|
Post by Josh on Jun 19, 2011 22:33:05 GMT -8
A quick little essay on 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 by N.T. Wright, challenging the Left Behind take on "the Rapture". Farewell to the RaptureThoughts?
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jun 23, 2011 18:02:48 GMT -8
I like N.T. Wright a lot and I think he has a lot of good things to say. But I think his eschatology is wrong. I think he has to take every single eschatalogical passage and declare them all "metaphorical". Does it make sense for Jesus to explain his metaphorical parables in Matt. 13 with more metaphor? I don't think so.
The fact is, the eschatology of Jesus doesn't make any sense to the supernaturally-critical, which the British Anglican church certainly is. So rather than let Jesus say what he says, they want to add another layer of metaphor so they can figure he says something else. It is clear that Jesus (and Daniel and Paul) are all referring to the same event-- the God-appointed coming of the Messiah to rule the earth. Not to heaven, to earth.
However, as usual, N.T. Wright gets all the cultural connections exactly correct. This description of Paul's does refer to a triumphant hero, returning to his home city. But Paul refers to more than that. He refers to the common theme of God's people ending their dispersion throughout the world and coming to the Messiah who would lead them eternally. Check out Isaiah 27:12-13 in which the gathering of God's people are associated with a trumpet sounding, which is only one of many passages in the Hebrew Bible that mentions a future gathering of all of God's people to return to the land.
I think that the focus of many rapturists is misplaced. They want to talk about a deliverance from suffering and judgment and a time of regret of all the peoples of the earth, years before Jesus' coming. I think this is unnecessary in Scripture and so just another way to make biblical eschatology more complicated than it needs to be.
There is a middle road-- that a gathering happens, it happens miraculously, as Paul said, but that it is a part of Jesus' already miraculous return to earth.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 8, 2014 9:25:00 GMT -8
I like N.T. Wright a lot and I think he has a lot of good things to say. But I think his eschatology is wrong. I think he has to take every single eschatalogical passage and declare them all "metaphorical". Does it make sense for Jesus to explain his metaphorical parables in Matt. 13 with more metaphor? I don't think so. The fact is, the eschatology of Jesus doesn't make any sense to the supernaturally-critical, which the British Anglican church certainly is. So rather than let Jesus say what he says, they want to add another layer of metaphor so they can figure he says something else. It is clear that Jesus (and Daniel and Paul) are all referring to the same event-- the God-appointed coming of the Messiah to rule the earth. Not to heaven, to earth. However, as usual, N.T. Wright gets all the cultural connections exactly correct. This description of Paul's does refer to a triumphant hero, returning to his home city. But Paul refers to more than that. He refers to the common theme of God's people ending their dispersion throughout the world and coming to the Messiah who would lead them eternally. Check out Isaiah 27:12-13 in which the gathering of God's people are associated with a trumpet sounding, which is only one of many passages in the Hebrew Bible that mentions a future gathering of all of God's people to return to the land. I think that the focus of many rapturists is misplaced. They want to talk about a deliverance from suffering and judgment and a time of regret of all the peoples of the earth, years before Jesus' coming. I think this is unnecessary in Scripture and so just another way to make biblical eschatology more complicated than it needs to be. There is a middle road-- that a gathering happens, it happens miraculously, as Paul said, but that it is a part of Jesus' already miraculous return to earth. Hi, I agree with your assessment of Wright. Also good point about metaphors of metaphors; this is a common problem in eschatology, for example when the angel tells John what the woman on the beast represents but people want to interpret the interpretation. But the Rapture (specifically pre-trib) is not about avoiding suffering, as many allege. Jesus promised persecution to all his followers, and even today many Christians are suffering and dying for the faith. Instead, the pre-trib view specifies that it is the wrath of God that the church is not subject to. The common suffering of life is not the wrath of God but of man and Satan. And we teach it because we see it in scripture, not for the reasons many allege. Here are links to two of my blog posts that might interest anyone reading this topic: Refuting Preterism: www.fether.net/refuting-preterism-a-quick-reference/Refuting slander against the pre-trib Rapture: www.fether.net/refuting-slander-against-the-pre-trib-rapture/
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 8, 2014 9:33:14 GMT -8
Wow, somehow I never saw steve's post. And welcome to the forums, onthe3dge! We haven't had a whole lot of futurist representation on eschatology here, so I'm excited for some respectful and honest debate and discussion. Hopefully we'll all learn some things in the process.
I'll be back with some thoughts soon. In the meantime, onthe3dge, there's probably a whole of threads on the eschatology folder you'd like to comment on, I'm guessing
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 8, 2014 10:01:01 GMT -8
Okay, a few responses:
steve: I think the Wright article above is a poor example of his work. Seems hastily written and reactive and... oversimplistic, though I agree with his final analysis to a large degree. But do you really think Wright has an anti-supernatural bias? I've found him to be one of the best proponents of the historicity of the miraculous accounts in the New Testament. Even in this essay, he's not saying that Paul isn't referring to a supernatural event. Wright does indeed see the passage as referring to a literal, supernatural change humanity is to undergo. It's more a debate of how and when.
onthe3dge: Agreed that it would be unfair to claim that the primary motivation or the motivation for all futurists in postulating a pre-trib rapture is suffering-avoidance. Unfortunately, many in my generation were probably initially attracted to pre-trib futurism out of fear (ala Thief in the Night) of suffering. And some of futurist's proponents probably need to own up to some fear-mongering. But I doubt many futurists worth their salt today are holding the view because they want to avoid suffering.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 8, 2014 10:23:37 GMT -8
Okay, a few responses:
steve: I think the Wright article above is a poor example of his work. Seems hastily written and reactive and... oversimplistic, though I agree with his final analysis to a large degree. But do you really think Wright has an anti-supernatural bias? I've found him to be one of the best proponents of the historicity of the miraculous accounts in the New Testament. Even in this essay, he's not saying that Paul isn't referring to a supernatural event. Wright does indeed see the passage as referring to a literal, supernatural change humanity is to undergo. It's more a debate of how and when.
onthe3dge: Agreed that it would be unfair to claim that the primary motivation or the motivation for all futurists in postulating a pre-trib rapture is suffering-avoidance. Unfortunately, many in my generation were probably initially attracted to pre-trib futurism out of fear (ala Thief in the Night) of suffering. And some of futurist's proponents probably need to own up to some fear-mongering. But I doubt many futurists worth their salt today are holding the view because they want to avoid suffering. Hi Josh, Yes, too much fearmongering, even on the gospel itself. But you're right, no futurist I have any respect for is using fear to sell the pre-trib view. Of course, it could be considered such if we would call warning about impending storms or collapsed bridges as fearmongering. But the "fear" is for us, not those we're trying to reach with the gospel. It's supposed to be our motivation for telling it, not the lost's motivation for accepting it. And thanks for the welcome; I've been looking for a place where people are calm and rational.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Mar 23, 2014 12:36:07 GMT -8
When I heard Wright here in Portland a few years ago, I noted an anti-supernatural bias-- not in history, but in the present age. He considers politics and organizational work to be the basis of world change instead of God's direct action.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 24, 2014 18:50:17 GMT -8
Did he say anything specifically anti-supernatural?
|
|