To bind or to loose?
Andrew, I certainly agree with you regarding the poverty of our popular narratives!
I wonder whether there is not in Jesus’s teaching and action a greater incorporation of fulfilment and ‘covenantal perspective’ themes than perhaps your summary of the “Son of Man” theme allows for. Certainly the breadth of usage of this self designation is not only apocalyptic in scope. Perhaps by concentrating on the more Daniellic aspect of the Son of Man, there is too much of a gap being placed between the ‘kingdom’ teachings that straddle both a present ethic as well as future consequences?
There seem to be two separate issues. First, the question of whether the NT envisages Rome as ‘the enemy’ (in parallel with Jewish expectation) and relatedly whether the fall/subversion of Rome would therefore form a fitting end point with which to mark the vindication of the followers of Jesus? Second, would be whether a broader ‘Son of Man’ narrative continues to be a meaningful narrative or even a dominant one within and much beyond the NT period.
I hope that by “elsewhere” you are referring to a separate thread rather than off OST! Again I think you have hit the nail right on its head as far as the limitations that we have ourselves placed in our understanding of the very central concepts of gospel and salvation. The content and proper context of ‘the gospel’ are poorly applied even if properly understood. Perhaps one of the integrating factors of the NT that has been paid too little heed is that the gospel is not just a small set of propositions about how God saves us in Christ but is itself the working out in practice of following Jesus in His confrontation with ‘the world’ in order to save mankind. ‘Saving’ meaning something closer to ‘being in Christ’ rather than the more apocalyptic, “let’s all ensure that we get to heaven where we can relax at God’s right hand”.
Live to serve : Serve to live