Recently, a friend asked for feedback on some thoughts she had shared about eschatology. Her blog post shared a summary and reflection on Kim Riddlebarger’s book A Case For Amillennialism. After I typed up my response, I thought it’d be good to share it here as well, as it gives a good summary of my current perspective on eschatological questions. As R.C. Sproul once said, “When it comes to eschatology, I land like a butterfly with sore feet!”
For me, I think there are a couple guiding principles which lead me in my thinking of Eschatology.
1) The New Testament use of the Old Testament is programmatic. In other words, it is an example of how we are to properly interpret the OT. You certainly can’t get the idea that we should never try to interpret the OT like the NT authors did, from a plain reading of the NT. They speak as if their interpretation is quite clear from the OT texts they are reading, and that they believe it is a normative interpretation.
2) We should interpret the unclear passages in light of the clear passages. In other words, obscure passages in the prophets or Revelation, should not form the foundation of our entire eschatological framework. Clear teaching in the NT epistles and elsewhere (as in the one parousia, and in the relief that we believers will find at the parousia — 2 Thess. 1), should factor in first, before grappling with picturesque language in Revelation, Gospel parables and OT prophecies.
Finally, an additional consideration comes to mind. Ultimately Christ will reign over all the Earth with His people forever. That can safely fulfill all the OT prophecies in a very literal sense. Prior to that eternal kingdom, we certainly have Christ ruling in some sense, even as the kingdom is here in some sense (but not yet fully). So this could be amillennial. But the ultimate rule is going to be much better than anything we have now, so a postmillennial flavor can be seen.
Premillennialism, for me, given that I accept the Church as being part of the one people of God (grafted in as Rom. 11 says), boils down to how you interpret Rev. 20. Nothing else speaks of a duration of time associated with the restored/renewed Davidic kingdom. Sometimes the amil arguments sway me on Rev. 20, but other times the literal exegesis of Rev. 20 seems to sway me the other way. It is an admittedly difficult passage.
To make one’s view of this one passage a litmus test for the level of their faithfulness to the Bible seems unwise to me.
I think that in dealing with Revelation, we need to admit there is much that we aren’t sure of. But the main message of the book is a wonderful blessing. The devil loses, Jesus wins! The bad guys get punished, and God rewards the faithful. Persecution now is not the end. God sees what is done and He will mete out judgment in his time. The plans and city of Man will not prosper. The beastly elements of religion and political might are nothing to Christ. I fear our tribulation saints’ merchandise, our intricate charts and end times maps, all conspire to make us lose the sweet view of the big picture given us in Revelation.
Bob,
Thanks for this post. I have traveled down a similar path, and find your insight refreshing. It makes so much sense once you arrive at this point. It can be so very difficult to get there in the first place!
With appreciation,
Greg
Thanks for the kind words, Greg.
I understand your ambivalence about Revelation 20. I read that George Ladd stated in classes that he “could have been an amillennialist if it were not for Revelation 20” (A Case for Historic Premillennialism, p. 67). If it follows chronologically from chapter 19 from the fate of the beast and false prophet to the fate of Satan, then there is a good case for the premil position.
Steve,
That’s the sticking point to me. I need to jump in and study more on it.
I read a chapter on Revelation which dealt with chapter 20 and that moved me back more to the historic premil side of things. But sometimes I lean more amil. I plan to study the issue in more depth at a later point.
BTW, thanks for linking here from your blog. I appreciate your posts at Sharper Iron. I’m helping a church plant in St. Paul right now (as a deacon / lay leader).
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
Bob –
Very well done. I think I am in the same place as you regarding eschatology. It is interesting, to me, to note that the 3 MAJOR distinctives of dispensationalism don’t appear in Scripture – 1) the secret rapture is skipped over between Revelation 3 and 4 with nary a mention, 2) the Jewish kingdom is never mentioned in Revelation 20 (nations no longer blinded is mentioned, but a Jewish kingdom is NOT), and 3) the radical separation between Jew and Gentile is never mentioned in Scripture. Were this true, it should be addressed SOMEPLACE. It is not. Ephesians 2, in fact, asserts the opposite. The way NT authors quote the OT is very problematic for dispies and they know it! I tend to consider myself an historic premillennialist, though I am open.
Thanks for the post.
I still need to read through your series on the land promises.
Bob,
I’ve just concluded a fairly extensive discussion on Sharper Iron relating to hermeneutics, in which I have pressed for an understanding of OT texts according to the way they are understood by NT writers. I was surprised at the emotional outburst that resulted. I have observed this from afar before, but this may have been my first personal “tongue lashing.”
It is not too dissimilar to the way many Arminians respond to Calvinists, lashing out emotionally rather than listening and examining texts carefully to see what they say, as opposed to what has been assumed.
It has been good for me to see this. I never want to assume that I have all the answers. I am still learning, growing, and wrestling with issues, such as the meaning and implications of Revelation 20. Thanks again for your post.
Greg,
I just read through and interacted on that same thread too. Wow, that scissors comment came out of nowhere I thought. Let me know what you think of my contributions there, if you want. It’s a long process to come to see this way, as you well know. It is frustrating to have such firm reactions on the other side, though.
Thanks,
Bob
Bob,
I greatly appreciated your posts. You helped me a lot. I only regret that I rebuked Ted again after he wrote his apology. I wrote mine before his apology showed up on my computer. There seems to be a bit of lag time between the time posts are written and when they appear. I would not have thrown the, “You sound like a KJV-Only type” at him if I had known of his apology.
It looks like the thread has now died. It’s impossible to say if anyone was prompted to consinder a new way of looking at prophecy, but, as I well know, these things can take a long time. It did for me. I almost think a man has to be involved in serious systematic exposition before it really sinks in.
Cordially,
Grg
Sadly, Pastor Barkman, if this is the case, there may be little hope for many a Fundamentalist Pastor.
I feel the reason the Reformed deal so gingerly with eschatology is because the amillennialism creates a lot of exegetical haziness. Amillennialism is an agenda-driven view. It’s built on the presupposition that Israel is supplanted in every way by the Christian church (supersecessionism). That presupposition thend rives the hermeneutic, especially in the Old Testament. It’s the “evil mirror version” reflection of old Dispensationalism’s presupposition that Israel and the church never share anything in common. Once you assume that the Church completely supplants Israel, and all of Israel’s prophecies transfer to the Church, then we’re forced to figure out how certain “future golden age” prophecies the Lord made to Israel apply to the Church in this current age. That need then forces one into an allegorizing hermeneutic, or (more often I’ve seen with Reformed exegetes who are sensitive to the charge of allegorizing) a cloud of haze settles down over the whole area of eschatology. Broad generalizations are made about prophetic passages, but with a degree of ambiguity that no Reformed theologians would accept for, say, Romans 9. But I do not accept the premise that all of Israel’s prophecies transfer to the Church, or to the Church in the current age. So, intellectually speaking, it unlocks my thinking; I feel i can work over OT prophecies for Israel without feeling a mandate to finagle them around so that they actually apply to Pentecost, or the Lord’s Table, or world missions, or whatever.
Jack,
I can only speak for myself, not others, but my leaning toward amillenialism came about very grudually, over a period of years of pulpit exposition of various NT books. I say “leaning” because that position seems to fit best what I see in Scripture, but there are enough questions that I can’t dogmatcially rule out historic premillenialism.
The “haziness” you see regarding eschatology used to trouble me as well. Then I realized it is an almost exact parrallel to the “haziness” OT Saints had concerning the first coming of Christ. No matter how much they studied the OT Scriptures, they couldn’t figure out all the details until the event occured. Then, and only then, did all become plane. (I Peter 1:10,11)
Furthermore, this is exactly what Christ told us to expect. (John 13:19, 16:4) Christ’s propecies concerning his death and resurrection were not given so that the disciples would understand the details ahead of time. Rather, they were given so that when the prophecies were fulfilled, they would remember that He foretold these things, and their faith in His Word would be strengthened.
Christ did not scold his disciples for failing to understand these things ahead of time. He scolded them for failing to believe in the necessity of His death and resurrection AFTER it had occurred. At that point, for them to fail to believe was unbelief in Scripture. (Luke 24:25,26) Now, with the fulfillment of prophecy, Christ expected them to correctly match the fulfilled event with the appropriate prohecies and thereby understand what those prophecies were saying. The reason eschotology is “hazy” is because it is supposed to be. We are to stand firm upon the broad and general truths that are crystal clear, such as the truth that Jesus Christ will come again, bodily and victoriously. But many of the details are murky, and deliberately so. That’s the way God designed it. To teach details that God has not made clear is a fool’s errand, and can only result in confusion.
I was drilled for years with the concept that prophecy is given for us to understand, and to fail to do so is unbelief and disobedience. However, Christ taught a different concept of the purpose of prophecy.
Maybe amillenialism is not so much driven by a determination to make Israel and the church the same, as you suppose. Perhaps it is the unavoidable conclusion of understanding the OT Scriptures in the light of the NT.
Cordially,
Greg
I suppose Jack hit on why people are so emotional about Dispensationalism – it is very soothing to have ‘certainty’ about things that would otherwise be shadowy and difficult to understand. That certainty is very comforting indeed.
However, the cost of that comfort, is a hazy fuziness when reading New Testament Scriptures related to the New Testament. Ask 5 Dispies about the New Covenant and you’ll get 6 different answers. The Kingdom of God is only a very hazy concept in Dispensationalism as is the role of the Gospels. The breaking down of the middle wall of partition causes some grief, as does Gentiles being no-longer strangers and foreigners to the covenants and nation of Israel, but rather being joint heirs and fellow citizens. Hebrews is very challenging for Dispies and the relationship between Abraham and Gentile believers, well, I think Dispies just have to Spiritualize that. I could go on and on, but the NT is so clear on these things, I’d rather go where the NT goes and be a little fuzzy on the prophets.
You do bring up some good points, Jack. We do need to be careful to speak where Scripture does, and not truncate it’s message. Still, I think Scripture is a bit unclear on the topic, and I really appreciated Greg’s points about how the first advent of Christ was also unclear until He came!
Andrew,
Your posts are thought-provoking. However, have you considered how your epithets may build unnecessary barriers to those who otherwise might profit from your posts? The use of the term “dispies” (similar, I suppose to the way some use the term “fundies”) will hardly gain you a disspassionate hearing among dispensationalists. Would your thoughts be more useful if you dropped the derogatory termonology?
Cordially,
Greg