One. Apocalyptic prophets did not
make precise predictions to begin with...
In the concluding chapter of his work
on apocalypticism, Frederick Murphy discusses various
criticisms of apocalypticism. One of these criticisms is about
precision
about the timeline, and he refers to the
important work of JJ Collins:
"A third possible
criticism of apocalypticism is its interest in predicting the
future, particularly when such prediction assumes the form of
identification of concrete dates and times. This leads to
disillusionment when prophecies fail to materialize. It can
contribute to skepticism about religion by both insiders and
outsiders. Collins shows that there is
surprisingly little attempt at such specific prediction
in the ancient sources. The timing of
future events, particularly eschatological happenings, is
usually left rather vague. An
exception is Daniel,
which at the end has several successive times when the end is
supposed to come. Despite the inaccuracies of its predictions,
Daniel has been one of the most popular apocalypses of all
time, being included in the Hebrew Bible and used by both Jews
and Christians (Collins and Yarbro Collins 2005c). The
modern obsession with dating the end carries apocalyptic
thinking further than the ancient sources
support. On the other hand,
the innumerable failures of apocalyptic prophecies to
materialize have never led to the disappearance of apocalyptic
thought. If anything, they have caused thinkers to redouble
their efforts to advocate an apocalyptic viewpoint. There are
other indications of
date-searching in ancient
apocalypticism as well. The Damascus Rule among the Dead Sea
Scrolls gives a rough date for the end, but
it is rather vague. The sectarians used
interpretation of Scripture, the pesher on Habakkuk, to show
that a delay of the consummation had been foreseen by
prophecy. The book
of Revelation gives no absolute date for the end,
but it repeatedly says that it will be “soon.” When it did not
happen, it did not in the least dampen the enthusiasm of many
Christians for this book. Jesus and Paul expected an imminent
end, but later Christians incorporated it into a broader
conception of the divine plan.
Again, none of these examples approaches the enthusiasm
for and the supposed precision of specific
dates that has been so evident throughout Christian
history and that so often
catches public attention today." [Murphy, Frederick J.
(2012-08-01). Apocalypticism in the Bible and Its World: A
Comprehensive Introduction (Kindle Locations 8461-8475). Baker
Book Group. Kindle Edition. ]
The implication of this for our study
should be obvious--and clarifying: If 'real' apocalyptic
figures did not give precise date-markers, why would we think
Jesus
did? If the Hebrew prophets did not give precise date-markers
for most of their 'eschatological-ish' prophecies, why would
we think Jesus
would?
And if Jesus did 'break with the
mold' and give a precise set of date markers (the blogger's
position), then why
has the rest of Christian history shown 'indications of date
searching'--like those before/around the time of our Lord?
This would mean that the
attempts of interpreters to 'read into' Jesus' apocalyptic
pronouncements any level of precision greater than
the models of the past (eg Qumran, Hebrew bible, other
Mediterranean apocalyptic groups) would be speculative--and
this seems to be what the blogger (and the sources he/she is
dependent on-- Schweitzer, Allison, et. al.) is engaged in.
We cannot really have this both
ways--we cannot really affirm that Jesus was an apocalyptic
prophet because 'He looked and acted and spoke like one' and
at the same time affirm that His allegedly precise dating
statements did NOT 'look like' those 'reference' prophets.
There is a disconnect here.
His message WAS discontinuous with
the past, but only in the centrality of His position within
the Eschaton (as Savior and Judge) and in the
encroachment/inauguration of that Eschaton in His own acts
(crucifixion, resurrection, ascension).
But His language is 'too traditional'
to indicate a discontinuity in date-precision. His images are
mostly biblical images and His 'woes' and warnings are echoes
of prophetic denunciations in the Hebrew bible. He doesn't
even get to the same level of quasi-precision of Daniel (many
theological assumptions being made here for the sake of
argument, of course).
So, the
foundational premise of this whole argument (ie, that
Jesus made a precise enough prediction to be able to
judge whether it failed or not) requires proof of itself--given
that it is without
a reference or significant precedent in the history of
apocalyptic texts/figures before Him. Without this proof or
demonstration of the 'precision' of His statements, the
position cannot be taken as a serious objection yet.
Two. Without a precise end-point,
the word 'delay' is inappropriate.
In his theological discussion of the
return of Christ, Berkouwer draws attention to the
'imprecision' (smile) of the term 'delay':
"Delay
in the Old and New Testaments. A
word of caution is in order here. To speak of a “delay”
presupposes the background of a completely fixed
period of time. Delay then
consists in crossing the boundaries of this fixed period of
time. Consistent eschatology, maintains that the original New
Testament expectation proceeded from such a concept of a fixed
period of time, deriving this original expectation from Jesus’
preaching. But it must be kept in mind that the concept of
delay can also result from an incorrect interpretation of
God’s dealings in history.
"Already in the Old
Testament we encounter the idea that the fulfilment of God’s
promises had been delayed, if not altogether cancelled.
When Israel, faced with ominous threats and utter despair, begged
for the fulfilment of God’s promises and fulfilment did not come,
even when the eleventh hour appeared, it was faced with some
seemingly serious inconsistencies. Against the superior might of
its enemies, it became uncertain and tended to doubt that God had
remembered His people. “I say to God my rock: ‘Why hast thou
forgotten me? Why go I mourning because of the oppression of the
enemy?’ ” (Ps. 42:9). A crisis in the expectation threatened,
though trust and hope in God finally surmounted the doubt (vs.
11). Learning that God would not manifest Himself, Israel was
driven to ask: “We do not see our signs; there is no longer any
prophet, and there is none among us who knows how long. How long,
O God, is the foe to scoff? Is the enemy to revile thy name
forever? Why dost thou hold back thy hand, why dost thou keep thy
right hand in thy bosom?” (Ps. 74:9–11). The “how
long?” presupposes the continuity of a period of time that is
no longer comprehended by the people and suggests a delay in
the saving work of Yahweh (cf. Ps. 89:46, 49).
There appears to be a waiting and watching but no fulfilment:
“ ‘Watchman, what of the night?’ The watchman says: ‘Morning
comes and also the night’ ” (Isa. 21:11f.). For Israel, the
plea “how long?” implied that God had forgotten it and did not
hear its cry (Hab. 1:2).
"The grave doubts that
arose under these circumstances were dispelled by the words
of the promise. There is indeed a call to watchfulness, but
this is not without its rewards. “For
still the vision awaits its time; it hastens to the end—it will
not lie. If it
seem slow, wait for it; it will surely come, it will not delay”
(Hab. 2:3). Here we encounter again the correlation we mentioned
earlier between delay and expectation. This
delay may not be interpreted as nonfulfillment, but must be
seen as subject to the renewed admonition to expectation.
"During the time of Ezekiel
the problem
of “delay” reached critical dimensions: “Son of
man, what is this proverb that you have about in the land of
Israel, saying, ‘The days grow long, and every vision comes to
nought’? Tell them therefore, ‘Thus says the LORD God: I will
put an end to this proverb, and they shall no more use it as a
proverb in Israel.’ But say to them, The days are at hand, and
the fulfilment of every vision” (Ezek. 12:22f.). Israel’s use
of this forbidden proverb illustrated its disbelief in
prophecy. It was easy for the prophets to speak, promise, and
admonish on the basis of their divine mandate, but there had
to be truth and credibility in it. And, the critics hastened
to add, this was the element their promises lacked. Day
followed upon day, but things did not improve. This led first
to a “philosophy of delay” and later to doubts that the
promises would come true at all. What
is remarkable about the Lord’s response to this attitude
is that the expectation is not put off to a remote and
distant future, but is rather redefined: “The days are at
hand, and the fulfilment of every vision.” There must be
no more mention of delay (vs. 25). When the critics
complain that the fulfilment is somewhere in the distant
future, the Lord replies that “none of my words will be
delayed any longer” (vs. 28).
Undoubtedly there was a
delay or “sojourn” in God’s dealings with Israel, a time in
which the fulfilment of His promises had not yet appeared. But
in spite of the critics, who saw in this delay an indefinite
postponement or cancellation of the promise, Yahweh has sworn
that His words will not fall to the ground. The promise of
today may be the reality of tomorrow, and the continuity of
time does not serve to disqualify the reliability of the Lord
or of His words. The Lord promised that in the days of the
rebellious house of Israel He would speak the word and perform
the deed (vs. 25)." [Berkouwer, G. C. (1972). The Return of
Christ. Studies in Dogmatics (76–78). Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans.]
Berkouwer has the obvious advantage
of perspective here, since he--like many of us--have
experienced a 'delay' between our expectations of God's
immediate intervention in our personal lives and the reality
of His timing (and mode) of that intervention. Most believers
who have walked with the Lord for any time at all have
experienced this, wondered over it, agonized over it, and
(sometimes) became angry or bitter over it. God promises to
deliver 'a way out' in cases of challenges to our faith,
character, and growth (I Cor 10.13), but we sometimes
experience what we consider a 'delay' in its appearance!
This is not rocket science, but if
Point One (above) is taken seriously, then the 'delay' issue
is no different that the 'gap' issue-- the 'gap' between when
we ask
for help and when we receive
the help is the time of questioning, soul-searching, 'how long
O Lord?', and 'did I misunderstand this?' turbulence.
And, consequently, we should expect
the early church to have voiced such emotions and questionings
during its time of 'gaps' (eg persecution, inroads by false
teaching, dilution of the church via cultural influence). Of
course, this is what the historians note--that apocalyptic
'expressions' come to the fore in times of duress and
difficulty.
Three. If—in Jewish apocalyptic
thought-- expressions of discouragement at the 'delay'
were NOT about 'failed predictions', then they were
about something else: theodicy and/or the problem of
evil.
The two most representative Jewish
apocalyptic writings after the destruction of the temple in 70
AD focus on the ‘absence of divine justice’—an aspect of the
problem of evil:
“Fourth
Ezra
and its literary twin 2 Baruch (ascribed to the scribe BARUCH,
Jeremiah’s closest collaborator) are the two most
representative apocalyptic
responses
to the fall of the Second Temple, written at
the end of the 1st cent. C.E. In both writings, the seers complain
about the desolation of ZION and the apparent absence of divine justice.”
[NIDB, s.v. "Eschatology in Early Judaism", Pierluigi
Piovanelli]]
Richard Bauckham discusses the topic
of the delay of the Parousia in a number of places in his
excellent writings, but one of the more illuminating (to me)
discussions is in his Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture of
1979 [Tyndale Bulletine Volume 31. 1980]
In this lecture he explores the
theology of Jewish apocalypticism and how it dealt with
the issue of eschatological delay.
“The problem
of eschatological delay was familiar to Jewish apocalyptic
from its earliest beginnings. It could even be
said to be one of the most
important ingredients in the mixture of
influences and circumstances which produced the apocalyptic
movement. In the face of the delay
in the fulfilment of the eschatological promises
of the prophets, the apocalyptic visionaries
were those who believed most fervently that the
promises remained valid and relevant.
Despite appearances, God had not forgotten his people. His
eschatological salvation, so long awaited, was coming, and
now at last it was very close at hand. In
almost all
the apocalypses there is no mistaking both a consciousness, to some
degree, of the problem of delay, in that the prophecies
had so long remained unfulfilled, and also the
conviction of their imminent fulfilment.
It goes only a little beyond the evidence to say that in every
generation between the mid-second century BC and the
mid-second century AD Jewish apocalyptists encouraged their
readers to hope for the eschatological redemption in the very
near future. At the same time there is very
little evidence to suggest that during that
long period the continued disappointment of that expectation
discredited the apocalyptic hope or even
diminished the sense of imminence in later generations.
The apocalypses of the past were preserved and treasured; and
passages whose imminent expectation had clearly not been
fulfilled were nevertheless copied and by no means always
updated. Each
apocalyptist knew that his predecessors had held the time
of the End to be at hand, but this knowledge seems to have
encouraged rather than discouraged his own sense of
eschatological imminence. Clearly the problem of delay was an
inescapable problem at the heart of apocalyptic
eschatology, but the tension it undoubtedly produced was
not a destructive tension. It was a
tension which the apocalyptic faith somehow embraced within
itself. The problem was felt but it did not lead to doubt.
“The question we need to
ask, then, is:
how did Jewish apocalyptic manage to cope with the problem
of delay? The key to this question - and the
theme of much of this lecture - is that alongside the
theological factors which promoted the imminent expectation
there were
also theological factors accounting for the fact of delay.
These two contrary sets of factors were
held in tension in apocalyptic.
They were not
harmonized to produce a kind of compromise: expectation of the
End in the fairly near future but not just yet. The factors
promoting imminence and the factors accounting for delay (or
even, as we shall see, promoting an expectation of delay) are
held
in paradoxical tension, with the result that the imminent expectation can be maintained in
all its urgency in spite of the continuing delay.
“Essentially this is why
the problem of delay did not discredit or destroy the
apocalyptic hope. From the beginning apocalyptic faith
incorporated the problem of delay. It was a
real problem creating a real tension: there is genuine anguish
in the apocalyptists’ prayers ‘Do not delay!’ (Dn. 9:19; 2
Baruch 21:25) and ‘How long?’ (Dn. 12:6; 2 Baruch 21:19). But
the tension was held within a structure of religious response
which was adequate to contain it.”
Bauckham points out, though, that
this tension was somehow ‘loosely grounded’ on the theological
foundation of the sovereignty of God, but rightly asks the
question about the legitimacy
of such view:
“I have admitted
that the basic apocalyptic response to the problem of delay -
the
appeal to the sovereignty of God - provided little in the
way of explanation. Later we shall see how some
apocalyptists, especially in the later period, filled out this
explanation with some attempts at more positive understanding
of the meaning of the delay. For much of the period when
apocalyptic flourished, however, it would seem that the
problem of delay was contained mainly by the appeal to the
sovereignty of God to balance the urgency of the imminent
expectation.
It is necessary to ask whether this was theologically
legitimate. In other words, it may be that the fact of
delay ought to have discredited the apocalyptic hopes,
if only it had been squarely faced in the cool light of
reason. What I have called the
structure of religious response by which apocalyptic contained
the problem may have been no better than a psychological
means of maintaining false expectations.
History
could supply many examples of unfulfilled prophecies which
managed to maintain their credibility long after they
deserved to do so, often because believers who
have staked their lives on such expectations are not easily
disillusioned.
Is there any reason to put the apocalyptists in a
different category?”
In other words, were the ancient
apocalyptists being honest with the facts? Or were they using
the various ‘coping mechanisms’ of deliverance cults (a la
Allison, [NT:CJ, 148ff]) to avoid the cognitive dissonance
caused by prophetic delay and/or ‘nonoccurrence of predicted
events’?
Bauckham goes on to analyze the heart
of the issue and finds it to be both
theologically legitimate and different
from the ‘ordinary problem of unfulfilled prophecy’. It is an
expression of the problem of evil, cast in all too familiar
terms of ‘how long, O Lord?!’
“I believe there is a
good reason at least to take the apocalyptic faith very
seriously indeed. The problem of delay in
apocalyptic is no
ordinary problem of unfulfilled prophecy. The problem of delay is the apocalyptic version
of the problem of evil. The
apocalyptists were vitally concerned with the problems of
theodicy, with the
demonstration of God’s righteousness in the face of the
unrighteousness of his world. They explored
various possibilities as to the origins of evil and the
apportioning of responsibility for evil, but of
primary and indispensable significance for the
apocalyptic approach to the problem of evil was the
expectation of the End, when all wrongs would be
righted, all evil eliminated, and God’s righteousness
therefore vindicated. The great merit
of the apocalyptic approach to theodicy was that it
refused to justify the present condition of the world by
means of an abstract exoneration of God from
responsibility for the evils of the present. Only the overcoming of
present evil by eschatological righteousness could
vindicate God as righteous, and only
hope of such a future triumph of righteousness could make the
evils of the present bearable.“
“Of course, this was no
armchair theodicy, but was produced by concrete
situations of injustice and oppression in which the
apocalyptists lived and suffered: the continued oppression
of Israel by the Gentiles, and/ or the sufferings of the
righteous remnant of Israel with whom the apocalyptists
often identified themselves. It is not always
easy for us to appreciate the apocalyptists’ concern for
righteousness in these situations: the desire for Israel’s
vindication and her enemies’ condemnation
can seem to us like mere narrow nationalism,
and the apocalyptists’ conviction of belonging to the
righteous remnant which is unjustly suffering while sinners
prosper can
seem to us like arrogant self-righteousness.
Undoubtedly those defects sometimes mar the apocalypses, but it is important to realize that the
genuinely ethical character of the apocalyptic hope is
far more dominant. What is at stake in the sufferings of
God’s people is the righteousness of God, which, as
often in the Old Testament, means at the same time
justice for the oppressed and against the oppressor. It
is true that the apocalyptists often fail to see that the
problem of evil extends to the sinfulness of the righteous
themselves, but they have an agonizingly
clear grasp of the problem of innocent suffering.
When the problem of theodicy is posed in that form I think we
still have much to learn from them. Moreover, the special
characteristic of the apocalyptists’ grasp of the problem is
that, out of their own situation,
they were able to see the universal dimensions of the
problem of evil, the universal dominance of evil in ‘this
present evil age’, as they came to call the present.
This universal challenge to the righteousness of God demanded
a universal righting of wrongs, an elimination of evil on a
universal, even cosmic, scale.”
“I have dwelt on this
aspect of apocalyptic because I
hope it will enable us to see the real meaning of the
problem of eschatological delay. The imminent expectation expresses the extremity
of the situation, the intensity of the apocalyptists’
perception of the problem of evil, in its sheer
contradiction of the righteousness of God.
Surely
God can no longer tolerate it. Yet he does: there is the
problem of delay. What is greatly to
the credit
of the apocalyptists is that in this dilemma they abandoned
neither
the righteousness nor
the sovereignty of God, which make up the theistic form of the problem
of evil. Their belief in the powers of
evil was not dualistic: God remained in ultimate control. And
so in the face of the delay, they continued to hold that God
is righteous - his eschatological righteousness is coming -
and that he remains sovereign - the delay belongs to his
purpose and the End will come at the time he has appointed. This
is the tension of imminence and delay, the tension
experienced by the theistic believer who, in a world of
injustice, cannot give up his longing for righteousness.
Thus we do not, I think, have the right
to ask the apocalyptist to explain the delay in any complete
sense, because the problem of evil is not susceptible to
complete theoretical explanation. The
tension which apocalyptic faith contained within itself
is the tension which all forms of theism must somehow
contain if they take the problem of evil seriously.
It is a tension which cannot be resolved by explanation but
only by the event of the final victory of God’s
righteousness.”
[IMO: There are deep insights for us
to learn from here, in both the comments by Bauckham and in
the personal faith and loyalty to God of the ancient
apocalyptists.]
Four. In continuity with Jewish
apocalyptic, Christian apocalyptic was also about
theodicy and/or the problem of evil.
Baukham had made the connection
between the two in the Tyndale lecture:
“I conclude, therefore,
that the apocalyptists rightly maintained the tension of
imminence and delay, and that
in some degree that tension must remain a feature of
Christian theology. The promise of God’s
eschatological righteousness presses in upon the present,
contradicting the evils of the present, arousing our hopes,
motivating us to live towards it. Because
the righteousness of God himself is at stake in this
expectation it demands immediate fulfilment.
That the fulfilment is delayed will always contain a hard core
of incomprehensibility:
the greatest saints have protested to God against his
toleration of evil, and have done so in faith, because
of their conviction of his righteousness.”
Although there are several areas of
difference between Jewish and Christian apocalyptic
perspectives, a couple of them come immediately to mind:
One. The
incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Christ,
coupled with the advent of the Spirit into the life of the church
mark both
a ‘pivot point’ in time and a ‘proof’ that God’s promises will
be fulfilled. God’s work of judgment and redemption
are no longer
exclusively in the future—they have begun
(decisively) in the work of Christ, are presently manifested in
the lives of His children, and will be ‘fully implemented’ in the
Eschaton. [We see this perspective expounded over and over in the
post-NT documents.]
Two. The
omission by (some of) the Jewish apocalyptists to see the cosmic
evil within
themselves reaches full expression
in the NT.
“It is
true that the [Jewish] apocalyptists often fail to see that the problem of evil extends
to the sinfulness of the righteous themselves,
but they have an agonizingly clear grasp of the problem of
innocent suffering.” [Bauckham, cited above]
In the NT, we see
constant emphases in Paul on the ‘new creation’ , ‘died and
risen with Christ’, ‘sinful nature as judged’, “by nature
children of wrath”, etc. in which the ‘old world/person’ was
judged and was executed ‘in Christ’ on the Cross. It was the
‘inner eschaton’ which was the experience of every true
believer.
We see this often in the
post-NT Christian writers, that the church must ‘purify
itself’ before the Lord returns. The sufferings of the present
age are often interpreted as God’s means of purification
for His children—hardships that cause us to focus on what is
REALLY important, under the perspective of eternity.
Three.
The sufferings
of the righteous become more than just something that had to be
‘endured to the end’—they become a
source of life to others. So Bauckham:
“To conclude: Revelation
maintains the typical
apocalyptic tension of imminence and delay, now
sharpened and characterized
in a peculiarly Christian manner. The imminent
expectation focuses on the parousia of the already
victorious
Christ: and the book ends with the
promise, ‘I am coming soon’, and the church’s urgent response,
‘Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!’ (22:20).
But the manner of the victory which Christ has already
won - a sacrificial offering to ransom sinners from
every nation (5:9) - gives fresh meaning to the delay,
which now becomes the time of the church’s universal mission,
characterized by suffering witness in discipleship to the
crucified Christ. In this way, it should be noticed, the
apocalyptic theodicy problem of innocent suffering gains
a fresh perspective. Innocent
suffering still cries out for eschatological righteousness
(6:10; cf. 18:1–19:3). But on the other hand, God delays the
parousia not simply in spite of his people’s sufferings, but actually so that his people may suffer that
positive, creative suffering which comes to the
followers of the cross of Christ.”
Again, this is not true ‘delay’ as in
‘wrong on the time of a specific prediction’. This is the
problem of the ‘gap’ between need and deliverance. The martyrs
cried out:
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar
the souls of those
who had been slaughtered for the word of God
and for the testimony they had given; 10 they cried out with
a loud voice, “Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how
long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on
the inhabitants of the earth?” 11 They were
each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer,
until the number would be complete both of their fellow
servants and of their brothers and sisters, who were soon to
be killed as they themselves had been killed.
[Rev 6:9ff]
Notice that this is NOT a cry for
‘deliverance’, but a cry for ‘justice’—for God’s righteousness
to be fully implemented upon the earth.
Personal note: At the time of this
writing, I am intensely aware of this ‘gap’ problem. My life
is filled with acute needs, unhealed pathologies, new crises,
and seemingly hopeless situations – mostly in the lives of my
loved ones. All of these issues have been, and are, the
‘topic’ of constant and intense prayer before the Father, and
yet the ‘gap’ is still there. To be honest, I do sometimes see
‘things moving’ in the background and I see ‘options’
developing, and I attribute these to God’s omni-competent and
omni-wise actions. But the pain and stress are acute. Why let
His children suffer so? Why let the destructive persist in
their ways? Why let the path be filled with obstacles and
false turns?
I do have—of course—the advantage of
hindsight. I have experienced these over 35 years now of
walking with the Lord. He has His ‘audit trail’ and His
‘portfolio’ to show me, if I need it, so my confidence is His
goodness is not really challenged. But it still hurts, and I
still cry out in tears and anguish for deliverance for my
loved ones (and for me in the process). This experience of
‘gap’—in which the compassionate goodness and/or rescuing
justice of God is ‘hidden’—is theologically the same as the
experience of ‘delay’ in much of Jewish/Christian
apocalyptic—in which the compassionate goodness and/or
rescuing justice of God is ‘hidden’.