I have a reading for the first Sunday of Advent which includes Romans 13:11-12a: “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand …” This is one of those texts which indicates the NT writers were expecting the Parousia (Second Coming) within their lifetimes. How are we to understand such texts?
Suggestions put forth in the past include: (1) preterism, the belief that all the prophecies were fulfilled somehow in the first century, and that Christ came for judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. (2) the idea that these texts express God’s view of time, not ours; that a “day with the Lord is as a thousand years,” etc. (3) the belief that these texts were realy intended for the last generation rather than for the one in which they were written.
Can we offer a better explanation?
The parousia
Justin, here’s roughly and briefly how I understand things. Whether this sort of reconstruction amounts to a ‘better explanation’ is a matter for others to decide.
The sense of eschatological imminence is too deeply inscribed in the New Testament to be glibly dismissed. This is not simply a matter of timing - the parousia was believed to be imminent because it was expected to resolve the actual, present or impending crises that the early church faced. Peter makes reference to Psalm 90:4, but he still believed that it was the current generation of scoffers who would be destroyed and the current generation of believers who would be rescued.
The new age, new covenant, anticipation of a new creation, etc., would not come painlessly, either for Jesus himself or for the small scattered communities of his disciples across the Roman world. Eschatology for them was primarily the belief that God would intervene to ensure that his people survived and that those who took the risk of confessing Christ as Lord would be vindicated (cf. the parable of the widow and the unjust judge). They wanted to know that the gospel would eventually win out over the dominant belief systems of the pagan world.
The texts that speak of a parousia or ‘coming’ of Christ (not a ‘second coming’) invoke two key Old Testament ideas. The first is the coming of the Lord to judge his people, rescue his people, defeat their enemies. The second is Daniel’s vision of a figure like a Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven to Ancient of Days, which signifies the transfer of sovereignty or ‘kingdom’ from the fourth beast to the oppressed saints of the Most High. The New Testament makes use of these motifs, and of course a range of other ideas, in order to articulate the conviction that the church would not be overwhelmed by the suffering, by the birthpangs of the new age, by death, and that Christ’s lordship would be acknowledged among the Gentiles. The destruction of Jerusalem was part of the process, but there was more to it than that.
The key question that New Testament eschatology then poses is: What is the nature and purpose of the post-eschatological church? There is still some eschatology to come, which hopefully will keep the diehard apocalypticists happy: final defeat of satan and death, final judgment, new creation. But there is also an important sense in which the church needs to get over it. The biblical story is about God choosing a people for himself in the world amidst all the peoples. Why did he do that? What is the purpose of the people of God? What has New Testament eschatology made of us?
This approach also has the effect, I suspect, of shifting the soteriological centre of gravity from heaven to the life of the people of God here and now: the life of the age to come is the new life that believers have in the Spirit, the scope of mission is determined by the prospect of a renewal of the whole of creation - new heaven and new earth. So we invest in relationships, community, environment - centred around worship of the living God and of the Lamb.
Eschatology
Thank you, Andrew, for your explanation of eschatology. Let me try to feed it back to you to make sure I’ve got it.
Basically, the sense of eschatological urgency in the first century was appropriate because it culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem. Much of the apocalyptic imagery was fulfilled in that event, inasmuch as the same imagery is used in the Old Testament with respect to historical judgments and could not be fulfilled literally in their eschatological applications (stars falling from heaven, sun and moon darkened, earthquakes, etc.). But this doesn’t mean that there is nothing yet to come. Applying the categories of type and antitype, we could say that the end of that particular age was typical of the complete end of this world-age.
The people of God, as such, needed to be saved from the first century calamity. To grasp how this was to be accomplished, we could look at what happened to the people of Israel. They did survive the destruction in a scattered condition - a diaspora - and their rabbis reinstituted Judaism independently of the old temple services. But it was the hope that such a continuation of Israel would have been centered around Jesus as the Messiah. This hope was actually fulfilled in the Church, which consisted of the remnant of (believing) Israel together with the Gentiles who were added to the remnant. It was over this remnant that Christ ruled as king in a spiritual way, so that the kingdom of God could be said to have already “come.”
The Church was correct to settle down for the long haul, and even though we still need a future eschatology, the emphasis should not be placed there but rather on how we live the Spirit-filled life in the present. In my opinion, the Church did “get over” apocalypticism, but it appears that something went wrong by the time of Constantine in the fourth century, and correctives have ever since been attempted (foremost being the Reformation). Because the Church has never figured out how to live in the present while waiting in hope, revivals of apocalypticism have periodically taken place (including the apocalyptic fervor of much modern evangelicalism).
You concluded by pointing to the new heaven and new earth. I think that the genius of apocalypticism is that it recognizes this world (in the sense of the physical creation) as being the stage for God’s salvation plan. In a succession of ages (based in this world) God’s purpose comes to fruition. It is nonapocalyptic versions of Christianity which introduce the idea of “going to heaven” - which is just as much a form of escapism as an apocalytipcism which turns its sole attention to the future. Neither view encourages us to live in the “here and now.” The apocalyptic revivals which have taken place throughout history have served their purpose in recalling Jesus’ original good news of the kingdom of God. Where they have erred is in leading people to expect the “end” to take place within their own lifetimes. What we need is to be able to live in the present while always keeping in mind the goal towards which we press.
The Parousia
As I was reading your response, Andrew, one thing struck me about the shift in focus to the new heaven and the new earth. I’m interested by your comments that the defeat of Satan and the new creation are still to come, yet this means that your position holds, in a way, to three “lives” as such: that before Jesus, that after Jesus, and that of the new heaven and new earth. If true, it simplifies the rather awkward notion (to me) of living in the “now and not yet” but it also adds an ambiguity as to whether Christ, in speaking of the life to come, was referring to that following his death, or that following the new creation. If that is the case, then it doesn’t really challenge us to move our focus from heaven to the here and now, as we are at a certain amount of liberty to interpret each future prediction as we choose, as to whether it refers to life post-crucifixion or life post-new creation.
I think another thing that I struggle with is that I don’t quite see orthodox theology as focusing on heaven at the expense of the earth. People have focused on heaven to the exclusion of the here and now, but I see that as a failing of ours, rather than the theology (maybe I’m too much of a purist!). Certainly the seeker-sensitive movement has been at fault for, among other things, spending too much time and energy on justification over sanctification (hence books like McLaren’s and Eldridge’s), but I believe that we are still sanctified and redeemed in both our relationship with God and our relationship with God’s creation. That being the case, we have a responsibility and are empowered to live in a redeemed way with the rest of creation. Redemption was more than just about our souls - it was the whole of creation that was effected.
now and not yet, and preterism
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by your comment about the “now, but not yet fully.” Paul seems to have perceived that the new creation had already begun, signaled by the resurrection of Jesus and then the transformation of hearts to be able to live the life of the Age (“zoe tou aionou”—think i have my declension incorrecte, but you get the idea—eternal life, or sanctification). But he perceived this to be in conflict with the ongoing Present Evil Age. I think this is what people mean by the “now, but …” It doesn’t seem as much awkward as the way things happen to be as we await the fullness of that which we have already received a deposit (Ephesians 1). In that sense, we sometimes are out of sync with the rest of creation which is still waiting to join in the liberty that we have begun to taste (but not yet fully, Romans 8).
I don’t think the “now, but …” is that awkward to talk about, but I would gladly discard it, semantically, for the use of more biblical language, like talk about “the ages.” It seems to me that most people who use it now are more often using it as an easy explanation for why not everyone is healed when we pray for them rather than as a discussion of how our lives are lived in tension.
On a separate note, I’d like to read more about how Andrew and others see what he has written as distinctive from, if it is, the preterist view.
Is it preterism?
Eric, this is an inevitable question and one that I would much rather avoid. Eschatology more than any other area of theology has been bedevilled by labels. As soon as you ask something like ‘Is this a preterist position?’, you find yourself having to deal with a whole set of assumptions, concerns, anxieties, etc., that have very little to do with biblical interpretation and a lot to do with the promotion and defence of entrenched theological positions. Don’t take this personally - and maybe I’m just being naïve - but what does it matter whether this is a preterist position (partial or otherwise) or an amillenialist position or whatever? The question that I have been asking myself as I have read the apocalyptic passages in the New Testament is not ‘Which of the numerous schemata that the febrile theological mind has devised does this or that text best fit?’ but simply ‘What is he talking about?’
I think there are two fundamental assumptions that you have to make when you read New Testament apocalyptic texts. The first is that they nearly always invoke, by quotation or allusion, a larger Old Testament context - perhaps by way of a mediating tradition of interpretation - which should be allowed to guide interpretation. The second is that these texts are about something: they address real circumstances, real fears, the insecurities and dilemmas of real communities; they explore the implications of real events. In this sense apocalyptic is very realistic - perhaps this is what Justin is getting at when he says that ‘the genius of apocalypticism is that it recognizes this world (in the sense of the physical creation) as being the stage for God’s salvation plan’. We have to keep asking ourselves: ‘What really mattered to the people who heard this or read this?’
So when we read Jesus’ assurance to the disciples as they sat on the Mount of Olives, just across the valley from the temple mount, that people would see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven, we must ask: why does he think that Daniel’s vision of a human figure coming on clouds, trailing with it a whole argument about the oppression of the saints of the Most High and the defeat of the fourth beast, would be of such crucial significance to this group of people? I really don’t think he was giving them a parcel and saying, ‘Here, pass it on from generation to generation until the music stops and someone finally gets to open it’.
Misunderstood
I hear what you are saying, Andrew, and I agree with all that you have said. I find this the issue often when teaching from Matthew in our housegroup, especially now that we are at chapter 24. But I think my question was misunderstood. What I was getting at was not an attempt to put what you were saying into a camp, but to find out if your line of thought had any distinguishing characteristics from a camp (preterism). I, personally, do not know enough about the various camps to hear what critique you may have of one that sounds similar enough to your own train of thought. That’s all. Sorry for the confusion. I write from lab and am often sporadic in the frequency and amount of time I can pen a thought(s).
Preterism
I realize that the point of your question was not to force my comments into a particular box - that’s why I said don’t take it personally.
I suppose there are two ways of responding. We could look at the detailed differences between any account we may put forward and accounts that identify themselves as preterist (preterism in wikipedia). In this case we would probably find quite a high degree of overlap, but also some differences arising from divergent readings of particular texts. For example, I suspect (I also don’t know enough about the various camps) that too much emphasis is placed on AD 70 and not enough on the church’s later conflict with Rome. But is this sort of exercise really worth it?
Or we could ask some prior questions about context and methodology. Where is preterism positioned ecclesiologically - in relation to evangelicalism, for example? What sort of hermeneutical principles have shaped the preterist position? To what extent have the conclusions and the presentation of these conclusions been shaped by the polemic against dispensationalism? Why make our temporal relation to the prophecies the key to interpretation? From the point of view of exegesis it shouldn’t make any difference whether these events have happened or not. Suppose we knew the Old Testament and Jewish apocalyptic traditions, suppose we could locate ourselves imaginatively in the first century, suppose we could forget everything that has happened since - how would we then read the texts? I feel that there may be a difference of approach here that is worth understanding - though I may be doing a disservice to the preterist camp.
preterism
“What is the nature and purpose of the post-eschatological church? There is still some eschatology to come, which hopefully will keep the diehard apocalypticists happy: final defeat of satan and death, final judgment, new creation. But there is also an important sense in which the church needs to get over it.”
This was an interesting statement from above! The discussion on preterism (and eschatology) is probably a sideline to the main threads elsewhere on the site at the moment, but are we a ‘post-eschatalogical church’, or do we need a better insight into the convictions which gripped the early church concerning the parousia, and a better way of identifying ourselves with those convictions? At a recent fellowship of Church leaders locally, we were talking about Advent (following an Advent meditation by one of our number), and the expectation of Christ’s coming in the ‘parousia’. There wasn’t a huge amount of enlightenment - except that for the average pastor, the thought of going beyond the set verses on the subject and into the different possibilities currently posed to make sense of the ‘parousia consciousness’ of the early church weren’t even registering on their radar. (And this despite the annual liturgical treading of the same ground). Yet moves of the Holy Spirit within recent living memory have served to push the subject right up the agenda (maybe especially in charismatic/pentecostal circles). Maybe there is something in our experience of God, and lifestyles, which changes radically our ability to experience a sense of the imminence of Christ’s return, or the urgency of focusing on it, which is unrelated to the actual timing of the event itself.
'Parousia consciousness'
Peter, nice to hear from you!
I’m rather inclined to think that the conceptual and spiritual hollowness of popular thinking (or non-thinking) about the parousia is a very good reason for checking that we’ve actually got the notion right. Thanks to NT Wright and others we are increasingly learning to read, or reread, the New Testament historically - even as evangelicals, postmodern evangelicals, or whatever it is that we want to call ourselves. But if we are going to inquire into the early church’s ‘parousia consciousness’ historically, we have to take seriously the possibility that they were talking about their future rather than ours. So the argument runs, for example, that the ‘coming of the Son of man’ refers to the vindication of Christ at the time of the destruction of the temple.
If this is correct (and the jury is only beginning to pack up its stuff and go out on this one), then we will have to revise our motivation for mission perhaps, and probably a few other things. But it seems to me that we are also beginning to find that the historical rereading can in many ways prove more compelling than the traditional notions.
parousia revisited
Drat! I get to the court room just in time to see the jury packing up its stuff and heading off for its deliberations. That’s the story of my life. Anyway, it’s nice that it all came back round to Tom Wright in the end. Seriously - if we consign (most of) the parousia consciousness to the first century, leaving the field clear for us to get on with being church beyond the congregation, what happens to us as an eschatological people - and Christ as the Eschaton? And isn’t there still the tension of being in the ‘already … . not yet?’ (And do these questions have anything to do with parousia consciousness, and aren’t they beginning to answer themselves?) Short and sweet, as the Tom Wright threads (and the atonement thread) demand urgent attention. (Thanks for all the groundwork you have done on this).