Author: Clayton Sullivan

Book Review By Timothy A. James

Sullivan, Clayton (1930- ). Rethinking Realized Eschatology. Mercer University Press: 1988. 144 pp. plus bibliography and index. ISBN 0-86554-302-X

Clayton Sullivan follows a long line of theologians whose eschatological studies concluded Jesus was both in error (regarding His Deity) and mistaken as to His views on the Kingdom of God.

As I write this review, I’m astonished once again that “learned men” seem to take so lightly the exhortation found in 1 Timothy 4:16: “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.”

Sullivan’s book is a critique of C.H. Dodd’s attempts to solve the imminency “problem of eschatology.” Dodd taught the kingdom of heaven is already here and has been spiritually realized within us, but that there will be other spiritual fulfillments in the future. Sullivan’s criticisms are echoes of liberal theologians fifty years earlier who wrung their hands and said, “Jesus didn’t keep his word to come when he said He would, therefore he’s wrong.”

Sullivan quotes Martin Dibelius on pg. 3, saying: “As Martin Dibelius of the University of Heidelburg expressed the matter in Jesus (1939): It still looks as though a monstrous illusion lies at the basis of the whole mission of Jesus, the illusion of something immediately impending which actually never has come to pass.”¹

Sullivan never seems to move beyond this conclusion of Dibelius, for later in his book he ends by saying on page 118:

This is far from being considered a “comforting implication” to this writer. God wishes us to worship Him in “spirit and truth” (John 4: 23-24), in fact “the Father is seeking such to worship Him.” Though God doesn’t expect a state of perfect sinlessness (I John 1:8-9), He does expect us to give “walking” our best shot. This writer believes that Jesus set the perfect example in belief accuracy and doctrinal rectitude (Hebrews 4:15), and that He was tempted even in doctrinal matters regarding the fulfillments of His proclamations, “yet without sin.”

Jesus was not a “mistaken proclaimer,” though theologians like Sullivan and others open themselves up to such a charge and its possible consequences (2 Pet. 2:1-3). What is most sad is that these writers don’t even seem to be aware of the alternative of the preterist historical perspective, but hopefully our writings can become vehicles of grace to them (I. Tim. 1:13). To see that Jesus kept his word and returned in “that generation” initiates quite a “RETHINKING” of many of the currently held views of “the End” with all their implications.

Another current theological work on the market is The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatology: (Toward a Christ-Centered Approach.) by Adrio Konig (1988). Konig is the Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of South Africa. The basic premise of his work is that Jesus and his disciples taught the imminent nearness of the events regarding end-time issues, yet on a practical basis they need to be understood in an “existential manner.” Konig doesn’t want to say that Jesus was ever mistaken in his expectation, therefore sidestepping a first century “End” to the “last days” he begins on the premise that:

“First, the phrase ‘the last days’ is never used in the New Testament for some future period.”.. “the last days are those in which Jesus and the apostles act, and that there is no other, separate period called ‘the last days’. The last days have already dawned. We no longer wait for them. Nor have they begun recently; they began almost two thousand years ago. We are still living in ‘the last days’ in which Christ was born and worked. Second, the entire history of Jesus Christ is described in such end (eschatological) terms as these.” pg. 5.

Once again no mention is ever made by Konig to indicate he is aware of the preterist historical perspective. The “eclipse” of his book expresses his tiredness with the whole issue and his desire to live for Christ despite the confusion of the matter. No consideration is given to the premise that “the last days” were the “last days of Biblical Judaism” and the end of an age of redemptive history, an age which stretched:

“from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you (first century Pharisees) killed between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these thing will come on this generation!” (i.e. A.D. 70, Matt. 23:35,36).

After A.D. 70, we no longer live in “the last days,” but rather in a “New Day,” a “Full Day” that shines brightly. Konig would have us ignore the historical relevance of A.D. 70 as the second coming in favor of the idea of living in an “eternal” last days. Yet the old age of Judaism passed away in A.D. 70 and a new eternal age took its place. Within this new age are “ages” in which God “might show the incomparable riches of his grace” in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:7).

In conclusion, this writer doesn’t wish to fault these men’s efforts at making sense of these complex issues. The very fact that the preterist viewpoint has been absent in most theological writings for a hundred years is enough reason to explain why even the very best scholars have failed in their efforts to explain the Word of God. These writers have written some good words to encourage the body of Christ toward a closer walk. Hopefully they will see the challenge of the preterist perspective, and renew their study of eschatology. Far from being a tiresome study that has reached an impasse, realized eschatology is just now beginning to reveal what Bible prophecy is all about. May all students of eschatology take the preterist approach and run with it.

1. Martin Dibelius, Jesus (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1939). Trans. C.B. Hedrick & F.C. Grant (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949).