One of the most debated areas of the teaching of Jesus is his eschatological expectation. Some, like Marcus Borg, have denied that Jesus’ message was eschatological and have viewed kingdom language as largely symbolic, which makes no sense. Other aspects of the discussion are equally problematic. I like N. T. Wright’s recent book Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, And the Mission of the Church (HarperOne, 2008), but as with his earlier work Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996), his view of Jesus’ eschatological teaching is unsatisfactory. In Surprised By Hope Wright states baldly that during his earthly ministry Jesus said nothing about his return. Did Wright confine himself to the Synoptics—if that were his intent—and ignore Johhn 14:3, 18, and 28? If so, he could only do this because he assumes that Synoptic texts speaking of the coming of the Son of Man refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., a view that is in my estimation a huge stretch. If one reads Matthew 24:27-44, which refers at least six times to the coming of the Son of Man or the Lord and which focuses on clouds, lightening, power, and glory, any thought of the destruction of Jerusalem seems absolutely foreign. The same is true of any number of other texts, such as Luke 18:8 or several parables about a returning master. That Jesus’ hearers would have thought he was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem is hard to imagine. Further, why is the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans of any relevance anyway? Does Jesus elsewhere focus on Rome as the agent of God? Jerusalem suffered destruction in 586 B.C. and 135 A.D., to say nothing of the devastation by Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 B.C. What makes the action of the Romans in 70 A.D. such an important demonstration of the victory of God? In fact, it does not seem much of a victory at all. The early church never bothers to mention the destruction of Jerusalem.
Wright’s view is problematic for other reasons as well. The earliest texts we have from the church focus on the expectation of Jesus’ return. If Jesus did not have such a view, why and from where did the early church develop such a view so quickly? When the church described Jesus’ future coming, it used phrases from Jesus’ traditions such as "thief in the night," the trumpet call, and the gathering of the elect. They had to think they were pointing to the same thing Jesus talked about when he spoke of the coming of the Son of Man with this language. There are several issues that will remain debated, but it seems to me beyond doubt that Jesus talked about his expected death, his vindication at some point, and his future return. The hope Christians have regarding Jesus' return is based in his own expectation.
Klyne Snodgrass -- i've been reading all your notes on this N. T. Wright stuff and I'm really enjoying it. Keep them coming.
Klyne, The eschatology of Jesus is huge in the Church. We are all looking for hope beyond the suffering and the mortality contained in our existence. I too read the various thoughts on how Jesus viewed Himself and His return and find it necessary to say,"Don't loose touch with what Jesus actually said." One thing that informs my own thought on it is the long list of unmet expectations that took what Jesus said very seriously. I think that Jesus' words as we have them give space for more than one way to view the movement of history that God is involved in. I guess that is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said. The place I'm at is that when the language of Jesus makes us pessimistic of the present power of the risen Jesus to bring about the Kingdom as Jesus describes, it moves us to see an end to the possibilities and think short term. Those who have thought short term have helped get us to the present reality. Jesus will prove to be right in what He actually said. The debates about that are in our family and so I can't avoid them. The living of the Kingdom in the power of the Spirit is all I know I can do in the present. Jesus' return is hopeful, no matter what form it takes. Are you familiar with Rita Brock? She is a recent voice of many that I have heard speak about how the early church (before Constantine) dealt with the delay of the parousia. We're still dealing with it. It seems to me the world is not suffering because of the delay but because the Body of Christ will not live as if He is risen in us and is Good News to those who were the object of Jesus' ministry. We must be found at the Master's work when He returns. That's some of what I'm thinking. Thanks for be a solid voice for what Jesus actually said! George Fuller
Post new comment