Jesus appears to integrate the messianic-apocalyptic imagery of Daniel with the mysterious ‘suffering servant’ of Isaiah…

But it is precisely in this respect that Jesus’ self-designation as ‘Son of man’ does not go beyond Daniel’s vision in the night - the Son of man who is glorified represents the saints of the Most High against whom the little horn makes war (7:21, 25). The drama in Daniel 7 entails both suffering and vindication, which is why Jesus so often uses the title when he is talking about his own foreseen suffering. He is the one who, on behalf of Israel, will bear the brunt of Gentile hostility believing that he will be vindicated by God. What Isaiah 53 adds is the thought that the suffering of the one can have atoning significance for the many.

No doubt there is an echo of Daniel 12:3 in Philippians 2:15, but is it really closer? Paul has phōstÄ“res rather than asteres, and more importantly he is talking about the living rather than those who are resurrected following judgment. In any case, this hardly detracts from the significance of Jesus’ allusion.

The limited resurrection (‘many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth’) of Daniel 12:2-3 is directly linked (‘At that time…’: 12:1) to the political-religious crisis provoked by Antiochus Epiphanes (11:29-45) which would conclude the extended period (70 weeks of years: 9:24) of God’s wrath against Israel - Israel’s continuing exile. Resurrection, therefore, has to do with the vindication of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked as an outcome of this crisis. (I don’t see a particular problem with the fact that this vindication will include the righteous from earlier periods, including Daniel himself.) My argument, then, is that Jesus understood this application but developed and reapplied it to the more severe crisis that Israel faced in the first century AD. Those who would suffer on account of their loyalty to God would be vindicated; the wicked would be punished.

Ironically, the ‘historicization’ of the NT eschatology here denies the concreteness and physicalty of the future resurrection.

Yes, because this is a resurrection in advance of the renewal of creation that will provide the necessary physical environment for the resurrected body. The raised and vindicated ‘saints of the Most High’ reign in heaven just as the raised and vindicated Jesus reigns in heaven. There is no denial of the ‘concreteness and physicality of the future resurrection’ - it is rather a postponement. In The Coming of the Son of Man I argue that the resurrection of those who belong to Christ, those community of the suffering Son of man, does not coincide with the ‘end’ when the kingdom given to the Son of man is handed back to the Father and the last enemy is destroyed (1 Cor. 15:23-26; see COSM 169-172).

When then did Jesus ‘drink of the fruit of the vine’ with his disciples in his Father’s kingdom? When did the son of Man establish twelve thrones for the twelve apostles to judge the twelve tribes of Israel?

These are symbols for the participation of the suffering saints in Christ’s vindication. John has the same scenario in mind when he speaks of the martyrs of Roman persecution coming to life and reigning with Christ a thousand years (Rev. 20:4).

How we interpret the image of the lightning depends to a large extent on how we interpret the ‘coming of the Son of man’. I don’t think that Jesus is describing a coming from heaven to earth; I think he has in mind Daniel’s vision of a human figure approaching the throne of God to receive a kingdom, which is going to be ‘seen’ in a very different way. This is what the disciples should look for and trust in - not one of the many false messiahs who (as Josephus confirms) led Israel astray during the period leading up to the war and during the war itself.

It also depends on how we interpret prophetic and apocalyptic language. Whatever we may make of Jewish apocalypticism generally, I am not so sure that Old Testament apocalyptic presents a ‘trans-historical eschatology’. There are plenty of examples in the prophets of cosmic and mythological imagery being used to foretell historical events. Why shouldn’t Jesus have done the same? Why is it such a ‘radical re-reading’ to hear in Jesus’ teaching the imagery and idioms and thought-forms of Old Testament prophecy? Why shouldn’t he have spoken about things that mattered immensely to his disciples and the pariah communities that would gather around them?

Or do you believe martyrdom of the saints has ceased?

No, of course, not. But when you look into the future from where Jesus and the authors of the New Testament stood, what you see is the particular decisive conflict with Roman imperialism - and I think that in order to understand the language of New Testament eschatology we need to share that limited perspective and get a sense of just how critical that conflict was perceived to be. I would suggest that what the ‘modern Western perspective’ characteristically seeks to do is universalize the limited, contingent outlook of the New Testament. What we fail to take seriously is the identity and integrity of the people for whom these texts were actually, expressly written.

I disagree that the coming of the New Jerusalem from heaven to earth corresponds to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Some potential for confusion, however, arises because new creation language, like resurrection language, emerges initially as a metaphor for the renewal of Israel. By the time we get to Revelation 21 it has become a more literal hope: this is a new creation in which there is no more wickedness and no more death. That cannot be said of the renewed people of God. Peter is clearly waiting for a transformation of things that will impact both the suffering communities to which he writes and their enemies - we should not diminish the sense of urgency and imminence in these statements. I would suggest that he is using the image of new creation in much the same way that it is used in Isaiah 65:17 to describe the historical renewal of Israel.

This discussion is getting very detailed. I hope we are not boring everyone.