What do you think?
Rate this book
The Stars Will Fall From Heaven: 'Cosmic Catastrophe' in the New Testament and its World
The aim of this book is to establish and explore New Testament belief in the end of the world through an investigation of texts which - on the face of it - contain 'end of the world' language. It engages with recent discussion on how Jewish and early Christian 'end of the world' was meant to be understood, and interacts especially with N.T. Wright's proposals. The first part of the book is given over to background and focuses on the Old Testament, Jewish apocalyptic and related literature and Graeco-Roman sources. The latter have seldom been brought into play in previous discussion. The author shows that the Stoic material is especially relevant. The second part of the book concentrates on the New Testament evidence and explores in detail all the key texts. The pertinent texts are analyzed in terms of the kind of the 'end of the world' language they use - language of cosmic cessation, of catastrophe and conflagration. The main aim of the exegesis is to establish the extent to which the language is meant objectively, but there is further exploration of issues arising from the notions of the end of the world where they are deemed to be present, including whether the idea of the world's dissolution implies a rejection of the created order. The conclusion explores the implications of the theme of the end of the world for Christian theology and ethics, and discusses especially, the ramifications for environmental ethics.
- GenresBiblical Studies
320 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2007
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 1, 2024
This is an update of a review I wrote about six months ago. The occasion for the rewrite was my rereading the book to investigate a different question than the occasion of the first reading. On the occasion of the first reading this book was recommended to me when I was mulling over the question of whether the stars falling from heaven in Revelation 6 is meant to be literal or not. The occasion of the second reading was to investigate the claim that since the language of global catastrophe in texts such as Isaiah 13 and 34 was coupled with local judgements, such language in the N.T. should also be interpreted as describing local judgement, in this case on Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
I remembered Adams repudiating this claim in no uncertain terms but I didn’t remember the specifics. So I read the first section of the book with more attention to detail than I did the first time I read it. There is no point in reiterating all the arguments Adams makes in this review, but the key takeaway is that even if texts such as Isaiah 13 and 34 were describing local judgements, that is no reason to think that the N.T. writers were necessarily using that language in the same way. We would do better to look at how such language was used in the intertestamental and New Testament periods than to look at pre-exilic texts.
As to the question of whether the stars falling from heaven is literal or not, I originally wrote: "In fact, the author does not come down on either side of this question." Mark Smith, author of Broken Promises took me to task for this so on my second reading I paid particular attention to what the Adams said about this. In fact, right in the introduction he writes, "I want to make it clear from the outset that it is not my intention to argue for a 'literal' interpretation of New Testament language of cosmic catastrophe over and against a metaphorical or figurative one. Right away, I want to side with those who insist that in Mk. 13.24-25 we are not dealing with the language of literal or prosaic exactitude p. 17" and on p. 246 he declares that Revelation "obviously" does not consist of literal predictions. The reason this is confusing and easy to miss (at least for me!) is that Adams also makes it clear that he believes these authors were depicting "real" catastrophes (p.139). He uses scare quotes, I assume, to make clear that "real" does not mean literal. Rather than these descriptions being literal (or metaphorical), Adams describes them as "figure, analogy, and imaginative construal (p. 17)." I wish that Adams had explained further what he meant by this.
I remembered Adams repudiating this claim in no uncertain terms but I didn’t remember the specifics. So I read the first section of the book with more attention to detail than I did the first time I read it. There is no point in reiterating all the arguments Adams makes in this review, but the key takeaway is that even if texts such as Isaiah 13 and 34 were describing local judgements, that is no reason to think that the N.T. writers were necessarily using that language in the same way. We would do better to look at how such language was used in the intertestamental and New Testament periods than to look at pre-exilic texts.
As to the question of whether the stars falling from heaven is literal or not, I originally wrote: "In fact, the author does not come down on either side of this question." Mark Smith, author of Broken Promises took me to task for this so on my second reading I paid particular attention to what the Adams said about this. In fact, right in the introduction he writes, "I want to make it clear from the outset that it is not my intention to argue for a 'literal' interpretation of New Testament language of cosmic catastrophe over and against a metaphorical or figurative one. Right away, I want to side with those who insist that in Mk. 13.24-25 we are not dealing with the language of literal or prosaic exactitude p. 17" and on p. 246 he declares that Revelation "obviously" does not consist of literal predictions. The reason this is confusing and easy to miss (at least for me!) is that Adams also makes it clear that he believes these authors were depicting "real" catastrophes (p.139). He uses scare quotes, I assume, to make clear that "real" does not mean literal. Rather than these descriptions being literal (or metaphorical), Adams describes them as "figure, analogy, and imaginative construal (p. 17)." I wish that Adams had explained further what he meant by this.
Displaying 1 of 1 review