I don't know how you grew up, but inadvertently I grew up with the Tim LaHaye eschatology. it is the sort of eschatology that pays no attention to the corruptible now, but rather chops history up into dispensations so that we can disregard ethics for today. Of particular interest to me lately is how this ties to our care for creation. This is just some of the thoughts that will probably end up in my paper.
Philippians 3:20-4:1
20But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. 21He will transform the body of our humiliation so that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself. 1Therefore, my brothers and sisters, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved.
For N.T. Wright the most important issue to clarify is the nature of citizenship in this text. Typically this text has been read with the hermeneutic that envisions a time in the future when Christians will return and live there (heaven) forever. Against Philo and the popular notion of Hellenistic Christianity, Paul has is mind a Hebrew meaning. Wright makes a pair of points, the first of which is of great interest here. He suggests that the model Paul is operating on here has two levels and the first is anthropological. We are not souls trapped in bodies that existed prior to being born and that are longing to be released so that we may go home. Wright argues that Paul is suggesting that our bodies will be transformed, not abandoned. This point is made more explicitly in I Corinthians 15, and the language here of “humiliation” to “glory” is akin to “corruptible” “incorruptible”. Wright asks, “What lies beneath this? A theology of creation very different from that of Philo. The final phrase of phrase 21 echoes Psalm 8:6, just as in I Corinthians 15:27-8” . Wright continues by fleshing out the pragmatic ramifications for this understanding of the text. Note his explicit allusion of its application to created order itself.
"the Messiah here is the truly human being, the fulfillment of God’s purpose in creation, now set in authority over the rest of the created order. There is no need to escape from the created order; the Messiah is its lord. Nor is there any need to escape from earth to heaven; instead, the Messiah will come from heaven to earth, to rescue his people not by snatching them away from earthy but by transforming their bodies. Paul does not here develop the wider context for this, that of transforming renewal of creation itself; but when he does just that in Romans 8 he merely fills in the details of the present lightning sketch rather than adding anything that alters its shape and content. It is because of this continuity between the present and of the future that the practical conclusion of Paul’s argument here, exactly as in 1 Corinthians 15:58, is focused not on waiting for a different life altogether but on “standing firm in the lord.” (4:1)."
Resurrection of the Son of God, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 231.
Wright makes several pertinent points. Here I’ll just consider two. First, his comment that Paul does not develop the wider context for this, that of transforming renewal of creation itself, implies that this is same narrative substructure under girding the Romans 8 eschatology and thus the ecological implications are found here as well. Secondly, Wright speaks of continuity between the present and future. This is a critical point to be noted and one that when overlooked produces the sort of faulty eschatology that understands “citizens of heaven” to mean something like “ignore the present order because we will end up in a future heaven anyhow”. This sort of think has disastrous pragmatic implications for care of God’s creation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
'We are not souls trapped in bodies that existed prior to being born and that are longing to be released so that we may go home. '
What did Paul mean by 'Who will rescue me from this body of death?'
(Romans 7:24)
Why did 1 Peter 1:24 say 'All flesh is grass' when Christians knew that flesh would be made eternal?
Wright can deny the clear statements of 2 Peter that the world will be destroyed as much as he wants, but he cannot alter the words of the Bible.
Hebrews 1 illustrates what early Christians believed
'In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain. They will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe - like a garment they will be changed.'
The clothing metaphor means that a change of clothing involves discarding old clothes and getting new clothes, not transformimg old clothes.
As even the Bishop of Durham buys new clothes from time to time and throws away the old clothes, he can hardly deny the implications of early Christian metaphor, which contrast the eternal nature of God with the temporary nature of the world.
Clothes are not transformed. They are exchanged.
Paul himself uses clothing metaphors for our bodies. See 2 Corinthians 5 or 1 Corinthians 15:51 'We shall be changed'
Here he uses the same verb as Hebrews (like a garment they will be changed), and the verb (alasso) was normally used for exchanging one thing for another thing.
For example, Acts 6:14 uses 'alasso' to describe how Christians were accused of replacing the customs of Moses by new customs.
Steve,
Good points you made. Though after reading what you wrote, i'm not sure that N.T. Wright would argue with what you say.
"Not transforming old clothes." True this is a corruptible body, and we will receive a new one. "mortal"/"immortal" 1 Cor. 15, I agree. But I think in the context of what Wright is saying, he is not so much concerned with suggesting that God is just going to work out the kinks of our clothes in the now, but that we are going to be clothes wearers in the new creation and not metaphysical disembodied spirits, like much of modern day Evangelicalism believes. Creation, these bodies, this design is good. Look for a good deal of continuity in the future.
But maybe more importantly than all the theological jargon we could throw around is the question…Who are you?
Hope you’re having a good one.
Carney
'True this is a corruptible body, and we will receive a new one.'
This is what Paul is saying.
So presumably the early Christians had no problem with the corpse of Jesus lying in the grave.
He has a new body , Paul would have said.
It does explain why people in Corinth worried about their own resurrection. How could they get a new body, when they were not gods like Jesus? Perhaps that was their worry. Perhaps not.
But in any case, Paul solves it by telling them that their resurrection would be just like Jesus and they would get a new body too.
Post a Comment