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