The author sets up his book in the introduction with the prescient observations of James Orr (1844-1913), a Scottish Presbyterian minister and church historian, who observed that over the centuries that certain doctrinal issues seemed to have received special emphasis1. Orr suggested that in the modern age, a particular interest exists in the theological subject of eschatology. However, the author notes that not until the later part of the 20th century did the subject of eschatology come into prominence,2 engendering many different viewpoints that require examination. To that end, the author attempts to provide an overview of the prevalent eschatological systems that seek to explain when and what must happen to fulfill God’s ultimate plan of redemption, those that pertain to the millennium, the tribulation, and the rapture.
To provide background to the views mentioned above, the author enumerates several meta-eschatological views that several theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries have used to undergird their eschatological positions. They include consistent eschatology3, Realized eschatology4, Existential eschatology5, and the Theology of Hope6.
In this part of the book, the author dissects the major millennial views: 1) Postmillennialism - the view that the kingdom of God is a present reality7, 2) Amillennialism – the view that denies that there was, is, or will be a millennial period8, and 3) Premillennialism – the view that there will be a millennial earthly reign of Christ beginning at His second coming9. For each view, he examines their essential themes, history, tenets, and strengths and weaknesses.
The author begins this part with a chapter on Dispensationalism, and for good reason. It emphasizes prophecy and eschatology as the driving force behind its millennial and tribulation conclusions and has greatly influenced fundamentalist theology in the modern age (Erickson 1998, 109). Dispensationalism is a relatively new system of interpreting the Bible that originated with John Nelson Darby, and it was developed further by C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer. Dispensationalism places weight on literal biblical interpretation and draws a sharp distinction between Israel and the church (Erickson 1998, 115)10.
After discussing Dispensationalism, the author covers Pretribulation and Posttribulationism in much the fashion he examined the millennium views. These views posit that Christ’s return will be preceded by an event(s) known as the great tribulation.
The Pretribulationism view, which plays a prominent role in Dispensationalism, includes two major purposes: 1) to conclude the “times of the Gentiles”11 and 2) to prepare for the restoration of Israel in the millennial reign of Christ following the second advent (Erickson 1998, 126).
Unlike Pretribulationism, the Posttribulationism view posits that the church will not be removed from the earth prior to the tribulation but rather endure it through the grace and strength of God (Erickson 1998, 145).
The author concludes the book with the mediating tribulation positions, which include: 1) Midtribulationism – the view that the church will be raptured mid-way through the seven-year tribulation, 2) Partial-Rapture – the idea that not all believers will be raptured at the same time based on their levels of faith, and 3) Imminent Posttribulational – A view put forth by J. Barton Payne proposing that all the prophesied events that must occur preceding Christ’s return have already happened thus making His return imminent and that it will follow the great tribulation.
What I enjoyed about this book is that the author objectively and charitably offers the pros and cons of each position. In this way, he helps readers learn and respect other traditions’ positions while simultaneously challenging their own. This approach promotes greater respect for all traditions that ultimately share the same eschatological hope. I also appreciated the author’s reminder that throughout history, differences of interpretation have caused acrimonious disputes leading to division. Furthermore, he also expressed that minute points of doctrine should not be a litmus test for orthodoxy and advises us not to lose sight of the great central truth on which we all agree: the Lord is returning. To that, I say amen.
The author also did a good job of drawing attention to the historical origins of each position and their evolution throughout history. It is humbling to see that our church fathers and the great theologians throughout history struggled with eschatological matters and that they often disagreed with one another. We see an example of this in the history of premillennialism, in which the church fathers held differing opinions regarding chiliasm (Erickson 1998, 93-95). Disputes of this nature should give us pause when we become too dogmatic regarding end-time beliefs. Regarding eschatology and other non-salvific doctrines, we should heed Professor Bennett’s exhortation to approach such subjects deliberatively and not hold too tightly embedded theological beliefs.
In criticism, I would have liked the author to include more background on dispensational theology, e.g., the seven dispensations and their relevance in constructing eschatological doctrine. Similarly, some background on Covenant theology would have been helpful along the same lines. Though these are massive subject areas, a high-level overview would have been sufficient and beneficial.
In addition, the author gave Partial Preterism scant coverage except that which readers might glean from his other subject matter (e.g., Realized Eschatology, Historical Premillennialism (Erickson 1998, 98), Imminent Posttribulational View (Erickson 1998, 179). More information on various partial preterist positions would have been helpful in critically analyzing millennial and tribulation viewpoints.
Finally, though the majority report of Part 1 does not seem too favorable, I found it contained several morsels of useful eschatological information, one of which is Jürgen Moltmann’s Theology of Hope. Moltmann observes that much modern theology has tended to be so culture-affirming that it has lost the genius of the Christian message (Erickson 1998, 47). Per Moltmann, the Christian hope is unlike the eschatological hope of other worldviews. Its genius lies in the fact that it is proleptical, i.e., a representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished12. It is Christ who has brought the future into the present (Erickson 1998, 48). As Peter states in 1 Peter 1:3, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,”. This living hope gladdens the heart and informs and directs all aspects of the Christian life, which shines as a light in this dark world. Thus, if any worldview has the market cornered on hope, it is Christianity.
Erickson, Millard J. A Basic Guide to Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.
Houdmann, S. Michael. What is Progressive Dispensationalism? July 1, 2013. https://ebible.com/questions/3389-what-is-progressive-dispensationalism (accessed October 29, 2022).
Orr enumerates these periods roughly as follows: 2nd Century: Apologetics and basic Christian doctrine, 3rd - 4th centuries: Doctrine of God, 5th century: Man and sin, 5th - 7th centuries: Person of Christ,11th – 16th centuries: Atonement, 16th century: Application of redemption (justification, etc.) (Erickson 1998, 11)↩︎
Note that during the first half of the 20th century, the doctrines that received special emphasis included the Doctrine of Revelation, the Doctrine of the Church, and the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Erickson 1998, 12).↩︎
Consistent eschatology was a term coined by Johannes Weiss (1863-1914) and also ascribed to the views of Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) (Erickson 1998, 21-29). It interprets Jesus’ teaching that the Kingdom would reach its full consummation dramatically and apocalyptically in the future. This was in response to the liberal theologians who taught that the kingdom would unfold as an ethical movement without any catastrophic day of the Lord↩︎
Realized eschatology shares concepts with consistent eschatology; however, unlike consistent eschatology, it teaches that eschatological events had already occurred. This view is referred to as “preterist.” The main proponent of this position was Charles H. Dodd (1884-1973) (Erickson 1998, 30-34).
In this section, in addition to preterist, the author also outlines three other methods used in eschatology: 1) Idealist: symbolic, apocalyptic timeless truths that continually occur; 2) Futurist: apocalyptic end-time events are yet to occur., and 3) Historicist: apocalyptic end-time events not only occurred in history but also within the lifespan of the church.↩︎
Existential eschatology views end-time biblical narratives symbolically, even mythologically, and thus to be understood subjectively. Its main proponent was Rudolph Bultmann.↩︎
The Theology of Hope, developed by Jürgen Moltmann (1926-), is a holistic theological system whose main emphasis is the eschatological hope in the Parousia of Christ (Erickson 1998, 44-51).↩︎
Postmillennialism proposes that the kingdom of God is a present reality and that all the nations will gradually be converted to Christ before he returns. This millennium view expects a long period of peace (not necessarily a literal 1000 years) prior to the Parousia, after which the final judgment will occur.
Augustine endorsed this view probably due to the Roman Empire’s making Christianity legal under Constantine. Lutheran and Reformed denominations incorporated Postmillennialism in their Augsburg and Westminster confessionals, respectively. More recently, Charles Hodges and B.B. Warfield of the Princeton school support this system (Erickson 1998, 55-72).↩︎
The author points out that amillennialism shares certain ideas with postmillennialism and premillennialism counterparts. For example, both amillennialism and premillennialism are pessimistic that righteousness will rule the day before the Parousia contra postmillennialism. However, it agrees with postmillennialism in that the Parousia ushers in the final age, beginning with a general resurrection, judgment, and then consignment of all men to their final states.↩︎
There are two systems of premillennialism – historic and dispensational. Dispensational premillennialism follows the futurist method of interpretation almost exclusively and is pretribulational. Historic premillennialism uses both preterist and futurist methods and is posttribulational (Erickson 1998, 98). Many church fathers were historic premillennialists, including Irenaeus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Hippolytus.↩︎
Note that in the middle of the 20th century, a variation of traditional Dispensationalism emerged called Progressive Dispensationalism that softens the distinction between the church and Israel, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, and the unique characteristics of each dispensation (Erickson 1998, 122). An example of a difference between a traditional and progressive view is about who is currently sitting on the throne of David. The progressives say that Christ is currently sitting on the throne, and the traditionalist says that he is currently sitting at the right hand of the Father and won’t be sitting on David’s throne until the Millennium (Houdmann 2013).↩︎
The “rapture” plays an extremely important role in this aspect of pretribulationalism.↩︎
An example of prolepsis is the Emancipation Proclamation that was issued on September 22, 1862 but didn’t go into effect until January 1, 1963. Another example is when one is accepted to a college, it is a foregone conclusion that he or she is an official student before attending one class.↩︎
KNOX THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
REVIEW
A BASIC GUIDE TO ESCHATOLOGY
MAKING SENSE OF THE MILLENNIUM
BY MILLARD J. ERICKSON
SUBMITTED TO DR. CHIP BENNETT
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
ST509D BIBLICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ESCHATOLOGY (FA2022)
BY
DOUGLAS ROTHAUSER
NOVEMBER 10, 2022
WORD COUNT: 1096