The World to Come
When we step back into eschatology proper, we must admit that, as the final kingdom of God in which we will participate fully is entirely beyond our comprehension, we can only sketch out in general terms what the world to come will be like, and we take our cue for our thinking from the person of Christ.
The first thing that we need to emphasize again is that, whatever form the eschatological kingdom takes, it will be an embodied kingdom. We will not be disembodied spirits eternally gazing at the beauty of God, sitting on clouds, as some theologians throughout the history of the church have implied. We must not ever forget, or attempt to do without, the fact that Jesus is still incarnate to this day in the presence of God. Perhaps some of the thought that we would not be embodied for all eternity is based on an assumption that the body simply holds us back and prevents us from really knowing God. This is called into question by the fact that God has not been ashamed to bear a human body for all eternity. If this is so, we also should not be ashamed of our embodied existence.
Another question that is relevant for our consideration is what will happen to the world at the end? There has been a long tradition of thinking that, when everything is culminated, the world will be utterly destroyed and exist no more. This has a certain appeal because it means that we do not need to care for the earth. However, the major teaching in the New Testament is that the world will be recreated and established on a more firm foundation. This should not surprise us as it parallels the recreation of the body. It is important that we keep this in our minds as we consider (briefly) the various millennial views of the end times.
Chiliastic Views
In this section, we will be dealing with various chiliastic views of the end times. The word “Chiliasm” comes from the Greek word for “Millennium” and Chiliastic views are concerned with various interpretations of the concept of “a thousand years” in Revelation 20. Our discussion here will only be in broad brushstrokes. Indeed, they will be so broad that some may be very disappointed or even upset. However, they will be treated in brief, if for no other reason than because, historically speaking, they have only been a matter of serious debate recently. All of them have to do with an earthly, historical reign of Christ that will last one thousand years and the relation of the return of Christ to that event.
The first of these views is called premillennialism. This view is, as we might expect from its name, that Christ will return before the millennium of Christ’s rule begins. This view emphasizes that it is not possible for human beings to establish the kingdom of God on earth and that only by a dramatic and mighty display of power will God himself do so.
Postmillennialism asserts that Jesus will come back, but only after he has reigned on earth for a thousand years. This might seem to be something of a contradiction, but it is not intended to be. Christ will reign, but not physically. Christ’s reign will be inaugurated and sustained by the power of the Holy Spirit. Most often, this view emphasizes the role of the church in the establishment of the kingdom of God, believing that, by changing laws and establishing righteous cultures, the church will participate so fully in God’s transformation of the world that God will establish his kingdom in and through the church.
A word must be shared in critique of these two views, in spite of their history and wide number of adherents. There is a sense in which there is a division between conservatives and liberals in that conservatives are less convinced of the power of humanity to establish the kingdom of God on earth than liberals and are thus more likely to be premillennialists. However, a more significant division exists. When the world situation is such that it seems that life is getting better and better and, as the church succeeds in shaping culture to a greater or lesser degree, postmillennialism becomes very popular. This seems to be the case because the convictions of postmillennialists seem to be coming true. Conversely, when world history takes a turn where things seem worse and worse (as they are at the time of this writing), premillennialism becomes popular, because it seems that human beings cannot get anything right and that nothing short of a direct act of God could overcome our sin. In light of the fact that external circumstances play such a determinative role in these two views, it seems hard to take them entirely seriously.
Preterism is not, strictly speaking, a chiliastic view, but, as it provides an alternative to the two main views, it should be touched on here. Preterism comes from the Latin word meaning “past.” While both Premillennialism and Postmillennialism look to the future for the fulfillment of God’s plans, Preterism claims that God’s plans have already been fulfilled. There are many different strands of preterism (as there are for each of these views), but in its more extreme form, it claims that everything that is predicted in the New Testament, including the resurrection of the dead and the return of Christ have already happened and indeed had happened by 70 AD when Jerusalem was attacked and destroyed. This has certain appealing aspects, especially in its more mild forms, but runs up against problems noted above as to the physical nature of the return of Christ.
The final major view is amillennialism, which, as its name implies, does not believe that, when the book of Revelation speaks of a thousand year reign of Christ that it means it literally. Instead, the view is often that the thousand year reign is roughly equated with the existence of the church, where God’s reign is established, at least partially. There are perhaps more variations in this view than there are in the others, so it is extremely difficult to tack down in consistent terms.
I have no intention of providing a detailed analysis comparing and contrasting these different views. The main concern I have over the debate that rages in certain branches of the church (though, interestingly enough, is nearly completely ignored in other parts) is that it seems to be establishing an earthly and embodied reign that is somehow separate from the eschatological kingdom of God. If the eschatological reality includes human beings who are resurrected in glory and embodied for all eternity, dwelling in a new heaven and a new earth with a Lord Jesus Christ who is also incarnate for all eternity, how can we distinguish a separate earthly embodied reign? It is my fear, though some might disagree, that this acknowledgement of a physical reign hides a view of the ultimate destruction of the world and all flesh, including the humanity of Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment