Adrio König's Second Advent biblical analysis under review (looking at Calvinistic eschatology)

Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint Lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

9 March 2011

The first question that needs to be answered, is who Adrio König is. Adrio König studied and graduated together with Hans Larondelle under G. Berkhouwer at the Free University of Amsterdam. Both were professors of systematic theology. Both focus very strongly on the role of understanding the Bible through the eyes of Christ. Both were longtime friends. Adrio König is a Dutch Reformed theologian of South Africa and Hans Larondelle is a Seventh-day Adventist theologian from Andrews University in Michigan. Both shared the view that the Israel of the Old Testament and New Testament was not based on an ethnic or geographical Israel but a faith relationship or covenant relationship with God. Both feel uncomfortable with dispensationalism. In some of Larondelle's books, König wrote the preface and recommended the book, Israel of God in Prophecy.

Adrio König wrote a Bible Correspondence course for his church in South Africa on the topic of eschatology (as it is called in Systematic Theology) or Second Coming of Christ, as he tried to sue the term in the book. In his book Adrio König, Kyk, Ek kom gou! (Hugenote-Kollege: N.G. Kerk-Uitgewers en -Boekhandel, 1974), König attempted to address eschatology. Now this book went through a advisory panel of very famous theologians and scholars: one of them was my teacher, the W.F.Albright graduate student Frederik Charles Fensham. Other names are the Gerhard Hasel Essays contributor P. A. Verhoef. Famous names are also H. J. B. Combrink, J. J. de Klerk, A. B. du Toit, J. A. Heyns (who was killed by assassination), B. C. Lategan, P. C. Potgieter and F. Gaum and D. A. du Toit. The comments of dr. Frits M. Gaum are very important in the preface: that the Bible talks about it, rejoice about it, yearns for it. Every thirty verses in the Bible points to it. The Old Testament promise it in light and shadow language and the New Testament speaks about it with gleaming words. Whole books of the Bible are devoted to this topic. This golden thread goes through the whole of Holy Scripture. In the early church some were over-exited about the topic and others neglected it. Then dr. Gaum said something about his church [Dutch Reform Calvinistic tradtion of South Africa until 1974] and this Second Advent topic: "Concerning the Second Coming there are divergent views about specific parts of the topic and the Dutch Reform Church did not officially announced this topic. Here in course-form n cohesive view of this very important subject of our faith is given and this course is a voice in the Church to which we can listen with attention. The voice does not want to say anything different than Scripture" (Adrio König 1974: redactional). We may let the cat out of the bag here by giving a synopsis of what we have found about Adrio König's view of the Second Coming so far:

1. König, and all the scholars supporting this publication by the advisory board, is of the opinion that one should not start talking about the second coming using Daniel or Revelation or Ezechiel. The reason is that "eventually they [students] land in a mudpool of eisegesis instead of exegesis". As proof for this problem he refers to Mark that demonstrates how difficult it is to understand Daniel's prophecies. This König did by wrongly connected Daniel 11 (whole chapter) to Mark 13:7, 10, 14, 22). Van Wyk note here that the connection with Mark 13:14 and Daniel is undoubtedly. But, it is not a connection with Daniel 11:29 or Daniel 11:26b as Robert Hanhart thought in his article in Orbis Biblicus et Orietalis 38 by M. D. Barthélemy (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 135-157, especially 136-137). He also thought that the connection is between Mark 13:14 and Daniel 11:26b, 29 and Josephus' book 1 Maccabees 1:54 identifying Antiochus Epiphanes here as the culprit. The connections that König vaguely mentioned (to ask the student to read Daniel 11 and compare it with Daniel 13:14 is too vague) are actually only three candidate texts for comparision: Mark 13:14 connected to either Daniel 9:27; 11:31 or 12:11. Textcritical analysis of these three text narrowed it down to only one, Daniel 9:27 for Mark 13:14; Daniel 9:26 for Matthew 24:15 and Daniel 9:27 for Luke 21:20. Both the socalled Septuagint and the private copy of Theodotion support Daniel 9:27 for Mark 13:14. Seventh-day Adventist readers are reminded that whereas Daniel 9:26 refers to the fall of Jerusalem in 70-73 CE, Daniel 9:27 refers to the starting of the Little Horn period in 538 CE in harmony to the predictions of the 1260 years prophecy at various places in both Daniel and Revelation, coinciding with the arrest of the pope in 1798 by Berthier the general of Napoleon.

Getting back to the comment of König, one can only lament that the originals were not consulted before statements were made here. That is despite the fact that all the scholars on the advisory board are very equipped scholars and could have done so. They should have didvided the work so that one member was burdened only with the task of textcritically testing the references for loopholes. That was an oversight on Gaum's part.

2. Adrio König is of the opinion that Christ did not come to teach us things, but Himself (Adrio König 1974: 12). The systematic theologian of the Seventh-day Adventist church who retired at this time this book of Adrio König was written, Edward Heppenstall, wrote in his book Our High Priest chapter 12 [available online] "The tendency is to set doctrine and Christian experience in opposition to each other. To cry 'away with doctrine; let us get back to Christ' would be just as sensible as to say 'away with botany; let's get back to the flowers'; 'away with theology; let's get back to God'. Doctrine and faith go together."

Adrio König refers to the churchfather Origen who said that the kingdom of God came bodily in Christ. We need to note that this topic of the kingdom of God in the words of Jesus need to be looked at in proper perspective. König absolutized the expression and phrase in a way that bulldozed other expression on the kingdom of God pointing to a seemingly opposite point, like in Revelation, out of the way. Christ is high priest now (book of Hebrews) until He receives Kingship from the Father (book of Revelation) at the completion of His priestly function in Heaven on our behalf.

3. Aware of the High-Priest role of Christ in Heaven on our behalf, Adrio König realized his dilemma with the Endtime concept that he has, which we will explain soon, but he brushed it aside saying that Christ is both in heaven and on earth. Says König about this dilemma confronting his own view: "But is Christ then not now on the righthand of the Father where He is interceding for us? (Acts 7:56 and Hebrews 7:25). Yes, that is also true. Christ is now with the Father in heaven . . . and He is also with us on earth. The Heidelberg Cathecism says He is now not any longer as human with us like when He lived on earth, but 'according to His divinity, majesty, grace and Spirit He never forsake us' (Question and Answer 47)" (Adrio König 1974: 32).

Seventh-day Adventists can see the illogical unbiblical part of this view of Adrio König. If Christ is present with us here now then why will we see Him in the clouds coming and not manifesting Himself through us and around us at the Second Coming. Why not talking about Second Unmasking or Second Manifestation time. Why use the clouds, the concept of spatially coming from above-to-below if it is just around-towards us? Jesus definitely and explicitly says He is going away but will leave His Spirit here. He will not be with them until He comes again. This is biblical.

4. Adrio König views the King of Kings coming in 4 BCE to set up His Kingdom worldwide "He does not intent a kingdom with borders, but the worldwide rulership of the Lord" (König 1974: 15). The eschatology of those people that John the Baptist was speaking to, says König, started there when Jesus came (König 1974: 23). That is the last days, that is the endtime. He says: "In the light of these expressions [Mark 1:15; Hebrews 9:6; 1 Corinthians 10:11 and 1 Peter 1:20] it seems that the Endtime, in which the early churches lived, started with the incarnation of the Son of God. And this is important to take note that there is no other endtime in the New Testament. The 'last days' are the days between the first coming and the second coming of Christ. The New Testament does not know of a separate endtime, for example, the time in which we now live, as a independent time with its own character, distinguished from the last days in which we live. The writers of the New Testament knows only one, undivided endtime, and it is the time in which they lived and in which we know live" (König 1974: 23). Van Wyk note that the continual endtime theory of König conflicts with statements by Jesus saying "it is not the end yet". It also conflict with Daniel's questions in Daniel 12 after his viewing the panorama of events through history in chapter 11, namely when is the end of all this. He wanted to know what is the very end of this panorama. It is not true that prophets did not see in succession events following one another. The very phraseology of the prophets are after this I saw, after that I heard, after this I saw and heard. The close book theory about the book of Revelation in the Dutch Reform Church is because they ignore this important aspect of chronological events in history drawn out from the prophet's time until the second coming of Christ, a principle so cardinal in historicism.

5. One of Adrio König's books is called, Jesus the Eschatos but although the phrase is true, namely that the essence of the beginning and end is wrapped-up in Christ and His work on our behalf, yet, this physical stretched application of eschatology starting with Jesus is maximalizing what is in reality of the whole Scripture actually a minimalizing concept with Christ holding back His majesty, His glory, for that specific Day of the Lord at the Second Coming. The continual eschatology view of Adrio König is not biblical. It is an attempt to enter a phrase and blow it to greater proportions to overshadow other statements to the contrary that is meant to bring balance and harmony in the total view. It is the Gestalt that counts, not a blowing up of one or two verses clinically cut from other important references that balance out one's total view of the theme.

6. Adrio König's methodology then wishes to pay tribute to C. Dodd (König 1974: 7) and his realized eschatology which is in similar hot water. The King of Kings came, namely the prince Who will become King at the end of time and appear gloriously at His Second Coming. Judas Iscariot's problem was that he wanted to activate in advance that was reserved for the End of Time near and at His Second Coming. The Kingdom of God will come near or will arrive in Christ since He is the future King of Kings but He came as a lamb not as a king and this distinction was difficult for the Jews to understand. What was meant by the authors of the New Testament and speakers like John the Baptist as the King and Kingship and Kingdom is near physically with the arrival of Jesus, is taken by Dodd and König in a maximal amplification as the reality and physical sense of these aspects came to remain forever. The Catholic Church did the same error in their theology of the Kingdom of God and they are viewing it that the church task is to increase the Kingdom of God on earth by building more Catholic Churches and getting into society, politically, economically and intellectually in control, as a sign of that Kingdom that came physically. Calvinism is also a political religion and strive for the same objectives. It was the state church in the Afrikaner regime era of South Africa. This view is not biblically balanced since other texts in the New Testament indicate that the Kingship will be handed to Christ after He finishes His task currently under way, of High Priest on our behalf. Also the whole Old Testament testifies that the Day of the Lord Coming is glorious as King and no longer as Priest. We should not mix priestly functions and kingly appearance. That does not minimize Christ as prince who will become King in future, since it is a future reality and a present fact that He is the sure future King. This world was God's Kingdom but Satan stole it through the fall of Adam and Eve from God and Christ did come according to the Trinity Eternal covenant to get back successfully this world from Satan. Satan lives on borrowed time and has still a role to play on this stolen property, but God will reign on the New Earth after the recreation of this degenerated and corrupted earth. Environmentalism will not improve this situation.

7. About the signs of the end, Adrio König claims that earthquakes occurred at the cross and was fulfilled there. "It is thus unbearable when faithful people only want to seek for the fulfillment of these signs in our own time. Of course the signs are also in our age, but it was there since the first century and in every age thereafter" (König 1974: 74). According to him the role of signs were not to warn the church "the signs were not given to say to the church when the Second Coming will be close, but to continually keep the church ready because the Second Coming is always near" (König 1974: 74). "The end of time started already with the birth of Jesus. His Second Coming is thus near from the time the apostles started preaching it. His coming is not now for the first time near" (König 1974; 67).

8. Adrio König wants to cancel any form of calculation towards the endtime: "From the message that the Second Coming is near, it is already clear that all calculations are prohibited. How can man calculate when something will be near, if it is with all emphasis proclaimed from the beginning that it is [already] near?" (König 1974: 67). This observation of Adrio König is in contradiction with the book of Daniel that asks the reader to calculate.

9. Adrio König's view is vague and uncertain about the Second Coming and he knows it "you will understand why we do not have any clear image with full information about the Second Coming of Christ and everything that goes with it" (König 1974: 51).

10. On the topic of the fulfilling of God's predictions, Adrio König felt that "the person who predicts it, has enough knowledge and words to present what one or another time will happen. The kind of event that is going to take place, must have been already known to him. . . There must be already knowledge about the subject before predictions can be made in this way . . . The kind of situation or event that is predicted, falls already within the experiental field of the early prophet and his audience" (König 1974: 50-51). The preterism of König cannot be missed here. The ability of God to show Daniel in Daniel 2 succesive regimes through millenia is brushed aside by this observation of König who only wants to provide empiricism as a method to analyze the prophet, that means rationalization that will cancel any wonder, miracle, vision and future dreams of the prophet as a supernatural reality.

11. One of the most difficult passages for Adrio König was 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8 "we have here in 2 Thess. 2:6-8 one of the most secretive and difficult sayings of Paul" (König 1974: 130). He present three views: a. Roman empire and the Roman emperor, b. heathen mission and Paul; c. supernatural power of which some thought of the Holy Spirit. He concluded "we do not know for sure what or who Paul saw as the restraining power" (König 1974: 132). Herman Ridderbos said about the preaching of Paul that "he did not have specific historical phenomena or events" in mind writing here (Herman Ridderbos, Paulus -ontwerp van zijn theologie [Kampen, 1966], 587 as cited in König 1974: 132). Laying the foundation for confusing the issue of the identity of the Antichrist in John and Paul, König made the following statement finally: "Througout history, from the time of John, there were antichrists, but that does not exclude that we may still have the concentration of antichrist powers in one person" (König 1974: 132).

There is a difference in view among the Reformed scholars surrounding this passage of Paul and the concepts of John about the Antichrists. Adrio König in Jesus Christus die Eschatos (Pretoria: 1970): 414 discussed the difference between G. Berkhouwer and H. Ridderbos on this topic. Adrio König lists examples of scholars who made a study of the difference between Paul and John on the topic of antichrists: J. Barnard, Die Wederkoms van Christus (Bloemfontein: 1954); D. R. Snyman, Die Wederkoms van Christus (Roodepoort: 1968); Adrio König, Een wat sterker is (Pretoria: 1971).

Van Wyk notes that it is important to see the difference between the statements of John and Paul since Paul is speaking in the singular but John in the plural. Daniel 8:11 is connected to 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Although Rudolph Bultman considers it as mythological (F. F. Bruce page 88) we feel it should be brought in connection with the Little Horn of Daniel and its actions. The method to read this pericope is to start with verse 7, then 6, 4, 3, 2, 1. In 8a is the revelation of the lawless one and in 8b is the Second Coming or Parousia. There is a continue from now until the coming. The Roman Catholic Church with the vicarius filii dei function or 666 qualification in their Eucharist fulfills this verse since 538-1798 CE. The works of lawlessness is not the same as the lawless one, not the same as the man of lawlessness (verse 3) and not the same as the work of Satan (verse 9). But there is a connection between the two works mentioned since the same Greek word is used linked to Satan. A correct reading of Daniel 8:10 will identify it with the Roman Catholic Church, Daniel 8:11 with Satan since there is a change in gender in this verse different from verse 10 and 12 and in Daniel 8:12 again the Roman Catholic Church. With this template of interpretation of Daniel one can understand Paul better and identify the different aspect and personae involved better. The background is the understanding that at the end of time there will be false reform, breakaway, true reform and an influx and then the Second Coming.

Since we are dealing here with Calvinistic scholars' analysis of this passage in Paul, let us ask Calvin who it is.

Said John Calvin;

"It was said of Nero that he was taken from the world and would return again to persecute the church by his tyranny. This was nothing but an old wife's fable, and yet the minds of the ancients were so bewitched that they believed that Nero would be Antichrist. Paul, however, is not speaking of one individual but of a kingdom seized by Satan for the purpose of setting up a seat of abomination in the midst of God's temple. This we see accomplished in popery" (John Calvin, Epistles to the Thessalonians, Calvin Commentaries series Vol. 4 [1960]: 399).

12. What about Gog and Magog, Armageddon? Says Adrio König "All endtime events are taking place in the endtime or in the last days, and the endtime is the whole time between the going to heaven and the second coming" (Adrio König 1974: 157).

Finally, it is clear that the Seventh-day Adventist theology of eschatology is a progress in the history of Christian interpretation that means Calvinists, who even do not follow Calvin any longer, are finding themselves starving in ideas of eschatology and skinny in appearance, ready to be scooped up by what they perceive as the "Great Theologians" that can navigate them today. Unfortunately, misled by these borrowings [Bultmann, Dodd, etc.] at times.