Gleanings in Eschatology

koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

18 August 2010

The Seventh Day Adventist church is a church that is more reformed in outlook than any Reformed tradition seminary today. Most, if not all Reformed tradition seminaries are working with a Reformer tradition denial in essence although they cover it up with prooftext citations in the footnotes of the particular Reformer involved. Liberal Lutherans even apologized to the pope for the stances of Luther in the past. The Adventist church is also a second coming church. The nearness was and is always a topic of consideration. The structures of Futurism and Futurism churches find no place in the Adventist church.

Role of Historical Criticism in Eschatology understanding

Eschatology in other denominations suffered the onslaught of the JEDP theory of Wellhausen, namely historical-criticism.

They will come to the book of Isaiah for example, but then allocate the first half, chapters 1-39 to an early writing but later than Isaiah, namely the exilic period (586-539 BCE) and the second half, chapters 40-66 to a later writing even later than 586-539 BCE. There are a lot of eschatology in the second half of Isaiah. Adventists see the whole book as written by Isaiah but it was combined by Isaiah from documents and manuscripts that he has written over his whole life, documents from his youth, from his adult years, from his years as a geronti (40-66). My grandmother used to have a lot of dreams of the coming of Jesus when she got old. Why not Isaiah's focus as well?

In a Reformed tradition book of eschatology we find the following lament on the role of historical-criticism and Isaiah as eschatological source:

"Het historisch-kritisch ondersoek heeft ons met dwingend noodzaaklijkheid duidelijk gemaak dat wij moeten onderscheiden tussen de eerste en de tweede Jesaja" ("Vervulling en Volending", H. Baarlink, W. S. Duwekot, A. Geense in De toekomstverwachting in het Nieuwe Testament [Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij, J. H. Kok - Kampen], 15).

Handicapped by historical-criticism. It is the same position by T. C. Vriezen in "Prophetie und Eschatologie" Congress Volume Copenhagen 1953 (Leiden: 1953), 88-128 and also the position of H. D. Preuss, Eschatologie im Alten Testament (Darmstadt: 1978). They will not analytically mix the information from Isaiah 1-39 with that of Isaiah 40-66 due to this disposition in their modus operandi on the basis of preconceived ideas and axioms inherited, adopted uncritically from Julius Welhausen.

The book of Baarlink is divided in the following topics:

1. pre-eskatologiese voorstelling voor de klassieke profete, [pre-eschatological configurations before the classical prophets] and here they think of Genesis 12:3 and Genesis 49. They also included Numbers 24 and Deuteronomy 33.

2. proto-eskatologiese voorstellings van Jesaja en tydgenote, 8 ste eeu. [proto-eschatological configurations of Isaiah and his contemporaries] for example Hosea 1:9; Isaiah 6:10; Ezechiel 7:2.

3. aktualiserende spreke van Deuterojesaja en ander tydens die Ballingskap. [actualization speeches by Deutero-Isaiah and others during the exile] for example Isaiah 40:2; Genesis 6:13; Isaiah 43:18; 51:5; 60; 62; 65:17-19; Haggai 2:7; Zechariah 6:9.

4. transedenterende eskatologie waardeur heil alleen na n geweldige kosmiese katastrofe gaan wees. [transcedental eschatology where salvation will by only after a great cosmic catastrophe] for example: Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezechiel 36:26; Isaiah 30:23; 11:6; 35:5; 25:8; 9:5; 2:3 and Exodus 3:14 "I will be what I will be" = "Ik zal zijn die Ik zijn zal".

The uninformed reader must not miss the role of Wellhausen on the categorization of these socalled Reformed theologians. There will be a difference between them and John Calvin as there is a difference between day and night. Their pastors learn it during their seminary years and forget it as soon as they arrive at the pulpit since it does not work with the ordinary members who are fundamentalistically orientated. Pragmatically, historical-criticism is discarded since it is not fit for the pulpits, but theoretically and academically it is the only language that they desire to venture on, if they are academically involved. This dichotomy between academics and ministry is one of the most serious handicaps of Christianity at large. The Seventh Day Adventist church, does not suffer from this dichotomy since it never endorsed historical-criticism in any of its forms ever since its inception.

Ten years before I met George Fohrer in Jerusalem in his house, he wrote an article for the book of H. D. Preuss, in 1979 "Die Struktur des altestestamentlichen Eschatologie", 171-178. His main point was that where in the Old Testament the authors referred back to the Creation, one also finds the future expectations. It means that one will always find Creation expectations and Future expectations mixed. This is not a new concept and also in Karl Barth one finds the concepts that Endzeit is Urzeit. Eschatology is contemplating Creation.

Preterism as another handicap to understand Eschatology

There is a second handicap that modern Reformists are struggling with. It is preterism. They were also excited with Adventists in 1844 that the 2300 years started in 457 BCE and that the coming of Christ was near in 1844, that means employing historicism as modus operandi in their hermeneutics of prophecy. But, when the disappointment came, they ran by the thousands. Instead of breaking through together on the misunderstanding to understanding. they ran away and threw the baby out with the water. So the adopted a ultra-preterism that does not allow any future prediction to be considered in our time.

We find thus C. van Leeuwen making the comment: "But can the whole prophecy be called eschatological? If we take eschatological in the narrow sense of the word, as referring to the end of the world and history, and the beginning of a completely new one, we cannot speak of eschatology before the exile. If we may take it in a broader sense, as relating to the end of the present worldorder and the breaking in of a new divinely created order, even though the events were to take place within history and not beyond it, then the pre-exilic prophets did have an eschatological doom". The first problem we can sense with the theologians analyzing prophecy in the Old Testament, is that they deny that prophecy is given by God. The second point is that they deny that God is in control of history and wants to connect it purely to history per se. Hardly a Reformed seminary across the globe is not suffering from this handicap.

Maslow's five basic needs with the ignoring of the sixth

A third handicap that the whole world is actually submitted to subconsciously, which contributes to the symptoms of the disease in eschatological analysis around the globe, is the adoption of the world's empires and governments of Maslow's five basic needs as the only classification towards an "utopian design". All aspects of all societies emphasize only these five needs of Maslow regardless of the fact that he declared and corrected himself in 1968-69 that there is a 6th need, the need for man of transcedental. There is thus a organized blinding of all people across the globe in all systems of society and the insistence is to cut out any form of religion, religious talking, religious consideration from any system of society, whether it is education, or any other facet of society. That is why we have lopsided societies across the globe. The surpression of any consideration of the metaphysical leads to a numbness to consider eschatology and its importance for us today.

In 1978 W. G. Lambert considered the background of Jewish Eschatology (W. G. Lambert, The Background of Jewish Apocalyptic [London: Athlam Press, 1978]). He found that M. Rist claims that Jewish eschatalogy originated with zoroastrianism. Our answer is simple, the sources of zoroastrianism are all too late to be considered a safe and sound comparison for the Old Testament. Lambert found that Otto Plöger suggested that eschatalogy is connected to prophecy. Lambert commented that he feels that apocalyptic is written not oral and secondly, that it is for a small group not the masses. Lambert found that G. von Rad expressed the idea that apocalyptic originated in the Wisdom literature.

Already in 1970 we had the study by R. G. Hamerton-Kelly who saw the origin of Jewish eschatology in the temple (Hamerton-Kelly, "The temple and the origin of Jewish Apocalyptic" VT [1970], 1-15).

Problems in the methodology of Eichrodt and the problems in modern Eschatological understanding

It is at this point that we need to say something about the problems of Eichrodt's methodology. W. Eichrodt wrote two volumes on the Theology of the Old Testament and it included concepts of eschatology and apocalyptic. Anyone citing or working with Eichrodt needs to know of his handicap in his methodology. It boils down to this: Eichrodt thinks that only what you find in the Old Testament source, was the true complete reality of the past. Many texts, evolved thinking, no texts, no thinking. This is the fallacy of Eichrodt. No data, no thoughts; lots of data, highly developed thinking. What is wrong with this modus operandi? Exactly this point: earlier in history after the Fall of Adam and Eve, they lived very long, namely nearly a millennium years long. Good bodies, good DNA, good memory and written sources were not important since their brain capacity for storing was strong enough. They had a full understanding of eschatology and a full understanding of apocalyptic. They shared it with each other and we are told that Henoch expected the New Jerusalem by faith (Hebrews 11). A full understanding needs only half a word. So only half a word was recorded after the flood by Moses since there is no need to focus on that which is well known by the audience of his day. The increased focus on eschatology was actually the opposite of what W. Eichrodt is insisting: it was because of lack of understanding that prophets had to remind, elaborate upon themes of eschatology and apocalyptic. This is the biggest handicap in modern eschatology and apocalyptic analysis starting with John Collins going back to over two hundred years of scholarship. If you carefully analyze the eschatological "hints" in the works of Moses, Genesis, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Exodus, Job, Psalm 90, you end up with the concept that the schemes of eschatology that we find worked out in Daniel and Revelation were completely understood way back then. The Messianic expectation did not grow or evolve in time. They had a full understanding back then. It was announced when people tend to forget the past and had to be reminded of that.

Egyptians and Eschatology

The Egyptians were involved in eschatology. In E. Hornung's work Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt, 162-165 there are examples in the Coffin Texts and the Book of the Two Ways, Coffin Texts VII, 467e-468b. Also in the Book of the Dead as one can see at Hornung 165 footnote 81. Israel lived in Egypt for over 400 years and traditions of Israel could have rubbed off between 1850-1450 BCE.

Hugo Gressman and Eschatology

Hugo Gressman was of the opinion that eschatology is old and that it originated in myth. In 1905 he wrote Der Ursprung der jüdish-israelitischen Eschatologie  (Göttingen: 1905). That eschatology is old is correct. That it is cosmic-mythical, he is not correct. We have some objections against the views of Gressman on eschatology:

a. It is not cyclic as far as world catastrophe is concerned.

b. It has not cosmo-mythic origin.

c. Myth of Ira has no connection with biblical eschatology.

d. It is not an explanation to shift the problem that needs description.

Siegfried Mowinckel and Eschatology

S. Mowinckel thought that eschatology originated in the cult.

He thought that the royal inauguration festivals (based on Psalms) explain the origin. However, it does not explain the unique aspects of eschatology. A catastrophe in the palace can also not explain the various aspects of the eschatology genre.

Gerhard von Rad and Eschatology

G. von Rad was of the opinion that eschatology originated with the holy war language and terms. He felt that it was an old tradition and old elements.

Meir Weiss was against the idea of Von Rad. He felt that the origin of eschatology lies in the theophany rather than in the Holy War language. He felt that Joel 2:11 illustrate that clearly. Secondly, Weiss object since he felt that gdš in Isaiah 13:2 and Joel 4:9 is related to worship rather than war. In the same vein Weiss felt that a trumpet is not only important for war but also for a signal and warning. In 1989 I also met prof. dr. Meir Weiss in Jerusalem.

Historical Critical scholars and Eschatology

Historical critical scholars of the hermeneutics of suspicion paradigm also spent some time with eschatology:

In 1843 Eduard Reuss wrote a book Johnaneinische Apokalypse (1843). In a time of the upsurge in eschatology by Adventism, the big disappointment of 1844 shocked the Christian world and led to Rationalists inventing other paradigms. Adolf Hilgenfeld wrote in 1857 a book on Jüdische Apokalyptik als Vorgeschichte des Christentums. In 1892 Johannes Weiss wrote on Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes.

Julius Wellhausen also wrote on eschatology in 1899 (Julius Wellhausen, Zur apokalyptische Literatur [1899]). In the same year, Hermann Gunkel wrote on Aus Wellhausen's neuesten apokalyptischen Forschungen. Einige principielle Erörterungen (1899). In 1900 Auguste Sabatier wrote on Die jüdische Apokalyptik und die Geschichtsphilosophie. In 1901 Albert Schweitzer wrote on Reich Gottes und Ethik bei Jesus. In 1902 Otto Pfleiderer wrote on Verkündigung der Nähe der Gottesherschaft und jüdische Apokalyptik. William Bousset wrote in 1903 on Die religionsgeschictliche Herkunft der jüdischen Apokalyptik. In 1914 Robert Harvey Charles wrote on Prophetie und Apokalyptik. In 1920 F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake wrote on Apokalyptisches Denken und Schriftum. Gustav Hölscher wrote on Die Weisheit der Mustiker in 1922.

In the same year the Jewish scholar Louis Ginzberg wrote on Einige Beobachtungen zur Haltung der Synagoge gegenüber den apokalyptisch-eschatologischen Schriften.

In 1926 Gerhard Kittel focused on Methodische Fragen zum Verhältnis von Spätjudentum und Christentum. In 1934 Paul Volz wrote on Merkmale jüdischer Apokalyptik. In 1934/1935 Ernst Lohmeyer wrote on Die Offenbarung des Johannes. In 1959 Ulrich Wilckens wrote on Die Bekehrung des Paulus als religiongeschichtliches Problem. In 1961 Klaus Koch wrote on Spätisraelitisches Geschichtsdenken am Beispiel des Buches Daniel. Here the Seventh Day Adventist can easily see the problem with the approach that Antiochus Epiphanes and his history forms part of the exegesis and analysis of Klaus Koch. The book should be read with a tooth-pick. In 1962 David Syme Russell wrote on Apokalyptik - Prophetie - Pseudonymität. In 1963 Gershom Scholem wrote on Zum Verständnis der messianischen Idee im Judentum. Rudolf Bultmann wrote in 1964 on Ist die Apokalyptik die Mutter der christliche Theologie? Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Ernst Käsemann. Bultmann denies the Second Advent, atonement, Divine origin of Jesus, miracles and a host of other cardinal doctrines. He enters the subject with unclean hands and an unclean mind. He does not solve problems but create ones. In 1967 William R. Murdock wrote on Geschichte und Offenbarung in der jüdischen Apokalyptik. In 1971 Philipp Vielhauer wrote on Apokalypsen und Verwandtes. In 1971 Paul Hanson wrote on Alttestamentliche Apokalyptik in neuer Sicht.

Jeremiah and his Deuteronomistic jargon

J. Soggin studied Jeremiah and concluded that Jeremiah used Deuteronomistic [Holy war language] because he wants to indicate that the Lord wants to make a war against Israel. This is not correct. Jeremiah is using Deuteronomistic language because he is using the canon of Moses. The books of Moses were available to Jeremiah and consulting these books, much of the phrases and language and terms is used by Jeremiah. The position differing from that of Soggin is very important here.

Isaiah 63:19-64:3

When one analyses Isaiah 63:19-64:3 we learn the following abou the future coming of the Lord:

a. Heavens tear at the coming.

b. God comes down.

c. Coming is in brightness.

d. Mountains quake at His coming.

e. His coming is like fire.

f. The fire is for His adversaries.

g. His coming is unexpectedly.

Walter Schmithals and Apocalyptic (1973)

Lessek Kolakowski compared Apocalyptic religion and Marxism. Walter Schmithals, Die Apokaliptik: Einführung und Deutung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1973) is against the idea that apocalypticism originated in a conglomerate of Jewish and Iranian [Zoroastrianism] images but he felt that it is the expression of a unified and specific understanding. He felt that Apocalyptic originated by the Jews themselves and not Zoroastrianism/Iranianism (Schmithals 1973: 95). He is against E. Bloch's Marxistic Eschatology (Schmithals 1973: 187-188).

The book of Schmithals is divided into a number of parts:

II The Renaissance of Apocalyptic.

III What is Apocalyptic?

IV Difference between Prophecy and Apocalyptic (Germans)

V. Apocalyptic in the lap of Prophecy (Anglo-saxon view)

1. Following of Old Testament Prophecy (Old Testament scholars)

2. Jesus is ethical but not apocalyptic (New Testament school)

VI Attempt to save Jesus from the Apocalyptic (Continental New Testament Science)

1. Religion-historical school

2. Origin of Rabbinic research (1920-1960)

3. Result of demythologizing

4. Rejecting the nearness of the Parousia

5. Emphasizing the work of Wilckens and Käsemann

6. Reaction against Käsemann

7. Paul and Jesus are placed on the Apocalyptic background

8. Schulmacher and Strobel

9. Return to the old position and protest against Rössler, Nissen, Betz, Murdoch

10. French theology has no apocalyptic

VII Separation of Systematic Theology from Eschatology

1. Un-apocalyptic Eschatology between 1920-1960

2. Revival of apocalypticism, Universalgeschichte (Pannenberg)

3. Contrasting the world of the Apocalyptic with the Future (Moltman and Souter)

VIII Apocalyptic uncomfortableness in inner theological thinking

1. art

2. existence

See for example the book by Klaus Koch in 1970 (Koch, Ratlos vor der Apokalyptik: Eine Streitschrift über ein vernachlässigtes Gebiet der Bibelwissenschaft und die schädlichen Auswirkungen auf Theologie und Philosophie (Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1970). In that year Koch observed that under leading scholars grew the idea that historical criticism as a science came to a halt (Koch 1970: 113).

Time in the Old Testament

When we talk about time in the Old Testament we are thinking of the study of Norman H. Snaith, "Time in the Old Testament" in Promise and Fulfilment - S. H. Hooke (Essays presented to S. H. Hooke) editor F. F. Bruce (Edinburgh: 1962), 175-186.

He talks about three different times in the Old Testament:

a. Circular time

b. Horizontal time

c. Vertical time

We modify his thinking this way by saying that the Old Testament knows of six models of time:

Model 1: A straight line

Model 2: A spiral in a straight horizontal line

Model 3: Cyclic or circular

Model 4: Realistic time or the solar calendar of 365.25 days

Model 5: Lunar time or the lunar calendar of 354 days

Model 6: Periodic time for economy and prophecy of 360 days in a year [supported by both biblical and Umwelt cuneiform sources like the Kassite Calendar from the days of the 12th century BCE that is in the Istanbul Museum]

In Seventh Day Adventist eschatological interpretation the role of the year-day principle is very important and the role of periodic time or 360 day a year principle. It helps one to understand 1290, 1260, 2300, 1335 years in Daniel and Revelation.

Eschatology in all religions

B. Otzen claims in an article in 1980 that most religions contain a complex of ideas dealing with the 'first' and 'last' things which means that they relate how things came into being and they also relate what will happen in the last times (B. Otzen, Hans Gottlieb, Knud Jespersen, Myths in the Old Testament [SCM Press, 1980] in the section "The concept of Myth".

Isaiah 60: Isaiah's eschatological focus on strange events in nature

We must remember that Isaiah was not the first one to focus in Isaiah 60:1-3 on special events in nature with the coming of God.

In a book by A. K. Grayson, Text from Cuneiform Sources Vol. V Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (New York, Locust Valley: I. J. Augustin Publisher, 1975), 133, he listed a number of examples from ancient times in which they were interested in strange events in nature:

Chronicle 17 and Chronicle 24: Strange phenomena is of interest here in the days of Nabu-Shumu-uhur (1032-1025 BCE) until the days of Nabu-mukin-apli (977-942 BCE). In line 9 it reads: "On the 25 day of the month of Tishri a live panther (line 10) floated down the river (Euphrates) and was killed (line 11)."

In line 14: "On the twenty-sixth day of the month Siwan, in the seventh year, day turned into night and there was a fire in the sky" (BM 35968 Sp III 304).

6000 years Eschatology in the Talmud

In Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 97a and 97b it reads:

"The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost"

Online source: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_97.html

From the Flood in 2521 BCE, Adam and Creation was 1656 years before that, which means in 4177 until the turn of the Christian counting. We live now in 2010 thus counting it all up we end with 6187 years since Creation. Delay is the answer due to God's patience.

Eschatology among Relecturing Scholars

The word relecturing means "re-reading" and what it amounts to is that they are utilizing the canonical approach of Brevard Childs who states that they have to start their research from the whole canon instead of starting from the scraps and bits of sources of historical criticism as Julius Wellhausen did. It is not opposed to Wellhausen but just a hybrid of it. That means they are working their way back into the sources of the historical critical JEDP. They may adjust here and there a few dates regarding the sources but in essence it is the same final result: the word of God is fragmented, fractured and in such a state that a unified picture of Eschatology by God is not possible. The unified picture of the canon that they establish by themselves is one that is concocted from various schools, editors, writers for different audiences for different periods finally ending in what we have in the complete Bible. This method since 1980 until today is not followed or recognized by Seventh Day Adventists.

Eschatology among the post-Modernists

Post-modernism is the attempt to pull out a "theology" from a large range of sources of which the Bible is only one. Experience, reason, biblical text, other texts in the Umwelt, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, secularistic thinking, tradition(s) and other sources are dumped into one big tank and with eclecticism here and there is pulled out a structure for themselves with which they feel comfortable. Feeling and the phenomenon of the religious event in the current setting is the main purpose and main consideration point for them. Anything else is secondary and can be discarded as ancient or obsolete stances ad hoc. Man is the big designer of his own future and present lifestyle. All this is done with the axioms of eclecticism, globalism, secularism, tolerance with all religions, all gods, all faiths with an ecumenical passion, in mind. If the Bible conflicts with a modern stance, it is because it is an outdated old book, and when modernity and technology is working well, it can supercede the claims of the Bible. There is a liberty to select by relative ways and means just what they feel they like. Our response is that man has become finally a floater, a global migrationist unanchored and basically lost. In such a view, namely that of post-Modernism, eschatology is humanism applied or un-eschatology (nihilism).

Adventist Eschatology

In Seventh Day Adventism the Eschatology is divided in a series of Theological concepts:

Theology of Advent

Theology of Delay

Theology of Waiting

Theology of Tiredness

Theology of Empowerment (Early Rain Theology and Latter Rain Theology of the Holy Spirit).

Theology of Signals of Nearness