With the recent attack from Israel upon Iran, there will be a lot of books coming out soon in regard to the end times. So how should we think about the "end times"?
I love to look at and think about Daniel and Revelation, but I really think that when it's all done and we are in Eternity, there will be a lot of head-slapping and people saying, "Now I get it."
Those are exactly the two eschatological views I find compelling. Sam Storms' book was good, but not enough to pull up my premillennial roots. In many ways, they both expect the same things to unfold between now and the coming of Christ; they simply expect different things to unfold AFTER Christ returns.
Hey! Thank you for the post. For the most part I am in basic agreement with it. Want to pick your brain on something tho. I am someone who has left postmillenialist “Kingdom Now” theology for what I would call a Premillenialist “Jewish Cruciform Apocalyptism”. I would line up strongly with Historic Premillenialism but with a much stronger Israel centric emphasis than Ladd and I am skeptical if Jesus and the Apsotles ever “inaugurated” or “reimagined” the Kingdom of God. Basically I would think “Kingdom of God” in the NT = Jesus ruling on the physical throne of David in Jerusalem. I have two questions for you:
1. Is it appropriate to view the gifts and miracles, signs, and wonders as “signs of the future Kingdom” rather than the “now” of the Kingdom in much the same way that a road sign 20 miles from Chicago isn’t the city itself but a pointer to the city down the highway. Practically this would look like if I lay hands on someone and heal them that isn’t necessarily the Kingdom, but rather a sign that one Day Jesus will return and resurrect our bodies and all sickness will be banished. Do you think that is an appropriate view of “the Kingdom”?
2. In your view, how does ethnic Israel and the Jewish people fit into the plan of God today? I personally believe they hold a very integral and important role. I would reject the “two peoples” view of dispensationalism and a pretrib rapture. But I think I find much of “progressive dispensationalism” to be agreeable on points as long as it takes seriously a first century Jewish apocalyptic worldview and doesn’t hold to cessationism.
Anyways thanks for this post! No problem if you aren’t able to answer :)
I definitely think that the spiritual gifts and "signs & wonders" function as "signposts" of the Kingdom, pointing to the "presence of the future" to use Ladd's phrase. This is similar to how the author of Hebrews describes those "who have tasted... the power of the age to come" (Heb. 6:5). But I'm more inclined to wanna flesh out more about the nature of the Kingdom AS both "now and not yet" in it's present reality with a bit of liminality. I'd be hard pressed to see Jesus' first century emphasis on the "now" aspect as being "not really," if that makes sense. He certainly seemed to view the Kingdom is in-breaking in that moment and yet not fully consummated, which WILL happen in a way you describe (the end of death and sickness, etc.).
Regarding the people of Israel, I strongly reject a "two people's view" because I simply can't see it in Jesus' words (John 10:16) nor in Paul (Eph. 2-3's emphasis on "members of the same body and fellow heirs" language). I guess I don't have an issue with Israel playing some sort of eschatological role but I don't buy into much of the framework that has some special unique salvific role for Israel outside of Yeshua or the Church. That's too Dispensational for me. So I'd be more "open but cautious" to Israel's role I suppose. I don't think they are some sort of "special" people in much of the Zionist sense. I love them and want them to know Jesus just like every other person created in God's image.
I guess I'd need to know specifically what you are curious about to answer more clearly :)
Thanks for this Luke, I can already see them, typing away furiously not to miss the opportunity. Scot Mc Knights Revelation for the rest of us is really lovely. I'm publishing my first in September, eschatology features, but not in this way at all. David Ruis has contributed but it's being published in my name with contribution by him. Cheers. Melt.
Great article. The only part I would disagree with is calling postmil the NAR view. Postmillenialism is an eschatalogical view that is squarely within the Reformed camp (though not all Calvinists are postmil). A form of it was held by the Puritans, and the version of it that is most popular is more similar to Amillenialism, though with a much more victorious "kingdom now" slant.
The NAR eschatalogy is what I would refer to as Charismatic Dominionism, and the current most popular subset of that is Seven Mountain Dominionism, popularized mostly by Lance Wallnau. Seven Mountain Dominionism is not much different from the older iterations of Charismatic Dominionism, aside from the Seven Mountains metaphor. I have been told that at some point in the 80s there was some cross pollination of eschatalogical ideas between R.J. Rushdoony (the founder of the Christian Reconstruction movement who rekindled the postmil view in the 20th century) and Charismatic leaders, though I haven't looked into this thoroughly myself, but I do think it's at least plausible.
There are some similar features, and more or less the aspects you noted in the article. They both entail Christ returning to a thoroughly Christianized earth. They both emphasize Christian ministers speaking "prophetically" (what they mean by that term varies between Postmil and Charismatic Dominionists) to world leaders. Charismatic Dominionism has some differences. There is much more of an emphasis on a great end-time revival, so they envision the world being won over by something more like what was going on in Brownsville and Toronto in the 90s (just to be clear, I am not saying that the leadership in either of these revivals were Dominionists--to the best of my knowledge they weren't--these are just intended as Pentecostal/Charismatic ideals of "revival"). The Postmil folks think it will be won over by more traditional evangelism. The revival ushers in the end times, and in most forms of Charismatic Dominionism it gets a lot like Dispensationalism at this point. A notable difference was Mike Bickle's insistence that Jesus would return and rapture the Church after the tribulation. They generally still expect a great falling away, the modern state of Israel is still very important, they still think there will be a seven year tribulation presided over by a singular Anti-Christ world dictator, but they have these victorious elements of the end-time revival and "Joel's army," which is a holdover from the Latter Rain movement.
But the lines are never as clearly defined as can be described in a short article. There isn't one monolithic view in either the Postmil or Charismatic Dominionism camps. There are Charismatics in the NAR who have clearly been influenced by Postmil pastors and theologians (for some reason the guy's name escapes me, but there was a Bethel-adjacent teacher a few years ago promoting the ideas of James B. Jordan). When I was convinced of the Postmil view, I ran across quite a few people in the Christian Reconstruction movement who were continuationists.
Yes, I’m aware that PM was squarely developed in the Reformed Tradition. I was referring to its place amongst Charismatics of the NAR variety… as it definitely had a strong influence via the 7 Mountains Christian Nationalism world.
I love to look at and think about Daniel and Revelation, but I really think that when it's all done and we are in Eternity, there will be a lot of head-slapping and people saying, "Now I get it."
Those are exactly the two eschatological views I find compelling. Sam Storms' book was good, but not enough to pull up my premillennial roots. In many ways, they both expect the same things to unfold between now and the coming of Christ; they simply expect different things to unfold AFTER Christ returns.
I go back and forth... depending on the day. I'm just so indebted to Ladd that I have a hard time fully embracing Amillennialism. ha ha.
But I'm militantly opposed to Dispensationalism ha ha ha ha ha.
Hey! Thank you for the post. For the most part I am in basic agreement with it. Want to pick your brain on something tho. I am someone who has left postmillenialist “Kingdom Now” theology for what I would call a Premillenialist “Jewish Cruciform Apocalyptism”. I would line up strongly with Historic Premillenialism but with a much stronger Israel centric emphasis than Ladd and I am skeptical if Jesus and the Apsotles ever “inaugurated” or “reimagined” the Kingdom of God. Basically I would think “Kingdom of God” in the NT = Jesus ruling on the physical throne of David in Jerusalem. I have two questions for you:
1. Is it appropriate to view the gifts and miracles, signs, and wonders as “signs of the future Kingdom” rather than the “now” of the Kingdom in much the same way that a road sign 20 miles from Chicago isn’t the city itself but a pointer to the city down the highway. Practically this would look like if I lay hands on someone and heal them that isn’t necessarily the Kingdom, but rather a sign that one Day Jesus will return and resurrect our bodies and all sickness will be banished. Do you think that is an appropriate view of “the Kingdom”?
2. In your view, how does ethnic Israel and the Jewish people fit into the plan of God today? I personally believe they hold a very integral and important role. I would reject the “two peoples” view of dispensationalism and a pretrib rapture. But I think I find much of “progressive dispensationalism” to be agreeable on points as long as it takes seriously a first century Jewish apocalyptic worldview and doesn’t hold to cessationism.
Anyways thanks for this post! No problem if you aren’t able to answer :)
I definitely think that the spiritual gifts and "signs & wonders" function as "signposts" of the Kingdom, pointing to the "presence of the future" to use Ladd's phrase. This is similar to how the author of Hebrews describes those "who have tasted... the power of the age to come" (Heb. 6:5). But I'm more inclined to wanna flesh out more about the nature of the Kingdom AS both "now and not yet" in it's present reality with a bit of liminality. I'd be hard pressed to see Jesus' first century emphasis on the "now" aspect as being "not really," if that makes sense. He certainly seemed to view the Kingdom is in-breaking in that moment and yet not fully consummated, which WILL happen in a way you describe (the end of death and sickness, etc.).
Regarding the people of Israel, I strongly reject a "two people's view" because I simply can't see it in Jesus' words (John 10:16) nor in Paul (Eph. 2-3's emphasis on "members of the same body and fellow heirs" language). I guess I don't have an issue with Israel playing some sort of eschatological role but I don't buy into much of the framework that has some special unique salvific role for Israel outside of Yeshua or the Church. That's too Dispensational for me. So I'd be more "open but cautious" to Israel's role I suppose. I don't think they are some sort of "special" people in much of the Zionist sense. I love them and want them to know Jesus just like every other person created in God's image.
I guess I'd need to know specifically what you are curious about to answer more clearly :)
Sounds like some influence from IHOPKC or adjacent folks?
IHOPKC's thing was "Apostolic Premillennialism" which boiled down to being Historic Premill with a HUGE zionist focus.
Thanks for this Luke, I can already see them, typing away furiously not to miss the opportunity. Scot Mc Knights Revelation for the rest of us is really lovely. I'm publishing my first in September, eschatology features, but not in this way at all. David Ruis has contributed but it's being published in my name with contribution by him. Cheers. Melt.
And Luke busts out a little Jumbo Jack!! - for some Pentecostal street cred!?!
Great article. The only part I would disagree with is calling postmil the NAR view. Postmillenialism is an eschatalogical view that is squarely within the Reformed camp (though not all Calvinists are postmil). A form of it was held by the Puritans, and the version of it that is most popular is more similar to Amillenialism, though with a much more victorious "kingdom now" slant.
The NAR eschatalogy is what I would refer to as Charismatic Dominionism, and the current most popular subset of that is Seven Mountain Dominionism, popularized mostly by Lance Wallnau. Seven Mountain Dominionism is not much different from the older iterations of Charismatic Dominionism, aside from the Seven Mountains metaphor. I have been told that at some point in the 80s there was some cross pollination of eschatalogical ideas between R.J. Rushdoony (the founder of the Christian Reconstruction movement who rekindled the postmil view in the 20th century) and Charismatic leaders, though I haven't looked into this thoroughly myself, but I do think it's at least plausible.
There are some similar features, and more or less the aspects you noted in the article. They both entail Christ returning to a thoroughly Christianized earth. They both emphasize Christian ministers speaking "prophetically" (what they mean by that term varies between Postmil and Charismatic Dominionists) to world leaders. Charismatic Dominionism has some differences. There is much more of an emphasis on a great end-time revival, so they envision the world being won over by something more like what was going on in Brownsville and Toronto in the 90s (just to be clear, I am not saying that the leadership in either of these revivals were Dominionists--to the best of my knowledge they weren't--these are just intended as Pentecostal/Charismatic ideals of "revival"). The Postmil folks think it will be won over by more traditional evangelism. The revival ushers in the end times, and in most forms of Charismatic Dominionism it gets a lot like Dispensationalism at this point. A notable difference was Mike Bickle's insistence that Jesus would return and rapture the Church after the tribulation. They generally still expect a great falling away, the modern state of Israel is still very important, they still think there will be a seven year tribulation presided over by a singular Anti-Christ world dictator, but they have these victorious elements of the end-time revival and "Joel's army," which is a holdover from the Latter Rain movement.
But the lines are never as clearly defined as can be described in a short article. There isn't one monolithic view in either the Postmil or Charismatic Dominionism camps. There are Charismatics in the NAR who have clearly been influenced by Postmil pastors and theologians (for some reason the guy's name escapes me, but there was a Bethel-adjacent teacher a few years ago promoting the ideas of James B. Jordan). When I was convinced of the Postmil view, I ran across quite a few people in the Christian Reconstruction movement who were continuationists.
Yes, I’m aware that PM was squarely developed in the Reformed Tradition. I was referring to its place amongst Charismatics of the NAR variety… as it definitely had a strong influence via the 7 Mountains Christian Nationalism world.
And it should be abandoned.
No disagreement there!
A key question I like to ask: Is your eschatology defined by ‘coming’ or ‘going’? (Ref Lord’s Prayer and Rev 22:20)