Thanks to Debra for provoking this post earlier than I had thought! 🙂
ANY view of eschatology is about the presuppositions that are brought TO the text. Â NONE of the views are self-evident (“I just look at my Bible and there it is–Amen!” Â Aaarrgghh!). How you answer the following questions dictates completely where you end up:
1. Are Israel and the Church distinct from each other, or does the Church replace Israel in God’s program for the ages? If they are distinct, it would seem that Israel might still have a national future, apart from the church. Keeping Israel and the Church distinct is key to any view of a rapture (because the Church is taken, not Israel).
2. Were the covenants given to Abraham and David about the Promised Land and a never-ending dynasty unconditional or conditional? If the latter, then the promises were conditioned by obedience to the Law and, since Israel went into exile, the promises were “sinned away.” Â They were inherited by the Church in a spiritual sense (cf. Gal 3 – Christians are “Abraham’s seed and heirs to the promises”). There will be no literal kingdom, just the Church. Â If the former is the case, then it didn’t matter that Israel was wicked–the Land promises are still in effect and a descendant of David MUST sit on the literal throne.
3. Was the Land promised fulfilled under the reign of Solomon or not? If you read the description of Solomon’s kingdom and INCLUDE the areas he had under tribute, the boundaries match the description of the promised Land given to Abraham–hence the kingdom promises are already fulfilled and there is no more to be had. Â Israel sinned away the kingdom, though, and it was replaced by the church. Â But should we include the land only under tribute to Israel, but not actually inhabited by Israel? Â That’s the question.
4. Is there any biblical proof that the 70th week of Daniel = the tribulation period? This is assumed by many, but the fact is that there isn’t a single verse that makes this equation. Â Sounds right, but is it?
5. When it comes to passages that describe the return of Jesus, should we harmonize them, or separate them? Â Here’s what I mean. Say a critic of the Bible came up to you and said, “hey, your Bible is full of errors–just look at the gospels; they have differing accounts of the same event–they can’t all be right; at lest one has to be wrong!” I’m guessing your response would be something like, “they can all be right even if they disagree, just like a newspaper story–if you took all the newspaper accounts of 911, they wouldn’t all say the same thing, but they could all be right–they just complement each other — you have to join them together to get the full picture. Â That’s what we should do with the gospels.” Now, I agree with “joining” and I think just about every Christian would. So why is it, when we come to description of the Lord’s return, that so many people do NOT harmonize them? Â We take 1 Thess 4 as being different than Zech 14, because in 1 Thess 4 Jesus never touches the ground! Â That must be a different return–and so we have two returns-one a rapture and the other is the second coming. Â This decision–to NOT harmonize these accounts is at the heart of the doctrine of a rapture. You really can’t have a rapture if you harmonize, but that’s what we do everywhere else. So…are you a splitter or a joiner? Â Which one is right? How would we know for sure?
6. Was the book of Revelation written before or after 70 AD? Â This makes all the difference in the world for holding that Revelation has yet to be fulfilled, as opposed to being fulfilled by AD 70. Â THere’s evidence for either conclusion. Â Which is right?
7. Are we to read the book of Revelation in a linear, chronological fashion, or does the book repeat the same several events in cycles? Â Those who see Revelation as future prophecy assume the book is to be read straight through as a linear chronology. Others see the events of the book “recapitulating.” If it’s linear, you have a literal kingdom aside from the Church when you get to the end. If it’s not linear, you don’t. Â The Church = the Kingdom.
8. All OT prophecy was fulfilled literally, so the prophecy that’s still left will be as well. Â Well, this assumes that all OT prophecy was fulfilled “literally” (whatever that means). Â But is that what how the NT authors see the OT? Â Do they always see an OT passage fulfilled literally? Â Maybe a prophecy gets a REAL fulfillment but it isn’t what you’d literally expect. Â For one example, read Amos 9:10-12 and ask yourself what YOU would expect to be the fulfillment (David’s house is in ruins and will be rebuilt). Then go to Acts 15 and see how James interprets this passage in Amos. Have fun.
There are more fundamental questions, but they become more technical. Â I think this is enough.
So how does everyone cheat? Â They make decisions on all these questions, and then act like their view is the “biblical” view–as though they didn’t have to presuppose and assume a whole list of things at the start. They cheat by not telling you that what they believe about eschatology is based on assumptions about verses, not verses themselves. The Bible didn’t come with a handbook with the “right” answers to these questions. The answers are not self-evident. There is uncertainty (to put it mildly).
Now you know why I don’t like any of the views. ALL the views make assumptions and then erect their system on those assumptions. Passages that don’t quite fit are “problem passages” (yeah, right). Each view has its own set of those.
Personally, I think there’s a reason for the ambiguity in the Bible on these issues, which itself is the path to not cheating. But that’s for another time. Â This is the tip of the iceberg, and I’m already feeling ill over eschatology.
For Mike H.– Tip of the iceberg indeed. Sheesh! My notebook overflows from the weight. My curiosity is sated. And I’ve got a ton of homework now. BTW…you have my prayers for a speedy recovery 😉
Debra
MSH– Here’s an item not included in my profile: I am not, nor have I ever been a “Left-Behinder.” No and no and a thousand times no; those books have always been off-putting to me. Can’t explain other than that the Spirit has never moved me to pick one up. Much less read one. There I’ve said it.
Debra
Excellent post. Clearly, you have exposed several of the presumptions that are never mentioned (yet, clearly should be) when we take up the task at the pulpit… At many points (and by many sides) the dogma of eschatology is intellectually dishonest.
take up the task at the pulpit…I wish! As I stubbornly refuse to hang my hat on any of the popular eschatological labels and prefer to mine the text for answers myself, little help comes from the pulpit as the topic is most often avoided as a sleeping dog. Instead one is left to pick up what one can from pop culture–Jack Van Impe, Tim LaHaye, and Zechariah Sitchin to name a few.
I guess Augustine would disagree with me but I think that’s disappointing and worrisome, if not dangerous.
Of course, even if Revelation WAS written after AD 70, that doesn’t mean that the “prophecies” weren’t fulfilled then; they were just given after the fact. Still, it doesn’t upset my apple cart one way or the other, being as I am an “Idealist” interpreter of all the apocalyptic literature, including Revelation: It’s happened before, some number of times, to some extent; it’s happening now, to varying degrees; and it will happen again in the future, in a very final and obviously culminating way. Seen from its end, history will appear to be typological, cyclical, and shaped by the hand of the Great Designer. That’s about all you can say with any confidence.
Matt – Jack Van Impe, Tim LaHaye, and Zechariah Sitchin in the same list/sentence! wow!
Ivan – agreed. For the rest of you, Ivan’s description fits my thinking well – prophecy runs cyclically – there is an end goal (“ultimate fulfillment”) in sight, and there are often warm up fulfillments. The “great enemy” (“antichrist”) and “foe from the north” motifs are great examples.
That would be “Zecharia” (without an “h”). 😉
eweiss – right; I just copied and pasted it. You will note I spell Sitchin’s name correctly on my Sitchin website – http://www.sitchiniswrong.com.
More “bait” for MSH : its so difficult for the layman, even the studious one, to do well in studying the Revelation since so much of the material bears direct allusion to Old Testament prophetic language, objects, archetypes. It would be so valuable to have you identify such direct ‘loaners’ from the semitic material and provide some descriptions/definitions.
Eschatology is a subject area I have spent a lot of time on – I both love it and hate it. I obsess thereon, then turn away in frustration for periods of time. [I need a shrink… it hath driven me mad]
Cognus: I hear you (both love it and hate it – though I mostly hate it :-)). What you are asking for is really twofold: (1) a way to tap into the use of the OT in the NT, especially in the book of Revelation; and (2) an explication of the OT’s symbols, archetypes, etc. in light of its own ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context. The latter should go before the former, and then the NT’s use of the OT would be greatly facilitated. Good luck.
Aside from technical scholarly monographs on the use of the OT in Revelation (scholars like Steve Moyise), there’s really little to recommend. There is NOTHING for the layperson. I think the closest you might come still requires reasonable facility in Greek and Hebrew: Greg Beale’s massive commentary on Revelation in the New International Greek Textual Commentary series. It (by far) does the most work with tracing what is said in Revelation back into the OT, and also the intertestamental literature. Beale is an “idealist amillennialist.” The only thing it lacks is the prior work of seeing the OT motifs he goes back to in their own ANE context. Not much of that. That kind of material (like the divine council) is available, but not in one place (try hundreds). Add to that logistic problem the need to be able to work in ANE languages and (perhaps most daunting) the lack in evangelical scholarship to see any need for serious contextualization of the OT worldview against the ANE (witness the Peter Enns debacle – “let’s just go with a 17th century confession as our authority”), and you’re in a pickle. Might as well go with Left Behind (just kidding).
Goodmorning Mike,
I’d like to give a shot at your 6th question, Was the book of Revelation written before or after 70 AD? This makes all the difference in the world for holding that Revelation has yet to be fulfilled, as opposed to being fulfilled by AD 70. ThereÂ’s evidence for either conclusion. Which is right?
The evidence for holding to the later date is based on one statement by Irenaeus, (which was translated from the original into Latin) while rejecting the writings of Josephus, an eyewitness to the fulfillment of Revelation, and all of the internal evidence contained in John’s book.
From what I understand, the evidence from John’s writings concerning the seals points to the curses in Deuteronomy. Perfectly. In Revelation 11.2 it says that the nations “will trample the Holy City for 42 months. That did happen during the destruction of Jerusalem. Exactly. Daniel was told to “shut up the words, and seal the book” yet John was told to “seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.” If I told my wife I would pick her up from the store soon, or shortly, she would know that I would be there right away. If I finally showed up 20 years later she would call me a liar and given me the divorce papers. The time statements in Revelation are even more urgent than those of the other New Testament writers. And here we are, 2000 years later and somehow none of it happened! Josephus’ book, Wars of the Jews confirms the destruction spoken of in Revelation and the OT curses.
The Jews, in Jesus’ day were looking to be saved from their enemies, the Romans, based on a literal, or natural understanding of the prophecies and their nation exalted to national prominence. Today, some of them, along with all dispensationalists, believe the same thing. Only that it was delayed, or put on the backburner while the church is here. According to them, that is called “the Hope of Israel.” Yet according to Paul, the literal, or spiritual understanding of the prophecies for the hope of Israel was the resurrection, for which he was persecuted for by the Jews. (Acts 28:20) Now if Paul was preaching the very thing dispensationalists are saying today, the Jews would never have been trying to kill him.
I believe that the evidence of history is overwhelming for an early date of Revelation.
@StephenPatrick: Good morning. Obviously, many would disagree on the other side (or some side thereof), which is the point of the list and this item’s inclusion. And, naturally, it does make a big difference.
Heiser: Great point about Amos 9 and Acts 15. While I am more than willing/eager to understand escatology, the more I learn the more confused I get. While studying the Bible I come with the optimism that if I approach it inductively (and with the help of the Holy Spirit) it should make sense. BUT, I haven’t given up.
I will offer this. You point #5 about harmonizing Scripture is perfectly logical and it has the additional benefit of being the most graceful way of handling eschatological disputes. What I’ve been looking for is a Biblical “skewer” which would provide a definitive event common to all/most eschatological passages. With such an anchor deployed a person “with ears to hear” may work out other details via stated chronology and symbolism.
@Dave Rymenave: My point about the harmonizing is NOT to promote that approach to eschatological passages — only to point out that such a decision must be made (or the opposite decision made) before you even start thinking about eschatology. We don’t know (and really can’t know) whether we should split or join. Once we make that decision, then there are a bunch more we need to make before we even start “doing eschatology”. The problem is that the lay-level study of prophecy is basically unaware of these issues – they just proceed from positions as though they are self-evident, when they aren’t.
There is no silver bullet for eschatology (no “skewer”), so I’d suggest you stop looking for one – and enjoy the ride!
Ok… so perhaps each position has its problems… how do we produce some structure such that we can overcome that?… is it possible? can we come up with a finite set of questions that would create a partitioning of all the views such that we can work through the eschatology issues? How many questions would that involve? Second, are those questions truly orthogonal (i.e. can each one be truly answered independent of one another)?… and if not could we find an orthogonal set of questions?… suppose we could then how would they help in sorting out the eschatalogical issue?… and can we say that there is a single solution to the eschatalogical issues: i.e. that there is some system that all the scriptures support that interpretation?
Enjoyed reading all the posts (but now feel a little quesy). Mike, I’m now really curious about your statement: “Personally, I think thereÂ’s a reason for the ambiguity in the Bible on these issues, which itself is the path to not cheating. But thatÂ’s for another time.” I hope you soon will enlighten us.
we’ll get there – my secret goal is to make all of you as tired of eschatology as I am!
I avoided “Revelation” as studiously as you seem to have decided to do until I had enough of a grasp on the rest of the text to where it all falls together sooooo easily. There are two keys to tying it all together:
* the 666 is the “Trinity”
* the ministry of Jesus in Revelation is to be a terrorist ala Bin Laden. That is, he hurls “terror” on the people of the world in order to compel them to submit to God, in preparation for Jesus’ 1000 year reign, and God’s forever reign. Paul said it all right here:
1 Cor 15:
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
This all harps back to Psalm 8.
Shalom.
I’m extremely “late to the party” on this, but it looked like an interesting read and I thought I’d leave a comment.
When I first converted to Christianity (1984), I was immediately indoctrinated into Pre-Tribulational Premillennialism. Despite this, something about it just put me in a dither that I couldn’t shake off. I pretty much became obsessed with eschatology.
About a year-and-a-half later I got my hands on a book that I’d been after for months. When I found it, it was the only copy in the bookstore. I won’t mention the book’s title or the author’s name as I see no point in doing so. Anyway, I read the book and it challenged me. It drove me to investigate what the Bible itself had to say.
I don’t recall how long it took, but I agonized over what I read for some time… weeks at least, if not longer… before I came to a conclusion. I pretty much went to the complete other end of the spectrum, from Pre-Trib Premill to Postmill.
Is Postmillennialism right nor not? I’ve no idea and, ultimately, it’s not that important to me. I do know this, however, right or not, Postmill got my head out of the clouds and back on Earth, and I’m certainly thankful for that. I also know this: There are variants of Premill that are Dispensationalist and that view, as I understand it, is pretty much heretical, because of its antinomianism (the idea that the Law is null and void).
The churches I’ve attended don’t take an eschatological position (I prefer Reformed churches — I’ve attended Reformed Baptist and Reformed Presbyterian, and, because of a recent move, I’m looking to attend a Reformed Episcopal church). However, they do call Dispensationalist Antinomianism heresy. That is one point at which they do draw a line.
For me, eschatology is no longer an obsession. The agony I went through all those years ago certainly dispossessed me of that nonsense. Perhaps that was the purpose of the experience. I don’t know. While I may still hold to Postmill, I know that eschatology is by no means a point of orthodoxy, so there’s no reason for anyone to give it the attention that it receives or to use eschatological differences to shun others.
Mike,
As I have contemplated the handling of eschatology on your website, it occurred to me that you might be pioneering a new field of study, the _philosophy of eschatology_.
What you are doing with eschatology is similar to philosophy of science; you are attempting to (somewhat systematically) determine the underlying epistemological presuppositions of the various strands of eschatology. You seem to be applying your rigorous mental habits (!) to its scrutinization, formalization, and maybe even its systematization. This moves into underdeveloped territory.
An aspect of this is the different ways of categorizing eschatological views. Thus far, the dominant categorization I’ve seen in this discussion has been oriented around the criterion of the millenium: pre-, post-, and amillennial distinctions and variants. Another that I find more clarifying (because of its simplicity and generality) is the “tense” criterion: eschatological texts pertain to either
1. mostly the past – preterite view
2. mostly the future – futurist view
3. ongoing: past, present, and future – historicist view
The third view was shared by the ancient church of apostolic pedigree who did not recognize the authority of the bishop of Rome over them, by Isaac Newton, the Protestant Reformers, some Anabaptists, and by others. It resolves a strange anomaly of the other two views, that God has simply considered a significant stretch of history to be of no strategic (or eschatological) importance. And it conveniently allowed the Reformers to consider the present Pope of their time a (or the) antichrist. Two Spanish Jesuits cleverly devised eschatologies (one was already cited in someone else’s post) that historically gave impetus to the development of options 1 and 2. Both deflected bad press to a Pope of the distant past or future.
What I’m arguing for is a lot simpler than “philosophy of eschatology” (though I like that term!) — I’m just asking for honesty. Let’s admit that prophecy is mostly ambiguous (and I believe in part deliberately so).
I know this is very late, but the first time I found this on the “internets”. I have to confess that eschatology has always been a side issue for me, since I knew many sincere Christians with all kinds of different ideas. I tend to believe that just as God surprised the Jews with the way in which He fulfilled the Messianic prophecies in Jesus, He will surprise all of us in his future fulfilment of prophecy. I grew up as an amillennialist, but especially my studies of the Old Testament Messianic prophecies (and their often literal fulfilment in Jesus in the most unexpected ways) convinced me that this was not the whole story. Since I have never bothered to get my own eschatological box, I wonder where I will end up, considering my take on your questions?
1. The church is distinct from Israel. The church is the current true remnant of Israel together with the remnant from the nations, grafted in on the root of Israel in order to share in the promises. There remains a future turning of all Israel to the Lord (Romans 11), clearly showing that He is not finished with them as a people.
2. The covenants with Abraham and David were never-ending, but conditional. So even if the Lord would scatter the descendants of Israel to the ends of the earth (and they loose their promised land in the process) because of their sins and breaking his covenant, He will gather them back again (He remains faithful, even when we don’t). Since the Son of David has already come, He is already seated at the right hand of God (according to Ps.110) and his kingdom is the everlasting kingdom, He remain true to his promise to David. Israel will only experience the Son of David physically ruling them as king, once they accept Him (as prophesied in Zechariah).
3. I think the land promise (with the borders) was actually fulfilled under Solomon, but there might also be a future fulfilment under Messiah (however, his Kingdom will not only be eternal, it will cover the whole earth and all nations).
4. I think the repeated three-and-a-half years (time times and half a time or half of seven years in Daniel) and the three-and-a-half years of Revelation, also stated in days and months, are meant as obvious references to the same period. There are no other Old Testament references to this time period of which I know. And just too much of a coincidence to claim that they have nothing to do with each other. The exact interpretation, however,… different thing altogether.
5. Harmonize/joining, without question. This seems natural and the default everywhere in Scripture.
6. I have always thought that Revelations was written after 70 AD (and actually that it was one of, if not the last book of the New Testament). I didn’t know of any evidence that it was written before 70AD?
7. I am less certain about this, but expects a somewhat cyclical progression. Actually, I think that there are often a repeat telling of the same event from a heavenly perspective and an earthly perspective. For me it is perhaps closest to a wave breaking on the beach as the tide rises… similar, but every time a little closer to the highest point, the final climax. However, I do think that there is a physical kingdom established in distinction to the church (but ruled by Messiah and his bride), mostly because of the Old Testament prophecies, however, and less because of Revelation on its own.
8. I tend to see both a literal and a more figurative fulfilment of most Old Testament prophecies. The literal often prefigures a spiritual fulfilment. I also believe that almost all prophecies included both a short-term (partial) fulfilment and long-term final fulfilment. This is definitely true for the Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Jesus. E.g. the lame walking and the blind seeing, was a very literal fulfilment of a promise that at first reading would appear to be only meant figuratively. Or Abraham’s seed, fulfilled short-term in Isaac, but only centuries later in the children of Israel (and ultimately in Messiah as the representative of Israel, the servant of the LORD, the singular seed who will be victorious over his enemies).
I have no idea what kind of eschatological system this represents… maybe I am missing something?