|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Covenant Eschatology - Spirit of the Word - Introductory Note - New Stuff
A Study of the Resurrection
Part 7
by Don K. PrestonRESURRECTION AND THE LAW
Our study of Paul on trial not only attests to the spiritual nature of the resurrection but it reveals serious problems with the amillennial view of eschatology and its relationship to the Old Law.
The current writer is a fourth generation member of the churches of Christ and well versed in those traditional views of the Law and eschatology. That view says Jesus cast off Israel at the Cross having fulfilled all OT promises to her by that time; beginning at Pentecost a new set of promises and prophecies was given. But this is not what Paul believed and taught!
When standing before Felix, Paul said in the most emphatic terms that his gospel of the resurrection was nothing more or less than what Moses and the Prophets predicted, Acts 24:14f. When the Jews said "This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law and this place" Acts 21:28; Paul responded: "Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me" 24:13; and, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all" 25:8. Paul said he did not teach against the Old Law; yet the modern interpretation of Ephesians 2, Colossians 2, and Romans 7 has Paul saying the Old Law was completely taken away at the Cross! Any view that pits Paul against Paul is wrong and Paul said he did not teach against the Law!
When studied carefully each of the texts just cited actually teach that those who were coming into Christ by baptism were dying to the law; the law itself was not dead. There is a vast difference between the Law dying and believers dying to the Law! See our comments above.
Now if the Old Covenant fully passed away at the Cross how could Paul be preaching the yet future, to him, fulfillment of that Old Covenant? If the eschatological hope of Christians is/was not supposed to be tied to the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises made to Israel why was Paul's eschatological hope grounded so firmly in the "law and prophets"? If Israel was cut off at the Cross why was Paul, some 20 years after the Cross still preaching the hope of Israel?
It is evident from our study of Romans 11 above that Paul did not see Israel abandoned at the Cross. In fact, for Paul, Israel's promises were inextricably linked to the Cross and the Cross was the power by which God would fulfill His promises to them. And, all those promises were not fulfilled AT the Cross.
Jesus said the Old Law would not pass until it was all fulfilled, Mat. 5:17-18. But Paul taught that the resurrection was a constituent element of that Old Law; therefore the Law could not pass until the resurrection occurred.
Few would doubt that the resurrection is the time of redemption. Ephesians 1:13-14 says the miraculous gifts of the Spirit had been given "until the redemption of the purchased possession." In Luke 21:22-32, Jesus spoke of his coming in the fall of Jerusalem as the time of redemption, vs. 28. We would note three things in regard to this text and our discussion of resurrection and redemption.
1.] Jesus said that in Jerusalem's fall "all things that are written must be fulfilled" vs. 22. Thus, Jesus identifies the time when his requirement for the passing of the Law--complete fulfillment-- would be.
2.] Jesus told the disciples that when they saw the events surrounding Jerusalem's demise "look up, and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near" vs. 28. Thus, the time of the day of redemption--the time of the resurrection--is identified.
Some say this redemption speaks simply of the saving of their physical lives from any further persecution. But if this were true, and if it be argued that the fall of Jerusalem was a strictly local event, of what value would these words be to those outside of Judea?
Many commentators acknowledge that Romans 13:11-13 speaks of the fall of Jerusalem. Yet it is termed "the day" and Paul says "now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed." If redemption/salvation is from physical persecution only, and if the judgment on Jerusalem was a strictly localized event, in what way would the salvation of the Romans be at hand? Per the "localized judgment" concept there should have been nothing for the Romans to be "saved from!"
The same is true in 1 Peter 4:7, 17. Peter was speaking to brethren in Asia, Pontus, Galatia, etc, 1 Pet. 1:1. Yet he said "the end of all things is at hand" 4:7; and, "the time has come for the judgment to begin at the house of God" 4:17. Coffman says these verses refer to the fall of Jerusalem and that it was "the greatest single event of a thousand years, and religiously significant beyond anything else that ever occurred in human history." But if this be so it can hardly be called a "localized event!" For if the fall of Jerusalem was strictly localized, of what significance would it have been to the brethren in Asia, Cappadocia, Pontus, etc.? The fact is, it was not a localized event in significance any more than the crucifixion or resurrection were "localized" in significance!
Furthermore, as we have seen in Isaiah 2-4; 65-66; and Zechariah 12-14 God promised salvation for Israel at the time of her judgment in A.D. 70. Without dispute Israel was not saved physically at that time!
Our point is that when Jesus said that in the fall of Jerusalem redemption was at hand he was not speaking simply of deliverance from persecution. While that definitely was included for his disciples, the fall of Jerusalem signified the consummation of spiritual redemption. What Jesus had initiated by his passion he would consummate by his Parousia, Heb. 9:24-28.
3.] In Luke 21:32 the Lord specifically said all these events would occur in his generation.
There is perfect harmony therefore between Jesus and Paul in regard to fulfillment and passing of the Law, redemption and resurrection. The Old Law had to be fulfilled before it could pass. Jesus said the passing of the Old System would bring redemption; redemption equaled resurrection.
Paul taught that the passing of the Old Law would be the time of the resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:54-56 the apostle said that the predictions of the resurrection, found in Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 would be fulfilled when the sting of death and strength of sin was destroyed. Specifically, he said "the strength of sin is the law" vs. 56. Reader, what law gave sin its strength?
Does the Gospel give sin its strength? It must if the resurrection does not occur until the end of the Christian Age for it is the Gospel that is currently God's only law. Thus, since resurrection equals liberty from the strength of sin, i.e. "the Law", if the resurrection comes at the end of the Christian Age then resurrection must be liberty from the Gospel! Who can believe such a thing?
The Gospel is God's power to save, Rom. 1:16. The problem is "the law of sin and death" Rom. 8:1-3. The Old Law could never deliver man from that Law. But the Gospel does! It is not the resurrection that delivers one from the Gospel; but the Gospel that delivers from the Law of Sin and Death! Since then the Gospel cannot be the strength of sin, what law was?
Paul uses the term "the law" 117 times in his writings; 110 times that term refers to the Old Covenant. In the seven times that it does not refer to that Old Law the context very clearly identifies what law is under consideration. It is evident therefore that when Paul uses the term "the law" in 1 Corinthians 15 that his consistent use of the term should guide our understanding. Is it possible to define the Old Covenant as the strength of sin? Indeed.
In Romans 5:20 Paul said the law was added "that sin might abound." This does not mean that God gave the Old Law to make men sin more--man had no problem doing that! But God gave the Old Law to make sin appear exceedingly sinful, to make man acutely aware of his sinfulness.
In chapter 7 of the same book Paul said:
"I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" vs. 9-11.
What death is Paul describing here? Is it biological death of his physical body? Patently not. Yet he said he had died. What law was Paul describing so graphically in terms of sin and death? What law gave sin such a hold on Paul? It was the law that said "thou shalt not covet" vs. 7 --the Old Covenant of Israel.
This is the law that Paul labored under and that created the "body of this death" Rom. 7:24 and from which Paul longed for full deliverance, cf. Phil. 3:1-15.
In direct contrast to the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ," the Old Law could not deliver from the "law of sin and death," Rom. 8:1-3. As just seen in chapters 5-7 of Romans the Law actually exacerbated the cognizance of the "law of sin and death." As Paul expressed in Galatians 3:10 "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them." Thus, the Old Law is seen to be the strength of sin.
In his second letter to the Corinthians this apostle further dealt with that Old Law. While the law "written and engraven in stones" was glorious in design and purpose, it nonetheless was a "ministration of death" 3:7. The apostle spoke of his then present hope for the full passing of that Ministration of Death, 3:12. Now if the Old Law had fully passed at the Cross how could Paul still be hoping for its passing over 20 years later as he penned this epistle? Our point is that Paul calls that Old Law the Ministration of Death because it could not deliver from sin.
As he expressed in Galatians "If there had been a law given that could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the Law," Gal. 3:10. Paul uses "life" and "righteousness" interchangeably. As we have seen earlier, the Biblical definition of life and death, in the context of Jesus' redemptive work, is not redemption from biological death but redemption from death caused by sin, i.e. separation from God. And from this the Old Law could not deliver. Instead it exacerbated the problem of sin--it was the strength of sin.
Now if the Old Law was a ministration of death what would deliverance from that death be? Would it be life from the dead? Would it be resurrection? And if the Old Law was concerned with "carnal ordinances" Heb. 9:10, and "things made with hands" but was to give way to the incorruptible Word of the Gospel, 1 Pet. 1:23, would that not be a change from corruptibility to incorruptibility, 1 Cor. 15:53?
In all of these passages it is evident that the strength of sin was the Old Covenant. Please follow us here:
1.] Jesus said that all of the Law had to be fulfilled before it could pass. Paul said the resurrection would be when the Old Testament predictions, Isa. 25; Hos. 13 were fulfilled. Thus, the Old Law could not pass until the resurrection occurred. If the resurrection has not occurred then the Old Law still stands.
2.] Paul said the resurrection would be deliverance from the strength of sin. The Old Law was the strength of sin. Therefore resurrection would be full deliverance from the Old Law.
3.] Deliverance from the Old Law, the Ministration of Death, would come therefore when it was fulfilled by full deliverance to the New Covenant Law of Life in Christ Jesus. If the New Covenant of Christ has been fully delivered and the Old Law has been fully taken away then the strength of sin has been destroyed and resurrection life is a reality in Christ! To put it another way, since the Old Law was the Ministration of Death and the New Law of Christ is the Law of Life, resurrection became a reality with the full establishment of Christ's New Covenant!
While the Old Law does not exist today, sin does. And sin still separates just as it did for Jews under the Ministration of Death or Gentiles "who have not the Law" Romans 2:14, but who were dead in sin nonetheless. It is resurrection life from sin that has become a reality in Christ. Those who come into Christ today are set free from sin, Ephesians 2:1, and raised to walk in newness of life, Romans 6:1-4.
If the Old Covenant has not been fulfilled then the Old Covenant still stands. But if the Old Covenant still stands there is no current deliverance from the law of sin and death. What good therefore has Christ done? What then is "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ" Rom. 8:3, and FROM WHAT DOES IT DELIVER?
In John 5:24-29 Jesus makes it clear that it is hearing his voice that gives life from death. "Hearing" his voice is a euphemism for obeying his word, thus obedience to Christ's word gives life from the dead. This is what the Old Testament scriptures predicted, John 5:39ff, and what has become reality through the Gospel. It is not the Old Covenant that saves but Jesus.
This brief study of the law and resurrection has demonstrated that the modern view that the Law passed at the Cross is erroneous since Jesus said all of the law had to be fulfilled before it could pass and one of the constituent elements of the law was the resurrection. If the resurrection has not occurred then the Old Law still stands. Further, we have shown that Paul describes resurrection as deliverance from the Old Law that gave sin its strength; and deliverance to the Gospel of Christ which gives life.
All of this fully agrees with what we have seen in regard to John 5:24-29 and its movement from the beginning of the harvest/resurrection to the full resurrection. There was a transitional period of time when the Old Covenant was growing old, Heb. 8:13 and thus "ready to pass away" and the time of complete revelation and confirmation of the Gospel. Those coming out from under the Law into Christ were experiencing life from the dead. This also included Gentiles who, while not under the Law, nonetheless were dead in sin, Ephesians 2:1f, but who were made alive by "being raised together with him by faith in the operation of God" Col. 2:12, in baptism.
When one today realizes the absolute necessity for the fulfillment of the Old Law and Paul's discussion of the relationship of the passing of the Law to the resurrection it demands that we see the resurrection as full deliverance from sin, a spiritual resurrection. It also demands a fresh view of God's relationship with Israel beyond the Cross.
God could not reject Israel until He had fulfilled all His promises to them "for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" Rom. 11:29. If therefore God has not kept his promise of resurrection--the Hope of Israel--then God must still have a distinctive relationship with them. Yet the fall of Jerusalem demonstrates beyond doubt that God's relationship with Israel is terminated, see Daniel 9:24-27; therefore God's promises to Israel stand fulfilled and the Hope of Israel has become a reality!
Contents - Part 8 - Don Preston's site - Covenant Eschatology
Spirit of the Word - Introductory Note - New Stuff
Undivided Version
Part 1 - Resurrection From What Death?
Part 2 - Two Resurrections?
Part 3 - It Is the Last Hour
Part 4 - The Hour of His Judgment Is Come
Part 5 - The Hope of Israel
Part 6 - The Kingdom Does Not Come With Observation
Part 7 - Resurrection and the Law
Part 8 - The Prophetic Background of John 5
Part 9 - What Is Resurrection?
Part 10 - Resurrection When?
Part 11 - Problems With Tradition
Part 12 - Objections Considered
Part 13 - Summary and Conclusion