dr. Guda H. Borger-Koetsier
ISBN-13: 978 90 239 2129 5
ISBN-10: 90 239 2129 1
The theme of ‘reconciliation between God and man in Christ’ is an important subject in the church not just from a historical perspective, but also as a subject that is relevant for Christian faith and practice. It is striking that the church has never produced a commonly accepted statement on the subject of reconciliation. In the history of the church, however, there has been a continuous discussion of this theme, and this is also true for the Netherlands of the twentieth century.
Personally speaking, I have felt the polarization between orthodox and liberal wings in the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands to be a hindrance to stating in a succinct way why reconciliation is considered to be so important and how reconciliation has come about or is coming about. I have attempted in my research to make clear what was at the heart of the debates on reconciliation in order to expose the underlying convictions. While I did this I always had the church and its role in confessing her faith today in view. From that perspective I give a description and analysis of the various views on reconciliation in the Netherlands of the twentieth century. My main question is of a theological-historical nature: what has been said by whom from what background and with what purpose concerning reconciliation between God and man in Christ?
During a first review of the literature it became clear that the debates in The Netherlands of the twentieth century were concerned particularly with certain aspects of reconciliation, like satisfaction, substitution or Umstimmung (changing the mood and/or mind of God), or with a certain type of doctrine of reconciliation. However, in my view a discussion of reconciliation cannot be properly done when it is separated from the body of doctrine as a whole. One of my presuppositions is that one’s view of reconciliation is related to one’s view of the original or intended relationship between God and man and of the way evil or sin has impacted that relationship.
In Chapter 1 I explain why I choose for a linear view of history, which takes into account that there is a God who has created the cosmos with a purpose, a position that is different from those evolutionary views of man and the world, which are determined by ‘accident’. Also in this chapter I deal with the creedal statement made in Judaism and Christianity that man, as part of that creation, is entrusted with free will and thus responsibility towards God. I also provide two reasons for going back to the Old Testament roots of the various views of reconciliation,given the fact that it is evident that these views are based particularly on New Testament texts about Jesus Christ. The first reason is that in the New Testa ment when the significance of the work of Jesus is stated, imagery, events, and words from the Old Testament are used. The second reason is that in Christianity the concepts of creation and sin are determined mainly by the writings of the Old Testament.
In this phase of reviewing the material it also became clear that a number of terms related to reconciliation are not used in an unambiguous way. Examples of this are the anselmian and traditional doctrine of reconciliation, but also concepts like justification, salvation, satisfaction, and punishment. In order to trace the origin of these terms, it became necessary to sketch in broad lines the views on reconciliation throughout the ages. Mainly on the basis of secondary literature I give a description of the developments up until the nineteenth century in Chapter 2, in which I focus on the positions of Anselm of Canterbury and Peter Abelard at the turn of the twelfth century, the changes in the Reformation period in the sixteenthcentury and then the views of reconciliation during the Age of Enlightenment and Idealism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Special attention is paid to F.C. Baur and A. Ritschl. Baur – taking his lead from Hegelian Idealism – was the first to write a history of the doctrine of reconciliation. Ritschl responded critically to Baur and wrote a book with what in his own eyes was a completely new view of reconciliation. He opts for what he calls an abelardian view of reconciliation in which God’s love for the elect is central. In his opinion the anselmian view was dominant in the reformed tradition and characterized by the notion of an Umstimmung of God by the work of Christ. He rejects this view because it gives priority to the justice and honor of God. I then make a comparison between the positions of Anselm and Abelard and the reflections on these positions by Baur and Ritschl, and finally end the chapter with concluding that in the discussion of reconciliation it is important to make a clear distinction between the two sides: the side of God and the side of man.
In Chapter 3 a description is given of the various wings and groups that have become more and more distinct in the protestant part of The Netherlands of the nineteenth century. At the time, the contrast between ‘orthodox’ and ‘modern’ resulted in much discussion and disagreement, and this included the way people thought and spoke about reconciliation. As a background for my discussion of twentieth century views of reconciliation in chapters 4 to 7, I give a description of the view of the orthodox Neo-Calvinist H. Bavinck in section 3.3. He is not only seen as an important systematic theologian at the turn of the twentieth century, he is also someone who wanted to do justice to the positions of people of different persuasions.
Central notions in the systematic theology of Bavinck are the doctrine of creation as a foundational creed on which the old and new covenant rest, the descend of the triune God to man in order to establish a covenant with him, the work of Christ who from eternity was available for being a mediator in order – if necessary – to reconcile God and man, and the position of man who has deprived himself of access to eternal life by failing to obey (the commandments of) God. In the process of stating his views of creation, fall, and the continuing work of salvation of God directed towards man, he extensively deals with Genesis 1-11.
Given the description in the New Testament of the death of Christ as the true sacrifice, Bavinck pays much attention to the Old Testament sacrificial cult and to the so-called Songs of the Servant of the Lord in the book of Isaiah. Because Christ while on earth has been fully obedient to the will of God and because He by his death has given satisfaction for the guilt of the sin of man, according to Bavinck one can from that moment speak of an objectively different relationship between God and the world. But he considers the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be the most important element of Christian faith. In his opinion Christ by his resurrection has entered the state of exaltation and from that position He makes his church share in the reconciliation that has been achieved, by the work of the Holy Spirit who has been poured out for that reason.
Bavinck has positioned himself explicitly in the line of Anselm and Reformed theology. In his opinion what is special about Anselm is that he considered the work of Christ particularly as reconciliation between God and man, and not so much as salvation from death and the power of satan, as was common in the first millennium. In the thirties of the twentieth century the Swedish Lutheran theologian G. Aulén has made a case for a rehabilitation of this traditional first millennium view and for discarding the two types distinguished by Ritschl in the doctrine of reconciliation, i.e., the objective anselmian and the subjective abelardian.
F.W.A. Korff has argued in the beginning of the forties that it is not possible to hold a position different from the three main types distinguished by Aulén. In his opinion the work of Christ can be explained as concerning God (the anselmian doctrine of satisfaction), the world as a whole (victory over the devil) or individual persons (subjective theory). However, in his view none of these three types does justice to what he on the basis of passages from the Old and New Testament identifies as the content of Christian faith, i.e., the decisive coming to the world by God in Jesus Christ for salvation from sin.
Korff concludes that each type contains ‘elements of truth’. That is the reason that these types should not be seen as interpretations that exclude one another, but should be united under one common denominator. Korff has proposed this formulation: Christ by his life and in a definitive sense by giving himself up unto death has brought about the victory over the power of sin and the expiation of the guilt of sin [objectively], and on the basis of these two the reconciliation of the individual takes place [subjectively].
As a response to the work of Korff a discussion was started in the church in the forties about reconciliation. O. Noordmans and K.H. Miskotte spoke critically about Korff’s conclusions concerning the christological creed of the church, but they paid little attention to his contribution to the debate on reconciliation. In a later phase the discussion concentrated on the use of systematic theological and/or biblical arguments in order to justify a particular type of doctrine of reconciliation. A.A. van Ruler independently arrived at giving attention to the same three aspects which Korff had pointed out: atonement for guilt, reconciliation between God and man in which man participates by means of the work of the Spirit, and deliverance of the complete created order from all forms of ruin. Full salvation, which will have not just personal and existential, but also cosmic dimensions, in his view will only be achieved at the end of the ages. Then the duality of Creator and creature will reach its original destination: existence before the face of God. However, up until that time, in ‘life in time and space’, we are called to live on the basis of the understanding that God has a delight in his world. By the work of the Holy Spirit God wants to bring us into service in his Kingdom.
Similarly in the thinking of E.C.F.A. Schillebeeckx the lasting distinction between Creator and creature in the eschaton plays an important role, together with the task of Christians in the here and now. His view of the high calling of Christians does not flow from the expectation that man would be capable to bring about an unmarred society free of suffering, but from the belief that God has had the courage to appoint man as his representative in his good creation. In and through the behavior of man it should become clear that God wants salvation for his complete creation. The fact that man does not realize much of this creation task is in the view of Schillebeeckx not a reason for God to compel the will of man by force.
The position of A. van de Beek is altogether different. Even though he also saysto value the difference between Creator and creature, he seems to draw God fully in the human sphere by arguing that history is essential to God being God. In his view God has had first to conquer the demonic in himself. This has happened in a final sense when Jesus was crucified. From the moment of his resurrection the Spirit is working to realize salvation for man in the hard reality of this world. According to Van de Beek restrictions in human nature and brokenness are features of creation and creatures, and eternal life can rise only through death. Yet at the same time he argues that man stands guilty before God, even though God himself has asked ‘to much’ of him. Reconciliation for sin is described by him as God and man dying together for the guilt of the world, as this has happened in Christ. For real reconciliation it is necessary for both parties, God and man, to take responsibility for each other and to ‘give oneself up all the way to the end’.
Almost all systematic theologians discussed here have made an effort to provide a biblical justification for their views of systematic theology, and more specifically, christology and reconciliation. However, what was considered to be ‘a biblical justification’ differed substantially. Influenced by the Leben-Jesu-Forschung historic-critical exegesis has received a strong impulse in the nineteenth century. In the Dutch Reformed Church both Modern and Ethical Theology used this method of interpreting the Bible, and so did the later Middle Orthodoxy. In Roman-Catholic circles on the other hand, up until at least the first decades of the twentieth century the reaction to the influence of modern science on exegesis has been cautious. Right-Modernism, which emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century due to the influence of Remonstrants like K.H. Roessingh and G.J. Heering, followed in their interpretation of Scripture the line of thought of Modernism. Historic-critical Bible exegesis was taken seriously, even though the adherents of Right-Modernism leaned heavily on Orthodoxy with respect to the doctrine of revelation. The pioneer of Neo-Calvinism, A. Kuyper, did not allow any space for historic-critical exegesis, because in that way the authority of Scripture would have been undermined. Even though men like H. Bavinck, K. Schilder and G.C. Berkouwer each went their own way with respect to the authority of Scripture, it can be said more generally that Neo-Calvinists up until the seventies have been very reluctant towards a historiccritical approach of the Bible.
In the sixties and seventies substantial changes in society led to the questioning of first the authority of tradition, and later also of Scripture. At first, a critique of tradition resulted in going ‘back to the biblical roots’, a process in which the Bible and not some theory anchored in systematic theology was the starting point for making a contemporary creed. At the Roman-Catholic side of the debate this tendency can be noticed in De Nieuwe Katechismus (The New Catechism) and in the work of Schillebeeckx, and at the Protestant side in the declaration Verzoening met God (Reconciliation with God) of the Synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, and in the work of H. Berkhof.
Because the authority of Scripture became more and more a matter of debate, this tendency has come to a halt in later years. Theologians like H.M. Kuitert and C.J. den Heyer distanced themselves from the view common in Christianity that a special revelation from the side of God has been recorded in the Bible. On the other hand, B. Wentsel, from the same denomination, went back to exegesis informed by systematic theology, which also plays an important role in the works of G.C. Berkouwer.
The subject of reconciliation between God and man in Christ has been dealt with in the Netherlands of the twentieth century from a variety of presuppositions. In my final Chapter 8 I give my personal point of view on the data gathered in my research, with an eye to a contemporary creed for the Christian church. It is a personal point of view: even though I have the opinion that my presuppositions are supported by many in the Christian tradition, at the same time I am aware that they are not agreed upon by every Christian. For that reason a section in which I make explicit my presuppositions precedes my conclusions.
In my view at the heart of Christian faith is the conviction that there is a God who exists independent of human thinking and who also is totally different from man because He is not bound to our categories of ‘time’ and ‘space’. I consider the Bible to be a book inspired by the Spirit of this God, which forms the basis of what can be said about God and his intentions with man. According to the biblical testimony this God makes an effort to make himself known in our reality to man and enter in relation with him.
In the New Testament the historical person Jesus of Nazareth is named the Christ, the Messiah who came from God to save human beings from their sins and bring them to salvation. It should be mentioned that the interpretation and evaluation of the data of Old and New Testament concerning this Messiah have been a matter of debate already from the beginning of Christianity. In contrast to P. Smits, H. Wiersinga, H.M. Kuitert and C.J. den Heyer, it is my opinion that reason or human imagination cannot be used as a standard for determining what can be accepted by faith. However fallible the human process of interpreting Scripture may be, when a Christian church states its creed it has to be based on what God has revealed about himself.
In the process of my research it has become my conviction more and more that the heart of the biblical witness concerning reconciliation between God and man lies in the fact that the relationship with man as intended by God is and has been disrupted because man does not want to direct himself fully towards God. Both in the Old and New Testament man is called again and again to turn and repent. This is also central in the proclamation of Jesus of Nazareth.
In the twentieth-century debate on the reconciliatory work of Christ few have paid attention to his teaching and his life. His suffering, death and resurrection on the other hand are generally speaking considered to be of indispensable significance for reconciliation between God and man. As the authors of the New Testament looked back on the tragic end of the life of Jesus, so also in Christian tradition it is common to draw conclusions on the basis of the end of his life concerning God’s apparent intention with his life. In this approach a ‘closed’ model of history is used in which, just like in eighteenth and nineteenth century Idealism, history is seen as the realization of what had been established before in ‘the Absolute’ or in (the council of) God. Starting from an ‘open’ model of history in which man has the freedom to make choices within the context of space and time, it is in my view important to look at the historical order of things, also when we deal with a description of the public life of Jesus.
On the basis of this starting point I am of the opinion that in the life of Jesus one can read how God intended the life of every human being: being fully directed towards God, choosing what is good and resisting what is evil. Furthermore, in the Gospels it becomes clear that Jesus aimed at making his fellow human beings find the way to (the Kingdom of) God, in order to make them participate in life ‘for ever’. In a number of passages it is also clear that Jesus gave himself a special role with respect to the relationship between God and man, without it becoming clear how and when he came to that conviction.
The core of the public life of Jesus is the proclamation that God is still looking for human beings who want to change their life and turn to Him. After his death and resurrection the disciples of Jesus also conveyed this message by saying that everyone who wants to be reconciled with God is allowed to plead on the name of Jesus. This points to a fundamental change that apparently has occurred in Jesus. The apostle Paul in particular has argued that God in or through Christ has reconciled ‘the world’, ‘enemies’, or ‘us’ with himself.
Looking for an answer to the question what at the side of God has changed in Christ, systematic theologians have also paid attention to the Old Testament in different degrees. But also in the interpretation of the various passages considered to be important for understanding that change, presuppositions turn out to have a significant influence on the conclusions. It is therefore important in my view when exploring a specific subject of Christian doctrine to listen with an open mind to the full width of the biblical witness and not just to pay attention to a number of so-called proof texts.
When with respect to reconciliation significance is attributed to the way in which Jesus gave expression to his humanness, then also well-known passages from the Old Testament receive fresh light. I illustrate this by looking at three topics: the sacrificial cult, Genesis 22, and Isaiah 53. In my view in these passages it becomes clear that heeding the words spoken by God results in salvation and blessing in a perspective which transcends human limitations of time and space. This has become visible in the most profound sense in the resurrection of Jesus, after his life fully devoted towards God was ended by human hands. According to the biblical testimony his work to bring people back to God is continued up until today by the Holy Spirit, for example in the summons of Paul: “as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).
No comments:
Post a Comment