Criswell
Theological Review 3.1 (1988) 79-99.
Copyright © 1988 by The
ESCHATOLOGY IN JOHN'S GOSPEL
W. ROBERT
COOK
Western
Seminary
I. Introduction
It
would seem that the subject, "Eschatology in John's Gospel," is so
straightforward
as to allow us to get on immediately with the study.
Certainly
there is general agreement about what document is in view
under
the title "John's Gospel." At this point, however, any agreement
ends.
Traditional study of eschatology has recognized that there are
two
sets of last things (e@sxata) which the Bible addresses: individual
eschatology
and corporate eschatology (e.g., the parousia, the tribula-
tion,
the millennial kingdom, etc.). The first category of information
relates
to matters of personal destiny, while the second deals more
with
God's future plans for the world in general. In practice, however,
attention
seems to be given to one or the other in theological writing
rather
than to both. Further, there is no agreement as to whether
eschatology
should be limited simply to "last things" in a quantitative
sense,
that is, strictly to end-time things, or whether it is to be
understood
as predominantly "realized," that is, relating more to this
age
than to the age yet to come.
A balanced view which takes all of
the biblical data into con-
sideration,
will need to give place to all these elements. There is much
revelation
relating to both individual destiny and the future of
and
the nations. There is an emphasis upon both this age and the age
to
come with interplay between the two. Eschatology must be viewed
as
having strongly qualitative overtones as well as quantitative ones.1
1 W. Robert Cook, Systematic Theology in Outline Form (
Baptist,
1981) 719.
80 CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Eschatology does indeed deal with
last things since it has to do with the
consummation of the old order, the
bringing to an end of that which has
never had God's approval. It also
deals with ultimate things since it has
to do with the establishment of that
which God has always intended.2
The
question that must now be considered is how eschatological
teaching
is set forth in the fourth gospel.
II. A Summary of the "Critical Problems"
To announce a subject such as
"Eschatology in John's Gospel" at
this
juncture in NT studies is to evoke the consideration of names such
as
C. H. Dodd, R. Bultmann, J. A. T. Robinson, and R. Schnacken-
burg.
These men have, and to some extent continue, to set the direc-
tion
for the discussion of this subject. They have made eschatology
key
to the understanding of the Gospel of John so that G. E. Ladd
could
say, "The question of the eschatological teaching of the Fourth
Gospel
brings the entire Johannine problem into sharp focus."3
The "problem" to which
Ladd refers is the apparent discontinuity
between
the eschatology of the Synoptic Jesus and the eschatology of
the
Johannine Jesus. How can we account for great difference between
the
apocalyptic emphasis on the
the
contemporary emphasis upon eternal life immediately received
through
faith in Jesus Christ in John? It is held by many scholars that
these
messages are so disparate that they could not have come directly
from
the mouth of the same person. Were there indeed two schools of
eschatological
thought, one futuristic and one realized, which vied for
ascendancy
in the early church? Did the latter eventually supplant the
former
and, if so, why? Did Jesus set forth one line of thinking and
editors
(redactors) set forth another or are both representative of the
thinking
of differing groups of his followers? In any case, no matter
which
explanation is offered, it would be held that the evangelist who
gave
the record (in this case John), a later redactor, or a circle of
disciples
whose views are being expressed, was honestly intending to
represent
the meaning of what Jesus said and
did for the believing
community.
Since, as is widely acknowledged, the gospel writers had
access
to and utilized a variety of traditions or sources, it is to be
expected
that somewhat different emphases would evidence them-
selves.
Dodd, for example, formulates the question, "To what extent
and
under what conditions may the Fourth Gospel be used as a
2 Ibid., 720.
3 G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (
1974)
298.
Cook: ESCHATOLOGY IN
JOHN'S GOSPEL 81
document
for the historian in that sense?"4 That is, how may it be
used
to determine how things actually happened? He goes on to state,
The answer to the question depends upon the sources of informa-
tion which were at the disposal of
the evangelist, if we assume. ..that
he intended to record that which happened,
however free he may have
felt to modify the factual record in
order to bring out the meaning.5
In order to illustrate how two of
the major shapers of thought on
Johannine
eschatology answer these prior questions we will consider
statements
from Dodd and Bultmann.
In commenting on John 14:2-3
regarding Jesus' promise to his
disciples
that he will come again Dodd writes:
By now it is surely clear that the 'return' of Christ is to be under-
stood in a sense different from that
of popular Christian eschatology. It
means that after the death of Jesus,
and because of it, His followers will
enter into union with Him as their
living Lord, and through Him with the
Father, and so enter eternal life.
That is what He meant when He said, 'I
will come again and receive you to
myself, that where I am you too may
be' (cf. also xvii. 24). This is the
true 'epiphany,' and it is essentially an
epiphany of the love of God, as the
evangelist has set forth clearly and
emphatically in xiv. 21-4.6
It
is no wonder that Robinson, in noting Dodd's earlier views on
Johannine
eschatology, characterizes it as "quasi-Platonic mysticism."7
This
line of thinking is predicated on Dodd's view that John, in
contrast
to the synoptic writers, set forth a realized eschatology.8 "He
believed
that Jesus' message was the proclamation of the inbreaking
of
the eternal into the temporal world. . . . Jesus indeed used apoca-
lyptic
language to describe this event, but it was only a symbolic way
of
describing the otherness--the transcendental character of the king-
dom
of God."9
Robinson suggests that earlier in
his writing Dodd accounted for
this
change from the futuristic view of the synoptists by viewing it as
a
later corrective "when the primitive apocalyptic expectation reached
a
point at which no literal fulfillment could be looked for. . . ."10
Later
4 C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel
(
5 Ibid.
6 Dodd, Interpretation, 405.
7 J. A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John (London: SCM, 1985)
339. See also,
9 Ladd, Theology, 300.
8 Dodd, Interpretation, 447.
9 Ladd, Theology, 299.
10 Robinson, Priority, 339.
82
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
on
he explained the difference on the basis of a separate oral tradition
which
was uninfluenced by the Synoptic tradition.11
Bultmann, on the other hand, takes
quite another approach. Like
Dodd
he sees heavy gnostic influence in the Fourth Gospel. John,
however,
uses these mythological ideas to his own ends which are
basically
existential. Commenting on some of the dualistic motifs as
he
sees them in the gospel he says,
They all derive their meaning from
the search for human existence--for
"life" as "life
eternal"--and denote the double possibility of human
existence: to exist either from God
or from man himself. . . . Each man
is, or once was, confronted with
deciding for or against God; and he is
confronted anew with this decision
by the revelation of God in Jesus.
The cosmological dualism of
Gnosticism has become in John a dualism
of decision.12
Regarding such Johannine titles for
Jesus Christ as "savior of the
world,"
"Messiah," "Son of God," and "Son of Man" he
states, "What
is
expressed by all these titles is that Jesus is the eschatological salva-
tion
bringer, that his coming is the
eschatological event."13 His evalua-
tion
of John's record about Peter (1:42), Nathaniel (1:47-48), and the
Samaritan
woman is that ". . . to the
evangelist these stories taken
from
tradition are symbolic pictures which indicate that the believer
feels
himself searched and known by God and that his own existence
is
exposed by the encounters with the Revealer."14
A specific example of his
existentialization of Johannine escha-
tology
may be seen as he coalesces resurrection promises with parou-
sia
promises, with promises of the coming of the Holy Spirit. He
states
that " . . . for John, Easter, Pentecost, and the parousia are not
three
separate events, but one and the same." He then concludes, "But
the
one event that is meant by all these is not an external occurrence,
but
an inner one: the victory which Jesus wins when faith arises in
man
by the overcoming of the offense that Jesus is to him."15
It is not that Bultmann denies the
presence in John of what he
would
call a "popular" eschatological note. For him the most obvious
is
in John 5:28-29 where a belief in a future bodily resurrection is
found.
Since in his mind this is anomalous with the preceding material
11 Dodd, Interpretation, 444-53. cr. Robinson,
Priority, 340.
12 R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (2 vols;
Scribner's
Sons, 1951-55) 2.20-21.
13 Bultmann, Theology, 37.
14 Ibid., 42.
15 Ibid., 57.
Cook: ESCHATOLOGY IN
JOHN'S GOSPEL 83
of
this section of chap five, he attributes it to a redactor. Commenting
on
this passage he writes:
In any case vv. 28f. have been added by the editor, in an attempt to
reconcile the dangerous statements
in vv. 24f. with traditional escha-
tology. Both the source and the
Evangelist see this eschatological event
in the present proclamation of the
word of Jesus. Yet the popular
eschatology, which is so radically
swept aside by such a view, is rein-
stated again in vv. 28f. The editor
corrects the Evangelist by this simple
addition, so that it is difficult to
say how he thought the statements in
vv. 24f. could be reconciled with
it.16
Subsequent writers have variously
agreed with, disagreed with or
modified
Dodd and Bultmann. Robinson, arguing for the priority of
John
and consequently, for an earlier date than is usually allowed,17
holds
that John represents an early source which reflects Jesus' view
of
eschatology. We could refer to it as a thorough-going realized
eschatology.
He believes, on the basis of John 17:24, that John (Jesus)
refers
" . . . to the resurrection as inaugurating the parousia."18
Schnack-
enburg,
on the other hand, while not dogmatic about it seems to favor
the
idea that certain eschatological elements in John's Gospel are the
work
of a redactor.19 "Does this mean that the redaction has intro-
duced
an idea rejected by the evangelist? Did the evangelist deny the
common
faith of the primitive Church in the end of events?" Having
raised
these questions, he answers, "There are no compelling reasons
for
this constantly reiterated idea. . . . "20 He challenges
Bultmann's
existential
approach as too radical, opts for a realized eschatology that
is
compatible with "expectations for the future," and finally seems to
advocate
that John” . . . is concerned more with the existential situa-
tion
and the ultimate fate of the individual."21 In light of this
analysis,
he
concludes that "the idea of the parousia recedes; entry into the
heavenly
world to see Jesus' glory (17:24) is more important and, to
some
extent, takes over the function of completion which had pre-
viously
been attributed to the parousia and the events of the end,"22
16 R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Westminster:
Philadelphia, 1971) 261. See
also
Bultmann, Theology, 39.
17 See his entire volume The Priority of John, and especially
such statements as
found
on pp. 33-35.
18 Robinson, Priority, 341, n. 139.
19 R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (3
vols;
Seabury,
1980-82) 2.114-16.
20 Schnackenburg,
21 Ibid., 431, 432, 435.
22 Ibid., 435.
84
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
R. Brown proposes as a
"workable hypothesis" the idea that
"within
Jesus' Own message there was a tension between realized and
final
eschatology. In his ministry the reign of God was making itself
manifest
among men; and yet, as heir of an apocalyptic tradition,
Jesus
also spoke of a final manifestation of divine power yet to
come."23
He later affirms that "apocalyptic eschatology" was indeed a
theme
" . . . found in Jesus' own preaching," although he is also sure
that
the two eschatological themes were not in the original edition of
the
Gospel.24 He offers two cautions regarding such a redaction. First,
we
must not view the redactor as a censor " . . . but rather one who
preserved
J ohannine material. . . ." Second, we should not view the
redaction
as " . . . an attempt to make the Gospel more orthodox and
acceptable
to the Church." He was rather concerned". . . to preserve
Johannine
material that would have otherwise been lost" and to assure
that
the realized eschatology of the Gospel not " . . . crowd out the
expectation
of the second coming. . . ."25
L. Goppelt, a significant critic of
Bultmann, was himself difficult
to
categorize in terms of his position on NT theology. While acknowl-
edging
that his position was " . . . by and large an independent one,"
J.
Alsup associated him most closely with the "salvation-history school
of
thought."26 Goppelt seems to have stated his own view in
general
terms,
at least, when he wrote, "In the opinion of this writer, however,
the
New Testament did not understand salvation history as a plan of
universal
history in the sense of Irenaeus, but only as the interrelation
of
promise and fulfilhnent."27
Goppelt addresses the problem of
Johannine eschatology by using
John
5:20b-30 as a paradigm. As have so many others, he initially
notes
the apparent tension between " . . . statements that speak of the
full
realization of salvation in the present for believers (vv. 20-27)
right
alongside others that. . . . combine the realization of salvation
with
the parousia (vv. 28f.)."28 He then proceeds to address this
tension
with a series of five observations with a view to clarification.29
1)
One way to account for the tension is to opt for Bultmann's
proposal
that a redactor inserted items about primitive Christian
23 R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 yoIs;
Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday,
1966) I.CXIX.
24 Brown, John I, CXXl.
25 Ibid.
26 L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament (2 vols;
1981-82)
l.xv and 2.xiii.
27 Goppelt, Theology, 1.280.
28 Ibid., 2.303.
29 Ibid., 2.303-305.
Cook: ESCHATOLOGY IN JOHN'S GOSPEL 85
eschatology
in order to make the Gospel acceptable to the church.
2)
On the basis of stylistic and terminological analysis as well as on
the
basis of content he rejects Bultmann's hypothesis. 3) He then
denies
that John 5:28-29 set forth popular primitive Christian escha-
tology.
It is his contention that "these verses did not speak about a
general
resurrection to judgment, but about a differentiated resurrec-
tion!"30
This represents apostolic, not popular eschatology. 4) This
differentiation
between a resurrection to life or to judgment is based
upon
the presupposition of a prior decision of belief or unbelief in
Jesus
Christ during this life. (The text, rather than speaking of faith or
unbelief,
speaks of doing good or evil. This should be understood as
apocalyptic
language for doing truth or error [3:20f.]. Doing truth is
equated
in 6:29 with faith in Jesus Christ.) "Thus 5:29 said: The kind
of
future, concrete resurrection for the individual, depended on faith
or
disbelief in Jesus."31 The issue that remains is the
harmonization of
5:24-27
and 5:28-29. Is there any place (need) for an eschatology of
the
future (bodily resurrection) when the eschatology of the present is
so
complete and final (present possession of eternal life and no pros-
pect
of judgment for the believing)? Goppelt's answer is in the affirma-
tive
since "according to vv. 28f. the decision had already been made
so
that from the very beginning the resurrection had a different-
character;
through it would only be carried out what had previously
been
given." "Thus vv. 28f. announced an hour in which Jesus' word
would
bring about concretely and ultimately that which it accom-
plished
now for faith in secret, namely, life or judgment."32
In light of this review of critical
theories regarding the Johannine
eschatology,
what then may we conclude? First of all, from John
5:24-29
alone (and there is much more evidence than this throughout
the
Gospel) it is inescapable that there are two dimensions to John's
eschatology.
Beginning with Dodd, they have often been labeled
"realized"
and "futuristic."33 Cautions have been raised regarding
the
use
of "realized," however, which are most valid. S. Smalley suggests
that
"because of its ambiguity, the term 'realized'--although con-
venient--is
probably best avoided, except when it is intended to
signify
the rigorous view that there is no future tense to salvation."34
A.
Hoekema thoughtfully notes:
30 Ibid., 2.304.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid., 2.304-5.
33 See e.g., Ladd, Theology, 306.
34 S. S. Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter
(Nashville: Nelson, 1978)
n.
313, 236.
86
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Since. . . there remain many
eschatological events that have not yet been
realized, and since the New
Testament clearly speaks of a future as well
as a present eschatology, I prefer
to speak of "inaugurated" rather than
"realized" eschatology.
The advantage of this term is that it does full
justice to the fact that the great eschatological
incision into history has
already been made, while it does not
take out a further development of
eschatology in the future.
"Inaugurated eschatology" implies that escha-
tology has indeed begun, but is by
no means finished.35
Others prefer to refer to the
tension between the "already ful-
filled"
and the "not yet completed"36 or to the overlapping of
this age
with
the age to come.37
Secondly, I would agree with Ladd
that there is no conflict
between
these two dimensions, even though a genuine tension may
exist.38
As was noted in earlier discussion, Goppelt has provided a
most
plausible resolution of any apparent contradiction. Or, as Ladd
states,
"This recognition of judgment as a present spiritual reality by
no
means permits us to evacuate the eschatological judgment of its
content."39
It would appear, from our consideration of this text in
John
5 and from the study of other texts, to be noted later that the
dimensions
of time and eternity parallel one another, with the two
spheres
of reality periodically intersecting, or at least becoming tan-
gent
to each other. Some eschatological matters are both now and
then
with emphasis upon the 'now' in biblical revelation (e.g., eternal
life;
death). Others seem to impinge on both now and then with
emphasis
upon "then" (e.g., Christ's return; resurrection). Yet others
seem
to be quite equally related to both "now" and "then" (e.g.,
judgment).
This last suggestion touches upon
another aspect of Johannine
style
that must be understood if we are to understand adequately his
eschatology.
Ladd refers to it as "eschatological structure."40 He sees
in
John a twofold division, one vertical (above and below) and the
other
horizontal (present and future).41 While in some cases John
views
these as one or the other, they are often presented as inter-
penetrating
one another. For example, heaven is often seen as bearing
35 A. A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 1979)
17-18.
See also J. A. T. Robinson, Jesus and His
Coming (New York: Abingdon, 1957)
170;
n. 2, 178 and Priority, 340.
36 O. CulImann, Salvation in History (New York: Harper
and Row, 1967) 172;
37 Ladd, Theology, 308.
38 Ibid., 306.
39 Ibid., 307.
40 Ibid., 302.
41 For extended discussion,
see Ibid., 229-36. See also D. Guthrie, New
Testament
Theology (Downer's Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1981) 799.
Cook: ESCHATOLOGY IN JOHN'S GOSPEL 87
on
the here and now, not simply on the there
and then (e.g., 1:51;
3:27).
Likewise, eternal life is rightly viewed as "life of the age to
come"
42 while being something to be experienced here and now
(5:24).
This eternal life is based upon a birth "from above"43
which
enables
one to "see the
III. A Consideration of the Textual Data
It is with the persuasion that the
Gospel of John was written by
one
hand, the apostle John, with a cohesive view of eschatology that
we
now come to a consideration of the textual data. The Gospel deals
with
at least six eschatological themes (death, heaven, judgment,
resurrection,
eternal life, and Christ's return; other possible eschato-
logical
themes with which he deals, but which will not be discussed
below,
are Messiah [Christ], Kingdom, and salvation). These six
themes
are found in 16 of the 21 chapters (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12,
13, 14, 16, 17, 21) with the emphasis falling in chaps 3, 5, 6, 8, 11
and
12. In addition, there are perhaps eight other important texts not
found
in the six key chapters. Recognizing that some texts may be
interpreted
somewhat differently by different theologians, my analysis
turned
up 34 references to death, 26 to heaven, 21 to judgment, 18 to
eternal
life and four to Christ's return. The following discussion will
deal
with the six key chapters and the eight significant texts as they
pertain
to the six selected themes.
One more observation of significance
needs to be made before an
analysis
of the text is undertaken. For all practical purposes the
eschatological
instruction found in John's Gospel comes from Jesus'
lips.
The only exceptions to this are one occasion when instruction
from
John the Baptist is recorded in 3:27-36, a brief response of Peter
to
our Lord's instruction in 6:36, Martha's comment about resurrection
in
the last day in 11:24, and John's own editorial comments in 12:1, 9,
17
and 21:23.
Death
Death is presented by John as being
related to the present and/or
the
future and as being physical. or spiritual. Spiritual death is the'
present
condition of those who fail to heed the word of the Son of
God
and who do not believe the Father's witness regarding His Son
42 C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to
214-15.
See also L. Morris, The Gospel According
to John (
1971)
227.
43 W. Robert Cook, Theology of John (
Morris,
John, 212-13.
88
CRISWELL THEOLOCICAL REVIEW
(5:24).
On the other hand, the one who keeps the Son's word will
never
experience spiritual death (8:51). Despite the seeming finality
physical
death, already during Jesus' earthly ministry the dead heard
his
voice and came to life (5:25). Perhaps the most dramatic instance
of
this is found in John 11. The death of Lazarus is described by
Christ
as sleep (11:11, 13-14), while his awakening from this sleep of
death
is called a resurrection from "the dead" (which apparently is an
identifiable
group) (12:1, 9, 17). The picture seems to be that the dead
are
those who may be awakened whenever Christ chooses to do so
(11:11),
and when so awakened they are restored to life (11:44). Thus,
in
a yet future day the dead ("all who are in the tombs") will respond
to
his voice (5:28-29).
Physical and spiritual death should
never be confused, nor should
physical
and spiritual (eternal) life (6:49-50, 58). Eating the bread
from
heaven (Jesus Christ) will keep one from spiritual death and, in
turn,
provide eternal life (6:58). Apart from believing in Jesus as the
saving
Son of God, people will die (experience physical death at the
end
of this life) in their sins (in a state of spiritual death) (3:21, 24). On
the
other hand, to believe in Christ is to live spiritually even though
one
dies physically, and to live and believe in him is to enter a
situation
where one will never die spiritually (11:25-26).
Eternal Life
Most of John's record of truth about
eternal life relates it to the
present.
It is viewed as involving an immediately realizable promise
and
as being antithetical to perishing (3:16). The one who receives
eternal
life is described as one who is saved or delivered from judg-
ment
(3:17-19; 5:24) since Jesus assures that person that they will
never
perish and that no one can remove them from his care (10:28).
This
long-range care and protection, which is available as a gift from
Jesus
Christ (10:28), comes in the form of nourishment which lasts,
rather
than that which spoils like bread (6:27). Eternal life is received
by
believing in God's unique Son (3:15-16; 6:47; 20:31). The believing
by
which it is appropriated has disobedience to the Son as its antithe-
sis,
that is, eternal life is received by obedience to the Son, namely the
obedience
of faith (3:36). Jesus elaborates upon this concept in 5:24
where
he declares that the receiving of eternal life relates to the
hearing
of his word. As Barrett notes, "a]kou<ein is used, as fmw
is often
used
in the Old Testament, with the meaning ‘to hear and do,’ ‘to be
obedient.’”44,
45 But not only must one obey the Son's word, they must
44 Barrett, John, 261.
45 Note also the
etymological relationship between a]lpi>w, hear, and u[pakou<w.
Cook: ESCHATOLOGY IN JOHN'S GOSPEL 89
also
believe the Father's witness about the Son in the Scriptures, for
therein
is the Son found (5:39-40). Because of this Jesus can sub-
sequently
state that eternal life is found in the Father's commandment
(12:49-50).
This line of reasoning naturally
leads to the question as to what
the
connection is between eternal life and Father/Son. Jesus antici-
pates
this question on two separate occasions. The Father "has life in
himself,"
and is, he is uncaused and independent, and since the Son is
of
the same essence as the Father (fully and truly God) he partakes of
the
same quality (5:26). Further, as the Son partakes of the Father's
life,
so we, as we appropriate him, partake of his life (6:57).
There is also a "not yet"
or future dimension to John's presenta-
tion
of eternal life laid alongside the "already" dimension. In 6:40,
53-54
Jesus makes a connection between eternal life (spiritual) and
resurrection
life (physical). He makes a most heartening and, by its
nature,
absolute promise to the believer by declaring, on the one
hand,
that it is God's will that everyone who believes in the Son have
eternal
life, and, on the other hand, that he (the Son) will bodily raise
such
a one in the last day. If anyone eats the living bread, which is
Jesus,
now he will live from now on (6:51, 58).
Resurrection
In the paragraph John 5:19-29 we
find three of our Lord's "truly,
truly"
statements. In the first (19-23) and third (25-29) significant
resurrection
truth is given. Initially, Jesus claims for himself power
and
authority in the areas of resurrection and life-giving that is parallel
to
that of the Father (21). While the second half of the statement
repeats
only the lifegiving part of the first, omitting the resurrection, it
should
be viewed as elliptical. This is demonstrated by the unmistak-
able
attributing of resurrection to the Son of Man in vv 28-29. It is
further
supported by the fact that life would not be given to those not
raised.
This is a remarkable and noteworthy claim.
It is in the third "truly,
truly" statement, however, that the more
extended
statements are found. Herein he makes two distinct yet
complementary
assertions about resurrection. The first relates to the
"already"
and anticipates the "not yet," while the second forecasts the
"not
yet" with more specificity.
Currently, during Jesus' earthly
ministry ("now"), the dead heard
the
voice of the Son of God and those who heard lived (25). The
traditional
wisdom on this statement is that this is an extension of the
statement
of v 24 about passing out of death into spirituallife.46 This
46 Out of over 25
commentators on this verse consulted, all but two, including this
writer
himself, have stated in print that this is a reference to spiritual death and
spiritual
90
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
interpretation
is based upon 1) the fact that "life" and "death" in v 24
are
spiritual quantities and the assumption that v 25 merely extends
this
truth in spiritual resurrection language; and, 2) the presence of
"and
now is" in v 25 in contrast to its absence in v 28. It is generally
assumed
that since physical resurrection is not going on "now" it is
patently
obvious that it must be spiritual life/death in view.
Only two commentators were found who
even acknowledge the
possibility
of an alternate explanation of the passage and neither of
them
made an attempt to defend or champion it.47 This alternative
interpretation,
which I would propose for serious consideration, is
that
as with vv 28 and 29 so here physical resurrection is in view. This
proposal
is supported by two lines of argument which, if sustaining,
lead
to a third. 1) The use of "truly, truly" in both vv 24 and 25 argues
for
some shift in subject matter. L. Morris acknowledges that these
words
seem "to indicate a new start,"48 although he does not
follow
through
on this line of thought. If the "truly, truly" of v 19 introduces
a
set of eschatological subjects (resurrection, life-giving, judgment--
vv
19-23), and if the "truly, truly" of v 24 relates these items to the
spiritual
realm ("eternal life"), then the "truly, truly" of v 25 may
be
understood
as introducing several verses which relate the same themes
to
the physical realm. 2) It seems to be begging the question to
automatically
relate "and now is" to the spiritual realm. If "an hour is
coming"
may refer to Jesus' earthly ministry (cf. 4:23), so "now" may,
as
well. In light of the context, it does not at all seem to be stretching
the
text to see this as a reference to his miraculous ministry of raising
the
dead (Lazarus, 1:1-12:1; Jairus' daughter, Mark 5:22-23, 35-43;
Luke
8:40-42, 49-50; widow-of-Nain's son, Luke 7:11-17).49 This inter-
pretation
is further sustained when the contrast between "the dead"
life
(see e.g., H. Alford, The Greek Testament
(London: Rivingtons, 1874) 1.748;
Barrett,
St. John, 262; Brown, John, 1.215; F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983) 131; Cook, John, 219;
Dodd, Fourth Gospel, 364; W. Hen-
dricksen,
Exposition of the Gospel According to
John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953) 199;
Hoekema,
Future, 240; Ladd, Theology, 305;
Morris, John, 318). Bultmann, John, 259
and
Schnackenburg,
existential
experience and life as existential authenticity.
47 M. C. Tenney,
"The Gospel of John," The
Expositor's Bible Commentary
(Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) ix, 65 and B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to
48 Ibid., 317.
49 Some have claimed that
these were not dead and that these actions could not
have
been resurrections. The texts themselves lay such contentions to rest. The
state-
ments
about "sleep" and death made by Jesus about Jairus' daughter are
clarified in his
explanations
to the disciples concerning Lazarus, together with John's editorial com-
ment,
in 11:11-15.
Cook: ESCHATOLOGY IN
JOHN'S GOSPEL 91
who
hear Jesus' quickening voice (25) and "all" the dead who hear his
voice
(28) is noted. During his earthly ministry only some of the dead
heard;
in the eschaton "all" will hear. 3) If these arguments have
credibility,
then a third may be offered. This interpretation yields a
tighter
line of reasoning as John develops his case. Not only was there
an
inauguration of the life and judgment of the age to come during
our
Lord's earthly life (24), there was also an inauguration of the
resurrection
that relates to the age to come (25). Thus, we see in a
relatively
small way during his earthly ministry a foreshadowing of
the
power of the kingdom yet to come.
The idea introduced in v 25 is
continued in vv 28-29 and here it
clearly
relates to the "not yet." The dead will rise from the tombs at
Jesus'
call. Some will rise to life and others to condemnation, which
resurrections
are related to "good" or "evil" deeds, respectively. This
passage
raises two theological problems which call for our attention.
First,
in the majority of cases it is assumed by the commentators that
this
is a reference to a general end-time resurrection.50 Since I have
addressed
this issue elsewhere,51 I will merely summarize the support
for
it here together with reasons for its limitations as a preferred
interpretation.
As a general principle it may be noted that much of the
argumentation
for a general resurrection is based upon 1) the claim
that
John 5:28-29 makes no temporal distinction between the two
resurrections
noted and 2) a rejection of premillennial interpretation
of
Rev 20:1-6. Since the idea of a "differentiated resurrection"52
in
5:28-29
is played down or overlooked in amillennial and postmillen-
nial
thought, the parallel between this passage and Paul's series of
resurrection
distinctions (orders) in 1 Cor 15:20-24 is usually not ac-
knowledged.
There, as Goppelt points out, "Paul differentiated. . . a
first
from a second resurrection."53 The same differentiation is
called
for
in Rev 20:4-6 but the most obvious sense of the passage is not
accepted
by these writers. They argue variously, but basically their
contention
is that the 1000 years which separates the resurrections is to
be
viewed figuratively and that the first resurrection is spiritual.
It is our contention that the most
natural way to take all of the
pertinent
texts leads to the conclusion that the resurrection of life and
50 To their credit,
Hoekema, Future, 239ff. and
Hendricksen, John, 199ff., offer
extended
discussion of their belief in one final general resurrection as an attempted
rebuttal
of premillennial teaching that the end-time resurrections are separated in time
as
well as participants.
51 Cook, The Theology of John, 219-20, 228-29;
Cook, Systematic Theology, 760-
61,798-99,806-7.
52 Goppelt, Theology, 2.304.
53 Ibid.
92 CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
the
resurrection of judgment are not only related to two distinct
groups
of people (believers and unbelievers), but at two distinct times
(before
and after the millennial reign of Jesus Christ).
The second theological problem is
expressed well by Goppelt
when
he writes, "Surprisingly enough, of course, John 5:29 made the
resurrection
of life dependent not upon faith but upon doing good."54
Is
this the introduction of a works-salvation in contradiction to other
NT
teaching? The answer is an emphatic no. "The discriminating
factor
[rather than the determinative factor in this resurrection] will
be
good deeds as over against worthless . . . deeds (cf. Dan 12:2; Acts
24:15),
which factor John indicates elsewhere as an external indicator
of
a man's either having been declared righteous by God or being of
the
devil (1 John 3:7-8)."55 Goppelt argues convincingly that the
doing
of
good or evil may be translated into "faith or disbelief." He further
notes
that this differentiation "presupposed that the decision [of belief
or
unbelief ] had already been made prior to the resurrection and
would
not first come in the judgment of the world. At that point, what
now
was already reality for faith would only become apparent."56
While the passage in John five
juxtaposes both "already" and "not
yet"
aspects of resurrection, the remaining two passages deal with
these
aspects separately. In 6:39-40, 44 and 54 future resurrection is in
view.
Jesus speaks four times of resurrection "at the last day" (NIV).57
Bultmann
has attempted to account for this clear indication of belief
in
a future eschatology by making such phrases to be the result of
ecclesiastical
redaction. Barrett is certainly correct, however, when he
states
that " . . . there is no ground for thinking of them as anything
other
than a genuine part of John's thought and they must be inter-
preted
as such."58 This future resurrection is said to be God's will
(6:39-40);
it involves the saints viewed both collectively (39) and
individually
(40); and it will include those whom the Father has given