“This book is an attempt to set forth biblical eschatology, or what the Bible teaches about the future.” So begins the preface to Dr. Anthony Hoekema’s The Bible and the Future. In this study Hoekema argues that the Sacred Scriptures clearly teach both the inauguration of the Kingdom of God in Jesus’ first advent and the consummation of the Kingdom at Jesus’ second.
As I read it, Hoekema’s main argument throughout chapter 1 is that OT believers looked forward to the fulfillment of (at least) seven eschatological motifs (p. 11):
- The coming redeemer
- The kingdom of God
- The new covenant
- The restoration of Israel
- The outpouring of the Spirit
- The day of the Lord
- The new heavens and the new earth
Amen and amen. The OT is not a dead, optional appendage to the Gospel nor to the Sacred Scriptures; rather, the OT is the backdrop against which the NT shines in full glory. This much is plainly evident in the motifs that are anticipated in the Old and fulfilled in the New. Christianity needs this message today; sadly, we often find ourselves acting as willing Marcionites.
A Little Seminarian Commentary
For those willing to bear a Reformed seminarian’s reflecting, read on.
I have one beef with chapter 1. Hoekema grounds the eschatological (forward-looking/anticipatory) nature of the Old Testament in Genesis 3:15, a post-lapsarian promise of the redeemer. Does this mean that the eschatological aspect of the Old Testament does not evidence itself until redemption begins (i.e. the covenant of Grace)?
Based on my (admittedly small thus far) reading of Geerhardus Vos, a 20th century Reformed theologian contemporary of Hoekema and fellow Dutchman, the Reformed view places eschatology not after soteriology, but before it–in the Garden. Vos argued that in Reformed theology eschatology precedes soteriology in the sense that Adam’s pre-fall estate was forward-looking; Adam looked forward to the reward held out to him–eternal, eschatological life–as symbolized in the tree of life and the eternal Sabbath rest. Therefore, on this view Genesis 1-2 is the true beginning of eschatology.
Is such a distinction really a big deal? I’ll have to keep reading Hoekema further to see if I can spot any of the implications of his view vs. Vos’. My guess is that placing eschatology in the covenant of Grace will necessarily affect the consistency with which one can argue for Christ’s role in achieving the covenant of works on behalf of humanity as the Second Adam.
For now, enough seminarian commentary. Back to the reading.
