In this section we will consider the objections of H. Thielicke, J.J. Stamm, and Th. C. Vriezen. We will present their objections together rather than answering each critic individually as their criticisms come down to the same thing.
Thielicke absolutely rejects Van Ruler's theology and in his Theological Ethics Vol. II: Politics characterizes it as ``an exact and consistent inversion of previous Christian tradition.''5.33 He attempts to prove this by presenting the following five points of criticism. In the first place, he states that Van Ruler's idea of Jesus Christ as a temporary and forced emergency measure for the sake of the sanctification of the earth, is a setting aside of New Testament eschatology and a revival of Old Testament Messianism. The New Testament thus ceases to be the canon within the biblical canon, the hermeneutical criterion for `Moses and the prophets'.
This leads, in the second place, to Van Ruler's inversion of the church-state relationship. According to the New Testament it is the law which `comes in' (Rom. 5:20) or is `added' (Gal 3:19) and therefore the state has only an interim significance. But Van Ruler applies this to the church and this reminds us of the way in which Richard Rothe speaks of the church being absorbed into the state once it has poured its christian powers into the state and thus `sanctified' it for its eschatological function.
Thirdly, whereas the New Testament sees history ending with the return of Christ, so that Christ is the goal of history and this earth is replaced by the new earth, Van Ruler draws upon the line of teaching in the Old Testament which has in view the perfecting of this present world. Van Ruler's idea of a theocracy over the sanctified earth knocks New Testament eschatology right off its hinges and fundamentally alters the relation between the Testaments.
According to Thielicke, in the fourth place, Van Ruler's theology has received its decisive impulses from the fact that the New Testament proclamation of the eschaton includes the overthrow of this world and thus carries with it the temptation to be indifferent to this earth and interested only in the hereafter. In his reaction to this Van Ruler does not make use of the true New Testament and Reformation connections between the indicative of reconciliation and the imperative of action in the world, between faith and works, eschatology and ethics, but rather makes the shaping of the world the theme of faith instead of a consequence and by-product of faith. Reconciliation is made into a mere means to an end, the New Testament becomes merely the servant of the Old Testament. Law and Gospel, Old Testament and New, are thus exchanged, the one for the other.
In the fifth place, Thielicke objects to Van Ruler's claim that one of the ultimate goals of salvation history is the perfecting of humanity. Thielicke poses the following questions: what is this `manhood' that our christianity is intended to serve? Is it a matter of developing the created manhood to full perfection? And what is this created manhood? Is it a matter of the ontically given form, the entelechy? Does perfection mean, then, the full and complete development of all the potentialities present in creation? Thielicke answers these questions negatively as man does not exist, in the Bible, as an ontically autonomous being, but only in his relation to God. He then continues with some `corrections' of Van Ruler's concept of humanity: If our relation to God is determined by Christ, then one can not fully develop ones humanity until this fellowship is realized. By its very nature this communication with Christ cannot be a temporary thing which, once it is dissolved, leaves me capable of perfecting my humanity apart from him. It can only be an end in itself. The image which God has of men has taken form in the humanity of Jesus Christ. Any doctrine of the divine image is thus christologically determined. We only know that man is in the countenance of the humanity of Jesus Christ. To become a man is to share in this humanity of Jesus Christ. The telos of our being is union with the Father in Jesus Christ. To grow into humanity is to grow into Jesus Christ. Therefore our christianity cannot be understood as a means to an end, namely to be human.5.34
J.J. Stamm and Th. C. Vriezen have each written a review of Van Ruler's book The Christian Church and the Old Testament. After a brief summary of this work Stamm states that the christological exposition of the Old Testament cannot be pushed aside because of its hope of the kingdom which Van Ruler regards as more far reaching and greater than Jesus' work of reconciliation which is merely an emergency measure. ``Can it be doubted that in creation God is really concerned with grace, covenant, and salvation?''5.35According to Stamm the covenant is the purpose of creation and therefore Jesus Christ as the representative of the covenant, is the purpose of creation. Thus the Old Testament must be properly expounded in a christological manner according to its historical place in the history of salvation as preparation and foreshadowing of that which is to come, as a document pointing to the future, the promises of which are realized in Jesus and his church but are not yet finally consummated. Stamm finds the unity of the Old Testament in this, that all its promises point to the eschatological presence of God among his people. As these promises are realized in Christ it is not correct to say, as Van Ruler does, that there are promises in the Old Testament that do not refer directly to Christ. Stamm also states that Israel knew very well what substitution and atonement meant and therefore it is not correct to say that the idea of substitution only emerges finally in the New Testament.5.36
In his Theocracy and Soteriology5.37 Vriezen also objects that Van Ruler finds theocracy to be the decisive fact of revelation in the Old Testament and that he ascribes an exclusively soteriological meaning to the New Testament.
Vriezen charges Van Ruler with an over-spiritualization of the New Testament and states that it is no less theocratically orientated toward the kingdom of God than the Old Testament. Theocracy could only become a living reality in Israel through the cross , as in fact it can be realized in any way at all only through the cross. The Spirit is bound to Christ and the Lord (Christ) is the Spirit. Therefore it is inconceivable that Van Ruler can say that in the New Testament one cannot see a genuine `confrontation' between God and his people. Jesus Christ, on his cross and in his resurrection, is the locus of the breaking through of the kingdom of God in the world. Therefore it is strange that Van Ruler hardly mentions the resurrection, in view of the fact that it affords the decisive solution in the New Testament message.
Following this Vriezen states that Van Ruler does not distinguish between the concepts of theocracy and eschatology and therefore states that according to his characterization, the kingdom of God is too plainly visible in the Old Testament, as if no act of faith at all were necessary in Israel. Thus Van Ruler separates reconciliation from sanctification and goes too far when he calls sin and reconciliation `a secondary problem, protologically and eschatologically'. This also leads to the danger of a repristination of Israel and of the Old Testament institutions.
We have presented all these criticisms together, before providing an answer to them, because they all come down to the same thing5.38namely, the place creation, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit have in theology. From these criticisms and from the comments that are made in order to `correct' Van Ruler's view we can see that Thielicke, Stamm and Vriezen have an entirely different understanding of the structure of christian theology. Briefly, it is clear that all three critics see Jesus Christ as the aim and purpose of creation. Therefore they understand Jesus as the Leseprinzip of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ is that which is promised in the Old Testament and these promises have been realized in the incarnation but have not yet been finally consummated.
In our answer to these criticisms we cannot give a point by point comparison of these theologies with that of Van Ruler, nor can we discuss all the consequences that are entailed by these theologians `corrections' to Van Ruler's theology. Therefore, in our answer, we will limit ourself to a summary of that which has already been worked out more fully in the main body of this work. In this summary we will reply to the above criticisms and briefly indicate the dangers entailed by the theological structure supported by these critics.
These criticisms all have to do with the basic structure of systematic theology. According to Van Ruler the purpose of creation is the kingdom of God and not Jesus Christ. If we understood Christ to be the purpose of creation we can only talk of God's new presence in the eschaton and therefore man, the world and history are lost from view.
Of fundamental importance here is the reformed doctrine of reconciliation as the vicarious satisfaction of Christ and the expiation of guilt. The incarnation was motivated exclusively by sin and is not an end in itself. Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was a `transaction' between him and God. Therefore there was no `confrontation' or `encounter' between God and his people in the sacrifice on Golgotha. Here we must distinguish between the christological and the pneumatological points of view. Vriezen is perfectly correct when he states that Israel could not be transformed into a theocracy without the suffering and sacrificial death of the Servant of God.5.39 This is exactly what Van Ruler means when he speaks of Christ as an emergency measure that God put off for as long as possible! In Van Ruler's theology the messiahship of Jesus rests totally and completely on the fact of the resurrection, but also on the truth of the ascension. There is a discontinuity between christology and pneumatology. Reconciliation is not an encounter between God and man - it must be understood christologically. However, reconciliation is put into effect pneumatologically in justification, sanctification and glorification.5.40 Christian life is lived on the basis of the truth of reconciliation but not in the lengthening of the incarnation. There can only be talk of the realization of salvation when it is remembered that this must be spoken of pneumatologically and is not identical to the reality of salvation in the exalted Christ. If we understand the realization of salvation purely in a christological and soteriological light (as Vriezen seems to) we are led to an impatient perfectionism which can only result in despair or rejection of this world.
It is not true that Van Ruler ascribes an exclusively soteriological meaning to the New Testament. He states: ``Het Nuiwe Testament is niet alleen evangelie, maar ook ten volle proclamatie van de wet; gelijk in het Oude Testament de wet ten volle gave der genade is en rust in het evangelie.''5.41
Gospel and law are to be found in both Testaments but the gospel surely comes to the foreground in the New Testament so that in it there is ``a one-sided concentration on guilt and its expiation as effected in Jesus Christ'', but even here ``they are not the real point at issue.''5.42 Therefore Vriezen is in complete agreement with Van Ruler when he states that ``the New Testament is no less theocratically under-girded and no less eschatologically orientated toward the kingdom of God than the Old Testament.''5.43
In order to answer the remainder of the criticisms we must have a correct understanding of the law. ``De eigenlijke en eenige inhoud van de wet Gods is God zelf, gelijk hij in de daad zijner openbaring tegenwoordig is. Dit staat en oudtestamentisch en nieuwtestamentisch vast. Dan gaat het in de wet om God zelf, zijn rijk, zijn wezen, zijn gerechtigheid en zijn daad. Dat beduidt dat men de wet Gods nooit op zichzelf mag nemen, los van hem die haar gaf en in haar tegenwoordig wil zijn.''5.44
Furthermore the law must be understood as torah and not as nomos. The law is not a set of immutable rules to be lived up to but is rather the expression of the will of God. It is therefore incorrect to say that the law has been replaced by gospel. The gospel is given for the sake of the law. Thus it is not correct to say, with Stamm, that we no longer have works of the law but rather fruits of the Spirit.5.45 They are exactly the same thing. Israel lost sight of this kerygmatic aspect of the law and took the law into their own hands in order to justify themselves. But Christ came to restore the law to its integrity and thus to emphasize that gospel precedes law. Therefore Stamm is also incorrect when he states: ``Israel knew very well what substitution and atonement meant.''5.46 If Israel understood the essence of the gospel so well surely they would not have misused God's law?
When we understand the fact that in Van Ruler's theology gospel precedes law and that the law, understood as torah, is put into effect in the world, by the Spirit, with the gospel (that is, Christ's work of reconciliation on the cross) as its continual background, Vriezen's further objections simply fall away. Sanctification cannot be separated from reconciliation. The work of Jesus Christ is the continual background of the work of the Holy Spirit and the work of the Holy Spirit is the putting into effect of reconciliation in justification, sanctification and glorification. This does not lead to a repristination of Israel because the law is not a formal instance but an historical reality. Christianized nations are incidental repetitions of Israel, not because they reintroduce the mosaic law to the letter, but because the God of Israel binds himself to them through the sacrifice of reconciliation as `the great ceremony of the law' and creates a `liturgy of life' around this in which He wants to be worshiped in our entire earthly existence. Vriezen confuses this binding of the whole of cultural existence to the cross of Golgotha with a re-introduction of the entire Old Testament and of the mosaic law. If the ground-lines for the christianization of culture and the model for christian life is not to be found in the Bible, and especially in the Old Testament, where is it to be found? This question faces us with the choice of paganism or christianity.5.47In my opinion Van Ruler's view that the law tells us what is given to us in God's righteousness, and the gospel tells us that it has all been given to us, and his view that gospel precedes law does full justice to the canonicity of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the true Bible that contains the fully redemptive knowledge of being5.48 because it contains God's promises - His gospel and His law. In the New Testament these promises are fulfilled and confirmed, but they are not realized. If we see Christ as the purpose of creation and thus see his incarnation as the realization of the promises of the Old Testament, surely we would have to agree with A. Harnack that to preserve the Old Testament ``as one of the canonical documents of Protestantism is the result of religious and ecclesiastical paralysis.''5.49
The final set of criticisms, represented mainly by Thielicke, come down to this, that Van Ruler does not distinguish between theocracy and eschatology. According to Van Ruler a theocracy comes into being when the Word is proclaimed. The pagan context of being is broken and the Holy Spirit expresses Christ's sacrifice of reconciliation in justification, sanctification and glorification. The essence of a theocracy is that the Spirit is at work putting Christ's sacrifice into effect. ``En de oerfout van alle ketterijen in dezen'' (that is, in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit), ``is wel de ongecontroleerde opvatting, als zou het werk van den Heiligen Geest de eschatologische realiteit zelve, althans een stukje er van, althans het begin er van zijn. Daartegenover moet strak worden volgehouden: het provisorisch karakter van het werk van den Heiligen Geest, dat het een werk is in de bedeeling tusschen hemelvaart en wederkomst, het concervatieve karakter van het werk van den Heiligen Geest, dat het een werk is, dat niet de oude wereld revolutionnair omzet in de niewe, maar dat het een werk is, dat in de oude wereld conservatief, bewarend, bewaard bij de verkregen verlossing.'' ``Het werk van den Geest is kern van de oudtestamentische theocratie, ook in Europa.''5.50
In the eschaton salvation will go completely into existence and then there will only remain the naked existence of things and the triune God. However, this never occurs in the dispensation of the Spirit. Therefore it is incorrect to assert that Van Ruler's theology results in a perfection of this world. All of Van Ruler's theology must be understood under the eschatological reserve of the final judgment. It is certainly this world that returns in the eschaton, that is made perfect in the eschaton. But this world does not develop towards this perfection. In fact, it will end in death and destruction, but in a new act God will resurrect this world. In this dispensation salvation only goes into existence fragmentarily and ambiguously. Therefore there remains a duality of salvation and existence and thus the church and the state also remain separate.
Although salvation is only realized fragmentarily and ambiguously in sanctification, this is more in the purpose of God than reconciliation is. The incarnation of Christ was exclusively motivated by sin and is not an end in itself. Sanctification has reconciliation as its continual background but is more important because it puts this reconciliation into effect in the world.
The purpose of creation is also not to be found in the complete development of the created human form. ``Dit doel zit niet op de wijze van de entelechie in de geschapen dingen. Dat de dingen een doel hebben, is een moment in de gubernatio als onderdeel van de providentie. Dat God de dingen regeert, betekent primair, dat Hij ze een bestemming geeft.''5.51 Before we arrive at the humanitas we must go through the christianitas and the christianitas is expressed in us as the servant form of Jesus Christ.5.52 This is christologically determined but it is also a work of the Spirit and therefore eschatologically determined. As an eschatological reality this particular form of God in Christ which is expressed in us is destined to fall away. It is not the telos that the being of man is aimed at. The telos does not lie in the means, in the Immanuel, in the God-with-us, but in the kingdom of Glory. What this kingdom is (and therefore what humanity will consist of) we do not yet know (1 John 3:2).5.53
The importance of understanding the kingdom of God (regnum Dei) as the purpose of creation becomes clear when we contrast this view with that which sees Christ as the purpose of creation. There are three variations of the view that Christ is the goal of creation: Christomonism, the elevatio theory and the nova creatio idea. But all three lose sight of this world, blur the distinction between God and mankind, fail to properly distinguish christology, pneumatology and eschatology, and fail to do justice to the canonicity of the Old Testament. Therefore they also fail to do justice to the traditional dogmas of the trinity and the eternal counsel of God. All these elements of the Gospel are only properly safeguarded by the doctrine of the messianic intermezzo.