What do you think?
Rate this book
Paul and Time: Life in the Temporality of Christ
How did Paul understand time? Standard interpretations are that Paul modified his inherited Jewish apocalyptic sequential two-age temporality. Paul solved the conundrum of Christ's resurrection occurring without the resurrection of the righteous by asserting that the ages are not sequential but rather that they overlap. Believers live in already-not yet temporality.
In this groundbreaking book, Ann Jervis instead proposes that Paul thought not in terms of two ages but in terms of life in this age or life in Christ. Humans apart from Christ live in this age, whereas believers live entirely in the temporality of Christ.
Christ's temporality, like God's, is time in which change occurs--at least between Christ and God and creation. Their temporality is tensed, but the tenses are nonsequential. The past is in their present, as is the future. However, this is not a changeless now but a now in which change occurs (though not in the way that human chronological time perceives change). Those joined to Christ live Christ's temporality while also living chronological time.
In clear writing, Jervis engages both philosophical and traditional biblical understandings of time. Her inquiry is motivated and informed by the long-standing recognition of the centrality of union with Christ for Paul. Jervis points out that union with Christ has significant temporal implications.
Living Christ's time transforms believers' suffering, sinning, and physical dying. While in the present evil age these are instruments purposed for destruction, in Christ they are transformed in service of God's life. Living Christ's time also changes the significance of the eschaton. It is less important to those in Christ than it is for creation, for those joined to the One over whom death has no dominion are already released from bondage to corruption.
Scholars and students will profit from this lively contribution to Pauline studies, which offers big-picture proposals based on detailed work with Paul's letters. The book includes a foreword by John Barclay.
In this groundbreaking book, Ann Jervis instead proposes that Paul thought not in terms of two ages but in terms of life in this age or life in Christ. Humans apart from Christ live in this age, whereas believers live entirely in the temporality of Christ.
Christ's temporality, like God's, is time in which change occurs--at least between Christ and God and creation. Their temporality is tensed, but the tenses are nonsequential. The past is in their present, as is the future. However, this is not a changeless now but a now in which change occurs (though not in the way that human chronological time perceives change). Those joined to Christ live Christ's temporality while also living chronological time.
In clear writing, Jervis engages both philosophical and traditional biblical understandings of time. Her inquiry is motivated and informed by the long-standing recognition of the centrality of union with Christ for Paul. Jervis points out that union with Christ has significant temporal implications.
Living Christ's time transforms believers' suffering, sinning, and physical dying. While in the present evil age these are instruments purposed for destruction, in Christ they are transformed in service of God's life. Living Christ's time also changes the significance of the eschaton. It is less important to those in Christ than it is for creation, for those joined to the One over whom death has no dominion are already released from bondage to corruption.
Scholars and students will profit from this lively contribution to Pauline studies, which offers big-picture proposals based on detailed work with Paul's letters. The book includes a foreword by John Barclay.
213 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 21, 2023
7 people are currently reading
71 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
September 6, 2025
2.5 stars. This book has a very intriguing thesis and some cool (sometimes mind-boggling) thoughts. Unfortunately, I didn't enjoy it. Certain topics were treated too briefly and others redundantly. The style also didn't jive with me. It felt clunky.
July 5, 2025
In the words of the great philosopher, Dr. Who, “People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually, from a nonlinear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff”
Jervis attempts to explain the complexity of Paul’s assumptions about time and the effects that it has on Christology and salvation. Here’s what she thinks of Paul’s view of time:
There are 2 types of time: life-time, Death-time. Life-time is the kind of time that God lives. Death-time is the kind of time apart from him. These two types of time are quantitatively and qualitatively different. Life-time is unending and characterized by God’s fullness and goodness. Death time is marked by finiteness, sin, and death. In addition to these 2 times, there is a human experience of time that lives time sequentially as past, present, and future. God however, although in a temporal existence, isn’t constrained by the bounds of past, present, and future. His time isn’t sequential. (Exactly what Jervis means by this and how it’s different from timelessness—which she says they are different—I’m not sure.)
Jesus defeated sin and death and lives life-time through his death and resurrection. He rescues people from death-time and brings them into life-time by uniting them with himself. His past (death and resurrection) are lived presently in those who are united with him. His future return (parousia) is really his present experience revealed at a later chronological date. This his future is also his present (because there is not change).
I enjoyed the book as this topic is one I’ve had questions about as I’ve studied the Pauline epistles. Jervis draws out many thought provoking points throughout the book. I also appreciated her writing style. However I think some of her conclusions about time were problematic. I also appreciate how saturated with Scripture the book is but wish that she wouldn’t have limited her study to the undisputed Pauline letters.
(Read for New Testament Theology seminar)
______
My ⭐️ rating criteria
- ⭐️: I absolutely did not like or totally disagreed with the book and would recommend that no one else read it
- ⭐️⭐️: the book was below average style or content, arguments were very weak, wouldn’t read it again, but wouldn’t beg people not to read it necessarily
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️: a fine book, some helpful information (or a decent story, for the handful of novels I read), maybe I disagreed somewhat, enjoyed it decently well
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: a very good book, information was very helpful, mostly agreed with everything or it was a strong argument even if I disagree, was above-average enjoyable to read
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: incredible book, I enjoyed it more than most other books, I want to read it again in the future, I will be telling everyone to read it for the next few weeks
Jervis attempts to explain the complexity of Paul’s assumptions about time and the effects that it has on Christology and salvation. Here’s what she thinks of Paul’s view of time:
There are 2 types of time: life-time, Death-time. Life-time is the kind of time that God lives. Death-time is the kind of time apart from him. These two types of time are quantitatively and qualitatively different. Life-time is unending and characterized by God’s fullness and goodness. Death time is marked by finiteness, sin, and death. In addition to these 2 times, there is a human experience of time that lives time sequentially as past, present, and future. God however, although in a temporal existence, isn’t constrained by the bounds of past, present, and future. His time isn’t sequential. (Exactly what Jervis means by this and how it’s different from timelessness—which she says they are different—I’m not sure.)
Jesus defeated sin and death and lives life-time through his death and resurrection. He rescues people from death-time and brings them into life-time by uniting them with himself. His past (death and resurrection) are lived presently in those who are united with him. His future return (parousia) is really his present experience revealed at a later chronological date. This his future is also his present (because there is not change).
I enjoyed the book as this topic is one I’ve had questions about as I’ve studied the Pauline epistles. Jervis draws out many thought provoking points throughout the book. I also appreciated her writing style. However I think some of her conclusions about time were problematic. I also appreciate how saturated with Scripture the book is but wish that she wouldn’t have limited her study to the undisputed Pauline letters.
(Read for New Testament Theology seminar)
______
My ⭐️ rating criteria
- ⭐️: I absolutely did not like or totally disagreed with the book and would recommend that no one else read it
- ⭐️⭐️: the book was below average style or content, arguments were very weak, wouldn’t read it again, but wouldn’t beg people not to read it necessarily
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️: a fine book, some helpful information (or a decent story, for the handful of novels I read), maybe I disagreed somewhat, enjoyed it decently well
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: a very good book, information was very helpful, mostly agreed with everything or it was a strong argument even if I disagree, was above-average enjoyable to read
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: incredible book, I enjoyed it more than most other books, I want to read it again in the future, I will be telling everyone to read it for the next few weeks
February 19, 2024
Theological shifts begin with someone willing to challenge the status quo. Paul Barclay is a great example of this, pioneering a necessary shift in how we understand the terms Law, grace and faith within the social customs of the ancient world. Here he pens a forward for L. Ann Jervis’ Paul and Time: Life in the Temporality of Christ, a book that, not unironically, challenges some of the conceptions of a larger body of work Barclay is often included in, that being the concept of the "overlap of the ages". Much work has been done to place the story of Jesus back within its Jewish context, one outcome of this being an increased emphasis on the notion that Jesus actually accomplished something on the cross according to the fulfillment of that story's expectations (which can ultimately be summed up in the defeat of Sin and Death, the establishment of the Kingdom of God, and the inaugeration of the new creation). Thus, the language of the overlap of the ages has been employed to describe a world in which Jesus' accomplishment is true, and yet at the same we still see and experience the effects of Sin and Death in the world. What many modern scholars have suggested is, Jewish custom thought in terms of the ages (this present age and the age to come), and so did Paul, one of the primary thinkers and writers of a post-resurrection world. Therefore, it is assumed that Paul thought in terms of the overlap of the ages. Where he insists that Jesus' resurrection actually accomplished what the grander story was waiting for, he also sees this present age still persisting.
But, Jervis insists, we don't actually find Paul speaking about ages anywhere. Which creates a problem for our assumptions about the overlap of the ages.
So what does Jervis believe Paul, and his Jewish Tradition, actually thought? This is where the book's title comes into play. She believes that Paul actually thought in terms of time- death time and life time. Or capital Death time and Life time to denote its rulers.
As Barclay summarizes in his introuction,
"The suffering, mortality, and temptation experienced by the believer are not, for Jervis, a sign of living still partially in the “present evil age.” All such things have been enveloped, embraced, and taken over into the life of God in Christ and are therefore experienced by the believer “in Christ” and not in spite of him...Paul simply marches off the map of our human conceptuality of time; if we domesticate him to fit our concepts, then we have failed to appreciate how radical he is."
Barclay also goes on to formulate this into a question: "If, as Jervis memorably puts it, for those in Christ death is not fatal, how is this to be believed, hoped, and practiced in a community that is shaped by such good news?"
Now, a caveat to Jervis' assertion that Paul never actually speaks about the concept of the ages- he also doesn't speak of the concept of time. However, Jervis insists that the concept of time fits with Paul's view, or is assumed by it, far more succinctly and logically than the concept of the ages, particularly because the concept Paul does deal with is life (and death). She writes,
"Life and time are metonymies, for one without the other is impossible; to conceive or experience one is to conceive or experience the other. Death, on the other hand, is the destroyer of life and of time. To speak of death is to speak of the opposite of time."
If time is indeed inherent to Paul's thought process and convicitions regarding life, in particular how we conceieves Jesus to relate to matters of life and death, then the other thing Jervis suggests is that it becomes pertinent for modern readers of Paul to note that we al bring our own conceptions of time to the table, which may or may not intersect with Paul's own understanding. Thus it becomes important to know the concept of time that we have been handed in a theological sense, before moving to then ask, what can a closer reading of Paul tell us about his concept of time. Much of the earlier chapters deal with our modern conceptions, followiing the philosphical and theological development of time, with are correlated. This would include the Western conceptions of "linear" time (or history), and the theological debates around circular conceptions of time, both which assume time as an entity seperated or intertwined with the concept of space. She speaks about William James' classic conception, which sees time as inherently attached to tenses- “that what is past, to be known as past, must be known with what is present, and during the ‘present’ spot of time.” And further, "time “can only be coming from the future, passing through the present and going into the past... it is coming out of what does not yet exist, passing through what has no duration, and moving into what no longer exists.”
Eternity then, in theological and philosphical senses (and even scientific), is seen to contrast time by being wholly present without tenses (or, the impossible to comprehend notion of infinite progression, which carries with it the notion of change).
If we begin to narrow this down to a theological concern, what arises is the oft debated idea of salvation history. How God acts in and/or outside of time. Which of course is filled with all manners of debate regarding the nature of God and the nature of humanity, travelling lines between historical and apocalyptic viewpoints.
One of the biggest implications of the overlap of ages view for Jervis, and why she believes rethinking Paul's viewpoint is necessary, is the question of the aim or goal of salvation. "The perhaps unintended consequence of this view is that Paul is seen to regard the new age as God’s salvific goal, with Christ as the means by which that goal is achieved. Now, as a consequence of Christ’s resurrection, the goal of the new age is here in part, though it must contend with the ongoing old age. However, when Christ returns and believers are raised, all will be as it should be: the old age will finally be obliterated and the new age achieved in its fullness. To the contrary, my reading of the evidence sees that Paul regarded not the new age but life in and with Christ as God’s goal for humanity. Paul connects certain concepts with that life (those that have been proposed as his language for “new age”) but makes clear that new creation, kingdom, and eternal life are the consequences and conditions of life with Christ."
This might sound initially like semantics, and it partly is. One critique that could be lobbied at Jervis' conclusions, along with pushing back on the notion that the overlap of ages isn't compatible with Paul, is that much of what she says will find some familiarity in most Christian thought. However, I think the challenge for readers is to note where and how the nuances of Paul's view of time not only challenge our own, but shift our theological concpetions, if ever so slightly. Even small shifts in thought can have iimportant implications, and I do think its fair to consider whether her obersavations of time and Paul change how we look at the person and work of Jesus (through the lens of Paul and his Jewish understanding).
After all, I do think it is true that many shcolars and theologians simply bypass the muddled ways we have of trying to make sense of the idea that Jesus both accomplished something AND sin and death appear to remain prevelant in our experience of this present reality (often called, this present age). This does represent a complicated reality that is not easy to address in a way that makes sense. Not that Jervis' approach gets rid of the complications, but she does offer what is perhaps a way of giving the non-sensical a more logical framework. For Jervis, "Paul portrays believers as living entirely in Christ." And what is the implication of this? She notes that Christ's life is temporal, meaning, it exists in time. But it is a kind of time that exists in opposition to Death time. If one is in Christ, time does not end. And this is different than contrasting an old (or present) age with a new age in a couple ways. First, as was mentioned, it shifts the goal from new creation to life in Chirst. What flows from life in Christ IS new creation. Second, it shifts the common understanding that something changes upon Christ's return more firmly and uniformly towards the idea that the change happened at Jesus' death and resurrection. Jervis makes the case in later chapters that for those "in Christ", time does not change upon Christ's return, nor do they change. Rather we simply continue in a kind of time (life time) which is experienced in Christ. What does change upon Christ's return, with the debate around God's judgement aside, are those who are not "in Christ".
Jervis also spends time unpacking how it is that life time in Christ can be temporal while also being uniformly past, present and future. At its heart, she is trying to retain the concept of time that she finds in Paul which relates to change and motion, two aspects of time which she accepts and assumes. As she writes,
"One manifestation of the constant of time’s being tied to action, event, and change is that humans can experience (perhaps typically do experience) the tenses of past, present, and future simultaneously, rather than sequentially... The present of past things is the memory; the present of present things is direct perception; and the present of future things is expectation.”
Further, she writes,
"The nature of God’s duration is not eternal timelessness and non-change. Rather, Paul’s letters indicate that he understood the eternal God to live a temporal existence in which there is past, present, and future, though for God these tenses are nonsequential.... The apostle understands there to be a primarily qualitative distinction: God lives a type of time that is life-time, not only because it does not end but, intrinsically related to its infinity, because there is in God’s time only life."
This underscores the essential connection that drives her thesis- time is not related so much to space (although it can and might be) as it is to life. “God’s being is life”; “life [is] the fundamental element in the divine being.... Eternity is really beginning, really middle, and really end because it is really the living God. There really is in it, then, direction, and a direction which is irreversible... God’s tenses do not function chronologically. God’s past, present, and future are not sequential or discrete. The past and future are always in the present for God."
Time, thus, can appear both finitely (death time) and infinitely (life time). And it is, in fact, in death time where time faces its biggest problems- "There is flatness and finitude to time over which death rules, in effect making this temporality an illusion"- something that moves us towards a natural conception of time that is infinite. Even those who deny God's existence strive to hold on to non-sensicle conceptions of infinite time, because once we lose that all we have is death. Which of course means the absence of time.
This does ultimately bring us to the biggest question of all- what does it look like for us to live and experience life time in the here and now? If there is a qualitative difference between these two kinds of time, and we don't ultimately shift from one to the other in an ambiguously applied "overlap of the ages", how can we say that we are living life time in a world governed by death time?
Here is one way Jervis has of speaking to that quesiton;
"The ethical and perhaps ontological consequence of living Christ’s time by virtue of belonging to him is that those who do so have crucified the flesh. Defeat of the flesh can take place only in a type of time from which death—that anti-God entity that empowers sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:2–9)—has been excluded. Paul, then, conceived of two types of time: one that is dominated by death and another that is only life, for death has no power in it. Those united with Christ live his temporality—a type of time from which death is excluded.
Living life-time with mortal bodies is not an indication of living in the overlap of the ages or in an already–not yet existence. Paul identifies sin as the reason believers’ bodies die, but he claims that nevertheless their bodies are united with Christ and God’s spirit (Rom. 8:9–11). The exalted Christ lives in believers, which means that though their bodies are dead, they will live (8:10–11). Those in Christ are granted the liberty of working with and living with the spirit and Christ, which means having power over the deeds of the body (presumably deeds directed by sin). Their lives, even with mortal bodies, are structured by life. They live in a type of time from which death’s power has been exorcised. They live not in a mixture or overlap of two ages but in the one time of the risen and exalted Jesus Christ. This makes it possible for them, by means of the spirit, to kill the deeds of the body (8:13)."
For Jervis, "Christ’s resurrection, though an event in Christ’s and humanity’s past, is present for those living after that event." She believes it is similar, for Paul, when it comes to Christ's crucifixion. "In the context of Paul’s union-with-Christ concept, imitation is the reproduction of the living and present Christ. Believers can, then, have the same disposition as Christ (Phil. 2:5)." To this end, perhaps one of the more striking things she points out is this. "Given the wonders that the eschatological events will achieve for believers, and for creation (Rom. 8:19–23), it is not surprising that we should miss that the apostle thinks that Christ’s parousia is primarily about Christ... The parousia is an event in Christ’s life, in Christ’s future. It is Christ’s day."
This is perhaps the biggest point I've been dwelling over, as it is a powerful one. Precisely when she goes on to flesh that out in the followiing way;
"Unlike Christ’s incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation, Christ’s actions at his day/parousia, except for his ultimate subjection to God, do not signal temporal change from before to after... Christ’s day/parousia and his judgment do not change his existence, apart from opening it up. What is still to come for Christ is that his present tense will be revealed."
Apply this to our imitation "in Christ", and you have the following:
"That Paul thinks that now those united with Christ can and should walk as in the day (Rom. 13:12–13) indicates that at the event of the day they will continue to live in it. Christ’s day does not change believers’ connection to Christ. Paul’s statement that believers are of and belong to the day (1 Thess. 5:5, 8) illuminates his understanding that believers remain in the day at the event of the day... Paul is not concerned to problematize death, as de Boer proposes, but rather to problematize Christ’s resurrection. The apostle wants the deniers to see the scope of the significance of Christ’s resurrection. It has not just defeated the power of sin, which the Corinthians appear to value (1 Cor. 15:17). Paul wants them to understand that Christ’s resurrection has made death so ineffective that dying is merely entry into life in incorruptible bodies (15:35–38, 42–44)... the power of death is not an obstacle to believers receiving the fullness of their salvation (imperishable bodies). Being in Christ is being in the one who has conquered death. Mortal believers live in Christ’s present reality... Believers do not await salvation from death at Christ’s parousia. They await, as Paul puts it in Romans, the redemption of their bodies (Rom. 8:23)28 or, as in Philippians, the transformation of humble bodies into the form of Christ’s body of glory (Phil. 3:21)... Death’s entrance into the world through sin (Rom. 5:12) is a problem that is solved through Christ’s entrance into the world. Justification, which comes through Christ (5:1), is in effect the defeat of sin. And where sin is defeated, so is death... The destruction of Death happens for believers when they are united with the exalted Christ."
If this all sounds like heady stuff, it is. And Jaervis is up to the task of giving it the necessary work and exposition. These ideas are all fleshed out scripturally as well as historically and theologically. And it is all concerned for reshaping our sense of hope not on some awaited future, but on claims we can apply to the here and now.
"At the point of union with Christ, believers no longer live death-time but life-time; at the point of union, while living in mortal bodies, believers are already free of Death. In Christ’s time, the death of believers’ bodies is not fatal; their mortality becomes enveloped in and suffused by life. Those united with Christ are, like Christ, liberated from Death. Even before their bodily transformation, there is no death-time in the temporality of those united with Christ.... In Christ, dying has a meaning entirely different from that in the present evil age. In the present age, death is caused by the powers of Sin and Death (Rom. 5:12). On the other hand, in Christ—over whom Death does not rule (6:9)—dying is a transformative event."
Thus the implications are personal- "Paul does not see “the Flesh,”25 or Sin, as the problem after people are united with Christ. It is rather believers’ perceptions of their relationship to Sin and its influence on the flesh that is the problem."
And the implications are socially concerned as wrestling against sin means looking outwards beyond ourselves in the present- "Believers, however, are entirely capable of keeping defeated Sin in its impotent, excluded position. Such activity on believers’ part is not engagement in an ongoing battle for victory but enactment of their freedom and demonstration of Sin’s powerlessness. Union with Christ allows for avoidance of sinning. Put another way, believers wrestle against sinning not in spite of being in Christ but because of being in Christ."
And it is cosmic- "Paul indeed conceived of a cosmic war between God and inimical powers, but the apostle is convinced that, through Christ’s cross, resurrection, and exaltation, God won that war."
Thus the problem can be boiled down to one of knowlege- "The contest between true and false knowledge is not at once a contest between God and Satan; instead, it is a contest between those who accept their liberation and are obedient to Christ’s rule and those who resist the consequences of their liberation."
Even if we can find threads of these modes of thoughts littered through common theological conceptionns, for me it breathed new and fresh nuance into what has been firmly entrenched theological ideas.
But, Jervis insists, we don't actually find Paul speaking about ages anywhere. Which creates a problem for our assumptions about the overlap of the ages.
So what does Jervis believe Paul, and his Jewish Tradition, actually thought? This is where the book's title comes into play. She believes that Paul actually thought in terms of time- death time and life time. Or capital Death time and Life time to denote its rulers.
As Barclay summarizes in his introuction,
"The suffering, mortality, and temptation experienced by the believer are not, for Jervis, a sign of living still partially in the “present evil age.” All such things have been enveloped, embraced, and taken over into the life of God in Christ and are therefore experienced by the believer “in Christ” and not in spite of him...Paul simply marches off the map of our human conceptuality of time; if we domesticate him to fit our concepts, then we have failed to appreciate how radical he is."
Barclay also goes on to formulate this into a question: "If, as Jervis memorably puts it, for those in Christ death is not fatal, how is this to be believed, hoped, and practiced in a community that is shaped by such good news?"
Now, a caveat to Jervis' assertion that Paul never actually speaks about the concept of the ages- he also doesn't speak of the concept of time. However, Jervis insists that the concept of time fits with Paul's view, or is assumed by it, far more succinctly and logically than the concept of the ages, particularly because the concept Paul does deal with is life (and death). She writes,
"Life and time are metonymies, for one without the other is impossible; to conceive or experience one is to conceive or experience the other. Death, on the other hand, is the destroyer of life and of time. To speak of death is to speak of the opposite of time."
If time is indeed inherent to Paul's thought process and convicitions regarding life, in particular how we conceieves Jesus to relate to matters of life and death, then the other thing Jervis suggests is that it becomes pertinent for modern readers of Paul to note that we al bring our own conceptions of time to the table, which may or may not intersect with Paul's own understanding. Thus it becomes important to know the concept of time that we have been handed in a theological sense, before moving to then ask, what can a closer reading of Paul tell us about his concept of time. Much of the earlier chapters deal with our modern conceptions, followiing the philosphical and theological development of time, with are correlated. This would include the Western conceptions of "linear" time (or history), and the theological debates around circular conceptions of time, both which assume time as an entity seperated or intertwined with the concept of space. She speaks about William James' classic conception, which sees time as inherently attached to tenses- “that what is past, to be known as past, must be known with what is present, and during the ‘present’ spot of time.” And further, "time “can only be coming from the future, passing through the present and going into the past... it is coming out of what does not yet exist, passing through what has no duration, and moving into what no longer exists.”
Eternity then, in theological and philosphical senses (and even scientific), is seen to contrast time by being wholly present without tenses (or, the impossible to comprehend notion of infinite progression, which carries with it the notion of change).
If we begin to narrow this down to a theological concern, what arises is the oft debated idea of salvation history. How God acts in and/or outside of time. Which of course is filled with all manners of debate regarding the nature of God and the nature of humanity, travelling lines between historical and apocalyptic viewpoints.
One of the biggest implications of the overlap of ages view for Jervis, and why she believes rethinking Paul's viewpoint is necessary, is the question of the aim or goal of salvation. "The perhaps unintended consequence of this view is that Paul is seen to regard the new age as God’s salvific goal, with Christ as the means by which that goal is achieved. Now, as a consequence of Christ’s resurrection, the goal of the new age is here in part, though it must contend with the ongoing old age. However, when Christ returns and believers are raised, all will be as it should be: the old age will finally be obliterated and the new age achieved in its fullness. To the contrary, my reading of the evidence sees that Paul regarded not the new age but life in and with Christ as God’s goal for humanity. Paul connects certain concepts with that life (those that have been proposed as his language for “new age”) but makes clear that new creation, kingdom, and eternal life are the consequences and conditions of life with Christ."
This might sound initially like semantics, and it partly is. One critique that could be lobbied at Jervis' conclusions, along with pushing back on the notion that the overlap of ages isn't compatible with Paul, is that much of what she says will find some familiarity in most Christian thought. However, I think the challenge for readers is to note where and how the nuances of Paul's view of time not only challenge our own, but shift our theological concpetions, if ever so slightly. Even small shifts in thought can have iimportant implications, and I do think its fair to consider whether her obersavations of time and Paul change how we look at the person and work of Jesus (through the lens of Paul and his Jewish understanding).
After all, I do think it is true that many shcolars and theologians simply bypass the muddled ways we have of trying to make sense of the idea that Jesus both accomplished something AND sin and death appear to remain prevelant in our experience of this present reality (often called, this present age). This does represent a complicated reality that is not easy to address in a way that makes sense. Not that Jervis' approach gets rid of the complications, but she does offer what is perhaps a way of giving the non-sensical a more logical framework. For Jervis, "Paul portrays believers as living entirely in Christ." And what is the implication of this? She notes that Christ's life is temporal, meaning, it exists in time. But it is a kind of time that exists in opposition to Death time. If one is in Christ, time does not end. And this is different than contrasting an old (or present) age with a new age in a couple ways. First, as was mentioned, it shifts the goal from new creation to life in Chirst. What flows from life in Christ IS new creation. Second, it shifts the common understanding that something changes upon Christ's return more firmly and uniformly towards the idea that the change happened at Jesus' death and resurrection. Jervis makes the case in later chapters that for those "in Christ", time does not change upon Christ's return, nor do they change. Rather we simply continue in a kind of time (life time) which is experienced in Christ. What does change upon Christ's return, with the debate around God's judgement aside, are those who are not "in Christ".
Jervis also spends time unpacking how it is that life time in Christ can be temporal while also being uniformly past, present and future. At its heart, she is trying to retain the concept of time that she finds in Paul which relates to change and motion, two aspects of time which she accepts and assumes. As she writes,
"One manifestation of the constant of time’s being tied to action, event, and change is that humans can experience (perhaps typically do experience) the tenses of past, present, and future simultaneously, rather than sequentially... The present of past things is the memory; the present of present things is direct perception; and the present of future things is expectation.”
Further, she writes,
"The nature of God’s duration is not eternal timelessness and non-change. Rather, Paul’s letters indicate that he understood the eternal God to live a temporal existence in which there is past, present, and future, though for God these tenses are nonsequential.... The apostle understands there to be a primarily qualitative distinction: God lives a type of time that is life-time, not only because it does not end but, intrinsically related to its infinity, because there is in God’s time only life."
This underscores the essential connection that drives her thesis- time is not related so much to space (although it can and might be) as it is to life. “God’s being is life”; “life [is] the fundamental element in the divine being.... Eternity is really beginning, really middle, and really end because it is really the living God. There really is in it, then, direction, and a direction which is irreversible... God’s tenses do not function chronologically. God’s past, present, and future are not sequential or discrete. The past and future are always in the present for God."
Time, thus, can appear both finitely (death time) and infinitely (life time). And it is, in fact, in death time where time faces its biggest problems- "There is flatness and finitude to time over which death rules, in effect making this temporality an illusion"- something that moves us towards a natural conception of time that is infinite. Even those who deny God's existence strive to hold on to non-sensicle conceptions of infinite time, because once we lose that all we have is death. Which of course means the absence of time.
This does ultimately bring us to the biggest question of all- what does it look like for us to live and experience life time in the here and now? If there is a qualitative difference between these two kinds of time, and we don't ultimately shift from one to the other in an ambiguously applied "overlap of the ages", how can we say that we are living life time in a world governed by death time?
Here is one way Jervis has of speaking to that quesiton;
"The ethical and perhaps ontological consequence of living Christ’s time by virtue of belonging to him is that those who do so have crucified the flesh. Defeat of the flesh can take place only in a type of time from which death—that anti-God entity that empowers sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:2–9)—has been excluded. Paul, then, conceived of two types of time: one that is dominated by death and another that is only life, for death has no power in it. Those united with Christ live his temporality—a type of time from which death is excluded.
Living life-time with mortal bodies is not an indication of living in the overlap of the ages or in an already–not yet existence. Paul identifies sin as the reason believers’ bodies die, but he claims that nevertheless their bodies are united with Christ and God’s spirit (Rom. 8:9–11). The exalted Christ lives in believers, which means that though their bodies are dead, they will live (8:10–11). Those in Christ are granted the liberty of working with and living with the spirit and Christ, which means having power over the deeds of the body (presumably deeds directed by sin). Their lives, even with mortal bodies, are structured by life. They live in a type of time from which death’s power has been exorcised. They live not in a mixture or overlap of two ages but in the one time of the risen and exalted Jesus Christ. This makes it possible for them, by means of the spirit, to kill the deeds of the body (8:13)."
For Jervis, "Christ’s resurrection, though an event in Christ’s and humanity’s past, is present for those living after that event." She believes it is similar, for Paul, when it comes to Christ's crucifixion. "In the context of Paul’s union-with-Christ concept, imitation is the reproduction of the living and present Christ. Believers can, then, have the same disposition as Christ (Phil. 2:5)." To this end, perhaps one of the more striking things she points out is this. "Given the wonders that the eschatological events will achieve for believers, and for creation (Rom. 8:19–23), it is not surprising that we should miss that the apostle thinks that Christ’s parousia is primarily about Christ... The parousia is an event in Christ’s life, in Christ’s future. It is Christ’s day."
This is perhaps the biggest point I've been dwelling over, as it is a powerful one. Precisely when she goes on to flesh that out in the followiing way;
"Unlike Christ’s incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation, Christ’s actions at his day/parousia, except for his ultimate subjection to God, do not signal temporal change from before to after... Christ’s day/parousia and his judgment do not change his existence, apart from opening it up. What is still to come for Christ is that his present tense will be revealed."
Apply this to our imitation "in Christ", and you have the following:
"That Paul thinks that now those united with Christ can and should walk as in the day (Rom. 13:12–13) indicates that at the event of the day they will continue to live in it. Christ’s day does not change believers’ connection to Christ. Paul’s statement that believers are of and belong to the day (1 Thess. 5:5, 8) illuminates his understanding that believers remain in the day at the event of the day... Paul is not concerned to problematize death, as de Boer proposes, but rather to problematize Christ’s resurrection. The apostle wants the deniers to see the scope of the significance of Christ’s resurrection. It has not just defeated the power of sin, which the Corinthians appear to value (1 Cor. 15:17). Paul wants them to understand that Christ’s resurrection has made death so ineffective that dying is merely entry into life in incorruptible bodies (15:35–38, 42–44)... the power of death is not an obstacle to believers receiving the fullness of their salvation (imperishable bodies). Being in Christ is being in the one who has conquered death. Mortal believers live in Christ’s present reality... Believers do not await salvation from death at Christ’s parousia. They await, as Paul puts it in Romans, the redemption of their bodies (Rom. 8:23)28 or, as in Philippians, the transformation of humble bodies into the form of Christ’s body of glory (Phil. 3:21)... Death’s entrance into the world through sin (Rom. 5:12) is a problem that is solved through Christ’s entrance into the world. Justification, which comes through Christ (5:1), is in effect the defeat of sin. And where sin is defeated, so is death... The destruction of Death happens for believers when they are united with the exalted Christ."
If this all sounds like heady stuff, it is. And Jaervis is up to the task of giving it the necessary work and exposition. These ideas are all fleshed out scripturally as well as historically and theologically. And it is all concerned for reshaping our sense of hope not on some awaited future, but on claims we can apply to the here and now.
"At the point of union with Christ, believers no longer live death-time but life-time; at the point of union, while living in mortal bodies, believers are already free of Death. In Christ’s time, the death of believers’ bodies is not fatal; their mortality becomes enveloped in and suffused by life. Those united with Christ are, like Christ, liberated from Death. Even before their bodily transformation, there is no death-time in the temporality of those united with Christ.... In Christ, dying has a meaning entirely different from that in the present evil age. In the present age, death is caused by the powers of Sin and Death (Rom. 5:12). On the other hand, in Christ—over whom Death does not rule (6:9)—dying is a transformative event."
Thus the implications are personal- "Paul does not see “the Flesh,”25 or Sin, as the problem after people are united with Christ. It is rather believers’ perceptions of their relationship to Sin and its influence on the flesh that is the problem."
And the implications are socially concerned as wrestling against sin means looking outwards beyond ourselves in the present- "Believers, however, are entirely capable of keeping defeated Sin in its impotent, excluded position. Such activity on believers’ part is not engagement in an ongoing battle for victory but enactment of their freedom and demonstration of Sin’s powerlessness. Union with Christ allows for avoidance of sinning. Put another way, believers wrestle against sinning not in spite of being in Christ but because of being in Christ."
And it is cosmic- "Paul indeed conceived of a cosmic war between God and inimical powers, but the apostle is convinced that, through Christ’s cross, resurrection, and exaltation, God won that war."
Thus the problem can be boiled down to one of knowlege- "The contest between true and false knowledge is not at once a contest between God and Satan; instead, it is a contest between those who accept their liberation and are obedient to Christ’s rule and those who resist the consequences of their liberation."
Even if we can find threads of these modes of thoughts littered through common theological conceptionns, for me it breathed new and fresh nuance into what has been firmly entrenched theological ideas.
November 28, 2023
This work opens with a lengthy introduction that gives us a foundation with which to start thinking about time. This is important, because most of us don’t really think too deeply about time … it is simply something that passes in which events happen whereby those events become fixed or permanent. We approach eternity much like to approach infinity in mathematics, by adding more to the dimension we call time (in either direction). Classical though where eternity is outside of temporality and is unchanging and unmoving (Plato). Next up is a survey and comparison of current (and perhaps competing) viewpoints that government interpretation through an historical/salvific or an apocalyptic lens. I found the idea that the apocalyptic interpretation sees the eternal God “invading” history (time) to be an interesting perspective. Chapter three (3) introduces the idea that there is an overlap between the current (and dying) age and the age to come … an idea that I had not previously found in my current studies, but is none the less a good talking point for evaluating how early Christians responded to the fact that believers were dying before the second coming of Christ … and which the author specifically rejects. It is in chapter four (4) that we finally see the paradigm shift that the author wants us to consider, breaking time in the “death-time” and “life-time” with the rest of the book dedicated to explaining what that even means.
The rest of the book is a bit tricky and can be hard to understand, which is why so much effort went into the previous chapters to enable the reader to at least grasp the basics. While I think I understood the concept, I still struggled a little with understanding how this all changed or otherwise impacted how the salvation offered by Christ works … leaving me with an over all feeling that this was more of an academic exercise. It was very interesting, but I will need to think on it a lot more before I have a good handle on it.
The chapters and sections in this work are:
Introduction: Thinking About Time
1. Paul’s Conception of Time in Salvation Historical Perspective
2. Paul’s Conception of Time in Apocalyptic Perspective
3. Time in Christ - Not in the Overlap of Ages
4. Christ Lives Time
5. The Nature of the Exalted Christ’s Time
6. The Future of the Exalted Christ’s Time
7. Union with Christ and Time
8. Life in Christ’s Time: Suffering, Physical Death, and Sin
Conclusion
Bibliography
Name Index
Scripture and Ancient Writings Index
Some of the other points that really got my attention are:
I was given this free advance reader copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.
#PaulAndTime #NetGalley
The rest of the book is a bit tricky and can be hard to understand, which is why so much effort went into the previous chapters to enable the reader to at least grasp the basics. While I think I understood the concept, I still struggled a little with understanding how this all changed or otherwise impacted how the salvation offered by Christ works … leaving me with an over all feeling that this was more of an academic exercise. It was very interesting, but I will need to think on it a lot more before I have a good handle on it.
The chapters and sections in this work are:
Introduction: Thinking About Time
1. Paul’s Conception of Time in Salvation Historical Perspective
2. Paul’s Conception of Time in Apocalyptic Perspective
3. Time in Christ - Not in the Overlap of Ages
4. Christ Lives Time
5. The Nature of the Exalted Christ’s Time
6. The Future of the Exalted Christ’s Time
7. Union with Christ and Time
8. Life in Christ’s Time: Suffering, Physical Death, and Sin
Conclusion
Bibliography
Name Index
Scripture and Ancient Writings Index
Some of the other points that really got my attention are:
I was given this free advance reader copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.
#PaulAndTime #NetGalley
July 3, 2024
Summary: A proposal that believers live, not at the intersection and the age to come, but that we have been delivered from the present evil age to live in Christ, including living in his time.
We understand time in the light of Christ’s saving work. We understand that Christ’s coming inaugurated “the age to come” That age will reach its telos when Christ returns. Some explain it in terms of already and not yet. Others use the analogy of living between D-Day, the decisive battle of World War II and V-Day, the final victory. Those who believe live in an overlap of the ages.
L. Ann Jervis argues that this is not Paul’s view of time. For her, there is no overlap. Either we live in this present evil age, what she calls “death-time” or we live in Christ, in the time of the crucified, risen and exalted Son. She calls this “life-time.”
She begins with the two most popular approaches to Paul, the salvation historical or the more recent apocalyptic. While they differ in whether Christ represents fulfillment or he represents an in-breaking, both have in common the two age idea. She challenges this, arguing that believers live exclusively in Christ. They live in a time or temporality distinct from the present evil age, the temporality of Christ.
Christ’s time is different in at least two ways. As risen Lord, it is a time of life without end, that begins for the believer when they believe. Death is only a transition in that life. Hence, she calls this “life-time.” It is also different because it is in God, for whom past, present, and future are not discrete or sequential. Hence we experience both his past sufferings and anticipate resurrection in our present. The future only reveals the present of Christ’s life, already present to us. Jervis demonstrates this in studies of 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 8, showing that what is chronologically future for us is in the present in Christ’s victory and glory.
Finally, she addresses the implications of this idea for how we understand sin, suffering, and death. She argues that for believers, these are not symptoms of a yet to be vanquished evil age, but are transformed by those who are in Christ. She writes:
“This knowledge has an existential power–believers can live in the embrace of transformative hope. Hope for Paul is the capacity through faith to be aware of what is. Believers’ knowledge that God through Christ shares God’s time and life with them means life now is transfused with the God-given capacity to hope and so to see the glory that is and will be forever….Lives lived without fear of physical death, in awareness that sinning is not obligatory and that suffering is in company with Christ, promise to be lives of creative and healing love for all” (p. 163).
Jervis challenges us to not reframe Paul’s “in Christ” language that so dominates his thought into a two age framework. She offers an approach that seems truer to Paul’s language. She denies we are in a battle with Satan or the powers who have been defeated in Christ, a point at which I would differ. I contend that even in her framework, we participate in Christ’s victory through battle, just as we do through suffering.
Jervis offers a fresh paradigm worth consideration and development. She proclaims a liberty and victory for believers in this present life instead of making concessions to the enemy. Jervis reminds us of what a powerful truth it is to say we are “in Christ.” She does this with concision and clarity in writing that is a pleasure to read. I look forward to reading more of this theologian!
____________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.
We understand time in the light of Christ’s saving work. We understand that Christ’s coming inaugurated “the age to come” That age will reach its telos when Christ returns. Some explain it in terms of already and not yet. Others use the analogy of living between D-Day, the decisive battle of World War II and V-Day, the final victory. Those who believe live in an overlap of the ages.
L. Ann Jervis argues that this is not Paul’s view of time. For her, there is no overlap. Either we live in this present evil age, what she calls “death-time” or we live in Christ, in the time of the crucified, risen and exalted Son. She calls this “life-time.”
She begins with the two most popular approaches to Paul, the salvation historical or the more recent apocalyptic. While they differ in whether Christ represents fulfillment or he represents an in-breaking, both have in common the two age idea. She challenges this, arguing that believers live exclusively in Christ. They live in a time or temporality distinct from the present evil age, the temporality of Christ.
Christ’s time is different in at least two ways. As risen Lord, it is a time of life without end, that begins for the believer when they believe. Death is only a transition in that life. Hence, she calls this “life-time.” It is also different because it is in God, for whom past, present, and future are not discrete or sequential. Hence we experience both his past sufferings and anticipate resurrection in our present. The future only reveals the present of Christ’s life, already present to us. Jervis demonstrates this in studies of 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 8, showing that what is chronologically future for us is in the present in Christ’s victory and glory.
Finally, she addresses the implications of this idea for how we understand sin, suffering, and death. She argues that for believers, these are not symptoms of a yet to be vanquished evil age, but are transformed by those who are in Christ. She writes:
“This knowledge has an existential power–believers can live in the embrace of transformative hope. Hope for Paul is the capacity through faith to be aware of what is. Believers’ knowledge that God through Christ shares God’s time and life with them means life now is transfused with the God-given capacity to hope and so to see the glory that is and will be forever….Lives lived without fear of physical death, in awareness that sinning is not obligatory and that suffering is in company with Christ, promise to be lives of creative and healing love for all” (p. 163).
Jervis challenges us to not reframe Paul’s “in Christ” language that so dominates his thought into a two age framework. She offers an approach that seems truer to Paul’s language. She denies we are in a battle with Satan or the powers who have been defeated in Christ, a point at which I would differ. I contend that even in her framework, we participate in Christ’s victory through battle, just as we do through suffering.
Jervis offers a fresh paradigm worth consideration and development. She proclaims a liberty and victory for believers in this present life instead of making concessions to the enemy. Jervis reminds us of what a powerful truth it is to say we are “in Christ.” She does this with concision and clarity in writing that is a pleasure to read. I look forward to reading more of this theologian!
____________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.
February 8, 2024
Some of the most fruitful and profitable studies come from fundamentally re-assessing the assumptions which undergird certain core concepts in the faith.
I am currently in the middle of John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift and am very much appreciating his very deep investigation into how gifts and grace were understood in ancient contexts and in the history of interpretation. It helps to show how people have been talking above and past each other and very much tied into the framework of their place and time.
Not for nothing, then, does Barclay provide a forward for another book doing something similar: L. Ann Jervis’ Paul and Time: Life in the Temporality of Christ (galley received as part of early review program).
What Barclay does for gift and grace, Jervis does with time. She explores the two predominant perspectives on how Paul views time: the kind of “now/not yet” paradigm popularized by N.T. Wright and others (and one which I have favored), and the “apocalyptic” time viewpoint also common today.
Jervis does well at attempting to not bring any preconceived notions of how time “must work” for Paul in reading Paul’s works. She explores many of the ways in which Paul talks about who Jesus is and what He did in terms of time and temporality.
She well establishes her conclusions: for Paul, there is “death-time” and “life-time.” “Death-time” involves the ways of this world, the powers and principalities, and its corruption and decay. “Life-time” is what God has and is accomplishing in Jesus. She notes well how there is nothing which Jesus needs to be do in order for death to be defeated; He has already done what was necessary in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Thus believers are called to live in “life-time” and share in “life-time.” It is not as if she denies that Jesus will return and we will share in the resurrection of life; if anything, it is in her full affirmation of the resurrection and its power which leads her to conclude we already share in “life-time” and simply await for it to be made good in terms of our bodies.
One could strain to continue to justify a “now” but “not yet” framework, but as Jervis well notes, such gives a bit too much credence to that which Jesus has already overcome and defeated. “Apocalyptic” time is rendered irrelevant, because Jesus has been revealed and is revealed in His Lordship and work among His people. There’s no comfort here for a realized eschatology perspective since there is a robust affirmation of the resurrection of the body.
I definitely appreciated this study and have begun working to incorporate it more effectively into the presentation of the Gospel as it relates to where we find ourselves as believers in this moment. We have passed from death to life, and thus from “death-time” into “life-time”; we should live and act like it!
I am currently in the middle of John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift and am very much appreciating his very deep investigation into how gifts and grace were understood in ancient contexts and in the history of interpretation. It helps to show how people have been talking above and past each other and very much tied into the framework of their place and time.
Not for nothing, then, does Barclay provide a forward for another book doing something similar: L. Ann Jervis’ Paul and Time: Life in the Temporality of Christ (galley received as part of early review program).
What Barclay does for gift and grace, Jervis does with time. She explores the two predominant perspectives on how Paul views time: the kind of “now/not yet” paradigm popularized by N.T. Wright and others (and one which I have favored), and the “apocalyptic” time viewpoint also common today.
Jervis does well at attempting to not bring any preconceived notions of how time “must work” for Paul in reading Paul’s works. She explores many of the ways in which Paul talks about who Jesus is and what He did in terms of time and temporality.
She well establishes her conclusions: for Paul, there is “death-time” and “life-time.” “Death-time” involves the ways of this world, the powers and principalities, and its corruption and decay. “Life-time” is what God has and is accomplishing in Jesus. She notes well how there is nothing which Jesus needs to be do in order for death to be defeated; He has already done what was necessary in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Thus believers are called to live in “life-time” and share in “life-time.” It is not as if she denies that Jesus will return and we will share in the resurrection of life; if anything, it is in her full affirmation of the resurrection and its power which leads her to conclude we already share in “life-time” and simply await for it to be made good in terms of our bodies.
One could strain to continue to justify a “now” but “not yet” framework, but as Jervis well notes, such gives a bit too much credence to that which Jesus has already overcome and defeated. “Apocalyptic” time is rendered irrelevant, because Jesus has been revealed and is revealed in His Lordship and work among His people. There’s no comfort here for a realized eschatology perspective since there is a robust affirmation of the resurrection of the body.
I definitely appreciated this study and have begun working to incorporate it more effectively into the presentation of the Gospel as it relates to where we find ourselves as believers in this moment. We have passed from death to life, and thus from “death-time” into “life-time”; we should live and act like it!
August 20, 2025
“The almost incomprehensible idea, so central to Paul, that believers are joined to a divine being (with no reference to this as equivalent to "an age") summons us to humble wonder. It is not that God has finally fulfilled God's promise of providing an alternative age; rather, God has embraced humanity with and within God's own life. The eschatological goal is the revelation of God's Son, who offers humanity God's life-filled endless time-the temporality lived now by those in Christ.”
“In Christ, dying has a meaning entirely different from that in the present evil age. In the present age, death is caused by the powers of Sin and Death (Rom. 5:12). On the other hand, in Christ—over whom Death does not rule (6:9)—dying is a transformative event. It is hard to know whether Paul thought that the moment or death gives immediate access to the glories of life with Christ (Phil. 1:23) or whether he thought transformation to incorruptible life awaits Christ’s return (1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:13-17)…when Paul writes about it [death], he indicates that dying is not a problem. I take his remarkable statements about death's insignificance (Rom. 8:38; 14:7-8; 1 Cor. 3:21-23; 1 Thess. 5:10) as indicators of how profoundly his conviction of being united with Christ affects his understanding of the meaning of dying. Rather than seeing it as an affront sourced in the present evil age, Paul has almost incomprehensible equanimity about physical death.”
I picked up this book as I was intrigued by the scholarship, and wanted to further develop a theological vision of time and space. This book certainly helped me to think more biblically and theologically about time. Jervis makes a very careful and nuanced argument about Paul’s teaching on temporality. She challenges the “two-age” conception or “already-not-yet” model of Paul’s theology of time and history. Instead, Jervis sees a duality in Paul’s writings: being in Jesus Christ or in the present evil age. This is such an excellent combination of biblical studies and philosophy. But the richness of this work is found in Jervis’s teaching on union with Christ, as well as the nature, meaning, and purpose of Christian death. Ultimately, I don’t agree with Jervis’s total doing away with the two-age conception in Paul, but her scholarship is excellent and her writing style is so clear, that her argument is very much worth hearing!
“In Christ, dying has a meaning entirely different from that in the present evil age. In the present age, death is caused by the powers of Sin and Death (Rom. 5:12). On the other hand, in Christ—over whom Death does not rule (6:9)—dying is a transformative event. It is hard to know whether Paul thought that the moment or death gives immediate access to the glories of life with Christ (Phil. 1:23) or whether he thought transformation to incorruptible life awaits Christ’s return (1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:13-17)…when Paul writes about it [death], he indicates that dying is not a problem. I take his remarkable statements about death's insignificance (Rom. 8:38; 14:7-8; 1 Cor. 3:21-23; 1 Thess. 5:10) as indicators of how profoundly his conviction of being united with Christ affects his understanding of the meaning of dying. Rather than seeing it as an affront sourced in the present evil age, Paul has almost incomprehensible equanimity about physical death.”
I picked up this book as I was intrigued by the scholarship, and wanted to further develop a theological vision of time and space. This book certainly helped me to think more biblically and theologically about time. Jervis makes a very careful and nuanced argument about Paul’s teaching on temporality. She challenges the “two-age” conception or “already-not-yet” model of Paul’s theology of time and history. Instead, Jervis sees a duality in Paul’s writings: being in Jesus Christ or in the present evil age. This is such an excellent combination of biblical studies and philosophy. But the richness of this work is found in Jervis’s teaching on union with Christ, as well as the nature, meaning, and purpose of Christian death. Ultimately, I don’t agree with Jervis’s total doing away with the two-age conception in Paul, but her scholarship is excellent and her writing style is so clear, that her argument is very much worth hearing!
June 28, 2024
Jervis objects to the popular interpretation of Paul’s theology that Paul taught that the believer was living in the overlap of the two ages, the old age ruled by sin and Satan, and the new age ruled by the resurrected Christ. She objects also to the “already but not yet” explanation for the continual struggle against sin, suffering, and death. Jervis says that the life of the believer is 100% “already” as far as Christ’s victory over sin, suffering and death. She calls this “life time” as opposed to “death time” which is being lived by those who have not yet been united to Christ. The basis for Jervis’s perspective is Paul’s focus on “in Christ” that the believer is united with Christ and therefore also united with “Christ’s time” which is life in God.
Jervis’s argument is compelling but incomplete. It’s true that “in Christ” is the definitive principle taught by Paul and that gives definition to our lives as believers. It’s the consequence of pistis (Greek), usually translated “faith” but better translated as “trust.” Trust is the spiritual glue that unites persons to one another, and specifically that unites believers (“trusters”) to Jesus. The focus of Paul is not on a goal of the new age but on the goal of being united with Christ and therefore sharing all his benefits. “In Christ” explains suffering. “In Christ” explains the believer’s freedom from the law and from sin. “In Christ” explains the insignificance of physical death, which is only important for liberation from our corruptible bodies but has nothing to do any longer with eternal life which is already a present possession. Jervis could have drawn out the implications for what we expect from the intermediate state and the Judgment.
Because Jervis does not consider Paul to be the author of Ephesians or Colossians, she does not bring those epistles into her argument. I think they would bolster her case.
Finally, Jervis could have gone more deeply into the definition of “death” (not dealt with) and the current scientific understanding of time as a function of the material world. I think both of these topics could also be supportive of her contentions.
Jervis’s argument is compelling but incomplete. It’s true that “in Christ” is the definitive principle taught by Paul and that gives definition to our lives as believers. It’s the consequence of pistis (Greek), usually translated “faith” but better translated as “trust.” Trust is the spiritual glue that unites persons to one another, and specifically that unites believers (“trusters”) to Jesus. The focus of Paul is not on a goal of the new age but on the goal of being united with Christ and therefore sharing all his benefits. “In Christ” explains suffering. “In Christ” explains the believer’s freedom from the law and from sin. “In Christ” explains the insignificance of physical death, which is only important for liberation from our corruptible bodies but has nothing to do any longer with eternal life which is already a present possession. Jervis could have drawn out the implications for what we expect from the intermediate state and the Judgment.
Because Jervis does not consider Paul to be the author of Ephesians or Colossians, she does not bring those epistles into her argument. I think they would bolster her case.
Finally, Jervis could have gone more deeply into the definition of “death” (not dealt with) and the current scientific understanding of time as a function of the material world. I think both of these topics could also be supportive of her contentions.
December 4, 2025
Fascinating study on Paul’s ‘understanding’ of time
Jervis presents a short, dense argument against both a purely salvation-historical and/or apocalyptic reading of Paul’s letters and theology. Jervis argues that Paul sees not “two ages”, nor from an “already-not yet” framework, but instead from “time”. There are two mutually exclusive times, one is “death-time”, the time of the present evil age from which believers have been rescued (Gal 1:4), and the other is “life-time” or Christ’s time or God’s time (the only real time). Believers have been liberated from death-time, a time ruled by Sin and Death, and are now freed to live in Christ, sharing Christ’s temporality. While heavily philosophical/theological, there is good practice stuff here to aid and deepen understanding the life of the Christian and how to think about sin and death and ethics. I imagine most will disagree with or at least challenge Jervis’ reading but it should not be dismissed completely and will be of value to anyone who seriously wrestles with it.
Jervis presents a short, dense argument against both a purely salvation-historical and/or apocalyptic reading of Paul’s letters and theology. Jervis argues that Paul sees not “two ages”, nor from an “already-not yet” framework, but instead from “time”. There are two mutually exclusive times, one is “death-time”, the time of the present evil age from which believers have been rescued (Gal 1:4), and the other is “life-time” or Christ’s time or God’s time (the only real time). Believers have been liberated from death-time, a time ruled by Sin and Death, and are now freed to live in Christ, sharing Christ’s temporality. While heavily philosophical/theological, there is good practice stuff here to aid and deepen understanding the life of the Christian and how to think about sin and death and ethics. I imagine most will disagree with or at least challenge Jervis’ reading but it should not be dismissed completely and will be of value to anyone who seriously wrestles with it.
December 20, 2023
Wow. Game changer! This is not an easy book, and it's hard to describe actually. Jervis reviews the work of numerous Paul scholars, especially those in the "Apocalyptic Paul" camp. She disagrees with the idea that Paul deals with 2 ages (present evil age, and the age to come). For Paul believers live on a "new time" and not a new age. They share what she calls "life time" with Christ. The significance of death is minimized, and the ability to avoid sin is there if believers will tap into it. Of note Jervis interacts a good bit with key scholars like Emma Wasserman and Stanley Stowers who see a heavy Platonic/Stoic influence behind a lot of Paul's speech.
It's a tough book, and she's in a camp all her own in a way. The closest scholar I can think of would be Teresa Morgan. Highly recommended!
It's a tough book, and she's in a camp all her own in a way. The closest scholar I can think of would be Teresa Morgan. Highly recommended!
June 15, 2024
“Looked at solely from chronological human time, it might appear as if there is an ongoing battle that will not be complete until the eschaton, when death-time is abolished. Looked at from the perspective of union with Christ, however, the battle is won. Those crucified with Christ live in Christ’s temporality, in which Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation exist simultaneously.”
This book is exceptionally well-written. Its argument is sophisticated while also being accessible for a variety of readers and practical for the Christian life. I enjoyed reading it as an academic exercise and as a spiritually formative practice. I could see this being a work that I reference for future research papers, sermons, or personal devotional readings. The author makes a clear and compelling case but gives opposing views a fair portrayal in my view. Very well done!
This book is exceptionally well-written. Its argument is sophisticated while also being accessible for a variety of readers and practical for the Christian life. I enjoyed reading it as an academic exercise and as a spiritually formative practice. I could see this being a work that I reference for future research papers, sermons, or personal devotional readings. The author makes a clear and compelling case but gives opposing views a fair portrayal in my view. Very well done!
August 8, 2024
In this book, Dr. Jervis proposes a fresh understanding of time in Paul in light of the significance of time being in Christ, a neglected area in scholarly discussion, and challenges the traditional view of Paul's understanding of time. The traditional view is that for Paul Salvation has already/not yet come and believers live in a time of overlap. Jervis challenges this view and instead proposes that for Paul there are two concepts of time: Life-Time and Death-Time. The former is the time in which believers live and already experience things that happen in the future such as final judgment, resurrection and the like, from the eyes of faith. The latter is non-believers' views. Consequently, for Paul, believers in Christ do not live in the overlapping ages but already experience everything that happens in the Parousia.
May 25, 2024
There’s a possibility that I’m not smart enough to appreciate this book. I can tell it’s academic, and I did appreciate how the author started out explaining certain theologies and theologians. And those chapters were great. But I was lost when the author got into her theology and idea of life-time/death-time. I couldn’t tell how hers was any different or more accurate than the other two ancient ideas of time (age and age to come, and the Jewish apocalyptic)
March 5, 2024
The author goes at great length in explaining her position, yet I do not think she presents a strong enough argument for the opposing view, much less why I should not 'buy' theirs.
October 9, 2024
An absolutely brilliant work. A quick read but one that the reader will contemplate long after finishing the last page. Hats off to Professor Jervis.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews