"As they passed the rows of houses they saw through the open doors that men were sweeping and dusting and washing dishes, while the women sat around in groups, gossiping and laughing.
"What has happened?" the Scarecrow asked a sad-looking man with a bushy beard, who wore an apron and was wheeling a baby-carriage along the sidewalk.
"Why, we've had a revolution, your Majesty -- as you ought to know very well," replied the man; "and since you went away the women have been running things to suit themselves. I'm glad you have decided to come back and restore order, for doing housework and minding the children is wearing out the strength of every man in the Emerald City."
"Hm!" said the Scarecrow, thoughtfully. "If it is such hard work as you say, how did the women manage it so easily?"
"I really do not know," replied the man, with a deep sigh. "Perhaps the women are made of cast-iron.""
- L. Frank Baum, "The Land of Oz"
Monday, April 4, 2005
Thinklings Book Club Discussion Three: Chapters 4 and 5
Highlights
1. Hoekema begins Ch. 4 by stating, ?The kingdom of God is the central theme of Jesus? preaching . . .? (p.41).
I don?t know what this means to you, but when I first faced this claim (a year or so ago in Ladd?s The Presence of the Future), it was as surprising as it was enlightening. As Ladd points out in his book, even though ?the kingdom of God? is Jesus? theme, you?d be hard pressed to find a pastor in America preaching on the subject. He even presented a poll, I think, demonstrating that most preachers at that time had never done a sermon on the subject.
What a shame, if it was the theme of Jesus? preaching!
2. Most of us, when we think of the kingdom, either equate it with heaven or with the Church. Think how erroneously we might be reading certain passages in the Gospels with either of those in mind when Jesus mentions the kingdom.
Hoekema defines the kingdom for us on p.44: ?[T]he rule or reign of God rather than a territory over which he rules.?
This understanding opens up new pathways in our personal theology, as well. It helped me personally (with added insights from N.T. Wright) to think of salvation as embracing the yoke of God?s sovereignty. Being in the kingdom means living under Jesus? kingship.
3. On p.43, Hoekema writes, ?We must therefore always see the kingdom of God as indissolubly connected with the person of Jesus Christ.?
This is so key, because the kingdom is neither entirely future nor is it something only ?in heaven.? Think of Jesus? words in the Lord?s Prayer, where he prays, ?Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.? Jesus? prayer was already being answered in himself!
4. And when we pray the Lord?s Prayer today, ?Thy kingdom come? should not be a request made with an eye only on the future (say, the Parousia, for instance). It is a request that can be granted in the here and now. Hoekema:
?One who is a believer in Jesus Christ, therefore, is in the kingdom of God at the present time, enjoying its blessings and sharing its responsibilities? (p.51).
5. My favorite passage (forgive the length) from last week?s reading is the final one in Ch.4:
Being a citizen of the kingdom, therefore, means that we should see all of life and all of reality in the light of the goal of the redemption of the cosmos. This implies, as Abraham Kuyper once said, that there is not a thumb-breadth of the universe about which Christ does not say ?It is mine.? This implies a Christian philosophy of culture: art and science reflect the glory of God and are therefore to be pursued for his praise. It also includes a Christian view of vocation: all callings are from God, and all that we do in everyday life is to be done to God?s praise, whether this by study, teaching, preaching, business, industry, or housework. George Herbert has put it well:
Teach me, my God and King,
In all things Thee to see,
And what I do in anything
To do it as for thee.
(p.54)
5. Chapter 5 is about the Holy Spirit. A much needed overview of the eschatological working of the much-neglected third Person of the Godhead.
6. On p.57, Hoekema writes:
?In Acts 1:6 Jesus makes clear that the expression ?to be baptized with the Spirit? refers to an event which is about to occur: ?John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.? That event, as is obvious from Acts 2, was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which took place on the day of Pentecost ? an event which had great eschatological significance.?
I wonder if some of our more charismatic or Pentecostal readers took issue with Hoekema?s take.
7. On p.60, Hoekema cites Galatians 4 and then expands:
What is implied in verse 19 is made explicit in verse 23, ?And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.? The word apolytrosis, redemption, originally meant the buying back of a slave or captive, making him free by the payment of a ransom (lytron). When applied to the body, as it is here, the word obviously refers to the freeing of the body from earthly limitations which occurs in the resurrection.
Two resurrections, two ?redemptions?? That?s what I was thinking when I read this and the surrounding context. In Jesus? atoning work, in His resurrection, our souls are redeemed. In the coming resurrection, our bodies will be redeemed.
For some reason, when I read this passage, I thought of the "my redeemer lives" passage in Job -- "Though worms destroy my body, yet in my flesh will I see God." Here's a great sermon by Charles Spurgeon on that passage (Job 19:19-27).
8. Re: the discussion on p.61:
The Holy Spirit as firstfruits ? The Holy Spirit is the real presence of God with His people.
9. Liked this quote from pp.64-65:
?The flesh was the vehicle of Christ?s existence before the resurrection. The Holy Spirit is now the vehicle, the mode, the manner of His status as Lord.?
10. On p.65, Hoekema discusses the concept of the Spirit dwelling within us.
The presence of God used to be thought by biblical believers to dwell within the Temple. But under the old covenant is fulfilled, the Temple has even been judged (and destroyed). The Holy Spirit seals us (p.63) and indwells us, and so our bodies now are the temples of God.
Think how utterly eschatological this is. That the presence of God with and in His people, foreshadowed by the Old Testament ways and the Temple structure, is fulfilled in the way God lives in our lives, the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts, and Jesus lives out through His Bride.
Hopefully these last two chapters have expanded a bit your view of eschatology. I?m hoping that those who had questions before about how practical or useful or important eschatology is are starting to see that there?s almost nothing in the New Testament that isn?t eschatological! Or, at least, that can?t be enhanced in our thinking within an eschatological context.
I?m reminded of N.T. Wright responding to one critic?s remark that he didn?t deal with eschatology enough. Wright said, ?It?s almost all I deal with!?
This faulty thinking results from having too narrow or too wrong a view of eschatology. The last things are not just what happens when Tim LaHaye?s novels come to life someday! (And you might be disappointed, actually, if you?re waiting on that to happen. ;-)
Questions for Discussion and Reflection
1. Has your idea of what ?the kingdom of God? means been changed or expanded? How so? And what implications, if any, does this change/expansion have on: a) the way you read the Bible, b) the way you understand Jesus? teaching, and/or c) your eschatology?
2. On p.46, Hoekema interprets Jesus? ?eyewitness report? of the fall of Satan (?like lightning from heaven?) as figurative. Do you agree with this interpretation? Why or why not?
3. What implications might knowing that ?there is not a thumb-breadth in the universe for which Jesus doesn?t say ?It is mine?? have on a believer?s thinking and worldview? It certainly is cause for hope rather than despair, isn?t it? But doesn?t it open up more complexities regarding theodicy (eg. Why is there so much suffering and hurt in the world if a good God is in control?)?
4. Why do you think most believers/churches give short shrift to thought about the Holy Spirit? Why isn?t He talked about or preached on more often?
5. Take a look at the quote in #6 above. Do you agree or disagree with Hoekema?s interpretation of ?the baptism of the Holy Spirit?? Why or why not?
6. Are you beginning to think more eschatologically as you read the New Testament or when you listen to a sermon at church? If so, what new insights or improved understandings are you gaining?
---
For next week: Read Chapters 6 and 7 (approx. 18 pages).
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/1983.
Comments on "The Bible and the Future -- Session 3":
2. Jared
- 04/04/2005 5:36 pm CDT
Yeah, I think the words of Jesus there and Satan's ouster from heaven are reference to the same event.
But I don't begrudge Hoekema the point. I don't think Hoekema is denying the origin of Satan, his getting booted from heaven, but that he thinks these words are unrelated. I think he is saying that Jesus is referencing His overcoming of Satan in the wilderness temptation. (That's the most common interpretation for those who say it's figurative, anyway.)
At any rate, I also wouldn't hold it against Hoekema for not launching into a defense of his take. Mainly because his take does not make or break his larger position and to elaborate with a defense would be both distracting and outside the primary focus of the chapter.
I want to reiterate, though, that I personally agree with you that Jesus' words are a reference to Satan's ouster from heaven. I just don't have a big problem with Hoekema stating otherwise.
In either position -- literal or figurative -- the premise holds; Jesus is in a unique and authoritative position to proclaim eschatological victory and the inauguration of the kingdom.
---
You didn't mean you stopped reading the book completely, did you? That's what I thought at first, but now I'm thinking you just meant that line jolted you into stopping in consternation for the moment.
3. Kevin
- 04/05/2005 6:25 am CDT
Just stopped for a moment. Stopped more in delight than consternation, too. I love those moments.
I acknowledge your point on stopping the flow of the chapter for this point, but I don't think this is isolated. No big deal, really.
OK. So, the figurative point of view is that satan was cast from heaven prior to the fall of Adam, but that Jesus is not referencing that event here. Instead, Jesus is describing His victory over satan in the wilderness. No time to really dig in now, but I will keep that perspective in the hopper. Thanks!
Hopefully, more later if I can get to the computer at home.
4. Jared
- 04/05/2005 7:39 am CDT
Kevin, while you're pondering it, you might want to check out Revelation 12:9-11, which is an interesting parallel.
Some other options:
a) Jesus was prophesying this future battle and ultimate defeat of Satan (see the Revelation passage).
b) Jesus was indeed referencing his own victory over Satan in the wildnerness and in his life and work in general. (This fits the context of the Luke 10 passage, that of the 70 coming to Jesus to remark on their authority over the satanic powers. Remember, also, that the exorcisms Jesus performed were demonstrations of the kingdom's arrival, that the one who held sway over those lives had been usurped and cast out by the true King.)
c) It's all related, figurative or literal. (I favor that view, actually, since it is all-acomodating, and I think the similarity between Jesus' words and the story we know of Satan's original ouster from heaven is too striking to be dismissed.)
I can't seem to find the OT parallel to this passage. Neither of the Bibles on my desk have a cross-reference from Luke 10:18 to anyplace in the OT.
It would probably be good to factor in the OT context, as well.
5. Kevin
- 04/05/2005 2:57 pm CDT
JF&B reference Is. 14:17. 12 is "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer [or, O day star], son of the morning!" Of course, this is the reference I grew up on, but in light of your parallel, and Poole and Henry, I have a hard time seeing it in the old way.
They put Christ's statement forward as being:
1) A warning to His disciples not to be proud
2) A level above the disciples. They saw demons cast out. He saw satan cast down.
3) A prophecy of the fall of the Roman emperor.
4) The barring of the devil from the throne, once the saints are justified by Christ.
5) The fall of satan from the hearts of the saints.
All of the writing before Darby, and not one of them pointing back to Is 14 and telling me that this was as statement of history.
JF&B, btw, point out that the tense of "beheld" is the imperfect, more like "I am beholding..." than "I once beheld." I know ZERO Greek, so I can't add anything here.
Cool stuff. Seeing it as satan barred from the Throne Room after Christ's ascension certainly makes Rev 12 make more sense. I wish I knew where my copy of "More than Conquerors" is to see what Hendrickson did with Rev 12.
6. Kevin
- 04/05/2005 3:03 pm CDT
I loved the way Hoekema handled John the Baptist. He handled John's confusion about whether Christ was the Messiah beautifully.
He had predicted that the coming Messiah would both, "gather His wheat into the granary", and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire.
John was the greatest outside of the Kingdom, and he still missed this. Pretty cool.
7. Jared
- 04/05/2005 4:07 pm CDT
Good stuff.
I don't have anything to add, really, and not just because I don't have anythint to add. Got a lot going on "at home" right now. But I wanted to thank you, Kevin, for being engaged and involved in these discussions. This is only the third week for the club, and I have the feeling that almost everyone who originally said they wanted to participate has now changed their mind.
Sorry this space has not been more responsive to your excellent comments.
8. Brian in Fresno
- 04/06/2005 5:03 am CDT
Oh! Oh, oh you've cut me to the quick! ;-)
Man, there's just no rest for the wicked. I've been on vacation and while I had the book with me I didn't read any of it. I was writing an aurgument to some comments very dear to me. Oh, and since it was a vacation I was having a stress free time that included visiting stores of used books!
I debated starting over and attempting to catch up or to just dive in with the current reading for next Monday. I opted for the later.
I would very much like to say that this has been, even though I've not read straight through it, a most enlightening book that has, with the daily readings from the Book of Common Prayer, altered the way I regard the Bible and the way I read it as well as think about it.
Sometimes one comes across something that just seems to fit and fit quite solidly. That solid quality that if one took the time would be found to be most logical and reasonable. This book, for me, has been one of those somethings. This book helps make sense of seemingly disparate sections of the Bible without fracturing the underlying text.
I must continue reading it.
Thank you Jared for suggesting the book. I must make the time to re-read it not too long after I finish it.
9. Kevin
- 04/09/2005 5:24 am CDT
I am enjoying the dialog and am sorry that that is all it is. I doubt that I will give this book a thorough reading if the discussion group ends, and I think it probably deserves such a reading, so I am going to continue as if discussion is take off soon. I will use denial to my edification! But if you quit... ;-)
One thing about this reading, then one thing about the next. I wanted to bring up Hoekema's statement that God does not care about possession of the physical land. I think that is debatable. He very much cared about it in the old testament, and I have heard arguments to the effect that He wants to possess cities today. I think they were based upon some of God's encouragement to Paul in going to Corinth. Either way, I would have liked to have heard some explanation of that opinion.
About the next reading. Wow! The first 4 pages of chapter 7 were stunning to me! I had never heard the thought before that Adam would have died if he had eaten from neither tree. I have also never heard a case in a book made so shoddily. I cannot wait to hear some other takes on this.
11. Patrick
- 08/10/2006 9:09 pm CDT
As followin on the present issue of wether Satan was cast out before man or after jesus death?
A group of us at my varsity have a thing called lunch talks every monday afternoon. And the leader of the meeting piped up to say Satan got cast out of heaven at the Death of christ! No i paused for a mo there as i was under the impression he had been cast out before Adam and Eve! So we start this discussion which has lasted over a week now on this pondering thought...so i decided to do my research on the net....hence i found this forum! i read both Luke 10:18; Isaiah 14:13 and Revelations 12....Need less to say i have come up with same question...If the guy at the talks was right on Satan being cast out of heaven at the death of christ..Why in Luke does Jesus say he saw him fallen to Earth (Gosh guess he must of tripped)*shakin my head* than why in Isaiah does he mention that the Morning star(Ref to Venus a Planet...Satan as well and no not jesus)has fallen from the heavens (old Testment may i add...BEFORE CHRISTS DEATH) than my aloodin answers for Revelations 12 is of the future (not really sure yet of a complete soundness of this one. So ur comments are welcome)
Well the net is full of discriptive and commentries over this issue and the fallen star NIV vs KJV interpretation.
Plz Mail me at JesusFreak200@mail.com with answers as it sounds never ending debate and confusion
Personally i think we are confound by our definitions and Language to fully interpret well enough...but hey thats just me!
Patrick
Quick one on question 2, Jared.
I stopped reading when I saw that line. I had never heard anyone even suggest that Lucifer's fall from heaven might be figurative. It was a truly arresting thought. The phrase, "like lightning from heaven", was so powerful and so visual that I had never thought about it being symbolic. Given the other things I now cannot picture as literal, that's kind of funny.
Still, Hoekema seems too often to guess wrong when he decides what needs to be proven, and what he can just declare. Gordon Fee earned my instant respect by always seeming to know when a statement needed a little backing, and when it would be accepted at face value.
This statement unhinges an awful lot of things. I have always been taught that this event was when God cast satan to earth to continue his rebellion here. Hoekema is telling me that satan had been rebelling in heaven up until Christ came to earth, but that he was cast out after Christ came to earth, but before He was crucified. I'm not at all sure it adds up for me yet.