CHAPTER EIGHT
ESCHATOLOGY
After his remorseless' expose' of the weaknesses of the 19th century liberal lives of Jesus Schwetzer (Schweitzer A, 1906), building on the work of J Weiss (Weiss J, 1971) offers an interpretation of the life and teaching of Jesus which places eschatology at the very centre. All the other themes of his teachings are subordinated to this one central factor - Jesus' expectation of an imminent End. He is portrayed as a sort of eschatological storm-trooper, who is dominated by the belief that by his life and, above all, by his sacrificial death he can precipitate the End. But this was not Jesus original view for, according to Schweitzer, he underwent a radical change in mid-stream. At first, Jesus sent the disciples out on a preaching mission on which he believed would usher in the End (Natt 10, especially v23) consequently he did not expect them to return.
But the disciples did return (Mk 6 30) and the End did not come. Jesus, therefore, had to rethink his position radically. As a result of reflection on the Servant figure 1n II Isaiah and on the fate of John the Baptist, he realizes that be must bear the suffering alone. He must himself absorb all the Messianic woes, die viciously on behalf of the man ;( Mk 10 45l, and thereby precipitate the End. In the one act he could fulfil his Messianic vocation and bring in the Kingdom of God. Thus he expected the End to occur simultaneously.
With his own death. There would be no gap between the Resurrection and the Parousia, his own and the general Resurrection would be one and the same event (Schweitzer).Some of most of the other themes of the teachings are subordinated to this one central factor - Jesus' expectation of an imminent End. He is portrayed as a sort of eschatological storm-trooper, who is dominated by the belief that by his life and, above all, by his sacrificial death. But this was not Jesus original view for, according to Schweitzer, he underwent a radical change in mid-stream. At f1rst, Jesus sent the disciples out on a preaching mission on which he believed would usher in the End (Natt 10, especially v23) consequently he did not expect them to return. But the disciples did return (Mk 6 30) and the End did not come. Jesus, therefore, had to rethink his position radically. As a result of reflection on the Servant figure 1n II Isaiah and on the fate of John the Baptist, he realizes that be must bear the suffering alone. He must himself absorb all the Messianic woes, die viciously on behalf of the man ;( Mk 10 45l, and thereby precipitate the End. Thus he expected the End to occur simultaneously. No gap would be there between the Resurrection and the Parousia, his own and the general Resurrection would be one and the same event (Schweitzer). In fact, everything which Schweitzer considered to be authentic in the Gospel records of Jesus' life is both Schweitzer's view. A common variation on Schweitzer's view is typified in the view of W. G. Kummel (Kummel WG, 1973). He accepts Schweitzer's main contention, namely that Jesus expected an imminent End, but modifies it to allow for a short interval between Jesus Resurrection and Parousia. Jesus' expectation of an imminent End is made clear, he thinks, in such passages as Mk 9 1, 13 30 pars, 14 25, 62, Watt 10 23, Lk 18 8, and the parables of watchfulness, Mk 13 34f, 5 Lk 12 36-8, Matt 12 42f, 25. 1f (Kummel).
He then goes on to argue that there is no evidence that Jesus ever connected his own death and Resurrection With the coming of the Kingdom of God and the Son of Man. Rather, he foresaw that there would be a short interval between these two events - a view which Kumrnel finds 1n Mk 2 18, 14 28, 16 7, Lk 17 22, 18 Sa, and Matt 23 27-9 Thus while he has modified Schweitzer's view, Kummel has not abandoned the central point , namely that Jesus' whole life and ministry was dominated by his expectation of an imminent End.
Kasemann (Käsemann, 1960) argues that the eschatology of II Peter is deChristologised,' de-ethicized and de-centralized; 6 but comparison with the earlier material again shows that the Christology is parallel the ethics similarly orientated, and the place and status of eschatology the same. Many critics maintain that a crisis (caused by the Parousia Delay) is reflected in the (so-called) new arguments adduced by the writer to 'emphasize the certainty of the end and to account in some measure for the delay'. These arguments are as follows:
1. The witness of the Flood to the coming world destruction, ‘vv. 5-7. This, however, is already paralleled to some extent by Lk.17, 26 (Mtt. 24, 37); to be sure the emphasis in Luke (and Matthew) is upon suddenness, but the parallelism of imagery remains. If there is an element of newness in the argument, it can be accounted for by the mockers' objections which are being met: they apparently argued from the non-arrival of the Parousia (v. 4) to a denial of salvation-history as such. It is particularly appropriate in reply to point to a momentous past activity of God in the salvation history which is also a prototype of the momentous act still awaited.
2. The idea of a final world conflagration. But the prototype of the Flood and the Judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire probably gave rise to this imagery.
Already fire and Judgement are conjoined in the Old Testament,' and II Peter 3, 7. 3, 12-13 connect the End with Judgement. Lk. 17 connects the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah with the Flood narrative as parallel examples of God's consuming wrath. Also in II Thess. 2, 8 (I, 7) fire and the End Judgement are brought together.
3. The impossibility of knowing the date of the End. But this (v. 8) is precisely the assertion of Mk. 13, 32 (cf. Mtt. 24, 36; Acts I, 7). It is also presupposed in II Thess. 2, 2-3. The balance of imminence and ignorance found in Mk. 13 3 and II Thess. 24 is maintained by the writer here also. Significantly the reminiscence is given a unique expansion which 'rules out the possibility of taking the meaning to be merely that God's time is measured on a bigger scale than man's.' The expansion shows that the writer is concerned to maintain the open possibility of the End coming at any moment; only man is ignorant of the date. This possibility (emphasized too by the 'sign' of the scoffers' presence), leads to an exhortation to watchfulness in face of the suddenness of the End, (v. 10).
4. God's patience in allowing time for repentance. This, v. g, is but another way of describing the present time as an opportunity for the preaching of the gospel, for which we may compare Mk.13,10 (and II Thess. 2; 6-7 if the interpretation adopted above be accepted) .
5. Repentance and the coming of the End (v. 12).11 Knopf writes 'Merkwiirdig und sehr beachtenswert ist die …: O'm: ulllm kann unmoglich heissen: entgegeneilen und auch nicht: sehnsiichtig erwarten, sondern… is preferable here. Even if the trans. sense is taken there is not necessarily a direct correlation of repentance with the End, as though the former effected the latter, but rather the obverse side of v.g is made explicit; in this sense Acts 3, 20 can be seen as a clear parallel. In neither case, therefore, is v. 12 entirely novel.
6. The appeal to Paul, vv. 15-16. The essence of the appeal is to support for the teaching given, from outside of the writer's own personal authority. In Mk. 13, 31 a similar appeal to veracity is made and again in II Thess. 2, IS. Kasemann argues that 'faith' is in II Peter made 'acceptance of the apostolic testimony'- but this is nothing new! These are the so-called new arguments. A number of scholars further maintain that the number 01 ideas brought together here reflects the writer's embarrassment at the situation and the views of the mockers (showing what a great problem the community was facing). But vv. 17-18 exhort the community not to succumb to the false views of the mockers, implying that it has not yet done so, and it is probable that the writer has brought the full truth to the remembrance of the community from pastoral concern lest it should fall. It is by no means necessarily embarrassment which leads the pastor to relate the whole case against some evil, but a recognition of the real danger which that evil presents to the pattern and particular truths of the primitive tradition. In particular, he has retained the complex pattern of ignorance as to date, imminence of the End, and the grace character of the present. To be sure, the scoffers present a menace. But it is one amongst a number of diverse difficulties and dangers which faced the primitive communities will see here evidence of the supposed crisis through which the church passed-'Nur unter Schmerzen lernte die Kirche, wie unser Brief zeigt, dass die urspriingliche Wiederkunftserwartung, welche das Ende ganz nahe glaubte (Mtt. 24, 34; Mk. 9, I; cf. I Thess. 4, 15 'wir'), nicht zu halten sei. Nur ungern gab man dies er doch notwendigen Einsicht Raum. ‘We suggest that the whole of our review so far of the New Testament evidence tells against this understanding both of the earliest Christian hope and of the situation addressed in II Peter faithful.
But further than this, the comparison with earlier tradition shows that the writer has not 'sought out' all the possible arguments against the mockers, but has faithfully reproduced the total It seems, therefore, most probable that the expression ecrXcXTIj &prx (without the article) is intended to reinforce this interest in the general character of the present. Even if we understand ecrXcXTIj &prx as 'the last hour' it is arbitrary to suppose that the writer has divided the present into a series of hours and means 'the last period of the interval between the first and second comings of the Christ’. The presence of antichrists" is taken by the writer as a sign that the present is ecrXcXTIj &prx; already light shines in the darkness (2, 7-II), darkness 7trxpcX.yE't'rxL, antichrist is in the world ~a1j (4, 3). The present contains the open possibility that the Parousia can occur at any moment.
John 21, 20-23
Many think that the explanation of v. 23 is an early Christian apologetic accounting for the Parousia delay. Against this we must notice that that; context reaches back to v.IS where Jesus is represented as commissioning Peter and predicting his death. In contrast to this the saying in v. 22 is solicited and is not directed to the disciple in question but to Peter: we are, therefore, not to see two parallel predictions but a continuous dialogue with Peter. It is doubtless Peter's curiosity that prompts his question, and the answer given is not a straightforward one.2 It consists of a) a reminder of Peter's proper concern) a hypothesis concerning the beloved disciple. This is a hypothesis (as the form Mg ... 6-AW suggests)," positing a fate as different from that predicted for Peter as may be-fLEvS:Lv ewe;; epxofLcxL.D The explanation, v. 23, confirms that this was but a hypothesis and there is no necessity to suppose 'that the original meaning of the saying ... was that which it was popularly supposed to have', nor is there justification for linking the false understanding of v. 22 with Mk. 9, 1.7 The repudiation is straightforward and dispassionate, suggesting no underlying crisis. The passage is evidence that there existed some in the church at that time who held to a false hope, but there is no suggestion that every member of the community or the responsible leaders of the church were misled. Our original question is addressed, finally. At the outset we must notice that the present period is evaluated highly as a time of watching and repentance 2-and, perhaps, of the proclamation of the gospel; so that the place of the present is not underestimated. More important, we must notice that throughout the book there is a note of delay" which militates against the interpretation of the above expressions as delimiting the End. Whilst we suggest that there is here no delimited hope, there is the conviction that the End is 'near'. What this nearness means, or meant for the early church, is now our problem.
Even so, there are still other predictions of Jesus which seem to imply that he saw the Resurrection, Ascension and Parousia as one and the same event (Mk 831, 931,10 34,14 28, 62 ), and these are not easy to reconcile with Jesus' ethical teaching which, Dodd thinks , implies a continuation of history after Jesus' death.
Finally, we can note the more theological understanding of the tension between realized and future eschatology, which also allows for an extensive continuation of history after Jesus' death.
For example, C B Cranfield's statement that "In some sense the Parousia is near (Cranfield CEB, 1959). It is near, not in the sense that it must necessarily occur Within a month or a few years, but in the sense that it may occur at any moment and in the sense that, since the decisive event of history has already taken place in the ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, all subsequent history is a kind of epilogue, an interval inserted by God's mercy in order to allow men time for repentance, and, as such an epilogue, necessarily in a real sense short, even though it may last a very long time.
This dialectic approach to eschatology assumes that Jesus did believe in an imminent End, but that this belief was such that it did not preclude him from foresee1ng that history m1ght Nell continue for several centuries in one way or another, therefore, scholars can be unlaced into two main groups, those who think Jesus expected the End to come simultaneously with or soon after his death, and those who believe that he foresaw that history would continue indefinitely or at least for a very long time. On the first view, Jesus could not have expected, prophesied or commanded a Gentile mission such as we know took place after his death, since he did not envisage any continuation of history. Even if he expected there to be a short interval between his resurrect1on and the Parous1a, such an 1nterval would scarcely be long enough to contain a mission such as is envisaged Ln Mk1310 pars , a problem which Kummel recognizes and then solves by denying that Jesus foresaw a Gentile mission. Then the next view in which Jesus foresees history which is indefinite he could have said about the Gentile mission which took place after his death. For those who think he did envisage such a mission, this can become - as with Glasson - an argument against Jesus having expected an imminent End.
Pneumatological eschatology is central to Moltmann's theology and an important component. The early Pentecostal movement was as eschatological in its orientation as it was Pneumatological. The move of the Spirit in charismatic dimensions, and especially speaking in tongues as the sign of baptism of the Holy Spirit, was seen as the latter min outpouring of the Spirit in preparation for the Lord's rectum. The theological revisions offered by the aforementioned Pentecostals is an effort to retain the eschatologid and Pneumatological fervor of the early movement, while identifying Pentecostal theology within the contemporary context. These revisions not only critique the alliance PeatecostaIs made with fundamentalism, but re-evaluate the more prophetic vision of early Pentecostalism as a critique of current social-political conditions (Oliver D, 1968). One cannot overstate the innocence that Moltmann has had in the latter half of the twentieth century on Pentecostals and non-Pentecostal alike (Moltmann, Jurgen, 1977).
Pneumatological eschatology is central to Moltmann's theology and an important component in the theological propos& of land, Wafafie, Volfand Macchia. The early Pentecostal movement was as eschatological in its orientation as it was Pneumatological. The move of the Spirit in charismatic dimensions, and especially speaking in tongues as the sign of baptism of the Holy Spirit, was seen as the latter min outpouring of the Spirit in preparation for the Lord's rectum. Although the latter min doctrine waned and fundamentalist eschatology influenced the development of Pentecostalism in the middle part of the twentieth century, at least for the Classical Pentecostais stemming from the Anisa Street revival, eschatology is still an important component of gospel (D. Martin, 2002).
Contextualizing Pentecost theology within the contemporary context. These revisions not only critique the alliance PeatecostaIs made with fundamentalism, but re-evaluate the more prophetic vision of early Pentecostalism as a critique of current socio-political conditions.
Eschatologists differ on the question of the continuity or discontinuity of the kingdom of God in the present with its ultimate consummation. Among our four Pentecostal theologians we find varying degrees of convergence or divergence with Moltmann on this question. Steven Land is clearly influenced by Moltrnann's theology of hope16 and proposes a Pentecostal transformations eschatology as a passion for the kingdom, in which the charismatic manifestations of the Spirit in the present are a prolepsis of the coming kingdom of God. Although Land tends to discuss the future Parousia in tenants of the kingdom of God, he does refer to it as the new creation of the new heaven and new earth as well." The tongues of Pentecost (Acts 2) is the "eschatologid key" for understanding the impulse of the Pentecostal movement. Laad argues that the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit in the here and now is a sign of hope. Land's own eschatology involves both discontinuity and continuity between the present and the future, at times descended by him as a crisis-development dialectic. For the early Pentecostal, significant points of crises were moments when God did something decisive, which made the impossible possible in personal or corporate development. At the same time, the history was ongoing and moving toward its Miment in the kingdom." Land cites MoItmann to que in agreement with him that apocalyptic theology must view the apocalyptic as the separation of sin and death from creation, rather than creation's destruction. For Land apocalyptic hope is discontinuous (Rowley H, 1954).
The deference is that for Moltmann ail workings of the Spirit are sacramental revelations of Christ, whereas Maccbia is specifically interested in defining evidential tongues as one among many sacraments of the eschatological future. Moltoiann's early theology is focused on the "not yet" of the kingdom and therefore calls for the radical transformation of the present. His more recent theology tends to affirm a stronger continuity between the future and the present through the concept of the indwelling presence of God in creation. Macchia has consistently emphasized a balanced view between the already not yet dialectic, seeing the kingdom already present but hidden in the Incarnation, cross and resurrection of Christ. As well, the kingdom is already here in the Pentecost event as the Spirit of Pentecost, yet the kingdom is not yet fully revealed. This full revelation will occur in the eschaton. AU four Pentecostal theologians stand in agreement with Moltmann in envisioning eschatology to reject the fundamentalist's vision of the apocalyptic destruction of the world in favor of the transformation of history and creation into the kingdom of God (Macchia FD, 1996), and the new creation. Land emphasizes the kingdom of God and Volf the new creation, but both concepts are evident in the theologies. For Land, the charismata of the Spikit are the prolepsis in breaking of the kingdom. Volf sees as the in breaking of the new creation. Land does not deal with the millenarian aspect of Moltmann's theology, probably because it was articulated after Land's publication, and Volftiiinks it unnecessary and even detrimental to Moltmann's eschatology. The millenarian of Christ in history risks becoming a historical eschatology that will suppress all contrary viewpoints.
Voifs Christology and pneumatology are strongly influenced by Moltmann as well and therefore integrally connected to the kingdom.
His Christology is a wholehearted adoption of Moltmann's theology of the cross Voif Moltmann's theology of the cross not only sees solidarity as the identity of the suffering Christ with the victims of oppression, but develops the theme of atonement for the perpetuators of oppression. Christ’s sufferings are not merely his own sufferings, but the point of God's identification with the sufferings of the poor and the weak. Because God is in Christ in the suffering of the cross, the cross becomes the event through which the eternal fellowship of God, divine justice and righteousness flow outward into the world. Moltmann's mature Christology, argues Voit supplements the theme of solidarity with the mutual theme of atonement for the perpetuators of oppression. Atonement through God's embrace then becomes the model for human embrace of the Thus Voif takes Moltmann's functional understanding of the cross as solidarity for the victims of oppression and atonement for the perpetuators of oppression and further develops the theme of atonement through the metaphor of embrace (Voif M, 1990). Trinitarian history of God with the world is a history of mutual indwelling. The world's tells is ultimately to become the dwelling place of the triune God.
Volf borrows directly from Moltmann and argues that the Trinitarian Persons cannot be defined as pure relationality. However, the Trinitarian Persons cannot be as pure Person either. The triune God is the community of Persons who fully interpenetrate each other. In this social doctrine of the Trinity, the Spirit is not subordited to Christ, but stands with Christ to bring about the new creation. In human embrace, the peculiarities of the other are inclusively affirmed, not to force uniformity, but to include the other's diversity into my own distinctiveness (Moltmann J, 1991). This political theology resembles the social doctrine of the Trinity. Because the Trinity is "open to creation" for both Molttnann and Voif eschatological hope for humanity and the world has this Trinitarian character.
One can also see the influence of Moltmann's pneumatology in Voifs theology of the Spirit. His theology of work sums from a soteriological understanding of vocation to a charismatic understanding of the gifting of the Spirit.'' Similar to Moltrnann's definition of charism, which makes no distinction between the natural and supernatural the secular and the sacred, thus work as charism is for both the sacred and the secular spheres. The gift of administration is as much a gaffing of the Spirit as the gift of healing." Because work is seen as pneurnatological, the denoting element of work is criticized as contrary to God's new creation Also, because work is based in the Spirit's charisma, a person is not restricted to a single gift or a single task, but may be gifted with many charisms and therefore able to perform many tasks. As such, one may work in several occupation simultaneously or sequentially. All such gifts and tasks are directed by the Spirit toward service to the kingdom.
Macchia too argues for an eschatology similar to that of Moltmann with a strong Christological and Pneumatological framework, but rooted in Johann Blumhardt's focus on the outpouring of the Spirit of Pentecost hidden in history, and Christoph Blumhardt's Christological focus on the Incarnation, cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the basis for social criticism. Macchia uses the Blumhardts' theology as a fail to point out Pentecostalism's overemphasis on the supernatural aspects of the Spirit in healing and other charismata, and on the individualistic aspects of piety (Macchia F.D, 1980). Thepietistic tradition can be a resource for the incorporation of faith and social responsibility into Pentecostalism. This includes criticism of sinful social structures. I suggest that an aspect of Moltmann's theology which could help to deepen the thought of the Pentecostal theologians, with the possible exception of Volf: The dialectic of cross and resurrection is the moment of the in breaking of the eschatological future into the present. The cross reveals the incarnate and suffering God, identified with the god forsakenness of creation, and is the symbol of resistance to all forms of oppression. The resurrection is the symbol of future hope for God's kingdom and a new creation, which seeks the annihilation of death through the victory of Life." Moltmann focuses on the Pentecostal concern to discern the Spirit, and sees the cross as the point of discernment for the Christian life. What endures in the face of the cross is truly of the Spirit of God. Although Pentecostal theologians, especially Macchia and VïIafa do see the cross as an important element of a Pneumatological eschatology, they could strengthen their theologies.