Eschatology and Missions in the New Testament
42Does the expectation of the end paralyze the missionary impulse? Does it divert our attention from the task of preaching the Gospel here and now? It is sometimes said that this “hope” has an inhibiting influence upon Christian action; is this true? To give an affirmative answer to these questions would mean that “missions”—on the grand scale—would have been possible only because the eschatological hope had gradually faded. In point of fact, the missionary enterprise of the Church is often represented as a kind of “second best”—something which has been substituted for the unrealized hope of the kingdom of God. If this were true, then the Church has carried on its mission because it has been obliged to renounce eschatology.
Such ideas are due to a mistaken conception of early Christian eschatology. It is of course true that in the early Church there was a tendency to distort the Christian hope, which diverted the attention of Christian people from the sphere of present duty, as for instance at Thessalonica, in the time of Paul, and one hundred years later, in Asia Minor, in Montanism. But in the New Testament itself this tendency was explicitly rejected and condemned as heretical. The genuine primitive Christian hope does not paralyze Christian action in the world. On the contrary, the proclamation of _ * Translated by Miss Olive Wyon. 43the Christian Gospel in the missionary enterprise is a characteristic form of such action, since it expresses the belief that “missions” are an essential element in the eschatological divine plan of salvation. The missionary work of the Church is the eschatological foretaste of the kingdom of God, and the Biblical hope of the “end” constitutes the keenest incentive to action.
It is the purpose of this article to show that this thought can be traced throughout the New Testament, and is deeply rooted in New Testament eschatology.
The close relation between Christian action and the expectation of the end comes out in two prominent characteristics of New Testament eschatology: (a) we do not know when the end will come; (b) although the end lies in the future, the present is already part of the period which begins with the death and resurrection of Christ.
(a) This first point is connected with the fact that the very heart of Biblical eschatology is its emphasis upon the divine omnipotence. Nowhere is this stressed more strongly than in the doctrine of creation and in the eschatological hope. Eschatology is the new creation. The last day will appear at God’s command, uttered with the same divine authority as the primal word: “Let there be light!” Both are the sovereign act of God. This means, however, that no human effort or knowledge will enable us to ascertain when the kingdom of God will come.
We cannot achieve the coming of the kingdom of God by our own action: we cannot “bring in” the kingdom of God. The whole witness of the New Testament is so clear on this point that no further proof is needed. Then does this mean that all that is required from us, in response to the eschatological hope, is a passive attitude and not a stimulus to action? By no means! For it is only those who are firmly convinced that the kingdom comes from God who are given the courage to work here and now, whether success or failure be their portion. If we believed that the coming of the kingdom depended on us, when confronted by failure we would inevitably despair. But we can work joyfully and courageously, not in order to “hasten” the coming of the kingdom, but because we know that the kingdom comes from God.
On the other hand, no human effort will enable us to know when the kingdom of God will come. At this point, even Jesus 44himself, during his life on earth, had to confess: “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mk. 13:32). It is very significant that the New Testament emphasizes this point: that the Son does not know when the kingdom will come, when it lays so much stress on the fact that no one knows the Father “except the Son…” (Mt. 11:27). This ignorance of the “day and the hour” is, however, a spur to Christian action, to ““watchfulness”: “Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming” (Mt. 24:42). We are in the position of the householder who does not know when the thief will come (Lk. 12:39), or in that of the bridesmaids who do not know when the bridegroom will come, and must therefore keep their lamps trimmed and burning all night long (Mt. 25:1 ff.). It is true, of course, that Jesus expects his death and resurrection to be of decisive significance for the fulfillment of God’s purpose, for the end he has in view; and indeed, since the first Easter it has been a fundamental conviction of the Church that the end has already been “introduced” by this fundamental saving event. But the Church is also aware that the “new creation” has not yet been realized. Thus, for the Church, seen in the light of the Resurrection, it is true that “the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:2); hence she too must “watch” and “not sleep, as others do.” Because the day of the Lord is always near, there should be no feverish agitation about its coming, as though the “time” mattered to us; on the other hand, it is the duty of every Christian to “watch,” sustained by hope.
(b) This brings us to the second characteristic of New Testament eschatology, which is indeed the basis of Christian action. The end is not yet, it is true, but since the Resurrection has taken place we know that the decisive event leading to the end has already happened. The end may seem to be delayed, but this should cause no disappointment, doubt, or despondency. When faith in the Resurrection is strong, it breeds a firm conviction that the royal sovereignty of Christ has already begun, and that it will be exercised for a period of unknown length until Christ “delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power” (1 Cor. 15:24). Thus it is a mistake to think that eschatology has nothing to do with the present day, and, therefore, that it has a paralyzing effect upon Christian action. Indeed, it is rather the other way round, because the kingdom of God has 45actually come nearer, with Christ, than would have been the case if all had been left to the usual course of events. From the chronological point of view, something has happened: the present “age” has taken a great leap forward. We are reminded that God is Lord of time. We have entered the final phase of this “age,” which will end with the return of Christ.
One eschatological element has, however, already been realized, which points clearly to the fact that we are already living in and from the end, although the end itself still has to come: the Holy Spirit. He belongs to the future, for God has given us “his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee” (2 Cor. 1:22); we have “the first fruits of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:23). The miracle of Pentecost was rightly interpreted by Peter (Acts 2:17 ff.) when he appealed to the passage in the prophet Joel: “And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.” This, however, is more than a foretaste; the Spirit is already part of the fulfillment. The risen Lord himself points this out when his disciples ask him when the kingdom will come (Acts 1:6-8). He says: “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.” In his reply to their question he points out that it is not for them “to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.” But they will now receive the Holy Spirit. This means that the end has already dawned, although this “age” is still present. Within this period there is a stage—of undefined extent—which still forms part of “this present age.” Thus our relation to eschatology is different from that of mankind at other periods in world history: “Children, it is the last hour,” says the writer of the First Letter of John (2:18).
We are living in an interim period which already belongs to the end, and yet still forms part of “this present age.” Thus, with Albert Schweitzer, we may describe the ethic which belongs to this period as an “interim ethic,” but not in the sense that it was only valid for the first century A.D. For the “interim period” is still going on. The future, it is true, still influences this ethic, but it is also influenced by that element of the future, which is partially realized in the present, namely, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, who guarantees that one day our sinful bodies and the whole material universe will be re-created by him, enables us here and now to take the old law seriously, with all that this involves, and to fulfill 46it. Under the impulse of the Holy Spirit the eschatological summons to action: “Repent!” is seen in the right light. It is because the kingdom has come nearer to us, and, in the Holy Spirit, is, in part, already here, that it is now possible for us to act in a Christian way.
it is the presence of the Holy Spirit which makes the action of the Church, as such, eschatological. The Church itself is an eschatological phenomenon. It is in the center of the present lordship of Christ. It was constituted by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. That is why the task of the Church consists in the proclamation of the Gospel to the whole world. This is the very essence of the Holy Spirit’s work, and the meaning of the miracle of Pentecost, when, quite suddenly, all present understood one another. Precisely in the period to which we belong—between the Resurrection and the return of Christ—it is the duty of the Church to go out “into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature,” looking toward the end. That is why the disciples’ question to the risen Lord: “Will you at this time restore the kingdom to receives this answer: “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:7-8).
The Holy Spirit, and the world mission: these are the “signs” of the final phase, determined by the future, in which we stand. Does this mean, however, that the kingdom of God will come only when all men have been converted? If that were so, then its coming would depend on man, and the divine omnipotence would be ignored. On the other hand, the conviction that evil will be intensified during the last days is part of Christian eschatology. All that matters, however, is the fact that the Gospel should be preached to all nations. Evidently, God means that everyone should have an opportunity of hearing the Christian message; therefore the call to repentance must be made to all. But the coming of the kingdom does not depend upon men’s acceptance of the call. This view contains the strongest incentive for human decision, and yet the divine sovereignty is not in the least impaired. The proclamation of the Gospel to all nations itself becomes a “‘sign” of the end, an integral element in the eschatological divine plan of salvation.
47We must examine these ideas more closely; first of all, we must investigate their origin in Judaism, in order that we may have a clearer grasp of the novelty and the theological significance of the New Testament conception.
Pre-Christian Judaism has a sense of “mission,” it is true, but not as the precondition of the messianic kingdom. But we also find another conception which prepares the way for the New Testament doctrine of the Church’s mission as a “sign” of the end, which is, at the same time, corrected by it. In Judaism there were constant efforts to calculate the “date” of the messianic kingdom. We cannot here go into details about the various calculations and conclusions to which they led. Again and again these efforts proved abortive, for the kingdom of God did not “come” on the dates which had been calculated beforehand. During the New Testament period there arose a view, often expressed in the Talmud and in the apocryphal books, that the kingdom of God would not come until Israel as a whole had repented. In this connection, this question often appears in the Talmud: “Who is preventing the Messiah’s appearing?” To estimate the New Testament conception of the mission aright, we note that it is significant that within Judaism, according to Rabbinical texts, there were two different schools of thought, which answered the question in different ways, and in so doing both broke away from the idea of the divine omnipotence, which, however, is the constitutive element in eschatology as a whole. The school of Eliezer gave up any attempt to calculate the date. It taught that the Messiah will come when all Israel has repented. This, however, makes the coming of the kingdom dependent on the moral attitude of man, and this impairs the doctrine of divine sovereignty. The coming of the kingdom is no longer a divine, sovereign act. The opposite school of thought insists upon fixing a date, namely, the year A.D. 240, when, apart from man, the end of the world will come. The leader of this school of thought does not answer the question: “What prevents the Messiah’s appearing?” by saying: “Israel has not yet fully repented,” but “the time has not yet come.” This view, however, also impairs the idea of divine sovereignty, because it links the coming of the Messiah with this element of calculation which depends upon human effort.
In the New Testament eschatology, on the other hand, the divine sovereignty is fully maintained, in so far as neither by his action 48nor his knowledge can man know when the kingdom will come. This is taken seriously in the particular conception of “mission” which we are here examining, according to which the end will not come until the Gospel has been preached to all nations. Before I present the evidence for this view, I will indicate two other lines of thought within Judaism which more directly prepared the way for the Christian conception of “mission” as the eschatological “sign” (or “promise”): (i) Elijah will preach repentance in the last days (Mal. 3:1; Ecclesiasticus 48:10, 11); and (ii) there is the other view, according to which the kingdom will come when the number of the elect has been completed (1 Enoch 47:4; 2 Baruch 30:2; 4 Ezra).
Now we come to the New Testament textual evidence. We must begin with the two parallel passages in the Apocalypse, Mark 13:10: “‘And the gospel must first be preached to all nations’”; and in Matthew 24:14: ‘And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come.’” In both passages note particularly the clear chronological definition: in Mark “‘first” (after this comes the passage about the appearance of Antichrist). In Matthew it is still clearer: ‘then the end will come”; and this is likewise ushered in by the appearance of Antichrist. In both passages the mission is mentioned as a divine “sign,” along with the eschatological woes: wars, famines, cosmic catastrophes, persecutions, etc., and the intensification of evil in men. Thus it appears that the coming of the kingdom does not depend upon the success of this “preaching,” but only upon the fact of the proclamation itself.
We find further evidence for the same view in the Book of Revelation (6:1-8). In this passage it is clear what the second, third, and fourth riders mean. In each instance the reference is to one of the characteristic eschatological which are personified by these mysterious figures. Their outward appearance corresponds with the destructive task which they fulfill upon earth. But what does the first rider mean? Many and varied interpretations have been suggested. First of all, we must note that the description of this first rider has no connection with the sinister aspect of the other three. On the contrary, he is a rather radiant figure; he is seated upon a white horse, and when we remember that white is always represented as a heavenly quality, it makes us question the theory that this first rider, like the other three, also had to pour 49out an eschatological plague upon the earth. Even the crown with which he is adorned gives him rather the air of a force for good. Finally, it is said of him: “He went out conquering and to conquer.” But the verb “to conquer” (in Revelation) does not carry with it the negative sense of “conquering by violence,” but, on the contrary, it describes the quality of God’s action. Therefore it is very improbable that, as is usually said, this first rider must mean some military power, like Rome or Parthia. To me this seems out of the question, because this rider would then have the same task as the second rider, who sits upon a red horse and, of whom it is said explicitly: “its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that men should slay one another.”
Who then is this first rider? This becomes clear when we compare this passage with the similar passage in Revelation 19:11 ff. in which a rider on a white horse also appears. There the explanation is given: “Behold a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True,… and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.” In other words, it is his task to proclaim the Gospel to the world. This must also be the mission of the first rider, and indeed it fits in with the description of him. What, then, has the preaching of the Gospel in the world in common with the task of the other three riders? It also is a divine “sign” (or “promise”) of the end, and, as a final offer of salvation, it runs parallel with all those horrors, which are indeed connected with the evil in man. Further, in other passages in this book the necessity for the summons to repentance before the end is emphasized. In 11:3 the “two witnesses” are mentioned (Elijah and Moses) who prophesy. In 14:6~7 is the picture of the angel with the “eternal gospel,” who addresses a final appeal to repentance “to every nation and tribe and tongue and people.”
The fact that the proclamation of the Gospel as an eschatological “sign” is not a peripheral phenomenon, comes out very clearly in the passage in Acts 1:6-7 which has already been quoted. Here, the risen Lord tells his disciples: “It is not for you to know times or seasons.” Why? “The Father has fixed [them] by his own authority”; hence we have no business to pry into His mysteries; the “time” of the coming of the kingdom is known to Him alone, and is under “his own authority.” But there is one thing the disciples can be sure of: that they must proclaim the Gospel to all the world, until that “day” comes. This duty is laid upon them by the gift 50of the Spirit, which they have received. The period between the Resurrection and the unknown “day” of the Lord’s return must be filled with the missionary preaching “in Jerusalem… to the end of the earth.” For this is the era of “grace,” granted to mankind: it is God’s will that all men shall have the possibility of hearing the Gospel. Here, too, this allusion to the world mission before the end comes is not stated primarily as an imperative but as an indicative, as an eschatological statement: “You shall be my witnesses.” It is God who through His messengers gives us this “sign,” which offers the Gospel to the world. In all this the apostles are only the instruments through whom the eschatological plan of salvation is carried out.
But this view is also expressed in a missionary command in the famous words at the end of Matthew’s Gospel: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” This command also applies to the final phase of this “age,” which, as we know, is strictly limited. This comes out very plainly in the promise which is linked with the command: “I am with you always, to the close of the age.” This is not a vague chronological statement like “always” (as we usually interpret it), but is a clear reference to the eschatological character of the missionary enterprise, which must take place precisely in this form, before the end of the age, and itself gives its meaning to this age.
In Pauline thought the missionary motive, as the precondition of the coming of salvation, permeates the whole theology of the apostle, and is intimately connected with his sense of missionary vocation. Paul’s sense of vocation is clearly influenced by eschatological ideas; this comes out in his conviction that he is an instrument of the eschatological plan of salvation. This is shown very clearly, first of all, in Romans 9-11. These chapters are a very apt commentary on the words in Mark 13:10: “‘And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.’” In chapter 10 the apostle emphasizes the fact that God is indeed carrying out His own plan, precisely as He intends, but that our human responsibility is equally clear. For all have the opportunity of hearing the Gospel (Rom. 10:14 ff.). “But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed?… And how are they to hear without a preacher?” Opportunity must be given to all to hear the Gospel. The Jews have already had it; “but they have not all heeded the gospel,” 51hence the call now goes forth to the Gentiles before, finally, the Jews will enter the kingdom. So the word of the Gospel, which must first of all be proclaimed to the Gentiles, has a particularly concrete meaning in Pauline terminology, in which the main emphasis is certainly upon the word “Gentiles.” But the chronologically-eschatologically determined character of the “missionary message” as a “sign” of the “end” is here also quite evident. Only Paul regards this “sign” first of all, so to speak, from “within,” that is, from the angle of his apostolic vocation as an instrument of this plan (of salvation). When he speaks of the divine eschatological plan, Paul continually emphasizes the fact that his calling is especially to the Gentiles. In Romans 11, where he speaks of the “mystery” of that divine plan, he mentions his own office: “Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry” (Rom. 11:13).
In the Epistle to the Colossians, 1:22-29, he underlines the close connection between his personal “office” and the divine plan of salvation (the “divine office,” verse 25), which is related to “this mystery among the Gentiles” (verse 27, K.J.V.). When we remember that Paul knows he has been “integrated” into a divine plan, whose fulfillment depends upon the coming of this kingdom, we understand better the “necessity” (1 Cor. 9:16) laid upon him to “preach the gospel,” as a “debtor” both to Gentiles and to barbarians (Rom. 1:14). He regards himself as Christ’s prisoner on behalf of the Gentiles (Eph. 3:1). It is from this point of view that we understand more fully his eagerness to go to new places, where the Gospel has not been proclaimed, from Jerusalem to Illyria, and when his work is finished in that part of the world, he intends to turn toward Spain. The time is short: “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Cor. 9:16).
From all this it seems very probable that in the much disputed passage in 2 Thessalonians 2:6 ff., xal viv rd xaréxov di8are—“you know what is restraining him…” with the following reference to the Antichrist, there is an allusion to the proclamation of the Gospel as a “sign” of the end. When we consider that this conception of the missionary message can be traced right through the whole of the New Testament, as we have seen, this hypothesis is as probable as any hypothesis can be. Usually the passage is taken to refer to the Roman Empire. But we can find no other passage in support of the view that the state, the manifestation of the Antichrist, delays 52the end. On the contrary, both in Jewish and in primitive Christian apocalyptic, the Antichrist is usually represented as some kind of Satanic empire. Precisely in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 it is described in images taken from the Book of Daniel, which there certainly refer to Syria. Can it be that in the very passage where Paul alludes to the Antichrist in these “images,” at the same time he would have introduced the state as that which “restrains” the Antichrist? If this is what he means, he would have brought strange confusion into the realm of eschatological ideas, since in the same passage he would have spoken of the state as the opponent of the Antichrist, and as a Satanic power.
On the other hand, a great deal could be said for the view, suggested first of all by Theodore of Mopsuestia and by Theodoret, and later on by Calvin, according to which “what is restraining him” in 2 Thessalonians 2:6 is the eschatological missionary message. At first the Greek verb for “restraining” had a temporal meaning in the sense of “retarding,” “delaying.” Here the allusion is to the “time,” or “date” of the coming of the kingdom of God. Nowhere, however, is there a relation of this kind between the state and the “time” when the end is expected to come; we have, however, seen that there is (a relation) of this kind between the preachimg of the Gospel to the nations and the question of the “date” of the parousia. According to the Synoptic passages in Mark 13:10-14 and Matthew 24:13-15 the Antichrist appears after the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles, just as in 2 Thessalonians 2:6 ff. he will appear after “what is restraining him” has been removed. ~
Further, this assumption is directly connected with that Jewish Rabbinic question, “Who is preventing the appearing of the Messiah?” which we have already mentioned. We have already seen that the most usual Jewish answer to that question was: “the repentance of Israel which is not yet complete,” and this answer points clearly toward the Christian view of the eschatological necessity for the proclamation of the Gospel to the “heathen,” and it is corrected by it, in so far as here the essential element is the call to repentance.
The whole context in which the passage (2 Thess. 2) occurs also supports the idea of a relation with the preaching to the Gentiles, and shows why the Gospel must be preached to all nations before the appearance of Antichrist. In 2:9-12 we read of those “who are 53to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved”; and in 2:13—14 Paul sets—against those who reject the preaching of the apostle—the readers themselves, and of them he says: “God chose you from the beginning to be saved…. To this he called you through our gospel.” The whole of the preceding chapter, too, deals with the relation between eschatological events and the acceptance or rejection of the Gospel which they have heard:
We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren… because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing…. This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering… when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
We could almost regard this as an allusion to the proclamation of the Gospel to the heathen, in this connection, if it were not included in the allusion to “what is restraining him.”
In the same passage there is first the neuter (2:6 ff., “what is restraining him”), then the masculine (he who now restrains). Hf “what is restraining” is the missionary message, then it is probable that “he who restrains” or withholds is the apostle himself. This would fit in well with what we have said about St. Paul’s deep sense of missionary vocation, which indeed is influenced by that eschatological conviction that the Gospel must be offered to the non-Christian world. The question of Paul’s speaking of himself in this way in the third person should not cause any difficulty, since elsewhere he uses the third person in speaking of the grace granted to Cor. 12:2).
Even if this interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:6 ff—which has a solid foundation, and could be further supported by passages from early Christian writers of the first and second centuries—should not be correct, there are other New Testament passages which would give sufficient evidence for the fundamental insight of faith that the missionary enterprise is the work of God, which His servants are carrying out during the final period of this age, in which we are living. For this final period is a time of grace, which God in His mercy has granted us for repentance. This view springs out of the nature of New Testament eschatology. It leaves the doctrine of divine omnipotence unimpaired, since it does not make the coming 54of the kingdom of God dependent upon man, and excludes all human calculations. On the other hand, it greatly intensifies the responsibility of man in view of the eschatological period of grace, and finally gives the Church its peculiar commission, namely, in God’s name to carry the Gospel to all nations. This is the eschatological saving work in the period between the Resurrection and the return of Christ. From every point of view, this was, theologically speaking, a deep and fruitful conception, which, alas! was soon forgotten, and only sporadically reappears as a missionary motive.
Like all other “signs,” that of the missionary enterprise cannot be limited to this or that generation. For it is characteristic of this final period, in which we are living, that it forms a unity, and that as a whole it is characterized by “signs.” But we can never say, “this is the final hour” in which the “sign” will appear. This means that the Reformers were wrong when they thought they could get rid of “‘missions” by saying that the Gospel had already been proclaimed to all nations by the apostles. Rather, it is of the essence of a “sign” that to the very end it should appear in each generation which belongs to the present final phase of this “age.” This means, however, that the missionary obligation covers the whole time which remains, right down to the unknown final end, and that each generation anew must proclaim the Gospel to the “heathen” of their own day, without wondering whether their ancestors before 1900 had had an opportunity of hearing it. Hence, in every generation the Church must carry on the apostles’ work and proclaim the Gospel to all nations, so far as is humanly possible at any given time.
Tip: use the ← and → keys to move between chapters; press Ctrl K to search. Share any printed page with index.html?p=<page>.