon of the tyrant; resurrection does not make a covenant with death, it overthrows it. The resurrection, in the full Jewish and early Christian sense, is the ultimate affirmation that creation matters, that embodied human beings matter. That is why resurrection has always had an inescapable political meaning; that is why the Sadducees in the first century, and the Enlightenment in our own day, have opposed it so strongly. No tyrant is threatened by Jesus going to heaven, leaving his body in a tomb. No governments face the authentic Christian challenge when the church's social preaching tries to base itself on Jesus' teaching detached from the central and energizing fact of his resurrection (or when, for that matter, the resurrection is affirmed simply as an example of a supernatural "happy ending" which guarantees postmortem bliss).

HE THIRD and final meaning of the resurrection of Jesus has to do with the meaning of the word "God" itself. This was, after all, the greatest of the questions that the early Christians posed not only to their pagan neighbors, but also within the Jewish circles where they began. If there is one true God, as the Jews had always claimed, and if he really is the creator of the world For Todays Chur< and Their and the covenant God of Israel, then \ Leaders, the slakeh, t h e pace what must now be said of him on the o l c h a n g e is t i n n e r basis of the resurrection of Jesus? How does calling Jesus son of God, in this sense, help us to understand not only who Jesus was and is but who the one true God was and is? The early Christians usually referred to the resurrection of Jesus as the work of this God. "He has been raised," they said; "God raised Jesus from the dead." The work of this God was part of the inWestern Theological Seminary terpretation, the grid of meaning through which they viewed this event. Journey Groups: Peer Groups And from very early on (it is already for a Focused Pastoral Learning taken for granted by Paul), the fact that this Jesus had been raised by this God, clamental convict when mulled over and reflected on in the light of all that Jesus had done and said, and all that Israels scriptures had said about the redeeming and reconciling action of this God, drew from the For information and guidelines for applying, please contact Dr. George Hunsbercjer early Christians the breathtaking belief that Jesus was son of God, the unique Center for the Continuing Education of the Church Son of this God as opposed to any other. Western Theological Seminary They meant not simply that he was Is101 East 13th Street Holland, MI 49423 rael's messiah, though that remained 616.392.8555 *gSJ, foundational; nor simply that he was the email - george.hunsberger@westernsem.org _ reality of which Caesar and all other

Called
to

the Journey

(life

C H R I S T I A N CENTURY April5,2003

34

such tyrants were the parodies, though that remained a vital implication. They meant it in the sense that he was the personal embodiment and revelation of the one true God. Paul's letters indicate that from very early on in the Christian movement this God and this Jesus were being referred to as father and son within contexts that clearly put them together on the divine side of the equation. The truly remarkable thing about this is that the arguments that were being mounted at the time, and even the Old Testament scriptures that were being quoted and expounded, are all of a strongly monotheistic tone. In key Pauline texts, Paul speaks of Jesus as son in relation to God; in others, of God as father in relation to Jesus. There are, of course, various arguments where he puts the two together, and not surprisingly the resurrection is never far away when he does so: For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, how much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life . . . (Rom: 5:10).

until the time set by the father s w i l l . . . So when the time was fully come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who are under the law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his son into our hearts, crying, Abba, father. So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then an heir, through God (Gal. 4:lf. 4-7). And it is in the light of these rich, multilayered statements that we discover another layer of meaning in the great opening statement of Romans: . . . God s gospel concerning his son, who was descended from David's seed according to the flesh, and marked out as son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead, Jesus the Messiah, our Lord . . . (Rom. 1:1,3). The resurrection, in other words, declares that Jesus really is God's Sonnot only in the sense that he is the messiah, though Paul certainly intends that here, and not only in the sense that he is the world's true lord, though Paul intends that too, but also in the sense that he is the one in whom the living God, Israels God, has become personally present in the world, has become one of the human creatures that were made from the beginning in the image of this same God.

For as many as are led by God's Spirit are the children of God. You did not receive a spirit of slavery to go back to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship, in which we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit s own self bears witness with our spirit that we are God s children, and, if children, then heirs: heirs of God, and joint heirs with the Messiah, if we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him . . . (Rom. 8:14-17). SEATTLE For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters . . . (Rom. 8: 29). These passages make sense only if Paul, by referring to Jesus as the son of God, means that Jesus is the one sent by God, from God, not only as a messenger but as the embodiment of his love. To send someone else is hardly an ultimate proof of self-giving love. The same is true in Galatians: I am crucified with the Messiah; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but the Messiah lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Gal: 2:19f.). As long as the heir is a child . . . he is under guardians and trustees

U N I V E R S I T Y
'P-^j^M^m^Sj^'

School of Theology & Ministry

SUMMER INSTITUTE for LITURGY and WORSHIP

The Holiness of God: Implications for Liturgy & Life JULY 6-11,2003 Vital, Ecumenical, Engaging, Multicultural and Committed to Justice Registration fee: $400; scholarships available Registration deadline: June 1, 2003 For further information: 206-296-5984 i 800-578-3118 I bergerp@seattleu.edu www.seatdeu.edu/theomin/summerinstitute.html

University oSeattle
FOUNDED 1 * /

Connecting the mind to what matters Visiting faculty include (pictured top to bottom) Gordon Lathrop, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, Gail Ramshaw, LaSalle University, Edward Foley, Capuchin, Catholic Theological Union

35

C H R I S T I A N C E N T U R Y April5,2003

The picture of the true God that emerges from all this is totally different from the caricatured "all-powerful miracle-worker," the "interventionist" God who has become such an easy target in some recent polemical writing. Theologians today are understandably eager to shed any suggestion of a pompous, omnipotent bully, a triumphalist "God" in that sense. But it would be a bad mistake to suppose that this is the picture of God offered in the New Testament, or that the resurrection of Jesus lends it any support. Of course, there is triumph in the message; where would the power and appeal of the gospel be without Ro-

mans 8:31-9 or 1 Corinthians 15:54-7? But we should think again before we accuse the early Christians of "triumphalism." Such charges have a habit of rebounding not least on those who insist on promoting the unstable worldview of late-modern or postmodern Western culture to a position of preeminence, and then try to climb on top of it, claiming it as high moral ground, and looking down on all who went before them. It is precisely the Christian understanding of Israel's God that prevents a move toward the God of Deism on the one hand, and the God of pantheism on the other, together with their respective half-cousins, the interventionist God of dualist supernaturalism, and the panentheist deity of much contemporary speculation. Conversely, where we find resis^% 2003 Ecumenical Retreats tance to the vision of God offered by the New Testament (a vision which grows precisely from the Easter faith of the early disciples), there is good reason to suppose that the un! Prayer in a World of Action derlying cause of such resistance, in the contemporary world as in the The Writings of Thomas Merton ancient, is to be found (to quote July 28-August 1, 2003 -Marquette, Michigan T. F. Torrance) in "the sheer horror Kayak along 30 miles of remote Lake Superior shoreline that [some] people . . . have for the Evening sessions discussing theological issues being and action of God himself in space and time." Readings from 16th Century Jesuit missionaries to the Ojibway Hearty meals including smoked fish homemade bread When the early Christians developed their understanding of Israels Rustic, comfortable lodging in lakeside cabins God, they did not abandon their Jew J o n Magneton & Lee Godwin, facilitators & guides ish roots and adopt the language and limited to 8 persons thought-forms of paganism. They developed their theology by embrac* ing one of the central Jewish beliefs of their day, the resurrection of the Eden's diver: Fail & Redemption or dead (which had been the solace of on the Columbia many a righteous Jew when faced Sept 29-Oct % 2003 -Skamokawa, Washington with pagan oppression and injusKayak on Um scenic Columbia Mm tice), and by understanding it all the more deeply in the light of what they Evening discussions on spirituality & the environment believed had happened to Jesus. Daily readings from the journals of Lewis and Clark This was what made them a messianPerspectives from the Native American community ic group within Judaism. This was Hearty meals & comfortable lodging along the river what made them take on Caesar's Jon Magnuson & John Romberg, facilitators & guides world with the news that there was Limited to 16 persons "another king." This was what made them not only speak of the one true God, but invoke him, pray to him, love him and serve him in terms of Equipment & instruction provided -no previous experience necessary the Father and the lord, of the God Cost: $695 per trip; Registration & $200 Deposit deadline: June 1,2003 who sent the Son and now sends the Call or fax: 906-228-5494, Email: magnusonx2@aol.com Spirit of the Son, in terms of the T H E CEDAR TREE INSTITUTE only-begotten God who makes visi403 E. Michigan St., Marquette, Ml 49855 ble the otherwise invisible creator of the world. This is why, when they A nonprofit organization initiating & providing services spoke of the resurrection of Jesus, in the areas of mental health, religion & the environment they spoke of the resurrection of the Son of God.
36

CHRISTIAN CENTURY Apnl5,2003

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.