Prophecy and realism
|
[This post was created from a comment (#2940) in the How context contextualizes the language of hell thread.] Hi Andrew, I too have enjoyed the interchange. What I appreciate about your reading of the texts is a strong concern for the redemptive-historical context, as well as the canonical context of the OT. I appreciate the historical ‘realism’, as you frame it, in your interpretation of prophecy. I think this is commendable. You write, "realistic in the sense that I seek to understand how eschatological texts emerge from, refer to and describe the real historical experiences of the believing community." This is an important dimension to interpreting biblical prophecy. However, the eschatology of the OT, I would argue, transcends every historical event within the OT and its history as well. It is only with Christ’s coming, death, resurrection, and ascension that the Spirit is poured out, that Peter can announce that the "last days" (the eschaton) have arrived in Acts 2. Consider for example some classical eschatological texts: Dt.30 (the restoration of Israel in the latter days); Isaiah 2 (the eschatological exaltation of Mt. Zion); Jeremiah 30-33 (the eschatological restoration of Israel and Judah to the land); Ezekiel 38-48 (the battle of Gog and Magog and the eschatological temple); Daniel 2; 9; Zechariah 14. None of these promises were fulfilled (in their entirety) in the restoration from exile in 538 under Zerubbabel and Joshua. In fact, the post-exilic prophet Zechariah expected a yet future restoration to the land, an eschatological return from exile (Zechariah 8), the details of which history has unknown (in fulfillment, as I read it, of Isaiah’s grandiose descriptions of the second return from exile, as in 11:11ff.). In fact, both Haggai and Zechariah were responding in large part to the returnees disappointment with the trickling ‘restoration’ (which fell well below the ‘cosmic’ descriptions of the former prophets) and their discouragement with the rather meager reconstruction efforts in Jerusalem of the sixth and fifth century (see Haggai 2:3; Zechariah 4:10). Thus Zechariah affirms that God will carry out His good purpose for Zion. And it would seem that Zechariah affirms the restoration of both the house of Israel and the house of Judah (8:13), as did Ezekiel in chapter 37 and Jeremiah (and the fact that the promised restoration of northern Israel never found fulfillment in accordance to the (literal) promises of Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, etc. suggests a yet future restoration). As you said, the restoration under Cyrus, et al. was incomplete, and the exile, in a sense, continued (more accurately, the covenant curses continued, as the post-exilic prophets made clear), even until the era of Christ (per the angelic message of Daniel 9), and, I would argue, beyond the first advent, to this day (where the people of God are scattered in the diaspora, cf. 1Pe.1:1). It is only in His second coming that the eschatological promises of the prophets will be fulfilled according to the apostle Peter (Acts 3:18-12). In fact, none of the promises of the prophets were fulfilled (in the eschatological sense) until Christ, the spirit of prophecy, came and fulfilled them (see Hebrews 11:39-40). This is not to say that none of the OT promises and prophecies concerning the historical restoration of the nation were fulfilled (e.g., Jeremiah 29:10), but it is to say that the full promises of Deuteronomy 30, on which the prophets stood in their expectation of a full, national and spiritual restoration of Israel, remained only partially fulfilled, as the people’s repentance was only partial (e.g., Daniel 9:1ff; Nehemiah 9:1ff.). As the foundation of Moses and the Prophets had made clear, repentance was the crucial condition for restoration (Deut.30:1-3; Lev.26:14ff.; Jer.29:12-14; cf. Acts 3:19ff.). Thus when Christ came preaching the gospel, he declared: "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." A message that went, by and large, unheeded, and hence Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem and its impending destruction (Lk.19:41-44). Yet, I beleive, there was hope even then: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." I believe that the ‘till’ here is indicative of a future for ethnic Israel (as I understand the apostle’s ‘mystery’ concerning Israel in Romans 11). You go on to say, "New Testament apocalyptic language is for the most part drawn from prophetic descriptions of judgment on Israel (especially the Babylonian invasion and exile) and on Israel’s enemies which do not involve supernatural occurences." This is partially true. The judgment against the Assyrians in the Sennacharib invasion of Jerusalem was certainly supernatural. But more importantly, the language of the prophets, in so far as it applies to the Assyrian and Babylonian judgments of 722-586 BC and the restoration in the fifth and sixth century were not limited to these historical events, but pointed beyond themselves toward, and anticipated the great day of the Lord (see, for example, the ‘day of the Lord’ as both an historical event and a yet future eschatological event in Joel 1-2). Hence, the great battle of Armageddon is seemingly a recapitulation of Israel’s militaristic encournters of the past, as in Ezekiel 38-39 and Zechariah 12, and 14 (note also the two-fold eschatological battle in Rev.19 and 20). The apocalyptic language that the NT takes up from the OT, I would argue, is taken by and large from prophecies that did not find fulfillment in 538 BC (nor in the Maccabean revolt, which, as you suggested, seems to figure very little into the NT eschatology). E.g., Joel 2; Amos 9:11-12 (hence not only Psalm 89; Haggai 2:20-23, but, where in the world are the northern tribes, when is the full ‘tent’ of David restored, as promised to him and his descendents in 2Samuel 7:8-11). The grand promises of Isaiah and repeated in the post-exilic prophet Haggai, for example, of the nations bringing their wealth to God’s holy mountain is taken up in John’s picture of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:24-26. And frankly, though I can understand a partial preterist position, the idea that Revelation 21-22 has been fulfilled in the conversion of the Roman Empire stretches, in my mind, both the prophecies themselves and the historical events that apparently fulfill them well beyond the strictures of an historico-grammatical exegesis (even within the colorful imagery of apocalyptic literature, e.g., how is God any more revealed or in closer fellowship with His people after Constantine than after Pentecost, as 21:2-3, 22 suggests?). Nor do I understand how Daniel 12:3 predicts a literal resurrection, and yet was fulfilled before Christ’s first advent. "The cosmic language appears to denote not merely military defeat but substantial geo-political realignment, perhaps reflecting some sort of belief in heavenly counterparts to earthly powers. " To be sure, especially in light of Daniel’s visions. I would also argue that this cosmic language anticipates the great coming day of the Lord, in light of which all historical events take on their true meaning and are rightly interpreted as the unfolding of God’s sovereign plan of redemption. So, for example, the coming judgment against the nation of Joel 1 anticipates the eschatological judgment of chapter 2. The restoration under Cyrus anticipates the full restoration under Christ (Daniel 9). The redemption of God’s people in the exodus anticipates the great latter day exodus, when the sons and daughters of Zion will be brought from the four winds and gathered to Jerusalem, where their enemies will never harrass them again, and God Himself will dwell among them fully and finally in the new heavens and the new earth (Isaiah 65:17ff.; cf. Rev.21-22). |
Comments
Re: Prophecy and realism
Of course, the assumption here (that I would challenge) is that they ‘literally’ refer strictly to the historical fulfillments in the late 8th, 7th, and early 6th century.
No, this is an oversimplification, which may be my fault. The argument is that the New Testament sees fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies in the tumultuous transition from second temple Judaism to a vindicated global community in Christ. Exactly how we understand the nature or manner of this ‘fulfilment’ is another matter: In what ways does it extend, or transcend, or exclude earlier fulfilments in the history of Israel? To what extent is the extension intrinsic to the prophecy? To what extent is it a reinterpretation or reapplication of the prophecy? I don’t think there will be uniform answers to these questions; but I am certainly not suggesting that Old Testament prophecy refers only to Old Testament events.
The question that I want to ask is whether there is still something left unfulfilled after the eschatological crisis at the end of the age of second temple Judaism. Are we right to depict the future that we face today in the same terms that were used to depict the future of the church in the first century? I am arguing for a historical-realist hermeneutic that endeavours to make sense of prophecy within its appropriate context of interpretation.
I find the argument that the ‘final subject of all prophecy’ absurdly reductionist - Peter says that all the prophets proclaimed these days (Acts 3:24); he does not say that everything they said had to do with Christ. But, in a way, that’s my point: the New Testament interprets Old Testament prophecy in relation to the Christ-centred eschatological drama of judgment and renewal that took place in the first centuries, in ‘these days’.
Re: Prophecy and realism
But this is mostly speculation right? Is it not nessesary to take the text more literally and not read into it what someone of that time might have been thinking? That would be like over-analyzing a high school history book. I think you (we) are closer to actual answers when you combine OT, NT and other gospels and form a broader view of the story. Certainly not all writings are intended to be historical accounts? Some must simply be stories intended to teach a lesson to the reader.
Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
Yes, when this will actually have happened at the end of history.
So what are your reasons for thinking that a story about judgment on Israel through the instrumentality of a Godless political power, about the renewal of the people in the Spirit and the incorporation of foreigners, about the giving of kingdom to the Son of man, about the vindication of those who suffer out of loyalty to God, about the overthrow of the satanically inspired oppressor of the people of God, which is so clearly Rome, is not ‘fulfilled’ in the events of the early centuries? Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
"Because it isn’t clear, and wasn’t clear, to the church throughout history. You’d think God’s people would recognize their own vindication and the full realization of the prophets and apostles."
Actually I tend to agree with Andrew here. If we are operating in a post-modern framework here, why do we have to swallow everything related about "end-times" tradition whole? Even if we do so, what do we do with church fathers such as Eusebius who was essentialy a full-preterist, and placed all prophetic events, including the Second Coming of Jesus in the past? Perhaps things are hazy because of our own paradigms and baggage we carry with us. Certainly to Paul, Peter and John, the events of the Apocalypse were quite clear, imminent and real, perceived to happen within their lifetimes. Were these authors wrong then?
Virgi Vaduva
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
I find myself charting a course between the Scylla of Andrew’s (over) realised eschatology and the Charybdis of kingjames1’s futurism (rock and a hard place, frying pan and fire, devil and the deep blue sea, etc. It’s nice to represent the golden mean, via media etc.).
I don’t have a problem in seeing the destruction of the temple in AD 70 figuring rather larger in the NT than is generally given credence. I have some questions about the conflation of prophecy in Daniel 7 with that event, confusingly merged with a putative destruction of Rome. I do see reference to pagan empires such as Rome in the prophecy of Daniel 7, but don’t see an exclusive reference to a particular empire. Rather, I see the four beasts as generic paganism.
The problem with relating the fourth empire of Daniel 7 to Rome is that it is uncertain when Rome fell. Was it 410 AD when Rome was sacked by Alaric, 476 AD, when Odeacer overthew and supplanted the last Roman emperor Romulus Augustus, or was it 1453 when the eastern half of the empire fell to the Turks?
Or was it none of these dates. Perhaps the Roman empire never really fell at all: with the alliance of church and state under Constantine, and the subsequent development of a church which wielded the same sort of power as the pagan empires it had superseded, the Roman empire continued but now under the guise of the church (although pope and emperor co-existed in an uneasy power struggle - remember those school essays: "The Holy Roman Empire - neither holy, Roman nor an empire - discuss"?).
Detailed reading of church history across Europe from earliest times to at least the 18th century reveals a ‘church’ which brutally crushed religious dissent. Hundreds of thousands were either burnt at the stake or butchered in the name of suppression of heresy - and the Catholic church was not the only culprit, but it takes the blame for introducing coercion as a principle (the suppression of the Donatists in AD 317). This is the very heart of paganism expressed in the four beasts of Daniel.
The saints were far from being vindicated in the sense of being assured of victory over the pagan kingdoms of the world through a visibly enacted judgement on Rome, or any other pagan kingdom. That just never happened - the spirit of Rome lived on in the church. Some say that it continues so to live today - and not exclusively in the Roman Catholic Church, but as a principle of control which is evident in politics in the wider sphere of European history - a battle for control.
To appreciate the perspective church history brings to a reading of biblical prophecy, one has to read beyond the official versions, although even there it is obvious that brute force was the state church’s way of dealing with dissent. Wikipedia gives a great deal of information on churches which sought to evade the state church’s monopoly of power in European history - but unfortunately tends to repeat the ‘official’ version concerning the dissenting groups - which were widespread and thriving across Europe. Just type in words like Donatists, Montanism, Paulicians, Bogomils, Albigensians, Waldenses, Cathars, etc. To get a better picture of what these groups were like, E.H.Broadbent’s ‘The Pilgrim Church’ is a treasure trove of radical church history - illustrating through extensive quotation from primary documents a very different picture of these ‘sects’.
The major point to be made is that persecution of these churches - which clung to purer expressions of the faith than was permissible in the state church - was endemic throughout Europe until modern times. The existence of such groups and their persecution was also a significant and often little known feature of English history - through Wycliffe and the ‘Lollards’, in the 14th century, for instance. (Jan Huss probably adopted Wycliffe’s teachings through an intermediary who took his teachings to Prague).
So I would go for a broader understanding of the fall of Babylon in Revelation than limiting it to a debatable collapse of Rome in the 5th century. The fall of Babylon subsumes the demise of Rome, and all world empires and systems. It expresses not so much a particular visible system as a worldview underlying those systems, which, in their independence from God and rebellious pride, live in a state of constant tension with God’s ‘kingdom’, and experience constant judgements, which prefigure perhaps a final catastrophic judgement yet to come.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
The problem with relating the fourth empire of Daniel 7 to Rome is that it is uncertain when Rome fell.
Peter, why is this a problem? Prophecy doesn’t have to understand exactly how things are going to work out. The basic point is the assurance that God would put an end to the oppression of his people, that the idolatrous and blasphemous regime, ideology, system (which is not simply to be equated with ‘Rome’ as city or geo-political power) that was so closely associated in the minds of the early believers with Satan would be destroyed, would no longer be a threat to the saints. It is that imperially sanctioned persecution would come to an end. It is that the church would find itself vindicated, both publicly and eschatologically, for having taken the very dangerous path of loyalty to YHWH and challenging the claim that Caesar is Lord, Caesar is the son of god, Caesar is saviour. These are the matters that concerned the early church when they looked to the future.
The fact that subsequently the church superseded Rome and itself became oppressive lies beyond the horizon of New Testament eschatology. There may be analogies between the behaviour of the church and the behaviour of the pagan oppressor, there may even be spiritual continuities, but the eschatological narrative that we find in the New Testament, I would argue, simply does not stretch that far. It is the story of a pagan imperial power that aspires to take the place of YHWH (2 Thess.2:4) and ‘makes war against’ the people of God. A historical-realist hermeneutic ought in the first place to respect these limits. What happens afterwards is something that we have to explain in other ways. Otherwise we are trying to make the language of New Testament eschatology do much more than it was designed to do.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
"The problem with relating the fourth empire of Daniel 7 to Rome is that it is uncertain when Rome fell."
It’s a problem because the more limited horizon of NT eschatology, as Andrew is developing it, would not have brought into view a downfall of Rome. The great persecutions of Diocletian were 233 years after AD 70. Scarcely had these persecutions ceased when Constantine suppressed the Donatists, who stood for an uncompromised apostolic faith, with imperial force - a mere 12 years later, and so persecutions of the non-apostate church continued for the next 1350 and more years.
Jesus’s predictions about the downfall of Jerusalem (and the temple) were clearly seen in AD 70. The fall of Rome was not. The interpretation Andrew is offering concerning an application of Daniel 7 to Rome and NT eschatology doesn’t anchor itself in a specific way to Rome.
In this sense then, it makes sense to apply Daniel 7 to a different kind of interpretation of the coming of Jesus: an interim transfer of power through the ascension and outpouring of the Spirit in which a visible judgement on Rome (akin to that on Jerusalem) was not the primary outworking. This transfer of power would be a victory over paganism of all kinds (including more recent atheistic political systems) through the survival and growth of God’s kingdom of the Spirit.
What becomes difficult is to apply Daniel 7:13 etc to a specific geopolitical event which NT believers would have seen and understood in the way Andrew proposes it. That wasn’t visible within the horizon of NT eschatology.
Incidentally, I notice in the ‘pneumatology’ thread that a fundamental connection seems to be missing in the comments so far: that of the Spirit’s primary role to glorify Jesus. I’ll be returning to this, and the disjunction being suggested between pentecostal practice in the ‘modern’ and postmodern church, after a pause for breath.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
Kingjames,
You are making an argument out of perceived historical silence, i.e. there is no evidence of it in history, therefore it did not happen. By the same token, there is no historical evidence of Christ’s existence. What should we conclude from that?
Moreover, even your description of the "silence" is not entirely accurate. Gary DeMar, of American Vision has put together some very compelling arguments which suggest several of the early church fathers placed all prophecy in the past and connected it with the temple’s destruction in AD 70:
http://www.presence.tv/cms/shreds-demar.shtml
While I use the Church fathers and the hitorical writings of the Church as a guide for my faith, by no means do I go all out on a limb based on what they wrote. They were no superior to me in their understanding, and a two or three hundred year proximity to Jesus, limited communication, limited education and almost non-existent fully compiled set of Scriptures certainly does not give any one of them "better" understanding of the same text I read today.
"I too believe that the events are real and imminent (and have been for
2000 years), but to state that they ‘perceived’ the events of the
Apocalypse to happen within their lifetimes is to beg the question."
The New Testament is a collection of letters and writings addressed to specific recipients at a specific point in time. To say that the imminence was as real to them as it is real to you make very little sense to me. If that is the case, do we even bother at all considering the historical, cultural and social context of the Scripture, or does the Scripture mean anything to anyone, at any time?
Virgi Vaduva
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
‘Whoever these men were, they came right out of the first generation and in the land of Israel – with absolutely no inkling of an A. D. 70 resurrection or a past second Advent.’
Gentry’s response may be valid with regard to certain forms of preterism. My argument would be, however, that the ‘first resurrection’ of the martyrs was essentially a resurrection of the dead, of those who died during the ‘tribulation’, the birth-pains, that marked the eschatological transition - there’s no reason why the early church should have noticed anything different. Their dead were dead. But the assurance given in the New Testament is that these victims of persecution would be raised in Christ, at his parousia, would share in his vindication and glory, and would reign with him throughout the coming age.
And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead — yet not of all, but as it is said: “The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him.” Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven. (Didache 16:6-8)
It would be interesting to look at the early church fathers some time. A couple of thoughts regarding Didache 16 though. i) There is the same powerful sense of imminence, that the apocalyptically coloured New Testament prophecies about the ‘end’ were given for their benefit in their circumstances. They are ‘in the last time’ (16:2) and will face severe opposition, but those who ‘endure in their faith shall be saved’ (16:5). ii) The resurrection expected is not of all the dead but only of those who accompany the Lord at his coming. Of course, this can be interpreted in different ways, but it is certainly consistent with my argument that Christ incorporates in himself at his coming to the throne of God those who for his sake suffered from the oppressor.
There is no biblical record affirming, with the authority of divine scripture, the events of the first century fulfilled all prophecy.
This is silly, surely. These events lay ahead of the New Testament period. If the New Testament is a closed canon, there has to come a point when it is no longer possible to confirm what has happened. There is nothing to confirm the destruction of Jerusalem, for example, but you are willing to accept that it comes within the purview of Jesus’ teaching.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
Do I believe in a future revelation of God and of his Christ? We would have to look at the texts you allude to more carefully, but I suspect I would want to make a distinction between i) prophecies that relate to the extended and complex eschatological crisis of transition from the collapse of second temple Judaism to the emergence of a global, multi-ethnic church no longer subject to imperial aggression, and ii) the hope of a renewal of creation, at the heart of which is the new Jerusalem whose temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb. I think if we could put ourselves in the shoes of the early believers, we would understand how the ending of hostility and ostracism, the spread of the gospel across the Roman world, etc., might be seen as confirmation of prophecies about the vindication of Christ and the defeat of his enemies.
When did this happen (during AD 70 or thereafter), what did it ‘look like’ - how were the dead raised? Do you then deny the bodily resurrection of the dead?
There is no point in setting a date to it. It was a resurrection of those who died out of loyalty to Christ during this period of transition. It didn’t look like anything - I doubt if anyone saw it. They were raised to be with Christ, to accompany him on the clouds of heaven to receive a kingdom, to be seated at the right hand of God; they were not raised to walk this earth, because the resurrection body (I do not deny that resurrection is bodily) belongs to the new creation. They have been raised - exceptionally, as Christ was raised exceptionally - in advance of the final resurrection of the dead that will precede judgment and the appearance of a new heaven and a new earth.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
" - - - the emergence of a global, multi-ethnic church no longer subject to imperial aggression - - - "
Andrew - see my previous comment. The idea of a church no longer subject to imperial aggression is a myth - it never happened. The aggression continued for 235 years after AD 70 - and then picked up again 12 years later under Constantine - continuing in ‘church’ form for over 1300 years.
This thread is becoming bizarre. On the one hand, considerable energy is being expended in supporting a literal ‘first resurrection’, when a simple ‘this is a somewhat obscure text’ might be a more helpful and honest statement.
The other arguments on the physicality or otherwise of Jesus’s resurrection, termination of spiritual gifts in the 1st century, and necessary dating of all NT texts before AD 70 seem equally bizarre. Are we to insist on a pre-AD 70 composition of all the NT texts simply to support an AD 70 terminus theory of the kind Virgil seems to be pressing for?
Couldn’t we become somewhat more balanced in the way we make interpretations, and not insist a priori that the AD 70 interpetive construct must determine the way that the NT is read? This discussion is losing its grip on reality.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
“Couldn’t we become somewhat more balanced in the way we make interpretations, and not insist a priori that the AD 70 interpetive construct must determine the way that the NT is read? This discussion is losing its grip on reality.”
When my wife mentioned to me the possibility that Jesus has already returned at the destruction of the Temple, my reaction was the same. I thought to myself “this is not the woman I married…and what did I get myself into?”
Personally, I will not take offense at your insinuations. :) The early church has regularly placed all the writings of the New Testament before the fall of the temple, so what I am presenting is not something I came up with. There is broad and wide support for a pre-AD 70 date of the NT across church history and denominations, and it is not a matter of a priori assumption, but of internal and external evidence to be considered. I highly suggest reading Ken Gentry’s book titled Before Jerusalem Fell, Dating the book of Revelation. You can download it free online.
And rather than offend anyone further, I will try to not participate in this thread unless someone asks me to do so.
Virgil Vaduva
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
To understand all is to forgive all. At least, Kenneth Gentry is one of the most important and significant contributors to modern preterism, and I have been wanting to obtain a copy of this article for a long time. A pre AD 70 dating of Revelation has been a part of my theological armoury for a long time. But I would hesitate to insist that all the NT documents were written pre AD 70 (although I would like to think so). I think there is room for debate there. I have never been able to see the case for cessationism, simply because it asserts the termination of some gifts but not others. Eg the gift of encouragement/exhortation? I still think the thread was becoming bizarre, but that was becoming a feature of all the posts, not just one contributor.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
"But I would hesitate to insist that all the NT documents were written pre AD 70 (although I would like to think so)."
Peter, I encourage you to consider the evidence. I hate to keep recommending books, but it is easier to do so rather than rehash a whole host of arguments here and clutter andrew’s website. These arguments have been around for many hundreds of years by the way. John A.T. Robinson’s book Redating the New Testament is what I consider the Magnum Opus work on the dating of the New Testament books. He provides solid and convincing evidence for a pre AD 70 date for the NT.
"I have never been able to see the case for cessationism, simply because
it asserts the termination of some gifts but not others. Eg the gift of
encouragement/exhortation?"
I also have some remaining questions on this topic, but consider this. There seems to be a case for "gifts" existing outside of the presence of the Holy Spirit. When I think "gifts of the Holy Spirit" I think of miraculous gifts similar to the ones received at the pentecost, such as speaking in tongues, miraculous healing, teleportation, etc. These are gifts that we cannot see empirically today. Exortation, encouragement, financial help, helping the poor, are not miraculous gifts, rather they are a result of the one being renewed in Christ and becoming a new person, putting others first before oneself. We see these gifts continuing today, without a question.
I think the comment about "prophecy ceasing when the perfect comes" is simply in relation to the miraculous gifts. I am always fascinated by believers wanting to stay in the "imperfect, or the temporary" as if having those gifts is better than being in Christ’s presence.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
Virgil - I know of JAT Robinson’s dating of the NT texts (early), though I haven’t read it. Theology makes strange bedfellows. I’m in favour - but for all kinds of political reasons, not because I’ve an axe to grind about AD 70. Though I do with Revelation - where I go along with Gentry and some of the preterists, and Andrew, though not entirely. In other words, I would see much of Revelation as being about events leading up to AD 70. I’m happy for these also to have some end-time application yet to come, but not in the fantastically developed sense of pre- or a-millennialists generally.
Spiritual gifts? That’s not a phrase the bible uses, is it? I don’t see any difference in kind between spoken gifts of encouraging/exhorting, and spoken gifts of prophecy. Some reformed non-cessationists locate prophecy in preaching. It’s simply ‘speaking forth’ God’s words - something we do each time we tell a person how Jesus can save them (in the non narrative/historical/contextual/eschatological sense). As I was doing with an ex school pupil in a British public house (bar) on Friday night. There is no reason why this gift should have ceased at some hypothetical date in the 1st century. It was not an interim measure until the formation of the biblical canon, and bears no direct comparison with the written word.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
Peter,
Rather than considering the nature of the "gifts" let us consider the "source." The differentiation I see is this: a normal human being cannot prophesy accurately regarding the future without divine intervention. Preaching is not prophecy if we are to stick to the definition of the word. Also, normal people do not have the capacity to bring people from the dead, survive snake bites and be teleported across hundreds of miles in seconds. There was "something" at work giving these guys abilities to do those things. This is what I mean by "gifts of the holy spirit" in a first century context. These have ceased in my opinion.
As a secondary though, whil I do not want to start another discussion branch in this thread, I also want to ask you to consider the typology regarding first-century events. I did a pretty detailed article on this exact topic (you can read it here) and the conclusions are startling.
The first and most obvious typological relevance is the miraculous spirit/cloud/pillar of God guiding Israel throughout the desert for 40 years after leaving Egypt. The pillar provided light, food, guidance and protection to Israel. Now superimpose that on the 40 year period between AD 30 and AD 70 and we get the same picture of the Holy Spirit offering food, enlightment, guidance and protection to the "New Israel" of God on the way to the "better" promised land, the New Zion, the New Jerusalem. Consequently, the entrance in the first promised land was facilitated through the leadership of Joshua destroying obstacle Jericho. The entrance into the second was facilitated by the leadership of Jeshua (Jesus) through the destruction of the obstacle city Jerusalem (and the temple). The types and anti-types are many and vivid and provide further evidence of miraculous gifts being temporary in nature to facilitate the preaching of the gospel to the entire world and a rapid growth of the Church in the first century.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
Fascinating, Virgil; but ‘prophecy’ is not the same as ‘prediction’, in its OT as well as NT sense, and your typological interpretation of the 40 years between AD 30 & 70 suggests that in the promised land of the bible we don’t need to be led by the Spirit. (I know that’s an exaggeration - but it emphasises a point).
There are many different ways of applying typology, and I’d rather keep some of the promised land typology for now than let it all be used up in the 1st century. I don’t see any of the apostles implying that that period was a wilderness experience, like that of Israel in the desert. Rather, Jesus was the fulfilment of the promise - and in him all the promises are found to be fulfilled, including ‘the land’.
I’m sure I won’t be the only one to read your article, and look forward to perusing it at leisure.
In the meantime I’m hungry for as much of the Spirit as I can get - which would include raising the dead. I’m doubful if this one is intended as a frequent phenomenon - it might threaten the population balance. But I’ve met and know people who have ‘died’ medically and been brought back to life. (That’s also an exaggeration - I know one such person, whom I have met in the flesh).
I’ve also met people who have had supernatural experience of healing - and to be honest, we prayed here in the church for two people who were facing drastic surgery and lengthy hospitalisation/convalescence two weeks ago, and they were both out of hospital within 48 hours - one nearly giving the surgeon a relapse when he saw how well she was. Was that healing?
I’ve also seen, experienced personally and participated in deliverance from demons, and have had personal experience through use of what some call words of knowledge (insight about a person revealed supernaturally, which in John 4 is also called prophecy), words of wisdom, words of faith - speaking in tongues and interpretation of tongues, both as a devotional tool and public ministry.
And yet I claim to be no more effective than any cessationist living close to God. I just want all that’s available from God - and in fact I wouldn’t be able to minister effectively without some of these tools.
There was some suggestion in an earlier post that the pentecostal/charismatic experience/history of the last century is something we could do without. That’s not the case for me.
Having said all of that, my main area of gifting is in bible teaching. So I suppose from your point of view I may be in danger of propagating serious error.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
Peter,
I would NEVER even dare suggest that the pentecostal/charismatic experience is useless or "wrong." I used to be very anti-charismatic (as I was anti-catholic) in my opinions and early writings, but I have come to realize that they are some of the most wonderful Christians I know, full of grace, genuine faith and gentleness. Perhaps my own theology can lead me to conclude they are "misguided," but honestly, I do not care. Cessationalism is not something I am willing to start a war over. Yes, I can discuss it in a dry theology forum all day, but when hearts are being broken and spirits are hurt, it would be time to quit and change topics.
Prayer is a very powerful tool by the way, simply being used as a communication tool with God in a post-Parousia environment. Why do you think I would be surprised to hear that God answers the prayers of the faithful for the sick? Since we are spending our lives in God’s living presence, I expect the answer to prayer to be even more pronounced, be it yes or not.
Also, I hope I never suggested that you are "in danger of propagating serious error." I don’t even know what "serious error" would mean in that context. Bible teaching seems to be quite in line with what we see happening in the New Jerusalem, where we see the fruit of the Tree of Life (I suggest that is you and I) being there for the healing of the nations. Are you not healing your community, your nation and the world by teaching scripture? :)
Virgil Vaduva
Theological interbreeding
Virgil, I may be missing something here but I don’t really see where offence comes into it. Overt preterism (as opposed to my covert form!) is a new element on this site and will take some getting used to. To my way of looking at it, preterism is another one of those theological mindsets that has evolved too much in isolation from other communities of belief - there has been too little interchange of theological DNA. We all belong to one evolutionary subgroup or another, we have our preferred ways of thinking, our characteristic biases - and as a result we have to work rather hard now to interbreed, to reverse the differentiation that has taken place over the years, to understand one another and learn from one another. I hope we will be able to model good, respectful, constructive, candid and faithful conversations between all sorts of different Christian perspectives on this site. Take that as my invitation to stay involved.
Re: Theological interbreeding
Andrew,
Thanks for the invitation. I always try to tread lightly in situations such as this one because of the very things you mention. We are all (including myself) so predisposed and loaded with paradigms and tradition that is hard to communicate effectively without offending others or without appearing forceful in an argument.
"To my way of looking at it, preterism is another one of those
theological mindsets that has evolved too much in isolation from other
communities of belief - there has been too little interchange of
theological DNA."
I appreciate the candor and opennes. You are absolutey right. We often want to interact mostly with those who "agree" with us, so that creates, to use your own term a sort of theological "inbreeding" leading to all sorts of weird "mutations." Heck, some of us think they discovered some great theological truth and they think they have arrived at the summit of their Christianinty, when in fact it is only the beginning. I am more concerned with the now aspect of fulfilled prophecy. Where are we now? Does this affect my soteriology? Is there still a prophetic context to be considered today? How do we deal with the problem of evil? Where is Satan today? etc..
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
The idea of a church no longer subject to imperial aggression is a myth - it never happened. The aggression continued for 235 years after AD 70 - and then picked up again 12 years later under Constantine - continuing in ‘church’ form for over 1300 years.
To get back to the theme of prophecy and realism, my response to this backward-looking view of things would be to suggest that if we were looking forward from the situation of the early church, we would see basically the confrontation with the imperial cult but nothing much beyond that. The possibility that the church itself might become corrupt and oppressive is simply beyond the horizon of realistic prophecy. I might hazard a principle here, that biblical prophecy normally (we might have to make an exception for Daniel, which is why, in effect, this book is so problematic) makes future-oriented statements about currently prevailing situations, currently existing political entities. So prophecy will say something about the Rome that the church encounters or can imagine encountering but not the Rome of a corrupt medieval papacy, or the Rome of Mussolini, or the Rome of the European Union.
By the way, bizarre though the ‘first resurrection’ thesis may appear, it certainly doesn’t depend on a reading of a single obscure text - it is simply that John’s distinction between a first and a second resurrection most succinctly captures the hope of a premature resurrection of those who suffer and die during the birth-pains of the new age. The thesis would survive perfectly well without Revelation. I would also suggest that this reading, though somewhat foreign to our customary understanding of New Testament eschatology, is fully realistic given a background belief in the vindication of the martyrs, the shaping influence of an apocalyptic tradition that has its origins in the drama of Daniel 7-12, and the example of Christ for imitation.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
Andrew - I buy into your ‘forward looking’ (from a 1st century viewpoint) view entirely. I just don’t see any event (from that viewpoint) which would have signified to believers of that time an overthrow of the imperial cult, either as a ‘sign’ or a reality. Unless we are looking (as I propose) at the ascension and outpoured Spirit.
If AD 70 was a parousia of Jesus (Son of Man) which ‘judged’ Jerusalem and its temple, I don’t see a corresponding parousia which judged Rome. The latter can’t be inferred from the former. There wasn’t any fall of Rome which could be linked to divine retribution for the destruction of the temple or the persecution of the saints. Certainly not within the horizon of 1st century Christianity.
The ‘first resurrection’ - isn’t it likely that someone, somewhere would have noticed a body had gone missing in a tomb and would have said something about it? Or was it a ‘spiritual’ resurrection without bodies - which would be a departure from the way resurrection was perceived within Judaism and the NT generally.
Where else in the NT is there reference to a first resurrection?
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
Do we really need to see an event from that viewpoint? What mattered was that the enemy of the people of God would not ultimately triumph, indeed would be defeated by the God who always assured Israel that he would ‘descend’ and rescue them from their enemies - hence the reliance on Old Testament language. I don’t see how the ascension and Pentecost would fulfil this expectation. The overriding point - and the matter of overriding concern to the earliest believers - is that the enemy who sought to make himself equal to God, who sought to usurp the place of God, who made war against Israel at the end of its period of judgment following the exile, who killed God’s anointed, would not triumph.
I’ve always said that the New Testament motif of Christ coming on the clouds of heaven should not be restricted to AD 70. In fact, I’ve made the point that it doesn’t directly relate to AD 70 at all. Climactic judgment comes on Israel in the form of foreign invasion, not least because Israel collaborated with the foreign power - that is part of Daniel’s narrative. But the ‘beast’ that makes war on the people of God - both the wicked and the righteous - must be destroyed: this is Daniel’s vision of the destruction of the fourth beast. Following this the Son of man is seen coming on the clouds of heaven to receive the kingdom, so (if the general thesis is right about the significance of the whole Son of man narrative for understanding the New Testament - big if!) the parousia relates more closely to the defeat of Israel’s enemies than to the judgment on Israel. This makes particularly good sense in relation to what Paul has to say about his communities in the pagan world for whom the invasion of Judea is relatively insignificant.
Again, I’ve made this point a couple of times. There is no need to look for an actual bodily resurrection - not because resurrection is not bodily but because it presupposes the new creation. Those who die in Christ in this specific sense are raised in Christ and raised to be with Christ, who is not here but in heaven. They are raised for the purpose of vindication and to share in Christ’s reign. But that is a retrospective explanation - it may be that the early church conceived of this resurrection in more worldly terms, so that they would be raised and taken up into heaven to share in the parousia in much the same fashion as Christ himself had been raised from the tomb and taken up into heaven. To my mind the important thing is not to interpret the expectation in such a way as to diminish the contingency of these prophecies, their relevance to the communities which actually faced the hardship and hostility that are described.
The phrase ‘first resurrection’ is not found elsewhere in the New Testament but it is reflected in the overall apocalyptic pattern and, I would suggest, quite specifically in 1 Cor. 15:23-24 (the exegetical support for this is in COSM but I accept that it’s a contentious point).
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
"Do we really need to see an event from that viewpoint?"
Just clarification really: I don’t know which viewpoint you are referring to. But either looking forward from an attempted identification with 1st century believers, or looking backwards from now, I don’t see where the application of Daniel 7 as a national overthrow of Rome occurs - but I do see the downfall of all worldly tyranny, Rome included, in the ascension and outpoured Spirit. An authority that is above all worldly authority, a power that heralds the coming, but as yet incomplete expression of a kingdom that will outlast them all - headed by that supreme authority, that bids all other powers to its allegiance.
As regards the ‘first resurrection’, I can see its symbolic significance - as symbol, nothing more. But if the resurrection was only spiritual, it is no more than what happens to all who die believing in Jesus - whether martyred or not.
At which point, Andrew, your move in the game is to say that all who die believing in Jesus do not experience life with Jesus until the general resurrection at the end of time. At which point, I say I disagree with you, but avoid referring to the dying thief, to save you the trouble of saying that the thief represents reprobate Israel turning to her messiah and participating in the first resurrection; at which point I say that the thief was hardly being martyred for the faith but was suffering the judicial fate of a brigand, at worst, or an anti-Rome terrorist, at best.
Your move?
New thread on resurrection
In response to the questions about resurrection I started a new thread: ‘The resurrection of those in Christ’.
Your restriction of prophecy renders the NT dishonest in claiming to be the fulfillment of the Law and prophets.
I strongly disagree with this. I would argue to the contrary that the hermeneutic I am advocating takes very seriously the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy in the New. The issue is not whether the prophecy is fulfilled bu how it is interpreted, and in particular how we understand its frame of reference.
For example, you cite 1 Peter 1:11, implying that while the prophecies of Christ’s suffering were fulfilled in the New Testament, we still wait for the ‘subsequent glory’. You may be right. My argument would be, though, that behind this statement is an apocalyptic narrative shaped principally by Daniel 7 (the suffering Son of man figure receives glory from the Ancient of Days) that has as its historical frame of reference Israel’s experience judgment and renewal. Both aspects of what was prophesied are taken into account.
I think that there are good exegetical reasons (see COSM 70-73) for reading Acts 3:18-21 in the same way. We don’t need to go into the details here - my point is simply that the reading allows for the fufilment of Old Testament prophecies about the judgment and salvation of Israel in the historical events that Peter and this crooked generation were living through. I see no dishonesty here.
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
"Unless, of course, there is the future, special revelation of the
coming Son of Man, when "the perfect comes" and "we will know fully,
even as we are fully known", when the mystery of God has been fully
accomplished (Revelation 10:7). Do you not believe a future revelation of God and of His Christ?"
The reference to "perfect" you are making is out of context. Paul’s complete words in 1 Cor. 13 are: "For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away" - see v. 8 also referencing speaking in tongues.
Evidently, Paul here is teaching that when the "perfect" (Christ) comes, the partial (gifts of prophecy, holy spirit, etc) will be done away. The text here seems to be teaching the exact opposite of what you are suggesting :)
Therefore, we see no gifts of prophecy, speaking in tongues, and other miraculous gifts after the fall of the Jewish temple. For the same reasons, all book of the New Testament have been completed before the temple fell as well. The mystery has been fully accomplished, so it seems, therefore there is likely no current or future miraculous revelatory work from God to mankind.
Virgil Vaduva
[Comment moved to new thread]
[This comment has been moved to a new thread: Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?. Appended comments have been transferred with it.]
Re: Why do we still have to wait until the end of history?
"Certainly to Paul, Peter and John, the events of the Apocalypse
were quite clear, imminent and real, perceived to happen within their
lifetimes."I too believe that the events are real and
imminent (and have been for 2000 years), but to state that they
‘perceived’ the events of the Apocalypse to happen within their
lifetimes is to beg the question.
Is it at all possible that what Paul, Peter, John and others reffered to as the imminent and real apocalypse was really happening to the world as they knew it. This, perhaps, was not an end to life on earth but an end to life as they knew it to be. We are still hundreds of years away (at that point in history) from people realizing that the world was not flat right? The text must be read in the context of the time as well as the known "world-view" of those who contributed to it.
Re: Prophecy and realism
Within a previous post, Andrew offered the following comments:
There is some misunderstanding here. I do not regard these visions as having been fulfilled in the conversion of the Roman empire. This is how I read the sequence of events at the end of Revelation. The defeat of Babylon the great, Rome, constitutes the final historical realization of Christ’s lordship over the people of God (18-19); the satanic power that inspired Rome is restrained but not destroyed (20:1-3); those who suffered and died during this period of conflict are raised and reign with Christ for a thousand years (20:4-6), which is where we are now; at the end of that (symbolic) period comes a final judgment of all the dead (20:11-14) and the appearance of a new heaven and a new earth (21-22), which determines the fundamental eschatological hope that we now have - that death and wickedness will not have the final say.
For the purpose of conversation, I would like to offer the following explanation to the sequence of events at the end of Revelation.
This is how I read the sequence of events at the end of Revelation:
The defeat of the whore (Mystery Babylon the great), Jerusalem, the seat of apostate Judaism, constitutes the final realization of Christ’s lordship over the people of God (18-19); the satanic power that inspired apostate Judaism is restrained but not destroyed (20:1-3); those who suffered and died during this period of conflict (ca. 30 -70 AD) are raised and reign with Christ for a thousand years (20:4-6), which is where we are now (10 Feb. 2006). In the future, at the end of that thousand year (symbolic) period the "restrained satanic power that inspired apostate Judaism" before the Parousia is released from restraint (20:7) to again deceive the nations (20:8). This deception leads to a great "battle;" pitting Gog/Magog against the "saints" (20:8-10) with the saints as the ultimate victors because of the intervention of God (20:9-10). The end of this battle is followed by a final judgment of the "rest of the dead" (20:5, 11-15) which determines the fundamental eschatological hope that we now have - that death and wickedness will not have the final say.
The creation of the new heaven and the new earth is covenantal language describing the transition from an old covenant (i.e. the old heaven and earth - the Mosaic Marriage Covenant) which was decaying, growing old, and was about to vanish from the scene (Hebrews 8:13) and be replaced by a new covenant marriage to Jesus Christ (Romans 7:4; cf. 2Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 21:2, 9-22:6).
The old covenant age was to end with the fiery destruction of its temple system (Peter 3:7-13), including the temple and the city in which it dwelt. The destruction of this old covenant system (i.e. the old heaven and earth) in 70 AD constituted the realization of Christ’s lordship over the people of God (18-19) and revealed that the first century Jew and Gentile Christians are the true "sons of God" (Romans 8:19; et al.), the true "chosen" people of God, 1Peter 2:-10) as opposed to the apostate Jews who were claiming and still claim to be the true "chosen people of God."
Thus the new heaven and the new earth, which began as a whispered promise at the crucifixion of Jesus and increased to a loud voice at Pentecost, became a reality at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem upon the Parousia event.
A tale of two (or three) cities
I’ve never really understood how the identification of Babylon with Jerusalem is made, when the thread of imagery from Daniel through 2 Thessalonians to Revelation so strongly suggests a pagan power. What are the reasons for this?
I pointed out in The Coming of the Son of Man that the acts of judgment in the first part of Revelation (seals and trumpets) all draw on OT texts that describe judgment on Jerusalem, whereas the acts of judgment recounted in the second part (bowls) all draw on texts that describe judgment on Israel’s enemies. My argument, therefore, is that Revelation is a tale of two cities - three if you include the new Jerusalem that descends from heaven.
I’m also confused by your reading of the new creation at the end of Revelation. Does this belong to the ‘fundamental eschatological hope that we now have’ - and are these meant to be your words or mine? Or is ‘new creation’ a metaphor for the new covenant?
Re: A tale of two (or three) cities
Andrew - I should have given you Virgil’s notes on preterism (aagh!) when we had coffee in the Hayward coffee house on Thursday. He provides five points of identification (of Babylon and Jerusalem in Revelation):
i. She fills herself with the blood of the prophets and saints - Rev 16:6, 18:20, 24; cf Matt 23:37, Acts 7:52
ii. She is ‘the great city where also the Lord was crucified’ - Rev 11:8 - cp 17:18, 18:10, 16, 19, 21
iii. The image of the unfaithful wife, the harlot, was also used in the OT
iv. Babylon’s luxurious riches provide comparison between her dress and the high-priest’s ephod - Rev 17:3-5/Exodus 28:5-6, 36; the temple tapestry matches the colours of the Babylonian tapsetry in Wars 5.5.4; the gold cup reflects the temple’s implements; etc etc
v. Her destruction - death by stoning; replacement by a new bride - the new Jerusalem.
I don’t go with all of Lloyd’s points though. Sorry to butt in.
Re: A tale of two (or three) cities
[Andrew wrote]
I’ve never really understood how the identification of Babylon with Jerusalem is made, when the thread of imagery from Daniel through 2 Thessalonians to Revelation so strongly suggests a pagan power. What are the reasons for this?
There are many, actually very many reasons for this. These reasons are carefully documented in two powerful books: Who is this Babylon by Don K. Preston and The Olive Tree Mystery by Lloyd Dale.
I will try to summarize those reasons for you:
First some general principles:
In my understanding, the Bible, especially from Genesis 12 to Revelation 22:21, is essentially a book of covenantal establishment, covenantal history, covenantal prophecy/promise, and covenantal promise fulfilled. Therefore, when we study the Bible it is essential to keep all these aspects of covenant in proper perspective. In my opinion, it is impossible to understand the NT properly without a proper understanding of "covenantal history" and "covenantal promise" because the NT is primarily and essentially a book of covenantal fulfillment. Any attempt to try to understand the Bible without keeping our studies within these covenantal contexts is doomed to failure. The precise covenants that must be kept in mind as we study are: The Abrahamic Covenant established (Genesis 12-17), The Mosaic Marriage Covenant "added to the Abrahamic Covenant 430 years later (Galatians 3:17); The New Marriage Covenant with Jesus Christ (Jeremiah 31:31ff; Hebrews 8:8ff; Luke 22:20; 1Corinthians 11:25).
Key points in the Mosaic Marriage Covenant:
Betrothal (Exodus 6), Marriage enacted (Exodus 19), Marriage Law given (Exodus 20, et al.), Israel’s violations of the Marriage Law (2Kings 17:21-23; et al.), divorce of the house of Israel (Jeremiah 3:8; Hosea et al.), Divorce certificate promises to the house of Israel (Hosea, Amos, et al.), the last days of the Mosaic Marriage Covenant (Hebrews 1:2; et al.), and the end of the Mosaic Marriage Covenant Matthew 24; Revelation; et al.)
From the NT:
The central controversy in the first century was the identity of the Children of God. The fall of Babylon would settle that issue. This identifies Mystery Babylon as first century Herod temple Judaism in the city of Jerusalem.
Mystery Babylon the harlot is filled with the blood of the prophets and saints - Rev 16:6, 18:20, 24; cf Matt 23:37, Acts 7:52
She is ‘the great city where also the Lord was crucified’ - Rev 11:8 - cp 17:18, 18:10, 16, 19, 21
Her luxurious riches provide comparison between her dress and the high-priest’s ephod - Rev 17:3-5/ Exodus 28:5-6, 36; the temple tapestry matches the colors of the Babylonian tapestry in Wars 5.5.4; the gold cup reflects the temple’s implements; etc etc.
Her destruction - death by stoning (Rev 16:21, cf. 8:7) and fire (Rev 17:16) the Law’s penalty for harlotry.
Her replacement by a new bride - the new Jerusalem (Gal 4:25-31; 2Cor 11:2; Rev 19:7-9, 21:2)
From the OT:
The image of Jerusalem/Judah as the unfaithful wife of God, the harlot, was used many times in the OT (Jer 3:8; Ezek 16; 23; et al.)
Jerusalem presented as the bloody city (Ezek 22) full of abominations (cf. Jeremiah) and committing lewdness (22:9).
The second temple city; Jerusalem, and religion; temple and temple worship, came from Babylon full of whoredoms (Ezra; Nehemiah; Malachi)
As the evidence mounts up, the conclusion is inescapable - Jerusalem the city of harlotry and abominations is Mystery Babylon the great, The mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.
I pointed out in The Coming of the Son of Man that the acts of judgment in the first part of Revelation (seals and trumpets) all draw on OT texts that describe judgment on Jerusalem, whereas the acts of judgment recounted in the second part (bowls) all draw on texts that describe judgment on Israel’s enemies.
That’s an interesting assertion. Which texts do you identify which you think support your conclusion?
I think that there is a relative easy solution to your conundrum, but I want to see your answer to the above question before I provide that possible solution.
I’m also confused by your reading of the new creation at the end of Revelation. Does this belong to the ‘fundamental eschatological hope that we now have’ - and are these meant to be your words or mine? Or is ‘new creation’ a metaphor for the new covenant?
The new creation, i.e. the new heaven and the new earth in Revelation 21:1, is the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25; cf. Jer 31;31ff & Heb 8:8ff) which created the "new Jerusalem" i.e. "the bride of Christ;" thus, this is the basis for the ‘fundamental eschatological hope that we now have!’
These are your words reworked to become mine, which was done to show my basic agreement with you, that the resurrection of "the rest of the dead" in Rev 20:11-15 shows that evil does not win in the end.
Yes, as I understand it "’new creation’ is a metaphor for the new covenant" which may also be understood as a product of the new covenant.
Re: A tale of two (or three) cities
Lloyd - I’m flattered that you borrowed my summary of the texts associating Babylon in Revelation with Jerusalem in your rejoinder to Andrew! But the credit really goes to Virgil - from whose little summary paper on Covenantal Eschatology (Preterism) I took the information. Are you both inhabitants of planetpreterism.com?
I’m not 100% sure how your scheme works out - as I would personally be unable to make a final and definitive identification of Revelation’s Babylon with Jerusalem; I wouldn’t want to paint myself into a corner in quite that way. I think the imagery lends itself to Rome as well as Jerusalem, but also to world economic/political systems in general - so I see a futurist dimension to the imagery as well. One day the whole system will come crashing down - to resounding angelic choirs singing the hallelujah chorus from Handel’s Messiah. Tickets available through lastminute.com
The wonderful thing about Revelation is how it lends itself to so many scenarios - throughout time. It’s an encouragement to believers under the pressure of persecution in all ages. I also like the view that it’s John’s version of the synoptic apocalypses - that seems to work very well. Like those, it can be anchored in the 1st century, and broadened out for all time. But I’m digressing. Thanks for your interesting contributions. When are you going to give us the full version of ‘the kingdom’ - as seen from your interpretive standpoint?
P.S. Rome was built on ‘seven hills’, but so is Jerusalem, Constantinople - and Sheffield in the UK. (Guildford also - where I live). Could these be identified with the allusions to the "seven heads (that) are seven hills on which the woman sits" Revelation 19:9. A fairly flexible metaphor, I’d say!
Re: A tale of two (or three) cities
But the credit really goes to Virgil - from whose little summary paper on Covenantal Eschatology (Preterism) I took the information. Are you both inhabitants of planetpreterism.com?
Peter, I am glad that these points are making the wheels turn. I have very little concern in convincing anyone that I am "right" about these things…the dialogue is much more important, because that’s the only way I could find out if perhaps I am wrong (which is a very rare occurence by the way…hehe)
No but seriously, you have no idea how much I appreciate you and Andrew and others…and the outlet provided here for everyone to ask the hard questions and be allowed to speak on these topics openly.
Also, Dr. Duncan McKenzie also just posted an excellent excerpt from his upcoming book on the importance of the smaller details regarding the identity of Babylon and why it perhaps is a reference to Jerusalem. Check it out if here if you have time.
- virgil
Re: A tale of two (or three) cities
Hi Peter,
Actually, lists similar to the one you posted have been circulating around for years. I had that information in my possession at least 10 years ago. I did modify and use the list you posted because it was right there in front of us. That list could be expanded considerably.
To answer your question – No, I am not an inhabitant on PlanetPreterist.com.
“The wonderful thing about Revelation is how it lends itself to so many scenarios - throughout time. I think the imagery lends itself to Rome as well as Jerusalem, but also to world economic/political systems in general - so I see a futurist dimension to the imagery as well. One day the whole system will come crashing down - to resounding angelic choirs singing the hallelujah chorus from Handel’s Messiah. Tickets available through lastminute.com”
While Revelation may “lend itself well to many scenarios, it is only about one and that one is the Destruction of Jerusalem, the victory of the Son of God, the identity of the Children of God and their crossing into the promised land by the resurrection and rapture of 1Corinthians 15:23, 51- 53; cf. 1Thessalonians 4:16-17.
That having been said let me also say that I agree with you that “one day the whole system will come crashing down…”
You asked, “When are you going to give us the full version of ‘the kingdom’ - as seen from your interpretive standpoint?”
I did not know that anyone was interested. To give you “the full version of ‘the kingdom’” as I see it would take a small book and I have not written that yet. Perhaps we could begin here with a thumb nail sketch. (please remember that this is a brief sketch of my understanding which is not fully develop as yet, therefore, it is subject to change as these things are clarified by additional study which includes interaction with others like you, Andrew, etc.)
As I understand what the Bible says about the kingdom – it was first promised to Abraham, and then the details of that promised kingdom were given by Samuel and other prophets. Thus one might say that basically the OT is the record of the details of promises about the kingdom while the NT is the record of the fulfillment of those details of that promised kingdom.
Within the NT we find many references to this promised kingdom in the "kingdom of God," the "kingdom of heaven," the "kingdom of Christ" and several derivatives such as "His kingdom," "His heavenly Kingdom," the "kingdom of our Lord," etc.
Most, but certainly not all, students of the Bible assume that all these appellations are just different references to the same kingdom and do not give these appellations any further thought. While I agree that these various appellations are in fact different appellation references to the same kingdom; I think that a specific distinction is intended by the various biblical authors. In my opinion, the appellation the "kingdom of God" is intended to be a statement about the one that is going to establish the kingdom. Daniel 2:44 states, "…the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom, i.e. "the kingdom of God."
While the appellations; "the kingdom of heaven" and "His heavenly kingdom" are intended by the authors Matthew and Paul to be specific references to the location of the kingdom, i.e. in heaven.
Finally, the appellations "the kingdom of Christ," "His kingdom," and the "kingdom of our Lord" are intended as declarations of the one who is to rule/reign in the kingdom, i.e. Jesus Christ.
John the Baptist began the fulfillment by preaching, “repent ye for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The balance of the NT records more description of this kingdom, its time of actual establishment, etc.
As I understand the fulfillment of the kingdom as given in the NT which correlates with the promises in the OT – the coming of the kingdom was preached from John until the Parousia of Jesus Christ ca. 70 AD which is when the kingdom was established by the resurrection rapture of the first century saints and their re-union with Him in the “heavenly kingdom” which God had established for Him and His bride. Christ and His bride presently rules in that heavenly kingdom.
While this may be subject to change with additional study, at present I am inclined to think that the bride of Christ was the redemption of Israel which in the 8th century BC had been “scattered” among and “swallowed up” by the gentiles (Hosea 8:8, et al.) while the first century non-Israelite gentile believers and the first century Jewish believers were the guests invited to the wedding (cf. Hosea 2:14-23; Matthew 22:2-14; 2Cor 11:2).
It appears that the wedding was consummated by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
The heavenly kingdom rules over the earthly portion of the greater kingdom and each person from 70 AD until the present and beyond who believes and dies in Christ is immediately resurrected (metamorphosed) into the heavenly kingdom to be with Jesus, his bride, and the others who are presently there in "spiritual bodies. "
All prophecy relative to the establishment of the kingdom has been fulfilled. This would include all prophecy in the NT, including Revelation with the exception of a few verses in 1Corinthians 15, the first sentence of Revelation 20:5 and all of 20:7-15. The events described in these passages will be fulfilled sometime in our future (this is the time which you describe above as “one day the whole system will come crashing down…”).
By that time Jesus Christ shall have subdued all His enemies, put down all other rule, all other authority, all other power, and He will then deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father that God may be all in all.
Re: Prophecy and realism
I think we should save the bible and Christianity from the notion that prophecy is "telling the future". Sometimes I think Christians are no better than those late night 1-900 number commercials that want to tell your future for $3.99/minute. It IS possible to follow Jesus and embrace the bible without believing that people (or God) can “tell the future”. The future hasn’t happened so it can’t be told. Life is not a science fiction movie.
What if biblical prophets were not so spooky but instead they were radical politically minded poets that spoke against that status quo of the imperialistic domination systems of their day? What if I am a prophet when I say the USA will eventually reap grave results from its horrible foreign policy in the Middle East. What if I wrote a grand poem or parable about how a great sand beast would rise from the desert and strike the USA? I bet I would be right (eventually). My point is that prophesy doesn’t have to be so goofy if we stop trying to take it’s metaphors literally and just look at it like poetry that tells us more about the poet and his situation than it does about God and the future. We need to realize the important point to glean from prophesy is the motive and intentions of the prophet. We should look at their texts and see what it is they are speaking against and not focus on how their parables or dreams actually may have been right or wrong. All biblical prophets are speaking against the domination systems of Egypt, Israel, or Rome. Even the Gospels are filled with metaphorical political dissent from the Roman Empire. For example calling Jesus the “son of god” was a heavy anti-empire statement because it was a common term used for the Caesar who in Roman theology was the son of the god Apollo.
One thing that you can be certain of is that ALL empires will fall, so ANY prophet that speaks about the fall of an empire will eventually be correct. I don’t say this to mean that we should throw away the prophetic texts of the bible. I mean the exact opposite! We should cherish what these prophets tell us about how dominating empires are evil and oppressive. But we should also place these prophesies up against the teachings of Jesus that warn us NOT to battle the empire with force. We should adopt Jesus’ teachings about non-violent resistance of domination systems even it means giving our lives.
You could make all kinds of cases for how biblical prophesies have been fulfilled or will be fulfilled and you would probably be correct because they are essentially all the same prophesy. They all tell us that the empire (Egypt, the Jewish Temple, Rome, France, Germany, Russia, USA, etc) will eventually fall and the peasants will be given justice (freedom, a promised land, a great leader, or some other kind of vindication).
Re: Prophecy and realism
"What if biblical prophets were not so spooky but instead they were
radical politically minded poets that spoke against that status quo of
the imperialistic domination systems of their day? What if I am a
prophet when I say the USA will eventually reap grave results from its
horrible foreign policy in the Middle East."
Well, I would say that you are no prophet…sorry. :) That would be a nice notion, and prophets might have not been "spooky" at all…in fact I do not believe they were, but prophecy was a serious matter to Israel, and certainly political activism can hardly be equated with prophecy.
For one to even be considered a "prophet" his or her predictions were required to come true, otherwise he would perhaps even face death as a "false prophet" at the hands of the people:
"From early times the prophets who preceded you and me have prophesied
war, disaster and plague against many countries and great kingdoms. But the prophet who prophesies peace will be recognized as one truly sent by the LORD only if his prediction comes true" - Jeremiah 28
"You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place
or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet
has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." - Deut. 18
Evidently prophecy has everything to do with the future from the prophets perspective AND with accuracey. I think the idea that advocates separating prophecy from "telling the future" is true in the context of prophecy being fulfilled completely in the first century. But advocating that notion historically, now that’s another matter altogether, and I see no basis for even speculating it, not to mention that the Lord "spoke" through prophets, and nobody else. Are you suggesting that opposing American agression and imperialism is what God wants or is what "the Lord is speaking" today? :)
Virgil Vaduva
Re: Prophecy and realism
When you tie the bible to supernatual events you are dooming it to failure. But go ahead if you must. I’d prefer to offer the world a better explaination and a better solution.
I am suggesting that the Bible is from the begining to the end an anit-imperialistic document. It’s core message is a warning about what happens when we as humans build empires rather than focus on love and community. The US is no exception and eventually we will fall into the same mindset as every other empire because that is what human empires do best.
The reality is that my little sarcastic prophesy IS correct. You could make a great argument that every time a suicide bomber kills US soldiers in Iraq that my prophesy of the sand beast is true. Therefore I am a great prophet! I use that only as an example and don’t mean to make this about US/IRAQ conflict.
The point is that prophesy is telling either what we fear will happen or sometimes what we want to happen. In either case we are just projecting possible outcomes based on our political or emotional objectives. Prophesy is valid art/poetry regardless of what happens in the future because it tells of our desires and fears. It is important to study ancient prophetic writings because that is how we learn the mood and intent of the cultures we are studying.
All prophets want to be false prophets. For example, don’t you think the OT prophets like Amos wanted to be proven false? Wasn’t their main objective to STOP what they thought was going to happen? They were not predicting the future they were painting a picture of what would happen if people didn’t listen to them and change course. Wouldn’t the most successful prophet be the one that actually got the people to change course and was then proven false?
Re: Prophecy and realism
Apologies for not dealing with all the details. These matters are complex and the most I can do is suggest lines of interpretation.
I have no problem with the argument that the New Testament finds meaning in the Old Testament texts that transcends the historical events to which they ‘literally’ refer. I’m more inclined to attribute this to the creative imagination of Jesus and the apostles in reapplying the prophecies than to the intrinsic referentiality of the Old Testament texts, but the hyperbolic nature of prophetic language always means that there is likely to be a residue of unfulfilment that can be recovered at a later stage. Certainly when it comes to the restoration of Israel, it is clear that the return from exile fell far short of expectations.
The question is whether prophecies concerning an Israel-centred transformation (rather than a creation-centred transformation) are sufficiently fulfilled in the historical shift from second temple Judaism to a vindicated, global, Spirit-filled community in Christ. My argument is that the ‘second coming’ doctrine as traditionally understood is mistaken - at least, what I sought to do in The Coming of the Son of Man was to see what happens to New Testament eschatology when you take the historical-realist route. To my mind there is a very strong case for thinking that when Jesus and the apostles spoke about the future, they spoke about what mattered immediately to them and to the fragile communities of faith for which they were responsible. So they took the Old Testament language of judgment and restoration and applied it to their own future: the concrete restoration of the people of God through the transforming power of the Spirit, the inclusion of Gentiles in the covenant community, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple because Israel did not repent, and the ending of extreme, overweening, blasphemous, pagan opposition in the form principally of the imperial cult.
When it comes to the details of Old Testament prophecy (“northern tribes… full ‘tent’”), it seems to me that the fulfilment of prophecy in Christ radically changes how we view these things. If, for example, the physical temple in Jerusalem is replaced by the temple which is his body, and the written law is replaced by a law written on our hearts by the Spirit, there is surely reason to think that it would be a mistake to get too literalistic about the interpretation of these details? This obviously raises some big questions of hermeneutics, but this is how I would approach the matter: the eschatological landscape has been radically reconfigured in Christ and we will get lost if we try to follow the old maps.
With regard to Peter’s words in Acts 3:19-25, I think that there are connections here with Daniel 9:3-19, Luke 1:70-75, Deuteronomy 18, and Acts 1:6 that strongly suggest that he has in mind a process of judgment and restoration centred on the destruction of the temple and the giving of the kingdom to the Son of man who comes on the clouds of heaven to the throne of God (COSM 71-73).
Surely you read too much into Hebrews 11:39-40, which says only that these people of faith did not receive what was promised to them, not that every prophecy remained unfulfilled until Christ. They are cited as part of an encouragement not to give up but to persevere in the expectation of being vindicated for their commitment to Christ.
‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’
So what is the force of ‘until’ in this passage? Does it suggest something that is still unfulfilled today? The quotation from Psalm 118:26 appears in the account of the entry into Jerusalem, which suggests a connection with the theme of Jesus receiving a kingdom. Psalm 118 decribes the victory of Israel’s king over his enemies; it speaks of him not dying but living (17-18), of the stone that is rejected by the builders but is made the head of the corner (22-23), of the entry of the king into the house of Lord. It seems to me that what Jesus wants to say to the people of Jerusalem is that they will reject him as king, that their house (the temple?) will be left desolate, that he will not die but will live, that he will receive the kingdom from God, and that his people will come to worship exultantly in a temple that is not made with hands. The ‘until’, therefore, points to the parousia - the vindication of the one who was spurned by sinful Israel and executed by the Gentiles. This seems to me a fully relevant and adequate contextual reading of the passage.
Revelation 21-22
There is some misunderstanding here. I do not regard these visions as having been fulfilled in the conversion of the Roman empire. This is how I read the sequence of events at the end of Revelation. The defeat of Babylon the great, Rome, constitutes the final historical realization of Christ’s lordship over the people of God (18-19); the satanic power that inspired Rome is restrained but not destroyed (20:1-3); those who suffered and died during this period of conflict are raised and reign with Christ for a thousand years (20:4-6), which is where we are now; at the end of that (symbolic) period comes a final judgment of all the dead (20:11-14) and the appearance of a new heaven and a new earth (21-22), which determines the fundamental eschatological hope that we now have - that death and wickedness will not have the final say.