Judgment, Noahic style
It appears now that the CERN particle accelerator experiments did not create a 'black hole' and suck the earth and all its inhabitants into something approximating the size of Jim West's brain.
As I awaited news from Switzerland, my mind turned to God's covenant with Noah:
"I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth" (Gen. 9:11)
If the CERN experiment did destroy the world, one could argue (although that would be pretty difficult, what with the world shrunk to the size of a pea) that God had not been faithful to his covenant with Noah to have allowed such a disaster to have occurred (though I note that Goldingay in his OT Theology comments that God never promised to stop humans themselves from destroying the world!).
However, literature in second Temple Judaism could refer to the coming eschatological judgement in a way that explicitly compared the future with the destruction experienced in the Flood. In other words, God's covenant with Noah - to not destroy so cosmically - lasts until the eschaton (cf. passages in the Similitudes of Enoch, for example).
You may know the Caird, Wright etc. school of thought which seeks to understand certain important NT eschatology passages as colourful yet non-literal language used merely to invest history with cosmic significance. But if some second Temple literature could speak of the coming judgment with Noahic-trouble sized rhetoric, it doesn't sound like events in history were being spoken of, but rather the end of history itself.
No doubt I should read Edward Adams' monograph, Stars Will Fall from Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in the New Testament and Its World, which has been confidently touted by some of my readers as the ultimate refutation of Wright on this subject. Of course, if the hermeneutic of, for example, the authors of 1 Enoch could be more literal in terms of eschatological doom, it doesn't follow that the same is necessarily true of the synoptics.
posted by Chris Tilling @ 10:54 PM
18 comments
18 Comments:
i'm no scientist- so does that make my brain pea size or pinhead size or what?????
where's my LST mug?? and the St. Paul's too!
Sorry, help me out here. Jim's "brain" – is this a metaphorical use, or are you postulating that we are in a real sense talking about something literal?
I think you'll find that the end of the world is still on its way. While they have turned the big 'on/off' switch to 'on' they haven't actually caused any collisions with the Large Hydron Collider yet. It was estimated that they would create the first serious collision about six weeks after turning it on. But now it seems that will be delayed unitl November because of an incident on the 19th. So I'm still working on an eschatology which involves God extracting us from a singularity in order to establish the 1000 year rule.
doug, after anon's comment it seems you have another soul to scorn with brit contempt. it's like christmas for ya!
Jim, I believe the next questions would then be, "How many angels can dance on Jim's brain?"
Jim ... singularity...
Anon, seriously funny comment. Been chuckling about that today.
I'd suggest keeping an eye on the work of Edward Adams in general. Google his home page at his university. He told me he was coming out with an article that summarizes his book, and a second book, and several articles along the same lines as his book.
He's quite right about the Epistle of Peter using Stoic mythological language and terms depicting the end of the world. And he's also right about the way the rise of apocalyptic during the intertestamental period has to be taken into account when interpreting such first century documents as the Gospels. You can't immanentize, actualize or preterize your way out of N.T. predictions in Paul, John, Peter, James, Rev., and the Gospels, of a soon coming Lord / Son of Man / angels gathering up the elect, etc.
Google, "The Lowdown on God's Showdown"
Excellent article of yours, Edward. And Chris is certainly right that even if the author of Enoch believed in a literal eschaton it doesn´t (automatically) follow that the NT writers did it too. But given the pervasive strand of an imminent and real eschaton that runs through all of the NT (both gospels and letters) one thinks it should be impossible to argue otherwise. And still N T Wright goes on...
Antonio, you read Andrew Perriman's work on NT eschatology?
Chris,
I suppose you mean his book "the coming of the son of Man". No, I haven´t read it yet. But I have read some things Perriman has said about what he writes about in his book. Sounds like a more sophisticated rehash of the Wrightian idea that the coming of the SOM and the vindication of Jesus is the destruction of Jerusalem. It´s still nonsense of course.
"of course"
...
Hmm.
And don't know about more sophisticated. It is certainly more radical and consequent than Wright's approach. He reads a slightly adjusted synoptic eschatology into the rest of the NT, in terms of the Roman empire. Fascinating stuff. Not sure what I think of it yet.
And Chris, isn´t he funny Merriman. He even argues that Matthew 25 is a parabolic reenactment of the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew must be turning around in his grave. Just like Wright Merriman makes a mess of the apocalyptic scenario that the early church envisaged. It is neither sound christian theology nor good history. It is pure, bad apologetics.
Chris,
when I meant sophisticated I was thinking about the fact that Merriman at least seems to argue in lenght for his ideas. Wright just leaves out discussions of things that do not fit in with his scenario, like the last judgement in Matthew. Which is why I feel more respect for Merriman, despite my clear feeling that some of his arguments are misguided.
Andrew is far from being an apologist. His eschatology is not written to defend orthodoxy, but to be provocative - and contradict - against established views.
Yes, you are certainly right about the fact that Merriman is hardly holding on to the orthodox tradition that Matthew 25 and most other NT passages we traditionalists take to be about the future coming of Christ are already a thing of the past. But he is an apologist in the sense that he tries to defend the parousia beliefs of Jesus and his followers from having been in the wrong. According to Merriman its just so that all from the early church fathers to modern heathen sceptics like me are not sophisticated enough to see through the apocalyptic imagery of the NT. By some miracle Merriman, Caird and Wright have found the key that unlocks all secrets.
Were you to call him an apologist even in the way you later qualify, you would still make him smile! (I know him personally)
So send him my regards. I am sure Merriman is a nice guy. But I have my doubts about his credentials as a historian.
And by the way - have you read diTommasos review on Adam´s book on christian eschatology? It is found here:
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6312
No, not read the review. Thanks for the link!
Post a Comment
<< Home