I know some evangelical Christians who believe they are saved as a result of having invited Jesus into their heart or having given their life to the Lord, and that consequently they are immune from punishment for their sins. They anticipate that on the day of judgement God will waive punishment for their sins because Jesus has paid their debt for them. These Christians regard personal holiness as a way to:
- express your love and gratitude to God,
- win his approval, and
- demonstrate that you have been truly born again
But that ultimately it is not crucial because you are going to heaven anyway. Personal holiness is really just the icing on the cake. After conversion, God has become your benign pal.
But the New Testament seems to strike a different chord:
We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. 2 Corinthians 5:10
This is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; … that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6 (Paul was speaking here to Christians.)
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, … For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. Colossians 3:22-25
I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve. Revelation 2:18-23Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Hebrews 13:4 (This was written to Christians.)
God will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil. Romans 2:6-11
Can anyone help me please understand God’s judgement against Christians in the light of Jesus dying for our sins? Thank you.
judgment and salvation
Although partial answers to your questions could be found scattered throughout this site, allow me to simply reiterate a thought I’ve inherited from Brian McLaren: the Bible teaches salvation by grace and judgment by works. It is only when we conflate salvation and judgment that confusion arises. Many of Jesus’ parables heavily emphasize God’s just judgment of all people, and Romans chapter 2 picks up on that theme. Jews and Gentiles alike are judged by how they live, not by what they claim to believe. There is no partiality with God.
Not only does evangelicalism miss the point when it assumes salvation has only to do with our eternal destination, but it reduces the scope of God’s salvific work within Creation. The stereotypes you cite (being saved, inviting Jesus into your heart) come from that unhealthy fusion of salvation and judgment. By the free grace of God, all of us can be saved (translated: we no longer have to be in bondage to anger, lust, deceit, death, etc.—they have been overcome), but by our actions we will be judged (or to paraphrase Jesus, God will demand an account of what we’ve done with our ‘talents’). One of the strengths of the Emerging Church is that it can give a better account of these texts that are so problematic to a more modern evangelicalism.
Am I making sense?
Free will respected
I take a relational (to my mind "covenantal") view of these matters. Our salvation is certainly by grace, in that we fall short of the kind of righteousness that would allow us to be "good enough" for fellowship with God otherwise. However, our relationship with God is not unconditional. It is partly conditioned, for example, upon our desire to relate to him not only as father but also as master. We certainly do not show "good faith" in God when we ignore or trivialize him, his character, or his feelings and actions in regards to us.
"Good faith" penitence does not make us righteous, but it does help us be in a good relationship with God. As I understand it, God’s forgiveness is partly conditioned by our repentence.
If a Christian renounces God or loses his interest in any real relationship with him (expressed in indifference or a distant coldness perhaps), I believe that God ultimately respects our decision. However, this is not a cold, contractual process; our relationship is characterized—at least on God’s part—by cHesed (lovingkindness), by attempts to draw us back into a loving relationship.
Quite aside from the effect of our actions on our Ultimate Destiny (tm), there are several other sorts of consequences our actions could elicit. God may discipline us as he works in our lives to bring us to maturity, to attain to the image of Jesus. Laws of nature may be involved, causing such things as pain and death. There may be social reverberations, hurting or pleasing others, and eliciting pleasurable or painful actions on their part.
Who know, our life in the Hereafter might actually be determined in other ways by who we are here and now, or who we grow into being. The alternatives could be that all of us, with our different God-given personalities, end up doing the same thing, or that we randomly fall into different roles (or that we end up doing things that are fit for us but that don’t depend on how we live our lives here, I guess).
Judgment and salvation
I have outlined my own approach to this question under ‘The significance of Jesus’ death’ and the pages listed with it. The following points summarize and develop that argument.
1. Israel faced catastrophic judgment, the destruction of the nation, because of unrighteousness, disloyalty to YHWH. Jesus offered the people a narrow path that would lead to salvation, survival, life, the renewal of the community through the Spirit, but it was a path that would lead through suffering, not around it. This concrete hope for the historical continuation of the people of God was offered on the basis of the forgiveness of Israel’s sins.
2. The suffering church of the eschatological period is called to act out of obedience to the Son of man - the one who suffered and was vindicated before them, the pioneer of their faith. Paul repeatedly urges this community of ‘saints’ to live blameless lives because they will have to stand before the Lord at the parousia. The success of the eschatological transition depends on the integrity of their witness. Those who ‘conquer’ will reign with Christ throughout the age which has come.
3. In more general terms the Roman world faced judgment because of idolatry and immorality, and specifically because of Rome’s extreme hostility towards the people of God.
4. Because in the end Israel was saved through grace and not by works of the law, the possibility arose that Gentiles might also share in the new life in the Spirit, the life of the age which had come. For Gentiles, who were once far off, ‘alienated from the commonwealth of Israel’ (Eph. 2:12), to be ‘saved’ by grace was for them to be incorporated into the renewed people of God, the body of those who had remained faithful to Christ, the church.
5. The people of God has been forgiven, renewed by grace, filled with the Spirit, but this does not mean that it ceases to be accountable. We are still called to be a godly and righteous and hopeful people in the midst of the nations of the earth. It may be appropriate, however, to think of this accountability more in corporate than in individual terms.
6. Beyond any historical experience of judgment and salvation there will be a final judgment of all the dead on the basis of what they have done (Rev. 20:11-15). Whether the church can expect to be exempt from this, I’m not sure. I rather think that since we were not part of the first resurrection of those who suffered, we will be part of the second resurrection, which will precede the final judgment. Possibly my name is already written in the book of life (Rev. 20:12) and I will be part of the new Jerusalem that descends from heaven regardless of what I have done. But this does not alter the fact that I have become part of a community that has been called by God to live as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation in the world.
Eternal vs. temporal
Thank you Daniel, Chris, and Andrew for your replies.
I am sorry but I don’t understand how salvation and judgement cannot be conflated. According to the texts I quoted above, our works are not merely used as an indicator of our faith. Rather our works themselves will reap a reward/punishment. Some of the texts may be speaking about temporal judgements but the Romans 2 passage is unambiguously eternal.
I agree that evangelicalism has over-emphasized the ‘eternal destiny’ component of salvation, but as we try to correct the balance we may be in danger of under-emphasizing it. It featured prominently in Jesus’ teaching. Matthew 13:47-48, Matthew 25:46, John 5:28-29, etc.
I believe that every decision we make has a tiny (but significant in the long run) influence on the sort of person we become. All our thoughts and choices contribute to the shaping of our character, which in turn influences what we think and choose next. This loop of character-moulding choices and changes to our character that condition our choices can work for good or bad. If we choose destructive paths, the spiral is degenerative. So the perpetrator of evil becomes his own victim and suffers in this life before death. Psalm 7:14-16. But nevertheless surely our eternal destiny should be foremost in our sights. "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28-29.
I also feel it is possible to over-emphasize Jesus mission to save Israel as a nation, as if the inclusion of the Gentiles were just an afterthought. I think some of Jesus’ statements indicate that he had come as a universal saviour. See Matthew 10:18, Matthew 28:19, Luke 13:29, John 8:26, John 10:16, John 11:52, John 12:47. Also Luke 2:32, John 1:29, Acts 1:8, Acts 9:15, Acts 26:23.
Call me stiff-necked, but...
Phil, I agree that some sort of balance is called for. But we have a deeply ingrained tendency to read a later universalizing theology into the New Testament texts, and I think it is right still to pursue in a quite rigorous fashion the implications of a contextualized narrative reading. I think we need to go all the back to the beginning, re-establish the historical scope and perspective of the texts, and then find paths back to where we are now that are more consistent with that outlook.
So I would question whether Romans 2 is quite as unambiguous as you say. The phrase ‘eternal life’ (zÅÄ“n aiÅnion) is arguably to be understood as a reference not to life in heaven but to the ‘life of the age to come’, which in the context of an eschatological transition may only have in view the life of the renewed people of God in the Spirit. I am also inclined to think that the ‘wrath’ of God is consistently a reference in the Bible to concrete historical acts of judgment on a people. For example, when John the Baptist asks the Pharisees and Sadducees, ‘Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?’ (Matt. 3:7), he is thinking of the sort of judgment that was revealed in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
I would argue that the Gospel passages you refer to also presuppose both the conceptuality of Jewish apocalypticism and the historical circumstances of Israel in the first century AD. The close of the age that Jesus speaks of in Matt. 13:49 is the end of second temple Judaism, when unrighteous Israel will be (quite literally) destroyed. The judgment of the sheep and the goats likewise: it is a judgment of the nations on the basis of how they treated Jesus’ disciples (Matt. 25:45). It makes perfect sense historically. John 5:25-29 conflates Daniel 7 and Daniel 12:1-3: it describes the transfer of sovereignty from the oppressive, blasphemous beast (in this case Rome and the satanic power behind it) to the suffering ‘saints of the Most High’. These are statements about the imminent destiny of the people of God and of the enemies of God. They do not preclude the possibility of judgment, vindication, life beyond death, but the focus in the first place is on the historical experience of groups of people.
I don’t deny that Jesus looked beyond the salvation of Israel to the inclusion of Gentiles. But the Gospels primarily tell a story about Israel - its current state of spiritual oppression, its stiff-necked determination to pursue a path leading to destruction, the possibility of forgiveness and renewal, and as a consequence of that the potential for global witness.
The merry-go-round again
Andrew - as you know, I’m with you, but only up to a point. I simply don’t think you can read the new testament accounts of Jesus (and you can’t separate the gospels from Paul) without taking into account the whole history of Israel - not just the 2nd temple portion. And Israel did not understand her history separately from the Genesis accounts - which included, of course, Abraham, and the Genesis creation and fall accounts. Abraham in particular was understood to be a character addressing the problems of Adam. The motifs of blessing - fruitfulness - seed - multiply - nations and a new eden run throughout the old testament, from Genesis 1 onwards. Israel’s election was through the covenant to bring the Abrahamic blessing to the whole world - and that undoing the tragedy of Eden.
I also don’t accept that all the gospel parables/apocalypses of judgement only refer to the destruction of the temple in AD 70, though I think there is a mighty case for seeing that judgement as figuring much larger than we have been prone to do - and not just in the gospels, but throughout the new testament, including Revelation. But I know we have reached the limits of discussion on this one!
I agree with your first
Merry-go-round or roller coaster?
I’m not sure my first paragraph does coincide with your response to Lathos. You are using words like ‘universalise’, ‘eternal’, ‘myth’ to describe the interpretation of Jesus you want to get away from. But by the time you have picked up all the threads of narrative significance in OT and NT, the thrust of what you are objecting to is just about what you are left with: a renewal which is worldwide and cosmic in scope - including the earth and heavens. A fulfilment of a localised history which finds expression in worldwide significance. If there is a tension here between the local and universal, why can’t it be held in tension, instead of saying we have to have either one or the other?
The second paragraph: I can just about confine the gospel judgement apocalypses to A.D.70, and a great deal falls into place with other parts of the gospels when we do so. I’d go for something similar in Revelation, by holding to a pre A.D.70 date of composition, and generally a pre A.D.70 application. But clearly the application goes beyond A.D.70 with the fall of Babylon, and I would suggest the imagery goes beyond the fall of Rome too.
The problem is that my framework is slightly different from yours, in that I think there is still a significant momentum towards a final eschatology - with a tension to be observed between our roles as new creation stewards in the now, and new creation people for whom this present world will not, in a sense, be our home - that being reserved for the new earth. The denouement comes about with a return of Christ - of which I see the ‘parousia’ in judgement on Jerusalem (and Rome, if you like), as only a precursor to the parousia in final judgement and renewal. So I don’t see the parables of Matthew 25 as having a purely historical reference to AD 70, and if push came to shove, I would allow for a dual perspective on parts of Matthew 24 as well (ie AD 70 as a precursor of a judgement and end of age yet to come).
The context you bring to interpret texts like these really makes a big difference - and as you know, we differ over the weight we attach and even the application we give to texts such as Daniel 7:13, which are key to your point of view. I would say, a frightening amount seems to hang for you on these rather slender texts.
But I think I’ll get that beer before justifying this further. Or anyway, in Guildford, we slink off to smart little wine bars.
Let's be consistent
The issue, to my mind, is not whether Jesus has universal significance or not. I do not deny, for example, that Israel’s messiah has been exalted to the right hand of the father and given the name which is above every name. That is a matter of universal significance. Nor do I deny that ‘salvation’ for the whole of humanity in any meaningful sense is the result of Christ’s death. Nor do I deny that the New Testament offers us the prospect of a new heavens and a new earth following the judgment of all the dead, devoid of wickedness and suffering and death, where God will dwell in the midst of humanity.
It is a question of how we frame, define, construct, narrate that universal significance. Popular theology has tended to short-circuit the process, in effect by removing Jesus from his historical and narrative context and telling the story as a simplified universal myth; and in doing so it has introduced distortions. You are doing a very good job of articulating an alternative way of telling the story of Jesus. It’s just that I think you could be a bit more consistent without losing the fundamental parameters of the gospel - and without dissolving the tension between the local and the universal. So….
But what is your reason for regarding the historical judgment/parousia as a ‘precursor’ to a final judgment/parousia still to come? On what grounds would you ‘allow for a dual perspective’ - other than the fact that we have inherited a dogmatic tradition that says that the ‘parousia’ hasn’t happened yet? Is there something in the texts that point to this, that demands a further level of fulfilment? Why shouldn’t Jesus have only had in view events within the horizon of the first-century people of God? Why is there no ‘parousia’, no ‘coming on the clouds of heaven’, no ‘return of Christ’, in Revelation 20?
Consistent
Good questions - but first a health warning: this comment will make little sense to readers who have never thought about the passages examined below in anything other than an ‘end of time’ sense.
To answer the question concerning Revelation 20 first: maybe the ‘parousia’, ‘coming on the clouds of heaven’, ‘return of Christ’ are not seen there because the chapter is not consistently ‘about’ the final things. For instance, verses 1-3 are for me the consequences of the victory of Jesus on the cross. Verses 4-6 may involve some sudden shifts in time perspective - but I see it primarily as describing the martyrs who participate in the victory of the cross. Verses 7-10 I see as a warning of conflicts to come following the victory of the cross (the 1000 years - a metaphor for victory, not primarily a historical time-span) but again - ultimate victory for Christ and the saints. So for me, only in verses 11-15 is there a section specifically located in the future - the end of time, if you like.
Neither do I see the chapters 21 & 22 as being necessarily and primarily of future significance - though undoubtedly the future end of the age is there as well.
I now need to work backwards to Matthew 24 through the NT (You’ll see why as we go through and when we get there).
I do see a future return of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 : though this may partly be conflated with the ‘parousia’ in judgement on Jerusalem in AD 70. That the event here cannot completely describe AD 70 is suggested by certain details: ‘the dead in Christ will rise first’; ‘we who are still alive and are left will be caught up with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord for ever.’ - 1 Thessalonians 4:17. It’s stretching apocalyptic language somewhat to conflate this with the AD 70 events.
I also see the ‘end of time’ in 2 Peter 3:10-13 - which also mentions the new heaven and new earth, and is too detailed for me to see it purely as an apocalyptic description of AD 70.
I don’t however see a future return of Christ where it is usually seen: in 2 Thessalonians 1-12.
I see the return of Christ at the end of time in Matthew 25. Clearly there is a backward glance at Matthew 24 in these parables - which has AD 70 primarily in focus. But some of the details of the parables don’t fit with an AD 70 fulfilment:
1. The parable of the 10 virgins concerns a wedding, not a destructive conflagration. It also concerns the actual meeting of the virgins with the bridegroom in person. It is also about the virgins getting into the banquet - inside the house: not, as would be signified if this was AD 70, getting out of the house (Jerusalem) before it was destroyed.
2. The parable of the talents - a judgement on what the servants have been doing in their master’s absence, with rewards and judgments, rather than any metaphorical reference to an AD 70 destructive ‘coming’ in judgement on Jerusalem.
3. Sheep and the goats - ‘All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates sheep from the goats’ - v.32. AD 70 was not an ‘all nations’ event.
Reading backwards now in the light of these parables, Matthew 24:36-51 may have a primary reference to AD 70, but in the light of the parables of Matthew 25, I think it is valid to see an application to the end of time and final judgement as well. The final parable of Matthew 24:45-51 almost requires this secondary level of interpretation. Paul picks up the same metaphor used here of ‘the thief in the night’ in 1 Thessalonians 5:2, where the preceding passage, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, I have already proposed, does refer to a final return of Christ.
So we come to the main section of Matthew 24:1-35. This makes sense to me with a primary AD 70 application. Jesus is answering two questions:
1. When will this (the destruction of the temple) happen? (25:3a)
2. What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? (25:3b)
The first question concerns the time of the destruction of the temple - AD 70.
It is reasonable to think that the disciples would take the second question to be a corollary of this event - the ‘end of the age’ would be when the temple was destoyed. But what was ‘the end of the age’ as Jesus understood it? Especially since an ‘age’ continued after the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, and nobody seems to have been particularly surprised by this continuation.
I think that Jesus was hinting, in a way hidden from the disciples, at a greater ‘end of the age’ yet to come beyond AD 70. The passages mentioned above suggest this - in similar, but much more far-reaching terms. So I don’t think it is inconsistent to believe that there is a dual focus in Matthew 24, and that ‘parousia’ in judgment on Jerusalem and the temple was a precursor of perhaps many judgements to come - and a final judgement.
I do firmly think there is far more of a focus on AD 70 in Matthew 24 than has been routinely allowed. I also think that most of Revelation is like an extended commentary on Matthew 24.
You will appreciate that to come to this conclusion, the total context of references to a final return of Christ has to be taken into consideration, and though I think the picture is far more complex than we have traditionally liked to believe (though nowhere near as complex as millennarian interpretations), it is the context which we bring to an interpretation of Matthew 24 which has a huge bearing on how we understand it.
Judgment and the end of the age
Peter, thanks for the detailed and thoughtful comments. They have to be addressed in similar detail.
Revelation 20-22
I broadly agree with your reading of chapter 20, though I am more inclined to see the millennium as denoting a period of time. But it is precisely at verses 11-15 that we would expect to see the parousia motif show - and oddly, it doesn’t.
I’m surprised you see chapters 21-22 as not being ‘necessarily and primarily of future significance’. Explain.
2 Peter 3:10-13
Peter expected his readers and their opponents to experience the ‘day of God’ described in 3:12 (cf. 1:19; 3:14). I think we have to take seriously his belief that this hope mattered immediately to believers who were facing ‘trial’ (2 Peter 2:9).
The phrase ‘day of the Lord’ in the OT typically refers to historical events.
The coming judgment is analogous to the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (2:4-10; 3:6), both examples of historical judgment on a corrupt society and the rescue of a few righteous; in neither case was the cosmos destroyed.
The detailed and lurid apocalyptic language - with the renewal of heaven and earth, the rending of the heavens, the melting of the mountains (LXX) - is drawn from Isaiah’s description of the renewal of Jerusalem and judgment upon Israel’s enemies (Is. 64:1-2; 65:17; 66:1-2, 15). If Isaiah could use this sort of language to describe a foreseen historical event, why can’t Peter?
1 Thessalonians 4:13-17
I agree this is more difficult, but why, in the first place, would Paul make a statement about an event that could be "partly be conflated with the ‘parousia’ in judgement on Jerusalem in AD 70"? You suggest that Rev. 20:4-6 describes the ‘martyrs who participate in the victory of the cross’. Is it possible that Paul, writing to a church that is experiencing persecution and perhaps the death of some of its members as a result of that (1 Thess. 2:14; 4:13) has something similar in mind here - the vindication of the suffering church when the enemy of the people of God is judged? I would suggest that 2 Thess. 1-2 describes this judgment.
Matthew 25
The parable of the ten virgins describes the exclusion of foolish Israel from the kingdom of God. Jesus often describes the coming judgment on Israel in terms of exclusion. The parable of the talents naturally speaks of the responsibilities of the disciples (or perhaps of Israel) in the period leading up to the coming of YHWH in judgment. And while AD 70 was not an ‘all nations’ event, the concomitant judgment on the enemies of God’s people could easily be understood in such terms.
Matthew 24
I would have thought chapter 25 should be interpreted in the light of the preceding apocalyptic narrative, not vice versa. The point of the parable of the servant (24:45-51) simply says that any servant of God who misbehaves in the period leading up to the judgment on Jerusalem, thinking perhaps that it’s not going to happen, will be punished along with foolish Israel, the ‘hypocrites’, excluded from the kingdom which will be given to the Son of man and those who suffer along with him.
Your argument about the age not closing at this point is unconvincing. You yourself have often argued that for the people of God Jesus replaced the temple and the other ‘symbols’ of Israel. Why does that not qualify as the end of one age and the beginning of a new one? I would suggest that Matt. 13:36-43 explicitly describes the judgment of Israel and the vindication of the Son of man at the ‘close of the age’.
Judgement etc - a response
Andrew - I don’t know if I can keep up with these messages - but I’ve read your comment and looked up all the passages, so here is a response.
Revelation 20-22
Sweeping conclusions tend to be drawn from the assumption that Revelation 6 onwards, and 17-22 especially, are a chronological sequence. I think there is something sequential - but that there are also recapitulations, and references to contemporary events (AD 65/66 - in my view).
Also there is no ‘coming’ of Jesus as traditionally visualised before verses 11-15, but neither is Jesus mentioned anywhere between verses 7-15, and not specifically located in space or time between verses 1-7.
Chapter 21 is generally understood as following the judgement of verses 20:11-15, and the introductory ‘Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth’ does seem to set a future framework for what follows. But in another sense, the church does not just come down from heaven in its splendour at the end of time, but is always coming down from heaven (it isn’t an earth-bound construct, because its members are only members if they are born from above), and is always being prepared for the bridegroom. The river of life (22:1) is always flowing through the church as God’s people; the church’s role is always to bring ‘healing to the nations’ by providing the one means by which true harmony and unity between diverse peoples can be experienced. It was an exaggeration to suggest that the primary focus of the chapters was not future - but there is much more of the present there than is usually accepted.
2 Peter 3:10-13
The destruction of the world by water is analogous, to my mind, to the destruction of the world by fire. I think both events would have been perceived as worldwide (even if, historically, the former wasn’t) - so I don’t think the event described here correspomds to the the destruction of a city (Jerusalem). 3:7,10 describe specifically the destruction of ‘the present heavens and earth’. I don’t see this echoing the passages of Isaiah which might conceivably relate to the destruction of Jerusalem, unlike Matthew 24:29 - which echoes Isaiah 13:10 - a specific judgement on Babylon. (Interestingly, Isaiah 34:4 uses similar language to decribe judgement on ‘all nations’ - which may well give Matthew 24:29 a future significance). The references to Isaiah which you give could equally all be end of time specific, and there is more of interest here: Isaiah 65:17-19 almost parallel Revelation 21:1-4 - new heavens and earth followed by renewed Jerusalem etc. In New Testament terms: present (contemporary), or future?
1 Thessalonians 4:13-17
Maybe this passage is not conflated with the destruction of Jerusalem. I would simply echo your comment that there are difficulties here in making the passage specifically relate to AD 70. What do we do convincingly with the difficulties? For me, 2 Thessalonians 1-2, and 2 particularly, fit with things that we know about the destruction of Jerusalem.
Matthew 25
You assert that the three parables speak of the time leading up to AD 70, but there is no evidence within the parables to anchor them historically this way - and, to my mind, considerable evidence that suggests the contrary, which I have described.
Matthew 24
I was mainly trying to place Matthew 24 in the broader context of other NT texts. It is still the case that the context within which you view Matthew 24 affects greatly how you understand it. I agree that the parable of the servant could relate to a pre AD 70 scenario, but it could relate to a later, final judgement as well. (Or any later judgement). The phrase ‘thief in the night’ echoed by Paul in a passage which more strongly suggests a final judgement is telling here.
I have had to rattle this off much more quickly than I would have liked as I am late for an appointment - but I’d be interested in come-back, to keep the dialogue going. I haven’t been able to respond to your final points through lack of time.
Trial by exegesis
Peter, I’m sure no one else is remotely interested in this arcane discussion, but I do feel that it’s worth sifting through these details ino order to gain a sense of the coherence of the biblical narrative.
That’s true for chapter 20. It seems to me that Rev. 19:11-16 corresponds in John’s scenario to the coming of the Son of man to execute judgment on the nations who persecute the righteous. The language is certainly reminiscent of 2 Thess. 1:7-8. The robe dipped in blood associates this figure with the suffering saints, the martyrs. The allusion to Psalm 2 in 19:15 brings into view the giving of rule (ie. kingdom) to one who is beset by the nations.
There is also Rev. 12:8-9, which echoes Daniel 7: the great dragon or beast, the accuser of the brethren, the one who makes war on the saints of the Most High, is overthrown, and ‘the salvation and the power and the kingdom… and the authority’ have come.
These two passages constitute the two sides of the ‘coming’ motif in the New Testament: the coming to execute judgment on the enemies of the people of God and the coming on the clouds (cf. Rev. 1:7) to the ancient of days to receive ‘dominion and glory and kingdom’ (Dan. 7:14).
I’m sure that’s true, but I find it hard to believe that’s what John meant by it.
Isaiah 34 describes a ‘day of vengeance, a year of recompense for the cause of Zion’ (34:8). Doesn’t this sound like judgment on Israel’s enemies? The outcome is that the land lies waste for generations, inhabited only by wild animals (34:10-11). It doesn’t seem far-fetched to suggest that the New Testament reuses this language to speak of judgment on the contemporary enemies of the people of God.
You have to take into account the context in which these parables were told. Jesus is on the mount of Olives, across from the temple, talking to his disciples, representatives of a renewed Israel, having explained to them at length that the nation faces devastating judgment, having warned them that they will be persecuted on account of their witness to him, and he starts talking to them about the responsibility of servants and handmaidens to be ready, prepared, awake, effective in the use of opportunities and resources; and he assures them that their enemies, those who maltreat them, will not escape judgment. Surely they would have applied those parables to their own circumstances and would have been utterly mystified if you had been there to tell them that Jesus was talking about events that had nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem and the conflict with Rome.
Remote Interest?
Andrew said:
Although I don’t have enough time to participate anymore, I am always following the discussions between you two (Andrew and Peter), with great interest. I am hoping you fill in some gaps and answer some questions I have along similar lines of whatever you decide to participate in, but do not have the opportunity to contribute myself. Keep it up!
Eric
Trial by error
Clarification
Andrew,
Are you saying that the judgment described at 2 Thessalonians 1-2 occurred at the same time that the Jewish Temple system was judged in 70 AD?
2 Thessalonians 1-2
No. My argument would be (Peter appears to disagree with this) that for Paul to narrate the apocalyptic narrative that we have in 2 Thess. 1-2, using the language that he did, to a community facing both local and imperial hostility, he must have been thinking of a judgment in some form on the immediate enemies of the people of God - effectively Rome. This passage to my mind (again Peter might disagree) is a good example of how the New Testament makes use of a typology of conflict, judgment and vindication drawn from Daniel 7-12 in order to speak hopefully about its own circumstances. There is perhaps a prophetic allusion to AD 70 in the account of the man of lawlessness’s self-deification in the ‘temple’. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was judgment on Israel, but it was also a supreme act of aggression against the people of God, and the Old Testament pattern demands the punishment of Israel’s enemies and the vindication of the righteous.
Of course, you could object that no historical ‘judgment’ befell those who persecuted the church that would fit the terms of Paul’s narrative. That is a question of how we interpret biblical prophecy. I think Old Testament precedent allows considerable flexibility of reference. The fundamental point would be that pagan religion and imperial ideology did not overcome the gospel; Rome’s monstrous, satanically inspired challenge to the sovereignty of YHWH was defeated through the faithfulness of the ‘Son of man’.
I might object
Andrew,
You wrote
I agree with the idea of flexibility. But usually the OT uses very apocalyptic imagery to describe judgment and thus what is described isn’t what you see in reality. But real,historical judgment nevertheless still occurred.
Do you have any evidence that some type of real judgment occurred to the authorities of Thessalonica during the 1st century? I have been convinced by a lot of what you have to say, but here I do not think we can simply right it off to how we interpret prophecy. Paul really believes that God will judge those who are persecuting the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 1:6). Are you saying that the referent here is not the local authorities but the Imperial System of Rome?
I think Paul was referring to the local authorities and it did not come to pass during Paul’s lifetime. But it will. I do think 70 AD was a watershed moment in the history of redemption. It was the moment of Jesus’ vindication as the Prophet like Moses and a sign that God will vindicate all those who trust in Jesus and suffer under this present evil age.
Judgment on Thessalonica?
Christopher, I agree that AD 70 was a watershed - all I would say is that the apocalyptic/eschatological narrative is larger than that, because ultimately this is about Israel’s place in the world. The Old Testament pattern is of judgment on Israel followed sooner or later by judgment on the enemies of Israel. The redeemed people of God moved beyond confrontation with rebellious Israel to confrontation with Rome. The Son of man motif includes the idea of a sinful Israel collaborating with the pagan oppressor and suffering the wrath of God, but at the heart of Daniel 7 is judgment on the vicious and destructive foreign power that defied YHWH and made war against the saints.
The apocalyptic narrative in 2 Thessalonians 1-2 centres on an individual figure who is analogous to Antiochus Epiphanes. I think this must in some sense be a reference to the emperor and the imperial cult. Presumably judgment on the lawless one at the centre has repercussions for local authorities that persecute the church in places like Thessalonica. Did this happen historically? That’s difficult. I don’t think you can make the answer to that sort of question a criterion for exegesis. 2 Thessalonians tells us something of how Paul saw the future, but we should be careful not to read what actually happened back into the text. I do think, however, that we can be reasonably confident about the frame of reference: it is right to assume i) that he has in mind the actual circumstances of the people to whom he writes, and ii) that he is not using this language in a way that is utterly different to how it is used in the Old Testament.
In view of that, I would suggest that the eventual ‘victory’ of the gospel over the imperial system constituted a more fundamental vindication of the ‘Son of man’ than AD 70. Rome was a challenge to the universal sovereignty of ‘the Lord and his anointed’ - to use the language of Psalm 2. To varying degrees, of course, the failure of the imperial system was also felt locally. I am not a historian, but the Wikipedia has this statement about Thessalonica:
Does that count in any way?
Squeezing in here, as the thread below has its own coherence
I hope I am not missing the point again. If the question is, “What need anyone fear from death?” my Universalist tradition attempted to remove fear by appealing to a divinity of developing love whose eventual aim, of the full restoration of all souls, was unconditional. (I did not learn until later that Origen was driven from the early church for advocating his similar neo-Platonic version.) In addition to Biblical texts, the chief evidence for such a view, was the historical advancement of amelioration of human suffering. When Darwin gave us evolution, American liberal Christianity chimed in with its many versions of natural theology.
The horrors of WWI should have been a sufficient challenge to such notions, but as a child in the US of the Great Depression and WWII, I was reared in a ideological religious atmosphere where progress was still our most important product.
The consequence of the lurches backward in recent times (and I date my awakening to sometime shortly before 1970 – post Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” in the midst of the Vietnam War, and after a new appreciation of the plight of minorities in my nation’s history, not to mention the Cold War) considerations of time’s eventualities have been replaced in my denomination by a rush to keep up with scientific information and social scientific developments. In our funeral liturgy, it has been enough to urge living in such Stoic fashion that when death comes it shall be an unjust fate.
I turned to philosophy when I realized that hopes for human progress failed in the face of overwhelming and unmitigated human exploitation. The consequence has been a realization that rather than continued denial of human fallibility (thank you, Paul Ricoeur), the Christian theme of sacrifice remains a steady source, consistent with my Judeo-Christian heritage, for understanding my own religious project.
Instead of reliance for hope based on some enumerated exchange of punishments and rewards, I confess that I am called to give of myself to others. In complete honesty, I cannot get anyone else to listen to what is for me the meaning of my remaining days. Only that, it works for me.
Free from Condemnation.
I guess this line of thought has been exhausted. As a newbie, I just wanted to add my two cents. I, for one, think your right on about the judgment and salvation.
Coming from a Reformed tradition, I hold to the idea of Total Depravity: we are incapable of saving ourselves. That is, we are incapable of knowing God and entering God’s kingdom (now and for eternity) on our own.
The arch of the Bible seems to be saying that God’s plan was to call the world to "himself" through Israel who would be a light to the nations. Unable to do it themselves, God did it freely on their behalf through Jesus (or by grace).
By grace (or in Jesus) gentiles have also been shown the way to God. God requires of Christians what has always been required of God’s people: do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8). In Christian lingo I might say, "Walk in Jesus’ steps and realize you can’t do it on your own."
My eternal question has to do with James statement that "mercy triumphs over judgment." If there is an eternal place of punishment, can we repent from hell?
Hell and repentance
With regard to your ‘eternal question’ there has been considerable discussion already on this site. You could have a look at:
Revelation, the lake of fire and A.D.70
Just reading it as it stands
Brian McLaren on hell
My own view is that the Bible does not envisage an eternal place of punishment. The fundamental judgment on humanity for its rebellion against God is death. For groups of people, such as nations, such as Israel, this takes the form of destruction, which may entail considerable suffering. The final judgment on human wickedness leads to a final death - what John calls the ‘second death’ in Revelation. Individuals and nations are called to repentance in order to avoid judgment. You cannot repent once you’re dead.