Hi Andrew,

You and I disagree fundamentally on the eschatology of the NT and OT.  I hold to what might be called a realistic eschatology, which, understanding the symbolic and metaphoric language of apocalyptic literature and the ‘mystique’ of its genre, accordingly reads the texts ‘literally’ (i.e., according to the literature).  So, when Daniel 12:2-3 speaks of the resurrection of the dead in those days (i.e, the last days, "the end of time" 12:4), he means a literal, physical resurrection (not merely a vindication, in some sense, of the saints).  And so it was understood by Jesus’ contemporaries (with the exception of the Sadduccess, who apparently did not accept the writings of the Prophets as authoritative, see Matt.22:23; Ac.23:8).  

Moreover, it seems evident by Jesus’ application of Daniel 9 in Matthew 24 et al., (let the reader understand) that Antiochus Epiphanes is the not the final horizon of Daniel’s visions (i.e., Jesus not merely re-applying Daniel’s language to a different scenario, but unpacking Daniel’s mysterious prophecy in chapter 9 for his audience).  Rather, the abomination of desolation extends beyond Antiochus and his desecration against the holy of holies, even beyond AD 70 (Lk.21:20ff.) in which Rome similarly desecrated the holy place (as the language of ‘wrapping up’ the eternal purposes of God for His people in Dan.9:24 would seem to suggest), to the time of this ‘man of lawlessness’ of whom Paul speaks to the Thessalonians (2Thessalonians 2:1-4) and the beast(s) of Revelation (written well after Jerusalem’s destruction), for which Daniel 7, and 2 provide the theological background (and not in imagery only).  In a word, I would argue that ‘apocalyptic’ embraces both historical events (divinely wrought events within history), but also eschatological events, in which God’s kingdom irrupts into history, guiding the political and spiritual forces of the world toward His divine goal, culminating in the great and terrible day of the Lord, the end of history (which is no mere metaphor for ‘a dramatic change within human history’).  Thus, as do the prophets of Israel, I would distinguish the eschaton from history.  Certainly the eschaton is seen to overlap with history (‘the latter days’ of history), as Jesus’ teachings on the inaugurated kingdom would suggest.  Yet history and eschatology are distinct realities or ages in the progress of redemption.

You, however, hold to what might be called an historical eschatology, by which I mean an eschatological horizon bounded within history, and first century history in particular.  Such langauge as employed by the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus himself cannot but be mere dramatic metaphor for historical events, as you understand it (except, oddly, the language of the new heavens and new earth, in which case you become a realist it would appear).  However, such a reading does not appear to be supported by the OT, the Apocrypha, or the NT documents (and NT pseudopigrapha). 

For example, consider the lofty language in the Psalms and Prophets regarding the exodus and wilderness wanderings.  Grandiose?  Yes.  Earth-shattering, cosmic?  Indeed.   Historical events?  Certainly.  Truly miraculous, supernatural phenomena that transcended the natural course of history?  If we accept Scripture’s own testimony, we have to conclude ‘yes’.  Or were the cloud and pillar of fire mere symbols?  Certainly the rabbis did not think so.  The earth-shaking metaphors and ‘proto-apocalyptic’ imagery were employed precisely because the nature of the events demanded such language.  Perhaps Israel’s ritualistic and poetic remembrance of the exodus and wilderness wandering really was the womb of the apocalyptic genre.  Such events ‘transcended’ the relatively mundane prose of ancient historiagraphy, demanding a new genre. (BTW, the tendency to universalize the kingdom (the domain and sovereignty) of the covenant God of Israel is not a Western phenomenon, but an ancient near eastern one, see for example Isaiah 40:6-41:7; 45; 49; or Mal.1:5, 11).

So I would affirm that your non-realist reading of eschatology is a radical interpretation, departing from the general ‘hermeneutic’ of the typical ‘second temple’ reader.  Compare for example your historicized eschatology to the strongly apocalyptic (i.e., supernatural, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it) eschatology of the Essenes, or any piece of intertestamental apocalyptic literature.  Or compare your delimitation of eschatology to the destruction of Herod’s temple to the early rabbinical commentaries on Daniel, Zechariah, etc., or compare to post-AD 70 Jewish apocalyptic works (e.g., 4Ezra).  It is significant that in these works the future Messiah(s) was still execpted to come as a real, supernatural person to save Israel from her enemies and establish her as the head of the nations. (Certainly AD 70 was not seen to accomplish this - your interpretation would certainly baffle the rabbis). Thus messianic expectations and apocalyptic forms are intertwined, and it is consequently difficult to reduce one to the realm of colorful, poetic historiography (even sacred historigraphy) without so reducing the other as well.  

 But what about the understanding of the early church? Compare you interpretation of Revelation 20, for example, to the earliest known understanding in the early chruch (e.g., Papias’, and according to his disciple’s testimony, Polycarp’s premillennialism).  Did the second and third generation community really so quickly and profoundly misread the first?  More importantly, did they so radically misunderstand this genre, which stands much closer to their cultural milieu than ours.

How did the apostles read their Lord?  I mentioned in my previous post 1Thessalonians.  It seems clear that they too saw "the coming of the Son of Man" as the Day of the Lord, that last day, when history would be drawn to an end, and the final judgment of mankind would be accomplished.   

Lastly, you write "By the time we get to Revelation 21 it has become a more literal hope: this is a new creation in which there is no more wickedness and no more death. That cannot be said of the renewed people of God."  I would disagree.  It is precisely in the matrix of God’s covenant promises to Abraham, His covenant with Israel and David that the realization of this cosmic renewal and restoration are unfolded.  Israel’s history is the world’s; and the nations are spectators to God’s covenant dealings with his elect nation (e.g., Amos 3:9-10), and thereby drawn into the redemption of Abraham and his descendents (Ro.15:8-12), such that, through him, all the nations of the earth are blessed and renewed.  This is the gospel (Gal.3:8).  Israel will be restored at the regeneration of all things (cf. Ac.3:19-21; 1:6; Mt.19:28), and the nations with her (Ro.11:11-12; cf. Ac.15:15-18). 

Perhaps we should start a new thread on biblical eschatology and the coming kingdom, or something to that effect?