Resurrection and Redemption, Part III

Well, Easter is approaching, so I'd better get on with these summaries, especially since the sort of methodological matters the last two posts describe don't even scratch the surface of what Gaffin does in his book. Without further adieu, then --

Gaffin begins the second part of the book by stating explicitly what he takes to be the central theme in Pauline theology. "Running through the relevant material is a central theme which governs the whole: the unity of the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of believers." He proposes to spend the second portion of the book demonstrating this basic thesis and the next and last portion of the book explaining how this concept controls the application of redemption.

The unity just mentioned has two aspects to it, both a future and a present aspect, or, to use the popular jargon, an already and a not-yet aspect. Gaffin begins with the future/not-yet aspect, and examines several passages that assert such a union:

1)I Corinthians 15:20: But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

The significant concept here is "firstfruits." The concept of firstfruits goes back to the grain offerings prescribed by the Mosaic law. The "firstfruits" were the first and best portion of the harvest offered as sacrifice to God. The concept, however, was not that this portion of the harvest belonged to God and the remainder belonged to the Israelites. The notion was that the whole harvest was given by and belonged to God. That is why He has the right to claim a sacrifice of the firstfruits. And in sacrificing the firstfruits, the Israelites were acknowledging that the entirety of the harvest came from God. The firstfruits, then, are a token of the whole harvest. The whole significance of the sacrifice lies in the fact that they stand for and are connected with the entire yield. As Gaffin puts this, "they are a token expression of recognition and thanksgiving that the whole has been given by God.... "Firstfruits" expresses the notion of organic connection and unity, the inseparability of the initial quantity from the whole. It is particularly this aspect which gives these sacrifices their significance."

To speak of Christ as the firstfruits of those who are asleep, then, does not simply indicate that He is the first to raise. It implies some sort of connection between His resurrection and the general resurrection of all believers. As Gaffin puts it, "His resurrection is the representative beginning of the resurrection of believers.... His resurrection is not simply a guarantee; it is a pledge in the sense that it is the actual beginning of the general event.... Paul views the two resurrections not so much as two events but as two episodes of the same event."

If this seems to be reading too much into the concept, the same idea is present in Romans 11:16 - "If the first piece {of dough} is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too." As he argues it, "since the relation between the first portion of dough and the root is not exactly analogous...yet each is made the basis for postulation, the specific point of the parallel and so the consideration governing the argument must be the factor of organic union." And even if this is not persuasive, Romans 8:23 is too clear to be missed: "And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for {our} adoption as sons, the redemption of our body." The ideas is that "the Spirit presently possessed by believers is a token, an initial enjoyment of the adoption which hereafter will be fully and openly received in the resurrection of the body." If a connection between a future and present reality such that the future reality is brought into the present is in view when the Spirit is called "firstfruits", the same idea should be borne in mind when Christ is called "the firstfruits of those who are asleep." The idea is not just that He is first to be raised, but that His resurrection is connected with our future resurrection in such a way that our future resurrection has already begun with Christ's resurrection - our future resurrection is of a piece with His.

Lest there be any further doubt, Gaffin turns to the two verses following I Corinthians 15:20: For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. The two "fors" are instructive. The first one provides a rationale for verse 20, meaning it explains why Christ as risen is the firstfruits of the dead. And the answer is that through Him came "the resurrection of the dead" - or in other words, through Christ as raised the resurrection of the rest of the dead happens. The idea is not simply that Christ is first, then, but that His resurrection is connected with or touches the resurrection of the rest of the dead. And why/how does Christ's resurrection do this? The second "for" provides the answer - because "in Christ all will be made alive." The resurrection of the dead happens through Christ's resurrection because in Christ's resurrection all are somehow made alive. Again, the notion is clearly much deeper than temporal priority - Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of believers are in some kind of vital, organic connection with each other so that the very act of resurrecting Christ brings life to all believers in and of itself.

2) Colossians 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

This expression "firstborn from the dead" is closely related, Gaffin suggests, to the phrase that occurs just a little bit earlier in verse 15, "firstborn of creation." This latter phrase has sometimes been taken to mean that Christ is the first creature, but that interpretation, Gaffin argues, is not sustained by the immediate context. In the very next verse, the reason offered for Christ being the firstborn of creation is that "by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth." That statement would not be true if Christ's being firstborn means Christ is Himself a creature. The better interpretation, Gaffin argues, is that "'firstborn' is to be understood in terms of...the Old Testament, where the literal force of both 'first' and 'born' has receded, and the term has become an indication of uniqueness, special status and dignity, marking one as the recepient of exceptional favor and blessing." He suggests this usage is clear in Exodus 4:22 and Psalm 88:27, where Israel and David respectively are called "firstborn." The idea, then, is that because all creation was made through Christ, Christ has a special exalted status over all creation in virtue of which He is called "firstborn."

Against this context, calling Christ the firstborn from the dead a few verses later implies a special, unique, and exalted status over the dead due to the fact that they will be resurrected through Him in a way analogous to the creation being made through Him. The force of "from", however, is signficant and should not be missed. Christ is not just firstborn of the dead as in the case of creation, but from the dead. This is a marked breakdown in the analogy - Christ does not belong to the class of created things, but He does (or better, did) belong to the class of the dead! Moreover, He became firstborn inasmuch as He was brought from or out of that class. Christ was raised from the dead, then, and through that He acquired a special, exalted status - as the text puts it, a place of supreme preeminence or a status as "firstborn" - because in that act the resurrection of believers more generally was achieved. As Gaffin puts it, "His is the beginning of the 'general epochal event' which at the same time makes him head over the others; with his resurrection is given the resurrection of believers."

As further confirmation, this phrase is immediately preceded by calling Christ "the beginning" and suggesting that He is "head over the body" of the church. Again, more than just temporal priority is involved in these phrases. The notion of preeminence due to the fact that Christ imparts life through organic connection is the much more dominant emphasis, as is clearly communicated in the image of head and body and even in the term "beginning" (compare, for example, where God is spoken of as the "beginning and the end" - obviously, there is more in place there than simply coming first).

3) I Corinthians 15:12-19 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

In these verses, Paul is arguing hypothetically - that is, he reasons in an "if-then" fashion. He is reasoning about the resurrection of Christ and of believers more generally, and he argues that a denial of either one involves a denial of the other, indicating a close and inextricable bond between them. "If Christ has been raised, then the proclamation of general resurrection cannot be called into question. Similarly, to deny Christ's resurrection, in effect, denies the resurrection of believers.... On the other hand, he can reverse the line of argument by reasoning directly from a denial of the resurrection of believers to a denial of the resurrection of Christ.... This shows just how firm and close in his mind is the bond between the two resurrections; he views them no so much as separate occurences as two episodes of the same event."

4) II Corinthians 4:14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.

In this verse, our future resurrection is said to be "with Jesus." This is terribly hard to explain without a conception like the one outlined above. We are forced either to acknowledge the future tense of the verse and claim that Christ is in some sense not yet raised or acknowledge the pastness of Christ's resurrection and ignore the future tense of the verse. If we acknowledge both the future tense and the pastness of Christ's resurrection, we are hard pressed to see how this is a resurrection "with Jesus" unless we go into complex qualifications the text doesn't even begin to bother with. The simplest course is just to acknowledge that our future resurrection is enough connected with Christ's past resurrection that we can simply call it a resurrection "with Jesus." Paradoxically, the two resurrections are temporally distinct yet also simultaneous.

These verses, then, clearly show that our future, bodily resurrection is in some way connected with Christ's past bodily resurrection, so much so that our future bodily resurrection has already begun in Christ's resurrection. It is not just that Christ's resurrection is the model or archetype of ours, then, coming before but identical in kind with our own, a pledge that God was satisfied with His death and thus a guarantee that God will release us from the hold of death on the last day. All of that is true, but there is more. His resurrection actually is the beginning of our future resurrection.

There is enormous dogmatic signficance to all of this. As Gaffin says, however, "the verses considered so far stress the organic connection between the resurrection of Jesus and the future, bodily resurrection of believers. To conclude, however, that the soteric significance of the latter lies only in this tie grasps only half the picture and so misses the whole. We must now take into account those places where Paul says that the believer has already been raised with Christ." In short, in addition to these passages where our resurrection is seen as underway but still future, there are passages that speak of our resurrection with Christ as having already been completed. It remains to consider those passages (which will be the subject of the next post) before we get into the dogmatic signficance of these considerations.