Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"

George said: *NO! Revelation 21-22 is not about a "recapitulation of
Eden."*

I understand. Here are a few questions I have about this:

-- how does the image of Rev. 21-22 relate to second temple Jewish
eschatology with respect to the telos of creation, if at all? Coming out
of a strongly dispensational background (having moved into more of a
reformed amillennial view), it's been helpful to me as I've re-studied the
NT's apocalyptic literature to learn about its cultural / literary context.
I need to learn more here. (Anyone know of a collection of non-canonical
second temple apocalyptic literature?)

-- my understanding is that the telos of creation as a recapitulation of
Eden is a strong theme in the tradition. I have started reading a little of
and about Ireneaus, but are there other strands of the tradition that
support a non-recapitulation eschatology?

-- I'm concerned theologically that non-recapitulation eschatologies seem,
in my perception, to tend towards a sort of universalism. There is a sense
in the recapitulation theme that the cross is the bridge past the seraph's
flaming sword back into Eden. Many won't walk over that bridge. The idea
that the eschaton is not a recapitulation but rather is a completion of the
redemption of the cosmos seems sympatico with the notion that
*everyone*eventually will be redeemed. I would that this were so, but
it seems
contrary to scripture, and certainly contrary to the tradition.

-- how does a non-recapitulation eschatology relate to the nature of the
atonement? If the atonement is fundamentally a penal substitution, that
seems to fit the notion that the final state is a removal of the curse of
being banned from Eden. Does a non-recapitulation eschatology view the
atonment primarily in terms of a Christus Victor model?

-- I don't see the recapitulation theme as a variant of cyclic world views.
It's still linear and teleological. There's no indication of further falls
and recapitulations -- the eschaton is the final state.

On Nov 29, 2007 9:34 AM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

> NO! Revelation 21-22 is not about a "recapitulation of Eden." The image
> is of a *city* for heaven's sake (pun intended), not a garden. Sure, the
> tree of life is there because that's where it belongs - it's an
> eschatological entity. The tree of life is the cross, not something
> bearing literal fruit.
>
> The whole idea that the goal of salvation is a return to some golden age
> of primordial existence is a denial of God's intention that time be a part
> of creation & thus that the world have a history. It's like all the other
> cyclic world views which try to escape "the terror of history" (Eliade).
> Sure, there are uses of that *Urzeit - Endzeit* theme in the Bible but
> they are subordinated to the understanding that God intends from the
> beginning that creation have a history, that God's purposes are worked out
> in history, & that history is to be saved, not escaped from. That's why
> "the glory and honor of the nations" are brought into the city in Rev.21.
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:44 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
>
> Merv said: *Or, rather, if there is a hint of mockery or critical
> self-questioning, it is directed at our modern way regarding truth.
> *
> The cherub with the flaming sword, the reappearance of the tree of life in
> Rev. 22, have always fascinated me. Clearly, Rev. 22 is representing a
> recapitulation of Eden. IMHO, this is a major challenge to a thorough-going
> TE position -- not just in terms of the doctrine of scripture, but also
> theologically. What is the hope of Rev. 22 if the heavenly city
> recapitulates the hardscrabble existence of a tribe of neolithic farmers?
>
> We could think of the Genesis cherub as symbolic of humanity's broken
> relationship with God. Usually, however, angels in scripture don't seem to
> be presented as symbols. I've often wondered whether there's something even
> deeper and more mysterious going on here. Is Eden, like heaven, a "place"
> that is accessible to angels but dimensionally inaccessible to us? Does the
> fall represent a rending of planes of existence that were once unified and
> that are to be unified again? Strange ideas, but there are stranger ideas
> both in modern theoretical physics and in ancient near eastern and
> second-temple Jewish apocalyptic thought.
>
> On Nov 28, 2007 10:43 PM, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>
> > Jon Tandy wrote:
> >
> > Wasn't the tree of life (Rev 22:19) in the Garden of Eden? Where did
> > it go after that? Or was that scripture a non-scientific (non-biological)
> > statement about two trees in the garden?
> >
> > Jon Tandy
> >
> > And for that matter, how long did the cherubim stand guard with the
> > flaming sword? Presumably the tree of life was eventually transplanted
> > (without apparent fanfare) to a less accessible local (like ... not on this
> > planet), or maybe it was destroyed, and the cherubim released from his
> > mundane guard duty? At least nobody in later history attempted any
> > encounters with any stubborn angelic swordsman that we've heard about.
> >
> > These are the types of questions where the mismatch between the truth of
> > Scripture and the method of modern "factual" analysis seems so obvious as to
> > sound like a mockery when it is applied. But I don't mean it that way.
> > Or, rather, if there is a hint of mockery or critical self-questioning, it
> > is directed at our modern way regarding truth.
> >
> > --Merv
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 29 10:39:00 2007