Berkouwer on Biblical Eschatology
Biblical eschatology requires to be distinguished from the kind of futurism which, because of its great interest in speculation concerning the future, has not emphasized sufficiently the biblical call for present response (”The Church in the Last Days” in Christianity Today, II, 14 (April 14, 1958), pp. 3-5). The present challenge of eschatology is brought out well by Berkouwer when he writes concerning “The Signs of the Times”, “The apocalyptic perspective is always of present significance … the eschatological message … never loses its contemporaneity … the signs are not pertinent to only a remote end-time … for believers they are a summons to constant watchfulness” (The Return of Christ, (Grand Rapids, 1972), pp. 246-248 / Dutch, edition – Vol. I, 1961; Vol. II, 1963).
In emphasizing the contemporaneity of eschatology, Berkouwer is adamant in his rejection of the use of the signs to calculate when Christ will come: “… calculation is not necessary, desirable nor even possible. Calculation of approximate temporal conclusions from certain selected phenomena cannot be the intention of the signs. The shift of emphasis from the signs themselves to calculation stems from the belief that the eschatological proclamation is intended to give a more or less exact narrative account of some events that are to be expected in the future” (p. 243).
Rather than “reported eschatology”, (p. 256) which seeks for “an objective, chronological report” (p. 255) of future events, Berkouwer adopts the position of “continuous reinterpretation, in which nothing of the eschatological promise is sacrificed” (p. 247)
This view of eschatology which seeks to find the “deep dimensions” (p. 255) of “the call to preparedness, watchfulness and steadfastness” (p. 244), is presented not as de-eschatologizing but as “a meaningful perspective that rids eschatology of any futurism” (p. 245).(
Berkouwer distinguishes his position from de-eschatologizing by his use of the distinction between reduction and concentration pp. 14-19).
“Comprehension and penetration – not reduction – are the goals of exegeting the biblical thought-world … one might use the word reduction in a good sens to refer to the effort to get at the root and meaning of the words in which the eschatological message and expectation are couched, but it would probably be more precise and helpful to call this ‘concentration’ rather than reduction since it does not involve sorting out but comprehending. Concentration in this sense does not amount to ‘de-eschatologizing’ as some literalists have charged. Its aim is not to weaken the eschatological expectation but to get at the meaning of the eschatological promise, which has come to us couched in images and concepts whose understanding requires a patient effort” (p. 16).
This process of concentration involves the exegete in a careful study of the urgent character of Biblical eschatology.
For the present communication of the Gospel to maintain this Biblical urgency, there must be a careful avoidance of making presumptuous deductions that do not accurately reflect “the total New Testament proclamation of the future” which finds its unity in “the call to preparedness, watchfulness and steadfastness” (p. 244).
Keeping this totality of the New Testament proclamation of the Gospel in view, Berkouwer discusses universalism, making several important points:
“wherever the New Testamnment speaks of the love of God, it also mentions the judgment” (p. 405).
“The entire New Testament makes an important point of human reaction to salvation” (p. 406).
“the context of the New Testament words about judgment never suggests that the ultimate extinction of resistance is self-evident” (p. 407).
Following his discussion of universalism and its relation to the New Testament witness, he makes a valuable contribution to the proclamation of the urgent summons to faith. Guarding against “human legalism or moralism, which can often assume such radical and serious airs” (p. 414), and warning against the damage done by “moralistic preaching of ‘hell’” which “can easily assume a magical, terrifying dimension that speaks only of the incalculable, all-consuming wrath of God, and says nothing of His love” (p. 416; see also p. 421 – “not demythologizing of hell” but “an exorcism of it – in faith” , emphasis original), Berkouwer asks the question, “Has the church’s preaching always warned, in a responsible way, against provoking the love of God?” (p. 416, emphasis original).
When the doctrine of judgment is dissociated from all its false associations, it may be used as “something to disturb man on the basis of the wealth of the gospel” (p. 418), as “the compelling voice of a guide, of the gospel itself” (p. 422). Through the urgent proclamation of the joyful news of God’s love, sinners will find their way back to God, wherever it is recognized that “the tender mercy of God … is not the point of departure for logical conclusions on our part, but is proclaimed to us ‘to guide our feet into the way of peace’” p. 423, citing Luke 1:79).
We must pay close attention to the Gospel. We must not speculate beyond the boundaries set for us by the Gospel. We must always remember that “it is extremely dangerous to think and talk about ‘the love of God’ )9or the sovereignty of God, or the otherness of God) and what ‘follows’ from it (universalism, fatalism, demythologizing) outside of the gospel” (p. 422, brackets mine).
