Resurrection: promise or fulfilment?
N.T. Wright begins a reflection upon the resurrection with this claim:
'Among the first meanings that the resurrection opened up to the surprised disciples was that Israel’s hope had been fulfilled.'
- On the Third Day.
NB Barth's claim below is even stronger that resurrection is the fulfilment of hope.Compare Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 213-14:
'The revelation of Christ cannot then merely consist in what has already happened in hidden ways being unveiled for us to see, but it must be expected in events which fulfil the promise that is given with the Christ event. This Christ event cannot then itself be understood as fulfilling all promises, so that after this event there remains only the sequel of its being unveiled for all to see. "In Christ all the promises of God are yea and Amen" (II Cor. I.20), i.e. in him they are confirmed and validated, but not yet fulfilled. Therefore the Christian hope expects from the future of Christ not only unveiling, but also final fulfilment.'Is the resurrection a fulfilment or itself a promise? Or both? In what ways? Why does it matter?
Eight points for naming the city in the image.
Posts
5 comments:
is it a case of 'now we see through a glass darkly'
great picture
Yeah, it's in Rome.
Now we see the effects of the resurrection darkly? Is that what you mean?
That would certainly be the traditional understanding, that the resurrection changed everything, we just can't quite see it yet. However, I think Moltmann is making an important point: that while people still die, God still has more work to do, we have not yet arrived at our hope. Jesus' resurrection is then a promise of what is to come for the rest of us (and for the world too!).
PS all the photos on this page were with the camera you gave me - thanks!
Is this a trick question? It looks like Rome from your comment!
Oops - I added these points without looking at the comments! I guess you just picked up eight of the easiest points you'll ever get.
Post a Comment