Join My Community!
Tag Archives: Christ and Time
What Does the Future Hold? Pate’s Caricature!
What Does the Future Hold? seems to be a noble attempt to make the various views of eschatology available to the average Christian. In the last post I introduced the dilemma presented by Left Behind theology; namely that in large part due to its popularity and also in conjunction with the non-fiction material written by those who support this view, many Christians (I’d say most in Western Christianity) are under the assumption either that Left Behind is the only view believed in Christendom or at least that it is the only view available.
However, in the end I was disappointed with Pate’s book and in this post I want to explain why.
I was impressed to see Pate bring to the fore Oscar Cullmann’s work, Christ and Time, placing emphasis on the Already/Not Yet principle. I mentioned in another post that it is this principle I would like to see become more commonly taught in churches and in bible studies, and it appears Pate offers here to do just that in this easy-to-read non-academic book on eschatology.
But in the end it seems Pate makes either one of two mistakes: either he does not understand what it is the principle of Already/Not Yet teaches, or he knows but alters this biblical principle to support his own thesis. In other words, either he makes an intellectual mistake, or a bias one. I’ll return to this criticism later.
For brevity sake I am just going to look at his analysis of Premillennialism and Amillennialism only.
Premillennial Misleading:
In the historical analysis of the various views of eschatology Pate places the Premillennail view as the oldest view held by all prominent Christians for the first four hundred years A.D. Aiming to be brief and accessible I can only assume that Pate leaves out certain pertinent information in order to keep things simple. For example, one is left with the impression that all Christians from the Apostle John himself down until the time of St. Augustine were Premillennial. But this view can and has been challenged to show that some of the very earliest of John’s disciples held to something more like the Amillennial view (For example; Case For Amillennialism).
Secondly, Pate makes almost no distinction between Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism even though such a distinction is vast and prudently important. (Consider how these Historic Premillennialist wrote a book against any form of Dispensationalism, pre-mid-post-tribulationism: Case for Historical Premillennialism.) As a result of this error (I’m tempted to refer to it as an outright deceitful approach to teaching in order to give a particular view credibility) – as a result of this error, many have tried to claim that Left Behind theology has historical credibility by claiming roots in the early church. It has no such roots.
Amillennial Caricature:
Here Marvin Pate begins by discussion two different interpretive approaches to the bible, a) a literal approach and b) an allegorical approach. After giving an overview of each approach he charges the Amillennialist of “throwing caution to the wind” by taking the allegorical approach whenever they “feel as though it might be appropriate” [80]. Pates charge is absurd (to the nth degree) and reveals an extreme bias which he seems to be unable to contain.
He claims that the Amillennial view is Platonic in nature (spiritualizing everything) and that if they had kept to a Jewish “literal” interpretation of everything (“which the New Testament authors appear to do” [94]) they would have a proper understanding of the “Already/Not Yet” principle of the Kingdom of God. This makes me wonder if Marvin Pate has ever read the book of Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, the Gospel of Matthew or even (especially) John’s Revelation? For that matter, it makes me wonder if he even read Cullmann’s book (as I have). Where’s this “expert” getting his information from?
I’ll tell you. Marvin Pate is coming at us in this book from an extreme bias in which he is incapable of expressing accurately any view other than his own. This results in setting up strawmen oppositions which can easily be blown over.
Is it throwing “caution to the wind” to interpret Revelation chapter 20 allegorically when most of the book of Revelation is filled with symbolism? Wouldn’t it be throwing caution to the wind to conveniently interpret one chapter literally in what can be described as the most symbolic book of the bible? Isn’t it then the Premillennialist who has thrown caution (and reason and hermeneutics) to the wind by failing to read the biblical books according to their respected genre?
Putting “Already/Not Yet” to Service:
Finally Marvin Pate is very successful in one thing: completely failing to grasp and understand the biblical principle of “Already/Not Yet”. He states:
If the church would have followed the Jewish preference to the literal, normal method of reading a text… then the church’s teaching could have held on to both the already/not-yet tension and a future, temporal messianic kingdom of earth. [94]
What Pate fails to grasp (evidently in his entire eschatological framework) is the significance of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (i.e the Jewish Messiah and also the Messiah of the world). The already/not-yet principle centers on this one event alone, and all things eschatological must revolve around it.
Pate reminds the reader of the Jewish concept of time being three fold: the Age before the Fall, the present evil Age, and the Age to come. Pate believes the “age to come” is the future millennial Kingdom which is inaugurated by the coming Messiah and the Resurrection of the dead, and so believes his view holds closest to the Jewish expectation. He is wrong.
If we know anything from Paul’s encounter with Jesus the Messiah (as Cullmann teaches in Christ and Time) it is that what Paul (as a Jew) expected the Messiah to do at the end of the Present Evil Age, Jesus the Messiah did in the middle – and this is what the already/not-yet principle is all about. It has nothing to do with interpreting a prophecy as having two meanings as Pate believes (totally misconstruing this principle. Did he even read Cullmann?).
The resurrection of Jesus meant that the Messianic Kingdom has begun – it has been inaugurated but not consumated. And so the Kingdom is here (already), but not fully until he consumates it at his second coming (not yet). Get it? Already but Not Yet – as the Amillennialist asserts. Again (redundancy so that he might get it), this principle has nothing to do with some so-called “double fulfillment” prophecy!
What this means for the believer is that the resurrection of the righteous has already occurred “in Christ” as Paul reminds us. And this shines light on the two resurrections in Revelation 20 which have baffled the minds of Premillennialist for ages – they have not been able to understand the resurrection of the righteous or of the wicked in Revelation 20 because they do not understand this principle (failing to grasp completely Isaiah 40-55 and the N.T. explicit teaching of Christ as the representative of Israel [a major point in Cullmann's book] and Paul’s explicit teaching of one people of God, not two, among other things).
Either Pate does not know this, does not understand this, or does not believe what Paul and the other N.T. authors have to say about this. Failing to place the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah in the center of your eschatological model while twisting Cullmann’s biblical principle of already/not-yet (completely missing the point) will result in fantastic and untamed interpretations of the bible and End Times. The kind of fantastic interpretations that can be made into novel series and movies, but not the kind that follows God’s story very well.
Pioneer Scholars: Academic Gems You Must Read!
There are several titles I want to bring to your attention. These books may be difficult to find but if you can get your hands on them, give them a read!
Their work has had tremendous influence in recent movements within the Christian faith. These movements include 1) New Perspective on Paul, 2) Home Church Movement, 3) Atonement Theory, and the tension of 4) Already/Not Yet.
Four Pioneer Books of Influence:
Paul Among Jews and Gentiles by Krister Stendahl
The New Perspective on Paul is a debate flaring up all over the place. On the one side is James Dunn, E.P. Sanders and Pamela Eisenbaum (whose book will be reviewed here next week on Cov-of-Luv). These scholars insist that throughout history the Christian church has misread Paul. It is imperative – they believe – to locate Paul within his Jewish context in contrast to a stereotypical reading of Paul as an Augustine/Lutheran.
On the other side of this debate is John Piper, Guy Waters, and D.A. Carson, who – it seems to me – have reacted against the N.P. out of fear, not of what it affirms, but of what it denies, primarily, the doctrine of the Imputation of Justification.
In this discussion it is difficult to over emphasize Krister Stendahl’s book Paul Among Jews and Gentiles which includes the essay, Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West. The basic premise of the essay is that Luther (and Augustine) imposed on Paul their own guilty conscience and context: Paul as an Augustinian Christian.
Contrary to this Stendahl argues that Paul was not an Augustinian or Lutheran Christian, and first century Judaism was not Pelagian or Medieval Roman Catholic: Paul was – from life to death – a Jew (thus the concept of conversion does not apply to Paul as it did to Augustine or Luther).
Christ and Time by Oscar Cullmann
Oscar Cullmann’s work, Christ and Time, has revolutionized certain discussions about the Kingdom of God, the nature of Justification, and the End Times.
Has the Kingdom of God arrived with Christ, or does it await the future at his second coming? Are Christians Justified in the present, or do we await a future Justification? Has the Resurrection occurred, or does it await the future?
Christians have wrestled with these (and other) dichotomies for centuries. Cullmann’s book has been very helpful in bringing to light the biblical principle of Already/Not Yet. I don’t think there’s been enough discussion at a local Church level of the Already/Not Yet principle, but one can hardly pick up a book on “Christian theology” without getting a firm sense of the influence of Cullmann’s work (a good example is Larry Helyers book The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology).
The tension is this: The Kingdom of God came with Christ, is present, but it has not yet been consummated. Christians are Justified in the present in anticipation of a future Justification based on Works. The Resurrection of the believer has already occurred “in Christ”, but the final resurrection (it’s consummation) awaits the future consummation.
In other words, when studying these issues, the question is not either/or, but both/and, or rather, Already/Not Yet!
Great book!
Ordination: A Biblical-Historical View by Marjorie Warkentin
Back in 1982 Marjorie Warkentin wrote a book, essentially a study, on the subject of Ordination.
From very near the beginning of the Christian faith there has been a hierarchical distinction between a clergy class (priesthood) and parishioners. One of the goals of the Reformers was to restore the biblical concept of the “Priesthood of all believers”. Unfortunately, they had not been very successful in accomplishing this goal because while the term “priest” fell out of use in many (not all) Reformed traditions, that term was replaced with another: the “Pastorate”.
It seems the problem is not so much with terms (either Priesthood or Pastorate – semantics), but with the rite on which the terms and traditions hinge.
In this study Warkentin seeks to unveil the roots of “Christian Ordination”, arguing that it is not a practice found in the Christian bible, but developed very early on in Christian traditions. She believes that true Christian ministry can be (should be) practiced according to one’s spiritual gifts regardless of ordination – that this was the biblical writers intent and what it means to affirm a universal priesthood.
Books like Frank Viola’s Pagan Christianity has picked up on this study and ran with it. Very influential in the Home Church movement.
Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulen
Here is another influential historical study, one that has sparked more debate recently by challenging generally accepted ideas about the Atonement within Protestant tradition.
This book is actually so influential that it is credited with coining the term Christus Victor which, according to the study, is actually the oldest understanding of the Atonement in Christendom (Aulen calls it the “Classical motif”).
Two very influential scholars held (or hold) to this view: C.S. Lewis of a generation or two ago, and N.T. Wright of our own generation. It challenges the current belief that the purpose of Christ’ death was to sacrifice himself in place of humans to appease the wrath of God. Christus Victor contends that though this may (not all agree) be one of the purposes of the Atonement, it was not the only, nor the primary aspect.
The central idea of Christus Victor is the view of God and the Kingdom of God as fighting against evil powers ravaging in mankind. In this drama Christ has the key role, and the title Christus Victor says the decisive word about his role.
Christ did not just come to die in place of mankind, but he came to defeat the works of the devil and to undo the effects of the fall.
Concluding Question:
What do these four pioneer titles have in common?
Top 5 Reads of 2009
In no particular order, here are my top 5 reads of 2009: (more…)
