Impressive. I don’t really believe we can reconstruct Jesus’s self-understanding or his understanding of his mission with quite this sort of precision. The Second Temple period is still confusing in many ways, and what we can glean from the textual evidence is no less so. But I’m all atremble with anticipation.
Somehow, I failed to footnote that Jordan Ryan is the source of some of the ideas expressed in §1-3, but I have referenced his work often enough elsewhere on the Substack that the astute reader will know him and the new reader can now find him.
Thank you. The status of Christianity after the "rediscovery" of historical apocalypticism, cf. Schweitzer and Dale Allison, is the most important question that needs to be handled in contemporary theology, in my book. NT Wright's solution in Jesus and the victory of God I am afraid I do not find convincing.
Do you have any thoughts on the OG version of Daniel 7:13, where the same figure comes 'as' (hós) the Son of Man and also 'as' (instead of 'to') the Ancient of Days?
I'm no biblical scholar, so this is probably nothing more than wild speculation . . . but I wonder whether something like a proto-hypostatic-union reading of this passage might be behind Mark's account of Jesus' 'blasphemy' before the Sanhedrin. In response to the high priest's question 'are you the anointed', Jesus answers 'I am' (ego eimi) and then refers to himself as the Son of Man figure of Daniel 7, who will come on the clouds of heaven. As far as I can tell, the only way this could be blasphemy is if 'I am' is understood as the divine name.
I loved this very much. Very timely for me, as it addressed a lot of things I have ventured into. It's curious though, for me, to consider a Christian with this knowledge set to abate Jesus's claim regarding his imminent return: "some of you standing will see it in your lifetime/generation." How do we actually reconcile the knowledge, which you articulated so well, with a confession of faith of resurrection, kingdom, and reconciliation? Does this not make Jesus a character of error and a failed prophet? This is something I'm having a hard time with, especially coming from an evangelical, innerentist, upbringing (a position I do not currently hold).
David introduced me to you through the talks on YT. Glad to see you back!
Great stuff as per usual. Given that this is a series, I wonder if you are going to discuss what an Ecclesiology, faithful to the politics of resurrection, might look like. You are correct in emphasising the de-centralised and Jewish origins of the Way movement, but given where we are culturally in the West, these motifs are often expressed, particularly in Evangelical contexts, in ways that only reinforce some of the more heinous aspects of wider culture - individualism, consumerism, the failure to acknowledge the transcendent etc. etc. Of course, none of these cultural iterations are Jewish, but it seems a strange phenomenon to me that those churches which insist upon an inerrant reading of scripture for example, are often quite happy to share a passover meal or discuss the Jewishness of Jesus. I suppose what I am saying is that there are significant aspects of the Church of Christendom which still have a crucial role to play in pushing back against the tide of nihilism sweeping across the post-modern West. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what kind of 'Church' or Ekklesia might emerge when the best aspects of Christendom combine with the de-centralised Jewish 'Way'.
Religious practices for altering consciousness 'may' do much to explain some of the problems. Both psychological and epistemological difficulties bring about disappointed expectations. Some did experience the Kingdom before they tasted death, others didn't because they fell short, as it pertains to the rigors of discipline - or obtuse misunderstanding.
Impressive. I don’t really believe we can reconstruct Jesus’s self-understanding or his understanding of his mission with quite this sort of precision. The Second Temple period is still confusing in many ways, and what we can glean from the textual evidence is no less so. But I’m all atremble with anticipation.
Somehow, I failed to footnote that Jordan Ryan is the source of some of the ideas expressed in §1-3, but I have referenced his work often enough elsewhere on the Substack that the astute reader will know him and the new reader can now find him.
Irenaeos, Christ is risen!
Are you familiar with the writings of Prof. Tzamalikos?
Thank you. The status of Christianity after the "rediscovery" of historical apocalypticism, cf. Schweitzer and Dale Allison, is the most important question that needs to be handled in contemporary theology, in my book. NT Wright's solution in Jesus and the victory of God I am afraid I do not find convincing.
Do you have any thoughts on the OG version of Daniel 7:13, where the same figure comes 'as' (hós) the Son of Man and also 'as' (instead of 'to') the Ancient of Days?
I'm no biblical scholar, so this is probably nothing more than wild speculation . . . but I wonder whether something like a proto-hypostatic-union reading of this passage might be behind Mark's account of Jesus' 'blasphemy' before the Sanhedrin. In response to the high priest's question 'are you the anointed', Jesus answers 'I am' (ego eimi) and then refers to himself as the Son of Man figure of Daniel 7, who will come on the clouds of heaven. As far as I can tell, the only way this could be blasphemy is if 'I am' is understood as the divine name.
I loved this very much. Very timely for me, as it addressed a lot of things I have ventured into. It's curious though, for me, to consider a Christian with this knowledge set to abate Jesus's claim regarding his imminent return: "some of you standing will see it in your lifetime/generation." How do we actually reconcile the knowledge, which you articulated so well, with a confession of faith of resurrection, kingdom, and reconciliation? Does this not make Jesus a character of error and a failed prophet? This is something I'm having a hard time with, especially coming from an evangelical, innerentist, upbringing (a position I do not currently hold).
David introduced me to you through the talks on YT. Glad to see you back!
Great stuff as per usual. Given that this is a series, I wonder if you are going to discuss what an Ecclesiology, faithful to the politics of resurrection, might look like. You are correct in emphasising the de-centralised and Jewish origins of the Way movement, but given where we are culturally in the West, these motifs are often expressed, particularly in Evangelical contexts, in ways that only reinforce some of the more heinous aspects of wider culture - individualism, consumerism, the failure to acknowledge the transcendent etc. etc. Of course, none of these cultural iterations are Jewish, but it seems a strange phenomenon to me that those churches which insist upon an inerrant reading of scripture for example, are often quite happy to share a passover meal or discuss the Jewishness of Jesus. I suppose what I am saying is that there are significant aspects of the Church of Christendom which still have a crucial role to play in pushing back against the tide of nihilism sweeping across the post-modern West. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what kind of 'Church' or Ekklesia might emerge when the best aspects of Christendom combine with the de-centralised Jewish 'Way'.
Religious practices for altering consciousness 'may' do much to explain some of the problems. Both psychological and epistemological difficulties bring about disappointed expectations. Some did experience the Kingdom before they tasted death, others didn't because they fell short, as it pertains to the rigors of discipline - or obtuse misunderstanding.
Excellent. Thank you for this. Looking forward to the next installment!