How to Study Eschatology

[carlosstjohn]

Hey guys! Gotta question for yall.

I am starting to become more interested in landing on an eschatological view. However, as you know, the relationship on Church and Israel is very important in eschatology.

Do you guys think it is easier to:

1) determine your view of church and Israel and then try to study the different eschatology views and base your view off your predetermined view of church and Israel (I.E. Figure out church and Israel and then eschatology)

2) determine your view of eschatology first and then mold your view of church and Israel to that prescribed view of eschatology?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Carlos, welcome to PB!

I would agree with Austin that understanding the covenants—and the nuanced continuity of the Covenant of Grace from the Old Testament into the New—should come prior to eschatology, though it certainly is very important to eschatology, particularly as regards the identity of Israel, as he notes.

I'll add here a link to a pdf containing a critique of eschatological views from Dean Davis' book, The High King of Heaven, which I'm going to be using in a class at church this coming Sunday (I got permission from Dean to use it); his book is highly recommended as one of the very few dealing primarily with the hermeneutic (interpretive) issues in understanding the Scriptures dealing with the end times—the hermeneutic used by Jesus and the NT authors. Davis's critiques should be very helpful to you as you seek to understand the various views. (The section on Amillennialism starting on p 17 is from me.)

View attachment End-Time view Critiques.pdf

 

[Peairtach]

Always study more difficult passages in the light of easier and more plainly doctrinal passages. You cannot see the wood for the trees in this area if you do not first come to terms with what is clearly and plainly taught in the Gospels and Epistles about e.g. "the last days" and about Christ's mediatorial reign and kingdom starting with His ascension in the first century (e.g. Matthew 28:18); that He has been reigning over His Kingdom since the first century and extending it de facto, by means of His Spirit, His Word, His Church and His Providence.

Start with the clear New Testament passages on eschatology and read the OT eschatalogical passages in that light, including how the Apostles speak about the Israel of God (Gal 6;16)/ the Church.

Leave the Olivet Discourse and Revelation for later. I'm not saying you shouldn't refer to the Olivet Discourse and Revelation and other apocalyptic passages, but you shouldn't do a major study of them until you have come to grips with what is plainly and clearly taught elsewhere.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Steve,
Thank you for that downloadable synopsis/critique. Very handy.

 

[RamistThomist]

Another thing to consider: I would avoid reading modern refinements in Eschatology back into church history. Sure, you can identify amillennial structures with Augustine and premillennial ones with Irenaeus (and maybe Methodius and Cyril of Jerusalem), but this almost always risks the anachronistic fallacy.

And keep in mind that eschatology can function in a far wider context than simply the timing of the millennium. It can reveal covenants, God's judgments, epistemological structures, etc.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Prescient observations, Jacob.

 

[Jeremy Ivens]

I think reading three of the top books will help a lot, it's what helped me. One book for each view is how I did it.

For premillennial I read The Last Things by George Eldon Ladd

For Amillennial I read Biblical Eschatology by Jonathan Menn

For Postmillennial I read An Eschatology of Victory by J. Marcellus Kik
And a bonus Postmillennial book because I'm biased is He Shall Have Dominion by Ken Gentry, which can be found for free here: http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/he_shall_have_dominion.pdf

 

[Vox Oculi]

Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology all appear to be correct in some basic ways. John MacArthur put it this way in a recent youtube video I watched:

(Paraphrase)"Do you believe that God dealt differently with Adam than He did with Abraham, than He did with Moses, and than He did with 1st Century believers? Then you're a dispensationalist."

Certain things are associated with dispensationalism but need not be so. Haggee's false doctrine that Jews are saved without believing in the Messiah is one example of something associated with but which doesn't logically follow dispensationalism by implication. On the flip side, replacement theology is something which finds more traction among Covenant Theologians but does not need to. The recognition that there has always been one covenant people of God by faith does not mean that God has no future promises remaining for the ethnos of Israel.

To answer the OP, I read through Revelation long before I became saved. Nevertheless, I've never known myself to have a blatantly wrong major non-essential doctrine (strangely -- but I consider it evidence of God's care for me from the beginning), though I can't remember when I even heard of the doctrine of the rapture: if it was before or after reading Revelation. I couldn't tell you which sequence is best, then. I would say that a basic knowledge of the book would help organize your thoughts when hearing about specific eschatological doctrines. Upon learning them, it's time to return to the text and evaluate how each interpretation either illuminates or butcher the text.

That's actually what my study Bible recommends for personal Bible study. Read the whole thing in one shot, summary style, first. Then read other people's interpretations. Then go deeper and look at individual passages, verse by verse. And so forth.

 

[Paul1976]

You've got some great advice in the above posts. Let me add a bit.

I was some flavor of dispensational most of my live. In investigating eschatology, I never found any comparisons of the various systems that really showed me the which system was best in a consistent way. Especially between dispensationalism and the other systems, there is such a radically different set of assumptions and ways different spiritual truths are prioritized that it is hard to follow the various arguments well enough to compare.

What moved me from Dispensationalism to what I describe as cautious amillennialism isn't so much a neat set of arguments, but putting myself into the system well enough to see how the Bible (especially Revelation in my case) made sense from that vantage. The difference was striking. I honestly don't see how anyone who understands Revelation from an amillennial perspective could go back to a dispensational one. My whole life, Revelation was a complicated, intimidation, and impractical book. From the amillennial perspective, it's a rich and useful book that actually is much more like the rest of the NT in terms of its message than I ever imagined it could be. For me, a series of sermons by Art Azurdia (www.spiritempoweredpreaching.com) opened my eyes to it. I haven't given partial preterism, pre- or postmillennialism the same chance yet (although I hope to). So, don't take my post as a plug for my system.

I do agree with starting with the flow of redemptive history (including the covenants). But, I would suggest finding a good sermon series on Revelation from all the views, trying to understand how they see it, and consider the following questions:

1) Which view gives God and especially Christ the greatest supremacy, centrality, and glory?
2) Which view is most consistent with the rest of scripture? Revelation doesn't quote the OT, but it alludes to it between 500-800 times.
3) Which view allows the book to be most practical and comprehensible to the original readers? Revelation was written to specific churches at the end of the 1st century AD. If an interpretation would have been EITHER useless to them or nonsense to them (cough - Apache helicopters - cough), that interpretation is almost certainly wrong.

 

[Vox Oculi]

I find on facebook that Presbyterians and Reformed folk generally tend to be amillennial or at very least unlikely premillennials to say the least. So let me offer a counter viewpoint to the unqualified assertion that the Church quite simply is Israel now. Romans 9-11. A careful following of the pronouns leads to utter confusion if it is presupposed that the Church (therefore also Gentiles) are = Israel. It leads to concluding that Gentiles are Jews, or that Jews aren't Jewish, etc etc depending on which you take as your reference frame.

Key passage: "All Israel is not Israel." CT will point to this to say that the Church is Israel. I disagree with this. By virtue of contrasting the same word, one must be used in a different sense than the other. Logically, all (ethnic) Israel is not (the saints). CT sees this as 'all (ethnic)Israel is not (spiritual)Israel.' There's not really a distinction here. But the problem is that when you say "Church=Israel," which one are you referring to? Obviously it's spiritual Israel. But then ethnic Israel hasn't been dealt with. It's one thing to say that the Church is spiritual Israel, if you mean that all those who are saved in this age belong to the Church, and that there exists no separate spiritual entity called Israel which is NOT part of the Church. To this we agree. But In all of this, CT has not denied the existence of ethnic Israel, but has really only ignored it.

The question is, when looking at eschatology, is the description best interpreted as referring to a spiritual people or to an ethnic people? The focus of Revelation on the land of Israel (referring to Jerusalem, the wilderness, Harmageddon, Mount Olivet and the valley of Jehoshaphat (physical locations in the region)), and to a people who hope not to flee "on the Sabbath, because then your tribulation will be great," points to actual practicing Jewish people. Regardless of whether they are saints or unbelievers. They observe Jewish customs, they live in Jerusalem, they are called Israel--never the Church--and all of this supports the interpretation that Revelation is describing a future event aimed solely at ethnic Jews.

This isn't intended to be a complete defense of premillennialism; just a few of the main ideas to give the OP something to go on. I'm attempting to make sure all sides are well represented

 

[MW]

2) determine your view of eschatology first and then mold your view of church and Israel to that prescribed view of eschatology?

Something to consider -- the use of the term "Church" as distinct from "Israel" is already dependent on a realised eschatology. There could be no "Church" distinct from geopolitical "Israel" unless the privileges and obligations of the nationalistic theocracy had been inherited by the internationalistic society of believers in Christ. So I would say the independent use of "Church" assumes a realised eschatology, and that it is just a matter of consistently working out these principles of realisation.

 

[Vox Oculi]

Oh!
Another common sense appeal: consider that the bulk of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, etc prophecy things which, though they employ symbolism (mainly Daniel), they are recognized as referring to literal fulfillments. Notably also the literal advent of Christ. Why would we assume that prophecies about His first advent are literal but those of His second advent are merely figurative? Basically to take Revelation (and Matthew 24) as figurative, even allegory, is to make an unprecedented exception for this book alone, and with no obvious Scriptural warrant to take this prophecy differently from others.

I'll encourage that to stick in the back of one's mind as one considers how to interpret eschatology.

 

[Vox Oculi]

2) determine your view of eschatology first and then mold your view of church and Israel to that prescribed view of eschatology?

There could be no "Church" distinct from geopolitical "Israel" unless the privileges and obligations of the nationalistic theocracy had been inherited by the internationalistic society of believers in Christ.

Could you explain this? (Also what a 'realized eschatology' is, as opposed to mere eschatology). I can keep up with you, I just need to capture the basics of your technical speech.

 

[Peairtach]

I find on facebook that Presbyterians and Reformed folk generally tend to be amillennial or at very least unlikely premillennials to say the least. So let me offer a counter viewpoint to the unqualified assertion that the Church quite simply is Israel now. Romans 9-11. A careful following of the pronouns leads to utter confusion if it is presupposed that the Church (therefore also Gentiles) are = Israel. It leads to concluding that Gentiles are Jews, or that Jews aren't Jewish, etc etc depending on which you take as your reference frame.

Key passage: "All Israel is not Israel." CT will point to this to say that the Church is Israel. I disagree with this. By virtue of contrasting the same word, one must be used in a different sense than the other. Logically, all (ethnic) Israel is not (the saints). CT sees this as 'all (ethnic)Israel is not (spiritual)Israel.' There's not really a distinction here. But the problem is that when you say "Church=Israel," which one are you referring to? Obviously it's spiritual Israel. But then ethnic Israel hasn't been dealt with. It's one thing to say that the Church is spiritual Israel, if you mean that all those who are saved in this age belong to the Church, and that there exists no separate spiritual entity called Israel which is NOT part of the Church. To this we agree. But In all of this, CT has not denied the existence of ethnic Israel, but has really only ignored it.

The question is, when looking at eschatology, is the description best interpreted as referring to a spiritual people or to an ethnic people? The focus of Revelation on the land of Israel (referring to Jerusalem, the wilderness, Harmageddon, Mount Olivet and the valley of Jehoshaphat (physical locations in the region)), and to a people who hope not to flee "on the Sabbath, because then your tribulation will be great," points to actual practicing Jewish people. Regardless of whether they are saints or unbelievers. They observe Jewish customs, they live in Jerusalem, they are called Israel--never the Church--and all of this supports the interpretation that Revelation is describing a future event aimed solely at ethnic Jews.

This isn't intended to be a complete defense of premillennialism; just a few of the main ideas to give the OP something to go on. I'm attempting to make sure all sides are well represented

The Church isn't "Israel after the flesh" (I Corinthians 10:18) - i.e. national Israel, the Jews - but "the Israel of God" ( Galatians 6:16) - i.e. the Israel that belongs to God, Jewish and Gentile believers in contradistinction from Jews who do not believe.

So the Apostle talks about the Church as the Israel of God, part of which is a remnant of Jewish believers which some (many?) covenant theologians believe will expand through a national conversion of the Jews.

In the light of the New Testament the OT Church (Israel) is fulfilled in the NT Church ( the Israel of God, which always includes a remnant of Israel after the flesh). Dispensationalism misses this expansive point, along with much else that is precious.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jeremy Ivens]

Oh!
Another common sense appeal: consider that the bulk of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, etc prophecy things which, though they employ symbolism (mainly Daniel), they are recognized as referring to literal fulfillments. Notably also the literal advent of Christ. Why would we assume that prophecies about His first advent are literal but those of His second advent are merely figurative? Basically to take Revelation (and Matthew 24) as figurative, even allegory, is to make an unprecedented exception for this book alone, and with no obvious Scriptural warrant to take this prophecy differently from others.

I'll encourage that to stick in the back of one's mind as one considers how to interpret eschatology.

If we took Revelation "literally" then Jesus would have eyes of fire and bronze feet. It's symbolic. In fact, I go with the old guys who believe that Revelation is a commentary on the OT prophecy books. There's undeniable symbolic parallels between Revelation and Ezekial, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc.

 

[MW]

Could you explain this? (Also what a 'realized eschatology' is, as opposed to mere eschatology). I can keep up with you, I just need to capture the basics of your technical speech.

Eschatology = last things; realised eschatology = the last things are realised in the person and work of Christ. The last things are already with us, in other words. Christ has constituted the eschaton; we now only await its consummation. When a Christian believes he will go to be with the Lord when he dies is realised eschatology. Even that he calls himself a Christian is realised eschatology to a certain extent.

 

[Vox Oculi]

The Church isn't "Israel after the flesh" (I Corinthians 10:18) - i.e. national Israel, the Jews - but "the Israel of God" ( Galatians 6:16) - i.e. the Israel that belongs to God, Jewish and Gentile believers in contradistinction from Jews who do not believe.

So the Apostle talks about the Church as the Israel of God, part of which is a remnant of Jewish believers which some (many?) covenant theologians believe will expand through a national conversion of the Jews.

Full agreement on the letter of what you wrote here.

In the light of the New Testament the OT Church (Israel) is fulfilled in the NT Church ( the Israel of God, which always includes a remnant of Israel after the flesh). Dispensationalism misses this expansive point, along with much else that is precious.

I can't speak to a broader movement that calls itself 'dispensationalism,' and so I won't put this forth as taking sides. But I want to say that I see no contradiction between recognizing that there has always been one spiritual people of God, and yet, that God has promised things to ethnic Israel apart from the Church, which make ethnic Israel a special earthly people of God -- not with regard to eternal salvation but with regard to earthly collective exaltation as a people to be a light for all others.

That reminds me of the systematic-theology reason for seeing God as 'not finished with Israel yet' -- because the purpose of Israel was to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. They failed -- not as if God was surprised and that the Church is an afterthought, any more than the Fall would be the same nature of thing -- and the apostles from that point on went to the Gentiles.

Romans 11

23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved,[ak] as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”[al]
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

The most sensible reading of this is that Israel, as a separate entity from the Church, is still considered to have a future restoration in store. You recognize and agree that this implies a national salvation, but seem to apply it only individually, rather than individually and collectively. For isn't the Church a collective entity? Yet it is composed of individuals who come to faith. Consistency would comport best with that Israel's salvation is a universal individual event, at the same time as it is a collective salvation of the entity Israel.

The Millennium as a time for a regenerate nation of Israel serving as a witness of the Gospel to all nations best satisfies the Biblical intent for Israel to be a "light to the Gentiles."

 

[Vox Oculi]

If we took Revelation "literally" then Jesus would have eyes of fire and bronze feet. It's symbolic.

I'm amenable to that, but symbolic of what, specifically? It has to actually be representative of some thing, for it to qualify as a symbol. Otherwise there is no reason to challenge a direct reading of the text. Jesus will evidently have physical form when He returns. What prohibits Him from being dark skinned with red eyes and white hair? It would be the most obvious way to instantly recognize Him.

Now, the sword is very obviously His Word, so the passage clearly incorporates symbolism at one point. But it really is necessary, if we say "this is symbolic," to be able to offer a meaningful real thing which the symbol is symbolic of.

 

[RamistThomist]

Everyone will take some part of Revelation literally at some point. They better. Does Jesus literally come back or is it just symbolic of a deep spiritual truth?

 

[Jeremy Ivens]

Everyone will take some part of Revelation literally at some point. They better. Does Jesus literally come back or is it just symbolic of a deep spiritual truth?

I believe that's a bit of a strawman. I said it's mostly symbolic, not totally.


EDIT- Nevermind, I'm an idiot. I didn't make the distinction of being mostly symbolic versus completely. It's mostly symbolic. My apologies!

 

[Peairtach]

The Church isn't "Israel after the flesh" (I Corinthians 10:18) - i.e. national Israel, the Jews - but "the Israel of God" ( Galatians 6:16) - i.e. the Israel that belongs to God, Jewish and Gentile believers in contradistinction from Jews who do not believe.

So the Apostle talks about the Church as the Israel of God, part of which is a remnant of Jewish believers which some (many?) covenant theologians believe will expand through a national conversion of the Jews.

Full agreement on the letter of what you wrote here.

In the light of the New Testament the OT Church (Israel) is fulfilled in the NT Church ( the Israel of God, which always includes a remnant of Israel after the flesh). Dispensationalism misses this expansive point, along with much else that is precious.

I can't speak to a broader movement that calls itself 'dispensationalism,' and so I won't put this forth as taking sides. But I want to say that I see no contradiction between recognizing that there has always been one spiritual people of God, and yet, that God has promised things to ethnic Israel apart from the Church, which make ethnic Israel a special earthly people of God -- not with regard to eternal salvation but with regard to earthly collective exaltation as a people to be a light for all others.

That reminds me of the systematic-theology reason for seeing God as 'not finished with Israel yet' -- because the purpose of Israel was to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. They failed -- not as if God was surprised and that the Church is an afterthought, any more than the Fall would be the same nature of thing -- and the apostles from that point on went to the Gentiles.

Romans 11

23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved,[ak] as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”[al]
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

The most sensible reading of this is that Israel, as a separate entity from the Church, is still considered to have a future restoration in store. You recognize and agree that this implies a national salvation, but seem to apply it only individually, rather than individually and collectively. For isn't the Church a collective entity? Yet it is composed of individuals who come to faith. Consistency would comport best with that Israel's salvation is a universal individual event, at the same time as it is a collective salvation of the entity Israel.

The Millennium as a time for a regenerate nation of Israel serving as a witness of the Gospel to all nations best satisfies the Biblical intent for Israel to be a "light to the Gentiles."

I agree that the argument of the Apostle in Romans 9-11 is that God will not destroy the Jews, that there will always be a small number of them who are in the Israel of God, and that the most of them will one day be restored to the Israel of God. He has a special providential relationship with the Jews because of promises made to their fathers, but the most of them are not His people. This is all in God's providence to the Jews, just as He has a providence for the Scots and Americans that He has told us less about.

But the Israel that the prophets speak of in the last days e.g. Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc, is the international Israel of God, God's people, including Jews and Gentiles now having ecclesiastical and spiritual equality. Unbelieving Jews and Gentiles have no part in that not being His people and not being in the Covenant of Grace in its New Testament phase.

I don't find talking about Jews as "earthly people of God" is helpful. Is the expression "earthly" used about them in Scripture. What about those among them who are in the Church? Are they both earthly and Heavenly/spiritual? What about the Church? Is she spiritual? The Church is very much earthly too, even to the point that she inherits the earth (Matthew 5:5) and that the bodies of saints will be raised.

The Jews who don't believe aren't God's people but are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Vox Oculi]

Everyone will take some part of Revelation literally at some point. They better. Does Jesus literally come back or is it just symbolic of a deep spiritual truth?

I believe that's a bit of a strawman. I said it's mostly symbolic, not totally.


EDIT- Nevermind, I'm an idiot. I didn't make the distinction of being mostly symbolic versus completely. It's mostly symbolic. My apologies!

Still, I hope my rejoinder sticks in memory: taking something as a symbol implicitly requires us to be able to identify something which the written thing is symbolic of. It's inherent in what it means to be a symbol. Marriage is a symbol of Christ's love for the Church. Wine at communion is a symbol of Christ's blood, proximately, and the shedding thereof in the atonement, ultimately. The Ark of Noah is symbolic of Christ being the door of salvation. That last one is a good example of how something that symbolizes something else can also have a real existence on its own.

Summary: for red eyes bronze skin and white hair to be symbolic in Jesus' description (which I don't necessarily disagree with), the object/concept which it symbolizes must be reasonably identifiable.

 

[Vox Oculi]

"I don't find talking about Jews as "earthly people of God" is helpful."

Valid point -- I invented the term for the purpose of trying to make clear what I was saying. It wouldn't be very illuminating if I simply used 'Israel' at every point so I chose to define some terms. I don't believe that they have any technical or official meaning as a recognized phrase outside of my post.

"The Jews who don't believe aren't God's people but are beloved for the fathers' sakes."

Again here -- pardon the shorthand. If I said they were God's people it is meant to be equivalent to the second half of your cited statement.

To the question of whether a believing Jew is of Israel or of the Church, it would seem obvious that it's the Church. Just as a man who is a child of Adam is still a descendant of Adam even though he is now "in Christ" as opposed to "in Adam." The spiritual reality is what matters, but it doesn't utterly abrogate your identity, inasmuch as your identity in part incorporates your history and that it influences your future. No one can deny that Noah is neither part of Israel or the Church in an earthly sense and yet he has a place in the Kingdom despite that there was no theological term for what he belonged to, as far as we know, when he was alive. I don't think that the only categories available are "Church" and "damned." It only becomes complicated that way when Covenant Theology is taken to an extreme and the Church is back-read into the OT so that Adam, Noah, Abraham and David are all members of the Church as one defines the term.

If it's only the spiritual that matters, one wonders why God is concerned with an earthly Millennial Kingdom at all -- although denying its literal existence to deal with this dissonance creates other problems by requiring over allegorization of prophetic Scripture.