The Coming of the Son of Man

Hi Andrew.

These are some comments that would have been posted to an eschatology discussion on Jesus Creed if I could have got them past the spam filter.

[This post was created from a comment (#3514) in the Post-eschatology and 2nd century church identity - clarification sought… thread.]

I’ll set out how I see it, roughly.

According to Daniel’s prophetic narrative, as the climax to a period of wrath against Israel a pagan force invades Judea, making war against the righteous in Israel, corrupting worship of the true God, acting blasphemously, and imposing Hellenistic values and practices on Jerusalem. Some in Israel advocate a covenant with the Gentile intruders; others resist, remaining faithful to the covenant at the cost of great suffering. At the end of this period of unprecedented affliction Israel will be delivered. Daniel 7 encapsulates in symbolic form the judgment that lies at the heart of this deliverance: the oppressor is judged and destroyed, and the kingdom is given to the suffering saints of the Most High, represented by the figure of one like a son of man coming on the clouds of heaven. The oppressor seduces many in Israel, who become, therefore, equally wicked; and the time of deliverance is also a time of devastation for the Israel - the culmination of God’s judgment against a rebellious nation. But the central act of judgment in the tableau is against the pagan power, the fourth beast, and the king who ‘shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods’ (Dan. 11:36).

[This post was created from a comment (#3469) in the Questions from the COSM thread.]

Hi, Andrew.

I have now finished COSM, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I’ve been a preterist for two or three years now (I know you don’t like the term, but please permit me to use it about myself since I’m accustomed to it). Since then I have struggled a lot with certain passages, particularly John 6 and Revelation 20, which picture two resurrections. I’ve wrestled a lot with the 1,000 year reign of Revelation 20, and no explanation that I’ve heard from anyone has been able to make sense of it (particularly those from other preterists).

Andrew, 

I’m an avid reader and love to understand God and his revelation to us better. You might say that I’m an emergent preterist of sorts, though I still have "hesitations" about both "categories." Anyway, my friend Jared Coleman ( jaredcoleman.com) bought me a copy of your book (apparently it had to be shipped from the UK). Fascinating and very challenging. I have a few questions that came up from that reading. Some may be answered in posts you have made that I have not read, so I apologize (or apologise) for that.

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.

[This post was created from a comment (#3129) in the The resurrection of those in Christ thread.]

Hi Andrew,

Its funny, it would seem you and I agree on a lot of how the prophecies of the OT relate to Revelation and the kingdom coming - we just disagree over the little issue of whether it has happened.  That and I am still baffled by your doctrine of secret resurrection.

I would agree with you, for example, that the vision of the resurrected saints reigning Revelation 20 is to be seen in connection with Daniel 7:9-10, 26.  But whereas you say that

This post continues discussion of the resurrection of those in Christ from the ‘Prophecy and realism’ thread, particularly in response to comments by kingjames1.

Briefly, the assumption is that resurrection belongs fundamentally to the new creation: it constitutes for the individual the final abandonment of this creation and entry into a radically new ontology in which there is no more sin and death. Any resurrection prior to that final renewal of heaven and earth is ontologically misplaced - it anticipates something that has not yet happened. But belief in resurrection develops in the first place, biblically, not from reflection on the universal condition of death but from the conviction, on the one hand, that God would renew corporate Israel through judgment (Ezek 37:11-14; Hos. 6:1-2), and on the other, that he would not abandon the individual righteous to death (Dan. 12:2-3).

Well, I got my copy of The Coming of the Son of Man from Guildford Cathedral bookshop on Monday. Today is Tuesday, and I have done a whistle-stop read-through; it will take me much longer to read the book looking up all the references and footnotes thoroughly. So this is a preliminary response, and like many of my responses, it is subject to change through further reflection.