Davo, I appreciate you reiterating the preterist paradigm for interpreting texts on the apostles’ hopes, and your creative consistency in applying it. When I said the apostles looked for “a greater victory over evil” than we enjoy in this age, you pronounced, “That’s indeed the UTOPIAN” interpretation,
Thus your explanation now of relevant texts confirms my impression that there are no words the apostles could employ for a better hope beyond this visible world that you would not argue is only a metaphor for the final end of Jerusalem and Israel’s temple, etc.
On 2 Pet 3:12f’s “waiting for a new earth where righteousness dwells,” you conclude that what Peter means will be ended is simply “the old covenant world… of LAW righteousness.” But my impression is that the apostles saw believers as already released from the old covenant and law righteousness by Jesus’ death and resurrection, and indeed that those in Christ are already a “new creation” in that sense. Thus, I don’t see how this would be the ultimate hope that they would be “waiting” for.
Peter also twice repeats that readers are to work to “hasten” that coming day of the Lord and speed its’ coming. It makes more sense to me to see evangelism as what would facilitate God’s patience in bringing that day of judgment and glory, rather than that readers were somehow to expedite the grandeur of AD 70.
Rom 8 similarly says, in the face of this world’s "bondage to decay, we “groan” while “we wait for the redemption of OUR body.” You assert that this hope of “the redemption (and 1Cor 15’s resurrection?) of our body” means “Christ will liberate Israel from its bondage… to THE LAW.”
Again, I find Paul assumes believers at Rome were already liberated from being under bondage to the law. He makes clear they already have the first fruit of the Spirit, but only have a “hope” of the end of living in a decaying creation. So why would the heart of their “groaning” and waiting for a new body be about ending bondage to the Law, or experiencing AD70?
In Rev 21, the vision for those facing martyrdom is a coming “new earth” with “no more death, tears, or pain,” which you similarly take as simply escaping “the futility of the old covenant’s law righteousness.” Where does John assert that that believers still needed to be delivered from that futility? Faithful witnesses yearning for the end of this world’s death, pain and tears fits well, but my sense is that the apostles’ think Jesus has already triumphed over what you think their anxiety was.
I remain fuzzy about what kind of world you or Qaz look forward to after your demise in this world. But perhaps unlike Qaz, I can see why most students don’t see that your interpretation of the apostolic hope makes sense of such texts’ descriptions.
Well with all due respect Bob, you haven’t really made any convincing case that… “the apostles looked for "a greater victory over evil"” that equate with your own utopian ideals.
I clearly expect life beyond this life with God will be totally out of this world and much beyond it, BUT what texts actually describe such are not clear. That said… the coming end of the old covenant age was more than mere metaphor, i.e., it actually happened.
You do realise you are defeating your own argument here? Logically holding your view… WHY assert there needs to be a future ‘END’ yet to be consummated WHEN as you say “…the apostles saw believers as already released from the old covenant and law righteousness by Jesus’ death and resurrection,…”? IF it’s illogical for them to expect a coming end to consummate the reality of the already THEN WHY wouldn’t the same be illogically true of your position?
To be sure… any redemptive power relative to the old covenant was smashed AT the Cross, but THE LAW still carried sway and curried favour with many. Have you not read my quotes elsewhere witnessing to the influence THE LAW still had in that burgeoning NT era? Clearly MANY believers were being hamstrung in their faith by Judaist believers who were zealous for the Law — even Paul himself kowtows a number of times to Law observance; which is a little ironic given his chastising of Peter. Consider the following evidence of this…
Acts 15:1, 5And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” … But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
Acts 16:3Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.
Acts 18:18So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow.
Acts 21:23-24, 26Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. … Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.
The Cross denuded THE LAW of any redeeming virtue (Eph 2:15; Col 2:14) BUT it STILL carried cultural sway and while the first covenant remained in place AS IT DID WHILE THE TEMPLE STOOD such remained an impediment which needed dealing with. Note…
Heb 9:8-9…the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—
The “present time” above equates to Paul’s “this present evil age” and his “this world” and John’s “passing darkness” — they ALL speak of the OLD COVENANT mode of existence which Paul and Co. knew was such a blight and in need of its coming decimation. As John says… “the true light is already shining” — a reference to the burgeoning NEW COVENANT reality, aka, Peter’s age wherein righteousness dwells — the new creation.
Now you can fob this off as “creative” but it’s jolly sight more consistent and biblical than anything you’ve put forward… IMO.
Well then, by your measure they FAILED and miserably so!
It’s interesting you use “grandeur” as a pejorative, and yet the coming ‘Day of the Lord’ was a day of terror, especially for those who had rejected Israel’s ‘evangel’ aka ‘good news’ aka ‘gospel’ of grace — those who turned from it perished mercilessly though having been warned — which is why it could be said…
Heb 10:30-31For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Some here of course have already excised these verses from the biblical text… so maybe it’s not an issue.
It was Israel who groaned awaiting their promised resurrection and even more-so the NT firstfruit saints in expectation of such…
Acts 26:6-8And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers. To this promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. For this hope’s sake, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews. Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead?
And I might add… the word above ‘RAISES’ is in the present tense showing the NATURE of the resurrection, i.e., Israelites and Gentiles were BEING RAISED in that age to newness of life — new covenant life. Again… resurrection was promised to Israel and such was understood in terms of covenant renewal, NOT people popping up out of the ground.
My answer to the same error is as above. You surely have to miss a lot of NT writing NOT to see the problem certain Judaist believers were causing; consider the likes of…
Gal 3:1-3O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
There are a litany of texts in kind. For Paul “the works of the law” were one and the same as “the flesh” — the flesh (law) needed crucifying — Jesus conquered THE LAW and yet as his firstfruit followers they were called in kind to follow their Master ON BEHALF OF their brethren, Israel of the flesh… and that quite literally and metaphorically.
Well John writes this right before the end and as such the Judaists having fully turned from the faith are now actually persecuting the believers, BUT deliverance is coming from those of the synagogue of Satan — those claiming to be true Jews but weren’t.
The bible doesn’t speak of any demise of our time-space universe… the exact opposite actually. I have no idea how life will be or how it will look once we each step through biological death, but I expect it to be brilliant… far beyond our present knowing.
Any genuine STUDENT hopefully will have their mind open enough to consider other potential positions.
Well, the dispute at hand was whether the apostles see a future where there is a greater triumph over evil, death, and pain, than in the present age. While I doubt the Bible’s focus is on going to a place called “heaven” (perceiving more a vision of a new earth), I always took the notion of heaven as being a place with a significant defeat of evil and suffering. Do you assume as a preterist that the contrary is true?
Bob, I see a great triumph today. Humanity is striving to make a better world, a better place for us to live, a better reality of God’s vision. Davo said that culture is evolving. And it is… we are getting better, smarter, healthier, and I agree it is not without growing pains, but God is working with humanity and working mightily. Our doctors are making great strides, our Governments are working tirelessly at bringing global peace… God is indeed alive and working.
If you look at the world outside of your pre conceived view that you were taught about scripture, there are many good things to see in Gods creation today.
Davo, thanks for extensive responses to my exegesis! I agree texts on life beyond this world “are not very clear” and like your affirmation that such future hope must be “brilliant.”
Yet, you repeat that my texts offer no “case that the apostles looked for a greater victory over evil,” and I remain confused about your dismissal of them.
The burden of my rebuttal is seen in repeatedly using “already” in bold and italics to argue that the apostles didn’t see the end of “LAW-righteousness” as a future hope or the one they need to wait for in AD70. You seem to agree the cross had already rescued us from this, and then ask why I’d say the new earth is future. But it’s the apostles who say that! And thus it is your definition of that hope that needs to explain why they couldn’t break free of law-righteousness sooner. My own interpretation supports a hope that remains future!
Sure, I know well that Judaizers still promoted law-righteousness, but I don’t see the apostles seeing AD70 as the way to overcome that great challenge, rather the already established Gospel as its’ vanquisher. Indeed, my experience is that seeing AD70 as what ends that problem would be fallacious. I still encounter defenders of law-righteousness regularly! So seeing the end of that in AD70 as the future new earth remains fanciful to me. Equally, I’m still not seeing how you see what the apostle were called to “hasten” as being AD70. How would they do that?
On Romans, you repeat that those who “groan” under this world’s “bondage to decay” are “Israel.” Whereas I find Romans as plainly addressing the experience of believers at Rome (both Jew and Gentile), and no evidence that what Paul’s telling them to look forward to is AD70. Rather, a genuine transformation of existence, more like at least what MM points to, or even what you call “brilliant.”
You also repeat that Revelation’s “new earth” with “no more death, tears and pain” refers to escaping Judaizing. I see it as more plainly written to believers (again including Gentiles) who faced literal death and pain at the hands of the empire. Indeed, as you already know, I agree with most scholars that it is written after AD70.
NO Bob, I don’t dismiss the apostle’s expectation… I’m challenging what you say those expectations were. From my position I’ve given a reasonable refutation, which so far you haven’t really touched, e.g., Peter’s use and understanding of <στοιχεῖα> stoicheia being right in line with Paul’s extensive use of the same… from you, silence.
Everywhere you write “AD70” read it as “Christ’s Parousia” — they had no awareness of dates but an expectation of Christ returning as he promised — this was THEIR promised expectation. Yet again you simply misunderstood the issue with Judaic reversion… judgement was coming on the old covenant world and those who clung to it faced the very real prospect of death. The pressure from the Judaisers was significant enough for Paul to rail against vociferously in his epistles because he understood, like Jesus, that the end that was coming.
Well of course they did, and I agree… it was future TO THEM! They held to the promise. Where I disagree with YOU is your assumption that THEY expected a re-made world.
Quite simply… some dead men won’t lie down easily. People of ‘The Way’ were a threat to their ancient society and economy and the religious fundamentalists of the day fought back HARD… read about the persecution Acts Bob.
This is nothing but a shallow non sequitur… it was the Parousia, to which the gospel in part testifies, that would end all opposition, of which the doctrine of the Judaisers was but a part.
So you DON’T believe Christ’s Parousia sees an end to everything opposing the fullness of redemption… well I do. You see I’m sure you actually DO believe Christ’s Parousia brings in the fullness of redemption… You just don’t believe Christ’s Parousia has occurred; I get that, been there done that.
The real problem however with your fallacious futurism is it leaves you with a logically INCOMPLETE REDEMPTION, i.e., you’re STILL waiting for Jesus to wrap things up BECAUSE YOU ASSUME a future re-made creation, INSTEAD of seeing the whole scenario as being about the end of an old age being superseded by a new age. The gospel era AD30-70 was a 40yr transitional period emulating the OT exodus out of bondage — oh that you would connect the dots.
Jesus DID NOT come to start a new religion, NO… he came to end an old, of which law-righteousness was its key component.
Lol Bob… how can you keep a straight face in claiming… “…and no evidence that what Paul’s telling them to look forward to is AD70” when Christ’s Parousia (of which you know I maintain AD70 was) is what YOU appeal to for the transformation of, as you say… “OUT BODIES” — you are consistently inconsistent.
I’ve not claimed either or but BOTH… who do you think was propping up Jerusalem?… Rome! Jerusalem was the Harlot riding the Beast.
Another wildly inaccurate and unsubstantiated throwaway line. Have you never considered it rather odd how the epicentre of Israel’s life, i.e., the Temple doesn’t rate a mention in John’s revelation IN TERMS OF BEING DESTROYED — you’d think such a powerful sign of God’s removal of all things old covenant would have rated a mention in this closing book of the NT had it occurred ALREADY; but no, silence! The internal evidence (Rev 11:1-2) suggests the Temple was STILL STANDING when the Revelation was penned… readied to be handed over to the Gentiles for 42mths = 3½yrs — guess how long the siege of Jerusalem lasted!? aka… Lk 21:24; Dan 12:7.
“AD70” read, as “Christ’s Parousia” — was THEIR promised expectation.
[/quote]
"This is nothing but a shallow non sequitur… it was the Parousia…
Well… I’m sure you actually DO believe Christ’s Parousia brings in the fullness of redemption… You just don’t believe Christ’s Parousia has occurred."
Davo, That’s correct, and if you like, you can state that all like me with a traditional exegesis of the end (or the consensus of scholars on dating) can’t have a “straight face.” But you amply confirm what we both see is our pivotal difference on whether AD70 is that end and Parousia.
You repeat that believers “could not break free of law-righteousness” before AD70, “which would end all opposition” to breaking free. But again, I see no confirmation that "law-righteousness doesn’t remain a threat to the true Gospel. Indeed, the opposite appears manifest to me.
In short, you perceive and ascribe far more power to AD70 than I do. I don’t see that IT brought “a new earth where righteousness dwells,” and one where there is “no more death, tears, or pain,” or the end of the creation’s decay.
Yes, I see that you can interpret this setback for Judaism as what that language means. But again, I don’t see what language the apostles could have used wherein you would admit it sounds like a more brilliant end than AD70 has actually brought to the creation. Thus I still read the Parousia and such language to point toward a greater victory over evil and suffering than we have yet seen.
P.S. You and LLC are the two who insist on strong interpretations that I seem to react to as unconvincing to me. At the least the consolation with you is that we seem to share the same rejection of her exegesis. And a consolation for LLC is that despite my stubborn dissent with her, I don’t share all the views of her other articulate dissenter. It seems that on exegetical debates, bright minds will forever debate (at least until the Parousia)
P.S. P.S. You state that “AD70 was THEIR promised expectation” for a Parousia. How strong is the evidence that most readers closest to the NT and that date saw that event as what they expected as the fullness of Jesus’ Parousia, and thus did not look for a future event. I thought they continued to anticipate it.
I’ve been to the redwoods on the California coast, camping for 4 days. Was not able to access internet or news of any sort. I highly recommend it as a balm for the soul.
Glad to see nothing has changed here!!
One of the difficulties in responding to you Bob is your constant ‘putting-words-in-my-mouth’ that I DIDN’T say… and you seem to do this with an agenda to avoiding challenges you realise you can’t reasonably logically or exegetically yourself respond to. Example above. You make the false claim using quotation marks attributing YOUR claim that believers… "could not break free of law-righteousness" TO ME when I said NO such thing; they are 100% your words that I answered to HERE. YOU THEN immediately follow that with an actual quote of mine — thus conflating the two giving an impression I’ve said the whole — this is wrong for you to do; you shouldn’t need to create such straw-men, and this is not the first time.
Quite simply from my perspective there comes for each of us… a greater victory over evil and suffering when we step through death into the other side of eternity with God, period. The ‘gospel of peace’ however, is about bringing THAT reality to the here and now, i.e., Jesus’ “Thy kingdom come on earth” — NOT the… “oh God I can’t wait to escape this hellhole*” mentality I hear of sooo many “triumphant” evangelicals!
“Hebrews 10 says if we (believers) continue sinning there’s no longer a sacrifice for us.”
Paul also says where sin abounds grace abounds more so. You have to note that Paul is talking to israelites there hence its called “hebrews”.
This is one of the reasons im a dispensationalist and rightly divide the word between what is to israelites and what is meant to the gentiles. It clears up a lot, but not all, seeming contradictions in scripture.
What’s Done is Done. Right.
What is not yet Done is not yet Done. Right.
What is not yet Done is each human being saved from the power of sin. Or the consequences of sin.
If I have to give up the plain evidence of history and of my own eyes and the report of the vast majority of mankind, (as far as I can tell) , in order to agree with a private interpretation of doctrine, then that doctrine is not true.
It is as simple as that.
Davo, I hear you now to affirm that believers could break free of LAW-righteousness without AD70! I apologize for misunderstanding you as seeing AD70 as vital in that. Again, I sensed that you see AD70 as consummating a greater Parousia than I see as fulfilled according to texts I cited, but am glad we agree here.
I also agree, we are to bring the goodness of God’s kingdom on earth! Indeed, as one who finds Wright convincing that the continuing vision in the Bible’s framework is a “new earth and heavens” where there is victory over evil, suffering, violence and corruption, I told Qaz, I see it less as your going to “the other side of eternity” or ‘going to heaven.’ And I see expectations of a full and future Parousia as correlated with the eventual completion of this earth-centered hope.
Indeed, as I said, I think those closest to NT predictions and language understandably continued in years following AD70 to read these texts as pointing to a still future hope.
To me the important thing is truthfulness rather then perfection. You can have minor errors because the authors were humans but was the story true in it’s important points. So re 1-A -D , i don’t see any contradictions in the sense that two different descriptions can be true. They find the tomb empty because the stone was rolled away so that they could go in. There was a “young man” who most likely was an Angel. The earthquake doesn’t contradict the stone being rolled away or an empty tomb, it’s just additional information. There may have been one prominent angel and one angel standing off to the side so mentioning one angel does not preclude a second angel off to the side.
Contradictory testimony can be discrediting and I’m challenging pollsters to contrive a sequence that avoids such a deal breaker. Your proposal fails this test for 2 reasons:
(1) You assume that 1 or 2 angels greeted the women at the tomb. What you overlook is the women’s distraught inference that people had removed Jesus’ corpse and Mary Magdalene’s rush to inform Peter and the Beloved Disciple of this sad fact (John 20:1-2). An angelic encounter would surely have prevented this inference; indeed Luke’ account has the women rush to inform the disciples that Jesus is live on the basis of the angelic testimony. And John 20:1-`10 implies that Peter is not convinced by the empty tomb. Why not, if angelic testimony had confirmed the resurrection.
(2) You apparently have no answer for the other inconsistencies pointed out in my OP. Intellectual integrity requires an assessment of the total picture.,
I agree, but it does depend on the arena you’re stepping into. I heard Francis Schaeffer (sp?) answer a question, which was ‘why can’t you just make the Gospel simpler to understand?’
He answered to the effect that you make the Gospel understandable to the audience you are addressing. There are shallows and depths to every subject and, for an educated person, it’s easy to talk ‘over’ someone who may be just as intelligent, but just not conversant with the subject.
Keep in mind my stated agenda for both my resurrection sequence thread and my ADC/NDE thread. In the big picture of online Christian sites, this one attracts and promotes the most thoughtful and logical responses. So my challenges are motivated by respect, not disdain. I’m hoping site members can learn to appreciate the gravity of the issues that divide most of the scholarly world of biblical scholarship from garden variety Christian apologists. I transferred from Fuller to Princeton with the thought that I’d specialize in Philosophy of Religion and use that as a springboard to become an evangelical apologist. But I soon realized that the most effective attacks to evangelicalism was levelled by mainstream Bible scholars, and so, I shifted my specialization to New Testament, Intertestamental Judaism, and Greco-Roman backgrounds. My standard is this: the Christian apologist must strive to state the skeptical perspective more honestly and cogently than the skeptics themselves before offering a pro-faith counter-view. In this regard, the best of ADCs and NDEs are extremely relevant and helpful and I am appalled by the typical (but expected) evangelical trivialization of this essential evidence. In my experience, the NDE and ADC evidence often impresses skeptics far more than evangelical apologetic defenses of Christ’s resurrection and, at the same time, reopens closed minds to Gospel resurrection traditions.
My ultimate plan here is to play Devil’s Advocate and offer 2 conflicting models for interpreting the sequence of post-Easter events: (1) first, a rationale for skepticism towards Gospel testimony as a grounds for faith, a rationale that reflects a fairly standard mainstream scholarly perspective; (2) then my own defense of Jesus’ resurrection that takes all these objections seriously, but uses modern critical methodology for understanding the texts and their relevance.
Well I think Peter simply didn’t believe the women which is understandable in that culture and interesting as to why the bible authors would make women as the first witnesses if it were fabricated. I will get to your other verses and comments soon, it’s not a matter of anything related to integrity it’s a matter of time availability.
But, Steve, what Mary shares is that someone took the body, not that an angel said Jesus is alive, and that is the best explanation of Peter’s unbelief at that time.
I just read this again and I don’t see anything about whether Peter believed or not , only that he and John immediately ran to the tomb to see for themselves. That seems like a reaction one would have no matter what.
