Jesus and the overlapping ages

Posted 11 February, 2008 - 19:11 by peter wilkinson

The notion of two overlapping ages comes from Jesus himself - whose life was lived in the conflict which comes from the overlap of two kingdoms.

In his resurrection from the dead, Jesus gave an unexpected first instalment of (and the means to) a general resurrection, the one having occurred, the other being yet to occur.

In his gift of the Spirit, Jesus gave only an earnest of what was to come (2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13-14), the one having occurred, the other being yet to occur.

With the coming of Jesus, judgment itself was divided into two parts: there was one sense in which judgment had come now with the coming of Christ and the gift of the Spirit - Matthew 3:11-12; Acts 2:17-21; there was another sense in which judgment would only fully be expressed at the final judgment - Revelation 20:11ff

In his very person, Jesus introduced the totally unexpected idea that the "age to come" would exist side-by-side with "this evil age", until the final judgment.

Israel expected these things to occur simultaneously with her national vindication. Jesus split them apart, and destroyed geographic Israel’s national identity.

Hebrews 6:5 speaks of those "who have shared the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of God and the powers of the coming age." The powers of the coming age were the workings of the Holy Spirit which would be fully experienced in an age yet to come - and which is still yet to come (unless you think we have experienced greater powers than these in church history since the time of the apostles).

The very notion of the kingdom rests on the assumption of one kingdom, the kingdom of God, breaking in on "this evil age" - as Jesus everywhere modelled it in his ministry, and as it continued to be modelled by the apostles. That is still the case today. There is still a conflict between two kingdoms, nowhere better demonstrated than in the conflict which frequently takes place when one person is transferring his/her allegiance from one kingdom to the other, or when there is any significant advance of God’s kingdom anywhere in the world.

You don’t need German theologians to come up with this idea: it’s there in the person of Jesus himself, in his gift of the Spirit, in his inauguration of the kingdom, in his bringing of judgment, in the way he challenged and modified the eschatological expectations of Israel, in the experience of the church in the apostolic era, and in every era since then, continuing to the present day.

No votes yet

Comments

Re: Jesus and the overlapping ages

by Lloyd Dale - 13/02/2008 - 04:31

 Peter,

You wrote. "In his resurrection from the dead, Jesus gave an unexpected first instalment of (and the means to) a general resurrection…"

 Where does the Bible use the term "general resurrection" or for that matter where does the Bible teach the notion of just one "general resurrection" or where does it even imply a "general resurrection"?

What about the resurrection of those who belong to Jesus "in the Parousia" (1Cor 15:23c)?  Nothing is said here about a "general resurrection".

You continued, "With the coming of Jesus, judgment itself was divided into two parts: there was one sense in which judgment had come now with the coming of Christ and the gift of the Spirit - Matthew 3:11-12; Acts 2:17-21; there was another sense in which judgment would only fully be expressed at the final judgment - Revelation 20:11ff "

In what sense did judgment come with the gift of the Spirit?

What about the judgment described in the following references:  Matt 21:41; 22:7, 13; 23:35; 24:29; all of which refer to God’s judgment on apostate Judaism and there city and temple just before the Parousia of Jesus Christ, i.e His accession to the throne of His glory/the throne of David?

You continued, "In his very person, Jesus introduced the totally unexpected idea that the "age to come" would exist side-by-side with "this evil age", until the final judgment."  How, when, and where did Jesus "in His very person" introduce this "totally unexpected idea that the "age to come" would exist side-by-side with "this evil age", until the final judgment."?

You continued, "Israel expected these things to occur simultaneously with her national vindication. Jesus split them apart, and destroyed geographic Israel’s national identity."

To me at least, your reference "Israel expected these things to occur simultanelously…" is not clear.  What "things" did Israel expect to occur simultaneously with her national vindication?  And what things did Jesus "split apart"?

I asked you this question sometime ago, but apparently you either did not see it or you chose not to answer it.  Perhaps you would be so kind to answer it now — where was Israel in the first century?

 Blessings,

 Lloyd

Re: Jesus and the overlapping ages

by peter wilkinson - 13/02/2008 - 14:13

Lloyd - my interpretation of things is that, following Christ’s resurrection ("the firstfruits" - 1 Corinthians 15:23a) there is only one resurrection, which takes place at the return of Jesus, which I also understand to be his parousia. I realise there are different views about the parousia, especially on this site, and on the resurrection, but that is my own position. It’s in this sense that I use the term ‘general resurrection’ - knowing that it is a theological term which encompasses an interpretation of the resurrection.

I see the coming of the Spirit as twinned with the coming of judgment; for instance, in Matthew 3:11b - "He will baptise you with the Spirit and with fire." The next verse then goes on to describe the separating of the wheat from the chaff. So the "fire" of the Spirit is, as I see it, both an energising and destructive fire: on the one hand it identifies God’s people, on the other hand it identifies those who are not God’s people.

Something similar happens in Peter’s Pentecost speech, where the outpouring of the Spirit is both an anointing of the people of God (2:17-18) and a precursor of judgment (2:19-20). The precise details of judgment are not so important as the coupling of the Spirit’s blessing with judgment.

Then there is the description of the work of the Spirit in John’s gospel; there is the work of the Spirit as paraklete (John 14:16ff); there is the work of the Spirit as judge - convicting the world of "guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment" (John 16:5-11).

 Matt 21:41; 22:7, 13; 23:35; 24:29; - I agree with your interpretation that these verses refer to judgment on apostate Judaism. I would add that the outpouring of the Spirit was part of the process of this judgment - separating out the faithful from the ‘apostate’ in the ways described above. I don’t think I take the same view as you: that the parousia, as you describe it, was Jesus’s "accession to the throne of His glory/the throne of David". There was a parousia of judgment, described in Matthew 24, which I interpret to be partly expressed in the AD 70 events, but will be more fully expressed at Christ’s eventual return - which is what parousia more normally refers to in the NT (in my opinion).

Jesus expressed "in his person" the idea of the overlapping of two ages in the ways I have described at the top of the thread.

My understanding is that Israel, as a whole, was expecting national vindication as "the end of the age" and the beginning of "the age to come". The events which Jesus separated out were: resurrection (himself now, everyone else yet to come), coming of the Spirit, (a deposit now, the full amount yet to come), judgment (now, and yet to come).

Israel also expected the return of YHWH to the temple, restoration of the Davidic monarchy, defeat of her enemies - which Jesus also accomplished - though my interpretation is that the latter occurred not in the way she expected (ie apostate Israel was herself one of the enemies, and the defeat was not primarily through military conquest of one kind or another).

Your question "Where was Israel in the 1st century?" does not make sense to me. You will have to define more clearly what you mean by ‘Israel’. Do you mean (a) Israel the geographic nation (b) Israel in the diaspora or (c) Israel in the people of God reconstituted around Jesus (which was only Israel in a highly qualified metaphoric sense - in my opinion).

  

  

Re: Jesus and the overlapping ages

by Lloyd Dale - 20/02/2008 - 18:19

 Peter,

You wrote:

"Your question "Where was Israel in the 1st century?" does not make sense to me. You will have to define more clearly what you mean by ‘Israel’. Do you mean (a) Israel the geographic nation (b) Israel in the diaspora or (c) Israel in the people of God reconstituted around Jesus (which was only Israel in a highly qualified metaphoric sense - in my opinion)."

And it is precisely for this reason that your statements — "My understanding is that Israel, as a whole, was expecting national vindication…Israel also expected the return of YHWH to the temple, restoration of the Davidic monarchy, defeat of her enemies" — make no sense to me.  By your use of "Israel" in these sentences - what on earth are you refering to?  As you say, "You will have to define more clearly what you mean by ‘Israel’."

Also what do you mean by "(b) Israel in the diaspora"? 

According to your understanding of "Israel" here, when did "Israel" go into the "diaspora"?  What caused the "diaspora" to which you refer?  Did "Israel" ever return from your "diaspora"?

What in the world do you mean by "(which was only Israel in a highly qualified metaphoric sense - in my opinion)."

And finally, what is your "opinion" in this matter based on?  In other words, what evidence is your "opinion" developed from?

 Lloyd

Re: Jesus and the overlapping ages

by peter wilkinson - 21/02/2008 - 08:57

Anyone who accidentally stumbles across this conversation (I can’t see any other reason for following it) might wonder what the point of it was. However, for the sake of moving things on, but without any optimism that it is going anywhere, I offer the following to Lloyd’s cryptic questions.

In answer to (a):

Until AD 70, and certainly not beyond AD 135, it it seems that there was a residual hope in national Israel for a national vindication - in which her fortunes would be reversed, pagan oppressors defeated, Spirit outpoured on a nationally vindicated people, resurrection of the (righteous) dead, return of YHWH to the temple, restoration of a nationally visualised Davidic monarchy etc. This was carried over from intertestamental days, the most recent pattern being exemplified in the Maccabees uprising against Antiochus IV in 175 BC.

However, after AD 70, and certainly after AD 135, when the obliteration of national Israel was almost complete, a different way of perceiving things came to predominate, more or less accepting the scattering of Israel throughout the nations, and finding a modus vivendi or accommodation of a religious and ethnic identity with the way things were.

Israel’s hopes, as described previously, really rested on the possibility of a national, geographic entity in which they could be realised. So these were in part carried over from intertestamental history, and in part maintained until AD 70/135, even though by the time of Jesus, Israel was almost as numerous in the diaspora as she was in the geographic nation. Once the possibility of national restoration was at least deferred indefinitely, the meaning of the term ‘Israel’ as a current descriptor became increasingly redundant.

In answer to (b):

‘Israel’ could only be a way of describing ethnic Jews, either in the diaspora or in the land, as long as there was a geographic nation to which their identity could be fastened. So ‘Israel in the diaspora’ really only had meaning until AD 70/135; afterwards, less so.

In answer to (c):

The diaspora began with the removal of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians and the exile of the southern kingdom to Babylon. It was a mentality as much as a demographic description. There never was a wholehearted return from Babylon. By NT times, it is estimated that as much as 10% of the population of the Roman Empire consisted of Jews. It became a much greater reality after the twin disasters of AD 70 and AD 135, following which, as I have suggested, the term ‘Israel’ became something of a misnomer, without a national geographic identity in which it could find an anchorage, at the heart of which was a functioning temple.

I don’t see the term ‘Israel’ being used anywhere to describe the followers of Jesus as they became the church - except perhaps, somewhat cryptically, perhaps polemically, and certainly metaphorically, in Galatians 5:16. The word just doesn’t seem to have become a way of understanding or describing the church. My opinion is therefore, here, based on the evidence of NT (non) usage.

Re: Jesus and the overlapping ages

by john doyle - 03/03/2008 - 20:34

"However, for the sake of moving things on, but without any optimism that it is going anywhere…"

Feeling ignored, are we?

"I don’t see the term ‘Israel’ being used anywhere to describe the
followers of Jesus as they became the church - except perhaps, somewhat
cryptically, perhaps polemically, and certainly metaphorically, in Galatians 5:16."

Do you mean Galatians 3:16? If so, then the referent isn’t Israel; it’s Abraham. As Paul points out in the next verse, the Law doesn’t show up until 430 years later. As I read the Scriptures, the Law confirms Israel as God’s singularly chosen nation. But Israel as a nation couldn’t have existed when God promised his blessing to Abraham, since Israel (= Jacob) was Abraham’s grandson and hadn’t even been born yet. The "sons of Israel," later shortened to "Israel," refers to one particular nation among many that descended from Abraham. The Arabs, who trace their origins to Ishmael son of Abraham by Hagar, comprise another nation that descended from Abraham. That Paul emphasizes the singular "seed" of Abraham rather than "seeds" doesn’t mean that he’s talking about only one nation; i.e., Israel. It means that all those who are blessed through Abraham collectively receive the promise, regardless of their nationality. One nation, Israel, received the Mosaic Law; many nations receive the Abrahamic promise and the inheritance.

At the beginning of Galatians 4 Paul emphasizes that the Mosaic Law is less a blessing than a source of bondage, fit only for children and slaves. The Law doesn’t fulfill God’s promise to Abraham; Christ does. To emphasize that he’s decisively not talking about the nation of Israel as the exclusive recipients of the blessing to Abraham, Paul wrote Gal. 4:21-31. In this deconstructive reading, Paul says that Abraham had two sons: one (Isaac) by the bondwoman (Hagar) according the flesh, the other (Ishmael) by the free woman (Sarah) according to the promise. Paul says that this story "contains an allegory": those who live under the Law are slaves, allegorically the offspring of slavewoman Hagar and her son Ishmael. "Now," says Paul in Gal. 4:25, "this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery." Slavery to what? To Rome? Certainly that’s not what Paul has in mind. In the context of the passage, Paul is saying that the Law, which came down from Sinai, is an instrument of slavery, and that Jerusalem, the spiritual capital of the nation of Israel, is bound in slavery to the Law. The nation of Israel might be descendants of Sarah and Isaac according to the flesh, but allegorically they are descendants of Hagar and Ishmael according to the promise. Scandalously, Paul here equates the nation of Israel with the Arabs.

"But you, brethren," continues Paul in Gal. 4:28, referring to the Gentile Christians who are the main recipients of this letter and who are being exhorted by the Jewish Christians to follow the Law — "but you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of the promise." Then, in the next verse, Paul alludes to a story in Gen. 21 where Ishmael teased Isaac. "But as at that time, he who was born according to the flesh (i.e., Ishmael) persecuted him who was born according to the spirit (i.e., Isaac), so it is now also." How so? Clearly in the context he’s referring to the Jewish Christians’ persecution of the Gentile Christians, making them feel spiritually inferior, coaxing them into subjecting themselves to the Law. But, says Paul, you Gentiles are the children of promise, the spiritual sons of Sarah, free, whereas your Jewish brethren are merely children of the law, the spiritual sons of Hagar, enslaved.

Now I understand that, as one presumably consigned to perdition, I receive even less attention on this blog than you do, Peter. Perhaps my very presence on your post has now corrupted it, tainting it with the exegetical excrescences of the exile. If so, I encourage you to commit it to the virtual flames. Be ye separate.

Re: Jesus and the overlapping ages

by shiert - 04/03/2008 - 05:01

I wonder if you aren’t mixing up references in this post to Ishmael and Isaac. I speak of the fifth full paragraph. You may wish to correct this and re-publish?

Re: Jesus and the overlapping ages

by john doyle - 05/03/2008 - 15:58

Good catch, Shiert — somehow I missed your warning in the exegetical flurry of the moment. Yes, you’re right: ISAAC is born of Sarah the free woman; ISHMAEL, of Hagar the bondwoman. Now it’s too late to go back and edit, since there seems to be something like a 24-hour limit on editing one’s own posts and comments. So, to repeat Peter’s caveat, if anyone happens to come along some day and reads this string, take note: yet another error occurs in the preceding comments. However, your intervention reveals that someone actually is reading, which makes me feel better since Peter has left me hanging out to dry, leaving me to suffer the very abandonment which he earlier bewailed and from which I rescued him. Shiert, I think you and I should start a conversation — it could be about anything at all — and ENTIRELY IGNORE anyone else who comments.

  

Re: Jesus and the overlapping ages

by shiert - 05/03/2008 - 17:47

Remember, the night has a thousand eyes[citation omitted].

But the person whom you mentioned must be forgiven for being unresponsive since he has unwittingly allowed himself to be sucked into a tete-a-tete with a bible thumper par excellance, and is drowning in the male testosterone being generated by the jungle warfare being engaged in.

Actually, the whole give and give is hugely pedagogical. Andrew should be very thankful. If ever he needed a justification for promoting the “emerging church” and attempting to tell a new story in a new way that is meaningful to those of us in the here and now, he can simply point to the exchange that is proceeding on this web site and not have to say another word.

I appreciate your thoughts, John, and wish you peace.

Tracy

Re: Jesus and the overlapping ages

by peter wilkinson - 04/03/2008 - 12:28

Yes, well - I actually meant Galatians 6:16 (see John’s comment above), so it could be said that my mistake was the unintended occasion of a flash of exegetical virtuosity on John’s part, even if it didn’t relate to the object I had in mind. In this case, irrelevance was the mother of splendid invention.

Re: Jesus and the overlapping ages

by john doyle - 05/03/2008 - 19:21

ANOTHER error: apparently I inserted a correction to my prior error, as noted by Shiert, into the wrong place on the thread. So now I’ll try to move it up higher in the sequence…

Nope, it didn’t work. The failure isn’t mine but the software’s, I’m sure of it now. Can I ascribe malicious intent to this apparently mindless and machinic obfuscation. My thoughts, once so clear and cogent, have now been waylaid by error compounded upon error.

So, if by chance you’ve found yourself ensnared in this knotted thread, know this: the error correction which immediately follows this comment is erroneously placed in the wrong place on the thread. It reallly belongs higher up there, immediately preceding my first comment. Now I must flee before any further confusion traps me inside this thread, leaving me forever walking the rails trying to rejoin the disconnected trains of thought.

Re: Jesus and the overlapping ages

by john doyle - 05/03/2008 - 19:11

WARNING. The following comment, written by me, contains a significant error
which will adversely affect your understanding of the point being made.
In the fifth paragraph, while summarizing the startling message of Gal. 4:21-31, I write this:

In this deconstructive reading, Paul says that Abraham had two sons: one (Isaac) by the bondwoman
(Hagar) according the flesh, the other (Ishmael) by the free woman
(Sarah) according to the promise.

This, as Shiert later points out, is wrong. Here’s what I meant to say (corrections are in bold):

In this deconstructive reading, Paul says that Abraham had two sons: one (Ishmael) by the bondwoman (Hagar) according the flesh, the other (Isaac) by the free woman
(Sarah) according to the promise.

This error warning will be repeated after the following comment, in
case you missed it the first time. Thank you for your attention, and
sorry for the confusion.

Re: Jesus and the overlapping ages

by john doyle - 04/03/2008 - 13:55

It’s kind of funny actually. The other night I watched The Big Lebowksi, a really quite silly movie about a guy who spends most of his time bowling. He gets embroiled in a ridiculous adventure — not unlike the Trappist’s intrigues in the Sir Toby’s chronicles (the unenlightened reader may wish to keyword search the OST archives). I invested considerable mental energy excavating this movie for deeper insights about American culture, but one could just as easily conclude that it’s much ado about nothing.

So here you cite the wrong text, and I try to guess what text you really have in mind, offering a detailed reading of that text, and it turns out I guessed wrong. Much ado about nothing, that nobody else is reading anyhow.

BUT… "the Israel of God" to which Paul bids peace and mercy in Gal. 6:16: he explains what he means in the passage I cited in the prior chapter: "the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother" (Gal. 4:26). Not Israel according to the flesh, which in its enslavement to Law is equivalent to Ishmael, but Israel according to the promise and the spirit, which both precedes and supercedes "Israel of the flesh."

And then there’s Gal. 6:15, the verse preceding your citation: the only thing that matters is a new creation. Not a renewal of the old creation, but a NEW creation. The only NT verses that speak of renewal are Pauline: 2 Cor. 4:16, Eph. 4:23, Col. 3:10. In each instance it’s not the old creation that’s being renewed, but the new creation. And in each instance the new creation isn’t the world or a societal collective, but the inner self of the individual, the "new man." The "old man" is continually dying; the "new man" is continually being renewed. The "Israel of God" isn’t a renewed Israel of the flesh: it’s an entirely new creation, a collective comprised of "new men" for whom neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision , nor any other distinction according to the flesh means a blessed thing (Gal. 6:15, Col. 3:11).

Now you’ve been beating this drum for a long time here at OST, Peter, yet our host seems ineluctably committed to the Israel hypothesis. I know your frustration at being ignored has intermittently resulted in your walking away from OST only to return again, in conformance to the Fort-Da game of Freud’s childhood, which for him symbolized the return of the repressed and the (dis)comfort of repetition, where security and the death drive are inextricably merged. Paul repeatedly warns his readers against returning to the comforts of the past, even if they do provide a sense of security, because it’s a false security that doesn’t lead to life. For Paul, and apparently for most of the early disciples, the most tempting false comfort was returning to their former identity, both individually and collectively, as sons of Israel.

John and the overlapping "ado about nothing"

by john - 05/03/2008 - 20:44

Presumably you’ve already fled this obfuscated thread, John, but jest in case (sic), would you mind clarifying one of your remarks:

I invested considerable mental energy excavating this movie for deeper
insights about American culture, but one could just as easily conclude
that it’s much ado about nothing.

"Much ado about nothing" — does this refer to the movie, or to American culture?

shalom! - john
(eternalpurpose.org.uk)

Re: John and the overlapping "ado about nothing"

by john doyle - 06/03/2008 - 13:57

 John,

Yes. Both, that is. Also my efforts to understand the movie. And to understand American culture. So that’s four.

I’m not sure if you’ve seen The Big Lebowski, but rather than diverting this thread even farther off course I invite you (or anyone else who happens etc.) to read and/or join the discussion of the movie on my blog. Briefly, the question is whether the Dude’s indifference to everything but bowling constitutes an argument for American noninterventionism in foreign affairs. I think it does; others say I’m overinterpreting. I wonder how I could have overinterpreted, given that I’ve honed my exegetical skills here at OST?

 John

Missing the historical context

by samlcarr - 08/03/2008 - 23:18

I have been taking an enforced break due to pressure of work and found this fascinating and enlighteningly confusing thread on my return. I’d just like to ask Peter:

1. Clarify what you were responding to (in starting this thread).

2.  If we "don’t need German theologians to come up with this idea" what earthly good are they?

3. Is this generic or perhaps did you have a particular few in mind? 

Live to serve : Serve to live

Re: Missing the historical context

by peter wilkinson - 09/03/2008 - 15:47

Sam - the thread suffered an involuntary and forcible separation from another thread - and I’ve forgotten which one it was. Maybe it was to do with the day of judgment - but clearly, the discussion had diverged a long way from its original subject. Just as the most interesting discussions tend to do on the website, and in life generally.

The reference to “German theologians” was a response to a comment from Andrew, suggesting that the whole idea of ‘overlapping ages’ had been cooked up by foreigners (as it were). Actually. I think it was Hermann Ridderbos, a Dutch theologian, who was among the first to fully develop the idea. Otherwise, I’m sure German theologians do a great deal of good for the world.

I’m not sure what your third question means. But for me, the evidence that underlies the idea of ‘overlapping ages’ (between ‘this evil age’ and ‘the age to come’) is overwhelming, because it rests in what Jesus himself accomplished, and what we experience, as defined in NT terms.

Re: Missing the historical context

by john doyle - 09/03/2008 - 19:23

"the thread suffered an involuntary and forcible separation from another thread"

I too have undergone this experience. Subjecting this praxis of separation to a hermeneutic of suspicion, I concluded that our host seeks to distance himself and his posts from lines of reasoning that either (a) don’t address his central concerns or (b) present challenges to his theories that he either cannot or will not confront. Our host is elaborating a distinctive theology, and it seems that he’s trying to persuade everyone on OST that his is the only right theory, shunting dissenters to side posts where they languish through inattention.

More recently I’ve begun entertaining an alternative hypothesis. What if, as blog host for the spirit of emergence, he’s serving as midwife for the proliferation of multiple theologies, each a total and self-contained system, each incommensurable with all the others? Instead of forcing a convergence on one version of Christianity, he’s trying to facilitate a divergence into multiple Christianities. So, when he splits off a comment and turns it into a separate post, he’s encouraging the writer (and fellow travelers) to elaborate his/her theory on its own terms, without having to defend it or to assert its superiority to alternative theories (such as his own). Perhaps it’s the immanent work of the Holy Ghost in the present age to let a thousand theological flowers bloom; then in the fulness of time it may become possible to judge them by their fruit.

Re: Missing the historical context

by Andrew - 09/03/2008 - 23:08

Your latter hypothesis is far too generous, John, but I much prefer it. You might want to keep your suspicions handy though - you never know when you might need them. In the mean time, the point of dislocation for this thread is here. I merely felt, on the one hand, that the discussion had digressed a little too far from its origins, and on the other, that Peter deserved a proper platform on which to defend his incoherent notion of two presently overlapping ages.

Comment viewing options

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