I actually have been struck by some similarity between what Andrew contends for and the teachings of a more traditional arm of Christendom that a few of my friends subscribe to and that they call "Dispensationalism".

Having not read the books that Lloyd refers to, I’m not sure if what he describes above falls into this school of thought or not. Still, if I recall correctly, a dispensational understanding of Jesus preaching of the kingdom also tries to limit our understanding of Jesus’ kingdom teaching (e.g. many parables and the Sermon on the Mount) to something that is only strictly relevant to the period of Jesus’ ministry and particular to Israel in the context of the covenant that God has made with Israel, rather than having much of a direct connection with post resusrrection teaching such as Paul’s which then does not have the covenantal limitation to contend with.

I’m sure though that the similarity is incidental for there are not many scholars today who lend much weight to the very allegorically literal methodology that my dispensationally oriented friends do prefer.

My question goes back even to some older tendencies in Christological thought to whether it is fair to draw such a hard line between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Or as Andrew puts it, between the narrative force of the Son of Man theme and the New Creation theme that Paul takes up.

While it is possible that one idea subsumes the other, it is also possible to understand the New Creation-Body of Christ  (to some extent) as a natural consequence to Son of Man-Suffering Servant, as both concepts could come together in Messiah-Christ, as they indeed seem to in Paul’s understanding.

And I do hope that I am forgiven again for jumping in very much into the deep end of a conversation, the theological nuances of which I am grossly ignorant.

Live to serve : Serve to live