Andrew,

I am often slow and obtuse, so thanks for the recap here to peter.  It helps me.  Though, honestly, I am still mystified by these kinds of comments: "There is no need to look for an actual bodily resurrection - not because resurrection is not bodily but because it presupposes the new creation. Those who die in Christ in this specific sense are raised in Christ and raised to be with Christ, who is not here but in heaven. They are raised for the purpose of vindication and to share in Christ’s reign."

Again, I may just be too thick to get this, but could you please explain how the resurrection is bodily but that we should’nt expect a bodily resurrection?  What do you mean "because it presupposes the new creation?"  Were their bodies raised from the grave?  If so, were they then transported to the heavens as Christ had so ascended? 

Your hermeneutical control seems to be: "to interpret the expectation in such a way as to diminish the contingency of these prophecies, their relevance to the communities which actually faced the hardship and hostility that are described."  So, if I understand you rightly, these prophecies must be (per your hermeneutic) interpreted as pertaining to events that fell within their historical situation (whatever the boundaries of that may be).  Of course I would agree with you andrew that the prophecy must be understood in a manner that relevance and application to the audience to whom it was first given.   But this is very different than demanding that the events predicted must find relatively immediate realization/fulfillment within the historical situation of that audience.   The promises of Christ’s coming were certainly relevant to Peter and Paul in preaching the gospel (as Acts bears out), just as they were relevant to David (to whom the messianic promise was made), and to Jacob in his prophetic blessing of Judah, and his grandfather Abraham (who was promised a ‘seed’ through whom the nations would be blessed) and to Eve (who was promised a child that would crush the serpent’s head).  I’ve made the point numerous times.  Your restriction of prophecy renders the NT dishonest in claiming to be the fulfillment of the Law and prophets (even daring to claim that the prophets themselves knew they were not serving themselves and their own generations ultimately, but a future, eschatological people).  

Responding to an older post, to say that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment is an accuarte summary of the NT’s understanding of the significance of Christ as the fulfillment of God’s promises to HIs people.  Obviously, this doesn’t mean that every prophecy ever utterd in the OT pertains directly and entirely to Christ, but neither can be rightly interpreted apart from him who is the ultimate subject of prophecy, of the covenant promises, of the hope of the saints (old and new).  Thus the NT could ‘find’ Jesus not only in the grand visions of Isaiah and prophetic psalms of David, but in the Levitical economy and the ceremonial feasts of Israel, and even under the rock of Moses! 

But, I would add, the promises that find their fulfillment in Christ are not yet fully realized (hence the language of ‘inauguration’ as opposed to ‘consummation’).  For the prophets didn’t just prophesy his coming and suffering (i.e., atonement), but ‘the glories to follow’ (1 Peter 1:11; cf. Acts 3:18-21).  We still await that coming day, when our faith in what is now unseen "may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ," (1 Peter 1:7).