 |
|
|
"I have had my physical appearance duplicated by demons."
-- Bob Larson
|
|
| |
Study Resources: Open Source Theology: Christ and Eschatology (1)
Posted on Tuesday, April 22 @ 09:53:44 PDT by Virgil |
|
by Peter Wilkinson
Eschatology is usually understood in theology to be the interpretation of things that happen at the end of time, and tends to occupy a separate section, somewhat detached from other theological concerns, at the end of systematic theologies. This divorce of ‘the end of time’ from the rest of theological history is a striking feature of theology, for which I wish to propose an alternative not so far offered on this site.
The ‘divorce’ of eschatology from the rest of biblical history is frequently sealed by a perceived need to summarise, at great length, the variant interpretations arising out of a few verses in Revelation 20:1-10, and verses 2-7 in particular, where there is a sixfold reference to ‘the millennium’. As one popular Christian preacher/author on this subject put it: “How often does God have to say something for it to be true?” What he meant was: “How often do I have to repeat my interpretation of the millennium for it to be accepted as true?” Calvinists at this point may wish to roll over and go back to sleep, secure in the knowledge that their interpretation of ‘the millennium’ was correct all along, and avoided all the furore.
A feature of this ‘futuristic’ presentation of eschatology is a shift of focus from the Christ of history to an often bizarre concatenation of events at the end of time. Swathes of history, such as Christ’s supposed thousand year earthly reign in the historic or dispensationalist, premillennial schemes, are proposed from the most meagre of textual evidence. Equally sweeping assertions are made about the supposedly literal first resurrection of the martyrs in Revelation 20:4-6 – defying textual evidence to the contrary. The effect of futuristic schemes which Revelation 20:1-10 is dragooned to support is curious: a removal of focus on Christ, to the extent that one commentator has described it as an ‘eclipse of Christ in eschatology’. The future resurrection of the dead and return of Jesus are submerged in a tidal wave of speculation concerning the preceding events in God’s supposed prophetic calendar.
Click here to read the entire article
Note: Read Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 of this article.
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Open Source Theology: Christ and Eschatology (1) (Score: 1)
 by plymouthrock on Tuesday, April 22 @ 10:58:11 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Wow! |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Christ and Eschatology Part 2 available (Score: 1)
by plymouthrock on Tuesday, April 22 @ 11:06:25 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Virgil,
Part 2 in this series is up and can be found here:
http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/1494 |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by plymouthrock on Tuesday, April 22 @ 11:12:49 PDT
Re: Open Source Theology: Christ and Eschatology (1) (Score: 1)
 by chrisliv on Tuesday, April 22 @ 11:10:04 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Yeah,
This is a good article from those looking at Preterism.
I'm not really an "Emergent", but I appreciate the "Open Source" attitude when it comes to overly rigid Theology.
The article does seem to comprehend the positive aspects of Preterism as an outlook in this paragraph:
"Eschatology as applied to the historic Jesus tends to focus on the destruction of the temple as the chief sign and vindication of Jesus’s mission, and the solution to the problem posed by the time-frame references in the gospels. ‘The coming of the Son of Man’, as an eschatological event, fulfils the ‘coming’ of Daniel 7:13 – the vindication of God’s rule on earth, on behalf of his suffering people. It was a coming, not towards the earth, but towards God – in exaltation and power. The sign which demonstrated this event was the destruction of the temple. The renewed people of God were separated from the apostate people of God. Their future was guaranteed. The history of Christ was one of identification with the true people of God. He had suffered as they suffered; their history had become his history. His triumph was the assurance of their triumph."
And it gives a good criticism in the next paragraph, of what may be perceived as Preterism, but which I don't think really is Preterism at all:
"This interpretation seems plausible, and attractive in many ways. It provides an apparently convincing way of interpreting biblical material, especially from a historical point of view, and as informed by the conjectured historic expectations of Israel around a reconstruction of their reflections on the second temple period. It places Christ in a definite historic context. It makes sense of the time-frame references – in the gospels, and throughout the NT. But it has some curious consequences. The suffering of Christ on the cross, in particular, no longer has the central redemptive significance which its place in the four gospels would seem to ascribe to it. The death of Christ ceases to be a central event with direct relevance to subsequent generations of Jesus’s followers. Within this reinterpretation, the significance of the cross as the place where the new covenant was sealed in the blood of Christ is also lost. The significance of the resurrection as the beginning of the new creation, within a new creation Jesus and as imparted by him to a new humanity, is also lost, or fails to contain the significance which the NT seems to give it."
That characterizes what I think is a maladaptive tendency of certain Preterists, and not Preterism itself.
As a full Preterist myself, I've been arguing against something very close to this same tendency in the Forum area. That is, to focus everything onto 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem, so much so as to diminish the Cross, the Day of Pentecost, etc., during the period between 30 AD thru 70 AD, and possibly beyond.
Sadly, I think it's getting to the point where some Preterists are trying to invent an interim Dispensation for the 30 AD thru 70 AD period.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding some of these other Preterists a little bit. But the article writer here seems to perceive as much, too.
So, there seem to be some Preterists who want to impose, needlessly, a whole Hermeneutic onto the simple idea of Preterism, which, for a variety of reasons, does make Preterism seem problematic to onlookers, and rightly so.
It may not be helpful, but here's the thread from the Forum:
http://www.planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=1&tid=919&page=1
I think there are only a few fundamental concepts that make up the Preterist position. But there is a tendency for some Preterists to want to build a whole Hermeneutic around it, which can shift importance away from the more central issues of the Gospel, i.e., Justification by Faith in Christ and being filled with the Holy Spirit, aka, the Promise and the Blessi
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by plymouthrock on Tuesday, April 22 @ 11:19:49 PDT
- by Virgil on Tuesday, April 22 @ 14:23:01 PDT
- by chrisliv on Tuesday, April 22 @ 15:58:00 PDT
Re: Open Source Theology: Christ and Eschatology (1) (Score: 1)
 by SuperSoulFighter on Tuesday, April 22 @ 23:24:56 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Has Wilkinson been browsing our site here? He seems to understand our position quite well. I'm intrigued to see how he resolves the "historical Jesus" with the "Jesus of faith" (still not 100% sure what that is). I'll take a look at Part 2 for further clarification.
He certainly seems to be joining us on the eschatological "road less traveled"!
JM |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Wednesday, April 23 @ 06:07:36 PDT
- by tom-g on Wednesday, April 23 @ 08:36:06 PDT
- by Virgil on Thursday, April 24 @ 11:14:48 PDT
- by tom-g on Thursday, April 24 @ 22:15:37 PDT
- by Virgil on Friday, April 25 @ 05:41:26 PDT
- by tom-g on Friday, April 25 @ 09:46:37 PDT
- by Virgil on Friday, April 25 @ 10:42:34 PDT
- by tom-g on Friday, April 25 @ 12:55:52 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Sunday, April 27 @ 23:28:19 PDT
- by Virgil on Monday, April 28 @ 10:43:37 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Monday, April 28 @ 12:48:21 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Sunday, April 27 @ 23:34:20 PDT
Re: Open Source Theology: Christ and Eschatology (Part 2) (Score: 1)
by SuperSoulFighter on Monday, April 28 @ 00:29:55 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Having read Part 2 of this brief exposition, I have noted one or two points of concern that Wilkinson has introduced as underlying presuppositions which are simply assumed to be factual reality. Here is a direct quote:
The proxy role of Israel in relation to the wider world is foreshadowed in the promises of worldwide blessing made to Abraham, and in the prophecies of a worldwide mission for Israel throughout the prophets. Just as Israel’s identity narrows down and focuses on one person, Jesus, so the worldwide role of Israel is made possible through Jesus’s fulfilment of the covenant.
This assumption that there was some sort of "planetary", all-encompassing, universal significance in the Abrahamic Covenant and Israel's "proxy role" is really lacking in validity, Scripturally. I've dealt with this at considerable length in several articles, but Wilkinson needs to move beyond simple assertions with no Scriptural support, to really taking the time to examine and verify his own assumptions. A prime example of the direct conflict between his ideas and the Scriptures comes in this statement:
There were also not several covenants, but only one covenant with a variety of expressions, finding its fulfilment in Jesus – which, in consideration of the wider biblical picture, before and after the central event of his death, could be described as the covenant of God’s faithfulness to his creation, yet determination to deal with sin. It was in the fulfilling of this covenant that Israel had a message for the entire world.
The utterly speculative, fanciful nature of these statements is confirmed when we consider this text (among others), "7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8:7-13, NKJV)
The Bible says there were TWO Covenants. Wilkinson says there was only one. I'll stick with the Bible.
I'm not trying to be a nitpicker at all here. Rather, I have some serious concerns about Wilkinson's overall perspective and its basis. I see a very real departure from a Scriptural understanding of God and His Kingdom to a highly speculative worldview in relation to humanity as a whole.
Finally, I see subtle futurist tendencies guiding this thinking in these statements:
We also have a sub-biblical Jesus if his identity is in any way detached from the person of God. This is true throughout the gospels, and emphatic in the letters. He was God at the creation of the universe, is God in his continuing supremacy over the universe, and remains God in bearing the universe towards its ultimate goal. He was God in the act of bringing reconciliation to the universe through his death on the cross, and is God through the presence of the Spirit on earth, continuing through the church what he began with his disciples – Acts 1:1 (his pre-ascension ministry being all that h
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Open Source Theology: Christ and Eschatology (Parts 3 and 4) (Score: 1)
by SuperSoulFighter on Monday, April 28 @ 12:28:43 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Wilkinson's unfortunate futurism becomes very apparent in these two concluding articles. Here are some statements indicating this from part 3:
At this point, I realise that I am using a great deal of material to get over some simple points – but it illustrates that the end times, or eschatological focus, apply to each aspect of Jesus’s life and ministry, in the past, present and future, and not to any one aspect of it – let alone the destruction of the temple, a 1st century or a future parousia.
Clearly, Wilkinson acknowledges and allows for the possibility that there will be some kind future parousia event involving Christ and His supposed "unfinished ministry". This becomes even clearer in Part 4.
In my previous post, I tried to show that a radical and absolute eschatological character was given to each stage of the entire history of Jesus - not just to part of it, or even to one event within it. His birth, earthly life, death, resurrection, outpoured Spirit and return are all described in equally final terms - and each in some way reflecting the idea of a fulfilled and complete eschatological event in itself.
The language briefly examined in Part 3 does not conclusively establish the point Wilkinson tries to make here. The various events in Christ's life and ministry have a clear historical relationship to the overall eschaton and conclusion of the OC "world", true. That is what the texts he briefly introduced in Part 3 are indicating. But in and of themselves, these occurrences and accomplishments are NOT individual "fulfilled and complete eschatological events". Rather, they are part of an overall concluding "age" involved with a terminal generation of that OC "world".
The terms with which I introduced the post (last days, end of the age, last hour, etc), which direct our attention to the subject of eschata, or last things, also bear out this observation - that they may be applied to various stages of Jesus’s history - a history which is still active and in process of completion.
Wow. This is clearly futurism at work in his thinking and underpinning his eschatological perspective. Jesus' "history" of ministry and eschatological activity was clearly brought to a conclusion in the First Century. The bold-type statement, above, is sheer conjecture on his part.
More futurism surfaces here:
The dawning day of the Lord is implied in Jesus’s reading from Isaiah 61 in the synagogue (Luke 4:16ff), where he speaks of himself as ushering in "the year of the Lord’s favour", and performing the works of Isaiah 61 associated with it, as seen too in Mark 11:5. The resurrection reflects the dawn of the great day of the Lord. The outpouring of the Spirit is said to reflect the signs of Joel 2:28-32, which speak of the day of the Lord. Yet that day can still be spoken of as future - 2 Peter 3:12, Revelation 16:14. No, "the day of the Lord" can NOT still be spoken of as future. That Day occurred in 70 AD. It is done, and very much a historical, past event. 2Peter 3:12 and Rev. 16:14 were fulfilled at that time. There are no other valid interpretive options here.
At whatever phase of his history, and it is a history which is yet to be completed, Christ is the end, the goal and fulfilment of history.
More futurism. To clarify Biblically, Christ was the "end, goal and fulfillment of [Old Covenant ISRAELITE] history." That history is NOT "yet to be completed". It was completed in the First Century. No further "completion" lies ahead.
Christ is within time, but he is also above and beyond time. It is in this sense that phrases which are normally used to describe time are said to describe Jesus himself - he is "the alpha and omega" - Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13, "the beginning and the end" - 22:13, "the first and the last" - 1:17; 2:8; 22:13. Each of these designations has application to creation. "Al
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by peterwilkinson on Tuesday, April 29 @ 07:49:20 PDT
- by Virgil on Tuesday, April 29 @ 08:05:59 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Tuesday, April 29 @ 19:19:55 PDT
- by Virgil on Tuesday, April 29 @ 08:10:14 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Tuesday, April 29 @ 19:08:14 PDT
- by tom-g on Wednesday, April 30 @ 11:12:31 PDT
- by Virgil on Wednesday, April 30 @ 12:01:21 PDT
- by tom-g on Wednesday, April 30 @ 19:23:33 PDT
- by Virgil on Wednesday, April 30 @ 19:59:21 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Wednesday, April 30 @ 22:20:06 PDT
- by tom-g on Thursday, May 01 @ 06:48:36 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Thursday, May 01 @ 23:19:10 PDT
- by tom-g on Friday, May 02 @ 09:54:31 PDT
- by davo on Saturday, May 03 @ 09:10:05 PDT
- by tom-g on Saturday, May 03 @ 11:57:06 PDT
- by davo on Saturday, May 03 @ 12:27:39 PDT
- by tom-g on Saturday, May 03 @ 13:42:37 PDT
- by davo on Saturday, May 03 @ 21:05:38 PDT
- by tom-g on Sunday, May 04 @ 06:57:37 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, May 04 @ 09:07:07 PDT
- by tom-g on Sunday, May 04 @ 12:34:05 PDT
- by flannery0 on Sunday, May 04 @ 15:40:10 PDT
- by tom-g on Sunday, May 04 @ 18:26:41 PDT
- by JL on Sunday, May 04 @ 22:52:01 PDT
- by tom-g on Monday, May 05 @ 08:43:08 PDT
- by JL on Monday, May 05 @ 09:27:34 PDT
- by tom-g on Monday, May 05 @ 10:34:46 PDT
- by tom-g on Monday, May 05 @ 10:52:41 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Monday, May 05 @ 11:17:36 PDT
- by tom-g on Monday, May 05 @ 12:07:31 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, May 04 @ 21:19:27 PDT
- by tom-g on Monday, May 05 @ 09:39:10 PDT
- by tom-g on Monday, May 05 @ 09:53:19 PDT
- by davo on Monday, May 05 @ 18:07:00 PDT
- by davo on Monday, May 05 @ 18:03:53 PDT
- by tom-g on Tuesday, May 06 @ 08:35:36 PDT
- by davo on Wednesday, May 07 @ 02:49:45 PDT
- by flannery0 on Wednesday, May 07 @ 06:43:18 PDT
- by davo on Wednesday, May 07 @ 18:14:45 PDT
- by tom-g on Wednesday, May 07 @ 09:15:54 PDT
- by davo on Wednesday, May 07 @ 18:10:59 PDT
- by tom-g on Wednesday, May 07 @ 21:31:12 PDT
- by davo on Thursday, May 08 @ 17:36:52 PDT
| 
|
