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.