Eschatology

Eschatology is the study of end times. It has been a popular study for several decades. Think Left Behind, Tim LaHaye's very successful series of best selling books and accompanying movies. In the late 20th century we had Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth and very popular teachers touting very popular notions on exactly what to expect in the very near future -- the end times. As it turns out, there is more than just Tim LaHaye's view. A friend of mine asked if I could lay out the basic views and what they hold, so here's a blog on the basics.

As it turns out, the most popular view of eschatology isn't the only view. There are, basically three views of end times events. There is the best known "premillennial" view, the little known "postmillennial" view, and the longstanding "amillennial" view. Of course, this is an oversimplification. Each view has parts that vary within the general heading and each has shades of meaning. Since this is a blog, I don't intend to go into the shades and variations, but I'll try to give a brief overview.

Here is the basic concept. The "Millennium" is that 1000 years in Revelation 20:3. When is it? What does it mean? Is it literal? These are the basic questions around which the views spin. Premillennialism holds that the 1000 years is a literal time period yet to occur that immediately follows Christ's physical return. Postmillennialism believes that it is a figurative period that we are now living which ends at the return of Christ. Amillenialism takes the position that there is no actual millennium, but a figurative period that is the current, ongoing kingdom of God, which will end at the return of Christ. "Hey, wait! Those last two sound the same!" Yeah, they diverge quickly in what they think will happen in the figurative millennium. Postmillennialists say that things will just get better and better as the Gospel spreads until Christ's hidden kingdom becomes visible. To them, Christ will return after Christians establish His kingdom on Earth. Amillennialists disagree. They say that God will simply accomplish His will until Christ's return.

Most everyone knows the premillennial view. What most everyone does not know is that the view hasn't been around long. They argue that this is the "most literal view" because they take the Revelation of Jesus Christ as an actual description of events. Now, trying to explain horsemen, beasts, a star named Wormwood, and stinging locusts with lion's heads is a bit difficult. So we get wooden tanks, a nuclear catastrophe, and helicopters of some sort. That, you see, is the "more literal" view. Actually, modern premillenialism was made popular in the 1800's by a man by the name of John Darby. He started a view known as Dispensationalism where biblical history was divided up into "dispensations", or "stewarships". Mankind was assigned various stewardships through history such as Innocence (Adam), Human Government (Noah), Law (Moses) and so forth. Today, in this view, we are under the dispensation known as Grace or "the Church age", awaiting the Millennium. That will be the final dispensation where Christians rule with Christ. Of course, there the whole "Pre-Tribulation Rapture" thing in this view that has Christians being taken up to heaven prior to a 7-year period known as the Great Tribulation. During this time, the Beast (explanations vary) rules for 3 1/2 years of peace and 3 1/2 years of tribulation. At the end, Armageddon occurs where Christ returns, overthrows the Beast and his prophet, and the Millenium begins. Nuances suggest that maybe that Rapture takes place at the end of the first 3 1/2 years ("mid-trib") or just before the part where God pours out His wrath ("pre-wrath") or the historically more common but currently least popular "post-trib" view that says we are not ever in a Rapture, but simply join with Christ when He returns. Various views have various strengths and weaknesses and call on various passages of Scripture to support them. One ever popular passage is 1 Thess 4:13-18 where Paul speaks of "we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord" (where the term "Rapture" actually originates). So from Darby to today, this view has been the most popular.

Oddly enough, the likes of John Calvin or Jonathan Edwards would have been dumbfounded. They never heard this one. No one prior to 1850 held this view. The more popular view was the amillennial view and its accompanying preterism. In this view, the events (or at least most of them) forecast in the Revelation took place in 70 AD. I'm not an expert on this, but those who hold this view have a lengthy explanation of historical events around the fall of Jerusalem that match up to the events in Revelation. Interestingly, these folks also claim to be taking the Bible most literally. You see, it is abundantly clear that Revelation is a book full of imagery and allegory. I mean, seriously, no one actually argues that there are genuine stinging locust or that a dragon comes to Earth or any of that stuff. The "whore of Babylon" is a very popular image debated by premillennialists. No one thinks it is a prostitute from the region of Iraq. It is a metaphor. So the amillennialists say, "Why are you trying to take metaphorical prophecy in a literal sense?" On the other hand, there is a host of biblical time marks offered in reference to the return of Christ. Terms like "quickly" and "soon" and "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Matt 24:34). It is abundantly clear from the biblical time marks that the "end" was explained as "near" and abundantly clear from the New Testament writers that they expected exactly that. Premillennialists explain it as metaphorical language ... exactly the explanation that amillennialists give for the premillennialists view on Revelation. So the amillennial view says that Christ did return in 70 AD and will return again in the future. In the meantime, He reigns. It is a spiritual reign, a kingdom "not of this world", but certainly over this world. And we reign with Him. It is "the Millennium" without actually lasting a literal 1000 years. This view has been the prevailing eschatological view in Christendom for the first 1800 years. (I need to point out that there are variations on preterism. Preterism says "It already happened." Full-preterism says "It already happened in its entirety." This is a very small group, unable to fully explain if there is an actual, Earth-ending final return of Christ since they hold that all of Revelation already occurred. The more popular view is called "partial-preterism" because they say most of it already occurred ... but not all.)

The third view is much more obscure. There are still those who hold it today, but they are few and far between. Postmillennialism holds that the command to spread the Gospel to the entire world is our primary task, and that when it is accomplished, evil will be greatly reduced, and the world will be a better place socially, economically, politically, and culturally. The problem that this view has is that it doesn't seem to be happening. As we keep pressing the Gospel into more and more places, the world doesn't seem to be getting better. The 20th century with both its massive Christian missions and its horrible world wars put an end to the majority of those who believed this view. Still, some hold this view.

I've done my studying on these views. I was raised "pre-Trib Dispensationalist", believing the ever-popular idea that we'll be Raptured prior to the Anti-Christ's appearance, remain with Christ for 7 years, then rule with Him for a thousand years. When I encountered problems with it, I looked at Gary DeMar's Last Days Madness and found myself stumped. He made sense ... too. I came away with the clear conviction that, well, I just don't know. I can't buy into the postmillennialist view. It just doesn't work in my head. And that Full-preterism is problematic for me. But I have other problems with the whole Dispensationalist and pre/mid/post-Trib Rapture thing. On one hand, how were those prophecies fulfilled in 70 AD? On the other hand, how was the Bible not lying with all those "soon" and "quickly" time marks? So I'm between the two, a "both and" approach, I suppose. In other words, if you're looking for a convincing conclusion here, look somewhere else. I don't have it.

You would do well to look into it yourself. There is a lot of information on the Reformed.org website. They discuss a variety of views and give their reasons for them. Me? I'm just not convinced. And that's okay with me.