End of Days....
|
I’d be interested to know from contributors to OST just what their various stances are with respect to End-Time teaching. I was brought up in a pre-tribulation, pre-millenial doctrinal environment which confidently expected Christians to be spared the persecutions of the Antichrist via the kind of ‘secret rapture’ endorsed by Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey and others. Nowadays I din’t seen any Biblical support for pre-trib rapture — at best, Christians can only expect a mid-trib ‘exodus’, but even that is dubious. I realise that this kind of thread could lead anywhere, not least to a discussion regarding the identity of the Antichrist — man or corporate body etc. Or has the Emerging Church ditched any belief whatsoever in the Second Coming? |
Comments
My (tentative) eschatology
I accidentally deleted Peter’s remarks here - he drew attention to my attempt to rewrite a core narrative. I would probably want to revise bits of it now, but it’s not a bad outline of my view. I have a book coming out in the summer with Paternoster called The Coming of the Son of Man which develops the argument. Whether I have got things roughly right or not, I do sense that one of the ways (and only one of the ways) the emerging church is dealing with eschatology is through a shift towards what is in effect a preterist position (undoubtedly this owes a lot to NT Wright’s reconstruction of the ‘historical Jesus’). I have serious problems with the taxonomy of eschatological scenarios (*-millenialist, preterist, etc.) because it becomes very difficult not to slip into the ruts that they have carved across the muddy field of interpretation. This is an area where we really do need to clear the ground, forget everything we ever knew about eschatology, and start again.
To my mind the key is 1) to read the NT texts within the historical narrative of Jesus’ work and the emergence of the church; and 2) to listen very carefully to how the authors of NT eschatology use the OT. If you pursue this line, it will probably appear that what we have called the ‘second coming’ (and the elaborate apocalyptic happenings that accompany it) has become a thing of the past - not the traditional idea of a return to earth but a complex figure for the vindication of Jesus and his followers in the context of the conflict with Jerusalem and Rome. But this does not mean that there is no eschatology left for us. We still have the very clear prospect of a final judgment of the dead, a final renewal of creation, and a final defeat of our enemies (especially evil and death).
Incidentally, Ivan, the lack of conviction that you detect in the emerging church is no doubt partly the effect of people losing their grip on traditional teaching - but it is also the result of people searching for a better (and ultimately more biblical) way to understand, articulate and indeed believe that teaching. The historical dimension has become important because we feel the need to go back and rethink the whole thing from the beginning. This will be a very imperfect process, but I don’t think we really have a choice - for me this a matter of fundamental intellectual integrity, but it is also, I believe, a response to, and an act of trust in, the Spirit of God. Where it takes us remains to be seen. The whole project needs to be tested - not least by people like you who are not at all convinced that this is heading in the right direction.
cyber eschatology
My contribution (see Andrew’s comment ‘My (tentative) eschatology’) was to suggest that Ivan takes a look at my attempted summary of Andrew’s views under the post ‘A pretty ambitious attempt at synthesis of many views’. The ‘ambition’ was in my attempt to summarise (and critique) Andrew - not a side-snipe at his synthesis!
Then I thought that maybe Ivan is Andrew - instigating debate under a pseudonym. And maybe Andrew & I are the only people on this site. Maybe Andrew is an automated machine somewhere in Uxbridge. And I’m becoming less sure about myself. However, on the assumption that Ivan does exist, I draw his attention again to my post, and Andrew’s items, light the blue touch paper, and retire, awaiting the explosion.
Perhaps fear is not such a bad thing
Ivan, thanks for addressing this question. A couple of general points to make briefly in response.
Let’s make it clear that I am not claiming to speak on behalf of the emerging church or to be presenting a definitive emerging church position. My impression is that this sort of historically grounded reading of the New Testament is gaining currency amongst a growing number of committed believers who feel that they are groping towards whatever it is that will succeed modern evangelicalism. But as has been pointed out elsewhere on this site, it’s not that the jury is still out on this one - the jury is only just beginning to listen to the evidence. There are undoubtedly other voices within the emerging church who are comfortable with a more conventional eschatology.
You ask ‘where is the certainty?’ I don’t really see that certainty is the issue here. I could be 100% certain about my reading of NT eschatology (which I’m not) but you still wouldn’t be happy. What concerns me is simply whether we have understood the New Testament entirely right in certian areas. My view is that there are very good reasons for revisiting this particular question, and my confidence at the moment is that this will bring us to a much more compelling understanding of what it means to follow Christ and be the people of God. But I could be wrong.
The third point to make clear is that I am not denying the ‘coming’ of Christ. Through the complex process by which the church emerged as an established spiritual force in the world, publicly confessing the lordship of Christ, I believe that Jesus was entirely vindicated in what he said about the future: the beast was defeated and destroyed, the kingdom given to one coming on the clouds of heaven. It seems remarkable enough that this maverick prophet from Nazareth not only should have predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the collapse of second temple Judaism within a generation, but also should have initiated a movement that believed it would eventually win out over the enemies of the people of God. Nor do I deny that the future will be decided by God: the dead will be judged, the last enemy will be overcome, there will be a new creation, the dwelling of God will be in the midst of humanity. This seems to me far more important, far more fundamental, than the traditional (and I think, in the end, non-biblical) of a visible, bodily return to earth. But, as I say, I could be wrong.
I'm not well versed in N.T. Wright
so I appreciate your comments from this direction. I was hoping you could clarify some additional issues concerning the “historically grounded” NT perspective.
If it is being suggested that there will be no bodily return of Jesus, does this perspective still affirm the bodily resurrection of Jesus? And if so, where is he and what is he doing now? If the fall of Jerusalem fulfilled all the end-times prophecy, is this indeed paradise, the restored creation? Of course it is not. So then it is the church accomplishing this restoration? That’s a pretty traditional postmillennial position, is it not? Except they still believe that Christ will actually return when all has been prepared.
Where does the Christ figure in when the Church’s work is completed?
I understand you might be uncomfortable representing others’ views, but it would be helpful, I won’t hold you to any exacting standard, and I won’t tell Wright what you say!
Thanks.
It's late so I'll keep this s
It’s late so I’ll keep this short.
This ‘perspective’ would certainly affirm the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a beginning of, and anticipation of, the new creation.
Where is Jesus now? He is at the right hand of the Father and ‘reigns’ (I would say with those who suffered with him) as the one who by virtue of his suffering and death has received the kingdom.
I don’t think the fall of Jerusalem fulfilled all the end-time prophecies. I think there is a second horizon to NT eschatology which has to do with Rome. In Daniel’s vision the basic conflict is with paganism and with the satanic force behind paganism. Jerusalem us caught up in this, but the fourth beast is understood as, or re-interpreted as, Rome.
New creation is a metaphor for the renewal of the people of God through the eschatological crisis, but it is also a real hope for the world - there will be new heavens and a new earth in which there will be no more suffering and death. There is no suggestion in the NT that the church is bringing about this restoration, so no, if we must use these terms, this is not a postmillenialist position. We are simply here to be the people of God in the world, carrying out the mission of God, in the long millenial space between the victory over Roman imperialism and the final judgment, between the first resurrection and the second.
Where does the Christ figure in when the Church’s work is completed? Christ reigns as the one who is willing to deny himself. He is the one whom we acknowledge as Lord. Not Caesar, not any other earthly authority. At the end he will hand over the kingdom to the Father because at that point there will be no more need for suffering, for the last enemies, Satan and death, will have been destroyed. But in the new creation, the lamb will be present at the heart of the new Jerusalem.
Thanks
That doesn’t sound too awfully different than what I have heard, and what I believe. And if Christ does indeed reign once again on the Earth someday, does that not imply some sort of second coming?
OK, 'second coming' but...
I suppose you could still call it a ‘second coming’ but:
1) I don’t think you can elaborate upon that ‘coming’ by using the texts on which the doctrine has traditionally been based, because they are inappropriate for this renewal of the cosmos scenario: my argument is that they only really make sense in the historical context of the painful and difficult transition from second temple Judaism to the global, Spirit-filled ‘church’.
2) Christ ‘reigns’ now because the kingdom is given to those who suffer and die (literally and perhaps also metaphorically), so when there is no more death, there is no more need for the ‘son of man’ (the vindicated suffering servant) to have the kingdom, so as Paul says, he gives it back to the Father (1 Cor.15:24).
3) What John depicts in Rev.21 is not a coming of Christ to earth as we know it but the descent of the new Jerusalem from the new heavens to the new earth to be in midst of creation - earth as we know it has already vanished (Rev.20:11).
Emerging church explanations and narratives
The ‘New Jerusalem’ of Rev 21 fits even more into Andrew’s scenario if it is seen not just as an event which occurs after the end of the old heavens and earth, but as a process which is taking place now (albeit incomplete until after this event).
I’d like to know what people think about Andrew’s other ideas, eg:
that the gospels are a ‘coda’ to the Old Testament, preparing the people of God for the events of Matt 24, but of no particular further significance
that the ‘Great Commission’ of Matt 28 was also for that interim period, and fulfilled before it, but not incumbent on us now
that the crucifixion of Jesus was primarily on behalf of Israel in history, and only indirectly for gentiles (we benefit from it by joining the believing community of Israel)
This latter view seems to me to focus on Jesus as judgement-bearer for Israel, but to downplay the crucifixion as the place where God was dealing with mankind’s universal sin - thus picking up other Old Testament narratives besides the 2nd Temple/post exile narrative.
Incidentally, the crucifixion as outined by Andrew (maybe he has more to say in his book) seems to uphold a penal substitution view - and though N.T.Wright develops a ‘Christus Victor’ kind of approach, he too cannot get completely away from the penal substitution of Jesus on the cross.
More than anything, I’d like to know more about how these views might provide a new and better basis for the community of God’s people as ‘emerging church’, instead of previous explanations.
The context of interpreting
In reading through the various comments, I kept thinking how important it is to remember the context in which the NT needs to be interpreted. By that I mean primarily the context in which it was written. Like you, I was raised on Hal Lindseyisms, and have only slowly gravitated to a position very close to that which Andrew presents here.
Wright seems to be a figure that’s hard to get around when we think about defining the context of interpretation. Chapter ten of “The New Testament and the people of God” is, I think, crucial to understand some of what Andrew is saying (though not the whole picture). Wright says this in the chapter:
When they [the first century Jews and early Christians] used what we might call cosmic imagery to describe the coming new age, such language cannot be read in a crassly literalistic way without doing it great violence. The restoration which would be brought about was, of course, painted in glowing and highly metaphorical colours. Writers borrowed all the appropriate imagery they could to show the immense significance with which the coming historical events would be charged. How else could they give voice to the full meaning of what was to take place?
Wright further argues that the Jews and early Christians understood that the language was largely metaphorical. It is later generations who have lost touch with that, and so turned the doctrine of the Second Coming and the restoration of the earth into something that it was never meant to be. The reasons for that are part of our own history.
I mention Wright only because reading him was to me a very large breath of fresh air. I had gradually become convinced that something was very wrong in the way the Second Coming was presented (both theology and emphasis), and couldn’t help linking that to the very idea of salvation itself (and thus to ecclesiology). From my own limited reading in apocalyptic texts I’d already come to the conclusion that many schools of theology really misread the texts. As a lover of literature (let alone a lover of God), that really irritated me. Wright seemed to at least attempt to deal honestly with the historical evidence, and draw some very sound conclusions. I am not sure where it all leads to, but to me these three things seem to stand out very brightly:
1) The person and message of Jesus offer something absolutely unique in the world history
2) Learning to live out the teachings of Jesus and his followers can bring many good things to others and ourselves
3) What we see is not the end, either of ourselves, nor of human history in the face of God.
Eschatological sticky wickets
I think you are on a sticky wicket with Acts 1:11, Ivan; the imagery is Daniel 7:13; the direction is not downwards from heaven to earth, but upwards towards ‘the Ancient of Days’. The outcome was the handing over of the kingdom to the one ‘like a son of man’; the provenance was Jerusalem and its temple, whose destruction Jesus had been foretelling from the selfsame spot, which must have been in the minds of the disciples as they heard these things.
The citing of the formation of the modern state of Israel as an eschatological event is also dubious. The treading down of Jerusalem ‘until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled’ (Luke 21:24) as an argument for the restoration of Israel is a bit of unreconstructed Hal Lindsey that got through unnoticed. The ‘until’ makes no mention of a restoration of Israel after these times. It could equally, and more probably mean that the Jerusalem will be trodden down in this way until the end - the return of Jesus, if you like.
The restoration of Israel as part of biblical prophecy flies in the face of deuteronomic conditions for restoration based on faithfulness to the covenant (modern day Israel is a secular state), and the prophets (whose unremitting theme was justice, not futurology, of which much has been lacking in Israel). More than that, it ignores Jesus as the fulfilment in himself of all that Israel represented in God’s purposes, and the one who came to supersede the old covenant.
On the other hand, placing the ‘spinal cord’ prophecies of Matt 24 within the lifetime of those to whom Jesus was speaking makes a great deal of sense, and unties the knot highlighted by Albert Schweitzer, but side-stepped by most commentators. It makes much more sense to see most of the predictions popularly associated with the distant future (man of lawlessness, antichrist etc) as occuring in the very early centuries. The outworking of studies by Tom Wright on the historical Jesus also virtually demands it.
But it’s good to discuss these things, isn’t it?
sticking points
A couple of sticking points, Peter…
the imagery is Daniel 7:13
How is this so? Or at least, how so plainly so? From a straightforward point of view, I would have thought ‘the imagery’ was the bodily ascension of Jesus taking place before the disciples eyes.
I’m interested in the whole scenario which Andrew et al, are painting for us, but as yet, unconvinced that it requires less scriptural gymnastics than certain forms of traditional apocalyptic interpretation. To continue Peter’s cricketing analogy, I feel, when it’s put forward like this, perhaps like Ivan does, that a kind of theological ‘googly’ has bowled me around my legs… “How did he do that?”
Perhaps it’s that I’ve not read enough of Wright, perhaps old habits die hard, but my own view is also significantly coloured by the notion that passages like Matthew 24 are capable of referring to more than one future course of events: ie. AD 70 and the “last days.” A sort of cyclical fulfilment of prophecy.
Would that be any different from the manner in which Peter used Joel 2 to speak about the outpouring of the Spirit? This would have meant something quite different to Joel’s original audience and when it was fulfilled once before. Yet Peter thinks nothing of using it to point towards what it happening in his day and the Spirit bears witness to his use of the text.
the one who came to supersede the old covenant
See Eternal covenants for the continuation of this point.
Coming with the clouds
Chris has already answered the second point, John. (Hebrews 8:13 seems quite emphatic). I would only add that if Jesus had come to provide the fulfilment of what the ‘old’ covenant had been leading to (Galatians 3:23-25), why would God want to continue to provide the ‘old’ covenant as an optional alternative to the ‘new’?
On the first point ‘the imagery is that of Daniel 7:13’, the simplest way into this perspective on Jesus’s ‘coming’ is probably Matthew 24, where the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ is usually taken to be a future return of Jesus, but the language is of Daniel 7:13; similarly verse 30; and there is very little reason to take anything else in the prophecy as referring to events beyond A.D.70. The ‘coming of the Son of Man’ was then his ‘coming’ in judgement on the temple, and on Jerusalem, the question about which prompted the prophecy in verse 3 (the two questions actually being one and the same question). Jesus was not referring to some far distant event, which could also be called his ‘coming’.
The imagery surrounding the description of this ‘coming’ echoes directly Daniel 7:13, where it is a ‘coming’ into the presence of the Ancient of Days, to receive power & authority. This provides the context for Acts 1:11 - where the disciples are again on the Mount of Olives (where Jesus delivered his prophecy of judgement on the temple). The implication is that this is the same ‘coming’ referred to in Matt 24; the immediate prospect in view was the temple on the opposite side of the Kidron valley - facing the disciples, about which Jesus had delivered his seminal prophecy in Matthew 24.
This is hugely expanded in Tom Wright’s ‘Jesus and the Victory of God’, where it is placed in a carefully and exhaustively developed account of the historical Jesus, which you will be aware, is also set in the context of previous and contemporary pursuits, (Kasemann, the Jesus Seminar etc), and picks up from Albert Schweitzer, mentioned in a previous comment. This incorporates post-war attempts to place Jesus and the N.T. generally (Paul especially) in a Jewish background (as opposed to Hellenistic).
Don’t shoot me, I’m only the messenger!
reading more Wright / right...
Thanks, Peter
I suspected at some point, the answer in respect to the Daniel / Son f Man paradigm would be: “read more Wright”. Nevertheless, the few insights you have provided on this are interesting, though unfamiliar and not yet wholly convincing. For the time being, I’m still with Eric, in that I am comfortable allowing for more than one future event being in sight.
Re. your repost on Hebrews / covenants.
Hebrews 8:13 seems quite emphatic
Its emphatic only that the old covenant is “passing away.” That’s quite different to having passed away and entirely compatible with all I say in my former comment - so if you didn’t read if for that reason, do have another look, please.
I would only add that if Jesus had come to provide the fulfilment of what the ‘old’ covenant had been leading to (Galatians 3:23-25), why would God want to continue to provide the ‘old’ covenant as an optional alternative to the ‘new’?
There is no argument from Stern, nor myself, for an optional alternative. It is God’s covenantal purposes which I am defending and a better, more accurate and more life-giving reading,I believe, of passages which deal with his Torah and how we are called to understand and respond to it.
I do believe that protestant tradition (and possibly Catholic and others) have consistently misrepresented these issues seriously.
Shalom! - John
Daniel 7 and AD 70
Peter, thanks for helping out with this. I’m not sure about the following, though:
The ‘coming of the Son of Man’ was then his ‘coming’ in judgement on the temple, and on Jerusalem, the question about which prompted the prophecy in verse 3…
I am inclined to disagree with Wright that Daniel 7 is fulfilled in the events of AD 70. The conflict at the heart of Daniel’s vision is between the faithful in Israel and a paganism that is actively hostile towards the saints of the Most High (ie. Antiochus). The devastating consequence of this conflict is the desecration and ruin of the temple, which is understood as the culmination of Israel’s exile and punishment (Dan.9:24-27). But when the human figure in the vision receives ‘dominion and glory and a kingdom’, it is following judgment on the four beasts that came from the sea - and in particular judgment on the fourth beast, which persecuted the righteous. So I would argue that the broader vision of the coming of the Son of man in the NT must encompass not only the moral and religious collapse of Israel and the judgment on Jerusalem but also the eventual defeat of the blasphemous super-power, which within the perspective of the NT is Rome. First, there is the recognition that Christ not the temple provides the basis for the people’s covenantal relationship with God; then there is the wider recognition that Christ and not Caesar is Lord.
Don’t shoot me, I’m only the messenger!
That’s a bit disingenuous! Surely it was your choice to bring this message rather than some other.
More than metaphor
It’s not metaphor - but a different way of looking at the data. Schweitzer was pointing out the anomaly of an apparent expectation by Jesus that the kingdom would come imminently, and the apparent failure of that expectation. Eg Matthew 10:23; 24:34. Schweitzer’s perspective, which included seeing Jesus against the backcloth of Jewish apocalypticism, was left largely untouched and unanaswered until N.T.Wright took up the theme again. There are good grounds for thinking that Jesus’s ‘coming’ was the transfer of power and authority outlined in Daniel, and a ‘coming’ in judgement on Jerusalem and its temple which formed the basis of his prophecy in Matt 24.
The elemental dissolution you refer to is presumably Matt 24:29, which repeats metaphor describing the fall of Babylon in Isaiah 13:10 - apparently a way of describing cataclysmic events, but not literal.
None of this, to me, excludes a future ‘return’ of Jesus, but places it in a very different context from the apocalyptic scenario we have been used to.
The coming in Acts
An interesting thing to note about Acts 1.11 is that, although my NIV translates “eleusetai” as “will come back”, there is no warrant for “back”. The Greek says simply and ambiguously: “This Jesus who has been taken up from you into the heaven will come in the way you beheld him going into the heaven.” Since the Daniel 7 imagery was such a powerful and frequent presence in Jesus’ own self-understanding, which regularly was in the context of vindication in the resurrection and Temple destruction, it seems it should be difficult to make it an “open and shut” case that Luke didn’t have similar ideas as he selected details to tell his story. With Peter, I merely wish to indicate that the referrant of Jesus’ ‘coming’ in this passage is not at all clear. I don’t have a problem with seeing it both ways (ie, as metaphor for the coming vindication and hints to a literal return to Earth). What I have not heard anyone say, but that I think Ivan fears, is that all this is “purely symbolic.” Andrew, Peter, et al. are not taking Daniel’s imagery and making it refer to some abstract reality—they have very concrete events in mind. These events were refered to in highly charged language, as in so many other places in apocalyptic literature (Peter’s Isaiah example is a good one).
I’m gonna let Andrew answer on John 14.3, cuz I have a feeling has some good stuff to say.
With regard to the “preached to all nations”, what did Paul mean when he said that the gospel had been preached in all the world?
John 14:3
I’m not sure this is going to qualify as ‘good stuff’. It seems to me that the theme of John 13:36-14:6 is rather different to those passages that allude to the image of ‘one like a son of man ocming on the clouds of heaven’. The issue here is not so much vindication as the assurance that for those disciples who follow the same path of suffering there will be room in the presence of God with Jesus. I wonder if the ‘coming’ in this case is not, then, simply part of a larger metaphor that depicts Jesus going on a journey, preparing rooms in his Father’s house, then coming to take with him those who will lay down their lives as he will do. If so, I don’t see any real need to turn this into a literal return to earth.
Incidentally, this provides the crucial eschatological context for understanding the statement in 14:6: ‘I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father if not through me’.
I have added a brief commentary on John 14:3 here.
a second coming
Andrew / Peter / others
Would this be an appropriate place to ask for your view on Hebrews 9.28? How does this fit into the deconstruction / reconstruction of ‘second coming’ theories?
Hebrews 9:28
I’ve posted some thoughts on Hebrews 9:28 here. Peter’s comments have also been moved from here to there.
as he left?
where is god?, the place he has prepared is where he is. we are in the same place with him. now we are seated in heavenly places in christ jesus. why wait?
when jesus left the earth physically as you suggest it was witnessed by only a handful of close friends. if you take the passages which speak of his “return” being the same then why the belief in a cataclysmic physical literal return? he’d just fade into this realm to a few close associates and hang out for breakfast and beer. And of course the common “rapture” texts are all about fleeing jerusalem, not a snatch and grab in our chirstian future.
oh much to say on this topic but rather long thread.
in short, it’s in seeing the fullfillment that we become aware of the unfolding of god’s renewal of creation. it’s a transformation not a one time event.
look at it honestly and with child like faith and you will see that the writers of the text were never talking about the “end of time” as most “eschatology” invariabley super imposes on all text, but rather the “time of the end” such a simple rearrangement of words sets the two paradigms worlds apart and opens up to whole new view of the truth.
time of the end of what? The old covenant economy. 2 covenants cannot exist together FOR VERY LONG. it’s a very unstable universe that way. and dualistic “already but not yet” transitional thinking places the people of god in a kind of self torture limbo. it’s sweet to let it go and start living in the new creation reality NOW, that’s where the hope is, not in science fiction
40 the number of transition..remember the children of israel? god’s not so weak that he couldn’t perform his purpose through jesus as to keep humainty waiting for thousands of years! no he fulfilled the promise made to abraham that ALL nations of the world would be blessed not just some middle east military state just as selfish as the rest seeking license from history and scripture to get it’s way (yes i’m talking about the present state of “israel”)
time to dump all this future return stuff for the sake of the planet, and planetary peace.
i find john 14:3 plain speaking as well. Jesus prepared a place for us
we are in it together with him. practise the presence of god
anyways, this site has some related stuff http://pantelism.com/
say hi to davo when you’re there
and tim at http://www.presence.tv
peace all
Muscular eschatology
Very invigorating, Ivan. But it’s the ‘traditional’ view that has to jump through hoops, as far as Matthew 24 is concerned. The view that it relates to the destruction of the temple in A.D.70 makes much more consistent sense of all the data; otherwise we are left with a complicated ‘two horizons’ idea which is very complicated to explain.
The church has not been consistent in its witness over the 2nd coming for the last 2000 years, and the debate goes back further than you think.
In a way, the church has only applied ‘critical’ thinking to the bible for the last 200 years or so. Very little of this has demolished the central tenets of the Christian faith. But this particular discussion on the 2nd coming is part of a debate that goes back over 125 years to J.Stuart Russell, who proposed a ‘preterist’ interpretation of Revelation, Matthew 24, and most of the events commonly associated with distant future eschatology. His book on the subject, ‘The parousia; a critical enquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of our Lord’s second coming’ was last reprinted in 1983 (Grand Rapids, Baker). A commentary on Russell’s views is provided by R.C.Sproul in ‘The Last Days According to Jesus’(Baker).
The ‘preterist’ school is not monolithic in its views, and ‘partial’ preterism allows for events still to come, such as: a future coming (parousia) of Christ; a ‘day of the Lord’; the resurrection of the dead; the rapture of the living; the final judgement; the end of history. But many of the texts traditionally associated with ‘distant’ eschatology are related to much earlier events - including the Olivet discourse.
The issue of ‘eschatology’ has not been left to obscure names or rampant popularisers in theology; following Schweitzer’s ‘unrealised eschatology’ was C.H.Dodd’s ‘realised eschatology’. The stress between how much of ‘the kingdom’ is past, and how much future continued with Hermann Ridderbos - proposing the ‘already … not yet’ concept of the kingdom. Oscar Cullman proposed the D-Day analogy: the resurrection and ascension of Jesus being the point at which the outcome of the war was decided, but many battles yet remain to be fought to implement that victory.
I too believe that the witness of the church over the centuries is important, not to be dismissed. Today, as you have pointed out, there is a new kind or popularism which is establishing itself as a tradition with regard to eschatology; is this a tradition that we should accept without thinking?
The legacy of the Reformation is that we can enquire personally of the scriptures. Modernism was the child of the Reformation - and it hasn’t all been bad. For me, arguments always count more than heads. The arguments that are emerging for a different perspective on eschatology may not be convincing in all that they are proposing, but they are weighty in some, if not much of what they propose.
Today,
Ivan, I understand your frust
Ivan, I understand your frustration and maybe I’m wrong, but the questions are not going to be answered by ranting.
1. This is a reinterpretation of the ‘second coming’ but it is certainly not ‘insubstantial, airy-fairy’ - it takes very seriously the real, concrete and very insecure circumstances of the early church. For them the truth of Jesus’ statement about the coming of the Son of man was a matter of life and death. It was of fundamental importance to them, personally and historically, that he was right - and no less important to us because it is the basis for us being church at all. It is because God vindicated Jesus, bestowed on him the name that is above every name, gave him the kingdom, that we can confidently confess him as Lord.
2. The strength of the ‘second coming’ tradition is certainly a problem, which is why this whole debate needs to be pursued very carefully. But it’s also a problem when you read the NT and find yourself increasingly convinced that the traditional second coming doctrine is a very poor representation of what Jesus and others were saying. And let’s be honest, it wouldn’t be the first time that the church has got something seriously wrong. Peter has just posted some useful comments on the history of the debate over the second coming.
3. If you’re right, then Jesus and Paul were both wrong because they clearly expected the parousia to take place within the foreseeable future, within a generation.
4. I don’t understand your point about the emerging synagogue. As far as I can see this historicalizing of the coming of the Son of man fits extremely well with the sort of expectations expressed in the OT. But maybe that’s not what you’re saying.
5. I presume you are thinking of 2 Thess.1:7: the Lord Jesus is ‘revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire’. Two comments. i) It would, in my view, be ‘airy-fairy’ to make this effectively irrelevant to the persecuted believers to whom Paul is writing by interpreting it in a way that dismisses their need for ‘rest’ from their afflictions. ii) Isaiah describes God’s response to a historical attack on Jerusalem: ‘you will be visited by the Lord of hosts… with whirlwind and tempest, and the flame of a devouring fire’ (Is.29:6; cf. 66:14-15). Why shouldn’t Paul have used this language of divine intervention in the same way to speak about what appeared on the ground as historical events - the crucial difference being that it is Christ who is revealed as the one who delivers his people from their affliction?
6. I have said before that there will be a literal resurrection of the dead at the end of world history. This is not in dispute as far as I am concerned.
7. I had a feeling you wouldn’t be impressed with my argument about John 14:3. I would say, though, that your response doesn’t exactly help the discussion along. The gospel is certainly simple but that does not mean that everything in scripture has to be straightforward (cf. 2 Pet.3:16), especially if we have to deal first with a long history of misinterpretation. Why not look at the argument in a little more detail?
engaging engagement?
By all means, Ivan, do look at the argument in more detail, but at the same time, your shoot-from-the-hip honesty is not only charmingly refreshing within what is a generally a very reasonable forum, but it is helping to garner some excellent contributions from the like of Peter and Andrew, who are digging deeper and exposing with more clarity the nuances and source of their end-times thesis!
It’s all extremely interesting stuff. I can’t imagine Ivan, that you will change course for a minute, but I do want to thank you for your determination to speak up and identify that which - from the standpoint of the traditional churches - can indeed seem like some pretty athletic theological manoeuvres.
My own view is that theology - right thinking about God - is about as important a topic as their is and I suppose that’s why we’re all here. If anyone else is having difficulties with the tone and tenet of these in-depth analysis, do have a look at my “what’s the worst that could happen post” for some gentle reassurance!
Fascinated but not convinced...
Thanks for your helpful comments; I hope you do not mind me asking for more.
I have never considered Jesus’ and Paul’s imminent expectation of the parousia a problem. After all, no one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son. So it makes sense to live in eager expectation of it — but not at the dereliction of our worldly responsibilities, as Paul instructs the Thessalonians.
Speaking of the Thessalonians, how would this view (partial preterist, is that what we’re calling it?) explain 2 Thess. 4:16ff.
“For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.”
Come down = katabesetai — future tense, of course. “will descend.”
from = apo — “out of, away from”
It would be difficult for me to imagine that this verse referred to events in A.D. 70, but I’m ready to be convinced. Would you say that these believers (some? all?) who had died were raised at that time and are now the martyrs who are enjoying God’s presence (a la Revelation)? And then what about those who did not die? How are we to understand that they were “caught up” with Christ in the air?
The greek word for “caught up” is arpagesometha — plucked, snatched; I see a reference to the final harvest.
Thanks for your insight and patience.
Plenty to agree with, in 1 Thess., but what about 2 Thess.?
I agree with your point of view on these verses, erlenmeyer (you do mean 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, don’t you?). This seems to me clearly to refer to a return of Jesus at the end of time.
On the other hand, I’m less convinced that 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, is the end of time. All the details feel to me like a description of events preceding the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.70, the rebellion and ‘the man of lawlessness, being a Jewish rebellion - and, yes, a desecration of the temple. I could provide more detail on this one if need be.
These verses, and ‘the man of lawlessness’ in particular, have so often been identified with events at the end of time, and associated with an ‘antichrist’ figure. These identifications and associations are, to me, very questionable. Why would Paul be telling the Thessalonians about something that would happen two thousand years (or more) later? Yet there is plenty of detail that fits with events leading up to the time of the fall of Jerusalem.
This is partial preterism, but I think Andrew is going for something much more thorough-going, which it would be a misnomer to call preterism.
worth the wait
Just a thought on Peter’s comment: “Why would Paul be telling the Thessalonians about something that would happen two thousand years (or more) later?
Given that the Israelites waited about 800 years for the Messiah, after Isaiah’s prophecy (Is.53) and about 500 post-Daniel, the idea that Paul and John, both of whom scripture testifies were taken up to the third heaven and shown extraordinary (prophetic?) things, it does not seem to be stretching a point too far to suggest that the Spirit may have deliberately imbued them with knowledge intended to bring hope to all “those who will trust in me because of their word” as Jesus identified and prayed in John 17.20, throughout the long centuries after the fall of Rome and the first coming had passed into dimly-recollected history.
Might it indeed be a deliberate technique employed by God to continue to allow us to locate ourselves in the narrative of scripture between the first and second comings of the Messiah? Anyone else find this a compelling argument?
Who can speculate
on divine motives? But I do not think it jeopardizes our doctrine of scripture to assert that Paul (and Jesus) did not know when the end would come, and had to teach accordingly.
Their instruction takes on added meaning for me if we assume they did not — and of course Jesus admitted as much. It means that, in their day and in ours, we should be living in expectation, knowing that it may be tomorrow. I think that Paul would have been surprised to learn that it would take so long, but I’m sure lots of other things about God and the Church would catch him off guard too!
I generally accept the argument put forth, that scripture must have relevance to the audience it was written to. It is on that basis that I rule out any references to apache helicopters in the apocalyptic writings. But in this case, the application for all ages is: anticipation.
Addressing two subjects?
I don’t see anything wrong with interpreting some of the traditionally end-times passages as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D 70. I guess I was asking if there’s an attempt to explain them ALL as a reference to that date, and if so I would have to disagree.
I’m sure it is a naughty word on this site, but it does seem to me that the “two horizons” hermeneutic has merit. Or, more to my liking, the idea expressed by the “recapitulation” interpretation of the book of Revelation. These “end times” which Jesus announced were at hand will have certain features. Many of these features were demonstrated in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and believers of all ages have experienced them in some fashion, to some degree. It is Augustine’s City of God vs. city of man.
So to sum up my position:
1. Not all traditional end-times passages can be applied to A.D. 70.
2. Very few, if any, of the traditional end-times passages should be applied exclusively to A.D. 70.
3. The fall of Jerusalem was an event that typified the transition to the age that we live in. The “spiritualization” (I don’t like this word but don’t know of a better one — elevation? expansion? promotion?) of the definition of Israel, and the battle between her and her enemies.
Gymnastics or Simple math?
- If A=B=C then A=C –
The Olivet discourse cannot be divided, as futurists do, to insert some far distant future 3rd or more Comings of Christ. Luke’s account confirms the unity of the Olivet discourse. Lk 21:20-22 was the time when the Son of Man was revealed. This of course should already be abundantly clear because these were “…the Days of Vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” [Lk 21:22].
Compare this:
[A] Lk 21:20-21 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. [mid 66-70AD]
To This:
[B] Mt 24:16-18 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. [parallels Lk 21:20-21]
With This:
[C] Lk 17:30-31 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. [parallels Mt 24:16-18]
Conclusion:
If – [A] Lk 21:20-21 = [B] Mt 24:16-18
And – [B] Mt 24:16-18 = [C] Lk 17:30-31
Then – [A] Lk 21:20-21 = [C] Lk 17:30-31
so if A=B and if B=C, then ‘A’ must = ‘C.’ This reveals that Lk 21:20-22 was the “The Day in which the Son of Man was revealed” i.e., His 2nd Coming, precisely as Luke 17:30-31 indicates. The time when the Judean Christians fled city and countryside, departing from roofs and fields, not stopping nor turning back, was indeed the Day when the Son of Man was revealed. We have this unequivocal fact according to Lk 17:30-31, which parallels Mt 24:16-18, which again parallels Lk 21:20-21. With Scripture interpreting Scripture, we find the mid 66-70AD time frame to be the time when the ‘Son of Man’ was revealed in judgment against Old Covenant apostate Judaism i.e., the Law, Sin and Death.
2Tim 4:1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom:
Christ’s appearing or manifestation – being “revealed,” is an event concurrent with the “judgment” of the living and the dead i.e., “resurrection” and His “kingdom” and are all Biblically coupled to Christ’s end-time Parousia.
David G. Embury © Copyright 2002-2004
Email: eval(unescape(‘%64%6f%63%75%6d%65%6e%74%2e%77%72%69%74%65%28%27%3c%61%20%68%72%65%66%3d%22%6d%61%69%6c%74%6f%3a%77%65%62%6d%61%73%74%65%72%40%70%61%6e%74%65%6c%69%73%6d%2e%63%6f%6d%22%3e%77%65%62%6d%61%73%74%65%72%40%70%61%6e%74%65%6c%69%73%6d%2e%63%6f%6d%3c%2f%61%3e%27%29%3b’))
What if?
I find so far the discussion very challenging.
These are some of my eschatological wonderings:
1. I look at eschatology from a Christological point of view. This means that I am backward looking rather then forward. Why? I do not see the future, it rather comes towards me. It is not something I can grasp by looking. Therefore I am full of expectation I should say. Looking backwards is helpfull to make snese of the present and maybe get some perspective (or hope) for the future.
2. Looking backards I see Christ crucifed. I see Him as the culmination of the history of Israel. All the sufferings of Israel make sense in the suffering of Christ. They were the forerunners of the Suffeirng Servant. The ultimate blow was 70AD but it did not stop there. History has shown how far the suffeing goes, in the case of Israel.
3. Our identity (who we are as a Church) is hidden in Christ. What if our future is the story of Christ, suffering and death? (forgive my bluntness) What if our future is not glorious but leads more towards the cross (the actual)? Can there be ressurection (in the end of days…) without death?
What if the sotry of Christ is our future? Is basically what I am asking.
Szaszi
Night owls?
Ivan - you keep late hours, judging by the timing of your messages.I do think you have a point, with regard to the current historical recasting of the bible, Jesus and gospels in particular. If they only relate to specific historical circumstances, what is their relevance for today?
I would like to agree with you over Matthew 24, but I can’t. You will have to substantiate your assertion that ‘half of what Jesus says in such texts cannot be said to have taken place’ when there is a weight of biblical evidence (already detailed on this thread) for saying that it has taken place.
A thought occurs to me: you mentioned in a much earlier message that your leanings were to Roman Catholicism. It is unlikely that a Catholic would interrupt a theological discussion with the phrase: “But the Bible says …”. More likely, an appeal to authority would be to the Holy Father, or the Catechism, or even the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
Could it be that there is a clash of the categories which dictate our approaches to bible study? First base for the Catholic would be the authority of the church; the kind of discussions taking place on the website might seem like meddlesome individualism to a person holding such a point of view.
I disagree that you are the only ‘traditionalist’ on this site. The regular contributors all seem quite conservative to me (including myself). Radical contributors seem to fall away quite rapidly, or only make occasional forays into the discussions.
Revelation - an early dating
An early dating of Revelation is essential for the preterite position; the scholarly consensus has been that the book was written in the time of Domitian, c. A.D.95. This was seriously challenged with the publication in 1989 of Kenneth L. Gentry’s ‘Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation: An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a pre-A.D.70 Composition (Tyler, Tex:Institute for Christian Economics).
Gentry’s account was welcomed both by adherents of preterism and its opponents - eg Jay E.Adams on the one side, and George W. Knight on the other. Knight, not a supporter of preterism, says ” ‘Before Jerusalem fell’ is a thorough and outstanding statement of the case for an early date of Revelation.”
Gentry concedes that the majority of scholars have placed the writing of Revelation well after A.D.95, but lists numerous scholars who place it earlier: Greg L.Bahnsen, Adam Clarke, F.W.Farrar, John A.T.Robinson, Henry Barclay Swete, Milton S.Terry, Wilhelm Bousset, F.F.Bruce, Rudolf Bultmann, Samuel Davidson, Alfred Edersheim, Johann Eichorn, Joseph A.Fitzmyer, J.B.Lightfoot, C.F.D.Moule, and Augustus H.Strong (to name but a few).
I have to say that although this thread of comments is focusing somewhat on the A.D.70 event, my foremost passion as a bible teacher is not preterism at all, but Jesus himself, his life, death and resurrection. 30 years and more since being a follower of Jesus (and I’m not that old!) I am more passionate and excited about this man, and what are to me the simplicities of the gospel than I ever have been. I say ‘simplicities’ - but this is a time when I’m discovering that there is so much more to the gospel than I had ever previously seriously imagined. As part of that, I must dialogue with people who are exploring new avenues - such as on this site. But to me, it all focuses on Jesus - not A.D.70!
I’d also appreciate addresses of the sites you mention.
Correction - sorry
In the comment ‘Revelation - an early dating’, third paragraph, the sentence:
‘Gentry concedes that the majority of scholars have placed the writing of Revelation well after A.D.95’
should have ended ‘well after A.D.70’.
The scholars mentioned are suggesting a pre-A.D.70 date for Revelation.
R.C.Sproul says: “Preterist interpretation of Revelation follows closely preterist interpretation of the Olivet discourse. Though preterists differ on how much of the Revelation and of the discourse refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, they all regard the main substance of both to refer to the same event: Jesus’s coming in judgement on the Jewish nation.”
So Andrew’s observation needs to be taken into account.
Jerusalem and Rome
It seems to me that a dating in the mid 60s is not out of the question. The other point I would make (other than endorsing Peter’s enthusiasm about Jesus) is that Revelation is not all about the fall of Jerusalem. Following the OT pattern it depicts first judgment on Israel and then judgment on the enemies of the people of God - Babylon = Rome.
Considerably overstaying my welcome
I typed in A.D.70 on my search engine (see Ivan above) and came across a treasure-trove of a website called www.preteritearchive.com
which seems to contain just about everything that has ever conceivably been written on the subject. It’s interactive - with room for comments etc. There was a priceless oneliner - along the lines of ‘You guys are all going to hell and that’s my comment to you.’ I fear I will be disappearing down a black hole for a very long time. I’ll try not to clog up the OST website with so many comments in future - and will definitely try not to off-load truck-loads of items on preterism onto OST.
The end is not yet . . .
Correction: the preterist website was www.preteristarchive.com
Don’t be taken in by everything that describes itself as preterist: there is hyperpreterism (consistent/thorough-going/radical preterism - Russell et al), moderate or partial preterism etc.
That’s enough preterist prattle for now.
Would this be the wrong
Would this be the wrong place to try to start a Bible study about Isaiah 63:1-6?
Isaiah 63:1-6
Joel, start a new post (create content > story). Explain why you want to discuss this particular passage and, if possible, how it relates to the distinctive emphases and themes of an emerging theology. It should be interesting.
Andrew, sorry that was my
Andrew, sorry that was my poor attempt at humor. I wasn’t serious.
Personally
I fall into the amillennial camp for a few reasons:
- They are most sensitive to the literary genre of apocalyptic writings.
- They claim to know the least about the future, which seems wise to me.
- They offer the only interpretation that would have been meaningful and relevant to John’s original audience, and remains meaningful and relevant to us as well.
P.S. Do I sense frustration in your last two posts (of March 10)?
“A striking feature of the Emerging Church is its apparent lack of conviction.” — from the Apostolic Creed post
“Or has the Emerging Church ditched any belief whatsoever in the Second Coming?” — from this post.
If it has been something I personally have said, please let me know so I might apologize and make it right.