ESCHATOLOGY (THE FINAL THINGS IN HISTORY)

One of the salient things in Christian theology is that of eschatology, i.e. the doctrine of the final things.  Another way of putting it would be the end of history as we know it.  As in its parent religion, Judaism, in Christianity there is the notion and belief that things as they are will come to an end, and that we will live in a "happily ever after."  This might correspond to the Marxian view of a "workers paradise," in which there will be a "permanent jubilee."  

How do we then account for the various eschatological perspectives that we have in the Christian community?  Each tradition claims to be based on "what the Bible says."  Having said that, what complicates this is that there are a variety of biblical hermeneutics (interpretations) which in turn lead to a variety of conclusions.  Each tradition has its own chronology as to how history as we know it will come to an end. 

The particular hermeneutic that we subscribe to will depend on the lens through which we read Scripture and the historic Christian traditions.  Some of us read them through the lens of our particular denominational theology, while others of us read them through the lens of the various branches of human knowledge, and more specifically, the social sciences.  And then there are some of us that read them through our life experiences, both individual and collective.  

Eschatology has traditionally been defined as the doctrine of the last things.  It appeared in the final chapter in the classic systems of dogmatics under the heading "de novissimis" in Latin and "ta eschata" in Greek texts.  This dogmatic locus dealt with events that still belong to the future, such as death and resurrection, the last judgment, and the end of the world, eternal damnation (hell) and eternal life (heaven). It covered the future destiny of each individual after death  as well as the final consummation of the world (Carl E. Braaten in "The Kingdom of God and Life Everlasting."  Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks, eds. Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 328).

In the period of Protestant scholasticism (seventeenth century), the treatment of eschatological topics became petrified in the last chapter of dogmatics.  Karl Barth spoke ironically of this approach as "lulling us to sleep" by adding at the conclusion of his Church Dogmatics a short and perfectly harmless chapter entitled 'Eschatology.' (Karl Barth, Epistle to the Romans, p. 500).

To a large extent, the mainline churches, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, permitted the sects to claim the subject of eschatology as their specialty.  Their literalistic preaching from the Bible about the end of the world has tended to inoculate the mainline bodies of Christianity against this virus of eschatology (Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973).

Eschatology is no longer confined to the concluding chapter of dogmatics as teaching about the last things.  Every theological statement is at the same time an  eschatological statement in the sense that eschatology deals with what is ultimate and to speak of God is to speak of our ultimate concern.  There is a consensus among the various schools of theology that the eschatological perspective is basic to the understanding of the Christian faith.  At the beginning of his long theological career, Barth inaugurated the eschatological renaissance in Christian theology with this striking claim: "Christianity that is not entirely and altogether eschatology has entirely and altogether nothing to do with Christ (Barth, op. cit. p. 314).

Echoing this mandate a half century later, Jurgen Moltmann insisted: The eschatological is not one element of Christianity, but the medium of Christian faith as such. Hence eschatology cannot really be only a part of Christian doctrine.  Rather, the eschatological outlook is characteristic of all Christian proclamation, of every Christian existence, and of the whole church (Jurgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope, p. 16).

One of the problems of biblical interpretation has been that of finding the thread of continuity that ties the two testaments of the Bible together.  Since the awakening of the eschatological perspective in theology, it has become evident that the people of God, from the days of Israel in the Old Testament to the period of the Church in the New, have moved forward in history in expectation of future salvation, however much this expectation was always founded on historical events in which God had intervened in the past (Braaten, op. cit., p. 330).

In the Old Testament the coming of eschatological salvation was announced in different terms, for example, the day of Yahweh, the day of judgment, the coming of the Messiah, the reign of God, and the new Jerusalem.  The eschatology of Israel underwent a continual process of change and development.  Originally Israel held a predominantly this-worldly eschatology; its vision of the promised future belonged to this world of space and time.  This is the case with early prophetic eschatology. The prophets expected a coming paradise on Earth.  The coming reign, which Yahweh was to establish for His people, enjoyed the same material reality as the promised land.  It would be a land flowing with "milk and honey."  The faithful remnant of Israel would be drawn to the holy mountain  as their dwelling place.  There is no specific hope for Heaven or life after death.  Salvation will be something to see, the earth will be extremely fruitful, people will be inwardly renewed, society will become righteous, and the nations will rest at peace.  Israel, the least of the nations, will be exalted above all the others, provided the people remain faithful to the covenant (Ibid., pp. 330-331),

The Christian revision of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology was determined by the modifications which Jesus of Nazareth effected through His preaching of the Reign of God and the double ending of His life: His death on the cross and His resurrection to a new form of being.  The central motif of Jesus's message was the coming of the reign of God.  The eschatological rule of God which Jesus preached was the power determining both the content of His message and the activities of His ministry. However, there is no consensus among contemporary theologians on how to interpret Jesus's expectation of the Reign of God.  Did Jesus think of the Reign of God as something otherworldly and future (traditional orthodoxy)?  Or did He think of it as something otherworldly and present (Karl Barth and dialectical theology)?  Or did He think of it as something this-worldly and  present (Rudolf Bultmann) and existentialist theology)?  Or as something this-worldly and future (Christian Marxism and Liberation Theology)?  Perhaps there is an element of truth in all these viewpoints, each forming one facet of a multidimensional vision of the Reign of God (Ibid., p. 332). 

What is the "correct" eschatological perspective?  A lot depends on who one asks.  My own response would be that there is no one inerrant, infallible, or perfect eschatology.  We cannot afford to treat any one particular eschatological hermeneutic as "Heaven-sent." We can spend our entire lives cherry picking Scripture verses and elements of the Christian tradition, and yet never arrive at a consensus.  The perspective that we adhere and subscribe to will in turn determine the form and shape of both our ecclesiastical form of government, and also how we carry on the ministry of Christ in the world.  As with all other branches of Christian theology, the construction of eschatology or eschatologies will be a continuous one.  One can only remain active in this world in the arenas of evangelism and social justice, and continue to pray "Even so, come Lord Jesus."

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary