A primary thing
to note about Kostenberger and O’Brien’s presentation is their integration of
history, literature and theology to draw some very pointed theological borders.
From a historical perspective, they survey some of the Old Testamental period, a
brief portion of the era of the second temple and a large section of the New
Testamental period. From a literary standpoint, they place an emphasis on the
role of Israel as a mission tool and yet exalt the role of the Christian church
as missionary. With a theological vantage, they also put a heavy emphasis on redemption.
Where Kostenberger and O’Brien excel though is how they clearly outline the
bounds for such a study on exegetical grounds.
Biblio-Historical
Parameters
Just as any
debate must have rules of order, any theological discussion must have standards
by which participants can establish their positions. Kostenberger and O’Brien
make no apologies for the parameters they set for a discussion of Missio
Dei. Using the biblical record as the primary source for their dialogue,
they readily admit that God’s mission begins at the fall of man in Genesis and
ends before entrance into the new heavens in Revelation. There is “no mission
in the Garden of Eden and there will be no mission in the heavens and new earth”
(251). With the lines drawn, Kostenberger and O’Brien launch into their biblio-historical
argument.
This
parameter setting is significant, because as they evaluate earlier studies on Missio
Dei they do so in light of the biblical text. All the more so, Kostenberger
and O’Brien seem to place a greater emphasis on New Testament texts than on Old
Testament ones. Their study is a thematic snapshot of Old Testament passages
that simply lay the grounds for God’s historical mission work through the
people of Israel .
And they quickly move to a large survey of New Testament texts to show how
God’s mission is being fulfilled in the Christian church. When extra-biblical
history is used, it is done so with a set purpose of discounting its relevance
to the central subject of God on mission.
Interestingly,
it is for this very reason that Kostenberger and O’Brien not only stand out in
writings about Missio Dei but also come under academic fire. Whereas
other popular theology writers tend to draw from extra-biblical texts quite
freely, these two authors have confined their points to what the Bible actually
says about the matter. Although some have ridiculed them for an exegetically
anemic biblical theology, it is Kostenberger and O’Brien’s insistence on
exegesis that allows construction of a steady structure for missiological
study.
Uniqueness of
Christianity
According to the
authors, using the Bible as primary source and exegesis as primary means for
extraction concludes only with a picture of Christianity as the hallmark of Missio
Dei. The authors place the person of Jesus Christ as the central figure in
God’s mission. All history prior to Christ’s advent pointed to him and all
history since his ministry on earth reflects back to him. Accordingly, any Jewish
mission would have been only a temporary glimpse of a Christological model and
the greater mission to the Gentiles completes the purposes of Christ’s body in
the world. In fact, “the Gentile mission in which the early church engaged
(after some
hesitation) was rooted in a command of the risen Lord Jesus Christ himself” (107).
Mixed with the
thought that God grants human participation in his missionary work is a great
hypothetical certainty that the mission will in fact be completed. The
conclusion to this hypothesis is that the church will play its role in being
the missionary tool for bringing the news of salvation to the ends of the
earth.
In
opposition to traditional thought, Kostenberger and O’Brien seem to argue that Israel had no
missionary task of outreach. To conclude that God had given a commission to the
children of Israel and that they had failed to complete the commission is not
only paradoxical but “unsatisfactory both exegetically and theologically” (35). In fact the authors make an even
stronger argument that “there is no suggestion in the Old Testament that Israel
should have engaged in ‘cross-cultural’ or foreign mission” (35). On the
contrary, any action on Israel’s part to include Gentiles would have been
“largely apologetic or nationalistic,” with purposes to naturalize more than to
convert (67).
This logically leads to only one
conclusion, that Missio Dei as a movement of God to draw the world unto
Himself finds its fulfillment most completely in Christianity. The indicative
purpose of the Christian church is one of outreach and inclusion. To be
anything other than evangelistic would contradict the meaning of the church.
Kostenberger and O’Brien do not appear to be anti-Semitic; rather they simply
highlight the uniqueness of Christianity over Judaism in accomplishing God’s
mission purposes. “The presence of the church itself is the manifestation
of the hidden secret [God’s salvation-historical plan]” (167). This is a
distinctive stance in today’s missiological discussions.
Theological
Emphasis on Redemption
Perhaps the
greatest contribution that Kostenberger and O’Brien make is their fresh accent
on the role of redemption in Missio Dei. Liberation theologians,
feminists, and post-modernists might argue that there are other results to
God’s mission than spiritual, but these two authors bring to prominence God’s
redemptive plan for man’s soul. It is this central message that unites the
separate texts throughout the bible.
Throughout the Old Testament, God’s
plan is revealed to use the people of Israel as a tool through which
God’s blessing would be administered. Kostenberger and O’Brien briefly point to
the exodus and God’s covenant with Israel ,
but they promptly move into a discussion of Jerusalem as an eschatological prototype for
God’s mission to the world. It is amidst this backdrop that the picture of the
suffering servant prophecy is painted. In
short, Israel
experienced God’s redemptive love in part and could be used as a channel
through which the complete redemptive work of Messiah might find fulfillment.
At that point, the Messiah is
revealed in the New Testament in Jesus Christ. God’s redemptive plan is
fulfilled first in Christ’s atonement for sins, and then it is experienced in
the church’s participation in spreading the news of his plan to all nations. The
church becomes responsible for winning the world. This is exhibited in “the
fact that Jesus’ followers are called not merely to disciple individuals,
but entire nations, indeed all nations” (104). Thus, the church
is equipped with ministers and missionaries who also take on a global mission
thrust.
The apostle Paul “understood his
missionary activity to Gentiles within the context of an Old Testament
expectation in which the Gentile nations would on the final day partake of
God’s ultimate blessings to Israel” (164). Paul understood his calling as
apostle to win as many Gentiles as possible (I Cor 9:19-23) as his ultimate
purpose as missionary and their ultimate purpose in God’s redemptive plan
(181). Paul’s missionary activities propagate God’s redemptive plan for the
entire world, and thus become the archetype of modern mission theology.Get it on Amazon
No comments:
Post a Comment