This contribution arose out of the thread on ‘Reading Romans eschatologically’ - which itself is part of a broader scheme introduced by Andrew to locate the events of the life and death of Jesus within a strictly 1st century historical context, and hence, by corollary, day of wrath in Romans 2:5 within a historically contextualised interpretation of Romans as a whole.
The challenge to me was to ask whether day of wrath and day of the Lord as used in the OT (and therefore, it is said, by Paul, and elsewhere in the NT) simply refer to localised, historical acts of God’s judgement, and not to some climactic, future event. A brief response to a comment ended up in an exploration of a rabbit hole which proved much longer and more difficult to extricate myself from than I had expected. Oh well!
As far as I can see, there are very few uses of the phrase day of wrath in the OT. In Ezekiel (7:19), it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem - c. 586 BC. In Zephaniah, day of the Lord (1:14) and day of wrath (1:15, 18) seem to be synonymous, and using imagery which naturally transfers to the same destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
In the NT, Paul describes the wrath of God (Rom. 1:18) as something demonstrated by God throughout history, and day of God’s wrath (Rom. 2:5) as a culminating, climactic event - which it would have been in history when it occurred, or at the end of time, to which it could equally apply (given that there is no evidence of a climactic judgement in history on the Graeco-Roman world, but its representatives would stand before God at the end of time, as if time had never elapsed).
In Revelation 6:17 (the great day of their wrath), the picture is of a more general, worldwide judgement - even allowing for metaphoric hyperbole.
Day of the Lord occurs more frequently in the OT, with the same effect as day of wrath, sometimes referring to events which were imminent in history, and sometimes referring to judgement which would come on the whole earth, eg Isaiah 2:12; Ezekiel 30:3; Joel 3:14; Obadiah 15.
In the NT, Day of the Lord in Acts 2:20 quotes Joel 2:31; in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 it suggests a climactic gathering of the entire Christian community worldwide to a returning Jesus; 2 Peter 3:10 has the same day as Thessalonians in mind, since it repeats the coming of this day as being like a thief in the night (1 Thessalonians 5:3), which also echoes Matthew 24:43.
At this point, we are into a debating ground as to whether these passages have an end-of-time focus, or refer simply to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Most commentators take the overall reference to be to the end of time, especially since the circumstances surrounding the siege of Jerusalem do not correspond to the description in the passages - it did not come like a thief in the night, nor at a time when people were engaging in the normal activities of life (Matthew 24:38) saying "Peace and safety" (1 Thessalonians 5:3).
In the OT, Israel’s expectation of an intervention of YHWH to defeat her enemies and vindicate her before the world provides the broader context in which day of wrath and day of the Lord must be understood. This was to be a climactic occasion, greatly modified by, but the essential background to, the NT understanding of a day of judgement which would mark the end of time. Amos’s warnings to Israel in the face of defeat by Assyria (5:18-27) could have held good for Israel in AD 70.
The coming of Jesus changed the eschatological landscape. The future was not to be a continuation of the world as it had been, with Israel victorious and vindicated. A final judgment of this earth was to be followed by a recreated earth, with that judgement beginning with Jesus’s (first) coming: Matthew 3:11-12. It is in this sense that the end has already come with Jesus, even though there must be delay in its completion. The end is also understood with the outpouring of the Spirit, in which mercy and judgement are two sides of the same coin - Acts 2:17-21.
With the coming of Jesus, it is no longer possible to see God’s judgements in the same historical paradigm as before. Creation will be renewed; the end of the old was signified in the death of Jesus; the coming (and necessity) of the new was signified in his resurrection - hence 2 Corinthians 5:17. Judgements that take place in history are now always a sign of final judgement to come - hence the collapsing of the two - judgement in history and judgement to come - in the synoptic prophecies of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
With Jesus, the true nature of judgement (the day of the Lord, the day of wrath), was finally revealed. In his coming, everything changed. He was the omega; the last Adam - 1 Corinthians 15:45; the second man from heaven - 1 Corinthians 15:47; a life-giving spirit as opposed simply to a living being -1 Corinthians 15:45; spiritual as opposed to natural - 1 Corinthians 15:46 - but only in the sense that Jesus’s resurrection body was matter renewed by and infused with the Spirit - not spiritual as opposed to material.
With Jesus, ultimate judgement came in a person - his person - as well as ultimate life. Both came as the future invading the present. Jesus’s coming as judgement meant that whatever subsequent historical judgements were to come, they were simply instalments or aspects of ultimate judgement. In that sense, they would echo the judgements of the OT (as depicted by the prophets in their apocalyptic language), but with shocking adjustments as to what that final judgement would entail in terms of Israel’s nationalistic expectations, the identity of the righteous, and the means of their vindication before God.
This is beginning to sound like an ideologically vetted contribution to the IVP Bible Dictionary. Oh dear.
My conclusion? It is not really valid to limit day of wrath or day of the Lord to localised, historical occurrences, on the grounds of their useage in OT and NT, the background context of Jewish hopes and expectations, and the decisive effect of the coming of Jesus, in which the end was drawn into history ahead of time.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
Seconds away, round two…
Notice that Paul in Romans 2:9 describes the effect of God’s wrath on the Greek world in terms of ‘tribulation and distress’. The two terms are used in Deuteronomy 28:53, 55, 57 to describe the effects of military invasion. Why shouldn’t Paul be thinking along similar lines?
Revelation 6:17 makes use of imagery from the Old Testament that describes judgment on Jerusalem and the horror that that will create in the world. See The Coming of the Son of Man, 190-191. The seals all have judgment on Jerusalem as their focus.
The ‘day of the Lord’ texts…
Isaiah 2:12 is part of an oracle of judgment against Jerusalem. Whatever the impact may be on the nations, it is essentially a day of judgment against Israel that is described.
In Ezekiel 30:3 it is a day of judgment against Egypt, not the whole earth.
Joel 3:14 describes a ‘day of the Lord’ coming near when the enemies of Israel will be judged by God. Again not a universal judgment but historically contingent.
And if I could only find Obadiah… ah, there it is. Again, the day of the Lord is ‘near’, judgment on the nations ‘round about’ Israel (verse 16), which gloated over Jerusalem’s ruin. Also historically contingent.
There is a strong argument for the view that the phrase ‘There is peace and security’ in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 alludes to the Roman pax et securitas theme, in which case we may suppose that Paul has in mind specifically judgment on the pretensions of Roman imperialism.
Completely disagree. That makes a nonsense of Jesus’ pervasive use of the Son of man story (not to mention the letters to the seven churches in Revelation). The question is not whether Israel will be victorious and vindicated but how.
Things didn’t completely change with Jesus. The Jews still went to war against Rome. They got hammered. The early church had to deal with persecution and a blasphemous antagonist in the emperor. Aggressive Roman pagan imperialism eventually collapsed, which is exactly what is prefigured in the Son of man narrative. These were events of enormous significance for the early church (read Augustine’s City of God). It constitutes a very short-sighted, hubristic, modern, post-enlightenment perspective to pretend (nothing personal you understand) that these things weren’t worth speaking about. The language of the New Testament, like the language of Old Testament prophecy, describes concrete historical events that mattered to the community. They weren’t writing for comfortable middle class churches in Guidford or The Hague.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
i. ‘tribulation and distress’. The two terms are used in Deuteronomy 28:53, 55, 57 to describe the effects of military invasion. Why shouldn’t Paul be thinking along similar lines?
Yes, he could be. Depends how much weight can be attached to the use of the phrase in context. Were there parallels between invasions of Rome and invasions of Israel?
ii. Revelation 6:17 and OT imagery - you don’t allow for the possibility (and likelihood) of OT imagery being used in a different context (ie not historical Jerusalem)
iii. Isaiah 2:12 - If you interpret the section 2:6-22 literally, you also have to interpret the preceding section (2:1-5) literally. It doesn’t work. Isaiah’s vision stretches beyond historical, national Israel - though she was certainly included in the metaphorical sweep of his prophecy
iv. Ezekiel 30:3 - "a day of doom for the nations (plural - not just Egypt)"
iv. Joel 3:14 - context: "all nations" - 3:2; "the nations" - 3:9; "all you nations" - 3:11(a); "nations" - 3:12; "all the nations" - 3:11(b); "multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision"- 3:14.
Are you still saying this is not universal judgement? If not, to which historically fulfilled event does this refer?
v. Obadiah 15 - "all nations"; verse 16 - "all the nations". When did this event occur in history - when all the nations were judged and defeated, and Israel liberated?
vi. 1 Thessalonians 5:3 - I don’t think the Jews were saying pax et securitas when they were being slaughtered across Israel as well as in Jerusalem in their thousands.
Everything changed with the coming of Jesus - yes, as far as the NT describes it, it did. This is strikingly presented in the ‘realised eschatology’ of John’s gospel. As fas as Jesus’s disciples were concerned, the end had come with Jesus (not with the destruction of the temple).
All that had been associated with ‘the end of the age’ as far as Judaism was conerned, was fulfilled in Jesus: return of YHWH to the temple, resurrection of the dead, outpoured Spirit, defeat of the powers behind Israel’s enemies, restoration of the Davidic monarchy, forgiveness of sins, light to the world.
The ‘end’ was strikingly the end of the old creation (in Jesus), and the beginning of the new (in Jesus). As far as his followers made him their Lord, the new creation had also begun in Jesus’s followers. "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come." - 2 Corinthians 5:17.
How did this come about? The death of Jesus was the end of the old creation (in him); the resurrection of Jesus was the beginning of the new (likewise). That’s why both death and resurrection of Jesus have direct, intimate and life-changing relevance for every believer in Jesus - in Guildford as well as The Hague. Take that away, and you are left with - nothing.
Your reading of OT prophetic texts is linguistically very detailed; but in the process, I think you overlook a great deal - driven by a need, it seems, to read the texts in a literal, historical manner.
If Jesus was "the end" - which I think is quite clear from very many angles - we may also need to ask: why so much history between then and now? Answer: I don’t know! Except that, in the terms described, he was the end, and the judgement which he will one day bring to a climactic conclusion, actually already started with his (first) coming. Life has already come to those who believe in him (John 5:25); "Now is the judgement of this world; now shall the ruler of this world be cast out;" - John 12:31. When was that? The death of Jesus on the cross, I think.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
No, the possibility cannot be discounted that the OT imagery of judgment on Jerusalem that is used consistently in the visions of the seals and trumpets is directed against something other than historical Jerusalem in the first century. But I find it very difficult to see why, in a Jewish Christian prophetic book crammed with visions of divine judgment drawn from the Jewish scriptures, written in the second half of the first century, quite possibly before AD 70, texts from the Old Testament that speak about historical judgment on Jerusalem would not be used to refer to an analogous event that was so catastrophic for the Jewish people.
Isaiah 2:12: it’s not a problem in principle to think that Isaiah switches between literal and metaphorical language. Did the mountains and hills really start singing, did the trees really clap their hands, when Israel literally returned to Zion from exile in Babylon? In any case, this verse is part of a judgment on Jerusalem, not the nations: God will judge Jerusalem by the hand of the Babylonians but he will also restore Zion so that it becomes a light to the nations. I don’t see any problem with saying that the ‘day of the Lord’ refers to an impending historical event.
Ezekiel 30:3: OK, it includes Ethiopia, Put, Lud, Arabia and Libya, because they supported Egypt (30:6). Peter, it couldn’t be clearer: ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: "I will put an end to the wealth of Egypt, by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon."’ This ‘day of the Lord’ is a Babylonian offensive against Egypt. Hardly the end of the world!
Joel 3:14: ‘nations’ plural because the prophet is thinking of the peoples who exploited the judgment on Israel by stealing the temple treasures and selling Jews into slavery (Joel 3:4-6). He mentions Tyre, Sidon, and Philistia, Egypt and Edom. Enough to justify ‘all the nations’. The historical context is quite clear and there is no need at all to look beyond it to a judgment that is yet to come.
Apparently you didn’t read what I wrote about Obadiah 15: "Again, the day of the Lord is ‘near’, judgment on the nations ‘round about’ Israel (verse 16), which gloated over Jerusalem’s ruin." He is talking about Israel’s neighbours, Edom in particular. Their punishment for siding with the Babylonians will be that their lands are possessed by returning Jews. You can’t get much more historically contingent than that.
Well, yes, we can say that everything was fulfilled in Jesus, but the story of Jesus is not just his death and resurrection. He has far more to say about the eventual vindication of the Son of man and the whole narrative around that than he does about his resurrection. For Jesus the climax to his own story is not his resurrection but the coming to receive kingdom and glory from the throne of God. This is not less true for the rest of the New Testament. The question is, How does this story play itself out historically? My argument is that the story of Jesus that you want to confine to his death and resurrection as the hinge between the old creation and the new is actually longer and more complex than that - because he includes in it the story of the community that will suffer and be vindicated in him in the early centuries. Jesus is only significant as ‘new creation’ because he stands for the renewal of the people of God. You can’t separate him from the community.
Well, that’s very candid! I would be very suspicious of any theology that cannot give a good reason for all this history! That’s why I think that the focus has to be much more on the historical existence of the family of Abraham over which Christ reigns as king and much less on the personal salvation experience of the individual, both for the sake of exegetical clarity and for the sake of mission. He died, was raised from the dead, and was eventually vindicated for the sake of the future of this people so that it could be God’s ‘new creation’ in the midst of the nations; and I think we would honour Christ more highly if we felt our history more.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
For those of us following along at home, can the two debaters clarify a point of contention? Peter and Andrew, you both envision a future state of the world populated only by the redeemed who confess Christ as Lord. But neither of you expects the world’s population to turn to Christ en masse. At some point the unredeemed portion of the world’s population will need to be eliminated — which, if it were to occur today, would mean at least those 4.5 billion people who don’t claim to be Christians. Peter, you contend that the unbelievers will be removed as a final act of God’s judgment. Andrew, you argue that it’s not a matter of judgment on the unredeemed, but rather a way of "clearing the stage" so that the redeemed microcosm is able to become the macrocosm in its pure form. Is that the idea?
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
Can’t speak for Peter, but for me this depends on what you mean by ‘a future state of the world’. I don’t think the New Testament expects that this world in which we now live to be transformed in that way, that the world will all become Christian, whether by conversion or by elimination! As you know, I don’t think the Bible for the most part looks that far ahead - it mostly works with the assumption that the people of God exists in the midst of the nations and cultures of the earth.
However, in Revelation 20-22 it seems to me that John depicts an ultimate hope for creation that genuinely transcends what we currently know. In this vision the old heavens and earth flee away and a new creation appears in which there is no more suffering and death - in other words, there is fundamental ontological transformation. Only at that point are we told that those whose names are not written in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire which is the second death. Curiously we are not explicitly told what happens to those whose names are written in the book of life. But notice that it is the dead who are judged on the basis of what they have done - there is no elimination of anyone specifically for the purpose of ridding the world of unbelievers. Death is seen as the normal and inescapable fate of all humanity, which is reinforced by the symbolism of the lake of fire as a second death.
Whether it’s correct to say that the microcosm becomes this new macrocosm I’m not sure. The book of life motif seems to indicate that there must be some sort of continuity, and presumably Revelation 21:3 means that in this new creation God comes to be with his people, that is with the descendants of Abraham. But, as I say, this is all at the extreme end of the biblical vision. The main narrative has to do with the ongoing existence of a people as a creational microcosm in this world, in the midst of the nations, for the sake of the glory of the creator God.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
There seems to be ample evidence to suggest that the kind of separation (and elimination) which you summarise, John, is the position of Jesus and the NT, eg Matthew 25:11-13; 29-30; 31-46; Revelation 21:7-8. I expect you are familiar with all these verses - though Andrew has a different interpretation of the meaning of Jesus.
And in that sense, as I understand you, the microcosm will become the macrocosm, in the recreated earth.
However, it should be noted that Jesus’s sternest warnings were against those who had the greatest knowledge of the scriptures, and were regarded (and certainly regarded themselves) as the greatest examples of piety, and as fulfilling the requirements of God’s covenant. It should also be noted that the people Jesus welcomed and had table fellowship with were regarded as the off-scourings of society, and the kind of people who least reflected the purposes of God in the covenant community.
Also that Jesus commended a member of a community regarded as racially impure and offensive to God - for doing what those who regarded themselves as racially pure and pleasing to God failed to do.
Also that the majority of OT saints were notoriously inconsistent in their lives, and none of them would have been able to assent to doctrines which are often regarded as the bare acceptable minimum for escaping hell and getting into heaven today.
Which leads me to draw the conclusion that our responses to God are extremely important, that we are judged on the basis of how we have responded to the light we have, not the light we don’t have, and that anyone who has learned the bare minimum about Jesus but dies rejecting him is in severe trouble.
But in the end, a message which does preach eternal separation in one form or another is going to be offensive in our egalitarian, inclusive, politically correct, equal opportunities western culture - where the greatest virtue is tolerance, and we will tolerate anything except intolerance.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
Thanks, Andrew and Peter, for your responses to my question.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
I was about to say something very complimentary about your exegesis of the seven seals in Revelation - in COSM chapter 8. It’s brilliant. It would certainly have had meaning for believers going through the events in Israel during the Jewish wars. But is that the only context in which the verses are intended to be read? I don’t think so; any more than Matthew 24 is intended to be read solely in the context of the destruction of the temple in AD 70 (though of course that is there). I certainly don’t think that Revelation 6:17 can be shoehorned into such a reading.
To extend the discussion into Revelation 11 - there we have the temple; the trampling of the outer court by the Gentiles for 42 months corresponds uncannily with the siege of Jerusalem; but then further details are introduced which lead us in a different direction. The inner court and holy place are protected. The two witnesses are not literal figures - and as so often with Revelation, instead of being provided with one definitive meaning, we are encouraged to find meaning in symbols which take us beyond the literal and historical. I can’t believe we are being limited to 1st century events here, or anywhere in Revelation - but I would expect the book had huge relevance for 1st century believers going through the events leading up to AD 70 (assuming it was written before AD 70, as I do).
Now to your other points.
I also don’t see any problem in Isaiah prophesying the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in Isaiah 2; of course that would be its obvious and primary meaning. But just as, in 2:1-5, the fulfilment of the prophecy could hardly be limited to the establishment of a literal 2nd temple, and seeks a fulfilment in a horizon beyond that, and beyond national, geographical Israel, so too 2:6-22, and 10:22 especially, seeks a fulfilment which goes beyond the Babylonian invasion - even allowing for metaphorical hyperbole. I think if you disallow this, we are reading different bibles.
Ezekiel 30:3 - yes, very good. I was a little too hasty in moving from the concordance to the keyboard without examining the context carefully enough. Well done.
Joel - as with other OT prophecies, it seems likely that we are peering through different horizons - to a restoration which did not occur in national, geographic Israel’s history, and through a judgement which draws in elements of Israel’s national history, but which looks beyond them all.
Obadiah - the immediate, historical context of the prophecy was the enmity between Israel and Edom (though the precise historical period is uncertain). However, after verse 15, the prophecy moves into a more general warning of judgement on the nations who oppose God and his people - into which category Israel herself, as a nation, was to fall. I didn’t find the phrase ‘round about’ Israel in verse 16, but it doesn’t really matter, since from Israel’s point of view, most of the nations of the world were ‘round about’ her. The ‘deliverance’ which comes from Mount Zion is echoed in Isaiah 59:20,21, as quoted in Romans 11:26b, where the referent is Jesus in his (first) coming - the act where he turned “godlessness away from Jacob” and took away their sins was, of course, the cross.
To be honest, Andrew, the somewhat contemptuous way in which you speak of the death and resurrection of Jesus, (“the story of Jesus that you want to confine to his death and resurrection”) is a worrying reflection on the course you have embarked on. In these exchanges, you ignore the central issue of the uniqueness of Jesus, which I developed briefly from 1 Corinthians 15, and the equally central issue of Jesus as embodying in himself the end of the old creation and the beginning of the new - in which his followers also participate. The significance of this, and the (first) coming of Jesus has a huge effect on our understanding of “the day of the Lord” - which I have developed, and you seem to have ignored.
If I were to sum up, it would be that “the day of the Lord”, from a NT perspective, began with the (first) coming of Jesus - because judgement and mercy were two sides of the same coming, operating simultaneously through his ministry. But the “day of the Lord” - which you locate in the 1st century in judgements on Jerusalem and Rome - has content (already referred to) which was not fulfilled in that event, or in Jesus’s life on earth, and awaits fulfilment. So perhaps we can agree to differ. I still think you haven’t really looked carefully at the points I have been making about OT prophecy and “day of the Lord”.
Maybe we could extend each other these courtesies: I find a great deal of your incredibly painstaking and detailed exegesis to be hugely impressive, and I don’t want to be forced into a corner of dismissing it simply because it doesn’t take me to where it takes you. Perhaps sometime, in turn, you could look rather more carefully at the defence of evangelical theology which I am inadequately presenting (and it’s really a defence of mainstream theology of all hues), and not be so quick to dismiss it - sometimes using exaggerated rhetoric, and sometimes crude caricature. I’m not convinced that you really understand what you are dismissing.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
Contemptuous? Do you really mean that? The whole of COSM is about the significance of the death of Jesus for the story of Israel. But I think it’s a mistake both to reduce the significance of Jesus to his death and resurrection (what about his life and ministry? what about his highly developed prediction of the fulfilment of a narrative like Daniel 7?) and to exclude from that narrative the community that he so lovingly and painstakingly gathered around himself. If Jesus didn’t reduce everything to his death and resurrection, I don’t see why we should.
But that is not to say that he is not unique. As Peter said to the Jewish authorities, there is no other name given among men by which Israel would be saved from destruction.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
But what is the specific basis for this assumption? What are your reasons for thinking that a passage which you admit would have been interpreted by its readers with reference to the Jewish war had further levels of application beyond that historical context? You can’t just say ‘we are encouraged to find meaning in symbols which take us beyond the literal and historical’. How are we encouraged? What is the evidence for that? Just because language is symbolic doesn’t mean that it has multiple layers of reference.
I argued in COSM (208-209) that the two witnesses represent ‘the church, or that outspoken part of the church, that testifies against the sinfulness of Israel and remains faithful to the point of death’. The exegetical grounds for that judgment are reasonably coherent but not incontrovertible. But there is still no reason to think that the symbolism cannot be interpreted comprehensively within a narrative about the confrontation between the early church and Judaism or Roman imperialismm. Indeed, the very fact that we call this ‘symbolism’ should warn us to expect a surfeit or imprecision of meaning.
Why can’t you believe that? That’s a very subjective basis for exegesis.
My view of Isaiah 2:2-4 is (roughly) that it speaks of the restoration of Jerusalem in the light of an underlying belief that God will ultimately transform the whole of creation - and that between this historical event and the final renewal the people of God repeatedly find the need and the opportunity to restate that hope. So we can probably agree that in some sense Isaiah 2:2-4 remains unfulfilled. But this does not alter the fact, in my view, that the ‘day of the Lord’ mentioned in Isaiah 2:12 points to foreseeable historical events associated with historical judgment on Israel. It refers to an event within history; Isaiah assumed that history would continue after it.
Look at Isaiah 13:9: ‘Behold, the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it.’ It is explicitly a day when the Medes will invade Chaldea (13:17-19). And life carries on after it: the land will become a wilderness, a ‘desolation’, a dwelling place for wild beasts. Again, I repeat my point. The phrase ‘day of the Lord’ always refers to a historically circumscribed act of divine judgment or deliverance, even if that judgment or deliverance is described in language that draws on a deeper expectation of a final judgment and renewal of creation.
Obadiah again. No, it doesn’t ‘move into a more general warning of judgment’ after verse 15. It is talking about exactly the same situation. The nations are those that have exploited Israel’s misfortune, ‘have drunk upon my holy mountain’; they shall in turn drink the cup of God’s wrath - in particular, their lands will be occupied by Jews. Of course, this language may be reused in the New Testament to speak of a new judgment and salvation, but the question we are dealing with has to do with the scope of the thought ‘day of the Lord’. Nothing in Obadiah leads to the conclusion that it refers to anything beyond the anticipated historical judgment on the nations immediately surrounding Israel which profited from the Babylonian invasion. You are reading into the passage a universal significance that simply isn’t there.
I have looked very carefully at every passage you have cited from the Old Testament as evidence that ‘day of Lord’ refers to something other than an act of divine judgment or deliverance within history, and I have found nothing that supports your argument. So when in Romans Paul speaks of a ‘day’ of God’s wrath that is close at hand, I think it most likely that he has in mind a similar act of judgment within history.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
i. Revelation 5-8 (the seven seals):
"What are your reasons for thinking that a passage which you admit would have been interpreted by its readers with reference to the Jewish war had further levels of application beyond that historical context?"
The primary reason is that the passage is nowhere explicitly linked to the Jewish war! So it might have had particular relevance to the church as it experienced those events. But it also has relevance to any situation where war, economic disturbance, death through war, famine and plague, the martyrs waiting for vindication, earthquakes and meteorological phenomena, are seen as God’s judgments. Also, I still see 6:17 as having some sort of apocalyptic end of time significance - just as it is likely to have in Isaiah 2:19-21 (which it resembles closely, and which we have already discussed).
By the way, for your interpretation of this passage, and Revelation generally, you need a date for Revelation before AD 70, which is why you need to have read Kenneth Gentry’s ‘Before Jerusalem Fell’ - which is a comprehensive review of the dating of the book (popularly held to have been written c. AD 90).
If you are referring me to Matthew 24 in your question - I have gone over this at length (great length) in previous posts. It would be attractive if Matthew 24 could be given a simple and exclusive connection with the destruction of the temple, but it just doesn’t work, I don’t think. Parts of it refer clearly to AD 70 and the 1st century; other parts don’t.
ii. The two witnesses - I assume from the final sentence of your comment that you allow the passage could refer to different contexts - not just the early church (if it could refer to the church in Jerusalem or Rome, it could just as easily refer to the church at other times). We could discuss the symbolism of the three and half years here - which sometimes suggests the completion of Jesus’s ministry (itself three and a half years) throughout time, through the church. I think the passage would have had relevance to the early church, before during and after AD 70 - and the church under persecution at any time.
"I can’t believe we are being limited to 1st century events, or anywhere in Revelation…" Why can’t you believe that? That’s a very subjective basis for exegesis.
It’s not subjective - and above are some fleeting suggestions as to why I said what I said. I’ll provide more, if you like.
iii. Isaiah 2:12 - my view, as described, is different from your view, but apparently not very different. There are many other places in Isaiah where "the day" or "a day" reaches beyond biblical history to a far distant and as yet unfulfilled day of judgment. I think your qualification bridges the gap between us; even if "day of the Lord" always referred to "a historically circumscribed act of divine judgment or deliverance", if it also "draws on a deeper expectation of a final judgment and renewal of creation" then we’re not really in dispute.
iv Obadiah 15ff. Sorry Andrew, I disagree, but I will grant that there is a mixture of the imminent and the distant. For instance, Obadiah 17 echoes word for word Joel 2:32, where Joel is clearly speaking of far distant times (fulfilled at Pentecost and beyond). Likewise there is, to my mind, an echo of Isaiah 59:19, as quoted in Romans 11:26. There is plenty of eschatological loading here, as there is in verses 15, 16, and 18.
v. " I have looked very carefully at every passage you have cited from the Old Testament as evidence that ‘day of Lord’ refers to something other than an act of divine judgment or deliverance within history, and I have found nothing that supports your argument."
But you have already contradicted this above! I think you could look more carefully. Apart from these few passages mentioned, there are also many other places in the OT where a final judgment is suggested as a "day" (which cannot be anything other than a "day of the Lord").
When we get into the NT however, we are overwhelmed with evidence for a "day" or "day of the Lord" being the final day of judgment. It would be odd to think this had nothing whatsoever to do with the use of the same phrase in the OT. But we don’t need to speculate. The evidence is there; somewhat shadowy maybe in the OT; clear as daylight in the NT. You haven’t really proved anything by looking at the passages I have quoted - except, admittedly, placing Ezekiel 30:3 in a more strictly historical context. You haven’t really proved anything to do with "day of wrath" in Romans - although the parallels with Deuteronomy are interesting.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
I agree the passage may in some sense ‘have relevance’ in subsequent situations - that’s why people have been able to locate the fulfilment of these prophecies in all manner of historical events throughout the ages right up to the Arab-Israeli war, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, 9/11, the American presidential elections, the death of Bobby Fischer (perhaps), and so on…. But that is not the same is saying that the author of Revelation used this imagery to refer to an indefinite set of events.
I still think we need to take much more seriously the interpretive context provided by Revelation itself, which consists, I would say, broadly of:
i) the actual historical situation in which the letter was written, the immediate fears and hopes of the early church, which would have undoubtedly centred on the fate of Israel and the power of Rome;
ii) the consistent use of the Old Testament, which in the case of the seals strongly suggests that it is the judgment on Israel that is in view;
iii) the narrative structure of Revelation which culminates in chapter 18 in judgment on Rome.
I think we are being unfaithful to the intention of John if we insist that he somehow also had in mind a repeat of this judgment following the defeat of Roman pagan imperialism, particularly since he is quite careful to sketch a continuation of history following the vindication of the church over Rome that concludes not with these garish visions of judgment but with a final battle against Satan and the nations and a final judgment of all the dead (Rev. 20:7-15).
We’ll have to agree to disagree on Revelation 6:17: ‘for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?’ Verse 16 recalls Hosea 10:8 - a prophecy of judgment on Israel. This verse echoes Joel 2:11 - a prophecy of judgment on Israel by military invasion. The language here is entirely consistent with the view that John is also describing historical judgment on Israel by military invasion, and the fact that he does not say so explicitly does not give us permission to apply it to whatever subsequent events may pop into our minds. That is a very irresponsible approach to biblical interpretation. If the Old Testament prophets could use extravagant, apocalyptic, visionary language to refer to historical events, there’s no reason why John should not have done so.
Much of this dispute, of course, depends on how we read apocalyptic language - and whether we take seriously Jesus’ unequivocal statement that ‘this generation will not pass away till all these things take place’ (Matt. 24:34). The discourse draws on prophetic and apocalyptic language that describes judgment on Israel and the vindication of a faithful community as part of that event. Jesus says that this will happen - all of this will happen - within a generation. How do you escape the conclusion that he is speaking about the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple (that is the question that he is explicitly answering!), and the vindication of those who took the risk of following him on this narrow path?
No, that wasn’t what I meant. I wrote: ‘there is still no reason to think that the symbolism cannot be interpreted comprehensively within a narrative about the confrontation between the early church and Judaism or Roman imperialism.’ My point had to do with details such as ‘they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague’ (Rev. 11:6). We are not supposed to believe that the church as it testified faithfully against sinful Israel literally had these powers but that the symbolism invokes a cloud of meaning from the Exodus narratives that cannot necessarily be precisely applied to the contemporary context. That does not mean that we must find later circumstances to which we might apply the overflow of symbolic detail.
The book of Obadiah describes a day of historical judgment against Edom because when the Chaldeans destroyed Jerusalem, the Edomites exploited Israel’s misery and gloated over its misfortune. On that day of judgment Edom, along with Israel’s other neighbours, will be punished for this - they will drink the cup of God’s wrath. They will be punished militarily by Jews who have survived the Babylonian invasion and exile and their lands will be possessed by the returning exiles (17-20). That action will be seen as the re-establishment of God’s rule in this particular context (21). This is a coherent and realistic historical scenario. Nothing in this suggests that Obadiah was also thinking of a ‘day of the Lord’ that transcends the historical framework.
Joel 2:32 is no different. It speaks of people who will survive an act of historical judgment against Israel. The phrase ‘day of the Lord’ always refers to an event within history, whether that’s judgment on Jerusalem by means of the Babylonians, judgment on Jerusalem by means of the Romans, or judgment on Rome by means of the Visigoths.
Oh no I haven’t! My argument with reference to Isaiah 2:12 was that sometimes the ‘day of the Lord’ is spoken of in a way that draws on an ultimate hope of the renewal of creation and defeat of the last enemies of YHWH. But that does not mean that this ‘day of the Lord’ is itself an event that ends or transcends history. So Paul’s argument in Romans that a day of wrath is coming on the Greek-Roman world certainly presupposes the ultimate fact of judgment on all humanity because of sin. But the argument is still the historical one. He is not talking about a final judgment here; he is talking about what the church faced historically, and I think we miss something very important about how the New Testament develops its theology if we translate all these contingent, contextual arguments into absolute, universal ones.
Not in my view we’re not. What we are overwhelmed with is the failure of the church to think historically. As Tom Wright has pointed out (I forget where) with reference to 2 Thessalonians 2:2 that if news that the ‘day of the Lord’ had already come could be sent by letter in the ancient world, they are clearly not thinking about the end of history as we know it. Paul’s response highlights a historical and presumably geographically limited narrative. He does not say to them, Of course, it hasn’t come, you idiots, we’re all still here!
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
i. Revelation
I still think we need to take much more seriously the interpretive context provided by Revelation itself, which consists, I would say, broadly of: i) the actual historical situation in which the letter was written, the immediate fears and hopes of the early church, which would have undoubtedly centred on the fate of Israel and the power of Rome
I agree with this - and I still come to different conclusions from you, whilst allowing that Revelation had immediate relevance to 1st century Christians (provided it was written before AD 70!).
However, many people, including myself, think that Revelation 18 goes far beyond judgement on Rome, and see it as a judgement on world system which Rome only represents.
You are actually doing no more than restating the traditional (comprehensive/thoroughgoing) preterist arguments for interpreting Revelation - albeit in a much more interesting fashion - which have been around for a long time now, and which have been given plenty of opportunity for consideration. On balance, they have never caught on.
ii. Revelation 6:17 - but the irresponsibility in your approach is to take OT prophecy and see it as continuing without modification into the NT without taking account of how the coming of Jesus had brought discontinuity into key aspects of the OT narrative concerning Israel. (I’ve described this more fully earlier in the thread - can’t keep repeating myself!)
iii. Yes I do take seriously Jesus’s statement that "this generation will not pass away till all these things take place" (Matt. 24:34). It does not lead me to the same conclusion as you, that only the destruction of the temple is in view in Matthew 24 - and I have already commented at great length on this elsewhere.
iv. The two witnesses - I think if you feel justifiied in taking the significance of the witnesses to be towards Israel and Rome, then their significance can extend to other contexts as well. The meaning of the three & a half years is is significant here (ie the rest of the church age).
v. Obadiah Yes, the immediate significance of the prophecy is towards historical Edom and the nations which took advantage of Israel following the Babylonian invasion. But, as I have pointed out, and you seem to have missed, Obadiah 17 repeats Joel 2:32 exactly (or vice versa), and Peter quotes the Joel passage (actually up to Joel 2:32a to be precise, but Joel 2:32b is part of it) in Acts 2:17-21. So the sense of Obadiah 17/Joel 2:32 is not confined to those earlier events, and does look forward to events beyond Acts 2. It is entirely justifiable to take some of the sense of Obadiah (the opposition of the nations to God and the people of God) and apply it to later contexts. This is what Peter was doing in quoting Joel 2.
vi. Isaiah 2 - commented on already in a previous post.
vii. Do you want to go through all the uses of "day of the Lord"/"day of Jesus Christ" etc in the NT? There is plenty of evidence that this phrase does refer to the final judgement - an event which takes place at the same time as the parousia of Christ - as traditionally understood.
Tom Wright proves nothing by saying of 2 Thessalonians 2:2 "if news that the ‘day of the Lord’ had already come could be sent by letter in the ancient world, they are clearly not thinking about the end of history as we know it." Wright is simply assuming that all believers at that time would be well versed in "the day of the Lord" in every other respect. I think this is an erroneous assumption. The parallels with today’s popular misconceptions (pre-tribulation rapture etc) are striking.
Obadiah and Joel
On Obadiah - I didn’t miss your reference to Joel 2:32. In fact, I expressly addressed that point:
The fact that Peter finds a fulfilment of Joel 2 in the events of the day of Pentecost does not affect the basic contention, which is that the phrase ‘day of Lord’ in biblical usage is always applied to events within history. Peter understands Joel to be predicting a time when military judgment on Jerusalem will be accompanied by the outpouring of the Spirit of prophecy on many in Israel.
I still cannot for the life of me see why you have to read into Obadiah’s very straightfoward prophecy about what would happen to Israel’s hostile neighbours following the exile a universal significance that it simply doesn’t have. What’s the problem? Scripture’s not going to fall apart because we read it historically.
Re: Obadiah and Joel
Well, I think the problem is that I started the thread by tentatively looking at the meaning of "Day of the Lord"/"Day of wrath" etc and you seemed to take it as an affront that I was suggesting it might refer to final judgment - which is still my position.
As far as Obadiah is concerned, having established that there is an eschatological significance to part of the prophecy, (which you seemed to be denying) the difference between us comes back to the precise nature of eschatology.
I think the sticking point of the discussion is that you want to defend, ultimately, the idea that most, if not all, the time, whenever the bible talks about judgment, it is doing so within on-going history, especially history up to (and possibly ending with) the 1st century, and not beyond. You can argue that position - but it is part of an edifice which introduces many other alterations to the biblical story as it is commonly understood - some of which take us, to my mind, a long way from mainline Christian belief of any variety (which you might feel quite happy about).
Some of the passages under consideration here have more of a bearing on this wider agenda than others. My main contention is that Jesus brought a previously unheard of understanding of the way judgment operates, because it split the "end of the age" (itself always understood as an "end" within on-going history, of course) between "now" (this evil age invaded by "the powers of the age to come") and the future (a final ending of this evil age, to be replaced entirely by the age to come). That happens at the final judgment.
In Judaism, the thought was that that "day" would be one of Israel’s triumph. Actually, the prophets themselves warned that the picture would not be quite so simple. Instead of a "day" producing Israel’s concept of what that day would look like, and its corresponding "age to come", Jesus introduced an "age" which would sit alongside the "evil age", until a final judgment day in which the "evil age" would be ended, and only the "age to come", which he inaugurated previously, would continue, and be more fully expressed.
My contention also is that the NT provides an interpretation of some aspects of OT prophecy which falls into line with a final judgment of a kind which was unheard of in the Jewish version of judgment on the nations (all of them!) and "the end". To my mind (though not to yours, because of your broader agenda) Acts 2:17-21 is an outstanding example of NT discontinuity with a certain strand of OT thought, and the provision of a new horizon of understanding which Jesus had opened up - not least, dear Andrew, in his death and resurrection, because the resurrection was, in the immediate, for him alone, and not for all Israel (or at least all righteous Israel) as suggested in OT prophecy. Hence a split between "now" and "yet to come".
In your version of things, there was a more fully realised ending of one age and beginning of the future age at the time of a particularly interpreted judgment on Jerusalem and Rome in the 1st century. I don’t see that (the intrepretation, I mean), and I don’t think you can enlist "the day of the Lord" in its revised meaning to fit into that scenario. I argue that you can’t do it (completely) in the OT, and you can’t do it in the NT. In the process, I am not disputing your assertion, which is commonly recognised, that there are "days of the Lord" as well as "days of God’s wrath" occurring in history. I would just add that very often, if not always, these "days" of "wrath"/"the Lord" have in view the final "day of judgment".
Re: Obadiah and Joel
I have made the point on a number of occasions, not least in discussion with you, that the Bible is very realistic about how it talks about judgment and salvation - in other words, it treats these things as matters of real, historical, and I would say political, experience. In that respect, I would say that the Bible is much more ‘worldly’ than is suggested by much of our theology. I made the point above that phrases such as ‘day of the Lord’ and ‘day of wrath’ refer in scripture to foreseen historical events: ‘judgment on Jerusalem by means of the Babylonians, judgment on Jerusalem by means of the Romans, or judgment on Rome by means of the Visigoths’. That takes us beyond the first century, by the way. I also said several times that these contingent acts of divine judgment draw on the belief that all humanity is accountable to God - which may take the form ‘the wages of sin is death’ or the more elaborate apocalyptic motif of a final judgment. But this final judgment, as far as I can see, is never spoken of as a ‘day of the Lord’.
So please hear this. I am not arguing that the Bible only speaks of judgment in historical terms. What I think we need to grasp - and find so difficult to grasp because of our particular historical and ‘modern’ perspective on this - is that the theme of judgment as it emerges in scripture is historically contextualized - to the extent that it is a mistake to read every statement or argument as in principle being universal in its meaning or application. So we come back to where I think this all started, which is my contention that when Paul speaks in Romans of a ‘day of wrath’ against Israel or against the Greek-Roman world, he has in mind an ‘event’ of some sort within history, not a universal final judgment. I am not saying that Paul did not believe in a final judgment, only that this is not what he is talking about here.
And I would argue that this is a schema that has been imposed retrospectively on the Gospels by theologians trying to make systematic sense of a narrative that actually resists that sort of reductionism. What does Jesus say about judgment that suggests this? Where does this notion of two overlapping ages come from? Jesus nowhere speaks of an ‘age to come’ that would ‘sit alongside’ the present evil age. We have this age, which is the age of the ‘corrupt generation’ of Israel; and we have an age to come.
Re: Obadiah and Joel
This comment has been moved here.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
Caramba! Isaiah 2: you’ve retrospectively changed the wording of what I quoted you on! You’re allowed to do that, but what I quoted is what you originally said (unless you change my wording as well). I both agree and disagree with you on Isaiah 2 - and still think it has a prophetic significance which reaches beyond 586 BC, which evidently the writer of Revelation 6:17 also thought - in echoing it so closely.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
Well, yes, the wording is different, but where’s the problem? The phrase ‘day of the Lord’ always refers to an event within history when God judges or saves. That act of judgment or salvation, however, is sometimes, but not always and not necessarily, depicted in terms that draw on a deeper expectation or ultimate hope of a final judgment and renewal of the whole of creation.
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
Day of the Lord – Final judgment
The discussion of the OT references to ‘day of the Lord’ observed that there were ‘day(s) of wrath’ and ‘days of the Lord’ which came in history, and suggestions in these prophecies of a ‘day’ which was beyond them all. The threads of this interweaving of ‘day(s)’ in history, and ‘a day’ which will be the culmination of history can be seen in the particular verses we looked at – excluding Ezekiel 30:3.
For Jews, the final ‘day’ was anticipated as the ‘end of the age’, when ‘this evil age’ would be ended, and Israel vindicated by the defeat of her oppressors, the return of YHWH to a restored temple, the resurrection of the righteous dead, the outpouring of the Spirit, and the restoration of the Davidic monarchy, ruling over a restored Israel, brought about by a warrior king.
In Andrew’s eschatological scheme, the ‘day’ came about through judgments on Israel, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70, and in judgment on Rome, at an unspecified date. There is a judgment to come in a far distant horizon, when there will be new heavens and new earth. But for now, all of the predictions using the term ‘day of the Lord’ refer to days in history.
The AD 70 judgment in particular is said to have fulfilled Jesus’s prophecy in Matthew 24 and its synoptic parallels – and also verses elsewhere suggesting an imminent climaxing of the kingdom of God – expressing YHWH’s triumph over Jew and Gentile oppressors of Israel, now reconstituted around Jesus and formed into the church.
We have glanced at a few references to ‘day of wrath’ and ‘day of the Lord’, and have come to an unusual and uneasy ‘agreement in disagreement’: at least, we agree that most references in the OT to ‘day of the Lord’ are to judgments in history. But we also agreed that there was a deeper sense
“that act of judgment or salvation, however, is sometimes, but not always and not necessarily, depicted in terms that draw on a deeper expectation or ultimate hope of a final judgment and renewal of the whole of creation.”
We believe that there is a final judgment, and that this is sometimes perceived through prophecies predicting judgment in history – though Andrew says this is never described as the ‘day of the Lord’
We seemed unable to agree about the verses in particular which reflected this far distant judgment in the OT – or at least, the way in which they reflected this belief.
From its own perspective, the OT would tend to reflect a belief in final judgment as an event in history –since Israel anticipated a ‘this-worldly’ restoration, marked by certain key events already mentioned. From the perspective of the NT, a this-worldly judgment is replaced by a judgment which ushers in a new heaven and new earth.
Andrew introduces an additional dimension, however, with the suggestion that a judgment on Israel and Rome fulfilled a narrative, which he calls the ‘son of man narrative’, based on Daniel 7, in which the renewed people of God were guaranteed survival in the midst of the nations. This eschatological proposal forms something like a hinge, on which biblical history swings.The hinge now draws into itself references to ‘day of the Lord’. Expectations which have traditionally been located in the future, beyond a future final judgment, are now brought forward. According to this interpretation, we are already in the palingenesia (Matthew 19:20). The effect of this eschatological proposal is to reverse the tendency of eschatology to provide a forward and future expectation for the people of God, and to encourage them to find a this-worldly accommodation and focus on the basis of eschatology already fulfilled.
The first question about this eschatological proposal is to ask, in terms of the immediate enquiry, what is the referent of ‘day of the Lord’ in the NT?
A second question might be to look at the issue of past/future fulfilments of eschatology, and ask whether there might not be further ways of interpreting eschatology, which avoid the one extreme of ‘having already been fulfilled’ (represented by Andrew’s interpretation) and the other extreme of ‘not yet fulfilled’ which is typified in contemporary ‘prophetic calendar’ approaches. However, this must form the subject of another thread.
NT and ‘the day of the Lord’
In the NT, we looked at some verses over which there was dispute – eg Romans 2:5; Revelation 6:17. Did ‘day of wrath’ in these verses refer to judgment in history, or final judgment?
Acts 2:20 ‘the great and terrible day of the Lord’ – already the subject of some discussion in its OT context, and the parallel of Joel 2:32b in Obadiah 17
‘The day of God’s wrath’ – Romans 2:5 – already the subject of some discussion, and in the light of the (limited) use of the phrase in the OT, and some exegetical cross-referencing between Romans 2 and Deuteronomy 32, suggested to be a reference to God’s activity in history.
On the other hand, Romans 2:16 – ‘In the day when God will judge the secrets of men’s hearts’ suggests that the phrase may well be a reference to a greater final judgment, in which the judging of ‘the secrets of men’s hearts’ would find a more obvious location.
1 Corinthians 1:8 – ‘That you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ’. The only obvious event to which ‘day of our Lord Jesus Christ could refer here would be to an as yet unrealized judgment – beyond the immediate history of 1st century Corinth. This view is strengthened by an accumulation of evidence that ‘day of the Lord’ in the NT is actually referring to events which have not yet been realized.
1 Corinthians 3:13 – ‘His work will be shown for what it is, for the Day will bring it to light’
1 Corinthians 5:5 ‘so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord’
2 Corinthians 1:14 ‘that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus’
Ephesians 4:30 ‘the Holy Spirit with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption’
Philippians 1:6 ‘he who began a good work in you will carry it onto completion until the day of Christ Jesus’
Philippians 1:10 ‘pure and blameless until the day of Christ’
Philippians 2:16 ‘in order that I may boast on the day of Christ’
In some places, Paul seems to anticipate that the ‘day of the Lord’ is imminent,and will happen in his lifetime, before his death, and that a parousia will occur in which he personally will be involved, in some way. Were these events fulfilled in the AD 70 judgement on Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple being a parousia of the son of man, according to Matthew 24?
Yet in one of the very places where this imminent expectation is clearly expressed, Paul is already having to address the issue of those who have died before ‘the day of the Lord’ – (1 Thessalonians 5:2). So although he can say “After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” – 1 Thessalonians 4:17, the context allows for the possibility that even Paul himself might meet the same fate as those who died before that event. The possibility disposes of the need to reframe the ‘rapture’ description in entirely metaphoric, apocalyptic terms, and make it refer to a more imminent historic event.
Further verses confirm the developing pattern that ‘day of the Lord’ in the NT refers to an as yet unfulfilled event, the final event of history, and not judgment within history.
1 Thessalonians 5:2 ‘for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night’
1 Thessalonians 5:4 ‘you are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief’
Taken with 2 Peter 3:10, it is very difficult to see ‘day of the Lord’ here, as well as the Matthew 24:43 ‘thief’, to be anything other than referring to the same event, and not something which could be identified with an AD 70 fulfilment.
2 Thessalonians 1:10 ‘on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marvelled at among all those who have believed’
2 Thessalonians 2:2 ‘not to be alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us saying that the day of the Lord has already come’
2 Thessalonians 2:3 ‘for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs’
Nobody has been able to identify with any great certainty to which rebellion this refers; was it the Jewish rebellion against the Romans? Did ‘the man of lawlessness’ have a Jewish identity (arising out of that rebellion), or a Roman identity – leading to desecration of the temple? Some aspects of the prophecy seem to associate themselves with ‘the beast’ of Revelation 13 – who uttered blasphemous words, made war against the saints, was given authority over all the nations, was worshipped by all inhabitants of the earth. Was this 1st century, or yet to be fulfilled?
2 Timothy 1:12 ‘he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day’
2 Timothy 1:18 ‘may the Lord grant that he find mercy from the Lord on that day’
2 Timothy 4:8 ‘Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing’
Since the context here is of Paul’s imminent death, it seems appropriate to think of crowns being awarded on the day when all rewards are distributed, the final day of judgment.
Hebrews 10:25 – let us encourage one another – and all the more as you see the Day approaching.’ (Context of general judgment)
1 Peter 2:12 ‘glorify God on the day of visitation’
2 Peter 1:19 ‘until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts’
How could this ‘day’ be anything other than the completion of history at the day of judgment?
2 Peter 2:9 ‘to hold the righteous for the day of judgment’
2 Peter 3:7 ‘by the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and the destruction of ungodly men’
2 Peter 3:10 ‘but the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night’
2 Peter 3:12 ‘as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming’
2 Peter 3:12-13 ‘That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.But in keeping with his promise we are looking for forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness’
1 John 4:17 ‘Love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment’
Jude 1:6 ‘bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day’
Revelation 6:17 ‘for the great day of his wrath has come’
Revelation 16:14 ‘to gather them for battle on the great day of God almighty’ (the kings of the whole world)
It seems to me that the accumulated weight of evidence supports the view that the NT modifies the pattern of the OT – and that all the references in the NT to ‘day of the Lord’ (including ‘day of wrath’, and simply ‘day’) are to final judgment. This modification entirely fits within the development of eschatology which Jesus brought in his own person, changing key aspects of Jewish expectations. A rough outline of how Jesus modified Jewish expectations can be found at http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/1454 (Light the blue touch-paper and retire – or await referral to the relevant sections and pages of ‘The Coming of the Son of Man’ – in which, of course, the bare references to verses are wrapped up in an all-encompassing eschatological interpretation).
If you have ploughed your way through to this point - extreme respect!
Re: Day of the Lord - Day of Wrath: Judgement in history or fina
Peter, that’s a pretty comprehensive and on the whole fair summary of the discussion. I certainly don’t intend to respond in detail; and as you point out, my reading of the New Testament passages would presuppose the general argument of The Coming of the Son of Man, which is that most of New Testament eschatology should be interpreted within a narrative about the vindication of the early community of disciples of Jesus, which is most clearly, but not exclusively or exhaustively, captured in Daniel’s vision of one like a Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven to receive the kingdom from God. This narrative includes very naturally the prospect of judgment, first, on rebellious and apostate Israel and, secondly, on the beast-like enemy of YHWH, which is Rome. My argument is that the texts which you cite belong to the parousia hope, which is precisely the hope that Christ and those who suffer in him would be vindicated, first against Israel, secondly against Rome.
One statement did stand out, however, as needing a bit of clarification:
I wouldn’t put it quite like that. The hope of new creation, the reintegration of heaven and earth, remains of central importance for the church, not merely as a matter of future destiny but also of present self-understanding and mission. The story of the Son of man has become for us a ‘realized eschatology’, though I think that is a very misleading way of stating it. We have moved beyond the crisis of the early centuries. But that past story has simply enabled us (saved us!) as God’s people to embrace the bigger eschatological hope of a new heaven and a new earth, and to live, as Tom Wright says, in the light of that.