Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Eschatology’

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24).

One of the awesome things one gets from attempting to learn the Greek is a greater sensitivity to the nuances in the original language.  In this passage, the verb ‘metabaino’ (to pass over, pass through, enter) is not vague or at all ambiguous.  It is in the perfect tense, which indicates “that the action is completed with a resulting state” (S.M. Baugh).

So all of us who have heard Christ’s word and believed him have “passed over” from death into life. Think completed action with a resultant state! In other words, it’s a done deal! There is a very real and profound sense in which we have already entered through the portal of the eschaton! Of course, at present this remains a spiritual reality. Our bodies wait and grown until it becomes a physical reality as well. Calvin comments on this passage quite helpfully.

We ought always to consider what it is that the Gospel offers to us; for we need not wonder that he who receives Christ with all his merits is reconciled to God, and acquitted of the condemnation of death; and that he who has received the gift of the Holy Spirit is clothed with a heavenly righteousness, that he may walk in newness of life….

And shall not come into condemnation. There is here an implied contrast between the guilt to which we are all naturally liable, and the unconditional acquittal which we obtain through Christ; for if all were not liable to condemnation, what purpose would it serve to free from it those who believe in Christ? The meaning therefore is, that we are beyond the danger of death, because we are acquitted through the grace of Christ; and, therefore, though Christ sanctifies and regenerates us, by his Spirit, to newness of life, yet here he specially mentions the unconditional forgiveness of sins, in which alone the happiness of men consists. For then does a man begin to live when he has God reconciled to him; and how would God love us, if he did not pardon our sins?

But hath passed. Some Latin copies have this verb in the future tense, WILL PASS from death to life; but this has arisen from the ignorance and rashness of some person who, not understanding the meaning of the Evangelist, has taken more liberty than he ought to have taken; for the Greek word metabe÷bhke (hath passed) has no ambiguity whatever. There is no impropriety in saying that we have already passed from death to life; for the incorruptible seed of life (1 Peter 1:23) resides in the children of God, and they already sit in the heavenly glory with Christ by hope, (Colossians 3:3,) and they have the kingdom of God already established within them, (Luke 17:21.) For though their life be hidden, they do not on that account cease to possess it by faith; and though they are besieged on every side by faith, they do not cease to be calm on this account, that they know that they are in perfect safety through the protection of Christ. Yet let us remember that believers are now in life in such a manner that they always carry about with them the cause of death; but the Spirit, who dwells in us, is life, which will at length destroy the remains of death; for it is a true saying of Paul, that “death is the last enemy that shall be destroyed” (1 Corinthians 15:26.).

And, indeed, this passage contains nothing that relates to the complete destruction of death, or the entire manifestation of life. But though life be only begun in us, Christ declares that believers are so certain of obtaining it, that they ought not to fear death; and we need not wonder at this, since they are united to him who is the inexhaustible fountain of life.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

For anyone who is interested in understanding the Reformed doctrine of justification, I would really recommend reading J.V. Fesko’s book. I’ve been reading through it and it is great. It’s clear, cogent, and illuminative.

Preferring light over heat, Fesko also offers considerable refutations to N.T. Wright and his understanding of Paul in the context of second-temple Judaism. Although Wright says a lot of true and pertinent things, (about both Paul and second-temple Judaism), Fesko points out how it’s not all that simple. I thought I’d offer you some quotations as well as my thoughts.

First, Fesko summerizes some of Wright’s thoughts on second-temple Judaism:

The first-century Jew [according to Wright] was not concerned about how one might have a saving relationship with God. Rather, the first-century Jew was already a member of the covenant and possessed a relationship with his covenant Lord. What was perplexing for the first-century Jew was, how could the chosen people of God be under the Roman occupation? Had not God promised in this covenant to Abraham that Israel would rule over the nations? Yet Israel was under the thumb of Rome. (Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine, p. 213.)

Now what is important to realize is the degree to which Wright relies upon second-temple Judaism to help his understanding of Paul. Here, he is in company with many other contemporary (yet often critical) scholars. But then one must ask the question, is second-temple Judaism really the best indicator into what St. Paul really believed? Or would Paul’s presuppositions about many things (including covenant membership) have been somewhat (if not radically) divergent from those of his day. Fesko explains,

Wright is correct in that one must be sensitive to the surrounding cultural and historical context of the NT; However, he gives his interpretation of second-temple Judaism too great a role in defining the covenantal nature of justification. At various points Wright invokes the literature of second-temple Judaism to explain what lies behind Paul’s thought. What is problematic about this methodology is that Paul never directly cites the literature of the second temple. (p. 233)

Fesko then quotes J. Gresham Machen.

It is significant that when, after the conversion, Paul seeks testimonies to the universal sinfulness of man, he looks not to contemporary Judaism, but to the Old Testament. At this point, as elsewhere, Paulinism is based not upon later developments but upon the religion of the Prophets and the Psalms. (p. 233)

Fesko points out how “Wright assumes that second-temple Judaism has authoritatively interpreted the OT and that Paul builds upon this understanding.” (p. 233)

Now this is a huge problem for Wright. Although much of his conclusions about second-temple Judaism are historically accurate, he seems to miss the fact that Paul didn’t agree with them! The main questions they were asking weren’t the ones he was trying to answer. In fact you might picture Paul as saying, “Wrong question! Read your bible again.” And thus for us today, the main question in Pauline scholarship shouldn’t be, What did second-temple Judaism believe? But rather, What did Paul think about what they believed? And here we must realize that Paul would hardly have granted them their premise. They had a “zeal” but “without knowledge” (Rom. 10:2). Fesko writes,

Instead, as Machen argues, Paul appeals to the OT, to Abraham, not to the erroneous positions of first-century Judaism. And as classic Reformed covenant theology has argued, the Abrahamic covenant, which Paul calls the gospel (Gal. 3:8), is built ultimately upon the protoevangelium, not the hopes of first-century Jews of being delivered from their Roman overlords. Paul’s concern is not the supposed exile under Rome as Wright contends, but the greater exile under the powers of Satan, sin, and death. (p. 234)

Now, this distinction carries with it drastic interpretive consequences. As Geerhardus Vos was famous for pointing out, eschatology precedes soteriology. And it is no less the case when dealing with first-century Jews and Paul.

As is evidenced all throughout the gospels, one of the things the Jews got wrong was their eschatology. Is it possible Write has overlooked this? What the Jews were looking for was not what Christ was looking for (or, rather, looking to do). How they read and interpreted the Scriptures was not how Christ and his disciples read and interpreted them. Thus the conclusions of second-temple Judaism regarding the covenant promises and their eschatological fulfillment would have been radically different than Paul’s. Paul had himself seen the risen Christ, and had tasted of the powers of the age to come. He would have had little in common with their base and carnal assumptions. There would have been a huge disconnect! Rather than offering a disinterested correction, Paul’s eschatology would have stood in glaring and direct contradiction to that of first-century Jews.

And although Wright seems to underplay this fact, the Jews were considerably concerned about salvation (or being saved) as well. But it wasn’t the kind of salvation Christ offered or Paul preached. And that was the problem!

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me (John 5:39 NIV).

Salvation, for Christ and Paul, was not about redemption from the hand of Roman oppressors. Fesko points out, “Paul shows no concern for what the enemies of the people of God might or might not think; Paul shows concern only for what God will say concerning the one who stands before his throne.” This can be grounded further in the gospels where Christ is constantly bringing to attention how the Jews have their eschatology all wrong, and therefore their soteriology as well.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Mat. 10:28).

And then for something completely different:

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 5:54).

Talk about total disconnect! The Jews would have been like, “What in the world is he talking about?!?!” Even the disciples were confounded: “This is a hard saying: who can listen to it? (John 5:60). And yet Christ can say, “…if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me (v. 46).”

So, here we see the cosmic divergence. On the one hand are the Jews and their interpretation of the OT together with their understanding of the Covenant, Torah, and the eschatological fulfillment of the promises. On the other hand we have Christ, and his disciples, and their understanding of the Law and its fulfillment by Christ in the gospel.  Needless to say there is an acute, and even critical, discontinuity between these two systems. Yet Wright doesn’t seem to get this. Or at least he downplays it into insignificance. And so, although he does get much of second-temple Judaism right, unfortunately he still gets Paul wrong.

Fesko concludes:

Hence Wright is correct to say that justification is covenantal, law-court language, and eschatological. But these categories require reorientation because Paul does not discuss justification in the way that Wright does. Wright bases these categories in this understanding and construction of the worldview of second-temple Judaism and the longing for deliverance from Rome. Paul, on the other hand, bases these categories in the protoevangelium, the longing for deliverance from sin and death. (p. 239)

By highlighting and emphasizing certain ideas and themes over others, N.T. Wright ultimately creates false dichotomies that only distort the grand biblical message. Among various other errors, he sets second-temple Judaism up as a main interpretive grid against the rest of Scripture. In the end, his explanations are reductionistic, robbing the reader of the interpretive tools for making sense of the various (yet essential) biblical themes, and ultimately allowing to fall flat that very gospel message which is to bring life to the dead.

Read Full Post »