"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 18, 2005
Thinklings Book Club Discussion Four: Chapters 6 and 7
Okay, gang, let?s see if we can get back on track. Maybe this week you guys will get a good discussion going!
Thoughts and Reflections
1. Chapter 6 is on ?The Tension Between the Already and the Not Yet,? the most crucial concept to maintain as we seek a better eschatology. On p.68, Hoekema writes, ?It is, in fact, impossible to understand New Testament eschatology apart from this tension.?
2. I have for nearly the last eight years been developing my gradually morphing eschatology without ever studying the book of Revelation in earnest. Honestly, I wish we could just do without it!
Not really. But like many of you (and unlike many of the Left Behind devotees and Hal Lindsay acolytes of my churches past) I am not confident (at all) in my understanding of the book. Despite my current quasi-amillennialism, I still tentatively read the book premillennially (in a post-tribulational vein), mainly because I think reading it straightforwardly almost immediately knocks out pretribulationism as a valid possible interpretation.
All that to say: I am excited about Hoekema?s teaser on p.69 for his treatment of Revelation still to come later in the book. This paragraph is a nice intro and foreshadow of the tact he will take:
Contrary to the opinion of some, this tension between the already and the not yet is also found in the book of Revelation. Although a more thorough discussion of this book will be given later, we may note at this time that neither an exclusively preterist nor an exclusively futurist view of this book does full justice to it. The preterist view maintains that most of what is found in the book of Revelation either had already happened by the time the book was written or was about to happen very soon after it appeared. The futurist view, on the contrary, holds that most of what is found in the book was not only future when the book was written but still has not occurred today. Neither of these views takes into account the already-not yet tension which runs through the entire book. The book of Revelation refers to both the past and the future.
Cool.
And I do hope Hoekema teases out this tension with clarity. If you haven?t guessed yet, Hoekema is an amillennialist (although not a full preterist, obviously), and most of the amillennialists I?ve read on Revelation discuss a sort of ?telescoping? stylistic approach in the Apocalypse, that the book details the same period in church history several times in a row, with a deepening of detail and a lengthening of description with each successive treatment. It?s confusing, to say the least.
Maybe Hoekema?s treatment later on will kickstart my long delayed study of Revelation. I?ve been collecting commentaries on it for ages. (Most interested in Hendriksen?s More Than Conquerors and Summers?s Worthy is the Lamb. The intro to the second volume, discussing the nature of apocalyptic language, I have read actually, and it is brilliant and, pardon the pun, revelatory. The commentary which best reflects my current understanding of the book, such as it is, is Ladd?s Revelation.)
3. On p.70, in the second footnote, Hoekema writes, ?Though antichrists have been in the world ever since Christ?s first coming, . . . the New Testament also teaches us to look for a single, final antichrist in the future.?
Bravo. This is one of the main reasons why I find amillennialism so comfortable and reasonable (and biblical!). Basically, I think the best of eschatological scholarship is amillenial, and I can adopt an amillennial understanding of Revelation, but still see a future ?time of trouble? and a future, final antichrist preceding the Lord?s return. For some reason, based on early encounters with amillennialism, I thought amillennialism and full preterism went hand and hand. I am very glad that it doesn?t.
4. On p.71, Hoekema brilliantly applies the already-not yet eschatological tension to the believer?s personal state of salvation:
The fact that the Christian finds himself in tension between what he already possesses in Christ and what he does not yet enjoy implies that he should see himself as an imperfect new person. Yet the emphasis should fall, not on the continued imperfection, but on the newness. To lay the emphasis on the imperfection instead of on the newness is to turn the New Testament upside down. As Oscar Cullman puts it, for the Christian believer today the already outweighs the not yet.
Good insights for you application-hungry readers. And it?s a nice balance between the divergent extremes of the Neil Anderson-type ?You?re Not a Sinner Anymore? viewpoint and the hardcore Reformed ?You?re Still a Despicable Sinner? outlook.
The ?tension? between once-for-all justification and the ongoing sanctification of believers becomes more vibrant when looked at from an eschatological angle.
5. From the Introduction to Part II: Future Eschatology:
The greatest eschatological event in history is not in the future but in the past. (p.77)
If you?ll remember from a past discussion in this series, I recalled first being hipped to this so-obvious-I-missed-it insight by my good friend and fellow Thinkling Michael Asbell.
So I?m going to call what he said to me Asbell?s Law of Eschatology: ?Eschatology must look back as much or more than it looks forward.?
Because the greatest and most decisive eschatological moment was Jesus? sacrifice and resurrection.
6. In the very first lines of Chapter 7: Physical Death, Hoekema writes, ?The outstanding problem we face here is that of the connection between sin and death. Did death come into the world as a result of sin, or would there have been death even if there had been no sin? (p.79)?
When I read that, I thought, ?Ah, now we get to some theological nitty gritty.? I suspect this chapter will provoke the most discussion (if there is to be any). I know that frequent commenter Kevin had some provocative things to say on this subject, although he jumped the gun a bit and left his remarks in the thread for the previous section. Maybe he?ll do us a favor and re-post them here. Kevin?
7. On p.81, Hoekema writes, ?Geerhardus Vos calls attention to the fact that the expression ?in the day that you eat of it? is simply a Hebrew idiom meaning ?as surely as you eat of it.?
Then Hoekema follows up on p.82, writing, ?[T]he fact that Adam and Eve did not die physically on the same day that they ate from the forbidden tree need not cause us any particular difficulty.?
No real comment here, except that I found this interesting given that very recently a commenter on our site said that because Adam and Eve didn?t die the day they ate the apple, the serpent hadn?t lied to them. (The person was a Christian, by the way.) Yikes.
8. On p.84, Hoekema writes:
The Bible teaches that Christ came into the world to conquer and destroy death. The author of Hebrews puts it this way: ?Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage? (2:14-15). Since it was through the devil?s temptation that death came into the world, the devil can here be said to have the power of death. Christ, however, assumed the nature of man and died for us so that through death he might destroy death. Though this passage does not say so in so many words, the New Testament clearly teaches that it was through his resurrection from the dead that Christ won his great victory over death: ?Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him? (Romans 6:9).
This paragraph opened up a wealth of thoughts for me. The first thing I thought of, based on Hoekema?s connection between the resurrection specifically and victory over death, was a question I asked a while back at my solo blog: Can We Compartmentalize the Atonement? (Follow-up: The Wonders of the Word.)
The second thing this discussion made me think of was how nicely all of Jesus? ministry ?fits? when looked at through an eschatological prism, particularly as I think about First Things vs. Last Things. It?s more of a literary approach to reading the Gospels, to be sure, but that sort of approach fits me fine, me being the literary person that I am.
I think of how the fall of mankind took place in a garden. And then Jesus made his high priestly prayer on the eve of mankind?s redemption in a garden.
I think of how the first couple were exiled into the wilderness after succumbing to temptation by the devil (and how God?s people wandered the desert succumbing to temptation at every turn, it seems). And then Jesus withstood temptation by the devil in the wilderness.
I think of the manna given for the sustenance of the people of God. And then I think of the Last Supper, in which Jesus? meal provides the sustenance for his people of his own flesh and blood.
I think of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea from exile into freedom, and the crossing of the Jordan from wandering into the Promised Land. And then I think of John baptizing proselytes in that river, signifying that the kingdom of God was finally at hand.
Think of all the Old Testament ?first things? that were ?redeemed? as ?last things? in the ministry of Jesus. They are particularly evident in Matthew?s Gospel, which is written primarily for Jewish readers, and in John?s Gospel, which is the most literary-minded (and therefore the most symbolic and ?essentially? theological) of the Gospels.
Good reminders that: It?s all eschatological, folks.
9. On p.84, Hoekema gives you your rapture:
?Why must believers still die? Why couldn?t they just ascend into heaven at the end of their earthly days without having to go through the painful process of dying? As a matter of fact, this is what will happen to those believers who will still be living when Christ comes again.?
So how come no amillennialists I know have an ?In Case of Rapture, This Car Will Be Unmanned? bumpersticker on their car? ;-)
(A: It?s that pesky problem of the tribulation.)
10. Finally, a highlight from the waning paragraphs of Chapter 7:
?For Christ death was part of the curse; for us death is a source of blessing? (p.84).
Yowza!
Questions for Reflection and/or Discussion
1. On p.69, Hoekema briefly discusses the second coming and quotes Hebrews 9:28, in which Christ is said in this return not to be dealing with sin but to save those who have been waiting for him. Question: What is your take on the final judgment as it pertains to the good works of believers? Do you believe Christians will be separated out amongst each others, some given special treatment over others based on their good works? Essentially, what is your take on the ?jewel in your crown? understanding?
2. This might be a good place to get a head count on the perspectives of the participants. If you subscribe to a particular eschatological view, let us know in the comments. Are you pre/post/a-millennial? Pre/post/mid-tribulational? Something different or in between? (If you?re a ?pan-somethingorother? because ?it will all pan out in the end,? good for you, but the joke is old. ;-)
3. What is your take on death prior to the Fall? Did animals and/or plants die in the prelapsarian garden? Did Adam and Eve possess immortal prelapsarian bodies? Or is it possible they might have died physically even if they had not fallen spiritually? Or was physical death not a part of prelapsarian garden life at all?
4. Somewhat/sorta unrelated:
You biblical scholars out there, what is your opinion on the authorship of Hebrews? More specifically, what is your take on the interesting theory that Paul did indeed compose the epistle, but it doesn?t sound like a typical Pauline epistle because he originally wrote it in Hebrew? Have you heard of this theory? Do scholars that you know of entertain it seriously?
---
This week's reading, for next Monday: Chapters 8 and 9 (approx. 23 pages)
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/2000.
Comments on "The Bible and the Future -- Session 4":
3. Chris
- 04/18/2005 11:24 am CDT
OK. This is kinda long, so apologies beforehand . . .
1. On p.69, Hoekema briefly discusses the second coming and quotes Hebrews 9:28, in which Christ is said in this return not to be dealing with sin but to save those who have been waiting for him. Question: What is your take on the final judgment as it pertains to the good works of believers? Do you believe Christians will be separated out amongst each others, some given special treatment over others based on their good works? Essentially, what is your take on the “jewel in your crown” understanding?
No, I don't believe that we as Christians will be separated within our own group. Ephesians 2.8 and 9 remind us that salvation does not come as a result of anything that we do, but is instead a gift given freely by Christ. I believe that the "jewel in your crown" could possibly be a figurative reference to keep us mortals in the right frame of mind, as in "If you can look and see all of the jewels in your crown, then you know that you're doing something right." It's a matter of being able to help you focus on your ultimate task. I know - rather simplistic, but I hope it gets my point across.
2. This might be a good place to get a head count on the perspectives of the participants. If you subscribe to a particular eschatological view, let us know in the comments. Are you pre/post/a-millennial? Pre/post/mid-tribulational? Something different or in between? (If you’re a “pan-somethingorother” because “it will all pan out in the end,” good for you, but the joke is old. ;-)
Well, I will follow Brian in Fresno's lead on this. I have never made a structured study of my eschatological viewpoint. I never was able to cotton very well to the "Thief in the Night" movies and their echatological perspectives, or to Hal Lindsey and his ilk. Even without being able to combat it scripturally, it seemed a bit off-center. I figured that they (in general) had to be misinterpreting something or, even worse, taking something deliberately out of context so as to advance their viewpoint.
I guess I am a partial preterist, though. My main focus for saying this is from Jesus saying that "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." in Matthew 16.
Incidentally, there is a good article on this at Preterism.info. Specifically, it addresses the idea that, if preterism rather than futurism is incorrect, then Jesus and all His disciples were lunatics (my words, not theirs.)
3. What is your take on death prior to the Fall? Did animals and/or plants die in the prelapsarian garden? Did Adam and Eve possess immortal prelapsarian bodies? Or is it possible they might have died physically even if they had not fallen spiritually? Or was physical death not a part of prelapsarian garden life at all?
Well . . .hmm. I would guess that (initially, anyway) Adam and Eve were slated to live forever. In Genesis 3:17, God tells Adam that he will toil over the ground "all the days of your life." That carries with it an implied, definite end point. Had that been the case originally as well, I don't think that God would have thought it necessary to point it out right here. Not to say that they were inherently immortal, but rather that they would not see the day when either of them would die of natural causes. It's entirely possible that Adam (hypothetically speaking) could have lost his footing walking along a pathway and fallen down a ravine and died as a result. I know that I'm kinda reaching here, but I'm just saying that I don't think that God imbued them with the power to withstand *everything* that happened to their bodies, only that they wouldn't die in the sense that we know death from natural causes today.
4. Somewhat/sorta unrelated:
You biblical scholars out there, what is your opinion on the authorship of Hebrews? More specifically, what is your take on the interesting theory that Paul did indeed compose the epistle, but it doesn’t sound like a typical Pauline epistle because he originally wrote it in Hebrew? Have you heard of this theory? Do scholars that you know of entertain it seriously?
I can't respond to this. Sorry. :-)
Seriously, though. I'm the last person to be considered a "biblical scholar," so take this with a grain (or 12) of salt. I have never heard the theory as you've stated it, Jared, but I can understand the mechanics behind it. I speak Russian and Spanish in addition to English, and I also have a very distinctive writing style in my native tongue. I couldn't translate what I write directly to either of the other two languages (no matter how well I may speak either) without it sounding wholly unlike my own original writing style.
5. Kevin
- 04/18/2005 5:08 pm CDT
Cannot wait to jump in, but....
Tonight was disaster night. My daughter is a little bit of a germophobe, right? Well, got a dirty cup when she got herself a drink of water, then there was a bug in her artichoke (boiled into chewiness we suspect), then her artichoke turned out to be rotten at the core (I could not switch with her at that point, because I eat much faster), and finally, when I got her some applesauce with cherries to make up for the disaster, it had a rotten cherry in it.
On the other side, my son had a small emotional collapse because of the hours of homework he has been doing (16 hours this weekend, and no break in site yet) while he is keeping up a full schedule of rock climbing, voluntary chores, and cutting out all of his social life.
I haven't felt so sorry for the little buggers in a long, long time. Maybe tomorrow.
6. cindy
- 04/19/2005 1:41 am CDT
I just found this blog. I'm not reading the book (yet--it just went to the top of list, though). I might be a pan-blahblahblah. And yet? Here I am commenting.
The second thing this discussion made me think of was how nicely all of Jesus’ ministry “fits” when looked at through an eschatological prism, particularly as I think about First Things vs. Last Things. It’s more of a literary approach to reading the Gospels, to be sure, but that sort of approach fits me fine, me being the literary person that I am.
I think of how the fall of mankind took place in a garden. And then Jesus made his high priestly prayer on the eve of mankind’s redemption in a garden.
I think of how the first couple were exiled into the wilderness after succumbing to temptation by the devil (and how God’s people wandered the desert succumbing to temptation at every turn, it seems). And then Jesus withstood temptation by the devil in the wilderness.
I think of the manna given for the sustenance of the people of God. And then I think of the Last Supper, in which Jesus’ meal provides the sustenance for his people of his own flesh and blood.
I think of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea from exile into freedom, and the crossing of the Jordan from wandering into the Promised Land. And then I think of John baptizing proselytes in that river, signifying that the kingdom of God was finally at hand.
Think of all the Old Testament “first things” that were “redeemed” as “last things” in the ministry of Jesus. They are particularly evident in Matthew’s Gospel, which is written primarily for Jewish readers, and in John’s Gospel, which is the most literary-minded (and therefore the most symbolic and “essentially” theological) of the Gospels.
Yes. Yes. Yes. A thousands times, yes! This, I think, gets at the heart of what C.S. Lewis was trying to describe about his conversion from theism to Christianity--when he realized Christianity was "true myth". While that quote still gets people's knickers in a twist, all Lewis was trying to convey was that myth appealed to him/appeals to us, because of how the elements of it speak to the human condition, and that the Christ story has all the earmarkings of great myth, AND is a truly true account, not just representationally true.
What about the most important garden of all? The resurrected Christ--where did he first reveal himself? He revealed himself in a garden. He revealed himself to woman--who thought Him the gardener (!!!). He had her go tell man. Talk about first things redeemed as last things! It's arguably as (more?) powerful as Christ giving Peter the opportunity to pledge his love and devotion three times, in the wake of his three denials.
8. Kevin
- 04/19/2005 7:01 am CDT
First, the roll call:
Amillenialist - partial preterist.
I believe in "an" antichrist coming, and an Armaggedon in the future. I believe in a rapture after a tribulation, but that this IS the millenium, so the next age is that of the new heaven and new earth. I'm open to post-mill, but I cannot see it clearly yet. (This might be a good place to ask what everyone thinks of Malachy's prophecy saying the next pope is the next to last pope.)
I believe that the controversial part of my comments was that Hoekema had shoddily argued that sin had ushered in death. I cannot provide quotes right now, but I appreciate a tight argument, and this just was not one.
I had never had the inkling that death might have already been part of the world before Adam ate of the second tree, so it jazzed me to hear this new thought. My mind spun off in all sorts of circles. I quickly thought of the fact that God had blocked Adam from eating of the Tree of Life after his fall. That might mean that Adam would not have lived forever outside of eating the Tree. Of course, it could also be that the Tree would simply have been undoing the death that Adam had brought on himself, but maybe Adam did not have unending life from his creation.
I am an old-earther who's convinced of a lot of the Intelligent Design perspective. That being true, I basically have to believe that death was in the world before Adam ate of the tree of knowledge. That death would already be here is not decisive either, though. If Adam were created from whole cloth (as opposed to being evolved) then everything else in creation might have been experiencing death and Adam still not be subject to it.
So, Hoekema's arguments that "death entered by sin" don't prove anything for me. The presuppositions I bring to the argument decide it for me, and that's no fun. So, no decision yet. Either there must be a young earth, or death caught up to Adam alone, or the death referenced is entirely spiritual. If I accept a young earth, then the question is moot. If I accept an old earth, and that Adam either was or was not going to die, then the argument doesn't resolve any of the inconsistencies.
I look forward to posting on some of the cool stuff Hoekema said in those chapters that I agree with, and looking at Jared's other questions. Gotta go back to informing technology for now.
9. Kevin
- 04/19/2005 4:28 pm CDT
A chance to look at Jared's other questions.
1) Jewel in the crown: The Cor. 3 passage refers to how a worker in the Kingdom builds on the foundation of Christ. It is not a reference to a Christian's individual life. Nonetheless, this has always scared me. I always wanted to be entrusted with 5 cities, or 10 or whatever the reward (of extra work) will be, so I was always scared I would fail. At this point in my life, I am just afraid that I will someday hear, "Uh, well, it's done My, uh, servant. I guess I won't send out from My rest, but..."
4) OK. I have no scholarly right to comment here, but I devoured Priscilla's Letter: Finding the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews by Ruth Hoppin. I will admit to wanting her arguments to be good, but for the most part I was not disappointed. The similarities between Paul and Priscilla, if she wrote the book, could easily lead to the conclusion you are suggesting. I will look forward to anyone else's take on the "written in Hebrew" suggestion.
One last comment. I was blown away by Hoekema's suggestion that the earth is not melted with a fervent heat at the end of the age. That we, the church, the Kingdom, might inherit whatever's left of New York City, and try to redeem after the end of the age is pretty cool. I have always believed that when Christ returns, there is a judgement, and then the earth is melted and a new one is created. Hoekema's way makes a lot more sense if I can just come up with a way to deal with that pesky verse in Peter.
It also makes more sense in terms of Jesus saying that His more responsible disciples would be placed in charge of cities. There would be a lot of work in converting them into something that does not destroy the environment!
It also makes for a lot better "after the resurrection" fiction if someone were to write something like that. What are there, 20,000 major cities in the world? I can see the story of Ezra and Nehemiah returning to rebuild the temple being played out in 20,000 cities simultaneously by the redeemed of the Lord throughout the ages. What a beautiful thought!
I would rather haul rubble and bricks rebuilding the Kingdom of God than rule here in the kingdom of man.
10. Kevin
- 04/20/2005 5:23 am CDT
cindy, I forgot to mention how much I love your point about Jesus revealing Himself to Mary in the garden, and making her the first "sent one". So many people try to make that a small thing but Jesus was entrusting her with the most important message since the dawn of time, and He did it because the Spirit moved her to be there. She was the best messenger, and the Lord used her. Right on!
11. Kevin
- 04/24/2005 3:49 pm CDT
Well, I am sure open to ideas on the elements melting at the end of the age, but.... Peter's declaration is SO specific that everything that is seen will melt. That does not sound like Hoekema's position. I am all for interpreting heavenly signs in political terms, but this is pretty extreme.
12. Kevin
- 04/24/2005 3:58 pm CDT
Also, on your question regarding "jewels in the crown". There is another question that has plagued me for years. How do you "bury your talent" in the ground? Or, how do you measure the growth in five talents? Is it by things seen, like conversions, or things unseen, like love toward God.
I have feared wasting my talent, but so did the man who finally did waste it. Is it enough to live a quite life as a father?
PS, Bill. Congratulations on getting the site stable again.
I think I should explain that while I completely support and want to be a part of the book club I wasn't aware that this could take as much work as it seems to in participation. I just don't know if I want to invest this amount of time to sitting at a computer.
I *am* following it and reading your posts Jared. There is great value in that alone.
I've learned through this that it is to my downfall that I've not studied eschtology as I should. This book has been an eye opener.
I, too, am anxious to read Hoekema's take on Revelation. With, what seems to me, the rest of the Bible being full of the already and the not yet I see no reason for the book of Revelation to be an exception.
Due to my ignorance I'm still sorting out the positions of amillennialism and preterism. So I currently have no way to explain where I stand on the several continuums of positions that can be held.
The "telescoping", to my way of thinking, makes great sense as other parts of the Bible do the same thing. Again, why should Revelation be an exception?
I should also say that this is the first and only book of eschatology that I've read and while I've read Revelation a number of times I've not made an indepth study of the book.
I am still influenced to some extent by the revivalist with the charts that stretch across the platform in front of the church. I've caught myself seeing something on the news that casuses me to ask, "Is this it?" So I guess I see myself as a person who still has a lot of baggage to drop.
Your thoughts and reflections point 4 is dead on. As you know I'm an application kind of guy as long as we are applying ourselves to the Bible and not the other way round.
On point 5 I cannot agree more strongly, as I've learned from this book, it is clear that much of eschatology has already occured and to not look back would be to miss almost everything.
I'm not yet sure where I stand on the idea of there not being any death for humans before the fall. I have concerns with us saying that things *had* to be this way or that way in that as soon as we do we've put God in a box, in my opinion. I'm all for saying, "it would appear that this was the way things were". My concern here is that if God isn't free to do as He wishes with anything He wishes, even if it doesn't make sense to us, then He is not God.
I have grave concerns about compartmentalizing anything as that, at the very least, begins to remove context from everything. I really think we need to have the whole and in this case I'm a firm believer that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.
I *really* like your take on the fitting of everything in point 8.
My take on your question 1 is that if Matthew 25, the sheep and the goats, I don't know that there will be a caste system in Heavan. The work of Jesus on earth doen't indicate there will be one and argues strongly that there won't be one. Even if there is it seems to me that we will be so overjoyed in praising God that we won't care.
Question 2 covered earlier in my post as is my take on question 3.
I know I've been long winded but this *is* a discussion, right?