™
| AS EXPOUNDED IN HIS 1978 BOOK – 'THE BIBLE AND THE FUTURE' |
| CONTENTS |
| 1. | Introduction | |||||||||
| Hoekema's | concept of inaugurated and future eschatology is a useful frame within
which to deal with the various elements of his view of end-time events.
However, the misdirecting of these teachings lies essentially in:
|
|||||||||
As is
often the case, there are differences of opinion on some Scriptures as
to whether they refer to the kingdom inaugurated in Jesus first coming
or whether they pertain to the future fulfillment at His second coming.
Hoekema also has this problem.
|
||||||||||
| 2. | Expectation of the Second Coming | |||||||||
The
Bible's teaching on the expectation of Christ's "second coming"
is dealt with very constructively by Hoekema. He brings out the ethical
effect upon the life of the believer and frees this from a particular
time period by showing the indeterminate nature of the date of the Return.
He does this by showing that the so-called imminence passages refer to
the inaugurated eschaton of Christ's first coming, and that the New Testament
teaches a "delay" and an "uncertainty of the time"
of His Return (Hoekema 1978:112). |
||||||||||
Hoekema's
reasoning is not always well founded however. For instance, his exegesis
of the apparent imminence passage in Mark 9:1 (compare Mat.16:28; Lk.9:27)
which reads – |
||||||||||
"And He said to them, 'Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power'." |
||||||||||
This
is presented (and so understood) by all three of the synoptic gospels
as leading to Peter, James and John witnessing the Transfiguration with
Elijah and Moses (Mk.9:2-13; Mat.17:1-13; Lk.9:28-36) – personages associated
with the inauguration of the Kingdom (Mal.4:1-6). |
||||||||||
Hoekema
however, insists (following Ridderbos) on seeing this as a reference to
the resurrection of Christ. He seems sometimes to be more faithful to
his own theological perspective than to the text of holy Scripture. |
||||||||||
His
treatment of another imminence passage likewise does not sufficiently
take into account the context of the passage. |
||||||||||
"you
shall not finish going through the cities of Israel,
until the Son of Man comes". |
Matt.10:23; cf. Lk.9:1-9. | |||||||||
Unlike
the ministry of evangelism in the Christian Church, the twelve apostles
are instructed to go only to the "house of Israel",
to neither Samaritan or Gentile, and if rejected then
to pronounce judgment. |
||||||||||
In Luke
(10:1-16) the mission of the seventy receives the same narrow instructions
as they are sent to "every city and place where He Himself was
going to come" (10:1). |
||||||||||
It is
thus evident that the final summing up of the ministry of Jesus to Israel
has come and the Seventy, like the Twelve, are sent out to precede Christ.
The reassurance of the Twelve, as the Seventy, concerning the persecution
they will encounter is not the shortness of the time to a second coming
(imminence), but immediate coming Christ who follows behind them and in
whom they had such confidence on a previous occasion as to ask Him to
bring fire down from heaven upon those who rejected their word, even if
their attitude was wrong. |
||||||||||
It is
not necessary to plead "prophetic foreshortening", as Hoekema
does, to avoid an apparent failed prophecy. The context gives a rational
and immediate fulfillment. |
||||||||||
| Hoekema's quote from Romans does not refer to the second coming either. The words – | ||||||||||
"the
God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet" |
Romans 16:20. | |||||||||
are a
clear allusion to Christ's promise previously given concerning their mission
– |
||||||||||
| "I
have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall injure you" |
Luke 10:19. | |||||||||
This
is not the persecuting world that we are to tread underfoot. It is the
undermining and poisonous discouragements of Satan through those whose
words "deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting" (Rom.16:18).
This is the "evil" (16:19) which God will soon crush
as the believers "turn away from them" (16:17). |
||||||||||
Nevertheless,
Hoekema's treatment of the second coming expectation is well done but
his exegesis lacks exactness. He leaves the impression that his interpretation
of the biblical data is significantly influenced by his theological position
and thus he works rather clumsily with the evidences.
|
||||||||||
| 3. | The Signs of the Times | |||||||||
In considering
the significance of the signs that Jesus and Paul gave concerning Christ's
second coming, Hoekema argues against "wrong use" of the signs. |
||||||||||
Firstly,
he opposes the idea that the coming of Christ's kingdom is to be identified
by "abnormal, spectacular, or catastrophic events (1978:130). To
do this he uses Christ's words to the Pharisees – |
||||||||||
"The
Kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;
nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or
'There!' for behold,the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" |
Luke 17:20-21. | |||||||||
This
is a shocking misapplication of Scripture, for it was
Christ Himself in the Pharisees "midst" who was the presence
of the kingdom. |
||||||||||
Equally
inappropriate is Hoekema's association of the "abnormal" signs
with satanic deception (2 Thes.2:9) (1978:131). That Satan uses the spectacular
to promote the coming Antichrist does not in any way mean that God's signs
are therefore the normal, non spectacular and non catastrophic. It is
highly misleading and totally unwarranted by Scripture to imply, as Hoekema
does, that anything abnormal is deceptive. |
||||||||||
He also
argues (following Hodge) that just as the prophecies indicating Christ's
first coming were not understood until the event actually occurred and
even then these prophecies were only convincing to those who saw with
faith, that therefore the signs of Christ's second coming are likewise
indiscernible to unbelievers. |
||||||||||
There
is a radical contrast between the first and second comings
of Christ that makes this idea inapplicable.
|
||||||||||
Hoekema
does however, leave the door ajar for the extraordinary by referring to
the horrific war on Jerusalem in 70 AD as a partial fulfillment of signs
given and a precursor of the end in a prophetic foreshortening (1978:130). |
||||||||||
| Anthony | Hoekema asserts five general principles of signs given by Jesus concerning
His second coming: |
|||||||||
| 1. witnessing that God is in control; 2. pointing to the future Return; 3. expressing the conflict of the ages that will climax; 4. challenging for a response; and, 5. calling for spiritual alertness in our lifestyle. |
||||||||||
In the
first point he tries to make signs refer to the past or completed actions
of God. This is true in Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees, which he quotes
(Mat.16:3), but this concerns signs of the time of Christ's first
coming which was then current. Thus, again, there is a tendency to read
into the significance of the signs what is not naturally understood in
Christ's teaching. Hoekema's theological perspective again seeks an opportunity
to be heard rather than honest exegesis. |
||||||||||
Hoekema
also asserts that all signs are always evident in the history of the church. |
||||||||||
He says
that –
"They
were present at the time the New Testament was written, they
have been present through the intervening centuries, and
they are present now." (1978:135).
He asserts
this as the basis for saying that the signs are relevant
today. |
||||||||||
| This is really confusing. Not all signs are of the same kind! | ||||||||||
For
instance, in Christ's Olivet discourse the principal sign given is a geographic
event (Daniel's abomination in the holy place, Mat.24:15). The earlier
signs, we are told by Jesus, are necessary things that must first happen
but the end is "not yet" (24:6). The
sign requested in verse three is not answered by the description of world
circumstances and the prophecy of the fulfillment of evangelistic witness.
These are given to show that there will be an extended period before
the "end". The sign of Christ's coming that was requested
is then described as the Abomination set up in the holy place in Jerusalem.
This most certainly is not a perpetual event of the church's history,
except if it be so allegorised as to lose its biblical context and we
begin to call the Pope names! |
||||||||||
Hoekema
again has conformed the evidences to his reasonable system of eschatological
understanding. Yet, at least his ethical application gives joy.
|
||||||||||
| 4. | The Signs in Particular | |||||||||
| Hoekema next endeavours to consider the specific signs "as set forth in the Scriptures" (1978:137) | ||||||||||
He well
shows the importance of the gospel mission to "the nations"
and that this is the primary meaning and purpose of this present age (1978:138).
He neglects however, the negative value of this sign. As long as the church
has not completed its gospel mission to all nations the end cannot come! |
||||||||||
When
he begins to deal with the "salvation of the fullness of Israel",
as he terms it, he begins to loosen his relation to the text of Scripture
with which he is dealing, even though he claims to interpret it in the
light of "the Scriptural givens" (1978:141). These perhaps should
rather be described as the doctrines-already-formulated. Unfortunately
it is again theology determining exegesis instead of exegesis determining
theology. |
||||||||||
Of the
three alternatives that he presents as an interpretation for "all
Israel will be saved" (Rom.11:26), he espouses
a median position between understanding "Israel" as the physical
nation and as the universal elect (Calvin). His understanding of the context
of this passage in the preceding chapters seems correct until he begins
to explain chapter eleven. |
||||||||||
Hoekema
describes "all Israel" as "the sum total of all
the (believing) remnants throughout history" (1978:145). In other
words, all Jews that will-be-saved will be saved. This says nothing! He
simply fails at a fundamental level to distinguish between the election
of the individual to salvation and the election of the nation to special
privilege and responsibility. Paul had explained it. |
||||||||||
The
"to the Jew first" (Rom.2:10) is not
God's partiality in personal salvation, but God's strategy in history. |
||||||||||
From
his reformed theological perspective he seems to interpret the elect as
meaning always those elect to salvation.
Whereas, the Apostle Paul writes for our understanding –
|
Rom.11:28
RSV |
|||||||||
These
are not saved Jews (the total of the remnants of all the ages) but the
Jewish "enemies of God" who are yet still
nationally elect, for the sake of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. |
||||||||||
| Hoekema fails to take into account the great discontinuity contained in Christ's statement – | ||||||||||
"the
kingdom of God will be taken away from you
and given to a nation
producing the fruits of it" |
Matt.21:43 | |||||||||
The
Church is not simply an elect Israel freed from nationality. It is a new
creation. There is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ. To think of two
groups among the redeemed is utterly foreign to Paul's thought! |
||||||||||
There
is no eternal remnant of saved Jews! Neither is there
any nationality beyond the grave. Jesus said that it is the "sons
of the kingdom" (in this life) that shall be cast into outer
darkness (Mat.8:12). From the living nation of Israel the "kingdom"
was taken away! |
||||||||||
He also
fails to take into account the great continuity between
the Israel who rejected Jesus and the Israel whose "fulness"
of salvation brings "much greater riches" to the world. |
||||||||||
The whole impact of Paul's
teaching in Romans 11:12 is that it is the same nation
who crucified Christ and so gave a Saviour to the world, that will be saved
and so bring "greater riches" than this salvation, even
"life from the dead". |
||||||||||
"But if their [Israel's] transgression means riches for the [Gentile] world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their [Israel's] fulness bring!" [Resurrection] |
Rom.11:12 NIV | |||||||||
Not
seeing this continuity bedevils Hoekema's exegesis. Christ came to "His
own" (elect nation, not elect remnant for salvation) and "His
own received Him not". Yet, for their patriarchs' sake their
nation will be restored to Him when the "until"
time of the fullness of the Gentiles, the completed evangelistic mandate, is fulfilled
(Rom.11:25). |
||||||||||
However,
Hoekema's examination of the other principal signs of Tribulation, Apostasy,
Antichrist and various catastrophes is well laid out and effectively shown.
|
||||||||||
| 5. | The Nature of the Second Coming | |||||||||
Hoekema
effectively states the case for a single stage second coming of Christ.
He spends almost a whole chapter of this topic on refuting the two stage
theory which teaches a Rapture followed by a Revelation of Christ seven years later
with a Tribulation period bracketed between them. |
||||||||||
The Apostle Paul clearly associates the "rest" with Christ (the Rapture), which He will bring to His people, with the retribution of judgment "fire" (the Revelation) at His second coming (2 Thes.1:7). This "rest" for the righteous comes only "when the Lord Jesus Christ shall be revealed ...in flaming fire, dealing out retribution...". |
||||||||||
He then shows the Return
to be a personal coming, a visible coming, and a glorious coming!
|
||||||||||
| 6. | The Effect of Christ's Coming | |||||||||
Hoekema
prefers to title his next three chapters on a Millennial theme, which
indicates his approach. Whereas he has often shown the Old Testament background
to New Testament truths of Christ's second coming, he now focuses largely
upon the issue of Rev.20:1-6: the Millennium, literal or figurative. |
||||||||||
The
highly symbolic nature of the book of Revelation makes it a glorious amplification
and stirring development of truths already stated in lesser detail in
earlier Scripture. The issue of a millennium literal or figurative, and
if literal, "when does Christ return, before or after?", is
really the issue: "did God promise an earthly fulfillment
of His kingdom in which the geographic city of Jerusalem would play the
leading role?". |
||||||||||
Hoekema's
scheme of eschatology has no place for a future spiritually
restored national-covenant Israel of Abraham's physical descendants. All
promises to them are regarded by Hoekema as having been already fulfilled or being
purely figurative of God's plan for His Church out of all nations and
ages. |
||||||||||
There
is much truth in Hoekema's assertions and he makes many valid points in
his attempt to demolish premillennial dispensationalism. Unfortunately,
he has chosen to focus his refutation upon a fairly extreme wing of premillennialists
and the bulk of his arguments on individual issues would probably be agreed
to by premillennialists quite happily without his answers being seen as
in way a valid criticism. |
||||||||||
He is
unconvincing that Christ's second coming to the same geographic city has
no significance to that place except to terminate its existence in final
conflagration. The prophecies of the Old Testament, such as Zechariah
14, which Jesus treated as literal in choosing to specially take His disciples
to the Mount of Olives for the Ascension rather than depart from the mountain
in Galilee where He commissioned them, make a return of Christ to destroy
the earth in order to recreate it impossible, unless
we arbitrarily decide that parts are figurative and others literal as
it suits the presuppositions of our theology, as Hoekema seems to have
done. |
||||||||||
It would
not be denied that he speaks the truth when he says that Scripture often
has multiple fulfilments, literally, figuratively, and antitypically (1978:209),
but he goes too far when he makes this a means of avoiding objections
that his alleged literal fulfillment does not do justice to the text; for
instance, that the promises of a full restoration of Israel to the Land
that exceeds the Exodus from Egypt (Isa.43 & 49) was fulfilled by Zerubabel's
and Ezra's caravans to Palestine. |
||||||||||
Israel's
dispersion in the early centuries of the Christian era has been greater
and longer than the captivity from which Zerubabel's exodus was supposed
to be the final fulfillment. But, of course, now that the Church is here
God no longer need keep His word to the patriarchs concerning their physical
descendants, for the Church substitutes for all. One cannot agree with
Hoekema without laying the Church open to the old (often justified) accusation
that she has hijacked Israel's Scriptures and twisted their meaning to
suit herself. |
||||||||||
When
Paul deals with the problem of the unbelief of the "elect nation"
(Rom.9-11) he expounds the authority and wisdom of a divine strategy
of history. He does not avoid accusations of injustice by denying
the right of the objector to object, for injustice pertains only to just
reward and not to the dispensing of special opportunities, as to Israel.
His climax is chapter eleven is praise to God for His wisdom in a strategy
of history to use even Israel's sin as a means of blessing to others.
It is noticeably not irresistible grace, unconditional election, or limited
atonement that occasions this praise. It is – |
||||||||||
"Oh,
the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" |
Romans 11:33. | |||||||||
| – that has secured salvation equally for all! (Rom.11:32). | ||||||||||
Hoekema's
argument against a true offer of the kingdom to national Israel is that
if they had accepted 'how could Christ have been crucified for our sins?',
therefore, there was no offer to Israel but only to the spiritually elect
(1978:213). This reasoning is presumptuous for it ignores the reality
that for God it was the "fulness of time" when Christ
came. It was a time of deep spiritual decadence in which even the God-honoured
separated ones (Mal.3:16-18) in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes had become
the Pharisees in the time of Jesus. God chose to send HIs Son in the time
of Israel's apostasy, as Hoekema acknowledges it will be in Christendom
at His Return. |
||||||||||
Hoekema
alleges that the "millennium" is a symbol of the spiritual reign
of the deceased believers now with Christ and of ongoing conquest of the
Christian Church among the nations, because Satan is bound. The lamentation
and plea for justice of the martyred dead of the fifth seal in Revelation
does not quite accord with a sense of reigning in heaven, nor does the
history of the Church present a picture of irreversible growth. Hoekema
asserts that –
"the
nations cannot conquer the church, but the church is conquering the nations"
(1978:229). |
||||||||||
| Perhaps the previously strong churches of North Africa and the Sudan should have known that! | ||||||||||
The
"dead in Christ" return with Him to be raised on this earth!
(1 Thes.4:14-16). They will no longer "marry or be given in marriage,
but are as the angels", who need no earth on which to live. The existence
of a new earth, which Hoekema seems to treat as literal, is surely not
populated with those whom resurrection glory has made them heirs of the
universe and concerning whom all creation rejoices (Rom.8:18-25). |
||||||||||
To continue
an examination of Hoekema's teachings on the second coming of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ would be to begin repeating the objections already
raised for his basic misconceptions of the newness of the Church, the
future significance of Israel's nationhood, and the literal base of even
the figuratively fulfilled prophecies continues to affect most of his
eschatological thinking.
|
||||||||||
| 7. | Conclusion | |||||||||
Anthony
Hoekema presents a very useful coverage of much data in the field of eschatology.
His basic concept of the two-fold reality (inaugurated and future, or
realized and 'not yet') is sound and an effective framework from which
to develop a fuller understanding of this most important subject to the
spiritual health of the Church. |
||||||||||
However,
as often noted above, he is heavily influenced by the general scheme of
his own theological views to the extent of forcing interpretations of Scripture
passages and omitting valid argument of premillennialism that his objections
do not adequately deal with.
|
||||||||||
| 8. | Bibliography | |||||||||
Hoekema, AA 1978 The
Bible and the Future, Exeter, UK: Paternoster Press.
Ladd, George Eldon 1977 The Gospel and the Kingdom, Grand Rapids, USA: Eerdmans. Ridderbos, Herman 1969 The Coming of the Kingdom, Philadelphia, USA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. |
||||||||||
| See Also: |
 |
