The issue of biblical prophecy fulfillment has been brought to the forefront of Christian interests through current events and the meanderings of Last Day or End Times ministries dominating the Christian landscape. Many such ministries make predictions of an imminent Rapture, citing the forthcoming rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem and the appearance of red heifers or of red moons as signs portending the Second Coming of Christ. In a comparatively new eschatology, adherents of these beliefs declare that all Old and New Testament prophecies have been fulfilled. They suggest that Christ has already come in the “War of the Jews,”[1] i.e., the sacking of Jerusalem by Rome in AD 70. In the middle of this spectrum of beliefs are ministries[2] that suggest most prophecy is fulfilled in the past, but that some are still left for future fulfillment. When things do not happen as predicted by such modern-day prophets, pastors, or teachers, these conflicting paradigms often lead to confusion, disillusionment, and distrust among the churches.
The central purpose of this book is to examine the two main NT prophecies concerning End Times – the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation – to provide the context and basis for a sound eschatology. The symbolic nature of the language in Revelation will be interpreted with consistency and harmonized with timing markers and eschatological passages found in the gospels as well as in the epistles. This investigation also includes a study of the historical narrative as well as the testimony of the Ante-Nicene fathers[3] in support of a future chronology and to determine fulfillment of prophecy. The resulting conclusions allow for an investigation of the different paradigms created by modern scholars to ascertain their consistency, coherence, and logic.
The introduction of Zechariah 14 (12) as a Second Coming passage brings its own challenges, and yet affords the subject clarity. The findings will reveal that through a literal reading, a more consistent and cohesive chronology emerges from behind the veil of symbolic language that supports a Historical Premillennial paradigm.
Across the eschatological landscape, differences in paradigms sharply divide the three main schools of thought. Fundamental to the process of building an End-of-Days paradigm is the identification of all scriptural references to End Times events.[4] This allows them to be harmonized into a cohesive theology with respect to the timing and nature of each event. If the goal of Eschatology is to come to a consensus of the main facts pertaining to the End Times that allows for minor variations in interpretation, then no one view should gain prominence over another except through a peer review process addressing the consistency, coherence, or logic of the different views. While Dispensationalism currently seems to predominate, specific details unique to that view have lately come into question; Dispensationalism is slowly undergoing a transition.[5]
In many prophecies of the New Testament, signs are listed as precursors for determining when prophesied events will take place, such as those found in the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. These prophecies pertain to the destruction of Jerusalem and, some would say, to the Second Appearing of Christ, as well. Temporal markers such as “in this generation” (Matthew 24:34) and “some will not taste death until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom” (Matthew 16:28) are often taken to imply immediacy of fulfillment. Revelation also has its foreshadowing and lists of events, along with declarations such as “I am coming quickly” (Rev 2:16, 3:11, 22:7, 12, 20) and “the time is near” (Rev 1:3, 22:10). References to immediacy or imminence of fulfillment are often accompanied by language of delay or postponement: “for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs” (2 Thess 2:3), “no man knows the day or hour” (Matt 24:36), and “like a thief in the night” (1 Thess 5:2). Such phrases imply that there is no specific timeframe being revealed for the prophetic fulfillment of Christ’s Second Appearance. This clearly presents a difficulty in formulating a chronology of fulfillment for all NT prophecy.
Yet another complicating factor in biblical interpretation is the choice to apply symbolic interpretation to any given prophetic passage. Reading a Bible passage begins with a literal approach to interpretation until its language is clearly proven to be hyperbolic, symbolic, or metaphoric. Interpretation must also consider the genre of the passage; it must not be assumed that the hyperbolic, symbolic, or metaphoric language of one passage necessarily has the same meaning when the same words are used in another passage.
Discernment of the timing and nature of Last Days events must be tempered by a thorough knowledge of church history. Confirmation of past events helps us to anticipate more accurately what is still to come. Just as the OT prophesied Jesus’ first coming, the NT prophecies build our hope for and expectation of His Second Appearing.
So, what is the Problem?
We all read the same Bible but why is there so many different views?
There are three fundamental issues of interpretation of NT prophecy that present the greatest challenges to forming a cohesive eschatology:
1. A dearth of exegesis in relevant passages in their context solidifies the application of a literal or symbolic interpretation in response to claims made by those with differing views. Scholars are often divided over whether to utilize a literal or symbolic interpretation in certain passages. Symbolic interpretation can be used to fit a presupposed conclusion that cannot be established as true through the exegetical process.
2. Revelation 20 is dismissed by some Bible scholars because the Millennium, a highly debated topic throughout Christian history, is not specifically discussed anywhere else in the NT. Revelation 20 is usually interpreted in the light of the epistles instead of the epistles in light of Revelation.
3. Inattention to the historical narrative has resulted in inconsistent, inconclusive demonstration of either past or future fulfillment of specific prophecies.
Jesus prophesied Jerusalem’s destruction in the Olivet Discourse, predicting that “every stone would be thrown down and not one would be left upon another” (Matt 24:2, Mark 13:2, Luke 19:44). In AD 66–70, the Jewish Wars took place,[6] culminating in Jerusalem’s annihilation, its inhabitants carried into exile. Many Jews of Jesus’ day might already have read potential references to this event in the Hebrew Bible in Deuteronomy 28 and Zechariah 12 and 14.[7] When Jesus answered the disciples’ question as to when these things would take place, He replied that these events were to be the συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, that is, the consummation or completion of the age. The question then remains unsettled for some is if the events of AD 70 were the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse.
Some scholars contend[8] that this final scene would be played out in conjunction with the events of Revelation, so that some of the people listening to Jesus at that moment would see this παρουσίας of the Son of Man (Matt 24:3), that it was to happen in αὕτη γενεὰ(Matt 24:34). Full (FP) and Partial Preterism (PP) accept these sayings as temporal markers (time statements) for the evidence of a First-Century fulfilment of some or all of the prophecy found in the Olivet Discourse. The FP claim that the prophecy has been fulfilled is based simply on considering the divine source of the prophecy, so that the evidence of its fulfillment through a historical narrative is not required.[9] Disagreement on whether to treat these prophecies as fulfilled or not creates a tension between adherents to the two schools of thought. This dissertation appeals to historical evidence to help resolve the conflict.
Before a confirmation of fulfillment can be made for any prophecy, it must first be proven that a correct understanding of the nature of the event, including any accompanying timing markers, has been achieved and that the prophecy is understood correctly in its context. At the same time, the prophetic events described must also be proven fulfilled by the historical narrative. Church historian Eusebius and Barnabas both contend that the words of Jesus found in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the events of AD 70.[10] Are these opinions or statements of fact made by the Anti-Nicen Fathers (ANF)[11]? Are they to be trusted? This dissertation seeks to resolve these issues.
Language that identifies the nature in which an event happens includes πνευματικῶς, σωματικῶς, and ταχὺς. Interpretation of such language in context is seldom questioned by scholars, but in recent years, contrasting Preterist views have brought these traditionally held meanings into doubt, which demands a response. Among those who adhere to what is commonly called “Futurism,” the primary view calls for a forthcoming fulfillment of all of the events foretold in Revelation and, in some fashion, a partial fulfillment for those in the Olivet Discourse. The differing chronologies focus on the timing of the Second Appearing and the Millennium.
The NT epistles are replete with short eschatological statements. Can these statements be harmonized with the Revelation narrative? Paul spoke extensively on the Second Appearing of Christ and the resurrection of the dead in passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and in 1 Corinthians 15. The goal of this study is to lend consistency to the interpretation of prophetic passages to provide a cohesive view of biblical statements. Once established, any serious contradiction to this consistency nullifies the position as unviable.
The Ἀποκάλυψις, or Revelation of John, recounts his vision in which there are severe judgments to come upon the whole earth leading up to the Last Days. The End is characterized in the book of Revelation by a season of intense tribulation, the Second Appearing of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and a Millennial kingdom, followed by a Great White Throne Judgment, and ending with the creation of a new heaven and earth (Rev 21–22). This basic scenario of end times events is questioned by Preterist scholars who believe the Last Days described in Revelation were the events of AD 66–70, not something still in the future.
Why?
The purpose of this study is to examine exegetically eschatological passages in light of Revelation to determine that a given interpretation is consistent contextually. This interpretation should be based on the identification of the grammar used as either symbolic or literal in order to come to a consistent chronology and understanding of the nature of eschatological events. If the literal understanding of the language makes plain sense, a spiritual application of meaning can lead to a lack of consistency in interpretation. The symbolic approach to interpretation is often guided by presuppositions and assumptions that are used to support a given scholar’s “favored” paradigm, which can result in a wide variety of interpretations. A spiritual interpretation of Revelation 20:1–4 for example, in which some scholars hold that the passage is about the binding of Satan’s authority, may not be entirely consistent with the epistolary references of imprisonment language. Further, the implication of a spiritual binding of authority to impede Satan’s ability to deceive the nations may contradict historical fact.
This study also seeks to establish that the eschatological passages found in the epistles can be harmonized with the Revelation account of events. A literal understanding behind the symbolic language is what provides consistency between Revelation and the epistles. This study identifies eschatological passages and each eschatological event in them; it then determines the nature of each event. Combined with knowledge of church history, the timing markers build a framework for understanding fulfillment in a consistent and coherent chronology.
Defining the Views
Scholars in the different camps of eschatological belief view the problem from the following five perspectives:
· The Historicist sees the fulfillment of Revelation played out over all of church history; it is a minority view and is considered by many to be an extreme one.[13]
· Proponents of Idealism interpret the events of Revelation as being fulfilled spiritually over the course of time.[14]
· The Futurist sees all New Testament prophecies as yet be fulfilled, including those in the Olivet Discourse.[15]
· The Partial Preterist believes many or most prophecies as having already been fulfilled, with the Second Coming, Resurrection, Great White Throne Judgment, and the New Heaven and Earth as still lying in the future.[16]
· The Full Preterist believes all prophecies to have been fulfilled in or by AD 70.
The Futurist camp is divided on two issues: the nature and timing of the Millennium of Revelation 20:4, and the doctrine of the Rapture. The Premillennialist and Dispensationalist assert that at the Second Coming, the saints will be caught up in the air to meet the Lord (Rapture doctrine) as He comes to establish an earthly kingdom. The Post and Amillennialist reject the earthly kingdom, and so reject the Rapture doctrine. They believe the Second Coming takes place after the Tribulation. The Dispensationalist believes the Rapture will take place either before or during the Tribulation.[17] Premillennialists hold to the idea that the Rapture takes place at His Second Appearing, which they further contend will be at the end of the Tribulation period.[18]
Within PP, there are two distinct camps: one accepts the early date (AD 64–67) of Revelation, making the Olivet Discourse and Revelation 4–18 fulfilled in AD 70. The other accepts the late date of Revelation (AD 96–98), and so believes that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in AD 70, but that the entirety of Revelation is still to be fulfilled in the future.
Historical Pre-Millennialism:[19]
Historical Premillennialism gets its name from the classic form found in writings of some of the early church fathers, although they are in an undeveloped form compared to its current structure. Premillennialism was the most widely held view in the earliest centuries of the church. Philip Schaff states,
The most striking point in the eschatology of the Ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is, the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius.[20]
Premillennialism is the view that, following Christ’s Post-Tribulation return (Revelation 4-18), He ushers in the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom on earth. This view holds that the Tribulation period of the Beast ends with the return of Christ (2 Thess 2:8). The thousand years begin with the complete imprisonment of Satan, during which time he is no longer free to roam the earth, deceiving the nations as he currently does (1 Peter 5:8).
With Christ’s return comes the resurrection of all the saints; they are raised as His army in the first resurrection (Rev 19:14). After the meeting of Christ with the saints in the air, Christ returns to Jerusalem, which becomes the “camp of the Saints,” the capital of the kingdom He establishes on earth (Rev 20:9). This is the restoration of the kingdom to Israel referred to in Acts 1:6–7, at the time set by the Father. At the end of this Millennium, Satan is released to deceive the nations and gathers an army to attack Jerusalem for a second time. Fire comes down from heaven and the ungodly, along with this earth, are burnt up. The Great White Throne Judgment precedes the arrival of the New Heaven and Earth. These are the last events leading into eternity.
The first objection to the Premillennial viewpoint came from the pen of Origen (AD 185-253). He was the first to propose an allegorical method of interpreting the Bible that resulted in the undermining of the Premillennial doctrine. This model of interpretation also brought into question other foundational doctrines, such as the resurrection of the dead. Origen’s views are not considered Postmillennialism, but his contribution of allegorical and figurative interpretation became a basic component of Postmillennialism.[21]
Dispensationalism
In this study, the timing and nature views of the Dispensationalist will be addressed, while its other areas of belief are left to others to expound upon. Getting to the significant part and the point of this thesis, the common chronology of Dispensationalism is a mix of the Olivet Discourse with details from Revelation to arrive at a future fulfillment, based on the belief that the Olivet Discourse teaches a Second Appearing of Christ. This would demand that the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are of equal substance and timing. This view then necessitates the need for a temple to be rebuilt and the daily sacrifices to be reinstated, and then a final destruction of a fourth[22] rebuilt temple.
Hitchcock states, “Matthew 24 is future. I believe the best view is to see all the conditions and characteristics in Matthew 24:4–28 as future events that will occur during the Tribulation, immediately preceding the return of Christ.”[23] This joining of text is further taken for a foundational understanding as Hitchcock assigns Matthew 24 with Revelation 13.
In one of the greatest double crosses of all time, the Antichrist will break his covenant with Israel at its midpoint (after 3½ years) and set an abominable, sacrilegious statue or image of himself in the rebuilt Temple of God in Jerusalem (Matthew 24:2; Revelation 13:14–15). The final 3½ years will be the “great tribulation” Jesus talked about in Matthew 24:21.[24]
In Dispensational theology, the Rapture is separated from the Second Coming by the seven years of the last week of Daniel’s seventy-week timeframe, suggesting that the Rapture is a separate event or a first part of a two-part appearing of Christ. Hitchcock postulates this idea in his books and teachings:
This first facet is what I call the Rapture of the church: The Lord takes believers from earth to His Father’s house (John 14:3). The second facet is commonly called the Second Coming of Christ: believers return with Christ from heaven to the earth (Matthew 24:30). Both describe the Lord’s coming, but their differences indicate that they are two unique stages occurring at two separate times.[25]
In the latter part of Matthew 23, Jesus foretells the judgment that is to come upon that generation and begins Matthew 24:2 with the opening statement that “not one stone would be left upon another.” Therefore, since all this is still to happen in the future, it requires a temple to be rebuilt. This explains why the Dispensationalist looks forward to the rebuilding of a temple, as it moves the prophetic timeline that much closer to the Rapture.
The basic chronology advocated by the Dispensationalist is that the End Times begin with a Rapture that removes Christians from the earth. The Great Tribulation comes upon the entire world and, specifically, against those Christians who are left behind. At the end of these seven years, Christ returns with the saints as his army. The rule and reign of Christ is on this earth with His saints for a thousand years which begins with Satan’s imprisonment.
At the end of the thousand years, Satan is released and gathers a second army to attack Jerusalem. It is at this time that Christ calls down fire and consumes the earth and the world of the ungodly. In the next event, all of mankind stands before the Great White Throne of judgment and are divided according to whether their name is in the Book of Life or not. They are judged according to their work done while in the body. At the completion of this judgment, the earth and heavens are remade and the just return to live in a glorious new heaven and earth alongside God, whom they now see face to face.[26] The unjust face eternity in the Lake of Fire (LOF), to be consumed age after age with no possibility of a reprieve. The eternal torment or suffering is not inflicted on them but is the result of their separation from God.
Postmillennialism
This view supports crucial foundational points: first, the thousand years is not to be understood as a literal thousand years, but as a symbolically perfect period of time that ends the Church Age with the return of Christ. Walvoord notes that the Postmillennialist believes that the Millennium will be created on the earth through the preaching of the Gospel, which will fundamentally change all societies on earth into a Christian kingdom.[27] The kingdom of God reaches its consummation principally through the work of the Holy Spirit through the church.[28] So, once society is fundamentally made Christian, this perfect time period begins. This view implies that, at the end of the Millennium, Satan is released to deceive the nations once again. This leads to Christ’s Second Coming. Christ defeats all of His enemies in His Second Appearing and returns to heaven in triumph with the just and unjust for the Great White Throne Judgment, which follows immediately after.
As with modern-day Postmillennialists, it is Augustine who teaches that the Millennium was to be interpreted and understood as a spiritual reality fulfilled in the Church.[29] He also advocates for the spiritual principle that the binding of Satan took place during the earthly ministry of Jesus, according to Revelation 20:1–3. Augustine also holds that the first resurrection, as mentioned in Revelation 20:5, is the new birth of the believer. Therefore, he reasons, the Millennial kingdom must encompass the entire Church Age.[30] This requires interpreting Revelation 20:1-6 as a “recapitulation” of the preceding chapters, instead of describing a new age following the events established in chapters 6–19.[31]
A major distinction of this teaching is that the cause and growth of the church will lead to a form of theonomy,[32] in which Christianity will triumph over the forces of evil and in some sense “Christianize” the world, bringing it under submission to Christ. The nature of the kingdom is spiritual: Christ rules for a perfect time period from heaven, which rejects a physical kingdom in which Christ rules from Jerusalem and a literal understanding of the thousand years.
Amillennialism
Amillennialism is a doctrine that also holds to the idea that the Millennium consists of the time from Christ’s death and resurrection to His Second Coming in which He rules over the nations sovereignly from heaven. The Amillennialist holds the belief that there will be no visible earthly manifestation of Christ’s presence in which He reigns over the earth from Jerusalem in a restored Jewish kingdom. The Church Age is also equated with the Millennial kingdom. Sam Storms states, “The church will not make disciples of all (i.e., the vast majority) nations, nor will it gain a dominant or widespread influence throughout the world. Thus, it is here, and for all practical purposes only here, that Amillennialism differs from Postmillennialism.”[33]
The two key components of the Amillennialist position are, first, that Satan’s binding (Revelation 20:1–4) took place in AD 33 and continues to this day. It is not a physical binding of his person in a prison, but a binding of his authority. The Amillennialist suggests that, according to the language of Matthew 12:28–29, Revelation 20:1–4 describes a metaphorical binding of Satan. The saints on earth rule with Christ in a spiritual kingdom, not a physical one.
Secondly, the first resurrection described in Revelation 20:4 is the “raising to new life in Christ” (regeneration) over this same time period, meaning it is not a physical resurrection. The Amillennialist understands Revelation 20:4–5 to mean that this resurrection is not a one-time event, but the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit, who is bringing people to Christ.
Partial Preterism
Partial Preterism, as proposed by Kenneth Gentry, Steve Gregg, R.C. Sproul, Hank Hanegraaff, and Joel McDermott, is a newer model of eschatology based on the influence of historical Preterists such as Foy Wallace and James Stewart Russell. While they affirm time statements much in the manner of the FP, they hold to the idea that most of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70, and that all the church now awaits is the ending of the Millennium (the Amillennial or Postmillennial construct), in which Christ returns and ushers in the Great White Throne Judgment, to be followed by the new heaven and earth. Essential to their arguments is an early date for the composition of Revelation.[34]
The second form of PP places the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in the past and, with the composition date for Revelation in AD 96–98 to which it holds, reserves the rest of End Times events for future fulfillment. Their logic suggests that, with a late-date composition, it nullifies any idea for its fulfilment in AD 70.
Full Preterism
The Full Preterist paradigm[35] as held by Gary DeMar, Don Preston, Ed Stevens, William Bell, Daniel Rogers, Alan Bondar, and Ward Finely is the simplest paradigm to describe. It holds that all OT prophecy, the Olivet Discourse, and all of Revelation were fulfilled in the events of the destruction of Jerusalem, based on Luke 21:22. Its tenets constitute the antithesis of Dispensationalism, which holds that the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are of the same context based on the principle that a Second Coming is taught in both. For the FP, there is no further prophecy to be fulfilled, and the Bible only speaks to the time of Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70.[36] They hold that all of the events chronicled in the book of Revelation were completed spiritually and that the Church currently lives under the precepts of the new heaven and earth. The Church is essentially the spiritual New Jerusalem.
What do we seek to achieve?
By a thorough exegetical examination of the timing markers and the nature of the events described in NT prophecy, we can come to a better sense of when or how these prophesied events are to take place or did take place, using the historical record either to confirm or disprove a given interpretation or fulfillment. The inclusion of one Old Testament prophecy, i.e., Zechariah 14, provides staunch support for the earthly kingdom following Christ’s return. This dissertation will also provide a logical response to objections made by scholars in supporting a historical Premillennial paradigm. The resulting conclusions should build a case for the interpretation of these passages that produces a more coherent, consistent, and logical presentation of the Last Days.
[1] As recorded by Flavius Josephus (AD 37-100).
[2] Gary DeMar, American Vision, Powder Springs, GA; Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Th.D. Goodbirth Ministries, Chesnee, SC.; Dr. Joel McDurmon Ph.D. Lamb’s Reign Ministries.
[3] The ANF are church leaders living and writing between 70 – 325 AD.
[4] All biblical quotations are from the ESV translation unless otherwise noted. All Greek citations are from the E.B. Nestle, Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger, eds., The Greek New Testament 28th revised Edition. Munster, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
[5] See Craig A. Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Bridgepoint Books, 1993).
[6] Tacitus, Histories, a Roman historical chronicle written by Tacitus between AD 100–110 that covers history from c. 69–96. Josephus’ most important works were The Jewish War (ca. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (ca. 94). Josephus recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the first century AD, and the First Jewish–Roman War (66–70), including the siege of Masada. Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Grand Rapids: Book 5. Tacitus and history record that it was common for Roman armies to tear down the walls of any conquered city completely.
[7] In Deuteronomy 28, Moses prophesized about the curses that would come upon the Israelites for failure to keep the covenant. Such curses would come in the form of an alien nation that would lay siege to Jerusalem. Zechariah 12, 14 prophesied of the siege that it would take place in the day of the Lord’s visitation.
[8] See Robbie Booth, “First Jerusalem, then the Parousia: A Case for a Simple Preterist-Futurist Interpretation of Matthew 24–25,” SBTS, (2021); John Francis Hart, “A Chronology of Matthew 24: 1-44(Eschatology),” (PhD diss., Grace College & Seminary, 1986); Neil David Nelson Jr, “Be Ready, for the Hour is Unknown”: A Literary Critical Exegesis of Matthew 24,” DTS, 2000; Mark L.Hitchcock, The End: A Complete Overview of Prophecy and the End of Day (Grand Stream, ILL: Tyndale House, 2012).
[9] The FP maintains that Jesus did not lie, so when he said something must take “place in that generation,” then it had to take place. The historical narrative absolutely denies that the Second Coming took place in AD 70. Therefore, the FP deems the historical narrative to be false because it questions the truth of Jesus’ words.
[10] Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.7; Epistle of Barnabus 16.3, 4; Origin, Contra Celsum 1. 47; 2. 13, 34; 8.42. (NPNF) Higher criticism disputes Barnabas’ authorship, placing it as a second century writing.
[11] The leaders of the church prior to AD 325.
[12] Mark 9:1 is a variation of wording but is of the same thought, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”
[13] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text NIGTC, ed.
I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Paternoster Press, 1999), 46.
[14] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 46.
[15] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 46.
[16] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. and C. Marvin Pate, eds., Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 9.
[17] Craig Blaising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas J. Moo. Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation 2nd ed.,Ed. Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 25.
[18] This view also denotes two different Tribulation periods, the one in Jerusalem in AD 70 and the other at the end of time just before the Second Coming.
[19] Progressive dispensationalism shares many common elements with historic premillennialism but differs greatly on the distinctions made between Israel and the church.
[20] Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325 (1882) Third Ed., Revised Electronic Bible Society, Public Domain, 2002-11-27 (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2002), 381.
[21] John Walvoord, “Postmillennialism; Millennial Series,” BSac (1949): 150.
[22] First, Solomon’s Temple; second, Nehemiah’s; third, Herod’s; the fourth, would be rebuilt in the Last Days.
[23] Mark Hitchcock, The End: A Complete Overview of Prophecy and the End of Days (Grand Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2012), 74.
[24] Hitchcock, The End, 69.
[25] Hitchcock, The End, 149.
[26] This summary is derived from the outline provided by Hitchcock, The End, 74.
[27] This is also a foundational tenet of “Dominion or Reconstructionism Theology” as propagated by R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North.
[28] Walvoord, “Postmillennialism,” 162.
[29] Augustine, City of God, 20.9.
[30] In the City of God, 20.7, Augustine states: “Now the thousand years may be understood in two ways, so far as it occurs to me: either these things happen in the sixth thousands of years or sixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing)…”
[31] Walvoord, “Postmillennialism,” 151.
[32] Theonomy teaches the millennium kingdom from a Post-Millennial perspective.
[33] Sam Storms, Kingdom Come (Fearn Ross-shire Scotland, U.K.; Christian Focus Publications, Geanies House, 2013), 1.
[34] Stanley N. Gundry and C. Marvin Pate, eds., Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 9.
[35] In 1878, James Stuart Russell published The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming, which put forth a position that the Second Coming was past, a view then called preterism. He advances the idea that the Great White Throne Judgment and the New Heaven and Earth are still to come in a distant future. In 1971, Max King published The Spirit of Prophecy and reintroduced Preterism under the banner of Covenant Eschatology. This version of Preterism is known as Full Preterism. The first seeds of this belief were planted in 1993 at the Covenant Eschatology Symposium held in Mt. Dora, Florida. In attendance were Max King, Edward Stevens, and Walt Hibbard, who began interacting with mainstream Christian leaders. Roderick Edwards, About Preterism (self-published: 2019) EBL 194.
[36] See Don Preston, We shall Meet Him in the Air (Ardmore, OK: JaDon Management, 2010). Preston, The Last Days Identified (Ardmore, OK: JaDon Management, 2004). Alan Bondar, The Journey Between the Veils (Ardmore, OK: JaDon Management, 2017). David Green, Edward Hassett, Michael Sullivan, House Divided (Ramona, CA: Vision Publishing 2nd Ed, 2014). Jimmy Henry, Eyewitnesses of His Majesty; A Biblical View of the Return of Jesus of Christ (Self-Published, 2018). Daniel Rogers, The Last Enemy, and the Triumph of Christ (Ardmore, OK:JaDon Management, 2017).
TRUTH
History warns us that it is customary fate of new Truths to begin as Heresies and to end as superstitions (Myths and Doctrines of Demons) – Thomas Henry Huxley