My response to deon’s two lengthy and thoughtful comments (see the last piece on Jesus as Alpha and Omega) on how the narrative-historical approach potentially distorts crucial elements of New Testament christology has grown rather long, so I have posted it separately. But it remains a response to comments on another post and may not make too much sense in isolation. It was also done in a bit of a hurry, so it may not make much sense at all. I’ve slightly edited deon’s text.

Towards the end of the book of Revelation John hears somebody say: “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 22:12–13). This is presumably Jesus speaking (cf. 22:16); and since God says nearly the same thing about himself in Revelation 21:6, it is inferred that John means to establish some sort of identity between Jesus and God. Richard Bauckham, for example, has said: “As a way of stating unambiguously that Jesus Christ belongs to the fullness of the eternal God, this surpasses anything in the NT” (R. Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, 1993, 56-57).

The New Testament narrative at every point is directed towards future events, from John the Baptist’s announcement that the bad trees of Israel would be cut down and burned in the fire to John the Seer’s vision of a new heaven and a new earth. I say “events”—plural—because I don’t think the standard modern eschatological assumption that we are still waiting for a single “end” makes sense historically. I argue instead for a three horizons model that fits the evident historical contours of the New Testament without sacrificing the conviction that God will have the final word.

In Revelation 21:22-26 John describes a situation in which the new Jerusalem is surrounded by the nations, which walk by its light, and the kings of these nations bring their “glory and honour” into the city. Despite the fact that the gates of the city will always be open, nothing unclean, nor any detestable or false person, will enter into the city.

Professor James Dunn gave a class yesterday at the London School of Theology for a mixed group of undergraduates, research students, and the teaching body. The topic was “Jesus according to Jesus”, which was taken from his forthcoming book Jesus According to the New Testament. He took us on a leisurely stroll in search of a familiar “historical” Jesus, by way of three main sections: what early Christianity learned from Jesus; the distinctive features of Jesus’ ministry that cannot easily be attributed to the Evangelists; and Jesus’ self-understanding.

In the discussion that followed he asked the class what we thought was the most important lesson that the early church learned from Jesus. As I recall, the priority of love and the presence of God with his people were suggested, along with a few other incidental features of his ministry. But on the evidence of the Synoptic Gospels the answer surely has to be that Jesus proclaimed the coming of the kingdom of God within a generation as an event that would profoundly impact and transform Israel. I’m glad that one young woman got it right.

I started out with the intention of explaining what appears to be the persistence of bad things and bad people in the new heaven and new earth described in Revelation 21-22. John tells us that the gates of the new Jerusalem that is seen descending from God will never be shut, but “nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false” (Rev. 21:27). That seems to imply that these things will still exist in this brave new world, they just won’t be permitted entry into the holy city. Wasn’t all evil destroyed in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14; 21:8)? Something of a conundrum, you’ll agree.

This is the script for the recent podcast of the same name for those who prefer the sound of the voice in their head.

Here’s the question that I want to address. It was sent to me by someone who gets the narrative-historical approach to reading the Bible and is wondering whether it has anything to say about the more fundamental matter of the credibility of the Christian view of God.