Isaiah and N.T. Wright on Eschatology --OR-- No, I Don't Swallow N.T. Wright Whole
OK, I'll admit it. N.T. Wright is my theological hero. The 4 of you who read this blog regularly will know that I would unabashedly admit that my Christian understanding was woefully inadequate before I started engaging with Wright's work (not that many would say it is much farther along now, but anyway...)
Having said that, I don't swallow whole every aspect of Wright's theological vision. Many of his ideas, I'll admit, I either can't get my head around, or I disagree with, or some combination of the two. One example comes to mind, touching on perhaps the most significant of Wright's theological categories.
Isaiah and the Eschatological Framework
One of Wright's favorite tools for framing his eschatological vision is the use of Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 11 to highlight the present and future senses of God's glory. Isaiah 6, of course, contains the Seraphim's exclamation that "the whole earth is full of [the Lord's] glory," while Isaiah 11 proclaims that the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. Wright grasps this dichotomy as the controlling framework of his eschatological vision. The point he is making is that there is a mysterious sense in which the earth is already full of God's glory, and will also one day be flooded with it.
But if you listen carefully, often when he speaks of Isaiah 11 he will paraphrase it to "the earth shall be full of the glory of God..." It's a minor paraphrase, and I understand why he would take the liberty to do it (given his understanding of "God's glory" as referring often to His presence, which would entail "knowledge").
But it almost seems like Wright is trying to downplay the role of our knowledge of God as critical to this already/not-yet picture. If we take the precise language of Isaiah 6 and 11, it seems more plausible that the level of God's glory within the world, if you will, will never change. What will change is our realization of the presence of that glory.
Now if you take this eschatology and apply it to the already/not-yet sense of Jesus' ushering in the Kingdom of God, which Wright, I think, does, some interesting points emerge. Wright sees in John and Paul a clear "meaning" of Jesus' bodily resurrection as having inaugurated the "New Age," the New Creation. But he also sees, as clearly, a sense in which the final act of New Creation, as glimpsed in Rev. 21 and 22, will entail "a fresh act of grace" on God's part.
But will it? Or will the New Heavens and New Earth come about when the world becomes full of the knowledge of the already-fully-ushered-in Kingdom, that which fully occurred on the first Easter? Would that picture not better explain Paul's exhortation, in 1 Cor. 15, to remain steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because such work will not be in vain? Would that picture not better explain Jesus' call to spread His message to the ends of the earth?
To put it another way, if the picture of "a fresh act of grace" holds, why was Jesus necessary in the first place?
Like I said, this may be a disagreement or a "not getting it," or some combination of both on my part. But the more I think about it, the more I'm becoming convinced of the importance of the emphasis of our knowledge of God's already-full glory as opposed to "the mysterious sense in which God's glory already fills the earth but will one day flood it, as the waters cover the sea."
I'd love to get the thoughts of some of you N.T. Wright buffs out there on this one.
I figure at least 2 out of you 4 might have something to say about it.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Having said that, I don't swallow whole every aspect of Wright's theological vision. Many of his ideas, I'll admit, I either can't get my head around, or I disagree with, or some combination of the two. One example comes to mind, touching on perhaps the most significant of Wright's theological categories.
Isaiah and the Eschatological Framework
One of Wright's favorite tools for framing his eschatological vision is the use of Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 11 to highlight the present and future senses of God's glory. Isaiah 6, of course, contains the Seraphim's exclamation that "the whole earth is full of [the Lord's] glory," while Isaiah 11 proclaims that the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. Wright grasps this dichotomy as the controlling framework of his eschatological vision. The point he is making is that there is a mysterious sense in which the earth is already full of God's glory, and will also one day be flooded with it.
But if you listen carefully, often when he speaks of Isaiah 11 he will paraphrase it to "the earth shall be full of the glory of God..." It's a minor paraphrase, and I understand why he would take the liberty to do it (given his understanding of "God's glory" as referring often to His presence, which would entail "knowledge").
But it almost seems like Wright is trying to downplay the role of our knowledge of God as critical to this already/not-yet picture. If we take the precise language of Isaiah 6 and 11, it seems more plausible that the level of God's glory within the world, if you will, will never change. What will change is our realization of the presence of that glory.
Now if you take this eschatology and apply it to the already/not-yet sense of Jesus' ushering in the Kingdom of God, which Wright, I think, does, some interesting points emerge. Wright sees in John and Paul a clear "meaning" of Jesus' bodily resurrection as having inaugurated the "New Age," the New Creation. But he also sees, as clearly, a sense in which the final act of New Creation, as glimpsed in Rev. 21 and 22, will entail "a fresh act of grace" on God's part.
But will it? Or will the New Heavens and New Earth come about when the world becomes full of the knowledge of the already-fully-ushered-in Kingdom, that which fully occurred on the first Easter? Would that picture not better explain Paul's exhortation, in 1 Cor. 15, to remain steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because such work will not be in vain? Would that picture not better explain Jesus' call to spread His message to the ends of the earth?
To put it another way, if the picture of "a fresh act of grace" holds, why was Jesus necessary in the first place?
Like I said, this may be a disagreement or a "not getting it," or some combination of both on my part. But the more I think about it, the more I'm becoming convinced of the importance of the emphasis of our knowledge of God's already-full glory as opposed to "the mysterious sense in which God's glory already fills the earth but will one day flood it, as the waters cover the sea."
I'd love to get the thoughts of some of you N.T. Wright buffs out there on this one.
I figure at least 2 out of you 4 might have something to say about it.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
This very thing has bothered me for a while and your ideas help me answer a question that's been undermining my faith of late--if Jesus' life, death and resurrection are sufficient, what is God waiting for to consummate the kingdom? Some sort of critical mass of believers? I've come to believe our trust in sweeping apocalyptic imagery may be distracting us from seeing how God is really working to bring about new creation. Thanks for posing the question.
So will Jesus' return come about when the world has increasingly turned to him? Jesus' teaching,Paul's letters, Peter's and Revelation seem to paint a different picture surrounding Jesus' return - not the world becoming full of the knowledge of the glory of God, but becoming increasingly less full of it.
Why is he waiting? Why did he wait to come the first time other than he might come in the fullness of time, his time, not ours.
I think too that 1 Peter says God is waiting out of mercy for the return of Christ.
To put it another way, if the picture of "a fresh act of grace" holds, why was Jesus necessary in the first place?
Now you are getting into atonement theory - I think.
The incarnation, atonement, and resurrection seem to have done a couple of things that Christians can agree on regardless of different strains of theology. First, reconciliation with God was made possible through the incarnation and atonement. Second, death and the powers of evil were defeated (yet not eradicated) in the resurrection. Third, it seems to me that after Christ's work on the cross and ascension, the Holy Spirit was made available to humans in a way that was not possible prior (see the Gospel of John).
When Christ returns and brings the not yet kingdom in fullness, then evil will be properly dealt with. I think - and I may be missing you on this Raffi - that if this is a new grace or not, it is a distinct event from what I covered above. If Christ came in power prior to incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension, then I think we're all screwed, to put it bluntly.
So, why was Jesus necessary? Salvation. So that when evil is dealt with in a final matter I'm not on the wrong end of the equation.
Just my thoughts...
Mofast,
At the risk of further inflating your already over-inflated self-righteousness, that was beautifully put.
Having said, and I literally couldn't have said it better myself, I take what you said as a given, but might even take it a step further. My specific point is that maybe what Jesus did was enough, enough of an inaugural event, rather, so that the final coming of new heavens and new earth will not take an entirely different (or "fresh") act of grace, but might very well be the progressive winning-out of what Jesus accomplished, despite the fact that we cannot grasp how that will occur given the present state of affairs.
God's always full of surprises, and we usually drastically underestimate Him. Maybe this issue plays exactly into that scheme.
Maybe.
Thanks for your thoughts. They were damn good ones.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Raffi,
At the risk of further inflating your already over-inflated self-righteousness, that was beautifully put.
Yes, well thank you. Remember, I am most glorified when I am glorified in me, or something like that...
so that the final coming of new heavens and new earth will not take an entirely different (or "fresh") act of grace, but might very well be the progressive winning-out of what Jesus accomplished
That makes sense, and I'll go with you on that to a point (being in the holiness stream of things and all), especially in saying that it may not be "different". I think it's a distinct event, yet a fulfillment of Christ's work on the cross in the same sense that the Kingdom is yet/not yet. I think the appearance of Christ upon his return (didn't Wright have some insightful things here) will at that moment bring the process to fulfillment, and until that time there will be wars and rumors of wars, as well as "the poor you will always have with you."
As far as surprises, yeah, most likely. Just something as "simple" as the return of Christ, however that looks, in and of itself will most likely surprise me.
I wonder what Wright would say or how he would nuance things in response to this? Perhaps you should just ask him since you guys are friends... ;)
LOL. I might just do that; he's surprised me before.
What a great resource!