Post Series
0: Intro
1: Narrative Question
2: Authority Question
3: God Question
4: Jesus Question
5: Gospel Question
Theological Foundation Recap
6: Church Question
7: Sex Question
8: Future Question
9: Pluralism Question
10: What-Do-We-Do-Now Question
11: Final Thoughts

Brian’s shift in perspective on the gospel happened during a lunch conversation with a “well-known evangelical theologian” who challenged Brian’s assumptions regarding the gospel by asking the question “What we the gospel according to Jesus?” The theologian replied, “For Jesus, the gospel was very clear: The Kingdom of God is at hand.” He later urged Brian to read Paul in light of Jesus, instead of the other way around. (138)

Before this moment, Brian approached the gospel in a typical evangelical manner, one with which I am all to familiar. As he puts it, “I had always assumed the ‘kingdom of God’ meant ‘kingdom of heaven,’ which meant ‘going to heaven after you die,’ which required believing the message of Paul’s Letter of the Romans, which I understood to teach a theory of atonement called ‘penal substitution,’ which was the basis for a formula for forgiveness of original sin called ‘justification by grace through faith.’” (138)

Instead, “[an] increasing number of us, when freed from the constraints of the six-line Greco Roman narrative and the associated constitutional reading of the Bible, gain courage to speak what has become joyfully clear to us in this fresh reading of the gospels: Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion to replace first Judaism and then all other religions, whether by pen, the pulpit, the sword, or the apocalypse…Instead, he came to announce a new Kingdom, a new way of life, a new way of peace that carried good news to all people of every religion.” (139)

On the point about Jesus coming to inaugurate God’s Kingdom presence, Brian is correct: Repent for “the Kingdom of Heaven has drawn near,” is the opening salvo that launched the teaching ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. “The term ‘Kingdom of God/Heaven’ signified God’s sovereign, dynamic and eschatological rule,” ((Caragounis, “Eschatology,” Dictionary on Jesus and the Gospels, 417.)) both now and in a future epoch. Throughout three years of preaching, the message Jesus bore was eschatological in orientation; Jesus both established and anticipated the Kingdom of God. Through debates, discourses, and parables, this Nazarene teacher testified to the dawning eschatological reign of God and anticipated the eschatological “age to come” where that reign would be exhaustive and permanent.

I. Howard Marshall affirms that the Gospel writers regarded the Kingdom of Heaven as being central to the teachings of Jesus. ((I. Howard Marshall, Jesus the Saviour. Studies in New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 213.)) Through these teachings, Jesus declared that the Kingdom would come in the future, yet was also present in someway. Jesus never relegated God’s Kingdom reign simply to the future but instead explicitly announced its presence, while expecting its future; the Kingdom is present and future. ((McKnight, “Gospel of Matthew,” Dictionary on Jesus and the Gospels, 535.)) This “already and not yet” descriptor is now a common place of scholarship, being described as “realized” and “future” eschatology. ((Allison, “Eschatology,” Dictionary on Jesus and the Gospels, 206.))

For Jesus—as well as the other disciples. including Paul—the euangelian, “good news,” gospel was intimately linked to the concept of the Kingdom of God/Heaven ((Matthew favors Kingdom of Heaven language, while Luke/Mark favor Kingdom of God)). In fact, I much more prefer the term Reign of God, because the Greek basillea can be rendered Kingdom or Reign. What Jesus makes clear, and what Paul further develops, is that through Jesus Christ God’s sovereign, dynamic and eschatological rule was breaking into earth’s reality. It was happening “at hand,” in that moment, in our moments. The term Kingdom or Reign of God referred primarily to the sovereign activity of God as ruler and king, and only secondarily to the ream over which God ruled. ((Marshall, Jesus the Saviour, 231.))

David Flusser, in his book The Sage from Galilee, presents a convincing case that Jesus absolutely believed the Kingdom had come and was amongst the world. In fact, this idea would have been a fixture of rabbinical Judaism. “There should be no doubt that both for rabbinical Judaism and for Jesus the Kingdom of Heaven is a present reality.” ((Flusser, Sage from Galilee, 87.)) Jesus’ main task was to be the center of a movement which realized God’s Kingdom reign among mankind, right now in this present age. ((Flusser, Sage from Galilee, 88.)) “Consequently, when we talk about the [Kingdom of Heaven] we are talking about something that is actually happening here and now.” ((Marshall, Jesus the Saviour, 231.)) God’s Kingdom, the exercise of His kingship, and the manifestation of His sovereignty has dawn near. (( James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 408.)) While its entire consummation awaits His return, Christ inaugurated the Kingdom of Heaven during his lifetime. ((Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 297.)) The parables themselves make this clear, beginning with an emphasis on the presence of the Kingdom and its explosive growth.

So in as much as he seeks to shift the gospel to center around God’s inbreaking rule through the Kingdom of Heaven, Brian is OK. The problem is when he divorces that kingdom and rule from Jesus Christ and Him alone. He audaciously asserts that Jesus came to announce a kingdom to all people of every religion, a kingdom that has “room for many religious traditions within it.” (139) While seemingly out of the ordinary, Brian is being incredibly consistent with his re-imagined Christian faith, on that is no longer about Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah, but simply about God, a generic pan-deity that is in no way wholly rooted in Jesus Christ. As Brian recentered the gospel around the Kingdom—a task I actually applaud at that level—he fails to root that Kingdom in Jesus Christ and exalt him as the catalyst for the Kingdom in the first place.

For Brian, the Kingdom is “about God’s will being done on earth as in heave for all people…God’s faithful solidarity with all humanity in our suffering, oppression, and evil…God’s compassion and call to be reconciled with God and with one another—before death…a summons to rethink everything and enter a life of retraining as disciples or learners of a new way of life, citizens of a new kingdom.” (139) Elsewhere he writes that Paul himself “preaches the Kingdom of God,” that Paul still carried “the same gospel message he received from Jesus Christ in a vision, the gospel of the Kingdom of God. Whether in person or by letter, he calls people everywhere to be reconciled in the Kingdom of God—reconciled to God by grace through faith, reconciled within themselves, reconciled with others whatever their class, ethnic, cultural, or religious background…This is the gospel of Jesus Christ and of his servant/apostle Paul: the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the good news. Be reconciled.” (157)

While I agree with all of this on the surface, here is my problem: Brian has successfully divorced the Kingdom of God from Jesus Christ! The reconciliation of which Paul proclaims happens ONLY though Jesus Christ. No one else. We are not simply called to “be reconciled.” Every person is called to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. Paul explicitly teaches this in 2 Cor. 5. Romans 8 makes clear that there is no more condemnation for those who are “in Christ.” The righteousness that we all require, the righteousness of God displayed in his reign and kingdom, is given through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe in Him. (Rom. 3)

No Brian, the Kingdom does NOT make room for all faiths, because all other faiths outside of faith in Jesus Christ are false. The Holy Scriptures make clear that God’s Kingdom was inaugurated through Jesus Christ and is available to all because of His life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Peter himself makes this plain in Acts 2 when he roots the eschatological expectations of the Hebrew people in Jesus Christ, declaring that all who call on His name will be saved. Peter does not say, “Repent and believe in the Kingdom of God.” Not at all! He implores his fellow Jews to “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2) In fact, he proclaims that, “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” (Acts 2) He is the one in whom salvation is found, “for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4)

As I have maintained in my assessment all along, for Brian it’s not really all about Jesus Christ, it’s about God, a pluralized God that accommodates to all faiths and religious systems. Not only is this incredibly clear in this section as he never roots the Kingdom in Christ alone, it is also clear in his horrible exegesis of the book of Romans. On the one hand, Brian’s methodology throughout this book is pitiful and nonsensical, because he rarely quotes primary sources to establish his claims, leading to absurd conclusions, like claiming the primary audience were fellow Jews (Most modern scholarship is unified in agreement that most of the audience are Gentiles, in addition to some Jewish converts) ((Jewett, Romans, 70.)) On the other hand, his conclusions are reckless, dangerous to the Christian faith, and devastating to the gospel itself.

His conclusions are crystalized in his continued pluralization of God and Christianity itself in his analysis of Romans 3 and 5. First, Brian argues that Paul is announcing a new way forward for all: the way of faith. (148) This is mystifying because Paul actually maintains the exact opposite: faith has ALWAYS been the means through which one is made right with God! This is the entire point of chapter 4 and the example of Abraham. Ethnicity, food laws, and nationalism in no way bring salvation. Faith does and always has from the beginning. Brian seems to think otherwise because he writes, “Paul now points both Jews and Gentiles toward the way out: not a new doctrine, not a new religion, and not trying harder at the old religion either, but faith. Religious laws and practices are inherently exclusive; you’re either circumcised or not, and either you keep kosher or you don’t. But faith—having reverent confidence or dependence on God—is an option available to everyone.” (emphasis mine. 148)

But faith in what? Or better whom? This is where Brian’s color’s shine: God. For Brian Faith is the point. And actually faith in God, as a generic pan-deity. Brian completely ignores the clear teachings of Romans 3 which root that faith in Jesus Christ. Brian completely refuses to exclusivity embrace Jesus as Lord and Messiah. Furthermore, Brian implies that all of our at least the religious systems of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are, in the end, actually unified under Jesus Abraham. After butchering Romans 3, he bludgeons Romans 5. (I realize these words are dramatic, but they are appropriate for the manner in which Brian handles the Text)

Without giving any sources, Brian clams that Paul, in his discussion on Adam, implies “Our diverse religious systems…have many points of departure that separate us, but if we follow any path back to its source to the genesis of our common humanity, we come to the creation story of Adam, where we are united. After unifying us in the story of our common ancestor Adam, Paul presents Jesus as a new Adam, a second Adam, the last Adam…Adam brought death and condemnation to all humanity; Jesus now brings life and justification to all humanity. So we’re all part o the story of the original Adam, and now, of the new Adam, Jesus.”

At this point in the reading I almost put the book down and walked away. Brian’s assertion that all of our religious systems are somehow united in Adam is far from any sound, sane, serious biblical exegesis. I wrote elsewhere on Romans 5:12-21 and will summarize those thoughts here:

Interestingly, the phrase from Romans 5 that is of interest “through one man” is the first time it appears in biblical literature. In classical literature, this idea that someone suffers something because of another (for instance, “I have suffered injustices by a single wicked person…”)((Dinarchus In Demosthenem, 49:4; see also Hippocrates Epistulae)) does appear, but Paul now uses it in accordance with Adam. ((Jewett, Romans, 373)) Like much of these intertestamental examples, Paul believes that death came as a result of Adam’s sin and now our nature is affected in the way Adam was.

Clearly during the time of Paul, there are signs influential Jewish literature and the 1st century Jewish tradition viewed Adam as a “head” of humanity and that humanity participates in the sin of Adam, enduring the same consequences: death. Paul’s notions in Romans 5:18 that Adam’s trespass results in the condemnation for all people and in v. 19 that all are made sinners through his disobedience are not entirely unique and mirror the same Jewish perspective of his day.

Regardless, though, our Christian understanding of human nature and sin flows from Jesus Christ’s and Paul’s teachings. The historical background must only enhance our understanding of the two without dictating it. Romans 5:18, 19 in particular make clear that “in Adam” we are condemned (vs. “in Christ” we receive justification and life); “in Adam” we are made sinners (vs. “in Christ” we are made righteous).

Adam acts as humanity’s representative not in a religious sense, but a rebellious one. And in the broader context which must include 5:1-11, Paul is explaining how BELIEVERS now have peace and hope with God, because of their faith in Christ blood, death, and life. This is not a passage universalism, which Brian attempts to argue. It is clear that those who “reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ” are “those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness.” (Rom. 5) In other words, those who “declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,” (Rom. 10) those who are “saved” and “in Christ” (Rom 10 and 8) And in regards to the seemingly universalistic “all” in v. 18 Jewett reveals:

In the context of Romans the concern is not so much whether salvation is universal in a theoretical sense…but whether all believers stand within its scope. This verse strong suggests that Adamic damnation has been overturned by Christ’s righteous act and that the scope of righteousness in Christ includes all believers without exception, both now and at the parousia. ((Jewett, Romans, 385.))

In the end, Brian continues his journey away from Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah toward a pluralized, pan-deity God. Like his friend Samir Selmanovic, Brian clearly describes the kingdom of God in terms that are utterly disconnected from Jesus Christ alone. Further, he has also joined with Samir by selecting the feature of the kingdom of God as a revelatory ground of “divine immanence,” instead of Jesus Christ alone. Selmanovic affirms this devastating indictment by claiming the Kingdom is not exclusively limited to Jesus Christ:

Many Christians believe that the Kingdom of God that Jesus spoke about is inseparable from knowing the person of Jesus. If so, the question begs to be asked: Is the Kingdom of God present in all of life, among all people, throughout history, or is the Kingdom of God limited to the historical person of Jesus and thus absent from most of life, most people, and most history? The answer to this question depends greatly on whether Christians are willing to make their religion take a backseat to something larger than itself. (It’s Really All About God. 76-77)

Like Samir, Brian believes that God is reveal to the world outside of Jesus Christ and that the gospel itself is more than Jesus. In closing this question, Brian claims that “Paul is a ‘Jesus and the Kingdom of God’ guy from first to last.” Here Brian is preaching the Kingdom of God along side Jesus, rather than Jesus Christ alone. Brian, you are wrong to do this; there is a massive difference between the Kingdom of God and Jesus vs. the Kingdom of God through Jesus.

Karl Barth makes it clear such people as Brian are “oblivious of the fact that [divine] immanence both as a whole and in its parts has Christian truth and reality only in so far as it is founded in Jesus Christ and summed up in Him, so that if, as a whole and in its parts, it is affirmed, preached and believed as a centre in itself and alongside Christ, the Church will inevitably be led back into heathendom and its worship of the elements.” (CD II,1:319). More importantly, he goes on to say that God’s Kingdom is not known at all apart from Jesus Christ, and doing otherwise establishes a Christian heresy. As he warns, “Christian heresies spring from the fact that man does not take seriously the known ground of divine immanence in Jesus Christ, so that from its revelation, instead of apprehending Jesus Christ and the totality in Him, he arbitrarily selects this or that feature and sets it up as a subordinate centre: perhaps the idea of creation…or even the kingdom of God.” (CD II,1:319)

Paul was not about Jesus and the Kingdom of God, but Jesus Christ and Him alone who inaugurated God’s reign through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension. This is clear from his words in Philippians 3:10-11:

I want to know Christ—yes to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection of the dead.

This was the prayer and cry of Paul the apostle: Jesus Christ and the forgiveness, salvation, and resurrection provided through Him. Why is this also not the prayer and cry of Brian, too? At this point, it is clear they are not. How sad, indeed.