This post continues discussion of the resurrection of those in Christ from the ‘Prophecy and realism’ thread, particularly in response to comments by kingjames1.
Briefly, the assumption is that resurrection belongs fundamentally to the new creation: it constitutes for the individual the final abandonment of this creation and entry into a radically new ontology in which there is no more sin and death. Any resurrection prior to that final renewal of heaven and earth is ontologically misplaced - it anticipates something that has not yet happened. But belief in resurrection develops in the first place, biblically, not from reflection on the universal condition of death but from the conviction, on the one hand, that God would renew corporate Israel through judgment (Ezek 37:11-14; Hos. 6:1-2), and on the other, that he would not abandon the individual righteous to death (Dan. 12:2-3).
So the argument is that in the New Testament resurrection is both the vindication of the true Israel that suffers and an anticipation of new creation - it may even be that it is precisely the radical ontological transformation of Jesus that gives rise to the hope that all creation will ultimately be transformed around the Lamb of God. Those who suffer out of obedience to YHWH - Christ the first-fruits and those in him - are raised in the context of that eschatological crisis to share in the kingdom that is given to the Son of man. But where are those resurrected bodies to go? They belong to a new ontology that does not yet exist, so they ‘go to heaven’ to reign at the right hand of God, until the reign of God no longer needs to be exercised through the Son who suffered, died and was vindicated. Their existence in heaven is presumably as ‘bodily’ as Christ’s existence in the heaven is bodily.
Does it matter that the resurrection of the martyrs in conjunction with the eschatological crisis of transition was not physically seen? For the dead in Christ to share in the vindication of the Son of man, is it necessary for them to be raised bodily from their tombs and literally transported through the air to join Christ on the clouds of heaven? I just don’t think the language of prophecy requires that, but clearly there is scope for disagreement, and I’m not sure we can solve the problems on exegetical grounds. Anyway, I don’t see a contradiction between the idea of an unseen resurrection of the martyrs and their continuing bodily existence at the right hand of God, for the reason that Christ’s own continuing bodily existence is also unseen.
Re: The resurrection of those in Christ
Thanks for the clarification on some of these points, andrew.
You write, "Any resurrection prior to that final renewal of heaven and earth is ontologically misplaced - it anticipates something that has not yet happened."
But isn’t this the point of Paul’s argument in 1Cor 15? The new age of resurrection has been inaugurated in Christ’s resurrection, which certainly, as Paul goes on to unfold later in the chapter, is of an entirely different ontological status (a ‘spritual body’). This is part and parcel of the inaugurated eschatology of the New Testament. In Christ, the end of the ages has come, and we, as a result of being ‘in Christ’ are those "upon whom the ends of the ages has come" (1Cor.10:11) and even now taste "the powers of the age to come" (Heb.6:5). This participation, which is mediated through the indwelling and sealing Spirit, uniting us to Christ (1Cor.6:17), lifting us ‘spiritually’ to the right hand of God with him (Col.3:1, Eph.2:6; etc.), will then be fully realized when, through the same Spirit, we will be raised bodily from the dead, bearing the glory of Christ (Rom.8:11, 17; Phil.3:21). In the meantime, we "who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Rom.8:21) [and here, I assume you’d agree, the context is clearly the renewal of the frustrated created order]. Here the tension of the now and not yet is clearly displayed: we have the first-fruits of the Spirit now, yet the full harvest is not yet, and we yearn for it eargerly - longing for the completion of the good work begun in us.
You continue: "But belief in resurrection develops in the first place, biblically, not from reflection on the universal condition of death but from the conviction, on the one hand, that God would renew corporate Israel through judgment (Ezek 37:11-14; Hos. 6:1-2), and on the other, that he would not abandon the individual righteous to death (Dan. 12:2-3)."
I would agree. Yet I would not pit one against the other. For obviously it is the reality of the ‘universal condition of death’ (which is not irrelevant in the covenantal history [or redemptive-historical narrative, if you prefer] of the Pentateuch, to use that charming, British understatement) is the necessary presupposition in the biblical conviction that God would renew his people Israel and not abandon his saints to the grave. The death with which Adam’s offspring have been cursed sets the morbid stage of redemptive-history. Again, we see the cosmic dimensions of Israel’s story and Yahweh’s redemption through ‘Abraham the Hebrew’.
"So the argument is that in the New Testament resurrection is both the vindication of the true Israel that suffers and an anticipation of new creation - it may even be that it is precisely the radical ontological transformation of Jesus that gives rise to the hope that all creation will ultimately be transformed around the Lamb of God."
The resurrection of the New Testament is no mere metaphor for national restoration through the Messiah (neither, I would argue, was it in Ezekiel 37). ‘Resurrection’ refers to the eschatological raising of the dead on the last day (e.g., Lk.14:14), as well as Jesus’ being raised to life after his passion (e.g., Mt.27:53). ‘Raising’ the dead in the narratives of the gospels refers both the resuscitation of the corpse (as in Jesus’ raising the dead during his earthly ministry, e.g., Mk.6:15), which is in turn an anticipation of the eschatological blessings of the kingdom Jesus announced, namely THE resurrection during the eschaton, ‘latter days’, or ‘last day’ (see John 11:21-45), and to Jesus’ resurrection on the third day (e.g., Mt.17:9). Clearly then, resurrection should be understood in the gospels as, at the bare minimum, the physically dead being brought back to life (which is not necessarily to deny a spiritual component nor an ‘ontological transformation’, as you put it). So we should be careful to not allegorize this very earthy doctrine in our biblical theology.
This is not to say that you have done this. But whatever the resurrection signifies theologically in redemptive-history, it is nevertheless a bodily resurrection of the deceased. The theological significance of the resurrection, I would agree, is the vindication of God’s covenant people and thus God’s righteousness, who is both the covenant Lord of Abraham and the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth (thus you rightly acknoweldge both the particular trajectory of Israel’s covenant and the universal trajectory of creation in God’s renewal of heaven and earth).
But where you dichotomize these two in terms of the kingdom of God and the new creation (which I think is untenable, and disintegrates what the NT presents as an organic whole), I would see the vindication of the saints as yet future, when ALL those who share the ‘blessed hope’ of His return (see 2Thess.1:10) will be transformed (1Jn 3:2; Phil.3:20-21; 1Co.15:50-53). Note how Paul sees the eschatological resurrection of the body (‘flesh and blood’) as the necessary prerequisite to inheriting the kingdom of God. This cannot be limited to certain martyrs during some supposed post-Pentecost, eschatological transition within the first four centuries of the church. For, Paul here says, ‘we will not all sleep’ (i.e., be dead), ‘but we will ALL be changed.’ Paul asserts that the dead in Christ at His return will rise first, and then those who remain alive will be caught up with him (1 Thess.4:14-17). This will all happen ‘in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye’ (1 Cor.15:52).
Do you then believe also that they’re were believers in the first four centuries who were ‘caught up in the air’ with the Lord, as Scripture says? Talk about ‘secret rapture’! To make this a matter of indifference seems to ignore the exigencies of these texts.
This is, I think, a relevant thread to discuss your interpretation of 1Cor 15, particularly vv.20ff.
The suffering of creation
I must say, I am struggling to keep up with the level of detail in your posts, and I am tempted to say go and read the book, it’s all there. To provide some focus, though, I suggest for now looking at Romans 8:20-22, to which you made reference:
Actually, I am not so sure that Paul is thinking here of a final, end-of-history transformation of creation (if that was the thrust of your comment). Paul uses, I think, the language of Isaiah 24:3-6 - for example, verse 3 in the LXX reads ‘the earth will be corrupted with corruption (phthora phtharēsetai)’. A couple of things to point out here. First, the corruption of the earth is a direct consequence of the wickedness and idolatry of its inhabitants (5-6). Secondly, it has a markedly future orientation - the passage is linked to the future judgment on the enemies of Israel and to Israel’s future vindication and restoration. The suffering of the natural order, therefore, will be an aspect of the religious-political disorder that will accompany the inauguration of the new age - perhaps a direct effect of the Lord punishing the ‘the host of heaven’ (Isaiah 24:23).
I would suggest, therefore, that Paul is not thinking cosmologically here but historically. He finds in Isaiah a powerful motif for (or prophecy of) the chaos that will mark the transition from second temple Judaism, through judgment on the kings of the earth (cf. Isaiah 24:21), to the inauguration of the reign of God in Christ (cf. Isaiah 24:23). The whole of creation participates in the pains that will give birth to the new age in the Spirit, along with those who have the firstfruits of the Spirit (Romans 8:23). This is consistent with the broader apocalyptic narrative of suffering and vindication that underpins Romans 8 - note in particular that it is those who suffer with Christ who will be glorified with him, which to my mind corresponds to the Son of man drama.
Re: The suffering of creation
A while back I tried to make the case for an universal atonement of Christ and noticed how both linguistically and historically Paul also seemed to advocate the same thing, not as an end-of-time event, but as a contemporary, tangible societal and economic reality.
My father in law uses a great example to illustrate this: if advanced aliens would come to Earth and move every single human being to Mars, would there still be sin on Earth? So one should ask: did Jesus die to atone for rocks, grass, cows and oceans?
This is reinforced by Paul in Romans 5: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because they all sinned"
Therefore the world here should perhaps not be perceived as the physical plane of existence (made of dirt, rocks and atoms), but rather the kosmou, the complex and relational system of humans living together at that time:
One man sinned -> he died — therefore — All men sinned -> all died
As a result, the discussion regarding life and resurrection should consider this context. This is in sync with what John is writing in 1 John 2 regarding the world: "And the system (kosmos) is passing away — note the present indicative — and the lust of it; but the one doing the will of God is remaining into the age."
Compare this with verse 2 where John writes about the propitiation being for the holou tou kosmou - the whole of the system.
Re: The suffering of creation
Andrew,
Wow. Brilliant. Your capacity to find the ‘echoes’ of Scripture, however faint, in the words of Paul (and the Gospel writers), to ‘echoe’ Richard Hays’ title, is truly amazing, I would say even preternatural. Not only to find Daniel 2 and 7 behind the finest details of the kingdom parables (e.g., ‘the world’ of the ‘wheat and tares’ as the mode of operation of the fourth kingdom), but now to dig Isaiah 24 out of Romans 8 is a truly spectacular exegetical feat. All on the basis of that one little clue, phthoras.
If I were to find such an echo in Romans 8, I would have looked elsewhere, perhaps to the book of Ecclesiastes (a sustained reflection on the theological, cosmic realities of Genesis 3). I would have traced the significance of Paul’s use of ‘frustrated’ or ‘futilty’ in v.20 to the repeated, thematic refrain of Qoheleth in the LXX: "futility of futilities…," rather than ‘corruption’ (which is most often used by Paul to refer to the mortality and entropic ‘decay’ of our present existence, e.g., 1Co.15:42, 50; Col.2:22). Indeed, we, with the Teacher, groan under the corruption and frustration of a cursed order, longing for the liberation of the cosmos.
Re: The suffering of creation
Ouch. Sarcasm.
Fair enough, there is always a danger of over-interpretation. I accept that. But it’s certainly not all on the basis of ‘one little clue’. It has to do with the overall coherence of the analysis; it has to do with the fact that everywhere we look in the New Testament there are more or less explicit allusions to the language, imagery and argumentation of the Old Testament; it has to do with the broader thematic analogies between passages in Isaiah and the writings of the New Testament; it has to do with the emphasis on the sufferings ‘of the present time’ (Romans 8:18), which sets the immediate eschatological context (cf. Romans 13:11-12) for Paul’s reflection on the frustration of creation; it has to do with the relationship of conformity between these sons of God who will be revealed and the image of the Son who faced hostility, died, and was raised from the dead so that Israel might be saved from her enemies; and although I don’t suppose it will impress you greatly, the word stenazō (‘sign, groan’) also occurs in both passages (Romans 8:22-23 and Isaiah 24:7).
Yes, the word ‘futility’ (mataiotēs) occurs frequently in Ecclesiastes but always in relation to human activity, never in connection with creation as a whole. The eschatological context of Isaiah 24, with its story of judgment on the enemies of Israel and the installation of YHWH as king, seems far more relevant, even without the verbal echo.
Re: The suffering of creation
Brother Andrew,
I have to say that you really are a good sport. (I half expected you to respond: GFY). I appreciate your willingness and longsuffering in engaging a thick-headed arsehole such as myself. It speaks either to your character, or reveals that you are incredibley bored. I assume the first, as the latter could equally be charged me!
Regarding Isaiah 24, the content and context, as you well know, is the eschatological judgment/vindication of the whole world (as the ‘apocalyptic’ climax of prophetic oracles against the nations, including Jerusalem, in chapters 14-23). In a sense, of course, this is the entire context of the NT as the age of fulfillment of "all that the prophets had spoken" (Ac.3:24; Lk.24:25), inaugurated in Christ’s coming and preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, declaring that "the kingdom of God has come near" (Lk.10:8-11) and even has "come upon you" (Lk.11:10)! As such one could find the ‘little apocalypse’ of Isaiah at least tangentially relevant to nearly anything written in the NT, and informing every aspect of its own self-understanding as the dawning of a new era.
But then, neither is Isaiah 24 unique in this way. Many such eschatological texts in the OT inform the NT’s own eschatology. So the question is whether or not Paul had Isaiah 24 specifically in mind (whether consciously or not) in penning Romans 8. I rather doubt it, but then I am no mind reader. But I see no need to draw this conclusion, as I find the broad, eschatological hope ‘of the Law and Prophets’ informing Paul at this point, and though certainly cohereing with the eschatology of Isaiah 24, does not demand this text in particular as its background.
But then again, I would not separate out the cosmic hope of the renewal of creatioon from the restoration of Israel, either in the prophets, where these themes intermingle (e.g., Isaiah 65-66), or the apostles, where they grow together, culminating into the grand climax of Revelation 21-22. In fact, I see the promises to Abraham as the fulfillment of the promise to Eve, which is really the promise to restore the fallen order through the seed of the woman (e.g., the hope of Noah’s parents in so naming their son, Ge.5:29). Through Noah the plan of redemption continues through the violence of the flood. And through his seed, Abraham, all the nations would be blessed. Through David, the son of Abraham, will come one who will establish God’s rule amidst a rebellious world (e.g., Ps.2; 72; 110), ushering in the full blessings of the covenant (2Sa.7).
And the prophets make clear, as redemptive-hisotry unfolds, that the restoration of Zion (as the climax of covenant blessing, cf. Dt.30:1ff.) would be downright supernatural, involving the renewal of creation itself in the promised blessings of the land and the dramatic end of all warfare and strife in the promised blessings of peace and security, in the final, divinely established Shalom (e.g., Isa.2:2-4; 9:1-7; Zech.9:9-10; cf. Dt.28:1-14; Lev.26:3-13). So in a word, I can see how both Isaiah 24 (and 65-66) and Ecclesiastes inform Paul’s eschatological hope as articulated in chapter 8. The two compliment, inform, and contextualize the other.
Lastly, your comment that Ecclesiastes is ‘alway speaking of ‘futility’ in relation to human activity, and never in connection with creation as a whole’ - surely this is a weak point. First, can one really so neatly separate human activity from the creation ‘as a whole’? God did not in cursing the ground on account of Adam’s sin. Moreover, the oracle of the Lord in Isaiah 24 tightly connects human sin with the destruction of the known world (as happened in Genesis 6). Secondly, it is not really true, is it, that Qoheleth’s complaints of futility are thus limited. I mean, Ecclesiastes isn’t just bemoaning the futility of human endeavors, but of human being! Indeed, the whole order of creation conspires against him, bringing all his activity, his whole life, his raison d’etre into serious question. The ultimate issue in Ecclesiasites in point of fact is not human activity, but the infuriating mystery of God’s in a fallen order (e.g., Ecc.11:5; 3:11, 14). Take some time to read (slowly) through the whole book again, and I think you’ll see what I mean.
And regarding, stenazÅ (‘sign, groan’), it will be difficult to link Paul’s uage here to Isa.24. It is used often enough throughout the LXX to render any one apparent allusion (or inter-textuality) on this lexical basis highly suspect. More importantly, we need to look at the text itself. It seems clear to me that the groaning of creation is due to its subjection to frustration (futility) in 8:20, and its longing to be liberated at the revelation of the sons of God (at the renewal of all things). This does not appear to be the apocalyptic judgment of the earth depicted in Isaiah 24, which is violent, destructive, and decisive, but the languishing of a creation under curse. Certainly a curse devours the earth in Is.24:6, but either this is the consummation of Adam’s curse (i.e., the death of the world as ‘in Adam’ or ‘under’ Adam, the fallen order, the dark ‘cosmos’ of Johannine literature) or the curse(s) of judgment to be inflicted on all Israel’s enemies in the latter days (cf. Dt.30:7; 32:22, 40-43). Either way, these two cannot be separated. Secondly, the groaning is (lexically and contextually) linked with our groaning with the Spirit (8:26), not as those under God’s judgment (cf. 8:1), as is the world in Is.24, but as the redeemed waiting for the completion of our redemption (8:24-25).
Re: The suffering of creation
If ‘all that the prophets had spoken’ finds fulfilment in the ‘days’ on the early church (Acts 3:24), upon whom ‘the end of the ages has come’ (1 Cor. 10:11; cf. Heb. 9:26), why should this not include prophecies of judgment on the nations who posed an immediate threat to the people of God and the actual vindication of the ‘saints’ who suffered during this period? What is the hermeneutical or theological criterion by which we say that some of these prophecies are fulfilled in the first century but others are postponed indefinitely?
How do you envisage the ‘eschatological judgment/vindication of the whole world’ that is foreseen in Isaiah 24? It looks to me like an event in the course of history. There is devastation, but the world carries on: few men are left; the vine languishes and the merry-hearted sigh; houses are shut up; there is an outcry in the streets; desolation is left in the city - for ‘thus it shall be in the midst of the earth among the nations’ (13). This is very different to the judgment of all the dead (not of the nations) at the end of Revelation following the disappearance of earth and sky (Rev. 20:11-15). I would suggest that Isaiah uses the imagery of cosmic disorder to convey a major reorganization of the geo-political landscape.
I agree with you that the renewal of creation and the restoration of Israel are closely related themes. My argument is that in Romans 8 Paul uses the cosmic language, in effect, metaphorically - just as it is used in Isaiah 24 - to communicate a long-standing hope in the midst of a difficult transition. This does not preclude the sort of hope of ultimate renewal that we find at the end of Revelation, but I think that for the most part the New Testament is focused on the more immediate historical situation.
Your remarks about Ecclesiastes seem to miss the point. The simple fact is that there is nothing in Ecclesiastes that ascribes futility or suffering to the created order, and nothing to suggest that the universal experience of futility has eschatological significance in the normal biblical sense. You would be hard-put explaining Romans 8:18-23 on this basis, whereas Isaiah 24 presents exactly the sort of entanglement of creation in the historical consequences of human sin that we find in Paul’s argument.
Your comments about stenazÅ are helpful. I’m sure that the entanglement of creation in the consequences of Adam’s sin has to be taken into account in Paul’s argument. But I still think that what he has in mind is a state of affairs that is about to reach a climax in the vindication of those who suffer as Christ suffered. The involvement of creation in this is the development of a prophetic conceit that finds clearest precedent in Isaiah 24: creation has been groaning-together and suffering-birth-pangs-together until the present time (Rom. 8:22). (The association of stenazÅ with the metaphor of child-birth is more significant than the occurrence of the word in Isaiah 24:7.) Paul expects the ‘birth’ - the revealing or vindication of the sons of God, which is the vindication of those who ‘suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him’ (8:17) - to happen soon (again cf. Romans 13:11-12).
Incidentally, I’m curious to know why you describe yourself as ‘a thick-headed arsehole’. That seems a little unfair to me.
Re: The suffering of creation
Andrew,
Well here is where the inaugurated eschatology ‘consnesus’ among NT scholars within the past fifty years is helpful. The kingdom has come, it has been inaugurated, and those realites continue even into the present. Yet the kingdom is not consummated (that is fully realized), certainly not during the time of Jesus and the apostles (which you would agree with, since the kingdom’s coming with the Son of Man in glory was yet future for them), and I would argue (as would the overwhelming number of Christians throughout the history of the church), it is yet future with respect to our present day. So the fulfillment of the ages has come with the coming of Immanuel, his prophetic ministry, and the high priestly ministry of his life and death, and his royal ascension from ‘the grave to the sky’. Thus Paul can say even now that "For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God," and likewise, "For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy," (Ro.15:8-9). These promises have been fulfilled, confirmed, and yet the full realization is yet to be. I find Peter’s second sermon very helpful: the fulfillment of the prophets are in these days, and yet, ‘these days’ have not seen their end, as the unfolding and enjoyment of these promises remains yet future for God’s people (Acts 3:18-26).
As far as hermeneutical criteria for discerning what yet remains future, in ‘the glory to follow’ (1Pe.1:11; cf. Lk.24:26) and ‘the ages to come’ (Eph.2:7), I would offer two thoughts (of course, each text/issue must be considered individually). First, in a sense, having been inaugurated, all the promises stand fulfilled, as in confirmed in Christ - if God has given His Son in fulfillment of all that the Law and prophets had spoken, what will He withhold us in the accomplishment of redemption? In the meantime, we have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we have this as ‘a pledge’ guaranteeing what is to come. We enjoy the inaugurated realities of redemption, the kingdom, and even ‘new creation’ (thus Hebrews speaks of tasting the power of the age to come).
Secondly, as inaugurated and not consummated, all the redemptive promises remain, in their ‘final’ sense, unrealized in their fullness. Even the new covenant, promised in Jeremiah (and indeed in Moses and all the prophets), though certainly established in the blood of Christ, and presently in force (with the old ‘passing away’), yet awaits the full enjoyment of blessings it promised. It is only in the consummation of Rev.21-22 that we see the intent and blessings of the new covenant fully and finally realized (e.g., Rev.21:3; cf. He.8:10). If now we have only ‘the first fruits’ of the Spirit, there yet remains a full s/Spiritual harvest (cf. Gal.5:5).
"How do you envisage the ‘eschatological judgment/vindication of the whole world’ that is foreseen in Isaiah 24?"
To be honest, it looks a bit like Rev.19 to me (even the punishment of the heavenly rulers, cast into pits awaiting judgment ‘after many days’ parallels the imprisonment of Satan during John’s ‘thousand years’). Cf. Zechariah 14, where the remnant of men (after the cataclysmic judgment described earlier in the chapter) come up to Jerusalem to worship Yahweh. But then, I’m not sure about this.
Clearly the climax of this vision is God’s glorious reign on Mt Zion ‘before His elders" (probably the imagery behind the elders in John’s heavenly visions). This glorious future of Zion (cf. Is.2:2-4; Mic.4:1-7, where the same language of Yahweh’s glorious rule in Zion is used) remained unfulfilled during the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian periods (as the post-exilic prophet Zechariah, in his vision of the future reign of Yahweh in Jerusalem, would indicate). To argue that this has happened would, I think, have confounded the Jews then (and now), and render Isaiah’s metaphor as meaningless hyperbole. Certainly God is sovereign (Ps.146:10), and His kingship both in Jerusalem and over the all the earth is demonstrated not only in David’s dynasty but in his raising up Cyrus, and Nebuchaneezer, etc.. But when did God reign in Zion in the exalted sense of Isaiah 24, Micah 4, after the Babylonian incursions? The era of Cyrus, or Darius, or Alexander the Great, or the Maccabees, or the first coming of Jesus? Of course the reign of Yahweh through his anointed installed on Mt. Zion (Ps.2) has been inaugurated (cf. Ac.4:24-28; 13:33; etc.). Yet, as 1Cor.15 teaches, the full realization of this reign and conquest over His enemies remains yet future (even though "all authority, etc. has been placed under His feet" already) with respect to the apostle Paul, at the time of writing this epistle, at least.
I submit that the divine enthronement Psalms and celebrations of the OT (e.g., the ceremonial bringing of the ark of the covenant into the temple), not to mention the prophetic language of God’s reign in Zion, are not merely poetic hyperbole and dramatization (which are historically realized in David and Solomon’s political conquests, or the revolt of the Maccabees, who have no Davidic lineage), but also anticipations of a coming, eschatological reign of the Lord on earth, realized in His anointed, the Son of David, the Son of Man. This is how I understand Daniel’s prophecy of the coming Kingdom that will have obliterated all other earthly rule, when like a rock (cut without hands), it not only shatters the fourth kingdom, but a mighty wind blows even the dust of its remnants away, as if to say, there will be no hint of any rival rule in that day.
Well, I’ll shut up at this point. Regarding Ecclesiastes, I think you’re still missing it. Read the futility of the water cycle, for example, which signifies the cosmic circularity and pointlessness that so depresses Qoheleth in chapter 1. I submit that you are divorcing (unnaturally) the eschatological component of the prophets from the ‘cosmic’ considerations of the wisdom literature. (And no, I do not think that Job is a metaphor for exiled Judah. For one, such an assessment as given Job [as without guilt] would fly in the face of ALL the prophetic assessment about Judah’s punishment in AD 605-586.)
Re: The suffering of creation
Your two criteria don’t provide a basis for differentiating between what has been and what has not been fulfilled. You seem to be saying, on the one hand, everything has been inaugurated, on the other, nothing has been consummated. But on what basis should I agree with you that judgment on Jerusalem is more fulfilled than the coming of the Son of man? Why do we have to tease apart the events of New Testament eschatology - which in the texts belong to the same basic nexus of hopes, which have a narrative coherence - and allocate some of them to the past and others to an indeterminate future? The inaugurated eschatology consensus is beginning to look to me like a classic hermeneutical fudge.
See, hearing echoes is not so difficult! I’d agree, but I would connect the imprisonment of Satan with the overthrow of Babylon - satan is the force behind Rome’s opposition to YHWH and his people, just as the ‘host of heaven’ inspired the hostility of the ‘kings of the earth’ in Isaiah 24:21.
What is the problem with seeing this as a hope that must been transmuted in Christ, through whom, as the suffering Son of man to whom kingdom is given, God reigns over his people in place of the kings of the earth? Yes, there are still enemies to be defeated, but Christ reigns now, God’s kingdom over his people is an established fact: because Christ died, because we have the Spirit, because the early church remained faithful in the face of persecution, no Caesar can rule over us, the back of satanic opposition has been broken, the kingdom of God over his people has come, and we are free to celebrate the fact in the extravagant language of Old Testament prophecy.
Re: The suffering of creation
…mmmm, hermeneutical fudge…
Talk about fudge, what of the enormous ‘room for fudge’ in the suggestion that the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds with glory and attendant angels revealed with fire (consistently portrayed in the NT as a decisive, final, and universal event) took place somewhere between AD 70 and the fifth century (roughly speaking of course). An event nowhere recorded by the church, whether in her sacred scriptures or elsewhere as the fulfillment of ‘the blessed hope’ for which the apostolic church longed and awaited. Here’s the joke on the post-apostolic church: you’re all ‘left behind’, except for a smattering of martyrs throughout the first few centuries (apparently). What, the kingdom came? How come none of the church fathers were informed? Did we miss it? How? Where did it happen? When? Somewhere or everywhere in the Roman Empire, and at some point prior to Constantine, it would seem. What of the resurrection of the dead? Ah, a secret rapture! The dispensationalists were right, but irony of ironies, they missed it too, by nearly 1500 years!
The Son of Man came on clouds, in a manner of speaking (though His ascension to heaven in Acts 1 was quite literally so, or so Luke tells us), and like the lightening that lights up the heavens, from one end to the other, such that none would need to ask, “Is He here?”, though only metaphorically speaking of course (as the church apparently completely failed to realize that “the days of the Son of Man,” which they’ve been longing to see for at least 1500 years, had already arrived) and brought His kingdom to earth, spiritually speaking (as they’re remain numerous hostile and satanically inspired religio-political regimes in God’s world today). It is so ironic because the days of the Son of Man’s coming are compared to the days of the flood (and there was no doubt to the condemned world of that day as to whether or not a flood had come) and the days of Lot during the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (indeed, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was so well known as to become proverbial within Israel, and its coming certainly wasn’t ‘missed’ by the population of those cities). Yet the church has missed it (even the churches of the 4th and 5th century), well, until, as benevolent providence would have it, now.
You wrote: “But on what basis should I agree with you that judgment on Jerusalem is more fulfilled than the coming of the Son of man?”
Who said it is MORE fulfilled? It was fulfilled in AD 70, to be sure, and yet it may well be that a future army will march against the city in the days of the man of lawlessness, the antichrist, when the abomination of desolation is set up in the holy place (an event prefigured in the abomination of Epiphanes but that did not appear to happen during the Roman incursion in AD 70 - at least there is no record of such an event that would fit the description of Daniel 9 and 2Thess.2:4 — and the erecting of Roman standards on the Temple site after its destruction defeats the purpose of Jesus’ warning concerning the abomination of desolation in Mt.24:15, and the insignias of the emperor on the Roman standards in the Temple vicinity would not have been unique to AD 70 or too terribly remarkable, as Roman soldiers bearing this insignia were stationed throughout the city and the environs of the Temple during various festivals, Josephus’ account of the fulfillment of Daniel in Titus’ attack is just not terribly convincing for me).
Interesting, isn’t it, that the abomination of desolation appears to have been fulfilled in Antiochus’ atrocity, and in a real sense was fulfilled, and yet Jesus saw it in his Olivet Discourse as yet future. On what basis then did Jesus see Daniel 11 and perhaps 8 fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes (presumably) but Daniel 9, where the same language is used, as refering to a yet future event? In part, I would suggest, because Daniel 9 speaks of the final days of history, the latter times “for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness.” This clearly hadn’t happened by the time Jesus appears on the scene, and according to a plain reading of the text, neither has it happened yet. To say that ‘everlasting righteousness’ was ushered in during the fall of Rome is to make a mockery of Gabriel’s words. Try convincing the average person today, or in the chruch during the not-so-well-defined fall of Rome that ‘everlasting righteousness’ has been usherd it. Hence, crucial for our hermeneutics is sanctified common sense. (BTW, recall that I had said that each text must be examined individually - these principles are broad and meant to safeguard us from either extreme of a fully ‘realized eschatology’, e.g., Dodd, or the ‘consistent eschatology’ of Schweitzer, et.al. They are not meant to be presented as complete and sufficient criteria for such distinctions by themselves. Each text must be examined within its own context).
“Why do we have to tease apart the events of New Testament eschatology, which in the texts belong to the same basic nexus of hopes, which have a narrative coherence, and allocate some of them to the past and others to an indeterminate future?”
I don’t know about ‘teasing apart’ NT eshatological events, especially when it consistently presents a ‘now’ and ‘not yet’ motif in its own interpretation of the gospel events and implications. But there is some distinguishing of ‘near’ and ‘future’ fulfillment in scripture. I don’t see why this is difficult for you. The NT does this all the time with OT prophetic statements, doesn’t it? So the abomination of desolation as noted above. Or the ‘seed’ of Abraham, fulfilled in Isaac, Jacob, and the exploding population of the nation in Egypt, and yet Paul argues that ‘seed’ refers specifically to Christ. Or take the example of David and the covenant given him. Is Solomon the fulfillment of the promise (as Solomon himself states at the temple dedication) or another, distant Son? Or take the example of Isaiah’s suffering servant theme: is this the prophet himself in his own day, or Christ, or the apostle Paul (bringing light to the nations, and being rejected by Israel), or the whole church in its ‘missional’ task?
Once I accept that the biblical narrative, beginning with the creation of heaven and earth and the fall of our ‘terrestrial domain’ in Genesis 1-3, and ending with its judgement and renewal in Revelation, is cosmic in scope, then the ‘nexus’ of biblical hope can easily be understood under the broad arc of univeral history, with Israel running as the central thread (and the lens through which that history is read).
In fact, I think the remarkable differences between Luke’s account of the Olivet discourse and those of Matthew and Mark is due to the fact that Luke focuses on the imminent destruction of Jerusalem as judgment against ‘this generation’ in AD 70 (cf. Lk.19:44, which is also unique to Luke) as part of his overall focus of Luke-Acts in the transition from Judaism to a primarily Gentile Christianity, whereas Matthew and Mark follow the full eschatological trajectory, according to the questions of the disciples’ (“Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”, cf. Lk.21:7). Thus Luke does not mention ‘the abomination of desolation’, but ‘when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies’ (in contrast, note, to Josephus’ identification of the abomination of desolation). Luke then, I would argue, is distinguishing the AD 70 fulfillment as an important demarcation of a significant shift in redemptive history, ending Jesus’ warnings about the coming judgment with the enigmatic: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” This also is without parallel in Matthew or Mark, but again coheres well with the overall ‘redactional’ concerns of Luke.
After this, he continues the ‘apocalyptic’ description of the Son of Man coming on the clouds, which in Matthew’s account follows ‘immediately’ after the tribulation of ‘those days’. So which is it, I would ask: does the son of Man come immediately after the destruction of AD 70, as Matthew has it, or after a period ‘of the Gentiles are fulfilled’? I think there is more than one event contemplated here, and I think Luke recognized this.
You admit, “Yes, there are still enemies to be defeated,” but this cannot be if in fact the kingdom has come and the dead have been raised (or at least the martyrs), 1Co.15:23-26. Or do you believe that the millennial reign of Rev.20 fills the gap between “His coming” and “the end” in 15:23? If so, which I would not argue against necessarily, and if Christ has come already (which I would argue against), then, as Daniel’s prophecy would indicate, there are no rival rules. Rome has not been merely disempowered, but utterly removed from the face of the earth. Yet, there are rival rules. Moreover, death continues to oppress the saints, and Satan prowls like a roaring lion looking for ‘easy prey’.
Finally, “because Christ died, because we have the Spirit, because the early church remained faithful in the face of persecution, no Caesar can rule over us, the back of satanic opposition has been broken, the kingdom of God over his people has come, and we are free to celebrate the fact in the extravagant language of Old Testament prophecy.”
I submit that this was JUST as true in the apostolic church as it is today.
Re: The suffering of creation
The (muted) sarcasm again is very clever, but we’ve gone over all this before. There is no reason to expect the vindication of the martyrs to have been a visible event. In the ‘first resurrection’ those who die because of their testimony to Jesus simply come to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years (Rev. 20:4); they will accompany him at his ‘coming’, but this is not a coming to earth, it is a coming to the throne of God to receive a kingdom. It is a simple prophetic assurance that those who die for the sake of Christ during the period of persecution that John envisages, who cry out for judgment against their enemies (Rev. 6:9), will share in Christ’s vindication. Since this is a resurrection specifically of the martyrs, explicitly separated temporally from a final resurrection, directly following the overthrow of a very Rome-like enemy, it seems to me absurd not to connect it with the historical situation that the churches faced in this period. 2 Maccabees shows, I think, that it was quite possible to conceive of a vindication of the martyrs and a resurrection to immortal life that would take place in the course of history.
There is nothing wrong with being left behind. We are supposed to be left behind because we are called to be a people for God’s own possession in the midst of the nations. Left behind is good.
Exactly, and the point of both stories is that while many were destroyed, a righteous few survived: the devastating judgment of war against Rome was coming on Israel, most of the people were complacently wandering down the broad road that leads to destruction, and only a few would escape, like Noah and his family or Lot and his family, to fight another day - they lived on, they were left behind. Jesus urges the disciples to do exactly what Lot what was told to do - flee the city. No one missed the destruction of Jerusalem; no one missed the collapse of the Roman imperial cult; no one missed the emergence of the church of Jesus Christ as a global religion. These were the events that signalled clearly to the world that God had vindicated his anointed one; they signalled that Jesus had been absolutely right to lead a few trusting followers down the narrow path of suffering that would nevertheless lead to life.
I understand your reservations about applying the ‘abomination of desolation’ motif to the desecration of the temple by the Romans. Again this comes down to how we read prophetic language (what exactly constitutes a ‘plain reading of the text’?). I think that Jesus is doing something more important here than give a detailed and precise predescription of what would happen. His words certainly create a plausible scenario, but I would suggest that the exact chronology and circumstances of fulfilment matter less - or not more - than the clear invocation of the Daniel narrative, and perhaps of the Maccabean revolt (desecration followed by flight into the hills?), as an interpretive framework for what would take place. So he is saying: This will be the proper fulfilment of the hope of forgiveness, an ending to exile, that took premature shape in the events of the Maccabean revolt. Rather than escape to the hills to fight, the disciples are to escape to the hills to survive and preach the gospel of the kingdom throughout the whole world.
I would say that Jesus applies the whole narrative template of Daniel 7-12 to these foreseeable events: the final climactic ending of Israel’s exile and the inauguration of an everlasting righteousness, which for Israel is the forgiveness of sins (cf. Daniel 9:9-10). Whatever the average person may think, I am personally convinced that the righteousness we have in Christ is i) everlasting and ii) a direct consequence of an eschatological transition envisioned by Daniel and applied by Jesus to the end of the age of second temple Judaism.
With regard to the teasing apart of eschatological events, the examples that you list are all instances of the repetition of a single motif - the same idea recurring in different modes. That is rather different to interrupting a continuous and coherent narrative of judgment and vindication and saying that the first part was (more or less) fulfilled in the first century but the second part (not a repetition of the first part) has to wait. What is the basis for the indefinite intermission? Or rather, what is the basis for inserting the intermission at that particular point, when the NT itself always expects the end of the story - the end of the suffering of those who remain faithful to YHWH and judgment on their enemies - to come imminently?
Yes, I think so, though it’s a tricky case to make exegetically. I don’t follow your next remarks about Daniel, Rome, death, and Satan.
I would partly agree, because the period of the apostolic church was a time when the ‘now and not yet’ theory of New Testament eschatology actually makes sense. But still, the same enemy that oppressed Israel and executed Jesus was still all-powerful and threatened the survival of the small church founded on the rock of Peter’s confession. I imagine that at the time, without the benefit of hindsight, it was by no means a foregone confusion that a small Jewish sect could challenge the religious and political hegemony of Caesar and win.
[Comment moved to new thread]