Defending Defending Constantine: Or, the Trajectory of the Gospel
2011; Volume: 85; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
0025-9373
Autores Tópico(s)American Constitutional Law and Politics
ResumoLet me begin by raising stakes. The debate over Constantine is not merely about whether there is a Christian ethic for emperors (Hovey), or about liturgical and social effects of Christendom (Kreider), or about christological foundations of historical study (Sider). Important as those subjects are, they do not get to main issue. agree entirely with Sider's point: The question is not whether or not there was a shift. The question is, Which changes fulfilled Gospel and which betrayed it? To answer that question, we need to know what Gospel is. And there's rub. We do not agree on Gospel. That is heart of this debate. To be sure, everyone in current discussion agrees that substance of Gospel is Jesus Christ, eternal Son sent to announce and inaugurate kingdom of His Father in power of Spirit. suspect we all agree that Gospel announcement carries an inherent political charge: Jesus, not Caesar, is kurios; through His Son, God Creator advances His strange justice in face of human--let us be specific, Jewish and Roman--injustice; Jesus left behind a constellation of ekklesiai, civic assemblies; euanngelion is good news of God's triumph. (1) The Gospel announces politics of Jesus; all theology is political theology. On those maxims will assume a consensus. Beyond that quite general sketch of evangelical politics, we diverge sharply. Perhaps it is most precise to say that we agree on Gospel, but disagree about its trajectory. Jesus is Lord, but how does He exercise His Lordship? What import does God's kingship in Christ have for conduct of human kings? Should we reason thus: Because Christ is king, kings will be Christian; or thus: Because Christ is king, Christians need not be. The good news is God's triumph, but triumph over what or whom, and with what results? A brief exposition of two passages of Scripture clarifies my own answers to these questions and sets framework for more detailed response below. In Daniel 7, prophet sees four terrifying beasts coming from Gentile sea, each an ancient empire. A court assembles in with Ancient of Days presiding. like Son of comes, and Ancient of Days passes judgment in His favor, delivering dominion of beasts to this new Adam, this cosmic Beastmaster (Dan. 7:1-14). of court attendants explains that the of One represented by Son of Man will receive kingdom (v. 18, 22); in fact, will receive the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of all kingdoms under whole heaven (v. 27). No Christian reader of Scripture doubts that Daniel's Son of Man is Jesus, and few dispute that He received all authority and power in His ascension (cf. Eph. 1:21-23). But Daniel 7 indicates that dominion of Son of Man is inseparable from dominion of saints of Most High. If Son of Man receives dominion of beasts, so does church. (2) Some Christians qualify saints' authority as spiritual. Others push rule of to an eschatological future. Both have some truth: Christians rule even from catacombs, and reign of saints, like reign of Jesus, will be consummated in a new creation at last day. Yet this is not what Daniel 7 says. of few Old Testament passages that speak of kingdom of God, chapter identifies kingdom of Highest One with dominion of (v. 27). When Jesus announced the kingdom of God is near, He meant kingdom of Daniel 7 (with, of course, all its rich Old Testament context). This is Gospel of Jesus: The time has come for God to defeat principalities and powers, take His throne, and deliver dominion of nations to Son of Man--and His saints. Andrew Perriman puts it with disarming modesty: I wonder whether it is too fanciful to suggest that this apocalyptically conceived hope [of Daniel 7] . …
Referência(s)