The Crucified King: Atonement and Kingdom in Biblical and Systematic Theology
Author: Jeremy R. Treat
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. 305 pages
Reviewed by Dr. Gary W. Derickson, Professor of Biblical Studies
What is the relationship between Jesus’ crucifixion and coming kingdom? When will or did Jesus’ reign over His kingdom begin? What is the nature of His kingdom? Is it spiritual and redemptive? Jeremy Treat addresses these questions from a Reformed, and therefore Amillennial, perspective in his work, The Crucified King.
The book’s ten chapters are divided between his biblical theological and systematic theological arguments for a direct connection between Jesus’ death on the cross and the coming of His kingdom. In his introduction he states the purpose of his work. “This book will not only demonstrate the inseparability of kingdom and cross, but will also define the way in which they relate. (37)” He then defines the kingdom of God in terms of two aspects: “God’s reign through His servant kings over creation,” and “God’s redemptive reign through Christ and his reconciled servant-kings over the new creation” (41-43).
He begins his biblical theological argument by affirming his view that the central overarching message of Scripture is “one grand story of redemption” where “the coming of God’s kingdom and the crucifixion of his Son both transpire within the same overarching story of redemptive history (53).” His view is that “the kingdom of God is established on earth by the atoning death of Jesus on the cross” and that “the end-time reign of God shockingly breaks into the middle of history in the death of the Messiah.” (53)
Treat considers Isaiah as the “mountaintop” of the Old Testament’s “story of Israel” and the “viewpoint to look forward into the New Testament” (68). He argues that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52-53 should be read in light of both Christ’s suffering and His rule as king. His basic thrust is that since this Servant is depicted elsewhere in Isaiah as the coming King, the two aspects should be combined and seen as a unity rather than as two separate things (70-71). The thrust of his argument ultimately develops around a rejection of the idea that Isaiah could be describing two distinct comings of Messiah, one as the Suffering Servant, Jesus’ first coming, and then as reigning king, Jesus’ second coming. As an Amillennialist, he must argue that Jesus’ suffering on the cross began His royal reign and the kingdom came then. Jesus’ exaltation to heaven for Treat is the beginning of Jesus’ reign as Messianic king. Thus, there is no need for a future return until the end of the earth and beginning of the eternal state.
His discussion of Mark’s Gospel as portraying Jesus’ coming to His kingdom by way of the cross (88) is heavily dependent on his theory that Mark was building his imagery and argument from Isaiah 40-55 because of Mark’s reference to Isaiah in the first three verses of his Gospel. This appears to be more a case of finding connections and allusions that promote one’s idea rather than being the focus of Mark himself. In short, he failed to convince me that the Gospel’s focus was to show the King receiving His kingdom through the “victory” of the cross rather than His resurrection and exaltation (110). This can only work if the kingdom promised Israel is a spiritual kingdom rather than a physical kingdom that includes the land of Israel with Israelites dwelling in the land.
Rather than seeing the kingdom of God as a literal reign of Christ on earth as promised to Israel in the Old Testament, Treat says “the kingdom of God is God’s redemptive reign through Christ and his reconciled servant-kings over the new creation, which entails victory over evil, forgiveness of sins, and a new exodus” (135). For him, the second of the two ages anticipated by the apostles (this age and the age to come when Jesus will bring His kingdom) began at the cross and “the end-time reign of God on earth has broken in at the midpoint of history in the crucifixion of Christ. Furthermore, the cross not only falls between the ages, it is the hinge on which ages turn. … The cross does not merely fall between the two ages of redemptive history; rather, it causes the very shift from one to the other” (137). This ignores the fact that, after Jesus had spent 40 days with the apostles after His resurrection, instructing them further, they asked Him just before He ascended in Acts 1:6, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (NKJV, emphasis mine) Jesus did not reply that they were mistaken and the kingdom had already begun. Rather, He gave them our marching orders—be witnesses to the ends of the earth—to be obeyed until He returned.
Treat’s arguments from systematic theology reflect his Reformed theology as he connects the cross with his understanding of the kingdom as a present spiritual reality rather than a future hope.
I found the strengths of the book to be twofold. First, Treat uses a lot of imagery and pictorial language to convey ideas. I found I could visualize much of what he said. Second, he reviews in advance what his presuppositions are and what he hopes to accomplish in each chapter. Thus one knows what to expect and can read his arguments more comprehensively and critically. I also appreciate his consistency in articulating his position and interpretations. His work is an excellent study of a Reformed approach to interpreting Scripture and integrating it with one’s theological system. This is a work I would point someone to who wants to understand how Reformed theologians approach both testaments with respect to the kingdom promised David and Israel that is yet to be fulfilled by Jesus’ return to rule. I say this as a Dispensationalist who believes in a literal future kingdom with all of God’s promises fulfilled to Israel nationally, not through the church spiritually. This leads to a further assessment of this work.
Beginning with the introduction, I found Treat often difficult to follow. I seems he was attempting to speak more to the scholarly community than the body of Christ (normal people). Also, to me his use of such complex definitions indicated he was trying to put too much into each concept or explanation. I had to re-read passages to understand fully what he was trying to say. As a result, I found this book to be slow reading. Even so, I must admit it made me think more thoroughly through the issues, even though he failed to convince me his understanding of the messages of the Old and New Testaments are correct.
Treat seems to read the Old Testament historical and prophetic literature typologically. For example, when Jesus spoke of His suffering fulfilling prophecy in Luke 24:46, “he was not merely proof-texting Isa 52:13-53:12 or some other elusive individual prophecy of a suffering Messiah. He was interpreting his life, death, and resurrection as the fulfillment of a pattern in the story of Israel, a pattern characterized by humiliation and exaltation, shame and glory, suffering and victory” (54). Further, his attempt to show a pattern throughout the Old Testament of the connection between God’s kingdom and Christ’s atoning death involves selectivity of a very few instances or individuals, and ignores vast sections of the Old Testament that would not support his thesis. Israel’s history is one of disobedience and discipline (Exodus, Numbers, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, the prophets), not atoning sacrifice.
I found the greatest weakness of the book to be his failure to address those passages or arguments by Premillennialists. It would seem that he has taken the presuppositions of his theological system and squeezed the Old and New Testaments through its grid. This made his arguments less convincing and explains why few if any other theologians, even within Reformed theology, understands the relationship between Jesus’ death on the cross and the coming of His kingdom in the same way.
