Sorry for the lengthy post, but I have to lay some ground work or what I have to say will make no sense whatsoever.
The current discussion started off by Danny giving a view that NT Wright holds about the nobleman receiving a kingdom in Luke 19 which happens to make some sense to me.
Although I have not studied the man’s work nearly as much as I plan to, I’m going to summarize what I believe to be Wrights’ general perspective on the ministry of Jesus.
It is suggested by Wright that Jesus’ ministry parallels many, if not all, of the significant events in the OT, and that His coming on the scene was the climax, or the culmination and fulfillment of the whole story of human history, especially through the Jews including the Exodus, the exile, and even creation itself. According to Wright, Jesus was a prophet (and of course more than that) who used the same kind of symbolic language and dramatic spectacle that the OT prophets used (if I understand him correctly) who saw His “vocation” as the One who was to communicate the good news (and bad news for some) of the Kingdom to the nation of Israel and also to tell them of the certain judgment that is coming. The parables and miracles of Jesus communicated a symbolic prophetic message that was relatively imminent in nature. That is a very crude summary of what my understanding is of Wright’s perspective on Jesus (again, I may not be completely accurate in my understanding of his views here).
With that paradigm in view, I’m looking at some of the passages with a different set of eyes and trying to bring this assumption to them in order to see if it works or not. Some of those passages are ones that I've always been pretty sure were talking about the second coming (like the Luke 19 passage).
As with Isaiah, Jesus preached to a people whose majority would not heed the message. I believe that itself may have been God’s judgment on a people that had so hardened their hearts against God, they were beyond the point of turning back. This is illustrated even in one of the sections in Matthew I’m reconsidering at the present. In Matthew 13:14, Jesus uses Isaiah 6:9-10 to answer why he speaks to the people in parables. In Isaiah’s passage, right after Isaiah signs up to go on the mission field, God tells him to preach to a people that will never accept his message and repent (how’s that for an evangelist pep talk? You still in Izzy?). I’ve always stumbled over Matthew 13 and wondered why Jesus would purposely confuse the masses. Why didn't He just tell them plainly so they would repent and believe.
But wait, Isaiah says there’s a faithful remnant that will return. It makes sense to me that Jesus was preaching two messages simultaneously. To the remnant that would receive it, the message was that their King has returned to claim His Kingdom and it was good news. To the unfaithful, the message was that their King has returned and caught them red-handed and now they will be judged for their works (bad news).
So, in that same chapter, we have the parable of the wheat and the tares (vs.24-30) that I’ve always taken to be describing the church age and finally ending in the second coming. I do not know what Wright’s views are about this passage, so I can’t speak for him. But I’m reconsidering it with his framework in mind.
The interesting thing to me is that the passage in Psalms (Ps 78 ) that Matthew uses as a prophesy that has its fulfillment in Jesus’ use of parables, has language that speaks describes a similar judgment. And in that lengthy psalm describing the exodus (among other things), we have the following line:
Ps 78:49
49 He cast on them the fierceness of His anger,
Wrath, indignation, and trouble,
By sending angels of destruction among them.
NKJV
Now, I would guess that the Egyptians didn’t think to attribute their destruction to God’s “angels”, nor the Assyrians when the angel smote 185,000 (2Ki 19:35), nor the Syrians who were struck with blindness (2Ki 6) by angels that only Elisha and his servant could see.
So my question is, why can we not allow that in 70AD, Jesus indeed came with His holy angels to judge the nation of Israel and give each man his reward? Keeping in mind, the word “reward” is not always used in scripture to denote a positive thing, but sometimes a negative. Also, if I were living in a nation that was being judged, I would consider it quite a “reward” to escape that judgment. Furthermore, Jesus told Peter in Matt 19:
Matt 19:28-30
"Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.
NKJV
It seems reasonable to me to say that the “regeneration” He is speaking of here is what occurs when believers receive the Holy Spirit (post-resurrection) upon becoming followers of Christ. Peter and the other disciples were exalted to a place of authority in the church to the degree that we still hold their words as authoritative in the church, even for
judging other believers. This would suggest to me that they did receive their reward for faithfully following Jesus.
All that to say….those are just some of the things I’m pondering about and I’m still looking into it.
Anyway, my wife’s having our baby tomorrow (Lord willing) so I think I’d better go and get some rest.
P.S. If I take a few days to respond.... well, you understand. 8)