Keith Mathison's little book serves an introduction to eschatology. In the opening chapters he defines the major millennial views before looking at a "history of eschatology" from early church history all the way to the Enlightenment (his historical presentation is quite biased towards postmillennialism, but that's to be expected). The bulk of the book examines postmillennialism's support throughout the Old and New Testaments, and he devotes the last few chapters to establish what postmillennialism is not (over against its caricatures in misrepresentations in evangelicalism) and to answer some of the biggest objections posed to those who hold postmillennial views. He includes two appendices, one examining and dismantling "Full Preterism" and the other looking at the "Man of Lawlessness" and eschatology in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. This book is a great introduction to postmillennialism, it's pretty short, and it covers most of the objections I've heard lodged against postmillennialists.
The most common objections are rooted in two different approaches to a variety of New Testament texts. Postmillennialism has a preterist interpretation of many texts that (a) agrees with the convictions of the early church, (b) makes historical, cultural, and theological sense, (c) would make sense to the original readers/hearers, and (d) fits with the wider "programme" of Christ's mission as prophesied in the Old Testament--namely, to make the nations his inheritance and spread his dominion from east to west. Premillennialism has a futurist reading of the texts texts, an interpretation that (a) is relatively recent, (b) wouldn't make a lick of sense to the original readers/hearers, (c) has been widely spread despite much incredulity from New Testament scholarship, and (c) creates conflict with the wider body of scripture.
A preterist reading of many of the "apocalyptic texts" of Jesus (such as Mark 13 and their Synoptic parallels; perhaps even Revelation as John's own version, since he lacks it in his gospel) may look something like this: Jesus preached a message of coming judgment on the Jews who rejected him and thus rejected God. This judgment would take place soon, when Jesus' contemporaries were still alive. Jesus condemned outlying Jewish towns for their unbelief in him, naming them Sidon, Tyre, and Sodom; and when he came to Jerusalem, he alluded to her as Babylon. His teachings and warnings of coming judgment echoed Old Testament stories of God judging the rebellion of His own people by means of pagan armies trampling Israel and Jerusalem to the ground. The language we find in Mark 13 and its parallels (and we see this same language throughout the gospels) would've indicated to Jesus' original Jewish hearers that he was talking about a socio-political event of cataclysmic proportions that would occur and occur SOON on God's rebellious people. He urged the people to abhor violence rather than embrace it. Those who determined to live by the sword would die by the sword. Those who refused the way of peace would be judged by God. A powerful Pharisaical sect urged revolution in the name of God, and Jesus' explicit warnings of judgment and calls to repent of violence or suffer God's wrath would've been good incentive for these Pharisees to get rid of him. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 vindicated Jesus' messiahship and was the means by which God judged those Jews who had rejected his Son.
A lot of evangelicals don't like this approach, and for a lot of reasons. There's the issue of interpretation: preterism, I believe, makes more sense and is valid, but that isn't to say that futurist readings of the text are invalid on their own. Because they're futuristic, such interpretations are relieved of "the burden of proof." Let's not forget that many of our cherished doctrines (such as an end-times eschatology based on Mark 13 and its parallels) are dependent upon a futurist interpretation; sometimes we grow so fond of certain doctrines that we will refuse to hear any approach other than our own. I'm guilty of this just as much as anyone. I also think that we often have difficulty imagining Jesus as being "rooted in history," so-to-speak. We like to approach his teachings and parables as "timeless treasures" that carry as much (if not the same!) meaning to us today as they did to Jesus' original followers. But if Jesus was indeed God in the midst of the "real world" of 2nd-Temple Palestinian Judaism on the verge of rebellion against Rome, why would Jesus not address it? Is God so removed that he would have absolutely nothing to say on the matter? Warnings of impending judgment in the absence of repentance are seen AGAIN and AGAIN throughout the Old Testament prophets. Isaiah and Jeremiah preached "Repent or be judged!" and it's no surprise that most Jews identified Jesus as a prophet in the same manner as Isaiah and Jeremiah. If Jesus is indeed "rooted in history," if he did indeed address not us in the 21st century but those Jewish people who were playing with the idea of rebellion if not thinking it outrightly, if he is the sort of God who gets his hands dirty and addresses the direct, cultural, and political concerns of the day, tell me: Does this make him any less divine? Does this make him any less worthy of love, of worship, of devotion? Are we to think less of him if he actually got involved in the affairs of the world around him rather than contenting himself to traveling around the countryside preaching timeless truth?
Such preterist readings of scripture often get two responses. The conservative evangelicals will tell you that you're trying to get out from under the rug of the Second Coming, or that you're changing scripture to fit some sort of agenda to make Jesus' coming "less real." The liberal skeptics will tell you that you're giving Jesus too much authority and making him too credible! Do I, with my preterist reading of certain New Testament texts, believe in the 2nd Coming of Jesus? I sure do! I just don't think it's talked about in all the places we might think. I'm not trying to get out from under the rug of anything, and I believe Jesus is authoritative and credible. Many of peoples' biggest hangups when it comes to postmillennialism would be whisked away by a simple and patient examination of some more historical approaches to the text.
No comments:
Post a Comment