B. Caird, in The Language and Imagery of the Bible, offers a discussion of the way in which the term “eschatology” has been used in Biblical scholarship up the 1980s.[1] He supplies various definitions which form a useful table of the paths scholars have trodden; however, not all notions are correct interpretations of Biblical thought—texts used to bolster one notion or another are amenable to different interpretation, and this undermines the legitimacy of the given notion in question. Nevertheless, Caird’s discussion is useful as a catalyst for a presentation of our new proposal that what scholars take to be eschatological in a Biblical text is actually typological.
Before tabulating Caird’s notions, we should set out our stall: insofar as a prophetic text has an immediate application relative to the time in which the embedding oracle is delivered, any future application is properly considered as typological. Events in the past would be one category upon which a typology was constructed. By way of contrast, if a prophetic text has no immediate application but only a distant one, then this would make that text eschatological if it was about the “end”.
To a certain extent this kind of reasoning is just semantics; however, it does afford a clear statement of the point that most prophetic material is typological because it has an initial application proximate to its delivery—purely eschatological material is rare. In the OT such material is usually highly general (e.g. Deuteronomy 28) or to be found in the apocalyptic visions of Daniel.
Everything is a question of interpretation and someone may challenge the above by arguing that many texts have no contemporary application. For example, Isaiah 40-66 might be related to the Babylonian Captivity, 150 years on from Isaiah of Jerusalem. However, this judgment might be offered because no work has been done by scholars to interpret a text in immediate terms; again, Isaiah 40-66 is a case in point.
In his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, B. S. Childs argues that the shaping of Isaianic materials placed later material into an eighth century context, with a consequent loss of the original historical context thus making the message “fully eschatological”.[2] R. Clements argues a similar case for the Prophets in general, viz. that the editorial treatment of the books and their collocation into a “group” tended towards making their message more eschatological. Thus he comments, “the process of collecting and editing, leading to canonization of prophecy came to be invested with a number of basic guidelines as to its meaning, especially its spelling out of hope for the restoration and salvation of Israel”.[3] R. P. Carroll argues[4] that the perception of failure in prophetic predictions partly led to post-exilic editorial additions and changes that made the materials more eschatological. He also argues that such a perception also led to the treatment of prophetic predictions as symbolic (typological or allegorical).[5]
The foregoing opinions are representative of a common approach to the Prophets in which an immediate application is not sought because the weight of scholarship has presented hypothetical editorial histories of the books. Accordingly, the work is not being done to imaginatively apply prophetic texts to the immediate age in which a prophet lived. Of course, this is done to some extent, but large amounts of material remain unrelated to a prophet and his generation. This presents an opportunity for fresh work that provides a counter-weight to scholarly commentaries on the Prophets.
Our contention would be that the prophet raised by God delivers oracles that are relevant to his generation. If there are futuristic statements then a principle of relevance needs to be sought for his generation. Thus, in the case of Deuteronomy 28, the long-term general future for Israel is highly relevant for the wilderness generation and any other generation that follows (e.g. Josiah’s time). S. R. Driver, in his Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,[6] makes this argument for a Second-Isaiah. Believing that Isaiah 40-66 is about the Exile and beyond, he states,
Those whom the prophet addresses, and, moreover, addresses in person—arguing with them, appealing to them, striving to win their assent by his warm and impassioned rhetoric…are not the men of Jerusalem, contemporaries of Ahaz and Hezekiah, or even of Manasseh; they are exiles in Babylonia. Judged by the analogy of prophecy, this constitutes the strongest possible presumption that the author actually lived in the period which he thus describes, and is not merely (as has been supposed) Isaiah immersed in the spirit of the future, and holding converse, as it were, with the generations yet unborn. Such an immersion in the future would be not only without parallel in the O.T., it would be contrary to the nature of prophecy.
Driver is correct about the analogy of prophecy but wrong to interpret Isaiah 40-66 in exilic and post-exilic terms. Within scholarship in the last century, the work has not been done to apply Isaiah 40-66 to the age of Isaiah of Jerusalem; however, when this is undertaken, it can be shown that apart from Isa 44:24-28, 45:1-7, all of the oracles in Isaiah 40-66 have immediate application and form a typological basis for subsequent use in the New Testament. Some Christadelphians have led the way in this eighth century approach,[7] while others have followed traditional conservative commentators. Further, even in respect of the Cyrus material, it is possible to relate this prophecy to Hezekiah if Cyrus is seen as an ironic Servant of the Lord.[8]
The immediate application of oracles of salvation engenders expectation of deliverance on the part of the faithful. This is clearly seen in the prophecies of the Assyrian Crisis by the eighth century prophets. It is also true, but to a lesser extent, of the prophecies at the time of the Babylonian captivity which placed the restoration of the nation seventy years in the future. The question is whether Jesus’ prophecies should be any different.
Caird is concerned with NT eschatology; he offers the following definitions:
| Individual Eschatology (I) | The destiny of each person – death, judgment, heaven and hell. |
| Historical Eschatology (H) | The end of the world; the end of this age and the introduction of the new age. |
| Imminent Eschatology (K) | The characteristics of the current age show that it is passing away and the new age is imminent. |
| Realized Eschatology (R) | The kingdom age has been inaugurated in the ministry of Jesus. |
| Existential Eschatology (E) | The “end-of-the-world” is a myth that lays claim upon an individual and urges him to make an existential decision for Christ. |
| Newness Eschatology (N) | Eschatology is about the new things that God is about to bring about and unrelated to the idea of a final “end”. |
| Purpose Eschatology (P) | The eschatological aspect of prophecy concerns only the purpose, goals and aims of events. |
| Metaphorical Eschatology (M) | End of the world language is used as a metaphor for the existing crises. |
Caird sees evidence of immediate survival of the soul beyond death in NT writings and contrasts this “individual” eschatology from the “historical” eschatology that is also present. He says, “the one implies that entry into the future state is an individual matter and takes place at death…while the other pictures the dead as sleeping in the tomb until all are roused at the last trumpet”.[9] Caird’s presentation offers no analysis of those texts that he takes to indicate survival of the soul at death, and he is content to let both pictures co-exist in contradiction. It is beyond the scope of this paper to consider this question and Caird’s analysis is too superficial to provide material for discussion.
The main interest in Caird’s paper lies in his analysis of the historical view of eschatology and the events of the NT. Jewish views in the 1c. were that the kingdom of God would be established at the end of the world and be centred on Israel. However, this “historical” view of what happens “in the end” has two significant variations.
- A consistent picture in NT writings is that the kingdom was near (Matt 10:23, Mark 9:1, Luke 17:42, Rms 13:11, Phil 4:7, Heb 10:37, Jms 5:8, 1 Pet 4:7). Caird labels this definition of eschatology as Konsequente Eschatologie following its German pedigree, and we can term it “Imminent Eschatology”. This eschatology consists of the beliefs of NT writers about the imminent end of their age and the introduction of the new age.
- Over against this definition of eschatology, Caird pitches a realized eschatology. This is an understanding of the kingdom of God as already present in the ministry of Jesus and in the reality of the church. The prophecies of the OT were being fulfilled (Luke 10:23-24); the kingdom of God was at hand (Mark 1:15); it had arrived (Luke 11:20); and was open for entry (Matt 21:31).
Again, Caird’s paper does not justify his grouping of texts, but even if some texts indicated a realized eschatology, the question arises as to how these cohere with a belief in the imminent end of the Jewish age. Caird regards the application of “end of the world” language to Jesus’ ministry as a metaphor and this is how he reconciles the two kinds of language—realized and imminent;[10] alternatively, the events of Jesus’ ministry and the apostolic era could be viewed as a proleptic[11] demonstration of the near-approaching kingdom.
The problem with both imminent and realized eschatology is that there has since been 2000 years of history in which there has been no material manifestation of the kingdom of God even approaching the terms of the Jewish prophets. One “solution” to this problem (popularized by the German theologian R. Bultmann, and canvassed by Caird) has been to demythologize NT writings and interpret them in symbolic terms relating to the existential decision that a person makes for Christ. The whole concept of the end of the world is a myth designed to impel a person towards Christ. It is beyond the scope of this paper to consider this “solution”. It was fashionable during the 1950s and 1960s but has passed with the fading of continental existential philosophy.
The problem of the last 2000 years is not addressed by Caird. He does however perceive the incongruence in defining eschatology purely in relation to the NT writings. The OT prophecies were quoted by NT writers in an eschatological way, and therefore any definition of eschatology should be applicable to both source materials. Accordingly, Caird proposes two new definitions of eschatology: the first is that it concerns what is new in the plan of God and the second is that it concerns the purpose of God.
On the first definition eschatology is what God declares to be the “new things” he is about to do leading to the consummation of his purpose. This obviously resonates with Isaiah 40-48, and it shifts the perspective from seeing eschatology in terms of what will happen “in the end” to what is now about to happen that will bring about an end and a new beginning (rather than “the” end). This definition expands on Caird, and it shows how eschatology now embraces the OT and NT. The second definition—purpose eschatology—shifts the focus from events to their purpose. Here, it is said that eschatology concerns the values and aims in the prophetic oracles rather than any series of events. Again, we expand upon Caird’s own definition here in order to bring out how the concept can embrace the OT and NT.
Caird’s introduction of the fact that NT writers quote OT prophecies brings us back to the point with which we began this paper. If an OT prophecy solely concerns the end of the world and has no intermediate application, then it can be termed “eschatological”. If a prophetic oracle has immediate application in the era of the prophet and any future application, then it ought to be termed “typological”.
As noted, Caird’s own proposal is that the language of the end of the world is a metaphor used by the prophets for the crisis of their own day. As he explains the notion of “the day of the Lord”, “they were inviting their hearers to see that day in the current crisis”. He asserts that they had a vision of the end and applied that vision to the events of their own day.[12] The problem with Caird’s proposal is that metaphorical usage is asserted without citing any paradigm of the language being used in a non-metaphorical way. If he cited a case in which end-of-the-world language was used literally of that event, and then showed how this language was re-applied metaphorically to describe, say, the locust invasion of Joel, then his case would have a sound logic. As it is, in Caird’s worked example (the book of Joel) he only has the metaphor, and left-over traces of the “real” distant end-of-the-world application; the metaphorical and non-metaphorical is all mixed. Thus, his identification of the traces of the literal application of the language of Joel only consists in the vague time references (Joel 2:28, 3:1) and the apocalyptic symbology (Joel 2:31).[13]
Caird offers a popular discussion and it would be unfair to criticize his interpretation of specific texts. He does however raise the issue of how the imminent quality of prophetic oracles is to be understood Oracles have a particularity that embeds them in the circumstances of their delivery and yet they are regarded as authoritative for later generations. Models for reading the OT are provided in the NT (as well as the OT). So, for example, Jesus applies Isa 61:1-2a to himself at Nazareth, even though the oracle of which it is a part has particular detail that embeds it in the eighth century. Thus, for Isaiah’s audience there is the real prospect of the release of captives, prisoners let go, vengeance, restoration of an infrastructure, and so on. With Jesus, there is an application of the oracle to the ministry of the Gospel. In Isaiah there is finality in the prospect being laid out: the Gentiles are subordinate and there is everlasting joy (Isa 61:6-7), an everlasting covenant (Isa 61:7), and blessings towards the nations (Isa 61:9-11). These prospects are tied into the particular reality in the land at the time the oracle was delivered, but Jesus uses the oracle in relation to himself.
Contrary to Caird, it is not the case that the prophets used eschatological language metaphorically to describe current crises, although they do use many tropes. Rather, their language of “the end” and “the everlasting” are applied to their circumstances and it expresses the actual prospects for their day. However, as events turned out, there was only partial fulfilment, and the oracle became open to later fulfillment. With an oracle partially fulfilled in the days of the prophet, any fulfillment is typological rather than eschatological. Thus, if we take Isaiah 61 as an example, its initial and partial fulfillment was in relation to Hezekiah; however, in Hezekiah’s day the restoration of Judah was postponed because of his sin over the visit of the Babylonian envoys. The oracles in Isaiah 40:12-48:22 records Yahweh’s dialogue at the time of this change in purpose and these condition the reader to be aware that the oracles of Isaiah 49-66 were only partially fulfilled. In this way they are led to expect a further typological fulfillment. It is this fulfillment that Jesus advertises in his speech in Nazareth.
[1] G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980, ch. 14.
[2] B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1979), 326. Childs’ conclusion is that “the final form of the literature provided a completely new and non-historical framework for the prophetic message which severed the message from its historical moorings and rendered it accessible to all future generations”, 337.
[3] R. E. Clements, “Patterns in the Prophetic Canon” in Canon and Authority (eds., G. W. Cook and R. O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 42-55 (52).
[4] R. P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed (London: SCM Press, 1979), 40, 55.
[5] When Prophecy Failed, 66.
[6] S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th Edn.; Edinburgh; T & T Clark, 1913), 237.
[7] H. A. Whittaker, Isaiah (Cannock: Biblia, 1988).
[8] A. Perry, “An Ironic Cyrus” CeJBL 1 (Oct, 2007).
[9] Language, 247.
[10] Language, 253.
[11] For a discussion see R. H. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1954).
[12] Language, 258.
[13] For a further critique of Caird see D. C. Allison, The End of the Ages has Come (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 84-90.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One