There is a great debate that has constantly raged among theologians upon the subject of what they call eschatology, which is a term that they have developed to refer to the study of the "end times" or the last age of time of humanity upon the earth. Many, if not most Amills, Premills and Historists are to some degree futurists, as they see most or some degree of prophecy to be yet fulfilled, which fulfillment may also include the final dissolution of the natural or physical universe or cosmos.

There are two main groups of Millennialists, The Pre and the Post, with the Premills being the largest; but with many variations of ideas, and many subdivisions exist among them .

The Postmillennials believe that there will be a period of great tribulation for the saints AFTER the Milliennium, while the Premillennials believe that this period of tribulation will take place BEFORE the Milliennium (a literal 1000 year personal reign of Christ upon earth.)

The Premillennials and the Amillennials:

The Amillennialists

The Amillennials generally hold that the Kingdom of Christ on earth is NOW, Amills believe that the kingdom is physical and spiritual in nature, (though they disagree greatly as to the extent of the spirituality and physicalness of the Kingdom;) That the kingdom is now spiritually present within those He deems to be His people, and this kingdom will literally, spiritually and chronologically continue until Christ bodily returns in a great cosmological event, when He will destroy the physical earth by fire, (and many believe that He will dissolve the entire universe or cosmos at this same time also, and that Time will cease to exist as a creation of God; but again, there are some variations of their views on this.)

That He will reassemble the biological bodies of all the human race from the elements of the earth, and perhaps from beyond, into the original of their former earthly state, change their earthly physical bodies into "spiritual" bodies, then raise them into the atmosphere or some other place, where Christ will then hold a Great Tribunal, while seated upon a literal Great White Throne - That He will resurrect the righteous first, and then the remainder of those who are alive upon the earth; That He will separate the "sheep from the goats", judge all according to their past deeds, whether good or bad, and those who are judged wicked, to an everlasting or eternal punishment for their wickedness, cast these wicked into a literal burning lake of fire, where they will eternally suffer punishment for their sins against God and the light of nature. Some Amills believe that the wicked and righteous will all be literally resurrected from their physical graves at the same time, but the righteous will be judged not quilty, Some hold that the righteous only will be resurrected, while the wicked are directly consigned to everlasting punishment.

Those, (after their bodies have been changed) will be judged righteous in Christ in God's sight, and will be exonerated from all punishment by the judgment of Christ, and then carried to the Eternal Heaven to live with God forever.

-But again, there are many more variations of the above, and this is only a general representation of the ideas that Amills hold on eschatology.

Some Amills and other schools are regarded by most Millennialists as taking excessive liberty in allegorizing and "spiritualizing" the Scriptures, while Premills claim they hold a more "literal", chronological interpretation which is more consistent with the "time frames" of prophecy.

(Whether this claim is really true or not, can be critically examined in the opinion of the present writer.)

This is just a general sketch that represents the common view of Amills. Of course there are many variations of specific details within the Amillennial scenario.

"The third generic view of the interpretation of the facts of Scripture relating to eschatology, is called Amillennialism. The name itself is unfortunate in that it would seem to indicate that its advocates do not believe in the thousand year period of Revelation 20. The name literally means `no millennium,' while as a matter of fact, its advocates believe that the Millennium is a spiritual or heavenly Millennium, rather than an earthly one of a literal reign of Christ on earth before the final judgment. From one point of view, it might be called a variety of Postmillennialism, since it believes that the spiritual or heavenly Millennium precedes the second coming of Christ." Floyd E. Hamilton

The Premillennialists

Futurists, of whom are the Milliannists, according to some writers, were very small or nearly non-existent during the last half of the nineteenth century, but there has been quite a resurgence of those who hold this view of eschatology during the 20th Century, though at the present time seems to be again losing some ground. (beginning of the 21st Century)

Premillennialists (or dispensationalists as they are usually called) generally hold that the present Kingdom of Christ, or the gospel dispensation exists, but it exists only as an interim period, and that it was instituted because the Jews rejected Jesus as The true Messiah. Many, if not most of them believe that His coming in the flesh to the Jews was based upon a conditional "offer" of salvation to the Jews, in order that He might establish a literal political kingdom among them; that this was God's "original intention” for Christ's Kingdom on earth; but since they rejected this "offer", He then postponed the establishment of this same type of kingdom until a later period, which will then comprise their Millennium under consideration. Some Premills that are Arminian in sentiment hold that the actual and final fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant was conditional to the natural Jew under the Law, but wll be unconditional to the future establishment of the coming millenium (which will be headed up by natural Jews) and the present gospel (church) kingdom is a conditional covenant to believers in Christ!

Millennialists generally hold that the prophecies and promises of the O.T. Scriptures applied to (or were exclusively for) the natural Jews only, and will finally be fullfilled to these as such in their coming millianium; That Christ made another covenant with those called under the Gospel Dispensation, and that this covenant is only to be temporary; but His main covenant is and has always been with the original Israelites as a nation, and He will finally restore them and give them life again when He reverts again to this covenant, and when they will again be recognized as the main body of His favor, and graft them again into their own Tree of original promises made to them.

- But again there are quite a few variations within this general scenario.

Many Milliannists claim that Amillennialism (kingdom is NOW present) is not founded upon the Scriptures, or the general doctrine of the "end-times" as generally believed by the early church fathers, and that according to the writings of the fathers and other secular historians of that age, the doctrines of Amillennialism were largely invented by Augustine, Origen and other church fathers, and that the political actions of that age, especially those of Constantine, greatly attributed to the process of establishing Amillennialism as the leading doctrine of the Catholic Church.

To quote from some authors:

"The Premillennial school of interpreters are electionists in doctrine, holding that God has foretold that not everyone, in this present age, will be saved, but rather that, through a world-wide preaching of the Gospel there will be gathered from the Jews and Gentiles a people for His name. Such interpreters further hold that when this promise has been fulfilled, the Lord will gather His people to Himself and then, personally, bodily, literally and visibly return to earth and that following this, He will set up a Kingdom upon earth with its center at Jerusalem which will be particularly related to the Jews but world-wide in its influence and beneficence. They also hold that this kingdom will endure for exactly one thousand years. That after this time, the new heavens and earth will be brought into view and then, that eternity, with its rewards for the saved and punishment for the lost, will follow." Henry W. Frost (The Second Coming of Christ, p.152)

(The Basis of Millennial Faith, p.35) "In ecclesiology, the main doctrine of the Church, Premillenarianism has a firm basis. The main point in question is whether or not the Church is a distinct body in this present age. If the Church is not a subject of Old Testament prophecy, then the Church is not fulfilling Israel's promises but instead Israel herself must fulfill them and that in the future. In brief, Premillennialism with a dispensational view recognizes the Church as a distinct entity, distinct from Israel in her beginning, in her relation to this age and her promises. If the Church is not a distinct body, then the door is open wide for Amillennialism to enter with its ideas that the Church is some sort of full-bloomed development of Judaism and the fulfiller of Israel's promise of blessing (but not of judgment). Thus Premillenialism and ecclesiology are inseparably related." Charles C. Ryrie (The Basis of Premillennial faith, p.126)

Historicism

While the Praeterists hold that most, if not all Scripture prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. and shortly following, the Historists believe that Divine prophecy is gradually being fulfilled throughout the succeeding ages of time, and especially that the Revelation to John described these unfolding events in prophecy. One argument that Historists use to support this and to mitigate the statements in Revelation concerning the “things that must shortly be done” is that they contend that Revelation was written in 96 A.D. (which is the traditional view held by most Futurists,) instead of BEFORE the destruction of ancient Jerusalem, or around 64-68 A.D, which date most Praeterists contend for - Historists attempt to leave much room in their eschatology for prophecy to yet be fulfilled. Many of them along with the Amills, (many of whom are of the Historist school) say that Daniel’s seventy weeks did not actually end in 70 AD, but rather in the middle of the “last week” of Daniel’s prophecy. (Dan 9) Many say that revelations to man from God did not end at the time of the appearance of Christ with His propitiation for sin, but will continue until the "end of time" or until the dissolution of all things. In contrast with the Praeterists, Most Historists believe that although Christ finished His redemptive work at the cross, yet God's revelation to man was not complete in Christ at that time, but must be gradually fulfilled throughout succeeding ages of time :

‘We have demonstrated in our short discourse that for the "seventy weeks" to have ended at the fall of Jerusalem would have required another "break" in time, similar to how the Futurists view this prophecy. This was proved by applying the "Day for a Year" principle, which is firmly grounded in Scripture. The subject of the Day for a Year is so rich that it deserves a thorough study of its own. The "seventy weeks" concerned itself not with announcing the end of God's revelations to man but rather with the appearance of Jesus Christ, His ministry and the call of the Gentiles or Nations into Salvation. Again, why were the "seventy weeks" determined? To finish the transgression; to make an end of sins; to make reconciliation for iniquity; to bring in everlasting righteousness; to seal up the vision and prophecy; and to anoint the most Holy! Bill and Sandy Kalivas

(But when Philip Mauro, Anstey and other "seventy week" writers apply the “day for a year” principle they get 70 AD as the fulfillment of the predicted 490 years of Daniel.)

“Historicism is a satisfying and godly view of Revelation. It allows for God's hand to be seen in our past, present and future. Events which have been considered political in nature are shown to be fulfillment of His recorded word. No other interpretation offers this. Praeterism, placing Revelation behind us and Futurism, placing Revelation before us, put these revealing prophecies out of our present lives.” Bill and Sandy Kalivas

The Preterists

There are two general groups of Preterists, The Full Preterists, and the Partial Preterists. The Amills and Preterists are actually in more general agreement than are the Amills and Premills, though many Premills and Amills would deny this, largely because many Amills charge most Preterists, (especially Full Preterists) with denying a resurrection of the physical (bodies of) the saints, because most Amills, along with futurists in general, look upon the resurrection in a physical way or as a great event that will transpire with great literal glory and display that may be perceived by human physical faculties.

A Full Preterist, or one who holds to what is commonly called "fullfilled eschatology" emphasizes along with some hybrid Preterist-Amills, that the prophecies and promises made by God through the Old Testament Prophets were fullfilled in their entirety by the Advent of Christ and during the succeeding Apostolic Age, sometimes including a resurrection of the O. T. saints along with that of the then present age saints and transpired at the end of the Apostolic Age) and that since many of them believe that Christ destroyed death itself in His Death and Resurrection, (including the power of physical death over their soul,) death has no more power over the saints to hold them captive in literal and biological graves (which Amills generally deny, for they believe that the resurrection of saints is yet in the future.) Amills and Premills alike often interject the resurrection issue into their controversy with Preterists for support of their own eschatology. Therefore, many Amills seem to think that all Preterists deny a bodily resurrection, but that all Preterists hold to mere spiritualism; (This does not seem to be the case in my researches so far. It seems that most Preterists view only the nature of the resurrection in a different way from the traditional or catholic view.)

Praeterists especially emphasize that the predictions of judgment upon the Jews as contained in the words of Christ and found in such passages as Matt Chapters 23-25, and many other passages in the Old and New Testament, which many other interpreters choose to apply to various other scenarios and events in history - that have either already transpired, or are merely speculative in these interpreters’ imaginations. (see Farrar below) but to Preterists, these prophecies refer specifically to those horrific events that climaxed with the total destruction of the Jewish nation, and did not in any way refer to a far-off futuristic period. Many Amills agree with this history up to this point, but there they pretty much part company with the Praeterists,, because most Amills believe that the kingdom of Christ was fully established at or shortly after Christ’s Intercession.

Praeterists believe the events referred to in His Olivet Discourse were the near-approching calamities (35-40 years distant) that would finally and literally consumate and terminate the Law Dispensation, and would be the attending sign that would hearld this.

In some things the Amills, Historists and Praeterists can agree, but the average Preterist runs head-on with the Premills, because Premills put all of this prophetic history in the far future from Christ and the Apostle’s time.- Although some Amills would be of a different opinion, and say that the Amills and Premills really have more in common in their beliefs, because Preterists believe that the Old Economy was not ushered out at the actual time of the redemptive work of Christ, therefore some futurists are revolted at the notion that it took the actions of Titus in 70 AD to finally accomplish all that was written concerning Christ; and so they say that this idea demeans Christ and His work, and leaves the final accomplishment of establishing His Spiritual Kingdom in the hands of a Roman general.

Here are some quotes from a Praeterist of the past: (Frederic W. Farrar - 1882)

“…There have been three great schools of Apocalyptic interpretation :- 1. The Præterists, who regard the book as having been mainly fulfilled. 2. The Futurists, who refer it to events which are still wholly future. 3. The Continuous-Historical Interpreters, who see in it an outline of Christian history from the days of St. John down to the End of all things. The second of these schools -- the Futurists -- has always been numerically small, and at present may be said to be non-existent.

The school of Historical Interpreters was founded by the Abbot Joachim early in the 13th century, and was specially flourishing in the first fifty years of the present century. [There are two schools of the interpreters who make the Apocalypse a prophecy of all Christian history. The school of Bengel, Vitringo, Elliott, &c., make it mainly a history of the Church. Another school regards it more generally, and less specifically, as an outline of Epochs of the History of the world and the great forces which shape it into a Kingdom of God. To this latter school belong Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Auberlen, &c.]

The views of the Præterists have been adopted, with various shades of modification, by Grotius, Hammond, Le Clerc, Bousset, Eichorn, Hug, Wetstein, Ewald, Herder, Zullig, Bleek, DeWette, Lucke, Moses Stuart, Davidson, Volkmar, Krenkel, Dusterdieck, Renan, and almost the whole school of modern German critics and interpreters. It has been usual to say that the Spanish Jesuit Alcasar, in his Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalpysi (1614), was the founder of the Præterist School, and it certainly seems as if to him must be assigned the credit of having first clearly enunciated the natural view that the Apocalypse, like all other known Apocalypses of the time, describes events nearly contemporaneous, and is meant to shadow forth the triumph of the Church in the struggle first with Judaism and then with Heathendom. But to me it seems that the founder of the Præterist School is none other than St. John himself. For he records the Christ as saying to him when he was in the Spirit, "Write the things which thou sawest, and THE THINGS WHICH ARE, and the things which are about to happen after these things." No language surely could more clearly define the bearing of the Apocalypse. It is meant to describe the contemporary state of things in the Church and the world, and the events which were to follow in immediate sequence. If the Historical School can strain the latter words into an indication that we are (contrary to all analogy) to have a symbolic and unintelligible sketch of many centuries, the Præterist School may at any rate apply these words, "THE THINGS WHICH ARE," to vindicate the application of a large part of the Apocalypse to events nearly contemporary, while they also give the natural meaning to the subsequent clause by understanding it of events which were then on the horizon. The Seer emphatically says that the future events which he has to foreshadow will occur speedily [Compare Tachu (Rev. 22. 5,16 ; iii.11; xi.14 ; xxii.20). It is curious to see with what extraordinary ease commentators explain the perfect simple and ambiguous expression "speedily" to mean any length of time which they may choose to demand. The word "immediately," in Matt. xxiv.29, has been subject to similar handling, in which indeed all Scripture exegesis abounds.

The failure to see that the Fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Mosaic Dispensation was a "Second Advent" -- and THE Second Advent contemplated in many of the New Testament prophecies -- has led to a multitude of errors..] and the recurrent burden of his whole book is the nearness of the Advent. Language is simply meaningless if it is to be so manipulated by every successive commentator as to make the words "speedily" and "near" to imply any number of centuries of delay. The Præterist method of interpretation does not, however, interfere with that view of prophecy which was so well defined by Dr. Arnold. This is the view of those who have been called the "spiritual" interpreters. It admits of the analogical application of prophecy to conditions which, in the cycles of history, bear a close resemblance to each other. It applies to all times the principles originally laid down with reference to events which were being then enacted, and starts with the axiom of Bacon, that divine prophecies have steps and grades of fulfillment through divers ages. [De Augment. Scient. ii.11.] All that is really valuable in the works of the Historical Interpreters may thus be retained. No importance can be attached to their limitation of particular symbols, but the better part of their labours may be accepted as an illustration of the manner in which the Apocalyptic symbols convey moral lessons which are applicable to the conditions of later times.

But, apart from St. John's own words, it cannot be conceded that the central conception of the Præterist exegesis is a mere novelty of the 17th century. On the contrary, we can trace from very early days the application of various visions to the early emperors of Pagan Rome. Thus Justin Martyr believed that the Antichrist would be a person who was close at hand, who would reign three and a half years. [Dial. c. Tryph. p. 250] Irenaeus also thought that Antichrist, as foreshadowed by the Wild Beast, would be a man ; and that "the number of the Beast" represented Lateinos, "a Latin," [Iren. Haer. v. 25] Hippolytus compares the action of the False Prophet giving life to the Beast's image, to Augustus inspiring fresh force into the Roman Empire. [De Antichristo, p.6] Later on, I shall furnish abundant evidence that a tradition of the ancient Church identified Nero with the Antichrist, and expected his literal return, just as the Jews expected the literal return of the Prophet Elijah. St. Victorinus (about A.D.303) counts the five dead emperors from Galba, and supposes that, after Nerva, the Beast (whom he identifies with Nero) will be recalled to life. ["Bestia de septem est quoniam ante ipsos reges Nero regnavit."] St. Augustine mentions a similar opinion. [De Civ. Dei, xx.19] The Pseudo-Prochorus, writing on Rev. xvii. 10, says that the "one which is" is meant for Domition. Bishop Andreas, in the fifth century, applies Rev. vi.12 to the siege of Jerusalem, and considers that Antichrist will be "as a king of the Romans." Bishop Arethas, on Rev. vii., implies that the Apocalypse was written before the Jewish War. The fragments of ancient comment which we possess cannot be said to have much intrinsic value ; but such as they are they suffice to prove that the tendency of modern exegesis approaches quite as nearly to the earliest traditions as that of the Historical School. It is a specially important fact that St. Augustine, as well as many others, recognized the partially retrogressive and iterative character of the later visions, and thereby sanctioned one of the most important principles of modern interpretation. [Id. ib. 17.] The internal evidence that the book was written before the Fall of Jerusalem has satisfied not only many Christian commentators, who are invidiously stigmatised as "rationalistic," but even such writers as Wetstein, Lucke, Neander, Stier, Auberlen, Ewald, Bleek, Gebhardt, Immer, Davidson, Dusterdieck, Moses Stuart, F.D. Maurice, the author of "The Parousia," Dean Plumptree, the authors of the Protestanten-Bibel and multitudes of others no less entitled to the respect of all Christians.

If, however, the reader still looks with prejudice and suspicion on the only school of Apocalyptic exegesis with unites the suffrages of the most learned recent commentators in Germany, France, and England, I hardly know where he is to turn. The reason why the early date and mainly contemporary explanation of the book is daily winning fresh adherents among unbiased thinkers of every Church and school, is partly because it rests on so simple and secure a basis, and partly because no other can compete with it. It is indeed the only system which is built on the plain and repeated statements and indications of the Seer himself, and the corresponding events are so closely accordant with the symbols as to make it certain that this scheme of interpretation is the only one that can survive.

A few specimens may suffice to show how completely other systems float in the air. Let us suppose that the student has found out that in viii.13 the true reading is "a single eagle," not an angel ; but, whether eagle or angel, he wants to know what the symbol means. He turns to the commentators, and finds that it is explained to be the Holy Spirit (Victorinus); or Pope Gregory the Great (Elliott); or St. John himself (DeLyra); or St. Paul (Zeger); or Christ himself (Wordsworth). The Præterists mostly take it to be simply an eagle, as the Scriptural type of carnage--the figure being suggested not by the resemblance of the word "woe!" ("ouai") to the eagle's screams, but by the use of the same symbol for the same purpose by our Lord in His discourse about the things to come. [Matt. xxiv.28.]

But this is nothing! The student wishes to learn what is meant by the star fallen from heaven, in ix.1. The Historical school will leave him to choose between an evil spirit (Alford); a Christian heretic (Wordsworth); the Emperor Valens (DeLyra); Mohammed (Elliott); and, among others, Napoleon (Hengstenberg) ! The confusion deepens as we advance. The locusts are "heretics" (Bede); or Goths (Vitringa); or Vandals (Aureolus); or Saracens (Mede); or the mendicant orders (Brightman); or the Jesuits (Scherzer); or Protestants (Bellarmine). The same endless and aimless diversity reigns throughout the entire works of the Historical interpreters ; none of them seems to satisfy any one but himself. The elaborate anti-papal interpretation of Elliott--of which (to show that I am far from prejudiced) I may mention, in passing, that I made a careful study and a full abstract when I was seventeen years old-- is all but forgotten. Mr. Faber admits that there is not the least agreement as to the first four trumpets among writers of his school, and he rightly says that "so curious a circumstance may well be deemed the opprobrium of Apocalyptic interpretation, and may naturally lead us to suspect that the true key to the distinct application of the first four trumpets has never yet been found."

Not that this school leave us any better off when we come to the seven thunders. They are seven unknown oracles (Mede); or events (Ebrard); or the seven crusades (Vitringa); or the seven Protestant kingdoms (Dunbar); or the Papal Bull against Luther (Elliott). The two wings of the great eagle in xii.14 are the two Testaments (Wordsworth); or the eastern and western divisions of the empire (Mede, Auberlen); or the Emperor Theodosius (Elliott).

The number of the Beast -- which may be now regarded as certainly intended to stand for Nero -- has been made to serve for Genseric, Benedict, Trajan, Paul V., Calvin, Luther, Mohammed, Napoleon -- not to mention a host of other interpretations which no one has ever accepted except their authors. [The majority of guesses which have the least seriousness in them point to Rome, the Roman Empire, or the Roman Emperor.] It is needless to multiply further instances. They might be multiplied almost indefinitely, but their multiplicity is not so decisive of the futility of the principles on which they are selected, as is the diversity of results which are wider than the poles asunder. What are we to say of methods which leave us to choose between the applicability of a symbol to the Holy Spirit or to Pope Gregory, to the Two Testaments or to the Emperor Theodosius? Anyone, on the other hand, who accepts the Præterist system finds a wide and increasing consensus among competent enquirers of all nations, and can see an explanation of the book which is simple, natural, and noble -- one which closely follows its own indications, and accords with those to be found throughout the New Testament. He sees that events, mainly contemporary, provide an interpretation clear in its outlines, though necessarily uncertain in minor details. It he takes the view of the Spiritualists, he may at his pleasure make the symbols mean anything in general and nothing in particular. If he is of the Historical School he must let the currents of Gieseler or Gibbon sweep him hither and thither at the will of the particular commentator in whom he for the time may chance to confide. But if he follows the guidance of a more reasonable exegesis, he may advance with a sure step along a path which becomes clearer with every fresh discovery. Frederic W. Farrar, 1831 - 1903 D.D. , F.R,S,

".. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away..." 1 Cor 13:8-10.

WHEN PROPHECIES FAIL.

The Spiritualists

As commented above by Farrar, Spiritualists feel, when at their own discretion they may “make the symbols mean anything in general and nothing in particular”, and thus it would seem that the Spirtualist interpreters may lose some, if sometimes not most context of the Scriptures; and indeed, it seems that they who follow this practice, many times do; while at the same time they may present many things that are very valuable within their specific subject- if it be in accordance with the general analogy of faith.

But the danger of the straight Spiritualist approach is that these may rely upon this method to the extent that they are not then led to study and compare the historical and literal aspects of the Scriptures, so they may then drift entirely into the habit of excessively allegorizing the word of truth, so to make the Scriptures mean anything that may strike their fancy.

To close with a bit of humor concerning eschatology:

When asked to one, "What is your method of eschatology? They replied, "Pan-Milliannian". "What do you mean by ' "Pan" Milliannial ?' they replied. "I believe all things will "pan" out according to the will of God." With this all believers should be able to agree.

A PAN-MILLENNIAL VIEW: By Stanley Phillips

OAB

If any perceived errors are found here, I would appreciate any corrections.

Please direct your comments to:

Allen Bailey

oabssb@bellsouth.net

‘