Further Reflections on Oscar Cullmann: Are All Christians Healed?

Reading further into Christ and Time (now completed, see previous blog), there are a few more points which Cullmann pulls out which are worthy of comment which relates specifically to my own observation in the previous blog; how can the already/not yet principle influence our understanding of miracles and healings.

Miracles: Partially and Provisionally – We still all die

As the already/not yet principle explained in the previous blog, we are presently living in the tension of what has already happened verse what will still happen (we are justified, we will be justified / we are saved, we will be saved / the Kingdom of God was inaugurated with Christ' first coming, the Kingdom of God will not see its' full realization/actualization until Christ' second coming etc). Cullmann says:

"There actually occur eschatological miracles, speaking with tongues and healings of the sick, miracles in which the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit even now, although only partially and provisionally, repels the power of death even in the physical sphere." (Cullmann, p.155)

An example, which relates to the present discussion of the already/not yet principle, is the resurrection. The resurrection already occurred in Christ, but its' realization/actualization will not be seen of the believer until the eschaton (the end of the present evil age), when we too will all experience the resurrection for ourselves. What is important to realize here is that Christ was not just resurrected for Christ's sake, but rather his resurrection is the 'proof in the putting' (if you will) that we too will experience a resurrection. That is why Paul describes Christ's resurrection as 'first fruits' in a chapter that outlines our hope for our resurrection (1 Cor. 15). It has 'already' happened for the true Israelite (Christ) but it has 'not yet' been fully realized by the 'Israel of God' (Gal. 6). How then can we who are caught in the tension of this already/not yet era be sure that we too will experience the resurrection? That answer is that the same Spirit who raised Christ from the dead dwells in us as a guarantee that we too will be raised (Rom. 8).

The point of the entire previous paragraph is just to say that death itself is a sickness! If people never got sick or had a heart attack or countless other physical ailments, they would never die. Yet the reality that all die until the resurrection testifies to the fact that Christians do not walk in perfect health (they all get sick or something at least once… when they die). And so considering what would be the greatest miracle/healing that one could perform – that of raising the dead – this same person must still die. Thus this great miracle/healing is only 'partially and provisionally'; that is, it only happens sometimes, to some people, for some reason (which may be beyond us) and when all is said and done, the said individual will still died.

And so we should understand that miracles and healings are only partially and provisionally, that they only repel death and sickness as a way of foreshadowing the reality of the Kingdom of God (which is here now, but not yet!), therefore people still die and get sick, yet many (not all) are healed and others (by no means 'much') are even raised from the dead… only to die again. This should prevent some from dogmatically sitting in the judgment seat of God declaring that 'so and so' a Christian must be in sin or must not have faith or any other condemnation, just because some misfortune has overtaken them. In such situations Christians need to support one another, not add to the burden of those who are already hurting.

Remember always that God is the God that heals thee

Derek

Christ and Time: The Already/Not Yet Principle

In 1946 a controversial scholar named Oscar Cullmann wrote a fascinating book titled Christ and Time (translated from German to English in 1949). Cullmann develops many ideas throughout, some of which have received wide acceptance, others have received wide rejection and I have for some time now tried to get my hands on a copy (out of print… grrrr). When I brought up the book to a friend of mine he said, "I think I own that book. I can't be sure but it sounds familiar". Sure enough, after digging through his shelves, he discovered that he owned a copy which he unwittingly picked up from a used bookstore for $4.72 because he thought the title looked interesting, but he never got around to reading it.

So John loaned me that musty old book and in this blog I want to highlight some of Cullmann's insights which hold certain relevance to my own developing theology.

Timeless Eternity or Endless Time?

"Primitive Christianity knows nothing of a timeless God. The 'eternal' God is he who was in the beginning, is now, and will be in all the future, 'who is, who was, and who will be' (Rev 1:4)." P.63

I think this may be Cullmann's most resisted idea, that contrary to the traditional understanding of the nature of God as One who is timeless (that 'Christ entered time' etc), and that eternity is timelessness, Cullmann argues that the scriptures – both in Jewish and Christian thought – do not teach this notion. He argues – as today many more are arguing – that the notion of timelessness (timeless God and timeless eternity) is a result of the Hellenism of Christianity (Oh how Plato influenced Clement and Origen!). At any rate, this philosophical idea is pervasive in Christianity both in the academic corridors and on a popular level (in Rob Bells recent video Everything is Spiritual, he states matter of fact-like that Time is like a brick which God looks down on. That God is everywhere on the brick simultaneously while from our perspective we are only at one point on the timeline). This also has to do with the Greek idea that God is terribly transcendent (if he is timeless he must not be able to work in time because that would make him affected by time, therefore he must be distant), yet the scriptures obviously relate that God is not far but rather he is close, and so while Christianity has accepted the Platonic idea of God's transcendence it has none the less chopped it up to a mystery of how God could enter into time. Such confusion can easily be avoided by accepting the biblical (not Platonic) concept of time: not that eternity is timeless, but rather that eternity is time unending!

Principle of Representation

I found Cullmann's idea of the 'principle of representation' very interesting in light of my recent study of the Covenants and Pauline Justification (Old/New Perspectives).

It goes something like this: Adam as mankind represents all of creation so that when he sins all that he represents falls into corruption. Israel was called to undo the problem of creation, the problem of mankind and thus to represent all of mankind, yet Israel itself proved to be very much a part of the problem. A remnant within Israel was then called forth to represent all of Israel and finally One Man (the true Israelite) was called to represent that remnant who represented Israel who represented mankind who represented creation.

"This principle is still that of election and representation, but no longer in the sense of a reduction. Rather all further developments unfold so that from the center reached in the resurrection of Christ the way no longer leads from the many to the One, but on the contrary from the One, in progressive advance, to the many" (p.117, italics original).

Now from Christ to those who are "in Christ" – his body the Church. This leads to the redeemed humanity in the Kingdom of God and to the redeemed creation of the new heaven and the new earth. The time line of redemption history looks something like this:

Creation -> Mankind -> Israel -> Remnant -> Christ <- Church <- Kingdom of God <- New Creation

ß Christ à Church -> Kingdom of God -> New Creation -> Consummation of all things; God is "all in all"

The principle of election and representation is very cool. "Thus the entire redemptive history unfolds in two movements: the one proceeds from the many to the One; this is the Old Covenant. The other proceeds from the One to the many; this is the New Covenant" (p.117).

Already/Not Yet Principle

The Already/Not Yet principle is perhaps Cullmann's longest lasting and most widely accepted legacy, though it seems unfortunately to have not worked its way into the pulpit and pews to any great extent! Here's the idea in a nut shell: The Jewish eschatological hope (Messianic hope) was that at the end of the "age" (not the "end of time" or the "end of the world" – Judaism had no such thought process) the Jewish Messiah would come to vindicate Israel by defeating Israel's enemies and establish God's Kingdom on the earth in which the Jews would be his people and he would be their God. But what the Jews thought God would do at the end of the present evil age, Jesus did in the middle of this present era through his life, death and resurrection. And what the Jews expected the Messiah to accomplish in the physical, he did in the spiritual – defeat Satan, Sin, and Death. What results from this is the paradox, the reality, that what was expected to happen at the end of the era began at the cross and in the resurrection but will receive its full realization at the consummation of all things.

So are we justified now by faith or will we be justified in the future by works? Are we sanctified in the present or are we sanctified at the consummation? Did Christ establish the Kingdom of God in his first coming or will he establish it at his second? To these and other questions of dichotomy the already/not yet principle destroys at a stroke. The issue is not 'either/or' but rather 'both/and', or should I say 'already/not yet'!

We are justified in the present by faith in anticipation of the final declaration that we are justified by works in the future. We are sanctified (and being sanctified) in the present in anticipation to our final sanctification in the future. Christ inaugurated his Kingdom in his first coming but its full realization and actualization is yet to come. In short, we are already justified and not yet justified, already sanctified but not yet sanctified, already living in the Kingdom but not yet living in its full actualization.

What a very cool principle. I love it!

Friendly Challenge to the Reader: It would be interesting to tease this principle out as it relates to the subject of healing and miracles, and see if we may develop a biblically based and well balanced understanding of miracles and healings. Some people suggest that healings were specifically for the first century Church only, while others think that all Christians should be walking in perfect health and prosperity all the time during this present evil age. I think both positions stand as polar opposites of half-truths, and the wrong halves at that! But perhaps if we understood that the Kingdom of God is here already, but not yet fully realized, perhaps this will explain why so many are healed and so many more are not, why so many miracles occur, and so many more do not – perhaps each time a miracle or healing occurs what we are seeing is the breaking through of the Kingdom of Heaven into this present evil age. Perhaps, on the other hand, why such miracles and healings are not consistent is because the Kingdom of God has not yet fully been actualized and because we are living in the present evil age until the return of our Messiah to consummate all things.

I am interested in any thoughts you may have regarding what I just said. Is there merit to this line of thinking? Have you developed this further than I and if so what did you discover? Do you stand strongly opposed to my suggestion and if so why?

As always your thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Be blessed in Christ

Derek

Giving God’s Way

[Part 3: 1, 2]

I Believe Christians have a rich mandate to give, and in the context of this blog, I am referring to that practical currency we call money. But before we get to 'money' we need to first take a short detour by taking a closer look at a giving God – he is not so small and cruel as to make everything an arbitrary test case (do you have faith or don't you?)! Does he not know the motives and intents of the heart? Does God not care more about people then about laws? Is God not more concerned about his children then money?

I delivered a sermon not long ago tracing the Grand Biblical Motif of what it means to be divine image bearers – that we humans were created to reflect the imagine and likeness of God (i.e. his glory which is his character [cf. Gen. 1:26; Rom. 1:23; 2 Cor. 3:18; Ex. 33:19]). So how can we, if we truly are image bearers of God, not give when giving is the very thing that God does?: In creation [Gen. 1:1] and at creation [Gen. 1:26ff]; in covenant with blessings [Gen. 1:28] (and in cursings if the rebel so chooses [Deut. 27:15ff]); and of course the greatest divine gift of all, in his Son – the sacrifice of Christ.

But it must be remembered that our God is not an arbitrary God as so many make him out to be. God does not give non-sensicially as though God gives just for the sake of giving; but when he gives he gives with a purpose, when he gives he always does so in the context of the 'so-that' clause! "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" [Jn. 3:16, emphasis added].

Giving God's Way in the Old Testament

We also need to be reminded that God is in the business of taking care of people and (this is very important for those 'hyper-faith' 'hyper spiritualists' out there) God's primary chosen conduit to accomplish this aim is through his people! The very national law of tithing (Israel's social tax if you will) was put in place so that through the people of God those with needs would be met; but notice also that God's people took care of each other so that – in theory anyways – every need among God's people was met also! Take note: Levites (with no inheritance); orphans; aliens and widows (i.e. the helpless) [Deut. 14:28-29; 26:12-13]; and observe how this played out in God's overall plan. Israel was to be a light to the dark world, a beacon of hope to the hopeless, that there is a God who is seeking to redeem creation and this was a call for the nations to enter into God's covenant [Rom. 2:19; Gen. 12:3; Ex. 9:14-16 etc]. When the Israelites were faithful in their tithe (let us not forget the national and geographical context) it was clearly a sign that they were in the covenant of God and so God would bless them [Mal. 3:1, 8-10] because they were taking care of the helpless which is where God's heart lies [cf. vs. 5]. And when the Israelites did things right in being the extension of God's arm to a world in need, "Then all the nations will call you blessed" [Mal. 3:12], that is, it was a testimony to the world that God is Almighty God, Israel was his people and (evangelistically speaking) it was an invitation to join the people of God! This is the biblical purpose of God in tithing.

But there is another all too relevant point to be made here: there is no evidence in the Old Testament that those who were the beneficiary of the tithes also had to give. That is, there is no command in the Old Testament that the orphans, widows or aliens had to tithe – this only makes sense in that they were the recipients of the tithe because they could not afford to take care of themselves, let alone tithe to help others! So, I wonder, when so many today are told to 'tithe' regardless of one's financial state, how it is that we think we are being biblical (let alone Christian!) in teaching this way? God's purpose was to help those in need, not to further burden them!

Take note: Much that is often taught today regarding tithing is the exact opposite of what the scriptures actually teach on the subject! This should pain us.

Giving God's Way in the New Testament

It seems that the early church followed in the steps which Jesus himself instructed his disciples quite closely; "give to everyone one who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back" [Luke30], and John the Baptist instructed that "the man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same" [Luke 3:`11]. John the beloved says, in keeping with this tradition, "if anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? (This is in keeping with what I said above, how can we be image bearers of God if we are not givers?) And James, the brother of Jesus (one of Mary's biological sons) and also – it is prudent to add – the leader of the first church in Jerusalem follows the same tradition: "Suppose your brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead" [James 2:16-17]. In reading all of this one begins to acquire a sense of what is the real issue here. It is not "prove your faith by tithing even if you can't…" but, "people who give to those in need are showing that they are a people who belong to the faith because they are fulfilling the heart of God by caring for those in need". This is the very purpose of giving, as John said, if one sees someone in need but has no pity, "how can Gods love" be in him?

It's not surprising then that the early church, following closely the teachings of the Apostles, were "selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need" [Acts. 2:45] and as a result, "there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need" [Acts 4:34-35]. Again, there is not a hint of the Old Testament law of tithing being practiced among God's New Covenant people, neither is there any suggestion that those who gave had to give or for that matter that those who could not afford to give gave! For that would defeat the purpose of giving. As in the Old Testament, God's purpose is to help those in need, not to burden them further.

Aside from all of this there arose from time to time special needs and occasions for the church to rise up and shine God's light to a hurting world by practical means. A contemporary example would be the Tsunami of 2004 or Hurricane Katrina when Christians from all over the world rose up to address those great needs. And in first century Palestine, it was not a Tsunami or Hurricane; rather it was a severe Famine. To the famine mentioned in Acts 11 the scriptures read, "The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul" [vs. 29-30]. Paul writes to the Corinthians regarding collecting an offering to help relieve the Jews of the famine: "Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatians churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made… After I go through Macedonia, I will come to you—for I will be going through Macedonia" [1 Cor. 16:1-2, 5]. Paul, writing to the Romans, says "I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem" [Romans 15:25-26].

What can we say about all of this? For starters we must remember that Paul is not teaching here a doctrine of giving or tithing. His letters to the Corinthian and Roman churches were real historical letters addressing a real historical need of a real historical natural disaster, and both comments about collections were made in his farewell addresses. Furthermore, the famine in Palestine was severe and Paul was charged with a mission to collect an offering from the churches throughout the empire to help those in need. This is significant because when Paul mentions to the Corinthians "you should set aside a sum of money" each week, we need to take this as good advice, not doctrine. Paul is not commanding every Christian in the world to eternally give a set amount ever week – least of all a tithe! – rather he is encouraging the Corinthians and the Galatians to set aside money every week until he comes so that we he arrives in their cities to collect their offering they will not have to take up a large last minute offering. In short, Paul is encouraging these Christians to get on a budget so that they can afford to help the Jews in need in Palestine without putting themselves in a place of need.

Another point to be made is that each gave according to their ability! This is not "give ten percent each week because the bible says so" (which is does not), rather this is, "each should give according to his ability (i.e. only if he can) and only if he wants to"; of course, if a Christian can, he should want to!

Conclusion:

There is so much more to say (i.e. joyful giver, pay those who teach etc. etc.), but this is a blog, not a book and I believe my point has been made. Gods' purpose in creating a people who give is to help those in need, not to burden those in need by imposing a law of tithe on them. But more than that, as illustrated in the first blog in this series, a giving community is also an evangelistic community: when the world looks in and sees that the needs of all Gods' children are met they may say something like, "I want some of that" and so they may get saved and join the community of faith. Furthermore, the church is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12ff), if he will take care of us because we are his children and if we will not have need for God will fulfill that need, it is through his Church – his body, his arms extended – that this is accomplished. God's promise to meet all of our needs is a very practical promise and indeed a commission to the Church to fulfill the heart of God by helping one another and those who need assistance.

So when we see a in our community a single mom of two small children struggling make ends meet, the body of Christ should help relieve her of some of the financial burden she faces as opposed to burdening her further by imposing an unbiblical law demanding that she give ten percent of her income every week.

I cannot stress this point enough: tithing damages the body of Christ, hinders the Spirit, fails to understand and live out the responsibility of the Church as Christ' body, places misleading expectations on God, destroys the faith, hinders evangelism, closes the door on the world, has no defense in the scriptures and no place in the Church.

However: Giving as it is lived out in the New Testament facilitates a thriving and healthy body of Christ, allows the Spirit to work through the acts of generous believers, exemplifies the Church as Christ' body and brings reality to the blessings which God promises to those of the faith, it proves the faith and facilitates more faith lived out in actions, promotes evangelism, extends a warm invitation to the world, is seen everywhere in the scriptures which highlight God's heart for people in need and has every place in the Church!

Give abundantly if you can. If you cannot give and indeed if you cannot afford to pay your bills and feed your children, worry not. Our God who feeds the sparrows will take care of your needs as well, and he will do it through his body (the church community you belong to). "But" you may say, "my church tells me that if I 'tithe' God will meet my needs; but they have never help me to pay a single bill which I could not pay because food comes first". To this I simply exhort, find then a community of God who are actually being the body of Christ; Christ would meet your needs, not burden you with more laws.

Amen

Derek

P.S. If I have offended someone by writing these three blogs I am not sorry. Perhaps people will say, "But we need tithing to pay for the church building", and to this I ask, where is your faith? As a community our people must always come before our buildings and if it is necessary to charge a weekly fee for a meeting centre then so be it, but don't label this fee 'tithing' and then claim that it is 'biblical' or 'God ordained' when it is not!

P.P.S. For those historical buffs, you may find it interesting to discover that tithing was not commonly practiced in the Church until about the seventh century AD! As a matter of fact, Christians did not tithe at all from the birth of the Church in Acts 2 (around 30 AD) until around 400 AD – that's almost four hundred years before tithing began in the Church – if it is so biblical then why did neither the Apostles nor the Apostolic Fathers (nor even the generation after them) ever teach or practice it.

Just an afterthought.