Bavinck, Herman. The Last Things: Hope for This World and the Next. John Bolt, Editor. John Vriend, Translator. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1996)

One of the largest errant interpretations of Scripture involves the mapping of Biblical language in human terms. There is great difficulty in translating Divine language into human and earthly forms and making too strong a distinction between Biblical language and human interpretation. How does one explain the great heresies throughout the history of the Church? Were they merely maliciously intentioned prophets or church leaders bent on leading their congregations astray? Or were the great (and small) heresies and apostate interpretations of Scripture derived from …While these two categories may be an oversimplification of the origin of certain interpretations of Biblical doctrine, clearly some movements fall within the answers to both questions. However, the majority of errant doctrine occurs when we speak of Scripture in self-made human images as opposed to the divine images provided us in Scripture.

This in large part explains the various perspectives on eschatology. In various passages of Scripture, most notably John’s account of the New Jerusalem in Revelations, the future is depicted in images derived from historical circumstances that prevailed. Bavinck states “Zion and Jerusalem, , temple and altar, sacrifice and priesthood, continue to occupy a large place in it” (94). There is a comparison and contrast between Old Testament and New Testament eschatology in that Old Testament mistook the shell of prophecy for the core of end times theology. A proper understanding of spiritual and political dominion warped into human political dominion.

Biblical language regarding the coming of the Messiah, his reign on earth, the rebuilding of the temple, and other prophetic language, is distinctly scriptural language prophesying the character of Biblical eschatology. However, seeing this language in particularly human terms and interpreting these images as human images familiar to our cultural vocabulary severely limits our understanding of the future dispensation of the Consummation of Christ and prohibits us from properly understanding other portions of Scripture. In the old testament, what was meant figuratively was gradually subverted to a literal interpretation and the destiny of individuals “broadened its horizons to include humanity as a whole” (90).

Originally developing out of apocryphal Jewish and Persian literature, Chiliasm distinguishes between a twofold return of Christ and a double resurrection. This first return of Christ overcomes the physical and spiritual forces of the antichrist, a single individual personification of evil, and raises up believers in the church to prepare for the second coming. The conquering of the antichrist will usher in a world of material prosperity, at which point he will come again to judge all humanity and decide the eternal destiny of every man.

Bavinck’s basic response is threefold. He first claims the origin of such a viewpoint from apocryphal and not Biblical literature. Second, he claims an interpretation of divine “assertions” (95) into earthly ”images” (95). Finally, the shell of the symbolic nature of Old Testament prophecy is only preparatory for the Spirit of Christ revealed in New Testament fulfillment, and interpretation, of the Old. The New Testament as spiritual fulfillment of Old Testament physical prophecy greatly informs a new understanding (the word “new” used as a departure from Chiliasm) of the imagery and language of the New Testament eschatology.