The Gospel of the Risen Jesus implies everything already written in the Gospels. "The Lamb Standing as though Slain" is a summation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
One of my biggest concerns about Christian eschatology is my perception (I wonder if you have observed the same thing) that what many mean by a second coming is something radically different than the first. It's often referred to as 'returning in victory,' which is obviously the case--except that the cross is the victory of god. My sense is that the second coming is used as code for a retribution and rectification of things left undone in the first--as though the cross actually represents a failure, and not the fulfillment of divine commitment to our aid. For many, the sermon on the mount is uncharacteristic of (realized eschatology) Christianity. The second coming rectifies our misperception of Jesus, meek and mild. My understanding, in contrast, is that the revelation of Jesus Christ is only a clarification of the veracity and import of his own teaching and example. Something beside, let alone corrective, of the first gospel would be neither orthodox nor even good news.
Good morning, Jack. I love your posts, even if I'm behind in reading them. I do pray for your trip to Israel. And I have a special interest in the book of Revelation. It's the textual location of my conversion, and then where I lost what I thought was my faith almost exactly 25 years later. I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I suspect that, along with Romans, it has done both the most good and the most harm to the church. Almost needless to say, I have a lot of emotional baggage parked there, and I'm not sure how deeply I can engage it. I wonder if you could help me to prepare for it by suggesting some preparatory materials. Who are the scholars who have been the most helpful to you there? If I could beg, borrow, or steal two commentaries, which ones would you recommend? Any chance you could give me a teaser-blurb to prepare me for your approach?
Great to hear from you, Darren. I would say my approach is first that Revelation is the Gospel of the Risen Jesus. My interpretive grid is a combination of past (John's location in the first century), cyclical (the patterns in Revelation recur again and again), and future (there is an end-point to history). John saw how the world worked from God's vantage point.
Here are some resources I would recommend:
Craig Koester, <Revelation and the End of All Things>
Sigve Tonstan, <Revelation> in the Paideia Commentary series.
Ben Witherington <Revelation> New Cambridge Bible Commentary
I replied in the wrong place. Good question, Darren. The Gospel of the Risen Jesus implies everything already written in the Gospels. "The Lamb Standing as though Slain" is a summation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
The Gospel of the Risen Jesus implies everything already written in the Gospels. "The Lamb Standing as though Slain" is a summation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
One of my biggest concerns about Christian eschatology is my perception (I wonder if you have observed the same thing) that what many mean by a second coming is something radically different than the first. It's often referred to as 'returning in victory,' which is obviously the case--except that the cross is the victory of god. My sense is that the second coming is used as code for a retribution and rectification of things left undone in the first--as though the cross actually represents a failure, and not the fulfillment of divine commitment to our aid. For many, the sermon on the mount is uncharacteristic of (realized eschatology) Christianity. The second coming rectifies our misperception of Jesus, meek and mild. My understanding, in contrast, is that the revelation of Jesus Christ is only a clarification of the veracity and import of his own teaching and example. Something beside, let alone corrective, of the first gospel would be neither orthodox nor even good news.
Good morning, Jack. I love your posts, even if I'm behind in reading them. I do pray for your trip to Israel. And I have a special interest in the book of Revelation. It's the textual location of my conversion, and then where I lost what I thought was my faith almost exactly 25 years later. I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I suspect that, along with Romans, it has done both the most good and the most harm to the church. Almost needless to say, I have a lot of emotional baggage parked there, and I'm not sure how deeply I can engage it. I wonder if you could help me to prepare for it by suggesting some preparatory materials. Who are the scholars who have been the most helpful to you there? If I could beg, borrow, or steal two commentaries, which ones would you recommend? Any chance you could give me a teaser-blurb to prepare me for your approach?
Great to hear from you, Darren. I would say my approach is first that Revelation is the Gospel of the Risen Jesus. My interpretive grid is a combination of past (John's location in the first century), cyclical (the patterns in Revelation recur again and again), and future (there is an end-point to history). John saw how the world worked from God's vantage point.
Here are some resources I would recommend:
Craig Koester, <Revelation and the End of All Things>
Sigve Tonstan, <Revelation> in the Paideia Commentary series.
Ben Witherington <Revelation> New Cambridge Bible Commentary
N. T. Wright <Revelation for Everyone>
Peace, Jack
This is invaluable, Jack. Thank you, and I'll do some work. Question. Is the Gospel of the Risen Jesus different from the Incarnate one?
I replied in the wrong place. Good question, Darren. The Gospel of the Risen Jesus implies everything already written in the Gospels. "The Lamb Standing as though Slain" is a summation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.