Eschatology: End Times
The term “eschatology” comes from two Greek terms e[scato" and lovgo" meaning (roughly
speaking) “last, end, or final” and “study of,” respectively. Theologically speaking, then, the
term eschatology refers to “the study of final things” in the Bible. It concerns both personal
eschatological issues such as death and the intermediate state as well as themes with a more
general or corporate focus. The latter would include such ideas as the return of Christ,
resurrection, judgment, tribulation, the millennial kingdom, and the eternal state.
Personal Eschatology
There are both personal and corporate aspects to the Biblical portrait of eschatology. On the
personal side, all people will experience physical death and the intermediate state. There have
been a few exceptions to this rule, however, in the Biblical record (e.g., Enoch; in the future,
Christians alive at the Lord’s return do not seem to pass through physical death, but
instantaneously receive their resurrection bodies), but by and large all people can “count on”
going through the experience of physical death (Heb 9:27), followed by conscious existence
throughout an interim period until the resurrection of the body.
Physical death is described in scripture as the separation of the soul or spirit from the body; this
seems to be the immediate result of the decay and termination of the physical body. James says
that the body without the spirit is dead and the writer of Ecclesiastes, speaking of physical death
in general, says that the body returns to the dust from which it came and the spirit to God who
gave it (Eccl 12:7; cf. Gen 2:7; 3:19).
But the use of the term death in scripture is not confined simply to physical death. Rather, it is
also used to describe the spiritual state of all people (except Christ) born into this world. The
apostle Paul says that we are “spiritually dead in sin” until we are made alive with Christ (Eph
2:1-6). As a result of being spiritually dead, we produce works consistent with death, darkness,
and profound ignorance of God (Eph 4:17-19).
But those who die in this condition of spiritual death face yet another death. This one, however,
is permanent, without hope of change or deliverance. It is referred to as the second death and
results in a permanent state of separation from the gracious presence of God. It is eternal
punishment for sin and rejecting God’s presence in Christ. It is referred to in Revelation 21:8 as
the second death.56 Here is what John says:
Revelation 21:8 But to the cowards, unbelievers, detestable persons, murderers, the sexually
immoral, and those who practice magic spells, idol worshipers, and all those who lie, their place
will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. That is the second death.”
John says earlier in Revelation 20:6 that believers in Christ will not have to endure the second
death.
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who takes part in the first resurrection. The second
death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign
with him for a thousand years.
Physical and spiritual death are a result of Adam’s sin (1 Cor 15:21).57 Adam as the
representative man was commanded not to eat of the fruit of the tree on payment of certain death
(Gen 2:17). This penalty of “death” involved more than spiritual death, for man was banned from
re-entering the garden, taking from the tree of life, and living forever in a sinful state (Gen 3:23-
24). Thus the penalty of death for sin included physical death as well as spiritual death (see the
refrain “and he died” in Gen 5).58
The existential problem of death is so grievous that many lose hope and any desire to go on in
life. But for the Christian, death does not have the final say in the matter; “loss” is not the final
outcome. As sad, fearful, and troublesome as the expectation and experience of death is (Acts
8:2; Phil 2:27), the Christian has the assurance, based on the resurrection of Christ and the
ministry of the indwelling Spirit, that resurrection and life with God will be his/her final destiny
(1 Thess 4:13). While we grieve for our deceased loved ones now, we grieve not for them—
insofar as they are believers in Christ, they are with the Lord—but we grieve for ourselves, in
our deep and profound sense of loss. In our time of need let us come to the throne of grace to
find mercy and receive grace upon grace (Heb 4:15). The Lord Jesus Christ is no stranger to the
suffering of death (1 Cor 15:55-57).
There is the question, however, of what happens to people after they die, but before they are
resurrected. This is often referred to by theologians as the “intermediate state”
(Zwischenzustand). Several answers have been given to this question. First, there are those who
suggest that the soul enters an unconscious state of limbo until the resurrection of the body.59
Generally those who argue for “soul sleep,” as it is often referred to, claim that this is the
significance of the many references to Christians “falling asleep” in the Lord (cf. 1 Thess 4:13-
15). But it is highly unlikely that “sleep” is anything more than a metaphor (euphemism)—
viewed from the perspective of grieving Christians who are still alive—to refer to deceased
Christian loved-ones who will one day “awake” to be with Christ (and family and friends) in
resurrection life. Thus, the point of the metaphor is not that they are now in an unconscious state,
but rather that death is not their final destiny, resurrection life with Christ is (see John 11:11-14)!
The metaphor indicates that death is only temporary for the Christian. Further, the story of
Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 demonstrates conscious existence after death, not “sleep” in the way
advocates of “soul sleep” often argue.
Second, Roman Catholic theology customarily argues that the souls of believers are not yet
completely purified; hence they go to purgatory to experience cleansing and preparation for
heaven and God’s presence. Catholics often base this doctrine on elements of church tradition
and certain texts, including, but not limited to 2 Maccabees 12:42-45 where Judas Maccabeus is
said to have taken up a monetary collection to be sent to Jerusalem as a sin offering; he is thus
said to have “made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sins”
(NRSV). Other NT passages used to support the doctrine of purgatory include Matthew 5:26;
12:32; 1 Corinthians 3:15, and 2 Timothy 1:18. Even a quick glance at these passages, however,
reveals that the doctrine of purgatory cannot be legitimately read out of them. Further, the tenor
of NT theology and the necessity of present faith in Christ for salvation makes such a claim
patently false. The apostles held out hope only for those who personally trusted in Christ in this
life.
Third, another view of the intermediate state is “instantaneous resurrection.” In this view,
propounded in various ways by F. F. Bruce, W. D. Davies and others, Paul had no room for the
intermediate state of disembodied existence, but rather taught in 2 Cor 5 that upon death the
Christian immediately receives a resurrection body which is presently hidden in the eternal order.
But this interpretation of 2 Cor 5 is dubious at best (cf. 5:9) and the presupposition that man must
have a body or he ceases to exist—often associated with a strict monistic anthropology—must be
rejected on clear scriptural grounds (as we indicated above).
Fourth, a better view of the intermediate state is that the disembodied souls of believers go to be
“with Christ” (2 Cor 5:8-9) and will from there await a resurrection body at his return. The
apostle Paul said that the dead in Christ will return with the Lord at the rapture and then all will
rise (i.e., receive resurrection bodies; 1 Cor 15:22-23; 1 Thess 4:14, 16). Those who die apart
from Christ go immediately to hell (Luke 16:23-24) and from there await a resurrection to
judgment (John 5:28-29; Matt 25:46).60 There seems to be very little indication in scripture that
we are given resurrection bodies immediately after death. Rather, the emphasis seems to fall on a
future resurrection of believers and unbelievers coordinate with the Lord’s return.
Now, regarding the resurrection, certain questions have emerged. But before we entertain them,
let us say first of all, that believers will most certainly be glorified in resurrected bodies. This is a
doctrine clearly taught in scripture and throughout the history of the church (cf. John 5:28-29;
Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 5:1-10).
But some have asked about the nature of the resurrection body. Regarding the first question,
some argue that since Paul said that “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor
15:50), our bodies will not have corporeality. But there are several weaknesses in this view.
First, it is unlikely that by “flesh and blood” Paul means to contrast non-material with material.
Rather, as the next phrase in 1 Cor 15:50 indicates, he is contrasting that which is perishable (our
bodies in their present existence under Adam and sin) with that which is imperishable (our
glorified bodies). Second, it seems fairly clear in scripture that Jesus’ resurrection body was
physical (Luke 24:39; John 20:27; 1 Cor 15:49), and since ours is patterned after his, we may
expect ours to be physical as well (Phil 3:21). This does not mean that in our resurrected bodies
we will have all the limitations we now labor under, but that we will actually have bodies (they
may be capable, as was the resurrected Jesus, of much more than we can now imagine).
There is also the question of the identity of the person who dies and the person who is
resurrected. Some philosophers and theologians, who maintain a monistic view of man, cannot
even begin to entertain the idea that a person exists apart from their body, i.e., that there is an
immaterial soul. For them, then, there is either no life after death, or in the case of some
Christian theologians, God must recreate the person at the resurrection; the point is: disembodied
existence is impossible. This raises the question of personal identity and who really gets raised
from the dead when a person dies. But while this poses a problem for substance monists and
others, scripture speaks quite clearly on the identity of the deceased person and the subsequently
resurrected person: As to identity, he/she is the same person. Corporeality or physicality is not
essential to personhood as the personhood of God himself and angels teach us. Again, despite
widespread monism among Christian philosophers and theologians, scripture affirms an
anthropology of substance dualism (complex material united intimately with complex
immaterial). The soul/person continues after death and as such awaits the resurrection when
he/she will receive a glorified body.
There is also the question of the nature of the resurrection body, but we will have to leave that
topic until the next update.
Corporate Eschatology
The Return of Christ: Areas of General Agreement
The triumphant hope living through the pages of the New Testament rests on the facts that Christ
rose from the dead, ascended to heaven (where he is currently reigning in fulfillment of Davidic
promise), and will certainly someday return. As the apostles were standing, watching Jesus go
into heaven, Luke tells us that two men dressed in white appeared and queried them: “Why are
you standing here looking into the sky?” Perhaps the disciples were worshipping and struck with
awe or perhaps they thought Jesus might immediately return to be with them. In any case, Jesus
continued into heaven, but the men told the disciples that in the same way (tropos) that Jesus
went into heaven he would most certainly return (Acts 1:11). This, of course, was the firm and
widespread belief of the early Christians. Paul taught that “the Lord himself would come down
from heaven…” (1 Thess 4:16) and John mentions it frequently as the hope of the saints in the
book of Revelation. In 22:12 Jesus says, “Behold, I am coming soon…” and in 22:20 he repeats
the same idea. Further, Revelation 22:20 demonstrates that it is and should be the prayer of every
Christian’s heart, that is, for Christ to return quickly (see also Phil 4:5; Heb 9:28; James 5:8; 2
Peter 3:10; 1 John 3:2-3).
There are perhaps many reasons for the early church’s strong belief in the personal return of
Christ, but none can be more central than that Jesus himself taught the doctrine. In his great
Olivet discourse, Christ announced, in keeping with Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man, that he
would most certainly return (Matt 24:3; 24:30; John 14:3; Rev 1:7).
Another important aspect that all Evangelical writers agree upon is the fact that the precise date
of the second coming is not known and cannot be known. Even Jesus did not know the date of
his return; only the Father knows that (Matt 24:36). Therefore, while we can recognize certain
signs (which, incidentally, have been occurring since the beginning), we cannot know the hour in
which the Son of Man will return. Indeed, “date-setting”—as it has come to be known in certain
circles—is an effective distraction, taking our eyes off what we are clearly commanded to be
doing in his absence, namely, serving him with wisdom and diligence, in the expectation of his
certain return (Matt 24:36-25:30). Such a fascination with nailing down the date comes from
hearts who either know Christ very little or not at all; they lead unsuspecting people down
theological “rabbit trails” only to find both themselves and their followers ensnared in the end.
Many a cult and wayward Christian group are testimony to that truth.
I am not saying that eschatological teaching is unimportant; not at all. I am talking about those
who give 88 reasons for the rapture in ‘88. They are misguided and no person (Christian or
otherwise) need listen to them. In fact, the teaching of Jesus would suggest we ignore them.
Thus, the Bible’s eschatological focus should be ours and we definitely ought not contradict such
clear teachings in scripture (e.g., Jesus says he does not know the time of his return) in favor of
our deluded attempts to know the inscrutable.
It Will Be Personal, Bodily, and Visible to All
The idea, stemming in part from many liberal circles, that Jesus would return spiritually, as
opposed to bodily, is difficult to square with many passages in Scripture and has more to do with
certain antisupernatural presuppositions brought to the text. Again, Acts 1:11 is most certainly
envisioning a personal, bodily return. The fact that “every eye will see him” is given its most
natural meaning if Jesus’ return is thought of as bodily (Matt 24:30). Again, Paul said the Lord
himself will return (1 Thess 4:16).
It Will Be Magnificent
The return of Christ will not be in obscurity and a “stable” in a small town in the land of Judah.
While the world was largely ignorant of his first coming (though in John’s view, it too was
glorious), they will not be ignorant of his second coming. Jesus warns his disciples not to run
after every individual who claims: “Look! Here is the Christ” or “Look! There is the Christ”
(Matt 24:23). According to Jesus there is a two-fold reason why we should not bother which
such idle speculation. First, many false Christs will appear to deceive many. Second, there will
be no mistaking his coming. In other words, there will be no need to run here and there claiming
“Here he is,” for just as “lightening that flashes in the east is visible as far away as the west, so
shall the coming of the Son of Man be” (Matt 24:27). Indeed, there will be signs of cosmic
proportions associated with his coming (Matt 24:28).61
He Will Come As Judge and Savior
The twin themes associated with the coming of the Son of Man in the Evangelists’ presentation
are the judgment of unbelievers and the salvation/reward of the elect. Thus Jesus is returning
initially as both Judge and Savior (Mark 13; Luke 21).62
Jesus says that in the period preceding his coming many will be persecuted and put to death
because of him (Matt 24:9-12), but the one who stands firm to the end will be delivered (i.e.,
“saved”). Thus, after the period of great tribulation—a period which Christ said will be shortened
for the sake of the elect (24:22)—he will return and gather his own from the four winds. But, he
will also judge his enemies and all those who have despised his coming. These are those of
whom it is said: they “mourn” (24:30); they will be “cut to pieces and assigned a place with the
wicked” (Matt 24:51); they are “foolish” and banned from the “banquet “(25:3, 10-12); “wicked,
lazy servant(s)” and “worthless servant(s)” who will not share in their “master’s happiness,” but
instead will be “thrown outside into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of
teeth” (25:23, 26, 30). The King will separate them as goats and consign them to the eternal fire
with the Devil and his angels (25:41). They will receive “eternal punishment” for their sin
(25:46).
The righteous, on the other hand, have an entirely different fate in the hands of the sovereign
Lord. He is their Deliverer (1 Thess 1:10) and he will—at his coming—gather them from the
four winds (24:31), for they have watched for his coming (24:42); they were wise servants who
will be entrusted with a great deal more (24:47). They are the wise virgins who were prepared for
his arrival and the banquet, and thus they went in (25:10). Again, they gave proper stewardship
to their God-given talents and were entrusted with much, much more (25:29). In the end, the
righteous will receive their inheritance, i.e., the kingdom that has been prepared for them since
the foundation of the world (25:34). They will inherit eternal life (25:46).
The Return of Christ: Areas of Difference among Evangelicals
The “Imminent” Return of Christ
No evangelical denies the scriptural fact that Christ will return bodily at some point in history.
But the precise manner in which this will occur and the immediate results of his return have been
variously debated. The questions surrounding the manner of his return have arisen in light of two
groups of texts, one which talks about an imminent return (i.e., Christ could return at any
moment)63 and one which appears to teach that certain events must be fulfilled (i.e., occur) before
Christ could return. Passages such as Matthew 24:42-40 and Luke 12:40 seems to teach that the
Lord could come at any moment whereas other passages seem to affirm that before Christ returns
the gospel must be preached in all the world (Matt 24:14), the great tribulation must occur (Matt
24:21), the man of lawlessness must appear (2 Thess 2:3) and “all Israel” must be saved (Rom
11:25-32). Others also talk about “signs” that must appear (Matt 24:4-14). In any case, it is these
latter passages which seem to indicate that in reality his coming cannot be imminent, for certain
signs must precede it. Several solutions have been offered to synthesize these data.
Now it has been typical of many liberal theologians—concerned as they are with stressing the
ethical and universal aspects of the kingdom of God within societal structures—to solve this
tension by simply affirming that both Jesus and Paul were wrong about the second advent. They
were trapped in an outmoded and unscientific Jewish apocalypticism and were simply wrong
about a bodily return, and therefore incorrect in their claim that any so-called return would be
imminent.
First, it goes without saying that the worldview of the Biblical writers is quite different than the
liberal interpreters of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The former allows for divine
intervention and miracle, whereas the latter has reduced Christianity to a nice (nave?) ethic and
permitted little or no room for the supernatural. In short, because of the modern liberal’s
commitment to the so-called scientific paradigm he must speak over Scripture at this point in
hope of straightening Jesus and Paul out. But, what is left is not Christianity at all, but a
powerless religion of some sort. Be that as it may, the bodily return of Christ is clearly taught in
Scripture (e.g., Acts 1:11), and so the informed Christian simply regards the liberal to be in error
on this point (and many other related points as well) and unhealthily married to the outmoded
and untenable worldview of modernism.
We might also note too that the way in which the Biblical writers viewed prophecy is important
as well. Just because they use terms such as “soon” (Rev 22:12) and expressions such as “in a
little while” (Heb 10:17), in connection with the coming of Christ, does not mean they thought
the events were going to come to pass immediately, but only that they viewed the future as an
imminent reality. In this way, i.e., through prophetic foreshortening, their message has benefit
and application to every generation. In summary, there are better and more scripturally sensitive
solutions to this problem than those offered by various strands within Liberalism.
Some evangelical scholars have attempted to resolve the tension in these two groups of texts by
claiming that the coming of Christ is not an imminent event, but must be preceded by certain
other events. Thus they have given preeminence to texts which stress “delay” and regard the first
group of “imminence” texts in this light. For example, Louis Berkhof argues that on certain
occasions when Jesus referred to his coming he was referring to “his coming in spiritual power at
the Pentecost; sometimes to his coming in judgment in the destruction of Jerusalem.” Berkhof
also points out that the parable of the pounds was spoken to correct the notion that the kingdom
of God should immediately appear (Luke 19:11) and in many other situations Jesus and Paul
argued that there would be a delay before the kingdom would come (Matt 25:5; 2 Thess 2:2). In
short, Berkhof argues that all the texts that speak of an imminent return should be read in light of
the passages that speak about delay. For him, predictions concerning the “calling of the
Gentiles,” the “pleroma of Israel,” “the great apostasy and tribulation,” “the coming revelation of
Antichrist,” and all sorts of “signs and wonders” are the locus around which the other texts must
be aligned.64 The long and short of this method is that the Bible does not teach imminence, but
only delay concerning the return of Christ. Not all, however, have agreed with him.
Grudem respectfully disagrees with Berkhof on this point, arguing that Berkhof’s solution is too
one-sided and suffers from two related problems: (1) it nullifies the warnings to watch and be
ready for Christ’s coming because it essentially teaches that Christ cannot come at any moment,
and (2) it uses the “signs” of Christ’s appearing in a way not intended by Scripture, i.e., as
indications that his coming is not for a long time. But surely such signs were given to teach us
that his coming is right at the door!65
Some dispensationalists have argued that the reason for the tension is because the first set of
passages (i.e., texts which speak of an imminent return) refers to a secret coming of Christ for his
saints at the rapture, while the second set of passages relate to Christ’s second coming with the
saints to reign on the earth. Thus the rapture of the church is imminent while the second coming
—a different event—will be preceded by many signs and follow the rapture by seven years (in
many schemes). This view has the strength of allowing both sets of passages to speak clearly
with no contradiction. But some have criticized it on the basis that it is hard to derive two
comings out of the passages that speak of the Lord’s return, and the portrait of the “rapture” in 1
Thessalonians 4:16-17 seems to be anything but secret or private (cf. “a loud command,” “the
voice of the archangel,” “the trumpet call of God”).
Another solution is to argue that the imminency passages are not speaking objectively about the
timing of his coming, but rather subjectively about our experience of his coming. The focus in
the warning passages is not on Christ’s return per se, but rather on our experience of his return.
So, even if his return cannot occur until after certain events, there will nonetheless be certain
people who are not ready and who will experience his coming as a thief in the night. Thus these
passages are not saying anything directly about the timing of his return, but only how we should
live in light of his return.
This solution obviously stresses a very important element in the passages, viz., our need to be
ready for his return, but in the end it must be judged unsatisfactory. Texts arguing for imminency
—such as “The end of all things is near” (1 Peter 4:7) and “I am coming soon” (Rev 22:12)—are
speaking about objective realities and not just our subjective state when he returns.
Another solution argues that all the signs have occurred and Christ could come back at any
moment. In this way, the passages which view Christ’s return only after a series of events have
taken place are given full credence. This runs into two problems, however. First, the doctrine of
the imminent return of Christ—if taught in Scripture (and this view supposes that it is)—was
being taught at the same basic time as the doctrine of delay. This means that imminency was not
correct until the events were fulfilled; it was incorrect when it was first taught. But this brings the
inspiration of Scripture into question Second, many of the events such as the preaching of the
gospel and the great tribulation seem to have not yet been fulfilled yet.
A final view argues that his return can be understood as imminent, if we realize that while it is
unlikely, the events preceding his return, i.e., the universal preaching of the gospel, the great
tribulation, and conversion of the Jews have already been fulfilled. The strength of this view is
that both groups of texts are allowed to speak and it does admit a degree of healthy uncertainty in
our interpretation of many of the relevant passages. The admitted weakness in this position is
that, as we stated above, it is difficult to imagine that the great tribulation and the kind of Jewish
response envisioned in (AD 56-57 when Paul wrote) Romans have occurred.66
The Nature and Timing of the Rapture
The Nature of the Rapture
Among those who claim that the Bible teaches a “rapture” of the church, there are differences of
opinion regarding its nature. The term “rapture” comes from the Latin term rapio meaning
“caught up” and is thus an attempt in English to capture the meaning of the Greek term
aJrpavzw (harpazo) in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. There, the apostle says that saints who are alive
at the coming of the Lord “will be suddenly caught up” together with saints who have previously
died and together they will join the Lord in the air. The precise nature of this “meeting” in the air
and the events that follow are questioned by some scholars.
Some argue that the saints, together with the Lord, immediately return to the earth. Among many
things, they cite as evidence the technical meaning of the term ajpavnthsi" (apantesis
“meet”) in 1 Thess 4:17. They say that the term was often used in reference to a special
delegation going outside the city gates in order to escort an approaching dignitary back into the
city. This, they infer, suggests that Christ and his saints will immediately return to earth.67
Others, such as most dispensationalists, argue that after the rapture takes place, the church is
taken away to heaven where she experiences the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10) and the
marriage of the Lamb (Rev 19:7). These interpreters argue that the technical force of the term
apantesis does not obtain in this instance since the saints are not going out to meet the Lord on
their own, but are rather “snatched away,” as it were. Further, the technical force of the term, if
indeed it is present, does not require that the Lord return immediately to earth, only that he do so
at some point. This, they point out, will occur after the seven year tribulation.
So then, the contemporary questions about the nature of the rapture are not so much about what
the event itself will be like, subjectively speaking, but rather what will happen immediately after
“we meet in the air.” Will we return immediately or will be go to heaven until the end of the
Great Tribulation. Obviously, these questions are closely linked with further questions about the
timing of the rapture—questions to which we now turn.
The Timing of the Rapture
The purpose of this section is not to argue for one position over another, but simply to present
the various positions and comment on them briefly. Each position mounts exegetical and
theological support and is held by devout and informed lay people and scholars within
evangelicalism. These are not positions which in any way reveal or test a person’s orthodoxy and
they should not be viewed as such. Further, the use of a label to identify one group in distinction
to another is the bane of summarization and generalization, but which remains helpful as long as
readers understand that within each camp there are major and minor differences among various
proponents and between camps there are many other important areas of agreement.
First, there are certain scholars who argue that the rapture will occur before the Great Tribulation
begins; thus they are referred to as pretribulationalists. Dispensational, pretribulational scholars
such as Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie, et al. attempt to demonstrate that while God’s people have
always suffered trials and tribulations, there is yet coming on the earth a definite period (7 years)
of unparalleled tribulation in fulfillment of Daniel’s seventieth week (Dan 9:24-27; Jer 30:7).
The church, however, will be raptured before this period begins (Rev 3:10) and will then return
from heaven with the Lord at his second coming seven years later.
A minor offshoot of the pretribulational rapture argument is the partial rapture position. In this
scheme, proponents argue that only the faithful in Christ will experience the rapture before the
Great Tribulation; the rest will be raptured during the Tribulation. So the rapture is viewed more
as a reward for the faithful than as deliverance for the church, per se.
Second, other scholars have argued that the rapture of the church will occur after the Great
Tribulation; thus they are referred to as posttribulationalists. Among the various theologians who
advocate this position there is difference of opinion over whether there is a definite period of
Great Tribulation (though all admit that the church has been in tribulation since her beginning).
J. Barton Payne argued that there would be no definite time of tribulation while George Eldon
Ladd argued for a period of three and one- half or 7 years of tribulation before Christ returned.
Both were in agreement, however, that the rapture would occur only after tribulation (whether
general tribulation or the Great Tribulation).
The third major interpretive position regarding the rapture of the church is the midtribulational
position; those who hold this view are thus referred to as midtribulationalists. In this position the
rapture will take place in the middle of the seven year tribulation before the wrath of God is truly
poured out in the last three and one-half years (before the battle of Armageddon). Proponents
argue that the events of Matt 24:10-27 and other tribulational events predicted in Daniel 7:25, the
Olivet discourse, and Revelation 12:14 are best synthesized in this understanding.68
The Nature of the Millennium
1. Postmillennialism
Postmillennialism is the doctrine which affirms that through the work of the Spirit in Christian
preaching and teaching in the present time of the church (before the second advent) the world at
large will eventually be evangelized and won to Christ. This will turn out in a world
characterized by universal peace instead of strife, universal prosperity instead of inequality,
godliness instead of evil, and so on, though the time period may be more or less than a thousand
years (since, according to some postmill interpreters, the 1000 years of Revelation 20:4-7 can be
taken symbolically for an indefinite period of time) and evil will still be present to some limited
degree. Thus there is a focus in postmillennarian thought on the present aspects of the kingdom
of God with the result that through Christian influence many economic, educational and social
ills will be resolved. Kenneth L. Gentry summarizes the postmillennial position well:
Postmillennialism expects the proclaiming of the Spirit-blessed gospel of Jesus Christ to win the
vast majority of human beings to salvation in the present age. Increasing gospel success will
gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ’s return in which faith, righteousness, peace,
and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of people and nations. After an extensive era of such
conditions the Lord will return visibly, bodily, and in great glory, ending history with a general
resurrection and the great judgment of all humankind.69
Postmillennialism (or postmillennial kind of statements) in one form or another, it is argued, can
be found as early as Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260-340) and Origen.70 Postmillennial thought
also gained ascendancy in the thinking of certain early Reformers such as Theodore Beza (1519-
1605) and later in Puritans such as John Owen (1616-1683), Isaac Watts (1674-1748), and in that
brilliant mind Jonathon Edwards (1703-1758). A. H. Strong (1836-1921), president of Rochester
Theological Seminary (1872-1912) was also an able American exponent of a postmillennial
reading of scripture.
In my opinion there are many good and helpful emphases in postmillennial thought. First,
theologically speaking, there is a stress in much postmillennial thought on God’s sovereign
power (to bring about his ends), provision (Christ’s presence, the Spirit, the gospel), and purpose
in the world. This is good and commendable (and to be found in varying degrees in other
eschatological systems of thought as well). Second, though it has been questioned in the past,
there is, among most postmillennialists, a genuine desire to read postmillennial doctrine out of
scripture rather than into it.71 The authority of Christ to commission the church to take the gospel
to the end of the earth (Matt 28:16-20), the gradual growth of the kingdom as evidenced in
Christ’s parables (e.g., mustard seed and leaven), and the growth of the church in spite of severe
opposition all seem to testify to a postmillennial understanding of scripture.
But there are weaknesses with this view. Indeed, so great are the problems that it is difficult to
maintain a postmillennial reading of Scripture. The most damaging criticism offered by
opponents, is the fact that the system as a whole is not able to come to grips with all of scriptural
teaching regarding the eschaton and none of its exegetical points seem to lead explicitly to
postmillennialism. I, for one, could not find a single exegetical argument in Gentry’s exposition
of postmillennialism that was specific enough to establish postmillennialism as opposed to pre-
or a-millennialism. Further, the passages that are often used to argue for postmillennialism, some
of which Gentry uses, can be easily and more profitably read in another light.72 Again, the
system’s inability to deal with certain important texts (and themes) which characterize the age of
the church as one of suffering and which also demonstrate that the church’s hope is not in an age
of righteousness coming apart from the literal presence of Christ, raises serious doubts about the
correctness of the view as a whole.73 Further, as Blaising rightly implies, since the church has
come 2000 years and still sees no evidence of a postmillennial movement in history, one has
cause to wonder about this interpretation of Scripture.74
2. Historic Premillennialism
Modern Premillennial theologians strongly disagree with their postmillennial brothers and sisters
over the issue of the millennium, what it will look like, and how it will come about. For them,
the idea that the church will bring a golden age of righteousness and peace through its Spirit-
inspired preaching is scripturally unfounded. According to the premillennialists this will only
happen in connection with the second coming of Christ, when the King is visibly and bodily
present. To this extent they would also disagree with amillennial interpreters.
But this does not mean that historic premillennialism does not see any of the kingdom existing in
the present fulfillment of God’s purposes through Christ in the church. It does. But, again, this is
not to be equated with the millennial kingdom when Christ will reign personally and bodily on
the earth.
Many premillennialists have a special place for the Jewish people in the eschaton, based in
several cases on passages like Romans 9-11 where it seems, especially in 11:25-32, that Jewish
people will be saved in large numbers at that time. Dispensational premillennialists argue for a
much more pronounced role for national (not just ethnic) Israel in the end (see below).
Premillennial readings of scripture stem back to the early church which was for the first three
centuries largely premillennial. Christian leaders such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus75 were
premillennialists, believing that a golden age of blessing and the renewal of Jerusalem would
occur at the second coming. But the Alexandrian school, led by such men as Clement and
Origen, were opposed to such Jewish, materialistic views of the future. Also, under the weight of
Augustine’s amillennialism, premillennialism was increasingly abandoned throughout the
medieval period and was in short supply throughout the Reformation, and the post-
Enlightenment periods of the church. It was really not until the nineteenth century that
premillennialism began to make a comeback, especially within British and American expressions
of Christianity.
A key passage for all premillennialists is Revelation 20:4-6. They argue that it teaches a literal
reign of Christ upon the earth, though not all are in agreement that it must be exactly one-
thousand years. Detractors have pointed out that premillennialists have only this one passage
upon which to base their system, but this is simply misleading (e.g., 1 Cor 15:22-24).76 However,
even if there were only one passage correctly interpreted, this should be enough for any of us to
believe the doctrine.77
One of the key points in the interpretation of the passage involves the repeated use of the verb
“live” (e[zhsan) in 20:4, 5. Amillennialists generally argue that the first resurrection (20:4) is
spiritual and the second is physical (20:5). But it is difficult to see how the two uses of the term
in the same context, without any apparent contrary indication, can mean two different things.
Further, a less strained reading of Revelation 20:4-6 suggests that physical resurrection is in view
in v. 4 and therefore also in v. 5 (and the aorist is ingressive, i.e., “came to life”). To see both
uses of e[zhsan as referring to “spiritual resurrections” seems to beg the question. These are
not the souls of the dead reigning with Christ in heaven, but dead saints physically resurrected to
reign with him on the earth (see Rev 5:10).
3. Dispensational Premillennialism
In terms of eschatology, Dispensational premillennialism differs from historic premillennialism
primarily in its insistence that Israel as a nation will be regathered at the end times, converted,
and the land promises made with her fulfilled in the millennial kingdom (e.g., Gen 12:1-3; 15:18-
21). Thus, the point is not that many Jews will be saved in the end, but that the nation of Israel
will exist and will inherit the promises made to national Israel in the Old Testament.
Previous forms of dispensationalism made these kinds of distinctions in keeping with the
insistence that God had two peoples: the church was his heavenly people and Israel was his
earthly people. This tenant cannot be maintained in light of NT evidence to the contrary (cf. Eph
2:11-22); there is only one people of God. But, some progressive dispensationalists have argued
that this does not mean that the nation of Israel cannot be regarded as “in Christ” (in some
eschatological future) and still a political entity. It seems that even in the eternal state “nations”
will be understood to be nations (Rev 21:24). So then, within an overarching soteriological
equality and unity joining the people of God, there remains the possibility of structural
differences (not inequalities in any sense of access to God) in the millennium. It is not
unreasonable, then, that God should deal with Israel in this way and such an interpretation
appears to reflect a reasonable reading of OT texts as well as NT passages such as Romans 9-11,
especially 11:25-32.
4. Amillennialism
Generally speaking, the term “amillennial” refers to the conviction, held by many godly and
informed Christian scholars down through the ages, that there will be no future, earthly
millennial period after Christ’s return. This, however, is to view the system from a purely
negative point of view. Positively stated, amillennialism believes that the church is the
expression of the millennial reign of Christ now, where “millennial” is understood to refer not to
a literal thousand year period—though some reformers understood it this way78—but to the reign
of Christ as experienced between his exaltation and parousia. This reign is over the new people
of God, the church, which replaces Israel in the outworking of God’s eternal plan.
The amillennial scheme of end time events is really quite simple and straightforward. Lewis and
Demarest summarize it well:
The amillennial order of events is: Christ’s present, spiritual reign over the church; increasing
apostasy on earth; the Great Tribulation; Christ’s second coming with deceased saints; the
destruction of evil powers; the general resurrection of believers and unbelievers; the Last
Judgment; and the eternal state. Amillennialism thus affirms that at the end of the age there will
be one return of Christ, one resurrection and one judgment.79
Thus it (i.e., in its varied forms) has simplicity as a commendable feature and has been held
down through the ages but such notable theologians as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and present
day thinkers such as Abraham Kuyper, Hermann Bavinck, and Louis Berkhof.
Amillennialists give several reasons to support their eschatological views. First—and these are in
no particular order—there is apparently only one passage in all of the Bible that can possibly be
adduced to demonstrate an earthly thousand year reign of Christ, i.e., Revelation 20. No other
text in the Old Testament or New Testament affirms such an idea, so it is best not to understand
Revelation 20:4-6 in this way. Second, the entire book of Revelation is symbolic and we ought
not, therefore, regard the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 as referring to literal years. Third,
the binding of Satan referred to in Revelation 20 is consistent with what Jesus said would happen
during the period of the church (e.g., Luke 10:18) so there is no need to place this in the
eschatological future. Fourth, the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20:4-5 is not literal, but a
spiritual resurrection into the presence of God in heaven. Besides, scripture teaches only one
literal resurrection (e.g., John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15), not three or more as advanced by many
premillennialists. Fifth, against many premillennialists, amillennialists generally affirm that there
is no place for Israel in the future. The church has replaced her in God’s plan.
Several things can be said in response to these arguments. First, even if Revelation 20 were the
only passage in the Bible that taught an earthly, thousand year reign of Christ, that should be
enough to convince us. The Bible need only affirm a doctrine in one place, so that when properly
understood, it should be regarded as authoritative. Further, there are many OT passages that can
be better viewed as referring to an earthly reign of Messiah before the eternal state rather than as
a reference to his eternal reign in heaven (Isa 11:2-9; 65:20; Zech 14:6-21). There are also other
New Testament passages that can be reasonably read in this light (1 Cor 15:24; Rev 2:27; 5:10;
12:5; 19:15).
Second, it is true that the genre of Revelation is apocalyptic—though this is not the only form of
literature in the book—and contains much symbolism. But this fact does not preclude an earthly
kingdom in Revelation 20 and a straightforward reading of this text. Though genre is always an
indispensable tool for interpreting, informed opinion on all sides of this debate demonstrates that
appeals to genre are inconclusive. What is more important in this case is the immediate context
and the actual words that are used in Revelation 20:4-6. And, it is here, that the premillennial
position is simpler, less strained and therefore more probable.
The context describes, albeit in apocalyptic language, several important historical facts. The
description of Christ’s bodily return and the destruction of the beast and false prophet are
historical descriptions of future events. Thus, the context describes what will occur in history at
Christ’s return.
Is the binding of Satan literal? Actually, many amillennialists argue that it is, but that it happened
at the first advent with Messiah’s ministry.80 Appeal is often made to texts such as Matthew
12:28-29 and Luke 10:18 and correspondences are forged between Rev 20 and these gospel
passages. But it can be reasonably asked whether these texts should be regarded as referring to
the same event. It has been debated, but a straightforward reading of the context of Revelation 20
would argue that what happens in Revelation 20 follows chronologically what happened in
Revelation 19, i.e., the return of Christ. Therefore, if this is true, the binding of Satan in
Revelation 20 cannot be the same event as that referred to in the gospels during the earthly reign
of the messiah.
But there are other more cogent arguments to demonstrate that the binding in the gospels is not
the same as that in Revelation. First, it is said in Revelation 20:1 that an angel did the binding,
not Christ himself. Thus the portrait in the gospels is quite different, too disparate it would seem
to be the same. Second, the purpose for Satan being bound in Revelation 20 is so that he will not
“deceive the nations anymore.” But in what sense are we to understand this if it is the same as
the binding that took place in the ministry of Christ and now occurs through the ministry of the
church? According to 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 6:10-18, and 1 John 4:4, Satan is quite free to
roam and tempt whom he wills (cf. also 1 Pet 5:8). But the binding in Revelation is much more
absolute than the gospels or epistles will grant. So it is more reasonable to conclude that
Matthew 12 and Luke 10 do not refer to the same event as Revelation 20:2-3. This does not
mean they are not related, however. The earlier and “inaugural” binding during Christ’s ministry
and the church age anticipates the later binding in Revelation 20:2-3, which itself sets the stage
for Satan’s final overthrow and destruction in Revelation 20:10. This is all in keeping with the
progressive realization of God’s kingdom on earth.
We must also reiterate what we said above regarding typical amillennial exegesis of the
“resurrections” in Revelation 20:4-5. Amillennialists generally argue that the first resurrection
(20:4) is spiritual and the second is physical (20:5). One of the reasons they do this is to avoid
bracketing the 1000 period off with two bodily resurrections (which would seem to point to an
earthly reign after the return of Christ). But it is difficult to see how the two uses of the term in
the same context, without any apparent contrary indication, can mean two different things.
Further, a less strained reading of Revelation 20:4-6 suggests that physical resurrection is in view
in v. 4 and therefore also in v. 5 (and the aorist is ingressive, i.e., “came to life”). Again, these
are not the souls of the dead reigning with Christ in heaven, but dead saints physically
resurrected to reign with him on the earth (see the promise in Rev 5:10).
Third, the idea that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan has certain merit, but, as we
implied above, needs refinement in light of Romans 11:25-32. The church presently participates
in Abrahamic and therefore Davidic and New covenant blessings, as amillennialists affirm, but
she has not utterly eclipsed God’s promises made to the nation of Israel or at least ethnic Jews. In
Romans 11:26 it is not likely that “all Israel” refers to the elect number of Gentiles and/or Jews
during the church age, but refers to an eschatological ingathering of Jews coordinate with
Messiah’s return and reign. If this is so, then an earthly millennium—of the sort envisioned in
premillennial thinking—may well be the time and place for the fulfillment of Israel’s OT hope (a
hope, I might add, that also involves all nations).
So where is the strength of amillennialism’s replacement theology? It is ultimately in the Biblical
recognition that there is only one people of God for all time with a soteriological equality
binding them together. But it has an inherent weakness in that it does not recognize structural
(political) differences present in eschatological texts. Indeed, at face value, nations are still
regarded as nations in certain texts referring to the eternal state (cf. 21:24).81 Romans 11:25-32
does speak of a future restoration of Jews (probably national Israel) as Jews. Of course, they will
not be saved apart from faith in Christ, but the salvation of “all Israel” will represent God’s
faithfulness to fulfill his promises to the nation, which promises are taken up with earthly,
political and spiritual realities.
