Chapter 14 - The New Beginning

The New Beginning

"Most of them," said Ransom, "have ceased to think of such things at all. Some of us still have the knowledge but I did not at once see what you were talking of, because what you call the beginning we are accustomed to call the Last Things." "I do not call it the beginning," said Tor the King. "It is but the wiping out of a false start in order that the world may then begin."

C. S. Lewis, Perelandra It is unwise for Christians to claim any knowledge of either the furniture of heaven or the temperature of hell; or to be too certain about any details of the Kingdom of God in which history is consummated. But it is prudent to accept the testimony of the heart, which affirms the fear of judgment. Niebuhr, Nature and Destiny of Man If out of pity and humanity we admit the necessity, i.e., the inevitability of universal salvation, we must deny the freedom of the creature. Nicolas Berdyaev, The Destiny of Man No one would reject Christ’s apocalyptic on the ground that apocalyptic was common in first-century Palestine unless he had already decided that the thought of the first-century Palestine was in that respect mistaken. But to have so decided is surely to have begged the question; for the question is whether the expectation of a catastrophic and Divinely ordered end of the present universe is true or false. Lewis, World’s Last Night The Meaning ofEschatology

The idea of eschatology is not properly related to the wild-eyed fanatic who is carrying a sign that the world is coming to an end. Eschatology, the doctrine of the last things, has been in disrepute because of such extremes since the Montanists in the early centuries of the church to the modern sensationalists like William Miller, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others who have set dates and places for the return of Christ. After the date expires, some ingenious explanation is then given to explain the non-visible appearance of Christ. Thus, modern man often cares little about eschatology and has grave suspicion about what he does know about it. Only in recent times has the subject of eschatology been recovering from neglect and suspicion. At the turn of the 20th century Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer gave renewed importance to the doctrine. Although both men maintained that Jesus expected the kingdom of God to come in his own lifetime, and even though their views have not commanded wide acceptance, yet they rightly maintained that eschatology was firmly a part of Jesus’ message. Much of modem theology is written on the premise that eschatology pervades the thought of the New Testament. One may read Rudolf Bultmann’s Theology of the New Testament, and other works of his; Reinhold Niebuhr’s The Nature and Destiny of Man; C. H.Dodd’s TheParables of the Kingdom; and the more recent works of Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jiirgen Moltmann, to see how deeply theology must be viewed from the standpoint of eschatology. If eschatology is to be reevaluated and enlarged in our thinking, what does it mean? What does it have to say about the present religious life? About man and his present existence in a secular world? About the meaning of history, and of right and wrong? The definition must come first. "Eschatology" literally means the doctrine of last things. It refers customarily to the end of the world and suggests the termination of life as we know it. This is a part of it, but only a part. This definition is too narrow, negative, and futuristic. Eschatology has to do with the present also. It emphasizes a quality of life that is positive; hence it is an attitude toward life, too. It is in this vein that Jesus declared, "I come that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10). There is much to warrant a new name for eschatology. Taking the cue of C. S. Lewis, in his novel Perelandra, we might speak of it as a "new beginning." If we do this, the term may include several types of beginnings. If we accept a new beginning for something, it usually means that the old way stands under someone’s judgment and is terminal and incomplete. We will attempt to show this in trying to give full meaning to the traditional concept of eschatology. The following ideas are implied in the new beginning. 1. We begin with God’s act in the past, the appearance of the Messiah--Jesus, the Christ--as the decisive eschatological event in history. This ushers in the new age, a new covenant, and a new beginning of God’s dealings with man. 2. The believer’s present relationship to Christ by faith, based on the historic cross and resurrection, is an eschatological relationship. God--the outsider to man--confronts man in his life, and when man responds by faith he enters into a new life; paradoxically, he experiences eternal life now (John 3:36). The life of faith in Christ is a new life, a "qualitatively different life," as Kierkegaard terms it. 3. Eschatology focuses attention on a new meaning in history. The Bible does not refer to history as a series of isolated facts. History is the arena of God’s activity. The first eschatological event was a fact in history--the birth of Jesus in the reign of Caesar Augustus. The Old Testament repeatedly intimates that God is ruler and Lord of history. In the New Testament, viewed from the vantage point of eschatology, history is moving toward a goal, a consummation, and a new beginning. The alternatives to a Christian view of history are basically two. In the first, history becomes a meaningless process of continuous events without ultimate fulfillment. Without God, man is a fortuitous accident who may experience minor fulfillment and purpose in the things that he does, but he is still without relation to cosmic purpose. The minor purposes man sees for himself are reducible to emptiness when unrelated to God. The second alternative to a Christian view of history is seen in some Oriental thought forms which describe ultimate reality as time-less. Such a concept is often related to a "World Soul," or a pantheistic view of God. In this case, history is an illusion because only the World Soul has reality. Illusory history also becomes endless. Life is cyclical and repeats itself without termination. Contrary to these alternatives, Christian faith declares that God is involved in history. In the sphere of history the incarnation took place. The cross was a historical event wherein centers man’s redemption. Present religious experience is the encounter of God with man in history. Faith therefore grows strong and optimistic as it trusts God for the future. Faith becomes confident that God has not deserted mankind but that he is ever in the shadows, keeping watch over his own. 4. A corollary truth is that when history moves toward a goal it also ends under judgment. With a new beginning in the future, assessment of the old takes place. The judge of history has already placed an evaluation on man’s activities in history. This reckoning points up the inability of man to be his own redeemer. It is evident that man cannot emancipate himself from the guilt of his sin or free himself from judgment¹ In the termination of history, three basic functions of life will come to an end: morality, culture, and religion. By the same token, they will be transcended by a new beginning. Morality will end, for I shall become what I should be. Thus the transformed life in Christ will close the gap between what I ought to be and what I am. Culture, with its mixture of good and evil and its creativity motivated by selfish motives, will be superseded by spiritual creativity. Religion shall end, for the believer will know God with true vision rather than seeing through a glass darkly.²

5. The new beginning in the consummated kingdom of God will reflect a judgment on what man has regarded as good and evil. This includes man’s social order as well as man’s social habits. Concerning the social order, the new beginning in the kingdom of God future means that life will not be Utopian now. Certainly life can and should be made better and more tolerable. But the pervasive influence of man’s selfish motives prevents society from being Utopian. Thus man and his society stand in judgment. The future judgment means that divine love will bring supremacy over the forces of self-love.³ Man’s social habits, or more properly man’s ethical standards, will stand judgment. The judgment idea will declare what should be rather than what is. A growing amount of ethical theory and advice is based on results of sociological and anthropological studies of what people are doing or have done. Although one may show a head-count statistic that 60 percent of the college girls of 1953 had engaged in premarital sex relations, this says nothing about the rightness of their actions. Too many people conclude for moral relativity on the basis of what people are doing. The judgment, terminating the old way of life, deals with norms of what should be rather than with statistics of what has been done. The judgment idea means that distinctions between good and evil are real, not illusory or pragmatic. Consequently, the Christian life never separates eschatology from ethics. The source book of faith, the Bible, speaks of the future, the new beginning, the judgment, and ethical living in the present-- all in the same breath. 6. The new beginning in Christ means a new style of living for the Christian concerning the relativities of our existence, when evil appears to be victorious over good. Although evil still exists in our present world, judgment means that evil will be overcome. Christian faith asserts that judgment has in principle taken place on the cross, but in the final judgment evil in practice will cease. When the Christian suffers "for righteousness sake" he is not surprised. He takes heart in his Lord’s warning that this would happen, and he takes comfort in his future vindication (Mat 5:11-12). This is to view life eschatologically. 7. The new beginning refers to what man will be after he is redeemed and ultimately transformed. The new being that he has become in Christ now will be culminated then. Man’s liberation from sin’s rule began with Christ: then he is in true liberty from sin’s presence. The Christian then, as a complete new being,⁴ experiences individuality in the fullest sense. Christian faith, unlike Hindu thought with absorption of the individual into the World Soul, regards Christian individualism as a good, not an evil hope. The resurrection bears this out, for man is raised as a total being before God. Fellowship can be meaningful only as individuals confront one another. Being swallowed up by a World Soul negates fellowship. 8. Because the consummated new beginning may take place at anytime, there is an existential impact in eschatology, both for man in general and the believer in particular. The question of John Donne--"What if this present were the world’s last night?"--becomes a continuing question through life.⁵ Although men live as though the present form of existence shall continue forever, eschatology declares a halt to it. The present world is not man’s blessed hope. Men have power to destroy civilizations but lack the power to produce or create a new age. Eschatology recognizes man’s inability without God to carve out a meaningful and permanent existence. Therefore, a generation which has come to know the hydrogen bomb, space travel, and the curvature of space should not boggle at the possibility of a divine consummation unless its picture of God is too small. 9. Last, the new beginning deals in hope. Hope is based upon what God has done in the past. It is borne out of meeting with him in the present, and looks to the fulfillment of the Old and starting of the New. Hope rests upon God’s promise of the kingdom of God. Without hope, life becomes unbearable. With hope, life, with its problems, doubts, and failures, can be endured, redeemed, and made new. Thus eschatology is a wider, more inclusive idea than the last days. It is not simply futuristic, but it is that also.

Problems in Eschatology

Eschatology became shattered and fragmented over these questions: Did Jesus expect the kingdom of heaven to be established in his own lifetime, or was the kingdom postponed? Is it possible that the kingdom of heaven was present in Jesus’ time as well as being a future event? Several positions are held with regard to these questions. First, argue as Schweitzer did, that the kingdom of heaven was to be inaugurated within Jesus’ lifetime. This creates grave problems. Jesus must be interpreted as a "deluded fanatic, a man who died because his faith was set upon wild apocalyptic dreams." ⁶ Moreover, passages in which Jesus speaks of the "kingdom among them" in his own person must be excised or explained away. Second, argue that the kingdom of heaven and its coming must be related to the person of Jesus. The kingdom is not a future reality but a present one in him. This means that passages which speak of a future kingdom must be interpreted symbolically rather than literally. A criticism of this view centers in its freedom with passages in which an obvious future is meant. Third, argue that the kingdom is both present and future. The kingdom has begun in the person of Jesus, but it will not be consummated until he returns. This position appears to be the soundest approach by giving scriptural credence to both emphases. Another set of problems center in the beginning point of interpreting eschatology. If one starts with the Old Testament, it seems evident that some form of millennialism will be formulated. It will then be argued that certain prophecies have not been literally fulfilled. Thus many millenarians look for the rebuilding of the Temple, re-institution of sacrifice, and other aspects of Old Testament prophecies. However, if one begins in the New Testament and interprets Old Testament prophecies in the same free way that the New Testament writers did, then it is seriously questionable whether a form of millennialism will emerge. An example of the apostle’s use of prophecy is seen in Paul’s statement about the Christian’s being the true Israel, the true seed of Abraham because of faith.⁷ If Christian faith is to be consistent with itself, it must begin with the New Covenant. The Old Covenant is incomplete and must be viewed from the standpoint of its fulfillment.

Types of Eschatology

Millennialism

The word "millennium" does not occur in the New Testament; it is Latin, meaning one thousand years. Associated with Rev 20:1-15, millennial systems of eschatology have been widely held from the early centuries on. It is maintained that before the time of Origen(b.185) no one opposed the millenarian interpretation.⁸ Millennialism is still an influence in fundamentalism and in certain conservative circles. There are three types of millennialism: postmillennialism, premillennialism, nonmillennialism.

Postmillennialism. No longer regarded as a viable option, postmillennialism held that a golden age or millennium would take place in the future. However, the millennium would be the result of the church’s preaching of the gospel, which would spread like leavening through bread dough. This form of millennialism was popular in an era when a sense of progress was aligned with the concept of evolution. Postmillennialism stresses growth in the church in which God conquers the world. Following this golden age, Christ will return.⁹

The events following the golden age are the resurgence of evil, the sudden appearance of Christ who overcomes evil, the general resurrection, and the great judgment. Postmillennialism had its difficulties, among which were its unbiblical conclusions that the world would be converted, evil would disappear, and the kingdom of God would come in an un-catastrophic way. Further, two world wars with minor side wars, the rise of nationalism with its attending conflicts, and the continuing surge of evil made it difficult to speak of our world as getting better. Pre-millennialism-This view asserts that Christ will return to earth before a millennium or a thousand-year-period of his rule. There are two general varieties of premillennial systems. Historic premillennialism-- This system can be sketched as follows concerning the event to take place in the future. 1. A great apostasy will take place before the coming of Christ. This will be joined with persecution of the church. 2 Christ then comes to "rapture" or take out the church from the world. The dead in Christ are raised at this time, and the living are transformed to be like him. 3 Following this, Christ comes to the earth to destroy the AntiChrist This is followed by the judgment described in Mat 25:1-46 (sheep and goats), whereby the destinies of the righteous and the unrighteous are pronounced. 4 The millennial kingdom is inaugurated, during which Satan is bound and the yet unrighteous nations are ruled with a "rod of iron" 5 As the millennium draws to a close, Satan is permitted to be free whereby he gathers in peoples of the earth to wage war against the saints, but the forces of evil are destroyed by fire. 6 Then a second resurrection takes place, the raising of the wicked from death, and the white throne judgment is to follow (Rev 20:11-15) 7. The end of all things is for a new beginning. A new heaven and a new earth are brought into being and the eternal kingdom of God begins (Rev 21:1-4 ).¹⁰ Dispensational premillennialism.--This is a variation of the historic premillennial position. A popular source of this variety is the Scofield Reference Bible. Dispensational premillennialism could be said to have the following variations: 1. The second coming of Christ is in two stages: a coming for the church before the tribulation begins, and a coming with his church after the tribulation. (The tribulation is a period of terrible persecution and harassment upon the earth.) Some speak of a secret coming for the church, in which the believers are taken out of the world (secretly) before Christ comes visibly to the world. 2. When Christ comes for the church the Holy Spirit will cease his activity in the world. 3. A second resurrection takes place after the tribulation for those who have come to believe during it and were martyred for their belief. 4. When Christ comes with his church, many Jews will believe and live in the millennium. 5. The kingdom is predominantly Jewish in nature. Temple worship will be established in Jerusalem. Some problems attendant to dispensationalism are: its Jewish emphasis on the restoration of the Temple in the presence of Christ who is the end of sacrifice, the conversion of people without the presence of the Holy Spirit, and the question of whether a future millennium is legitimate. The assessment may be made that without Rev 20:1-15, the question of a future millennium would never come up. Most of the references in the New Testament speak of the consummation of the age without any indication of a long period of time required for a thousand-year reign of Christ. For many critics of the different forms of millennialism it appears that a towering theological structure has been built upon a highly symbolic passage in a book whose symbolism is intense. Can one justify a system of thought that is built upon a book so obscure in meaning?

Nonmillennialism. For the sake of completeness, we will list the various types of nonmillennial systems, although we have referred to some of them briefly before.

Consistent eschatology is the view of Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer that Jesus’ teaching was entirely eschatological. The kingdom of God was to appear in his lifetime. Men were to prepare for it immediately and the radical ethic taught by Jesus was valid only for that short interim before the messianic age was to dawn. Although the conclusions of Weiss and Schweitzer are not valid, they did have merit in drawing serious attention to the pervading emphasis on eschatology in the New Testament. Realized eschatology, associated with the names of C. H. Dodd and Rudolf Bultmann, places strong emphasis on those passages suggesting that the kingdom of God has already come. Note the example from Luk 11:20 : "If it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." The doctrine of last things now becomes the doctrine of first things. No longer futuristic, the entire concept of eschatology is geared to the present life in Christ. References to the future end of the age must be interpreted symbolically, but the early church mistook it literally. The ethical passages of Jesus are not rejected as an interim ethic as in consistent eschatology. The ethics of Jesus are for the "now" of all generations.¹¹ The kingdom of God that comes now to every man is God’s deliverance for man. "It is the eschatological deliverance which ends everything earthly." ¹² Bultmann speaks of Jesus’ rejection of "the whole content of apocalyptic speculation" concerning the future, and men are forbidden to make any "picture of the future life."¹³ In realized eschatology, "every hour is the last hour." ¹⁴ Bultmann explains eschatological existence as having already come for the believer. Man is de-secularized; that is, the center of his life is faith, not society. One is in the world but not of it (John 17:11-16). The committed already has life (John 3:36; John 6:47; 1Jn 5:12).¹⁵ Realized eschatology is not without its critics. Reinhold Niebuhr has rejected the reductionism involved in its treatment of the second coming. Further, he maintains that the hope of the second coming of Christ is "indispensable for the Christian interpretation of history and for a true understanding of New Testament thought."¹⁶ The issue on which a futuristic eschatology is rejected seems to be the matter of mythology. Bultmann wrote, "The mythical eschatology is untenable for the simple reason that the parousia of Christ never took place as the New Testament expected."¹⁷ Thus, if a reader is to follow Bultmann, he must learn to "demythologize" the Scripture by deleting the mythical elements "through a process of subjective judgement so that what remains is acceptable to his thinking." ¹⁸ In assessing the position of Bultmann and others like him, it appears they stumble at certain things in the Bible which modern scientifically oriented man cannot accept. In making the twentieth-century secular mind the standard of rejecting the New Testament thought forms, it is implied that all "truth" must be judged from our standpoint. This is theological folly. With knowledge advancing so rapidly we must hesitate to reject the past on the basis of the specious present. However, this is not the most serious charge against demythologizing. More serious is: what is to be demythologized and what is not? This is serious when one views the basic concept of the Bible that God has revealed himself in history. From the scientific viewpoint of our age, this must be regarded as mythic or nonsense. If our scientific sensitivities set the standard of what must be rejected or retained there is no end to what may be regarded as mythological. Forgiveness of sin by God is as offensive to our modern ears as it was to the cynic Celsus in the third century. Little will be left when we finish our throwing out passages because they offend us. The danger of regarding Scripture passages as mythic implies that the story is non-historical. It may convey a religious truth, but it is not a factual historical event. When eschatology is understood as mythic it means that God comes to every man, but not in a unique way in the historical past as asserted in the traditional idea of the incarnation. The cross understood mythically means that every man should sacrifice himself as the normal way of life. When the Bible is relegated to myth, Christian faith is reduced to a religious principle rather than an historical fact. Mythology bypasses the-once-for-all-ness of the incarnation event as well as the historical salvation act of the cross .If Christian faith is transformed into a religious principle it means that man is in chief control of his destiny. It Christian faith stands upon historical fact it confesses that God is the Redeemer of mankind.

One may freely admit difficulty with biblical terminology in contract to our modern viewpoint, but substitute terms frequently turn in the direction of abstraction. Seemingly, the more abstract one becomes the more spiritual one is regarded. But when the personal is replaced by the impersonal and the historical appeal to fact is replaced by the timeless principle, then Christian faith has turned about-face. It has become another faith

Symbolic eschatology, advocated by Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich, maintains that the New Testament must be taken seriously and symbolically, but not literally. This is regarded as a superficial adjustment in the traditional meaning of eschatology. In Niebuhr’s reconstruction, history is an "interim" between the first and second coming of Christ which illumines man’s existence. The final judgement means that the corner will be turned toward fulfillment of life. The symbol of the second coming expresses man’s hastening toward death. It also shows our lack of understanding concerning history and life. The second coming points up the truth that happiness is beyond history, but it is a real happiness and fulfillment. Nonetheless, the second coming of Christ is not understood in literal terms of the New Testament apocalypse.

The reason for adopting this reconstruction arises out of certain passages. Niebuhr accepts the premise that Jesus thought the time between ’the first and second advents, or comings, would be short.¹⁹ Passages such as Mat 10:23, Mat 16:28, and Mat 24:34 seem to indicate an immediate return of the triumphant Messiah. One must be driven to accept some form of the Niebuhrian approach unless plausible explanations can be given to these passages. If this is not forth coming it would be useless to go on to discuss eschatology that accepts the passages literally. If it is possible to understand the passages without resorting to allegory or symbolism then symbolic eschatology must be rejected. Some consideration will be given to these critical passages later. Inaugurated eschatology is a term used by Bernard Ramm to indicate a synthesis of a future as well as a present or realized eschatology.²⁰ Redemption may be described as an eschatological experience, or the breakthrough of God into the realm of human experience. This does not exhaust the full scope of eschatology. Some of the eschatological events cannot be presently experienced, such as the return of Christ and the resurrection from the dead. These remain as future fulfillment. Inaugurated eschatology is a nonmillenarian,²¹ or amillennial, approach. The first non-millenarian seems to have been Origen,²² but it was Augustine who introduced an alternate interpretation of Rev 20:1-15. Augustine argued that the "resurrection" in Rev 20:1-5 symbolizes the experience of rebirth, being made alive in Christ, being raised from the dead, or the spiritual reign with Christ. The thousand-year symbol is not a future period of time but an indefinite symbol to indicate the time between the two advents of Christ. Therefore, we are living in the millennium, or the interim period between the two comings of the Son of God. Old Testament prophecy is understood as having been fulfilled in the church (see Eph 2:12-22 for an example of this).

A-millennialism has much in common with premillennialism concerning certain expectations in the future, except for a future millennium. The following outline is suggestive of future eschatological events.

     1. At the close of the era a great apostasy will take place. This will lead to growing and intense persecution of the church.

2. Christ then returns to defeat the forces of evil incarnate in Satan, the dead are raised and transformed.

3. Following the resurrection, and the defeat of Satan, judgment will take place for all peoples. 4. Following the judgment, the eternal kingdom of God will be established. In this system the broad outline is evident: the kingdom begins with Jesus, it continues with his reign in the human heart, it speaks of a future return, the resurrection, and the last judgment.²³ Can the kingdom be both present and future? This question arises out of the previous discussion. Certainly Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God as beginning in his lifetime. His message, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mat 4:17) can hardly be understood otherwise. But what about the future? There are sayings of Jesus which indicate that the kingdom is future also. Jesus spoke of a day in the future when the true followers of Christ will enter into the kingdom (Mat 7:21-23). The kingdom of heaven is repeatedly regarded as a future event in the Sermon on the Mount. Six of the eight Beatitudes are couched in a setting of the future. Other passages speaking of a future (Mat 8:11-12; Mat 19:28Mat 13:38-43; Mat 13:47-50; Mat 26:29; Luk 19:11-27) can be examined. How may the idea refer to the present as well as the future? The answer lies in the meaning of the word kingdom, baselia. The basic meaning of basilea is "reign," not people or realm or region. "The kingdom of God is the sovereign rule of God, manifested in the person and work of Christ, creating a people over whom he reigns, and issuing in a realm or realms in which the power of his reign is realized." ²⁴ This means that the kingdom begins in the person of Christ.

Kingly authority has appeared. In opposing his enemies, Jesus declared that "the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Mat 12:28). The kingdom of Satan has been invaded by the kingdom of God. One can recognize the full force of these passages and others like them. The fruits of the present kingdom of God are forgiveness of sins and the judgment on evil. However, this is not the fullness of the kingdom. What is now only a reign over the hearts of his followers will one day become a reign with his presence.

It is now time to consider the crucial question as it is raised by Reinhold Niebuhr. He declares that Jesus expected the interim period between the first and second events to be short. He quotes Mat 10:23; Mat 16:28 as proof texts. This serves as the basis for his reinterpretation of the biblical terms as symbols rather than a literal statement.²⁵ What may we conclude from these problem passages? Mat 10:23._"You will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes." It is quite possible that this refers to the second coming, but it is also equally possible that it does not. It might be much safer to confess ignorance on the passage than to read into it something that may not be there. Some have related the passage to the destruction of Jerusalem, or the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. But it could refer to the coming of Jesus to overtake them as they journey from one place to another, or a spiritual comforting of all persecuted disciples throughout the Christian era. The latter fact has certainly been true, but hardly meets the context of the passage. However, must it be insisted that it speaks of the second coming when the phrase is too enigmatic to warrant dogmatism? Mat 16:28._The passage declares that some of Jesus’ contemporaries would not taste death "before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." A number of interpretations have been proposed for solving this passage, such as referring it to the passage immediately following it and the transfiguration. This seems more plausible than referring it to the destruction of Jerusalem, or the founding of the church at Pentecost. It might be more meaningful to refer it to the resurrection event, when all the disciples but Judas saw the glory of the resurrected Lord. The resurrection is the watermark of the kingdom and makes possible his reign in the hearts of men. To understand the meaning of this passage in connection with the resurrection poses a problem only if one understands the kingdom as a political entity with a visible ruler. It is certain that no messianic political unity existed, and it is even more certain that Jesus did not expect a personal restoration of David’s kingdom. If one can show that eschatology has a future fulfillment from other Scripture sources, then this passage may be related to the beginning of Christ’s reign in the hearts of men.

Mat 24:1-36. This passage is not easy. A. B. Bruce wrote of it, "What is said thereon is so perplexing as to tempt a modern expositor to wish it had not been there, or to have recourse to critical expedients to eliminate it from the text." ²⁶ The key passage Isaiah 24:34, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place." The natural meaning of the word "generation" must be maintained.

The following breakdown is suggested in the passage: Mat 24:1-14 refer to the discussion as a whole. Verses 15-35 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. In Mat 24:23-31 verse 23 is crucial for the section of 23-31. These verses are a "parenthetical correction" related to the warning when Jerusalem is destroyed. The idea is as follows: when Jerusalem is destroyed be warned against false messiahs who will come; reject them, for they do not come in the manner that the true Messiah will come. When the true Messiah comes, it will be according to the description of verses 23-31. The backdrop of these verses is the appearance of false messiahs claiming to deliver Jerusalem from destruction. These verses describe the second coming but only in relating the manner of his coming. They tell how but not when. The time of his coming is discussed in Mat 24:36-51. This proposal for the passage above may or may not be the true meaning, but it is not a stretch of plausibility to interpret it so. It can be seen as rising out of the context and warranted by it. One other issue on the return of Christ needs discussion. Certain people did not expect Jesus to return immediately. Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 Thessalonians show this. What is the reason for this? Various proposals have been made. One is that Jesus taught an early return and was mistaken. Another is that Jesus did not teach it and his followers were mistaken. If the latter is the case, how can the idea be accounted for? A reasonable answer may be found in the messianic expectations in Judaism, and these could have carried over into Christianity. Certainly the thinking of the disciples in the days before the crucifixion was patterned in this direction. The question was raised in Acts 1:6 whether the kingdom of Israel would be restored or not. The answer of Jesus suggests that it would not be an immediate experience. The significance of this statement can only be minimized and undercut by regarding the story as a composition of the early church, and not genuinely the words of Jesus, as Bultmann does.²⁷ We have argued that the kingdom of God is both present and future. What place, if any, does a future millennium have? The following reasons give basis for rejecting a future millennium after Christ’s return. 1. The bulk of the book of Revelation must be understood in terms of the readers of the first century. Therefore, it is difficult to see how a future millennium so far removed from the dangers of the present would give comfort to the reader’s present peril. 2. The writer speaks of things that must come to pass very soon (Rev 1:1). Therefore its symbolism must be related predominately to the first century. 3. Inasmuch as intense symbolism runs through the book, it seems artificial to begin interpreting the twentieth chapter in a literal way. Without this switch in methods of interpretation, the problems posed by a millennium would not arise.

4. Not only is there no reference to a millennium in other New Testament passages, but the general resurrection is spoken of in a way that a millennium has to be forced into other passages if one insists on holding that doctrine. A millennium requires a number of resurrections--before, during, and after the millennium--which will not square with other passages concerning the resurrection.²⁸ The Parousia, or Return of Our Lord

The future return of Christ is a relevant question only for certain types of eschatological systems. Where Jesus is not expected to return but is made known by his presence in contemporary religious experience, the following matters will not be germane. A future return of Jesus Christ is linked to what the Bible says about the ultimate transformation of the believer. Certain facts are deduced from the Scriptures. 1. No one knows the time of Jesus’ return (Mat 24:36). 2. His return is described as personal rather than impersonal. Any appraisal of the New Testament statements will lead to the conclusion that the writers believed in a real parousia in the future.3. The coming of Jesus will be visible. We prefer to incorporate here the usual meaning implied in the statement that Jesus’ return will be a physical one. But considerable ambiguity abounds in the discussion of whether Jesus will return physically. Some theologians reject what is designated as a "physical" appearance or return of Jesus, because it implies that the same body structure, molecules, etc., that died was then raised again. Instead, they contrast the"resurrection body" to the resurrection of the "flesh." This distinction means that the resurrection body was a transformed being no longer the flesh.²⁹ The basis for such a distinction is Paul’s discourse in 1Co 15:42-50. The misunderstood term is "spiritual body" (v. 44). Without serious thought one might conclude that a "spiritual body" is a nebulous entity bordering on nothingness. This is not Paul’s thought. The spiritual body refers to the transformed state of existence due to God’s power in which man becomes truly whole, truly individual. Thus the spiritual body of Christ was visible to his disciples and at his return he will be visible to mankind.³⁰

4. His return is described as sudden but triumphant. His first coming was lowly and then only little by little was he recognized as the Messiah. His return will be sudden and all will know of his position.

Death

     The leveler of mankind, death, is the final ominous fact in man’s future. Yet modern man, for the most part, attempts to forget about it. To ignore or forget about death has been man’s tendency for ages. The Greek heritage furnishes us with two diverse attitudes toward death. Greek classical naturalism views death as a purely natural phenomenon.³¹ Death is the experience of all men, and beyond death there is no need of fear, for no judgment exists. Anxiety about death is useless when one is not dying. Likewise, fear of death is needless when one is dying, for one cannot do anything about it, and after death one will remember it no more. The other heritage of Greece is in Platonism in which death becomes the crown of life when one is liberated from the bondage of the body. Real life is not in the body but in the rational nature of man. The liberation of the soul from the body makes possible the reunion of the soul with the Divine. Idealism, in the Platonic tradition, affirms the immortality of the soul but rejects the resurrection of the body in the future. In affirming natural immortality of the soul, death is denied in essence, for death becomes the liberator of man’s slavery to the material world.

Contrast the calm experience of Socrates meeting death with the anxiety of Jesus in Gethsemane to see the different attitudes toward death. The difference in attitudes shows death as a tragedy in Hebrew thought, while death is viewed as a liberation in Greek thought.

What is death? The answer cannot be full, for none of us has been through it and back. Death is certainly a biological fact in which an organism will not sustain itself, but it is more than that. It is also a spiritual fact. Berdyaev wrote, "The meaning of death is that there can be no eternity in time and that an endless temporal series would be meaningless."³² Life itself is full of dying and struggling to live We die a little at a time and are never reconciled to death. But eternal life can be reached only by death. In this, man’s final hope rests through death.

     When we fail to take death seriously we concede that man is after all merely an animal. To banish death from our thoughts is to ignore personality which transcends the purely biological nature of man. It is tragic that personality should die.

Christian faith deals with death head-on. Jesus Christ destroys death by his death. Death is not the last word on man’s existence, but the beginning point for all things anew, a transition to everlasting life. Neither philosophy or science can teach us how to die, but faith does. Trust in the resurrected Christ gives assurance in death. Only Christian faith speaks of man’s resurrection with Christ who is the means of it. Christian faith stresses redemption of man in his helplessness; where the resurrection is taught in non-Christian religions it is a reward of human achievement. In Christian faith death is swallowed up in the victory of the Redeemer (1Co 15:51-58).

Life After Death

Christian faith has affirmed that life is not terminated at death. Life in Christ means that life continues and Christians will live forever. Several issues are to be considered.

First, life after death will mean individual existence. Life will not be swallowed up or blotted out by eternity. A mystical union with the Divine, or World-Soul, is not what the Bible sets forth. Individual existence means also that there is continuity in personality beyond death. It will not be another self than mine which will be raised at the resurrection. Only a person is a subject and God will address each as such. Just as personal existence involves us here in fellowship with people and with God, so life after death means the same. If we begin on the proposition that God created to bestow his fellowship, so life after death only makes the relationship more intimate.     

Second, life after death in the biblical sense demands the resurrection concept rather than the immortality of the soul concept. The Bible does not speak of the immortality of the soul. It does teach the resurrection of the body. The immortality of the soul idea was made popular by Greek philosophers and "suggests that a soul carries on apart from the body." ³³ This Greek doctrine implies that the body itself is evil and is a prison house for the soul because of some evil the soul did in a preexistent state and was subjected to a body as punishment. No such idea appears in the New Testament. The immortality of the soul is really a sophisticated version of the animistic view of death in which there is a shadowy survival of the creature. In this there is little comfort.³⁴ By contrast, the resurrection of the body means that man will take on a new transformed existence as a spiritual body, that is, "a body which expresses the Spiritually transformed total personality of man." ³⁵ Body and flesh are contrasted in the New Testament. Man will be raised a transformed body.

We are limited in our description of the future state of the spiritual body of man, for the Bible is not interested in a chemical analysis of the substance of it, but the functioning. "The spiritual body must be such that it will be able to meet the demands of the spirit and transmit its life-giving energies, but the composition necessary to achieve these ends is determined by God alone."³⁶ To this point our attention has been focused primarily on man’s post-resurrection existence. What is his state of existence between death and the resurrection? Statements from the Bible relating to this question deal with the believing primarily, not the unbelieving. To die is to be ushered into the presence of Christ, of course, without our bodies, or in a state of incompleteness. Paul confesses this to the Philippians (Php 1:20-26). Certain other passages imply this time to be temporary while man awaits the resurrection. The resurrection statements in 1Th 4:13-18 ) speak of the Lord’s "bringing with him" those who had died and then "the dead in Christ will rise first." This points to a reunion of the spiritual nature with a transformed body. Totality of existence comes only at the resurrection. Having been already with Christ until the resurrection may denote that the resurrection is anticlimactic. But the resurrection only emphasizes the more that man’s existence is not complete without his "spiritual body."

Other proposals have been offered to the foregoing scriptural assessment.

Reincarnation is not a biblical idea, but it affirms that life enters into a new form of existence--either up or down the scale of life--depending upon one’s previous goodness or evil. Yet if reincarnation is true, there is no way "to experience the subject’s identity in the different incarnations."³⁷ If one goes down in the scale of life, reincarnation denies the most important aspect of human existence, personhood.

Soul-sleeping has been advocated by others, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. This means that the conscious existence ceases at death into a state of nonexistence. The resurrection really becomes a new creation. While the Bible sometimes speaks of death as "sleep," it does so only poetically. The believer enjoys the presence of Christ immediately after death.³⁸

Purgatory is the conclusion from a premise that only those departing this life entirely free from venial sins will enter immediately into heaven. Every sin must be "forgiven and expiated" before one can attain heaven.³⁹ The departed soul must be purified. Although one will ultimately be released from purgatory, according to Roman teaching, it is perhaps the lot of most of the redeemed. Purgatory is admittedly not a biblical doctrine. The biblical answer is that the believer’s present life does not cease at death, but becomes more intimate with God. Paul’s conviction was that neither death nor anything else could separate us from the love of God in Christ (Rom 8:38-39). To depart this life is to be with Christ.

Before passing to the next issue in eschatology, we can note the psychological problem of believing in life after death. It is paradoxical. Believing in life after death is not the comfort it is supposed to be. There is perhaps more comfort in not believing in life after death, for no thought of personal judgment enters this position. The believer in life after death may find that he is overwhelmed by the prospect of judgment. The unbeliever makes it easy for himself, but his unbelief is suspected "just because it is so easy and comforting."

Hell

Hell as an eschatological concept has fallen on deaf ears in modem times. It is usually consigned to fundamentalists and sectarians. Others have turned it into a purgatory or yet air-conditioned it. Reevaluation of the idea is needed. Language about hell needs overhauling, or cautious use. If one speaks of hell literally as a place of fire, questions like the following may be raised: what will be left when the body burns and how does fire affect the spiritual nature of man? Tillich questions the "psychological impossibility of imagining uninterrupted periods of mere suffering."⁴¹ On the other hand, to speak of hell in symbolic terms signifies for many that hell is emptied of all its traditional meaning. This is patently false, for the symbol does designate an ominous fact alienation from God’s presence. Frequent Scripture references indicate the serious nature of this.⁴² Opponents of hell usually follow three lines of argument. First, the religious rationalist argues that God in his justice would surely not send people to hell. He is too good for that. Such a position does not seriously consider the meaningful concept of God’s holiness or the nature of man’s sin. Second, the biblical universalist argues that hell would be a defeat of the love of Christ and his death for all men. If one is governed by the authority of the Scriptures, one must excise or rationalize the biblical passages on hell. The idea of hell as judgment may offend one’s sensitivities, but it is not only there but mentioned more frequently by Jesus than any other single voice in the New Testament. Third, some argue for conditional immortality. Following the judgment the righteous go into eternal life, but the unjust are annihilated and will live no more. The arguments based on certain Scripture passages are mostly negative in form, being based on the fact that much less is said about the future existence of the unjust as opposed to the future of the redeemed. Hell must be considered seriously because of the biblical authority in Christian faith. If one can rationalize hell, then what stops one from doing the same to the rest of the New Testament where it offends one? The heart of the Christian message--the incarnation, the death and resurrection of Christ--is offensive to some . Why stop with rationalizing hell? Hell must receive serious consideration if freedom is accepted Paradoxical as it sounds, hell is the moral postulate of man’s spiritual freedom. Hell is necessary not to ensure the triumph of justice and retribution to the wicked, but to save man from being forced to be good and compulsorily installed in heaven. In a certain sense man has a moral right to hell--the right freely to prefer hell to heaven."⁴³ Hell gives man the right to continually rebel against God. In this sense it can be said that God does not send men to hell; he merely permits them to continue in their evil ways in isolation from him The wrath of God in this sense is reflected in Rom 1:18-32. The wrath of God is his giving up man to follow his own lusts, passions lies, and corrupted intent.⁴⁴ Hell becomes the continued self-centered existence of man in absolute isolation from God. It is erroneous to speak of "fellowship in hell"; this is meaningful only in relation to God . Part of the horror of hell is "to have my fate left m my own hands. It is not what God will do to me that is terrible, but what I will do to myself." ⁴⁵ The contradictory nature of universal salvation, or apocatastasis, is that it denies the freedom of man to continue in rebellion against God. Jesus spoke of people being cast into “outer darkness.” This is one aspect of hell. The Bible speaks of God as Light. To be outside of Light is to be in darknesss.

Heaven

Heaven does not receive due consideration in much modern thought Heaven is regarded as a projection of man’s wishes and desires; it is regarded as an escape from the difficulties of life; and it is designated as a myth. In rejecting heaven, men secularize its qualities and communism may be regarded as a secularized version of man’s attempt to build a heaven on earth. Heaven cannot be dismissed as mere mythology, for pagan mythologies relate to the past, while the kingdom of God, or heaven, is futuristic. Heaven as a biblical concept is the kingdom of God come in its fulness The new beginning now reaches its fulness. Heaven as a concept stands for fulness of being, fulness of life, and the inauguration of man’s everlasting life. Only a few comments are given in the Scriptures about heaven. Phrases like "the restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21); a "new heaven and a new earth" (2Pe 3:13; Rev 21:1), and the "new Jerusalem" (Rev 21:2) indicate the new quality in existence. Heaven has received a poor press. To many it sounds dull, monotonous, and lifeless. Mark Twain’s description of heaven--where men who hate to sing, not only sing all day but play a rusty harp, too--is a caricature, an untrue view of heaven. Heaven must be conceived in words of meaning and fulfillment of God’s creation. Creativity will be a part of heaven in opposition to idleness. One might speak of ecstasy as a foretaste of it. The quality of existence is often defined by negation, no night, no sickness, no sin, because of the lack of an analogy for comparison. Heaven may be described also as liberation, "because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Rom 8:21).

XIV. The New Beginning ¹Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, II, p. 293.

²Tillich, Systematic Theology, III, 402.

³Niebuhr, op. cit., p. 290.

⁴ Tillich speaks of the fall of man as the passing from essence to existence, and eschatology as passing from existence to essence. Systematic Theology,III,395 ⁵C. S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1959), p. 109 ⁶George Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), p. 30.

⁷Cf. Gal 3:7; Gal 3:29; Rom 4:16; Heb 12:28. Another example can be seen in comparing Acts 2:1-47 with Joe 2:1-32.

⁸ Ladd, op. cit., p. 23.

⁹ Augustus Strong was typical of the men who held to postmillennialism.

¹⁰Floyd E. Hamilton, The Basis of Millennial Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), pp. 22-23.

¹¹Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958), p. 129.

¹² Ibid.. p. 35.

¹³Ibid., p. 39.

¹⁴Ibid.,p. 52 ¹⁵ Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955), H, 78.

¹⁶The Nature and Destiny of Man, II, 48.

¹⁷Kergyma and Myth (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), p. 5.

¹⁸Henry M. Shires, The Eschatology of Paul in the Light of Modern Scholarship (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), pp. 217-18.

¹⁹The Nature and Destiny of Man, II, 49.

²⁰ Bernard Ramm, A Handbook of Contemporary Theology (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1966), p. 44.

²¹ To help avoid confusion remember that premillennialism could be described as an inaugurated eschatology, for it poses the beginning of the kingdom of God in Jesus’ day with a future millennium. However, under the heading of non-millennial systems we will consider only the a-millennial system, since we have already treated premillennialism in the millennial systems.

²² Ladd, op cit., p. 24.

²³Shires, of. cit., pp. 63-64.

²⁴ Ladd, of. cit., p. 80.

²⁵Cf. Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, II, 50.

²⁶ A. B. Bruce, The Expositor’s Greek Testament (New York: Dodd, Mead & Colossians, 1902), p. 294.

²⁷Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 35

²⁸ For a survey of other arguments on the millennium, see George E. Ladd Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, pp. 135-83, and Floyd E Hamilton, The Basis of Millennial Faith, pp. 126- Matthew 29 Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, p.372.

³⁰ Check Mat 24:30; Mat 26:64; Mark 13:26; Acts 1:11; Col 3:4; Tit 2:13 for descriptions of the visibility of Christ’s return.

³¹ Rudolf Bultmann, Primitive Christianity, trans. R. H. Fuller (New York:World Publishing Colossians, 1956), p. 132.

³²Nicolas Berdyaev, The Destiny of Man (New York: Harper Torchbooks,1960), p. 251.

³³John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology, p. 324.

³⁴ Cf. Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, II, 295.

³⁵Tillich, Systematic Theology, II, 412.

³⁶ Shires, The Eschatology of Paul in the Light of Modem Scholarship, p. 99.

³⁷Tillich, Systematic Theology, II, 417.

³⁸Cf. Luk 16:19-31; Luk 23:43; Acts 7:59; 2Co 5:8; Php 1:23; Rev 6:9; Rev 20:4.

³⁹A Handbook of the Catholic Faith, p. 461.

⁴⁰ Berdyaev, The Destiny of Man, p. 264.

⁴¹Tillich, Systematic Theology, III., 417.

⁴²Mat 8:12; Mat 13:50; Mark 9:43-44; Mark 9:47-48; Luk 16:23; Luk 16:28; Revelation 14:10: 21:8; Mat 18:8; 2Th 1:9.

⁴³Berdyaev, The Destiny of Man, p. 277.

⁴⁴Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament. I, 288.

⁴⁵ Berdyaev, The Destiny of Man, p. 277.