Eschatology Addendum

Back in May I did a post on Eschatology where I tried to summarize the basic views on end times. I recently learned something new. Everyone (most everyone) is likely aware of the "premillenial view" of eschatology. "Oh, yeah, sure, keep using big words and assume everyone knows what you're talking about." Okay, you know the standard view of end times. It starts with the Rapture and then there is the Great Tribulation, a seven year period during which the Anti-Christ reigns and a special redemptive plan for Israel is instituted saving 144,000 Jews. At the end of this period, Christ returns, binds Satan, and sets up the Millenial Kingdom. This time is marked by a return to Old Testament style temple worship and sacrifice commeorating the sacrifice of Christ. Oh, and those who were Raptured at the beginning get to rule with Christ. At the end of that period, Satan is loosed and ... well, you know that one ... Armageddon. And then there is the Great White Throne Judgment and the New Heaven and New Earth. While folks may dicker over specifics, that is what is commonly referred to as "premillenialism". What I didn't realize is that this view is actually called "dispensational premillenialism", a product of the 19th century through teachers like John Darby and Scofield and perpetuated through today by well-known folks like Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, Hal Lindsey, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, and Tim LaHaye.

I've been bothered by this view since I found out that it traces its roots all the way back to ... the 1800's. Really? You mean it took God 1800 years to get the truth of this across to His people? What was going on prior to that? Why didn't Luther or Calvin or Augustine or Jonathan Edwards or any of the greats get this? What happened?? So I started looking at other views, like postmillenialism (no thanks) and amillenialism (interesting).

Imagine my surprise, then, when I learned that there is a view known as "historic premillenialism". Historic premillenialism differs from dispensational premillenialism in that it drops the "dispensational" ... and it is historic. (Yeah, I know ... you think I'm making this stuff up. I'm not.) Historic premillenialists trace their roots back to folks like Ireneaus (140-203 AD), Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), and Papias (80-155 AD) . (Yeah, yeah, I know. "Dispensational premillenialists trace their roots back to the Bible." Be reasonable. All views trace themselves to the Bible. That's not a differentiation.) This view, in fact, was the leading contender among Protestants until Dispensationalism came along.

So, what's the difference? The primary difference is that Dispensationalism sees the Church as having replaced Israel. As such, God implements a separate method of salvation for the Jews in the Great Tribulation (since, after all, the Church is gone). This is one reason that dispensational premillenialism requires a pre-tribulation Rapture. The Church has to be gone. Historic premillenialism, however, expects a time of tribulation at the end of which the Church would be raptured -- meet up with Christ in the air -- and return with Christ to rule. (That's where the "post-tribulation" view of the Rapture comes from.) This view does not hold that the Church replaced Israel, but that the children of Israel are the children of the promise, not the flesh -- kind of like Romans 9:6-8 says or Romans 11:13-27 describes. So there isn't some special dispensation for Israel that follows the "Church Age" (See Dispensationalism).

It's interesting to me because, after all my studying, I've come away wholly unconvinced. My view -- not something I'd argue with anyone, but just where I sit -- is a melting pot. I can see the arguments of the partial preterists who say, "It all happened in 70 AD" and I can see the problem of the premillenialists when they say, "But ... where is the 'binding of Satan' and all that?" In my view, then, eschatology is a lot like the prophecies regarding Christ. We know that He was portrayed in prophecy both as the Suffering Servant and the Reigning King. The Jews of His day were confused because they liked the Reigning King thing but saw only the Suffering Servant. And we understand, from this perspective, that both are true of Christ ... just not simultaneously. So ... why can't both be true about "end times" ... just not simultaneously? The events of 70 AD largely fulfill the prophecies of, say, Matthew 24, but not completely the prophecies of Revelation. I think, then (and this isn't a hill I am willing to die on), that much of prophecy about end times was already accomplished, and that there is yet to come a Millenial Kingdom. In other words, I seem to fall pretty squarely in that Historic Premillenialism ... before even knowing what it was. Interesting.