When I was submitting this topic I was pleasantly surprised to find that I could define it as “post-eschatological.” Andrew is way ahead of me with his thinking, so perhaps our community here could address some questions I have been pondering in light of my own realization that eschatology (the study of last things) has become a new beginning in my journey, rather than an end. In light of the first-century fulfillment of Biblical eschatology, I am now stumbling across new questions that prompt me to re-evaluate soteriology, ecclessiology and other aspects of my faith. Thus, assuming that all of Andrew’s (and mine) conclusions regarding first-century events are correct, can we take a second look at some of these questions, and perhaps even attempt to give some answers?
- What were the first century Christians being saved from? Was it only a physical deliverance from the Roman persecution and siege?
- What are/were post A.D. 70 Christians saved from?
- If the “Lake of Fire” in Revelation was in fact Gehena, the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, and if the Roman armies literally burned tens of thousands of bodies in it in A.D. 70, is there a “hell” today where “unsaved” souls go for eternal suffering?
- How can God want all men to be “saved” (per 1 Timothy 2:3,4) but then allow some to be lost for eternity?
- How far does the Parousia of God reach today? Does it envelop all mankind or only Christians? Does the lack of realization of God’s presence invalidate the benefits and even the reality of it?
Some answers in light of emergent eschatology would be greatly appreciated. And many thanks go to Andrew for facilitating this wonderful and enlightening conversation!
Re: Looking for answers in a post-eschatological Church
1. This sort of question is important. I would suggest that we need to keep in view an overarching narrative about a people, a nation. From Jesus’ perspective - that is, the perspective of Israel before AD 70 - salvation consists principally in the deliverance of this people from national sin and the present and impending consequences of that sin. The salvation of individuals presupposes, and must be understood within the frame of, this corporate narrative. Salvation is for the sake of the continuing effective presence of God’s people in the world.
2. Rather than differentiate sharply between pre- and post- AD 70, it seems to me better to describe two horizons of judgment: judgment on Israel and judgment on the ‘enemies of Israel’. Paul’s Spirit-filled multi-ethnic communities had to deal with pagan hostility and looked for vindication against their adversary before AD 70. But the ‘salvation from’ is still historically complex: salvation from personal sin, from not knowing the living God, from some measure of entanglement with Israel under judgment, from the wrath of God against an immoral and idolatrous culture, from the failure of obedience and holiness, from errors of judgment, from false teaching, from persecution, and ultimately from death and the fear of death.
3. I wouldn’t identify the ‘lake of fire’ with Gehenna. Gehenna is a metaphor for judgment on Jerusalem and its people (cf. Jer. 19:6-11). The ‘lake of fire’ in Revelation is associated with judgment on the satanically inspired enemy of God’s people and probably should be linked imagistically with the stream of fire that destroys the beasts in Daniel 7:10-11. It is the place where everything wicked is destroyed - we might say annihilated.
4. It is interesting how closely the ‘salvation’ in 1 Tim. 2:4 is bound up with a concern for social order and security (2:2; cf. 2:15). There is some sense at least that salvation here has to do with getting through difficult circumstances. The more we think of salvation in historical, worldly and corporate terms, the less surprising it is that many are not ‘saved’. To be saved is to be or become part of a redeemed people, manifesting the spirit of the living God, forgiven, reconciled, set free from the power of idolatry and immorality, a concrete anticipation of the renewal of the created order. I don’t have a theological problem with the thought that God doesn’t always get what he ‘wants’.
5. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this phrase ‘parousia of God’. I would regard ‘parousia’ as a dynamic notion - not simply ‘presence’ but a ‘coming to be present’, or a ‘presence where there was recently absence’. It marks some sort of change of circumstances - Christ’s presence before the throne of God to receive a kingdom; or the ‘coming’ of God to visit judgment upon his enemies. Otherwise, one would speak typically of the ‘indwelling’ of God in the midst of a people in covenant relationship with him - ie., in the midst of the baptized community of believers.
Re: Looking for answers in a post-eschatological Church
Virgil raises interesting points with his questions. I think they need unpacking from his own perspective, as I’m doubtful whether they converge with what I understand to be Andrew’s own version of what it means to live in a ‘post eschatological’ world.
I’m in danger of becoming a creaking gate in these discussions, an unwelcome gate-crasher at the party (though I hadn’t noticed there were too many guests in evidence) - but I still think the historical framework of the story of the people of God which Andrew’s version presents us with is too narrow - and fails to include the wider Adamic narrative, which in my view (and that of traditional Christianty - evangelical and beyond) is what the covenantal history of the people of God always came to address. Andrew healthily focuses us, on the one hand, on what we are saved for - which is broadly summed up in the idea of participation in the people of God. In looking at what we are saved from - the possibilities are presented as complex, with personal sin included, but as one amongst a wider number of issues and difficulties. Further on, Andrew adds to the list, from 1 Timothy, ‘getting through difficult circumstances’.
For me, the task of biblical interpretation is twofold: first, having a better understanding of the covenantal significance of biblical language and terms which have tended to be wrenched out of their historical, covenantal framework, and made to have a more abstract, absolute significance: such as sin, righteousness, faith, ‘credited’, etc. The second task is to provide a better interpretation for a world which does not share in this covenantal history and framework.
It used to be said that Paul facilitated this leap from a local, 1st century framework of understanding to a framework which would work for future ages and contexts by hellenising the gospel. I don’t believe this view can seriously be entertained any more. His teaching makes best sense when viewed through the grid of covenantal language and understanding which was firmly Jewish. On the other hand, Paul seems to have had little difficulty taking that fulfilment of a Jewish story, with its covenantal perspective on history, and proclaiming it to a non-Jewish audience in a way which made powerful sense to them.
I suggest that this phenomenon needs more careful attention today. If the key to the gospel’s message lies in a better understanding of its historical 1st century meaning, how does that historical meaning make sense to a non-1st century world and context?
The word ‘parousia’ in its current relevance means something slightly different to preterists such as Virgil, I think, than to most Christians. To some preterists, it is associated with an interpretation of the ‘presence of God’ and the AD 70 events; most Christians would associate the ‘presence of God’ as a current phenomenon with the gift of the Spirit given at Pentecost, and subsequently to all believers, rather than with a ‘parousia’ in AD 70. But maybe Virgil could explain this further.
Re: Looking for answers in a post-eschatological Church
Peter, you are absolutely right. I would say (and I don’t mean it arrogantly) that the vast majority of Christians today read the Scripture as if it was written to them. How else can we explain the phenomenal success of the Left Behind books, and borderline ignorance of Christians in regards to some of the most basic historical and cultural contexts of our faith.
Regarding your comment on the meaning of "parousia" I usually tend to use it as what it literally means in the Greek, i.e. "presence." In my mind, it’s a simple matter (perhaps I am looking at it too simplistically):
God created mankind to be "present" with us. Mankind sinned and screwed up, so God’s presence was limited to a box called "the ark of the covenant" and a room called "the holy of holies." A huge curtain was a symbol of this separation between man and God. The ministry and death of Jesus were the initiators of God solving the problem of separation. The destruction of the physical Jewish temple in A.D. 70 facilitated man’s entrance back into the "parousia" of God; per Hebrew 9:8 "The Holy Spirit is indicating this, that the way into the Holy Place wasn’t yet revealed while the first tabernacle is still standing."Evidently, God’s "parousia" could not be fully realized while the temple was still standing. Does it make sense?
Re: Looking for answers in a post-eschatological Church
Thanks Andrew, I am glad you wanted to tackle some of these questions.
1. It is interesting that you see salvation as "corporate" before AD 70. I guess in a sense Paul confirms this by saying that "all Israel will be saved" - I agree with you.
2. I think I also agree with your take on the post-AD70 salvation. The implications are more complex than we realize, yes, but I guess this question was more paired-up with my question on the lake of fire. Is that the ultimate, biggest, baddest thing that believers are delivered from today notwithstanding the social, cultural and general overall salvation and improvement of our lives due to Christ’s involvement in them? Also, see point 4.
3. In conjunction with the comment above, it seems to me that Gehenna (hell) is in fact the "lake of fire" of Revelation. Maybe we can talk about this further and see why we disagree on it, but in Matthew 10, Jesus speaks about him who can destroy "both the body and soul in Gehenna" seemingly refering to "the house of Beelzebub." Both of these references are temporal ones, Gehenna being a reference to the ever-burning garbage pit outside the city of Jerusalem where dead bodies were also thrown into, and Beelzebub being a reference to a Philistine god. Furthermore, note that Jesus includes "the destruction of the body" in his sentence, which tells me that this could indeed be a metaphorical reference to the literal place (relevant to the audience), thus being a temporal one (rather than one that extends to our days today). For me, this is what really pushed me to hold the annihilationist position. Of course, I am open to further discussion on the matter, especially since some of our universalist friends are bringing up some very interesting arguments on the matter. I guess the question is twofold: 1) Is Gehenna really the lake of fire of Revelation and 2) did it have a termporary purpose for the judgment of God’s enemies in AD 70, or does it extend across time/space into the future?
4. I think I am where you are regarding this matter of "all being saved" - but I am not ready to dismiss it that easily. I am starting to wonder if generally speaking, we are starting the narrative in the wrong place by starting with Abraham rather than Adam. As far as I am concerned, the promise of salvation was made to Even, thus all of mankind, not just Israel. Therefore Abraham/Israel/Jesus should be viewed as a facilitator, not a separator: church/world, us/them.
5. By "parousia of God" i mean his "presence" as opposed to the lack of God’s presence in the world, i.e. God’s "presence" was limited to the holy of holies in the Jewish temple in a pre-A.D. 70 world, rather than permeating all creation as I believe it to be now. Your question really shows how important it is to talk about these things and even make sure we all use well-defined terms. :) I am interested in hearing more about why you see the parousia as a dynamic matter, rather than a universal matter that happens/doesn’t happen. Your description goes well with the way Daniel describes the pebble that eventually grows to the size of a mountain, and eventually takes over the entire world. But at the same time, we see God saying "I will walk among them, I will be their God and they will be my people."
Thanks!