5 Hermeneutical Horizons when thinking about Eschatology

In the last chapter of his The Hermeneutics of Doctrine, Anthony Thiselton provides 7 hermeneutical horizons we should consider when considering eschatology. They are:

Promise. For the Christian, the expectation and hope of the future acts of God and hence our human destiny is grounded on a perceived gap between what God has promised and what has so far come about. It is this very gap that forms the basis of the fundamental of “not yet” of biblical and Christian eschatology. It projects hope toward the future (p.541).

Community. The second horizon of community stands in contrast with the common individual focus or horizon which we often bring to our thinking on eschatology. We often think of the four traditional “last things” – namely death, judgement, heaven and hell, from an individual focus and reduce the foreground of biblical eschatology that focuses on the cosmic, world events of the Parousia, the last judgement, and the resurrection of the dead to the background. Biblical eschatology more often than not has the world, creation and community as its immediate loci of discussion.

Resurrection of the dead. Our hermeneutical horizons on eschatology in turn are confirmed by this one – the resurrection of the dead. As Thiselton puts it, “The ground for belief is the infinite resourcefulness of God as Creator to create anew a mode of existence appropriate for resurrection life, and the act of God in raising Jesus Christ, as evidenced by witnesses (1 Cor 15:3-6; 35-44).” (p.543).

Apocalyptic. Thiselton contends further that the three hermeneutical horizons mentioned above come together as major features of apocalyptic thought within eschatology. Thiselton suggests, despite scholarly opposition which he defends against, that the apocalyptic pattern of thought has influenced the eschatology of Jesus and Paul, as well as other material in the New Testament. Thiseton also has an interesting section discussing the often perceived differences between Moltmann and Pannenberg in their utilisations of apocalyptic patterns of thought, with the view that Moltmann places a stronger emphasis on the contrast and discontinuity between the old creation and the new, while Pannenberg stresses their continuity and coherence. Thiselton’s assessment is that both Pannenberg and Moltmann complement rather than contradict each other. They both ‘stress the possibility of novelty and surprise as God’s promises come to be fulfilled in unexpected ways. But each also stresses divine faithfulness as God remains true to His promise.

Thiselton has separated the last three horizons, but I prefer to see them as one grouped together. They all have to do with the formative effects on us as we think about eschatology. We are led to the discipline of waiting coupled with eager expectation for the future, something we modern people don’t really know how to do very well anymore! An excellent quote from Thiselton:

“This hermeneutic of understanding is far removed from the drive for immediacy, instantaneousness, and instant gratification of desire generated by the combined effect of socio-economic consumerism, the availability of massive financial credit, and an increasingly “postmodern” turn of mind. Almost unlimited credit draws upon, and uses up, the uncertain future for the desires of the present moment. [This is] a short-term philosophy of “enjoy it now; pay it later.” Such horizons do not relate readily to an eschatology of “not yet” in which waiting is characterised not by resentment but by eager expectancy concerning what lies ahead. Postmodern consumerist cultures regard “waiting” as intolerable, and as a source of resentment or at best disappointed resignation.” (p.546-47)

This act of waiting in turn will sharpen our appreciation of what Thiselton calls the conceptual grammer of expectation. Thiselton’s main point here is that the grammer of expectation is not so much linked with believing propositions about chronological duration, but more about practical action. Just as what it is to believe in bound up with attitudes, behaviour, and disposition, so also to expect is embedded in a situation from which it takes its rise. The New Testament writers rejected the notion that expecting had anything to do with chronological calculation, but rather the logical currency of expecting the eschaton is shown by how Christians live. All this leads us to the last horizon of time. Thiselton in following Pannenberg’s lead states, “Faithfulness to promise manifests itself only over a period of time. Neither God’s proven faithfulness nor the readers’ tested faithfulness can acquire working currency other than through time.”

Overall, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading The Hermeneutics of Doctrine. Thiselton has showed us his view of the nature of doctrine – that doctrine is best viewed as practices of life; that it is built on the biblical writings defined in terms of canon; has continuity with an ongoing developing tradition; is formative in nature in that it generates habits that generates performance, and has a temporal logic of narrative embodying a coherent plot (p. 77). He has succeeded to varying degrees in showing how his understanding of the nature of doctrine informs our hermeneutical horizons to the different doctrines – having a fairly generous exegesis of the related Scriptural passages, a respectful treatment of historical theology (including a charitable treatment of theologians whose theology we might not find ourselves readily agreeing with), and at all times, a constructive and innovative idea or insight in between.

Hermeneutical Guidelines for thinking about Charismatic Revival Theology

As you can tell by now, I have been ploughing through Thiselton’s The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) and posting on any gems I can find. In his chapter on the Holy Spirit, Thiselton explores and advocates that our understanding and communication of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit should derive primarily from Old Testament traditions, which become modified in the light of Christological, corporate, and eschatological horizons in the New Testament (p.416). The Old Testament Scriptures portray the work of God’s Spirit or breath as one of empowering individuals for special (and often salvific) tasks; and towards the later portion of the OT comes to be a marker of the eschatological age where the Spirit is shown as a communal gift for empowerment for transformation and renewed life. This gets carried forward into the NT, but with ‘Christological and eschatological extensions and qualifications’ (p.419). Thiselton’s one statement sums it up well: “The anointing by the Holy Spirit that becomes the gift of all Christians corporately is derived from the Christological anointing of Christ by the Spirit to bring in the reign of God.” (p.419). Thiselton then traces the thinking of the church fathers on this matter and shows how their thinking conforms and in fact develops the NT teaching into a stable doctrinal tradition. This tradition is then “challenged” by Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Revival (he does an excellent job in summarising the history of the charismatic movement including the three ‘waves’ of it from p.436-440). The main “challenge” is that the movement raises new questions which bring new horizons to our understanding of the doctrine.

Rather than providing simplistic answers, Thiselton carefully engages these new horizons with the ‘older’ established horizons. The result is a list of excellent hermeneutical guidelines for thinking about the charismatic revival theology (p.442-444).

1) An emphasis upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit reflects NT and Christian doctrine, provided that it is not abstracted and isolated from its Trinitarian frame. This is the firm and stable tradition which the church fathers have placed us on – they spoke of the Holy Spirit from a Christological and Trinitarian context. In this regard, Thiselton suggest that perhaps we should speak of Trinitarian renewal rather than Spirit renewal.

2) We have to be careful that our experience of vitality, dynamism, power and energy associated very often with charismatic revival theology does not lead to a loss of the dimension of pilgrimage, waiting, and self-discipline. To fall into this danger would be to compromise on the horizon of eschatology by relegating things to an over-realised eschatology.

3) Likewise, the delight that arises from an intimate and personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit should not lead to an inward-looking pietistic individualism but to a shared concern for the church and for the well-being of society and the world.

4) The experience of newness of life, an awareness of the present and future, of surprise and creative novelty often expressed in a moment-by-moment “walking in the Spirit” must not lead to a disregard of tradition and history – The Holy Spirit acts in continuity with his own past work in earlier centuries.

5) The Holy Spirit renews the whole person. This includes the mind (which tends to be downplayed in charismatic renewal) as well as the emotions and bodily action (which tends to be overemphasised). Charismatic Revival must not lead to a mood of anti-intellectualism.

6) Healing happens “when and where God wills it.” Thiselton questions whether the terminology of the “miraculous” is the most accurate way of conveying God’s almighty sovereignty to act in or through causal processes or otherwise, as God chooses. He states this further: “Too weak an emphasis upon healing diminishes trust in the sovereignty of God; too strong an emphasis upon healing increases the anguish of the problem of evil and suffering for those (and their loved ones) who do not receive healing by other than medical means” (p.443), and can I add, who may not even receive healing in the end.

7) There is a need to distinguish between using a term like “baptism in the Spirit” on an exegetical basis to describe the authenticity of the experience denoted by that term. As Thiselton states: “it would be presumptuous to deny that sometimes Christian believers “catch up” on an experience of Pentecostal power and holiness at a stage subsequent to their initial coming to faith. But if the term “baptism of the Spirit” is used to describe this, this is not Paul’s use of the term. Such a claim would entail a misleading hermeneutic, based on a mistaken exegesis.” (p.444)

Thiselton ends off his whole chapter with this deep hermeneutical paradox – the more we engage with signs of the Holy Spirit, the more we risk losing the very goal of the Spirit’s work, namely to illuminate Christ, the cross, and the future resurrection as the heart of the gospel (p.450).

Excellent hermeneutical guidelines for us to evaluate Charismatic Revival theology, not only as a whole movement, but also as individuals who may have had varying points of contact with it!

Christology in Hebrews

Anthony Thiselton (The Hermeneutics of Doctrine, 2007) laments the fact that in discussions of Christology, we either end up with the age-old debate of ‘high’ Christology or ‘low’ Christology; or if not end up employing a form of discussion not focused on the “two natures”, but instead the “two languages of man-language and God-language”, which ends up ‘reducing ontological truth-claims into a contrived dualism between empirical events in history and “myth”’ (p.387). He instead recommends a hermeneutical model where we search within the New Testament for the highest possible Christology (including an explicit definition of Jesus Christ as God) while cohering within the same writing with the fullest possible explanation of the humanness of Jesus (one that fulfils in every respect what it means to be truly human). Such a Christology, Thiselton suggests, is found in the book of Hebrews. He states:

“Clearly John and Hebrews are major sources of “high” Christologies. But what is remarkable about Hebrews is that in comparison with other New Testament writings it has both the highest and most deliberate expressions of the humanness of Jesus Christ. [...] It is essential for the writer’s theology of priesthood, representation and mediation that Christ is portrayed as genuinely human, and thereby able to represent humankind in priestly mediation to God, and equally portrayed as sharing in deity to represent God to humankind in prophetic mediation and address. Jesus Christ is both “ascending” Mediator on behalf of humankind and “descending” Mediator on behalf of God. Nevertheless, in effect anticipating the later creeds and Chalcedon, this writer nowhere suggests that Jesus Christ is half-man and/or half-God.” (p.391)

Thiselton goes on to provide examples in Hebrews which reflect the perfect representation of man to God in terms of Jesus’ humanness, and the perfect mediation of God to man in terms of his deity. And this leads in to Thiselton’s key point in this chapter – the hermeneutical horizons in considering Christology are far much more anchored in the “home” horizons of the New Testament itself than in horizons of historical speculations about the development of a “two-stage” Christology into a “three-stage” Christology, or, still less convincing, of the effect of pressures from the Greek world to transpose narrative of the earthly Jesus into mythological or metaphysical terms (p.395). In another words, the ‘home-langauge’ when it comes to discussing Christology still lie in the New Testament Scriptures.