Showing posts with label Eschatology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eschatology. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Paul and the Parousia

Yes, I'm in eschatology mode today, here is Joseph Plevnik's summary on Paul's teaching on the Parousia:

The parousia is the culmination of Christ’s present rule, the beginning of God’s kingdom, and the moment for the resurrection of the dead. The Lord’s coming is thus the moment for the resurrection of the dead. The Lord’s coming is thus the culmination of Christ’s own resurrection and of his lordship, which began with that event. Christ was raised as the first of many and as the one through whom all others will be brought to life. And he was made Lord so that he may put everything under his feet. The parousia is also the culmination of the present existence ‘in Christ.’ Those who belong to Christ will be with Christ at his coming.[1]


[1] Joseph Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 328.

Richard Hays on why we need Eschatology

Richard Hays lists six reasons why the church needs apocalyptic eschatology (includes my own summary, paraphrase, and additions to his chief articles):[1]

1. The church needs apocalyptic eschatology to carry Israel’s story forward. Without a future oriented hope one cannot affirm God’s faithfulness to Israel and God’s covenantal promises become unintelligible. Or even worse, a faithless God means we have fickle deity whom we cannot be sure abut. God intends to vindicate his peple (Deut 32:36) at the appointed time when the Redeemer comes to Zion (Isa 59:20). These promises find their proleptic fulfillment in Jesus Christ in the church as a prefiguration of the eschatological people of God, which is a sign in itself of the full divine embracing (proslēmpsis) of eschatological Israel.

2. The church needs apocalyptic eschatology for interpreting the cross as a saving event for the world. If we are to grasp the centrality of the cross, then we must see it as more than a propiatory sacrifice for the forgivnesss of the sins of individuals. The cross should be interpreted as an atoning even within a larger apocalyptic narrative where God destroys the powers of the old order and inaugurates the new creation (Gal 6:14-16).

3. The church needs apocalyptic eschatology for the gospel’s political critique of pagan culture. The biting edge to Christian eschatology is that Jesus is the Lord to whom every leader and government will one day bow (Phil 2:9-11). Christian apocalypticism reminds us that Caesar’s power (in whatever form it takes) might claim to be totalitarian, but in fact it is transient. Christian loyalty to the Lord means resistance to the power, politics, and pleasures of the world around us. If we train our eyes on the ultimate reversal of fortunes then we will never become accommodated or complacent with the status quo in an injust world.

4. The church needs apocalyptic eschatology to resist ecclesial complacency and triumphalism. The looming reality of a final judgment – a judgment that begins with the church – strikes a chord because it prevents the church from having grandiose concepts of its own importance (see 2 Cor 5:11–6:2). The church is a provisional servant of God, a life boat between shipwreck and salvage, and so must avoid becoming fat, sleepy, or abusive.

5. The church needs apocalyptic eschatology in order to affirm the body. Apocalyptic eschatology is in one sense dualistic between certain temporal and spatial entities (e.g., heaven vs. earth, future vs. present, etc.). However, that dualism is never annunciated as a radical rejection of the material world in toto. For apocalyptic eschatology looks forward the the Creator’s redemption and renewal of the created order and his refusal to abandon it to decay. God redeemes what he creates. That is why Christians look forward to the resurrection of the flesh and not to the immortality of the soul (1 Cor 15:35-58).

6. The church needs apocalyptic eschatology to ground its mission. The resurrection and ascension of Jesus was a sign that Israel’s restoration was indeed at hand (Acts 1:11). Yet it was also a call to engage in witness to the expanding kingdom. That witnessing inevitably brings the witnesses into conflict with a world hostile to the message of the lordship of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit empowers the church and forms the community as a missional organism that works out God’s purposes for redemption and judgment. Without this endtime perspective the content and urgency of the Christian mission is greatly retarded.

7. The church needs apocalyptic eschatology to speak with integrity about suffering and death. Those armed with an apocalyptic eschatology need not live in denial of the sufferings of this age and the groaning that accompany it. Cynicism nor despair takes over Christians because they know that their telos is the resurrection of their body assured by the resurrection of Jesus’ body. Christians therefore know how to grieve with hope in the face of the horror of death knowing that every tear will one day be wiped away their eyes in the new creation.


[1] Richard B. Hays, “‘Why Do You Stand Looking Up Toward Heaven?’ New Testament Eschatology at the Turn of the Millennium,” in Theology at the Turn of the Millennium, eds. L.G. Jones and J.J. Buckley (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 113-33.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Johannine Eschatology

There other day I was describing the Gospel of John to my students. I described it kinda like the town of Nimbin in New South Wales (Nimbin is known for its hippie culture). Everyone there is chilled, they like to talk about love, its a reflective atmosphere, and it's very different to the hustle and bustle of city like in the Synoptics. That's an intro to my summary of Johannine eschatology:

The Fourth Gospel clearly favors the realized component of Jesus’ work. John sees in Jesus the coming of God’s revelatory light, the incarnation of divine glory, and the life of heaven made manifest (John 1:3-4, 14; 3:31). The final resurrection expected at the end of the age (see John 11:24), is burgeoning in the spiritual life that Jesus imparts to followers (John 5:25; 11:25-26). Eternal life becomes intractably bound up with, almost collapsed into, the act of knowing and believing in the God who sent Jesus (John 17:3). The Johannine Jesus can even aver that “Now is the time for judgment on this world” by virtue of the presence of the judge (John 12:31; cf. 5:22, 27, 30; 8:15-16; esp. 9:39). Still, John has not forfeited all sense of the future as he refers to a future judgment and resurrection (John 5:28-29; 6:39; 40, 44, 54; 11:23-26). The demonic “prince of this world” is still yet to be fully driven out (John 12:31). The kingdom of God is something that one must yet enter into (John 3:3-5). The Fourth Evangelist also knows that Jesus is preparing a place for where his disciples and will one day return to take them there (John 14:1-3). Putting this together, in the Gospel of John an absolute distinction between this age and the coming age has become fluid so that believers can experience real blessings, even eternal life, in the here and now. The Johannine Jesus brings a “rift” between evil and good, darkness and light, belief and unbelief, future and present. John knows of the cosmic “hour” that already has come and is yet to be, an hour that brings judgment as well as life, unity as well as division, it is the hour of salvation and reprobation that exudes form Jesus’ person (John 5:25). Contra much scholarship, John is not for the abandonment of a future apocalyptic kingdom for an existential present experience, rather, “John’s sense of time – his eschatology – is shaped by his recognition that in the coming of Jesus the light has made a decisive difference between the past and present. But John also knows that the present is the scene of conflicting claims. True life is a current reality, yet so is death; some people can now see; yet others have become blind. These truths grate against each other like a dissonant sound pressing for resolution. The Gospel assumes that there is no going back, as if Jesus never came. There can only be going forward to the point where the dissonance resolves into harmony,” and for John that harmony transpires at the future judgment.[1] John offers a summons to believe in Jesus as the light, life, and judge of the present hour and so avoid condemnation “at the last day” (John 12:44-50).


[1] Craig R. Koester, The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 176.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Tom Schreiner on Revelation 20

In a recent sermon, Tom Schreiner preaches on Revelation 20 and narrates his change from amillennialism to pre-millennialism. It is a very good sermon in terms of both theology and exhortation.

HT: Andy Naselli.

Saturday, June 06, 2009

Covenant Theology and Historic Pre-Millennialism

I've been reading through Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung (eds.), A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to the "Left Behind" Eschatology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 200). The best article, I think, is the one by Sung Wook Chung on "Toward the Reformed and Covenantal Theology of Premillennialism". When I first saw the title I thought of an infamous sermon by John Macarthur that people who are Reformed must be dispensational premillennial. Sadly, that was about as convincing as saying that reggae music should be the official sound of the Klu Klux Klan. Since Reformed folks tend to be either amillennial or postmillennial, I was intrigued as to whether Chung could present a good case for a Reformed and covenantal premillennialism; in short, I think he does!

Chung affirms his covenantal approach in seeing a unity in the covenant of grace from Gen. 3.15 to Rev. 22.21, but points out a few problems with standard covenant theology. First, there is an overemphasis on the soteriological dimensions of the covenant of grace which has neglected the kingdom dimension of God's work in history. Second, Reformed theology tends to spiritualize key passages of the Bible which command a more literal interpretation, e.g. Rev. 20.1-6. Third, by overly focusing on the covenant of works in Gen. 2.15-17, Reformed theologians have not correctly understood the significance of Gen. 1.26-27 for the reality of God's rule. Generally, I think this is correct. The dichotomy between emphases on Redemption (in Reformed theology) and Kingdom (in Dispensational theology) could said to be a false one since covenant and kingdom are correlative concepts. That is not to say that Reformed and Dispensational theologies are remotely reconciliable, they are not, but covenant theology does not have to dispense with the theocentric aspects of God's rule in its understanding of the application of the redemptive story.

Chung offers an "alternative" covenantal reading of Genesis 1-2. For him, Gen. 1.26-27 stands as the archetype of the covenants of promise/blessing found in the later OT. Gen. 1.26-28 is no simple "cultural mandate," but shows that God intends to establish his rule on earth through his vice-regents. Gen. 2.16-17 shows the conditional nature of God's covenant with his people where Adam plays the role of priest who must demonstrate fidelity and loyalty to the King as representative of his progeny. Gen. 2.16-17 is the constitution for the kingdom in Eden. Thus, the character of the dominion of God in Eden was that God wanted Adam to have a priestly and kingly role. Adam was blessed and commissioned by God to rule over the whole creation as king and to worship God. In the Fall the execution of that task was lost and it would be recovered by the seed of Gen. 3.15 who will bring restoration to the dominion of God to a new edenic garden.

Chung sees here two covenants in the Garden of Eden, one unconditional and another conditional, but both are geared towards establishing the Adamic kingdom over the entire creation. It was God's original purpose and plan that humanity might exercise dominion over the entire creation, not just spiritually, but physically as well. As God's image, Jesus Christ represents God's authority, dominion, reign, and glory. He also represents humanity before God as well. Jesus fulfills the roles first given to Adam by exercising dominion over creation (Gen. 1.26-28) and by exercising love and obedience to God (Gen. 2.16-17). Jesus succeeds, then, in reestablishing the kingdom of God among humankind. On the Abrahamic covenant, this also had a physical orientation (land, descendents etc) and Chung contends that those who interpret the promises spiritually do so on account of their "unwitting gnostic tendencies" (oooh aaaah!).

Chung does not avoid the white Elephant in the room - why does Jesus Christ have to reign with all believers alive at the parousia for a thousand years? Why is the millennium even necessary? For Chung, in the millennial kingdom, Jesus fulfils the priestly and regal dimensions of the first Adam's kingdom. Interestingly enough, Rev. 20.6 demonstrates that those who will reign in the millennial kingdom will be both kings and priests. The millennial kingdom on earth will be a restoration and fulfilment of the Edenic kingdom on earth. In this sense, the premillennial kingdom is the penultimate realization of the kingdom promise/blessing in the context of the current world, whereas the new Jerusalem in the new heavens and earth is the ultimate realization of the kingdom promise/blessing in the context of the eternally transformed cosmos.

I find Chung's thesis attractive (all the more so because the historical premillennial view seems to square with Rev. 20.1-6 and second century interpretations of Revelation by Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian were millennial). Still, I don't know whether historical premillennialism will displace amillenialism as the default position among reformed theologians. Some would obviously contest his interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Furthermore, Greg Beale's "inaugurated millennialism" in his Revelation commentary and Kim Riddlebar's A Case for Amillennialism, continue to make the amill view a very attractive option for many.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

What is the Rapture?

Student: 'Professor, what happens at the Rapture?'

Liberal Professor: 'Well, at the Rapture you walk up to your window, look outside, see people floating up into the sky, and then you should say to yourself, "Well, I'll be damned!"'

Friday, October 24, 2008

Short Hand Guide to Eschatological Refutations

Let me give a quick (and deliberately comical) guide to refuting various eschatologies. Here is how to refute:

1. Amillennialismism. Read Revelation 20.1-10 and recite the Lord's Prayer. Those who partake of the first resurrection do not partake of the second one and the kingdom of God is coming to earth after all.

2. Postmillennialism. Read todays newspaper! The world is not getting better.

3. Dispensational premillennialism. Stop reading the Left Behind series, sell your Ryrie Study Bible, and start reading 2 Thessalonians 2. Being kept from the hour of trial applied only to the church of Philadelphia (Rev. 3.10) not to the corporate church and the anti-Christ (Barack Obama?) must first be revealed (2 Thess. 2.3).

It is Friday evening now!

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Kingdom in 1 Thessalonians

My Aussie friend Dr. David Luckensmeyer writes:

"In First Thessalonians, the basileia tou theou is the royal rule of God which began with the death and resurrection of Jesus and is established at the parousia of the Lord. It is a paradigmatic alternative to the Imperial rule, where the benevolent King, through a mediator (Jesus), offers a community identity and existence which rises above a this-worldly social disintegration. The eschatological discourse in the letter offers a balanced perspective regarding present conflict and future reality. The kerygmatic hope, which includes a responsibility to holy living, centres on the parousia of the Lord. That occurence is representative of life (1:9; 4:15, 17: 5:10), of deliverance from orge (1:10; 5:9), of hope, glory, joy, and a crown of boasting (2:12, 19, 20), of resurrection (4:14, 16), of celebration (4:17), of being with the Lord always (4:17), and of salvation (5:9). The picture that emerges in the eschatological discourse of First Thessalonians is nothing short of the basileia tou theou itself."

David Luckensmeyer, "Basileia in First Thessalonians," in "I Sowed Fruits into Hearts" (Odes sol. 17:13): Festschrift for Professor Michael Lattke (ECS 12; Strathfield: St. Paul's, 2007), 155.

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Distinction between Justification and Sanctification

Paul Helm has a good post on Calvin's Stroke of Genius in articulating the Reformed distinction between justification and sanctification. I agree with the distinction, and I think it is impossible to explain the charge of antinomianism that Paul had to respond to (Rom. 3.7-8; Acts 21.21; Jas. 2.14-26) if he was merging sanctification and justification.

But a larger problem that looms on the Reformed side is how one integrates eschatology into their understanding of justification and sanctification. Calvin never covered this point as far as I can tell, and I have noticed a number of Reformed authors implying or insisting that to attribute to justification a not-yet or future element is tantamount to embracing a Tridentine view of justification. However, I submit that justification has a future element (see Rom. 2.13-16, 10.9-10, Gal. 5.5, etc) and many commentators such as G.Vos, G.E. Ladd, H. Ridderbos, and L. Morris have appropriately articulated it. I think there is fundamental misunderstanding in some circles that to postulate a future or not-yet dimension to justification is to engage in a double-justification - one by faith and another by works (as Martin Bucer held) - or to see justification as a process of becoming just (e.g. Trent). But this is hardly a necessary corollary; eschatology pervades the entire matrix of Paul's theology, ethics, and view of ministry. It is not to be feared or explained away.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Evangelicals and Eschatology Conference Summary

Over at Vorsprung durch Theologie, David Kirk has started posting summaries of the recent St. Andrews conference on Evangelicals and Eschatology.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Evangelicals and Eschatology Conference

Evangelicals and Eschatology:
Edwards’ History of the Work of Redemption
to LaHaye / Jenkins’ Left Behind

Day conference with presentations by

David W. Bebbington
Professor of History, Stirling University

George M. Marsden
Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History, University of Notre Dame

St Mary’s College, University of St Andrews
Monday, 30 April 2007

10:30 coffee, 11:00 start, with reception to follow
Cost: £20 staff / £10 student

Please send payment (cheques payable to St Mary’s College) by Friday, 13 April.
Short paper presentations are welcome; please send a 100- to 200-word abstract to the address below by Friday, 30 March.

Please direct any enquiries and payment to Darren Schmidt, e-mail dws7@st-andrews.ac.uk or c/o St Mary’s College, South Street, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9JU http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity.

I'm thinking of offering a short paper on one of these topics:
  • Detoxing Dispensationalists: 10 Easy Steps
  • Lord, Saves Us from the Apocalyptic Soap Opera of the Left-Behind Series!
  • Evangelicals and the Apocalyptic Jesus: A Way Forward

Friday, February 09, 2007

The Work of the White Bull (Cow) in 1 Enoch 90:37-38


I have been reading a great deal of Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period. I am teaching a class on the backgrounds of the NT and we are reading much of the Apocrapha, Pseudepigrapha, the sectarian literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Aboth, Josephus, and Philo.
Recently, I read carefully the Animal Apocaplyse found in 1 Enoch 85-90. It is a fascinating presentation of the history of Israel from creation to consumation and it told in the form of an allegory. (Is this your picture of the messiah?)

The vision concludes with Israel's regathering as God's flock back within the borders of Israel and the captial city of Jerusalem. Of the greatness of that day, the author in 90:36 states, "I noticed that the house (Jerusalem) was large, wide, and exceedingly full." The statement echoes the restoration prophecies of Isa 54:1-3. Israel's restoration is complete. Throughout the vision Israel is presented as sheep. And YHWH is called the "Lord of the Sheep". Although prior to this restoration they are prone to stray and wonder, now they are made white and clean; signifying their purity.

At this point the traditional view of the latter day events, which is perhaps most authoratively presented inNickelsburg's commentary, is as follows. 90:37-38 presents the resolution of the whole vision: the return to the beginning when there were no sheep or beasts of the field and birds -- these latter animals (delinated in 89:10) are Gentiles. Here the author sees a white bull born, persumably irregularly born from the restored sheep. The bull becomes the agent of transformation not only for the beasts of the field and the birds, but also for the sheep: "all" are transformed into white bulls. The vision's culmination is a Adamic state where there is no longer distinctions. Hence, the enemies of the sheep are eliminated through the transformation of the whole of the created order. Nickelsburg summarizes:

“Although the author’s lengthy narration of Israel’s history dominates the Vision, that history must be placed in the context of the whole Vision. Israel’s story stands in the broader context of humanity’s story, and the nation’s deliverance from its enemies is a first step toward the re-creation and reuniting of the whole human race. That ultimate reconciliation emanates from within Israel, with the appearance of the great white bull that is described in the language at home in Davidic messianic speculation. But the symbol of the bull and the transformation that ensues take that human story back to its pre-Israelite beginnings. Through the re-creation of the whole human race God will accomplish what failed with the first family and with their counterparts who came out of the ark . . . The coming deliverance of a decimated Israel portends the salvation of all humanity” (Nickelsburg 2001: 356-57, emphasis added).
Nickelsburg further argues that the white bull is a Davidic Messianic figure on the grounds of a textual emenadation which echoes the earlier reference to David in 89:46. Thus, in concert with Ezekiel 34, 1 Enoch presents the Davidide appearing subsequent to the restoration of both houses of Israel in order to become a "leader among them" (90:38). The eschatological figure symbolized by the same animals as the early patriarchs implies a return to the beginning. While the significance of the transformation into bulls is debated, it is at least possible to see a connection to both a new Adam and Abraham as the conduit of blessing to the nations (Gen 12:1-3; Psa 72).
Nickelsburg's comment is not too far off the mark when he states: "The soteriological imagery of this author is daring and perhaps without parallel in pre-Christian Jewish literature" (407). However, I think there is a hint of this universal soteriology in Psalms of Solomon 17 as well--I argue for it in my forthcoming book.
Yet, I have a few significant observation that to my mind call into question this traditional view at least in the details if not in the big picture of Gentile inclusion in the salvation of Israel.
(1) The identity of the white bull as a Davidic Messiah is far from certain. The conclusion rests on the shakest of foundations: an emendation of the text. Yet this identification is made much of by Chae in his recent work call Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd, pgs. 109-15. Without that emendation there is nothing else in this text that would suggest a Davidic Messianic figure.
(2) It is not at all obvious what the connection is between the return and restoration of the sheep to their home and the birth of the white bull. There is no reason to presume that the bull comes from the sheep. There is a clear transition statement in 90:36 and a new beginning in 9:37. The bull could have been born from the beasts of the field; while I am not suggesting this, it seems to me that this would make more sense in the context than presuming without evidence that it was born from a restored sheep.
(3) Therefore, it seems that we should not take the "all" in 90:37 inclusively to apprehend both the beasts of the field and the birds and the restored sheep. Rather the context suggests that the "all their kindred" is a reference to all the varieties of the beasts of the fields and the birds delinated in 89:10: lions, leopards, wolves, snakes, hyenas, etc. Thus, the eschatological vision is of two classes of creatures the restored sheep and the newly transformed white bulls.
(4) This interpretation is strengthed, I think by noting that YHWH is characterized as the "Lord of the sheep" even after the transformation. This significance is seen in the fact that only after the sheep were created was God referred to as the "Lord of the Sheep". In the beginning he was not referred to as such. Thus, if there were no more sheep, as the traditional view argues, it seems that the title of YHWH have disappeared.
In conclusion, I suggest that this text radically, although not signularly within Second Temple Judaism, promlegates the view that the Gentiles will be included in the renewal of creation. However, it appears to me that there are still two categories of creatures in the eschatological age: sheep and bulls. Furthermore, both are presented as purified and renewed.