Mark Bonnington writes: Faith hope and love are the three cardinal (or primary) virtues in the Christian faith. As Paul the Apostle wrote: ‘Faith; hope; love; these three endure’ ‘but the least understood is hope.’ Actually, that last bit is a quote from the late, great, Baptist preacher David Pawson—a gloss on 1 Corinthians 13 that I have never forgotten. Christians find eschatology (a word I’m going to use because there is just no simple word to mean ‘beliefs about God’s promised future’) confusing or shy away from it because they see it as the cause of sharp disagreement between believers. Christian eschatology is quite specific and simple to understand. Even the essence of the main disagreements can be simply expressed, as we shall see.
People often use the word ‘hope’ to express expectation of good things in the future. US President Barak Obama was elected on the back his book ‘The Audacity of Hope’ with his campaign slogan: ‘Yes we can!’ This sounded a bit ‘Bob the Builder’ to a Brit like me, but it encapsulated political optimism and advocated social activism as a solution to the nation’s difficulties and divisions. But true Christian hope is not simply optimism about the future. Christian hope is directed towards God – in Him we hope as the one who has both promised the future and has the power to do what He has promised. True hope is trust in God and hope for His purposed future actions to ‘put the world to rights’ (NT Wright). Any promise is only as certain as the promiser is reliable and has the power to fulfil their promises. God always does what He says and He has all power in the cosmos, so our hope in God for His promises is sure and certain.
In Chistian doctrine, rooted in the Bible, God has promised to act in five ways that are closely associated together in Scripture. They are summarised in the Nicene Creed:
- Christ will appear: ‘he will come again with glory’;
- the dead will rise: ‘we look for the resurrection of the dead’;
- all will give a final accounting to Christ: ‘he will … judge the living and the dead’;
- Jesus will have an eternal kingdom, his ‘kingdom will have no end’; and
- there will be a New Creation: ‘we look for … the life of the world to come.’
Not just ‘Bible believing’ Christians but all Christians who confess the creeds accept these five doctrines of Christian eschatology: they are God’s promised future actions.
None of these are about ‘heaven’. Heaven is real. It is where God lives and where believers enjoy fellowship with Christ when they die (which those not ‘in Christ’ cannot). But heaven is the overnight stay on the way to the final blessedness (and condemnation) that will only fully and finally appear when Christ comes in glory, raises the dead to bodily life and welcomes the faithful into the glories of the New Creation. In that New Creation heaven and earth will be renewed and united. Then God and his people will enjoy the eternal face to face fellowship that was whispered in Eden, seen in Jesus’ earthly life and which is God’s ultimate blessing for his beloved.
Because these things are future no one has experienced them yet. I was told in my first every preaching class that preachers should not speak about things outside their experience—good advice to over-enthusiastic young preachers! But later I was struck by Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s sensible observation that it is the responsibility of the preacher to speak of things outside their experience: heaven, angels, final resurrection, coming judgment, hell and so forth. We can only speak of such things because they are revealed in Scripture.
It is well known that Christians disagree about eschatology. To put it (over-) simply the main disagreement is about where the Kingdom fits into the Appearing – Final Resurrection – Judgement – New Creation sequence.
Some are optimistic and think that the kingdom will come before Jesus’ appearing (these are ‘Postmillennialists’) and that all our prayers and work will usher in Christ’s kingdom on earth. The strengths and weaknesses of this view can be expressed in a single word: optimism. It perhaps overestimates our capacity to achieve God’s ends in this world even in his power. But it also motivates us to see the value of his work in us as a contribution to his final purposes. Premillennialists (following Revelation 20 closely) think that the resurrection happens in two stages: believers first and then, after the ‘1000-year’ reign of Christ on earth, the rest of the dead for final judgement. Some find this too literalist and tied to a single text, but it has the benefit that it reminds us that God created this material world a good place that will one day see the fulfilment of that divine intention. Others (the ‘amillennialists’) believe that the New Creation is the same thing as the eternal kingdom and so sit light to any full appearance of the kingdom on earth before then. This fits well with our experience of a world where acceptance of Christ’s rule often seems partial and patchy at best. But it also tends to confine Christ’s full reign to heaven and suggest that it can only ever partial on this earth. What is at stake between these three views is what people are thinking when they pray ‘your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.’
This basic outline of the main five points of Christian eschatology matters acutely because you should always ‘begin with the end in mind (Stephen Covey)’. Or to put it bluntly: if you don’t know where you’re going, I’m not coming with you. God’s purpose from the very beginning which was revealed in the incarnate life, atoning death and life-giving resurrection of Jesus finds it fulfilment in the five eschatological acts of God for which we hope. Eschatology invites us to lift our eyes from the challenges (and joys) of this world and reminds us to reorient our lives around the fact that they will one day be entirely subsumed in God’s promised final purposes.
Eschatology made Christianity the world’s first ever missionary religion. And it made early Christians courageous. Jesus sent out his disciples with the conviction that He had ‘all authority in heaven and on earth’. They announced the crucified, risen Jesus, ascended to authority over the whole cosmos and to whom everyone will give account one day—a message with implications for every human being, everywhere, for all time. All will give final account to Him and no other. And our hope of final salvation is in Him alone. If Jesus, who loved us and gave himself up for us, is Lord of all and final judge of every life, we need fear no tyrant and no enemy—even death itself.
The ‘cash value’ of Christian eschatology is always ethics: how we believe and behave here and now. 1 John 3.2–3 sums it up succinctly:
When we see him we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. Whoever thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.
Eschatology fuels our conviction that God has an interest in redeeming his material creation. It tells us that our bodies are here not to be used and abused but for the glory of God who will make them new one day. It reinforces our sense that this is a moral world where there is real good and real evil and it makes believers serious about living to please God and doing good. Eschatology makes us confident that all the horrors of evil under which the world groans will finally submit to the One whose ways are just and true. It strengthens us to live humbly and hopefully before the critic who taunts the good and all-powerful God with the injustices of his world. And it reminds us that one day, in response to the cry of the righteous oppressed: ‘How long, O Lord?’, will come the trumpet cry: ‘the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our God of his Christ’ (Rev 11.15). Eschatology also means being people of mercy and grace, since we know that it is not our works, for good or ill, but God’s gift in the cross of Christ, in whom we hope, that will finally save us.
In eschatological hope we daily stand firm on Christ’s promise that through the life-giving Spirit, he will give us life and bring us to eternal fellowship with him, God the Father and all his holy people in his New Creation. Then the New Heaven will be united with the New Earth and ‘God will make his dwelling with humans’. Then we will no longer pray ‘Our Father in heaven’, for we will see our Maker face to face, lost in the uncreated light of his incandescent glory. Then (and only then) will we be able to taunt death (for it taunts us from the road ahead all our lives): ‘Death, where is your victory? Where, O grave, your sting?’ Hoping in the God of life and love, we are invited to live and long for the final liberation at Jesus’s coming. And so we join in the last prayer in the Bible: ‘Come. Lord Jesus!’
Dr Mark Bonnington is Senior Minister at King’s Church Durham and an ecumenical Canon of Durham Cathedral. He has taught theology for 30 years and is chair of Churches Together in North East England.
Buy me a Coffee
The Nicene Creed is a very defective summary of the essentials. Jesus, according to Scripture, does not ‘come to judge the living and the dead’, he comes to reign over the nations for a thousand years. The dead in Christ rise at the beginning of the period, and as Matt 25 confirms, the living – the survivors of the wrath of God – are judged. But the dead who are not in Christ are not raised until the end of that period (Rev 20:5). Also, what does judgement mean? The Christian’s life is reviewed, but he is not punished, because he has forgiveness of sins. The unbeliever will not benefit from total pardon (though what that ultimately entails we are not to judge). Evidently the kingdom is when Jesus reigns on earth, and the saints with him. But also evidently, it is not an eternal kingdom, because the purpose of the kingdom is so that the creation may be restored and all unified under Christ, so that all Christ’s enemies may be subdued along, finally, with death itself (I Cor 15:25-26). Christ comes as ‘king of the nations’ (Rev 15:3). Then the Son himself will deliver the kingdom to his father, so that God may be all in all (I Cor 15:24, 28). Only then will the old earth and heaven pass away, to be replaced by a new heaven and earth (Rev 21:1). In that new world nationhood will have been abolished, and the idea of some reigning and others being reigned over will be meaningless. In that new creation heaven and earth will remain distinct, and ‘united’ only in the sense that God is with man on earth and not estranged from him.
Scripture is clear enough; it is ‘pre-millennialist’. The Nicene Creed is not Scripture and tends to confuse rather than enlighten.
The Nicene Creed was written for semi-literate agricultural workers to chant weekly to inoculate them against Arianism. It is not a neutral summary of the Christian faith. Today the challenge is from secularism and Islam. It would be easy enough to write a Creed that was short and snappy against those two systems, but that is not necessary because the church is no longer for the masses. It is beginning to revert to its original status of a grouping for committed believers only. Persecution will soon boost this process and clear out the liberal wreckers, who will not stand when it comes.
I agree with you about pre- and post-millennialism, too. The latter view, that the church will take over the world and graciously invite Christ back, always comes about from hubris. It was believed when the church became the Established religion of the Roman Empire (‘the world becoming Christian’), by mediaeval Catholicism when the Habsburgs ruled Europe and Spain was extending the faith throughout its worldwide empire, and today by many unrealistic charismatics. It is prime example of wish-fulfilment over scripture.
PS Nobody could desribe the Athanasian Creed as snappy!
Anton
>>”The latter view (post millennialism), that the church will take over the world and graciously invite Christ back, always comes about from hubris. It was believed when the church became the Established religion of the Roman Empire (‘the world becoming Christian’), by mediaeval Catholicism.”<<
So far as I am aware, the theology of the Catholic Church was and remains resolutely "antimillenarian." This Catholic view was formulated in all essentials in the 5th century by St Augustine (Book 20 of "The City of God." ) and is reflected in today's Catechism of the Catholic Church:
In this understanding, the reign of the saints takes the form of a gradual improvement of the world under Christian influence – Jesus likens the Kingdom of God to a mustard seed that grows into a great tree; but the Kingdom is also like the field where the wheat and the tares, good and evil, mature together until the end of history. There is no sense of a state of perfection being achieved by secular or ecclesiastical progress prior to Christ’s return. Augustine held no such view, and neither did the Catholic Church.
The Catholic position sees the millennium not as an earthly golden age in which the world will be totally Christianised, but as the present period of Christ’s rule in heaven and on the earth through His Church. There’s a coexistence of good and evil until the end. The tension between the righteous and the wicked will be resolved only by Christ’s return at the end of time. The golden age of the millennium is the heavenly reign of Christ with the saints, in which the Church on earth participates to some degree, though not in the glorious way it will at the Second Coming.
The Catholic view also sees specific historical events and personages as “types” of the elements of prophecy. As John Henry Newman (1801-1890) puts it :
From this perspective, destructive wars are typical of the Battle of Armageddon, persecutions of the Church are typical of the Tribulation, great tyrants are typical of Antichrist. The fact that none of these precursors have yet turned out to be the embodiment of the prophecies of the end-time does nothing to invalidate the prophecies.
>>”The Nicene Creed was written for semi-literate agricultural workers to chant weekly to inoculate them against Arianism. It is not a neutral summary of the Christian faith.”<<
Well, that's one opinion. Here's another:
Jack,
The Nicene Creed is designed to drum Trinitarianism into non-philosophers by means of regular repetition. In an era when Christianity had become the Established religion of the Roman Empire, rather than a faith adhered to be a perscuted and deeply commited minority, and when Arianism was a real menace, it did a good job. What it isn’t is a concise summary of holy scripture. Repeat it as often as you wish; I have no objection to it in the original language (although in English I insist that Christ decended into Hades, not Gehenna), but be aware that it is a battle statement for a spiritual battle won long ago, whereas today the battle is against secularism and Islam and we need an update to reflect that. The Creed is of a time and place and is not scripture, i.e. not vital for all believers at all times and places.
It is a useful exercise to try to write a Creed agsint the ideologies of today, and separately a summary of the Christian faith, in a few hundred words.
Anton,
>>The Creed is of a time and place and is not scripture, i.e. not vital for all believers at all times and places.<<
I'm with Gavin Ashenden on the Creed. It remains the "battle cry" of Christians as much today as when it was authored and is most certainly an authoritative counter to both secularism and Islam.
HJ,
I agree.
2 Thessalonians 2:8
I get the sense that there is no battle when He comes. He defeats the enemy as surely as a light throws off darkness. The present struggle over the last 2000 years is where the battle is.
Jack,
The Nicene Creed is OK against Islam but it needs updating in the English language because nobody uses the word ‘begotten’ except theologians nowadays. A creed absoutely must use everyday langauge becaue that it its purpose – something like “He is divine in exactly the same way as his father the creator”. Against secularism, a sentence needs adding to emphasise the fallen character of human nature. Secularists think we are basically good, not basically bad. A sentence that feelings can deceive would also help.
It is futile to keep fighing a battle (against Arians) that was won a thousand years ago even as enemy troops of today’s battles are advancing on us. Don’t you get it?
Jack,
You write: “In this understanding, the reign of the saints takes the form of a gradual improvement of the world under Christian influence…”
But I see no sign of any gradual improvement of the whole world, and it is contrary to the Book of Revelation which states that the world will get worse – read the consequences on earth of the heavenly opening of the seals, sounding of trumpets and outpouring of the bowls of divine wrath. These things do not match any events in history, so they are ahead. They run up to the Second Coming. So the world will get worse before this event, not better.
Anton,
Yes and the Church also understands there will be a final and decisive reckoning between good and evil before Christ’s return:
This last sentence applies to any sort of utopian scheme that ignores man’s fallen nature, the reality of sin, and man’s need for salvation through Christ. This was displayed by twentieth-century movements such as Nazism and Communism. We see it today in those promoting individualism and a social gospel.
As indicated in my comment, there are often multiple fulfilments of a single prophecy pointing forward to events at the end of time. There is no Christian consensus, and there has never been one, regarding the details of the end times or the Antichrist.
Jesus Christ will physically and visibly return to earth, but I reject the idea that His Kingdom will entail a thousand-year, earthly reign from Jerusalem. I’m also inclined towards a ‘Preterist’ understanding of the Book of Revelation, but don’t altogether exclude other views. Prophecies can have multiple fulfilments.
The “last days” thus refer not only to the “end of time,” but to the last two thousand years; the time of the New Covenant; the gathering together of God’s people in the Church, which is on earth, the seed and the beginning of the Kingdom. The Holy Spirit has been and is being poured out, because of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ. The Church is this spiritual Kingdom, and the ‘Reign of God’ exists in her and will be finally fulfilled at the end of time when Christ returns.
The deception of the Antichrist will lead to the final crisis of the Church, which will face apostasy and be persecuted almost to the point of extinction and thus will “follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection,” only to be saved by the Second coming of Christ.
No, scripture is not ‘clearly’ premillennialist. You are literalising Rev 20 and imposing your reading on Matt 25, which does not support this reading.
It isn’t about literalising Revelation 20 but whether its description is a recapitulation of the church era. It isn’t, because Satan is bound in Rev20 whereas John, writing in the church era, says that the whole world is in the grip of evil (1 John 5:18-19).
Yes, I agree with your second point. That is why amillennialism doesn’t work.
But why take the number 1000 as a time period at all?
Whether it lasts exactly one thousand revolutions of the earth round the sun is not clear to me. But I do hold to a two-stage restoration after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ bodily to this earth: a first period during which he reigns from Jerusalem as Israel’s king and the world’s emperor, and then the restoration of the earth itself and the move to the New Jerusalem. The first period, the ‘millennium’, ends when Satan is released and foments yet another rebellion, put down directly by fire from heaven.
One of my few differences from David Pawson, whom Mark Bonnington mentions above and whose book When Jesus Returns goes into all the eschatological controversies and makes its own way through the relevant scriptures (all very clearly explained), is that Pawson took the earth to be populated exclusively by believers during the first stage, the ‘millennium’. But what about survivors of the dreadful wars that led up to Christ’s Second Coming? I therefore believe, in contrast, that Christ’s raised faithful act as his empire administrators in their own lands, reigning over still-mortal fallen humans who reproduce in the usual way. I would expect the laws governing interpersonal relations to be those in the Pentateuch, and unlike in ancient Israel they will be enforced properly and incorruptibly. But there will still be domestic cruelties and other nastinesses, not to mention Satan’s final brief flurry. So ultimately something better yet comes, and evil is partitioned off forever so that it can never happen again.
The lack of detail given in scripture suggests that we should not indulge in too much fanciful speculation about this era. (Will the Old Testament faithful be resurrected to serve in the Millennium, or only faithful Christians? The OT faithful for sure will make it to the New Jerusalem, but the question I’ve raised is one of many to which we are not given the answers – and don’t need to know them.) The description I have given can nevertheless be inferred from scripture.
Ian, in defence of amillennialism, if we include the previous verse in 1 John, it qualifies the context:
1 John 5:18-19 (NKJV)
[18] We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. [19] We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
The world is under the rule of the devil but the church is not: ie Satan is bound for those who are born again.
@ Ian Paul
How does 1 John 5:18-19 demonstrate “amillennialism doesn’t work.”?
John is drawing a distinction between “the world” and “the children of God.” The children of God being those who, in the course of their lives, in whatever place or era, accept grace and choose God. The “world” being those who reject this gift and succumb to earthly pleasures.
Jesus at the Last Supper refers to “the world” thirty-eight times. (John 14-17) Sometimes He means the physical place, but more often He refers to “the world” as a spiritual force that is inherently at odds with Him and His mission.
Christ takes us “out of the world,” away from the people and spirits opposed to Him, with the goal of transforming us to be less like the world and more like Him. But His disciples are also sent “in the world,” mandated to share His message and to face the spiritual forces that lead us away from God. Christians are called to die with Christ to this world.
St Augustine reframed this as the “City of Man,” founded on self-love, pride, ambition, greed, and expediency. In contrast, the “City of God” is founded on selflessness and love of God, humility, sacrifice, and obedience.
Augustine understood that membership in the City of God is not exclusionary. As Augustine wrote: “So long, then, as the heavenly City is wayfaring on earth, she invites citizens from all nations and all tongues, and unites them into a single pilgrim band.” These cities are distinct yet comingled in time. Each individual struggles with membership in both cities. At times, one can be immersed in the City of Man and at other times in the City of God, but, more often than not, he bestrides the two.
This seems entirely compatible with 1 John 5: 19 and amillennialism.
A literal reading is pretty well by definition the clearest reading. ‘Literalise’ is a prejudicial rhetorical term which does not promote dialogue. The default assumption is that a text – just like speech – should be understood literally, i.e. unless there is strong reason not to.
If one takes the relevant scriptures literally – and I see no reason not to – they are clearly premillennialist. Biblical prophecy operates on the basis that what is says about the future is of equal status and facticity to the past – hence the use of the ‘prophetic perfect’ (e.g. Luke 1:51-55) to describe events still in the future.
‘The default assumption is that a text – just like speech – should be understood literally’
Steven, is ‘She went down the road’ EVER ‘understood literally’? So what is your evidence for your ‘default assumption’?
Don’t forget the pan-millennialists – those who believe it will all pan out in the end…
Is your view of heaven what used to be called the interstitial state?
If so I lean gently towards the idea that from this side of glory it lasts as long as it lasts but from the perspective of the dead in Christ that state lasts no time at all.
And if you will allow a final whimsy – why do the dead in Christ rise first? – Because they have six feet further to go!
This raises the issue of whether the dead, pre-judgement, have awareness. Scripture is clear that those in Christ do have awareness. It says nothing about the rest.
Pan-millennialists – out of the frying pan into the fire?
This is not written by me, and I am not sure I agree with that bit of it!
Whatever our eschatological, theological or even worldviews, they have implications for our mental health well – being according to a recent study see
@ christiantoday.com Worldview may have more impact
on mental health than chemical imbalances – study. Ryan Foley
In deed whatever or “views” it is the fruit / issue / outcomes of them in our lives that is most significant.
Paul throughout Romans majors on this subject of Hope and concludes with
Rom 15:13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.
The Hope of God issues in joy and peace and that abundantly.
The anointing of the Holy Spirit is an oil of gladness.
A king chosen by God for his upright character; the anointing sets him apart from others. The oil symbolizes joy and divine favor. Being anointed with this specific oil signifies God’s approval.
For definitions of “ the oil of gladness” see The Oil of Gladness in the Bible: Spiritual Significance & Modern-Day Use @ answeredfaith.com/oil-of-gladness-bible/
This raises the issue of whether the dead, pre-judgement, have awareness. Scripture is clear that those in Christ do have awareness. It says nothing about the rest.
On the contrary SEE Luke 16 vs 19 – 31.
I don’t think Luke 16 is a road map for post-mortem existence. It is a fable.
Hi Ian, I too would be grateful if you could please clarify what you mean by ‘fable’
Whether one’s a premilleniallst, postmillenialist or amillenialist does not matter. We are human and can only surmise what will happen when Christ returns. Simply trust in God and that he is in control.
Of course it matters, otherwise we wouldn’t have been given scriptures relating to these things. The more important thing is to keep it in perspective and regard it all as a difference of opinion within the Body of Christ – not flounce out, start your own congregation/denomination, and denounce all who disagree as non-Christian. I have been in free churches with friends who believe the earth is 6kyrs old and at least one Elder who believed that. I believe in contrast that the universe is about 14 billion years old and the earth half that, and our differences never got in the way.
This morning I read Peter’s address in Acts after they asked him, “what should we do”.
Seems clear enough.
if only.
You seem to get a lot out of one or two verses. I mean ’empire administrators’. It’s like something out of Andor.
If you accept that Jesus returns to this earth, that the earth at that instant includes living fallen human beings, that his raised faithful return with him so that there is a mix of raised immortals (just like Him from the Resurrection to the Ascension) and fallen humans, and that this epoch lasts a finite time prior to the New Jerusalem, then no other conclusion can be reached. I argue that each of these things is explicit in scripture. This scenario explains why the gospel must first be preached to all tribes, moreover. The question then arises of what the laws will be. We already know what laws of morality God wishes for, from Mosaic Law.
This is the golden age for Jerusalem frequently prophesied in the OT but never yet realised.
‘that his raised faithful return with him so that there is a mix of raised immortals (just like Him from the Resurrection to the Ascension) and fallen humans, and that this epoch lasts a finite time prior to the New Jerusalem, then no other conclusion can be reached. ‘
From what you’ve said, you seem to be inserting the ‘millennium’ between Jesus’ return and the New Jerusalem, what you refer to above as ‘this epoch’. I dont think that is the picture being painted. Rather at the approach of Jesus to the earth, believers who have died are physically raised so that they then go to meet and welcome Him. This is the language of dignitaries from a city going out to meet the royal arrival, then accompanying him to his destination. Those believers still alive at that time will be transformed to their resurrection bodies without going through death. They will join those going to meet Him. Judgement then begins.
I just dont see a long period of time where life as you describe it continues between Jesus’ return, judgement and the transformation of this earth.
But I could be wrong.
From what you’ve said, you seem to be inserting the ‘millennium’ between Jesus’ return and the New Jerusalem, what you refer to above as ‘this epoch’.
Perhaps I was insufficiently clear. As I understand it the millennium is *between* Jesus’ return and the New Jerusalem.
I don’t think Luke 16 is a road map for post-mortem existence. It is a fable.[???] Discuss.
” I have been in free churches with friends who believe the earth is 6kyrs old and at least one Elder who believed that. I believe in contrast that the universe is about 14 billion years old and the earth half that, and our differences never got in the way.”
Of course the earth was “without form and void”
[empty] for how long?How long was Adam on the earth before he died? To me Time had no relevance for man until he “died ” and the actual length of time until his actual demise was recorded as measured in years some several hundred years later.
Alan,
This thread is about the end, not the beginning. I prefer not to be drawn.
As a bit of clarification – ‘Amillennialism’ is strictly speaking a variant of ‘Postmillennial’, both seeing the return of Jesus as following whatever the Millennium is/represents. However ‘post-millennial’ tended to be a view in which the millennium either had not yet started or had only just started sometime in the c1700s. Such an idea rather took away any urgency from the return of Jesus. And such an idea was prevalent in the Scottish Church(es) at c1800. The minister Edward Irving realised that Scripture implied a closer expectation than that; he began preaching an extremely imminent Second Advent which in turn led him to interpret the Millennium as after that Advent – ie, the return of Jesus would be pre-millennial.
‘Prophetic conferences’ followed to explore these ideas; and it became clear that there was a large group of prophecies which were still unfulfilled but didn’t fit in the millennium after the Return. Irving’s preaching had produced an atmosphere in which in effect people were expecting the Return ‘any minute now’ – so where did those prophecies fit? At some point the idea developed, partly from the Brethren leader JN Darby, that things could be made to fit if the Return was not quite the end of history. Jesus would remove the Church from the Earth and unbelievers would be ‘Left Behind’ to coin a phrase. At this point prophecies of Tribulation and the Antichrist would be fulfilled along with ideas about the return of Israel to the Land and an eventual mass conversion of Jews – the Church of course would be spared these terrifying events. Then Jesus would return with the Church and begin his Millennial reign.
Ian I would like to ” read the Bible better ” like you do.
Are there other “red letter” sayings of Jesus or even other Scriptures that are “fables” that you could enlighten me on?
I fear I may be seriously misled.
“fable is a short story that illustrates a moral lesson.”
Or are you assuming “Dives” needs to be a real person for Jesus’s words to carry truth?
(doesn’t need the “prof” to answer….)
‘Heaven is real. It is where God lives and where believers enjoy fellowship with Christ when they die ‘
Im not so sure. It’s never made sense to me that believers die physically, their ‘spirit’ or whatever goes off to be with God in heaven, where as you say they have ‘fellowship’ with him. By definition that means they must have already been judged, otherwise they would not be enjoying his presence. This accords with what Jesus said about already having moved from death to life following conversion. Judgement has already occurred at the cross. But then, after whatever length of time (for some thousands of years), suddenly you have to appear before Jesus and be judged, despite enjoying his company for millennia!
Makes no sense at all. It makes more sense if believers die like everyone else, returning to the ground just as God said, and then at Jesus’ return they are raised to resurrected, eternal bodies. Those who are ultimately not ‘saved’ are also raised and face judgement, and final destruction as God deems appropriate.
It’s never made sense to me that believers die physically, their ‘spirit’ or whatever goes off to be with God in heaven, where as you say they have ‘fellowship’ with him. By definition that means they must have already been judged, otherwise they would not be enjoying his presence.
I think you are advocating what some call soul sleep, that the dead are not aware until they are resurrected to whatever fate. That’s questionable on scriptural gounds, but your specific argument does not follow. It might be that God makes a private judgement and then conducts a public trial which acquits believers (on grounds of their faith) in order to maintain impartiality. Alternatively, perhaps all persons are conscious after death and before judgement, but only believers find enjoyment in that state.
Not exactly. Im not advocating ‘soul sleep’, rather when a human dies, they really die, all of them in totality. They know longer have the breath of life and are therefore by definition, dead. No life.
I still maintain my point about judgement. I would also point out that when Paul refers to facing judgement by Christ, he seems to be referring to works/behaviour not faith, done in the body. As I said, it makes sense to me if that judgement has already been done as those people have already ended their bodily life. But you may have a point about the public nature of it later. It’s a rather frightening picture.
How then do you explain the antediluvian generation hearing Jesus preach during the time between his crucifixion and resurrection (1 Peter 3)?
I wouldnt presume they were humans. Nor that Christ was ‘preaching’ to them.
I have little doubt that Peter was drawing on ideas from the likes of 1 Enoch, just as Jude did. If taken literally, I think these ‘spirits’ were the principalities and powers who were already judged and imprisoned in some way. Jesus was then declaring to them their final destruction, following his death. His death, after all, was the victory over evil powers which rage against God.
It seems very odd, if they are humans, that they would be singled out from the time of Noah, and were being preached to. Surely all humans who had died up to that point and were not saved would have been preached to? Rather I think Peter is using a commonly believed story within Judaism to emphasize to his readers Jesus’ victory, and the judgement of cosmic powers which of course lie behind the likes of the Roman empire. He is also likely making the point that such empires will also be judged.
Jesus either did or didn’t address some imprisoned spirits between his crucifixion and resurrection. 1 Peter 3 says that he did; you suggest that there are alternative views which do not take these words ‘literally’, whatever ‘not literally’ means in this context. Please explain. (I’m aware of 1 Enoch.)
Peter says that they were disobedient while the Ark of Noah was being built. I accept that we can question who these spirits are. I suggest they are drowned humans, you say fallen angels. If the latter, though, why did Jesus bother? Nothing would be changed by his words. Moreover the fallen angels were misbehaving *before* The Ark was built, because God told Noah to build it precisely as a result of angelic miscegenation with human women (Genesis 6). Perhaps that generation only, having been made an example of in a way that God promised He would never do again, might be used subsequently to accuse God of injustice. So they receive preaching.
But actually I’ve just thought of another possibility. Are these spirits the nephilim, who were conceived in that miscegenation through no fault of their own, who unlike their fathers never knew God in heaven before the creation of man, and who never heard of Him in the exceptionally degenerate days of Noah? Perhaps!
PC1, I agree it makes no sense, though would not accept that final destruction is necessarily the end of those who do not enter the temporally finite kingdom of God.
Scriptural grounds for your view above include repeated statements that Jesus will raise believers on ‘the last day’ (e.g. John 6:39), Paul’s two statements that believers will rise when the last trumpet sounds, Paul’s assurance that he himself will be raised on that day (II Tim 1:12, 1:18, 4:8) and Rev 20:4. Luke 23:43 certainly does not determine the question, and I’m not in favour of pitting one scripture against another.
As for the dead not being conscious, that more or less follows from the fact we are not raised until the last day, but in addition there is Eccl 9:5, 9:10, Ps 6:5, 30:9, 115:17. It seems special pleading to say these OT passages do not apply to the NT.
All these questions are dealt with in When the Towers Fall: A Prophecy of What Must Happen Soon. As I say there, ‘The idea that our immediate and final destination is heaven etherializes the life to come, reinforces a bias against the physical, historical and literal, and promotes individualism. “Your kingdom come on earth” is the goal and mission of the Church. We are members of one body, and having been in Christ when he rose, we shall rise as one.’
That book also discusses what we can know about that kingdom from Scripture, and I agree with Anton’s summary, that ‘Christ’s raised faithful act as his empire administrators in their own lands, reigning over still-mortal fallen humans who reproduce in the usual way’.
“All these questions are dealt with in When the Towers Fall: A Prophecy of What Must Happen Soon.”
Steven you announced here last year that ‘the day of trumpets’ would happen on September 16th last year. What happened?
I’m not sure what label to stick on myself . I believe Jesus died and rose again leaving Satan bound thus inaugurating the 1000 years rein in which we live. Jesus on the throne, we on earth. During this golden age we are able to snatch some from the flames . Satan’s seed still fight in the erroneous belief that Satan will not be bound forever. At the end of the 1000 age he is brought up to the Dock for sentencing, him and his cronies. We are raised to witness justice being done. The millennium closes with a snap in the same way Korah’s rebellion ended. We are left . Every instance of 1000 in scripture is symbolic of a great number not an exact amount. Revelation gathers together this symbolism as a summation for poetic effect .
So what dismissive label do I receive for this hope?
I’m not too bothered about whether it lasts exactly a thousand revolutions of the earth round the sun, but Satan is not bound during the church era, for John, writing in the church era, says that the whole world is in the grip of evil (1 John 5:18-19) and Paul refers to ‘this present evil age.’ (Galatians 1:4). Who can doubt that Satan is behind attempts to undermine the church with mortal persecution, and with Arianism 1500 years ago or liberal theology today? Was Auschwitz no more than human antagonism?
Satan cannot touch the spirits of Christians, but scripture and history affirm that he is not bound today. Happily we have God’s word that someday he will be. Our task is to abide in faith until that day.
Great evils have extensive networks run on fear. Justice works by prosecuting from the top down and from the bottom up. Jesus has put the star of the show in prison but the network is still in place. We prosecute from the bottom up.
Auschwitz was part of the legacy network run by evil spiritual powers on satan’s behalf.
I agree that the whole world still lies in its power but the good news is this: the doors of the prison are unlocked and the jailer has gone. Rise and let us be gone.
sticky Steve.
I agree, when we die we are dead. Like a Monty Python Parrot.
P.S. what is sticky?
funnily enough I also thought of that parrot. As for sticky, labels apparently.
Have any of us faced our own personal end times, death?
And why does it matter? Is that not the crux? Into which the meta narrative enfolds.?
How is our communion, fellowship, with the Holy Trinity standing, in union with pChrist Jesus, against the adversarial prinicipalities and powers in the heavenly realms.
Does Ephesians 1-2 have anything to contribute to eschatology?
Geoff,
I’m beginning to wonder if the eschatology of Ephesians 1-2 and Peter’s address in Acts is the real stuff and the eschatology of Revelation is a diversion to trap the wise in their wisdom.
…which conclusion I hope I don’t come to as I’m booked to go on the trip to see the seven churches 🙂
So is the new, eschatology categories, pre and post and (a)bucket (list) Steve?
I’m firmly of the abucket school of personal end times.
going to see the seven churches is a bit of a bucket list thing to do I s’pose. It has no bearing on my faith however, just something to do which might inspire a bit more art.
One’s eschatology is simply one’s testimony as far as I can see. As, we see through a [broken NLV] glass darkly. How far we discern the reality through the “open door” is determined by how far we are willing to open our mouths and speak. The more we obey the great commission the more we enter.
Geoff: what vision was granted the holy martyr St Thomas à Bucket? Or was he beyond the pail?
James,
The unanswerable question is, did Thomas de Bucket have a list that stretched into eternity, or was it an impulsive, and reflexive, off the top of his head moment?
But, are any of us prepared? And if so, how so and why so?
A few years ago, a believing friend was waiting for a bus home after Sunday morning worship, when a bus travelling in the opposite direction, veered across the road killing her.
Sounds to me like the real fun on that trip will be the discussions in the evenings…
Anton, yes, I hope so but I will take paracetamol with me just in case.
How so? Will the resurrection of the dead occur while you are there?
Not to worry… If the churches turn out not to be there the ruins are fascinating.
lol.
Yes. In 2020 I gave the first lockdown sermon in the congregation I was then in. It included these words:
As for this virus, although I am blessed with good health, I am at greater risk because I am over 60. But I expect to be dead in a decade or two anyway. It’s not about if I die, but when. It always was, and that applies to everyone else, too. What did Jesus say about it? “Those 18 men who died when the tower at Siloam collapsed on them – were they more guilty than anyone else in Jerusalem? I tell you, No! But unless you repent, you too will all perish” (from Luke 13).
If, like Jesus’ audience, you are not a believer, be glad you are alive to hear His words; repent of your wrongdoings and come to him without delay, for this month your soul may be demanded of you.
For believers, this is a preaching opportunity. Most people in our land have supposed that they could wait until they were 70 to think about death and religion, by which time they had lost all interest in religion – but suddenly, here death is! That is what is terrifying to them about risks which are, per individual, not large even for the elderly. Nobody is so old as to think he cannot live one more year, as Cicero said (On Old Age, §24). But heed this warning of James (4:13-14): ‘Hear, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.’
More people will listen to us now, if we have no fear. If, though, you are a believer and in fear then let no other believer condemn you, but rather build you up in your faith. That is what church is for. Find ways to keep interacting with other Christians!
From scoffers, you hear the usual complaint: How could God let this happen? They assume that God is all-powerful and good. They are right, and they are afraid; so turn their fear to God, for “fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (and knowledge of Him is understanding: Proverbs 9:10). Then you can settle their question by explaining the Fall of man and of the natural world, which God will one day undo. As to how God could let this happen, my reply is: I’m surprised He took so long. Look at abortions, family breakdown, the numbers of children being brought up in households without both parents, which they need. God doesn’t act quickly but He does act suddenly. This virus is a fairly gentle reminder to a land which has the vanity to call itself Christian, yet ignores God and his laws, that He hasn’t gone away.
It turned out that even as I was recording these words I was incubating Covid (having refused to miss the last performance of Fidelio before Covent Garden shut down), and I had also listened to a man who argued at that very early stage that the fatality statistics were far worse than the government was letting on. So when it became clear I had it, I considered for the first time in my life that I might easily die. That awareness had a good and lasting effect on my faith. God, of course, was not going to let me give a message like that one without testing that I could practice what I had preached.
As it happens I’ve just returned from GP’s.
The man in front of mentioned something to a member of staff about ‘kicking the bucket’ and the blase brush-off response from the staff, was that she is too young for that, whereas she
is old enough to know far better!
Ah, the ‘bucket list’! You and Anton have reminded me that I have never listened to ‘Fidelio’ yet. I imagine they perform it in heaven, but even so …
It is salutary to remember those who have gone before us (in Hebrews 11 style) and to consider our own ‘legacy’ – the example of life we want others to recall about us. The ancient Greeks thought this was the only glory (kleos) a person could have, but as with most things, they only got half the story. Most modern pagans don’t even rise to the level of the Greeks.
The evocation of joy at the end of Fidelio is a lot less strained than in this 9th symphony, in which I reckon Beethoven was tryting to convince himself after the failure of the French Revolution to bring love and peace.
Yeah. I wondered about that.
Landed in wrong place. I meant to post this after Andrew Godsall’s comment to SR above.
From the conversation I have seen here, I’d say that eschatology strenuously does not matter and should be strenuously ignored. It seems to deflect from the central gospel message of repentance unto remission of sins and leads to unedifying nit-picking arguments which only deflect attention from the central gospel message and make Christians (as a group) look like a bunch of loonies.
As far as Andrew Godsall’s question to Steve Robinson goes – I remember distinctly pointing out at the time that on that day Peterhead beat Bonnyrigg Rose – and anybody who had been following the football during that season would have seen that this was an event of eschatological proportions.
You have a point Jock but Revelation is there for edification etc etc to make a man complete, or it wouldn’t be in the cannon. Unless its only purpose is to act a fly-paper for Calliphoridae Theologicus.
I’m grateful for all the comments, but a bit dismayed that the thread has, as so often in these matters, headed on the gentle downhill slope of arguing from and for pre-established ‘views’ or variable persuasiveness. So I’m in sympathy with Jock’s reaction but in strong disagreement when he says ‘it seems to deflect from the central gospel message of repentance unto remission of sins…’. The idea that you can separate the central gospel message from eschatology seems to me to be a fundamental error, nay impossible. To say Jesus ‘rose from the dead’ is an eschatological statement: Jesus rose out from among the dead, ‘the firstfruits of them that slept’ (if you like the KJB 1 Cor 15.20), that is, he the first amongst many brothers (I don’t like it much Rom 8.29). Whilst it is stubbornly common amongst bible believing Christians, there can be no preaching of the cross without the resurrection (1 Cor 15.17). Early preaching was repentance in the light of coming accountability not without it. The ubiquitous language of Jesus enthronement is from Psalm 110.1 and irredeemably eschatological: he is waiting for his enemies to be made his foot stool. Eschatology often prefaces calls to repentance/holiness (so Mk 1.15; Acts 10.42f; 17.30f.) Arguing the toss on different a-pre-post-millennialism leaves me a bit cold. The basic options were set out by Augustine in City of God 20. It’s not that I don’t think the differences matter, and not because I don’t think some options are not more persuasive than others (for example, any amillennialism that only has space for a heavenly reign of Christ in this age simply cannot be a convincing rendering of any of Revelation’s stuff on the saints reigning on earth with Satan defeated). But my point is that ploughing our beloved and divergent furrows longer and deeper offers no new insights that can be a starting point for common ground. I’m not persuaded by the advocates of Luther’s soul-sleep idea either. Despite real sympathy with its benefits and strengths, but Lk 23.43; Rev 6.10 and Phil 1.22f persuade me otherwise. Dives and Lazarus raises the question of whether even though this has a exaggerated form of many parables (which it may not be) and despite the fact that it is probably akin to a ‘pearly gate’ story it remains possible that it is story the reflects C1 Jewish views on post-mortem existence. On balance it is probably does not have not clear and clarifying weight.
Above all, I think it would be healthier for the church if more of us loved his appearing (2 Tim 4.8) were thinking ‘Come Lord Jesus’ when we pray to Lord’s prayer.