Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen's Eschatology in Context

anonymous author portrayed a real dispute that had taken place circa 40 years before on the eschatological expectation of Christ's millenarian Kingdom. The first character to take the floor, the Lutheran theologian Johann Friedrich Mayer (1650-1712), was a student of Balthasar Bebel, subsequently professor for theology in Wittenberg, before he became preacher in 1687 in Hamburg.2 The second figure, the theologian Johann Wilhelm Petersen (1649-1727), was the superintendent in Lüneburg at the time of the dispute. Already during his theological studies in Giessen, he was in contact with the Frankfurt circle around the theologian Philipp Jakob Spener and the lawyer Johann Jakob Schütz -considered the founders of the German Pietist movement. This excerpt directly addresses to the core of the debate between the two personalities. Mayer depicts Petersen as a vainglorious and ungodly theologian who seeks to rehabilitate a Judaic and Turkish position about Christ's Kingdom, in particular, on the wait before the start of an earthly kingdom of the Messiah, according to a Judaic expectation, or when it would become possible to enjoy all the carnal goods, according to the Islamic eschatological vision.3 Mayer's criticism is not just an expression of his opposition to Petersen's opinion; in fact, it is a position shared by Lutheran theologians and rooted in the confessional writings of the Evangelical faith, i. e., in Confessio Augustana 17 (hereinafter CA 17), where the "Jewish" expectation of a future earthly kingdom of the Messiah is firmly rejected.4 On the other hand, Petersen seems to distance himself und Unheil auf der Welt anrichten; ohne Secten, indem unsere Meynungen in Glaubens-Sache einig, und unser Hertz von dem Lichte unsers Heylandes bestrahlet seyn wird; ohne Uneinigkeit, weil wir uns als Jünger und Unterthanen Christi, ja so wie Brüder leben werden; ohne Krieg, denn daselbst werden wir alle gute Freunde seyn; und keine Feindschafft hegen; ohne Kranckheit, als welche sonst die Gemüths-Ruhe und das Wohlseyn der Seelen nicht wenig stöhret; mit einem Wort, ohne eintzige Unvollkommenheit". For an introduction to this text see R. "Although the Petersens' name is quite known among specialists of Pietism, their work, their ideas and the development of their thought remain mostly unresearched. Elisa Bellucci aims to shed more light on their works, analysing and interpreting them in relationship to the theological and socio-political context. In so doing, she fills some gaps present in the research on these authors: firstly, she analyses the positions presented in the Petersens' work until 1703 at length; secondly, she tries to unearth sources and influences; thirdly, she seeks to comment on the Petersens' ideas and positions in relationship to the historical context. The result is an entangled picture which questions the traditional distinction between "church Pietism" and "radical Pietism", "orthodoxy" and "radicalism/separatism", showing, instead, that these categories are sometimes too narrow to describe the position of certain authors, such as the Petersens - Page 4 of cover