I have been trying to work on more interesting titles to my posts, and this CERTAINLY is not one of them. But anyway, I was raised up in a faith tradition that almost invariably supported Pre-Trib, Pre-Mill views regarding the Second Coming of Christ. And there was a time that I studied that intensely. And while I certainly doubted some of the more extreme attempts to interpret some aspects of Revelation (such as identifying the giant dragonflies with long hair as Apache helicopters), I would say that I agreed with the basic premises of the idea of Premillennial Dispensationalism.
If you are not familiar with the term, the common view is that Jesus comes back in the first part of His Second Coming to take away the church. Then there is 7 years of hellish times on earth followed soon after (presumably) by the second part of Christ’s return where He crushes all opposition (in earthly and spiritual realms) and establishes His kingdom for 1000 years. After that, Satan is released, leads another attempted overthrow. This time, all rebellion is crushed, there is a new heaven and a new earth, and the saints of God join with Him in full harmony in the eternal state. There are other Tribulational views, as well as views regarding the Millennium (or lack thereof). There are also wildly different interpretations of the Book of Revelation in general.
As I said previously, I pretty much embraced this perspective… but doubts began to form.
A. It started with Revelation 12. Reading it, it just does not seem to fit into the futurist interpretation of the middle section of Revelation. Instead of sounding like it involves the 7 years of Tribuation. It seems pretty clear that it is an allegorical look at Salvific History. BUT… if it is not about the 7 years of Tribulation, why are we assuming the surrounding chapters are about that period in some sort of play-by-play linear history?
B. The next issue was about the Telescopic interpretation of Revelation. Many had noted that a lot of the horrible things in Revelation kind of repeat each other, and a linear tabulation of all of the bad things and how many die appear to wipe out most everyone too soon. As such, many suggested that the stories repeat or at least look at certain areas again but in increasing detail. That seemed like a good solution to the problem in Revelation. But that brings another nagging question… if one cannot interpret the middle section of Revelation as linear history, perhaps that, like the point “A”, undermines much of the underlying premises of Pre-Trib Pre-Mill.
C. The next thing really came up as I was thinking about some of the principles of hermeneutics. A couple of the principles are pretty obvious actually. (1) The different passages of the Bible were written FOR us, but NOT TO us. As such, we cannot just take statements given to others and take them for ourselves (Biblical “name it and claim it” or “claiming promises” is often non-Biblical thievery). (2) Related to the first, since it was not to us, it was written to be understood first of all by those it was TO, not necessarily for the broader category of those it was for. With these two points, I think it is pretty self-evident that— (3) The language and the symbols of a Biblical passage should make more sense to the people it was written to than those it was written for. As such the strange symbols, metaphors, and references in Revelation probably made a lot more sense to the late 1st century hearers than it does to us now. However, those who write about interpretation of the end times assume the opposite. They assume that the symbols and images in Revelation are more easy to interpret today than 2000 years ago. That also suggests that the book was written more to US rather than to the original readers. They assume, for example that QR scanners, invisible tattoos, RFIDs and other technologies make the mysterious “mark of the beast” easier to understand. On the other hand, it may actually do the opposite— confuse us in ways that the original hearers would not been hindered by.
This is more controversial. After all, we could argue that the Messianic passages of the Old Testament make more sense in the Church age than they did in the pre-Church era. But one has to look at it from a parallel situation. The information on the Messiah came progressively, but we would say that the canon closed on that around 400BC. We say that the canon closed for the New Testament around 100AD. So the equivalent case to our present case would be this: Did the Jewish people become more capable of understanding the prophecies of the Messiah as time approached the Incarnation (closer to 1AD than 400BC)? I think it could be argued that the answer is “No.” Did they become worse in this? That is harder to say. Sure they got better after Jesus came, died, resurrected, and ascended. In like manner, we will understand Revelation better after Jesus has already returned. I don’t think where we are in history makes us better at interpreting Revelation.
D. Dispensationalism is built off of the presumption that Israel and the Church have a prophetic wall between them. The New Testament sometimes supports this, but other times it is pretty clear that that wall has gaps and and holes. Sometimes the the Church and Israel are very much conflated and so one cannot separate them in terms of God’s future work. Other times it sounds like the Church replaces Israel. The lack of consistency of the language should give us caution. If one cannot separate the prophecies of the Church and Israel consistently, then a lot of the underlying assumptions of eschatology based on Dispensationalism start to become undermined.
So does this mean that I reject Dispensationalism? What about Pre-Trib Pre-Mil eschatology?
Not necessarily. However, I definitely embrace doubt. The Pre-Trib view seems especially weak— wishful thinking based on really shaky evidence. Pre-Millennial eschatology… well, I definitely think it is possible, and I do THINK that the earliest church fathers believed in it. However, some of the basis for believing it breaks down based on the comments above.
I do think there are several things that I can say with confidence.
- The Book of Revelation seeks to do two primary things— encourage continued faithfulness of the Church, and the warn against falling away. Reward is great for the faithful, and the future is dire for those who stray from the path.
- We are ABSOLUTELY NOT SUPPOSE TO KNOW THE TIME OF CHRIST’S RETURN. To me, even saying that the time is near (except in the broad sense that it is closer today than it was yesterday) is counterproductive. Our call is to be as the faithful servant— serving faithfully day after day without dwelling on the exact time of his master’s return. Timing Christ’s return is probably futile, and almost certainly will lead to the sloppy shortcuts that have plagued Christian missions in the last several decades.
- The children of God will live in harmony with God. This is a promise we can embrace. Those that reject God’s message will suffer and perish. This is a comfort, a caution, and a call to all of us.
- Those who are dogmatic about how everything is going to go down at the end probably will suffer some level of disappointment. The rest of us who don’t place their hope in a particular theory will just have to place their hope in God.
The old joke is that I am a Pan-Millennialist… because I believe it will “all pan out in the end.” If you don’t understand the term, it is American slang from gold prospecting. In short, things will work out as God intends it… regardless of how I think it is supposed to turn out.
This is a Christian Missions Blog. However, I believe that embracing with confidence what we KNOW the Bible promises and what it warns about will lead to better missions— certainly better than what exists at present.
