THE CONTRIBUTION OF AN EVALUATIVE COMPARISON BETWEEN PAULINE
AND JOHANNINE "MYSTICISM" TO NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY.
by
112# 11 GREGORY C. PEREIRA
THESIS
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the degree
DOCTOR LITTERARUM ET PHILOSOPHIAE
in
BIBLICAL STUDIES (NEW TESTAMENT)
in the
FACULTY OF ARTS
of the
RAND AFRIKAANS UNIVERSITY Johannesburg, South Africa.
PROMOTER: PROF. JAN A. DU RAND
MAY 2002 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for his grace, and the privilege to have done this thesis. I lay this thesis at his throne for his glory.
Thanks go to my dearest Wife and typist, Vercia, and our children, Luke, Lucienne and Angelique for the sacrifices they have made for this thesis.
I wish to thank our family: My mother, father, brothers, their spouses, and Vercia's sister and her husband for their encouragement.
A special thanks to my Study Supervisor and friend, Prof. Jan A. du Rand for his guidance, support and encouragement.
My heartfelt thanks goes to my friend and proof-reader, Darrel Calvert for his meticulous work.
A special thanks to my friend and former employer, Piero Lombardi of ILVA GEN. ENG. (PTY.) Ltd. for his printing and binding sponsorship.
I wish to thank Sniff and Jiff, my brothers, Victor Smith, Wenda Knipe and Simon Ellenson for their material support, thus making all this possible.
I wish to thank New Life Baptist Church - Bosmont and its leadership for their loving support during my ministry there, and for allowing me the time to study.
A special thanks to Corin Mathews for helping me to organise the bibliography
May the Lord richly bless each one of you,
"Piff" G.G.Pereira. DEDICATION
I wish to dedicate this thesis to four important people in my life:
To my beautiful wife, Vercia, whom I honour and love with my whole heart;
To my mother, Becky, a godly woman and the best mother in the world;
To Gerhard Nehls for introducing me to my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ;
to Tony Lavans, my first mentor in the faith.
ii SUMMARY
Throughout the history of the Church, there has been an aversion to mysticism. Much of it is because of a basic misunderstanding of the concept, and because of the contradiction that mysticism has historicaly proved to be for the Church. As someone has said: "It has been the well spring of both saints and schismatics, the hallmark of luminaries and lunatics alike. It has been a force for the active upbuilding of the Body of Christ and an impetus to the counter-currents of sectarianism, anti-nomianism and quietism. It has issued in theologies of impeccable trinitarian montheism and in the heterodoxy of pantheism".
We have looked at the word "mysticism" and derived the basic definition: Being in communion with the divine reality (see chp.1, pg.41). For most, it involves a process; one cannot encounter the divinity, but by going through a specified process. We have discovered that "mysticism" is practiced by non-christian religions too. These include Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and other eastern religions. The process often includes ascetic tendencies, meditation, contemplative methods and transcendental communications. The general quest is for inner peace, tranquility, knowledge and light, and ultimately, to bring some self-realization, which is really a loss of self in the Absolute.
In our understanding, christian-mysticism is different. It is having a personal relationship with God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and to be in fellowship with him through his indwelling Spirit. We speak of communion with a trinitarian God; not by processes of asceticism, meditation, contemplation and transcendental communications ascending to God, but by faith in a God who descended to meet us in the God-man, Jesus Christ. We believe therefore that every believer and only believers in Jesus Christ, are true "mystics".
iii The word "mysticism" is unfortunate, because of all the negative understanding, and because it is applied to experience outside Christ as well. It might be better to change it to another name; but what?; we don't know. Participation, fellowship, communion, etc., are inadequate because they do not necessarily mean that it is with God, whereas "mysticism" includes all these ideas uniquely in relation to God. Having stated its inadequaces, we have nevertheless employed the word "participation" alongside " mytic is m " .
Before enquiring into Paul's and John's mystical thought, we looked at those influences that may have had an impact on them; i) Judaistic Mysticism, which is understood by concepts like anthropomorphism, theophanies, shikinah, Merkabah, Hekhalot, and Apocalyptism (see pp.23-30); and ii) Hellenistic Mysticism, starting with Plato and including concepts of theoria, katharsis, nous, the Mysteries, and Gnosticism (see pp.30-38).
We discuss mysticism in Paul and John under the following headings: i) The Need for an Eschatological Framework, ii) The Eschatological Nature of their Writings, iii) Participation Theology, iv) Participation Christology, v) Participation Pneumatology, and vi) Participation Koinonology. We apply these headings to both of them, but separately, in order that we may have a common basis to do an evaluative comparison between them.
Paul's mysticism (see chp.2) is characterised by the concept "in Christ" and all its variants. He applies that concept throughout to express our relationship to the trinitarian God. The trinity in Paul, is essentially expressed in a soteriological understanding. He speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the relation of procuring for us a salvation, and putting us in a right relationship with God. Paul is monotheistic, yet trinitarian. iv The Father's role is mainly that of election. It is tied up with the concept of "the people of God" with whom God will presence himself. He foreknows, predestinates, calls, justifies and glorifies those who will come to him by faith in Christ. His purpose is for them to be like his Son, Jesus Christ. It is through Christ, that God reconciles us to himself. Reconciliation brings us into a relationship of peace with God. We are then known to be his sons. By adoption we became members of the household of God, and are accorded the blessings of his Spirit, inheritance and freedom. Together, all believers are a building and dwelling place for God through his Spirit. God reveals himself to his sons and shows himself to be the God of love and faithfulness, and who is open to have communion with his people.
Jesus Christ, the God-man, is the plhce where God and man meet. God was in Christ reconciling man to himself. The concept "in Christ" in Paul shows our relationship with Jesus Christ, who became sin for us, so that through his death we may be redeemed from sin and acquitted by .God. We stand before God in Christ's righteousness. By faith, we identify with Christ in his death and resurrection. We are crucified with him; we have been raised with him; and we are seated together with him in heavenly places. Indicatively, we are members of a new humanity in Christ, the Last Adam. Imperatively, Christ is in us, so that we may live holy and Christ-like lives. In this way, we may be "clothed" with Christ, so that Christ alone may be seen, for he envelopes us. We are united to Christ in his Body, and by that, we are united to other believers.
The Holy Spirit is for Paul, God's gift to the individual believer and to the Church. The Church is thus a community who is known by the presence of the Spirit of God. They are a charismatic community. Our sonship is confirmed by the Spirit's presence with us, and in us. Salvation does not come to us apart from the Spirit. One who does not have the Spirit, does not belong to Christ. Believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and as such, he is present by his indwelling of the believers. This is an enabling presence. By it, we are empowered ethically, evangelistically, and in a way where we can edify the other members in the Body. We edify others by the gifts given to us by the Spirit. Ethical empowering comes with the fruit of the Spirit which is essentially love. He helps us in prayer and in our sufferings for Christ. The Spirit's presence in us, is the guarantee of our resurrection, inheritance and inner renewal toward Christ-likeness.
How is mysticism in Paul relevant in the believer? In the Body of Christ. It is Christ's body and being united to Christ, is to be united to his Body and with fellow-believers. The Body of Christ consists of many members, but particularly of believing Jews and Gentiles. They are the "one new man" in Christ, who share in the meal (the Lord's Supper), and in the death and resurrection of Christ through baptism. This body is known as the "Israel of God", God's people. Horizontal fellowship is really a result of vertical fellowship.
John is pretty close to Paul in his mysical thinking. For John, the vocabulary is a little different. He speaks of the concept of "abiding". John's eschatology makes such abiding conceivable. His is mainly a realised eschatology. In Paul there is a greater tension between "already" and "not yet" than in John.
John speaks of having fellowship with the Father. How? By the fact that the Father sent Jesus, his only Son to reveal himself to the world. Whoever the Father gave to the Son, will come to him. The Father seeks true worshippers, who have a relationship with him through the Spirit. By believing in Christ, we become sons of the Father, and through the Spirit, the Father and the Son dwell in us. There is a reciprocal abiding - we abide in the Father and the Father abides in us. God made himself visible in the Son, and in Jesus, we meet with the Father. God is our Father and he is involved in our lives by "dressing" us and "keeping" us. That speaks of our discipline and security as sons. vi We have fellowship with the Son, Jesus Christ. John says that the believer has the Son, and because of that, he has eternal life. Faith in Christ, is union with God. We have been given to Christ by the Father, for we first belonged to the Father. God is in Christ, and Christ is in us. We may partake of Christ, the Bread of life. Partaking of his body and blood makes us to have a part in Christ. Christ is the vine; we are the branches, and we abide in Christ. Without him, we can do nothing. We are to walk as Christ walked, because we are in him and he is in us.
John speaks of the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete. As such, he is our advocate, intercessor, helper, comforter, and counsellor. Through the Spirit, we become alive to God for we are born of the Spirit. He lives in us and flows forth from us, as living water to work in the lives of otherg through us. He enables us to worship God in a befitting way, for God is Spirit and we must worship him in Spirit and in truth. The Spirit is the one who guides us into all truth, bringing to remembrance the things of Christ to us. He helps us glorify the Lord in our obedience. The Holy Spirit convicts the world through the believers.
John also posits a unity of believers in Christ. They are born from above and are united in Christ, the vine, who is from above. We are a new community expressing our unity in love. As the children of God, we belong to the Family of God, and we are the people of God. We have fellowship with one another and with God.
When Paul and John are compared, it is discovered that in most mystical concepts, they concur. We are the children of God; we are the people of God because we believe in Jesus; we are united to Christ; we are in fellowship with the Holy Spirit; and we are the community of saints.
This impacts the way we do New Testament Theology. How? By using the salvation- historical and thematic approaches, we see that we may derive an outline reflecting mysticism in Paul and John. We may also apply a mystical hermeneutic. We may not vii speak of a New Testament center, but mysticism may readily operate as an organising center in Paul and John. A mystical hermeneutic will show a continuity with the Old Testament. It will also become apparent that mysticism and ethical living go together.
viii Doctoral Thesis TopicTiliti
The Contribution of an Evaluative Comparison Between Pauline and Johannine "Mysticism" to New Testament Theology.
Table of Contents for Doctoral Thesis
Acknowledgements Dedication ii Summary iii
Table of Contents. 1 Chapter 1 5 1.1 Orientation Concerning Formal Issues 5
1.1.1 Understanding the Topic Title 5 1.1.2 Problem ( Question) 6 1.1.3 Methodology and Structure 7 1.1.4 Purpose of the Topic Title 9
1.2 Orientation Concerning Content 10
1.2.1 Mysticism in General 10
1.2.1.1 A Non-christian Understanding 11 1.2.1.2 A Christian Historical Understanding 12 1.2.1.3 Towards a Contemporary Christian Understanding 20
1.2.2 Judaistic Mysticism 23
1.2.3 Hellenistic Mysticism 30
1.2.4 Our Current Understanding 38
Chapter 2 Pauline "Mysticism' ? 43
2.1 The Need for an Eschatological Framework 48
2.2 The Eschatological Nature of Paul's Writings 54
2.2.1 Justification, Redemption and the Law 55
1 2.2.2 The Death and Resurrection of Christ - Its Significance 66 2.2.3 The Gift Of the Holy Spirit - Firstfruits and Deposit 72 2.2.4 Present Struggle and Future Victory 75 2.2.5 The Kingdom in Paul 77
2.3 Participation Theology in Paul 81
2.3.1 God, the Chooser of Us in Christ 84 2.3.2 God, the Reconciler of Us by Christ 91 2.3.3 God, the Blesser of Us with Christ 93 2.3.4 God, the Lover of Us through Christ 102
2.4 Participation Christology in Paul 105
2.4.1 Christ, our Substitute and Representative 106 2.4.2 Us in Christ and Christ in Us - The Life of 116 Christ in the Believer 2.4.3 Crucified with Christ , 125 2.4.4 Risen with Christ - A Spiritual Experience 139 of the New Creation 2.4.5 Seated with Christ in the Heavenlies 149
2.5 Participation Pneumatology in Paul 153
2.5.1 Being in the Spirit - Being Sons 157 2.5.2 Life-giving Spirit - Being Risen with Christ 185 2.5.3 Baptism in/with the Spirit 195 2.5.4 The Spirit and Hope 201
2.6 Participation Koinonology in Paul 205
2.6.1 Existence without Christ 207 2.6.2 The Unity of the Spirit - The Community of Saints 209 2.6.3 One New Man - Unity in Diversity 214 2.6.4 Baptism and the Lord's Table 219 2.6.5 The Body of Christ - Corporate Identification 229
Chapter 3. Johannine "Mysticism" ? 235 3.1 The Need for an Eschatological Framework 237 3.2 The Eschatological Nature of Johannine Writings 238
2 3.2.1 Realised Eschatology 240 3.2.1.1 The Resurrection in the Present 241 3.2.1.2 Eternal Life in the Present 243 3.2.1.3 Judgement in the Present 246 3.2.1.4 The Present Holy Spirit 247 3.2.1.5 The Antichrists in the Present 249 3.2.2 Future Eschatology 249 3.2.2.1 The Resurrection of the Dead 250 3.2.2.2 The Judgement 252 3.2.2.3 The Parousia 253 3.2.3 Conclusion 254
3.3 Participation Theology in John 255
3.3.1 God, the Sender of Christ 257 3.3.2 God, the Seeker of True Worshippers 260 3.3.3 God, the Seen in Christ and in the People Given Him 266 3.3.4 God, the Giver to Christ 272 3.3.5 God, our Father, Dresser and Keeper 276
3.4 Participation Christology in John 282
3.4.1 The Believer's Fellowship with the Father and the Son 283 3.4.2 Faith in Christ is Union with Christ 286 3.4.3 The Bread of Life - Partaking 290 3.4.4 Abiding in Christ 295 3.4.4.1 The True Vine and the Branches 297 3.4.4.2 The Temple Motif in John 300 3.4.5 The Light of the World - Walking in the Light 305
3.5 Participation Pneumatology in John 308
3.5.1 The Holy Spirit and Baptism 310 3.5.2 The Living Water - A Perennial Flow from Inside 314 3.5.3 Worship in Spirit and Truth 317 3.5.4 Paraclete as Helper from Within 320 3.5.5 Paraclete and the World 324
3.6 Participation Koinonology in John 328 3.6.1 Born from Above 329 3.6.1.1 New Creation 329 - New Union of Individuals - New Community
3
New Nation, the People of God The New Temple; 3.6.1.2 Family of God 341 3.6.2 Baptism and the Lord's Supper 344 3.6.3 The Shaliach Motif 351
Chapter 4 The Comparison and Convergence of Paul and 355 John's Mysticism
4.1 The Need and Nature of their Eschatology 356 4.2 Participation Theology 370 4.3 Participation Christology 383 4.4 Participation Pneumatology 399 4.5 Participation Koinonology 414
Chapter 5 The Contribution to New Testament Theology 429
5.1 Considerations for doing NT Theology 430 5.2 Concepts of Doctrine derived from the Comparison 435 5.3 Continuity with the Old Testament 443 5.4 The Question of Center and Unity . 443 5.5 A New Hermeneutic Principle? 445 5.6 A Proposal for a NT Theological Outline 446 5.7 Mysticism and Ethics 448 5.8 Summary of Conclusions 451
Bibliography 454
4 CHAPTER 1
1.1 ORIENTATION CONCERNING FORMAL ISSUES
1.1.1 Understanding the Topic Title
The substance of our study revolves around the matter of Christian Mysticism. The idea of mysticism has always caused confusion because of the dubious nature of the word. For our purposes the basic definition shall be, to experience or encounter God.
The matrix, mysticism, from which we should discuss or interact with New
Testament Studies will be proven to be a worthwhile one.
Various authors in the Bible may be considered, but for our study, we concern ourselves exclusively with Paul and John. The Pauline corpus we take to consist of all thirteen epistles in the New Testament. Though the present writer takes the conservative view (that Paul is the author of all thirteen), we nevertheless argue that, even if some epistles were so-called "deutero-Pauline", they are accepted as "heirs"
(to use Beker's term:1991:9-11) of Paul the Apostle, and would reflect his thought.
By John, we mean all the Johannine writings in the New Testament. These consist of the Gospel, three Epistles and Revelation (The Apocalypse). Again, we need not go into matters of authorship, as this is inconsequential to our discussion. Our discussion will use the Gospel and the Epistles (mainly the first epistle).
Once we have discussed Paul and John's "mysticism" in detail, we shall endeavour to do an evaluative comparison between their different brands of mysticism. The evaluation of this comparison seeks to discover how they differ and where they converge.
5 The application of all this is to New Testament Studies; we shall see what influence is exerted upon the discipline of doing Theology. In some way this is still abstract in that it is dealing with interpretation on a rational level. Therefore ethical applications will be derived from the evaluative comparison made.
To summarise the meaning: Paul and John's mysticism compared may be applied to the doing of New Testament Theology and to practical aspects of ethics.
1.1.2 Problem (Question)
Following the meaning of the topic title, the problem or question is threefold: Can one speak of "mysticism" in the New Testament with specific reference to Paul and John? In order to answer this question, it is necessary for us first to define the term "mysticism". We are then to see how mysticism was viewed by the early Christians and through the ages, and how Paul and John were influenced by their world in this regard. We will then go into answering this question. Can "mysticism" make a meaningful contribution to New Testament Theology, and if so, how? Similarly, we have to define New Testament Theology in order to establish whether mysticism is able to make a contribution. We need to establish what approach would be appropriate. Furthermore, we would have to demonstrate how it functions. Is "mysticism" a legitimate matrix from which the Christian and the Church are able to derive their ethical framework? Our understanding of the Church, and the reason for its existence, would provide for us the framework from within which to evaluate this issue. We would have to demonstrate, first the legitimacy of this matrix, then particularise its applications for ethics within the Church.
6 The crux question is thus: How may we apply Paul and John's "mysticism" to the aspects of Christian belief and practice?
1.1.3 Methodology and Structure
In our effort to solve the above question, we need to state crucial presuppositions: That of a Trinitarian-belief; Faith as a basis for theological interaction; that the Bible is God's Word and the only Scriptural revelation from God; and a Conservative paradigm.
We will basically use the literary-compilative method. Thereby we mean that we will use the viewpoints of a wide variety of authors of both those we agree with and those whom we disagree with. Using these, by collation, we shall arrive at our own conclusions and present these in a theologically reflective manner. The descriptive method is naturally suited for theological reflection. Historical matters will be dealt with using both these methods, here defined.
We shall also apply a biblical-exegetical method, interacting with the Greek text as well, to arrive at our understanding of selected relevant biblical materials in the Pauline corpus and the Johannine corpus as defined above. Here we refer specifically to the grammatico-historical method of interpretation.
Chapter 1 will deal with issues of definition and background for both Paul and John. Our approach throughout will be from the general to the particular.
7 Chapter 2 will look specifically at Pauline issues. Starting first with general issues within Paul, we shall progress to the particular and detailed substance. Paul's "mysticism" will be exploited fully from the theological, christological, pneumatological and ekklesiological perspectives.
Chapter 3. Again, moving from the general issues in John's writings, we will seek to uncover particular detailed issues of his "mysticism". The pertinent points of John's mysticism will be exploited from the same perspective as in chapter 2 in order to enable an evaluative comparison with Paul's mysticism.
Chapter 4. Paul and John's mysticism will be compared in order to discover and highlight points of convergence and of divergence in their mystical understanding, approach, teaching and practice. We shall emphasise by means of summary the areas of convergence so that we may apply it in the next chapter.
Chapter 5. In this chapter we will enumerate their contributions by utilising the previous chapter, and see how it may be applied to doing New Testament Studies and
Ethics.
The overall structure is thus: Introduction General - Definitions - Influence of Historical background Paul General - Framework as Paradigm Particular - Participation - Theological Christological - Pneumatological Ecclesiological Summaryl Conclusion iii) John General - Framework as Paradigm
8
Particular - Participation - Theological Christological Pneumatological Ecclesiological
Summaryl Conclusion iv) Conclusion Particular - Comparison - Divergence Convergence - Contribution -To New Testament Theology To Ethics
The overall summary will be included in the prolegomena.
1.1.4 Purpose of the Topic Title.
The historical aversion of the Church to the topic of mysticism, has left a large gap in theological studies. Research in this area, was mainly done by so-called mystics who were for the most part, shunned by theological scholarship. Our first aim is therefore to help break down such aversions, and point towards a healthier attitude. This is only possible if we are able to show the universal application of mystical tenets for all believers.
We are living in a society which is becoming less Christian and yet more religious. First, because people are becoming more and more disillusioned with secular humanism and materialism. Also, because people are realising that, on the whole, religion is the vehicle for morality. At least, in South Africa, people are seeing that the answer for this decadent society is to be found in the area of ethics. Furthermore, there is a greater appeal to religious "experience".
9 The purpose is therefore to show that in Christ, our relationship with God is by no means inferior to that of those who claim "special mystical experiences". We seek to encourage believers to realise who they are in Christ; and, that they may love God as they are being enabled by the Holy Spirit who sheds abroad His love in their hearts (Ro.5.5).
The purpose of this dissertation is to confirm our faith as real (2Co.13.5) and vital. Because mysticism cannot be divorced from the ethical imperative, the purpose of this treatise is to encourage such vitality by holy living amongst believers. That should actually be the result of having communion with God (the experience of every believer).
It is a further aim of this dissertation to correct the understanding of true Christian experience. McGrath offers a definition of 'experience' as meaning 'an accumulated body of knowledge, arising through first hand encounter with life' (1994:192). Therefore, since this may include 'Damascus experiences', we will endeavour to explicate these.
The essence of our being Christians, is not doing in order to become, but being and therefore to do. Doing is the proof of our being. This will be the basic approach of this thesis.
1.2 ORIENTATION CONCERNING CONTENT
1.2.1 Mysticism in General
Mysticism as a term is fairly late in Christian history. The term 'mystical theology, antedates the former by over a millennium (McGinn 1991: xiv). And then,
10 experience as such is not part of the historical record. All we have available, is the evidence largely in the form of written records.
One thing, however, is that no matter how elaborate or how simple the mystical process, the mystic seeks to have an encounter with God, or divinity (for those who are polytheistic, pantheistic or panentheisticl). In most cases this is obtained by means of a process. In most cases, mysticism is only part or an element of religion. What is more, according to McGinn, before this century, no mystic believed in or practised mysticism per se'. It is therefore certain, that one cannot speak of a 'secular' mysticism, but one can refer to a non-christian mysticism. In our opinion, none of these are valid anyway.
1.2.1.1 A Non - christian Understanding.
Other religions also have mystics; and (if it can be said), practice mysticism. This is particularly true of Islam 2, Hinduism, Buddhism and other eastern religions. If we were to define ancestral spirits as divine, then we have mysticism among the African Traditional religions as well. It is an experience of union with the divine or ultimate reality (Ramsey 1981: 114-vol.17).
In the case of eastern mysticism, there is the added experience of being able to suppress physical sensibility. It has ascetic tendencies, and it displays supernatural feats. People are able to pierce themselves with sharp objects (without bleeding), or
1 Millard Erickson defines Panentheism as the teaching that God is present within everything, but he is not to be equated with everything that is. The latter concept is Pantheism. (Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1983.) See Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago,1951).
2Sufism is an Islamic mystical sect. (Gerhard Nehls, And What About the Muslim? Bellville: Evangelical Mission Press, undated. p18). 11 walk on live coals (without burning), etc. They go over into trances and have transcendental communications. These ecstatic manifestations are common place.
The less phenomenal expressions are there for those who merely seek to be in the presence of deity, or at one with nature, or at "perfect peace" within oneself and pursuit of discovering one's true self.
Concepts of light, tranquillity and knowledge are common, in eastern mysticism especially. These are the things that the eastern mystic encounters through contemplation on deity. In the mystical experience, a person withdraws himself from particulars, his soul rising above or sinking below the world. It also becomes a form of self discipline, or better, the loss of selfhood in the Absolute.
1.2.1.2 A Christian Historical Understanding.
Before we can consider any form of Christian mysticism, the central concept 'God' needs to be discussed from a Christian perspective, for if mysticism is an encounter with God, then we need to understand this concept.
There is a biblical injunction for us to seek God (De.4.29; 2Ch.19.3; Ps.105.4; Act. 17.27; etc.). Is God a hidden God? In a way, 'Yes', for without Christ and without faith we do not have access to God (Rom.5.2). God had to take the initiative to reveal himself to us.
The hiddenness of God is closely related to his holiness and sovereign freedom. In the first instance, humanity is sinful and therefore unable to come into his presence. In the latter instance, there is the impossibility to manipulate him. His otherness, inscrutability and unfathomableness puts God beyond our natural reach. But God
12 chooses to make himself known so that we may be in communion with him; an ode to his mercy and faithfulness. Yet there is always a dynamic tension between divine self-disclosure and self-concealment (Scholl 1987:26).
God revealed himself more explicitly in the incarnation of the Son, Jesus Christ. In him dwelt the fullness of the divinity (Col.2.9). But even Jesus in his walk on earth evoked the question, "Who is this?" (e.g.. Mt.21.10). Men of his day only saw the superficial things about him. By knowing the Son, we come to know the Father through the Holy Spirit. Our eyes will be held from beholding the glorious Lord, as was Mary Magdalene's in the garden, and that of the two Emmaeus disciples. Unless his Spirit opens our eyes we cannot behold him (2Co.3.18). Recognising Jesus for who he is, is intrinsically linked to accepting him. Those who accept him, accept the Father who sent him (Jn.13.20).
So, what does it mean to seek God? The history of Christian mysticism shows men who would tend after God with all the energies of their being. One would gauge a man's worth by what he seeks. Many have turned to mysticism in their pursuit.
Gregory of Nyssa in his Life of Moses, said: "to find God is to seek him unceasingly"3
The Scriptures are obviously the God-given guide to genuine religious experience. It is from first to last a matter of faith, informed by Scripture. The Scriptures make it clear throughout that men are called to a life of personal intimacy with God.
When we consider the Christian historical understanding, we refer to post-Apostolic times. Here we shall look only at representative types of mysticism up to and
3. Quoted by Louis Bouyer in The Meaning of the Monastic Life. (New York: Kennedy, 1950.- pg 12.
13 including the twelfth century in the Christian era 4 . For the history of Christian mysticism in the second century, the dispute of the finality of revelation, which was the essential issue in the quarrel against Montanus (ca.160) and his followers may have some relevance as a prototype for later struggles between pneumatic inspiration (claimed by some mystics) and institutional authorisation. The most decisive struggle of the second century for the history of Christian mysticism, was over gnOsis, the nature of saving knowledge, or acquaintance with God, brought by Christ (McGinn, 1991:89).
How are we to evaluate the significance of gnosticism for the history of Christian mysticism? Gnosticism's dualistic worldview saw the material world as evil. It therefore interpreted Christ in a docetic 5 way, and perpetuated ascetic tendencies in later Christian mysticism. The innate divinity of the soul, provided the motivation for later mysticism to talk about the raising of the soul to God. We will discuss this further under Hellenistic mysticism.
Origen (died ca.254) was an exegete of the highest order. He wrote many homilies and commentaries. He believed that because of our fallenness, man was unable to find the truth through mere contemplation, but only through Scripture (On First Principles). He believed in the advancing beyond the "letter that kills" to the level of the Spirit. Origen was expressed as wishing "to gallop through the vast spaces of mystic and spiritual understanding" (quoted by McGinn).
4 Our aim is to see how those closest to the Apostolic period interpreted the Biblical notion of communion with God.
5Docetism denies the reality of Jesus' humanity. Docetism takes its name from the Greek verb,60K6n which means 'to seem' or 'appear'. Docetism argued that if Christ suffered he was not God; if he was God he did not suffer. See Grenz on "Adoptionist Christology" in his Theology for the Community of God. (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1994. pp.321-322).
14 Origen's speculative thought employed Platonic ideas to express his Christian beliefs6 . He spoke of the ascent of the soul to its source, God. God is true being, to be distinguished from everything else. He restricted the term 'WO theos' to the Father, using 'theos' of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. God's creation of intellects, is that which may participate in the Holy Spirit. Fallen men were now able to work out their destinies. His trichotomistic belief of man provided for the soul '(4suxi) to he re- directed to contemplation of God through the instruction of the Spirit, or to be dragged below by the flesh through the body (ciijia). Therefore in Origen's mysticism the main motif is the upward journey (ascension). Contemplation and love of the Word were immediate steps in the soul's upward journey. God as divine lover facilitates man's seeking and communion with himself.
Monasticism in the fourth century brought the broad ascetic and mystical tendencies of earlier times to a narrower and more technical sense. The danger of reintroducing forms of esotericism and elitism, similar to those of gnosticism, to Christianity was very real. 7
Asceticism was not an end in itself, but a means to transformation. In the extreme cases, this transformation was that by which the ascetic became epigeios theos (Erriyctog 0€6s), a god upon earth. Mysticism was for them a process of divinization (Chadwick 1958:124-132).
Gregory of Nyssa, the last of the Cappadocian fathers, played a crucial role in the development of Trinitarian theology (and mystical theology). His original and subtle mystical theory influenced authors like Pseudonomous-Dionysius. The first systematic negative theology, created by Gregory, was to have a profound influence
6Paul Johnson shows that Origen waved aside the Church's rejection of Plato, and constructed a new synthesis out of profane and sacred knowledge. (1976:58).
7The fact that monastic groups in Egypt and Syria were interested in the Gnostic texts of Nag Hammadi strengthens this case. 15 on the mysterious Dionysius, with his apophatic mysticism. The goal of Christian life, both here and in heaven, is the endless pursuit of the inexhaustible divine nature (McGinn 1991:141). Quoting him, C.W. Macleod says, fuffilment lies not in knowing or being united with God, but in following him. (1970:52).
Ambrose of Milan of the fourth century, emphasised the moral meaning of the Christian message. Moral purification meant to lead to forms of personal and immediate contact with the divine lover of Song of Songs. Ambrosian mysticism for all its Platonic and Plotinian elements, is centred on the interpretation of the Song (McGinn 1991:209). He said that the path of love begins with the aggregation into Christ's Body, the Church, through baptism, and is nourished by the participation of the sacramental and liturgical life, especially through the reception of the Eucharist. His support for virginity as a mystical way, created a form of elitism. He claimed that virginity is a heavenly mode of life.
Augustine, an African born in 354, fOunded a monastic community and was consecrated Bishop of Hippo in 395. Some denied Augustine's personal mysticism. 8 Yet others call him 'the prince of mystics' and the Father of Christian mysticism. 9
Augustine hinted that true vision can be achieved only within the saved community of the Church of Christ. He discussed the Vision of God at length in his voluminous writings. For him the soul's ascent to God was clearly dependent on the action of Christ and nourished by the Church. McGinn says that the great African, like his contemporaries in the eastern part of the undivided Church, saw all theology as mystical in the sense that it was designed to lead the believer into the experience of the presence of God, begun here in the communal church, but only completed in heaven (Mc Ginn 1991:241).
8Among them Ephraem Hendrikx, 1936 and Gerald Bonner, 1986.
9McGinn pg 409 16 Augustine's mysticism had a Trinitarian basis. He saw man as the image that participates in the inner life of the three Persons. 'When the vision of God will be perfect, then there will be a perfect likeness to God in the image' (The Trinity 14.17, 23 [PL42:1055]).
Augustine speaks of an advancing to a heavenly goal. He insists that true progress toward God is communal and not individual; it takes place within the bosom of the Church.
Dionysius, a Syrian monk of the sixth century was also moulded intellectually by the Neoplatonism of Plotinus. His notion agnosia or unknowing and the three stages of ascent (purgation, illumination and union) seems to be informed by Plotinusl° (Teasdale 1986:229).
Because God is utterly transcendent, the only intelligible name that can be given to him is simply 'One'. It is super-essentially the highest name that one can give. Why is this important? Because Dionysius developed his mysticism along the lines of via affirmativa (through the true intelligible names of God using the dialectical method) or via negativa (negating each positive attribute to acquire a sense of the transcendent). Through such contemplation he speaks of ascending through celestial hierarchies, the sacred order of progress to union (kenosis) with God. Dionysius was the first to apply proper metaphysics in his mysticism.
10 Williston Walker ascribes to him the task of familiarising the West not only with Neoplatonist metaphysics but also with the style of mysticism which accompanied the negative theology which he employed.(A History of the Christian Church. Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1918. p175). 17 We shall mention two more representative mystics; Bernard of Clairvaux with his contemplative type of mysticism and William of St. Thierry with his spirit-centred mysticism.
The success of the Cistercian monastic reform was directly due to their spirituality and mysticism. Bernard of Clairvaux was a Cistercian monk of the twelfth century. He belonged to the school of love, which would enable the new humanity inaugurated by Christ to be empowered by the Holy Spirit who was alive in the soul and manifesting his presence through humility and charity (McGill 1995:163). His sermons on the Song of Songs were among the supreme masterpieces of Christian mysticism.
Bernard's mystical theology proceeds in the fundamentally exegetical fashion and his amazing ability to combine passages from the whole of the Latin Bible. In the first place his mystical theology had universal application, and in the second place he believed in the dynamics of the soul's progress. His call to the delights of loving God was extended in the grand continuum of love stretching from the earthly and carnal love of fallen humanity to the heights of heaven (McGinn 1995:182). Through earthly love, humility and the necessary ascetic preparation, the soul could progress to mystical union.
For him there were three stages of the soul's progress. He calls them the three 'kisses' (from Song of Songs); the kiss of the feet - penitential preparation; the kiss of the hands - the practice of virtue; and, the kiss of the mouth - direct encounter with God. He gave the sensation of sight and contemplative vision an important role. Therefore, deepening spirituality gradually awakened the soul of the spiritual senses along the mystical path.
18 He identifies three stages of contemplation: the soul's experience of delight and restlessness; then the fearful contemplative of beholding God's eternal judgements; then the stage of union with God. Union with the Father is the ultimate experience of God's presence in the mystic's union with the Trinitarian Spirit, Son and Father respectively.
Bernard's mysticism was based on love; first divine love and then love for others. Love became his motivational departure point to invite others to experience what he himself experienced.
William of St.Thieny also of the twelfth century, was in his life both a Benedictine and a Cistercian monk. His mystic theology started from the belief that humanity is made in the divine image and likeness. This image, he says, cannot be lost, though it may be damaged. Participation, only, has been lost due to sin. The soul was for him called to the task of self knowledge, and so participation can be regained through three steps: the quest for salvation; the life of virtue; and, a unity of spirit (likeness of God). He believed in the trichotomy" of man.
Love was a necessary component. Perfect love brings about a mutual knowledge of God the Father and God the Son; the fruition of the soul. Though love is necessary in the ascent, it cannot function without reason. In the rational stage of prayer, we begin to know God as he really is, while the intellect and will are changed by the action of the Holy Spirit (McGinn 1995:235).
William has three stages of spiritual progress: the animales or external Christian stage where the primary virtue is obedience; the rationales or interior religion where the intellectual soul is directed to the God dwelling within; and, the spirituales for the
11 An anthropology where a person consists of body, soul and spirit; taken from 1Th.5:23.
19 perfect who are led by the Spirit. The last step is eternal. He links this up with the triad of virtues; faith, hope and love. The first two are temporal. It will pass over. Love is eternal. William can be rightly ascribed as the originator of a tradition of Trinitarian mysticism, continued by the likes of Eckhart 12,Suso, Ruusbroec13 , and others.
1.2.1.3 Towards a Contemporary Christian Understanding.
There are certainly more contemporary voices. Some have tried to show a connection between Paul and the Hellenistic Mysteries". It is however necessary for us to highlight the crux contributions of Deissunann 15 , A. Schweitzer16 , and E. P. Sanders17 .
Adolf Deissmann understood the formula "in Christ" in a locative sense. He meant that it was finding oneself in the Pneumatic Christ. For him the personal union with Christ is the constant dominating factor of Paul. The religion of Paul was simply communion with Christ.
He was the first to notice that the expression "in Christ" or its cognate terms appears 164 times in Paul, and never in the Synoptics. His use of el , with the personal dative
12Richard Kieckhefer in his Meister Eckhart's Conception of Union with God.
13Ruusbroec was careful to state that the mystical union with God does not involve the loss of the contemplative's created being.
14Such is the approach of R. Reitzenstein, W. Bousset and N.H. Schaeder.
15 The New Testament Formula "In Christ Jesus". Marburg, 1892, and The Religion of Jesus and the Faith of Paul.
16 The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. TUbingen, 1930 - trans. W. Montgomery, 1968.
17Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. London, 1977.
20 singular was an already existing idiom used in a new technical way. Where the Synoptics speak of the disciples' fellowship with Jesus, the preposition they use is ticrci, never ev. Paul on the other hand uses ev, never krrci.
But is Deissmann correct by saying that the idea originates with the Apostle Paul? Is it not possible that it started with Jesus himself? There is an element of it in the teaching of Jesus regarding the vine and the branches in John 15. Also, our Lord's promise in Mt.18.20, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them", adds to that possibility. Yes, Paul may have popularised the expression, but it is quite possible that it started with Jesus.
Furthermore, is Deissmann correct to regard every occurrence of the phrase in Paul as having full mystical meaning? We believe not. Sometimes the phrase has the sense "through Christ" and sometimes it functions as synonymous with "Christian".
However, for the most, Deissmann is correct in his evaluation of the expression. Especially in his mention of the fact that Paul's mysticism was of the kind where God was the initiator, rather than man. It did not come by human achievement, but by God's self-revelation and impartation.
With the advent of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, there is a greater appeal for 'experience' these days. Their claim of 'special experiences' have left evangelicalism and ecumenism somewhat sceptical. Sometimes these scepticisms had valid concerns, because some of the 'experiences' were insisted upon as normative and the qualification for 'having the Spirit', or, the 'experiences' became bizarre excesses 18.
18 A good example here is the so-called Toronto Blessing with experiences such as laughing and barking 'in the Spirit'.
21 The problem with many sceptics, was that this was defined as 'mystical', and therefore mysticism was rejected. Also, sometimes a too narrow view of mysticism made people reject it. 19 We do have to admit that it is better to be narrow than to allow the excesses that have come to infiltrate the Church. But, should we throw out the baby with the bath water?
When we consider the effect that (biblical) Charismatics are having on the Church and society the world over, we have to ask whether we Evangelicals are not overlooking something important. Having spoken of the Charismatics, do we take it that they are therefore mystical? Well, we actually posit here, that every believer is a 'mystic'.
We still have Christian movements today who practice mysticism. This is especially the case in some Roman Catholic circles. Thomas Merton is an example with many books giving expression of current Catholic spirituality. 20 Again, it can not he over emphasised that we should be weary of excesses that give much to self-achievement, which is a real danger here.
There are also many syncretistic "Christian" groups who practice mysticism. They have been much influenced by Eastern religions and have embraced some of their ideas. To name an example, movements like the New Age have infiltrated the Church with their brand of spirituality which places much emphasis on light, nature, inner peace, and self-actualisation. Because of their syncretistic nature, such "Christian" groups have blurred the borders of Christianity and the claims of our Lord Jesus
19 In his book, Our Sufficiency in Christ, John MacArthur Jr. rightly speaks against the idea of "Christ plus mysticism", for in Christ we possess all that is necessary for every spiritual need. The problem is his too narrow definition of mysticism; as a self-actualised, self-authenticated light rising from within. pp.24-34.
20Books like, Contemplative Prayer (London: Darton, Longman &Todd, 1973), and Spiritual Direction and Meditation (St. Albans: A. Clarke Books, 1975) 22 Christ. Anything that allows for a salvation outside Christ, is to be rejected by us. These syncretistic religions tend to err in this way.
In Celia Kourie's review of Bede Griffith's A New Vision of Reality, she notes that Griffith's life-long mission is to promote dialogue between east and west, particularly between the great traditions of Hinduism and Christianity. He believes that the ultimate aim in life is the attainment of unity, where we experience the whole creation and the whole humanity reintegrated in the supreme consciousness, in the One, which is pure being, pure knowledge, and pure bliss. (1993: 69-70). She vouches for an interface between Christianity, Eastern Mysticism and western science. In their minds, this would mean the transformation of the world. This is exactly what MacArthur rightly speaks against; Christ PLUS.
Finally, there are unfortunate understandings of mysticism because of the connotations given it by the language. For instance, in Japanese, the equivalent, "shimpi" connotes a weird, occult, spurious state. In English there is no distinction between true or false mysticism. In German the distinction is shown by "mustik" and "mystizismus" respectively. 21
We now consider influences which may have acted on Paul and John.
1.2.2 Judaistic Mysticism.
There is definite certainty that both Paul and John were Jews. Therefore the Old Testament Scriptures as well as other Judaistic influences may have exerted itself on
21 See James S. Stewart, A Man in Christ, London, 1935 (161) and Celia E.T.Kourie's definition in her Christ- mysticism in Paul? 23 both of them. The Old Testament Scriptures would undoubtedly have had a great impact on both Paul and John's life.
The Old Testament records many instances where God assumes anthropomorphic and visible images. The Lord God walks in the garden in the cool of the evening (Gen.3.8); he meets with Abraham (Gen.18.13ff); the seventy elders ascend Mount Sinai to see him and eat and drink in his presence (Ex.24.10f ). This has often been regarded as indicative of a primitive anthropomorphism later abandoned in the cause of increasing religious sophistication.
Visions of God (or of his throne, heaven, etc.) extend in fact from the earliest to the latest traditions in the Old Testament. Examples of such are Isa.6 (the Lord's robe filling the temple); Ezekiel's vision in chapter I (the vision of the throne chariot) and Daniel's vision of the ancient of days (Dan.7). Indeed it is worth remembering that the great mystical passages in the Bible and in later Judaism are almost exclusively visual in character. God revealed himself . in various forms at different times in the Old Testament. Mentionworthy, is the aspect of man as the image of God. Moltmann posits that the image of God, is to be understood as the calling and the capacity of man to see God (1979:509).
So what about in the passages in the Bible that say no man has ever seen God? Bockmuehl is of the opinion that, in the Sitz ins leben, this was an anti-Gentile polemic; that the Hebrew God, unlike pagan idols, is above and beyond any visual representation. (1997:13). It could be that God also showed himself in a very veiled way, so that the statement that nobody has ever seen God still holds true. These veiled heavenly appearances of God seem to belong to the context of Jewish mystical thought.
24 Often the Old Testament speaks of men having seen God face to face.(Gen.32.30; Ex.33.11; Nu.14.14; De.5.4). It is this writer's opinion that God revealed himself in an anthropomorphic manner, or that God showed his presence in different forms (theophanies); like for example the cloudy pillar and the fiery pillar of Exodus or the burning bush of Moses, or the chariot throne of Ezekiel. Great figures, such as Abraham, Jacob, and especially Moses, were treated as paradigmatic mystics whose experiences and whose life histories became the models for later Jewish mysticism. While not every mystical sense of Scripture pertains to mysticism in the explicit sense, the mystical meaning of the Bible has an indissoluble connection with the story of Christian mysticism (McGinn 1991:12).
As to the question of where God's presence was found, the Old Testament Scriptures seemed to indicate that while God was understood as omnipresent (e.g.. Ps.139.7-9), he was to be found in the 'holy of holies' in the temple. The divine presence which was later called the shikinah, was first found in the portable 'tent of assembly' (Ex.25-30), and later in the Jerusalem temple with Solomon's dedication of the same (2Ch.7.1).
Yet it seems that only special people in the Old Testament, were allowed to 'see' God. So was the case with Jacob, Moses, and with Elijah among others. It seems that the manifestation of God occurred mainly to patriachs, prophets and ruling leaders. When the possibility arose for the ordinary people to be in the presence of God, they requested rather that Moses represent them 22 .
Rabbinic Mysticism is said to have found its origin during the Second Temple period. This was a time of intense debate over the nature of Judaism. The late Second
22 There was nevertheless a desire with God to dwell not only in the Holy Place, but within, or among his people. "Thus speaks the High and Exalted One, whose name is holy, who lives for ever: I dwell in a high and holy place, with him who is broken and humble in spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, to revive the courage of the broken." (Isa.57.15) 25 Temple period of Judaism actually makes what is normative in Judaism exceedingly questionable. This laid the ground work for the growth in mysticism both in Rabbinic Judaism and in Early Christianity. The new relation to God found in the Apocalypses, the most important Jewish literary creation of its time, came before the birth of Christ.
Apocalypses illustrated a major shift in Jewish beliefs, not only about God's role in history, but also about the relations between God and the human person. History has enabled scholars to begin to grasp the role of the Apocalypses in the growth of mysticism. According to one recent definition, Apocalypse is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an other worldly being to a human recipient, describing a transcended reality which is both temporal, in so far as it envisages eschatological salvation, and special in so far as it involves another supernatural world. (McGinn 1991:11) It was in Jewish Apocalyptism that the ascension motif was incorporated as a mystical tenet.
Merkabah mysticism derived its name from the vision of the throne-chariot revealed in Ezekiel chapter 1. 'Merkabah' is the Hebrew word for chariot. Many writings of the same, appeared in Rabbinic literature and the visionary mystical Hekhalot literature describes among other thing's, a journey through seven concentric places or temples (Hekhalot) corresponding to the seven celestial levels to behold the vision of God's glory or appearance as a glorious and gigantic human form of fire and light, seated upon the Merkabah (throne chariot) as described in the Scriptural passages such as Dan.7, Isa.6 and above all Eze.1 (Moray-Jones 1993:177-217).
The Jewish mystic's main pursuit was a vision of the glory of God. The Merkabah was a continuation of Apocalyptism and that the Hekhalot writings preserve genuinely Rabbinic esoteric visionary mystical traditions, which go back to the first century of the Christian era and beyond.
26 The ecstatic mysticism of the Hekhalot literature developed in circles marginal to Rabbinism in late post Talmudic times, was a development of Merkabah mysticism. Certainly, Merkabah mysticism refers to an esoteric, visionary mystical tradition centred upon the vision God on the celestial throne.
Moray-Jones (1993:192) notes an argument that visionary experience was associated with the sanctuary from an early period, and that Merkabah mysticism was a development, and relocation in heaven of the temple cult tradition. The pre-existent heavenly temple, found in several Rabbinic sources and in Philo, is a central image of the Apocalyptic mystical tradition. Elsewhere, the temple is regarded as the source of the creation of the world.
McGinn (1991:20) puts it in a different way: the first great era of Jewish mysticism, known as Merkabah mysticism because of its fascination with the exegesis of the chariot vision of Ezekiel 1, and sometimes as Hekhalot, or palace mysticism, because of the many texts that describe the divine palaces found during the ascent, would form a major topic for comparative study with early Christian mysticism, especially as both shared so much common background, but there is little evidence for any direct contact. By the second century of the Christian era, which appears to be, when the Merkabah literature begins, Christianity and Rabbanic Judaism were already bitter opponents, both claiming that they alone were the true heirs of the Jewish heritage. One interesting analogy between the earliest stage of the Jewish mysticism and emerging early Christian mysticism involves the Song of Songs, a text favoured by mystics from both traditions.
The religious world of the late second temple Judaism provided a matrix for Christian mysticism in two related ways: i) through the mystical, or at least protomystical ascents to the vision of God found in the Apocalypses and, ii) through the movement
27 towards the establishment of a canon of the sacred texts of Israel and the creation of the tools and techniques to render it continuously alive for the believing community.
Philonism. Philo was in mind and practice a passionately loyal and patriotic Jew. He belonged to a leading Jewish family in Alexandria. Philo played his part in public life, but it is to philosophical activity that he owes his secure place in history. He was influenced by Greek philosophy, especially Platonism, Stoicism and Neoplatonism. Having inherited his Jewish religion, he believed that the highest truth available to mortals was contained in the sacred writings of the Jewish people. Philo interpreted Jewish Scriptures from a Greek perspective and so imported many Greek or Hellenistic ideas into his type of Judaism. Philonism is the creative achievement of his own mind, the fusion of distinct elements producing something new. It was destined to be much more influential 'on Christian than on Jewish thinking; it is no accident that the writings of Philo (like those of Josephus) were preserved by Christians and not by Jews. (Bruce 1969:54)
Philo embodied the best tradition of Jewish rationalism. Philo's presentation of the spirit of Judaism is profound, original and creative, and the fact that he seems to have known no Hebrew indicates the extent to which enlightened Jews, by the beginning of the Christian era, had made themselves a part of international civilisation and secular culture without forfeiting anything essential of their faith. (Johnson 1987:148) Because of Hellenistic influences Philo believed that the believer could reach God through meditation; thus having a more personal relationship with God. This form of relationship with the divine personification is close to what we will find in his attitude towards the Logos, which often has been described as an expression of mystical piety. 23 As in Greek philosophy, Philo also postulated the mysticism through contemplation.
23For comparisons between Wisdom and Philo, see David Winston, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Anchor Bible 43 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1979), p.59-63. 28 Philo however, was more than just another Platonizer: he was the first figure in Western history to wed the Greek contemplative ideal to the monotheistic faith of the Bible, a union since applauded by many, but condemned by others, both Jews and Christians.
While some scholars have denied Philo the title of mystic, many of the major Philo students of the present century, from Erwin Goodenough to David Winston, have argued convincingly that the Jewish philosopher should be understood in light of a form of middle Platonic mysticism widespread in the late Hellenistic world. Because of his Jewish background, Philo asserted that God made man after the image of God. Thus, the image had been modelled after God, but man after the image (Winston 1995:101).
Through the presence of the Logos within the soul it was possible for both knowledge of the existence of God and the return of the soul to God from its present fallen state. Philo held that ultimate bliss resides in the vision of God, or knowledge of him who truly is. According to Philo love is the inspiration by which God calls us upward to himself. According to David Winston, Phito's belief was that man's highest union with God was limited to the deity's manifestation as Logos. Philo goes beyond Plato, however in ascribing the supreme vision to the historical figures of the Bible.
Jewish Mysticism comprises both contemplative prayer and spirituality, as well as an achievement of direct intuitive experience of the Divine. Distinctive of Judaism is that the beholding of, and the nearness to the Holy One, never leads to an assimilation into and a being dissolved into the Holy One as is the case in Greek mysticism. For the Jewish mystic transcendence always remains when it comes to God. In especially Apocalyptic mysticism especially, mysticism grew directly from
29 the experience of the Apocalyptic seer. Those who share in Apocalyptic revelations testify of having entered into a hidden world, be it heaven, the Garden of Eden or paradise, where they would encounter celestial beings worshipping around the throne of God. (Lemmer 1996:368).
Yet another aspect to consider in Jewish mystical theology is the concept of theophany. Not taken literally in the Psalms, J.H. Hunter, recognises theophany as a literary form. (1998:255). Even though this was a possibility, narrative necessitates a literal interpretation of theophany. If that be the case, then for the Jewish mystic, a theophanic vision of God was to be pursued 24 .
Qumran. Some Qumranic communities practised mysticism. The Qumran community was a monastic sect of Judaism. It is difficult to say whether the Essenes were part of that community. But whatever the case may be, after AD 70 when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, they resorted to a kind of mysticism where the presence of God could be attained mystically. It is not clear to what extent this group may have had an influence on John especially. Draper is of the opinion that John's temple motif in the Gospel has some connection with this Qumranic development. (1997:263-286).
Now we turn to Hellenistic mysticism.
1.2.3 Hellenistic Mysticism.
If the influence of Hellenism was as strong on the Church in later years, then one has to ask 'What influence was exerted upon the New Testament writings?'
24For the Jews it was not unnatural to say that they have seen God when in fact they have seen an angel or a theophany. Such was the case with Jacob (Gen. 32.24 cf.v30).
30 Plato. The major influence of Plato and the Platonic tradition on the history of Christian mysticism cannot be denied, though like the use of contemplation, the import of this influence has also been vigorously denied. What is needed here is only a sketch of those aspects of his thought that were influential on later Christian mysticism, especially in the west. To call Plato a mystic is a controversial issue, as we shall see; though we have no hesitation, along with others in doing so. 25
Plato views the true human subject, or soul, as a searcher always restless short of permanent possession of Absolute Good which beautifies. Such possession is achieved through theoria or contemplation, which is the fruit of an ascending purification (katharsis) of both love and knowledge which reaches its goal in nous, the divine in the soul, and is assimilated to its supernal source (McGinn 1991:25).
Plato's contemplation appears as a sudden and immediate vision of True Being, or if one ascends as far as possible on the scale of values, a union with a Supreme Good, a mysterious union which is not just a vision of an object by a subject, but the taking possession of the subject by the superior reality in such a way that the love that responds to the attraction of the beautiful and the good enjoys a role just as necessary as the intelligence which gazes. For Plato, the idea of the Good is the highest and ultimate vision. The vision is by means of the eye of the soul26 .
For Plato, the path to human happiness begins with the awakening of the soul through the manifestation of beauty. Platonic spirituality has been contrasted with Christian as a kind of auto salvation in which the philosopher raises himself to the goal solely by his own efforts and because of the innate divinity of the soul.
25 McGinn, 1991.
26Plato had taught that reality consists in the Forms or Ideas. In his view, the soul knows the Forms because it was in contact with them before entering this world of sense experience and particulars. For him the Ideas or Forms, the intelligible or the invisible concepts are more real. pp.274 & 375. (Erickson, Christian Theology) 31 The ascetic or cathartic process by which the sage both restrains his passions and cultivates virtue in his soul, is another aspect of the Greek contemplative tradition beginning with Plato that greatly influenced later Christians' spirituality. The discipline of and flight from the body of the soul, is the crux of this ascetic program.
Plato's influence extended through neoplatonist like Plotinus which placed the First Principle-beyond- all-being,--But-if-this-one-is-the -Absolute-Principle,--the-heart of- --- - Plato's metaphysics, as the neoplatonist and others have claimed, it is identical to the beauty that suddenly reveals itself to the lover. This is the height of Platonic contemplation; not merely a seeing, but an awareness of identity with the present ultimate principle.
The soul is both divine in origin and capable of being divinized, that is, of reviving and perhaps then radicalising its innate divinity.
Plato holds that ultimate bliss resides in the vision of 'God', or knowledge of him who truly is. For the beginning and end of happiness is to he able to see God. By this concept he actually means complete divination of the soul.
The Mysteries. It is argued by the School of the history of religions that Christianity was somehow dependent on the mystery cults. Since they may have had some mystical practices themselves, this has direct bearing on the topic of discussion.
Despite the study devoted to them since the 19th century, basic puzzles remain in our knowledge of the Mystery religions. There is this agreement; that the mysteries are fundamentally products of Greek piety. The mystical strains in Greek religion has no difficulty in granting them mystical status because they witnessed to the interference of the divine and human levels of reality. Images of union between a god and a
32 human found in mysteries seem at least as implicitly mystical. Today it seems likely that whatever role the mysteries could have had in the development of Christian mysticism, it was largely one mediated through the philosophical appropriation of the myths of those mystery cults.
Found in the mysteries is the idea of incorporation into the destiny of the cultic deity, and by this destiny a salvation. The mysteries all have in common the idea that through the-initiation,-a-person --is reborn-to-immortality.
In Osiris and Isis the candidate approaches the god and worships him at close hand. It involves communion with the god for he is close to him, but not yet deification because he still worships him. On the death of Osiris, Isis brings him back to life (the death and "resurrection" of the deity), and this death and life would become the pattern for the devotees that they may perform these rites on themselves. The symbolism is to be one in the death and the life of the god.
The Eleusinian mysteries offered hope not only for this life but also for the world to come. The participation in the Eleusinian rites was representative, on behalf of all the initiates, of the child who was immortalised of a seeming death by fire. Demeter was the god who gave immortal life and bliss to the human race. The initiates had the confidence that their god would bestow upon them life in the world to come. This life was a blissful participation in the god himself. (Wedderburn 1987:67)
Another mystery cult is that of Cybele and Attis. Damascius tells of a subterranean passage at Hierapolis, filled with noxious vapours, into which initiates could descend and return unharmed; he himself fell asleep at Hierapolis once and dreamt that he became Attis and had the hilaria celebrated in his honour at Cybele's behest; this signified their salvation from Hades. 27
27 1n the cult of Cybele there is a nuptual union with a goddess and so a treading where Attis 33 Some scholars believe that the ritual of the Taurobolium is an imitation of Attis' bloody fate, a substitute for his death through self castration. This was a purificatory rite for individuals in their later and final stage.
Wedderburn comes to this conclusion: Rather than scouring the mysteries for parallels, should we ask whether it is not altogether plausible that Paul and other New - — Testament writers-viewed their rites-against this background-and -saw themselves_in _ their baptism as being one with the first generation of God's recreated people, a first generation that consisted of but one person, the Adam of the last times, Jesus Christ?
(1987:72).
Mithraism ranked as a principle competitor of Christianity for two hundred years. The mystery offered deliverance from the predicament of the relation between the world in which they lived and themselves by the grace of the deity which came to them in the mystery (Bultmann 1956:191). By its elaborate rites of initiation and worship the individual could experience the divine which touched and evoked deep emotions, awe, wonder and gratitude.
Mithras appeals strongly to the more heroic qualities of human nature. That is why it attracted many soldiers. Mithra became the mediator between god and man. This was the god of light and the Mithraic community became known as the heliodromus, in other words, the people of light (Finegan 1989:210).
Mithra the sun god, the apotheosis of light, purity, and righteousness, gave the mastery over darkness and evil (Tenney 1965:120). Being vested with the robe of the
has trod or perhaps a laying where he had laid. Whatever union with the goddess is implied, could in no way be described as a sharing of Attis' sufferings. 34 deity, the initiate is said to have "put on" the deity. Immortality was a way of experiencing divine life.
Unlike other mystery religions, Mithras aims at promoting ethical and military efficiency by a process of education (Bultmann 1956:186). He promised a deliverance from all the perils of life. Mithras with its many associations with the sun, takes the sun as a saviour and a guide for souls in the after life.
With the rite of Taurobolium, a practice originating with Cybele, the initiate had to pass naked under the flowing blood of a slaughtered bull, so covering his whole body from head to feet, his hair and beard and every orifice covered and filled with blood. He would eagerly drink some of the blood. These initiates would regard Mithras as their crown.
Both Bruce and Guthrie28 agree that the essence of Christianity as a faith and life was not based on a mystery or myth drama but on a historical person. Whatever tendencies to syncretism might appear, Christians continue to confess Jesus as Lord in a unique sense (Bruce 1969:280).
Gnosticism. Perhaps more than any other influence, gnosticism posed the greatest threat to early Christianity. While gnosticism itself is dated only in the second century, questions are being asked whether or not incipient gnosticism had any influence on the New Testament writers.
Irenaeus identified four different types of gnosticism. Common to all of them was their dualistic view of the cosmos. For them, the material world was evil and the spiritual world good. Because this was the case, they believed that the world and
28Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Leicester. Inter-Varsity Press. 1965. p808. 35 everything physical was not created by God, but by a god lower than him. Bettenson quoting Irenaeus enumerates some of the tenets of gnosticism as follows: The Syrian type of Gnosticism. The utterly unknown Father made the angels, archangels, virtues, powers and the world and all the things that are in it was made by certain angels. The Saviour he declared to be unborn incorporeal and without form. The god of the Jews was one of the angels and Christ came to destroy him and other evil men.
The Egyptian type of Gnosticism. They declared that Mind was the firstborn of the unborn Father,______then Reason from Mind, from Reason, Prudence, from Prudence, Wisdom and Power, and from Wisdom and Power the virtues, princess and angels, whom he also calls the first. He who was God of the Jews wished to subdue the other nations beneath his own people, the Jews. The other princes resisted him and took measures against him. Then the unborn, un-named Father sent his first begotten Mind (and this is he they call Christ), by freeing them that believed in him. He appeared to the nations as a man on earth and performed deeds of virtue. Therefore he suffered not but a certain Simon, a Cyrenian was impressed to bare his cross for him, and Simon was crucified in ignorance and error having been transfigured by him, that men should suppose him to be Jesus, while Jesus himself took on the appearance of Simon. (1963:35-37)
(For them salvation concerns only the soul not the body which is by nature corruptible).
The Judaizing type of Gnosticism. They say that the world was not made by the First God but by a certain virtue. Jesus was not born of a virgin but was the son of Joseph and Mary. After his baptism Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove, from that principality which is above all things. In the end Christ flew back leaving Jesus, and Jesus suffered and rose again.
The Pantie Type of Gnosticism. They believed that Jesus came from the Father who is above the God that made the world. They believe that Jesus Christ came to destroy the prophets and the Law and all the works of that God that made the world. (Bettenson 1963:35-37).
36 It is their essential belief that matter was evil. That provided the gnostics with the motivation for mystical practice.
Gnosticism based most of its teaching on the acquiring of a special knowledge (gnosis). Taken to its full conclusion within gnosticism, there was the myth of Sophia (wisdom) as redeemer.
What-is-the nature-of this -knowledge? It -seems-that -it-was-knowledge-of-the -Ultimate -- Being. Though this gnostic sophia myth shows some links with the old Jewish wisdom teaching and consequently with the Wisdom Logos Christology, there are also quite decisive differences between them. The acquisition of this knowledge or wisdom were in the gnostic's mind an illumination from the divinity. In relation to Christianity, Wilson postulates that there is no gnostic myth, no gnostic system, no gnostic document which can be dated so early as to suggest influence from anything like a developed gnostic movement, like gnosticism of the second century. (1972:71).
The image of God in Gnosticism is that of an image of a hypostasized heavenly man. (Fossum 1989:190). Such a notion makes it possible for the gnostic to think in terms of divinization as well. This perhaps was reminiscent of their Logos doctrine. The Gnostics are known to have hypostasized the divine image in Gen.1.26 as a heavenly man. The evidence of this however cannot be dated further back than about 100 AD.
Dualism such as light verses darkness, life verses death, matter verses spirit, etc. is characteristic of Gnosticism. For Gnostic dualism has a cosmic dimension. Man, they say, is involved in a conflict for which he is not responsible but which is an inescapable part of the universe. (Lieu 1978:234).
In Gnosticism, as the name implies, salvation is a matter of knowledge. This knowledge is supposedly secret teachings about the nature and origin of the universe
37 so that man may discover their own origin and the means of returning to it. In Gnosticism therefore, salvation is directed against ignorance or error.
1.2.4 Our Current Understanding.
Having discussed the religious, philosophical and historical influences that may have — ---been-exerted on-Paul and John's-mystical outlook;- also the subsequent-understanding - - in the Church up to the twelfth century, we are now in the position to derive our own understanding. This understanding is not devoid of the nuances found in Paul and John themselves. To already postulate those nuances, is to set the question that our thesis seeks to answer.
The God who wants us to seek him, is the God who reveals himself to us. Without his revelation we could never encounter him. Therefore we are able to encounter him through the Lord Jesus Christ, the Scriptures and by the help of the Holy Spirit. As the idea of mystical theology developed, we have come to notice emphases that should be mentioned.
That encounter happens by some "special" knowledge has been the particular legacy of Gnosticism and is making inroads to this day. "Special" knowledge was rejected by the Church from the start Knowledge of the Holy 29 , however, is the possession and quest of every believer. That it is already our possession, is because of our relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit. That it is our quest, is because our knowledge of God is not complete. The Gnostic understanding of the material world,
29To quote Tozer would be appropriate at this point: The decline of the knowledge of the Holy has brought on our troubles. A rediscovery of the majesty of God will go a long way toward curing them. It is impossible to keep our moral practices sound and our inward attitudes right while our idea of God is erroneous or inadequate. (The Knowledge of the Holy 1961:8)
38 placed a too high regard for ascetic practices and self-actuation or self-realisation. It
in any case takes the emphasis away from God, and places it on self.
Another recurring idea is that of contemplation. Through contemplation one's soul
progresses to illumination 30 and then ultimately to union with God. This progression
is spoken of as the 'upward journey' of the soul, or 'ascending' through celestial or
moral hierarchies. The so-called progression of the soul, is a problem for a universal
—type of-Christian-mysticism -as-believed-by-Augustine.- -The biblical-injunction-is
mainly the meditation on the Word of God, and to that discipline every believer
ought to apply himself. There is nothing wrong with contemplation per se, unless it
is intended as the means of the soul transcending itself or time. 31 We are not to
desire the frills of mysticism for their own sake (Ahern 1978:8). We do not believe
that by contemplation (thoughtful consideration or spiritual meditation) one can
ascend to the presence of God. Yes, meditation on His Word with the help of the
Holy Spirit, will enable us to "behold Christ's Glory" in the sense that we become
more and more like him (2Co.3.18; Ga1.1.45-16). It is in the meditation of the Word
that the Holy Spirit illuminates the believer, for he will guide us into all truth
(Jn.16.13).
Love is another oft-mentioned concept in ancient mystical theology. Love is coupled
with concepts like humility and reason or understanding/wisdom. To be sure, love
cannot be over emphasised, and was in any case the primary injunction of our Lord.
We do however find that reason is not necessarily inseparable from love, because it is
not a result or the fruit of love as would be humility for example. If love is as
301n Greek thought, illumination is a step in the process of gaining knowledge.
31 In the way that Gregory describes the soul in relation to God. See Macleod in his article: "ANAAYEIE: A Study in Ancient Mysticism" in the Journal of Theological Studies, vol.XXI pt.1, April 1970. Moltmann agrees with us; that Christian meditation is not a kind of transcendental meditation, and that there can be no contemplation without meditation. (Theology of Mystical Experience, 1979, p506) 39 important in mystical theology, then the outworking of the mystical life will he highly ethical. We are in agreement with such.
The present writer finds Dionysius' apophatic kind of mysticism based on metaphysical categories, to be too dependent on personal achievement and method. Also, much of the ancient mysticism was based on 'excessively' figurative interpretation of Scripture, as was often applied to Song of Songs.
Yet another mystical concept common to all types of mysticism, is that of union with God. Union is understood in various ways: from a being in the presence of God to an identity with the divinity. The latter is divinization of self, a state we strongly deny as a possibility. In fact, we do not even desire to be gods, or as the temptation that came to Eve; to be like God (as in being equal to God).
However, the aim of this thesis is to show that the believer is one with Christ; to put it in Paul's language, we are in Christ, and in John's language, we abide in Christ. In the same way, we are in the Spirit and the Spirit in us. Therefore through the Son and the Spirit we 'see' the Father and 'receive' him (.1n.12.45 & 13.20), and the Father dwells in us (Jn.14.23). It is in fact to this end that Christ came; our Reconciliation to God in Christ; "...nie die eenheid van versmelting in God nie, maar die eenheid van die herstelde harmonic in 'n persoonlike verhouding tussen Skepper en skepsel - iets wat alleen van Gods kant bewerk kan word, en nie die resultaat van die mens se eie ontwording, selfnegasie en inspanning nie."(Jonker 1981:44)
Not only are we united to Christ, but we also have communion with God. That is to experience his presence. It is important to note that in every sense of encounter with the Trinitarian God, we speak of him "descending" rather than us ascending as is the case with many other mystical disciplines. That is the crux difference between what we postulate and what was observed with the Greek philosophically influenced
40 mysticism and Eastern mysticism. The 'descending' of God to meet with man, is founded on divine grace 32 . Our rising up to God is founded on works. We strongly oppose any form of elitism, and admit to the possibility of subjectivism, but only on the basis of our objective position in Christ.
If grace is the foundation of our mystical experience, then Barth's criticism that mysticism is the great antithesis of faith, is unfounded. Likewise, Brunner's belief - --that-mysticism and the Word-of-God-are opposite poles and are mutually-exclusive, is- - - rejected since meditation must be on the Word of God, 33and our belief is that there can be no real contemplation without meditation. We need to remember that both are nevertheless what the believer does. We are mystics even before we do, so long as we are in, or abide in Christ.
We shall develop and demonstrate all these aspects under Paul's and John's mysticism. Appropriate at this junction, is to briefly state our basic definition, in line with our conclusions, of "Mysticism" as follows34 :
The believer's personal communion with the Trinitarian God. 35 Though we speak of a Trinitarian God, we will not use the Trinitarian persons interchangeably,
32 Celia Kourie says:" Further, mysticism can be (a) anabatic, or (b) catabatic. The former denotes 'acting' mysticism, in which performance predominates, whilst in the latter the emphasis is on grace. (1981:22). We therefore disagree with the likes of Moltmann, who begins the mystical process with 'praxis' rather than with 'being' by grace.(Theology of Mystical Experience, 1979)
33Jonker is correct when he concludes that: "...is dit tog duidelik dat daar van die gedagte uitgegaan word dat Christelike geloof en die mistiek nie alleen versoenbaar is nie, maar dat mistiek ook 'n noodsaaklike element van die Christelike geloof uitmaak wat vir die ware geloof sells onontbeerlik is."(1985:411)
34Again, Jonker's comment is appropriate at this point: "Wie oor die mistiek wil praat, het al dadelik 'n groot probleem: dit is uiters moeilik om to definieer wat mistiek is. Die gevolg is dat mistiek op verskillende maniere omskryf kan word, en dit gee weer aanleiding daartoe dat dit op verskillende maniere beoordeel word, omdat 'n mens se oordeel oor die mistiek uiteraard afhang van jou begrip van wat mistiek is."(p409)
35Inge succinctly encapsulates the 'kern' of the concept in the following definition: "Mysticism means communion with God, that is to say with a being conceived as the supreme and ultimate reality" (1947:8). 41 but as the Bible mentions them in the texts employed. As will he demonstrated in the following two chapters, we shall show a participation of the believer in and with each of the Trinitarian persons.
42 CHAPTER 2.
PAULINE "MYSTICISM" ?
The purpose of Paul's ministry has been defined by himself in two ways; that Christ might live in the hearts of men (Eph.3.17), and that Christ would he formed in them (Ga1.4.19). By God's doing, Christ has become both wisdom and virtue for us (1Co.1.30). This is no doubt mystical language.
Penna (1996:242) makes an important observation; that the word guari Koc is never used by Paul, yet a "depersonalised submersion of self in the abyss of the divine does not apply to the Bible in general, nor to Paul in particular".
Paul speaks often of Christians as men and women being in Christ. This favourite expression of his, which occurs in various forms one hundred and twenty two times in his letters, articulates all that a Christian is and all he must be (Ahern 1978:8). Deissmann has one hundred and sixty four (1892:70). Therefore Christian mysticism is essentially christocentric. There is no process that a believer must go through, for we already have union with God through Christ. Only living faith can provide access to the sanctuary of God's presence. "For, being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have
access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God" (Rom .5 . 1-2).
The believer's life, according to Paul, is hidden with Christ in God (Co1.3.3). Our hiddenness with Christ is defined by our dying and rising with him. The principles of death and resurrection are both essential to our union (which the Holy Spirit effects) with God. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, and are thus the dwelling place of God (1Co.6.15-20, cf. 1Co.3.16-17). Communion with
43 Christ seems therefore to be synonymous with, or is at least the basis of our communion with God. We thus conclude that Christ-mysticism and God-mysticism are not mutually exclusive.
With our identification in the sufferings and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ (Phil.3.10), we actually identify with Christ, and he is the One who lives in and through us (Ga1.2.20). In that way we have a profound communion with Christ, especially since we carry the death and life of Jesus with us in this "jar"
(2Co .4.10).
He changes the believer from within so that his real life is Christ's (Co1.3.4). Union with Christ, for Paul, is botIcindividual and collective; both anthropological and eschatological. Contra Moltmannl, we posit that the believer is drawn into the history of Christ himself, not by meditation, but by grace. Neufeld states the same concept in this way: the mysticism of Paul is a Christ-mysticism which grounds the historical2 Christ-for-us in the present reality of Christ-in-us (1996:132). He rightly emphasises that the cross is God's work, and that self-initiated mysticism is powerless to free the soul from sin. This is not a one time experience, but a perennial and authentic feature of the Christian life in which we must continually be forced back to the foot of the cross (Neufeld quoting McGrath - p.138).
1 See J.Moltmann's article entitled, "Theology of Mystical Experience" in The Scottish Journal of Theology. Vol.32 No.6 of December 1979. pp.501 - 520.
2 Dale C.Allison Jr. shows that a thoroughgoing eschatology is not the fabrication of the Church or of the Evangelists, but that the Lord Jesus Christ must have preached and believed that the end has dawned in his coming and impending death and resurrection. He points out that the community of believers always uttered when looking back at Jesus' activity, that he is risen", and that this confession shows with sufficient clarity that ... a now imminent eschatological act must have been an essential object of hope of the disciples who followed Jesus during his time on earth. - "A Plea for Thoroughgoing Eschatology" - Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol.113 No.4 (1994) pp.651-668. 44 Celia Kourie in her article entitled, Christ-Mysticism in Paul?, defines mysticism in the same way as Inge does: "Mysticism means communion with God, that is to say with a Being conceived of as the supreme ultimate reality" (1947:8). She enumerates arguments against and for Paul's mysticism, which we summarise as follows: i) Paul's idea of mysticism never denotes the idea of absorption thus blurring the line between God and the mystic. While a person may be in Christ, he has never lost his own personality nor has he been merged into the ground of the universe. Paul's mysticism neither only applies to an elite few, but to all believers. Therefore every true Christian is a mystic. Nor does Paul's mysticism release the believer from the ethical imperative. There is no polarisation between mysticism and ethical imperative. True mysticism is essential religion. For Paul a man lives in Christ as a new spiritual element. Christ is the vital principle of true religion.
Finally, what about those raptured experiences, where Paul refers to his 'heavenly journey', and those special visions and revelations (2Co.12)? Moray-Jones says that these were in the first place affirmation of Paul's Apostolic authority, and in the second place not induced (1993:277-284). Again, this will he dealt with at a later stage. Now we will briefly show the necessary connection between eschatology and mysticism, in order to demonstrate the need for an eschatological framework before we discuss the nature of Paul's eschatological outlook.
Some say that Paul's "in Christ" is ecclesiological only (Bultmann); others that it is eschatological over and above ecclesiological (Kasemann); yet others, that it is corporate (Ridderbos). We shall develop this later in this chapter. Yet it is necessary for us now to consider the contributions of Deissmann, A. Schweitzer and E.P. Sanders.
45 Adolf Deissmann understood the formula "in Christ" in a locative sense (1892:97). He meant that it was finding oneself in the Pneumatic Christ. For him the personal union with Christ is the constant dominating factor of Paul. The religion of Paul was simply communion with Christ.
He was the first to notice that the expression "in Christ" or its cognate terms appears 164 times in Paul, and never in the Synoptics. His use of ei , with the personal dative singular was an already existing idiom used in a new technical way. Where the Synoptics speak of the disciples' fellowship with Jesus, the preposition they use is ucrd, never '&1 , . Paul on the other hand uses &, never prrd.
But is Deissmann correct by saying that the idea originates with the Apostle Paul? Is it not possible that it started with Jesus himself? There is an element of it in the teaching of Jesus regarding the vine and the branches in John 15. Also, our Lord's promise in Mt.18.20, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them", adds to that possibility. Yes, Paul may have popularised the expression, but it is quite possible that it started with Jesus.
Furthermore, is Deissmann correct to regard every occurrence of the phrase in Paul as having full mystical meaning? We believe not. Sometimes the phrase has the sense "through Christ" and sometimes it functions as synonymous with "Christian"..
However, for the most, Deissmann is correct in his evaluation of the expression. Especially in his mention of the fact that Paul's mysticism was of the kind where God was the initiator, rather than man. It did not come by human achievement, but by God's self-revelation and impartation.
46 Albert Schweitzer speaks of an eschatological mysticism. This mysticism is not subjective, but is based on the objective reality of Christ's death and resurrection and on baptism. He thus refers to a Christ-mysticism (1930:3) One has to ask though, whether his Christ-mysticism is not too limiting, in that it excludes God- mysticism ?
Indeed, the influence of apocalyptic in general on the life and thought of Judaism has probably been overrated, because for the Rabbis themselves this whole body of literature had little appeal 3 , and indeed Paul makes little reference to it in his writings. This, however does not minimise the importance of Paul's eschatological thrust for Schweitzer. His whole doctrine of redemption is placed in eschatological categories (1930:56-64). Mysticisni is for him an anthropological view of this eschatological redemption (1930:112). His Christ-mysticism is not merely metaphorical, but simple reality (1930:15-16). That precisely, takes his mysticism too far, as too much is placed on baptism as an efficacious act that brings about a loss of natural personality to the believer (1930:115-127).
The merit of Schweitzer's contribution is that it sees union with Christ as the very essence of Christianity. Also, that it definitely distances Paul from any substantial Hellenistic influence.
E. P. Sanders comes to an important conclusion; and that is that justification by faith is secondary to the concept of incorporation into and participation with Christ. He prefers not to use the word "mysticism" for its gross misunderstanding and continual need for redefinition (1977:435-436).
3See Stewart, A Man in Christ, 1935 (p45).
47 He sees the believer as one with a group who identifies with Christ in his death and resurrection. By that death the believer obtains new life by becoming part of the body of Christ and one Spirit with him (1977:514). Salvation is bound up herein; that dying with him is to die to sin, and to be transformed by the resurrection power which is completed when Christ returns at the parousia. This transformation is the basis for an ethical existence. The resurrection means that death, and therefore sin, has no dominion over the one in Christ. Participation 4 is for Sanders the more important dimension of Paul's soteriology. Participation is both in the body of Christ and in the Spirit.
With such a strong connection to the death and resurrection as crucial for participation in Christ, it beconies essential to consider the eschatological framework for mysticism.
2.1 The Need for an Eschatological Framework.
Experiencing God, is a future expectation possible in the present for those who are in Christ. If that is the case, then mysticism is inextricably bound to eschatology. Our purpose here is to show the need for an eschatological framework in our development of the Pauline mystical theme. The believer is with Christ and in Christ. The understanding of this dynamic is not in a Greek dualistic sense, but in an eschatological sense.
A question that needs to be considered, is whether there is a distinction between apocalyptic and eschatological thought. Is Paul's thinking eschatological rather than apocalyptic? Or must we rather side with Kasemann and regard apocalyptic as the
4He therefore speaks in terms of a participationist eschatology
48 center of Paul's theology 5? For our discussion, we shall prefer eschatological rather than apocalyptic for two reasons; first, we define Jesus himself as the eschatos, and our discussions are inextricably hound to him, for his whole history must be eschatology6, and secondly, our concern is not so much revelatory and neither general as what apocalypse would connote. Therefore we concentrate on function rather than on content of what have traditionally been called eschatological or apocalyptic motifs. (Gager 1970).
Paul does not surrender the Jewish belief of the two ages and the evil character of the present age (Ga1.1:4). In the light of this, the Kingdom is for Paul an eschatological hope. Christ's Kingdom however, is a present reality, even if the world cannot see it (Co1.1 :12-13). Paul sees the beginning of the Messianic reign as the death, resurrection and exaltation of Christ. The redemptive events have taken place and their essential character is eschatological in the sense that, in the present age they belong to the age to come. The resurrection of Jesus was an eschatological event, which, as an end-time category, has already begun. (Ladd 1974:369). The question with Paul's eschatology is one of continuity.
In the first place, Jesus' own proclamation of the Kingdom as a present reality is still a future event. Jesus could speak of the Kingdom already being at hand, and yet pray that the Kingdom of God should come. The term "eschatological Kingdom" refers to the Kingdom which is to come in the last days. Jesus demonstrated the inauguration of this eschatological Kingdom in two ways; by exorcising demons and healing diseases, and by announcing the good news of the Kingdom; sometimes also through parables.
5 E.Kasemann, Primitive Apocalyptic, "I hope I have made clear why I call apocalyptic the mother of Christian theology" (p.133).
6see also Adrio KOnig, The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatology, Eerdmans. 1989) 49 There are times when the Kingdom is clearly future and is therefore to be anticipated. God's longed-for rule and salvation was breaking in powerfully through the ministry of Jesus, but the new world order in which that rule would be universal and total still lay in the future. "The new exodus had begun, but God's people were not yet in the promised land" (Wenham 1995:48). Paul applies the same concept of "already" and "not yet" in his own theology 7 . The only difference is that Paul does not really interact with the events of Christ's life and walk on earth; only with the events of his death and resurrection, and its significance in the Christian's life8. Jesus preached that the eschaton had already arrived. Barrett correctly warns that it is necessary to resist both those who supposed that the whole
7C.H.Dodd conceived of the real core of'Paul's preaching in the eschatological event realised in Jesus' death and resurrection. It is the eschatological framework within which the death and resurrection of Christ must be understood and from which this event derives its specific significance in Paul's preaching. He believed that the futurist eschatology of Paul had been replaced by his Christ-mysticism, that is to say, by the consciousness of spiritual unity with Christ and the contemplation of all the riches of the divine grace that even now are a portion of those who are in Christ. It is in the church that the great future is fulfilled. The church became the sphere of the eschatological miracle (The Apostolic Preaching and its Development 1936:62-65). It becomes obvious that Dodd fails in the areas of "not yet" eschatological motifs in Paul's gospel. For Dodd's scheme to work, he has to be selective in his arrangements of texts. Ridderbos believes that the historical-redemptive method of interpretation does more justice to Paul's eschatological framework (Paul, p42). Also Muller: "Wanneer gekom word by die teologiese benadering van Paulus, is die heilshistoriese-eskatologie benadering miskien die mees vrugbare" ('n Moontlike Benadering van Paulus se Teologie, in NedGTT 16-4,1975.) Engelbrecht quoting Cullmann:"Can one (as Schweitzer and Bultmann maintain) detach eschatology, understood to be a temporal future, and its related redemptive-historical perspective, from the essence of the New Testament message because they are secondary? Or do they belong to the innermost character of that message? Are they characterised by a nature of temporariness, really the core of the New Testament? If not, is it possible to establish a new core with the help of demythologising, consisting of the 'self- understanding of faith, true existence, or moment of decision' as it appears in Bultmanian terminology? On the basis of the New Testament evidence, I have decided plainly in favour of temporariness being the essence of eschatology, not as Schweizer saw it, but from the redemptive-historical perspective, in which there exists a tension between the present (the already accomplished) and the future (the not yet fulfilled). [Christ and Time, 1967:xixl (1971)
8The Synoptics and John show that Jesus' teachings are framed in eschatological categories. In fact, he and his disciples seemed to have expected an imminent 'end' (Mk.9.1, Mk.13.30, Mt.10.23, etc.). Allison is adamant by saying that those who reject the eschatological Jesus must replace him with a figure fashioned from exegetical inferences, not straightforward utterances. He maintains that Jesus, being a protagonist of John the baptizer, would show a continuity with John's teaching (Mt.3.7-10 and Lk.3.7-9) by his own eschatological teachings.(1994:655).
50 of the eschatological future had already been realised and those who supposed that none of it had (1994:50).
Those who deny an eschatological Jesus 9 , try to portray Jesus as not proclaiming a near end, but as an aphoristic sage. They either say that the Jesus of the Synoptics is the product of the early church, and that eschatological sayings of Jesus were imported, or that the declaration of Jesus' resurrection was not the due recording of clear observation but rather a creative act of interpretation. For us, such statements are rather absurd. If the Jesus of the Synoptics cannot be associated with the overwhelming record of eschatological sayings accorded to him, then we do not know anything about Jesus. Paul's doctrine rests entirely on the eschatological preaching of Christ concerning the dearness of the Kingdom of God10 .
Paul sums up his understanding of redemptive history as follows: "From now on therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard them no longer, therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come" (2Co.5.16-17). We have a new kind of existence; an existence in Christ; an existence according to the Spirit (in the Spirit). A proper understanding on the new age in Christ offers a solution to the tension between justification and mysticism, for it includes them both (Ladd 1974:374).
9Marcus Borg, "A Temporate Case for a Non-Eschatological Jesus", Forum 2/3 (1986) pp81-102; Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origens. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1988); and John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jesus Revolt. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1991).
10Schweitzer erred in his belief that Paul's eschatological framework was a correction of Christ's mistaken expectation, that was not fulfilled because of his death (The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 1931.)
51 Secondly, it is more accurate to say that Paul inherited his eschatological outlook from the Christian community and the Jesus tradition. In Christ the expectation of the resurrection of the dead as a now imminent eschatological event must have been an essential object of hope for the disciples who followed Jesus during his earthly life". Probably the one feature that distances the New Testament church the most from its contemporary counterpart is its thoroughly eschatological perspective of all of life. Their whole attitude toward the Gospel and its demands on their lives indicated a resoluteness which can only be explained by this hope within them. They believed that in Jesus' end the end of the world had begun to unfold.
In Christ the future has become preSent, and both the eschatological salvation and judgement has in effect already taken place in history. This is the natural framework of Paul's thought. Paul found Messianic affliction in the cross; one died for all, therefore all died (2Co.5.14). It was in Christ that the eschatology was realised; this was in fact the origin of the phrase "in Christ" which he uses frequently and in many different connections. Eschatology is therefore necessary in the expression of Paul's mystical understanding.
One innocent and righteous person suffered on behalf of the others, who were not innocent and righteous, but in such a way that they were able to enter into his sufferings (Rom.6.3-11). Jesus became a new Adam, founder of a new humanity. (Barrett 1994:51). This, for Paul, is the eschatological people of God because of their identification (mystical relationship) with Christ.
11 W.Schmithals, The Apocalyptic Movement: Introduction and Interpretation. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975. page 153.
52 Thirdly, John the Baptist also preached an eschatological message. He preached about an impending judgement where the 'axe is already laid at the root'. He preached that the 'Kingdom of God is at hand' 12 . Both are eschatological categories. Jesus' message would have had some continuity with that of the Baptizer, especially since he speaks of him so highly.
It seems therefore very unlikely that within a year or two of Jesus' death, that Saul of Tarsus, who persecuted the followers of Jesus because of their eschatological proclamation, should after his conversion preach something totally different from them. Even more unlikely, is that those disciples would have preached a totally different message to that of their Saviour. This leaves too little time between Jesus' death and the persecution by Paul' for the disciples to have changed the "non- eschatological" Jesus message to an eschatological one. They needed more time to develop an entirely new eschatological perspective without a precedent in the
preaching and actions of Jesusl 3 . The genuine continuity between the pre- and post Easter communities cannot be denied.
Fee sees the absolute basic theological or experiential framework of everything Paul experienced or thought, as that through the resurrection of Christ and the subsequent gift of the Holy Spirit, that God himself had set the future inexorably in motion, so that everything in the "present" is determined by the appearance of the "future". (1994:801). For him, eschatology conditioned early believers' existence in every way. The believer is what he is by the Spirit of God; a son of God guaranteed of his inheritance. Paul's soteriology is meaningless without the Holy Spirit. In a similar manner Paul describes life in the Spirit as an eschatological reality. The Old Testament viewed the pouring out of the Spirit as an
12 cf. Matthew 3 and Luke 3.
13Dale C. Allison Jr. puts forward the same argument in his article (1994:655).
53 eschatological event (Joel 2.28-32). The full experience of the Spirit is to be demonstrated in the future resurrection when the dead in Christ shall he raised with "spiritual bodies" (1Co.15.44). (Ladd 1974:370).
What we have come to observe, is that soteriology as seen from Paul's eschatological framework, is christological in its approach"; and that soteriology as seen from his mystical framework, is anthropological in its approach 15 . They are the opposite sides of the same coin, salvation in Christ. This observation is further developed under the eschatological nature of Paul's writings.
2.2 The Eschatological Nature Of Paul's Writings
Paul not only had the historical precedents for his eschatological preaching, but his whole soteriology depended on it. Salvation can only be true salvation if it was an eschatological salvation. The added advantage for the believer is that he is already saved - past tense (Eph.2.8-9; 2Ti.1.9; Tit.3.5). We are (being) saved - in the present (continuous) tense (Rom.8.24; 1Co.1.18; 2Co.2.15). We shall be saved - future tense (Rom.5.10; 1Co.3.15). Salvation has to be thought of in eschatological categories. We look first of all at the work of Christ for the believer in what his death and resurrection accomplishes. We shall then consider other eschatological categories which have a bearing on the present status of the person who is in Christ Jesus.
14A1so Barrett: "The Christological and eschatological themes interlock" (1994:51).
15See also J.A.du Rand, "Paulus se vernuftige vervlegting van antropologie en eschatologie in 2 Korintiers 4:7-5:10" (1999), showing the possibility of Paul intertwining eschatology and anthropology. Our belief is precisely this; that Paul's Mysticism can only be understood in the light of his Eschatology, and the reverse is also true. Du Rand notices in 2 Co.3.7-19 mystical overtones by the fact that Christ is formed (by our suffering) in us so that his glory is shown through the eschatological Spirit (p.341); and if his death and resurrection is to be seen as eschatological, then our participation (mystical) in his suffering (2 Co.4.7- 18) is indeed eschatological too. 54 2.2.1 Justification, Redemption, and the Law
Justification as an eschatological concept. To start with the doctrine of justification by faith, is to show our acknowledgement of the Pauline emphasis of the same. To justify is to make righteous (Sticatiow is to declare righteous). Positionally, it is to have a right standing with God. We are therefore of the opinion that justification is the ground for communion with God because of the righteousness it brings into effect. Basically, righteousness is a concept of relationship.
Christ rose from the dead for our justification (Rom.4:25). Christ arose because he had no sin and by the resurrection from the dead he was declared to be the Son of God with power (Rom.1.4). It is our belief that if Christ had one single sin, he would not have risen from the dead. Because justification by faith is the means of dealing with our sins, we too can now share in the resurrection of Christ. It is not as Schweitzer said, that "justification is a subsidiary crater" 16, but it is for us the means of reconciliation and therefore, communion with God.
Therefore, justification by faith as a means of reconciliation can properly be referred to as a necessary mystical doctrine. The eschatological redemptive event in Paul's mind commenced with the death and resurrection of Christ. All of Paul's preaching finds its starting point and salvivic motif in this eschatological orientation, however much men may be of different opinions concerning the manner in which Paul gave form to and elaborated it (Ridderbos 1975:32).
16Schweitzer does acknowledge the importance of justification, but he seemed to downplay it in the mystical framework of Paul, maybe, because too much prominence was given it in the Reformation and subsequently, and he really wanted to guard against it being misconstrued as the center of Paul's thought. 55 Justification is essentially an eschatological reality, where God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2Co.5.19). Justification has in mind the final judgement when God, the righteous judge, will render a judicial verdict upon each man. The believer will be declared righteous in Christ. That we shall be pronounced "guiltless", belongs to the eschatological day of judgement, but which has taken place in history in the Christ-event (Ladd 1974:438). Ridderbos notes that in Judaism the judicial declaration of God was not to be spoken of other than in a future eschatological sense, but in Paul this righteousness is a present reality already realised in Christ (1975:164).
God is the one who justifies; and God is the one who condemns (Rom.8.33-34). He has pronounced the believer to he just once and forever. This is a declarative, a forensic, a legal matter. The future eschatological justification has already taken place, for we have now been justified by.his blood, and we shall be saved by him from the wrath to come (Rom.5.9). Thus, through acquittal at the judgement, we stand in a right relationship with God. It is only in the final judgement when God will render a judicial verdict upon each man that that man's righteousness or his unrighteousness will he finally determined. The standard and norm is God's.
Christ has come and he will come. There is a similar duality in justification which implies judgement. Justification ensures that a favourable pronouncement (verdict) is made. Yet, there is a judgement in the future where all will stand before the judgement seat of God. Judgement has taken place, and the day of judgement is still to come. This is Paul's paradoxical eschatology. (Barrett 1994:49). This is the eschatological theme of 'already' and 'not yet' so evident in Paul and in his doctrine of justification by faith.
56 Justification is based on God's action, and because of that, our salvation is guaranteed. If you know that you stand justified before God through the death and resurrection of Christ, your whole salvation is guaranteed (Lloyd-Jones 1971:7). By justifying us God brings a peace between the believer and himself through Christ Jesus (Rom.5.1-2). By it we stand in his grace and are able to enjoy the blessings that go with it, and part of the blessings is to have assurance of salvation.
We believe that justification is not a process; it is something that happens once and for ever. Justification is one act, not like sanctification which is a process. By justification we have access into the grace in which we stand (Rom.5.2). Yet, it connotes something far more significant. The word used (npocraywylii ,17) occurs only three times in the New Testament; all of them in Paul. Here and in Ephesians 2.18 and Ephesians 3.12. It connotes having entry into the presence of God. Having access into his grace means also to have access into his presence.
In the old dispensation no one but the high priest had access into God's presence, and then again, not without cautiously abiding by the rules set forth by the law. Through Christ we now boldly come to the throne of God because Christ is our introduction to the heavenly Father. The grace in which we stand, is the justification which we enjoy in Christ.
We need first to have peace with God before we can have the blessings of God. The primary function of the Gospel is to reconcile us to God. Peace with God is an objective matter of our relationship to God and our standing with him. The person who has been justified by faith, is also the person who is in Christ. We who were
17upouarywyti means "a bringing to" and thus "introduction". It will be noticed that we use the idea of introduction through our Lord Jesus Christ; he is the introducer. Leon Morris states that the result of this is, of course, access, and it is this that leads many translators to choose it (1988:218).
57 enemies and alienated from God, have now been reconciled through the death of Christ in order for us to be presented as holy in the sight of God (Co1.1.21-22). The peace brought about by God's act of justification, is therefore the necessary basis for reconciliation with this Holy God. Now we can see the plausibility of us having communion with this, otherwise transcendent God.
Justification by faith leads to the glorification of the believer. Whom he predestinated, he also called, and whom he called he also justified, and whom he justified, them he also glorified. In highlighting the assurance of the believer, Lloyd-Jones points out that Romans 8.30 goes straight from justification to glorification, from the beginning to the end. Paul is pointing out that if you have a place in the scheme of salvation a•all, the whole is guaranteed to you (1971:7). Justification has eschatological ramifications and results.
Another argument of the Apostle Paul in Romans 5.9-10, is that if God justifies the ungodly, then, firstly, he can justify me; and secondly, he most definitely can save a reconciled person. This refers to an eschatological salvation. The eschatological salvation has in mind being eternally in the presence of God to enjoy him forever. We notice the mystical overtones, and what is true of our future in Christ, is true also of our present situation in Christ, excepting that now we still have to contend with being in the flesh, this tent (2Co.5.4).
In Adam we have condemnation looming over us, but in Christ we have received justification and reconciliation (Rom.5.12-18). It is necessary to see that the Apostle first mentions our union with Adam and the results of being in him, and then he goes on to mention the change affected by God, and that in Christ we have the gift of life. Again, we notice the eschatological benefits of justification by faith in Christ Jesus. We have been incorporated into Christ as we were once in Adam; that finally guarantees our ultimate salvation. The eschatological judgement is no 58 longer alone in the future; it has become a verdict in history. Justification, which belongs to the Age to Come and issues in the future salvation, has become a present reality inasmuch as the Age to Come has reached back into the present evil age to bring its soteric blessings to believers. In Christ the future has become present.
The results of justification by faith are: being declared righteous by a holy God; we have a right relationship with God; we have access to the Father through Christ and the Spirit 18 to come boldly before his throne; we partake of his eschatological salvation, and so enjoying eternal life; we have been acquitted in the present for the future eschatological judgement; we have part in the eschatological resurrection; we share in the glory Of God by our glorification; and, we have part in the eschatological kingdom of God.
Before we move on to the next point, it is necessary for us first to consider the matter about justification by works (of Law). If no one practices the whole law, it follows that no one can be justified by the works of law (Rom.3.20, Ga1.2.16, etc.). How is it that God will repay each man according to his works (Rom.2.6)? Furthermore, why does Paul say that it is not the hearers of the law who are justified before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Rom.2.13)?
Some contend that Paul was not a consistent thinkerl 9 . Either he utilises a synagogue sermon from diaspora Judaism that does not harmonise with his statements elsewhere, or, as Raisanen contends, because Paul was attacking the
18The Holy Spirit himself is an eschatological gift to those who have been justified. We will discuss this issue later in this chapter.
19eg. see E.P.Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. and H.Raisanen, Paul and the Law. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
59 Jews, he was implying that he meant that unbelieving Gentiles could also fulfil the law20 . The point we are making here is that this discrepancy is a very real one.
We are of the opinion that Paul actually means that it is possible to be justified by keeping the whole Law. There is nothing wrong with the Law as such, for it is holy (Rom.7.12), spiritual (Rom.7.14) and good (Rom.7.16), but the problem is with us, sinful man. Man, because of the weakness of the flesh, could not fulfil the Law (Rom.8.3). Paul is therefore speaking hypothetically, simply because he demanded perfect obedience for justification, and he thought that perfect obedience was impossible (Schreiner 1993:184).
Finally, about the eschatological judgement: we, who are in Christ, do not know of any condemnation, present or future. In Christ we are presented right now as holy, without blemish and free from accusation in God's sight. Why? Because we are in Christ, and because his death and resurrection freed us from any and all accusation. The mystical principle can hardly go unnoticed.
In addition to what we have already said about reconciliation; that it is the means of our communion with God, and is ours because of the peace provided by the death and resurrection of Christ, we shall here expand its eschatological implications. The condition of reconciliation appears in more than one place as the parallel and equivalent of justification. So, for example, in Rom.5.9-10 where "justified by his (Christ's) blood" is paralleled with "reconciled by his death". In 2Co.3.9 and 5.18, "ministration of righteousness" is paralleled with "ministration of reconciliation" (Ridderbos 1975:185).
20 ibid. 60 Like with justification, God is the initiator. Reconciliation can therefore stand over against rejection by God (Rom.11.15). The idea gleaned from Ladd, is that of two parties at variance. There has to be a mediator to bring reconciliation. Without the God-man there can be no reconciliation between God and man. The incarnation is therefore important. (1974:450-456).
Reconciliation is also applied to the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in Christ (Eph.2.16). Reconciliation constitutes the foundation of the new creation (2Co.5.17-18). Reconciliation, having an inherent characteristic of peace, is the disposition of the Messianic Kingdom, so that it can be classified as an eschatological category.
Only one passage (Rom.5.11) in the New Testament is translated as "atonement" in the Authorised Version, but is translated as "reconciliation" elsewhere and in other later versions ( e.g.. NIV, RSV, NEB). It is therefore necessary for us to briefly deal with the concept of atonement under our discussion of reconciliation.
The idea of atonement (hilasmos-iXaap.63) is imported from the Old Testament sacrificial system. Atonement was made for the people of Israel by the sacrificing of an animal whose blood would be sprinkled on the 'mercy seat' in the most holy place, once a year by the high priest on the Day of Atonement. Hence, Paul's use of the word Hilasterion (ixaa-rrjpiov) has this in mind. In this instance however, the emphasis is on the sacrifice itself. Christ is our substitute in that he died in our place. His death is vicarious in that he died for us or on our behalf. He died to redeem us. His blood is a ransom for us. By doing all this, we receive the atonement through his death, which is often expressed as his 'blood' or his 'cross'. The effect is that of reconciliation with God. It is therefore both eschatological and mystical.
61 Redemption as an eschatological concept. God's embracing redemptive work in Christ has far-reaching effects. It not only had in mind his people, but also the whole of creation. It is in this light that the doctrine of redemption can he seen as eschatological. Ultimately all of creation will be freed from its bondage / burden and from the consequences of sin.
Because of the fall of man, all of creation was subjected to a "groaning", that is a longing to be freed from the consequences of sin. Paul views the death of Christ as the means of such release. It is best to start with the redemption of God's people, then to look at the rest of creation.
Firstly, the redemption of the people of God. It is hard to imagine this concept without considering the doctrine of election, in particular that of predestination (Rom.8.29-30; Ga1.1.15-16; Eph .1.4-11; etc.). We believe that the doctrine of election defines who the people of God are. For Paul, they are those who are the righteous by faith in Christ. He redeems (Xtrrpe.o eyopciCw) them from iniquity. They are those who are to be conformed into the image of Christ. They are special in God's sight, because they are in Christ, and being in Christ, they have access into the blessings of Christ.
We have already been redeemed by the death of Christ. The redemption is from the wrath of God and the bondage of sin (Tit.2.14). We are bought with a price, the blood of Christ (1Co.6.19-20; 1Co.7.22-23). He gave himself as a ransom (eurriXtrpoi)) for all (1Ti.2.6; Rom.3.24). Paul also puts it as being redeemed by the blood of Christ (Eph.1.7) Here the emphasis is on the cost of man's redemption.
Paul also speaks of us having been redeemed from the law. Not that we do not have to keep the laws of God, but that we do not have to keep the law for our 62 salvation. Rather, we keep the law because of our salvation through Christ and the
Spirit's enabling. The law shows our sinfulness and thus condemns us. We are freed from that condemnation that comes in this way from the law. No condemnation is an eschatological category.
Eschatologically, Paul speaks of the redemption of our bodies (Rom.8.23;
Eph.1.14 and Eph.4.30). In this sense we are freed from the burden and groaning which comes as a result of sin. Also, because we have been bought, we are the possession of Christ, and he will return for his purchased possession (Eph.1.14) whose inheritance was guaranteed by the Holy Spirit.
There is yet a future liberation to be had; the release from 'this tabernacle', our mortal bodies. This release from present groaning is guaranteed by the presence of the Spirit in us (2Co.5.4-5). The future resurrection brings our complete identification with Jesus, the am, our Lord, at his coming. We shall call this the culminative liberty, because it is the culmination of an already possessed liberty of believers. Another aspect of being the eschatological People of God.
Furthermore, all of creation shall be released from its burden. It awaits the revelation, or presentation of the redeemed sons of God; those who have been liberated. This culminative liberty will be translatable to the creation. The creation itself will be delivered from its bondage to decay and be brought into 'the glorious liberty of the sons of God' (Rom.8.21). The liberty of the sons will be fully appreciated by all of creation when they who are true sons are revealed. So, with the revelation of the true sons, comes the revelation of liberty. The creation awaits with eager expectation for that revelation and that liberty. Liberty is connected to true sonship. This is, eschatologically speaking, the redemption of the creation. 21
21 We cannot here discuss the matter of Universalism, the doctrine of universal salvation, but may it suffice to say that those verses which are normally interpreted as universal 63 Redemption as a liberating aspect, is thus both present and future in its thrust; but is purely eschatological future in reference to creation at large.
The Law and its future in Paul.
Failure to obey the law engendered a curse upon Israel (Isa.42.24). Daniel interprets their exile in this way: "All Israel has transgressed your law and turned aside, not obeying your voice. Thus the curse has been inflicted on us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses, the servant of God, for we have sinned against him" (Dan.9.11).
The only hope of the law being kept, is if that law is written on the heart (Jer.31.31-34), or if the heart is circumcised (De.30.6-8), or the giving of a new heart and spirit so that the people will keep the law (Ezek.36.26-27).
Paul, in Galatians 3 shows us that Jews and Gentiles, corporately and individually, are under a curse because they cannot keep the whole law. "Cursed is every one who does not abide by *all things written in the book of the law" (verse 10). Only the eschatological intervention of God was needed to rescue them from the power of sin. No one can be justified by the law in God's sight, because the just shall live by faith. Justification is available only through faith.
As a means of salvation, the law and faith are fundamentally antithetical. Salvation by works of law is contrary to faith, for salvation by works of law means that the one who does the law will live by his obedience (Ga1.3.12). If it starts with the obsolescence of animal sacrifices, then one has to dismiss the possibility of
atonement or salvation passages, if read in their context, show that such is not the case. For example, the context of Rom.8.32, a verse stating that God gave up his son "for us all", makes it clear that Paul actually has in view those "who are the called according to his purpose"(Rom.8.28), the predestined (v29-30). (Erickson, 1983:832). 64 salvation, since no one can fully obey the law so that he would need no sacrifice for sin (Schreiner 1993:62). Paul's sustained polemic against the law only makes sense if there is a shift in salvation history. Otherwise, forgiveness could be obtained through the Old Testament cultus. But the argument from redemptive history is wedded to the reality of human inability. The inadequacy of the Mosaic covenant was apparent because it did not produce the obedience God required. Rom. 3.21-26 and Gal. 3.13 stresses that the only means of forgiveness is the Cross of Christ.
The law stimulates and provokes sin. The law brings greater awareness of human unrighteousness. It amplifies sin and actually concludes all under sin. The law is not a source of life and provides no bower for obedience. To be under the law is to be under sin. Therefore, to be crucified with Christ, is to be set free from the law and flesh. The law was only intended to be in force until Christ. It was intended only as a "tutor" until Christ.
The contrasts shown in 2Corinthians 3 is most telling. The "Spirit" is contrasted with "ink"; "stone tablets" with "human hearts"; "new covenant" with "the covenant made with the fathers"; and the "ministry of death" with the "life-giving Spirit". It shows a new relationship with the law. Paul saw that the promise of God in circumcising the hearts of men, as fulfilled in the gift of the Spirit. The law is therefore not a burden to those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
The law as God's standard must be kept perfectly, and such was only possible by Christ. If salvation through the law was a reality, it could only be so through Christ because he fulfilled the law perfectly. Therefore, to be in Christ is to have died to the law, and to be alive unto God. Yet, the believer can fulfil the law through the Holy Spirit's enabling. If we love our neighbour, we fulfil the law, and the Holy Spirit sheds God's love in our hearts. Love is the first and supreme 65 fruit of the Spirit (Ga1.5.22). By the Spirit's enabling are we now able to fulfil the law. To walk in the Spirit is to be able to fulfil the law of Christ.
When judgement comes, all will be judged according to their works. Some who appeared to be believers will he shown not to have received the saving gift of righteousness. They will fail to pass the test on the last day, for their works will he lacking. Such failure will prove that they were never truly part of the new community. Therefore, for Paul, the law will stand as the standard of God in the eschatological judgement.
2.2.2. The Death and Resurrection of Christ - Its Significance.
The centrality of the death and resurrection of Christ, is seen by the first Church Confession of Faith which Paul received and passed on in his own ministry. "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he was seen..." (1Co.15.3-5 NKJV). In fact, Paul focuses very little on the life of Christ, but he takes the death and resurrection of Christ as absolutely foundational. Paul never felt it necessary to expound his theology of Christ crucified in any detail. All his references are either creedal or kerygmatic formulae or brief allusions (Dunn 1998:212).
No doubt Paul speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ as the centre of the relationship between God and his people. Because of sin we all have been dead to God, and was unable to respond to him in any way. We could not hear his voice, nor see his wonderful works, or understand his ways. We were completely alienated from the holy God because of our wickedness (Col. 1.21). The only answer was for us to be
66 made alive and be reconciled to God. But how ? By being made alive by God himself and to be reconciled through the Lord Jesus Christ.
Christ died so that we may have life. His death is what reconciles us to God. Through his cross he made peace. In fact, he himself is our peace (Eph. 2.14). God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2Co.5.19). Through the death of Christ, atonement was made for us. The account of our sins has been cancelled, and through Christ we have received life; that is, eternal life.
By the death of Christ, we have been redeemed from sin and the law (Ga1.4.4-
5)22 . We are therefore no more under sin, or in bondage to sin, and under the law. The law stimulates sin, and sin brifigs about death, for the wages of sin is death (Rom.3.23). If then, we have been redeemed from the law and sin, then death has no more dominion over us. Liberation from sin, is therefore forgiveness of sins, and liberation from its dominion. We have life through Christ. Both, eternal life and redemption are eschatological categories, for, because of the redemption that Christ provides, we await the redemption of our bodies (Rom.8.23), the transition between this life and the eternal state, everlasting life.
Preceding the giving of the Law, was the Passover event. In 1Co.5.7 Paul explicitly states that Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed. Though strictly speaking, one cannot speak of the passover lamb as a sacrifice 23 , the idea
22Jesus became accursed on the cross, because the law stated (De.21.23) that everyone who has been hanged on a tree is cursed. A crucified/cursed Messiah was no doubt for most Jews a contradiction in terms. Dunn (1998:209) quotes Trypho as challenging Justin: "Prove to us that he (the Messiah) had to be crucified and had to die such a shameful and dishonourable death, cursed by the Law. We could not even consider such a thing" (Dialogue 90.1). The cursed Israelite is like the uncovenanted Gentile. Therefore, the cursed Christ has been in effect put out of the covenant. In his death he identifies with sinning Jew and Gentile alike. By his death, he brought the blessings of Abraham to Gentiles and made it possible for them to receive the promised Spirit (Ga1.3.14)
23 G.B.Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament (London:Oxford University, 1925.) 397: The pascal victim was not a sin-offering or regarded as a means of expiating or removing sins. 67 is already associated with atonement in Ezek. 45.18-22. Its double association is also applied by Jesus with the Lord's Supper. The language of sacrifice is unavoidable.
The death of Christ, otherwise referred to by Paul as the "Cross" or the "Blood" of Christ, is the means of our redemption. By his blood we are ransomed. That is, we become the possession of Christ, because he has bought us with his blood, or by the giving of his life, which means his death. We are his purchased possession (Eph.1.14). But by such ransom comes liberation too.
By the death of Christ, the righteous demands of God are satisfied. We "are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation 24 by his blood, to be received by faith" (Rom.3.24-25). Through the death of Christ the love and the righteousness/justice of a Good God is demonstrated. These contrasting concepts are now reconciled in the death of Christ. This was to prove that God is both just and the justifier of those who have faith in Christ (Rom.3.26).
Jesus died as sacrifice for the sins of humankind was for Paul to say that Christ died as representative of Adamic humankind. Paul's teaching is not that Christ dies in the place of others so that they escape death. It is rather that as Christ shares in their death, they are now able to share in his death too. By sharing in his death, all that his death provides, is for their benefit as well.
24[ XciatTlptov (hilasterion) is translated rather as expiation by modern scholars, since propitiation, properly from Z- iikaaKoliaL, in Greek literature means to appease a person who has been offended or angry. Christ died not to appease an angry God, but to demonstrate His love (eg. Rom.5.8). Christ's death is a gift of love. It must however also be remembered, that the wrath of God, because of sin, is a very real thing, and should not just be brushed aside. In any case, the object of propitiation, is the wrath of God, not merely the sin of men. 68 Christ, by his death, gained the victory over cosmic powers, that is, over all the forces of evil; both visible and invisible. As ruler of this newly inaugurated kingdom, Christ had to overcome those cosmic powers. He had to overcome the "ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who now works in the children of disobedience" (Eph.2.2). "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Co1.2.15). The powers and authorities whom Paul refers to, are the rulers of this age (1Co.2.6). The death and resurrection of Christ meant that any and all heavenly powers has lost any effective power over those who belong to Christ. Christ having died, neither sin nor death has any more a hold over him, and consequently, over us (Rom.6.7-10). Therefore, the cross is the beginning of Christ's eschatological victory, when all things will be placed under his feet (1Co.15.25-27). Dunn puts it powerfully: "The transformation of values, from the cross as the most shameful of deaths, to the cross as a chariot leading the defeated powers in chains behind it, is about as audacious as one could imagine".(1998:231).
Life and victory which comes to us through faith, cannot come only because Christ died25. No, also because he arose from the dead, and the resurrection becomes just as crucial in providing the basis for life and victory to the believer and the believing community. Unless the one died the death of all, the all would have little to celebrate in the resurrection of the one, other than to rejoice in his personal vindication. The sacrificial death of Christ is not regarded by Paul as complete in itself. It required the ratification of the resurrection. The vindication of Christ was also the vindication of those whom he represented. Our confession of faith has to include the fact that God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom.10.9-10).
25For those who find in Christ's death the answer to sin and death, who identify with him in his death, there is the very real prospect of sharing also in his resurrection beyond death. The resurrection is only relevant when his death is accepted as God's gracious gift for sinners, of whom 'I am chiefest'. 69 Christ is declared to be the Son of God in power as from the resurrection of the dead (Rom.1:4). The resurrection of Jesus is God's act, and therefore the declaration of his sonship, is God's prerogative. The death of Christ has overcome the power of sin, but his resurrection, the power of death, which is the ultimate result of sin.
We are released through the death of Christ so that we can serve in the newness of life that is characterised by the Spirit -Rom.7.6- (Barrett 1957:137). The eschatological transformation by the resurrection will be a reality through the Holy Spirit (Gaybba 1987:159). In fact, Fee correctly ascribes the resurrection of Christ and that of the future resurrection of believers to the Father, and that the Holy Spirit is the guarantor, rather than the agent of the resurrection (1994:808). Life is a gift of God, and this gift is given through the Spirit of Christ for those who are in Christ.
Christ as the first-fruit from the dead through the resurrection, provides us too a hope of resurrection. While this is an eschatological expectation, it is also a present reality for the believer. For in baptism we have not only died with Christ, but also rose in newness of life (Rom.6.1-3). Having been baptised into Christ (Ga1.3.27), Paul cannot be speaking merely in sacramental language. We are participants of the resurrection of our Lord (Phil.3.10). It is in this context that the Christian has a new life. And it is in this context that the people of God are said to be a thoroughly eschatological people. They are participants in the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the evidence of our eschatological existence.
This present time is known as the "overlap". For Paul the death of Jesus Christ signifies the beginning of this overlapping period. God is the justifier of all those who believe in Christ (Rom.3.26). The elect church also participates in the death and resurrection of Christ. We are in a mode of being of the resurrection. This is 70 expressed as the being "in Christ"; an objective mysticism of facts (Schweitzer 1931:100).
We shall show how that our participation in the death and resurrection of Christ has mystical overtones. That through faith in Christ, we are said to have died with Christ, and are raised with him to be seated with him in the heavenlies26 . Yet we hope for the resurrection and being with Christ in the future. Our current experience of these eschatological realities of resurrection and glorification, is the essence of our being in Christ right now.
Through the death and resurrection, we have access to God, because we have been reconciled with Him. Access to God' is not possible through any human platitude or effort. No amount of contemplation or the like will make it possible, only the already, eschatological redemptive work of Christ. Access to God is seen as a mystical category.
As the eschatological People of God, we have communion with Him, and by that communion we are characterised as a people presented to God through the death of Christ. Moreover, we are the Body of Christ, showing our unity both with each other and with Christ. This unity is demonstrated in various ways in Paul, and by it we understand a mystical union of sorts.
The resurrection of Jesus was understood by Paul, and those before him, as ushering in a new age, the last days 27 . This eschatological significance was not dependent on an assumed shortness of "the last days" 28 . Christ's resurrection had a
26Eph.2.6-7.
27 cf. 1Co. 10.11, 15.45 and 1Th.2.16
28What was important, was that the last days had begun, and that this new era marked a final climactic unfolding of God's purpose. Beker is of the opinion that the cross is the 71 hearing both, on Christ himself, and on those who have committed themselves to the risen Lord. They both characterise these last days. The risen Christ is the eschatological equivalent of the earthly Adam. Christ became the progenitor of the new humanity; the eschatological community. He is the last Adam.
2.2.3 The Gift of the Holy Spirit - Firstfruits and Deposit
Among other things, the Holy Spirit is the mode of God's dwelling in us. He leads and guides us. He marks us as God's possession. This eschatological gift helps us to become participants in the divine nature thus exemplifying the mystical nature of our relationship with the Holy Spirit'; the God in us.
The Church is viewed as the Body of Christ, the People of God and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The Church can be said to relate to an eternal Trinitarian God, but it is the Spirit that is active in all three depictions of the Church. He places the individual believer in the Body of Christ (1Co.12.13), also making this temple the Temple of the living God (1Co.3.16-17 cf. 2Co.6.16). We have become the people of God by the Spirit of Adoption, and by the Spirit the Church has become the living organism that it is.
Christ, represented by the Holy Spirit, extends his person in each believer (Ziesler 1990:47). He also extends his blessings to them. So, most definitely is the blessing of the resurrection, and the resurrection life. This is known as the new life; otherwise put, 'the newness of life'. In fact, the Holy Spirit is the Guarantor of the
apocalyptic turning point of history. He says: "the death and resurrection of Christ in their apocalyptic setting constitute the coherent core of Paul's thought...according to Paul, the cosmic dimensions of the death and resurrection of Christ signify that the cross is God's judgement of the world and that the resurrection is the beginning of the ontological renewal of creation that will come to completion in God's new age" (Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought, 1980:205-211). 72 future resurrection of which Christ is the firstfruits 29 (1Co.15.20). The eschatological transformation by the resurrection will be a reality through the Holy Spirit (Gaybba 1987:159). Christ, the first-fruit of the resurrection, provides us too the hope of resurrection.
The Spirit, being the first-fruits, is seen as the down payment or instalment guaranteeing the redemption of our bodies, the resurrection. This is often referred to as a coming salvation. The Holy Spirit is thus the agent in procuring this promised salvation. He guarantees a liberation from our present groaning, when God will raise our mortal bodies incorruptible on that day. The Spirit applies that promise to the believer.
Through the gift of the Holy Spirit the future had come, but the end did not fully come yet. The last enemy, death, was still around, and as long as it is around, we are reminded that we still have to contend with being burdened with this earthly 'tabernacle' (2Co.5.4). Death will be finally overcome with the resurrection.
Of this resurrection, Christ was the firstfruits 3° from the dead. 'Firstfruits' is an agricultural metaphor. If the firstfruits are good, so will the crop that comes afterwards be. The metaphor is used in a variety of ways in the New Testament, but our concern is the Pauline usage in the future sense.
Firstly, that Christ is the firstfruit from the grave, as has already been mentioned; and secondly, that the Holy Spirit is given as a firstfruits (Rom.8.23). The two
29ln commenting on 1Co.15:1-19, Anthony C. Thiselton says that Paul is concerned wholly with the resurrection of Christ, for this is the basis for the argument of the remainder of the chapter. The transition is made in verse 20 where it is stressed that Christ constitutes the firstfruits of the resurrection harvest that is yet to be raised in the future. Paul reasserts the point to make sure that it is not missed: 'But each in his own order Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ' (v23). (1978:524)
30The discussion here is dealt with in greater detail in my Master's dissertation (1997)(p630. 73 actually go together in Paul's understanding and both provide an assurance for the believing community (Ziesler 1990:32). In fact, they become the point of eschatological identification for the people of God.
We have to understand that the firstfruits is not the great harvest. That remains an activity of the future in God's economy. The firstfruits is only the pledge and the foretaste of that future harvest. Therefore, we shall be resurrected in the future as Christ, the firstfruits was resurrected.
As the Holy Spirit had a part in the resurrection of Christ (Rom.1.4 and Rom.8.11), so will he also play a part in our resurrection. Our resurrection is the great harvest. In fact, the Holy Spirit guarantees the future consummation of all believers. Because the Holy Spirit is in our lives, the resurrection of our mortal bodies is inevitable. His firstfruits sets the whole thing in motion. He is the guarantee and deposit (eippallWv).
We do not believe that the Holy Spirit, referred to as the firstfruits, is received only in part measure so that we should expect a future fuller endowment. Seen in the context of the Spirit being a 'deposit' and 'seal'. The Holy Spirit is a power in the present pointing to the future (Montague 1976:82).
The metaphor, cippaNv (deposit) is used on three occasions by Paul (2Co.1.21-22; 2Co.5.5; Eph.1.14). It occurs exclusively in Paul as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit. It is a down-payment in kind, so that it is a guarantee that establishes a contractual obligation which demands fulfilment. So, therefore, the Holy Spirit is a present reality with future importance; that is he is an eschatological reality. The NIV puts it that the Spirit is a 'deposit guaranteeing what is to come'. He guarantees our future total transformation into the image of Christ (2Co.3.17-18;
74 Phil.3.21). That is total identification with the glorified Christ; a definitely mystical overtone.
So, the first instalment of the Holy Spirit is what raised us with Christ, and the future physical resurrection at the parousia is guaranteed by the Spirit. That we are sealed31 (2Co.I .21-22; Eph.1.13; Eph.4.30) with the 'Holy Spirit of promise, shows that we belong to Christ and will therefore, for certain, have part in his resurrection and life. We are, by the Spirit joint-heirs with the Lord Jesus Christ. In sonship the relationship guarantees future salvation, and is established in the present through the Holy Spirit who anticipates the future (Barrett 1957:163).
Dodd notes another promise with eschatological import in Ga1.6.8. "He who sows in the Spirit, will of the Spirit reap eternal life". This is the future life of the believer (1920:124). Indeed, he is the Spirit of life (Rom.8.2). Therefore we may conclude that the firstfruits of the Holy. Spirit relates to the resurrection at the parousia.
2.2.4 Present Struggle and Future Victory.
The present experience of the Christian in this world will be one of suffering. We will suffer because our Lord suffered. Our suffering is a token of our being sons of God. They who are of the world will always persecute those who belong to Christ, and it is an indication of their lostness (Phil.1.28f). Those who oppose the Gospel, persecute the preachers of that Gospel. Yet, in the mind of Paul, it is a matter of
31 The seal is a token of ownership and authentication, carrying with it the protection and authority of the owner. The Holy Spirit then is God's mark on believers and claims them for himself. This possession then is guarded by God himself. The seal authenticates sonship, therefore the Spirit is also known as the Spirit of Adoption, and in Eph.4.30 it will protect us until the Day of Redemption. 75 participating in the death of Christ or filling up on his sufferings for the sake of the Body (Co1.1.24).
Our sufferings for Christ have a two-fold eschatological significance. Looking back, we are participating in the eschatological death of the cross of our Lord. Looking ahead, we shall also share in his glory if we suffer with him. In this life, however, this suffering works patience and perseverance (Rom.5.3-4) with a view to the future.
Considering Phil.3.10, the believer's suffering is Christ's suffering. When we suffer, we have fellowship with him in his suffering. It is in this kind of fellowship that we get to know our Lord in an intimate way. The mystical connotations are obvious. If we share in the fellowship of his sufferings, we are being made conformable to his death. This is definitely supported by Ga1.2.20 "I am crucified with Christ... who loved me and gave himself for me".
Our dying with Christ, is also a means of Christ being made visible (manifest) in us (2Co.4.11). So we are able to live Christ-like lives. It is when I am crucified with Christ, that he is able to live through me. Again, the mystical overtones are obvious. Herein is Christ made manifest in us, that we are able to live lives of high ethical standards for we are not exonerated from an ethical life; and because we are dead to sin to live for God through the death of Christ (Rom.6.11).
Our suffering with Christ in the likeness of his death, is to be assured of participating in the likeness of his resurrection (Rom.6.5). We shall attain to the resurrection if we also suffer with him (Phil.3.11). The principle that applied to our Lord, also applies to us; suffering precedes resurrection. Paul did not see Christianity in any other way. That does not mean that we are saying you must
76 suffer in order to be saved; no; rather it is to a lesser or greater extent the result of you serving him.
More than that, we shall be glorified together with him if indeed we also suffer with him (Rom.8.17). Many passages in Paul confirm the idea of glorification as a result of suffering for Christ. Our present sufferings are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us (Rom.8.18). Our light afflictions are but for a moment, yet it works in us an exceeding and eternal glory (2Co.4.17). Eph.1.18 and 2Ti.2.10 brings out the same idea.
We have therefore established that suffering for Christ's sake is inevitable for the believer; but that by it he identifies With Christ in his death. Therefore he will have a part32 in his resurrection and glory. That confirms the eschatological thrust of Paul's understanding of suffering. Glory is the future victory!
2.2.5 The Kingdom in Paul.
The Synoptics are in agreement that the heart of Jesus' message was the Kingdom of God. The disciples were sent out to proclaim the Kingdom (Mt.10.7; Lk 9 2; 10.9). What was meant with the kingdom of God was his rule and his realm and also technically, his eschatological kingdom. Jesus evidently did see that something of decisive importance-namely, the coming of the kingdom happening in the context of his ministry. How did Paul interpret it?
Wenham sees Paul using the concept of righteousness in referring to the Jesus concept of kingdom (1995:54J). He sees the work of Christ, and therefore the
32Paul's eschatological hope is therefore founded on a Christological basis; which Longenecker calls a functional christology (1985:90) 77 content of the Gospel as demonstrating the righteousness of God. With the concept of reconciliation when Paul speaks of God reconciling all things to himself (Co1.1.20) and gathering all things in him (Eph.1.9), he alludes to establishing the realm of God's kingdom as including all things.
Paul is in agreement with the character of the kingdom of God, but according to Wenham, Paul focuses on the believer's ambivalent personal experience, whereas Jesus speaks more of the kingdom in society (p70). The believer is delivered by God from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son (Co1.1.13). The kingdom of Christ is for Paul the kingdom of God (Eph.5.5). At the name of Jesus every knee in heaven, earth and under the earth will bow, because he is Lord! At the end he will hand over the kingdom to God (1Co.15.24).
One of the rare occasions when Paul specifically mentions the kingdom of God, is in 1Co.4.20: 'For the Kingdom of God is not in word but in power' 33 . It is necessary for us to note first of all, that there is a contrast between word (X6yog) and power (8iniat[its) 34. The effectiveness of preaching is not to be found in oratory eloquence, but when it is accompanied with the power of the Holy Spirit. Only this kind of preaching is in accordance with the requirements of the kingdom of God. Paul's preaching is for the kingdom of God (Co1.4.11).
He links the kingdom of God again with the Holy Spirit in Rom.14.17; The kingdom of God...is righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit. Though speaking in present terms, the Holy Spirit being an eschatological gift, shows the eschatological nature of the kingdom.
33Gordon H. Clark translates it as " For the kingdom of God does not exist in word, but in power".(1975:75)
34see Gordon D. Fee, God's Empowering Presence, 1994 (p119-120)
78 Therefore, the character of God's kingdom is one of the Holy Spirit's power and presence, and because only the spiritual will inherit the eschatological kingdom (1Co.15.50). The kingdom therefore excludes (in the future) the unrighteous
(1Co.6.9-10). In every other mention35 of the kingdom of God in Paul, he speaks of it in the future; something that will be inherited by the righteous or something that will not be inherited by those who sin and are outside Christ.
The kingdom of God is therefore understood in eschatological categories, with no distinction between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of God. For Paul it is one and the same thing.
We therefore come to the conclusion that Paul's mysticism and eschatology are inextricably bound together, and is in fact necessary in his expression of each. One cannot understand his eschatology without understanding his mysticism and vice versa. Such is demonstrated throughout Paul's writings, especially in the light of his expression "in Christ" or its equivalents.
Moreover, Paul speaks of the kingdom of God or of Christ in both present and future terms. He therefore inherited his eschatological outlook from his Lord, and might we add, from the Christian community. But, it is necessary to remember that the kingdom for Paul is bound to the Holy Spirit and comes to us through salvation, so that we are now eschatological kingdom people.
The Holy Spirit is the means of the believer's placement in the Body of Christ, and who makes God's dwelling in the believer and the community of believers, being the Temple of God. He is therefore the ground and guarantor of the believer's
352Th.1.5; Ga1.5.21; 2T1.4.18. 79 present and future eschatological life in Christ. The mystical and the eschatological go together.
Salvation also is both mystical and eschatological. In fact, our relationship with Christ is essentially salvivic. To what end? To restore the relationship between God and man. The means is reconciliation. But how? By justifying the believer, for the justified person is the person in Christ. If justification ultimately issues in glorification, then justification has eschatological overtones with a mystical purpose; to reconcile man with God, thereby affording access to, and communion with God.
The believer's present life includes the reality of suffering. If we are eschatological people, then how do we explain suffering in the believer's life? Whenever Paul mentions suffering or Christian tribulation, he does so with eschatological significance. We shall share in the eschatological glory. In this case he speaks purely about the future. But our assurance comes from our mystical experience of being partakers of Christ's sufferings.
Finally, a solution for the tension between mysticism and justification (eschatological) is offered in our new existence in Christ as sons of God. We are changed from one degree of glory to the next. It is expressed in a thoroughly ethical existence as we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to show that Christ lives in us; so bearing the character of Christ, which is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. This is how we relate to the Trinitarian God.
80 2.3 Participation Theology in Paul.
No matter how Paul was influenced culturally or otherwise, he still remained true to his monotheistic religion, believing in the one living God, who made the heavens and the earth (Yahweh was often so described), the God of Israel. When he refers to God as father, he speaks of him as father from a Jewish point of view as well. Yes, it is true from a Christian perspective, that now he sees and acknowledges God as the father of Jesus Christ. Conversely said, Jesus was declared to be the Son of God through the resurrection (Rom.1.4). Not that Jesus was not understood as the Son of God before the resurrection 36 . Yet, God is spoken of as father in relation to children; those who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are the sons of God; those who are in Christ are the father's sons.
One cannot think of believers as children of God outside of the concept of Christ's sonship. We understand our sonship in the light of his sonship and our relationship in the light of his relationship with the Father. Therefore the relationship that Jesus Christ has with the Father is analogous of our relationship with the Father. It is our belief that this relationship has mystical overtones.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the believer's immediate fellowship with God as reflected in Paul, comes out in the idea of us being the temple of the living God. Since the temple motif always has the idea of God's presence, its mystical importance cannot be overlooked, for occurrences 37 of the idea in Paul provide ample confirmation that this is Paul's understanding.
36To say that Jesus became the Son of God because of the resurrection, is what is called "Adoptionism"
371 Co.3.16-17; 1Co.6.19-20; 2Co.6.14-17 and Eph.2.21-22.
81 Since Paul uses the word va63 (naos), which speaks of the Holy of Holies where the Ark of the Covenant was, he certainly has in mind the immediate presence of God. Paul brings it out in a novel way. He thinks of the OT promise of God being with his people as delineated in the New Covenant. More so, he thinks not only of a presence with them, but of a presence in them. We shall now consider certain texts which show precisely this.
1Co.3.16-17 Here Paul's reference is to the Church as the corporate body. He does not mean that each of his readers is a temple, but that "you yourselves (plural) are God's temple (singular)". The mode of God's dwelling in the Church is through the Holy Spirit. Paul says that God's Spirit lives in us (v16). Because that is true, the deduction is that the' temple, the Church, is sacred (v17). This sacredness has ethical implications.
1Co.6.19-20. Again, in the context of ethical imperative, Paul asks individual believers whether they realise they are each the temple of the Holy Spirit. The Christian should value his body as a sacred place where God dwells. With the Spirit in the believer, he should realise that he has what is necessary to help him against sexual immorality. Important for our discussion here, is that the Holy Spirit is in us. In Paul's mind, this is God in us. It is indeed mystical.
2Co.6.14-17. In terms of Christian holiness, Paul warns us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. There is an irreconcilable contrast between believers and unbelievers. The one stands for righteousness and the other for wickedness; the one for light and the other for darkness; the one for Christ and the other for Belial; and the one for the temple of God and the other for the temple of idols. In clear terms Paul says that we are the "temple of the living God". He brings out the OT basis
82 for that belief. 38 God lives in and among his people. Again, we see the mystical thrust.
Eph.2.21 - 22. In his metaphorical language, Paul speaks of the Church as a building. This building is put together "in the Lord" (v21). This is a variant of being "in Christ". The building in the Lord rises to become a Holy Temple. This temple, Paul says, has become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. The Church is nevertheless God's dwelling place and because of that we may admit to its mystical importance.
For Paul the overcoming of the distance between God and the human person, which is both ontological and moral' in character, is accomplished by God himself, in a two-fold intervention: (i) God intervenes by an act of grace, which is therefore totally free; and (ii) this act is accomplished concretely in Jesus Christ in history, so that to try and interpret its proclamation allegorically would be to betray it (Penna 1996:247). Therefore any talk of Pauline "mysticism" must begin with this, with the basic foundation of every divine-human relationship, in which the ascending movement is always anticipated with a descending movement; by revelation and by a gift. This basic point of departure includes the events of salvation (election, faith, justification, baptism and the Spirit, and life in Christ). (Penna 1996:248).
God's saving intervention has an anthropological impact also. It is for Paul the "mystical" state that affects all Christians. The saving is a divine initiative, freely undertaken, while we were sinners. There can therefore be no communion with God unless there is movement from God, for we were dead in our trespasses and sins. The experience is vertically downward; "Now you have known God, yes
38Lev.26.12; Jer.32.38 Ezek.37.27; Isa.52.11; Ezek.20.34,41 and 2Sam.7.14. 83 rather (better) you are known by God" (Ga1.4.9). Knowing is not merely
cognitively, but also intimately 39 . Now we can relate to him as "Abba!". (Perim
1996:250).
So, in this section, we also seek to prove that God-mysticism and Christ-mysticism are not mutually exclusive terms or concepts for Paul as would be believed by A.
Schweitzer49 . It would therefore be helpful to establish what kind of relationship exists between the believer and the Father. By doing this, we may discover whether we can speak of a mystical relationship or not. So, how do we relate to
God? We will seek the answer to this question under the four headings; God as
Chooser, God as Reconciler, God as Blesser and God as Lover of the believers.
2.3.1 God, the Chooser of us in Christ.
The idea of divine election does not originate with the Apostle Paul. God chose
Israel as a nation. God chose them to show his kindness to them, and to be his witness to the nation?". Therefore, God related to them according to his divine purpose and it demanded his personal interventions. When they obeyed God and his laws, he prospered and blessed them 42 . When they disobeyed, he corrected them by sometimes giving them over to the nations, to take them captive, or to exact harsh, difficult and oppressive demands from and upon them. The idea of a
3 This idea cannot be divorced from a knowledge gained by experience.
40 See especially his book: The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 1931.
41 cf. De. 7.6 - 8.
42 cf. Jer. 7.23
84 Remnant43 was really to show God's faithfulness to his purpose and that he would not fail. Ultimately, God was the faithful one.
The idea of divine election was not only restricted to Israel as a nation, but was also applied to individuals in the Old Testament. Jeremiah, the Prophet is a case in point. He was foreordained even before he was horn (Jer.1.40. Jeremiah was called to the task of preaching to Israel and to the nations. When God called an individual in this way, it always had bearing on the community of Israel, as a nation. Again, this magnified God's faithfulness.
It is therefore not extraneous to say that from his training in the Hebrew Scriptures, Paul would have been exposed to these ideas of divine election. How then does Paul apply his knowledge of divine election to Christianity or to the believer? From his writings, at least, we are able to establish that election was for him a totally divine activity". God alone elected his people; more specifically, God the Father. It is indeed a fact that Paul did not see anybody as belonging to the People of God unless they had been divinely elected. The only difference is that Paul now sees that activity as being in Christ 45 . In other words, our election is because of Christ, and on the basis of what Christ has done, and by virtue of Christ's relationship with the Father.
All that is left for us is to synthesise the Pauline doctrine of election. Especially, the aspects of God's sovereign grace and man's freedom of decision. How true is the Reformation accentuation of solo gratia? What about the possibility of divine rejection (reprobation)? Is Calvin's rejection of preascientia (prescience) as an
43Remnant in this context always has the idea of the faithful few who are left over.
44 God chose, elected and predestined those who are in Christ.
45cf. Eph. 1.3-5 where we are blessed in Christ, and where we are chosen in Him. 85 explanatory device legitimate? How is Paul to be interpreted in the light of these questions? To seek a theological rationale for Paul with respect to Rom.8.29 and Rom.9-11, is to find a solution for the portrayal of God. In Dunn's words: "the passage inevitably exerts a fascination for anyone striving to develop a theology - a fascination, part attraction at its theological rigour, part repulsion at the portrayal of God so seemingly arbitrary (1998:500). What is at stake is ultimately God's own integrity; the faithfulness of God. How could Paul offer God's covenant righteousness to Gentiles so freely without calling in to question God's covenant with Israel? If God's purpose for Israel was frustrated, what assurance did that give to Christian believers?
Among others, Paul refers to the bdlievers as 'saints', 'those who love God', 'the called', and 'elect of God' in Romans chapter 8. This surely places the believer in a special relationship with God. Gentiles could count themselves as sharers of the promises of Abraham (Gal.3). We will therefore deal with the believer in Christ without necessarily dealing with the question of Israel as this is not pertinent to our discussion.
The main passages in Paul dealing with the matter of predestination as npoopi.(to (prohorizo) is found in Rom.8.29-30, 1Co.2.7, Eph.1.5,11; as Trpo-r (protithemi) in Eph.1.9 and its substantive Trp60eats (prothesis) in Rom.8.28, 9.11, Eph.1.11, 3.11, 2Ti.1.9 and TrpoEtoiph(o) (proetoimazo) in Rom.9.23 and Eph.2.10. God's redemptive work unfolds in accordance with his intended purpose (Ga1.3.8, and 4.4-5). The choice of individual and nation to be his own and the subsequent events are God's sovereign doing (Rom.9-11). Paul sees himself as being set apart even before his birth (Ga1.1.15). All things that happened to his children happen as part of his intention for them (Eph.1.11-12), which Paul defines as the good called according to his purpose (Rom.8.28), which again means being conformed to the image of his Son (Rom.8.29). (Erickson 1983:350). 86 In the ultimate sense, the eternal purpose of God's plan is God's glory. This is the highest and greatest motivation. Paul also expresses this in christological terms: "all things were created by him and for him" (Co1.1.16). God shows us in Christ and destined us "according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace" (Eph.1.5-6). The purpose of the whole plan of salvation is the glory of God through the good that God has prepared for his people (Eph.2.8-I0). We were appointed to live for the praise of his glory (Eph.1.12) having been sealed by the Holy Spirit to that end (Eph.1.13-14).
While the eternal purpose is God's glory, there are several results emanating from that relationship. We become more like Christ and we receive salvation. God is the Lord, and we exist for his sake, glory and pleasure, rather than he for ours (Erickson 1983:352). The plan of God relates primarily to what God himself does in terms of creating, preserving, directing and redeeming. We are of the opinion that it involves human will and action, but only secondarily, that is, as a means to the end he purposes. We were prepared beforehand to do good works (Eph.2.10), but our involvement begins when we respond by faith to God's cal1 46 .
Paul understands election to be a process as reflected in Rom.8.29-30. From foreknowledge to predestination, to calling, to justification and to glorification. Yet, each one of these is an activity of God; he foreknows; he predestinates; he calls; he justifies and he glorifies. In our discussion of these verses, the matter of logical priority; does it begin with God or with man's decision'? The key lies in understanding the role of God's foreknowledge in the formation and execution of the divine plan.
46God calls the believer by means of the Gospel. "Faith comes by hearing the Word of God" (Rom.10.17). 87 Arminian interpretation points out that God's choice or determination of each individual's destiny is a result of foreknowledge with God of their free-will decision so that human actions and its effects are not the result of God's decision. In that case human decision is logically prior. On this basis human freedom is preserved. God's plan is conditional upon human decision.
In the Calvinistic view God's plan is unconditional. God is completely sovereign in every decision. The whole plan of election is unconditional. Here, foreknowledge does not mean prescience, even though God possesses it because of his omniscience, but its meaning tends more towards a pre-intimacy. This concept comes from the Hebrew understanding of yada. Therefore, they say that foreknowledge carries with it the !idea of a favourable disposition as well as advance knowledge.
The Arminian view seems to preserve human freedom (and that has a great appeal) but at the expense of divine sovereignty in the matter of salvation. Calvinism preserves divine sovereignty while it sacrifices human freedom of will. There is no simple solution. Both the Arminian and the Calvinistic views however, seem to be present in the Pauline message, for there are passages where the unconditional nature of God's selecting is made quite explicit 47 as well as man's free will 48 .
The former is seen in his statement regarding the choice of Jacob over Esau: "Though they were not yet born and had done neither good nor bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, she (Rebecca) was told, 'The elder will serve the younger'. As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated' " (Rom.9.11-13). We notice the unmerited and
47 eg. Rom. 8.29-30, Ga1.1.15-16, Eph.1.3-6,etc.
48 eg. 2Th.1.8, Ga1.3.1, Ga1.5.7, etc. 88 unconditional nature of God's choice of Jacob. Only in this context can we understand Paul's statement in Rom.9.18: "so then he has mercy upon whosoever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whosoever he wills". The ensuing verses illustrate the point; that as the potter has sovereign power over the clay, so God the creator has sovereign power over his creation.
The latter is seen in the passages that show human responsibility. We shall be judged according to our works; according to what we have done. Yes, our calling is not on the basis of works (Rom.9.11), yet we shall be repaid each one according to his works (Rom.2.6). The end of the false teachers in Corinth shall he according to their works (2Co.11.15). Though we do not believe in justification by works, we are nevertheless to be accountable for our deeds. What materials you build with, will be tested (1Co.3.9ff). Paul speaks of himself as having counted all else loss so that he may gain Christ and be found in him (Phil.7.9). He speaks of himself as having a choice between other gainful things and Christ, and that he chose Christ. Conversely said, there are those who did not choose Christ, and now they are enemies of the Cross, because of their wilful rejection (Phil 3.180. Whatever other choices he may have had, he was free to do it or not. He speaks of himself as willingly making sacrifices for the Gospel (1Co.9.17). So, he expected others to act willingly and not by compulsion (Phm.14.). If their is unbelief, it is not by God's will but by their own fault, since all are called upon to be reconciled to God (2Co.5.20).
Even if we choose to accept the salvation that God provided, he is the initiator by making it available, so that in the matter of logical priority, God is the first mover. It is therefore incorrect to say that our free will choice takes away God's sovereignty. The provision is nevertheless always general and universal, but the decision is individual and free. It is obvious that the solution is not easy, and we 89 submit that it does not lie in our systemisation of biblical truth. It is also true that predestination is only brought to bare on God's children, elected to eternal life (Berkouwer 1960:38), because it has in mind the believer's conforming to the image of Christ (Rom.8.29).
To set forth J.I Packer's argument generally in Evangelism and The Sovereignty of God, at this point is appropriate as it reflects our own attitude in this matter. It is not true to say that some Christians believe in divine sovereignty and others don't. All believe in divine sovereignty, though some may not he aware that they do, and mistakingly reject it. What causes this odd state of affairs? It is the intruding of rationalistic speculations, the passion for systematic consistency, a reluctance to recognise the existence of mystery' and to let God be wiser than men; and a consequent subjection of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic (p.16). They see that the Bible teaches man's responsibility for his actions; they cannot see how this is consistent with the sovereign lordship of God over those actions. They are not content that two truths can live side by side as they do in the Scriptures, but jump to the conclusion, that in order to uphold the biblical truth of human responsibility, they reject the equally biblical and equally true doctrine of the divine sovereignty. The desire to over-simplify the Bible by cutting out the mysteries is natural to our perverse minds.
Packer describes it as an antimony, an appearance of contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary. It is an apparent incompatibility between two apparent truths. An antimony exists when a pair of principles stand side by side, seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable (p.18). He uses the modern physics illustration of light - it consists of waves and the cogent evidence that it consists of particles. That is an antimony. An antimony is neither dispensable nor comprehensible. It is not deliberately manufactured; it is forced upon us by the facts themselves. It is unavoidable, and it is insoluble. We 90 don't invent it, and we cannot explain it. We cannot get rid of it, save by falsifying the very facts that led us to it (p.21).
We must accept it by faith. Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it. We must refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real, but rather see the deficiency in our understanding. The particular antimony of divine sovereignty and human responsibility is really one between God as King and God as Judge. He sights an excellent Scriptural example that includes both; Luke 22.22 "the Son of Man goes (to his death), as it was determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed". God's sovereignty is a reality, and man's responsibility is a reality too. Our speculations are not the measure of our God. The temptation is to undercut and maim the one truth by the way In which we stress the other. This we need to guard against.
We conclude therefore that God chose us sovereignly before the world began so that he may be glorified. That this has mystical overtones is supported by the purpose of predestination; that we should conform to the image of the Son (Rom.8.29), who is the image of the invisible God (Co1.1.15) and in whom the fullness of the God-head dwells (Col 1.19). The purpose of election can therefore be said to include God's glory and our glorification.
2.3.2 God the Reconciler of Us by Christ.
God is so high and exalted that we cannot worthily describe him. He is altogether holy and dwells in a light of Glory which sinful man cannot approach. No man can comprehend the eternity of his being, and the depths of his wisdom no one can
91 fathom. This was certainly Paul's understanding". To compound the problem, man is sinful and has no desire to find and to approach God. God has to initiate any possibility of fellowship between himself and man. We have seen that indeed this is so when in eternity he chose all believers in Christ. Now we consider his doing so in history when he reconciles the believer by Christ through the Cross. "But now in Christ, you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (Eph.2.13).
Reconciliation cannot be a biblical doctrine if it is devoid from the idea of being reconciled to God. It is humans who are reconciled to God. They must have peace with God to be reconciled to God, and that peace is brought about by the death of Christ ( Eph. 2.13-14 ). The death Of Christ is the means to the end; reconciliation with God. Men were cursed until their sins were expiated for by the sacrifice of Christ (Ga1.3.10,13) and were separated from God, until by the means of Christ's body they were received into union (Co1.1.21-22) (Calvin:435)).
In Romans 5.10 and 11.28 sinners are called "enemies of God" in a passive sense, indicating, not that they are hostile to God, but they are the objects of God's holy displeasure. (Berkhof 1941:374). In the latter verse this hostility is said in contrast with "the beloved of God". This is man's position because of his sinfulness, and it demands the need for him to be reconciled; not from the point of view that God must he brought near to him, but he must be brought near to God. An action by which enmity is changed into fellowship.
49Rom.11.33-36 "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and his ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become his counselor? Or who has first given to him and it shall be repaid to him? For of him and through him and to him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." 92 In 2Co.5.19 we see that God reconciles the world to himself since he does not reckon unto them their sins. This does not point to a moral change in man, but to the fact that the demands of the law are met and that God is satisfied. It was effected while they were yet sinners, enemies and objects of God's wrath (Rom.5.8-11). It is something that they have received. Jesus' death effects a new relationship between man and God. Through Christ, they who were God's enemies now enjoy fellowship with him.
Though the death of Christ effected a reconciliation with God, it nevertheless provided also the foundation of bringing reconciliation between humans; more specifically between Jews and Gentiles (Eph.2.11-22).
According to Penna, reconciliation is a thematic variation on the basic reality of the Cross of Christ. God's glory is shown in the importance of the Cross. Reconciliation is predicated by God's love. This is the place where the Christian God is revealed. This is how God reveals himself in history; as the one who gives true life through death. Now, we have access through faith because we have been reconciled (Rom.5.2). Our participation in sin was replaced with a participation with Christ in the divine presence and through divine favour. The reconciled have favour with God because they have peace with God.
2.3.3 God, The Blesser of Us with Christ.
The sovereign God who chose to bless humans, chose to do so in relation with Christ, his Son. So, when we say that they are blessed, we must say that it is so because of Christ. They are blessed because he is blessed and he is blessed because he has a special relationship with the Father. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in 93 the heavens in Christ" (Eph.1.3). The Pauline expression shows the method that God uses; He chose them in Christ before the foundation of the world (v 4), and he redeemed them through Christ's blood (v 7). It is aimed at getting together all things in Christ (v 10). These blessings are applied to those who have trusted in Christ and who have been sealed with the Holy Spirit as the possession of God (v 12-13).
God's blessings come across to believers as sons because of his Son. It is necessary for us to explore how their sonship is set in place and that God's blessings comes to them as heirs of his goodness. It is precisely in the context of sonship we are able to speak of them as God's household, and that in turn leads us to the concept of them as God's building in Christ: We shall therefore first discuss the matter of sonship and then that of God's building under the heading of God's blessing to us. The former is the motivation for the latter which has definite mystical overtones. a) Adoption as Sons.
According to Paul, the new relationship between God and the redeemed person, finds expression in the important concept, 'adoption as sons' or 'sonship'. In Greek the word is tio0eata (huiothesia). The Pauline proclamation of the Gospel extensively uses this concept of becoming sons.
Whether or not Paul has in mind the complicated Greco-Roman adoption legal system when he uses the concept, is still an issue which is researched by some. In Rom.8.14-17 and Ga1.4.6-8 he uses it as the basis to show the believer's privilege as heir of God. It may well have been the case that Paul used contemporary legal language to give expression to his preaching; but with Israel spoken of as children of God, the likelihood is that for Paul there is a link with the Old Testament understanding. In Rom.9.14 Paul states that the adoption ( viokaia) belonged to 94 Israel of the Old Covenant. By it he establishes the relationship between the old Israel and the new Israel of God (Ga1.6.16), now the true sons of God.
Ridderbos is of the opinion .that the concept of utaccria is not born out of the adoption-rites of the Hellenistic mysteries, but out of the Old Testament and is seen in Paul's salvation-historical background of Israel as the adoption of God (1975:197-204). The connection with Jesus, the Son of God, who was 'born of a woman, under the Law, to redeem those who were under the law', shows Paul's attitude and deep conviction of our adoption with Israel. He sees the relationship between God and Israel as extending to all who are in Christ and because of Christ.
The connection between the Church and Israel is maintained, and is established by Paul in that he speaks also of the sons of God as the 'seed of Abraham'. This kind of language shows the origin of Paul's doctrine of adoption as coming from the Old Testament. That does not mean that Paul does not invoke the legal implications understood in his own context, the Greco-Roman understanding. However, the reasons for adoption are not the same; i.e., to find an heir because there is none, or because a male heir was required. The idea however, was not totally foreign to the Old Testament, as Abraham at a point considered making his servant his heir because at that stage he had none (Gen.15.3). This would be considered rather as the adoption of a slave. There is no proof that this idea was a common practice of the day (Muntingh 1967:1-7).
Another idea which is very prevalent in the Old Testament, is that of the fatherhood of God. The concept is really only meaningful in the New Testament. In the Old Testament when a king was anointed as king of Israel, he was regarded and acknowledged as the son of God (Ps.2.7). The application was not realised until in the New Testament, especially with reference to Christ. We come to the conclusion then, that adoption in the juridical sense of the word was known in Old 95 Testament times, but it seems to have had little influence in their daily life. Israel was called on occasions the 'first born' 50 of the Lord (Ex.4.22 cf. Hos.11.1), and Ridderbos sees it as a confirmation of the covenant relationship between God and Israel.
In order to properly understand this covenant relationship, and the references to the father-son relationship between God and Israel with its requirements of the son (e.g.. De.14.1-15.23), Meredith G. Kline is of the opinion that certain covenant terms were indisposable (1963:86-91). He regards the covenant as one between God (the Great King) and Israel (the Vasal) to be found in De.32.6. It seems that in the covenant terms in the king-vasal relationship, that the maintenance of that covenant was dependant upon both parties. In other words, the relationship could end if one or both of the parties defaulted in those terms. This concept of adoption is most definitely not found in the Pauline corpus, though it might be true in the Old Testament covenant relationship between God and Israel.
Sonship and Election: In the Pauline writings, these concepts cannot be separated for they stand in the closest relationship and the one gives meaning to the other (Eph.1.5 and Rom.8.28-30). The election is undeserved and based solely upon God's grace.
Sonship and Freedom: That a former slave could be adopted, was demonstrated from Gen.15.3. For Paul this is the case as is reflected in Ga1.4.7, where believers are said to be no more slaves, but sons and heirs according to the promise in Christ. The contrast shown in this passage certainly serves to demonstrate their freedom. For Paul, the concepts of sonship and freedom were inextricably bound together (Ga1.4.21-31). Their new-found freedom in Christ is not to be exchanged
50 First-born often carries with it the meaning of priority and pre-emminence, or favoured. 96 again for bondage (Ga1.5.1,13). The climax of this freedom of the sons is most clearly expressed in the ultimate release of all creation from bondage when the sons of God are finally revealed (Rom.8.21). Mainly, their freedom is from the tyranny of sin and death. The creation will therefore be released from the decay and destruction that comes from man's bondage to sin.
Sonship and Inheritance: Inheritance follows from sonship. For Paul, uiokaia is the basis for our inheritance. The believers are heirs because of their relationship to Christ, and in turn, because of his relationship with Abraham and ultimately, with God. There are therefore covenant overtones in the Pauline writings. The promise to Abraham that is fulfilled in this was, except that Paul spiritualizes, the same as coming to us through Christ.
We, however, do not agree with Ridderbos, that sonship is purely objective and independent of our subjective faith in Christ (1975:198). It is the individual's placement in Christ, affected "when faith came" (Ga1.3.25-26). We must receive the adoption. That does not negate our belief that sonship is a gift. In Christ we are viewed as sons of God because he is the Son of God.
Another fact of sonship, is that it is related to the Holy Spirit. The work of the Holy Spirit in the believer expresses and confirms our sonship. There is a connection between our adoption as sons and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Though there may be a discrepancy between the interpretation of Ga1.4.6 ff., which seemed to indicate that sonship precedes the gift of the Holy Spirit, and of Rom.8.14-16, which shows that sonship results from the gift of the Holy Spirit. We are of the opinion that this particular problem does not matter in our discussion, since our aim is to show that there is a connection between our sonship and the gift of the Holy Spirit anyhow. Sonship and the gift of the Holy Spirit are in any case
97 inextricably bound together, and 'the Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are the children of God' 51 .
Neither do we find it necessary in this instance to establish which is the primary gift; the Holy Spirit or sonship as is the case with Ridderbos (1975:200). Both come with being in Christ, and one cannot exist in the believer's life without the other. The Holy Spirit is a confirmation of our sonship, and therefore we may cry "Abba Father" to confirm the existence of our relationship with God. We so cry in full awareness that we are God's children.
The believer is able to live in a true relationship of sonship, for the bondage and the fear is removed and the Holy Spirit allows him to know the mind of God, that is, the will of God. The Spirit, who according to John, guides us into all truth, is also called by Paul, the Spirit of sonship (adoption) in Rom.8.15; He seals the believer as being the possession of the Father. This sonship affects the believer individually in the deepest motive of his existence; his obedience to the Father.
The close connection between being led by the Spirit and being sons of God (Rom.8.14) is of considerable importance. Paul's point is emphatic (Fee 1994:564). The true evidence of sonship is the Spirit's leading, that is, to walk according to the Spirit. These, and only these, are the sons of God. As in Ga1.3.26-4.7, it is demonstrated that under the Spirit, God's people are now identified as the children of God. The Spirit who does not lead to slavery but freedom on the one hand, is the agent of adoption of sons on the other.
Van Aarde speaks of Paul's understanding of the true Israel of God as constituting the real people of God, and as being an inclusive and egalitarian community
51 Rom.8.16 98 (1998:96-111). All have equal entry to the grace of God. Conversely, now that God is present with his people; through this grace, he establishes his kingdom amongst men. Van Aarde interestingly shows that in the context of Israel's sonship in 2Co.6.16 ff, believers are spoken of as the temple of God. The connection of sons with the dwelling of God shows the mystical relevance.
Paul does not think of the children of Abraham as having biological connection; but rather as spiritual through Christ; for if it was by biological connection, then it would have excluded all other nations not descending from the lineage of Israel through whom the promise of blessings would be realised. It is for Paul about the New Israel, who are not necessarily connected biologically as the seeds of Abraham, but through Christ beconie the sons of God, and therefore heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. In this way through faith Christians have become the household of God, and children of the promise (Rom.9.4). So, do they become the Israel of God (Ga1.6.16) and the true Israel (Rom.11.25 ft).
The last thing we would like to mention at this point is Paul's mention in Rom.8.29 of Christ, the Son, as the 'first-born among many brethren'. It shows Christ's priority as son; it also shows the equality of the Christian's inheritance with his. Yet, the character of their sonship is a little different, in that they are made conformable to the image of God's son, Jesus Christ. Yes, Christ is unique as pre-existing son of God. He is the Son, and believers are the adopted sons of God. Christ is the example of our relationship of obedience (Phil.2.6-11).
b) As Building and Dwelling Place of God.
If sonship is one that is shared with Christ, and sonship in Christ is both a sonship of Abraham and a sonship of God, made possible by the Holy Spirit, then the triadic relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is particularly interesting. 99 So also, in regard to the temple motif, we, as believers are the building of God, where Christ is the corner stone and the Holy Spirit is the builder of this building for a dwelling place of God. Trinitarian overtones are clearly present. But, the believer, because he is God's temple and dwelling place, is in that way in close proximity to the Trinitarian God. The mystical sense can hardly go unnoticed.
In Pauline ecclesiology, the Church is seen as the building of God. The image of the Church as a building is used both in an active as well as a passive sense. In the building of this structure, new stones are also put into it, so that it exists of both new and old bricks. The idea is that the Church is made up of both Jews and Gentiles. It is an image of God's organisation in which the members mutually strengthen each other and exist as one organisation.
The Pauline application of the concept of God's building, is found in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians and Romans. Paul does not come with the idea as his own original idea, but, as Roberts postulates, the idea comes from the salvation motif in the Old Testament. The salvation motif in the Old Testament has the idea of building up and planting after the destruction and rooting out concept as found for example in Jeremiah 31.27-40 and Amos 9.12-15 (1983:3). Paul does however modify the image from a christological viewpoint. The Lord who builds his Church (2Co.10.8) is the subject of the building activity.
The Gentiles are also built into this building; this one, single building (Eph.2.19- 22). They are therefore no longer aliens but fellow citizens and members of God's household. Together they constitute a building built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ himself being the keystone. In Christ the building is one, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, and together it becomes the spiritual dwelling place of God.
100 Though the builder is God, believers, each having a gift/s of the Holy Spirit, are able to build up (edify) the building (body). Therefore, the gifted individuals are God's workmen. Yes, God builds the church and he uses human instruments to the same tasks. God is the one who brings the Church into existence. This work is inextricably bound to the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. Christ, the keystone, is the one who raises the temple to be a dwelling place for God. The presence of the Holy Spirit makes the Church of God to become the dwelling place of God; yet, the presence of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary for the actual building up of the building. God dwells in the believer through his Spirit.
It is clear that the task of building is salvation-historically based. By God's salvation-historical program, he is putting together an eschatological people; who are the beneficiaries of his grace and his gifts, so that the future of this building is absolutely secure (Roberts 1983:9). This is a building which is eternal in its nature, for it is not a building built with human hands, but by the eternal Spirit of Christ. Therefore, the Church is the result of the redemptive-historical working of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit.
As the building of God, the Church is God's dwelling place and his temple where he is honoured (1Co.6.20). God is honoured by our holy living so that the dwelling place of God through the Spirit should be undefiled (1Co.3.161). Also the instruments that God uses, gifted believers, are to avail themselves in total obedience to the master builder, God. By so doing, they honour him.
Not only does the image of God's building show God's activity, it also shows the inherent unity of the Church. The two, namely Jews and Gentiles, have become one building in Christ. There is only one building of God, the Church, and no other. This unity is also referred to as the 'household of God' (Eph.2.19-20) and in 101 Ga1.6.10 as the 'household of faith'. The two ideas of "building" and of "household" are hound together as Christ is the "keystone" in the building and the "brother" in the household. The unity is made clear in the metaphor that Christ is the keystone joining together all that are built into this building (Foulkes 1989:95).
The mystical character of this particular image is completely Trinitarian. There is the "God-mysticism" in the sense that God is the one dwelling with the believer and in the believer. He is the one who descends to dwell with us, rather than us ascending to meet with him. There is a "Christ-mysticism" in that Christ is the one who holds the building together and actually brings unity among believers. There is a "Spirit-mysticism" in two ways; i) that the Holy Spirit is the organiser of the workmen as instrumental in the up-building process, and ii) that the Holy Spirit is the mode of God's dwelling in this building.
2.3.4 God, the Lover of Us through Christ.
Penna is of the opinion that this is the starting point of all discourse about the mystical participation of a Christian: a deliberation by God in its execution. It all begins with the revelation of God's love in and through Jesus Christ (1966:249). Through Christ, God's grace was abundantly poured out on all who are in Christ (Rom.5.15). The whole point of God's love is that he took, and takes the initiative. He demonstrated his love to us while we were sinners (Rom.5.8). This demonstration of God's love is the first point of any relationship between him and humanity.
For Paul, this love relationship comes out in several ways. One such is the
"knowledge" of God. We are not referring to theoretical or rational knowledge, but as the sense is in the Old Testament, to know God is to worship him and to 102 experience him. It could not mean human wisdom, for human wisdom is inadequate (1Co.1.21). To know is to be known by him first (Ga1.4.9). In other words, to know God, is to experience his dealings. It is to know him in an intimate way, just as Adam knew Eve and they became one flesh. It is to know God in a personal way (cf: 1Co.3.8; 13.12; Ga1.4.9). Knowing God is reciprocating; we may know God because he knows us. It is here where God's initiatory role in this relationship is emphasised.
The Apostle Paul speaks from his experience of the revelation that he received. God chose to reveal his Son to him and in him (Ga1.1.15-16). Dunn finds the connection here with the illumination of the knowledge of the glory in our hearts (2Co.4.6) (1998:47). This sense of knowledge from God as personal revelation is clearly present also in 1Co.2.7-13, a revelation through the Spirit of God. The mystical experience of Paul's journey to heaven, may certainly be included in this aspect of revelation. Also, it seams like Paul's Damascus road experience is regarded by himself as the revelation of Christ, and therefore of God's love.
The love which he received, he attributed to God. The love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts (Rom.5.5). That he was kept by God's love was undoubtedly seen as him being kept by God himself. Nothing and nobody was able to separate us from the love of God, and this love is in Christ Jesus (Rom.8.35-39). Whether it comes from the natural world (height and depth), it cannot separate the believer from God's love; or whether it comes from the spiritual world (angels, principalities, powers), it cannot separate them from God's love; or whether it comes from the physical world (danger or sword), it cannot separate them from God's love. It simply means that none of these things can separate us from God, for it has in mind both our present and our final state and estate in Christ.
103 The believer's sense of personal intimacy is confirmed by the reference to the "Abba Father" cry distinctive of Christian discipleship in Rom.8.15 and Ga1.4.6 (Dunn 1998:49). For Paul, God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (2Co.1.3: 11.31; Rom.15.6; Co1.3.1; Eph.1.3) so that this familiar invocation, "Abba", is utterable only because they (the believers) have the Holy Spirit in their hearts (Ga1.4.6). God has come to encounter humanity with his love. To quote Penna: 'to cancel out the grace of God (Ga1.2.21) is simply equivalent to having nothing more to do with Christ' (Ga1.5.4) (1996:250), and for that matter with the God who has thus showed his love.
God's revelatory and redemptive action is predicated by his love. Because of that love, we have experienced the ponder of the Gospel, otherwise spoken of as the 'revelation of Christ'. What a mystery has now been made known to all who are in Christ! The only response required, is faith in Christ. God does everything else; that is, from the election to the glorification of the believer; and that because of his love. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit, in the heart of the believer is proof of God's love for him, and by that same Spirit he is sealed as belonging to God.
We therefore conclude that any "mystical" relationship between the believer and God is because of God's grace. God came down to us rather than us ascend to him. God is the first mover; he took the initiative in bringing man to himself. God's love is the motivation behind all of this. We may know him intimately because he revealed himself to us in love. God loved us while we were sinners, and for those who responded to his love, he promised that they shall never be separated from his love in any way. Why? Because God is more powerful than all else. If he chooses to have us close to him, or in fellowship with himself, nobody and nothing can change that. He came down in order to make his dwelling place with man. True 'mysticism' therefore never excludes God's grace as the means and the motivation for personal communion with him. 104 2.4 Participation
In the expression of God's love and grace, God revealed himself to man in many ways. He revealed himself primarily in his Word, and ultimately in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ. It pleased the Father that in him (Christ) should all the fullness of the Godhead dwell (Co1.1.19). Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God, so that he is the embodiment of the creator, God 52 . Therefore it was God in Christ who reconciled us to himself by the cross (2Co.5.19). It was this reconciliation that made communion between God and man possible. In other words, there is no communion without reconciliation; and there is no reconciliation without the cross of Christ; and the cross of Christ is the demonstration of God's love. The cross of Christ is only meaningful in the light of the resurrection.
Jesus Christ, the God-man, is therefore reasonably the place where God and man meets. This is demonstrated in the saying of Paul; to be "in Christ" and its equivalents ("in him", etc.) 53. If God is in Christ (2Co.5.19) and the believer is in Christ (locatively), then it follows that this is where God and man meet; in Christ. This idea may be demonstrated in various ways in the Pauline writings. These will be explored below.
It is important to bear in mind that the Pauline formula "in Christ" is applied with much versatility - a variety of interpretations can he ascribed to it. Already we showed that one cannot push any esoteric, purely subjective character too far. We have already rejected such. That does not mean to say that the believer's union with Christ must be overlooked. Union with Christ is
52Co1.1 .15-18.
53 Celia Kourie reminds us of the fact that, although the Pauline use of 'in Christ' is distinctive, nevertheless the concept is not invented. (1987:34) 105 the very heart of Paul's religion. Being "in Christ" is what permeates our whole existence as Christians. The objective nature of "in Christ" is thus of prime importance.
2.4.1 Christ our Substitute and Representative.
It is the common New Testament understanding that Jesus Christ is the believer's substitute and representative, so that before God the believer is seen as in Christ and that Christ is their mediator. These two aspects may be demonstrated on various planes of understanding. Paul in particular sees Christ's atoning work in that light.
Soteriologically or Redemptively, Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1Co.15.3). The death of Christ is central in Paul's thinking, so that he uses a considerable variety of expressions to refer to Christ's death. The death of Christ is also called the blood of Christ (Rom.3.25; Rom.5.9; Eph.1.7; Eph.2.13 and Co1.1.20). The death of Christ is spoken of as the cross of Christ (1Co.1.7f, Ga1.5.11; Ga1.6.12,14; Eph.2.16; Phil.2.8; Co1.1.20 and Co1.2.14). Again, the death of Christ is also called his Crucifixion (1Co 1.23; 1Co.2.2 and Ga1.3.1).
It is on the cross that 'God demonstrated his love towards us' (Rom.5.8). This just God had to punish humanity for their sins, but because Christ died, he rather showed his love than his wrath. Christ took the punishment of their sins when he died on the cross. 'God did not spare his own son, but delivered him up for us all' (Rom.8.32). Christ 'loved me and gave himself for me' (Ga1.4.2). Christ loved us and gave himself for us (Eph.2.25). Because Paul does not distinguish between the love of God and the love of Christ we see that it is because of this love that Christ died for us. 106 While this means that Christ died for our benefit, it is equally true that Christ died on our behalf. He is a sacrifice to God on our behalf. The death of Christ is described as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Eph.5.2). Whenever the phrase "for sin" is used in connection with Christ's death, Paul uses it in sacrificial language. Especially in 1Corinthians 5.7 where Christ is 'the passover lamb that was slain'. Christians were justified by Christ's death. According to Paul, love always means the concrete spending of one's existence for the sake of others, and particularly in dying for them. Christ died for the godless and for sinners (Rom.5.6ff), for the brethren (Rom.14.15) and for all men (2Co.5.14). The "for us" always forms the central motif (Kasemann 1970:158).
Yet, "for us" may also mean that Christ died in our place. He became a curse for us (Ga1.3.13). He gave his life a ransom for many. He was representative in his death. Because Christ has 'died for all, therefore all have died' (2Co.5.14). Because of his death, those who believe, are spared that death.
Mankind on the one hand is in bondage to sin. Christ on the other hand is free from sin. Because we are enslaved to sin, Paul speaks of Christ having been put forward as our redeemer. He gave himself to redeem us from all iniquity (Tit.2.14). The verb Xtri-p6o, here has the idea of him giving himself as the price of ransom. We are justified by his grace through the "redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation through his blood" (Rom.3.24). We have redemption through his blood (Eph.1.7). Here the emphasis is on the cost of man's redemption (Ladd 1974:433). Therefore Paul speaks of the believer as having been bought with a price (1Co.6.19-20). According to Hooker, the statement of 'interchange' offers a real clue to Paul's understanding of the atonement. This, she believes is more closely linked with the incarnation. The cross is, of course, vital, but it is the completion of the whole of Christ's life of 107 obedience. It is as man's representative rather than his substitute, that Christ suffers (1971:358). The result is that in Christ men become what they were intended to be from the creation.
The representation of Christ is seen particularly in the area of righteousness. Because of what Christ has done on the cross, the believer has been declared righteous. Not that they have their own righteousness, but that which is Christ's (Phil.3.9). In Christ, the believer has come into a righteous relationship with God. The thrust of that righteous declaration of God is essentially on a subjective level. As we have shown earlier, that justification is both a present reality as it is a future verdict for the believer. In Christ, God justifies the ungodly (Rom.4.5). Therefore, in Christ the believer does not stand 'condemned (Rom.8.1).
Furthermore, this acquittal comes entirely apart from any good works or works of the law, but by faith in Christ (Ga1.2.16; Ga1.3.11). A righteousness through the law was completely outside man's reach, and only Christ could fully keep the law. Since they have been made righteous through faith in Christ, they have peace with God (Rom.5.1). Justification does not happen by faith apart from Christ, as if faith is the means of justification, but it is faith in Christ so that through Christ they are justified54. The paradox of 2Co.5.21 is appropriate at this point: "For our sake he (God) made him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might become the righteousness of God". Christ became sin even though he knew no sin; so we may become righteous even though we knew no righteousness. In Ladd's words: "God made the (ethically) sinless one to be a sinner (forensically). Thus the man in Christ is actually righteous, not ethically but forensically" (1974:446).
54 Thus E.P.Sanders himself, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 502: "Righteousness by faith and participation in Christ ultimately amount to the same thing" (506) 108 In the context of reconciliation, Christ is seen as the mediator between God and man. The two parties (God and man) are at variance and the restoration of that relationship, is called reconciliation. Without the God-man there cannot be reconciliation between God and man. The incarnation is therefore important in facilitating reconciliation. Jesus had to become a man so that he could represent man before God, and God before man. Reconciliation is the restoration of the justified person to fellowship with God.
Christ became a curse and he was made to be sin. Christ was made a curse in order that a blessing might come to others, he was made sin in order that others might become the righteousness of God. It must be understood that the word "sin" does not mean "sin-offering", as it is used in contrast and in the form of parallelism, with the righteousness of God (2Co.5.21). M.D Hooker sees this as a strong possibility when one takes seriously the parallel statement in Gal.3.13; Christ becoming a curse so that we might be blessed. Furthermore, Christ became a curse by hanging on a tree, so that we might be set free from the curse of the Law. Christ sets men free from the curse of the Law, by coming under the same curse; how? on the cross! Christ has set men free from the curse because the judgement of the Law has been overruled; he brought blessings to the gentiles because he himself has become a blessing (1971:350-1).
Since man was estranged from God because of sin, it was man who needed to be reconciled. Paul never speaks of God reconciling himself to man 55 . God is always the subject of reconciliation and man or the world as the object. "God was in
55 "The Apostle in his theology on the one hand gives no space to the ideas of guilt and repentance, and on the other hand takes no account of the efficacy of the whole expiatory system of Judaism. This is because his point of departure is not so much anthropological as kerygmatic; the proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the faith that in him God has come to humanity with a gracious deed, which actually passes over previous sin and renders every other system useless." So does E.P.Sanders indicate that forensic justification leads to pneumatic fellowship with Christ (p500), Paul and Palestinian Judaism. 109 Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2Co.5.19). They who were once alienated and enemies are now reconciled through Christ's death (Co1.1.21-22). Both Jew and Gentile were reconciled through the cross to God (Eph.2.15-16). They were reconciled to God through the death of his Son (Rom.5.10). It can be seen that God is the initiator of reconciliation and accomplished it through Christ. It is accomplished for man's salvation. Man's active hostility toward God or his passive state of hostility made him incapable of initiating any sort of reconciliation. All he has to do, is accept what Christ has done, and so be reconciled to God (2Co.5.20). The results of reconciliation are fellowship and peace with God, and this peace is grounded upon the redemptive work of Christ. Also, in Christ, there is peace among men, in that they who were separated from one another became one.
Ecclesiologically, the people of God are his because they are his in Christ. They 'are bought with a price, and are God's possession'. God's people are collectively called his temple (1Co.3.16-17). As God's building their foundation is Jesus Christ (1Co.3.11) and he is the corner stone joining together Jew and Gentile (Eph.2.14//). It is noteworthy that for Paul, the people of God are defined as finding their form and unity in 'the foundation' and 'corner stone'. 'Christ is our peace' (Eph.3.14), therefore Jew and Gentile are united. He gave his own body so that they should become his body. Paul applies the metaphor of temple to the universal church (Eph.2.19-22).
It is just as correct to say that the Church is Christ's representative in this world. If the Church is his body, then the Church is Christ 'incarnated' in this world. The Church is "one new man" as it has become such in Christ, the last Adam. The reciprocal relationship between Christ and the Church is found in the aspect of being a new man. As body, the Church is the expression of Christ's person. In fact he is the head of the Church. In that he is its progenitor and Lord, not a member of the Church. The whole Church is his body. Jesus' obedience as the suffering 110 servant (Phil.2.7-8) reverses Adam's disobedience (Rom.5.15j). Because of this, God confers lordship on Christ (Phil.2.9-11).
It should be noticed that Paul never just speaks of the Church as a body per se, it is always the body in Christ (Rom.12.15) or the body of Christ (1Co.12.27). This metaphor is used to express the oneness of the Church with Christ. The Church is not a body or a society of believers, but it is the body of Christ. The metaphor also shows a unity in diversity - one body, many members. Participation in the body of Christ is also represented in the Eucharist. Not only do we partake of his body and blood, but we also participate in his living body.
Baptism expresses a like representation. Holy Spirit baptism (1Co.12.13) is the placement of the believer in the body. Men are baptised "into Christ" (Rom.6.3 and Ga1.3.27). At the same time baptism is identifying with Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom.6.1-4 and Co1.2.12). Therefore the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ in his body is representative of the Church whose members have died with Christ (Gal.2.20) and have been resurrected with him (Col.3.1). The signification of baptism is dying to sin, represented by Christ, dying for sin. Paul's baptismal language speaks more frequently of its application to the body as a whole than to its members as individuals.
The idea of fellowship is a reality because the Church shares a common relationship with Christ (1Co.1.9). the Church is the fellowship of the elect (Eph.1.4 and 1Th.1.4) regardless of social status, race or gender. The elect are called 'saints', 'holy ones' or 'the sanctified'. The Greek word translated "saints" is almost never used in the singular. They are the ones sanctified in Christ, called to be saints (1Co.1.2). Christ has become its sanctification (1Co.1.30 and 1Co.6.11). Again, our identity is linked to our identification with Christ.
1 1 1 Cosmologically, Jesus expressed his Lordship over the Church first. This Lordship is universal, but it is shown specifically in the Church and through the Church over principalities and powers. Secondly, the Church is the expression of the new creation, the handiwork of the creator. The Church is the heavenly colony in this present evil world.
To Christ every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord. His
Lordship is already represented in the Church. In the future, they shall reign with him. His rulership therefore is representative of our rulership with him in the future.
Christ as the last Adam is put int&a position where he can fulfil God's purpose precisely where Adam failed. Adam was supposed to be ruler of all the earth.
When Paul speaks of Jesus as the last Adam, this is a christology with representative significance. Otherwise referred to as Paul's Adam-christology
(Dunn 1998:200). He deliberately sets Jesus alongside Adam as the one who answers to the claimant and long standing emergency brought about by Adam's disobedience. The first Adam is representative of humanity in its fall, and Christ is the eschatological counterpart of primeval Adam. In sin, we belong to the first epoch, that is, we are "in Adam". All who belong to the eschatological epoch are
"in Christ". Dunn argues it in this way: in his adamic role Jesus first shared the actual destiny of the first Adam (death) before he achieved the intended goal for
Adam (dominion over all things). In this highly symbolic christology, Jesus first represented old Adam before he became the last Adam (1Co.15.45) (1998:202).
Paul thinks of this relationship with the last Adam as something that comes with the resurrection. Jesus being born of a woman and under the law (Ga1.4.1-3), was representative of humanity to redeem humanity from the curse of sin.
112 The Adam-Christ interplay is the interplay of death and life (ICo.15.22); or to be more precise, the interplay of a life which ends only in death, and a life which dies but which also conquers death in resurrected life. If Jesus dies, then all are dead. Therefore death has no more dominion over those who are in Christ. Christ's death and resurrection mean that any and all heavenly powers have lost any effective power over those who belong to Christ and any effective say in their destiny (Dunn 1998:230).
Christ's reconciling embraces the whole cosmos (Co1.2.10 and Phil.2.10). Both in nature and in history. On the cross he disarmed all powers. It is striking that the mystery of the call of the Gentiles to the Christian faith should be made known to the principalities and powers the heavenly places through the Church (Eph.3.10). Moreover, because of the love of God in Christ towards us, we shall not he separated from it by these cosmological powers (Rom.8.38).
Christ is spoken of as the 'firstfruits from the dead' (1Co.15.20). Also, he is the 'first born among many brethren' (Rom.8.29). In Paul, Christians are the firstfruits of God's creatures because they are brought forth by the Word of truth. The Church is one new man created in Christ who stands before God representing all men. We thus see ourselves as God's act of creation in Christ, as his workmanship (Eph.2.10). We are created in the image of our Creator (Eph.4.24). Jesus is the representative of this image, the image of the invisible God (Co1.1.19).
The question is whether there is to be a restoration to a previous state; that is of the original creation? Is this the idea that reconciliation includes? From Rom.8.21ff all creation will be set free with the manifestation of the sons of God. Our freedom seems to be the initiation of the freedom of the rest of creation. But what form will this freedom take? If the sons will be other than flesh and blood (1Co.15.50), one can expect the cosmos also to be in a different form. This seem to concur with 113 John's "new heaven and new earth" and the fact that there will be "no more sea" (Rev.21.1). If in the context of a new creation, we no longer regard Christ as in the flesh (2Co.5.16f), we also think of ourselves no longer in mere physical terms.
While many regard the Philippian hymn as non-Pauline, we might nevertheless expect Paul to use his material in a Pauline way. It is Paul's understanding that to be found in Christ is to have the righteousness of God; it is to know the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, and to be conformed to his death, in hope of the resurrection from the dead. The cosmological terms in Phil.2.10 render the letter's christology importance for the theme of creation and redemption. Christ's total power is seen here. The point of this verse is to proclaim the universality of Christ's Lordship. The final redemption of creation, which was purposed before creation (cf. 2.6 and Eph.1.9-10) is a result of Jesus' reconciling work. The cosmic role of Christ is described in the hymn in functional terms. Christ is spoken of both as in the form of a servant and in the form of God: both of his humiliation and his exaltation, and in the cosmic confession of his Lordship (Gibbs 1970:273). The relation between creation and redemption was from the beginning implied in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, because only as Lord could he overcome cosmic evil.
In conclusion we may say that from this self emptying of Christ (kenosis), the manward movement of God is clearly seen. With the exaltation of Christ as Lord, God's redemptive purpose for creation is consummated, and when creation responds in affirming that Lordship.
Another question is the one of universalism. In Rom.8.21f we are told that the creation was subjected to 'groaning' not out of its own will, but by the will of God. It was subjected because of the failure of mankind. Mankind had a free will but not creation. While it is correct to say that the purpose of the cross concerned 114 not only the Church, but rather that the creation may respond affirmatively to the redemptive Lordship of Christ, it is incorrect to think that man does not need to come to faith in a subjective way. Gibbs is therefore incorrect when he says that the servant form of Jesus' Lordship guarantees that, though the creation is not the source of redemption, yet it is the place within which the redemptive purpose is consummated (1970:283). So, when it comes to humanity, Paul understands that there are two categories; those who are 'in Christ', and the 'rest of men who have no hope' (1Th.4.13f). Secondly, the freedom of creation depends on the manifestation of the sons of God (Rom.8.23) whom Paul identifies as those who are lead by the Spirit (Rom.8.14). We therefore conclude that while redemption is related to creation, the doctrine of universalism is untenable.
It is so particularly because Paul always preached for a decision "with a view to the obedience of faith among all the nations" (Rom.1.5). Paul always speaks of hearers who must believe (Rom.10.14-17) unto salvation. Paul commanded the Corinthians to be reconciled to God (2Co.5.20). The call of God must be responded to (Rom.4.17, 8.30, 1Co.7.15-24, Ga1.1.15, etc). People had to receive what God offered. There was a transition where there was an ending and a beginning. Though Paul does not use the term "conversion" (accept in 1Th.1.9) to define this beginning, he nevertheless understood that a commitment to Christ was necessary. That was a commitment of faith; an initial experience of grace. (Dunn 1998:324). Paul definitely did not hold a universalistic doctrine of salvation; there was a coming to faith, repentance and forgiveness necessary. Furthermore, there seems to be a confessional commitment to Jesus as Lord, which included the public witness of baptism in the name of Jesus. We can hardly doubt that most of Paul's audiences would be well able to recall the day when they became "Christian".
Lastly, death as a tyrannical cosmological power is overcome by Christ's resurrection (Black 1984:419). In Rom.5.1-11 the image of death is seen as 115 stemming from human disobedience to God's order (i.e.. an "ethical rupture" as in the Hebraic sense) so becoming a personal and cosmic power. Death is the manifestation of sin's reign (Rom.5.21). Paradoxically, death is thus both the oppressor and the medium by which Christians are liberated from that oppression (Black 1984:425). Death has been dethroned as lord over creation by the Lord Jesus Christ. Even in the imagery of head of the Body, Christ is understood both as creator and cosmological ruler (Pelser 1973:158). Christ is the beginning of everything. Cosmologically, therefore, Christ represents the fullness of life, for death has no power whatsoever over him and over all those who believe in him. The sting of death has been removed (1Co.15.54-57). Therefore, through his victory over death, not even death can separate the believer from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Rom.8: 37). So, Christ leads them in triumphant procession as they spread the fragrance of his knowledge. Christ represents those for whom the knowledge of Christ is the fragrance of life (2Co.2.14-16).
We therefore conclude that Christ is their substitute in the matter of soteriology; that is redemptively speaking. It is more accurate to refer to him as representative in every other area mentioned above. In fact there seems to be an interchange in the concepts of representation. Often we are representatives of him as much as he is of us; or rather for us. The latter is probably the best way of expressing our relationship to Christ. That relationship can be best understood by the 'Us in Christ' and the 'Christ in Us' concept.
2.4.2 Us in Christ and Christ in Us - the Life of Christ in the Believer.
The cursed Christ, in effect put out of the covenant, brought the blessings of Abraham to the Gentiles and made it possible for all who are in Christ to receive the promised Holy Spirit (Ga1.3.14). By the Spirit believers have been made new 116 so that they are no longer held by the grip of sin and death. This is precisely so because sin and death has no power over him who died and rose again (Rom.6.7- 10). •
Paul integrates the thought of God's righteousness imputed on Abraham with that of Christ's death as a sacrifice. The believer shares in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, as Dunn observes, Paul's "in Christ" language is much more pervasive in his writings than his talk of "God's righteousness" (1988:391). Being in Christ expressed the most intimate possible fellowship of the Christian with the living spiritual Christ. Deissmann speaks of the phrase "in Christ" as a kind of atmosphere in which Christians live. "Just as the air of life, which we breathe, is "in" us and fills us, yet we at the some time live in this air and breathe it, so it is also with the Christ-intimacy of the Apostle Paul: Christ in him, he in Christ" (1926:140).
The "experience" of us in Christ is admitting to mysticism on an objective level. But that does not exclude the possibility of subjective mysticism as Penna seems to believe (1996:236), because the "Christ in Us" cannot, but be on a subjective level. However, we have to qualify what we mean by subjective: by personal faith, every individual believer has Christ in him or her. In the sense that it includes the whole Church (the body of believers), it can be spoken of as objective.
The formula "in Christ" occurs 170 times in all its variants and is characteristic of Paul56. We are all one in Christ Jesus (Ga1.3.28). This cannot be reduced to the mere meaning that we are all Christians because the accent is placed on unity by
56 Rom. 1Co. 2Co. Gal. Eph. Phil. Col. 1Th. 2Th. Phm. Past 'in Christ' 13 12 7 7 13 10 3 4 2 3 9 'in the Lord' 8 9 2 1 8 9 4 3 1 2 0 Other variants are 'in him' , 'in whom', 'in the Lord', 'in God', 'in the Lord Jesus (Christ)', 'in Christ Jesus our Lord'. 117 using the masculine cis rather than eii. Quoting Schlier, Penna says that as a Christian one no longer lives on the basis of one's earlier, ancient origin (Adam), through which one rather dies (1Co.15.22); one no longer lives in the flesh, on one's own, no longer in the world (Co1.2.20), in confined dimensions of the world and of one's own powers, but rather in Christ Jesus (1996:257).
Paul's 'in Christ' is union in the sense of fellowship and identification with Christ, not the deification of the believer. That this is indeed the case is supported by the Gospels and in the Johannine corpus, as for example in Mt.18.20 "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst", and Jn.15.4 "abide in me and I in you". Paul, however, when he refers to this kind of fellowship with Christ, never uses "with". He always uses "in", to characterise the fellowship we have with the exalted Lord. Paul uses "with" to denote the future status of Christians in Christ (Co1.3.4) (Kourie 1987:34) 57. It is therefore accurate to say that this mysticism of fellowship is pivotal for an understanding of Paul's 'in Christ' phrase.
The sheer numerical frequency of the 'in Christ' formula, shows its significance in the mind of Paul. He uses it in varied ways, as for example: 'one body in Christ' (Rom.12.5; 'babes in Christ' (1Co.3.1); 'new creation in Christ' (2Co.5.17); 'justified in Christ' (Ga1.2.17); 'God was in Christ' (2Co.5.19); 'spiritual blessings in Christ' (Eph.1.3). So one can enumerate some of the cognate phrases like 'in the Lord' or 'in Him', to show the variety of uses of the same sense in Paul.
Stewart reminded us that no such a phrase has ever been used, or indeed could ever be used of any of the sons of men. The fact is when we speak of being in Christ,
57Kourie, however, overlooks the fact that Paul in the previous verses, using 'with' , refers to the present status of the believer in Christ; 'quickened with Christ' , 'raised with Christ'.
118 we are consciously or unconsciously making a confession of faith. Not only are we showing the privilege we have, but we are showing by it that Christ is a living and present Spirit, whose nature is the very nature of God. (1935:154). He continues by saying that the key to the phrase is that Christ is the redeemed man's new environment58. He has been lifted out of his earthly lot into a totally different sphere, the sphere of Christ (p157). Of course this is not the meaning in every occurrence of the phrase as has been shown earlier.
Paul uses the phrase with certain flexibility, and it does not always carry the same depth of meaning. It is used sometimes to simply denote 'Christian' (e.g. 1Co.4.10 and Ga1.1.22). Each occurrence should therefore be carefully examined within its own particular context. However, 'it includes the following meanings; to be a Christian; to be joined to the living person of Christ; to participate with Christ; to be enveloped by Christ; to have Christ resident in the believer; faith in Christ; being clothed with Christ; and being under Christ's dominion. Every case is expressive of our salvation and the benefits we have in Christ. Neugebauer makes an important observation; that the destinction between 'in Christ' and 'in the Lord', is that the former has indicative connotations, and the latter has imperative connotations (1957:128). 'In Christ' has the notion of belonging to Christ and it illustrates the union we have with him.
There is a close correlation and inter-relation between the glorified Saviour and the Spirit. Without distinguishing, Paul speaks of being jittified in Christ (Ga1.2.17) and in the Spirit (1Co.6.11), and of being sanctified in Christ and in the Spirit (Eph.4.30). All this is so because Christ has merited the Spirit for us by his death and resurrection, so having sent the Spirit into the believer. It is therefore natural and legitimate to use the phrase 'in the Spirit' to elucidate the harder phrase ' in
58 This idea is well illustrated in Deissmann, previously quoted.
119 Christ'. Paul's thought of the living Christ is so closely hound with his thought of the Holy Spirit that he seems on occasion to use the two names almost interchangeably 59 .
Believers can only be sons of God through union with Christ69 , the only Son of God. By the Holy Spirit they may cry 'Abba Father'. Thus the Spirit makes them children of God. Thus they are in Christ and Christ is in them through the Spirit. Put in a different way, they are sons of God because they are in the Son of God; they are in Christ.
Their union with Christ also expresses their union with one another61 as believers because they are in Christ. In Philippians, Paul exhorts Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind 'in the Lord' (4.2). Here again, 'in the Lord' must be given full weight, and in the way that Neugebauer indicated, as the imperative showing our being in Christ. By it they must remember their common union with Christ. For Paul there is no union with Christ that does not have far-reaching effects in the moral sphere, because union with the eternal was not a human achievement; it was a gift of God. Therefore we can speak of both an indicative union with Christ and an imperative union with all who are in Christ.
There is no doubt that in Paul's mind, the metaphor of being 'clothed with Christ' is another way of saying that we are 'in Christ'. He speaks in the sense of 'putting on' the Lord Jesus Christ62. Those who have been baptised into Christ, have put
59 cf. 1Co.15.45 and Rom.8.9-11
60 That is why one will see the concept of being baptized into Christ as being very prominent in Paul.
61 This has in mind the concept of the Church.
62 eg. Rom.13.14 and Co1.3.10 where we are told to 'put on' the 'new man'
120 on Christ (Ga1.3.27). The idea is that of being clothed with Christ. Again, it comes out in a locative sense; that the believer is covered or enveloped with Christ, so that he is not seen, but him with whom the believer is clothed.
This idea comes out in another way. Paul exhorts the believer to 'put on the new man' (Eph.4.24; Co1.3.10). This new man, he says is created after the image of Christ. There is, or has to be, some correlation between the so-called 'new man' and the 'last man' or the 'last Adam' 63. In the first place, in Christ both Jew and Gentiles have been made 'one new man', that is, the Church, the body of Christ (Eph.2.140. The Church, being the incarnation of Christ, is understood by Paul as those who are made alive in Christ and bearing the image of the heavenly man (1Co.15.49). Paul speaks eschatologically.
Putting on the new man, is in the second place, the ethical imperative of being in Christ and being like Christ, for the new man is created in his image. Dunn, mentions an important consideration in that, what is envisaged by Rom.13.14, for instance, is something which can he repeated. It is putting on the character of Christ that is envisaged (1998:454). However, while Paul can use it for the 'once- for-all' of becoming a Christian or being in Christ in Ga1.3.27, Dunn feels that it is not necessarily baptismal in its imagery (1998:454). We cannot entirely agree with him, because Paul speaks in the context of sonship, which is necessarily ours in Christ, the Son. Baptism sets forth the union between the believer and Christ, not as the initiation of that union, but as the signification of that union. Stott puts it like this: 'thus in Christ, by faith inwardly (v26) and baptism outwardly (v27), we are all sons of God' (1968:99).
63 Christ being the 'last man' is not a new man per se, but the believer becomes that because he is being conformed in the image of Christ, and no more the image of Adam, the first man. Therefore the believer is a new man individually, and 'one new man' corporately. 121 The phrase 'in Christ' is also the imagery of the believer's participation in Christ. This has in mind his becoming part of Christ's experiences. They come to share in Christ's deeds and benefits. Therefore it can be spoken of as the believer being crucified and resurrected with Christ. The believer is seated with Christ in the heavenlies. Such is the participation of the believer with Christ.
So far as the sense of belonging to Christ is concerned, this is also brought out in the phrase 'in Christ'. The intense feeling of personal belonging and of spiritual relationship with the exalted Lord. Christ is sublimated into the abstract entity of pneuma, into the principle of the new Christian life. Behind Paul's mysticism of being 'in Christ' stands the living experience of the Lord Christ present in worship and practical life. Therefore Paul can speak of "yet not I, but Christ lives in me, so that the life I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God" (Ga1.2.20).
'Christ in me' seems to have practical implications. It also seems that most scholars treat the 'Christ in me' texts as synonymous with the 'in Christ' phrase. The main sense is that of Christ indwelling the believer (Rom.8.10; 2Co.13.5; Ga1.2.20; Co1.1.27). Christ is a living inner source for the believer to live in practical holiness. It is a present reality with future realisation still maintained ('Christ in you ... the hope of glory' 64 and 'Christ who is our life' 65). Christ dwells in our hearts through faith (Eph.3.17). Here Ga1.2.20 illuminates our understanding of the 'Christ in me' aspect. The union described is not such as to cancel the individual personality66 of the Christian. First of all, it is a relationship of faith ('I live in the faith of the Son of God ... '). By faith the believer accepts God's love
64 Co1.1.27
65 Co1.3.4
66 Celia Kourie finds here the distinction between the so-called Pauline mysticism and that of the mystery religions of his day. She says that there is no concept analogous to 'in Christ' in the mystery religions and the literature of the ancient Greek world. (1987:34) 122 and the gift of Christ. Secondly, there is connection with the mortal life, that is 'life which I now live in the flesh' so that it has to do with the task of living the Christian life.
The use of the motif 'with Christ' is a striking feature in Paul. It is used often with future reference, and speaks of being in the company of Christ in heaven or at the parousia. There are however passages that speaks of our dying or being raised with Christ (Rom.6.8; Co1.2.20; Co1.3.3; 2Co.4.14). In these instances we certainly have mystical overtones. Together with Co1.2.13, it speaks of believers as already having died or being made alive "with him". Dunn warns that to focus on the 'with Christ' or 'with him' motifs in Paul, would be a mistake as more than half of the forty New Testament occurrences of with-compounds appear only in Paul, and that these compounds carry varied meanings that contribute to the overall motif (1998:402). In most cases he describes our common privileges, tasks and experiences with Christ. The death-resurrection motif shows prominently in these compounds, uniting the believer with Christ, particularly Rom.6.4-8 and Rom. 8.16-29.
The matter of being Christ's, stems from Paul's frequent use of the genitive Christou (Xpta-roi)). In 1Co.15.23, those who are Christ's, will participate in his resurrection. In Ga1.3.29, "you are Christ's" clearly picks up on the 'you all are one in Christ Jesus'. Therefore to be Christ's, or to belong to him, is to he 'in Christ'. In 1Co.3.23 the believers are told that "all things are yours, and you are Christ's". In Rom.14.8 "we are the Lord's".
Finally, we must consider Paul's usage of the phrase 'through Christ' (Sid Xpiatob). He definitely uses it in two ways: i) to express the action of God mediated by Christ. In Rom.2.16 final judgement comes through Christ. We have redemption through Christ (Rom.3.24). The grace and life that God gives, reigns 123 through Christ (Rom.5.17). The believer has victory through Christ (lCo.15.57). God reconciled us to himself through Christ (2Co.5.18). We have the adoption of sons through Christ (Eph.1.5), and the Holy Spirit was poured on the believers through Christ (Tit.3.6). It can be said that God expresses his goodness and faithfulness to us through Christ. All these benefits come to those who are in Christ. Yet, all the expressions of God through Christ are not only toward believers, but eschatologically, also to unbelievers, like for example, God's judgement67. God's goodness and faithfulness has eschatological connotations as well. The final saving action of God comes into effect through Christ. Also, ii) It expresses what the believer does for, or towards God. The believer gives thanks to God through Christ (Rom.1.8; Co1.3.17; Rom.7.25). We are able to approach God through Christ. We may praise God'through Christ (Rom.16.27). The believer has confidence towards God through Christ (2Co.3.4). While Dunn suggests that we are moving away from apparent mystical imagery (1998:406), we believe that the idea of approach" and confidence nevertheless still has mystical connotations.
With all the many privileges of being 'in Christ', or of being 'united with Christ', or having 'put on Christ', or belonging to Christ, all expressed in the various forms given above, we conclude with Penna, that the only reason Paul seemingly speaks of lower or higher order of believers, is because the believers he addressed, did not all correspond to the true status conferred on them. For Paul, perfection is not only the goal, but also the status of every believer. To be Christian means to be perfect in this way (1996:245). But we cannot accept his stance that this begins with baptism (1996:246), but rather with faith in Christ and exemplified in the sacraments. Perfection naturally denounces communion with sin in general, for that is incompatible with our union with Christ (1Co.6.12-20). Here we would like to
67 cf. Rom.2.16
68 That is coming into the presence of God. 124 quote M.Bouttier: " 'in Christ' can be understood only in relation to history (what Jesus has done for us), to eschatology (what the Lord will do with us), and finally to mysticism, if by that we mean what God accomplishes in us, the communion that unites the Lord and those who belong to the Lord, which finds its expression in the communion of these among themselves" (1962:133).
2.4.3 Crucified with Christ.
While other historical aspects of Christ's life does not feature much in Paul's writings, the death and resurrection is central to all of his theology and life. He speaks of Christ's death in various ways. He refers to it as 'the cross of Christ', 'Christ crucified', that he 'gave himself, as an 'atonement', a 'sacrifice', and so forth. Yet in its historical setting, Paul had to work through the fact that the Messiah died on a cross; two things (Messiah and dying on a cross) that were difficult to reconcile in the Jewish mind. For most Jews it would constitute a contradiction in terms that the Messiah should become accursed 69 .
Never in Paul's mind was there room for the death of the Messiah without his resurrection. This was definitely so because of his experience on the Damascus road. He met with the living Christ. Nor was this the first time that this fact of the resurrected Christ was brought to him. In his contact with the victims of his persecutions, he must have gained knowledge of their beliefs. In fact, from what we may glean from Paul's psychological make-up, he may even have put together some sort of argument (apologetic) against this so called Messiah who was crucified. The only thing that could change his attitude must have been the personal meeting with the risen Lord on that road to Damascus. Besides, that appearing of
69 Gal. 3.13 cf. De.21.23
125 the Lord was accompanied by such glory that Saul of Tarsus was struck blind.
This, no doubt was an experience he would never forget nor dismiss.
What Paul now knew about Christ and the Gospel he now preached, he did not
receive from another person, but it was revealed to him by the Lord himself
(Ga1.1.15-16) 70 . This Gospel he clearly defines in 1Co.15.1-3; that Christ died
according to the Scriptures which Paul believed, that he was buried and raised
again on the third day according to those Scriptures. The real beholding of the
glorified risen Lord and personal revelations received from the Lord made an
indelible impression on this once hardened Pharisee. It would confirm, not only the
facts about Christ, but also that he, Paul, was indeed now an Apostle of Christ.
That he has seen the risen Christ personally, was regarded by him as the highest
moment of revelation and authority (1Co.9.1 71 ). We may agree with Stewart that
Paul's personal experience of Christ, was the foundation of his Gospel. Damascus
coloured all his theological perspective (1935:127).
As to the centrality of the death of Christ in Paul; this can be easily established.
The only Christ Paul knew or cared about was 'Christ crucified' 72 (1Co.1.23 and
2.2). According to Kasemann, Paul's theology is fixed here (1970:165). He says
that the sign that distinguishes his Lordship from that of other founders of religion
is undoubtedly only the cross (1970:172). The reason for this is precisely because
Paul understood the death of Christ to operate redemptively (Ga1.4.4-5). In his
death, Christ expressed his utmost obedience to the Father (Phil.2.6j). The death of
Christ was for Paul most expressive of God's love for man (Rom.8.32 cf. 8.39).
70 The revelation Paul received was directly from the Lord so that it may be understood as personal communication from the Lord, and thus infer experiencing the Lord.
71 In this particular context Paul uses the fact that he has seen the risen Lord as proof of his Apostleship.
72 He claimed that the only message he was willing to preach, was 'Christ crucified'. 126 While Paul speaks of the death of Christ in ways that show how it relates to man, to God and himself, one has to ask what this meant for Paul.
No doubt death was for him a cosmological tyrant; a lord over all until Christ rose from the dead. Therefore Jesus had to die in order to conquer death's tyrannical hold over man. He certainly did so by rising again to life. But how could death be removed without the removal of sin? It made perfect sense that when Christ died, he died for sins. In order to do that, he had to come 'in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin so that he may set us free from sin and death' (Rom.8.2-3). Therefore, the first meaning of the death of Christ is that it was intended to set mankind free from sin and by that, from death. By Paul's argumentation, so also the law, which was intended for life, but brought death instead 73 , was dealt a death blow. Therefore, by the death of Christ believers were set free from the curse of the law as well (Rom.7.6).
The death of Christ did certain things for mankind; for those who by faith trusted in Christ, we need to see how the death of Christ functioned. It functioned as a sacrifice for sin; more precisely, he was 'a sin-offering' (Rom.8.7). It functioned as an expiation and atonement. In Rom.3.25, the word hilasterion is used. The word exclusively refers to the 'mercy seat' in the LXX. This was where the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant on the Day of Atonement (Lev.16). It is our belief that the idea of propitiation is excluded since it has the idea of appeasing God. How can God need appeasing when God himself provided the hilasterion? The sacrifice acted on sin, rather than on God (Dunn 1998:214)74 .
73 Rom.7.10
74 Therefore the word 'expiation' is preferred. 127 In 1Co.5.7, Paul refers to Christ as our 'Passover Lamb' which has been sacrificed for us. Here, however, it functions as an atonement, especially when connected with the Lord's Supper. Moreover, the idea of 'a lamb without spot and blemish' concurs with Paul's understanding of a sinless Christ, who 'became sin for our sake' (2Co.5.21). The blood of Christ can only be adequately understood in the light of him being a sacrifice or sin offering (Rom.3.25; Rom.5.9; Eph.1.7; Eph.2.13 and Co1.1.20).
Having already dealt with aspects of redemption and reconciliation, let it suffice to say that the death of Christ functioned as the means of bringing about the redemption of sinners from the bondage of sin, and bringing about their reconciliation with God, having !been enemies before. In connection with redemption and reconciliation respectively, Rom.3.24 and 2Co.5.18-20 are worthy of mention. Christ has purchased us from the curse of the law (Ga1.3.13). Man, who was hostile to God, was reconciled to him through Christ. When Paul thinks of reconciliation and peace with God, the thought of the cross is never far away. It happens by the cross (Eph.2.16) or making 'peace through the blood of the cross' (Co1.1.20).
Lastly, the death of Christ functions as the means to overcome principalities and powers in their hold over those who belong to Christ. Christ having died, neither sin nor death any more has a hold over him, and in effect, over those who belong to him (Rom.6.7-11). The cross has become that which stripped the rulers and authorities, 'exposing them to public disgrace, leading them in triumph in Christ' (Co1.2.15). What a victory!
In conclusion, we would like to echo Dunn: "all this serves to underline the centrality of the death of Jesus in Paul's gospel and decisively undercuts any attempt to derive an alternative scheme of salvation from Paul ... Paul gave this 128 gospel its focus in the death of Jesus .... " (1998:232). The basic Pauline belief is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. This was the Church's message from its very birth. "Christ died for our sins". In the cross of Jesus, the divine purposes had been, not thwarted and broken, but embodied and proclaimed. In the cross sin stood condemned once for all. In Stewart's words, "the cross was a mirror held up to the sins of all the world" (1935:232). Paul saw in the cross a supreme revelation of love.
Sinners have been brought near by the blood of Christ (Eph.2.13); making peace through the blood of his cross (Co1.1.20), and we are justified by his blood (Rom.5.9). This was God's way of delivering up his Son, and with him also giving us all things freely (Rom.8.32). Yeeit was Jesus Christ pouring 75 out his own soul unto death. That was the gift of salvation expressing God's unlimited love. Now we turn to aspects of our identifying with Christ in his death in order to bring out the mystical sense of it all.
2.4.3.1 Dying with Christ.
The formulas dying and rising with Christ are not expressions of Pauline mysticism but rather expressions of the consequences of that union with Christ. Even though in most cases Paul speaks of dying and rising together, we will first discuss the aspect of dying with Christ separately from that of rising with him. Another characteristic of dying with Christ is that it is often mentioned with baptism. A well known and classical example is Rom.6.1-11. Other references like 2Co.4.10- 11, 2Co.5.14-15, Ga1.2.19-20, Ga1.6.14 & 17 and Phil.3.10-11 will also be dealt with.
75 This is a concept not present in Paul. 129 Pauline mysticism is clearly un-Hellenistic in that his is not based on the notion of deification, but it is based on the idea of having fellowship with God or Christ. For Paul it is the believer's experience of solidarity with the 'Adam of the end time', Jesus Christ (Pelser 1998:123-124). By dying and rising with Christ, the believer also appropriates what Christ has done when he died and rose again.
The Rom.6 passage speaks first and foremost of us being baptised into Christ (v3). While there is some correlation with the believer being baptised into the name of Christ, and therefore not necessarily mystical, it is nevertheless to be seen as an appropriation of what Christ has done. While it is our opinion that Paul means this mainly in a locative sense, as this is supported by Ga1.3.27 and in the sense that it speaks also of 'putting on Christ'. In Galatians the direction is clear; into Christ. We are of the opinion that this is the believer's integration into the new community, that is, into the last Adam. .
Rom.6.1-11 shows that it is more than just benefiting from the death and resurrection of Christ, but also applying it in a way where we identify with Christ in our living the Christian life76. Indeed we are dead to sin since we have died with Christ. Paul takes the consequences of this dying with Christ, to also be buried through baptism. The burial seems to be necessary in Paul's mind in order to effect the rising to new life. We are not only appropriating soteriological benefits, but by application we are able also to live a holy life, which is the Christ life.
In verse 5, Paul speaks of being united with Christ in his death and being united with him in his resurrection too. This union no doubt has mystical implications, but
76 In this case it is ethical in its intention. It is in this context that Paul says he dies daily (1Co.15.31). He strives to being 'dead to sin' on an on-going and daily basis. 130 more importantly by it, we count ourselves dead to sin and alive to God (v11). If we died with Christ, we believe we shall also live with him (v8). We are in agreement with Pelser when he says that "there is definitely more to he said about Paul's argument in this pericope than to interpret it as only referring to the benefit the believer receives from Christ's death and resurrection. This does not mean that we should rule out the idea that the believer benefits from Christ's death, but there must be more to it". (1998:125).
Moreover, interpreting Rom.6 in a local sense, we accept the understanding of the baptised person's incorporation into the Body of Christ (cf. 1Co.12.13). By this incorporation, he is incorporated into Christ himself, becoming 'in Christ'. We shall later see what we mean by 'baptism with the Spirit', so that baptism does not have some redemptive force as Schweitzer and Penna 77 seem to imply. As we have said earlier, it only comes by God's grace through faith. This is further proved by the fact that Paul does speak of dying and rising with Christ, or being crucified with Christ without any reference to baptism.
Paul speaks of himself as being crucified with Christ who gave himself (Ga1.2.20). Undoubtedly, he refers to the historical giving of Christ on the cross. This was a giving motivated by love. The "1" in this text, is not so much autobiographical as it is collective78 . Paul means to say that the individual Christian now bears Christ's signature and is characteristic of all who are in Christ. Paul identifies his present
77Segal is likeminded, stating that 'Paul's central proclamation is: Jesus is Lord and all who have faith and have already undergone a death like his will also share in his resurrection. As we have seen, this proclamation reflects a baptismal liturgy, implying that baptism provides the moment whereby the believer comes to be in Christ' (1998:413). Kasemann contradicts this view when he says that in the eucharist Paul stresses the remembrance of the participation of the death of Jesus and strongly attacked the view that baptism which unites us with the dying of Jesus equally allows us to participate in the rising of Jesus. Baptism only places us in the hope and expectancy of resurrection (1970:176).
78 That does not mean to say that it is not also individualistic; that as individuals we are crucified with Christ. 131 life as Christ living in him. According to Dunn, probably the most evocative statement is found in 2Co.5.14, 'that one (Christ) has died on behalf of all, therefore all have died'. Jesus' death is the death of all (believers) (1998:210). Christ died the death of humanity because there is no other way for humanity to go, so that those who in faith identify themselves with Christ find that Christ's death has further significance. Only if the all identify with the death of the one can there be the prospect of resurrection for the all because of the one. Jesus' death was the end of humankind under the power of sin and death. Death was still inescapable, but by virtue of their sharing in his death, neither sin nor death would have the last say. Dunn makes an important observation; that Paul's teaching is not that Christ dies 'in the place' of others so that they should escape death (as the logic of substitution implies). It is Father that Christ sharing their death makes it possible for them to share in his death (1998:223). We cannot however eliminate all substitutionary ideas from Paul's presentation. One died for all. Jesus was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2Co.5.21). This means that Christ did something for Paul that Paul could not do for himself. The correlate of the substitutionary idea is that 'God was in Christ'.
He died for all in order that the living live no longer for themselves but for him who died for them (2Co.5.15). They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh (Ga1.5.24). In other words being in Christ also means being crucified with him, and being crucified with him, means having crucified the flesh. By the cross on which Jesus died, the world is crucified to them and they to the world (Ga1.6.14). He is their representative and they are 'in Christ'.
The relationship of those who are in Christ, to Christ himself, is properly defined by E.P Sanders: 'the heart of Paul's thought is not that one ratifies and agrees to a covenant offered by God, becoming a member of a group with a covenant relationship with God and remaining in it on the condition of proper behaviour, but 132 that one dies with Christ, obtaining new life and the initial transformation which leads to the resurrection and ultimate transformation, that one is a member of the body of Christ and one spirit with him, and that one remains so .... ' (1977:514). He sees that one participates in salvation by becoming one with Christ, dying with him to sin and sharing the promise of his resurrection; the transformation, however will not be completed until the Lord returns; meanwhile, if one who is in Christ has been freed from the power of sin, his behaviour should be determined by his new situation (1977:549).
How had God determined from all eternity to redeem man? Through and in Christ; through his death and resurrection (objective redemption) and through the incorporation of the individual into himself (subjective redemption through faith and exemplified in baptism) so that God's grace has abounded beyond measure to us (Grossouw 1965:42). This incorporation makes us participants in his death and resurrection, not only to procure the salvation provided thereby, but also to live as free from the dominion of sin and death. Through dying with Christ, the Christian has been released from the old world and has entered the new. Having died to sin, one is now fully at God's disposal for the doing79 of righteousness (Black 1984:423).
Another thing that needs to be explored briefly, is the aspect of substitution, or as M.D Hooker calls it, 'interchange in Christ' (1971:349-361). There are the 'for us' aspects of Christ's death - 'Christ became a curse' and 'Christ was made sin' (Ga1.3.13 and 2Co.5.21 respectively). Christ became a curse on the cross so that blessing might come to others. Christ was made sin, so that others might become the righteousness of God. We align ourselves with Hooker's argument which
79 The idea of progressive sanctification is certainly intended by Paul when he speaks of doing righteousness. That sanctification involves becoming like Christ, or being changed into his image from glory to glory (2Co.3.18). The intention is always that of dying to sin, daily. 133 discounts the possibility that Christ 'came under a curse' for the same reason why 'Christ was made sinful' would not make good sense (1971:349).
Since the curse has special reference to the law, one has to ask the question, how are the Jews set free from the curse of the law, and how does the blessing come to the Gentiles, who are not under the law? The answer lies in the characteristic Pauline formula 'in Christ'. It is by being 'in Christ'. First of all, in him, all old distinctions have disappeared and all are one. Both Jews and Gentiles are now 'one new man' 8° (Eph.2.15). In Christ the true seeds of Abraham are to be found (Ga1.3.27-28). In Christ the curse has been annulled, and turned into a source of blessing. Secondly, the law has been overruled and he brought blessing because he himself is a blessing. Being in Christ allows all in him to inherit Abraham's promises.
For Paul the only basis of his life is the dying and rising of Christ; one has died for all, therefore all have died, and he died for all, so that those who live should not live to themselves, but to him who died and rose again (2Co.5.21). This is effected in Christ. As Hooker warns, this interchange is not a straight forward exchange where Christ becomes what we are, and we become what he is. We still have to face physical death, and we become God's righteousness only in him (1971:353).
Our participation in the death of Christ can never be viewed apart from our participation in his resurrection as well. Even in its signification as having died to sin and the law, it has to be viewed in conjunction with now being alive unto God and his righteousness which comes by faith. Participating in the death of Christ and participating in his resurrection are two sides of the same coin. Before we look at
80 This is a Pauline image of the Church. The reference to Christ himself is never far away. 134 the aspect of rising with Christ, we shall first consider the aspect of Christian suffering.
2.4.3.2 Fellowship in Suffering.
C.S Lewis said: ' suffering teaches us not to rest our hearts in this world' (1978:106). While this is true of suffering in general, suffering for Christ has also the deeper significance of suffering with Christ. Paul has much to say in this regard, especially in 2Corinthians, but also all through his writings, there is much said in Paul on Christian suffering in general, but our main concern are those passages that connect our sufferings with the suffering of Christ.
It is immediately noticeable that Paul speaks of his sufferings for or with Christ, always with the new or future life of Christ in mind. He sort of says that we will share in Christ's life or in Christ's glory if we share in his suffering 81 . The way to glory or the way to the resurrected life in Christ, seems to he conditioned upon our suffering with him or for him. The purpose of our discussion will he suited well if we considered some of the verses most salient here.
Because we entitled this particular section in the way we have, we shall first consider Phil.3.10: 'that I might know Christ in the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming like him in his death'. This verse is a fitting climax to Paul's passionate desire '... to gain Christ', or '... to be found in Christ', or '... to know Christ' in the context. To know Christ is the ultimate goal of his life. How does he want to get to know Christ? Definitely, not only intellectually, but experientially and intimately. In short, he wants to experience
81 Rom.8.17-18, 1Co.1.7, 2Ti.2.12, and Phil.3.8-10. 135 the power of Christ's resurrection. But the way of knowing Christ in his resurrection power is to know him first in the fellowship of his sufferings.
This does not merely mean that he wants to know about Christ in the realm of his sufferings. He speaks of 'fellowship'. The word shares a common definite article with the word 'power'. Its suggests that the power and the fellowship cannot be thought of as two separate experiences. Fellowship carries with it the idea of participation or sharing in something (Hawthorne 1984:144). The thought of suffering with Christ is not a new one with Paul, not only in the sense that we positionally share in the death and resurrection of Christ, but that Paul regards his afflictions and persecutions for Christ as suffering with him, and this has special reference to Christ's death.
In this text 'the fellowship of his suffering' is explicated by the participial expression which immediately follows becoming like him in his death'. Paul equates Christ's sufferings with Christ's death. He states that he has died with Christ (Rom.6.10) and also that he dies daily and so conforms his life to the implications of that death now in the present. Therefore physical suffering and even death is seen as playing a transforming role in the Christian's life. Hawthorne concludes: Thus, the expression, 'conforming oneself to his death', can be enlarged to include 'costly discipleship', the kind of suffering expressed so poignantly by the Apostle in his letter to the Corinthians: 'always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh (2Co.7-12). (1983:146)
This then, is an appropriate time to consider 2Co.4.10-12. C.K Barrett suggests that because Paul uses the word ithKpwatc, he is speaking of the process of death analogous to the killing of Jesus (1973:140). The sufferings coming upon him daily
136 in his work for Jesus are gradually killing him, though behind the physical suffering lays a 'dying with Christ'. Because the death of Jesus is manifested in him, he expects the life of Jesus also to be manifested in our bodies through the resurrection, but in the here and now.
The process of dying comes by the persecutions that he suffers. The 'handing over' is analogous of the handing over or the delivering up of Jesus to death. The idea of identification is explicit. Though the context shows that the Apostle's suffering is in view, it nevertheless points to a community experience of being crucified with Christ. It is not only for an elite within the community, but as the normal thing for all Christians, especially those who witness for Christ. This is seen in Paul's statement that 'death is at work in ifs'. It is not only the imposed persecutions, but a working itself out from within, from our union with the crucified Jesus.
It is debated whether by the 'life of Jesus' Paul has in mind a human mode of existence or the power of the risen Christ. It need not be an either-or choice. The 'already' / 'not yet' character of salvation means that Christ's resurrection power is already impacting human existence. Paul acknowledges this very thing in his summary statement, 'so then death is at work in us, but life is at work in you' (Belleville 1996:123).
Now, briefly, a look at 2Co.1.5 'for just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows'. We receive comfort in the midst of troubles. Encountering hardships is a given of the Christian life, as it is a given in Christ's life. The fact that the sufferings of Christ flow over into the believers' lives, shows that God actually permits sufferings to brim over into their lives. This is specifically the sufferings of Christ; that is to identify with the sufferings that was part of Christ's earthly ministry. So far as the sufferings of Christ then, Paul is not thinking of something Christ is currently experiencing but 137 rather that in the ministry of the Gospel he bears the marks of Christ's death. The sufferings of Christ actually abounds in our direction so as to reach us and be shared by us. As does C.K. Barrett, we believe that some of the sufferings of
Christ had been allowed to reach, and to be endured by his followers (1973:62).
The suffering of Jesus is redemptive; so in a subordinate degree is the suffering of the Apostle, and it brings comfort to his converts.
The same sense is found in the rather much debated text, Co1.1.24. For Paul, suffering meant suffering with Christ, or sharing Christ's sufferings. Co1.1.24 clearly builds on the theme that Paul's sharing in Christ's death was essential to the well-being of his converts. But Paul here, has also made a unique addition to the theme by adding the (implied) thought that Christ's afflictions lack something and need to be completed in Paul's flesh (Dunn 1996:115). As is almost unanimous we do not believe that Paul means Christ vicarious sufferings to be inadequate or insufficient. However, while the cost of man's salvation was paid in full, what is in view here is the cost of preaching the Gospel. Therefore essential to this statement was the fact that Paul was still alive. If he was dead then his sufferings were complete and so also Christ's. This will not be the case for as long as the Gospel is being preached. It is nevertheless our fellowship with Christ in his sufferings.
Finally, in Rom.8.17 we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. To this picture of privilege Paul immediately adds the consideration, or condition, that we share in
Christ's sufferings. Our suffering is in some way linked to the sufferings of Christ
(see also 2Ti.2.1I-12). Leon Morris connects this with Paul's own conversion experience when Christ confronted him about his persecutions of the Church, and asked him 'why do you persecute me?' (Acts.9.4). He is one with us in our suffering (1988:318). But also, we died with Christ (Rom.6.8) so that we are one with him in his death. Our sufferings are therefore not meaningless. Believers suffer with him in order to also share in his glory. 138 With concepts like participation, sharing, fellowship and identification with Christ in his death, it can hardly be denied that mystical language is used and understood by Paul. Important also, is the reciprocal aspect of the death of Christ. He died and therefore we are considered to have died. So, in a sense, the death of Christ is conferred upon us. We are passive; it is what Christ has done for us. Also, there is a sense in which we have to do something as well (not that we have to earn it) to identify with the death of Christ. We have to suffer for him so that it may be said that we suffer with him. The former is our privilege by faith, and the latter is our privilege by living as Christians. So, whether we receive or whether we give, in our receiving or in our giving, we participate in Christ's death, and therefore in his resurrection or in his life, or in his glory. The experience of pain, especially the Apostolic sufferings, Paul treats in an absolutely mystical perspective, that is, one of intimate participation in Christ, even speaking of 'Christ's suffering in us' (2Co.1.5), of 'suffering together with .him' (Rom.8.17), and of 'always and everywhere carrying the death of Christ in our bodies' (2Co.4.10). (Penna 1996:268-269).
2.4.4 Risen with Christ - A Spiritual Experience of the New Creation.
Paul never thinks of the death of Christ without also thinking of his resurrection. Paul knows Christ as the living, risen Lord. In fact, this is the Christ he came to know first before he came to know him as crucified. It is upon his meeting with the risen Lord, that he began to understand the fact of Christ's death. Like we have said, a crucified Christ is a contradiction in terms for Paul ( especially if it is seen apart from the resurrection). It would not have made sense to Paul. Therefore, as central as the cross is, so central is the resurrection in Paul's theology. The one cannot exist without the other. While this is the case, we will nevertheless here still 139 look at the resurrection only, and see how Paul shows the believer's participation in the life of Christ; that is, in the resurrected and glorified life of the Lord.
We have already concluded that the resurrection is an eschatological 82 reality, present in the life and experience of the believer. It is at this point that we may live the life of the future here in the present. The resurrection of Jesus was understood as ushering in the new age, even the last days. This is decisively what is the center of Paul's thought, namely the resurrection of Christ. He constitutes the eruption of the eschaton in history. We maintain, as Schweitzer does, that the resurrection of Christ initiated the 'last age' and that Paul sees the predestined solidarity of the elect with the Messiah drawing them already into the resurrection of Christ by virtue of their 'being in Christ' (1937:110). The resurrection is therefore the departure point for the believers hope. Unless the one died the death of all, the all would have little to celebrate in the resurrection of the one, other than to rejoice in his personal, vindication (Dunn 1998:235),
In Paul's mind it has never been seen otherwise than to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. From a Trinitarian point of view, it has often been said that the Holy Spirit is the one who raised Jesus. This was often based on the misunderstood meaning of Rom 8:11. They assert that the Spirit is the agent of Christ's resurrection and therefore also ours 83 . They seem to argue that God raised Christ by means of the Spirit. Paul nowhere explicitly suggests as much. It is even doubtful whether it is explicitly so given in some other texts that are often read this way (1Co.6.14, Eph.1.19-21 and Phil.3.21). The presence of the Spirit only
82 The resurrection is a category of the last days. The Holy Spirit too, is a category of the last days. Both these eschatological realities form part of the Christian's status and experience. These two realities make the Church both an eschatological and a charismatic community. Thus the Christian can live out this new life, both as an inward experience and as the Holy Spirit enables him to make it outward.
83 e.g. Hamilton, Holy Spirit, 12-15 and Turner, "Significance of Spirit Endowment", 58-69. 140 expresses certainty about our future, predicated on the risen Christ and by the already present Spirit (Fee, 1994:553). God is the one that raised up Jesus from the dead, and he is the one that would raise our mortal bodies from the dead. We are the work of God, created in Christ Jesus (Eph.2.10). In this sense the Christian is truly a 'work of art' of God, "God's masterpiece" (Penna 1996:261). Kasemann states it best: 'Only the Creator saves, never the creature. Salvation is always resurrection of the dead because that is God's work for us ...'(1970:159).
For man to be saved, he must believe in his heart that God raised up Jesus from the dead (Rom.10.9). God raised up Jesus and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places (Eph.1.20). The God and Father of our Lord Jesus is to be blessed because he gave mankind a living hdpe when he raised Jesus from the dead.
That the Father raised Jesus from the dead is important, for by it, the Father declared84 Jesus to be his Son with power (Rom.1.4). The Sonship of Jesus was proven here. Not as some, who believe that his Sonship only truly began when he was raised from the dead. In fact, it was because he was God's Son, that Jesus was raised from the dead. That Sonship is the basis for our sonship, therefore, we who believe in him are sons of God. Believers are sealed 85 with the Holy Spirit so that they may walk in the Spirit86, because they who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God (Rom.8.14). For Paul, Jesus' divine sonship was in some sense a function of his resurrection (Dunn 1998:244).
It is therefore clear that because Christians have the Spirit, they are sons of God; and because they are sons they shall be raised. Conversely, because they have the
84 The Greek would be best translated "horizoned", that is shown to be what he already is.
85 Eph.1.13 , 2Co.1.22
86 Rom.8.4 141 Spirit, they are to be raised. The Spirit in us guarantees our resurrection (Rom.8.9- I I). They therefore clearly see their participation with Christ. They are sons and therefore co-heirs with him (Rom.8.17). They have the Spirit of Christ, which Paul uses interchangeably with the Spirit of God (Rom.8.9). Therefore they are partakers in the resurrection of Christ.
Another point that needs brief mention, is that the death of Christ as acceptable to God is ratified by the resurrection of Christ. By his resurrection he has conquered death so that death has lost its power and its sting, which is sin (1Co.15.55-57). By his resurrection Christians have been given the victory that he had. The vindication of Christ was also the vindication of those whom he represented. They were reconciled as enemies by his death, Therefore the more shall they be saved through his life (Rom.5.10). If Christ had not been raised, then the Cross has no effect and the preaching of the believers would be in vain and empty, (1Co.15.14) and they would still be in their sins (v17).
While, what we have said up to now, pertains mainly to the final resurrection, that is, the resurrection of our mortal bodies, there is the other aspect of 'already'. The resurrection of our mortal bodies is the "not yet" aspect of Paul's teaching. There is an 'already' aspect, and that has the idea of new life in the here and now. It also has ethical implications. It also implies sharing in Christ's resurrection. To this we now turn.
"If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come" (2Co.5.17). This verse is popularly interpreted in terms of subjective experience. The old unregenerate man has passed away so that its desires and appetites are replaced by new desires and appetites. This is ethically applied. Yet, there is the eschatological newness that comes to the fore. It has special reference to the 'new covenant' in Christ's blood; a 'new heart' and a 'new 142 spirit' 87 ; a 'new name' and a 'new relationship' with God and his people; the 'new heavens and the new earth'. These ideas of newness given in the Old Testament is preserved in the New Testament as an eschatological reality.
As Ladd's puts it, 'the new creation' obviously does not refer to a renovation of the physical world; this new creation awaits the eschatological consummation (Rom.8.21) (1974:480). The passing of the old does not mean the end of the old age; it continues until the parousia. But the old age does not remain intact; the new age has broken in. Christ, the eschaton, gives deliverance from the present evil age (Ga1.1.4). We need no longer he conformed to the old age (Rom.12.2). The new covenant with God has already come into existence through Christ (1Co11.25). This new creation expresses itself iti good works (Eph.2.10). There is a continual renewal into the image of our creator (Co1.3.9-10). Therefore it is deeper than just a moral renewal (Ladd 1974:480).
Renewal has already happened to those who are in Christ. Because the believer is in Christ, he belongs to the new age. How and why? It is because of his participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. We have a conscious communion with Christ in his death and resurrection. "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1Co.15.22). Natural men are in Adam, the representative of the old age. The new humanity are those who are in Christ and they belong to the new age. The resurrection brings about this newness of life (Rom .6 . 4).
The last Adam, Jesus Christ, is the giver of this new life. The life which is his has been passed on to those who are in him. He is the progenitor of a new race, all of whom are the sons of God. They are also referred to as the one 'new man'
87 See the New Covenant terms spoken of in Jer.31.31-34 and Ezek.36.24-26. 143 (Eph.2.15). Paul's concept of the 'new man' is christologically founded in two respects. First, Paul viewed Christ as the new man in that he is the last Adam, in contrast to the first man, Adam (Rom.5.14-19, 1Co.15.20-22 and 45-49), and, secondly, because believers are incorporated into Christ and are identified with him in his resurrection, they are a new creation (2Co.5.17 and Ga1.6.15). The believer has put on the new man which is being renewed after the image of him who created him (Co1.3.11). Christ having been raised, was raised for our justification (Rom.4.21), so that as opposed to Adam, through whom sin and death came, through him came righteousness and life (Rom.5.12ff).
The last Adam is therefore the life-giver 88, giving new life to all who are in him. In the first Adam, we have been estranged from God, but through the last Adam, we have a new relationship with God. While the resurrection of Christ is the basis of this new life, the Holy Spirit works in us to bring about 89 this new life. The two aspects of resurrection and the Spirit are eschatological realities. Ridderbos is correct in saying that the new life works itself out and find its application in the individual believer (1975:205). The 'new creature' participates in the 'new creation' represented in Christ. As Adam stands for death, so Christ stands for resurrection (Dunn 1998:241).
The Church's participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, is in essence participation in his life. Because it is his life, it is for us new life. The difference between him and us, is that his life is not something new to him, but to us, it is. His dying to sin is therefore not the same as our having to die to sin. He was without sin, yet he died for sin (Rom.8.3). We, on the other hand have sinned, yet
88 cf. 1Co.15.45
89He also enables the believer to live this new life ethically. 144 in Christ, we have died to sin, so that we should no longer live therein. We are dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus (2Co.5.11).
What has taken place in Christ, must now be actualised in a new way of life in the believer in particular and in the Church in general. In particular to the individual believer, because in his baptism he exemplifies the resurrection to newness of life. In general to the Church, because by baptism, believers are all placed into the Body, which is Christ's body (1Co.12.13). In the latter instance, we do not necessarily refer to sacramental incorporation, because in our quoted passage, the element into which believers are baptised, is the Spirit. Grossouw states it succinctly: "Jesus lives spiritually (pneumatically) in his followers. This was not possible before his death and resurrection (1965:54).
We have been raised with Christ. The use of the aorist in most instances, denotes the redemptive moment of Christ's rising. The new life of the Church has not only been grounded, but also been given and begun in the resurrection of Christ. So also, we may assert that the general resurrection has begun. Paul's central proclamation is: 'Jesus is Lord' and all who have faith and have already undergone a death like his will also share in his resurrection. The new life of believers is that which comes forth with Christ out of the grave, has gone into heaven with him, is there hidden ('your life is hid with Christ in God' 90), and will once more appear from there with the parousia ('when Christ who is our life, shall appear, then you also will appear with him' 91 ). The continuity between conformity to Christ, the new man, in this age and ultimate conformity through their assumption of resurrected bodies like his in the next must not be broken (Phil.3.10-11). What has taken place and will take place with Christ, from dying to coming again in glory,
90 cf. Co1.3.3
91 cf. Co1.3.4 145 has also happened to the Church and will happen to it by virtue of its corporate unity with him (Ridderbos 1975:212).
To be a new creation is to live in liberty, for through the resurrection, believers are no longer slaves to sin. Yet to be a new creation is to reach out to the revelation of Christ in and through them. "That I might know him in the power of his resurrection ...). A knowledge which is more than an acquisition of facts, but an experience of and fellowship with the risen Lord. The whole idea of participation is inherent to this knowing. The result is the capability to live a holy and God- pleasing life. That simply means to conform to the image of Christ (Rom.8.29). In Thompson's words: "the goal of the new life, is the image of Christ" (1991:151).
The power of the resurrection of Christ in the life of the believer, is that enabling for them to live a new life. By God's power the believer is 'being renewed from day to day' (2Co.4.16). It is a new creation because it is in the making. The new man is renewed after the image of him who created him, that is, of God (Co1.3.10). This is being changed into the glorious image of God (cf. Eph.4.24). Believers are being transformed into the image of Christ from glory to glory (2Co.3.18). Therefore, to be created after the image of God, is the equivalent of bearing, reflecting, and being transformed into the image of Christ. That is what it means to know Christ in the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings being made conformable to his death. The resurrected Christ is therefore put forward by Paul as the image of the invisible God (Co1.1.15), so that the image in Adam - which was effaced - was restored in the last Adam. By donning the characteristics of the last Adam, Christians reflect the true image of God and are changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to the next, in anticipation of the final glory of resurrection life.
146 Jesus' resurrection is referred to by Paul as the 'firstfruits' of the general resurrection, tat is, the first sheaf of the ongoing harvest of dead humanity (I Co.15.22). The resurrection is the beginning of the ontological renewal of creation (Dunn 1998:240). The idea of Christ's resurrection of the 'firstfruits' carries over into the expectation of the general resurrection of all believers at his parousia. Because Christ was raised, the Christian shall be raised. His resurrection is the hope for the future resurrection, when 'mortality will put on immortality' (1Co.15.42), when what is 'sown (buried) as corruptible is raised incorruptible'; when what is 'sown a natural body is raised a spiritual body' (v43-44). Then they shall be like him for they shall see him as he is. That is the ultimate level of the believers identification with the Lord in his resurrection and likeness.
Paul speaks of the risen Christ in various ways as Lord. Dunn observed that the various usage of the title "Lord" occurs 193 times in Paul (1998:244). He summarised his gospel as the preaching .of Jesus Christ as Lord (2Co.4.5). The resurrection was understood as the decisive event in his becoming Lord. References to the earthly Jesus as "Lord" (as in 1Co.9.14 and 11.23) do not constitute counter evidence; it was a natural way for Paul of referring to Christ, who only knew him as Lord. Confession of that lordship constitutes the climactic worship of all creation (Phil.2.10-11). The resurrection was the entry for Jesus to the right hand of God to reign as Lord (cf. Rom.8.4, 1Co.15.23-25, Co1.3.1 and Eph.1.20). In acknowledging Jesus as Lord, the believer pledges his subservience to him.
.When Paul speaks of being 'in Christ', he speaks of being in the risen and triumphant Lord. Christ had become for Paul, not so much the person from the historical past that he could contemplate, but a living person with whom he had fellowship. The believer shares in the relationship that Christ has with his Father so that righteousness and glory become part of their inheritance. By virtue of the 147 believer's resurrection with Christ, they have become as Christ, and are thus as children of God and of Abraham (Ga1.3.28-29). When God re-creates man, it is in the pattern of the resurrected Christ. Christ is their life (Co1.3.4). How? Because they have been raised with Christ and are seated with him in the heavenlies (Co1.3.1).
It will be appropriate for us now to briefly consider Paul's use of the 'putting off and 'puffing on' imagery. To Paul the 'putting on' and 'puffing off metaphor refers to the dying and rising with Christ (v.d Horst 1972:182). Certainly this is the meaning that baptism implies, but the main thrust of its usage in Paul is ethical. Paul is the only one who uses this particular metaphor. On the one hand it means putting off the old man with its sinftil desires and tendencies, and on the other hand it means putting on the new man which is created after the image of Christ. Nevertheless, the point is that the 'putting of aspect may be paralleled with putting to death the old man, or crucifying the flesh, and the 'putting on' aspect as equivalent to the rising in newness of life, that is, the resurrected life.
We have been raised together with Christ. Because of our being risen with him, what happens to him, happens to us - not, as Paul points out in Eph.2.6, in the physical sense but in the spiritual. It will happen in the physical sense also; that is to come. He was raised for our justification, therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom.5.1). We are raised from the dead with him and therefore we are justified, and are no longer under God's wrath.
So, how does the believer rise with Christ? Is Paul expressing the idea that the believer dies and rises as Christ did, or whether it is becoming one with Christ that the believer dies and rises? Newman and Nida conclude that 'with him' is to be taken with the verb crt5p4uTot ye-y6valtei) (have grown together) as a means of 148 indicating unity with Christ, of becoming one with him (1973:114). The idea is to join up with him and to become close companions with him as though we were one person. But does this mean submergence? Not, we believe, to the point of losing one's identity, but by being in Christ through faith. Pelser believes that it is an ongoing process and as such, an expression of the mystical union (1998:120). It gives expression to the motif of participation in Christ or partaking in his death and resurrection and its benefits. It would not be farfetched to assume that Paul indeed conceived of the idea of dying and rising with Christ in 'mystical' terms (Pelser 1998:130). It is a union between Christ and the believer, established by Christ and experienced through faith by the believer. This union allows the believer to die and rise with Christ.
2.4.5 Seated with Christ in the Heavenlies.
Often the believer is content to think of his salvation merely in terms of the forgiveness of sins. It is infinitely more than that, and to stop at that is surely tragic. His salvation means to participate in the Lord Jesus Christ and in all the benefits that goes with being in Christ. Having died with Christ, is having to die to sin so that death and sin should have no dominion over the man in Christ. His union with Christ is that which allows him to be quickened together with Christ, and to be raised with him. Because he is in Christ he has the life of Christ; new life.
Now we look at the fact of the believer being seated with Christ in the heavenlies. Ephesians chapter two speaks of the believer as being made to sit with Christ in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus (v6). In Eph.1.3, Paul said that God has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places. Now he says more specifically that our life is enthroned with Christ. If this is not explicitly stated 149 elsewhere in the Pauline letters, the meaning is implicit in passages like Co1.3.1-3, Phil.3.20, Eph.2.19 and Ga1.4.26. Humanity by virtue of Christ's conquest of sin and death and by his exaltation, is lifted from the deepest hell to heaven itself (Foulkes 1989:82). The believer's citizenship is now in heaven, and there true life is found, not under the limits imposed by the world, nor in conformity to its standard (Rom.12.2).
The idea of citizenship is taken further by the Apostle in Eph.2.19. The believer is a fellow-citizen with the saints, that is with every other believer including those who have gone before. This would obviously include the Old Testament saints, but now, the Gentile believers are also numbered with the saints. The real sense cannot be missed; that the believer has a common citizenship with those who are now already in the company of angels in the presence of God in heaven. We would speak of a greater intimacy that Christians have with God, and indeed with one another. They are together of the household of God. Though the believer is still in the flesh, he is a member of a new humanity.
Being of the household of God, the believer having risen with Christ, is now alive unto God. He has communion with God; he is in tune with the Eternal, and has been awakened to something infinite and absolute (Lloyd-Jones 1972:120). The Christian can now draw nearer to God; his new nature cries out to God. Being alive unto God, he is sensitive to God, desiring God, loving God, seeking God and living for God. It is for this reason, that Paul exhorts the believers to seek the things from above (Co1.3.1-3).
Our Lord, after he had risen from the dead, did not remain indefinitely upon earth. He ascended into heaven, and he is seated at the right hand of God in glory. So the Apostle goes on to say that this also has happened to the believer. The doctrine of the believer's union with Christ insists that it should happen to him. As he has been 150 quickened with Christ and raised with him, so it must follow that everything else that has happened to Christ must happen to the believer spiritually. Therefore, of necessity, the believer has been made to sit with Christ in the heavenlies.
The believer has been seated - it is something that has taken place, and the believer is passive in all of this. God is the one who is active, and these benefits come to the believer through Christ. Lloyd-Jones states it most succinctly: "there are two senses in which we are joined to Christ; in a federal sense - what was true of Adam is true of us because he is the head and representative of the human race - he is the federal head. So also, Christ is our federal head, so that what is true of him is true of us because we are in him. The second sense is a mystical or vital sense; as there is a union between the branches and 'the vine; not mechanical but vital and organic. It is like the union between husband and wife; the union between Christ and his Church" (1972:103-104).
Because he sits in the heavenly places, believers do, as he is their representative. But in terms of their mystical union with him, they count themselves to be seated with him in heavenly places. These ideas signify that the Christian no longer belongs to this world. In Christ they have died to the world, to sin, to the law and to death. Christ gave himself that he might deliver them from this present evil world. They have been translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col.1.13). They are seated in the heavenlies, not in the realm of Satan.
In Phil.3.20, Paul says that the believer's citizenship is in heaven. Heaven is the place where Christ, their Saviour is, and it is the place from which the believer expects him. The believer eagerly awaits the coming of the Saviour from there. That is where Paul says their citizenship is.
151 Hawthorne sees as Paul's apocalyptic theme, that the Church is seen as a colony of heaven. The normal function of the colony is to secure the conquered country for the conquering country by spreading abroad that country's way of doing things, its customs, its culture, its laws, and so on. Philippi has been designated a Roman colony, and in using this word, Paul was using a word that would appeal to his readers and to which they could easily relate (1983:170).
In Christ, the Christian has been brought into a new ethically controlled relationship to God. This new relationship commits the believer to live the 'life of heaven', and in particular the life of Christ, with whom he is seated in the heavenlies. Our citizenship is in heaven in contrast with those who do not submit to
Christ's Lordship. They are citizens 'of this world. Each local church is a colony of heaven, its members enjoying full citizenship in the 'heavenly city'.
Ga1.4.26 calls this heavenly city, 'the Jerusalem from above' 92 . It says that we are free citizens of a free city. Paul contrasts two Jerusalems in the same way he contrasts the two wives of Abraham. The Jerusalem from above is free in the same way as Sarah was free, and the earthly Jerusalem is under bondage in the same way that Hagar was. The believer's home is in heaven, and here on earth they are a colony of heavenly citizens, and their behaviour is according to their citizenship.
As such, Christians enjoy full citizenship rights in the 'City of God', and they are responsible for spreading abroad in this 'conquered' world the customs, culture, manner of life and laws of their heavenly home.
Co1.3.1-3 needs special consideration in this regard. In Co1.2.12, Paul says that we were buried with Christ. It does not end there, for here he says that we have been raised with Christ. The event of death and resurrection was two-sided for Christ
92 The writer to the Hebrews calls it "the City of God, the heavenly Jerusalem" (12.22). 152 himself. A message of the cross without the resurrection would not be gospel. Out of that gospel, comes the exhortation to 'seek what is above', which was worthy of repetition: 'set your minds on what is above'. Paul defines what and where this 'above' is. It is where 'Christ is seated'. He specifies it more accurately: 'on God's right'. Christ has been raised and exalted to sit on God's right in heaven. The picture is clear; God sits on the throne in heaven, with the exalted Christ seated next to him on his right. The exalted Christ sat on God's immediate right. The image is one of power and special recognition.
The 'things above' is a shorthand way of referring to heaven (Dunn.1996:205). "To seek" is the present tense of 'to keep looking for' that which is of Christ or from heaven in situations of daily living. It is to keep our minds fixed (3.2); to hold a definite opinion of the things of heaven. All this in the context of the believer being 'hidden with Christ in God' (v3). Therefore, if Christ is seated in heaven and we are hidden with Christ, .then it follows that we are seated with Christ in the heavenlies.
Our participation in Christ's heavenly position is a fact because of our being in Christ. He is a citizen of heaven and so are we. For us, it has ethical implications, and so we lead our lives accordingly. Even in the here and now, the Church is a colony of heaven here on earth. That the whole concept has mystical overtones, cannot be overlooked.
2.5 Participation
The aspect of the believer being in Christ, is further expressed as being in the Spirit. That does not mean to say we may use the two phrases interchangeably. No, we must always differentiate between the two, and we shall see that they operate 153 differently in the believer's life and relationship with God. It is nevertheless important to note, that the beginning point of the believer's relationship, is being in Christ. One cannot be 'in the Spirit' without being 'in Christ', even if our in- Christ-likeness is a product of the Spirit's work in the individual.
It is almost unnecessary to say that we believe that the Holy Spirit is God, the third person in the trinity. So, we may refer to him as the Spirit of God. Yet, Paul also refers to him as the Spirit of Christ (Rom.8.9). Paul takes it as a matter of fact, without feeling the need to prove it, that the Holy Spirit is God. Paul may now rightly speak of God in us because of the indwelling Spirit, as God makes his dwelling place in us through the Spirit (Eph.2.22). He speaks of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the living God (2Co.3!3); and the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus (Rom.8.11); and the Holy Spirit of God (Eph.4.30). The Holy Spirit is the mode of God's presence and power in the world (Ziesler 1990:47).
In the same way, as Paul relates the Spirit to God, he so relates the Spirit to Jesus, the Son. He is the Spirit of the Lord (2Co.3.17); the Spirit of God's Son (Gal.4.6); and the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil.1.19). But does he think of the Spirit of God as one and the same as the Spirit of Jesus Christ? He certainly does use them interchangeably in Romans 8. In verses 9 and 10, Paul says: "you, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ he does not belong to him".
This is an important aspect, as the risen Christ relates to the believer through the Spirit. The Spirit explicates the work of Christ in such a way that the believer himself experiences the death and resurrection of our Lord. Paul shows the closest affinity between the risen Christ and the Spirit. For Paul, to have the Spirit of Christ, is to have Christ in you. The "Spirit in you" is impossible apart from
154 "Christ in you". They are distinguishable, but inseparable (Moo 1991:523). To be
"in the Spirit" depends on being "in Christ".
The formula "in the Spirit" (b Trv€1,[uct -ri) and its variants are not as frequent in Paul as his use of "in Christ" and its variants. The formula 'in the Spirit' and its variants occur 25 times in the Pauline corpus. While the "in Christ" formula generally speaks of the believer's objective - salvivic stand and cannot be separated from the locative idea, the "in the Spirit" formula has more an instrumental or medium meaning attached to it. It does however on occasion also include the local sense. 93
Following Du Toit's handling of the en Pneumati material, we shall here briefly consider the same. He excludes four of the twenty five occurrences 94 , as these refer to the human spirit or human attitude (1971:54-55). The majority of texts has instrumental use. It appears with the words "with", "by" or "through". It is most likely that in the twelve occurrences 95 the Holy Spirit is used as medium through whom certain things are done for or with the believer. Du Toit observes that while the main idea of 1Cor.6.11 is justification through the Spirit, there is also the idea of that justification being in the sphere of the Spirit (1971:55). The idea of being in the sphere of the Spirit also comes out in 1Cor.12.13 (we shall look at this verse in more detail).
93A.B. Du Toit has a good discussion on this formula where he considers all the occurences in the Pauline corpus. "Die formule en Pneumati by Paulus". Potchefstroom, 1971.(In Die
Pneuma by Paulus. - Pro Rege Pers Bpk)
94Ga1.6.1, Rom.2.29, Phil.1.27, Rom.1.9.
95Rom.8.15, Rom.14.17, Rom.15.16, 1Cor.6.11, 1Cor.12.13, Eph.2.18, Eph.3.5, Co1.1.18, 1Ti.3.16, Eph.5.18, 1Co.12.9 - twice.
155 What is important for us are those verses which place the believer in the Spirit in a local sense96 The classical text here is Rom.8.9. "In the Spirit" stands opposite "in Christ". It shows that we are no more in the sphere of the flesh, but in the sphere of the Spirit. This is the only text in the Pauline corpus where en Pneumati is used parallel with en Christo. Rom.9. I is another such verse where en Pneumati is used alongside en Christo. He speaks of the truth in Christ and of his conscience in the Holy Spirit. This is what Du Toit says: "Oor die vertaling van hierdie vers kan heelwat verskil bestaan, maar dit is duidelik dat Paulus in elk geval wil se dat sy gewete se getuienis binne die louterende, regulerende en heiligende werkingsveld van die Heilige Gees plaasvind". (1971:56).
Eph.2.22 speaks of the Holy Spirit' living in the believer. In fact, it is God who dwells in him in the form of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is both instrumental and local. Instrumental in the sense that the Holy Spirit is the one who builds the temple. With en pneumati in this verse translated as "by the Spirit", then it is the mode of God's dwelling; if it is translated as "in the Spirit", then effectively, God dwells in the believer who is in the Spirit. The former is more plausible.
Passages like 2Co.6.6 and 1Th.1.5 describe Paul and his co-workers' attitude in their ministry. The Holy Spirit is the one who leads them in the task of their ministry.
We are in agreement with du Toit's conclusion; that en pneumati "het ... meestal nie met die heilsindikatief to make nie, maar met die lewe van die gemeente, die etiek ... die gebed belydenis geestesgawes optrede en gesindheid (1971:58).
96Du Toit calls it "en Pneumati in oordragtelik-lokale sin" (P.56). Kourie says that the ascended Christ imparts his life and power to the Church through the Spirit. Thus 'in the Spirit' takes a subsidiary place to that of 'in Christ'. (1987:40). 156 Only when the believer is in fellowship with the Holy Spirit (2Co.13.14) 97 can he be led by the Holy Spirit. When he is led by the Spirit, his sonship is confirmed (Rom.8.14). That leading is what is referred to by Paul as walking in the Spirit as opposed to walking in the flesh. It is this fellowship which we want to emphasise as a mystical tenet in Paul.
2.5.1 Being in the Spirit - Being Sons.
The idea of sonship is never far away from Paul's mind when he thinks of the believer in relation to the Spirit. ft is in fact through the Holy Spirit that the believer is the son of God, and it is by the Holy Spirit that we give expression to that sonship. Through the Holy Spirit salvation is effected to the believer, and through him we relate to God and to Christ in every way. It is the Holy Spirit who makes God and Christ real to the believer.
2.5.1.1 The Gift of the Holy Spirit and Salvation. 98
The Holy Spirit is God's gift to the believer. When God gave Jesus to die and rise again, he gave him as a ransom for our sins, so that atonement between God and man might be affected. When God gave the Holy Spirit, it was to bring into effect the salvation which was provided through Christ.
The Spirit, with the Cross as its paradigm, brought about a new eschatological existence, where there is no longer confidence in the flesh and in the externality of
97cf. Phil.2.1. 98Much of the discussion here is extracted from my Masters dissertation "The Functional Role of the Holy Spirit within the Pauline Trinitarian Message"- RAU - 1997. 157 the law. Instead, our confidence is in the indwelling Spirit who brings us to salvation, empowers and enables the believer to fulfil the law from the heart. Living in the Spirit is therefore a new mode of living within the eschatological community.
Through the Holy Spirit we have liberty. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2Co.3.17). While liberty in this verse refers to liberty from the law, it nevertheless also implies, as is elsewhere specifically stated (Rom.8.2), liberty from sin and death. If we are free from the law, sin and death, then there is nothing that can be held against us at judgement. That means that we cannot be condemned, which is another way of saying we have salvation. There is still however the aspect of "not yet". Therefore there is still the sigh of frustration and longing for complete release and full sonship. The Spirit is our future good experienced in the present here and now (Dunn 1975:308). The freedom we have has changed our status from being slaves to becoming sons. We are no longer slaves but sons, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom.8.17). Salvation and much more is our inheritance.
Liberty engenders boldness (Kruse 1987:99). Boldness allows us access to God. This access characterises our peace with God (Rom.5.1-2). It is a freedom from hostility to God, so that we may now be obedient to God as we submit to his law. Paul says: "we have been released from the law, so that we may serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" (Rom.7.6). The written code kills, but the Spirit gives life (2Cor.2.6); new life, and liberation from this whole depressing attempt to make ourselves acceptable to God.
The Spirit is called in Paul, "the Holy Spirit of Promise"; that is, he is the promised Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is rare in the OT. Only certain individuals were endowed with the Holy Spirit and even then it was not a permanent gift. 158 Messiah would be the permanent possessor and dispenser of this gift. Only with the coming of the Messianic age, will the pouring out of the Holy Spirit be characteristic. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is to be seen as an eschatological gift to God's eschatological people.
The Holy Spirit can only be received by placing one's faith in Jesus Christ. By belonging to Christ, we have become heirs to the promise (Ga1.3.29). This statement is explicated in Ga1.3.14 "... by faith we received the promise of the Spirit".
The promise could never be obtained through keeping the law, or by performing good works. In Ga1.3.2, Paul ask&a question that can only be answered in one way: "I would like to learn one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing ...?". In the same way that salvation is obtained by grace through faith, so also is the Holy. Spirit a gift of grace through faith.
One can conclude that there is a correlative between salvation and the gift of the Spirit. One cannot have one without the other (Rom.8.9). You cannot be saved apart from the Spirit; neither can you have the Holy Spirit without having experienced God's salvation. In the Spirit we are assured of our salvation (Moody 1968:108).
The promised Holy Spirit, being the firstfruits, is seen as a down payment or instalment guaranteeing the redemption of our bodies, the resurrection. This redemption is often referred to as a coming salvation. The Holy Spirit is thus the agent for procuring this promised salvation. He guarantees a liberation from our present "groaning" (Rom.8.23) when our mortal bodies will be raised by God on that day. The Spirit applies the promises to the believer in order to bring about this final salvation. 159 The promised Holy Spirit is therefore not only the fulfilment of the promise, but also becomes the fulfiller of the promise of salvation to the believer. Thus, we are children of the promise (Ga1.3.27f) and heirs together with Christ (Rom.8.17). Therefore, the gift of the Holy Spirit also means the gift of salvation, because his presence in us guarantees our resurrection in Christ (Rom.8.11).
Another way in which this salvation is expressed, is by Paul bringing together the combined work of Christ and the Holy Spirit when he says: "But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in99 the Spirit of our God" (1Co.6.11) 100. Justification and sanctification mentioned together have salvivic importance. While washing may have baptismal overtones, we are of the opinion that Penna places too much emphasis on baptism. Baptism is forced if Paul intends washing of sins as by the blood of Christ. But we cannot with certainty use the word this way as Paul never does so elsewhere. It is however so used in the NT. Our point is nevertheless not impeded by a sacramental understanding.
Though we cannot agree with Moltmann's universalistic application, when he says "The Spirit, the giver of life, 'fills' the creation with eternal life by 'coming upon' all and 'dwelling in' them" (1979:518), We agree that eternal life belongs to those upon whom the Holy Spirit came to indwell and fill. Thus, all those who have the Holy Spirit have eternal life, and those who do not have the Holy Spirit, do not have eternal life.
99This bi is translated as "by" in the NIV of the Bible. Either way, the effect is the same soteriologically.
100Penna sees here baptismal connections: "The three verbs evidence the clear disjunction from the preceding situation, while the expression 'in the name of ... ' clearly enough indicates baptism, which is here explicitely associated with the mention of the Spirit."(1996:255). 160 2.5.1.2 Encountering God.
We encounter God personally only through the Holy Spirit. The same can be said of our encounter of the risen, glorified Lord Jesus Christ; we can only encounter the Lord through the Holy Spirit. Paul speaks of the Spirit of God and of the Spirit of Christ in interchangeable terms in Rom.8.9-10. Though that be the case, we shall still distinguish between the Father and the Son.
Firstly, the believer is referred to as the temple of the Holy Spirit (1Co.6.19). The individual believer's body is here said to be the temple of the Holy Spirit. Though Paul's intention here is to encourage God's people ethically, the fact that our bodies are a temple is undeniable. The idea of temple cannot be divorced from the idea found in the OT; the presence of God.
Secondly, in 1Co.3.16-17, believers are told that they are collectively the temple of God. Here, however, the statement that we are the temple of God, is explained by the fact that the Holy Spirit, God's Spirit, lives in us. While each individual Christian is a temple (1Co.6.19), all the Christians collectively are one temple of God.
Thirdly, in Eph.2.21-22 all believer's are joined together in Christ to become a holy temple in the Lord in which God makes his dwelling through his Spirit. The Church therefore as a people, is a community in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. The purpose of our being built up together, is so that we may become the temple of God.
It is interesting to note that Paul uses the word naos (vans) which refers to the inner sanctuary, the Holy of Holies in the temple. When he therefore speaks of the 161 temple, he speaks of the real and immediate presence of God in the believer and also the community of believers.
The data above answers the question: "Does one receive the Holy Spirit through faith or through joining this community?" Some believe that by joining the community one receives the Spirit (Gaybba). That incorrectly places the community before the Spirit. He posits such a belief on the basis of apostolic succession (1987:175ff). If the believer is individually the temple, then faith has the priority. Moreover, the Spirit is the one who places us in the Church (1Co.12.13).
However, we cannot divorce the community from the individual in relation to the Holy Spirit, because the idea of Body has in mind individual members too. The building-up spoken of in Eph.2.2I refers to the building-up of the Church, the Body of Christ. The Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets with Christ himself as the chief corner stone. The "bringing together" is the joining of believers to make this building the holy temple that it is. That is why defilement and causing division in the divine society is strongly forbidden by emphasising the maintenance of unity in the Body.
Because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, Paul urges the community to live a holy life and to abstain from sin, particularly fornication. For him it is unthinkable that Christ should be joined to a prostitute, and so, devaluing his holiness. Remember, we are a holy temple "in the Lord".
Akin to this aspect of temple, is the concept of the Spirit's indwelling of the believer. Here we consider, not the aspect of us being in the Spirit, but of the Spirit being in us. The Spirit in us, is really God in us or Christ in us. The text quoted above (Eph.2.21-22), shows that God lives in us by his Spirit. The Spirit 162 builds us together so that God may dwell in us. But it is actually the Holy Spirit that lives in us.
In Rom.8.9 we learn that we live or walk by the Spirit if the Spirit of God lives in us. Here, the Spirit is called the Spirit of God, and therefore the Spirit is God. Part of belonging to Christ, is to have the Spirit of God, which Paul also calls the Spirit of Christ. As the Spirit lives in the individual believer, that believer may have fellowship with the Spirit (2Co.13.14). This fellowship has its outworking in a holy life. In this fellowship, the Spirit is then able to lead the believer (Rom.8.14). Being led by the Spirit is the hallmark of the believer's relationship to God as son.
The Spirit in us is the source of cohtrol to godliness in the believer's life. To be controlled by the indwelling Spirit, is to walk according to the Spirit (Rom.8.4-9). The inner working of the Holy Spirit prevents the believer from walking according to the flesh. Eph.5.18 brings out the same idea of being under the control of the Holy Spirit. The filling of the Spirit has to mean having the Holy Spirit in you, but practically, it means to do the works of the Spirit. It is to live your life with the Lord of glory. Our sonship is entrenched by such control. It is the normal characteristic of the dedicated Christian. It is God taking control of the believer. God taking possession of what is already his by the purchasing through the blood of his Son (Connor 1940:101-103).
The state of perpetual control by the Spirit, is made possible by the indwelling of the Spirit. To be controlled by the Spirit, is to allow the Spirit to flow forth. Stott says that to yield to the control of the Spirit, is the decisive rejection of the old nature (1968:151). To walk by the Spirit is the same as to be led by the Spirit. The former however, is active, and in the latter, the believer is passive.
163 Cumming observes in Romans 8 three classifications of Christian experience in relation to the Holy Spirit. First, having the Spirit, is the experience of every believer, otherwise you are not a Christian. Second, the Spirit abiding in us, as its correlative Christ abiding in us. He is our witness and our intercessor. Thirdly, living after the Spirit, and is the character of the spiritual man who is directed by the Spirit.
Then there is the matter of experience. Is there the experience of God through the Holy Spirit? Can one talk of Paul as an experiential theologian 101 ? Does the Spirit's guidance and enabling indicate an experience of God? In other words, can we experience the power of God in our daily lives? We believe that all these questions may be answered in the affirmative; and we shall illustrate the same.
2Corinthians is particularly strong in demonstrating the Spirit's enabling in our weakness. Paul shows how the believer may experience the work of God (by the Holy Spirit). This power of God is experienced especially in the areas of preaching and suffering for Christ. Suffering for Christ, seems in any case to be the outworking of preaching the Gospel in a hostile world.
In this Epistle Paul goes to great lengths to describe his experiences. Yet, he does not do so to state that his experiences should be normative for his readers too; no, but he enumerates it as a point of encouragement to them, and thereby also demonstrating his love for them. In 2.4 he says: "I wrote to you ... not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you". His manifold, and sometimes adverse experiences were nevertheless part of his ministry of the Gospel, or treasure held in clay jars of frail bodies (4.7). In reality, these experiences of Paul, is something he may boast about (11.16,30), but only to show
101 George A Lotter asks the same question in his 1995 paper "Is Paulus 'n ervaringsteoloog? - In die Skriftig -Vol 29 no 4 pg 549 to 560. 164 his weakness and dependency upon Christ (12.10). Living with Christ, who has God's power, empowers them to serve the church (13.4).
This power is really the point of our discussion here. In the first place, it is God's power. At one point he speaks of that power in the context of the Holy Spirit (6.6- 7), and at another, he speaks of it as the power of Christ who was crucified in weakness (13.3-4). In the second place, it is a power which is enabling in the aspects of preaching and perseverance. God is the one who leads him in triumphal procession in Christ as they spread the fragrance of the knowledge of Christ (2.4). In his preaching, his competence is not inherent, but it comes from God (3.5-6).
In his preaching, he dispenses life', and this life is the ministry of the Spirit, because the Spirit gives life (3.6-11). No wonder Paul speaks of his ministry as in the Holy Spirit with truthful speech by God's power (6.6-7). Not only is his speaking powerful, but the message itself is powerful. Paul's whole existence is centred around the preaching of the Gospel, so that the experiences of suffering were incidental. They happened to him; he did not strive towards that end. Preaching the truth in Christ was what he strived for.
However, without the Holy Spirit, Paul would not have been able to endure the hardships that he did for the Gospel's sake. In fact he enumerates his sufferings as being in the Holy Spirit (6.6). Lotter feels that its mention in the middle of the list in 6.4-10, has not only structural significance, but also contextual significance. He sees it as the "hinge" of the context (1995:552). The Holy Spirit means the consciousness of the grace that was not Paul's own, working in his heart, checking faults and calming fears, and producing every virtue he possessed (Filson 1953:347). The Holy Spirit enables the minister of the Gospel to endure what is often negative, but turned into good because it happens "in the Holy Spirit"
165 Paul therefore experienced the Holy Spirit in his preaching and in his sufferings as an enabling and empowering force. Dunn puts it this way: "Spirit for Paul is essentially an experimental concept: by that I mean a concept whose content and significance is determined to a decisive degree by his experience". (1978:200). The Spirit helps him through his experiences and turns it to become enriching to him and encouraging to his disciples. So does he encounter God; in his power through the Holy Spirit.
2.5.1.3 Adoption as Sons.
By referring to believers as sons of God, is to think of them as belonging to the household of God, and also that they share the image of Christ, who is the image of God. However, the role that the Holy Spirit plays in our sonship is most decisive, especially in Paul. Our adoption as sons 102is effected by the Holy Spirit. By the Holy Spirit in us, we may call out to God as 'Abba, Father' (Rom.8.15). Those who are led by the Spirit are sons of God (Rom.8.14). The proof of our sonship is that God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.
The theme of adoption as children (ticaccria) is expressive of a new relationship of humankind before God. This is set opposite a condition of slavery. The slave is bound, while the son is free. The adopted son has a full right to inheritance (Rom.8.17); even in a juridical sense (Wild 1991:99,106). This sonship is understood as a present participation through the Holy Spirit and an eschatological expectation of benefits. By this new relationship we have an extreme familiarity and intimacy with God, as shown in the cry "Abba" (Penna 1996:254).
1 °2This concept occurs 5 times in the NT and only in Paul (Rom 8:15, Rom 8:23, Rom 9:4, Gal 4:5 and Eph. 1:5). 166 This relationship is personal and individual. By that we mean that the individual has a personal relationship with God who sends both his Son and his Spirit in a sovereign free decision. Its individuality is expressed in Paul's use of the phrase "in our hearts". Penna says that Paul adheres to personal depths of the human individual (1996:255).
This relationship is also transforming. By the Spirit we are transformed into the same image from glory to glory (2Co.3.18). This is precisely God's purpose with our salvation as Paul understands it in Rom.8.29: "whom God foreknew, he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son ...." This transformation is confirmation of our sonship because Jesus is the Son.
This relationship is also expressive. By the Spirit of the Son who lives in our hearts, we are able to cry out 'Abba'. By addressing God as Father, is to show our sonship. The Holy Spirit puts that kind of language in our hearts and on our lips, 'Abba' is the expression of an especially close relationship to God. The Spirit provides this inner testimony that we are sons. The Spirit brings home to the Christian the awareness of his new filial disposition. The cry emitted by the newly adopted son is the assurance of being God's child and God now being his Father.
Not only is there a inner testimony of our sonship, there is also the outer testimony. Those who are led by the Spirit are the Sons of God. The Spirit's control of the believer is evidenced in a holy and God-glorifying life. The close relationship we have with the Spirit of God, is in reality a close relationship with God.
Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him (Rom.8.9). Those belonging to Christ are sons as he is the Son, but belonging to Christ is dependent upon having the Spirit. Therefore, being a son is also dependent upon 167 having the Spirit. The whole Christian existence is, then, a life governed by the Spirit.
Now, for a closer look at the concept of adoption. Paul's discussion is done against the background of the Torah, thus his reference to slavery. Adoption is the 'new way of the Spirit' as opposed to the 'old way of the written code' (Rom.7.16) Paul grounds the Spirit and adoption in the work of God's Son. The Spirit marks the inauguration of the new covenant and heralds the end of the Torah (old covenant). Adoption is therefore an eschatological reality with the 'now and not yet' also true of it. We are now sons having received the Spirit of adoption (Rom.8.15), yet we await eagerly our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies (Rom.8.23). For Paul, it is the Spirit which is the primary reference point. in defining the Christian's sonship, not in faithfulness to the law. (Burke 1998:315).
It needs to be said that 'Spirit of Adoption' should be understood as a genitive of quality103, so that the effect is the Spirit that comes with sonship/adoption. According to Burke the concepts of Spirit and adoption are so closely connected that they should not be separated; they are united and reciprocally related (1998:317). This is strengthened by Paul's distinctive use of the phrase 'the Spirit of his Son' (Ga1.4.6). It is impossible to think of the Spirit divorced from sonship.
The Son has effected "adoption as sons", establishing for believers a relationship with God much like his own, which in Rom.8.14-17 Paul will amplify as "joint- heirship". Thus Abraham's true sons (Ga1.3.27f), including Gentiles, are none other than God's sons, having become so through the adoption that God's own Son
103 Fee translates it as a genitive of instrument, thus having the effect "the Spirit who effects sonship" (1994:406). We prefer the genitive of quality, because in the Pauline texts the Spirit alway's confirms our sonship; but that the Spirit actualizes the believers adoption, is not excluded. 168 made possible. (Fee 1994:403). Therefore, those in Christ and adopted through Christ are the true Israel of God (Ga1.6.16) as Abraham's seeds. Adoption makes it possible for Gentile believers to share in both the sonship of God and the sonship of Abraham.
The sonship is one shared with Christ, so that the adopted son of God means also joint heir with Christ. The Spirit gives us that assurance of inheritance. He is the earnest of our inheritance and the confirmation of our sonship, We shall later look at the aspects of firstfruits and earnest (ciTrapx11 and eippaP61 ,) respectively, but let it suffice to say that the idea of adoption goes with that of inheritance. The Spirit is thus the believer's assurance of an inheritance.
Our sonship draws from the whole trinity. This sonship relates us so closely to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, that mystical categories are evident. We are part of the household of God the Father; we are one and like the Son; we have the Spirit in our hearts, who inspires and leads us. In reality we have fellowship with the Holy Spirit as he brings us into a relationship with the Father and the Son.
2.5.1.4 Empowering of Sons.
By nature we are dead to the things of God. We were unable to please God because our every inclination was without reference to God. But when we were made alive spiritually, the prospect of pleasing God was real. Even now, the struggle carries on. We find ourselves even now, incapable of pleasing God, unless he empowers us. We can live for God as he enables us. How does he do that? By his Spirit.
We may please God in our belief, in our conduct, in our attitude, and in the way we relate to others. We shall therefore consider our empowering by the Holy Spirit 169 in respect of our ethical living, evangelistically, in our sufferings for the Kingdom, and in our ministry within the Body of Christ. i) Ethically. This is in the matter of holy living. Holy living which is acceptable to God, is only possible through the Holy Spirit. This is referred to in Paul as 'walking according to the Spirit'; or being 'led by the Spirit', or being controlled by the Spirit. This life is contrasted with 'living in the flesh', the 'old things', 'darkness', 'the world', etc. The influence of the Holy Spirit ethically is best explicated by the concept of 'walking' and 'fruits' in Paul. We shall therefore discuss Rom.8:4-14 and Ga1.5:16-25.
Rom.8:4-14. By the Spirit of life, the believer has been set free from the power of sin and death. Sin works death, so that by our sinful nature, death was present in us. Being set free from sin and death, the Spirit is now able to help us live the new life. Through the Holy Spirit and baptism, we may live a new life (Rom.6:4). The old self was put to death and the new self was raised with Christ. Our living now is a life with Christ, so that it may be said that we are living in fellowship with Christ (Rom.6:8). Therefore, we are dead to sin and alive to Christ. With this understanding as our background, we may consider Rom.8:4-14.
When God saved us, it was not only to take away our condemnation, but to create for himself a people who are obedient to him, thus bringing honour to him. God's requirements for obedience are in the law. Such requirements can only be met in those who do not walk after the flesh but after the Spirit. The Spirit enables them to meet these requirements. Not, however as a means of salvation but as a moral and ethical guide, obeyed out of love for God.
170 Flesh is here used in a negative sense)" It means the sinful nature; that nature which is opposed to God. It is always set in contrast to the Spirit or spiritual disposition. When it is mentioned opposite the Spirit or spiritual disposition, it is always ethical (rather unethical) in its thrust.
The believer's obedience, motivated by his love for God, is a fulfilment of
Jer.31.33-34, a prophecy of the new covenant. When the believer lives according to the Spirit, he no longer lets the sinful nature (flesh) hold sway over him, but by yielding to the directing and empowering ministry of the Holy Spirit, he fulfils the requirements of God's law.
The believer's mindset has changed' from the sinful nature to the spiritual nature.
He no longer desires the things of the flesh, which lead to death, but he desires the things of the Spirit, which lead to life and peace (v6). The sinful mindset expresses a negative disposition toward God. It is hostile to God (v7). It is insubordinate to
God; it cannot obey God, nor keep his laws (v7). For these reasons God rejects fleshliness and its mindset. It cannot please God (v8).
The believer, however, is not controlled by the sinful nature. He is controlled by the Holy Spirit. He can only be controlled by the Holy Spirit if God's Spirit lives in him (v9). We see therefore, that there is the possibility for the Holy Spirit to live in a person. That possibility is confirmed in verse 11 (twice) and indirectly in verse 9 when it speaks of "having the Spirit" and in verse 15 when it says "you have received the Spirit". This is how a believer is distinguished from an unbeliever. The believer has the Spirit of God and the unbeliever does not. Paul plainly says that if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ (the same as the Spirit
104Paui also uses "flesh" in a neutral sense: "Jesus lived according to the flesh" (Rom.1:3); "flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God" (1Co.15:50); etc. 171 of God), he does not belong to Christ. Such a person cannot call himself a Christian. The presence of Christ's Spirit in one, makes him a Christian.
Interestingly, Paul suddenly speaks of Christ being in you (v10). In Paul's mind the Spirit of Christ and the glorified risen Christ are interchangeable. Christ's Spirit in you is Christ in you. Here we see the close relationship between Spirit- mysticism and Christ-mysticism. Christ is with us by means of his Spirit.
The Spirit of Christ in the believer means life and the characteristics of that life - righteousness - is now present in him, despite the fact that the body is destined for death because of sin (v10). This life that the believer has will ultimately issue in resurrection (v11). The resurrection Is possible because the Spirit of God dwells in him. That means that the Spirit is God's surety in our lives, that just as Christ was raised, so too our mortal bodies are going to live again through resurrection (Fee 1994:545). Verse 11 points toward the .future. In this verse the Spirit is again designated the Spirit of God. The point is that the presence of the Spirit issues in life and peace, and therefore righteousness as opposed to death and sin.
Having the Spirit means life now and forever. It opens the possibility for righteousness unknown before. It puts us under the obligation to serve God in a new way; the way of the Spirit. The imperative of verse 12 flows from the conclusion that as believers we have the Spirit, and the Spirit is given to this end: that we live according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh (v12). The presence of the indwelling Spirit is evidenced by a Spirit-controlled life.
Flesh is contrasted with Spirit as death is contrasted with life. The outcome of living in the flesh is death, and the outcome of the Spirit is life. By the Spirit we may put to death the sinful nature, or rather, sinful deeds (v13). As the misdeeds
172 of the body are to be put to death by the Spirit, so by the Spirit we shall live. Only by the Spirit can we do away with sinful deeds. He empowers us to do so.
We are no longer slaves to the sinful nature (law of sin and death - v2) but we are sons of God, and therefore free. Our sonship is hallmarked by our being led by the Spirit (v14). To be led by the Spirit is to be live according to the Spirit. By it we may be obedient sons and thus pleasing to God.
As we now consider the Galatians passage, we shall see how Paul delineates the works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit. We do not take these lists to be exhaustive, but they suffice to show the principles of life in the flesh and life in the Spirit ethically. We now consider Ga1.5:16-25.
Gal.5:16-25. While as sons we are free, our calling to freedom does not mean freedom to indulge in sin and the flesh,.but rather we must serve in love (v13). Service in love is here contrasted with the flesh. To put it in a different way, to serve in a new way of the Spirit (Rom.7:6) is to serve with love. The ethical life in the Spirit is predicated by love.
The believer is to go on living by the Spirit. Living in the Spirit is contrasted by living in the flesh. The contrast is specifically stated; the flesh and the Spirit are contrary to each other (v17a) and they are in conflict with each other (v17b). Paul's assumption is that it is impossible to live in both -in the flesh and in the Spirit. The effect of living in the Spirit will be not to gratify fleshly desires (v16). As you live by the Spirit, you will live by the promptings and power of the Spirit. This is the key to conquering the desires of the flesh.
To live by the Spirit, Paul says, is to be led by the Spirit (v18). Such a person is not under the law. Not that he does not need to obey the law of God, but he is not 173 under the law's bondage of legalism and condemnation. The law in itself is holy, righteous and good (Rom.7.12), but through the weakness of the flesh, that which is spiritual (Rom.7.14) and intended to bring life, actually brought death (Rom.7.10). We are therefore not under the condemnation of the law.
In verses 19 to 21, Paul lists some of the works of the flesh. This list of vices are obviously not exhaustive as Paul has other lists elsewhere too. 105 Works of the flesh denotes the acts of the sinful nature. By these vices the sinful nature becomes obvious. The flesh itself, our old nature, is secret and invisible, but its works are public and evident (Stott 1968:147). The desires of the sinful nature are the sinful desires of our fallen nature.
The list belongs to four realms - illicit sex, illicit worship, society and excesses. First, the realm of sex: immorality, impurity and licentiousness (v19). Immorality is more than sex between unmarried people, it includes any kind of unlawful sexual behaviour. The other two words refer to the unnatural and indecent use of sex, alluding to an open and reckless contempt of propriety. These words are sufficient to show that all sexual offences, whether public or private, whether between the married or unmarried, whether natural or unnatural, are to be classed as works of the flesh. (Stott 1968:147).
Secondly, in the realm of religion: idolatry and sorcery (v20). This shows that the works of the flesh includes offences against God. Idolatry is the brazen worship of other gods and sorcery is the secret tampering with evil spirits, also called witchcraft.
105Such lists are found in 1Co.6.9-10 and Eph.5.5. Elsewhere he simply describes them as 'wickedness', eg Rom.1.29. 174 Thirdly, the realm of society: hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissension, factions and envy. These are examples of the breakdown of personal relationships, whether it is caused by an individual or a group. The noticeable majority (8 of 15) of sins of discord seems to show Paul's present concern within the community.
Lastly, 106 in the realm of excess: drunkenness, orgies and the like. These excesses are condemned throughout Scripture, and is indeed incompatible with the spiritual life.
The vices are expressive of the world in which the Galatians once lived and in which their pagan neighbours still live. That kind of life by its contrast, vividly illustrates the true life of the Spirit. It is difficult to imagine two more utterly contradictory ways of life. By these ways of life one will easily recognise who are believers and who are unbelievers. The mention of the list of nine virtues are in sharp contrast to the list of vices.
The fruit of the Spirit is set in contrast to the works of the flesh. The contrast between "works" and "fruit" is almost intentional and significant. "Works" puts the emphasis on human endeavour, and "fruit" on divine empowerment (Fee 1994:444). By these fruit, the Spirit produces in the believer the very character of God. It is the product of the life of the Spirit. The list is not exhaustive as is indicated by the language "and such like" in verse 22. The context of this passage is ethics, not worship (Fee 1994:446).
106What is striking in this case are the missing items, especially covetousness (or greed) and violence.
175 Here, we cannot entirely agree with Stott's categorising 107 of these virtues for in the first three (love, joy, peace) he seems to apply to the Christians attitude towards God. Certainly, they apply to our attitude to other people as well. It has to be said that we do agree that the primary direction of our love should be God- ward.
The nine-fold virtues are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. As the fig tree must bear figs for fruit, so the spiritual person must hear the fruit of the Spirit. The fruit is the work of the Spirit (Ridderbos 1961:206). Love is the essence. Though we have said that the list is not exhaustive, we believe that it is nevertheless comprehensive for the purpose of producing the Christ-like life in the believer and in the believing community. He (or they) so display the character of our Lord Jesus Christ. The fruit of the Spirit fulfils the Law.
They who live by the Spirit are the ones who will bear the fruit of the Spirit. If the principle of life is to be led by the Spirit, this will be evidenced in the ethical norms of the fruit in the believer (Moody 1968:108). It also brings coherence in self by providing joy, peace and self-control; a coherence towards others, in the sense of peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, love and faithfulness; a coherence to God is evidenced by love and faithfulness.
The community of the Spirit is recognisable by the character of Christ in its members (Dunn 1975:320). God seeks to reveal his Son in each one of us (Gal.1.15-16). Christian holiness is a question of the Holy Spirit producing his fruit in us, because he indwells us. It comes from inside, not an external conforming but an internal transforming (Bruce 1985:153). As the Holy Spirit
107 The Message of Galatians. Leicester: IVP, 1968:p148. 176 works in us, we are being transformed from one degree of glory to the next (2Co.3.18). We are fashioned after the model of true sonship, Jesus Christ. For us it is a sonship in the same way the Son lives in unbroken communion with the Father (Ridderbos 1961:157).
Being in the sphere of the Spirit, is to he exposed to spiritual truths, as the Spirit of God interprets these to us. The Apostle says 'even the deep things of God'. Only the spiritual man has access to these hidden things, for the natural man cannot know it, because they are spiritually discerned (1Co.2.14). So does the Spirit reveal to us the will of God so that we may do it. The essence of it is love. Love is the primary spiritual gift. At this point justification enters the moral experience of the believer (Dodd 1959:95). ii) Evangelistically. The sons of God are also ministers empowered by the Spirit. They were given the ministry of reconciliation (2Co.5.18). It is God who gave them this ministry. What in fact is this ministry of reconciliation? To reconcile sinners to God in Christ and to acquit them from the penalty of their sins, so that they may serve God. In short, this is evangelism. As such, we may be instruments in God's hand to minister the message of reconciliation throughout the world.
Not only did the ministry include the endurance of hardships for Paul, but it was something that was done 'in the Holy Spirit' (2Co.6.6). These made his ministry an accredited one. He calls it the ministry of the Spirit (2Co.3.8). The Gospel is contrasted with the Law, and the Gospel is much more glorious.
As for the content of the message of reconciliation; Paul understands it to be the cross of Christ. He preached Christ crucified, a stumbling block and foolishness to some, but to the called, it was the power of God (1Co.1.18,24). Paul resolved to know nothing else except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1Co.2.2). 177 Paul saw his own weaknesses, but his preaching of the Gospel was with the demonstration .'" of the Holy Spirit's power, which he equates with God's power (1Co.2.4-5). It did not depend on his eloquence; nor did he have to use persuasive words for the message to be effective. Unless the Holy Spirit works in the listener's heart, the wisdom and eloquence of the preacher is ineffective.
The results of Paul's preaching was proof that his ministry was that of the Spirit. In the weakness of his person and message, the power of God was at work, now expressed in terms of the Spirit. The real power, Paul reminds the Corinthians, is not in X6yog and acxkia, but in the work of the Spirit, evidenced by their own existence as Christians.
To what powerful demonstration of the Spirit does this refer? Is it only seen in their changed lives, or did Paul do other things that also demonstrated this power? Does it refer also to signs and wonders? This would certainly be in agreement with the testimony in Rom.15.19 ("by signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit ... I have proclaimed the Gospel of Christ"). This truth may be demonstrated from Acts in numerous places .'" and 2Co.12.12. But was this applicable in Corinth? We think not, because in 1.22 of 1Corinthians, Paul said that the Gospel was contrary to human (in this case Jewish) expectations. Here, this demonstration refers to their actual conversion.
In 1Th.1.5, Paul states that the Gospel came to them with more than mere words. It came also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. This verse differs from the Corinthian reference in the sense that it distinguishes between the
108 Gk:dir68acci (a NT hapax legomenon), a word suggesting more than "manisfestation", but something akin to "evidence" or "proof'. It connotes a producing of proofs in an ar_qument in court. 109Ac.14.8-10; 16.16-18; 25.26; 20.9-12; 28.8-9. 178 power and the Holy Spirit. The power delivered them from spiritual bondage, and the Holy Spirit seems to be a gift which they received in the same way that they received conviction. The Holy Spirit resides in the Gospel itself. That does not mean that we are saying that the power and conviction may be separated from the Holy Spirit. From the texts above we may conclude that the Spirit brings about this power and conviction. Without the Spirit, there can be no such power or conviction.
Paul's powerful, Spirit-inspired preaching of the Gospel, resulted in their joyful experience of conversion, all orchestrated by the Holy Spirit. The primary emphasis in this verse seems to be Paul's Spirit-empowered preaching of the Gospel that brought conversion. God verified the truthfulness of Paul's preaching by a display of his power through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
What is finally significant, of course, is that in both cases - his preaching and their conversion - the Spirit is the key; and there was an evidential expression to the work of the Spirit, that Paul refers to as power, to which he can appeal so as to make his point stick (Fee 1995:45).
The Holy Spirit therefore is both necessary and indispensable for preaching the Gospel. He empowers the preacher and he convicts the hearer. Without these there can be no evangelism. Our point however, is in preaching, the Holy Spirit must be present in both preacher and message. The working of the Holy Spirit in conversion is evidence of the fact that he is in the preacher and he works through him. This is part of the fellowship that he has with the Spirit of God.
iii) Sufferings. The preaching of the Gospel was the main reason for suffering in Paul's life. Those who suffer for Christ, because of the Gospel, can be sure because of these sufferings, to be saved (Phil.1.28). On the other hand, they who 179 are the source of their suffering, will surely be destroyed. By persecuting God's people, it is a sure sign that they are the children of destruction.
In enumerating his hardships in 2Co.6, Paul says that for the sake of his ministry, which he defined as the ministry of reconciliation (2Co.5.19), he gladly endures these hardships. He endures many things; hardships, troubles, distress, beatings, imprisonments, riots, hard work, sleeplessness, hunger, dishonor, false accusations and the like. But the attitude he has in enduring all these things is one of purity, understanding, patience, kindness, sincerity, love, truthful speech, and a quest for righteousness (2Co.6.6-7). All this is possible because he does it in the Holy Spirit (2Co.6.6). It is remarkable that this phrase 'in the Holy Spirit' is right in the middle of all his sufferings for the Gospel's sake. It is because the Holy Spirit is so central in Paul's experiences for the Gospel. God, by his Holy Spirit, guided him through all these difficulties.
It will be noticed that again Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit in terms of the power of God (v7). For Paul this was certainly an enabling power. He could do what he did; he could endure what he endured because of God's power, the Holy Spirit. Lotter is correct to say: "sonder die Heilige Gees as gawe aan Paulus sou by nie in staat gewees het om al die uitermate moeilike sake to hanteer nie ... die Heilige Gees is eintlik die rigsteun vir alles wat Paulus in hierdie gedeelte noem. Vanaf 2 Kor.6.4- 10...." (1995:552). Within the context of these hardships that Paul mentions here, Filson says "The Holy Spirit means the consciousness of a grace that was not Paul's own, working in his heart, checking faults and calming fears, and producing every virtue he had". (1953:347).
By this, Lotter believes that Paul's example to the other believers, is an encouragement for them too to live by the enabling power of the Holy Spirit, especially in the face of suffering for the Gospel as a Christian (1995:556). 180 It is necessary for us to mention, that Paul never considers suffering as a Christian apart from the hope we have, eschatologically. "The sufferings of our present time are not worthy to be compared with the coming glory" (Rom.8.18). "For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all" (2Co.4.17). The Christian's sufferings seen in the perspective of eternity, whatever they may be, diminish in importance. By comparison, the eternal glory is far greater than all the sufferings one may face in this life.
What bearing does this have on our present discussion? In the first place, Paul understands his present human experience in the light of his eschatology, and his eschatology in the light of that experience 110 . In the second place, Paul's eschatological understanding never excludes the Holy Spirit as a vital part of it. Paul sees himself as minister of the New Covenant of the Spirit (2Co.3.7ff). Jan du Rand says: "Deur die Gees raak hede en toekoms antropologies vervleg. Dit is die bediening van die Gees wat volgens Paulus die betekenisvolle ineenstrengeling van antropologie en eskatologie bewerkstellig". (1999:341).
The reason for our suffering for the Gospel is that this body (jars of clay) has been entrusted to hold this priceless treasure. For we are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed ... we are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body (2Co.4.7-12). Why? because of the ministry of the Spirit he mentions earlier in 3.8.
110Du Rand proves this to be exactly the case in his discussion of 2Co.4.7 - 5.10, under the title: "Paulus se vemuftige vervlegting van antropologie en eskatologie in 2Korinthiers 4.7- 5.10" in Skrif en kerk Jrg 20(2) 1999.
181 Even though Paul's outward man is exposed to the dangers of the Gospel and to the wasting away of his body, yet he is being renewed inwardly day by day (2Co.4.16) 111 as the Spirit brings about that renewal. The inward renewal overcomes the outward destruction, and ultimately overcomes death itself. With regards to this inward renewal, du Rand says: "...die innerlike mens ... word gedeponeer deur uitdrukkings soon 'die lewe van Jesus' wat ons in ons omdra (2Kor.4.10), 'die Gees wat die geloof werk" (2Kor.4.13) die Gees wat God gegee het (2Kor.5.5), asook verderaan: "n nuwe mens' of 'nuwe skepping' (2Kor.5.17)". (1999:347). Such renewal is never divorced from the Spirit in the believer.
Therefore, the Spirit fellowships with the believer even in his sufferings, and he makes these sufferings to work a more weighty glory for and in us. The gift of the Holy Spirit is meant to prepare the believers, but an eschatological dynamic, working God's future in our present. That is why the Spirit is our down-payment for the future life. He is our guarantee in our present sufferings for Christ and the Gospel. iv) In the Body. The Christian lives his faith first and foremost in the Body of Christ, the Church. Within this body he has to relate both to the head, Christ, and to other members, fellow believers. In this relationship he must live in obedience to the head and edification of the body is made possible only through the Holy Spirit.
The New Covenant is a present eschatological fulfilment with the giving of the Holy Spirit. God will write his law on our hearts so that it becomes possible to
111 cf Co1.3.10.
182 obey the Lord from the heart. In this regard, 2Co.3.5f is most revealing. We are ministers of the New Covenant through the Spirit. We are not competent in ourselves, but our competence comes from God.
Paul sees himself as an instrument in the hands of the master. He serves the cause of God and by that is obedient to God. God gave him the grace to be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, his sacrifice pleasing to God and sanctified by the Holy Spirit (Rom.15.16). As he was obedient to God, he was also leading the Gentiles to obey God (Rom.15.18).
In 1Co.12.3 an experience of inspiration is to be recognised as the experience of the Spirit by the confession "Jesus is Lord". Nobody can say Jesus is Lord except by the Spirit of God. But in Paul's mind that Lordship cannot be divorced from a commitment to obedience on the part of the one who makes the confession. In other words, as the Holy Spirit enables us to confess that Jesus is Lord, he also makes good by enabling us to do God's will in Christ (cf. 1Th.5.18f). We relate to Jesus by the Holy Spirit in a way that he is Lord and we are his subjects in obedience.
Not only do we relate to the Head as Lord, but we relate to the members of the Body of Christ in a way that edifies them. As members we relate to each other in love (1Co.13). But how does the Holy Spirit fit in this relationship of members within the body? From Him we receive spiritual gifts, or gifts of grace (xapiap.a-ra). He gives different kinds of gifts (1Co.12.4). The Holy Spirit gives the members of the body gifts according to his sovereign will (1Co.12.11).
We are not here going to enumerate and discuss the spiritual gifts, but we need to show that the Holy Spirit is the one who gives gifts, and we need to show the purpose for giving these gifts, especially in relation to the Body of Christ. 183 In 1Co.12.4-6, we see the whole trinity involved in the giving of gifts, ministries and workings. The Spirit gives us different kinds of gifts, and though there are many gifts, all are given by the same Spirit. The different kinds of ministries are given by the same Lord, and the different kinds of works by the same God. However, when all these gifts, ministries and works are enumerated, Paul repeatedly uses the phrase "by (or through) the Spirit" (verses 8 to 11). That does not mean to say that God or Christ does not give. No, on the contrary in verses 28 to 29, God appoints those doing what is listed there. In Eph.4.7-13 the Lord Jesus Christ gave these gifts when he ascended up on high. The Rom.12.5-8 passage simply says that we have been given grace without reference to any person in the Trinity.
We shall later discuss (in 2.6 Participation Koinonology) the specific gifts as it may be applied in Rom.12.6-8, 1Co.12 and Eph.4.11-12, but for now we need to state the purpose of these gifts. In this respect Eph.4 states it clearly: i) to prepare God's people for works of service: ii) that the Body of Christ may be built up until it reaches unity and maturity (v11-12). The same purpose is clearly set forth in 1Co.12 and 14: i) gifts are given for the common good of the believers (12.7), ii) so that there should he no division in the Body (12.25), for the strengthening and encouragement of God's people (14.3,26,31), iii) so that the Church may be edified (14.5), iv) so that we may excel in the gifts that build up the Church (14.12), and v) so that we may instruct others (14.19).
If the Spirit gave gifts to edify, build up, instruct and encourage God's people, then with that he has enabled us to do so by using these gifts. The Holy Spirit therefore enables the believer, first in relation to the Head, by obedience, and secondly to the members of the Body by mutual edification.
184 2.5.2 Life-giving Spirit - Being Risen with Christ
Paul speaks of the Spirit as the Spirit of life (Rom.8.2). The Spirit, who is life- giving, dwells within the believer. This Spirit has set us free in Christ. The Spirit of life is God's response for those captive to sin. Fee concludes that the Spirit here is characterised by life (1994:524). The effect would be that the Spirit's law is life in Christ. Christ is the source of life. God'S current, ongoing remedy for sin and death is the indwelling, life-giving Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of life first of all because he is the Spirit of God. God is the living One, and the source of life in all that lives. The Spirit of God is also the Spirit of life, because he is the true and living God (1Th.1.9-10). The Spirit is the source of life for all who come to God through Christ. To be indwelt by the Spirit of Christ means life both now and .forever (Rom.8.10-11). The Spirit is the source of life for those who believe in Christ.
Paul also states in Ga1.5.25 that we live by the Spirit. This refers to the life that believers now live as the result of the indwelling Spirit. It is the indwelling Spirit's outworking in us. He is the Spirit who brings life so that we may live that life; a life controlled by the Spirit. Our behaviour is therefore conformed to the Spirit.
To live in the flesh is death (Rom.8.6) but to live in the Spirit is life and peace. To live in the Spirit is to have crucified the flesh. Walking by the Spirit is God's antidote to life in the flesh. Since Christ's crucifixion has spelled death for the flesh, believers are to behave in keeping with the Spirit, by whom they live. Living is empowered by the Spirit.
185 Paul sees his ministry as characterised by the Spirit, the giver of life (2Co.3.6), so that his ministry is of the new, life-giving covenant of Spirit. In this way his sufficiency, or competence is from God. Not only is this an enabling to preach the word of life, but it is actually communicating the Spirit of life, the Spirit that gives life to his hearers. The Spirit in his hearers is the reason why they live, or why they are alive.
It is in connection with the resurrected Christ, that Paul speaks of the life-giving Spirit in 1Co.15.45. 112 Dunn says that the last Adam stands for eschatological humankind, the life of the new creation, from resurrection onwards. The last Adam began with the resurrection of Jesus. (1998:242). The risen Christ is the eschatological equivalent of the earthly Adam. Adam is the progenitor of the old humanity while Christ is the progenitor of the new humanity. Therefore the risen Christ has the role of life-giver. Dunn more boldly says: "The implication, then, is that Paul intended to represent the risen .Christ as in some sense taking over the role of or even somehow becoming identified with the life-giving Spirit of God".
(1998:262).
Life in relation to the Spirit, is new life; through the Spirit, the resurrection life of Christ is then ours. We are raised with Christ to newness of life. Therefore, by the Spirit, we may know an inward renewal that brings about ethical results and transforms us into the image of Jesus Christ.
2.5.2. / Inward Renewal
112Contra Fee, we believe that Paul speaks of Adam Christology. First, the contrast already mentioned in verse 22, is one between Adam and Christ. That contrast is based on the former bringing death and the latter bringing life. Secondly, in the context Paul contrasts the physical body with the spiritual body, fashioned after Christ's resurrected body (v 40). Those in Christ are to be fashioned after the heavenly man, which is Christ. 186 i) Ethically. "If one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed away, and they have become new" (2Co.5.17). "It is not circumcision that counts nor uncircumcision, but the new creation" (Ga1.6.15). There are other expressions in Paul that also speaks of this newness: "new man" (Co1.2.10, Eph.3.15, Eph.4.24) and "new dough" (1Co.5.7) and they are contrasted to the "old man" (Rom.6.6, Co1.3.9, Eph.4.22) and the "old leaven" (1Co.5.7).
Whenever Paul speaks of this new life, he speaks of it in ethical terms. This is the means by which we show our transformed being, as we walk in the Spirit (Ga1.5.25). Paul's use of Trepord-riew always has a figurative value, that is, it indicates ethical behaviour. Penna is correct when he says that Christian moral life presupposes and derives everything from the basic reality of being "in Christ" and "in the Spirit". (1996:267). He goes further to say that for Paul mysticism is the basis for the ethic, or more precisely, that mysticism should be the basis for the ethic, which meant that the latter has a secondary value with respect to the former (1996:267).
The effect is that the imperative derives from the indicative. Ethics derives from our being in Christ or in the Spirit. We have our ethical obligation being in the Spirit. It is the natural result of having the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of holiness.
As members of the Body, the Church, we are already sanctified. There is however a holy working in and through our lives, so that we may become what God wants us to be in our daily lives and so that we might be presented spotless at the coming of Christ (Phil.1.6, Eph.5.25-27, 1Th.4.17, Rom.6.22, 2Co.1.22, 2Co.5.5,
187 Rom.8.23,26,27). Therefore, the Spirit completes our sanctification until the last day (Engelbrecht, 1971:74).
The fruit of the Spirit (Ga1.5.22-23) is the ethical outworking of a life in the Spirit. The one who is controlled by the Spirit will act according to love's precepts, that is, bearing the fruit of the Spirit. It is when these fruit(s) are contrasted with the works of the flesh (Ga1.5.19-20) that one realises the ethical thrust of being in the Spirit. As we are renewed day by day, we are able to do spiritual and holy deeds.
The passing of the old man, is the crucifixion of the old man and his wicked deeds. We died to sin, so that we may live the new life (Rom.6.2-3). We have died to the law so that we may serve in the ftew way of the Spirit (Rom.7.6). While this renewal works itself out ethically, it also takes place ontologically within the believer as he is conformed into the image of Christ.
ii) From Glory to Glory. Life is a gift of God, and that gift comes through the Holy Spirit. The eschatological transformation by the resurrection will be a reality through the Holy Spirit. By the Spirit we are made alive. Therefore our existence as a new creation comes to us in the Holy Spirit. The function of the Spirit in Paul from the creative aspect, is to bring to being the new creation.
When Christ, the last Adam, arose from the dead, he was able to give life as the life-giving Spirit (1Co.15.45). The first Adam passed on human nature and death to all (Rom.5.12). The last Adam, passed on the new humanity who have their interest in the Spirit; a humanity that lives by the Spirit (Dodd 1959:137). He is the life-giving Spirit. Christ is the progenitor of spiritual men.
188 .This new humanity is glorious because they are a heavenly humanity (1Co.15.48- 49). It is glorious because it is brought about by the Spirit of life (Rom.8.2). The Spirit of liberty (2Co.3.17) has set us free from the bondage that we have in Adam; and from then onward, life in Christ actually comes in increasing glory (2.Co.3.18). This is a renewal experienced by all believers.
2Co.3.17-18 functions as Paul's interpretation of Ex.34.34 in terms of the ministry of the Spirit. Unlike those of the old covenant, we may enter God's presence and so behold his glory. This relationship we have with God through his Spirit is one with increasing benefit and glory. The Spirit removed the "veil" of the old covenant, which was temporary in nature, and established something that was eternal in nature. The unveiling thaVhe brought about means freedom and boldness so that we now have access to God. This glory there beheld, is the glory of the
Lord himself.
In beholding this glory, God's people are thereby "transformed into the same likeness, from glory to glory". Thus, the Spirit of the Lord, not only gives us the life of God, but serves for us as God's presence, and he enables us to behold God's glory so that we are being transformed into his likeness.
The Spirit, who applies the work of Christ to the life of the believer, is the key to the eschatological experience of God's presence. The believer enters the presence of God through the Spirit, just as Moses entered that presence at Sinai. The entering of Moses meant that he shone with glory, but because it was in relation to the law, it was temporal glory. Now, the entering of the believer, also means glory, but an ever increasing glory because it is in relation to Christ, who is eternal and who is replacing the law. For whoever turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.
189 Transformation into the image of Christ is in fact God's purpose in his salvation plan (Rom.8.29). We are to be conformed to the image of God's Son so that he might be the "firstborn among many brethren". But it is important to note that the transference of the glory of the Lord comes by the beholding. Both the beholding and the transfer of this glory, is the Spirit's enabling work in the believer ("even as by the Spirit"). The Spirit is the fulfilment of the presence of God. Because of the Spirit we may behold God's glory that shines in Christ (v18). 113
2Co.3.18 recalls the theme of "glory" from vv 7-11, where the contrast was between two ministries, that of the law (Moses) and that of the Spirit (in the believer). Paul is now saying that as he and the Corinthians are experiencing the glory, they are both being transforthed into Christ's likeness from glory to glory. The glory began when their blindness (the veil) was removed, when their unbelief was changed to faith, when the light of the Gospel, which reveals the glory of Christ became plain to them.
The Spirit makes all this experiential to those who have turned to the Lord. In our experience we are being transformed as part of the redemptive process (being conformed to the image ei.Kail of his Son). Paul again has in mind the Adam - Christ analogy. Adam was created in the image of God, but that image was effaced by sin. The last Adam, being the exact likeness of the Father (2Co.4.4 and Co1.1.15,19), is the "mould" for those who are in Christ, so that they may share God's glory as they become more like Christ. To behold Christ is to see the glory of the Lord, because Christ is the image of God. Quoting Gordon Fee on 2Co.3 is appropriate at this point: "Through our experience of the Spirit we have entered into God's presence with unveiled faces. As everywhere in Paul, the one
113Van Unnik sees in this context a rather peculiar christology in v18 "we all ... beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness" has been considered as one of the dearest expressions of Paul's mysticism .... (1963:154). 190 God has effected our salvation as Father, Son and Spirit. Thus the redemptive work of Christ (v14), which has God's keeping Covenant with his people as its predicate (v11), is realised in our lives through the "unscribing" work of the life-giving Spirit; likewise flows from the redeinption that is in Christ and is effected in our lives as the Spirit "removes the veil" and transforms us into the likeness of the Father as that is seen in the Son." (1994:320).
The inward renewal happens through the Holy Spirit who changes (transforms) us. That transformation is a complete metamorphosis into the image of Christ. Being in Christ's image we are able to live ethically in an exemplary fashion. This inward renewal is not possible without the Holy Spirit. It is possible only by his indwelling of the believer, in the believer.
2.5.2.2 Christ - likeness.
The community of the Spirit is recognisable by the character of Christ in their members. God seeks to reveal his Son in each one of us, for this is the purpose of his salvivic action. "Whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son ... "(Rom.8.29). Christian holiness is a matter of revealing Christ in our personal demeanour and practice. So, we may be fashioned after the model of true sonship, Jesus Christ.
The reason God conformed believers to Christ's likeness, is that the Son might hold the position of highest honour in the great family of God. While our moral conformity to the likeness of Christ relates mainly to other people, our likeness to the true son as the firstborn, relates to God, as Christ is the image of God himself (2Co.4.4). It is necessary for us to show the important role that the Spirit plays in effecting Christ-likeness in the believer and in the believing community.
191 In our consideration of Christ as the last Adam, we have come to the conclusion that Christ is the progenitor of a new humanity, a "heavenly" humanity. While the thrust here is not ethical but eschatological it is nevertheless important because it shows that Christ-likeness is "natural" for the person who has received life from the last Adam, who is a life-giving Spirit (1Co.15:45). Therefore Paul's conclusion is that "just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven (Christ)" (1Co.15.49). No doubt, in Paul's mind, Christ-likeness is the central purpose of God in salvation,4and the Spirit is crucial in bringing it about.
Still in the vein of eschatological fulfilment, Paul says that Christ will by the power that enables him 114 to bring everything under his control, transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body (Phil.3.21). Christ's present power is earned by his total obedience (2.5f), so that he was raised with power. Our point however, is that Christ,. as the "firstfruits" (1Co.15.20,49), is the model so that all believers in the "harvest" will be of like quality. This transformation at the last day is effected by the Holy Spirit (1Co.15.44,46).
Is this only brought about at the consummation? No. In the meantime we must be transformed to the image of Christ with increasing glory by the Spirit of the Lord (2Co.3.18). Our emphasis now, is the phrase "with increasing glory" or "from glory to glory". In contrast to Moses' fading glory, ours should be an ever- increasing glory. Christ himself is the glory of God (1Co1.1.19) and that glory is eternal and unfading. When we believed, we were made partakers of this glory and from then onward, we are gradually being transformed into the likeness of Christ. The reference here is to the process of Christian sanctification. It is ethically intended. The Spirit brings about this increasing sanctification.
114phi1 .2 . 5
192 Yet in Paul, there are other allusions to our becoming Christ-like. He speaks frequently of us having the mind of Christ 115 ; having our minds transformed 116 ; putting on Christ117 ; being united with Christ 118 ; created to be like God 119 ; being renewed120; letting the Word/peace of Christ dwell in us 121 ; and to love as Christ loved. We shall briefly look at these in the present context.
In Phil.2.5 we are exhorted to have the mind of Christ. It means that we ought to have Christ's attitude and demeanour. In spite of all that is unique and different about the person of Christ, Christians are to have his attitude, self-sacrificing humility and love for others. The mind is the area of renewal (Rom.12.2) because it is there where our first encounter with sin is fought. Our thinking is to be sanctified first. In Eph.4.23 it is put that we should be renewed in the Spirit of our mind.
Paul uses the word "mind" in different ways. It is not only the faculty of thinking, but it is the centre of our attitude, and holiness (Eph.4.24). Paul calls this elsewhere the spiritual mind (Rom.8.5). Those who live by the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires (Rom.8.5). The mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace (Rom.8.6). Such control confirms our sonship (Rom.8.14). The Spirit-controlled mind is in reality having the mind of Christ because we mind the
115Rom.12.2, Eph.4.23
116Rom.13.14, Ga1.3.27, Eph.4.24, Co1.3.10,12
117Rom.6.5
118Eph.4.23-24
119Co1.3.10
120001.3.15-16
121 Eph.5.2 193 things of the Spirit. In his usage of the phrase "put on Christ" or the like, Paul has ethical overtones. In Rom.13.14 he exhorts the Roman believer to put on the Lord Jesus Christ so that they would make no provision for the flesh and its sinful tendencies.
Those who were baptised into Christ, Paul says, "have put on Christ" (Ga1.3.27). Like the Lord, we are now sons of God because we have by faith put on Christ (v26). This sonship is inextricably bound to the Spirit. Because we are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts (Ga1.4.6). Now, like Christ, we may refer to God as our Father and be his heirs (Ga1.4.7). Having put on the new man, we are being created after the image of our creator (Eph.4.24). Christian sonship involves no less obedience than was demanded or required of Christ. The ethical note struck by Paul means that the Spirit is the moral force for daily living (Burke
1998:320).
Yet another allusion to Christ-likeness, is our being united with Christ. We have dealt with this in chapter 2.4, but we are only wanting to show the role of the Spirit in our being united or joined to Christ. We were united to Christ through baptism so that we may participate in his death and resurrection (Rom.6.2.5). In the first place, if the Spirit of him who raised up Christ dwells in the believer, then we too will be raised like Christ (Rom.8.10-11). The point is that this resurrection of our mortal bodies is a reality "through his Spirit, who lives in you" (Rom.8.11). Resurrection is a means of identifying with, or being united with Christ, and this resurrection is made possible through the Spirit.
In the second place, if we work back, this resurrection is only possible if we have died with Christ. Sharing in his death, gives us the right to share in his life (Phil.3.10-11). For Paul a dying and rising with Christ symbolises and produces a solidarity of destiny between creature and Lord (Penna 1996:256). In our dying 194 with Christ, we die to sin, and now by the Spirit we are able to walk in newness of
life (Rom.6.4). In Rom.7.6 Paul speaks of it as "the newness of the Spirit".
When Paul says that the Word, peace and love of Christ 122 should dwell in us, by it he certainly means that we should communicate the Word, peace and love of
Christ. This has direct bearing on our moral actions. This is only possible as we walk in the Spirit (Ga1.5.32).
Finally, the Gospel is a treasure (2Co.4.7-15) which we carry in our frail human bodies. But as we suffer for the Lord, we carry the death of Christ around in our bodies, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our bodies (2Co.4.10-11).
So then, as death is at work in us, life is at work in those we preach to (v12).
Thus, the "life" is that of the risen Lord: it is made available to the Corinthians through the power of the Spirit, who is at work in the ministry of Paul. We speak the Gospel by the Spirit's power. The Spirit gives us faith (2Co.4.I3 cf. Ga1.5.22-
23) and as we believe, so we speak. For Paul it is the Spirit who gives life and engenders faith in the believer, making it possible for Christ to be revealed in the believer.
2.5.3 Baptism in/with the Spirit.
There has been much debate in recent times, as to the meaning of baptism in/with/by the Holy Spirit. The interpretation of 1Co.1.12.13 is crucial to the understanding of this particular doctrine. Paul's point in the context is important in one's understanding: the need for diversity within unity. 1Co.12.12-14 sets out the
122see co1.3.15-16 and Eph.5.2 195 basic presupposition of Paul's imagery, that the body is one though it is made up of many parts.
The body, the Church is one as is Christ. God's people are all members of one body. This body is in fact the body of Christ. It is for that reason Paul identifies the body with Christ (v12c), not because the body is Christ, but because the body is Christ's. 123
1Co.12.13 takes up the presuppositional statement that the body is one. It explains how the many became one body: they were all immersed in and made to drink the same reality, the Spirit. The explanation is given in terms of the Spirit. This sentence is inserted precisely because it reflects the heart of Paul's theology. What makes them one is their common experience of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit or their being in the body of Christ, is what distinguishes the believer from the non- believer. The Spirit and being in the body cannot be separated. One cannot be in the body without the Spirit. The Spirit marks the beginning of the Christian life (Ga1.3.2-3).
By explaining how the many believers become one, diverse as they are, he shows the need for their inter-dependency. To make that point, Paul refers to their common reception of the Spirit. It is not extraneous to emphasise Paul's usage of "all". By such usage he affirms it as a universal experience of believers. In their inter-dependence, they foster the unity effected by the Spirit.
In the use of this metaphor of baptism in the Spirit, Paul adapts the Spirit to take the place of water as that "in" which the individual is immersed. The emphasis
123Fee explains it as follows: "in saying, 'so it is with Christ', Paul is probably using metonymy, where 'Christ' means the Church, as a shortened form of 'body of Christ'. The evidence for this is v27 'now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it', followed by v28, 'and in the Church God appointed ...' " (1994:178). 196 clearly is on the "one Spirit" (twice repeated), rather than the verb: it was by being baptised in one Spirit that they have constituted one body.
The second clause "given one Spirit to drink" is a parallel clause arguing essentially the same point as the first. We do not believe that it speaks of a second experience. We agree with Fee, who sees this as a common device in Paul; cf. e.g. vv 15-16, 17,21,22-23 in the same chapter (1994:180). Besides, the context of this passage makes such an understanding necessary. It speaks of their common experience of the Spirit.
Certain issues around the debate in this topic need to be high-lighted here. The question posed here, deals essentially with whether this baptism is simultaneous or subsequent to the salvation of the believer. Whether it is universal or not; and whether we are baptised "by" or "in/with" the Spirit.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit is imperative for every believer. The question is whether all or only some have been baptised? There are certain presuppositions that influence our beliefs, but cannot be discussed here. One such is the fact that the Church is a NT institution, inaugurated or birthed at Pentecost.
We believe that the translation: "for by one Spirit we have all been baptised into one body ... " is incorrect, and should rather be in or with. Such is the usage in the rest of the NT, and the idea of the Spirit and baptism is there used in this way. The prevailing presupposing principle in this particular doctrine, is that Christ is the baptizer.
The Greek preposition et) (en) is used in every Scriptural reference of 'Spirit baptism' (except Mk.1.8). In every instance, except 1Co.12.13 (NIV), it is translated as 'in' or 'with'. In Mk.1.8 the Holy Spirit is a dative of instrument 197 which necessitates the translation 'with/in'. Dunn concurs that en has instrumental force (1996:128) in every instance of the seven explicit Spirit baptism passages (Mt.3.11, Mk.l.8, Lk.3.16, Jn.1.33, Acts 1.5, Acts 11.16 and 1Co.12.13). If in six of these, the Holy Spirit is the element into which the believer is immersed, and the same preposition is used in 1Co.12.13 as in the other instances, we may deduce that 'by' is an incorrect translation. The prepositional phrase 'in the Spirit' is most likely locative, expressing the element in which they have been immersed, just as the Spirit is also that which they have all been given to drink. Such usage is also in keeping with the rest of the NT. Nowhere else does this dative with 'baptised' imply agency (i.e. that the Spirit does the baptising) but always refers to the element in which one is baptised (Fee 1994:181).
When Paul says we have been baptised into Christ 124 (Ga1.3.27), he uses it synonymously with being baptised into one body, which is Christ's body. Every believer is part of this body, because he has been baptised into Christ. Therefore to be baptised in the Spirit means to be placed into the one body, the Church.
To be immersed in the Spirit, has to also mean to "have" the Spirit. One cannot belong to Christ unless he has the Spirit of Christ (Rom.8.9). One belongs to Christ who is in Christ and we have all been baptised into Christ. Having "put on Christ" is proof of the fact that we have Christ and belong to him (Ga1.3.26-29). Christ incorporates us into his body by baptising us in the Spirit (Fitch 1994:44).
We may illustrate our point historically in the NT Church. On the day of Pentecost at Jerusalem, the Church was inaugurated and consisting of only Jews. At Caesarea the household of Cornelius (Gentiles) were placed into the body (Acts
124"Baptised into Christ" comes with all the overtones of Adam-Christology (Rom.6.3 follows directly from 5 v12-21). And "baptised into his death" leads directly into the profound motif of sharing in Christ's sufferings. (Dunn 1998:452). 198 11.15-16). Some even include the incident at Samaria when the Holy Spirit was poured out there (Acts 8) where the Samaritans were incorporated into the body. That would agree with Christ's commission; "Judea, Samaria and the uttermost parts of the world" (Acts 1.8). The Church now consisted of Jews and Gentiles (and Samaritans).
Bruce sums it up beautifully: The phrase ... by one Spirit (1Co.12.13) ... does not point to the Spirit as the baptizer, but as the one in whom we were baptised - not an exclusive elite of 'spiritual persons' at a particular point in time. Faith - union with Christ brought his people into membership of the Spirit-baptised community, procuring for them the benefits of the once-for-all outpouring of the Spirit at the dawn of the New Age, while baptism in water was retained as the outward visible sign of their incorporation "into Christ". (1971:120).
We conclude that the Holy Spirit is essential in the establishment of the Church. The composition of this people in the Spirit and in Christ, makes them a mystical community. The phrase that best expresses this is "the fellowship of the Spirit" (2Co.13.14). Dunn observes that in 1Co.1.12-13 we learn that baptism by someone (or his associate) was a ground for allegiance to that person .... Baptism, in other words, was thought to form some kind of mystical bond between the baptised and the baptizer (1998:449). Such is the bond between the believer and Christ who baptises us in the Spirit, or, with the Spirit, into the Church.
Lastly, to be baptised into Christ (Ga1.3.27) is not only to become one with Christ, but also to become one with other believers. How is that? We become one with other believers in the body. In the first place, we are one with Christ on two levels mentioned in our text: "we have put on Christ"; that is, we are encased, engulfed, covered by Christ. Also, Paul says that we are one with Christ because we belong
199 to him (v29). Our being one with Christ brings about for us the inheritance that belongs to him. We too are heirs of the promise to Abraham.
In the second place, we are one body. If we are in Christ, we are all one. All distinctions have been removed. Unity in Christ transcends ethnic, social and sexual distinctions. (cf. Rom. 10.12 ; 1Co.12. 13; Eph.2.15-16). Christ's purpose was to create "one new man" (Eph.2.15), a single dwelling for God through his Spirit; the Church.
The one body, though consisting of many different parts is one. Of this body, Christ is spoken of as the head; not in the way that the head is part of the body, but in the way that the body is his body. The whole body is Christ's body and Christ is not only a part of it.
Therefore, being baptised into Christ, is another way of saying that we have been placed in the body of Christ; but it goes beyond to the ethical implications as well. Putting on Christ, always has ethical connotations in Pau1 125 By these ethical implications we know how to relate to God, and, to the rest of the body, especially. It is an outward display of what has already taken place inwardly - including practising all the virtues associated with Christ. Such is possible through the Holy Spirit's enabling (Ga1.5.22-26).
125cf Rom.13.14, Eph.4.24, Co1.3.10-13, Ga1.5.24. 200 2.5.4 The Spirit and Hope.
Not only is the Holy Spirit an eschatological gift to God's people, but he provides the very hope in a confirmatory way to that people. The presence of the Holy Spirit brings the certainty to the believer of the eschatological promises being fulfilled in the future. Here we shall confine ourselves to future eschatology.
2.5.4.1 Appaflav (deposit or first instalment).
Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit as the arrabon given to the believer. He refers to it on three occasions (2Co.1.21-22, 2Co.5.5 and Eph.1.14). Dunn sees this as the beginning of the salvation process (1998:421). We have been saved (Eph.2.8-9), we are being saved (1Co.1.18), and we shall be saved (Rom.5.9). Arrabon, however has bearing on the believer's future. The Spirit is the "down-payment", the "first instalment" of this future salvation.
The Spirit is also the arrabon of the process of transformation now underway in the believer. Such transformation will be consummated, completed at the resurrection of the body (2Co.4.16-5.3). The end of that transformation, is the glory of the Lord. We are being transformed into the image of the Lord with increasing glory (2Co.3.18) by the Spirit.
The arrabon is therefore the present guarantee of our future salvation and the completion of our transformation into Christ's image through the resurrection. If God's Spirit dwells in the believer, then that is his guarantee that as Christ was raised, he too shall be raised through the Spirit who lives in him (Rom.8.11). The resurrection of their bodies is guaranteed by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. His indwelling provides the assurance that the resurrection is certain.
201 The Spirit is for Paul a "first instalment" and "guarantee" of the wholeness of salvation. Eph. I .13-14 makes explicit what was implicit in earlier inheritance references 126 in that the Spirit is the first instalment in the Kingdom of God (Dunn 1998:468). Engelbrecht explains the concept of arrabon as follows:
"Paulus gebruik ook meermale die begrip "onderpand" om die Heilige Gees as voleinder to teken. Die Heilige Gees is die onderpand van ons erfenis Volgens Ef.1.13,14, is die gelowiges nadat hulle in Christus begin glo het, verseel met die Heilige Gees van die belofte, wat die onderpand is van ons erfdeel ... die Gees is self die onderpand en dus self die eerste paaiement, die waarborg van ons voile erfdeel .... Die Gees behoort primer by die toekoms en met behulp van hierdie begrip, "onderpand", gee Paulus hieraan uitdrukking". (1971:69).
While Du Rand does not mention the present moving towards Christ-likeness of 2Co.3.18, he nevertheless shows the primary significance of arrabon when he says: "En wanneer die Gees verbind word aan dppap6i) in 2Kor.5.5, vestig dit ons aandag op die 'eerste vereffening' wat • gedoen is met die verwagting van die volmaakte wat nog moet kom. Die hele aardse lewe met al sy ontberinge stuur vir Paulus of op 'n bepaalde bestemming. Die rigting daarvan is oppad na die Here toe ... Die finale eindpunt word in hierdie geval die verskyning 'voor die regterstoel van Christus' genoem in 2Kor.5.10" (1999:345).
2.5.4.2 Arrapx4 (firsffruits).
The idea of aparche is not far removed from that of arrabon. While the former is a metaphor from agriculture, the latter is a metaphor from transactions. The thrust of meaning is not very different. Aparche, commonly translated as "firstfruits", is used by Paul in Rom.8.23 - "we ourselves who have the firstfruits of the Spirit,
126cf Rom.8.17-23, 1Co.6.9-11, 1Co.15.44-50, Ga1.5.21-23. 202 groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies".
It is common knowledge that the redemption of our bodies refers to the resurrection, which is the final stage of our salvation. This same redemption is also called our adoption as sons, when we have attained full sonship, by having received our full inheritance. The idea of our full release from this earthly body is similarly given in 2Co.5.2f.
The area, or the reason for our groaning, is our bodies here on earth. On the one hand there is the groaning at the progress of the process begun by the Spirit. He is the first instalment and the firstfruits working in us, so that on the other hand, he is the one who confirms our hope of the resurrection and of the release of that groaning. In Rom.8.24-25 Paul sums up the longing as an experience of hope. Hope is one of the primary blessings of the Spirit for Paul.
The point that Paul is making in our present context is clear. Because we have received the firstfruits of the final harvest, the Spirit himself, even though we also "groan" in the present, we do so as those who are assured of our final adoption in the form of our resurrection. Paul illustrates the role of the Spirit in our present existence as "already" but "not yet" in terms of our future expectation. The future and final harvest is the resurrection, the redemption of our bodies.
It is necessary for us to mention that the Holy Spirit, himself being the firstfruits, is the believer's possession in that Paul says "we have" it. In both cases (arrabon and aparche) these metaphors speak clearly of a mystical relationship between the
Spirit and the believer.
203 2.5.4.3 Prayer.
The intercession of the Holy Spirit is a theme which is found only in Paul. He mentions it in Rom.8.26-27 127 . There is the glossolalic view. It says that such an interpretation would mean that Paul's assertion does not contradict its mention elsewhere in the NT. A second reason is that it preserves the divinity of the Spirit because only he knows the mind of God. We cannot accept this on one most important ground; that it is said to be inexpressible groans. The weakness Paul is describing affects all believers.
On the part of the Spirit, his intercession occurs within the heart of the believer. Although the intercession is on theiebehalf, it is an activity in which the Christians personally share. the goal secured by the Spirit's intercession is not the believer's acceptance with God (as is the case with Christ's intercession), but rather the accomplishment of God's purpose within his life.
The Spirit's intercession preserves our hope amid the sufferings of this present time. The Spirit's intercession enables us to know and do God's will. The ultimate end of the Spirit's intercession is to bring us into prayerful fellowship with God, and that even though we are weak and unable.
Here we agree with Obeng: The Spirit intercedes within us and Christ intercedes at the right hand of God (1983:363). But we do not arrive at the same conclusion; that these intercessions are one and the same. They are essentially inseparable because Christ's purpose and that of the Holy Spirit are ultimately the same - unhindered fellowship with God. That is our future hope as well.
127Though Paul mentions Christ's intercession (Rom.8.34) in close proximity to that of the Holy Spirit (Rom.8.26-27), we cannot agree with Obeng that Paul uses the intercession of both interchangeably (1983:361). Christ's intercession occurs in heaven and independently of our prayer desire. The Holy Spirit in us is able to take our inexpressible prayers to God. 204 When we do not know how to pray aright, the Spirit comes and in our destitution aids us. Peter O'Brien draws a connection between the sufferings of the believer and this "weakness" in pray. There is therefore a correlation between our present suffering and our present weakness (1987:68). We agree, because in this case we see a definite identification of the Spirit with the believer, since he has this one aim of transforming us into Christ's image. Little wonder that Paul brings the aspect of "groaning" to bear on our resurrection which is our redemption from this groaning. In our weakness, the Spirit is active on our behalf.
2.5.4. 4 Seal.
Lastly, the Holy Spirit is spoken of by Paul as the seal (Eph.1.13, Eph.4.30 and 2Co.1.21-22). The Holy Spirit is the seal with whom the believer has been sealed. Only believers are sealed, "for", Paul says, "you were marked in him (in Christ) with a seal" (Eph.1.13). The purpose for the seal here, is the marking of the believer. First of all as possession, and secondly as consignment to attain to the resurrection.
Eph.4.30 specifically says that the believer has been sealed "for the day of redemption". We have already pointed out that the reference here is to the final resurrection or the release from this mortal body. Again, the seal has bearing on the future hope of the believer, his ultimate salvation.
The fact that it is mentioned in close connection with arrabon in Eph.1.13-14, shows the importance of its future hope motif in Paul. Paul never speaks of the seal of the Spirit without thinking of our future consummation in Christ. This is the hope we are saved in (Rom.8.24). 205 While the seal in 2Co.1.21-22 is directly linked to ownership, it is nevertheless used again in connection with arrabon, guaranteeing what is to come. We cannot miss the future hope connotations in this present context. The seal therefore does have bearing on our future life and hope.
In Conclusion.
We may therefore conclude that there are not only mystical overtones in our relationship with the Holy Spirit, but that our relationship with him is probably the most important point of contact between the believer and God.
The believer is spoken of as being in the Spirit and also of the Spirit being in him. We are led by this Spirit, so that he becomes the believer's experience of the spiritual existence in Christ.
We may encounter God who dwells in us through his Spirit. We commune with God through the Spirit, knowing his will and pleasing him through the Spirit's enabling. We relate to God as our Father through whom we have an inheritance.
The Spirit is able to bear fruit in us, making the believer Christ-like. Our Christ- likeness is expressed in our ethical lives and in our sufferings. The Spirit enables us to bear these fruits, so that we may bear his image and share in his sufferings and ministry.
Through the Spirit, we are enabled to relate to the body of believers, to edify them and to be edified by them, so that Christ might be formed in us. But it is also through the Spirit that we are placed in, and made part of this body, by baptism.
206 He guarantees our future hope by being a deposit, the firstfruits and the seal unto the redemption of our mortal bodies. By helping us in prayer is the beginning of our being released from this present suffering. He helps the believer in his weakness.
2.6 ParticipaticutKoinonolognmfauL.
That we are able to participate in divinity, is a blessing second to none. We are indwelt by God so that we may be spoken of as being His people and Him being our God. We are in Christ, so that the blessings which are Christ's, are ours because we participate in him. Our 'relationship with the Holy Spirit is one where he is in us and we are led by him.
But this blessing is extended in that we may participate in the 'one Body'. We are members of that body, and members of each other as believers. Though many, we are one in the Lord Jesus Christ. Participation koinonology seeks to show the close relationship believers have with one another in the Body of Christ.
2.6.1 Existence Without Christ.
Paul sees the whole of humanity as subject (that is, in the service of) to sin, and the reward is death (Rom.6.23). This is the Adamic nature, and the Law comes to accentuate sin and death in that nature; "But when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died" (Rom.7.7). Sin reigned to death (Rom.5.20-21) so that the sting of death is sin (1Co.15.56). Therefore death reigns in our mortal bodies. Death is not the normal lot of humanity, but is the result of violating God's rule (Black 1984:413-433). 207 No doubt, Paul saw all as sinners (Rom.3.19ff.) so that all would need the grace of God. The Law was therefore only intended to bring us to Christ, where we may obtain grace (Ga1.3.24). In essence, the Law is what enslaved us, and slaves cannot be sons. So long as the Law is seen as the means of obtaining righteousness, the death of Christ is in vain (Ga1.2.21). Sonship comes by faith in Jesus Christ (Ga1.3.26).
One who is not in Christ, is considered by Paul to be in the flesh. They who are in the flesh cannot please God because their minds are set on what that nature desires (Rom. 8.5-8). The flesh, morally speaking, is opposed to the Spirit, and it cannot submit to the Law of God. It is tho§e who do not have the Spirit of God who are controlled by the flesh, and again, only those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God (Rom.8.14).
Also, Paul speaks of 'the world' in a moral way. When one follows the ways of the world, the ruler of the kingdom of the air, and the spirit of disobedience, walks in sin (Eph. 2.2). Those living in the world, live to gratify the cravings of the sinful nature. The sons of God are therefore not of this world because they have died to sin. The world was a description of their past moral and spiritual condition, and thus they were excluded from the 'citizenship of Israel and without hope' (Eph .3.11-13).
Yet another way of describing a life without Christ, was that they are 'enemies of God'. Once we were alienated from God and enemies because of evil behaviour (Co1.1.21). It was when we were God's enemies, that we were reconciled to him through the death of Christ (Rom.5.10). Our hostility to God was due to our sinful nature (Rom.8.7), and the result of this animosity, is that we became the objects of God's wrath (Eph.2.3). Reconciliation to God is possible through Christ. 208 The life without Christ, therefore, is the only reason why we cannot speak of a true fellowship with both God and man. We can only be brought together through Christ and in Christ, who alone can remove what causes the breakdown in true fellowship. In Christ only can we then grasp the idea of an inclusive and egalitarian community (van Aarde 1988:96-113). Because Christ is the first-born among many brothers (Rom.8.29) do we understand the predestined as the company of God's family. So do we become sharers and partners in this fellowship with the rest of the saints.
We are in agreement with Kasemann, that it seems idle to consider whether the notion of existence 'in Christ' precedes the idea of the Body of Christ. The two belong together in that they mutually interpret one another (1971:106). Being in Christ is therefore inseparable from the idea of Body. It is here where we can speak of 'participation koinonology'. Therefore those who are not in Christ, are not in this body which may enjoy real koinonia.
2.6.2 The Unity of the Spirit - The Community of Saints.
In Paul's mind there is the solidarity of mankind. There is the unity in Adam and therefore, the universal sinful nature and death. Sin and mortality came together through Adam. "Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death was passed to all men, for all have sinned" (Rom.5.12).
This solidarity in the first Adam corresponds with the solidarity in the last Adam (Burdon 1983:138). If because of one man's transgression, death reigned through that one man, those who receive the free gift of righteousness, will have life and
209 reign through Christ (Rom.5.17). Better stated in lCo.15.22, 'as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall he made alive.'
While Adam's solidarity applies to both Jews and Gentiles, so does our solidarity in Christ exclude any barriers, racial, or otherwise. The community of saints is thus possible only in our solidarity with Christ. This new solidarity Paul calls "the Body". When Paul writes of the body he means a real, tangible, physical community, a people, not a concept, something corporal as well as corporate. Belonging to the body of Christ affects and is affected by all physical relationships (1Co.6.15f and 1Co.7.14), while sharing in the sacramental body of Christ is a physical act with physical consequences (1Co.11.290. It is because the community is something real and corporal that its life can be truly and not just ideally corporate (Burdon 1983:138).
The Holy Spirit is the one who brings unity in the body. The identity of the body as a unity is brought about by the Holy Spirit, for with the Spirit we are all baptised into one body (1Co.12.13). It is the Holy Spirit who brings about a unity in the 'bond of peace' (Eph.4.3). All we as believers are to do, is to maintain this unity already provided. No wonder then, Paul speaks of "one body and one Spirit" (Eph.4.4).
Not only is that unity a work of the Holy Spirit, it is what the reconciling death of Christ brought about (Eph.2.14-22). The Word of Salvation, which now creates community between God and justified sinners through the cross, creates community among believers us well. Being reconciled to God creates that community with God, and is therefore the basis for creating community with other believers.
210 This communion of saints is a completely new community guided by new rules on its way to a new destination (Heyns 1980:84). The Church means a completely new community life amongst its members and as regards those who are outside it. Believers are in Christ, and he is in them, so that they already participate in what one day they will enjoy in full. If Christ and the Spirit are "firstfruits", then it could be expected that the Church will be and experience the final harvest.
However, the nature of this new community is one described as a new creation (Eph.2.10 and 2Co.5.17). The old has come to an end and the new has appeared. That which has passed away is the dominion of sin and death so that they do not have dominion over us anymore (Rom.6.11-14).
The Church also is to be understood as an entity with its own internal life. This life is expressed in two ways; in its missionary thrust and in its ability to be edified by its members, that is, by itself. Especially in the case of the latter, Paul understands a complete interdependence of the members with their specific and individual charismatic gifts to provide edification to other members with their specific and individual charismatic gifts.
It is interesting that the Holy Spirit in Paul's mind is the source of all the above elements of community. We have already shown that he brings unity in the body. He is the source of new life by which the community is characterised (Rom.8.2, 10-11). Paul speaks of the resurrected Christ as being the life-giving Spirit. The "new creation" (cf. 2Co.5.17 and Ga1.6.15), "new man" (cf. Co1.2.10, Eph.3.15 and Eph.2.24), and "new dough" (lCo.5.7) all speak of the new mode of living brought about by the Holy Spirit and expressed ethically as "walking in the Spirit".
The Spirit given to the church is pre-eminently the Spirit who creates community, and in the life of the church this is revealed in conduct directed and controlled by 211 the Spirit (Rom.8.4), where the harvest of the Spirit (Ga1.5.22, Eph.5.9) is being reaped (Heyns 1980:86).
Furthermore, the unity was perpetuated by their gathering around the Word, the Lord's table and prayer. It was here where they could exercise their gifts; for the most, through teaching, reprimand, encouragement and comfort. We have community with one another based on community with Christ through the Holy Spirit.
This community is a living organism, and therefore not complete or rounded off at one stroke. In fact it is never finished (Eph.4.11-12). The ultimate aim is not to attain mere moral improvement, buethat we shall at last attain the unity inherent in our faith and knowledge of the Son of God - to mature manhood, measured by nothing less than the full stature of Christ (Eph.4.13).
Heyns (1980:88-89) comments that community is further enhanced by their existence for mutuality and reciprocation. The members of the community are to love one another (Rom.12.10 and 1Th.4.9). They are to serve one another (Ga1.6.10, Rom.12.7-8, 1Co.12.25 and Eph.4.28). The community is to pray for one another (Rom.15.30). They are to care for one another (Ga1.6.1 and 1Th.5.14). The members of the community are to share their lives with one another (Rom.12.15, 13.8, Ga1.6.2, Phil.2.18, 1Co.12.26 and 2Co.7.3). They are to show one another hospitality (Rom.12.13). They are to admonish one another (1Th.5.11-14, 1Ti.4.13, 2Ti.4.2). Members of the community are to set one another an example (Phil.3.17). They are to show affection for one another (Rom.12.10, Phil.4.5, Eph.4.32). They are to be concerned for one another (Rom.12.15 and Eph.4.32). Members of the community must speak the truth to one another (Eph.4.25). They must accept one another (Rom.14.1 and Rom.15.7). Members of the community must live at peace with one another (Rom.12.18, 212 Rom.14.19, 1Th.5.13, Eph.4.3). They are to forebear with and forgive one another (Rom.12.14, Ga1.6.2, Eph.4.2). And, they ought to maintain the unity with one another (Eph.4.3, 1Co.12.25, Co1.3.15).
The reason why there is community, is that believers have so immeasurably much in common. There is so much that binds them together; so much that they share. The gathering together in public worship, and around the Word of God and the Lord's supper, is at once the deepest experience of community and the essence of the church's inner life. Here as believers we are one, in need and in intention. That need is both spiritually and physically expressed in our desire to emulate our Lord by giving, which is our 'normal' religious behaviour Osbert 1992:105,108). The intention is ultimately expressed in Sr common commission and task in this world. If the church is a pneumatic community of people filled with the Spirit, all endowed with a variety of gifts, then this ought to be manifested in their gathering. Yet, not only there, but in the wider function of the church within the world.
When every believer is involved in the community, he knows that in the gathering of the community he is no longer merely an observer or a listener, and that his gifts are being developed and deepened, not just for himself, but also to serve others, then the church's inner life will become a source of boundless inspiration, encouragement and strength to every member (Heyns 1980:93).
In conclusion, it is important to mention that for Paul, the meaning of the community as body and of life 'in Christ', the meaning of the sacraments and the meaning of the preaching are defined by 'Christ crucified'. In other words, the existence of community is defined by Christ crucified. It is where the church finds its real solidarity. It is explicable, not only through unity of faith , but through union with Christ; so it participates in his crucifixion.
213 2.6.3 One New Man - Unity in Diversity.
The people of God once consisted only of those from Israel. But, they now consist of those in Christ of both Jews and Gentiles. Previously, Israel was called 'the elect', and now the church is called the elect (Rom.1.6; 1Co.I.2, 24). Now the church is even called 'the Israel of God' (Ga1.6.16). They are the called ones. They have been called by God in Christ Jesus (1Co.1.2 and 1Co.11.16).
The church therefore signifies people who have been called together. This calling together is God's act. The church does not cease to exist when it is not gathered, and neither does it cease to function. God continually calls those people who are to be part of his church. As people obey his call they are placed into this body called the church. The church is the consequence of God's Word of salvation.
Certainly, the Lord is faithful to his people Israel, and for that reason we need to see how Paul understands the church, now consisting of all the nations. It is not unexpected that God should call others outside Israel, 'my people'. The Old Testament said that "many nations shall come over to the Lord on that day and become his people" (Zech.2.11). The church is this new people, the community of the Lord. But where does Israel fit into all of this? God's integrity is really at stake; therefore Paul calls to question the faithfulness of God in his dealing with the topic in Rom.9-11. He comes to the conclusion that God is indeed faithful to Israel, and that 'all Israel' shall be saved (Rom.11.26). It is really here where the term 'one new man' becomes important in our consideration. Herein we see the merging of Israel and the nations as the people of God. Yet in that unity, diversity goes beyond just Jew and Gentile, but in the practice of the diversity of charismatic gifts.
214 Paul uses many images of the church which are used also for Israel. We shall now enumerate these briefly. The church is called the seed of Abraham (Ga1.3.29). Paul approaches this by stating that we are now sons of God through faith in Jesus
Christ. The first correlation between the believer and Abraham, is faith. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Rom.4.9). By this connection of faith, Abraham becomes the father of believers according to the promise. So, he is the father of the uncircumcised because of their faith; and he is the father of the circumcised who believe (Rom.4.10-12). Those who receive the promise do so by faith and by God's grace it is guaranteed to them (Rom.4.16).
Paul argues the same point from a different angle in his epistle to the Galatians.
The promise to Abraham, he says, is to the Seed, as a singular seed. That seed is
Christ. The promise comes to the believer through Christ. So, if they are in Christ
(baptised into Christ and clothed with Christ - Ga1.3.27), then they belong to
Christ; and if they belong to Christ, then they are the seeds of Abraham (Ga1.3.29) and are heirs of the promise. This, he says applies to all who are in Christ, so that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for all are one
(and the same) in Christ (Ga1.3.28). Abraham's blessing came to the Gentiles through Christ (Ga1.3.14).
Another connecting image found in Paul, bringing together Jew and Gentile, is the church as the true circumcised (Phil.3.3). It is common knowledge that Paul speaks of the Jews as the circumcision (e.g.. Eph.2.11). They are however the circumcised in the flesh. He opposes this kind of circumcision as necessary or valid for salvation. By preaching that circumcision in the flesh was not necessary or valid for salvation, was the main reason for Paul being persecuted (Ga1.5.11).
Indeed, it is not circumcision or uncircumcision that matters. What really counts is a new creation (Ga1.6.15). They are the true Israel, the Israel of God (Ga1.6.16).
215 The new creation are not mutilators of the flesh, but they are the true circumcised (Phil.3.3). It is because they worship by the Spirit of God, and their confidence is not in the flesh, but in Christ. 'One is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart by the Spirit' (Rom.2.28- 29). This is also a circumcision done by Christ. "In him you were also circumcised in putting off the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but the circumcision done by Christ (Co1.2.11).
There is another image which shows a commonality between Israel and the church; as the temple of God. In the covenant God binds himself to Israel and Israel to himself; 'I will be your God and you will be my people'. How was that to be? Through God dwelling with his people. Yet, Paul refers to the church as the temple of God (1Co.3.16). The church is the temple because the Holy Spirit dwells in the community. He says 'you yourselves (plural) are God's temple (singular)'. Paul says that God's temple is sacred, and that the Corinthian believers are that temple (1Co.3.17).
This is where Eph.2.11-22 is important; Jew and Gentile became one new man in Christ. There was a time when the Gentiles in particular were separate from Christ, and therefore they were excluded from citizenship in Israel. They were foreigners to the covenants of promise. Therefore they were without hope and without God in this world (v12). That changed by the fact that in Christ they were brought near through the death of Christ (v13). The death of Christ brought about reconciliation - first between God and man, and now between Jew and Gentile too. He made peace between us and God and He is here called 'our peace' (v14). Peace was brought between Jew and Gentile as well.
216 The peace that Jesus is, is precisely seen that in him we are made one. In him the two are made one (v14). The barrier and dividing wall of hostility is destroyed in Christ. How did he do that? By abolishing the Law (v5). How? By becoming a curse, for 'cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree' (Ga1.3.13). Paul says that he redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. The purpose for dying on the cross was to create in himself 'one new man out of the two'. In his one body on the cross he reconciled both Jew and Gentile to God (v16).
Now, through Christ, both Jew and Gentile has access to the Father by one Spirit (v18). Note the Trinitarian work of salvation. Having access to God, the Gentiles are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with Israel, and they are now members of God's household; family (v19). In Jesus Christ the whole building is joined together to become a holy temple in the Lord (v21). In Christ we, both Jews and Gentiles have become a dwelling place for God by his Spirit (v22). The church is the people or community in whom the Holy Spirit dwells.
Finally, another important Pauline expression of unity between Jews and Gentiles in the body is seen in the image of 'grafting' the wild olive branches into the natural olive (Rom.11.17-24). It certainly has historical connotations in that Gentiles now share in the nourishment from the roots. It is certain that Paul saw the church in continuity with Israel as the people of God. The grafted branches are supported by the root (v18). The grafting of the wild branches as well as the grafting of the removed natural branches, comes because of faith (in Jesus Christ). God is able to graft them in (v23). The basis for grafting in, is faith. The point is the fact that both Jews and Gentiles belong to the same tree because of their faith.
The first point then of unity in diversity is found here; the difference in race has been removed so that those in Christ should be the one people of God. We now turn to a unity of the body with the diversity of its members with their diverse 217 functions. We need to establish what the relationship is between the unity and the diversity.
In the Pauline charisma-pericope (Rom.12.4-8; 1Co.12.4-7 and Eph.4.7-12) the whole diversity of gifts is given to this end; to serve the one body of Christ. In fact, the gifts from the glorified Lord is given for the edification of the one body. Roberts says the following in support: "Blykens Efesiers 4, het die daarstel van begiftigdes as die verhoogde Heerser se gawes aan die kerk juis ten doel die byeenhou van die dele van die liggaam van Christus en die opleiding van die lede vir 'n diensverrigting wat die opbou van die hele liggaam op die oog het (Ef.4.7- 12,16)" (1989:10).
Each believer is seen in this regard; as a member in particular of the body, but important is also that they are members of one another. Therefore, they are members of the one body which are put. together by Christ. Du Plessis concurs: "Die voorstelling van die liggaam is dus hier veral toegespits op die gedagte van eenheid in verskeidenheid. Christus bewerkstellig die eenheid en maak die liggaam (die hoof ingesluit) tot 'n eenheidsorganisme" (1967:118).
The designation "body of Christ" is very closely bound up with the expression 'in Christ', which must be set over against 'in Adam'. In Christ all believers are united as all of humanity find solidarity in Adam. Christ is the head of this new body, not as an extention of Christ literally (Christus prolongatus). The church is not the body of Christ in the sense that, since his ascension, he continues to exist here on earth in the form of the church. Our "in Christ-ness" is mainly ecclesiological. It refers most certainly to the church as well and for that reason is called the body of Christ.
218 It is important to note that the church is not described simply as the body, but as the body of Christ thereby signifying the indissoluble bond God himself has created between Christ and his church. As far as Christ and his body are concerned, he is its Saviour and Head, its Mediator and Perfecter (Heyns 1980:51). This new community therefore exhibits the style of life and thinking of Christ (Ga1.1.15-16 and 1Co.2.16). This body is different precisely because its distinctive and identifying feature is that it is the body of Christ. Ridderbos says in this regard: "Believers do not together constitute one body because they are members of one another, but because they are members of Christ, and thus are one body in him (Rom.12.5 and 1Co.6.15)" (1974:376).
Being members of one another is only meaningful when it is seen in the light that the church is a charismatic community. The church has graciously received gifts from God. It is divine grace come into effect in the body for the body's edification. In other words, the charism is a function of the member of the body.
Synonymous in Paul are the expressions "diversity of acts of service" (1Co.12.5) and "diversity of activities" (1Co.12.6). They are all used for the common good (12.7) of the body. Dunn puts it perfectly: "the paraenetic point of the image is to illustrate that the effective unity of community is impossible without an enacted awareness of the mutual interdependence of its members (1998:555). This is the unity in diversity so prevalent in the body of Christ.
2.6.4 Baptism and the Lord's Table.
These two ordinances are important in the life of the church. In its practice, the body is provided with the opportunity to remember and celebrate the death and resurrection of our Lord. Baptism is a once-off act of obedience which happens in 219 the beginning of one's life in Christ. The Eucharist on the other hand is to serve as a perpetual reminder and commemoration of Christ's death and resurrection until he comes again. In our discussion here, we want only to show how these ordinances facilitate unity in the church and in particular among believers, that is, believer to believers. This is what we mean by "participation koinonology". We shall first look at baptism.
a) Baptism.
Paul's actual use of the noun and the verb (baptism and baptise) is relatively infrequent. The noun appears in Rom.6.4, Co1.2.12 and Eph.4.5. The verb appears in Rom.6.3 (twice), 1Co1.13-17 (six times), 1Co.10.2, 1Co.12.13, 1Co.15.29 (twice) and Ga1.3.27.
We find it difficult to accept the sacramental view of placing so much on baptism. We find it hard to agree with some authors 128 that the beginning of the Christian life is found only in baptism. It is said that justification is the effect of baptism; that the means of union with Christ is baptism; and that the Spirit is mediated or bestowed in baptism. This obviously comes from the assumption that this long standing baptismal theology was the presupposition of Paul too. Much of it comes from New Testament scholarship influenced by the history-of-religions research done in the beginning of the 20th century.
Strange to us that such prominence should be given to the mystery religions (cults) when we know hardly anything about their rites which for the most part was kept secret. Moreover in the typical initiation rites to the mysteries, there was a great deal more complexity involved in the "recital of things", "showing of things" and
128Penna, Paul the Apostle: Wisdom and Folly of the Cross and Wikenhauser, Pauline Mysticism, that union with Christ is produced only by baptism. 220 the "performance of things". The suggestion of mystical identification with the cult god seems to be read into the texts in question, since any implicit, let alone explicit reference seems to be wholly lacking (Dunn 1998:446).
There was a social significance in baptism from the beginning of Christendom. Conversion was publicly confessed and it included baptism. Paul takes it for granted that all his readers had been baptised. Even though he may exclude himself from personally having baptised some of• his readers (1Co.1.13-15), it is nevertheless clear that they all had been baptised "in the name of Christ". That any believer was not baptised in the name of Christ, was unheard of. It was a renouncing of the old ways of life and a commitment to the new life in Christ (Rom.6.4). Different nationalities were pledging allegiance to the Lord by committing to this new life.
There is a connection between the rite and being baptised into Christ (Rom.6.3-4). Here baptism speaks of being buried with him into death. Baptism is then participation in his death. The idea is that of participation in Christ. The idea is also that of immersion. This is proven by the imagery of 1Co.10.2, but here the fact of immersion into water is clearly brought out. 129
However, the difficulty we mention above, is that there is the overstated and over- narrow focus on baptism. Baptism in the time of Paul was a well developed and necessary public ceremony which was simple and spontaneous (cf. Act.2.41, Act.8.36-38, Act.16.14-15, Act.16.31-33 -where the jailer and his family was baptised in the middle of the night-). There was no hesitation about baptising new
129Also Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (448), and Fee, 1 Corinthians (445-6)
221 converts. It always followed believing/conversion and confession. 130 But was it really given the dramatic and climactic status now given it by most scholars?
Evidently not; at least not to Paul in his communication to the Corinthians. He did not want them to make a false or too high evaluation of their baptism (1Co.1.13- 17). It did not mean that there was to be a mystical bond between the baptizer and the baptised. It was not a safeguard against sin and rejection (1Co.10.1-10). Including a comment on 1Co.15.28, Dunn is of the opinion that Paul definitely de-emphasises baptism (1998:450). So far as Paul was concerned, his mission was to preach the Gospel, not to baptise (1Co.1.17). In fact, this shows his understanding and desire not to allow baptism to overshadow the preaching of the Gospel, and that the Gospel did not' include baptism. Baptism has a lower priority than preaching, not just baptism misunderstood or the issue of who baptises. Barrett sees 1Co.1.14-17 as a relative depreciation of baptism. 131 We should like to emphasise the word "relative" in relation to preaching. Carlson says that it indicates that for Paul, baptism itself does not form the core of the Gospel he has been sent to preach (1993:255).
From our discussion of 1Co.12.13 in 2.5 above, we feel that there is a connection between this passage and Rom.6.3-4). The imagery of "baptised in the Spirit" is both coined as a metaphor from the rite of baptism and set in some distinction from the rite of baptism. The consistent form of the Gospels' saying contrasts John's baptising in water with the coming One's baptising in Spirit (Dunn 1998:451). The Spirit takes the place of water. The emphasis is on the one Spirit rather than on the verb. Therefore, Paul's emphasis was the one body. This suits the context perfectly. Also, this has bearing on the parallel Ga1.3.27-28, since the implication
130For this reason, we reject infant baptism; even based on covenantal theology.
131 Barrett, Paul (129) 222 there too is that it is not so much baptism which is the soteriological principle of equality, but the commonly experienced Spirit (see Ga1.3.2-5, 14).
The idea of baptism into death in Rom.6 is not a new one, since the Lord himself applies baptism to his death or vice versa (Mk.10.380. This may be the background for Paul's use of the imagery of our being baptised into Christ's death. The death of Christ thus is the beginning of salvation rather than the rite of baptism.
The gift of the Spirit comes by faith rather than by the rite of baptism (Ga1.3.2-5). Later generations, for whom the central or even only remembered experience of Christian beginnings was baptism, heed to take care lest they assume that it was always that way. Paul's testimony is quite to the contrary. It was the experience of the Spirit which made the greatest impact on their lives and in their memory. Baptism was not the focal or most significant feature of their conversion and initiation. The focal and most memorable feature of their conversion and initiation was the gift of the Spirit.
Membership to the people of God is no longer guaranteed by birth, as was the case with the Israelites, but through faith in Jesus Christ. Faith precedes baptism. This is how we understand baptism in the life of the believer.
The conclusion we come to is this: the body of Christ consists only of believers, and that all believers are of the body. Baptism has bearing on the unity in the body, and therefore is a point at which all believers have fellowship in the Spirit, since we are here referring to baptism in the Spirit.
223 Secondly, the rite of baptism is universally practised among believers in the New Testament. The common practice was a point of identification. In this identification we have fellowship with one another. We share in the same baptism.
Thirdly, how is this baptism the same, or what is the commonality? We are baptised into the name of Christ. That includes participation in his death. It also includes our common commitment to a new life in Christ. Therefore, our fellowship comes in a shared holy living. Therefore we can see Paul's point of our having 'put on' Christ (Ga1.3.27). This is in the process of being conformed to the image of God's Son (Rom.8.29), or the way Christ is seen in the believer (Ga1.1.15-16). In such a way does the believer enter the state of being a true child of God, because he is a sharer of the Spirit of Christ. He is now in Christ (Grossouw 1965:85).
Fourthly, in baptism our public unity is shown. In essence, with every other believer, we publicly confess that Jesus is Lord; we publicly declare his death and resurrection; and we publicly show our allegiance to Jesus, rather than to ministers of the Gospel.
Certainly, baptism is a point of participation koinonology, especially in the body of Christ motif. It is best expressed in the mystical sense of our being in Christ, by being baptised into his death. We therefore do not speak so much of participation because of baptism, but rather of baptism because of our participation. The rite of baptism is the public declaration of that participation.
By the Spirit we are united as believers to the body in baptism, but he also unites the believers with each other in one Christian unity (1Co.12.13). We do not accept Carlson's statement that in baptism there is the negation of old boundaries (and by that means Jews, Gentiles, bond, free, male and female). No, the negation is not in 224 baptism but in Christ for those boundaries are removed in Christ. He tries to push a covenantal line. (1993:259). However, from the incorporation angle such boundaries are removed. This supports our point of participation koinonology. b) The Lord's Table (Eucharist).
The Lord's supper is probably the most appropriate way to refer to the celebration that our Lord has instituted just before he went to the cross. His main purpose was for his disciples to remember him, especially his death. But by such remembrance the resurrection and his parousia are also on their minds. Moreover, the Lord certainly intended the celebration as a unifying event in the church.
This was Paul's understanding too. Whenever he speaks with reference to the eucharist, he always speaks in terms of our unity as believers and as the body of Christ. For Paul there is a close connection between the body of Christ as the church and the body of Christ as the bread. In the cup, we share (participate) in the blood of Christ, and in the bread, we share (participate) in the body of Christ. He then deduces that though we are many, we are one body because we partake of one bread (1Co.10.16-17).
The Lord's supper is at the very heart of communal life of God's people. This feature in the community life of the church was most fundamental in the Pauline churches. It can be said with certainty that Paul took the tradition 132 in its entirety and applied it for the enhancement of community life in the church of Corinth. We may expect him to have had the same attitude towards his other churches even
132Paul does theologize on the Lord's supper, speaking of it as "spiritual food and drink" (1Co.10.3-4); and in opposition to sharing in the table of demons (1Co.10.18,21); and rebuking the belief that it assures salvation (1Co.10.6-12) and that an unworthy partaking may result in sickness and/or death (1Co.11.30). 225 though he does not write concerning the Lord's supper. He takes it for granted that such was the practice in those churches.
Paul definitely had concerns about the table fellowship as it was practiced. For one, he was set against the attitude that there should be segregation at these meals. He condemned Peter for withdrawing from the Gentiles in Antioch (Ga1.2.11-14). We are not saying that this incident refers to the Lord's supper (though it could), but the Lord's table would demand even greater community between Jews and Gentiles.
The common tradition as rendered by Matthew, Mark and Luke also contained the powerful words of identification: "this (bread) is my body" and "this cup is the new covenant in my blood". It, therefore, without a doubt, refers to the body and blood of the Lord; therefore, Paul can speak of one body and of the believer's participation in Christ's death and in Christ's body. Paul speaks of a participation in Christ and in the one body, so that we are members of one another.
It is therefore wrong to cause segregation on any basis. Not ethnically, that is, between Jews and Gentiles; or economically, that is, between rich and poor; or sexually, that is, between male and female; or socially, that is, between bond and free.
The situation in Corinth evidently shows that there was tension between the rich and poor Christians. The rich had enough food and drink, and, their own houses (I Co.11.21-22) while the poor are those who had nothing (1Co.11.22). The well- to-do were going ahead with their meal before and without the poorer members (1Co.11.33) having arrived at their wealthier hosts' homes.
226 We see that Paul's instruction is really that they should wait so that all may eat together. It is meant to be a Christian communal meal, where participants together remember their Lord. What Paul had in mind when he wrote to the Corinthians was primarily social cohesiveness more than theological dispute (Dunn 1998:611). Paul was speaking against divisiveness when he spoke against factions (1Co.11.19).
The Lord's supper was a distinctive identity marker where it carried with it an obligation to exclusive loyalty to the Lord. This was meant for only Christians therefore Paul adds the comment of "unworthiness". Everybody had to examine themselves before they ate and drank, therefore the warning that some fell sick or even died because of unworthy participation. But unworthiness could also include the idea of divisiveness in that community. It was not simply a coming together, nor simply a coming to eat, but a coming together to eat is what Paul had in mind. That is why he was so appalled at the, individualism and clique-ishness of the Corinthians' practice (1Co.11.21,33): their eating was not together; they were not really sharing their food (Dunn 1998:617). It was the eating and the drinking as a communal act which was Paul's concern in his letter to the Corinthians.
Paul envisages a relationship between chapters 10, 11 and 12-14 in 'Corinthians. There is the "coming together" for the Lord's supper, and there is the "coming together" for worship (14.23,26). Throughout he seems to develop the idea of a charismatic body. This he understands as the Body of Christ, exemplified in the "one bread" (10.17); and Paul envisaged the congregation functioning as a body in the expression of worship and their charisms.
The table of the Lord could not be a private affair. The Lord's supper is intended to bind in sharing as a community together in mutual responsibility for one another. Our common eating and drinking functions as a remembrance of the Lord 227 and his self-giving in death as the example of our caring for one another. Again, we are bound together in one body as we partake of the "one bread". Du Plessis refers to it as "Die sakramentele verbondenheid" where he says that "op grond van die sakramentele gemeenskap tussen Christus en die gelowiges en ook die gelowiges onderling vorm die gelowiges dus 'n liggaam". (1967:119).
Finally, the eschatological aspects of the Lord's supper. In referring both to the past event and the future eschaton, Paul brings past and future together in the present. It shows that the new age has been inaugurated in the death and resurrection of Christ. Its speaks of a new existence in Christ and the participation in Christ as a present reality. The fact that Paul says that we remember the Lord "until he comes", shows that he thotight of the deliverance hoped for in the future.
The use of "new covenant" further placed an eschatogical emphasis on the Lord's supper. The language of the new covenant reflects the words of Jeremiah 31.31 where the phrase looks forward to the future, but its fulfilment is assured by the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Suggit 1987:17). The new covenant is effected through the death or blood of Christ in the same way that the old covenant was sealed with blood (Ex.24.8).
The idea of community is itself an eschatological hope and promise, for the true unity in Christ will be realized at the end when Jesus comes again. Meanwhile in our communion as a community we remember the death of the Lord until he comes. How? In the celebration of the Lord's supper. It looks forward to the parousia. In fact the Lord's death and the believer's share in it, allows us to enjoy its eschatological hope of the resurrection, rather than the prospect of judgement, for we are commanded now to examine ourselves (Thiselton 1978:522).
228 The Lord's supper therefore show aspects of "participation koinonology" in the sense that: we share in the one body; we are to eat and drink together emphasising community; it meant to obliterate the dividing lines racially, sexually, economically and socially; it showed our identification with Christ and our participation in him as we are focused on him in remembrance; and eschatologically in our one hope.
2.6.5 The Body of Christ - Corporate Identification.
The Christian identity is corporate in Paul. In fact it has to be with his understanding and use of "in Christ". If we understand Christ to be the progenitor of a new humanity, then that phrase, "in Christ" also needs to be understood alongside its equivalent of "in Adam". In this understanding of the Church Paul uses various concepts to depict the Church.
Already dealt with before, is the concept of 'Body'; but this body is specifically identified as the Body of Christ. In this concept the unity of the Church is demonstrated in Paul. Though we are many individuals and in particular members of this Body, we are first members of Christ's body (one body) and we are members of one another as well. How we are to understand this body presents difficulties of its own. There is even talk of corporate personality speaking from a christological viewpoint. We shall discuss this further below.
Also, already brought up is Paul's talk of the Church in "Israel" language. We are corporately known as the Israel of God (Ga1.6.16); we are the circumcised of the heart (Co1.2.11-13); we are now (implied) the commonwealth of Israel (Eph.2.18). The Church is also known as the elect. At various places Paul refers to the 229 believers corporately as the elect (Rom.1.6 and 1Co.1.2 and 24). In this light, we are both individually and corporately the ones chosen by God. Important though is that Paul always uses the singular with reference to both. The singular also embraces more than the local church. They are called by God in Christ (1Co.6.4; 1Co.11.18 and 1Ti.5.16.
The Church is also called, "The people of God". Of all the believers, especially, Gentile believers, Paul quotes from the OT: "Those who were not my people, I will call my People" (Rom.9.25). "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (2Co.6.16). Paul says we are a people zealous for good works (Tit.2.11,14). We are not a people brought into being by biological origin, but by the fact of God's election.
The Church is also called the bride of Christ and Paul does everything in his power to present his converts to Christ a chaste virgin (2Co.11.2). Christ is the head of the Church in the same way that the husband is head of his wife (Eph.5.22f). As bride, the Church is therefore summoned to guard her sanctity in the world until the coming of Christ, her bridegroom.
Corporately, the Church is the Temple. It is a temple wherein God dwells by his Spirit (Eph.2.20-22). This temple is not to be desecrated, for whoever will, will find himself desecrated by God (1Co.3.16-17). The idea of temple is further supported by the belief that believers are under obligation to perform priestly tasks for one another (Rom.15.27, 1Co.9.12 and Phil.2.30). Heyns puts it beautifully: "God has a residential address in the world - the Church" (1980:61).
230 From the title "church" itself; it is used to refer to the group or groups of those who meet in the name of Christ. Ekklesia 133has its roots in the Old Testament Hebrew use of qahal. It means the gathering of people. Paul applies it specifically as the gathering of believers, those converted in the Gentile mission. It certainly has Old Testament 'Israel' connotations where it is used in conjunction with God as the "church of God" (1Co.1.1, 10.32, 11.22, 15.9, 2Co. 1.1, Ga1.1.13). It appears sometimes in the plural "churches of God" (1Co.11.16, 1Th.2.14, 2Th.2.14, 2Th.1.14). Here it seems that Paul has the various local congregations in mind. It nevertheless still proves that Christian identity for Paul was always corporate.
And now for a little more on the aspect of the 'Body of Christ'. The body is specifically defined by its relationship to Christ. Most of our discussion so far dealt with it in an ecclesiological way. But while it is a body, it is also the body of Christ, and thus there must be some christological significance to the understanding of the body of Christ, and Paul uses the phrase in varied ways.
When one thinks christologically, may we think in terms of corporate personality as well? When we break bread saying "this is my body" in remembrance of Christ, are we not participating in the body of Christ (1Co.10.16)? What does Paul mean when he says "just as the body is one and has many members ... so also is the Christ" (1Co.12.12)? What does it mean when he says we all are one body in Christ (Rom.12.5)? At least from the sacramental usage, Paul is really emphasising the unity of the body. The body character is already assumed. Conversely, the body is vital in the expression of the unity of the community despite the diversity of its members.
133"Ekklesia". 62 occurences in the Pauline corpus. 231 Christ is said to be not merely in one person but in all the faithful, and at the same time all the faithful are in Christ (Wikenhauser 1960:81). Wikenhauser, however comes to the conclusion that it is only possible if the idea of Christ becomes vague of its personality so that it is dissolved in some kind of a pantheistic manner. Is it because Christ can be in all? Is it because all are in Christ? Or is it because both are possible? And does it necessarily mean that those in Christ lose their individuality because they are united to Christ?
While Paul definitely speaks of a Christ (Rom.8.10, 2Co.13.5, Ga1.2.20, Co1.1.27, Eph.3.17), he still understands him as the Christ who is our mediator (1Ti.2.5) and who is at the right hand of the Father (Eph.1.20), seated in the heavenlies (Eph.1.20) and who is to come again (1Th.4.130. Therefore, while Christ is in us, he is separate from us, so that we may not speak of a blurring of either his personality or our individual and corporate personality.
Christ is seen as a location into which the believer is placed. It has to be seriously doubted whether Paul had a single conception of the glorified Christ. He certainly thought of him as "in" and as apart from the believer. Dunn puts it better than we could : '... in both cases we can be confident that there was a spiritual reality which came to expression ... We can be equally sure that for Paul the spiritual reality of Christ was not reducible to the faith experience of individuals or to the tangibility of the church. Christ was still a personal reality within the totality of reality, still in direct continuity with Jesus of Nazareth, still the focus of God's saving grace for both present and future. But "personal" in a sense which is no longer the same as the human "person", and yet is more sharply defined than talk of God as "personal" ' (1998:409-10). 134
134PeIser speaks in the same vane: "my contention is thus that we should look for an answer in metaphor refening to a transcendent reality that lies beyond ordinary comprehension; a reality that can only be understood in metaphorical terms. (1998. Once more the Body of Christ - Neotestamentica 32(2) (525-545)). 232 Corporate personality suggests that believers as a body express the personality of Christ, not in a way that it replaces the personality of Christ so that Christ can be found only in the Church. Christ is still beyond and above the Church so that salvation is found in Him rather than in the Church. Christians are members of Christ. It is not that they constitute Christ, but only that together with him they constitute one being, reduced to one body (Pelser 1998:532). Believers may be regarded both as members of Christ's body and also as members of Christ himself (1Co.6. 15) and is called "Christ" (1Co. 12.12).
The question that is asked is "Does Paul identify Christ with the Church?" Certainly, Christians are members of Christ, and together they constitute one being. It however does not mean they , the Christians, together constitute Christ, neither does it mean that the presence of Christ is restricted to the presence of Christians. How then do we understand Paul's statement that the church is "Christ" (1Co.12.12)? Is this not in line with Paul's first experience of Christ when Christ asked him "why do you persecute me?" referring to the persecution of the Christians? Best answers this phenomenon in terms of corporate personality. He says that the different phrases "body of Christ", "in Christ", "with Christ", etc, are projections of the fundamental idea of the corporate personality of Christ and the believers. Consequently the Church is not really the ontological body of Christ (1955:100).
A variant of the notion of corporate personality is that of representation (Pelser 1998:533). The Adam-Christ idea in Paul is clearly shown in Rom.5.12-21. Roberts puts it in this way: "Christ is the representative of the Church. Because it is represented by Him, its members have been incorporated into Him, grafted into Him, and in this way they become His body" (1992:284). The Church is therefore the body of Christ by being incorporated into him as a result that he is their representative. 233 We therefore do not agree with those who speak of the church as the corporal body of Christ. The church is not the physical or the exalted body of Christ. That body, which having being raised by the power of God, now sits exalted in heavenly places (Eph.1.20). ,However, the concept 'body of Christ' sometimes only 'Christ', is an abbreviated way of expressing the union between Christ and the Church. It is not just a matter of relationship, but also of unity and identity. While on the one hand the Church is restricted to Christ, Christ on the other hand exists in and beyond the Church. In Christ we are all one; the great principle of solidarity dominates. It is within this principle of solidarity that we, the Body, live out an ethos which reflects an interaction between this New Testament idea of societal existence and that of our modern society (Joubert 135 1992: 59-61).
Not only was it 'in Christ' as opposed to 'in Adam' that corporate personality was understood; as in the Old Testament there was the dynamic of identification with the king. The king was identified as a corporate personality, so that in Christ as
'son of David' (Rom.1.4) and as 'Son of God' (Rom.8.16-17) we may speak of ourselves as joint-heirs with Christ. This speaks first of all about Christ as king and as Lord, and secondly, of his people as his subjects. In the 'body of Christ' motif,
Christ is spoken of as the head, not as member of that body, but as Lord. In this way we may speak of the corporate personality of the king. 136
136S.J.Joubert succinctly addresses the issue of the modem South African context in the light of a New Testament (and Mediterranean) cultural context, and proposes a method of sensitising our own society through teaching an ethical-cultural synthesis within a Biblical Studies curriculum-framework. ("Van werklikheid tot werklikheid: Die interpretasie en interkulturele kommunikasie van Nuwe Testamentiese waardes" in Scriptura 41 1992, 55- 65).
136This is motivated in Du Plessis - Die Agtergrond van die Hoof-Liggaam-BeeldSpraak by Paulus (deel 2) (1968:41-48). 234 CHAPTER 3.
JOHANNINE "MYSTICISM" ?
From the 1970's there has been a shift from the focus on history-of-religions and historical traditions in the study of Johannine literature to narrative - critical views.
Raymond Brown in his commentary ) showed that there were literary stages reflective of , and responsive to, stages in the historical life of the Johannine community. There was a intersection of literature and study of community, so that analysis no longer concentrates on the history of ideas but the history of the believing, struggling Christian community that shaped and consolidated the Gospel traditions (O'Day 1995:342). The texts of the Johannine writings demonstrates the life of the Johannine community, as it responds to their contemporary events and issues.
The Gospel of John has therefore to he understood on two levels, namely, i) it tells the story of Jesus, and ii) it is a rearticulation of the tradition in response to events in the life of the Johannine community. Many believe that the decisive event for this second level is the conflict of the community with the synagogue. The shift away from the history of ideas in the text and toward the history and life of the community is a view of the Johannine writings that takes the needs, struggles and crises of the Johannine community as generative of theological categories (O'Day
1995:343). These writings are treated as witness to the life and faith of a developing and struggling community. Our most significant access to the Johannine community is through the text itself.
1 The Gospel according to John. 2 vols.Garden City:Doubleday.1966,1970
235 This outlook is a shift away from the predominantly Gnostic provenance and milieu for the Johannine writings. That does not mean to say that incipient Gnosticism, Jewish mysticism or Qumranic mysticism had absolutely no influence, at least, on the milieu. These were discussed in chapter 1 above, and how it is distinguished. from Johannine mysticism will become apparent as we discuss the latter below.
Johannine mysticism stresses God's action and a consciousness of God's self- communication with man. There is a theme of communion with God running through the Johannine literature. It denotes a communion with God which is an essential constitutive principle of the Christian life (McPolin 1978:26). John describes the Christian life in terms of personal relationships. Through faith in Christ we enter into a personal cominunity of life with an eternal God. The kind of community we experience is one of love, and this has its application in the domain• of ethics.
It is important to note that in John, this communion is with a Trinitarian God, so that we may speak of communion with the Father (who sent the Son), the Son (who is to be received - Jn.1.12), and the Holy Spirit (who will flow forth from the disciples - Jn.7.38-39). The communion of believers with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and their communion with one another originate from the life and love shared between the Father and the Son ... "that they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us ... " (Jn.17.21). Because this is our present Christian existence (a communion of love and life with the divine) it is understood only in eschatological categories.
236 3.1 The Need for an Eschatological Framework.
Inherent in the understanding of Jesus Christ as the revealer of God the Father, and sent from above, is the presence of eschatological perspective. One cannot think of the incarnation apart from its eschatological connotations, for therein is the glory (Soto) of the only begotten of the Father revealed (Jn.1.14). That glory becomes more visible by the miraculous signs (cf. Jn.2.11) and should evoke faith in the community.
The functioning of miraculous signs (crfluda), however, differs from those in the Synoptic Gospels. In the synoptics they are given as deeds of power (Suifidue is) in which the eschatological kingdom of God breaks through into history. Thereby the power of Satan is destroyed, especially in the miracles of demon-exorcism and the raising from the dead; but also miracles involving nature (Du Rand 1994:29). By these signs the glory of God became visible in the incarnate logos.
It is only in an eschatological framework where soteriological inferences make sense. Experiencing God is a future expectation possible in the present for those who believe in Christ. If that is the case, then mysticism is inextricably bound to eschatology. The believer may "abide" in Christ, and Christ in him. This dynamic is not understood in a Greek dualistic sense, but in an eschatological sense. Salvation is given to the one who believes in the Son of God.
Furthermore, Christ's identity is revealed in eschatological categories. An eschatological framework provides the lens that brings these into proper focus. Only then can we understand Jesus as the life; and as the resurrection; and as the light of the world. These have eschatological importance.
237 The same applies to the understanding of 1John. Du Rand says that the denial of the opponents should be understood in its eschatological framework. The opponents are regarded as a phenomenon of the last days who represent the spirit of error, embodied in the antichrist (1994:164). Possibly the opponents claimed that their prophets were of the end-time and that the Spirit of truth spoke through them.
It would also he correct to say that the author inherited an eschatological outlook from the Christian community and the Jesus tradition. In Christ some of the eschatological events were now present. In Jesus the end of the world had begun to unfold. In Jesus the future had become present and both the eschatological salvation and the judgement have in effect already taken place in history. It was in Christ that the eschatological was realised.
Furthermore, John the baptizer preached a message of the coming of the Lord (in.1.23), the one who would baptise with the Holy Spirit (Jn.1.34). John the Baptizer preached an eschatological message. Jesus' message and deeds would therefore have had some continuity with that of the baptizer, especially since the baptizer spoke of him as the Bridegroom who comes from heaven (Jn.3.29-31).
Even here we have come to observe, that Johannine eschatology is christological in its approach, that Johannine mysticism is anthropological, and both are soteriological in its results. The latter is an' outflow from the former. This observation is developed under the eschatological nature of the Johannine writings.
3.2 The Eschatolgical Nature of the Johannine Writings.
The Johannine literature has very little about the future in it. It seems to make all the eschatological events realised in the present. This has brought many to ask how 238 Johannine statements about the present and the future eschatological salvation is to be understood. What role does future hope play in the life of the community since most of the statements (eschatologically) are in the already now? They have become such because the person and deeds of Jesus have become a reality (Engelbrecht 1984:23). However, there are texts that see eschatological events still in the future and we await its fulfilment.
The problem is that John speaks of salvation and judgement on the one hand, as here and now, and on the other as events to happen at the end of the world, on the last thy. For the first group, Christ brings a separation between light and darkness, and faith in him provides this salvation, while rejection of him, brings condemnation. Statements which are future-oriented are about the good or evil deeds done by a person as the basis for judgement (Engelbrecht 1984:23).
CK Barrett applies the same approach as for the Pauline understanding when he says that the Johannine understanding brought to the Christian faith the belief that Christ ushered in the new age in such a way that it brought with it the possibility for the believer to live in both the present age and the age to come (1955:57) 2 . The eschatological element of present and future is deliberate and fundamental to the Johannine literature. We must however admit that John places much more emphasis on present eschatology than on future eschatology. 3 It is our opinion that the emphasis of realised eschatology over future eschatology was a necessary device to develop aspects of Christ's identity. This was the essential revelation to the community. A faith response was in fact an identification with Christ, and
2Barrett, CK 1955 The Gospel According to St John.London:SPCK.
3 ln this regard Engelbrecht quotes Schnackenburg (1971:540) as saying that we must nevertheless not disregard future eschatology because it is of secondary importance. John did so because he was more interested in ontological categories.(1984:24). 239 therefore with the Father, who sent him to reveal the Father. Realised eschatology intensified or made that revelation more real. 4
3.2.1 Realised Eschatology.
Jesus sees himself as the one from above. He is the heavenly man. That in itself is eschatological in the Jewish mind; that the heavenly should dwell on earth. It was a breaking into the "world from below" by the "world from above" (Jn.1.51; 3.13 and 3.31). By nature the world from below hates the world from above (Jn.7.7), therefore those "of the world" rejected the one "from above". The incarnation is nevertheless the point at which these two worlds meet (in.1.14). 5 John portrays
Christ as the eschatological praesens (Du Rand 1994:34).
So too, the world which in rebellion against God cannot receive the Holy Spirit
(Paraclete) (Jn.14.17), because they do not see or know him, just as they did not accept the incarnate Son of God (Jn.16.3). Not only is the Holy Spirit an eschatological reality, but his function in relation to the world is eschatological too; he will prove that the world is guilty of sin, that justice is on the side of Jesus and that judgement has already come through the victory of Jesus (du Rand 1994:31).
The victory secured by Jesus came through his death on the cross. He refers to his death and resurrection as events in which he is glorified (Jn.17.5) and as the means
4Here we are in agreement with Engelbrecht, but we part ways with him when he says that realised and future eschatology cannot stand side by side in John, and that future eschatological passages were redactional interpolations (1984:26).
5With regards to the incarnation, Culpepper concludes that the elder (1Jn.1.1-3) emphasises the sensory perception of revelation "heard" "seen", "looked at" and "touched". In part at least the eschatological hope of seeing God has already been realised (1998:255). 240 to provide salvation for his followers. We are characterised by the Spirit of truth if we confess that Jesus came in the flesh (lJn.4.2) and that God sent him to be an expiation for our sins (11n.4.10). Therefore, salvation (which is eternal life in John) and the Holy Spirit as gifts are predicated on the death of our Lord. But the death of Christ is never thought of apart from the resurrection that followed.
3.2.1.1 The Resurrection in the Present.
Jesus "has the power to lay down his life, and has the power to take it up again" (Jn.10.17-18). By revealing himself as the good shepherd, he not only expresses his identity in terms reminiscent of fsrael's God and king (Ezek.34), but as the one who has divine power of life and death. He would die because he handed himself over to die. He even challenged Pilate that this governor had no power against him unless that power was given him from above (M.19.11). Christ was from above, therefore having this power in him. But even if he died, he would not stay dead because he would rise again.
When our Lord said to Martha that her brother, Lazarus, will rise again, she thought that he was referring to the resurrection at the last day (Th.11.24), because the resurrection was a last days category. The response of our Lord is striking: "1 am the Resurrection and the life ..." (Jn.11.25). The eschatological resurrection was a reality even before our Lord died. He did not have to wait for his own resurrection to inaugurate the eschatological resurrection because, he is the resurrections.
6That is where John differs from Paul on this issue. For Paul the eschatological resurrection was inaugurated with Christ's resurrection. 241 When Jesus brings Lazarus to life, he not only demonstrates that he is the resurrection and the life, but by calling Lazarus forth, he demonstrates that his sheep hear his voice. He is the Good Shepherd and those who hear his voice are those who have life. By it he fulfils his own prophesy: "... the hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live" (Jn.5.25). This same passage confirms that the Son has life in himself (J n. 5 .26) .
Manson explains the Johannine phenomenon of expressing things that are normally in the future tense, in the aorist and the perfect: 'God gave us eternal life (Jn.5.11), 'we have passed out of death into life' (lJn.3.14), as something possible only in the resurrection of Christ. This fact marks the dividing line between two periods in religion. Before it things are still future. After it they are present, and the abounding life that is manifest, is inspired by the event of Easter (1963:114).
The raising of Lazarus is the climactic sign of Jesus' ministry in the Gospel of John. It sets in motion the events that lead to Jesus' death. (Culpepper 1998:183). As was the nature of the Johannine signs (as works meant to reveal Christ's identity), the resurrection of Lazarus confirms Christ's claim that he is the Resurrection and the Life. It dramatically portrayed Jesus as the giver of life and underscored the statement made in the prologue ("in him was life"-Jn.1.14).
Jesus is the Resurrection by the Father's authority (Jn.5.21). Jesus seeks only to do the works of the Father. The story of the raising of Lazarus makes a distinctively Johannine claim: Jesus is "the resurrection and the life". Just as earlier Jesus had articulated a "realised eschatology" in reference to the Last Judgement (3.18-19). So he now pulls the hope of resurrection from the future into the present (Culpepper 1998:187).
242 Culpepper observes that the scene at Lazarus' tomb is strikingly similar to the story of the empty tomb (1998:188). There are weeping women; a stone is laying against the tomb; reference to the wrappings around the corpse; and days have passed. The significance of Christ's own resurrection, is that his grave clothes had been discarded and left there (Jn.20.6-7) so that no one was needed to free him as was the case with Lazarus His resurrection was complete. This distinction (other than the fact that Lazarus may have died after being raised) is perhaps the Johannine way of distinguishing between the present and the future eschatological resurrections; the future one will have the "grave clothes" removed. Ladd distinguishes it as a future objective eschatological event and a spiritual reality (1974:304).
Resurrection life, both future and present, resides in Christ; whoever believes in him, though he shall die physically, shall live again; and whoever enjoys the blessing of spiritual life through faith in him shall one day enter upon an immortal existence (Ladd 1974:305).
3.2.1.2 Eternal life 7 in the Present.
For John salvation is life eternal or simply life (Jn.3.16; lJn.1.2- "The life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us"). Believers have the promise of eternal life (lJn.2.25). They have passed from death to life (1Jn.3.14).
7Etemal life is the basic soteriological concept in the Gospel according to John. It is a concept because it comprises two words, aithviog and ((di. Together they create a concept. Van der Watt notices that when it speaks of God that (wrj is without cridivios because life in God is by nature eternal (1989:221). The expression OA cadivi.oc must be regarded as the primary and basic expression, while Nil alone is used without any semantic difference (Van der Watt 1989:227). 243 This life is inextricably bound up with Christ (lJn.5.11) so that he who has the Son has life and he who does not have the Son of God does not have life (lJn.5.12).
Eternal life was a Jewish expectation. The realisation of it belongs to the future. It is not something that the faithful Jew has now or presently: it is something which can only come to him at an undefined date in the future when the great intervention of God in world affairs takes place (Manson 1963:112). It goes with the consummation of history. Eternal life belongs to the age to come. It is a divinely bestowed life.
John uses life in this Jewish sense, but says that it is something that became present in Jesus Christ. God has manifested this life in his Son (lJn.1.2) and gives it to those who believe in him. The vitality of God overflows into the world: it is creative life and what it creates is a fellowship of love (Manson 1963:113). It is given by the one from above to those who.are born from above.
The primary emphasis in John is upon eternal life as a present experience - an emphasis that is quite lacking in the synoptics and in Judaism. The purpose of Jesus' mission was to bring men a present experience of the future life (Jn.10.10). He came down from heaven to give life to the world (Jn.6.33). His very words are life (Jn.6.63) because his words came from the Father who has given him the commandment of eternal life - cf. Jn.12.49-50 (Ladd 1974:257). Life is mediated through Jesus and is resident in his very person (Jn.5.26; 6.51 ff; 4.10;14.6 and 11.25).
The believer has this life in the present. Since he already has this life through faith in Jesus, he will never die (Jn.11.25-26). Ladd is of the opinion however, that this present experience of life is not all that life means; "the hour is coming when all who are in their graves (i.e. physically dead will hear his yoke and come forth ... 244 to the resurrection of life ... and to the resurrection of judgement" (Jn.5.28-29) (1974:258). Because the believer has eternal life now, he will be raised up in the last day (Jn.6.40).
Life in the present appears with Jesus, the logos. In the epistle John speaks of the "word of life" (11n.1.1) which was made manifest in history and in the person of Jesus Christ. He brought life to men so that eternal life is a present experience to those who believe. In Christ, God has already given us eternal life; he who has the Son has life (lJn.5.11-12).
Those who believe were granted the status of being "children of God" (Jn.1.12). As children of God, they have eternal life, drink living water, and eat the bread of life. Eternal life is characteristic of the kinship we have with God through the Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the heavenly revealer, and being his disciples means kinship that allows our sharing in his life already in the here and now.
O'Grady makes a mention-worthy remark in this regard: "Salvation ... means eternal life, which the believer already has. The believer will pass through this world, the realm of darkness and death, to enter the heavenly realm in order to share in the salvation of God" (1999:123). The significance of that statement is that life is not only something with future significance, but it becomes the enabling quality of practically overcoming the present darkness. He goes on to say that Jesus does not postpone the promise of this life to some distant future, but this life in the here and now becomes for the believer the transcendence of being (1999:123). By this life, we mean an eternal bond between this "I am" (Jesus) and those who live and believe in him. If they live, it is in Jesus' life that they live; if they are raised, it is by sharing in Jesus' resurrection. This eschatological reality is therefore only understood within the concept of mysticism. Life in the Word is
245 clearly not subject to death and that is the life to which believers are heirs (Minear 1993:488-499).
Lastly, it is necessary to say that the life to be had in Christ is universally available but individually realised (cf. Jn.3.16;6.35). That happens when people transcend their earthly reality by becoming part of the heavenly reality through a relationship with Christ by becoming "born from above". It is realised through Christ 8 because of his presence (Van der Watt 1985:78). The person who has eternal life is therefore one who has heavenly characteristics.
3.2.1.3 Judgement in the Present.
John brings the concept of judgement into the present. Judgement still appears as divine judgement (Jn.8.50;12.31), but now the Son judges as God previously had judged (Jn.5.22,27) and judgement is based on human decision. Human responsibility takes centre stage (O'Grady 1999:124). If they choose to remain in darkness, that is, in unbelief, they have brought judgement upon themselves. If they believe in Christ, they have passed from darkness into light. That amounts to the same as having passed from death to life (Jn.5.24; 3.14).
This judgement is also based on the works, or deeds of men. For one, not believing in Jesus Christ, already brings condemnation on the individual. The result of judgement, condemnation, has already been passed (in.3.18). To believe in Christ, is to receive the light. Jesus is the light of the world. Men loved darkness rather than light (rn.3.19) because their works are evil and the darkness covers their evil deeds. The light exposes it (but in soteriological terms, the light
8Etemal life as a human possession is christologically determined . Soteriologically speaking the incarnation took place so that believers may have life (Jn.3.16; 10.10). 246 expels the darkness). To remain in darkness, is to make oneself culpable of evil deeds, which results in condemnation.
Even though Christ says that he did not come to judge the world, but that the world would be saved through him (Jn.3.17), it does not exclude the fact that with salvation has come judgement for those who would not believe in him. In this way God has committed judgement to the Son. Jesus said that he judges no one. "And yet if I do judge, my judgement is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me" (Jn.8.16).
The irony is found herein, that Christ took away judgement by giving life and light, but in his coming he divided people, and this always brings a type of judgement. Those who reject this gift end up "blind" (Jn.9.39). Some receive him with joy and are rewarded. Others reject him and are punished. This reward and this punishment is his judgement upon those who come into contact with him. (Hendriksen 1954 Vol 11:94). The reward is expressed as being given sight to see; the punishment is to remain in blindness. The word of Jesus, meant to be a word of salvation, becomes a word of judgement and condemnation.
The present judgement distinguished between two types of people; those who are saved and those• who are condemned. This is the verdict brought forward before death from the final judgement at the end of the world.
3.2.1.4 The Present Holy Spirit.
In the Jewish mind, the gift of the Holy Spirit is an end-time reality. The Christus praesens marked the coming of the one who baptises with the Holy Spirit (Th.1.33). In the Gospel of John this is fulfilled when Jesus breathes his Holy Spirit 247 upon his disciples (111.20.22). He sees his presence replaced by the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is another Paraclete (Th.14.16). When Jesus talks about the (near) future, he focuses on the life of the community in the present with the presence of the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit (O'Grady 1999:122).
The Holy Spirit in the life of the believer can be tested against love (lJn.4.7,8-12). He will also confess that Jesus came in the flesh and that he is the Christ. The Spirit will guide the community in the present. The Holy Spirit will guide them in all truth as he abides with them forever (Jn.14.16-17). He will teach them all things (Jn.14.26).
The Holy Spirit will also be the distinguishing mark between believers and unbelievers. Believers will possess the Holy Spirit, while unbelievers will not have him. The unbeliever cannot receive him because he neither sees him nor does he know him (Jn.14.17). The believer knows the Spirit because the Spirit is known by him and dwells in the believer.
By believing in Jesus, the Holy Spirit has become part of the believer's life. Christ has promised that out of the believer's heart will "flow rivers of living waters" - then he spoke concerning the Spirit which he was to give (Jn.7.38-39). Though the Spirit is individually received, his power is corporately applied (lln.4.12-13).
Jesus speaks of a coming again in the coming of the Paraclete (.1n.14.18); some have taken this to refer to the parousia, but it is better understood in reference to Jesus' coming in the Spirit. Jesus has already been a paraclete to his disciples, but the Holy Spirit came to take his place and to continue his ministry with the disciples. The Father sent the Spirit in Jesus' name; so also Jesus came in the Father's name (Jn.5.34). Quoting Brown, Ladd says "In many ways the Paraclete is to Jesus as Jesus is to the Father (1974:294). 248 3.2.1.5 The Antichrists in the Present.
One of the phenomena that characterises the last days is the appearance of the antichrists. The word antichristos occurs only in the Johannine epistles in the New Testament (lJn .2.18; lin .2.22; lJn .4.3 and 2Jn.7). Antichrist is the adversary of the Messiah. John's thought about the antichrists is that they are false prophets who deny that Jesus is the Christ (1ln.2.22). They try to lead the community astray. They are therefore present in the community in the here and now. The opponents are regarded as a last-days phenomenon; and they represent the spirit of error (Du Rand 1994:164). They are characterised by a lack of love and a spirit of pride. They would not admit their sins and they are apostate, because they were never part of the community (1.1n.2.19). John nevertheless speaks of them as a present phenomenon.
3.2.2 Future Eschatology.
Though from a superficial reading of the Johannine literature, it may be said that little is written about future eschatology. Some scholars have even gone so far as to say that all allusions to "not yet" eschatology in John's writings, are interpolations aimed at upholding a traditional view of eschatology. 9 Views of a completely realised eschatology are not very persuasive. 10 The difference between John and the synoptics is one of emphasis because he still shares the essentials of primitive Christian eschatology.
9Bultmann (1941:196) - Das Evangelium des Johannes - GOttingen:Vandenhoeck(KEK).
10Du Rand says that "the Gospel of John does not propagate a different eschatology but lays a unique emphasis on the already of salvation, without denying the future".(1994:51). 249 A future eschatology is essential to the structure of Johannine thought. The glory of God was present in Jesus, but only the few who had faith recognised it. Ladd puts it this way: "Jesus came from eternity as one sent by God in the present. Such a person with a past and a present must also have a future" (1974:301). Therefore there is a hope of the parousia and an eschatological consummation.
The emphasis of John on realised rather than futuristic eschatology is because he is interested in the future of the individual rather than the community as a whole. Eschatology in John is on an individual level. That does not mean that future eschatology is excluded. We shall now consider elements of future eschatology in John.
3.2.2.1 The Resurrection of the Dead.
In John, as we have it, future eschatological hope is not entirely eliminated. The 'already' and the 'not yet' are held together. The future expectation may play a muted role because of an emphasis on present decision and experience (Lieu 1978:235). Especially in John's writing about the resurrection and the parousia can one detect this tension between the 'already' and 'not yet'.
Jn.11.23-26. This Gospel acknowledges a future eschatology by the mention of Martha's belief. But while she knows of a future resurrection on the last day, Jesus introduces himself as the resurrection in the present. She accepts this after the Lord asked her if she believed this. While Jesus draws the resurrection into the present, further investigation of the text shows that he holds the present and the future aspects of the resurrection in tension. The tension comes in the statement 'He who believes in me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in me shall never die'.(Jn.11.25-26). 250 The believer is pictured at the moment of death or past death. That was in fact the case with Lazarus. Every believer who dies physically will live. That life comes through the resurrection, who is Christ. The living believer on the other hand (that is before death) will not taste death. In this case it may mean spiritual death. As Hendrikson says: 'Even physical death fails to quench the believer's real life' (1954 Vol II:150).
It is true that here on earth the believer has real life - life that comes from above (Jn.3.36), but that does not preclude physical death. The first half of the statement we are now considering certainly says that some believers will die, while the second half says they will not. Minear believes that such an apparent contradiction appears to be deliberately designed to raise important questions - did Jesus promise death and resurrection to some believers while other believers would avoid death entirely? (1993:487).
The declaration 'I am the life' appears to serve as the basis for the promise that believers will never die. The declaration 'I am the resurrection' undergirds the promise to believers who die. The life that Christ is, is not the life that can be interrupted by physical death, and the resurrection that Christ is, is applicable only to physical death because it also would be applied to himself after the cross. The kind of death that leads to resurrection is the one that Lazarus died and the one that Christ would die on the cross; physical death.
Jn.5.28-29. A look to the future to confirm what had already happened became apparent when the Beloved disciple spoke of the resurrection to life and the judgement of evil doers. They accepted the reality of salvation present now but needed a hope in a fulfilment of what had begun. They joined a realised
251 eschatology to a future eschatology but never lost sight of the importance of the present (O'Grady 1999:127).
Ladd puts it that 'here it is clearly affirmed that those who enjoy the present reality in life, who have been raised out of death into spiritual life, will in the future be raised out of the grave in a bodily resurrection. The clue to this is the omission of the phrase "and now is", which locates the resurrection of the preceding passage (5.25) in the present; and the addition of the words "in the tombs" which gives the passage an unavoidable reference to bodily resurrection'.(1974:306).
This view of the resurrection is supported by other verses in the Gospel. In Jn.6.39 it is the will of the Father that everyone who believes in the Son should have eternal life and be raised up at the last day. Those whom the Father draws to Christ will be raised up at the last day (Jn.6.44). Furthermore, he who eats and drinks the flesh and blood of the Lord respectively, will be raised up in the last day by the Lord (Jn.6.54). Pryor (1992:152) has this to say: "...John's radically present eschatology is ...the promise and the proleptic experience of that which has yet to be finally ... established on the day of resurrection."
3. 2. 2. 2 The Judgement.
Similarly here as with the resurrection, judgement is conceived of both as present and as a future separation at the last day. Future eschatological judgement is affirmed in Jn.12.48: "He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word I have spoken will be his judge on the last day". The basis of this judgement will be the words of Jesus. The point we are making, is that the language looks forward to a judgement on the final day.
252 Coming hack to Jn.5.28-29, it is hard not to admit that the resurrection on the last day will place everyone who died before God for him to separate. Those who had done evil will be condemned and those who have done good will receive life. The basis of judgement here is the deeds of the individual. What constitutes good or evil deeds will not be explored here. The righteous will be raised up to enjoy the fullness of eternal life, but the wicked will be condemned for their evil deeds. 11 The recognition of judgement as a present spiritual reality by no means permits us to evacuate the future judgement of its content. Future judgement is not converted into present spiritual judgement. A future judgement remains, and on that day in the future, the believer will have boldness because he possesses what God is and has, love (lJn.4.17 cf verse 16).(Pryor 1992:152).
3.2.2.3 The Parousia.
In the face of such emphasis on realised eschatology, the elder reasserts the traditional hope for future fulfilment. What we will be has not yet been revealed, but it will be revealed at Christ's coming. We will be like him at his coming (lJn.3.2). Being like Christ is the hope that excites every believer.
This hope has ethical outworkings in the life of the believer and of the community. They purify themselves just as Christ is pure. We cannot help, but to think of the Bridegroom and the bride nuances here depicted; one that is common in biblical understanding.
11 Van der Watt gives an alternative plausible solution to the problem often discussed in this regard: that this particular judgement only involves those who lived before the incarnation of Christ (1985:71-83). 253 In lJn.2.28 the believers are encouraged to remain in Christ because remaining in him will make them to be confident and unashamed at the coming of Christ. By "coming" the author does not mean it in the same way as is meant by the coming of the Paraclete, but has definite reference to the parousia.
Important to notice however; at this coming there exists the possibility of some being ashamed. The idea of being ashamed is of being unable to stand before Christ with the confidence that faithful believers will have. It connotes judgement and the possibility of condemnation. The final judgement is therefore never understood as apart from the parousia and reciprocally, the parousia is accompanied by judgement.
The language of Jn.14.2-3 is sufficiently ambiguous that it sets up a typical Johannine misunderstanding ... (Culpepper 1998:210). By the end of the chapter John has brought a realised eschatology to bear on the hope of being with Jesus, but the case for a future eschatological understanding is strong. The purpose of Christ's coming again is to receive his disciple to himself. What that means is explained in the ensuing phrase "that you may be where I am". Notice, it is not the other way around - "that I may be where you are". John could not have wanted to substitute the Paraclete for the parousia.
Finally, the parousia is supported by Jesus' word to Peter with reference to the beloved disciple in Jn. 21.22. This verse has clear reference to the parousia for the Holy Spirit had already been breathed upon the disciples in Jn.20.22. It was said only of the beloved disciple that he would not die (Jn.21.23). This misunderstanding persisted until after Pentecost.
254 12.3 Conclusion.
The Johannine writings place a strong emphasis on realised eschatology. This is so mainly because he emphasises the salvation of the individual based on faith in Jesus Christ, but is also to be recognised as a device to reveal the true identity of Christ. The christological emphasis is therefore an emphasis on realised eschatology.
To say that the Johannine writings are completely realised eschatology is to misunderstand the authors intention. The difference between John and the Synoptics is only one of emphasis. It shares the essentials of primitive Christian eschatology. Future eschatology is essential to the structure of Johannine thought.
Also, there is no conflict between Johannine eschatology and mysticism, because the veiled revelation of God's glory in the historical Jesus, demands real future fulfilment; especially in the fact that we will be in the exact image of Christ at his coming (cf 1.1n.3.2). Quoting Ladd expresses our view succinctly: "The only 'realised eschatology' in the Fourth Gospel is on the individual level; and such a type of realised eschatology, far from replacing a futuristic eschatology, needs be only its correlative" (1974:302).
3.3 ParticipationIrwologyinAolut,
The writings of John are structured according to the experience of the Johannine community, whose existence emerges from and depends on the primeval union of God and the Logos and whose goal is the union of believing humanity in and with the Father and the Son through the Paraclete. The main purpose of those writings is the believing in the revelation of God through Jesus Christ. This is possible 255 because Jesus introduced a specific relationship between God and believers, namely that of 'father' and 'children', derived from the analogy of his own relationship with God. The crux therefore is the revelation of Jesus Christ, who is the revealer of the Father.
In the Johannine model of relationships, affective meaning flows from the Father, through the Son and Paraclete to come to fulfilment in the relationships of the disciples. Commenting on the Johannine plot, Du Rand (1996:66) says that this plot determines a theological story about God, although it may seem that Jesus is the most prominent figure in the story itself. He feels that the focus falls on God's commitment or outreach through Jesus, the Paraclete and the disciples. He is perfectly correct in asserting that the goal is not only for the reader to take notice of Jesus' identity or his ministry, but to be confronted with a decision for salvation (a salvation which God provided). The underlying response, known as belief in the Johannine idiom, means to commit oneself to a relationship with God.
God's greatest act of kinship towards man is described in terms of receiving the divine life, the life which is "from above" and which is found in His Son who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn.14.6). In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him (lJn.4.9). God is a loving Father because he communicates himself and gives all that is most treasured in himself, his life, to his Son. (Mc Polin 1978:27).
Our response to the historical person Jesus, Countryman says (1994:13), is of decisive importance for human relationship with God. John's mysticism is tied absolutely to a historical character; he must present a christology that will justify such an improbability. Let's show how christology is applied to our participation in God.
256 3.3.1 God, the Sender of Christ.
God sent his only Son, and by this made the divine glory (86Ea) visible. Just as the glory of God filled the place of meeting (in the tabernacle) so did his glory become visible in the incarnation of the Logos (Du Rand 2000:254). Engelbrecht succinctly gives the principle of God's action: "Jesus ken die Vader (Jn.8.55 and 10.15). Die gelowiges ken Jesus as die Gesant van die Vader (Hy wat gekom het en wat terugkeer). Hierdeur ken hulle ook die Vader wat hom gestuur het" (Jn.12.47,50; Jn.13.3 and Jn.14.7) (1987:429).
God is not hidden. He sent his Son as the light (1n.1.7-9) to reveal the life and the love of God. In 1in.1.5 we are told that God is light. Therefore to accept Jesus, means to come towards the light and to have the light. To be 'in the light' is to be in communion with God through Jesus (Mc Polin 1978:33). Jesus, by saying 'I am the light of the world,' was identifying himself with the Father, and his purpose for coming into the world was to give light to those who would believe in him.
The Father has sent the Son into the world (Jn.5.23,36,37; 6.44,57; 8.16,18; 12.49; 14.24; 20.21; lb.4.14). Jesus is fully conscious that he has a divinely appointed mission in the world: and his whole activity is governed by this idea (Manson 1963:132). This consciousness in Jesus expressed itself in the acts and in the words of Jesus. His acts became divine works - e.g. Jn.5.19 "The Son can do nothing of his own accord; but only what he sees the Father is doing: for whatever he does, the Son does likewise". These very works are the proof that the Father has sent him (cf. Jn.5.36, 10.32 and 14.10). His words were divine words - e.g. Jn.12.50 "and I know that his command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak".
257 Jesus, having been sent from the Father was consecrated to this end; that he might do the works that the Father had sent him to do. Jn.10.36-38. "Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'you are a blasphemer', because I said I am the Son of God? ... believe that the Father is in me, and I in Him". Jesus is consecrated, set apart by God for God's service in the world, the purification of men from sin, the overcoming of the devil and his works (Manson 1963:123).
Jesus is therefore the way for salvation; the God-ordained way and the only way. Jn.14.6-7 "Jesus said to him '1 am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you've known me, you'll know the Father, too; and from now on you know Him, and have seen Him'". If you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father - this is what the Lord made Philip to understand. (Jn.14.9). In Countryman's words (1994:101). This was God's "fundamental step in the return of the creation toward the creator".
Even in the very faith of the believer; the Father plays a significant role in the birth of faith. The Father gives the disciples to Jesus; the Father then draws the disciples to faith in Jesus and actually teaches them through the words of Jesus (O'Grady 1999:40). Faith in this Gospel becomes a gift of God the Father: "All that the Father gives me, shall come to me ... "(Jn.6.37). "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him "(Jn.6.44). The divine initiative becomes very obvious. The Father has sent Jesus into the world, and through him, the Father draws men to himself. Jesus said "He who believes in me, believes not in me, but in Him who sent me. And he who sees me sees Him who sent me" (Jn.12.44-45).
Christ's self-understanding becomes very obvious to us in this statement. Firstly, he shows that faith in him is imperative, but that any faith directed at him, is in fact faith in the Father. The Father is more important than he, because the Father 258 is the sender, and he responds to the Father in obedience. Believing in him, however, the one sent by the Father actually bears the glory of the Father; if you have seen him, you have seen the Father because they bear the same glory
(in.17.5).
Faith makes possible this fellowship with God. The eschatological union was present in the relationship between Jesus and his disciples. That relationship was in fact a relationship between God and the believers in the most intimate way: "If anyone loves me he will keep my word and my Father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him" (Jn.14.23). This is how O'Grady sums it up: "Those who responded in faith entered into a special type of knowledge
and love with Jesus and with' God the Father. The union joined not just the
revealer, and those to whom he revealed, God, but the source of revelation
and the revelation itself: God the Father." (1999:53).
Beasley-Murray (1991:13) confirms that to know and experience this relationship is
God's offer to every child of the human race.
The believer thus has a unity with God because he has a unity with Jesus. Jesus became the means by which he may be united with people by drawing them to
Christ whom God has lifted up upon the cross (Jn.12.32). Jesus in turn invites his followers into a unity with the divine community. Unity exists for them because they have accepted Christ whom God sent.
Yet, another aspect so prevalent in John, is the dualistic idea of "from above" as opposed to "from below". Christ and his are from above. From above he came unto his own (Jn.1.11). He came down from heaven to do the will of him who sent him; that is to keep all that the Father gave him, who believed in him for eternal life (Jn.6.38-40). The "force from above" is Christ, the Logos (Jn.1.14), as the revelation of God the Father (Du Rand 1994:25). Jesus comes "from above" 259 (Jn.6.51) to bring life and light to this world (Jn.6.33; 8.1; 12.46) and to deliver it (Jn.1.29; 3.16-17,19; 4.42). Only one man is "from above" and he is Jesus Christ.
Lastly, and mention-worthy, is the fact that Jesus is the new presence of God. When our Lord promised Nathanael that he will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (in.1.51), 12 he offered himself as Jacob's supplanter (cf. Jn.4.12-14). Jesus was in fact the new Bethel; 13 the new meeting place between heaven and earth (Culpepper 1998:128). Christ is therefore that meeting place between God and man, and that is possible for us through faith in the one whom God sent.
3.3.2 God, the Seeker of True Worshippers.
If Christ is the means of our meeting with God, then the method that God desires for such meeting, is true spiritual worship. This is where God's mission and Christ's mission coincides in the book of John: to have men and women worship God acceptably. The clue to correct worship lays in the essence of God's person; He is Spirit. Jn.4.21-24 Jesus said to her (the Samaritan woman), "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth".
12This verse is reminiscent of the story of Jacob and his dream when the angels descended and ascended from heaven on a ladder (Gen.28:12).
13This is what Jacob named the place (Gen.28:29). The name means "house of God". 260 There is no doubt that Christ speaks of worshipping God in spirit, he refers to an eschatological expectation by using the phrases "the hour is coming" (vs21) and "the hour is coming and now is" (v23). He brings out the fact that it is realised eschatology ("now is"); the possibility of serving God in spirit is present. In the present God is active in seeking true worshippers (Coloe 2001:103).
The eschatological intention of worship, is not place-bound. For the Samaritans, their worship place was Mt. Gerizim. For the Jews it was Jerusalem. Now, it will be neither at Mt.Gerizim nor at Jerusalem. God had appointed a new place, Jesus Christ, his Son. Jesus is The New Temple (cf. Jn.2.21); he is the new meeting place between God and man. God's presence was primarily in him (e.g.. Jn.10.38), but through Christ, God is present in the believers too (Jn.14.23). True worship is not defined by a geographical or cultic centre but by the "spirit and truth" (Culpepper 1998:142).
As the Lord Jesus is born of God and from above, so those who believe in him are born of God, not of man or of the will of the flesh, but of God (Jn.1.13) and they are born from above (ctisuklev). But what does it mean to be born from above, or to be born again? It means to be born of the Spirit. Here is the crux of the matter; we can relate to God as Spirit only when we are spiritually alive. Only those born of the Spirit can worship God in spirit and truth.
The matter of worshipping in truth can be explained in two ways; christologically and pneumatologically. Christ is the way, and the truth and the life. In that truth will believers find the only way to the Father (Th. 14.6). 14 Pneumatologically; the Spirit of truth (Jn.14.17) is the one who will guide us in all truth (Jn.16.13). We
14Du Rand says: "Spiritual worship of the Father means 'to know' the Father through his Son .... Acknowledging Jesus' true identity is narrated as an eschatological moment. True worship has arrived in the new relationship with the Father. (2000:45) (in BTJ - Vol.9 - 2000) 261 are able to worship the true God, the Father through the Son and the Spirit. Ladd says (1974:225) that "worship in Spirit is worship that is empowered by the Spirit of God".
To worship in Spirit and truth does not mean in a "spiritual" and sincere manner. Beasley-Murray (1991:70) says: "Rather, it is to be interpreted as in virtue of the life, freedom, and power of the Spirit, and in accordance with the redemptive revelation brought by the Redeemer, whose name and nature is truth" (Jn.14.6). Material temples can no longer be sufficient. Since God's movement towards humanity is in spirit, humanity's movement towards God must also be in spirit. The nature of true worship is in spirit (el/ (Coloe 2001:103).
True worshippers, then, are those who are "horn from above" (yElititiefj cluw8cit) 15 and they who are born from above are not born by the will of man but of God (Jn.1.13). God therefore births for himself true worshippers. It is necessary for us to discuss in more detail the matter of being born from above. Quoting Du Rand sets the tone for our discussions here: Die agenda vir die res van die "nuwe skepping" word gestel in 1.12: Sommige het Hom "aangesien" en andere het Hom verwerp. Diegene wat glo, het as skepsels van God "nuwe skepsels", dit is "kinders van God", geword. Natuurlike geboorte (skepping) maak iemand nie 'n kind van God nie (3.1-21) maar om "uit God gebore to word" OK Elea &-yevvipriaav)... Die "nuwe skepping" "van bo" (dime€1)) ... die spirituele skepping.... (2000:253).
It is true that the believer's status as "not from this world" is only conferred, not ontological (Meeks 1972:44-72). Only Jesus starts out "from above" (in. 3.13 - no one ascended to heaven but he who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is from Heaven). In what sense, then, are believers not from this world? The answer is to be found in either the origin, or their destiny, or both.
15cf. Jn.3:3-5 especially verse 3. 262 Those who "received" (Jn.1.12) Christ, are those who believe in his name. They were given the power to become the children of God. The question is whether they were the Father's before "receiving" Christ by faith or because of their faith?
Jn.17.6 "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given me out of this world. They were Yours, You gave them to me, and they have kept your word". It is clear that Jesus was "received" after he had manifested the Father's name to them. The Father's name is the message that Jesus brought. By them believing, the Father gave them to Jesus; but before the Father gave them to Jesus, they belonged to Him ("they were Yours"). This belonging to the Father before being given to Jesus designates "freed origins" to use the term that Trumbower 16 employs for divine election. They are children of God scattered in the world, waiting to be gathered in (Th.11.52).
In the words of Jesus, they are already the children of God; just waiting to be gathered in. The gathering in here does not mean a gathering as is traditionally understood with the ingathering at the parousia. It is the calling in of the sheep "who are not of this fold", who will hear his voice. They will be of the one flock (.1n.10.15-16). Trumbower says:"... this category of persons "born from above" because they exist as a category before Jesus' coming and their membership list does not grow or shrink with Jesus' advent (1992:72).
Fixed origins language appears frequently in the Gospel (1.13; 3.20-21; 8.41-47; 10.3-5,26; 17.14-16 and 18.37). Jn.3:20-21. There are those who do the truth even before they meet with Jesus, like Nathanael ("an Israelite in whom there is no guile" - 1.47). Then, there are those who will not do the truth ever, like the devil
16Trumbower, Jeffrey A. 1992. Born from Above - The Anthropology of the Gospel of John. Tubingen:JCB Mohr. 263 ("the truth is not in him" - 8.44), and by extention, his children. Those who do the truth, do it even before they encounter the light, and come to the light when it appears; The others cannot and will not come to the light. The believer cannot receive Jesus unless it is given him from heaven, that is, from God. (cf. 6.37; 44, 64-65 - "All that the Father gives me will come to me ... No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him ... But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray him. And he said, 'Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it had been granted him by my Father" - see also 5.21; 12.36-40 and 15.16).
Jn.8.41-47. Whether you are "from above" or "from below" determines who your Father is, and one does the deeds of his Father. While the Jews claimed to have God as their Father, Jesus said that the proof of that would be seen by their "receiving him", but they did not. If they, were God's children, they would receive Jesus because God sent him. They do not accept the truth because like their father, the devil, they cannot accept the truth. He who is of God hears Jesus, but if they cannot hear him, it is because they are not of God. God is not their father.
This passage shows most clearly that the Jews here belong to the wrong realm by virtue of their origin - their father: no other section in the Gospel shows so clearly that the origins are fixed and determinative, and not only do they not change, they cannot change (Trumbower 1992:90). Their father is a murderer from the beginning; the word dv0pw-norrOvos, in Jn.8.44 is the word explicitly linked with Cain in lJn.3.12-15 and such are those who do not do righteousness, murderers like their father.
Jn.10.3-5 and 26. Those who do not believe in Jesus are not his sheep because they cannot hear his voice. Only his sheep hear his voice. In other words, the 264 nuance coming out, is that one hears because you are a sheep belonging to Christ. He gives eternal life only to his sheep. Again fixed origins seem to be present in the mind of the Johannine Jesus. Even the sheep who are not "of this fold", who belong to Jesus, will hear his voice when he calls them by name.
Jn. 17. 16. The statement that the disciples of Jesus are not of the world as Jesus is not of the world is matched with what is said in verse 18: "as you have sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world". The response to Jesus, is the response the disciples can expect. The world hates the disciples because it hated Christ, but as Christ gathered in the sheep, so the disciples are given the task to gather the scattered sheep (Jn.11.52). Those are the ones who will believe in Jesus through the disciples' word.
It is clear that the disciples are just like Jesus in various aspects given above. It is also clear from this that they have the same origin as Jesus in that they are 'from above' as he is 'from above'. His Father is also their Father. As he is sanctified, so are they. They are set apart by their fixed origin; from above. 17
John's election language must be read in the light of the Gospel's fixed origins language. Their response to the Gospel is confirmation of their origin. Those who receive Jesus belong to the category "horn from God" and is the same as "born from above", "children of God scattered abroad", "from Jesus' sheep", "Jesus' own" and "from truth". God gave this group to Jesus (Jn.17.6) and they went on to keep Jesus' word. (Trumbower 1992:118). These are the ones identified as the true worshippers.
17There is a very significant difference between Christ and his disciples; His pre-existence and existing divine nature (Jn.1:1-2). 265 3.3.3 God, the Seen in Christ and in the People Given Him.
It can be said that the primary purpose of Jesus was to declare the Father (Jn.1.18). The declaration of the Father comes through the words that the Father gave him (Jn. 17.8), and also through the works that the Father gave him (Jn. 5.36). The ultimate faith was the one that could recognise the Father in the Son; that the Father had sent him. Such recognition brought salvation. 18
That Jesus came 'from above' meant that he, the Son of Man, who descended from heaven, can therefore mediate between the two realms and reveal what he has seen and heard from the Father (Culpepper 1998:136). He could also mediate the heart of God - "for God so loved ... that! he gave ...". It was really for this reason that Jesus had been sent.
In Jesus, the only begotten, we saw the. Father's glory, full of grace and truth. When Jesus sums up his ministry of the word to his disciples, who have been given him by God (Jn.17.6-8): That Jesus is glorified in them means that he is revealed in and through them, even as Jesus is himself glorified by revealing God in his life and death (Moody Smith 1995:144). His disciples recognised the Father in him.
In his high-priestly prayer, the Johannine Christ discloses the nerve-centre of his own life: his communion and intimacy with the Father. This is epitomised in the one word 'Father'. He reflects on his relationship with his Father and sees his presence in all that he does, in all that he is. 'All that is mine is yours; all that is yours in mine' (Th.17.10). This community of life between Jesus and his Father is not only the model but the source and cause of the communion of Christians with Christ and with one another (McPolin 1978:28).
18Nicodemus recognised that Jesus was from God but could not recognise that God was in Christ. His unbelief was confirmed by the Lord (Jn.3.12). 266 In that same prayer we see that communion with God means man's integration into community within God, by which his life in human community is radically changed. 'That they also may be one in us'. The communion of believers with
Father and Son and their communion with one another originates from the life and love shared between Father and Son.
In Jn.20.28 we are told that Thomas recognised Jesus for who he really was: "my
Lord and my God". Even though the New Testament is reluctant to call Jesus
"God", perhaps in an effort to avoid the charge that the church violated the cardinal tenet of monotheism and worshipped two gods. Nevertheless, Thomas' confession is the highest confession ioffered in the Gospel. It is complement to the announcement that "the Word became flesh ... and we have seen his glory"
(Th.1.14 cf. 1.1) (Culpepper 1998:243). Jesus' full identity has been recognised.
Milne (1993:303) says: Thus the gospel comes full circle. John began in his opening words with a confession of the deity of Christ: 'In the beginning was the
Word ... and the Word was God'. Now that original confession of the Godhead of the pre-incarnate Lord is echoed by a mortal sinner, "My Lord and my God". In a profound sense this concludes John's account. Thomas recognises that Jesus is of divine essence, that in him God himself comes to him. Hendriksen (1954 Vol.11:
465) says that Thomas' confession must be understood in the light of the immediately preceding self-disclosure of Jesus. Jesus revealed himself as being the omniscient one; Jesus revealed himself as the living one. No longer was Thomas lord over his life and decisions; he recognised Jesus as the sovereign, as his God.
For a Jew that was a remarkable confession.
As an example in the Gospel, when Jesus walked on the water (Jn.6.16-21), he revealed himself as God. Jesus demonstrated his sovereignty over the created order 267 as the creative Logos incarnate. When the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water and were frightened, Jesus assured them saying "It is I; do not fear". Culpepper (1998:158) says in this regard: The admonition not to fear is typical of theophanies and angelophanies (see Judg.6.23, Lk.1.13,30). The words "It is I" (Greek ego eimi) can also mean "I am", the formula of divine self-disclosure (Ex.3.14 cf. Judg.13.11; Isa.43.3, Isa.51.12). The walking on water is once more a revelatory event.
The assertions, 'I and the Father are one' (Jn.10.30) and 'the Father is in me, and I in the Father', are staggering ones. It is in this context that Jesus could say Un.14.100 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe in me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves". The Son thinks the Father's thoughts, and wills the Father's purpose, and acts the Father's power. (Manson 1963:133-134).
Jesus' personal consciousness was volitionally sublimated within the reality of the Father, and from out of that vital union of heart, mind, spirit, Jesus lived, spoke, worked and died. (Hartwig 2000:159 -BTJ). It was by such volitional action that Jesus revealed the Father. The Father was in him and he was in the Father.
Let us consider in more detail Jn.14.8-11. In apparent exasperation Philip says: 'Lord show us the Father, and we will he satisfied". It seems that with some impatience the Lord answers him with the claim of revealing the Father in his person: "He who has seen me has seen the Father". God may be seen in Jesus. Culpepper says 'The union between Jesus and the Father may be mystical, moral or metaphysical. The latter two come closer to Johannine thought because the prologue affirms the metaphysical union and Jesus repeatedly affirms that he acts at 268 the direction of the Father (a moral union). This moral union is also possible for all believers (1998.210-11). We go with Hendriksen who says that Jesus' union with the Father is in His essence (1954 Vol. 11:271).
The assertion that he is in the Father and that the Father is in him, is confirmed by the words and the works spoken and done by Jesus (Th.14.10). Philip and the disciples are challenged to believe that the Father is in Jesus, and that Jesus is in the Father because of the works that he does (v11). Because God is revealed in Jesus, knowledge of God through faith is the supreme calling of the believer.
Worthy of mention, is Christ's first response to Philip: "Don't you know ME He has been with the disciples foi a long time now. By using the first person pronoun, Jesus is expressing the complete unity between him and the Father. "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father". The words and works of Jesus are the words and the works of the Father in him. No other explanation of them is possible (v10-11). In these words and works he was revealing the Father.
Jesus' unity with the Father also extends to the believer's unity with the Father through their unity with him. This is particularly emphasised in 1.M.2.23 "He who confesses the Son has the Father also". In the following verse we have: 'you will abide in the Son and in the Father'. The believer's fellowship is with the Father also (11n.1.3). These texts strongly suggest that through the mediation of Christ, sonship of Christ's kind becomes a reality for others (Manson 1962:134).
If anyone believes and obeys the Son, the Father will love him (Jn.14.23); but then the Lord goes on to say: "... and we (that is the Son and the Father) will come to him and make our home with him". This shows that union of the sort between God and Christ is a possibility for ordinary men and women - those who will believe in
269 the Son. The Father and the Son will make their dwelling within the believer. Thus they can have the closest unity with God. They can know the Father.
In this context, Munro (2000:12-BTJ), observes the essence of Jesus' vision for individuals in this relationship with him: Sending the Holy Spirit as "another counsellor to be with you forever" (in.14.16). -His own presence with them "on that day you will realise that ... I am in you (Jn.14.20), and He and the Father making the "own home with" them (Jn.14.23). The vision of the Holy Triune God indwelling believers must surely rate as the most uplifting and enabling future •'possible. Coloe also observes this Trinitarian dwelling in the believer (2001:167).
Now concerning the matter of knowing God. Again, this is possible because our Lord knows the Father. He was with the Father from the beginning and he obeys the Father to the full in his life. In his knowing the Father, Jesus is always aware of the fact that he was sent of the Father and he must return again to the Father. It is because of this knowledge that Jesus obeys the Father in everything.
In John, to believe is to know. Engelbrecht sees these two words as used alongside each other to express the dynamic-existential theological perspective of the narrator. He says so, because Jesus is the Logos and therefore also to be the Redeemer of the world (1987:429).
It is along these lines that the narrator develops the Shepherd /sheep pericope in the Gospel. The sheep hear the shepherd's voice because they know him. They are able to be led by him (ln.10.3). The Shepherd knows them and calls them each by
270 name. His call is recognisable to his sheep, because they know his voice. Therefore they hear the word that the Father gave him to speak (Th.17.8).
The Shepherd knows his sheep and he is known by his own sheep (Th.10.14). But interestingly, Jesus now speaks of the ultimate knowledge that he and the Father share of each other: "As the Father knows me, even so I know the Father". As complete as the Father's knowledge is of the Son, so complete is the Son's knowledge of the Father.
The proximity and relationship of verses 14 and 15 open the possibility to an extended meaning, namely, that as there exists a reciprocal knowledge between the Father and the Son in the first place, and a reciprocal knowledge between the Shepherd and the sheep in the second, there is through the Son/Shepherd a knowledge of the Father. The knowledge of God comes in the sheep hearing, knowing and following the Shepherd who has perfect knowledge of the Father. This understanding finds expression elsewhere: 8.19 "You know neither me nor my Father. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also" (see also Jn.14.7).
In this regard Engelbrecht wisely comments that the knowledge of the disciples has a progression as the Son and the Father are progressively revealed to them (cf. Jn.16.30). That does not mean that the benefits to the believer are consequently also subject to development or progression. Eternal life is completely ours on the basis of our knowledge of God: Jn.17.3 "And this is everlasting life - to know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent". It is therefore not merely a rational knowledge, but an experiential relationship (Ladd 1974:262). Countryman (1994:114) puts it this way: "Jesus has also given this glory to people on earth, where it takes the form of everlasting life, which is, in turn, the same
271 thing as knowing Father and Son - knowing them, not merely knowing about
them".
Knowing God is to have communion with Him, that is, to have fellowship
(Kotvoi/ia) with the Father and the Son, to share in their life, because we are
'born of God' or we are 'children of God'. McPolin (1978:32) remarks that to
know someone in the Hebrew manner is to have a personal relationship with him, a
real experience of him and to live somehow in communion with him.
We may conclude that the believer knows God personally. He has come to
experience God as the one who has been declared by Jesus in his words and in his
works. More so, Christ has mediated the experience of the Father by showing his
own glory to his own. Jesus Christ is God, and he revealed the Father. Through
Jesus we may know God because he is known to us. God dwells in each believer.
3.3.4 God, the Giver to Christ.
Not only did God give his unique Son, for the world, so that those who believe in
him should have eternal life, but God also gave each and every believer to Christ.
While the scope of the former is inclusive, the scope of the latter is exclusive. Not
only so, Jesus issues an invitation to all to believe, but only those whom the Father
gives him will believe. Moreover, we need to explore the question of priority - the
giving or the believing?
Faith is the human response to the revelation of Jesus Christ, God's Son. This faith consists of active acceptance, seen in the author's choice of the verb to believe
(Trtard,w) rather than just the noun belief (TrigTic). The believer accepts Jesus,
272 not merely as a worker of miracles, but as the Son of God. That, by implication, is knowing that Jesus is the one sent by the Father.
Jesus is God's envoy and the personal Lord and Saviour of those who believe. Eventually they acknowledge, like Thomas (Jn.20.28) that Jesus is both Lord and God for them (O'Grady 1999:41). Faith, as the one demand that Jesus makes for receiving eternal life, has as its object Jesus, even though we are exhorted to believe in God as well (Th.14.1). Believing is accepting Jesus as a true and truthful witness of the Father. To believe Jesus and his word means to believe God (Jn. 5. 24).
The content of faith is that Jesus is The Holy One of God (Jn.6.69); that he is the Christ, the Son of God (Jn.11.27); that God has sent him (Jn.11.42; 17.8,21); that Jesus is one with the Father (14.10-11); that he has come from the Father (M.16.27,30); and that Jesus is the "I am" (Jn.8.24; 13.19). Such faith in Jesus' person is the way to eternal life ....(Ladd 1974:271).
Ladd also notes that pisteuo eis is a unique Christian idiom that has no parallels in secular Greek or in the LXX. It is a distinctive Christian creation designed to express the personal relationship of commitment between the believer and Jesus (1974:271-272). Faith means complete commitment and personal union between the believer and Christ. It means to receive him (Jn.1.12; 5.43; 13.20).
On the one hand, Jesus issues an invitation for all to believe. Jn.3.16 "... that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life". Similarly, the living water is offered to all, even a Samaritan woman: "... whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst" (M.4.14). "Let anyone who is thirsty come to me". (Jn.7.37).
273 On the one hand, those who believe have been drawn, called or given by the Father. Only those whom the Father 'draws' come to Jesus (Jn.6.44); only those to whom it is "given" by the Father (Jn.6.65 cf. 6.37,39; 17.2,6,9,12,24); only those who are "of God" who can "hear his voice" (Jn.18.27; 8.47); only he can believe who "belong to his sheep" (Jn.10.26); he calls only his own to himself (in.10.3f.). John retains the emphasis on God's sovereignty and initiative. (Culpepper 1998:98).
How do we explain this apparent discrepancy? Yes, all are invited to believe and have eternal life, but not all will believe. Those who believe are those, who are drawn; to whom it is given to believe; who belong to the sheep; who are his own. Therefore, one's response reveals Whether one is "from above" or "from below"; born of God or a child of the devil. There is therefore no discrepancy. This answers to the question of scope as well.
Briefly, to deal with the issue of unbelief: men's attachment to evil prevents them from coming to the light (Jn.3.19). They seek their own glory and not the glory from God (Jn.5.44). Their actions prove them to be children of the devil (Jn.8.44). They are blind because they wilfully refuse to see (Jn.9.39-41).
As far as our postulation of fixed origins, we cannot say how predestination works. Unlike Paul who brings in the aspect of God's foreknowledge, John makes no effort to reconcile the sayings about divine predestination and moral responsibility. He sees no contradiction that faith is the free will decision of man's will and at the same time the gift of God's grace. At least we know that faith is not a human meritorious achievement, but made possible by the grace of God (Ladd 1974:277).
Now, to the matter of priority; divine election or believing? This question is not easily answered without being influenced by Paul or other biblical writers. We 274 have come to conclude from the Johannine writings that they point to divine election as preceding believing. This fits with the general understanding of Scripture. We now look at selected passages.
Jn.6.37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me ... ". It is clear that the Father has given them before they come to Jesus. Their coming to Jesus depends upon the fact that the Father has given them to him. "Coming to Jesus" is another way of saying "believing in Jesus". Therefore giving precedes believing.
Jn.6.44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws 19 him ...". This time John speaks in negatives, but it has the same effect. If coming to Jesus is equivalent to believing in Jesus, then the affect of the saying would be "no one can believe unless the Father draws him". Believing (or coming) depends upon the drawing of the Father, therefore drawing precedes believing.
Jn.8.47 "He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God". In this case, to "hear God's words" means to believe. In Paul's terminology, 'faith comes by hearing the word of God' 20 . To hear is to accept or to obey God's word. If they do not hear, it is because they are not of God. The pre-requisite for hearing is to be of God. Being of God therefore comes before hearing.
Believing is therefore the ultimate result of the giving to Christ; of being drawn; and of being of God. "Divine predestination therefore precedes the human response of believing in Jesus Christ. John is therefore in agreement with the rest of the New Testament writers who have anything to say on divine predestination.
19Trumbower maintains that "drawing" is based on mutual attraction. (1992:85).
20Rom. 10.17 275 Not only do we belong to Christ because God gave us to him, but because we belong to God. Christ says in Jn.17.10: ..."And all mine are yours, and yours are mine ..." In other words there has not been a change of ownership - from God to Christ - so that they no longer belong to God but to Christ-, even though some verses may allude to such a change of ownership (e.g.. Jn.17.6 "I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me out of the world. They were yours, You gave them to me, and they kept your word").
Jesus' purpose is to give eternal life to those whom the Father gave to him. This eternal life consists of knowing the true God. These are those who belonged to God before God gave them to Jesus. They have kept God's word (Jn.17.6). God's word is another basis of fellowship between God and those who belong to him.
We may conclude with O'Grady (1999:40) that the Father plays a significant role in the birth of faith. The Father gives the disciples to Jesus; the Father then draws the disciples to faith in Jesus. Faith in this Gospel becomes a gift of God, the Father. God, the Father, speaks to the heart of the person, which enables the individual to accept Jesus as the personal revelation of God. Jesus is God's human face.
3.3.5 God, our Father, Dresser and Keeper.
The Prologue of John is the key to understanding all that follow in the Gospel. The prologue is one of the most profound passages in the Bible. It introduces the Logos and Man's response to him. Some would reject him; "he came to his own, but his own did not receive him" (Jn.1.11). But, some did receive him, and became the
276 children of God (Jn.1.12). These children are born of God; not of blood or human will (Jn.1.13).
These verses not only define the believer - as one who has received Jesus; as a son of God; as one horn of God - but it implies a relationship with God. God is our Father; but God is our Father in a different way than he is to Christ. Our sonship is conferred on us. Our sonship however, is the highest status conferred on the believer. 21 That status reflected the true identity of the believing community.
How then does our sonship differ from Christ's? It would suffice to say that never does the Johannine writings ever refer to believer's as dol.; he employs the word
TEK1101' . The latter comes from the word 'to beget'. 22 This begetting comes by regeneration and transformation (Hendriksen 1954 Vol.I:81). One begotten of God is the child of God. The one who believes in the Son of God, at that very moment becomes a child of God, and has the life of God, because they are born of God and born from above.
Even though the Father loves the Son (Jn.3.35; 5.20; 10.17; 15.9), that love cannot be conceived of in an absolutely exclusive sense in John (Manson 1962:132). Jn. 16.27 - "for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me"; lJn.215 "... If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him"; 1Jn.3.11 - "Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the children of God". It is because of the Father's love that we can be called his children.
21 1n Culpepper's chiastic arrangement, the pivot of the prologue is the conferring of the status "children of God" on those who believed in Jesus. (1998:116).
22 TL KTW "to beget". Therefore "begotten" in reference to Christ is incorrect. The word for begotten in reference to Christ comes from the word yevos, meaning kind or sort; not from yevveo, to beget. As povoyetrij, Jesus is the unique, one-of-a-kind, Son of God. 277 McPolin (1978:34) says that the Father's love has space for all those who love him. Communion is a gift of the Father's love to believers. The children of God are those who are gathered together by God (Th.11.52). They are gathered from "abroad"; that is, from all the nations. These are the "sheep who are not of this fold" who will hear his voice to be of the one flock under one shepherd (Th.10.16). As they are gathered together by God, they are brought into the fold by Jesus.
In John 8.38-44 when Jesus speaks to his antagonists, he rejects their sonship of both Abraham (v39) and God (v42). Their murderous intention is a display of their lack of love and righteousness, and because of this they are unable to listen to Jesus' words. Jesus concludes that they have the devil as their father and not God (vv 38 & 44).
We may deduce then that children of God, do righteous works; they love Jesus; and they are able to hear his words. They know that Jesus came from God. The ethical marks of being a child of God are also reflected in John's first epistle - 1Jn.2.29 "... everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him", and lJn.3.9 "No one born of God will continue in sin ...." (NIV).
In Jn.20.17 Jesus calls his disciples by a new name, "brothers". Brothers belong to one and the same family. They have something in common; the Father of Jesus is also their Father. They share close fellowship with Jesus and his Father, but Jesus is Son by nature and the disciples sons by regeneration. Both the Father and the Son dwell in the believer; a common dwelling (Jn.14.23).
Every believer may therefore legitimately call God his Father. He is our Father because he has birthed us, and because we have accepted his Son. He is our Father because we are of the same "household". He is our Father because we are Jesus' 278 "brothers". Through Jesus, we have seen the Father (Jn.14.9; 12.45). So are we in communion with the Father.
The second aspect is about a God who has dealings in our ongoing Christian lives. Jesus is the vine, and the Father is the vine-dresser. As vine-dresser the Father is involved in the ongoing life of those who are in Christ (Jn.15.1-2). He is involved in our lives, because He is involved in the life of Christ, and we are part of Christ.
It is the vine that sustains the branches, and they owe their fruitbearing capacity to the vine. Moreover we find our unity in the vine. In Hendriksen's words "in the vine ... (do the branches) find its unity; its life, and its fertility in Christ (1954 Vol.11:297). This unity is moral, mystical and spiritual. It is a union founded on love.
Jesus always speaks of "my Father". His Father is the one who tills the ground and tends the vine by busying himself with its branches. The branches need much care in order that they may bear fruit. It may require pruning or even removing the vine offshoots that hear no fruit. The purpose is so that the branches should bear "much fruit" (Th.15.2). No, not the branches' fruit per se, but the fruit of the vine; Jesus' fruit in us.
Those who bear much fruit are cleansed continuously. The Father does the cleansing, and He uses the Word to cleanse the branches (Th.15.3). The cleansing is intended for the branches to bear much fruit. If they bear much fruit, the Father by it, is glorified (Jn.15.8). God's dressing of the vine is intended for His own glory.
Now, as fruit-bearing branches in Christ, we have access to the Father. We may ask him anything in the name of Jesus and he will give it to us (Jn.15.16). Here the 279 thought of Jn.15.7 recurs, but in a more personal way, "He ... give it". The Father loves the Son; hence he loves those who do the Son's bidding. We may experience the love of the Father and by abiding in the vine, we show the Father that we love him (Jn.15.9 cf. 15.23). "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son ..." (lJn.4.10).
Also, it is the Father who gives the Holy Spirit to every believer-branch-. (Jn.14.16 cf. 14.26). The Holy Spirit is given for the purpose of teaching the believer "all things" (v26). The Holy Spirit will help us in one aspect of fruitbearing, namely, "And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning" (.1n.15.27 cf. v.26). We need to know that the whole matter of fruitbearing has to do with i,the "so send I you" intention of Christ - to be his witnesses (Milne 1993:218).
The third aspect deals with God as keeper of the believer in Christ. The idea of God as keeper is closely akin to the idea of God's caring as dresser. God enables us to abide in the vine and more, he protects us from the possibility of perishing or from the ownership of the devil. In fact (in this context), for this reason the Father and the Son are one (Jn.10.30).
Because the sheep have heard the Shepherd's voice and follow him, he has given them eternal life (in.10.28). Jesus here interprets eternal life in two ways: those who have eternal life shall never perish, and, those who have eternal life shall never he snatched out of Jesus' hand.
There is an overarching reason why these two things will never happen to the believer. It is because the Father is greater than all. (JE1.10.29) 23. In the first place,
23 This verse represents a well known textual problem. The other possible reading has the inference that the sheep are "greater" or "more excellent". We prefer the reading that the 280 the Father has given them to the Son. In the second place they are in the Father's hand. In order for anyone to take them out of the Father's hand, they would have to be greater than the Father; but there are no such.
Christ's people are God's possession. He has committed himself to them and no one can override that commitment. (Milne 1993:153). Not only is it revealed that God is disposed to keep the one whom he has saved, but the true child of God is also a gift of the Father to the Son and has been committed to the keeping power of the Father by the prayer of the Son (Chafer 1945:87).
Talking about the prayer of the Son; He prayed: "I pray for them ... , for they are yours. And all mine are yours, and iyours are mine ... Holy Father, keep through your name those whom you have given me" (Th.17.9-11). The content of this prayer will reveal the confidence that the believer may have.
Jesus prays for the given ones. When he makes this request to the Father, he has in mind only those who believe in him. It is particular, not universal. He excludes the world. He includes only those whom the Father gave him. They belong to the Father and to the Son, for what belongs to the Father, belongs also to the Son; and those who belong to the Son, also belong to the Father. Every believer has a double ownership.
The wicked world is contrasted with the Holy Father. Being holy, the Father is exalted above every creature so that any attempt for any creature to snatch the believer from the Father's hand, is rendered impossible. He is far above any creature. When Jesus says "keep them", he is asking the Father to stand guard over
Father is greater and upon that basis nobody can snatch them from the Fathers hand. 281 them. The disciples will survive by the power of God's name, his revealed character. God will keep them, being their Holy and sovereign Father too.
3.4 Participation Christology in John
The Johannine Jesus is the Son of God, the Revealer sent from above to reveal the Father. In revealing the Father he shows himself so that in the recognition of his true identity, one comes to recognise the Father. How various individuals respond to Jesus as he reveals his own identity, ultimately shows where a person stands in relationship with the Father. A disciple of Jesus is one whose kinship with God is that of being a child of God.
Jesus is the central character in John and a relationship with Jesus is clearly the aim for the community of believers. To believe in Jesus is to share in a relationship with him. That relationship is not only one in the physical realm (as with the disciples who walked the earth with him), but it is also a spiritual relationship in that we share the same love and kinship with the Father. Moreover, it is also mystical in that we may participate in his life.
One of the central aims of the Johannine writings is to get the Christian community to recognise the full divinity of Jesus Christ. What relationship we share with him, is a relationship we share with the Father. Christianity, is a religion grounded in faith that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, lived among men as a human being. He is the Logos, who is God and became man to reveal the Father, so that by believing, we may have fellowship with him and with the Father.
Jesus' self-consciousness was that he was sent by the Father. His mission is to complete the work of bringing eternal life to the children of God. In this task Jesus 282 has no helpers, but many opponents. Jesus' quest to do the work of the Father comes to fulfilment - he gives people the authority to become the children of God (Jn.1.12); he reveals the Father, for he alone has seen the Father (Jn.1.18); and he takes away the sins of the world, being the Lamb of God (Jn.1.29).
The successful completion of Christ's mission during his lifetime on earth opens new and wonderful possibilities to those who believe. They may share in the divine life and enjoy the benefits that come with it - in the present and in the future. This divine life is called eternal life (ail:it/Log Cal) or just life (Ca). Eternal life is dependent on a correct relationship to Christ, and our relationship with God, is defined by our relationship with Christ. Now, to the relationship.
3.4.1 The Believer's Fellowship with the Father and the Son.
Our Lord came to declare that eternal life was to be found with the Father. That is the very nature of the Father so that it is only there where one may find eternal life. That life is mediated through the Lord Jesus Christ. "In him was life..." (Jn.1.4). That life was also light unto men (Jn.1.4). It is in the granting of this life that we have fellowship with God. This life was made manifest to bring life to men.(Stibbe 1993:24).
Eternal life is to know the Father (Jn.17.3). We have already said that to know has a Hebraic connotation of experience, fellowship and intimacy. Therefore, one cannot have eternal life apart from an experience, fellowship and intimacy with the only true God. The converse is just as true; because we have eternal life, thereby sharing in God's nature, we may have fellowship with the Father and the Son.
283 As we have indicated, this has bearing on the Son too. "For as the Father has life in Himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in Himself" (Jn.5.26). "He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life" (lJn.5.12). By the same principle, having eternal life is to know the Son. That is what it means to "have the Son". When you have the Son, you know the Son and have intimate fellowship with him.
Eternal life is a gift - "And this is the testimony; that God has given eternal life" (lJn.5.11). That gift is to be taken as synonymous with the gift of God's Son; "God so loved the world that he gave His unique Son, that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life" (Jn.3.16). With the gift of the Son, came the gift of eternal life, and the gift of fellowship with him.(Johnson 1993:131)
1Jn.1.3 "... truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ". An intimate, mutual relationship exists between the Father and the Son; Jesus in turn knows his own, and they know him; and in knowing him, they also know God (Ladd 1974:262). We are able to speak of intimate fellowship with the Father and the Son, because there is intimate knowledge between the Father and the Son. Our relationship with the Son makes this fellowship possible for us. He mediates this intimate knowledge to the disciples so that they may know God (Jn.14.7), because God is present with them. This presence is in Jesus.
We may have fellowship with the Father and the Son, because the Father and the Son indwell the believer (Jn. 13.20). The Father and the Son make their dwelling in the believer; that is, they make their home in him (Jn.14.23). Such dwelling is reciprocated where the believer dwells in the Father and the Son 24 ; "... as You
24We quote AB Du Toit in this instance: Die Johannese literatuur druk die gemeenskapsverhouding tussen gelowiges en Christus / God op aangrypende wyse uit deur middel van die "bly in" - uitsprake. Soos die Vader in Christus bly (Jn.14.10), so bly Christus/God in die gelowiges (Jn.15.4,5; 1Jn.3.24; 4.12,13,15,16) en die gelowiges in 284 Father, are in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in Us ..."(Jn17.21). Because there is a common abode of Father, Son and believer, one cannot think in terms other than true fellowship among them.
While this may be true for the individual believer, it is also true for the community of believers. They have fellowship with each other, and with the Father and the
Son; "... that they ( airrot) also may be one in us" (Jn.17.21). It is this communal dwelling that makes true fellowship possible amongst brothers. Our fellowship with each other will show we have fellowship with the Father and the Son.
As the Logos is indissolubly related to God, so human beings - believers in particular - are indissolubly related to the Logos, since our life is resident in him. Countryman notes that this life (that is resident in Christ) is also light, not only our being (life) but the understanding (light) of that being (1994:17). Because of this, Jesus is Revealer of God par excellence. Jesus is the unique access to God.
We align ourselves with Ladd (1974:278): "There is no evidence that the Johannine mysticism involves ecstacy. Rather, it is mysticism of personal and ethical 25 fellowship involving the will rather than the emotions". This fellowship however, is also a divine enabling in the believer. Hartin (1991:348) has it that "... Jesus is the origin as well as the foundation of life and all who come to Jesus participate in this life." The followers of Jesus receive an understanding of the truth as well as the very life of God enabling them to live in union with the Father and the Son.
Christus of in God (Jn.6.56; 15.4-7; 1Jn.2.6,24,27,28; 3.6,24; 4.12,13,15,16). Ook die "wees in" uitdrukking ten opsigte van die verhouding van die gelowiges tot Christus (of die Gees) kan hier bykom: Jn14.17,20; 1Jn.2.5,24,27 'n baie persoonlike gemeenskapsverhouding. (1993:36).
25Moody-Smith says: "believing obedience is the essence of discipleship and the church. John will talk about the mutual indwelling of the disciples and Jesus (for example, 15.1-11, but such union with Jesus and with one another (17.20-25; cf. 1Jn.1.3) is on the human side dependent upon the disciples' obedience to Jesus' love command". (1995:138). 285 Knowing God is evidenced in one's life - it would he a life where the person loves God and his brothers. Claiming to know God when one's life gives no evidence of such love, is hypocrisy (Culpepper 1998:258). Knowing God means also to obey His commands; that is to love. This imperative is based on the significant Johannine concern of "abiding in Him". The mutual abiding of Jesus and the Father, and Jesus and the believer, enables the believer to express such love.
Finally, let us consider 1.1n.5.20: "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and, we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life". Jesus has come to fulfil a mission - so that we may "know Him who is true". The verse may be understood as referring to Christ, or it may be understood as referring to the Father. That means that the next phrase either says that we are in Jesus or in the Father, because "we are .in Him who is true". The way we have translated the next phrase, we are definitely in Christ, God's Son. It uses the third person pronoun "His" which has to refer to God. "Him who is true" can therefore only be the true God who is to be known for eternal life (cf. Jn.17.3). We are therefore said to be in both the Father and His Son. Therefore our fellowship is with the Father and with the Son.
3.4.2 Faith in Christ is Union with God.
There is much said in the Johannine writings about the unity between the Father and the Son. Jesus said "I and my Father are one" (Jn.10.30). The Father's purpose is the Son's purpose. When you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father. The Son's unity with the Father is analogous of the Son's unity with the
286 believers. That taken to its expected conclusion, is analogous of the unity between believers. Our concern is the unity between the Son and the believer.
What characterises the parable of the Good Shepherd in the gospel of John is the reciprocal relationship between Jesus and the individual sheep. Jesus has a close and intimate relationship with each sheep, grounded on the union and relationship between Jesus and his Father. Each sheep knows his voice; he calls them individually by name so that he does not confuse them. (O'Grady 1999:45). He goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice - they follow because they know (Jn.10.4-5).
Calling by name has a long biblical tradition implying intimacy as well as power and influence. Jesus knows his sheep sufficiently well to call them personally by name. He unites the individual with himself, and the individual feels secure in the Lord. They entered the sheepfold through him and were saved (Jn.10.9 "I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture"). Being united to Christ, means to be sustained by him.
Jesus is the gate - the only legitimate point of access; he is the Good Shepherd - the only true ruler; the sheep are really his - he is the agent of creation; he and they know one another as intimately as he and his Father; the sheep will listen to no one else; there are unsuspected sheep elsewhere to be brought into the one great flock. And all this at the expense of Jesus' own life. The life of the sheep, that is, will cost that of Jesus - not as a forced sacrifice but because Jesus, in the utter freedom of his power and in continuity with the Father's loving command, has volunteered to do this. (Countryman 1994:79).
The idea of unity between Shepherd and flock is understood in John. In Jn.10.16 Jesus said: "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must 287 bring, and they will hear my voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd". By "one shepherd and one flock" there is an indication of unity between the shepherd and that flock.(Micheals 1984:181).
Certainly, the flock is his flock. He laid down his life for his flock (Th.10.15) and the idea is that of 'one Lord and one Body' (to use Pauline terms). As shepherd he keeps them in his hand (Jn.10.28) and they are safe; they shall never perish. They are one with him because they are in his hand. The one shepherd and the one flock are one, based upon the fact that the Shepherd and the Father are one (Th.10.30).
The relationship which exists between the Holy Spirit and the believer is one of unity. The world does not know the Spirit, but believers do because the Holy Spirit indwells them (Th.14.17). By that indwelling the believer will live because Christ lives (v19), and they will know that Jesus is in the Father, and that Jesus is in them and they are in him (v20). There is union between the Son and the believer because there is a union between the Son and the Father.(Micheals 1984:181).
In the prayer of our Lord we may have a glimpse of the unity that was understood in his own mind. Those for whom Jesus prays are those who experience both union and communion with himself. In Jn.17.21 he prays for the unity among his disciples and also for those who will believe in him through them. Their unity is to be modelled on the unity between the Father and the Son, and his wish or request to the Father is that they would be one "in us". The believers would be one because they are in the Father and in the Son. In other words, the believers are one because they are one with God. From the divine perspective, this unity is given.
Hendrilcsen (1954 Vol.11:364) makes an important remark in this regard: "... there is more here than a mere comparison between the oneness of all God's children, on the one hand, and the oneness of the persons of the Holy Trinity, on the other. The 288 latter is not merely the model; it is the foundation of the former; it makes the former possible. Only such men as have been born from above, and are in the Father and in the Son, are also spiritually one ... this oneness which exists eternally between these two divine persons, has as its glorious purpose 'that the world may believe that you sent me'". 26
Our point is that the believer is one with the Son, this point is confirmed in verse 23. "I in them, and you in me ...". They whom the Father has given him, are those whom he indwells; "I in them". This indwelling is the highest expression of the unity between the believer and their Lord. It is Christ's movement; he becomes one with them. They are the recipients of his glorious presence in them. It is also clear that Jesus always only speaks bf his unity with his own in the context of his own unity with his Father.
Another way in which one may express the unity between the believer and Christ is found in lJn.5.11-12: "And this is the testimony; that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life". There are those who have the Son; and there are those who do not have the Son. It is in the matter of having that this unity is expressed; those who have the Son are those who are indwelt by the Son. They are united with the Son; a union which brings eternal life to the believer. 27
To 'have the Son' means to be in that kind of intimate spiritual communion with him; so that his life which is the divine life informs one. From this point of view it becomes clear what is meant by being 'born again', or 'born from above'. It is the
26The unity in love between Christian believers is something that must be seen, as a testimony to a divided world of the redeeming, reconciling love of God in Christ.
27Eternal life is a gift of God, and therefore Jesus is his gift to the believer - "... God has given us etemal life, and this life is in his Son ...". 289 creative life of God actually creating .new men and women endowed with eternal life, here and now (Manson 1963:115). It is a life of fellowship with Christ. Faith in Christ is therefore union with Christ.
Believing in Jesus was something that the world was incapable of doing (Jn.10.26). The crowds at the feeding miracle see no further than physical bread, but when they recognise that Jesus' view of life is essentially different from their own, they want no part of him (cf. Jn.6.66) (Guthrie 1981:582). Believing in Jesus was however still the only way for those who would partake of the bread of life.
The same principle applies to the passage in in. 7.37-38. Jesus invites those who thirst to come to him and drink. Ihiplicit in this text, is that Jesus is the living water, or at least, he is the dispenser of living water (Jn.4.10). Those who come to him for a drink, are those who believe in him, and the result of such believing is that living water will flow like a river from their hearts. Again, here believing means to partake of Jesus; that is to drink. Faith in Christ means having Christ.
3.4.3 The Bread of Life - Partaking.
As throughout the Gospel of John, the author re-directs our attention from externalities, even such essentials as food, to one central fact of the Logos or Son, through whom all things exist and without whom there is nothing. If life is in the Logos (Jn.1.14), then there is no difficulty in Jesus saying: "I am the bread of life" (Jn.6.35,48 cf. 41). This is the first of a series of great metaphors that sum up Jesus' absolute centrality for human life; they take the form of the emphatic "I am" - statements. (Countryman 1994:54).
290 In uttering this "I am ...", Jesus sweeps away the crowd's concern for literal food; that is a secondary level of reality. Those who eat literal food hunger again and they die. Even when, like in Moses' instance, the bread came from heaven (in the form of manna), they still died in the desert. Jesus was greater than Moses, and the bread which he gives far exceeds the "sign" which the crowd was expecting (Jn.6.31). This bread gave everlasting life (Th.6.40,47,51,54,58).
As life depends on food, so everlasting life depends on the bread of life. Jesus identifies himself as the bread of life. This is not anything of the created order, such as the manna was, but something that obliterates the boundary of this creation, which is death (Countryman 1994:56). If it was something of the creation order, they would again hunger and thirst, but because it is not, they shall never again hunger and thirst (Jn.6.35).
Believing in Jesus is also receiving Jesus as "the bread from heaven" (Jn.6.33). Jesus is the bread of life and those who partake of this bread come down from heaven, have life (Jn.6.51). Men and women are invited to eat of this bread - "... that one may eat of it and not die" (Jn.6.50). Eating the bread is to partake in Jesus' flesh and blood (Jn.6.51 cf. v53-54) and it results in having eternal life. There is an inseparable link between believing in Jesus and partaking of him. It proves our point: Faith in Christ is partaking of Christ.
The discourse of the bread of life is sparked off by the "sign" of the feeding of the multitude, but it reaches its heart, through the contrast between the manna that came down from heaven during the time of Moses and the bread that the one greater than Moses gives. Jesus, the last Redeemer was greater than Moses, the first Redeemer, because the last Redeemer himself is the bread come down from heaven (J11.6.34,50,51,58 cf. 41). Thus the power and authority of the Son to give
291 life to the world derives from his commission from the Father who sent him for this purpose. (Beasley-Murray 1991:23).
To give life is a divine prerogative, and Jesus is able to give life because as the Logos he is God (Jn.1.1) and has life in himself (Jn.1.4) and has been sent by the Father to give life (.1n.10.10). This life is not only mediated through Jesus and his word; it is resident in his very person (Jn.5.26). He is the living bread who gives life (Jn.6.51 ff) and the living water (Jn.4.10,14). The Father has granted the Son to have life in himself (Jn.5.26). Therefore Jesus could say "1 am the life" (Jn.11.25; 14.6). (Ladd 1974:257). To receive this life one needs to "have the Son" - with reference to the bread of life, one must partake of this bread.
How does one partake of this bread of heaven? In the first place, it is to be received at the hand of the Father. He is the one who gave the bread from heaven "... it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven" (Jn.6.32). The bread from heaven gives life, and those who receive it, receive it from the hand of the Father. Believing in Jesus Christ is believing in the one who sent him.
In the second place, this bread differs in character from the bread that their (Jesus' audience) fathers ate in the wilderness. Jesus speaks of this bread as his flesh and his blood. "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life ..." (Jn.6.53-54). And again, "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him". (Jn.6.56).
This saying moved Jesus' audience to grumbling which escalates to quarrelling or fighting among themselves. The more Jesus reveals his identity, the more division it brings among the people. How could Jesus give his flesh? Jesus would give his flesh, both at the table and at the cross. The grumbling, quarrelling and fighting 292 ends up in deciding either to follow Jesus or to turn from him (Jn.6.60-68). Those who stayed, are they whom the Father gave to Jesus.
In Moses' care, the people ate the bread from heaven (M.6.31). How was eating to happen in Christ's case? Eating his flesh and drinking his blood was madness and absurdity to the Jews (Jn.6.52). Jesus' demand is still expressed in the metaphorical language of eating and drinking. Whatever eating and drinking means it can be understood as partaking of the flesh and blood of Jesus.
Culpepper (1998:163) sees in Jesus' demand clear Eucharist overtones. He sees verses 52-58 in John 6 as probably reflecting the Johannine community's use of this material in connection with the •observance of the Lord's supper. "Eating" the bread means receiving Jesus and the life he offers. Participating with the community of believers in the Lord's Supper when the community was being persecuted and ostracised would have been an open and public declaration of one's faith.
Without denying the Eucharist overtones, we understand that life is to be had in the person of Jesus rather than in the emblems of the Eucharist. We understand it in the same way as one would drink the living water (Jn.7.37-38). We understand with Guthrie that partaking in Christ's flesh and blood as abiding in Christ (Jn.6.56 - "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in Him"). (1981:642). The Eucharist has therefore secondary significance in Jn.6.52-58. The primary significance is that of participating in Christ.
We agree with Milne (1993:113) who says that they who eat are they who truly believe. Jesus uses the language of consumption. Faith is like eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus himself. Clearly the sacrifice of the cross is in mind. We cannot forget that he is already proclaimed as 'the lamb of God' (Jn.1.29), and 293 as the one who will be lifted up (Jn.3.14). His broken body, and blood poured out, on the cross, need to be personally appropriated in an act of faith in Jesus which is akin to the personal act of eating food (Jn.6.53-57). This will produce a communion between Christ and his disciples parallel to the communion of Father and Son. This is what believing in Jesus implies.
Hendriksen puts forward a good argument:
If these words be interpreted in a strictly literal fashion, the only logical conclusion would be Jesus advocated cannibalism. No one dares to draw this conclusion.
Verse 57 clearly indicates that the phrase "eating my flesh and drinking my blood "means "eating me". It is accordingly, an act of personal appropriation and fellowship that is indicated. Cf. also 6.35 which shows that "coming to me" means "believing in me".
We are told that those who eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood remain in him and he in them (v56). This, of course, cannot be true literally. It must be given a metaphorical interpretation (intimate, spiritual union with the Lord). Similarly, the result of such eating and drinking is said to be everlasting life. This too, is a spiritual concept. If the result be spiritual, it would be reasonable that the cause, too, be conceived of as being spiritual.
(1954 Vol.I:243). For us, this personal appropriation and fellowship has mystical overtones; especially in the light of the mutual abiding reflected in verse 56.
Eating the bread of life, is therefore to partake of Christ's flesh and blood. It is certainly not out of place when read in the context of the Lord's Supper, provided we never lose sight of the cruciality of faith, both for coming to Christ and for the renewal of our communion with him in the feast he has instituted. The act of faith in the Lord, is the primary understanding, and in this way we participate in Christ.
294 3.4.4 Abiding in Christ.
The idea of abiding is especially frequent in the farewell discourses and in the first epistle of John. In these passages the union between the Father and the Son is seen to be the pattern for the believer's life in God. The double form 'abide in me and I in you' and its equivalent is expressed quite frequently. The centrality of Jesus' own life in the ongoing life of the disciples is thereby implied and understood. If faith is the way of entrance into life, abiding is the one demand for continuing in faith. (Ladd 1974:277).
According to Guthrie28(1981:642), this type of mysticism strongly differs from Hellenistic mysticism by its accompanying ethical note. This is brought out strongly in 1John. The man who abides in Christ has an obligation to walk as Christ walked (lJn.2.6), and it issues in love of the highest kind - a godly love for your brother (lJn.4.12). The great frequency of the idea of 'abiding' in ]John (cf. lJn.2.6,24,27,28; '3.6,24; 4.12-13, 15-16), shows that John sees a special need to stress the source of power for the new life. We can know that we are 'in Him' (lJn.2.5; 5.20).
Abiding in Christ is also understood in the Johannine writings, as abiding in God or abiding in the Father. In fact, the abiding of the believer in Christ and Christ in the believer, is analogous to the Son abiding in the Father and the Father abiding in the Son. Believers are in both the Father and the Son (Jn.17.21), and both the Father and the Son make their abode in the believer (Jn.14.23).
28So also Ladd (1974:278) "This 'Johannine mysticism' is very different from the mysticism of the Hellenistic religions as represented by the Hermetica where the worshipper becomes one with God in the sense of being deified. In John there is no merging of personalities or loss of human identity. There is no evidence that the Johannine mysticism involves ecstasy. Rather it is mysticism of personal and ethical fellowship involving the will rather than the emotions". 295 To receive Jesus as the one sent from the Father, is to have the Father's word abide in you. In this the abiding word is faith in Jesus. It means obedience to the revelation of God. They are able to see the revelation of God. Those who do not receive Jesus, are those not able to see, because the veil of unbelief was upon the eyes of their hearts (Hendriksen 1954 Vol.1:209).
The same idea comes out in Jn.8.35. The Jews denied that they were in bondage; they reckoned that they were free because they were Abraham's children. In his answer, Jesus reminds them that they are sinners and are therefore slaves of sin, and that as slaves they were very different from sons. As slaves they were not dwellers in the household of God unless the Son should set them free. The important aspect that comes out in this verse, is that those whom the Son sets free abides in the house (of God). Abiding is the result of salvation.
In reference to (John, Ladd (1974:616) feels that John uses language to describe the Christian life that sounds mystical. One of his characteristic words is "abide" (Reno). God abides in believers (4.16); Christ abides in them (3.24); God's word abides in them (2.14); Life abides in them (3.15); love abides in them (3.17); truth abides in them (2Jn.2); the anointing of the Spirit abides in them (2.27). Believers in turn, abide in God (2.24); in Christ (2.5,6,24,27); in light (2.10); in sound doctrine (2Jn.9). In most cases these are applicable ethically. Abiding in Christ means to be living a life of love and unbroken fellowship with fellow believers. It means remaining true to Christian tradition.
The matter of abiding finds its greatest expression in the Vine / branches discourse and in the temple-motif in John. Its ethical implications are stressed in the epistle of John. Here it is emphasised that the source of power for the new life, is to be found in abiding in Christ. We shall now discuss the matter of abiding in the vine (Jn. 15). 296 3.4.4.1 The True Vine and the Branches.
Jn.15.1-8 discusses the relationship between Christ and his disciples using the image of the vine, with clear emphasis on Jesus' identity and on the vine's fruit- bearing. Jesus introduces the figure as an explanation of his identity, using the familiar' 'Eyui dui formula to declare that he is the true vine. Jesus in fact represents himself as the one who replaces Israel in salvation history.
The symbol of the vine had long represented Israel as a nation, and the Lord is the keeper of the vineyard - Israel (Culpepper 1998:213). He cultivated and tended it faithfully, but the vineyard has been unproductive (Isa.5.1-7; 27.2-6) or it has yielded its fruit to false gods (Hos.10.1-2). Israel was a "choice vine", but it became a wild vine (Jer.2.21). But now the vine ceases to represent Israel and takes on christological significance. It represents Jesus himself. Whereas one's salvation had depended on identity with Israel, the people of God, Jesus declares that life depends on abiding in him. He is the source of life. (Culpepper 1998:214). He (Jesus) symbolically refers to himself as the New Israel (Wiid 2000: 20-BTJ).
Isn't it interesting to note that Jesus supplants Jacob; that is, he supplants the supplanter? When John mentions Jesus' saying about the descending and ascending angels in Jn.1.51, he has in mind the story of Jacob in Gen.28 - but Jesus becomes the new Bethel. Moreover, Jesus was greater than Jacob, who "gave" the Samaritans that well, because his water is superior to that of the well. We must not forget that Jacob's name was changed to "Israel", and here's the significance for us; Jesus replaces Israel. He is the true vine.
297 By declaring that he is the true vine, Jesus locates himself as the only true source of life for his disciples and all of humanity. This is in keeping with the Evangelist's introduction of Jesus in the Prologue - "In him is life ..." (Jn.1.4). He is the Resurrection and the Life (Jn.11.25). Yet, again, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (Jn.14.6). As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself (Jn.5.26). Jesus is the source and the sustainer of life.
This image is meant to show the disciples' utter dependence on Jesus. He said that apart from him they can do nothing (Jn.15.5). In other words, without him they are dead and are unable to live and to bear fruit. In fact, without him they are in danger of being thrown into the fire (Th.15.6). The disciples however, are chosen by Jesus in order that they may bear fruit; if they do, they are worthy to be called his friends (Trumbower 1992:111).
The relationship that Jesus has with his disciples, * is never one where the Father is excluded. He and the Father are one (Jn.10.30) and the Father is the one who tends the vine (Jn.15.1). The Father prunes and cleans the branches so that they may be fruitful (15.2). All that remains for the branches, is to abide in Jesus, the vine, in order to bear much fruit. Remaining in Jesus, and Jesus remaining in his disciples are two sides of the same coin, for this is an attempt to describe one relationship between Jesus and his disciples (Hartin 1991:350).
They abide in Jesus through faith; Jesus abides in them through love and fruitfulness. The insistence is made that in order to bear fruit, one must remain united to Jesus, and it is only those who are united with him who bear fruit. Bolt (1992:13) sees fruit-bearing and being a disciple as synonymous.
The parables of the true vine manifest a close relationship between Jesus and the individual believer. This parable emphasises the finality of faith; being one with 298 Christ. The branches participate in the vine and the vine in the branches. Jesus is the source of life for the branches and they bear fruit for his glory. They can only do so as they remain in him, but the particular kind of fruit is interpreted as love for the Lord (Th.15.9-10) and the love for one another (Jn.15.12-17).
O'Grady puts it succinctly: "The focus of union and indwelling is the love of Jesus for his disciples, rooted in the love of God for Jesus and then for his followers. Johannine mysticism does not conclude in a sterile union but an abiding presence that rests on responsible love directed outward to the brethren. Finally, the author sees the love as the perfection and the completion of the union already present. Seeing and believing become knowing and loving and, ultimately, uniting and testifying". (1999:54). Paul Minear says that "Abiding is loving; loving is abiding" (1993:498). This is applicable both to/for Jesus and to/for the disciples. 29
The love of which Jesus speaks begins with the Father's love for Jesus (M.15.9), it then develops into Jesus' love for his friends (15.12-13), and ultimately results in the disciples' return of love for Jesus (15.14) and further demonstrates itself in love for others (15.17). As in the rest of the Gospel the initiative always remains on the part of God or of Jesus. (Hartin 1991:351) Our witness to the world is enhanced by our love for one another.
The mutual abiding and the mutual loving ensures the vitality of the vine. The real vitality of the vine is characterised by the word of Jesus abiding in us; for then will we ourselves see the results of our prayerful petition (M.15.7). The word abiding in us is another way of saying that we obey or keep the Lord's commandments
29AB Du Toit (1993:37): "Dit is egter veral die imperatiewe van Johannes 15.4 en 1Johannes 2.27-28 wat daarop dui dat die gelowiges aktief betrokke is by en 'n verantwoordelikheid het ten opsigte van die voortgang van die Godsgemeenskap". 299 (Jn.15.10). So, do we abide in Jesus' love. Jesus, the vine, and the believers, the branches exist together.
3.4.4.2 The Temple motif in John.
The Gospel of John specifically sets out to reveal Jesus' identity, and it uses a number of Old Testament motifs to that end. We may mention as examples that the creation motif exists in John; the Exodus motif can be found here; and the Temple motif may he traced. We shall turn to the Temple motif to discover more of our Lord's identity as revealer of God. We will show that for the Johannine community the Temple is a major symbol to 'express who Jesus is for them. The Temple functions in the narrative as a major christological symbol.
Already early on in the Gospel Jesus is depicted as the tabernacling presence of the divine Word (Jn.1.14). Jesus is the Temple (Jn.2.21). The Gospel develops this theme throughout. Coloe is of the opinion that the symbolism is explicit even if the full meaning of the symbol is unclear. For her, the Gospel has created a narrative world where the Temple and Jesus are intrinsically linked (2001:6). The Johannine community transferred the meaning of the Temple to the person of Jesus, and in continuity to the believers as the ongoing presence of Jesus through his Spirit. We shall briefly explore this symbol to support our mystical understanding.
Jesus is introduced in cultic terms as the tabernacling presence of God's glory now visible (Jn.1.14). The essence of Christianity's claim is expressed in terms of Israel's cultic traditions, and such is the case when Jesus is said to be "tabernacling" (eaKqvwcr€1)) among us. The pre-existent Word became flesh and became accessible to ordinary human experience. In lJn.1.1 this Word has been
300 seen; he has been heard; and he has been touched. The Word of God came to live among us; he came to dwell among us.
The prologue's use of the word derived from arni3Ow draws attention to God's presence dwelling in Israel. Jn.1.14 is critical in any investigation of this motif in
John, since the Temple was one of the major symbols of God's presence in Israel.
Jesus was the location of God's presence among men. This presence was in his physical person. That is what is meant when it says that "the Word became flesh.
"Flesh" (acipt) 30 here has no moral connotation; it is the human physical state. To put it plainly; God was present in the man Jesus, therefore Jesus functioned as the
Tabernacle of God's presence.
The Temple was referred to as God's house ("my Father's house" - Jn.2.16). It was called a home, because of the understanding that God lived or dwelt there.
This idea is developed in John's dwelling motif which cannot be understood as other than the Temple motif. In this regard Du Toit remarks: "Op aangrypende manier omskep Johannes die woonmotief christologies: Jesus het as Woord 'onder ons gewoon ( ecou))waevy, en so die ontmoetingspunt tussen God en die mense geword". (1993:31).
Draper (1997:275) seeing the word atcmioth , as "the life of God's localised presence on earth" shows a connection with the promise of a future 'tented' presence of God in Zion (cf. Joel 3.17 and Ezek.43.7). Jesus is that replacement
30John C Meagher (1969:57-68) in his article entitled "John 1.14 and the New Temple" in JBL, posits the theory that this word was added by a redactor. He postulates that Jesus (the Word) is not intended as the tabernacling presence, but the community. How does he arrive at such a postulation? He works on the hypothesis that the word "flesh" should be "Spirit" (Trveurrar and that is based on another hypothesis - that where "flesh" appears could have been a lacuna. Even though Meagher supports his hypothesis by showing that mthlwa could work within a systematic interpretation, we are of the opinion that : i) It is based on too many hypotheses, ii) "flesh" is not forced and functions well in the whole Gospel's understanding, and iii) Jesus is demonstrated to be the Temple elsewhere in the Gospel. 301 for the ancient Tabernacle. The Gospel will present Jesus as the replacement of the
Temple (Jn.3.19-22), and the community, which was expelled from the synagogue
"found direct mystical experience of the divine presence" in Christ (Draper
1997 :263).
A second allusion to Jesus as the presence of God is found in the statement in
Jn.1.51. The "ascending and descending upon the Son of Man" is an allusion to the
Gen.28 story of Jacob's dream. What is significant was that Jacob recognised that
God had been present and he calls that place Bethel (v19) because it was "none
other than the house of God" (v17). Applied to Jesus' statement in Jn1.51, the Son
of Man upon whom the angels ascend and descend, is no other than the dwelling
place of God; the New Bethel. Culpepper comes to the same conclusion: "... the
implication is that Jesus is the New Bethel, the new meeting place between heaven
and earth". (1998:96). This is confirmed in the numerous verses where the Father
abides in Jesus (e.g.. Jn.10.38; 14.10,11,21; 17.21,23).
The third allusion to Jesus as the temple is found in Jn. 2.2-25. The setting is the
wedding at Cana where Jesus performed the first miracle (sign). The six (empty) jars point to the inadequacy of Israel's religion institutions (they were meant for
purification purposes - Jn.2.6). Jesus, the true bridegroom, now brings that
inadequacy to perfection. The jars of purification and the Temple in Jerusalem give
way before Jesus, who, in relation to the new, is both its giver (new wine) and the
gift (his body) (Coloe 2001:69).
Jesus and his disciples then went to Jerusalem for the Passover; There at the
Temple Jesus drives out the money changers and the animals claiming that his
"Father's house" is not a house of merchandise. Significant to notice: The money
changers and the animals made possible the cultic participation of every Israelite.
The driving out of the larger sacrificial animals and pouring out the coins goes 302 further than "cleaning" the temple; it was a rejection of the most important rite (especially on the Passover), the sacrificial animals. Those sacrificed were no more acceptable.
Jesus now matches his actions with words, when asked what sign there is to show his authority, Jesus tells them to destroy "this Temple and in three days I will raise it up" (Jn.2.19). They misunderstood his statement, but he was referring to his body (Jn.2.21). Jesus is justified in using the term "sanctuary" ( Imes ) of himself. That is the actual place where God dwells, and Jesus gives it new meaning in the "sign" - you destroy; I will raise (Coloe 2001:78). Notice the development of the temple concept - iepov, oitcos, vciog.
A fourth allusion is on the place and manner of worship. Remember that the Jewish temple and purification cults have already been rejected. Now John takes up the matter of acceptable worship in Jn.4.7-26. More than that, acceptable worship will be done also by other than Jewish persons, like this Samaritan who also happens to be a woman. Jesus confirms here that true worship will not be restricted to a place ("neither on this mountain, nor at Jerusalem" - v21).
We need to remember that Jesus presents himself as the one from whom "living water" flows. Living water would come, not from Israel's (Jacob's) well but from Jesus, the eschatological temple. Ezekiel promised a temple, not built by human hands, whose waters would bring life and healing wherever they flowed (Ezek.47.1-12); life-giving waters flowing from the Temple. Jesus as it were sees himself as the fulfilment of this promise. Culpepper includes the waters flowing from Jesus' side (Jn.19.34) as fulfilment (1998:140).
From the context of these verses emerge two things; the identity of Jesus, and the place of true worship. An understanding of Jesus himself as the New temple 303 conflates these two things into one - Jesus is the living Temple of God; so true worship can only happen in him (Coloe 2001:100). Worship changes from an external, physical place of worship on sacred mountains to an internalised worship in spirit and truth. Its spiritual basis has already been introduced by the concept of
"flowing water", which the author later interprets as the Holy Spirit (Jn.7.37-39); and, Jesus is the truth (Jn.14.6) and his glory is truth (Jn.1.14).
Jesus himself is the new temple in which believers find communion with him and his Father. He is the new dwelling place of God and man. He is the place which displaces the temple worship of Jerusalem. In him, who is the truth and the self- revelation of God, through the gift of the Spirit, men will worship the Father:
'The true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth' (Jn.4.23). The temple imagery explains that our communion with God is granted in and through
Jesus. (McPolin 1978:34).
Before closing our discussion here, we shall briefly consider two other images tied to the temple motif, namely, Jesus as sacrifice and as high priest. Jesus is already introduced as the sacrificial "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"
(Th.1.29). Within the passion narrative, Jesus' crucifixion is situated in the feast of the Passover (Jn.18.28,39); specifically on the Day of Preparation
(Jn.19.14,31,42). Jesus is the Passover Lamb and its affirmation is found in the significance of John's careful mention, that the soldiers did not break the legs of
Jesus (Jn.19.33 cf. Jn.19.36 and Ex.12.46).
As high priest: Jesus is depicted as high priest who is to consecrate himself before dying on the cross (Jn.17.19), because there is a sacrificial understanding of his death. John shows a confusion about the identity of the high priest since there are two of them - Annas and Caiaphus. The question is, who is the real High Priest?
John points to Jesus' high priestly identity in the passion narrative. 304 Jesus is presented as the one who sacrifices himself rather than an animal (Th.14.15,17-18; 15.13; 1.1n.3.16). Jesus is the one and only true High Priest in contrast to the plurality of Jewish high priests. Jesus is the one who intercedes for his people and who consecrates himself (.111.17). High priestly symbolism is found in the crucified Jesus' seamless tunic as a high priestly garment (Jn.19.23).
The mention of Jesus' seamless tunic (Th.19.23-24) has significance that needs brief discussion. One of the first clues the reader is given is that the tunic was woven from the top ( civwEI€1 ,) - the same word used in Jn3.3,7 and 19.11. Heil (1995:742) sees the following from John's narration: (a) seamless (a term of unity), (b) woven from above (a term of divine origin), (a') as a whole (a term of unity). Thus, two terms of unity surround a statement of divine origin. By preserving the seamless tunic that symbolises the unity that comes "from above", from God, the Gentile soldiers enable Jesus, lifted up in death by crucifixion, to fulfil what he had earlier predicted, "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to myself" (Jn.12.32).
So, Jesus is presented to us as Temple, as sacrifice and as high priest; but our interest is discovered in the fact that in Jesus as tabernacle/temple, we have a place where we may experience God's presence. It is here where the temple motif has mystical importance.
3.4.5 The Light of the World - Walking in the Light.
The life that the Logos had in himself was the light of men. This light came to shine into the darkness (Jn.1.4-5). Enlightenment comes through the Logos. When Jesus says: "I . am the light of the world. He who follows me shall not walk in 305 darkness, but have the light of life" (Jn.8.12), he does not go much beyond what we read in the prologue: "In him there was life, and the life was the light of men" (Th.1.4). The main difference is the association here with "following" Jesus. The life and light that were available in creation are now available in a new sense, overcoming the inexplicable alienation of cosmos from creator that has concerned John all along. (Countryman 1994:67).
This is one of the eyw Erin sayings of Jesus and is meant to reveal his identity. Jesus is not only humanity's road to God, but God's road to humanity. Nobody can follow the road unless they have light. Only through enlightenment can one grasp this. They will see it from special insight that comes from sharing his life (life was the light of men). Their closeness to Christ allows them direct access to the Father hitherto not possible.
Receiving the light comes through faith and for the purpose of following him. We cannot help but think of the Good Shepherd and his sheep. The sheep follow the shepherd. This is an expression of faith. To believe in Jesus is to follow him, and those who follow him know his voice. The following and the knowing are also expressions of faith in Jesus. It is only possible to know and follow him by believing in him.
The blind man was given sight (light) because Jesus touched him (Jn.9). Lazarus came forth from dark death when he heard the master call (Jn.l1). In Lazarus the enlightenment and now life rolled into one (Countryman 1994:134). Mary recognised the risen Lord in the garden when he called her name (Jn.20.16). These are few examples of how enlightenment happened; incidently, by the sounding of his voice which his sheep recognise.
306 Fortna (1978:41) reminds us that light is a Johannine metaphor of salvation closely related to truth. He says that the story of the blind man's healing (Jn.9) is not so much an episode of healing as it is of conversion; the sight the man receives is primarily spiritual. So John drew out of the source miracle stories such that have elements of soteriology. He applies them to the idea of salvation in Christ.
Jesus came to give light to every man (.M.1.9). Why is it that some have light and others don't? Trumbower says in this regard: '... some human beings "received" him and some did not'. To those who received him, defined as "those who believed in his name" (v12c), he gave power to become the children of God. From the perspective of Jn.1.4 and 10, this power allows them to achieve their full potential as enlightened human beirigs. (1992:68-69). This only highlights John's dualistic sense.
An element in Johannine dualism is the contrast between light and darkness. One of the themes sounded in the first words of the Gospel is the conflict between light and darkness. "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (Jn.1.5). The world is the realm of darkness, but God is light (1M.1.5), and Jesus came to bring light into the darkness (M.3.19; 12.46; 8.12). Every man who finds light must find it in Christ (M.1.19). (Ladd 1974:216).
The world above is the realm of light. Christ came into the realm of darkness to bring light. Jesus is himself the light (Jn.8.12) and has come that men may not remain in darkness but may have the light of life and be enabled to walk in the light so that they may not stumble (Jn.8.12; 9.5; 11.9; 12.35, 46). Those who receive the light become the sons of light; other men loved darkness instead. For men to be in the light is the mystical aspect of their relationship with Christ and God, who are light (Jn.8.12 and 1.M.1.5 respectively).
307 This kind of mysticism is ethically oriented. "He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him". (Iln.2.10). Abiding in the light is another way of saying "abiding in Him". "He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked" (1.1n.2.6). "If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin" (lJn.1.7). This fellowship is mystical; and this fellowship with God motivates fellowship with the brothers. If you cannot love your brother, then you are still in darkness (lJn.2.9,11).
One last point that needs to be made in this regard, is the Exodus motif coming out in the statement that Christ is the light to be followed. In the wilderness the forefathers had followed the pillar of light. The symbolism was rather appropriate at the Feast of Tabernacles (now in progress or just ended) reminding the audience of this light which the ancestors had enjoyed as a guide (Hendriksen 1954 Vol. 11:42).
3.5 Parneiption2muma
There are more references to the Spirit in John and more specific information about his coming activities than are found in the Synoptic Gospels. As remarkable, is that most of the material is contained in the more intimate teaching given exclusively to the apostles on the eve of the passion. (Guthrie 1981:526). There are both substantial agreements and significant variations between John and the Synoptics. They may be said to corroborate each other. John omits the heavenly voice, but gives valuable insight into the meaning of the descending Spirit. Jesus was empowered to be both Lamb of God and giver of the Spirit. The close connection between the mission of Jesus and the activity of the Spirit is basic to all the records. 308 Not only does the Spirit come from God, but he is sent by both the Father and Son (Jn.16.7; Jn.14.26). The Holy Spirit is seen to be both one with God and 'at one' with the believer. Jesus is the mediator of the Spirit to man. Jesus had the Holy Spirit so that he could confer the Holy Spirit upon those who belong to him. "For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Holy Spirit (to the Son) by measure" (Jn.3.34). It is the gift of the Holy Spirit to men that distinguishes the new age from the old.
When Jesus conferred the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, it was so that His work might not be broken off at his death and glorification, but that the Holy Spirit will continue both his work and his fello'vship with his disciples. "You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you'. If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father" (Jn.14.28). That there is a coming of Jesus in the coming of the Spirit in no way detracts from the fact of his parousia or "second coming" at the end of the age (Ladd 1974:294).
Some commentators go so far as to identify the glorified Christ and the Spirit. Countryman says: "The Spirit, here, is not exactly another 'person' except perhaps in the sense that Jesus is other than the Father. As Jesus makes the Father present, the Spirit will make Jesus present" (1994:103). However, while there is indeed an identity of function, John maintains a distinction: the Spirit is not Jesus, the Spirit is another Paraclete. If John reflected upon it he would probably say that Christ was present in the Spirit.
Furthermore, the believers cannot understand their new life in love until they receive the new sponsor, the Spirit - until they are actually living the new life of which Jesus has told them before, to ensure their sense of continuity, but the Spirit will bring them to understand what Jesus meant. Jesus' departure meant the great 309 gift of the Spirit whom the Father will give in his name (in.14.26). When the Holy Spirit comes, they will be able to do "greater works" than Jesus did (Jn. 14.12). So, the Holy Spirit is seen as the great enabler of the believers in the absence of Christ.
That the Holy Spirit provides continuity of Christ's ministry does not mean that the Holy Spirit does all that Christ has done or has promised to do. An example would be that only Christ baptises with the Holy Spirit (Th.1.33). How this happens, John does not say; except that we may have an indication in the post-resurrection "breathing" of the Spirit upon his disciples.
3.5.1 The Holy Spirit and Baptism.
The first mention of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John, is about His connection with baptism. He is connected to baptism in two ways: i) The baptism of Christ himself (Jn.1.32), and ii) the fact that Christ is the one who will baptise with the Spirit (in.1.33). The first is Christ's experience of baptism and the Spirit, while the second is meant for the believer's experience of baptism and the Spirit. John does not say much about baptism, but we shall seek to extrapolate a Johannine doctrine in this regard.
According to the fourth Gospel, the Baptizer declared that he saw the Spirit descending as a dove on Jesus. He does not actually mention the baptism of Jesus (as is done in all three the Synoptics), but this is clearly assumed in John. The dove is precisely parallel to the Synoptics. John the Baptizer literally saw the Spirit descending on Jesus, and this descent of the Spirit identified the Coming One who would himself baptise with the Holy Spirit. By the same means he was able to identify him as the Son of God (Jn.1.34). 310 Though in John no other direct tradition, teaching or command about baptism is given, it cannot be denied that there are allusions to baptism there, and that it was clearly practised in the Christian community. The connection of the Spirit to baptism is even less clear. We shall explore that connection in our discussion on regeneration.
When the evangelist narrated the Baptizer's testimony, he is careful to state that the Spirit "descended from heaven" (Jn.1.32). In verse 33, again, it is mentioned that the Spirit "descended" and "remained" on Jesus. Two things are clear: The Spirit is from heaven; this is the same as saying that the Holy Spirit is "from above". He is not from the "world" or "from below". Later, the evangelist confirms it by saying that the Spirit is given by the Father (Jn.14.15,26). The second thing is that the Spirit has the ability to remain Wvoi)). This is the same word for the mystical concept of "abide" in the Johannine writings (cf. Jn.14.23). The Spirit therefore abides, or "dwells" (also from Fteta) with man (Jn.14.17).
Now, about the function of the Spirit in Christian regeneration. We now turn from Jesus' experience to his teaching. The well known saying of Jesus to Nicodemus has great importance for the doctrine of the Spirit: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Jn.3.5). "Water" has been variously interpreted - mainly, either as baptism or physical birth. Whatever, the focus is undoubtedly on the renewing or re-creation power of the Spirit in believers (Guthrie 1981:527). This is the germ of regeneration. The idea is reinforced by the use of an analogy: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (Jn.3.16). In other words, like begets like. Spiritual birth is a totally new mode of existence. No wonder, Nicodemus could not understand it.
311 One such commentator who sees "water" as referring to baptism, is Beasley- Murray. He says: The explosive statement of v3 (as Nicodemus will have viewed it), "unless one is begotten from above he cannot enter the kingdom of God", is explained in v5, "Unless one is begotten of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God". That is most naturally understood of baptism in water and the Messiah's baptism in Spirit ... the Fourth Evangelist, alone among the Gospel writers, draws attention in this very chapter to the fact that the Messiah as well as the forerunner was authorising a baptism in water, and that the populace was flocking in larger numbers to the Messiah's baptism than to John's (3.26; 4.1-2).... Nicodemus is reminded that he, as all others, should respond to the call to repentance proclaimed by John and Jesus and expressed in baptism, for he also needs cleansing and renewal by the Spirit if he is to enter the Kingdom of God .... In the time of the church, however, baptism in water and baptism in Spirit are to become a unified experience for one who repents and believes in the crucified and risen Saviour (Jn.3.14-16) (1991:65-66). Culpepper concurs: "Being born from above means being born 'of water and Spirit'. Christian readers would have detected the baptismal reference here, but the primary emphasis is birth through the Spirit (1998:135).
Another factor is the impossibility of tracking down with precision the movement of the Spirit. Jesus used the analogy of wind, which is not only a play on words (TrvEiict), but is a fitting symbol for what is itself invisible, but nonetheless has visible effects. We are inevitably faced with the need to consider Pentecost and John 20.22. Guthrie seems to link up the verse in Jn.20 with the events at Pentecost. His view is that the breathing of the Spirit upon the disciples must he regarded as proleptic, a foreshadowing of Pentecost. He comes to the conclusion based on the result that will follow in the bestowing of authority to forgive and to retain sins (1981:534).
Ladd (1974:289) takes into account the difficulties raised by Jn.20.22 in the light of the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, which may be solved in one of three ways.
312 i) John did not know of Pentecost and this story actually becomes the Johannine Pentecost; or ii) there were actually two gifts of the Spirit; or iii) Jesus' breathing on the disciples was an anacted parable, promisory and anticipatory to the actual coming of the Spirit at Pentecost.
We hold to the same view 31 for two main reasons: i) That Jesus himself said that the Spirit would only come once he had gone away; that the Spirit could not come unless he left (Jn.16.7 cf. Jn.7.39). ii) If one notices John's creation motif, it would not be hard to make the connection between the birth of the Church, the people of God, on the day of Pentecost and this event of breathing. The word for "breathing", itiOvancrcv, is used only here in the NT. In the LXX the same word is used when God breathed into man, and he became a living soul (Gen.2.7). The Pentecost gift of the Holy Spirit is in any case called baptism with the Spirit when Peter refers to it (Act 11.16 cf. Acts 1.5).
Before we move on to our next point, we need to briefly consider Grassi's observation (1972:131-136). He sees the first sign, the changing of water into wine, as deeply symbolic of the gift of the Spirit in Acts chapter 2. He lists the similarities between the two events and comes to the conclusion that there is a connection. Just briefly the list of similarities: That the third day mentioned in Jn.2.1 has reference to the resurrection of Jesus after which the Spirit was given (Jn.20.22). It was "at Cana in Galilee ...". The first recipients of the Spirit were Galileans (Acts 2.7). The mother of Jesus was there (Jn2.1), and she was also present at Pentecost (Acts 1.14). It is the mother of Jesus who implicitly asks for the new wine (which
31 So does Martin Pohlmann (2000:152-155 BTJ) - "A preview of Pentecost in John's Gospel: an Exegesis of John 20.22". 313 Grassi says is the Spirit). In the Acts account, the disciples are accused of being filled with new wine (Acts 2.13).
Jesus' mother tells the servants to do whatever he commands them to do
(M.2.5). Peter tells them that if they repent and believe, they will receive the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2.38).
The steward did not know where the new wine had come from. Jesus said to
Nicodemus that no one really knows where the Spirit comes from - like wind. This is reminiscent of the rushing wind of Acts.
That the good wine was kept for last is connected with the gift of the Spirit whom Peter said was promised for the Last days by the prophet Joel. (Acts 2.16-
17).
The conclusion of "the first sign", was that the disciples believed in Jesus
(Jn.2.11). The conclusion of the Pentecost narrative in Acts is a reference to "all those who believed" (Acts 2.44).
The many coincidences may have been so, designed by the Fourth Evangelist.
If, as we have shown, there is a connection between the Spirit and baptism, Then it is unavoidable to think of the Holy Spirit as having "descended" upon the baptised; those who are members of the new community of believers. More so, because, for
John it is the experience of the individual before it is that of the community.
3.5.2 The Living Water - A Perennial Flow from Inside.
The gift of the Holy Spirit is a blessing to men. It is in fact a blessing to believers in Jesus Christ. Our Lord himself promised 32 those who thirst and come to him to
32The problem here is that there is no Scripture which speaks of living water flowing out of believers. There are some passages that resemble Jesus' quotation - Ezekiel 47.1-12 (we have referred to this passage in our Temple motif discussion); Joel 3.18 and Zechariah 14.18 314 drink, that out of their bellies will flow rivers of living water (Jn.7.37-38). This is quoted as a saying of Jesus, but John adds a commentary: "Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believe in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (Jn.7.39).
It is clear that Jesus was the source of the living water, and those who drank from him, would never thirst again (Jn.4.14). The reason why the believer never would thirst again, is because the water that Christ gives will become a fountain of water springing up to eternal life. This is in essence what Jesus is saying: "Rivers of living water will spring from inside" the believer. 33 This promise is ministry related. Instead of his personal presence, his disciples would continue his ministry, and the Holy Spirit will he given them so that their words and deeds would no longer be merely human acts but channels of divine grace (Ladd 1974:289).
The evangelist in Jn.7.39 interpreted the utterance of Jesus as relating to the Holy Spirit sent from the crucified, risen and exalted Lord. The saving sovereignty having decisively come through that event, the exalted Lord releases him for the disciples, and so for the world (Jn.20.22-23); and consequently the Spirit's ministry in the world is directed to communicating the life of the Kingdom of God to humankind, as indicated in Jn.3.3,5-8. (Beasley-Murray 1994:68).
The eschatological promise is to be filled so that we may experience a new dimension of the inwardness of the Spirit. The inner work of the Holy Spirit is
We have also already discussed the possibility that Christ refers to himself, (i.e.. to living waters flowing out of Christ) and to punctuate with a comma at the end of verse 37 so as to attach the words 'he who believes in me' to the previous verse. This would agree with the view that Christ, not the believer, is the source of spiritual life. (Guthrie 1981:529).
33There are some who say that rivers of living water will flow from Jesus' belly. Worthy of mention is Joel Marcus (1998:328-330).- He shows that if the Scripture quoted by our Lord is Isa.12.3, he can make a case for Jesus to be the source. He shows that the Hebrew words for "from the wells of salvation", could be translated "from the belly of Jesus"; well = belly (Koaias) and salvation = Yeshua (Jesus). 315 what makes the believer a child of God. The idea of the new birth is no different from the Pauline idea of being baptised into Christ and so entering into newness of life (Rom.6.14). The metaphor is different - new birth, union with Christ - but the theology is the same. In Pauline thought, men become children of God by adoption rather than by new birth (Rom.8.15-16).
Countryman (1994:62) calls the imagery of Jn.7.38 grotesque; as in the cannibalistic language of chapter 6, but this time John does not exploit its oddity. He simply affirms that the believer, like Jesus himself, will have an unbounded life-giving power within, quite inaccessible to external observation. The important thing is that believing confers this life-giving power, not external rites of baptism or Eucharist. The Spirit is an inner reality of the believer's life. He could only come when the tangible, physical, historical Jesus departs, as we shall see later (Jn.16.7), for it constitutes an inward communion with the Father and the Son (Jn.14.23).
The Holy Spirit will come to indwell Jesus' disciples. He will do an inner work in the hearts of God's people. Under the new covenant, the work of the Spirit involves a new inwardness. Those who believe in Jesus would receive the Spirit, and through us, he would be able to impart streams of life-giving power to others. We may only impart this "living water" if it springs up in us; that is the Spirit in
US.
In Du Rand's words: The gift of the Spirit determines one's "abiding" in God (Christ) as well as God's "abiding" in the believer. The claim to have the Spirit, however, is insufficient but must be tested on the basis of the true christological confession that Jesus is really the Messiah who became man .... The possession of the Spirit or the sonship of God is tested against love (cf.1.1n.4.7, 8-12).
316 (1994:168). The confession that he speaks about, certainly has evangelistic overtones.
The point however, is that the Spirit indwells and flows out of the believer. That makes our case for participation pneumatology - Spirit mysticism.
3.5.3 Worship in Spirit and in Truth.
The Father seeks true worshippers; worshippers who could relate to Him in a way compatible with His true nature (Jn.4.23); God is Spirit (M.4.24). The fact that God is Spirit would not he a neiv revelation to a Jewish person, not in all probability to the Samaritans. Guthrie says that it is the principle deduced from this that is distinctive. Worship must be in Spirit and truth, and this can hardly he intelligible if it is not an indirect allusion to the Spirit of truth, who would lead the believers in Christ into true worship. (1981:528).
The very activity of worshipping the Father in Spirit and in truth, is in the category of realised eschatology: "The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth" (Jn.4.23). Beasley-Murray put it this way: "The hour is coming - and it is already present - when God will manifest his presence, i.e.., in the kingdom he has promised, when he will be known and loved and adored as never before (cf. Rev.21.3-4). In this Gospel, however, the "hour" denotes especially the hour of the death and glory of Jesus (cf. Jn.12.23; 13.1; 17.1), when the saving sovereignty of the future, already in the process of coming through the word and works of Jesus, moves to its ordained climax. (1991:70).
317 The one thing that Jesus reveals about worship in "this hour" (which at the time was still to arrive - in fact, very soon), was that the place would no longer be at Mt. Gerizim or at Jerusalem. Jesus had already intimated that he has replaced the Temple in Jerusalem (Th.2.19-20). By saying that the Jews know what they worship, while the Samaritans did not, was a double dismissal of Mt. Gerizim as a place of worship. The first dismissal was that they (the Samaritans) did not know what they worshipped; in other words, they worshipped amiss anyway; and the second dismissal came indirectly - if Jerusalem was losing its worship-centre status, then more so Mt.Gerizim.
The Spirit will be released for a new kind of worship that will not be tied down to the temple of Jerusalem or to the etas of Gerizim's temple, but people will be freed for fellowship with the risen Lord, who himself was the temple of the new age (.1n.2.17-19). That will be worship "in the Spirit and in the truth". (Beasley- Murray 1991:70). Because God is Spirit, he cannot be limited to any one place. Because the Holy Spirit is come into the world, men may worship God anywhere if they are motivated by the Holy Spirit.
Ladd is correct in showing that the contrast between the realm of above and that of below, is also a contrast between the realm of the Holy Spirit and the realm of human existence (1974:292). Had it not been that the Holy Spirit entered into human existence in the person of Jesus, 34 it would have been impossible to relate to God in a way compatible with his nature. So, in the first place, worship in Spirit is possible because, through Jesus, the Holy Spirit has come.
34FIoor (1971:122-129) sees that any relationship between Jesus (Kudos) and Spirit (pneuma) always brings in the conception doxa (glory). As new temple; Jesus is filled with the Spirit that brings glory to that temple. After the resurrection of Christ, the glory (doxa) of God comes when he breathes out the Holy Spirit. In short the pneuma reveals the doxa of the kurios. 318 Jesus also gave us the imperative to he born of the Spirit, which is also to be born from above. The flesh is not evil; it is simply incapable in itself of reaching up to the world of God and grasping divine realities. The Spirit has to descend into the sphere of human history. The Spirit comes from above - from God - but the Spirit has to descend into the sphere of human history. The Spirit comes from above - from God - but the Spirit comes to inaugurate a new age of redemptive history. Only those born of the Spirit can worship God in a way acceptable to him.
Not only did the Holy Spirit make his entry into human existence; nor only that we may be born of the Spirit; but that we also may have an internal relationship with him (Jn.7.37-39). The inwardness of the Holy Spirit provides an inner motivation to worship God in Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit lives and flows forth from within us, we are able to express true spiritual worship.
A fourth area of the Spirit's impact on our worship is in the area of Truth. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (.111.14.17). The Spirit is the embodiment of truth (Jn.14.17; 16.26; 16.13). The Spirit is seen as the custodian of truth; therefore there must be a close connection between the Spirit and the Word ("Your Word is truth" - Jn.17.17), and the Spirit and Jesus (He is full of grace and truth - Jn.1.14; He is the truth - Jn.14.6). The Spirit communicates truth and guides us into all truth (.1n.16.13). (Guthrie 1981:530).
True worship in Spirit and truth is possible because we have a personal and inner relationship with the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. In this way we are able to relate to God who is Spirit and demands worship in Spirit and in truth. Through the Spirit we are able to glorify God (Christ). The fact that we have the Spirit, and worship in Spirit and truth affirms participation pneumatology - Spirit mysticism.
319 3.5.4 Paraclete as Helper from Within.
Our Lord in his last intimate moments with his disciples, encourages them to believe in him; that the Father is in him; that he does the works of the Father; that they will do what Christ had done and greater works; that they may ask anything in his name and the Father will do it; to love and keep his commandments. While this was what they must do, what he will do is procure the Paraclete for them (Jn.14.11-16).
Beasley-Murray makes an important observation regarding the Paraclete-sayings. The upper room discourse contains five sayings which speaks of the Spirit as the Paraclete (Jn.14.15-17, 25-26; 15.26-27; 16.7-11, 11-15)... the Paraclete-sayings form a coherent body of utterances about the Holy Spirit. They show a clear progression of thought, but the central one, 15.26-27, provides the key to the rest. It is likely that the other Paraclete-sayings clustered around this one, for they are related thematically, and furthermore it gives us the clue to the use of the word Paraclete. (1991:70-71).
The Paraclete cannot be received by the world; that is, those 'from below'. They do not know him nor can they recognise him. That means that those who are from below cannot experience the Paraclete in the same way as the believers do. They will experience him (Jn.16.8-11), but this we will discuss under 3.5.5. Only the believers will experience him as Paraclete, especially in the light of what Jesus had encouraged them to do.
The Paraclete is identified as the Spirit of truth who abides with the believers forever (Jn.14.16), and as the Holy Spirit who comes from the Father (Jn.14.26). The word parakletos has no adequate translation in English. The term seems to have a legal background and may mean advocate, intercessor, helper, comforter, 320 or counsellor. Du Rand shares the same opinion: "Therefore, we rather speak of the Paraclete: He is witness and spokesman who defends Jesus before his enemies; the comforter of the disciples because he assumes the place of Jesus among them; the helper because he teaches and leads the disciples. (1994:30). When Jesus says "another" Paraclete, John evidently intends for the reader to understand Jesus as having been a Paraclete35 also. The Paraclete will continue doing what Jesus began to do (Culpepper 1998:211). Through the Spirit, the Father and the Son abide with the believer (Jn.14.23).
How is the Holy Spirit Paraclete to the believer? Mainly as an enabler 36 to believe in and live for the Lord (both Father and Son who abide in the believer). Without the Holy Spirit a person not only doesn't know the Father and the Son, but he would also be unable to serve God in terms of worship and works of service. We shall now consider where and how the Spirit enables the believer.
We may sum up the major function as glorifying Christ (Jn.16.14). the Spirit is essentially self-effacing, never speaking on his own authority (Jn.16.13). He does not seek his own glory; only that of Christ (Guthrie 1981:531). The only way Christ is glorified is through the believer, by his words and his obedience to the Lord.
Closely allied to this is the Spirit's enabling of believers to witness to Christ (Jn.15.26). The Spirit hears witness to Christ through the believer. lln.5.7 "The Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth". Therefore, the Spirit is a true witness. So ought believers to be because they have the Spirit within them, and the
35The term is used of Jesus in lJn.2.1 as an "advocate". The root meaning in Greek is 'one called alongside', and therefore there is an element of truth in all these suggestions.
36David T Williams (2000:28 BTJ) says: "The Spirit is then not a 'comforter to the Church, but an 'encourager' to act! 321 witness to Christ is a witness to the truth (1n.14.6) as he is enabled by the truth (the Spirit). The initiative is from the Father and the purpose is to incarnate the message and ministry of Jesus in the lives of the disciples (Pohlmann 2000:153 BTJ).
Again, closely allied to being a witness to Christ, means to bear witness of the truth about Christ. The Spirit helps the believer / witness to recall and understand Christ's teaching (Jn.14.26). The Spirit would be the custodian of truth (Guthrie 1981:532). As the Spirit of truth, he is able to lead the believers into all the truth (Jn.16.13). Again, the recalling and understanding are internal activities; activities within the believer - the Holy Spirit as abiding in the believer, makes it possible.
The Spirit's function is also to guide the believer; especially into all the truth. The emphasis here is to doing the truth. There is also the element of guidance into making discoveries of the truth. It embraces finding the meaning, significance and application of the truth. The application is primarily for mission and for community.
The discovery of the truth is revelation. In this regard D. Moody Smith puts forward a good summary: The Spirit is Jesus' presence to strengthen and encourage the disciples , or the church, and is not to be thought of as if it were some additive to a redemption and revelation already given. The Spirit is the renewed action and presence of God by which what happened with Jesus and his disciples in the first place is made known as revelation. Only the advent of the Spirit interprets what has happened as God's revelatory, and therefore saving work. Thus the unity of the revelation, indeed the revelation itself, is incomplete and lacking, awaiting the advent of the Spirit. Only within the ambit of the Spirit's life and work does Christ live for the believer, and correspondingly, only there do the Christians or the church live and know who she is. The revelation of God in the historic; public ministry of Jesus before the world is paralleled by the revelation of God in the Spirit - Paraclete's ministry among the community of his 322 disciples , whereby he makes known to them, as the post- resurrection church, who this Jesus truly was. (1995:142).
The Paraclete will tell the believers of things to come (Jn.16.13); that is, his activity in the sphere of revelation includes things concerning the future. The general 'things that are to come' which the Spirit was to declare, is sufficiently comprehensive to include all the eschatological teachings of. Christ, of the epistles and the Apocalypse (Guthrie 1981:532). The Paraclete will therefore also encourage hope in the believer; and this hope purifies (1.1n.3.3).
The Spirit helps us to keep the commandments of Christ (lJn.3.24 and lJn.14.13). We know that the essence of our Lord's commandments is LOVE; to love the Lord and to love our brothers. The Spirit, by abiding in us enables us to be obedient to the Lord. It is precisely because he calls to mind the teachings of our Lord, in order that we may remember it, and obey it.
The new work of the Holy Spirit is to bring a permanent indwelling within God's people. Christ said: "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another
Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever" (Jn.14.16). The permanent indwelling power shall be the privilege of all God's people, not only of the official leaders. As long as they are truly his, the Father, at Jesus' request, will supply them with the Paraclete (Countryman 1994:102).
The Spirit will empower believers. Ladd reckons that the disciples would be better off after Jesus had left them (Jn.16.7). Men are able to do greater exploits for God when the Holy Spirit has come and indwelt them, than they could do with Jesus' bodily presence in their midst; for the coming of the Spirit meant the infusion of a new divine power. (1974:296-7). The "greater works" consist of the transformation of lives wrought by the Holy Spirit as a result of the preaching of the gospel.
323 The conclusion, distinctly Johannine, is his theology of immanence, a being or remaining in one another that binds together Father, Son and the believer. Remain or abide adds the note of permanence to this mutual indwelling. The Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is also in believers. These expressions of immanence do not depend on spatial imagery. They express an indwelling that extends to a communion with God (Mc Polin 1978:34).
3.5.5 The Paraclete and the World.
As we have already said, the world Cannot receive, know or recognise the Spirit of truth (Th.14.17). The world being "from below" has no terms of communication with him who is "from above". But that does not mean to say the Spirit will not relate to the world in any way, for indeed the primary function of the Spirit to the world, is that of an accuser. 37 His function to the world is to convict the world; Jn. 16.8-1 1 "And when He (the Paraclete) has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement: of sin, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father and you will see me no more; of Judgement, because the ruler of this world is judged".
This passage constitutes one of the most baffling passages in the fourth Gospel. There are various interpretations, but none of the interpretations offered so far is without difficulty. We lean heavily on D.A.Carson's 38article in our discussion here, as we have been convinced by this particular interpretation. We shall not
37Even this idea is included in the idea of Paraclete as advocate - to the believer he is a defence advocate and to the world he is an accusing advocate.
38Carson DA, 1979. The Function of the Paraclete in John 16.7-11 in JBL Vol.98 no.4 - pp 547-566. 324 discuss the detail here, but only mention the salient points and his suggested final interpretation.
The basic questions about the text that need answering are as follows: Does the Paraclete convict the world, convince the world, prove to the world that it is wrong, or prove to the believer that the world is wrong? How are the On clauses to be taken? Explicative or causal? What explains the second person plural eeWpELTE (and you see me no more")? It is expected to have been 86wpa("and it - the world - sees me no more"). What do the three nouns ap.arritt, SiKaiocring and Kpi.ais mean in the context? How do the pieces fit together with consistency?
Carson begins by offering a number of exegetical, contextual and theological observations and suggestions. He then concludes with his translation of the Greek text.
He takes eXeytav TrEpt to mean "to convict of" or "to convince of". There are two possibilities and both are linguistically acceptable: a) to convict the world as in the Great Judgement - the establishment of the objective guilt of the world, not convincing the world that it is guilty. b) to convict the world itself that it is guilty, i.e.., to convince it of its guilt. The latter obtains more NT occurrences, and is adopted by Carson. To bring the world to the place where it is convinced of its sin.
The Paraclete convicts the world of the world's sin (4.apria), the world's righteousness (8iKiaocriwq), and the world's judgement (Kpiats).The first element presents no problem. The second element needs to be handled more carefully because it speaks of a false righteousness; not genuine righteousness. In Jn. 2.23- 25 Jesus knew the difference between believing and "believing". In other words, 325 there is good belief and bad belief. In Jn.8.30-52 there are those who are free and those who are "free"; there are those who know the truth and there are those who know the truth - there is an "acceptable" knowledge and there is unacceptable knowledge. Carson concludes that if John could apply this difference with the most sacred of verbs Trunivw; why can there not also be good righteousness and bad righteousness?
Furthermore, there are other biblical occurrences of bad righteousness: Isa.64.6 (also in LXX) "and all our righteousness are like filthy rags". Dan.9. 18 "Not on the basis of our righteousness do we bring our pitiful case to you, but on the basis of your many pityings, 0 Lord". Mt.5.20 "unless their righteousness surpasses the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, they will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven". The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was inadequate! In Rom.10.3 we learn of an "own righteousness" as opposed to "God's righteousness". Own righteousness is totally inadequate.
This interpretation forges a convincing symmetry. The Paraclete convicts the world of its sin, of its righteousness, of its judgement. It is unnecessary to jump from man's sin to Christ's righteousness, 39 or the like. The third element is now easy to substantiate. Carson says that John does not mean to castigate only that judgement of the world which rejected Jesus, judgement which led to the cross, but all false judgement, of which the condemnation of Jesus was the extreme example. They judged by mere appearances (Jn.7.24). Contrary to Jesus' judgement which is true, the world judges according to the flesh (Jn.8.15-16). Mistaken judgement stems not from mere cognitive ignorance, but from moral perversity.
39So Ladd (1974:297); Guthrie (1981:533); Du Rand (1994:31). 326 iii) The three on clauses are taken as causal rather than explicative. The effect is:
"The Paraclete convicts the world of its ... because ...." a) The Paraclete convicts the world of its sin because the people who make up the world do not believe in
Jesus. b) The Paraclete convicts the world of its righteousness because Jesus is going to the Father. The reason why the Paraclete convicts the world of its righteousness is because he takes over the ministry of Jesus during his life on earth.
Jesus exposed false righteousness, so will the Paraclete. c) The Paraclete convicts the world of its judgement because the prince of this world is judged (cf.
Jn.12.31). The cross decisively achieved the condemnation of the prince of the world. Both the prince and his domain, the world, stand condemned; and because this is an eschatological condemnation, the Paraclete urgently convicts the world and its people of their false judgement.
vi) Finally, about the second person plural eeWpEITE usage. The Paraclete does not convict the world only on his own but also through the disciples. The disciples by their conduct empowered by the Paraclete, share in the responsibility to bring conviction to the world concerning its "righteousness". Besides, through the believers, the cross is seen as victory, and through the Paraclete their mission cannot he futile. The Spirit bore witness for the community before the world
(Culpepper 1998:103). Williams says: "This means that the Christians continue not only the work of Christ, but also that of the Spirit in the world" 40 (2000:26-27).
This is Carson's translation: When he comes, he will convict the world of its sin, its righteousness, and its judgement: its sin, because they do not believe in me; its righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; and its judgement, because the prince of this world stands judged.
40He comes to this conclusion on the basis that the Spirit does not deal directly with the world (Jn.14.17). This viewpoint enhances our postulation of Spirit-mysticism but it does not depend on it. 327 3.6 Participation Koinonology in John
There is no direct mention or reference to the church in Johannine writings. It is even more surprising that nothing was included of the supposed community who played an important role in the composition of these writings. Therefore, the traditions preserved in this Gospel must have had their roots in the teachings of Jesus, before the emergence of the church (Guthrie 1981:721). Lack of specific reference to an ekklesia is counter-balanced by the many allusions to it in the Gospel and in 1John. Even though the evangelist does not mention the church, his mind is penetrated with the thought of it.
Jesus anticipated a time following his "glorification" that a challenge for people to follow him would be issued. His "lifting up" would draw many to himself; they would be his followers. There would be an emergence of a Christian community based on the redemptive work of Christ, They are the ones for whom Jesus laid down his life; they are the ones for whose unity he prayed. He certainly conceived of a corporate whole, united by their position in himself. There is no doubt that Jesus foresaw a community of believing people, knit together by a common faith in him. (Guthrie 1981:722).
The same applies to 1John. Although it contains no specific address and mentions no names of officials, the writer clearly has in mind a group of people that might be affected by docetism (lJn.2.2ff.). The teachings of love and unity among the brothers, breathes a strong spirit of community in the epistle. The fact that the antichrists came from among them but were never part of them (lJn.2.19), has strong community connotations.
328 It becomes obvious that we do not think that the evangelist was indifferent to, or ignorant of, or even hostile to an ecclesiastical institution. Like RE Brown,'" we find implicit ecclesiastical references in the Gospe1 42 which, when combined with explicit references in the Johannine epistles, show John to be deeply concerned with church and its sacraments. We do not wish to explore the historical setting of such a community, but only to discover those traits that support our purpose: participation koinonology - how as believers we share in intimate fellowship derived from the narrative and teachings of the Johannine writings.
We shall consider the constitution of this community and then its essential character. As new creation and family of God, we shall see how it exists within its defined character. We shall also disduss the ordinances practised and the mission of the community in order to explore how the community shares intimate fellowship.
3.6.1 Born from Above.
The whole concept of being "born from above" is applied to individuals. Individuals are horn from above; but these individuals make up the corporate whole. As individuals they find place in the community of believers. Therefore, in John's mind, salvation comes to the individual because the individual must believe, but by believing he is joined to Christ and the Father. The outcome of incorporation is corporateness.
41 Raymond E Brown "Johannine Ecclesiology - The Community Origins" in Interpretation Vol 31 No.4-1977. In this article he shows that the Evangelist presented Jesus to a Christian community in such a way that one may have insight into that community's life at the time of writing the Gospel.
42Gail R.O'Day "Toward a Narrative Critical Study of John" in Interpretation Vol 49 No.4- 1995, says: "... the Gospel is read to see how the text reflects the history and needs of the generative community. Accordingly, the text is freed from its deterministic enslavement to its prehistory. (p.343). 329 Nobody can therefore belong to the corporate whole unless he has been born from above, or unless he has believed in Christ as an individual. Believing and knowing Christ is an intensely personal thing - so is salvation - in John. Faith means complete commitment and personal union between the believer and Christ. It is also evident from other terms that are equivalent to faith. To believe means to receive Christ and his testimony (Jn.1.12; 5.43; 13.20 and 3.11).
One who is born from above possesses eternal life through faith (Jn.3.15,16; 6.40,47). It is noteworthy that the first occurrence of the expression "eternal life" occurs after a reference to the Kingdom (Jn.3.5,15), for it seems certain that in John's Gospel "eternal life" stands the place of the Synoptic teaching on the Kingdom (cf. Mk.9.43-47, where 'life' and 'kingdom' appear as equivalent terms). Guthrie 1981:643).
Being born from above is to be born of the Spirit (Jn.3.5-6). It is the same as being born of God (Jn.1.13). Those who believe are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Therefore they are the children of God (Jn.1.12).
When Jesus demanded that a person be born again (or from above), 43 he conveyed the sense of being born in a spiritual sense. The words of Jesus implied something so radical that it cannot be affected by man's own efforts. The new birth is the work of God, the Holy Spirit (Jn.1.13; 3.5). It requires a supernatural activity to transform a man into a new creation." It is for this reason that Jesus called it a
43The Greek word eivweev has a double meaning - "again" and "from above"
44This Pauline expression is the equivalent of Johannine new birth. 330 birth from above. Nothing short of a complete renewal would satisfy Jesus' demand.
It became clear in the Nicodemus encounter, that Jesus affirmed that being born from above cannot be explained in terms of natural phenomena. It was an entry into a new relationship with God; one now having a new nature. One is now a citizen of the Kingdom of God, for by new birth one has access into this Kingdom (Jn.3.3,5).
Not only does the new birth affect our relationship with God, but it affects the believer in relation to others as well : those born of God (lJn.2.29; 3.9; 4.7; 5.4; 5.18) do not continue to commit siii(1Jn. 3.19; 5.18); they love others (lJn.4.7); they overcome the world through faith (1711.5.4). The born-again person has an entirely new appraisal of the world.
Therefore, our discussion on participation koinonology has no meaning apart from individual faith and new life. In fact participation koinonology is an expression of this new life; but while new life happens on an individual level, its expression happens only on a corporate level. There can therefore be no secret believers in Johannine ecclesiology (Cosgrove 1989:582-589).
3.6.1.1 New Creation.
To be part of a new creation, the individual born-again believer finds himself in Christ and through his union with Christ is united to other believers who also find themselves in Christ. Therefore, the new creation is not only about creating new individuals, but about creating a new union of individuals to form a new community of true worshippers. 331 This new creation is seen as part of the creation motif in John; particularly in relation to the bestowment of the Spirit. 45 The breathing of the Spirit upon the disciples provides the second moment in Du Rand's scheme: ellipse of creation events. These moments are found in the two concepts of Dabar and Ruach, which is Logos and Pneuma in John; so that the new creation - confirmation is sponsored by the Logos and guaranteed by the Pneuma (2000:246). The former is the indicative and the latter, the imperative of the new life.
In Christ we are joined to other believers, but in the Spirit we live in harmony with Christ and fellow believers. The relationship between God's creative Spirit (tni) and His creative Word (7:7) in the•first creation, functions in the same way with the new creation - the Word created and the Spirit brought order (Gen.1.2 cf. Job 26.13) to that creation (if "order" in the new creation means the creation of an organism). Therefore the community concept is brought to meaningful function by the Spirit. a). A New Union of Individuals. It is true, especially, of the Fourth Gospel, that it is one of the most strongly individualistic of all the New Testament writings. Its realised eschatology, being a prominent feature, is the result of this individualism. Life belongs to anyone who believes; such a one has passed from death to life; anyone who drinks of the living water will find their thirst satisfied; whoever eats the living bread will not go hungry; the true worshipper is one whose worship is not localised in a temple but inward and spiritual. This is the Gospel, par excellence, of the approach of the single soul to God: this is the part of Scripture to which one turns first when trying
45See Du Rand (2000) "'n Ellips skeppingsgebeure in die Evangelieverhaal volgens Johannes", in Skiff en Kerk Vol 2. No.2.(243-259). 332 to direct an enquirer to his own, personal appropriation of salvation. (Moule 1962:185).
Yet, John's Gospel is generally thought of as one of the chief documents of Christian unity and organic life. One's thoughts immediately go to the temple of Christ's body, to the Shepherd and the one flock, to the vine and the branches. They all confirm this unity, and the unity is affirmed in the epistles of John which place greater stress on the corporate aspects of Johannine ecclesiology. In the final analysis the response to which the disciples of Jesus of all generations are called, is that of a unity of love in imitation of the response that Jesus demonstrated through his relationship with the Father.
The goal is the unity that also binds together Father, Son and believers, and such unity or community (lJn.1.3) belongs to the essence of the church. One might even say that it is the Church. (Moody .Smith 1995:145). The substance of this unity is love (Jn.17.26 cf. 14.21,23). It is quite possible that the themes of unity, oneness, and love are seen as mystical tenets in the Gospel of John. Believers enter into a new being, a new existence; they are born from above, and such imagery implies the reality of a new state and new relationship. Thus talk of mysticism in the Fourth Gospel is not misplaced or misleading. (Moody Smith 1995:146).
In John 17 Jesus prays for his disciples; that they would know a unity based upon the unity that exists between him and his Father. Hartin (1991:352) concludes that the statements on unity imply a horizontal unity (the relationship of believers among themselves) and a vertical unity (the relationship of the believers with the Father and the Son). In fact, we may go further and say that the one cannot go without the other. The vertical unity is the expression of Johannine mysticism, but it needs to be more. Vital unity is demanded, and a vital unity with the Father and the Son must entail some form of visible unity. That happens on the horizontal 333 level. Johannine mysticism, the relationship and union with God, demands a union of love among the brethren (O'Grady 1999:54).
It is clear to us that the source of our unity is found in Jesus as the community's common Lord. Jesus is the Good Shepherd who calls his sheep by name. Jesus is the door who admits them to the fold of God's people. Staton (1997:292) is correct when he says "... it is not a case of Jesus being the stock and his followers the branches, but of Jesus being the whole vine and his followers the branches, implying a possibly stronger concept of incorporation in Christ than is suggested by Paul's 'body' metaphor". The source of their unity is not only in Jesus, but also in God; in particular, in the union of Father and Son. (Jn.17.21-22). Heavenly unity is both the model and source of the unity of the believers. The unity of the incarnate Son with the Father is the ground, in Johannine terms, of the unity between the believer and the Godhead, as well as of unity between the believer and other Christians (Staton 1997:292). .
The nature of the unity is love and loyalty. We are exhorted to love one another (Jn.13.34-35; 15:12,17). This loving will demonstrate the love of the Father for them and the love of the Father for the Son (Jn.17.23). It is a love characterised by giving, even to the point of sacrifice. We are also to remain faithful to Christ when like the branches we abide in the vine. The idea of dependence strengthens the need for loyalty. The sheep follow only the shepherd they know (Jn.10.4-5,16,27). When love and loyalty are in place, then true fellowship will characterise this unity; one shepherd and one flock (Jn.10.16).
It is important for us to recognise that the unity we have with the Lord, and by extention with our brothers, is not attainable by human achievement. Fourie and Rousseau, coming to the same conclusion say:
334 Dit moet nou klinkklaar duidelik wees dat eenheid onder gelowiges slegs in Christus-georienteerde en Heilige Gees - geinspireerde dade, gesindhede en optredes konkretiseer. Eenheid is moontlik sonder om noodwendig die organisatories - sigbare strukture daarvan to kanoniseer. (1989:31). Along the same lines of church unity, Countryman says: "... the unity of which Jesus speaks here is not, as some mystical writings, a union simply of the worshipper and God. It is equally the worshippers unity with one another. No doubt this unity emerges in a church community; but it is not simply organisational unity. (Countryman 1995:117).
6) A New Community. While all those in Christ and those who are attached to him as the vine, find the unity in him, it must be recognised that horizontal unity is expressed in community. Community is when a group of people with something in common seek to maintain that commonality for their communal edification, experience and identity. By the idea of community, we are getting closer to the concept of participation koinonology.
In tracing the Johannine community's origins., R.E Brown 46 shows how the community developed from their common background (as Jews who believed in Jesus), to experiencing the same rejection that Christ did (M.1.11) - their expulsion from the synagogue and persecution by the Jews-,and, to theological adaptations (seeing the meaning of the Christ event in their particular circumstances and expectations).
When we speak of a community, we need to be careful whether by it we say that they are a sect or not. In another article, R.E Brown 47 investigates whether the Johannine community was sectarian or not. Was this community an accepted
46R.E Brown (1977:379-393).
47R.E Brown (1978:5-22). 335 church among churches or an alienated and exclusive conventicle? Did the Johannine community explicitly or implicitly break koinonia with most other Christians, or because of its theological or ecclesiological tendencies, most other Christians had broken koinonia with the Johannine community?
After showing the six stages of development, Brown indicates that the Johannine Christians developed through five stages and the sixth stage was the formation of the Secessionist Johannine Christians. They are the group that went out "from among us" (Jn.2.19), and had docetic beliefs. The secessionist group became sectarian. It was in the Secessionists, perhaps the larger group, that the sectarian tendencies of the Johannine tradition came to fruition. Ultimately they became a Gnostic sect, breaking koinonia with the Apostolic churches. (Brown 1978:22). The Johannine community, as reflected in the Johannine literature, was not sectarian.
Now, about the matter of corporate identity. The Gospel does not support the possibility of being secret disciples of Jesus. For the Evangelist, an unwillingness to identify with the community was to disqualify oneself for eternal life. The idea that life is found exclusively in the community is clearly implied in John 15 and 17, even if passages like 14.23 might be taken to mean that an individual can receive this life apart from the community (Cosgrove 1989:529).
There were those who were the implied audience of Jesus' address, namely, the so- called 'secret believers', who believed in Jesus but refused to identify themselves with the Johannine community. Nicodemus is the paradigmatic 'secret believer' in the Gospel of John. He was part of the group who "believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they be put out of the synagogue. For they loved their reputation with the people more than their reputation with God"
336 (Jn.12.42-43). That is why Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. 48 Nicodemus typifies the "believer" in John who acknowledges the claims of Jesus but shrinks from identifying with the Johannine community because he is not willing to risk participation in the sufferings of Jesus (Jn.15.18 cf. 17.14).
Cosgrove (1989:530) commenting on Jn.6.53 says: "Participation in the Johannine community, which is what Eucharist eating and drinking signifies, entails the risk of participation in Jesus' death, which eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood also signifies. Yet life is to be found nowhere else, because the living Jesus is present nowhere else than in the community of the vine, which is corporate.
Cosgrove (1989:531) thus interpret§ Jesus' statement to Nicodemus in Jn.3.5 as speaking of Spirit and baptism, not so much as a sacrament, but as an act of publicly identifying with the community through baptism. It would make perfect sense in the context - spiritual was private and vertical, while baptism was public and horizontal. Faith is individualistic and confession was an identification with the community. Unless the individual seed dies, it remains alone, but if it dies it brings forth much fruit. The one who guards his (physical) life will lose real life, but whoever hates his life in this world keeps it to eternal life (Jn.12.24-26).
c) A New Nation, the People of God. The notion of a new nation is only implicit in the Johannine writings. In fact the only occurrence of the word "nation" in John's Gospel is found in Jn.11.45-52. This is precisely the text that we shall explore to show that the Evangelist thought of the community of believers as constituting a new nation. Here, we shall employ Pancaro's article" to support our postulation.
48We must not disregard the Johannine dualism of night/day (darkness/light). In this case, Nicodemus was a person of the night and therefore an unbeliever. 49Severino Pancaro. 1969. "People of God in St.John's Gospel" in New Testament Studies Vol 16 (pp 114-129). 337 The basic problem is determining the precise meaning the Evangelist attaches to the terms EOvog, Xwas and tociia rob &ob. In v52 Telma and &Elms are in some way identified, contrasted or opposed to each other. The question about the identity of the 'children of God' has been answered by many in different ways and illustrated by Pancaro (pp 114-116). Suggestions included are: Gentiles (Chrysostom), the patriarchs (Origen), the elect who had already died, the Jews of the dispersion, and humanity as a whole.
Pancaro then looks at the usage of EOvog and XaOs in different contexts. In the
LXX it always translates as DP which meant the chosen people, and therefore Israel. The word EOvog is generally•used of non-Jews. However, when the word is applied to the Jews by Caiaphus, it is John's way of saying that the Jews have ceased being the people of God.
The death of Jesus is for the 'people'. If we interpret XaOs as the 'new people', 'the people of God' which is no longer perfectly identical with the Jewish nation, then everything becomes clear. St.John is playing on the word ActOs. 'Jesus will die for the XctOs'. Caiaphus meant the Jewish nation, but he said "XctOs n. The Evangelist's commentary that he thus prophesied, is in reference to the fact that Jesus would die, but not only for the Jewish nation. In a certain sense, Christ would die for the Jewish nation (irrrep rob eCivos), but only because he was dying for the 'people' ( inrcp 761) XaoD) (Pancaro 1969:122).
John uses Xacis only twice in this text and in Jn.18.14 which refers to the same prophesy of Caiaphus. With reference to the crowd, John uses the word OxXos because XaOs had a highly technical meaning. It would mean "the new people" for John, also because he always said that Christ would die for the whole world (Jn.3.14 ff.; 10.1-21; 12.23-24; 19.37). 338 The meaning of s lapatiX in John needs to be established. The first occurrences in Jn.1.31-50 are speaking of Nathanael as a "genuine Israelite" (v48). Nathanael is a believer, that is why he is called "in truth an Israelite". Jesus is called by the true Israelite (a believer) the King of Israel (v49) and is supported by Jn.12.13 where Jesus is greeted as the King of Israel. Therefore, the true Israel are those for, or over whom, the King of Israel rules; the relationship between Jesus and his followers.
The word Telma occurs three times in the Gospel (Jn.I .12; 8.39; 11.52), and nine times in the Epistles. The expression 76Kva (ra) &of) occurs twice (Jn.1.12 and 11.52). The important Jn.1.12 defines our expression as "those who believe in his name". Those 'born of God' (lJn.2.1) are the 'children of God' (lJn.3.10). We may conclude that in the Gospel and Epistles the TeKva tob 0E0i) are all those who believe.
Christ dies to form a new people, which is, to gather together into one the scattered children of God. John wishes to insist more on the 'gathering into one' than the act of becoming a child of God. The word Xacis therefore identifies the Christian community with the people of God, and they consist of Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus. d) The New Temple. We have already discussed John's temple-motif under participation christology. In essence, we have found that John speaks of Jesus as the New Temple and therefore, the new meeting place between God and man. Jesus was the new Bethel - the house where God dwells. The body of Jesus was more specifically seen to be
339 the new temple, for it was through the resurrection that he would raise up this new temple. The Jewish temple would make way for the new temple.
Our second discovery was that in Jesus, God not only abolished the temple as a Jewish place of worship, but he also declared that its purification and cultic rites were replaced by Jesus. He is the sacrificial Lamb and high priest, who offered the Lamb (himself) on the preparation of the Passover. He laid down his own life.
If Jesus was personally the replacement temple, then Christians would be in a similar predicament as the Jews who have no temple, for Jesus returned to the Father, and with his ascension our "temple" went away. Fortunately, Jesus left us the Spirit to replace his presence; and now we are able to worship God in Spirit and in truth. God's presence was no longer in Jesus, but in the Spirit. The presence of the Spirit defines the new temple with the believers.
Two verses are important in our present consideration - Jn.14.17: "The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him or knows him; but you know him for he dwells with you and will be in in you"; and 1.1n.2.27: "But the anointing which you have received from him who abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in him".
Where the Spirit, God's presence dwells, there is the temple. The Spirit dwells with and in the believers. The Spirit dwells by their side and will be within them. Hendriksen (1951 Vol 11:278) is correct in warning that one is not justified in ascribing a too-restricted meaning to the preposition Trapd ("by the side"), as if it necessarily indicated a less-close relationship. It does, however, not impact our
340 analysis, for our interest is to highlight the presence of the Spirit with believers. The fulness of that presence was realised on the day of Pentecost.
In the epistle, John understands that the Spirit (the one who anoints) abides in the believers. It is important to know that in both cases the author uses the plural dative pronoun Unit) (you), meaning that all the believers are indwelt by the Spirit. Therefore, we may derive two conclusions from these verses: i) That the Spirit indwells each individual believer, thus making every believer a temple, and ii) That the Spirit is present among the believers, so that we may think of a corporate temple.
Both can be demonstrated, but our particular interest is in the corporate aspect. This cannot be otherwise since our abiding is in Christ (M.15) as a community of individual branches attached to the one vine. The idea is definitely mystical, so that the believers together share in the one Lord through the one Spirit. In a manner of speaking, the Spirit binds us to the Lord (the vine). Remaining with Jesus is the key sign of discipleship (Stibbe 1993:163).
Lastly, the "living water" motif in John brings out the fact that believers are promised that out of them will flow forth living water. The living water is a reference to the Holy Spirit (Jn.7.37-39). Though Christ is the rock in the temple from which the river flows, the community can be said to be the temple where Christ dwells from whom the Spirit flows. (cf. Ezek.47.1-2 and Zech.14.8)
3.6.1.2 Family of God.
Jesus introduced a specific relationship between God and the believers, namely that of 'father' and 'children', derived from the analogy of his own relationship with 341 God. The means of that introduction is rooted in Christ as redeemer. The gathering of the church from all nations is especially viewed as the outcome of the Lord's redemptive action. Astonishingly enough, this process of gathering began in the pre-incarnate ministry of the Word (in.1.10-12). (Beasley-Murray 1991:105).
Especially important is Jn.1.12: "But to all who received him he gave the authority to become God's children, to those who believe in his name". This "right to become children of God" employs the symbolism of adoption into the family of
God; people who "received" the ministry of the Logos formed a company of the
Word before the Word became incarnate. Such "believers", whether from the people of the old covenant or from those outside it, together prefigured the church of the Word made flesh. (Beasley-Murray 1991:106).
To be born of God is also to have brethren who have also been born of God. They are all the "children of God" and have fellowship ( Kotlithvict ) with the Father and the Son, to share in their life. It is manifest in the fellowship of fraternal love (Mc
Polin 1978:31). The person of faith and love has the Father and the Son (lJn.2.23;
5.12-13; 2Jn.9). He has in himself the presence of the Father and Son. He has a relationship with them.
Van der Watt5° (1997:557-569) demonstrates that in the Johannine literature, love in the community, is based upon a familial example of that love. He explores familial love as the ground for fellowship for the family of God. The Father loves the Son; the Son loves the Father; the Father loves the believing children; the believing children love the Father; the Son loves his own (brothers); the believing
(brothers) love the Son; and the believers (brothers) love one another. Van der
50Van der Watt, JG. 1997. "Liefde in die Familie van God. 'n Beskrywende uiteensetting van familiale liefdesverhouding in die Johannesevangelie" in Hervormde Theologiese Studies 53/3 (557-569). 342 Watt concludes by saying that because the network of love is complete, it may be regarded as a familial network of relationships. The interpersonal relationship is expressed in love. lJn.4.12 is of interest here: "If we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us". This verse suggests that "Johannine mysticism" is a mysticism of love (Ladd 1974:280).
How does this family relationship work? It would be best to quote van der Watt at this point: Die interpersoonlike verhoudinge het ook invloed op die wyse waarop liefde gestalte kry. Die persoon wat in die hoer gesagsposisie staan, is in 'n posisie om to gee. Die persoon in die laer gesagsposisie gehoorsaam die belangriker persoon as uitdrukking van sy liefde vir daardie persoon. As die Seun voor die Vader staan, gee die Vader en die Seun gehoorsaam. As die Seun egter teenoor die gelowiges staan, gee Hy weer en die gelowiges gehoorsaam. Die interpersoorilike dinamiek bepaal dus die 'gesig' wat liefde aanneem. (1997:567).
Another aspect of the family of God may be gleaned from the dwelling-motif in the Johannine writings. Oliver and van Aarde 51 (1991) conclude that the dwelling place of God may be interpreted as the "household of God". They arrive at this conclusion by showing that although the phrase 13acriXc(a TOO 0E0i) does not occur in the Johannine farewell discourse, implicit references to it indicate that it can be interpreted as 'dwelling place'.
The reference to the Father and the Son, making their home with someone on earth, was not unknown to the 'first' audience / readers of Jn.14.23, for this concept had already occurred in the Old Testament (Ex.25.8; 29.45; Lev.26.11). The Greek word lion') refers to a household situation where the Father, Jesus and the believers will live together (Oliver/van Aarde 1991:394). This household
51 0liver, WH. & van Aarde, AG.1991. "The Community of Faith as Dwelling Place of the Father 13aolAcia rob °con as 'Household of God' in the Johannine Farewell Discourses" in Neotestamentica 25(2). 343 situation would then comprise of Father (God) and children (his subordinates/believers).
In conclusion, this new union, new community, new nation, new temple and family of God are bound together by love. That would mean that this union would have ethical consequences. They are to experience the love of God in their lives and in turn this love should become the foundation for all their actions. In the final analysis, the response to which the disciples of Jesus of all generations are called, is that of a unity of life in imitation of the response that Jesus demonstrates through his relationship with the Father (Hartin 1991:353).
But love is also characterised by humility and service, like Jesus demonstrated when he washed his disciples' feet (Jn.13). In this regard Du Rand (1980:46) says: "Die fokus val op Jesus wat deur woord en daad die ware intensiteit van dissipelskap demonstreer: 'Soon ek julle liethet, moet julle mekaar ook liefhe (Jn.13.34). Hy is die model en fundering van ware dissipelskap".
The primary unity is the unity with God accomplished through unity with Jesus. A mystical or spiritual unity results from a faith commitment to Jesus, which is made possible by God who draws people to Jesus, who in turn invites his followers into a unity with divine community. The necessary outflowing of the unity with God through Jesus includes the unity accomplished by the love of the brethren. Unity already exists for those who have accepted Jesus. The unity becomes humanly visible in the mutual love of the brethren (O'Grady 1999:90.91).
3.6.2 Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
The debate occupying scholars today still, is whether the Fourth Gospel has any reference to the sacraments. Some say that it is present throughout the Gospel; 344 others deny any reference to it. It is our opinion that the Gospel is filled with symbolism and allusions to the sacraments, even though there is no direct mention in the whole of the Johannine corpus.
It is this lack of direct mention of the sacraments that made some to believe that the author had no ecclesiastical or sacramental interests. If he had, they feel, then he would have contained some specific reference to the institution either of baptism or of the Lord's supper as an ordinance for the community. Yet, since both the explicit and symbolic references are scattered throughout the ministry, this fits in with the evangelist's intention to show that the institutions of Christian life are rooted in the words and life of Jesus (cf. Jn.4.1). It must in any case have been a well-established church practice whein the Gospel was produced.
It may be farfetched to see in almost every mention of "water", "bread" and "wine" a sacramental meaning (Du Rand 1994:51). While that might be a swing of the pendulum to the other extreme of those who say that John was anti- sacramental, it nevertheless does not detract from the fact that the message of the sacraments is in fact strong, 52 but in a symbolic way.
a) Baptism. It is clear that Jesus endorsed baptism as a practice during his own ministry. We are told that Jesus also baptised (Jn.3.22). We are told that Jesus (through his disciples) baptised more people than John (Jn.4.1-2). But did Jesus teach that it was necessary? We believe that he did in Jn.3.5; in his chat with Nicodemus: "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God".
52Some believe that references with a strong sacramental slant, have been added by a redactor in order to provide some allusion to the sacraments. 345 Those who are born "from above" (aliacti) are born of God. It is not a simple translation of becoming like a child, but it is an adaptation of the eschatological hope of the new creation (Beasley-Murray 1991:92). Nicodemus needed an explanation because he definitely misunderstood the Lord. He mistook Christ as saying that he must re-enter his mother's womb and be born again. This is when
Jesus explained that one must be born of water and Spirit. He further explained that one born of flesh is flesh, and one born of the Spirit is spirit. (Jn.3.6).
We need to ask: What is the relation between "water" and "spirit" here? A popular interpretation has it that water represents human birth, whether with respect to the semen of man or waters in the womb, in contrast to birth from the Spirit; this however, overlooks that the whole expression "of water and Spirit" defines the manner in which one is "born from above". (Beasley-Murray 1991:93). The view taken here is that "water" denotes the baptism.
Without applying the Pauline meaning of baptism as dying and rising with Christ
(Rom.6.1-4), using the Johannine text it may be said that John's baptism was with water. From elsewhere it is sufficiently confirmed that John's was a baptism of repentance. Therefore, everybody needs to repent (for forgiveness) and to be recreated by the Holy Spirit.
It must not be forgotten that throughout the Gospel references are made to the relationship between the coming of the Spirit and water. Some see water and Spirit as parallel ideas, in the sense that "water" means the "Spirit". In the context of the
Nicodemus dialogue, this cannot be the case, because to explain the full extent of
Jn3.3, Jesus distinguishes between "water" and "Spirit". O'Grady (1999:70) says that since faith is primary, water baptism alone never suffices. The community shares the general practice of early Christianity of baptism by water but chose to emphasise that baptism in the Spirit remains primary. 346 In our opinion, since John's Gospel is full of symbolism, one cannot disregard some other passages where water is mentioned. Of course, not all of them refer to baptism. However, a baptism as in chapter 3, which is a baptism of repentance, would be inadequate because there is no connection made to the death of Jesus. As with the Eucharist, so baptism has its root in Christian understanding in the crucifixion. Only three passages connect the death of Jesus with water (Jn.13.1-20; Jn.19.33-34; lJn.5.6-8)
Jesus' death is symbolic of the Passover and allusions to the Passover are strong in Jn.19.28-37. The mention of hyssop (v29 cf. Ex.12.22); it was the Day of Preparation53 when the Passover Lamb was to be sacrificed (v31 cf. Ex.12.6); Jesus' legs were not broken (v33 cf. Ex.12.46); and John ties the event specifically to the Passover (v36 cf. Num.9.12). That there should be a connection to the Passover meal in the flowing forth of water and blood, is not farfetched. If the blood54 symbolises the Cup, the water would symbolise baptism.
O'Grady comments in this regard, that while the flowing forth is also understood as fulfilling the prophesy of Jn.7.37-39, the gift of the Spirit was associated with baptism in the Johannine community (Jn.3.5), the author may refer to baptism at least .obliquely. Also, the mention of water alone would bring to mind such an association for the early church. The meaning of the life-giving Spirit accepted in faith remains the dominant theme, even if some reference can be found to water baptism (1999:72-73).
53The sabbath following this particular Day of Preparation, coincided with the Passover, which made it a special sabbath.
54We shall discuss this under b) The Lord's Supper. 347 Hendriksen (1951 Vol II: 439) admits that it is not impossible that the highly symbolical Gospel of John intends to link this blood and water with the effects of Christ's atonement. He says that lJn.5.6 points in this direction. There we see the combination of "Spirit", "water" and "blood". Culpepper observes that in John's account of Jesus' death, all three of the witnesses cited in 1.1n.5.6-8 are mentioned: water, blood and the Spirit. Though he favours the incarnation and death of Jesus, 55 he admits that baptism and the Lord's Table are a possibility. (1998:272).
The John 13.1-20 passage some say, also alludes to baptism. It is not the washing for salvation, as this comes by faith in Christ, but foot-washing symbolises baptism. However, we agree with O'Grady who says "The only possibility of arguing for the presence of some baptismal overtones comes not from the foot- washing itself but from the meaning of the foot-washing as prophesying the death of Jesus (1999:75). Remember that baptism as washing is not foreign to the New Testament understanding (Acts 22.16; Tit.3.5; 1Pet.3.21).
Lastly, we need to be reminded that baptism was a way in which one identified with the community. As we have said, faith is individualistic and private, but in baptism it becomes public confession (testimony). As a testimony it concurs with the intention of IJn.5.6-8. That was in any case the understanding in the early church. b) The Lord's Supper. As in the case of baptism, so with the Lord's Supper; there are passages capable of yielding a connection with the Eucharist, but again, the danger is to force some passages into a Eucharist mould. Beasley-Murray calls it exegesis uncontrolled by
55AIso, Ben Witherington III, 1989. "The Waters of Birth: John 3.5 and 1John 5.6-8" in New Testament Studies, pp. 155-160.
348 care for the distinctiveness of Johannine thought. There is no indication in the Gospel that John thought of the church as the Body of Christ (1991:95).
One may apply the water changed into wine (Jn.2). There is mention made of the fact that Jesus' hour had not yet come, and therefore points to the death of Christ: that hour in which water will be turned into wine and the foundation laid for the Eucharist. The provision of the wine instead of water of purification, agrees with the "blood that cleanses from all sins" (lJn.1.7).
Before we turn to Jn.6.51-58, it is felt that some Eucharist overtones appear in the miracle of the loaves. "To give thanks" appears as the miracle and the Lord's Supper in the synoptics. Jesus himsElf distribute the loaves as he does the bread at the Last Supper (O'Grady 1999:76). The language of taking, blessing, and giving is evocative of the Eucharist, but the institution is not recorded in John (Culpepper 1998:156). The fact that the Evangelist connects the miracle to the Jewish passover feast, is also given as an indication of its Eucharist intent.
Jn.6.51-58 has clear Eucharist overtones. Eternal life comes by feeding on Jesus Christ's flesh and drinking his blood (6.54). Such words as eating the flesh and drinking the blood are too graphic and too close to the teaching on the Eucharist in the early church. They have the same meaning as the words of Jesus in Mt.26.26- 28: "Take this and eat it; this is my body ... drink ... this is my blood". Another indication supporting Eucharist interpretation is Jn.6.51 "The bread I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world". See the resemblance with Lk.22.19: "This is my body which is given for you".
Culpepper (1998:163) says: "Verses 52-58, therefore, probably reflect the Johannine community's use of this material in connection with the observance of the Lord's Supper. "Eating' the bread means receiving Jesus and the life he offers. 349 Participating with the community of believers in the Lord's Supper when the community was being persecuted and ostracised would have been an open and public declaration of one's faith".
We need to remember that, already when Jesus uttered the sayings of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, the audience was offended. One of the major reasons was that drinking blood was strictly forbidden in the Torah (Gen.9.4); how much worse, then, the idea of drinking human blood? (Countryman 1994:57). It was nevertheless rejected because to Jesus' audience, it was "a hard saying" (Jn.6.60).
On this basis Cosgrove concludes that the point of literal eating and drinking in Jn.6.53 ff. lies in the fact that participation in the Eucharist meal represents public identification with the Johannine community as an indispensable condition for 'abiding' in Jesus and thus receiving his life. (1989:529). We are glad though that Cosgrove added this comment: "This does not mean that 'the flesh' itself has the power to bestow life ... It is the Spirit that gives life: the Spirit-Paraclete of the glorified Jesus present in the community and nowhere else" (p.529).
Participation in the Eucharist means participation in Jesus' "death" at the hands of a hostile world. In our suffering we participate in the suffering of Christ, because as the world hated him, so it hates those who belong to him (cf. Jn.7.7; 15.18-19; 17.14). Participation in the Eucharist is participating in the life of the life-giving Jesus and in the life of the life-receiving community, both of whom are rejected by the world.
Jesus said: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in Him" (.1n.6.56). Sacramental union is a personal communion. "Abiding" is a life of mutual presence. Not only of Christ's presence with the believer and the believer's
350 presence of Christ, but also believer in fellowship with other believers. This is the participation koinonology.
Briefly now, our outstanding comment on the flow of water and blood from Jesus' side. We have posited that the water may be symbolic of baptism, thus connecting the ordinance with the death of Christ. Along the same lines we may posit that "blood" symbolises the Eucharist, but can we speak of the Eucharist only in terms of blood, and not body (or flesh) and blood? Well, in the first place, there is a precedent - the miracle of water to wine in the purification pots. Having connected the wine with "Jesus' hour", we came to the conclusion that this has Eucharist overtones. If wine (blood) is mentioned on its own there, why not here? But in this context (Jn.19.34), we must remember that the water and blood flowed from Jesus' body. Therefore, our postulation is not farfetched.
3.6.3 The Shaliach Motif.
The Shaliach principle in the Johannine writings reaches extraordinary heights; people are to give the same honour to the Son as they give to the Father. Such a response to Jesus gives life and prevents condemnation (judgement). He has passed from death to life (Jn.5.34). One who honours the Son honours the Father also. We honour the Son by doing as the Son did; by being as the Son was. Such obedience not only honours the Son, but it also honours the Father.
Jesus looked forward to the continuation of his own mission through his disciples. The disciples were commissioned as a group to continue the mission task. They could not achieve this end as individuals. The whole emphasis on unity in John 17 shows how indispensable a corporate community is for the continuation of the mission of Jesus. (Guthrie 1981:724). To this end they received the Spirit - that 351 Jesus is glorified through them (Th.16.14). Ladd says that ever since the disciples came in contact with their Master, this Spirit of truth, or reality, has dwelt with them in the Lord, and now, owing to the Lord's departure, will be in them (1974:290).
Beasley-Murray calls it the "messenger concept". The Son had been sent, and the disciples in turn are sent. Jesus' sense of being sent by the Father permeates the Gospel; the idea is found thirty-eight times in the Gospel (1991:15). Ultimately, the purpose for Jesus being sent by the Father, is to reveal the Father to those who are his (Jn.7.28-29). Jesus speaks the Word of God so that they who hear may believe that God sent him (Jn.3.34; cf. 17.25-26). Jesus also does the works of the Father (Jn.5.36).
All the things just mentioned about Jesus in relation to the Father, must be true of the disciples in relation to Jesus. As Jesus was obedient to the Father, so the disciples must be obedient to Jesus. Jesus fully obeyed the Father and expects his disciples to fully obey him. Jesus extends to his disciples the same commission that he has received from the Father, and he applies the same principles of sending to them (Beasley-Murray 1991:25).
Now, we look at some specific commands where we are to imitate our Lord. First, Christ commanded his disciples to love as he loved. Jn.13.34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another". Notice that our Lord not only commands them to love one another, but he restates the command on the basis of the example which he had set. But what is important is that Jesus modelled his love on the Father's love. Jn. 15.9-10 "As the Father loved me, I also have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my
352 Father's commandments and abide in his love". Abiding in his love is synonymous with obeying his commandments.
Secondly, in Jn.13.14-15 our Lord says: "If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given an example, that you should do as I have done to you". While there are those who take the command to wash others' feet literally, we believe that it was not about washing others' feet, but about serving one's brothers with the same exemplary humility as our Lord and teacher. If it was mere foot-washing, he would not have told Peter that he would have to wait for a later meaning before he could understand what was done (cf. Jn.13.7).
Thirdly, we are to emulate the unity between Father and Son. ..M.17.11 and 17.21- 23 defines this unity. The Lord Jesus asks the Father to keep his disciples so that they may be one, but their unity is based on his unity with his Father. But unity among the disciples is not outside God, it is a unity of believers in God, the Father and Son (v21), so that in fact we may share the glory of Christ and of God (v22). The unity among believers, modelled on the unity of the Godhead will convince the world that Christ is sent of the Father and that the Father loves his disciples (v23).
Fourthly, Jn.17.18 and Jn.20.21 reminds us that as the Father had sent the Son, so also the Son sends his disciples into the world. The disciples are to be witnesses of Christ in the world. If Christ is lifted up, he will draw all men to himself (Jn.12.32). Mission to the world is for the recognition of the glory of Christ and that the world may believe ... that the world may know. (Staton 1997:301-303).
Fifthly, emulation of the Lord is ethically intended too. In 1.1n.1.7 we are reminded to walk in the light as He is in the light. God is light and therefore to walk in the light is to have conduct befitting God's character. The one who "abides 353 in him" will be able to walk just as he walked (lJn.2.6). The result of such conduct is that one is righteous as he is righteous (lJn.3.7). We are like Christ in this world (lJn.4.17).
As Christ is Shaliach to the Father, we are shaliachs to Christ, and by extention also of the Father. As Christ was sent to accomplish the Father's purpose, so we are sent to accomplish Christ's purpose, and by extention the Father's purpose. While the command/sending of the disciples is corporately intended, the willingness to obey must be individualistically accepted. The corporate intention is enhanced by our unity. That is participation koinonology.
354 CHAPTER 4.
THE COMPARISON AND CONVERGENCE OF PAULINE AND
JOHANNINE "MYSTICISM".
There is no doubt in our minds that there are mystical tenets in both the Pauline and the Johannine writings; but how do they concur or differ in their understanding? We need to investigate how they build their doctrine in this regard; where does Christ stand in their schema of things; how, in their respective schemas, is this translated to the individual believer and to the church.
We need to establish where Pauline, and Johannine "mysticism" converge so that we may derive a mystical understanding which, at least, represents the greater part of the New Testament's understanding. This would enable us to look into the contribution that this study can make to New Testament Theology. 'May we approach New Testament Theology from some historical perspective? Is "mysticism" a viable proposal for a New Testament center; either as a uniting or an organising center?
In comparing Pauline and Johannine "mysticism", we should be able to gain some insight to their respective perspectives and approach to mysticism. From these establish how it is applied to life within the Christian community; what response we are to have to the Godhead within our Trinitarian understanding.
Our evaluative comparison is a comparison of chapters 2 and 3 above. We shall follow the same format found in Chapter 2 and 3, namely: The Need and Nature of their Eschatology; Participation Theology; Participation Christology; Participation Pneumatology; and Participation Koinonology.
355 4.1 The Need and Nature of their Eschatology_
From the outset we notice that while John articulates the traditions and beliefs on the Johannine community by also telling the story of Jesus, Paul does not really interact with the story of Jesus but only with his death and resurrection, and some other references to Christ during his earthly life; for example, 1Co.7.10-16 (Principles of marriage) and 1Co.11.23-25 (The Lord's Supper).
This difference is perhaps the main reason for their difference in eschatological emphasis. Note, we are saying different emphasis, not different eschatology. John emphasises the "already" or realised aspect, where Paul shows a greater tension between the "already" and the "not jet" aspects of eschatology.
If experiencing God, is a future expectation possible in the present time for believers, then mysticism is inextricably •bound to eschatology. God's action and self-communication with man is bound up in Jesus, who himself is the eschatos. Through faith in Christ we enter into a personal community of life with an eternal God. Jesus' whole history is both eschatological and revelatory.
Our present Christian existence of a communion of love and life with the divine, can only be understood in eschatological categories. We have a new kind of existence; an existence in Christ and in the Spirit. The one feature that distances the New Testament Church the most from its contemporary counterparts, is its thoroughly eschatological perspective of all of life. In Christ the future has become present and both the eschatological salvation and judgement has in effect already taken place in history (Rom.8.1-3 cf. Jn.3.18).
The aspects of salvation and judgement in Paul is exclusively tied up with the death and resurrection of Jesus, while in John, it is tied up with the person, Jesus, rather 356 than with (but not excluding) his death (Rom.6.3-11 cf. Jn.5.24-27 and Jn.6.53).
For Paul, the new Adam and founder of a new humanity, is the resurrected Christ, but in John the believer's new existence is found in the person who is the source of
life (1Co.15.42-49 cf. Jn.15.1-8).
Salvation in Christ is expressed in two ways: soteriology within the eschatological framework is christological in its approach; and soteriology within the mystical framework is anthropological in its approach. They are the two sides of the same coin. (Compare Rom.1.3-4 and Ga1.2.20 with Jn.1.4 1 and Jn.17.23). Therefore, if
Christ is the source of our salvation, then mysticism relates us to Christ so that we
might be saved.
We may explain it in another way: Christ is the eschatos and brings into being the eschatological nature of salvation. Christ brings eschatology into the present by his own presence and deeds which he wrought for salvation. We are accorded with the eschatological benefits in the present time through Christ, the eschatos. Therefore, because of who he is (Christological), do we enjoy a new status with God
(anthropological). The framework for the former is eschatological and for the latter it is mystical.
Put in another way: for Paul, our sonship is derived from Christ's Sonship - we are sons of God because we are in him who is the Son of God, and because we are so connected to Christ, we identify with him, particularly in his death and resurrection
(Ga1.2.20; Phil.3.10). For John, we have life (anthropological - Jn.5.11-12); not only because Christ has life, but because he is life (christological - Jn.14.6). We have light because he is the light and has brought light. Consequently, we have
1 A good example of John's christological approach is the ?),(1) ein sayings. 357 fellowship with God because God is light, and we walk in the light as he is in the light (lJn.1.5,7).
In all fairness, we need to say that , mainly in John, Christ's identity is revealed in eschatological categories. Only in an eschatological framework can we see or understand Jesus as the life2; and as the resurrection; and as the light of the world. In Paul it is because of the resurrection and the Spirit that Christ is confirmed as the Son of God (Rom.1.4) or as Lord (Rom.14.9). Resurrection, eternal life, light coming into the dark world, and the Holy Spirit are eschatological categories, and all are soteriological in its effect on believers.
We may therefore conclude that in both Paul and John we find the understanding that in Jesus Christ some of the eschatological events were now present. In Jesus the end of the world had begun to unfold, and the future had become present and both the eschatological salvation and judgement have in effect already taken place in history, even though they may express salvation and judgement in different ways. a) Salvation and Judgement.
Jesus, God's Son, is sent to be the Saviour of the world. There is salvation in no other. Both Paul and John see Christ as the only Saviour (Paul - Eph.5.23; Phil.3.20; 2Ti.1.10; Tit.1.4; 2.13; 3.6; and John - Jn.4.42; lJn.4.14). There is also the Pauline expression that God is our Saviour (1Ti.1.1; 4.10; Tit.1.3; 2.10; 3.4). John makes no such statement, but it is understood in the fact that no one comes to Jesus for salvation unless the Father draws him (e.g.. Jn.6.37).
2 ln John, life means eternal life, especially when it has its source in Jesus Christ. 358 In the Jewish context, God was always seen and understood as the Saviour of his people, and as such is not seen as eschatological per se. However, the Jewish expectation was that Messiah would save his people, and that falls within the eschatological category. The Messiah will bring salvation in the last days.
Both Paul and John see Jesus as the Messiah who is sent by the Father (Paul - Rom.8.3; Ga1.4.4 and John - e.g. Jn.3.17; there are 42 references in the Gospel indicating Jesus' self-consciousness of being sent by the Father; 1111.4.9,10,14). That sending qualifies Jesus as the one "from above", to use Johannine language. That one (the one) should come from above, was a Jewish eschatological expectation. This only supports the Pauline understanding that Christ is the eschatos. •
There is however a difference in expression of this salvation. The Pauline conception of salvation is essentially a forensic declaration of righteousness obtained by faith. Paul speaks of the believers being justified by faith in Christ. Salvation only comes to the believer because he is made righteous by God's grace in Christ. This declaration has in mind the Law which renders all culpable because the flesh is weak. But through Christ we are declared righteous and thus reconciled to a righteous God.
Justification on the one hand is a judicial declaration pronouncing the believer "guiltless" in the present. It is eschatological because it is the verdict of the final judgement, and by it the believer does not stand condemned (Rom.8.1). Reconciliation on the other hand is a relational declaration providing access to God's presence which in itself is an eschatological expectation for the people of God, for previously access was only allowed for the high priest.
359 The justified person is the saved person (Rom.5.9-10). In Adam we are condemned, but in Christ we are saved. Salvation is an eschatological category, but Paul sees it both as a present reality (e.g.. Eph.2.8-9) and as a future expectation (Rom.5.10; 1Co.3.15).
John also sees salvation and judgement as here and now, and at the same time as events to happen at the end of the world, on the last day. With John, as with Paul, salvation comes by faith in Christ, while condemnation comes by rejection of Christ. John differs from Paul in that salvation has no judicial connotations. It is not so much about what Christ has done, but about who Christ is. We have eternal life because we have Christ (lJn.5.11-12). Christ is life (Th.14.6) and has life to give (Th.1.4). Having Christ is therefore also to have life eternal. Eternal life is an eschatological reality in the present.
John applies realised eschatology as a device that develops Christ's identity. The purpose for revealing Christ's identity, is to encourage men and women to accept him for who he is. He is to be accepted as the one sent by the Father from the 'world above' to the 'world below'. Christ is the eschatological praesens through his incarnation, and men and women believing in him, have eternal life.
John does not elaborate the idea of substitution as much as Paul does, but it is mentioned. Christ is seen as the Lamb of God who will die for the sins of the world (Jn.1.29). Caiaphus' prophesy shows that Jesus was the one who should die for the people (Jn.11.49-52). The lifting up of Jesus (upon the cross) would mean the salvation of those drawn to him (Th.3.14). This substitution of Jesus for the people means salvation for them.
The idea of the substitution of Christ for the salvation of believers, is brought out in Paul under the concepts of redemption and atonement. For Paul, redemption has 360 in mind, not only believing men and women, but the whole of the creation - only that which was subjected to bondage not having willed it (Rom.8.19-21). It seems to exclude disobedient and rebellious people. Such freedom brought by redemption, is an eschatological expectation. However, believing men and women have already been redeemed or freed by the Christ-substitution. While redemption is a letting-loose of, atonement is a bringing together by the substitute. On the one hand we are freed from sin and the condemnation of sin, and on the other hand we are reconciled to God. Both concepts are eschatological.
Both Paul and John understand Christ's substitution as a liberation process. It is about setting the believer free from the condemnation of sin. Both have in mind the Jewish sacrificial system, or Jewish eultus. The blood of Jesus therefore operates in the same way as the blood of the sacrificial animal, but it is understood as a totally efficacious means which is once for all and always. However, while Paul expounds on this in terms of the Law, John does not do so.
Both Paul and John emphasise faith (vb. believe) as the means of obtaining this salvation. They see Jesus as the object of our faith, and believing in Jesus is actually believing in God, for God is the dispenser of eternal life to all who believe.
It is also interesting to see that those who believe and are saved, have new life. Both Paul and John link salvation with newness of life. Paul says that the one in Christ is a new creation (2Co.5.17); as are those who have risen with Christ in newness of life (Rom.6.4); what matters is "not circumcision or uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Ga1.6.15). John speaks of the saved person as one born anew (Jn.3.3). Being born anew is also to be born 'from above', and being born from above, is to have the character of him who is 'from above'. Having passed from death to life, the believer has new life with a new ethic. The idea of new creation 361 is indeed an eschatological category. We can say that new life is eternal life in both Paul and John.
For the most, Paul and John see judgement as the opposite of salvation. While they both have a broader understanding of judgement, condemnation and acquittal are seen as already present on the basis of one's acceptance or rejection of Christ. In Paul the believer does not stand condemned (Rom.8.1). John says the same thing: "He that believes on him is not condemned ..." (Jn.3.18; Jn.5.24). The converse is also true; those who reject Christ are condemned already (Paul - Rom.5.18; 1Ti .3.6; Tit .3 .11 and John - J n .3 . 18-19) .
The fact that judgement is a present' reality, does not mean that for Paul and John the future judgement is replaced or done away with. There is still a future judgement on the last day. For Paul the future judgement is for all, to be assessed according to their works. Even though Paul does not see the Law as the source of life, he sees the Law as the basis of judgement (Rom.2.6; Rom.2.12-13). For John the future judgement will be applied to both believer and unbeliever. According to Jn.5.28-29 there will come a separation to condemnation or to life; all based on one's deeds. Another basis for the final judgement will be the words of Jesus Christ (Jn.12.48). The believer would stand with boldness on that last day when he is judged because he is found in Christ (lJn.4.15-17).
Salvation and judgement both have this tension of "already" and "not yet". We may speak of present and of future eschatological salvation and judgement. Where we are now in the present, determines the future outcome for us. The outcome of the future judgement will confirm our present salvation or our present condemnation.
362 b) The Resurrection.
There is no denial that the resurrection is an eschatological event. For both Paul and John, the resurrection is present, and yet to be expected in the future on the last day. We find here the same tension of "already" and "not yet". The "already" aspect is possible only in and through Jesus Christ. Unbelievers cannot speak of a resurrection in the present. In fact both Paul and John speak of the unbeliever as being dead and of the believer as having passed from death to life (Paul - Eph.2.1,6; Co1.3.1 and John - Jn.5.21; Jn.6.63; Jn.5.24; lJn.3.14).
There is a big difference between Paul and John in this that in Paul the resurrection is a reality in the present for all believers because Christ rose from the dead. The believer's resurrection is based on Christ's resurrection. In John the resurrection is based on the fact that Christ is the resurrection. The believer's resurrection is not based on Christ's resurrection, but on the fact that Christ himself is the resurrection - even pre-dating his own resurrection. For John resurrection was a reality even before Christ was raised.
But is this really a big difference? For us, not. Certainly, Christ had the power to lay down his life, and he had the power to take it up (raise it up) again (Th.10.17- 18). Christ's self-understanding that he is the resurrection is not understood apart from the fact that he, himself, will be raised from the dead. This fact comes out very early in the Gospel, when in reference to the temple (his body) he predicted that he would raise it up in three days (Th.2.19-22). Having that ability within himself, made Jesus see himself as the resurrection. However, the point we are making is that in both Paul and John the resurrection is understood as a present reality brought by Christ. Lazarus' resurrection 3 confirmed Jesus' claim that he is
3The scene at Lazarus' tomb is strikingly similar to the story of Jesus' empty tomb. 363 the resurrection and the life. The empty tomb of Jesus is nevertheless central to both.
In both Paul and John we also find a future resurrection expectation, and both of them apply it to all mankind. There is an aspect where this resurrection is not tied to Christ's resurrection as such; it is a resurrection for men to be judged at the final judgement (Paul - 2Co.5.10; Rom.14.10; 2Ti.4.1 and John - M.5.28-29). It is tied to Christ's resurrection when it is put forward as the believer's hope in the last day (Paul - 1Co.15.55-57; 2Co.4.14; 1Th.4.16 and John - Jn.5.25; Jn.6.44; Jn.11.25).
Another area of minor difference, is that Paul connects the resurrection of Christ to the believer's baptism (Rom.6.1-4) and to the believers ethical existence (Phil.3.7- 14). Here Paul links it with the new life of the believer. This is not found in John; only perhaps, in a veiled way in lJn.3.2-3 where it is connected with the parousia instead.
The differences between Paul and John are small to insignificant. Resurrection life, both present and future, resides in Christ. To share in the resurrection of Christ, is to share in his life, which is eschatological by nature. As the resurrection characterises the last days, so do we, the people of God characterise the last days. We are the people of the future. c) The Ho, oirit.
The gift of the Holy Spirit is something of the last days. In the Jewish mind the gift of the Holy Spirit is connected with the coming Messiah. The Spirit, being a mode of God's dwelling with or in us, is in itself an eschatological expectation, and exemplifies a mystical relationship between the believer and the Holy Spirit; God with us; God amongst us; God in us. 364 Both Paul and John understand God (the Father) and Jesus Christ to be the dispensers of the Holy Spirit. In Paul the Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God (Rom.8.9). John quotes Jesus as saying that the Spirit is sent by the Father and that he will himself send the Holy Spirit (b.14.16 cf. Jn.16.25). The Holy Spirit will be poured out in the last days (Joel 2.28). Given by the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit is a last-days gift to God's people.
Both Paul and John speak of a baptism with the Holy Spirit (Paul - 1Co.12.13 and John - Jn.1.33). While both of them are restricted to only these single verses, John does not give its significance as such, and Paul seems to indicate that it has to do with the constitution of the church . as the Body of Christ. From other Pauline passages, the Holy Spirit has an important function of maintaining unity in the Body (Eph.4.3). In John the Spirit enables the brothers to love one another (lJn.4.12-13), and love among the brothers necessitates unity among them.
Both Paul and John see the Holy Spirit as a helper, enabling believers to live the Christian life. In this regard the church is a charismatic community, for the Spirit is a gift of grace, helping the community to live according to the truth; according to love; according to the principle of edification; according to their witness or confession of Christ (Paul - Rom.8.4-16; 1Co.12.3-13; and John - Jn.14.25-26; Jn.15.26-27; Jn.16.12-15; lJn.4.2, 12-13). As a charismatic community, the church is also an eschatological community.
Both Paul and John understand the believer to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. For Paul, the believer is the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1Co.3.16; 1Co.6.19). John speaks of the Spirit abiding in the believer and flowing forth from him (Th.14.17, Jn.7.37-39). He is thus able to walk according to the Spirit by obeying God
365 (Rom.8.4 and lJn.3.24). Therefore even the individual believer is a gifted person of the last days.
Both Paul and John find the Spirit to be the distinguishing mark of the believer over and against the unbeliever. For Paul, the believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit. This is a mark of ownership which is peculiar only to believers (Eph.1.13). John sees that the believer is the only kind of person who can receive the Spirit. The unbeliever cannot see him, let alone know him (Jn.14.17). Believers are the people of God because they have the Spirit of God.
One area worthy of mention in Paul that is not attended to in John, is that the Holy Spirit is a guarantee for things to come. The Spirit is the guarantee that the believers will be raised on the last day (Rom.8.11). He is also spoken of as the firstfruits / deposit guaranteeing our inheritance (Eph.1.14). Also, the Spirit guarantees or confirms our expectation for release or liberty from our bondage to corruption. All these are eschatological components. d) Future Eschatology
Paul elaborates much more than John on the matter of future eschatology. Some say that John only has a realised eschatology. That is incorrect, because, though on a much smaller scale, John speaks also of a future eschatology. Where John mentions future eschatological issues, he is nevertheless of a like mind with Paul. We shall first discuss the points where they concur, and then other statements not included in the one or the other.
The future resurrection of the dead is taught by both Paul and John. Paul speaks in connection with the parousia, that the dead in Christ shall rise first (1Th.4.16). Though no direct statement is found in Paul of the resurrection of the unbeliever, it 366 is alluded to in connection with the judgement. John speaks of the resurrection as a reward for those who trust in Christ (Jn.6.39, 44, 54). Unbelievers will also be resurrected to be judged (Jn.5.28-29). Paul and John concur in this respect within their understanding of future eschatology.
Paul alone discusses the nature of the future resurrection, especially in 'Corinthians chapter 15. He discusses the constitution of the resurrected body (1Co.15.35-45). Paul even alludes to the intermediate state of . believers; that is, after death and before the resurrection at the parousia (2Co.5.1-10; 1Th.4.14 and Phil.1.23). Also, because Paul always links the death of Christ with his resurrection, he speaks of our present suffering for Christ as linked to our "qualification" for resurrection (Philt3.10-11). John says nothing about these.
The judgement on the last day has already been mentioned as the time and place where all, the living and the dead, will be judged according to their deeds done in the flesh (that is, in the body). Four criteria for judgement are mentioned by both Paul and John - according to our deeds; according to the words spoken by Christ, according to the Gospel preached; and according to the Law (Rom.2.6; Jn.12.48; Rom.2.16; and Rom.2.12-13 respectively).
By the nature of John's writings, he says much less than Paul about the parousia of Christ; yet, in what he says, he concurs with Paul on those points. First, on the basis of our sonship or our belonging to Christ, we wait in expectation of Christ's coming (lJn.3.2 and Rom.8.21-25 cf. 1Co.15.23; 1Th.4.15-16; Phil.3.21). Secondly, that the Lord comes to take his own to himself (Jn.14.1-3 and 1Th.4.17; Co1.3.4). So, the believers will ever be with the Lord. Thirdly, that the parousia is to serve as an encouragement to live pure lives (lJn.3.3 and 1Th.4.18 cf. 1Th.5.8). Fourthly, that we may abide in Christ and have confidence at his coming
367 (lJn.3 .28 and 1Th.5 . 23 ; 1Ti .6 .14). The whole extent of John's mention of the parousia concurs with Paul.
Paul, however, has much more to say about the parousia; for example: that the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night (lTh.5.2); that the Lord's coming is at hand (Phil.4.5); that the parousia is accompanied by judgement (1Co.4.5; 2Th.4.1); that we must wait in expectation (1Co.1.7); that God prepares us for Christ's coming (1Th.5.23); that it will be a glorious appearing (Tit.2.13); that Christ will come with his angels from heaven (2Th.1.7); that Christ will take vengeance on those who did not obey the Gospel (2Th.1.8).
John speaks of the antichrist. He sags that the antichrist (as a personage) is coming in the future, and that there are now antichrists (lJn.2.18). Antichrists now, speaks of a present eschatology, while the Antichrist is a future eschatological phenomenon. He is characterised as one not confessing Christ (lJn.4.3 and 2Jn.7). Paul's 'Man of lawlessness' corresponds with John's Antichrist, but Paul is more definitive than John. The man of lawlessness is also the 'man of sin', who will precede the parousia of Christ (2Th.2.3-4); he opposes God (2Th.2.4); he will set himself up as God (2Th.2.4); though we do not know by what or by whom, he is currently being restrained (2Th.2.6); he does the work of Satan (2Th.2.9); he will deceive many with false wonders and signs (2Th.2.9-11); and he will be destroyed by the glory and breath of Christ at his coming (2Th.2.8). e) The Kingdom of God.
There is little mention of the Kingdom of God (or of Christ) in Paul and in John. There is no dispute about the fact that the Kingdom of God is an eschatological concept and appears to be such in Paul and in John. Again, there is an overall agreement between them in this respect. 368 Both speak of the Kingdom of God (Paul - Rom.14.17; 1Co.4.20; 6.9-10; 15.24,50; Ga1.5.21; Co1.4.11; 2Th 1.5 and John - Jn.3.3,5). They also describe it as the Kingdom of Christ (Paul - Eph.5.5; Co1.1.13; 2Ti.4.1 and John 18.36). Both see it as a kingdom to be inherited (Paul - 1Co.6.9-10; 15.50; Ga1.5.21; Co1.1.12; Eph.5.5; and John - Jn.3.3,5). Both give an indication of the subjects of the kingdom (Paul - 1Co.6.9-11; and John - Jn.3.3,5). For John, they are those who are 'born from above', and for Paul they are those who are righteous rather than unrighteous. Both give an indication of the character of the Kingdom (Paul - Rom.14.17; 1Co.4.19-20; and John - Jn.18.36). For Paul it is characterised by the Holy Spirit, and for John, Christ's Kingdom is not of this world.
Both Paul and John speak of a Kingdom in the future (Paul - 1Co.15.24; 1Ti.4.1,18; and John - Jn.18.36). Paul, however, sees the Kingdom also as a present reality (Rom.14.17; 1Co.4.19-20), while John does not make mention of the Kingdom as present in this world. However, Jn.3.3,5 does not indicate whether the Kingdom spoken of is present or future. If Jesus is the King (Jn.1.49; 12.13,15 and Pilate's inscription on the cross), then a present eschatological Kingdom is possible in John.
Finally, only Paul speaks of a kingdom which has workers (Co1.4.11), and of a kingdom to which God calls us (1Th.2.12), and for which we must he found worthy (1Th.2.12; 2Th.1.5). The only possibility of agreement in John in the aspect of worthiness, is found in Jn.3.3,5, especially since our Lord uses the word "unless" (Livuti), making entry into the kingdom conditional.
Of all the eschatological aspects, of both realised and future, discussed, we have found a remarkable level of agreement between Paul and John. Judging from the volume of writing, it was to be expected that Paul would have more to say about 369 any particular aspect. John seems to be more concise, reflecting much of what Paul was saying anyway. It was also to be expected that Paul would include things that John does not mention at all, except, maybe in a veiled way, or by inference only. Eschatologically, they are in agreement.
4.2 Participation Theology
Paul was a Pharisee and trained in Old Testament Scripture, probably, above that of any other New Testament author. Even though Paul may have changed in his doctrinal outlook, he remained true to his monotheistic belief. The same may be said of John, or rather of the Johannine community. They were thoroughly monotheistic4 in their belief. Jesus prayed: "... that they may know you, the only true God ..." (Jn.17.3).
Both Paul and John see God as father. God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Paul - Rom.15.6; 1Co.15.24; 2Co.1.3; 2Co.11.31; Eph.1.3; Co1.1.3; and John - Jn.1.14; Jn.3.35; Jn.5.17; Jn.5.20; Jn.5.46; and many other verses in the Gospel where Jesus speaks of God as his Father; 1In.2.22, 23, 24; lJn.4.14; 2Jn.3,9). Jesus is seen to have a special relationship with the Father and the Father with him. That relationship has priority for Christ and for the Father.
God is also our Father; but he is our Father because he is first Jesus' Father. Said differently, our sonship to God is dependent on Jesus' sonship. In Paul's language, we are adopted as sons, but Jesus is the Son (Ga1.4.5). Similarly, in John, we become sons (Jn.1.12; 1Jn.3.1), but Jesus is the Son from before the world began
4Yet, they both accepted the divinity of Jesus Christ, and a Trinitarian thinking is necessitated in their writings. We cannot expand on this in this treatise, but allusions to, especially, Christ's divinity have, and might come up in this dissertation. 370 (.1n.17.5). It is precisely our sonship that puts us in a mystical relationship with the Father. The Father relates to us in a personal way.
Our relationship with the Father began before the foundations of the world. God intervened by his own character, and tangibly by an act of grace. He is the omniscient and omnipotent God and he chooses men to worship him in his omniscience and omnipotence. When he chooses them, he does so by an act of his sovereign grace, so that they may serve him. God's grace is accomplished concretely in Jesus Christ in history. It is always a descending movement by revelation and salvation. Let us now consider God's choosing of us in Paul and John in the light of mysticism.
a) God's Choosing of true Worshippers.
As we have said, the idea of divine election, comes from the Old Testament and was part of the Jewish understanding of salvation. It is also quite firmly understood in both Paul and John; that God is the one who chooses his people, and who calls them to himself through Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is correct to say that both Paul and John apply the Old Testament truth of divine election to Christianity or the believer in particular.
It is true that this issue always raises a tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The tension lies in the question: which has priority, God's decision or man's decision? If it begins with God, then we uphold his sovereignty. If it begins with man, then we uphold man's free will and thus human responsibility. We believe that we have already presented an adequate answer 5 in chapter 2 under 2.3.1 and shall apply it to John's understanding as well.
51t is an antimony - both are true and are to be upheld, for Paul and John teaches both. 371 Paul brings out the idea of divine election in the doctrine of predestination; that believers were chosen by God before the foundation of the world. The process is best depicted by Paul in Rom.8.29-30. The idea is that by divine decree in Christ, certain people are marked out to fulfil God's purpose and will in the world. It is a pre-determined decree brought about by the person's response in faith to God's grace in Christ. God's purpose is his own glory in that these persons conform to the image of his Son, Jesus Christ.
This pre-determined decision is expressed in words like TrpoopiN (Rom.8.29-30; 1Co.2.7, Eph.1.5,11), Trpo (Eph.1.9), trp60Ecrig Rom.8.28; Rom.9.11; Eph.l.11; Eph.3.11; 1Ti.1.9) and pocro (Rom.9.23; Eph.2.10). God's redemptive work unfolds in accordance with his intended purpose (Ga1.3.8), and is seen as God's sovereign doing (Rom.9.11), for his own glory through Jesus Christ, his Son. The Holy Spirit then seals the individual as God's possession to that end - his glory (Eph.1.13-14). John also speaks of a pre-determination, which we have already discussed under the concept of "fixed origins". While Paul does speak of it in terms of "in Christ", John links the idea practically with the work and ministry of Christ and with the actual individual response of the believer. In other words, both concepts of divine sovereignty and human responsibility are postulated and placed alongside each other (e.g.. Jn.6.29 cf. Jn.6.36-37).
John sets the doctrine of predestination narratologically - in the way Jesus challenges or condemns his audiences; in his teaching to his disciples; and in the way he prays to the Father. In his prayer (.1n.17.6) Jesus said: "I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me out of this world. They were yours, you gave them to me, and they have kept your word". In the hearing of his disciples, Jesus said to the Jews (Jn.10.26-27): "But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know 372 them, and they follow me". Maybe, more explicitly stated in Jn.8.41-47, Jesus tells the Jews that they are the way they are because the devil is their father, as also he was of Cain (lJn.3.12-15).
There is perhaps an important difference between Paul and John found here; and that is that Paul does not speak so freely as John does of "reprobationism" 6; not as a positive marking of individuals to be condemned, but as a deliberate omission in that God has not chosen them. In other words, John says in effect, that, if God did not pre-determine your salvation, you will never come to Christ. John does not say, like Paul, that election or predestination is preceded by God's foreknowledge (Rom.8.29). That does not mean to say that God is arbitrary, because John still sees human choice as decisive (1n.3.18: "He who believes in him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God").
What is important, is that both Paul and John understand God's choosing as the beginning of a relationship between God and man. Both of them see the means of such a relationship to include faith in Jesus Christ (e.g.. in Paul - Rom.10.9 and in John - Jn.20.31). Access to God is provided only through Jesus Christ. No person can come to God and have fellowship with God, unless he comes through Jesus Christ (Paul - Eph.2.18 and John - Jn.14.6).
How does fellowship between God and the believer happen? The initiative is with God. Both Paul and John see God as having sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to bring about a relationship between himself and man. Furthermore, in Paul and John, we see a two-fold purpose: Firstly, to seek for true spiritual worshippers (Paul -
6Reprobation is the doctrine of God's pre-determined condemnation of (unbelieving) men. So, even in John we can only speak of indirect "reprobationism". Pauline predestination is only brought to bear on God's children. 373 Eph.1.4-6; and John - Jn.4.23-24), and secondly, that those chosen should conform to the image of Christ (Paul - Rom.8.29; and John - 1Jn.3.1-3). In both ways we are able to have fellowship with God.
Only true spiritual worshippers have access into God's presence. Paul speaks of us as being "before Him (God) in love" (Eph.1.4), and of our "adoption as sons to Himself" (Eph.1.5). In this sonship we are able to relate to God as "Abba Father" (Rom.8.I5). This privilege is allowed us in the same way as is true of Christ. We have been given the Spirit of the Son so that in the same way as the Son we are able to call God "Abba Father" (Ga1.4.5-6). It was God's purpose, both to "redeem" and to "adopt"; that is, not only to emancipate slaves, but also to make them sons; by that, making them part of his household. We may now address the Father in the same way as does the Son. That is also intimate fellowship.
In John our fellowship with the Father. is put forward in a more pronounced fashion. We meet with the Father in the person of Christ. Not in places such as Gerizim or Jerusalem, but in Christ, God's new Bethel and new temple. We worship the Father in truth by Christ, who is the truth (Jn.14.6), and by the Spirit, who guides into all truth (Th.16.13). True worshippers are "born from above" (Jn.3.3,5) so that it might be said that God births for himself true worshippers. The Father draws us to Christ (Jn.6.44); he gives us to Christ (Jn.6.37) because we first belonged to him (In.10.29; Jn. 8.47).
In our conforming to the image of Christ, it is understood by both Paul and John as God's will for us. In Paul it comes out as his personal quest (Ga1.1.15) and the purpose for every believer (Rom.8.29). The outworking is that we should be the "praise of his (God's) glory" (Eph.1.11-12). The highest level of fellowship with God, is to reflect his glory. By our becoming like Christ, we bear the glory of God, because he is the image of the invisible God (Co1.1.15). 374 John holds pretty much the same view. Ultimately, we shall he like Christ for we shall see him as he is (11n.3.2). In the present we must emulate Christ and be pure as he is pure (IJn.3.3), and walk as he walked (lJn.1.7 - in the light) and so have fellowship with him. Even in John, Christ is the image of the Father, for those who have seen Christ, have seen the Father also (Jn.14.9). To be like Christ, is to bear the image of the Father also; what a glorious privilege. It is to this end that we have been chosen and sought by God.
b) God gives that Christ may reconcile.
God is so high and exalted, altogether holy and dwelling in unapproachable light, that we cannot worthily describe him (1Ti.6.16). John is of the same opinion, but he puts it in a different way: "no man has seen the Father" (Jn.1.18; Jn.6.46; 1.41.4.12). In Paul's language, we were. enemies of God (Rom.5.10; Co1.1.21). We needed to be reconciled to God; but how? By the cross of Jesus Christ.
To be sure, John does not speak of reconciliation. In the New Testament, it is almost exclusively a Pauline concept. Only one akin-word appears in lJn.2.2 and lJn.4.10 ("... God ... loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins") that alludes to making peace, or appeasing God. Important for us is the fact that God sent his Son for that reason, and it coincides with Paul's teaching on reconciliation. By sending his Son, God is seen as the giver. God gave his only Son to take away what hinders fellowship between us and himself.
God took the initiative to bring about fellowship between man and himself. "In Christ, you who were afar off have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (Eph.2.13). Through Christ man may have peace with God. In John's language, they have passed from darkness into light (lJn.2.8). Men were cursed and 375 alienated until their sins were atoned for by the sacrifice of Christ (Ga1.3.10,13; 11n.4.10). The same idea is found in the concept of Christ being the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (ln.1.29,36). He, Christ, "was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin" (IJn.3.5). Reconciliation is predicated by God's love and by sending his Son. Having been reconciled, we have peace with God, and have access into his presence (Rom.5.1-2).
The second aspect is that God is the giver; not now referring to the gift of his Son, but that he gives to Christ such as should he saved. So, he not only gives his unique Son; but he also gives each and every believer to his Son. Those who believe in Jesus, have been drawn, called or given by the Father. Only those whom the Father draws, come to accept Jesus (Jn.6.44). For Paul this holds the same meaning as the third step of Rom.8.30; being called to be justified. This is the specific calling of individuals. It is an efficacious calling, and all those who are called are justified. Only those to whom it has been granted by the Father, come to Christ (Jn.6.65; Jn.17.2,6,9,12,24). Only those who belong to God's sheep and can hear his voice, will come to Christ (ln.10.26; Jn.18.27). Believers are given to Christ (Jn.6.37). Those who are given to Christ, respond by believing in him.
Not only are we given to Christ, but we belong to God. Jn.17.10 "... all mine are yours, and yours are mine". We belong to Father and Son, and the Son has possession because it has been accorded him by the Father. The Father's giving to the Son is best expressed in 1Co.1.30: "But of Him (God) you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God - and righteousness, and sanctification and redemption". In the same context we find that the choosing of such individuals given to Christ, is entirely God's prerogative (1Co.1.26-31). Jn.17.6 "I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me out of the world. They were yours, you gave them to me, and they kept your word".
376 Those whom the Father gave to Jesus, by believing in him, have received eternal life. But John defines eternal life as knowing God (Jn.17.3). Knowing God is a mystical quality. Paul also encourages believers to increase in the knowledge of God so that we may partake in his inheritance (Co1.1.10-13). For John, God's legacy (our inheritance) is eternal life. Paul therefore also links knowing God with eternal life. They speak of an intimate knowledge, rather than a rational knowledge.
In essence, God gives to Christ, his only Son, so that Christ may give them back to him. As such they are reconciled to God; having peace with him; belonging to him; and knowing him in a way only possible through Christ. So, actually, God brought us near to himself. Paul says the same thing in Eph.2.13. Those brought near have favour with God through Jesus Christ. Concerning believers - God gives them to Christ (through Election) and Christ gives them to the Father (through Reconciliation). c) God's Paternal Blessings and Keeping
God is directly involved in every believer's life. His blessings come to us as benefits of our being in Christ. The favour that the Father shows the Son, is extended also to those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. (Paul - Eph.1.3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ"; and John - Jn.6.35 "... he that comes to me shall never hunger ... shall never thirst"). All these blessings are applied to those who trusted in Christ.
Not only are we blessed because of the Son, but we are blessed because we are sons of God. As sons of God, they may see themselves as heirs of his goodness. Both Paul and John see that we will receive an inheritance. For Paul we are heirs 377 of God and joint-heirs of Christ (Rom.8.17). John says that those born from above will inherit the kingdom of God (Jn.3.3). Both of them see that as part of our inheritance and we have received the Holy Spirit who guarantees our inheritance.
Throughout the Gospel of John we find sonship as the result of believing in the Son (Jn.1.12). Paul also links our sonship to faith (Gal 3 25-26). One big difference though, is that John never speaks of believers in terms of biol. but rather TEK1101.. Paul uses the former in his expression of our sonship. As with Paul when he speaks of "adoption", so John, though he does not use the same word, also posits a sonship which is conferred upon us (Th.1.12). In both Paul and John are the sons entitled to call God "Father" (Ga1.4.6-6 and lJn.3.1).
An idea that also appears in John, is Paul's concept of freedom accorded to the sons. This is present in Paul, because he sees a change from being slaves to sin and Law, to becoming sons and therefore free (Ga1.4.7). The Jews were challenged by Jesus to believe the truth, for the truth will set them free. They denied that they were under bondage (Jn.8.33). Jesus' response was that if they have sinned, they were slaves of sin (Jn.8.34). Therefore they needed the Son to set them free, and they would he free indeed if he did (Jn.8.36).
Of the sons, Paul sees Jesus as the first-born among many brothers (Rom.8.29). While others may be sons, John sees Jesus as the unique (p.ovoycvlis) Son of God (Th.3.16). Jesus has priority and pre-eminence in this way in both Paul and John. Our sonship is dependent upon Jesus' sonship. Ours is modelled upon his.
Both Paul and John speak of those who are the seed of Abraham. In Paul, believers, because they belong to Christ by faith, are the seed of Abraham (Ga1.3.29). In John, when Christ speaks to his antagonists, he says that if they were Abraham's children, they would have accepted him, but instead, their father 378 is the devil (Th.8.39-47). It may be concluded that those who accept Jesus may be classified as Abraham's seed and as such, God's children.
We are sons of God; the Father. The fatherhood of God is a natural deduction from the fact of our sonship. It is not only a deduction, but a stated doctrine of both Paul and John. The Father has birthed us (Th.1.13), and our relationship is based upon love. The Father loves the sons (Paul - Rom.5.8; Eph.2.4 and John - 1Jn.3.1; Jn.16.27). The sons love the Father (Paul - 2Th.3.5 and John - Th.15.9,23; lJn.2.15).
With the relationship between Father and sons, we may properly refer to the household of God. The concepts of household and building are present in both Paul and John. In Paul the household of God is seen in Eph.2.19-20 and Ga1.6.10. In John it is found in two ways: the presence of "brothers" (Th.20.17) of Christ; and the fact that the Son and the Father make their dwelling place in the believer (M.14.23). The latter idea corresponds with Paul's (Eph.2.19-20). The idea of a building is closely linked to God's dwelling place. We must not forget the temple motif in both Paul and John (Paul - 1Co.3.16; 6.16 and John - Jn.7.38). These are all related ideas - 'household', 'building' and 'temple'.
The parable of the vine, branches and vine-dresser (Th.15.1-8) shows a close relationship between the vine-dresser (the Father) and the branches. The Father is involved in the believers' lives. In Paul a close analogy is found in Romans chapter 11. God is the one who grafts the believer into the olive tree. In this case fruit- bearing is not emphasised, but the privilege to partake of the same root. Both figures show the unity of God's people in Christ. Paul shows some continuity from Israel to the church. John in no way alludes to Israel and in this sense has no correspondence with Paul, but in both cases God is the dresser.
379 Finally, God is also the keeper of his people. By his keeping, our salvation remains sure. In John 10.28 we learn that by hearing the shepherd's voice, we receive eternal life. In this context eternal life is explained in two ways: We shall never perish, and no one can pluck us out of the Father's hand because the Father is greater than all. The believer's security is confirmed in Jn.17.9-11. Paul also posits the believer's security in Phi1.1.6; Ph.4.7 and 2Ti.1.12, because of God's faithfulness and omnipotence.
Our Father in heaven keeps us, and we shall never be lost because of his keeping. As his sons, Christ's brothers, we are part of his household; also because the Father dwells in us. We have fellowship with the Father (lJn.1.3). d) ad.tvitalOYSISSandisknawalusys
God's love is the starting point of mysticism; for that matter, of every other dealing of God with his people. It is because of his love that he reveals himself through Jesus, his Word and the Spirit 7 , The revelation of the Father, prompted by his love, enables man to know God experientially through Christ.
God demonstrated his love to us while we were sinners (Rom.5.8; Eph.2.4-5). This love we see, is best demonstrated in Jesus dying for us. John speaks of God's love along the same lines (Jn.3.16; lin.3.1). Paul goes further and says that God shed his love in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom.5.5), and the gift of the Holy Spirit is a demonstration of that love (Tit.3.5-6). God has taken the initiative - he loved us first (lJn.4.19). God revealed himself as a God of love. Nobody and nothing can separate us from the love of God (Rom.8.35-39).
7 In Paul we find also the fact of "Natural" revelation (Rom.1.2eff). In Systematic Theology we learn of General Revelation, where God is revealed in his works and circumstances General revelation is intended for everybody, but specific or Special revelation, only for God's people. 380 Because of his great love wherewith he loves us, God bestows on us abundant grace (Rom.5.15). Paul goes to great lengths to show that grace is free (Rom.4.3; Rom.5.15-21); God showing unmerited favour. In John, the revelation of God's Son, was full of grace and truth (Jn.1.14). The one who was full of God's grace, shared the riches of his grace - "grace upon grace" (M.1.16). Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (M.1.17). The fact is that God is love, and a God of love is best expressed by him showing grace. He revealed himself as a gracious God. True mysticism never excludes God's grace - God came down to dwell with us.
According to John, Jesus' primary purpose was to declare the Father (in.1.18). He would do so through his words (in.17.8) and through his works (Jn.5.36). Only he could declare the Father, for no one else has seen the Father (M.5.37; Jn.6.46; 1M.4.13). Paul also teaches that God is invisible (Co1.1.15; 1Ti.3.16). Jesus is the revelation of the invisible God.
Jesus is the mediator of God's revelation and love. He has seen the Father, and has heard the Father, and is able to represent the Father before man (Jn.5.19; .M.8.38). Jesus said: "... who sees me, has also seen the Father" (M.12.45; M.14.9). On numerous occasions Jesus showed his sovereignty over the created order (e.g.. Jn.6.16-21). Paul says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Co1.1.15) and in him dwells the fullness of the Godhead (Co1.2.9). Paul says that God was manifested in the flesh (1Ti.3.16).
Jesus revealed himself as "I am" in John (Jn.4.26; Jn.6.35; Jn.8.58; Jn.9.5; Jn.10.7; Jn.10.36; M.11.25; Jn.13.13; .M.14.6; Jn.15.1). The Jews understood that, by these sayings, Jesus was claiming to be divine, therefore they accused him of blasphemy. Paul very seldom quotes the Lord, and it is to be expected that he cannot speak of Christ's personal claims, nor does he present Christ in this way. 381 Christ makes other claims in John's Gospel - that he and the Father are one (Jn.10.30). In Thomas' confession, Jesus is said to be "Lord and God" (Jn.20.28). For Paul, however, confessing Jesus as "Lord to the glory of God" is imperative now and unavoidable in the future (Phil.2.11). John also reflects a unity between Jesus and the Father (lJn.2.23-24).
Because God has revealed himself, he allows us to have a relationship with him in a personal and intimate way. It is possible to know the Father because Jesus knows the Father. We are not talking of knowing about God; that is mere rational knowledge; we may know God experientially and intimately through Jesus Christ. This concept comes through in both Paul and John.
Paul says that human wisdom is inadequate (1Co.1.21). Rational knowledge cannot find out God because God is "wholly other"; therefore we need God to reveal himself; we can only know about God according to his self-disclosure. We can know God personally (Ga1.4.9). Our knowledge of God can increase (Co1.1.10).
In John, to know is to believe. Jesus speaks the Father's words, therefore when his sheep hear his voice and know his voice, they hear and know the Father's voice (Jn.10.3; Jn.17.8). The reciprocal knowledge of Father/Son and Shepherd/Sheep, enables believers to know God through the Lord Jesus Christ (Jn.10.14-15). It is extremely important to note that for John, to know God, is to have eternal life (Jn.17.3). To know God is to have fellowship with God (lJn.1.3) and to live in his light (lJn.1.5 cf.. Jn.1.7-9) through Jesus Christ.
We may know God only because he provides illumination by his Spirit (1Co.2.7- 13) and through the Lord Jesus Christ (Jn.1.7-9 and Jn.9.5). Such illumination is properly called revelation. Therefore, we come to know (experience) God through revelation in Christ and in the Spirit, and accordingly, we can respond in a 382 pleasing way, for we have the mind of Christ, which is the Spirit knowing the mind of God (1Co.2.10-16). Such is our fellowship with God.
Conclusion: There is a remarkable agreement between Paul and John on the matter of Participation Theology - that is a God-mysticism. It is possible, because of the Son Jesus Christ, to the sons of God - they who have received Christ and who are led by the Spirit. The sons of God have been chosen by God and given to Christ, so that they could be reconciled to himself, and so that they may be true worshippers of God. They would experience God in their worship and relate to him as 'Abba Father". Being reconciled to God, we have peace with him and have unhindered access into his presence. Access is greatly simplified by the Father's dwelling within us, and showing us his favour by keeping us secure in his love and in salvation. How good it is to know the true and loving God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
4.3 Participation
God revealed himself ultimately in the person of Jesus Christ. Recognising Jesus' true identity is to recognise the Father too. As Jesus reveals his own identity, he revealed the Father's too. A disciple of Jesus is a son of God. Recognising the identity of Jesus, is to see his full divinity; God-become-man. This was the basis of bringing man to God and God to man; and the means was reconciliation through the cross. The cross demonstrated God's love. God was in Christ reconciling man to himself (2Co.5.19). God meets with man in Christ. That is the heart of both Paul and John's religion.
We need to recognise at the outset that Paul's and John's approach to and presentation of Jesus Christ is very different from each other. For Paul, his 383 approach is mainly through the death and resurrection of Christ. John, in his Gospel, deals with the life and meaning of Christ by way of narrative. Paul's theological approach has very little interaction with the historical life of Jesus. John has little to say ecclessiologically and does not apply the meaning of Christ to the believer's practical living (except in the epistles where love and righteousness of living is emphasised). Therefore much of our comparison will be parallel; and we shall highlight convergence.
Finding sub-headings that may reflect some commonality between Paul and John is difficult. This would even restrict our discussion in some way, but our task at hand (comparison) necessitates it. We shall therefore try to use broad and "liquid" sub- headings: a) Abiding in Christ and Christ in us; b) Partaking and Participating; c) Foe to friend - Real Fellowship; and d) Faith in Christ, a Union. a) Abiding in Christ and Christ in us. .
By faith we may have a relationship with God; but can faith operate without righteousness? The answer is certainly "no". The believer must either be righteous or righteousness must be imputed to him. Because there is none righteous, no not one (Rom.3.10), and none that seek after God (Rom.3.11), we need to be made righteous. We are made righteous with the righteousness of Christ. Righteousness is imputed to us through faith in Christ (Rom.4.23-25). Our faith is accounted for righteousness (Rom.4.5).
While John may not speak of imputed righteousness, he comes to the same result by means of the same method. For him we must believe in the Lord Jesus in order to have a relationship with God (Jn.5.34). To be righteous in God's sight, is to be exonerated from condemnation. John says that the one believing in Jesus, has peace with God and he shall not come into condemnation (Jn.5.24). Both, peace 384 with God, and condemnation, are dependent upon one's standing with God; whether you are righteous or not. Faith in Christ brings out the method of bringing peace between the believer and God. The one who has peace with God shall not be condemned. John is saying the same thing as Paul.
Paul speaks frequently of being "in Christ" 8 . Being "in Christ" is the believer's new environment. He has been translated from the power of darkness to the
Kingdom of God's Son (Co1.1.13). Being in Christ is a concept of intimacy with
Christ. It is the place where the believer is accorded the benefits that belong to
Christ. It is Paul's way of expressing that we are one with Jesus Christ. When God sees us in his Son, he bestows upon us the favour that goes with that position.
Being in Christ certainly expresses the fact of our salvation.
John uses another word that expresses the same concept; "abiding". The word appears frequently in the farewell discourses of John's Gospel and in the first
Epistle. Abiding in Christ is also a concept of close fellowship with the Lord Jesus
Christ. In the Gospel it expresses the fact of our salvation (Jn.8.35) through faith, and in the Epistles, it is expressed as the source of power for the new life which is an ethical life of love and righteous living (IJn.2.6). Abiding in Christ affords us a special relationship with the Father and the Spirit.
Being in Christ for Paul means that we are no longer in Adam (1Co.15.22); we are no longer in the flesh (Rom.8.4); and we are no longer in the world (Co1.2.20).
Our union is with the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is with him that we identify and have fellowship. Our participation in Christ makes us become part of Christ's experiences - we have died with him (Ga1.2.20); we are raised together (Co1.3.1); and we are seated together with him in the heavenlies (Eph.2.6).
8 1n all its variations it appears in the Pauline corpus more than 160 times, and therefore expresses its significance for Paul. 385 The idea of abiding in Christ carries the same significance in John. Christ says of his disciples that they are in the world, but not of the world (b.17.14). The figure of the vine and the branches shows the level of intimacy and participation that exists between the vine (Christ) and the branches (believers) (Th.15.1-8). Life and sustenance are found in Christ and the believers depend upon him for the same. So are they to bear fruit - by abiding in the vine (Th.15.9-10 and 12-17) and by identifying with him as the Father enables us to bear fruit for his glory.
There are other ways in which Paul expresses the concept of being in Christ; "Put on Christ" as in being clothed with Christ (Ga1.3.27; Rom.13.14; Co1.3.10); being Christ's (xpta-ra) as belonging Christ (1Co.15.13; Ga1.3.29; 1Co.3.23; Rom.14.8); "with Christ" denotes future participation and common privileges in Christ (Rom.6.4-8; Rom.8.16-29); "through Christ" speaks of what is mediated by Christ (redemption Rom.3.24; reigning Rom.5.17; victory 1Co.15.57; reconciliation 2Co. 5. 18; etc.).
There are two important variations of usage that we need to mention. Firstly, there is the double or reciprocal abiding. In Paul we speak of "us in Christ" (that is objective) and "Christ in us" (that is subjective). The former happens on a collective level and is not experiential, and the latter is personal faith and communion with Christ. Every believer has Christ in him and all, collectively, makes "Christ in us" also objective. Secondly, "in Christ" is indicative and "in the Lord" is imperative. In the former, that is what we are; and in the latter, that is what we must do.
The double or reciprocal "abiding" is also found in the Johannine writings (Jn.15.4,7; 1.1n.2.27; IJn.3.24). So, with Paul this is subjective, and an enabling is present. If Christ abides in us, we are able to bear fruit, and we are able to pray 386 effectively (1n.15.4-7). It allows us to know the word of God and to apply his will (11n.2.27). It is connected with those who keep the commandments of God (11n.3.24). Therefore, as with Paul, this reciprocal abiding may he seen as having an indicative and an imperative character.
Christ indwelling the believer, is reflected in Paul (Rom.8.10; 2Co.13.5; Ga1.2.20; Co1.1.27; 3.4). Christ is an inner source for practical living. It is also the provision for the believer to hope in the glory available in Christ (Rom.5.2; Co1.1.27; Co1.3.4). Christ in us helps us to die to sin and to live in righteousness (Rom.8.10). Such a person is helped not to live by the Law, yet to keep righteousness in Christ (Ga1.2.18-21).
In John, the temple is a major christological symbol. In Jn.1.14, the Logos became flesh and dwelt (tabernacle - Eaicieiwo-€1,) among us. This is the first allusion to John's temple-motif. Jesus referred to himself as the temple which he would raise in three days (Jn.2.21). The temple is called God's "house" in Jn.2.16. Therefore it is understood as the dwelling place of God. In Christ, temple worship became obsolete (Jn.2.2-25). Jesus gives himself as the eschatological temple (Jn.4.7-26 cf. Ezek.47). In Jn.1.51 Jesus shows himself to be the new Bethel (House of God) and as supplanter of Jacob (also Jn.4.12ff). When we abide in Christ, we dwell in the "house of God". God and man meet in the person of Jesus Christ; a mysticism involving God and Christ.
Paul nowhere speaks of Christ as the temple, excepting that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2Co.5.19); the whole building (of Jews and Gentiles) is "built together to become a holy temple in the Lord" (Eph.2.20-22). Paul speaks rather of believers (corporately) as the temple (1Co.3.16; 1Co.6.19). Paul and John alike speak of the temple (in believers and in Christ respectively) as the vans - most holy place, rather than just lEpew - temple. If we may synchronise 387 the facts, the believers are identified with Christ in whom the new temple and God's presence are bound.
Whether we speak of Paul's "in Christ" or "Christ in us", or of John's "abiding in Christ" or Christ's "abiding in us", we speak of a vital mystical experience with the believer. They are privileged to be in a vital fellowship with the Son of God, thereby enjoying the benefits that he has. Moreover, by his indwelling presence we may live holy and God-pleasing lives, having the certain hope of a future glory. b) Partaking and participating
One of the exciting benefits of being in Christ, is that we may enjoy the person of our Lord in a personal and intimate way. We may partake of the Lord, and we may participate in his victory. The ideas of partaking and participation are present in both Paul and John. Both of them have in mind the death and resurrection of our Lord. Paul has a more explicit concept of our participation in Christ's heavenly seat.
Paul never thinks of the death of Jesus without also thinking of the resurrection. On the one hand the death is most important for Paul's soteriology, and is sufficient for our full redemption (1Co.1.17). On the other hand his death is meaningless without the resurrection, and has no effect for salvation (1Co.15.12- 19). It is a refreshing coincidence that John also thinks of Christ's death and resurrection as his glorification - in fact the ascension is included in this understanding of glorification (Jn.12.23-25; Jn.7.39; Jn.20.17).
For Paul, Jesus died according to the Scriptures, and he rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures (1Co.15.1-3). The cross and the resurrection makes Christ and Christianity unique among the religions of the world. In dying, Christ 388 showed obedience to the Father (Phil.2.60 and thereby also expressed the love of God (Rom.8.33-39). Christ's death was redemptive (Ga1.4.4-5), for by it he overcame the cosmic powers (Co1.2.15). The resurrection rendered death impotent (1Co.15.54-55). John also sees the death of Christ as an obedience approved by the Father (Jn.10.17); it also expresses the Father's love (lJn.3.16); it is also redemptive (Jn.3.14). Jesus, because he is the resurrection, has rendered death impotent by his resurrection (Jn.11.26).
When believers partake of Christ, they may participate in his death and in his resurrection. How do we partake of Christ? Life is to be found in Jesus Christ, and if we have Christ, we have life (lJn.5.11-12). Jesus is the Bread of Life (Jn.6.35) and invites men and women to partake of this bread for eternal life (Jn.6.35 and Jn.6.53-56). He mentions three ways of partaking of this bread: i) by believing in Him; ii) by eating his flesh, and iii) by drinking his blood. In spite of the difficulty of interpreting verses 53-56, many see in it a reference to the Eucharist.
The idea of partaking of the body and blood of Christ also appears in Paul (1Co.11.23-29). The bread represents Christ's body, and the cup (of wine) represents Christ's blood (vv24-25). That it is the body and the blood of the Lord is confirmed in verse 27. Paul however does not mention faith as a way in which we partake, but it certainly is understood by the use of words like "remember", "proclaim" and "discern" (vv 23,24,26 and 29). Paul neither links the reward of eternal life with partaking, but it is understood in that unworthy partaking brings chastisement in order to prevent condemnation with the world (v32). Eternal life is a prevention of eternal condemnation.
We need to say that Paul does not see this bread as something not within the created order - as coming down from heaven; as John does (Jn.6.33 and M.6.51). Neither does Paul see it as having sacramental value. For John, the eating brings 389 eternal life (salvation). We do not see it as sacramental in the Johannine passage either for two reasons: i) the requirement of faith is mentioned first (Jn.6.35), and ii) abiding in Christ and Christ abiding in us is tied to eating and drinking On .6.56).
Participation is more of a reality in Paul's exposition, than in John's. For Paul, the believer participates in the death of Christ. They are united with Christ in his death (Rom.6.5). Paul speaks of being crucified with Christ (Ga1.2.20), and therefore he is dead to the world (Gal.6.4). Also, when we suffer for Christ -through afflictions and persecution- (Jn.15.18-25) cf. 1.111.3.13). This may certainly "qualify" us as sharing in Christ's sufferings, but it cannot be said that John implies a participation in Christ's death.
There is also the Pauline idea of us participating in the resurrection of our Lord. As we have said; the resurrection is an eschatological reality shared with believers. The presence of the Spirit in us guarantees our resurrection in the future (Rom.8.11; 1Co.6.14; Eph.l.19-21; Phil.3.21). Christ provided victory over death (1Co.15.15-37). All in Adam (i.e. from the first order) die, but all in Christ, the last Adam (and progenitor of a new race), have part in his resurrection (1Co.15.45-49). We have been raised with Christ (already) in the redemptive moment of Christ's resurrection. We have a new life through the resurrection (Rom.6.4; 2Co.4.16). We may share in the power of Christ's resurrection (Phil.3.10). The resurrected life is the new life and has an ethical quality to it.
In John we also participate in Christ, the resurrection and the life (Jn.11.25). It will be noticed that we did not say "in the resurrection of Christ", because the Johannine thrust of such participation is not in Christ's physical resurrection as depicted in Paul, but rather in the person of Jesus Christ. He may have had in mind his own resurrection, but the context within which it was said (Lazarus' 390 resurrection) does not allow for such an interpretation. It is nevertheless mystical in that we may share in Christ, the resurrection, and have the certainty of being raised up on the last day (Jn.6.40).
Another resurrection nuance found in Paul and not in John, is the image of "putting off" and putting on". "Putting off" has the idea of dying to the old life (Eph.4.22; Eph.4.21; Co1.3.8-9). "Putting on" is a rising in newness of life (Ga1.3.27; Eph.4.24; Co1.3.10). It is obvious that here Paul has ethical interests in mind. The resurrected life is the new life.
Participating in Christ's heavenly rule (being seated in the heavenlies) is a unique Pauline concept (Eph.2.6). It is not found in the Johannine writings. The believer's life is enthroned with Christ (implicit in Co1.3.1-2; Phil.3.20; Eph.2.19 and Ga1.4.26). It means being blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ (Eph.1.3). Our citizenship is in heaven (Eph.2.19). Our citizenship is in heaven because we do not belong to this world (Phil.3.20). Therefore, we live the life of heaven in the present (Co1.3.1-3).
There is nevertheless a great extent of agreement on partaking and of participating with Christ in Paul and John. We partake of the Bread of Life, sharing in Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist. It has a much deeper meaning, as we actually partake of Christ himself. Our participation with Christ is in his death, resurrection and heavenly rule. We suffer with him so that we may reign with him too. Christ- mysticism is a Christian reality. c) Foe to Friend - Real Fellowships_
Jesus Christ is the mediator of God's goodness to man. For Paul, Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (1Ti.2.5). For John, Jesus is the only way to the 391 Father; no one can come to the Father except through him (in.14.6). The whole idea of mediation has the concept of representation. In Paul's mind Jesus is our representative in that he died for us, or on our behalf. He is also God's representative: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2Co.5.19). In John, Jesus reveals the Father in his person (Jn.14.9), his word (Jn.14.24), and his works (Jn.9.4). Jesus has been sent by the Father who is to be believed in (Jn.5.24). Christ, the God-man is the place where God and man meet.
Christ is our substitute redemptively. He died for our sins (1Co.15.3). His death plays an important role in Paul's theology. His death is also referred to as: "his blood" (Rom.3.25; Rom.5.9; Eph.1.7; Eph.2.13; Co1.1.20); "the cross" (1Co.1.17; Ga1.5.11; Ga1.6.12,14; Eph.2.16; Phil.2.8; Co1.1.20; Co1.2.14); and "crucified" (1Co.1.23; 1Co.2.2; Ga1.3.1). Christ took our punishment for us (Rom.8.32; Ga1.4.2; Eph.2.25). He died for our benefit and for sin. That is sacrificial language. Christ died for the .godless and sinners (Rom.5.6f); for the brethren (Rom.14.15) and for all men (2Co.5.14). By dying on the cross, he became a curse in our stead (Ga1.3.13). He, who knew no sin, became sin for us (2Co.5.21). We have been reconciled (to God) through the death of Christ (Rom.5.10). Christ is our redemption (Rom.3.24).
John also sees the death of Christ as substitutionary. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (.1n.1.29,36). He lays down his life for his sheep (Jn.10.15). When speaking to his disciples in the upper room, he tells them that he will lay down his life for their sake (Jn.13.37). He does it volitionally and willingly because he loves them. Greater love one will not find, than when one lays down his life for his friend (Jn.15.13). Christ's love is our motivation to love the brothers. "By this we know love, because he laid down his life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" (1Jn.3.16).
392 For Paul, Christ's mediation has ecclesiological significance too. We are bought with a price and are God's possession (1Co.3.16-17). We are God's holy temple and he dwells in us because we are blood-bought (Eph.2.190. Christ is our peace (on the cross) so that the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles is removed (Eph.3.14). We are now "one new man" in Christ, the last Adam (Eph.3.14; cf. 1Co.15.45). Therefore in this case, Christ is even the mediator between Jew and Gentile.
John's teaching here is not as explicit as Paul's. The idea of unity among believers may he gleaned from John's vine and branches parable. All believers are united in Christ, the true vine. The true vine is not Israel, for Israel consisted only of Jews, but Jesus is the true vine and all believers, Jews and Gentiles are united in him. We may deduce that the inclusion of Gentiles is intended in the image from the following Johannine presentations: the Samaritan woman was a believer (Jn.4), and all who believe in him are saved; the others who are not of this flock and who must still be called, could refer also to Gentile believers (Jn.10.16); that the children of God come from beyond the nation of Israel in Caiaphus' prophesy (Jn.11.52). If this is true, then the Johannine Jesus functions in the same way as the Pauline Jesus - as the one in whom the whole Body of Jews and Gentiles are joined together, and together we are in Christ.
Paul teaches that Christ's death brings cosmic restoration too (Co1.2.10; Phil.2.10). By Christ's death all powers and principalities are disarmed (Eph.3.10) so that these are incapable of separating us from God's love (Rom.8.35-39). The sting of death's power has been removed (1Co.15.54-57). The whole creation awaits their liberty when Christ comes again (Rom.8.26). Therefore, Christ is universal Lord. In John, Christ demonstrated his Lordship over cosmic powers. He defied death in Lazarus and his own resurrection. Jesus walks on the sea (Jn.6.16-
393 21), and through the other miracles that Jesus performed. Also, the darkness at the cross (Jn.19.28-30). All these show Jesus' universal, cosmic Lordship.
With the death of Christ functioning redemptively, ecclesiologically and cosmologically, we understand the concept of reconciliation. Reconciliation brings peace, unity and fellowship. We have fellowship with Jesus and with the Father. That fellowship is characterised by the gift of eternal life, an intimate knowledge of Father and Son, and walking as he walked.
Eternal life is found in the Father and in the Son (Jn.17.3 and Jn.5.26). This life is mediated through the Son, Jesus Christ (Th.1.4). The granting of eternal life is to have fellowship with the Father and the Son. Eternal life is a gift (lJn.5.11) and God gave his Son (Jn.3.16) so that eternal life is found in the Son (lJn.5.12). Paul also understands eternal life to be a gift of God through Jesus Christ (Rom.6.23). God did not spare his Son, but gave him. for us all (Rom.8.32). In fact Paul calls this "an unspeakable gift" (2Co.9.15).
A gift is spurned if it is not received or accepted. We are to receive the Son for eternal life (Jn.1.12; 1Jn.5.11-12), or as Paul puts it, to receive the word (1Th.2.13). Receiving is synonymous with believing. John ties eternal life with knowing. Knowing the Father is eternal life (Jn.17.3). It is to know the Son too (Jn.10.14 cf. Jn.10.4). Paul gives all else up as living for the excellency of knowing Christ (Phil.3.7-9). In fact Paul even believes that we ought to increase in the knowledge of God (Co1.1.10).
Knowing Christ or knowing God is to have fellowship, experience and intimacy with him. Our fellowship is with the Father and the Son (1.In.1.3). For Paul, knowing Christ goes as far as fellowship in his suffering (Phi1.3.10). Knowing Christ is also to imitate him, for God wants to reveal his Son in us (Ga1.1.150. As 394 Jesus revealed his Father, so ought we to reveal the Son. 1.M.5.20 "... and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life".
We ought to walk as he walked (lJn.2.6). If we walk in the light, then we have fellowship with him (1Jn.1.5-7). Walking in the light, is to be exposed to his character (Jn.1.5-6; Jn.8.12; lJn.1.5). Jesus gave us light (Jn.1.9) so that we may dwell in the light. If we walk in the light, we will not stumble (Jn.8.12; Jn.9.5; Jn.11.9; 12.35). Paul puts it differently: "walking in the Spirit" (Rom.8.3-6; Ga1.5.16) and to "walk worthy" (Eph.4.1); and to walk in the love of Christ (Eph.5.2). "Walking" always has ethical connotations. The concept of fellowship is a Johannine mystical overtone.
As foes of God because of our sins, we were reconciled to God in that Jesus died for our sins. Being reconciled we have peace and fellowship with God. We are no longer enemies, but friends and family, so that we may have a fellowship of intimacy with the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ. As we walk in his light, we have true fellowship with God. d) Faith in Christ. a U_Dion.
The object of our faith is Jesus Christ. Faith is the only response from man for salvation. It is required that a man believe that Jesus is the Christ (Paul - Rom .10 .9 ; 2Ti .3 .15; Eph .2 . 8-9; and John - J n . 20 .31 ; J n.5 .24) . Faith in Jesus Christ secures salvation. Forensically, we are justified by faith (Rom.5.1; Ga1.3.6); Phil.3.9). We overcome the world by our faith (lJn.5.4). Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom.10.17). Faith is indispensable for both Paul and John.
395 There is a special type of union between Father and Son (in.10.30). John recognises that Father and Son have a common purpose (Jn.5.19) and so strengthens this union that exists between them. They who have seen the Son, have seen the Father also (Jn.14.9). The unity between the Father and Son is analogous of the unity between Christ and the believers. In John this unity is demonstrated in various ways: as sheep, the believers recognise the voice of the shepherd and they follow only him (Jn.10.3); every believer is connected to the vine, who is Christ, and gets their sustenance and meaning for life from Him (Jn.15.4). The sheep enter at one place, and Christ is the gate. No one enters the fold without coming through Christ and they are saved (Th.10.9); In Jesus' prayer, unity between the Lord and those who belong to him, is clearly understood (Jn.17.21,23), for they are one in the Father and the Son. Notice the chain of unity. "I in them, and you (Father) in me (Son)" (Jn.17.23).
Paul speaks about the inseparableness between Christ, the Father (God) and his own (Rom.8.38,39). Our faith is in a faithful God who called us into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord (1Co.1.9). In this fellowship, we gain surpassing knowledge of the love of Christ. It is a fellowship where Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, and then we get to know the dimensions of his love (Eph.3.17-19). No one recognises more than Paul that the life now lived, is lived by faith in Christ who loved us and gave himself for us (Ga1.2.20).
Lastly, John speaks of one shepherd and one flock; the one belongs to the other (Jn.10.26). The sheep are safe in the Shepherd and in the Father (Jn.10.28-30). Paul has the same union in mind, but using a different expression: "one Lord" and "one Body" (Eph.4.4-5). The relationship is one of union between the Lord and his Church. For Paul, the church is One Body, and for John, it is One Flock. That reflects a unity even in the church. That unity is modelled on the union between the
396 Lord and the church, which in its turn is modelled on the unity between the Father and the Son.
Conclusion: Jesus Christ was not a mere man. He was a man come from above, the God-man sent from the Father. Mysticism is not ascending through the ranks of contemplation to God; it is God descending to man, and he does so in the person of his unique Son. Jesus is the point of contact between God and man. Jesus is the one and only mediator between God and man. He is God's representative to man, and he is man's representative to God.
We are privileged to be in Christ or to abide in him, for in him we have all the benefits that heaven could bestow on mankind. We are blessed because we are in Christ, and as we abide in him, we have full salvation and eternal life. As we abide in him, we have fellowship with him and the Father. We experience an intimacy with the divine, yet maintaining our personality as we identify with our Lord. The Lord is our new environment; an undeniable mysticism.
Not only are we in him, but he is in us. It is our subjective enabling to walk as he walked, and to hope for the glory that he has secured for us. He abides in us for he has made his dwelling place in us and among us. He has pitched his tent among us and revealed the Father's glory to us. He, the Temple has made us his temple. While we may go through him to worship the Father acceptably, he makes his abode in us so that we may be vessels containing his holiness. Christ in me, the enabling power and sure hope.
Just as profound a truth, is that we are enveloped with Christ's person. We are clothed with Christ. We may put off sinfulness and put on Christ; a new life of righteousness in Christ. We have put on the new man who is the image of the Last Adam, Jesus Christ. Being enveloped in Christ, or clothed with Christ, what God 397 sees, is Christ, and I am accorded with the privileges of Christ. I am hidden in Christ and presented to the Father as holy, unblameable and unreproveable in God's sight (Co1.1.22).
In Christ we are partakers of his blessing and we participate in his death, resurrection and glory. We partake of the heavenly bread and of eternal blessedness, knowing no more hunger or thirst, yet knowing Christ and sharing in the fellowship of his suffering, being made more like him, so that Jesus be revealed in us. What a glorious privilege.
The fellowship we share with Christ and God is a miracle in itself. We who were enemies, were brought near by the 'blood of Christ. We were reconciled to God; and now we have peace with God through Christ. Being reconciled, we have true and unhindered fellowship with God and his Son. Being reconciled, we have life eternal. The first gift was Christ; the second gift was eternal life, for through Christ we can know God, and knowing God is eternal life. We may know him intimately as we have fellowship with him through Christ Jesus, our Lord. Because of this fellowship with him who is the light, we dwell in the light and are able to walk as children of the light.
What does it cost us? Nothing; we only have to believe in the only Son of God, who loved us and gave himself for us. By faith we have a union with Christ, and through him, with God the Father and with fellow believers, our brothers. Nothing can separate us from his love, for we are united by love. Our bond with Christ is indissoluble; only because he is faithful.
Praise the Lord for Participation Christology!
398 4.4 akpation Pneumatology.
The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit (2Co.3.3). He is also the Spirit of Christ (Rom.8.9-10). Here Paul seems to use God and Christ interchangeably in relation to the Spirit. Also in John, the Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son. The Father sends the Spirit and the Son sends the Spirit (Jn.16.7; Jn.14.26). We may therefore conclude that in both Paul and John, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is therefore "from above".
In his earthly life, the Lord Jesus had the Spirit, not by measure, but in his fullness (Jn.3.34). Therefore, he would confer the Spirit to his disciples (Jn.20.22). It is important to note that there are more references to the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John than in any other Biblical book, and that these are spoken by Christ in an intimate setting with the Apostle. The Holy Spirit is to continue the work and fellowship of Jesus after his ascension. Jesus' going to the Father meant for the disciples the dispensing of the Holy Spirit (Jn.14.28) as "another paraclete". The Spirit is given by the Father in the name of Jesus (Jn.14.26).
Paul also sees the Holy Spirit as the sponsor of a new life. He speaks often of the concept "in the Spirit". For him, being in the Spirit derives from being "in Christ". The phrase including all its variants are used twenty five times in Paul, and in most cases it functions within the believer's living imperative; not so much as a redemptive indicative. God, however, dwells in the believer in the form of the Holy Spirit, and that is a motivation for an ethical life. Fellowship with the Holy Spirit (2Co.13.14) means to be led by him, so confirming at the same time our sonship of God. Sons of God walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh (Rom.8.3-14).
399 a) The Spirit and Salvation - Son ship.
When measured or judged by the terms of the Law, we all stand guilty before God and therefore, we stand condemned. For Paul, the written code, which is the Law, or otherwise called the commandments, kills, but the Spirit gives life (2Co.3.6). The Law and sin have enslaved us, but the Spirit has set us free from sin and death (Rom.8.2). By the Spirit we have liberty (2Co.3.17). We have changed in status because of our new eschatological existence. We have changed from being slaves to being sons (Rom.8.16-17). Our sonship means also the ultimate freedom of all creation in the future (Rom.8.16f1).
In John, those born of God are claSsified as (sons) children of God (Jn.1.12-13). Those born of God are those born of the Spirit (Jn.3.6). The inheritance of the Kingdom of God is meant only for the children of God; those who are born "from above" (Jn.3.3,5). We were before 'from below' and of this world, and therefore unable to relate to the Spirit in anyway (Jn.14.17), but having been born of the Spirit, we now have a new eschatological existence as sons. Paul and John are in agreement - we have become sons of God through the Spirit, and have a new existence in this world.
The release from the law and sin, is a release from condemnation. For both Paul and John, sons are heirs - in John they inherit the Kingdom of God (Jn.3.3) and eternal life by implication; in Paul they are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom.8.17). Otherwise said, we are heirs of the promises (Ga1.3.29 cf. Rom.4.13), and eternal life (Tit.3.7). Broadly speaking, our inheritance in Paul is also that which is due to Christ (the kingdom cf. 1Co.15.50) and eternal life.
9Paul also refers to the Holy Spirit as the "Holy Spirit of Promise" (Eph.1.13). 400 In both Paul and John, there is a correlation between the Holy Spirit and salvation. One cannot go without the other. Those who are saved, have the Holy Spirit. Only the saved have the Holy Spirit, and he has become their seal guaranteeing their salvation; ultimately, the redemption of their bodies (Rom.8.22 cf. Rom.8.11). In John's creation-motif, Christ breathes new life upon his disciples as he also gives to them the Holy Spirit (Jn.20.22 cf. Gen.2.7).
Salvation and sonship go together in both Paul and John. For John, those who believe in Jesus, become sons of God (Jn.1.12). Faith in Christ makes us sons of God. Sons of God are those who are born of God (M.1.13). Throughout John, those who believe in Jesus receive eternal life, and to have eternal life in John, means to have salvation through Christ (e.g.. Jn.3.14-15; Jn.10.9). The connection between sonship and eternal life is faith. Therefore by faith in Jesus Christ, we become both sons and saved.
Paul calls the same process of becoming sons through faith, 'adoption as sons'. They have received the Spirit of adoption (Rom.8.15; Ga1.4.5; Eph.1.5). While in John we are born (again) sons by the Spirit (Jn.3.5), in Paul we become sons by adoption. Through the Spirit our sonship is confirmed, and we may refer to God as "Abba Father" (Rom.8.15). He is our inner testimony that we are God's children. At the same time, he transforms us to be like the Son (2Co.3.18), so confirming our outer testimony. They are Abraham's true sons (Ga1.3.270 and the true Israel (Ga1.6.16) in contrast to those Jews who rejected Jesus in John and claimed to be sons of Abraham and the true Israel (Jn.8.31-47). True sons are sealed and the Holy Spirit is the guarantee of their inheritance.
401 b) The Spirit and Baptism.
Baptism has always been a part of Christian tradition. Both Paul and John mention the reality of baptism. In John only as an act of the historical Jesus - having been baptised by John the Baptizer and himself (with his disciples) baptising others (Jn.1.32-34; Jn.2.22-24). In Paul it comes through as teaching. Paul ascribes meaning to baptism. Such meaning is always related to the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and also the Body, as being baptised into Christ or into the Body -the Church (Rom.6. 1-4; 1Co. 12. 13; Ga1.3.27).
In Paul's instance, it is difficult to tell baptism as ordinance apart from baptism in the Spirit. In fact, many do not see a difference between the two. They tend to see baptism as a sacrament - that which is able to save. We do not believe that this is the case, for Paul himself does not see his own calling necessarily as that of baptising others; he sees his calling as preaching the Gospel, or "Christ crucified". Paul draws a distinction. People are saved through his preaching. If baptism was part of the salvation process, he would have been as zealous in baptising (1Co.1.14-17). John does not say much about baptism, but by inference (.1n.3.5), if it is really inferred; and if so, it would lean towards the other side of the spectrum of Christian belief (as sacramental).
In the Pauline usage, one needs first to grasp the Body / members concept. The Body is Christ's and the members of the Body are the believers. Paul brings out the idea of unity (in the Body) and diversity (in the various and manifold membership) (1Co.12; Rom.12 and Eph.4). The existence of the Body cannot happen without the Holy Spirit, and he has created an inter-dependency between Head (Christ) and members (believers). The Spirit brings about the beginning of the Christian life (Ga1.3.2-3) and he places the believer in Christ (Rom.6.3-4; Ga1.3.27-29). Because the Body is Christ's body, Paul refers to it, plainly as "Christ" (Ga1.3.27). 402 In John, there is a connection between the baptism of Christ and the Holy Spirit. In the first place, when Christ was baptised, the Holy Spirit descended upon him and confirmed his sonship (in.1.32); in the second place Christ is said to be the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit (Th.1.33). the former depicts Christ's experience, and the latter, the believers' experience. In John there is no direct tradition, teaching or command about baptism with the Holy Spirit, but we glean from the narrative that the Spirit descended from heaven (in.1.32). It descended and remained on Jesus. Therefore, the Spirit, being from heaven, is "from above" and not from the world (from below). Also, the Spirit has the ability to remain (uct,6), that is, the mystical concept to "abide" and he also abides in man (Th.14.17; Jn.14.23).
Paul, a little clearer on his teaching, sees the Holy Spirit as the common possession of every believer. A person who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to Christ (Rom.8.9). Paul says that all have been made to drink of the same Spirit (1Co.12.13). He is certainly talking about the Church, now consisting of both Jews and Gentiles. Baptism with the Spirit means that the many have been placed into the one body, which is the Church. Again, later, Paul connects the one Body with the one faith, one baptism, one Spirit and one Lord (Eph.4.4-6). For Paul, the believer has fellowship with the Spirit (2Co.13.14), and he has become one with Christ (Ga1.3.27). It is the same as having 'put on Christ' (Ga1.3.27). The Church is therefore a mystical community. c) Living and Life-giving Spirit.
The gift of the Holy Spirit determines one's abiding in Christ as well as Christ's abiding in the believer. The Spirit is associated with life. He gives life and does so as he indwells the believer. He is called the Spirit of life (Rom.8.2). Paul says that we live by the Spirit (Ga1.5.25); that is , the life which we now live. To live in the 403 Spirit is life and peace, but to live according to the flesh is death (Rom.8.6). The presence of the living Spirit brings about inward renewal and a transforming into Christ-likeness.
In John, Jesus promises all who believe in him, that 'living water' would flow 'from inside' (Jn.7.37-38). This is coupled with John's comment: "now this he said about the Holy Spirit, which those who believe in him were to receive, for the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (Jn.7.29). Jesus is the source of living water (Jn.4.14) and he will become in the believer a fountain of water springing to eternal life. this is ministry related; not that the believer becomes the dispenser of eternal life; but the Spirit flows forth with the message of life through the disciples' work on Christ's behalf.
In the same way, Paul also speaks of a believer's ministry characterised by the Spirit who gives life (2Co.3.6). He speaks of the new life-giving covenant of Spirit. That ministry is to preach the word of life. This Paul desires to do with power and demonstration of the Holy Spirit (1Co.2.4). The proof of his apostleship is to be found precisely here - in the ministry of the word of God.
The life-giving Spirit brings about an inward renewal in the believer. This renewal is seen ethically. We are a new creation, living according to our new life (2Co.5.17; Ga1.6.15). We are new and live according to "the new man" (Co1.2.10; Eph.3.15; Eph.4.24) or "new dough" (1Co.5.7). The new life in Paul is always seen in ethical terms; the imperative derives from the indicative; ethics derives from our being in the Spirit because he is the Spirit of holiness (Rom.1.4). In other words, he is the Holy Spirit.
In John too, the eschatological promise is fulfilled as we experience a new dimension of inwardness of the Spirit. The inner work of the Holy Spirit confirms 404 our sonship because of the new birth. The new life is ethically expressed. Important is our inner communion with the Father and the Son (Jn.14.23). Under the new covenant, the work of the Spirit involves a new inwardness, and the disciples are empowered in their ministry to the world (Jn.20.22-23). It is communicating life of the kingdom to those outside the kingdom - those in the world.
Paul says that we serve in the "new way of the Spirit" (Rom.7.6). He thinks of us as living the resurrected life (Co1.3.1). We operate by love and bear the fruit of the Spirit (Ga1.5.22-23). The resurrected life and love are indications that we belong to a new race; that of the Last Adam, the life-giving Spirit (1Co.15.45). As we have resembled the first Adam, so shall' we resemble the Last Adam. We are to be Christ-like.
With increasing glory are we to become more and more like Christ. The life-giving Spirit enables us to become Christ-like. By the Spirit of the Lord we are changed from one degree of glory to the next as we are changed into Christ's image (2Co.3.18). The real purpose of our salvation is to become like Christ (Rom.8.29). It is a matter of revealing Christ, and the Holy Spirit has always played an important part in revelation. "Just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven" (1Co.15.49). We may have the mind of Christ which is the Spirit-controlled mind (Rom.8.5) and by it know the mind of God (1Co.2.14-16). d) Worshi ful Encounter.
Worship is really the only appropriate way to respond to God. So, whether I eat or drink, or whatever I do, I do as unto the Lord (1Co.10.31; Co1.3.23). My service to God, and my deliberate obedience to him, is a form of worship. If my attitude is 405 to find out and to do God's will for his pleasure and honour, then I have a worshipful attitude. Therefore, in a deliberate act of worship or in worshipful obedience to God, the Holy Spirit has a crucial role to play in the life of the believer; he helps us to worship God acceptably, and he enables us to know and do the will of God (1Co.2.10-13).
In John, the Father seeks true worshippers. Those who worship the Father must worship him in Spirit and in truth (Jn.4.24-25). The only worship compatible with a God who is Spirit, is worship in Spirit and truth. It is therefore clear that we need the Spirit of God to enable us to worship the true God in a befitting manner and with the appropriate approach. The befitting manner and appropriate approach is to be found in the Spirit, who will guide us into all truth (Jn.14.17; Jn.16.26).
Though not exclusively, but in worship we best encounter God. We have fellowship with him as we have fellowship with his Spirit. We encounter God personally only through his Spirit for his Spirit dwells in us (Rom.8.9-10). In fact God dwells in us through his Spirit (Eph.2.19-22). In Paul, believers are built together into a holy temple for God to dwell in. The temple, being a place of worship, has made the community of believers and individual believers the appropriate place of worship. We are said to be the temple of the Holy Spirit (1Co.6.19 and 1Co.3.16-17). The temple is the place of God's presence, and God is present in us in the form of the Holy Spirit.
The whole discussion of true, spiritual worship, comes up in John around the issue of temple and place of worship. Jesus tells us that the place of worship is not geographically defined; it happens where people worship the spiritual God in Spirit and in truth. It is not at Mt. Gerizim or at Jerusalem. It showed also that it was not exclusively a Jewish or a Samaritan thing; it was open to all who would worship God on his terms. In John however, the true temple is Jesus Christ. God and man 406 meet and have fellowship here. The Spirit directs us to Christ (Jn.16.14-15), and ultimately to the Father.
It is important to note that both Paul and John use the word vans for temple. That word refers to the Holy of Holies, the sanctuary, in the temple (kpov). That was the place where the Ark of the Covenant and the mercy-seat was found. It represented the direct and unhindered access to God's presence. In fact God's presence is with us and in us, for we are one with Christ (Eph.2.21 "in the Lord"; Jn.15.5 "abide in me"). The Spirit's indwelling is fellowship with God (2Co.13.14).
Our encounter with the Spirit, is the Spirit in us. He controls us, leads us, guides us as we walk in him, doing the works of the Spirit, which in turn entrenches our sonship (Paul - Rom.8.14 and John - Jn.16.13; Jn.14.26). When the Spirit controls us, it is God taking control of the believer; God is taking possession of what is his, bought by blood (1Co.6.20), and we worship him with what is his. So, shall we glorify the Lord, and so shall we decisively reject our old nature.
We need to say that for both Paul and John, only those born of the Spirit, those who are in Christ can worship God acceptably, for only they have the Spirit in them, and have a relationship with the Spirit that enables them to worship God. Worshipping in the Spirit is not so much having the right or spiritual attitude; it is about having the right relationship and that relationship is with a Trinitarian God. The Spirit leads (enables) us to come to Christ, there to worship the Father in Spirit and in truth, with the Spirit in us, we have an inner motivation to worship God.
In the area of truth, the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of truth (Jn.14.17; Jn.15.26; Jn.16.13; lJn.4.6). Paul regards the Holy Spirit as the teacher and declarer of the 407 truth about God (1Co.2.13). The Holy Spirit is the embodiment of truth and guides us into that truth. Therefore we are able to worship God in truth as the Holy Spirit gives us guidance. He enables us to do the truth as well; and by correct and God- pleasing actions, we may worship God acceptably. All by the Holy Spirit's enabling. e) An Empowering Presence.
We have said on numerous occasions that the Holy Spirit enables us to do many things, especially the kind of things that pertain to godliness. His empowering presence in the life of the individual believer enables a God-pleasing life in relation to God and to man. Both Paul and John see the Holy Spirit as God's empowering presence in God's people. The gift of the Spirit to them, makes them both an eschatological and a charismatic community. An eschatological community because the Holy Spirit is a "last days" gift; and a. charismatic community because the Holy Spirit is a "gift of grace".
In Paul the Holy Spirit enables us ethically. He empowers for holy living as opposed to living in the flesh1 °. Ethically, the Spirit is against the "world", "darkness", "old things" and "self". The things that are opposed to the Spirit lead to death; while the things of the Spirit lead to life. Paul sees "walking" according to the Spirit as synonymous to minding the things of the Spirit (Rom.8.4,14). Carnal-mindedness leads to death, that is condemnation. Bearing the fruit of the Spirit (Ga1.5.22-23) is God-honouring because its central tenet is love, and it displays Christ-likeness in the life of the believer. Everything ethical accentuates the imperative aspect of Christian existence.
1 °The "flesh" ethically speaking is opposed to the Spirit and is sinful. It is the sinful nature in man. There are instances where it is used neutrally - when it speaks about the physical condition or existence of man. 408 In John, the very word attached to the Holy Spirit (Paraclete) shows that he is characteristically a helper. The word paraclete has a wider application; it includes the idea of him as helper, counsellor, intercessor, advocate, and comforter. The Spirit is all these things to the believer, and therefore he empowers us. In John 14.11-16 he empowers us to believe in Jesus; to do greater things than Jesus, to ask anything in Christ's name, and the Father will do it, to love and keep God's commandments. There are five paraclete-sayings (ln.14.15-17; Jn.14.25-26; Jn.15.26-27; Jn.16.7-11 and Jn.16.11-15). They have a progression in thought and all are thematically related with Jn.15.26-27 as the central one.
In Paul, the Holy Spirit empowers us evangelistically. We are given the ministry of reconciliation (2Co.5.18), that is, to reconcile men to God through preaching the Gospel. It is called the ministry of the Spirit (2Co.3.2). The Gospel is the power of God to salvation to all who believe (Rom.1.16). For Paul, the proper preaching of the Gospel, is to preach the Gospel "in the power and demonstration of the Spirit" (1Co.2.14). If the Holy Spirit is not in the preaching, then the preaching is powerless, and will be ineffective.
Though John does not speak about the preaching of the Gospel by the disciples in relation to the Holy Spirit, that does not mean to say that the Spirit's empowering for believers to live for the Lord does not include that possibility. The Holy Spirit enables the disciples of Jesus to: glorify Christ (Jn.16.14); to witness to/for Christ because the Spirit is a witness (Th.15.26; 1Th.5.7); to bring to recall and understanding Christ's teachings (Th.14.26); be guided in the truth - both believing the truth and doing the truth (Jn.16.13); to see the things to come (Jn.16.13); to keep the Lord's commandments in love to both our Lord and our brothers (1.1n3.24; 1Th.4.13). Paul sees a further empowering which John does not mention: in suffering for Christ's sake. Preaching the Gospel is the main reason why we suffer for Christ. We face persecution and affliction because we are involved in preaching the Gospel. In fact, Paul challenges some of his opponents within the church, like the Judaizers, that he suffers more than them because he preaches the Gospel without circumcision (Ga1.5.11-12). All these persecutions and afflictions he is able to endure by the Holy Spirit (2Co.6.3-10, especially verse 6). Our empowering by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel is accomplished by the ability to endure persecutions for the Gospel's sake.
Mother point of Spirit-empowering, not found in John, is in the context of inter- edification in the Body or community of God's people. Firstly, the Spirit enables us to maintain the unity in the bond of peace (Eph.4.3). Secondly, he makes us ministers of the New Covenant (2Co.3.51). Thirdly, he enables us to confess that Jesus is Lord (1Co.12.3). So, we may relate to Jesus as the Head of the Church. Fourthly, he enables us to edify the Body through the gifts (xapictuara) he has given us (1Co.12; Rom.12.4-8; Eph.4.11-12).
Not only are we empowered by the Spirit's enabling, but also by the fact that we have a permanent indwelling as God's people (Jn.14.16). This is a theology of immanence, where we have fellowship with Father and Son because of the Spirit's indwelling. This is empowering for communion with God. (see also Eph.2.19-22). That means that the Holy Spirit encourages mysticism. j) The Spirit and Hope.
We know that John emphasises realised eschatology. Though not to the exclusion of future eschatology, John has nothing to say about the Holy Spirit in relation to future eschatology. Our discussion here would therefore mainly deal with Paul's 410 teaching in this regard, for Paul has much to say about future eschatology. Not only is hope related to our future, but also that our prayers would be successful, that is, hope for answered prayers.
Three words of importance connecting the Holy Spirit with future eschatology in Paul, are Appal-36v (first instalment or deposit), Arrapxfi (firstfruits) and 'seal'. These words have bearing on the future resurrection, or otherwise put, as our inheritance in Christ. We are fellow-heirs with Jesus Christ (Rom.8.16); therefore, what is due to Christ, is due to those who are in Christ also. How does the Holy Spirit feature in this regard?
Appcif36v (arratiOn) The word appears in 2Co.1.21-22; 2Co.5.5; and Eph.1.14). These verses show how this word functions in Paul, but first, its background very briefly. The deposit paid was the pledge to pay the rest of the agreed amount by the predetermined date. The deposit was payment in the same kind of the full settlement. Another meaning was that of an engagement as a full pledge to marry without the possibility to withdraw. The first payment is a guarantee of what is to come or what is promised. The Holy Spirit is that guarantee made to us by God himself (2Co.1.21; 2Co.5.5). That which is to come is that which is promised by God himself; our eternal inheritance and glory in Christ (2Co.1.21).
Arraprn (aparche). The word appears in Rom.8.23. The meaning is derived from an agricultural setting. It is the sample portion that precedes the full harvest. The firstfruits exactly show what can be expected in the harvest. It has in mind the full release from this earthly body and its "groaning" (2Co.5.2f). The Holy Spirit gives liberty (2Co.3.17). What we experience now is guaranteed to be fulfilled in the future.
411 Seal. The Holy Spit-it is also spoken of as a seal until our redemption (2Co.1.22; Eph.1.13). The seal validates our worthiness in Christ to obtain the promise of our inheritance. The seal, which is the Holy Spirit shows that we belong to God, and that guarantees our bodily redemption, that is to inherit an eternal glory.
Prayer. In Rom.8.26 we are told that the Holy Spirit intercedes on our behalf when we engage in prayer. He helps us in our praying, and knowing the mind of God, he is able to help us pray according to the will of God. In John we find a similar function of the Spirit; that in the day when the Spirit comes, whatever we ask the Father in the name of Jesus he will give to us (Jn.16.23). g) The Spirit and the World.
Here John has more to say than Paul. Paul does not say anything where the Spirit is directly involved in the world. In fact our understanding of John also sees the Holy Spirit's activity to the world as coming through the believers. Of importance in John, is Jn.16.8-11. This passage needs to be understood in the light of Jn.14.13 where we are told that the world cannot receive nor see the Holy Spirit.
The primary function of the Spirit to the world (in John) is that of accuser. We have already stated that the paraclete is also understood as advocate. He is a defence-advocate to the believers, and an accusing-advocate of the world (Th.16.8- 11). He convicts the world of its sin, its righteousness, and its judgement. Its sin makes it guilty before God; its righteousness is not genuine righteousness and its judgement is not just. It is guilty of sin because it did not believe in Jesus; its righteousness will be exposed by the Holy Spirit because he will take over the work of Jesus who is going to the Father; it will be convicted of judgement
412 because Satan already stands condemned. All this the Spirit will do through the believer, through preaching.
For Paul the only contact between the Spirit and the world is through the preaching of the Gospel. When the believer preaches the Gospel, it is with deep conviction and the power of the Holy Spirit (ITh.1.5). The Word is the 'sword of the Spirit' (Eph.6.17) and is the only way to reach the world. Without the Spirit, the Gospel will be ineffective (1Co.2.4-5).
Conclusion. For both Paul and John the Spirit is the mode of God's dwelling in us. We cannot live our Christian lives without the enabling of the Holy Spirit. We are God's sons because we have been bbrn of the Spirit. Our sonship is confirmed by the fact that the Holy Spirit leads us. Our sonship qualifies us in the Kingdom of God to obtain eternal life.
Both Paul and John understand the Spirit as one who comes upon us and abides with us. In this way we identify with Christ and we become part of the Body of Christ. In this way we have fellowship with the Father and the Son as the Holy Spirit indwells us.
Again, both Paul and John see the Holy Spirit as the life-giving Spirit. He flows forth from us to provide life for others who believe in Christ through us. He provides for us an inward renewal so that we may become more like Christ. This is ethically expressed in lives of holiness.
It is only through the Spirit that we can worship God acceptably. Those who worship God must worship him in Spirit and in truth. The Holy Spirit provides the believer with the ability to worship God in a way compatible with his character or
413 nature. We are made alive spiritually so that we can worship a spiritual God. The Spirit is the Spirit of truth and helps us to worship in truth.
The Holy Spirit, for both Paul and John, is God's empowering presence. He enables us ethically, evangelistically, in endurance through suffering and to edify others in the community. We are unable to do any of these things unless the Holy Spirit enables us.
In Paul we learn that the Spirit provides us with hope for the future resurrection and inheritance of eternal life. He is the guarantee that these will come to us, and he is the foretaste of the goodness of our eternal blessings in Christ. Our sealing with the Holy Spirit definitely qualifies us for the eternal inheritance.
Through us, the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement. In our preaching with the power of the Holy Spirit, those who belong to Christ will come to faith in Christ.
We have a close and intimate relationship, both indicatively and imperatively; that the only conclusion we may come to, is that Spirit-mysticism is a reality in both Paul and John's understanding.
4.5 particjpatiQfficcgmnathgys
All our discussions on mysticism are overarched by one word: "fellowship". Mysticism is in essence fellowship with the Trinitarian God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - made possible by His coming to be with us; not us ascending to Him. All believers, and only believers, have fellowship with God. But how does this fellowship become obvious? When we are able to have fellowship with our 414 brothers. Though in this case we cannot speak of "mysticism", for that involves
God, we may speak of true fellowship which is based upon love. We cannot have true fellowship where there is no love. It is in loving fellowship that we reflect the relationship between the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. This loving fellowship we call "participation koinonology", for as we participate with/in our brothers, we participate in the God who indwells them.
The blessings that come to us through Christ, are to be blessings shared among us so that the Body may be edified and develop into the glorious bride of our Lord
Jesus, and sharing that we are sons of God, belonging to the household of God.
We are a divine community and we live as a community based on the loving and redemptive work of Christ.
We are all united in Christ, and we know that Christ prayed for our unity
(In.17.11). Though John says nothing specifically about the ekklesia, he says much, by way of allusions, about the unity of believers. The believers have a special identity: as those who are 'in Christ' and 'abiding in him'. We are the people of God who will testify to his lordship over us, and we would do so best by being the loving and united people as they share in true fellowship. We shall now compare Paul and John's teaching in this regard.
a) Without Christ - to be from below'
For Paul, the whole of humanity are by nature servants of sin, and hence, their reward is death (Rom.6.23). They have the nature of Adam, who is called the
"earthly man" (1Co.15.48). Man's culpability as a sinner is emphasised by the
Law (Rom.7.7), and the Law proves us all to be sinners. The sting of death is sin
(1Co.15.56). Paul draws a conclusion on humanity's state: that we are all under
415 sin (Rom.3.19) and we all are desperately in need of God's grace to save us from death.
John recognises man's sinfulness and sees the gracious act of God in Christ. Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (Jn.1.29). The idea of man without Christ comes out forcefully in the Johannine writing, especially in his dualistic approach. They are the people of unbelief - they do not believe in Jesus and would therefore not receive him (Jn.1.10-11). They are men and women who are from this world, that is "from below" (Jn.8.23). This coincides with Paul's "earthly man" concept. They are sinners by way of their disobedience - they do not obey the commandments of God (lJn.2.3), and they walk in darkness (lJn.2.9,11). As with Paul, where the Law accentuated sin, so John sees those outside Christ as committing lawlessness because they commit sin (lJn.3.4). The only place where our sins can be taken away is at the cross with the blood of Jesus (lJn.1.7,9).
Paul refers to the unregenerate man as the enemy of God (Rom.5.9f; Co1.1.21). Sinful man is hostile to God because of his sinful and rebellious nature (Rom.8.7). As the enemies of God, we are objects of his wrath (Eph.2.3). Jesus came to cancel the hostility, for what man needed most, was to be reconciled to God. Jesus is our peace, and by him we have been reconciled to God. The person without Christ is not reconciled to God, and nobody can be reconciled without Christ (Eph.2.16). We were brought near by the blood of Christ (Eph.2.13).
In John, this hostility comes through as rejection of Christ (Jn.1.11; Jn.5.43; Jn.12.48) and in their contempt towards Jesus (Jn.9.34). They who deny Christ are defined by John as the antichrist (lJn.2.22), and the very name John uses here expresses their hostility toward Christ. But Christ gave himself to be "a propitiation" for our sins (1.1n.2.2). God loved us and sent his Son to be "a
416 propitiation" for our sins (lJn.4.10). Such is the reconciling work of Christ in John.
Both Paul and John see unbelievers as being of the world. If we go by John's depiction of worldliness - as men and women of the flesh who lust after fleshly things and who are proud (lin.2.15-17)-, then Paul agrees with John, that the unbelievers are those who live according to the flesh (Rom.8.5-8) and they cannot please God. They cannot submit to God's Law. They are the children of disobedience (Eph.2.2). As in John, they live to gratify the sinful nature (the flesh) (Eph.2.3). Both Paul and John say that they are children of the devil - Paul calls the devil: "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph.2.2) and he works in the children of disobedience; John refets to them simply as the children of the devil (lJn.3.10; Jn.8.44). Those who, by faith, will receive Jesus, will become the sons of God (Jn.1.12; Rom.8.15), rather then the sons of Satan.
Especially John, refers to those without Christ as those who have no part in him (Jn.13.8 cf. Jn.6.54). They have not been "washed" by the Lord. John says of them, that they do not know God (lJn.4.6; Jn.8.19), and they cannot see him (Jn.14.17). They are spiritually blind. Paul confirms John's statement about their blindness (2Co.3.14; 2Co.4.4; Eph.4.18). They are yet in darkness (lJn.2.11). Knowledge and sight (for the things of God) come by believing in Jesus.
All men are lost without Christ. They are from below, servants of sin, loving this world and enemies of God. But we are saved, born from above, servants of righteousness and love God and his people, who have been reconciled to him by the death of Jesus Christ. We have been saved by his grace and have responded by faith. In this, do all believers find commonality - in Christ and the salvation he provides. We are not without Christ; we are in him, and in him we are united as his people, the new community of God. 417 b) A New Community.
As we have said; there is only one place of human unification - that is in Christ. Such unification forms the church. These two concepts; being 'in Christ' and 'in the church' are inseparable. It is the place which for the believer is inclusive, egalitarian and united. That makes for true koinonia; it is where we have real fellowship, for we can only have such when it is inclusive, egalitarian and united. The new community is so characterised.
Paul sees humanity in two ways: without Christ and in Christ. There is a solidarity of mankind, which is, that they are united in Adam. We share in the Adamic nature. What is true of Adam is true of us, and among other things, we, like him, have the sinful nature. Through Adam, death has been passed on to all men, for all have sinned (Rom.5.12). Sin and mortality go together. However, this solidarity corresponds with the solidarity men-in-Christ have with the Last Adam (1Co.15.45). Christ is the Last Adam and the progenitor of a new race, the people of God. The Last Adam brings life and not death like the first Adam; "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive" (1Co.15.22). This new solidarity Paul calls the Body and the Church (Rom.12.5; 1Co.12.27; Eph.1.23 and Eph.1.22; Eph.5.23 respectively). They are a corporate identity. Participation koinonology is the expression of new life on a corporate level.
John also sees believers as joined together in Jesus. They are all branches of the vine and they abide in him. Our unity is first with Christ before it is with each other. We find our unity in him. Moreover, life is to be found in this new union, the new community of Christ (Th.15.5). In this way John also sees a solidarity between believers and Christ, as it is so by nature between the vine and its branches. Fruit-bearing is just as natural in this solidarity. Barren branches are not part of the vine. The Father sees to that (Jn.15.1-2). There can therefore be no 418 secret-disciples like Nicodemus. Jesus' disciples do not love their reputation with the people more than they love Christ (in.12.42-43). Their solidarity is with Christ.
Paul sees the new community's as united in Christ, and this unity is brought about by the Holy Spirit (1Co.12.13). We are baptised into the church which Paul elsewhere shortens to being baptised into Christ (Ga1.3.27). In this community, the believer is encouraged to maintain the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph.4.3). Now Paul can speak of one Lord, One God, One Body and One Spirit (Eph.4.4). Through the reconciling death of the Lord Jesus Christ, there is community between God and believers and thus, community between believer and believer (Eph.2.14-22).
Also, for John this unity is brought about through Jesus. The idea of temple, one flock, fold and vine express the fact of our unity in Christ. This unity is confirmed in the Epistle of John. It is a unity that binds Father, Son and believer (1Jn.1.3). This unity is community and what holds this community together is love (Th.17.26 cf. Jn.14.21,23) and loyalty (Jn.10.4-5,16). Love is characterised by giving and loyalty by faithfulness - keeping the Lord's Word.
In Paul, the new community is a new creation (Eph.2.10; 2Co.5.17). Sin and death has no more dominion over them (Rom.6.11-14). They are no longer controlled by external things (Ga1.6.15; Co12.10; 1Co.5.7). They are controlled by the Spirit from whence they derive their sonship. In John's creation motif he brings out the same idea of new life through logos (Christ) and pneuma (Spirit) as the source of that new life (Th.1.4 and Jn.20.22-22 respectively). They are therefore in the Logos and controlled by the Pneuma.
419 This new community of Saints, the church, is a living organism which grows and bears fruit. It shows its vitality in that fruit-hearing which Paul calls edifying and ministry. It does more; it also worships God. Therefore, its vitality is expressed in worship, missions and inter-edification. Worship is directed to the Trinitarian God (Paul - Phil.3.3; John - Jn.4.24). Missionary activity is directed to the world (Paul - Eph.3.6; and John - Jn.4.28-30). Inter-edification is directed to the members of the Body so that they may grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord, becoming equipped for the ministry within the Body (Paul - Eph.4.11-I6 and John - 1.1n.3.2). As the reference to John indicates, edification tends towards Christ- likeness in the believer.
We glean from Paul's teaching that the Body reflects on inter-dependency of members, which demands fellowship for edification to happen. Edification is characterised by mutuality and reciprocation within the Body and among the members. We are encouraged in this new community to: love one another, serve one another, pray for one another, care for one another, admonish one another, etc. The operative phrase is "one another" (Paul - e.g.. Rom.13.8; Rom.14.5; Rom.15.5; Ga1.5.13; Eph.4.2; and John - 1Jn.3.11,28,1.1n.4.7; 2Jn.5).
The community is also seen as a new nation. Paul sees the church as the new Israel (Ga1.6.16). For him the church has replaced national Israel as the people of God. Though, in His faithfulness, God has not forgotten Israel (Paul's countrymen), and God will save "all (true) Israel" (Rom.11.26). The Gentiles in the church, who were foreigners and not of the commonwealth of Israel, have been brought near by the cross (Eph.2.12). The church is a new nation, the Israel of God.
This is true for John as well, even though it only features implicitly in Jn.11.45- 52. When the Jews are called e01 ,63 by Caiaphus in the Gospel, they are dismissed as the people of God. Though the people (Xci63) is intended for the Jews, John 420 means that the people of God are those for whom Jesus died. That means for the church. Also, John's understanding of what a genuine Israelite is (Nathanael -
Jn.1.48); the one who receives and acknowledges Jesus in the way Nathanael did.
All who acknowledge and believe in Jesus, are according to John, true Israelites
(cf. Jn.8.36-47).
This new community is the people of God. They exist as a united people joined together in Jesus Christ. Their existence is as a new creation, a living organism able to grow and propagate its life. Together they have an intimate relationship with God. As a new nation, they are God's witnesses in this world. On these aspects, both Paul and John agree. c) AjthuedsmfWiyincianaty„ •
The crux of our discussion here, is that the Family of God consists of both Jews and Gentiles, and that the church is that Family That Jews and Gentiles should be one, is a concept that no Jew would easily accept. They would have thought it an impossibility. It is possible only in Jesus Christ.
We have already discussed and compared Paul and John on the aspects of unity in the church. We have shown that they are in agreement in this regard. Let it suffice to say that Jews prayed for their unity and in him, through the Holy Spirit, unity is real in the church. Paul expresses this unity in the image of Body and the specific mention of it being One Body (Eph.4.4).
The Gospel is for Paul, the power of God to salvation for both Jews and Gentiles
(Rom.1.16). Both Jews and Gentiles responded to the Gospel by faith, and through their faith they have received eternal life, or salvation. Both Jews and Gentiles are now the elect (1Co.1.2,24) and they are the called in Christ (1Co.11.16). Men are 421 called together from all nations. By this act of God, our calling, God formed the Church, which Paul calls "the Church of God" (2Co.1.1).
John does not make a direct statement in this regard. In the development of his narrative, John shows that the Samaritan woman (Jn.4) was a believer and a recipient of the living water. Not only her, but all those who believed through her testimony. This together with the already discussed text, Jn.11.45-52, we have ample indication that the people of God consists of all who believe regardless of race. The conclusion concurs with Paul's statement, that the church consists of both Jews and Gentiles.
Paul and John use very similar images in the olive tree (Paul) and the vine (John) to depict Christian unity. The Pauline imagery definitely connects Jews and Gentiles in the same body, showing the corporation of the true people of God. John shows the same unity of the people of God in the vine, but without reference to the racial make-up. We have no reason to believe that Johnll differs from Paul.
There are Jewish images that are applied to the church as well. As the Jews are, so too are the Gentiles who believe, of the seed of Abraham (Paul - Ga1.3.27-29; John - Jn.8.36-47 by implication). In Paul alone are believers referred to as the "circumcised" (Eph.2.11; Rom.2.28-29; Phil.3.3). He goes on to say that neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision matter, but a new creation (Ga1.6.15). Believers in Christ are the true Israelites (Ga1.6.16). Common to both Paul and John is the concept that believers are the temple of God, including both Jews and Gentiles in Paul (1Co.3.16; Eph.2.11-22). John makes no mention of race (Jn.7.37-39; that God dwells in and among them Jn.14.17; IJn.2.27).
11 That John often mentions the Jews in a negative light (as the opposition to the protagonist, Jesus) could also be interpreted as Gentile-sympathetic. 422 Again, both Paul and John agree that the believers are part of God's family. The whole concept of Father and sons may be derived from both Paul and John. In Paul we are sons of God by the act of adoption (Rom.8.15; Ga1.4.5; Eph.1.5) and are heirs of God (Rom.8.17). In John, receiving the Son, Jesus Christ, qualifies us to be sons of God (Jn.1.12). Becoming, or qualifying to become sons, is also employing the symbolism of adoption. Therefore both agree that we are adopted as sons into the family of God. The whole idea is strengthened by the dwelling-motif in both Paul and John. The Father and the Son dwell in us (Paul - Eph.2.21-22; John - Iln.1.3; Jn.14.23).
Through the cross of Christ, the middle wall of hostility which existed between Jews and Gentiles, has been broken down (Eph.2.14). Jesus, our peace, has abolished the hostility between us, and has created one new man in himself (Eph.2.15). He is now able to reconcile both Jews and Gentiles to God (Eph.2.16). The Gentiles are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and members of the household of God (Eph.2.19). d) Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
It is almost unnecessary to compare Paul and John on this point, for we know that traditionally they should agree on these ordinances practised faithfully in the churches of God. Also, because John says nothing in this regard, except in a veiled way. John gives no teaching in this regard, and therefore does not give an interpretation as does Paul. Our discussion only seeks to highlight its ecclesiastical significance.
Paul sees both of these ordinances as instituted to remember Christ's death and resurrection. Baptism is a once-off act of obedience at the beginning of the Christian life, and the Eucharist is a perpetual reminder and commemoration until 423 he comes again. These are both to be practised as a form of identifying with Christ in his death and resurrection and with his people. These are acts of obedience.
John's three mentions of baptism (Christ's baptism by John the Baptizer and Christ as baptizer through his disciples) endorses the practice in the believing community. His allusion to baptism in the dialogue between Christ and Nicodemus shows its importance in the process of entering the Kingdom of God (Jn.3.5). Other allusions are valid for consideration - In.13 (the foot-washing scene) and lJn.5.6-8. Important for John is the absolute need to identify with the community by public confession. Baptism was a way of doing the same. This was the social significance of baptism and the Eucharist. For Paul baptism also entailed renouncing the old way of life. It was a commitment to?a new life in Christ (Rom.6.4). Baptism was a pledge to holy living - it was identifying with Christ. It meant also being baptised into Christ - into his death, burial and resurrection. It was for Paul a way of participating in Christ. The imagery of 1.Co.10.2 supports baptism by immersion, and it always followed believing and confession (Act 2.41; 8.36-37; 16.14-15; and 16.31-33). Baptism was not part of the core of the Gospel (1Co.1.13-17). Baptism is closely connected to baptism in the Spirit in Paul (1Co.12.13; Ga1.3.27). Important is that faith precedes baptism. Spirit-baptism is for Paul a placement into the Body (1Co.12.13).
The Lord's Supper was a celebration of the cross and resurrection. It was for a remembrance of the Lord personally, and for what he has done in redemption. The Lord's Table is seen as a unifying event for the community. Together, we share in Christ's death and resurrection. "Though we are many", Paul says, "we partake of one bread" (1Co.10.16-17). This is the heart of communal life of God's people - sharing in the meal. That is why it is called "communion". It is when the community has fellowship. We come together, to eat together as we remember him together. There should be no segregation here. 424 John alludes to something more intimate with Christ himself (Jn.6.51-58), and quite in keeping with other Gospel accounts. We are enjoined to eat and drink Jesus' flesh and blood respectively. Bread denotes his flesh and the drink (wine) is his blood. Eating and drinking is receiving Jesus and the life he has to offer. Eating and drinking was to identify with the community. Not eating and drinking was to exclude one's self from the community and the possibility of eternal life (Jn.6.53). If indeed the allusions mentioned intend the ordinances, then the agreement between Paul and John is remarkable. e) Theldentiad_theliadys
The Body consists of many members; yet it is a corporate whole. The "many" speaks of its diversity, therefore we may speak of a "unity in diversity". Within this body there is a diversity of gifts, functions and ministries given by the same Spirit. Therefore, the Body is a charismatic community in Paul's mind. This community of believers has a corporate identity known by its messenger-character. Paul tells us about that identity, while John talks about the shaliach (messenger) character of this community.
In Paul the community corporate is known in different ways, which has no direct parallel in John. By way of mention only, it is known as: The Body of Christ (e.g.. Eph.4.4) The Israel of God (Ga1.6.16) The People of God (Rom.9.25; Tit.2.11,14) The Bride (2Co.11.2; Eph.5.22f) The Temple of God (Eph.2.20-22cf 1Co.3.16; 1Co.6.19) The Church (1Co.1.1; 1Co.10.32; 1Co.11.22; etc.)
425 In John's Shaliach motif, we learn that those who honour the Son, also honour the Father. Jesus requires his disciples to fulfil the role of messengers sent by Him, which is the role he played in relation to the Father. The Father sent him; so does he send us. As the one who sends is greater than the one sent, Jesus commands us: To love as he loved (Jn.13.34; Jn.15.9-10) To do as he has done - serve (Jn.13.14-15) - To be one as he and the Father are one (Jn.17.11,21-23) To be sent as he was sent (in.17.18; Jn.20.21) To walk in the light as he is in the light (lJn.1.7) To walk as he walked (lJn.2.6) - To be righteous as he is righteous (1.1n.3.7) In John then, our corporate identity is in Christ; we must be what he is, and this concurs with Paul's "in Christ".
It is in our common identity that we. are one, and share in real horizontal fellowship. This horizontal fellowship cannot really exist unless there is a vertical fellowship. Therefore "mysticism" and fellowship go together. Vertically, "mysticism" includes fellowship with God. Horizontally, fellowship is not mystical apart from the fact that in our horizontal relationships, we need the vertical to provide its vitality. God loves, therefore we love.
Conclusion: That man is saved by the grace of God is a fact that both Paul and John accept; for man's existence without Christ is one of hostility towards God. Only in Christ may we be reconciled to God. When we are reconciled then we are born from above, and only when we are born from above, may we have fellowship with the One from above - the living God and his Christ. All those who are born from above are then able to have fellowship because they are in Christ.
426 Being born from above, makes us a new creation in Christ. As a new creation we have a new union of individuals in him. We have a new existence in what we may call a new community living on the rule of love and loyalty to our God and our brothers. In relation to God this new community is a new nation consisting of the new people of God.
With God as our Father, we are members of the Family of God, because in Christ we are children of God. As children we share in the inheritance of Christ and all the benefits due to him are also ours. Together with him we are members of the household of God.
In Christ Jesus, all men who believie, Jews and Gentiles, are one people of God. Christ has taken away whatever hostility existed and has made us one new man. The Gentiles who were strangers and foreigners are now part of the commonwealth of Israel - the true Israel of God. We may have full and unhindered fellowship across racial, economic, social and sexual lines. Our fellowship is characterised by a unity in the bond of peace.
Christ's Body unites all believers who are members with diverse gifts, ministries and functions into one, so that there exists a unity in diversity. As a community of love, loyalty and fellowship, we are able with our diverse giftings to edify each other. Edification is aimed at getting this body to grow into the full measure and image of its head, Jesus Christ.
In the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper we identify with each other. First, we identify with our Lord and Saviour; then, we identify with each other. In baptism and the meal we together remember and celebrate the Lord, his death and resurrection. We celebrate his benefits and blessings to us.
427 As the community of saints, our corporate identity is really for us a privilege of being known and associated by and with Jesus Christ. In that association we are open to his sending and commissioning as witnesses for him in the world. We love to be known as witnesses of the Lord of glory.
428 CHAPTER 5.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF THIS COMPARISON TO NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY.
Together, the Pauline Corpus and the Johannine Corpusl , account for about forty eight percent of the New Testament. That is nearly half, and is therefore to be considered a significant portion of the New Testament. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that findings here must have bearing on the New Testament as such. Of all the New Testament writings, they represent the middle to late Apostolic era. Some even place the Johannine writings in the second century. We see it as a late first century composition. Dating however, has very little impact on our conclusion. Our point however, is that, by the time of these writings, Christian theology and doctrine must have developed to its full apostolic and biblical understanding.
Because we are not dealing with the whole of the New Testament, we will not propose a NT Theology as such, but will propose a structure which contributes to NT Theology within its existing general structure. We need to establish what impact the mystical approach has on the task of doing NT Theology. Is "mysticism" sufficiently significant to impact NT Theology? How will it impact NT Theology? How does it relate to other doctrines of the New Testament? These are some of the questions to be considered here.
We shall try to define the important considerations for doing NT Theology in general2 . From it, we shall derive our particular approach and see how it interacts
l Excluding the Apocalypse.
2We extensively use Gerhard Hasel's work: New Testament Theology: Issues in the Current Debate. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publ.Co. 1978. We do not quite intend to quote from it extensively, but we intend to glean from it the pertinent questions and considerations.
429 with the pertinent questions and considerations of doing NT Theology. We shall, by means of a grid establish our particular layout for NT Theology, showing its level of meeting the criteria as a viable structure. The criteria will be developed as we consider the pertinent questions for doing NT Theology, and the questions above.
5.1 Considerationsfor doing NT Theology
There are certain minimum considerations which must be taken into account when we do NT Theology. These would include: a) The issue of method. What method will we employ for our Theology? This, in effect, has already been answered when we dealt with the formal issues in Chapter 1. We are employing three methods: i) the literary-compilative method, ii) the descriptive method, and iii) Scriptural interpretation which employs the biblicaL- exegetical method, The first, interacts with other modern authors; the second deals with the actual Pauline and Johannine theologies; and the third with the Scriptural texts.
The literary-compilative method takes into account what general scholarship has to say on the various themes discussed. We use a wide variety of authors; those we agree with and those we do not agree with, in order to arrive at our own conclusions. The descriptive method explains the theological interaction of both Paul and John. While this method may be employed by both believer and agnostic, we need to state that we base ours on the presupposition of faith. The descriptive method is essentially describing the theology of the church. There is an unfolding of the New Testament message, and this is conceptualised in theology. The biblical-exegetical method considers for the most, only the biblical material. Exegesis is using the grammatico-
430 historical approach of interpretation of the biblical material. These three methods are employed within the salvation-historical principle of doing NT Theology.
Even though we do contrast Hebrew and Greek secular thought to that of Paul and John in our first chapter, we mainly use biblical history to interpret Pauline and Johannine thought. This establishes our first important link with the rest of the Bible in the interests of continuity with the rest of Scripture - Old Testament and New Testament. Furthermore, this is also complimentary to our salvation-historical approach.
The historical discipline; it is a positive approach: The Salvation-historical approach considers the history of galvation in the Bible only. We do not consider extra-canonical writings. Even though we talk about Old Testament, Inter-testamental, New Testament, and Church history in the first chapter, our discussion in Paul and John only takes into account the history from John the Baptizer to the separation of the Church from the Synagogue. The nature of salvation-history uses faith as a presupposition, and sees revelation as an important component within history. Theology must be a theological-historical discipline. Yes, we have historical witnesses who spoke, and wrote within their historical milieu. At the same time, as prophets and apostles, they are theological witnesses, who spoke on behalf of God. Both history and theology are at the service of faith.
The concepts of doctrine (Lehrbegnff). This puts the New Testament writers side by side to see where and how they connect. We have applied this method to compare Paul and John. Their doctrines were placed alongside each other to reproduce their combined religio-ethical thought. We have considered their doctrinal content, the prevailing Christian consciousness and the presentation of that consciousness. We basically showed what they believed, thought, taught, hoped and required.
431 d) The matter of approach. There are various approaches to doing NT Theology. The existentialist approach3 is strictly anthropological. It is based purely on history, and accepts nothing supra-historical. It has as its basic tenets: to use the history of religions as a basis for understanding the biblical religion; it is historical-critical and discards anything that is not natural history, or derived from natural causes; it is always involved in demythologising, so stripping the kerygma from its mystical framework. It makes reconstruction of the biblical material unavoidable; and it always sees a development of doctrine. The Historical and historical-critical approach are closely allied to the existentialist approach. They also have the problem of operating in the closed continuum of natural causes and reconstruction. We do not align ourselves with these approaches.
There is the Thematic approach4. This approach considers the ideas and themes of the specified biblical authors. It may follow a specified sequence of themes - themes according to the apostolic faith or whatever Christian faith sequence. There are generally four major themes: i) Creation - it deals with themes of world, time and man; ii) Revelation - this deals with God, Jesus, redemption, Spirit and Trinity; iii) Christian life - this deals with issues of church and ethics, and iv) God's dominion - here we deal with aspects of Kingdom, consummation and eschatology. This approach is mainly descriptive and interpretational according to the leading figures - God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit and man. The problem with this approach, is its selectivity, and other themes may he forced into its mould. We employ this approach in this treatise.
Then, there is the Salvation-historical approach5 . It brings out the biblical tension between the "already" and the "not yet" with Jesus Christ as the centre of time; where
3see Hasel, pp 82-95.
4see Hasel, pp 73-82.
5see Hasel, pp 111-132.
432 there is a linear time-concept. It treats history in epochs. Both Paul and John have a post-resurrection "faith-image" of Jesus. In this approach, we consider the event (what actually happened), interpretation (what the event means), the faith (how the interpretation is appropriated), the constantAthsuntingency (the former is the important connecting factors with other events, and the latter is regarded as of peripheral importance), and the consolidation (how it is expressed). In this approach the interpretation has theological significance. This approach is not so concerned with the "naked" events of fact, but also with the biblical traditions. We may speak of traditio-historical facts. The kerygma is the appropriation of the accounts and their interpretation. Revelation plays an important role in salvation-history. The selection of events is determined by the plan of God. The redemptive work of Jesus Christ is in the centre of Salvation-history. Salvation-history has a relationship to the present. This approach is descriptive.
A canon within the canon. 6 A canon within the canon could be created, especially when one uses proof texts. Some methods and/or approaches support the principle of "canon within the canon". Many, trying to find the center of the NT, also find themselves supporting or proposing a canon within the canon. It is our belief that this should be avoided since all Scripture is God-breathed; not that the Bible "contains the Word of God". Therefore, the method we chose does not lend itself to canon- criticism. A canon within the canon cannot do justice to the totality of the New Testament. It is based on uncontrolled subjectivity and selectivity.
The question of unity. This is related to that of a canon within the canon. Those who engage in canon-criticism would not seek to see a unity in the New Testament, and for that matter within the whole Bible. Our consideration here is not so much
6see Hasel, pp 164-170.
433 textual unity, but theological unity and the question of center. Is there a single center or a multiplicity of centers? Is there one theology or a diversity of theologies?
When we talk about a center, we need to distinguish between a unifying center or an organising center. The first unifies the New Testament, so that all its parts find a coherence to the whole. The latter organises the theological themes of the New Testament. In both cases, the center should enable the essential parts of the New Testament to be grasped. The problems that face us in this regard, are those of a canon within the canon, and the multiplicity of proposals 7 . It suggests the impossibility of finding that center without creating a canon within the canon.
The question of continuity with the Old Testament8. There needs to be a movement between the Testaments. Concepts like Law/Gospel; shadow/reality; promise/fulfilment; and "the Holy Scriptures" in the New Testament, can demonstrate a continuity between the Testaments.. New Testament quotations of the Old Testament; historical connections (e.g.. God's people); use of the same vocabulary for every key theological concept; and coinciding themes (creation, promise, faith, election, righteousness, love, sin, forgiveness, judgement, salvation, eschatology, messiah, people of God, etc.), all show a continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Also, in areas of typology, salvation-history, and unity of perspectives do we find continuity.
The matter of presuppositions. We all cannot escape coming with our presuppositions to any discipline of study. We need to identify those presuppositions, and state them, so that a defence for your presuppositions need not be repeated or
7Because of this precise problem, Beker proposes the posibility of locating a center within (Paul's) the authors thought, rather than in his theology. This, he says would probably force us to look for a subtextual center with all their actual theological doctrines as contingent situations. In this way, "reconstruction" will stand in the service of interpretation. (1989:352-365).
8see Hasel, pp 171-203.
434 even furnished. We come to this dissertation stating our presuppositions: i) Trinitarian belief; ii) Conservative paradigm; iii) Faith as the basis for any theological interaction; and iv) belief that the entire Bible is the Word of God, the only Scriptural revelation from God. Our discussions will therefore take these for granted and as basic ground facts.
With all these considerations mentioned and explained, we shall now proceed by applying our comparison between Pauline and Johannine mysticism to these criteria to establish our particular approach to NT Theology. We shall, in any case, use the layout already given in the three previous chapters as a layout for our proposed structure.
5.2 Concepts of Doctrine derived from the Comparison
A. Eschatological Framework Paul/John?9 Major Theme/s Mystical?
Historical Jesus John Revelation No
Jesus the eschatos Paul Revelation Indirect
Jesus, New Adam-New Creation Paul/John Creation Yes
Eschatology, a present reality Paul/John God's dominion Indirect
Salvation present-eternal life Paul/John Revelation Indirect
Judgement present Paul/John God's dominion No
Justification Paul Revelation Indirect
Condemnation Paul/John God's dominion No
Substitution Paul (John) Revelation No
Liberation Paul/John Revelation Indirect
Faith-means Paul/John Christian life Yes
9Brackets depict by allusion or by implication only.
435 Eschatological Framework (cont.) Paul/John? Major Theme/s Mystical?
Resurrection present Paul/John God's dominion/Christian life Yes
Baptism-resurrection Paul Christian life Yes
Holy Spirit present Paul/John Revelation Yes
Baptism-Spirit Paul (John) Christian life Yes
Spirit indwelling believer Paut/John Christian life Yes
Spirit, a guarantee Paul Christian life Yes
Salvation future Paul/John God's dominion/Revelation No
Judgement future Paul/John God's dominion No
Resurrection future Paul/John God's dominion/Revelation No
Parousia future Paul/John God's dominion/Revelation No
"Antichrist" future Paul/John Creation/God's dominion No
Kingdom present/future Paul/John God's dominion/Creation Indirect
B. Participation Theology Paul/John? Major Theme/s Mystical?
Mono-theistic Paul/John Revelation No
God is Father Paul/John Revelation Yes
Divine election Paul/John Creation/God's dominion No
Election, pre-determined Paul (John) Creation/God's dominion No
Indirect "reprobationism" John Creation/God's dominion No
God, initiator Paul/John Revelation Indirect
Adoption as children Paul/John Revelation/Christian life Yes
God calls Paul/John Revelation/creation Yes
Purpose, Christ-likeness Paul (John) Christian life Indirect
Reconciliation to God Paul (John) Revelation Yes
Peace with God Paul Christian life Yes
God loves Paul/John Revelation Yes
God, gives to Christ John Revelation/creation Yes
God's ownership of us Paul/John Revelation Yes
436 Participation Theology (cont.) Paul/John? Major Theme/s Mysticism?
We can know God Paul/John Christian life Yes
God, involved with saints Paul/John Christian life Yes
God blesses saints Paul/John Christian life Yes
God's sons - free Paul/John Revelation/Christian life Indirect
Christ, first-born Paul (John) Revelation Indirect
Household of God concept Paul (John) Christian life Yes
God indwelling believers Paul/John Revelation/Christian life Yes
God, tree dresser Paul/John Revelation/Christian life Yes
God, keeper (Paul) John Revelation/God's dominion Yes
Christ, mediates God's love Paul/John Revelation Yes
Christ reveals God Paul/John Revelation Yes
Saints, access to God Paul Revelation/Christian life Yes
C. Participation Christology Paul/John? Major/Theme/s Mysticism?
Christ, reveals God Paul/John Revelation No
Christ, expresses God's love Paul/John Revelation No
Christ, object of faith Paul/John Christian life Indirect
Christ's righteousness for us Paul Revelation Indirect
Christ, mediator to God Paul/John Revelation Yes
Christ, our dwelling Paul/John Christian life Yes
Christ, last Adam - New Creation Paul (John) Creation Yes
Identifying with Christ Paul/John Christian life Yes
Clothed with Christ Paul Christian life Yes
'Christ in us' - imperative Paul/John Christian life Yes
'In Christ' - indicative Paul/John Christian life Yes
Christ, temple John Revelation Yes
Christ, our hope Paul Revelation Yes
Partaking of Christ Paul/John Revelation/Christian life Yes
437 Participation Christology (cont.) Paul/John? Major Theme/s Mysticism?
Participating in Christ's death Paul Christian life Yes
Participating in his resurrection Paul (John) Christian life Yes
Partaking of his body/blood Paul/John Christian life Yes
Participating in his glorification Paul Revelation Yes
Participating in his suffering Paul (John) Christian life Yes
Seated with Christ in heaven Paul Revelation/God's dominion Indirect
Participating in this victory Paul/John Revelation Yes
Christ, our peace Paul Revelation/Christian life Indirect
Christ, our substitute Paul (John) Revelation No
We are Christ's Paul/John Revelation Indirect
United in Christ Paul/John Christian life Yes
Cosmic redemption through Christ Paul God's dominion No
Eternal life Paul/John Revelation Indirect
Knowing Christ Paul/John Revelation/Christian life Yes
Imitating Christ Paul/John Christian life Indirect
Walking as he walked Paul/John Christian life Indirect
Union with God through Christ Paul/John Revelation/Christian life Yes
Christ, our access to God Paul/John Revelation Yes
Fellowship with Christ Paul/John Christian life Yes
D. Participation Pneumatology Paul/John? Major Theme/s Mystical?
The Spirit - from God & Christ Paut/John Revelation No
'Another paraclete John Revelation/Christian life Yes
Sponsor of new life Paul/John Creation Yes
God's dwelling by the Spirit Paul/John Christian life Yes
Fellowship with the Spirit PauUJohn Christian life Yes
Spirit gives life Paul/John Creation No
Spirit's inner witness Paul/John Christian life Yes
438 Participation Pneumatology (cont.) Paul/John? Major Theme/s Mystical?
Born of the Spirit Paul/John Christian life No
Promised Holy Spirit Paul/John Revelation Yes
Spirit, Seal Paul God's dominion Yes
Spirit, Guarantee Paul God's dominion Yes
Spirit and resurrection Paul Christian life/God's dominion Yes
Spirit and sonship / adoption Paul/John Christian life Yes
Spirit's Leading Paul/John Christian life Yes
Transformation by the Spirit Paul (John) Christian life Yes
Baptised in the Spirit Paul Christian life No
Body unity by the Spirit Paul Christian life Indirect
Unity with Christ by the Spirit ', Paul/John Revelation/Christian life Yes
Spirit descended John Revelation Yes
Spirit abides Paul/John Revelation/Christian life Yes
Spirit Flowing forth John Christian life Yes
Liberating Spirit Paul Revelation/creation Yes
Teacher - Spirit Paul/John Christian life Yes
Glorifying Spirit John Revelation Yes
Inward renewal Paul Christian life/creation Yes
Spirit, reminder Paul/John Revelation Yes
Spirit, enabler Paul/John Christian life Yes
Spirit for worship John Revelation/Christian life Yes
Spirit's temple Paul (John) Christian life Yes
Charismatic community Paul Christian life Indirect
Spirit, intercessor Paul/John Revelation/Christian life Yes
Spirit and preaching Paul Christian life Yes
Spirit as witness Paul/John Revelation Yes
Spirit's fruit Paul Christian life Yes
Spirit as 'deposit' Paul God's dominion Yes
439 Participation Pneumatology (cont.) Paul/John? Major Theme's Mystical?
Spirit as 'firstfruits' Paul God's dominion Yes
Spirit, convicts the world John God's dominion No
E. Participation Koinonology Paul/John? Major Theme/s Mystical?
Loving fellowship with brothers Paul/John Christian life No
God who indwells the brothers Paul/John Revelation/Christian life Indirect
A divine community Paul/John Christian life No
A collective testimony to God Paul/John Christian life No
A community by redemption Paul/John Revelation/Christian life No
United in Christ Paul/John Christian life Indirect
Man without Christ, lost Paul/John Creation No
Man without Christ, worldly Paul/John Creation No
Without Christ, God's enemies Paul(John) Creation No
Without Christ, no part in him John. Creation No
In Christ, a new community Paul/John Christian life No
In Christ, a new solidarity Paul/John Christian life Indirect
Without Christ, in Adam Paul Creation No
Joined together in Christ Paul/John Christian life Indirect
United by the Spirit Paul/John Christian life Indirect
In Christ - fruit bearing Paul/John Christian life Indirect
Communion - loyalty Paul Christian life No
New creation in Christ Paul/John Creation/Christian life No
A living organism - Body Paul Christian life No
One Body, many members Paul Christian life No
Member inter-dependency Paul Christian life No
Mutual edification Paul Christian life No
"One another" - reciprocation Paul/John Christian life No
A New Nation PauVJohn Christian life No Participation Koinology (cont.) Paul/John? Major Theme/s Mystical?
Church, true Israel Paul(John) Christian life No
Church, people of God Paul/John Christian life No
Family of God Paul/John Christian life Indirect
Sons of God Paul/John Christian life Indirect
Seed of Abraham Paul/John Revelation No
Circumcised in heart Paul Christian life No
Temple of God Paul(John) Christian life Yes
Heirs of God Paul(John) God's dominion Indirect
One new man in Christ Paul(John) Christian life Indirect
Baptism Paul(John) Christian life Yes
Lord's Supper Paul(John) Christian life Yes
Corporate identification Paul Christian life Indirect
Christ's messengers Paul/John Christian life Indirect
It needs to be remembered, that the above grid was derived from the comparison between Pauline and Johannine "mysticism" (chapter 4). The actual discussion under Paul (chapter 2) and John (chapter 3) is much more detailed than in chapter 4, and it is from the more detailed discussions that we provided the mystical classifications given above.
There are certain deductions that may be derived from our grid: i) that, though the concepts of doctrines include an extensive list, it is not exhaustive. To demonstrate this point - we have not included all the material in the Pauline and Johannine (Gospel & Epistles) writings. For example in Paul, we do not deal with God's sovereignty, sanctification, national Israel's future, church and secular governments, incest, immorality, marriage, idolatry, Apostleship, money-matters, the home, conflict in the church, false doctrine, church care, apostasy, and works. In John we do not deal with false teachers, pride, the healing of the nobleman's son at Capernaum, the anointing
441 of Jesus, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the betrayal and trial of Jesus, the burial and the meeting after the resurrection. The study of mysticism therefore necessitates selectivity.
However, we see a great level of agreement, that is, convergence in Pauline and Johannine mysticism. Not only so, while we admit our selectivity, in comparison, the omitted items are a very small portion of Paul and John not covered in our discussion, for many of the doctrines and events mentioned, are quite negligible, like incest and church care, to mention a few. Therefore, "mysticism" is a major doctrine in Paul and John, and is to be given much greater prominence than is currently admitted by scholarship.
It will be noticed that mysticism is present in every major doctrine in Paul and John. It is present, as our outline shows, in Theology, Christology, Pneumatology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, (and as implied thereby) Soteriology, and Anthropology. The only exclusion is Cosmology. Then again, most NT Theologies exclude cosmology anyway. Therefore, every NT Theology should include "mysticism" in every major doctrine: One problem that should not be forgotten, is that our findings apply to Paul and John, and not necessarily to the other half of the New Testament. This is something New Testament studies should explore: Is there a mystical tenet to be found in the rest of the New Testament?
From a thematic point of view, we see that all the major themes are included in our discussion, even though with varying emphasis. The nature of mysticism demands the emphasis as shown. The spread is expressed by percentage as follows: Creation - 11% (percent); Revelation - 31% (percent); Christian life - 45% (percent); and God's dominion - 13% (percent). The emphasis between Christian life and Revelation is natural, and was to be expected, for the reason that mysticism includes God in the life of the believer, but it comes through the process of salvation.
442 A mystical outlook also shows a great affinity between faith and reason. It is our opinion that NT Theology cannot be done without faith. It was written and compiled by a faith-community, and would have approached theology from a faith-perspective. As we have said, Paul and John have a post-resurrection "faith-image" of Jesus Christ. Also, we have said that we have a faith presupposition in our approach. We apply reason also in our consideration of historical and textual contexts.
5.3 on with the Old Testament.
One of the criteria of a good NT Theology, is that it must show some continuity with the Old Testament. This is particUlarly so if we employ the Salvation-historical approach. We can demonstrate that this is the case in our treatise. We shall only mention a few for each of Paul and John respectively.
Paul: Abraham as the father of faith; Jesus is the Son of David; the Law and righteousness; election; people of God; Israel; "according to the Scriptures"; judgement on the Last day; eschatology; covenant; and promise. He also uses Old Testament types, e.g.. Sarah and Hagar to depict those who are free and those who are under bondage of the Law. Paul sees a Salvation-historical scheme of things: Jesus was born of a woman under the Law to redeem us from the Law; we, who were enemies and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, have been brought near by the blood. Paul uses Old Testament vocabulary like temple, atonement, forgiveness, promise and righteousness.
John: He speaks of creation; Israel, purification, temple, Lamb of God, the Exodus, Moses, manna, serpent in the wilderness, Sabbath, Abraham, Jacob, Jewish Feasts, and the like. He also has an eschatological perspective akin to that of the Old
443 Testament - eternal life, resurrection, judgement, the Last thy. His typology includes the lifting up of the serpent and the bread given in the desert.
Coming from the Old Testament, the promise "I will be your God and you will be my people" (Ex.19.5), is a promise perpetuated in our study Only as the people of God do we have communion with God. It is in this way that mysticism is applied. Mystical tenets are derived from this basic Old Testament promise, and it is developed in the New Testament, because God came to man, to be found in our sphere. God's dealings with the world is aimed at setting a people aside, who are his people and for whom he is their God.
5.4 The Question of Center and Unity
The question is; can we use mysticism, either as an organising centre or as a unifying center? Maybe, a more important question is; can we create a center without creating a canon within the canon? We do not want to have a situation where we regard some aspects as more Pauline than Paul; or more Johannine than John. Neither do we want a situation where certain texts are given greater status than others.
Certainly, discussing any topic, will naturally create a situation of emphasis, and we have our emphases in order to bring out our point or points; but these emphases are not the sum-total of either Paul or John. It is even less than the sum-total of the New Testament.
We have already shown, that our list of concepts of doctrine, is not exhaustive; and does not include all that Paul and John has to say, and therefore even less so of the whole NT. We therefore conclude that mysticism cannot operate as an adequate center for the New Testament. However, it is adequate to explain the essential parts of Paul and John. It could even take up a more important place than, for instance, "justification," in Paul. Mysticism is therefore unable to function as a center of the New Testament. Yet in Paul and John, those "smaller" doctrines or situations, may be explained from a mystical perspective. They may be seen as a result, or a perversion of Paul or John's mystical intention. As a center in Paul and John, mysticism is indeed a viable possibility.
5.5 A New Hermeneutic Principle?
Are we able to derive a new hermeneutic principle with mysticism in its basic structure? Certainly, we are able to do so. However, one needs to check the validity or invalidity of the principle. It (mysticism) is valid on two grounds at least: i) as a pre-understanding, or, as a presupposition; and ii) as a theological principle. Another possibility would be the historical principle. This however, will prove invalid because of the misunderstanding, and misappropriation of the concept in the past.
It is clear that "pre-understanding" and presupposition are related as part of a whole. A presupposition is a particular part of a total pre-understanding. Both these tend to control the interpreter in his hermeneutic investigation. This pre-understanding (or presupposition) may be adopted, that is, it is consciously learned; or it may be adapted, because you would consciously change in this regard; or it may be appropriated from one's habit of thinking. (Mickelsen 1991:6). All these may be applied to mysticism.
The second principle is probably more important, and this is why this dissertation has been written; to be convincing theologically about the Christian mystical understanding. It is enhancing the school of thought that sees "mysticism" (or whatever one wants to call it) as a biblical teaching within the Pauline and the
445 Johannine corpus. Our hope is that this is not a misplaced emphasis, or error of omitting parts of significance found here.
Another warning; we should not allow our views in theology to control our interpretation and exegesis, rather than to let our interpretation and exegesis control our theology. If they do effect interpretation and exegesis, then they are to be examined objectively as philosophical principles. The interpreter must be aware of the factors influencing his thinking.
It is certainly to be applied as a principle within hermeneutics in respect of one's devotion and conduct. One is to have fellowship with God through the Scriptures, seeking God's direction and illumination in matters of decision-making. We are speaking of a dependency upon God to show us his commands, counsel and message.
5.6 A Proposal for a NT Theological Outline / Structure.
The structure of the whole New Testament Theology will be given, but our particular input is to be found only in Paul 1 ° and John. A NT Theology has at least to include the whole New Testament material. It is really only a modification of a general NT Theology outline.
Outline. Purpose, Scope, Method and Approach of doing a New Testament Theology History and OT background The Synoptic Gospels - Formal issues and debates
10 We do not agree with Kasemann (1972:243), that consideration should be given to begin a New Testament Theology with Paul, and then to work backwards and forward from him. Our disagreement is based on the fact that Paul himself began with "that which he received" (1Co.15.3 and 1Co.11.23) either as a tradition, or from the Lord.
446 Setting and John the Baptist The life of Jesus - His birth and upbringing His ministry - miracles His passion and Resurrection The teachings of Jesus - Theology The Kingdom Ethics Eschatology Jesus' self-understanding
4. The Primitive Church - Background The Resurrection Pentecost The Apostles and their kerygma - The Church 5. Pauline - Background, Sources and Framework Pauline psychology and Law The man outside Chest Participation Theology Participation Christology - Participation Pneumatology - Participation Ecclesiology Eschatological outlook ' 6. Johannine - Background and Framework - Johannine Dualism Eternal Life Participation Theology Participation Christology - Participation Pneumatology Participation Ecclesiology Eschatological outlook
7. General Epistles - Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter Jude
8. The Apocalypse - Background, Apocalyptic writings and Genre Hermeneutics - Symbolism, rhetoric, language, interpretation Theology Christology The Church
447 - Eschatology
9. Matters of Application
5.7 Mysticism and Ethics
Ethics is a natural outcome of mysticism. Which man can sin and be in fellowship with God? From our grid, we shall extract those points that have ethical implications. These may be Pauline or Johannine or both. We shall now list such points, and briefly describe their ethical importance. As much as a quarter of the whole list in 5.2 above, has ethical implications for the believer.
A. 1. New Creation Liberation Baptism Present Spirit Parousia Election - predetermined Purpose, Christ-likeness God's indwelling Saints - access to God Identifying with Christ Christ in us Clothed with Christ Partaking of his Body/blood Imitating Christ Walking as he walked Sponsor of new life Spirit's leading Transformation by the Spirit Inward renewal Spirit's temple Spirit's fruit Loving fellowship with brothers "One another" reciprocation One new man
448 B. 1. New Creation. This concept includes the Holy Spirit as sponsor of a new life; Inward renewal; and baptism. Our new person is created after the image of Christ. The old life has passed, and the new has come. The new life is the life not controlled by the sinful nature. Having died to the old self, we now live the new life to the Lord. One born of God does not continue in sin. The old life means to be dead in your trespasses and sin. The new creation is alive to God, to do the deeds that are pleasing to God. The old life of sin has ceased. The new life is not only one of a new relationship to God, but also one of a new ethical existence. There is a daily inner renewal by the Spirit.
Purpose, Christ-likeness. This includes election, pre-determination; identifying with Christ; imitating Christ; transfdrmation by the Spirit; walking as he walked. The purpose of salvation, is that we should conform to the image of God's son. God desires us to he like Christ. Christ is being formed in us. As we discipline ourselves to behold the Lord Jesus Christ, so, we are being changed into his image from glory to glory. But while the Spirit brings about the transforming, we are at the same time enabled by the Spirit not to conform to the world. What Gager says, applies to both Paul and John: "...because the end is so near, and because the time has been foreshortened, the relation of the believer to the world must be tentative, impermanent, and provisional." (1970:332). Those who are friendly with the world, are the enemies of God. We are not for the world, but our minds are transformed daily, and so our lives are transformed into Christ's image. The highest ethical form, is the image of Christ in us.
God's indwelling. This concept includes the idea "Christ in us"; and Spirit's temple. We are God's holy temple. We belong to him, for he has bought us with a price; therefore we are to serve God in our bodies, and do works of righteousness. By God dwelling in us, we have a new nature. As he is holy, so are we to be holy. Holiness means living a godly life. This idea of God in us, has the idea of godly
449 imperative; that is to do what is good and right. It is also a inner motivation to live godly lives.
Present Spirit. This idea includes the concepts of Spirit's leading; and Spirit's fruit. The Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and he imparts holiness. Sin is incompatible with the Spirit. When the present Spirit leads the believer, he controls him, guides him into all truth, to speak the truth and to do the truth. We are no longer controlled by the sinful nature, but by the Spirit who dwells in us. If the Spirit does not dwell in us, we do not belong to Christ. The fruit of the Spirit is ethical and is in essence the character of Christ: love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, gentleness, kindness, meekness and self-control. The pivotal element is love.
Access to God. Only those justified have access to God. Our sins were taken away and only upon that cleansing can we enter into God's presence. Therefore, that very privilege is a motivation not to sin and to have an unhindered access to God.
Clothed with Christ. Here we have the idea of 'putting on". We are to "put off" the sinful nature and its sinful deeds, and "put on" Christ and his deeds of righteousness. Being clothed with Christ is to have the Christ-nature and to do the Christ-things: Sacrificial love.
Partaking in His Body and Blood. This has reference to the Lord's Supper. We are enjoined to examine ourselves, and partake with our sins forgiven. Confession of sins upon repentance, is the attitude of the Christian life. The purpose of self- examination, is to deal with sins, and to strive to eradicate sin in our lives.
Parousia. Also has in mind our final liberation from this sinful body. When Christ comes again, we shall be like him. Because we have this hope, we seek to
450 purify ourselves, that's why we live holy lives. Also, we desire to be found as a spotless bride at his coming.
9. One New Man. This has reference to the Body of Christ. Our attitude to one another is one of reciprocation - to love one another; to care for one another; to show kindness to one another; to give to one another; etc. The real basis for true fellowship with our brothers, is to love one another, and the attitude of reciprocation is the essence of community life. Loving our brothers, shows our love for the Lord; that we walk in the light; and have fellowship with God. Such is the ethical effect of our mysticism.
Paul's and John's mystical understanding goes along the lines of an ethical conception based on a relationship with God (that is vertically) and is applied in our relationship with man (that is horizontally). The latter cannot be meaningful apart from or without the former. For Paul and John, being ethical in our horizontal intercourse, is to be what Christ-likeness should be. To prevent any sort of misunderstanding, one cannot be Christ-like without expressing it ethically. Certainly, unbelievers can have commendable ethics, but without Christ, it amounts only to a works-righteousness.
Without Christ, the "ethical" person is lost and condemned. The converse of that is to be "with Christ", and that in our new understanding is "mysticism". Therefore God- acceptable ethics is always related to mysticism.
5.8 SummaryoffAmchaions.
1. The major parts of the Pauline and Johannine writings have proven to be mystical in its outlook. "Mysticism" for Paul and John does not consist of humanity graduating through levels to reach up to God. Instead, God has descended, and Trinitarianly, he has come into the sphere of human interaction. Mysticism then, is a form of
451 revelation, and revelation is an act of God. God so designed it that his revelation is perceived only by the man of faith. So it is with "mysticism"; only those with faith in Jesus Christ may commune with God. "Mysticism" is to be in fellowship with a Trinitarian God. but that fellowship is expressed in various ways made possible for us by the Lord. The Pauline and Johannine understanding then, is that all believers in Christ, are "mystics". Only they are true "mystics". But, as mystics, we have not in any way lost our personality in the divine, because we must still live according to an ethical imperative.
Mysticism is expressed as a Trinitarian "experience". It is not experimental as such, but is the real relationship between the believer and the Trinitarian God. For the term "participating" is most expressive of what we understand by "mysticism". In fact, the word "mysticism" comes with so much negative "baggage", that it might be better to change it to another name. Participation, fellowship, communion, etc., are inadequate because they do not necessarily mean that it is with the Divine, whereas "mysticism" includes all these ideas uniquely in relation to God. Therefore, it was not our aim to change the word per se, but rather to correct the understanding and concept. It is a personal and vital relationship between God and the believer.
Because Pauline and Johannine thought is pervaded by this understanding of mysticism, it is possible to have a Pauline and Johannine mystical theology. We believe that explaining Paul and John anthropologically, we may derive a theology with mysticism as an organising center, but that this center is inappropriate for a NT theology. We believe that the materials not selected (per 5.2) can be linked to our structure of Paul and John either as a result (e.g.. Israel's future, church and secular government, marriage) or as perversion (e.g.. idolatry, apostasy, immorality, incest) of God's mystical intention, so as to make a mystical - center viable. The outline above demonstrates our point.
452 The level of agreement of mystical understanding between Paul and John, is very high. Being a substantial part (nearly half) of the New Testament, makes it inevitable that the discipline of NT Theology be influenced by them. A worthwhile enquiry would be to look into the possibility of a mystical understanding in the other New Testament authors. We suspect that there would be much less than in the Pauline and Johannine writings; but it would be interesting to see whether such an understanding at least exists. One might even discover some sort of development of mystical though in the New Testament.
It is here where the Church may express its real vitality; living as men and women in a real and vital relationship with Jesus Christ. We agree with Kourie saying: "...scriptural mysticism, is an ecclesial charism, and when understood and appropriated can be a source of renewal for the church and society" (1998:433). The attraction of our faith is to be found in our relationship with God, before whom we have confident access through Jesus Christ. This is how we can show society the joy of knowing God, for that is what they need most. But how? Through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
453 BIBLIOGRAPHY -
Ahern, B.M. 1978 Pauline Mysticism. The Way 18:1, 3-12.
Allison, D.C. Jr. 1994 A Plea for Thoroughgoing Eschatology. Journal of Biblical Literature 113:4, 651-668.
Argyle, A.W. 1975/6 God Above and Within. The Expository Times 87, 369-370.
Baird, W. 1970 Pauline Eschatology in Hermeneutical Perspective. New Testament Studies 17, 314-327.
Balzer, H.R. 1991: Eschatological Elements as Permanent Qualities in the Relationship Between God and Nation in in the Minor Prophets. Old Testament Essays 4:3, 408-414.
Barrett, C.K. 1957 The Epistle of Romans. London: A & C Black.
Barrett, C.K. 1973 The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. London: A & C, Black.
Barrett, C.K. 1994 Paul: An Introduction to His Thought. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Barton, S. 1984 Paul and the Resurrection. Religion 14, 67-75.
Beasley-Murray, G.R. 1991 Gospel of Life - Theology in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers.
Bechtler, S.R. 1994 Christ, the Taos of the Law: The Goal of Romans 10:4. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56:2, 288-308.
Beker, C.J. 1980 Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Beker, C.J. 1989 Paul the Theologian - Major Motifs in Pauline Theology. A Journal of Bible & Theology - Interpretation 43:4, 352-366.
Beker, C.J. 1991 Heirs of Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
454 Belleville, L. 1996 2 Corinthians. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press.
Berkhof, L. 1941 Systematic Theology. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust.
Berkhouwer, G.C. 1960 Divine Election. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.
Best, E. 1955 One Body in Christ. London: SPCK.
Bettenson, H. 1963 Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Black, C.C. II 1984 Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5-8. Journal of Biblical Literature 103:3, 413-433.
Bockmuehl, M. 1997 "The Form of God" (Phil.2:6) Variations on a Theme of Jewish Mysticism. Journal of Theological Studies 48:1, 1-23.
Bolt, P. 1992 What Fruit Does the Vine Bear? Some Pastoral Implication of John 15:1-8. The Reformed Theological Review 51:1, 11-19.
Borg, M. 1986 A Temporate Case for a Non-Eschatological Jesus. Forum 2/3, 81-102.
Botma, A & Van 1996 Die formule xptanii) as basis van die Aarde, A. Pauliniese ekklesiologie. Hervormde Theologiese Studies 52:1, 285-317.
Bouttier, M. 1962 En Christ. Paris: University of France Press.
Bouyer, L. 1950 The Meaning of the Monastic Life. New York: Kenedy Press.
Brown, R.E. 1966 The Gospel According to John I-XII. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Brown, R.E. 1970 The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI. NewYork: Doubleday & Company Inc..
455 Brown, R.E. 1977 Johannine Ecclesiology - The Community's Origins. A Journal of Bible & Theology - Interpretation 31:4, 379-393..
Brown, R.E. 1978 "Other Sheep not of this Fold". The Johannine Perspective on Christian Diversity in the late First Century. Journal of Biblical Literature 97:1, 5-22.
Bruce, F.F. 1969 New Testament History. New York: Doubleday & Company Inc.
Bruce, F.F. 1971 1 & II Corinthians. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.
Bruce, F.F. 1985 Romans. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press.
Buchanan, G.W. 1990 The Day of Atonement and Paul's Doctrine of Redemption. Novum Testamentum 32:3, 236-249.
Bultmann, R. 1956 Primitive Christianity. London: Collins Press.
Burdon, C.J. 1983/4 Paul and the Crucified Church. The Expository Times 95, 137-141.
Burke, T.J. 1998 Adoption and the Spirit in Romans 8. The Evangelical Quarterly 70:4, 311-324.
Burton, M. 1988 A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Calvin, John. 1989 Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by (transl.) Beveridge. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.
Carlson, R.P. 1993 The Role of Baptism in Paul's Thought. Interpretation 47:3, 255-265.
Carson, D.A. 1979 The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:7-11. Journal of Biblical Literature 98:4, 547-566.
Chadwick, 0. 1958 Western Asceticism. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
456 Cherian, C.M. 1973 Now My Eye Sees Thee: The Bible as a Record of Religious Experience. Review for Religious 32:5, 1002-1011.
Clark, G.H. 1975 First Corinthians. Jefferson: The Trinity Foundation.
Coloe, M.L. 2001 God Dwells with Us - Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.
Connor, W.T. 1940 The Work of the Holy Spirit. Nashville: Broadman Press.
Cosgrove, C.H. 1989 The Place where Jesus Is: Allusions to Baptism and the Eucharist in the Fourth Gospel. New Testament Studies 35, 522-539.
Countryman, L.W. 1994 The Mystical Way in the Fourth Gospel. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International.
Cousar, C.B. 1998 Paul and the Death of Jesus. A Journal of Bible & Theology - Interpretation 52:1, 39-51.
Crossan, J.D. 1991 The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jesus Revolt. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Culpepper, A.R. 1998 The Gospel and Letters of John. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Deissmann, A. 1892 The New Testament Formula: In Christ Jesus. Marburg.
Deissmann, A. 1957 Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. New York: Harper & Row.
Dodd, C.H. 1959 The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. London: Fontana Books.
Draper, J.A. 1997 Temple, Tabernacle and Mystical Experience in John. Neotestamentica 31:2, 263-287.
Du Plessis, I.J. 1967 Die agtergrond van die Hoof-liggaam-beeldspraak by Paulus. Ned. Geref. Teologiese Tydsknf 8:2, 116-122.
457 Du Plessis, 1.J. 1968 Die agtergrond van die Hoof-liggaam-beeldspraak by Paulus. Deel 2. Ned. Geref. Teologiese Tydskrif 9:1, 41-48.
Du Rand, J.A. 1980 Eksegetiese Kanttekeninge by Johannes 13. Scriptura 26:1, 43-51.
Du Rand, J.A. 1994 Johannine Perspectives - Introduction to the Johannine Writings. Part J. Johannesburg: Orion.
Du Rand, J.A. 1996 Repetitions and Variations - Experiencing the Power of the Gospel of John as Literary Symphony. Neotestamentica 30:1, 59-69.
Du Rand, J.A. 1999 Paulus se vernuftige vervlegting van antropologie en eskatologie in 2 Korintiers 4:7-5:10. Sknf en Kerk 20: 2, 340-352.
Du Rand, J.A. 2000 'n Ellips skeppingsgebeure in die Evangelieverhaal volgens Johannes. Sknf en Kerk 21: 2, 243-345.
Du Rand, J.A. 2000 "...Because of the Woman's Testimony": Reading John 4 from a Different Angle. The South African Baptist Journal of Theology, 42-49.
Du Toit, A.B. 1971 Die formule en Pneumati by Paulus. Die Pneuma by Paulus. Potchefstroom: Pro Rege Pers Beperk, 52-59.
Du Toit, A.B. 1993 Lewensgemeenskap met God as essensie van Bybelse spiritualiteit. Sknf en Kerk 14:1, 28-45.
Du Toit, A.B. 2000 The Problem of Sin in 1 John. The South African Baptist Journal of Theology, 146-151.
Dunn, J.D.G. 1975 Jesus the Spirit. London: SCM Press.
Dunn, J.D.G. 1996 The Epistle to the Colossians & Philemon. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.
Dunn, J.D.G. 1998 The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
458 Engelbrecht, E. 1984 Die Eskatologie van die Johannesevangelie. Theologia Viatorum 12:1, 22-31.
Engelbrecht, E. 1987 'Ken' as deel van die spraakpatroon van die verteller in die Johannesevangelie. Hervormde Theologiese Studies 43:3, 414-429.
Engelbrecht, J.J. 1971 Pneuma en Eskatologie by Paulus. Pneuma by Paulus. Potchefstroom: Pro Rege Pers Beperk, 61-75.
Erickson, M. 1983 Christian Theology. Grand Rapid: Baker Books.
Fee, G. 1994 God's Empowering Presence. Peabody: Hendrikson Publishers.
Fee, G. 1996 Paul, The Spirit and the People of God. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Filson, F.V. 1953 2 Corinthians in Interpreter's Bible Series.
Finegan, J. 1989 Myth and Mystery. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Fitch, W. 1974 The Ministry of the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Floor, L. 1971 The Lord and the Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel. The Christ of John. Potchefstroom: Pro Rege Pers Beperk, 122-129.
Fortna, R.T. 1973 From Christology to Soteriology. A Journal of Bible & Theology - Interpretation 27:1, 31-47.
Fossum, J. 1989 Colossians 1.15-18a in the Light of Jewish Mysticism and Gnosticism. New Testament Studies 35, 183-201.
Foulkes, F. 1989 Ephesians. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press. Fourie, S. & 1989 'Eenheid' in Johannes 13-17. Scriptura 29, 19-35. Rousseau, J.
459 Gager, J.G. Jr. 1970 Functional Diversity in Paul's Use of End-time Language. Journal of Biblical Literature 89:3, 325-337.
Gaybba, B. 1987 The Spirit of Love - Theology of the Holy Spirit. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Gibbs, J.G. 1970 The Relation Between Creation and Redemption According to Phil.2:5-11. Novum Testamentum 1:12, 270-283.
Grassi, J.A. 1972 The Wedding at Cana (John 2: 1-11): A Pentecostal Meditation? Novum Testamentum 14, 131-136.
Gray, G.B. 1925 Sacrifice in the Old Testament. London: Oxford University Press.
Grenz, S. 1994 Theology for the Community of God. Carlisle: Paternoster Press.
Grossouw, W. 1965 In Christ. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Guthrie, D. 1965 New Testament Introduction. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press.
Guthrie, D. 1981 New Testament Theology. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press.
Hartin, P.J. 1991 Remain in Me (John 15:5). The Foundation of the Ethical and its Consequences in the Farewell Discourses. Neotestamentica 25:2, 341-355.
Hartwig, P. 2000 The Incarnation: A Johannine Paradigm of Discipleship. The South African Baptist Journal of Theology, 156-161.
Hasel, G. 1978 New Testament Theology: Issues in the Current Debate. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.
Hawthorne, G. 1983 Philippians. Texas: Word Books Publishers.
460 Heil, J.P. 1995 Jesus as the Unique High Priest in the Gospel of John. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57:3, 729-745.
Heiberg, J.L. 1995 The Revelation of the Power of God According to Isaiah 40-55. Old Testament Essays 8:2, 262-279.
Hendriksen, W. 1954 The Gospel of John. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust.
Heyns, J.A. 1980 The Church. Pretoria: NG Kerkboekhandel.
Hooker, M.D. 1971 Interchange in Christ. Journal of Theological Studies 22:2, 349-361.
Howard, G. 1974 The Head/Body Metaphors of Ephesians. New Testament Studies 20, 350-356.
Hultgren, A.J. 1980 The Pistis Christou Formulation in Paul. Novum Testamentum 22:3, 248-263.
Hunter, J.H. 1998 Theophany verses in the Hebrew Psalms. Old Testament Essays 11:2, 255-270.
Johnson, P. 1976 A History of Christianity. London: Penguin Books.
Johnson, P. 1987 A History of the Jews. London: Weidenfeld Publishing.
Johnson, P.F. 1993 1,2 and 3 John. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers.
Jonker, W.D. 1981 Die Gees van Christus. Pretoria: NG Kerkboekhandel.
Jonker, W.D. 1985 Die Verhouding Tussen Christelike Geloof en Mistiek. Ned. Geref. Teologiese Tydsknf 26:4, 409-419.
Joubert, S.J. 1992 Behind the mask of Rhetoric: 2Corinthians 8 and the Intra-textual Relation Between Paul and the Corinthians. Neotestamentica 26:1, 101-112.
461 Jouhert, S.J. 1992 Van werklikheid tot werklikheid: Die interpretasie en interkulturele kommunikasie van Nuwe Testamentiese waardes. Scriptura 41, 55-65.
Kasemann, E. 1964 Primitive Apocalyptic. London: SCM Press.
Kasemann, E. 1970 The Pauline Theology of the Cross. A Journal of Bible & Theology - Interpretation 24:2, 151-177.
Kasemann, E. 1971 Perspectives on Paul. London: SCM Press.
Kasemann, E. 1972 The Problem of a New Testament Theology. New Testament Studies 19, 235-245.
Keck, L.E. 1964/5 Problems of New Testament Theology. Novum Testamentum 7, 217-241.
Kerr, A.J. 1988 APPABON. The Journal of Theological Studies 39:1, 92-97.
Kieckhefer, R. 1978 Meister Eckhart's Conception of Union with God. Harvard Theological Review 71:3/4, 203-225.
Kim, S. 1977 2Cor.5:11-21 and the Origin of Paul's Concept of "Reconciliation". Novum Testamentum 39:4, 360-384.
Kline, M. 1963 Treaty of the Great King. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.
Konig, Adrio 1989 The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatology. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.
Kourie, C.E. 1981 Christ-Mysticism in Paul? Theologia Evangelica 14:3, 22-27.
Kourie, C.E. 1987 In Christ and Related Expressions in Paul. Theologia Evangelica 20:2, 33-43.
Kourie, C.E. 1993 The Interface Between Christianity, Eastern Mysticism and Western Science. Theologia Evangelica 26:1, 69-73.
462 Kourie, C.E. 1998 Mysticism: Gift for the Church. Neotestamentica 32:2, 433-457.
Kruse, C. 1987 2Corinthians in Tyndale Commentaries. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press.
Ladd, G.E. 1974 A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.
Lemmer, R. 1996 Early Jewish Mysticism; Jewish Apocalyptic and Writings of the New Testament - a Triangulation. Neotestamentica 30:2, 359-375.
Lewis, C.S. 1978 The Problem of Pain. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Lieu, J.M. 1978/9 Gnosticism and the Gospel of John. The Expository Times 90, 233-236.
Lincoln, A.T. 1979 'Paul the Visionary': The Setting and Significance of the Rapture to Paradise in 2Corinthians 12:1-10. New Testament Studies 25, 204-220.
Lloyd-Jones, D.M. 1971 Romans - Exposition of Chapter 5. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust.
Lloyd-Jones, D.M. 1972 God's Way of Reconciliation. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust.
Loader, J.A. 1992 Seeing God with Natural Eyes: On Job and Nature. Old Testament Essays 5, 346-360.
Longenecker, R.N. 1985 The Nature of Paul's early Eschatology. New Testament Studies 31, 85-95.
Lotter, G.A. 1995 Is Paulus 'n Ervaringsteoloog? In die Skriffig 29:4, 549-560.
MacArthur, J. Jr. 1991 Our Sufficiency in Christ. Cape Town: Struik.
Mack, D. 1988 A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
463 Macleod, C.W. 1970 ANAATEIL: A Study of Ancient Mysticism. Journal of Theological Studies 21:1, 43-55.
Manek, J. 1958 The Apostle Paul and the Empty Tomb. Novum Testamentum 2, 276-280.
Manson, T.W. 1963 On Paul and John. London: SCM Press.
Marcus, J. 1998 Rivers of Living Water from Jesus' Belly (John 7:38). Journal of Biblical Literature 117:2, 328-330.
McGinn, B. 1991 Foundation of Mysticism. London. SCM Press.
McGinn, B. 1995 The Growth of Mysticism. New York: Crossroads Press.
McGrath, A. 1994 Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mc Polin, J. 1978 Johannine Mysticism. The Way 18:1, 25-35.
Meagher, J.C. 1969 John 1,14 and the New Temple. Journal of Biblical Literature 88:1, 57-68.
Meeks, W.A. 1972 The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism. Journal of Biblical Literature 91:1, 44-72.
Merton, T. 1973 Contemplative Prayer. London: Darton,Longman & Todd.
Merton, T. 1975 Spiritual Direction and Meditation. St. Albans: A. Clark.
Micheals, J.R. 1984 John. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishing Inc..
Mickelson, B. 1991 Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.
Milne, B. 1993 The Message of John. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press.
Minear, P.S. 1993 The Promise of Life in the Gospel of John. Theology Today 49:4, 485-499.
464 Moltmann, J. 1979 Theology of Mystical Experience. Scottish Journal of Theology 32:6, 501-520.
Montague, G.T. 1976 The Holy Spirit - Growth of a Biblical Tradition. New York: Paulist Press.
Moo, D. 1991 Romans 1-8 in Wycliffe Exegetical Commentaries. Chicago: Moody Press.
Moody, D. 1968 Spirit of the Living God. Nashville: Broadman Press.
Morray-Jones, C. 1993 Paradise Revisited (2Cor. 12:1-12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul's Apostolate. Part 1: The Jewish Sources. Harvard Theological Review 86:2, 177-217.
Morray-Jones, C. 1993 Paradise Revisited (2Cor. 12:1-12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul's Apostolate. Part 2: Paul's Heavenly Ascent and its Significance. Harvard Theological Review 86:3, 267-292.
Morray-Jones, C. 1993 Jewish Mystical Background of Paul's Apostolate. Part 1 & 2. Harvard Theological Review 86.
Morris, L. 1988 The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.
Moule, C.F.D. 1962 The Individualism of the Fourth Gospel. Novum Testamentum 5, 171-190.
Muller, M. 1975 'n Moontlike benadering van Paulus se teologie. Ned. Geref. Teologiese TYdsknt 16:4, 335-342.
Munro, R. 2000 Christ-like Leadership Displayed in the Gospel of John. The South African Baptist Journal of Theology, 10-17.
Muntingh, L.M. 1967 Aanneming tot kinders in die teologie van Paulus. Ned. Geref. Teologiese 7ydsknt 8:1, 1-7.
Nehls, Gerhard. undd. What About the Muslim? Bellville: Evangelical Mission Press.
465 Neufeld, F. 1996 The Cross of the Living Lord: The Theology of the Cross & Mysticism. Scottish Journal of Theology 49:2, 423-446.
Neugebauer, F. 1958 The Pauline "in Christ". New Testament Studies 4, 522-539.
Newman & Nida 1973 A Translator's Handbook on Paul - Romans. Stuttgart: United Bible Society.
Obeng, E.A. 1983/4 The Spirit Intercession Motif in Paul. The Expository Times 95, 360-363.
O'Brien, P.T. 1974 Col. 1:20 and the Reconciliation of All Things. The Reformed Theological Review 33:2, 45-53.
O'Brien, P.T. 1978 The Fellowship Theme in Philippians. The Reformed Theological Review 37:1, 9-18.
O'Brien, P.T. 1987 Romans 8:26-27. A Revolutionary Approach to Prayer? The Reformed Theological Review 46:3, 65-73..
O'Day, G.R. 1986 Narrative Mode and Theological Claim: A Study in the Fourth Gospel. Journal of Biblical Literature 105:4, 657-668.
O'Day, G.R. 1995 Toward a Narrative-critical Study of John. A Journal of Bible and Theology - Interpretation 49:4, 341-345.
O'Grady, J.F. 1999 According to John. New York: Paulist Press.
Oliver, W.H. & 1991 The Community of Faith as Dwelling-place of the Van Aarde Father: Bacrada -rob Oca as 'Household of God' in the Johannine Farewell Discourses. Neotestamentica 25:2, 379-399.
Packer, J.I. 1961 Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press.
Pancaro, S. 1969 'People of God' in St John's Gospel. New Testament Studies 16, 114-129.
466 Pelser, G.M.M. 1973 Die verhouding Liggaam en Hoof by Paulus. Hervormde Teologiese Studies 30:3, 150-162.
Pelser, G.M.M. 1998 Could the 'formulas' Dying and Rising with Christ be Expressions of Pauline Mysticism? Neotestamentica 32:1, 115-134.
Pelser, G.M.M. 1998 Once More the Body of Christ in Paul. Neotestamentica 32:2, 525-545.
Penna, R. 1996 Paul the Apostle. Wisdom and Folly of the Cross. Collegville: The Liturgical Press.
Pereira, G.C. 1997 The Functional Role of the Holy Spirit within the Pauline Trinitarian Message. Johannesburg: RAU (unpublished).
Pohlmann, M. 2000 A Preview of Pentecost in John's Gospel: An Exegesis of John 20:22. The South African Baptist Journal of Theology, 152-155.
Porter, S.E. 1990 Two Myths: Corporate Personality and Language/Mentality Determinism. Scottish Journal of Theology 43:3, 289-307.
Prinsloo, G.T.M. 1997 Shepherd, Vine-grower, Father - Divine Metaphor and Existential Reality in a Community Lament (Psalm 80). Old Testament Essays 10:2, 279-302.
Pryor, J.W. 1992 John: Evangelist of the Covenant People. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press.
Raisanen, H. 1983 Paul and the Law. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Ramsey, P.R. 1981 Mysticism. Collier's Encyclopedia Vol.17. New York: Collier Publications.
Ridderbos, H. 1961 The Epistle to the Galatians. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott.
Ridderbos, H. 1975 Paul. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.
467 Roberts, J.H. 1975 Die teologiese sentrum van die corpus paulinum. Theologia Evangelica 8:1, 1-22.
Roberts, J.H. 1983 Die Pauliniese beeld van die Kerk as bouwerk van God. Scriptura 10, 1-18.
Roberts, J.H. 1989 Aspekte van die Kerk by Paulus. Theologia Evangelica 22:1, 6-12.
Roberts, J.H. 1992 "The Pauline Ekklesiology" in Du Toit, A.B.(ed.) The Pauline Letters: Introduction and Theology, 265-299. Pretoria: NG.Kerkboekhandel.
Sanders, E.P. 1977 Paul and Palestinian Judaism. London: Philadelphia Press.
Sanders, E.P. 1988 Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Schmithals, W. 1975 The Apocalyptic Movement: Introduction and Interpretation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Schmidt, M. 1967 Christian Hoburg and Seventeenth-century Mysticism. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 18:1, 51-58.
Scholl, E. 1987 Seeking a Hidden God. Cistercian Studies 22:1, 25-36.
Schreiner, T.R. 1993 The Law and its Fulfillment. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Schweitzer, A. 1931 The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. London: A & C Black.
Scott, J.M. 1996 The Triumph of God in 2Cor.2.14: Additional Evidence of Merkabah Mysticism in Paul. New Testament Studies 42, 260-281.
Segal, A.F. 1998 Paul's Thinking About Resurrection in its Jewish Context. New Testament Studies 44, 400-419.
468 Sider, R.J. 1977 St. Paul's Understanding of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in 1Corinthians 15:1-19. Novum Testamentum 19, 124-141.
Smith, D. Moody. 1995 The Theology of the Gospel of John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Staton, I.E. 1997 A Vision of Unity - Christian Unity in the Fourth Gospel. The Evangelical Quarterly 69:4, 291-305.
Stepp, P.L. 1996 The Believer's Participation in the Death of Christ. Lewiston: Mellen Biblical Press Series.
Stewart, J.S. 1935 A Man in Christ. London: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd.
Stibbe, M. 1993 John. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Stott, J.R. 1968 The Message of Galatians. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press.
Suggit, J.N. 1987 The Eucharist as Eschatological Proclamation According to St. Paul. Neotestamentica 21:1, 11-24.
Swanepoel, M.G. 1991 Job 12 - An (other) Anticipation of the Voice from the Whirlwind? Old Testament Essays 4:2, 192-205.
Teasdale, W. 1986 Dionysian and Eckhartian Mysticism. Cistercian Studies 21:3, 228-258.
Tenney, M.F. 1965 New Testament Times. London: Inter Varsity Press.
Thiselton, A.C. 1978 Realized Eschatology at Corinth. New Testament Studies 24, 510-526.
Thompson, M. 1991 Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1 - 15:13. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Tillich, Paul. 1951 Systematic Theology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
469 Tozer, A.W. 1961 Knowledge of the Holy. Bromley: O.M. Publishing.
Trumbower, J.A. 1992 Born From Above - The Anthropology of the Gospel of John. Tiibingen: J.C.B.Mohr.
Van Aarde, A. 1998 Aanneming tot kind van God (vioOecrict) by Paulus in Romeine 8 teen die agtergrond van die Jerusalemse tempelkultus - Deel 2. Skrif en Kerk 19:1, 96-113.
Van der Horst 1972 Observations on a Pauline Expression. New Testament Studies 19, 181-187.
Van der Watt, J.G. 1985 A New Look at John 5:25-9 in the Light of the Use of the Term 'Eternal Life' in the Gospel According to John. Neotestamentica 19, 71-86.
Van der Watt, J.G. 1989 The use of AIONIOL in the concept ZOH AIONIOE in John's Gospel. Novum Testamentum 31:3, 217-228.
Van der Watt, J.G. 1997 Liefde in die familie van God. 'n Beskrywende uiteensetting van familiale liefdesverhoudinge in die Johannesevangelie. Hervormde Teologiese Studies 53:3, 557-569.
Van Roon, A. 1974 The Relation Between Christ and the Wisdom of God According to Paul. Novum Testamentum 16, 207-239.
Van Unnik, W.C. 1963 "With Unveiled Face", An Exegesis of 2Corinthians 3:12-18. Novum Testamentum 6, 153-196.
Van Unnik, W.C. 1993 The Meaning of 1Corinthians 12:31. Novum Testamentum 35:2, 142-159.
Walker, W. 1918 A History of the Christian Church. Edinburgh: T&T. Clark.
Wedderburn, A.J.M. 1983 Hellenistic Christian Traditions in Romans 6? New Testament Studies 29, 337-355.
470 Wedderburn, A.J.M. 1987 The Soteriology of the Mysteries and Pauline Baptismal Theology. Novum Testamentum 29:1, 53-72.
Wenham, D. 1995 Paul - Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids:W.B. Eerdmans.
Wiid, J.S. 1991 The Meaning of Diatheke in Hebrews Chapter 9 with Special Reference to the Oxyrhynchus and other Egyptian Papyri. - Doctoral Dissertation. Johannesburg: RAU (unpublished).
Wiid, J.S. 2000 The Hermeneutical Significance of 'Signs' in John's Gospel. The South African Baptist Journal of Theology, 18-22.
Williams, D.T. 2000 The Promise of the Spirit in John. The South African Baptist Journal of Theology, 23-31.
Wilson, R. MCL. 1972 How Gnostic were the Corinthians? New Testament Studies 19, 65-74.
Winston, D. 1985 Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo. Cincinnati: Hebrew Press.
Witherington, B. III 1989 The Waters of Birth: John 3:5 and 1John 5:6-8. New Testament Studies 35, 155-160.
Ziesler, J. 1990 Pauline Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
471