Otto Review
This review was published
in the Westminster
Theological Journal, Fall, 1997 (Vol 59, No. 2).
Randall
E. Otto: Coming in the Clouds: An
Evangelical Case for the Invisibility of Christ at His Second Coming.
Randall
Otto’s thesis is that Christ will be invisible and incorporeal at his second
coming. He tries to prove this by a biblical-theological study on the glory
cloud in Scripture, which he capably accomplishes. His main emphasis is that
the glory cloud was a veil for the full glory of God, and that no one actually
saw God directly, but always through visions or some other indirect means.
There are many minor things to quibble with in his treatment of the OT
sections, including a rather annoying tendency to quote large portions of
extra-biblical literature without clearly enunciating why he found it necessary
to do so. Yet overall, these chapters have a great deal to recommend
them—there is a great deal of fine exegesis and discussion on the glory cloud
and its relationship to the people of God. The reader will perhaps remain
unconvinced with regard to his discussion on the glory
cloud prior to the exodus, but even this subsection included helpful material
which stimulates the reader to further thought.
When
Otto discusses the NT evidence, however, and particularly the post-resurrection
descriptions of Christ, he goes wild and woolly. He treats the incarnation of
Christ as another glory cloud which is designed to cover Christ’s deity. While
Christ is the absolute fulfillment of the glory cloud in redemptive history, I
find this emphasis, at least the way Otto accents it, in danger of slighting
the humanity of Christ in favor of his deity. Especially disturbing were his
comments that the normal state of
Christ’s resurrection body is invisible and incorporeal (“evanescent” is one
of his favorite words). Of course, Scripture says that
people saw Christ, and touched him, and ate with him in his post-resurrection
state, and this becomes a problem with anyone advancing such a theory, as so
often the seemingly clear and straightforward statements of Scripture do. Otto’s response? Very similar to Murray J. Harris’s
arguments in From Grave to Glory (pp.
139-146, which Otto cites with approval), he argues that Scripture presents
Jesus’ post-resurrection body as having both a material and a non-corporeal
aspect, and that this data must somehow be reconciled. Otto theorizes that
Christ’s resurrection body is capable of assuming a material substance, when
necessary, approximating his pre-resurrection state, so that he can interact at
the material level. Otto’s evidence to support this is that the
post-resurrection Christ was able to pass through doors and that it was
difficult in personal encounters to recognize him.
I have
certain problems with this. For one, Otto simply does not discuss in detail Paul’s
comments on the resurrection in 1 Cor 15. An understanding of what “spiritual”
means is critical to Otto’s argument, but Otto blithely assumes that Paul’s
statement about the resurrection body being spiritual supports
his view of what “spiritual” means in this context. To say that this is
debatable would be an understatement. I think it can be proven, or at least
persuasively argued, that Paul is referring to an eschatological state
conditioned by the Spirit of God, and not an incorporeal essence. If this is
correct, it presents serious difficulties for Otto’s theory.
It
should also be noted that there are other explanations for the data which Otto
(and Harris) cite. Christ could apparently move about mysteriously after his
resurrection (passing through doors, disappearing suddenly from his
disciples), but there are also suggestions that he could do so before his
resurrection, as when he passes through the crowds to escape their hostile
intent. Otto does discuss Jesus’ walking on the water (p.1 76-179),
in order to argue that this is some sort of glory-cloud phenomenon. I think he
fails to prove the case (which rests heavily on the use of the Greek vocabulary
item phantasma,
The
failure of Christ’s intimates quickly to recognize him may also be otherwise
explained. It is well known that one’s expectations often influence one’s
perceptions. Even under normal circumstances, when one is expecting a phone
call, one tends to hear the voice of that person even when another calls.
Seeing a loved one in an unexpected place often involves a double-take, and the
second look will be a long one to “make sure” that it really is the loved one.
People knew, with absolute epistemological certainty, that Christ had been
executed on the cross. He was dead. The psychological impact that this would
generate should not be underestimated.
As long
as we are speculating, we should also not ignore the theory that Christ’s
resurrection produced some change of appearance without involving invisibility
and evanescence. Think of the various analogies that Scripture uses for the
resurrection, particularly seed to tree and new birth. It involves a radical
transformation of the entire human psycho-somatic structure which is analogous
to these sorts of changes (yet the new is in continuity with the old). One can
often see the child in the adult, especially if one has pictures or has known
the person throughout the growing years. The resurrection, however, necessarily
brings about a great deal of change with the eschatological swiftness of the
blink of an eye. That some change of physical appearance would be included is,
I think, quite likely. If we combine this with the comments in the paragraph
above, we have a theory to explain the data which is certainly less convoluted,
and somewhat less speculative, than what Otto offers.
A major
problem with this book is that Otto’s conclusions simply do not follow from the
evidence which he presents. Further, Otto leaves out certain facts from his
consideration. For example, the incarnation is, as Otto does effectively
demonstrate, the fulfillment of the theophanic appearances in the OT, including
the glory cloud. Much more important, however, is the parallel between Adam and
Christ. Although Paul mainly uses this imagery of Christ’s redemptive
activity, there are other implications as well. Adam, as the pinnacle of
creation, was the fullest representation of the glory and image of God. Christ, as the second Adam who succeeds
where the other fails, is also the highest representation of God who is
available to us. It is no accident that Christ became incarnate and that the
plan of salvation took the form that it did (to argue otherwise is to argue for
nominalism). The human nature of Christ is the best creation level
representation of the true God. At times, Christ says and does things, both
pre- and post-resurrection, which indicate that he is more than human, but even
as a human being, Christ is the supreme imago
Dei, the image of God to which there is no equal in Scripture.
Otto
sees Christ’s humanity as a thin veil over his deity (he actually says this
several times in several different ways, e.g., p. 191, “the cloudy veil of
Christ’s humanity.. .“), arguing that Christ’s human
nature, as I have noted, veils Christ’s true glory as the second person of the
Trinity. I would emphasize that Christ’s human nature is integral to the
revelation of who God is and to the work of redemption. We are told in several
places in Scripture that Christ reveals the glory of God. Truly, when Christ is
revealed in glory, it becomes impossible for anyone to stand in his presence.
However, when we see Christ’s glory revealed, are we seeing God’s glory
“directly,” or are we seeing God’s glory as mediated through a perfectly
sinless and eschatologically realized human being, who is the first-fruits of
the resurrection? In his discussion on the transfiguration of Christ (which I
agree with Otto is a prolepsis of Christ in glory), Otto notes that “the glory
displayed by Moses and Elijah was comparable to that of Christ in his
effulgence” (p. 205), but he fails to see how this is an argument against his
position. Apparently, Moses and Elijah, already in their resurrection state,
have no problem being in Christ’s glorified presence, but they are still
ontologically human, which means that they are in the presence of God’s glory mediated, and not the revelation of divine glory in its
fullest sense.
Frankly,
Otto has to overcome real exegetical and theological problems to get where he
wants to go. No doubt a resurrected human body has properties or powers that
may seem quite beyond what we can do at present, but Otto has not dealt
satisfactorily with the continuity, or the identity, of the resurrection body.
Ontologically, it remains human, although the implication from
several Scriptures is that it is capable of doing more, in some unqualified
sense. The idea that the resurrection body is invisible but capable of taking
solid form does not really take into account all the Scriptural evidence
available. Otto’s study would have been strengthened by:
I. A much more
careful study on what “glory” means, particularly in the NT,
in which a detailed examination of the concept in the synoptics will indicate
that the glory of God is revealed through the humility of the work of Christ in
a dramatically exceptional way. Otto uses the term frequently throughout his
book, but never really explores all the biblical usages of the word
which potentially impacts his study.
2. Dealing in greater
depth with the various Christological passages of the NT, and
particularly, as noted above, 1 Cor 15. On first 1 Cor 15, he simply has a
footnote with a short discussion, mainly consisting of citations in support of
details which he is using to advance his argument (pp. 246-247). Otto does
discuss Phil 2:1-12 with relationship to the kenotic question (pp.
147-154), but the discussion, while quite orthodox, does little to
further his argument. He particularly gives no attention to the implications of
the permanent state of the hypostatic union and what this might mean for his
theory.
3. A great deal of
exegetical and theological reflection has taken place with regard to
these elements of Christology (and the Scriptural passages which contribute to
this reflection).
The
reader would have been better served had Otto omitted some of his
lengthy quotes of ancient extra-biblical sources (often a footnote, paraphrase,
or shorter quote would have sufficed) and interacted with this material.
In
conclusion, if the incarnation itself is the perfect revelation of God which
reveals the glory of God in the best possible way,
then the glory of God (as Otto seems to conceive it), is already mediated (a
much better term than “hidden”). There is therefore no logical necessity for
Christ to be invisible at his coming. I would also urge extreme caution in
considering this type of speculation. While I do not wish to denigrate Mr. Otto
with any type of ad hominem associations, these are precisely
the sorts of arguments that heretical groups such as the
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and lately the hyper-preterist movement, tend to use in
support of their own flawed theological agendas. There is much of value in
Otto’s work, but this is definitely a case of caveat emptor.
There
are a number of editorial mistakes throughout the book that should be corrected
in any future edition, including odd page formatting (some pages had far too
much white space, communicating to the reader that a chapter was ending when in
fact it was not), spelling errors, and transliteration errors.
N.E. BARRY HOFSTETTER