HT: Leaving Münster
Graham recently posted a link to an article written by Kevin Beck in 2002 on the redemptive aspect of eschatology. I’ll attempt to summarize it here through judicious quoting, but I urge you to take the time to read the entire argument.
Put simply, most eschatological paradigms, even traditional preterist ones, define eschatology primarily in terms of destruction. Granted, they place the destruction in various loci, but they still identify it in terms of destruction. If one characterizes eschatology primarily in destructive expressions it is irrelevant as to when one places the destruction. The destruction of the planet, destruction of the ungodly, destruction of Jerusalem is all destruction. And a destruction based eschatology is the seed-bed for personal and cultural pessimism. [...]
As Jürgen Moltmann observes, “Downfall and redemption are two sides of the same coin.” If kept in its proper biblical timeframe, the destructive aspect of eschatology ties directly to the cross of Christ and the redemption of humanity. In other words, the severity of God that focused on Christ cleared the way for the goodness of God to all humanity. Following death there is resurrection. In this way, the destruction of a planet, race, or city does not develop into the centerpiece, goal, or even the means of eschatology. Christ himself is the focal point of eschatology and the means by which eschatology is realized. [...]
Viewing eschatology as the fulfilled work of God in Jesus Christ transforms eschatology from a destructive event into a constructive force. [...] Eschatology is a genesis and pertains to God’s New Creation, not destruction. We can understand eschatology in terms of a marriage. The consummation of a marriage is not the end of the relationship; it is only the beginning that marks the commencement of a creative, life-giving relationship. [...]
In this way, we transform the end into the beginning and transform last things into first things. This is why Tim King, president of Presence Ministries, has recently introduced the field of ‘archonology,’ the study of first things. Whereas the popular conception of eschatology involves destruction, archonology provides a method to think about, discuss, and participate in the New Creation of all things.
To balance eschatology with archonology, we must embody the New Creation. This calls us into a truly incarnational and Christ-filled life. In the manner of Christ, we bring people and God together into one body (Eph. 2:15-17). This task is especially significant for those who adhere to fulfilled covenant eschatology; because, if we comprehend that humanity has the abundant life given by God through fulfilled covenant eschatology, we ought to live an eschatologically-fulfilled life.
2 Comments
That’s it! That’s what I was trying to say in my response to your and Graham’s dialogue about Moltmann on my blog. I can definitely handle competing eschatologies that are exegetically different as long as their implications tend towards the future. That’s why I’ve characterized preterism as an “eschatology with a future” because its emphasis is on the “what now” rather than waiting around for something.
Thanks for the link!
(The only thing I don’t like about the article is the use of ‘archonology’.)