I have been thinking a lot, lately, about the ‘second coming’ of Jesus Christ; it really excites me! We certainly live in perilous times, times that are moving us closer everyday to the imminent return of the Lord. A time is coming upon us where there will be no more sorry or pain, sickness or death, crying or lonliness; just a time of consummate love and unbroken koinonia with our ‘Bride’ forevermore. We live in a time of anticipation, a season where we are always waiting, always hoping, always wondering: “is this the Day?” We live in a time of faith, not sight; we live in a season where the kingdom has been inaugurated “now,” but “not yet!” Torrance comments on John Calvin’s eschatological understanding:
. . . It was a decided return to christology which first brought this about [eschatological thinking] (cf. Bernard of Clairvaux whom Calvin cites more than anyone else apart from Augustine), for when salvation is lodged fully in Christ then he in his own person fills the whole vista of faith, while the reality of his presence through the Spirit means the reality of the presence of the kingdom here and now. But as he has ascended and withdrawn himself from worldly visibility, without detracting from his personal nearness, faith inevitably looks for the hour when the veil will be torn aside, and Christ will appear in glory and completely substantiate the faith of the church. Until then the faith of the church is nourished by justification and the sacraments which are thought of in terms of the God-manhood of Christ as seen particularly in the light of the cross and resurrection. That means that the eschatological tension that reached its acutest point in the person and work of the mediator is enshrined in the tension between justus et peccator (justified and yet a sinner) and between real presence and bread and wine. To the word of justification, the sacraments add the pressure of imminence, so that the two together on their christological basis contain the heart of Reformation eschatology. [brackets mine] (Thomas F. Torrance, ed. Robert T. Walker, “Incarnation,” 299)
Have you taken ‘communion’ lately? Remember what Jesus said (my paraphrase), “that He would not drink of the fruit of the vineΒ until He comesΒ in His kingdom.” The sacrament of eucharist presses us up against the reality to which it points, the justifying God in Christ who promises to fill that sacrament up with the reality of His consummate form in His second coming . . . until then, we wait (I don’t think for much longer), by the Holy Spirit!
*I think I am going to start talking more about this, again; it is our hope, He is coming again! I may or may not try to tie it into “Evangelical Calvinism;” the reality is, though, ‘EC’ has latitude on this issue . . . it is pretty friendly to every kind of millennial schema, except for postmil π .
I don’t see any evidence for Jesus’ return being any more “imminent” than, say, during the late middle ages (black plague killing 1/3 or more of Europe and the utter corruption of societal mores and the near-loss of the Gospel in the church). Other examples abound (world war II and the holocaust, Soviet and Chinese dictators starving millions of peasants, and so on). So, yeah, I’m not impressed by the supposed “economic armageddon” (one of David Jeremiah’s latest books) or any other silly indicator for why the end times are near. We have no more reason to believe that the end times are near than did the 14th century French peasant.
Bobby,
What’s the issue with Postmil? I appears to me that there are a many Postmil verses in the Scriptures as there are Premil, Amil, or Panmil.
Tony
Wow, I should proof read stuff before I click ‘Submit Comment’. π
Tony,
I just don’t like postmil . . . I was kidding about its exclusion π . I know that I have at least one postmil reader, so that was mostly for him.
@Kevin,
I disagree with you. Although I’m not saying that I can predict the Lord’s coming, or that I have some “golden plates” around; what I’m saying is more in the gist of Romans 13.11,12:
In fact this is the passage I was thinking of when I entitled this post.
I think its an unfortunate reality, Kevin, that for many of us more academically oriented Christians; the belief in the second coming of Christ is almost a non-existent reality in terms of praxis. And yet this idea of “imminence” is constantly appealed to in Scripture, occassionally used as a prod for ‘Holy Living’. What I find, esp. amongst ‘the learned’ is that the urgency disclosed in Scripture on this topic, like I said, in general, is downplayed and almost a non-factor for these kind’s of people . . . that’s unfortunate! I think ‘academic’ types want to disassociate themselves from any kind of “Evangelical” ‘Left Behind’ hysteria; so in the process, the “baby gets thrown out with the bath water,” and any discussion on these topics is almost scorned — when in fact the NT (and OT) are replete with “subjunctive warning clauses” appealing to the reality of the second coming in order to urge Holy and urgent living . . . in re. to both proclamation and sanctification.
I said I disagreed with you earlier. True, you can point to horrific things in history; I can point to horrific realities in the recent past and into the present (such as living conditions in 3rd world countries, etc.). But the reality is, is that none of those things you point to happen on a global scale. The truth is it is highly conceivable that the global scaled climax of salvation history could come to fruition almost over-night. I’m premil, historic, but premil; I do have a certain belief and expectation of imminent judgement on this earth; and I do believe that prior to Christ’s coming that there will be a ‘great tribulation on this earth, like never seen before’. And I do believe that this isn’t some sort of idealistic pie-in-the-sky drama put in the text to capture some sort of abstracted battle between good and evil. I believe that at some point on this very earth, there is going to be a terrible drama played out; one that the Bible is clear on.
I don’t really know what you believe about such things, Kevin; but now that you’ve heard my “confessions” you know what I believe π .
Kevin,
Does the thought of the return of Christ excite you? Does it have an impact on the way you live your life?
I mean the reality is, is that there is corporate eschatology and personal; this post, mostly is referencing the former. I potentially could have had my ‘personal eschatology’ realized as a result of succumbing to my cancer. Each one of us is faced with the “nearer” reality of Christ’s “coming” in very personal, real, and sudden ways.
So either way, whether corporate or personal, the point of my post holds true; His coming is “nearer” than when we first believed . . . so get ready!
Bobby,
I don’t have any problem with keeping a vibrant sense of expectation concerning the coming again of Christ, just as with our own imminent death: either can happen at any moment. So, that’s not what I’m arguing against. I’m arguing against the “perilous times” statement, which, like I said, has had greater claim in the past. By my reckoning, the World Wars, Cold War, and genocides of the last century covered a pretty wide share of the globe: the genocides and systematic starvation happened in Germany, the Eastern bloc, China, sub-Sahara Africa, and Latin America. Much of that has passed, with Sudan and some other notable exceptions. And, it does not appear that such horrors will happen again on such a large scale…at least, not in the foreseeable future. China and India are now entering into the first-world economy, where mutual economic inter-dependence will quell any war impulses, as it has done in Europe, which will then open the means for liberal (pacifistic) educational mores. One by one, other countries, following China and India, will enter the world economy and enter an increasingly global academy. Moreover, the internet will greatly facilitate this spread of liberal (=modern) economics and liberal (=modern) humanism.
Of course, for all I know, the world economy could utterly collapse and governments topple: re-introducing a feudal society or the Second Coming! I don’t know, and that’s the point: I don’t know. I’m certainly not impressed by any signs of the times.
As for my millennial position, I happily don’t have one and don’t care to have one. Each position can only achieve a marginally greater probability, one way or another. There is no hermeneutic or dogmatic contingency that requires any particular position, so I’d rather remain agnostic.
As I’ve mentioned to you before, this is why I am strongly opposed to the EFCA’s premillenial clause in our Statement of Faith. It does not belong in a statement of faith because it does not belong to the certainty of faith.
I know, Kevin. But as you know of me, as well; we disagree on this point. I do have a particular position on this, and I do follow a hermeneutic that is at odds with the one you follow — I think. I’m not “dogmatic” alone, in fact I’d rather leave “dogmatic” alone; except I can’t π .
All I’m doing, Kevin, when using language like “perilous time” is using Bible language; I have no qualms about that, even if it has been coopted in some unfortunate ways.
As far as your commentary on current affairs, I simply disagree with you; again π . If you held to a schema on globalization, you would have more issues with it . . . probably. Since you don’t, then I don’t really have a point of contact with you to converse around on this. I don’t have a problem with you and your pan-millenialism. Of course the text does teach something of it, one way or the other; I realize some don’t feel they can commit to any particular version — obviously I’m not one of those.
All I know is that the analogy that Jesus used of birth pangs, and such, gives a certain picture of telos and apocalypse, Kevin. Creation is moving forward to her telos (and from by the way); and part of that movement “forward” means that there is an “actual” day set wherein the glory of God in Christ will indeed, bodily be revealed! I don’t know how agnosticism can stand in the face of this kind of scriptural clarity about the “coming.”
As far as Jeremiah, he ain’t the only one noticing financial issues — again, since you don’t have a problem with globalism or don’t see that indicative of the “end” this won’t matter to you — but the way I see it, gloabalization is highly problematic for a variety of reasons (not just theologically). I will say though, that if you don’t see the monetization of nearly a trillion dollars as a problem; well then, we disagree, again π .
I think we just disagree on all of this stuff, Kevin π . But at least we agree on the “essential” things.
Bobby,
What is it that you don’t like about Postmil?
I used to be a committed Postmiler. These days I couldn’t give two hoots about any of the three. Even so, I am interested to know more.
Tony,
If anything between postmil/amil, I would go with the latter; in fact I did for awhile, but the “Greek” in Revelation 20 won’t let me be amil. Ijust see no warrant, at all, for postmil. The picture that Scripture paints of the time leading to the end is not the idealic picture that postmil provides (I’m thinking of Is. 23–26; Mt. 24; Mk. 13; Revelation, etc.). I used to blog on this stuff all the time, years ago; I might start blogging on it more, again.
Stanley Grenz’s Millennial Maze is good, if you haven’t read it yet.
We still love ya Bobby!!
But I do like the tie in between our expectation and the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. ‘Do this until i come… ‘
I am mainly amiller, I don’t like modern post mill/preterist/FV/American vision/theonomy/reconstruction/manifest destiny concoction that is going around, and the old post mill stuff was just as much clock watching as premillers – see John Brown’s Self-Interpreting Bible. And as for Act 9/12 out Dispensationalism, don’t get me started….
Blessings Bro, kept provoking thought.
I still love you too, SG π .
I’m sorry to hear that you’re amil, but I do understand . . . really; I’ve had good things to say about amil in the past, check out this link:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Eschatology/Millennial-Views/Amillennialism/
But, alas, I’m still too much of a Greek geek to think that amil has purchase. G.K. Beale has the most persuasive argument for an amil interp of Rev. 20; but in the end, it just won’t do. Robert Mounce provides the best critical commentary on Rev. 20 that I’ve seen; and it comes from the historic premil side of things.
I grew up classic dispy, I’ve been a professing and argumentative progressive dispy for the last 12yrs, and its only as of late that I’ve been comfortable to declare that I’m historic premil . . . the best of both worlds (amil and prog dispy premil).
I’ve come across plenty of amil “clock-watchers” as well. π But you know, we can’t all be right; you have what amil says and then you have what the Bible says (premil), I go with the latter, obviously π π π π hehe.
I’m cool with that. Amill is the position of the church i was in, and you’ll know the classic writers on the subject, up to The Riddle. After my time on a bulletin board debating with Preterists (kosher, and non kosher), FV types, and the aforementioned 9/12-ers, I just about gave up on the whole idea. My amill came out of the Biblical Theology I was reading, and tended to focus more on what the end result would be, rather than a calendar of events of the final years of the Late Great Planet Earth. The biggest move in my thinking was from the idea of ‘going to heaven’ to that of the New Earth and New Heavens. Since then, i haven’t paid much attention to it, and I’m not sure if KB did. You’ll obviously guess that i don’t want to move in any potential Left Behind direction, and that I have taken on board some of the Preterist ideas with regard to the little apocalypse.
Is there anything online you can point me to about Rev 20? Never let it be said i don’t consider other views if decently presented (ie, without an accompanying franchise).
Yeah, the intersection of time and eternity and how that is thought out is indicative of how one will parse or emphasize the particulars of their respective millennial views. Yeah I don’t think KB’s public work involved the “particulars” of such things, but he must’ve held something . . . I would venture that he would be amil like TFT (I believe was).
I don’t know of anything online off hand. Like you, I haven’t been trafficking in this like I used to; but I still have certain convictions here. If I had more time I might try to present something, but I don’t think blog posts can do much more than suggest certain trajectories.
I would just try and get my hands on Mounce’s commentary on Rev. 20, that piece might be available online somewhere . . . I don’t know.
Thanks SG
Yes, as with KB, you will notice that all the great theologians don’t even address the issue. This usually makes them amill by default, but really we’re reading a foreign label onto their work. Barth and Torrance are not really amill; rather, they belong to the what-the-heck-are-the-Americans-up-to-now school of millennial agnostics. π
Well Barth and Torrance can’t be right about everything, almost π .
Interestingly, Preterist Archive are claiming KB as one of their own.
KB does believe in the personal return of Christ, he does believe in a final conversion of the \Jews, that much i have come across. the specifically millennial stuff i have not seen a reference to, yet.
Perhaps someone could photoshop a picture of KB reading hal lindsay, with the title, How i changed my mind part 3.
SG,
Preterists are out to lunch π . Full, that is . . . I don’t even buy partial.
KB is a historic orthodox believing Christian, so he’d better believe in all of that stuff π .
I don’t know photoshop, but that would be funny π .