Beautiful Endings

Posted on July 22, 2011 by TwoFriars

Wrestling with the best ending to the biblical story, Richard Beck and I have both taken it as a given that somehow the biblical narrative anticipates for us what the final ending will be. This is important for me: though I don’t think we simply say what the Bible says, we do receive our trajectory of what we must say based on what the apostles and prophets have said.

Beck has argued that the Christ hymns of Phil 2 and Col 1 beautifully anticipate the endings of the story: all will confess Christ as Lord and participate in the restoration of all things under the reign of God. I feel the pull of this view, and there is part of me that hopes it’s true! But here are two reasons I don’t follow his narrative.

First, I do not think that Beck has accurately represented the purpose of apocalyptic imagery. He suggests that apocalyptic imagery of judgment is, in step with Israel’s prophetic tradition, a description of penultimate reality: what happens before the end. I do not think this is correct.

Apocalyptic imagery, visions of a final Day of Judgment, arise in Israel’s prophetic imagination as it becomes clear that this world order will not bring God’s vindication of God’s people. When penultimate reality fails to produce the rewards and punishments that God promises, then the sphere of their fulfillment is transferred to a more ultimate “heavenly” reality. Apocalyptic judgment undergirds hopes of resurrection, for example, when a new body in a new creation becomes the only means by which someone who has been faithful to the point of death can receive the blessings of a land flowing with milk and honey. Apocalyptic judgment is The End in the sense of wrapping up the narrative of this world, and The New Beginning in the sense of leading into the age to come.

But what about the “alls” and “everys”? In Paul in particular, we see the yearning for an ending to the story that is so extravagantly redemptive that there seems to be no room left for unredemption: “…through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all people” (Rom 5); “One died for all, therefore all died” (2 Cor 5). The point seems to be that everyone and everything is wrapped up in the new cosmic space created by Jesus’ death and resurrection.

But most often, this exuberance of accomplishment is tempered by a less sweeping statement about participation. 2 Cor 5 goes on to say: “If anyone is in Christ - new creation!” Being “in Christ” is requisite to participating in this new cosmic reality. On the one hand there is the confession we should gladly sing (Col 1), that Christ has reconciled all things, but on the other there is the plea going forth, “Be reconciled to God.” Or, in the language of Colossians, we must be transferred by God into the kingdom of the beloved son (Col 1:13).

It seems to me that Paul’s vision is one in which those who begin to participate in this life will know full consummation of that participation in new creation in the age to come. The decisions made here carry over through the final revelation of Christ and into the age to come. Those who are reconciled participate in the reconciliation of all things. Those who refuse this reconciliation are not part of the eternal cosmic reality that is new creation. Thus, when Paul says in Romans 2 that “there will be tribulation and distress” on judgment day for all who do evil, this is consonant with his story.

Dr. JR Daniel Kirk

is a New Testament professor at Fuller Seminary in Northern California and the author of Unlocking Romans as well as Jesus Have I Loved, But Paul?, which is due to be released later this year. He brews his own beer, listens to the Mountain Goats almost obsessively, and blogs daily at Storied Theology.

This entry was posted in Bible, Theology and tagged Aric Clark, Doug Hagler, Eschatology, Nick Larson, Salvation. Bookmark the permalink.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

I didn’t take the opportunity in my video to thank the good Doctors once again, so let me do so now.

See, internet? It’s actually not all that hard to have smart, respectful disagreement.

Jim Scott

“It’s actually not all that hard to have smart, respectful disagreement.”

Bravo to that Doug. And a big Amen.
Anonymous

Doug – you’d better lay off the drugs. Not because it will influence the ending of your story, but DUDE! I just think you and drugs are not meant to hang out man! Intense.

David

I find it rather telling that there is so much applause for the fact that two intelligent and knowledgeable Christians can disagree without stooping to ad hominems. I also find it telling that we accept the inevitable ‘stressing’ of one side of the issue as OK. By bringing it down to the level of ‘personal opinion’ we support the idea that God is not clear and that your view is just as good as mine.

Romans 5:18 has the ‘all’ word (as Dr. Kirk notes) and Romans 5:19 has the ‘many’ word, implying ‘if.’ Oooops, an unresolvable dilemma! Not at all. Words have meaning. Greek is not English. The words in 5:18 describe movement through the use of the Greek marker ‘eis’ four times in the verse. The verse does not convey the meaning that ‘all’ receive righteousness; but, rather that righteousness comes towards all, it’s available because of the Cross. But, verse 5:19 says that many (note: not all) will actually be made righteous.

How about a gentlemanly discussion that deals with the words God has given us instead of our preferences and biases. Romans 5:18 and 5:19 might just be a good place to start. For the only ‘beautiful ending’ is the one God has revealed to us, like it or not.

Anonymous

I believe you are responding primarily to my video in which I argue the ‘alls’ & ‘manys’ constitute a logical dilemma similar to the classic theodicy dilemma and we are left having to choose where we place our emphasis. That is different from an unresolvable dilemma – it is a dilemma which is resolvable through an interpretive choice. One may argue that a particular interpretation is superior to another, but probably not exclude all possibility of alternative legitimate interpretations.

You will not make much headway here using phrases like “the words God has given us instead of our preferences and biases.” Biblical interpretation simply doesn’t work that way. There is no empirical given free from the need for interpretation and therefore, invariably, human bias. You’re free to argue for what YOU believe God has revealed and that is therefore, in your opinion the most ‘beautiful ending’. You may even persuade others that you are right, but it will never settle the argument as if there was only one possible correct answer. “The Bible says it, I believe it, that ends it” just isn’t how we roll here at Two Friars & a Fool.

All of that aside – the issue in Romans 5 is in fact very interesting & David Congdon of The Fire and the Rose has already exhaustively outlined a strong universalist position on the basis of that text. Check it out.

Jim Scott

Daniel, thank you for a well thought out response, and for your graciousness in this discussion. With all respect for your opinion, I would like to humbly disagree.

“The decisions made here carry over through the final revelation of Christ and into the age to come.”

Unless one believes that everyone has a full revelation of Christ in this life, and thus has the full knowledge of what one is supposedly accepting or rejecting, this view ignores the fact that we are all ignorant, deceived, and full of misconceptions and misunderstandings. In short, our wills are simply NOT free to make fully informed decisions about our lives now or about our eternal destinies. 2Cor. 4:4 clearly states that “the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so that they CANNOT see the light of the glory of the gospel of Christ,” and yet orthodox “Christian” thought claims that unbelievers CAN see it, and are simply refusing to accept it. Jesus Himself said, “no one can know the Son unless the Father draws him,” and “no one can know the Father unless the Son chooses to reveal Him,” so it is not the UNBELIEVER who has chosen not to see the “truth” but GOD who has chosen not to reveal it… YET. Even the disciples were mistaken about who does the “choosing” and were corrected by Jesus when he said, “You did not choose me, but I chose you.” The view that we “choose” to accept or reject Christ blatantly contradicts scripture, but does serve to give credit to those who want to take it. I believe it was Martin Zender who coined the phrase, “Salvation by grace, especially for those who really deserve it,” which alludes to the contradiction between the scriptural presentation of God’s grace in our salvation, versus the “traditions of men” which claim that we save ourselves.

The apostle Paul further addressed the notion of how our knowledge and faith plays out in our salvation when he called himself the “worst of sinners,” and said that “God had mercy on me because I did it in IGNORANCE and UNBELIEF.” Ignorance may be no excuse in man’s courtroom, but in the courtroom of God – who knows ALL our imperfections and misconceptions – it is fully addressed: “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

“Those who are reconciled participate in the reconciliation of all things.”

But we are ALL reconciled: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their sins against them but giving us the ministry of reconciliation.” But do we Christians carry out this ministry and tell the world that God has reconciled them to Himself? No, not if we are telling them that they must do something to reconcile themselves… or again, “SAVE” themselves. From the orthodox view of this “reconciliation” I see an image of God saying, “Well I forgive you, but if you don’t believe it or know it I will hunt you down and kill you.” So much for forgiveness.

“Those who refuse this reconciliation are not part of the eternal cosmic reality that is new creation.”

This statement again assumes that all of mankind is aware of what God has done through Christ and has chosen to deny it, a viewpoint which I addressed above as being contrary to scripture, as well as simply being a way for Christians to take credit for their salvation. I do not fault Dr. Kirk for expressing it because this is what has been taught for hundreds of years as orthodox Christian theology, and he is obviously a highly trained theologian. But it simply begs the question, “Who in their right mind would refuse NOT to be reconciled to their loving Heavenly Father… essentially choosing eternal torment over eternal bliss?” And if their minds are not “right” cannot the Great Physician, the Potter, the creator of the universe make them so? Can He not RE-create them as NEW creations? Apparently not, if one holds to the orthodox view.

In further consideration of the “reconciliation of ALL things” please see Aric Clark’s video where he so eloquently discusses the need for not only our reconciliation with God, but reconciliation with our fellow man. And please, as well, see Nick Larson’s beautiful appeal to consider how you wish to present the Christian story to your children.

What story will you tell your children… and how will it end?

Jim Scott

In the third to the last paragraph what I meant to say was “Who in their right mind would choose NOT to be reconciled…” but you probably already understood that.

Richard

Sorry to not have weighed in sooner. I’ve been traveling across country with the family today. And we even broke down on the side of the road. After a AAA tow job we’re now in the hotel with some Internet access.

First of all, I want to say thank you to Dr. Kirk for his thoughtful essay, response to my essay, and his comments. Thanks also to the two Friars and the Fool for hosting the conversation.

The one comment I’d like to make regarding Dr. Kirk’s response to my essay has to do with his observation about how I use the relationship between NT apocalyptic and OT prophetic imagination.

I essentially agree with Dr. Kirk about the development of NT apocalyptic, that it arose because it appeared that prophecy had failed. That is, the long awaited restoration of Zion didn’t seem to be happening in history so a New Zion in heaven gets postulated.

But while I agree with this understanding about the rise of NT apocalyptic I worry that it leaves behind too much of what was essential in the prophetic imagination, particularly its view of the nature and heart of God.

To clarify a bit, I don’t want to be tied too tightly with a “stage model,” with penultimate and ultimate stages of judgment and reconciliation respectively. Of course, as I’ve suggested, I think something like that sequence is likely to be the case. But my deepest concern has less to do with stages than with the heart of God. That is, rather than thinking of ultimate and penultimate “stages” in the afterlife I want to think about the “seasons” that happen in the heart of God. Will God’s feelings toward some of his creatures remain, eternally, on the note of wrath? Will it always be winter and never Christmas in the heart of God? Or will God’s feelings “turn” in the end? Will there be spring? True, as I experience God’s love and judgment I’ll sense these as “stages,” penultimate and ultimate, but the real issue here is simply if God ever changes God’s mind toward the objects of wrath. Does God’s feelings “turn”?

This is where I think the prophetic imagination helps us. The drama of the prophetic imagination is that God does indeed turn. Winter gives way to spring. Objects of wrath eventually become objects of love. More, we see in the prophets the notion that the judgment and wrath of God can become satiated. There is a moment of “enough.”

And that’s my point. While I agree with Dr. Kirk about the origins of NT apocalyptic where in our readings of the NT do we encounter these prophetic insights? That God’s feelings turn? That there is a moment of enough in God’s judgments? This is what I mean when I say we’ve lost touch with the prophetic imagination. Lessons about God’s nature and judgments are not being carried over into our understandings of heaven and hell. Consequently, by keeping touch with the prophetic imagination I think the universalist reading of heaven and hell is actually more biblical than the traditionalist reading.
Lawyatt

I heard a professor of mine claim that in Jewish theology one might well have the following kind of exchange:
“Will all Israel be saved?”
“Yes, of course. Well not the tribe of Dan, those incorrigible idolaters, to be sure, nor this clan or that family for egregious faithlessness, but, yes, all Israel will be saved.”
I wonder if our western tendency to reckon individualistically and quantitatively skews this discussion?
spiritanointed

I was hoping that the “death-centeredness” of the traditionalist view would be addressed. The time of earthly death is such an arbitrary border of God’s grace.