more on the apostles creed

Posted 26 September, 2006 - 06:39 by kingjames1
No votes yet

Comments

punishment, yes, but eternal?

by stacy - 26/09/2006 - 13:08

i dont disagree with anything you put forth except the doctrine that this punishment or anger is eternal. i can read every one of those scriptures and understand god’s justice, his righteous anger, and the consequences of choosing or not choosing him as lord. without the “training” we have received, can you yourself not read those scriptures and find it reasonable to believe that once the punishment is complete, that the creation is reconciled to god? wasnt that the gig?

i am truly interested in this dialogue.

Eternal wrath?

by kingjames1 - 26/09/2006 - 18:53

Theology proper has debated the question of whether wrath, or jealously for that matter, was a proper attribute of God. That is to say, though God’s righteousness and holiness certainly are divine attributes, essential aspects of God’s character, the question is whether His wrath (by which I understand to mean His righteous, penal response to evil) is co-extensive with His being? It would seem that such an admission would entail the eternality of evil, against which the eternal righteousness of God is presumably ever-provoked, leading us into a dreaded dualism of good and evil. But the Christian church has always and ever rejected any dualistic cosmology, as though Satan were yin to God’s yang. More importantly, Scripture roundly rejects any such notion, even picturing the evil spirits at God’s sovereign disposal (e.g., 1Ki.22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6).

But does God’s wrath burn against his enemies forever? That is, if we might picture God’s judgments geometrically, if His righteousness is a line in space, is His wrath then a ray, or merely a line segment? Certainly all Christians would agree that His blessings, most notably, everlasting life, are eternal, as in the geometric ray: having a beginning point, but extending indefinitely into the ‘future’, the unending “age to come” (e.g., Lk.18:30). But than, what about His curses? Are they not likewise eternal? Or do they terminate (as in a line segement) on the annihilation of the objects of His curse and condemnation? This of course is the position of annihilationism.

The question is the significance of the adjectives rendered as “eternal”, “everlasting”, or “forever”, or negatively put, as in ‘unceasing’, being applied to God’s judgment(s) against the wicked, ungodly, and those hostile to Him and His people. E.g., Ps.81:15; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:10ff.; Jude 1:7; 2Th.1:9; Mt.18:8; 25:41, 46; Dan.12:2; Mk.9:47-48; cf. Isa.66:24. There are numerous other examples in the OT where God’s judgments against His enemies are presented as lasting forever.

The second question is whether the soul is created to be eternal, or whether it is temporary by nature, and eternal by divine gift only. Others have argued that the soul is eternal by design (again, in the ‘ray’ sense of eternal), but that God’s judgment extinguishes what would otherwise endure forever.

It is noteworthy, I think, that Jesus compares the eternal life enjoyed by the saints (sheep) with the eternal punishment suffered by the ‘goats’ (Mt.25:46; cf. Dan.12:2). There is a certain symmetry presented in the Scriptures with the everlasting blessings of the righteous and the everlasting shame of the wicked.

At the end of the day, we have to contend with the strong language of Scripture - eternal fire, everlasting torment, etc. The language is no doubt metaphorical (e.g., fire, darkness, gnashing of teeth, etc.), but it is clearly meant to convey an awful reality to us. Moreover, this language is rooted in God’s eternal character and infinite justice. Hence, Isaiah 33:11, says, “The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless: “Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?”” And Hebrews, clearly borrowing this language, says, “our God is a consuming fire,” 12:29. His wrath is presented in Scripture in the strongest of terms, often employing superlative language. God’s wrath has been sparked by sin (covenant infidelity, idolatry, etc.), and it burns deep, to the depths of Sheol, and burns hot, to the conflagration of even the very elements of the earth, the roots of the mountains, and burns “forever” (cf. Dt.32:22; Jer.17:3-4).

What do we do with such language? In my opinion, it seems dangerous, even irresponsible, to label it as mere ‘hyperbole’. I think the picture Scripture paints is meant to concern us, to frighten and disturb us, and rightly so. Should we then dull it down, soften its sharp, rough edges, and attenuate its alarming, agressive tones? I think the appropriate response is to tremble, confessing together that it is a terrible think to fall into the hands of the living God, and give Him the glory dues His awesome name, trusting that the judge of all the earth will do what is good, true, and right.

What do we do with such language?

by Andrew - 26/09/2006 - 21:13

‘What do we do with such language?’ We put it back where it belongs - in a narrative context. I greatly appreciate your fair and thorough presentation of the conventional arguments, but in my view an emerging biblical theology has to take a rather different approach. I won’t attempt to defend each of these commentaries on a number of the passages that you cite and much of what I say will be contested; but together they should give a good impression of how passages such as this need to relocated within a historical narrative.

So, for example, the ‘age to come’ in Luke 18:30 is the age that follows the collapse of second temple Judaism, when the people of God is defined by the lordship of Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit. It will last as long as it lasts.

Psalm 81:14-15 speaks of the defeat of Israel’s enemies. To say that the fate of the defeated enemy will last forever or ‘for the age’ means simply that the enemy won’t come back to cause further trouble.

Sodom and Gomorrah are said to have been ‘set forward as an example by undergoing a punishment of a fire of the age’, to translate rather too literally (Jude 7). But the point is simply that the cities were destroyed by fire from heaven and have not been rebuilt. The fire that destroyed the cities was real fire that presumably caused immense suffering; it is not a metaphysical fire that keeps burning in hell.

2 Thessalonians 1:9 describes the deliverance of the believers to whom Paul writes and the defeat of their enemies when the Lord ‘comes’ to be vindicated. However we choose to interpret the apocalyptic language, Paul means it to apply to the community of persecuted Christians in Thessalonica: their enemies (not ours) will be defeated. I regard this as prophetic language giving apocalyptic shape to the belief that the Christ movement would be victorious over the powers that opposed it - supremely Roman imperialism and the satanic power behind it.

Matthew 18:8 (and parallels) speaks of the impending judgment on Israel: it is better to cut off an offending hand or foot than suffer the appalling destruction of war. The ‘fire of the age’ is the fire of gehenna, which as in Jeremiah 7:31-34 is an image of the destruction and death caused by invasion. As I’m sure you’ll recall, we’ve had this discussion before. It is an ‘eternal’ destruction because it lasts forever, there is no way back. It emphatically does not mean that the Jews who were killed during the war are now burning eternally in hell. That is a travesty of Jesus’ teaching. The war itself was quite bad enough.

The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-46) describes a judgment of the nations on the basis of how they treated the disciples. The argument is very similar to 2 Thess. 1:5-10. Those who mistreat the church will be destroyed (2 Thess. 1:9) at the parousia, when the kingdom is given to the suffering community (Matt. 25:34; 2 Thess. 1:5) and the idolatrous pagan world is judged. I would place Revelation 14:9-11 in the same category: it has to do with God’s judgment on Babylon the great (Rev. 14:8), which is unquestionably Rome.

Isaiah 66:24 does not speak of unending torment. These are dead bodies, unburied corpses, following historical judgment on Israel - just like the dead bodies that were thrown over the walls of Jerusalem during the seige in AD 70. They are an abhorrence to the Gentiles who will bring back the Jews of the dispersion to Jerusalem (cf. 66:20). Even if the worms do not die and the fire keeps burning, dead bodies do not suffer - as they might perhaps if they were resurrected. This image has nothing to do with our post-biblical invention of a metaphysical hell.

Similarly, the sinners in Zion are afraid because God is a ‘devouring fire’ and will destroy rebellious, idolatrous, corrupt Jerusalem (Is. 33:14). I suspect that the writer to the Hebrews had exactly that thought in mind (Heb. 12:29).

In conclusion, I agree with you that we have to take the wrath of God very seriously, but it has to be read contextually. Once we grasp how the narrative works, then perhaps we ask what is in store for us.

a closer look at andrew's interpretations...

by kingjames1 - 27/09/2006 - 19:52

You write: “So, for example, the ‘age to come’ in Luke 18:30 is the age that follows the collapse of second temple Judaism, when the people of God is defined by the lordship of Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit. It will last as long as it lasts.

Really? Is this what Jesus’ disciples understood “the age to come” to mean? Chances are, they probably thought he meant the long-awaited consummated kingdom (as would have all of Jesus’ contemporaries), which entailed the end of history as they knew it.

Consistently throughout the NT, “the age to come” is to contrasted to the “present evil age” (to use Paul’s language), which is described by G.E. Ladd as the “age, which extends from creation to the Day of the Lord, which in the Gospels is designated in terms of the parousia of Christ, resurrection and judgment, is the age of human existence in weakness and mortality, of evil, sin and death. The Age to Come will see the realization of all that the reign of God means, and will be the age of resurrection into eternal life in the Kingdom of God. Everything in the Gospels points to the idea that life in the kingdom of God in the Age to Come will be life on the earth – but life transformed by the kingly rule of God when his people enter into the full measure of the divine blessings (Mt.19:28).”

“Therefore,” concludes Ladd, “when Jesus proclaimed the coming of the kingdom of God, he did so against the background of the Hebrew-Jewish thought, which viewed people living in a situation dominated by sin, evil, and death, from which they needed to be rescued [and of which, I would add, the present Roman occupation was merely a symptom and particular manifestation; cf. Daniel’s prophetic visions]. His proclamation of the Kingdom includes the hope, reaching back to the OT prophets, that anticipates a new age in which all the evils of the present age will be purged by the act of God from human and earthly existence.”

Your presupposition that this “age to come” has already occurred with the collapse of second Temple Judaism is historically implausible, and stands in direct contradiction with the understanding of both historic Judaism and Christianity. In this, you stand against roughly 2,000 years of Christian orthodoxy, and that on the central issue of the nature of our hope. This is an unenviable position.

“It will last as long as it lasts” is certainly a profound truth, Andrew, but somehow leaves me cold when we are discussing scriptural promises of eternal life.

You go on:

“Psalm 81:14-15 speaks of the defeat of Israel’s enemies. To say that the fate of the defeated enemy will last forever or ‘for the age’ means simply that the enemy won’t come back to cause further trouble.”

The peculiar phrase in the Hebrew is literally, “their time will be forever”. This speaks of their “cringing,” the most likely rendering of the Hebrew, before the Lord. This is in line with the thought elsewhere expressed that God’s enemies will be put to shame forever. This is more than simply saying “the enemy won’t come back to cause further trouble.”

You go on,

“Sodom and Gomorrah are said to have been ‘set forward as an example by undergoing a punishment of a fire of the age’, to translate rather too literally (Jude 7). But the point is simply that the cities were destroyed by fire from heaven and have not been rebuilt. The fire that destroyed the cities was real fire that presumably caused immense suffering; it is not a metaphysical fire that keeps burning in hell.”

Indeed, your rendering is too literal. It is better rendered, “set out as an example (or sample) of those undergoing the punishment of eternal fire”. The Greek word is best rendered ‘eternal’, not ‘of the age’. That, I would submit, is a misleading rendering and a foreign sense to its actual usage in the NT. As with the angels awaiting punishment in gloomy prisons, Sodom and Gomorrah are presented here as analogous cases or paradigms with regard to the present scenario of the church’s enemies (both within and without), with the punishment (as sample) being proleptic or anticipatory of the eternal hell-fire awaiting God’s enemies.

Next, you say:

“2 Thessalonians 1:9 describes the deliverance of the believers to whom Paul writes and the defeat of their enemies when the Lord ‘comes’ to be vindicated. However we choose to interpret the apocalyptic language, Paul means it to apply to the community of persecuted Christians in Thessalonica: their enemies (not ours) will be defeated. I regard this as prophetic language giving apocalyptic shape to the belief that the Christ movement would be victorious over the powers that opposed it - supremely Roman imperialism and the satanic power behind it.”

And what of the on-going satanic power behind modern imperialism? Moreover, Paul did not limit this to merely the Thessalonians, as you do. Indeed, he says, Christ will come and give relief to them and “to us,” (1:7). Of course, Paul speaks of himself, Silvanus, Timothy and others within the apostolic band. Yet it is clear that the scope of his language entails the broader church, and not merely Thessalonica. In fact, he explicitly writes of Christ’s coming as a glory for the universal body of believers: “He comes to be glorified among His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed.” This then is the singular hope of the universal church. Likewise, the punishment he speaks of can hardly be delimited to the particular persecutors of the Thessalonian church at that time.

You write:

“Matthew 18:8 (and parallels) speaks of the impending judgment on Israel: it is better to cut off an offending hand or foot than suffer the appalling destruction of war.”

Hah! Sure it does. You have completely violated the entire context of this lucid passage in such a far-fetched interpretation (cf. 18:1-7, 12-14, 15-20, 21-35). This is a passge concerning sin and forgiveness in the community of the church; the judgment of Israel is nowhere to be found here, my friend (lest it be pulled in, dragged kicking and screaming). Cf. 5:27-30, and good luck finding AD 70 in that passage!

 

“The ‘fire of the age’ is the fire of gehenna, which as in Jeremiah 7:31-34 is an image of the destruction and death caused by invasion.” Cf. your comments on Isaiah 66

Exactly, it is an image – a metaphor. But who is being too literal now? I suppose when the poet writes, “my love is like a rose,” you must imagine her to be a red-head, with green-hued skin, and a bad case of psoriasis.

You continue:

“The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-46) describes a judgment of the nations on the basis of how they treated the disciples. The argument is very similar to 2 Thess. 1:5-10. Those who mistreat the church will be destroyed (2 Thess. 1:9) at the parousia, when the kingdom is given to the suffering community (Matt. 25:34; 2 Thess. 1:5) and the idolatrous pagan world is judged.”

True. Unfortunately, this judgment, according to your scheme, has already happened! Man, how did we all miss it? When exactly were the all nations gathered together before Christ’s glorious (and, apparently, earthly) throne, judged, separated, and sentanced?

Last but not least, you write:”I would place Revelation 14:9-11 in the same category: it has to do with God’s judgment on Babylon the great (Rev. 14:8), which is unquestionably Rome.”

Unquestionably? I think the gentleman doth protest too much! No one doubts that the beast, and Babylon wear the mask of Rome and her officials, the persona of the Roman Empire, if you will. But few in the vast history of interpretation of this mysterious book would share your resolute certainty.

Moreover, the judgment mentioned in 14:9-11 is not the fall of Babylon, as you suggest, but the fate of those who were deceived through the false prophet and worship the beast (both of whose judgment is narrated in 19:20).

hermeneutics and eschatology

by kingjames1 - 27/09/2006 - 06:57

Brother Andrew,

You write, “What do we do with such language?’ We put it back where it belongs - in a narrative context. I greatly appreciate your fair and thorough presentation of the conventional arguments, but in my view an emerging biblical theology has to take a rather different approach. I won’t attempt to defend each of these commentaries on a number of the passages that you cite and much of what I say will be contested; but together they should give a good impression of how passages such as this need to relocated within a historical narrative.”

You apparently believe that the historic understanding of these passages are unhistorical (!), decontextualized interpretations. I obviously do not agree, and in fact understand my interpretative rule to be guided by a contextual, grammatico-historical exegesis, and thus in line with the great Augustine (see his classic work, “On Christian Doctrine”), and most famously, the Reformers. The problem, as I see it Andrew, is that your supposed ‘narrative reading’ goes to the opposite extreme of certain ahistorical hermeneutical tendencies (as for example, in Bultmann’s existentialist hermeneutics). In your expressed concern to read the text within its historical context and setting (sitz im leben), you have emptied it of its eschatological and divine significance.

Did not the saints believe in a heavenly kingdom, transcending Canaan or Rome (He.11:16)? This is to say, you have re-historicized the gospel within a secular, i.e., non-eschatological, framework, or so it seems to me. And thus you fail to comprehend how a biblical text can have both immediate, historical consequences for its original audience, and eschatological, eternal significance as well, both for them and subsequent generations (e.g., consider the long-standing, eternal implications of Dt.30-32, which anticipates Israel’s exile, eventual restoration, and the new covenant itself). You have, in a (made up) word, de-eschatologicalized the text of Scripture in your peculiar ‘narrative’, historical reading.

But the text was not merely authored by men concerned with their ‘here and now’ (for, the NT informs us, their hope was always a heavenly one), but also inspired by the eternal God, concerned with unveiling His purpose in Christ for the ages (cf. Eph.1:9-10). Only centuries after much of the OT prophetic writings were recorded did their true significance become manifest in the revelation of Christ and the apostolic kerygma (e.g., Ro.16:25-26). But the fundamental, divine authorship of Scripture guarantees a coherent, trans-historical, if you will, signficance to the Scriptures in toto. This, I believe, is the demonstrable presupposition of the New Testament authors and their usage of the OT scriptures.

But, this takes far afield from the issue at hand.

Regarding your interpretation of the texts you list, I will have to return for comment when I have more time. For now, suffice it to say that much of your conclusions are predicated on what to my mind is the false dichotomy of the immediate historical context and the eschatological horizon, which shapes the entire prophetic and apostolic record of Scripture.

Lots of questions...

by Andrew - 27/09/2006 - 20:05

…you fail to comprehend how a biblical text can have both immediate, historical consequences for its original audience, and eschatological, eternal significance as well, both for them and subsequent generations.

Lots of questions.

What is the basis for this assumption? What is the reason for thinking, for example, that when Jesus prophesies historical judgment on Jerusalem, he is also implicitly speaking of something else, some other act of judgment, or a metaphysical hell?

Does every biblical text have both historical and trans-historical significance? If not, what are the criteria for deciding which do and which don’t? Why does ‘divine authorship’ guarantee ‘a coherent, trans-historical, if you will, signficance to the Scriptures in toto’? Why doesn’t it simply guarantee that scripture means what it says, not what we feel we need to read into it? If it’s a demonstrable presuppostion, then I would ask you to demonstrate it.

What do you take to be the ‘eternal’ implications of Deuteronomy 30-32? What is there in this passage that cannot be applied as (real) prophecy to the history of Israel? Hebrews 11:16 has something to say about the implicit desires of Old Testament figures. It doesn’t offer much help in deciding whether biblical texts have layers of significance beyond the obvious contextual meaning.

context and text

by kingjames1 - 27/09/2006 - 21:15

Andrew,

You seem to think that I am looking for significance in the biblical text “beyond the obvious contextual meaning”. I am not. I am simply trying to preserve the contextual meaning, which I see your hermeneutic collapsing into a purely historical dimension. I am not seeking to defend a sensus plenoir exegesis, but simply wanting the eschatological hope of the Scriptures to be given full voice, and to be heard (even in spite of our flawed hermeneutical grids). Clearly, Isaiah’s prophecies, for example, extend well beyond the Assyrian and Babylonian judgments…without nullifying or ‘cryptofying’ the immediate historical thrust and aspects of his prophetic proclamations. In fact, as Jesus said, Isaiah saw His glory, and wrote of Him (centuries before His actual coming). Hence, the prophets often intended, in the inspiration of the Spirit (2Pe.1:20), to write of things well beyond the immediate scope of their historical context (e.g., 1Pe.1:12). And even then, I would argue, these distant, eschatological hopes were immediately relevant to their audience and situation…

Dt.30-32 speaks of things that were ‘worlds’ away from the 13th century Israelites, even anticipating the full realites of the New Covenant (and the full spiritual realities that attend it, cf. 30:4-6). Likewise, Dt.32 is, if you will, the first ‘apocalyptic’ prophecy, poetically speaking (singing) of the cosmic scope of God’s redemption, judgment, and ultimate vindication of His people.

And so when Jesus warns of imminet judgment against Jerusalem, I see no need to render his solemn statements as referring to ‘a metaphysical hell’ (e.g., Mt.23:37-24:2). However, when Jesus does speak of the eternal fire of gehenna, I so no need to ‘collapse’ his apocalyptic metaphors, and against the common eschatology of ancient Judaism and Christianity, force fit his ‘referent’ into the events of AD 70. I am saying, let the text speak for itself within the historical and eschatological framework of the Scriptures.

The divine authorship of Scripture, I am arguing, guarantees its fundamental unity and coherence (such that ancient prophecies continue to speak relevantly and prophetically to the contemporary people of God, for whom they were penned, cf. 1Co.10:11). Hence, there is no contradiction or conflict between the historical implications and particular prophecies of the OT and the eschatological dimensions of it.

Regarding this ‘demonstrable presuppostion’ of the NT writers concerning the unity (though not necessarily identity) of Israel’s and the church’s hope, have you read Longnecker’s book, “Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period”? As I said, this is another issue, if you wish to pursue it…

I would probably agree with

by Andrew - 27/09/2006 - 23:46

I would probably agree with you about Isaiah - I doubt that he would have been satisfied with the actual return from exile as a fulfilment of his vision. I still don’t see anything in Deuteronomy 30-32, however, that cannot be understood in terms of the historical experience of the people of God amongst the nations of the earth: it is a natural extension of chapter 28. Remember, the issue is not whether prophetic figures were shown the future by God: it is what sort of future were they shown.

Jesus knew Jeremiah well, we can assume. He also talked about the destruction of Jerusalem as an act of judgment. People cannot have failed to see the analogy with Old Testament acts of judgment. So when he uses Jeremiah’s image of the dead piled up in the valleys outside Jerusalem as a result of the Babylonian invasion, in the context of a warning to Israel to repent, there is really no reason to think that he was speaking about some event other than the war against Rome. Why is this force fitting? The language worked that way for Jeremiah. Why shouldn’t it work that way for Jesus? This was second temple Judaism’s eschaton. This is biblical eschatology. You say I have collapsed his apocalyptic metaphors. I say that you have over-inflated them; they need to be collapsed if we are going to understand Jesus’ role in the transformation of the old covenant people into the new covenant people.

Again, this is not a challenge to the divine authorship or integrity or coherence or truthfulness of scripture. It is a question of what the divine author is actually saying.

In 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 Paul draws a straightforward historical analogy between the complacency of the wilderness generation and the complacency of the Corinthians: baptism and the Lord’s supper do not guarantee that you will not fall, anymore than the experience of passing through the sea and eating the supernatural food prevented the Israelites from falling. Paul does not attribute to the Old Testament text an eschatological or trans-historical meaning; in fact, within the context of a different debate it would be very important to stress that he respects the historicality of the account, allegorizing it only slightly (‘the rock was Christ’) in order to draw out the analogy.

As a final point (it’s late at night and I’m in a maudlin mood), I worry that these exchanges come across as too confrontational, too pig-headed. I just want to make it clear that I greatly appreciate the time you take over these questions and the constructive nature of the dialogue - well, perhaps ‘constructive’ isn’t quite the right word, but I hope that for us all there is something to be gained from arguing furiously in the Spirit of God. Peace.

the word

by Stranger - 28/09/2006 - 00:20

Constructive is the word! I love watching you two interact. It is a joy that vigorous debate can be had without name calling and character assassination. View assassination, perhaps, but that’s what makes it fun. :-)

Blessings to both of you.

-Daniel-

the prophetic eschatology

by kingjames1 - 28/09/2006 - 07:11

Andrew,

I appreciate the expressions of, well, appreciation, even if it is just a momentary effusion of your ‘maudlin mood’…cheers to you. Morever, may our dialogue be both furious and constructive. May God give us all insight into the riches of Christ Jesus - what is the breadth, length, height, and depth of his unfathomable glories and love!

So we would agree on Scripture’s testimony regarding Isaiah. This would confirm that the prophet’s visions of a new heavens and new earth are indeed eschatological, in the classical sense of the term. Of course, this is precisely how the prophet’s writings were understood by ancient Judaism and Christianity as well. However, you fail to see the eschatological significance of the final chapters of Deuteronomy. First, the blessing/curse covenant-sanctions laid out in Deuteronomy and chapters 28-29 in particular (and 11:26-29), together witih the promise of chp.30-32, are foundational for all the subsequent prophetic promises and warnings regarding Israel’s fate as a nation. Not unlike David’s son, Israel would be chastised by the rod of men for her unrepentant sin(s), but she would never be cast off entirely (cf. Lev.26:44). Moreover, the Lord will one day bring the promised blessings of Abraham to his descendents according to His own covenant-faithfulness. Though they are stubborn, sinful, and rebellious, God would establish the people of Israel before Him as His chosen nation (cf. Dt.32:15-43). During the “latter days” (eschaton), God would restore Israel from exile, and “circumcise” her heart, that she might respond in truth to His Law and commandments (Dt.30:4-6, clearly proleptic of the new covenant passages of the major prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel). Note, I am NOT saying that such passages were not relevant to Moses’ audience, but rather that their fulfillment awaited many centuries of redemptive-history. Do you disagree?

You say that it is not a matter of fore-telling, per se, but what kind of future that is being foretold. It is an earthly future, to be sure; but, as redemptive-history unfolds, it become clearer and clearer that these earthly blessings entail the regeneration of heaven and earth itself. Indeed, the cosmic, apocalyptic dimensions of the song of Moses seem to anticipate this ‘development’. Thus we go from the Abrahamic promises regarding the land of Canaan and the blessing to the nations in Moses to the promised salvation of the nations and reconstituted creation in Isaiah. There is certainly a progress of revelation in the progress of redemption. The gospel itself bears clear testimony to this fact as the mystery of God, unveiled fully only in these ‘latter days’ to the apostles and prophets of the church (cf. Eph.3:1-7).

You write, “So when he uses Jeremiah’s image of the dead piled up in the valleys outside Jerusalem as a result of the Babylonian invasion, in the context of a warning to Israel to repent, there is really no reason to think that he was speaking about some event other than the war against Rome.”

Except that 1) Jeremiah is explicitly and constantly speaking of the coming Babylonian incursion. This is the immediate burden of his prophetic ministry. Jesus, on the other hand, only mentions the Roman incursion once, explicitly, and that only in Luke’s account of the Olivet Discourse. Despite the revisionist readings of those who would ‘politicize’ the gospel, Roman occupation was hardly the thematic concern of Jesus’ preaching. And 2) the image/metaphor of Gehenna was most likely an eschatological fixture within first century Judaism, referring to a realm of (postmortum) punishment for the evil dead. Certainly the literature of second Temple and rabbinic Judaism would point us to this conclusion. So yes, there is reason and warrant to think that Jesus was speaking about “some event other than the war against Rome.”

This is all the more relevant in light of the fact that Jesus’ entire kerygmatic ministry is eschatological: “Repent, the kingdom of God is at hand!” His message is one of the consummation of the covenant, as he brings Israel’s hopes to fulfillment in Himself (latter day hopes, which Jeremiah could only dream about, Jer.31:1-26). His pronounced woes are no mere chastisements against an obstinate nation, as was Jeremiah’s (per Dt.29), but the woes of eternal condemnation, final judgment! Cf. Mt.11:20-24. The judgment cycles of Leviticus 26 have reached their final revolution. The covenantal blessings, which Moses, David, and Cyrus ushered in only partially and temporarily, are finally at hand in their eschatological fullness.

The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in AD 70, on the other hand, was hardly final (Paul wouldn’t have thought so either, e.g., Ro.11:2). For one, the nation of (unbelieving) Israel exists in the land to this day.

On this point, Jesus’ judgment oracles, it seems to me, clearly go beyond AD 70 and the revolt of Bar Kochba. Hence, it is apparent that in the Olivet discourse, Jesus’ prophetic proclamation of the fall of Jerusalem entails not only the events of the next few decades, but the distant-future events of His return, the gathering of the elect from the four corners, and the judgment of the nations, per the structure of his disciples questions in Mt.24:3: “when will this happen [the fall of the temple], what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age.” That the disciples likely understood these events as simultaneous or nearly so does not necessitate that we must or should (note their confusion regarding ‘timing’ as expressed in Ac.1:6).

Moreover, Jesus’ reference to the abomination of desolation (proleptically ‘fulfilled’, or anticipated in the abomination of Antiochus Epiphanes that sparked the Maccabean revolt, and again, I would argue, in the trampling of the Jewish courts by Roman armies) takes us to the eschatological context of Dan.9:24ff, per the editorial comment in Matthew and Mark. This is almost certainly bound-up with Paul’s man of lawlessness and John’s anti-Christ, the beast of Revelation, whom Christ destroys with the power of His word (cf. 2Thess.2:8; Rev.19:15). Of course, by your own admission, the fall of Rome (as you identify the beast of Daniel and John with the ancient Roman empire) took place centuries later. So either way, Jesus’ Olivet discourse prophecy evidently extended well beyond AD 70 and 135.

Ah, no, I disagree that

by Andrew - 29/09/2006 - 19:44

Ah, no, I disagree that Isaiah used the new heavens and new earth language in a classical eschatological sense. I don’t think he uses the motif in the same way as John does in Revelation 21:1, though undoubtedly there is a dependence. It seems to me much more likely that Isaiah uses the new creation language to speak about the restoration of Israel within history, so to speak: it is a way of indicating that Israel’s sins are completely forgiven (the former things do not come to mind) and it anticipates the New Testament idea of a new creation, new humanity, in Christ. Notice that death is still part of this new heavens and new earth (Is. 65:17).

You must have misunderstood me with regard to Deuteronomy 30-32. I never denied that the passage is prophetic and speaks of matters beyond the immediate interests of its audience. My point is that this is exactly what the passage purports to do. It talks about Israel’s future. It does not provide justification for finding in scriptural texts secondary meanings that are not clearly required by the text or the context.

On gehenna: 1) Who do you imagine the ‘enemies’ are that Zechariah mentions in Luke 1:71? 2) So you would establish Jesus’ meaning on the basis of non-biblical Jewish writings whose meaning is probably debatable rather than of Jeremiah?

The ‘day of judgment’ mentioned in Matthew 11:24 is the day of God’s judgment on rebellious Israel, that is AD 70. I’m not sure how the comparison with Tyre and Sidon or with Sodom works rhetorically (the contrast with the Gentiles is clearly at the forefront), but to be brought down to Hades is to be brought to death. I find that this still makes good sense within the framework of historical judgment through the instrumentality of Rome.

The interpretation of Romans is too much to get into here. All I would say (much too hastily) is that in Paul’s argument the full inclusion of Israel is not a certain outcome. It is contingent upon repentance before judgment comes. The detailed exegesis is in The Coming of the Son of Man, 230-235.

You’re right, for the disciples the events they ask about in Matthew 24:3 are more or less simultaneous, and Jesus says nothing to suggest that they are mistaken. A couple of quick indicators here: ‘immediately’ in verse 29 underlines the connectedness of events; and Jesus makes it quite clear that he expected everything to happen within a generation (24:34). But there is much more that one could say.

I agree that both Jesus and Paul (and John) use Daniel’s narrative about the abomination of desolation, but I would argue that they use it within different eschatological horizons. Jesus is not interested in judgment on Rome: he speaks almost solely of judgment on Jerusalem as a repeat or fulfilment of the Antiochus typology. Paul doesn’t have the ‘abomination’ idea because at the forefront of his mind is the blasphemy of Roman imperialism and the threat to his churches in the pagan world (2 Thess. 2:3-4). So I’m afraid I still disagree that the Olivet discourse extended beyond AD 70. Paul’s horizon was wider and later, and he uses the typology in a rather different way.

Sorry to have rushed this response - and again for being so argumentative.

question

by stacy - 29/09/2006 - 21:11

i am out of my league and dont want to sidetrack your facinating conversation but i have a quick (and potentially daft) question: are either of you suggesting that the “new heaven and new earth” that we once were taught was the future “heaven” of “eternity” is already here because of the work of christ and the judgment on jerusalem in 70AD? because man, if this is heaven i am more than a little dissapointed.

heaven

by Stranger - 30/09/2006 - 00:53

Stacy, I am neither as qualified nor as smart as kingjames or andrew, but I am fairly confident that neither of them would call this world ‘heaven’. Both of them (and I as well!) would hold that ‘heaven’ is God’s realm (it’s “where Jesus is” right now). The Christian’s hope is in the renewal/recreation of heaven AND earth, after the (for andrew, 2nd) resurrection and final judgment (neither of which has as of yet happened) occur.

Andrew’s position differs from traditional preterism in that it identifies one last ‘eschatological horizon’ for the church (the renewal of Creation)—which, to the best of my knowledge, full-fledged preterists deny. An unattractive position, to say the least (although one might object that attractiveness does not always make for truthfulness—and that one could still hope for increased manifestations of the Kingdom…).

-Daniel-

thanks

by stacy - 30/09/2006 - 02:42

thanks daniel. if the “full-fledged” pretereists deny “the renewal of creation,” what is their expectation of what is to come? more of this? or “increased manifestations of the kingdom” in the midst of this?

Plus a couple of points

by Andrew - 30/09/2006 - 08:44

Stacy, in addition to what Daniel has written, I would stress a couple of points.

1. I think that in effect the New Testament includes the early oppressed church in the story about Jesus as the Son of man who suffers, is raised, vindicated, and given kingdom and dominion and glory. This vindication of their faithfulness and loyalty to their lord is the event that we know as the parousia. It is also the ‘first resurrection’ of the martyrs that we find in Revelation 20:5-6.

2. The hope of new creation runs throughout scripture. Much of the time it is more of a metaphor for the renewal of the people of God as a ‘creation-within-a-creation’. But it seems to me that Revelation 21 describes something more radical: a new creation from which wickedness, suffering and death have been utterly banished - according to the apocalyptic image Satan and Hades have been destroyed in the lake of fire.

That remains a hope for us as we experience all the inadequacies of being God’s people in this world - that God will never give up on the idea of a thoroughly good creation. But I think, more importantly, the eschatological vision should put pressure on us as ‘new creation’ in Christ to anticipate that final reality both practically and prophetically. By being a people that has God in its midst, that demonstrates righteousness and justice, that respects the ‘land’ that we have inherited, we become the original blessing, we make a statement about what authentic humanity should be.

Interthread surfing

by peter wilkinson - 30/09/2006 - 09:39

” - - - the eschatological vision should put pressure on us as ‘new creation’ in Christ to anticipate that final reality both practically and prophetically. By being a people that has God in its midst, that demonstrates righteousness and justice, that respects the ‘land’ that we have inherited, we become the original blessing, we make a statement about what authentic humanity should be.”

At last some thoughts on what the ‘post eschatological’ people should be and do. (See the ‘heart of community’ thread). But how is this any different from the outcome of a more conventional theologically interpreted outcome? Unless the inner realities (sins forgiven, the Spirit imparted) were not included - which is quite likely, since these appear only to apply to 1st century Jewish participants in Israel’s immediate history.

I am still for a “narrative/historical” interpretive methodology (and “eschatological” - but in neither Andrew’s nor a ‘futurist’ sense), but I opt for the one near the head of the ‘penal substituion’ thread.

I’m becoming quite adept at surfing the OST threads.

more on the prophets' eschatology

by kingjames1 - 02/10/2006 - 22:30

Andrew,

Sorry for the belated response…I’m not able to be quite as on top of things as you seem to be. Perhaps I need to read MacDonald’s “Ordering Your Private World,”…

You write, “It seems to me much more likely that Isaiah uses the new creation language to speak about the restoration of Israel within history, so to speak: it is a way of indicating that Israel’s sins are completely forgiven (the former things do not come to mind) and it anticipates the New Testament idea of a new creation, new humanity, in Christ.”

Which is it? Does it speak merely of Israel’s hisorical restoration, or does it speak (proleptically and prophetically) of the new creation and new humanity? Is such language merely apocalyptic hyperbole, that is subsequently borrowed by the NT authors, and filled with an eschatological-transcendental meaning? Or does the prophecy of Isaiah actually “anticipate” the new heavens and earth in the progress of redemption, as you state? If so, then, especially in light of the unity of the Scriptures, what we have here is the progress of revelation, in which the latter revelation rightly interprets and comprehends the former (and vice versa). If so, we cannot say that Isaiah’s words are merely ‘historical’ as opposed to eschatologcial. Moreover, when did Isaiah’s prophecy find fulfillment in history? Certainly not with the return under Cyrus, Zerubbabel, or the restoration under Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, or later, Malachi. Indeed, Malachi ends with the either/or of the Mosaic covenant: blessing or curse, which will it be Israel? Clearly then, the consummation of the Mosaic covenant, as laid out so clearly in Deuteronomy, had yet to be realized.

Regarding Dt.30-32, you write, “It does not provide justification for finding in scriptural texts secondary meanings that are not clearly required by the text or the context.”

But who said anything about secondary meanings? I think the thrust of this passage and its parallels is eschatological. In fact, it would seem that the book of Deuteronomy introduces the concept, to be further developed by the prophets, of eschatology per se - literally, the latter days of fulfillment (e.g., Dt.4:30; cf. 30:1-6). Almost certainly Moses’ audience understood the phrase “latter days” or the “eschatos” of days, in the LXX, to refer generically to the unforeseen future. But in the context of Deuteronomy (and especially as reflected in the canonical context of the Deuteronomic history and the prophets) it becomes the future days of the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Israel. It is a covenantal-future, if you will. After all, it is the covenant itself and the unfailing covenant-fidelity of Yahweh (confirmed in covenant-history, e.g., God’s fidelity to Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Israel in the Exodus, etc., but as of yet unseen or unrealized in the fullness of the covenant promises; and yet by faith, it is understood to be the sure inheritance of the saints in hope, on the basis of the divine righteousness) that drives biblical eschatology. For this reason, Moses’ “latter days” quickly become synonymous with the times of fulfillment, and most famously, the day of the Lord (clearly anticipated in the song of Moses) in the writings of the prophets.

Surely Deuteronomy itself does not contemplate the full revelation to be given through the latter prophets; but it certainly comprehends them, who find their theological dependence and direction in the Pentateuch, and Deuteronomy in particular (e.g., Jer.11:1-8; Dan.9:4-19; Neh.9:26-31; etc.). This is the coherence of the doctrine of scriptural unity on the one hand, and the progress of revelation on the other. It is, as Geerhardus Vos put it so well a century ago, an organic unity and development, likened to the flowering of a rose-bud. So yes, when Moses spoke of the latter days, he spoke (with less divinely-given insight perhaps) of the SAME days of fulfillment as did Isaiah, regarding the new heavens and the new earth, which are one and the same as the new creation contemplated in Revelation (even if John had more insight than even the far-seeing Isaiah, who saw Christ’s glory and wrote of him).

You write, “Notice that death is still part of this new heavens and new earth (Is. 65:17).”

Indeed, and planting, and building houses, and having children, etc. … Either Isaiah is speaking figuratively or analogically of the blessed life (as amillennialists have often interpreted it), or this refers to the earthly millennial kingdom of Christ, as comphrehended in most pre-millennial interpretations of Revelation 20 (including, notably, most of the earliest church fathers). The Isaianic vision then entails both the ‘millennial’ and ‘eternal kingdom’, if you will, which is only clearly unfolded for us in Revelation (though the idea of a temporary messianic kingdom, anticipating the eternal reign of God, is present elsewhere in first-century apocalyptic literature). This is not unlike the two-fold coming of Christ, of which though both aspects are anticipated and prophesied in the OT, their distinction and historical separation are not made clear (e.g., Isa.11:1-10; note vv.6-11 -Do these verses foreshadow the new heavens and new earth of chpp.65-66?; and note, btw, the coming “second” restoration in vv.11ff.).

You go on:

“On gehenna: 1) Who do you imagine the ‘enemies’ are that Zechariah mentions in Luke 1:71?”

Rome, to be sure. But then again, it can hardly be delimited to the Roman occupation. It is the final salvation, as contemplated in the prophets (e.g., Isa.54:4-17), of which Zechariah speaks by inspiration of the Spirit -salvation from Rome’s rule, but much more: from “the hand of all who hate us,” (cf. Dt.30:7). No doubt Zecharaiah contemplates not only present enemies (Rome, and Jewish traitors), but all potential (future) oppressors. (How terribly ironic, btw, that you think this expectation has been met in AD 70! Judgment against Jerusalem was never seen as vindication of elect Israel in the Scriptures [though the elect or remnant were ‘vindicated’, according to Jeremiah, in their survival into exile, which, btw, was a curse of the covenant], but was the source of their great consternation and grief, in which they longed, ached to see her restoration. Cf. Lamentations, Daniel 9, and the exilic Psalms).

Moreover, it is more than political liberation that is sought and hoped for, but spiritual liberation and redemption (1:74-75). And how was this political and spiritual liberation envisioned as finding its fulfillment? Through the raising of the horn of salvation in the house of David (1:69). As Gabriel announced to the virgin Mary, “behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of Hs father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever and ever, and His kingdom will have no end.” As Paul later preached to the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch, “And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children n that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, “You are my son; today I have begotten you” (echoing the words of the Davidic covenant). That He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: “I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David…” (Ac.13:32-34). And as Peter first preached in Jerusalem, “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promies of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’” Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ - this Jesus who you crucified,” (Ac.2:32-36).

And who are the enemies the NT does mention that have been subjugated to Christ? Well, I’m sure you’re aware (cf. 1Co.15:20-28; Eph.1:19-23; 2:1-2; 6:10-17). Clearly it includes more than Rome…and the enemies of His people include more than mortal soldiers bearing metal swords.

 

You write, “2) So you would establish Jesus’ meaning on the basis of non-biblical Jewish writings whose meaning is probably debatable rather than of Jeremiah?”

Is their meaning all that debatable? Check out this interesting summary of second-temple and early Christian ‘tours of hell’.

But it is also a false dichotomy that you present. Jesus must be and is understood within the canonical context of the received Jewish scriptures. But of course, his language must also be understood within the cultural and historical context of his day. When Jesus announced, “The Kingdom of God is at hand,” though the term “kingdom of God” is never found in the OT (yet the concept is surely there, even if somewhat ambiguous - at one place, pointing to Yahweh’s providential kingdom over the created order, at another place, to His reign over Israel, and yet another, to the eschatological kingdom which comes down from heaven and centers in Zion), certainly His audience bascially understood the import of his announcment (even if many of their conceptions about its coming and ‘form’ were confused, which Jesus’ many kingdom-parables sought to inform and correct). The point is, “kingdom of God” had a biblical as well as a contemporary context to consider (which Ladd nicely summarizes this way: “thoughout all Judaism [rabbinic, zealot, Qumran, etc.], the coming of God’s kingdom was expected to be an act of God - perhaps usng the agency of human beings - to defeat the wicked enemies of Israel and to gather Israel together, victorious over its enemies, and in its promised land, under the rule of God alone.”)

Moreover, it seems clear that ‘gehenna’ basically meant in Jesus’ day what the early church and all subsequent forms of historic orthodoxy have understood the term to mean (even if segments of the church later added some ‘literary embellishments’).

Finally, the language of Jeremiah’s grim pronouncments regarding the valley of Ben Hinnom with reference to the Babylonian incursion anticipates, as you might say, the ‘eschatological’ language of second temple apocalypticism. Or rather, they borrowed the language and form from Jeremiah and Isaiah’s visions. Yet, Isaiah’s vision clearly extends the scope of Gehenna’s horrors beyond the Babylonian judgment. For his vision is concomitant with the new heavens and new earth (the fulfillment of Israel’s covenant), which clearly did not happen in 586 BC, we’d both agree. I believe Jesus’ explicit reference to Isaiah’s ‘unquenchable fire’ and ‘unceasing worm’ suggests not merely literary dependence for rhetorical color, but explains the true scope and depth of Isaiah’s horrific picture in the closing chapter, within the over-arching context of Jesus’ ministry - namely, the eschatological kingdom of God.

Lastly, you write:

“I agree that both Jesus and Paul (and John) use Daniel’s narrative about the abomination of desolation, but I would argue that they use it within different eschatological horizons. Jesus is not interested in judgment on Rome: he speaks almost solely of judgment on Jerusalem as a repeat or fulfilment of the Antiochus typology. Paul doesn’t have the ‘abomination’ idea because at the forefront of his mind is the blasphemy of Roman imperialism and the threat to his churches in the pagan world (2 Thess. 2:3-4). So I’m afraid I still disagree that the Olivet discourse extended beyond AD 70. Paul’s horizon was wider and later, and he uses the typology in a rather different way.”

So you do apparently see a double-fulfillment of the prophets. One is fulfilled in AD 70, and the other…whenver Rome fell (if it ever did - historians still disagree). I think you’re begging the question to insist that AD 70 is the ‘eschatological horizon’ of the Olivet Discourse, especially in light of Luke 21:20-24. Moreover, your scheme seems rather incoherent with regard to 2Thess.2:1-12. According to your intepretation of the Olivet Discourse, the second advent of which Jesus often speaks in terms of Daniel’s imagery in chapter 7 occured in AD 70. Yet, Paul here contends that the advent of the Lord will certainly not happen until the apostasy occurs (2:1-3), which, according to your double-fulfillment scheme, does not happen in AD 70 (in Paul’s ‘eschatological horizon’), but centuries thereafter. So what you’re saying is, Christians in Judea could say, ‘the Lord has come, and gathered his elect from the four winds…’ And Christians in Thessalonica would reply: “No, not yet! Not until the great Babylon collapses…” I guess its all relative…

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.