In a word: Wow.

(Side note: to those of you who have been putting it off, stop. Read the books. Or better yet, rent them on audio from your local library. Listening to Robert Dale perform these books has got to be the best way to experience them. Better than just reading them, and better than the movies. The Dude is amazing. Plus it's a timesaver because you can listen in your car.)

This book is ... I'm at a loss for words. If I call it a masterpiece, those of you who haven't read it will think I'm exagerating. Let's just say that it is up there among the finest of Children's literature...though this book really isn't for elementary age children.

These books really do keep getting better and better. The end of this one was like reading the end of "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card. The whole thing is at school kid-stuff, even while the seriousness of the adult world is looming, it's still "out there", in the sense that it's not really in the realm of serious worry. And then you get to the end, and the hero (and the reader) finds out that what's been going on in school was the real world. And it's serious. And wham-o! It's life or death.

Whereas "Prisoner of Azkaban" lays the groundwork, this is where it turns really serious. The endings of books 3 and 4 are both amazing pieces of adrenaline rushes. It's like finally coming to the end of a roller coaster ride, only to find that the final screaming descent doesn't stop...It just keeps going. The endings of these two books just pulled me along.

A few thoughts:

Yaaaay. Finally, one of the books starts somewhere other than the Dursleys. I also liked that there is lots of story before we ever get to Hogwarts. The Quidditch World Cup...

The rift between Harry and Ron was a great addition to the story. Realistic. I began to root for them to reconcile, but was actually surprised (but relieved) that it happened as soon as it did. The scene where they reconcile is brilliant.

Ron is hilarious. "Percy wouldn't recognize a joke if it danced in front of him naked...wearing a house-elf's tea towel." I haven't said much about Ron, yet, but he is a brilliant character. His wisecracks are awesome. Each character in these books has real personality. ("House Elf Liberation Front!")

The Christmas Ball was hilarious. What a great picture of "the middle school dance". Neither Harry or Ron's dates really like them, and end up wandering off. Rowling does a great job of showing that at that age, girls are better at that romantic stuff than boys. She also does a great job of portraying how awkward and uncomfortable and stressful such things like who's taking whom to the dance is to young adolescents. Though it is set in the fantastical wizarding world, it was still so real. This is always a good mark of good sci-fi/fantasy.

Rowling is a great mystery writer too. Every thread every detail of the story ends up being important. When the big reveals come at the end, it turns out that everything that happened in the first chapters had a reason. How a writer has the end so well worked out even in the beginning, I'll never fully understand.

One quibble: if Voldemort's inside man had just turned Harry's Broomstick into a port key in the beginning, half the book wouldn't even have been necessary. ;-)

Please put your discussion and thoughts about book 4 under comments. I want to hear from you! But I haven't read books 5, 6, 7 yet, so no spoilers please!

Since I started going through the Harry Potter series, and am doing these discussion posts on each book one at at a time, I decided to go back and browse the quintessential Harry Potter post written by Kenny, that has one of the longest comment threads in thinkling history. (Surpassed only by the gatorade thread I believe.) Harry Potter Had Me At Hello

Apparently, my perspective on Harry Potter changed... like a frog in a kettle. ;-) I don't even remember writing this. It's from 2005.

But since I brought it up later in the same Polar Express, I'll elaborate here. I wrote:I recently watched the first Harry Potter, uh STARTED watching it. And I haven't finished it yet. I must admit the witchcraft weirded me out, and my wife won't watch it anymore because it creeped her out so much, so I only watch 10-15 minutes now and then after she's asleep. I'm determined to finish it, and then write more. But until I explain myself better, I'll just say that my kids won't be allowed to watch Harry Potter until they're either 18 or out of my house. (i.e. under my authority).

Now for the record, I support Kenny. If he loves HP, cool! In fact, I don't care if everybody loves HP. I am firmly with my fellow thinklings in the area of Christian liberty. So what I am about to share is STRICTLY personal. I have no expectation that anyone share my opinion.

I finally finished the first HP. Special effects were awesome. There was much about the movie to like:
-The friendship between Harry, Hermoine, and Ron.
-The clever imagery and wordplay. I liked that the head of "slitherin" house was named "snape", and that they were the villians. No one likes snakes. :)
-Hagrid. He was awesome. And very funny.
-My favorite scene: Real Wizard's chess near the end. That was just plain cool.
-Ron's self sacrifice in that same scene. He was willing to die for his friend and for the cause. It was moving.
-I liked how Harry wasn't the hero alone. His friends' strengths helped and benefitted him in his quest.
-And lots more...

What I didn't like:
I admit it. The witchcraft. I don't mind magic. I have no problem with wizards, wands, dragons, centaurs, unicorns and even talk of good v. bad magic. Actually I love this stuff. (I love the Xanth series by Piers Anthony, which is very similar to Harry Potter, and I'm inclined to think that J.K. Rowling stole...er... was inspired by those books.)

But here, more so in the beginning of the movie, there was so much that reminded me of the real-world occult (and just images of witches) that I just couldn't get it out of my mind.
-Familiars- animals that are sort-of spiritual companions to those who practice witchcraft.
-spellbooks
-pointy hats
-brooms
-potions
-curses

Anyway, they just made me uncomfortable. I'd just as soon not expose my kids to that stuff in a positive way. But that's just me. Liking Harry Potter does not make anyone a bad Christian. There's much to like about it.

As far as the books, I will quote Bill from Comment #1 in this post: I've tried reading HP - I got through the third page (no kidding - that's as far as I got). A year later I picked it up again and... got through the third page. It just didn't grab me. I know that makes me a philistine, because the people who have read it love it.

That goes ditto for me. I got to about page three and quit. Tried again, and got through first chapter and quit. Not because of aversion to magic, but just sheer boredom. I'll probably try again someday... :)

249. Quaid - 01/10/2005 8:33 am CST

Thanks Shrode . . .

What interests me is how someone can pick up a book and read only three pages into it and say "it didn't grab me." I'm not attacking here - please don't hear it that way.

Don't you think you should at least try and go through one chapter first? It really wouldn't take too long. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you arrived at the same result - a not-read book.

I'm just wondering how three pages constitutes a go at a book. It's not too different then me watching the first three minutes of a movie and saying - "nah, not for me."

It's one thing if there's gratuitous secks or violence, but none of these things happen in the first three pages (and there is no secs later on, either - for the record)

What if I went into the Polar Express (since we're talking about that film), watched the first three minutes and walked out and asked for my money back because it didn't grab me. You'd probably think me odd, right?

250. Kenny - 01/10/2005 10:27 am CST

Interestingly, I had the same experience with HP. I Read the first three pages twelve times before buying the book and the rest is history.

251. Bill - 01/10/2005 10:33 am CST

Well, I was the first one to do the "first three pages" comment.

Basically, J.R.R. Tolkien it wasn't :-) I don't know how else to explain it. I'd prefer everyone not start piling on and say "Oh ho! But you've read [name book here] and that's not J.R.R. Tolkien! Aha!" - because I know HP are great books. I'd probably really enjoy them. But I don't have the inclination. Maybe I didn't like them because everyone else does. I dunno. It's just my personal preference.

If you walked out of Polar Express after three minutes I'd say that was your choice :-)

252. Kenny - 01/10/2005 10:46 am CST

Just for the record, I have yet to make it my mission to sway all to read HP. Unless things change and I begin to profit from it somehow, I am content to read and enjoy them and live peaceably with those who don't:)

253. Bill - 01/10/2005 10:50 am CST

Thanks Kenny - I appreciate that.

254. Bill - 01/10/2005 10:52 am CST

By the way, Kenny - it's cool to look at our front page, even though Jared and I have dropped out temporarily, and Blo is once again a fictional zephyr, and see you and Shrode carrying the load. Well done! You guys go hard.

255. Shrode - 01/10/2005 11:06 am CST

Quaid wrote:What interests me is how someone can pick up a book and read only three pages into it and say "it didn't grab me." I'm not attacking here - please don't hear it that way.Don't you think you should at least try and go through one chapter first? It really wouldn't take too long. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you arrived at the same result - a not-read book.I'm just wondering how three pages constitutes a go at a book. It's not too different then me watching the first three minutes of a movie and saying - "nah, not for me."

You're right Quaid. First, let me say that I have no doubt that HP books are good. And I'd probably like it fine. In fact I intend to try again. I only mentioned that in an anecdotal way, not as any kind of anti-HP comment.

I went back and checked. It appears I latched onto Bill's comment and exagerated. My book mark is at end of chapter one, so I know I made it at least that far the second time. The first time I "read it", was actually me and my wife together. We read to each other, and we decided to try Harry Potter. She read it to me and we both got bored, probably because we never got past Harry living with his foster family under the stairs. I just looked at my copy of the sorcerer's stone, and we must have made it past chapter one, because I remember him living under the stairs and being mistreated. I even remember all the letters. But we never made it to hogwart's. We just sort-of gave up.

I tried on my own later, and made it at least through chapter one. I don't think I "gave up on it" akin to walking out of a theater, so much as I just never got around to picking it up again. I plan on trying again someday. Especially having read Quaid's comment number 64 today.

64. Quaid - 07/26/2003 12:16 pm CDT

As far as Harry Potter goes, I am a pretty big fan. Something that I wanted to mention that many might not be aware of, as I was not aware of until just recently (as I just finished the fourth book), is that Harry Potter has something pretty integral to the entire Fantasy World literature genre.

The Harry Potter series, in the end of Book IV, begins what appears to be an epic war of Good vs. Evil. Although the first three books are fun and extremely entertaining, there was a kind of sitcom-like aura about them.

Here is (more or less) how the first 3 books go:
You get your cast of characters, they fall into some sort of hijinx, hilarity ensues. Evil presents itself, more hijinx, more hilarity, evil is overcome (for at least the time being), no one good gets hurt too badly, everyone goes home (until the next time . . .). [This is done in a very entertaining fashion, mind you]

In Book Four, however, things begin to change DRAMATICALLY which I think will make the series incredible.

Book Four goes along, more or less, with the same formula until you get towards the end, and all of a sudden, the evil is larger than it has ever been and innocent people (quite graphically) begin to get hurt and die. The end of Book Four is quite a cliffhanger (the evil is NOT overcome), and presents the introduction to what will be a battle for the entire world.

Although Harry Potter is just easy-to-read, child's play fun, it is extremely entertaining. In addition to this, however, the books are beginning a sequence of events that may keep this series going for a very long time, not just when the fun wears off after the series ends.

Just as LOTR is still popular today even though it was written many, many years ago (the 40's, right?), Harry Potter seems to be a series that is growing into a timeless classic.

For those fighting the Harry Potter battle today, be prepared to continue fighting. Your grandkids will be wanting to read them, too.

I'm quite proud that I made good on my promise to "try again someday." I'm glad I did. Quaid was right. Though, I noticed the "big change" at the end of book 3. I just started book 4, so I can't wait to see what Quaid is talking about.

For the record, I'm planning on going back to watch all of the movies in order, after I finish all of the books first. By then, maybe the "Deathly Hallows" movie will be completed? I heard they are going to break that into two movies. I wonder what the titles will be?

Also, above I said my kids can't watch the movies til they are 18. That was probably a bit harsh. I think my 4 years ago self may have been wrong. I'm thinking now, that I'll let my kids read the books when they are in middle school. But in my opinion, they are not good for elementary age. But that's just me. My 8 year old hasn't been allowed to see "The Incredibles" or "Madagascar" or "Ice Age" yet so I'm just a curmudgeon. ;-)

Well, I finished the second Harry Potter book. I'm going through each of them in order FOR THE FIRST TIME! Will you talk about this one with me under comments?

I liked it a lot. Here are some things that struck me:

Just to repeat the rules. Please discuss this with me under comments. But no references to books AFTER this one please. Don't spoil it for me.

Spoiler Alert: If you haven't read this book yet, read on at your own risk.

This one was as good as the first. As a refresher, it starts with Dobby, the house elf warning Harry about going back to Hogwarts.

It also was a reminder to me of how horrid the Dursley's are. I was disturbed by their treatment of Harry in this book, even more than in the first. What Rowling is describing here is child abuse in my opinion, and I wondered how a 10 year old reader would take these descriptions.

One thing that disappointed me a little was that the plot was similar to the first one. Harry is trying to find something hidden at Hogwarts. And again it is hidden under the school. And again, when he finds it, he must confront Voldemore. Sigh. Like a movie sequel that is trying to duplicate it's success, it's like retelling the same story. End criticism.

It was still an excellent book. Speaking of horrid, Snape's a jerk. But apparently he's a competent wizard, showing the kids the disarming spell, "Expeliarmus", which gets used a bunch in book 3 - The Prisoner of Azkaban. (Confession: I just finished that one too, I'm just late on this post.)

Again, in this book, Rowling shows a great sense of humor. Gilderoy Lockhart is a great character. She does a great job of showing that he is a pompous, incompetent, self-centered fool, without ever having to say so. And just when you think he can't get anymore audacious, he's autographing copies of his textbook for students. (I checked to see who played him in the move. Kenneth Branagh?!?! No! I think that guy's a great actor and all, but that's not who I pictured. I imagined the long haired blonde guy from Die Hard 1 and the Money Pit.) Count that as bad professor #2 for the "Defense against the Dark Arts".

The Weasley family is awesome. Fred and George rock the Casbah. Who wouldn't want to live with them? I was so surprised when Harry went back to live with the Dursley's at the end of the book. The Weasleys would obviously welcome him. It seems like a bit of dishonest story telling for him to keep going back to the Dursley's. It's like she has to keep the formula of the first few chapters being how miserable Harry is at the Dursley's followed by going to Diagon Alley for school supplies.

Another thing that impressed me about this book was the surprises. I was not expecting the ending at all. Rowling is obviously good at that, and I'm curious to see how that will continue in the later books. I never saw Ginny Weasley coming or Tom Riddle either for that matter.

It's interesting how objects from the first book become important in the next - like the sorting hat. My understanding is that Rowling does even more of that as the series continues. (but don't tell me!)

Is it just me or is Quidditch sort of a pointless game? Here's what I mean by that: the way Rowling has the rules set up, whoever gets the snitch wins the game. Period. Though theoretically, throwing the quaffle through the hoops, could outweigh the 150 points that the Snitch wins, but that's never how it turns out. It basically comes down to which seeker catches the snitch first. It doesn't seem to much matter what the other players do. This makes Harry pretty important obviously, but eliminates Quidditch as a team sport. It seems to be a lot more of a one on one contest in reality, seeker vs. seeker.

What did you think of Book 2?

I admit it. I'm late to the party. Really, really late. But I just finished "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" and now I'm halfway through "Chamber of Secrets." Now I'm starting to see what all the kerfluffle is about. It's good!

As I cruise through every book in the series, I wonder if anyone would be interested in discussing them as I go, one at a time. Discussion will be carried on under comments.

This thread is about the Sorcerer's Stone only. I'll do another separate post for each of the subsequent books. Spoiling any of the other Potter books for me will result in severe punishment for you...like having to do detention in the magic forest. Please don't!

I'll get us started.

One thing I never expected about Harry Potter was the humor. It's funny. Peeves the poltergeist cracks me up. The images of Quirrel, professor of "Defence against the Dark Arts" stumbling, and stuttering, afraid of his own shadow was hilarious. This was supposed to be the guy who fights werewolves and vampires. Oh and then there was Professor Dumbledore's welcome speech.

"Welcome to a new year at Hogwarts! Before we begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!
Thank you!"

Hilarious.

Another thing that impressed me was the friendship between Ron, Harry and Hermione.

"From that moment on, Hermione Granger became their friend. There are some things you can't share without ending up liking each other, and knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them."

Brilliant.

I never saw Quirrell coming. Never. I even saw the movie several years ago, but all I could remember was Alan Rickman, the bad guy's bad guy, as Professor Snape. (For the record, that's the only Harry Potter movie I've seen. I will go through the rest of the books before I see anymore movies.) I was just so sure that Snape would be the bad guy. Rowling fooled me too.

And finally I really liked Hogwarts. The whole atmosphere was amazing. Rowling has created a magical world. And like Narnia, Xanth, and Middle Earth, I found myself wishing I could go there.

Please put your thoughts about the first Harry Potter book under comments. Any thoughts at all.

Thinkling Readers, I Need Your Help!

My oldest child is a 7 year old boy and in the second grade. He's reading very well for his age. (I'm gonna guess that he's reading on about a 5th-6th grade level or higher.) He reads a minimum of 100 pages a day. I'm having a hard time keeping up with his habit. Our school library lets parents check out books in large numbers, so I've been doing that. The problem I'm having is that (right now) I have the (naive?) belief that just because he CAN read something doesn't mean he SHOULD. It seems that most of the books that are on a middle school reading level assume a middle schooler is reading them. (Understandable) So these books have content that I'm not sure my second grader is ready for. Murder, kidnapping, child abuse, divorce, non-christian religions etc...

None of these books are bad or explicit, it's just that I'm not sure that I'm ready for my second grader to read about kids whose parents don't love them or even beat them.

So here are my questions for you.

#1- Am I being ridiculous? For example, I just checked out some books from "The Sugar Creek Gang" by Paul Hutchens and "Baker Street Sports Club" by Jerry Jenkins. Both series are published by Moody and are quite similar in "conflict". The narrator is a new christian, lots of explicit Bible and Christian talk, witnessing to friends, parents who are alcoholics and beat their children, kidnapping, hurt feelings etc...

I've found many books that are perfect for him reading level wise, but because they are targeted towards "reluctant readers", they are actually assuming a high school mentality reading at a middle school level. So those books deal with things way beyond a second grader.

I just wish that I could find more books like Henry Huggins, Ralph S. Mouse, Homer Price, the Boxcar Children etc...

I'm looking for books where there is adventure without ruining childhood quite yet. Sheesh! He's only 7, but so many of the books that he's ready to read assume he's 12. But books targeted to 7 year olds are just big picture books that he's waaaay beyond.

But I'm starting to think I might just have to suck it up and start letting him read about alcoholics and child abuse. I'm just not sure he's (or if I'm) ready for that yet.

#2 - Do you have any recomendations?

OK, you know it, and I know it. Jared deserves to be published. He should have been published already. But here's the deal. Publishers need to know that they can sell books. Makes sense to me. Here's what I'm thinking...

Jared's probably got quite a few fans around here who would love to read his book. And, no offense, but everybody loves free books. But if we all think that Jared's gonna be able to send us free copies of his book when it comes out, we got another think coming. It's time to put your money (or at least your future money that doesn't exist yet) where your mouth is.

Under comments please say how many copies you'll be buying when his first book comes out. That way Jared can say to a prospective publisher, "Hey, I can guarantee you that more people than just my mom will be buying copies." (Of course, if anybody deserves a freebie, it's Jared's mom.)

Now is this a petition that matters? OK, so it may not ACTUALLY give weight to a prospective publisher. But it will send a message of support to our very own Jared.

So here's the challenge: if you will promise to buy at least one book or better yet two copies, one for you and one to give away...

please say so under comments. Step up people. Let your voices be heard.

Better late than never, eh? Oh, well. So here?s the final installment . . .
---

Thinklings Book Club Discussion Twelve: Chapter 20



Highlights and Reflections

1. I thought the second paragraph of the chapter, which lays out Hoekema?s general view of the new earth, was great. A little long, but worth reprinting in its entirety:

The doctrine of the new earth, as taught in Scripture, is an important one. It is important, first, for the proper understanding of the life to come. One gets the impression from certain hymns that glorified believers will spend eternity in some ethereal heaven somewhere off in space, far away from earth. The following lines from the hymn ?My Jesus, I Love Thee? seems to convey that impression: ?In mansions of glory and endless delight / I?ll ever adore thee in heaven so bright.? But does such a conception do justice to biblical eschatology? Are we to spend eternity somewhere off in space, wearing white robes, plucking harps, singing songs, and flitting from cloud to cloud while doing so? On the contrary, the Bible assures us that God will create a new earth on which we shall live to God?s praise in glorified, resurrected bodies. On that new earth, therefore, we hope to spend eternity, enjoying its beauties, exploring its resources, and using its treasures to the glory of God. Since God will make the new earth his dwelling place, and since where God dwells there heaven is, we shall then continue to be in heaven while we are on the new earth. For heaven and earth will then no longer be separated, as they are now, but will be one (see Rev. 21:1-3). But to leave the new earth out of consideration when we think of the final state of believers is greatly to impoverish biblical teaching about the life to come.
(p. 274)

2. I loved this from p. 275:
?The total work of Christ is nothing less than to redeem this entire creation from the effects of sin.?

3. Here?s something interesting that was a new idea to me:

In other words, just as the people of God in the Old Testament era were restricted mostly to Israelites but in the New Testament era are gathered from all the nations, so in Old Testament times the inheritance is expanded to include the entire earth. (p.278)

That adds another example to the near/far prophecy concept, I think.

4. Connected to the quote and its idea above is this thought from Hoekema about how the promise of the land is a promise to all believers, not just Israel (remember that ?not all are Israel who are of Israel?):

From Galatians 3:29, further, we learn that if we are Christ?s, we are Abraham?s seed, heirs according to promise. All of us who are united to Christ by faith, therefore, are in this wider sense the seed of Abraham. And the promise of which we are heirs must include the promise of the land.

When, in the light of this New Testament expansion of Old Testament thought, we reread Genesis 17:8, we see in it now a promise of the ultimate everlasting possession by all the people of God ? all those who are in the widest sense of the word the seed of Abraham ? of that new earth of which Canaan was only a type. Thus the promise of the inheritance of the land has meaning for all believers today. To limit the future thrust of this promise to Abraham, as dispensationalists do, to the possession of the land of Palestine by believing Jews during the millennium is greatly to diminish the meaning of this promise.
(p.279)

5. Wondrously renewed, praise God!

Those raised with Christ will not be a totally new set of human beings but the people of God who have lived on this earth. By way of analogy, we would expect that the new earth will not be totally different from the present earth but will be the present earth wondrously renewed.
(p.281)

6. And perpetual worship!

In [Isaiah 66] verse 22 God tells us through Isaiah that his people will remain before him as everlastingly as the new heavens and the new earth which he will create. From verse 23 we learn that all the inhabitants of that new earth will faithfully and regularly worship God. Though this worship is described in terms borrowed from the time when Isaiah wrote (?from new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath?), these words must not be understood in a strictly literal way. What is predicted here is the perpetual worship of all the people of God, gathered from all the nations, in ways which will be suitable to the glorious new existence they will enjoy on the new earth.
(p.282)

7. Heaven and earth joined:

Since where God dwells, there heaven is, we conclude that in the life to come heaven and earth will no longer be separated, as they are now, but will be merged. Believers will therefore continue to be in heaven as they continue to live on the new earth. ?He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people? are the familiar words of the central promise of the covenant of grace . . . The fact that this promise is repeated in John?s vision of the new earth implies that only on that new earth will God finally grant his people the full riches which the covenant of grace includes. Here we receive the firstfruits; there we shall receive the full harvest.

Awesome. Yes, Lord Jesus, come quickly.

Questions for Reflection or Discussion

1. I don?t have any specific questions to toss out on particular points made, but feel free to share any compliments or criticisms you have of anything in the chapter.

2. I have really enjoyed the book, and I think it is a good and comprehensive (if basic) overview of amillennial eschatology. Outside of the book club, I would have read it much faster, but even though the club petered out, it was probably good for me to read it at a leisurely pace and do some work of reflecting on its content as I put these posts together. Tell me, what is your overall opinion of the book?
Now that we?ve reached the end, how do you feel about the book club itself? Things you liked or didn?t like? Ways to make it better?

3. I want to definitely try the book club again. Not for a little while, mind you, but I do want to give it another whirl. Next time with maybe a shorter book with a wider appeal. Please use the comments thread to offer suggestions for the next book club selection.

It?s been real, gang. ;-)

Thinklings Book Club Discussion Eleven: Chapters 18 and 19



Highlights and Reflections

1. Early on in Chapter 18, Hoekema writes, ?God does not need to conduct an examination of people?s lives to determine who will be saved and who will not? (254).
So why does He then examine? Hoekema writes of the purpose of the final judgment:
?What is therefore central on the day of judgment is not the destinies of individuals but the glory of God? (254).

2. Will we ?help judge??

Herman Bavinck, in commenting on [1 Corinthians 6:2-3], says that we must not weaken this statement to mean a mere approval by the saints of the judgment of Christ, but must understand it as teaching that the saints shall indeed take part in judging the world and the angels. In this connection he calls attention to Matthew 19:28, which records Jesus? words to his disciples, ?Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel? (cf. Luke 22:30). Whether Bavinck is correct in his interpretation or not, it seems clear that glorified saints will indeed have a part in the work of the Judgment Day. (256-257)

3. Hoekema?s view of the examination of the ?things we?ve done? on the last day is that it will be a final pronouncement of forgiveness, not a trial of sorts in which sins are admitted as evidence.

It is sometimes said that the sins of believers, which God has pardoned, blotted out, and cast into the sea of forgetfulness, will not be mentioned on the Day of Judgment. If it be true, however, that there is nothing hidden which will not then be revealed, and that the judgment will concern itself with all our deeds, words, and thoughts, surely the sins of believers will also be revealed on that day. In fact, if it is true that even the best works of believers are polluted with sin (see Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:23; James 3:2), how can any deeds of believers be brought into the open without some recognition of sin and imperfection? Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 that some believers build on the foundation of faith in Christ with inferior materials like wood, hay, and stubble ? these will be saved but yet will suffer loss. The failures and shortcomings of such believers, therefore, will enter into the picture on the Day of Judgment. But ? and this is the important point ? the sins and shortcomings of believers will be revealed in the judgment as forgiven sins, whose guilt has been totally covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. Therefore, as was said, believers have nothing to fear from the judgment ? though the realization that they will have to given an account of everything they have done, said, and thought should be for them a constant incentive to diligent fighting against sin, conscientious Christian service, and consecrated living.
(258-259)

4. I?ve been reading about (and believing!) the connection between faith and works ? e.g. As Calvin said, ?Faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies is not alone.? ? for a long time, but Hoekema?s brief exposition (p.261) of works being the proof of faith in the light of the final judgment is one of the best I?ve ever read. Very clear, very refreshing.

5. Hoekema opens Chapter 19 with some overviews of the positions he critiques. His definition of universalism:

Universalists believe that hell and eternal punishment are inconsistent with the concept of a loving and powerful God. They therefore teach that in the end all men will be saved. Some universalists hold that people who have lived bad lives may have to be punished for a time after death, but all universalists agree that no one will be ultimately lost. (265)

6. Hoekema?s definition of annihilationism:

The other main form which the denial of eternal punishment has assumed is found in the doctrine of annihilationism. This doctrine may take either of two forms. According to one form, man was created immortal, but those who continue in sin are deprived of immortality and are simply annihilated ? that is, reduced to nonexistence. According to the other form, also known as ?conditional immortality,? man was created mortal. Believers receive immortality as a gift of grace, and therefore continue to exist in a state of blessedness after death. Unbelievers, however, do not receive this gift and hence remain mortal, therefore at death they are annihilated. Both forms of annihilationism teach the annihilation of the wicked, and therefore deny the doctrine of eternal punishment. (266)

7. A brief bit from his critique of annihilationism:

Having noted that apollymi does not mean annihilation when it is used in other ways, we would not expect the word to mean annihilation when it is used to describe the final destiny of the wicked. Such an abrupt shift of meaning would have to be clearly attested. But, as we have seen, biblical teachings about the final destiny of the lost completely exclude annihilation. (269)

8. On the conflicting biblical imagery about hell and eternal punishment:

As was said before, the various figures by means of which the punishment of hell is depicted are not to be taken literally. For, when taken literally, these figures tend to contradict each other: how can hell be darkness and fire at the same time? The imagery is to be understood symbolically, but the reality will be worse than the symbols. (273)

9. A bit from Hoekema?s conclusion:

We have now surveyed the biblical evidence. If we take the testimony of Scripture seriously, and if we base our doctrines on its teachings ? as indeed we should ? we are compelled to believe in the eternal punishment of the lost. To be sure, we shrink from this teaching with all that is within us, and do not dare to try to visualize how this eternal punishment might be experienced by someone we know. But the Bible teaches it, and therefore we must accept it. (273)

Questions for Reflection or Discussion

1. What is your take on Hoekema?s view of the glorified saints? participation in the judgment?

2. On p.260, Hoekema writes:

What is very clear, thefore, is that men will be judged on the basis of the light they had, and not on the basis of a revelation they did not receive. Those who had many privileges will have the greater responsibility; those who had fewer privileges will have less responsibility. There will therefore be ?gradations? in the suffering of the lost.

Reactions?
Is Hoekema really saying there will be different ?circles? of hell?

3. How strong do you find Hoekema?s reconciliation of the conflicting biblical imagery about hell? Are the images not to be taken literally, as he suggests, but instead to be symbols that only hint of the torment of eternal punishment? Or is it possible that hell may somehow be an environment of both darkness and fire?

4. Please share any quote or passage you found exceptional, confusing, or just flat-out wrong.

5. Hoekema didn?t really touch on this particular subject with any depth, but what is your view of the eternal destiny of those who will never hear the gospel? Bring to mind the clich? of the island tribe that never hears the Word of God. If they die never having heard, and therefore never having an opportunity to repent, receive, and follow, what will be their fate?
---

Next week's reading for Monday (6/27): Chapter 20 (approx. 13 pages).
This will be the last reading!

Thinklings Book Club Discussion Ten: Chapters 16 and 17



Lots of good stuff in these two chapters, so this will be a long entry. Sorry for that. Let's get into it, then . . .

Highlights and Reflections

1. In the opening paragraphs, Hoekema announces his perspective on the Book of Revelation as ?progressive parallelism, ably defended [also] by William Hendriksen in More than Conquerors . . . According to this view, the book of Revelation consists of seven sections which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ?s first coming to the time of his second coming? (p. 223).
I have also heard of this perspective on Revelation, in which the same series of events are retold several times only with more detail each successive retelling, called ?telescoping.? It may be a little hard to swallow at first for those of us accustomed to reading ?stories? as linear narratives with straightforward beginnings, middles, and ends, but we will do well to consider the possibility that something written in the first century in the genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature may not require the same sort of reading as a more modern narrative written in a straightforward storyline fashion.

2. On the letters to the churches in Revelation:

As we read these letters we are impressed with two things. First, there are references to events, people, and places of the time when the book of Revelation was written. Second, the principles, commendations, and warnings contained in these letters have value for the church of all time . . . Since the book of Revelation was addressed to the church of the first century A.D., its message had reference to events occurring at that time and was therefore meaningful for the Christians of that day. But since the book was also intended for the church through the ages, its message is still relevant for us today. (pp. 223-224)

There is an important exegetical lesson at stake here. For decades, the Church has been reading Revelation with an essentially reversed perspective ? that the book mainly refers to events contemporary to us or future from us, and any implications it had for its initial audience is secondary and/or minimal, if not incidental.
This error carries over outside prophetic readings, as well. How many of us read the Gospels without considering the contemporary audience of Jesus, but instead neglect first-century context for ?what it means to us?? The results can be, even as we think we?re doing the work of interpretation, a product of doing the work of application first.

3. Expounding on that telescoping thing:

Note that though these seven sections are parallel to each other, they also reveal a certain amount of eschatological progress. The last section, for example, takes us further into the future than the other sections. Although the final judgment has already been briefly described in 6:12-17, it is not set forth in full detail until we come to 20:11-15. Though the final joy of the redeemed in the life to come has been hinted at in 7:15-17, it is not until we reach chapter 21 that we find a detailed and elaborate description of the blessedness of life on the new earth (21:1-22:5). Hence this method of interpretation is called progressive parallelism. (p.226)

4. Hoekema on the difference between premillennialist chronologizing versus amillennialist ?compartmentalizing?:

The premillennial interpretation of these verses understands them as describing a millennial reign of Christ on earth which will follow his Second Coming. And it is true that the Second Coming of Christ has been referred to in the previous chapter (see 19:11-16). If, then, one thinks of Revelation 20 as setting forth what follows chronologically after what has been described in chapter 19, one would indeed conclude that the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 will come after the return of Christ.
As has been indicated above, however, chapters 20-22 comprise the last of the seven sections of the book of Revelation, and therefore do not describe what follows the return of Christ. Rather, Revelation 20:1 takes us back once again to the beginning of the New Testament era. (pp. 226-227)

5. On literal/figurative, specifically as it relates to the 1,000 years itself:

The book of Revelation is full of symbolic numbers. It would seem rather likely, therefore, that the number of ?thousand? which is used in this passage ought not to be interpreted in a strictly literal sense. Since the number ten signifies completeness, and since a thousand is ten to the third power, we may think of the expression ?a thousand years? as standing for a complete period, a very long period of indeterminate length. (p.227)

This thinking is important, I think, and I find the premil takes on the numbers inconsistent, almost arbitrary. Why are the 1,000 years and the 7 years interpreted literally while other numbers ? the 40 weeks of Daniel, for example ? interpreted figuratively? Given that the genre of these prophecies is apocalyptic, which pretty much assumes the inclusion of the highly symbolic, shouldn?t our default position be that the numbers are symbolic?

6. On p.228 Hoekema discusses the idea, according to the amil view, that Satan is bound today. This perspective is admittedly problematic, although perhaps only superficially so. There is so much sin in the world, so much evil. And so much of that sin and evil despicable and abhorrent even to unbelievers without a spiritual nature to offend. How then could we really explain all that if Satan is bound?
On the other hand, the Gospels and the latter NT extractions of them do speak of Satan?s defeat at the accomplishments of Jesus.
I also really, really like the connection between Revelation?s reference to Satan being bound and Jesus? reference to binding the strongman in the Gospels. The parallel seems intentional and clear to me now. I first encountered this connection in Kim Riddlebarger?s A Case for Amillennialism. If the connection is true, it certainly does imply the millennium of Revelation began in the work of Jesus Christ nearly 2000 (literal) years ago!

7. Two quotes stating the amil view succinctly:

[T]he millennium is now, and the reign of Christ with believers during this millennium is not an earthly but a heavenly one. (p.233)

This, then, is the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6. So understood, the passage says nothing about an earthly reign of Christ over a primarily Jewish kingdom. Rather, it describes the reigning with Christ in heaven, between their heaven and Christ?s Second Coming, of the souls of deceased believers. It also describes the binding of Satan during the present age in such a way that he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel. (p.238)

8. Hoekema spends a fair amount of time in Chapter 17 (on the bodily resurrection) dealing with the somewhat Gnostic view of our physical bodies. There is a tendency, we must admit, to see our future resurrection bodies as non-physical, as somehow better than material ones. But that is not the real difference between our bodies now and our bodies then at all. From the paragraph that opens the chapter:

The resurrection of the body is central to the Bible?s eschatological message. As was noted earlier, there is a radical difference between the Christian view of man and the Greek view. According to the Greek philosophers, man?s body is evil and is a hindrance to his full existence. Hence at death the body disintegrates while the soul lives on ? there is here no hope for a bodily resurrection. The Bible, on the contrary, teaches that God created man body and soul, and that man is not complete apart from his body. Both the incarnation and the bodily resurrection of Christ prove that the body is not evil but good. (p.239)

Yes, indeed, the Incarnation itself testifies the material goodness of the human body. I once debated with a believer over his idea that Jesus had a sinful nature. He held that the sinful nature was part and parcel of the human body itself, and since Jesus had a human body, he had to have a sinful nature (even though he agreed with me that Jesus never sinned). It is certainly difficult to separate in our minds the sinful nature from our deficient bodies (especially since the language the Bible uses in these discussion includes phrases like ?the flesh,? etc.).
But God called creation itself ?good,? and not just in a moral sense. Animals and trees and such have no moral spirituality. They, like we, are good creations because of the very fact that God created them and us. Our physical bodies, regardless of what your bathroom scale says ;-), are good. Think of the implications this view can have, for instance, on one?s view of the sanctity of life.

9. A collection of quotes on just how many resurrections constitute a general resurrection:

The reference would seem to be to a general resurrection of all who are in their graves; it is straining the meaning of these words to make them describe two groups (or four groups) of people who will be raised at separate times. Moreover, this passage states specifically that all these dead will hear the voice of the Son of man. The clear implication seems to be that this voice will be sounded once, not two times or four times. (p. 241)

Can two resurrections a thousand years apart properly be called a resurrection? (p.241)

We conclude that there is no Scriptural basis for the theory of a double or quadruple resurrection. The clear teaching of the Bible is that at the time of Christ?s return there will be a general resurrection of both believers and unbelievers. After this general resurrection the judgment will follow. (p.244)

10. A good quote from p.245:

The Scriptures make it abundantly clear that the resurrection of Christ is the pledge and guarantee of the future resurrection of believers. All previous resurrections mentioned in the Bible were again followed by death; only the resurrection of Christ is never to be followed by death ? and it is this type of resurrection to which believers look forward. Because Christ arose, believers too shall arise.

11. Hoekema on the natural vs. spiritual body again, more specifically this time on our resurrection bodies:

One of the difficulties here is that the expression ?a spiritual body? has led many to think that the resurrection body will be a nonphysical one ? spiritual is then thought to be in contrast with physical.
That this is not so can be easily shown. The resurrection body of the believer, we have seen, will be like the resurrection body of Christ. But Christ?s resurrection body was certainly a physical one; he could be touched (John 20:17,27) and he could eat food (Luke 24:38-43). Further, the word spiritual (pneumatikos) does not describe that which is nonmaterial or nonphysical. Note how Paul uses the same contrast in the same epistle, chapter 2:14-15: ?Now the natural (psychikos) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness until him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. But he that is spiritual (pneumatikos) judgeth all things, and he himself is judged by no man? (ASV). Here the same two Greek words, psychikos and pneumatikos, are used as in 15:44. But spiritual (pneumatikos) here does not mean nonphysical. Rather, it means someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit, at least in principle, in distinction from someone who is guided only by his natural impulses. In similar fashion, the natural body described in 15:44 is one which is part of this present, sin-cursed existence; but the spiritual body of the resurrection is one which will be totally, not just partially, dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit. (pp.249-250)

I don?t know about you, but that sounds incredible to me. Can?t wait.

12. From p.252:

The similarity to angels, we may presume, applies only to the point being made, not to the absence of physical bodies. Jesus? teaching here does not necessarily imply that there will be no sex differences in the life to come. What we do learn, however, is that the institution of marriage will no longer be in existence, since there will be no need to bring new children into the world.

We will then have realized fully our marriage to the Bridegroom, which is only tentatively realized now. We won?t have marriages to each other then, because we won?t need them. The marriages we enjoy this side of the Parousia are mere pictures of the marriage we will enjoy on the other side.
Even marriage is eschatological!

13. Finally, from p.250:

But our obedience in this present life remains imperfect; we realize that we fall short of the ideal, and must still daily confess our sins. Our future existence, however, will be an existence completely and totally ruled by the Holy Spirit, so that we shall be forever done with sin.

Blows my mind.
Yea God!

Questions for Discussion or Reflection

1. I have had Hendriksen?s More Than Conquerors sitting on my shelf for more than five years, as well as a few other Revelation commentaries that have come highly recommended (e.g. volumes by Ray Summers and by George Eldon Ladd). I have yet to read any of them. One of the reasons I have been reluctant to sign on wholeheartedly to a particular eschatological perspective is that I haven?t studied Revelation in depth yet. Are there any ?end-times? books or commentaries on Revelation that you recommend? If so, why?

2. In #8 of the Highlights and Reflections above, I mentioned the implications the view that physical body = bad/evil may have on the sanctity of life. What, logically speaking, might believing physical matter is bad or evil do to one?s view, for instance and if anything, of abortion or capital punishment?

3. Feel free to share a favorite quote or passage or a quote or passage you found problematic or confusing.

4. We are only three chapters away (just two weeks!) from finishing now. We?ve recently been through overviews of the main eschatological schools of thought, as well as larger reviews of dispensational premillennialism and the millennium itself. What, if anything, have you learned? Has your view shifted, modified, or changed?
---

Next week's reading for Monday (6/20): Chapters 18 and 19 (approx. 21 pages).

Thinklings Book Club Discussion Nine: Chapter 15



Highlights and Reflections

1. A whole chapter devoted to dispensational premillennialism. In the late 70s, right as Hal Lindsey?s books were gaining popularity, right as the rise of ?rapture popularity? began, Hoekema saw the wisdom in providing a substantive critique. If only more folks had read this book back then than Lindsey?s.
And one thing I really liked was that he began this chapter with some basic affirmations of what is good and true in dispensational eschatology. This demonstrates an irenic spirit that testifies to Hoekema?s character and also might incline more skeptical minds to consider his ensuing critique with more openness. It reminds me a lot of Vern Poythress?s excellent book-length critique Understanding Dispensationalists, which, besides the strength of Poythress?s arguments, has the added strength of his charity and fairness. (Contrast this, for instance, with John Gerstner?s Primer on Dispensationalism, in which the reasoning is sound but the spirit is lousy.)

2. ?One great difficulty with the dispensational system, therefore, is that in it the differences between the various periods of redemptive history seem to outweigh the basic unity of that history.? (p.196)

3. A good passage in which Hoekema highlights dispy premil?s sense of discontinuity:

[W]e learn from the New Testament that the wall of partition or hostility which formerly divided Jews and Gentiles has been permanently taken away by Christ (Eph. 2:14-15). On the basis of the teaching of this and similar passages, we ask the dispensationalist: Why, then, do you still posit a kind of separation between Jews and Gentiles in the millennium, since the Jews will have a favored position at that time and will be exalted above the Gentiles? The dispensationalist?s answer, I presume, would go somewhat like this: ?The wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles is removed during the present Church Age, while God is now gathering his church from both Jews and Gentiles. But the millennium will be a different dispensation ? one in which promises made to Israel during a previous dispensation will be fulfilled.? The problem with this dispensationalist answer, however, is that one must then, because of the demands of the dispensational scheme, disregard what the New Testament says about the removal of the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. The principle of discontinuity between one dispensation and another has now overruled and virtually nullified the principle of progressive revelation. (p.196)

4. Another good point from p.196:

We must first of all challenge the statement that when the Bible talks about Israel it never means the church, and that when it talks about the church it always intends to exclude Israel. As a matter of fact, the New Testament itself often interprets expressions relating to Israel in such a way as to apply them to the New Testament church, which includes both Jews and Gentiles.

5. Those last two passages (and a few that follow below) illustrate one of the primary problems I and many others have with dispensationalism ? the system?s rigidity. When I first began really studying the view in earnest, as opposed to just accepting it as the default theology of my church background and raising, I began to see how inflexible it was, how challenging it was to good exegesis. I thought of dispensationalism like a cage that is placed over the biblical text; suddenly the theology is determining what the Bible must be saying instead of the Bible determining the theology.

6. Another key distinction of dispensationalism is the contention that God has separate plans for Israel and the Church. Part of Hoekema?s examination of that tenet is in this look at 1 Peter 2:9 from p.198. (emphasis is mine):

When we now look carefully at 1 Peter 2:9, we notice that Peter is here applying to the New Testament church expressions which are used in the Old Testament to describe Israel. The words ?a chosen race? are applied in Isaiah 43:20 to the people of Israel. The expressions ?a royal priesthood, a holy nation? are used to describe the people of Israel in Exodus 19:6. The words ?God?s own people? or ?a people for his possession? are applied to the people of Israel in Exodus 19:5. Peter is therefore saying here in the plainest words that what the Old Testament said about Israel can now be said about the church. No longer are the people of Israel to be thought of exclusively as constituting the chosen race ? the Jewish-Gentile church is now God?s chosen race. No longer are the Old Testament Jews God?s holy nation ? the entire church must now be so called. No longer is Israel by itself ?a people for God?s possession? ? these words must now be applied to the entire New Testament church. It is not abundantly clear from the passages just dealt with that the New Testament church is now the true Israel, in whom and through whom the promises made to Old Testament Israel are being fulfilled?

A companion thought, just as forceful, on p.201:

To suggest that God has in mind a separate future for Israel, in distinction from the future he has planned for Gentiles, actually goes contrary to God?s purpose. It is like putting the scaffolding back up after the building has been finished. It is like turning the clock of history back to Old Testament times. It is imposing Old Testament separate-ness upon the New Testament, and ignoring the progress of revelation. God?s present purpose with Israel is that Israel should believe in Christ as its Messiah, and thus become part of the one fellowship of God?s redeemed people which is the church.

7. Highlighting another deficiency of the dispy hermeneutic, Hoekema writes on p.204 about a note in the New Scofield Bible on sacrifices prophesied in Ezekiel:

If the sacrifices are not to be taken literally, why should we take the temple literally? It would seem that the dispensational principle of the literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is here abandoned, and that a crucial foundation stone for the entire dispensational system has here been set aside!

This is another chief complaint of mine about dispensationalism. It blithely abandons its core tenets when they become inconvenient. Here Hoekema is discussing how the dispy reading of this prophecy has to say the sacrifices prophesied are not literal, even though literal interpretation is one of the guiding principles of dispensationalism. But the principle applied here conflicts with the overall dispy system, so something has to give.

I see this same problem, for instance, in the Book of Revelation. A pretribulational rapture is the central tenet of dispensational pretribulationism, and so is ?literal? interpretation of prophecy. Yet in the Book of Revelation no literal pretribulational rapture can be found. There are one or two passages that actually look like the rapture, but they are found after the tribulation begins in the book, so of course dispies are bound by their system to deny that those passages depict the rapture. Instead, they make the bizarre claim that the rapture is really symbolized in Revelation 4, when John is called up into heaven to view the apocalypse. So right there is a prime example of dispies abandoning sound exegetical guidelines to accommodate a predetermined conclusion. The literalism they so cherish gets tossed in favor of an unlikely ?symbolic? rapture in the book they like to read most literally!

8. More on literalism:

Here, then, we find the New Testament itself interpreting an Old Testament prophecy about the restoration of Israel in a nonliteral way. It may well be that other such prophecies should also be figuratively interpreted. At least we cannot insist that all prophecies about the restoration of Israel must be literally interpreted. (p.211)

9. The first paragraph on p.214 was revelatory for me. I?d never encountered that argument about the order of ?suffering? and ?glory? before. Good stuff.

10. Highlighting again the abandonment of the dispy core principle literalism, this time in its examination of the millennium passage, Hoekema writes, ?The dispensationalist understanding of the millennium, in other words, is not based on a literal interpretation of the most important passage? (p.221).

Questions for Reflection or Discussion

1. How convincing do you find Hoekema?s take on the Israel/Church distinction/continuity/unity?

2. Please share any general or specific reactions you had to the chapter and/or certain passages.

3. We?ve picked on dispensationalism for three weeks now. Feel free to share some concerns or arguments with other views. Maybe you have a few troubles with specific points in your own eschatology.
---

Reading for next Monday, June 13: Chapters 16 and 17 (approx. 30 pages).

Just three readings left!

The next installment in the Book Club discussion will appear next Monday, June 6.
Apologies for the delay.

Thinklings Book Club Discussion Eight: Chapters 13 and 14



Highlights and Reflections

1. The first thing I have to note is that these two chapters have been the most enjoyable for me to read. Oddly, however, I have found that, of all the readings, I have the least to say about this one.

2. Even though I abandoned pretribulational rapturism more than ten years ago, I am always refreshed by clear and unabashed statements like this one from Hoekema:

There is, however, no sound Scriptural basis for the position that the Second Coming of Christ must be divided into . . . two phases. (p.165)

It?s just not there.
For my fuller thoughts on pretribulationism, please see the series Debunking Tim LaHaye posted last year at Mysterium Tremendum.

3. From p.168:

What [1 Thessalonians 4:16-17] clearly teaches is that at the time of the Lord?s return all the believing dead (the ?dead in Christ?) will be raised, and all believers who are still alive will be transformed and glorified (see 1 Cor. 15:51-52); then these two groups will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. What these words do not teach is that after this meeting in the air the Lord will reverse his direction and go back to heaven, taking the raised and transformed members of the church with him.

4. The highlight of Chapter 13, for me, was this lengthy passage from p.167 arguing for a posttribulational parousia:

. . . Paul?s description of the revelation of the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2 implies that the appearance of this man will occasion great persecution and tribulation for the people of God. Paul?s purpose in this chapter is to warn his readers, some of whom thought that the day of the Lord had already come (v.2), that that day would not come unless the man of lawlessness were revealed first, along with the tribulation that would accompany his appearing. What, now, would be the point of Paul?s warning if these believers would be removed from the earth before the tribulation? Since the church at Thessalonica was composed mostly of Gentile believers (Acts 17:4), one cannot say that Paul is here writing only to Jewish Christians. As a matter of fact, the opening words of 2 Thessalonians 2 clearly indicate that the events described in this chapter, which include the appearance of the antichrist and the great tribulation, will precede the rapture of the church: ?Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy . . . saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don?t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed . . .? (vv.1-3, NIV). It is interesting to note that the Greek word translated above as ?our being gathered to him? (episynag?g?) is the noun form of the verb used of the rapture in Matthew 24:31, ?they will gather (episynag?) his elect . . . from the end of heaven to the other.? It is clear that the rapture of the church, as described in this passage, does not precede but follows the great tribulation.

5. I love that in Chapter 14, Hoekema takes care to differentiate between dispensational premillennialism and historic premillennialism. Most writers, when surveying the alternatives, don?t make that distinction. I don?t think I?m a historic premillennialist anymore, but I was for a long time after leaving pretribulationism, and I still have a lot of affection for that view. And I still share some of its tenets ? posttribulationism, single-event parousia, etc.

6. An important note on amillennialism:

The term amillennialism is not a very happy one. It suggests that amillennialists either do not believe in any millennium or that they simply ignore the first six verses of Revelation 20, which speak of a millennial reign. Neither of these two statements is correct. Though it is true that amillennialists do not believe in a literal thousand-year earthly reign which will follow the return of Christ, the term amillennialism is not an accurate description of their view. Jay E. Adams, in his book The Time is at Hand, has suggested that the term amillennialism be replaced by the expression realized millennialism. (p.173)

That?s a helpful clarification, but Hoekema wisely just sticks with the traditional terminology. The concept of amillennialism would require unpacking anyway, so whatever you call it, you?d still need to explain it. And if you?re going to have to explain it anyway, you might as well use the most common ? and the shortest ? term available.
In the same way, I think the concept behind the L in TULIP is probably best labeled still Limited Atonement, despite some newfangled suggestions meant to soften it. Even with the new replacement phrases, the concept still requires explanation (and, typically, defense), so it?s best to just rock it old school.

7. Hmmm, here?s a reflection. I went seven pages in Chapter 14 without underlining anything or making a note in a margin. But that?s not to say I found the reading unremarkable. I was probably just too engaged to slow down.

8. Interesting historical note on p.183:

The amillennial understanding of Revelation 20:1-6 as describing the reigning of the souls of deceased believers with Christ in heaven has had good standing in the church since the days of Augustine.

Now, I?m not an advocate of reverse chronological snobbery ? that anything ?new? is ipso facto wrong ? but I think it an important consideration to know just how far back one?s theology may be traced.
Despite their attempts to find patristic evidences for it, dispensational pretribulationism seems only about as old as the Scofield Bible, although it probably started a bit before that with Darby in the very late nineteenth century.

9. Looks like more fun next week in Chapter 15, "A Critique of Dispensational Premillennialism." ;-)

Questions for Reflection and/or Discussion

1. On p.171, Hoekema mentions, ?Jehovah?s Witnesses claim that Christ returned in 1914, in an invisible way.? I had heard of this before, but the question only occurred to me during this reading: What do the J.W.?s say Jesus did? What do they say this return caused or affected? Anybody know?

2. Care to share a favorite and/or quizzical quote or passage from the reading?
---

Next week's reading for Monday (5/30) is Chapter 15 (approx. 29 pages).

Thinklings Book Club Discussion Seven: Chapter 12



Highlights and Reflections

1. Right off the bat I was reminded of the recent discussion on the ?whole world? verses in the Thinklings thread on God?s sovereignty. Hoekema writes:

[I]n Isaiah we read, ?Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth!? Passages of this sort were quoted by the apostles when they wished to prove that the gospel was intended for Gentiles as well as Jews. (p.138)

2. The question of what ?the gospel must be preached to all nations? means is an important one, if only because some teachers of eschatology hold that this describes some sort of prerequisite literal event to take place before the Lord can return. Hoekema writes:

Since in the Greek the word nations is preceded by a definite article (pasin tois ethnesin), we could translate the phrase, ?to all the nations.? Jesus does not mean that every last person on earth must be converted before the Parousia, since it is evident from the rest of Scripture that this will never be the case. Neither does Jesus mean that every individual on earth must hear the gospel before he comes again. What he does say is that the gospel must be preached throughout the world as a testimony (eis martyrion) to all the nations. (p.138)

It might be helpful to here point out this line from Paul: But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Rom. 10:18)
I once had a friend who believed Jesus couldn?t come back until every single person and every single country had heard the Gospel preached. But as far back as the first century, Paul already seemed to be saying that that news had already been delivered.
Hoekema again:

What is meant by ?a testimony to all nations?? The thought seems to be that the gospel will be to all nations a witness which calls for a decision. The gospel must be a force to be reckoned with by the nations of the world. It is not implied that every member of every nation will hear the gospel, but rather that the gospel will become so much a part of life of every nation that it cannot be ignored. The gospel should arouse faith, but if it is rejected, it will testify against those who reject it. The preaching of the gospel to every nation, therefore, will underscore the responsibility of every nation with respect to that gospel. (p. 138)

In the first paragraph of pg.139, Hoekema details some of the complications involved in interpreting these restrictions literally.

3. Beginning on p.140, Hoekema discusses the meaning of ?and so all Israel will be saved? from Romans 11. He subsequently argues for the third alternative presented, that ?all Israel? in this instance refers to national/ethnic Jews only (although not in some totality at the end time but as elected throughout history).
This is certainly a preferable distinction to the typical dispensationalist approach to this text (that ?all Israel? refers to national/ethnic Jews converting en masse at the end time). But I personally side with the second alternative he provided:

[It refers] to the salvation of all the elect, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles, throughout history. In this view the meaning of the word Israel is not restricted to the Jews, and the time when this elect group will be brought to salvation is not limited to the end of history or to the period just previous to the Parousia. (p.140)

Hoekema argues that elect Jews, moved by a jealousy of sorts and the continuing and expanding influence of the ?grafting in? of Gentiles, will repent throughout salvation history, and that is the way ?all Israel? will be saved.
I believe that ?all Israel? refers to all of God?s elect ? the spiritual Israel or ?children of the promise,? as Paul elsewhere refers to the elect ? throughout salvation history, and it is by the grafting in of the Gentiles to the covenant family that ?all Israel? will be truly saved. The whole point seems to me to be explaining how God?s promises are true even if all of literal Israel does not believe on Jesus Christ for salvation. So I think the second option he surveys makes the most sense of the texts. I see the ?and so? to mean ?and in this way,? not ?and consequently.?
But I ain?t no Anthony Hoekema either. ;-)

4. The next page over I discover more info relevant to the recent sovereignty debate in another of our threads:

In [Romans] chapter 9 Paul makes the point that the apparent rejection of Israel is not complete. Here the answer to his question comes down to this: ?Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel? (9:6, NIV). That is to say, though it is true that many Israelites are lost, the true Israelites are not lost but saved. God sovereignly fulfills his purpose with those who are the children of the promise. From the very beginning of Israel?s history there was a sovereign discrimination within Israel: Not in Ishmael but in Isaac Abraham?s seed was called (v.7); not Esau but Jacob was chosen as the one in whom the covenant lineage was to be perpetuated and the covenant promises were to be fulfilled (vv.10-12) . . .

. . . In chapter 10 Paul goes on to show that the rejection of a substantial portion of Israel is not arbitrary. Here he further develops the point that the Israelites who are lost are responsible for their own rejection of the gospel. (p.141)

5. Another point contra dispensationalism:

One verse in [Romans] 10 deserves special attention, verse 12: ?For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him.? Paul?s point here is that as far as the obtaining of salvation is concerned, there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. If this is so, a future period of time in which only Jews will be saved, or in which Jews will be saved in a way which is different from the way in which Greeks or Gentiles are saved, would seem to be ruled out. (p.142)

Further:

Their salvation is here pictured in terms of becoming one with the saved totality of God?s people, not in terms of a separate program for Jews! It should also be noted that Paul does not say that the ingrafting of Jewish branches must necessarily follow the ingrafting of Gentile branches . . . (p.143)

6. I found Hoekema?s argument on p.145 regarding the distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Romans 9-11 unconvincing.

7. From p.146:

The composite quotation from Isaiah 59:20 and 27:9 which follows immediately (?the Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins?), commonly applied by dispensational writers to the Second Coming of Christ, does not need to be so interpreted, but makes perfectly good sense as a description of Christ?s first coming, and of the taking away of sin which follows that first coming.

A great example of how eschatology ought to look back more than or as much as it looks forward. (Of course, for the OT community, these prophecies in Isaiah would be forward-looking, whether to the first or the second coming.)

8. On pp.148-149, Hoekema touches on just how complex it can be to untangle the various threads in the Olivet Discourse, particularly the Matthean version. I discussed this difficult task last week, as well.

9. Has the Great Tribulation already begun? Maybe . . .

The sign of tribulation, like the other signs of the times already discussed, does not enable us to date the Second Coming of Christ with exactness. The people of God must suffer tribulation throughout this era; when the final, intensified form of this tribulation will occur is hard to say. Perhaps for some Christians living in the world today the Great Tribulation has already begun. William Hendriksen suggests that the Great Tribulation need not come over the entire world at the same time, but may already be experienced by Christians who are being persecuted for their faith in countries controlled by anti-Christian governments. (p.151)

10. On the Antichrist:

We conclude that New Testament teaching about the antichrist does indeed have Old Testament antecedents, and that both Antiochus Epiphanes and Titus were types of the antichrist who is to come. Already an important aspect of biblical teaching about the antichrist has come to the fore: though there is to be a climactic antichrist at the end of time, there can be precursors or anticipations of the antichrist before he appears. (p.156)

Paul says that ?the mystery of lawlessness is already at work?. . . (p.159)

Summarizing, we may grant that the thought of a single future antichrist is not very prominent in John?s epistles; his emphasis falls mostly on antichrists and antichristian thinking which is already present in this day . . . (p.158)

I wonder if might be a wise admonition for the contemporary church to stop obsessing so much over identifying the future personal man of lawlessness and to start combating instead the spirit of lawlessness that enslaves unbelievers and so influences our own ranks. As it was written, the weapons of our warfare aren?t carnal, and we battle not against flesh and blood . . .

11. Hoekema discusses The Restrainer on p.161 but never really stakes a claim on any identity. One possibility that he doesn?t mention that I have heard before and have heard argued for competently before is Michael the archangel.

12. He then discusses the future personal antichrist on pp.162-163. But in all his Scriptural references, I find it odd that he did not even mention the Beast of Revelation. Even if Hoekema reads Revelation historically or preteristically, you?d think he would at least briefly mention that possibility if only to dismiss it. Perhaps he?ll get to it in the upcoming chapters dealing more specifically with Revelation.

13. To close:

Certainly there has been apostasy in the church since New Testament times; undeniably there is apostasy in the church now. When in may European countries today, countries which have known the gospel for centuries, people stay away from church in droves ? surely this is apostasy. When many so-called Christian leaders, both in Europe and America, deny cardinal teachings of the Bible like the bodily resurrection of Christ and still claim to be Christian theologians ? surely this is apostasy. When preachers proclaim myths instead of facts, existentialist philosophy instead of Christian theology, humanism instead of the truth of the Gospel ? surely this is apostasy. Yet who is to say exactly when or how the final apostasy will come? It may come very soon, or it may still be years away ? we must always be ready, praying for grace that we may continue to stand fast in the faith.
(p.154)

Questions for Reflection and/or Discussion

1. What is your understanding of ?all Israel? and ?and so all Israel will be saved??

2. What is your understanding of the Great Tribulation?

3. Any thoughts as to who the Restrainer might be? Cite references, if you can.
---

Next week?s reading, for Monday (5/23) ? Chapters 13 and 14 (approx. 30 pages).

Thinklings Book Club Discussion Six: Chapters 10 and 11



Highlights and Reflections

1. Hoekema begins Chapter 10 with a discussion of the state of expectancy in the Church today. On p.110, he writes:

There may be various reasons for the loss of this sense of expectation. It may be that the church today is so caught up in material and secular concerns that interest in the second coming is fading into the background. It may be that many Christians no longer believe in a literal return of Christ. It may also be that many who do believe in a literal return have pushed that event so far into the distant future that they no longer live in anticipation of that return. Whatever the reasons may be, the loss of a lively, vital anticipation of the Second Coming of Christ is a sign of a most serious spiritual malady in the church.

On the other hand . . . ;-)
This is really where The Bible and the Future shows its age, I think. While it is certainly true that ?the church today is . . . caught up in material and secular concerns,? it is not at all true that interest in the second coming has faded into the background. Hoekema?s book was published in the late 70s, so it perhaps just missed the rise of Hal Lindsay and Lindsay-esque speculation, as well as the A Distant Thunder pretribulational propaganda films. And it obviously pre-dates the Left Behind phenomenon. The Church today does not lack this expectation Hoekema missed in the mid to late 70s. If anything, the Church has fallen off the horse on the other side. Witness The Rapture Index.

2. A solid excerpt from p.113:

If, then, Christ himself, according to his own admission, did not know the hour of his return, no other statements of his can be interpreted as indicating the exact time of that return. And that includes the difficult passages just referred to. The insistence that these passages require a Parousia within the generation of those who were contemporaries of Jesus is clearly at variance with Jesus? own disavowal of the knowledge of the time of his return.

What interests me, however, is that Hoekema writes ?a Parousia,? and not ?the Parousia.? Other amillennialists, those who are not full preterists, have conceded that a sort of parousia occurred in the events of AD70, because the ?this generation? constraint in the Olivet Discourse just seems too rigid to get around.
I hang up on that section of the Discourse, as well. All explanations I have heard attempting to say ?this generation? refers to anyone other than the generation of the folks Jesus was speaking to just don?t seem convincing to me. Add to that the other version of the Discourse where Jesus flat-out says, ?Some of you will not taste death.? Who is ?some of you? if not somebody he?s talking to?

Of course, the sticky wicket then is trying to figure out what the ?this? in ?all this will take place? is. Also on p.113, Hoekema begins describing the difficulty in discerning the Olivet Discourse. It?s just a tangled web of prophecy, parable, and apocalypticism. What is literal? What is poetic? What time frame, or how many time frames, is/are involved? The threads running through Mark 13 and its parallels are myriad and intertwined. I?ve been studying the Discourse off and on for nearly ten years, and it still gives me fits. In consulting commentaries, I became somewhat comfortable with my persistent ignorance when reading no less an NT scholar than D.A. Carson saying the elements of Matthew 24 are incredibly complex and resistant to dissection.
Which, I assume, is why there are so many different eschatological views out there!

3. The common bottom lines, however, are a joyful expectancy, a secured hope, and a faithful readiness:
?Jesus? purpose in uttering these words is not to give an exact date for his return, but rather to indicate the certainty of his return? (p.116).

4. On p.117, Hoekema writes:

By ?this generation,? then, Jesus means the rebellious, apostate, unbelieving Jewish people, as they have revealed themselves in the past, are revealing themselves in the present, and will continue to reveal themselves in the future. This unbelieving and evil generation, though they reject Christ now, will continue to exist until the day of his return, and will then receive the judgment which is their due. Interpreted in this way, Jesus? statement comes as a logical conclusion to a discourse which began with the proclamation of the destruction of Jerusalem, as a punishment for Israel?s obduracy.

In the margin of my book next to this paragraph I simply wrote ?Wow.?
First, I?m not entirely convinced of Hoekema?s interpretation here, but it has nothing to do with my take on the future of national/ethnic Israel.
Secondly, this is an interesting contrast with the amillennial view of, say, Kim Riddlebarger, who does foresee a general repentance and turning to Jesus for salvation of national/ethnic Israel sometime before and precipitating the Parousia. (While I?m not convinced of that view either, Riddlebarger?s A Case for Amillennialism is a great and informative little book.)

5. Hoekema touches on the phenomenon known as ?prophetic perspective?:

What was said above about prophetic foreshortening must also be remembered: in speaking to his disciples, Jesus often linked together matters which were in the near future with events in the far distant future, as the Old Testament prophets often did. (p.119)

Which is what makes parsing out lengthy passages like the Olivet Discourse so tricky.

6. In pp.122-123, Hoekema turns to Pauline eschatology. On p.123, he writes:

A number of recent New Testament scholars contend that there was a shift in Paul?s thinking on this point. In his earlier epistles, so it is said, he looked for a speedy Parousia ? so speedy, in fact, that he expected still to be living when the Lord returned. But in his later epistles, it is affirmed, he no longer had this expectation; instead he anticipated that he would die before Christ returned, and that the Parousia would occur sometime later. Some of these scholars even speak of Paul?s thus correcting an earlier mistake.

Certainly this view creates problems for biblical infallibility and inerrancy, and even for its inspiration. (ie. Could Paul have been inspired to believe a mistake?)

7. The passage is too lengthy to reprint in this space, but Chapter 10 closes with a nice detailing of the practical implications of eschatological expectancy (pp.127-128), a helpful touch, I hope, for some of our more application-minded readers.

8. At the bottom of p.127, I jotted down this little list, one I titled ?Problems with ?Pan-tribuationism?,? which is the view most often cited by those uninterested in studying eschatology:
a. It won?t ?pan out? for unbelievers
b. The Bible teaches readiness, implying actions to be taken.
c. The Bible teaches extensively on eschatology, so it is worth being informed.

9. On p.130 in Chapter 11, Hoekema writes, ?Is not the lack of a lively expectation of the Parousia among many Christians today perhaps due to an excessive emphasis on the doctrine of the signs of the times??
Huh?
Hoekema can obviously be forgiven for writing just before expectation got not just ?lively? but practically chaotic, but I don?t understand how an excessive emphasis on signs of the times might lead to a lack of expectation. Wouldn?t it do the opposite? Again, witness The Rapture Index, which was birthed byu our obsessed-with-the-rapture Church subculture.

10. Two sentences down, though, I jotted ?Yes!? next to this great and true line:
?One such mistaken understanding is to think of the signs of the times as referring exclusively to the end-time? (p.130).
And then this one:
?In the meantime, all of the signs of the times described in the New Testament characterize the entire period between Christ?s first and second coming, and every decade of that period? (p.130).

11. ?Another mistaken understanding of these signs is to think of them only in terms of abnormal, spectacular, or catastrophic events? (p.130).

12. And here?s a beauty of a guideline affecting our entire study of prophecy:

Prophecy is very different from history. It is not intended to give us a knowledge of the future analogous to that which history gives us of the past. (p.132)

I would only add that sometimes the way history is recounted in the Bible does not tell us about the past in the same way we usually expect History to (ie. scientifically).

13. From p.133:

Both Ridderbos and Berkouwer are very critical of what they call ?reportorial eschatology? ? the attempt to understand the eschatological predictions of the Bible as giving us a kind of ?news reporter?s? account of the exact order of events in the end-time . . . In its preoccupation with war, with the chaotic phenomena of history, uncertainty enters in and the heart of the real eschatological proclamation is lost.

Yes!
(And when I read about the ?news reporter?s? account of eschatology, I thought of that cheesy Jack Van Impe show where he and his cotton-candy-haired wife read newspaper headlines between Jack?s quoting of allegedly related Scripture verses.)

14. A good word on a biblical imminence (as opposed to a ?newspaper? imminence):

It is quite common, particularly in dispensationalist circles, to say that the Second Coming of Christ is ?imminent.? If by ?imminence? it is meant that no predicted event needs to occur before Christ comes again, this view gives us difficulties ? since, as we have seen, the New Testament teaches that certain things must indeed happen before the Parousia occurs. (p.135)

15. And a final note on p.136:
?As will be shown later, there is no sound biblical basis for dividing the Second Coming of Christ into these two phases [rapture and ?real? Second Coming].?
Cool.

Questions for Discussion and Reflection

1. On p.111, Hoekema reviews various views of Jesus? allegedly errant eschatological expectation, including the ?consistent eschatology? of the Schweitzer school. While evangelicals of course reject the Schweitzerian notion of Jesus being erroneous, most of us do acknowledge that there is in the man Jesus a (self-willed?) limited omniscience. If, by Jesus? own admission, the Son doesn?t even know the time of His return, is it at all possible that Jesus could have been mistaken in the speculation of Matthew 24? Why or why not?

2. On p.121, Hoekema cites George Eldon Ladd on the quality of readiness:
?The word translated ?watch? in these several verses . . . does not mean ?to look for? but ?to be awake.? It does not denote an intellectual attitude but a moral quality of spiritual readiness for the Lord?s return. ?You must be ready? (Lk. 12:40). The uncertainty as to the time of the parousia means that men must be spiritually awake and ready to meet the Lord whenever he comes.?
This ties in somewhat to my question last time about ?treasures in heaven.?
Please explain how this emphasis does not suggest a works salvation? Can one be saved, yet be found in a state of backsliding sin at the Lord?s return, and therefore miss the blessed hope?

3. These two chapters cover a lot of material, even as they generally cover just two subjects. So here?s your chance to either state your own perspective or ask your own questions regarding the following topics:
a imminency and/or readiness
b. the idea of ?two comings? in the Second Coming
c. anything and/or everything in the Olivet Discourse
d. the future of national/ethnic Israel and/or ethnic/religious Jews
---

Next week?s reading, for Monday (5/16) ? Chapter 12 (approx. 27 pages).

Had a very busy weekend, so I wasn't able to get the book discussion post written yet. It's coming, though . . .

Update: Ugh. Okay, I'm taking another week off. So today's installment of the book club will appear next Monday (the 9th). Sorry.

Thinklings Book Club Discussion Five: Chapters 8 and 9



Highlights and Reflections

1. On p.87, Hoekema writes:
?God, as the fountain of life, is the source of all other immortality. In this sense God alone has immortality; others receive immortality and possess it only in dependence on him. As God has life in himself (John 5:26), so he has immortality in himself.?
This reminded me so much of:
?. . . For in Him we live and move and have our being? (Acts 17:28a)

2. Hoekema begins to explore the nature of man?s immortal soul, dissecting it in a sense to demonstrate that man?s soul is not immortal by nature, but is only immortal by virtue of that quality imparted to it by God. The foundational Reformational take on this approach is expressed by John Calvin. Hoekema writes:

John Calvin, for example, teaches that Adam had an immortal soul, and speaks of the immortality of the soul as an acceptable doctrine. At the same time, however, he admits that immortality does not belong to the nature of the soul, but is imparted to the soul by God. (p.88)

3. Hoekema continues this trail into p.90, in the second of his ?bullet points?: The Scriptures do not teach the continued existence of the soul by virtue of its inherent indestructibility.
Here?s where I say ? Okay, I understand that the distinction being drawn here is to distinguish the Christian theistic understanding of the immortality of the soul from the Greek philosophical understanding of the immortality of the soul. But isn?t this a bit like a distinction without a difference? I mean, saying that man?s soul is not inherently immortal but is only immortal because God endows it with immortality just a sort of hairsplitting? If the soul is indestructible because God endows it as such, can?t it be thought of then as ?inherently indestructible??
Are there any human souls that aren?t immortal?
Couldn?t you say that human lungs aren?t inherently useful for breathing but only become so because God endows them with that ability?
Once you think about it, nothing a part of man that functions in its respective way functions apart from God?s willing it to. I don?t know, maybe I?m off base here.

4. I liked Hoekema?s 4th point:
The central message of Scripture about the future of man is that of the resurrection of the body (p.91).
Not the rapture. Not the tribulation. Not the antichrist. Not signs in the skies. Not a one-world government or bar codes in your forehead or a beast of a supercomputer.
No, only something as ?mundane? and ?unexciting? as the resurrection of the body!

5. Hoekema begins Chapter 9 on the Intermediate State (p.92) with an overview of the different views. Here?s the list, as I see it:
a. circa Augustine: An intermediate state of either restful enjoyment or suffering.
b. Middle Ages: Purgatory developed
c. Reformation: Purgatory rejected, but intermediate state affirmed. (Calvin more inclined than Luther to discuss this state as one of conscious existence.)
d. Anabaptists: Soul Sleep

6. The biblical concept of the soul, essentially, is that of man?s ?life? (p.94). In antithetical terms, the soul is that part of man which is not physical, I suppose. ?It is not illegitimate or unscriptural to use the word soul to describe that aspect of man which continues to exist after death? (p.95).
In that sense, a lot the hairsplitting between ?soul? and ?spirit? is likely unwarranted, as many places in the Bible they are virtually synonymous.

7. I found the discussion of the continuity between the OT concept of the intermediate state and the NT concept (beginning on p.95) very interesting. A welcome clarification given the confusion out there about how the OT Jewish view of the afterlife meshes with the fuller revelation of the NT.

8. Speaking of synonymous:
?Louis Berkhof suggests a threefold meaning for Sheol: state of death, grave, or hell? (p.96).
If studying this book?s take on eschatology does one valuable thing for those who must eventually disagree with the general premise, perhaps it will be to provide a better understanding of biblical terminology and how language is used. I know it has been doing that for me.
Some of these revelations for me are akin to learning that the difference between the ?agape? and the ?phileo? in the ?Feed my sheep? exchange is not significant (don?t tell J. Vernon McGee) ? John uses those words for love synonymously throughout his Gospel. (Rather, if you want to see a textual significance in that passage, look it for in the threefold echo of Jesus? command compared to Peter?s earlier denial.)

9. Hoekema writes:

In the light of the principle of parallelism which is generally characteristic of Hebrew poetry, it would seem that the second line is only repeating the thought of the first line . . . (p.97)

The potential problems in interpreting these prophetic passages due to the nature of biblical poetry runs parallel to the potential problems in interpreting other prophetic passages due to the use of apocalyptic language.
Telescoping. Prophetic perspective. Near/far prophecy. Apocalyptic literature. Symbolism. Poetry. Allusion.
All of the above (and more) complicate our understanding of biblical prophecy. Frankly, it sort of makes the ?literal? approach to apocalyptic passages seem as arrogant as it is wrongheaded.
We will need to keep all that in mind if we are to attempt untangling the various threads in the Olivet Discourse discussed in next week?s reading.

10. ?The expression ?the gates of Hades? is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew phrase ?the gates of Sheol?? (p.100).
Very interesting. So just as a general rule, despite the fact that both terms and concepts encompass their own nuances, Hades = Greek and NT while Sheol = Hebrew and OT.

11. Really liked this summation passage:

Summing up, what can we learn about the intermediate state from the biblical use of the concepts of Sheol and Hades? We may note the following points: 1) Persons do not go totally out of existence after death but go to a ?realm of the dead.? 2) In this realm of the dead the ungodly shall remain, with death as their shepherd. The New Testament adds the detail that after death the ungodly will suffer torment, already before the resurrection of the body (Luke 16:19-31). 3) God?s people, however, knowing that Christ was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, have the firm hope that they too shall be delivered from the power of Sheol. The New Testament again carries this hope one step further when it suggests that after death the godly are comforted (Luke 16:25). In each case we note that the New Testament complements and expands on Old Testament teachings.
(p.101)

12. From the category of Making it Harder than it Really Is . . .
Hoekema writes in the first footnote on p.103, ?To make the word today go with the words ?he said to him? [in Luke 23:42-43], as, e.g., Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah?s Witnesses do in order to make the verse fit their teachings, is unwarranted. For when else could Jesus say these words but today? The reason why Jesus added the word today is evident from the preceding request . . .?
Right. I think the Adventist/Watchtower approach to that verse is a clear case of the interpretative tail wagging the exegetical dog.

13. Another gem from Calvin:
?I prefer to understand [2 Corinthians 15:1] as meaning, that the blessed condition of the soul after death is the commencement of this building, and the glory of the final resurrection is the consummation of it? (p.106).
Following that line, it appears that to add a middle dynamic to the near/far dynamic in the actualization of our redemption. Near: we live now in the flesh awaiting the rest of the intermediate state. Middle: in the intermediate state we await the resurrection of the dead. Far: The consummation of the kingdom brings the awaited resurrection and the bestowing of our new bodies.
Hoekema elaborates:

[2 Corinthians 15:1], then, tells us what happens immediately after death: When the earthly tent in which we now live is destroyed or dissolved (the aorist tense of katalyth? suggests the moment when death occurs), we have, not at some future time but immediately, a building from God. That is, as soon as we who are in Christ die, we enter into a glorious heavenly existence which is not temporary like our present existence but permanent and eternal. Though the first phase of this existence will be incomplete, awaiting the resurrection of the body at the Parousia, this entire mode of being, from the moment of death to the resurrection and then throughout eternity, will be glorious, far to be preferred to our present existence.
(p.106).

Amen!

Questions for Reflection and/or Discussion

1. What do you make of soul sleep? Even if you disagree with it, can it be taken seriously from a Scriptural standpoint? Or does it have no legs to stand on?

2. Hoekema will discuss eternity and Eternal Punishment in a later chapter, but for now I find the concept relevant to the discussion. What is your take on annihilationism? Is it related, at least in spirit, to the concept of soul sleep? (Basically what I mean is, do you think both concepts emerge from wishful thinking? Do you think that they arrive, not necessarily from Scripture, but from how we hope God?s love is manifest?)

3. Another semi-unrelated query:
In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul talks about knowing a dude who ascended to the third heaven. What the heck do you think he?s talking about?

(I was a little stumped for questions this time around, so this week especially feel free to offer your own.)
---

This week?s reading, for next Monday: Chapters 10 and 11 (approx. 28 pages).

Thinklings Book Club Discussion Four: Chapters 6 and 7



Okay, gang, let?s see if we can get back on track. Maybe this week you guys will get a good discussion going!

Thoughts and Reflections

1. Chapter 6 is on ?The Tension Between the Already and the Not Yet,? the most crucial concept to maintain as we seek a better eschatology. On p.68, Hoekema writes, ?It is, in fact, impossible to understand New Testament eschatology apart from this tension.?

2. I have for nearly the last eight years been developing my gradually morphing eschatology without ever studying the book of Revelation in earnest. Honestly, I wish we could just do without it!
Not really. But like many of you (and unlike many of the Left Behind devotees and Hal Lindsay acolytes of my churches past) I am not confident (at all) in my understanding of the book. Despite my current quasi-amillennialism, I still tentatively read the book premillennially (in a post-tribulational vein), mainly because I think reading it straightforwardly almost immediately knocks out pretribulationism as a valid possible interpretation.
All that to say: I am excited about Hoekema?s teaser on p.69 for his treatment of Revelation still to come later in the book. This paragraph is a nice intro and foreshadow of the tact he will take:

Contrary to the opinion of some, this tension between the already and the not yet is also found in the book of Revelation. Although a more thorough discussion of this book will be given later, we may note at this time that neither an exclusively preterist nor an exclusively futurist view of this book does full justice to it. The preterist view maintains that most of what is found in the book of Revelation either had already happened by the time the book was written or was about to happen very soon after it appeared. The futurist view, on the contrary, holds that most of what is found in the book was not only future when the book was written but still has not occurred today. Neither of these views takes into account the already-not yet tension which runs through the entire book. The book of Revelation refers to both the past and the future.

Cool.
And I do hope Hoekema teases out this tension with clarity. If you haven?t guessed yet, Hoekema is an amillennialist (although not a full preterist, obviously), and most of the amillennialists I?ve read on Revelation discuss a sort of ?telescoping? stylistic approach in the Apocalypse, that the book details the same period in church history several times in a row, with a deepening of detail and a lengthening of description with each successive treatment. It?s confusing, to say the least.
Maybe Hoekema?s treatment later on will kickstart my long delayed study of Revelation. I?ve been collecting commentaries on it for ages. (Most interested in Hendriksen?s More Than Conquerors and Summers?s Worthy is the Lamb. The intro to the second volume, discussing the nature of apocalyptic language, I have read actually, and it is brilliant and, pardon the pun, revelatory. The commentary which best reflects my current understanding of the book, such as it is, is Ladd?s Revelation.)

3. On p.70, in the second footnote, Hoekema writes, ?Though antichrists have been in the world ever since Christ?s first coming, . . . the New Testament also teaches us to look for a single, final antichrist in the future.?
Bravo. This is one of the main reasons why I find amillennialism so comfortable and reasonable (and biblical!). Basically, I think the best of eschatological scholarship is amillenial, and I can adopt an amillennial understanding of Revelation, but still see a future ?time of trouble? and a future, final antichrist preceding the Lord?s return. For some reason, based on early encounters with amillennialism, I thought amillennialism and full preterism went hand and hand. I am very glad that it doesn?t.

4. On p.71, Hoekema brilliantly applies the already-not yet eschatological tension to the believer?s personal state of salvation:

The fact that the Christian finds himself in tension between what he already possesses in Christ and what he does not yet enjoy implies that he should see himself as an imperfect new person. Yet the emphasis should fall, not on the continued imperfection, but on the newness. To lay the emphasis on the imperfection instead of on the newness is to turn the New Testament upside down. As Oscar Cullman puts it, for the Christian believer today the already outweighs the not yet.

Good insights for you application-hungry readers. And it?s a nice balance between the divergent extremes of the Neil Anderson-type ?You?re Not a Sinner Anymore? viewpoint and the hardcore Reformed ?You?re Still a Despicable Sinner? outlook.
The ?tension? between once-for-all justification and the ongoing sanctification of believers becomes more vibrant when looked at from an eschatological angle.

5. From the Introduction to Part II: Future Eschatology:

The greatest eschatological event in history is not in the future but in the past. (p.77)

If you?ll remember from a past discussion in this series, I recalled first being hipped to this so-obvious-I-missed-it insight by my good friend and fellow Thinkling Michael Asbell.
So I?m going to call what he said to me Asbell?s Law of Eschatology: ?Eschatology must look back as much or more than it looks forward.?
Because the greatest and most decisive eschatological moment was Jesus? sacrifice and resurrection.

6. In the very first lines of Chapter 7: Physical Death, Hoekema writes, ?The outstanding problem we face here is that of the connection between sin and death. Did death come into the world as a result of sin, or would there have been death even if there had been no sin? (p.79)?
When I read that, I thought, ?Ah, now we get to some theological nitty gritty.? I suspect this chapter will provoke the most discussion (if there is to be any). I know that frequent commenter Kevin had some provocative things to say on this subject, although he jumped the gun a bit and left his remarks in the thread for the previous section. Maybe he?ll do us a favor and re-post them here. Kevin?

7. On p.81, Hoekema writes, ?Geerhardus Vos calls attention to the fact that the expression ?in the day that you eat of it? is simply a Hebrew idiom meaning ?as surely as you eat of it.?
Then Hoekema follows up on p.82, writing, ?[T]he fact that Adam and Eve did not die physically on the same day that they ate from the forbidden tree need not cause us any particular difficulty.?
No real comment here, except that I found this interesting given that very recently a commenter on our site said that because Adam and Eve didn?t die the day they ate the apple, the serpent hadn?t lied to them. (The person was a Christian, by the way.) Yikes.

8. On p.84, Hoekema writes:

The Bible teaches that Christ came into the world to conquer and destroy death. The author of Hebrews puts it this way: ?Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage? (2:14-15). Since it was through the devil?s temptation that death came into the world, the devil can here be said to have the power of death. Christ, however, assumed the nature of man and died for us so that through death he might destroy death. Though this passage does not say so in so many words, the New Testament clearly teaches that it was through his resurrection from the dead that Christ won his great victory over death: ?Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him? (Romans 6:9).

This paragraph opened up a wealth of thoughts for me. The first thing I thought of, based on Hoekema?s connection between the resurrection specifically and victory over death, was a question I asked a while back at my solo blog: Can We Compartmentalize the Atonement? (Follow-up: The Wonders of the Word.)

The second thing this discussion made me think of was how nicely all of Jesus? ministry ?fits? when looked at through an eschatological prism, particularly as I think about First Things vs. Last Things. It?s more of a literary approach to reading the Gospels, to be sure, but that sort of approach fits me fine, me being the literary person that I am.
I think of how the fall of mankind took place in a garden. And then Jesus made his high priestly prayer on the eve of mankind?s redemption in a garden.
I think of how the first couple were exiled into the wilderness after succumbing to temptation by the devil (and how God?s people wandered the desert succumbing to temptation at every turn, it seems). And then Jesus withstood temptation by the devil in the wilderness.
I think of the manna given for the sustenance of the people of God. And then I think of the Last Supper, in which Jesus? meal provides the sustenance for his people of his own flesh and blood.
I think of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea from exile into freedom, and the crossing of the Jordan from wandering into the Promised Land. And then I think of John baptizing proselytes in that river, signifying that the kingdom of God was finally at hand.

Think of all the Old Testament ?first things? that were ?redeemed? as ?last things? in the ministry of Jesus. They are particularly evident in Matthew?s Gospel, which is written primarily for Jewish readers, and in John?s Gospel, which is the most literary-minded (and therefore the most symbolic and ?essentially? theological) of the Gospels.

Good reminders that: It?s all eschatological, folks.

9. On p.84, Hoekema gives you your rapture:
?Why must believers still die? Why couldn?t they just ascend into heaven at the end of their earthly days without having to go through the painful process of dying? As a matter of fact, this is what will happen to those believers who will still be living when Christ comes again.?
So how come no amillennialists I know have an ?In Case of Rapture, This Car Will Be Unmanned? bumpersticker on their car? ;-)
(A: It?s that pesky problem of the tribulation.)

10. Finally, a highlight from the waning paragraphs of Chapter 7:
?For Christ death was part of the curse; for us death is a source of blessing? (p.84).
Yowza!

Questions for Reflection and/or Discussion

1. On p.69, Hoekema briefly discusses the second coming and quotes Hebrews 9:28, in which Christ is said in this return not to be dealing with sin but to save those who have been waiting for him. Question: What is your take on the final judgment as it pertains to the good works of believers? Do you believe Christians will be separated out amongst each others, some given special treatment over others based on their good works? Essentially, what is your take on the ?jewel in your crown? understanding?

2. This might be a good place to get a head count on the perspectives of the participants. If you subscribe to a particular eschatological view, let us know in the comments. Are you pre/post/a-millennial? Pre/post/mid-tribulational? Something different or in between? (If you?re a ?pan-somethingorother? because ?it will all pan out in the end,? good for you, but the joke is old. ;-)

3. What is your take on death prior to the Fall? Did animals and/or plants die in the prelapsarian garden? Did Adam and Eve possess immortal prelapsarian bodies? Or is it possible they might have died physically even if they had not fallen spiritually? Or was physical death not a part of prelapsarian garden life at all?

4. Somewhat/sorta unrelated:
You biblical scholars out there, what is your opinion on the authorship of Hebrews? More specifically, what is your take on the interesting theory that Paul did indeed compose the epistle, but it doesn?t sound like a typical Pauline epistle because he originally wrote it in Hebrew? Have you heard of this theory? Do scholars that you know of entertain it seriously?
---

This week's reading, for next Monday: Chapters 8 and 9 (approx. 23 pages)

Thinklings Book Club Discussion Three: Chapters 4 and 5



Highlights

1. Hoekema begins Ch. 4 by stating, ?The kingdom of God is the central theme of Jesus? preaching . . .? (p.41).
I don?t know what this means to you, but when I first faced this claim (a year or so ago in Ladd?s The Presence of the Future), it was as surprising as it was enlightening. As Ladd points out in his book, even though ?the kingdom of God? is Jesus? theme, you?d be hard pressed to find a pastor in America preaching on the subject. He even presented a poll, I think, demonstrating that most preachers at that time had never done a sermon on the subject.
What a shame, if it was the theme of Jesus? preaching!

2. Most of us, when we think of the kingdom, either equate it with heaven or with the Church. Think how erroneously we might be reading certain passages in the Gospels with either of those in mind when Jesus mentions the kingdom.
Hoekema defines the kingdom for us on p.44: ?[T]he rule or reign of God rather than a territory over which he rules.?
This understanding opens up new pathways in our personal theology, as well. It helped me personally (with added insights from N.T. Wright) to think of salvation as embracing the yoke of God?s sovereignty. Being in the kingdom means living under Jesus? kingship.

3. On p.43, Hoekema writes, ?We must therefore always see the kingdom of God as indissolubly connected with the person of Jesus Christ.?
This is so key, because the kingdom is neither entirely future nor is it something only ?in heaven.? Think of Jesus? words in the Lord?s Prayer, where he prays, ?Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.? Jesus? prayer was already being answered in himself!

4. And when we pray the Lord?s Prayer today, ?Thy kingdom come? should not be a request made with an eye only on the future (say, the Parousia, for instance). It is a request that can be granted in the here and now. Hoekema:
?One who is a believer in Jesus Christ, therefore, is in the kingdom of God at the present time, enjoying its blessings and sharing its responsibilities? (p.51).

5. My favorite passage (forgive the length) from last week?s reading is the final one in Ch.4:

Being a citizen of the kingdom, therefore, means that we should see all of life and all of reality in the light of the goal of the redemption of the cosmos. This implies, as Abraham Kuyper once said, that there is not a thumb-breadth of the universe about which Christ does not say ?It is mine.? This implies a Christian philosophy of culture: art and science reflect the glory of God and are therefore to be pursued for his praise. It also includes a Christian view of vocation: all callings are from God, and all that we do in everyday life is to be done to God?s praise, whether this by study, teaching, preaching, business, industry, or housework. George Herbert has put it well:
Teach me, my God and King,
In all things Thee to see,
And what I do in anything
To do it as for thee.

(p.54)

5. Chapter 5 is about the Holy Spirit. A much needed overview of the eschatological working of the much-neglected third Person of the Godhead.

6. On p.57, Hoekema writes:
?In Acts 1:6 Jesus makes clear that the expression ?to be baptized with the Spirit? refers to an event which is about to occur: ?John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.? That event, as is obvious from Acts 2, was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which took place on the day of Pentecost ? an event which had great eschatological significance.?
I wonder if some of our more charismatic or Pentecostal readers took issue with Hoekema?s take.

7. On p.60, Hoekema cites Galatians 4 and then expands:

What is implied in verse 19 is made explicit in verse 23, ?And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.? The word apolytrosis, redemption, originally meant the buying back of a slave or captive, making him free by the payment of a ransom (lytron). When applied to the body, as it is here, the word obviously refers to the freeing of the body from earthly limitations which occurs in the resurrection.

Two resurrections, two ?redemptions?? That?s what I was thinking when I read this and the surrounding context. In Jesus? atoning work, in His resurrection, our souls are redeemed. In the coming resurrection, our bodies will be redeemed.
For some reason, when I read this passage, I thought of the "my redeemer lives" passage in Job -- "Though worms destroy my body, yet in my flesh will I see God." Here's a great sermon by Charles Spurgeon on that passage (Job 19:19-27).

8. Re: the discussion on p.61:
The Holy Spirit as firstfruits ? The Holy Spirit is the real presence of God with His people.

9. Liked this quote from pp.64-65:
?The flesh was the vehicle of Christ?s existence before the resurrection. The Holy Spirit is now the vehicle, the mode, the manner of His status as Lord.?

10. On p.65, Hoekema discusses the concept of the Spirit dwelling within us.
The presence of God used to be thought by biblical believers to dwell within the Temple. But under the old covenant is fulfilled, the Temple has even been judged (and destroyed). The Holy Spirit seals us (p.63) and indwells us, and so our bodies now are the temples of God.
Think how utterly eschatological this is. That the presence of God with and in His people, foreshadowed by the Old Testament ways and the Temple structure, is fulfilled in the way God lives in our lives, the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts, and Jesus lives out through His Bride.

Hopefully these last two chapters have expanded a bit your view of eschatology. I?m hoping that those who had questions before about how practical or useful or important eschatology is are starting to see that there?s almost nothing in the New Testament that isn?t eschatological! Or, at least, that can?t be enhanced in our thinking within an eschatological context.
I?m reminded of N.T. Wright responding to one critic?s remark that he didn?t deal with eschatology enough. Wright said, ?It?s almost all I deal with!?
This faulty thinking results from having too narrow or too wrong a view of eschatology. The last things are not just what happens when Tim LaHaye?s novels come to life someday! (And you might be disappointed, actually, if you?re waiting on that to happen. ;-)

Questions for Discussion and Reflection

1. Has your idea of what ?the kingdom of God? means been changed or expanded? How so? And what implications, if any, does this change/expansion have on: a) the way you read the Bible, b) the way you understand Jesus? teaching, and/or c) your eschatology?

2. On p.46, Hoekema interprets Jesus? ?eyewitness report? of the fall of Satan (?like lightning from heaven?) as figurative. Do you agree with this interpretation? Why or why not?

3. What implications might knowing that ?there is not a thumb-breadth in the universe for which Jesus doesn?t say ?It is mine?? have on a believer?s thinking and worldview? It certainly is cause for hope rather than despair, isn?t it? But doesn?t it open up more complexities regarding theodicy (eg. Why is there so much suffering and hurt in the world if a good God is in control?)?

4. Why do you think most believers/churches give short shrift to thought about the Holy Spirit? Why isn?t He talked about or preached on more often?

5. Take a look at the quote in #6 above. Do you agree or disagree with Hoekema?s interpretation of ?the baptism of the Holy Spirit?? Why or why not?

6. Are you beginning to think more eschatologically as you read the New Testament or when you listen to a sermon at church? If so, what new insights or improved understandings are you gaining?
---

For next week: Read Chapters 6 and 7 (approx. 18 pages).

Thinklings Book Club Discussion Two: Chapter 3



Highlights:

1. On p.24, Hoekema quotes Oscar Cullman on the Greeks? concept of time: ?That is why the philosophical thinking of the Greek world labors with the problem of time. But that is also why all Greek striving for redemption seeks as its goal to be freed from this eternal circular course and thus to be freed from time itself.?
This reminded me of the heresy of Gnosticism, an ideology that includes the concept of the evil of ?matter.? The ideas that time is a hopeless cycle escape from which is true paradise and that physical matter and the flesh is inherently bad or evil and must be escaped are closely related, I think. We need to remember that Christian eschatology refutes both of these assumptions. The Incarnation itself is a testament to the basic ?goodness? of God?s creation, and the fact that the Incarnation is a historical event ? and that history itself is leading to a future final redemption ? refutes the notion that matter and time are hopeless evils.

2. From p.25:

A second interpretation of history which must be rejected is that of the atheistic existentialist. For existentialism of this type, history is without meaning.

The notable contrast, of course, is that the Christian view of history is contra such despair. Christian history, for all that is wrong with ?the world,? still proclaims hope.
There are also practical applications afoot here, in keeping with some issues left over from last week?s discussion.

3. Also on p.25, Hoekema begins discussing history as a ?working out of God?s purposes.? This part really resonated with me, because, as many of you know, I really identify with the concept of God?s plan as Story.
Contrast this concept of Hoekema?s eschatological stance with, say, the approach of Open Theism, in which God does not know the future exhaustively. Does that not remove a hope and a confidence from eschatology? In true biblical eschatology, history is itself God working out His purposes. In an open theist?s eschatology, it would seem that God is just a really, really good guesser.

4. More of the importance of history:

Though it is true, therefore, that God reveals himself in the Bible which is his Word, we must not forget that he reveals himself primarily in the historical events which are recorded in the Bible. Revelation occurs through acts as well as through words.
(p.26)

An important note for when we are tempted to allegorize or completely ?spiritualize? biblical prophecy.

5. ?Through Christ God has once and for all won the victory over death (1 Cor. 15:21-22), Satan (John 12:31), and all hostile powers (Col. 2:15)? (p.29).
This is a portion of realized eschatology that is often expressed but rarely believed.
With this in mind, also, we may read the exorcisms Jesus performed in the Gospels not only as demonstrative of his authority and symbolic of deliverance, but also as eschatological proclamations. Each demon cast out is evidence of the kingdom?s inauguration.

6. From p.30: ?The common Pauline contrast between ?flesh? and ?Spirit? is not so much a psychological contrast between two aspects of our being as a contrast between lifestyles which belong to two power-spheres or two aeons, the old and the new.?
I found that really, really interesting. Really provocative, if deceptively simple.
And on that note, allow me to link to this recent post by my good friend Darren at Nicene Theology.

7. From p.35:

[The New Testament believer] lives in the last days, but the last day has not yet arrived; he is in the new age, but the final age is not yet here. Though he enjoys the ?powers of the age to come,? he is not yet free from sin, suffering, and death. Though he has the firstfruits of the Spirit, he groans inwardly as he waits for his final redemption.

I chewed on that idea for a while and explored it a bit, teasing out some biblical parallels and illustrations.
Think of the Israelites post-Exodus, for instance. They were free from the bondage of Egypt, across the Red Sea and free to wander. Yet they had to wander for forty years before finally reaching the Promised Land. First Moses, then Joshua. (First John, then Jesus! . . . which puts the baptisms John was performing in some historical-theological perspective, I think.)
Think also of the first followers of Jesus. They enjoyed his presence and physical leadership for a time. They had, in that brief window of ministry, a glimpse of what the kingdom in the presence of the King is like. But he had yet to finally secure their fellowship until his sacrifice.

8. A final good?un:

Though the Christian is realistic enough to recognize the presence of evil in the world and the presence of sin in the hearts of men, he is yet basically an optimist. He believes that God is on the throne, and that God is working out his purposes in history. Just as the Christian must firmly believe that all things are working together for good in his life, despite appearances to the contrary, so he must also believe that history is moving toward God?s goal, even though world events often seem to go contrary to God?s will.
(p.38)

Questions for Reflection or Discussion

1. Pair the quote above from p.38 with the first couple of paragraphs on p.33. How optimistic is your view of history? Do you despair about ?bad? current events? Not do you get upset about evil and suffering; but do you actually despair about them? Does your practical outlook on life and where God is in the working of things belie what you say you believe about eschatology?

2. Does being eschatologically optimistic necessitate being a post-millennialist?

3. Look back again at #7 above and the illustrations I thought up using the idea in the excerpt as a template. Can you think of any other parallels? Can you think of any situations or stories, whether from the Bible or from ?real life,? that illustrate the concept discussed?

4. Here?s a serious question I have not really touched on in this chapter but nevertheless related:
We often confess that Jesus somehow fulfilled the Law, or that the Law pointed to Jesus, or that the Law was a foreshadow of Jesus? life and ministry and death (old covenant vs. new covenant). We cite this reality whenever we are asked why we do not still obey the food laws of the Old Testament or obey, say, Leviticus to a ?T?. Yet we say the ?moral law? is still in effect. Question:
How do we differentiate between which parts of the Law are null and void and which parts are still in effect? How do we know what is still binding and what is not? Is there a cut and dry formula for figuring this out? What is the moral law, and what is the ceremonial or cultural law? And isn?t it all moral law? (For instance, why do we still say homosexuality is still a sin but do not still recommend execution for homosexuals?)
---

For next week: Read Chapters 4 and 5 (approx. 27 pages).

Thinklings Book Club Discussion One: Chapters 1-2


And so starts the inaugural post for discussion of The Thinklings Book Club. Hope you got a lot out of these first two chapters.
First I'll share some brief thoughts and reflections and maybe quote a passage or two I found particularly helpful or insightful. Then I'll ask some questions designed for feedback or discussion.

1. In the introduction to Part 1, Hoekema writes, "[T]he message of biblical eschatology will be seriously impoverished if we do not include in it the present state of the believer and the present phase of the kingdom of God. In other words, full-orbed biblical eschatology must include both what we might call 'inaugural' and 'future' eschatology" (p.1).
I think this is so important to keep in mind. When we first announced this book, when we first announced just the subject of "eschatology," I got more than one response basically asking, "What difference does it make?" People have a hard time understanding how eschatology can be all that crucial an issue or how it can be practical to their everyday Christian life. Putting aside for the moment the concern I have with "practicality" being a litmus test for important theology, I want to quibble most with the idea that eschatology is just a peripheral or minor subject of the Bible. As Hoekema I believe has demonstrated in these first two chapters, the entire Bible is rife with eschatological tension.

This problem usually results from people thinking of eschatology in terms of "the rapture" or just "what happens at the end." But it is so much more than that. The Old Testament is a building up of eschatological tension, waiting for the Messiah who would bring God's Kingdom onto the earth. Throughout the Gospels, chapter after chapter, Jesus preaches the good news of the Kingdom. That's eschatology, folks.

Whatever happens to your millennial or tribulational or prophetic views, if anything, I would hope that at least some of you will get a better sense of how important a "full-orbed eschatology" is to our understanding of the Bible and its message.

2. On that same note, I liked this line from the first chapter: "From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionizing and transforming the present" (p.3).

3. On p.7 of Chapter 1, Hoekema begins describing how the eschatological outlook of the NT is embodied in the concept of the kingdom of God. I thought this might be a good place to point out to those who might not know that the phrase "kingdom of heaven" in Matthew's Gospel is synonymous with "kingdom of God." Matthew employs that variation perhaps primarily out of respect for his Jewish audience, a readership that does not write or say the divine name.
This is merely interesting at first glance, but can actually be somewhat helpful in interpretation. Think of how many passages in Matthew's Gospel speaking of "the kingdom of heaven" that might be interpreted with "heaven" in mind -- meaning, the celestial place of Paradise where God lives -- rather than with the very present and very earthly kingdom in mind. Might knowing that "the kingdom of heaven" doesn't necessarily mean "up in the sky" affect your understanding of certain parts of the Gospel?

4. On that same page, Hoekema begins discussing the concept of covenant. This is another important facet to a better understanding of biblical eschatology. Thinking of eschatology in covenantal terms pretty much makes the entire New Testament in some way eschatological.

5. On p.10, Hoekema discusses the aspect of judgment in the Day of the Lord concept. He quotes Amos 5:18: "Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! / Why would you have the day of the Lord? / It is darkness, and not light."
For some reason, that reminded me of the literary fallacy at work in the very name of the Left Behind phenomenon. When I read the "left behind" passages in the Olivet Discourse (see Matthew 24 especially), it seems fairly clear to me that the ones taken are taken to judgment. Jesus compares to the ones taken by surprise to the ones destroyed in the Noahic flood; he describes his coming like a thief who ransacks the house. The entire thrust of that little passage, context clues and all, indicate that the ones taken are taken to judgment. That means that the ones left are fortunate.
It's good to be left behind! ;-)

6. Both the concepts of inaugurated eschatology and prophetic perspective tie into the eschatological concept commonly called "the already and the not yet." Full preterists and full futurists both miss the balance the NT demands. From Chapter 2:
"The New Testament believer is conscious, on the one hand, of the fact that the great eschatological event predicted in the Old Testament has already happened, while on the other hand he realizes that another momentous series of eschatological events is still to come" (p.13).

7. On p.19, Hoekema differentiates between "the last days" and "the last day". I thought that was really interesting, as well as really important as we parse out how the New Testament teaches an inaugurated eschatology.

8. On p.21, Hoekema quotes George Eldon Ladd: "The church's witness to God's victory in the future is based on a victory already achieved in history. It proclaims not merely hope, but a hope based on events in history and its own experience."
A few things:
First, I think this is an excellent and to-the-point summation of how ?practical? eschatology can be, of how important it can be to the Christian?s daily life. Our eschatology is one of victory, one of hope, one of faith in the kingdom Jesus brought and died to initiate. Our eschatology ought to be rooted in his resurrection. Those are all important things, crucial things ? wouldn?t you say?
Secondly, I?d take this moment to recommend Ladd?s books. In this vein, his The Gospel of the Kingdom is a fantastic little book that really opens up the importance of understanding the kingdom.
Thirdly, I think this quote is important because it touches on how our eschatology ought to be looking back as much as it is looking forward. It was my good friend and fellow Thinkling Michael Asbell who started this whole journey for me with one simple statement made one day when we were both working at the bookstore. He said, ?Our eschatology ought to look back to Jesus? crucifixion and resurrection as much or more than it looks forward to his return.? Mind-opening stuff. The historical events that enacted the atonement are perhaps the most important eschatological events.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Now some questions. These don?t all have to be answered. I hope that everyone who?s taking part in the club will come to the discussion with their own thoughts and reflections and questions for the group. And hopefully the conversation will take on a life of its own from there. But if you need some steering or just want a jumping-off place, here are some questions to get y?all thinking. But this isn?t a quiz. I really want our relationship in this discussion to be as co-participants, with me just facilitating and hosting the conversation. Not with me lecturing and quizzing you.
(Two rules: 1) While little debates are perhaps inevitable, no ?arguing? please. The normal rules of comment threads on this site apply ? be kind and respectful. 2) Try to keep thoughts simple and as focused as possible. Let?s remember that not all who are participating are as smart as you. ;-) Let?s let everyone play and let?s all play nice.)

1. We have learned that a biblical eschatology is inaugurated eschatology, one with a proper tension between the already and the not yet. What might the implications be of having a completely ?present? eschatology or a completely ?future? eschatology? What problems might arise from either of these errors?

2. In what ways does Jesus fulfill the eschatological roles of Prophet, Priest, and King? What Scriptures might help us answer?

3. On p.11, Hoekema listed the seven following eschatological realities Old Testament believers looked for for future fulfillment: 1) the coming redeemer, 2) the kingdom of God, 3) the new covenant, 4) the restoration of Israel, 5) the outpouring of the Spirit, 6) the day of the Lord, and 7) the new heavens and the new earth.
Some of these are trickier and more complicated than others, but what Scriptural references in the NT deal with these realities? Which ones have been fulfilled, either fully or partially, already? Which ones are still partially or totally future?

4. Just in these first two chapters, has your understanding of eschatology changed or grown at all? If so, how?
---

Next assignment: for next Monday, March 28, read Chapter 3 (approx. 18 pages).