Futurists and preterists propose their solutions. One says the relevant prophecies are future, the other says they're past.
But what I seem to be seeing is a concept which differs from both, yet has some elements of both. I'm still considering it - but it's looking good so far.
What I seem to be seeing is that the Gospel always seems to be described in terms of it having a future-and-now-is position, or a present-and-still-future position.
Jesus used the following expression a couple of times: "the time is coming and now is." One time He used it, He was talking about the resurrection. The time of the resurrection is coming, and through the Gospel it now is.
Paul's explanation of the Gospel bore the same stance:
God has saved us, yet will save us.
Jesus Christ has abolished death, and the last enemy still to be destroyed is death.
He brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel, and we wait patiently for that blessed hope.
We are in the Kingdom, and we have the promise of His appearing and Kingdom.
We are already blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ, and the blessings are reserved in heaven for us.
The sense is that the Gospel so thoroughly procures for us the future, eternal blessings of the Kingdom that nothing additional to the Gospel will ever be needed in history in order to procure our entrance into it - and therefore through the Gospel our entrance into the Kingdom can be said to be as good as done.
The Law, in juxtaposition to that, could only have a future-but-not-yet stance, in regard to the Kingdom. Under the Law there was always tension between what was and what was still needed to come. What was and what was not yet were two very different realities. One had to pass before the other could come. Once the other came, what previously was ceased to be.
But that's not the case with the Gospel, with the New Covenant. Nothing more is needed now to follow it, in order for entrance into the Kingdom to be procured. The Gospel, unlike the Law, is intrinsically linked with, and is one and the same spiritually as the future Kingdom.
The Law only foreshadowed spiritual and heavenly realities - the Gospel gives real, present and future access to it.
The Law and the Prophets could only look forward to these realities - but the Gospel both promises and is the fulfilment of it, of prophecy.
Although the coming Kingdom and ultimate blessings and salvation are yet to appear in future, still the Gospel has already opened it to us to such an extent that nothing more will ever be needed in order for us to have it. This could not be said of the Law.
Men will enter the Kingdom, and even now men are entering it.
But not even the Son of Man knew how much time would span between the two. The timespan is not of the essence.
There was a distinct difference between the Law and their future. The Prophets under the Law even gave a timeframe for the fulfilment of their Messianic and kingdom prophecies (e.g., Daniel's 70 weeks). But the Gospel gives no timeframe for the coming kingdom. It speaks of it as a present reality as much as a future event. It's because any timespan before that event is not of the essence. The Gospel already now is the essence of the Kingdom, in the hearts of believers, seeing the Gospel is sufficient to procure the assurance of entering it. The length of time over which the Gospel will be preached is not of the essence. And only the Father knows the time.
Abraham's Promise of "all nations shall be blessed" looked beyond the Law-era, looked wider than Israel to all nations, to JESUS, and is experienced now by believers everywhere through the Gospel - but the Promise also looked beyond this world to the next. "Abraham looked for a city which had foundations, whose builder and maker is God". Again, any time that spans between a believer's present, inner, spiritual experience of the blessing and the ultimate appearing of it, are not of the essence.
Seeing the Gospel and the coming Kingdom are the same in essence, it wasn't always pertinent to God's purpose to iterate the distinction. He didn't need to explain the time-distinction every time He mentioned the broader promise, the broader scheme. Not every symbolic vision about the Kingdom needed to include that point. But if we want to look for statements about the time-distinction, it is also there in the Scriptures. It's there in the Old Testament, it's in Jesus' speeches, and it's as plain as day in the Epistles - although none knew how long. Only the Father knows.
So that is not classic Preterism. It's not post-millennialism, Kingdom Now or Dominion Theology, which Drew seems to espouse. It's not classic futurism.
I like to use this illustration: In a movie, after the screen shows a sudden explosion, sometimes a slow-motion repeat of the explosion is shown. In realtime the explosion looked like a sudden, single event. And for all intents and purposes in the plot, the explosion was as good as a single event. But in slow-motion the event is shown to actually have different components unfolding at a different moments. The fuse light running. The initial explosion. Parts flying everywhere. The aftershock. All part of what looked like - and in a sense really was, in essence - a single event.
Another illustration: some home units are currently being built; units are now being sold off the plans, before construction is complete; you sign a contract to purchase one of the units. It's signed, sealed and delivered. The fact that it will take some time before the date comes in which you can actually move in is not of the essence. You can say the unit is already yours, in comparison to ten years ago when the units weren't anywhere near even being available for sale yet.
From God's eternal viewpoint, the timespan between the beginning of the Gospel and the coming Kingdom to which the Gospel opens the door, was not of the essence. What mattered is that once the Gospel came, that door was now opened.
For all intents and purposes, the timespan between the two wouldn't have mattered to Jews either while they were still under the Law. All they needed to know was that it was coming, so when the time came and it began to be preached, they would believe. Perhaps that's why some visions in Old Testament prophecies which were written in the Apocalyptic-genre, described symbols which for their time and purpose didn't need to make a point about a non-essential timespan.
Once the Promise came, it superseded any need for anything else, including the Old Covenant Law. The way into the Kingdom was at last revealed, and now is.
No comments:
Post a Comment