HOME | contents | The Church in the New Testament | The Life of Christians | The History of God's Acts in Paul and John
The Church is not mentioned in any of the gospels but that of Matthew, and there it is mentioned only twice.
"wherever two or three are gathered in my name
there am I in their midst"
(Matt. 18.35-20; cf. I Cor. 5.1-6.11).
Evidently in both instances
the Church is regarded as incipiently present
in the ministry of Jesus
but as fully present only in relation to his resurrection.
Jesus will build his Church;
as risen he will be in its midst.
In the Acts of the Apostles the word CHURCH does
not occur before a summary that concludes the story of Ananias and Sapphira
(a story reflecting the kind of discipline to which Matthew alludes);
in
it we read that "'great fear came upon the whole
Church"
(5.11).
But while this is the first occurrence of the word, that for which
the word stands is obviously present earlier, in nuclear form among the apostolic
group and explicitly in the story of the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost
(Acts 2).
The existence of the Church is obviously implied by the existence of the
oral tradition embodied in the various gospels, as well as by the existence
of the gospels themselves.
Specifically, when Mark (4.34) writes that Jesus
explained everything privately to his disciples,
he implies the existence
of a community in which the explanations are available.
When he writes, as
he often does, that the disciples did not understand the meaning of what
Jesus said
he implies that such understanding is now present.
Luke makes
this point more explicit when he describes the errors of the earliest disciples,
who supposed that the kingdom of God would immediately appear (19.11, etc.);
it is in the life of the Church that the kingdom is to be realized (22.28-30).
John expresses the idea most clearly.
At first the disciples did not understand,
but when Jesus was raised from the dead or was glorified they remembered
and believed (2.22; 12.16).
They remembered under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit,
who was to teach them and remind them of everything that Jesus had
said to them 14.26)
and was to remain with the community for ever (14. 16),
bearing witness to Jesus (15.26)
and leading them to the whole truth (16.13).
The resurrection story in John 20.19-23 attests the existence of the community
and describes its nature.
It is a community whose centre is the real Jesus,
who 'showed them his hands and his side'.
It is a community of mission:
"as the Father sent me, so I send you."
And it is a community of the Spirit and the remission and retention of sins.
Thus far we have neglected the testimony that chronologically comes first
- that provided by the Pauline epistles.
It is an obvious but important fact
that almost all the epistles are addressed to churches,
even though the word
'church' occurs in addressing only the Thessalonians and the Galatians.
The
churches consist of those who have been 'called to be saints'.
This is not
to say that all the members bear obvious marks of sanctification.
Most of
the Pauline communities resemble wheat mixed with tares (Matt. 13.24-30)
or good fish with bad (Matt. 13.47-50).
It is to say, however, that in determining
the nature of the Church we cannot consider only the passages in which 'church'
is mentioned.
'You' - the members of the various congregations -constitute
the Church.
In this sense everything in the Pauline epistles, like everything
in the gospels, is an expression of the Church's life.
But what is the Church?
It is obviously a social group composed of those who have encountered certain
things and have done certain things.
Its members have heard the gospel
and have had Jesus Christ 'placarded' before their eyes (Gal. 3.1);
they
have turned from idols to serve the real God and to await the return of
Jesus (I Thess. 1.9-10).
They have received the gift of the Spirit (Gal.
3.2)
and have been enabled to call Jesus Lord (1 Cor. 12.3);
they have
been washed, consecrated, and set in a right relationship to God (1 Cor.
6. 11).
They now meet in order to worship God and to eat the Lord's Supper
(I Cor. 11-4).
And they live in a relationship to God and to Christ which
differentiates their behaviour from that of others.
We shall later return
to this point;
here it is enough to say that in finding out what the Church
meant to early Christians
we need to bear in mind the whole of their life,
not just the explicit statements they make about the nature of the community.
Some of the metaphors, which Paul uses in speaking of the Church, may indicate what he thinks about it.
The metaphor is not, however, strictly political.
As is usually the case in Paul's thought, several motifs are bound together
in one form of expression.
The idea of the "body" is not only political but also sacramental;
it is related
to the Church's sharing in the Lord's Supper, in the common cup and in
the common loaf of bread.
"The cup of blessing which we bless,
is it not sharing in the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break,
is it not sharing in the body of Christ?
For we, though many, are one loaf, one body;
for we all participate in the one loaf"
(I Cor. 10.16-17).
The idea that the Church is Christ's body thus emerges from a level deeper than that of politics alone.
We have already indicated Paul's fondness for combining the terms with which
he speaks of the Church.
Several more examples occur in I Corinthians.
The
Church is a farm or garden which the apostles planted and watered, though
the growth was given by God;
it is also a building erected by the apostles
on the foundation which is Jesus Christ (3.6-11).
More specifically, it is
a temple of God in which God's Spirit dwells (3.16-17; 6.19; cf. II Cor.
6. 16).
Once more, we have metaphors drawn partly from the Old Testament, partly
from the Hellenistic world,
but all used in order to set forth the meaning
of the community in relation to God's act in Christ.
Similar images recur in the gospels, especially in John, where we read
that
Christ is the bridegroom (3.28-30; cf. Rev. 22.17),
that he is the Vine of
which the disciples are branches (15. 1-16),
and that his body is the true
temple of God (2.19-2 1; cf. 4.20-4).
In thinking about the New Testament Church, it is not enough to consider
what early Christians thought;
it is also necessary to consider what they
did, above all in their life of worship.
It is obvious that when they met
together they expressed their faith in 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs'
(Col. 3.16; Eph. 5.19).
A hymn of this kind is certainly mentioned by the
Roman governor Pliny when he refers to the carmen Christo quasi deo used
by Christians in Asia Minor.
Examples are also to be found in the hymns of heavenly
worship set forth in the book of Revelation (4.8, 11, etc.), as well as in
such fragments as these:
"Awake, O sleeper, and rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine upon thee" (Eph. 5.4).
"He was revealed in flesh,
vindicated in spirit;
he appeared to angels,
was proclaimed among nations,
was believed in the world,
was lifted up in glory" (I Tim. 3.16).
It may also be the case that the prologue to John was originally hymnodic
in character.
We should not forget
the Magnificat, Benedictus and Nunc Dimittis in Luke's
opening chapters 1.46-55, 68-79; 2.29-32),
or the hymn which may underlie
Philippians 2.6-11.
Other passages can be regarded as liturgical,
but it
should be remembered that not every instance in which solemn or sonorous
language is used necessarily reflects the cultic life of the Church.
In what setting were such hymns and songs employed?
We shall presently discuss the rites of baptism and the Lord's Supper;
but
not every Christian service of worship was 'sacramental'.
Presumably the
earliest Christians followed the example provided by the synagogue worship
to which they were accustomed.
But synagogue worship did not follow a rigid
pattern, and there is no reason to suppose that Christians introduced rigidity.
In the synagogue there were the following items:
the Shema
("Hear, O Israel,
the Lord thy God is one Lord;
and thou shalt love the Lord thy God," etc.);prayers, including the Eighteen Benedictions;
readings from the Old Testament; and
a sermon, delivered by anyone invited by the presiding officer.
Such a service, at Nazareth, is described in Luke 4.16-21.
And presumably it was to this kind of service that ecstatic speech and prophecy
was added.
Christians at Corinth offered thanksgivings and blessings to
God in ways not comprehensible to all (I Cor. 14.16-17).
Paul did not deny
the inspired character of their speech,
but he insisted that it was inferior
to more rational prophecy
and required that no more than two or three persons
speak in this way;
their words were to be interpreted or explained.
In
his view, the principle of order had to prevail (14.33, 40).
In addition to, and perhaps in conjunction with, this kind of worship there
was also the Lord's Supper,
to which Luke probably refers in Acts 2.42 when
he describes the Jerusalem Christians as holding firmly
to
"the teaching of the apostles
and the fellowship,
the breaking of the bread
and the prayers".
In Luke's view
this 'breaking of bread' was presumably
related to the significant bread-breaking at the Last Supper (Luke 22.19)
as well as to the disciples' encounter with the risen Lord at Emmaus;
there
"their eyes were opened"
and
"he was known to them in the breaking of the bread" (24.31, 35).
The Lord's Supper was in part a repetition of the Last Supper and a symbolical
re-enactment of Christ's parabolic action.
It was also an ordinary meal made
extraordinary by the conviction that the risen Lord was present.
And it involved
the continuing proclamation of his death "until
he come"
(I Cor. 11.26).
All these meanings were implied, none of them to the exclusion
of the others;
and there was also the meaning of sacramental sharing in the
body and blood of Christ (I Cor. 10.16-17),
a meaning more fully expressed
in the Johannine doctrine of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood
(John 6.51-8).
It has sometimes been claimed that the Johannine view is based
on 'mystery' conceptions of eating the god,
but it is more easily interpreted
as a natural explanation of the action of the disciples after they had taken
the bread that Jesus said was his body.
In the Didache (14.2-3) as in the Adversus haereses of Irenaeus
(4, 17, 5)
the Lord's Supper is called a sacrifice,
but the sacrifice is
probably not a re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice;
instead, it is the offering
of the first-fruits, of the wine and of the bread.
Another aspect of Christian worship, highly important in a growing Church,
is to be found in the rite of baptism.
Whatever the origins of baptism may
be, it was certainly associated with the risen Lord.
Even though John (4.
1) says that Jesus baptized,
he corrects himself in the next verse:
"Jesus himself did not baptize;
his disciples did so."
His correction is undoubtedly related to his view that during Jesus' ministry
the Spirit had not yet been given (7.39; cf. 20.22).
Similarly in Matthew
(28.19) the risen Lord commands the disciples to baptize.
Baptism was closely
associated with the baptism of John the Baptist -
described by all four evangelists
as a form of preparation for the judgement and the coming reign of God -
and with it was linked the forgiveness of past sins.
In Acts it is first
mentioned at Pentecost,
when Peter urges his hearers,
"Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins,
and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (2.38).
In Luke's view there was nothing automatic about the gift of the Spirit
in baptism.
The Spirit could accompany baptism (Acts 9.17-18);
on the other hand, the
gift could be given either before baptism (10.44-8)
or through the laying-on
of hands after it (8.16; 19.1-7).
Paul's view is a little different.
He considered baptism as less significant than preaching the gospel (I Cor.
1.13-17);
but the preaching led to being baptized "by [or
in] the one Spirit into the one body" (12. 13).
Baptism was both for the individual, who was
baptized into Christ's death and died with him in order to walk in newness
of life (Rom. 6.3-4) and for the group as a whole;
all Christians "put on Christ" and became sons of God (Gal. 3.26-7).
The idea of baptism into Christ's death has been, regarded,
like that of
emphasis on Christ's death in the Lord's' Supper,
as Paul's own interpretation.
And this explanation of it may well be correct.
The further claim, however, that Paul's ideas were based upon 'pagan sacramentalisrn'
is almost certainly wrong (although it may be suggested that even if it were
correct its proponents would simply have pointed towards the catholicity
of Paul's thought).
On this point we may cite the words of A. D. Nock: [Encyclopedia
of the Social Sciences xi 174.]
"There are fundamental differences in pagan and Christian sacraments.
Pagan sacraments turn on the liberating or creating of an immortal element in the individual with a view to the hereafter but with no effective change of the moral self for the purposes of living. Christian sacraments, in their earliest phase, turned entirely on corporate participation in the new order, for which all were alike unfitted by nature."
What Paul apparently did was to take isolated rites of the early communities
and relate them more fully to the death and resurrection of Christ.
He saw
both as prefigured in the events of the Old Testament Exodus (I Cor. 10.1-6);
he saw the prefigurations fulfilled in Christ.
But neither of them was automatically
efficacious (I Cor. 10.6-13; cf. John 3.3-8; 6.63).
As for the practice of baptism, practically nothing is said about it in
the New Testament.
Probably the earlier baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus was expanded into
baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28.19) as the Church
turned to the gentile world in which faith in the Father could hardly be
taken for granted.
The material of baptism is obviously water, ordinarily
running water.
The mode was immersion.
The candidates were normally adults,
though infant baptism seems to be implied by the baptism of whole households
(e.g. I Cor. 1.16)
and perhaps by the holiness of children being brought
up in a Christian or semi-Christian family (I Cor. 7.14).
It is obvious that these practices are all based upon the existence of the
Church;
the Church is not based upon them.
Given the existence of the Church,
the way was open for extension or modification of the practices, under the
guidance of the Spirit.
But just as the practices are derived from the Church,
so the Church is derived from the action of God in Christ.
The freedom that
the Church exercised in regard to its rites and other aspects of its life
had to be exercised in responsibility towards the purpose of God.
Among the functions which the Church exercised was also that of 'binding
and loosing',
authority for which was given (according to Matthew 16.ig)
to Peter and, indeed, to all the disciples (18.18).
In rabbinic language
this expression was used in regard to making the commandments of the law
more or less rigorous.
We find this kind of expression employed in Matthew 5.19:
"whoever looses one of the least of these commandments
shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven."
But this is not the major emphasis involved in the picture of binding and
loosing.
To Peter, Christ gives the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
whatever
he binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven.
The saying
in Matthew 18.18 refers to the decisions of the Church concerning the discipline
of its members.
In John 20.23 a similar statement follows the gift of the
Holy Spirit:
"the sins you forgive are forgiven;
the sins you retain are retained."
This means that the Church has a disciplinary power which is based
either on a word of Christ or on the power of Christ's Spirit.
To be sure,
this power is not intended for continuous use.
The parables of the wheat
and the tares (Matt. 13.24-30)
and the good and bad fish (13.47-50)
show
that the final judgement is reserved for the end time.
But along the way
some judgements were necessary.
The first example of such a judgement we find in the story of Ananias and
Sapphira,
whose sin is not so much that they have failed to share their possessions
with the community,
as that they have lied against God and the Holy Spirit
by keeping back part of their property,
while claiming to have given all
of it (Acts 5.3-4, 9).
The result is their sudden death.
Another case occurs
in I Corinthians 5,
where Paul instructs the congregation to, meet in Jesus'
name,
Paul's own spirit being present with them,
and to 'deliver to Satan'
a man who has been living with his stepmother in violation of laws both Jewish
(Lev. 18.7) and Roman.
He regards the Judgement as equivalent to the rabbinic
'extirpation',
removal from the congregation and therefore from the sphere
of God's protection.
The offender is to be 'delivered to Satan';
his flesh
will be destroyed but his spirit will finally be saved.
Probably in consequence
of' cases like this,
Paul goes on in I Corinthians 6 to give instructions
for the setting up of Christian judges and Christian courts (following Jewish
models).
He recognizes that suits brought by Christians against Christians
represent a moral failure (6.7-8),
but the situation calls for a practical
solution.
A different kind of situation is reflected in the letter of James.
Here we find counsel of a more 'perfectionist' kind being given to the community,
especially in regard to those who are sick and sinful.
"Confess your sins one to another
and pray one for another,
so that you may be healed" (5.16).
In James there is a more literal-minded attempt to maintain the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, and "'the rich" are regarded as non-Christian (2.1-9; 5.1-6).
We have already seen that Paul could summon the Corinthians to expel an
offender from the community.
But such a summons did not exhaust the scope
of his authority.
He had been called by the Lord 'for building up and not
for tearing down' (II Cor. 10.8; 13.10).
In this expression there is a parallel
and a contrast with the call of the prophet Jeremiah,
who was set
"over the nations and over the kingdoms,
to pluck up and to break down
and to destroy and to overthrow,
to build and to plant"
(Jer. 1.10).
Paul's authority was primarily positive;
he was given it so that he could
build and plant (I Cor. 3.6-15).
Consideration of the authority of the Church and of the apostle Paul leads
us to examine the organization of the early communities as a whole.
Presumably
this organization was not unlike that of the Jewish synagogues;
more specifically,
the Jerusalem church seems to resemble the community at Qumran.
But before
making comparisons we should look at the Christian tradition itself in order
to see what the organization actually was.
Here we find considerable differences
between the rather schematic picture in Acts and the situations reflected
in the Pauline epistles.
From Acts the following points are clear.
For Luke the Church's ministry thus consists of two groups:
There are certain difficulties in Luke's picture.
He does not, and perhaps cannot, explain who James of Jerusalem is,
though
he mentions him rather abruptly (12.17; 15.13; 21.18).
From Paul's letters,
we learn that James, "the Lord's brother"
(Gal. 1-19) became an apostle (1 Cor. 9.15) in the resurrection-experience.
Luke does not regard a resurrection-experience as resulting in apostolic
commissioning;
he therefore treats Paul's Damascus vision as quite different
from the resurrection of Christ (contrast I Cor. 15.8; Gal. 1. 16; 2.7-8).
Moreover, Luke's picture of elders as governing the various Pauline churches
is quite out of harmony with what we learn from Paul's authentic letters,
in which the word 'elder' never appears.
We conclude that Luke has interpreted
the ministry of the earliest Church in the light of his own circumstances,
not those of earlier times.
In the Pauline epistles we find a situation, which looks more like the result
of improvisation.
At Thessalonica there are leaders of the Church, but Paul gives them no titles;
similarly at Corinth, Paul commends the household of Stephanas but does not
call Stephanas an elder.
"Overseers" and "deacons"
occur in Philippians 1.1;
the "deaconess"
Phoebe is mentioned in Romans 16.1;
"apostles of the churches" are found in II Corinthians
8.23.
The Pauline letters suggest, however, that the Pauline churches were
administered directly by Paul himself -
partly by personal visits,
partly
by sending emissaries such as Titus or Apollos,
partly by correspondence.
For this reason we find few references to local ministers.
Instead, there is a list of functional offices in 1 Corinthians 12.28.
"God set in the Church
first apostles,
second prophets,
third teachers."
Then follows a list of functions, which do not involve offices:
"miracle-working, gifts of healing,
assistances, governings,
various kinds of ecstatic speech."
In Paul's view these functions are different from one another, and his numbering of apostles, prophets and teachers shows that these are distinct offices.
For Paul the apostles were those who were witnesses to the resurrection
(I Cor. 15.5-8) and were sent out on the gospel mission.
Thus Peter was a
witness to the risen Lord and was entrusted with the apostolate to the circumcision
(Gal. 2.8).
Similarly Paul treated vision and mission as co-ordinate.
"Am I not an apostle?
Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?
Are you not my work in the Lord?"
(I Cor. 9.1)
"God was pleased to reveal his Son to me
so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles"
(Gal. 1.16).
This means that for Paul the apostolate was a mark not of status but of
mission.
His apostolate came not from men or through a man
but through Jesus Christ
and God the Father who raised him from the dead (Gal. 1. 1).
It was given
him for the proclamation of the gospel (I Cor. 1.17).
To be sure, not everything is clear in Paul's picture.
He seems to regard Barnabas as an apostle (I Cor. 9.1-6),
whereas Barnabas
is differentiated from the apostles in Acts 4.36-7.
But we do not know
enough about Barnabas to say that he did not see the risen Lord.
As for the prophets, Paul regards their spiritual gift as potentially available
to all (I Cor. 14).
The prophet speaks intelligibly and produces exhortation, edification and
consolation (14.3),
but his speech is based upon revelation (14.30).
Even
though there is a prophetic office (12.28), all Christians can attain to
it, for it is the gift of God.
Therefore, while from Acts we learn the names
of various prophets, in the Pauline epistles no names are given.
Prophecy
can come through anyone.
The Pauline situation thus differs from that reflected
both in Acts and in the Didache, where certain men hold the prophetic office;
in the Didache the local prophets are the principal ministers of the churches.
There are also teachers, but the New Testament says very little about them.
The author of Hebrews tells his readers that all of them ought to have become
teachers, though they have not reached this level (5.12).
A schematic picture not unlike that in Acts is to be found in the Pastoral
Epistles.
Here there are
Timothy himself, presumably as a 'ruling
elder', can ordain (I Tim. 5.22),
and Titus has been left in Crete to appoint
elders in every city (Tit. 1.5).
The origin of the imposition of' hands
is viewed as apostolic,
for Paul himself laid hands on Timothy (II Tim.
1.6).
Presumably the picture in the Pastorals reflects church life in Asia
Minor and Crete during the last third of the first century.
A somewhat similar picture is set forth in the letter of Clement of Rome
to the Corinthians,
written in the last decade of the century.
He states that the apostles
"appointed their first-fruits,
testing them by the Spirit,
to be bishops and deacons of those who were to believe." (42.3-4)
Later the apostles
"added the codicil
that if they should fall asleep
other approved men should succeed to their ministry",
and these approved men later appointed others (44.2-3).
Here there is obviously
a succession of office, function and person.
It is not, however, a succession
in which the Spirit is transmitted from one officer to another;
the Spirit
remains operative in the Church as a whole.
On the other hand, in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, early in the second
century,
there is no trace of a doctrine of apostolic succession.
For him
the bishop, the presbytery and the deacons reflect the existence of God,
Christ and the apostles;
but he does not say that the bishop's appointment
was apostolic in origin.
Indeed, while he says that bishops
"have been appointed throughout the world" (Eph. 3.2),
he speaks of the Philadelphian bishop as having obtained his ministry
"not from himself or through men" (1.1)
- an allusion to Paul's declaration of independence in Galatians 1.1.
The basic elements of the later Catholic view of the ministry were present
by the beginning of the second century,
but they existed independently;
they
were not combined until the end of the century, as far as we know.
Were Christian ministers regarded as priests?
Luke (Acts 6.7) tells us that many priests at Jerusalem "'were
obedient to the faith",
but their sacrificial functions presumably
terminated when they were converted.
Clement of Rome uses the analogy of
the priesthood to interpret the Christian ministry (40-2),
but he does not
call ministers priests or speak of their offering a sacrifice.
Indeed, all
Christians constituted a "'royal priesthood"
(I Pet. 2.5; cf. Rev. 1.6),
offering a constant sacrifice of praise to God
(Heb. 13.15).
In the New Jerusalem there would be no temple,
"for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple" (Rev. 21.22).
Christians, as the body of Christ, are temples of the Holy Spirit.
Even
in the Dialogue (116.3) of the Roman Christian Justin (c. 160),
Christians
as a group are called "the true high-priestly people".
The beginning of the description of ministers as priests seems to occur
in the Didache,
where we read that Christian prophets are the high
priests of the community;
offerings of first-fruits are to be given them
(13.3; cf. Deut. 18.4-5; Eccles 7.31-2).
This is to say that the priestly
motif first recurs in a document which represents the life and thought of
Jewish Christianity;
it also seems to underlie what Ignatius says about the
bishop.
[See my article in Catholic Biblical Quarterly
(1963)]
Though the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers cannot be neglected,
we must admit that Christian priesthood is essentially, for the New Testament,
the function both of Christ and of the Church as a whole, not of particular
ministers.
top
In principle the Christian had died to the world.
"I have been crucified with Christ",
Paul wrote (Gal. 2.19-20),
"and it is no longer I who live;
Christ lives in me.
The life that I now live in the flesh,
I live in faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me."
He applies this statement not to himself alone but to others as well.
"Those who belong to Christ Jesus
have crucified the flesh with the passions and lusts" (Gal. 5.24).
In the Christian's experience there is an 'old man' who has been put to
death, a new man in principle already created ("if
anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation," II Cor. 5.17), though
actually Christ may not fully have "'taken shape"
in him (Gal. 4.19).
The Christian lives between death and life, on the borderline
between the old age and the new.
The "flesh" has
been overcome;
the Spirit brings forth its spontaneous fruits such as love,
joy and peace (Gal. 5.22-3),
and this peace is not only with men
but also
with God (Rom. 5. 1),
who has reconciled men to himself (II Cor. 5.18-19).
The Old Testament law pointed towards Christ, but with Christ's coming it
is no longer binding upon Christians (Gal. 3.23-5);
Christ was the end of
the law because he fulfilled it and abrogated it (Rom. 10.4).
The law was
intended for man's good; it convicted him of sin;
but only the power of Christ
could deliver him from the frustration of willing one thing and doing another
(Rom. 73-25; cf. Gal. 5.17).
(For Paul's analysis of Old Testament history
see the previous chapter.)
Because the law has been abrogated, the Christian has been given the gift
of freedom.
Is he absolutely free?
On the contrary, the positive value of
the old law has been summed up for him by Christ in the sentence,
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"
(Lev. 18.18; Gal. 5.14).
"Bear one another's burdens
and so you will fulfil the law of Christ"
(Gal. 6.2).
This is to say that the old commandments against adultery, murder, theft
and covetousness and any other commandment there may be - are summed up in
the statement about love of neighbour (Rom. 13.8-10).
Love of God brings
knowledge of God;
love of neighbour corrects the claims of absolute individual
freedom (I Cor. 8.2ff.).
The double commandment to which Paul refers is certainly based on the synoptic
tradition of the saying of Jesus
when he was asked about the primary commandment
of the law
and he quoted the Shema (Deut. 6.4-5)
and the famous words
from the holiness code of Leviticus (19. 18).
Here he was in agreement with
the later rabbi Akiba, who regarded the Leviticus verse as the most comprehensive
rule in the law.
[G. F. Moore, Judaism I (Cambridge, 1927),
85.]
According to the teaching of Jesus, love of neighbour was to be all-inclusive, like that of God himself.
"Love your enemies
and pray for those who persecute you,
so that you may become sons of your Father in the heavens,
for he makes his sun rise on the wicked and the good,
and makes it rain on the just and the unjust"
(Matt. 5.44; cf. Luke 6.35).
Paul too speaks of blessing persecutors and quotes Old Testament passages
about doing good to enemies (Rom. 12.14, 20; cf. I Cor. 4.12-13).
And John
also mentions the new commandment given by Jesus to love one another as he
has loved his disciples.
"By this all will know that you are my disciples,
if you have love towards one another" (John 13.35).
Just as Paul says of Jesus that "he loved me and gave himself for me", so John points to the example of Christ:
"greater love has no one than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15.13).
God's love for the world is shown by his giving his Son for believers (3.16).
But Paul goes farther.
God showed his love for us in that while we were still sinners - his enemies
- Christ died for us (Rom. 5.8).
The love, which men are to manifest in their dealings with one another -
love, which is the first of the "'fruits of the Spirit" (Gal. 5.22) -
is the love with which
God loves the world and his Son (John 17.26);
this love, Jesus prays, will
be in believers.
It is the same love with which Christ loved his own to the
end (John 13.36).
For those who in turn love God he works everything for
the good (Rom. 8.28).
Nothing can separate Christians from the love of Christ,
the love of God that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8.35, 39).
This is the love
described in I Corinthians 13.
In expressing this love the Christian must obviously dismiss distinctions
based upon nationality or social circumstances.
To be sure, the full implications
of non-discrimination were only gradually worked out.
The mission of Jesus
was primarily to Israel;
thus Paul calls him
"the minister to the circumcision" (Rom. 15.8)
and recalls that he was
"born under the law in order to redeem those under the law" (Gal. 4.4).
But already in the ministry of Jesus we
see him on the borders of Tyre
healing the daughter of a Syrophoenician woman
(Mark 7.24-30) or in Capernaum
stating to a Roman centurion that he has not
found faith equal to his within Israel (Matt. 8. 1 0; Luke 7.9).
"Many will come from the east and the west
and will recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom"
(Matt. 8.11; cf. Luke 13.28-9).
The implications of such insights find full expression in the Pauline epistles.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek,
neither slave nor free,
neither male nor female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus"
(Gal. 3.28; cf. Col 3. 11).
"There is no distinction between Jew and Greek,
for the same one is Lord of all,
enriching all who call upon him"
(Rom. 10.12). 12).
Christ has broken down the middle wall separating Jew and gentile (Eph.
2.14);
by implication he has broken down all similar walls.
As Paul worked out the meaning of the integrative process,
he explained
that it implied a temporary loss and rejection for the older people of God
(Rom. 11.11-15)
and a partial "hardening"
until the totality of the gentiles entered in;
then all Israel would be saved
(11.25-6).
The special laws of the old Israel, such as circumcision and dietary
regulations, were to be abandoned.
On the other hand, as Paul makes clear
in I Corinthians 8-10 (cf. Rom. 14.13-15.6),
the "emancipated" Christian
still has responsibilities towards brethren who are not so emancipated.
Freedom
is in tension with love and with building up the community;
not all rights
have to be exercised at all times.
In view of the essentially social nature of the principles of Christian
behaviour,
we may ask what concrete expressions these principles took in
the early Church.
There are three areas in which concreteness might be expected:
marriage and the family, private property, and the service of the state.
(1) According to the teaching of Jesus,
marriage was based on the will of
God as expressed in the creation story.
Moses permitted divorce only as a
concession to the hard-heartedness of the people;
and while separation was
possible,
remarriage was equivalent to adultery (Mark 10.2-12;
in Matthew
19.9, cf. 5.32, the wife's infidelity provides an exception).
Paul sets forth
the same view in I Corinthians 7,
where he deals with various marital situations
in considerable detail.
He discourages both divorce and marrying,
the latter
because of the imminence of the end and because of the obstacles which marriage
places in the way of serving the Lord.
In Ephesians 5.22-33, however, he
treats human marriage as analogous to the union of Christ with the Church.
Paul's attitude towards married life involves a combination of traditional
attitudes with new insights.
From Jewish tradition he retained the view that
the husband was the 'head' of his wife;
the woman was created for the man,
not the man for the woman (I Cor. 11.3, 8-9; cf. Gen. 2.18).
Married women
were not to speak in church;
if they wanted to learn anything, they should
ask their husbands at home (I Cor. 14.34-5).
They were to be subordinate
to their husbands Col. 3.18; Eph. 5.22-4; cf. 1 Pet. 3.1-6).
Women should
wear veils while praying or prophesying (I Cor. 11.5-6, 13-16).
At the same
time, Paul held that in Christ there was neither male nor female;
both were
one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3.28);
the wife was not separate from her husband,
or the husband from the wife, in the Lord (I Cor. 11.11).
Therefore he says
of the married couple that the husband is to pay the marital 'due' to his
wife and, similarly, the wife to her husband.
The wife does not have authority
over her body, but her husband does.
And the husband does not have authority
over his body, but his wife does (I Cor. 7.3-4).
This view of mutuality in
marriage, which Paul bases on the couple's unity in Christ, is also expressed
by Stoic writers of his time.
Whatever its source may be, it marks a departure
from ordinary Jewish views.
Of children, Paul says that they are to obey
their parents,
but he adds the point that fathers are not to provoke the
children Col. 3.20-1; Eph. 5.1-4).
Like other writers of his time, Paul condemns "'the
passion of lust" (I Thess. 44-5).
Continence is preferable
to marriage, while "'it is better to marry than to
burn"
(I Cor. 7.9).
"'Dishonourable passions" are expressed
in male and female homosexual acts, which Paul, like contemporary moralists,
regards as "contrary to nature" (Rom.
1.26-7).
He could have said that they violate the commandment to "increase
and multiply" (Gen. 1.28),
but, probably because of his eschatological
situation, he never refers to this injunction.
(2) Jesus stated that one cannot serve both God and Mammon (riches; Matt.
6.24; Luke 16.13),
advised against laying up treasures on earth (Matt. 6.19),
told a parable about a rich fool (Luke 12. 16-21),
and urged a rich man to
sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor so that he might have
treasure in heaven (Mark 10.21).
It is easier for a camel to go through a
needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10.25).
In both Luke (6.24) and James (5.1) we find "woes"
against the rich.
This emphasis is completely absent both in Paul and in
John.
To some extent it is replaced in Paul's thought by the idea of bearing
one another's burdens (Gal. 6.2),
but Paul also says, in the same context,
that each is to bear his own (6.5).
He mentions giving and sharing only in
contexts related to the collection for the Jerusalem church and to gifts
made by churches for the support of the mission.
In the Jerusalem church,
as at Qumran, Christians were expected to give their property to the community
(Acts 2.44-5; 4.32-5. 11);
but Paul says not a word about this practice.
Instead, he insists that his converts must follow his example by working
night and day;
anyone who does not work is not to eat (II Thess. 3.8-10).
His emphasis upon the necessity of work is quite remarkable.
It may be that,
having abolished works in the sphere of faith, he insists on them all the
more in the sphere of daily life -
though in Philippians he mentions working
in regard to salvation and the resurrection of the dead (2.12-I3; 3.11-14).
The word "poor" occurs only four times
in his epistles,
in references to the church of Jerusalem (Gal. 2.10),
to
the elemental spirits impoverished by Christ's victory (Gal. 4.9),
to Christ
who, though rich, became poor for us (II Cor.8.49),
and to the apostles who,
though poor, make many rich (6.10).
(3) As for the state,
Jesus recommended the payment of tribute money to
Caesar (Mark 12. 15),
though he was falsely accused of forbidding it (Luke
23.2).
According to Matthew 17.24-7 he even paid the Jewish temple tax.
To
be sure, his whole proclamation concerning the kingdom of God implied a measure
of insubordination to the state;
but as far as the tradition tells us, the
implications were not worked out.
According to John 19. 11 the Roman procurator's
authority was given him "from above";
similarly Paul states in Romans 13
that the existing authorities (political, according to unanimous early Christian
exegesis) have been ordained by God;
obedience, including the payment of
taxes, is due to them.
In the Pastoral Epistles, as in I Peter, honour is due to the emperor, and
prayer is to be offered for him (1 Tim. 2.1-2).
Christianity, as is made
clear in Luke-Acts, is no revolutionary movement in Opposition to the state.
And according to John 18.36 Jesus' kingdom is "not
of this world".
But while Christianity was not a revolutionary movement, it was not counter-revolutionary
either.
In 1 Peter 4.16 it is clearly possible to suffer persecution from
the state as a Christian;
in Revelation the possibility is an actuality.
For this reason the disciple John violently attacks Rome under the guise
of Babylon
and exults over her fall, which he can already see beginning.
Christians refuse to worship the image of the beast;
they can make no compromise
with a self-deifying state.
All they can hope for is a new heaven and a new
earth and the descent of a New Jerusalem from heaven.
The inclusion of both Romans and Revelation in the canon means that the
Church could never commit itself wholly to any particular social system or
to any state.
Under various circumstances the Church could approve a system
or denounce it;
but the approval could not be final or complete. Revelation
relativizes the Church's relation to any state.
If we now return to the cardinal principle of all-inclusive love,
we find
that its application is presumably relativized by considerations such as
those we have just mentioned.
A great deal depends upon the circumstances.
For instance, though Paul says that in Christ there is neither male nor female.
(Gal. 3.28)
In dealing with the Corinthians he believed it necessary to state
that wives were to be subordinate to husbands (I Cor. 11-13,
modified in
11.11-12),
and that women were not to speak in church (14.34-5).
Again, very
little is said about justice in the New Testament.
Paul rebukes the Corinthians
for seeking justice in pagan courts,
states that they have already suffered
a loss by bringing suits against one another
(it would be better to be treated
unjustly or defrauded),
and recommends the establishment of Church courts
(I Cor. 6.1-11).
It is doubtful that this kind of counsel was intended for
universal application (yet see Matt. 18.15-17).
The relative nature of early Christian ethics seems clearly evident in relation
to the institution of slavery.
Jesus accepted it without question.
Paul used
it as a model for the relation of the Christian to Christ and, practically,
urged slaves to obey their masters while reminding masters of their obligations
to slaves Col. 3.22-4.1; Eph 6.5-9).
It is hard to tell whether or not Paul
wanted individual slaves to become freedmen.
A verse which could point towards
emancipation (I Cor. 7.21) seems, in view of its context, to recommend remaining
in slavery;
and Paul's hope that Philemon will do 'more' than Paul asks in
accepting the runaway Onesimus (Philemon 21) does not necessarily imply freeing
him.
Slavery is a part of Paul's world (see also I Peter 2. 1 8-20). He has
no idea of changing it.
If, then, the heart of early Christian behaviour lies in the motivation
given by love, within the community and outside it, we must ask to what extent
this love is itself conditioned and perhaps relativized by the eschatological
context of early Christian thought.
Paul's discussion of love in I Corinthians
13 suggests that he did not regard it as eschatologically conditioned.
Prophecies,
ecstatic speech and "knowledge"' will
be superseded, while faith, hope and love will last;
and love is the greatest of the three.
Again, since early Christian eschatology is not purely futurist but has its
roots in the present,
it is the love, which already finds expression in action,
which will continue on.
Circumstances vary, but the gospel of love remains
the same - end of the world or world without end.
top
We have already seen, in dealing with the question of New Testament ethics,
that the problem of eschatology arises in a fairly acute form.
To what extent
are the minds of the New Testament writers conditioned by eschatology?
What
are their views of their historical situation in the sequence of God's acts?
In order to determine the extent of the conditioning we must first ask what
their eschatological ideas really were.
Now following the approach which
we have previously employed we must continue to insist that we cannot speak
of New Testament eschatology as purely futurist in direction;
we cannot speak
of Jesus as one who simply proclaimed the imminent advent of God's reign.
On the other hand, we cannot say that he announced nothing but the realization
of eschatology, as if the possibilities of God's action were exhausted in
his mission or even in the creation of the Church.
Both aspects, it would
appear, were present in his proclamation.
On the one hand, his mission, with
all that it involved, was the inauguration and the incipient realization
of God's reign.
On the other, there was still more to come,
and this 'more'
is expressed in the Lord's prayer, "Thy kingdom
come,"
in the promise of the Spirit,
and in the expectation
of the future coming of the Son of Man.
The kingdom of God is not fully made actual in the Church;
to quote from the Didache once more, Christians pray to God to gather the
Church into the kingdom.
The attitude of Jesus is not fully comparable, then, to that of his Jewish
contemporaries
who spoke of "'this age", the present one, and "'that
age",
the age to come.
In the mission of Jesus the present age was already giving
way to the future age of God;
as he drove out demons the kingdom was incipiently
present and Satan had already fallen like lightning from heaven.
But in the teaching of Jesus there is no fully developed interpretation
of the past of Israel in relation to present and future.
At most, we encounter
the hint of such an interpretation in his remarks about the divine plan in
creation,
where it is stated that Adam and Eve were to become, and did become,
"one
flesh",
and that the divine plan was modified by Moses when
he permitted divorce (Mark 10.1-12).
What God has yoked together, a man must
not separate.
If we take these words seriously, we see that the man involved
must be Moses;
the time of Moses must be one in which men's hearts were hardened.
But this criticism does not apply to everything Moses said.
Some of his words
were obviously expressions of the commandments of God -
for example, "Honour
thy father and thy mother" (Mark 7-10)
and other commandments of the decalogue
(Mark 10.19),
as well as the Shema and the command to love one's neighbour
(Mark 12.29-31).
Generally speaking, Jesus criticized the traditions of men
(presumably including the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 24.1) as erroneous
and misleading additions to the true law of God.
On this basis we can probably
proceed to say that in Jesus' view there was a pre-traditional period, a
traditional period of human corruption, and the age to come, already breaking
in - and restoring the authentic plan of God.
During the traditional period
the prophets (including David, Mark 2.25; 12.35-7) were given insight into
what was to come.
Something not unlike this picture is to be found in the Pauline epistles,
and it underlies much of what Paul has to say about the human situation.
At the beginning and the end of the history of God's people stands God the
creator,
he who is the source and origin of creative activity (I Cor. 8.6)
and of the new creation;
both works of creation were and are effected through
Christ.
Paul refers what is said of 'man' in the first creation story in
Genesis to Christ,
who is at once the Wisdom-image of God
through which creation
was made
and the created image of God mentioned in Genesis 1.26.
But he does
not speak of Christ the image of God as man.
He goes ahead to the second
creation story in order to find there, the one whom he calls 'the first man',
the man of earth (I Cor. 15.47).
He calls Christ, the 'man from heaven',
the second because he is thinking of eschatology, not of history or of Vorgeschichte.
We have borne Adain's image (I Cor. 15.49) because, according to Genesis
5.3, Adam begat sons after his own image.
The most significant observations about Adam are to be found in Romans 5.
His descendants imitated Adam's sin of disobedience to God,
but the penalty
of death which was given him affected even those who did not, like him,
sin.
Because of his transgression all his descendants died.
Even before Adam's sin (and Eve's), the later human situation was depicted
in the second creation story.
According to I Corinthians 11, man, not woman,
is "'the image and glory of God";
apparently
Paul has Genesis 5.1 in mind, where the mortal Adam is described as made
in God's image.
Paul insists that woman is to be subordinate to man, for
she was made from man and for man (Gen. 2.18-22).
Yet "'in
the Lord"
woman is not entirely apart from man or man apart from woman, for the human
situation points beyond itself to an original and an eschatological mutuality.
While woman is from man, man is born "through the
woman" and ultimately
all things are from God.
With this we may compare Galatians 3.18; in Christ
there is ... neither male nor female.
Though at the fall Eve was deceived
by the serpent and was no longer a "pure virgin"
(II Cor. 11.2-3),
in the restoration effected by Christ husbands are to love
their wives as themselves and as Christ loved the Church.
Thus the prophecy
of Adam about the two becoming one flesh will be fulfilled (Eph. 5.25-33).
A somewhat different way of depicting the primeval history is found in Romans
1.19-32, perhaps because the material comes from a homily explaining the
wrath of God to gentiles.
God made himself known to all "from
the creation of the world";
men were once aware of his eternal power
and deity;
they knew God.
But they turned aside to worship the creation instead
of the Creator, and as a penalty God delivered them to "uncleanness",
to "dishonourable passions", and to "an
unsuitable mind" (1.24, 26) 28).
Such men and women are 'worthy of
death' (1.32), as are those who look favourably on them.
The analogy of this
account with that in Romans 5 is obvious;
whether man's sin consisted of
disobedience or of idolatry, it was an affront to God, the source of his
being, and death resulted.
In the midst of the reign of death God did not leave himself without witness.
"Abraham believed God,
and it was accounted to him as righteousness"
(Gen. 15.6; Gal. 3.6; Rom. 4.4).
The story of Abraham shows that God requires faith, not obedience to a legal
code,
for God called him when he was not circumcised.
Moreover, it was promised
him that he would be the father of many nations;
the promise was given to
him and to his descendants,
and his true descendant was the Christ who was
to come.
Indeed, imaginatively (that is to say, allegorically) one can find
even more in the story of Abraham.
He had two wives, one slave, one free.
The children of the slave girl Hagar correspond to the children of the present
Jerusalem;
the children of Sarah resemble Isaac, her son, who is like Christ.
The promise of God, given to a people yet to come, was not annulled by a
law which was added 430 years later as a mere codicil (Gal. 3.17).
Yet the law was given.
Why was it given?
According to Galatians 3.19 it
"was ordained because of transgressions,
until the coming of the seed to which the promise had been given;
it was enjoined through angels by the hand of a mediator."
The words we have translated "because of"
are ambiguous and may well mean "'for the sake of".
Romans 4. 15 states that
"where there is no law,
there is no transgression."
Thus there was a commandment not to covet;
the commandment was holy and
just and good,
but sin seized the opportunity to produce covetousness and
other kinds of lawless desire.
Sin perverted the good.
Therefore, as good,
the laws presumably was laid down because of transgressions or in order to
prevent them;
but as the occasion of sin, it was laid down with the result
that it multiplied transgressions.
"The law locked up everything under sin
so that the promise based on faith in Christ Jesus
might be given to believers" (Gal. 3.22).
It had a temporary goal, and it was nullified with the death of Christ.
Paul explains this nullification in relation to two passages in Deuteronomy.
First, a curse was laid upon everyone who did not perform all the commandments
in the legal code (Deut. 27.26).
He does not deny the possibility of such
legal observance (cf. Phil. 3.6),
but he does state that legal observance
could not produce righteousness,
for righteousness comes from faith (Hab.
2.4).
It would appear that for his argument, however, the notion that most
people could not observe the law is required,
for he assumes that the curse
had to be taken away.
It was taken away because in Deuteronomy 21.23 a curse
was also laid upon anyone who "'was hanged on a tree".
Christ assumed this curse (Gal. 3.10-14).
It is obvious that in Paul's view the effect of the Mosaic Law was largely
bad, whether the law was bad or not.
This is the problem to which he devotes
much of Galatians and Romans.
On the other hand, in II Corinthians he tries
to explain that the true meaning of the law was misunderstood by the Jews,
and he makes use of a passage in Exodus 34.33-5 according to which Moses
placed a veil on his face -
a veil taken away whenever a man turned towards
the Lord.
Christians behold the glory of the Lord with unveiled faces.
Paul's emphasis upon the problem of the law prevents him from making much
of the Exodus, but this motif is present in his letters, especially I Corinthians.
There he expressly identifies Christ with the paschal lamb and urges Christians
to keep the true, spiritual Passover (5.7-8).
Again, he compares the crossing
of the sea and the guidance by a pillar of cloud with Christian baptism,
and finds prefigurations of the Lord's Supper in the gift of manna and the
water from the rock.
Indeed, the whole period of wandering in the desert
provides a prefigurative warning to Christians who may assume that baptism
and the Eucharist work automatically or finally.
Some of the Israelites in
the desert were idolaters;
some committed fornication;
some tested the Lord.
Such men suffered penalties given by God or his destroying angel (10.1-11).
But Paul's emphasis on the Exodus is of minor importance compared with his
emphasis upon the promise to Abraham.
In part, as we have suggested, this
is due to his concern for the role of Moses not as leader but as legislator.
In part it is also due to the importance of the work of Christ, far superior
to that of Moses.
In the period from Moses to Christ, then, men were under a curse, under
sin, under death.
Sin worked through the flesh, with the result that the
law, even though potentially good, was not actually good.
As for the gentiles,
they were slaves of gods who actually have no existence;
they served the
elemental spirits (later, through Christ's work, weak and impoverished).
Both Jews and gentiles lived by a calendar of days, months, seasons and years
(Gal. 4.8-10).
Finally God sent his Son,
"born of a woman, born under the law,
in order to redeem those under the law,
so that we might receive adoption" (Gal. 4.4-5).
Christ took the curse of the law upon himself; he became a "curse"
for us.
He "'became sin" for our sake (II Cor.
5.21).
He delivers us from the wrath to come (I Thess. 1.10).
Christ reconciles
us to God (Rom. 5; II Cor. 5);
he triumphs over death (I Cor. 15).
All have
sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,
but God has forgiven all
because
of the sacrifice of Christ, who died for sinners.
To be baptized into his
death means dying with him and in principle rising with him, though our final
resurrection is yet to come.
It means receiving a new life in which the Spirit
of God becomes the guiding force.
This is to say that Christ undid or reversed the work of Adam by obeying
God instead of disobeying him;
he fulfilled the promise made to Abraham;
and he nullified the evil effects of the Law of Moses.
But while Christ's victory has already taken place, there is still more
to come.
We are children of God and heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ; sufferings
in the present age are insignificant when compared with future glory (Rom.
8.17ff.).
We live on the borderline between the two ages, and Paul can speak
either of what has already been done or of what will be done.
Apparently
there are more sufferings yet to come, but ultimately Christ will absolutely
overcome whatever in the cosmos is hostile to God, and God will be everything
to everyone (I Cor. 15.25-8).
The end is not yet; s
omething - perhaps the
Roman state - is restraining the powers of lawlessness and preventing the
final conflict (II Thess. 2.7);
but the Christian knows that final victory
is certain.
This framework and foundation of Paul's thought can be called eschatological
history.
In many respects it resembles contemporary Jewish eschatological
histories,
but the difference between it and them lies simply in the fact
that for Paul
the Christ has already come
and the messianic age has already
begun.
There is a shift of emphasis from something exclusively or at least
largely future
to something in which the present already represents and is
the future.
The new creation has already taken place, though it is still
to be fully realized in the future.
But we must avoid limiting the range of Paul's thought simply to the historical
or even the eschatological.
His thought goes beyond the historical; it has
dimensions both cosmic and personal.
For example, the personal ('outer man',
'inner man') is combined with the cosmic in II Corinthians 4.16-18, which
concludes with the words, 'not looking at what is seen but at what is not
seen;
for what is seen is temporary, while what is not seen is eternal'.
Or again Col. 3.1-4),
"If then you have been raised with Christ,
seek things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God;
think of things above, not of things on earth.
For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God;
when Christ is manifested, then you too will be manifested in glory with him."
The various motifs are combined, and the eschatological is blended with the cosmic and the personal.
For this reason it is not a complete surprise when we find a similar blending
in the Gospel of John.
The eschatological is certainly present in John,
and
so is the emphasis on the premonitions of eschatology in the Old Testament.
Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ (John 8.56),
presumably because
he had been promised that Isaac would be born (Gen. 17.17).
The law was given
through Moses,
but Moses performed symbolic actions pointing towards Christ
and actually wrote about him (John 1.17; 3.14; 5.46).
Isaiah beheld Christ's
glory and spoke of him (12.41).
But in John's writing the eschatological
is to a considerable extent subordinated to the cosmic and personal.
Jesus
is the incarnation of the creative Word of God, which expressed itself as
light and life.
He came down from heaven (3.13) or "from above".
His resurrection
was his exaltation;
his being "'lifted up" took place so that he might draw all men
to himself,
Finally he ascended into heaven in order to show men the way
and to prepare a place for them.
This is to say that the cosmic is emphasized
rather more strongly than it is in Paul's writings.
Moreover, the emphasis
on personal decision and the "present"
nature of decision and its consequences is equally strong.
"He who hears my word
and believes him who sent me
has eternal life
and does not come to judgement
but has passed from death to life"
(5.24; cf. 11.25-6).
To be sure, the
future is not completely dismissed (unless we regard 'futurist' passages
as interpolations),
but John's stress is laid on the present.
To overstate
the situation, somewhat,
the essential Pauline contrast between past and
present/future is replaced
by emphasis on the present,
and while Paul's scheme
is primarily historical/eschatological John's is cosmic/personal.
This is
an overstatement, however, since all these elements are to be found in both
writers.
For both,
what matters is that Christ has come,
that the Spirit
has been given,
and that there is more yet to come.
Both understand the past
and the future
in the light of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection.
top