Approaching the Basic Problems in Eschatology

Part 2 of an Introduction to Eschatology

Basic Problems of Eschatology

Having mentioned one extreme, we should not fly to the other. The absence of any command to “build a better prophecy chart” does not mean that eschatology ought not to be studied. Indeed some things in the Bible are actually quite clear on the subject. We must conclude that such things are profitable for the Christian (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17). But what has always fascinated me is that we tend not to construct our doctrine of last things on the foundation of those things main and plain, but rather on those more obscure. It is no mystery as to why. The obscure things are the more sensational things. And sensationalism sells books. It will get more people to a mid-week Bible study too. It will get more hits on one’s social media feed than starting with overarching truths.

Now it can also be discouraging to find out all of the different views there are on eschatology. In an era that pits the practical against the contemplative and seeks peace at all costs, there is a proverbial police tape surrounding this whole scene. If one is to brave the elements, there is no way around what has been called “the millennial maze,” much less the more concealed debate between views on how to interpret Revelation and prophecy in general.

The impression can arise that all of the “isms” do nothing but muddy the waters. In fact, the opposite is true. These different viewpoints would exist whether one gave them labels or not. The labels help to clarify by a kind of shorthand, and enable us to put each perspective in its proper place in the course of our study and our conversations with each other.

Recognizing that another person’s perspective is actually part of a more “total package” is a means of being charitable and bringing real clarity. On the other hand, to permit up front only one way to look at disputable matters—complete with the assumption that the other camp must be either simple-minded or impious—is more of an attempt to gain clarity on the cheap. And it is certainly not the best way to avoid sinful division. 

Now I mentioned that there were these two “mazes,” or two sets of problems, that one has to sort through: 1. millennial meaning and 2. prophetic hermeneutic. Together, these make up the different perspectives on eschatology. I will now set them forth in an attempt to clearly describe what each is saying and how the pieces from the two mazes fit together. However, I will not introduce these problems in the way that many are used to. In the typical treatment of eschatology in the modern church, the debates involve what can only be termed as an a-theological reductionism. The millennial question is torn from its context in that which is clearest in eschatology; and then the four (or five) views on “how to interpret Revelation” are reduced to, well, how to interpret Revelation.

The two things that I am suggesting to be abundantly clear are 1. the kingdom of Christ and 2. the second coming of Christ. Do not misunderstand me here. Certainly there is much about each that is shrouded in mystery.

However, that Christ’s kingdom has come in some initial way—what theologians call “inaugurated eschatology”—and that Christ will indeed appear a second time, and that in a most audible, visible, and bodily way, these things are beyond dispute and are taught in many passages.

To start at the main and plain is not to rule out the depths of implication; but it does provide for us a check against the more speculative brands of eschatology, not to mention those that begin to unhinge themselves into the heretical. I contend that such treatments are exactly what we should expect in a post metaphysical age, such as the modern church inhabits—an age in which sensation and material particulars are treated as having equal status with (if not the status of greater than) the spiritual and the immaterial universals. There is a better way. 

The Problem of Matching the Millennium to its Kingdom

Notice what I called this first problem. It is not merely a “millennial maze.”1 It is a matter of reuniting millennium and kingdom. No doubt the millennial positions make up a maze. But it is a maze that we do too much wandering around in only by forgetting that the number “1000” (whatever one thinks about its literal nature) attaches itself to Christ’s reign and rule. In other words, all parties will grant that the adjective “millennial” modifies the noun “kingdom.” So, leave aside for a moment whether the number is literal or figurative, and leave aside the different senses in which the reign is spiritual or physical. We can come back to all of that. All perspectives have to acknowledge the much clearer, more frequently discussed New Testament truth that this “period” regards the scope of Christ’s reign. We know that already, right? It is too simple, we might think, to be of much further significance. So we leave it behind in the ABCs of biblical grammar.

But we should want to know what follows logically from this. What do we know about Christ’s kingdom reign in other New Testament passages? Before anyone gets nervous that I am trying to convert everyone to my eschatology in one fell swoop, all that I want to set before the reader at this point is how much clearer the nature of the kingdom’s arrival is than that number 1000 that is attached to it in just two passages. Moreover, what about those lone two passages that do mention the number? Well, one text is in the highly symbolic book of Revelation (20:2-7), and in the other, Peter makes the point to say about this period “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8). That should at least give us some pause in our dogmatism over how literal this number must be taken in Scripture itself.

Now I understand the proclivity within modern fundamentalism (especially among the Dispensationalists in these very discussions) to see any symbolic interpretation as a kind of failure to “take the text seriously,” or to take it “literally.” We will have to wait to address how the traditional view of the sensus literalis has been trashed by anti-intellectualism. For now, let us only submit into the record for the judgment of honest seekers that the New Testament’s speech about the duration of the millennium is sparse, to say the least, in comparison to what it says about the kingdom having arrived. In some important way, the kingdom was inaugurated when its King Jesus landed the first time (cf. Mat. 4:17; 12:28; 28:18; Acts 2:30-36; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 12:2; Rev. 3:21). Let us at least start there.

(To be continued)

____________

1. For anyone interested in a most concise and helpful survey of the millennial positions, Keith Mathison’s Ligonier article by this name, “The Millennial Maze,” can be found here.