This post is a response to some questions raised by Benjamin Burch on Naznet. His remarks are part of a discussion of Brian McLaren’s recommendation of The Coming of the Son of Man and of the general interest of the emerging church in Preterist, Transmillenialist, or in my case Historical-Contextualist-Realist eschatologies. The contributors are for the most part critical of both the emerging church and theologies that question the standard construal of the so-called ‘second coming’, but the tone is generally thoughtful and constructive. I have been trying to make a response on the Naznet board but so far I have not been authorized to do so and I’m getting bored of waiting. If they ever allow me, I’ll let them know that I’ve posted it here. The quotes are from Benjamin’s comment.
Eventually it was evident that some of these leaders weren’t able to do anything more with their theology than liberal Mainline thinkers had been doing already for 50+ years.
I would agree with this – my feeling is that the emergent movement was in too much of a hurry and bit off rather more than it could chew theologically. On the other hand, I don’t think my reading of the New Testament could be described as a throw-back to mainline liberalism, so there must be some reason why the emerging church has been somewhat attracted to the sort of narrative-historical reading of scripture that I (and people like NT Wright, more importantly) have encouraged. I’m sure Brian McLaren would not agree with everything that I have written, but he must surely see the point of a very different approach to the construction of a New Testament theology.
That being said, I wish there was more second coming language for “tomorrow.”
But why should we allow wishful thinking to influence exegesis? If there are good exegetical reasons to think that the texts we have traditionally taken as evidence for a doctrine of a ‘coming’ of Jesus at the end of history actually make much better sense, from both literary and historical perspectives, as statements about critical and transformative events within history, why go on wishing for our own ‘second coming’? As Benjamin points out, there is still substantial grounds in my view for a third eschatological horizon – a final judgment, a final defeat of sin, satan and death, and a final renewal of heaven and earth (what more do we need, for goodness sake?) – but I take it as significant that (among other things) there is no ‘Son of Man’ or ‘coming’ of Jesus language at that point in Revelation. There is no loss of hope here whatsoever, merely a differentiation between the outlook of the early church and the outlook of the post-Christendom church.
However, Perriman works with a mindset that all Scripture must agree on all things and he forces texts (Paul’s letters) to fit into that system.
This is not entirely true - an obvious case in point being John’s Gospel, which I think clearly amounts to a later rewriting of the story of Jesus. But I don’t see why there should be a problem in principle with exploring the possibility that the early Christian movement was more or less theologically coherent. It could just as well be argued that the need to assert diversity only arises because from our Western and modernist perspective we have failed to take account of the historical orientation of the New Testament texts.
This is, I think, as much a historical issue as one of theological interpretation. It seems to me that Paul’s perspective is very different to Jesus’ perspective – he stands in a different place and interprets from a different place. I make the point that the Jesus of the Gospels has in view a first horizon of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, whereas Paul, while acutely mindful of this, is also very concerned about a second horizon of the vindication of the beleaguered communities of Christ followers in the pagan world and of the vindication of the righteousness of God that this would entail. Again historically speaking, there is good reason to suppose that in Paul’s mind this horizon – which meant both an end to the suffering of the churches and the concrete public victory of Christ over the gods and powers of the pagan world – was no less theologically-prophetically significant than the destruction of Jerusalem was for Jesus.
My argument in The Future of the People of God is that we can read Paul in much the same way as people like Wright have been reading the Gospels – that is, as someone who interprets the historical condition of the people of God in the light of realistic Old Testament prophecy. Perhaps there are not too many scholars out there who are prepared to take things quite this far, but i) it seems to me an inevitable outworking the New Perspective, and I see signs that scholars are indeed moving in this direction; and ii) the extensive work being done on Paul as an anti-imperial figure, though perhaps flawed exegetically, has highlighted the potential for relocating his theology within a coherent and contingent argument about the fate of the people of God in relation to the ascendancy of Greek-Roman imperialism.
What Jesus said in regards to 70 AD is clearly being re-cast to serve a new purpose in post-70 AD Gospels (Matthew, Luke). I think the final redaction of the Olivet Discourse in each of these Gospels proves this point.
I have to say that I simply disagree that Matthew and Luke have recast Jesus’ original intention to such a degree. Benjamin is right to point out that The Coming of the Son of Man does not systematically differentiate between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of the Gospels. But the book nevertheless attempts to elucidate the story that is being told by the Synoptic authors. I do not think that Matthew and Luke do any more than glance beyond the first horizon of AD 70 to consider the implications of taking the good news of Israel’s restoration out into the pagan world.
Andrew,
Thanks for your interest and your interaction/response! I will read through it some more in the upcoming days. I have a flight to Chicago to catch in the morning, so that'll get in my way a bit.
I wanted to let you know that I've not fully read your work although I've read snippets here and there and been paying attention to your online work for a couple of years now. I've also read quite a few reviews of the new book!
So, I want to be more clear and say that these are the "impressions" i have so far of your work, and I'm comfortable with being wrong. Clearly we operate as a community over at NazNet and can get away without distinguishing that so much and others know and understand and it eventually becomes clear. You didn't have that advantage so I wanted to inform you of it and tell you that your responses and interactions are helpful for this very reason.
I also want to say that my comment about "mainline liberalism" had nothing to do with your book. I was trying to connect McLaren's movement and language concerning second coming and restoration to his endorsement of your book. I was not saying your book was mainline liberalism, but that in many ways McLaren seems (to me) to be guilty of my previous charge. (Again, I'm not totally averse to this. I am a Process Panentheist myself who is very in line with mainline liberalism!).
However, within this theological/intellectual tradition many have given up on (a) a physical resurrection of Jesus and by extension many have also given up on (b) a second coming of Jesus. McLaren seems, to me, to be wrestling with (b). Thus, I wouldn't find it shocking at all to see that McLaren was endorsing other, different, constructive eschatologies which think through these things quite differently.
From a New Testament reading perspective, I fall very close to N.T. Wright. So it is not as though I feel you're taking us down crazy paths!
There is more I could say, but I'd have to save that for private communication.
Thanks,
Ben
Just a few comments on some statements taken from Andrew's response to Benjamin Burch:
“But I don’t see why there should be a problem in principle with exploring the possibility that the early Christian movement was more or less theologically coherent.”
- Does anyone say it wasn’t?
“John’s Gospel, which I think clearly amounts to a later rewriting of the story of Jesus”
- Maybe it wasn’t so coherent after all?
“It seems to me that Paul’s perspective is very different to Jesus’ perspective – he stands in a different place and interprets from a different place.”
- How different was Paul’s perspective? He provides possibly the earliest of the N.T. writings (Galatians) in historical proximity to Jesus, and stands as the earliest interpreter of Jesus. His writings predate the fall of Jerusalem, so he would stand in relation to that event as the gospel writers. Of course, he did have the history of Jesus as it continued beyond Jesus’s ascension and the outpoured Spirit, but then so did the gospel writers, and especially as continued in Acts.
“I make the point that the Jesus of the Gospels has in view a first horizon of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, whereas Paul, while acutely mindful of this, is also very concerned about a second horizon of the vindication of the beleaguered communities of Christ followers in the pagan world and of the vindication of the righteousness of God that this would entail.”
- Maybe this addresses the previous point, but it makes two huge assumptions (about the horizons of Jesus and Paul), which I have questioned on many previous occasions, and do so again (see below).
“in Paul’s mind this horizon – which meant both an end to the suffering of the churches and the concrete public victory of Christ over the gods and powers of the pagan world”
- Was this really Paul’s horizon? Andrew assumes that this public victory of Christ was Constantine and the eventual adoption of Christianity as the official faith of the Roman Empire. This was a very questionable victory for Christ or the church. I think Andrew finds it questionable too, given his view that theology got it wrong under this system for almost 2000 years.
“I do not think that Matthew and Luke do any more than glance beyond the first horizon of AD 70 to consider the implications of taking the good news of Israel’s restoration out into the pagan world.”
- But this doesn’t really prove anything. You have also to look at where faith in Jesus was going (in Acts; the letters) as much as where it came from (the gospels). The only way an argument can be made here is by separating the gospels from the rest of the New Testament, and also from a significant amount of O.T. history and prediction – such as the worldwide promises to Abraham (fulfilled in Jesus, according to Paul), Isaiah, Jeremiah (the new exodus, new covenant, reversal of the barrenness of the fall - all fleshed out in the gospels) – which takes us beyond the confines of a local history.
Above all, the significance of the fall of Jerusalem seems scarcely to merit a whisper beyond Jesus's prediction - either in the NT or any subsequent reflection on the event by the church. The fall of Rome neither - except as a theological metaphor in Augustine.
@peter wilkinson:
How different was Paul’s perspective?
When I say his perspective was different, I mean more geographically (and therefore missionally) than theologically. I would argue that in biblical terms Paul’s ‘theology’ was entirely consistent with but an extension of Jesus’ ‘theology’. But as apostle to the Gentiles, as one committed to establishing believing communities in a thoroughly pagan environment, as one called to proclaim the good news of what God had done for his people from Jerusalem all the way to the western end of the empire, his outlook and concerns and fears and hopes would have been radically different.
Did you actually read Benjamin’s comments? The arguement about the Gospel writers had to do with how closely their account of things matched the thinking of the historical Jesus. Part of my response was that The Coming of the Son of Man was an analysis of the story as told by the Gospel writers – not primarily an attempt to reconstruct the eschatology of the historical Jesus.
Yes, you’ve questioned my argument on numerous previous occasions; and we will continue to disagree as long as we operate with such different hermeneutical assumptions – so what’s the point?
This was a very questionable victory for Christ or the church. I think Andrew finds it questionable too, given his view that theology got it wrong under this system for almost 2000 years.
Certainly a questionable or equivocal victory, except that the church is always going to be a flawed institution and under Christendom it was simply flawed on an imperial scale. But a victory for Christ and the church, in the eyes of the ancient world, it certainly was. There’s plenty of evidence that that was how it was interpreted. The problem is that as heirs of modernity we have a hard time thinking historically. From a historical point of view the church existed as a political institution in Europe and in the European empires for at least 1500 years. We are conditioned to look for inner spiritual realities to validate the history of faith, but concretely speaking – and after all, this is a biblical faith – Christianity existed pretty much as empire, whether we like it or not.
But this doesn’t really prove anything.
This where I think you missed the point of the exchange with Benjamin.
Above all, the significance of the fall of Jerusalem seems scarcely to merit a whisper beyond Jesus’s prediction - either in the NT or any subsequent reflection on the event by the church. The fall of Rome neither - except as a theological metaphor in Augustine.
The issue is not so much the fall of Rome (though there is clearly that focus in New Testament apocalypticism) as the transformation of the pagan world. Eusebius has a lot to say about the significance of this event (there are references in The Future of the People of God). You should also read some of the Jewish-Christian sections of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (I don’t have time to look up the references right now) regarding the significance of the destruction of the temple. It is also a significant theme in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, for example:
God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. (Trypho 40)
@Andrew Perriman:
Yes, I missed the point Benjamin was making about the difference between what the historical Jesus (might have) thought or said, and how that has been redacted and altered in the gospel accounts (later Olivet discourse in particular). I can now see what he was saying.
I didn't miss the point though that for Andrew's account to work, John's gospel has to be regarded as an anomaly, a reworking by later authors. I think that is a very serious allegation, and not to be made lightly. John's gospel certainly poses a problem for Andrew's version of things.
But then, in my view, so do the synoptic gospels, and using precisely the same interpretational procedures which Andrew has adopted - ie non-modernist, historical critical contextual interpretation! So it's odd to me that Andrew says we work on different hermeneutical assumptions. I have worked very hard to understand Andrew's viewpoint, and am careful to adopt it in various responses I have made.
The criticisms I made in the penultimate paragraph of my comment (and these are not my only criticisms), still stand.
Recent comments