Matt. 19:21 - What it means to be perfect
|
Browse commentary
Recent comments
Books
 |
 |
 |
User login
Creative Commons License
|
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License |
Re: What it means to be perfect
Andrew - in the passage, the phrase rendered “eternal life” (zoen aionion) isn’t synonymous with “the age to come”. We can see this from the parallel passage in Mark 10:30, where the two phrases are separated - “and in the age to come, eternal life”. “Eternal life” is a quality of life to be enjoyed in the age to come, which John 17:3 describes in this way - “Now this is eternal life (aionios zoe), to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”
What then is “the age to come” in which this “eternal life” can be enjoyed? It’s not simply an age which opens out once the perilous pathway of Jewish and Roman persecutions and judgements has been navigated, but an age which is breaking in on the present age - during Jewish and Roman persecutions - Hebrews 6:5, and an age beyond that age - Hebrews 2:5.
That the “age to come” of Hebrews 2:5, characterised by the visible appearance of everything in subjection to Jesus, is only partially represented in history then and now, is demonstrated by the nature of history - not everything has found its place in subjection to him yet!
The destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem marked a catastrophe which to the disciples, and no doubt in the mind of most Jews, was tantamount to the end of the world itself, rather than “the age”, “synteleios ton aionos” - Matthew 24:3. Matthew’s account, however, creates ambiguity: the “end of the age” was not necessarily co-terminous with the destruction of the temple, as the Jews had imagined.
In Matthew 19, we have only a question from the rich young ruler about “eternal life”, not “the age to come”, although it might be said that the latter thought is implied in the former. Nevertheless, from your point of view, it is valid also to say that the passage focuses on universal spiritual realities, not a simple historical, time-based question.
Re: What it means to be perfect
Peter, I agree that ’eternal life’ is the life that is to be enjoyed in the age to come as it is foreseen in the New Testament. I also agree that Hebrews 6:5 refers to a present experience of the ’powers of the age to come’.
The question then is: What does it mean for the ’world (oikoumenēn) to come’ to be subjected to Christ? A couple of considerations. The word oikoumenēn rather (though not definitely) suggests the prevailing political or cultural system of the Greek-Roman world. Hebrews 1:13 (cf. 10:13) quotes Psalm 110:1, which speaks of YHWH’s victory over the king’s enemies, which in the context of a letter addressed to a persecuted church must surely be taken concretely and historically. It suggests to me that the subjection of the world to come basically equates with the defeat of the immediate opponents of the church. Similarly, the quotation of Psalm 45:6 in Hebrews 1:8 evokes the image of Israel’s king who rides forth victoriously for the cause of truth and to defend the right, whose arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies (Ps. 45:4-5).
Of course, this means taking the idea of subjection in a less than absolute, but this seems entirely in keeping with the nature of prophetic language. I suspect that your comment about not everything being subjected to Christ in history reflects a modern, rationalist perspective on things. The language of the Old Testament is primarily the language of politics - in the sense that what is fundamentally at issue is the situation and destiny of a people group in the world. My argument is simply that the writings of the New Testament are likely to be much closer to this practical nationalist outlook than to our modern, universalizing take on matters spiritual.
With regard to Matthew 19 - I don’t follow you. The translation ’eternal life’ sounds to us like a universal spiritual reality. But it is interpreted in 19:23 as entering the kingdom of heaven, which already introduces a specifically Jewish frame of reference. And zōēn aiōnion is ’life of the age’ or ’life age-enduring’ - quite easily understood as the ’life of the age to come’, following the vindication of righteous Israel in Christ who is the Son of man (cf. Matt. 19:28).
Re: What it means to be perfect
Yes, ‘zoen aionion’, ‘eternal life/life of the age’ - Matthew 19:16, and ‘kingdom of heaven’- Matthew 19:23, must be related. So it all depends what Jesus meant by the two terms, especially ‘kingdom of heaven’. Clearly, I think they mean something different from yourself. I don’t think I’m a blinkered modernist; I think there are other quite satisfactory historical explanations based on the NT evidence and the history of the church.
I’d have thought John 17:3 gives a very simple definition of ‘aionios zoe’, ‘eternal life’, which takes it out of a purely political/historical context. This is reinforced by the use of the term and its development as a theme elsewhere in John’s gospel.
With regard to the concept of ‘the kingdom’, I think that your interpretation lacks the historical evidence for the very historical interpretation that it urges. Rome just went on persecuting the church; there never was visible evidence of a judgement in which the saints were vindicated over their political enemies.
I also think that your interpretation doesn’t provide a sufficiently critical evaluation of the crucial strand of 1st century nationalistic expectations of Israel, in which a national ideology was fed by a particular interpretation of the OT, and which Jesus was at pains to oppose. Violence had come to reside at the heart of this ideology, severely distorting what judgement/vindication actually meant.
I don’t think your view of 1st century Jewish expectations and therefore OT interpretation, is reformed enough, as far as the interpretation of the NT goes. I think that Jesus was much more radical in his reinterpretation of Israel’s history and destiny, and the future of God’s people.
Re: What it means to be perfect
Well, yes, if you take John 17:3 out of context, you can make it mean pretty much what you like. But Jesus is explicitly addressing the particular group of disciples (this is clear from verse 12) on the assumption that they will face the hatred and opposition of the world. How is this not a political-historical issue?
It seems to me that there is plenty of evidence in John that the story about Jesus and the disciples is set within the framework of the story of the Son of man, which is a story about the deliverance of the persecuted saints of the Most High and the destruction of the political power that opposed them. We have to ask why this story was so important for Jesus. It seems highly unlikely that he would take over the vision and strip it of the entire political-historical dimension.
It may be true that not enough has been said about Jesus’ critique of the path of violent resistance to Rome. But that is not a problem. Daniel’s vision of the vindication of the saints conceives of victory through patient suffering, not through militancy. By opposing violence Jesus does not nullify the political-historical objective. His point is that the goal will be achieved by means of the faith or faithfulness of the community that takes the same path that he has taken.
The issue at the heart of the New Testament is how will God remain faithful to his promise to Abraham when Israel faces destruction. This is a political question in the sense that it concerns primarily the fate of a people. Jesus’ prayer in John 17 cannot be extracted from this context. Its urgency comes precisely from the fact that the continuation of God’s purposes in the world through a chosen people depends on this group surviving the severe hostility that it will face.
Re: What it means to be perfect
Andrew - you said:
” ‘zōēn aiōnion’ is ‘life of the age’ or ‘life age-enduring’ - quite easily understood as the ‘life of the age to come’”
This doesn’t seem to me to be how the word “aiōnios” is used in the NT - where, as far as I can see, the sense of “eternal” predominates over any other meaning. Your own interpretation considerably weakens this emphasis.
“Eternal life” - John 17:3 carries the same emphasis; it describes a quality of life which is experienced through knowing God and Jesus Christ who was sent by him. It does not describe a quality of life which is limited to a historical period. I don’t think I have taken anything out of context. This is how the phrase is used throughout John’s gospel.
To go back to Matthew 19, it is difficult to see how the rich young man can be asking anything other than how he may experience a quality of life which has this sense - the life of God himself - when there is no further qualification which could limit his meaning. Mark 10:30 makes the necessity for some distinction between the two phrases - ‘the age to come’ and ‘eternal life’ - as clear as it could be.
We disagree on the precise meaning of “the age to come” (my own understanding is set out above).
We also disagree over the meaning of “the kingdom of heaven”, though I may have misunderstood your interpretation, which I understand to be more of an event than an on-going reality.
We now seem to disagree about the meaning of most of John’s gospel - which it would be interesting to explore.
What a lot we disagree about! But at least I provide a sounding-board for your ideas, and I hope without disrespect to the hospitality given to me on your site.
Re: What it means to be perfect
Yes, we do seem to have a habit of disagreeing - but hopefully agreeably and constructively.
I don’t have a problem with your emphasis on the ’quality’ of this ’life’ as having to do at the individual level with knowing God through Jesus Christ. But I still maintain that in the Gospels this presupposes a narrative framework which is quite different to what is usually assumed in our preaching and evangelism.
So Jesus’ argument in Mark 10:29-30 is that the disciples will have persecutions as the present age comes to a climactic end, but once that end is passed, once the persecutions are over, they will experience as a community the life of the age that will come after this. A few verses later he tells the story of the Son of man, which is a story about how God defeats the Gentile kingdom that oppresses and persecutes the saints. I don’t see how we can get away from the fact that Jesus sets the experience of the disciples within this sort of political and national narrative.
No, Mark doesn’t make such a clear distinction between the ’age to come’ and ’eternal life’. The phrase is literally: in the age to come the life of the age (en tōi aiōni tōi erchomenōi zōēn aiōnion). It is the life that belongs specifically to the coming age.
In Matthew 19, just after the incident with the young ruler and his search for the life of the age, Jesus and the disciples discuss the difficulty that the wealthy will have entering the kingdom of heaven. Again, Jesus introduces the Son of man story:
Regeneration’ is palingenesia. In the background is the use of the metaphor of new creation to describes the restoration of Israel in Is. 65:7; 66:22. Josephus uses the word to refer to the ‘rebirth’ of the nation following the exile (Ant. 11.2.9 §66). It seems pretty clear that Jesus is talking about what comes after judgment on Israel’s enemies and the restoration of Israel, which of course is the ’salvation’ envisaged by Zechariah (Lk. 1:74-75).
At a personal level this will be the experience of the life of God through the Spirit of prophecy and renewal, but in the New Testament (as opposed to the ahistorical myth of much modern Christianity) this is set in a story about the deliverance of the people from the political and spiritual powers that oppressed it.
Caiaphas seems to have understood this very well:
That seems to make the historical context of John 17 pretty clear. This is not incidental background material: this is what the gospel is about. Jesus saving a nation from the concrete experience of judgment, which includes Roman oppression and the scattering of Jews as a sign of continuing exile from the land.
Re: What it means to be perfect
Andrew - I agree that there is a narrative framework to the gospels to which we should give attention, and that we should let our inherited theological and cultural assumptions be subject to thorough-going criticism. But as you know, I think there are some serious flaws in your own narrative reading of the gospels.
Just to look at some of the specifics of your comment.
You said:
“So Jesus’ argument in Mark 10:29-30 is that the disciples will have persecutions as the present age comes to a climactic end, but once that end is passed, once the persecutions are over, they will experience as a community the life of the age that will come after this.”
I read Mark 10:29-30 as having a different emphasis. In ‘this age’ (which I read as the age then and now), the promise to those who leave all (then and now) for Jesus and the gospel is of rewards a hundredfold in this age, and persecutions (deliberately thrown in as if it were an afterthought). The promise of the age to come (v.30) is ‘eternal life’ (see below). Jesus’s words only really make sense if there is an overlapping of ‘this age’, and ‘the age to come’. Your reading requires a separation of the two ages which occurred in the past - which fails to make sense, as persecutions continue beyond the start of ‘the age to come’ as defined by your reading.
You said:
“A few verses later he tells the story of the Son of man, which is a story about how God defeats the Gentile kingdom that oppresses and persecutes the saints.”
I couldn’t find these verses, but immediately following 10:17-31 I did find Jesus’s prediction of his death, and the emphasis on a connection between glory and suffering, with further veiled references to Jesus’s own death. I find Jesus’s death less than central in your narrative reading - of less importance than the the judgement on the gentile kingdom you refer to above.
You said:
“No, Mark doesn’t make such a clear distinction between the ‘age to come’ and ‘eternal life’. The phrase is literally: in the age to come the life of the age (en tōi aiōni tōi erchomenōi zōēn aiōnion). It is the life that belongs specifically to the coming age.”
I understand your reading of zōēn aiōnion, and why you make it. It is interesting to pursue it, and ask whether it stands up in the light of all the usages of zōēn aiōnion in the NT. But the translators consistently use the phrase ‘eternal life’ for a reason - which is that in Greek usage as well as biblical usage, that is what it means. Sometimes it is impossible for it to mean anything else, given the context. A literal transliteration is not always the soundest guide to etymology. My original point was to question the impression given in your commentary (above) that the phrases were almost synonymous. But what is “the life of the age” if not “eternal life” - the life given by God to those who receive it by believing in Jesus, and who practise it according to his ethical teaching? “Eternal life” is the quality of life characterised by the “age to come” - which overlaps with “this present age”, but extends beyond it.
Your reading is that “this present age” referred to by the disciples ceased at some point in past history, and we are now in “the age to come”. But you haven’t been able to say when “this present age” ceased, historically, (though you make a case for it ceasing spiritually), and you haven’t been able to say why it is that all the characteristics of “this present age”, which you say has ceased (it did so at ‘the coming of the son of man’), have continued into “the age to come” (eg persecutions).
Jesus’s apocalyptic utterance in Matthew 19:28-29 is, in the first place, somewhat obscure. Its significance seems to me to arise from the context of Jesus’s own suffering and death, as well as of his disciples, in the immediately preceding passage, which follows the episode with the rich young man. But if there is a connection, the rendering of zōēn aiōnion as ‘eternal life’ would make sense - since the pathway to it involves suffering - the suffering of Jesus above all other suffering.
It’s always informative, and intensely interesting (to me at any rate), to see echoes of words and phrases from contemporary literature, such as ‘palingenesia’. Your eschatology here could be described as ‘over-realised’ however. Of course salvation is to do with the new creation, and the new creation is inaugurated by Jesus and through his followers. But it is not as complete, in its earthly manifestation, as your interpretation seems to want it to be. That is yet to come. And again, the point at which we crucially diverge is over what event in particular inaugurated the new creation - which for you, is an already accomplished coming of Jesus as the son of man, involving judgement on his enemies. For me, it was the ascension and outpouring of the Spirit, only made possible by the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus. The cross stands at the centre of these events, but has no meaning without them.
Your quotation from John 11 says it all - Jesus’s death was “not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” John’s commentary here on the unintended prophecy of Caiaphas undoubtedly had in mind the ingathering of the gentiles - his profound understanding of Isaiah leaves no other interpretation. My understanding is that this was not an afterthought in God’s plans concerning the death of Jesus.
I find your revised version of the narrative in the gospels intensely interesting - and very interesting to explore the uses of zōēn aiōnion in context in the limited sense in which you want to interpret it. My main problem with your reading as a whole (of which zōēn aiōnion is a part) is that there are too many difficulties it runs into in the rest of the NT, and that it fails in the end to make sense of why Christianity has been such a compelling worldwide faith - or to offer compelling reasons why anyone should want to adopt it. For the world outside historical Israel, it’s just a sideshow - which we are welcome to sign up to if we really want, but it doesn’t have any particular direct bearing on anyone outside 1st century Israel. It becomes their story, but not ours.