Parchment and Pen » The End Times

The End Times – Across the Spectrum

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Considering how the issues of prophecy continue to be one of the most popular and interest gaining subjects in theology, I thought it well worth my time to write a short primer on how to look at eschatological schemes. Eschatology refers to the “doctrine of the end times.” To be sure, there is no one “Christian” eschatology. In fact, there is not even one “Evangelical” eschatology. The history of the church has seen and allowed for much diversity concerning these issues due, in my opinion, to the relative obscurity of the Scripture on the subject. The central issue that is agreed upon by all orthodox Christians over the last 2000 years is that in the last days, Christ will come, there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a judgment to follow. Please keep that in mind.

There are a lot of fancy words used to describe how one might label themselves with regard to end-time issues. Pre-Millennial, Post-Tribulational, historicist, Chiliastic, Preterist and the like are among these labels. My only goal here is to try to clear the table and help people construct a basic structure of the spectrum of eschatology.

There are two categories that I am going to introduce. Then I will follow by showing how these categories relate to the various positions held. These two categories are “Approach” and “Event.” As you will see there is an approach taken to each event. The events describe broad categories that are separated because of the nature, timing, and interpretation of the events they represent.

Category #1: Approach

Preterist: Belief that the event(s) happened in the past.

Historicist: Belief that the event(s) happen throughout history.

Idealist: Belief that the event(s) are symbolic or parabolic and are always present.

Futurist: Belief that the event(s) are yet future.

Category #2: Events

Event #1: Tribulation: This describes many apocalyptic happenings described primarily in Matt. 24 and Revelation 4-19. Included in this category is the anti-Christ, bowls of wrath, 144,000 witnesses, the Mark of the Beast, and the like.

Event #2: Millennium: This describes the reign of Christ on the present earth (e.g. before the new creation).

Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: This describes the judgment and the creation of the new heaven and the new earth.

(Please note, I have not included issues of “personal eschatology” due to the lack of relevance to one’s eschatological scheme. Issues of personal eschatology include hell, the state of the soul between death and resurrection, etc.)

With these two categories, you can begin to understand how one’s eschatological scheme is produced. What you do is take an event and relate it to an approach. For example, with regard to the millennium, you can be a futurist, idealist, historicist, or preterist. If you are a preterist, you believe that the reign of Christ already happened in the past. If you are a futurist, the millennium is yet future. If you are a historicist, the events of the millennium are happening throughout history. And the idealist would believe that the millennium is an idealic or parabolic representation of events that already happened or are always happening.

However, what approach you take here does not necessarily determine the approach that you will take with the other events. For example, just because one is a futurist with regard to the millennium does not mean that they will also be a futurist with regard to the tribulation. In other words, one could believe that the events of the tribulation are ongoing throughout history (historicist approach), yet believe the millennium itself is still yet future (futurist). This is often referred to as ”Historic Pre-millennialism” or “Chiliasm.”

With that in mind, let me give you some of the most common eschatological labels and relate them to what I have said thus far. As you will notice, their will be more than one option for some events, but the primary distinction will be in itallic.

Historic Premillennialist

Event #1: Tribulation: historicist, preterist, futurist, or idealist

Event #2: Millennium: futurist

Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futurist

Dispensational Premillennialist

Event #1: Tribulation: futurist

Event #2: Millennium: futurist

Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futurist

Amillennialist

Event #1: Tribulation: historicist, preterist, or idealist

Event #2: Millennium: idealist (normally)

Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futurist

Postmillennialist

Event #1: Tribulation: historicist, preterist, futurist, or idealist

Event #2: Millennium: historicist (normally)

Event #3: The New Creation: futurist

Full-Preterism (considered heterodox by orthodox Christianity)

Event #1: Tribulation: preterist

Event #2: Millennium: preterist

Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: preterist

There are most certainly other nuances to all of these eschatological schemes as well as different names that they may go by depending on the topic. For example, those who believe that the tribulation is yet future, can be sub-divided into those who believe that Christ will come and “rapture” the church before the Tribulation (pre-Tribulationalists), in the middle of the Tribulation (mid-Tribulationalists), and those who believe that Christ will come after the Tribulation (post-Tribulationalist). As well, the post-Tribulationalist view has overlap and identity with the “Historic Premillennialist,” but not necessarily so.

Yeah, now I have confused you! Oh well, I gave it a shot.

In short, I hope this overview is helpful in giving light to what can be a rather complicated subject by providing a basic paradigmic structure to the spectrum of beliefs about the end times. Remember, every position has arguments and no matter what position you take (other than full-preterism), you are well within the bounds of the historic Christian faith. This does not mean that there is not one right answer, it just means that we don’t need to tear each other’s theological heads off for disagreement!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

26 Responses to “The End Times – Across the Spectrum”

Mike Beidler on 12 Aug 2009 at 5:57 pm #

I read through this twice now and I’m still confused. (Shades of “I may not be a smart man, Jenny …”)

I did understand, though, that my position is considered heretical. That much was clear.
Michael on 12 Aug 2009 at 7:22 pm #

Thanks for the information. Maybe it wasn’t your intent, but your chart certainly makes labeling my own beliefs easier even if, in my opinion, the finer points of eschatology are a collateral issue. I have always thought and would contend that there (at least logically) should be some historicist elements to a reading of Revelation because it seems odd to me that God would put a book in the Bible that would only be relevant to a small fraction of history. Yet this is just my opinion. I think I’d be a historic premillenialist, or a amillenialist. Whether the thousand year reign of Christ is symbolic or an actual event in the future is too obscure to me to even speculate on, but I don’t think it was something in the past.
Mike Beidler on 12 Aug 2009 at 8:16 pm #

Okay. Third time must be a charm, as I think I understand your “schematic.”

Just a few notes:

(1) You describe the Millennium as “the reign of Christ on the present earth (e.g. before the new creation).” Could you point to the verse in Rev 20 that describes Christ’s reign as being ON the earth?

(2) You write, “I have not included issues of ‘personal eschatology’ due to the lack of relevance to one’s eschatological scheme.” I beg to differ, especially as it concerns the full preterist paradigm (e.g., the state/locale of the believer’s soul in relation to the events associated with the Second Coming). In fact, personal eschatology makes much more sense in the light of preterism, but I know that you’d rather not discuss that here. I simply mention it as food for thought.

(3) I am curious as to why, if you consider full preterism to be heretical, that you even include it in your spectrum.

Best,

Mike
Keith on 12 Aug 2009 at 8:28 pm #

I am afraid I don’t fully understand the point of the exercise. As evangelicals, should we remain neutral in the doctrine of eschatology or pick one (if possible) and allow all other positions the same weight? I don’t get it.
David Rudel on 12 Aug 2009 at 10:06 pm #

Mike, I would say Revelation 20:9 indicates that the saints and Christ who are ruling are on the earth.

I wonder if it is possible to also think about things in terms of the three Judgments/Wraths rather than the three time periods:

Judgment 1: The physical wrath upon the earth that occurs upon the second coming [the "wrath" that Jesus is said to protect us from.]

Judgment 2: The final destruction of the earth (once again by God) that occurs right before the “White Throne Judgment”

Judgment 3: The individual Judgment that Jesus does at the White Throne.

The first two are wrath/judgment by God…the last is Christ’s. The first is global but individuals are given mercy. The second appears global.. the third is individual.

I think it is useful to tease these out because often the “wrath of God” ends up getting conflated with Christ’s Judgment.
Mike Beidler on 12 Aug 2009 at 10:18 pm #

David,

Are you sure you have the Revelation 20:9 reference correct? Unless, of course, you’re arguing that the thrones on which were seated “those to whom the authority to judge was committed” (Revelation 20:4) are on earth. Not sure you can concretely argue that, especially considering this passage echoes Daniel 7:9 and Daniel 7:22. Note the location of the thrones (v. 9) and the judgment which issues forth from the saints (v. 22).
Kevin N/GeoChristian on 12 Aug 2009 at 11:29 pm #

I’m reading a book on full preterism—Beyond Creation Science: New Covenant Creation from Genesis to Revelation—and I agree with the “heterodox” assessment. The book seems to be mainly a reaction against dispensational premillenialism with its date-setting and constant efforts to relate news headlines to Biblical prophesy. I’m a historic premillenialist, and give a big “so what?” to many of the full preterist arguments.

One critique I have of full preterism is that it has no room for multiple fulfillment of prophesies, even though OT prophesies fulfilled in Christ often had previous fulfillments.

The ESV Study Bible has this note in its introduction to Revelation: “Full preterism—which insists that every prophecy and promise in the NT was fulfilled by A.D. 70—is not a legitimate evangelical option, for it denies Jesus’ future bodily return, denies the physical resurrection of believers at the end of history, and denies the physical renewal/re-creation of the present heavens and earth (or their replacement by a ‘new heaven and earth’).” (p. 2457).
David Rudel on 13 Aug 2009 at 12:52 am #

We are told the nations of the earth “encircle the saints’ and they do so by going up “on the broad plain of the earth.”

If the nations (on the earth) are encircling the saints…that would suggest those saints are also on earth, as is the “Beloved city.”

The saints (literally, just “holy” hagios) are referenced in Revelation 19:8, 20:6, and 20:9…so I don’t think it is a stretch to say those in 20:6 are the same as those in 20:9. (Even though most translations use the term as a normal adjective in one and a substantive one in the other).

If they are not, one wonders who the saints are on earth, since presumably all living believers who survive the tribulation are in the group described in 20:6.
Michael on 13 Aug 2009 at 2:07 am #

I am pan-millenialist. I believe it will all”pan” out in the end.
bethyada on 13 Aug 2009 at 3:38 am #

Keith I am afraid I don’t fully understand the point of the exercise. As evangelicals, should we remain neutral in the doctrine of eschatology or pick one (if possible) and allow all other positions the same weight? I don’t get it.

I don’t know if we should remain neutral. Though we should perhaps hold our choice gingerly. The Bible’s teaching on end times is vague, and I think intentionally so. Looking at passages that are fulfilled in the first advent may help us understand how God intends predictive prophecy. Perhaps God intends it to be less clear beforehand yet very clear in retrospect?

But the point of the exercise is to educate. We are to gain understanding in how eschatology has been systematised.

We don’t have to pick, we can just read and learn.
dac on 13 Aug 2009 at 6:54 am #

What, no charts?

I can’t be bothered to even look at this post till there are at least three charts
EricW on 13 Aug 2009 at 9:03 am #

1. Why is one obligated to consider Revelation to be Scriptural or determinative of doctrine? Other prominent Christians in the past have either rejected it outright or relegated it to the sidelines by, e.g., excluding it from the liturgical calendar of readings.

2. How does one reconcile it with classic Trinitarianism, since it testifies to 7 (not 1) Spirits of God, and this is supported by Revelation 4:8 having nine holy’s in the mss. of the Koine tradition proper (Sinaiticus has eight) – i.e., Father + Son + 7 Spirits?
ScottL on 13 Aug 2009 at 10:11 am #

Considering how the issues of prophecy continue to be one of the most popular and interest gaining subjects in theology

I am saddened that when you walk in a ‘Christian’ bookstore, and you go to the prophecy section, you mainly find books about ‘end times’. I think the Bible lays out a precedence that prophecy is about a lot more than end times (1 Cor 14:3).
ScottL on 13 Aug 2009 at 10:16 am #

EricW -

In reference to your question about the ’seven spirits of God’.

There are some 50 references to the number 7 in Revelation. It is an apocalyptic poetic writing, which such would use numbers in very symbolic ways. So I don’t think it is a literal reference to there being seven Holy Spirits. The number could refer to the perfection of the Spirit, or because there are 7 churches, it is speaking of the Spirit issuing an edict to each of the 7 churches.

Just a thought I had.
EricW on 13 Aug 2009 at 10:42 am #

ScottL on 13 Aug 2009 at 10:16 am #

EricW -

In reference to your question about the ’seven spirits of God’.

There are some 50 references to the number 7 in Revelation. It is an apocalyptic poetic writing, which such would use numbers in very symbolic ways….

ScottL:

50 references to the number 7? Let’s see:

50×7 factored = 1×2x5×5x7.

I.e., it’s the first 5 prime numbers (including 1), but with the “3″ removed and a second “5″ put in its place. This adds support to my contention that the “Trinity” is missing in Revelation. I.e., the THIRD number in the series – which is the number 3 – has been omitted.

Now, if we correct – i.e., “Trinitize” – this series of numbers so it’s 1×2x3×5x7, we get 210, which is 42×5. 42 is a significant number in Revelation as well – i.e., 1260 days = 42 months; “a time (year), times (2 years), and half a time (1/2 year)” = 3.5 years = 42 months.

Since this represents the time the Woman is persecuted/chased by, and protected, from the dragon, and the time the Holy City is trod down by the Gentiles, this means that the Time of the Trinity (i.e., when the church is dominated by Trinitarian theology) is the Reign of the Antichrist.

Just a thought I had.
clearblue on 13 Aug 2009 at 11:03 am #

Hi Michael,

That was nicely set out – I didn’t even need a chart. Well done!
ScottL on 13 Aug 2009 at 11:07 am #

EricW -

So were you making fun of people that are a bit over the top in their numerology from Revelation?
EricW on 13 Aug 2009 at 11:30 am #

No, ScottL, just making fun in general. I love reading Revelation for the imagery and worshipful response it generates, esp. when reading it in the Greek.

But I’m either all over the map or nowhere on the map at all when it comes to interpreting it and/or establishing a clear eschatology from it.

As for numerology in Revelation, a book that will really get you thinking (or overwhelm you) is A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. John’s Apocalypse by Austin Farrer
ScottL on 13 Aug 2009 at 2:39 pm #

Thanks for the recommendation, Eric. I was hoping to read Hendriksen’s commentary on Revelation one day – More Than Conquerors. I hear that is a good one. But I did just get the NICNT set, so will check that one out as well written by Mounce.
EricW on 13 Aug 2009 at 2:49 pm #

I’m not necessarily recommending Farrer; and since it’s out of print, and Wipf & Stock’s reprint edition is not cheap, it may not be something you want to buy sight-unseen.

But you can read much of it via Google books and see if it’s your cup of tea:

http://books.google.com/books?id=jNnExDoQfikC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+rebirth+of+images#v=onepage&q=&f=false

IIRC, he suggests that John wrote the Apocalypse before he wrote the Gospel.

It will certainly give you some things to think about.
ScottL on 14 Aug 2009 at 7:02 am #

Yeah, I am thinking there is plausible evidence for the early date of Revelation (just before AD 70).
rayner markley on 14 Aug 2009 at 4:50 pm #

Bethyada: ‘The Bible’s teaching on end times is vague, and I think intentionally so. Looking at passages that are fulfilled in the first advent may help us understand how God intends predictive prophecy. Perhaps God intends it to be less clear beforehand yet very clear in retrospect?’

I agree predictive prophecy is vague and unclear, so then why have it at all? It generates many scenarios held by sincere Christians, as Michael has presented, and is a good example of one of my pet points: While we say that one role of the Holy Spirit is to help us interpret Scripture, we must admit that the Spirit doesn’t bring us all to agreement. Our opinions about the end times are mostly, if not entirely, based on human scholarship, and I don’t know what kind of scholarship can possibly be based on visions (as in Revelation).
bethyada on 14 Aug 2009 at 10:05 pm #

I agree predictive prophecy is vague and unclear, so then why have it at all?

I think that part of the reason it is vague is that there is a degree of hiddenness. We see that in other parts of Scirpture, but especially in prophecy. I wonder if the reason for this is so that truth can be seen in hindsight. God intends to bring stuff to pass, and wants to specify it beforehand for his glory (in Isaiah God compares how he can predict the future but idols cannot). But being too clear means people can copy it, or try and thwart it. Not that God can’t prevent these things, but they may be considerations. Another consideration is material about the future is different to material about the past. In discussing the past the Bible is pretty clear. But knowledge of the future gives power that is dangerous in the hands of sinful people.

What I am saying is I think there are reasons that future prophecy needs to be vague. Because of that, one cannot argue that the fact people disagree means anything. God could decrease disagreement by being clearer, God does not want to be clearer, thus disagreement will exist.

(Though even clarity will be disagreed over.)

It generates many scenarios held by sincere Christians, as Michael has presented, and is a good example of one of my pet points: While we say that one role of the Holy Spirit is to help us interpret Scripture, we must admit that the Spirit doesn’t bring us all to agreement. Our opinions about the end times are mostly, if not entirely, based on human scholarship, and I don’t know what kind of scholarship can possibly be based on visions (as in Revelation).

I think the Spirit does bring agreement when he informs, but there are times when he doesn’t inform, or gives us less understanding that we may like. There are likely several reasons for this. Sin inhibits hearing God. Wanting our own ideas confirmed inhibits hearing God. And sometimes God wants to deal with other issues in our lives (people testify about seeking God deeply over an issue and coming away with God having talked to them about something different, though they are glad for it).

I think there should be more unity in understanding Scripture, but there is less, however it is clear that many people (including Christians) have an agenda. Does God allow people to continue in error when they are arrogant? I think so; humility is the method of learning from God.
rayner markley on 16 Aug 2009 at 6:30 pm #

People like mysteries and people are curious about the future; thus, there is always an audience for predictive prophecy. But if eschatology is made deliberately mysterious it seems counter to Jesus’s promise that the Spirit would guide us into ‘all truth.’ And we cannot blame all our differences on human arrogance and sinfulness as even sincere readers and scholars with no predispositions may come to different understandings of the text.

One reason for confusion about end times is that the Bible writers did not produce a unified scenario. Paul in Thessalonians didn’t refer to Jesus in Matthew, and John didn’t relate the events of Revelation to the calling out of believers in Thessalonians. Problems arise when we go all over the Bible trying to relate everything. The Bible was not written that way; each part is a unit to be understood on its own. So, I guess I agree with Keith that we should not take a position in relation to the points Michael presents.

Another reason for confusion is in the nature of predictive prophecy itself. It has similar vagueness as ancient oracles and astrology, using symbolic language and grotesque metaphors. And perhaps the greatest strength of a successful prophecy is the avoidance of ‘when.’ As long as there is no time set for fulfillment, the prophecy is always alive. It’s not a weather forecast that we can judge at face value. We need only to wait until something happens that seems to match, and we can call it a fulfillment. That’s what people do with the quatrains of Nostradamus, which are not prophecies at all.
Shrommer on 17 Aug 2009 at 8:41 pm #

Two pressing thoughts to write here …

First, I don’t know what category I am in if I believe that prophecies have multiple fulfillments at specific times, including in the future, while not a continuous fulfillment throughout history. I believe that there was a tribulation during the time of Nero, and that there is a tribulation yet to come, but I wouldn’t be able to point out “tribulations” along the way which I consider fulfillments of this prophecy. I believe that the prophecy “unto us a child is born” was fulfilled once during the time of Isaiah, and again in Bethlehem when Christ was born, but not that it would apply to every son ever born. I have more examples of these kinds of fulfillments, but this is not the time to write an essay.

Second, when we read prophecies in the Bible, it is not for the purpose of our being able to predict the future. Predictions are like divinations. I consider future events to be part of prophesy, but not the whole of prophecy. Similarly, I do not consider every prediction of a future event to be a prophecy; sometimes they are just predictions using the limited and fallible – while renewed – human mind. First Corinthians 14:3 says that he who prophesies speaks edification, exhortation, and comfort to men. If it’s about the future, and doesn’t fall into at least one of these three categories, it’s not prophesy. And if it’s not about the future, yet is a word from God for men in one of these three categories, it is prophesy.
The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Christian Eschatology on 20 Aug 2009 at 7:10 pm #

[...] look at various eschatological schemes. Posted in Theology | No Comments » Leave a [...]