Signs of the End: What Did Jesus Say About His Own Return and the Events That Point to It?

By Steve Gill

For decades, people have debated over the different views on the end times. Many Christians find the subject confusing, while others vow to avoid the discussion all together. With all the diverse perspectives out there, how can one come to a clearer understanding of the return of Christ?

In Signs of the End, Steve Gill unpacks Jesus's words to His disciples about the signs of His own return in Mark 13 (the Olivet Discourse). Though not claiming to have all the answers, this book will show that, through examination of Jesus's teaching on the Mount of Olives, one can more effectively interpret the more challenging texts of the end times (books like Daniel and Revelation) in light of the clearer words provided by Jesus Christ Himself. This book will answer such questions as the following:

How are we to understand the Olivet Discourse in relation to the tribulation?

When Jesus talks about the temple, is He talking about the first-century temple or a future rebuilt temple?

Does Jesus have anything to say about the rapture?

How does the Millennium fit in with what Jesus teaches about His own return?

How are we to live in light of Christ's future coming?

• Language: English
• Publisher: Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Sep 20, 2021
• ISBN: 9781639031054

Book preview

cover.jpg

Signs of the End

What Did Jesus Say About His Own Return and the Events That Point to It?

Steve Gill

ISBN 978-1-63903-104-7 (paperback)

ISBN 978-1-63903-105-4 (digital)

Copyright © 2021 by Steve Gill

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods without the prior written permission of the publisher. For permission requests, solicit the publisher via the address below.

Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.

832 Park Avenue

Meadville, PA 16335

www.christianfaithpublishing.com

Scripture quotations are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.comThe NIV and New International Version are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Answering the Right Questions

Birth Pains

Trouble in Jerusalem

So What about the Tribulation?

When Judgment Comes

The Singularity of Christ’s Return

Knowing the Time Is Near

So What about the Millennium?

Watching and Working

Epilogue

Acknowledgments

I want to enthusiastically thank Pastor Bob Flack of Riverbend Bible Church in Atchison, Kansas. He took precious time out of his busy schedule to read the manuscript I had written and provided helpful feedback. Also, my deepest gratitude to Pastor Mark Jones of Community Harvest Church in Lincoln, Nebraska. My conversations with him about last things have served to sharpen me, and his generous donation of resources helped me to shape this book into something better than it would have been without them.

Introduction

For several years, the topic of Christ’s second coming has been a source of debate for many Christian leaders and scholars throughout history. The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), one of the main passages of Scripture that is brought up in the discussion along with the books of Revelation and Daniel, has never really been 100 percent agreed upon, and even to this day, people continue to speculate over the real meaning behind the words Jesus told His disciples regarding the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the events leading up to His second coming. This lack of cohesiveness and abundance of debate does not signal something faulty with Jesus where He somehow made Himself unclear. The deficiency lies with us, no matter what side of the debate we fall on, since we, in our sinfulness, can tend to put personal attitudes and understandings first over accurate interpretation of given eschatological texts.

Be that as it may, such a reality does not grant us a pass from continuing to dig and study the wonderful truths about Christ’s return—both the areas that many people have trouble understanding, as well as the teachings that are generally agreed upon by all. The mistake of many Christians, particularly within the laity, is to abandon any such study of the end times just because there seems to be so much confusion out there as far as how certain biblical texts should be interpreted. What results are people who identify themselves as pantribulationists or panmillennialists, by which they mean that once the events of the tribulation or the Millennium come into play, everything will pan out the way it’s supposed to be. While to a certain extent, I can understand the frustration of wrestling with the different end times views that present themselves, I feel that taking a pan-anything perspective is a cheap way out. The words of R. C. Sproul are especially helpful in this area, as he said,

Debates over eschatology will probably continue until the Lord returns and we have the advantage of hindsight rather than the disadvantage of foresight. The divisions that exist within the Christian community are understandable, considering that both the subject matter and the literary genre of future prophecy are exceedingly difficult. This does not mean that we may push the Bible aside or neglect its eschatological sections. On the contrary the interpretive difficulties presented by eschatological matters simply calls us to a greater diligence and persistence in seeking their solution.¹

Even when it comes to the book of Revelation, the Apostle John states, Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near (Revelation 1:3). Running away from anything eschatological may save someone a lot of headaches, but it will result in foregone blessing at the same time.

Unfortunately, we are at a point in human history where multifaceted views on how to interpret end times doctrine are here to stay—at least, for a while. Once certain views continue to be taught and accepted, and the longer that happens, the more deeply rooted those beliefs are. If one were to transition from one deeply held end time view to another, it is sometimes the case that it will be a difficult and grueling journey to make that leap. For some people, rejecting a view once held for another feels like moving all your belongings across enemy lines during a major war. There may be this nagging feeling that you are leaving the way of orthodoxy because you have been taught one way for so long and have believed it for so many years that to make the move away from it would be equivalent to subscribing to something bordering heresy. Deep down, I think we know that this isn’t the case, but I think the passionate ferocity with which this subject is sometimes debated gives the impression that someone’s eternal soul is at stake when it comes to what end times view they decide to hold. Such vigorous debate, therefore, has sadly done a tremendous job of discouraging people from reading the Bible for all it is worth and coming to different eschatological conclusions based on what they really see in the relevant texts.

The purpose of this book is not to create that kind of feeling, nor is it really to try to convince you to change your beliefs if they are different from mine. If, in the course of reading this book, a change in end times views takes place, then fine. But like I mentioned before, I don’t think such a transition will always happen at the snap of the finger. Therefore, at the very least, the one thing that I hope would happen is that readers who are in disagreement with my position would take a deeper look at Scripture for themselves; I would want them to be Bereans, of whom it was said they were of more noble character than the Thessalonians because they examined the Scriptures to see if what the Apostle Paul was telling them was actually correct (Acts 17:11). How easy it is to automatically cover our ears when we hear a view that is different from our own, not willing to have an open mind and an open spirit, and refusing to examine the evidence presented before us. Now when it comes to false teachings that attack the core of essential Christian doctrine, such responses are appropriate; on secondary issues, however, I believe there should be room for listening to all sides of the debate, doing your own study, and then coming to your own decision.

But like I said, the goal of this book is not primarily to change someone’s eschatological views from one to another. The first and foremost (and thus the most important) purpose of this book is to interpret the text of the Olivet Discourse. Through the words of our Savior recorded in Scripture, I want us all to sit at the feet of Christ as did the disciples and hear Him speak on those things that look forward to His coming. But since there are different ways of looking at this discourse, and since many Christians have been exposed to the more popular teachings as it relates to His words on the Mount of Olives, it is necessary for me not only to explain why I believe what I do as far as particular interpretations to Jesus’s words, but also to point out the weaknesses I see in the other main views of eschatology that I feel do not hold much water. Such critiques aren’t added so as to have an attacking spirit, and no offense is intended when I reveal these disagreements. But the purpose is to bring to light the less sturdy grounds that some people stand on as it relates to the concept of biblical interpretation. Ultimately when it comes to the debate over end times issues, what stands at the center of these disagreements is how certain sides approach the interpretation of Scripture. Thus, the debates on the second coming are interpretation issues, and not anything that hinge on heretically changing the nature of essential doctrine.

There were a series of weeks where our church was going through the book of Mark on Sunday evenings, and when we got to the Olivet Discourse in chapter 13, the person who was teaching through the book asked if I wanted to take a few weeks to teach through that chapter. Knowing the end times position that I subscribe to (which is different from his own), he wanted to expose everyone else in the Bible study to another perspective on the end times debate because most of them had pretty much been exposed to only one view. I thought this was very gracious of this man to offer me the opportunity to teach through the chapter even though my view is different from his, and I took six weeks to teach through that chapter. It was especially an interesting offer, given the fact that just the previous year, a particular denomination turned me down for being an official minister in one of their churches, with one of the main reasons being because my eschatological view was different from theirs.

It was an interesting six weeks. The things that were presented naturally brought up questions and good discussion and debate, but I appreciated how at the end of the day we still considered each other as brothers and sisters in Christ and did not let differences in our understanding of Christ’s return to put a wrench in our fellowship. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. A few months later, when talking to my brother on the phone, I learned that a friend of his had once spoken about his view on end times theology that was different from the people he was speaking with. The reaction from the people in that church was very negative, with some people even getting in his face and yelling at him because of his differing (yet non-heretical) view.

In the course of the six weeks that I was teaching through Mark 13, the ever-famous George Zimmerman murder trial was coming to a close. I’m sure we all remember the case very well; it was something that captured and riveted the nation’s attention, not to mention bringing to the table the issue of racial profiling and what truly constitutes self-defense. As I found myself watching live coverage of the defense’s closing arguments, I couldn’t help but draw parallels to what I saw and how I was teaching through Mark 13. In the closing arguments of George Zimmerman’s defense lawyer, Mark O’Mara, he not only highlighted points as to why he thought the defense argument makes sense, but he also at several points of his statement pointed out the weaknesses of the prosecution’s case against Zimmerman, all with the hope of planting the reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors necessary to bring about an acquittal. And in a very real way, that’s how I taught through Mark 13. In the course of exegeting the text, I not only pointed out what I thought were strengths as to why the passage should be interpreted in a particular way, but I also pointed out the weaknesses the other views held to show that biblically there can’t be much of a case made for those other perspectives. And just like in the Zimmerman trial—or any trial for that matter—I left the final decision up to the jury, that is, to the people who listened to my teaching. In encouraging them to take on the Berean spirit, I asked those in the study to deliberate by doing their own examination of Scripture and coming to their own verdict based on what Scripture reveals.

This book is based on the same teaching I gave to that Bible study of Mark 13, and my encouragement to them is the same that I give to you. With the evidence I present in this book, continue to search the Scriptures yourself to see if what is being said is true. Don’t be automatically dismissive because you want to hold fidelity to a particular theological viewpoint. Instead ask the question, Does what he says have any sort of biblical support? Does what I hold to have any sort of biblical support? At the end of the day, the final arbiter is the Bible, and all sides have to submit to that, considering the original intention of the authors and the context of the biblical texts in order to come closer to the right conclusion.

Let me make clear to you at this point that by writing this book, I am not declaring that I have everything figured out concerning the end times. Even with my own position that I hold on the subject, I still have questions that remain unanswered. I also leave open the possibility that later on down the road, I may discover that I am incorrect in a few areas, though I am confident of their correctness now. Even though certain areas still remain a mystery to me, I am more certain now than before that the position I take in this area makes the most sense of biblical texts than do the other views in the debate. It is my hope that through this study of the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13, more clarity can be brought to those who may be wrestling with questions of their own and trying to make sense of the confusion created by trusted teachers presenting conflicting perspectives.

The Positions Involved

I have already made mention of my view or my position as it relates to the subject of the end times. Understand that this isn’t my view in the sense that it is something I totally came up with on my own and which stands alone from what anybody else believes about the second coming of Christ. Far from it. Basically, my view is the view that I believe best explains the biblical texts when it comes to interpreting the end times, which I believe to be the amillennial view. This view, obviously, contrasts the other two views regarding the Millennium, those being premillennialism and postmillennialism. Some reading this book may know perfectly well what these words mean, but there may be just as many who do not. Therefore, to avert any later confusion as we work our way through Mark 13, let’s define our terms so that we know that we are all on the same page in this discussion.

First, what is the Millennium? The Millennium, in its most popular understanding, is the period of time at the end of this present age where Jesus Christ rules in righteousness upon the earth for a thousand years. It’s only mentioned once in Scripture, and in that one area, it is not referred to as the Millennium, but simply as a thousand years (Revelation 20). During the thousand-year reign of Christ, Satan is bound and locked away in the abyss so that he will not be able to deceive the nations. With Satan unable to deceive the nations, this allows the reign of Christ to be one of absolute peace and righteousness. After the thousand years are over, Satan is released from the abyss, after which he deceives the nations and gathers a great multitude together to go up against Christ and against His people. This attack never comes to fruition as these sinners are ultimately destroyed, thus paving the way for Christ’s eternal kingdom to be established and the inauguration of the new heavens and new earth.

As the names of the three millennial views suggest, the differences on the Millennium center on when this thousand-year reign takes place as it relates to Christ’s bodily return to the earth. Premillennialists believe that Christ comes back before He sets up the millennial kingdom. He comes down on the clouds with great power and glory, He destroys sinners on the earth and welcomes in the saints who have endured persecution during the seven-year tribulation period, bringing about a mixture of those who are in their resurrected bodies (since they were raptured before the seven-year tribulation began) and those who have not been glorified yet (those who became Christians during the seven-year tribulation, the so-called tribulation saints). Salvation and condemnation will still be an issue during the Millennium, as we see by the end of the thousand years that there will be those who rebel against Christ after Satan is released from the abyss (see Revelation 20:7–10). The Bible says that those who rebel at the end of the Millennium will be a great multitude like the sand on the seashore (v. 8). In order for the population to grow to such numbers, there has to be people in the Millennium who have natural bodies who will be able to populate the earth. Since the tribulation saints come into the kingdom after Christ returns, it will be these people who will populate the earth, since those already in resurrected bodies will neither marry nor be given in marriage and will be like the angels (see Luke 20:35–36).

Many premillennial believers subscribe to dispensationalism, which, although there are beliefs within this that aren’t limited to the end times,² has two major features in their belief system about the end times. First, dispensationalists hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture. That is, their hermeneutical approach to Bible prophecy is to take such passages literally wherever possible. Thus, one is to read Bible prophecy literally except for when it is obvious that the passage isn’t meant to be taken literally, or where a literal interpretation would run contrary to the essential truths of Scripture. By taking a strong stand for literal interpretation, dispensationalists believe that they have the more honest and safeguarded approach to the interpretation of prophecy. If one does not approach Bible prophecy literally, it is argued, then it becomes very easy for those of opposing views to spiritualize and allegorize the text, shaping and twisting biblical passages into something that fits their beliefs. The desire to take Scripture seriously and to treat it with the integrity it deserves is certainly admirable, but as I will point out throughout this book, dispensationalists do not always make good on their claim when it comes to this area.

The second major feature of dispensationalism, and probably the more defended of the two, is the distinction it makes between the church and Israel. The church is not Israel, and Israel is not the church, we are told. God has two distinct plans for these two distinct peoples. Right now, we are living in what is called the church age. When Jesus first came to earth, He offered a kingdom to the people of Israel, but the Jews rejected their Messiah and had Him crucified. Because of this Jewish rejection, God’s plan for Israel has been set aside, and His dealings are now with the predominantly Gentile church, thus the reason why we are said to be in the church age. When God’s program for the church is fulfilled, the church will be raptured up to heaven, which will thus usher in the seven-year tribulation period, a time when God will deal primarily with the Jewish people to bring them to salvation. This division of programs is often said to be imbedded in the seventy weeks in Daniel 9. Between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks is the church age, where after the cutting off of the anointed one, God hit the pause button on His program for Israel and focused exclusively on the church. Once the church is raptured, the play button is pushed again, and God’s plan for Israel unfolds during that seventieth week.

Another form of premillennialism that is gaining more and more adherence in the debate on Christ’s second coming is called historic premillennialism. In historic premillennialism, there is still a belief in a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth while Satan is bound, followed by a massive rebellion when Satan is released at the end of the Millennium. But the main difference between historic premillennialists and their dispensational counterparts is that historic premillennialists do not make a distinction between Israel and the church, something that dispensationalists would count as unthinkable. In the historic premillennialist view, when Christ came, His kingdom also came in a limited sense. The rejection of the Messiah by the Jews did not result in a withdrawal of a kingdom offer that would then be given to the Gentiles. Rather, with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the presence of the kingdom was still intact and continues to be intact as Christ rules in and through His people by the person of the Holy Spirit. With the combination of believing Jews and believing Gentiles making up the church today, historic premillennialists claim that the Old Testament promises made to Israel are now granted to the church, as they are now considered God’s people. Another distinction between historic premillennialism and dispensationalism is that, while historic premillennialists do not deny that salvation will come to the Jews, they do not so much believe that Israel as a nation will be restored to a position of prominence and thus take center stage after God’s program with the church is completed.

On the opposite side of premillennialism is postmillennialism, which, as the name would suggest, indicates a belief that Christ will come back after the thousand years are completed. With postmillennialism, there is question as to when the thousand years actually begin and in what manner. In general, postmillennialists believe that there will be widespread missionary success around the world as Christians preach the gospel, and what will result is a worldwide acceptance of Christ by many different people of the world. Some even believe that there will be not only missionary success, but political and economic success worldwide as well, resulting in a world where seemingly much of it has developed into a paradise. And for even more extreme views, there are some who believe that a time will come when, with the worldwide missionary success, all nations will eventually be governed under theocratic rule and will be under submission of the law of God. No matter how mild or extreme one is in postmillennialism, all believe that things will get better in the world, not worse, which will pave the way for the Lord’s coming to the earth after utopia is established. The question many ask is, When is it said that the Millennium actually begins? Does it begin when we first start to see the fruits of worldwide missionary success and nations all over the world begin to turn to Christ, or does it begin at some later point? Postmillennialists are divided in this matter, but they still hold in common a belief that the world will gradually get better, and this will set the stage for the coming of Jesus Christ after the Millennium.

While many continue to espouse postmillennialism, it is not as popular as it once was. In the early part of the twentieth century there was a very optimistic view that looked forward to this worldwide blessing and missionary success. But with the coming and going of World War I, that hope was dashed, and that’s when dispensationalism began to take a more firm grip in people’s minds.

The third major perspective regarding Christ’s earthly reign is amillennialism. The alpha privative in front of the word millennium suggests that this speaks of a lack of belief in the Millennium. But that designation is somewhat misleading. Amillennialists actually do believe in the Millennium, but they don’t believe that it is a literal one-thousand-year reign of Christ on earth that is established after the return of Christ. Rather, amillennialists believe that the Millennium stands for the present age between Christ’s first and second coming, and that the thousand years spoken of in Revelation 20 is figurative language for this age. Some non-amillennialists mistakenly suggest that amillennialism teaches that there is no such thing as a kingdom, but we have to be very careful here. While amillennialists don’t believe in a literal and future one-thousand-year kingdom reign of Christ on earth, that does not mean they have no belief in any kind of kingdom. Amillennialists do not believe that this world will continue to go on and on without end, since the Millennium is actually this present age. Rather, amillennialists believe that Jesus Christ will come back and will judge the living and the dead. But instead of a thousand-year gap after which another rebellion takes place and sin is finally done away with, amillennialism contends that when Christ comes a second time, He judges sin for good; there are no thousand years in which non-Christians are allowed to exist who will eventually rebel against Christ after Satan is released from the abyss. Again, amillennialists take those happenings described in Revelation 20 as symbolizing the present age that lead to what happens before Christ comes back and consummates His eternal kingdom on earth.

As you may be able to tell, amillennialism and postmillennialism have much in common. Both believe that Christ will come back after the Millennium, and both believe that this millennial kingdom is not ruled by Christ on earth. The difference lies in the nature of that millennial kingdom. Whereas postmillennialists believe that the world will get better before the return of Christ, amillennialists believe that the world is actually going to get worse. Many areas in Scripture that speak of rebellion, apostasy, and the increase of wickedness lead those in the amillennialist camp to hold that postmillennial optimism in this subject is untenable. The diverging beliefs between these two views are also seen in what serves as signs of Christ’s return. While postmillennialists would say that the vast improvement of world circumstances would serve as a sign of Christ’s return, amillennialists would take an opposite view, that the degeneracy of man on earth and the continual downward slide into sin serves as a sign of Christ’s coming, and thus, His judgment.

Even after describing these millennial views, the subject of the Millennium is not the bread and butter of the teaching covered by Christ in the Olivet Discourse. In fact, the Millennium isn’t mentioned at all (remember, the thousand years is only mentioned in Revelation 20). Although this is the case, one’s millennial beliefs will play in to how this discourse is interpreted, and we will see how throughout the study.

A Past or Future Perspective?

There’s something else that will need to be established in order for us to understand the merits of interpreting the Olivet Discourse in a certain way (or the demerits of interpreting it in another way). This has to do with the time frame to which Jesus is referring when He is delivering His discourse to the disciples. Some people—mostly premillennialists—take the words of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse and conclude that everything (or almost everything) He is talking about is yet to be fulfilled. This way of viewing the time frame of Christ’s words is known as the futurist view. Thus, when the disciples ask Jesus about the sign of His coming and the end of the age, Jesus’s answer focuses exclusively on events that, from our day and age today, still have yet to take place.

On the opposite extreme, some people—most likely postmillennialists, but not all of them—will say that everything Jesus spoke about in the Olivet Discourse, while spoken from a future perspective in Jesus’s day, is seen in a past perspective in our day. In other words, all the events that are spoken of in the Olivet Discourse have already been fulfilled, that it all took place with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70. This is known as the preterist view, where the events of the Olivet Discourse (and even other prophetic Scripture) have already been fulfilled. Now, there are two divergent views under the umbrella of preterism. One view is called partial preterism; this view states that while prophecy events recorded in Scripture have already been fulfilled, the one thing that is still left unfulfilled is the bodily return of Christ. Partial preterists still believe that Christ will come visibly and bodily, and thus they still look forward to the hope that Christ will come back, judge sin, and make all things new. Opposite of partial preterism is hyper-preterism or full preterism. Full preterism looks at all of Bible prophecy and says that all of it has been fulfilled, including the return of Christ. According to this view, Christ’s coming happened at the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, and thus there is no future bodily return of Jesus Christ. It should be obvious, then, that this denial of the bodily return of Jesus Christ is heretical and should not be heeded. Therefore, any mention of preterism I make throughout this book, unless otherwise stated, is referring to the orthodox partial preterist view.

The Two Main Contenders

In comparing the amillennial view with the other millennial perspectives, much of the discussion of this book will be in making a case for amillennialism over against dispensational premillennialism. I do this not because I am attempting to give the other millennial views the shaft, but because dispensationalism is probably, by far, the most popular and generally accepted view on the second coming. Because of this, our discussion will require some detours here and there to explain why I feel amillennialism does a more adequate job of making sense of prophecy texts than dispensationalism does. While this book will center mostly on amil versus premil, we will spend some time addressing the brand of preterism that is embraced by most postmillennialists and some amillennialists in chapter 7.

With the amillennial and dispensational views being the main contenders in this book, I also have to let you in on a secondary goal for writing this book. Amillennialism has gotten a lot of flak over the years, mostly because it is believed that those who embrace that view do not take prophecy passages literally. As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe that dispensationalists make good on their claim for literal interpretation in many areas involving second coming theology.³ In setting the amil and dispensational views side by side, I want you, as the jury, to understand that the amillennial view is not the whacky and messed up camp it has so oftentimes been passed off to be over the years. Therefore my hope is that by the end of this book, the merits of amillennialism would be recovered and that it would be seen for what it really is, not as what some dispensational teachers have presented it to be. This is especially my hope for my dispensational brothers and sisters in Christ who have been taken captive by some of the ridiculous claims that are made about my view. Even in my reading of dispensational works, I was astonished at how some dispensational writers could make the statements they do about amillennialism without the slightest hint of backing it up by citing amillennial sources.

Consider an example from Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins in their book, Are We Living in the End Times? When describing the Millennium in Revelation 20 and highlighting the different millennial views, this is the sum total of what is mentioned about amillennialism:

Amillennialism is the belief that there is no future Millennium but that prophecy will be fulfilled in eternity. This belief crept into the church after Augustine introduced the practice of spiritualizing and allegorizing Scripture, which opened the door to many pagan doctrines and practices and helped to plunge the Western world into the Dark Ages for over eleven hundred years. Times were dark because people had little access to or knowledge of Scripture; consequently they lost hope of Christ’s second coming.⁴

Here we see a problem where the drive-by method of speaking against an opposing second coming view is employed. Rather than highlighting why amillennialists believe that prophecy will be fulfilled in eternity based on certain texts of Scripture, LaHaye and Jenkins lay forth their case against amillennialism in such a way that any Christian novice learning about these views for the first time will naturally keep their distance because the opposing view supposedly has its roots from someone who was into the spiritualizing/allegorizing of Scripture, which somehow led to the development of pagan beliefs and practices and helped to plunge (note the dramatic language) the Western world into the Dark Ages. It’s almost as if the authors are trying to say, Look, you don’t want to give amillennialism any consideration or time of day. After all, look at what this belief is responsible for!

But one thing we would have to recognize is that if Augustine is responsible for introducing this spiritualizing method of interpretation,⁵ he must have rubbed off on LaHaye, unbeknownst to him. As you will see later in the book, LaHaye is guilty of doing the same kind of spiritualizing of prophecy texts as he said amillennialists do.

The postmillennial circle does not escape the kind of attacks that are unleashed by many in the dispensational camp, either. Sam Storms, who embraces amillennialism, recalls his limited exposure to postmillennial theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (which is well known for its belief in the dispensational premillennial view). What he was exposed to instead were characterizations that would naturally turn any Christian off from even giving postmillennialism any kind of consideration:

The only explanation I received while in seminary was that postmillennialism was the chosen perspective of humanistic liberalism and unworthy of evangelical consideration. People who believed in postmillennialism, so we were told, didn’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture or the depravity of mankind. What I was not told was that from the time of the Protestant Reformation until the emergence of dispensationalism in the nineteenth century, postmillennialism was the dominant conservative viewpoint.⁶

I don’t include this example to cast any aspersions on DTS. It is a fine institution, and many well-known and godly Bible teachers have received their seminary education from them. Even though DTS is a good school, that doesn’t excuse what Storms described happened during his days in seminary. Here again we see that the drive-by method of discrediting a different millennial view is employed and no one is told the real theological beliefs of the view in question. While I don’t agree with postmillennialism, I find it extremely unfair that dispensationalists have characterized them in the manner that they have.

Some dispensationalists will argue for their position by elevating their view while implying that the other views lack the biblical perspective that makes their own view so great. Tim LaHaye asserted, Around 1800 the doctrine of the premillennial return of Christ, which had been all but dead since the end of the third century, was revived. This teaching…contributed to a consecrated and separated church and increased her zeal for evangelism and missionary sacrifice to fulfill the Great Commission. In preparation for the Lord’s return, she was willing to do whatever He commanded.⁷

The idea that premillennial teaching (as opposed to the other views) was responsible for the reemergence of missionary zeal within the church is a severe overstatement. There is nothing inherent within either amillennialism or postmillennialism that deadens the church’s desire to evangelize the world, and there is nothing inherent within premillennialism that revitalizes that desires. In fact, if you compare what each millennial view holds, you see that all three can have a present-day excitement and anticipation for the Lord’s return, thus bringing about evangelistic zeal. Postmillennialists expect widespread missionary success before the coming of Christ, so we know that that system doesn’t necessarily reduce excitement for the return of Christ and missionary zeal. And amillennialists, based on their belief system, would seem to have more incentive to being active in the missionary movement, since their teaching does not allow for a second chance for salvation during the tribulation or during a supposed earthly millennial kingdom. In other words, for the amillennialist, this present church age is the only shot people get to become saved, so evangelism is even more so important, given what they believe. What we see here in LaHaye’s words is an example of premillennialism being propped up, with (in this case) a veiled suggestion that the other millennial views squelch missionary zeal and anticipation of Christ’s return. Needless to say, I enthusiastically disagree with this evaluation.

All this to say, rather than engaging with the opposing view