I read the book just as it hit the shops. I found the read very stimulating. THe interaction with the Gospel narratives I found particularly good.
However, and I know this is just a wee comment: Jurgen Moltmann’s eschatology has been landmark stuff ever since 1964. In order to propose such a different eschatology - dare I say it, from your realised eschatology - one must first demonstrate that Moltmann’s persuasive approach is inadequate. I felt that without this critique of Moltmann’s perspective, the thesis didn’t quite have the punch that it could have. TO have shown that Moltmann’s project was insufficient alongside your exegesis would have been much more compelling. Without this, I feel I needed a much more convincing argument.
Re: Anticipating Objections
Stuart, so nice to hear from you!
The reason for not including a critique of Moltmann was really that I wanted as far as possible to allow the New Testament view of the future to emerge as a coherent, contextualized narrative. This required carefully reading the texts against a background of other historical texts (especially Josephus) and in relation to the Old Testament. To have added to this explicit dialogue with alternative eschatologies (not just Moltmann, but also Schweitzer, Dodd, dispensationalism, preterism, etc., as well as standard evangelical readings) would, I think, have overloaded the book and obscured the core narrative.
In that respect, I could suggest another ‘anticipated objection’, namely that the book does not deal adequately at an exegetical level with countless alternative interpretations of the many texts that are discussed. My approach, in crude terms, was to offer a consistent reading that I felt bound together history, the Old Testament, and the concrete, creative outlook of Jesus and his followers - simply to tell the story with a minimum of distracting scholarly chatter. There is a good methodological reason for this: the credibility of the reading depends as much on the coherence of the whole as on the validity of the detailed interpretations. It’s too easy not to see the wood for the trees.
Nevertheless, your point is well made. In my view, the thesis of The Coming of the Son of Man has important implications both for the church’s self-understanding and for mission. Given the strongly existential orientation of Moltmann’s eschatology it might make more sense to consider it in this context rather than in a work whose approach is essentially exegetical and narrative. A contextualized, narrative eschatology should be of more than historical interest, and it may be that some sort of interaction with Moltmann’s theology of hope will prove productive in this regard. Let’s talk about this further sometime.
Re: Anticipating Objections
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for a quick response! Good to hear from you too.
I fully accept your needing to keep the book streamlined and to the point of your thesis, otherwise it would’ve been an NT Wright sized mammoth!
I really enjoyed your alternative ideas and interpretations. I really just wanted to bring a little critique as my tendancy would to be let you off with anything because I know you a bit personally.
I’d like to talk more about your suggestion about a contextualised, narrative eschatology interacting with Moltmann. I’d been keen to see how you might approach it.
Blessings
Stuart