The Future of Christian Eschatology 5

Thanks again Scott!

This has been a journey of discovery and trepidation for me over the past 2 years as I began to do what my Bible professors taught me to do- look at context and don't read whatever I want back into the text. In regards to a comment from a couple of days ago, I do think that a partial preterist understanding of the Olivet Discourse, etc. does change everything because I think it's pretty clear that our eschatology drives our actions today. If I agree with some that Jesus is coming "skiing back on the clouds" (great imagery) to rescue me then I don't have a lot of incentive for working for justice, relieving poverty, reconciling with my neighbor, etc- all my energy needs to be focused on getting to heaven with as many friends as possible in Jesus' spaceship (an image I owe to NT Wright). If, however, I view the Olivet Discourse as a judgment on Jerusalem and the temple and as a vindication of Jesus as Lord who is working to restore and renew creation, then I've been invited into a partnership where everything I do for the Kingdom today has implications for the Kingdom tomorrow. Wow... and that's an eschatology that I've discovered blue collar non-Christians in my community respond to and want to follow as opposed to the popular "think certain things about Jesus so you don't go to hell."
It changes everything...

Great posting this week, very challenging.

What does this mean: "the Messiah of the Endtime who was destined to come to lead Israel into the 'fortunes of Israel'"

Specifically, "fortunes of Israel."

Doesn't the Fourth Gospel add anything to the question of the Second Coming? Revelation?

Derek Leman

Great points to ponder. Great presentation. Thank you Scot!

Acts 1: 9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

I'm still hoping for the personal and bodily return, though. I'm not sure what's "partial" about your preterism but for me, I still have some of the idealist view that expects some of these images to act as patterns, just as the child to be born of a virgin had a fulfillment for Isaiah's lifetime and a grander fulfillment in Christ.

Even so, loved your presentation and learned a ton.

Looking to learn even more from you in future blogs! Thanks again!

Derek, I would agree that Revelation pushes this into slightly different emphases, but one has to date the book first.

Patrick,

I believe in an apocalyptic act of God at the end of the age called the Second Coming; that will involve the resurrection. Paul and James and probably Peter are with Jesus for me; John's Revelation takes the discussion further. But, 70 AD has to be given its due. I don't see Mark 13 or Matt 24 teaching what I"m calling here the Second Coming but a "vindication of Christ" through the destruction of Jerusalem. There is no "descent" in Mark 13 or Matt 24.

You know, Luke historicizes this even more and even more clearly connects this stuff to 70 AD.

The christology issue isn't important here; Jesus says in Mark 13 he doesn't know the day or hour. That's all I've said.

Thanks Scot, that is very helpful in clarifying things for me. I appreciate you can't be expected to lay out an entire NT eschatology in a focus on the Olivet discourse! Marana tha!

Scot,

"This Jewish prophet Jesus, however, is also the Messiah of the Endtime who was destined to come to lead Israel into the 'fortunes of Israel'. Those fortunes have not yet been completely fulfilled. "

I was wondering what was meant from Israel here, is this a covenantal view, Israel being grafted gentiles or dispensation, literal genetic remnant Israel? I need clarification.

Phil

Scot,

excuse me for pushing back. I've read a large amount of your work on Jesus, and have truly come to appreciate your work. N.T. Wright has also been foundational in shaping much of the way I have come to read the New Testament, and I must say that both of you have made learning the New Testament so exciting that I want to teach it myself. That being said, I just cannot go with both of you down the road of "Matthew 24 says the same thing as Mark 13," not yet that is. I have come to agree that Mark 13, Jesus is "clearly" talking about the Temple's Destruction. However, does the word "Parousia" in Matthew 24, not give us some reason to read Matthew (written post 70AD) as speaking to something more? Something future? Is it possible that the First Evangelist is recasting the last discourse of Jesus (and adding to it) in ways that speak to his readers (i.e. Second Coming)?

Also, you don't think that Paul in 1 Theselonians 4 is talking about the Second Coming? Wright seems to put forward that it in fact IS talking about that in his Surprised By Hope. What clues in the text point you towards another conclusion?

Scot,

Thanks a bunch. I assumed as much when it came to "Jesus' view" and not Matthew or Mark's fashioning of it. In that case, this is extremely well done, I agree (I'd read this a long time ago and it made me give up everything i thought I knew about eschatology), and I asked too much! Haha. I guess this is just a large area of interest for me as i continue my education in New Testament studies and I was unfairly looking for quick snapshots lol.

Derek,

Yes, I do think that Revelation and the Fourth Gospel add something to the second coming conversation, and I think Scot would probably agree. What I have come to appreciate most about this Partial-Preterist interpretation of Scot and Wright is that it doesn't juggle this passage in a partial-preterist sense (it is a fully preterist interpretation of Jesus' discourse)... it affirms core teachings (2nd coming) but says "it's ok if this passage doesn't talk about it."

Scot,

"This Jewish prophet Jesus, however, is also the Messiah of the Endtime who was destined to come to lead Israel into the 'fortunes of Israel'. Those fortunes have not yet been completely fulfilled. "

I'm confused as to the role of nation Israel, is it more covenantal, gentile grafted in true believer Israel, or dispensational genetic remnant, Israel.

Scot,

You wrote, "They did so because the images used by the prophets were alive and could evoke the hope that God had given to Israel...Because the events cannot contain the images."

How elastic are the images used in prophetic speech then? They appear to be focused enough that they have some kind of accurate predictive value. Are you saying that they may rightly be interpreted for any context?

Jeff

Jeff,

There is ambiguity because there is metaphor; that does not add up to taking on new meanings with each generation or century.

Dean,

I recommend Bruce Metzger's little commentary on Revelation called Cracking the Code (or something like that).

Jeff,

I'm nervous about double fulfillment. I tend to see the "second" one to be a re-application of the first rather than a conscious double prophecy.

Yes, I think Paul re-used what Jesus said; John did the same. This is how the prophets worked too: use what was before and take up into a new situation.

Scot,
I, too, THANK YOU for this excellent and timely series. What does "use the skin of the fox" mean?

Scot,

I've been wrestling with your thought that Jesus' second coming will not be a physical return. I think I understand your reasons for being hesitant, but I continue to think of what appears to be an expection that Jesus will indeed return in the body.

Luke, in Acts 1:11, wrote of the angels saying that Jesus would return "in the same way" from heaven to earth. If that is not in some sense a physical return, what is "the same way" referring to?

Paul's insistence, in 1 Corinthians 15, that Jesus' literal/physical resurrection is the basis and model for our resurrection when he returns seems to me to be quite strange if he returns only in a spiritual sense.

And the Apostle John, in Revelation 21, sees in his vision that God himself will live with humanity in a tangible way. The veil between heaven and earth being penetrated with God's presence in a way that is not true of the present. We are fully present to God, but our expereince of that is limited in that the One who was God in the flesh has left us. His return, appears to me, in Revelation 21 takes on physical/tangible deminsions.

Thoughts?

Jeff

Oh, well, I know this is long past the "expiration date" for blog viability, but I suspect that Scott will get an email notifying him that there has been a response, so here goes.

I previously thought that it was wrong to speak of a "physical return" of Christ because his resurrection body was obviously beyond anything we know as "physical." In particular, it seemed to me that manifesting bodily behind walls, disappearing, appearing in a form that wasn't recognizable as the physical form and image he was prior to resurrection all argued for something so far beyond what we know as physical that it was wrong to speak thus of his resurrected body. Then I started thinking more deeply about how we only know about roughly 15% of what actually is the apparent physical universe, the rest being composed of dark matter/energy that has yet to be theoretically or experimentally identified, and I had to admit that Jesus' resurrection body could quite reasonably be considered to be "physical." Extra, or additional, dimensional aspects of what is arguably considered "physical" could perhaps encompass that which Jesus became and we will become in the eschaton when we are also resurrected.
Just a thought.
All the best to all in Christ,
Richard; body of Christ, St. Louis, MO, USA