The either/or way in which this is broken down is hard for me. Heiser (Naked Bible) and Mackey (Bible Project) have given me the strong impression that it is a both/and schema. Ezekiel makes clear that worldly powers coincide with heavenly ones through a series of prophecies. Deuteronomy 32 makes clear that the Lord has ordained a heavenly council over the nations. The celestial bodies correspond with heavenly realities. It seems to many that developments in the heavens can and do correspond with celestial bodies. It should be just fine to say that many of these things described in a celestial way in the Bible also reflect a reality with worldly powers. But if it says that it is actually only about that, which I take your article to mean, that doesn't seem quite right. Why not both/and? I think I'm seeing that the larger concern here is a literal interpretation about end times stuff. Many Christians today are expecting an end of history in which there will be a great burning away and great shifts in the heavenly realms. Many within the Wesleyan world rather have something of an amillennial view, in which there won't be any dramatic shift, but a gradual shift towards holiness here on earth. Am I reading correctly how these things are all connected for you and probably many others here? The violent prophecies of the end time have all already been fulfilled, and now the Kingdom is on earth? I guess I don't understand the function of the Day of the Lord in this interpretive framework. I am only now coming to understand it, and it is still very new to me. I'm trying to be as charitable as I can in my apprehension of it.
Well, just to be clear, I do believe that Christ will come again in victory and judgment. I just don't think that's the focus of this passage. I want in part to deal with the critique of scholars who say that Jesus and/or the first Christians got it wrong about his second coming. I haven't read Mackey but I have read some of Heiser. I don't like his approach to the Bible. So this isn't about any kind of millennialism for me. Just trying to get at the text in a way that accounts for its inter-canonical relationships.
Oh yeah I didn’t mean to infer that you were saying you didn’t believe in the return of Christ. Matt O’Reilly has been articulating a similar eschatological framework to what I understand you to be saying here. He similarly is emphatic about the parousia. The same concern I have shared with him in the way that amillennial Wesleyanism is portrayed is the either/or nature of some of the critiques of premillennial eschatology. I think it’s just fine to note that a lot of the biblical imagery has overlap with worldly powers, but I get really concerned about the notion that all of this heavenly imagery is really only talking about worldly stuff. Heiser has been a big part of my claiming for the first time a biblical worldview around the supernatural. I haven’t heard anyone seriously critique his work, so I’m curious as to the nature of your disapproval of his approach. I’m honestly surprised, as your work seems more concerned than most Methodists with the supernatural nature of our faith. For better or worse, eschatology has huge implications for how we live and share within the church presently. I think it is important to understand different leaders, what they are and are not saying, well.
By and large, Methodists of recent decades haven't done a lot with eschatology, at least to my knowledge. That is one of several areas where we need to fill lacunae. If Heiser has been helpful for you, I'm glad to hear it. My critique of his approach is here, if you're interested.https://firebrandmag.com/articles/evangelicals-and-tradition-heiser-or-hooker
I've recently (~ year ago) began to dabble within the context of "The Unseen Realm", without fully grasping or gravitating to it hermeneutically. It has opened my interests in Psalm 82, 89, Job 1, Daniel 7, etc., in which I shared with a GMC Bible study. I was pleasantly surprised in some inquisitive responses & questions. I do find the "counsel of the gods", and other texts interesting and that needs satisfied. I follow your YouTube channel, and would hope you might consider an interest to pursue this subject further - at the 101-level of friendly discussion with Rev. Watson, and others, who can offer further insight.
"Were it true.......we have a problem" and it seem that there is a problem. That early Christians thought that the end would come soon is certainly seen in the correction that the redactor(s) bring to John's Gospel (21:23). The reader is informed that the saying about a disciple who would not die until I come is incorrect and represents a misunderstanding. It is now known to be a misunderstanding since the disciple has died. A correction is in order, and redactor(s) wish to set the record straight. But a soon presence is not to be expected, and the community needs to begin to rethink the matter. If Mark's community does not think in this same way, John's certainly does, and we have a problem.
I appreciate your preterist perspective!
Thanks for your preterist perspective.
The either/or way in which this is broken down is hard for me. Heiser (Naked Bible) and Mackey (Bible Project) have given me the strong impression that it is a both/and schema. Ezekiel makes clear that worldly powers coincide with heavenly ones through a series of prophecies. Deuteronomy 32 makes clear that the Lord has ordained a heavenly council over the nations. The celestial bodies correspond with heavenly realities. It seems to many that developments in the heavens can and do correspond with celestial bodies. It should be just fine to say that many of these things described in a celestial way in the Bible also reflect a reality with worldly powers. But if it says that it is actually only about that, which I take your article to mean, that doesn't seem quite right. Why not both/and? I think I'm seeing that the larger concern here is a literal interpretation about end times stuff. Many Christians today are expecting an end of history in which there will be a great burning away and great shifts in the heavenly realms. Many within the Wesleyan world rather have something of an amillennial view, in which there won't be any dramatic shift, but a gradual shift towards holiness here on earth. Am I reading correctly how these things are all connected for you and probably many others here? The violent prophecies of the end time have all already been fulfilled, and now the Kingdom is on earth? I guess I don't understand the function of the Day of the Lord in this interpretive framework. I am only now coming to understand it, and it is still very new to me. I'm trying to be as charitable as I can in my apprehension of it.
Well, just to be clear, I do believe that Christ will come again in victory and judgment. I just don't think that's the focus of this passage. I want in part to deal with the critique of scholars who say that Jesus and/or the first Christians got it wrong about his second coming. I haven't read Mackey but I have read some of Heiser. I don't like his approach to the Bible. So this isn't about any kind of millennialism for me. Just trying to get at the text in a way that accounts for its inter-canonical relationships.
Oh yeah I didn’t mean to infer that you were saying you didn’t believe in the return of Christ. Matt O’Reilly has been articulating a similar eschatological framework to what I understand you to be saying here. He similarly is emphatic about the parousia. The same concern I have shared with him in the way that amillennial Wesleyanism is portrayed is the either/or nature of some of the critiques of premillennial eschatology. I think it’s just fine to note that a lot of the biblical imagery has overlap with worldly powers, but I get really concerned about the notion that all of this heavenly imagery is really only talking about worldly stuff. Heiser has been a big part of my claiming for the first time a biblical worldview around the supernatural. I haven’t heard anyone seriously critique his work, so I’m curious as to the nature of your disapproval of his approach. I’m honestly surprised, as your work seems more concerned than most Methodists with the supernatural nature of our faith. For better or worse, eschatology has huge implications for how we live and share within the church presently. I think it is important to understand different leaders, what they are and are not saying, well.
By and large, Methodists of recent decades haven't done a lot with eschatology, at least to my knowledge. That is one of several areas where we need to fill lacunae. If Heiser has been helpful for you, I'm glad to hear it. My critique of his approach is here, if you're interested.https://firebrandmag.com/articles/evangelicals-and-tradition-heiser-or-hooker
I've recently (~ year ago) began to dabble within the context of "The Unseen Realm", without fully grasping or gravitating to it hermeneutically. It has opened my interests in Psalm 82, 89, Job 1, Daniel 7, etc., in which I shared with a GMC Bible study. I was pleasantly surprised in some inquisitive responses & questions. I do find the "counsel of the gods", and other texts interesting and that needs satisfied. I follow your YouTube channel, and would hope you might consider an interest to pursue this subject further - at the 101-level of friendly discussion with Rev. Watson, and others, who can offer further insight.
Just a thought :-)
"Were it true.......we have a problem" and it seem that there is a problem. That early Christians thought that the end would come soon is certainly seen in the correction that the redactor(s) bring to John's Gospel (21:23). The reader is informed that the saying about a disciple who would not die until I come is incorrect and represents a misunderstanding. It is now known to be a misunderstanding since the disciple has died. A correction is in order, and redactor(s) wish to set the record straight. But a soon presence is not to be expected, and the community needs to begin to rethink the matter. If Mark's community does not think in this same way, John's certainly does, and we have a problem.
We are napping, too confident in the interpretations provided by our own age. Better to expect astonishment.
https://poetpastor.substack.com/p/what-if-justice-was-normal?utm_source=substack&utm_content=feed%3Arecommended%3Acopy_link
"To follow Jesus requires faith, discernment, and endurance. The wise among us will pray that God will bless us with these traits."
I truly do pray Abba God would give me these traits.