John3Thirty Eschatology

I have developed a great dislike for discussing Eschatology. Mainly this is because unless you agree with the person sitting across from you they usually assume heresy, or denial of Christ’s return. The return of Christ is so important that people get very defensive about their pet view. I remember being taught that to reject the pretribulation rapture was to reject the return of Christ. Another reason I so dislike the subject is the fear and resulting actions that the conversation engenders. If you have been taught all your life that Christ is going to secretly rapture you away before a hell-on-earth Tribulation, allowing you to spend that time in heavenly bliss while wrath is poured out upon the earth, you are going to fear any questioning of that rapture view. Desire for escape can make one unwilling to hear any other view. Unfortunately, those who question the pretribulation rapture make a grave mistake pointing out the errors in dispensational eschatology but overlooking the problems with the other assumptions made in Futurism. If you want to understand my view of eschatology—the view held by generations of Christians—then you have to be willing to question all of your current understanding of the subject.

As I get into the subject of what I believe about end-times you must understand that nothing I will share with you on this subject will, in any way, endanger your soul or effect your salvation. Bible believing Christians have differed on this subject since the second century—and possibly before. I started out attending churches that held slavishly to dispensational eschatology. It is interesting that my childhood denomination rejected everything else of Dispensationalism but swallowed their end-times scheme without question. Their reasoning was based on the unfounded belief without the fear of Christ suddenly appearing there was little incentive to holy living.

Is the belief that certain events were prophesied to happen before the return of Christ an invitation to laissez faire morality? The presence of the Holy Spirit and the work in our lives inspires us to holiness, not a fear that Christ might appear while I am sinning. Besides, restraint out of fear of being caught is not true holiness, it is thespian holiness at best. The truly holy act the same even when there is no danger of being caught.

Now, back to the journey I followed and the explanation of my own position. Since I had been taught that dispensational eschatology was the only orthodox view I was shocked when I discovered that the leadership of a church I had recently joined held a different view. It was a trying time, but fortunately the Lord kept me from running out of the building screaming. I came to realize that there had been many views on end-times throughout history and that most of these, though they could not all be right, were at least not heretical.

Over the next few years, while preparing for ordination, I had to be able to defend my end-times view in the ordination interview. To do this I could learn the proof-texts for the position I had always held or I could study to see what scripture taught on the subject. Since I am not one to regurgitate what others say, I started digging into the Bible and reading everything I could find on the subject. I did an in-depth study of the scriptures, the writing of others and the history of the church and her doctrines. As I studied history I began to see historical events that seemed to match up with events in Revelation.

I had heard of Historicism but had never given it much thought because of the abuses among date setters and the incessant attempts to prove one’s own time as the final. I toyed with Historic Futurism and Praeterism, but neither seemed to satisfy all of my questions or to line up with what I was understanding  about scripture and history. Both views were just too full of holes for me to take them seriously and their history was more questionable than Dispensationalism.

I came round about to being a Historicist. The easiest way to illustrate what this is and how it differs from the usual interpretation is from an example: a woman once asked if I was ‘pre-trib’ or ‘post-trib’.” My answer baffled her when I said, neither position as she understood them was possible for me. The tribulation started 2000 years ago. We have been in the tribulation—the time prophesied in Revelation—since Christ’s first coming. We will be tested and perfected in the fires of tribulation until he returns. This means that I can not be “pre” because this would necessitate over 2000 years between the rapture and the return. I could not describe myself as “post” because the usual understanding of the tribulation is wrong; no seven year period at the end of history is found anywhere in scripture. She started shaking and wouldn’t talk anymore. I assumed she was afraid, but it’s possible the squirrel fell off the wheel.

The Historicist interpretation is different from all the others. I have included a graphic below to demonstrate the different interpretations of Revelation:

There are three events to keep in mind as you compare the positions: the ascension of Christ, the Church Age and the return of Christ. Each position interacts with these in different ways.

Praeterism views everything in relation to the first Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in AD70. Full-praeterists interpret all of prophecy to fit within that 40 year or so period between the ascension and the destruction of Jerusalem. Partial-praeterists will agree with this for the most part, but believe a few items are still awaiting a final fulfillment at the end of time. Full-praeterists reinterpret believer resurrection as spirit only. Partial-praeterists hold to an orthodox resurrection of the saints.

Futurism forces all of Revelation into a seven year period (some hold to three and a half years) at the end of history. None of the events in the first Jewish war or subsequent church history are included. Many futurists have a hard time with this and will occasionally grab onto some historic event as possible prophetic fulfillment, but will fall back on a multiple fulfillment scenario for consistency. Futurism comes in two main flavors: Historical Futurism (classic post-trib or  mid-trib) and Dispensational (pre-trib). A new version has come up in the last couple decades: Marvin Rosenthal’s Pre-wrath position, but this more of a patch to cover the problems of dispensational interpretation.

Idealism believes there is no single fulfillment of any prophesy. This does not meant they believe prophecy says nothing, quite the opposite; Idealists believe that the truths taught in prophesy are for all times and that we can see fulfillments of prophecy in our own experiences. Each prophecy may be fulfilled at multiple times, ways and locations. In this interpretation, Revelation is meant more to teach moral and spiritual truth than to foretell historical events.

In Historicism you have elements of all of these. Historicists believe that prophecy uses symbols to foretell actual historical events covering all of the Church Age. We see fulfillments in the Muslim expansion, the Saracens, the Huns and papal suzerainty. All of these things were foretold and God’s people have been able, throughout history, to see bits and pieces of His plan coming together.