Assa and Andrew (see ‘My (tentative) beliefs’),
That’s the “statement” that I tuned into most as well, (or should I say took issue with) I’d ask the question, how many “New Heavens and Earths” are there going to be here? I agree, assa, that the apostles and the Christ all spoke of a new thing coming within the 1st century. Did it or did it not come?
There are many passages in the OT particularly the poetic and prophetic books that use the terms “heaven and earth” for the covenant people of God and the government of Israel. Similar to the use of “Sun moon and stars” not at all referring to the physical cosmos, but rather ruling authorities etc.
I just want to get clear on what you are saying here. Are you talking about a complete future replacement of the material earth and cosmos as we know it? This would utterly violate God’s covenant with the day and night, His eternal covenant with the earth and universe. As far as we know for certain, earth is the ONLY place of life and consciousness.
I often wonder if some of these creedal concepts about future judgement of the planet lead us away from sensing and appreciating the incredible blessing of life this wonderful place has to offer.
You’ll probably surmize that my view is greatly influenced by a fulfilled prophecy (TM) perspective. I just wonder how wise it is for us to transplant 1st century hopes and prophecies which were made in the Old Covenant age and apply them to our future when we are already in the New Covenant age those saints were referring to.
peace
Paul
Fulfilled prophecy?
Paul, I have a lot of sympathy for the ‘fulfilled prophecy’ approach, but as a hermeneutical principle I would want to qualify it in two important respects.
First, there is no reason to assume that all biblical prophecy refers to historical events that are now in the past. 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 outlines in rather non-apocalyptic terms a future reign of Christ that culminates in the destruction of death and the transfer of the kingdom ‘to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power’. I don’t really see how this state of affairs can be assimilated into a fully realized eschatology, not least because Paul appears to make a distinction in this chapter between the defeat of death through resurrection and the final destruction of death. If this is the case, then there is clearly scope within New Testament eschatology for a vision that transcends history.
Secondly, apocalyptic language gets recycled very easily. Most apocalyptic language in the New Testament has been borrowed from the Old Testament and creatively reapplied to a new future. The reason for this lies in the extravagant, hyperbolic nature of the imagery, which can never be fully closed off, exhausted, by historical events.
The ‘new heaven and earth’ motif is a good example. In Isaiah 65:17 it forms part of a prophecy regarding the vindication of Jerusalem (cf. 62:1-2). It is essentially a metaphor for the restoration of Israel, which presumably at the time would have been understood in geo-political terms. Jesus uses the motif to convey the finality of the transition from the old to the new covenant (Matt.5:18; Mk.13:31 and parallels). The apocalyptic character of 2 Peter 3:10-13 is starker, perhaps cruder. I think this text should probably also be applied to the eschatological crisis faced by the early church, in which case the ‘new heavens and new earth’ for which they wait is a metaphor for the period of Christ’s reign – but from a literary point of view this is harder to maintain.
In Revelation the earth and sky flee away from the presence of the one seated on a great white throne; the dead are judged and death and Hades are destroyed (20:11-15). This comes at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ and appears to coincide with the defeat of death and the transfer of the kingdom to God the Father in Paul’s chronology. It seems to me that the ‘narrative’ here puts an end to the recycling process. The language is mythical and needs to be read as such, but I think we have to read it as a statement about the end of history.
I’m not sure whether this constitutes a violation of God’s covenant with the cosmos, as you suggest. If it is seen as a renewal of the cosmos, does that still count as a violation? In any case, I would have thought that we are supposed to read it as the fulfilment of God’s covenant with his people – the final vindication and blessing of those who have chosen to set themselves apart from the world to be ‘the Bride, the wife of the Lamb’ (21:9).
Shifting signifiers
Andrew,
You can safely assume my agreement with the recycling of language. I don’t think it is a stretch at all to see Peter’s use of apocalyptic language in covenantal terms. I would suggest that it is this and not the reign of Christ (per se) to which he refers, though I suspect that neither Peter nor any of his contemporaries knew, exactly, what it was they were expecting, and the tendency to pile metaphor upon metaphor might render clear distinctions superfluous. Heaven and earth, as you know, were called as witnesses to the covenant (Deuteronomy 4:26, 30:19; I also think this has import for our understanding of the way Genesis uses creation mythology) so a new covenant required a “new creation.”
I don’t think we can be certain whether New Testament apocalypticism is in anticipation of Jerusalem’s destruction or in response to it. I suspect some of both. The ferment that led up to the Great Revolt was charged with such speculations and certainly the event itself would easily be seen as having incredible significance as both a fulfillment and a sign that the change was indeed at hand. If God wanted to seal a new covenant, destroying the primary symbol of the old covenant seems an obvious course of action. It is also fortuitous: can you imagine the followers of Yahweh continuing to offer animal sacrifice to the present day? Even without the rise of Christianity, Judaism, for which I have a deep and abiding respect, was forever changed. This also coincides with the tail end of what Karl Jaspers calls the “axial period.” It seems that this time in human history marked a fundamental shift in human consciousness in general. We may well be living in such a time ourselves.
I can imagine the post-70 church wondering: was that it? Most of the records we have indicate that their assumption was: no, there is more to come. I suspect they continued to re-use eschatological language (without irony) and the canon may indeed reflect this. Perhaps, however, as the people of God, seeking to interpret events as well as texts, we need not consider that question definitively answered. After such a long time, is any wonder that some would suggest that perhaps that was it? Our understanding of the cultural and religious milieu out of which Christianity sprang, and our grasp of the way in which the ancient world used language and story, are still infantile. Whatever the early church might have been expecting, all we know for certain is what we’ve got. For those who claim Jesus as Messiah, our understanding of Messianic prophecy is to be viewed through the lens of what Jesus said and did (or what he is reported to have said and done).
While the idea that AD70 was “it” brings to mind a quip from Woody Allen — “It’s not that God is cruel; it’s just that God is an underachiever” — and threatens disappointment, I question the assumption that such a perspective necessarily breeds hopelessness. Such has not been my experience. I should also point out, in deference to people like Paul Seburn, that my views are not typical, even among fulfilled prophecy folks.
At the same time, there is a sense in which that was not it, that we will, as you suggest, continue to face crises to which only strong language can do justice. Perhaps we can even re-use Messianic language (with, I hope, great care). My own take on this is that we might rightfully cultivate a vision that transcends history without making the assumption that such a vision must conclude history.
Of course, our future is never certain — and neither is our history.
Theo
Breeding Hopelessness,Threatening Disappointment
It’s interesting how for me viewing the “end time” as a fulfilled reality has done exactly the opposite. In fact this way of thinking is one of very few things in my journey that has actually breeded a lasting hopefullness and created an unrivaled expectancy.
It still amazes me how so many in the church can speak with such confidence of things like “the presence of God” or “the grace of God” but not see that without the “coming of the Lord” these would not be common experiences of reality.
I mean how do any of us feel when others don’t fully acknowledge our presence? I find that when people don’t acknowledge me I generally can’t do a whole lot when I’m around them. It’s like Christ is standing in the room and we can’t decide if He’s here or coming??
His “coming” is like the sun rising in the east and shining to the west, not a flash in pan and it’s “all over”.
Lord give us eyes to see the awesome effects of Your Presence in the earth today. And help us realize that your coming is “in us” and could never happen apart from us,we are your hands and feet. amen
peace
Paul
Feeding dichotomies
Paul,
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I’m not sure I can get behind your polemic. Your post suggests an either/or proposition — either everything is fulfilled or we can’t possibly have a robust theology of Christ’s presence. I doubt very much this is the case. If we experience God’s presence and God’s grace in a significant way, this is a valuable and wonderful thing, but it is, like everything else, subject to interpretation. It may be abundantly clear to you that such things are possible as a result of the consummation of all things, but the reality of grace is hardly a slam-dunk confirmation of anyone’s particular theology.
Whether we are making known a Kingdom that has already come to us or offering a foretaste of a Kingdom that is coming and will someday be fully consummated, or some combination thereof, we are the body of Christ, and as such, we are Immanuel — the manifest presence of God. It is a daunting prospect.
I hear you saying (and I would say), “Because everything is fulfilled, we can have faith in a sovereign God and seek to be His presence among the nations,” and others saying, “Because of our future hope, we can have faith in a sovereign God and seek to be His presence among the nations.” As Harry Connick Jr. might put it, “You say pajamas, I say pajamas — sugar, what’s the problem?”
Both fulfillment and future expectation can lead to a healthy engagement with culture in the name of Christ. Both can lead to a lazy and unfaithful disengagement. And, of course, the theological perspectives in question are much more subtly nuanced than any of us have painted them.
Peace to you,
Theo
Theo
Pardon me for my Polemic 1.A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine
Yes I had to consult the dictionary.
To give a little background, I enjoy fellowship with and work along side many who’s views are not at all like mine in regards to the Lord’s coming. I am after all apparently part of a minority. In fact I get into very few arguements, (except with myself,which is a regular occurance). So I apologize if my brief posts create simplistic equations. I seek the kingdom wherever and however it may be manifesting itself - in love.
I guess what leads me to make such statements as in earlier posts is that I so often see an un/non-fullfillment theology act as a “wet blanket” to what Christ is wanting to do in the earth. ie: “this, this and that are possible for us now, BUT not “completely” until such and such a time.” The very unfortunate paradigm and belief that is too often held to and spread is that “satan” not Christ is the powerful and present one. Could the community of God ever let go of this absurd surrender to a mythological character? How would our communities and subsequent world change? (I know,Andrew may want to shuttle that last question to another thread, that’s OK)
The early disciples and apostles saw the new age of the “kingless Kingdom of God” dawning. They were possibly spured on NOT by a hope of God “one day” intervening but rather that He already had, and was continuing to. That’s the present tense we need today.
peace
Paul