Responding to Elton Hollon’s Critique of the Full Preterist View.– #2- #9
JESUS AND JEWISH EXPECTATION – A STUDY IN CONTRASTS
A Response to Elton Hollon’s Critique of Full Preterism– #2- #9
In my previous installment I suggested that contra Hollon, Allison, and most modern scholars, Jesus did not share the common Jewish expectation of a literal, physical parousia, kingdom or resurrection. I am personally convinced that this mistaken idea underlies the claim that Jesus’ predictions of the end failed, since it is undeniably true that there was no literal, physical eschatological gathering at an “end of time” parousia in the first century. This installment seeks to vindicate that previous claim.
There can be no doubt that the general, popular Messianic and eschatological expectation of the first century was, as Hollon and Allison claim, literalistic and nationalistic.
Hollon says:
In our judgment, in addition to the problematic parallels with Jewish apocalyptic and 1 Enoch, Preston’s feast days argument fails because it correlates a fulfillment of the eschatological resurrection with Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE due to links like the ‘trumpet’ in Matt 24:31, symbolic fulfillment of ingathering, etc. Again, this reasoning appeals to Matthew and interprets the ingathering and resurrection non-eschatologically as historicized covenantal transition. However, as Allison explains, this is a strained symbolic interpretation of the Jewish ingathering (cf. Isaiah) and eschatological resurrection because the diaspora was literal, and people also expected a literal regathering. This regathering did not happen in the first century CE nor did the eschatological resurrection.
So, the argument is that because the diaspora was literal, and since the populace (as well as the Dead Sea Essene Community believed in a literal return to the land, restoration of the temple cultus, etc., that this demands that this is what Jesus taught. (Cf. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Jerusalem: Twice Destroyed, Twice Rebuilt, The Classical World, Vol. 97, No. 1 (Johns Hopkins University Press on behalf of the Classical Association of the Atlantic States, Autumn, 2003), 31-40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4352823. and Pharisees), This is not a sound argument.
I challenge the idea that the Jews including the Gospel writers, anticipated the end of human history. Jesus and his apostles did not share the literalistic eschatological expectations of the Essenes and other synchronic sources. Thus, they did not delineate between the Day of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet in each of my friend’s arguments that underlying assumption is the singular, necessary key to his position.
I reject the idea that the synchronic sources cited, such as Enoch, carry equal force with the diachronic authority of the Tanakh. See my discussion of the Enochian citations in the previous article.
I suggest, along with others, that Jesus himself rejected and “redefined” the traditional Jewish kingdom expectation. In fact, one can catalog virtually every tenet of Jewish expectation, i.e. return from exile to the land, the restoration of Jerusalem, the temple and cultus, etc. and one will find in the NT corpus not only a rejection of the then current expecation, but also a “re-definition of that eschatological hope.
Notice that Jesus’ concept of the “gathering” (episunagogee, a key OT word for the return from exile– See my extensive study of episunagogee in my Resurrection Feast Fulfilled: A Study of the Relationship between Israel’s last Feast Day- Succot- and the Resurrection. (Ardmore, Ok: JaDon Management, 2023), was patently not literalistic: “Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often I would have gathered you together (episunagogee) as a mother hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not.” We are on totally safe ground to affirm that Jesus never attempted to gather his followers to the physical land. In verse 30-31 then, when Jesus predicted “the coming of the Son of Man to gather together the elect from the four corners of the earth” where is the justification for redefining the episunagogee of 23:37f? Jesus was merely saying that although the nation had refused to be gathered to him, he would gather to him those that would accept him. This is the remnant concept set forth in Isaiah 27, the source of his reference to the gathering at the sound of the great trumpet (Isaiah 27:12-13).
The fact that Jesus and his apostles, in their “spiritualized” interpretation of the Tanakh, claimed to be giving the proper, true and final interpretation of those Old Covenant (1 Peter 1:10f) is a direct challenge to the view of Hollon, Allison, etc. (I concur with those scholars who suggest that Jesus and the apostles read the OT prophecies- indeed, all of Israel’s history – typologically (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1-11). They were not inappropriately distorting the original OT texts, but rather revealing what God had “hidden” in those texts all along (Cf. Romans 16:25-26 / Colossians 1:24ff). See G.K. Beale, New Testament Theology, 2011); P. W. L. Walker, 1996, On the patriarchs of Hebrews 11: “They ‘saw through’ the promise of the Land, looking beyond it to a deeper, spiritual reality. The promise concerning the Land, whilst real and valid on its own terms, pointed typologically to something greater. Any subsequent focus on the Land would then be misplaced; for the faith commended by the author was one which looked beyond such things.”; Leonard Goppelt, Typos:The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1982).
This means, in my estimation, that while Hollon, Allison Jr., et. al, speak of the synchronic Jewish expectation, rightly noting its literalistic nature, it is misguided to assume that Jesus shared that expectation. The NT corpus does not support that claim.
In fact, in regard to Allison’s claim that since the captivity was literal, that this demanded a literal return, that is not borne out by the NT writers. For instance, Ezekiel 37 and Isaiah 49 are some key “restoration from exile” prophecies. Yet, Paul cites them directly as being fulfilled in the church (2 Corinthians 6:1-2, v. 16). As David Kaylor notes, “For Paul this anticipated messianic age (of Ezekiel 37, DKP) has dawned: the new covenant has been established; God’ people are being restored.” (David Kaylor, Paul’s Covenant Community (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), 143).
Mark Dubis observes that in 1 Peter, “The OT images of a gloriously restored temple are ultimately realized in the church for 1 Peter…. according to 1 Peter 2:5 the restoration of the temple has already begun– the temple is already ‘being built’ (οἰκοδομεσθε is the present tense). Nevertheless, the ultimate consummation of this restoration will not be realized until the parousia.” (Mark Dubis, Messianic Woes in First Peter: Suffering and Eschatology in 1 Peter 4:12-19, Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 33, (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), 48ff. Dubis says that Peter is focused on the return from exile, the second exodus, accomplished in Christ. He calls attention to the fact that Peter’s discussion of Isaiah 40 and the “Word” of God, i.e. the word of God’s promised deliverance, was the gospel that was preached to those to whom Peter writes. (P. 55). Dubis rightly notes that Peter posited the consummation of the restoration at the parousia. And Peter was emphatic that the time for that consummation had arrived in his day (1 Peter 4:5, 7, 17).
Andrew Mbuvi, likewise shows that, “Restoration from exile (the episunagogee, DKP) was to be epitomized by the reestablishment of the temple and cultus…. Peter (1 Peter,DKP) reshapes and reconstitutes both the identity of the temple and that of believers, merging ‘two strains of Jew and Gentile… into a new body” (2007, 44).
For Peter then, since the promised Messianic temple was being built (1 Peter 2:4-5) the exile was ending, the eschaton was truly at hand. Yet it is clear that he was not speaking of a literal, physical, geographical re-gathering of the Diaspora, a physical temple, or a genealogical priesthood offering physical sacrifices – as envisioned by the literalistic expectations posited by Hollon, Allison and others.
Mbuvi calls our attention to an important concept: “The exile, as separation from God, meant death. The return from exile then came to be understood as a return to life– a resurrection.” Along with other scholars he says, “We find the connection here in Ezekiel between the return of the lost tribes of the northern kingdom and the resurrection of the dead.” He adds: “Whether or not this (Various prophecies such as Ezekiel 37, 1 Enoch 48:7-8; 51:1-5; 61:5; 62:14-16– DKP) – refers to ‘bodily resurrection,’ for our purposes it is only necessary to point out that resurrection is intrinsically linked to the end of the Exile and a return to the Land (cf. Ezekiel 37)” (207, 44). Thus, Mbuvi (and others) recognize that in some of the foundational OT prophecies of the eschatological restoration from exile, that restoration / resurrection was not about biological resurrection or a physical return to the land, or a physical temple. And they recognize that the NT writers were affirming that the promised restoration was already underway – in Christ.
If / since the OT prophecies of the post-exilic restoration to the land, the city and the temple – and resurrection – were being applied to the church by the inspired writers of the NT, as we have shown, the suggestion that in Mark 13, Jesus was delineating between the coming events of AD 70 and a proposed literalistic restoration at the eschaton is not supported by the facts. And, I suggest, this calls for a re-examination of the claim that the NT writers were expecting a physical resurrection. There is an unbreakable interconnectedness of the motifs of return from exile, resurrection, kingdom, parousia and new creation.
I suggest that the entire Gospel of John offers a stark contrast between Jewish expectation and Jesus’ message.
These citations are supported by Scripture.
John 6:15 – The Jews, who clearly wanted the restoration of the Davidic Theocracy, upon witnessing the feeding of the multitude with just a few loaves and fishes, were eager to anoint Jesus as their king. However, “When Jesus perceived that they were about to come and make him king, he withdrew himself.” G. R. Beasley-Murray notes literalistic Messianic expectation of the times and the fervor generated by the feeding of the crowd. But he notes also that, “Jesus’ refusal to accede to the multitude’s demands must be reckoned as one of the turning points in his ministry, for from this time Jesus and the crowds parted company.” (G. R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 36, John (Nashville: Word Publishers, 1999), 88).
G. L. Borchert recognizes in John 6:15 a radical disparity between the common Jewish expectation of the kingdom and King, and what Jesus was actually offering:
The next two acts of Jesus, the feeding of the great multitude (6:10–13) and the power over the sea (6:18–21), were awesome indicators of who Jesus really was. The immediate response of the common people signaled a readiness to chase after such power (6:24). Indeed, they were ready to make this power broker their king (6:15) until they began to hear his words; then they discovered that he really did not fit into their preconceived messianic boxes. When that happened, those who had flocked to him were ready to abandon him (6:60, 66). Here the signs served their purpose until they were met by unbending presuppositions.” (Borchert, G. L. (1996). John 1–11 (Vol. 25A, p. 347). Broadman & Holman Publishers- Logos Bible Program on Excursus 10- Heading III, The Festal Cycle).
N. T. Wright notes the massive disjunction between first century Jewish expectation of kingdom and Jesus’ rejection – and redefinition – of that expectation:
I therefore proposed that the clash between Jesus and his contemporaries, especially the Pharisees, must be seen in terms of alternative political agendas generated by alternative eschatological beliefs and expectations. Jesus was announcing the kingdom in a way which did not reinforce, but rather called into question, the agenda of revolutionary zeal which dominated the horizon of, especially, the dominant group within Pharisaism (1996, Victory, 390).
(I suggest that since Jesus redefined the Kingdom expectations of the Jews, rejecting the literalistic perspective, that this logically demands that he was likewise redefining the nature of the resurrection. Kingdom and resurrection are, if not synonymous, surely synchronous. Thus, if / since Jesus redefined the hope of Israel, positing the kingdom as spiritual, he was thereby redefining the very nature of the resurrection as well. Paul, following in Jesus’ footsteps, also redefined the resurrection leading to the Pharisees’ violent reaction, demanding his death. After initially claiming that he and they agreed, they initially declared Paul a fine fellow, because he taught the resurrection. Yet, just fourteen days later they wanted to kill him for his doctrine of the resurrection. This mirrors what happened to Jesus. When, after initially offering him the kingdom, they came to understand the nature of the kingdom he was offering, they put him on trial. See my Paul on Trial: Paul, The Pharisees and the Resurrection for an in-depth examination of the significance of Paul’s trial).
The question is entirely appropriate to ask: If Jesus came to establish the kind of kingdom that the Jews so fervently wanted and expected – a militaristic, geo-political, national kingdom – why did he reject the offer of that kind of kingdom? And, why did they then come to reject him and his kingdom offer? The NT reality is that the Jews never rejected Jesus until Jesus first rejected their offer of the kingdom. (See Don K. Preston, Watching for the Parousia, Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused?, for a more in-depth discussion of both the contemporary Jewish expectation and Jesus’ rejection of that literalistic expectation. https://www.store.bibleprophecy.com/product/watching-for-the-parousia-were-jesus-apostle-confused/).
John 15:1-6
Jesus said “I am the true vine.” Gary Burge, commenting on John 15:1-6 and Jesus’ statement cites Psalms 80:7-13 where the Psalmist posited Israel as “the Vine transplanted from Egypt to Canaan where they become God’s vineyard.” He calls attention to Jeremiah 2; Jeremiah 5:10 12:11f; Isaiah 27:2-6 – “I planted you a right vine”; Isaiah 61– “They shall become trees, the planting of the Lord”; Hosea 10:1- “Israel is a luxuriant vine.” He says:
The crux for John 15 is that Jesus is changing the place of the rootedness for Israel. The commonplace prophetic metaphor (the land as a vineyard, the people as vines) now undergoes a dramatic shift. God’s vineyard, the land of Israel, now has only one vine: Jesus. The people of Israel cannot claim to be planted as vines in the land; they cannot be rooted in the vineyard unless they are grafted into Jesus. Other vines are not true. Branches that attempt living in the land, the vineyard which refuses to be attached to Jesus will be cast out (15:6)… the only means of attachment to the land is through the one vine, Jesus Christ. (Gary Burge, Jesus and the Land (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 53, 54).
This Christian view / definition of the Jewish expectation is also set forth in Hebrews, as P. N. D. Walker notes:
In the light of his Christian faith the author of Hebrews saw the Land, the Temple and Jerusalem in new ways. Each of these three realia was a picture given by God in advance of some deeper, heavenly reality. The Land pointed towards eschatological ‘rest’ (4:9), the Temple illustrated the ‘greater and perfect tent in heaven (9:11), and the earthly city of Jerusalem prepared the way for the ‘heavenly Jerusalem (12:22). (P. W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 222).
Jesus rejected the common expectation, maintaining that, “the kingdom does not come with observation… the kingdom is in your midst” (Luke 17:20-21 – a categorical rejection of the Jewish expectation); “My kingdom is not of this world, or else my servants would fight” (John 18:36- directly contra the Essenes– The Essene community envisioned itself as being God’s army to defeat the Romans and establish the kingdom. They took up the sword and died by the sword).
Paul agreed with this “spiritual” view: “We do not look at the things that are seen” (2 Corinthians 4:16f). He even said, “Israel has not attained that for which he sought, but the elect has obtained it” (Romans 11:7). It can hardly be argued that any kind of nationalistic eschatological expectations were being realized. While Paul preached nothing but the hope of Israel, thus, the kingdom, he told the Colossians that they had been “translated out of the power of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son” (Colossians 1;12-13). Furthermore, while Paul’s eschatological hope – which would certainly include the temple – was that of Israel, he clearly held to a non-literal view of the Messianic Temple. He proclaimed that the temple of God was the church, the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 3:16 / 6:19), and was built on “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. For Paul, and Peter in 1 Peter 2, to identify the church as the anticipated Messianic temple was nothing short of a rejection of the nationalistic, cultic expectations of both the Essenes, the Pharisees and Israel at large. It should be more than obvious that Paul was not saying that the literalistic kingdom expectations of the Jews was bring fulfilled.
Hebrews 12:21 affirmed: “You have come to Mt. Zion.” To make an understatement, “Zion” is the central locus of the OT eschatological expectation. (In the OT, every eschatological and soteriological tenet is linked with Zion. The Kingdom and the New Covenant temple (Isaiah 2-4). Salvation (Isaiah 46:13). Redemption (Psalms 102). Resurrection (Isaiah 25-26). Thus, the succinct: “You have come to Zion” was a dynamic declaration of the imminence of the consummation). For the writer of Hebrews to affirm that his audience had arrived, and stood “in festal assembly” at the foot of Zion is nothing less than an affirmation that all of the eschatological “re-gathering” promises found in the Tanakh were on the cusp of realization. (The word translated as “assembly is panēgyrei, meaning a festal assembly. This posits Hebrews 12 as referent to the imminent consummation of Israel’s festal calendar. This answers Hollon’s rejection of my emphasis on the importance of Israel’s feast days to the eschatological narrative. Nothing in the text supports the idea of a literal, geographical festal gathering, that was either already present or about to take place). Kiwoong Son shows how important Zion is to the entire eschatological narrative. (Too often in discussions of eschatology interpreters tend to make distinctions that are not Biblical. By that I mean that if they are studying ‘the kingdom” they fail to see the interconnectedness with “the covenant.” Likewise, when studying the issue of resurrection, they divorce it from the study of forgiveness of sin- a tragic dichotomization. Kiyoong Son shows how so many tenets are interwoven with each other.
Commenting on Jeremiah 31 and the promise of the New Covenant, he offers this:
Here the establishment of the new covenant is closely related to the eschatological restoration of Zion. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, we find the only occurrence of the expression ‘new covenant’ in the whole OT, where it is contrasted with the Sinai covenant. There is little doubt that the old covenant in Jeremiah refers to the Sinai covenant as the reference to ‘Exodus from Egypt’ (Jeremiah 31:32) makes it clear. Although the word Zion does not appear in Jeremiah 31:31-34, the connection between Zion and new covenant is clearly made in the wider context of an invitation to go up to Zion, to the Lord (Jeremiah 31:6), where a great company of people will be gathered (v. 8- the episunagogee, DKP) to rejoice in the eschatological restoration on Mount Zion (v. 12). (Kiwoong Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews; Hebrews 12:18-24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle (Grand Rapids: Paternoster, 2005), 49).
Hebrews 12 is a powerful refutation of the claim that the NT writers were expecting a nationalistic and physical return from exile and the establishment of a geo-political theocratic kingdom with an earthly capital in Jerusalem / Zion.
A final point here that, as Steven Bryan says is “little noticed,” concerns the Samaritans and the kingdom message of Jesus. He offers this:
A frequent but little noticed corollary to the expectation of the re-establishment of the twelve tribes in the land was a strident anti-Samaritan polemic. The connection stems from the fact that the Samaritans were regarded as occupying Land which was the historical and eschatological inheritance of the as yet unreturned tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. Consequently, the presence of the Samaritans in the Land was perceived as a barrier that would have to be eliminated prior to the realization of a central eschatological hope, not least because the Samaritans were regarded as polluting the Land which would have to be pure if God were to make it His eschatological dwelling (cf. Ezra 9.11)”
(Steven Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgment and Restoration (Society for NT Studies, Ed. Richard Bauckham (Cambridge University Press, 2002), 172. Bryan also comments: “Of Israel’s enemies, Sirach and, even more, his translator, regard the Samaritans as the greatest fissure in the nation’s territorial integrity and the most reviled obstacle to the nation’s territorial destiny.” (Page 173). If, then, Jesus expected and predicted a national restoration of Israel to the land, should we not find him predicting the ultimate destruction of Samaria, at the very least their ejection from the land, instead of positing the full acceptance of Samaritans into the kingdom? Bryan is certainly correct to note how this reality is commonly overlooked).
Standing in stark contrast to the anti-Samaritan attitude of literal restorationism, including some synchronic sources, Jesus’ parable of “the good Samaritan” would have been shocking and challenging. Those synchronic sources (E.g. Sirach). expressed vitriolic antagonism against the Samaritans. Jesus’ interactions with the Samaritan woman deeply troubled his own apostles, but contained acceptance, not condemnation or warning of eviction from Samaria at some future parousia. Jesus even rebuked James and John for their desire to call down fire from heaven against a Samaritan villages that did not extend hospitality (Luke 9:51-54). When, immediately before his Ascension Jesus commanded the message of the kingdom to be preached in, “Jerusalem and in all of Judea, Samaria and to the uttermost parts of the earth” (Acts 1:8) this was a powerful signal that the Kingdom was not, after all, what was commonly envisaged. Phillip went to Samaria to preach the kingdom (Acts 8:12) and converted large numbers of Samaritans. This caused the Jewish leadership of the church to send Peter and John there to lay hands on the new converts. That laying on of hands signified acceptance, and the impartation of the gifts signaled equality between the Jews and the Samaritans in the proclaimed kingdom. All of this confirms that the anti-Samaritan literalistic restorationism was not the doctrine of the kingdom of God. The suggestion therefore, that Jesus, in Mark 13:24f was speaking of a future time of literal restoration of the national kingdom, which would, per the popular belief, evict the Samaritans from the land and destroy them, is effectively countered by the NT acceptance of the Samaritans.
So what we see is that every constituent element of the Jewish eschatological expectation is addressed by Jesus and his followers. What Jesus taught was diametrically opposed to the popular expectation. The NT writers spoke of the then current spiritual fulfillment of those things. Not one time did they suggest that the already spiritual element would be one day transformed into a literal, material and nationalistic restoration. This reality falsifies the claim that in Mark and the other Gospels, Jesus delineated between the impending Great Tribulation and his parousia. While the judgment on Jerusalem was the visible sign, it was a visible sign of the unseen reality of the spiritual gathering into the spiritual kingdom, the heavenly City and the spiritual temple.
More to come.
Responding to Elton Hollon’s Critique of the Full Preterist View.– #2- #9