The topic of eschatology is one of the most debated
doctrines within the church. It is a doctrine that stirs tension and has been
an instrument of the Enemy to divide the Church. Recently, there has been a
severe increase in indifference concerning doctrine among evangelical
Christians. We have an obligation, however, to understand our faith, even in
areas of tension like eschatology. This paper will summarize and evaluate
writings by Ted Dorman and David Bloesch on the millennial views and summarize
my own perspective on eschatology.
Dorman informs us that “the
word ‘eschatology’ comes from the Greek ta
eschata, ‘the last things.’” The millennial views that are mentioned by
Dorman are Historic Premillennial, Amillennial, Postmillennial, and
Dispensational Premillennial. The background I come from is Dispensational
Premillennial, but now I find myself landing somewhere between Historical
Premillennial and Amillennial. When reading the biblical text I find little to
no support for the idea of a literal 7 year tribulation that is believe by the
Dispensationalists, and neither do I find support for a Postmillennial
perspective.
Bloesch gives a great deal
of information on the subject by telling of the various opinions of
philosophers, one of which doesn’t even have a right to speak on the subject
since he had the audacity to say that “Jesus was mistaken in his expectation”
of a “supernatural kingdom” (Bloesch 174-75). The very thought of declaring
Jesus as “mistaken” about anything is heretical. Bloesch most assuredly must
have been attempting to gain spectrum in his collection of information
concerning the views of kingdom and eschatology if he is so willing to add the
opinions of non-Christians.
It’s
important to determine whether Christ was referring to a “future kingdom” or if
he was referring to a “present kingdom”. Therefore, it is most appropriate of
Bloesch to begin his chapter on “The Personal Return of Christ” with a
discussion of the meaning that Christ was trying to convey in His teachings of
“Kingdom”. In the lists of opinions that Bloesch gives there are those who
think that “kingdom” is an idea or way of thinking rather than a kingdom graced
by the infilling of the Holy Spirit and a transcendent Church that has no
borders in time or space. Perhaps the word “legacy” would best describe this
thought process; that the kingdom of God is merely the “legacy” of love and
grace that Jesus showed us which leaves us with simply a “moral example” view
of Christ and the Church.
Others
leaned toward a “future kingdom” perspective in which there was something to
look forward to in the future, the second coming of Christ! These raise
questions concerning the reality of Heaven and Hell and whether or not they are
real or just states of being, but unfortunately that was the topic I chose NOT
to write about. Nonetheless, there are countless theological questions that
arise in light of one’s eschatological view.
It has been understood as
doctrine for centuries that Christ will indeed come again, and this belief is
even reflected in the creeds of the early Church stating that “Christ will come
again in glory to judge both the living and the dead” (Dorman 314). According
to Bloesch, however, many within liberal theology look at the second coming of
Christ as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (179). They
also believe this story to be a figurative way of demonstrating the “gradual
permeation of society by the ethical principles of Christ”. This particular way
of thinking should infuriate many as it is a clear perversion of the gospel and
the New Testament as a whole. Bloesch points out several scripture references
that were written after the day of Pentecost that clear talk about the second
coming of Christ. A physical and real return to the earth so that all may see
Him and reign with Him on earth forever and ever. Amen.
But
the real debate lies in the millennial views. Bloesch recognizes the same views
as Dorman, but instead of listing them as four separate views he lists them as
three. He then simply mentions that there is dispensational alternative to
premillennialism that many uphold. He describes premillennialism as a
“messianic, interim kingdom inaugurated by the second coming of Christ, in
which he will reign on Earth for 1,000 years (or an indefinite amount of time)
before the last judgment and the end of the world” (190). Dorman classifies
this as “historical” premillennialism. Many early church fathers held this view
including Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian (Dorman 316).
Dorman
describes an interpretation of revelations that sounds very preteristic,
stating that many in the early church believed that the tribulation was coming
out of Rome, which was seen as Babylon (316). This interpretation leads to the
belief that the millennial reign of Christ would begin with the fall of Rome
and the end of persecution. This would be something easy to argue since Rome
did fall and soon afterwards, the Church was instated as the religion of the
state and spread like wildfire. However, persecution has still continued to
plague believers all across the world ever since and, therefore, does not
fulfill the promise of no more persecution or pain, nor has Christ physically
returned, which nullifies the validity of this perspective.
The dispensational perspective
of premillennialism suggests that the church is exempt from tribulation and
torture and, therefore, will be raptured away to safety. This view was birthed
in England during the nineteenth century (Dorman 319). The word “dispensation”
comes from the King James Version’s translation of the Greek word oikonomia, which is found in 1 Cor. 9:7
(319). According to Dorman, the word “dispensation” theologically refers to “a
period of time during which human beings are tested to see whether or not they
will obey God’s revealed will” (319). In this tradition, the use of the word
“Israel” can never be symbolic of the Church, only Israel. One would assume
that this is why there are a great number of Zionistic Christians within this
tradition of eschatology. Along with this view comes the idea of
“pre-tribulation rapture”! This, according to Dorman, is an attempt to maintain
unity in their interpretation of the text, which they believe requires a
complete and total separation of the Church and “Israel”.
As
I said in a previous reflection paper, the belief in a “rapture” has been a
significant driving force in my church. It has been used to inspire and drive
people to a sense of urgency in spreading the word of God, and in this I see
usefulness to the doctrine. A downside, however, is that in believing a in a
“rapture soon to come” many abandon their responsibilities to the society and
to their future careers. “Why go get a degree when Christ comes tomorrow?”
“Don’t waste time of pointless things of this world when people are in sin and
the rapture is coming!” It is a disturbing reality when people cry out “repent
for the rapture is coming” instead “repent, the Christ is returning” and when
they say “fear the tribulation” instead of “fear the wrath of our God…fear
Hell.”
The historical premillennialist, however, has
a tendency to believe in a “post-tribulation” rapture, which means that
Christians will be taken into the sky at the end of the 7 years of tribulation
rather than the beginning. This is a little bit more believable, and
scripturally sound, since Christ coming to rapture the church and then again in
judgment at the end of the seven years could easily be interpreted as Christ
returning twice, rather than just once. Christ only has one return according to
scripture, and it is wise to uphold scripture as authority even if it
contradicts our little paradigms that we try to fit it into.
Having come from a
tradition that believes this particular perspective, I am angered by the bad
theology. First of all, whenever the word “tribulation” appears in the Bible,
it has a tendency to mean something bad for the Church, not for anyone
else in particular. If the Church was going to be taken away, then why would
the book of Revelations be written to the Church? It is pointless. Apart from
this, there is one, maybe two, verses of scripture that even allude to this
idea of being “raptured”. The use of this theological perspective has scarred
and burdened many over the years, including myself. There is, however, the fact
that this perspective does push people to evangelize and preach the gospel,
especially within families. It’s a matter of love, if you love someone enough
then you will want them to be raptured too and be delivered from seven years of
suffering. While the perspective does
instill a sense of urgency in the hearts of believers, it holds little ground
in the lives of Christians and will only prove to cause bitterness in the event
that an “Anti Christ” takes the throne of world government, as many believe.
What is truly sickening
is that there are certain people in the world who come up with the idea that
they will write a book series based off the idea as a means of making thousands
of dollars. As a result, countless perversions of scripture have infiltrated
the Church by means of fictional novels! This is just evidence that
Evangelicalism has severed itself from the life of the mind, allowing very
little room for common sense and intelligent thought. There is no need for
humanity to live out an illiterate and uneducated lifestyle just for the sake
of “piety” or for “upholding biblical truth”.
The
second view is amillennialism. This perspective arose when the supposed “millennium”
of the historic premillennialist interpretation “fell to ruin” at the
conversion of Emperor Constantine and the establishment of protection of the
Church, and it was here that the churches view of eschatology took a more
metaphorical perspective (Dorman 316). While the historic premillennialist view
can still be held today, at the time it seemed as if their interpretation was
misguided. Augustine developed the amillennialists
interpretation and was later supported by the two most famous theologians of
all time, Calvin and Luther (317). An unusual fact indeed, especially since
both opposed a great deal of Augustine’s other teachings and philosophies.
Those of the perspective of amillennialism
believe “that the kingdom of God is now present in the world as the victorious
Christ rules His people by Word and Spirit” (Bloesch 191). They do, however,
still look forward to the future return of Christ, but only after a period of
great increase of the darkness and a buildup of the forces of evil in the
world. This increase of darkness and
evil will result in continuous and terrible persecution of the Church as the
power of the Word and Spirit of God also increase in power (193). Stating that
the whole condition of the world is shifting and churning, results in a fight
for control and influence until reaching the climax of Christ’s return. The
gospel will indefinitely win in the end.
This particular view is very attractive in that
it is not overly literal in its interpretation of the apocalyptic writings.
There is both hope and a realization of the presence of evil in the world. The
view rests between the worldviews of idealism and realism, which increases my
appreciation for it. There is a sense of realism in that there is “evil” and it
rules in this world and hates the Kingdom of God, while the idealistic
perspective that “good” will reign in the end and God will overthrow evil.
These are both elements of truth that I see echoed in the Bible as a whole and
is a proper way of viewing the world, but does the view hold strong biblical
support? Honestly, what view does? This view definitely holds much more support
than the dispensational premillennialist view.
The third view given to
us is postmillennialism. Postmillennialism is viewed as being more of an
“optimistic” perspective. Postmillennialism promotes the idea of unhindered
spreading of the gospel in a “Golden age of the Church” (193). They would say
that Satan being bound is in reference to him being unable to stop people from
hearing the truth of the Gospel and it moving through the world in fullness of
power.
Bloesch points out that
each of the three views have their own strengths and weaknesses, such as the premillennialist’s
tendency to be too literal, as I mentioned earlier. While it’s true that they
uphold the idea of a physical return of Christ, they also support many biblical
promises as well as upholding the reality of a soon coming Christ back to His
people. In addition, they have a great number of textual weaknesses, such as
the separation of the return of Christ and the judgment of sinners (194).
Bloesch argues that
Postmillennialism has a great deal more biblical foundation than most people
really understand (195). Therefore, we have a view that does have scripture
that can very easily support many of its opinions. These scriptures include the concept of Satan
being bound as meaning that he is not able to hinder the spread of the gospel.
They also support a mass turning of people to Christ rather than the darker
view that only a “remnant” will turn to Christ.
This view that masses will be turning to Christ is definitely something
to be desired and something many would think to be reflective of the love and
grace of a sovereign God who desires for man to turn to Him and be with Him.
This view is definitely how I would like to think concerning God, but sadly I
find myself questioning these particular attributes and my understanding of
them.
The downside to this perspective
is the removal of expectancy in Christ’s return and the clear imagery being an
“intervention” of the ongoing evil in the world (196). This perspective also results in their being a
passive perception of the continual demonic influence in the world today. Postmillennialism,
however, is appealing as a view that sees God’s love, grace and sovereignty as
forces that will drive out evil from our midst and disallows the appearance
that evil is winning the “war”. Unfortunately, scripture does not necessarily
leave room for such optimism. I am personally too pessimistic as a person to be
able to follow this paradigm of belief.
Amillennialism appears to
be the most exegetically sound concerning the scriptures and has balance in its
dealing with the good and the evil in the world. It does, however, take away from the
expectancy of Christ’s return as well. They also have a tendency to
over-spiritualize the Kingdom (197). Given these weaknesses and strengths for
the three given positions, I would have to say that I most heavily lean towards
the amillennialists perspective. It is the only perspective, from what I can
tell, that is most supported by scripture and widely accepted theology.
The study of eschatology is a long
and tedious journey that leads to nowhere. It is a topic that I personally hate
above all others and stirs great dissonance within my soul. Nonetheless, it is
a significant part of the Christian faith and must not be completely ignored. My
personal opinion concerning prophecy is that it generally is only understood in
hindsight, and I can therefore argue that all of these are, more or less,
severely flawed. Humans are erred, and it is very evident in the realm of
eschatology. There is not a single view that does not contain flaws, but that’s
not just due to human error. We lack the proper perspective and significant
amounts of information to be able to decipher all of prophecy. We do not know
how much of apocalyptic prophecy has already been fulfilled or is yet to come,
how much is literal or metaphorical.
This is one topic within
theology that I care little about keeping my “feelings” from affecting my view.
Relying on ones “feelings” to determine doctrine can hinder one from being real
with the text. In the area of eschatology, I can never know for sure the
interpretation of the text due to my cultural context and because of my removal
from the time period in which the apocalyptic texts were written. Even after I
have studied these theories for years, I will still lack the information
necessary to develop a strong eschatology. Even those who were of the same time
period and culture were unable to truly interpret the visions. In the end, it
does not really concern me whether I believe one view or another in this area,
except that it might change a few small aspects of how I live.
A perspective of the
future that entertains the hope of a rapture will probably inspire me to be
more vocal in evangelism. Of course, I
should be evangelizing anyway by my actions and because of my sheer love of God
and of humanity! I should evangelize because I want people to know the
greatness of the God that I serve. The same God who saved me, delivered me from
depression, and stopped me from entertaining thoughts connected to the desire
to commit suicide. Even more than that, He is a God worthy of worship and of
our love and devotion, regardless of what He does for us and our families.
A postmillennialist view
might make me a little more optimistic in life and cause me to see the
“brighter side of things”. One must then
ask, “Is happiness and optimism a good reason for believing in something?” A
youth pastor once stated that Jesus “didn’t die to make you happy, he died to
make you holy”, and those words have forever stuck with me. It is not my belief
that God has given us reason to believe that He is going to slowly redeem the
world to the point of perfect peace and harmony, and then return.
In conclusion, there are
various interpretations concerning “the last things”. Each contains its own
strengths and weaknesses, but none are perfect. It is impossible for us as
humans, with limited knowledge and context, to be able to create a paradigm of
belief for the doctrine that does not contradict scripture or promote heresy. I
have come to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to claim any particular view
of eschatology, but to ignore the subject altogether and to refrain from
engaging with the text would be sinful for me. I believe that there are two
rules for engaging with the apocalyptic texts. 1) Scripture holds the highest
authority and is, therefore, preeminent of all commentaries or early church
writings. 2) Our understanding of God must influence our understanding of
eschatology, not the other way around. God rules over eschaton; it does not
rule over Him.
