Premillennialism Within Eschatology Justin Robert Wright Introduction Eschatology, which is conventionally defined as the doctrine of ‘last things’, whether in relation to human individuals or to the world,1 has become “the peculiar interest of the modern age...[and is often seen as] the one remaining undeveloped topic of theology.”2 Over the centuries, though eschatology was never completely forgotten as a Christian doctrine it has not received the ample amount of attention as other doctrines within the Christian faith. In the second century the church delved into the fundamentals of Christianity; the third and fourth centuries dealt with the doctrine of God; at the beginning of the fifth century, man and sin; in the latter fifth to seventh centuries, the church deals with the person of Christ; in the eleventh to sixteenth centuries, the doctrine of the atonement; and finally, in the sixteenth century, more emphasis is placed on justification and the applicability of redemption.3 However, within the modern era, eighteenth century to the present, there has been more of a preoccupation with eschatology, the doctrine of last things, than any other.4 This seemingly recent preoccupation with eschatology, however, has taken many different forms and these various forms have led to the development of, more often than not, opposing views and groups. Christian eschatology, as one might imagine, includes a rather large number of issues that deal with end-times—death, the rapture of the church, the end of this age, 1 Walter Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), s.v. “Eschatology.” 2 James Orr, The Progress of Dogma (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1901), 29-30. 3 Ibid. 4 Millard Erickson, Contemporary Options in Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1977), 12. 1 judgment, heaven and hell, and of course the millennium.5 While each of these issues are important to the discussion of eschatology, one issue in particular has gained a great deal of momentum in terms of its popularity within the last few decades, and that is the issue of the millennium or the theme of the Kingdom of God. Despite the fact that the doctrine of the millennium, as Robert Clouse states, is “[o]ne of the more difficult themes with which interpreters of the Bible must deal,”6 it has nevertheless progressed as one of the central themes of eschatology. Being one of the central themes within eschatology, it should come as no surprise, then, that the issue of the millennium is also a much-debated topic with differing views in all circles of Christianity, including that of Evangelicalism.7 These differing views of the millennium are all attempting to answer the question of whether or not the millennium will be a literal Kingdom, and if so, when the second advent of Christ will take place within the time frame of the millennial reign. These various positions include amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism. Due to the brevity of this work, however, time will not be given to the discussion of major differences between these three views. Suffice it to say that even though it had a major influence on the church over the centuries, at the present, postmillennialism is not a widely held eschatological scheme, and amillennialism became a major position within the church following the works of Augustine.8 Premillennial evidence, on the other hand, is shown to be consistently to the effect, “that throughout the years from the beginning of the second century till the beginning of the fifth chiliasm, particularly of the premillennial type, was 5 Craig Blomberg and Sung Chung, eds., A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Left Behind” Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 3. 6 Robert Clouse, ed., The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1977), 7. 7 John Walvoord, “Premillennialism and the Church,” Bibliotheca Sacra 110, no. 440 (October 1953): 289-290, http://web.ebscohost.com (accessed September 29, 2010). 8 Erickson, Contemporary Options in Eschatology, 55. 2 extensively found within the Christian Church.”9 For this reason, it is within the confines of premillennial teachings that this work will remain. Divisions Within Premillennialism Though premillennialism was the most widely accepted view held by the early church concerning the millennium,10 and continues to be the foremost view among Evangelicals today, it does not render this view immune to problems and divisions. Concerning premillennialism, there are two major distinctions11 that have been the center of eschatological debate for the last two centuries: historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism. Both systems of premillennialism, though they share an acknowledgment of the major tenets within Evangelical Christianity, hold numerous beliefs that are irreconcilable. These differences are numerous if one were to attempt an explanation of the major as well as the minor details. For the purpose of this work, however, the differences that will be discussed will be limited to two central issues: First, the hermeneutical principle used in the interpretation of scripture; and second, the distinction between Israel and the church. After comparing and contrasting the views held by both groups concerning these two central issues, it is the intention of the present writer to demonstrate that dispensational premillennialism holds to a more consistent biblical hermeneutic as a whole than does historic premillennialism. 9 D.H. Kromminga, The Millennium in the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945), 27-28. 10 S.H. Kellogg, “Premillennialism: Its Relations to Doctrine and Practice,” Bibliotheca Sacra 99, no. 394 (April 1942): 235-236, http://web.ebscohost.com (accessed October 1, 2010). 11 Though this work is only concerned with the distinction between historic and dispensational premillennialism, there are various other divisions within premillennialism, including ultradispensationalism, classic dispensationalism, and progressive dispensationalism. 3 Defining Our Terms Historic Premillennialism The first branch within the premillennial view is that of Historic Premillennialism. While this particular form of premillennialism is much older than that of dispensational premillennialism, it did not develop into the vigorous popular millennialist movement that its dispensational counterpart did. Despite the fact that the Historic view did not gain popularity in recent times, this in no way undermines its dominance among some of the most prominent theologians within the early church.12 In fact, due to the overwhelming popularity of historic premillennialism within the early church, some have made the claim that there can be found no trace of dispensational theology, at all, in the earliest history of the church. Furthermore, dispensationalism, which could never be arrived at through bible study alone, is nothing more than a man-made idea and should be understood in light of that fact.13 This popularity, which historic premillennialism had previously obtained, however, was overshadowed by the rise of dispensationalism, which will be dealt with later. Nevertheless, despite the fact that they are in the minority, proponents of historic premillennialism have remained faithful to the tenets of this particular view. In keeping with the three central issues mentioned above, historic premillennialism deals with each in its own, unique way. First, when it comes to the issue of the hermeneutical principle used in the interpretation of scripture, historic premillennialists do, in fact, hold to an overall literal interpretation of scripture. The use of the literal interpretation, however, according to the historic premillennialist, should not be applied to prophecy, and is rarely applied within any sort of consistency. When it comes to the interpretation of prophecy, then, a more 12 Hans Schwarz, On the Way to the Future: A Christian View of Eschatology in the Light of Current Trends in Religion, Philosophy, and Science (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972), 151. 13 Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), 65. 4 spiritualizing or allegorical hermeneutic must be applied.14 Second, when dealing with the issue of whether or not a distinction should be made between Israel and the church, this view holds that the church is to be considered the new Israel, and any prophecy which had yet to be fulfilled would be fulfilled by the church.15 Finally, when it comes to the placement of the rapture of the church, in order to avoid a seeming contradiction, which states that Christ’s return will come in two different stages, this view posits that Christ’s return will be in one single event, and that event will most likely take place after the tribulation.16 Though there are obviously many other tenets held by historic premillennialists, it is within the confines of these three tenets in particular that this paper will be limited. Dispensational Premillennialism The second division found within premillennial teachings is that of dispensational premillennialism. Though some have argued that dispensational premillennial thought can be traced as far back as the apostles,17 most have seen fit to argue that dispensationalism is much more recent than the historic view, only having recently gained popularity thanks to John Nelson Darby.18 In fact, J.E. Bear in his treatment of dispensational premillennialism begins by stating that “dispensationalism as we know it today is of comparatively recent