As I study and research I came across the Apocalyptic Perspective. This “new trend” in Biblical theology is quite appealing. It provides a new way of thinking about salvation, redemption, creation, and most importantly good and evil. It seems that it all started with Bultmann who thought that myth should be interpreted not cosmologically but anthropologically, creating the cosmological vs anthropological debate. But then Käsemann disagreed and argued that anthropology was cosmology and that the human being is always caught up in the battle for cosmic worship between God and his enemies. Later, J. Christiaan Becker took the thought further and argued that humans are not bystanders in the cosmic triumph of God but were involved in it (This is an issue since it raises the question of universalism). Enter J. Louis Martyn (the guy that every apocalyptic theologian should know by heart) who disagreed with Becker on matters of salvation. Martyn believed that redemption was a matter of God’s invasive movement into the scene, creating the apocalyptic motif of warfare. God’s invasion of the present evil age launched a battle between the forces of that age and the new creation. This concept provided the framework for thinking about theology in terms of good vs evil, and in turn, solidified the apocalyptic perspective. Following Martyn, we have Martinus De Boer who said that there were two tracks in the second temple Jewish apocalyptic literature. The cosmological apocalyptic eschatology and the forensic apocalyptic eschatology. Ill come back to this later, but for now let me move on to my next theologian Beverly Gaventa. Gaventa refined the concept and said that apocalyptic involves an epistemological invasion rendering visible the power struggles at work. It is through this cosmological invasion that we have the liberation of mankind. Finally, the last theologian on this brief history, most known as the current champion of the Apocalyptic Paul Perspective and arch rival of NT Wright, Douglas Campbell. Campbell states that Paul’s epistemology is emphatically retrospective. In other words, the end has epistemological control over the begging (Backwards causation anyone?). If you are like me, at this moment you are cringing. I’ll leave it to the physicists and philosophers to deal with Campbell.
Going back to De Boer, and his two tracks in second temple Jewish apocalyptic literature. The cosmological approach states that sin and death are a result of a primordial angelic rebellion that left the cosmos under the sway of evil powers. Salvation is then the victory of God on the cosmic warfare between the powers of good and evil (Christus Victor). On the other hand, the forensic approach states that sin is the human transgression against God’s law. Salvation and sin are therefore judicial rather than martial categories. Thought the cosmological powers are present, they are limited (Penal Substitution).
Penal substitution, as most know it, is the view that Christ satisfied the demand of justice, so God can justly forgive sins. Nevertheless, that is not the whole picture of salvation. Penal substitution has at its core the union with Christ through the Spirit. This union is part of the New Covenant; thus, it is inherently connected to penal substitution. Atonement, as part of the New Covenant, is about a creation of a liberated, forgiven, Spirit-infused, and transformed people. But at no point in this tale, there is the mention of the powers and forces at play. God vs. Satan and his demons do not have a stand and thus the narrative seems a bit incomplete.
But if one goes with the apocalyptic perspective where the battle between good and evil is all there is, where is the indwelling of the Spirit? Moreover, if salvation is an invasion, then, why struggle to be moral? Better yet: is determinism true? Lastly, it seems that the powers, principalities, Satan and such are all abstracted and are part of a substantial evil.
And this is the picture today, a fight between cosmic warfare and the significance of the law. It seems to me that both sides have great things to say, but neither can account for the whole story.
1 Comment
Leave your reply.