Wat gebeurt er bij de doop van Jezus?
 |
The Baptism of Jesus: Authority and Power
Anointed to Proclaim Good News
In the charismatic renewal within the churches it is
often argued that believers should minister to others like Jesus ministered to
people, in the same “authority” and “power”. Before establishing the way in
which believers would share in the ministry of Jesus, we need to explore the
meaning of this “authority” and “power” in the ministry of Jesus himself. Why
was Jesus baptized in the river Jordan, prior to taking up his ministry?
In the
charismatic renewal within the churches it is often argued that believers
should minister to others like Jesus ministered to people, in the same
“authority” and “power”. A recent example is found in Learning to Heal, a “practical guide” by John Coles, former vicar
of the Anglican St Barnabas Church in Finchley (UK), and director of New Wine.[1] The
point of departure for his argument is that to be a Christian involves becoming
more like Jesus, and that this is a process that involves not only “developing
the type of relationship with God that Jesus had”, and “having our lives
transformed by the Holy Spirit so that we increasingly reflect the qualities of
purity and holiness that characterized Jesus’ life”, but also “learning to
minister to others with the same love and power in which Jesus ministered.”[2] He
then goes on to explain this in terms of “authority” and “power” (Chapter 3).
When Christians are to be involved in healing ministry they need to understand
that God gives them authority to
carry out this ministry, and that it is the Holy Spirit who empowers them for this ministry. Both
statements he then grounds in the New Testament account of Jesus being
“anointed with the power of the Holy Spirit following his baptism.”[3]
Before
establishing the way in which believers would share in the ministry of Jesus,
we need to explore the meaning of this “authority” and “power” in the ministry
of Jesus himself. Why was Jesus baptized in the river Jordan, prior to taking
up his ministry? Is this terminology of “authority” and “power” merely a matter
of evangelical-charismatic vocabulary, or could it be grounded in a proper
systematic-theological understanding of the ministry of Jesus? In order to
investigate this, we will look into contributions to christology and
pneumatology by non-charismatic theologians within the tradition of the
Reformation: Abraham Kuyper, Karl Barth, Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart
Pannenberg. Our research question then is:
How
do Kuyper, Barth, Moltmann and Pannenberg perceive the baptism of Jesus (including
the descending of the Spirit) in terms of authority and power?
Obviously, this focus on the perception of authority and power leaves
out other issues relevant to the baptism of Jesus, for instance the connection
to forgiveness of sin and representation, or the link between Jesus’ baptism
and the Christian baptism.
We will first shortly outline the context of the baptism of Jesus, in so
far as this is relevant to the issues of authority and power. We will then
firstly look into Kuyper’s, Barth’s, Moltmann’s, and Pannenberg’s perception of
the aspect of authority, and then secondly into their perception of the aspect
of power.[4]
We will conclude with some remarks on a third aspect that comes into
view, namely dependence.
The setting of the scene
Jesus began his
public work in the context of the proclamation of John the Baptist, as he
applied this proclamation to himself and had himself baptized by John. The whole
setting is loaded with symbolism, as New Testament scholars – and mostly those
associated with the Third Quest, with their keen eye for the socio-historical
backgrounds – don’t fail to emphasize. When John the Baptist commences his
ministry, it is no coincidence that he lives in the desert, calls for
repentance and baptizes in the river Jordan. As N.T. Wright puts it,
“anyone
collecting people in the Jordan wilderness was symbolically saying: this is the
new exodus. Anybody offering water-baptism for the forgiveness of sins was
saying: you can have, here and now, what you would normally get through the
Temple cult. Anybody inviting those who wished to do so to pass through an
initiatory rite of this kind was symbolically saying: here is the true Israel
that is to be vindicated by YHWH.”[5]
Jürgen Moltmann emphasizes
how this whole setting is eschatologically charged, and pointing at the coming
Kingdom of God:
“Alles,
was Johannes tut, ist symbolkräftig und voller Erinnerung an die alte
Gottesgeschichte Israels. Er tauft die Bußfertigen Israels am Jordan für den
neuen, endgültigen Eintritt ins Land Gottes. Die Botschaft, die Symbolik und
die Taufe des Johannes bilden ein eschatologisches Bußsakrament. Diese Taufe
unterscheidet sich von rituellen Waschungen durch ihre eschatologischen
Endgültigkeit (…) Die Eschatologie des Johannes war die Naherwartung des
Gerichtes Gottes, durch das das Reich der Gottesgerechtigkeit kommt.”[6]
The baptism of
John the Baptist meant an enacting of
the “new exodus”, the “true return from exile” that first century Jews were
expecting, as YHWH would finally intervene and stand up for his people, defeat
their enemies and dwell with his people, establishing his Kingdom.[7]
The accounts of
the baptism of Jesus can be found in each of the three synoptic Gospels
(Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22), and the Gospel according to John
mentions the descending of the Spirit on Jesus (John 1:29-34). Matthew, Mark
and Luke each mention how after this event Jesus was either “led by the Spirit”
or “full of the Spirit”, marking this as the beginning of the public ministry
of Jesus. Especially Mark places these events in the context of the Jewish
expectation of the coming Messiah, by beginning his Gospel with a quotation
from the prophet Isaiah, announcing the coming of the Lord (Mark 1:1-3).
Apparently then,
Jesus applies this proclamation of the coming Messiah, bringing the Kingdom of
God, to himself. “Jesus was known (…) as someone who could speak with power and
authority”, N.T. Wright argues, “But it was the sort of things he said which
marked him out in particular”, as he announces the inbreaking of the Kingdom of
God.[8]
By what he said, and by what he did, including his “mighty works” of healing
and deliverance, he claimed that the Kingdom of God had come in him. These
“mighty works” or “works of power” are not to be regarded as “proof” of Jesus’
“divinity”, as traditional theology sometimes has done, Wright argues. Instead,
Jesus was “indeed inaugurating the long-awaited time of liberation (…) the
kingdom of God”.
“From
the perspective of a follower of Jesus at the time, his mighty works will have
been interpreted within the context of his overall proclamation: they would be
seen as signs that the kingdom of Israel’s god was indeed coming to birth.”[9]
This how Jesus
clearly perceived his ministry, Wright argues.
“He
never performed mighty works simply to impress. He saw them as part of the
inauguration of the sovereign and healing rule of Israel’s covenant god.”[10]
The synoptic
Gospels mention that the people witnessing the public ministry of Jesus stand
amazed of his “authority” and “power”(Matthew 7:29; 12:24; Mark 1:27; Luke
4:31; 4:36; 5:26; 6:19), as he inaugurates the Kingdom of God. The evangelists
use words like paradoxa, things one
would not normally expect, or terata
and semeia, signs and portents, to
refer to the “mighty works” that usher in God’s healing reign.[11]
The words mostly used for “authority” and “power” are exousia and dunameis (see
for instance Luke 4:36 for their distinct use alongside each other).
What then, in
this context of messianic expectation and the inauguration of the Kingdom of
God, is the significance of Jesus’ baptism and the descending of the Spirit on
him? Did he receive this authority and this power at this point in his life? Or
did he have authority already, being the Son of God? But if so, did he still
need to receive the Spirit then? How to perceive this authority and this power,
in the context of his public ministry that apparently began with the events at
the river Jordan?
Exploring the interpretations
of Kuyper, Barth, Moltmann and Pannenberg will help us to understand how the
perception of these issues have evolved over the last century.
Authority
Abraham Kuyper: Trinitarian perspective
In a rather
progressive move, Abraham Kuyper emphasized the distinct role of the Spirit
within the traditional trinitarian perspective of Reformed theology already in
the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In his three volume compilation Het werk van den Heiligen Geest (The
Work of the Holy Spirit)[12],
Kuyper explores pneumatology not merely as an exponent of christology but as a
distinct doctrine. This proves to be of great significance for our
understanding of the baptism of Jesus in terms of authority and power.
The trinitarian
perspective is crucial. At the same time, this trinitarian perspective had for
a long time induced a neglect of pneumatology. The outgoing works of God (ad extra) are a divine work common to
the three divine Persons, Kuyper stresses in full agreement with classic
Reformed theology. It is never the Son alone, or the Spirit alone, at work;
always is the triune God involved.[13]
However, in this cooperation the work of each Person bears its own distinctive
mark.
“Gelijk
we bij de schepping en onderhouding aller dingen zagen, dat in deze
gemeenschappelijke werking van de drie goddelijke Personen toch het werk van
elk der Personen zijn eigenaardig merkteeken draagt, zoo ook is het hier.”[14]
Kuyper discerns
this distinct working of the Spirit also in the incarnation of the Son (Chapter
5) and in the mediating work of the Son (Chapter 6).[15]
Why is this of
importance for our present study? Classic Reformed theology often has perceived
the public ministry of Jesus not consistently
trinitarian enough, Kuyper argues. The works of the incarnated Son were
understood, then, solely from the perspective of Jesus’ divinity, neglecting
his humanity and neglecting the distinct work of the Spirit. If we would regard
the public works of Jesus, including his “mighty works” of healing and
deliverance, solely as flowing from his being the divine Son, there is no need
for any additional working of the Spirit in Jesus. It remains inexplicable
then, why Jesus had to receive the Spirit following his baptism.
One of the key
steps that Kuyper takes, is that he makes a clear distinction between the person and the nature of Christ. In this way, he takes the radical character of
the incarnation and Jesus’ humanity very seriously, while maintaining the
divinity of the Son. Kuyper might be overemphasizing the distinctness of person
and nature, but it seems to be helpful nonetheless. It helps clarifying the
events at the river Jordan. The Son truly partook our flesh and blood, adopting
our human (post-Fall) nature – He became a true man, thinking, willing, and
feeling like other men, susceptible to all human emotions and sensations that
cause the countless thrills and throbs of human life, as Kuyper puts it.[16]
But this is the conception of a human nature,
not of a human person. In the
conception of Christ not a new being was called into life, but One who had
existed from eternity, and who then entered into vital relation with the human
nature.
“Waar een nieuw wezen ontstaat, daar ontstaat een menschelijke persoon.
Maar als de persoon des Zoons, die van eeuwig reeds bij den Vader was, ons
vleesch en bloed aanneemt, dan neemt hij onze natuur wel in de eenheid zijns
Persoons op, zoodat hijzelf waarlijk mensch wordt, maar een nieuwe persoon
ontstaat er niet.”[17]
This implies that
when Jesus is baptized in the river Jordan, and the voice from heaven declares:
“This is my beloved Son, with him I am well-pleased”, this must not be
understood as the constitution of
Jesus’ sonship to the Father. In person, he had been the eternal Son from his
conception on. Then also the authority
that comes with his sonship, was not given to Jesus at his baptism. Being the
eternal Son in person, he already had the authority by which he was about the
proclaim the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God. The event then must be
understood as the proclamation of his
sonship and authority, either solely to Jesus himself, as encouragement
(according to the Mark-account), or to both Jesus and the public (according to
the Matthew and possibly Luke).[18]
Karl Barth: Revelation and confirmation
In the Kirchliche Dogmatik IV/4, Karl Barth deals
with the baptism of believers in the church, but this section reveals some
issues concerning the significance of the baptism of Jesus in terms of
authority and power as well. The baptism practice of John the Baptist must be
understood from the Jewish expectation of the imminent arrival of God’s
Kingdom, and of the coming of “one more powerful”, who will “baptize with the
Holy Spirit and with fire.”
“Was in jenem Geschehen am Jordan von Johannes und von
allen seinen Täuflingen visiert war, das war ja die in der Predigt des Johannes
als unmittelbar bevorstehend angekündigte Zukunft, das kommende Reich, das
kommende Gericht, die als Sündenvergebung kommende Gnade Gottes, der als der
‘Stärkere’ kommende Täufer mit dem Heiligen Geist.”[19]
At his baptism,
Jesus was confirmed to be this “one more powerful”, this baptizer “with the
Spirit and with fire”. From heaven, he was revealed,
recognized and confirmed as Son of God, having authority to announce the coming
kingdom and judgment.
“Und nun wäre es doch offenbar (…) mit der Taufe
Johannes, die Jesus wie alle Anderen begehrt und empfangen hat, um gerade,
nachdem er das getan, vom Himmel her als der Täufer mit dem Heiligen Geist und
als Gottes Sohn offenbart, anerkannt und bestätigt zu werden!”[20]
Jürgen Moltmann: The authority of the liberating King
Jürgen Moltmann articulates
even further the trinitarian perspective that we find with Kuyper and Barth,
introducing the concept of the divine perichoresis
as an expression of the interdependence of the three divine persons. He also
develops further the eschatological perspective of the Kingdom of God, being
both future and present. Both characteristics of his theology determine his
understanding of the events at the river Jordan. The voice from heaven means
the inauguration and theological
legitimation of his messianic kingship.
“Es handelt sich um den Inthronisationsspruch und die
theologische Legimitation der Könige Israels aus Psalm 2,7.”[21]
Moltmann emphasises
the aspect of sonship and subsequent authority. But unlike Kuyper and Barth, he
suggests that Jesus at this point enters
the Father-Son-relationship, becoming aware of it, though Moltmann fully
acknowledges the special character, and unique intimacy, of Jesus’ relationship
as Son to the Father.
Did John the
Baptist announce the coming judgment, Jesus announces the love and grace of
God, claims Moltmann. The dawning Kingdom means the dawning of the Father’s
intimate nearness as “Abba”. In Jesus, this Kingdom has begun.
“Verkündet Jesus das ‘nahebeigekommene’ Reich Gottes (Mk
1,5), dann verkündigt er die intime Nähe Gottes, des Vaters, die mit dem Namen
‘Abba’ gekennzeichnet ist, und nicht die Ankunft des zorniges Weltenrichters.
Er demonstriert die Nähe des Reiches Gottes nicht durch Drohungen und Askese,
sondern durch Zeichen der Gnade an zerstörten Menschen und durch Wunder der
Gesundheit am kranken Leben.”[22]
The Gospel of the
Kingdom of God, then, is the Gospel of the liberation of people – good news for
the poor, freedom for the captives, release for the oppressed. The works of
healing and deliverance that are characteristic to Jesus’ proclamation of the
Kingdom, should therefore not be regarded as “exorbitant phenomena” but as
inherent to his messianic mission, Moltmann argues. Healing and liberation,
that is what happens when the reign
of God breaks in – this is the
Kingdom coming close.[23]
However, this
reign of God meets resistance, opposition and conflict from the powers in the
world that oppose and disintegrate life.
“Das Evangelium vom Reich Gottes ist das Evangelium der Befreiung
des Volkes: Wer Gottes Zukunft ansagt, der bringt dem Volk die Freiheit (…) Es
ist so nahe gekommen, daß schon die Zeichen der messianischen Zeit sichtbar werden:
Kranke werden geheilt, Dämonen vertrieben, Lahme gehen, Taube hören, den Armen wird
das Evangelium verkündet (…) Seine Herrschaft aber stößt auf Widerstände,
Widerspruche und Widersacher.”[24]
It is at this
point, that Moltmann emphasizes the authority
of Jesus, as it is confirmed at his baptism through the words from heaven, “You
are my beloved Son”. The significance of this confirmation of authority seems
to be recognized first by those powers that oppose and disintegrate life,
Moltmann notices. It is the “unclean spirits” and “demons” who recognize this
authority and his messiahship.
“Markus schließt an die erste Predigt Jesu in Kapernaum
sofort eine Dämonengeschichte an (1,23-28), um die εξουσια der neuen Lehre Jesu
zu zeigen: er predigte mit εξουσια und gebietet mit εξουσια den unsauberen
Geistern, und diese ‘gehorchen ihm’. Seine Lehre ist schöpferische Rede, die
bewirkt, was sie sagt. Noch wichtiger scheint für Markus zu sein, daß nach dem
Taufbekenntnis Gottes zu Jesus: ‘Du bist mein lieber Sohn’ (1,11) die
‘unsauberen Geister’ die ersten sind, die erkennen, wer Jesus in den Augen Gottes
ist und ihn als ‘Christus’ bekennen: ‘Ich weiß, wer du bist: der Heilige
Gottes’ (1,24); ‘Du bist Gottes Sohn’ (3,11; 5,7).”[25]
As we restore a
proper eschatological perspective on the mission of Jesus, as the one who
inaugurated God’s future reign that is all about wholeness, then it is
inevitable that issues of healing and deliverance regain their relevance and
must again be considered, Moltmann states.[26]
Wolfhart Pannenberg: Authority by implication
In his Systematic Theology, Wolfhart Pannenberg
offers a profound and convincing systematic-theological grounding for both the eschatological perspective of all
theology, and the centrality of the
concept of the Kingdom of God. Foundational is his trinitarian doctrine of God, inducing a well-developed
pneumatological perspective on for instance the doctrine of creation (and new
creation) but also on christology and soteriology.
In Pannenberg’s
christology, Jesus Christ is perceived most and for all as “the eschatological
new man”, the “new Adam”, or the “new man from above”[27],
and as “the author of a new humanity”.[28]
He takes a dual approach, both “from below” and “from above”. The approach
“from below” emphasizes – largely agreeing with Moltmann – the centrality of
Jesus’ message of the inauguration of the Kingdom of God, as a future reality
breaking in on the present[29]
(and the early church found the confirmation of this message in his
resurrection[30]).
In his approach “from above”, Pannenberg further delineates his trinitarian
doctrine of God. The mission of the Son in the world (for which he needs the
Spirit), then is God’s way of actualizing his rule in the world.[31]
This latter approach presupposes, of course, his pre-existence, his being in
the eternity of God in correspondence with the eternity of the Father.
“This
eternal being of the Son, one may say, finds manifestation in the history of
Jesus Christ as the eternal relation of the Son to the Father takes human shape
in this history.”[32]
Pannenberg agrees
with Kuyper that it was the Spirit who mediated the taking shape of the divine
Son in the person of Jesus, and that at
his incarnation the eternal Son of God had become flesh. [33]
This implies that Jesus was the Son already at birth, having divine authority.
This divine sonship was declared at
his baptism. And it was vindicated in
his resurrection.
“By
the Spirit, in his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ has been instituted
into authority as the Son (Rom. 1:4). With the reception of the Spirit at his
baptism by John came also a declaration of his divine sonship (Mark 1:10f.
par.). In the power of the Spirit he was the Son of God already from his
birth.”[34]
Pannenberg then
links this concept of sonship to the concept of the messianic king and the
inbreaking of the Kingdom of God in the world.[35]
In Chapter 10, on
the deity of Christ, Pannenberg takes much effort to establish Jesus’ authority
not from any fideistic presupposition about Jesus being God, but from both the
implications of his message and from his resurrection. We would misunderstand
Jesus’ message of “salvation only for those who set their hope wholly on the
imminence of the future of God”,
“if
at this point, as often happens, we think it enough to say that the
inaugurating of present participation in the future salvation of God’s rule by
Jesus was an expression of the sense of authority that filled him. We should
not contest the fact of this sense of authority (…) but it is of far-reaching
significance for an understanding of Jesus and for christology as a whole that
this sense of authority was not the basis of the content of his proclamation.
On the contrary, it was its consequence or accompaniment.”[36]
Pannenberg argues
that central to Jesus’ proclamation was the “call to commit ourselves totally
to the rule of God that he declared to be imminent.”[37]
To those who open themselves to this summons, God already comes with his rule –
God’s rule then is both imminent and already emerging from its futurity as
present.[38]
The appearance of
Jesus and his message of the rule of God “do not presuppose any claim to
special authority for his person”, Pannenberg argues. But such a claim was
“undoubtedly” implied by the content of his message and deeds, as he maintained
“that in his ministry the coming rule of God was present already”.[39]
Pannenberg
discusses the events at the river Jordan in his section on the institution of
baptism, as he seeks to find a historical basis for the thesis that Christian
baptism originated with Jesus himself. A more solid historical basis than the
words of institution in Matthew 28:19, can be found in Jesus’ own baptism by
John the Baptist, Pannenberg asserts.[40]
From this perspective, Pannenberg gives an interpretation of Jesus’ baptism
that links this event to Jesus’ expectation of approaching martyrdom. This
corresponds with the later Christian understanding of baptism as participation
in the death and resurrection of Jesus.[41]But
Pannenberg links the events to the issue of authority as well, referring to
Irenaeus.
“At
his baptism the Spirit descended on him to anoint him and thus to institute him
as “Christ” in order that we from the fullness of his anointing may receive
anointing by the Spirit and thus be saved.”[42]
Notably,
Pannenberg does not link this “institution” as the Messiah to the voice from
heaven and thus sonship, but to the anointing with the Spirit. This is in
accordance with Jesus’ own reference, of course, to Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of
the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.”
Pannenberg does not mention any other function of this anointing with the
Spirit at this point – the anointing is not so much “empowerment” but is
primarily to “institute him as Christ”. However, in the next paragraph more
should be said about Pannenberg’s position on this issue of empowerment.
Power
Abraham Kuyper: Empowerment for human nature
But if Jesus
already was the Son of God, and therefore already had the authority to proclaim
the kingdom of God, why did he still have to receive the Spirit? Did he not
have the Spirit already?
Again, Kuyper’s
distinction between person and nature proves to be helpful. Though being the
divine Son in person, he was true man in nature, and all inworking of divine
life, light, and power could
manifest itself
only by adapting itself to the peculiarities and limitations of the human
nature. It is possible, then, argues Kuyper, to speak of the work of the Spirit
in the development of the human nature of
Jesus.[43]
We know from Scripture, says Kuyper, that not only man’s gifts, powers, and
faculties, but also their working and exercise are a result of the work of the
Holy Spirit. For Jesus, then, this is the same. His human nature received these
gifts, powers, and faculties not from the
Son by communication from the divine nature, but from the Spirit by communication to his human nature.
“Deze
gaven, krachten en vermogens ontving de menselijke natuur in Christus, en dan
lette men er scherp op, niet van den Zoon, door mededeeling uit zijn goddelijke
natuur, maar van den Heiligen Geest, door mededeeling aan de menschelijke
natuur van de Messias.”[44]
His human nature
received these gifts, powers, and faculties without measure and from his
conception on, Kuyper argues. However, he received them not in full operation,
but wholly inoperative. Had it been
left at this, Christ would have been equipped with all these endowments but
they would never have been exercised. But the Spirit worked in his human
nature, causing them to be exercised and be brought into full activity.[45]
How then to
understand the descending of the Spirit upon Jesus following his baptism,
although he had received the Spirit “without measure” at his conception? This,
Kuyper argues, can only be explained by keeping in view the difference between
the personal and official life of Jesus.
It would be
incorrect, according to Kuyper, to say that Christ was installed into his
messianic office only at his baptism, or that only then he was anointed with
the Spirit. His messianic task rested upon his divine person, and he was
anointed from eternity. When Jesus says of himself, quoting from Isaiah 61,
that “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach
good news to the poor (…) to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour”, this
refers to the Son’s anointing in the eternal counsel of peace within the
trinity, Kuyper claims. However, only when Jesus went up out of the Jordan, and
the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove, and a voice was heard from
heaven saying, “This is My beloved Son,” this anointing became actual.[46]
“Hoezeer
deze zalving ook van eeuwigheid was, en Jezus’ menschelijke bewustzijn reeds
lang vóór de Doop in deze taak inleefde, toch is het eerst bij den Heiligen
Doop, dat Jezus de eigenlijke wijding tot het ambt ontving.”[47]
Then this event
must be understood as both his consecration
to his holy office, and his public
anointing with the Spirit to this ministry.
The subsequent
working of the Spirit is evident throughout Jesus’ ministry, Kuyper argues,
immediately following the baptism. Jesus now was “full of the Spirit”, and
after the temptation in the desert, he returned “in the power of the Holy Spirit”
into Galilee, thus entering upon the public ministry of his prophetic office.
It is evidently the purpose of the Scripture, Kuyper asserts, to emphasize that
Jesus - in his human nature - could fulfil his ministry of proclaiming the
kingdom of God only under the constant operation and powerful leading of the
Holy Spirit. This proclamation in the power of the Spirit is evident in the
“mighty works” of healing and exorcism.[48]
Jesus, in his human nature, then is empowered
by the Spirit to proclaim the Kingdom of God in signs and wonders.
Karl Barth: The “more powerful one”
Barth emphasizes
mostly the revelation, recognition and confirmation of Jesus as Son of God at
his baptism, and thus his divine authority.
However, he also emphasizes that Jesus receives the Spirit in order to be the
“more powerful one” who “baptizes with the Spirit and with fire”.[49]
Barth also links this, though not very explicit, to the inbreaking the kingdom
of God. When the apostolic church baptizes, this is profoundly different from
John’s baptism, he argues, in that the Kingdom that John announced now has come,
in Jesus Christ. The Kingdom of God is no longer merely future, it has indeed
entered human history. And as the earthly mission of Jesus has drawn to an end,
he has proven to be the “more powerful one” and, after the outpouring of the
Spirit at Pentecost, to be the one who “baptizes with the Spirit”.[50]
As the fruit of the Spirit becomes apparent among believers, it signifies the
presence of the Kingdom among men.
“Früchte des Heiligen Geistes waren inzwischen gewachsen
und im Tun und Verhalten der seiner teilhaftig gewordenen Menschen sichtbar
geworden: in seiner Art ein nicht minder Neues als die Zeichen des nahe herbei,
ja mitten unter die Leute gekommenen Gottesreiches.”[51]
Jürgen Moltmann: The Spirit at work through Jesus
We have already
seen that Moltmann emphasizes the authority of Jesus, confirmed at his baptism,
by which he fulfils his ministry of proclaiming the Kingdom of God in both
words and signs and wonders. Healing and deliverance are inherent to the
Kingdom of God, and thus to Jesus’ inauguration of this Kingdom. But Moltmann
also stresses the on-going dependence of Jesus on the Spirit. While the other
people being baptized by John were baptized as a sign of repentance and
forgiveness of sin, Jesus’ baptism signified his anointing with the Spirit.
“Die Evangelien nennen es die Geisterfahrung: ‘Der Geist
kam gleich wie eine taube auf ihn herab’ (Mk 1,10). ‘Gott hat Jesus von
Nazareth mit heiligen Geist und Kraft gesalbt’, sagt die Apostelgeschichte
(10,38).”[52]
This signifies a
unique gifting with the Spirit, Moltmann argues, an “anointing without
measure”. While Kuyper stresses that the Son was anointed “without measure”
from eternity, Moltmann seems to give more weight to this event at the river
Jordan. From now on, the “indwelling of Ruach of YHWH” draws him into his
sonship to the Father and into his messianic calling.[53]
From now on, Jesus lives in the fullness of the Spirit.
It is the Spirit
that works in him and through him, enabling him to fulfil his ministry. It is
in the power of the Spirit, that Jesus heals the sick and casts out demons.
“Lebt
in Jesus die Fülle der Ruach Jahwe/des Heiligen Geistes, dann ist diese Kraft
auch der Wirker aller seiner Werke.”[54]
Wolfhart Pannenberg: God’s eschatological reign has begun
In the previous
paragraph we saw that Pannenberg links Jesus’ anointing with the Spirit
primarily with his “institution” as “the Christ”. Pannenberg’s emphasis thus
may be on the authority that comes
with messiahship and less with empowerment. This is indeed what one would
expect from Pannenberg, since his theological endeavour is aimed at theology
being a public discipline, remaining to be in dialogue with a surrounding
culture that has become predominantly secular, and therefore theology should
not start from fideistic presuppositions and neither be grounded on subjective
religious experiences nor on exclusive claims about divine revelation. This
way, Pannenberg’s approach to theology leaves hardly any room for special
revelations or additional workings of the Spirit.[55]
However, we
should understand that Pannenberg seeks to develop a broader pneumatology, and
when he speaks about messiahship, authority and the Kingdom of God, he does so
from a pneumatological and eschatological perspective. He then links baptism
also to the reception of the Spirit, both in the case of Jesus and of the
believers. There is a link, Pannenberg asserts, between Christian baptism and
the “eschatological event of the ‘outpouring’ of the Spirit” (Acts 2 and Joel
2). This outpouring of the Spirit stands related to the resurrection of Jesus
(as the dawning of God’s eschatological salvation), but it is also linked to
“the charismatic element in Jesus’ own work and to its origin in his baptism.”
“There
are many reasons for viewing Jesus as a charismatic, and this fact naturally
ties in with the conviction that determines his whole ministry, namely, that
God’s eschatological reign has begun with his coming (cf. esp. Matt. 12:28
par.). Since Jesus’ baptism by John initiated his own public ministry, one may
readily suppose that it was also the origin of his charismatic self-awareness.”[56]
There plainly is
a direct relation between the titles of Son and Messiah, and “endowment with
the Spirit”, Pannenberg maintains. This endowment involves both “momentary
ecstatic experiences” and “forms of lasting endowment with the Spirit of God”.[57]
“Again,
the herald of joy in Isa. 61: 1 says of himself that the Spirit of the Lord
rests on him because the Lord has anointed him. Luke’s Gospel sees this saying
as a promise that finds fulfilment in the coming of Jesus (4:18), and Matthew’s
(12:18; cf. 12:28, 31) finds in the healing ministry of Jesus a fulfilment of
the promise in Isa 42:1 that the Servant of the Lord will be equipped with
God’s Spirit. Confirmed here is the link between endowment with the Spirit and
sonship that comes to definitive representation in the person of Jesus Christ.”[58]
Pannenberg, then,
most certainly confirms the need for Jesus to be empowered by the Spirit,
enabling him to do “charismatic” works of healing and deliverance, as
proclamation of the presence of God’s future. The “powers of the Spirit” and
the “mighty works” are not some exorbitant extras or proofs of his divinity,
but inherently part of God’s reign breaking into the present world. Pannenberg
thus firmly grounds this “empowering presence of the Spirit” in the
eschatological perspective of the coming Kingdom of God.
Dependence
The trinitarian
perspective that we find with Kuyper, Barth, Moltmann and Pannenberg, reveals
one more crucial element for our understanding of Jesus’ authority and power.
Kuyper, already in 1888, explained the Son’s dependence on the Spirit in the
fulfilling of his office. Within the immanent life of the triune God, there is
an interdependence between the three divine persons, as each has distinct roles
in the economic trinity. For instance, the eternal Son depends upon the Spirit
for the application of redemption to individuals. And when we look at the
person of Christ, the incarnated Son, we see that his human nature could not
dispense with the constant inshining of the Holy Spirit, Kuyper asserts.[59]
“…
dan vindt men derhalve, dat ook in Jezus de menschelijke natuur niet kon buiten
de voortdurende instraling van den Heiligen Geest.”[60]
The fact that
authority is invested in Jesus, does not imply that he is to exercise this authority independently.
On the contrary, he is deeply dependent on the Father and the Spirit, step by
step. We already quoted Moltmann on Jesus’ dependence on the Spirit: When Jesus
now lives in the fullness of the Spirit, then the Spirit is the power that
works all his works. Moltmann then continues,
“Wo der Geist
nicht wirkt, kann auch Jesus nichts tun.”[61]
This consistent
trinitarian perspective shows how Jesus is not fulfilling his public ministry
from his authority as divine Son of God alone, but that all three divine
Persons are at work. As the three Persons are dependent on one another in the
immanent trinity, so they are in the economic trinity. The Father is dependent
on the work of the Son in the world, that is to be completed through the work
of the Spirit, Pannenberg states. And the Son is dependent on the work of the
Father, and on the empowering of the Spirit whom the Father sends, in order to
fulfil his mission in the world.[62]
The Fourth Gospel
relates how this is a step-by-step dependence in the public ministry of Jesus.
Though Jesus knew that he had been given a “general authority” to go out and
proclaim the Kingdom of God in words and signs and wonders, he was apparently
dependent, moment by moment, on receiving instructions from the Father
regarding when and how he was to engage in this ministry.
“For
I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what
to say and how to say it.” (John 12: 49)
And specifically
on his healing work, Jesus declares according to John,
“I
tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he
sees his Father doing.” (John 5: 19)
Concluding remarks
It seems that our
exploration of Kuyper, Barth, Moltmann and Pannenberg has established
sufficiently that the concepts of “authority” and “power” – and possibly the
ministries of believers – are indeed grounded firmly in a broader
systematic-theological understanding of the mission of Jesus Christ, also
outside evangelical-charismatic theology. Authority and power appear to be key concepts, when this mission is
viewed from an eschatological perspective to which the concept of the
inauguration of the Kingdom of God is central. As the messianic King, Jesus has
the authority to proclaim the inbreaking of the reign of God, and in the power
of the Spirit he is able to demonstrate
this inbreaking of God’s reign, as God’s future enters the present age.
This coming of
the Kingdom clearly isn’t the work of merely the Son, but a trinitarian event
in which the three divine Persons are dependent on each other. Jesus obtained
power for his divine works not by his inherent divinity, but by his anointing
through the Spirit. At his baptism, his authority as Son was revealed,
recognized, confirmed and proclaimed. His messianic kingship is inaugurated.
And through the descending of the Spirit, he is both consecrated to his office
and publicly anointed with the Spirit and with power (Acts 10: 38), in order to
proclaim the Kingdom in words and signs and wonders.
What this means
for the involvement of believers in any ministry and whether they are to
minister in the same authority and power, is a matter for further study. At
this point, however, we are able to ascertain that our present exploration does have some interesting implications.
If Christ didn’t obtain the powers for his ministry by his inherent divinity,
but received this empowerment in his human nature, as a man, through the
Spirit, than these same powers could be received by other humans as well.
Moltmann clearly recognized this implication of pneuma-christology.
“Das Besondere der pneumatologischen Christologie ist
ihre Offenheit für das Wirken desselben Geistes außerhalb der Person und der
Geschichte Jesu Christi (…) Durch Jesus Christus wird der Geist auf die
Gemeinde gesandt, so daß er weiterwirkt.”[63]
Moltmann refers
to Calvin, who already acknowledged that the believers “share in the anointing
of Christ”.
“Auf der anderen Seite hatte schon Calvin erkannt, daß
der Geist Jesus nicht für sich selbst gegeben worden ist, sondern für die ganze
Gemeinde, deren Haupt er von vornherein ist. Das weist darauf hin, daß Jesus
nicht als Privatperson mit dem Geist getauft wurde, sondern pars pro toto,
stellvertretend, als einer unter vielen und einer für viele.”[64]
In Kirche in der Kraft des Geistes Moltmann
elaborates on this and argues throughout his ecclesiology that when the church is sent to proclaim the
good news, then this must be primarily about the “signs and wonders” that are
to accompany the messianic exodus.[65]
This seems to
come close to the assertions made by New Wine theologian John Coles, to whom we
referred in the introduction of this paper. In his book Learning to heal, he writes,
“If
Jesus had healed the sick only because He was divine, then there would be no
possibility of the healing ministry being part of today’s Church (let alone the
Apostolic Church). But if Jesus was a human being, empowered by the Spirit for
this ministry, then there is the possibility that any of His followers might be
empowered for a similar ministry. This, in fact, is exactly what Jesus was
doing when He released the disciples to go into the villages ahead of Him (Luke
9:1).”[66]
Coles then goes
on to explain that like Jesus was dependent on the Father and the Spirit in ministering
to people, in a step-by-step manner, so are the believers.
“At
the heart of this (…) is a moment-by-moment dependence on the Holy Spirit.
Healing ministry is about co-operating with God and what He is doing in a
person’s life as they come to Him.”[67]
It would be
interesting, indeed, to further explore how this pneuma-christological
understanding of “authority” and “power”, and of “sharing in the anointing of
Christ”, translates into a systematic-theological understanding of the ministry
of believers.
Bibliography
·
Barth, Karl, Kirchliche Dogmatik IV/4 (Zürich: TVZ,
1967), 75-92
·
Coles,
John, Learning to Heal. A Practical Guide
for Every Christian (Milton Keynes: Authentic Media, 2010; revised reprint
2012)
·
Grenz, Stanley J., Reason for Hope. The Systematic Theology of
Wolfhart Pannenberg (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005, 2nd ed.)
·
Kuyper, Abraham, Het werk van den Heiligen Geest, Vol. 1
(Amsterdam: J.A. Wormser, 1888), 103-149
·
Moltmann,
Jürgen, Kirche in der Kraft des Geistes.
Ein Beitrag zur
messianischen Ekklesiologie (München: Kaiser Verlag, 1975)
·
Moltmann, Jürgen, Der Weg Jesu Christi. Christologie in
messianischen Dimensionen (München: Kaiser Verlag, 1989)
·
Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Systematic
Theology Vols 2 and 3 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994 and 1997)
·
Wright, N.T., Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian
Origins and the Question of God, Volume Two (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996)
[1] John Coles,
Learning to Heal. A Practical Guide for
Every Christian (Milton Keynes: Authentic Media, 2010; revised reprint
2012).
[2] Coles, 3.
[3] Coles, 39.
[4] For our exploration we will limit ourselves to the following
paragraphs: Kuyper, Het werk van den
Heiligen Geest, Chapters 5 and 6; Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik IV/4, Chapter 2, Paragraph II; Moltmann, Der Weg Jesu Christi, Chapter III,
Paragraph 3-6; Pannenberg, Systematic
Theology Vols 2 and 3, with a focus on Vol. 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 2, and Vol.
3, Chapter 13, Part III, Paragraph 1 d.
[5] N.T. Wright, Jesus and the
Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume Two (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1996), 160.
[6] Jürgen
Moltmann, Der Weg Jesu Christi.
Christologie in messianischen Dimensionen (München: Kaiser Verlag, 1989),
108.
[7] Wright,
172, 190.
[8] Wright,
171.
[9] Wright,
190-191.
[10] Wright,
191.
[11] Wright,
188.
[12] Abraham
Kuyper, Het werk van den Heiligen Geest,
Vol. 1 (Amsterdam: J.A. Wormser, 1888). An English
translation can be found online (PDF), provided by the Christian Classics
Ethereal Library, an initiative of Calvin College, Grand Rapids (USA), http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kuyper/holy_spirit.pdf.
[13] Kuyper (1888), 104-105.
[14] Kuyper,
105.
[15] At this
point we should also refer to the interesting contribution of a later Dutch
Reformed theologian, A.A. van Ruler, making a similar point on the importance
of respecting the differences in structure in christological and pneumatological
viewpoints, ‘Structuurverschillen tussen het Christologische en het
Pneumatologische Gezichtspunt’, in A.A. van Ruler, Christus, de Geest en het heil. Verzameld werk deel
IVA (Zoetermeer:
Boekencentrum, 2011).
[16] Kuyper,
109.
[17] Kuyper,
108.
[18] Kuyper,
129-130.
[19] Barth,
Karl, Kirchliche Dogmatik IV/4 (Zürich: TVZ, 1967), 76.
[20] Barth, 77.
[21] Moltmann,
110.
[22] Moltmann,
111.
[23] Moltmann,
125.
[24] Moltmann,
116-117.
[25] Moltmann,
125.
[26] Moltmann,
129.
[27] Pannenberg,
Wolfhart, Systematic Theology Vol 2 (ST II), (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1994), 297.
[28] Pannenberg,
ST II, 304.
[29] Pannenberg,
ST II, 338.
[30] Pannenberg,
ST II, 348-349.
[31] Pannenberg,
ST II, 394.
[32] Pannenberg,
ST II, 316.
[33] Pannenberg,
ST II, 317.
[34] Pannenberg,
ST II, 317.
[35] Pannenberg,
ST II, 321-322, and further in Chapter 10.
[36] Pannenberg,
ST II, 327.
[37] Pannenberg,
ST II, 329.
[38] Pannenberg,
ST II, 330.
[39] Pannenberg,
ST II, 334.
[40] Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Systematic
Theology Vol 3 (ST III), (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 277.
[41] Pannenberg,
ST III, 281.
[42] Pannenberg,
ST III, 277.
[43] Kuyper,
124-125.
[44] Kuyper,
125.
[45] Kuyper,
126.
[46] Kuyper,
130.
[47] Kuyper,
131.
[48] Kuyper,
132-133.
[49] Barth, 77.
[50] Barth,
82-83.
[51] Barth, 84.
[52] Moltmann,
109.
[53] Moltmann,
110.
[54] Moltmann,
111.
[55] Stanley J. Grenz, Reason for Hope.
The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005, 2nd ed.), 51-54.
[56] Pannenberg,
ST III, 279-280.
[57] Pannenberg,
ST III, 9.
[58] Pannenberg,
ST III, 10.
[59] Kuyper,
137, 140, 144.
[60] Kuyper,
137.
[61] Moltmann,
111.
[62] See
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Vol 1 (ST I), (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991), 332,
and ST II, 394.
[63] Moltmann,
114.
[64] Moltmann,
114.
[65] Jürgen
Moltmann, Kirche in der Kraft des Geistes.
Ein Beitrag zur
messianischen Ekklesiologie (München:
Kaiser Verlag, 1975).
[66] Coles, 41.
Luke 9:1, “When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and
authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases.”
[67] Coles, 65.
No comments:
Post a Comment