Chapter 7: General Eschatology
1. What should be discussed under general eschatology?
a)The resurrection of the flesh.
b)The return of the Lord for judgment and what is connected with that.
c)The doctrine of the thousand-year kingdom; the millennium.
d)The eternal punishment of hell.
e)The eternal beatitude of heaven.
2. Has the resurrection of the flesh also been denied?
Yes, the Sadducees denied it. The Athenians could only scoff at it (Acts 17:18, 32). Hymenaeus and Philetus said that it had already taken place, that is, that it was a purely spiritual resurrection (2 Tim 2:17–18). In Corinth, too, there was a faction that doubted the resurrection (1 Cor 15:12). The Gnostics denied the resurrection of the flesh on the basis of a Platonic disdain of matter. In the face of all this, the ancient church said in its oldest [Apostles’] creed: “I believe the resurrection of the flesh.”
3. Is the resurrection of the flesh taught in the Old Testament?
Yes, in Isaiah 26:19–20; Daniel 12:2–3. Consequently, at that time in which the Scriptures of the new covenant place us, the Jews generally believed in the resurrection—Martha, for example (John 11:24; cf. also Matt 16:14; Mark 6:15; 9:10; Luke 9:8, 19; Matt 14:2; Mark 6:14, 16; Luke 9:7). Especially what the Lord says against Sadducean skepticism (Matt 22:23–32; John 5:26, 28) may be compared for the New Testament. The locus classicus is 1 Corinthians 15.
4. How is Christ designated?
The firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, the first from the resurrection of the dead, the firstborn from the dead (1 Cor 15:20, 23; Acts 26:23; Col 1:18; Rev 1:5). This is certainly meant in the first place of the order, but one can also grant it of the time. In the fullest sense no one rose from the dead before Him. Certainly there were resurrections from the dead in the Old Testament, but returning to this ordinary earthly life with a body as one had before is not yet being raised in the eschatological sense. Probably these people who were raised died again. The eschatological resurrection gives a new body that will not again decompose.
5. When will the resurrection take place?
Before the last judgment, at the return of Christ for judgment (1 Thess 4:16; 1 Cor 15:23–25; concerning Rev 20:5, see below in connection with the millennium). Most who teach a millennium divide the resurrection into two. Tertullian supposed that it was a gradual process, that during the 1,000 years one person would be raised earlier, another later, according to the person’s worthiness, but that only at the end of the 1,000 years would they all receive a finer body. The later chiliasts, however, divided according to classes of men and not according to the parts of the resurrection itself. Some said: at the first resurrection, only believers; others, only believers from Israel.
Here we observe that Scripture knows of only one time of resurrection. This is clear in John 5:27–29, where in the same hour, at the voice of the Son of Man, those who have done good and those who have done evil come out of their graves. Matthew 25:31 requires the same thing, and no less 2 Corinthians 5:10. A double resurrection would require a double Parousia, for, as has been shown previously, the resurrection as a fact in the visible world is linked with the visible return of the Lord, with His appearance in a locality on earth.
For a successive resurrection, as Tertullian thought, every ground is lacking. The resurrection is not a process; it is a crisis and at the same time, as such, a being assembled for the final judgment. It cannot have this meaning as a process.
6. Who will accomplish the resurrection?
a)Sometimes it is God in general who by His power makes the dead alive (Matt 22:29; 2 Cor 1:9), who gives us the resurrection body (1 Cor 15:38).
b)As the Father makes the dead alive, so also does the Son (John 5:21). It is the will of the Father that the Son will raise the dead on the last day (John 6:38–40, 44). The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God (John 5:25; 1 Thess 4:16).
c)God will make our mortal bodies alive by His Spirit (Rom 8:11).
The triune God, therefore, will accomplish the resurrection as a consequence of and out of the power of the resurrection of the Mediator. In Romans 4:17 the resurrection stands in parallel with the creation.
7. Is the resurrection something already prepared for here or something absolutely new?
Especially in recent times it has been proposed that the seed of the resurrection body is already present here in our mortal bodies. As seen earlier, this view is often connected with the doctrine of the sacraments. It will be a fruit of the Lord’s Supper when this higher body originates and develops in us; so already Irenaeus, also Tertullian; in recent times, Delitzsch among others.
The consequence of all these conceptions is that the resurrection appears more and more as a natural outcome of sanctification and to that extent less the occurrence of an absolute miracle. It may not be worked from the outside; it must be worked from within. But that is confusing and mixing matter and spirit. The spirit cannot itself re-create matter, as is claimed here. We believe that the re-creation of matter is reserved for the end and will take place by a miracle. Finally, on this viewpoint the resurrection of unbelievers remains totally inexplicable. For them one will still have to think of a miracle.
According to Scripture, all men who have died before the hour of the resurrection (John 5:25, 28–29; “All who are in the graves,” v. 28). Those who have not died a bodily death will also naturally not be resurrected, for example, Enoch, Elijah, and those who are living at the time of the Parousia (1 Thess 4:17; 1 Cor 15:51). For those who are still living a change will take the place of the resurrection.
The resurrection of the ungodly has been denied in earlier and later times. Some suppose that only believers will be raised, since they teach a conditional immortality; others connect the resurrection with the means of grace.
9. What will be resurrected?
In general we can answer: the same body that is laid in the grave. Thus there is identity. Scripture always speaks in such a way that this is presupposed. This corruptible must put on incorruption [1 Cor 15:53]. The resurrection of Christ is an example of the resurrection of believers. Now there can be no doubt whether the body of the Lord that rose was identical with that which was laid in the grave. It still even bore the signs of His suffering, the spear wound and the marks left by the hammered nails. The same thing is also implied in the image of sowing used by the apostle (1 Cor 15). What grows in the field is certainly not substantially the same as is placed in the furrow, but still it is also not something entirely new that is not connected with it.
The subject of the resurrection is the body, and that already entails that identity and continuity exist. Imagine that the soul received a new body. Could one then still say that the body rose? The soul would then be the subject of a transformation, not the body the subject of the resurrection. But Scripture speaks clearly of anastasis, egeiresthai.
Those who reduce resurrection more to a gradual process that already begins in this life must also deny the identity of the resurrection body. Help is sought approximately in the following way: This spiritual body already being formed here gradually is like the kernel in the germinating part of a seed of grain. The whole seed does not change into the plant; a large part is lost, namely, the husk. Only the germinating part, the kernel, sprouts. Similarly, the higher body, like a bud, is in the earthly body, and while the husk perishes, the bud sprouts in the day of the resurrection.
But against this view it must be noted that Paul has taught us how the material body as a whole and not a part of it is the seed. Also, Paul has not given the image intended in order to explain the mystery, but only to show us by an analogy what is intended and how this is not impossible. One may not transfer all the features of the image, for from one seed of grain that is sown come many, while from each buried body only one body of the resurrection results.
However, one may also not fall into the other extreme, as if the resurrection body were completely the same as the buried body. Against this view there are preponderant objections:
a)Already in ordinary language usage all identity is not as such a material identity in every respect. We are aware of having the same body that we had 10 years ago, and yet this body is not comprised of the same matter that it had then. There is a steady process of metabolism; new matter is introduced, old matter is eliminated; the body is never stable. Why then would it be necessary that entirely the same particles of matter that are laid in the earth would be reconstituted into a body?
b)It has undoubtedly happened repeatedly that the same particles of matter that are located in the body of one man pass over after his death into the body of another man. One could ask (in a Sadducean fashion): whose will they be in the resurrection of the dead? But without doubt here, too, the Savior would have answered that it is not so in the resurrection of the dead.
c)Scripture teaches explicitly that, despite identity, there will be a difference between the body now and the body of the future. It is said in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. By that the apostle does not mean to teach that the body of the resurrection is immaterial, but only that it is not flesh and blood in the earthly sense of these words. The apostle also says: “And what you sow is not the body that will be but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as He wills, and to each seed its own body” (vv. 37–38).
d)Great and radical changes occur with the body in the hour of the resurrection. The mortal puts on immortality, the corruptible incorruption, what was weak becomes strong, what was in dishonor comes again in glory. Concerning two organs, at least, we are taught that they no longer will serve for their present use; namely, the sexual organs (Matt 22:30) and the digestive organs (1 Cor 6:13). In the latter passage it even says that God will destroy both the stomach and food. Both these organs are connected with this earthly dispensation and the work to be done by man in it, and if they are preserved will be intended for a higher use. Finally, we also have the explicit explanation that the resurrection body (at least for believers) is a pneumatic, a spiritual body, and no longer a psychical [psychikon, 1 Cor 15:44], a natural body.
e)So we say: There is identity and there is difference together. The difficulty is only in determining in what that identity consists. To be noted is the following:
1.There will be an identity of form and shape. Each body has something personal and characteristic, but additionally each kind of body also has something typical. How far one can go regarding the former aspect is difficult to determine, but with regard to the latter one can say with certainty that the typus [type] of the human body will be preserved. The conception of Origen, who attributed a spherical shape to the resurrected person because the sphere is the perfect mathematical figure, should be called banal. That after His resurrection Christ had a human form settles everything here.
2.In the case of the believers, all defects and imperfections will be removed from the body. Some have thought that a cripple must first rise as a cripple and then be transformed. But Scripture presents the situation differently. It does not speak of resurrection plus glorification as two divergent things, but says: it is raised “in glory” (1 Cor 15:43).
3.We must be modest here and not wise beyond what is taught in Scripture. Augustine and others supposed that all matter that had ever been present in the body, all nails and all hair that had ever been cut off, would help to form the resurrection body, not in the same form but nonetheless in their substance. Others were more moderate and said only the particles of matter that were in the body at death (so Thomas Aquinas). However, there are objections against this view too. For defective growths, malformations, disproportion, one should surely assume a loss of matter. Therefore it is better to maintain silence here about the precise manner how. One can only say this: In the resurrection body there will also be an identity of matter with the present body. In modern times this is often presented in such a manner as if only the same kinds of matter—for example, hydrogen, oxygen, etc.—enter into the body, but perhaps nothing of the same particles of these kinds. In our opinion that nullifies the identity and replaces it by a similarity of kind. Two statues made of the same kind of marble are not identical. We believe that matter transfers, but we do not know what matter or how it transfers. Scripture does not give us a sure explanation, and despite all scientific research matter itself is still a mystery. How the one mysterious thing that we try to fathom futilely will continue in the other mysterious thing—who will explain it? With God all things are possible.
4.With the Corinthians one can pose the question: “With what kind of body do they come?” (1 Cor 15:35). Does a person who died as a child expect to have a child’s body at the resurrection? Or will all bodies be raised in adult form? Will the differences between the sexes remain discernible? Does the explanation of the Savior that they will be “like angels in heaven” [Matt 22:30] imply that not just the function of the sexual organs will cease but these organs themselves will disappear? Will stomach and food themselves or just their earthly use be done away with? These are extremely difficult questions, perhaps not to be settled entirely.
In a certain sense the resurrection is general and the same for all, for not only believers rise but also unbelievers rise. Still, again, this general resurrection is not the same for all, for the Lord Himself makes a distinction between “the resurrection of life” and “the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29 [KJV]). Resurrection “in glory” cannot be attributed to unbelievers, since it is a resurrection of a body that from then on is bound inseparably with the soul and cannot be detached from it. Spiritual death enters into our natural state and in this earthly dispensation always ends with temporal death; in the long run a sinful soul cannot remain joined with the body. Since now, however, according to God’s ordinance, just this bond must exist for the lost, the body needs to be made in such a way that, as the organ and seat of punishment, it remains permanently joined with the soul. Thus, something in fact also happens to the resurrection body of unbelievers; it becomes something other than it first was. Still, one should take note that what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 is not applicable to unbelievers, since it is seen as a fruit of the resurrection of Christ. Our [Heidelberg] Catechism [answer 45] also says that the resurrection of Christ is a sure pledge of our resurrection as saving (vv. 20, 23, 45, 49). For the rest, Scripture says but little about the body of the ungodly as it will be after the resurrection. Some believe that they are able to tell us with complete accuracy what those bodies will look like. They will, we are told, bear the image of Satan, be completely repulsive and malformed; all the marks of sin will be etched in them. For one thing there is no proof for all of this; for another one will always have to distinguish between the body that unbelievers receive and the further deformation and malformation that body will undergo by the effect on it of their sinful, lost souls. Negatively, we can say that the bodies of the lost will not be spiritual, glorious, powerful (cf. 1 Cor 15:43–44).
For the body of believers one must distinguish two elements: (a) that by which it is distinguished from the body of sin; (b) that by which it is distinguished from the body that Adam had before the fall. Paul teaches clearly that the image according to which the resurrection body is formed is not the image of the first but that of the second Adam (1 Cor 15:49; Rom 8:29). Believers receive a body that is not designed for the earth but for heaven, at least for the new earth in which righteousness dwells. Their bodies are not only free from all corruption and from any seed of death, but also they can no longer die (Luke 20:36; John 11:26). The second death has no power over them (Rev 20:14; 21:4). The bodies of believers will be spiritual, glorious, powerful—heavenly bodies (sōmata epourania, 1 Cor 15:40, 43–44); they will soar into the clouds and penetrate distances (1 Thess 4:17).
From Revelation 20:12 some have wanted to conclude that in the resurrection those who will have died as small children will also receive the bodies of small children. This is clearly deriving too much from a single phrase. In response to such an exegesis one may rightly ask: How can all small children stand? The passage says clearly: “And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God.” What is meant is plain: all the dead, without distinction of age, class, sex, etc.
Those who will be living at the return of the Lord will not die but will be changed at once (1 Cor 15:51–53; 1 Thess 4:13–18; to these passages some add 2 Cor 5:1–10, since, it is thought, the apostle supposed the Parousia to be very near). Scripture does not speak of a change of unbelievers without dying. Still, as far as we know, there are also no texts that definitely exclude this. The time of the transformation of the living coincides fully with the time of the resurrection of the dead; the one will not precede the other. Still in the same context (1 Thess 4:16–17) Paul says that, in order, the dead will rise first and then the living will be changed. In any case, this is merely a difference of a short time and neither of the two, the transformation as little as the resurrection, can be depicted as a process. It, the transformation, will occur at one point in time, in an instant. They who rise and they who are transformed will then be taken up together in the clouds to meet the Lord. If 2 Corinthians 5:1–10 also speaks of this change, then it is distinguished here from the “being clothed” (endysasthai) of the resurrection, as a “being clothed upon” (ependysasthai) and described further as a “being swallowed up” of what is mortal by life [vv. 2–4]. And, finally, it is added that this change is preferable to the resurrection, undoubtedly because the Christian who shares in it does not have to go through death (v. 4).
10.What should be discussed in connection with the return of the Lord to judge?
a)The events that precede it.
b)The return itself.
c)The final judgment that follows it.
11. What comes up for discussion concerning the events that precede the Lord’s return?
a)The calling of the Gentiles.
b)The conversion of the Jews.
c)The antichrist.
d)Signs and wonders.
12. Where does the difficulty lie in saying something about these things?
a)In the need before speaking about them to make a thorough and comprehensive study of all the prophecies of both the Old and New Testaments.
b)In the distinctive character of prophecy itself. It frequently speaks in such terms that it is only understood in its proper meaning subsequently, after its fulfillment.
13. From what do you establish that the general calling of the Gentiles must precede the return of the Lord?
From Matthew 24:14; Mark 13:10; Romans 11:25. These and like passages together include that the spread of the gospel to all is the goal to which history is moving and that therefore, with the reaching of this goal, history has fulfilled its task and passes over into the end of all things. The prophecies mentioned here do not necessarily mean that all nations will accept the gospel en masse, but only that it will come to all nations and among all of them will find its followers. It seems only that is meant even in Romans 11:25.
14.Where is the conversion of the Jews spoken of as a sign of the end?
In general, in all the prophecies of the Old Testament that speak of the apostasy and the return of the Jews; more specifically, in Zechariah 12 and Romans 11. Romans 11 speaks of a national conversion, that is, a conversion of the majority, by which naturally it is not also said that then all individuals of that majority will be saved. But what is meant is something as a whole, something national, for Paul clearly distinguishes the conversion of the “remnant according to election” [Rom 11:5] from the salvation of “all Israel” [v. 26].
15. What makes the treatment of the further details of this conversion so difficult?
Because for one thing it has been associated with the anticipated return of the Jews to the Holy Land, for another with the millennial kingdom. This already happened quite early (Justin, Irenaeus). In reaction, the opponents of chiliasm have not infrequently denied the general conversion of the Jews (e.g., Augustine). Later, too, doubt about this conversion kept pace with the aversion to chiliasm. One was afraid of furthering chiliasm.
It seems to us that the conversion of Israel is clearly predicted. But that will not occur in order to make Israel a special nation and give it back its old, separate position; that would be an anachronism in the days of the New Testament. Nor will it be in order to return the Jews to the Holy Land.
Appeal for this view is made:
a)To the explicit statements of Old Testament prophecy. But it should be noted that Old Testament prophecy speaks in Old Testament terms, which we may not interpret literally. The Israel spoken of repeatedly is spiritual Israel. And when it is said that it shall return to its land, that the temple will be rebuilt, the office of priest restored, the sacrifices reintroduced, the entire Mosaic ritual renewed in detail, then one should either take all of this literally or, if one cannot or dare not do that, should also understand the return to the Holy Land less literally and more spiritually. All too literal interpretation here would undermine the perfect and final character of the work of the Mediator.
b)To the special lot of the Jews, who, despite their being scattered, have continued to exist as a separate race and do not mix with others. From this, however, it appears only that God wills to deal with the Jews at a particular time and that they must remain separate until that time. In no sense do they still have a national calling. They will become ordinary Christians, not a kind of Christian nobility.
c)To the fact that the Holy Land is empty and, as it were, seems to be waiting for the Jews. But the desolation that has come upon Palestine this land shares with other Near Eastern lands, so that from that circumstance nothing can be concluded.
16. What does one understand by the antichrist?
An appearance that must precede the return of Christ (2 Thess 2:1–3). This passage does not have the term antichrist. Daniel 7 speaks of the little horn that came up among the ten horns of the wild beast, had eyes like human eyes and a mouth speaking great things. Then thrones are set up and the Ancient of Days is seated, the judgment comes, the books are opened [vv. 7–10]. This is then explained further (from v. 24 on). The small horn is another king who will arise after the ten kings, who humbles three of them, speaks words against the Most High, harasses the saints of the Most High, and into whose hand they shall be given over for “a time, times and half a time,” after which comes the judgment that takes away his dominion, and consumes and destroys him. See also chapter 11 from verse 36 on, and chapter 12. From Revelation, chapters 17 and 18 come into consideration here. Spoken of here is a woman sitting on a scarlet beast. The term antichrist is not mentioned. If occurs only in John, who uses it five times (1 John 2:18, twice; 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 7).
The question now is, What is meant by the phenomena delineated here? Is the antichrist a single, particular person? Or is it a power presented here personified? Does he come only at the end of time? Or is it a frequently repeating phenomenon that in its first appearance is a prophecy of its later form? Is it a worldly power or an ecclesiastical power? All these questions are so interwoven with each other that it is impossible to answer them separately.
a)In the ancient church, which bitterly oppressed and persecuted the Jews in particular, it was thought that the antichrist had to be a Jew, and then from the tribe of Dan, because it was omitted in the list of the tribes in Revelation 7:5–8. This Jew will present himself as the Messiah. He will rule in Jerusalem and in the temple proclaim himself to be God. From there he will extend his dominion (cf. also Gen 49:17; Rev. 11:7–8). This is also the view of Bellarmine among Roman Catholics, who go to a great deal of trouble against the Protestants to exonerate the pope or the papacy from blame as the antichrist.
b)Many unbelieving modern exegetes declare the antichrist to be a Roman emperor—Nero or another ruler—from the time when the letter to the Thessalonians was written. This view rests on a denial of the infallibility of Scripture. Supposedly predictions like those in Daniel, in Paul, and in Revelation only have in view contemporary or at least not far-distant events of that time, and that all of these imaginings have now served their purpose. Paul believed, it is said, that the Roman world power, personified in one Caesar or another, was the antichrist. This theory is also applied to Revelation and so understands the antichrist to be Nero. The number of Nero is 666 (qsr nrwn = 100 + 60 + 200 + 50 + 200 + 6 + 50 [Rev 13:18]).
c)The Waldensians, Wycliffe, Hus, most of the Reformers, and the Protestant theologians see the antichrist in the papacy. Here and there this view is affirmed in a confession, for example in the Smalcald Articles. The Lutherans especially take a strong stand here, so that anyone who did not accept this view was held to be heterodox. But most of the Reformed also shared this opinion (cf. Calvin, Institutes, 4.2.12; 4.7.20 and following).
There is much to be said for this view:
1.According to Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and following, the antichrist is an apostate, thus in one sense or another an ecclesiastical power, or an ecclesiastical person and not purely worldly in nature.
2.This apostate will sit in “the temple of God,” thus as it were, in the church.
3.He will sit there “as God,” thus arrogating to himself things that only belong to God.
4.He will come with ‘ “signs and wonders of the lie,” with the power to delude, in order to cause the lie to be believed.
5.He will be a persecuting power.
6.Although at the time of the New Testament he was still to come in the future, still the mystery of iniquity was already being wrought silently, the rudiments of his power were present and developing.
7.Verse 6–7 can be readily understood as speaking of the power of the Roman state. As long as it existed, the power of the papacy could not arise. The former was the “the restrainer” (ho katechōn and to katechon). It needs no detailed argument to show how all these characteristics are again found in the papacy.
But there are also objections to this view:
1.According to Daniel the little horn is not an ecclesiastical but a worldly power, like the empires that preceded it; someone, according to chapter 8, who finds his exemplification in Antiochus Epiphanes.
2.Revelation also generally presents the power of the antichrist as a worldly power (9:15 and following; 11:7; 13:1 and following; 17:18, cf. vv. 13–14).
3.It seems that Revelation makes a distinction between Babel and the antichrist. In chapter 17 John is shown the great prostitute who sits on the many waters [v. 1], who is called Babylon [v. 5], who is drunk with the blood of the saints and of the witnesses of Jesus [v. 6], who sits on the seven mountains [v. 9], who is hated by the ten horns, made desolate by them, and burned up with fire [v. 16]. In chapter 18 it is then said that she is fallen [v. 2]. Then chapter 19 again mentions the beast, who is captured with the false prophet, and they are thrown into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur [v. 20].
We do not believe that these objections are insurmountable and note the following:
a)That according to the explicit explanation of John, the antichrist is every place where a hostile spirit arises against Christianity. In agreement with this, the basic principle of the power of the antichrist already began to be at work in Paul’s day.
b)That the antichrist will indeed attain to its/his maximum power at the end of time, and this final appearance of it/him will be a sign of the end, but that nevertheless all kinds of phenomena during the entire time of the New Testament must be seen as antichristian in character.
c)That Daniel delineates the antichrist more according to its/his worldly side, Paul more according to its/his ecclesiastical side, but that the book of Revelation combines these two sides when it shows us a woman on a beast with heads and horns. It is most plausible to think of the ecclesiastical side for the term “woman,” the worldly side for the term “beast.” Consistent with this, the church is repeatedly called a woman or virgin and the apostate church an adulteress or prostitute, as the woman on the beast is called here. Finally, we must take note that in Revelation the beast first appears alone (chapter 3), then the beast and the woman together, grown into one as it were (chapter 17), and finally, after the woman is fallen and consumed, the beast alone again (chapter 19).
d)It appears to be implied in this that the antichrist first appears as a worldly power, then is married with the apostasy of the church, in order with or after this to perish. This undoubtedly makes us think of Rome. Rome is apostasy plus secularized church power. It has married itself to the state and by means of the power of this world has oppressed and persecuted God’s children. To that extent it can very well appear as the woman on the beast, as church and world together.
e)It is not to be denied that the Old and New Testament prophecies give rise to thinking of a specific revelation of this antichristian power toward the end of the ages. We can therefore surmise that in Rome—better, in the papacy as it now is—we do not yet have the full revelation of the antichrist. Perhaps the papacy will once more ally itself with the hostile power of the world, to then be itself rejected by the latter. We do not know whether that will happen, but if it did happen, we would certainly have to acknowledge in retrospect that prophecy has alluded to it.
f)One must make a distinction between antichrist and the antichrist. To say that the papacy is antichrist is not the same as saying that it is the antichrist. And one must likewise make a distinction between the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. The antichrist as such directly opposes Christ and is estranged from all truth; in the Roman Catholic Church elements of truth still remain.
g)One should associate the last appearance of the antichrist, as its/his appearance in general, with apostasy. That is clear on the basis of the predictions of the Savior Himself (cf. Matt 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21). Unrighteousness will increase steadily; the love of many will become cold; people will betray each other; brother will hand over brother, parents their children, children their parents; false prophets and Christs will arise, etc. With this 1 Thessalonians 5:3 agrees that they will say: There is peace without danger!
One could now ask: How are the various signs of the end to be reconciled with each other? On the one hand, the fullness of the Gentiles must enter and all Israel must be saved! On the other hand, a great apostasy will occur in which antitheses come to be sharply opposed to each other and the church comes to be almost completely isolated, oppressed by all its persecutors. One should bear in mind, however, that the outward expansion of the church, which proceeds slowly, is quite compatible with internal apostasy, while also, surely, the gates from which apostasy and mission emerge ought not to be the same. One could even maintain that there is more than a temporary link between expansion and apostasy, that the former, by the externalization to which it gives rise, carries within itself the seeds of the latter. But this and more such particulars we wish to leave to its place.
17. Must signs and wonders precede the end?
Yes, for signs and wonders belong to every supernatural crisis in the history of revelation. They have accompanied the exodus from Egypt, the giving of the law at Sinai, the incarnation of the Word, and they will also precede and accompany the fulfillment of all things. Scripture presents this in such a way that in the last days there will signs and wonders (Joel 2:30–31; 3:15–16; Isa 13:6–13; 24:18 and following; Hag 2:7). For the New Testament compare the eschatological discourses of the Lord (Matt 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). Here the apostles present two questions to the Lord, namely, (a) when the destruction of Jerusalem predicted by Him will occur; (b) what the signs of His coming are when the end will be. Apparently these questions were asked with the presupposition that the destruction of Jerusalem would coincide with the end. Hence, too, in the answer of the Savior a sharp division is not made between what belongs to the one and what belongs to the other, and it is very difficult for us to make the division. In any case it is clear that the Lord Himself did not identify the time point for these two events. Further, it appears from the presentation as a whole that the signs and wonders will certainly be grouped together toward the end, but that they will not all come at the same time; there is a certain passing of time; they will follow each other and so by their sequence show that the end is approaching more and more.
The Lord speaks of a few of these signs as archē ōdinōn, “source of the sorrows” or “beginning of the birth pains” [Matt 24:8; Mark 13:8]. By that all these events are put under the viewpoint of catastrophes that accompany the birth of something new. As an infant cannot be born without pains, so too the rebirth of the entire earthly creation, which coincides with the end, will occur under terrible labor pains. The beginning of those pains consists of wars, sicknesses, famines, and earthquakes. In itself all of this would not yet be something special, but Luke 21:11 tells us that this will be accompanied by “terrible things and great signs from heaven,” thus by something absolutely extraordinary, so that it will be easy to distinguish them from ordinary disasters and distresses.
Mentioned as later signs, which appear to immediately precede the Parousia, are: the darkening of the sun, the ceasing the light of the moon, the moving of the stars out of their paths and their falling from heaven, the powers of heaven being shaken, that is, the loss of balance of the powers that maintain the order of heaven. It will be as if the universe was unhinged. The result of these signs will be anxiety of the nations, great perplexity, and the failure of hearts through fear and the expectation of things that will come.
Between these two groups of signs falls the appearance of the false prophets and of false Christs, who will perform similar signs and wonders. This agrees with what we have seen above regarding the apostasy of those times.
In Revelation, too, such signs and miracles are spoken of. First come war, famine, and plague that kill a fourth of the inhabitants of the earth. Other phenomena of a celestial kind follow: the sun becomes black as sackcloth, the moon like blood, the stars fall to earth as a fig tree throws off its unripe figs, heaven disappears like a scroll that is rolled up, mountains and islands are moved from their places. Men hide themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains (Rev 6:12–17). In chapter 8:7–12 still more is added to this: hail and fire mixed with blood, a third of the trees and all the grass is burned up, a third of the sea becomes blood, the a third of the water of the rivers becomes wormwood by a star that falls from heaven, those who drink of the waters die. See further the whole of the ninth chapter for the further trumpets, as well as chapter 16 for the bowls.
Many suppose that also in the last days signs and wonders will be renewed among the children of God, as Joel 2:28–29 speak of that. A great prophet, it is thought, will come before the Lord, now too as at His first coming (Mal 3:2–3). The two witnesses of Revelation 11:3–12 are associated with this. By these two witnesses Luthardt, among others, understands Moses and Elijah in connection with Matthew 17:11. But all this is very precarious.
All these signs and wonders are distinguished noticeably from earlier signs and miracles. All the miracles of the Savior were curative in nature (with the sole exception of cursing the unfruitful fig tree). The signs of the end are in order to harm and to corrupt, to terrify and to oppress. They are punitive wonders, God’s judgments, plagues.
18. What does Scripture teach about the return of the Lord Himself?
Earlier [in volume three] we pointed out the significance it has as a step in the exaltation of the Mediator. Here it comes into consideration as an eschatological fact. Already in Daniel the two comings of the Lord are separated; likewise in Zechariah 13:7 and following. In the New Testament it becomes completely clear that a second coming will follow the first. The following points deserve consideration:
a)Did the apostles expect the return of the Lord soon? On the one hand, it has been maintained unequivocally that this is the case, and that in this they were mistaken and so erred in what they taught. On the other hand, it has been argued as certain that not for a moment can they have thought that. Both ideas, it seems to us, are incorrect. The apostles were at first, especially before the suffering of the Lord and even still later (Acts 1:6–8), very ignorant about these things. Also, the Savior did not deem it necessary to inform them in detail about times and season (Acts 1:7; Matt 24:36, 42, 44, 50). We have no basis for assuming that later the apostles had revelations about the exact passage of time between the ascension and the Parousia. They always speak indefinitely, although Paul certainly says negatively that the day is not yet immediately at hand (cf. 2 Pet 3:8–10). Paul knows that first the fullness of the Gentiles must come in and all Israel be saved. So it cannot be conceded that the apostles would have definitely misled their converts or entangled them in the error that the day of the Lord was immediately at hand.
Against that conclusion, appeal is made to passages like Matthew 10:23. Taught here is only the unresponsiveness of the cities of Israel. Matthew 16:28 speaks of the initial glorification of the Lord. Matthew 24:34 and parallel passages either have in view the fall of Jerusalem or with “this generation” the nation of the Jews is to be understood. Matthew 26:63 also says only that His judging and ruling, of which the last judgment is the culmination, already begins after His suffering. Philippians 3:20, 1 Corinthians 15:51, and 1 Thessalonians 4:15 are cited from Paul’s letters. But it cannot be proven that the “we” in these passages is more than the general Christian “we” that includes everyone, including Christians of the future. When the reader is reminded again and again that the Lord is near, etc. (Phil 4:5; Heb 10:25, 37; Jas 5:7–9; 1 Pet 4:7), then by that it should be kept in view that for the Christian death is equivalent to the coming of the Lord.
b)The return of the Lord is meant literally, bodily, and not figuratively as the Rationalists and also Schleiermacher propose. Sufficient here, for example, is a passage like Acts 1:11. He will return “in the same way” as He departed.
c)The Lord will return only once, and not as chiliasts must teach, twice—first to establish the millennium, then to begin the eternal kingdom. Scripture knows only one return. Chiliasts are not agreed on the question whether after His first Parousia the Lord returns to heaven. If so, what becomes of His 1,000-year reign on earth? If not, how then can one speak of a new return? That He will come in order to judge cannot be denied.
d)Regarding the manner of His return, Scripture teaches that He will come:
1.from heaven
2.on the clouds of heaven
3.in the form of His human nature
4.as a man
5.not in humility but in glory
6.without sin, that is, no longer as the Surety bearing guilt
7.with His angels, the heavenly host who will serve Him in everything that is associated with His return
8.according to some, accompanied by the spirits of believers who have already gone to heaven, which, it is thought, is to be found in 1 Thessalonians 3:13 (“with all His saints”), 2 Thessalonians 1:10, Jude 14
9.as a thief in the night, not only for unbelievers but also in a certain sense even for believers since they never know the hour exactly
10.for all together as in the same moment, as a lightning bolt that shines from east to west
11.not only visibly but also audibly, with a shout and the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God
12.with His manifestation and cry, causing the resurrection of the dead and gathering them for judgment, so that at His coming believers lift up their heads with joy, meanwhile unbelievers weep.
The place of the return is not mentioned. Some expect that it will occur in the valley of Jehoshaphat on the basis of Joel 3:2, thus near the place where He arose. But that is merely a hypothesis.
e)We note further that the antichrist will be destroyed by the Spirit of the Lord’s mouth and by the manifestation of His coming [2 Thess 2:8]. The hostile power that has arrayed itself against His church will collapse as soon as the Lord shows Himself. From Revelation 19:20 the conclusion has been drawn that the antichrist and the false prophet, who has served him, will, without dying first, descend living into hell (as it were in contrast with Enoch and Elijah), while the others are killed in order then again to be resurrected.
19. What views regarding the last judgment must be rejected?
a)That it is not a single event at the end of the ages but a slow process realized in history, “Die Weltgeschichte is das Weltgericht” [“The history of the world is the judgment of the world”—Hegel].
b)That what Scripture pronounces concerning it is merely Jewish, sensory dressing for the idea that one day there will be a separation between the world and the church—Schleiermacher.
c)That the determination of everyone’s destiny already at temporal death, when the soul already enters then into beatitude or perdition, makes a last judgment superfluous. (One also reasons conversely: if the definitive judgment first comes at the consummation of all things, death cannot be decisive; ergo: conversion is possible after death.) But the last judgment is distinguished from that at death: (a) by its public character; (b) by its pertaining to both body and soul; (c) by its universal character.
d)That judgment at death and the last judgment must coincide for the individual in his consciousness, because after death until the resurrection there is no passing of time for departed souls. It is not true that in this sense departed souls are outside of time. We are outside of the time of this earth, not outside time in general.
20.Will the last judgment take place in one day or last longer?
One could conclude the former from what Scripture continually mentions of “the day” of judgment (Matt 10:15); “the day” of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:8); “the great day” (Rev 6:17); “the day” (1 Cor 3:13); “that day” (2 Tim 4:8). But, on the other hand, there is also mention of “the hour of judgment” (Rev 14:7). Thus one can only say this: (a) resurrection and judgment will be linked directly; (b) the judgment will not be a slow process but one act, clearly separated from the other.
21. Where will the judge and the persons to be judged be located?
It is difficult to conclude anything in this regard. The judge will certainly be visible to all. On the basis of 1 Thessalonians 4:17, the Lutherans thought that the judgment would take place in the air. The Reformed sometimes concluded from this text that believers would receive their judgment in the air, unbelievers below, on earth. But 1 Thessalonians 4 is not related specifically to the last judgment but only to the glorification of believers, which in part precedes the judgment, in part follows it, for which reason also nothing is said about unbelievers.
22. Who will the judge be at the last judgment?
Christ in His official capacity, nevertheless enabled for this by His divine perfections. His judging is a part of His work as Mediator. In that it can also be said that God is the judge of all (Heb 12:23), for what the Mediator does He does on behalf of God. John 3:17 and 12:47 of course do not exclude His judgeship but rather require it (cf. 9:39). Because Christ is the Son of Man (= the Mediator), He has received power to execute judgment over all (John 5:27). The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son (v. 22; cf. also Acts 17:31; Rom 14:9–12; 1 Pet 4:5; Rev 6:16, “the wrath of the Lamb”)
There is a series of texts in which a joint judgeship of the angels and the apostles or even believers in general, seems to be taught. To that series belongs Matthew 19:28; 20:23; Luke 22:30; Matthew 25:31; 16:27; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; Revelation 14:10; Jude 14; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; Matthew 13:39, 41, 49; 24:31; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; Revelation 3:21; 1 Corinthians 6:1–3. For these texts a threefold observation may be made:
a)What is said about the apostles judging the twelve tribes of Israel does not so much have in view judgment but rather the glorification that follows.
b)What is said about the angels only concerns their ministering work at the judgment: proclaiming that the Lord is there, gathering for judgment, separating good from bad, but still not the actual judgment itself.
c)Concerning believers, 1 Corinthians 6:1–3 undoubtedly teaches that they will be involved in judging at the judgment exercised by Christ. Scripture does not say further how we are to think about that. How can they judge and be judged at the same time? Perhaps the one follows the other. By “angels” [v. 3] we have to understand the fallen angels.
23. Who will appear at the last judgment?
All men and at least the fallen angels. The former is denied by consistent chiliasts, for those who have already ruled for 1,000 years with the Lord in glory can certainly not come into judgment again. There are those who only have the inhabitants of Sheol summoned at the judgment, namely, those whose destiny is first decided in Sheol, while they also have believers and unbelievers, who have heard the gospel here, judged already at death. Appeal for this view is made to John 3:18; 5:24; 12:47. But in these passages we find nothing more than that the relationship one has to the Savior already virtually decides his destiny. Their unbelief already establishes that perdition awaits them. But this in no way excludes the judgment itself, which takes note of these things and renders their judicial consequence.
Scripture teaches very emphatically that the judgment will be general (e.g., Matt 25:32; Acts 17:30–31; Rom. 2:6–16; 2 Cor 5:10).
That the evil angels will be judged is apparent from 1 Corinthians 6:3, from 2 Peter 2:4, “submitted them to chains of darkness to be kept for the judgment”; Jude 6, “kept in eternal chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.” It has been said that the devil does not belong at the judgment along with men, since grace has not been offered to him and the demons. But neither does that apply to pagans, and the devil with his demons most certainly has a relationship to the work of redemption as its great adversary, whose works Christ destroys.
24. Can we specify further how the judgment will take place?
No, we cannot envision the visible particulars in detail. Scripture says, for example, that seats are placed, etc. It may be, however, that this is merely earthly imagery. But, conversely, this does not grant the right to vaporize the whole into a metaphor. It will not be, as Origen thought, a solely inward trial in the conscience of men, but something external and objective. Everyone will see the Lord, and He, the judge, will look everyone in the eye. To its implementation, furthermore, belong three parts: (a) the cognitio causae, the announcement of the state of things with respect to each person in particular; (b) sententiae promulgatio, the declaration of the verdict; (c) sententiae executio, the execution of the verdict.
a)The cognitio causae has been portrayed symbolically as an opening of the books or as questions and answers (Dan 7:10; Rev 20:12; Matt 25:34–46). By books nothing other is to be understood than the infallible omniscience of God, who knows everything as precisely as a man knows what he has written down in his books. One speaks of the book of providence, the book of conscience, the book of predestination or of life, the book of Scripture. Similarly, one need not understand the questions and answers as necessarily literal. But in each case, at the same time everything that is the object of judgment will pass through the consciousness of the person who is judged. He will have to represent himself. How that is effected is irrelevant. In an earthly trial it happens through the examination of witnesses, audible giving of evidence. God can cause all that, as it is present in His divine omniscience, to occur immediately for the consciousness of those who are judged. This cognitio causae will be all-inclusive; it will concern words, thoughts, actions, habits, the deepest predisposition and orientation of the soul—faith or unbelief for those who have lived under the gospel, living according to the law or transgressing the law for those who have sinned under the law—the works both of believers and unbelievers (1 Pet 1:17; Rev 20:12–15; Eph 6:8; 1 Tim 6:18–19; 2 Cor 11:15).
That this being judged “according to works” also applies to believers is apparent from Matthew 25:34–40; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 22:12. However, this is not to be understood in the sense that works provide the basis for the decision whether one has earned or not earned salvation. Works will come into consideration as a manifestation of genuine saving faith. Work in the scriptural sense also means not just an external display but the expression of one’s life that flows out of the depth of the heart. So understood, works are in fact evidences for the presence of faith. But works occur in yet another sense than as evidences of faith. Scripture also speaks of reward for believers (“their works follow them,” Rev 14:13; Matt 5:12, 16; 6:1; Luke 6:23; Heb 10:34–38). This reward comes as compensation for the cross, as restitution for what was robbed, as recompense for love shown to the servants of the Lord, etc. There will be proportion in this reward (Matt 25:21, 23; Luke 6:38; 19:17, 19; 1 Cor 3:8). It is presented as a reaping that corresponds to what is sown (Gal 6:7–10). Salvation will be perfect for all, but nonetheless not entirely the same for all. This is certain: the difference will not possibly provide any occasion for unhappiness. Accordingly, for believers works are a criterion for the glory to be received. But this is a reward out of grace (Rom 11:35; 1 Cor 4:7; John 3:27). And the bestowing of salvation, as such, will take place solely on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ received by faith.
It is asked whether the sins of believers will also be judged. Without doubt, these too, but then immediately compensated by the righteousness of Christ. Even in what appears to be their good works a sifting will take place. It will be become manifest what is gold, silver, precious stones, and what is wood, straw, or stubble must be nullified in the fire of the judgment. If anyone’s work is burned up, then he will suffer loss but nonetheless will himself be saved as through fire (1 Cor 3:11–15).
Those who have lived under the gospel will be judged not only for their faith but for all their sins, including unbelief. One’s entire life will be summed up, the final outcome settled, and the result of that life registered.
Pagans who have only had the law of nature will also only be judged according to that law—not as if God would also require less than complete conformity with His strict justice but in such a way that their responsibility will not be as weighty as it will be for others judged by the knowledge that they possessed of the supernaturally revealed will of God (Rom 2:14).
The representation of Scripture throughout is that what has happened in the body falls under the judgment. This means that the existence of departed souls in heaven and hell will not be judged. Hence the existence of those in hell is to be seen as anticipated punishment—preceding the judgment in time, following the judgment in order.
b)The sententiae promulgatio [declaration of the verdict] follows the cognitio causae [announcement of the case]. What has been established for everyone must become open, public. The day of wrath is at the same time a day of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Rom 2:5). And of all men it is said that it must be public. A sense of justice requires this. Usually it is imagined that the Judge will at least announce the final verdict over everyone with a loud voice. This is certain: it will be made known not only to the person whom it concerns but also to all who are connected with him.
At the last judgment humanity divides into two classes, which Scripture places on the right hand and on the left hand of the Lord. Still, there are those who here too wish to introduce a threefold division. It is said, namely, that those who have not lived under the gospel here have gone to Sheol. In Sheol no preaching of the gospel was possible because there is no time for the souls of the departed. Therefore the preaching must follow on the day of judgment itself. It consists in the appearance of the glory of Christ. As soon as this glory is revealed, the souls that have come out of Hades and are now again united with their bodies are enabled to accept Christ or reject Him. And then their judgment follows. That this conception is completely unscriptural needs no argument.
c)Concerning the execution of the previous verdict, see below.
25.What is understood by the thousand-year kingdom or millennium?
The name is derived from Revelation 20:1–6. Satan is bound for 1,000 years and shut up in the abyss. The souls of those who were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God and who have not worshiped the beast or its image, live and reign as kings with Christ for a thousand years. The name chiliasm means the same thing (chilioi = 1,000).
It is not easy to state what chiliasm intends. The chiliasts differ greatly among each other. Kliefoth gives the following as its main features: When the preaching of the gospel has come to all the Gentiles, Israel will be converted to Christ—and that as a people, in its entirety—the Lord will then appear and will return Israel to the land of Canaan and unite it with the believers of all ages resurrected by Him. In a glorified Jerusalem and Canaan, Israel, under the idealized and spiritualized ordinances of the Old Testament, will realize the ideal of a Christian state and will become a spiritual metropolis for all countries, from which a work of missions on a great scale will go forth. At the end of the 1,000 years the unbelieving elements of the countries surrounding it will be united, rise up against the Holy Land and besiege the glorified Jerusalem. In doing that, however, they will be crushed by the Lord, after which the general resurrection, the last judgment, and the end of this world will follow.
Besides this there is a less crass view that has a spiritual return of the Lord following the appearance of the antichrist and then a period—not exactly 1,000 years but still many years—of unheard-of prosperity and blessing for the church and of restraint of evil and Satan. Christianity will occupy a position of world dominance. In this period, then, also falls for the greatest part the universal preaching of the gospel.
Finally, there is still a third view that takes up many elements of chiliasm regarding the future of the Jews and their national preeminence, but places all this in eternity, therefore after the general resurrection and the last judgment.
Within these limits, as has been said, great differences prevail among chiliasts. Some say that the Jews will first be converted and then brought to their land. Others say that the Jews will first be brought to their land and there be converted. Some say that the resurrected saints will live in heaven, others put them on earth; still others say that sometimes they will be in heaven and sometimes on earth. Some say that they will appear visibly to those over whom they will rule, others that they will not be seen. Some see believers or saints as being angels; others hold that from them there will be reproduction and multiplication of the human race during the thousand years. And regarding the manner of contact between this glorified part of humanity and the remaining, still earthly humanity, great differences of opinion prevail.
26. What are the objections to these chiliastic theories?
a)The first objection is that the chiliasts have a wrong understanding of the concept “Israel.” In itself it is not necessary that chiliasm and the expectation of an external, national restoration of Israel coincide, but in fact they do mostly coincide. And this is not accidental. If one does not hold to this national, earthly future for Israel, then one cannot imagine anything in the world that the millennium should serve to fulfill. It then becomes merely a shadow of the future glory, a thing composed of heterogeneous elements of diverse origin. If, on the other hand, it is true that Israel must be restored as a unified people with political, theocratic institutions and external national forms, then a period will have to be set apart for that before the consummation of all things, for in eternal glory there is no place for something like that. In that point lies the nexus causalis [causal connection] between Jewish-fleshly expectations and chiliasm.
This entire conception is in conflict with Scripture. With the incarnation and Christ’s finished work of satisfaction, Israel’s national calling has been terminated. That would even have been the case if Israel in its majority had not rejected the Savior. Even then it would not have been more than the first in the line of Christian peoples, a part of spiritual Israel. For according to the repeated witness of the New Testament, “Israelite” is synonymous with “Christian.” The circumcision of the heart makes one a true Jew [Rom 2:29].
The chiliasts repeatedly represent the situation such that the apostasy of Israel (said with respect) was a disappointment for God and the calling of the Gentiles a surprise. Scripture speaks repeatedly such that from the very beginning it is in God’s purpose to confer the covenant service of the Jews on the Gentiles. It is one church that is built on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles; as a matter of course the spiritual Israel, the true Israel, grows out of Israel according to the flesh. One may compare how the New Testament writers assess the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that the chiliasts would wish to refer to the restoration of Israel. Peter [sic] says in Acts 15:16 that the reception of the Gentiles into the church of the Lord is a fulfillment of what Old Testament prophecy knows to relate to rebuilding the fallen tent of David (Amos 9:11). The letter to the Hebrews says that already at that time was fulfilled what the Old Testament says concerning the pilgrimages to Jerusalem of all peoples (Heb 12:22). All the Old Testament concepts of “temple,” “Jerusalem,” “Zion,” are conceived of as spiritual and international in the New Testament.
b)Chiliasm robs the Christian church of its missionary privilege. It is almost as if God is bound to Israel in order to complete the work of missions and so must wait for the conversion of the Jews. Scripture speaks entirely the other way around. The fullness of the Gentiles will enter first and then all Israel will be saved.
c)In the eschatological discourses of the Lord and in the letters of the apostles not a word occurs about a thousand-year kingdom, not even where there was an occasion to speak about it. An appeal is made to various passages, for example, to Acts 3:19–20, but only by contrived exegesis can anything about a millennium be found in them.
One circumstance in particular gives an appearance of warrant for the chiliastic conception. The apostles frequently speak soteriologically about eschatology; that is, they often deal with the doctrine of the last things from the viewpoint of the significance it has for believers (so, e.g., 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor 15). Hence they are silent about the significance these last things have for unbelievers. Consequently, it would unavoidably have to appear as though they only knew of a resurrection and glorification of believers, and there are those who are immediately ready to identify this with the so-called “first resurrection” of chiliasm. However, on closer examination it is soon apparent that also in those texts where the dark side of eschatology remains outside of consideration, the data still occur altogether irreconcilable with chiliasm. One may take 1 Corinthians 15, for example. In verse 23 the resurrection of believers with Christ is spoken of. Now in verse 24 the millennium should be spoken of. But what is there? “Then shall be the end, when He shall have delivered over the kingdom to God the Father, when He shall have destroyed all rule and all authority and power.” So, here the resurrection of believers and delivering over the kingdom are directly connected.
d)There are a great number of texts that do not leave room for a millennium between the first resurrection and the consummation of all things.
1.The destruction of the antichrist and the Parousia coincide, according to 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
2.The resurrection and the last judgment likewise coincide, according to Luke 14:14; John 5:25–29; Heb 6:2.
3.Again, the destruction of the antichrist and the general resurrection coincide since, according to 1 Corinthians 15:24, all powers hostile to God, even death, will be destroyed together with the antichrist. So it follows then that Philippians 3:20–21, 1 Thessalonians 4:15, and other passages connect the Parousia directly with the last judgment.
e)The Lord taught explicitly that the separation of the good from the wicked will only take place at the consummation of the ages (Matt 13:37–43, 47–50); according to the chiliasts a separation already takes place 1,000 years before the end. As a disciple “in this age” one receives a hundredfold in houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, fields, with persecutions, but eternal life only “in the age to come” (Mark 10:30). But “this age” and “the coming age”—which Christ so sharply keeps separate here—chiliasm merges.
f)Chiliasm entangles itself in insoluble difficulties. How is it possible that a piece of glorified earth—one may well say, a piece of heaven—can exist in the midst of an unglorified earth? How can death and life coexist on the same planet in this fantastic manner? How can there be contact between these two different kinds of people? How can the Lord rule on earth without believers from all lands streaming to Him? Who would want to remain in America if he knows that his Savior is to be seen in Palestine? How at the end of the millennium will Gog and Magog dare to be so bold as to rise up against the Lord Himself and fight Him? No chiliast has ever made a successful attempt to remove all these difficulties.
g)One must acknowledge that Revelation 20:1–6 seems to speak of a millennium. We are not able here to provide an explanation of this passage. It would first be necessary to decide which interpretation of the book of Revelation must be employed, the so-called church-historical theory or the so-called groupings-theory. In any case, it is certain that the numbers in Revelation do not have a literal but a symbolic meaning. The number of the beast is 666. Even the chiliast cannot take that number literally. Why then does he insist on the literal interpretation of these 1,000 years? Also, Revelation 20 does not say anything about the Jews. Only the martyrs and the faithful are mentioned. Additionally, one ought to proceed from the principle that in more obscure prophetic passages one may not find what is in conflict with the clear meaning of other passages.
However, we would not want to go as far as some who say that if it is proven that Revelation 20:1–6 in fact teaches a millennium, then that for me is a reason to declare Revelation to be spurious. We do not have the right to reject prophecy because it appears to us to be in conflict with other portions of Scripture. For that we would have to have the supernatural gift of the testing of spirits.
27. What names does Scripture give to the abode of the lost to which they will go following the last judgment?
a)The names Sheol and Hades, which were discussed above.
b)The name gehenna, Greek geenna, from the Hebrew gei-hinnom or also gei ven-hinnom or gei venei-hinnom, “valley of hinnom,” “valley of the son of hinnom,” “valley of the sons of hinnom.” According to some, hinnom is a common noun meaning “cry”; thus: “valley of crying” or “valley of the children of crying.” Others, in contrast, say that Hinnom is a nomen proprium [proper noun], and that the valley is so named after a historical person. The issue is not important.
The Hinnom Valley lies southeast [sic] of Jerusalem. Under the kings Ahaz and Manasseh (2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) it was made into the place for the worship of Moloch. The place of sacrifice was called Topheth, topheth, “place of spitting out.” In Moloch worship, children were slaughtered and burnt. Later the cultic place in the valley was destroyed (namely, under Josiah, 2 Kgs 23:10) and declared unclean by the priests (cf. Jer 7:31 and following; 32:35; 19:1–6). The rabbis say that this unclean Topheth in the Hinnom Valley was used as a place to incinerate the carcasses of animals, so that there was a continual fire (cf. Jer 31:40). The Old Testament does not yet make the comparison between the place of the damned and the Hinnom Valley. The Apocrypha also uses still other names. The Talmud already speaks of gehinnam [in Hinnom]. Hence the occurrence of the name in the New Testament. It must have been fairly common at that time.
In the name itself two elements can be distinguished:
1.It portrays the place of the damned as an unclean, cursed location, over which the fire of the divine wrath burns. Indeed, the fire that glowed in the Moloch-furnace was already a lingering trace in paganism of the unadulterated concept of divine righteousness that exercises punishment. And the fire that later consumed carrion and other impure things was even more an image of the burning that causes God’s holiness to break out against all sin.
2.It portrays the place of the damned as a location where the fire of hostile hate against God in the heart of the lost is never extinguished. As in Topheth the Moloch-oven burned, so in Gehenna does the furnace of sin.
It is, it would seem, particularly for the first reason that the name Gehenna occurs so often connected with the concept of “fire.” “The Gehenna [hell] of fire” and with it, “the eternal fire” (Matt 18:8–9; cf. also Mark 9:43–48). By this, however, we do not mean that the fire in Gehenna is only meant symbolically. That God can render the concept “hell” by “fire” and “Gehenna” in our language and for our perception must have its basis rather in the fact that He originally placed in fire the image of “hell.”
c)For “fire” one could think of a condition, since the local element appears to be more or less lacking. But this is amplified in other passages: “the furnace of fire” (Matt 13:42; Psa 21:9), “the lake of fire” (hē limnē tou pyros, Rev 20:14–15), “the lake of fire that burns with sulfur” (kaiomenē en theiō, Rev 19:20), and many other passages in Revelation; for that sulfur one may compare Isaiah 30:33 with 66:15. Still, it appears that something else is being thought of primarily. The lake is a pool of death; enclosed water. That makes one think immediately of the Dead Sea, which originated by the fire and brimstone rain of God’s judgment. Jude 7 also makes the connection with Sodom and Gomorrah. And then again one can point out that, at least in the Apocalypse, the nations are seen as a “sea” (13:1), the nation of those saved as a “sea of crystal” [15:2]; so the lake of fire and of sulfur in antithesis to the sea of crystal. Compare, finally, also Ezekiel 47:1–12, “water that flowed from under the threshold of the house,” and in verse 11, “the muddy places and marshes that will not become fresh.” There, too, the wellsprings of life in Revelation are already present.
d)Another name is phylakē (1 Pet 3:19; Matt 5:25; Luke 12:58), “prison,” “repository.” It contains in part the idea that the lost do not enter willingly but, as is said elsewhere, are pushed or thrown into it, in part the thought that they must remain inside it and are no longer able to go out into the rest of God’s creation in order to bring in corruption and disruption. Sometimes mention is even made of jailers or tormenters, but that can belong to the elaboration of the image. Or it could refer to the devil and his demons (Matt 18:34).
e)Also spoken of is the abyssos (Luke 8:31). The “abyss” is the abode of the devil and the demons. But from Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 20:10 it is evident how these and the lost are consigned to one and the same place. According to Luke 8:13, the demons apparently abhor departing to this deep place; they would rather remain on earth, even though in the bodies of the pigs. The devil is also thrown into the abyss, which is shut and sealed over him (Rev 20:3). Conversely, it is said of the tongue that it is set on fire by Gehenna, “hell” (Jas 3:6), by which surely the abode of the demonic powers is meant.
f)Finally, the pagan term tartaros occurs, namely in 2 Peter 2:4 (cf. Jude 6), namely in a verbal form, tartarōsas, “having cast into Tartarus.”
28. What is evident from all these names?
That we have to do here with a real place. We cannot, however, specify further where this place is, except that in antithesis to the height of the heavens it is called the depth of the abyss. Here too fantasy has imagined all kinds of things. From Jude 13 it has been thought possible to deduce that hell is located on the comets. The place of hell is “outside” (Matt 8:12; Rev 22:15), naturally not outside the extent of the created universe or the inhabitable world, certainly; on the other hand, outside the sphere of recreated and glorified things in which the love and the grace of God will reign. All dualistic conceptions, as if Gehenna was a creation of the devil, must be rejected. God has created the darkness, even the outermost darkness, as well as the light (Isa 45:7). In “outside” is contained the antithesis to the salvation of the “inside.” “Blessed are those who may enter into the city through the gates.… But outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the whoremongers,” etc. [Rev 22:14–15].
29. In what will the punishment of hell consist?
a)In absolute separation from the gracious presence of God. Therefore it is spoken of as “death,” “the second death”; therefore, too, as “outermost darkness,” for in the salvation of God is light, as in fellowship with Him is life. However, this is not to be understood as if for the lost there would no longer be knowledge of God. They will know Him in His wrath.
b)In endless destruction, an endless disruption of existence, apōleia. It is impossible for us to fully delineate this concept. Destruction and endlessness seem to exclude each other. Nevertheless, the punishment of hell is often presented to us just from this viewpoint of apōleia. Another designation is phthora [corruption] or olethros aiōnios [eternal destruction] (Gal 6:8 and 2 Thess 1:9).
c)In actual pains of the soul and of the body (Rev 14:20; 20:10; Matt 10:28: “both body and soul” are destroyed in hell). It is a “fire,” “a worm,” what in any case points to actual punishment, though it is otherwise thought to be understood metaphorically.
There has also been a desire to portray it as a punishment of the lost that they will behold the glory of the saved from a distance. This would have to be based on Luke 16:23. But in this respect, too, it is forgotten that here we are dealing with a parable. It can certainly be assumed that the thought of the salvation against which they have sinned will be agonizing to the lost.
d)Along with these objective punishments, there will also be subjective ones—pangs of conscience, anguish, despair—as Scripture portrays all this for us so appallingly in the expression “weeping and gnashing of teeth” [e.g., Matt 13:42, 50; Luke 13:28]. By no means, however, may one reason from this subjective punishment as if the real Gehenna consisted in it. Some are accustomed to saying that an evil conscience will be hell, or that the lost will not so much be in hell as they will have hell in themselves. Scripture does not speak in this way.
e)The question arises how the “fire of hell” is to be understood. About this there has been a great deal of dispute. Roman Catholics say: actual fire, at least those who already maintain that of purgatory. Others, including Lutherans and the Reformed said: material fire, but not earthly fire. Still others said: certainly real, but not a fire of elements, material fire. Against material fire it was objected: (1) It is said of the fire that it is prepared for the devil and his angels; material fire cannot affect pure spirits, like demons. It seems to us this metaphysical reason is insufficient. If the body acts on the soul in man, why then would material fire not be able to act on demons? (2) Other expressions that occur along with fire must apparently be understood metaphysically, for example, the worm that does not die, the chains of darkness, the lake of sulfur, etc. It must be acknowledged that there is weight to this argument. Indeed, some of these expressions are difficult to reconcile with each other if one takes them literally. (3) Also, where the blessings of heaven are spoken of, we are not accustomed to taking the expressions of Scripture literally. Scripture must use such images in order to give us a grasp of the future things that are above or below earthly things. For heaven it speaks of “Abraham’s side,” “recline at table with Abraham,” etc., “crowns,” and many other things. There is weight to this too.
It seems to us that this question is not capable of being resolved. One thing should be kept in view. Even if material fire is not meant, then the repeated mention of fire still cannot be a mere metaphor in the superficial sense in which it is usually taken. On the contrary, here too one will have to say: earthly fire is an image of the hellish reality that we call fire and about which further we cannot form a conception.
f)In the punishments of hell there will be a difference of degree. That is clearly taught in Matthew 11:22; Luke 12:47–48; “his portion,” Matt 24:51 (Luke 12:46). That does not allow for determining in detail. In Matthew 23:14 [cf. KJV] it is said of the scribes and Pharisees that they will receive more severe judgment.
30. How long will these punishments of hell last?
Forever. Those who deny that can be reduced to the following groups:
a)Those who teach an apokatastasis pantōn, “a restoration of all things.” Very early on Origen already held this view, since he viewed the punishments of hell as curative. Actually, all must teach that who, deducing the righteousness of God from His love, make punishment a benefit. An eternal punishment then becomes a contradictio in adjecto [contradiction in terms]. This view is also connected with the Pelagian doctrine of free will. It is thought that even the damned must retain their measure of freedom of the will, which always leaves open the possibility of restoration. In this case, however, the possibility must also be acknowledged that those who are saved can fall from heaven. Among modern theologians, Nitzsch, among others, teaches the restoration of all things.
b)Those who teach an annihilation of the ungodly. This view has been discussed earlier and there it was shown why it cannot be a substitute for the old view.
c)Those who in a universalistic fashion teach the salvation of all—either during this life or during a stay in Sheol-Hades—do not so much deny the eternity of the punishments of hell as rather hell itself. For someone who believes Scripture, this is scarcely worth refuting.
31.To what grounds is appeal made to deny the eternity of the punishment of hell?
Schleiermacher, for example, presents the following:
a)The words of Christ are figurative.
b)1 Corinthians 15:25–26 teach that all evil will be overcome. (Response: the passage says rather, “be put under His feet.”)
c)If the punishment consisted in bodily pains, the lost would get used to it; if it was pain of soul, it could not increase, for that would presuppose that the lost become ever more sensitive to it, and that would also imply that they continually become better instead of more evil. (As if there were no other pain of soul conceivable than specifically pangs of conscience, and as if all pangs of conscience presuppose per se a measure of moral uprightness. Scripture knows very well to distinguish between sorrow toward God and sorrow that works death [2 Cor 7:10].)
d)The ruin of the lost would intrude in a disturbing manner on the blessed state of those glorified. (But Scripture teaches us that in the last judgment a separation, a split, will be made between evil and good. This certainly implies not only that two classes of persons will emerge but also that the ties and relationships between these two will be cut off altogether.)
The scriptural grounds that are supposed to dispute the doctrine of eternal punishment are extremely weak. A few texts are wrenched from their contexts, such as Romans 5:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, and everything that Christ and the apostles say about eternal fire and eternal ruin is left unexplained.
32. Can you show from Scripture that the punishments of hell are of eternal duration?
Yes.
a)This doctrine is found most clearly in the words of Christ, the Savior and Redeemer Himself. Whoever rejects it presumes to be more merciful than the Son of Man. He warns against the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell, speaks of the worm that does not die and the fire that is not quenched, says that He will assign those condemned their place in the eternal fire that is prepared for the devil and his angels [Matt 10:28; Mark 9:48; Matt 25:41]. The words of Christ could have no other meaning than they must have had in the understanding of His hearers according to the common parlance of that time. And with such expressions as Christ used, the Jews certainly understood nothing other than eternal punishment. One may compare still further Luke 12:9–10, where it is said explicitly that the sin against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; also, what is said about Judas, namely, that it would have been better if he had never been born [Matt 26:24]. The ungodly are represented as the weeds to be separated from the wheat on the day of judgment and to be burned with unquenchable fire [Matt 3:12; 13:40]. Weeds do not become wheat in eternity. The bad fish are thrown away [Matt 13:48]. All of this is irreconcilable with the doctrine of a merely temporary punishment of hell.
b)It is said in so many words that the punishment is “eternal,” aiōnios, aidios (Matt 25:46; 18:8; Jude 6–7; Rev 14:11; 19:3). When the word aiōnios is used here, this can have no other meaning than that which belongs to the coming age, thus lying on the other side of the boundary that divides the two ages in Scripture. And what is on the other side of the boundary is per se endless, for Scripture knows of no other borderline that would yet again make a division within that age. Naturally, it must thereby be taken into account that the punishment of the ungodly falls in the coming age. On the other hand, it can be said of something belonging to “this age” that it is aiōnios without eternity as endlessness being meant. So it is said of Onesimus that he would be an eternal servant of Philemon [Phlm 15]. The mountains are “eternal” mountains because they last as long as this aeon lasts. But the punishments of the wicked are “eternal” because they extend over the entirety of the coming age. And in Scripture the aiōn mellōn has no end, limit; nor is there a dividing line within it.
c)The eternity of the punishment is in antithesis with the eternity of the salvation of the blessed. And it is described as eternal with the same words. If, then, someone wishes to attribute a weaker sense to the concept “eternal” (aiōnios, aidios) with respect to the punishment, then he must also concede that thereby all proofs for the eternal beatitude of the children of God fall away. According to Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:688, “Aiōnios is employed 66 times in the New Testament. Of these, 51 relate to the future happiness of the righteous; 7 relate to future punishment (Matt 18:8; 25:41, 46; Mark 3:29; 1 Thess 1:9; Heb 6:2; Jude 6); 2 relate to God; 6 are of a miscellaneous nature.”1 It may also be observed that Scripture speaks in the same terms of the punishment of the ungodly as of the devil and his demons. Therefore, a conversion that does not also extend to the latter is no help. And the idea of a redemption of the powers of hell is thoroughly unscriptural.
33. Do the rational grounds that have been brought against the eternity of the punishments of hell have convincing force?
No, they all start either from a wrong concept of the righteousness of God or from a weakened concept of sin. Sin is committed against an infinite God, and what punishment it deserves can only be measured accordingly. Furthermore, salvation from sin is something positive that God owes no one, and where such salvation does not occur, sin continues of itself. From the flesh corruption must be reaped (Gal 6:8). If one makes the punishment of the ungodly finite in duration, then that implies that in principle it was not necessary. In fact, then it is defined not with reference to God but to man. And if punishment was not necessary with respect to God but only has its basis in man as he determines it, then it appears doubly difficult in God if He, who can surely save man without punishment, has chosen just this method. Universalism is then the only consistent view.
34. Is the punishment of the lost absolutely eternal?
Naturally a parte post [as to the future], not a parte ante [as to the past]. It has a beginning, but it will have no end.
35.What will precede the consummate salvation of the children of God?
The appearance of a new world. Scripture speaks of that very clearly. In Acts 3:21 Peter speaks of an apokatastasis, a “restoration of all things.” And in Revelation 21:5 He who sits on the throne says: “Behold, I make all things new.” As a matter of fact, all this is inherent in the relationship to the rest of creation in which man stands. It is given to him so that he would rule over it. It has been carried along with him in his fall. It has been subjected to the groaning of futility. It is in travail, since with the dawning of the glory of the children of God it also awaits its liberation [Rom 8:19–22]. It is not solely about atonement for sin but about the removal of the results of sin. And when the devil, the demons, the lost, will be thrown “outside,” then the last vestige of sin, to the extent it is “inside,” will also need to disappear from the creation of God. The Old Testament in fact already speaks of this (Psa 102:26–28; Isa 34:4; 65:17; 66:22; 51:6, 16; 11:6–9). In the New Testament, one may also compare 2 Peter 3:7–13; Revelation 20:11; 21:1.
Scripture teaches further that this new world will follow the glorification of the children of God, that is, the glorious resurrection and the last judgment.
36. How are we to think of this bringing into being of the new world?
Thinking on this question differs greatly. Some propose an absolutely new world, so that in substance the old does not recur in the new and a new world comes in its place. The Lutheran dogmaticians until Gerhard were devoted to this view. But in general whenever they mention the new earth pro forma, they do not say much about it. The Reformed, for the most part, expressed support for the opposite view, namely that the substance of the presently existing world will be preserved but will be restored, purified in glory. Also, a host of recent theologians align themselves with the Reformed here. The grounds are:
a)Even the passages that seem to speak emphatically for the destruction of the old world are nevertheless not decisive. They are 2 Peter 3:7–13 and Revelation 20:11 and 21:1. The first passage speaks only of “passing away,” “being melted,” without it exactly becoming extinct; indeed, in our experience burning is never total annihilation. Revelation speaks of a “fleeing away,” a “passing away,” a “being no more.”
b)The Old Testament passages all speak clearly of “change,” not of “annihilation,” for example, Psalm 102:26–27. This passage is taken up again in Hebrew 1:10–12. And accordingly, Hebrew 12:26–28 should also be so interpreted that at the shaking of the cosmos something remains that is immovable. This immovable something could be found in the heaven of God’s glory, but still probably also meant is that something of what is changeable will remain in order to be made unchangeable.
c)If annihilation is assumed, then texts that speak of change are absolutely impossible to explain. If change is assumed, the texts that seem to speak of annihilation can still be explained in a very sound sense.
d)Analogy speaks for change. The body of man, too, is not annihilated and a new body created in its place. The old is changed or glorified. One should assume then that this will also take place in the wider sphere with the entire groaning creation.
37. How will that change occur?
Second Peter 3:7–12 says that it will occur “by fire.” This cannot be meant figuratively. It is contrasted with the destruction that once came upon the earth by water, the water of the flood. So it must be just as real.
Hebrews 12:26–28 speaks, as we saw, of a “shaking” and “moving.” But this and what Peter says do not exclude each other. A conflagration of the world with tremors and earthquakes would fulfill both prophecies.
The renewal of the earth does not affect heaven as God’s dwelling place but heaven in the celestial sense.
38. Can we say very much about heaven and the blessings of heaven?
No, for this far surpasses our understanding. We know only:
a)That heaven is a place. Like hell, it is to be thought of as having a locality. It may be true that someone can have heaven in his heart, but his heart must also be in heaven with his body.
b)The enjoyment of heaven is in the first place the enjoyment of God, the visio Dei, a “beholding of God.” This is not to be understood one-sidedly in an intellectualistic manner but in all its magnitude. The nearness of God will affect every capacity of man, and every capacity will react to it. Theologians usually speak of visio [seeing], amor [love], gaudium [joy], gloria [glory]; others of knowing, serving, enjoying, and glorifying God (cf. 1 Cor 13:9–13).
It has been asked whether this will be a seeing with physical eyes. This is not to be assumed. God is not visible to the senses. The Mediator certainly is. No one has ever seen God. This seeing follows on faith. It is thus something that is comparable with faith but that still does not necessarily need to be a perceiving with the senses. There will thus be a perception of God, yet such that it is not a material entity that appears to us.
c)The enjoyment of heaven in fellowship with God is eternal life in all its fullness.
d)Along with these enjoyments, perhaps other blessings will be bestowed on the children of God. But Scripture describes all that in images about which we cannot say to what extent they are purely metaphysical, to what extent they are metaphorical in the deeper sense of the word. Naturally, all defects and all misery will be banished from heaven.
e)Heaven will not be a world of uniformity; diversity will rule there. One is the glory of the sun, another that of the moon, another of the stars [cf. 1 Cor 15:41]. Not all receive the same portion. The one who has sowed much receives a rich harvest. But as already said above, diversity will not possibly function as a cause for distress.
One can think of the blessed state of heaven too much as an individual. There will be an ordering of things there. Glorified humanity will have its head in Christ and form a body under Him. In a body there are always different parts.
One can also think of the blessings of salvation too spiritualistically. Many do not reckon with the fact that the body of the believer, too, is resurrected and that the earth, too, will be re-created. In their conception there is really no place for a new earth. Still, on the other hand it should be acknowledged that we do not know what the enjoyment of God’s world will be like for His children. We do not, if for no other reason because we lack any adequate comprehension of that new world itself.