Adam's eschatology
- Thread starter Von
- Start date
- Status
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Doesn't the Amil view of history also fall short of what Adam had in the garden (and further short than either the Premil or Postmil views)?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I don't believe there would have been an actual eschatology in view as men would have lived forever, prior to the fall.
Von
Puritan Board Sophomore
Clarification:
Adam did not need eschatology in the garden - the question relates to his possible views after the fall.
The reason why I throw out pre- and post-mil is due to the fact that he would have had to look forward to a golden age (in either of the two), that pales in comparison to the garden. In the Amil view, he looks forward to the Lord that will take him to REAL paradise.
Adam did not need eschatology in the garden - the question relates to his possible views after the fall.
The reason why I throw out pre- and post-mil is due to the fact that he would have had to look forward to a golden age (in either of the two), that pales in comparison to the garden. In the Amil view, he looks forward to the Lord that will take him to REAL paradise.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Eschatology pertains to the things of the end times — "Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" (1 Cor 10:11) — and Adam had no revelation in his somewhat darkened state (assuming the Lord granted him repentance and faith) to open these things to him.
Even the Reformation divines and the Puritans had primitive eschatological views, for the comprehension and resulting fine-tuning clarifications did not start coming until the 1800s with William Milligan's idealist views in his works on Revelation, and then into the 20th century with the Amillennial writers. Among the foremost of the sound eschatology writers are Wm. Hendriksen, Dennis Johnson, Kim Riddlebarger, G.K. Beale, etc. Beale has done extensive and excellent work with his "eclectic" or "modified idealism". As the very end draws near we will have further insight as we look back and see — in hindsight — more prophecies fulfilled.
Even the Reformation divines and the Puritans had primitive eschatological views, for the comprehension and resulting fine-tuning clarifications did not start coming until the 1800s with William Milligan's idealist views in his works on Revelation, and then into the 20th century with the Amillennial writers. Among the foremost of the sound eschatology writers are Wm. Hendriksen, Dennis Johnson, Kim Riddlebarger, G.K. Beale, etc. Beale has done extensive and excellent work with his "eclectic" or "modified idealism". As the very end draws near we will have further insight as we look back and see — in hindsight — more prophecies fulfilled.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Two slight issues I still envisage:
1. Adam's eschatology would not be well informed as he did not have God's revelation
2. The post - mil and a-mil views of heaven are really the same aren't they? Pre-mil may well be too for all I know but I'm no expert.
If your question is what Adam would have viewed Heaven as being like, of course he would expect it to exceed the garden, but eschatology call views are hardly relevant to this as they don't really diverge here. If the question relates to views of human history, I don't see how comparisons to the garden would be relevant, and even if they were, why one would "throw out" postulation of a future state on earth better than now, because any such state would still be inferior to the perfection of the Garden of Eden.
If that last part really is the argument it seems to me to be weak logic. Fortunately we have revelation (meaning the Bible not the Book of Revelation specifically) to guide us here, and don't need to rely on imagining comparisons with Eden.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
There are two distinct questions in regard to Adam's eschatology: What was his eschatology before the fall? And, What what his eschatology after the fall? Another way of asking it is, What was the eschatology of the Covenant of Works? Vs. What was Adam's expectation with regard to the Covenant of Grace?
In regard to Adam's pre-fall eschatology, the central question is, What would have been the reward for the Covenant of Works? Was it continued life in the Garden? Was it a glorified, heavenly life? Was it a blessed life throughout the entire Earth? Would Adam have been perfected after his probationary period was over, so that he was no longer capable of falling away?
All of these questions are things that Reformed theologians have held differing opinions on. One important thing to consider was that Adam and his wife were told to multiply and fill the earth. So, that seems to rule out the idea that all humanity would be living in the Garden if there had been no fall--unless, of course, the Garden was to expand along with the human race, until it filled the earth.
After the fall, Adam's eschatology centered on the promise of the Seed of the Woman. After this promise is given, Adam names his wife Eve, meaning life, "because she was the mother of all living." When Eve bears Cain, she says, "I have gotten a man from the Lord," indicating that she thought that her child would have been God's provision of a savior. After Cain disqualifies himself by the murder of his brother Abel, Eve bears Seth, and says, "God ... hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." In regard to Seth, is was his posterity that "began to call upon the name of the LORD," and the great Seed of the Woman, the Lord Jesus, was eventually born from the line of Seth.
Von
Puritan Board Sophomore
I find this an interesting statement. Could you please expand on it?
Reasons:
1) People often ask where the puritans were lacking in their theology. And eschatology is rarely, if ever mentioned.
2) Would you then consider that this is one area where the reformation continued after Luther and others, and is still continuing?
I'll scold myself for going off-topic at this point...
Von
Puritan Board Sophomore
My thoughts exactly.
In Adam's mind:
- Heaven is infinitely BETTER than the garden.
- Any other state on the fallen earth is much WORSE than the garden.
So in Adam's mind there would be no point of a physical Golden Age (aka Post-mil) or a Literal Millenial Kingdom (aka Pre-mil).
So Adam would've been an Amillenialist after the fall, and maybe a sort-of Post-millenialist before the fall (expanding the garden etc.)
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Hello Von,
Although we glean understandings of eschatology from Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, etc, in the Olivet discourses, and in 2 Thess 2, the richest veins to mine are found in John's Apocalypse (Revelation). Your point #2 in post 8 in right on: Eschatology is the one doctrine still in flux and development.
Geerhardus Vos, although speaking of discerning the Antichrist, enunciated a principle applicable here concerning all prophecies of the future,
O.T. Allis in his book, Prophecy and the Church, expressed the same sentiment:
Stuart Olyott in his, Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained, thinks likewise:
In a sense Heaven would not be infinitely better than the Garden; in the Garden they had their bodies; in Heaven they would be spirits longing for their bodies once again, which they would receive glorified after the resurrection and rejoicing in on New Earth and its paradisical New Jerusalem.
Millennial thoughts would have been beyond Adam's ken, whether sinless in the Garden, or in the sin-filled post-fall world.
Although we glean understandings of eschatology from Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, etc, in the Olivet discourses, and in 2 Thess 2, the richest veins to mine are found in John's Apocalypse (Revelation). Your point #2 in post 8 in right on: Eschatology is the one doctrine still in flux and development.
Geerhardus Vos, although speaking of discerning the Antichrist, enunciated a principle applicable here concerning all prophecies of the future,
“[It] belongs among the many prophecies, whose best and final exegete will be the eschatological fulfillment, and in regard to which it behooves the saints to exercise a peculiar kind of eschatological patience.” (The Pauline Eschatology, p. 133)
O.T. Allis in his book, Prophecy and the Church, expressed the same sentiment:
“The usual view on this subject [‘the intelligibility of prophecy’] has been that prophecy is not intended to be fully understood before its fulfilment, that it is only when God ‘establishes the word of his servants and fulfills the counsel of his messengers,’ that the meaning and import of their words become fully manifest.” (p 25)
Stuart Olyott in his, Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained, thinks likewise:
“We must realize that some of the Bible’s teachings relating to the very last days will not be understood until we are in those days. That is why it is both unwise and dangerous to draw up detailed timetables of future events. Some parts of the Word of God will not become obvious in their meaning until the days of which they speak have dawned.” (p 166)
In a sense Heaven would not be infinitely better than the Garden; in the Garden they had their bodies; in Heaven they would be spirits longing for their bodies once again, which they would receive glorified after the resurrection and rejoicing in on New Earth and its paradisical New Jerusalem.
Millennial thoughts would have been beyond Adam's ken, whether sinless in the Garden, or in the sin-filled post-fall world.
Martin
Puritan Board Freshman
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
I think this is because the church, over the centuries, has teased out the three main positions (pre, post, and a) from the same biblical material (especially Revelation).
Whichever position one holds to, one should hold it sincerely, but lightly. Who knows - we could all be wrong!
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
I don’t have any input on where Adam was in eschatology (a-mill, etc), but I think the verse here tells Adam a world of things.
He was in a state of condemnation, and he knew it, his conscience bore witness to it, he had made himself an enemy of God, enslaved to the fear of death, and he knew his seed was polluted, and by nature in allegiance with the devil. However, God is promising one of his own seed to crush the head of the snake.
There are a couple implications.
1) Sin and wickedness will be overthrown, as the head of the serpent would be crushed, and all the seed of the serpent with him by implication. A crushed head is a final and absolute overthrow. The result is that sin will be absolutely and forever be done away with, never to come into the created world again.
2) God would bring some men back into allegiance with himself (the seed of the woman). That can only happen if God forgives their sins, makes them perfectly righteous, and keeps them that way. No one who is unrighteous can join ranks against the devil and side with God. Thus, they would be made perfect.
3) The triumph is forever. Only one contender dies in this match, and the other is bruised at best. The seed of the woman would be the victor, and with sin and Satan and all his followers overthrown the fruit of the triumph—restored righteousness, sinlessness, perfection, life, fellowship with God—must be enjoyed forever.
Adam could think through it and look forward to a time where there would be no more death, sorrow, futility, thorns and thistles, or distance from God. Adam introduced all these things by his sin, but with sin being overthrown the curse due to sin must go away too. Thus, perhaps he could see eternal life, creaturely happiness, and fellowship with God again that would never cease.
Did Adam expect that man would never fall again after the seed of the woman triumphed? The penalty was that for disobedience he would die, the implication being for obedience he would live. Through the promise of the seed, there is a promise of eternal life, and no conditions of obedience as before, and no threat of death. So, the coming perfection must be forever.
I think Adam understood this, thus he named his wife Eve. She is not the mother a doomed and wicked race, but the mother of all the living.
Could Adam infer that the world after the triumph of the seed would be magnificently better than even in the Garden? I think so based on the Creation Mandate. I don’t think that the Mandate was about building civilization so much as about spreading the image of God across the earth and filling the earth with worshippers. After all, Adam knew by nature that he must glorify God, give thanks to Him, and love Him and serve Him with the whole heart. So, would the coming seed fulfill that mandate? After all, the seed restores man to the image and worship of God. I think Adam could infer this from what he did know.
Perhaps it’s easier for us to see these things now than it was for Adam with a few more millennia of knowledge and understanding. I’ve been a while in the first few chapters in Genesis trying to see what all could be inferred from it. Without further revelation, I would think that Adam could at least reach these conclusions. Whether he reached some or all or more I couldn’t say.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
A lot of folks here have been applying the terms postmillennial, premillennial, and amillennial to Adam's eschatology--it should be noted that John hadn't written his Apocalypse yet during Adam's lifetime, so Adam wouldn't have had any concept of a "millennium" at all. All of those concepts relate to how someone understands Revelation 20--Adam never read it. His eschatology centered on the revelation that he did have, which was a promise of the seed of the woman, as Jake and I have pointed out. I think it's safe to say that Adam's eschatology was his soteriology. It centered on redemption from sin.
On a related note, eschatology really is an outworking of soteriology. Our eschatology is our understanding of how God will redeem his people from the estate of sin and misery at last, and how he will restore all things. Adam had a limited understanding of these things; we have a fuller revelation.
On a related note, eschatology really is an outworking of soteriology. Our eschatology is our understanding of how God will redeem his people from the estate of sin and misery at last, and how he will restore all things. Adam had a limited understanding of these things; we have a fuller revelation.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Some people on this thread could probably benefit from reading Vos's Biblical Theology, which has the clearest exposition of Adam's eschatology anywhere in history, in my opinion. Eschatology logically and temporally precedes soteriology, according to Vos. Adam was promised the glorified state upon condition of perfect and personal obedience, before the Fall, and therefore before the need for soteriology. This is the import of 1 Corinthians 15:44b-45. There should be a paragraph break there (according to Gaffin; the NIV and REB both rightly have a paragraph break in the middle of the verse). Up until that point in the argument, Paul had been contrasting the post-Fall dead body with the glorified live body. But in 44b, Paul broadens the scope of the contrast to include the pre-Fall body of Adam, as is evidenced by the quotation from Genesis 2, which is pre-Fall. The Adamic body was not the glorified body. But he was promised the glorified body. It is what was always expected, should Adam pass the probation. Adam had innocence, that is true. He had no sin. But he did not have the glorified state. The traditional four-fold state of humanity needs to be affirmed and re-affirmed in the face of any attempts to change the doctrine.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Rev. Keister,
I get the sense that you are addressing my posts, but I think I'm missing your point. If you did have my posts in mind, would you please interact with them directly? Like I said, I think your point may be going over my head. I see a hair's breadth of difference between my posts and yours.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Tyler, I was addressing not any one post in particular, but rather several points that people have made: 1. some seem to think that soteriology is eschatology. 2. others seem to think that Adam's status in the garden would not ever have changed had he been obedient; 3. that Adam would not, or did not "need" eschatology (not quite sure what that means, actually). In response to these points, I believe that the Bible teaches 1. eschatology is present in the Garden before the Fall, and therefore eschatology precedes soteriology; 2. Adam's status would most definitely have changed had he remained obedient (he would have been confirmed in his obedience and passed directly into the glorified state); and 3. That Adam would have been in perpetual probation without eschatology, so he would have needed eschatology to exit the state of probation.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Thank you for the clarification. In regard to your first point, I have no qualm about distinguishing between soteriology and eschatology. However, they are systemically related to the point that they aren't always separable (you can throw covenant theology in there, too). Many redemptive-historical events are fundamentally eschatological and soteriological in their significance. My unlearned opinion (to which I'm probably not entitled) is that soteriology and eschatology are important distinctions for systematic/scholastic theology, but that from a redemptive-historical standpoint, post-fall eschatology is soteriological, insomuch as it is the out working of the covenantal promises of the Father to the Son, as the Second Adam.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Tyler, you are correct for post-Fall soteriology, which is entirely eschatological. However, in the pre-Fall situation, eschatology was most certainly present, while soteriology was not needed. In other words, in the pre-Fall situation, the glorified state was obtainable by means of obedience, however much condescension was involved (and there certainly was some). After the Fall, the glorified state is only obtainable by the obedience of another, who is Christ. The eschatological state of blessedness is only obtainable now by means of salvation.
- Status
