Or, The Past May Really Be the Future
The apocalyptic is where N. T. Wright may be hardest to follow for many readers who are not used to a more realized eschatology.
What does all of that mean?
When the New Testament writers are writing about the future, is that future one that is mostly in the near future or in the far future? When Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, for instance, was he describing the destruction of the temple that happened in 70 AD or was it some future rebuilt temple that will be destroyed once again (in the distant future)? When Jesus spoke of the judgment that would come on "this generation" did He really mean "that [future] generation"?
The view of those who hold to a realized eschatology is that the future described in most of the New Testament verses is that of 70 AD. In particular, the events described are the destruction of the temple by the Roman General Titus and his army. Most Christians today would be surprised to know that for most of Church history these texts have been understood as historically fulfilled.
Reading the New Testament texts carefully it is hard to escape the force of this position. When the Synoptic Gospel writers describe the destruction of Jerusalem they talk about the enemy surrounding the city walls and building a siege ramp (Luke 19:43-44). This makes absolutely no sense in modern warfare. The city walls of Jerusalem today mostly house the ancient city with the modern city sprawling around the surrounding area for miles. There is no need to build a ramp today since one tank could easily knock down the walls. A literal reading of the text would suggest that Jesus was talking about the events of the first century, not some later rebuilt temple.
The primary source materials for understanding the destruction are the writings of Josephus which have an extreme amount of data in them when they are compared with other historical events. This may be no accident. Perhaps the best explanation for the preservation of Josephus is the significance of his writings to the New Testament itself.
This view is also known as preterism and has several varieties ranging from "partial" preterist (Wright seems to be in this camp) to "consistent" preterists. The consistent preterist sees all New Testament prophecy as fulfilled in the past.
I still believe. This the BLOG of my faith journey. There's a lot of legacy materials in here from when I attended seminary, etc. I don't necessarily agree with myself anymore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Synergism is Scriptural
The Greek word, συνεργέω , is transliterated as synergeō and is translated as "workers together" in this passage: 2 Corinthia...
-
I do think that there is a knock down falsification argument against the most common young earth argument. Let me give it a shot on you and ...
-
I was questioned about the Canon of Scripture by an Orthodox person. The Orthodox/Catholic argument goes something like this: An example of ...
-
The Evangelical Covenant Church has a fairly unique practice when it comes to baptism. Covenant Churches practice both believer and infant ...
2 comments:
Blogging Baby Diner: Slashfood's pumpkin picks
Because we are just days from Halloween, I thought this this week it would be fun to link over to our Weblogs Inc.
Find out how to buy and sell anything, like things related to road construction safety equipment on interest free credit and pay back whenever you want! Exchange FREE ads on any topic, like road construction safety equipment!
I'm enjoying reading you blog about N.T. Wright as I have read his first volume and am now reading Jesus and the Victory of God. I am also going through it on my site if you want to check it out at http://alexlsilva.blogspot.com
Post a Comment