Thinklings Book Club Discussion Ten: Chapters 16 and 17



Lots of good stuff in these two chapters, so this will be a long entry. Sorry for that. Let's get into it, then . . .

Highlights and Reflections

1. In the opening paragraphs, Hoekema announces his perspective on the Book of Revelation as ?progressive parallelism, ably defended [also] by William Hendriksen in More than Conquerors . . . According to this view, the book of Revelation consists of seven sections which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ?s first coming to the time of his second coming? (p. 223).
I have also heard of this perspective on Revelation, in which the same series of events are retold several times only with more detail each successive retelling, called ?telescoping.? It may be a little hard to swallow at first for those of us accustomed to reading ?stories? as linear narratives with straightforward beginnings, middles, and ends, but we will do well to consider the possibility that something written in the first century in the genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature may not require the same sort of reading as a more modern narrative written in a straightforward storyline fashion.

2. On the letters to the churches in Revelation:

As we read these letters we are impressed with two things. First, there are references to events, people, and places of the time when the book of Revelation was written. Second, the principles, commendations, and warnings contained in these letters have value for the church of all time . . . Since the book of Revelation was addressed to the church of the first century A.D., its message had reference to events occurring at that time and was therefore meaningful for the Christians of that day. But since the book was also intended for the church through the ages, its message is still relevant for us today. (pp. 223-224)

There is an important exegetical lesson at stake here. For decades, the Church has been reading Revelation with an essentially reversed perspective ? that the book mainly refers to events contemporary to us or future from us, and any implications it had for its initial audience is secondary and/or minimal, if not incidental.
This error carries over outside prophetic readings, as well. How many of us read the Gospels without considering the contemporary audience of Jesus, but instead neglect first-century context for ?what it means to us?? The results can be, even as we think we?re doing the work of interpretation, a product of doing the work of application first.

3. Expounding on that telescoping thing:

Note that though these seven sections are parallel to each other, they also reveal a certain amount of eschatological progress. The last section, for example, takes us further into the future than the other sections. Although the final judgment has already been briefly described in 6:12-17, it is not set forth in full detail until we come to 20:11-15. Though the final joy of the redeemed in the life to come has been hinted at in 7:15-17, it is not until we reach chapter 21 that we find a detailed and elaborate description of the blessedness of life on the new earth (21:1-22:5). Hence this method of interpretation is called progressive parallelism. (p.226)

4. Hoekema on the difference between premillennialist chronologizing versus amillennialist ?compartmentalizing?:

The premillennial interpretation of these verses understands them as describing a millennial reign of Christ on earth which will follow his Second Coming. And it is true that the Second Coming of Christ has been referred to in the previous chapter (see 19:11-16). If, then, one thinks of Revelation 20 as setting forth what follows chronologically after what has been described in chapter 19, one would indeed conclude that the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 will come after the return of Christ.
As has been indicated above, however, chapters 20-22 comprise the last of the seven sections of the book of Revelation, and therefore do not describe what follows the return of Christ. Rather, Revelation 20:1 takes us back once again to the beginning of the New Testament era. (pp. 226-227)

5. On literal/figurative, specifically as it relates to the 1,000 years itself:

The book of Revelation is full of symbolic numbers. It would seem rather likely, therefore, that the number of ?thousand? which is used in this passage ought not to be interpreted in a strictly literal sense. Since the number ten signifies completeness, and since a thousand is ten to the third power, we may think of the expression ?a thousand years? as standing for a complete period, a very long period of indeterminate length. (p.227)

This thinking is important, I think, and I find the premil takes on the numbers inconsistent, almost arbitrary. Why are the 1,000 years and the 7 years interpreted literally while other numbers ? the 40 weeks of Daniel, for example ? interpreted figuratively? Given that the genre of these prophecies is apocalyptic, which pretty much assumes the inclusion of the highly symbolic, shouldn?t our default position be that the numbers are symbolic?

6. On p.228 Hoekema discusses the idea, according to the amil view, that Satan is bound today. This perspective is admittedly problematic, although perhaps only superficially so. There is so much sin in the world, so much evil. And so much of that sin and evil despicable and abhorrent even to unbelievers without a spiritual nature to offend. How then could we really explain all that if Satan is bound?
On the other hand, the Gospels and the latter NT extractions of them do speak of Satan?s defeat at the accomplishments of Jesus.
I also really, really like the connection between Revelation?s reference to Satan being bound and Jesus? reference to binding the strongman in the Gospels. The parallel seems intentional and clear to me now. I first encountered this connection in Kim Riddlebarger?s A Case for Amillennialism. If the connection is true, it certainly does imply the millennium of Revelation began in the work of Jesus Christ nearly 2000 (literal) years ago!

7. Two quotes stating the amil view succinctly:

[T]he millennium is now, and the reign of Christ with believers during this millennium is not an earthly but a heavenly one. (p.233)

This, then, is the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6. So understood, the passage says nothing about an earthly reign of Christ over a primarily Jewish kingdom. Rather, it describes the reigning with Christ in heaven, between their heaven and Christ?s Second Coming, of the souls of deceased believers. It also describes the binding of Satan during the present age in such a way that he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel. (p.238)

8. Hoekema spends a fair amount of time in Chapter 17 (on the bodily resurrection) dealing with the somewhat Gnostic view of our physical bodies. There is a tendency, we must admit, to see our future resurrection bodies as non-physical, as somehow better than material ones. But that is not the real difference between our bodies now and our bodies then at all. From the paragraph that opens the chapter:

The resurrection of the body is central to the Bible?s eschatological message. As was noted earlier, there is a radical difference between the Christian view of man and the Greek view. According to the Greek philosophers, man?s body is evil and is a hindrance to his full existence. Hence at death the body disintegrates while the soul lives on ? there is here no hope for a bodily resurrection. The Bible, on the contrary, teaches that God created man body and soul, and that man is not complete apart from his body. Both the incarnation and the bodily resurrection of Christ prove that the body is not evil but good. (p.239)

Yes, indeed, the Incarnation itself testifies the material goodness of the human body. I once debated with a believer over his idea that Jesus had a sinful nature. He held that the sinful nature was part and parcel of the human body itself, and since Jesus had a human body, he had to have a sinful nature (even though he agreed with me that Jesus never sinned). It is certainly difficult to separate in our minds the sinful nature from our deficient bodies (especially since the language the Bible uses in these discussion includes phrases like ?the flesh,? etc.).
But God called creation itself ?good,? and not just in a moral sense. Animals and trees and such have no moral spirituality. They, like we, are good creations because of the very fact that God created them and us. Our physical bodies, regardless of what your bathroom scale says ;-), are good. Think of the implications this view can have, for instance, on one?s view of the sanctity of life.

9. A collection of quotes on just how many resurrections constitute a general resurrection:

The reference would seem to be to a general resurrection of all who are in their graves; it is straining the meaning of these words to make them describe two groups (or four groups) of people who will be raised at separate times. Moreover, this passage states specifically that all these dead will hear the voice of the Son of man. The clear implication seems to be that this voice will be sounded once, not two times or four times. (p. 241)

Can two resurrections a thousand years apart properly be called a resurrection? (p.241)

We conclude that there is no Scriptural basis for the theory of a double or quadruple resurrection. The clear teaching of the Bible is that at the time of Christ?s return there will be a general resurrection of both believers and unbelievers. After this general resurrection the judgment will follow. (p.244)

10. A good quote from p.245:

The Scriptures make it abundantly clear that the resurrection of Christ is the pledge and guarantee of the future resurrection of believers. All previous resurrections mentioned in the Bible were again followed by death; only the resurrection of Christ is never to be followed by death ? and it is this type of resurrection to which believers look forward. Because Christ arose, believers too shall arise.

11. Hoekema on the natural vs. spiritual body again, more specifically this time on our resurrection bodies:

One of the difficulties here is that the expression ?a spiritual body? has led many to think that the resurrection body will be a nonphysical one ? spiritual is then thought to be in contrast with physical.
That this is not so can be easily shown. The resurrection body of the believer, we have seen, will be like the resurrection body of Christ. But Christ?s resurrection body was certainly a physical one; he could be touched (John 20:17,27) and he could eat food (Luke 24:38-43). Further, the word spiritual (pneumatikos) does not describe that which is nonmaterial or nonphysical. Note how Paul uses the same contrast in the same epistle, chapter 2:14-15: ?Now the natural (psychikos) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness until him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. But he that is spiritual (pneumatikos) judgeth all things, and he himself is judged by no man? (ASV). Here the same two Greek words, psychikos and pneumatikos, are used as in 15:44. But spiritual (pneumatikos) here does not mean nonphysical. Rather, it means someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit, at least in principle, in distinction from someone who is guided only by his natural impulses. In similar fashion, the natural body described in 15:44 is one which is part of this present, sin-cursed existence; but the spiritual body of the resurrection is one which will be totally, not just partially, dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit. (pp.249-250)

I don?t know about you, but that sounds incredible to me. Can?t wait.

12. From p.252:

The similarity to angels, we may presume, applies only to the point being made, not to the absence of physical bodies. Jesus? teaching here does not necessarily imply that there will be no sex differences in the life to come. What we do learn, however, is that the institution of marriage will no longer be in existence, since there will be no need to bring new children into the world.

We will then have realized fully our marriage to the Bridegroom, which is only tentatively realized now. We won?t have marriages to each other then, because we won?t need them. The marriages we enjoy this side of the Parousia are mere pictures of the marriage we will enjoy on the other side.
Even marriage is eschatological!

13. Finally, from p.250:

But our obedience in this present life remains imperfect; we realize that we fall short of the ideal, and must still daily confess our sins. Our future existence, however, will be an existence completely and totally ruled by the Holy Spirit, so that we shall be forever done with sin.

Blows my mind.
Yea God!

Questions for Discussion or Reflection

1. I have had Hendriksen?s More Than Conquerors sitting on my shelf for more than five years, as well as a few other Revelation commentaries that have come highly recommended (e.g. volumes by Ray Summers and by George Eldon Ladd). I have yet to read any of them. One of the reasons I have been reluctant to sign on wholeheartedly to a particular eschatological perspective is that I haven?t studied Revelation in depth yet. Are there any ?end-times? books or commentaries on Revelation that you recommend? If so, why?

2. In #8 of the Highlights and Reflections above, I mentioned the implications the view that physical body = bad/evil may have on the sanctity of life. What, logically speaking, might believing physical matter is bad or evil do to one?s view, for instance and if anything, of abortion or capital punishment?

3. Feel free to share a favorite quote or passage or a quote or passage you found problematic or confusing.

4. We are only three chapters away (just two weeks!) from finishing now. We?ve recently been through overviews of the main eschatological schools of thought, as well as larger reviews of dispensational premillennialism and the millennium itself. What, if anything, have you learned? Has your view shifted, modified, or changed?
---

Next week's reading for Monday (6/20): Chapters 18 and 19 (approx. 21 pages).